Text only | Text with Images

D3boards.com

Division III basketball (Posting Up) => Men's Basketball => Multi-Regional Topics => Topic started by: Pat Coleman on January 20, 2006, 02:35:54 PM

Title: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 20, 2006, 02:35:54 PM
Just a formal reminder that there are 18 Pool C bids for the men this year.

Here is the Top 100 in QOWi through games of Thursday, Jan. 19. This is as complete as the schools' score reporting allows. I went through today and garnered as many regional games as I could out of what was missing.

1-10
Lawrence     12.182
Carnegie Mellon    12.111
Worcester Polytech    11.714
Cortland State    11.583
St. John Fisher    11.556
Trinity (Texas)    11.500
Occidental    11.400
Augustana    11.385
Amherst    11.364
Mississippi College    11.333
               
11-20
Tufts    11.333
Illinois Wesleyan    11.300
Albion    11.167
William Paterson    11.154
North Central    11.000
Maryville (Tenn.)    10.857
Wartburg    10.667
York (Pa.)    10.615
New York University    10.538
Lincoln    10.500

21-30
Wittenberg    10.455
Hope    10.444
Randolph-Macon    10.385
Baruch    10.357
Baldwin-Wallace    10.357
Albright    10.333
Catholic    10.333
Gordon    10.273
Utica    10.273
Bates    10.273
               
31-40
UW-La Crosse    10.250
Endicott    10.200
Norwich    10.167
Mary Hardin-Baylor    10.154
Howard Payne    10.154
Puget Sound    10.143
Fisk    10.125
Johns Hopkins    10.083
New Jersey City    10.000
Transylvania    10.000

41-50
Lake Erie    10.000
UW-Oshkosh    10.000
Plymouth State    9.933
Wilmington    9.875
St. Thomas    9.846
Wooster    9.833
Carroll    9.818
Averett    9.800
Wilkes    9.800
Coe    9.778

51-60
Salem State    9.769
MIT    9.769
Washington U.    9.750
UW-Whitewater    9.727
Rochester    9.700
Trinity (Conn.)    9.700
Virginia Wesleyan    9.688
UW-Stout    9.667
Loras    9.667
Widener    9.643

61-70
Ursinus    9.643
Hanover    9.636
Richard Stockton    9.615
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.571
Keene State    9.571
Messiah    9.538
Bluffton    9.444
Williams    9.429
Villa Julie    9.417
Alvernia    9.333

71-80
Bowdoin    9.333
Mount St. Mary    9.250
Calvin    9.250
Whitworth    9.231
Franklin    9.231
UW-Platteville    9.231
Alfred    9.222
Southwestern    9.182
Coast Guard    9.167
New Jersey    9.167
               
81-90
Oglethorpe    9.167
Ramapo    9.167
Western Connecticut    9.154
Rutgers-Newark    9.133
Mary Washington    9.125
Chicago    9.111
Penn State-Behrend    9.111
Gustavus Adolphus    9.083
Salisbury    9.083
UW-Stevens Point    9.077

91-100
Muskingum    9.077
Elizabethtown    9.077
Southern Maine    9.063
Middlebury    9.000
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.000
Carleton    9.000
McMurry    9.000
Lakeland    9.000
Connecticut College    9.000
Scranton    9.000
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on January 20, 2006, 02:48:36 PM
wow! three cciw teams in the top 12???  :o

I had been pretty sure we weren't getting a Pool C... even if the top teams get a few more losses... we might still have a shot.

Thanks for doing that Pat.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 20, 2006, 02:50:05 PM
Sure, though you should also thank Gordon Mann, who's been keeping the scores up to date in his not-so-spare time.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 20, 2006, 03:29:39 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on January 20, 2006, 02:48:36 PM
wow! three cciw teams in the top 12???  :o

I had been pretty sure we weren't getting a Pool C... even if the top teams get a few more losses... we might still have a shot.

Thanks for doing that Pat.



I guess I'm missing the third one April, unless you meant to say top 15??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 20, 2006, 06:14:26 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on January 20, 2006, 02:48:36 PM
wow! three cciw teams in the top 12???  :o

I had been pretty sure we weren't getting a Pool C... even if the top teams get a few more losses... we might still have a shot.

I'm not sure how you came to that dire conclusion about the CCIW's chances of getting a Pool C bid, April. The expansion to 18 Pool C bids almost guarantees that the power conferences will each get a second team into the dance, because it allows the non-conference results to better offset said conferences cannibalizing themselves -- and, of course, non-conference games are where the top teams in the power conferences make hay.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: iwumichigander on January 20, 2006, 06:32:50 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on January 20, 2006, 02:48:36 PM
wow! three cciw teams in the top 12???  :o

I had been pretty sure we weren't getting a Pool C... even if the top teams get a few more losses... we might still have a shot.

Thanks for doing that Pat.


Umm "15"  You must be getting too much of that California sun and it seems to be impairing your wheatie educated brain  ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 20, 2006, 06:35:38 PM
Quote from: iwumichigander on January 20, 2006, 06:32:50 PMUmm "15"  You must be getting too much of that California sun and it seems to be impairing your wheatie educated brain  ::)

I think the problem is that she has too much garnish in her diet.  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on January 20, 2006, 07:59:52 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 20, 2006, 06:35:38 PM
Quote from: iwumichigander on January 20, 2006, 06:32:50 PMUmm "15"  You must be getting too much of that California sun and it seems to be impairing your wheatie educated brain  ::)

I think the problem is that she has too much garnish in her diet.  :D

Seeing as April is living is California she better double check to make sure it is really parsley.    8)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on January 20, 2006, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on January 20, 2006, 07:59:52 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 20, 2006, 06:35:38 PM
Quote from: iwumichigander on January 20, 2006, 06:32:50 PMUmm "15"  You must be getting too much of that California sun and it seems to be impairing your wheatie educated brain  ::)

I think the problem is that she has too much garnish in her diet.  :D

Seeing as April is living is California she better double check to make sure it is really parsley.    8)

Hey, now, watch it.  Not all Californians are into "fruits and nuts," you know.  You don't want to engage in stereotyping. 

Stereotyping...hmmm...like, typing with both hands?  Wait a minute, I don't have the stereo on...jeez am I hungry...what was I saying...oh yeah.  Stereotyping is definitely a bad...OH MAN WHAT WAS THAT SOMETHING JUST FLEW RIGHT PAST MY NOSE...I think it was a fairy!  :) :) :) :) Oh that is so COOL!  I gotta go get some pretzels now...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 20, 2006, 08:11:18 PM
What an image - DC stoned out of his gourd! ;)

Brings to mind the bumpersticker: Anyone who can remember the 60s wasn't IN the 60s! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on January 20, 2006, 08:55:50 PM
Not only am I updating the scores, but I'm also in the Top 30 for QoWI!    :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 21, 2006, 12:13:49 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 20, 2006, 06:14:26 PM
I'm not sure how you came to that dire conclusion about the CCIW's chances of getting a Pool C bid, April. The expansion to 18 Pool C bids almost guarantees that the power conferences will each get a second team into the dance, because it allows the non-conference results to better offset said conferences cannibalizing themselves -- and, of course, non-conference games are where the top teams in the power conferences make hay.

Except for the WIAC this year, which did poorly for their standards outside the conference.

No WIAC teams in the Top 30!  Oshkosh, Whitewater and Point (all 6-2 in the conference) all have multiple in-region nonconference losses.

Stout and La Crosse don't have any, but are 5-3 in conference.  There is no way any of those five teams are going 8-0 in the second half of the conference season.  In addition, each one of those teams except one will have another loss in the conference tourney.  So, the WIAC looks like they are out of luck.  :'(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 27, 2006, 02:14:16 PM
QOW index through games of Thursday, Jan. 26:

1-10
Worcester Polytech     11.938
Lawrence    11.917
Augustana    11.667
Amherst    11.286
Carnegie Mellon    11.182
St. John Fisher    11.167
Cortland State    11.133
York (Pa.)    11.133
Tufts    11.000
Trinity (Texas)    11.000
               
11-20
Bates    11.000
Wittenberg    10.923
Mississippi College    10.867
Occidental    10.857
Lincoln    10.857
Baldwin-Wallace    10.750
Albion    10.750
Hope    10.700
Illinois Wesleyan    10.667
Wooster    10.643
               
21-30
Gordon    10.571
Baruch    10.563
William Paterson    10.500
New York University    10.467
Fisk    10.444
Transylvania    10.412
UW-Oshkosh    10.400
Washington U.    10.400
North Central    10.364
Wartburg    10.357
               
31-40
Puget Sound    10.333
UW-La Crosse    10.278
Willamette    10.250
Endicott    10.231
Plymouth State    10.167
Calvin    10.167
MIT    10.071
Randolph-Macon    10.063
Carroll    10.000
Albright    9.929
               
41-50
UW-Stout    9.929
UW-Whitewater    9.923
Rochester    9.917
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.875
Ursinus    9.875
Widener    9.875
Johns Hopkins    9.857
Williams    9.824
Bluffton    9.818
Keene State    9.813
               
51-60
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.800
New Jersey    9.786
Howard Payne    9.733
Virginia Wesleyan    9.722
Mount St. Mary    9.667
Trinity (Conn.)    9.667
Utica    9.643
New Jersey City    9.625
Wilkes    9.583
Lake Erie    9.583
               
61-70
Hanover    9.538
Loras    9.538
Bowdoin    9.538
St. Thomas    9.533
Messiah    9.533
Norwich    9.533
Catholic    9.500
Ramapo    9.500
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.500
Wilmington    9.500
               
71-80
Elizabethtown    9.400
Lakeland    9.400
Carleton    9.385
Salem State    9.375
Averett    9.333
Rutgers-Newark    9.294
Whitworth    9.286
Elmhurst    9.286
UW-Platteville    9.286
Oswego State    9.267
               
81-90
McMurry    9.214
Franklin    9.200
Milwaukee Engineering    9.200
Southwestern    9.154
Muskingum    9.133
Mass-Dartmouth    9.071
Alvernia    9.067
UW-Stevens Point    9.067
Western Connecticut    9.063
Westfield State    9.063
               
91-100
Scranton    9.063
Rhode Island College    9.059
Salisbury    9.000
Brandeis    9.000
Penn State-Behrend    9.000
Pomona-Pitzer    9.000
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.000
Bethany    8.938
Richard Stockton    8.933
Ohio Northern    8.923
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 27, 2006, 03:08:38 PM
If we count the 1st QOWI teams as AQ's from their conferences, we're left with (I know regional records will skew things, but its the best we've got right now):

Tufts
Bates
Hope
IWU
Wooster
NYU
WashU
North Central
La Crosse
Willamette
Endicott
Calvin
MIT
Carroll
Stout
Whitewater
Rochester
Widener

Obviously this will not be the way it all works out, but these are the top 18 in QOWI who are not the highest in their respective conferences.  I hope I didn't miss anybody.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bamm on January 27, 2006, 03:49:04 PM
The first thing I noticed on the list were the 3 UAA teams (WashU, NYU, Rochester) -- and immediately thought, well, there's no way they all get in.  But then realized that the top 4 UAA teams come from 3 different regions... uh, oh.  Chance for the NCAA to do something funny.

At this point I would expect CMU (assuming automatic bid) and NYU (relatively weak East Region) to get in... do WashU and Rochester deserve spots?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on January 27, 2006, 03:49:52 PM
Question -  I haven't looked at the changes resulting from the jump in C bids - Is there anything that links the spots to geography, region or conference?   Or is it simply, heres the conference champs, heres the B's, now the next "best" 18 are the C's.  What I'm wondering is if the middle of the country can dominate the C field with the CCIW challenging for two C's, the MIAA 2, Wash U, an HCAC, A WIAC or 2, An NCAC, an MWC -  

OR would the committee say no more than 1 per conference, or no more than 3 per region, etc?

The best 18 will be WONDERFUL  .  deserving teams willvirtually be assured of a spot.

Now if they could only equalize the brackets so 4 legits go to Salem...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 27, 2006, 04:28:59 PM
Quote from: hopefan on January 27, 2006, 03:49:52 PM
Or is it simply, heres the conference champs, heres the B's, now the next "best" 18 are the C's.

This.

Of course, their definition of "best" might not match ours.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 27, 2006, 04:34:18 PM
Obviously the problems come with upsets in the conference tourneys where a team like Cortland might get in if they don't get the AQ.  Even though they will have a good region record and a decent QOWI number, their schedule is not exactly stacked.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on January 27, 2006, 05:19:12 PM
Good region ranking + good QOWI = Pool C, probably.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 27, 2006, 05:31:07 PM

It's a little too early to start talking Pool C, but the first rankings come out in about ten days right?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 27, 2006, 08:38:06 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 27, 2006, 05:31:07 PM

It's a little too early to start talking Pool C, but the first rankings come out in about ten days right?

Yes, Wednesday, February 8th.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2006, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 27, 2006, 05:31:07 PM

It's a little too early to start talking Pool C, but the first rankings come out in about ten days right?

Are you kidding me?  Everytime a WIAC team lost an in-region game, I thought about Pool C!  :-[
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2006, 04:43:05 PM

We were talking on another board about where the "line" is going to get drawn in the eyes of the selection committee for Pool C.  In past year, with the smaller amount of bids, seven in-region losses and you don't get a look, no matter how good your QOWI number is.  This year, I think there might be some 7 loss teams getting looks.  Any thoughts?

Outside a top conference team losing their tournament and dropping into the Pool C locks.  There aren't going to be too many second place teams with less than 4 or 5 losses in region.

The runners up in the NESCAC, SCAC, NCAC, MIAA, MWC, NWC and maybe the CCIW will probably be at 4 in-region losses or less.  We'll call that 6-7 locks for a C bid.  Add in 4 "suprise" upsets of higher ranked teams.  That leaves 7-8 bids still open.  I think at this point any team with a high QOWI number and 5-7 in-region losses is in the mix.  That's going to be a lot of teams.  It should be interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TheFence on February 02, 2006, 04:57:02 PM
I noticed you didn't include the UAA runner up as Pool C lock.  I had outside hoops the leaue might get 3 bids this year.  I guess that was just wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 02, 2006, 05:10:14 PM
The first Regional Rankings are coming out next week.

That will give us a better look at the candidates.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2006, 01:21:43 AM
I've always contended that five losses puts teams on the proverbial bubble.  I still believe that.  I know the Pool C is expanding to 18 or whatever, up from 7 or so, but there is NO WAY a 7-loss team is getting in.  I think you might see one or two 6-loss teams.  Of course, I hope I'm wrong.  Hopefully this weekend I'll have a list, based on records, who I think still have shots at Pool C bids.  I still think conferences like the WIAC, CCIW, MIAA and UAA with 3-5 solid teams will be stuck with two (and the WIAC might not even get that)...while top-heavy  weaker conferences will get two as well, if not more.  Not to say the NESCAC is a weaker conference, but they have a shot at three because of their dumb single round robin crap! lol.  >:(

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 03, 2006, 09:01:31 AM

Honestly the NESCAC's schedule does stink, but the top three teams all deserve to be in the mix this year; they are very good and certainly well above the rest of the region.

I doubt the WIAC even gets two and I also think a seven loss team will get serious consideration, if not a bid.  There will be a lot of seven loss teams with good QOWI.  You also have to remember that every Pool C team will have at least one more loss than they do now.  Unless there is a huge rash of upsets in the conference tourney, seven loss teams will get a good look.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2006, 11:30:52 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 03, 2006, 09:01:31 AM
I doubt the WIAC even gets two and I also think a seven loss team will get serious consideration, if not a bid. There will be a lot of seven loss teams with good QOWI....Unless there is a huge rash of upsets in the conference tourney, seven loss teams will get a good look.

Well, we're never going to agree on this.  I don't think the WIAC will get two.  But then you think a seven loss team might get a bid.  So, how could a seven-loss WIAC team not get considered?  Come on.  Every team that has seven losses will most likely not have a very good QOWI since, at least, nearly a third of their games will be losses (we're obviously talking in-region games here).  Plus, the most points a team can have with each loss is seven points.  If it's anyone who will have a decent QOWI with seven losses, it's a WIAC team.

If you think a seven-loss team will get serious consideration, then you have to also think a WIAC team has a serious shot at getting in as a Pool C team, IMO.

I think you'll see a lot more 23-4 mediocre teams who play in weak regions considered before you see 20-7 solid teams from tough conferences (CCIW, WIAC, UAA) and regions getting in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 03, 2006, 11:34:58 AM

I think they would be considered; that was not my argument for why they won't get two in.  I think parity will kill them this year.  They may legitimately have five teams with nearly identical regional records. Each of these teams will have won and lost against the others and it will be nearly impossible to pick a favorite out of that group.  I think the fact that there are so many strong teams without a dominant squad that will be tougher to make a case for one of the teams that doesn't win the tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TheFence on February 03, 2006, 02:51:30 PM
If a weaker conference (lets say CCC) has an upset in the conference tourney will they get two bids? I hope that's not the case.  For example lets say someone comes out of nowhere to win the CCC this year.  Does that mean that Gordon or even Endicott will get in as well and in the process take a spot away from a solid team from the CCIW, UAA, WIAC.  Will the commitee do such a thing?  Is there a history of that? 

Not that the committe reads these boards but here's some evidence to avoid this: Emory U 1-6 and last place in the UAA beats Gordon College 9-1 and tied for 1st in the CCC.

My guess is that if a did some more home work we'd see much more of this as well.

Some conferences should get 1 bid no matter what.  Please tell me that is the case.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 03, 2006, 03:01:07 PM

Yeah its the age old debate, but the teams aren't selected based on national comparisons.  The only thing the committee takes into account regarding opponents is the QOWI number.

If Gordon college doesn't win the CCC, at most they will have 4 in-region losses and a pretty good QOWI; I think they have a very good shot to get in regardless, as long as they make the tourney final.

The CCIW teams really can't complain too much.  It's the same argument that occurs in the Big 12 and the Big East every year.  Sure, the 8th and 9th teams in those conferences could probably win titles in a lot of smaller conferences, but its the price they pay for competing with the big boys.  Would Nebraska even get the basketball recruits they do without being in the Big 12?  Would Elmhurst or Carthage or whoever have the quality of teams they do if they were in the CCC?  It's a catch 22. 

Do I think the way they select teams is bad?  Not necessarily, but it could be a lot better.  Do I feel sorry for a 4th place team in a big conference that doesn't get in? No, not at all.  However there will probably be some 2nd place teams in a lot of conferences who do get robbed.  That's where the problems in the system arise.  It's human judgement and thus human error is inevitable; we'd be complaining about a computer ranking system the same way.

The only truly fair solution is following JeffP's idea and just throwing every single team into a giant 400 team tournament.  It would only take an extra three games.  If they stopped doing conference tournaments it would even work out on the calendar.  But I'm guessing, even then people would still complain.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TheFence on February 03, 2006, 03:27:49 PM
The lessor conferences in D1 like the American East get 1 team in and 1 team only.  for example if Vermont lost in the American East Conference Tourney last year talk was they would have been left out as they got beat in the Bracket Buster Saturday game a month earlier againt Neveda. 

So yes Maybe some Mid Major conferences get an extra bid here and there in the event of a conference tourney upset but the bottom conferences do not.

This should be the case in D3 as well.  I'm not and advocate for the 4th place team in the CCIW getting in, but if the second place or even third depending on the year gets snubbed because Roger Williams upset Gordon in the CCC tourney final I think I'd have a problem with that.  Not that anyone cares what I think.

Following D3 Hoops nationally while living in New England, I know that there are at least 3 conferences in NE that should get 1 team in and 1 team only.  In fact they should be happy to that 1 team.  My guess is there are a few more around the country as well. I don't mean to belittle these athletes or conferences at all because I truly applaud their participation, but we are looking to find a National Chanmpion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 03, 2006, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: TheFence on February 03, 2006, 03:27:49 PM
I know that there are at least 3 conferences in NE that should get 1 team in and 1 team only.  In fact they should be happy to that 1 team.

That may have been the case for a long time, but I have to defend the CCC here.   They have come into their own recently.  Say all you want about top-to-bottom comparisons and all that, but the best team in the CCC the last three years have been as good if not better than the best team in the LEC.  I'm tired of having our conference lumped in with the NAC and the GNAC because there are three bottom feeders who can't win any games.  That's rediculous.  It's hard to use one game comparisons (Gordon travelling to Georgia over Christmas to play Emory, who by the way, isn't a bad team).  I mean WPI barely beat Endicott and EC may well be the third best team in the CCC.  We have a tournament chosen on a national basis by regional criteria, so we have to live with it.  If you perform in your region, you get rewarded.

Honestly, outside of Bates and Amherst, I'm not sure there are any teams in NE that are better than Elmhurst or whoever finishes #4 in the CCIW.  The fact is that this is how the tournament works.  I've said it over and over again, if they want a true
Quote from: TheFence on February 03, 2006, 03:27:49 PM
National Chanmpion.
then they should seed the tournament evenly and not let the NE, E and MA regions off easy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 03, 2006, 04:11:24 PM

By the way fence, I forgot the MASCAC and if you were referring to them as the third conference that's lucky to get one, I'll gladly apologize and eat some crow...raw.

I just get a little sensitive with all the CCC bashing I get around New England.  I tell you, we need to adopt the slogan: "We're not bad anymore."
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TheFence on February 03, 2006, 04:28:47 PM
I guess I hit a nerve. 

I'm in New England now to but my D3hoops ties are to the Great Lakes Region and the UAA.  I say that to let you know I have an objective opinion regarding New England D3 Vs. New England D3.  Having said that I agree the top of the CCC is way better than the GNAC and NAC at this point in time.  Also The Top teams in the CCC are on par with all the other New England schools except the NESCAC schools as you point out. The Top CCC teams are good solid teams.  Perfect example is the Endicott/WPI game this year.  I was there and WPI was not any better than EC on that particular night.

So there's some Postive CCC feedback for you.  Now for the negative.  They still shouldn't get 2 teams in no matter what.  The only New Enlgland confernece that should get 2 teams in this year is the NESCAC unless WPI gets upset in the conference tourney, which will happen. (Watch Springfield College). The CCC, GNAC, NAC, MASCAS, Little East, don't deserve two no matter what happens.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 03, 2006, 04:49:34 PM

I think in a perfect world you are exactly right.  In fact I don't think the NEWMAC should get two teams in, even if WPI is upset.  The problem I have is we live in a crappy NCAA system, so it does us no good, especially on the Pool C board to speculate about who is better than who.  We need to figure out who has the best chance of getting in.

Even though they wouldn't be among the best 18 non winners, Gordon will probably get in unless they totally melt down.  The same is true of WPI, if they lose.

I think its generally accepted that the MW/GL is better than the NE/MA, but seeing as how the system is as it is, I feel its counterproductive to rail against the system on this board at this time.  Once the C's are announced, then it becomes expected from everyone.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 06:28:35 PM
We have all of this heat and very little light in the week before the first regional rankings.

And, all of the complaining is about the extra money that the D1 basketball contract has brought to the table so we could expand from 7 to 18 Pool C bids.

The College Presidents have opted for a compromise between quality and accessibility.  Every D3 school knows exactly what they need to do get a playoff bid.

The College Presidents have determined that they want their Student-athletes going to class instead of riding a bus 8 states away...thus a Regional orientation.

The College Presidents tabled an amendment at the January 2006 convention to add Conference Strength of Schedule.  Perhaps the study committee will re-evaluate this after a little experience with the expanded Pools.

We can all moan about how we got disfavorably considered by the selection committee, but let's start looking at some objective criteria.

Fortunately, Pat has listed Regional standings at the top of the Region pages.

Let's start by looking at the In-Region records of the "top 18 Pool C types", realizing that there are 3 more weeks and post-season tourneys to knock off contenders.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 06:34:45 PM
Northeast Region  (Each conference's percentage leader is stricken as a putative Pool A.  Additional losses by these teams would push them farther down the list.)

Worcester Polytech (NEWMAC) 17 1 .944  18 1 .947 
Amherst (NESCAC) 16 1 .941  17 2 .895 
Bates (NESCAC) 15 2 .882  19 2 .905 
Gordon (CCC-N) 15 2 .882  16 3 .842 
Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC) 12 2 .857  15 3 .833 
Tufts (NESCAC) 15 3 .833  16 4 .800                   3 teams > .799 (all NESCAC)

Norwich (GNAC) 13 3 .813  13 5 .722  
Williams (NESCAC) 14 4 .778  16 4 .800 
Elms (NAC) 11 4 .733  13 6 .684  
Coast Guard (NEWMAC) 13 5 .722  14 5 .737 
Salem State (MASCAC) 13 5 .722  13 6 .684 
Keene State (LEC) 12 5 .706  14 5 .737 
Emmanuel (GNAC) 12 5 .706  13 6 .684                             6 teams > .699
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 06:40:19 PM
East Region--I am stopping at an In-region percentage of .700.

Cortland State (SUNYAC) 16 1 .941  17 2 .895  
St. John Fisher (E8) 13 1 .929  15 3 .833  
New York University (UAA) 15 2 .882  16 2 .889
Utica (E8) 13 3 .813  14 3 .824                                  1 team > .799

Hamilton (LL) 11 3 .786  15 3 .833 
Oswego State (SUNYAC) 13 4 .765  15 4 .789           2 teams > .699

NYU has the best in-region record in the UAA.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 06:43:03 PM
Mid-Atlantic Region

York (Pa.) (CAC) 15 2 .882  17 2 .895 
Widener (MACC) 15 3 .833  16 3 .842  
Alvernia (PnAC) 14 3 .824  16 4 .800  
Johns Hopkins (CC) 13 3 .813  15 4 .789            0 Teams > .799

Baptist Bible (NEAC) 11 3 .786  13 4 .765     Pool B team.
Ursinus (CC) 14 4 .778  15 5 .750 
Catholic (CAC) 12 4 .750  14 5 .737 
Lincoln (IND) 11 4 .733  19 4 .826  Pool B team
Villa Julie (NEAC) 11 4 .733  12 7 .632  Pool B team 
Wilkes (MACF) 10 4 .714  11 6 .647 
Eastern (PnAC) 12 5 .706  15 6 .714 
Messiah (MACC) 12 5 .706  13 7 .650            4 non-Pool B teams > .699
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 06:44:13 PM
Atlantic Region

Baruch (CUNYAC) 17 1 .944  19 3 .864      0 teams > .799

Mount St. Mary (SKY) 13 4 .765  17 4 .810 
Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) 14 5 .737  15 5 .750 
SUNY-Farmingdale (SKY) 11 4 .733  14 4 .778
William Paterson (NJAC) 13 5 .722  14 6 .700  2 teams > .699

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 06:47:26 PM
South Region

Mississippi College (ASC-E) 16 1 .941  18 1 .947  
Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC) 17 3 .850  18 3 .857 
Trinity (Texas) (SCAC) 10 2 .833  14 5 .737 
Howard Payne (ASC-W) 14 3 .824  15 3 .833 *** 
Southwestern (SCAC) 12 3 .800  16 4 .800                  2 teams > .799

Fisk (GSAC) 8 2 .800  13 7 .650  Pool B team
Averett (USAC) 11 3 .786  15 5 .750  
Randolph-Macon (ODAC) 14 4 .778  17 4 .810 
Christopher Newport (USAC) 6 2 .750  15 5 .750 
Maryville (Tenn.) (GSAC) 13 5 .722  17 5 .773  Pool B team
McMurry (ASC-W) 12 5 .706  13 7 .650 
Mary Hardin-Baylor (ASC-W) 12 5 .706  12 7 .632  6 non-Pool B teams > .699

***The ASC bid is determined by the winner of the 8-team post season tourney.  The men's tourney will be hosted by the winner in the ASC-West.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 06:50:45 PM
Great Lakes Region

Wooster (NCAC) 15 1 .938  19 1 .950 
Wittenberg (NCAC) 14 1 .933  19 1 .950
Hope (MIAA) 11 1 .917  19 1 .950 
Baldwin-Wallace (OAC) 16 2 .889  18 2 .900 
Albion (MIAA) 8 1 .889  16 3 .842
Lake Erie (AMCC) 12 2 .857  14 4 .778 
Calvin (MIAA) 6 1 .857  15 5 .750 
Carnegie Mellon (UAA) 11 2 .846  15 3 .833 
Penn State-Behrend (AMCC) 12 3 .800  15 4 .789   5 teams > .799

Bethany (PrAC) 14 4 .778  17 4 .810  Pool B team
Ohio Northern (OAC) 11 4 .733  15 4 .789 
Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 12 5 .706  13 7 .650 
Wilmington (OAC) 14 6 .700  14 6 .700        8 teams > .699
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 06:52:22 PM
Midwest Region

Augustana (CCIW) 17 0 1.000  19 1 .950 
Lawrence (MWC) 15 0 1.000  17 0 1.000  
Carroll (MWC) 14 2 .875  16 2 .889
Transylvania (HCAC) 16 3 .842  17 3 .850                1 team > .799

Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) 11 3 .786  16 3 .842 
Lakeland (LMC) 14 4 .778  18 5 .783  
Milwaukee Engineering (LMC) 13 4 .765  16 6 .727 
Washington U. (UAA) 9 3 .750  13 5 .722 
Franklin (HCAC) 12 5 .706  14 6 .700               5 teams > .699
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 06:54:54 PM
West Region

Occidental (SCIAC) 9 0 1.000  16 1 .941 
Willamette (NWC) 12 1 .923  13 5 .722 
Puget Sound (NWC) 11 1 .917  16 3 .842 
Wartburg (IIAC) 15 2 .882  17 3 .850 
Nebraska Wesleyan (IND) 5 1 .833  8 11 .421 Pool B team
UW-Stout (WIAC) 13 3 .813  16 4 .800 
UW-La Crosse (WIAC) 16 4 .800  17 4 .810 
Pomona-Pitzer (SCIAC) 8 2 .800  11 6 .647   3 teams > .799

St. Thomas (MIAC) 14 4 .778  16 4 .800 
Carleton (MIAC) 12 4 .750  15 5 .750 
Coe (IIAC) 10 4 .714  15 4 .789                        6 teams > .699
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 03, 2006, 06:56:49 PM
Ralph:

Wow.  Very impressive.

The Clamorin' Clucks of Trinity lead the NESCAC at the moment with an undefeated conference record.  So if the playoffs started today, they'd be a Pool A bid.

Baruch comfortably leads the CUNYAC so you can strike them.

And it looks like Baptist Bible is aiming for the NCCAA II Tournament, or at least that's what their schedule (http://www.bbcdefenders.com/mbasketball/schedule.asp) projects.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 07:10:26 PM
I count 39 teams that seem to have a pretty good chance at 18 Pool C slots.  If you are not winning 70% of your in-region games, are really that much better to consider yourself dissed, if you don't get picked?  You lost 3 out of 10 games!  Yeah, the NESCAC plays the game the way that it does, but that doesn't change things in the Northeast Region.  {Norwich lost to ASC-West Texas Lutheran (6-12/5-11/5-11) at a neutral site, so I know how really good they must be.}

The listing also suggests the 4-6 teams that have a chance at the 4 Pool B bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 07:13:42 PM
Thanks Gordon!  The Handbook talks about the In-Region percentage, and you and Pat do a very diligent job to keep those current, so I wanted to provide some facts to our discussants.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 03, 2006, 07:25:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 07:10:26 PM
If you are not winning 70% of your in-region games, are really that much better to consider yourself dissed, if you don't get picked?  You lost 3 out of 10 games!s.

What's interesting Ralph is that whenever there's expansion, there are teams who think they "deserve" the bid, and many times they really don't.

In Illinois High School football, when I was in HS, there were 6 classes.  Out of 9 games, if you won 6 games, that was going to be enough to make the playoffs.  Well, after I graduated, they expanded from 6 classes to 8.  Now, teams that are 5-4 make the playoffs, and there have even been (I believe) a couple of 4-5 teams!  For the most part in IL, a team plays two non-conference games and 7 conference games.  This means, in the first case, that a team can win their two non-con and go 3-4 in conference and STILL MAKE THE PLAYOFFS!  It's really ludacris and watered down... if they were going to water it down, why not just increase it to everyone... they'd only need to add a few more weeks to the season, and then run it like the basketball tournament!

Oops, back to basketball...  Being that there are more bids this year, we'll have to see what the "cutoff" point is.  In years past, it was 5 games... if you lost 5 in-region games, you weren't going to make it (probably, I don't have the exact stats on this).  4 was a maybe, 3 was pretty much a lock, 2 and 1 were locks.  We don't have history to let us know what's "good enough" so it will kind of be exciting to see what happens!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 07:44:28 PM
I count 15 teams with in-region percentages >.799.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 03, 2006, 07:56:31 PM
And I was able to clean up the missing scores and run QOWI before tonight's games started, so I'll be able to present that report to you tonight at some point.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 03, 2006, 10:15:44 PM
Quote from: TheFence on February 03, 2006, 02:51:30 PM
If a weaker conference (lets say CCC) has an upset in the conference tourney will they get two bids? I hope that's not the case.

Some conferences should get 1 bid no matter what.  Please tell me that is the case.

Don't forget that it is teams who get bids, not conferences.  While it it often the case that a team in a lousy conference with a gaudy record is still not worthy, I'm certainly open to entertaining exceptions.  If, say, WPI were to win out but get upset in the conference tourney, it would not bother me at all if they still got a bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 03, 2006, 10:22:14 PM
TheFence,

Just reviewed the posts from this discussion and see that I picked a very poor example - you had already noted WPI as a team deserving of a spot if they got upset! 

The underlying point remains - even a weak conference can have a strong team who does deserve a spot.  And (at least hypothetically), that would apply even to the NE conferences you named, the SLIAC, whomever.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 03, 2006, 10:48:06 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 06:40:19 PM
East Region--I am stopping at an In-region percentage of .700.

NYU has the best in-region record in the UAA.


Doesn't Pool A mean that you win the conference, not you have the best in-region record.  Thus NYU would not get the Pool A bid but at the moment be second due to the tiebreaker with CMU. ALthough I may be wrong, I am not that good with the NCAA rules for the DIII tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 03, 2006, 11:03:51 PM
Point Special -

What's ludicrous is that in high school you have to have some arcane formulas for the playoffs. Let 'em all in, sort 'em out that way like Indiana does.

I would almost advocate that for the NCAA as well. It would add only one more week to the D-1 tourney and perhaps only for D-3. The key is to get it to 64 in a short order.

The conference winners all get the top seeds (1 - whatever) and the rest fall after them. That way no one is 'hosed' and they can go about the regular season getting the best record possible for seeding for the tourney.

Pipe dream? Sure, but it beats this system by a mile.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 03, 2006, 11:10:55 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 03, 2006, 10:48:06 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 06:40:19 PM
East Region--I am stopping at an In-region percentage of .700.

NYU has the best in-region record in the UAA.


Doesn't Pool A mean that you win the conference, not you have the best in-region record.  Thus NYU would not get the Pool A bid but at the moment be second due to the tiebreaker with CMU. ALthough I may be wrong, I am not that good with the NCAA rules for the DIII tourney.

Yes, Pool A is for the champions.  In the UAA, and perhaps one or two other conferences, that means the regular season champ.  Otherwise it is the conference tourney champ.  Since that's impossible to predict, using the team with the highest in-region winning percentage (when that's the list you are making) or the team with the highest QoWI (when that's the list you are making) is a reasonable substitute for predicting the Pool A.  To actually predict all of the Pool A bids at a stage like this is both enormously time-consuming and ridiculously error-prone; I know, because I tried to keep track of Pool C combatants using QoWI (or SOSI, as it was then) last season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 11:17:21 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 03, 2006, 11:10:55 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 03, 2006, 10:48:06 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2006, 06:40:19 PM
East Region--I am stopping at an In-region percentage of .700.

NYU has the best in-region record in the UAA.


Doesn't Pool A mean that you win the conference, not you have the best in-region record.  Thus NYU would not get the Pool A bid but at the moment be second due to the tiebreaker with CMU. ALthough I may be wrong, I am not that good with the NCAA rules for the DIII tourney.

Yes, Pool A is for the champions.... 

Thank you, counselor! ;)   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 03, 2006, 11:55:20 PM
Thanks for the explanation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 04, 2006, 12:54:03 AM
All I want to say is THAT was very impressive, Ralph.  Very nice work.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 04, 2006, 01:00:58 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 03, 2006, 11:03:51 PM
Point Special -

What's ludicrous is that in high school you have to have some arcane formulas for the playoffs. Let 'em all in, sort 'em out that way like Indiana does.

I would almost advocate that for the NCAA as well. It would add only one more week to the D-1 tourney and perhaps only for D-3. The key is to get it to 64 in a short order.

The conference winners all get the top seeds (1 - whatever) and the rest fall after them. That way no one is 'hosed' and they can go about the regular season getting the best record possible for seeding for the tourney.

Pipe dream? Sure, but it beats this system by a mile.

Smed, NJ does it almost the same way, if you are over .500 by the cutoff date you qualify for the state tourney.  I like it, you always get a couple of sleepers knocking off powerhouse schools, Kind of like HS Bucknells.

The NJAC is going back to the two division format next year.  They will play the other four teams in their division twice and the five in the other division once for a total of 13 conference games instead of 18.  I hate to say it but they are playing the system like the NESCAC, but not as bad in my eyes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 04, 2006, 01:11:58 AM
I think that Ohio still invites every team to their tournaments.  Of course, there's five or six classifications, with a tournament for each, but no matter how woeful you are you get a shot. 

At least it was that way when I was in high school.  And despite the fact that every bottom feeder is somewhere in the bracket, in the very first round my H.S. team (ranked something like #17 in the state) was paired up against the state's #8-ranked team.  After we beat them by 20-something, our next game was against the top-ranked and undefeated team that had received a first-round bye in our little 3-team sectional.  (We beat them, too.  ;D  We ended up losing in the next round to a team whose record was 15-14.  Go figger.)

Why was our bracket so ridiculous?  Geography.  The brackets were set up by geography, and the 3 schools in question (West Holmes, Coshocton, and River View, for Ohio nitpickers) are geographic neighbors.

What's my point?  Even if the NCAA opened the barn door and let everyone have their shot, it doesn't mean we wouldn't still have a ridiculously loaded GL bracket, or avoid seeing a York-calibre team in the Final Four. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 04, 2006, 01:24:07 AM
I played high school ball in Ohio also and it is still the same way.  My former squad made the final 8 or 16 of the large school division (DI) a few years back after going something like 12-8 in the regular season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 04, 2006, 02:04:15 AM
Quote from: knightstalker on February 04, 2006, 01:00:58 AM
The NJAC is going back to the two division format next year.  They will play the other four teams in their division twice and the five in the other division once for a total of 13 conference games instead of 18.  I hate to say it but they are playing the system like the NESCAC, but not as bad in my eyes.

Divisions are one thing...the NESCAC is another.  I think the MWC had divisions at one time.  The only complaint you'd have in divisions is that, "we played them on the road and you got them at home" in regards to playing a team in the other division. 

I assume the conference tourney would be Pool A #1 vs. Pool B #2 and Pool B #1 vs. Pool A #2, like the SEC?

I don't have that much of a problem with divisional play, though a league like the MIAC that has 11 still plays a full double round robin.  If there is 10 teams, I'd rather have divisions than have an unbalanced double round robin.

Maybe we'd get off the NESCAC's back a little if they broke that 10 team league into two divisions of 5 and played 13 games!  :P
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 04, 2006, 08:02:29 AM
It is a six team tournament.  Top two seeds get a bye.  Three hosts six, four hosts five.  One hosts the winner of three v six, and two hosts the winner of four v five.  The highest remaining seed hosts the championship.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TheFence on February 04, 2006, 02:11:07 PM
Wow, I got offline for a day and look what transpired.  Ralph that was very impressive, and exactly what one needs to try and predict the future.  Of course it's way to early for that stuff but fun to look at anyway.

The biggest conclusion I have from all this most of you experts already knew.  The NESCAC teams are at huge advantage for 2 reasons.  #1 their league schedule and #2. they are by far the class confernece in their region so there in region records will be very good as thier competition is step below some other areas of the country. 

I'll also stick my convictions and say that their has be a handful of conferences that should only get 1 team in no matter who gets upset in conference tourneys.  Does anyone have a solid idea who those conferences are or have been in the past.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 04, 2006, 02:47:49 PM
Alright, I got sidetracked from posting these yesterday but they are indeed accurate going into Friday's games.

The QOWI through games of Thursday, Feb., 2:

1-10
Augustana     11.765
Lawrence    11.600
Worcester Polytech    11.556
Occidental    11.444
Cortland State    11.412
Amherst    11.235
Wittenberg    11.067
St. John Fisher    11.000
Carnegie Mellon    11.000
York (Pa.)    10.941
               
11-20
Fisk    10.900
Mississippi College    10.824
Illinois Wesleyan    10.786
Trinity (Texas)    10.667
Tufts    10.667
Baruch    10.611
Wooster    10.563
New York University    10.529
Hope    10.500
Bates    10.471
               
21-30
Lincoln    10.467
Baldwin-Wallace    10.444
Transylvania    10.421
Gordon    10.412
UW-La Crosse    10.400
Washington U.    10.333
William Paterson    10.278
Wartburg    10.235
Albion    10.222
North Central    10.077
               
31-40
UW-Stout    10.063
Keene State    10.059
Williams    10.056
Virginia Wesleyan    10.050
Catholic    10.000
Carroll    10.000
Howard Payne    9.941
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.889
Trinity (Conn.)    9.857
Willamette    9.846
               
41-50
Puget Sound    9.833
Endicott    9.813
Hanover    9.800
Johns Hopkins    9.750
Randolph-Macon    9.722
Calvin    9.714
MIT    9.706
Plymouth State    9.700
Southwestern    9.667
St. Thomas    9.667
               
51-60
Lake Erie    9.643
New Jersey    9.625
Alvernia    9.588
Carleton    9.563
Utica    9.563
Salem State    9.556
UW-Whitewater    9.533
Rhode Island College    9.526
Averett    9.500
Widener    9.500
               
61-70
Richard Stockton    9.471
Westfield State    9.444
UW-Oshkosh    9.412
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.400
Lakeland    9.389
Ursinus    9.389
Albright    9.375
Norwich    9.375
Coe    9.357
Rochester    9.357
               
71-80
Elizabethtown    9.353
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.333
Elmhurst    9.313
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.294
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.278
Christopher Newport    9.250
Franklin    9.235
Milwaukee Engineering    9.235
Rutgers-Newark    9.211
Loras    9.188
               
81-90
Oswego State    9.176
New Jersey City    9.167
Bluffton    9.154
Whitworth    9.125
Messiah    9.118
Chicago    9.077
Brockport State    9.071
Hamilton    9.071
Wilkes    9.071
Coast Guard    9.056
               
91-100
Muskingum    9.000
Mount St. Mary    9.000
McMurry    9.000
Brandeis    8.944
UW-Stevens Point    8.941
Plattsburgh State    8.933
Mary Washington    8.917
Pomona-Pitzer    8.900
Mass-Boston    8.882
Bowdoin    8.875
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 06, 2006, 09:36:44 AM

The NESCAC certainly isn't always the class of the region (even though the #1 NESCAC team usually is, this year they just have a ton of really good teams (5 in the top 40 of QOWI before the weekend).

As far as the NE region goes, people can rest easy now.  The LEC officially entered one bid territory and the NEWMAC and CCC are perilously close to being two bids only if the leaders lose.  Four will be the max Pool C bids from the NE and that is still only if there are a couple of upsets.
Title: QOWI through Monday, Feb. 6
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 07, 2006, 04:01:10 PM
1-10
Amherst     11.632
Lawrence    11.529
Worcester Polytech    11.526
Augustana    11.444
St. John Fisher    11.250
Mississippi College    11.167
Occidental    11.100
Cortland State    11.053
Carnegie Mellon    11.000
York (Pa.)    10.947
               
11-20
Trinity (Texas)    10.929
Tufts    10.842
Fisk    10.818
Wooster    10.706
Lincoln    10.688
Hope    10.615
Illinois Wesleyan    10.600
Baldwin-Wallace    10.526
Wittenberg    10.500
Baruch    10.474
               
21-30
Transylvania    10.450
Howard Payne    10.389
Gordon    10.333
UW-La Crosse    10.333
UW-Stout    10.294
William Paterson    10.263
Virginia Wesleyan    10.238
Bates    10.167
Carroll    10.111
Catholic    10.059
               
31-40
New York University    10.053
Williams    10.050
Trinity (Conn.)    10.000
North Central    9.933
Puget Sound    9.923
Albion    9.900
Washington U.    9.857
Widener    9.789
Alvernia    9.789
Carleton    9.778
               
41-50
Johns Hopkins    9.765
Wartburg    9.722
Lakeland    9.722
Rochester    9.688
St. Thomas    9.650
New Jersey    9.647
Endicott    9.647
Calvin    9.625
UW-Whitewater    9.625
Willamette    9.600
               
51-60
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.588
Randolph-Macon    9.579
Southwestern    9.563
Messiah    9.556
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.556
Hanover    9.500
UW-Oshkosh    9.500
Richard Stockton    9.474
Ursinus    9.474
Whitworth    9.444
               
61-70
Lake Erie    9.438
Brockport State    9.438
Salem State    9.421
Coe    9.400
Keene State    9.389
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.389
Utica    9.389
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.333
Albright    9.294
Plymouth State    9.286
               
71-80
MIT    9.278
Christopher Newport    9.250
UW-Stevens Point    9.222
Rhode Island College    9.200
Hamilton    9.188
Elmhurst    9.176
Mount St. Mary    9.167
McMurry    9.167
Westfield State    9.158
Mary Washington    9.154
               
81-90
Ohio Northern    9.125
Averett    9.067
Norwich    9.059
Muskingum    9.056
New Jersey City    9.053
Brandeis    9.050
Franklin    9.000
Rutgers-Newark    9.000
Baptist Bible    9.000
Hardin-Simmons    9.000
               
91-100
Elizabethtown    9.000
Wilmington    8.952
Wheaton (Mass.)    8.947
Emmanuel    8.944
Milwaukee Engineering    8.944
Villa Julie    8.938
Oswego State    8.889
Mass-Boston    8.889
Elms    8.882
King's    8.842
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2006, 01:48:49 AM
Very nice, Pat.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 09:34:59 AM

There's five NESCAC teams in the top 33.  That's nuts.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 08, 2006, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 08, 2006, 09:34:59 AM

There's five NESCAC teams in the top 33.  That's nuts.

That bespeaks a very weak Northeast Region!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Coach C on February 08, 2006, 10:56:16 AM
Any thoughts as to how the new CCIW playoff will affect Pool c bids?

C
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 11:04:55 AM

It will give less teams a chance to get in with the extra loss and all.  Although it could hurt everyone else is the regular season champ goes down.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 12:32:25 PM

Anyone know what time the rankings are supposed to be released?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2006, 12:48:35 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 08, 2006, 11:04:55 AM

It will give less teams a chance to get in with the extra loss and all.  Although it could hurt everyone else is the regular season champ goes down.

Ironically, the reason the SIDs or whoever decided it, was to give the CCIW a better chance of getting an additional team in!

Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 08, 2006, 12:32:25 PM

Anyone know what time the rankings are supposed to be released?

They still have last year's Feb. 23rd regional rankings up...

Regional Rankings (http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/polls/rankings/diviii)

The d3hoops.com site must be moving up in the world because the NCAA site actually has it listed as Division III Coach's Poll-D3hoops.com Top 25 (http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/polls/rankings/diviii-coaches), which I don't think is entirely accurate.

As I typed this post, they did just update the "Coach's Poll" from last week to Feb. 7th...that's a good sign!  :o
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 01:21:31 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 08, 2006, 12:48:35 PM

The d3hoops.com site must be moving up in the world because the NCAA site actually has it listed as Division III Coach's Poll-D3hoops.com Top 25 (http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/polls/rankings/diviii-coaches), which I don't think is entirely accurate.

As I typed this post, they did just update the "Coach's Poll" from last week to Feb. 7th...that's a good sign!  :o

I just posted that, stop stealing my thunder.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 02:03:54 PM

The NCAA is killing me; it should be out by now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2006, 02:10:26 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 08, 2006, 02:03:54 PM
The NCAA is killing me; it should be out by now.

Tell me about it, I've been hitting refresh for the last hour, well, I'm doing other internet stuff too. 

I wanted to be the "Cool Guy" and get the rankings up! lol
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 02:27:20 PM

Race you.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 03:50:27 PM

I'm about ready to give up on this and go home.  At least they haven't updated the D2 rankings either; I don't feel so left out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 08, 2006, 03:53:00 PM
They are now up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 08, 2006, 03:53:14 PM
http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/polls/rankings/diviii
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 08, 2006, 03:53:43 PM
No School In-Region Overall
Atlantic
1. Bernard Baruch 18-1 20-3
2. William Paterson 14-5 15-6
3. The College of New Jersey 12-5 14-5
4. Farmingdale 12-4 15-4
5. Mount St. Mary (New York) 15-4 18-4
East
1. Cortland State 18-1 19-2
2. St. John Fisher 14-1 16-3
3. New York University 16-3 17-3
4. Hamilton 13-3 17-3
5. Rochester 11-5 14-6
Great Lakes
1. Wooster 16-1 20-1
2. Hope 13-1 19-1
3. Carnegie Mellon 13-2 17-3
4. Baldwin-Wallace 16-2 18-2
5. Wittenberg 14-2 19-2
6. Calvin   7-1 16-5

Mid-Atlantic
1. York (Pennsylvania) 16-2 18-2
2. Widener 16-3 17-3
3. Ursinus 15-3 16-5
4. Lincoln (Pennsylvania) 11-4 19-4
5. Alvernia 14-3 17-4
5. Johns Hopkins 14-3 16-4
7. Catholic 13-4 15-5
8. Messiah 13-5 14-7
Midwest
1. Lawrence 17-0 19-0
2. Augustana (Illinois) 18-0 19-1
3. Transylvania 17-3 18-3
4. Carroll (Wisconsin) 16-2 18-2
4. Illinois Wesleyan 11-3 17-3
6 Lakeland 14-3 18-5
7. North Central (Illinois) 10-4 16-4
8. Washington U. in St. Louis 10-5 13-7
Northeast
1. Amherst 19-1 20-2
2. Worcester Polytechnic 18-1 19-1
3. Tufts   16-3 17-4
4. Gordon 16-2 17-3
5. Bates   14-3 18-3
6. Williams 16-5 17-5
7. Trinity (Connecticut) 13-3 16-4
8. Salem State 14-5 14-6
9. Norwich 12-3 12-5
10. Keene State 11-6 14-6
South
1. Mississippi College 17-1 19-1
2. Trinity (Texas) 12-2 16-5
3. Virginia Wesleyan 18-3 19-3
4. Fisk   9-2 14-7
5. Howard Payne 15-3 16-3
6. Randolph-Macon 14-5 17-5
7. Southwestern (Texas) 12-4 16-5
8. Maryville (Tennessee.) 13-5 17-5
West
1. Occidental 9-1 16-2
2. Puget Sound 12-1 17-3
3. Wisconsin-Stout 14-3 17-4
4. Wisconsin-La Crosse 15-5 17-5
5. Wartburg 15-3 17-4
6. Willamette 15-3 14-6
7. Carleton 12-4 15-5
8. Wisconsin-Whitewater 11-5 15-5
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 03:56:43 PM

Wow, that happened like five seconds after I last checked.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 08, 2006, 03:58:29 PM
Yeah, I only checked because I saw that you had said that and they were up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 08, 2006, 03:59:21 PM
And they were on the blog on the front page.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 04:02:21 PM

Albion isn't even ranked... rough way to start the ranking season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 08, 2006, 04:17:05 PM
That GL region is killer if Albion is on the outside.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TheFence on February 08, 2006, 04:18:26 PM
Looks like the NESCAC leads the way with 5 teams ranked.  Of course they play in Division 4, I mean New England.

The UAA has 4 teams in.  Any others with 4.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 04:19:51 PM
After this past weekend, you honestly cannot argue that Albion should be ahead of any of those teams.  If Calvin wins tonight, it just solidifies the top 6 even more.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 08, 2006, 05:42:15 PM
Well the only problem I see is the Great Lakes only gets to rank 6 teams while the pitiful Northeast gets to rank 10.

Naw that shouldn't help them get a leg up when breaking those tie breakers for Pool C.  >:(

Stupid.


....and I all but garuntee  Albion is #7 on that list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 08, 2006, 06:19:26 PM
The numbers of teams ranked in each region is proportional to the number of teams in the region I believe...I thought I read that in the Handbook
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 08, 2006, 06:21:28 PM
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2006, 05:42:15 PM
Well the only problem I see is the Great Lakes only gets to rank 6 teams while the pitiful Northeast gets to rank 10....

Augie is right!

The Regional Ranking is established by a ratio.

The Handbook establishes that ratio as #of eligible teams / 6.5.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2006/2006_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf

In the Northeast,  the NESCAC has 4 ranked teams (Why don't we label that one Whine #1!).

The others are from the AQ conferences: CCC, GNAC, LEC, MASCAC, NEWMAC.  (The NAC doesn't have a ranked member.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 08, 2006, 06:23:14 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 08, 2006, 06:19:26 PM
The numbers of teams ranked in each region is proportional to the number of teams in the region I believe...I thought I read that in the Handbook

Yes. Said that in the blog, too.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TeeDub on February 08, 2006, 06:41:46 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 08, 2006, 03:53:43 PM
West
1. Occidental 9-1 16-2
2. Puget Sound 12-1 17-3
3. Wisconsin-Stout 14-3 17-4
4. Wisconsin-La Crosse 15-5 17-5
5. Wartburg 15-3 17-4
6. Willamette 15-3 14-6
7. Carleton 12-4 15-5
8. Wisconsin-Whitewater 11-5 15-5


Occidental is ranked number 1 in the region...and they may NOT even be the best in their conference...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 08, 2006, 06:45:48 PM
Perhaps not, but they did beat everyone the first time through the conference, so if CMS wants to be considered the best they better prove it the second time through.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TeeDub on February 08, 2006, 06:52:55 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 08, 2006, 06:45:48 PM
Perhaps not, but they did beat everyone the first time through the conference, so if CMS wants to be considered the best they better prove it the second time through.

No doubt, Pat...I see the logic.  However, they opened the second round losing to LaVerne and stilll have to play CMS and PP on the road...I guess I hedged a little when I said "may NOT" rather than "is not".

I guess my point was more about how good I think Claremont is and they aren't getting a sniff in comparison to Oxy's number 1.

I could probably use the same logic about Wartburg and Coe.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 08, 2006, 08:46:39 PM
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2006, 05:42:15 PM
Well the only problem I see is the Great Lakes only gets to rank 6 teams while the pitiful Northeast gets to rank 10.

Naw that shouldn't help them get a leg up when breaking those tie breakers for Pool C.  >:(

Stupid.


....and I all but garuntee  Albion is #7 on that list.

Don't forget about Lake Erie; their numbers are very similar to Albion's:

Albion 8-2 (.800), QoWI=9.900 (36th in nation)
Lake Erie 14-3 (.824), QoWI=9.438 (61st in nation)

If they extended the GL ranking to 8, these two might be tied for 7th.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 08, 2006, 09:49:59 PM
Well I've been way too bored and also trying to take my attention away from Augustana currently losing to Wheaton right now.  So I did a simple little calculation of teams to compare to the regional rankings.  Here is what I did:

I took each region separately and ranked them by in-region win % and also by QOWI.  I then added these 2 ranks together to get a total rank.  I then listed the teams in order of total rank. 

So I compared this to the regional rankings and they correspond almost exactly except for the Middle Atlantic....that one was a lot different.  I just thought it was sorta interesting.  I wonder if this trend will continue to Selection Sunday/Monday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2006, 12:49:35 AM
Nice to see the regional rankings finally listed. 

I'm also very happy to see that no one opened up yet another new thread named "Regional Rankings"!!  ;D

Good to see it's in it's proper place, Pool C land.

I don't think we have to worry about the NE region getting 10 spots.  I think we can basically look at the top 5 or 6 in each region and get a solid gauge on who has a chance to get a Pool C bid.  Do we really think #10 Keene State in the NE region has a better shot at "#7" Albion in the Great Lakes Region?  ???  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2006, 12:51:02 AM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 08, 2006, 09:49:59 PM
Well I've been way too bored and also trying to take my attention away from Augustana currently losing to Wheaton right now.  So I did a simple little calculation of teams to compare to the regional rankings.  Here is what I did:

I took each region separately and ranked them by in-region win % and also by QOWI.  I then added these 2 ranks together to get a total rank.  I then listed the teams in order of total rank. 

So I compared this to the regional rankings and they correspond almost exactly except for the Middle Atlantic....that one was a lot different.  I just thought it was sorta interesting.  I wonder if this trend will continue to Selection Sunday/Monday.

Soooooo, where are those results?  ???  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 09, 2006, 12:53:23 AM
Quote from: Old School on February 09, 2006, 12:49:35 AM
Nice to see the regional rankings finally listed. 

I'm also very happy to see that no one opened up yet another new thread named "Regional Rankings"!!  ;D

Good to see it's in it's proper place, Pool C land.

I don't think we have to worry about the NE region getting 10 spots.  I think we can basically look at the top 5 or 6 in each region and get a solid gauge on who has a chance to get a Pool C bid.  Do we really think #10 Keene State in the NE region has a better shot at "#7" Albion in the Great Lakes Region?  ???  ;D

Old School, actually, I think that Keene State will get a bid as the Pool A bid from the Little East Conference (LEC).

It is those 4 NESCAC's that I see in there that are worth watching.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 09, 2006, 01:16:22 AM
Keep in mind that four of the five NESCAC teams -- Amherst, Bates, Tufts and Trinity -- all play each other this weekend.  So those rankings could look very different next week at this time.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2006, 01:39:53 AM
Good point, Ralph.  I guess my point is that we shouldn't really worry about those teams ranked 6th or lower in those regions where more than 6 teams are listed because all the Pool C bids would already be taken...with that said.

Prior to tonight's results of course (record-wise).  Conference leaders are crossed out.  At this point, we'll assume current conference leaders win the Pool A bids.

Atlantic
1. Bernard Baruch 18-1 20-3 (CUNYAC)
2. William Paterson 14-5 15-6 (NJAC)
3. The College of New Jersey 12-5 14-5 (NJAC)
4. Farmingdale 12-4 15-4 (Skyline)
5. Mount St. Mary (New York) 15-4 18-4 (Skyline)

East
1. Cortland State 18-1 19-2 (SUNYAC)
2. St. John Fisher 14-1 16-3 (Empire 8 )
3. New York University 16-3 17-3 (UAA)
4. Hamilton 13-3 17-3 (Liberty)
5. Rochester 11-5 14-6 (UAA)

Great Lakes
1. Wooster 16-1 20-1 (NCAC)
2. Hope 13-1 19-1 (MIAA)
3. Carnegie Mellon 13-2 17-3 (UAA)
4. Baldwin-Wallace 16-2 18-2 (OAC)
5. Wittenberg 14-2 19-2 (NCAC)
6. Calvin   7-1 16-5 (MIAA)

Mid-Atlantic
1. York (Pennsylvania) 16-2 18-2 (CAC)
2. Widener 16-3 17-3 (MACC) beat Messiah
3. Ursinus 15-3 16-5 (Centennial) beat Johns Hopkins
4. Lincoln (Pennsylvania) 11-4 19-4 (Independent)
5. Alvernia 14-3 17-4 (PnAC)
5. Johns Hopkins 14-3 16-4 (Centennial)
7. Catholic 13-4 15-5 (CAC)
8. Messiah 13-5 14-7 (MACC)

Midwest
1. Lawrence 17-0 19-0 (MWC)
2. Augustana (Illinois) 18-0 19-1 (CCIW)
3. Transylvania 17-3 18-3 (HCAC)
4. Carroll (Wisconsin) 16-2 18-2 (MWC)
4. Illinois Wesleyan 11-3 17-3 (CCIW)
6 Lakeland 14-3 18-5 (LMC)
7. North Central (Illinois) 10-4 16-4 (CCIW)
8. Washington U. in St. Louis 10-5 13-7 (UAA)

Northeast
1. Amherst 19-1 20-2 (NESCAC)
2. Worcester Polytechnic 18-1 19-1 (NEWMAC)
3. Tufts   16-3 17-4 (NESCAC)
4. Gordon 16-2 17-3 (CCC-N)
5. Bates   14-3 18-3 (NESCAC)
6. Williams 16-5 17-5 (NESCAC
7. Trinity (Connecticut) 13-3 16-4 (NESCAC) beat Amherst
8. Salem State 14-5 14-6 (MASCAC)
9. Norwich 12-3 12-5 (GNAC) this site has Norwich at 14-4 in-region and they didn't play tonight (??)
10. Keene State 11-6 14-6 (Little East)

South
1. Mississippi College 17-1 19-1 (ASC-E)
2. Trinity (Texas) 12-2 16-5 (SCAC) swept Southwestern
3. Virginia Wesleyan 18-3 19-3 (ODAC)
4. Fisk   9-2 14-7 (GSAC) Pool B split with Maryville
5. Howard Payne 15-3 16-3 (ASC-W)
6. Randolph-Macon 14-5 17-5 (ODAC)
7. Southwestern (Texas) 12-4 16-5 (SCAC)
8. Maryville (Tennessee.) 13-5 17-5 (GSAC) Pool B split with Fisk

West
1. Occidental 9-1 16-2 (SCIAC)
2. Puget Sound 12-1 17-3 (NWC)
3. Wisconsin-Stout 14-3 17-4 (WIAC)
4. Wisconsin-La Crosse 15-5 17-5 (WIAC)
5. Wartburg 15-3 17-4 (IIAC)
6. Willamette 15-3 14-6 (NWC)
7. Carleton 12-4 15-5 (MIAC)
8. Wisconsin-Whitewater 11-5 15-5 (WIAC)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2006, 01:43:28 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 09, 2006, 12:53:23 AM
Old School, actually, I think that Keene State will get a bid as the Pool A bid from the Little East Conference (LEC).

Yet, they don't even lead their conference...Mass.-Boston does and they split with Keene State.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 09, 2006, 02:43:31 AM
14-4 is correct for Norwich. There are no games on Norwich's schedule that are even borderline in-region.

I assume that's a typo. The IWU and Ursinus errors, however, seem to be errors, either on the committee's part or the schools' part. Perhaps they don't know about the 200-mile rule, even though this is its third season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 09, 2006, 04:41:39 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 09, 2006, 02:43:31 AM
14-4 is correct for Norwich. There are no games on Norwich's schedule that are even borderline in-region.

I assume that's a typo. The IWU and Ursinus errors, however, seem to be errors, either on the committee's part or the schools' part. Perhaps they don't know about the 200-mile rule, even though this is its third season.

The records used in the West Region rankings are even more of a mess with regard to errors.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 09, 2006, 09:07:24 AM
Hmmm...I noticed on this site that the Wabash / Alma game was not listed as an in-region game, when I do believe it is (even though it as a tip off tourney). Could there be other errors here?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 09, 2006, 09:35:28 AM

OS,

You have both Howard Payne and Miss Coll crossed off as conference leaders, but the ASC only gets one AQ currently.

Also, since the 5th, WPI, Salem and Keene have all lost in the NE region.  You might see some slightly more worthy teams slipping in next week.  Gordon didn't play much of a non-conference schedule (certainly not like Endicott's), but if they can beat Colby-Sawyer next week, I think they have played enough tough teams to deserve a spot from the NE; they will certainly be on par with the #3 or #4 NESCAC teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 09, 2006, 10:29:39 AM
OS also remember that Lincoln is a virtual lock for a Pool-B bid.  If they did not receive that Pool-B bid, they would be a definite contender for a Pool-C slot.  I say this because we all know that sometimes bizarre things come out of that committee.  It must be some sort of commie mind control.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 09, 2006, 10:33:14 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 09, 2006, 09:07:24 AM
Hmmm...I noticed on this site that the Wabash / Alma game was not listed as an in-region game, when I do believe it is (even though it as a tip off tourney). Could there be other errors here?

Oh, absolutely. Please point them out.

Especially problematic are tournament games, since the pairings get created on the fly, sometimes by us, sometimes by SIDs, sometimes by SID interns.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2006, 10:51:48 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 09, 2006, 09:35:28 AM
OS,

You have both Howard Payne and Miss Coll crossed off as conference leaders, but the ASC only gets one AQ currently.

Also, since the 5th, WPI, Salem and Keene have all lost in the NE region. 

Yeah, I'm not perfect!  :'( I wasn't quite sure how the ASC worked (maybe I just forgot).  I was thinking the ASC-E and ASC-W did the old two step, but I just crossed both out anyway.  Oh well!

Quote from: knightstalker on February 09, 2006, 10:29:39 AM
OS also remember that Lincoln is a virtual lock for a Pool-B bid.

That's why I put them in italics...of course, later down the line, I noted Maryville and Fisk as Pool B teams, so I guess that's where I messed things up!

I'm trying, man!  I'm trying!  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 09, 2006, 10:55:43 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 09, 2006, 10:33:14 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 09, 2006, 09:07:24 AM
Hmmm...I noticed on this site that the Wabash / Alma game was not listed as an in-region game, when I do believe it is (even though it as a tip off tourney). Could there be other errors here?

Oh, absolutely. Please point them out.

Especially problematic are tournament games, since the pairings get created on the fly, sometimes by us, sometimes by SIDs, sometimes by SID interns.

+1 Karma for your astute proofreading ability! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TheFence on February 09, 2006, 12:16:31 PM
I'm sure this has been explained but does the selection committee pick a certain numebr of teams from each region.  In other words is the Atlantic Region going to get a certain defined number of Pool C bids or do they simply take the best 18 teams available for the Pool C slots.

Forgive my ignorance.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 09, 2006, 12:21:55 PM

It's like musical chairs; anyway that's the way one of these guys explains it.

The committee looks at the top team from each region, so they are considering 8 teams at once.  Then they select one and the next highest ranked team from that region moves into their place.  There are always 8 teams under consideration at all times.  They keep choosing in that manner until they have 18.  It could be evenly divided or theoretically all from one region.  There are no limits or quotas.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 09, 2006, 12:40:29 PM
So far, the only ones I found were Alma vs. Wabash.

Alma vs. Manchester is 225 miles by Yahoo, but I don't know what the NCAA uses.

(And really, it's kind of silly for that not to be a region game, just because the GL and  the MW regions overlap).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 09, 2006, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 09, 2006, 01:39:53 AM
Good point, Ralph.  I guess my point is that we shouldn't really worry about those teams ranked 6th or lower in those regions where more than 6 teams are listed because all the Pool C bids would already be taken...with that said.

Prior to tonight's results of course (record-wise).  Conference leaders are crossed out.  At this point, we'll assume current conference leaders win the Pool A bids.

Atlantic
1. Bernard Baruch 18-1 20-3 (CUNYAC)
2. William Paterson 14-5 15-6 (NJAC)
3. The College of New Jersey 12-5 14-5 (NJAC)
4. Farmingdale 12-4 15-4 (Skyline)
5. Mount St. Mary (New York) 15-4 18-4 (Skyline)

East
1. Cortland State 18-1 19-2 (SUNYAC)
2. St. John Fisher 14-1 16-3 (Empire 8 )
3. New York University 16-3 17-3 (UAA)
4. Hamilton 13-3 17-3 (Liberty)
5. Rochester 11-5 14-6 (UAA)

Great Lakes
1. Wooster 16-1 20-1 (NCAC)
2. Hope 13-1 19-1 (MIAA)
3. Carnegie Mellon 13-2 17-3 (UAA)
4. Baldwin-Wallace 16-2 18-2 (OAC)
5. Wittenberg 14-2 19-2 (NCAC)
6. Calvin   7-1 16-5 (MIAA)

Mid-Atlantic
1. York (Pennsylvania) 16-2 18-2 (CAC)
2. Widener 16-3 17-3 (MACC) beat Messiah
3. Ursinus 15-3 16-5 (Centennial) beat Johns Hopkins
4. Lincoln (Pennsylvania) 11-4 19-4 (Independent)
5. Alvernia 14-3 17-4 (PnAC)
5. Johns Hopkins 14-3 16-4 (Centennial)
7. Catholic 13-4 15-5 (CAC)
8. Messiah 13-5 14-7 (MACC)

Midwest
1. Lawrence 17-0 19-0 (MWC)
2. Augustana (Illinois) 18-0 19-1 (CCIW)
3. Transylvania 17-3 18-3 (HCAC)
4. Carroll (Wisconsin) 16-2 18-2 (MWC)
4. Illinois Wesleyan 11-3 17-3 (CCIW)
6 Lakeland 14-3 18-5 (LMC)
7. North Central (Illinois) 10-4 16-4 (CCIW)
8. Washington U. in St. Louis 10-5 13-7 (UAA)

Northeast
1. Amherst 19-1 20-2 (NESCAC)
2. Worcester Polytechnic 18-1 19-1 (NEWMAC)
3. Tufts   16-3 17-4 (NESCAC)
4. Gordon 16-2 17-3 (CCC-N)
5. Bates   14-3 18-3 (NESCAC)
6. Williams 16-5 17-5 (NESCAC
7. Trinity (Connecticut) 13-3 16-4 (NESCAC) beat Amherst
8. Salem State 14-5 14-6 (MASCAC)
9. Norwich 12-3 12-5 (GNAC) this site has Norwich at 14-4 in-region and they didn't play tonight (??)
10. Keene State 11-6 14-6 (Little East)

South
1. Mississippi College 17-1 19-1 (ASC-E)
2. Trinity (Texas) 12-2 16-5 (SCAC) swept Southwestern
3. Virginia Wesleyan 18-3 19-3 (ODAC)
4. Fisk   9-2 14-7 (GSAC) Pool B split with Maryville
5. Howard Payne 15-3 16-3 (ASC-W)
6. Randolph-Macon 14-5 17-5 (ODAC)
7. Southwestern (Texas) 12-4 16-5 (SCAC)
8. Maryville (Tennessee.) 13-5 17-5 (GSAC) Pool B split with Fisk

West
1. Occidental 9-1 16-2 (SCIAC)
2. Puget Sound 12-1 17-3 (NWC)
3. Wisconsin-Stout 14-3 17-4 (WIAC)
4. Wisconsin-La Crosse 15-5 17-5 (WIAC)
5. Wartburg 15-3 17-4 (IIAC)
6. Willamette 15-3 14-6 (NWC)
7. Carleton 12-4 15-5 (MIAC)
8. Wisconsin-Whitewater 11-5 15-5 (WIAC)


I agree that you shouldn't worry about teams not shown above, but that doesn't mean they won't be in the hunt.  Using your list above (and re-instating HPU, per Ralph's instruction), the first Pool C bid would be awarded from a field consisting of:
TCNJ (A-3)
NYU (E-3)
Hope (GL-2)
JHU (MA-5)
Carroll or IWU (MW-4t)
Amherst (NE-1)
HPU (S-5)
Oxy (W-1) although Oxy is tied first in the SCIAC, and presently holds the tiebreaker over CMS

Hope would be no worse than the second team off this board (perhaps Amherst goes first), to be replaced at the table by Wittenberg (GL-5).  Witt will be selected within the next 5 or 6 selections for sure, to be replaced by....who?  We'd have run out of Great Lakes teams just that fast, with about half of Pool C left to fill.  Whoever the anonymous 7th GL team is (either Albion or Lake Erie) would be a strong contender against some of those listed above, like Hopkins or New Jersey.   

We can't worry about the non-ranked teams, since we don't know what the committees feel about them, but we can't just dismiss them either.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 09, 2006, 01:43:25 PM

Yeah, that picking the teams thing might get easier to predict with a couple more polls.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2006, 01:55:55 PM
David Collinge,

I think you misread/misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Someone noted that some regions have more teams listed than other regions (and the NCAA explains that).  My point is that we shouldn't worry too much about those teams listed that low in those said regions because the Pool C slots would already be filled prior to getting to those teams. 

Someone also said that "theoretically" Albion is #7 in the Great Lakes region and should be better than the #10 team (Keene State) in the NE region.   It was kind of complaint like Albion was getting shafted, but I said something like that Albion (though not listed) had a better chance to get a Pool C bid from the GL region than Keene State did as the #10 team in the NE Region (though it was pointed out that Keene State should get the Pool A spot, even though they don't even lead their conference!).

Got all that?  ;D  I think that's what I wanted to say!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 09, 2006, 01:57:26 PM

Yeah, I know what you mean, I was just saying that in addition, things will work themselves out better with time.  This is just the first poll and things may be easier to predict once it gets wrapped up for good.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 09, 2006, 02:08:24 PM
OS,
Gotcha. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 09, 2006, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 08, 2006, 06:19:26 PM
The numbers of teams ranked in each region is proportional to the number of teams in the region I believe...I thought I read that in the Handbook

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 08, 2006, 06:21:28 PM
Quote from: sac on February 08, 2006, 05:42:15 PM
Well the only problem I see is the Great Lakes only gets to rank 6 teams while the pitiful Northeast gets to rank 10....

Augie is right!

The Regional Ranking is established by a ratio.

The Handbook establishes that ratio as #of eligible teams / 6.5.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2006/2006_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf

In the Northeast,  the NESCAC has 4 ranked teams (Why don't we label that one Whine #1!).

The others are from the AQ conferences: CCC, GNAC, LEC, MASCAC, NEWMAC.  (The NAC doesn't have a ranked member.)


I fully understand the ratio's for ranking regions (to a point I still think its stupid)  One of the criteria is record vs ranked teams.  OBVIOUSLY if you play in a region where 10 teams get to be ranked vs one with only 6 you could have an advantage.   THAT is whats stupid.

......and this isn't even bringing into the argument the relative strength of regions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 09, 2006, 10:02:10 PM
If one out of every seven teams is ranked, then one out of every seven teams is ranked. It's just as fair regardless.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 09, 2006, 10:24:30 PM
Not when one of the criteria is games vs ranked opponents.

You'll never convince me the #7 team from the NE compares with the #7 team from the GL.

Why should a NE team get extra credit for beating the supposed 7th best team in their region  when a GL team doesn't?

So right now if a Pool C bid comes down to Hope and a NE team, Hope's win over Albion means essentially nothing in terms of beating a ranked team because they aren't "ranked", because this region can only have 6 teams.  While a NE team can count wins over a #7, 8, 9 and 10 teams because they can rank 10 teams.

  Thats just crazy Pat.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 09, 2006, 11:17:15 PM
While I understand the rationale for proportional number of rankings, sac is quite correct that using wins over ranked teams (regardless of how low they are ranked) IS unfair.

Nevertheless, it fits in perfectly with the ' only regional criteria to select a national tournament' insanity.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 09, 2006, 11:18:23 PM
It is crazy this season, but when making NCAA rules you cannot set regulations by anomalies.  The NCAA ranks a team for every 6.5 teams in region because they make the assumption that the quality of any randomly selected hypothetical 6.5 teams is the same throughout all of division 3.  This is the same reason they give one NCAA tourney spot to every 6.5 teams.  I do not think anyone will argue that the GL is strong this year, especially when considering there are only about 40 teams.  However, if next year there are 20 exceptional NE teams you may see that some unranked teams in this region are NCAA tourney caliber teams.  Again, NCAA criteria are not changed year to year based on the assumed strength of a region, they are set according to the number of schools in that region.  It may not be great for the #7 or #8 team in the GL this year but there is no better way to do it where the same criteria can be used every year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 09, 2006, 11:22:41 PM
Rather than thinking of it as 6 ranked GL teams vs. 10 ranked NE teams, it might help to think of it as the top 15% in each region being ranked.  It also might help to keep in mind that the NCAA prefers to think of D3 as 8 little regions. 

Then again, these things might not help. 

So try to conjure an alternate universe where the power conferences are the LEC, NEWMAC, and SUNYAC, and the only halfway decent conferences in the GL and MW regions are the AMCC and LMC; the others are mostly just dog food.  In that alternate universe, the #10 team in the NE (say, Lasell) is at least as good, if not better, than the #6 team in the GL (say, Pitt-Bradford.)  In other words, the shoe is on the other foot.

The essence of your objection, it seems to me, is not that there are too many ranked teams in the northeast; it's that the northeast generally sucks.  But it may not always be that way, and the fair thing (if you are going to maintain the regional structure) is to allocate the rankings by the number of teams in the region.

It could be worse; they could be allocating the BIDS that way!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 09, 2006, 11:28:57 PM
Quote from: sac on February 09, 2006, 10:24:30 PM
Not when one of the criteria is games vs ranked opponents.

You'll never convince me the #7 team from the NE compares with the #7 team from the GL.

Why should a NE team get extra credit for beating the supposed 7th best team in their region  when a GL team doesn't?

So right now if a Pool C bid comes down to Hope and a NE team, Hope's win over Albion means essentially nothing in terms of beating a ranked team because they aren't "ranked", because this region can only have 6 teams.  While a NE team can count wins over a #7, 8, 9 and 10 teams because they can rank 10 teams.

  Thats just crazy Pat.

Again, if you are being encouraged to play regional teams, and one of every six teams is ranked, then it makes sense for that to be set out proportionally. In your world, teams in a larger region would have less opportunity to play regionally ranked teams because there are so many fewer.

It's not crazy. You still have to be in the top 16% or so of your region to get ranked.

Sure, regionally ranked teams aren't necessarily great teams in the Northeast, but they aren't guaranteed to be great in the East, Atlantic, and sometimes the South. Why are we singling out the Northeast, exactly? At least the Northeast has won a title lately.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 09, 2006, 11:43:45 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 09, 2006, 11:28:57 PM
... At least the Northeast has won a title lately.

Certainly something the South hasn't done since the Ford Adminstration. :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 09, 2006, 11:44:02 PM
hugenerd,

What you say has merit in the abstract (and may be necessary to fit the goals of d3), but ignores reality.  Name me one season where the 6th team in the Northeast, East, or Atlantic has EVER been even close to the the 6th team in the Great Lakes or Midwest.

As I said, the d3 philosophy may require that we PRETEND all regions are created equal, but it just ain't so.

The DEGREE of disparity may be unusual (this year I would bet good money that the 4th place team in the CCIW CONFERENCE alone would beat the 4th place team in the NE, E or A REGIONS by a double-digit margin), but the disparity is a perennial fact of life in d3.

Solution?  You got me!  But if there is going to be a 'national' tournament, please try to understand the misgivings of GL and MW fans who often view it as harder to GET to Salem than to win IN Salem.  Titan Q made a post today that I thought was quite apt: the overall quality of teams in (presumably) Rock Island for the CCIW tourney will very possibly be higher than the overall quality in Salem.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 09, 2006, 11:49:01 PM
Good point, Mr Ypsi,

And I reserve my right to quote Titan Q when there are AQ's in Golf and the Quality of the teams at the ASC tourney are better than the quality at every other conference with the possible exception of the SCIAC, SCAC and the USAC! ;) :D ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 09, 2006, 11:59:12 PM
Ralph,

LOL! ;D

But you've got to make certain allowances for golf - we can't even practice until 3 weeks into the season!  (You ever tried shoveling a golf course?! - and the snowplows REALLY mess up the greens.  ;))
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2006, 12:16:44 AM
I have played in Estes Park, Colorado in early May, just after the elk herds have been shoo'ed off the course.

Winter rules apply.  You can improve your lie, if you want to touch your ball, that is!  :P :o ::) :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2006, 01:00:38 AM
I hope it's not the same money people bet on IWU running the table.

Your sweeping generalization is interesting. Of course, the sixth team in the Northeast is a 90th percentile team in the region, whereas the sixth team in the Atlantic or East is more like an 80th percentile team in that region. I note with some interest that the No. 6 team in the Northeast in 2004 played Amherst, as did the No. 5 (rankings only went that deep) in the Great Lakes, and both games were competitive.

Last year the last ranked team in the GL was Bethany. I hope we can agree to consider that a season in which the 6th team in the NE was "even close."

That bluster made your standard too easy to meet, Mr. Y. The GL and MW aren't the be-all and end-all of Division III men's basketball, Ypsi. Is the view good from your pedestal?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 10, 2006, 02:32:45 AM
Pat,

If you will check the past postings, you will find that the highest I ever set the probability of IWU running the table was 30%.  For the mathematically-impaired, that means I still figured MORE than 2 to 1 odds AGAINST IWU running the table.  PLEASE stop putting words into my mouth - I can embararass myself on my own! :-[

My statement of regional comparisons EVER was probably a bit over the top, but I'm not sure it was by very much.  Since I know much less about GL, I'll stick with the Midwest - can you cite me ANY year where the 6th place team in the NE, E, or A was better than the the 6th place team in the Midwest?  And would you wish to argue that the 4th place team in any of those REGIONS is better than Elmhurst/North Central/Illinois Wesleyan (whoever the 4th place team in the CCIW turns out to be)?

As someone fascinated by the total panoply of d3 bball I'm trying NOT to look down from a pedestal (having enjoyed Fred Young Fieldhouse [where we almost routinely drove the fire marshall nuts with the size of the crowds], I was aghast to learn that at many if not most schools crowds in even the triple digits are a rare occurrence - I am spoiled!   Imagine how bad I'd be if I'd experienced the Shirk!)  Still, so far as I can 'objectively' tell, these look to me like facts about the situation.

Obviously there have been seasons where a superb team (or even two or three) have come out of those regions.  But has there ever been a season where #6 from the Northeast, East or Atlantic has been a serious match for #6 in the Midwest?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 10, 2006, 06:39:57 AM
Quote from: sac on February 09, 2006, 10:24:30 PMSo right now if a Pool C bid comes down to Hope and a NE team, Hope's win over Albion means essentially nothing in terms of beating a ranked team because they aren't "ranked", because this region can only have 6 teams.  While a NE team can count wins over a #7, 8, 9 and 10 teams because they can rank 10 teams.

I see and understand the point that you and Chuck are raising about the injustices of proportional ranking slots, Scott, but remember that this is a blade that cuts both ways. Your #2 Dutch split with Albion, and when you're using the regionally-ranked-opponents criterion a split is not necessarily a good thing. The team that's more likely to be upset about Albion being denied a ranking slot because of the paucity of available slots in the Great Lakes rankings is Calvin, because the #6 Knights can conceivably sweep Albion this season.

(And #4 Baldwin-Wallace is presumably pleased as punch that there's only six slots available in the Great Lakes regional rankings, since Bald Wally lost to Albion in November.)

Quote from: hugenerd on February 09, 2006, 11:18:23 PM
It is crazy this season, but when making NCAA rules you cannot set regulations by anomalies.

It's not an anomaly that the Great Lakes is so dominant this season and the Northeast is so weak. There's a reason why David postulated his reverse situation with the words "alternate universe"; historically, the Great Lakes and Midwest regions have always been very strong, dating back to the beginning of D3 three decades ago. The Northeast has been able to tread water nationally only because of the infusion of the NESCAC a little over a decade ago (and they still only have one national title as a region, the one won by Williams three years ago), and the East has declined sharply in terms of tournament performance since Jerry Welsh turned in his clipboard and whistle at Potsdam State a decade and a half ago. And the South, as Ralph noted to his chagrin, hasn't won a national title since the very first one back in '75, which was won by a school (LeMoyne-Owen) that isn't even in D3 anymore.

Nevertheless, as you and David and Pat have all pointed out, this system is as equitable as a system can be under the ridiculous regional-games-determine-national-tourney-berths concept employed by D3. Unless someone can figure out a mathematical formula by which regions are compared with each other, the proportional system is the only fair way to do it. (And even if someone was ever able to construct such a region-by-region comparison formula, you could count on the D3 Convention not to adopt it.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2006, 09:17:31 AM

Especially with 18 bids this year, I think Pool C can be pretty effectively distributed.  Yes, there are teams not in the ranking better than teams ranked in other regions, but there is no reason to think one of the truly deserving schools (Albion is really the only one in this category, and they won't be if they keep losing) gets left out.  Once you get past a certain level, there is no shoe-in candidates.  It's all about comparison.

For the record, I would say #4-#7 in the NE are all about even and certainly comparable to Lakeland.  Also, if you think than any team finishing #7-#10 in the NE has any chance of making it as an at-large bid, then you are nuts.  It just doesn't happen that way.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 10, 2006, 11:04:54 AM
The one thing I wonder about when it comes time to make the selections is this.  Up until last season when the regional rankings were released the NCAA used to have teams in each region listed as honorable mention.  I figured these were the Others Receiving Votes in the region.  When looking at the ranked teams I wonder if they have the ORV teams also on their lists so that as teams are selected they move up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2006, 11:07:09 AM
When they get to the final, secret rankings, they have to have longer lists (as evidenced by the mock selection earlier).  The Great Lakes region could be empty real fast if they just have 6 teams ranked (and half of them get AQs).  It's just a shame we never get to see this list.  I wonder exactly how many they do rank for each region when it comes down to it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 10, 2006, 11:18:23 AM
As for the argument that the ME or GL number six is better than the East or Atl number six, that really can't be challenged.  There are only five teams ranked in the Atlantic and East regions.

Does anyone really think the number six MW team right now is better than the number six NE team?  If anything I would call that a toss-up that leans towards the NE.  GL number six I will say is better than NE number six right now, but I don't think by as much as many think.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 10, 2006, 11:27:49 AM
The last thing I wonder about is how honest are the regional rankings.  I will use the Atlantic as my example as they are the region I am most familiar with.

1. Bernard Baruch 18-1 20-3
2. William Paterson 14-5 15-6
3. The College of New Jersey 12-5 14-5
4. Farmingdale 12-4 15-4
5. Mount St. Mary (New York) 15-4 18-4

What I wonder is this.  Is there an unwritten rule that every conference needs to be reflected in the regional rankings?  I think most honest observers would agree that the top three spots are well deserved.  The bottom two spots could and most likely should be NJAC teams if the rankings were true.  Even though Farmingdale and MSM both have better regional records NJCU, Stockton, RU-Newark and even Ramapo are better and stronger teams and should be ranked before those two teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2006, 12:54:20 PM

It's done by the numbers knightstalker, but I do think they break ties by representing conferences near the bottom.  It's the only explanation for Salem State, Norwich and Keene as the bottom three in New England.  (Although they never had qualms about leaving the CCC out entirely until recent years).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 10, 2006, 01:48:26 PM
That is exactly what I am talking about.  There were years previously when either a Skyline or CUNY team wasn't even ranked in the region and you would see several NJAC teams ahead of CUNY and Skyline who had better records.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2006, 02:40:44 PM
Some regions try to get everyone represented, others don't. And it changes from year to year, as the committee members change.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2006, 02:42:02 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2006, 02:40:44 PM
Some regions try to get everyone represented, others don't. And it changes from year to year, as the committee members change.

The men's and women's committees are different too, right?

The pattern of the women's rankings in NE are drastically different than the pattern in the men's.  I'm too lazy to look it up, so I'll ask here.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2006, 03:08:19 PM
Yep, they're different people.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2006, 03:08:31 PM
Updated QOWI through Thursday, Feb. 9. Now includes regional records:

1-10
Amherst     11.800     19-1
Lawrence    11.556    18-0
Worcester Polytech    11.300    18-2
Occidental    11.273    10-1
Augustana    11.211    18-1
Fisk    11.182    9-2
Carnegie Mellon    11.000    13-2
St. John Fisher    11.000    16-1
Cortland State    10.947    18-1
Trinity (Texas)    10.929    12-2
               
11-20
York (Pa.)    10.900    18-2
Mississippi College    10.789    18-1
Wittenberg    10.765    15-2
Tufts    10.750    17-3
Illinois Wesleyan    10.688    13-3
Transylvania    10.619    18-3
Bates    10.611    15-3
Wooster    10.556    17-1
Gordon    10.526    17-2
Virginia Wesleyan    10.500    19-3
               
21-30
Hope    10.500    12-2
Lincoln    10.438    12-4
Baldwin-Wallace    10.400    18-2
Baruch    10.350    19-1
UW-La Crosse    10.227    17-5
Carleton    10.222    14-4
St. Thomas    10.190    16-5
Carroll    10.111    16-2
Calvin    10.111    8-1
William Paterson    10.100    15-5

31-40
UW-Stout    10.056    15-3
New York University    10.053    16-3
Williams    10.050    15-5
Howard Payne    10.000    15-4
Trinity (Conn.)    10.000    13-3
Randolph-Macon    9.950    15-5
Keene State    9.947    13-6
Johns Hopkins    9.944    15-3
Puget Sound    9.923    12-1
Washington U.    9.857    9-5

41-50
Wartburg    9.842    16-3
North Central    9.813    12-4
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.778    13-5
Ursinus    9.750    16-4
Albion    9.727    9-2
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.722    14-4
UW-Whitewater    9.706    12-5
Lake Erie    9.706    14-3
Widener    9.700    17-3
Catholic    9.667    13-5
               
51-60
Plymouth State    9.636    14-8
Endicott    9.611    12-6
New Jersey    9.611    13-5
Alvernia    9.600    17-3
Willamette    9.600    13-2
Hanover    9.588    11-6
Brockport State    9.563    11-5
Westfield State    9.550    13-7
Rhode Island College    9.524    14-7
Lakeland    9.474    15-4
               
61-70
Whitworth    9.444    13-5
Rochester    9.438    11-5
Coe    9.438    12-4
Southwestern    9.438    12-4
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.400    13-7
Mass-Boston    9.368    12-7
Richard Stockton    9.350    13-7
Christopher Newport    9.333    7-2
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.333    5-1
Messiah    9.316    14-5
               
71-80
MIT    9.316    12-7
Hamilton    9.313    13-3
UW-Oshkosh    9.278    11-7
Wilmington    9.273    16-6
Bethany    9.250    16-4
Elmhurst    9.167    12-6
Norwich    9.158    15-4
Muskingum    9.158    13-6
Oswego State    9.158    14-5
Franklin    9.158    14-5
               
81-90
Gustavus Adolphus    9.158    13-6
Salem State    9.150    14-6
Averett    9.125    12-4
McMurry    9.105    14-5
Emmanuel    9.100    15-5
Albright    9.056    11-7
Plattsburgh State    9.056    11-7
UW-Stevens Point    9.053    12-7
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.050    14-6
New Jersey City    9.000    13-7
               
91-100
Milwaukee Engineering    9.000    14-5
Ohio Northern    9.000    12-5
Rutgers-Newark    8.952    15-6
Utica    8.947    14-5
Mount St. Mary    8.947    14-5
Elms    8.944    14-4
Villa Julie    8.882    13-4
Baptist Bible    8.867    12-3
Brandeis    8.850    12-8
St. John's    8.833    12-6
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2006, 03:20:13 PM

Twenty of the top 100 are now from the NE region.  The NESCAC has three in the top 17, five in the top 35.  I can say there is definately a huge divide between the good teams and the bad teams in the NE.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 10, 2006, 04:01:01 PM
Guys the argument isn't really about the relative strengths of Regions.

Its about the criteria using games vs ranked opponents which will ultimately be used to select a team over another team.  One Region has a distinct advantage by haveing TWICE as many potential ranked teams as other regions.

That is just not right.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2006, 04:10:50 PM

If that's the case, then this whole discussion is moot.  Most of the primary criteria is used to determine between teams within regions (in-region head-to-head, in-region common opponents, etc).  One they get to selection, the secondary criteria is thrown is as well (even though in-region wins vs ranked opponents is technically listed in primary criteria).  It might be used in the comparison, but its not used as the benchmark for picking one team over another.  Maybe it should be less of a factor, but its not worth this whole huge discussion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2006, 04:34:10 PM
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2006, 04:01:01 PM
One Region has a distinct advantage by haveing TWICE as many potential ranked teams as other regions.

That is just not right.

So you would disadvantage them by having them have fewer ranked teams per capita? That is what's not right, sac. If slots for selection purposes are based on per capita number of teams, why shouldn't this?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 10, 2006, 04:39:56 PM
If the NCAA in their infinite wisdom would just come to this website and go down several threads on this page and they would see that we solved this problem at the end of last season by rearranging the regions to present fairly even regions in terms of size and strength.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2006, 04:42:32 PM

Ralph created a whole board on that very topic.  I never got around to it this summer, but I was going to take a stab at dividing them up myself.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2006, 04:47:05 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on February 10, 2006, 04:39:56 PM
If the NCAA in their infinite wisdom would just come to this website and go down several threads on this page and they would see that we solved this problem at the end of last season by rearranging the regions to present fairly even regions in terms of size and strength.

That border between the Northeast and East is tricky to move teams across. There's talk about teams moving in and out of the CCC -- perhaps that will clarify the border. Also, I would bet the basketball committees move the "Interstate Eight" into the Atlantic to even that out better.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2006, 04:59:01 PM
None of the CCC teams are really close to the East region at all.  I still think it would be better to not worry about keeping who conferences in geographical regions.  The rules state that conference games are all in-region, so why not separate some of them out.  Williams and Amherst in the East might help a little.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 10, 2006, 05:19:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2006, 04:47:05 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on February 10, 2006, 04:39:56 PM
If the NCAA in their infinite wisdom would just come to this website and go down several threads on this page and they would see that we solved this problem at the end of last season by rearranging the regions to present fairly even regions in terms of size and strength.

That border between the Northeast and East is tricky to move teams across. There's talk about teams moving in and out of the CCC -- perhaps that will clarify the border. Also, I would bet the basketball committees move the "Interstate Eight" into the Atlantic to even that out better.

That is why last year when we did it we got rid of the east region entirely.  We moved them all to the GL or Atlantic if I remember correctly.  The NE was the difficult, so many schools spread all over.

If you spread some conferences over a couple of regions like you suggest you leave the same can of worms open.  Moving Williams and Amherst to the East would probably enable the NESCAC to get even more teams in because of the regional nature of the selection process.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: titanhammer on February 10, 2006, 09:00:47 PM
Knightstalker, the Caddy Shack stuff is solid.  One of the all-time character names in the background:  Lacy Underall.  I won some free golf one time off a radio question:  "What is the major golf tournament referenced by the grounds keeper, Carl, in the movie 'Caddy Shack'?"

This is premature, but we know the topic is on the horizon:  is there a team out there now that is a lock pool C bid?.  If they lost all of their remaining games and lost the first game of their post season tournament, would they still be in?

We should have a good handle on this by the time the conference tournaments start.  Thus, allowing us to subtract from the available pool C bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 10, 2006, 09:20:33 PM
hammer,

Might be a game or two too early to start that speculation, but I would think a team with no more than one regional loss and a top 10-15 QOWI could probably not screw up badly enough to miss the tourney.

Off the top of my head, that would probably include Augie, Wooster, Lawrence, and Hope; probably a couple of others as well.  By the middle of next week we could have a much longer watch-list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 10, 2006, 09:43:51 PM
Losing the remainder of their games and the first round of the MIAA would mean Hope would lose to Adrian, Alma, Tri-State and Adrian/Alma/Olivet.  Throw in the Calvin loss and that would be a 5 game losing streak, all in-region except TSU.

I think that would put them at 12-5 in-region

No committee would give the Dutchmen a pass on that collapse.  Maybe a win Saturday would wrap it up for a host of teams like Wooster, Lawrence, Augie, Hope.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 10, 2006, 09:49:09 PM
Even if Wooster wins on Saturday (vs. Wabash), if they lost all the rest of their games that would mean they lost two home games to Kenyon (or perhaps Kenyon and Allegheny, depending on how things shake out, but that's not much better.)  They'd still have just 4 losses in-region, but those two losses to the Lords would be QoWi Qillers. 

I don't think anyone is in the pink just yet.  Except for Lincoln in Pool B.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 10, 2006, 09:59:31 PM
sac and DC,

You're probably right - that's why I said the topic was probably raised at least one game too early.

Realistically, there are probably a number of teams who could already be listed (since they are not going to lose every game from here on), but since that was the scenario hammer projected, perhaps even Lawrence couldn't survive losing them all!

A week from now we can probably give a fairly good list of teams to watch for in terms of conference tourneys (i.e., if they lose, that's one less pool C for everyone else).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2006, 10:03:02 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 10, 2006, 09:59:31 PM
sac and DC,

You're probably right - that's why I said the topic was probably raised at least one game too early.

Realistically, there are probably a number of teams who could already be listed (since they are not going to lose every game from here on), but since that was the scenario hammer projected, perhaps even Lawrence couldn't survive losing them all!

A week from now we can probably give a fairly good list of teams to watch for in terms of conference tourneys (i.e., if they lose, that's one less pool C for everyone else).

Mr Ypsi is right!  We need to start this thread next Wednesday night!  That is another weekend of games and another Regional Ranking!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 10, 2006, 10:17:00 PM
I definately think we have our own lists of teams we've "penciled" in.

Realisticly the top 10 or so teams are in......they all seem to have games they realisticly just can't lose....can they>
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: titanhammer on February 10, 2006, 10:30:40 PM
I said it was premature, but cabin feever got the best of me.  Wooster will obviously not lose to Kenyon and probably tops the list as a pool C lock...if they aren't pool A.

Some teams do have tough games left.  Augie with @Millikin, IWU, @North Central, and conference tourney is one of those teams.  They can do a lot to help or hurt their post season road.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 11, 2006, 02:03:21 AM
Northeast
1. Amherst 19-1 20-2 (NESCAC)
2. Worcester Polytechnic 18-1 19-1 (NEWMAC)
3. Tufts   16-3 17-4 (NESCAC)
4. Gordon 16-2 17-3 (CCC-N)
5. Bates   14-3 18-3 (NESCAC)
6. Williams 16-5 17-5 (NESCAC
7. Trinity (Connecticut) 13-3 16-4 (NESCAC) beat Amherst
8. Salem State 14-5 14-6 (MASCAC)
9. Norwich 12-3 12-5 (GNAC) this site has Norwich at 14-4 in-region and they didn't play tonight (??)
10. Keene State 11-6 14-6 (Little East)

As a Pointer fan and a WIAC fan, I've been paying a little more attention to national scores the last week or so with the first Regional Rankings out and everyone guessing about Pool C bids and all.  Not to purposely single out the NESCAC, it was a good night for everyone not in the NESCAC concerning Pool C bids. 

It was amazing to see FIVE NESCAC schools in the regional rankings and come next week, things could be drastically different.

Trinity lost to Tufts, giving Bantams a 4th in-region loss, while Williams suffered their 6th in-region loss to Colby.  And in yet another battle of regionally ranked teams, Amherst gave Bates a 4th regional loss.  Saturday it gets better, and as a WIAC fan hoping for at least one Pool C bid, I'm goig to be cheering for Bates over Trinity (though if either loses, they get in-region loss #5) and Amherst to knock off Tufts for loss #4.  ;D  Anything that helps the WIAC! lol.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 11, 2006, 04:49:31 AM
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2006, 09:43:51 PMLosing the remainder of their games and the first round of the MIAA would mean Hope would lose to Adrian, Alma, Tri-State and Adrian/Alma/Olivet.

Quote from: David Collinge on February 10, 2006, 09:49:09 PMEven if Wooster wins on Saturday (vs. Wabash), if they lost all the rest of their games that would mean they lost two home games to Kenyon (or perhaps Kenyon and Allegheny, depending on how things shake out, but that's not much better.)

I remember one year someone on Posting Up raised the same question as Hammer right around this time of the season: Are there any Pool C sure bets yet? What would happen if this team or that team in the Top Five lost the rest of their games? Someone with a morbid sense of humor referred to the thread as "bus crash speculations".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 11, 2006, 10:22:54 AM
Baruch could be a lock for a Pool C.  They finish conference play today, so they can only pick up 2 more loses for three total before the NCAA Tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 11, 2006, 03:13:51 PM
Thinking about it I think Gordon is right, in fact I think Baruch is a virtual lock for a pool C if they don't win their conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Coach C on February 11, 2006, 05:41:04 PM
Based on the f#%&ed up criteria, they are in.

C
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 11, 2006, 05:46:52 PM
And we may actually get to see if this theory plays out.

Lehman thrashes Baruch 90-73 as D3hoops.com All-American Sekani Francis goes for 27 points and 18 rebounds.

Bearcats open the CUNYAC tournament next Saturday.

For what it's worth, I humbly submit Amherst as a Pool C lock, too.  They have just one regional loss at the close of regular season play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 11, 2006, 11:15:59 PM
Stout shoots themselves in the foot by losing at home to Point, blowing an 18 point lead with sometime like 13 minutes to go.  Big blow for Stout since they travel to La Crosse for the conference finale.  As Sager and Coleman, among others have stated, if Stout was going to go 1-1 in the last two games, it hurts a lot more to lose at home to Point than it does to lose on the road in La Crosse.  Stout only has four in-region losses now, and if we're talking Pool C bids here, five may get them in, but now Whitewater, of all teams, leads the whacky WIAC. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy (and surprised) that Point won!  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 12, 2006, 01:45:19 AM
Quote from: Old School on February 11, 2006, 11:15:59 PMAs Sager and Coleman, among others have stated, if Stout was going to go 1-1 in the last two games, it hurts a lot more to lose at home to Point than it does to lose on the road in La Crosse.

Why is this?  Do you mean it hurts them more vis-a-vis the WIAC race?  Because If you are looking strictly at Pool C, it seems like the game to win is La Crosse.  From a QoWI standpoint it's a wash; each game has a "base value" (based on home/road and win % of opponent), to which you add 0 for a loss and 8 for a win.  It wouldn't matter which game gets the +8.  (Although I suppose it could make a difference if beating a team pushed them to a lower win % QoWI threshold; is that what you mean?)  But La Crosse is (regionally) ranked, and Stevens Point is not, so beating La Crosse gives Stout a "win over regionally ranked opponent" (presuming they are still ranked whenever that nosecount is done).  That seems to be the only Pool C differentiation between these games, if Stout had to win one and lose the other.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 12, 2006, 02:11:53 AM
After Friday's results, I posted my thoughts regarding the NESCAC...not to be left out, here's what I think about the CCIW.

It looks like they might just get one Pool C bid in now that the weekend games are over.  All the contenders have TWO conference games left and then the conference tourney.  Big upsets filled the week in the CCIW and none of it helped those teams that want to get a shot at a Pool C bid.

Augie-They lost two in a row, but are still a solid 18-2 in region.  Even if they lose their remaining three (2 conference and the first round of the conference tourney) they should be in good shape at 18-5 to get in.  They finish with Ill. Wes. and at North Central.

Ill. Wes.-At 13-4, after their loss to Wheaton, I think they must win both of their remaining games, at Augie and home to North Park.  If they split, that leaves them at 14-5 and then a 6th loss in the conference tourney...major bubble.

Elmhurst-With six in-region losses already, I don't see them getting a Pool C bid with seven losses.

North Central-A big blow to Pool C chances after losing one at home to Carthage.  5 in-region losses with a trip to Elmhurst and a home date with Augie to go.  They only have 12 in-region wins too, so their winning % is hardly eye catching, especially if they pick up a 6th loss prior to the CCIW tourney.

In my eyes, it looks like one Pool A team and one Pool C team from the CCIW.  If Ill. Wes. can sweep the last two (including vs. Augie) and then lose in the conference tourney, while Augie falls...that would be a way to get two Pool C teams in.  Both Ill. Wes. and Augie would both have at most five in-region losses, which should get them in.

And now the WIAC

Stout-Stout is really the only team with Pool C aspirations in the WIAC and they took a big hit with a home loss to Stevens Point tonight.  With the setback, it gives Stout four in-region losses and a win at La Crosse is a must win.  1.) it keeps them at four in-region losses and 2.) a road win against La Crosse will make up the QOWI points they lost by losing at home to Point!  :D

Whitewater and La Crosse already have 5 in-region losses, though La Crosse's 17 wins looks a lot better than Whitewater's 13.  If La Crosse takes down Stout next Saturday and then makes it to the Finals of the WIAC tourney and loses, that would put them at 20-6...real borderline, though their QOWI is 2nd in the WIAC, behind Stout.

Back to the NESCAC

Amherst is a lock.

Well, Trinity did beat Bates tonight, which gives Bates a 15-5 record.  If they go 2-1 in their conference tourney, that puts them at 17-6...ummm.

Tufts looks like they are in good shape with a solid 18-4 regional record.  Trinity has four less wins  than Tufts and I think their QOWI is lower than Tufts.  Tufts also beat Trinity.  

I think, obviously regarding Pool C, Amherst and either Tufts or Trinity could get in.  I don't see both of them getting in and I already feel Bates is on the outside looking in.  

Just my thoughts on three conferences.



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 12, 2006, 02:23:22 AM
DC,

At first I was thinking that a loss at home to Point would hurt more than losing at La Crosse.  But the QOWI points turn out to be the same.

W vs. Point 12 points
L at La Crosse 7 points

L vs. Point 4 points
W at La Crosse 15 points

I was also thinking about the wins vs. regional opponents stuff too.  So I guess I'm half right!  ;)

I'm pretty sure Coleman said it on the North Western Wisconsin radio show this morning and I believe I remember Sager posting something like that...don't want to misquote them & get myself into trouble, so I'll with drawal that first part of my statement! lol.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 12, 2006, 02:46:54 AM
Just as a mathematical rule of thumb, if you ignore the possibility of teams shifting their in-region-win-% plateaus, a 1-1 record against two regional opponents produces the same QoWI regardless of which team is the 1 and which is the...uh, 1.  :)

Let me try that again.  If a team wins N games in-region, from a QoWI standpoint it doesn't matter which teams those N wins were recorded against.  Your QoWI score will be determined by your regional opponents' regional win %, plus one point for every road game (won or lost), plus 8 points for every win.

Example: you play 4 games, home/road against Goodcollege, which is 20-0 in regional games not against you, and home/road against Badtech, which is 0-20 in regional games not against you.  You win 2 of these games.  Your QoWI will be (6+6+0+0) [representing the points for the in-region records of GC and BT] +2 (for the two road games) +16 (for the two wins) = 30 QoWI points/4 games, or 7.500.  The result is the same if you
*beat BT twice (win at home=8, win on road=9) and lose to GC twice (lose at home=6, lose on road=7) [total is 8+9+6+7=30/4, or 7.5], or
*beat GC twice (win at home=14, win on road=15) and lose to BT twice (lose at home=0, lose on road=1) [total is 14+15+0+1=30/4=7.5], or
*split with each team (you get the drift).

Once you know how many regional wins a team has, you can figure their QoWI by looking at their schedule without bothering to look at their actual results.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 12, 2006, 08:52:46 AM
Quote from: Coach C on February 11, 2006, 05:41:04 PM
Based on the f#%&ed up criteria, they are in.

C

Coach, I know the criteria needs a lot of work but I wouldn't feel bad about a team like Baruch getting a Pool C bid if they lose their conference tournament.  They have had an incredible season for a CUNY team.  Like Rhodes Scholar said, this is probably the best season a CUNY team has had since Hunter in 98 and did ok in the tournament that year.  Baruch will probably get their heads handed to them in the first or possibly second round, but these kids have earned a trip in my opinion.  If there wasn't an expanded field I would say no, but there are enough bids this year for team like this.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2006, 12:23:02 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 12, 2006, 02:23:22 AM
DC,

At first I was thinking that a loss at home to Point would hurt more than losing at La Crosse.  But the QOWI points turn out to be the same.

W vs. Point 12 points
L at La Crosse 7 points

L vs. Point 4 points
W at La Crosse 15 points

I was also thinking about the wins vs. regional opponents stuff too.  So I guess I'm half right!  ;)

I'm pretty sure Coleman said it on the North Western Wisconsin radio show this morning and I believe I remember Sager posting something like that...don't want to misquote them & get myself into trouble, so I'll with drawal that first part of my statement! lol.

I only really ended up talking about WIAC women's basketball on the show yesterday. Men's basketball discussion was more national in scope.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 12, 2006, 02:15:25 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 12, 2006, 02:23:22 AM
...I'm pretty sure Coleman said it on the North Western Wisconsin radio show this morning ...

Is that North Western Wisconsin radio show archived anywhere?

What would be good is to have archived hyperlinks to D3 related interviews and programming?   Thanks. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 12, 2006, 02:52:20 PM
wmeq.com from 8 am to 10 am on Saturdays.  At 9 am, they interview former Pointer coach Jack Bennett as he is listed as a consultant.  They also talk to the men's and women's coaches of Stout.  Aside from that, they talk to high school coaches.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2006, 04:22:20 PM
Updated men's QOWI through Sunday, the ones that will be used in this week's regional rankings:

1-10
Amherst     12.091     21-1
Lawrence    11.444    18-0
Trinity (Texas)    11.188    14-2
Worcester Polytech    11.143    18-3
Mississippi College    10.950    19-1
Carnegie Mellon    10.938    13-3
York (Pa.)    10.905    19-2
Cortland State    10.900    19-1
Occidental    10.833    11-1
St. John Fisher    10.789    18-1
               
11-20
Wooster    10.737    18-1
Augustana    10.700    18-2
Tufts    10.682    18-4
Wittenberg    10.667    16-2
Lincoln    10.563    12-4
Virginia Wesleyan    10.522    20-3
Illinois Wesleyan    10.471    13-4
Transylvania    10.364    18-4
Baldwin-Wallace    10.333    19-2

21-30
Hope    10.267    13-2
Carroll    10.263    17-2
Gordon    10.250    18-2
William Paterson    10.238    15-6
UW-La Crosse    10.227    17-5
Calvin    10.200    9-1
Baruch    10.190    19-2
New Jersey    10.158    14-5
Randolph-Macon    10.143    16-5
Trinity (Conn.)    10.111    14-4

31-40
Rochester    10.056    13-5
Bates    10.050    15-5
Widener    10.048    18-3
St. Thomas    10.045    17-5
Carleton    10.000    15-4
Howard Payne    9.950    15-5
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.947    15-4
Washington U.    9.875    11-5
Ursinus    9.857    17-4
Wartburg    9.842    16-3

41-50
Albion    9.833    10-2
Puget Sound    9.800    13-2
Lakeland    9.800    16-4
Fisk    9.769    9-4
Westfield State    9.762    14-7
UW-Stout    9.737    15-4
Johns Hopkins    9.684    15-4
Alvernia    9.667    18-3
Keene State    9.650    14-6
Christopher Newport    9.636    9-2

51-60
UW-Whitewater    9.611    13-5
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.600    14-6
Whitworth    9.600    15-5
Williams    9.591    15-7
Rhode Island College    9.545    15-7
Plymouth State    9.522    15-8
MIT    9.500    13-7
Southwestern    9.500    13-5
Catholic    9.474    14-5
McMurry    9.450    15-5

61-70
Salem State    9.429    15-6
New Jersey City    9.429    14-7
UW-Oshkosh    9.421    12-7
Elmhurst    9.421    13-6
Albright    9.421    12-7
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.400    13-7
Hanover    9.389    12-6
Hamilton    9.389    15-3
Richard Stockton    9.381    13-8
Willamette    9.353    15-2

71-80
North Central    9.353    12-5
UW-Stevens Point    9.350    13-7
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.333    5-1
Lake Erie    9.278    15-3
Franklin    9.250    15-5
Messiah    9.250    14-6
Bethany    9.250    16-4
Rutgers-Newark    9.227    15-7
Emmanuel    9.190    16-5
Elms    9.167    14-4

81-90
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.143    15-6
Mount St. Mary    9.100    15-5
Brockport State    9.056    11-7
Utica    9.048    16-5
Ramapo    9.000    12-7
Milwaukee Engineering    9.000    14-6
Endicott    9.000    12-7
Coast Guard    9.000    14-6
Centre    9.000    12-6
Bowdoin    9.000    12-7

91-100
Averett    9.000    12-5
Scranton    8.952    15-6
Manhattanville    8.952    13-8
Oswego State    8.952    16-5
Loras    8.950    13-7
Elizabethtown    8.950    12-8
Chicago    8.941    10-7
Hardin-Simmons    8.905    14-7
Norwich    8.900    15-5
Mass-Boston    8.900    12-8
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2006, 04:39:48 PM
There are only 9 teams in the 11-20 section.  I just wanted to warn people, before they start doing all their numbers and edits for posts, etc.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2006, 04:40:08 PM
#20 New York University     10.333     17-4
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2006, 05:04:07 PM
I think I got this right.  The top 18 not leading a conference currently. (Number 19 is Williams, if anyone was curious).

1-10
Amherst     12.091     21-1
Lawrence    11.444    18-0
Trinity (Texas)    11.188    14-2
Worcester Polytech    11.143    18-3
Mississippi College    10.950    19-1
Carnegie Mellon    10.938    13-3
York (Pa.)    10.905    19-2
Cortland State    10.900    19-1
Occidental    10.833    11-1
St. John Fisher    10.789    18-1
               
11-20
Wooster    10.737    18-1
Augustana    10.700    18-2
Tufts    10.682    18-4
Wittenberg    10.667    16-2
Lincoln    10.563    12-4 (Pool B lock)
Virginia Wesleyan    10.522    20-3
Illinois Wesleyan    10.471    13-4
Transylvania    10.364    18-4
Baldwin-Wallace    10.333    19-2

21-30
Hope    10.267    13-2
Carroll    10.263    17-2
Gordon    10.250    18-2
William Paterson    10.238    15-6
UW-La Crosse    10.227    17-5
Calvin    10.200    9-1
Baruch    10.190    19-2
New Jersey    10.158    14-5
Randolph-Macon    10.143    16-5
Trinity (Conn.)    10.111    14-4

31-40
Rochester    10.056    13-5
Bates    10.050    15-5
Widener    10.048    18-3
St. Thomas    10.045    17-5
Carleton    10.000    15-4
Howard Payne    9.950    15-5
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.947    15-4
Washington U.    9.875    11-5
Ursinus    9.857    17-4
Wartburg    9.842    16-3

41-50
Albion    9.833    10-2
Puget Sound    9.800    13-2
Lakeland    9.800    16-4
Fisk    9.769    9-4 (Pool B)
Westfield State    9.762    14-7
UW-Stout    9.737    15-4
Johns Hopkins    9.684    15-4
Alvernia    9.667    18-3
Keene State    9.650    14-6
Christopher Newport    9.636    9-2

51-60
UW-Whitewater    9.611    13-5
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.600    14-6 (Pool B)
Whitworth    9.600    15-5
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dballa on February 13, 2006, 05:13:23 PM
Actually Hoops Fan, Howard Payne leads the ASC West by a half game(Depending on what happens with their game against Sul Ross St tonight).  So I guess that would put Williams in your top 18.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 13, 2006, 05:34:32 PM
You have Hope crossed out and Calvin highlighted.......that should be reversed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2006, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 13, 2006, 05:04:07 PM
I think I got this right.  The top 18 not leading a conference currently. (Number 19 is Williams, if anyone was curious).

1-10
Amherst     12.091     21-1
Lawrence    11.444    18-0
Trinity (Texas)    11.188    14-2
Worcester Polytech    11.143    18-3
Mississippi College    10.950    19-1  ASC-East Division
Carnegie Mellon    10.938    13-3
York (Pa.)    10.905    19-2
Cortland State    10.900    19-1
Occidental    10.833    11-1
St. John Fisher    10.789    18-1
               
11-20
Wooster    10.737    18-1
Augustana    10.700    18-2
Tufts    10.682    18-4
Wittenberg    10.667    16-2
Lincoln    10.563    12-4 (Pool B lock)
Virginia Wesleyan    10.522    20-3
Illinois Wesleyan    10.471    13-4
Transylvania    10.364    18-4
Baldwin-Wallace    10.333    19-2
#20  New York University     10.333     17-4

21-30
Hope    10.267    13-2                      per sac
Carroll    10.263    17-2
Gordon    10.250    18-2
William Paterson    10.238    15-6
UW-La Crosse    10.227    17-5
Calvin    10.200    9-1                           per sac
Baruch    10.190    19-2
New Jersey    10.158    14-5
Randolph-Macon    10.143    16-5
Trinity (Conn.)    10.111    14-4

31-40
Rochester    10.056    13-5
Bates    10.050    15-5
Widener    10.048    18-3
St. Thomas    10.045    17-5
Carleton    10.000    15-4
Howard Payne    9.950    15-5 ASC-West Division
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.947    15-4
Washington U.    9.875    11-5
Ursinus    9.857    17-4
Wartburg    9.842    16-3

41-50
Albion    9.833    10-2
Puget Sound    9.800    13-2
Lakeland    9.800    16-4
Fisk    9.769    9-4 (Pool B)
Westfield State    9.762    14-7
UW-Stout    9.737    15-4
Johns Hopkins    9.684    15-4
Alvernia    9.667    18-3
Keene State    9.650    14-6
Christopher Newport    9.636    9-2

51-60
UW-Whitewater    9.611    13-5
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.600    14-6 (Pool B)
Whitworth    9.600    15-5

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2006, 08:09:15 PM
You also have La Crosse crossed out.  Whitewater (11-3)leads the conference.  Stout (11-4) is a half game back, followed by Point (10-4) and then La Crosse at 9-5, with Oshkosh.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2006, 10:06:24 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 13, 2006, 08:09:15 PM
You also have La Crosse crossed out.  Whitewater (11-3)leads the conference.  Stout (11-4) is a half game back, followed by Point (10-4) and then La Crosse at 9-5, with Oshkosh.

Oh c'mon Old school!  The lead for the WIAC will change 4 times on the night of Feb 15th alone!   :D :D :D :D

Besides, we outsiders are just waiting for UW-duJour to claim the AQ and then allocate one other Pool C and move on.  ;) 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2006, 10:08:28 PM
Howard Payne lost at Sul Ross State tongiht and falls back into a tie with McMurry in the ASC-West.

With respect to the ASC, we have 2 more sets of game, all 16 teams, playing on Thursday and Saturday.

That will set up the 8-team tourney which is hosted on the West this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 14, 2006, 12:24:12 AM
Interesting... SOSI wise, if Elmhurst wins their last two regular season games, they actually have an ouside shot at a Pool C even with a loss in the tourney. Their regional win % will probably knock them out of contention though, right?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 14, 2006, 12:51:22 AM
diehardfan, Elmhurst has some vulnerability as some of their in-region opponents drop an "increment" in the QOWI.

But Elmhurst is 5-2 in the Midwest Region.

The CCIW used the QOWI to its advantage.  I am listing the in-region non-conference record for each CCIW team and the impact it has on the QOWI increment*.

Augie is     8-0  (no change in QOWI increment over in-conference.)
IWU          5-0   (no change)
Elmhurst   5-2   no change
NCC          5-0   +1 increment in QOWI (from >.500 to >.665)
Wheaton   3-4  no change
Carthage   3-3  no change
Millikin        5-2  +1 increment in QOWI (from >.332 to >.500
NPU           1-7  no change

Moving up a QOWI increment meant that every decision with NCC and Millikin was worth 2 more QOWI points.  In a double round-robin (14-game) conference season, that adds 8 points to the numerator or 0.57 points to the QOWI Index for each team.

(*For lack of a specific term, let us divided the QOWI point allocation to 4 increments:  >.665, >.499, >.332, <.333.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 14, 2006, 01:36:20 AM
I am going to assume that the Conference team with the highest in-region ranking listed in the Feb 8th Regional rankings will be the Pool A.

Twenty-two teams remain after we strike the "Pool A's".  We can use this information in conjunction with Hoops Fan's compilation of Pool C's by QOWI.  (Corrections appreciated.)

Atlantic
1. Baruch 18-1 20-3  CUNYAC
2. William Paterson 14-5 15-6  NJAC
3. New Jersey 12-5 14-5   NJAC
4. SUNY-Farmingdale 12-4 15-4  Skyline
5. Mount St. Mary 15-4 18-4  Skyline

East
1. Cortland State 18-1 19-2  SUNYAC
2. St. John Fisher 14-1 16-3  E8
3. New York University 16-3 17-3  UAA  (CMU leads)
4. Hamilton 13-3 17-3  LL
5. Rochester 11-5 14-6  UAA

Great Lakes
1. Wooster 16-1 20-1  NCAC
2. Hope 13-1 19-1 MIAA 
3. Carnegie Mellon 13-2 17-3   UAA
4. Baldwin-Wallace 16-2 18-2  OAC
5. Wittenberg 14-2 19-2  NCAC
6. Calvin 7-1 16-5  MIAA  (Remember that Tri-State is Provisional)

Mid-Atlantic
1. York (Pa.) 16-2 18-2  CAC
2. Widener 16-3 17-3  MACC
3. Ursinus 15-3 16-5  CC
4. Lincoln 11-4 19-4  Indep Pool B
T5. Alvernia 14-3 17-4   PnAC
T5. Johns Hopkins 14-3 16-4   CC
7. Catholic 13-4 15-5   CAC
8. Messiah 13-5 14-7   MACC

Midwest
1. Lawrence 17-0 19-0  MWC
2. Augustana 18-0 19-1  CCIW
3. Transylvania 17-3 18-3  HCAC
T4. Carroll 16-2 18-2  MWC
T4. Illinois Wesleyan 11-3 17-3  CCIW
6 Lakeland 14-3 18-5  LMC
7. North Central 10-4 16-4  CCIW
8. Washington U. 10-5 13-7  UAA

Northeast
1. Amherst 19-1 20-2  NESCAC
2. Worcester Polytechnic 18-1 19-1  NEWMAC
3. Tufts 16-3 17-4  NESCAC
4. Gordon 16-2 17-3  CCC-N
5. Bates 14-3 18-3  NESCAC
6. Williams 16-5 17-5  NESCAC
7. Trinity (Conn.) 13-3 16-4   NESCAC
8. Salem State 14-5 14-6   MASCAC
9. Norwich 12-3 12-5  GNAC
10. Keene State 11-6 14-6  LEC

South
1. Mississippi College 17-1 19-1  ASC-E
2. Trinity (Texas) 12-2 16-5   SCAC
3. Virginia Wesleyan 18-3 19-3  ODAC
4. Fisk 9-2 14-7  GSAC   Pool B
5. Howard Payne 15-3 16-3   ASC-W
6. Randolph-Macon 14-5 17-5  ODAC
7. Southwestern 12-4 16-5  SCAC 
8. Maryville (Tenn.) 13-5 17-5  GSAC  Pool B

West
1. Occidental 9-1 16-2  SCIAC
2. Puget Sound 12-1 17-3  NWC
3. UW-Stout 14-3 17-4  WIAC
4. UW-La Crosse 15-5 17-5  WIAC
5. Wartburg 15-3 17-4  IIAC
6. Willamette 15-3 14-6  NWC
7. Carleton 12-4 15-5  MIAC
8. UW-Whitewater 11-5 15-5  WIAC

I believe that every "Pool C" team, except the UAA's,  is from a conference with a Post-season tourney, so everyone of these teams will sustain another loss.  (Remember, I have already allocated each conference's  Pool A.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2006, 03:00:48 AM
One we should keep an eye on is the SCIAC. With no postseason tourney, if Occidental loses at CMS (which I and SCIAC fans would say is a better than average possibility) and CMS wins out, CMS would win the automatic bid and Oxy would be a near-lock in Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2006, 07:35:49 AM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 14, 2006, 12:24:12 AM
Interesting... SOSI wise, if Elmhurst wins their last two regular season games, they actually have an ouside shot at a Pool C even with a loss in the tourney. Their regional win % will probably knock them out of contention though, right?

Wouldn't that give Elmhurst EIGHT losses?  I don't think many teams with SIX losses are going to get in! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2006, 07:37:28 AM
Quote from: Old School on February 14, 2006, 07:35:49 AM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 14, 2006, 12:24:12 AM
Interesting... SOSI wise, if Elmhurst wins their last two regular season games, they actually have an ouside shot at a Pool C even with a loss in the tourney. Their regional win % will probably knock them out of contention though, right?

Wouldn't that give Elmhurst EIGHT losses?  I don't think many teams with SIX losses are going to get in! ;)

No, that'd give them seven.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2006, 07:38:51 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2006, 10:06:24 PM
Oh c'mon Old school!  The lead for the WIAC will change 4 times on the night of Feb 15th alone!   :D :D :D :D

Besides, we outsiders are just waiting for UW-duJour to claim the AQ and then allocate one other Pool C and move on.  ;) 

Thanks to Stout getting upset at home vs. Point, that Pool C bid is looking a little more doubtful than before, especially if Stout falls to La Crosse on Saturday.  ;)


Re: Elmhurst

Oh, they have just six in-region losses right now then...(seven total, which obviously doesn't matter).

I think "Mr. Gregory" is out to get me...within two minutes, he's correcting me! lol.  :P
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2006, 09:01:47 AM

Like I said a month ago, seven loss teams are going to get looked at hard for Pool C and one or two might get in.  We really don't know what's going to happen down the stretch.  One concern is that the NESCAC has five teams in the hunt, none of which can lose more than one additional time.  If Williams and Bates end up in the conference final, with Tufts and Amherst losing early, they could have five teams with strong cases.  That's a bit scary.  I don't care how good the conference is, five teams shouldn't be getting in from anywhere.

Also, as far as I can tell, only the East and the Midwest seem to be giving much credence ot in-region winning percentage.  I think if the QOWI number is there and the team is playing well, most anyone near the top of the standings will be considered.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2006, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2006, 03:00:48 AM
One we should keep an eye on is the SCIAC. With no postseason tourney, if Occidental loses at CMS (which I and SCIAC fans would say is a better than average possibility) and CMS wins out, CMS would win the automatic bid and Oxy would be a near-lock in Pool C.

That may also change some things for Pool B as well.  Right now Chapman is not looking too good.  They do have a decent in-region winning percentage and could improve with a west-coast indy tournament (especially if NebWes shows up).  However, Chapman has two wins over CMS, both very helpful in the QOWI, but would be even more so as two wins over a tournament team.  It might not help Chapman enough, but we would certainly have to give them more consideration.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2006, 04:20:22 PM
Re:  Regional records and the effect on QOWI

Pat, I was looking that the regional records from last week's regional rankings on the NCAA page.  There are a lot of teams' records that differ from what you have as regional records on this site.  Obviously someone is wrong.  If the NCAA is wrong on it's records and they use those, that doesn't seem right.  Are we to assume the NCAA will actually get the correct regional records and use those to figure out the QOWI?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2006, 04:24:26 PM

Pat answered that last week.  The NCAA requires teams to post their own schedules, so the reason for the mistakes may be from the schools themselves not knowing which schools are in-region and which aren't.  It's tough to remember the 200 mile rule or even locate a copy of the 2004 edition of Microsoft Streets & Trips.

d3hoops.com does all the entry and input themselves from schedules submitted by schools, so they have fewer errors, although they do, at times, occur.

As to what the NCAA is doing about this, I'm not sure.  It seems like this system would make it way too easy for someone to just "forget" to list their 80 point loss at Wooster as in-region, or accidentily list their 4OT win over IWU as in-region when its not.  There must be some system of accountability there; we're just not totally sure where, it is the wonderful NCAA after all.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2006, 05:19:56 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 14, 2006, 04:20:22 PM
Re:  Regional records and the effect on QOWI

Pat, I was looking that the regional records from last week's regional rankings on the NCAA page.  There are a lot of teams' records that differ from what you have as regional records on this site.

I have been informing the NCAA regional chairs as they come up. I have informed them about Illinois Wesleyan and Ursinus. What other ones have you noticed?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2006, 06:09:54 PM
I'll wait until tomorrow and see how things work out!  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2006, 06:10:32 PM
I'll wait until the new rankings come out and compare the records...of course, this is assuming YOU'RE completely right! lol.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2006, 06:26:01 PM
I'm open to the possibility that ours could be wrong but we have been vetting them publicly all season and the eyes of the many have found missed regional games that we've fixed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 15, 2006, 12:13:45 PM

So do you think its going to take all day to post the regional rankings again this week?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2006, 12:32:53 PM
I think that's about the time it's been released pretty consistently in the past.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 15, 2006, 12:36:56 PM

I always thought it was around noon before, oh well, I guess our memories are always what we wish they'd be rather than what they really were.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2006, 04:16:10 PM
Regional ranks:
http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=128
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 15, 2006, 04:27:17 PM

Wow, Pat, congrats for having them up faster than ncaasports.com.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2006, 04:27:51 PM
We are paid less but care more.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2006, 05:40:20 PM
One thing that popped out right away, is that your regional ranking for Lakeland is 16-4 and the NCAA has them at 16-3.  I think you and the NCAA must use different maps.  I would guess La Crosse is more than 200 miles away...that would be the only questionable game, since Benedictine and Rockford are both in the Midwest Region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2006, 06:02:13 PM
Old school, Pat has mentioned that the schools are responsible to send scores to the NCAA, whereas the D3Hoops scoreboard has been "virtually vetted" for accuracy by "13 Million" viewers over the last 9 years.

I trust Pat's numbers! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2006, 06:03:45 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 15, 2006, 05:40:20 PM
One thing that popped out right away, is that your regional ranking for Lakeland is 16-4 and the NCAA has them at 16-3.  I think you and the NCAA must use different maps.  I would guess La Crosse is more than 200 miles away...that would be the only questionable game, since Benedictine and Rockford are both in the Midwest Region.

I have 192.56 miles for Lakeland-to-La Crosse unofficially and will check officially at home.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2006, 06:20:30 PM
Updated Feb. 15, 2006  

Teams NOT in bold lead their respective conferences (Pool A bids).  Teams in BOLD are Pool C contenders.  Teams in italics are Pool B contenders...be prepared for mistakes.  ::)

Atlantic
1 Bernard Baruch 19-2 21-4 (Leads CUNYAC)
2 Farmingdale 15-4 18-4 (Leads SKY)
3 The College of New Jersey 15-5 17-6 (Tied with William Patterson for NJAC)
4 William Paterson 15-6 16-7 (Tied with College of New Jersey with NJAC)
5 Mount St. Mary (New York) 16-5 19-5 (SKY)

East
1 Cortland State 19-1 20-2 (Leads SUNYAC)
2 St. John Fisher 17-1 19-3 (Leads Empire 8 )
3 New York University 17-4 18-4 (UAA)
4 Hamilton 15-3 19-3 (Leads Liberty)
5 Rochester 13-5 16-6 (UAA)

Great Lakes
1 Wooster 18-1 22-1 (Leads NCAC)
2 Baldwin-Wallace 19-2 21-2 (Leads OAC)
3 Wittenberg 16-2 21-2 (NCAC)
4 Carnegie Mellon 14-3 18-4 (Leads UAA)
5 Calvin 9-1 18-5 (Leads MIAA)
5 Hope 14-2 21-2 (MIAA)

Mid-Atlantic
1 York (Pennsylvania) 18-2 20-2 (Leads CAC)
2 Widener 18-3 19-3 (Leads MACC)
3 Lincoln (Pennsylvania) 12-4 20-4 (IND) Pool B
4 Alvernia 18-3 20-4 (Leads PnAC)
5 Ursinus 17-4 18-5 (Leads Centennial)
6 Johns Hopkins 16-4 17-5 (Centennial)
7 Catholic 14-5 16-6 (CAC)
8 Messiah 14-6 15-8 (MACC)

Midwest
1 Lawrence 18-0 20-0 (Leads MWC)
2 Augustana (Illinois) 18-2 20-3 (Leads CCIW)
3 Carroll (Wisconsin) 17-2 19-2 (MWC)
4 Transylvania 19-4 19-4 (Leads HCAC)
5 Illinois Wesleyan 13-4 18-4 (CCIW)
6 Lakeland 16-3 20-5 (Leads LMC)
7 Washington U. in St. Louis 12-5 15-7 (UAA)
8 Elmhurst 15-6 16-7 (CCIW)

Northeast
1 Amherst 22-1 23-2 (Leads NESCAC)
2 Worcester Polytechnic 18-3 19-3 (Leads NEWMAC)
3 Tufts 18-4 19-5 (NESCAC)
4 Gordon 18-2 19-3 (Leads CCC-N)
5 Trinity (Connecticut) 14-4 17-5 (NESCAC)
6 Bates 14-5 18-5 (NESCAC)
7 Williams 16-7 17-7 (NESCAC)
8 Keene State 13-6 16-6 (Leads Little East)
9 Rhode Island College 15-7 15-7 (Little East)
10 Westfield St 14-7 16-7 (Tied with Salem St. in MASCAC)

South
1 Mississippi College 19-1 21-1 (Leads ASC-E)
2 Trinity (Texas) 14-2 18-5 (Leads SCAC)
3 Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 21-3 (Leads ODAC)
4 Randolph-Macon 16-5 19-5 (ODAC)
5 Howard Payne 15-5 16-5 (Tied with McMurry in ASC-W)
6 Christopher Newport 9-2 18-5 (Leads USAC)
7 Fisk 9-4 14-10 Pool B
7 Maryville (Tennessee.) 14-6 18-6 Pool B (leads GSAC)

Playoff for Pool A for ASC-E and ASC-W, right?

West
1 Occidental 11-1 18-2 (Tied with Claremont-Mudd-Scripps in SCIAC)
2 Wisconsin-Stout 15-4 18-5 (WIAC)
3 Puget Sound 13-2 18-4 (Tied with Willamette in NWC)
4 Wartburg 16-3 18-4 (Leads IIAC)
5 Wisconsin-La Crosse 16-5 18-5 (WIAC)
6 St. Thomas (Minn.) 17-5 19-5 (Leads MIAC)
7 Wisconsin-Whitewater 13-5 17-5 (Leads WIAC)
8 Carleton 15-4 18-5 (MIAC)


Records through Feb. 5. Next poll: Feb. 15
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2006, 06:22:57 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2006, 06:03:45 PM
I have 192.56 miles for Lakeland-to-La Crosse unofficially and will check officially at home.

It helps Lakeland but hurts La Crosse.  The NCAA has La Crosse at 16-5 and d3hoops has them at 17-5.  Whatever!  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2006, 06:23:43 PM
+1 Old School on the "Pool C" Ranked teams!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2006, 06:35:44 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 15, 2006, 06:20:30 PM
Updated Feb. 15, 2006  

Teams NOT in bold lead their respective conferences (Pool A bids).  Teams in BOLD are Pool C contenders.  Teams in italics are Pool B contenders...be prepared for mistakes.  ::)

Atlantic
1 Bernard Baruch 19-2 21-4 (Leads CUNYAC)
2 Farmingdale 15-4 18-4 (Leads SKY)
3 The College of New Jersey 15-5 17-6 (Tied with William Patterson for NJAC)
4 William Paterson 15-6 16-7 (Tied with College of New Jersey with NJAC) Will arbitrarily award Pool A to TCNJ
5 Mount St. Mary (New York) 16-5 19-5 (SKY)

East
1 Cortland State 19-1 20-2 (Leads SUNYAC)
2 St. John Fisher 17-1 19-3 (Leads Empire 8 )
3 New York University 17-4 18-4 (UAA)
4 Hamilton 15-3 19-3 (Leads Liberty)
5 Rochester 13-5 16-6 (UAA)

Great Lakes
1 Wooster 18-1 22-1 (Leads NCAC)
2 Baldwin-Wallace 19-2 21-2 (Leads OAC)
3 Wittenberg 16-2 21-2 (NCAC)
4 Carnegie Mellon 14-3 18-4 (Leads UAA)
5 Calvin 9-1 18-5 (Leads MIAA)
5 Hope 14-2 21-2 (MIAA)

Mid-Atlantic
1 York (Pennsylvania) 18-2 20-2 (Leads CAC)
2 Widener 18-3 19-3 (Leads MACC)
3 Lincoln (Pennsylvania) 12-4 20-4 (IND) Pool B
4 Alvernia 18-3 20-4 (Leads PnAC)
5 Ursinus 17-4 18-5 (Leads Centennial)
6 Johns Hopkins 16-4 17-5 (Centennial)
7 Catholic 14-5 16-6 (CAC)
8 Messiah 14-6 15-8 (MACC)

Midwest
1 Lawrence 18-0 20-0 (Leads MWC)
2 Augustana (Illinois) 18-2 20-3 (Leads CCIW)
3 Carroll (Wisconsin) 17-2 19-2 (MWC)
4 Transylvania 19-4 19-4 (Leads HCAC)
5 Illinois Wesleyan 13-4 18-4 (CCIW)
6 Lakeland 16-3 20-5 (Leads LMC)
7 Washington U. in St. Louis 12-5 15-7 (UAA)
8 Elmhurst 15-6 16-7 (CCIW)

Northeast
1 Amherst 22-1 23-2 (Leads NESCAC)
2 Worcester Polytechnic 18-3 19-3 (Leads NEWMAC)
3 Tufts 18-4 19-5 (NESCAC)
4 Gordon 18-2 19-3 (Leads CCC-N)
5 Trinity (Connecticut) 14-4 17-5 (NESCAC)
6 Bates 14-5 18-5 (NESCAC)
7 Williams 16-7 17-7 (NESCAC)
8 Keene State 13-6 16-6 (Leads Little East)
9 Rhode Island College 15-7 15-7 (Little East)
10 Westfield St 14-7 16-7 (Tied with Salem St. in MASCAC)

South
1 Mississippi College 19-1 21-1 (Leads ASC-E)
2 Trinity (Texas) 14-2 18-5 (Leads SCAC)
3 Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 21-3 (Leads ODAC)
4 Randolph-Macon 16-5 19-5 (ODAC)
5 Howard Payne 15-5 16-5 (Tied with McMurry in ASC-W) and lost on Monday night  Assume MissColl
6 Christopher Newport 9-2 18-5 (Leads USAC)
7 Fisk 9-4 14-10 Pool B
7 Maryville (Tennessee.) 14-6 18-6 Pool B (leads GSAC)

Playoff for Pool A for ASC-E and ASC-W, right?  Old School is correct.  8-team tourney!

West
1 Occidental 11-1 18-2 (Tied with Claremont-Mudd-Scripps in SCIAC)
2 Wisconsin-Stout 15-4 18-5 (WIAC)
3 Puget Sound 13-2 18-4 (Tied with Willamette in NWC)
4 Wartburg 16-3 18-4 (Leads IIAC)
5 Wisconsin-La Crosse 16-5 18-5 (WIAC)
6 St. Thomas (Minn.) 17-5 19-5 (Leads MIAC)
7 Wisconsin-Whitewater 13-5 17-5 (Leads WIAC)
8 Carleton 15-4 18-5 (MIAC)


Records through Feb. 12. Next poll: Feb. 22

I count 23 Pool C good Candidates! The last team in respective regions are definitely "bubble" teams!

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Coach C on February 15, 2006, 07:55:39 PM
knightstalker -

point well taken.  given the expanded braket, I will grant that they have earned the bid.  the criteria are still f^%&ed up.

C
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2006, 08:19:45 PM
Five NESCAC teams.  Awesome.  >:(

Of course, the WIAC could get three in.  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2006, 08:55:33 PM
Comparing QOWI in (...)

Atlantic
1 (27) Bernard Baruch 19-2 21-4
2 (37) Farmingdale 15-4 18-4
3 (28) The College of New Jersey 15-5 17-6
4 (24) William Paterson 15-6 16-7
5 (82) Mount St. Mary (New York) 16-5 19-5

East
1 (8 ) Cortland State 19-1 20-2
2 (10) St. John Fisher 17-1 19-3
3 (20) New York University 17-4 18-4
4 ((68) Hamilton 15-3 19-3
5 (31) Rochester 13-5 16-6

Great Lakes
1 (11) Wooster 18-1 22-1
2 (19) Baldwin-Wallace 19-2 21-2
3 (14) Wittenberg 16-2 21-2
4 (6) Carnegie Mellon 14-3 18-4
5 (26) Calvin 9-1 18-5
5 (21) Hope 14-2 21-2

Mid-Atlantic
1 (7) York (Pennsylvania) 18-2 20-2
2 (33) Widener 18-3 19-3
3 (15) Lincoln (Pennsylvania) 12-4 20-4
4 (48) Alvernia 18-3 20-4
5 (39) Ursinus 17-4 18-5
6 (47) Johns Hopkins 16-4 17-5
7 (59) Catholic 14-5 16-6
8 (76) Messiah 14-6 15-8

Midwest
1 (2) Lawrence 18-0 20-0
2 (12) Augustana (Illinois) 18-2 20-3
3 (22) Carroll (Wisconsin) 17-2 19-2
4 (18) Transylvania 19-4 19-4
5 (17) Illinois Wesleyan 13-4 18-4
6 (43) Lakeland 16-3 20-5
7 (38) Washington U. in St. Louis 12-5 15-7
8 (64) Elmhurst 15-6 16-7

Northeast
1 (1) Amherst 22-1 23-2
2 (4) Worcester Polytechnic 18-3 19-3
3 (13) Tufts 18-4 19-5
4 (23) Gordon 18-2 19-3
5 (30) Trinity (Connecticut) 14-4 17-5
6 (32) Bates 14-5 18-5
7 (54) Williams 16-7 17-7
8 (49) Keene State 13-6 16-6
9 (55) Rhode Island College 15-7 15-7
10 (45) Westfield St 14-7 16-7

South
1 (5) Mississippi College 19-1 21-1
2 (3) Trinity (Texas) 14-2 18-5
3 (16) Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 21-3
4 (29) Randolph-Macon 16-5 19-5
5 (36) Howard Payne 15-5 16-5
6 (50) Christopher Newport 9-2 18-5
7 (44) Fisk 9-4 14-10
7 (52) Maryville (Tennessee.) 14-6 18-6

West
1 (9) Occidental 11-1 18-2
2 (46) Wisconsin-Stout 15-4 18-5
3 (42) Puget Sound 13-2 18-4
4 (40) Wartburg 16-3 18-4
5 (25) Wisconsin-La Crosse 16-5 18-5
6 (34) St. Thomas (Minn.) 17-5 19-5
7 (51) Wisconsin-Whitewater 13-5 17-5
8 (35) Carleton 15-4 18-5
Records through Feb. 5. Next poll: Feb. 15

Team ranked with the worst QOWI is #82 Mount St. Mary




Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 16, 2006, 09:03:13 AM
Putting my power rating amalgamation in parens. Of course, that's all changed now thanks to the carnage last night:


Atlantic
1 (73) Bernard Baruch 19-2 21-4
2 (69) Farmingdale 15-4 18-4
3 (39) The College of New Jersey 15-5 17-6
4 (63) William Paterson 15-6 16-7
5 (123) Mount St. Mary (New York) 16-5 19-5

East
1 (25) Cortland State 19-1 20-2
2 (15) St. John Fisher 17-1 19-3
3 (22) New York University 17-4 18-4
4 (43) Hamilton 15-3 19-3
5 (35) Rochester 13-5 16-6

Great Lakes
1 (1) Wooster 18-1 22-1
2 (2) Baldwin-Wallace 19-2 21-2
3 (3) Wittenberg 16-2 21-2
4 (11) Carnegie Mellon 14-3 18-4
5 (16) Calvin 9-1 18-5
5 (5) Hope 14-2 21-2

Mid-Atlantic
1 (12) York (Pennsylvania) 18-2 20-2
2 (28) Widener 18-3 19-3
3 (10) Lincoln (Pennsylvania) 12-4 20-4
4 (57) Alvernia 18-3 20-4
5 (47) Ursinus 17-4 18-5
6 (67) Johns Hopkins 16-4 17-5
7 (71) Catholic 14-5 16-6
8 (75) Messiah 14-6 15-8

Midwest
1 (4) Lawrence 18-0 20-0
2 (7) Augustana (Illinois) 18-2 20-3
3 (9) Carroll (Wisconsin) 17-2 19-2
4 (14) Transylvania 19-4 19-4
5 (8 ) Illinois Wesleyan 13-4 18-4
6 (52) Lakeland 16-3 20-5
7 (54) Washington U. in St. Louis 12-5 15-7
8 (40) Elmhurst 15-6 16-7

Northeast
1 (6) Amherst 22-1 23-2
2 (32) Worcester Polytechnic 18-3 19-3
3 (13) Tufts 18-4 19-5
4 (45) Gordon 18-2 19-3
5 (34) Trinity (Connecticut) 14-4 17-5
6 (29) Bates 14-5 18-5
7 (58) Williams 16-7 17-7
8 (65) Keene State 13-6 16-6
9 (72) Rhode Island College 15-7 15-7
10 (97) Westfield St 14-7 16-7

South
1 (30) Mississippi College 19-1 21-1
2 (27) Trinity (Texas) 14-2 18-5
3 (18) Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 21-3
4 (37) Randolph-Macon 16-5 19-5
5 (60) Howard Payne 15-5 16-5
6 (76) Christopher Newport 9-2 18-5
7 (112) Fisk 9-4 14-10
7 (48) Maryville (Tennessee.) 14-6 18-6

West
1 (33) Occidental 11-1 18-2
2 (17) Wisconsin-Stout 15-4 18-5
3 (21) Puget Sound 13-2 18-4
4 (31) Wartburg 16-3 18-4
5 (20) Wisconsin-La Crosse 16-5 18-5
6 (38) St. Thomas (Minn.) 17-5 19-5
7 (24) Wisconsin-Whitewater 13-5 17-5
8 (44) Carleton 15-4 18-5
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2006, 09:42:54 AM

After last night's top 5 fire sale, I'm not so confident that even ten Pool C bids will be available for "runners up."  I think that there may be more upsets in the conference tournaments than we expected.  Put on your hardhats everyone; here come the wrenches.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bouttime on February 16, 2006, 10:44:09 AM
Look out for wrenches indeed. It looks like a ton of teams (both good and bad) are peaking at the end of the season which should make for some great basketball over the next couple of weeks leading up to the NCAA tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dewcrew88 on February 16, 2006, 03:06:00 PM
What is the chance that Utica College men could possibly get an at-large bid
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2006, 03:06:44 PM

No, no chance at all.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 16, 2006, 04:34:44 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2006, 06:35:44 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 15, 2006, 06:20:30 PM
Updated Feb. 15, 2006  


Great Lakes
1 Wooster 18-1 22-1 (Leads NCAC)
2 Baldwin-Wallace 19-2 21-2 (Leads OAC)
3 Wittenberg 16-2 21-2 (NCAC)
4 Carnegie Mellon 14-3 18-4 (Leads UAA)
5 Calvin 9-1 18-5 (Leads MIAA)
5 Hope 14-2 21-2 (MIAA)


I count 23 Pool C good Candidates! The last team in respective regions are definitely "bubble" teams!


If Hope is a bubble team, then the criteria is even more F'd up than Coach C thinks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2006, 04:42:21 PM
Quote from: sac on February 16, 2006, 04:34:44 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2006, 06:35:44 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 15, 2006, 06:20:30 PM
Updated Feb. 15, 2006  


Great Lakes
1 Wooster 18-1 22-1 (Leads NCAC)
2 Baldwin-Wallace 19-2 21-2 (Leads OAC)
3 Wittenberg 16-2 21-2 (NCAC)
4 Carnegie Mellon 14-3 18-4 (Leads UAA)
5 Calvin 9-1 18-5 (Leads MIAA)
5 Hope 14-2 21-2 (MIAA)


I count 23 Pool C good Candidates! The last team in respective regions are definitely "bubble" teams!


If Hope is a bubble team, then the criteria is even more F'd up than Coach C thinks.

Good point!  Hope is probably the "exception to the rule", especially considering that all of their primary criteria are so good!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2006, 06:11:30 PM
Assumed Great Lakes "#7" Albion didn't do themselves any favors last night.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2006, 06:33:48 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 16, 2006, 06:11:30 PM
Assumed Great Lakes "#7" Albion didn't do themselves any favors last night.

And one more loss in the MIAA Post-season tourney won't help either! :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 16, 2006, 07:00:42 PM
And if Albion doesn't get an at large it IS messed up. But that's life...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 16, 2006, 07:43:47 PM
The way I understand the selection proccess, the top available teams from each region are pitted against each other.  Wittenberg is a clear lock, and that slides Hope up to the top of the list for the Great Lake teams.  I think they are a lock as well (I'm sure, for one, that their "resume" is better than any of the teams out West).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 16, 2006, 09:05:36 PM
I think you can pencil in Wooster/Wittenberg, Calvin/Hope and Carnegie Mellon as in the tournament.  The loser of the conference tournaments in the NCAC and MIAA are in if its Woo/Witt and/or Hpe/Cal.  Even an upset winner from those conferences would probably still pull all of these teams into the tournament.  They all have strong resumes.

I posted my thoughts on Albion in the MIAA room........I think they have a shot, they MUST win Saturday, and make the MIAA semi's minimum, a finals appearance gets them in..  A win Sat. gives them a maximum of 6 losses and just 4 in-region losses for the season.  There will be 5  in-region loss teams discussed.  I'm not sure how Albion QOWI looks overall but last I checked it was in the 18 Pool C contenders range without upsets.

Depending on National upsets I believe the Britions will be put on the table for discussion.  But they'll be one of the last to talk about.

The OAC tournament might be the key, a loss by BW and Albion would be the #4 Pool C candidate from the GL.  BW's resume looks more than good enought to get a C.  The national average for a region should be just over 2.

Of course the easiest thing for Albion to do is win the MIAA tournament which they are still capable of doing.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 16, 2006, 09:38:55 PM
I forgot to add the unranked Great Lakes C candidates are Albion 18-5 and Ohio Northern 18-5.

After last night (or possibly even before)  the Polar Bears are probably the top unranked C team from the GL..

ONU's 5 L's are to quality teams  BW, Witt, Wilmington twice, Muskingum

Albion's 5 L's are to UM-Dearborn, Calvin twice, Hope and Tri-State.  The UMD and TSU losses hurt if they start looking at non D3 games.  But they still only have 3 in-region L's to ONU's 5.

ONU signature wins BW and Muskingum

Albion signature wins BW, Elmhurst, Hope

Interesting to note ONU beat UM-Dearborn in Albion, MI  the day after Albion lost to the same team.


These collective revelation means Albion is in bigger trouble than I thought. :-\

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 16, 2006, 10:44:28 PM
I think Albion has more company than just ONU.  Wilmington, Lake Erie, and Bethany have similar resumes.  Bethany is probably weakest due to QoWI*, but they're probaby getting in via Pool B anyway, so they'd be off the table for Pool C.  Of Wilma, ONU, Albion, and LEC, at this point I'd say Lake Erie has the strongest case.  Their regional record (15-3, .833) is considerably better than Albion (10-3, .769), Wilma (17-6, .739), or ONU (14-5, .737), and they've got a potential 15-point QoWI win at Behrend this week.  If Greensburg or Behrend is able to take them out in the AMCC finals, they'd be a pretty good looking C candidate, no worse than Albion and the OAC runner-up.

QoWI-wise, Albion is leading this group at 9.462, but LEC is a respectible 9.278.  ONU is at 8.947, while Wilma brings up the rear at 8.875.

My take on the GL overall is that Wooster, Wittenberg, B-W, Hope, Calvin, and CMU are all in like Flynn, regardless of how many Pool C bids that takes (probably not more than 3).  After that I'd rank the Pool C candidates as
1. Lake Erie (15-3, .833, 9.278)
2. Albion (10-3, .769, 9.462)
3. ONU (14-5, .737, 8.947)
4. Wilmington (17-6, .739, 8.875)

*EDIT:  Actually, without bothering to calculate it, it looks like Bethany's QoWI would be in the low 9's, comparable to Lake Erie's.  Bethany is at 17-4, .810 in the region, so if by some miracle they get overlooked in Pool B, they'd be right in there with LEC and Albion in the Pool C discussion.  MORE trouble for Albion!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2006, 11:41:19 PM
With all this GL talk regarding teams not even ranked in the region, do you really think these teams will have a chance and move far enough up the ladder that they would be a factor ahead of all the other teams already ranked in all the the regions?  I mean, we're looking at FIVE NESCAC teams in the 10-team ranked Northeast Regional just for starters.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2006, 11:44:50 PM
I can imagine that we are going to see plenty of schools which have in-region winning percentages in the .750 range and 18 or 19 wins.

There will much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but we will have a great time showing how one less loss would have really eliminated any doubt.

The effect of 1 loss on the QOWI is 0.50 on 16 games; 0.40 on 20 games; 0.32 on 25 games.

Albion needs to find more in-region games.  One benefit is that it dilutes the damage by a loss.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 16, 2006, 11:54:18 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 16, 2006, 11:41:19 PM
With all this GL talk regarding teams not even ranked in the region, do you really think these teams will have a chance and move far enough up the ladder that they would be a factor ahead of all the other teams already ranked in all the the regions?  I mean, we're looking at FIVE NESCAC teams in the 10-team ranked Northeast Regional just for starters.

Remember that the GL has just 6 ranked teams, and at present they are Wooster, B-W, Witt, CMU, Hope, and Calvin.  From that august group there will most likely be 3 or 4 Pool A bids (one can never be sure of the OAC tourney.)  Say for the sake of argument that somebody beats B-W in the OAC tourney, but that the NCAC and MIAA bids go to the home teams, Wooster and Calvin.  The first team from the GL to sit at the Pool C table will probably be B-W, and they'll get picked mighty quickly.  Then Hope, then Witt, and by then I'd wager that not more than 10 Pool C's would have been allocated.  At that point all 6 ranked GL teams are gone, so someone has to take that empty seat at the table.  We're just trying to figure out who that is: I think it's Lake Erie (if they fail to win the AMCC), and Sac thinks it's ONU (if they fail to win the OAC), and we both think that Albion is next in line. 

Do I think Albion has a chance as a potential 5th Pool C from the GL region?  Yes, a chance.  I think they'd be right on the bubble.  If Lake Erie is ousted in the AMCC tourney, and is ahead of Albion in the Pool C cafeteria line, I think the cafeteria lady may be out of Salisbury Steak by the time Albion gets there (how's that for a metaphor? :D), but I don't think it's far-fetched to think that the best unranked GL team that is not snatched up by Pools A or B is a legitimate end-of-the-conga-line Pool C candidate.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2006, 11:56:56 PM
We highlighted the Top 18 by QOWI and by winning percentage.  (Sac's reply #213 on this board.)

Everyone of those teams desiganted had assumed no upsets in the conference tourneys.  If we are looking at 14 conferences that had post-season tourneys and Pool C candidates that Old School highlighted in his reply #213, we are likely to see at least 5 upsets that knock those designated Pool A's into Pool C.

The SCIAC is a mess, does not have a tourney and is a geographic mess.  Does a Texas team get flown to Southern California if Oxy and CMS get in and a bye is used?  Mississippi College is the favorite in the ASC and could be "bussed" or "bussed to" from the east!  We might even see a playoff game in Texas.

Then UAA has no post-season tourney to inflict another loss.  What about them in Pool C?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Matt Letourneau on February 16, 2006, 11:59:49 PM
Messiah and Hopkins losing is good news for Catholic, who won at Salisbury...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 17, 2006, 12:02:21 AM
4 Pool C's from the Great Lakes I think would be the maximum, 3 is more realistic.

In my head I can see 5 qualified teams but thats just not the way the NCAA selection works out.


Just think we haven't even brought in the Midwest or West Regions into this discussion  ::)


It absolutely boggles my mind the NESCAC is allowed to get away with their rinky dink scheduling.  You could cross off 2 or 3 of their 5 C candidates right away if they played a legit conference schedule.

Albion would have 3 fewer losses if we don't count the second Calvin Hope and Tri-State games.

They'd be a shoe-in then.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 17, 2006, 12:24:42 AM
But them's the berries.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on February 17, 2006, 12:29:47 AM
Sac,

I understand your pain about the NESCAC, but maybe the other conferences should model after the NESCAC because the one round robin schedule seems to help a lot when it comes to Pool C's.

Obviously having played in the NESCAC I'm biased towards those guys.  But one bad night on the road in Maine can end a Pool C bid pretty quickly.  Trinity last year lost its last 2 conference games on the road against teams they most likely would've beaten at home.  Trinity ended up not getting a Pool C bid mostly in part to those losses.  Had they split with Tufts and Bates last year, they would've been in the regional rankings at the end.

So it does have its downfalls as well, but they may not be equal to the upside of the schedule. 

Again, I feel your pain.  And no matter what happens, some teams are going to get snubbed and be upset about it. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 17, 2006, 12:51:28 AM
Based on the postings that OS made, I've compiled it in a slightly different way, plus my assessments (in most cases I have NOT updated in light of last night's carnage):

IF 'PRESUMED' AQs FALTER:

IN as Cs, but might not matter in the C pool):

  Wooster (IF Wittenberg is the winner)
  Carnegie Mellon (if NYU?)
  Calvin (if Hope [or if Albion?])
  Lawrence (if Carroll)
  Augustana (if IWU)
  Amherst (if Tufts? or Trinity?)
  Virginia Wesleyan (if R-MC?)
  UW-Whitewater (if UW-Stout?)

EXPLANATION: IF's are teams I think will be Cs anyway, if they don't become AQs,  ? indicateIs teams I am not dead-certain about]

IN as Cs (with questions noted) where it WOULD reduce the C-pool:

  Baruch
  Farmingdale?
  Cortland
  St John Fisher
  Hamilton?
  Baldwin-Wallace (though I'm with Greg - Bald Wally is MUCH cooler!)
  York
  Widener?
  Ursinus?
  Transylvania
  Lakeland?
  WPI
  Gordon
  Miss College
  Trinity (TX)
  Howard Payne?
  Occidental
  Puget Sound?
  Wartburg?
  St. Thomas?

Question marks are due to a marginal in-regional record/questionable schedule and/or a borderline QOWI (and in most cases, I would think they are VERY questionable).  All other presumed AQs I believe to be out of the running for C slots.

Corrections and/or rebuttals are welcomed.  It is still borderline too early to even attempt this prognostication, but I had some time to kill!

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2006, 12:54:41 AM
Quote from: formerbant10 on February 17, 2006, 12:29:47 AM
Sac,

I understand your pain about the NESCAC, but maybe the other conferences should model after the NESCAC because

1)   the one round robin schedule seems to help a lot when it comes to Pool C's ...

2) and being in a region of 69 teams, many of them very, very  bad by the computerized ranking systems, from which to cherry-pick a customized schedule that boosts the QOWI. :-\

3)   and having 5 other very weak conferences in which really medicore teams can beat up on really bad teams and get an in-region percentage above .500 or .667.  Then a NESCAC team blows away a really mediocre team and gets the same QOWI credit for Hope/Calvin or Augie/IWU or Witt/Woo. ::)

4)  and having really lousy in-region non-conference teams that allow the really lousy NESCAC teams, like Connecticut College and Middlebury, to boost their own non-conference in-region records so they look like the WIAC-Northeast. ???

Don't take this rant personally formerbant10, but the system is rigged in favor of situations that favor the NESCAC.  Most of us would concede one Pool C bid, but 3 or 4 Pool C bids will enrage a lot of people in D3. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 17, 2006, 01:04:46 AM
All we ask is to act like a real conference!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 17, 2006, 01:04:58 AM
Quote from: formerbant10 on February 17, 2006, 12:29:47 AM
I understand your pain about the NESCAC, but maybe the other conferences should model after the NESCAC because the one round robin schedule seems to help a lot when it comes to Pool C's.

Yeah no kidding, it inflates teams records because they only play a good team once.



......and what would be the point of playing in a conference ?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 17, 2006, 01:06:39 AM
Ralph,

AMEN!!!

They are gaming the system in a perfectly legal way, and since most regional committees seem to apply the criteria pretty much by rote, it works.

We COULD follow their example and 'play the system', or we could advocate for REAL conferences (i.e., one's who actually play games against each other - what a concept!) - my vote is for the latter.  I think it was you who had an excellent suggestion for a d3 rule change: play a double-round robin or at least 12 games, whichever is less (I seem to recall it was worded better before, but I've forgotten which thread it was on)!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2006, 01:18:08 AM
Mr Ypsi, here it is, from the CCIW board

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2006, 12:56:57 PM
While we proposing legislation to submit to the competition committee, an official conference may have only 6 members, and we might need to make the legislation sport specific.

I would recommend

"double round-robin or a minimum of 12 scheduled conference games".

That would give some latitude.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 17, 2006, 01:27:24 AM
Ralph,

No wonder I couldn't find it - on CCIW Chat two-and-a-half days ago is, what, 20 pages?! ;) ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2006, 02:07:49 AM
Ypsi,

I would guess that La Crosse would also be put into your equation for a Pool C bid.  They play Stout this weekend and may win that one.  They've also beaten the MIAC's best (St. Thomas) and the LMC's best (Lakeland).  If they win on Saturday, they woud've also swept #2 west region team Stout.  Despite Stout losing against Point last weekend, they actually moved up!  Ironically, conference leading Whitewater has the least chance to get a Pool C bid.  I'm hoping for a La Crosse win this weekend and a Whitewater tourney conference championship in hopes of getting 3 WIAC teams in!  ;D  I can dream!  La Crosse and Stout should avoid each other in the first round, so one could go 1-1 in the tourney and the other could go 2-1, losing to Whitewater in the conference tourney final.  With Point out of the running for both the WIAC regular season title and a Pool C bid, I've turned into a WIAC fan...I also don't think Point can run the table in the WIAC tourney (probably facing Platteville, Stout and then Whitewater, ouch). 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 17, 2006, 02:14:10 AM
OS,

I was making no attempt to list pool C candidates - just a preliminary look at 'putative' AQs who need to be watched to see how large the C pool actually is for 'putative' runners-up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 17, 2006, 03:54:46 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 17, 2006, 01:04:46 AM
All we ask is to act like a real conference!

I don't consider the NESCAC to be a conference. I consider it to be an organized conspiracy of too-clever-by-half independents. As Ralph pointed out in detail this evening, playing only a single round-robin while residing in an overcrowded region means that the NESCAC's teams get to kick the golfball onto the fairway. Unfortunately, the NCAA doesn't agree with me.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 17, 2006, 01:06:39 AMI think it was you who had an excellent suggestion for a d3 rule change: play a double-round robin or at least 12 games, whichever is less (I seem to recall it was worded better before, but I've forgotten which thread it was on)!

That was actually me, on CCIW Chat [pats self on back]. I based the 12-game minimum upon the fact that a conference needs at least seven member schools to have an automatic qualifier, and 12 games is the number that a seven-school circuit plays in a double round-robin. Ralph proposed the idea of adding the words "double round-robin" to the legislation, which I think is a good idea.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2006, 06:42:45 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 17, 2006, 02:14:10 AM
OS,

I was making no attempt to list pool C candidates - just a preliminary look at 'putative' AQs who need to be watched to see how large the C pool actually is for 'putative' runners-up.

Oh, ok.  Got it.  Opps.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2006, 09:36:51 AM
With respect to Albion, Tri-State is 2nd year provisional.

Games with Tri-State don't count towards Pool C, In-Region, etc., until next year.

Albion gets a break.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 17, 2006, 10:29:35 AM
The NJAC next year is not going completely the NESCAC way but they are going back to two divisions.  Each division will play a double round robin and then the other division teams once.  This gives them a chance for five more non-conference games.  Some teams will schedule tougher teams, some will schedule the bible school league.  The NESCAC could do the same thing, they have enough teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2006, 10:44:53 AM
Quote from: albionbritfan on February 17, 2006, 10:37:27 AM
I agree with the NCAA using a yardstick such as 200 miles, but it would be great if in-region games included all teams in your actual region.  What a concept.  As it stands now, there are two definitions for "region" with the NCAA.

It DOES include all teams in your region. PLUS teams within 200 miles.

Albion is hardly limited by the 200-mile radius. You can play every OAC, NCAC and PrAC team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 17, 2006, 10:47:17 AM
In region does include all the teams within your region.  All GL region teams are a regional game for any team in the GL.  The 200 mile rule allows a school to play teams in other regions.  Since the 200 mile rule has been in effect the NJAC and MAC have taken advantage of it and there have been more inter-conference games between both leagues.  IF you are a GL team I don't want to hear complaints about not being able to put together a strong schedule.  I think you have to try really hard to not play a strong schedule in the GL region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: albionbritfan on February 17, 2006, 10:52:21 AM
Whoops, mea culpa.  I need to re-read the NCAA rulebook just to get a refresh.

The one issue though is length of travel--putting kids on a bus for five hours to and from games in Ohio that are 250-300 miles away or vice versa for the visiting team.

I actually conversed with Coach T on the very topic a couple of years ago; apparently I got my reasons mixed up. Sorry, I'll go back to my hole now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2006, 10:58:53 AM
Issue, read excuse. If you want to get it done you will. Even Vande Streek admitted on Hoopsville earlier this season that Calvin needed to play more regional games. A start would be not inviting Juniata and UM-Dearborn to their tournaments -- I don't believe Albion has to travel to play a home tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: albionbritfan on February 17, 2006, 11:09:01 AM
Pat, no one more than I wishes that UMD wasn't on the schedule this year.  And had Albion beat UMD, which I think we all can agree they should have, they would have played Ohio Northern.  Where Albion is sitting today, I wish that game was on Albion's books.

Albion played Juniata at a tourney they were invited to, which allowed them the opportunity to play Baldwin-Wallace.  That is one of Albion's quality wins this year, and if it means we had to play Juniata to get there, then so be it.

And, I'm not sure it's "If you host it, they will come."
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2006, 11:14:13 AM
Ahh right, my bad. Misread the sked.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: albionbritfan on February 17, 2006, 11:20:04 AM
No sweat, my bad too earlier.  I had to delete the post I was so embarrassed.  Maybe you gave me editing rights too early!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2006, 11:54:47 AM
Quote from: albionbritfan on February 17, 2006, 10:52:21 AM

The one issue though is length of travel--putting kids on a bus for five hours to and from games in Ohio that are 250-300 miles away or vice versa for the visiting team...

:D :D :D :D :D

250-300 miles???  Man, that is an intra-divisional game in the ASC-West!   ;D ;D ;)

But I also concede that we Texans like "wide-open spaces" and "sky".

A good friend of mine has moved to Alpine, TX (Sul Ross State) from his summer ranch in the Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota tri-state area. 

When I visited his winter house on his 160-acre spread, I realized that I could see 8 rooftops from his front porch.

He had moved into a "bleepin' sub-division". :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: albionbritfan on February 17, 2006, 12:06:01 PM
It's all relative.  I think my Michigan house sits on a quarter-acre.  I herd ants.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 17, 2006, 12:19:31 PM
One way of remembering that the 200-mile rule is in addition to the regional rule is to think of Colorado College: if a game had to be BOTH within the region and within 200-miles, Colorado College would effectively be a one-school region.  That might be true of others as well; Sul Ross St., Whitworth, and Nebraska Wesleyan might not have any D3 neighbors within 200 miles either.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2006, 12:36:25 PM

Neb Wes does.  They aren't too far from some of the Iowa schools; they just don't play them for some reason.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on February 17, 2006, 01:12:15 PM
BritonFan, Ralph   -   both comments were priceless!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2006, 01:54:08 PM
Quality of Wins Index through games of Thursday, Feb. 17:

Amherst     12.000     21-1
Lawrence    11.842    19-0
Trinity (Texas)    11.188    14-2
Worcester Polytech    11.182    19-3
Carnegie Mellon    10.938    13-3
York (Pa.)    10.864    20-2
Tufts    10.864    18-4
Augustana    10.857    19-2
Cortland State    10.810    20-1
St. John Fisher    10.789    18-1
               
11-20
Mississippi College    10.727    21-1
Wooster    10.700    19-1
Lincoln    10.563    12-4
Gordon    10.545    20-2
Transylvania    10.522    19-4
Virginia Wesleyan    10.500    21-3
Wittenberg    10.368    16-3
New York University    10.333    17-4
William Paterson    10.318    16-6
Baruch    10.190    19-2
               
21-30
Calvin    10.182    10-1
Carroll    10.150    17-3
Baldwin-Wallace    10.136    19-3
Randolph-Macon    10.136    17-5
Trinity (Conn.)    10.111    14-4
Widener    10.091    19-3
Illinois Wesleyan    10.056    13-5
Rochester    10.056    13-5
Bates    10.050    15-5
Occidental    10.000    11-2
               
31-40
Nebraska Wesleyan    10.000    5-1
Carleton    10.000    16-4
Wartburg    10.000    16-4
Lakeland    10.000    16-3
St. Thomas    9.957    18-5
UW-La Crosse    9.955    17-5
Ursinus    9.955    18-4
Keene State    9.905    15-6
New Jersey    9.900    14-6
UW-Whitewater    9.895    14-5
               
41-50
Washington U.    9.875    11-5
Alvernia    9.864    19-3
UW-Stout    9.842    15-4
Puget Sound    9.800    13-2
Fisk    9.769    9-4
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.762    16-5
Hope    9.750    14-2
Rhode Island College    9.696    15-8
Whitworth    9.667    16-5
Catholic    9.650    15-5
               
51-60
Emmanuel    9.636    17-5
Christopher Newport    9.636    9-2
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.600    14-6
Westfield State    9.591    15-7
Williams    9.591    15-7
North Central    9.556    13-5
Johns Hopkins    9.500    15-5
MIT    9.476    14-7
Albion    9.462    10-3
Plymouth State    9.458    15-9
               
61-70
Richard Stockton    9.455    14-8
Salem State    9.435    17-6
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.429    13-8
Hanover    9.421    13-6
New Jersey City    9.409    15-7
Hamilton    9.389    15-3
Southwestern    9.389    13-5
Coast Guard    9.381    15-6
Howard Payne    9.364    16-6
Willamette    9.353    15-2
               
71-80
Bowdoin    9.350    13-7
Albright    9.350    13-7
Bethany    9.333    17-4
Lake Erie    9.278    15-3
Coe    9.263    13-6
Elms    9.263    15-4
Elmhurst    9.250    13-7
UW-Oshkosh    9.250    12-8
Norwich    9.190    16-5
Scranton    9.182    16-6
               
81-90
Mount St. Mary    9.143    16-5
Franklin    9.143    15-6
UW-Stevens Point    9.143    13-8
Loras    9.143    14-7
McMurry    9.143    16-5
Averett    9.111    13-5
Villa Julie    9.105    15-4
Brockport State    9.105    12-7
Mass-Boston    9.095    13-8
Colby-Sawyer    9.095    13-8
               
91-100
Elizabethtown    9.095    13-8
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.091    16-6
Rutgers-Newark    9.087    15-8
Utica    9.048    16-5
Endicott    9.048    13-8
Centre    9.000    12-6
Manhattanville    9.000    15-8
Milwaukee Engineering    9.000    14-6
Gettysburg    8.955    14-8
Messiah    8.952    14-7
               
101-110
Gustavus Adolphus    8.952    15-6
Ohio Northern    8.947    14-5
Chicago    8.941    10-7
Baptist Bible    8.938    13-3
Ramapo    8.900    12-8
Wilmington    8.875    18-6
Brandeis    8.857    12-9
Ohio Wesleyan    8.810    15-6
St. John's    8.800    14-6
King's    8.773    14-8
               
111-120
Oswego State    8.773    16-6
Springfield    8.773    10-12
Hardin-Simmons    8.727    14-8
Montclair State    8.714    11-10
Mary Washington    8.688    11-5
Clarke    8.684    12-7
Aurora    8.667    11-7
Plattsburgh State    8.650    12-8
Potsdam State    8.650    13-7
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    8.647    12-5
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 17, 2006, 02:03:33 PM
Mr. Ypsi,

I'm not sure if Whitewater belongs on your "In if Pool C" list... The Warhawks have 5 in-region losses (3 conference plus Loras and Carroll) and a loss in the conf tourney would  drop them to 6 losses...  They also are the THIRD WIAC team on the regional rankings... This means that they would be the third conference bid, and I'm just not sure that they have the resume for an at-large, based on the other at-large possibles throughout the country.

Heck, if La Crosse beats Stout on Saturday, then the top 3 WIAC teams will all have 5 in-region losses... making each potential WIAC Pool C candidate have 6 losses... 5 has been borderline, at best, in the past... we'll see where the cut-off is this year.

I think that the winner of La Crosse/Stout are in, if they don't get the AQ (especially if it's Stout).  The loser is in trouble... but I think that they've got about as much chance as Whitewater for a Pool C, based, if nothing else, on QOWI.

These three teams are all in the 36-43 range in the QOWI...  losses will drop this, and if any big upsets happen in the conference tourneys, then the WIAC could get left out in the cold again this year (and it's already cold enough... 3 degrees, with -25 wind chill today, with similar forecasted for the weekend!)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2006, 02:48:25 PM
As of right now here are your top 18 non conference leading teams:

Tufts    10.864    18-4
Wittenberg    10.368    16-3
New York University    10.333    17-4
Carroll    10.150    17-3
Randolph-Macon    10.136    17-5
Trinity (Conn.)    10.111    14-4
Illinois Wesleyan    10.056    13-5
Rochester    10.056    13-5
Bates    10.050    15-5
St. Thomas    9.957    18-5
UW-La Crosse    9.955    17-5
New Jersey    9.900    14-6
Washington U.    9.875    11-5
UW-Stout    9.842    15-4
Hope    9.750    14-2
Rhode Island College    9.696    15-8
Whitworth    9.667    16-5
Catholic    9.650    15-5

Williams is still #19, in case anyone cared.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 17, 2006, 03:20:40 PM
I know people have made a big deal about the NESCAC having so many teams ranked, but looking at the above list (teams with top 18 QOWIs who are not leading their conference).  The UAA also has 3 teams in the top 18 and actually in the top 13.  NYU is 3rd and Rochester is 8 on that list.  What is the chance of the UAA (or the NESCAC for that matter) getting 3 or 4 teams into the tourney (counting league leaders)?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TeeDub on February 17, 2006, 03:36:19 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 17, 2006, 02:48:25 PM
As of right now here are your top 18 non conference leading teams:

Tufts    10.864    18-4
Wittenberg    10.368    16-3
New York University    10.333    17-4
Carroll    10.150    17-3
Randolph-Macon    10.136    17-5
Trinity (Conn.)    10.111    14-4
Illinois Wesleyan    10.056    13-5
Rochester    10.056    13-5
Bates    10.050    15-5
St. Thomas    9.957    18-5
UW-La Crosse    9.955    17-5
New Jersey    9.900    14-6
Washington U.    9.875    11-5
UW-Stout    9.842    15-4
Hope    9.750    14-2
Rhode Island College    9.696    15-8
Whitworth    9.667    16-5
Catholic    9.650    15-5

Williams is still #19, in case anyone cared.

Shouldn't Occidental slip in there somewhere after Bates?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2006, 03:38:15 PM
I think the UAA has a good shot at it, especially coming from different regions (all four of their contenders appear in the regional rankings).  The tough one will be WashU; they are going to have to win out to have a chance.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2006, 03:39:39 PM

I considered Oxidental, but they've been highly touted all year and their next game is the CMS game, which if they win, they will be back on top.  You are right, they should be in there, technically, but I chose to leave them off.  If they lose to CMS, then I'll put them up there.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 17, 2006, 03:42:19 PM
On the other hand, with 8 losses already, Rhode Island College could probably be safely omitted.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TeeDub on February 17, 2006, 03:48:46 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 17, 2006, 03:39:39 PM

If they lose to CMS, then I'll put them up there.


If they lose to CMS, will they still be high enough to be included?  It's hard to imagine that the SCIAC may actually get two teams in the tourney...but I guess that may be one of the results of an expanded field...

I'm just hoping that some tournament games are played out here so I can go see them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2006, 03:55:17 PM

Good point Jordis.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2006, 05:11:42 PM
Quote from: Jordis Rocks on February 17, 2006, 03:48:46 PM
If they lose to CMS, will they still be high enough to be included?  It's hard to imagine that the SCIAC may actually get two teams in the tourney...but I guess that may be one of the results of an expanded field...

They are the #1 ranked team in the West Region.  If they lose to CMS, they won't totally drop out.  Stout lost to Stevens Point at home and they moved up.  Oxy should be a safe Pool C play if they lose to CMS.  If they win, they should win out (with no conference tourney) with one game vs. Caltech and the other I can't remember off hand.  Looking at the West Region rankings, Oxy lost midweek, as did Wartburg.  Stout plays fellow ranked team La Crosse and Puget Sound takes on NWC co-leader Willamette.  Even if Oxy loses this weekend, they could still be in the top two if things play out their way.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2006, 05:31:18 PM

They might drop below Williams on the QOWI list though, which is all we're talking about right now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2006, 05:44:07 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 17, 2006, 03:20:40 PM
I know people have made a big deal about the NESCAC having so many teams ranked,...

We do it tongue-in-cheek with a back handed compliment.  We dislike their poor excuse for a conference schedule...at least I speak for myself.  :P
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TeeDub on February 17, 2006, 06:17:18 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 17, 2006, 05:11:42 PM

They are the #1 ranked team in the West Region.  If they lose to CMS, they won't totally drop out.  Stout lost to Stevens Point at home and they moved up.  Oxy should be a safe Pool C play if they lose to CMS.  If they win, they should win out (with no conference tourney) with one game vs. Caltech and the other I can't remember off hand.  Looking at the West Region rankings, Oxy lost midweek, as did Wartburg.  Stout plays fellow ranked team La Crosse and Puget Sound takes on NWC co-leader Willamette.  Even if Oxy loses this weekend, they could still be in the top two if things play out their way.

A loss at Claremont that follows the recent loss to Redlands and then still having to go to Pomona-Pitzer (a team that gave them a run for their money at Oxy and traditionally the best team in the conference) just two days later could very conceivably result in 3 losses in 5 days...may not bode too well for the ol' regional ranking situation....I know, I know...predicting the future and all that...but Oxy has a pretty tough couple of days ahead of them...it will be a shame if they play their way OUT of a tournament bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 17, 2006, 11:29:10 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 17, 2006, 12:36:25 PM

Neb Wes does.  They aren't too far from some of the Iowa schools; they just don't play them for some reason.

"Aren't too far"? The two closest IIAC schools to NebWes, Buena Vista and Simpson, are each 3 1/2 hours away from Lincoln.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 18, 2006, 12:40:17 AM
Out there, 3 1/2 hours away is the next town over.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 18, 2006, 01:03:31 AM
Yep, they're 'just over the next hill - over yonder'... :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 18, 2006, 01:06:22 AM
Now, now.  There's a little town called "Omaha" between NebWes (Lincoln) and BV (Storm Lake).  East of the 100th parrallel, it's not so rural as you might think.  It's not exactly the Main Line, but it's not Alpine, TX either, where a 3 1/2 hour drive leaves you still in Greater Alpine.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 18, 2006, 03:44:18 AM
Since there is that saying, "it's a country mile," maybe there is a saying, "it's only a country hour" so maybe Greg's 3 1/2 hours is actually only 2 hours...or 6!  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 20, 2006, 09:32:19 AM

OK, fine, I'll let NebWes slide.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2006, 05:02:53 PM
QOWI through games of Sunday, Feb. 19:

1-10
Amherst     11.826     22-1
Lawrence    11.550    20-0
York (Pa.)    11.043    21-2
Worcester Polytech    11.000    19-3
Mississippi College    10.913    22-1
Trinity (Texas)    10.833    16-2
Tufts    10.826    19-4
Lincoln    10.813    12-4
St. John Fisher    10.810    20-1
Augustana    10.773    19-3
               

11-20
Cortland State    10.609    21-2
Virginia Wesleyan    10.538    23-3
Gordon    10.522    21-2
William Paterson    10.435    17-6
Carnegie Mellon    10.389    14-4
Wittenberg    10.350    17-3
Wooster    10.333    19-2
Lakeland    10.200    17-3
Widener    10.174    19-4
Transylvania    10.167    20-4
               
21-30
Calvin    10.167    11-1
Keene State    10.136    16-6
Randolph-Macon    10.125    19-5
Washington U.    10.111    13-5
Carroll    10.095    18-3
Occidental    10.071    11-3
Illinois Wesleyan    10.053    14-5
Bates    10.048    16-5
Baruch    10.045    20-2
Alvernia    10.045    19-3
               
31-40
UW-Stout    10.000    16-4
Baldwin-Wallace    10.000    19-4
Trinity (Conn.)    10.000    15-4
Carleton    9.952    17-4
UW-Whitewater    9.950    15-5
New Jersey    9.905    14-7
North Central    9.895    14-5
Hope    9.875    14-2
UW-La Crosse    9.870    17-6
Ursinus    9.826    18-5
               

   
41-50
St. Thomas    9.783    18-5
Richard Stockton    9.783    15-8
Fisk    9.769    9-4
New Jersey City    9.739    16-7
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.714    6-1
Puget Sound    9.706    15-2
New York University    9.696    17-6
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.667    16-5
Utica    9.652    18-5
Lake Erie    9.650    16-4
               

51-60
MIT    9.636    15-7
Rhode Island College    9.625    16-8
Albright    9.619    14-7
Salem State    9.583    18-6
Catholic    9.571    16-5
Wartburg    9.524    17-4
Messiah    9.500    15-7
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.500    14-6
Plymouth State    9.480    16-9
Westfield State    9.478    16-7
               
61-70
Williams    9.478    15-8
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.455    14-8
Whitworth    9.455    17-5
Rochester    9.450    13-7
Hanover    9.400    13-7
Emmanuel    9.391    18-5
Howard Payne    9.391    17-6
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.391    17-6
Bethany    9.364    18-4
Albion    9.357    11-3
               

71-80
Johns Hopkins    9.286    15-6
UW-Oshkosh    9.286    13-8
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    9.278    13-5
Scranton    9.217    17-6
Willamette    9.211    16-3
Ohio Northern    9.200    15-5
Franklin    9.182    16-6
Elizabethtown    9.182    13-9
UW-Stevens Point    9.182    14-8
Brockport State    9.150    12-8
               

81-90
Hamilton    9.150    16-4
Bowdoin    9.143    13-8
Elmhurst    9.143    14-7
Elms    9.143    17-4
Mount St. Mary    9.136    17-5
McMurry    9.136    16-6
Centre    9.100    13-7
Mass-Boston    9.091    13-9
Endicott    9.091    14-8
Rutgers-Newark    9.083    16-8
               
91-100
Averett    9.053    14-5
Ohio Wesleyan    9.045    16-6
Oswego State    9.043    17-6
Wilmington    9.040    19-6
Coe    9.000    14-6
Colby-Sawyer    8.955    14-8
Chicago    8.947    11-8
Pomona-Pitzer    8.933    11-4
Manhattanville    8.913    15-8
Gettysburg    8.913    15-8
               
101-110
Villa Julie    8.895    15-4
Coast Guard    8.864    15-7
Norwich    8.864    17-5
St. John's    8.857    15-6
Milwaukee Engineering    8.857    14-7
Ramapo    8.857    12-9
La Verne    8.857    8-6
Penn State-Behrend    8.850    15-5
Southwestern    8.850    14-6
King's    8.783    15-8
               

111-120
Gustavus Adolphus    8.773    15-7
Pitt-Greensburg    8.762    14-7
Kean    8.760    13-12
Montclair State    8.727    11-11
Mass-Dartmouth    8.714    11-10
Baptist Bible    8.706    13-4
Brandeis    8.696    13-10
Loras    8.682    14-8
Clarke    8.650    13-7
Christopher Newport    8.615    9-4
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 20, 2006, 05:05:31 PM
Pat, thanks, one question. If you were to predict the East region (and that includes teams from the North East as well)  for next week, how do you think it would go??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 20, 2006, 05:15:30 PM
Before I take off for the day, here are the top 18 non-conference leading schools on the QOWI list:

1-10
Amherst     11.826     22-1
Lawrence    11.550    20-0
York (Pa.)    11.043    21-2
Worcester Polytech    11.000    19-3
Mississippi College    10.913    22-1
Trinity (Texas)    10.833    16-2
Tufts    10.826    19-4
Lincoln    10.813    12-4
St. John Fisher    10.810    20-1
Augustana    10.773    19-3
               

11-20
Cortland State    10.609    21-2
Virginia Wesleyan    10.538    23-3
Gordon    10.522    21-2
William Paterson    10.435    17-6
Carnegie Mellon    10.389    14-4
Wittenberg    10.350    17-3
Wooster    10.333    19-2
Lakeland    10.200    17-3
Widener    10.174    19-4
Transylvania    10.167    20-4
               
21-30
Calvin    10.167    11-1
Keene State    10.136    16-6
Randolph-Macon    10.125    19-5
Washington U.    10.111    13-5
Carroll    10.095    18-3
Occidental    10.071    11-3
Illinois Wesleyan    10.053    14-5
Bates    10.048    16-5
Baruch    10.045    20-2
Alvernia    10.045    19-3
               
31-40
UW-Stout    10.000    16-4
Baldwin-Wallace    10.000    19-4
Trinity (Conn.)    10.000    15-4
Carleton    9.952    17-4
UW-Whitewater    9.950    15-5
New Jersey    9.905    14-7
North Central    9.895    14-5
Hope    9.875    14-2
UW-La Crosse    9.870    17-6
Ursinus    9.826    18-5
               

   
41-50
St. Thomas    9.783    18-5
Richard Stockton    9.783    15-8
Fisk    9.769    9-4
New Jersey City    9.739    16-7
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.714    6-1
Puget Sound    9.706    15-2
New York University    9.696    17-6

FYI: Next highest is MIT
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 20, 2006, 05:17:33 PM

The NESCAC drops to two C bids and the NJAC moves up to three.  Very interesting developments here.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2006, 05:21:43 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 20, 2006, 05:17:33 PM

The NESCAC drops to two C bids and the NJAC moves up to three.  Very interesting developments here.

Only if QOWI turns out to be (de facto) the ONLY criterion - check the number of in-region losses for the NJAC teams!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 20, 2006, 06:02:56 PM
Funny, Albion with only 3 currently and a max of 4 sits on the outside looking in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2006, 07:37:48 PM
This is last week's NCAA Regional Rankings.  So, records have not been updated through this past week's games (records shown are through Sunday, Feb. 12, I believe).  I've added the results of the most recent games.  Pool C candidates in BOLD.  I believe this week's Regional Poll will NOT be released, right?

Atlantic
1 Bernard Baruch 19-2 21-4 (CUNYAC):  Beat Medgar Evers
2 Farmingdale 15-4 18-4 (SKY): LOST at St. Joseph's (L.I.); won at NYC-Tech
3 The College of New Jersey 15-5 17-6 (NJAC):  LOST at Montclair State; LOST at New Jersey City
4 William Paterson 15-6 16-7 (NJAC):  Beat Ramapo; Won at Rutgers-Camden
5 Mount St. Mary (New York) 16-5 19-5 (SKY):  Beat SUNY-Old Westbury; Won at King's Point 

East
1 Cortland State 19-1 20-2 (SUNYAC):  Won at New Paltz State; LOST to Geneseo State; Won at Fredonia State
2 St. John Fisher 17-1 19-3 (Empire 8 ):  Won at Nazareth; Won at Rochester Tech
3 New York University 17-4 18-4 (UAA): LOST to Chicago; LOST to Washington U
4 Hamilton 15-3 19-3 (Liberty):  LOST at St. Lawrence; Won at Clarkson
5 Rochester 13-5 16-6 (UAA):  LOST at Case Western Reserve; LOST at Emory

Great Lakes
1 Wooster 18-1 22-1 (NCAC):  Beat Kenyon; LOST at Ohio Wesleyan
2 Baldwin-Wallace 19-2 21-2 (OAC):  LOST to Ohio Northern; LOST at Capital
3 Wittenberg 16-2 21-2 (NCAC):  LOST at Wabash; Beat Allegheny
4 Carnegie Mellon 14-3 18-4 (UAA):  LOST at Emory; Won at Case Western Reserve
5 Calvin 9-1 18-5 (MIAA):  Beat Albion; Beat Kalamazoo
5 Hope 14-2 21-2 (MIAA):  Beat Alma; Beat Tri-State

Mid-Atlantic
1 York (Pennsylvania) 18-2 20-2 (CAC):  Beat Gallaudet; Won at Mary Washington
2 Widener 18-3 19-3 (MACC):  Won at Moravian; LOST to Messiah
3 Lincoln (Pennsylvania) 12-4 20-4 (IND): Pool B
4 Alvernia 18-3 20-4 (PnAC):  Beat Marywood
5 Ursinus 17-4 18-5 (Centennial):  Beat Haverford; LOST to Muhlenberg
6 Johns Hopkins 16-4 17-5 (Centennial):  LOST to Gettsyburg; LOST at Franklin and Marshall
7 Catholic 14-5 16-6 (CAC): Won at Salisbury; Beat Gallaudet
8 Messiah 14-6 15-8 (MACC):  LOST at Elizabethtown; Won at Widener

Midwest
1 Lawrence 18-0 20-0 (MWC):  Won at Carroll; Beat St. Norbert
2 Augustana (Illinois) 18-2 20-3 (CCIW):  Beat Ill. Wes; LOST at North Central
3 Carroll (Wisconsin) 17-2 19-2 (MWC): LOST to Lawrence; Won at Beloit
4 Transylvania 19-4 19-4 (HCAC):  Beat Franklin; Beat Defiance
5 Illinois Wesleyan 13-4 18-4 (CCIW):  LOST at Augustana; Beat North Park
6 Lakeland 16-3 20-5 (LMC):  Beat Maranatha Baptist
7 Washington U. in St. Louis 12-5 15-7 (UAA):  Won at Brandeis; Won at NYU
8 Elmhurst 15-6 16-7 (CCIW):  LOST to North Central; Won at Wheaton

Northeast
1 Amherst 22-1 23-2 (NESCAC):  Beta Connecticut College
2 Worcester Polytechnic 18-3 19-3 (NEWMAC):  Beat Springfield
3 Tufts 18-4 19-5 (NESCAC): Beat Williams
4 Gordon 18-2 19-3
5 Trinity (Connecticut) 14-4 17-5 (NESCAC):  Beat Colby
6 Bates 14-5 18-5 (NESCAC): Beat Bowdoin
7 Williams 16-7 17-7 (NESCAC): LOST at Tufts
8 Keene State 13-6 16-6 (Little East):  Won at Plymouth State; Won at Southern Maine
9 Rhode Island College 15-7 15-7 (Little East): LOST at Mass-Dartmouth; Beat Mass-Boston
10 Westfield St 14-7 16-7 (MASCAC):  Beat Framingham State; Won at Massachusetts College

South
1 Mississippi College 19-1 21-1 (ASC-E):  Beat Louisiana College; Won at Texas-Dallas; Won at Texas-Tyler
2 Trinity (Texas) 14-2 18-5 (SCAC):  Beat Sewanee; Beat Centre
3 Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 21-3 (ODAC):  Beat Eastern Mennonite; Beat Eastern Mennonite (this is not a typo!); Beat Guilford
4 Randolph-Macon 16-5 19-5 (ODAC):  Beat Bridgewater; Beat Bridgewater (this is not a typo!); Beat Hampden-Sydney
5 Howard Payne 15-5 16-5 (ASC-W):  LOST At Sul Ross State; Beat Texas Lutheran; Beat Schreiner
6 Christopher Newport 9-2 18-5 (USAC):  LOST at Greensboro; LOST at Methodist
7 Fisk 9-4 14-10  (GSAC): Pool B
7 Maryville (Tennessee.) 14-6 18-6 (GSAC): Pool B Beat Tennessee Wesleyan   

West
1 Occidental 11-1 18-2 (SCIAC): LOST to Redlands; LOST at Clare-Mount-Scripps
2 Wisconsin-Stout 15-4 18-5 (WIAC):  Won at La Crosse
3 Puget Sound 13-2 18-4 (NWC): Beat Willamette; Beat Linfield
4 Wartburg 16-3 18-4 (IIAC):  LOST at Buena Vista; beat Cornell
5 Wisconsin-La Crosse 16-5 18-5 (WIAC):  Won at River Falls; LOST to Stout
6 St. Thomas (Minn.) 17-5 19-5 (MIAC):  Beat Concordia-Moorhead
7 Wisconsin-Whitewater 13-5 17-5 (WIAC):  Won at Oshkosh; Won at Eau Claire
8 Carleton 15-4 18-5 (MIAC):  Beat St. Mary's; Won at Bethel


Quote from: sac on February 20, 2006, 06:02:56 PM
Funny, Albion with only 3 currently and a max of 4 sits on the outside looking in.

This site has Albion 10-4 in conference, but 11-3 in-region...something is wrong.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2006, 07:44:38 PM
OS,

My understanding is that THIS week we get a regional ranking, but NEXT will be classified top-secret by Dick Cheney. ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 20, 2006, 07:48:28 PM
OS NJCU defeated TCNJ at TCNJ.
YPSI the majority of NJAC regional losses are conference losses and you can add at least one more loss to the NJAC teams because of the NJAC tournament coming up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2006, 07:53:04 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on February 20, 2006, 07:48:28 PM
OS NJCU defeated TCNJ at TCNJ.
YPSI the majority of NJAC regional losses are conference losses and you can add at least one more loss to the NJAC teams because of the NJAC tournament coming up.

I assumed everyone understood that 1 more loss should be added or else they would be the AQ - but, yeah, never assume!

Where's your PP ballot?!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 20, 2006, 08:27:46 PM
Those Albion records should be correct....remember, Albion played Tri-State twice and those are conference games but not counted as regional games because I think they are a provisional D3 member.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: titanfan on February 20, 2006, 08:42:38 PM
Virginia Wesleyan just beat Randolph-Macon in the ODAC final 81-78 in Overtime.

R-M officially becomes a pool C candidate.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on February 20, 2006, 09:04:16 PM
Hoops Fan,

I think that the NESCAC still has 3 Pool C chances seeing as though their 4 semi-finalists are all regionally ranked in the top 6 and are in decent standing in the QOWI.

If you think there are two, who of Bates, Tufts and Trinity dropped out?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jagluski on February 20, 2006, 09:06:38 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 20, 2006, 07:37:48 PM
This is last week's NCAA Regional Rankings.  So, records have not been updated through this past week's games (records shown are through Sunday, Feb. 12, I believe).  I've added the results of the most recent games.  Pool C candidates in BOLD.  I believe this week's Regional Poll will NOT be released, right?

Atlantic
1 Bernard Baruch 19-2 21-4 (CUNYAC):  Beat Medgar Evers
2 Farmingdale 15-4 18-4 (SKY): LOST at St. Joseph's (L.I.); won at NYC-Tech
3 The College of New Jersey 15-5 17-6 (NJAC):  LOST at Montclair State; LOST at New Jersey City
4 William Paterson 15-6 16-7 (NJAC):  Beat Ramapo; Won at Rutgers-Camden
5 Mount St. Mary (New York) 16-5 19-5 (SKY):  Beat SUNY-Old Westbury; Won at King's Point 

East
1 Cortland State 19-1 20-2 (SUNYAC):  Won at New Paltz State; LOST to Geneseo State; Won at Fredonia State
2 St. John Fisher 17-1 19-3 (Empire 8 ):  Won at Nazareth; Won at Rochester Tech
3 New York University 17-4 18-4 (UAA): LOST to Chicago; LOST to Washington U
4 Hamilton 15-3 19-3 (Liberty):  LOST at St. Lawrence; Won at Clarkson
5 Rochester 13-5 16-6 (UAA):  LOST at Case Western Reserve; LOST at Emory

Great Lakes
1 Wooster 18-1 22-1 (NCAC):  Beat Kenyon; LOST at Ohio Wesleyan
2 Baldwin-Wallace 19-2 21-2 (OAC):  LOST to Ohio Northern; LOST at Capital
3 Wittenberg 16-2 21-2 (NCAC):  LOST at Wabash; Beat Allegheny
4 Carnegie Mellon 14-3 18-4 (UAA):  LOST at Emory; Won at Case Western Reserve
5 Calvin 9-1 18-5 (MIAA):  Beat Albion; Beat Kalamazoo
5 Hope 14-2 21-2 (MIAA):  Beat Alma; Beat Tri-State

Mid-Atlantic
1 York (Pennsylvania) 18-2 20-2 (CAC):  Beat Gallaudet; Won at Mary Washington
2 Widener 18-3 19-3 (MACC):  Won at Moravian; LOST to Messiah
3 Lincoln (Pennsylvania) 12-4 20-4 (IND): Pool B
4 Alvernia 18-3 20-4 (PnAC):  Beat Marywood
5 Ursinus 17-4 18-5 (Centennial):  Beat Haverford; LOST to Muhlenberg
6 Johns Hopkins 16-4 17-5 (Centennial):  LOST to Gettsyburg; LOST at Franklin and Marshall
7 Catholic 14-5 16-6 (CAC): Won at Salisbury; Beat Gallaudet
8 Messiah 14-6 15-8 (MACC):  LOST at Elizabethtown; Won at Widener

Midwest
1 Lawrence 18-0 20-0 (MWC):  Won at Carroll; Beat St. Norbert
2 Augustana (Illinois) 18-2 20-3 (CCIW):  Beat Ill. Wes; LOST at North Central
3 Carroll (Wisconsin) 17-2 19-2 (MWC): LOST to Lawrence; Won at Beloit
4 Transylvania 19-4 19-4 (HCAC):  Beat Franklin; Beat Defiance
5 Illinois Wesleyan 13-4 18-4 (CCIW):  LOST at Augustana; Beat North Park
6 Lakeland 16-3 20-5 (LMC):  Beat Maranatha Baptist
7 Washington U. in St. Louis 12-5 15-7 (UAA):  Won at Brandeis; Won at NYU
8 Elmhurst 15-6 16-7 (CCIW):  LOST to North Central; Won at Wheaton

Northeast
1 Amherst 22-1 23-2 (NESCAC):  Beta Connecticut College
2 Worcester Polytechnic 18-3 19-3 (NEWMAC):  Beat Springfield
3 Tufts 18-4 19-5 (NESCAC): Beat Williams
4 Gordon 18-2 19-3
5 Trinity (Connecticut) 14-4 17-5 (NESCAC):  Beat Colby
6 Bates 14-5 18-5 (NESCAC): Beat Bowdoin
7 Williams 16-7 17-7 (NESCAC): LOST at Tufts
8 Keene State 13-6 16-6 (Little East):  Won at Plymouth State; Won at Southern Maine
9 Rhode Island College 15-7 15-7 (Little East): LOST at Mass-Dartmouth; Beat Mass-Boston
10 Westfield St 14-7 16-7 (MASCAC):  Beat Framingham State; Won at Massachusetts College

South
1 Mississippi College 19-1 21-1 (ASC-E):  Beat Louisiana College; Won at Texas-Dallas; Won at Texas-Tyler
2 Trinity (Texas) 14-2 18-5 (SCAC):  Beat Sewanee; Beat Centre
3 Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 21-3 (ODAC):  Beat Eastern Mennonite; Beat Eastern Mennonite (this is not a typo!); Beat Guilford
4 Randolph-Macon 16-5 19-5 (ODAC):  Beat Bridgewater; Beat Bridgewater (this is not a typo!); Beat Hampden-Sydney
5 Howard Payne 15-5 16-5 (ASC-W):  LOST At Sul Ross State; Beat Texas Lutheran; Beat Schreiner
6 Christopher Newport 9-2 18-5 (USAC):  LOST at Greensboro; LOST at Methodist
7 Fisk 9-4 14-10  (GSAC): Pool B
7 Maryville (Tennessee.) 14-6 18-6 (GSAC): Pool B Beat Tennessee Wesleyan   

West
1 Occidental 11-1 18-2 (SCIAC): LOST to Redlands; LOST at Clare-Mount-Scripps
2 Wisconsin-Stout 15-4 18-5 (WIAC):  Won at La Crosse
3 Puget Sound 13-2 18-4 (NWC): Beat Willamette; Beat Linfield
4 Wartburg 16-3 18-4 (IIAC):  LOST at Buena Vista; beat Cornell
5 Wisconsin-La Crosse 16-5 18-5 (WIAC):  Won at River Falls; LOST to Stout
6 St. Thomas (Minn.) 17-5 19-5 (MIAC):  Beat Concordia-Moorhead
7 Wisconsin-Whitewater 13-5 17-5 (WIAC):  Won at Oshkosh; Won at Eau Claire
8 Carleton 15-4 18-5 (MIAC):  Beat St. Mary's; Won at Bethel


Quote from: sac on February 20, 2006, 06:02:56 PM
Funny, Albion with only 3 currently and a max of 4 sits on the outside looking in.

This site has Albion 10-4 in conference, but 11-3 in-region...something is wrong.




Wash U should be bolded.  They lose the tiebreaker in the UAA race to Carnegie Mellon unless they win Saturday and Carnegie Mellon loses.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Matt Letourneau on February 20, 2006, 09:07:10 PM
Well at least the VW-RMC result is relatively meaningless for a Pool C, because whichever one didn't win was getting one, I would imagine.  Regardless, its the best result for those of us hoping for a Pool C for our non-ODAC team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2006, 09:22:18 PM
Matt,

True.  Va Wes would have been a lock in pool C; RMC is probable, but not a lock.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2006, 09:42:49 PM
Quote from: jagluski on February 20, 2006, 09:06:38 PM
Wash U should be bolded.  They lose the tiebreaker in the UAA race to Carnegie Mellon unless they win Saturday and Carnegie Mellon loses.

They are currently tied with Carnegie Mellon. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 20, 2006, 09:46:24 PM
For the moment though Carnegie Mellon holds the tiebreaker for the AQ.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 20, 2006, 09:58:33 PM
I think R-MC should, could make it depending on how many surprises there are.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 20, 2006, 10:11:48 PM
Here are the in-region games played by leading Pool C candidate Tufts, of the NESCAC...


Nov 22, 2005  at Springfield +   W 72-71 
Nov 29, 2005  Western New England +   W 91-81 
Dec 1, 2005  Mass-Dartmouth +   W 91-74 
Dec 3, 2005  Brandeis +   W 86-72 1OT 
Dec 6, 2005  at Plymouth State +   L 103-77 
Dec 8, 2005  at Keene State +   W 100-97 
Dec 10, 2005  Clark +   W 99-76 
Jan 3, 2006  MIT +   W 66-61 
Jan 7, 2006  Babson +   W 77-51 
Jan 13, 2006  at Colby * +   W 78-57 
Jan 14, 2006  at Bowdoin * +   L 84-70 
Jan 17, 2006  at Wheaton (Mass.) +   W 88-70 
Jan 20, 2006  Williams * +   L 82-80 
Jan 21, 2006  Middlebury * +   W 80-63 
Jan 27, 2006  Wesleyan * +   W 95-70 
Jan 28, 2006  Connecticut College * +   W 74-65 
Jan 31, 2006  at Western Connecticut +   W 95-80 
Feb 2, 2006  at Mass-Boston +   W 90-81 
Feb 4, 2006  Bates * +   W 91-76 
Feb 7, 2006  at Newbury +   W 72-58 
Feb 10, 2006  at Trinity (Conn.) * +   W 84-80 1OT 
Feb 11, 2006  at Amherst * +   L 99-70 
Feb 18, 2006  Williams @ +   W 101-89 

Here are the in-region games played by not-a-prayer-at-a-Pool C-bid Elmhurst of the CCIW...


Nov 19, 2005  at Hope +   L 70-53 
Nov 22, 2005  St. Norbert +   W 87-56 
Nov 30, 2005  at UW-Platteville +   L 67-66 
Dec 3, 2005  Hanover +   W 67-56 
Dec 7, 2005  at Kalamazoo +   W 88-78 2OT 
Dec 10, 2005  Rockford +   W 97-68 
Dec 16, 2005  Marian +   W 77-60 
Jan 4, 2006  Millikin * +   L 82-75 
Jan 7, 2006  at Augustana * +   L 60-57 
Jan 11, 2006  Carthage * +   W 78-73 
Jan 14, 2006  Illinois Wesleyan * +   W 72-64 
Jan 18, 2006  at North Park * +   W 64-53 
Jan 21, 2006  Wheaton (Ill.) * +   W 87-61 
Jan 25, 2006  at North Central * +   W 94-91 1OT 
Jan 29, 2006  Augustana * +   L 63-60 
Feb 1, 2006  at Millikin * +   W 76-71 
Feb 4, 2006  at Illinois Wesleyan * +   L 88-87 1OT 
Feb 8, 2006  at Carthage * +   W 79-58 
Feb 11, 2006  North Park * +   W 87-63 
Feb 15, 2006  North Central * +   L 62-59 
Feb 18, 2006  at Wheaton (Ill.) * +   W 89-65 


In-region games vs teams in current D3hoops.com Top 25:

Tufts: 1
Elmhurst: 7


Yet, the NCAA is going to compare Tufts to Elmhurst strictly on in-region winning % and in-region QOWI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2006, 10:15:06 PM
I would be really surprised if Randolph Macon didn't get in.  Right now they only have two teams ahead of them in the rankings (Virginia Wes. obviously getting the AQ).  Don't know much about Miss. Coll., but looks like they were running away with that league, so I wouldn't anticipate an upset there...Trinity as well.  Not sure about them or that conference.  I'm Turner could fill us in on those two teams' chances of running the conference tourney tables.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2006, 10:21:05 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 20, 2006, 10:11:48 PM

In-region games vs teams in current D3hoops.com Top 25:

Tufts: 1
Elmhurst: 7


Yet, the NCAA is going to compare Tufts to Elmhurst strictly on in-region winning % and in-region QOWI.

They obviously don't care about the D3hoops.com poll.  But they do care about records vs. teams currently in the in-region rankings.  What is the records of those?  Obviously both would have a lot with Tufts playing Amherst, Williams, Bates and Trinity just in their conference and currently ranked while Elmhurst has had Augustana and Ill. Wes.  I have yet to check the out-of-conference in-region ranked opponents of each.  But, that's an official criteria, if I'm correct. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 20, 2006, 10:24:35 PM
Just pointing out how bizarre this system is, where we are comparing teams across regions using only in-region data, without any regard for strength of region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 20, 2006, 10:35:01 PM
Titan -

Join the bandwagon, brother, a lot of us harped on this over over a year now. It is asinine. However, the NESCAC schools play the game to a "T". And Tufts has a good profile.

Their Massey is 23 and their SOS in Massey is 49th, which is really good, so maybe they're not the BEST example of this.

Sure, Elmhurst has a Massey of 17 and an SOS of 3, but you know,  if Elmhurst doesn't make it - it can't complain to anyone but itself. The only sure way to make it is to win games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 20, 2006, 10:37:14 PM
Just to make it clear -- I am not making a case for Elmhurst.  Just using these two teams and their schedules as an example of the flaws in the current system.

Heck, if you really want to illustrate it, look at the in-region games played by Carthage...

Dec 3, 2005  at Hope +   L 75-61 
Dec 5, 2005  Carroll +   L 82-74 
Dec 7, 2005  Beloit +   W 72-69 1OT 
Dec 11, 2005  Lawrence +   L 78-65 
Dec 19, 2005  at Concordia (Wis.) +   W 102-59 
Jan 4, 2006  Grinnell +   W 135-123 
Jan 7, 2006  Illinois Wesleyan * +   L 80-79 
Jan 11, 2006  at Elmhurst * +   L 78-73 
Jan 14, 2006  Augustana * +   L 73-70 
Jan 18, 2006  North Central * +   L 79-60 
Jan 21, 2006  at Millikin * +   W 62-61 
Jan 25, 2006  North Park * +   W 90-63 
Jan 28, 2006  at Illinois Wesleyan * +   L 95-61 
Feb 1, 2006  Wheaton (Ill.) * +   W 76-47 
Feb 4, 2006  at Augustana * +   L 87-80 
Feb 8, 2006  Elmhurst * +   L 79-58 
Feb 11, 2006  at North Central * +   W 85-73 
Feb 15, 2006  at North Park * +   W 72-68 
Feb 18, 2006  Millikin * +   W 87-85 


That is 11 in-region games played vs teams in last week's D3hoops.com poll (with Elmhurst in). 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 20, 2006, 10:40:02 PM
The major flaw of the QOWI is that it assumes a 15-1 team in one-region is the same as a 15-1 team in another.


If the opponents-opponents component passed or passes the we'll see a big improvement in the accuracy and ligitmacy of the numbers.  Untill then though it is badly flawed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2006, 11:00:29 PM
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2006, 10:40:02 PM
The major flaw of the QOWI is that it assumes a 15-1 team in one-region is the same as a 15-1 team in another.


If the opponents-opponents component passed or passes the we'll see a big improvement in the accuracy and ligitmacy of the numbers.  Untill then though it is badly flawed.

While that would definitely be a step in the right direction, if one is to claim it is a NATIONAL tournament, that still doesn't address the fundamental flaw.  Even if you include the opponent's opponents' opponents' records, so long as it is only IN-REGION opponents it still doesn't do the job.  It is still assuming 'all regions are created equal' which just ain't the case.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 20, 2006, 11:04:49 PM
No, it's not the case, but I think a better argument can be made if you don't use Tufts, which as a good power rank and SOS (forget the poll - the poll is the poll and as subjective as other things).


You should aim the guns at teams like Mt. St. Mary's. And actually Baruch, which has dreadful power rankings (152nd Massey, 340 SOS).

(Note: I put Tufts on my poster's poll ballot...but again I like their profile...)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2006, 11:12:22 PM
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2006, 10:40:02 PM
The major flaw of the QOWI is that it assumes a 15-1 team in one-region is the same as a 15-1 team in another.

Bingo -- exactly right.

Also, frankly, it assumes that a 15-1 team in one region is the same as a 15-7 team in another!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on February 20, 2006, 11:16:02 PM
Smed,

You're forgetting that everyone outside of the NESCAC hates it, so they are a target to everyone.

Tufts played a tough out of conference schedule, pretty sure they opened up with Wittenberg.  So I agree that Tufts is not the best option for that argument.

And being from the NESCAC, I still know that the Great Lakes/Midwest regions are the toughest but they will get screwed when it comes to Pool C's because of how tough it is.

And again, when humans are judging/choosing, there will be something wrong every time.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 20, 2006, 11:21:10 PM
Believe me, I know it. And I'm sure if the NCAA altered the selection criteria the NESCAC would immediately alter their scheduling.

I'm all for automatic bids, for sure, but I really don't like the Pool B set aside, even if it is a small amount of bids, and I know the NCAA has enough jack to make it a truly national tourney and get the right pool C's in there if they wanted to. But like in football, it seems they don't want to.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on February 20, 2006, 11:29:12 PM
I don't think there is anyway the NESCAC would change the way it plays. 

Look at the football schedule. 

Clearly the NESCAC does not care.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2006, 11:37:40 PM
Quote from: formerbant10 on February 20, 2006, 11:29:12 PM
I don't think there is anyway the NESCAC would change the way it plays. 

Look at the football schedule. 

Clearly the NESCAC does not care.

I suspect you are correct.

BUT, if the NCAA passed a rule (suggested on another board) that a conference must have a double round-robin OR a minimum of 12 conference games (whichever is less) to participate in the bball tourney, considering the NESCAC's success in the bball tourney, do you think they would walk away, or adapt?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on February 20, 2006, 11:43:02 PM
I think if there were still Pool B's the NESCAC would take all of them.

If there were only A's and C's, they might adapt.  But only b/c Williams won the whole thing a couple years back.

I know that the main reason for the lack of change (or what I've heard from some high level NESCAC characters) that the tradition of football is the main reason why there is no change.

The NESCAC didn't participate in the NCAA's in hoops for quite some time and I think that since they changed that rule in the 90's they would most likely comply with the new rules.

I know that Trinity is complying with the new rule that states every team must have a white home uniform by next season and the mandatory hanging of NCAA banners, so I believe they would go along with how the baseball teams play in the NESCAC to limit the traveling and missed classes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2006, 11:43:25 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 20, 2006, 10:15:06 PM
I would be really surprised if Randolph Macon didn't get in.  Right now they only have two teams ahead of them in the rankings (Virginia Wes. obviously getting the AQ).  Don't know much about Miss. Coll., but looks like they were running away with that league, so I wouldn't anticipate an upset there...Trinity as well.  Not sure about them or that conference.  I'm Turner could fill us in on those two teams' chances of running the conference tourney tables.

Old School, I saw the first half of the MissColl-UTDallas game last Saturday.  The Choctaws worked to a quick 15-point lead which they held thruout the last 25 minutes of the game.

MissColl is a Top 10 school.  They drive 540 miles to Brownwood for the conference tourney at Howard Payne.  Their only regular season loss was at Mary Hardin-Baylor (a 1100-mile road trip) on a Decmeber Saturday while the students were still on campus, before a good crowd of 850 (only 2 crowds of 1000 this year and another crowd of 850.)  Also, UMHB had pre-season First Team All Conference Senior point guard Brandon Gatlin, who was lost to grades later at the semester break.

Their average victory margin is 16.6 points per game.  They are 11 players deep, i.e., playing > 10 mpg, and no one >21 mpg.  The 2005 FOTY is in the second line of players.  MissColl has height that they haven't had in previous trips into the Sweet 16.  They seem to be even more athletic than usual.  They press very hard.

I think that Miss College may be sent to the Great Lakes.  I will not make a prediction on MissColl in the Great Lakes Sectional, where every game will be a real road game, where the Chocs fans are out-numbered 20-1.

However, if Miss College is sent to the Atlantic Seaboard or sent to the West Coast, then I will not be surprised if they make the Final Four.

I have not been tooting the Chocs' horn because we ASC teams have only 1 Elite 8 and 3 Sweet 16's in the last 6 years.   That is good, but nothing to boast on these boards!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2006, 12:01:27 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 20, 2006, 11:21:10 PM
Believe me, I know it. And I'm sure if the NCAA altered the selection criteria the NESCAC would immediately alter their scheduling.

I'm all for automatic bids, for sure, but I really don't like the Pool B set aside, even if it is a small amount of bids, and I know the NCAA has enough jack to make it a truly national tourney and get the right pool C's in there if they wanted to. But like in football, it seems they don't want to.

Unrelated, tangential, opportunisitic, temporally-related cheap shot...

No malice intended, but I couldn't pass this up. ;)

Why doesn't the NCAC play a single round-robin in football then?  Only 7 conference games?

Thank you. ;) ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 21, 2006, 12:12:49 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2006, 11:43:25 PM
I think that Miss College may be sent to the Great Lakes. 
Quote

Holy smoke, Batman, the Great Lakes posters are pleading for top teams to get sent OUT of the region, and you think another top ten team may be ADDED to the region?!

Ralph, has the NCAA no heart at all?! :D

Now, how in the world did I screw that up?  The last 2/3 above are me, not Ralph!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2006, 12:25:24 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2006, 11:43:25 PM
I think that Miss College may be sent to the Great Lakes. 

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 21, 2006, 12:12:49 AM

Holy smoke, Batman, the Great Lakes posters are pleading for top teams to get sent OUT of the region, and you think another top ten team may be ADDED to the region?!

Ralph, has the NCAA no heart at all?! :D

Mr. Ypsi, thanks for the inspiration.  I checked the map, and there is no likely venue where Miss Coll can be "bussed" to play a Sectional.

Assuming the form charts hold true, I now think that Miss Coll will be sent to York for the Sectional.  (Has York PA submitted the paperwork?)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 21, 2006, 12:34:16 AM
Ralph,

You sorted out (and attributed) the quotations very nicely!  I've never had that screw-up happen before - any idea what I did so my response ended up in the box?  And what did you do to fix it?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2006, 12:35:44 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2006, 12:25:24 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2006, 11:43:25 PM
I think that Miss College may be sent to the Great Lakes. 

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 21, 2006, 12:12:49 AM

Holy smoke, Batman, the Great Lakes posters are pleading for top teams to get sent OUT of the region, and you think another top ten team may be ADDED to the region?!

Ralph, has the NCAA no heart at all?! :D

Mr. Ypsi, thanks for the inspiration.  I checked the map, and there is no likely venue where Miss Coll can be "bussed" to play a Sectional.

Assuming the form charts hold true, I now think that Miss Coll will be sent to York for the Sectional.  (Has York PA submitted the paperwork?)

It can submit forms for a sectional but its building is insufficient to host that deep in the tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 12:53:05 AM
QuoteWhy doesn't the NCAC play a single round-robin in football then?  Only 7 conference games?

We obviously think it's better to spread the love around. Well, until the NCAC and the UAA had their scheduling cotillion.

So then, I think that's to put a finger in the eye of the OAC. Like "we don't need YOU!"


Ah, well...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 21, 2006, 12:58:49 AM
PROBABLY good news for fans of other conferences: Pomona-Pitzer beat Occidental tonight, giving the AQ to Claremont.

It's not so much that Claremont is the winner, but, prior to tonight Oxy looked like a tough pool C competitor.  Does anyone want to make an argument that either Oxy or PP is a viable pool C competitor? 

(This is not meant to be pejorative - I'm just wondering if people feel either of these teams need to be kept on the watch list.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 01:02:00 AM
I just wonder what is going on in Oxy land?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2006, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 21, 2006, 12:58:49 AM
PROBABLY good news for fans of other conferences: Pomona-Pitzer beat Occidental tonight, giving the AQ to Claremont.

It's not so much that Claremont is the winner, but, prior to tonight Oxy looked like a tough pool C competitor.  Does anyone want to make an argument that either Oxy or PP is a viable pool C competitor? 

(This is not meant to be pejorative - I'm just wondering if people feel either of these teams need to be kept of the watch list.)

Actually, I think that CMS becomes travel bait.  They get shipped to the NWC's Pool C bid and the winner goes to the NWC Pool A.

Pat, thanks for the update on York's facility. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2006, 04:05:50 AM
Quote from: Old School on February 20, 2006, 10:21:05 PMThey obviously don't care about the D3hoops.com poll.  But they do care about records vs. teams currently in the in-region rankings.  What is the records of those?  Obviously both would have a lot with Tufts playing Amherst, Williams, Bates and Trinity just in their conference and currently ranked while Elmhurst has had Augustana and Ill. Wes.  I have yet to check the out-of-conference in-region ranked opponents of each.  But, that's an official criteria, if I'm correct. 

Yes, record vs. in-region ranked opponents is one of the criteria. Tufts has played six such games (Williams twice, Amherst, Trinity CT, Bates, and Keene State). They're 4-2 in those games, with at least one more to play (the NESCAC tourney semi on Saturday against Trinity CT), if not two. That 4-2 record is a powerful shot in the arm to the Pool C chances of the Jumbos.

Elmhurst has played five games against regionally-ranked opponents, two apiece against Augustana and Illinois Wesleyan and one against Hope. They're 1-4 in those five games. North Central will almost certainly appear in this Wednesday's Midwest Region rankings, boosting Elmhurst's record to 2-5 in that regard. The Bluejays, too, will face an in-region ranked team this weekend in conference tourney play (newly-ranked North Central on Friday), with a chance to face another one on Saturday if they beat the Cards.

Q is right that Tufts has only played one in-region team that's ranked in the D3hoops.com Top 25. But the Jumbos have actually played two games against current Top 25 teams, regardless of region. Elmhurst has played eight (the seven already mentioned, plus out-of-region Albion). The Bluejays don't have much of which to be proud in that regard, since they've gone 2-6 in those eight games. But look at what the Jumbos have done in their two games against Top 25 teams: A 14-point loss to Wittenberg (granted, it was the first game of the season, but the game was played on a neutral floor), and a 29-point pasting at the hands of Amherst. I like the Jumbos' profile as far as making the big dance as a Pool C candidate is concerned. I don't like it at all in terms of the team's actual merits.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2006, 07:48:06 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 21, 2006, 12:58:49 AM
PROBABLY good news for fans of other conferences: Pomona-Pitzer beat Occidental tonight, giving the AQ to Claremont.

I would've preferred Oxy just winning the AQ since no other SCIAC team was on the regional ranking radar...thus bumping up all the WIAC teams in the West Region!  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 08:57:03 AM
Gregory -

Backing away, again, from the top 25, Tufts does have a good profile of an at-large team. Their SOS is good, and they did a nice job against the other highly regarded NESCAC teams (split with Williams, beat Trinity and Bates).

Like 'em or not, the overall NESCAC strength of schedule is decent. Tufts has played by far the hardest schedule, though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2006, 09:02:23 AM

I don't see how R-MC doesn't get a Pool C slot.  They will finish 19-6 with a 10 even QOWI number.  I consider one of the bids gone already.

The Oxy loss puts them in real trouble, but a lot will depend on who else loses this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 09:10:00 AM
Actually, I think Oxy's the one in real trouble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2006, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 09:10:00 AM
Actually, I think Oxy's the one in real trouble.

Did I say something different?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 09:50:13 AM
Sorry, I thought that you were referring to R-MC, saying that Oxy's loss would put R-MC in trouble for taking a "C" bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bethelguy on February 21, 2006, 11:24:14 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2006, 01:05:53 AM

Actually, I think that CMS becomes travel bait.  They get shipped to the NWC's Pool C bid and the winner goes to the NWC Pool A.

Quote

Ralph, do you really think the NWC gets a Pool C?  I think Puget will should they lose their tourney, but assuming they win do you think they get a 2nd team in?  Here is my assesment of West Region Pool C...

team   
QOW
QOW rank
record
Feb-15 Reg Rank
likely Feb-22 RR
UW-ST
10.000   
31
16-4
2nd
1st
Puget
9.706   
46
15-2
3rd
2nd
Carl
9.952
34
17-4
8th
5th
UW-WW
9.95
35
15-5
7th
3rd
UST
9.783
41
18-5
6th
4th
Wartburg
9.524
56
17-4
4th
6th
Willamette
9.211
75
16-3
NR
8th ?
Whitwoth
9.455
63
17-5
NR
NR
Oxi *
10.071
26
11-3
1st
7th
LAX
9.87
39
14-2
6th
NR


* - Occi is actually 11-4, QOW was run before their most recent L so they will drop futher in that particular ranking.

UST is 1-2 vs. WIAC teams
Car is 0-1 vs. WIAC teams so that will hurt both MIAC teams, but other criteria they are in a much better position to get Pool C than an NWC team or Occi.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2006, 11:55:53 AM

I'm not sure there will be more than two teams out on the West Coast.  CMS is in and the winner from the NWC (UPS, Whitworth or Willamette).  Whitworth has to win to get in, the others are on the bubble.  I don't think either one has done enough to earn it, but their regional records may do it; it's just so hard to guess. 

Ralph alluded to the geographic proximity of the west coast schools as a leg up to getting a pool C.  The problem comes in that the NWC schools can't play each other in the first round and CMS is a flight for any of them anyway.  It may be easier for the NCAA if its just CMS and the NWC champ and then send the winner off somewhere else.  It's going to be more flights than they like any way you figure it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 21, 2006, 12:34:15 PM
At the moment, Trinity TX is the leading candidate from the SCAC and is geographically isolated (no one within 500 miles). So the best bet is to pick up the west coast schools and fly them to San Antonio. If Occidental or a second NWC team makes it, it's a four team group, otherwise it's a three team group.

Of course, if both conferences get a Pool C bid, I assume there will be a four-team group somewhere on the west coast, to save the expense of flying 2 of the teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2006, 12:49:02 PM

If Mississippi College gets the bid from the ASC, they can be lumped in with the GSAC team(s) and the other SE schools.  Trinity would make a good bye that plays the winner of the CMS-NWC game.  That makes sense, so it probably won't happen.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 21, 2006, 01:00:45 PM
Miss College is right at 500 miles with Maryville TN - does anyone know officially which side of the 500-mile cutoff they are on?

Otherwise, they're only within 500 miles of Fisk, Washington U, and Maryville MO, among likely tournament teams. So that's a possibility to have those three drive down to Clinton.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2006, 01:04:49 PM

I don't think they had to fly to Maryville when they played before.  It would make sense to do a MC vs Maryville and a Fisk vs somebody playing in Clinton.  I did one of these last year which evened out the talent in each bracket and had actually less flights than the actual one, but it blurred the regions too much and of course the NCAA wouldn't do that.  Practicality doesn't fly in the NCAA selection committee.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2006, 03:05:39 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 21, 2006, 12:49:02 PM

If Mississippi College gets the bid from the ASC, they can be lumped in with the GSAC team(s) and the other SE schools.  Trinity would make a good bye that plays the winner of the CMS-NWC game.  That makes sense, so it probably won't happen.

Good points, Hoops Fan.  That would be my alternative should the NWC fail to garner a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 21, 2006, 04:14:16 PM
Don't forget with the new single team host for rounds one and two........there are now a lot more options for shipping teams around.  There's nothing that says the West Coast teams have to play West Coast teams.  They could move all of them to a Midwestern area.

The question is will the NCAA do this?

I'm really hopeing they take advantage of this and try to level the regions more equally.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2006, 04:21:01 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 08:57:03 AM
Gregory -

Backing away, again, from the top 25, Tufts does have a good profile of an at-large team. Their SOS is good, and they did a nice job against the other highly regarded NESCAC teams (split with Williams, beat Trinity and Bates).

Like 'em or not, the overall NESCAC strength of schedule is decent. Tufts has played by far the hardest schedule, though.

I've already conceded that Tufts has a good Pool C profile. As for the rest of it, the NESCAC strength of schedule is decent for a Northeast Region conference, but it's badly diluted in the national scheme of things by the fact that they play a mere single round-robin as a conference. And, while Tufts does have a good SOS by the standards of its region, as Q illustrated the SOS of the Jumbos in national terms is beggared by midwestern teams such as Carthage and Elmhurst. Even Wooster, so often maligned for playing in a conference loaded with pantywaists, has played much stiffer competition in national terms than have the Jumbos. The Scots have played four games against Top 15 competition, two against Wittenberg and one apiece against UW-Stout and Bald Wally.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2006, 04:23:15 PM

I doubt the NCAA will fly two teams from the West Coast to the Midwest.  If they get three on the west coast, they can pit CMS against the pool C from the MWC and hope the MWC team wins and can drive to the Pool A team.  I think they'd rather take a chance on only one flight than guarantee two.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 21, 2006, 04:37:13 PM
Hoops Fan.........Rounds one and two will be held at ONE site.  This opens the doors for more travel.  There is no garuntee there will be a game on the West coast.  In other words all games could be at Clarmont.

Its likely they'll pair them together anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 05:20:19 PM
QuoteAnd, while Tufts does have a good SOS by the standards of its region, as Q illustrated the SOS of the Jumbos in national terms is beggared by midwestern teams such as Carthage and Elmhurst

49th nationally is not a slouch, especially for a non-CCIW, non-WIAC, non-OAC team.

You need to stop thinking of Top 25 exclusively, and look at the profiles of all the teams they've played
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2006, 05:48:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 05:20:19 PM49th nationally is not a slouch, especially for a non-CCIW, non-WIAC, non-OAC team.

You need to stop thinking of Top 25 exclusively, and look at the profiles of all the teams they've played

I have looked at the profiles of all the teams they've played. Problem is, you're making a circular argument that's based upon a weak region. The teams that the Jumbos have played have good records, sure, but they're records accumulated against other Northeast Region teams. Since the NESCAC is the universally-acknowledged gold standard of the region (the league's ten teams went a cumulative 87-31 against non-NESCAC teams in regional play) there would've been a better test of Tufts' mettle if they had played a double round-robin within it. As it is, I'm inclined to put more weight on that 14-point loss to Wittenberg because of the paucity of NESCAC games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 06:12:21 PM
No, I'm not. It has nothing to do with the RECORDS of the teams they have played, at all. It's how well they are doing in the POWER RATINGS on Massey, based on MOV, of which the NESCAC is doing well (and the SOS isn't horrid).

NESCAC Power Ratings (Massey):

Amherst - 2
Tufts - 23
Bates - 31
Trinity - 41
Williams - 93
Bowdoin - 105
Connecticut College - 166

That's seven in the top half - four in the top 50. That says to me it's a strong league no matter who they are playing.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 06:20:44 PM
I'm defending the NESCAC. Mark this date down! :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 21, 2006, 06:22:52 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 06:20:44 PM
I'm defending the NESCAC. Mark this date down! :D

Noted.  On Feb 21, 2006, Smeds started hitting the sauce REALLY early! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 06:25:42 PM
And I have to run the computer tonight - so if the Earlham / Wabash game has more assists than field goals and more steals than turnovers...hic...you know what happend...hic... :o
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2006, 08:05:36 PM
Quote from: sac on February 21, 2006, 04:37:13 PM
Hoops Fan.........Rounds one and two will be held at ONE site.  This opens the doors for more travel. 

Not necessarily?  ???  Couldn't Team A play at Team B in the first round and then travel to Team C that had a bye in round 1?  Or am I not understanding that statement?

I suppose the team with a bye could travel...didn't they do that last year or a couple of years ago with, I think, Mississippi College.  If they won, they'd travel, but if the other team won, that team would host?  It was all confusing! (I think Trinity, TX was in there or one of those Texas teams).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 21, 2006, 08:22:45 PM
F'instance  lets say Oxy, Claremont and Puget Sound make it in.

Puget Sound plays Claremont in Round one AT Occidental

winner plays Occidental at Oxy.


It my hope that the NCAA will move more teams around since the first and second round games will essentially be mini-sectionals.



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2006, 09:02:38 PM
Is that Occidental getting a bye?

Even if Oxy were to get one of the five byes, then that would put CMS and UPS at CMS or UPS on Thursday night, not at Oxy on Friday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2006, 09:21:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 06:12:21 PM
No, I'm not. It has nothing to do with the RECORDS of the teams they have played, at all. It's how well they are doing in the POWER RATINGS on Massey, based on MOV, of which the NESCAC is doing well (and the SOS isn't horrid).

NESCAC Power Ratings (Massey):

Amherst - 2
Tufts - 23
Bates - 31
Trinity - 41
Williams - 93
Bowdoin - 105
Connecticut College - 166

That's seven in the top half - four in the top 50. That says to me it's a strong league no matter who they are playing.


I already said that the NESCAC is a strong league. I believe the words I used were "universally-acknowledged gold standard of the region." However, because they only play nine games apiece within the conference, the NESCAC members' inherent strength of schedule (and MOV-based power rating, or any other delineator you choose to use) is diluted by spreading out the schedule among weaker teams in a weak region. And no standard of measurement worth its salt dismisses the opposition as irrelevant.

I tallied up how the Northeast Region's winning teams did against winning teams from other regions (excepting the even weaker East Region, with which there's a lot of 200-mile interplay). The Northeast Region's winning teams went 13-15 against their plus-.500 counterparts from the Middle Atlantic, Atlantic, South, Great Lakes, Midwest, and West regions -- in spite of the fact that the Northeast Region's teams averaged almost two more wins per team than their opponents. But take away the NESCAC's 6-3 record in those games, and you're left with only a 7-12 record.

It's a weak region no matter how you look at it, and the more games that NESCAC teams play against the rest of the region rather than in-house, the less of an argument you can make on their behalf.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 21, 2006, 09:38:56 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2006, 09:02:38 PM
Is that Occidental getting a bye?

Even if Oxy were to get one of the five byes, then that would put CMS and UPS at CMS or UPS on Thursday night, not at Oxy on Friday.

Not the way I've read how the first two rounds work out as far as hosting.  Its possible this could happen.  Our far Western brothers are probably a poor example.  I just though OS didn't understand the first and second round games are at one site.

Let me try again.

First Round
Hope vs North Central
Transylvania vs Calvin
BOTH games at Calvin

Second Round
winners play at Calvin



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: titanfan on February 21, 2006, 09:46:01 PM
Sac,

I'm pretty sure that for the 4 team "sectionals", all of the games are played at one site, as you described in your example.  But for those 3 team sectionals, the first game is a home game for one of the two teams, and the winner of that game travels to the team that gets a bye.

In other words, if we remove Transy in your example,

North Central would play at Hope on Thursday night.
The winner of that game would then go to Calvin on Saturday to play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2006, 09:48:12 PM
Just to avoid confusion, we should keep the terminology straight. The sectionals are the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight games played on the second weekend of the tourney -- not the first- and second-round games played on the first weekend.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 21, 2006, 09:54:25 PM
Clearly we have confusion

I am strictly talking about FIRST and SECOND round games which will be played at ONE site.


........am I missing something.?

.........or is everyone else?  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: titanfan on February 21, 2006, 09:54:48 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2006, 09:48:12 PM
Just to avoid confusion, we should keep the terminology straight. The sectionals are the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight games played on the second weekend of the tourney -- not the first- and second-round games played on the first weekend.

Thanks for clarifying that Greg.  I wasn't really sure what to call those, thus the quotes around sectionals.  Maybe we could call them pods.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: titanfan on February 21, 2006, 09:56:17 PM
Sac, I thought that was only true for the 4 team "pods".  Since there are 5 teams that get a bye, we have 5 "pods" with only 3 teams.  I believe the first round game in those 5 pods would be a home game for someone, and then the winner would travel to the bye team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 10:04:34 PM
Gregory -

Yes somehow, Tufts has 60 SOS points HIGHER than most of the rest of the NESCAC. They certainly are playing a tougher caliber of team than the rest of their mates.

AND by this time Massey will see right through a mediocre team with a bad SOS in a bad conference. Likewise a team with patsies dotting most of their schedule. They also played some NESCAC teams twice.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2006, 10:12:24 PM
Quote from: titanfan on February 21, 2006, 09:56:17 PM
Sac, I thought that was only true for the 4 team "pods".  Since there are 5 teams that get a bye, we have 5 "pods" with only 3 teams.  I believe the first round game in those 5 pods would be a home game for someone, and then the winner would travel to the bye team.

Perhaps we can call the four-team pairings "pods" and the three-team pairings "tripods".  ;)

Quote from: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 10:04:34 PMYes somehow, Tufts has 60 SOS points HIGHER than most of the rest of the NESCAC. They certainly are playing a tougher caliber of team than the rest of their mates.

Again, though, that's completely relative to the region.

Quote from: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 10:04:34 PMAND by this time Massey will see right through a mediocre team with a bad SOS in a bad conference. Likewise a team with patsies dotting most of their schedule. They also played some NESCAC teams twice.

Again, who said that the NESCAC is a "bad conference"? I've said otherwise twice thus far in this conversation. And Tufts hasn't played any other NESCAC teams twice, unless you're talking about the conference tourney. Only the WAW and CBB triads play each other twice apiece.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 10:17:45 PM
No, it's not completely relative to the region. That's compared NATIONALLY - they have a top 50 schedule. You don't get that high up by picking on the patsies, even IN region.

I realize the NE is bad. I do the power ratings and they always have a lot of the bottom 10, but Tufts isn't playing those clowns.

And my statement about mediocre teams beating up on horrid teams was about the teams that Tufts plays, not the NESCAC. The Massey ratings would penalize Tufts if it played teams like that, in both their power ranking AND in their SOS. That's what I was talking about. Teams like Norwich, who have a Massey of 273 and a SOS of 380.

I apologize, I didn't realize that second Williams game was a conference tourney game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 21, 2006, 10:22:26 PM
I believe the NCAA-sanctioned term for the first and second round games, regardless of whether they are tripods or quadropods, is "regionals." 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on February 21, 2006, 10:25:14 PM
Mr. Sager has it dead on for Tufts.  Williams was the only repeat game and that was in the conference tourney.

The biggest difference between Tufts schedule and some of the others is that the teams Tufts historically plays are having better years than the teams that, for example, Trinity has played.  Tufts has Keene St. Mass-Boston, Mass-Dartmouth, and MIT all having decent to good years.  Trinity has Eastern CT (I'm aware they lost this game), Western CT, Babson, Clark, Springfield, and Lasell all having down years compared to the previous few.

So Tufts @ Plymouth, @ Keene, @ Wheaton are all very good wins for QOWI because they are in region.

And 3 of Trinity's best wins vs. Cortland St, @ Franklin & Marshall, @ Ursinus are all great wins, but aren't worth a dime for QOWI because they are out of region.

Look at Trinity's schedule last year, even with all their losses their QOWI was higher than some tournament teams because Western CT had a great year, Springfield had a great year, Rhode Island College had a great year.

Throughout the years, the schedules of these teams do not change much.  Many of the out-of-conference games are rich with tradition and have been played for many years now.  This year just happens to have Tufts opponents doing better.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 10:29:50 PM
Yeah, but I'm not talking about that infernal QOWI, though, in my arguements.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 21, 2006, 10:30:19 PM
Quote from: titanfan on February 21, 2006, 09:56:17 PM
Sac, I thought that was only true for the 4 team "pods".  Since there are 5 teams that get a bye, we have 5 "pods" with only 3 teams.  I believe the first round game in those 5 pods would be a home game for someone, and then the winner would travel to the bye team.

Ok if thats the case I simply gave an initial poor example
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on February 21, 2006, 10:33:28 PM
I understand you're not talking about the QOWI.  

What I was trying to say (my apologies if it wasn't clear) about Tufts is that their schedule does not change too much year to year.  The reason why their SOS is higher this year is because the teams they are playing in New England (and have been forever) are winning their games this year.  

It also helps to have Wittenberg on your schedule.

I wasn't trying to disagree with you on Tufts schedule, just trying to shed some more light on the subject.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2006, 10:42:17 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 10:17:45 PM
No, it's not completely relative to the region. That's compared NATIONALLY - they have a top 50 schedule. You don't get that high up by picking on the patsies, even IN region.

It's still relative, because that's the database from which Tufts' power rating is constructed. No matter whether they're twice removed or three times removed from the dregs of the region in terms of games played, you're still talking about strata within a degraded database. The surest antidote to counteracting the degraded database (the inferior level of play within the region as a whole) is to make the best teams play each other more, i.e., having the NESCAC play a double round-robin.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 10:44:36 PM
Thanks, I appreciate the info. And having Wittenberg does help, for sure.

I was surprised myself to see a NESCAC team with that high of a SOS but all the cards must have fallen right with Tufts.

Greg - I would agree the NESCAC needs to play a double round robin. However, Tufts this year is not playing the degraded teams at all. They seem to have avoided the SOS killers like Norwich, et. al.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 21, 2006, 10:51:03 PM
Smedindy,

I got a question about your power ratings or the ones that you use (Massey, etc.)


Lets just take this little example:

Team A (like a Tufts) is like 21-4 playing teams with fairly good records.  Lets call these type teams, "Team B".  These Team Bs on the other hand, play the horrible teams and therefore have a record of say 19-6.  Do those power rankings take into effect that the "Team B"s that "Team A" is beating have inflated records?


I guess I'm just asking if these power ratings take into account that eventhough some teams might be beating teams with good records, those teams they are beating are not actually that good because they are playing really bad teams (i.e.  bad SOS)?

I thought you would probably know the best but, anyone, feel free to comment.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2006, 10:54:42 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 21, 2006, 08:05:36 PM
Quote from: sac on February 21, 2006, 04:37:13 PM
Hoops Fan.........Rounds one and two will be held at ONE site.  This opens the doors for more travel. 

Not necessarily?  ???  Couldn't Team A play at Team B in the first round and then travel to Team C that had a bye in round 1?  Or am I not understanding that statement?

I suppose the team with a bye could travel...didn't they do that last year or a couple of years ago with, I think, Mississippi College.  If they won, they'd travel, but if the other team won, that team would host?  It was all confusing! (I think Trinity, TX was in there or one of those Texas teams).

The NCAA has handled the geographic orphans in various ways.  Each of these scenarios include the "bye-home-away" pod.

In 2000, unranked Pomona-Pitzer was flown to Trinity TX  (Week-13 #9).  PP defeated Trinity, 65-62 and then lost to #4 McMurry 111-76. Also  #22 L&C defeated Pacific 77-75, then #7 UW-SP 72 defeated L&C 72-68.

http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/mncaa00.htm

In 2001, Cal Lutheran went to Linfield and lost.  Linfield then lost to L&C.  L&C lost in the "16's" at host Chicago.
Mississippi College defeated Millsaps 61-45, and then lost at McMurry, 86-82.  McMurry lost in the "16's" to WPU at CNU.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/01/pairings.htm

In 2002,  9th seed CMS lost at 8thseed L&C, 81-59.  Taller L&C went to 4th seed MissColl and defeated the Chocs 70-57.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/02/pairings.htm

In 2003, Pool B 11th seed Aurora went to 6th seed Trinity and won 67-66.  Aurora then went to 2nd seed Oxy and lost 80-61.

9th seed Whitworth was sent to GAC (7th seed) and lost 65-55.  GAC lost in the Finals to Willliams.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/03/pairings.htm

In 2004, Pool B 10th seed Colorado College went to 8th seed PP and lost 79-55.  PP then went to #1 seed UPS and lost 89-75.  This was also the year of the UDallas (13-13) to Sul Ross State, Sul Ross State to Trinity TX bracket.  Sul Ross State, Larry, UW-SP all went to UPS for the sectional.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/04/pairings.htm

In 2005, #12 UT-Dallas the ASC Pool A bid bussed to #4 seed Trinity TX and lost 72-66.  #9 seed PP was flown to Trinity and lost 65-53.

#6 BV hosted and defeated #11 Edgewwod 91-74.  BV then went to #1 seed UPS and lost 85-82.

This was also the year that #12 Methodist went to Maryville TN and lost 69-54.  #7 Mississippi College got the bye but had to bus to Maryville  for the second round and won 68-62.  The NCAA bet that Maryville "would hold its serve" and not have to fly Methodist to Clinton, Mississippi.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/05/pairings.htm

These are the only first weekend plane flights that I could find since 2000.  As I remember,  these "seedings" were assigned by D3Hoops.com intelligentsia.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on February 21, 2006, 11:07:42 PM
Again, as much as the players would like to, the NESCAC won't be changing their schedule any time soon.

They do try to make up for it though, in playing the tops of the other conferences in New England.  Many of their out-of-conference-but-in-region games are on the road and (using Tufts as the example) against teams with good win %'s.  These games, while technically not league games, can be viewed the same way as playing against a good team in their conference.  The region sees it as the same, and so does the NCAA.

I haven't done the math, but it would be interesting to take Tufts record and pretend that the road games out of conference and count them as league games, then compare them to a team in the Great Lakes or Midwest region with their full conference schedule.  I hope someone understands what I'm trying to say.

I feel that Tufts along with some of the other NESCAC teams will have just as grueling a schedule as the teams in the WIAC or CCIW or NCAC.  Let us remember that for all the great teams in those leagues that they have to play twice, there are the cupcake wins that they get twice as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 11:11:17 PM
Augie -

Everything is interconnected. If team A beats the team Bs like Norwich, they would be hurt in their power rating unless they absolutely eviserated them (and even then there's a diminishing returns set up). But beating teams like MIT with a 95 Massey isn't going to hurt them much.

I think the worst team they played non-conference was Babson, which still had a 111 SOS and a 244 Massey (out of 396) - still higher than a lot of the top teams in the bad bad conferences. So they seem to be insulated from that. By avoiding the Elms and Norwich and Castletons of the world, and even avoiding the teams that play them (first generation) - it helps.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2006, 12:15:13 AM
Quote from: formerbant10 on February 21, 2006, 11:07:42 PM
Again, as much as the players would like to, the NESCAC won't be changing their schedule any time soon.

They do try to make up for it though, in playing the tops of the other conferences in New England.  Many of their out-of-conference-but-in-region games are on the road and (using Tufts as the example) against teams with good win %'s.  These games, while technically not league games, can be viewed the same way as playing against a good team in their conference.  The region sees it as the same, and so does the NCAA.
I haven't done the math, but it would be interesting to take Tufts record and pretend that the road games out of conference and count them as league games, then compare them to a team in the Great Lakes or Midwest region with their full conference schedule.  I hope someone understands what I'm trying to say.

I feel that Tufts along with some of the other NESCAC teams will have just as grueling a schedule as the teams in the WIAC or CCIW or NCAC.  Let us remember that for all the great teams in those leagues that they have to play twice, there are the cupcake wins that they get twice as well.

Formerbant, we non-NESCAC fans read that first paragraph and see it for all of its perverse consequences.  Without a Massey MOV or an "opponents' opponent's winning average" you get 14 or 15 points for playing an opponent whose "Massey MOV ranking" is only worth 10-11 in the CCIW, or the WIAC, or the OAC.

http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&sub=III&mid=1

Let us look at Tufts' non-conference Northeast victories over teams at .500 or greater.

Team............................Reg. Record............QOWI value............Massey MOV

W N Eng                         14-11                         12                       280
Mass Dartmouth               12-10                         12                       114
Brandeis                         13-10                         12                         63
Plym St (loss)                  16-10                          5                        119
Keene St                         17-6                           15                        67
MIT                                15-7                           14                        95
Wheaton MA                    15-8                           15                       131
W Conn                           12-12                          13                       202
MA Boston                       14-9                            13                       110.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2006, 12:22:58 AM
Quote from: formerbant10 on February 21, 2006, 11:07:42 PM
Again, as much as the players would like to, the NESCAC won't be changing their schedule any time soon.

They do try to make up for it though, in playing the tops of the other conferences in New England.  Many of their out-of-conference-but-in-region games are on the road and (using Tufts as the example) against teams with good win %'s.  These games, while technically not league games, can be viewed the same way as playing against a good team in their conference.  The region sees it as the same, and so does the NCAA.

I haven't done the math, but it would be interesting to take Tufts record and pretend that the road games out of conference and count them as league games, then compare them to a team in the Great Lakes or Midwest region with their full conference schedule.  I hope someone understands what I'm trying to say.

I feel that Tufts along with some of the other NESCAC teams will have just as grueling a schedule as the teams in the WIAC or CCIW or NCAC.  Let us remember that for all the great teams in those leagues that they have to play twice, there are the cupcake wins that they get twice as well.

I think I see what you are trying to say, but, with all due respect, you're out of your freakin' gourd! ;D

The NCAC is NOT a power conference - they have Woo and Witt and 2-3 respectable teams, then a bunch of cupcakes.

But cupcakes in the CCIW or WIAC?

WIAC?  Well, there IS Superior - but otherwise, you sleep on any team,  they WILL put you to sleep but good!

CCIW?  Well there is NPU.  But consider, their ONLY two wins are against Millikin.  So what - Millikin has only three wins.  True, but ALL THREE are against the top four teams.  Wheaton will finish either 5th or 6th, but two weeks ago knocked off both Augustana and IWU.  To paraphrase my favorite movie (except for Casablanca): "Cupcakes? We don't need no stinkin' cupcakes!"  (Apologies to Mel Brooks!)

To suggest that Tufts (or any other NESCAC team, until they institute a double round-robin) has a schedule to match ANY CCIW or WIAC team is just absurd.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2006, 12:38:07 AM
Can you even imagine the QOWI that top CCIW teams could run up if they scheduled only the top of the SLIAC, LMC, and NIIC?  I'd predict 13-something.

This is basically the argument that is being made for Tufts.

And this is NOT an attack on Tufts (I've intermittently had them in my top 25); this is an attack on the regional-only nature of QOWI.

(And, yes, I DO realize I'm preaching to the choir!  I'm done.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2006, 12:41:28 AM
Formerbant, in my previous post, I showed those non-conference in-region wins of teams that Tufts has played this year.

Now let us look at the Massey MOV of the NESCAC.


Amherst               2
Tufts                    23
Bates                   31
Trinity CT             41
Williams               93
Bowdoin              105
Conn                   166
Colby                   197
M'bury                  260
Wesleyan             350.

Please understand the effect of a double round-robin.  Tufts runs the risk of losing in the second round robin to an Amherst, Bates, Trinity CT,  Williams or Bowdoin.  They also have their MOV impacted by another low value win over Conn, Colby, M'bury or Wesleyan.

We have just shown have preverse the NESCAC's schedule policy truly is! :(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 22, 2006, 12:52:55 AM
Actually, Ralph, if they paste the bottom and play the top teams tough, it won't affect the Massey that much.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 22, 2006, 01:04:08 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2006, 10:12:24 PM
Perhaps we can call the four-team pairings "pods" and the three-team pairings "tripods".  ;)

+1 for that little gem... I was laughing so hard I woke my cat up... and he's one lazy cat, so that's saying something!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on February 22, 2006, 01:04:43 AM
Well gentlemen, thanks for showing me the numbers in the argument.  Quite convincing on your side.  I tried defending the NESCAC, but it seems like no matter what, it won't work.

Mr. Ypsi, out of my gourd.....very possible, attempting to defend one's conference.....more likely.

I know that without a doubt playing in the WIAC or CCIW is extremely tough.  I think it's a shame that the top 4 teams in each of those conferences will more than likely not make the NCAA tourney.  

Clearly, I do not know enough about the rest of the conferences, but I do know a whole lot about the NESCAC and it's not as much of a cupcake as the rest of the country thinks.  

I think its fair to say that with most leagues, if you sleep on anyone they can put you to sleep.  

But again, thank you for putting the numbers out there for me.  Ralph, if you wouldn't mind comparing the WIAC, CCIW, UAA and NESCAC by their Massey Ratings side by side, I think that would really show how they all stack up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 22, 2006, 01:07:02 AM
QuoteTo suggest that Tufts (or any other NESCAC team, until they institute a double round-robin) has a schedule to match ANY CCIW or WIAC team is just absurd

Tufts - schedule rating 48
Millikin - schedule rating 38 (pretty close)
Superior - schedule rating 88
Eau Claire - schedule rating 41


I'd say 38 to 48 is within shouting distance over 396 teams, there.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2006, 01:47:22 AM
Smed, I did put those 9 games against the NESCAC opponents and had 6 fewer QOWI points when applying the NESCAC in region records.  Those 6 fewer points will have a multiplier effect, like compunding interest, across all of the teams.

The loss in QOWI points came when a second game against Colby (an 11 point win) was substituted for a game against Wheaton MA (a 13-point win).  In fact, the effect of the second round of NESCAC games would hurt Colby's QOWI value even more.  A second game against Wesleyan (an 8 point win) was substituted for a 12 point win over Western New England.

From the top down, I have tabulated the in-region non-conference records of the NESCAC. Let's assume that the 10 teams have these records in the second round-robin of NESCAC games in descending percentages, 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, etc.  I then intepret the impact of a second round robin on the in-region non-conference games.

Amherst  14-0.........9-0  no change
Trinity       8-2.........8-1  a wash
Bates       10-2........7-2  probably no change
Tufts        13-1........6-3  would be hurt by a second round robin.
Williams   10-4........5-4  would have to find 4 easy wins to break even, might be hurt.
Bowdoin    8-4.........4-5  would be hurt with more losses to stronger NESCAC teams.
Colby         5-7.........3-6  may be weaker than we think.
Conn         9-5.........2-7  would be hurt by harder NESCAC schedule (less value to a NESCAC game with Conn.)
M'bury       10-3.......1-8  really would get killed.  Any game against M'bury is now worth 6 QOWI point less.
Wesleyan   3-6 ........0-9  weaker than we think.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2006, 01:54:05 AM
formerbant, I will encourage someone else to line up those "power" conferences.

I have tried to show how the NESCAC has legally gamed the system.  "Those of us in the choir"  :D would heartily endorse a #23 Tufts or a #31 Bates on a Massey MOV, if they played a double-round robin and the NCAA adopted a Opponents' opponents winning percentage component in the Primary Criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2006, 02:32:46 AM
Quote from: formerbant10 on February 22, 2006, 01:04:43 AM
Mr. Ypsi, out of my gourd.....very possible, attempting to defend one's conference.....more likely.

Clearly, I do not know enough about the rest of the conferences, but I do know a whole lot about the NESCAC and it's not as much of a cupcake as the rest of the country thinks. 

I think its fair to say that with most leagues, if you sleep on anyone they can put you to sleep. 


formerbant,

As MANY posters have pointed out at one time or another, I DO have a tendency towards hyperbole! 

I'd have a hard time respecting you if you didn't defend your conference.  But I don't think anyone ever said the NESCAC was a cupcake league.  The accusation was that you beat up on cupcakes.  Everyone I've seen respects the NESCAC, EXCEPT that you refuse to play each other more than a token amount of times, which means you build up impressive looking stats against ... whom?

The problem is, who can tell?  You're among the richest schools in all of d3, but don't often come out of your shell.  (The conspiracy theorist in me says it is because of results like Amherst vs fast-falling Occidental, but I try never to listen to my inner-conspiracy theorist!)  Play the UAA.  Play the NJAC.  Give us a reason to KNOW you're good, rather than just THINK you're good.

And, alas, in many, if not most, leagues you CAN sleepwalk through some games - even in your example, Woo or Witt can safely 'mail it in' against Hiram or Oberlin.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 22, 2006, 03:34:03 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 21, 2006, 10:44:36 PMGreg - I would agree the NESCAC needs to play a double round robin. However, Tufts this year is not playing the degraded teams at all. They seem to have avoided the SOS killers like Norwich, et. al.

It still doesn't matter, because you're essentially talking about NESCAC teams playing teams atop a dungheap. Even if you're atop the dungheap, you still smell like the dungheap.  ;)

That's why I did that study of how winning Northeast Region teams had performed against winning teams from other regions. Too much of D3 is a closed system when it comes to rating teams, because of the regional emphasis. The better you can establish the inferiority of a specific region, the more clear it becomes that winning records (or power ratings) based upon the substrate of that inferior competition are necessarily skewed when compared to winning records or power ratings in other regions -- even if that substrate goes down to opponents' opponents, or even opponents' opponents' opponents.

The NESCAC promises the best chance to rise above the dungheap in the Northeast, not only because it so completely dominates the rest of the region in non-conference play but because it actually holds its own in out-of-region games against winning opponents. Teams from across the country generally respect NESCAC teams, for good reason.

But the only true measure of how good NESCAC teams are in that regard is to test their mettle more against the not-so-weak, i.e., cut down significantly on the number of regional non-con games. The only way to do that is to: a) schedule more good out-of-region games, which isn't going to happen for NESCAC teams; and/or b) set up a double round-robin, and the NESCAC doesn't seem much interested in surrendering their advantages by doing so.

Chuck had an interesting and useful analogy:

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2006, 12:38:07 AM
Can you even imagine the QOWI that top CCIW teams could run up if they scheduled only the top of the SLIAC, LMC, and NIIC? I'd predict 13-something.

... but I'd argue it's even more extreme than that. It'd be as though the CCIW's presidents, or ADs, or the CCIW commish, went to the coaches and said, "OK, from now on you're all playing a single round-robin instead of a double. And of the 18 games that you're now allowed to schedule outside of the conference, you are hereby prohibited from playing the following teams: Franklin, Hanover, Transylvania, Wash U, Hope, Calvin, Lawrence, Carroll, and any WIAC team.

"And, no, you can't play the cupcakes, either. Here's your list of approved schools to play: Chicago, Edgewood, Lakeland, Dominican, Concordia WI, Aurora, Benedictine, Rockford, Maryville MO, Blackburn, Webster, Ripon, Grinnell, Knox, Mount St. Joe's, and Bluffton, plus Coach Giovanine can hit up any IIAC school that's within 200 miles. And Coach Trost, Coach Littrell, feel free to substitute Wabash, DePauw, and/or Rose-Hulman at your leisure. Plus, every CCIW team will henceforth schedule Clarke and MSOE, because those poor bastards are indies now and we all know that they need to fill their schedules, too.

"If you get squeezed out of a game or two because those other schools have their non-conference schedules all filled up by your fellow CCIW teams, get yourself some really good out-of-region games or games against tough D2 or NAIA teams. Heck, book a D1 game and make your school some coin. Go ahead ... none of those losses will count, anyway.

"Alright, men, now let's go out and win us some Pool C bids!"  :D

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2006, 01:54:05 AMI have tried to show how the NESCAC has legally gamed the system.  "Those of us in the choir"  :D would heartily endorse a #23 Tufts or a #31 Bates on a Massey MOV, if they played a double-round robin and the NCAA adopted a Opponents' opponents winning percentage component in the Primary Criteria.

Yes! As usual, Ralph says in two sentences what I try to say in twenty.  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 22, 2006, 07:26:20 AM
ralph -

Again, I am not measuring, nor do I care, about that QOWI. I think people missed MY point.

My entire point, way way way way back there, was that Tufts' schedule, whatever it was, should not be denigrated like the normal NESCAC schedule, and that by the POWER rankings I use, they are a legit C team even if the NCAA were to wake up and get rid of that QOWI.

Of their three losses in conference, one was at home and they avenged it, and two were on the road. They beat Trinity on the road and rather much pole-axed Bates. So perhaps pencil them in for a 14-4 conference record, then?


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on February 22, 2006, 08:13:22 AM
Mr. Ypsi,

Thanks for pointing out that people are indeed not calling the NESCAC a cupcake league.

I'd like to point out that the NESCAC has been playing their single round robin schedule as long as I can remember.  But they didn't even have a conference tourney till 2001. 

And it's tough for the NESCAC not to schedule some weak New England teams, after all there are so many of them out there.

Looking at Trinity's schedule this year, they've beaten Cortland St (on top of their league), Ursinus (on top of their league) and Franklin & Marshall (right behind Ursinus).  None of those were home games either.  Last year Trinity played Occidental and Pomona-Pitzer.  I think they usually try to gauge where they are by playing out of region teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2006, 10:02:08 AM
Tufts is a good squad; they are worthy of getting in.  Trinity is playing well right now and they do traditionally try to play a decent schedule; they might be worthy.  I think Bates is probably not there this year, but they could get in if they can make the conference final.  The big problem will come if Bates and Trinity both make the NESCAC final and Bates wins.  Who know what the NCAA would do with that one.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2006, 10:23:00 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 22, 2006, 07:26:20 AM
ralph -

Again, I am not measuring, nor do I care, about that QOWI. I think people missed MY point.

My entire point, way way way way back there, was that Tufts' schedule, whatever it was, should not be denigrated like the normal NESCAC schedule, and that by the POWER rankings I use, they are a legit C team even if the NCAA were to wake up and get rid of that QOWI.

Of their three losses in conference, one was at home and they avenged it, and two were on the road. They beat Trinity on the road and rather much pole-axed Bates. So perhaps pencil them in for a 14-4 conference record, then?

Thanks, smed!  In the one-dimension nature of this forum, sometimes inflections and nuance are hard to perceive! :)

Thanks for the correlation of a Bates or a Tufts to Massey MOV and other power rankings like the "Smedindex". ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2006, 10:31:01 AM
I am now wondering, with the revelation (that I thought all along) that Nebraska Wesleyan is elligible for Pool B, if maybe one of the GSAC schools could move into Pool C contention.

Lincoln and NebWes now, both seem safe bets for Pool B, leaving two spot.  Bethany (if they do indeed end up with 20 in-region wins) seems like a hard one to ignore.  Fisk and Maryville were both ranked in the South despite their depressing losses last weekend.  If they end up in the GSAC final and the game is close, the winner will probably get the last Pool B bid and the loser still has a pretty good QOWI number.  You might have to figure one of them into the Pool C hunt.

It's not likely, but its something to be remembered.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2006, 11:09:23 AM
NebWes is a safe bet only if they ignore the secondary criteria. We never know if or when they use the secondary criteria.

As for NESCAC and Pool C, man, you guys are assuming a lot in terms of the NESCAC presidents' motivation here. Don't forget, folks, the NESCAC has had this schedule since LOOOOOONG before QOWI and the uber-emphasis on regionality came into play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on February 22, 2006, 01:15:44 PM
Was looking thru all the teams that lost yesterday - looks like best regional record of a loser was PSU Behrend at 19-7, 15-6.  Do they have any kind of a shot???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2006, 01:20:21 PM
Quote from: hopefan on February 22, 2006, 01:15:44 PM
Was looking thru all the teams that lost yesterday - looks like best regional record of a loser was PSU Behrend at 19-7, 15-6.  Do they have any kind of a shot???

No, none at all.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2006, 03:19:29 PM

The Division 2 rankings are up; I expect ours very soon.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 22, 2006, 03:40:48 PM
ours are up

http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/polls/rankings/diviii

looks good for the NCAC and the MIAA, not as bad for Oxy as I was expecting (though they'll probably fall after the PP loss is counted) and the midwest ratings look exactly how I would have ddone it... interesting stuff
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2006, 03:46:31 PM
Men's regional rankings posted
http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=140

Last week the NCAA e-mailed them to me at the same time the web site got them. This week I guess they forgot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: walzy31 on February 22, 2006, 03:56:47 PM
Thanks Pat and diehardfan,

I had a question. Why is the Northeast region list 10 teams deep and the other regions list no more than 8 teams (with some only listing 5 or 6 teams)?

Also, a little irrelavent banter...St. John Fisher is 22-3 and last year in the Sweet 16 was the worst undefeated team (26-0 I think) I've seen in D3. I hope they get shipped up to Amherst for the sectionals again.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 22, 2006, 03:58:45 PM
The number of ranked teams is based on the number of teams in the region.  The NCAA uses the same ratio regionally that they do nationally to determine the number of teams in the tournament..
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 22, 2006, 04:21:38 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2006, 03:46:31 PM
Men's regional rankings posted
http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=140

Last week the NCAA e-mailed them to me at the same time the web site got them. This week I guess they forgot.

I don't get the regional rankings from that link  ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2006, 04:22:13 PM

It's 141 not 140, but its also on the front page.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 22, 2006, 04:48:31 PM
Scott, Pat was one number off... it's

http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=141
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 22, 2006, 05:00:32 PM
Quick review of the regional records shows some discrepancies between the NCAA and the list posted by Pat from 2/19, with which I agree.

Two possible corrections for the D3 Hoops list, Pat: Williams-Babson and Carnegie Mellon-Washington & Jefferson. (These games s/b regional.)

The NCAA would appear to have records wrong for: Richard Stockton, Hope, Transylvania, Washington U, Amherst, Bates, and Keene State. In each of these cases the errors make no sense if the correct scores have been reported to D3Hoops.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2006, 05:03:43 PM

We've covered this before.  The NCAA requires teams to input their own schedules and regional games, while d3hoops.com requests schedules and inputs themselves, checking regional games as they go along.  Pat's crew makes mistakes, but very few.  I'd trust this site over the NCAA any day... and not just for this either, for just about anything.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 22, 2006, 05:06:45 PM
Correction, CMU-W&J is listed as regional on this site. Once again, I have no idea what the NCAA is counting.

Does this mean that the NCAA is using the incorrect scores to determine QOWI and winning percentage? That's got to be scary to anyone trying to qualify for the tournament under Pools B or C!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2006, 08:56:37 PM
QOWI through games of Sunday, Feb. 19:

1-10
Amherst     11.826     22-1  NESCAC
Lawrence    11.550    20-0  MWC
York (Pa.)    11.043    21-2  CAC  Lost in  CAC Semis
Worcester Polytech    11.000    19-3  NEWMAC
Mississippi College    10.913    22-1  ASC-East
Trinity (Texas)    10.833    16-2  SCAC
Tufts    10.826    19-4  NESCAC
Lincoln    10.813    12-4 Pool B #1
St. John Fisher    10.810    20-1  E8
Augustana    10.773    19-3  CCIW
               

11-20
Cortland State    10.609    21-2  SUNYAC
Virginia Wesleyan    10.538    23-3  ODAC
Gordon    10.522    21-2  CCC-N  Lost in CCC Semis
William Paterson    10.435    17-6  NJAC
Carnegie Mellon    10.389    14-4  UAA
Wittenberg    10.350    17-3  NCAC
Wooster    10.333    19-2  NCAC
Lakeland    10.200    17-3  LMC  Lost in LMC Semis
Widener    10.174    19-4  MACC
Transylvania    10.167    20-4  HCAC
               
21-30
Calvin    10.167    11-1  MIAA
Keene State    10.136    16-6  LEC
Randolph-Macon    10.125    19-5  ODAC
Washington U.    10.111    13-5  UAA
Carroll    10.095    18-3  MWC
Occidental    10.071    11-3  SCIAC CMS has the Pool A.
Illinois Wesleyan    10.053    14-5 CCIW
Bates    10.048    16-5  NESCAC
Baruch    10.045    20-2  CUNYAC
Alvernia    10.045    19-3  PnAC  Pool A
               
31-40
UW-Stout    10.000    16-4 WIAC
Baldwin-Wallace    10.000    19-4  OAC
Trinity (Conn.)    10.000    15-4  NESCAC
Carleton    9.952    17-4   MIAC
UW-Whitewater    9.950    15-5  WIAC 
New Jersey    9.905    14-7  NJAC
North Central    9.895    14-5  CCIW
Hope    9.875    14-2  MIAA
UW-La Crosse    9.870    17-6  WIAC
Ursinus    9.826     18-5  CC
               

   
41-50
St. Thomas    9.783    18-5  MIAC
Richard Stockton    9.783    15-8  NJAC
Fisk    9.769    9-4  Pool B #2
New Jersey City    9.739    16-7  NJAC
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.714     6-1  Pool B #3
Puget Sound    9.706    15-2  NWC
New York University    9.696    17-6  UAA
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.667    16-5  SUNYAC
Utica    9.652    18-5  E8
Lake Erie    9.650    16-4  AMCC
               

58.  Maryville (Tenn.)    9.500    14-6 Pool B #4

Here are the Top 21 Pool C candidates as of Feb 19th.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2006, 09:16:33 PM
Here are the Top Pool C candidates by the Regional Rankings:

Atlantic
1 Baruch 20-2 22-4   CUNYAC
2 William Paterson 17-6 18-7  NJAC
3 New Jersey City 16-7 17-8  NJAC
4 SUNY-Farmingdale 16-5 19-5  Skyline
5 Richard Stockton 15-7 17-8  NJAC

East
1 St. John Fisher 20-1 22-3  E8
2 Cortland State 21-2 22-3  SUNYAC
3 New York University 17-6 18-6  UAA
4 Utica 18-5 19-5  E8
5 Hamilton 16-4 20-4  LL

Great Lakes
1 Wooster 19-2 23-2 NCAC
2 Calvin 11-1 20-5  MIAA
3 Hope 15-2 23-2  MIAA
4 Wittenberg 17-3 22-3  NCAC
5 Baldwin-Wallace 19-4 21-4  OAC
6 Carnegie Mellon 15-4 19-5   Leading the UAA

Mid-Atlantic
1 York (Pa.) 22-3 24-3  CAC  Lost in CAC Semis
2 Lincoln 12-4 20-4   Pool B #1
3 Alvernia 19-3 21-4 PnAC  Pool A
4 Widener 19-4 20-4  MACC
5 Ursinus 18-5 19-6   CC
6 Catholic 16-5 18-6  CAC
7 Scranton 17-6 19-6   MACF
8 Albright 14-7 16-8  MACC

Midwest
1 Lawrence 20-0 22-0  MWC
2 Augustana 19-3 21-4   CCIW
3 Transylvania 21-4 21-4  HCAC
4 Carroll 18-3 20-3  MWC
5 Illinois Wesleyan 14-5 19-5  CCIW
6 North Central 14-5 20-5  CCIW
7 Washington U. 14-5 17-7  UAA
8 Lakeland 17-4 21-6  LMC  Lost in LMC Semis

Northeast
1 Amherst 23-1 24-2  NESCAC
2 Worcester Polytech 19-3 20-3  NEWMAC
3 Tufts 19-4 19-5  NESCAC
4 Gordon 22-3 23-4  CCC  Lost in CCC Semis
5 Trinity (Conn.) 15-4 18-5  NESCAC
6 Bates 15-5 19-5  NESCAC
7 Keene State 15-6 18-6  LEC
8 Rhode Island College 16-8 16-8  LEC
9 Salem State 18-6 18-7  MASCAC
10 Williams 16-8 17-8

South
1 Mississippi College 22-1 24-1  ASC-East
2 Trinity (Texas) 16-2 20-5  SCAC
3 Virginia Wesleyan 23-3 24-3  ODAC
4 Randolph-Macon 19-5 22-5   ODAC
T5. Fisk 9-4 14-10  Pool B #2
T5. Maryville (Tenn.) 14-6 19-6   Pool B #3
7 Howard Payne 17-6 18-6  ASC-West
8 Mary Hardin-Baylor 17-6 17-8  ASC-West

West
1 UW-Stout 16-4 19-5  WIAC
2 Puget Sound 15-2 20-4  NWC
3 Carleton 17-4 20-5  MIAC
4 Occidental 11-3 18-4  SCIAC  (CMS has the Pool A.)
5 UW-Whitewater 15-5 19-5  WIAC
6 UW-La Crosse 17-6 19-6  WIAC
7 Wartburg 17-4 19-5   IIAC
8 St. Thomas 18-5 20-5  MIAC
UR  CMS  SCIAC Pool A


Here are the 27 Top Pool C candidates from the Regional Rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2006, 09:19:30 PM
In the previous 2 posts, I have tried to strike the likely winners in each conference.  The 18 Pool C's most likely come from these remaining teams.

This does not consider the putative Pool A's (that have been stricken) who lose in their tourneys.

It is getting much tighter!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2006, 09:22:36 PM
Ralph,

You scratched out BOTH Lawrence and Carroll.  The rest of us in the Midwest Region thank you, but it is not to be! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2006, 09:26:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2006, 09:22:36 PM
Ralph,

You scratched out BOTH Lawrence and Carroll.  The rest of us in the Midwest Region thank you, but it is not to be! ;)

Freudian slip! ::)   :-[    :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 22, 2006, 09:30:33 PM
Only other team I would add is MIT, 15-7, 18-7, 9.636, and probably right behind Williams as #11 in NE, with a chance to move up.

Hard to see anyone else getting a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2006, 10:30:10 PM
Nice job, Ralphie!  Saves me the work!  ;D

I'm surprised Lakeland's QOWI is up in the top 20 now.  They only beat Maranatha Baptist at home, who was 0-fer against D3 schools!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2006, 10:36:07 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 22, 2006, 05:00:32 PM
Quick review of the regional records shows some discrepancies between the NCAA and the list posted by Pat from 2/19, with which I agree.

Two possible corrections for the D3 Hoops list, Pat: Williams-Babson and Carnegie Mellon-Washington & Jefferson. (These games s/b regional.)

The NCAA would appear to have records wrong for: Richard Stockton, Hope, Transylvania, Washington U, Amherst, Bates, and Keene State. In each of these cases the errors make no sense if the correct scores have been reported to D3Hoops.

Thank you for this list. I will detail it for the committee.

Don't forget my private message to you, pabegg... didn't get a response.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2006, 10:52:37 PM
I have sent your noted discrepancies to the NCAA committee.

In the course of my investigation, I found that OUR listing of Wash U was incorrect. I have corrected it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Matt Letourneau on February 22, 2006, 10:53:16 PM
Ralph/others...

Will the committee take at least one Pool C team from each region?  In some regions, the highest team that isn't 'leading' and assumed to be a Pool A is not in the top 49 QoWI.  

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2006, 10:56:28 PM
There's no requirement they have to take one from each region, no.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Matt Letourneau on February 23, 2006, 12:25:18 AM
Would you consider it likely though, or have entire regions been shut out of Pool C in the past?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2006, 12:31:05 AM
Yes, there were only 7 Pool C bids in 2005.  There are 8 regions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Matt Letourneau on February 23, 2006, 12:39:33 AM
Well, hell, I should stop asking obvious questions then.  I wasn't paying attention last year cause Catholic had no prayer, and the year before that they won the tourney so it didn't matter, and before that I used to pay attention but that's too long to remember!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 23, 2006, 12:41:00 AM
Check out the FAQ to catch up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 23, 2006, 01:01:42 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2006, 12:31:05 AM
Yes, there were only 7 Pool C bids in 2005.  There are 8 regions.

and the Northeast tended to get a few.  :-\ Though the year Amherst and Williams were in the final four they definitely desered it!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2006, 05:26:38 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2006, 11:09:23 AMAs for NESCAC and Pool C, man, you guys are assuming a lot in terms of the NESCAC presidents' motivation here. Don't forget, folks, the NESCAC has had this schedule since LOOOOOONG before QOWI and the uber-emphasis on regionality came into play.

I can't help it. All of that free-floating paranoia in the MWC room regarding Lawrence and the #1 ranking was apparently contagious.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2006, 08:52:33 AM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 23, 2006, 01:01:42 AM
and the Northeast tended to get a few.  :-\ Though the year Amherst and Williams were in the final four they definitely desered it!

I thought Williams was alright until we spanked them in the championship game! lol.  I'M KIDDING!  ;D  That game was amazing and the semi that featured Williams and Amherst was pretty awesome as well.  Tucker Kain was giving me alcers!  Both definitely deserved to be there, though I wish the NCAA would make more exceptions like they did for those two teams by purposely putting them in different brackets.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2006, 09:35:18 AM

Albright (#8 in the Mid-Atlantic) lost to Messiah (unranked) last night.  Since Albright was also not among the top 50 in QOWI, I think this probably drops them from contention.  With Widener barely able to get by Elizabethtown, the question becomes: Does Widener get in if they lose to Messiah for the AQ?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2006, 09:37:40 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 23, 2006, 09:35:18 AM

Albright (#8 in the Mid-Atlantic) lost to Messiah (unranked) last night.  Since Albright was also not among the top 50 in QOWI, I think this probably drops them from contention.  With Widener barely able to get by Elizabethtown, the question becomes: Does Widener get in if they lose to Messiah for the AQ?

I think that we need to look at the number of Tourney Upsets, come Sunday afternoon.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2006, 09:49:36 AM

Well yes, of course, but we're trying to speculate wildly here, Ralph; stop ruining the fun.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 23, 2006, 09:57:39 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2006, 05:26:38 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2006, 11:09:23 AMAs for NESCAC and Pool C, man, you guys are assuming a lot in terms of the NESCAC presidents' motivation here. Don't forget, folks, the NESCAC has had this schedule since LOOOOOONG before QOWI and the uber-emphasis on regionality came into play.

I can't help it. All of that free-floating paranoia in the MWC room regarding Lawrence and the #1 ranking was apparently contagious.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

It's ok Greg, I see those NESCAC presidents sneaking around on my grassy knoll all the time.  They are up to something.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: devossed on February 23, 2006, 10:10:41 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 23, 2006, 09:49:36 AM

Well yes, of course, but we're trying to speculate wildly here, Ralph; stop ruining the fun.

Well, consider the source...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 23, 2006, 11:23:28 AM
I took Ralphs two lists and compared the teams that were not on both.  On some I think Ralph just missed crossing them out on both lists.  Some appeared in the regional rankings but not in the top 50 QOWI.
On the Regional not on QOWI

4 Wittenberg 17-3 22-3  NCAC
6 Catholic 16-5 18-6  CAC
8 Albright 14-7 16-8  MACC
8 Rhode Island College 16-8 16-8  LEC
10 Williams 16-8 17-8
7 Howard Payne 17-6 18-6  ASC-West
8 Mary Hardin-Baylor 17-6 17-8  ASC-West
8 St. Thomas 18-5 20-5  MIAC

On QOWI not on Regional
Wooster    10.333    19-2  NCAC
UW-Stout    10.000    16-4 WIAC
Baldwin-Wallace    10.000    19-4  OAC
New Jersey    9.905    14-7  NJAC
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.667    16-5  SUNYAC
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 23, 2006, 11:26:11 AM
Next I took the teams that appeared on both lists.  These are the regionally ranked teams that appear in the top 50 QOWI who are not leading their conference.  Each team is listed twice, the first line is the regional rank and the second line is the QOWI rank.  These are the schools I would assume are the front runners for the Pool C bids at this time, this will change after all the conference tournaments end.

There are 16 teams here

3 New Jersey City 16-7 17-8  NJAC
44 New Jersey City    9.739    16-7  NJAC

5 Richard Stockton 15-7 17-8  NJAC
42 Richard Stockton    9.783    15-8  NJAC

3 New York University 17-6 18-6  UAA
47 New York University    9.696    17-6  UAA

4 Utica 18-5 19-5  E8
49 Utica    9.652    18-5  E8

3 Hope 15-2 23-2  MIAA
38 Hope    9.875    14-2  MIAA

4 Carroll 18-3 20-3  MWC
25 Carroll    10.095    18-3  MWC

5 Illinois Wesleyan 14-5 19-5  CCIW
27 Illinois Wesleyan    10.053    14-5 CCIW

6 North Central 14-5 20-5  CCIW
37 North Central    9.895    14-5  CCIW

7 Washington U. 14-5 17-7  UAA
24 Washington U.    10.111    13-5  UAA

3 Tufts 19-4 19-5  NESCAC
7 Tufts    10.826    19-4  NESCAC

5 Trinity (Conn.) 15-4 18-5  NESCAC
33 Trinity (Conn.)    10.000    15-4  NESCAC

6 Bates 15-5 19-5  NESCAC
28 Bates    10.048    16-5  NESCAC

4 Randolph-Macon 19-5 22-5   ODAC
23 Randolph-Macon    10.125    19-5  ODAC

4 Occidental 11-3 18-4  SCIAC
26 Occidental    10.071    11-3  SCIAC CMS has the Pool A.

5 UW-Whitewater 15-5 19-5  WIAC
35 UW-Whitewater    9.950    15-5  WIAC

6 UW-La Crosse 17-6 19-6  WIAC
39 UW-La Crosse    9.870    17-6  WIAC18-5  CC

I don't expect all of these teams to make it, I think NJCU has a snowballs chance in hell, but at least they still have that slim chance, more likely they will be one of three or four NJAC teams in the eight team ECAC metro tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: D3Cast on February 23, 2006, 11:42:08 AM
Would it be an exaggeration to suggest that the winner of the Tufts-Trinity(CT) NESCAC semi-final on Saturday punches their Pool C ticket? (Under the assumption that nobody in the conference is gonna beat Amherst right now.)

-steve

P.S. Not to imply that the loser of that game is automatically out, either...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2006, 12:00:26 PM
Quote from: D3Cast on February 23, 2006, 11:42:08 AM
Would it be an exaggeration to suggest that the winner of the Tufts-Trinity(CT) NESCAC semi-final on Saturday punches their Pool C ticket? (Under the assumption that nobody in the conference is gonna beat Amherst right now.)

-steve

P.S. Not to imply that the loser of that game is automatically out, either...


:D :D :D :D :D
D3cast,  the "Choir" has determined the excessive bids given to the NESCAC is "over the top", and an affront to the citizens of the rest of D3-dom.  :D :D :D

I really hope that the NESCAC gets only 3 bids!

One of the excuses that was given for the firing/resignation of Harvard President Lawrence Summers was his attempt to control grade inflation.

With the success of Williams and Amherst at the National Level, I think that we can make the case for 2 and maybe 3 NESCAC  bids.

But, I really believe that we have clearly made the statistical case for "QOWI grade inflation" in the NESCAC...a slam dunk!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 23, 2006, 12:23:19 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 23, 2006, 08:52:33 AM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 23, 2006, 01:01:42 AM
and the Northeast tended to get a few.  :-\ Though the year Amherst and Williams were in the final four they definitely desered it!
I thought Williams was alright until we spanked them in the championship game! lol.  I'M KIDDING!  ;D  That game was amazing and the semi that featured Williams and Amherst was pretty awesome as well.  Tucker Kain was giving me alcers!  Both definitely deserved to be there, though I wish the NCAA would make more exceptions like they did for those two teams by purposely putting them in different brackets.


Lol... yeah... winning on a Kalsow buzzer beater is TOTALLY all out domination. :P But hey, I'm not complaining, I gave your Pointers their props and totally called Point as the likely national champ waaay early that year, and Point was just returning the favor by actually doing it and keeping me from looking like an idiot.  8)

I'd love to see at least one of the GL teams seperated out this season into a eastern bracket somewhere. It's not gonna happen, but just once I'd like to see how far they get.

I like the MAC leagues... they kept my eyes from falling out of my sockets watching east coast basketball last year. If they get a C, I really wouldn't mind one bit. Even if the "wheel of d3basketball" is in chicago. :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: devossed on February 23, 2006, 12:30:57 PM
The "wheel" may be in Chicago, but from what I've been told lately, the "axle" bisects Northern/Central Ohio on it's way into Indiana...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 23, 2006, 01:01:11 PM
Ralph and Knighstalker,

Whitewater is actually the WIAC leader... so if everything goes by seed the rest of the way in the WIAC tourney, then the Stout Bluedevils will be a very likely Pool C contender.  Eveni f UWSP beats them tonight, Stout's QOWI will actually stay the same, because Point will jump up a QOWI class, with an in-region win% of .666.  ... Of course, if Point would win tonight and lose on Saturday, it would drop it back down... but even with that, they'd be at 9.71.

With a Stout win tonight, their QOWI (barring any QOWI-class changes) will be at 10.09, and with a loss at Whitewater on Saturday, it would drop to just 9.95, which is still in the top 18 of assumed Pool C contenders.

If Stout wins tonight and they host La Crosse and lose, their QOWI would still be at 9.91.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 23, 2006, 01:27:00 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 23, 2006, 01:01:11 PM
Ralph and Knighstalker,

Whitewater is actually the WIAC leader... so if everything goes by seed the rest of the way in the WIAC tourney, then the Stout Bluedevils will be a very likely Pool C contender.  Eveni f UWSP beats them tonight, Stout's QOWI will actually stay the same, because Point will jump up a QOWI class, with an in-region win% of .666.  ... Of course, if Point would win tonight and lose on Saturday, it would drop it back down... but even with that, they'd be at 9.71.

With a Stout win tonight, their QOWI (barring any QOWI-class changes) will be at 10.09, and with a loss at Whitewater on Saturday, it would drop to just 9.95, which is still in the top 18 of assumed Pool C contenders.

If Stout wins tonight and they host La Crosse and lose, their QOWI would still be at 9.91.

That gave me a headache.  Ralph, I propose that we ignore the WIAC possiblilities from now on until they finish their conference tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2006, 01:59:44 PM

Yeah, I don't think there is much to worry about the NESCAC getting "more than 3" bids.  I think Amherst and Tufts are sitting pretty and maybe Trinity sneaks in with a win.  They are falling back to Earth slightly on their own.

It's very true though, that we won't know very much until at least Saturday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 23, 2006, 02:03:54 PM
Before last week's games, it looked like the UAA could get 3 or 4 teams, but now (with NYU and Rochester dropping both games this weekend) its interesting to see if they will even get 2 if CMU wins the conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2006, 02:16:33 PM

I think WashU is still in a good spot if they beat Chicago.  NYU kept their regional rank high, so they might have a shot as well with a win over Brandeis. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 23, 2006, 02:17:29 PM
And Rochester's bubble appears to have burst after making it to the championship game last year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2006, 02:20:38 PM

Yeah, they're done.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2006, 02:21:25 PM
Knightstalker...Great job on cleaning up the loose ends that I left on this board last night.

I am timed out on giving you another karma point!

+1

I am still running at work!

I value being on the Regional Rankings "Pool C" list more than the "QOWI only" Pool C list!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dewcrew88 on February 23, 2006, 03:10:05 PM
I asked about Utica College a few days ago, and was told that they would have zero chance at a Pool C bid if they couldn't beat Fisher (for sake of argument, I'm assuming Fisher wins the Empire 8 tournament) in the tourney. Now with some of the other East teams finding trouble, and Utica moving up to 4th in the East Regional Rankings, what chance, if any, do they have of getting a Pool C bid if they get to the final against Fisher and lose?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 23, 2006, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on February 23, 2006, 01:27:00 PM
I propose that we ignore the WIAC possiblilities from now on until they finish their conference tourney.

As is usually the case in the WIAC, this is the safest bet.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2006, 03:23:14 PM
Quote from: budcrew08 on February 23, 2006, 03:10:05 PM
I asked about Utica College a few days ago, and was told that they would have zero chance at a Pool C bid if they couldn't beat Fisher (for sake of argument, I'm assuming Fisher wins the Empire 8 tournament) in the tourney. Now with some of the other East teams finding trouble, and Utica moving up to 4th in the East Regional Rankings, what chance, if any, do they have of getting a Pool C bid if they get to the final against Fisher and lose?

If NYU is still ahead of them, they have very little chance.  NYU will be lucky to get in, I doubt anyone below them has any chance.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: patcummings on February 23, 2006, 05:31:05 PM
Utica suffered from not being in the regional rankings earlier.  But don't forget, there is a regional ranking that you haven't seen yet, and won't get to see.  The last set of rankings comes out to just the committee. 

I think the Pioneers have a chance based on their strong regional winning percentage.  The QOWI is middle of the road, but they will definitely be much discussed.

Based on my early, purely objective, analysis - rough as it may be - I found five teams I considered locks for Pool C's, regardless of what happens in tournaments.

Hope
Tufts
Wittenberg
Carroll
...
And WILLAMETTE.

Now Willamette isn't even in the regional rankings but their regional winning percentage is third highest in the west (behind Puget Sound and Nebraska Wesleyan).  I mean...for teams not leading their conference, Willamette is really high up there. 

Comparing their regional schedule to Puget Sound's isn't all that different, but there are QOWI differences (UPS about 30 spots higher than Willamette).  Regional winning percentage is a huge consideration, but so too are regional rankings...and it doesn't make much sense that Willamette hasn't found a single spot in the rankings.  I guess scheduling Colorado College and playing regional games v. Whittier and Caltech didn't count for much.  All their other regional games were conference games. 

Compare that to UPS, whose only non-conf regional game was winless Caltech (same opponent as the Bearcats). 

That's the system we've come to know and love.

That being said...my observations were objective, by the numbers.  What numbers and subjectivity the committee has towards Willamette could be a different story.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2006, 06:43:24 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 23, 2006, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on February 23, 2006, 01:27:00 PM
I propose that we ignore the WIAC possiblilities from now on until they finish their conference tourney.

As is usually the case in the WIAC, this is the safest bet.  ;)

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 23, 2006, 09:08:05 PM
Looks as if Gordon lost by 16 tonight vs. Colby-Sawyer in the semis of the CCC tourney.  Looks like they finish up at 22-3 in region with a QOWI somewhere between 10 and 10.5 most likely.  Pretty decent Pool C numbers.  Haven't had time to look at the other criteria though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 23, 2006, 09:28:43 PM
Also, York (Pa.) goes down tonight and thus should take away one of the Pool C bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 23, 2006, 09:46:27 PM
Oh, man, it's getting nutty! At least there are some slots for them this time.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: patcummings on February 23, 2006, 09:51:30 PM
My projections had been based on all conference leaders getting in.  York and Gordon are relative locks right now.  Catholic was in contention for a Pool C bid and if they beat UMW tonight, can avoid the pool with a championship win. 

The CAC isn't getting 3 teams, but had a chance for 2.  Now they'll definitely get 2 because York is an automatic. 

2 Pool C's down, 16 to go.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2006, 10:03:47 PM
By the primary criteria, Gordon would certainly seem a lock - 88% in-region W-L and a QOWI that wil probably remain in the top 20.  I wonder how deep into the tourney they would have to go to receive a single top 25 poll vote! ;D

(Have I ever mentioned that regional criteria to select a national tourney is wacko?! ;))
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 23, 2006, 10:37:15 PM
Ypsi - you and what army have mentioned it??? ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2006, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: patcummings on February 23, 2006, 05:31:05 PM
...

Comparing their regional schedule to Puget Sound's isn't all that different, but there are QOWI differences (UPS about 30 spots higher than Willamette). 
...

As I have been looking at the QOWI, I am amazed at what it tells us.

I am finding the mathematical number more informative, the more I deal with it.

UPU is 15-2 in-region.  The Quality of Wins Index  is 9.706.  They have earned 165 points in 17 games.  Since a loss is 8 points less than a win, one more loss for UPS would mean 8 less points or 157 points.  Stated another way, a loss is 8/17ths off the index or .471 QOWI points.

UPS at 15-2 is 9.706 minus 0.471 = 9.235 at 14-3.

Conversely for Willamette, one more win would add 8 points to the QOWI.  Willamettes' QOWI  on their 16-3 record is 9.211.  They have earned 165 points. in 19 games.  If we add one more win, 8 more QOWI points on 19 games is like adding 8/19ths (0.471) to the Index.

Willamette at 16-3 is 9.211 plus 0.421 = 9.632 at 17-2.

30 places on a QOWI table is relative.  By 20-25 game into season, we see real differences (the NESCAC not withstanding).  Thirty places on the QOWI may not be much, or it can be scheduling brilliance and a great team.  The impact on the (Quality of Wins) Index for each loss is:

16 games into 8 points or .500 QOWI points.

20 games into 8 points or .400 QOWI points.

25 games into 8 points or .320 QOWI points.

IMHO, a more helpful way to look at the differences in the QOWI is not by number of places by rank order, but by how much diffference a single loss or win makes in the QOWI.

Now all we need in an adjustment for the opponents' opponents' winning percentage across D3.   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2006, 11:05:37 PM
Quote from: patcummings on February 23, 2006, 05:31:05 PMNow Willamette isn't even in the regional rankings but their regional winning percentage is third highest in the west (behind Puget Sound and Nebraska Wesleyan).  I mean...for teams not leading their conference, Willamette is really high up there.

Wartburg, which is at the tail end of the West Region rankings, lost in the IIAC semis tonight. So that's good news for Willamette.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2006, 11:32:58 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 23, 2006, 09:08:05 PM
Looks as if Gordon lost by 16 tonight vs. Colby-Sawyer in the semis of the CCC tourney.  Looks like they finish up at 22-3 in region with a QOWI somewhere between 10 and 10.5 most likely.  Pretty decent Pool C numbers.  Haven't had time to look at the other criteria though.

I want to thank the Gordon Fighting Scots for the incredible sacrifice that they made tonight.

Their dropping to the ranks of Pool C greatly impacts the likelihood that one fewer NESCAC team will get a cheap Pool C bid. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 24, 2006, 12:51:00 AM
Well, I need to update my power rankings to show what's cheap and what's not cheap. Bates wasn't cheap, either. Williams, now that would be chaep.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2006, 01:54:29 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 24, 2006, 12:51:00 AM
Well, I need to update my power rankings to show what's cheap and what's not cheap. Bates wasn't cheap, either. Williams, now that would be chaep.

As I work with the data, I am thinking that 3 NESCAC bids are within the realm of the believable.

I am looking for the next iteration of the Smedindex! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2006, 02:12:40 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2006, 09:16:33 PM
Here are the Top Pool C candidates by the Regional Rankings:

Atlantic
1 Baruch 20-2 22-4   CUNYAC  Lost to York NY in Finals
2 William Paterson 17-6 18-7  NJAC
3 New Jersey City 16-8 17-9  NJAC Lost to Ramapo in QtrF
4 SUNY-Farmingdale 16-5 19-5  Skyline
5 Richard Stockton 15-7 17-8  NJAC Lost to Ramapo in Semis
NR York NY 15-9 15-13 CUNYAC Pool A  

East
1 St. John Fisher 20-1 22-3  E8
2 Cortland State 21-3 22-4  SUNYAC  Loss to SUNYIT in Semis
3 New York University 17-6 18-6  UAA
4 Utica 18-5 19-5  E8
5 Hamilton 16-4 20-4  LL

Great Lakes
1 Wooster 19-2 23-2 NCAC
2 Calvin 11-1 20-5  MIAA
3 Hope 15-2 23-2  MIAA
4 Wittenberg 17-3 22-3  NCAC
5 Baldwin-Wallace 19-4 21-4  OAC
6 Carnegie Mellon 15-4 19-5   Leading the UAA

Mid-Atlantic
1 York (Pa.) 22-3 24-3  CAC  Lost in CAC Semis
2 Lincoln 12-4 20-4   Pool B #1
3 Alvernia 19-3 21-4 PnAC  Pool A
4 Widener 19-4 20-4  MACC
5 Ursinus 18-5 19-6   CC
6 Catholic 16-5 18-6  CAC
7 Scranton 17-6 19-6   MACF
8 Albright 14-7 16-8  MACC  Lost to Messiah in Semis

Midwest
1 Lawrence 20-0 22-0  MWC
2 Augustana 19-4 21-5   CCIW  Lost to IWU in Semis
3 Transylvania 21-4 21-4  HCAC
4 Carroll 18-3 20-3  MWC
5 Illinois Wesleyan 14-5 19-5  CCIW
6 North Central 14-5 20-5  CCIW
7 Washington U. 14-5 17-7  UAA
8 Lakeland 17-4 21-6  LMC  Lost in LMC Semis

Northeast
1 Amherst 23-1 24-2  NESCAC
2 Worcester Polytech 19-3 20-3  NEWMAC
3 Tufts 19-4 19-5  NESCAC
4 Gordon 22-3 23-4  CCC  Lost in CCC Semis
5 Trinity (Conn.) 15-4 18-5  NESCAC
6 Bates 15-5 19-5  NESCAC
7 Keene State 15-6 18-6  LEC
8 Rhode Island College 16-8 16-8  LEC  Lost in Semis
9 Salem State 18-6 18-7  MASCAC  Lost to Bridgewater St in Semis
10 Williams 16-8 17-8 NESCAC

South
1 Mississippi College 22-1 24-1  ASC-East
2 Trinity (Texas) 16-3 20-6  SCAC  Loss to #8 seed Rhodes in SCAC QtrF. 3pt QOWI loss
3 Virginia Wesleyan 23-3 24-3  ODAC  Pool A
4 Randolph-Macon 19-5 22-5   ODAC
T5. Fisk 9-4 14-10  Pool B candidate  Lost to Huntingdon in Semis
T5. Maryville (Tenn.) 14-6 19-6   Pool B #3
7 Howard Payne 17-6 18-6  ASC-West
8 Mary Hardin-Baylor 17-6 17-8  ASC-West

West
1 UW-Stout 16-4 19-5  WIAC
2 Puget Sound 15-2 20-4  NWC
3 Carleton 17-4 20-5  MIAC
4 Occidental 11-3 18-4  SCIAC  (CMS has the Pool A.)
5 UW-Whitewater 15-5 19-5  WIAC
6 UW-La Crosse 17-6 19-6  WIAC Lost to UW-W in semis
7 Wartburg 17-5 19-6  IIAC  Lost in IIAC Semis
8 St. Thomas 18-5 20-5  MIAC
UR  CMS  SCIAC Pool A


Here are the 30 Top Pool C candidates from the Regional Rankings.

Updated thru 24 Feb 06, 2320 hours, and including the corrections suggested and submitted thru reply #465 (Old School).   I agree with Point Special and knightstalker that the WIAC is a real moving target!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2006, 03:37:04 AM
You should remove the line through Wartburg's name as well, Ralph.

Whitman (17-5 WR, 9.864 QOWI) defeated Willamette (16-3 WR, 9.421 QOWI) this evening to advance to the Northwest Conference final against #2 WR Puget Sound.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2006, 07:39:59 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2006, 02:12:40 AM
West
1 UW-Stout 16-4 19-5  WIAC
2 Puget Sound 15-2 20-4  NWC
3 Carleton 17-4 20-5  MIAC
4 Occidental 11-3 18-4  SCIAC  (CMS has the Pool A.)
5 UW-Whitewater 15-5 19-5  WIAC
6 UW-La Crosse 17-6 19-6  WIAC
7 Wartburg 17-4 19-5   IIAC
8 St. Thomas 18-5 20-5  MIAC
UR  CMS  SCIAC Pool A


Here are the 27 Top Pool C candidates from the Regional Rankings.

Updated thru 23 Feb 06.

Ralph,  Stout is not the "leader" in the WIAC.  So, you'd actually cross out Whitewater (which actually helps the WIAC's chances of getting two in).  Whitewater hosts Stout in the WIAC final tomorrow and if Whitewater wins, I think Stout is a lock for a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: joehakes on February 24, 2006, 08:02:43 AM
Ralph,

Sacrifice is what it's all about.  We (Gordon) just ran out of gas and played a team that had its back to wall in Colby-Sawyer.  We are very hopeful for a Pool C bid.  It would be a great step in our program.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2006, 08:32:11 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2006, 02:12:40 AM
I agree with Point Special and knightstalker that the WIAC is a real moving target!

Amazingly, the top two seeds actually advanced to the championship in the WIAC tourney this year.  #1 Whitewater hosts #2 Stout, weird  ;).  This is just the 2nd time since the tourney began (1999) that #1 and #2 met in the final.

2005:  #2 Point beats #4 Whitewater (top four advance in quarters)
2004:  #2 Point beats #4 Platteville (#6 Osh beats #3 WW)
2003:  #4 Oshkosh beats #2 Whitewater (#6 EC beats #3 RF)
2002:  #1 Oshkosh beats #3 Whitewater (#5 RF beats #4 LAX)
2001:  #4 Eau Claire beat #6 Oshkosh (#8 ST beats #1 WW by 41! #6 OSH beats #3 RF, #7 PLT beats #2 SP)
2000:  #1 Point beats #2 Eau Claire (#5 SUP beats #4 RF, #6 OSH beats #3 PL)
1999:  #1 Platteville beats #6 Stout (#5 SP beats #4 WW, #6 ST beats #3 EC)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 09:29:18 AM

I've been a big Willamette fan all year, but with that loss last night, I'm starting to wonder, especially since they couldn't pull a regional ranking.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 09:36:26 AM

So, who have we got so far in Pool C:  I think Ramdolph-Macon, York and Gordon are locks.

Other contenders: Occidental, Wartburg, Willamette, NYU, Lakeland, LaCrosse, NJCU.

I only included teams that have lost already, not those teams that will lose (MIAC, CCIW, NESCAC, etc).

Do any of you think anyone else should be on this list at this point?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 24, 2006, 09:51:03 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2006, 09:36:26 AM

So, who have we got so far in Pool C:  I think Ramdolph-Macon, York and Gordon are locks.

Other contenders: Occidental, Wartburg, Willamette, NYU, Lakeland, LaCrosse, NJCU.

I only included teams that have lost already, not those teams that will lose (MIAC, CCIW, NESCAC, etc).

Do any of you think anyone else should be on this list at this point?

I am reposting this from yesterday, I think these 16 will be under consideration.
3 New Jersey City 16-7 17-8  NJAC
44 New Jersey City    9.739    16-7  NJAC

5 Richard Stockton 15-7 17-8  NJAC
42 Richard Stockton    9.783    15-8  NJAC

3 New York University 17-6 18-6  UAA
47 New York University    9.696    17-6  UAA

4 Utica 18-5 19-5  E8
49 Utica    9.652    18-5  E8

3 Hope 15-2 23-2  MIAA
38 Hope    9.875    14-2  MIAA

4 Carroll 18-3 20-3  MWC
25 Carroll    10.095    18-3  MWC

5 Illinois Wesleyan 14-5 19-5  CCIW
27 Illinois Wesleyan    10.053    14-5 CCIW

6 North Central 14-5 20-5  CCIW
37 North Central    9.895    14-5  CCIW

7 Washington U. 14-5 17-7  UAA
24 Washington U.    10.111    13-5  UAA

3 Tufts 19-4 19-5  NESCAC
7 Tufts    10.826    19-4  NESCAC

5 Trinity (Conn.) 15-4 18-5  NESCAC
33 Trinity (Conn.)    10.000    15-4  NESCAC

6 Bates 15-5 19-5  NESCAC
28 Bates    10.048    16-5  NESCAC

4 Randolph-Macon 19-5 22-5   ODAC
23 Randolph-Macon    10.125    19-5  ODAC

4 Occidental 11-3 18-4  SCIAC
26 Occidental    10.071    11-3  SCIAC CMS has the Pool A.

5 UW-Whitewater 15-5 19-5  WIAC
35 UW-Whitewater    9.950    15-5  WIAC

6 UW-La Crosse 17-6 19-6  WIAC
39 UW-La Crosse    9.870    17-6  WIAC18-5 

Regarding the NJAC teams;
NJCU, TCNJ and Stockton each have an additional regional loss.  Ramapo has picked up two regional wins.  RU-Newark has an additional regional loss and win.  WPU has one more regional win.
Ramapo and WPU meet tomorrow afternoon in Wayne, NJ for the NJAC title.  Ramapo has already picked up two 15 point wins and a loss to WPU will be the maximum points for a loss.
Ramapo has put themselves back in the pool C picture.  WPU with a loss will be in the pool C picture.  Stockton and NJCU are bubble teams, the bubble hasn't burst yet but it is getting bigger and thinner.  RU-Newark and TCNJ are on the bubble, but they are on the side of the bubble that is getting real slippery.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 09:54:12 AM

I was trying to keep it down to teams already in Pool C, but hey, whatever.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 24, 2006, 09:56:30 AM
I think the three listed are the only teams that have locked up a berth.  I was just outlining the NJAC possiblilities slim as they are.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 24, 2006, 10:01:07 AM
Knightstalker - you don't have Wooster or Witt on there. One of those will get a C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 24, 2006, 10:08:17 AM
I was just using the teams that Ralph had not crossed off his lists yesterday.  There were teams that Ralph overlooked on one or both or that I missed on one of both lists.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 10:15:54 AM

One game tonight will gurantee us a Pool C contender:

Augie vs IWU

A few games could give us some candidates with upsets:

Miss Coll vs Sul Ross State
St John Fisher vs Rochester Tech
Baldwin-Wallace vs Wilmington
Baruch vs York (NY)
Calvin vs Kalamazoo
Howard Payne vs TX-Dallas
Trinity (TX) vs Rhodes
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TeeDub on February 24, 2006, 10:56:06 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2006, 09:36:26 AM

So, who have we got so far in Pool C:  I think Ramdolph-Macon, York and Gordon are locks.

Other contenders: Occidental, Wartburg, Willamette, NYU, Lakeland, LaCrosse, NJCU.

I only included teams that have lost already, not those teams that will lose (MIAC, CCIW, NESCAC, etc).

Do any of you think anyone else should be on this list at this point?

With Oxy's HUGE win over Caltech last night, they have to be a lock....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 24, 2006, 11:09:01 AM
That win may hurt their QOWI, though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 11:09:58 AM

It does hurt their QOWI and I sure hope you're being sarcastic Jordis.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TeeDub on February 24, 2006, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2006, 11:09:58 AM

It does hurt their QOWI and I sure hope you're being sarcastic Jordis.

C'mon, Hoops, give me some credit...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 11:18:45 AM

You never know this time of year, the NCAA bug gets into so many otherwise normal, logical people's heads.  It's like a bad science fiction movie.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TeeDub on February 24, 2006, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2006, 11:18:45 AM

.....otherwise normal, logical people's heads. 

Am I to take this as you find me "otherwise normal and logical"?...this is a big day in d3hoops...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 11:25:03 AM
Quote from: Jordis Rocks on February 24, 2006, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2006, 11:18:45 AM

.....otherwise normal, logical people's heads. 

Am I to take this as you find me "otherwise normal and logical"?...this is a big day in d3hoops...

Well, consider the source.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 24, 2006, 11:37:36 AM
Since the NCAA uses the regional rankings to pick the Pool C teams, I thought I'd look at the impact of the games so far this week.

NE: Gordon stays at #4 despite their loss - they're still ahead of Trinity on QOWI and WP.

AT: Farmingdale up to #3; Ramapo into rankings.

MA: York falls to #3 behind Lincoln, but still ahead of Alvernia.

SO: Randolph Macon and Virginia Wesleyan stay unchanged.

MW: Lakeland stays at #8, since no one else is close.

WE: 4 Whitewater, 5 LaCrosse, 6 Occidental, 7 St. Thomas, 8 Wartburg or Whitworth.

Bottom line for Pool C: Gordon, York, RMC are all safely in. LaCrosse leads Occidental in the West Region bubble race.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 24, 2006, 11:43:02 AM
Don't pay attention to regions for the Pool C teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2006, 11:58:00 AM
Actually, the regions are relevant, because the top candidate in each region is "on the board" at the same time.

But VWC and RMC did play since the last regional rankings came out. Those are always through Sunday and the ODAC title game was Monday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 11:58:22 AM
Let's look at it regionally.  Here is my take on teams with a shot at Pool C, as it stands now, before more upsets clog things up:

NE: Tufts, Gordon, Trinity

E: NYU, Utica

A: NJCU, Richard Stockton

MA: York, Scranton

S: RMC, Fisk (I'm not convinced they'll get a Pool B with a loss to Maryville), HPU

GL: Hope, Wittenberg, Albion, Wilmington, Ohio Northern, Bethany (might miss Pool B), Ohio Wesleyan

M: Carroll, IWU, WashU, North Central, Lakeland

W: Stout, LaCrosse, Occidental, St Thomas, Whitworth
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 12:04:10 PM

It would be tough to pick down through without the final QOWI, but that is what it looks like now, without upsets.  It could get quite tight by Sunday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2006, 12:13:47 PM
Men's QOWI through Thursday's games.

I'm a little concerned there may be conference tourney games we have missed getting onto the schedule. Please let me know if that's the case.

1-10
Amherst     12.000     22-1
Lawrence    11.550    20-0
Worcester Polytech    11.091    19-3
Tufts    11.000    19-4
Mississippi College    10.913    22-1
Augustana    10.864    19-3
Trinity (Texas)    10.833    16-2
Lincoln    10.813    12-4
St. John Fisher    10.810    20-1
Cortland State    10.667    22-2
               
11-20
Gordon    10.560    22-3
Virginia Wesleyan    10.481    24-3
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3
Carnegie Mellon    10.389    14-4
William Paterson    10.250    18-6
Bates    10.238    16-5
Wittenberg    10.238    18-3
Wooster    10.227    20-2
Washington U.    10.211    14-5
Baruch    10.174    21-2
               
21-30
UW-Whitewater    10.136    17-5
Carleton    10.136    18-4
Keene State    10.130    17-6
Carroll    10.095    18-3
Transylvania    10.080    21-4
Illinois Wesleyan    10.053    14-5
Calvin    10.000    12-1
UW-Stout    10.000    18-4
Widener    10.000    19-4
Alvernia    9.958    21-3

31-40
Lakeland    9.905    17-4
North Central    9.895    14-5
Trinity (Conn.)    9.895    15-4
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.870    18-5
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6
Ursinus    9.826    18-5
St. Thomas    9.792    19-5
Hope    9.765    15-2
Occidental    9.750    12-4
               
41-50
Baldwin-Wallace    9.750    20-4
Fisk    9.714    10-4
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.714    6-1
Puget Sound    9.706    15-2
New York University    9.696    17-6
Utica    9.667    19-5
Whitworth    9.652    18-5
MIT    9.652    16-7
Salem State    9.583    18-6
Lake Erie    9.550    16-4
               
51-60
Williams    9.542    16-8
Rhode Island College    9.480    17-8
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.478    15-8
Westfield State    9.478    16-7
Colby-Sawyer    9.458    16-8
New Jersey    9.455    14-8
Rochester    9.450    13-7
Catholic    9.435    18-5
Bowdoin    9.429    13-8
Albright    9.409    14-8
               
61-70
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    9.400    15-5
Howard Payne    9.391    17-6
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.391    17-6
Pomona-Pitzer    9.353    13-4
Messiah    9.348    16-7
Endicott    9.333    16-8
Mount St. Mary    9.333    18-6
Manhattanville    9.320    17-8
Bethany    9.304    19-4
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.300    14-6
               
71-80
UW-Stevens Point    9.292    15-9
Johns Hopkins    9.286    15-6
Wartburg    9.273    17-5
Albion    9.267    12-3
Hamilton    9.250    16-4
Scranton    9.250    18-6
Richard Stockton    9.208    15-9
Willamette    9.200    16-4
Emmanuel    9.200    19-6
New Jersey City    9.167    16-8
               
81-90
Coe    9.143    15-6
Hanover    9.143    13-8
Elmhurst    9.143    14-7
UW-Oshkosh    9.136    13-9
McMurry    9.136    16-6
Franklin    9.130    17-6
Plymouth State    9.115    16-10
Centre    9.100    13-7
Oswego State    9.083    18-6
Ohio Northern    9.048    16-5
               
91-100
Norwich    9.042    19-5
Ohio Wesleyan    9.000    17-6
Elms    9.000    18-4
Rutgers-Newark    9.000    17-9
Elizabethtown    9.000    13-9
Ramapo    8.957    14-9
Chicago    8.947    11-8
Wilmington    8.923    20-6
Gettysburg    8.913    15-8
Coast Guard    8.913    16-7
               
101-110
Brockport State    8.905    12-9
Aurora    8.900    13-7
Averett    8.900    15-5
Mass-Boston    8.870    14-9
Milwaukee Engineering    8.857    14-7
Villa Julie    8.850    16-4
Southwestern    8.850    14-6
Gustavus Adolphus    8.833    16-8
Pitt-Greensburg    8.762    14-7
Clarke    8.714    14-7
               
111-120
Baptist Bible    8.706    13-4 INELIGIBLE
Brandeis    8.696    13-10
Springfield    8.667    10-14
Mass-Dartmouth    8.636    12-10
Christopher Newport    8.615    9-4
Plattsburgh State    8.609    14-9
Union    8.600    13-7
Wilkes    8.600    13-7
SUNYIT    8.591    12-10
Bridgewater State    8.591    13-9
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 12:20:23 PM

Ok, disregard what I said.  That list of possible Pool C teams has to be rearranged in light of these QOWI numbers.  I know there will be a lot of shifts with the tournaments finishing up, but I don't think I did a good enough job down there.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 12:29:05 PM
1-10
Amherst     12.000     22-1
Lawrence    11.550    20-0
Worcester Polytech    11.091    19-3
Tufts    11.000    19-4
Mississippi College    10.913    22-1
Augustana    10.864    19-3
Trinity (Texas)    10.833    16-2
Lincoln    10.813    12-4 Pool B
St. John Fisher    10.810    20-1
Cortland State    10.667    22-2
               
11-20
Gordon    10.560    22-3
Virginia Wesleyan    10.481    24-3 Already in, Pool A
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3
Carnegie Mellon    10.389    14-4
William Paterson    10.250    18-6
Bates    10.238    16-5
Wittenberg    10.238    18-3
Wooster    10.227    20-2
Washington U.    10.211    14-5
Baruch    10.174    21-2
               
21-30
UW-Whitewater    10.136    17-5
Carleton    10.136    18-4
Keene State    10.130    17-6
Carroll    10.095    18-3
Transylvania    10.080    21-4
Illinois Wesleyan    10.053    14-5
Calvin    10.000    12-1
UW-Stout    10.000    18-4
Widener    10.000    19-4
Alvernia    9.958    21-3 Already in, Pool A

31-40
Lakeland    9.905    17-4
North Central    9.895    14-5
Trinity (Conn.)    9.895    15-4
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.870    18-5
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6
Ursinus    9.826    18-5
St. Thomas    9.792    19-5
Hope    9.765    15-2
Occidental    9.750    12-4

That's 18 Italicised Pool C contenders.  Here are the next five.
           
41-50
Baldwin-Wallace    9.750    20-4
Fisk    9.714    10-4 Pool B
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.714    6-1 Pool B
Puget Sound    9.706    15-2
New York University    9.696    17-6
Utica    9.667    19-5
Whitworth    9.652    18-5
MIT    9.652    16-7
Salem State    9.583    18-6
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2006, 12:48:44 PM
Commenting on two of the named C candidates:

Lakeland does seem reasonably likely (17-4 in region, #31 QOWI) - their biggest problem is that they will probably not even reach the table until at least #5 in the MW.  IF they get a chance to BE considered, they seem strong, but will they even reach the table?

Willamette seems like a real long-shot - their in-region is a highly respectable 16-4, but they're only #78 in QOWI and not even listed in the last W regional rankings WE will see.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 12:51:48 PM

Yeah, these QOWI numbers are making me rethink that.  Still, with the in-region winning percentage, we at least have to keep them on the table for now.

By the way, its looking more and more likely Albion will not get a Pool C bid.  That seems very strange.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2006, 02:23:55 PM
Looking back at last year, below is the QOWI Pat posted after the Saturday games, heading into Selection Sunday 2005 (page 2 of this thread).  Final Pool A and B teams are crossed off...the Pool C's selected are in bold.  In region records from the final regional polls are included for the top Pool C candidates.

(Whatever games were played on Selection Sunday last year are not factored in below obviously.)


1-10
Amherst     12.083
St. John Fisher    10.957
Worcester Polytech    10.920
Illinois Wesleyan    10.909
Ramapo    10.792
Springfield    10.731 (21-5, .807)   C  
King's    10.720
Puget Sound    10.684
Aurora    10.636
UW-Stevens Point    10.600

11-20
Maryville (Tenn.)    10.478
Rochester    10.435
Gustavus Adolphus    10.423
Albright    10.400
Lawrence    10.381
Potsdam State    10.370
Mississippi College    10.348 (20-4, .833)   C
York (Pa.)    10.273
Wittenberg    10.227
Virginia Wesleyan    10.200

21-30
Hanover    10.200
Salem State    10.167
Lebanon Valley    10.130
Albion    10.118 (14-3, .824)  C
Pomona-Pitzer    10.063
Bates    10.042 (17-8, .680)
Scranton    10.000 (18-6, .750) 
Western Connecticut    9.962
DeSales    9.960 (18-7, .720) 
Wooster    9.958 (22-2, .917)    C

31-40
Trinity (Conn.)    9.952 (15-6, .714) 
Trinity (Texas)    9.944
Hardin-Simmons    9.917 (18-6, .780)
Benedictine    9.917 (19-5, .792)
Franklin and Marshall    9.885 (20-7, .741) 
Endicott    9.885
Gwynedd-Mercy    9.875
John Carroll    9.833 (19-5, .792)  C
Lincoln    9.765 (12-4, .750)
New Jersey City    9.762 (13-7, .650)   C

41-50
Wheaton (Ill.)    9.737 (15-4, .789)   C
Calvin    9.733
Transylvania    9.682
Buena Vista    9.636
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.625
Ripon    9.625
Plymouth State    9.615
Elmhurst    9.609
Messiah    9.600
Colby-Sawyer    9.600

51-60
Oswego State    9.593
Rochester Tech    9.500
George Fox    9.444
UW-Platteville    9.417
Southwestern    9.381
St. Thomas    9.375
Wartburg    9.333
New Jersey    9.320
Sul Ross State    9.304
Rhode Island College    9.292

61-70
New York City Tech    9.280
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.280
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.269
Richard Stockton    9.269
Washington U.    9.238
Clarke    9.238
Husson    9.227
Hobart    9.227
Penn State-Behrend    9.208
Bethany    9.190

71-80
Cortland State    9.160
Norwich    9.111
Carroll    9.087
Wilkes    9.083
UW-Oshkosh    9.083
Catholic    9.080
Lasell    9.071
Adrian    9.053
Carnegie Mellon    9.048
Augustana    9.048

81-90
Randolph-Macon    9.042
Tufts    9.000
Pitt-Greensburg    9.000
Goucher    8.952
Williams    8.950
Mary Washington    8.950
Hampden-Sydney    8.913
Lycoming    8.909
Muskingum    8.880
William Paterson    8.875

91-100
Ursinus    8.870
Rowan    8.870
Carleton    8.870
Gettysburg    8.864
Elms    8.857  
Centre    8.840
McMurry    8.833
Keene State    8.818
Elizabethtown    8.818
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    8.813

101-110
Otterbein    8.810
Baldwin-Wallace    8.792
Occidental    8.786
Union    8.783
Rutgers-Newark    8.783
Lehman    8.739
Capital    8.739
Bridgewater (Va.)    8.739
Lake Erie    8.696
Framingham State    8.696

111-119
UW-Whitewater    8.682
Western New England    8.667
Brockport State    8.667
Bethel    8.667
Brandeis    8.625
Maine-Farmington    8.619
Ithaca    8.591
Kean    8.583
Chapman    8.583

5 teams in the 2005 field were below this QOWI cutoff:

Mt St. Mary
Methodist
Texas-Dallas
Blackburn
Edgewood
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 24, 2006, 02:32:45 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2006, 12:51:48 PM
By the way, its looking more and more likely Albion will not get a Pool C bid.  That seems very strange.

Well, I've been saying that for a couple of weeks now.  It may seem strange if you are thinking about how good the team is, or how solid the program is, but their numbers don't add up.

Other GL teams that have no reasonable shot at Pool C (probably behind Albion in the GL cafeteria line) are Ohio Northern, Wilmington, Ohio Wesleyan, Lake Erie.

GL Pool C bids:  Wooster or Wittenberg (or both, if need be) are locks.  Calvin (if necessary) is a lock.  Baldwin-Wallace (if necessary) is a lock.  Hope is in if they beat Albion today.  Bethany will get a Pool B bid.  That's pretty much it, from where I sit.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 02:49:16 PM

Thanks for the info, Q.  I wonder if those italicised teams would have become Pool C had there been 18 bids.  I think we would have seen more of those "passed over" spots filled in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 24, 2006, 02:59:41 PM
Q, New Jersey City was a Pool B team last year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 03:23:44 PM
Lebanon Valley was the other Pool C team; Albright won the AQ in the MACC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 03:25:36 PM
If you notice.  Last year's Pool C's went by in-region winning percentage of those high in the SOSI.

Lebanon Valley was 18-5, with a .782 in-region winning percentage.  That made the difference for teams with good numbers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 24, 2006, 03:33:01 PM
Great post Q... it'll be interesting to see how it all works out this year, and I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown after the selections have been made.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 03:43:27 PM

Actually, looking at it that way really makes it seem totally mathematical.  They took the QOWI list and out of the top 15 non-Pool A or B teams, picked the best 7 in-region winning percentages.

It could be conceivable that they would do the same this year, perhaps with the top 25 or 30 C elligible teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dewcrew88 on February 24, 2006, 03:51:07 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2006, 02:23:55 PM
Looking back at last year, below is the QOWI Pat posted after the Saturday games, heading into Selection Sunday 2005 (page 2 of this thread).  Final Pool A and B teams are crossed off...the Pool C's selected are in bold.  In region records from the final regional polls are included for the top Pool C candidates.

(Whatever games were played on Selection Sunday last year are not factored in below obviously.)

31-40
John Carroll    9.833 (19-5, .792)  C

New Jersey City    9.762 (13-7, .650)   C

41-50
Wheaton (Ill.)    9.737 (15-4, .789)   C

So last year, the selection committee chose these three for Pool C bids, and Utica was 19-5 in region, just like John Carroll, and better than NJCU and Wheaton. So I definitely think that Utica College could have a chance at the Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: tommygun on February 24, 2006, 03:57:23 PM
There has been much discussion about pool C in the GL region.  I am not clear if people think CMU has a shot at a pool C bid.  While it is likely they will get an A it is certainly not impossible that they won't.  If this happens with a loss to Rochester their QQWI would not drop all that sigificantly so they would still probably be in the top 20 (or thereabouts) in the country with their QQWI.  As an earlier post showed even last year the top 25 QQWI's all got in (admittedly most were not pool C.) 

It just seems that they must at least have a shot at a pool C bid (as they have been ranked in the region all three weeks on top of everything else.)  I am not suggesting they would definitely get in (obviously con. tourn. upsets obviously have something to do with that), but seems like they have to have a shot.  Of course all of this is moot if they beat Rochester or Wahington U.  loses to Chicago.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2006, 04:01:09 PM
If CM is not the A, I'd view them as a near-lock for a C.

(For the sake of all other C contenders, go CM, get the A!  WashU is much more 'bubble-ish'.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 04:45:03 PM

I'll be interested to see if Pat and crew can run the QOWI numbers quick enough on Sunday for us to see them before the announcement.  I'd like to test that theory about taking the best regional winning percenatage from a group of high QOWI C contenders.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 24, 2006, 04:50:37 PM
I forgot about CMU when I posted about Pool C in the GL earlier today.  Maybe it's just as well, because I think you'd almost have to be a committee member to figure out in advance if they are a Pool C or not.  On the one hand, they have a great QoWI, still tops in the GL and 14th-best in the nation.  (Their QoWI would be about 10.158 with a loss to Rochester.)  On the other hand, their in-region win % is pretty mediocre, at least by GL standards: at 14-5 (.737) (again assuming the required loss to Rochester), they'd trail between 8-11 other teams in the GL alone, including at least three other Pool C contenders. 

It comes down to the GL Committee and where they decide to slot CMU in the final secret poll.  There's nothing that says that the national committee has to view the primary criteria the same way the regional committees do.  The national committee may look at the Tartans' QoWI and think they're a winner, but if the regional committee slots CMU behind Albion and/or Lake Erie (which is possible, since CMU has to lose to Rochester to become a Pool C, leaving them at 14-5 vs. LEC's potential 18-5 and Albion's potential 13-4), then CMU may never reach the national table for the national committee to debate.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 24, 2006, 04:53:04 PM
upset from SUNYAC semi's. SUNYIT coached by Tom Murphy, upsets Cortland State 81-74. What does that do the Cortland in terms of a POOL C bid?? I think they will get in but will it hurt there chances of getting a home game?? I do remember one year where Brockport lost I think in the semi's of the conference tournament and got the top seed in the EAST/NE Bracket. They also lost to UR in the ELITE 8 on their home court though. I may have the years wrong, but Brockport did get a home game
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 05:10:36 PM

Cortland is still in, no problem.

So now we're at RMC, Cortland, Gordon, and York as locks?  Only 14 more bids left.

Throw in the nonAQ from Tufts/Amherst, Witt/Woo, and Hope/Calvin, you're down to 11 remaining.  It's getting scary.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 24, 2006, 05:14:51 PM
I never thought Cortland would not be in but was thinking about the situation where Brockport got a great seeding even though they didn't win the conference tournament. I know, you can't base a season on a conference tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: mrmike88 on February 24, 2006, 05:19:33 PM
How much will the loss to SUNYIT hurt Cortland's QOWI, and will they continue to hold the top spot in their region?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 24, 2006, 05:22:12 PM
they will not keep the #1 ranking in the East, even if Fisher loses to RIT or UTICA/ITHACA. Will Cortland's QOWI drop? Undoubtedly, YES. How much?? don't know. losses in tournament play aren't good, especially now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 24, 2006, 05:23:33 PM
The loss by Cortland may help Hamilton or even NYU or even UR if they can win tomorrow. If I had to rank the teams that were helped by Cortland losing today in the east region,
1) HAMILTON
2) UTICA
3) NYU
4) UR
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 24, 2006, 05:28:36 PM
As a Northwest Conference observer, I certainly hope both teams playing for tourney title get a good look. UPS faces a hot team in Whitworth, that has won 11 straight, haven't lost since in over a month of make or break games.  Whitworth has the conference's Player of the Year and has beaten the 3rd place team Willamette 3 times this year.  They split the home and home with UPS....lost to Occidental by 1 at Occi in Occi's own tourney early season and has played tourney teams like Calvin (at Calvin in Nov.) in non conference.

Should Whitworth win at UPS Sat...they get the bid and UPS will most likely get a pool C but beating UPS at home is very tough and Whitworth lost by 1 when the final shot of the game by Whitworth missed.  

If the Finish strong element played into the bids...Whitworth would be a lock.

2 from Northwest!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2006, 05:39:39 PM
Whitworth actually does seem to have stronger C credentials than Willamette - more in-region wins (though a marginally lower %), 18-5 vs. 16-4, and a much higher QOWI rank, #47 vs. #78.  What may hinder both is not being regionally ranked on the last rankings WE will see - but who knows what the selection committee may see!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on February 24, 2006, 06:07:16 PM
If Cortland is definitely in, besides the fact that its another Pool C taken, is there anyway that Trinity (CT) would be helped by this because Trinity beat them.  Or does it hurt their chances by taking away a C and then dropping Trinity's QOWI even further with Cortland's loss.

I hope the NCAA looks at head-to-head out of region games.  But I know that's just a dream.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 24, 2006, 06:18:14 PM
You know what might be interesting?  If we posters formed committees and made our own mock-selection of the tournament field.  We have a poster's poll, why not a poster's committee?  It's probably too late to arrange something like this now, but suppose we had one poster who was fairly knowledgeable (and reasonably free of bias) of their region produce a regional ranking, adhering to the NCAA's primary criteria but weighing those criteria as s/he sees fit, then have a group of 4 or 5 posters with good national awareness take those 8 regional polls and do a mock selection, again respecting the rules set forth by the NCAA.  The faux-national committee would have to be comprised of folks who have a good national awareness, such as (obviously) Pat (who doubtless would not have the time for this), Greg Sager, Gordon Mann, Coach C, and maybe smedindy, just off the top of my head.

Any interest in this from anyone?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2006, 06:32:17 PM
DC,

I'm hurt you didn't include me.  :'(

Just kidding.  Sounds interesting, and yeah, you're probably right that it's a little late to throw something like that together.  I'm probably heading to Whitewater for the conference final and then out of town Sunday, so my input would've been minimal anyway!  After reading the posts about Pool C bids regarding QOWI and in-region winning %, there's VERY SLIGHT chance La Crosse could slip in there! Three from the WIAC, say it ain't so (assuming Stout and Whitewater are both in)...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2006, 06:49:00 PM
David,

An intriguing idea, but I think the turn-around time is too little for posters to pull it off (unless they wanted to second-guess the committee AFTER the fact).

Having compiled the Posters' Poll (wish I could have talked you into it - geez, PP or Bar Exam, where's your priorities! ;)), quick response is NOT necessarily gonna happen.  I was never going to release the PP before the real poll as a sign of respect (Pat sounded like he was only reluctantly permitting it to procede at all), but several weeks I was still appealing for ballots several hours after the d3 poll was already out.

IF you want to tackle this as a 'how good or bad were the NCAA picks?' project (I assume you now have all the time in the world, right ;D), I'd be happy to do a region or be on the national committee (and, despite what many regulars think, IWU would NOT be seeded #1 in the country)!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 24, 2006, 07:40:51 PM
Hope drops Albion in the MIAA semis, 76-65.  Albion drops to 12-4 in-region (.750) and approx. 9.125 QoWI.  I'm pretty sure that's not going to get it done, Pool C-wise.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2006, 08:36:06 PM
From the first round of the SCAC tourney in Memphis,

#8 seed Rhodes 87, #1 seed Trinity 83

Errata:  not OT!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 24, 2006, 08:50:37 PM
Why can't these 1-bid conferences just hold up???  They are quickly eating up Pool C bids
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 24, 2006, 08:52:14 PM
CCIW semifinal:
North Central 67
Elmhurst 57

Elmhurst drops to 14-8, 9.045, and their season, along with Chris Martin's All-America career, is over.

NCAC semifinal:
Wittenberg 63
Ohio Wesleyan 46

OWU wasn't really alive anyway, but as they were mentioned as a Pool C possibility, I'll note that they fall to 17-7, 8.917.  Stick a fork in the Bishops.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2006, 08:55:07 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 24, 2006, 08:50:37 PM
Why can't these 1-bid conferences just hold up???  They are quickly eating up Pool C bids

Because there is too much parity in D3 and the mathematical analysis is showing it to be true.

I am awaiting the opponents' opponents' winning percentage and an inter-region mathematical analysis. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2006, 09:02:57 PM
Since Trinity (TX) was #7 in QOWI prior to tonite (and is still 16-3 in-region), I think we can safely add them to the rapidly growing list of should-have-been AQs who are stealing C spots.  Are there going to be ANY left for legitimate #2s?! ;)

(Yes, I realize some of those spots probably will be taken by legitimate #2s - but some won't.  And some will be taken by teams where the #2 would have no chance - CCC does NOT deserve two spots, but Gordon does, and spots are given to TEAMS, not conferences.) 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bamm on February 24, 2006, 09:19:15 PM
RIT - 65
Fisher - 67

OT.  Pool C contenders can now exhale.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 24, 2006, 09:19:51 PM
Wooster survives the upset bid by Earlham, winning 84-74 to advance to the NCAC finals against Wittenberg.  Since both Wooster and Wittenberg are Pool C locks, and one will now take a Pool A bid, this essentially saves a pool C bid for someone else.  Like York, or Macon, or Trinity, or Gordon.... ::)

Calvin defeats Kalamazoo in the MIAA semis, 66-55, setting up Hope/Calvin III.  Like the NCAC finals, this is a battle of Pool C locks, so another potential two-C conference will take just one C bid (assuming, as I do, that Albion is out.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 24, 2006, 09:59:39 PM
The front page says that Baruch is losing 31-21 at the half in their championship game....come on Baruch!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 24, 2006, 10:10:43 PM
Down goes Baruch
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 24, 2006, 10:56:11 PM
It sounds like Illinois Wesleyan is going to oust Augustana in the CCIW semifinals.  Augie joins the list of teams taking away Pool C berths before the allocating has even begun.  What're we up to now, about 6 or 7 golden locks?

Augie
York (Pa)
Gordon
RMC
Cortland
Baruch
Trinity (TX)
...and I'm probably forgetting some...

Plus the loser of Woo/Witt III, and the loser of Calvin/Hope III.

Then you have Amherst/Bates vs. Tufts/Trinity (CT), and I don't know HOW many C's are in there!

We're accumulating C's as quickly as I did in my second year of college!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2006, 11:04:42 PM

Just checking scores on the dial-up at home, so m=no major posting, but Baruch and Trinity?  We're down to like 8 bids for the teams that were fighting for 18 two days ago.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 24, 2006, 11:10:16 PM
Just thank God that they expanded the "C" pool to 18 this year, otherwise can you imagine the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments? The sackcloth would come out, big time!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2006, 11:14:59 PM
Trinity's loss to Rhodes was worth only 3 QOWI points.

I calculate that this drops them from 16-2 and 10.833 to 16-3 and 10.421.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 24, 2006, 11:16:25 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 24, 2006, 11:10:16 PM
Just thank God that they expanded the "C" pool to 18 this year, otherwise can you imagine the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments? The sackcloth would come out, big time!

On the other hand, without the expanded field I wonder if we'd be inking into the bracket names like "Baruch" and "Gordon" at this point.  Instead I think there'd be lamentations about how the best Baruch team in a quarter century missed its golden opportunity, or some such.

Or was that what you meant?

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2006, 11:14:59 PM
Trinity's loss to Rhodes was worth only 3 QOWI points.

I calculate that this drops them from 16-2 and 10.833 to 16-3 and 10.421.


In other words, that drops them from "in" to "still in."  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2006, 11:25:57 PM
Ralph, relax!  16-3, !0.4+ is a lock!

If IWU loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 10.14 - I think that is still a pretty safe C.

If NCC loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 9.905 - what do people think the odds are on that?  (Obviously depending upon expected AQs becoming Cs, I suspect that is top of the bubble range - other thoughts?)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 24, 2006, 11:36:07 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2006, 11:25:57 PM
Ralph, relax!  16-3, !0.4+ is a lock!

If IWU loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 10.14 - I think that is still a pretty safe C.

If NCC loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 9.905 - what do people think the odds are on that?  (Obviously depending upon expected AQs becoming Cs, I suspect that is top of the bubble range - other thoughts?)

In both cases, the 6 losses give me a little pause.  If the committee favors QoWI, they're probably both in.  If they favor regional win %, a .714 win percentage with 6 losses is troubling.  Just look at at how many teams in the Northeast (http://www.d3hoops.com/regions.php?region=northeast&team=m&view=standings) or Great Lakes (http://www.d3hoops.com/regions.php?region=greatlakes&team=m&view=standings) Regions have better regional records than .714.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2006, 12:07:14 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 24, 2006, 11:36:07 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2006, 11:25:57 PM
Ralph, relax!  16-3, !0.4+ is a lock!

If IWU loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 10.14 - I think that is still a pretty safe C.

If NCC loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 9.905 - what do people think the odds are on that?  (Obviously depending upon expected AQs becoming Cs, I suspect that is top of the bubble range - other thoughts?)

In both cases, the 6 losses give me a little pause.  If the committee favors QoWI, they're probably both in.  If they favor regional win %, a .714 win percentage with 6 losses is troubling.  Just look at at how many teams in the Northeast (http://www.d3hoops.com/regions.php?region=northeast&team=m&view=standings) or Great Lakes (http://www.d3hoops.com/regions.php?region=greatlakes&team=m&view=standings) Regions have better regional records than .714.

You are quite correct, David, by the primary criteria.  Which, of course, is what is wrong with the primary criteria.  From that Northeast list, can you find me more than 5-6 teams with any realistic hope of finishing in the top four of the CCIW or WIAC (and those are conferences, not regions).  Or, more to your heart, can you find me more than 2-3 with a realistic chance of finishing in the top 6 of the Great Lakes region?

Sorry to vent on you (I'm pretty sure you are already part of the 'choir'), but these regional criteria to select a national tourney REALLY get to me!  They may fit the d3 philosophy (though I doubt it), but they really violate the COLLEGE philosophy, since they are totally illogical, violate all rules of statistics, and are fundamentally irrational.  Other than that, I got no problem with 'em! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2006, 12:15:13 AM
Here are the Top Pool C candidates by the Regional Rankings:

Atlantic
1 Baruch 20-2 22-4   CUNYAC  Lost to York NY in Finals
2 William Paterson 17-6 18-7  NJAC
3 New Jersey City 16-8 17-9  NJAC Lost to Ramapo in QtrF
4 SUNY-Farmingdale 16-5 19-5  Skyline
5 Richard Stockton 15-7 17-8  NJAC Lost to Ramapo in Semis
NR York NY 15-9 15-13 CUNYAC Pool A    

East
1 St. John Fisher 20-1 22-3  E8
2 Cortland State 21-3 22-4  SUNYAC  Loss to SUNYIT in Semis
3 New York University 17-6 18-6  UAA
4 Utica 18-5 19-5  E8
5 Hamilton 16-4 20-4  LL

Great Lakes
1 Wooster 19-2 23-2 NCAC
2 Calvin 11-1 20-5  MIAA
3 Hope 15-2 23-2  MIAA
4 Wittenberg 17-3 22-3  NCAC
5 Baldwin-Wallace 19-4 21-4  OAC
6 Carnegie Mellon 15-4 19-5   Leading the UAA

Mid-Atlantic
1 York (Pa.) 22-3 24-3  CAC  Lost in CAC Semis
2 Lincoln 12-4 20-4   Pool B #1
3 Alvernia 19-3 21-4 PnAC  Pool A
4 Widener 19-4 20-4  MACC
5 Ursinus 18-5 19-6   CC
6 Catholic 16-5 18-6  CAC
7 Scranton 17-6 19-6   MACF
8 Albright 14-7 16-8  MACC  Lost to Messiah in Semis

Midwest
1 Lawrence 20-0 22-0  MWC
2 Augustana 19-4 21-5   CCIW  Lost to IWU in Semis
3 Transylvania 21-4 21-4  HCAC
4 Carroll 18-3 20-3  MWC
5 Illinois Wesleyan 14-5 19-5  CCIW
6 North Central 14-5 20-5  CCIW
7 Washington U. 14-5 17-7  UAA
8 Lakeland 17-4 21-6  LMC  Lost in LMC Semis

Northeast
1 Amherst 23-1 24-2  NESCAC
2 Worcester Polytech 19-3 20-3  NEWMAC
3 Tufts 19-4 19-5  NESCAC
4 Gordon 22-3 23-4  CCC  Lost in CCC Semis
5 Trinity (Conn.) 15-4 18-5  NESCAC
6 Bates 15-5 19-5  NESCAC
7 Keene State 15-6 18-6  LEC
8 Rhode Island College 16-8 16-8  LEC  Lost in Semis
9 Salem State 18-6 18-7  MASCAC  Lost to Bridgewater St in Semis
10 Williams 16-8 17-8 NESCAC

South
1 Mississippi College 22-1 24-1  ASC-East
2 Trinity (Texas) 16-3 20-6  SCAC  Loss to #8 seed Rhodes in SCAC QtrF. 3pt QOWI loss
3 Virginia Wesleyan 23-3 24-3  ODAC  Pool A
4 Randolph-Macon 19-5 22-5   ODAC
T5. Fisk 9-4 14-10  Pool B candidate  Lost to Huntingdon in Semis
T5. Maryville (Tenn.) 14-6 19-6   Pool B #3
7 Howard Payne 17-6 18-6  ASC-West
8 Mary Hardin-Baylor 17-6 17-8  ASC-West

West
1 UW-Stout 16-4 19-5  WIAC
2 Puget Sound 15-2 20-4  NWC
3 Carleton 17-4 20-5  MIAC
4 Occidental 11-3 18-4  SCIAC  (CMS has the Pool A.)
5 UW-Whitewater 15-5 19-5  WIAC
6 UW-La Crosse 17-6 19-6  WIAC Lost to UW-W in semis
7 Wartburg 17-5 19-6  IIAC  Lost in IIAC Semis
8 St. Thomas 18-5 20-5  MIAC
UR  CMS  SCIAC Pool A
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2006, 12:19:10 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 24, 2006, 11:10:16 PM
Just thank God that they expanded the "C" pool to 18 this year, otherwise can you imagine the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments? The sackcloth would come out, big time!

amen to that.


Can I officially take Hope off the bubble, with a 15 point QOWI win tonight and maximum points for a loss tomorrow ::).......if that should happen.

Albion............4 in-region losses   Calvin, @ Hope, @ Calvin, Hope

something is wrong with this system they should be in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2006, 12:22:13 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2006, 11:25:57 PM
Ralph, relax!  16-3, !0.4+ is a lock!

If IWU loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 10.14 - I think that is still a pretty safe C.

If NCC loses tomorrow, they are still 15-6, 9.905 - what do people think the odds are on that?  (Obviously depending upon expected AQs becoming Cs, I suspect that is top of the bubble range - other thoughts?)

In the SCAC, Southwestern is still in position to win the AQ, even tho' they lost to Trinity twice.  That sets up the 2 schools in the same conference for the bracket.  If an ASC-West school defeats Miss Coll in the tourney, we have another Pool A bid, and a "third" in Texas.  Add the bye and we have a tripod. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 25, 2006, 12:34:14 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2006, 12:07:14 AM
You are quite correct, David, by the primary criteria. Which, of course, is what is wrong with the primary criteria. From that Northeast list, can you find me more than 5-6 teams with any realistic hope of finishing in the top four of the CCIW or WIAC (and those are conferences, not regions). Or, more to your heart, can you find me more than 2-3 with a realistic chance of finishing in the top 6 of the Great Lakes region?

Sorry to vent on you (I'm pretty sure you are already part of the 'choir'), but these regional criteria to select a national tourney REALLY get to me! They may fit the d3 philosophy (though I doubt it), but they really violate the COLLEGE philosophy, since they are totally illogical, violate all rules of statistics, and are fundamentally irrational. Other than that, I got no problem with 'em! ;D

I'm not really in the choir.  I look at national championship tournaments as nice, I'm glad we have them, but they're really sort of beside the point.  Therefore I refuse to get worked up when the criteria allow in a team the isn't "deserving" at the expensive of one who is, however I decide to subjectively define "deserving."  The criteria are out there, they're fairly easy to understand, and everyone knows them in advance.  They may not fit anyone's particular method of populating the tournament, but the fact remains that it's up to the NCAA and not us.

Furthermore, I have no way to decide on my own who the best 59 teams are.  I figure, if a team does all that they are supposed to do to earn a bid, then they should earn a bid.

So I refuse to get all wrapped up in who "should" or "shouldn't" be in.  I just try to apply the criteria. 

In candor, I have to admit that my team hasn't been left out lately.  That may color my perceptions.  And I wasn't a player.  That would definitely color my perceptions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2006, 12:50:48 AM
DC - that's exactly what I meant. And it's still sad Albion can't go.

And I KNOW who the best 18 teams are (and the best 4 B's as well) - if the NCAA would just consult me!  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2006, 12:59:07 AM
I'm now thinking Albion has a shot.

There are only SIX teams in the Great Lakes Regional.

Wooster, Calvin, Wittenberg, Hope, Baldwin-Wallace and Carnegie Mellon.

Wooster/Wittenberg gets the AQ
Calvin/Hope gets the AQ
Baldwin-Wallace plays in the OAC championship game
Carnegie Mellon just has to win on Saturday to take the UAA

So, potentially, there will only be TWO teams ahead of Albion.  I have a feeling Ohio Northern will be right behind Albion, if not already ahead of them.


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2006, 01:06:15 AM
OS makes a good point.......Albion could end up being on the table fairly early.  Witt/Woo and Cal/Hope losers will go pretty fast into the C group.......I hope.

The key is really the "silent" ranking on Suday.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2006, 01:09:40 AM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2006, 01:06:15 AM
The key is really the "silent" ranking on Suday.

"silent" ranking?  Is that kind of like the "silent" N in Sunday?  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2006, 01:10:57 AM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2006, 12:19:10 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 24, 2006, 11:10:16 PM
Just thank God that they expanded the "C" pool to 18 this year, otherwise can you imagine the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments? The sackcloth would come out, big time!

amen to that.


Can I officially take Hope off the bubble, with a 15 point QOWI win tonight and maximum points for a loss tomorrow ::).......if that should happen.

Albion............4 in-region losses   Calvin, @ Hope, @ Calvin, Hope

something is wrong with this system they should be in.


I will play devil's advocate on the Albion case.  Their in-region record, and the NCAA has been using this system since before the current players came to college, is 12-4

The non-conference games that were wasted and did not help Albion's case were:

Michigan-Dearborn--NAIA
DePauw -- 78-70 home win over an average South Region team in a very average conference.
Spring Arbor-- another NAIA school
Univ of Dallas -- South Region and so bad that they lost to Dallas Christian College, a weak NCCAA school!  Ugh!
LaGrange-- a 73-70 win over the last place finisher in the South Region GSAC.
Concordia MI -- another NAIA.

I calculate that Albion has a QOWI OF 9.125.

If Albion had substituted road games with Bethany, Lake Erie, PSU-Behrend Pitt Greensburg (all 15 point wins) Wabash and Muskingum 13 point wins, the QOWI rises to 10.556 on an in-region record of 18-4.  If you lost to Muskingum on the road, the In-Region record would be 17-5, and the QOWI would be 10.181.  There is the Pool C bid!

The MIAA ought to be cherry-picking the AMCC.  Go on the road. It is worth an extra point in the numerator!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2006, 01:13:30 AM
You realize the  AMCC is on the other side of Ohio right?   ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2006, 01:20:53 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2006, 04:45:03 PM

I'll be interested to see if Pat and crew can run the QOWI numbers quick enough on Sunday for us to see them before the announcement.  I'd like to test that theory about taking the best regional winning percenatage from a group of high QOWI C contenders.

Probably. I'll be at work, though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 25, 2006, 01:23:03 AM
Yeah, I agree with Ralph.  I seem to have taken the job of official Albion denier, a role I do not relish.  I like Albion, and Coach Turner, and sincerely hope they get in.

But 9.125 is a mediocre QoWI, like around 75th or 80th nationally when the dust settles.  So if QoWI is key, they're in trouble. 

And .750 is a good but not outstanding win %.  And I have to think that the committee would prefer 15-5 to 12-4; in other words, among the teams at or around .750, I think more wins is preferable to fewer losses.  So if win % is key, they're a little better off, but probably not much. 

But most likely, what is key is some combination of these factors.  And with Albion being mediocre in one, and mediocre-to-good in the other, their odds are long indeed.  Even if they are the third GL team at the table.  (After all, when the 18th C team is selected, there will be seven disappointed teams still at the table.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2006, 01:38:34 AM
David, a 17-5 Albion in Great Lakes games, has a 1-4 record against Calvin and Hope, but are 16-1 against the rest of the Great Lakes teams.

Pat Coleman addressed the ASC Coaches in summer 2004.  He strongly advised that they schedule South Region games.  To insure that the ASC has South Region games, the conference plays a 22 game Conference schedule.

As geographically isolated as Michigan is, Texas is worse.  Nevertheless, he graded the ASC.

http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=61

I think that this is a strong message to Albion and anyone else who is on the edge of a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 25, 2006, 02:09:44 AM
Of course, the too-few-regional-games knife cuts both ways.  Just go a few miles west from Albion in I-94 for a perfect counter-example:  Calvin is a threadbare but highly successful 13-1* in the GL (entirely within the MIAA), and their 3-game losing streak in late November is successfully forgotten by virtue of the fact that they came against non-GL (indeed, non-D3) teams.  They will finish the season with 15 regional games, all in conference, and a regional record/QoWI combo of either 14-1/10.267 (and Pool A) or 13-2/9.7133 (Pool C), easily good enough to qualify.  I don't condone it, and it is a razor's-edge way to schedule (vis-a-vis the national tournament), but it can work for you.

Of course, the quintessential way to succeed with as few regional games as possible is being pioneered by Nebraska Wesleyan.  ;)

*Note to Pat Coleman: Tonight's Kalamazoo/Calvin MIAA semifinal is not listed as regional on Calvin's schedule page.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2006, 02:19:42 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2006, 01:38:34 AM
David, a 17-5 Albion in Great Lakes games, has a 1-4 record against Calvin and Hope, but are 16-1 against the rest of the Great Lakes teams.

Pat Coleman addressed the ASC Coaches in summer 2004.  He strongly advised that they schedule South Region games.  To insure that the ASC has South Region games, the conference plays a 22 game Conference schedule.

As geographically isolated as Michigan is, Texas is worse.  Nevertheless, he graded the ASC.

http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=61

I think that this is a strong message to Albion and anyone else who is on the edge of a Pool C bid.

I did address them, though I encouraged them to play non-conference South Region games. As you see in the blog, not all do.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2006, 02:20:51 AM
Dave, thanks, we'll get that taken care of.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2006, 08:13:53 AM
So, on the front page you mentioned that "normally a 1/8 game isn't played on the 8's home court" but it was when Rhodes beat Trinity (TX)...why was that?  Just curious...and that might have cost Trinity the win.  Interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carlweathers on February 25, 2006, 08:49:41 AM
Sc
Quote from: Old School on February 25, 2006, 08:13:53 AM
So, on the front page you mentioned that "normally a 1/8 game isn't played on the 8's home court" but it was when Rhodes beat Trinity (TX)...why was that? Just curious...and that might have cost Trinity the win. Interesting.

The SCAC Tournament is held every year in Memphis.  Every other year the men or women play at Rhodes for the first round and at another site in Memphis for the first round.  The Semis and Finals are all at Rhodes.  This year the men's first round was at Rhodes and a 6:00 pm tip.  Sounded like a tough crowd.

Also, Trinity's in-region record is listed at 12-3 on the front page.  It is in fact 16-3.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 25, 2006, 09:03:31 AM
If Utica loses to Fisher tonight, do you think they will get in the NCAA Tournament? I think there are a few teams ahead of them that they need to have lose to get in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2006, 09:32:56 AM
With all the carnage going on, I don't think Utica is in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 25, 2006, 09:37:08 AM
If Utica beats Fisher tonight, that would really hurt a lot teams in contention for a pool c bid b/c the E8 would have 2 teams in instead of just 1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dark Knight on February 25, 2006, 09:48:46 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 24, 2006, 10:56:11 PM
We're accumulating C's as quickly as I did in my second year of college!

:D  Nice try DC, and worth applause, but somehow I doubt it...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2006, 10:09:18 AM
Right, if Utica beats Fisher, that's different.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2006, 10:43:06 AM
Updated QOWI through games of Friday, Feb. 24:

Does not include unreported scores of Chapman, UC Santa Cruz, Nebraska Wesleyan and Colorado College.

1-10
Amherst     12.000     22-1
Lawrence    11.571    21-0
Worcester Polytech    11.091    19-3
Tufts    11.000    19-4
St. John Fisher    10.864    21-1
Mississippi College    10.833    23-1
Lincoln    10.813    12-4
Gordon    10.560    22-3
Trinity (Texas)    10.526    16-3
Virginia Wesleyan    10.481    24-3
               
11-20
Augustana    10.478    19-4
Wittenberg    10.455    19-3
Cortland State    10.440    22-3
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3
Carnegie Mellon    10.389    14-4
William Paterson    10.250    18-6
Bates    10.238    16-5
Transylvania    10.231    22-4
Carroll    10.227    19-3
Wooster    10.217    21-2
               
21-30
Washington U.    10.211    14-5
UW-Whitewater    10.136    17-5
Carleton    10.136    18-4
Illinois Wesleyan    10.100    15-5
Widener    10.083    20-4
Keene State    10.042    18-6
UW-Stout    10.000    18-4
Calvin    10.000    13-1
Baruch    9.958    21-3
Alvernia    9.958    21-3
               
31-40
Hope    9.944    16-2
Baldwin-Wallace    9.920    21-4
Lakeland    9.905    17-4
Trinity (Conn.)    9.895    15-4
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7
Utica    9.880    20-5
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.870    18-5
North Central    9.850    15-5
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6
Ursinus    9.826    18-5
               
41-50
St. Thomas    9.792    19-5
Occidental    9.750    12-4
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.714    6-1
Puget Sound    9.706    15-2
New York University    9.696    17-6
Whitworth    9.652    18-5
Williams    9.625    16-8
Lake Erie    9.571    17-4
MIT    9.565    16-7
Hamilton    9.476    17-4
               
51-60
Colby-Sawyer    9.458    16-8
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.458    18-6
New Jersey    9.455    14-8
Rochester    9.450    13-7
Catholic    9.435    18-5
Bowdoin    9.429    13-8
Albright    9.409    14-8
Fisk    9.400    10-5
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    9.400    15-5
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.391    15-8
               
61-70
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.381    15-6
Pomona-Pitzer    9.353    13-4
Messiah    9.348    16-7
Endicott    9.333    16-8
Mount St. Mary    9.333    18-6
Howard Payne    9.333    18-6
Manhattanville    9.320    17-8
Salem State    9.320    18-7
Rhode Island College    9.308    17-9
Bethany    9.304    19-4
               
71-80
UW-Stevens Point    9.292    15-9
Johns Hopkins    9.286    15-6
Wartburg    9.273    17-5
Scranton    9.250    18-6
Ohio Northern    9.227    17-5
McMurry    9.217    17-6
Franklin    9.208    18-6
Richard Stockton    9.208    15-9
Emmanuel    9.200    19-6
Willamette    9.200    16-4
               
81-90
Elms    9.174    19-4
Westfield State    9.167    16-8
New Jersey City    9.167    16-8
Coe    9.143    15-6
Villa Julie    9.143    17-4
UW-Oshkosh    9.136    13-9
Albion    9.125    12-4
Centre    9.095    14-7
Southwestern    9.048    15-6
Elmhurst    9.045    14-8
               
91-100
Norwich    9.042    19-5
Averett    9.000    16-5
Rutgers-Newark    9.000    17-9
Plymouth State    8.962    16-10
Ramapo    8.957    14-9
Hanover    8.952    13-8
Chicago    8.947    11-8
Oswego State    8.920    18-7
Ohio Wesleyan    8.917    17-7
Elizabethtown    8.913    13-10

101-110
Gettysburg     8.913     15-8
Brockport State    8.905    12-9
Aurora    8.900    13-7
Plattsburgh State    8.875    15-9
Mass-Boston    8.875    15-9
SUNYIT    8.870    13-10
Pitt-Greensburg    8.864    15-7
Milwaukee Engineering    8.857    14-7
Wilmington    8.852    20-7
Gustavus Adolphus    8.833    16-8
               
111-120
Coast Guard    8.826    16-7
Union    8.810    14-7
Bridgewater State    8.783    14-9
Christopher Newport    8.714    10-4
Clarke    8.714    14-7
Baptist Bible    8.706    13-4
Brandeis    8.696    13-10
Springfield    8.667    10-14
Wilkes    8.600    13-7
Huntingdon    8.588    11-6
               
121-130
King's    8.583    15-9
Edgewood    8.565    13-10
St. John's    8.545    15-7
Penn State-Behrend    8.524    15-6
Loras    8.478    14-9
Kean    8.440    13-12
Salve Regina    8.435    15-8
Wesley    8.435    16-7
Chapman    8.417    8-4
Potsdam State    8.409    13-9
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2006, 11:17:15 AM
Pool A winners and highest seeds remaining in conference tournaments crossed off...

(Pool B's also crossed.)

1-10
Amherst     12.000     22-1
Lawrence    11.571    21-0
Worcester Polytech    11.091    19-3
Tufts    11.000    19-4
St. John Fisher    10.864    21-1
Mississippi College    10.833    23-1
Lincoln    10.813    12-4
Gordon    10.560    22-3
Trinity (Texas)    10.526    16-3
Virginia Wesleyan    10.481    24-3
               
11-20
Augustana    10.478    19-4
Wittenberg    10.455    19-3
Cortland State    10.440    22-3
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3
Carnegie Mellon    10.389    14-4
William Paterson    10.250    18-6
Bates    10.238    16-5
Transylvania    10.231    22-4
Carroll    10.227    19-3
Wooster    10.217    21-2
               
21-30
Washington U.    10.211    14-5
UW-Whitewater    10.136    17-5
Carleton    10.136    18-4
Illinois Wesleyan    10.100    15-5
Widener    10.083    20-4 
Keene State    10.042    18-6
UW-Stout    10.000    18-4
Calvin    10.000    13-1
Baruch    9.958    21-3
Alvernia    9.958    21-3
               
31-40
Hope    9.944    16-2
Baldwin-Wallace    9.920    21-4
Lakeland    9.905    17-4
Trinity (Conn.)    9.895    15-4
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7
Utica    9.880    20-5
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.870    18-5
North Central    9.850    15-5
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6
Ursinus    9.826    18-5
               
41-50
St. Thomas    9.792    19-5
Occidental    9.750    12-4
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.714    6-1
Puget Sound    9.706    15-2
New York University    9.696    17-6
Whitworth    9.652    18-5
Williams    9.625    16-8
Lake Erie    9.571    17-4
MIT    9.565    16-7
Hamilton    9.476    17-4
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2006, 11:43:47 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2006, 12:15:13 AM
Here are the Top Pool C candidates by the Regional Rankings:

Atlantic
1 Baruch 20-2 22-4   CUNYAC   Lost to York NY in Finals
2 William Paterson 17-6 18-7  NJAC  Pool A
3 New Jersey City 16-8 17-9  NJAC Lost to Ramapo in QtrF
4 SUNY-Farmingdale 16-5 19-5  Skyline  Pool A
5 Richard Stockton 15-7 17-8  NJAC Lost to Ramapo in Semis
NR York NY 15-9 15-13 CUNYAC Pool A    

East
1 St. John Fisher 20-1 22-3  E8  Pool A
2 Cortland State 21-3 22-4  SUNYAC  [b]Loss to SUNYIT in Semis[/b]
3 New York University 17-7 18-7  UAA
4 Utica 18-5 19-5  E8   Lost in Finals
5 Hamilton 16-4 20-4  LL Pool A

Great Lakes
1 Wooster 19-2 23-2 NCAC Lost in Finals
2 Calvin 11-1 20-5  MIAA  Lost in Finals
3 Hope 15-2 23-2  MIAA Pool A
4 Wittenberg 17-3 22-3  NCAC  Pool A
5 Baldwin-Wallace 19-4 21-4  OAC  Pool A
6 Carnegie Mellon 15-4 19-5  UAA Pool A
UR Bethany 20-4 23-4 Pres AC Pool B

Mid-Atlantic
1 York (Pa.) 22-3 24-3  CAC   Lost in CAC Semis
2 Lincoln 12-4 20-4   Pool B #1
3 Alvernia 19-3 21-4 PnAC  Pool A
4 Widener 19-4 20-4  MACC   Lost In Finals
5 Ursinus 18-5 19-6   CC Plays JHU on 2/26
6 Catholic 16-5 18-6  CAC  Pool A
7 Scranton 17-6 19-6   MACF Pool A
8 Albright 14-7 16-8  MACC  Lost to Messiah in Semis
NR Messiah  17-7 18-9  MACC Pool A

Midwest
1 Lawrence 20-0 22-0  MWC  Pool A
2 Augustana 19-4 21-5   CCIW   Lost to IWU in Semis
3 Transylvania 21-4 21-4  HCAC  Pool A
4 Carroll 18-3 20-3  MWC   Lost in Finals
5 Illinois Wesleyan 14-5 19-5  CCIW   Lost in Finals
6 North Central 14-5 20-5  CCIW  Pool A
7 Washington U. 14-5 17-7  UAA   Finished 2nd
8 Lakeland 17-4 21-6  LMC   Lost in LMC Semis

Northeast
1 Amherst 23-1 24-2  NESCAC Plays Tufts 2/26
2 Worcester Polytech 19-3 20-3  NEWMAC Plays MIT 2/26
3 Tufts 19-4 19-5  NESCAC Plays Amherst 2/26
4 Gordon 22-3 23-4  CCC   Lost in CCC Semis
5 Trinity (Conn.) 15-4 18-5  NESCAC   Lost in Semis to Tufts
6 Bates 15-5 19-5  NESCAC   Lost in Semis to Amherst
7 Keene State 15-6 18-6  LEC  Lost to Mass-Boston in Finals
8 Rhode Island College 16-8 16-8  LEC  Lost to Mass-Boston in Semis
9 Salem State 18-6 18-7  MASCAC  Lost to Bridgewater St in Semis
10 Williams 16-8 17-8 NESCAC  Did not qualify for Tourney

South
1 Mississippi College 22-1 24-1  ASC-East Plays at HPU on 2/26
2 Trinity (Texas) 16-3 20-6  SCAC   Loss to #8 seed Rhodes in SCAC QtrF. 3pt QOWI loss
3 Virginia Wesleyan 23-3 24-3  ODAC  Pool A
4 Randolph-Macon 19-5 22-5   ODAC  Lost in Finals
T5. Fisk 9-4 14-10  Pool B candidate  Lost to Huntingdon in Semis
T5. Maryville (Tenn.) 14-6 19-6   Pool B #3 Lost to Huntingdon in GSAC Finals
7 Howard Payne 17-6 18-6  ASC-West Plays MissColl in Finals 2/26
8 Mary Hardin-Baylor 17-6 17-8  ASC-West Lost to HPU in Semis
NR Huntingdon 12-6 20-7 Pool B Defeated Fisk and Maryville TN in GSAC Tourney

West
1 UW-Stout 16-4 19-5  WIAC Lost in Finals
2 Puget Sound 15-2 20-4  NWC  Pool A
3 Carleton 17-4 20-5  MIAC  Lost in Finals
4 Occidental 11-3 18-4  SCIAC  (CMS has the Pool A.)
5 UW-Whitewater 15-5 19-5  WIAC Pool A
6 UW-La Crosse 17-6 19-6  WIAC Lost to UW-W in semis
7 Wartburg 17-5 19-6  IIAC  Lost in IIAC Semis
8 St. Thomas 18-5 20-5  MIAC  Pool A
UR  CMS  SCIAC Pool A
UR Chapman 10-4 20-7 Pool B

As per Dren,  "Top 40 QOWI" and "Pool C teams" are glowing.  The QOWI's are one day old.

Some of my W-L's are incorrect, but it is too late to worry about those details.

IMHO, if you are glowing, then you are an at-large team and I think that the Pool B's and C's will be picked from these teams.  I await the remaining games, before I list my 22 at-large selections. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jbl2006 on February 25, 2006, 11:53:26 AM
Could somebody be kind enough to direct to me where on the site that it explains the expanded pool system? Or explain what all this means that you are showing on the board? i'm new to the site and understand its for the Tourney, but more details would be great. I Remember there being an article about the ncaa expanding the c pool on the site, but i cannot find it. Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 25, 2006, 12:10:53 PM
JBL:

Glad to have you aboard.

I think you'll find our FAQs (click here) (http://www.d3hoops.com/faq.php?category=NCAA%20Tournament) will answer a lot of your questions.

Read them over and you can start spouting numbers and letters like a bingo parlor announcer, too. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jbl2006 on February 25, 2006, 12:25:18 PM
Thanks that answers all of my questions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Maq Diesel on February 25, 2006, 12:55:29 PM
What are people's thoughts on Gordon College?   Are they close to a lock?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2006, 02:24:56 PM
Here is a list of today's "Pool C buster" games.  These are contests in which a  current Pool A favorite could lose and move towards the top of the Pool C line...

* Wheaton (Mass) @ WPI (NEWMAC), 1:00pm

* Ramapo @ William Paterson (NJAC), 2:00pm

* McMurry vs Mississippi College, neutral (ASC-E), 3:00pm

* Messiah @ Widener (MACC), 3:00pm

* Rochester @ Carnegie Mellon (UAA), 4:00pm
  Wash U @ Chicago (UAA), 4:00pm
(not tourney games...CMU needs a win or a Wash U loss to clinch AQ)

* Utica @ St. John Fisher (E8), 7:00pm

* Franklin @ Transylvania (HCAC), 7:30pm

* Ohio Northern @ Baldwin Wallace (OAC), 7:30pm

* Whitworth @ Puget Sound (NWC), 10:00pm

The following games involve teams I think are both getting in regardless...

- Bates @ Amherst
- Hope @ Calvin
- Carroll @ Lawrence
- Stout @ Whitewater
- Wittenberg @ Wooster

And here are some other key games that will impact Pool A/C...

- Brandeis @ NYU
- North Central vs Illinois Wesleyan
- Carleton @ St. Thomas
- Tufts vs Trinity
- Washington College @ Ursinus
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2006, 03:01:33 PM
Worcester Polytech 81, Wheaton (Mass.) 67
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: joehakes on February 25, 2006, 04:34:49 PM
In a game that may impact Pool C with Gordon College, the CCC championship game between Endicott and Colby-Sawyer has been postponed to tomorrow due to bad weather in New England.  The game will be played at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 25, 2006, 07:14:00 PM
WPU beats Ramapo for the NJAC AQ.  Finally a number one seed wins a conference tournament.  Ramapo may get mentioned but I think winning was their only hope.  The way things are shaping up, the NJAC gets the AQ and that is it this season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 25, 2006, 08:04:30 PM
Carnegie Mellon wins the UAA outright with a win over Rochester today.  WashU is the only other team in the UAA on the bubble, although it may be tough getting one out of the Midwest.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 25, 2006, 08:05:54 PM
MIT beats Coast Guard today and will meet WPI in the finals of the NEWMAC tomorrow. 

Tufts beats Trinity (CT) in OT today and they will meet Amherst in the finals of the NESCAC tomorrow.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jagluski on February 25, 2006, 08:06:02 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2006, 08:04:30 PM
Carnegie Mellon wins the UAA outright with a win over Rochester today.  WashU is the only other team in the UAA on the bubble, although it may be tough getting one out of the Midwest.

The region a team comes out of shouldn't matter.  The committee is supposed to take the best teams as Pool C teams; they don't have to make sure there are the same number of teams in each region.

That being said, it's probably going to be a tense 24 hours for Wash U.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2006, 08:15:37 PM
The difference is that other teams have to get in from the Midwest before Wash U even gets looked at. That's why it's difficult.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 25, 2006, 09:12:21 PM
> Wooster captures a Pool C bid by underscoring Wittenberg, 69-71, tonight at Wooster.   :(
> Calvin also snatches a Pool C, dropping the MIAA title game to Hope, 68-55.
>> So that's two more C-as-in-Certain bids gone.

< Transylvania upends Franklin 63-48 to win the HCAC and keep the Heartland a one-bid conference.
< Baldwin-Wallace gets a Tori Davis basket with :01.1 left to force OT, then drops Ohio Northern 91-84 in OT to capture the OAC title.  ONU is a far-out-on-the-edge bubble team for Pool C, probably undone by a low QoWI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Sam Johnson on February 25, 2006, 09:42:37 PM
Does anyone think that Carroll still has a shot at a Pool C?  I think they deserve it, but we all know that has nothing to do with it.  No matter how far Lawrence goes this year, I honestly believe that CC might be the most athletic, talented team they might face (note i didn't say the best TEAM though).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 25, 2006, 09:48:02 PM
I think Carroll will get in...they should be 2nd on the table from the Midwest behind Augustana.  They are 19-4 in region (?) and should have a QOWI of around 10ish...that seems to me like they should get in.  The higher seeds have been pretty nice to the Pool C today by winning.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jagluski on February 25, 2006, 10:25:48 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2006, 08:15:37 PM
The difference is that other teams have to get in from the Midwest before Wash U even gets looked at. That's why it's difficult.


100% agreed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 78rmc on February 25, 2006, 10:48:44 PM
Pat, how's R-MC looking after today's games?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 25, 2006, 11:04:14 PM
Add Widener to the list of highly probable Pool C teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 25, 2006, 11:36:05 PM
Here's how I see the final Great Lakes regional rankings, assuming I have recalculated the QoWI correctly:

1. Wittenberg (20-3, QoWI 10.652)
2. Hope (17-2, 10.211)
3. Baldwin-Wallace (22-4, 10.077)
4. Wooster (21-3, 10.042)
5. Carnegie Mellon (15-4, 10.474)
6. Calvin (13-2, 9.750)
---------------------------
7. Lake Erie (18-4, 9.682)
8. Bethany (20-4, 9.417)
9. Ohio Northern (17-6, 9.130)
10. Albion (12-4, 9.125)

Pool C candidates shown in boldface; Pool B candidate shown in italics.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: knightmoves on February 25, 2006, 11:41:34 PM
I don't agree with Albion making the torney only because I can't see the committee letting 3 MIAA teams in
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 25, 2006, 11:43:47 PM
Quote from: knightmoves on February 25, 2006, 11:41:34 PM
I don't agree with Albion making the torney only because I can't see the committee letting 3 MIAA teams in

Don't misunderstand me; Albion and ONU are Pool C candidates, because everyone not in Pool A is a pool C candidate.  I think the only Pool C bids in the GL are going to Wooster and Calvin; I predict there'll be 8 GL teams in the draw, those ranked 1-8 above.  ONU and Albion will miss out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: knightmoves on February 25, 2006, 11:46:06 PM
Gotya - Sorry for the misinterpretation
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dren on February 26, 2006, 12:01:54 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 25, 2006, 11:36:05 PM
Here's how I see the final Great Lakes regional rankings, assuming I have recalculated the QoWI correctly:

1. Wittenberg (20-3, QoWI 10.652)
2. Hope (17-2, 10.211)
3. Baldwin-Wallace (22-4, 10.077)
4. Wooster (21-3, 10.042)
5. Carnegie Mellon (15-4, 10.474)
6. Calvin (13-2, 9.750)
---------------------------
7. Lake Erie (18-4, 9.682)
8. Bethany (20-4, 9.417)
9. Ohio Northern (17-6, 9.130)
10. Albion (12-4, 9.125)

Pool C candidates shown in boldface; Pool B candidate shown in italics.

9. Ohio Northern (17-6 (.739), 9.130)
10. Albion (12-4 (.750), 9.125)

I'd put this up as more of a tie than ONU having the lead.  Albion holds the lead for inregion win percentage, meanwhile only .005 seperates the QOWI.  They are dead locked and you would have to look at more criteria for consideration.  Regardless, I don't believe either will recieve a bid. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: thebear on February 26, 2006, 12:20:54 AM
Just saw this discussion.

A theory

East is way down this year, Rochester & NYU likely out of Pool C contention.
E-8 & Liberty League won by the favorites, Cortland probably a Pool C. Plattsburgh an upset SUNYAC winner, with 10 losses.  

Only four sure bids for the region.  That leaves probably four open slots in an 8 team bracket as none of the East teams are strong enough to get one of the 5 first round byes. (Fisher has out of region losses to B-W & Randolph Macon)

That said, a number of the GL teams are within a bus trip of Rochester, and perhaps Cortland.

BW, Woo, CMU, Lake Erie, Bethany, ONU all within a 400 mile bus ride of Rochester (Fisher) / Cortland /Utica (Hamilton).  The map programs show Albion within 500 mi of Rochester (routing through Canada).  Could give the tournament committee a chance to balance brackets, and split up say Woo & Witt, or a third bid to an MIAA team, but with a tough 1st round road game.

I could see Great Lakes, New England, and Mid-Atlantic all picking up bids in the East bracket this year.  

Plattsburgh, which is the extreme Northeast corner of the East  region is actually closer to many of the New England Schools, just a boat ride away from the Interstate in Burlington, VT.

Could very well see an East bracket with only three East teams.

Tomorrow night at 10 will tell the tale.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 12:32:57 AM
Quote from: dren on February 26, 2006, 12:01:54 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 25, 2006, 11:36:05 PM
Here's how I see the final Great Lakes regional rankings, assuming I have recalculated the QoWI correctly:

1. Wittenberg (20-3, QoWI 10.652)
2. Hope (17-2, 10.211)
3. Baldwin-Wallace (22-4, 10.077)
4. Wooster (21-3, 10.042)
5. Carnegie Mellon (15-4, 10.474)
6. Calvin (13-2, 9.750)
---------------------------
7. Lake Erie (18-4, 9.682)
8. Bethany (20-4, 9.417)
9. Ohio Northern (17-6, 9.130)
10. Albion (12-4, 9.125)

Pool C candidates shown in boldface; Pool B candidate shown in italics.

9. Ohio Northern (17-6 (.739), 9.130)
10. Albion (12-4 (.750), 9.125)

I'd put this up as more of a tie than ONU having the lead.  Albion holds the lead for inregion win percentage, meanwhile only .005 seperates the QOWI.  They are dead locked and you would have to look at more criteria for consideration.  Regardless, I don't believe either will recieve a bid. 

Most accurately the criteria state:

Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
Quality-of-Wins-Index


Let's remember that we also need to include these criteria for the Pools B and C:

In-region head-to-head
In-region vs common opponents
In-region vs regionally ranked teams.

I place Albion ahead of Ohio Northern because:

1) Albion has a higher in-region win-loss percentage  (12-4 or .750  vs   17-6 .739)

2) Albion was 1-0 versus BWC and ONU was only 1-2.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 26, 2006, 12:38:54 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 25, 2006, 11:36:05 PM
Here's how I see the final Great Lakes regional rankings, assuming I have recalculated the QoWI correctly:

1. Wittenberg (20-3, QoWI 10.652)
2. Hope (17-2, 10.211)
3. Baldwin-Wallace (22-4, 10.077)
4. Wooster (21-3, 10.042)
5. Carnegie Mellon (15-4, 10.474)
6. Calvin (13-2, 9.750)
---------------------------
7. Lake Erie (18-4, 9.682)
8. Bethany (20-4, 9.417)
9. Ohio Northern (17-6, 9.130)
10. Albion (12-4, 9.125)

Pool C candidates shown in boldface; Pool B candidate shown in italics.

I saw this on CMUs schedule also on the d3hoops website, but there is an error because CMUs second game with Brandeis is not being counted as an in-region game when they are clearly in their conference.  They are actually 16-4 in region (I know this doesnt matter since they are Pool A but I thought I would mention it).  Also, their updated QOWI is 10.50 (probably due to the same discrepency).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dren on February 26, 2006, 12:43:40 AM
1-10
Amherst     12.000     22-1 plays Tufts sunday for pool A
Lawrence    11.571    21-0 pool A MWC champ
Worcester Polytech    11.091    19-3  plays MIT sunday for auto
Tufts    11.000    19-4 plays Amhert sunday for pool A
St. John Fisher    10.864    21-1 pool A Empire 8 Conference Champ
Mississippi College    10.833    23-1 plays Howard Payne sunday for pool A
Lincoln    10.813    12-4 pool B lock
Gordon    10.560    22-3 completed play 2/23 in semis loss
Trinity (Texas)    10.526    16-3  completed play 2/24 in semis loss
Virginia Wesleyan    10.481    24-3 Pool A ODAC champ
               
11-20
Augustana    10.478    19-4  completed play 2/24 lost in semis
Wittenberg    10.455    19-3 Pool A auto won NCAC championship
Cortland State    10.440    22-3 completed play 2/24 lost in Semis
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3 lost in CAC semis
Carnegie Mellon    10.389    14-4  UAA conf champ
William Paterson    10.250    18-6 pool A auto NJAC champ
Bates    10.238    16-5 lost in semi finals 2/25
Transylvania    10.231    22-4 pool A auto HCAC champ
Carroll    10.227    19-3 lost in MWC final
Wooster    10.217    21-2 lost in NCAC final
               
21-30
Washington U.    10.211    14-5 lost in final game
UW-Whitewater    10.136    17-5 Pool A auto WIAC Champ
Carleton    10.136    18-4 lost in MIAC final
Illinois Wesleyan    10.100    15-5  lost in CCIW final
Widener    10.083    20-4 lost in MACC final
Keene State    10.042    18-6 lost in LEC final
UW-Stout    10.000    18-4 lost in WIAC final
Calvin    10.000    13-1 lost in MIAA final
Baruch    9.958    21-3 lost in CUNYAC final
Alvernia    9.958    21-3 Pool A PAC auto               
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 26, 2006, 12:44:54 AM
You guys may well be correct in that Albion will be ahead of ONU.  I had ONU ahead because I think the committee will favor the larger number of in-region games and use the slightly higher QoWI as their excuse.  But regardless, I think the question is academic; I don't believe either will get a bid, and the only question is which one is at the table when the bids run out.

Hugenerd, I don't think your corrections would change the seeding, as I don't think those changes are enough for CMU to catch Wooster. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 26, 2006, 12:49:06 AM
I agree, I was just knitpicking.  Although CMU's QOWI will be a full half point higher than Wooster's, with their loss.  CMU does have an additional loss in region and a few less wins, I don't think it will matter that much, both teams will be in the tourney and who knows if they will even play in the same region when the pairings are announced.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 01:10:49 AM
Quote from: dren on February 26, 2006, 12:43:40 AM
1-10
Amherst     12.000     22-1 plays Tufts Sunday for pool A
Lawrence    11.571    21-0 pool A MWC champ
Worcester Polytech    11.091    19-3  plays MIT Sunday for auto
Tufts    11.000    19-4 plays Amherst sunday for pool A
St. John Fisher    10.864    21-1 pool A Empire 8 Conference Champ
Mississippi College    10.833    23-1 plays Howard Payne sunday for pool A
Lincoln    10.813    12-4 pool B lock
Gordon    10.560    22-3 completed play 2/23 in semis loss
Trinity (Texas)    10.526    16-3  completed play 2/24 in semis loss
Virginia Wesleyan    10.481    24-3 Pool A ODAC champ
               
11-20
Augustana    10.478    19-4  completed play 2/24 lost in semis
Wittenberg    10.455    19-3 Pool A auto won NCAC championship
Cortland State    10.440    22-3 completed play 2/24 lost in Semis
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3 lost in CAC semis
Carnegie Mellon    10.389    14-4  UAA conf champ
William Paterson    10.250    18-6 pool A auto NJAC champ
Bates    10.238    16-5 lost in semi-finals 2/25
Transylvania    10.231    22-4 pool A auto HCAC champ
Carroll    10.227    19-3 lost in MWC final
Wooster    10.217    21-2 lost in NCAC final
               
21-30
Washington U.    10.211    14-5 lost final game
UW-Whitewater    10.136    17-5 Pool A auto WIAC Champ
Carleton    10.136    18-4 lost in MIAC final
Illinois Wesleyan    10.100    15-5  lost in CCIW final
Widener    10.083    20-4 lost in MACC final
Keene State    10.042    18-6 lost in LEC final
UW-Stout    10.000    18-4 lost in WIAC final
Calvin    10.000    13-1 lost in MIAA final
Baruch    9.958    21-3 lost in CUNYAC final
Alvernia    9.958    21-3 Pool A PAC auto               


Dren, one correction...Bates lost in the Semis.

And I count 17 top candidates by QOWI, 16 glowing examples plus the Amherst-Tufts loser.  Who is #18 on your list?

+1 karma!  Great list!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dren on February 26, 2006, 01:12:58 AM
31-40
Hope    9.944    16-2 Pool A auto MIAA champs
Baldwin-Wallace    9.920    21-4 Pool A auto OAC champs
Lakeland    9.905    17-4 Lost in semis of LMC
Trinity (Conn.)    9.895    15-4 Lost in semis of NESCAC
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7 Lost in semis of WIAC
Utica    9.880    20-5 Lost in finals of Empire 8
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.870    18-5 Pool A auto SUNY
North Central    9.850    15-5 Pool A auto CCIW
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6 lost in final ODAC
Ursinus    9.826    18-5 Plays in finals on Sunday vs John Hopkins
             
41-50
St. Thomas    9.792    19-5 Pool A auto MIAC
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dren on February 26, 2006, 01:16:59 AM
these are all based on QoWI of yesterday... not the updated ones for today...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 01:31:25 AM
1-10
Amherst     12.083     23-1
Lawrence    11.682    22-0
Tufts    11.167    20-4
Worcester Polytech    11.130    20-3
St. John Fisher    11.000    22-1
Mississippi College    11.000    24-1
Lincoln    10.688    12-4
Wittenberg    10.652    20-3
Gordon    10.560    22-3
Trinity (Texas)    10.526    16-3
               
11-20
Virginia Wesleyan    10.481    24-3
Augustana    10.478    19-4
Carnegie Mellon    10.474    15-4
Transylvania    10.444    23-4
Cortland State    10.440    22-3
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3
UW-Whitewater    10.304    18-5
William Paterson    10.240    19-6
Hope    10.211    17-2
North Central    10.095    16-5
               
21-30
Bates    10.091    16-6
Carroll    10.087    19-4
Baldwin-Wallace    10.077    22-4
Washington U.    10.050    14-6
Wooster    10.042    21-3
Carleton    10.000    18-5
St. Thomas    9.960    20-5
Alvernia    9.958    21-3
Baruch    9.958    21-3
Illinois Wesleyan    9.952    15-6
               
31-40
Puget Sound    9.944    16-2
Widener    9.920    20-5
Ursinus    9.917    19-5
Lakeland    9.905    17-4
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.875    19-5
UW-Stout    9.870    18-5
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6
Fisk    9.800    10-5
Keene State    9.800    18-7
               
41-50
MIT    9.792    17-7
Trinity (Conn.)    9.750    15-5
Occidental    9.750    12-4
Calvin    9.733    13-2
Utica    9.692    20-6
Messiah    9.583    17-7
Catholic    9.542    19-5
Whitworth    9.542    18-6
Howard Payne    9.520    19-6
New York University    9.500    17-7
               
51-60
Lake Erie    9.500    18-4
Williams    9.458    16-8
Colby-Sawyer    9.458    16-8
Johns Hopkins    9.455    16-6
New Jersey    9.455    14-8
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.455    15-7
Centre    9.455    15-7
Bowdoin    9.429    13-8
Hamilton    9.409    18-4
Albright    9.409    14-8
               
61-70
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    9.400    15-5
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.360    18-7
Scranton    9.360    19-6
Pomona-Pitzer    9.353    13-4
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.333    7-2
Bethany    9.333    20-4
Rochester    9.333    13-8
Endicott    9.333    16-8
Rhode Island College    9.308    17-9
UW-Stevens Point    9.292    15-9
               
71-80
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.292    15-9
Wartburg    9.273    17-5
Elms    9.250    20-4
Salem State    9.240    18-7
Manhattanville    9.231    17-9
Richard Stockton    9.208    15-9
Chicago    9.200    12-8
Emmanuel    9.200    19-6
Willamette    9.200    16-4
New Jersey City    9.167    16-8
               
81-90
Westfield State    9.167    16-8
Norwich    9.160    20-5
Villa Julie    9.143    17-4
UW-Oshkosh    9.136    13-9
Ohio Northern    9.130    17-6
Albion    9.125    12-4
McMurry    9.125    17-7
Franklin    9.120    18-7
Mass-Boston    9.120    16-9
Mount St. Mary    9.083    18-6
               
91-100
Christopher Newport    9.067    11-4
Hanover    9.048    13-8
Elmhurst    9.045    14-8
Plattsburgh State    9.040    16-9
Rutgers-Newark    9.000    17-9
Plymouth State    8.962    16-10
Southwestern    8.955    15-7
Chapman    8.929    10-4
Oswego State    8.920    18-7
Ohio Wesleyan    8.917    17-7

101-110
Brandeis    8.917    14-10
Elizabethtown    8.913    13-10
Averett    8.909    16-6
Coe    8.909    15-7
Brockport State    8.905    12-9
Huntingdon    8.889    12-6
Ramapo    8.875    14-10
Bridgewater State    8.875    15-9
Clarke    8.864    15-7
Milwaukee Engineering    8.857    14-7

111-120
Wilmington    8.852    20-7
Gettysburg    8.833    15-9
Gustavus Adolphus    8.833    16-8
Aurora    8.810    13-8
Pitt-Greensburg    8.783    15-8
Baptist Bible    8.778    14-4
Coast Guard    8.750    16-8
Union    8.727    14-8
SUNYIT    8.708    13-11
Springfield    8.667    10-14
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2006, 01:49:25 AM
Ummm...I see that Stout's QOWI took a major hit and is now below La Crosse's.  Stout entered the week #1 in the West Region.  They obviously lost and I'm not sure how many spots they'll drop in the region. 

#4 Occidental and #3 Carleton also lost though.  #2 Puget Sound wins the AQ, as does #5 Whitewater.  #6 La Crosse loses to Whitewater in the semis.  #8 St. Thomas wins the AQ in the MIAC and #7 Wartburg loses in the IIAC semis.  So, I guess it won't hurt Stout too much.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 02:11:41 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2006, 11:43:47 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2006, 12:15:13 AM
Here are the Top Pool C candidates by the Regional Rankings:

Atlantic
1 Baruch 20-2 22-4   CUNYAC   Lost to York NY in Finals
2 William Paterson 17-6 18-7  NJAC  Pool A
3 New Jersey City 16-8 17-9  NJAC Lost to Ramapo in QtrF
4 SUNY-Farmingdale 16-5 19-5  Skyline  Pool A
5 Richard Stockton 15-7 17-8  NJAC Lost to Ramapo in Semis
NR York NY 15-9 15-13 CUNYAC Pool A    

East
1 St. John Fisher 20-1 22-3  E8  Pool A
2 Cortland State 21-3 22-4  SUNYAC  [b]Loss to SUNYIT in Semis[/b]
3 New York University 17-7 18-7  UAA
4 Utica 18-5 19-5  E8   Lost in Finals
5 Hamilton 16-4 20-4  LL Pool A

Great Lakes
1 Wooster 19-2 23-2 NCAC Lost in Finals
2 Calvin 11-1 20-5  MIAA  Lost in Finals
3 Hope 15-2 23-2  MIAA Pool A
4 Wittenberg 17-3 22-3  NCAC  Pool A
5 Baldwin-Wallace 19-4 21-4  OAC  Pool A
6 Carnegie Mellon 15-4 19-5  UAA Pool A
UR Bethany 20-4 23-4 Pres AC Pool B

Mid-Atlantic
1 York (Pa.) 22-3 24-3  CAC   Lost in CAC Semis
2 Lincoln 12-4 20-4   Pool B #1
3 Alvernia 19-3 21-4 PnAC  Pool A
4 Widener 19-4 20-4  MACC   Lost In Finals
5 Ursinus 18-5 19-6   CC Plays JHU on 2/26
6 Catholic 16-5 18-6  CAC  Pool A
7 Scranton 17-6 19-6   MACF Pool A
8 Albright 14-7 16-8  MACC  Lost to Messiah in Semis
NR Messiah  17-7 18-9  MACC Pool A

Midwest
1 Lawrence 20-0 22-0  MWC  Pool A
2 Augustana 19-4 21-5   CCIW   Lost to IWU in Semis
3 Transylvania 21-4 21-4  HCAC  Pool A
4 Carroll 18-3 20-3  MWC   Lost in Finals
5 Illinois Wesleyan 14-5 19-5  CCIW   Lost in Finals
6 North Central 14-5 20-5  CCIW  Pool A
7 Washington U. 14-5 17-7  UAA   Finished 2nd
8 Lakeland 17-4 21-6  LMC   Lost in LMC Semis

Northeast
1 Amherst 23-1 24-2  NESCAC Plays Tufts 2/26
2 Worcester Polytech 19-3 20-3  NEWMAC Plays MIT 2/26
3 Tufts 19-4 19-5  NESCAC Plays Amherst 2/26
4 Gordon 22-3 23-4  CCC   Lost in CCC Semis
5 Trinity (Conn.) 15-4 18-5  NESCAC   Lost in Semis to Tufts
6 Bates 15-5 19-5  NESCAC   Lost in Semis to Amherst
7 Keene State 15-6 18-6  LEC  Lost to Mass-Boston in Finals
8 Rhode Island College 16-8 16-8  LEC  Lost to Mass-Boston in Semis
9 Salem State 18-6 18-7  MASCAC  Lost to Bridgewater St in Semis
10 Williams 16-8 17-8 NESCAC  Did not qualify for Tourney

South
1 Mississippi College 22-1 24-1  ASC-East Plays at HPU on 2/26
2 Trinity (Texas) 16-3 20-6  SCAC   Loss to #8 seed Rhodes in SCAC QtrF. 3pt QOWI loss
3 Virginia Wesleyan 23-3 24-3  ODAC  Pool A
4 Randolph-Macon 19-5 22-5   ODAC  Lost in Finals
T5. Fisk 9-4 14-10  Pool B candidate  Lost to Huntingdon in Semis
T5. Maryville (Tenn.) 14-6 19-6   Pool B #3 Lost to Huntingdon in GSAC Finals
7 Howard Payne 17-6 18-6  ASC-West Plays MissColl in Finals 2/26
8 Mary Hardin-Baylor 17-6 17-8  ASC-West Lost to HPU in Semis
NR Huntingdon 12-6 20-7 Pool B Defeated Fisk and Maryville TN in GSAC Tourney

West
1 UW-Stout 16-4 19-5  WIAC Lost in Finals
2 Puget Sound 15-2 20-4  NWC  Pool A
3 Carleton 17-4 20-5  MIAC  Lost in Finals
4 Occidental 11-3 18-4  SCIAC  (CMS has the Pool A.)
5 UW-Whitewater 15-5 19-5  WIAC Pool A
6 UW-La Crosse 17-6 19-6  WIAC Lost to UW-W in semis
7 Wartburg 17-5 19-6  IIAC  Lost in IIAC Semis
8 St. Thomas 18-5 20-5  MIAC  Pool A
UR  CMS  SCIAC Pool A
UR Chapman 10-4 20-7 Pool B

As per Dren,  "Top 40 QOWI" and "Pool C teams" are glowing.  The QOWI's are one day old.

Some of my W-L's are incorrect, but it is too late to worry about those details.

IMHO, if you are glowing, then you are an at-large team and I think that the Pool B's and C's will be picked from these teams.  I await the remaining games, before I list my 22 at-large selections. :)

I see that Pat posted updated QOWI numbers.  I will clean this up tomorrow.

For quick-and-dirty selections, I will bet that they intersection of the sets containing the highest regionally ranked teams and the highest QOWI's give us the Pool C's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dren on February 26, 2006, 02:23:00 AM
Lets try this again with the updated QoWI

1-10
Amherst     12.083     23-1 plays Tufts Sunday for pool A
Lawrence    11.682    22-0 pool A MWC champ
Tufts    11.167    20-4 plays Amherst Sunday for pool A
Worcester Polytech    11.130    20-3 plays MIT Sunday for auto
St. John Fisher    11.000    22-1 pool A Empire 8 Conference Champ
Mississippi College    11.000    24-1 plays Howard Payne sunday for pool A
Lincoln    10.688    12-4 pool B lock
Wittenberg    10.652    20-3 Pool A auto won NCAC championship
Gordon    10.560    22-3  completed play 2/23 in semis loss
Trinity (Texas)    10.526    16-3 completed play 2/24 in semis loss

             
11-20
Virginia Wesleyan    10.481    24-3 Pool A ODAC champ
Augustana    10.478    19-4  completed play 2/24 lost in semis
Carnegie Mellon    10.474    15-4 UAA conf champ
Transylvania    10.444    23-4  pool A auto HCAC champ
Cortland State    10.440    22-3 completed play 2/24 lost in Semis
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3 lost in CAC semis
UW-Whitewater    10.304    18-5 Pool A auto WIAC Champ
William Paterson    10.240    19-6 pool A auto NJAC champ
Hope    10.211    17-2 pool A auto MIAA champ
North Central    10.095    16-5 pool A auto CCIW champ
             
21-30
Bates    10.091    16-6 lost in semi finals 2/25
Carroll    10.087    19-4 lost in MWC final
Baldwin-Wallace    10.077    22-4 OAC champ
Washington U.    10.050    14-6 lost in last game on Saturday
Wooster    10.042    21-3 lost in NCAC final
Carleton    10.000    18-5 lost in MIAC final
St. Thomas    9.960    20-5 Pool A auto MIAC
Alvernia    9.958    21-3 Pool A PAC auto
Baruch    9.958    21-3 lost in CUNYAC final
Illinois Wesleyan    9.952    15-6 lost in CCIW final
             
31-40
Puget Sound    9.944    16-2 Pool A NWC
Widener    9.920    20-5  Lost In Finals
Ursinus    9.917    19-5 Plays in finals on Sunday vs John Hopkins
Lakeland    9.905    17-4 Lost in semis of LMC
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7 Lost in semis of WIAC
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.875    19-5 Pool A auto SUNY
UW-Stout    9.870    18-5  lost in WIAC final
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6Lost in Finals
Fisk    9.800    10-5 pool B contender
Keene State    9.800    18-7 Lost to Mass-Boston in Finals
             
41-50
MIT    9.792    17-7 plays Worcester Polytech Sunday
Trinity (Conn.)    9.750    15-5 Lost in semis of NESCAC
Occidental    9.750    12-4 CMS has the Pool A
Calvin    9.733  13-2   lost in MIAA final
Utica    9.692    20-6 Lost in finals of Empire 8
Messiah    9.583    17-7 MACC champ pool A
Catholic    9.542    19-5 CAC champ pool A auto
Whitworth    9.542    18-6 Lost in MWC final
Howard Payne    9.520    19-6 Plays Mississippi College  on Sunday
New York University    9.500    17-7 lost last game on Saturday
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 26, 2006, 02:24:51 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 02:11:41 AM
For quick-and-dirty selections, I will bet that they intersection of the sets containing the highest regionally ranked teams and the highest QOWI's give us the Pool C's.

Q and I have just started a late-night discussion along these lines in CCIW Chat, from which I'll import my last post:

Quote from: David Collinge on February 26, 2006, 02:19:23 AM
...which begs the question, what do the committees (regional then national) do with teams like Calvin (great in-region win %, relatively modest QoWI) and WashU. (great QoWI, mediocre in-region win %)?

I think any team that is both >10 QoWI and >.750 win % is pretty safe.  That's:
Gordon    10.560    22-3         0.880
Cortland State    10.440    22-3         0.880
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3         0.880
Wooster    10.042    21-3         0.875
Trinity (Texas)    10.526    16-3         0.842
Tufts    11.167    20-4         0.833
Augustana    10.478    19-4         0.826
Carroll    10.087    19-4         0.826
Carleton    10.000    18-5         0.783


Agree/disagree/modify, Ralph?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 02:37:54 AM
David, I am fixin' to* go on to bed after this, but I will assume that there is almost no one on the next Regional Rankings who is going to jump in there and get a Pool C that we did not already identify.

I think that my reply #596 is almost there.  I think that my 18 Pool C picks are in that list.  Assumng no upsets tomorrow, Keene State, Lakeland and Bates and 2 more are definitely my bubble teams!

My pool B's are Lincoln, Bethany, Huntingdon and Chapman.

*"Fixin' to" is a voice of verb that is most equivalent to the aorist in Classic Greek.  It conveys the idea of "great intention".  In their inherent collective wisdom, Texans have tried to add this improvement (as well as a unique 2nd person plural pronoun) to the English language.

:D ;D :D ;D 8) ;).  Have a good night!  See y'all tomorrow! :)

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dren on February 26, 2006, 02:38:41 AM
I think that can be extended to 9.9 for QoWI along with .750 in region winning %

9.9 contains the top 10% and would add

Baruch    9.958    21-3 who is a lock from being a previous #1 seed

Widener 9.920    19-4 20-4
Lakeland    9.905    17-4 is bubbling but I think they are in now with the Washington loss.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2006, 02:40:14 AM
Seems to me that the NCAA usually tries to have some sort of Midwest/South/West Sectional and then a Midwest/Great Lakes/South Sectional.

I'm thinking in the West/Midwest/South sectional, we could see something like: (i'm guessing about 14 or 15 teams based on 59 teams in 4 sectionals.)

WIAC: Stout and possibly Whitewater
IIAC: Buena Vista
MIAC: St. Thomas and Carleton (?)
LMC:  Edgewood and possibly Lakeland
MWC:  Lawrence and Carroll
SCIAC:  Claremont-Mudd-Scripps and possible Occidental
SCAC:  Trinity or rep.

I'm not real familiar with the South Region teams.  But looking at past brackets, it looks like teams like Mississippi College and Maryvill (TN) are more central and thrown into the Great Lakes Sectional.  I'm guessing the SCAC (Texas area) rep can play the SCIAC rep in the first round, possibly giving Puget Sound a bye since they are in no man's land.  If Lawrence is thrown into the West Sectional, they may also get a bye.  

Say there is 14 or possible 15 teams in the the "West" sectional, obviously being four four-team regionals (and some three).

Four regionals for the West/South Sectional?

Regional #1
Puget Sound-bye (NWC AQ)
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC AQ)
Centre or DePauw (SCAC AQ) or Trinity (SCAC Pool C)

*one flight to UPS on Saturday

Regional #2
Lawrence-bye (MWC AQ)
Lakeland-(LMC Pool C)
North Central (CCIW AQ)

*no flights, short rides

Regional #3
Whitewater (WIAC AQ)
Carroll (MWC Pool C)
WLC (LMC AQ)
Carleton (MIAC Pool C)

*no flights, all in the Milwaukee area, only Carleton with a long bus ride


Regional #4
Stout (WIAC Pool C)
St. Thomas (MIAC AQ)
Buena Vista (IIAC AQ)
Trinity (TX) (SCAC Pool C)

*only one flight

I kept teams from the same conference out of each other's regionals.  The NCAA makes an effort not to match up conference foes in D1, but of course, this isn't D1.  Just a thought.  As I said, I'm not familiar with the South Region teams, so maybe they will be a factor as well.

I also tried to make it "balanced" by having two AQs and two Pool Cs, except possibly the Puget Sound regional because of travel.





Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 26, 2006, 02:45:28 AM
Quote from: dren on February 26, 2006, 02:38:41 AM
I think that can be extended to 9.9 for QoWI along with .750 in region winning %

9.9 contains the top 10% and would add

Baruch    9.958    21-3 who is a lock from being a previous #1 seed

Widener 9.920    19-4 20-4
Lakeland    9.905    17-4 is bubbling but I think they are in now with the Washington loss.

I think WashU still has a shot, their QOWI is the 8th or so highest of teams not getting at large bids and they have been ranked in all the regional polls up to this week.  I am not saying they are definitely in but I think they have a chance.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 03:08:27 AM
Our take on Pool C, including the 18 we'd take if the season ended tonight:

http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=146
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 26, 2006, 03:11:09 AM
So all of us that have been following the end of the season so closely, are we all going to post our predicted Pool C's somewhere?  I've got 2 choices tomorrow...study at the med center library all day or spend the whole day analyzing the Pool C....umm, I pick the Pool C...so I assume everyone would post in this forum if it will happen, right?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2006, 03:36:02 AM
I would think so.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 26, 2006, 09:10:28 AM
how do you see the east regional bracket looking.
I think it will be
1) Fisher
2) Hamilton
3) Cortland State
4) ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 24/7/365 on February 26, 2006, 09:33:11 AM
When does the tournament officially begin for the NE teams?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: thebear on February 26, 2006, 09:42:02 AM
Fisheralum03

Think you have the first three, and in correct order.  Don't be surprised if you see a surprise to fill the bracket, e.g. Wooster(311 miles) , or York, PA (356 miles). 

The committee could decide to send a power team to a weak region to avoid decimating the power regions.  In the west it's hard due to flights, travel, etc.  But Fisher is within bus trip distance of most of the Great Lakes teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: The Roop on February 26, 2006, 09:46:55 AM
Quote from: Old School on February 26, 2006, 02:40:14 AM
Regional #3
Whitewater (WIAC AQ)
Carroll (MWC Pool C)
WLC (LMC AQ)
Carleton (MIAC Pool C)

*no flights, all in the Milwaukee area, only Carleton with a long bus ride


No problem with the teams, and reasons you have included them there, but I question the pairings. Carroll owns a 10 point win over Whitewater this year and I doubt they would be the lowest seed of those 4.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 11:00:19 AM
Quote from: Old School on February 26, 2006, 02:40:14 AM
...
Four regionals for the West/South Sectional?

Regional #1
#1 Puget Sound- (NWC AQ)  vs. #4 Trinity* (SCAC Pool C)
#2 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC AQ) vs #3Chapman (Pool B).

If Trinity wins, then they are "detoured" via Southern California.

*one flight to UPS on Thursday

How about that bracket? ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 11:39:05 AM
Here's my mock East bracket, first draft, after finishing all eight brackets at 5:00 this morning:

East
St. John Fisher
Cortland State
Baldwin-Wallace
Trinity (Conn.)
Hamilton
Norwich
Plattsburgh State
CCC champ

This has not been vetted for 500-mileage yet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Maq Diesel on February 26, 2006, 12:11:32 PM
Pat what does your projected NE bracket look like?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 12:27:41 PM
   Northeast
1   Amherst
2   Worcester Polytech
3   Tufts
4   Gordon
5   Elms
6   Mass-Boston
7   Bridgewater State
8   BYE
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 01:05:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 02:37:54 AM
...

I think that my reply #596 is almost there.  I think that my 18 Pool C picks are in that list.  Assumng no upsets tomorrow, Keene State, Lakeland and Bates and 2 more are definitely my bubble teams!

My pool B's are Lincoln, Bethany, Huntingdon and Chapman. ...

My differences with Pat Coleman were Utica NY in and Wash StL out.

My Pool B's were Lincoln, Bethany, Huntingdon and Chapman, but I posted the comparison between Chapman and Maryville TN in the Daily Dose and understand his selection.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 01:52:35 PM
Our "committee" (and it wasn't just me, it was a three-person discussion) felt Wash U's superior QOW and record against regionally ranked teams outweighed Utica's advantage in regional winning percentage.

If Utica had beaten SJF in any of their three meetings it would have likely made the difference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2006, 03:22:35 PM
Quote from: "The Roop" on February 26, 2006, 09:46:55 AM
No problem with the teams, and reasons you have included them there, but I question the pairings. Carroll owns a 10 point win over Whitewater this year and I doubt they would be the lowest seed of those 4.

Actually, it wasn't really meant to be pairings!  :D

If I were to seed them, I'd probably have Whitewater #1 (since they won both the reg. season and conference tourney), then Carroll #2, Carleton #3 and WLC #4.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: titanfan on February 26, 2006, 04:40:26 PM
Mississippi College beats Howard Payne 74-58.  That's good news for all that are fighting for a Pool C, since MC was a lock for one of those if they lost.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2006, 05:22:44 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 01:05:19 PMMy differences with Pat Coleman were Utica NY in and Wash StL out.

Aside from some slight changes in the 1-to-18 order, I have two differences with Pat and his two cohorts (one of whom I take it is Gordon Mann): They have UW-LaCrosse and Randolph-Macon in, and I have Lakeland and Bates instead.

I was really reluctant to put in Lakeland, especially since they graded out 16th on my list (which seems excessively high for a team from a weak conference that got upset in the first round of their conference tourney), but the one thing that seemed to be holding them back in comparison to UW-LaCrosse -- their loss to the Eagles back in November -- doesn't fall under the five primary criteria, since it wasn't a regional game. Since Lakeland grades out better than UWL in every category, that game only becomes relevant if the committee moves to secondary criteria while both teams are simultaneously on the table. I'm just not sure that that's going to happen -- although I post this with the strong caveat that over the years I have proved that I am no better at figuring out how the committee thinks than anyone else.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2006, 05:31:35 PM

The committee has looked pretty poorly on losing your first playoff game.  With the head-to-head there (I think as secondary criteria), they have to be out.

I personally think Randolph-Macon should be in before Bates, but its debatable with the way the NESCAC teams seem to be inflated.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2006, 05:37:53 PM
Greg,

I also posted this in response to your similar post on CCIW Chat - I share your doubts about LAX (I have Bates instead), but Pat's team only had them 18th anyway.  They had RMC as the 12th pick (and I also think they are in, whether or not 12th) - I'm wondering what deficiency you see in RMC's credentials that you would have them THAT much lower?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 06:02:51 PM
Here's what we have for finals:

1-10
Amherst     12.160     24-1
Lawrence    11.682    22-0
Worcester Polytech    11.250    20-3
Mississippi College    11.154    25-1
Tufts    11.000    20-5
St. John Fisher    11.000    22-1
Lincoln    10.688    12-4
Wittenberg    10.652    20-3
Gordon    10.560    22-3
Carnegie Mellon    10.550    16-4

11-20
Virginia Wesleyan    10.481    24-3
Augustana    10.478    19-4
Cortland State    10.440    22-3
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3
Transylvania    10.370    23-4
Trinity (Texas)    10.316    16-3
UW-Whitewater    10.304    18-5
William Paterson    10.240    19-6
Hope    10.211    17-2
North Central    10.095    16-5
               
21-30
Bates    10.091    16-6
Carroll    10.087    19-4
Ursinus    10.080    20-5
Baldwin-Wallace    10.077    22-4
Washington U.    10.050    14-6
Wooster    10.042    21-3
Carleton    10.000    18-5
St. Thomas    9.960    20-5
Baruch    9.958    21-3
Alvernia    9.958    21-3
               
31-40
Illinois Wesleyan    9.952    15-6
Puget Sound    9.944    16-2
Widener    9.920    20-5
Lakeland    9.905    17-4
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.875    19-5
UW-Stout    9.870    18-5
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6
Keene State    9.800    18-7
Fisk    9.800    10-5
               
41-50
Trinity (Conn.)    9.750    15-5
Occidental    9.750    12-4
Calvin    9.733    13-2
Utica    9.692    20-6
MIT    9.680    17-7
Messiah    9.583    17-7
Whitworth    9.542    18-6
Catholic    9.542    19-5
Endicott    9.520    16-8
Lake Erie    9.500    18-4
               
51-60
New York University    9.500    17-7
Williams    9.458    16-8
New Jersey    9.455    14-8
Bowdoin    9.429    13-8
Hamilton    9.409    18-4
Albright    9.409    14-8
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    9.400    15-5
Howard Payne    9.385    19-7
Maryville (Tenn.)    9.364    15-7
Scranton    9.360    19-6
               
61-70
Mary Hardin-Baylor    9.360    18-7
Colby-Sawyer    9.360    16-8
Pomona-Pitzer    9.353    13-4
Johns Hopkins    9.348    16-7
Bethany    9.333    20-4
Rochester    9.333    13-8
Nebraska Wesleyan    9.333    7-2
Rhode Island College    9.308    17-9
Wheaton (Mass.)    9.292    15-9
UW-Stevens Point    9.292    15-9
               
71-80
Wartburg    9.273    17-5
Centre    9.261    15-8
Elms    9.250    20-4
Salem State    9.240    18-7
Manhattanville    9.231    17-9
Richard Stockton    9.208    15-9
Emmanuel    9.200    19-6
Willamette    9.200    16-4
Chicago    9.200    12-8
Westfield State    9.167    16-8
               
81-90
New Jersey City    9.167    16-8
Norwich    9.160    20-5
Villa Julie    9.143    17-4
UW-Oshkosh    9.136    13-9
Ohio Northern    9.130    17-6
McMurry    9.125    17-7
Albion    9.125    12-4
Franklin    9.120    18-7
Mass-Boston    9.120    16-9
Mount St. Mary    9.083    18-6
               
91-100
Christopher Newport    9.067    11-4
Hanover    9.048    13-8
Elmhurst    9.045    14-8
Plattsburgh State    9.040    16-9
Rutgers-Newark    9.000    17-9
Plymouth State    8.962    16-10
Chapman    8.929    10-4
Oswego State    8.920    18-7
Ohio Wesleyan    8.917    17-7
Elizabethtown    8.913    13-10
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2006, 06:19:21 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 26, 2006, 05:31:35 PMThe committee has looked pretty poorly on losing your first playoff game. 

They shouldn't. It's not a stated criterion.

Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 26, 2006, 05:31:35 PMWith the head-to-head there (I think as secondary criteria), they have to be out.

... except that Lakeland grades better than UWL in three of the five primary criteria, a fourth isn't applicable, and the fifth is a matter of interpretation ... and if it's interpreted fairly and in keeping with the manner in which D3 seems to go out of its way to avoid showing favoritism to power conferences, it'll swing Lakeland's way as well.

In other words, it should never get as far as secondary criteria.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2006, 05:37:53 PM
Greg,

I also posted this in response to your similar post on CCIW Chat - I share your doubts about LAX (I have Bates instead), but Pat's team only had them 18th anyway.  They had RMC as the 12th pick (and I also think they are in, whether or not 12th) - I'm wondering what deficiency you see in RMC's credentials that you would have them THAT much lower?

As I said on CCIW Chat, RMC is borderline in the two "popular" criteria; they don't seem to have any advantages over any other contenders in two others; and in the fifth, in-region record vs. regionally-ranked teams, they're absolutely atrocious, thanks to their 0-3 mark against Virginia Wesleyan. I think that the Jackets are borderline at best, and I'm not really sure how Pat and his crew got them in as high as twelfth.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2006, 06:29:45 PM
OK, I think most everyone is agreed on:

Tufts
Gordon
Augustana
Carroll
Wooster
Baruch
Cortland
Calvin
Widener
York (PA)
Trinity (TX)
Stout

That leaves six bids left.  My idea of the candidates: Utica, Trinity (CT), Bates, Lakeland, WashU, LaCrosse, Carleton, Randolph-Macon and IWU.

Two of those teams have to get left out.

For me, Utica's 20 wins is too much to keep them out, especially since they may be right behind Cortland in terms of elligible teams in the East Rankings.

I also see IWU, Trinity (CT), Carelton and Randolph-Macon getting in.

That leaves Bates/WashU/LaCrosse out there.  I think Bates gets in next (better QOWI, better in-region winning percentage), then WashU.  Lakeland never gets to the table.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2006, 06:36:51 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 26, 2006, 06:29:45 PMLakeland never gets to the table.

That's the key -- "getting to the table." A D3 bracketologist can't just chart the five primaries as best as he's able and then start slotting the C's one thru eighteen. You have to play out in your mind in what order they would go in the metaphorical smoke-filled room on a region-by-region basis, because that's how the committee judges them -- one team per region at a time.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2006, 06:39:59 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2006, 06:36:51 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 26, 2006, 06:29:45 PMLakeland never gets to the table.

That's the key -- "getting to the table." A D3 bracketologist can't just chart the five primaries as best as he's able and then start slotting the C's one thru eighteen. You have to play out in your mind in what order they would go in the metaphorical smoke-filled room on a region-by-region basis, because that's how the committee judges them -- one team per region at a time.

Made even harder, of course, since we peons never get to see the only regional rankings that count!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 06:45:04 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2006, 06:19:21 PM
In other words, it should never get as far as secondary criteria.

I said this on the blog (where I also dispute your assessment of UWL's record vs. RR opponents, Greg), but I'll say it here, too: I think it's actually rather common to use secondary criteria at the bottom of any B or C list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 06:47:53 PM
Trying to figure out a fundraiser for D3Hoops.com...

How about Pay-per-view for the "Bracketologists" show...

Live from Goucher College!

With Cameos from Coach Trost and Gregory Sager, if he is awake!

We could have Diehardfan do the "Vanna White" thing...

"And now April, is there an Amherst?"

Jared Rosenbaum could report from his favorite billiards parlor...

Dave McHugh could have a televised rant! ;D

I think that it makes lots of sense. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 06:49:55 PM
One other thing and then I get back to editing USAT. Remember the criterion says " • In-region results versus regionally ranked teams (teams ranked at time of selection only)."

This doesn't say "winning percentage" or "wins" -- it says results. Merely playing a RR team could be considered a result.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 06:56:02 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 06:45:04 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2006, 06:19:21 PM
In other words, it should never get as far as secondary criteria.

I said this on the blog (where I also dispute your assessment of UWL's record vs. RR opponents, Greg), but I'll say it here, too: I think it's actually rather common to use secondary criteria at the bottom of any B or C list.

If Huntingdon makes it, the committee almost certainly looked at secondary criteria, because I don't think that their W-L and QOWI are 4th best.

However, if there ever was a qualified case for secondary criteria, Huntingdon has made it...13 game win streak, winning 16 of 18, winning a regular season co-championship, winning 4 straight over opponents which were regionally ranked in the weeks they played them and including winning the conference tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2006, 06:59:53 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 06:45:04 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2006, 06:19:21 PM
In other words, it should never get as far as secondary criteria.

I said this on the blog (where I also dispute your assessment of UWL's record vs. RR opponents, Greg), but I'll say it here, too: I think it's actually rather common to use secondary criteria at the bottom of any B or C list.

As I said on the blog, I conceded that I had mixed up UWL and UW-Stout with regard to Carleton and St. Thomas. That might make the difference in my reconsidering and then putting the Eagles ahead of Carleton or Bates, but I don't think it does so with regard to Lakeland. If the committee is true to the handbook, which states that secondary criteria only come into play when the primary criteria can't clearly make a distinction between the qualifications of two teams, then Lakeland still bests UW-LaCrosse, because the Muskies grade out higher in at least three of the primary criteria.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 06:49:55 PM
One other thing and then I get back to editing USAT. Remember the criterion says " • In-region results versus regionally ranked teams (teams ranked at time of selection only)."

This doesn't say "winning percentage" or "wins" -- it says results. Merely playing a RR team could be considered a result.

I realize that, and I've already argued that point with Q. But even if the committee does take the piecemeal approach, which I think is a bit ethically dodgy (although more understandable with a 3-4 team rather than a 1-4 team), it still only gives UWL one criterion out of five, with Lakeland owning three others (including the two that everyone insists hold the most weight, QOWI and in-region W-L percentage) and the fourth not being applicable.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jagluski on February 26, 2006, 07:01:26 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 26, 2006, 06:29:45 PM
OK, I think most everyone is agreed on:

Tufts
Gordon
Augustana
Carroll
Wooster
Baruch
Cortland
Calvin
Widener
York (PA)
Trinity (TX)
Stout

That leaves six bids left.  My idea of the candidates: Utica, Trinity (CT), Bates, Lakeland, WashU, LaCrosse, Carleton, Randolph-Macon and IWU.

Two of those teams have to get left out.

For me, Utica's 20 wins is too much to keep them out, especially since they may be right behind Cortland in terms of elligible teams in the East Rankings.

I also see IWU, Trinity (CT), Carelton and Randolph-Macon getting in.

That leaves Bates/WashU/LaCrosse out there.  I think Bates gets in next (better QOWI, better in-region winning percentage), then WashU.  Lakeland never gets to the table.

Something seems wrong here.  There are 18 Pool C bids.  You have 12 in, leaving 6 bids left.  You then list 9 teams and say 2 should be left out.  I think you've got one too many teams in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2006, 07:02:30 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 06:47:53 PMWith Cameos from Coach Trost and Gregory Sager, if he is awake!

Just make sure that you schedule it for after my nap.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2006, 07:04:27 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 06:49:55 PM
One other thing and then I get back to editing USAT. Remember the criterion says " • In-region results versus regionally ranked teams (teams ranked at time of selection only)."

This doesn't say "winning percentage" or "wins" -- it says results. Merely playing a RR team could be considered a result.

Over on CCIW Chat, Q made the same point, and says he was told they deliberately made the wording vague so as to leave room for subjective decisions.  I applaud that because, as much as subjective decisions can be biased, politicized, etc., mechanical application of numerical rules can be even worse. 

(So sayeth the stat prof, who tries to teach that numbers NEVER 'speak for themselves'!)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: patcummings on February 26, 2006, 07:06:45 PM
Don't get me wrong, Ralph...we had a real long discussion about picking 4 teams for the Pool B's.  

Villa Julie can't be discounted either...a real strong regional winning percentage but their record against regionally ranked teams isn't good.  Johns Hopkins' loss in the CC final today probably ended Villa Julie's chances, IMO.

It's hard to fathom two GSAC teams getting in (just not what most people would expect to see), but Chapman just was below the others and we couldn't put them in for the sake of geographic parity.  Which, of course, will be a debate if they DO get in.  

Why does that debate NOT make sense this year?  The regional pod scenarios.  Even if CMS and Chapman get in, both of them are going to have to travel (and that means fly) to get to Puget Sound or anywhere else.  CMS can't host Chapman and avoid an extra flight because given the parameters, that would mean two other schools would have to fly into CMS.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2006, 07:10:50 PM
patcummings,

Aside from their complete lack of mention today, I assume your talk of regional 'pods' indicates that Occidental is now 'officially' believed to have ended their season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 07:13:40 PM
Quote from: patcummings on February 26, 2006, 07:06:45 PM
Why does that debate NOT make sense this year?  The regional pod scenarios.  Even if CMS and Chapman get in, both of them are going to have to travel (and that means fly) to get to Puget Sound or anywhere else.  CMS can't host Chapman and avoid an extra flight because given the parameters, that would mean two other schools would have to fly into CMS. 

I don't think that's actually true. You could do what we did and have them play each other in a first-round game on Thursday with the winner flying to any bye team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: patcummings on February 26, 2006, 07:18:11 PM
Yeah.  They were one of about 35 teams we considered for Pool C's, but never even made it to the debate because there were too many teams on the table that got in above them.  The Daily Dose makes it clear they weren't even among the next to be considered.  

But you raise a good point...if Oxy, CMS, and Chapman all get in, in games played at one of their gyms...well that would be a massive debate.  It would be hard to argue, at that point, that teams are really chosen first on merit, then bracketed.  

But frankly, we're optimistic that with 59 teams, the best will be chosen based on the criteria.  48 teams allowed for more debate amongst who was #49 and #50 than who is #60 or #61, because chances are that your numbers are so medicore anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: patcummings on February 26, 2006, 07:20:01 PM
Right, forgot that Thursday games exist if you are playing a team with a bye.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 26, 2006, 07:20:40 PM
Mediocre being realtive, though, based on the infernal criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: patcummings on February 26, 2006, 07:31:08 PM
Always, Smed, always.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2006, 10:15:47 PM
Quote from: jagluski on February 26, 2006, 07:01:26 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 26, 2006, 06:29:45 PM
OK, I think most everyone is agreed on:

Tufts
Gordon
Augustana
Carroll
Wooster
Baruch
Cortland
Calvin
Widener
York (PA)
Trinity (TX)
Stout

That leaves six bids left.  My idea of the candidates: Utica, Trinity (CT), Bates, Lakeland, WashU, LaCrosse, Carleton, Randolph-Macon and IWU.

Two of those teams have to get left out.

For me, Utica's 20 wins is too much to keep them out, especially since they may be right behind Cortland in terms of elligible teams in the East Rankings.

I also see IWU, Trinity (CT), Carelton and Randolph-Macon getting in.

That leaves Bates/WashU/LaCrosse out there.  I think Bates gets in next (better QOWI, better in-region winning percentage), then WashU.  Lakeland never gets to the table.

Something seems wrong here.  There are 18 Pool C bids.  You have 12 in, leaving 6 bids left.  You then list 9 teams and say 2 should be left out.  I think you've got one too many teams in.

You're right, I do.  I guess WashU just doesn't make my cut either.  That's sad, I thought they earned a spot.  Oh well.  Gotta love the numbers only selection game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jagluski on February 26, 2006, 10:42:56 PM
Why are there only 10 teams on the Pool C list?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: titanhammer on February 26, 2006, 10:46:05 PM
Quote from: jagluski on February 26, 2006, 10:42:56 PM
Why are there only 10 teams on the Pool C list?
I was wondering the same.  I'm guessing it will be updated.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2006, 10:46:59 PM
It's all a big joke; it's really only a 51 team tournament.  Ha Ha, stupid D3, the NCAA has struck again!!!  That's what you get for emphasizing academics over athletics.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: iwumichigander on February 26, 2006, 10:47:40 PM
Quote from: titanhammer on February 26, 2006, 10:46:05 PM
Quote from: jagluski on February 26, 2006, 10:42:56 PM
Why are there only 10 teams on the Pool C list?
I was wondering the same.  I'm guessing it will be updated.
This must be some kinda new NCAA math  --- or the Grinch really did steal somebody's Christmas
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: titanhammer on February 26, 2006, 10:48:02 PM
It has now been updated.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 26, 2006, 10:48:08 PM
They've now finished the list: Utica in, WashU and Trinity CT out
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2006, 10:54:09 PM

Right on Utica, wrong on Bates.  Oxy got in instead of Trinity(CT).  Not too bad.

Also, a seven loss team made it; I've been saying that all year and no one believed me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 11:22:29 PM
I am OK with 16-for-18. Better than 6-for-7.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 11:35:14 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 01:05:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 02:37:54 AM
...

I think that my reply #596 is almost there.  I think that my 18 Pool C picks are in that list.  Assumng no upsets tomorrow, Keene State, Lakeland and Bates and 2 more are definitely my bubble teams!

My pool B's are Lincoln, Bethany, Huntingdon and Chapman. ...

My differences with Pat Coleman were Utica NY in and Wash StL out.

My Pool B's were Lincoln, Bethany, Huntingdon and Chapman, but I posted the comparison between Chapman and Maryville TN in the Daily Dose and understand his selection.

17 for 18 on Pool C  :), but only 2-4 on Pool B. :(

I hope that I have learned my lesson.  The numbers are the numbers, and there is very little subjective input that I can see.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 26, 2006, 11:36:23 PM
Impressive as usual Pat...  You guys really know your stuff, and I think over-all, we'll have a much better* tournament this year.  Whadda you think?



*by better I mean the number of deserving teams have made it... we'll have to see the brackets to see how the teams are matched, but...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 26, 2006, 11:43:15 PM
On the contrary Ralph i think there must have been something subjective about LaCrosse getting in ahead of Bates
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 11:46:00 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 26, 2006, 11:36:23 PM
Impressive as usual Pat...  You guys really know your stuff, and I think over-all, we'll have a much better* tournament this year.  Whadda you think?



*by better I mean the number of deserving teams have made it... we'll have to see the brackets to see how the teams are matched, but...

Point, I agree.  The only team that I regret staying home is Huntingdon.  I thought they made a great case for success under the subjective criteria that the national committee has.  I see no one else staying home who seems to be left out.

As for Pool B, the NEAC (and the Villa Julie's, Baptist Bibles, and in the future, Keystone's) get a Pool A next year.

The President's AC gets their Pool A in 2007-08.

I can foresee the northeast region indepedents getting absorbed in the wake of the "Interstate 8".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2006, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2006, 11:43:15 PM
On the contrary Ralph i think there must have been something subjective about LaCrosse getting in ahead of Bates

On a purely numbers basis (and in my case, even on subjective criteria), I agree - I had Bates in, LAX out.  What did sac and I miss?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 11:56:00 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2006, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2006, 11:43:15 PM
On the contrary Ralph i think there must have been something subjective about LaCrosse getting in ahead of Bates

On a purely numbers basis (and in my case, even on subjective criteria), I agree - I had Bates in, LAX out.  What did sac and I miss?

Gentlemen, I greatly respect your opinions, so the first thing that I imagine is that Bates was coming up "19th time" around the table.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 11:57:45 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2006, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2006, 11:43:15 PM
On the contrary Ralph i think there must have been something subjective about LaCrosse getting in ahead of Bates

On a purely numbers basis (and in my case, even on subjective criteria), I agree - I had Bates in, LAX out.  What did sac and I miss?

Lax 3-4 against regionally ranked opponents is what got them in for us.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 27, 2006, 12:11:32 AM
I haven't checked the Regional Rankings from last week... but is it possible that La Crosse was just "up to bat" sooner than some of the other possible teams?  We don't know where they were ranked in the West... but for me, at least, the fact that the would have been ranked, relative to their regional foes, ahead of particularly Lakeland was the (a?) reason (among others?) why they were picked over the Muskies...  The same may be true about Bates, but like I said, I don't know where Bates was before this week, so the point may be moot.

I think Albion's chances would have been lower than they appeared to be earlier this year... but that may have been their downfall as well (being a lower-ranked team in a stacked region, like Lakeland).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2006, 12:17:44 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2006, 11:57:45 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2006, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2006, 11:43:15 PM
On the contrary Ralph i think there must have been something subjective about LaCrosse getting in ahead of Bates

On a purely numbers basis (and in my case, even on subjective criteria), I agree - I had Bates in, LAX out.  What did sac and I miss?

Lax 3-4 against regionally ranked opponents is what got them in for us.

I hadn't checked those stats - that could do it for me.

Now another conundrum - Oxy in, Chapman not in.  The consensus seemed to be that Oxy was dead-meat, Chapman was highly doubtful.  But if Oxy is suddenly in, there is an obvious 'pod' in SoCal IF Chapman is also in.  Has the NCAA suddenly gone for merit rather than geography?  Since the rules don't allow CMS vs. Oxy in the first round,  is the NCAA going to fly them both to UPS, PLUS whomever else?  Or will UPS get screwed and they plus whomever else will play at CMS?  I guess we find our tomorrow morning.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2006, 12:25:40 AM
Chuck, the selection committee has never allowed geography to affect selections.  The bracket, yes...selections, no.   They weren't going to put Chapman in just to create a pod.

I expect a Thursday game of Oxy vs C-M-S with the winner going to a bye team - the rules allow two conference teams to play if the geography makes it necessary.  In this case, it's probably the only way to do it.

Personally, I'm volunteering to send Illinois Wesleyan to Occidental Thursday, with the winner to Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Saturday.  Win or lose, the weather is a whole lot better.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: patcummings on February 27, 2006, 12:32:40 AM
Bates was 0-4 against regionally ranked teams.  Lax was the last team in, but in our minds, it really wasn't a question.  

I'd say we are somewhat surprised by Oxy over Trinity, but things washed out a bit.  The common opponent in Amherst along with regional records was a wash, and at the end of the day, Oxy and Trinity CT had the same regional win %, same QOWI, and I believe the same .500 record v. regionally ranked teams.  

One of the potential criteria is to allow the committee to weigh the last 25% of the schedule more heavily...that clearly didn't happen with Oxy men.  Thought is the committee would try to avoid Oxy/CMS in the first round (but I would believe anything).

Chapman just didn't have it...regional win percentage for Villa Julie was 2nd strongest of the Pool B's behind Bethany and it was rewarded.  Chapman's QOWI was significantly lower than Maryville's who had a lower regional winning percentage.

The main question Huntingdon will ask themselves...we had a 2-1 record against MC and beat them twice in the last two weeks and didn't get in.

Still
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: starstar on February 27, 2006, 12:42:32 AM
where will utica be going thursday??? or fisher?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2006, 12:50:48 AM
Perhaps nowhere. Most first-round games are on Friday this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2006, 12:51:29 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2006, 12:25:40 AM
Chuck, the selection committee has never allowed geography to affect selections.  The bracket, yes...selections, no.   They weren't going to put Chapman in just to create a pod.

I expect a Thursday game of Oxy vs C-M-S with the winner going to a bye team - the rules allow two conference teams to play if the geography makes it necessary.  In this case, it's probably the only way to do it.

Personally, I'm volunteering to send Illinois Wesleyan to Occidental Thursday, with the winner to Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Saturday.  Win or lose, the weather is a whole lot better.

To quote Ralph:  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I wish I could make those (highly hypothetical) games!

patcummings,

I understand that d3 criteria do not include what you are doing at the end of the year.  To me that is a BIG mistake, but by season totals, I have no problem with Oxy being in (until 2 weeks ago, I was voting for them in the PP) - chances are, barring a HUGE turnaround, they will not be in for long.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2006, 01:28:08 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2006, 12:25:40 AM
...
Personally, I'm volunteering to send Illinois Wesleyan to Occidental Thursday, with the winner to Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Saturday.  Win or lose, the weather is a whole lot better.

Q, your dedication and thoughtfulness with respect to the health and well-being of IWU basketball is commendable.  You always have the "Greenies" best interests at heart.

Greenies...greens...


Say, I wonder if you could get 18 holes in while you were out there. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2006, 01:32:15 AM
Quote from: patcummings on February 27, 2006, 12:32:40 AM
...
The main question Huntingdon will ask themselves...we had a 2-1 record against MC and beat them twice in the last two weeks (and regionally ranked Fisk 2-1 and twice in the last 2 weeks) and didn't get in.

Still

I feel very badly for Huntingdon. :(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2006, 01:33:19 AM
Ralph,

Heck, with Q, I guarantee he could get in AT LEAST 96 holes - probably more!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2006, 01:34:34 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2006, 01:33:19 AM
Ralph,

Heck, with Q, I guarantee he could get in AT LEAST 96 holes - probably more!

I admire the man's altruism! ;) :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: macdaddy on February 27, 2006, 01:37:32 AM
To the people who are making projections for Thursday's games, aren't those games for all intents and purposes basically play in game. My question is aren't those games for instance would be in the midwest region, Wisconsin Lutheran and say Buenea Vista playing with the winner going to Lawrence. Or is it as some of you are saying like Lacrosse and North Central playing with that team going to Lawrence. Just trying to figure out how this all works this year.

I guess we truly will not know until the morning how they are doing things. I read on the faq's part of D3hoops that those Thursday games would br # 8 and #9 seeds playing. Just a question thanks for any responses...  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2006, 01:41:17 AM
Yes, 8 and 9 types out of 14-15 teams in four brackets. So it's not like the D-I play-in game, with 64 and 65 playing off to get crushed by No. 1, it's like any other D-I bracket except No. 16 didn't get invited.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: macdaddy on February 27, 2006, 01:43:27 AM
Got it thanks for the help Pat. Makes sense to me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2006, 02:09:38 AM
Quote from: macdaddy on February 27, 2006, 01:37:32 AM
To the people who are making projections for Thursday's games, aren't those games for all intents and purposes basically play in game. My question is aren't those games for instance would be in the midwest region, Wisconsin Lutheran and say Buenea Vista playing with the winner going to Lawrence. Or is it as some of you are saying like Lacrosse and North Central playing with that team going to Lawrence. Just trying to figure out how this all works this year.

I guess we truly will not know until the morning how they are doing things. I read on the faq's part of D3hoops that those Thursday games would br # 8 and #9 seeds playing. Just a question thanks for any responses... 

They are NOT play in games in the d1 sense, but more like a 4/5 game in an 8 game tourney.  The winner will play at the team that had a bye.  The winner of that game plus the winner from the other three games (2-7, 3-6, winners) will advance to the sectional (most teams will play a full 1-8, 4-5; 2-7 3-6, regional).  There are four sectionals (consisting of the top two teams from each of the eight regionals) - the four sectional winners go to Salem for the championship.

Depending upon regional 'partner', playing early may mean you are anywhere between 4th and 13th (of the up to 16 in your sectional).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 27, 2006, 03:35:41 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 11:35:14 PM17 for 18 on Pool C  :), but only 2-4 on Pool B. :(

I hope that I have learned my lesson.  The numbers are the numbers, and there is very little subjective input that I can see.

I was going to post Pool B picks, but I ended up deferring to you on that score, Ralph, since you've followed Pool B closer than anyone this season.

I ended up picking 15 out of 18, but I admit that that was only after I was reminded that it was UW-LaCrosse that beat both Carleton and St. Thomas, not UW-Stout. I wrote it down the right way on my cheat sheet as I went through each team's schedule, but when I filled out the column for likely in-region results against regionally-ranked teams I transposed the two WIAC teams. Later on, I figured out why: UW-Stout and St. Thomas traveled all the way to eastern Ohio on the season's opening weekend and participated in a tournament at Wooster, where they faced each other in the opening round. That game and tournament stuck out in my head (probably because I spent too much time this year on the Wooster 24/7 Channel, otherwise known as the NCAC room  ;)), and I just stuck a mythical Carleton vs. UW-Stout game on top of it. After being reminded that it was the Eagles that played Carleton and not the Blue Devils, I moved UWL into my 18th and last spot ahead of Bates. As it was, though, I got Utica, Randolph-Macon, and Occidental wrong, putting in Lakeland, Wash U, and Trinity (CT) instead.

As for the in-region results against ranked teams criterion, the way the rule was explained to me by someone who has served on a regional committee was that it was designed to give the national committee some flexibility in weighing those games, along the lines of giving a team that was 1-3 against such teams room for argument against a team that went 1-4 against such teams if the 1-3 team's win was against a #1 opponent and the 1-4 team's win was against a #6 opponent. Even though it turned out to be a moot point, the idea of a 1-4 team getting credit for that one win and absolutely no penalty for the four losses, over and against an 0-0 team, still strikes me as a gross misreading of that rule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 27, 2006, 04:07:29 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 27, 2006, 12:11:32 AM
I haven't checked the Regional Rankings from last week... but is it possible that La Crosse was just "up to bat" sooner than some of the other possible teams?  We don't know where they were ranked in the West... but for me, at least, the fact that the would have been ranked, relative to their regional foes, ahead of particularly Lakeland was the (a?) reason (among others?) why they were picked over the Muskies...

My guess is that you hit the nail on the head, PS.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2006, 08:21:03 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2006, 12:51:29 AM
I understand that d3 criteria do not include what you are doing at the end of the year.

It's one of the secondary criteria, if they choose to use it.

I got 16-18 and 3-4.  I didn't think Villa Julie would make it, but then again, I didn't look at the numbers again after the GSAC tourney, so its my own fault.  Whatever, I'm pretty happy.  I wish I could have gone without sleep like the rest of you and done a bracket projection last night.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2006, 08:22:27 AM

Out of curiosity, who do you think were "left on the table" when LaCrosse got in last? Here's mine:

NE: Trinity
E: NYU
A: New Jersey
MA: Hopkins
S: HPU
GL: Albion?
M: WashU

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2006, 08:38:36 AM
Yeah, I think Albion was the hanging chad in the GL region, which is still a shame.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2006, 08:45:40 AM

They didn't give a whole lot of respect to third teams in conferences.  Although Albions QOWI number was really low.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: iwumichigander on February 27, 2006, 12:04:35 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2006, 01:28:08 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2006, 12:25:40 AM
...
Personally, I'm volunteering to send Illinois Wesleyan to Occidental Thursday, with the winner to Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Saturday.  Win or lose, the weather is a whole lot better.

Q, your dedication and thoughtfulness with respect to the health and well-being of IWU basketball is commendable.  You always have the "Greenies" best interests at heart.

Greenies...greens...


Say, I wonder if you could get 18 holes in while you were out there. ;)
Ralph, I think Q was just respecting our strong California and Phoenix area alumni who do not get to see too many IWU games but are good supporters of IWU. :o ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: albionbritfan on February 27, 2006, 12:27:54 PM
Albion's QOWI was low, which forced the committee's hand I believe.  Had Albion eeked out another win against Calvin/Hope or played ONU as it should have played out in an early season tournament, things may have turned out differently.  At the end of the day, Albion perenially is forced to win against Calvin and Hope or faces trips to Ohio to get some in-region wins (or coerce them to travel to Albion).

I'm disappointed because I know Albion is better than more than a handful in the tourney, but I'm not disgruntled because I know Albion didn't do everything it could to get in.

And I will take Hope and Woo to face off in their regional final.  Speaking of which, is Pat and d3hoops doing a pick 'em again?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2006, 12:43:26 PM
Quote from: albionbritfan on February 27, 2006, 12:27:54 PM
Speaking of which, is Pat and d3hoops doing a pick 'em again?

As far as I know, yes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 27, 2006, 01:08:36 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2006, 06:47:53 PM
We could have Diehardfan do the "Vanna White" thing...
"And now April, is there an Amherst?"

Nice use of alitteration, Ralph. The MWC board would be proud. :)

I think the C bids look great. Though honestly, we all like to have what we perceive the best teams to be, spread out. But the way the NCAA does things, it sorta practical. The expanded tourney is soo cool! Look at all the midwest teams in it.  :D ;) ;D :-*
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2006, 03:11:06 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2006, 01:34:34 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2006, 01:33:19 AM
Ralph,

Heck, with Q, I guarantee he could get in AT LEAST 96 holes - probably more!

I admire the man's altruism! ;) :)
Quote from: iwumichigander on February 27, 2006, 12:04:35 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2006, 01:28:08 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2006, 12:25:40 AM
...
Personally, I'm volunteering to send Illinois Wesleyan to Occidental Thursday, with the winner to Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Saturday.  Win or lose, the weather is a whole lot better.

Q, your dedication and thoughtfulness with respect to the health and well-being of IWU basketball is commendable.  You always have the "Greenies" best interests at heart.

Greenies...greens...


Say, I wonder if you could get 18 holes in while you were out there. ;)
Ralph, I think Q was just respecting our strong California and Phoenix area alumni who do not get to see too many IWU games but are good supporters of IWU. :o ;D

Now I have an excuse to attribute it to altruism! :D :D :D

No malice intended, Q.  Anything for a good round of golf in early March! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: albionbritfan on February 28, 2006, 11:00:01 AM
I was noodling this whole issue of comparing QOWI across regions.  What if the NCAA put a multiplier on a region's teams based upon the region's record against out-of-region DIII opponents.  For instance:
1) Accumulate the records for all teams in a given region against out-of-region DIII opponents (200 mile rule excluded for these purposes).
2) The regions are ranked by winning percentage for out-of-region games.
3) A multiplier is awarded to each of the 8 regions by rank.  The multiplier range would be something like 1.15 down to .85 in increments to accomodate the 8 regions.
4) The multiplier is applied to all team's QOWI (currently as calculated) in a given region.

I would love to test this hypothetically if I could get the data for it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2006, 11:37:51 AM

That might be a decent measure, but it would still be based somewhat on out-of-region games, which they don't want to do.

I think it just comes down to teams being to tougher conferences and regions having to work harder to make the tournament.

It might not get the best 59 there, but no tournament is perfect.  I mean look at the Big East this year.  They'll get 7 or 8 teams in, but have 3 or 4 more who are better than some of the at-large bids.  It's just the price you pay for better competition.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2006, 01:26:43 PM
I don't think so. I think there are six MVC teams worthy of inclusion, all better than Lousivllle, who I have 9th in the Big East power right now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2006, 01:54:08 PM
If there were a D-3 NIT, and it was 40 teams, based on my power rating amalgamation, here's the 40 teams that would be in:

Ohio Northern (17)
Albion (27)
Wilmington (30)
Bates (33)
Whitworth (34)
Franklin (35)
Wartburg (36)
Trinity (CT) (37)
Washington U. (40)
Coe (42)
+++++++++++++
Elmhurst (45)
Wisc - Oshkosh (46)
Centre (49)
Willamette (50)
NYU (52)
Keene State (46)
Ohio Wesleyan (58)
Wisc - Stevens Point (59)
Lakeland (61)
Muskingum (62)
++++++++++++++
Rochester (63)
Southwestern (65)
Williams (67)
MIT (68)
Chapman (69)
Howard Payne (70)
Huntingdon (71)
Gustavus Adolphus (72)
Loras (74)
Richard Stockton (75)
+++++++++++++++
Chicago (76)
Hanover (77)
Coll. of NJ (78)
Rhode Island College (79)
Oswego State (80)
Ramapo (82)
Albright (83)
NJ City (84)
Mary Hardin-Baylor (85)
Brandeis (86)


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2006, 02:12:44 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2006, 01:26:43 PM
I don't think so. I think there are six MVC teams worthy of inclusion, all better than Lousivllle, who I have 9th in the Big East power right now.

Well, yes the MVC is going to get screwed, but there will be at-large team (I'm looking at you Big-12) that will get unworthy teams in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2006, 02:13:38 PM

I'd like to see that d3 NIT.




And no comments about the ECAC serving the same purpose... that's a total joke.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2006, 02:17:25 PM
Notice how high up Chapman and Huntingdon are, compared to <cough>Villa Julei</cough> at 150! Argh!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2006, 03:40:36 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2006, 02:17:25 PM
Notice how high up Chapman and Huntingdon are, compared to <cough>Villa Julei</cough> at 150! Argh!

I guess Baruch will be the test, but honestly I don't see much difference between VJC, Chapman and Huntingdon.  I was suprised at the pick not because of the calibre of team, but because I didn't think the numbers pointed that way.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2006, 03:43:55 PM
Baruch is only #90 as well, though. They both have heinous SOS measures.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2006, 03:47:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2006, 03:43:55 PM
Baruch is only #90 as well, though. They both have heinous SOS measures.

That's what I mean.  In my opinion Villa Julie has a shot at Baruch.  If it turns into a Baruch blowout, then maybe I have to change my mind about other B teams getting screwed.  Right now it seems like a bum deal for Huntingdon, but its not outrageous.  If VJC gets wiped off the floor, then we have hindsight.

As it is, I think VJC can hang just fine.  I might even pick them to win.


How much would it suck to host the weekend and be done playing Friday night?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2006, 11:49:42 PM
Guys, you've got to see it to believe it:

A NESCAC poster (dman, 8:42 Weds morning) complaining that Gordon 'gamed the system'!  It's true - irony is dead! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2006, 09:09:03 AM
Yeah, I saw that.  I let it go since it is their board and all, but it just proves no one is ever happy.

Although, they did only get the one Pool C bid, a deserving Tufts squad, so really their "gaming" didn't pay off this year anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on March 13, 2006, 03:10:33 AM

I was just looking at a list of the Pool Cs, and having a discussion and would be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter:

While I am certainly glad the tournament expanded, all but IWU of the Pool C's got eliminated by at least the game three rounds before the Champion is declared. 1 of 4 in the Final Four isn't bad... it's slightly more than proportional. But 1 of 8 of the Elite 8 teams, IMHO isn't so great.

What exactly was our argument for why we needed more Pool C teams? Wasn't it because they were often Final Four caliber? Or was it something about having more good games early on? ???  :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Coach C on March 13, 2006, 10:03:06 AM
diehard -

The arguement is that you want to put the best teams in the country in the tournament and the system does not do that.  In order to ensire that the best teams are in, we needed more C's.  I think the number is right at this point.  Now we just have to fix the travel mess and the selection criteria and then maybe we have a fair representation of the regualr season.

C
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 13, 2006, 10:05:55 AM
I think you might have to see how many Pool C teams played each other and when...I'll look into it when I have some time later.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dewcrew88 on March 13, 2006, 12:16:21 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on March 13, 2006, 03:10:33 AM

I was just looking at a list of the Pool Cs, and having a discussion and would be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter:

While I am certainly glad the tournament expanded, all but IWU of the Pool C's got eliminated by at least the game three rounds before the Champion is declared. 1 of 4 in the Final Four isn't bad... it's slightly more than proportional. But 1 of 8 of the Elite 8 teams, IMHO isn't so great.

What exactly was our argument for why we needed more Pool C teams? Wasn't it because they were often Final Four caliber? Or was it something about having more good games early on? ???  :-\

I know why one pool C bowed out before the Elite 8... Utica played St. John Fisher for the fourth time this season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 13, 2006, 12:37:20 PM

Looking at the Pool C teams:

10 of the 18 teams had to play each other, allowing for only a maximum of 13 teams in the 2nd round.

11 Pool C teams made the second round (Baruch and Trinity, neither of whom was on the bubble, were the losers).

In the second round, three games pitted two Pool C teams against each other, allowing for only a maximum of 8 Pool C teams in the sweet sixteen.

5 teams made the sweet sixteen (the losers were Calvin, Wooster and Occidental).  Oxy is the first bubble C to lose to a non-C team, and Oxy was barely on the bubble; I think almost everybody had them in.

In the sweet sixteen, you have Utica and Tufts losing to conference champs from their own conferences.  Certainly they couldn't have been expected to win those games.  Widener lost to William Paterson, which might be seen as a disappointment,  but not necessarily.  Augie lost to UPS and IWU beat Lawrence.

There is a case to complain about how many C teams had to face each other in the first round; I think that's valid.  And there is legitimacy to the Hope-Calvin second round game.  After that, I'm not sure you can complain all that much about the opponents and positions of the C's.  Things panned out pretty evenly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 13, 2006, 01:39:49 PM
Quote from: Coach C on March 13, 2006, 10:03:06 AM
diehard -

The arguement is that you want to put the best teams in the country in the tournament and the system does not do that.  In order to ensire that the best teams are in, we needed more C's.  I think the number is right at this point.  Now we just have to fix the travel mess and the selection criteria and then maybe we have a fair representation of the regualr season.

C

Coach, some time in the off-season, I invite you to discuss with us how we can improve the system (1) inside the budget that we have now, (2) that acknowledges the key principle of equal access to the playoffs and (3) minimizes the key time in the classroom.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Coach C on March 13, 2006, 02:02:42 PM
Ralph -

One of the problems is that people keep talking about working within the system and the budget.  That's just BS.  With the NIT added to the D1 NCAA fold, they have even MORE tournament money.  Why doesn't that money trickle down to us?  I think our travel budget should be larger and it should be adjusted reguarly based ont he D1 tournament(s) revenues.

But ok, if we have to do it in the budget, how about we get rid or the whole regional record thing and the regional SOSI thing?  What exactly is that measuring?  If you're in the NE region, it's just measuring who well you do against a terrible region.  Anyone wondering how York and Willie Pat get to the Final Four?  Look at the brackets they came out of.

Time out of the classroom ... something like 84% of d3 schools have a spring break within the D3 men's basketball tournament.  How much class time is REALLY being missed?

C
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 13, 2006, 02:27:59 PM

Isn't the whole d3 budget based on a percentage of the total NCAA revenue?  If that's true, then technically it is adjusted every year depending on what comes in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Coach C on March 13, 2006, 02:36:19 PM
Hoopsfan -

IIRC that is the old way.  The new way, we got a little chink of money when the new TV deal was done and the budget is base don that number each year.

C
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 13, 2006, 02:40:08 PM
I think the losing classroom time argument is getting old.........with the new format this year, we saw more travel for first round games.

For instance UW LaCrosse came across Lake Michigan to Holland, the NCAA allows them a day of practice which means they were in Holland on Thursday, probably left  Wednesday.  Meaning some of those kids probably missed 3 days of school......... if they'd stayed closer to home and played under the old format? ? ? ?

I think missed class time is an old tired excuse.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 13, 2006, 02:50:09 PM
Quote from: sac on March 13, 2006, 02:40:08 PM
I think missed class time is an old tired excuse.

At least from the NCAA where they allow the d1 basbeall players to essentially miss the whole spring semester.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 13, 2006, 03:07:20 PM
The missed class time in determining the qualification to the playoffs must include the entire 18-19 weeks of the season, not just tourney week.

Any changes that we make to the playoffs must be system wide.  The changes that have been implemented in basketball were implemented across all sports.

As the D3hoops.com Quasi-committee members of the  Competition Committee for D3 sports, these changes must work across all of the sports.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dman on March 13, 2006, 05:21:37 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2006, 11:49:42 PM
Guys, you've got to see it to believe it:

A NESCAC poster (dman, 8:42 Weds morning) complaining that Gordon 'gamed the system'! It's true - irony is dead! ;)

sorry for the late response.  i've quietly followed many of your comments this year (along with hoops fan and others) and i let them pass.  you're entitled to your opinion and i'm entitled to mine.  it's my opinion that teams like gordon, baruch, and utica had no business in the ncaa tournament.  pool c should be for the best teams that don't automatically qualify for the tournament, not for teams in really weak conferences, who run up gaudy records against inferior competition and yes, game the system.  just for example, check how gordon conveniently dropped its nescac games this year, whereas, in the past they were playing one or two games against nescac.  if you play in new england and don't play nescac, i think you're gaming the system.  i used quotes because these are your terms for nescac scheduling, which has nothing to do with the ncaa's!!!!!   i was glad to see utica beat gordon and wpi, legitimizing their presence, but if you can't beat someone in your own conference, which is notably weak, once in three tries, do you really belong in a national event??? if there is actually a "committee" of decision-makers as to who gets into the tournament, then i believe some teams with really good records should be left out in favor of teams from tougher conferences with slightly worse records.  finally, i would add that the expansion of the tournament is way overdue and is an overwhelming success in spite of my nit-picking around the fringes.....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 13, 2006, 05:39:16 PM
dman,

I'm sure that the NESCAC single round-robin is not deliberately set up for purposes of 'gaming the system', but, with current selection rules, it sure works out nicely!  If the CCIW played a single round-robin, Elmhurst (with judicious scheduling of top SLIAC, etc., teams) would certainly have joined Augie, IWU, and NCC in the 'Little Dance'.

I don't think anyone is faulting the NESCAC, per se, it's the silly 'regional criteria to select a national tourney' that rankles.  And NESCAC's schedule DOES give it an unfair advantage in pool C bids, regardless of WHY the schedule exists.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dman on March 13, 2006, 06:09:34 PM
here are a couple of my thoughts.
1. apparently nescac scheduling really didn't influence the system this year, since they only got two teams in.  obviously, you can't complain about that...

2.  i agree that the nescac schedule gives it an advantage, but why do you think gordon dropped its nescac games this year???  i know for a fact that nescac teams have a hard time scheduling games in new england.  trinity only played 22 games this year.  i don't think that is on purpose.  if the goal is to simply qualify for nationals, then gordon set themselves up nicely to do it, only to be embarassed.  why not accept nescac as the premier conference and "make your season" by beating a nescac team??  then you'll both qualify for the ncaa's and know you might have a prayer of winning a game once you get in....

3.  the "silly regional criteria" were used by gordon (and baruch, utica, et al), since new england is a weak region and there are alot of teams with good records against poor competition.  all you have to do is beat one or two of those teams and your own regional criteria goes to the sky.....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 13, 2006, 06:30:29 PM
dman,

Agreed.  And being perfectly legal, why wouldn't a scheduler seek to 'game the system'?

What I and others object to is that the NESCAC (as far as I'm aware) if the only CONFERENCE with this advantage.  Again, not an attack on the NESCAC, per se (it's legal, so even IF they did it for tourney advantage, so what?); but in my mind, a conference with a single round-robin is not REALLY a conference - they're a bunch of schools who happen to schedule each other (and who happens to get the key home games may affect the 'title' as much as the quality of performance).  In fb, it is unavoidable; in large, two-division bb conferences, double within division, but single against the other division is unavoidable; but if the NESCAC wants equity for their bballers, I see no reason NOT to have a double round-robin.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on March 13, 2006, 07:08:15 PM
The reason the NESCAC won't go to a double round robin is because that means there may be some missed classes for the athletes if they have to travel during the week.  That's a big no-no as far as the conference goes.

Ypsi, interesting point about it not being a Conference but rather just a bunch of teams who play each other. 

And I doubt it will change any time soon, unless the NCAA makes a rule about a mandatory number of conference games that must be played in order to gain Pool A bid. 

Even then, they might just go after all the Pool B's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 13, 2006, 07:22:49 PM
Quote from: formerbant10 on March 13, 2006, 07:08:15 PM
The reason the NESCAC won't go to a double round robin is because that means there may be some missed classes for the athletes if they have to travel during the week.  That's a big no-no as far as the conference goes.

Ypsi, interesting point about it not being a Conference but rather just a bunch of teams who play each other. 

And I doubt it will change any time soon, unless the NCAA makes a rule about a mandatory number of conference games that must be played in order to gain Pool A bid. 

Even then, they might just go after all the Pool B's.

formerbant,

Your reasoning for the NESCAC decision would make sense except that all the conference teams played AT LEAST 24 games.  Why would playing conference opponents be different from playing non-conference opponents?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 13, 2006, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: Coach C on March 13, 2006, 02:02:42 PM
Time out of the classroom ... something like 84% of d3 schools have a spring break within the D3 men's basketball tournament.  How much class time is REALLY being missed?

C


Quote from: sac on March 13, 2006, 02:40:08 PM
I think missed class time is an old tired excuse.

Maybe the students are worried about missing Spring Break!  :o

Re:  NESCAC

Didn't we have this debate for about TWO weeks prior to the tourney?  I'm staying out of the 2nd go-around! lol.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on March 13, 2006, 08:16:29 PM
Quote from: Coach C on March 13, 2006, 10:03:06 AM
The arguement is that you want to put the best teams in the country in the tournament and the system does not do that.  In order to ensire that the best teams are in, we needed more C's.  I think the number is right at this point.  Now we just have to fix the travel mess and the selection criteria and then maybe we have a fair representation of the regualr season.
C

Well, that makes more sense, but then I'm left with the theoretical question... How do we know they are the best teams if they don't go very far? Isn't that ultimately the main proof we can get that a team is really all that?

Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 13, 2006, 12:37:20 PM

Looking at the Pool C teams:

10 of the 18 teams had to play each other, allowing for only a maximum of 13 teams in the 2nd round.

11 Pool C teams made the second round (Baruch and Trinity, neither of whom was on the bubble, were the losers).

In the second round, three games pitted two Pool C teams against each other, allowing for only a maximum of 8 Pool C teams in the sweet sixteen.

5 teams made the sweet sixteen (the losers were Calvin, Wooster and Occidental). Oxy is the first bubble C to lose to a non-C team, and Oxy was barely on the bubble; I think almost everybody had them in.

In the sweet sixteen, you have Utica and Tufts losing to conference champs from their own conferences. Certainly they couldn't have been expected to win those games. Widener lost to William Paterson, which might be seen as a disappointment, but not necessarily. Augie lost to UPS and IWU beat Lawrence.

There is a case to complain about how many C teams had to face each other in the first round; I think that's valid. And there is legitimacy to the Hope-Calvin second round game. After that, I'm not sure you can complain all that much about the opponents and positions of the C's. Things panned out pretty evenly.

Nice research/summmary Hoops Fan, excellent post!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 13, 2006, 08:56:44 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 13, 2006, 12:37:20 PM

Looking at the Pool C teams:

10 of the 18 teams had to play each other, allowing for only a maximum of 13 teams in the 2nd round.

There is a case to complain about how many C teams had to face each other in the first round; I think that's valid.  And there is legitimacy to the Hope-Calvin second round game.  After that, I'm not sure you can complain all that much about the opponents and positions of the C's.  Things panned out pretty evenly.

The issue of so many Pool C teams playing each other in the first round might be explained by the seedings in the perfect bracket.  The Pool C bids were the 6/11's or 7/10's or 8/9's.  The Pool A bids from the stronger conferences were paired with the Pool A's of the weaker conferences to comprise the 1/16 (Miss Coll vs Maryville MO of the SLIAC), 2/15's, 3/14's and 4/13's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: iwumichigander on March 13, 2006, 09:12:25 PM
In the second round, three games pitted two Pool C teams against each other, allowing for only a maximum of 8 Pool C teams in the sweet sixteen. (Hoops Fan Analysis)

Gee, kinda of funny how the first two rounds in an expanded tournament works down to 8 Pool C teams is it not?

I really think the difference or the impact of the expanded tournament is the opportunity for Pool C's to move to the Sweet Sixteen versus what might have been in the past more AQ's.

Is not that what most posters wanted an opportunity for some more Pool C teams to play and advance
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 13, 2006, 09:13:23 PM
Ralph,

Your scenario would work in a simpler world where the A conferences divide so neatly that ALL the Cs are between the 'good' conference As and the 'bad' conference As, but I doubt it works in THIS world.  And, of course, we musn't forget the Bs.

Though, of course, Cs do TEND to cluster in the middle (just like the at-large bids in d1 - the VERY top are mostly conference winners, the very bottom are largely conference winners from 'bad' conferences....)

Oh, all right.  At the level of meeting each other that Hoops Fan reported, you are probably right! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 13, 2006, 09:59:33 PM
The 4 Pool B bids are calculated to be the same access ratio that the 37 Pool A conferences and the members have, 1:9.22.

41 divided by 9.22 = 4 bids.  From those 41 Pool B's we see Lincoln, which made it to the Sectional Finals (Elite 8 ), Maryville TN (round of 32), Villa Julie (Round of 32) and Bethany (first round loser).

Please realize that the NCAA has crafted these playoff criteria for all team sports!  Basketball only behaves this way, because Basketball is essentially the key winter season sport for everyone in D3, except a Wells College or a Macalester Women in the years that they disband.  Swimming and diving fulfill the winter requirement.

In Pool B's in football, the NWC has won the championship twice.  Wesley was a semifinalist in 2005.  In baseball, the Capital AC has 3 Pool B's in some years!

Pool B's work in D3.

One other thing to remember...The 8 current Pool B schools from the NEAC move to Pool A in 2007.  The 7 full members of the Pres AC move to Pool A in 2008.  At least 5 of the 6 NIIC schools will be in Pool A conferences when the dust settles.  Those 41 schools drop to 21.  The total number of Pool B's will fluctuate yearly, because of movement in and out of conferences, provisional becoming full, new conference formation, etc.

I think that there will be some good Pool B's in 2008 when the Interstate 8 begin to form.  NJCU was a Pool B in 2005.   The Bumblers went 5-4 this year.  Pool B will have some good schools in it thru the end of the decade.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 13, 2006, 10:23:32 PM
And just to make things more interesting, I copied this from the CAC page.
Quote from: lefty2 on March 13, 2006, 09:14:35 PM
According to the Steven's Tech website, the "Interstate 8" is now the "Interstate 7."

http://www.stevensducks.com/sports/news/release.asp?RELEASE_ID=10331
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 13, 2006, 11:00:32 PM
I will try to find something out on wednesday night.  A friend of mine has a couple of connections there, I will put a bug in his ear.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on March 13, 2006, 11:17:36 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 13, 2006, 07:22:49 PM

formerbant,

Your reasoning for the NESCAC decision would make sense except that all the conference teams played AT LEAST 24 games.  Why would playing conference opponents be different from playing non-conference opponents?

Ypsi, it doesn't make sense in a lot of minds.  I know that the players would love to play a double and I'm sure the coaches would too.  But everyone outside the NESCAC will have to realize that the NESCAC does not care and will not change unless its absolutely necessary.  But I know the NESCAC will be celebrating the fact that they've had 4 Final Four teams in the last 4 years.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 14, 2006, 08:45:20 AM
I just hope they know it looks hypocritical, smug and elitist, especially coupled with their football issues.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 14, 2006, 09:25:44 AM
Quote from: smedindy on March 14, 2006, 08:45:20 AM
I just hope they know it looks hypocritical, smug and elitist, especially coupled with their football issues.

Yes, but the NESCAC prides itself on being smug and elitist.  It's why people want to go there.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 14, 2006, 09:26:18 AM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 13, 2006, 10:23:32 PM
And just to make things more interesting, I copied this from the CAC page.
Quote from: lefty2 on March 13, 2006, 09:14:35 PM
According to the Steven's Tech website, the "Interstate 8" is now the "Interstate 7."

http://www.stevensducks.com/sports/news/release.asp?RELEASE_ID=10331

Seven is still enough for an AQ.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on March 14, 2006, 03:38:00 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 14, 2006, 09:25:44 AM
Quote from: smedindy on March 14, 2006, 08:45:20 AM
I just hope they know it looks hypocritical, smug and elitist, especially coupled with their football issues.

Yes, but the NESCAC prides itself on being smug and elitist.  It's why people want to go there.

Exactly right Hoops Fan.  The NESCAC has the elitist feel as a whole "conference" to the rest of D3 and then there are the elitists within the NESCAC. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dman on March 14, 2006, 04:15:29 PM
just for a moment, can we pretend that the nescac doesn't exist???

i'm trying to point out that pool c is for teams who belong in a national tournament, not schools who play the "regional game" well.  based on this year's results, i don't think the ccc in new england, the cunyac in ny, and to a lesser extent, the empire 8 in ny, should have two teams in the ncaa's.  these are really, really weak conferences, very similar to the sliac.  did the sliac get two teams in???  the ccc has not won a game in the ncaa tournament in exactly 20 years.  do you find this stat shocking??? but somehow they got 2 teams in the dance???  i would rather see elmhurst, trinity, ct, and other teams like this, who play competitive schedules but don't have eye-popping records, get at-large bids to the dance, instead of a gorgon, who only plays one team that's even half-way decent but runs up a gaudy regional record...if there is actually a committee making decisions, don't they look at the conference???  this year, it looks like they went strictly by the numbers.  to me, the overall effect means that one bracket may be exceedingly weak- such as amhert's this year.....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: mrmike88 on March 14, 2006, 04:23:17 PM
Gee Formerbant, I wonder which schools in the NESCAC could be qualified as elitist?   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 14, 2006, 04:42:46 PM

Anna Maria made the sweet sixteen out of the CCC in 1996.

I've done this rant before, so I will not blow up again.  Are we as good as the midwest? Heck no.  Are we even close to the level of even the NESCAC in our own region?  Nope.  Do we deserve to be in the same breath as the SLIAC?  No way!

The CCC is improving.  Right now we're about the 3rd best conference in New England.  We're about on par with the LEC and trying to catch up to the NEWMAC.  We're not competitive on a national level, but I don't think that's possible given a variety of factors.  We deserve more respect than being lumped in with the SLIAC.  That's all I'm saying.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 14, 2006, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: mrmike88 on March 14, 2006, 04:23:17 PM
Gee Formerbant, I wonder which schools in the NESCAC could be qualified as elitist?   :D

All of them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 14, 2006, 04:43:42 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 14, 2006, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: mrmike88 on March 14, 2006, 04:23:17 PM
Gee Formerbant, I wonder which schools in the NESCAC could be qualified as elitist?   :D

All of them.

Let me amend that.  Trinity isn't too bad.  Nobody likes them, but it's not because they're elitist.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dman on March 14, 2006, 04:50:43 PM
i'm a patient person.

let's see who gordon schedules next year.  ok??  you may describe the ccc as on par with lec and chasing newmac, but neither of them got two bids to the ncaa's.  i don't want to pick on gordon, but i believe they asked for it......
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on March 14, 2006, 05:53:14 PM
From my experiences the NESCAC elitists change from sport to sport.  But most of the schools have an "I'm better than you" attitude for those outside the NESCAC.

Trinity has its pockets of elitists within it Hartford campus, trust me on that one.  But it seems like every school does.

Dman,

It would be nice if the Pool C's were all taken up by the best teams remaining.  But no matter what the system for selecting is, as long as there is a human element someone will see it as flawed.  And there will always be teams that feel they got the short end of the stick.  If there were 40 Pool C's, the team that was #41 would be arguing that they were better than #40. 

To judge the success of the tournament, it should really be whether or not the 4 teams that are playing the best basketball at this exact moment in time are in Salem.  I think this year turned out well, but I'm sure someone will read this and think I'm biased towards my NE roots.  That's life.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 14, 2006, 09:26:16 PM
I think we have a very good final four this year and I think there might be a surprise or two come the end of the second game on friday.  I think we are going to have an Amherst VWU final.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 14, 2006, 10:40:15 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 14, 2006, 09:26:16 PM
I think we have a very good final four this year and I think there might be a surprise or two come the end of the second game on friday.  I think we are going to have an Amherst VWU final.

Amherst OR VWU in the final would surprise (but not shock) me.  Amherst AND VWU in the final would shock me.

While I expect all four games (counting the 3rd place game, unless one team or the other just mails it in) to be hard-fought games, I set the approximate odds at 2:1 IWU over VWU, and 3:2 Witt over Amherst.

According to the d3hoops.com poll, this is the best final four since the poll began (with the 2000 tourney).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 15, 2006, 08:56:57 AM
Quote from: dman on March 14, 2006, 04:50:43 PM
i'm a patient person.

let's see who gordon schedules next year.  ok??  you may describe the ccc as on par with lec and chasing newmac, but neither of them got two bids to the ncaa's.  i don't want to pick on gordon, but i believe they asked for it......

They probably didn't deserve two in this year, well they did, but it should have been Colby-Sawyer instead of Endicott.  Gordon lost a close one their first time in.  I can't blame then, especually when Utica went to the sweet sixteen.  They did well playing the numbers game, but its been a long time since a CCC team did that well, even with a schedule like that.  The NESCAC teams play the numbers game too by not having the double round-robin.  D3 is done regionally.  I like it that way.  I think they can improve it a little, but I'm not sure I'd like a tournament with 4 CCIW teams and 4 WIAC teams in every time.  It would start to look too much like D1.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 15, 2006, 09:39:29 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 15, 2006, 08:56:57 AM
Quote from: dman on March 14, 2006, 04:50:43 PM
i'm a patient person.

let's see who gordon schedules next year.  ok??  you may describe the ccc as on par with lec and chasing newmac, but neither of them got two bids to the ncaa's.  i don't want to pick on gordon, but i believe they asked for it......


I think they can improve it a little, but I'm not sure I'd like a tournament with 4 CCIW teams and 4 WIAC teams in every time.  It would start to look too much like D1.

+1 Hoops Fan!!!

Elmhurst lost the rubber match to North Central in the first round of the CCIW tourney.  That is probably what knocked them out of the NCAA's.

Elmhurst's in-region percentage fell below .667 with that loss.  That really hurt the Elmhurst and the CCIW,  and it is a primary criteria used by the selection committee.

I understand that the coaches, more than anyone else,  have voted in the Tourney.  Elmhurst had to know that it was on the bubble. The trip to the NCAA's began in the post-season tourney and stopped on the first night!  With the near universal adoption of the post-season tourney to award the AQ, the number teams that get the second chance at the AQ is close to 160.  (That is a good research project.  How many teams from Pool A Conferences particpate in a conference post-season tourney?)  Augie was everyone's lock.  Elmhurst lost when it had its chance!

If the fourth team out of the 8-member CCIW is the 18th best of the rest, then what about Albion which beat Elmhurst?  Albion stayed home, too.

The whole format of D1 tourney is not to identify the best 30 some odd at-large teams that did not qualify automatically!  It is to identify the 30 some odd best teams at drawing advertising revenue and viewership.  Over the years, how many mid-majors who went 23-4 stayed home because the 7th team of the ACC at 17-10 got picked? ??? ::) :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 15, 2006, 10:17:48 AM

Ralph,

You were underestimating things.  There are 228 Pool A teams that participated in their conference tournaments this year.  Only the SCIAC and the UAA remain in Pool A without a conference tournament.

This number may or may not increase next year as the NIIC teams filter into other conferences and various other changes apply.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 15, 2006, 10:22:50 AM
There was very little separation among the CCIW's top 4 this year.  The league finished...

Augustana 11-3
North Central 9-5
Elmhurst 9-5
Illinois Wesleyan 9-5

The games where almost all tight.

Augustana vs Elmhurst
AC 60 EC 57 (@ Augie)
AC 63 EC 60 (@ Elmhurst) - Augie took lead with :04

Augustana vs Illinois Wesleyan
AC 57 IWU 54 (@ IWU)
AC 93 IWU 85 OT (@ Augie)
IWU 81 Augie 67 (@ Augie - CCIW tourney) - one of two blowouts in "contender games"

Augustana vs North Central
AC 85 NCC 79 (@ Augie) - NCC led under 2:00
NCC 86 AC 61 (@ North Central) - the other blowout

Illinois Wesleyan vs North Central
NCC 74 IWU 70 (@IWU)
IWU 91 NCC 88 (@ North Central)
NCC 51 IWU 49 (neutral - CCIW tourney)

Illinois Wesleyan vs Elmhurst
EC 72 IWU 64 (@ Elmhurst)
IWU 88 Elmhurst 87 OT (@ IWU)

North Central vs Elmhurst
EC 94 NCC 91 OT (@ North Central)
NCC 62 EC 59 (@ Elmhurst)
NCC 67 EC 57 (neutral - CCIW tourney) - 2 pt game with 3:00 to play


I think my posts on the CCIW board throughout the conference season reflected that fact that I could never figuure out who the best of the 4 really was.

I'm not saying Elmhurst should have made the tournament based on the system in place -- just saying that in reality, IWU, North Central, Elmhurst, and Augustana were very even based on head-to-head results.  I think 4 of the best 20 or so teams in the nation were in the CCIW this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dewcrew88 on March 15, 2006, 10:30:53 AM
QuoteThe whole format of D1 tourney is not to identify the best 30 some odd at-large teams that did not qualify automatically!  It is to identify the 30 some odd best teams at drawing advertising revenue and viewership.  Over the years, how many mid-majors who went 23-4 stayed home because the 7th team of the ACC at 17-10 got picked? ??? ::) :-\

Ralph,
That was the bone of contention this year in the Division I selections. A lot of people felt that the big "power" conferences got shafted because the mid-majors (the Missouri Valley, etc.) got more bids this year.

For example, the MVC got the same amount of bids -- four-- that the ACC did.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 15, 2006, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: budcrew08 on March 15, 2006, 10:30:53 AM
QuoteThe whole format of D1 tourney is not to identify the best 30 some odd at-large teams that did not qualify automatically!  It is to identify the 30 some odd best teams at drawing advertising revenue and viewership.  Over the years, how many mid-majors who went 23-4 stayed home because the 7th team of the ACC at 17-10 got picked? ??? ::) :-\

Ralph,
That was the bone of contention this year in the Division I selections. A lot of people felt that the big "power" conferences got shafted because the mid-majors (the Missouri Valley, etc.) got more bids this year.

For example, the MVC got the same amount of bids -- four-- that the ACC did.

The Missouri Valley should have gotten more bids than the ACC; they still got screwed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 15, 2006, 10:50:17 AM
So did Hofstra.  Go Monmouth!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 15, 2006, 10:53:02 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 15, 2006, 10:17:48 AM

Ralph,

You were underestimating things.  There are 228 Pool A teams that participated in their conference tournaments this year.  Only the SCIAC and the UAA remain in Pool A without a conference tournament. ...

Quote from: Titan Q on March 15, 2006, 10:22:50 AM
There was very little separation among the CCIW's top 4 this year.  The league finished...

Augustana 11-3
North Central 9-5
Elmhurst 9-5
Illinois Wesleyan 9-5

The games where almost all tight. ...

I think my posts on the CCIW board throughout the conference season reflected that fact that I could never figuure out who the best of the 4 really was.

I'm not saying Elmhurst should have made the tournament based on the system in place -- just saying that in reality, IWU, North Central, Elmhurst, and Augustana were very even during CCIW play.  I think 4 of the best 20 or so teams in the nation were in the CCIW this year.

Thanks for the number, Hoops fan!  What those 228 have done is to fill out an eight round bracket (8 rounds is 256 teams), with a few byes thrown in.

Then we have "18 do-overs" for some of the losers in those first 2 rounds.

Titan Q, I do believe that the CCIW had 4 teams that may been in the Top 25.  In the ASC-West, we had 3 women's teams that were paired in the first 2 rounds.  My alma mater, McMurry, is probably a Top 10 team in the country, but can't even win the Abilene City Championship!  :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 15, 2006, 10:55:19 AM
QuoteRalph,
That was the bone of contention this year in the Division I selections. A lot of people felt that the big "power" conferences got shafted because the mid-majors (the Missouri Valley, etc.) got more bids this year.

For example, the MVC got the same amount of bids -- four-- that the ACC did.

The only people who felt that way were the ACC homers (or SEC homers) and Jim Nantz and Billy Packer. Rational sports fans and columnists derided those bozos.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 15, 2006, 10:57:18 AM
Ralph - I've studied the D-1 tourney a lot. It is a LOT better than it used to be. Only a few times has a truly deserving mid-major been left out. This year, Missouri State, but they let in Air Force, which I didn't have on my board. A couple of years ago Utah State, then Toledo a few years before that. If you lost 7 or 8 games, you don't really have any complaints, though.

Hofstra's SOS wasn't that good - so I can see why they were excluded.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 15, 2006, 11:04:43 AM
Quote from: budcrew08 on March 15, 2006, 10:30:53 AM
QuoteThe whole format of D1 tourney is not to identify the best 30 some odd at-large teams that did not qualify automatically!  It is to identify the 30 some odd best teams at drawing advertising revenue and viewership.  Over the years, how many mid-majors who went 23-4 stayed home because the 7th team of the ACC at 17-10 got picked? ??? ::) :-\

Ralph,
That was the bone of contention this year in the Division I selections. A lot of people felt that the big "power" conferences got shafted because the mid-majors (the Missouri Valley, etc.) got more bids this year.

For example, the MVC got the same amount of bids -- four-- that the ACC did.

Perhaps the "Powers That Be" needed a few more Cinderellas this year.  You know,  to help with the Ratings.!  Now that is a bit cynical, but half of all this is 80% marketing or whatever the appropriate Yogi-ism is! :D :D ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 15, 2006, 11:21:54 AM
Quote from: smedindy on March 15, 2006, 10:57:18 AM
Ralph - I've studied the D-1 tourney a lot. It is a LOT better than it used to be. Only a few times has a truly deserving mid-major been left out. This year, Missouri State, but they let in Air Force, which I didn't have on my board. A couple of years ago Utah State, then Toledo a few years before that. If you lost 7 or 8 games, you don't really have any complaints, though.

Hofstra's SOS wasn't that good - so I can see why they were excluded.

But the team they beat twice George Mason was in the tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 15, 2006, 02:15:09 PM
QuoteBut the team they beat twice George Mason was in the tournament.

One at Hofstra, one a neutral. GM beat Wichita State on the road, which probably tipped it to them. Hofstra didn't really have a signature non-conference win.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 15, 2006, 02:18:51 PM

Speaking of this, why doesn't d-I have a pool system?  That way maybe UT-Corpus Cristi could have gotten the spot they deserved as a Pool B selection?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 15, 2006, 02:52:04 PM
Quote from: smedindy on March 15, 2006, 02:15:09 PM
QuoteBut the team they beat twice George Mason was in the tournament.

One at Hofstra, one a neutral. GM beat Wichita State on the road, which probably tipped it to them. Hofstra didn't really have a signature non-conference win.

One at Hofstra and one at George Mason in the CAA tournament.   Two head to head wins in the last ten days should have given Hofstra the nod in my opinion.  I think they demonstrated they are the better team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 15, 2006, 03:57:29 PM
Not necessarily. Over the course of the year the power rankings clearly had GM a better team.

Oh, I do NOT want the pool system, at all, for anything. I think it's idiotic myself.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 15, 2006, 04:04:51 PM
But games are won on the court and not in a computer and two wins in ten days over a team that is basically an even matchup points to Hofstra as the better team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TigerFan_1973 on March 15, 2006, 04:43:22 PM
Quote

The only people who felt that way were the ACC homers (or SEC homers) and Jim Nantz and Billy Packer. Rational sports fans and columnists derided those bozos.
Quote
Billy' an ACC man through and through.

does anybody else remember Billy broadcasting Putt Putt tournaments?  no joke.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 15, 2006, 04:48:51 PM

I remember watching Putt-Putt tournament, but Billy's voice must have been blocked by my subconscious.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dman on March 15, 2006, 05:25:44 PM
titan q and hoops fan,

  i have to agree with titan q.  the 4th best team in the cciw, which has actually beaten at least two of the top 3, should be in the ncaa's. it looks like the regional criteria is what's keeping them out, but that's where the "committee" should step in and make a tough decision.  i can see elmhurst (and trinity, ct, and a few others) doing some damage in the tournament.  unfortunately, i can't say the same for gordon(or baruch), based on who they played in the reg. season!!!!  to me, it would make a better tournament to have the best teams in the field.  i think teams could be moved somewhat geographically to better balance the field.  i believe the amherst bracket this year, was extremely weak.  i would add (again), that overall, the tournament was a resounding success, and i am only nit-picking along the fringes.........
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 15, 2006, 07:25:15 PM
QuoteBut games are won on the court and not in a computer and two wins in ten days over a team that is basically an even matchup points to Hofstra as the better team.

Not necessarily. Teams get swept by inferior teams. It happens - it's a game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 15, 2006, 09:53:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on March 15, 2006, 07:25:15 PM
Not necessarily. Teams get swept by inferior teams. It happens - it's a game.

Platteville (7-9 in the WIAC) swept Stevens Point (11-5) during the regular season.   :-[
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 16, 2006, 12:12:15 AM
But when two teams are virtually even in RPI and SOS and one has a significant win early in the season and the other has a significant win against the other that was ranked 25th in the nation at the time and then wins again on the other teams visiting court in the span of a few days at the end of the season.  I think that the team that wins twice at the end of the season deserves to go over the other.  I think Hofstra proved they were a better team that George Mason.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on March 16, 2006, 01:59:29 AM
I was just watching ESPN and tonight's Outside the Lines documented the DIII national tournament.  Lincoln and Illinois Wesleyen were the main teams followed in the piece.  If anyone is up early, the piece is rebroadcast at 6:40 and 7:40 am EST tomorrow.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 16, 2006, 08:29:15 AM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 16, 2006, 12:12:15 AM
But when two teams are virtually even in RPI and SOS and one has a significant win early in the season and the other has a significant win against the other that was ranked 25th in the nation at the time and then wins again on the other teams visiting court in the span of a few days at the end of the season.  I think that the team that wins twice at the end of the season deserves to go over the other.  I think Hofstra proved they were a better team that George Mason.

I just had to read that three times...more slowly each time, just to figure out what you were trying to say! lol.  ???  Don't worry, after having my cat translate it, I figured it out.  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 16, 2006, 08:47:10 AM
No they weren't that equal.

In my power rankings,  I had George Mason #30 and Hofstra #39.

George Mason's Sagarin SOS was 121. Hofstra was 148.

Here's the clincher:

Sagarin and Pomeroy ratings:

George Mason - 39, 28
Hoftsra - 64, 55

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 16, 2006, 09:47:33 AM
Quote from: Old School on March 16, 2006, 08:29:15 AM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 16, 2006, 12:12:15 AM
But when two teams are virtually even in RPI and SOS and one has a significant win early in the season and the other has a significant win against the other that was ranked 25th in the nation at the time and then wins again on the other teams visiting court in the span of a few days at the end of the season.  I think that the team that wins twice at the end of the season deserves to go over the other.  I think Hofstra proved they were a better team that George Mason.

I just had to read that three times...more slowly each time, just to figure out what you were trying to say! lol.  ???  Don't worry, after having my cat translate it, I figured it out.  :D

That is what happens when you post after getting home from rehearsal with your band.  Things tend to get a little confused.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TigerFan_1973 on March 16, 2006, 02:25:26 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 15, 2006, 04:48:51 PM

I remember watching Putt-Putt tournament, but Billy's voice must have been blocked by my subconscious.
This was before he was quite so well known as he is now.

A little different pace in those tournaments than in the NCAAs.
:D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 16, 2006, 03:44:01 PM
Quote from: TigerFan_1973 on March 16, 2006, 02:25:26 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 15, 2006, 04:48:51 PM

I remember watching Putt-Putt tournament, but Billy's voice must have been blocked by my subconscious.
This was before he was quite so well known as he is now.

A little different pace in those tournaments than in the NCAAs.

But just as serious.  You are NOT knocking professional miniature golf.  It's my ultimate career goal, once I get these college loans paid off.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 16, 2006, 08:23:01 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 16, 2006, 03:44:01 PM
Quote from: TigerFan_1973 on March 16, 2006, 02:25:26 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 15, 2006, 04:48:51 PM

I remember watching Putt-Putt tournament, but Billy's voice must have been blocked by my subconscious.
This was before he was quite so well known as he is now.

A little different pace in those tournaments than in the NCAAs.

But just as serious.  You are NOT knocking professional miniature golf.  It's my ultimate career goal, once I get these college loans paid off.

What, you don't have the confidence to think you can pay off your student loans with your Putt-Putt winnings?  For shame! ;) ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 17, 2006, 09:00:50 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 16, 2006, 08:23:01 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 16, 2006, 03:44:01 PM
Quote from: TigerFan_1973 on March 16, 2006, 02:25:26 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 15, 2006, 04:48:51 PM

I remember watching Putt-Putt tournament, but Billy's voice must have been blocked by my subconscious.
This was before he was quite so well known as he is now.

A little different pace in those tournaments than in the NCAAs.

But just as serious.  You are NOT knocking professional miniature golf.  It's my ultimate career goal, once I get these college loans paid off.

What, you don't have the confidence to think you can pay off your student loans with your Putt-Putt winnings?  For shame! ;) ;D

Don't think I haven't worked this out.  It's going to take me a few months to get back on form and then there just aren't enough tournaments.  Generally $20,000 max prize money and that's if you take every hole.  I'm good, but I'm not Tiger Woods.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 17, 2006, 10:11:07 AM
Now if they could just integrate putt putt with paint ball, now there would be a TV ready sport.

Hoops fan is lining up his putt, this is a tricky windmill here.  Oh!  Hoops Fan is taken out with a head shot just as he hit the ball, it goes in.  Hoops Fans team wins the hole but they just lost a golfer for the rest of the round.  That was poor defense by his paintball squad letting a sniper get that shot from inside the windmill.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 17, 2006, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 17, 2006, 10:11:07 AM
Now if they could just integrate putt putt with paint ball, now there would be a TV ready sport.

Hoops fan is lining up his putt, this is a tricky windmill here.  Oh!  Hoops Fan is taken out with a head shot just as he hit the ball, it goes in.  Hoops Fans team wins the hole but they just lost a golfer for the rest of the round.  That was poor defense by his paintball squad letting a sniper get that shot from inside the windmill.

You missed a solid opportunity to reference the faux-grassy knoll.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 17, 2006, 10:38:36 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 17, 2006, 10:12:50 AM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 17, 2006, 10:11:07 AM
Now if they could just integrate putt putt with paint ball, now there would be a TV ready sport.

Hoops fan is lining up his putt, this is a tricky windmill here.  Oh!  Hoops Fan is taken out with a head shot just as he hit the ball, it goes in.  Hoops Fans team wins the hole but they just lost a golfer for the rest of the round.  That was poor defense by his paintball squad letting a sniper get that shot from inside the windmill.

You missed a solid opportunity to reference the faux-grassy knoll.

I posted that from the grassy knoll.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 17, 2006, 11:51:06 AM

I think you missed the joke about the faux-grass, you know, miniature golf; fake grass.  I guess its just too much band practice for you.


Although the best minaiture golf is on real grass, you just don't find too many courses like that around.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 17, 2006, 12:40:16 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 17, 2006, 11:51:06 AM

I think you missed the joke about the faux-grass, you know, miniature golf; fake grass.  I guess its just too much band practice for you.


Although the best minaiture golf is on real grass, you just don't find too many courses like that around.

I'm sorry I only like real grass, and my Battle Putt Putt course will have real grass.  I think I have my new business plan.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 17, 2006, 03:09:41 PM

I actually had that tought the other night while watching the d-I tourney on tv.  What if each team got to position one sniper (it doesn;t have to be real bullets, it could be paintballs, I guess; if you want to be all law-abiding about it) in the upper deck of the seats.  Each guy gets like five shots throughout the game at players on the floor.  Wouldn't you love to see this? 

"Duke, down by two, seven seconds remaining.  Reddick comes off the screen, gets the pass from Paulus, he squares and rises up, this one is for the win folks.  Ooooooooooooooh, he's nailed in the face by the UNC sniper and the shot goes wide.  Game over.  Wonderful accuracy from section 249, row B by Rollins; I'm not sure UNC would even be in the tournament without a sniper of that calibre."
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 17, 2006, 05:16:51 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 17, 2006, 03:09:41 PM

I actually had that tought the other night while watching the d-I tourney on tv.  What if each team got to position one sniper (it doesn;t have to be real bullets, it could be paintballs, I guess; if you want to be all law-abiding about it) in the upper deck of the seats.  Each guy gets like five shots throughout the game at players on the floor.  Wouldn't you love to see this? 

"Duke, down by two, seven seconds remaining.  Reddick comes off the screen, gets the pass from Paulus, he squares and rises up, this one is for the win folks.  Ooooooooooooooh, he's nailed in the face by the UNC sniper and the shot goes wide.  Game over.  Wonderful accuracy from section 249, row B by Rollins; I'm not sure UNC would even be in the tournament without a sniper of that calibre."

You really think the sniper wouldn't try to take out Reddick in the FIRST seven seconds, rather than wait til the end?!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 17, 2006, 05:37:16 PM
You would have to have sniper rules, not just indiscriminate shooting.  And of course if you do that you would have to position opposing snipers to help take them out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 17, 2006, 06:08:03 PM

I thought I made it clear.  They got a set number of shots per game.  If its only paintballs, then reddick could conceivably have been hit several times.  There is also the question of accuracy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 17, 2006, 06:13:51 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 17, 2006, 06:08:03 PM

I thought I made it clear.  They got a set number of shots per game.  If its only paintballs, then reddick could conceivably have been hit several times.  There is also the question of accuracy.

Perhaps I misunderstood your proposal.  I assumed you were using paintball rules that a player is OUT once hit (in which case teams better have a deep bench, 'cause if the opposing sniper is any good, your entire starting lineup will be out in the first two minutes!) - if the paintball hit is ONLY to disrupt a play, then in the immortal words of Emily Litella, 'never mind'.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 17, 2006, 06:30:09 PM

Well, my original thought was five shots by the sniper with real bullets per game, although all hits had to be in the legs.  However, that seemed a bit too unrealistic, so when 'Stalker suggested the paintballs, I jumped on it.

I think five shots per half by each sniper is appropriate.  you have to know when to shoot and not miss.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 18, 2006, 03:05:44 AM
Perhaps you don't start your best players. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 18, 2006, 07:31:43 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 18, 2006, 03:05:44 AM
Perhaps you don't start your best players. :)

I can hear Pat on the call;

"OOOHHHH! Reddick just got taken out at the knee, he's up, he's hopping on his one good leg, OOOOHHHH another shot in the other knee, he puts up the three as he is going down, (then in his best marv albert voice) YESS!

We got to get this off the ground, this would be a great game.  There might be a fairly high attrition rate though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 18, 2006, 10:22:44 AM
You guys are talking about SHOOTING people.  That's just wrong!  :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 18, 2006, 04:04:25 PM
It would only be flesh wounds, they will heal.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 20, 2006, 09:07:18 AM

Hey, I was willing to accept 'Stalker's paintball amendment, but apparently he has withdrawn it.  Again, I would maintain, shots to the meaty part of the leg only, with penalties if the shooters mis-hit some other body part.  And maybe we can use bb's or something that is less destructive.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 20, 2006, 10:56:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 20, 2006, 09:07:18 AM

Hey, I was willing to accept 'Stalker's paintball amendment, but apparently he has withdrawn it.  Again, I would maintain, shots to the meaty part of the leg only, with penalties if the shooters mis-hit some other body part.  And maybe we can use bb's or something that is less destructive.

Paintball is for the putt putt tournaments.  There should also be snipers in Figure Skating.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 20, 2006, 12:08:09 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 20, 2006, 10:56:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 20, 2006, 09:07:18 AM

Hey, I was willing to accept 'Stalker's paintball amendment, but apparently he has withdrawn it.  Again, I would maintain, shots to the meaty part of the leg only, with penalties if the shooters mis-hit some other body part.  And maybe we can use bb's or something that is less destructive.

Paintball is for the putt putt tournaments.  There should also be snipers in Figure Skating.

Honestly, I always thought figure skating would be better if they had five or six competitiors on the ice at the same time.  Not only do you have to impress judges, but avoid collisions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 20, 2006, 12:31:28 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 20, 2006, 12:08:09 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 20, 2006, 10:56:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 20, 2006, 09:07:18 AM

Hey, I was willing to accept 'Stalker's paintball amendment, but apparently he has withdrawn it.  Again, I would maintain, shots to the meaty part of the leg only, with penalties if the shooters mis-hit some other body part.  And maybe we can use bb's or something that is less destructive.

Paintball is for the putt putt tournaments.  There should also be snipers in Figure Skating.

Honestly, I always thought figure skating would be better if they had five or six competitiors on the ice at the same time.  Not only do you have to impress judges, but avoid collisions.

Better yet, make them perform during a hockey game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 20, 2006, 04:33:07 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 20, 2006, 10:56:57 AMPaintball is for the putt putt tournaments.  There should also be snipers in Figure Skating.

Snipers, schnipers. The judges in figure skating should be given sticks of dynamite, and if they don't like the routines they should be allowed to lob the dynamite over the boards at the skaters.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 20, 2006, 04:36:08 PM
Snipers would make it much more entertaining, they wouldn't be required to hit the skater, in fact that would earn the skater a bonus point.  The snipers job is to distract the skaters while they perform.  Instead of on a traditional rink they should be skating on a layer of ice that is over say twenty feet of water.  There would be booby traps in the ice such as thin spots.  Maybe some magnetic mines that the skate blades could set off.  Sharks under the ice, all pure entertainment value.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 20, 2006, 04:38:17 PM
Dynamite offers two advantages over snipers:

1) Stuff blows up.

2) Subsequent skaters have to maneuver around the craters in the ice and all the shards.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 20, 2006, 04:40:14 PM
The magnetic mines serve the same purpose and we wouldn't have to worry about the russian and french judges.  I am willing to compromise, snipers with grenade launchers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 20, 2006, 04:48:02 PM

Ok, so my serious sport proposal has morphed into some semi-realistic version of GoldenEye; I'm launching an official protest.  Back to basketball with snipers...you seriously think FOX wouldn't give that a try; it could be a huge hit for F/X.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2006, 04:51:46 PM
Dynamite, schminamite. Better yet, mandate that ice-dancers and figure-skaters dribble a basketball as a part of their routines ....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 20, 2006, 06:02:22 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 20, 2006, 04:40:14 PM
The magnetic mines serve the same purpose and we wouldn't have to worry about the russian and french judges.

The instructions on how to use the dynamite are in English. That should give pause to the French and Russian judges who wish to use their weapons injudiciously. And it'll increase the likelihood of a spectacle when Pierre or Ivan doesn't handle the dynamite properly in the judging booth.

Quote from: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2006, 04:51:46 PM
Dynamite, schminamite. Better yet, mandate that ice-dancers and figure-skaters dribble a basketball as a part of their routines ....

I like the way you think, Warren. You definitely have a second career ahead of you as a creative consultant for the Fox network.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2006, 07:11:20 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 20, 2006, 06:02:22 PM

Quote from: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2006, 04:51:46 PM
Dynamite, schminamite. Better yet, mandate that ice-dancers and figure-skaters dribble a basketball as a part of their routines ....

I like the way you think, Warren. You definitely have a second career ahead of you as a creative consultant for the Fox network.

The Fox Network? Drat! That means I'd have to be both fair and objective.  Don't know if I can handle that. ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 20, 2006, 07:29:20 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2006, 07:11:20 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 20, 2006, 06:02:22 PM

Quote from: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2006, 04:51:46 PM
Dynamite, schminamite. Better yet, mandate that ice-dancers and figure-skaters dribble a basketball as a part of their routines ....

I like the way you think, Warren. You definitely have a second career ahead of you as a creative consultant for the Fox network.

The Fox Network? Drat! That means I have to be both fair and objective.  Don't know if I can handle that. ::)

It's just the news division that holds to "fair and objective." The entertainment division at Fox requires you to be "lowbrow and iconoclastic." You hide it well, but the figure-skaters-dribbling-basketballs idea indicates that you have a surprising facility for the former as well as the latter. Perhaps you were more poisoned influenced by years of exposure to 18-year-old minds than you let on.  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2006, 07:57:08 PM
Yeah, well, Greg, my wife constantly reminds me that I "hide" [many things] well" -- except for my age and increasing decrepitude, that is.

Exposure to undergraduates can, indeed,  be hazardous. One often finds oneself inclined to sport a baseball cap worn with brim to the rear while wearing jeans composed mostly of holes and rips ....  ;)

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 20, 2006, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2006, 07:57:08 PM
Yeah, well, Greg, my wife constantly reminds me that I "hide" [many things] well" -- except for my age and increasing decrepitude, that is.

Exposure to undergraduates can, indeed,  be hazardous. One often finds oneself inclined to sport a baseball cap worn with brim to the rear while wearing jeans composed mostly of holes and rips ....  ;)



What is wrong with jeans composed mostly of holes and rips, that is just when they start to get comfortable.  It takes at least three years to properly break in a pair of jeans.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 20, 2006, 09:11:30 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 20, 2006, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2006, 07:57:08 PM
Yeah, well, Greg, my wife constantly reminds me that I "hide" [many things] well" -- except for my age and increasing decrepitude, that is.

Exposure to undergraduates can, indeed,  be hazardous. One often finds oneself inclined to sport a baseball cap worn with brim to the rear while wearing jeans composed mostly of holes and rips ....  ;)



What is wrong with jeans composed mostly of holes and rips, that is just when they start to get comfortable.  It takes at least three years to properly break in a pair of jeans.

Amen (at least for the second sentence)!  I always wear jeans to teach, and my second youngest pair probably dates to about '95.  (Out of 'decorum', I DO draw the line at 'holes and rips'!  My department head and dean are 'liberal', but they have limits!)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 20, 2006, 10:29:25 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 20, 2006, 09:03:41 PM
What is wrong with jeans composed mostly of holes and rips, that is just when they start to get comfortable.  It takes at least three years to properly break in a pair of jeans.

Back when I was a youngster...my mommy threw away jeans with holes and rips in them...now, you buy your jeans NEW like that.  What a joke.  ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on March 21, 2006, 12:43:27 AM
Quote from: Old School on March 18, 2006, 10:22:44 AM
You guys are talking about SHOOTING people.  That's just wrong!  :-\

Hey, basketball's always been a game for good shooters... and if we get in trouble for this, start speaking Spanish and say the true meaning all got lost in the translation!


(note: I've always wanted to try this some time when I got pulled over... I haven't been pulled over since I got the idea, and I'm not sure if I've got the cajones to do it, but I'd just like to see the cop's reaction...  I just hope he doesn't speak Spanish, or I'd be in even bigger trouble!)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 21, 2006, 09:03:28 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 20, 2006, 07:29:20 PM
It's just the news division that holds to "fair and objective."

You wanna rethink the way you phrased that one, Greg?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 21, 2006, 10:15:10 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 21, 2006, 12:43:27 AM
Quote from: Old School on March 18, 2006, 10:22:44 AM
You guys are talking about SHOOTING people.  That's just wrong!  :-\

Hey, basketball's always been a game for good shooters... and if we get in trouble for this, start speaking Spanish and say the true meaning all got lost in the translation!


(note: I've always wanted to try this some time when I got pulled over... I haven't been pulled over since I got the idea, and I'm not sure if I've got the cajones to do it, but I'd just like to see the cop's reaction...  I just hope he doesn't speak Spanish, or I'd be in even bigger trouble!)

I would be careful, there are some parts of the country you do that and you will disappear.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 21, 2006, 10:46:14 AM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 21, 2006, 10:15:10 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 21, 2006, 12:43:27 AM
Quote from: Old School on March 18, 2006, 10:22:44 AM
You guys are talking about SHOOTING people.  That's just wrong!  :-\

Hey, basketball's always been a game for good shooters... and if we get in trouble for this, start speaking Spanish and say the true meaning all got lost in the translation!


(note: I've always wanted to try this some time when I got pulled over... I haven't been pulled over since I got the idea, and I'm not sure if I've got the cajones to do it, but I'd just like to see the cop's reaction...  I just hope he doesn't speak Spanish, or I'd be in even bigger trouble!)

I would be careful, there are some parts of the country you do that and you will disappear.

Didn't Tommy Lee Jones just make a movie about that?  I'd know more, but I can't convince my wife to see it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 15, 2007, 11:24:40 PM
I thought that I would revive this thread and begin the discussion of the 2006-7 tournament selection.

The following table is a statistics-based "estimate" of what the regional rankings would loook like if they came out this week. To add to the information, I've expanded the rankings by 3 teams per region (like the old "honorable mentions"). See the notes at the bottom of the table for an explanation of the fields.


Reg Conf Rank School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall
NE  16   01   Amherst                   002  A w C       13-0 14-0
NE  13   02   Keene State               003  A w C       11-1 13-1
NE  13   03   Rhode Island College      005  C 1         13-1 13-1
NE  17   04   Worcester Polytech        007  A w C       10-1 12-1
NE  16   05   Trinity (Conn.)           019  C 7         9-2 12-2
NE  14   06   Salem State               022  A w C       9-2 9-2
NE  16   07   Bates                     036  C 14        10-2 11-2
NE  90   08   Brandeis                  041  C 19        11-3 11-3
NE  15   09   Husson                    051  A second    10-2 10-4
NE  16   10   Middlebury                064  C third     11-3 11-3
NE  11   11   Gordon                    066  A third     7-3 10-3
NE  14   12   Bridgewater State         069  C third     8-4 8-4
NE  16   13   Tufts                     074  C third     8-5 8-5

EA  90   01   Rochester                 010  C 3         11-2 11-3
EA  21   02   St. John Fisher           022  A w C       9-2 11-2
EA  90   03   New York University       025  C 9         10-2 11-2
EA  24   04   St. Lawrence              026  A w C       10-2 11-2
EA  21   05   Utica                     032  C 11        9-2 10-2
EA  24   06   Clarkson                  055  C second    10-3 10-3
EA  23   07   Brockport State           056  A second    8-3 9-3
EA  23   08   Geneseo State             066  C third     7-3 8-4

AT  32   01   Ramapo                    003  A w C       10-1 11-3
AT  33   02   Manhattanville            030  A w C       9-3 11-3
AT  32   03   Rutgers-Newark            037  C 16        8-3 10-3
AT  32   04   Rowan                     058  C second    8-2 11-2
AT  33   05   SUNY-Farmingdale          059  C second    7-2 9-3
AT  31   06   Richard Stockton          060  C second    8-3 11-5
AT  31   07   York (N.Y.)               068  C third     9-3 10-6
AT  32   08   William Paterson          078              10-4 10-5

MA  45   01   Johns Hopkins             016  A w C       12-1 13-2
MA  41   02   Catholic                  027  A w C       10-2 11-2
MA  41   02   Hood                      027  C 10        10-2 11-3
MA  42   04   Messiah                   037  C 17        7-2 10-4
MA  44   05   Alvernia                  041  A second    8-0 9-2
MA  41   06   Mary Washington           046  C second    9-2 10-3
MA  43   07   Scranton                  048  A second    10-3 12-3
MA  43   08   DeSales                   053  C second    9-2 11-3
MA  49   09   Lincoln                   062  B 4         8-2 11-5
MA  43   10   FDU-Florham               082              84 114
MA  43   11   King's                    095              95 96

SO  53   01   Guilford                  007  A w C       10-1 11-1
SO  51   02   Mississippi College       009  A w C       11-0 13-1
SO  53   03   Virginia Wesleyan         021  C 8         11-2 12-2
SO  54   04   DePauw                    032  A w C       9-2 12-3
SO  55   05   Averett                   035  C 13        8-2 10-4
SO  51   06   Mary Hardin-Baylor        040  C 18        10-3 10-3
SO  52   07   Maryville (Tenn.)         048  B 3         11-3 11-4
SO  55   08   Greensboro                051  A second    9-2 11-3
SO  54   09   Centre                    086              63 123
SO  51   10   Texas-Dallas              088              9-4 11-4
SO  54   11   Millsaps                  091              73 96

GL  61   01   Lake Erie                 017  A w C       9-0 12-1
GL  90   02   Carnegie Mellon           018  C 5         8-1 9-3
GL  63   03   Wooster                   031  A w C       8-1 13-2
GL  64   04   Ohio Northern             041  A second    7-3 12-3
GL  63   05   Wittenberg                044  C second    8-2 13-2
GL  65   06   Westminster (Pa.)         047  B 2         9-1 10-5
GL  62   07   Hope                      062  A third     5-1 12-2
GL  64   08   Heidelberg                073  C third     9-4 10-5
GL  64   09   John Carroll              077              8-4 9-6

MW  73   01   Aurora                    005  B 1         11-1 12-1
MW  71   02   Elmhurst                  012  C 4         9-1 13-1
MW  90   03   Washington U.             015  A w C       10-1 12-1
MW  71   04   Augustana                 027  A w C       12-2 12-3
MW  71   05   North Central             044  C second    5-2 10-4
MW  90   06   Chicago                   048  C second    10-3 11-3
MW  72   07   Bluffton                  056  A second    8-3 13-3
MW  72   08   Transylvania              072  C third     11-4 12-4
MW  72   09   Mt. St. Joseph            079              8-4 8-7
MW  72   10   Defiance                  086              84 104
MW  74   11   Carroll                   098  A other     74 75

WE  86   01   UW-Stevens Point          001  A w C       13-0 14-1
WE  82   02   St. John's                010  C 2         10-0 10-3
WE  82   03   St. Thomas                012  A w C       13-1 13-1
WE  83   04   Whitworth                 014  A w C       11-1 14-1
WE  83   05   Puget Sound               019  C 6         9-1 12-2
WE  84   06   Occidental                024  A w C       4-1 9-3
WE  86   07   UW-La Crosse              034  C 12        9-3 11-4
WE  84   08   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    037  C 15        4-1 9-4
WE  86   09   UW-Oshkosh                054  C second    10-3 13-3
WE  81   10   Loras                     060  A second    8-3 10-5
WE  83   11   Pacific                   064  C third     6-2 8-6

Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 3 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 19 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 20-29)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 30-39)
    A w C: Pool A, in likely Pool C range (1 to 13)
    A bubble: Pool A, in Pool C bubble range (14 to 19)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    blank: lower level Pool C



I've projected the Pool A bids based on my rating model (which uses all D3 games) and then projecting that the "best" team from each conference will win the Pool A bid.

Note that four Pool B teams appear in the rankings (with 4th place Lincoln as an honorable mention) so there is at least an outside shot for a Pool B contender in Pool C this year.

Brandeis shows as the 19th and last Pool C team, which would give the UAA five(!) teams in the tournament, with Chicago as a near miss.

With this bracket, the Pacific teams would get a full four team opening round, which would cost somebody else a seed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 15, 2007, 11:30:26 PM
Any luck on that database of 2001-02 basketball scores?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on January 15, 2007, 11:36:46 PM
This must not take QoWI into account.  I think I can assure you that Lake Erie will not be the #1 GL team when QoWI is factored in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 16, 2007, 12:22:12 AM
Wow.... I clicked on "new" for this thread and pulled up the front page... it has UWSP at 91.... REALLY messed with my head!

19 Pool C's this year, correct?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 16, 2007, 12:28:34 AM
Is there anyway we can get in-region records added to the schedules page like before?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 16, 2007, 12:39:58 AM
I hope to have that by the end of the week. It's one of the things we haven't rewritten to account for farming out game day data to D3Scoreboard.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: PrideSportBBallGuy on January 16, 2007, 12:47:33 AM
+1 to pabegg

I really like what you did.  I am impressed.  I am going to use it develop my "poll/rankings" again. It wasn't easy trying to go back to last year's stats and create the poll since i had to pick out the tournament games from last year. (I know Mr. Coleman will be thrilled  ;) )

Pat-

We often disagree on many issues.  I think it can be applied across the nation I believe I did have 15 of your top 25 listed and I know of 6, I couldn't get last year's stats for.  I did have Va Wesylean at #5 and d3hoops has at #7.  A little closer  ;)


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 16, 2007, 06:56:11 AM
A couple of notes to what I did.

My method is based on a combination of regional winning percentage and the QoWI. In order to do this, I needed to know what games were regional, and I've done all of that by hand. A few of the distance comparisons are really close (i.e. 199.8 miles) but I've looked at all of them. I wish there was an official source for this information.

David, Lake Erie is 3rd in the region in QoWI, behind Ohio Northern and Carnegie Mellon, but their unbeaten record offsets that, so they end up first on the composite measure.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 16, 2007, 09:29:54 AM

It's great that we have the website to use to measure distances now, but we still need to know which address to use when measuring.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wooscotsfan on January 16, 2007, 10:02:06 PM
Quote from: pabegg on January 16, 2007, 06:56:11 AM
A couple of notes to what I did.

My method is based on a combination of regional winning percentage and the QoWI. In order to do this, I needed to know what games were regional, and I've done all of that by hand. A few of the distance comparisons are really close (i.e. 199.8 miles) but I've looked at all of them. I wish there was an official source for this information.

David, Lake Erie is 3rd in the region in QoWI, behind Ohio Northern and Carnegie Mellon, but their unbeaten record offsets that, so they end up first on the composite measure.

pabegg - nice work on your statistical analysis of potential Pool C teams.

How did you combine the regional winning percentage and the QoWI?  Weighting?

As a Wooster fan, I can only hope that your combination of the two factors is different than the NCAA's actual methodology.

It is very strange to see Lake Erie College at #1 in your Great Lakes rankings because the AMCC has historically been a weak conference that has not done well in post season play.

Lake Erie College made the NCAA tournament last year on an automatic bid and got blown out by 36 points in a first round game vs. Wittenberg.  Lake Erie actually lost 3 starters from last year's squad so it is very hard to believe that they are the #1 team in the Great Lakes this season. ???

It will be very interesting to see where Lake Erie is ranked when the first NCAA regional rankings are released.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 16, 2007, 10:53:32 PM
I'm confused, you guys know the asterisks on the schedules are in-region games correct.

You shouldn't need to figure it out, its already been done.

maybe i'm goofy
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on January 16, 2007, 11:31:28 PM
Sometimes the schedule isn't correct, as Pat has found out...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 16, 2007, 11:36:28 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 16, 2007, 09:29:54 AM

It's great that we have the website to use to measure distances now, but we still need to know which address to use when measuring.
Hoops fan, I assume that the GPS location that they have assigned to the school in the software is the point from which all measurements are made. It is immaterial where that measurement is, e.g., gym, admin bldg., Tri-Delt house.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 16, 2007, 11:36:45 PM
Sac

you're still goofy though, regardless if the schedules are right or not.  ::) ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 16, 2007, 11:38:39 PM
The mailing address of each school is the start and end point for these measurements. I believe it's in the handbook
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 17, 2007, 08:54:55 AM

What if they have a PO Box?




Sorry, I'm just being a jerk.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 17, 2007, 01:25:29 PM
Here's my geography breakdown:

761 games vs. Non-D3 schools
182 games involving Provisional schools in years 1 and 2 (note that the games against the year 3 and 4 schools do count and are included below)

2858 conference games, which are always regional
955 games between teams from the same region
229 games between teams from the same administrative region
110 games between teams under 200 miles
215 games between teams over 200 miles
2 games to be determined (the second round of the Concordias tournament)

Some of the close calls:
Framingham State and Medgar Evers (198 miles)
Rutgers Camden and Juniata (201 miles)
Calvin and Wheaton IL (204 miles)
Calvin and Benedictine (200 miles)

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 21, 2007, 12:45:47 PM
With the WIAC schedule half complete, I would have to say that the conference is looking at two Pool C bids, at best (and that's if Point doesn't win the conference tourney).  Point (16-1, though 15-0 in the eyes of the NCAA) and Oshkosh (15-3, 13-3) are in good shape.  La Crosse (can't remember if their Ohio Northern loss counts), Whitewater and Platteville (1 to Robert Morris-Springfield) all have six losses already with 8 conference games to go. 

I think the CCIW is in the same boat.  Augie and Elmhurst look like they are in good shape so far.  Wheaton has 5 losses, but the Northwestern loss doesn't count and I'm pretty sure the Whitworth one doesn't either.  Carthage has five, but the loss to Lewis doesn't count.  North Park and North Central also have six losses a piece.  The problem with the CCIW is that they are only 5 games into their 14-game conference schedule, meaning they are just over 1/3 into their schedule.

What about other conferences?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 21, 2007, 01:13:35 PM
OS,

With the new 'administrative regions' rule, Wheaton's loss to Whitworth IS in-region.  So if they don't take the AQ, they would have a minimum of 5 in-region losses (and, realistically in the CCIW, actually at least 2-3 more).  Their chance for a C is VERY iffy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on January 21, 2007, 01:39:44 PM
The Whitworth game does count.... Wheaton has four regional losses. The most we can do is get one more regional loss to be in Pool C contention... but our chances are much better if we don't. But if we win all the rest, we'll host the CCIW tourney and then have a great shot at the A anyway.... not sure how likely that is, but there were stretches of the Elmhurst game where we were up 10-13... so a win @ Elmhurst isn't completely out of the question. And our narrow losses to Augie and North Central were without a healthy Kent Raymond, who is arguably one of the best guard in the nation... as a sophomore! So those are also possiblities... though we haven't won at Augie since I started following basketball in the 01-02 season.... soo... yeah. Who knows though, last year we were the closest to winning @ Augie that we've ever been, and we finished in the bottom half of the stsndings and Sugie won the regular season crown. And now I'm just letting the random thoughts in my head splay out onto the board so I'll stop right there. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 21, 2007, 01:47:49 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 21, 2007, 01:13:35 PM
OS,

With the new 'administrative regions' rule, Wheaton's loss to Whitworth IS in-region.  So if they don't take the AQ, they would have a minimum of 5 in-region losses (and, realistically in the CCIW, actually at least 2-3 more).  Their chance for a C is VERY iffy.

I haven't been keeping up on my D3 handbook recently, what is the administrative regions rule?  Neutral spot and agreed upon in-region or something?  I'm too lazy to look it up, sorry!  ??? ::)

BTW, La Crosse got in as a Pool C with SEVEN in-region losses...and "only" 18 wins last year.  I'm thinking 7 will get someone in again.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 21, 2007, 01:54:57 PM
http://www.d3hoops.com/faq.php?question=44
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on January 21, 2007, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: Old School on January 21, 2007, 12:45:47 PMLa Crosse (can't remember if their Ohio Northern loss counts) [...]

http://www.d3hoops.com/school_info.php?year=2007&team=mens&school=UW-La+Crosse

Regional games are indicated by a little black dot.  No little black dot next to ONU. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on January 21, 2007, 02:04:09 PM
In the NCAC, no more than 1 pool C bid would be expected.  Wooster sits in complete command of the league at (15-2 overall , 8-0 conf.), and has already won at Wittenberg (14-3, 6-2) and at Ohio Wesleyan (11-6, 5-3).

In terms of the ever important regional record, Wooster is 10-1, Wittenberg sits at 9-3, and Ohio Wesleyan is a measly 8-5.  

Wesleyan put up a strong effort against Wooster yesterday, and dismantled Wittenberg on Wednesday, but still must travel to both Witt and Woo.  Those games would be virtual must-wins for Ohio Wesleyan to remain in contention for any pool C consideration, as they simply could not afford to lose those two coupled with a conference tourney loss for 7-8 in-region losses against maybe 14-16 wins.

Wittenberg didn't play very well against Ohio Wesleyan, and they have looked vulnerable during conference play- they could easily be 4-4 in conference instead of 6-2.  They also have an injured player in their fourth-leading scorer Mark Caraway (6.9ppg), but I am unsure what the injury is and when/if he would be expected back.  However, if Wittenberg won out, and especially if they won on the road at Wooster, they would have a regional record akin to 19-4 after the NCAC tournament and would be a decent pool C contender.

Wooster is certainly the favorite for the NCAC's pool A bid, and could hand Wittenberg and Ohio Wesleyan yet another in-region loss when those schools make the trip to Timken.  However, senior center Tim Vandervaart, (14.3 ppg and 8.6 boards) may have broken his wrist in yesterday's game at Ohio Wesleyan.  I haven't seen a detailed description yet of his injury, but it's clear Wooster will be without his services for awhile, as well.

If Wooster didn't win the NCAC tournament, they would be virtually assured a pool C bid unless the injury to Vandervaart causes them to lose several conference games.  If Ohio Wesleyan slipped in and won the AQ bid, both Wittenberg and Wooster would be contenders for a pool C...and this is the only scenario where the NCAC could place three teams in the tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on January 21, 2007, 02:07:54 PM
Quote from: scotsbrod on January 21, 2007, 02:04:09 PMThey also have an injured player in their fourth-leading scorer Mark Caraway (6.9ppg), but I am unsure what the injury is and when/if he would be expected back. 

Caraway reportedly tore his ACL and is done for the season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 21, 2007, 02:08:29 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 21, 2007, 01:54:57 PM
http://www.d3hoops.com/faq.php?question=44

Thanks Pat. 

Quote from: David Collinge on January 21, 2007, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: Old School on January 21, 2007, 12:45:47 PMLa Crosse (can't remember if their Ohio Northern loss counts) [...]

http://www.d3hoops.com/school_info.php?year=2007&team=mens&school=UW-La+Crosse

Regional games are indicated by a little black dot.  No little black dot next to ONU. 

OK...and I guess the Great Lakes region doesn't border the West region either...though if you go by the upper UP, then it would, right?  ;D :D ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on January 21, 2007, 02:11:43 PM
Quote from: Old School on January 21, 2007, 01:47:49 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 21, 2007, 01:13:35 PM
OS,

With the new 'administrative regions' rule, Wheaton's loss to Whitworth IS in-region.  So if they don't take the AQ, they would have a minimum of 5 in-region losses (and, realistically in the CCIW, actually at least 2-3 more).  Their chance for a C is VERY iffy.

I haven't been keeping up on my D3 handbook recently, what is the administrative regions rule?  Neutral spot and agreed upon in-region or something?  I'm too lazy to look it up, sorry!  ??? ::)

BTW, La Crosse got in as a Pool C with SEVEN in-region losses...and "only" 18 wins last year.  I'm thinking 7 will get someone in again.

OS, with the new rule, any game between the CCIW and any team from the West region is "in-region." 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 21, 2007, 02:14:46 PM
Quote from: Old School on January 21, 2007, 02:08:29 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 21, 2007, 01:54:57 PM
http://www.d3hoops.com/faq.php?question=44

Thanks Pat. 

Quote from: David Collinge on January 21, 2007, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: Old School on January 21, 2007, 12:45:47 PMLa Crosse (can't remember if their Ohio Northern loss counts) [...]

http://www.d3hoops.com/school_info.php?year=2007&team=mens&school=UW-La+Crosse

Regional games are indicated by a little black dot.  No little black dot next to ONU. 

OK...and I guess the Great Lakes region doesn't border the West region either...though if you go by the upper UP, then it would, right?  ;D :D ;)

Nothing in the FAQ I sent you says anything about regions that border.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 21, 2007, 02:17:26 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 21, 2007, 02:14:46 PM
Nothing in the FAQ I sent you says anything about regions that border.

Man, I'm lazy today!  I thought there was something about something about a rule that might be something like that...or is that what the "administrative region" rule is?  My laziness must have cost me a karma point! lol.  BOOOO me.  Hooray Pat!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 22, 2007, 04:45:35 AM
Quote from: scotsbrod on January 21, 2007, 02:04:09 PMWesleyan put up a strong effort against Wooster yesterday, and dismantled Wittenberg on Wednesday, but still must travel to both Witt and Woo.  Those games would be virtual must-wins for Ohio Wesleyan to remain in contention for any pool C consideration, as they simply could not afford to lose those two coupled with a conference tourney loss for 7-8 in-region losses against maybe 14-16 wins.

Why would Ohio Wesleyan want to get a Pool C bid and risk that perfect 5-0 record the Bishops have in the D3 tourney? :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 22, 2007, 05:59:29 PM
My updates for this week on the unofficial regional rankings (games thru Sunday):

Reg  Conf  Rnk PrRk School                    Natl  Status      Reg Overall
NE  16   01 01   Amherst                   002  A w C       16-0 17-0
NE  17   02 04   Worcester Polytech        008  A w C       12-1 14-1
NE  14   03 06   Salem State               010  A w C       12-2 12-2
NE  13   04 02   Keene State               013  A w C       12-2 14-2
NE  13   05 03   Rhode Island College      015  C 2         14-2 14-2
NE  16   06 07   Bates                     017  C 3         13-2 14-2
NE  16   07 05   Trinity (Conn.)           020  C 5         11-2 14-2
NE  90   08 08   Brandeis                  038  C 13        13-3 13-3
NE  15   09 09   Husson                    054  A second    12-3 12-5
NE  14   10 12   Bridgewater State         055  C second    10-4 10-4
NE  16   11 13   Tufts                     079              9-6 9-6
NE  11   12 11   Gordon                    082  A other     8-4 11-4
NE  16   13 10   Middlebury                083              11-5 11-5
EA  90   01 03   New York University       022  C 6         13-2 14-2
EA  21   02 02   St. John Fisher           024  A w C       11-3 12-3
EA  24   03 04   St. Lawrence              026  A w C       12-3 13-3
EA  21   04 05   Utica                     034  C 9         11-2 12-2
EA  90   05 01   Rochester                 035  C 10        11-4 11-5
EA  23   06 08   Geneseo State             041  A bubble    10-3 11-4
EA  24   07 00   Vassar                    056  C second    9-3 10-4
EA  23   08 07   Brockport State           059  C second    9-4 10-4
AT  32   01 01   Ramapo                    004  A w C       12-1 13-3
AT  33   02 02   Manhattanville            033  A w C       10-4 12-4
AT  32   03 04   Rowan                     045  C 17        9-3 13-3
AT  32   04 03   Rutgers-Newark            047  C 19        10-4 12-4
AT  33   05 05   SUNY-Farmingdale          049  C second    8-3 10-4
AT  32   06 06   Richard Stockton          050  C second    9-4 12-6
AT  33   07 00   Stevens                   063  C third     11-4 11-4
AT  32   08 08   William Paterson          068  C third     12-5 12-6
MA  45   01 01   Johns Hopkins             011  A w C       14-1 15-2
MA  41   02 03   Hood                      016  A w C       12-2 13-3
MA  43   02 07   Scranton                  025  A w C       12-3 14-3
MA  42   04 04   Messiah                   027  A w C       9-2 12-4
MA  41   05 02   Catholic                  044  C 16        11-3 12-3
MA  41   06 06   Mary Washington           048  C second    10-3 11-4
MA  44   07 05   Alvernia                  057  A second    10-1 11-3
MA  49   08 09   Lincoln                   058  B 4         9-3 12-6
MA  43   09 08   DeSales                   066  C third     10-3 12-4
MA  43   10 11   King's                    071  C third     115 116
MA  45   11 00   Ursinus                   074  C third     94 106
SO  51   01 02   Mississippi College       003  A w C       13-0 15-1
SO  53   02 03   Virginia Wesleyan         021  A w C       13-2 14-2
SO  54   03 04   DePauw                    030  A w C       12-2 15-3
SO  53   04 01   Guilford                  031  C 8         12-2 13-2
SO  51   05 06   Mary Hardin-Baylor        040  C 15        11-3 11-3
SO  52   06 07   Maryville (Tenn.)         043  B 2         13-3 13-4
SO  55   07 05   Averett                   053  C second    9-3 11-5
SO  55   08 08   Greensboro                065  A third     10-3 12-4
SO  54   09 09   Centre                    067  C third     83 143
SO  54   10 11   Millsaps                  070  C third     9-3 11-6
SO  51   11 00   McMurry                   081              94 106
GL  61   01 01   Lake Erie                 005  A w C       12-0 15-1
GL  63   02 03   Wooster                   023  A w C       10-1 15-2
GL  62   03 07   Hope                      032  A w C       7-1 14-2
GL  64   04 09   John Carroll              046  C 18        10-4 11-6
GL  63   05 05   Wittenberg                051  C second    9-3 14-3
GL  65   06 06   Westminster (Pa.)         052  B 3         10-2 11-6
GL  64   07 04   Ohio Northern             061  A second    8-4 13-4
GL  90   08 02   Carnegie Mellon           062  C second    8-4 9-6
GL  64   09 08   Heidelberg                072  C third     10-5 11-6
MW  90   01 03   Washington U.             006  A w C       12-1 14-1
MW  71   02 04   Augustana                 012  A w C       14-2 14-3
MW  73   03 01   Aurora                    014  B 1         14-1 15-1
MW  71   04 02   Elmhurst                  029  C 7         10-2 14-2
MW  90   05 06   Chicago                   036  C 11        12-3 13-3
MW  72   06 09   Mt. St. Joseph            064  C third     9-4 9-7
MW  72   07 10   Defiance                  069  A third     10-4 12-4
MW  71   08 00   Wheaton (Ill.)            076              7-4 11-5
MW  72   09 08   Transylvania              077              11-5 12-5
MW  72   10 07   Bluffton                  090              85 135
MW  71   11 00   Carthage                  095              74 115
WE  86   01 01   UW-Stevens Point          001  A w C       15-0 16-1
WE  82   02 02   St. John's                007  C 1         13-0 13-3
WE  84   03 06   Occidental                009  A w C       6-1 11-3
WE  83   04 04   Whitworth                 018  A w C       13-1 16-1
WE  83   05 05   Puget Sound               019  C 4         11-1 14-2
WE  82   06 03   St. Thomas                028  A w C       14-2 14-2
WE  86   07 09   UW-Oshkosh                037  C 12        12-3 15-3
WE  84   08 00   Redlands                  039  C 14        6-1 10-4
WE  81   09 10   Loras                     042  A bubble    10-3 12-5
WE  84   10 08   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    060  C second    5-2 10-5
WE  86   11 00   UW-Platteville            073  C third     8-4 10-6


Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rnk         Regional ranking
PrRk        Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 3 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 19 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 20-29)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 30-39)
    A w C: Pool A, in likely Pool C range (1 to 13)
    A bubble: Pool A, in Pool C bubble range (14 to 19)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    blank: lower level Pool C


My thoughts on this:

Today, 12-3 with an average schedule looks like the cutoff

Rochester has by far the most difficult schedule of the Pool C contenders to date.

Lake Erie and Alvernia have by far the easiest. Even with one loss, Alvernia wouldn't get a Pool C bid. Both may have to rely on winning their tournaments even with an exceptional record.

The UAA still looks strong for five bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on January 22, 2007, 06:13:14 PM
This is interesting.

I'll be stunned if the UAA gets five bids, particularly in a rough conference where road trips turn into season-crushing 0-2 nightmares and one without a conference tournament to give Cinderella a last second chariot to the big dance.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on January 26, 2007, 11:03:40 PM
not at all especially with the impressive out of conference play by all of the teams... wash u, chicago, nyu, rochester and brandeis 5/8 may be an impressive percentage but also a real possibility.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 27, 2007, 12:46:52 AM
Actually, yes, that would be a surprise.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 27, 2007, 08:23:30 AM
Not to say I think they have a chance to get 5 teams in, which I don't think they will, but the UAA does have an advantage considering they are in different regions, meaning they don't have to wait for one UAA team to be picked before the next moves into their "chair"...there could be multiple UAA teams "on the table".  Anyway, there are still EIGHT conference games remaining for each team, and 5th place Rochester already has five losses (I didn't bother checking to see how many were in-region, however).  Brandeis has four losses, so there is a lot of beating up in conference play before the season ends and I see the UAA possibly getting two Pool C bids, along with the AQ.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 30, 2007, 05:38:04 PM
Rankings through 1/28

Reg Conf Rank    School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall
NE  16   01 01  Amherst                   001  A w C       19-0 20-0
NE  17   02 02  Worcester Polytech        006  A w C       14-1 16-1
NE  14   03 03  Salem State               007  A w C       15-2 15-2
NE  13   04 05  Rhode Island College      011  A w C       16-2 16-2
NE  16   05 07  Trinity (Conn.)           020  C 3         12-3 16-3
NE  16   06 06  Bates                     023  C 4         15-3 16-3
NE  13   07 04  Keene State               030  C 6         13-3 16-3
NE  90   08 08  Brandeis                  047  C 18        13-5 13-5
NE  16   09 11  Tufts                     052  C second    12-6 12-6
NE  15   10 09  Husson                    053  A second    13-3 13-5
NE  14   11 10  Bridgewater State         056  C second    12-5 12-5
NE  14   12 00  Westfield State           088              11-5 13-6
NE  17   13 00  Babson                    095              10-7 11-7
EA  21   01 04  Utica                     022  A w C       14-2 15-2
EA  24   02 03  St. Lawrence              024  A w C       14-3 15-3
EA  90   03 05  Rochester                 033  C 8         13-4 13-5
EA  21   04 02  St. John Fisher           038  C 12        13-4 14-4
EA  23   05 08  Brockport State           043  A bubble    12-4 13-4
EA  90   06 01  New York University       045  C 16        13-4 14-4
EA  23   07 06  Geneseo State             062  C second    11-5 12-6
EA  24   08 07  Vassar                    066  C third     11-4 12-5
AT  32   01 01  Ramapo                    010  A w C       14-2 15-4
AT  33   02 02  Manhattanville            039  A w C       12-4 14-4
AT  32   03 04  Rutgers-Newark            042  C 14        13-4 15-4
AT  33   04 07  Stevens                   046  C 17        14-4 14-4
AT  32   05 06  Richard Stockton          064  C third     10-5 13-7
AT  32   06 08  William Paterson          072  C third     13-6 13-7
AT  32   07 00  New Jersey City           081              10-6 11-7
AT  31   08 00  York (N.Y.)               089  A other     12-5 13-8
MA  42   01 04  Messiah                   013  A w C       11-2 14-4
MA  41   02 02  Hood                      015  A w C       15-2 16-3
MA  43   03 03  Scranton                  025  A w C       14-3 16-3
MA  45   04 01  Johns Hopkins             027  A w C       16-1 17-2
MA  44   05 07  Alvernia                  035  A w C       13-1 14-3
MA  43   06 09  DeSales                   041  C 13        12-3 14-4
MA  41   07 05  Catholic                  048  C 19        13-4 14-4
MA  49   08 08  Lincoln                   054  B 3         9-3 12-6
MA  45   09 11  Ursinus                   055  C second    11-4 12-6
MA  43   10 10  King's                    075              126 127
MA  41   11 06  Mary Washington           080              115 126
SO  51   01 01  Mississippi College       002  A w C       15-0 17-1
SO  54   02 03  DePauw                    017  A w C       14-2 17-3
SO  53   03 02  Virginia Wesleyan         018  A w C       15-3 16-3
SO  51   04 05  Mary Hardin-Baylor        031  C 7         14-3 14-3
SO  52   05 06  Maryville (Tenn.)         032  B 2         15-3 15-4
SO  53   06 04  Guilford                  037  C 11        13-3 14-3
SO  55   07 07  Averett                   057  C second    10-4 12-6
SO  51   08 11  McMurry                   059  C second    12-4 13-6
SO  54   09 09  Centre                    063  C third     94 154
SO  54   10 10  Millsaps                  065  C third     10-4 12-7
SO  55   11 08  Greensboro                067  A third     114 145
GL  61   01 01  Lake Erie                 004  A w C       14-0 17-1
GL  63   02 02  Wooster                   014  A w C       12-1 17-2
GL  62   03 03  Hope                      021  A w C       9-1 16-2
GL  63   04 05  Wittenberg                044  C 15        11-3 16-3
GL  90   05 08  Carnegie Mellon           049  C second    10-4 11-6
GL  64   06 07  Ohio Northern             051  A second    10-4 15-4
GL  64   07 04  John Carroll              058  C second    11-5 12-7
GL  65   08 06  Westminster (Pa.)         060  B 4         11-3 12-7
GL  62   09 00  Tri-State                 076              7-3 12-6
MW  90   01 01  Washington U.             005  A w C       14-1 16-1
MW  71   02 02  Augustana                 008  A w C       16-2 16-3
MW  73   03 03  Aurora                    016  B 1         16-1 17-1
MW  90   04 05  Chicago                   019  C 2         14-3 15-3
MW  71   05 04  Elmhurst                  036  C 10        11-3 15-3
MW  71   06 11  Carthage                  061  C second    9-4 13-5
MW  72   07 06  Mt. St. Joseph            068  C third     10-5 10-8
MW  72   08 07  Defiance                  073  A other     11-5 13-5
MW  72   09 00  Manchester                079              10-6 13-6
MW  72   10 09  Transylvania              082              126 136
MW  71   11 08  Wheaton (Ill.)            087              85 126
WE  86   01 01  UW-Stevens Point          003  A w C       15-1 16-2
WE  82   02 06  St. Thomas                009  A w C       17-2 17-2
WE  82   03 02  St. John's                012  C 1         15-1 15-4
WE  86   04 07  UW-Oshkosh                026  C 5         14-3 17-3
WE  84   05 09  Redlands                  028  A w C       8-1 12-4
WE  83   06 04  Whitworth                 029  A w C       14-2 17-2
WE  84   07 03  Occidental                034  C 9         7-2 12-4
WE  81   08 08  Loras                     040  A w C       11-3 13-5
WE  83   09 05  Puget Sound               050  C second    11-3 14-4
WE  86   10 00  UW-La Crosse              070  C third     11-5 13-6
WE  81   11 00  Coe                       071  C third     11-5 13-5

Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 3 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 19 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 20-29)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 30-39)
    A w C: Pool A, in likely Pool C range (1 to 13)
    A bubble: Pool A, in Pool C bubble range (14 to 19)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    blank: lower level Pool C



A good week for Utica and Messsiah, who take over as #1 in their regions.

Puget Sound nosedives from the #4 C to out of the tournament.

One note on the Pool C: even though I show 19 Pool C teams, ending with Catholic this week, there are likely to be about 6 spots that will have to go to conference leaders who are beaten by teams that wouldn't get a Pool C otherwise.  So the real Pool C cutoff would be after C 13, in my estimate.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 30, 2007, 05:42:21 PM
Nice work, interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 30, 2007, 05:58:59 PM
As a follow-up to my "estimated NCAA rankings," I put together a tournament bracket from them, with some interesting results.

Most notably, Whitworth and Mary Hardin Baylor are complete orphans, not within 500 miles of anyone.

I've got Redlands and Occidental in, for an obvious first round pairing.

Mississippi College hosts with only one school (Maryville) within the 500 miles.

Here's my solution: send the California survivor to St. Louis to play WashU, send Whitworth and MHB to St. Thomas' regional (only plane flight without a drive since other hosts are UWSP, DePauw, Augustana), and fly the winner of an opener between Guilford and Greensboro to Mississippi (leaving Maryville to drive to DePauw).

That's only four flights, and gives byes to WashU and MissC, two of my top teams.

Also, Lake Erie will have to host some upstate New York teams since neither South region host is from the east coast (MissC and DePauw).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 30, 2007, 06:01:56 PM

Isn't it a bit early to be doing bracket projections?  I didn't know Joe Lunardi had expanded to d3.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 30, 2007, 06:30:37 PM
I have another thought about the Redlands regional.  The two orphans can be flown anywhere.

In the next round, the winner must be flown somewhere (to a sectional).

The NCAA tries (I wonder if that is too strong of a verb.   ;D  :D  8) )  not to pair conference members in the first round.

Therefore the Redlands sectional regional!

Whitworth (the NWC Pool A) vs Oxy
Redlands hosting UMHB.  (UMHB (Texas) is located in Adminstrative Region #4, along with the states of California and Washington.)

Winner comes back to Wisconsin or to Mississippi, etc.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on January 30, 2007, 07:42:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 30, 2007, 06:30:37 PMTherefore the Redlands sectional!

Whitworth (the NWC Pool A) vs Oxy
Redlands hosting UMHB.  (UMHB (Texas) is located in Adminstrative Region #4, along with the states of California and Washington.)

Winner comes back to Wisconsin or to Mississippi, etc.
Woo! The closest school to my house gets a hosting nod. That would be just about the coolest thing ever to happen ever! (kidding obviously)  :D

But of course, I agree that it's waaay too early. We will know more when the regional rankings come out.... very soon! Then we can speculate everything to death appropriately. :) :) :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 31, 2007, 04:20:11 AM
Quote from: diehardfan on January 30, 2007, 07:42:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 30, 2007, 06:30:37 PMTherefore the Redlands sectional!

Whitworth (the NWC Pool A) vs Oxy
Redlands hosting UMHB.  (UMHB (Texas) is located in Adminstrative Region #4, along with the states of California and Washington.)

Winner comes back to Wisconsin or to Mississippi, etc.
Woo! The closest school to my house gets a hosting nod. That would be just about the coolest thing ever to happen ever! (kidding obviously)  :D

Plus, you'd get to watch a team that's from a school named after a girl! Selection Sunday would mean cartwheels and somersaults at Casa de April! :D ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on January 31, 2007, 01:14:41 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 31, 2007, 04:20:11 AM
Plus, you'd get to watch a team that's from a school named after a girl! Selection Sunday would mean cartwheels and somersaults at Casa de April! :D ;)
Wouldn't it be Casa de Abril? :P Hmm... I think all these government meetings on US-Mexico border stuff for work are going to my head.  ??? :D

And lets face it, I'd be a lot more excited about Wheaton getting flown out here than a random team from Texas. ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gray Fox on January 31, 2007, 04:27:11 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on January 31, 2007, 01:14:41 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 31, 2007, 04:20:11 AM
Plus, you'd get to watch a team that's from a school named after a girl! Selection Sunday would mean cartwheels and somersaults at Casa de April! :D ;)
Wouldn't it be Casa de Abril? :P Hmm... I think all these government meetings on US-Mexico border stuff for work are going to my head.  ??? :D

And lets face it, I'd be a lot more excited about Wheaton getting flown out here than a random team from Texas. ;D
Can we tweak this scenario a bit and get the random SCIAC team (Redlands or Oxy) to fly to Texas? 8)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on January 31, 2007, 04:45:02 PM
No.

LOL! :P
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 03, 2007, 03:22:38 PM
I posted this on the NCAC board, but it really belongs here, too.

As Pat's Daily Dose (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=243) from a few days ago noted, Woo-Witt carries some interesting Pool C implications, especially for Wittenberg's tourney hopes.

Best as I can figure, these are the relevant stats for both Woo and Witt, coming into the game:

Team, Regional Record (%), QoWI

Wooster:      13-1 (.929), 10.143
Wittenberg:  12-3 (.800), 9.400

After a Wittenberg win:

Wooster:      13-2 (.866), 9.867
Wittenberg:  13-3 (.813), 9.750

After a Wooster win:

Wooster:      14-1 (.933), 10.400
Wittenberg:  12-4 (.750), 9.250

The two teams pull more even if Wittenberg wins- both probably stay in the hunt for a Pool C.  If Wooster wins again, though, Wittenberg's Pool C sheet starts looking pretty bad.  They would have to pick up another loss in the conference tourney (to be a Pool C), for at least 5 in-region losses, and they would end up 0-3 or 0-4 against (likely) regionally-ranked opponents Wooster and Ohio Northern.  Also, Witt doesn't have much left on the schedule to help their QoWI out, with (as of now) a 12-pt game vs. OWU and an 11-pointer at Allegheny countered by two home maximum 8-pt games against Hiram and Wabash.

Without a Wittenberg win tonight, they could end with an end-of-the-year line like this:

Wittenberg:  18-5, (.728), 9.391*

See last year's Daily Dose (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=146#more-146) where they projected the Pool Cs, and you'll see that such a Pool C line would be very suspect to make a March appearance.

* This is approximate, but probably even generous.  I gave Witt 10 QoWI pts. for the NCAC tourney game they would host (probably would be an 8pt. game), 12 for a semifinal on the road, and 7 for a loss to Wooster in the finals.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2007, 04:26:45 PM
Quote from: scotsbrod on February 03, 2007, 03:22:38 PM
I posted this on the NCAC board, but it really belongs here, too.

As Pat's Daily Dose (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=243) from a few days ago noted, Woo-Witt carries some interesting Pool C implications, especially for Wittenberg's tourney hopes.

Best as I can figure, these are the relevant stats for both Woo and Witt, coming into the game:

Team, Regional Record (%), QoWI



Wooster:      13-1 (.929), 10.143
Wittenberg:  12-3 (.800), 9.400

After a Wittenberg win:

Wooster:      13-2 (.866), 9.867
Wittenberg:  13-3 (.813), 9.750

After a Wooster win:

Wooster:      14-1 (.933), 10.400
Wittenberg:  12-4 (.750), 9.250

The two teams pull more even if Wittenberg wins- both probably stay in the hunt for a Pool C.  If Wooster wins again, though, Wittenberg's Pool C sheet starts looking pretty bad.  They would have to pick up another loss in the conference tourney (to be a Pool C), for at least 5 in-region losses, and they would end up 0-3 or 0-4 against (likely) regionally-ranked opponents Wooster and Ohio Northern.  Also, Witt doesn't have much left on the schedule to help their QoWI out, with (as of now) a 12-pt game vs. OWU and an 11-pointer at Allegheny countered by two home maximum 8-pt games against Hiram and Wabash.

Without a Wittenberg win tonight, they could end with an end-of-the-year line like this:

Wittenberg:  18-5, (.728), 9.391*

See last year's Daily Dose (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=146#more-146) where they projected the Pool Cs, and you'll see that such a Pool C line would be very suspect to make a March appearance.

* This is approximate, but probably even generous.  I gave Witt 10 QoWI pts. for the NCAC tourney game they would host (probably would be an 8pt. game), 12 for a semifinal on the road, and 7 for a loss to Wooster in the finals.

One other trend that I have noticed (broad generalization here) is that the QOWI's of the opponents, especially around the thresholds (.667, .500 and .333), seem to deteriorate as they play more in-conference opponents and pick up those losses.  In the NCAC, that would mean Kenyon and Earlham might drop below .333.  I don't readily see any other teams migrating between (shall we use the physics term) quanta, unless it is Allegheny moving up to .500 by winning 3 of their last 5.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 03, 2007, 08:15:53 PM
Pat, is d3hoops.com going to do QOWI calculatuions? I'm just wondering, cause I noticed that its already two weeks after they were posted last year per the front page of this board. And the regional rankings come out in only a few days....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 03, 2007, 10:37:46 PM
Like the regional records, QOWI is dependent on game-day data and must be reprogrammed by the folks at D3Scoreboard.com.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 04, 2007, 10:43:47 PM
The rankings estimate updated for games through Sunday

Reg Conf Rank    School                    Natl Status       QOWI Reg Overall
NE  16   01 01  Amherst                   001  A w C        11.7273 22-0 23-0
NE  17   02 02  Worcester Polytech        004  A w C        11.0588 15-2 17-2
NE  14   03 03  Salem State               006  A w C        10.7895 17-2 17-2
NE  13   04 04  Rhode Island College      015  A w C        10.6 17-3 17-3
NE  16   05 05  Trinity (Conn.)           019  C 2          10.5882 14-3 18-3
NE  16   06 06  Bates                     031  C 7          10.25 16-4 17-4
NE  15   07 10  Husson                    039  A w C        9.5789 16-3 16-5
NE  13   08 07  Keene State               041  C 12         10.0556 14-4 17-4
NE  90   09 08  Brandeis                  052  C second     9.95 14-6 14-6
NE  14   10 11  Bridgewater State         063  C third      9.5 14-6 14-6
NE  11   11 00  Gordon                    072  A third      9.1765 12-5 15-5
NE  16   12 09  Tufts                     084               9.8571 13-8 13-8
NE  12   13 00  Western New England       089  A other      9.0476 14-7 14-7
EA  24   01 02  St. Lawrence              012  A w C        10.75 17-3 18-3
EA  21   02 01  Utica                     023  A w C        10.1579 16-3 17-3
EA  90   03 06  New York University       027  C 5          10.3684 15-4 16-4
EA  23   04 05  Brockport State           028  A w C        10.3684 15-4 16-4
EA  90   05 03  Rochester                 034  C 8          10.2632 15-4 15-5
EA  21   06 04  St. John Fisher           046  C 16         10 14-5 15-5
EA  23   07 00  Plattsburgh State         061  C second     9.3333 11-4 13-6
EA  24   08 00  Hamilton                  074  C third      9.3125 11-5 14-5
AT  32   01 01  Ramapo                    014  A w C        10.8889 15-3 16-5
AT  33   02 04  Stevens                   037  A w C        10.0952 17-4 17-4
AT  32   03 05  Richard Stockton          048  C 17         10 12-5 15-7
AT  33   04 02  Manhattanville            049  C 18         9.8421 14-5 16-5
AT  32   05 03  Rutgers-Newark            060  C second     9.6 14-6 16-6
AT  32   06 00  Rowan                     067  C third      9.5 11-5 16-5
AT  32   07 07  New Jersey City           068  C third      9.5789 13-6 14-7
AT  31   08 08  York (N.Y.)               071  A third      9 14-5 15-8
MA  45   01 04  Johns Hopkins             007  A w C        10.5789 18-1 19-2
MA  42   02 01  Messiah                   026  A w C        10.3333 12-3 15-5
MA  41   03 07  Catholic                  032  A w C        10.3158 15-4 16-4
MA  41   04 02  Hood                      038  C 11         10.1053 15-4 16-5
MA  44   05 05  Alvernia                  040  A w C        9.4706 15-2 16-4
MA  43   06 03  Scranton                  044  A bubble     10.1053 14-5 16-5
MA  49   07 08  Lincoln                   047  B 3          9.9231 10-3 13-7
MA  43   08 10  King's                    053  C second     9.95 14-6 14-7
MA  45   09 09  Ursinus                   055  C second     9.3889 14-4 15-6
MA  43   10 06  DeSales                   062  C third      9.3333 135 156
MA  43   11 00  FDU-Florham               073  C third      9.5 126 156
SO  51   01 01  Mississippi College       008  A w C        10.5882 16-1 18-2
SO  53   02 03  Virginia Wesleyan         010  A w C        10.7619 18-3 19-3
SO  54   03 02  DePauw                    021  A w C        10.4118 14-3 17-4
SO  53   04 06  Guilford                  025  C 4          10.1111 15-3 16-3
SO  51   05 04  Mary Hardin-Baylor        029  C 6          9.95 17-3 17-3
SO  52   06 05  Maryville (Tenn.)         030  B 2          10 15-3 15-5
SO  55   07 07  Averett                   054  C second     9.5 12-4 14-6
SO  51   08 08  McMurry                   056  C second     9.3333 14-4 15-6
SO  54   09 09  Centre                    058  C second     9.5714 104 164
SO  51   10 00  Texas-Dallas              080               8.7778 13-5 15-5
SO  55   11 11  Greensboro                081  A other      8.8235 125 156
GL  61   01 01  Lake Erie                 003  A w C        10.75 16-0 20-1
GL  62   02 03  Hope                      017  A w C        10.1818 10-1 17-2
GL  63   03 02  Wooster                   022  A w C        10.1333 13-2 18-3
GL  63   04 04  Wittenberg                036  C 10         10 13-3 18-3
GL  64   05 07  John Carroll              050  C 19         9.9444 13-5 14-7
GL  64   06 06  Ohio Northern             059  A second     9.8125 11-5 16-5
GL  90   07 05  Carnegie Mellon           064  C third      9.5625 11-5 12-7
GL  65   08 08  Westminster (Pa.)         066  B 4          8.9333 12-3 14-7
GL  61   09 00  Penn State-Behrend        077               8.7895 14-5 15-5
MW  71   01 02  Augustana                 009  A w C        10.8 17-3 17-4
MW  90   02 01  Washington U.             016  A w C        10.9412 14-3 16-3
MW  73   03 03  Aurora                    018  B 1          10.2 18-2 19-2
MW  90   04 04  Chicago                   020  C 3          10.9474 15-4 16-4
MW  71   05 05  Elmhurst                  045  C 15         10 12-4 16-4
MW  71   06 11  Wheaton (Ill.)            057  C second     10 10-5 14-6
MW  72   07 00  Bluffton                  065  A third      9.5625 11-5 16-5
MW  71   08 06  Carthage                  070  C third      9.6 10-5 14-6
MW  74   09 00  Grinnell                  079  A other      9.1579 13-6 14-6
MW  72   10 08  Defiance                  082               9.1111 126 146
MW  72   11 09  Manchester                088               9.4706 116 146
WE  86   01 01  UW-Stevens Point          002  A w C        11.6667 17-1 18-2
WE  82   02 02  St. Thomas                005  A w C        10.7619 19-2 19-2
WE  82   03 03  St. John's                011  C 1          10.5556 16-2 16-5
WE  83   04 06  Whitworth                 013  A w C        10.5 16-2 19-2
WE  84   05 07  Occidental                024  A w C        10.3636 9-2 14-4
WE  81   06 08  Loras                     033  A w C        10.125 13-3 15-5
WE  86   07 04  UW-Oshkosh                035  C 9          10.1579 15-4 18-4
WE  84   08 05  Redlands                  042  C 13         9.6364 9-2 13-5
WE  83   09 09  Puget Sound               043  C 14         9.6875 13-3 16-4
WE  81   10 11  Coe                       051  C second     9.7778 13-5 15-5
WE  86   11 10  UW-La Crosse              069  C third      9.6667 12-6 14-7

Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 3 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 19 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 20-29)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 30-39)
    A w C: Pool A, in likely Pool C range (1 to 13)
    A bubble: Pool A, in Pool C bubble range (14 to 19)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    blank: lower level Pool C


Big changes in the Mid-Atlantic, NYU jumps up in the East.

Let's see how the real rankings come out this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: systemfan86 on February 05, 2007, 11:28:34 AM
Quote from: pabegg on February 04, 2007, 10:43:47 PM
The rankings estimate updated for games through Sunday

Reg Conf Rank    School                    Natl Status       QOWI Reg Overall
MW  71   01 02  Augustana                 009  A w C        10.8 17-3 17-4
MW  90   02 01  Washington U.             016  A w C        10.9412 14-3 16-3
MW  73   03 03  Aurora                    018  B 1          10.2 18-2 19-2
MW  90   04 04  Chicago                   020  C 3          10.9474 15-4 16-4
MW  71   05 05  Elmhurst                  045  C 15         10 12-4 16-4
MW  71   06 11  Wheaton (Ill.)            057  C second     10 10-5 14-6
MW  72   07 00  Bluffton                  065  A third      9.5625 11-5 16-5
MW  71   08 06  Carthage                  070  C third      9.6 10-5 14-6
MW  74   09 00  Grinnell                  079  A other      9.1579 13-6 14-6
MW  72   10 08  Defiance                  082               9.1111 126 146
MW  72   11 09  Manchester                088               9.4706 116 146
Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 3 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 19 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 20-29)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 30-39)
    A w C: Pool A, in likely Pool C range (1 to 13)
    A bubble: Pool A, in Pool C bubble range (14 to 19)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    blank: lower level Pool C


Big changes in the Mid-Atlantic, NYU jumps up in the East.

Let's see how the real rankings come out this week.

Not sure how to decode this...I don't see anything here that projects the Class C number. Guess it's just better to wait.

Just realized I mispoke. I was actually thinking QOWI and that is there. Are Class C awarded by region or nationally. I seem to remember that it is regional, but I can't be sure.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RO_24 on February 05, 2007, 12:53:57 PM
Could the HCAC get 2 teams in this year????   I'm not all that certain how to read it, but was curious as to how close they were to getting two in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 05, 2007, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: RO_24 on February 05, 2007, 12:53:57 PM
Could the HCAC get 2 teams in this year????   I'm not all that certain how to read it, but was curious as to how close they were to getting two in.

According to that ranking it would seem that there wasn't much shot of it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 05, 2007, 01:36:09 PM
I tried to squeeze a little too much information in here, so I understand that I've confused people.

In the Midwest:

Augustana, Washington U, Bluffton, and Grinnell are the favorites for the Pool A bids (as is Eureka, well below the top 11).

Aurora is the top Pool B contender in the country, and probably has already clinched a bid.

Chicago is the #3 Pool C team in the country and in excellent position (as would be Augustana and WashU if they miss a Pool A bid).

Elmhurst is 15th in Pool C standings, which would be "in" today. However, there are normally about 6 upsets of higher ranked Pool A teams, so Elmhurst would probably be bumped out (the way WashU was last year).

Wheaton and Carthage are in the second and third tiers of Pool C teams and might have a chance if they keep winning, but are outside now. Likewise, Bluffton would be third tier if they don't win the Pool A bid.

The only way the HCAC gets two bids is if Bluffton wins all their games except the conference title game, and gets a lot of help in other conference tournaments.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 05, 2007, 01:46:35 PM
Patrick,

What do I have to do to get the 2001-02 scores database from you?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 05, 2007, 02:08:09 PM
This is great pabegg.  I expect that the regional rankings will be very close to this list here.  This is a great resource!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 06, 2007, 09:11:57 AM

Hey does anyone know for sure if the regional rankings take into account tonight's games or not?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 06, 2007, 11:34:47 AM
I did the QOWI numbers for the teams in NE at 9 or better.  I've listed them below.  Some of the games from tonight may affect these teams, so I've given the QOWI as it stands now and then the range it could be between tomorrow depending on outcomes.  I doubt that the committee is taking tonight's games into affect, but you never know.  The first number is the team's ranking in terms of in-region record.

1       Amherst         22-0     11.73 (11.63 - 11.82)
3       WPI               15-2      11.06 (10.94 - 11.06)
2       Salem            17-2      10.79 (10.74 - 10.95)
4       RIC                17-3      10.75 (10.65 - 10.80)
5       Trinity            15-3      10.61 (10.56 - 10.72)
7       Bates             16-4      10.25 (10.1 - 10.3)
8       Keene            14-4      10.06 (10 - 10.06)
21     Tufts              13-8        9.86 (9.81 - 9.90)
10     Brandeis        14-6        9.85 (9.8 - 9.95)
6       Husson          16-3        9.58 (9.53 - 9.63)
11     Bridgewater   14-6       9.55 (9.45 - 9.65)
9       Gordon          12-5        9.29 (9.18 - 9.35)
14     Elms              12-6        9.00 (9 - 9.06)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 06, 2007, 12:00:25 PM
My understanding was that the regional rankings took into account games through Sunday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 06, 2007, 12:15:10 PM

I thought so, but I didn't know for sure.  So disregard the below numbers in parentheses.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 06, 2007, 12:59:11 PM
Remember, there is ranking criteria beyond QOWI and in-region winning %...

* In-region head-to-head
* In-region results vs common opponents
* In-region results vs regionally ranked teams


For example, I'd expect Augustana to be ranked ahead of Wash U since Augie has a head-to-head win, and all other measures are very close.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 06, 2007, 12:15:10 PM

I thought so, but I didn't know for sure.  So disregard the below numbers in parentheses.
Ouch.... that was a lot of work for no result....  :-\

In general, it's a good idea to not include teams with any more than a certain number of in-region losses, or a certain in-region loss precentage in the teams that you bother to count. I just don't see Tufts geting any sort of metion with 8 regional losses, for example.

Now that I know what date the Regional rankings count through, I'll try and do a list of West Region teams later. The fact that regional games aren't marked on the schedule will probably make this take more time than normal though!  :-\

I assume that with all the overzealous posters in the midwest area, someone will do that for my home region.

Quote from: Titan Q on February 06, 2007, 12:59:11 PM
Remember, there is ranking criteria beyond QOWI and in-region winning %...

* In-region head-to-head
* In-region results vs common opponents
* In-region results vs regionally ranked teams


For example, I'd expect Augustana to be ranked ahead of Wash U since Augie has a head-to-head win, and all other measures are very close.
Obviously the people in the committees change, but I've noticed that different regions weigh those criteria differently. The midwest region, for example, tends to care more about in-region win % than other regions, where as some seem to go mostly on QOWI. Or maybe that's just my perception.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 01:32:18 PM
Crap.... uhm, do provisional members count as in-region? Doesn't it depend on what year it is? Is there a list anywhere of what year schools are in in terms of their provisional status?  :o :-X
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 06, 2007, 01:35:27 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 01:32:18 PM
Crap.... uhm, do provisional members count as in-region? Doesn't it depend on what year it is? Is there a list anywhere of what year schools are in in terms of their provisional status?  :o :-X

Provisionals in year 3 and year 4 count.

UT-Tyler is in year 4 and I believe that Tri-State is in year 3.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 06, 2007, 01:48:08 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 06, 2007, 12:15:10 PM

I thought so, but I didn't know for sure.  So disregard the below numbers in parentheses.
Ouch.... that was a lot of work for no result....

It only took an extra five minutes and while there is little result here, it is still of some interest to those readers of the NE Region Rankings board where it was originally posted.

Quote from: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 01:32:18 PM
Crap.... uhm, do provisional members count as in-region? Doesn't it depend on what year it is? Is there a list anywhere of what year schools are in in terms of their provisional status?

Third and Fourth years count, but there are some provisionals who were held back in the process (as I found out via Pat sometime last week).  As far as I can tell, if they are marked with a little black box on the d3hoops.com schedules, they are indeed in-region.  They've done a very good job in tracking all of those down.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gray Fox on February 06, 2007, 02:44:59 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 01:32:18 PM
Crap....
Have you been hanging out with the guys too long? :-[
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: miacwatchmen on February 06, 2007, 03:53:19 PM
When do they come out with updated regional rankings and where can I find them on the internet?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 03:58:29 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on February 06, 2007, 02:44:59 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 01:32:18 PM
Crap....
Have you been hanging out with the guys too long? :-[
Are there people that consider that a bad word? I basically rate it on the level of gosh and darn.... and a notch below extremely rude phrases like "Shut up" that I would never say to another person seriously. I think the better evidence that I have hung out with guys too much is the fact that I occasionally use the word frick when I've been around guys a lot.... a favorite word of many more conservative guys I know. But honestly, I know a whole bunch of women (including both of my coworkers) that cuss up a storm, even around me despite the fact that they know I don't really like it. Unfortunately, girls just aren't made of sugar and spice and everything nice anymore... except for me.  ;D :D ;)

And on a basketball related note...

Quote from: miacwatchmen on February 06, 2007, 03:53:19 PM
When do they come out with updated regional rankings and where can I find them on the internet?
February 7th, and the easiest source is right on the front page.... Pat and the staff are pretty good at getting them right after they are published on the NCAA site. They'll probably be in the Daily Dose.... but I'm not going to speak for Pat on that one.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 04:05:14 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 06, 2007, 01:48:08 PM
As far as I can tell, if they are marked with a little black box on the d3hoops.com schedules, they are indeed in-region.  They've done a very good job in tracking all of those down.
I found at least one error.

http://www.d3hoops.com/school_info.php?year=2007&team=mens&school=Claremont-Mudd-Scripps

CMS @ La Sierra is definitely in region and not marked as such. Argh.... this sure is a lot more time consuming this year... I just don't understand how you did it that fast.  :-[
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: miacwatchmen on February 06, 2007, 04:07:34 PM
I saw St. John's is ranked 3 in the West region and C 1 how much does their loss to D-2 St. Cloud State hurt. The victory over #3 in the nation St. Thomas has to help them though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TeeDub on February 06, 2007, 04:16:40 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 04:05:14 PM
I found at least one error.

http://www.d3hoops.com/school_info.php?year=2007&team=mens&school=Claremont-Mudd-Scripps

CMS @ La Sierra is definitely in region and not marked as such. Argh.... this sure is a lot more time consuming this year... I just don't understand how you did it that fast.  :-[

Does that mean that La Sierra against any of the SCIAC teams is IN REGION??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 04:59:03 PM
Well, it's a DIII team and in Cali.... I don't know why it wouldn't be.... am I missing something?  ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 05:07:21 PM
      In Region
Team   Conference   Wins   Losses   Win %
Stevens Point    (WIAC)   17   1   94.4
St Thomas   (MIAC)   20   2   90.9
St. Johns    (MIAC)   17   2   89.5
Occidental    (SCIAC)   11   2   84.6
Redlands    (SCIAC)    10   2   83.3
Loras    (IIAC)    13   3   81.3
Oshkosh    (WIAC)    16   4   80.0
Chapman    (IND)   13   5   72.2
Coe    (IIAC)    13   5   72.2
CLU    (SCIAC)    11   5   68.8
Bethel    (MIAC)    13   6   68.4
Buena Vista    (IIAC)    10   5   66.6
Pomona    (SCIAC)    8   4   66.6

CMS had only five regional losses, but was 7-5 in region and really not worth calculating... even if they somehow win out (unlikely) it will be pretty bad.

I'll try to do QOWI at some point, but it's a whole heck of a lot of work....  >:( :-\ :-X
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 06, 2007, 05:07:52 PM
La Sierra is year 2 provisional. Its games do not count; only year 3 and 4 provisionals count in the regional calculation.

Year 4 schools: Keystone, Texas-Tyler, Tri-State, Green Mountain
Year 3: Crown, Maine-Presque Isle, Mt Aloysius, Mt Mary, PS-Berks, Minn-Morris
Year 2: Bethany Lutheran, La Sierra, Mitchell, North Central (MN), Northwestern (MN), Presentation, Purchase, Salem
Year 1: Lancaster Bible, Lincoln Christian, Lyndon St, St. Vincent, SUNY Morrisville

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 05:09:30 PM
Thanks! For some reason I thought they had already been provisional before I moved out here... guess I'll have to redo all the SCIAC teams regional records.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 06, 2007, 05:25:11 PM
La Sierra started the provisional program in 2005-6. When the current provisional program was started in 2003, they only took five schools a year, so La Sierra was in limbo for a couple of years before starting the program.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2007, 05:56:22 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 05:09:30 PM
Thanks! For some reason I thought they had already been provisional before I moved out here... guess I'll have to redo all the SCIAC teams regional records.

Why not use our regional records?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2007, 05:56:22 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 05:09:30 PM
Thanks! For some reason I thought they had already been provisional before I moved out here... guess I'll have to redo all the SCIAC teams regional records.

Why not use our regional records?

Where?  ???

edit: oh dear lord.... how embarassing... I just saw it :(

Incidentally, I also forgot an entire conference, an important one.... so yeah... I'll just go back to working on the Quarterly report for my grant....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 06, 2007, 05:57:46 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2007, 05:56:22 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 05:09:30 PM
Thanks! For some reason I thought they had already been provisional before I moved out here... guess I'll have to redo all the SCIAC teams regional records.

Why not use our regional records?

Where?  ???

http://www.d3hoops.com/regions.php?region=west&team=m&view=standings
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2007, 06:04:54 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 06, 2007, 03:58:29 PM
Quote from: miacwatchmen on February 06, 2007, 03:53:19 PM
When do they come out with updated regional rankings and where can I find them on the internet?
February 7th, and the easiest source is right on the front page.... Pat and the staff are pretty good at getting them right after they are published on the NCAA site. They'll probably be in the Daily Dose.... but I'm not going to speak for Pat on that one.  ;)

Yes, front page, Daily Dose.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 07, 2007, 03:03:19 PM
I realized I didn't post this here this morning. Since it was one of my waking thoughts, well, yeah, I have issues.  :-[ Sorta reminds me of that blog Pat posted about how he dreamed about the Final Four. :D

Pat do you remember the teams? How are they doing this year?  ??? :D

teamW-L.PctQOWI
UW-Stevens Point (WIAC)17-1.94411.667
St. Thomas (MIAC)20-2.90910.364
St. John's (MIAC)17-2.89510.211
Whitworth (NWC)16-2.88910.167
Occidental (SCIAC)  9-2.81810.182
Redlands (SCIAC)  9-2.81809.455
Puget Sound (NWC)13-3.81309.625
UW-Oshkosh (WIAC)15-4.78910.158
Loras (IIAC)13-4.76509.706
Coe (IIAC)14-5.73709.737
Lewis & Clark (NWC)11-4.73309.214
Bethel (MIAC)14-6.70008.800

My Projected West Rankings:

1)   Stevens Point
2)   St Thomas
3)   St Johns
4)   Whitworth
5)   Occidental
6)   Oshkosh
7)   Puget Sound

The next one: Redlands (I think they give the nod to Puget Sound despite more regional losses than redlands. Their QOWI is just slightly better, and the NWC has had more playoff success. I hope I'm wrong though! :) )

Incidentally, thanks to Greg for the table formatting.... just looking at the code makes my head spin.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 07, 2007, 03:06:22 PM
http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=199

I still got one team from my subconscious in the running.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 07, 2007, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 07, 2007, 03:06:22 PM
http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=199

I still got one team from my subconscious in the running.

Pat, just re-read the blog.  Any idea who was in the other semi?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 07, 2007, 04:14:41 PM
Sorry, no. My dream was not that specific. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 07, 2007, 04:40:17 PM
Regional rankings: http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 07, 2007, 06:15:47 PM
Here's my Pool C teams based on these rankings, by region

Trinity, Bates, Keene St
NYU, Rochester, St. John Fisher (unranked)
Manhattanville, Richard Stockton
Hood
Guilford, Mary Hardin-Baylor
Wittenberg
Chicago, Wheaton, Elmhurst
St. John's, UW Oshkosh, Puget Sound, Redlands (unranked)

near misses:
Brandeis, King's, Averett, John Carroll, Coe

Wheaton beats Elmhurst for 5th place in the region (based on head to head), but might not have the national strength to beat out John Carroll and Coe - in which case Elmhurst would be out too (much like WashU and Lakeland in last year's actual tournament).

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 07, 2007, 06:17:43 PM
pabegg---who do you have winning the OAC if JCU is in as a C?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2007, 06:22:16 PM
pabegg... technically... CUA would have to be your Pool C bid.

Despite the rankings... Hood is in first place and CUA is in second in the CAC.

If that remains the same, wouldn't CUA be the Pool C?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 07, 2007, 06:39:11 PM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2007, 06:17:43 PM
pabegg---who do you have winning the OAC if JCU is in as a C?
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 07, 2007, 06:22:16 PM
pabegg... technically... CUA would have to be your Pool C bid.

Despite the rankings... Hood is in first place and CUA is in second in the CAC.

If that remains the same, wouldn't CUA be the Pool C?

In both cases, I've taken the teams with the strongest records (Catholic and Ohio Northern) as the likely Pool A team. After all, the regular season standings and the regional rankings don't have any direct bearing on the Pool A bids, only who is most likely to win the conference tournament. For that, I've relied on power rankings to pick my Pool A.

Hood or Catholic would both be easy Pool C's at this point. Ohio Northern would be a "near miss" if they weren't my projection for Pool A.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 08, 2007, 04:28:47 AM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 07, 2007, 03:03:19 PM
I realized I didn't post this here this morning. Since it was one of my waking thoughts, well, yeah, I have issues.  :-[ Sorta reminds me of that blog Pat posted about how he dreamed about the Final Four. :D

Pat do you remember the teams? How are they doing this year?  ??? :D

teamW-L.PctQOWI
UW-Stevens Point (WIAC)17-1.94411.667
St. Thomas (MIAC)20-2.90910.364
St. John's (MIAC)17-2.89510.211
Whitworth (NWC)16-2.88910.167
Occidental (SCIAC)  9-2.81810.182
Redlands (SCIAC)  9-2.81809.455
Puget Sound (NWC)13-3.81309.625
UW-Oshkosh (WIAC)15-4.78910.158
Loras (IIAC)13-4.76509.706
Coe (IIAC)14-5.73709.737
Lewis & Clark (NWC)11-4.73309.214
Bethel (MIAC)14-6.70008.800

My Projected West Rankings:

1)   Stevens Point
2)   St Thomas
3)   St Johns
4)   Whitworth
5)   Occidental
6)   Oshkosh
7)   Puget Sound

The next one: Redlands (I think they give the nod to Puget Sound despite more regional losses than redlands. Their QOWI is just slightly better, and the NWC has had more playoff success. I hope I'm wrong though! :) )

Incidentally, thanks to Greg for the table formatting.... just looking at the code makes my head spin.

Take an Advil, April. :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 09, 2007, 01:41:23 PM

Alright, here we go. First releaseable run of QOWIs for us under our new system. I am sure there are some bugs, please let me know.


Overall		In reg.TeamPointsRegion Win%Overall
11Amherst11.9091.000 (22-0)23-0
21UW-Stevens Point11.8420.947 (18-1)19-2
31Ramapo11.1050.842 (16-3)17-5
41Lake Erie11.0001.000 (17-0)21-1
51Washington U.10.8240.824 (14-3)16-3
62Salem State10.8000.900 (18-2)18-2
71St. Lawrence10.8000.850 (17-3)18-3
83Worcester Polytech10.7780.889 (16-2)18-2
94Trinity (Conn.)10.7220.833 (15-3)19-3
101Mississippi College10.6670.944 (17-1)19-2
111Messiah10.6250.813 (13-3)16-5
125Rhode Island College10.6190.857 (18-3)18-3
136Bates10.5710.810 (17-4)18-4
142DePauw10.5630.875 (14-2)17-4
153Virginia Wesleyan10.5450.864 (19-3)20-3
162Augustana10.5240.857 (18-3)18-4
173Chicago10.5000.778 (14-4)16-4
182St. Thomas10.4350.870 (20-3)20-3
192Brockport State10.3000.800 (16-4)17-4
203St. John's10.3000.900 (18-2)18-5
214UW-Oshkosh10.2630.789 (15-4)18-4
222Johns Hopkins10.2500.900 (18-2)19-3
234Aurora10.2500.900 (18-2)20-2
247Keene State10.2110.789 (15-4)18-4
253Rochester10.2110.789 (15-4)15-5
262John Carroll10.2110.737 (14-5)15-7
273Catholic10.2000.750 (15-5)16-5
285Whitworth10.1670.889 (16-2)19-2
294Utica10.1580.842 (16-3)17-3
305New York University10.1580.789 (15-4)16-4
313Wittenberg10.1180.824 (14-3)19-3
325Bluffton10.0590.765 (13-4)17-5
334Ohio Northern10.0590.706 (12-5)17-5
344Hood10.0480.762 (16-5)17-6
352Stevens10.0450.818 (18-4)19-4
364Guilford10.0000.842 (16-3)17-3
375Mary Hardin-Baylor9.9550.864 (19-3)19-3
383Richard Stockton9.9440.722 (13-5)16-7
398Brandeis9.8500.700 (14-6)14-6
406St. John Fisher9.8500.750 (15-5)16-5
416Coe9.8420.737 (14-5)16-5
426Averett9.8240.765 (13-4)15-6
434Manhattanville9.8180.773 (17-5)18-5
447Maryville (Tenn.)9.7890.842 (16-3)16-5
457UW-La Crosse9.7890.684 (13-6)15-7
465Lincoln9.7690.769 (10-3)14-7
479Tufts9.7620.619 (13-8)13-8
485Wooster9.7500.875 (14-2)19-3
496King's9.7140.714 (15-6)15-7
508Loras9.7060.765 (13-4)15-6
517Scranton9.7000.750 (15-5)17-5
529Puget Sound9.6880.813 (13-3)16-4
535New Jersey City9.6840.667 (12-6)15-7
548Alvernia9.6840.895 (17-2)18-4
556Elmhurst9.6470.765 (13-4)17-4
566Hope9.6150.846 (11-2)18-3
5710Husson9.6000.850 (17-3)17-5
5810Occidental9.5830.750 (9-3)14-5
598Centre9.5000.714 (10-4)16-4
607Plattsburgh State9.5000.750 (12-4)14-6
619York (Pa.)9.4780.652 (15-8)15-8
626Rowan9.4710.706 (12-5)17-5
637Manchester9.4440.611 (11-7)14-7
6411Babson9.4290.619 (13-8)14-8
657Rutgers-Newark9.4290.667 (14-7)16-7
668Hamilton9.3750.688 (11-5)14-5
678Wheaton (Ill.)9.3750.625 (10-6)14-7
687Carnegie Mellon9.3530.647 (11-6)12-7
6912Bridgewater State9.3330.714 (15-6)15-6
7011Cal Lutheran9.3330.643 (9-5)15-5
719McMurry9.3160.789 (15-4)16-6
7210Ursinus9.3160.789 (15-4)16-6
7311Mary Washington9.3160.684 (13-6)14-7
749Carthage9.3130.625 (10-6)14-7
7510Grinnell9.2110.684 (13-6)14-6
7612Lewis and Clark9.2000.733 (11-4)15-6
7713Bethel9.1900.714 (15-6)16-6
7811Mt. St. Joseph9.1670.611 (11-7)11-10
798William Paterson9.1360.636 (14-8)14-9
8013Elms9.1000.684 (13-6)14-6
818Capital9.0950.667 (14-7)14-7
8214Redlands9.0830.750 (9-3)13-6
839Baldwin-Wallace9.0590.647 (11-6)14-8
8412DeSales9.0530.737 (14-5)16-6
8514Lasell9.0480.619 (13-8)13-8
8615UW-Whitewater9.0450.636 (14-8)14-8
8715Western New England9.0000.682 (15-7)15-7
8813Susquehanna8.9500.600 (12-8)14-8
8910Millsaps8.9380.688 (11-5)13-8
9016Buena Vista8.9380.625 (10-6)13-7
9110Westminster (Pa.)8.9380.813 (13-3)15-7
9211Calvin8.9230.615 (8-5)13-8
9314Villa Julie8.9000.700 (14-6)15-7
9416Gordon8.8890.667 (12-6)15-6
959SUNY-Farmingdale8.8890.667 (12-6)14-7
9615Marymount8.8670.533 (8-7)12-9
9712Heidelberg8.8570.619 (13-8)13-9
9811Texas-Dallas8.8500.750 (15-5)17-5
9913Penn State-Behrend8.8500.750 (15-5)16-5
10012Greensboro8.8330.722 (13-5)16-6
10112Edgewood8.7890.632 (12-7)13-7
10216Juniata8.7780.667 (12-6)13-9
10317FDU-Florham8.7780.611 (11-7)15-7
10413Defiance8.7780.667 (12-6)15-6
1059Clarkson8.7620.571 (12-9)12-9
10614Transylvania8.7620.619 (13-8)14-8
10710Geneseo State8.6840.579 (11-8)12-9
10817Middlebury8.6820.591 (13-9)13-9
10918Colby8.6670.611 (11-7)12-10
11014Wilmington8.6670.571 (12-9)13-9
11111Vassar8.6470.647 (11-6)12-7
11217UW-Platteville8.6470.588 (10-7)12-9
11318Pomona-Pitzer8.6360.636 (7-4)12-7
11412Rochester Tech8.6110.556 (10-8)12-9
11513Ithaca8.5630.563 (9-7)11-9
11619Westfield State8.5260.579 (11-8)13-9
11720Mass-Dartmouth8.5000.600 (12-8)12-10
11818Baptist Bible8.5000.722 (13-5)14-6
11915Dominican8.5000.600 (12-8)13-8
12016Hanover8.4710.588 (10-7)12-10
12121Williams8.4500.500 (10-10)11-11
12215Otterbein8.4500.550 (11-9)12-10
12310Kean8.4440.556 (10-8)13-9
12411SUNY-Old Westbury8.4440.556 (10-8)13-9
12517Carroll8.4440.611 (11-7)11-8
12616Ohio Wesleyan8.4440.611 (11-7)14-8
12714Oneonta State8.4380.563 (9-7)10-11
12822St. Joseph's (Maine)8.4290.643 (9-5)14-5
12919Simpson8.4210.579 (11-8)15-8
13015Oswego State8.3890.556 (10-8)11-10
13118Ripon8.3680.579 (11-8)12-8
13213Trinity (Texas)8.3530.529 (9-8)11-10
13319Lake Forest8.3330.611 (11-7)12-8
13417Tri-State8.3080.692 (9-4)14-6
13514Oglethorpe8.3000.600 (12-8)13-8
13623Wentworth Tech8.3000.650 (13-7)13-8
13715LaGrange8.2860.643 (9-5)14-7
13816SUNYIT8.2780.611 (11-7)13-8
13918Bethany8.2780.722 (13-5)16-6
14020Gustavus Adolphus8.2380.619 (13-8)13-9
14120Fontbonne8.2140.571 (8-6)11-9
14212Kings Point8.2110.632 (12-7)13-9
14324Bowdoin8.2000.600 (12-8)13-8
14425Western Connecticut8.2000.600 (12-8)13-9
14519Lebanon Valley8.2000.550 (11-9)13-9
14621Franklin8.1900.571 (12-9)13-9
14720Chestnut Hill8.1880.688 (11-5)14-8
14822North Central8.1540.462 (6-7)12-9
14926Endicott8.1500.526 (10-9)10-9
15027MIT8.1430.524 (11-10)12-10
15121Pacific8.1330.533 (8-7)10-11
15223Lakeland8.1110.556 (10-8)12-9
15328Emerson8.1050.632 (12-7)13-8
15413York (N.Y.)8.1050.684 (13-6)15-9
15514New Jersey8.1050.421 (8-11)11-12
15621St. Mary's (Md.)8.1000.500 (10-10)11-10
15724North Park8.1000.550 (11-9)13-9
15816Emory8.0590.412 (7-10)8-12
15917Union8.0590.588 (10-7)10-10
16029Eastern Connecticut8.0560.556 (10-8)12-9
16125Lawrence8.0560.500 (9-9)11-9
16218RPI8.0530.526 (10-9)11-9
16322Eastern8.0530.684 (13-6)15-8
16423Neumann8.0530.526 (10-9)12-10
16530Roger Williams8.0500.650 (13-7)14-7
16615St. Joseph's (L.I.)8.0500.600 (12-8)13-8
16724Widener8.0500.500 (10-10)11-10
16817Hendrix8.0000.571 (8-6)13-7
16916Yeshiva8.0000.600 (12-8)14-8
17026Eureka8.0000.588 (10-7)13-7
17131Springfield7.9520.429 (9-12)10-12
17225Gwynedd-Mercy7.9470.526 (10-9)11-11
17326Wilkes7.9470.474 (9-10)10-10
17418Southwestern7.9410.471 (8-9)9-12
17522Chapman7.9380.688 (11-5)15-5
17632Rivier7.9050.667 (14-7)14-8
17719LeTourneau7.9000.600 (12-8)13-8
17833Norwich7.8950.556 (10-8)11-9
17927Salisbury7.8500.500 (10-10)12-10
18028Lycoming7.8240.529 (9-8)11-11
18127Webster7.8240.529 (9-8)12-9
18223Claremont-Mudd-Scripps7.8180.545 (6-5)12-8
18329McDaniel7.8100.476 (10-11)10-11
18428Wisconsin Lutheran7.8000.550 (11-9)12-10
18519Albion7.8000.467 (7-8)7-14
18624George Fox7.7500.500 (6-6)11-10
18730Albright7.7370.368 (7-12)9-12
18829Monmouth7.7330.533 (8-7)10-10
18920Hardin-Simmons7.7270.545 (12-10)12-10
19031Haverford7.7060.529 (9-8)10-11
19130Milwaukee Engineering7.7060.625 (10-6)14-9
19221Christopher Newport7.6880.563 (9-7)13-8
19331Illinois Wesleyan7.6880.438 (7-9)10-11
19425Carleton7.6670.500 (9-9)9-13
19532MacMurray7.6470.529 (9-8)12-8
19632Elizabethtown7.6110.389 (7-11)8-13
19722Methodist7.6000.400 (6-9)9-12
19834Wheaton (Mass.)7.5710.476 (10-11)10-11
19917Montclair State7.5630.375 (6-10)10-11
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 09, 2007, 01:41:50 PM
OverallIn reg.TeamPointsRegion Win%Overall
20023Emory and Henry7.5560.556 (10-8)13-8
20133Moravian7.5500.450 (9-11)10-12
20226Willamette7.5330.400 (6-9)9-12
20334Drew7.5260.421 (8-11)9-12
20433Marian7.5000.500 (10-10)11-10
20520Muskingum7.5000.500 (10-10)11-10
20634St. Norbert7.4710.471 (8-9)9-11
20721Adrian7.4620.615 (8-5)8-12
20835Penn State-Altoona7.4500.400 (8-12)9-13
20924Louisiana College7.4440.500 (9-9)9-13
21035Connecticut College7.4000.450 (9-11)11-11
21136Pitt-Bradford7.3640.500 (11-11)11-11
21225Rust7.3570.429 (6-8)8-12
21335Rose-Hulman7.3500.350 (7-13)8-15
21426Hampden-Sydney7.3330.500 (9-9)12-9
21536Lesley7.3000.500 (10-10)11-10
21627Piedmont7.2940.471 (8-9)12-10
21737Swarthmore7.2940.529 (9-8)10-12
21837Nichols7.2860.550 (11-9)11-9
21919Alfred7.2780.389 (7-11)7-13
22038Plymouth State7.2730.409 (9-13)9-13
22120Buffalo State7.2500.375 (6-10)9-11
22227UW-Stout7.2500.438 (7-9)12-10
22338Immaculata7.2380.429 (9-12)9-13
22436Blackburn7.2350.471 (8-9)8-12
22528North Carolina Wesleyan7.2310.385 (5-8)10-10
22639Clark7.2110.421 (8-11)9-12
22722Mount Union7.2110.316 (6-13)8-14
22829Roanoke7.1880.500 (8-8)11-10
22923Frostburg State7.1820.455 (10-12)10-12
23030Randolph-Macon7.1760.471 (8-9)13-9
23140Newbury7.1580.526 (10-9)12-9
23241Coast Guard7.1580.474 (9-10)11-11
23337Greenville7.1330.533 (8-7)10-10
23428Central7.1330.400 (6-9)8-12
23529UW-Eau Claire7.1180.412 (7-10)10-12
23642Mass-Boston7.1050.368 (7-12)8-12
23739Gettysburg7.1050.474 (9-10)9-12
23843Framingham State7.1000.450 (9-11)9-12
23940Arcadia7.0910.409 (9-13)10-13
24031University of Dallas7.0590.529 (9-8)10-11
24121New Paltz State7.0590.471 (8-9)10-10
24238Benedictine7.0530.526 (10-9)11-10
24344Curry7.0500.450 (9-11)9-12
24430St. Olaf7.0450.500 (11-11)11-12
24545Castleton State7.0000.500 (9-9)10-10
24622Potsdam State7.0000.389 (7-11)8-12
24723Cortland State7.0000.381 (8-13)8-13
24839Westminster (Mo.)7.0000.500 (7-7)11-8
24924Allegheny7.0000.474 (9-10)9-12
25041Misericordia6.9520.381 (8-13)9-13
25124Nazareth6.9470.368 (7-12)8-13
25231Wartburg6.9440.389 (7-11)10-13
25332Dubuque6.9410.529 (9-8)11-10
25432Ferrum6.9290.429 (6-8)9-13
25542Wesley6.9090.455 (10-12)10-13
25646Wesleyan6.9000.350 (7-13)7-14
25747Emmanuel6.8890.412 (7-10)8-13
25840Millikin6.8890.389 (7-11)9-12
25925Grove City6.8820.471 (8-9)12-10
26025Hilbert6.8570.524 (11-10)11-11
26126Waynesburg6.8570.429 (6-8)10-11
26227Earlham6.8570.381 (8-13)8-14
26333Martin Luther6.8460.538 (7-6)9-11
26434Pacific Lutheran6.8460.385 (5-8)7-12
26518Mount St. Mary6.833
26641Anderson6.8330.333 (6-12)9-14
26719Staten Island6.7730.455 (10-12)11-12
26826Hartwick6.7500.400 (8-12)9-12
26935Hamline6.7370.421 (8-11)8-14
27033Concordia-Austin6.7220.444 (8-10)9-13
27148Maine Maritime6.7220.500 (9-9)11-10
27236UW-River Falls6.7220.333 (6-12)10-13
27349Colby-Sawyer6.7140.450 (9-11)9-11
27450Southern Vermont6.7060.412 (7-10)7-11
27551Salve Regina6.7000.474 (9-10)10-10
27627Keuka6.6880.438 (7-9)9-11
27728Washington and Jefferson6.6840.421 (8-11)10-12
27834Shenandoah6.6670.333 (5-10)7-13
27943Goucher6.6670.278 (5-13)7-15
28028Cazenovia6.6320.421 (8-11)11-11
28135East Texas Baptist6.6110.333 (6-12)7-16
28229Hobart6.6110.333 (6-12)7-13
28337Luther6.5330.267 (4-11)5-16
28436Washington and Lee6.5290.412 (7-10)10-10
28520Hunter6.5240.476 (10-11)12-11
28644Delaware Valley6.5240.238 (5-16)5-17
28737Austin6.5000.278 (5-13)5-14
28838Macalester6.5000.389 (7-11)9-13
28952Worcester State6.4500.400 (8-12)9-13
29045Franklin and Marshall6.4290.333 (7-14)7-15
29139St. Mary's (Minn.)6.4210.316 (6-13)6-15
29221CCNY6.4090.455 (10-12)11-12
29340Augsburg6.3890.278 (5-13)8-14
29441Whittier6.3570.214 (3-11)9-12
29538Sul Ross State6.3330.333 (6-12)6-15
29639Sewanee6.3330.278 (5-13)5-15
29742Minnesota-Morris6.3330.333 (3-6)6-14
29830Medaille6.3160.421 (8-11)9-13
29953New England College6.2860.429 (9-12)9-12
30022Rutgers-Camden6.2860.143 (3-18)5-18
30146Keystone6.2780.444 (8-10)11-11
30254Maine-Farmington6.2500.400 (8-12)8-13
30347Muhlenberg6.2000.350 (7-13)7-14
30429Kenyon6.2000.400 (8-12)9-13
30540Rhodes6.1760.353 (6-11)8-12
30642Concordia (Wis.)6.1760.353 (6-11)6-15
30723Baruch6.1580.474 (9-10)9-14
30843Cornell6.1580.263 (5-14)7-14
30944Whitman6.1540.231 (3-10)7-14
31045La Verne6.1540.231 (3-10)5-16
31155Southern Maine6.1500.250 (5-15)6-15
31241University of the Ozarks6.0950.333 (7-14)7-15
31330Olivet6.0710.214 (3-11)5-16
31442Texas-Tyler6.0560.278 (5-13)6-15
31548Dickinson6.0530.316 (6-13)7-14
31656Suffolk6.0450.318 (7-15)7-15
31743Illinois College6.0000.316 (6-13)8-13
31831Marietta6.0000.200 (4-16)5-17
31957Johnson and Wales5.9520.333 (7-14)7-14
32043Howard Payne5.9440.278 (5-13)5-17
32132Wabash5.9440.333 (6-12)9-13
32231Fredonia State5.9410.235 (4-13)5-15
32344Clarke5.9290.286 (4-10)6-17
32446St. Scholastica5.9170.462 (6-7)9-11
32549La Roche5.9050.333 (7-14)7-14
32633Kalamazoo5.8420.211 (4-15)4-16
32747UC Santa Cruz5.7500.167 (2-10)2-17
32858Fitchburg State5.7000.250 (5-15)5-15
32950Penn State-Berks5.6880.313 (5-11)5-15
33024Medgar Evers5.6670.286 (6-15)8-15
33159Mount Ida5.6470.176 (3-14)5-15
33245Maryville (Mo.)5.6470.235 (4-13)5-15
33351Philadelphia Bible5.6250.250 (4-12)7-14
33448Linfield5.6150.231 (3-10)7-14
33544Schreiner5.6000.250 (5-15)5-17
33625John Jay5.5450.318 (7-15)7-17
33734Hiram5.5450.318 (7-15)7-15
33849Concordia-Moorhead5.5290.176 (3-14)3-19
33926New York City Tech5.5000.250 (6-18)6-18
34046Beloit5.4740.158 (3-16)4-17
34145Bridgewater (Va.)5.3750.250 (4-12)7-14
34246Fisk5.3640.091 (1-10)4-16
34347Eastern Mennonite5.3530.235 (4-13)7-13
34427SUNY-Maritime5.3330.167 (3-15)3-20
34550Nebraska Wesleyan5.3330.333 (2-4)5-17
34648Texas Lutheran5.3000.200 (4-16)4-17
34749Thomas More5.2500.125 (2-14)2-20
34860Thomas5.2500.125 (2-14)4-17
34935Thiel5.2500.250 (4-12)5-16
35061Daniel Webster5.2220.278 (5-13)5-13
35152Washington College5.1580.158 (3-16)3-18
35247Knox5.1180.235 (4-13)5-16
35348Concordia (Ill.)5.0950.190 (4-17)4-18
35462Massachusetts College5.0590.294 (5-12)6-15
35532Elmira5.0560.111 (2-16)2-18
35649Rockford5.0500.100 (2-18)3-18
35763University of New England5.0450.182 (4-18)4-19
35828Lehman5.0000.300 (6-14)9-15
35953Cabrini5.0000.150 (3-17)3-19
36054Gallaudet5.0000.111 (2-16)4-18
36151Northland5.0000.250 (3-9)6-14
36252UW-Superior5.0000.167 (3-15)6-16
36364Anna Maria4.9050.286 (6-15)7-15
36433Skidmore4.8820.059 (1-16)2-18
36536Pitt-Greensburg4.8420.105 (2-17)2-20
36637Denison4.8330.167 (3-15)4-17
36738Case Western Reserve4.8130.125 (2-14)4-16
36850Lynchburg4.7650.176 (3-14)6-15
36929Mt. St. Vincent4.5000.050 (1-19)2-19
37039Oberlin4.5000.200 (4-16)4-18
37155Marywood4.4740.105 (2-17)5-18
37251Huntingdon4.4710.118 (2-15)3-19
37330Centenary4.4210.105 (2-17)3-18
37465Becker4.3330.100 (2-18)2-18
37553Caltech4.2670.000 (0-15)1-19
37666Johnson State4.2220.111 (2-16)4-17
37767Albertus Magnus4.1500.100 (2-18)2-18
37831Polytechnic4.1250.125 (2-14)4-16
37934Bard4.0590.176 (3-14)3-18
38032Brooklyn4.0560.222 (4-14)9-14
38135D'Youville4.0480.095 (2-19)2-20
38254Colorado College4.0000.100 (1-9)3-19
38340Alma3.9170.083 (1-11)2-19
38450Maranatha Baptist3.8750.000 (0-16)3-18
38551Principia3.6430.000 (0-14)1-17
38668Eastern Nazarene3.2630.000 (0-19)0-21
38755Crown3.1000.000 (0-10)1-19
38869Green Mountain2.6360.000 (0-11)2-17
38941Finlandia2.0000.000 (0-1)3-17
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: PrideSportBBallGuy on February 10, 2007, 06:21:54 PM
Pat-
Do you have the QOWI's on the women's side.  I am very interested on the south region actually where all the ASC, SCAC, ODAC, and USASouth teams are located.  I feel it is a stronger (not strongest) region this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2007, 12:49:23 PM
QOWI top 200 to follow, through Saturday:

Rank   Points   In-region   Team   Region Win%   Overall
1   11.550   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.950 (19-1)   20-2
2   11.522   1   Amherst   0.957 (22-1)   23-1
3   11.050   1   Ramapo   0.850 (17-3)   18-5
4   10.889   1   Lake Erie   1.000 (18-0)   22-1
5   10.842   2   Worcester Polytech   0.895 (17-2)   19-2
6   10.789   3   Trinity (Conn.)   0.842 (16-3)   20-3
7   10.778   1   Washington U.   0.833 (15-3)   17-3
8   10.667   4   Salem State   0.905 (19-2)   19-2
9   10.591   2   Augustana   0.864 (19-3)   19-4
10   10.588   1   DePauw   0.882 (15-2)   18-4
11   10.478   2   Virginia Wesleyan   0.870 (20-3)   21-3
12   10.476   3   Aurora   0.905 (19-2)   21-2
13   10.455   5   Rhode Island College   0.864 (19-3)   19-3
14   10.450   1   Rochester   0.800 (16-4)   16-5
15   10.429   1   Johns Hopkins   0.905 (19-2)   20-3
16   10.412   2   Messiah   0.824 (14-3)   17-5
17   10.368   4   Chicago   0.789 (15-4)   17-4
18   10.364   2   St. Lawrence   0.773 (17-5)   18-5
19   10.350   6   Keene State   0.800 (16-4)   19-4
20   10.350   2   John Carroll   0.750 (15-5)   16-7
21   10.333   2   St. Thomas   0.875 (21-3)   21-3
22   10.316   3   Mississippi College   0.947 (18-1)   20-2
23   10.300   3   St. John's   0.900 (18-2)   18-5
24   10.286   3   Brockport State   0.810 (17-4)   18-4
25   10.286   3   Catholic   0.762 (16-5)   17-5
26   10.158   2   Richard Stockton   0.737 (14-5)   17-7
27   10.150   4   Whitworth   0.850 (17-3)   20-3
28   10.111   3   Ohio Northern   0.667 (12-6)   17-6
29   10.100   5   UW-Oshkosh   0.800 (16-4)   19-4
30   10.048   7   Brandeis   0.714 (15-6)   15-6
31   10.048   4   Hood   0.762 (16-5)   17-6
32   10.045   4   St. John Fisher   0.773 (17-5)   18-5
33   10.000   8   Bates   0.739 (17-6)   18-6
34   10.000   5   Hamilton   0.722 (13-5)   16-5
35   10.000   4   Wittenberg   0.833 (15-3)   20-3
36   9.957   3   Manhattanville   0.783 (18-5)   19-5
37   9.955   4   Stevens   0.818 (18-4)   19-4
38   9.947   6   Loras   0.789 (15-4)   17-6
39   9.941   5   Wooster   0.882 (15-2)   20-3
40   9.929   6   Hope   0.857 (12-2)   19-3
41   9.923   7   Occidental   0.769 (10-3)   15-5
42   9.900   4   Maryville (Tenn.)   0.850 (17-3)   17-5
43   9.889   5   Elmhurst   0.778 (14-4)   18-4
44   9.864   5   King's   0.727 (16-6)   16-7
45   9.857   6   Utica   0.810 (17-4)   18-4
46   9.850   7   New York University   0.750 (15-5)   16-5
47   9.850   5   Guilford   0.850 (17-3)   18-3
48   9.833   6   Averett   0.778 (14-4)   16-6
49   9.800   9   Husson   0.850 (17-3)   17-5
50   9.778   6   Bluffton   0.722 (13-5)   17-6
51   9.769   6   Lincoln   0.769 (10-3)   15-7
52   9.706   7   Wheaton (Ill.)   0.647 (11-6)   15-7
53   9.684   8   UW-La Crosse   0.684 (13-6)   15-7
54   9.667   9   Coe   0.714 (15-6)   17-6
55   9.619   7   Scranton   0.762 (16-5)   18-5
56   9.615   10   Redlands   0.769 (10-3)   14-6
57   9.609   7   Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.870 (20-3)   20-3
58   9.600   5   New Jersey City   0.700 (14-6)   16-7
59   9.600   8   Alvernia   0.900 (18-2)   19-4
60   9.600   8   Centre   0.733 (11-4)   17-4
61   9.545   10   Babson   0.636 (14-8)   15-8
62   9.522   11   Tufts   0.609 (14-9)   14-9
63   9.500   6   Rowan   0.722 (13-5)   18-5
64   9.500   7   Capital   0.682 (15-7)   15-7
65   9.458   9   York (Pa.)   0.667 (16-8)   16-8
66   9.429   12   Bridgewater State   0.714 (15-6)   15-6
67   9.400   10   Ursinus   0.750 (15-5)   16-7
68   9.389   11   Puget Sound   0.778 (14-4)   17-5
69   9.350   8   Grinnell   0.700 (14-6)   15-6
70   9.313   12   Lewis and Clark   0.750 (12-4)   16-6
71   9.250   13   Cal Lutheran   0.688 (11-5)   16-5
72   9.238   13   Elms   0.714 (15-6)   16-6
73   9.238   7   Rutgers-Newark   0.667 (14-7)   16-7
74   9.235   8   Plattsburgh State   0.706 (12-5)   15-7
75   9.235   9   Carthage   0.588 (10-7)   14-8
76   9.222   8   Baldwin-Wallace   0.667 (12-6)   15-8
77   9.222   9   Carnegie Mellon   0.611 (11-7)   12-8
78   9.200   14   Colby   0.650 (13-7)   14-10
79   9.176   9   Millsaps   0.706 (12-5)   14-8
80   9.150   11   Mary Washington   0.700 (14-6)   15-7
81   9.130   8   William Paterson   0.609 (14-9)   14-10
82   9.118   10   Westminster (Pa.)   0.824 (14-3)   16-7
83   9.100   10   Defiance   0.684 (13-6)   16-6
84   9.087   15   Western New England   0.696 (16-7)   16-7
85   9.045   14   Bethel   0.727 (16-6)   17-6
86   9.000   16   Gordon   0.684 (13-6)   16-6
87   9.000   9   Geneseo State   0.619 (13-8)   14-9
88   9.000   12   Susquehanna   0.619 (13-8)   15-8
89   9.000   10   McMurry   0.800 (16-4)   17-6
90   9.000   11   Transylvania   0.636 (14-8)   15-8
91   8.957   15   UW-Whitewater   0.652 (15-8)   15-8
92   8.955   17   Lasell   0.591 (13-9)   13-9
93   8.947   12   Manchester   0.579 (11-8)   14-8
94   8.909   11   Heidelberg   0.591 (13-9)   13-10
95   8.900   13   Villa Julie   0.700 (14-6)   15-7
96   8.895   10   Vassar   0.684 (13-6)   14-7
97   8.895   13   Mt. St. Joseph   0.579 (11-8)   11-11
98   8.870   11   Clarkson   0.565 (13-10)   13-10
99   8.857   12   Otterbein   0.571 (12-9)   13-10
100   8.850   14   DeSales   0.700 (14-6)   16-7
101   8.842   15   FDU-Florham   0.632 (12-7)   16-7
102   8.800   14   Edgewood   0.650 (13-7)   14-7
103   8.792   18   Middlebury   0.625 (15-9)   15-9
104   8.789   11   Greensboro   0.737 (14-5)   17-6
105   8.750   12   Oswego State   0.600 (12-8)   13-10
106   8.737   9   SUNY-Farmingdale   0.632 (12-7)   14-8
107   8.737   12   Trinity (Texas)   0.579 (11-8)   13-10
108   8.722   16   Buena Vista   0.667 (12-6)   15-7
109   8.714   13   Calvin   0.643 (9-5)   14-8
110   8.688   16   Marymount   0.500 (8-8)   12-10
111   8.667   19   St. Joseph's (Maine)   0.667 (10-5)   15-5
112   8.667   14   Penn State-Behrend   0.714 (15-6)   16-6
113   8.667   17   Pomona-Pitzer   0.583 (7-5)   12-8
114   8.632   17   Juniata   0.632 (12-7)   13-10
115   8.579   15   Hanover   0.611 (11-7)   13-10
116   8.550   13   Rochester Tech   0.550 (11-9)   13-10
117   8.526   15   Ohio Wesleyan   0.632 (12-7)   15-8
118   8.526   16   Carroll   0.632 (12-7)   12-8
119   8.526   18   Simpson   0.579 (11-8)   15-8
120   8.500   20   Williams   0.545 (12-10)   13-11
121   8.500   14   Ithaca   0.556 (10-8)   12-10
122   8.500   17   North Central   0.500 (7-7)   13-9
123   8.476   21   Mass-Dartmouth   0.619 (13-8)   13-10
124   8.474   18   Baptist Bible   0.737 (14-5)   15-6
125   8.474   18   Ripon   0.579 (11-8)   12-8
126   8.455   16   Wilmington   0.545 (12-10)   13-10
127   8.444   10   SUNY-Old Westbury   0.556 (10-8)   13-9
128   8.444   19   UW-Platteville   0.611 (11-7)   13-9
129   8.429   15   RPI   0.571 (12-9)   13-9
130   8.381   13   Texas-Dallas   0.714 (15-6)   17-6
131   8.381   19   Dominican   0.571 (12-9)   13-9
132   8.368   11   Kean   0.526 (10-9)   13-10
133   8.333   22   Endicott   0.571 (12-9)   12-9
134   8.333   19   Lebanon Valley   0.571 (12-9)   14-9
135   8.318   20   Franklin   0.591 (13-9)   14-9
136   8.316   17   Bethany   0.737 (14-5)   17-6
137   8.316   21   Lakeland   0.579 (11-8)   13-9
138   8.300   12   Kings Point   0.650 (13-7)   14-9
139   8.273   23   Bowdoin   0.591 (13-9)   14-9
140   8.263   22   Webster   0.579 (11-8)   14-9
141   8.263   23   Lake Forest   0.579 (11-8)   12-9
142   8.250   24   Emerson   0.650 (13-7)   14-8
143   8.250   25   Westfield State   0.550 (11-9)   13-10
144   8.238   24   North Park   0.524 (11-10)   13-10
145   8.235   20   Chestnut Hill   0.706 (12-5)   15-8
146   8.200   14   LaGrange   0.600 (9-6)   14-8
147   8.190   26   Western Connecticut   0.571 (12-9)   13-10
148   8.190   15   Oglethorpe   0.571 (12-9)   13-9
149   8.182   27   MIT   0.500 (11-11)   12-11
150   8.182   20   Gustavus Adolphus   0.591 (13-9)   13-10
151   8.150   16   SUNYIT   0.600 (12-8)   14-9
152   8.105   25   MacMurray   0.579 (11-8)   14-8
153   8.105   26   Lawrence   0.526 (10-9)   12-9
154   8.100   21   Gwynedd-Mercy   0.550 (11-9)   12-11
155   8.095   22   St. Mary's (Md.)   0.524 (11-10)   12-10
156   8.091   28   Springfield   0.455 (10-12)   11-12
157   8.071   18   Tri-State   0.643 (9-5)   14-7
158   8.063   21   Chapman   0.688 (11-5)   16-5
159   8.063   22   Pacific   0.500 (8-8)   10-12
160   8.056   23   Lycoming   0.556 (10-8)   12-11
161   8.053   17   Union   0.526 (10-9)   10-12
162   8.053   24   Eastern   0.684 (13-6)   15-8
163   8.050   13   New Jersey   0.400 (8-12)   11-13
164   8.048   29   Wentworth Tech   0.619 (13-8)   13-9
165   8.048   27   Wisconsin Lutheran   0.571 (12-9)   13-10
166   8.000   30   Rivier   0.682 (15-7)   15-8
167   8.000   18   Oneonta State   0.500 (9-9)   10-13
168   8.000   14   Yeshiva   0.600 (12-8)   14-8
169   8.000   25   Haverford   0.556 (10-8)   11-11
170   8.000   26   Salisbury   0.476 (10-11)   12-11
171   8.000   16   LeTourneau   0.619 (13-8)   14-8
172   8.000   17   Emory   0.389 (7-11)   8-13
173   8.000   28   Fontbonne   0.563 (9-7)   12-10
174   7.952   15   St. Joseph's (L.I.)   0.619 (13-8)   14-8
175   7.952   27   Widener   0.524 (11-10)   12-10
176   7.950   16   York (N.Y.)   0.650 (13-7)   15-10
177   7.917   23   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   0.500 (6-6)   12-9
178   7.895   24   Carleton   0.526 (10-9)   10-13
179   7.813   29   Monmouth   0.563 (9-7)   11-10
180   7.800   28   Neumann   0.500 (10-10)   12-11
181   7.800   29   Wilkes   0.450 (9-11)   10-11
182   7.789   31   Eastern Connecticut   0.526 (10-9)   12-10
183   7.778   30   Milwaukee Engineering   0.556 (10-8)   14-10
184   7.762   19   Muskingum   0.476 (10-11)   11-11
185   7.737   18   Emory and Henry   0.579 (11-8)   14-8
186   7.733   19   Hendrix   0.533 (8-7)   13-8
187   7.722   20   Southwestern   0.444 (8-10)   9-13
188   7.714   25   George Fox   0.500 (7-7)   12-11
189   7.700   32   Norwich   0.550 (11-9)   12-10
190   7.636   30   McDaniel   0.455 (10-12)   10-12
191   7.625   20   Albion   0.500 (8-8)   8-14
192   7.619   31   Marian   0.524 (11-10)   12-10
193   7.588   32   Illinois Wesleyan   0.412 (7-10)   10-12
194   7.588   26   Central   0.471 (8-9)   10-12
195   7.579   33   Eureka   0.526 (10-9)   13-9
196   7.571   21   Adrian   0.571 (8-6)   8-13
197   7.556   19   Buffalo State   0.444 (8-10)   11-11
198   7.529   27   Willamette   0.412 (7-10)   10-13
199   7.522   21   Hardin-Simmons   0.565 (13-10)   13-10
200   7.500   31   Albright   0.350 (7-13)   9-13
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 11, 2007, 02:47:44 PM
Pat, I know they aren't going to change much, but would you be willing to post them again tomorrow, as that's what the committee will be using?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2007, 02:49:43 PM
Yes. I'm really only posting these because I want to have them as a backup on Hoopsville tonight in case we don't get all the scores during the course of the show.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Spencer Beaty on February 12, 2007, 09:31:07 PM
what are QOWI's
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 12, 2007, 09:42:42 PM
Quality of Win Index

http://www.d3hoops.com/faq.php?question=35
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2007, 07:39:07 PM
http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2007/02/14/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-2/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 16, 2007, 01:51:25 PM
"The final word from the NCAA's travel department...Hope to Carthage (and vice versa) is 199 miles."

Hope/Carthage is a regional game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fpc85 on February 17, 2007, 11:54:09 PM
I am unsure of the NCAA selction process...is it possible for the UAA to get 4 teams in? Which team would everyone consider a lock? Which is the team least likely to get in?

I beleive the 4 team in contention are:
Wash.
Chicago
Rochester
NYU
Brandeis
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 18, 2007, 03:22:45 PM

I think all five teams have a shot, but WashU, Chicago and Rochester are probably all in.

NYU and Brandeis will need to hope that most conference tournaments go as expected.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 18, 2007, 03:24:07 PM
Quote from: fpc85 on February 17, 2007, 11:54:09 PM
I beleive the 4 team in contention are:
Wash.
Chicago
Rochester
NYU
Brandeis
Actually that's 5 teams.  ;)

And yeah, most of them are in contention... crazy!!!! :o
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Lefty on February 18, 2007, 08:35:26 PM
Hey Pat....any QOWI update?  I am curious what this weekends games did to the QOWI.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2007, 08:47:34 PM
Later tonight we'll run them through Sunday games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 18, 2007, 09:58:16 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2007, 08:47:34 PM
Later tonight we'll run them through Sunday games.
What about now? :D Just kidding! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2007, 09:59:05 PM
Trying to do my job. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 18, 2007, 10:00:01 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2007, 09:59:05 PM
Trying to do my job. :)
What kind of an excuse is that? :D  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2007, 10:05:11 PM
Better than the one I'd have to give Wells Fargo if I had to pay my mortgage with my "paycheck" from D3sports.com. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 18, 2007, 11:31:06 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2007, 10:05:11 PM
Better than the one I'd have to give Wells Fargo if I had to pay my mortgage with my "paycheck" from D3sports.com. :)

You know, Pat, I think you really should have a sit-down with the site administrator to work out that compensation package.   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2007, 11:54:26 PM
Yeah. I have an appointment with the Board of Director in April. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 19, 2007, 12:14:42 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 18, 2007, 03:22:45 PM

I think all five teams have a shot, but WashU, Chicago and Rochester are probably all in.

NYU and Brandeis will need to hope that most conference tournaments go as expected.

It is really difficult to compare NYU, Brandeis, and Rochester head to head (considering WashU and Chicago are locks to get in).  All three teams really havent had more than one bad loss (NYU and Brandeis both lost on the road to CMU).  Rochester's only losses have been to 23-2 Lake Erie, 20-5 St. John Fisher, and then all the rest have been to the other top 4 teams in the conference (Chicago twice, NYU, Brandeis, and WashU).  NYU has one bad loss (CMU), and the rest have been Brandeis, Chicago, Rochester, and WashU (which really shouldnt be considered a loss because the were outscored by 30 points at the FT line and only lost by 1 in OT).  Brandeis, similar to NYU, has the bad loss to CMU and then only losses to Chicago (twice), WashU, Rochester, and Amherst.  I think that Rochester will get in with a win at home against CMU and then the winner of the Brandeis-NYU game will most likely get the nod as well.  However, I think NYU needs the win much more than Brandeis because of their extremely weak out of conference schedule.  Brandeis has a chance either way with wins versus Rochester and WashU in the last few weeks, coupled with previous wins versus NYU and some good northeast region wins (Babson, Tufts, Elms, and a decent showing versus Amherst).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 19, 2007, 12:18:29 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2007, 11:54:26 PM
Yeah. I have an appointment with the Board of Director in April. :)
April says you deserve a raise. :D ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: PrideSportBBallGuy on February 19, 2007, 01:26:18 AM
Great coverage tonight on Hoopsville.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2007, 09:54:39 PM
He covers the South Region Women's Pool C in his section of the 3rd hour of Hoopsville.   ;)

I wonder who brought that up  ;)

I don't know where this post should be but the greatest story in the south is not Guilford and the success they've had in the ODAC this year.  (ODAC struggled top to bottom with the USASouth.  Struggled meaning they lost the "season series" with the USASouth first time in a few years.)  My questions is if the ODAC gets two teams so should the USASouth.  If the ODAC gets two teams and only one from the USASouth then there needs to be that ODAC-USASouth Challenge every year like the Big Ten-ACC challenge.  Whoever came up with that idea is a smart guy  ;)

The actual story is Greensboro and winning the conference after having several losing seasons.  I am going to ask this about the USASouth Tiebreaker.  Tell me what you think GC is the number 2 seed in the tournament because they lost to Ferrum College 5th seed but because AU lost to the 7th seed they win the tiebreaker.  That to me makes no sense.  (The way the USASouth has it set up is records against seeds in order in which they finished.)  I say if you lose and give the only conference win to the worst team in conference you should be penalized. That's not how it works.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2007, 02:38:47 AM
Conferences go either way on this. I have seen both as a tiebreaker. There is sound logical reasoning for both. There is no one absolute "how it works" on that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2007, 07:51:02 AM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on February 19, 2007, 01:26:18 AM
Great coverage tonight on Hoopsville.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2007, 09:54:39 PM
He covers the South Region Women's Pool C in his section of the 3rd hour of Hoopsville.   ;)

I wonder who brought that up  ;)
...

I was pleased to hear that question as well.  (I didn't bring it up, but was pleased to hear other South Region interest.)  We have had fun in the ASC this year and the tourney will be a blast!  HPU should bring out plenty of fans locally.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: PrideSportBBallGuy on February 19, 2007, 09:28:14 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2007, 07:51:02 AM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on February 19, 2007, 01:26:18 AM
Great coverage tonight on Hoopsville.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2007, 09:54:39 PM
He covers the South Region Women's Pool C in his section of the 3rd hour of Hoopsville.   ;)

I wonder who brought that up  ;)
...

I was pleased to hear that question as well.  (I didn't bring it up, but was pleased to hear other South Region interest.)  We have had fun in the ASC this year and the tourney will be a blast!  HPU should bring out plenty of fans locally.  :)

Oh it was me.

Pat-
Yeah I understand both ways.  For a conference that hasn't competed nationally in quite sometime losing to the worst team in the conference should penalize you.  It needs to be switched up.  When it means an automatic semi-final spot. To me it just doesn't seem fair.  I would be happier with a a coin flip  :D

I am bringing the south interest Ralph.  I think the show is great.  Wish more bagpipes were playing in show breaks though.  The defending national champions are out of the south.  Regional reports help me understand the other regions.  I am sure it will help others for the south as well.  Give me a call in a few years if you ever want to do a radio show on women's basketball.  I would be happy to help.  Title IX doesn't extend to radio shows does it. (I am just joking)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2007, 11:11:30 AM
Quote from: PrideSportBBallGuy on February 19, 2007, 09:28:14 AM
Give me a call in a few years if you ever want to do a radio show on women's basketball.  I would be happy to help.  Title IX doesn't extend to radio shows does it. (I am just joking)
We certainly do our best each week. To be honest... a VAST majority of questions I get on AIM and email are regarding the guys.

However... each week I wish we could cover women more. Though the show might have to get longer to cover EVERYTHING :)!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 19, 2007, 11:16:58 AM
Top down tie-breakers are designed to reward teams for beating the highest possible placed team.

In the MIAA Calvin and Tri-State finished tied for second with a split head-to-head, Calvin got the #2 seed because the beat #1 seed Hope once, while Tri-State did not.   Calvin gets rewarded for beating the #1 seed.

Had Tri-State beaten Hope they would have ended up #2 seed because the tie-breaker would have gone down the the games vs #4 Adrain, TSU won both, Calvin split.


Most seasons it works fine, I think Greensboro's case is fairly rare case, usually tie-breakers are settled much earlier.

You can do it top to down or bottom to top but your going to upset someone for "ignoring" a bad loss or "ignoring" a good win.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: PrideSportBBallGuy on February 19, 2007, 12:50:21 PM
Dave-

I am not trying to take anything away from the show.  I understand that is what is expected in terms of volume there will be more interest on guy side in terms of e-mail and AIM. Its a good show the way it is.  It is great for teams/players at the d3 level to get some recognition, where they normally wouldn't. It would be good for the girls, but I understand its about the "lowest" on the ladder of all basketball from D1 to D3.

Sac-
I understand the rare case is with greensboro, but with teams having the first round bye and having such a dominance over winning the conference tournament its tough.  Is there an agreement that Averett will get in as a Pool C no matter what they do in conference tournament.  If so than AU lose one for me.

Tie-breakers aren't perfect but I think NFL has a really good tiebreaking system.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2007, 09:24:17 PM
Here's an exercise I meant to take care of a few days ago.

As a reminder, here were the 18 Pool C teams selected last year. A good number of conference upsets. This is the QOWI, regional record and ranking in the final regional poll we got to see, a week before Selection Sunday.

However, there is no provision in the rules that says the committee can't take an unranked team from a region once it has selected all the ranked teams. In fact, the committee tells us they rank extra teams beyond their 5-6-8-10 going into the selection call in case they are needed. In the one year since expansion they didn't need any of those teams, most likely, though again, we did not get to see the final ranking.

Tufts    11.000    20-5 No. 3 NE
Gordon    10.560    22-3 No. 4 NE
Augustana    10.478    19-4 No. 2 MW
Cortland State    10.440    22-3 No. 2 E
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3 No. 1 MA
Trinity (Texas)    10.316    16-3 No. 2 S
Carroll    10.087    19-4 No. 4 MW
Wooster    10.042    21-3 No. 1 GL
Carleton    10.000    18-5 No. 3 NE
Baruch    9.958    21-3 No. 1 NE
Illinois Wesleyan    9.952    15-6 No. 5 MW
Widener    9.920    20-5 No. 4 MA
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7 No. 6 W
UW-Stout    9.870    18-5 No. 1 W
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6 No. 4 S
Occidental    9.750    12-4 No. 4 W
Calvin    9.733    13-2 No. 2 GL
Utica    9.692    20-6 No. 4 E
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 19, 2007, 10:33:39 PM
Any timeframe for a qowi update?  thanks
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2007, 10:45:38 PM
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2007, 10:33:39 PM
Any timeframe for a qowi update?  thanks

We seem to keep having trouble with the changeover to D3Scoreboard and they are working on it. I don't trust the numbers after a recent tweak to eliminate another problem and they are trying to audit them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2007, 05:01:39 AM
OK, these passed a great deal of scrutiny tonight. Through Sunday's games:

Rank   Points   Team
1   11.818   UW-Stevens Point
2   11.750   Amherst
3   11.050   Trinity (Conn.)
4   10.810   Worcester Polytech
5   10.750   Salem State
6   10.739   Chicago
7   10.708   Rhode Island College
8   10.667   Mississippi College
9   10.667   Occidental
10   10.640   St. Thomas
11   10.600   Lake Erie
12   10.583   Brockport State
13   10.476   Washington U.
14   10.474   Messiah
15   10.429   DePauw
16   10.375   Virginia Wesleyan
17   10.364   Ramapo
18   10.364   UW-Oshkosh
19   10.318   St. John's
20   10.318   John Carroll
21   10.316   Wooster
22   10.304   Aurora
23   10.292   St. Lawrence
24   10.273   Keene State
25   10.250   Augustana
26   10.208   St. John Fisher
27   10.182   Johns Hopkins
28   10.143   Lincoln
29   10.130   Rochester
30   10.120   Stevens
31   10.100   Ohio Northern
32   10.042   Brandeis
33   10.000   Guilford
34   10.000   Catholic
35   9.960   Mary Hardin-Baylor
36   9.958   Bates
37   9.957   Hood
38   9.950   Wittenberg
39   9.944   Centre
40   9.905   Loras
41   9.875   Manhattanville
42   9.870   New York University
43   9.870   Scranton
44   9.864   Whitworth
45   9.864   Maryville (Tenn.)
46   9.857   UW-La Crosse
47   9.765   Hope
48   9.762   Hamilton
49   9.739   New Jersey City
50   9.682   Alvernia
51   9.650   Elmhurst
52   9.636   McMurry
53   9.625   King's
54   9.609   Husson
55   9.600   Averett
56   9.600   Carthage
57   9.591   Grinnell
58   9.529   Lewis and Clark
59   9.500   Rowan
60   9.500   Capital
61   9.500   Richard Stockton
62   9.480   Tufts
63   9.458   Bridgewater State
64   9.458   Babson
65   9.450   Baldwin-Wallace
66   9.440   Western New England
67   9.435   Utica
68   9.400   Redlands
69   9.368   Wheaton (Ill.)
70   9.364   FDU-Florham
71   9.318   DeSales
72   9.316   Westminster (Pa.)
73   9.280   York (Pa.)
74   9.263   Cal Lutheran
75   9.261   Otterbein
76   9.250   Plattsburgh State
77   9.238   Bluffton
78   9.200   UW-Whitewater
79   9.190   Villa Julie
80   9.190   Colby
81   9.176   North Central
82   9.174   Penn State-Behrend
83   9.136   SUNY-Farmingdale
84   9.125   William Paterson
85   9.083   Transylvania
86   9.053   Millsaps
87   9.050   Puget Sound
88   9.000   Greensboro
89   9.000   Coe
90   9.000   Carroll
91   9.000   Pomona-Pitzer
92   9.000   SUNY-Old Westbury
93   9.000   Susquehanna
94   8.957   Geneseo State
95   8.955   Ursinus
96   8.917   Bethel
97   8.909   Gordon
98   8.875   Lasell
99   8.870   Rutgers-Newark
100   8.833   Elms
101   8.810   Simpson
102   8.783   Williams
103   8.760   Middlebury
104   8.727   Vassar
105   8.708   Franklin
106   8.700   Buena Vista
107   8.682   Edgewood
108   8.682   Oswego State
109   8.680   Clarkson
110   8.667   Defiance
111   8.667   Endicott
112   8.652   Texas-Dallas
113   8.619   Baptist Bible
114   8.619   Juniata
115   8.619   Ohio Wesleyan
116   8.619   Carnegie Mellon
117   8.591   SUNYIT
118   8.588   Calvin
119   8.560   Dominican
120   8.545   Emerson
121   8.545   Mary Washington
122   8.542   St. Joseph's (L.I.)
123   8.542   Bowdoin
124   8.524   Ithaca
125   8.524   Hanover
126   8.524   Manchester
127   8.522   Rochester Tech
128   8.500   Haverford
129   8.500   Mt. St. Joseph
130   8.455   Lake Forest
131   8.450   UW-Platteville
132   8.435   Heidelberg
133   8.429   Webster
134   8.429   Ripon
135   8.400   Bethany
136   8.364   York (N.Y.)
137   8.353   St. Joseph's (Maine)
138   8.348   Mass-Dartmouth
139   8.333   St. Mary's (Md.)
140   8.320   Springfield
141   8.318   Westfield State
142   8.286   Trinity (Texas)
143   8.267   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
144   8.238   Lawrence
145   8.227   LeTourneau
146   8.227   Kings Point
147   8.200   MacMurray
148   8.188   Tri-State
149   8.182   Wilkes
150   8.174   Rivier
151   8.167   Hendrix
152   8.143   Eastern Connecticut
153   8.143   Lycoming
154   8.130   Western Connecticut
155   8.125   MIT
156   8.118   Chapman
157   8.105   Marymount
158   8.087   Wisconsin Lutheran
159   8.083   Wilmington
160   8.045   Lakeland
161   8.043   Roger Williams
162   8.000   Yeshiva
163   8.000   Carleton
164   8.000   Muskingum
165   7.960   Hardin-Simmons
166   7.944   Albion
167   7.917   RPI
168   7.913   North Park
169   7.909   Gwynedd-Mercy
170   7.889   Pacific
171   7.875   Gustavus Adolphus
172   7.870   Lebanon Valley
173   7.857   Union
174   7.842   Illinois Wesleyan
175   7.833   Oglethorpe
176   7.818   Chestnut Hill
177   7.800   Roanoke
178   7.800   Oneonta State
179   7.792   Wentworth Tech
180   7.792   Curry
181   7.773   Gettysburg
182   7.773   Kean
183   7.773   Alfred
184   7.762   Buffalo State
185   7.762   New Jersey
186   7.750   LaGrange
187   7.750   Nichols
188   7.750   Montclair State
189   7.739   Widener
190   7.708   Hobart
191   7.682   Norwich
192   7.652   Nazareth
193   7.636   Clark
194   7.600   Pitt-Bradford
195   7.591   Castleton State
196   7.591   Albright
197   7.591   Mount Union
198   7.588   Fontbonne
199   7.571   Southwestern
200   7.550   Eureka
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 20, 2007, 10:24:52 AM
Looking over the recent QOWI numbers, from the South I think Guilford and Mary Hardin-Baylor are strong Pool C teams and should get bids even if they do not win their conference tournaments. Centre could also be placed in that group.

Mississippi College, DePauw and Virginia Wesleyan are in no matter what happens in south tournaments. If UMHB were to reach the championship game of the ASC tourney and lose to MC they could have a QOWI of 10.0 accumulating 280 points in their 28 games. Last year that would have put them right in the middle of the Pool C teams that were selected making them a good bet to get in.

Here is the list of teams Pat posted earlier.

2006 Pool C Teams
Tufts    11.000    20-5 No. 3 NE
Gordon    10.560    22-3 No. 4 NE
Augustana    10.478    19-4 No. 2 MW
Cortland State    10.440    22-3 No. 2 E
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3 No. 1 MA
Trinity (Texas)    10.316    16-3 No. 2 S
Carroll    10.087    19-4 No. 4 MW
Wooster    10.042    21-3 No. 1 GL
Carleton    10.000    18-5 No. 3 NE
Baruch    9.958    21-3 No. 1 NE
Illinois Wesleyan    9.952    15-6 No. 5 MW
Widener    9.920    20-5 No. 4 MA
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7 No. 6 W
UW-Stout    9.870    18-5 No. 1 W
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6 No. 4 S
Occidental    9.750    12-4 No. 4 W
Calvin    9.733    13-2 No. 2 GL
Utica    9.692    20-6 No. 4 E

If they win one game and lose in the semi's they should have a QOWI of 9.81 based on this week's numbers placing them right on the bubble.

McMurry is another team to keep an eye on for a Pool C berth. Two ASC wins and loss in the title game could get them as high as 9.96 making them a good candidate as well. I am not sure if anyone else in the south has a chance.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2007, 10:43:30 AM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 20, 2007, 10:24:52 AM
...
McMurry is another team to keep an eye on for a Pool C berth. Two ASC wins and loss in the title game could get them as high as 9.96 making them a good candidate as well. I am not sure if anyone else in the south has a chance.

Chris, as that scenario likely unfolds, McMurry will have beaten Miss College in the semis and then probably will have lost to UMHB on the other side of the bracket on Sunday.  McMurry would have a record of 2 wins (Miss Coll and UMHB) and 3 losses (Miss Coll and UMHB twice) against regionally ranked teams.

One other game might come into play.  If Trinity wins the SCAC, then might they rise into the Regional Rankings?  McMurry beat Trinity.

Of course, geographic proximity would have McMurry going to UMHB on Thursday night and the winner flying to Miss Coll on Saturday when Miss College received one of the 5 byes. :(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 20, 2007, 10:49:08 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2007, 10:43:30 AM
Of course, geographic proximity would have McMurry going to UMHB on Thrusday night and the winner flying to Miss Coll on Saturday when Miss College received one of the 5 byes. :(

Unfortunately I think that would happen, but it would be great to have three ASC teams in the NCAA tournament. There is a good chance we have two teams with QOWI's of 9.96 or higher as potential Pool C teams. Last year that would have been good enough to get in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: systemfan86 on February 20, 2007, 01:38:17 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2007, 09:24:17 PM
Here's an exercise I meant to take care of a few days ago.

As a reminder, here were the 18 Pool C teams selected last year. A good number of conference upsets. This is the QOWI, regional record and ranking in the final regional poll we got to see, a week before Selection Sunday.

However, there is no provision in the rules that says the committee can't take an unranked team from a region once it has selected all the ranked teams. In fact, the committee tells us they rank extra teams beyond their 5-6-8-10 going into the selection call in case they are needed. In the one year since expansion they didn't need any of those teams, most likely, though again, we did not get to see the final ranking.

Tufts    11.000    20-5 No. 3 NE
Gordon    10.560    22-3 No. 4 NE
Augustana    10.478    19-4 No. 2 MW
Cortland State    10.440    22-3 No. 2 E
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3 No. 1 MA
Trinity (Texas)    10.316    16-3 No. 2 S
Carroll    10.087    19-4 No. 4 MW
Wooster    10.042    21-3 No. 1 GL
Carleton    10.000    18-5 No. 3 NE
Baruch    9.958    21-3 No. 1 NE
Illinois Wesleyan    9.952    15-6 No. 5 MW
Widener    9.920    20-5 No. 4 MA
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7 No. 6 W
UW-Stout    9.870    18-5 No. 1 W
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6 No. 4 S
Occidental    9.750    12-4 No. 4 W
Calvin    9.733    13-2 No. 2 GL
Utica    9.692    20-6 No. 4 E

Were the QOWI numbers relatively high because of the good number of conference upsets? If the top seeds in the conference tournament hold serve, where might the QOWI bottom out at? Understanding that that is just one measure...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2007, 02:06:10 PM
We can probably estimate the cutoff point with a running estimate of who is going to get in on the AQ.

The Pool C's weren't straight QOWI last year, but almost all the top teams were in there.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 20, 2007, 08:24:39 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2007, 05:01:39 AM
OK, these passed a great deal of scrutiny tonight. Through Sunday's games:

Rank   Points   Team
13   10.476   Washington U.


Pat, I disagree by 2 points on WashU's QOWI calculation (I get 218/21 = 10.381). Here's what I've got:

First of all, 136 points for the 17 wins.
They played Augustana, Illinois Wesleyan, Webster, and 7 conference road games for 10 points. Blackburn, Fontbonne, Maryville, 7 conference games were at home. Luther and Pomona-Pitzer were in their own tournament (so no points in my calc - did you have 2 points here?)

Augustana, Brandeis, NYU, Rochester, and Chicago are all over .667 (6 points each) for 48 total.
Fontbonne, Webster, Pomoma-Pitzer, and Carnegie Mellon are all over .500 (4 points each) for 20 total.
Illinois Wesleyan and Blackburn are over .333 (2 points each) for 4 total.
This is 72 for strength of opponent, 10 for road games, and 136 for wins, for 218.

So is it the road points, or opponent strength? (I know that PP goes to 10-5 with Monday's win, worth 2 more points, but you said this was through Sunday).

If there is a question about host points for in-season tournaments, this could affect all of the calculations.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2007, 08:27:05 PM
We found there were in fact many games where neutral status was misidentified. We've cleared up as many as we can find.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sumander on February 20, 2007, 08:50:21 PM
Pat, Sorry to bother you , Question came up over on the MIAC board...will there be any more regional rankings this year?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 20, 2007, 08:58:23 PM
Quote from: sumander on February 20, 2007, 08:50:21 PM
Pat, Sorry to bother you , Question came up over on the MIAC board...will there be any more regional rankings this year?

I'm not Pat, but the answer is yes.  The last public NCAA regional rankings will be released tomorrow, with games through this past Sunday, I believe.  There will also be a final regional ranking this Sunday that the selection committee will use to make the actual tournament selections.  However, that ranking will not be made public.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2007, 08:58:50 PM
This week will be the last ones posted in the middle of the week... the final "vote" will be made on Sunday. We won't see that one since the selections will be made that night!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sumander on February 20, 2007, 09:05:13 PM
Thanks for the help! +k.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 20, 2007, 11:35:35 PM
It looks like a starting place for a floor would be a QOWI of 10 and a RWP of .75. If you can't get to one of these, it doesn't look good. If you barely make both, you're Brandeis, which is firmly on the bubble.

Rochester, Brandeis, and NYU can assure themselves of a Pool C bid by winning this weekend (and since Brandeis and NYU play each other, this means at most two bids taken here). Everyone else who's looking at Pool C will do so with a loss this weekend, except for Bates, which lost to Amherst last weekend, but could still get in with a lot of help from conference favorites holding onto Pool A bids.

I would guess that there are about 15 schools who have Pool C bids clinched if they need them (i.e., don't get the Pool A).

Certain Pool C bids at the moment would go to teams from the NESCAC (Amherst or Trinity), MIAC (St. Johns or St. Thomas), and the UAA (Chicago or WashU), and perhaps also the LEC (Keene St or RIC).


ADDED: And it looks like a good night for Pool C contenders. I don't see a single loss by a team in contention for Pool C, including all of the Pool A favorites.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2007, 04:06:42 AM
Top 200 in QOWI through Tuesday:
Overall rk   Points   In-reg   Team   Region Win%   Overall
1   11.625   1   Amherst   0.958 (23-1)   24-1
2   11.391   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.957 (22-1)   23-2
3   10.950   2   Trinity (Conn.)   0.850 (17-3)   21-3
4   10.810   3   Worcester Polytech   0.905 (19-2)   21-2
5   10.708   4   Salem State   0.920 (23-2)   23-2
6   10.696   1   Chicago   0.818 (18-4)   20-4
7   10.640   2   St. Thomas   0.880 (22-3)   22-3
8   10.520   5   Rhode Island College   0.880 (22-3)   22-3
9   10.400   1   Lake Erie   0.950 (19-1)   23-2
10   10.400   1   Brockport State   0.840 (21-4)   22-4
11   10.381   2   Washington U.   0.810 (17-4)   19-4
12   10.381   1   Mississippi College   0.952 (20-1)   22-2
13   10.375   2   Virginia Wesleyan   0.875 (21-3)   22-3
14   10.318   3   St. John's   0.864 (19-3)   19-6
15   10.292   2   St. Lawrence   0.792 (19-5)   20-5
16   10.261   1   Ramapo   0.783 (18-5)   19-7
17   10.250   4   Occidental   0.813 (13-3)   18-5
18   10.238   3   DePauw   0.900 (18-2)   21-4
19   10.217   3   Rochester   0.739 (17-6)   17-7
20   10.217   6   Keene State   0.826 (19-4)   22-4
21   10.208   4   St. John Fisher   0.792 (19-5)   20-5
22   10.182   1   Johns Hopkins   0.864 (19-3)   21-4
23   10.136   2   John Carroll   0.727 (16-6)   17-8
24   10.130   3   Aurora   0.913 (21-2)   23-2
25   10.125   7   Brandeis   0.750 (18-6)   18-6
26   10.105   2   Messiah   0.842 (16-3)   19-5
27   10.038   2   Stevens   0.808 (21-5)   21-5
28   10.000   5   UW-Oshkosh   0.783 (18-5)   21-5
29   10.000   4   Augustana   0.833 (20-4)   20-5
30   10.000   4   Guilford   0.870 (20-3)   21-3
31   10.000   3   Wooster   0.900 (18-2)   23-3
32   10.000   3   Catholic   0.792 (19-5)   20-5
33   10.000   4   Lincoln   0.786 (11-3)   17-7
34   9.909   6   Whitworth   0.864 (19-3)   22-3
35   9.900   4   Ohio Northern   0.700 (14-6)   19-6
36   9.875   5   Hood   0.792 (19-5)   20-6
37   9.870   6   Scranton   0.739 (17-6)   19-6
38   9.870   5   New York University   0.783 (18-5)   19-5
39   9.810   7   Loras   0.810 (17-4)   19-6
40   9.800   5   Averett   0.800 (16-4)   18-6
41   9.800   3   Manhattanville   0.800 (20-5)   21-5
42   9.792   8   Bates   0.708 (17-7)   18-7
43   9.778   6   Centre   0.778 (14-4)   20-4
44   9.773   7   Maryville (Tenn.)   0.864 (19-3)   19-6
45   9.765   5   Hope   0.824 (14-3)   21-3
46   9.762   6   Hamilton   0.714 (15-6)   18-6
47   9.739   7   Alvernia   0.913 (21-2)   22-4
48   9.720   8   Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.840 (21-4)   21-4
49   9.708   9   Husson   0.875 (21-3)   21-5
50   9.682   8   UW-La Crosse   0.727 (16-6)   18-7
51   9.652   4   New Jersey City   0.696 (16-7)   17-8
52   9.632   6   Westminster (Pa.)   0.842 (16-3)   18-7
53   9.625   8   King's   0.708 (17-7)   17-8
54   9.550   5   Elmhurst   0.750 (15-5)   19-5
55   9.529   9   Lewis and Clark   0.765 (13-4)   18-6
56   9.500   7   Capital   0.667 (16-8)   16-8
57   9.476   8   Wittenberg   0.810 (17-4)   22-4
58   9.409   6   Grinnell   0.727 (16-6)   17-6
59   9.364   9   McMurry   0.818 (18-4)   19-6
60   9.364   9   FDU-Florham   0.636 (14-8)   17-8
61   9.360   10   Tufts   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
62   9.348   7   Utica   0.739 (17-6)   18-6
63   9.346   11   Western New England   0.731 (19-7)   19-7
64   9.318   10   DeSales   0.727 (16-6)   18-7
65   9.300   7   Carthage   0.650 (13-7)   16-8
66   9.300   5   Rowan   0.750 (15-5)   20-5
67   9.292   12   Babson   0.625 (15-9)   16-9
68   9.250   9   Baldwin-Wallace   0.700 (14-6)   17-8
69   9.250   13   Bridgewater State   0.708 (17-7)   17-7
70   9.238   6   Richard Stockton   0.667 (14-7)   17-9
71   9.190   8   Plattsburgh State   0.714 (15-6)   18-8
72   9.190   14   Colby   0.667 (14-7)   15-10
73   9.174   7   SUNY-Farmingdale   0.696 (16-7)   18-8
74   9.136   11   Villa Julie   0.727 (16-6)   18-7
75   9.105   8   Wheaton (Ill.)   0.632 (12-7)   16-8
76   9.091   10   Greensboro   0.773 (17-5)   20-6
77   9.087   10   Otterbein   0.609 (14-9)   15-10
78   9.077   10   UW-Whitewater   0.692 (18-8)   18-8
79   9.050   11   Puget Sound   0.750 (15-5)   18-6
80   9.042   12   Coe   0.708 (17-7)   19-7
81   9.042   8   William Paterson   0.625 (15-9)   15-10
82   9.000   13   Redlands   0.750 (12-4)   16-7
83   9.000   14   Pomona-Pitzer   0.667 (10-5)   15-8
84   9.000   9   Carroll   0.667 (14-7)   14-8
85   9.000   11   Millsaps   0.737 (14-5)   17-8
86   8.957   11   Penn State-Behrend   0.739 (17-6)   18-6
87   8.955   12   Ursinus   0.682 (15-7)   16-9
88   8.955   9   SUNY-Old Westbury   0.636 (14-8)   17-9
89   8.952   10   Bluffton   0.667 (14-7)   18-7
90   8.950   15   Cal Lutheran   0.650 (13-7)   17-7
91   8.917   11   Transylvania   0.667 (16-8)   17-8
92   8.917   10   Rutgers-Newark   0.625 (15-9)   17-9
93   8.889   12   North Central   0.611 (11-7)   16-9
94   8.885   13   York (Pa.)   0.615 (16-10)   16-10
95   8.870   15   Gordon   0.696 (16-7)   19-7
96   8.826   14   Susquehanna   0.609 (14-9)   16-9
97   8.800   16   Elms   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
98   8.800   17   Lasell   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
99   8.773   16   Simpson   0.636 (14-8)   18-8
100   8.739   15   Mary Washington   0.652 (15-8)   16-9
101   8.727   9   Vassar   0.636 (14-8)   15-9
102   8.720   17   Bethel   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
103   8.720   18   Endicott   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
104   8.714   16   Juniata   0.667 (14-7)   15-10
105   8.700   18   Buena Vista   0.650 (13-7)   16-8
106   8.696   13   Edgewood   0.696 (16-7)   17-7
107   8.696   10   Oswego State   0.609 (14-9)   15-11
108   8.696   19   Williams   0.565 (13-10)   14-11
109   8.692   14   Dominican   0.654 (17-9)   17-9
110   8.682   17   Baptist Bible   0.727 (16-6)   18-7
111   8.680   11   Clarkson   0.560 (14-11)   14-11
112   8.667   12   Bethany   0.714 (15-6)   19-7
113   8.667   12   Geneseo State   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
114   8.600   20   Middlebury   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
115   8.588   13   Calvin   0.647 (11-6)   15-9
116   8.524   14   Carnegie Mellon   0.524 (11-10)   12-11
117   8.522   13   Rochester Tech   0.565 (13-10)   14-11
118   8.520   18   St. Mary's (Md.)   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
119   8.500   15   Ohio Wesleyan   0.636 (14-8)   17-9
120   8.500   19   Haverford   0.600 (12-8)   13-11
121   8.500   21   Mass-Dartmouth   0.583 (14-10)   14-12
122   8.480   11   St. Joseph's (L.I.)   0.640 (16-9)   17-9
123   8.478   22   Westfield State   0.609 (14-9)   16-10
124   8.429   15   Webster   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
125   8.429   14   Ithaca   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
126   8.391   12   Texas-Dallas   0.696 (16-7)   18-7
127   8.391   15   SUNYIT   0.609 (14-9)   16-10
128   8.364   16   Lake Forest   0.591 (13-9)   14-9
129   8.333   23   Bowdoin   0.583 (14-10)   15-10
130   8.304   24   Emerson   0.652 (15-8)   16-9
131   8.300   17   MacMurray   0.650 (13-7)   16-8
132   8.286   18   Defiance   0.619 (13-8)   16-8
133   8.286   13   Trinity (Texas)   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
134   8.273   12   York (N.Y.)   0.682 (15-7)   16-10
135   8.261   19   Lakeland   0.609 (14-9)   16-10
136   8.240   25   Springfield   0.480 (12-13)   12-13
137   8.238   20   Ripon   0.571 (12-9)   13-9
138   8.208   26   Rivier   0.708 (17-7)   18-8
139   8.190   21   Mt. St. Joseph   0.571 (12-9)   13-12
140   8.188   16   Tri-State   0.625 (10-6)   15-8
141   8.182   20   Wilkes   0.500 (11-11)   12-11
142   8.174   17   Heidelberg   0.522 (12-11)   13-12
143   8.143   22   Hanover   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
144   8.143   21   Lycoming   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
145   8.125   23   Franklin   0.625 (15-9)   16-9
146   8.125   27   MIT   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
147   8.118   19   Chapman   0.706 (12-5)   19-5
148   8.095   20   UW-Platteville   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
149   8.056   28   St. Joseph's (Maine)   0.611 (11-7)   17-7
150   8.048   24   Lawrence   0.524 (11-10)   13-10
151   8.040   21   Gustavus Adolphus   0.560 (14-11)   14-12
152   8.000   14   Hendrix   0.556 (10-8)   15-9
153   7.958   29   Western Connecticut   0.542 (13-11)   14-12
154   7.955   15   LeTourneau   0.636 (14-8)   15-9
155   7.955   30   Eastern Connecticut   0.545 (12-10)   15-11
156   7.944   18   Albion   0.556 (10-8)   10-14
157   7.920   31   Wentworth Tech   0.600 (15-10)   15-11
158   7.917   25   Wisconsin Lutheran   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
159   7.917   19   Wilmington   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
160   7.917   16   RPI   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
161   7.913   22   Chestnut Hill   0.696 (16-7)   18-8
162   7.913   13   Kings Point   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
163   7.909   26   Manchester   0.545 (12-10)   15-10
164   7.900   23   Marymount   0.500 (10-10)   14-11
165   7.889   22   Pacific   0.556 (10-8)   12-13
166   7.889   27   Fontbonne   0.556 (10-8)   14-11
167   7.875   23   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   0.563 (9-7)   14-10
168   7.864   24   Carleton   0.500 (11-11)   11-15
169   7.857   17   Union   0.524 (11-10)   11-13
170   7.800   16   Roanoke   0.600 (12-8)   15-10
171   7.792   17   Oglethorpe   0.542 (13-11)   14-11
172   7.792   14   Yeshiva   0.542 (13-11)   15-11
173   7.773   24   Gettysburg   0.545 (12-10)   12-12
174   7.773   18   Alfred   0.455 (10-12)   10-14
175   7.750   18   LaGrange   0.625 (10-6)   17-8
176   7.739   28   North Park   0.478 (11-12)   13-12
177   7.739   20   Muskingum   0.478 (11-12)   12-12
178   7.727   19   Buffalo State   0.455 (10-12)   12-13
179   7.720   19   Hardin-Simmons   0.560 (14-11)   14-11
180   7.720   32   Curry   0.560 (14-11)   14-12
181   7.708   20   Hobart   0.417 (10-14)   11-14
182   7.696   25   Lebanon Valley   0.522 (12-11)   14-11
183   7.667   29   Eureka   0.571 (12-9)   15-9
184   7.667   21   Oneonta State   0.476 (10-11)   11-15
185   7.650   15   Montclair State   0.400 (8-12)   12-12
186   7.636   33   Clark   0.455 (10-12)   11-13
187   7.625   34   Roger Williams   0.583 (14-10)   15-10
188   7.609   22   Nazareth   0.435 (10-13)   11-14
189   7.600   25   St. Olaf   0.520 (13-12)   13-13
190   7.591   16   Kean   0.455 (10-12)   13-12
191   7.571   20   Southwestern   0.476 (10-11)   11-14
192   7.565   26   Gwynedd-Mercy   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
193   7.565   27   Widener   0.478 (11-12)   12-12
194   7.565   35   Castleton State   0.565 (13-10)   15-11
195   7.545   21   Emory   0.318 (7-15)   8-16
196   7.545   17   New Jersey   0.409 (9-13)   12-14
197   7.538   28   Pitt-Bradford   0.538 (14-12)   14-12
198   7.522   29   Eastern   0.609 (14-9)   16-11
199   7.520   36   Lesley   0.520 (13-12)   14-12
200   7.500   30   Westminster (Mo.)   0.556 (10-8)   15-9
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: systemfan86 on February 21, 2007, 10:42:33 AM
Quote from: pabegg on February 20, 2007, 11:35:35 PM
It looks like a starting place for a floor would be a QOWI of 10 and a RWP of .75. If you can't get to one of these, it doesn't look good. If you barely make both, you're Brandeis, which is firmly on the bubble.

Rochester, Brandeis, and NYU can assure themselves of a Pool C bid by winning this weekend (and since Brandeis and NYU play each other, this means at most two bids taken here). Everyone else who's looking at Pool C will do so with a loss this weekend, except for Bates, which lost to Amherst last weekend, but could still get in with a lot of help from conference favorites holding onto Pool A bids.

I would guess that there are about 15 schools who have Pool C bids clinched if they need them (i.e., don't get the Pool A).

Certain Pool C bids at the moment would go to teams from the NESCAC (Amherst or Trinity), MIAC (St. Johns or St. Thomas), and the UAA (Chicago or WashU), and perhaps also the LEC (Keene St or RIC).


ADDED: And it looks like a good night for Pool C contenders. I don't see a single loss by a team in contention for Pool C, including all of the Pool A favorites.
Thanks. A bit of a follow up to that...looking at Pat's post following the one quoted above, there are 'currently' 31 teams that meet the 10/.750 line. With 59 teams in the tournament, that's a lot of teams below the line getting Pool A and Pool B bids. How low do the numbers tend to go? Does anyone know what is the lowest QoWI to make the tournament (Pool A, I would presume).

I wish I knew the conferences better, so I could tell where the Pool A & B's are in the top 30 or 40. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sumander on February 21, 2007, 11:03:36 AM
Systemfan 86, go to this link and look at Greg Sager's post at the top of the page. He talks about some of the numbers of teams that got in last year. He is answering a question about St. John's Minnesota getting in.

http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3616.6090
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 21, 2007, 11:41:39 AM
And I would love to see someone take the QOWI and identify the highest rated team from each league that gets an AQ (or Pool B).  That way we can really start to understand from a QOWI perspective, who is in the running for the Pool C bids.  (I'd do it myself, but don't have the time)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2007, 12:27:41 PM
Thanks David.

Please remember that there may be a dramatic rise in the QOWI's in the tourneys.  For example, McMurry could defeat 3 "15-point" teams (UT-Dallas, Miss College and UMHB) if they win the ASC Tourney.  My rough calculation takes their QOWI to 10.280 in that scenario.  I also do not see any deterioration by losses by other South Region teams (McMurry opponents) in their respective QOWI's.

Also, Westminster at "B4" is also "C19".  Bingo!  Theoretically, they may get in either way.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 21, 2007, 12:42:28 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2007, 12:27:41 PM
Thanks David.

Please remember that there may be a dramatic rise in the QOWI's in the tourneys.  For example, McMurry could defeat 3 "15-point" teams (UT-Dallas, Miss College and UMHB) if they win the ASC Tourney.  My rough calculation takes their QOWI to 10.280 in that scenario.  I also do not see any deterioration by losses by other South Region teams (McMurry opponents) in their respective QOWI's.

Also, Westminster at "B4" is also "C19".  Bingo!  Theoretically, they may get in either way.  :)

Good point about Westminster.  I'll adjust my post to reflect that.

If McMurry wins the ASC tournament, nobody will care what their QoWI was.  Every Pool C candidate, by definition (except UAA teams and Oxy) must incure at least one more loss--and for that matter, the four of the UAA Pool C candidates square off this weekend, so only Rochester and the winner of NYU/Brandeis can get a Pool C without losing (even Oxy, who wins the Pool A bid if they win tomorrow.) 

I see Pat has re-run the list, so I'll delete my version and re-post it based on the new list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2007, 12:44:24 PM
Sorry, here's another fix:

1   11.652   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.957 (22-1)   23-2
2   11.625   1   Amherst   0.958 (23-1)   24-1
3   10.950   2   Trinity (Conn.)   0.850 (17-3)   21-3
4   10.810   3   Worcester Polytech   0.905 (19-2)   21-2
5   10.708   4   Salem State   0.920 (23-2)   23-2
6   10.696   1   Chicago   0.818 (18-4)   20-4
7   10.667   1   Mississippi College   0.952 (20-1)   22-2
8   10.640   2   St. Thomas   0.880 (22-3)   22-3
9   10.600   1   Lake Erie   0.950 (19-1)   23-2
10   10.520   5   Rhode Island College   0.880 (22-3)   22-3
11   10.400   1   Brockport State   0.840 (21-4)   22-4
12   10.381   2   Washington U.   0.810 (17-4)   19-4
13   10.375   2   Virginia Wesleyan   0.875 (21-3)   22-3
14   10.333   3   Aurora   0.913 (21-2)   23-2
15   10.318   3   St. John's   0.864 (19-3)   19-6
16   10.292   2   St. Lawrence   0.792 (19-5)   20-5
17   10.261   1   Ramapo   0.783 (18-5)   19-7
18   10.250   4   Occidental   0.813 (13-3)   18-5
19   10.250   4   Augustana   0.833 (20-4)   20-5
20   10.238   3   DePauw   0.900 (18-2)   21-4
21   10.217   3   Rochester   0.739 (17-6)   17-7
22   10.217   6   Keene State   0.826 (19-4)   22-4
23   10.208   4   St. John Fisher   0.792 (19-5)   20-5
24   10.174   5   UW-Oshkosh   0.783 (18-5)   21-5
25   10.174   1   Johns Hopkins   0.864 (19-3)   21-4
26   10.136   2   John Carroll   0.727 (16-6)   17-8
27   10.125   7   Brandeis   0.750 (18-6)   18-6
28   10.105   2   Messiah   0.842 (16-3)   19-5
29   10.038   2   Stevens   0.808 (21-5)   21-5
30   10.000   4   Guilford   0.870 (20-3)   21-3
31   10.000   5   Averett   0.800 (16-4)   18-6
32   10.000   3   Catholic   0.792 (19-5)   20-5
33   10.000   4   Lincoln   0.786 (11-3)   17-7
34   10.000   3   Wooster   0.900 (18-2)   23-3
35   9.960   6   Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.840 (21-4)   21-4
36   9.909   6   Whitworth   0.864 (19-3)   22-3
37   9.905   7   Loras   0.810 (17-4)   19-6
38   9.900   4   Ohio Northern   0.700 (14-6)   19-6
39   9.875   5   Hood   0.792 (19-5)   20-6
40   9.870   5   New York University   0.783 (18-5)   19-5
41   9.870   6   Scranton   0.739 (17-6)   19-6
42   9.864   8   UW-La Crosse   0.727 (16-6)   18-7
43   9.800   3   Manhattanville   0.800 (20-5)   21-5
44   9.792   8   Bates   0.708 (17-7)   18-7
45   9.778   7   Centre   0.778 (14-4)   20-4
46   9.773   8   Maryville (Tenn.)   0.864 (19-3)   19-6
47   9.765   5   Hope   0.824 (14-3)   21-3
48   9.762   6   Hamilton   0.714 (15-6)   18-6
49   9.739   7   Alvernia   0.913 (21-2)   22-4
50   9.737   6   Westminster (Pa.)   0.842 (16-3)   18-7
51   9.708   9   Husson   0.875 (21-3)   21-5
52   9.652   4   New Jersey City   0.696 (16-7)   17-8
53   9.650   5   Elmhurst   0.750 (15-5)   19-5
54   9.636   9   McMurry   0.818 (18-4)   19-6
55   9.625   8   King's   0.708 (17-7)   17-8
56   9.529   9   Lewis and Clark   0.765 (13-4)   18-6
57   9.500   6   Carthage   0.650 (13-7)   16-8
58   9.500   7   Capital   0.667 (16-8)   16-8
59   9.476   8   Wittenberg   0.810 (17-4)   22-4
60   9.409   7   Grinnell   0.727 (16-6)   17-6
61   9.364   9   FDU-Florham   0.636 (14-8)   17-8
62   9.360   10   Tufts   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
63   9.348   7   Utica   0.739 (17-6)   18-6
64   9.346   11   Western New England   0.731 (19-7)   19-7
65   9.318   10   DeSales   0.727 (16-6)   18-7
66   9.316   8   Wheaton (Ill.)   0.632 (12-7)   16-8
67   9.300   5   Rowan   0.750 (15-5)   20-5
68   9.292   12   Babson   0.625 (15-9)   16-9
69   9.273   10   Greensboro   0.773 (17-5)   20-6
70   9.250   13   Bridgewater State   0.708 (17-7)   17-7
71   9.250   9   Baldwin-Wallace   0.700 (14-6)   17-8
72   9.238   6   Richard Stockton   0.667 (14-7)   17-9
73   9.231   10   UW-Whitewater   0.692 (18-8)   18-8
74   9.190   8   Plattsburgh State   0.714 (15-6)   18-8
75   9.190   14   Colby   0.667 (14-7)   15-10
76   9.174   7   SUNY-Farmingdale   0.696 (16-7)   18-8
77   9.136   11   Villa Julie   0.727 (16-6)   18-7
78   9.130   10   Penn State-Behrend   0.739 (17-6)   18-6
79   9.111   9   North Central   0.611 (11-7)   16-9
80   9.087   11   Otterbein   0.609 (14-9)   15-10
81   9.050   11   Puget Sound   0.750 (15-5)   18-6
82   9.042   12   Coe   0.708 (17-7)   19-7
83   9.042   8   William Paterson   0.625 (15-9)   15-10
84   9.000   13   Redlands   0.750 (12-4)   16-7
85   9.000   14   Pomona-Pitzer   0.667 (10-5)   15-8
86   9.000   10   Carroll   0.667 (14-7)   14-8
87   9.000   11   Millsaps   0.737 (14-5)   17-8
88   8.955   9   SUNY-Old Westbury   0.636 (14-8)   17-9
89   8.955   12   Ursinus   0.682 (15-7)   16-9
90   8.950   15   Cal Lutheran   0.650 (13-7)   17-7
91   8.917   11   Transylvania   0.667 (16-8)   17-8
92   8.917   10   Rutgers-Newark   0.625 (15-9)   17-9
93   8.885   13   York (Pa.)   0.615 (16-10)   16-10
94   8.870   15   Gordon   0.696 (16-7)   19-7
95   8.864   16   Simpson   0.636 (14-8)   18-8
96   8.850   12   Carnegie Mellon   0.524 (11-10)   12-11
97   8.826   14   Mary Washington   0.652 (15-8)   16-9
98   8.826   15   Susquehanna   0.609 (14-9)   16-9
99   8.800   16   Elms   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
100   8.769   17   Lasell   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
101   8.750   12   Bluffton   0.667 (14-7)   18-7
102   8.727   9   Vassar   0.636 (14-8)   15-9
103   8.720   17   Bethel   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
104   8.720   18   Endicott   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
105   8.714   16   Juniata   0.667 (14-7)   15-10
106   8.700   18   Buena Vista   0.650 (13-7)   16-8
107   8.696   13   Edgewood   0.696 (16-7)   17-7
108   8.696   10   Oswego State   0.609 (14-9)   15-11
109   8.696   19   Williams   0.565 (13-10)   14-11
110   8.692   14   Dominican   0.654 (17-9)   17-9
111   8.682   17   Baptist Bible   0.727 (16-6)   18-7
112   8.680   11   Clarkson   0.560 (14-11)   14-11
113   8.667   12   Geneseo State   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
114   8.667   13   Bethany   0.714 (15-6)   19-7
115   8.652   12   Texas-Dallas   0.696 (16-7)   18-7
116   8.600   20   Middlebury   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
117   8.588   14   Calvin   0.647 (11-6)   15-9
118   8.524   15   Webster   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
119   8.522   13   Rochester Tech   0.565 (13-10)   14-11
120   8.520   18   St. Mary's (Md.)   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
121   8.500   21   Mass-Dartmouth   0.583 (14-10)   14-12
122   8.500   19   Haverford   0.600 (12-8)   13-11
123   8.500   15   Ohio Wesleyan   0.636 (14-8)   17-9
124   8.480   11   St. Joseph's (L.I.)   0.640 (16-9)   17-9
125   8.478   22   Westfield State   0.609 (14-9)   16-10
126   8.429   14   Ithaca   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
127   8.400   16   MacMurray   0.650 (13-7)   16-8
128   8.391   15   SUNYIT   0.609 (14-9)   16-10
129   8.381   19   UW-Platteville   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
130   8.364   17   Lake Forest   0.591 (13-9)   14-9
131   8.333   23   Bowdoin   0.583 (14-10)   15-10
132   8.304   24   Emerson   0.652 (15-8)   16-9
133   8.292   18   Franklin   0.625 (15-9)   16-9
134   8.286   19   Defiance   0.619 (13-8)   16-8
135   8.286   13   Trinity (Texas)   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
136   8.273   12   York (N.Y.)   0.682 (15-7)   16-10
137   8.261   20   Lakeland   0.609 (14-9)   16-10
138   8.240   25   Springfield   0.480 (12-13)   12-13
139   8.238   21   Ripon   0.571 (12-9)   13-9
140   8.227   14   LeTourneau   0.636 (14-8)   15-9
141   8.208   26   Rivier   0.708 (17-7)   18-8
142   8.190   22   Mt. St. Joseph   0.571 (12-9)   13-12
143   8.188   16   Tri-State   0.625 (10-6)   15-8
144   8.182   20   Wilkes   0.500 (11-11)   12-11
145   8.174   17   Heidelberg   0.522 (12-11)   13-12
146   8.143   23   Hanover   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
147   8.143   21   Lycoming   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
148   8.125   27   MIT   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
149   8.118   20   Chapman   0.706 (12-5)   19-5
150   8.111   15   Hendrix   0.556 (10-8)   15-9
151   8.056   28   St. Joseph's (Maine)   0.611 (11-7)   17-7
152   8.048   24   Lawrence   0.524 (11-10)   13-10
153   8.040   21   Gustavus Adolphus   0.560 (14-11)   14-12
154   7.960   16   Hardin-Simmons   0.560 (14-11)   14-11
155   7.958   29   Western Connecticut   0.542 (13-11)   14-12
156   7.955   30   Eastern Connecticut   0.545 (12-10)   15-11
157   7.944   18   Albion   0.556 (10-8)   10-14
158   7.920   31   Wentworth Tech   0.600 (15-10)   15-11
159   7.917   25   Wisconsin Lutheran   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
160   7.917   16   RPI   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
161   7.917   19   Wilmington   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
162   7.913   26   North Park   0.478 (11-12)   13-12
163   7.913   13   Kings Point   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
164   7.913   22   Chestnut Hill   0.696 (16-7)   18-8
165   7.909   27   Manchester   0.545 (12-10)   15-10
166   7.900   23   Marymount   0.500 (10-10)   14-11
167   7.889   22   Pacific   0.556 (10-8)   12-13
168   7.889   28   Fontbonne   0.556 (10-8)   14-11
169   7.875   23   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   0.563 (9-7)   14-10
170   7.875   17   LaGrange   0.625 (10-6)   17-8
171   7.875   18   Oglethorpe   0.542 (13-11)   14-11
172   7.864   24   Carleton   0.500 (11-11)   11-15
173   7.857   17   Union   0.524 (11-10)   11-13
174   7.800   19   Roanoke   0.600 (12-8)   15-10
175   7.792   14   Yeshiva   0.542 (13-11)   15-11
176   7.773   18   Alfred   0.455 (10-12)   10-14
177   7.773   24   Gettysburg   0.545 (12-10)   12-12
178   7.762   29   Eureka   0.571 (12-9)   15-9
179   7.739   20   Muskingum   0.478 (11-12)   12-12
180   7.727   19   Buffalo State   0.455 (10-12)   12-13
181   7.720   32   Curry   0.560 (14-11)   14-12
182   7.708   20   Hobart   0.417 (10-14)   11-14
183   7.700   30   Illinois Wesleyan   0.400 (8-12)   11-14
184   7.696   25   Lebanon Valley   0.522 (12-11)   14-11
185   7.692   26   Pitt-Bradford   0.538 (14-12)   14-12
186   7.680   25   St. Olaf   0.520 (13-12)   13-13
187   7.667   21   Oneonta State   0.476 (10-11)   11-15
188   7.650   15   Montclair State   0.400 (8-12)   12-12
189   7.636   33   Clark   0.455 (10-12)   11-13
190   7.625   34   Roger Williams   0.583 (14-10)   15-10
191   7.609   22   Nazareth   0.435 (10-13)   11-14
192   7.591   16   Kean   0.455 (10-12)   13-12
193   7.579   20   Methodist   0.421 (8-11)   11-14
194   7.571   21   Southwestern   0.476 (10-11)   11-14
195   7.565   35   Castleton State   0.565 (13-10)   15-11
196   7.565   27   Gwynedd-Mercy   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
197   7.565   28   Widener   0.478 (11-12)   12-12
198   7.545   22   Hampden-Sydney   0.545 (12-10)   15-10
199   7.545   23   Emory   0.318 (7-15)   8-16
200   7.545   17   New Jersey   0.409 (9-13)   12-14
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 21, 2007, 01:09:26 PM
Here's the top 67 teams (QoWI 9.3 and up) with conference and presumptive pool added.  I am not predicting A's, I am not attempting to identify who is leading a conference for the A, I'm merely picking the first-listed team in each conference and awarding the A on that basis (disclaimers required because of endless confused misunderstanding on this subject last year.)  The B's and C's are bolded and numbered (C1-C32 and B1-B4.)  There will be 3 B and 19 C bids awarded.

   1   11.652   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.957 (22-1)   23-2 WIAC A   
   2   11.625   1   Amherst   0.958 (23-1)   24-1 NESCAC A   
   3   10.950   2   Trinity (Conn.)   0.850 (17-3)   21-3 NESCAC C1   
   4   10.810   3   Worcester Polytech   0.905 (19-2)   21-2 NEWMAC A   
   5   10.708   4   Salem State   0.920 (23-2)   23-2 MASCAC A   
   6   10.696   1   Chicago   0.818 (18-4)   20-4 UAA A   
   7   10.667   1   Mississippi College   0.952 (20-1)   22-2 ASC A   
   8   10.640   2   St. Thomas   0.880 (22-3)   22-3 MIAC A   
   9   10.600   1   Lake Erie   0.950 (19-1)   23-2 AMCC A   
   10   10.520   5   Rhode Island College   0.880 (22-3)   22-3 LEC A   
   11   10.400   1   Brockport State   0.840 (21-4)   22-4 SUNYAC A   
   12   10.381   2   Washington U.   0.810 (17-4)   19-4 UAA C2   
   13   10.375   2   Virginia Wesleyan   0.875 (21-3)   22-3 ODAC A   
   14   10.333   3   Aurora   0.913 (21-2)   23-2 NathCon B1   
   15   10.318   3   St. John's   0.864 (19-3)   19-6 MIAC C3   
   16   10.292   2   St. Lawrence   0.792 (19-5)   20-5 LL A   
   17   10.261   1   Ramapo   0.783 (18-5)   19-7 NJAC A   
   18   10.250   4   Occidental   0.813 (13-3)   18-5 SCIAC A   
   19   10.250   4   Augustana   0.833 (20-4)   20-5 CCIW A   
   20   10.238   3   DePauw   0.900 (18-2)   21-4 SCAC A   
   21   10.217   3   Rochester   0.739 (17-6)   17-7 UAA C4   
   22   10.217   6   Keene State   0.826 (19-4)   22-4 LEC C4   
   23   10.208   4   St. John Fisher   0.792 (19-5)   20-5 E8 A   
   24   10.174   5   UW-Oshkosh   0.783 (18-5)   21-5 WIAC C6   
   25   10.174   1   Johns Hopkins   0.864 (19-3)   21-4 Centennial A   
   26   10.136   2   John Carroll   0.727 (16-6)   17-8 OAC A   
   27   10.125   7   Brandeis   0.750 (18-6)   18-6 UAA C7   
   28   10.105   2   Messiah   0.842 (16-3)   19-5 MACC A   
   29   10.038   2   Stevens   0.808 (21-5)   21-5 SKY A   
   30   10.000   4   Guilford   0.870 (20-3)   21-3 ODAC C8   
   31   10.000   5   Averett   0.800 (16-4)   18-6 USASAC A   
   32   10.000   3   Catholic   0.792 (19-5)   20-5 CAC A   
   33   10.000   4   Lincoln   0.786 (11-3)   17-7 Ind B2   
   34   10.000   3   Wooster   0.900 (18-2)   23-3 NCAC A   
   35   9.960   6   Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.840 (21-4)   21-4 ASC C9   
   36   9.909   6   Whitworth   0.864 (19-3)   22-3 NWC A   
   37   9.905   7   Loras   0.810 (17-4)   19-6 IIAC A   
   38   9.900   4   Ohio Northern   0.700 (14-6)   19-6 OAC C10   
   39   9.875   5   Hood   0.792 (19-5)   20-6 CAC C11   
   40   9.870   5   New York University   0.783 (18-5)   19-5 UAA C12   
   41   9.870   6   Scranton   0.739 (17-6)   19-6 MACF A   
   42   9.864   8   UW-La Crosse   0.727 (16-6)   18-7 WIAC C13   
   43   9.800   3   Manhattanville   0.800 (20-5)   21-5 SKY C14   
   44   9.792   8   Bates   0.708 (17-7)   18-7 NESCAC C15   
   45   9.778   7   Centre   0.778 (14-4)   20-4 SCAC C16   
   46   9.773   8   Maryville (Tenn.)   0.864 (19-3)   19-6 GSAC B3   
   47   9.765   5   Hope   0.824 (14-3)   21-3 MIAA A   
   48   9.762   6   Hamilton   0.714 (15-6)   18-6 LL C17   
   49   9.739   7   Alvernia   0.913 (21-2)   22-4 PennaAC A   
   50   9.737   6   Westminster (Pa.)   0.842 (16-3)   18-7 PresAC B4/C18   
   51   9.708   9   Husson   0.875 (21-3)   21-5 NAC A   
   52   9.652   4   New Jersey City   0.696 (16-7)   17-8 NJAC C19   
   53   9.650   5   Elmhurst   0.750 (15-5)   19-5 CCIW C20   
   54   9.636   9   McMurry   0.818 (18-4)   19-6 ASC C21   
   55   9.625   8   King's   0.708 (17-7)   17-8 MACF C22   
   56   9.529   9   Lewis and Clark   0.765 (13-4)   18-6 NWC C23   
   57   9.500   6   Carthage   0.650 (13-7)   16-8 CCIW C24   
   58   9.500   7   Capital   0.667 (16-8)   16-8 OAC C24   
   59   9.476   8   Wittenberg   0.810 (17-4)   22-4 NCAC C26   
   60   9.409   7   Grinnell   0.727 (16-6)   17-6 MWC A   
   61   9.364   9   FDU-Florham   0.636 (14-8)   17-8 MACF C27   
   62   9.360   10   Tufts   0.600 (15-10)   15-10 NESCAC C28   
   63   9.348   7   Utica   0.739 (17-6)   18-6 E8 C29   
   64   9.346   11   Western New England   0.731 (19-7)   19-7 GNAC A   
   65   9.318   10   DeSales   0.727 (16-6)   18-7 MACF C30   
   66   9.316   8   Wheaton (Ill.)   0.632 (12-7)   16-8 CCIW C31   
   67   9.300   5   Rowan   0.750 (15-5)   20-5 NJAC C32   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 21, 2007, 01:13:17 PM
Awesome work David - thanks!!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2007, 01:17:43 PM
Excellent, so it looks like the floor is around 9.730.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Willy Wonka on February 21, 2007, 01:25:48 PM
Someone on the MIAC board directed us here for the new region rankings...but I'm not seeing it. Could someone help us out with some better directions (including womens rankings, if possible)? :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2007, 01:33:20 PM
Regional rankings are linked on the front page and come out sometime after 4 p.m. ET.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2007, 01:36:12 PM
Here is how things turned out last year...



1-10
Amherst     12.160     24-1
Lawrence    11.682    22-0
Worcester Polytech    11.250    20-3
Mississippi College    11.154    25-1
Tufts    11.000    20-5 Pool C
St. John Fisher    11.000    22-1
Lincoln    10.688    12-4  Pool B
Wittenberg    10.652    20-3
Gordon    10.560    22-3 Pool C
Carnegie Mellon    10.550    16-4

11-20
Virginia Wesleyan    10.481    24-3
Augustana    10.478    19-4 Pool C
Cortland State    10.440    22-3 Pool C
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3 Pool C
Transylvania    10.370    23-4
Trinity (Texas)    10.316    16-3 Pool C
UW-Whitewater    10.304    18-5
William Paterson    10.240    19-6
Hope    10.211    17-2
North Central    10.095    16-5
               
21-30
Bates    10.091    16-6 (not selected)
Carroll    10.087    19-4 Pool C
Ursinus    10.080    20-5
Baldwin-Wallace    10.077    22-4
Washington U.    10.050    14-6 (not selected)
Wooster    10.042    21-3 Pool C
Carleton    10.000    18-5 Pool C
St. Thomas    9.960    20-5
Baruch    9.958    21-3 Pool C
Alvernia    9.958    21-3
               
31-40
Illinois Wesleyan    9.952    15-6 Pool C
Puget Sound    9.944    16-2
Widener    9.920    20-5 Pool C
Lakeland    9.905    17-4 (not selected)
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7 Pool C
SUNY-Farmingdale    9.875    19-5
UW-Stout    9.870    18-5 Pool C
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6 Pool C
Keene State    9.800    18-7 (not selected)
Fisk    9.800    10-5 (not selected for Pool B)
               
41-50
Trinity (Conn.)    9.750    15-5 (not selected)
Occidental    9.750    12-4 Pool C
Calvin    9.733    13-2 Pool C
Utica    9.692    20-6 Pool C
MIT    9.680    17-7 (not selected)
Messiah    9.583    17-7
Whitworth    9.542    18-6 (not selected)
Catholic    9.542    19-5
Endicott    9.520    16-8
Lake Erie    9.500    18-4
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: systemfan86 on February 21, 2007, 02:11:43 PM
Thanks David for your effort on that. Very interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2007, 02:22:20 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 21, 2007, 12:42:28 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2007, 12:27:41 PM
Thanks David.

Please remember that there may be a dramatic rise in the QOWI's in the tourneys.  For example, McMurry could defeat 3 "15-point" teams (UT-Dallas, Miss College and UMHB) if they win the ASC Tourney.  My rough calculation takes their QOWI to 10.280 in that scenario.  I also do not see any deterioration by losses by other South Region teams (McMurry opponents) in their respective QOWI's.

Also, Westminster at "B4" is also "C19".  Bingo!  Theoretically, they may get in either way.  :)

Good point about Westminster.  I'll adjust my post to reflect that.

If McMurry wins the ASC tournament, nobody will care what their QoWI was.  Every Pool C candidate, by definition (except UAA teams and Oxy) must incure at least one more loss--and for that matter, the four of the UAA Pool C candidates square off this weekend, so only Rochester and the winner of NYU/Brandeis can get a Pool C without losing (even Oxy, who wins the Pool A bid if they win tomorrow.) 

I see Pat has re-run the list, so I'll delete my version and re-post it based on the new list.

Good point about McMurry's QOWI.  No one will care about their QOWI, because geograhic proximity will have the #2 team in the South Miss Coll hosting the #3 team McMurry!   :D ;D :-\ ;) :o 8)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dman on February 21, 2007, 04:04:32 PM
i would be shocked if bates (currently 44th and your 15th pool c) gets a bid......
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2007, 04:21:55 PM
Perhaps, but they are still ranked in the Northeast. Last year, however, they left Keene State out and Keene was in a similar position numerically.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 21, 2007, 04:25:09 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2007, 01:17:43 PM
Excellent, so it looks like the floor is around 9.730.

Pat, What do you mean the floor is 9.730 since DC's shows C-32 at 9.3? Are you assuming upsets in the tourneys that moves DC's A bids into Pool C?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2007, 04:31:00 PM
There are only 19 Pool C bids, however.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 21, 2007, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2007, 04:31:00 PM
There are only 19 Pool C bids, however.
Ahhh, thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2007, 05:30:07 PM
Thanks, David, my bad. Getting my years confused!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 21, 2007, 06:30:44 PM
Thanks for this information... very interesting!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 21, 2007, 07:03:46 PM
Rather than look at the QOWI as David has done, I took a look at things from the persepctive of the Regional Rankings. To compare across regions, I'm using a 50/50 mix of QOWI and RWP.

This is somewhat subjective, but here goes:

The first cutoff was at 39 teams: the top teams in each region as follows: (6 NE, 3 EA, 3 AT, 6 MA, 6 SO, 4 GL, 4 MW, and 7 WE). This includes the 3 ranked Pool B teams (Aurora, Maryville TN, and Lincoln). It includes teams from 27 Pool A conferences, including 2 from the following conferences: NESCAC, LEC, Skyline, CAC, ODAC, ASC, UAA, MIAC, and WIAC.

Barring a ridiculous run of upsets, all of these teams are in.

The next 9 are on the good side of the bubble, with spots currently that may disappear with upsets. In regional order:

NE 7 Brandeis
EA 4 NYU
EA 5 Rochester
SO 7 Centre
SO 8 McMurry
GL 5 Ohio Northern
GL 6 Wittenberg
GL (7) Westminster PA
MW 5 Elmhurst

Remember that the NYU/Brandeis winner and Rochester (if they win) will be the only Pool C contenders not to lose this week, so they would be at the top of this list (if not promoted upwards).

Note Westminster's presence here as the 7th Great Lakes team; barring a Maryville collapse in the GSAC tournament, Westminster may have no Pool B shot and may have to win out to get to Pool C.

Now if there are absolutely no upsets, this leaves us with the 19th Pool C bid, and the following teams:

NE 8 Bates
EA (6/7) Hamilton
EA (6/7) Utica
AT 4 NJCU
AT 5 Rowan
MA 7 Kings
GL (8 ) PSU Behrend
MW 6 Carthage
WE 8 UW LaCrosse
WE (9) Lewis & Clark

Bates is out of their tournament, so would have no more losses.
Hamilton hosts their own tournament but is a lower ranked team than St. Lawrence (EA 3).
Carthage must win tonight just to make the CCIW tournament, but with wins over Wheaton and Augustana (before losing the title game) they might be the only team capable of moving up.
UW LaCrosse hosts their WIAC SF with WE 4 UW Oshkosh.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2007, 08:50:12 PM
Past practice has suggested that they won't go that deep in the Atlantic or Northeast at the expense of some other regions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 21, 2007, 10:05:06 PM
Ohio Northern loses tonight to Otterbein in the OAC quarterfinals, 52-51. 

ONU started the season 11-1, and ended it 8-6.  The loss tonight is almost assuredly going to cause them to be dropped from the regional rankings in Sunday's "secret" list.  Tonight's loss puts them way, way out on the bubble, I suspect.

They are now 14-7 in-region, for only a .667%.  I estimate their QoWI now as down to 9.619.  Both of those numbers are well below the "bubble team level."
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 21, 2007, 10:19:15 PM
I didn't spot any other such situations (though I didn't check carefully), but if Capital doesn't make it to the OAC finals, everyone who played them will drop 2 points per game - they would fall from .667+ to <.667.  That might be the final nail in ONU's coffin; haven't checked on JCU.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: mrmike88 on February 21, 2007, 10:30:16 PM
Somewhat piggybacking off the Ohio Northern situation...

All the D-1 media seems to be talking about lately when it comes to at-large bids is the "last ten" criteria, where the selection committee uses a team's record in its final 10 games as part of the evaluation process.  I'm pretty sure this doesn't "officially" come into play with awarding D-3 Pool C bids (according to the NCAA manual), but do you think that the committee considers how a team finishes the season as an addition criterion?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 21, 2007, 10:41:09 PM
Quote from: mrmike88 on February 21, 2007, 10:30:16 PM
Somewhat piggybacking off the Ohio Northern situation...

All the D-1 media seems to be talking about lately when it comes to at-large bids is the "last ten" criteria, where the selection committee uses a team's record in its final 10 games as part of the evaluation process.  I'm pretty sure this doesn't "officially" come into play with awarding D-3 Pool C bids (according to the NCAA manual), but do you think that the committee considers how a team finishes the season as an addition criterion?

For seeding perhaps, but they seem pretty strict about following their own criteria.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 21, 2007, 10:47:57 PM
Officially no, so if so, you probably won't get anyone to admit it!

I wonder about a similar situation in the womens' tourney.  A week ago IWU was an absolute lock if they didn't get the AQ.  Then likely All-American Mallory Heydorn broke her hand.  Yesterday, they lost to North Central, which NONE of the top 5 teams in the conference had done.  If they rally and beat Millikin in the tourney semis, they should be fine, but if not they are suddenly very 'bubble-territory'.  While 'injury to key player' or 'record in last 5 games' are NOT official criteria, I can't help fearing that they may be decisive in any close decision.

Does anyone have any insights into what really happens 'at the table'?

I apologize for posting on the wrong board, but it seemed to flow from mrmike's post: the official criteria are clear, but to what degree (if any?) DO the selector's take into account such unofficial, subjective, criteria?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 22, 2007, 12:31:15 AM
I think the only way the NJAC puts two teams in the tournament is if NJCU wins friday night and there aren't too many upsets and Ramapo gets a C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: systemfan86 on February 22, 2007, 08:55:28 AM
Wheaton beats Carthage to get in the CCIW tournament. Carthage was 6th in the Midwest and Wheaton was 8th - Grinnell was in between.  I presume that this drops Carthage outside the bubble, but does Wheaton need to win their first game in the CCIW tournament to move into consideration? Or would losing the second - and thus the need for a Pool C - cancel out any gain from a win?

As a Grinnell fan, I keep fighting the urge to think they could get a Pool C if they should lose the MWC tournament championship. My calculation says they'd end up at about 9.5 on QoWI which with Carthage and Wheaton's situation could still leave GC in the 6 slot in the MW. But everything else I'm reading says that while they might 'get to the table' for consideration against other regions' representatives, the MW region likely won't get past their #5 team in Pool C consideration.

Here's hoping it's not an issue and GC gets the AQ. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2007, 02:14:58 PM
Pool C shocker news on front page. (http://www.d3hoops.com)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 22, 2007, 02:24:10 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2007, 02:14:58 PM
Pool C shocker news on front page. (http://www.d3hoops.com)

I said this on the Bumblin B board as well but I am still mad! How does the NCAA make this large of an error and just realize it with days to go before selections are made! This may be the correct outcome but it is completely unacceptable that the NCAA would just realize this mistake today. You don't change the allocation of bids 4 days before selections!!! If I ever figure it out I will personally seek to disband the NCAA in its current form because the gentleman and ladies in Indy make the WorldCom board look intelligent >:(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 22, 2007, 02:24:36 PM
This is what I get when I presume to edit one of Pat's posts.  ::) ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2007, 02:44:21 PM
Oh, good, I needed something to make me laugh. :)

Not, the math, but David's post. Who knew I was being prescient?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2007, 02:49:36 PM
I posted a blog on this topic out front, too. If you guys have registered for the blog (easier than registering for the message board!) you might want to leave your thoughts out there, too, in public, where the number of comments can help underscore the severity of the situation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 22, 2007, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2007, 02:49:36 PM
I posted a blog on this topic out front, too. If you guys have registered for the blog (easier than registering for the message board!) you might want to leave your thoughts out there, too, in public, where the number of comments can help underscore the severity of the situation.

I'd be happy to. More bad Corporations law analogies coming to the front page. (I am in Securities class so its just how I think now).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 22, 2007, 03:06:14 PM
Pat. Any chance there is an email address you could direct us to without giving it to us to send the committee our frustrations about this late change? I promise I'd keep it very mature and low key, unlike my posts here on the issue.

Or maybe an online petition! Kind of like "fireronzook.com"
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bucs77 on February 22, 2007, 03:14:19 PM
Why don't we just  expand the field to one more like D1 (the 65th team) and tell some conference  that their championship game is really the first round of the ncaa tournament? I wouldn't put it past them
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 22, 2007, 03:28:02 PM
In response to the front page poll, the most fair thing to do would have been to admit the mistake and make the total field 60 for this year.  Place 19 Pool C teams AND 4 Pool B teams into the field.  Then the only team that can claim they got hurt by this mistake will be the one highly seeded team who should have gotten a bye, but instead has to play a first round game.

The old "Neanderthals, Chimps And Apes" joke is starting to sound too complimentary.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 22, 2007, 03:30:40 PM
Idiots! Mo-rons. Oh, well, that's what they get for foisiting their inane QoWI on us, anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 22, 2007, 08:15:30 PM
Bridgewater 88 #17 Guilford 79

Upset in the ODAC,  Guilford now joins the bubble.....but they look in decent shape.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 22, 2007, 08:17:42 PM
I think Guilford is in good shape. Mayhaps. Unless chaos reigns.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on February 22, 2007, 09:19:17 PM
Alright, so I hate this issue with the pool c bids as much of the next person, but having 18 rather than 19, is not an issue that would make a team play harder or win more games. It is not a call that the NCAA should just add more teams, atleast not for this reason. It does stink, especially since my school is very much a bubble team, but a numbers mistake is simply just that.

In summary, the team who would be 19th is still the 19th team in the pool c, whether they make it in or not should not matter since they would not know if they are the 19th team or not until sunday anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2007, 09:26:08 PM
David, I will borrow your compilation to update the tourneys.  Feel free to edit over this.
Quote from: David Collinge on February 21, 2007, 01:09:26 PM
Here's the top 67 teams (QoWI 9.3 and up) with conference and presumptive pool added.  I am not predicting A's, I am not attempting to identify who is leading a conference for the A, I'm merely picking the first-listed team in each conference and awarding the A on that basis (disclaimers required because of endless confused misunderstanding on this subject last year.)  The B's and C's are bolded and numbered (C1-C32 and B1-B4.)  There will be 3 4 B and 19 18 C bids awarded.

   1   11.652   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.957 (22-1)   23-2 WIAC A   
   2   11.625   1   Amherst   0.958 (23-1)   24-1 NESCAC A   
   3   10.950   2   Trinity (Conn.)   0.850 (17-3)   21-3 NESCAC C1   
   4   10.810   3   Worcester Polytech   0.905 (19-2)   21-2 NEWMAC A   
   5   10.708   4   Salem State   0.920 (23-2)   23-2 MASCAC A   
   6   10.696   1   Chicago   0.818 (18-4)   20-4 UAA A   
   7   10.667   1   Mississippi College   0.952 (20-1)   22-2 ASC A   
   8   10.640   2   St. Thomas   0.880 (22-3)   22-3 MIAC A   
   9   10.600   1   Lake Erie   0.950 (19-1)   23-2 AMCC A   
   10   10.520   5   Rhode Island College   0.880 (22-3)   22-3 LEC A   
   11   10.400   1   Brockport State   0.840 (21-4)   22-4 SUNYAC A   
   12   10.381   2   Washington U.   0.810 (17-4)   19-4 UAA C2   
   13   10.375   2   Virginia Wesleyan   0.875 (21-3)   22-3 ODAC A   
   14   10.333   3   Aurora   0.913 (21-2)   23-2 NathCon B1   
   15   10.318   3   St. John's   0.864 (19-3)   19-6 MIAC C3   
   16   10.292   2   St. Lawrence   0.792 (19-5)   20-5 LL A   
   17   10.261   1   Ramapo   0.783 (18-5)   19-7 NJAC A  Clinched   
   18   10.250   4   Occidental   0.813 (13-3)   18-5 SCIAC A Clinched
   19   10.250   4   Augustana   0.833 (20-4)   20-5 CCIW A   
   20   10.238   3   DePauw   0.900 (18-2)   21-4 SCAC A   
   21   10.217   3   Rochester   0.739 (17-6)   17-7 UAA C4   
   22   10.217   6   Keene State   0.826 (19-4)   22-4 LEC C4   
   23   10.208   4   St. John Fisher   0.792 (19-5)   20-5 E8 A   
   24   10.174   5   UW-Oshkosh   0.783 (18-5)   21-5 WIAC C6    Lost to UWLC in Semis
   25   10.174   1   Johns Hopkins   0.864 (19-3)   21-4 Centennial A   
   26   10.136   2   John Carroll   0.727 (16-6)   17-8 OAC A   
   27   10.125   7   Brandeis   0.750 (18-6)   18-6 UAA C7   
   28   10.105   2   Messiah   0.842 (16-3)   19-5 MACC A   
   29   10.038   2   Stevens   0.808 (21-5)   21-5 SKY A   
   30   10.000   4   Guilford   0.870 (20-3)   21-3 ODAC C8   Lost to BC in the ODAC Qtrf 21-4/20-4
   31   10.000   5   Averett   0.800 (16-4)   18-6 USASAC A   
   32   10.000   3   Catholic   0.792 (19-5)   20-5 CAC A   
   33   10.000   4   Lincoln   0.786 (11-3)   17-7 Ind B2   
   34   10.000   3   Wooster   0.900 (18-2)   23-3 NCAC A   
   35   9.960   6   Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.840 (21-4)   21-4 ASC C9   Lost to Hardin-Simmons in the ASC-Semis
   36   9.909   6   Whitworth   0.864 (19-3)   22-3 NWC A   
   37   9.905   7   Loras   0.810 (17-4)   19-6 IIAC A   
   38   9.900   4   Ohio Northern   0.700 (14-6)   19-6 OAC C10   
   39   9.875   5   Hood   0.792 (19-5)   20-6 CAC C11   
   40   9.870   5   New York University   0.783 (18-5)   19-5 UAA C12   
   41   9.870   6   Scranton   0.739 (17-6)   19-6 MACF A   
   42   9.864   8   UW-La Crosse   0.727 (16-6)   18-7 WIAC C13   
   43   9.800   3   Manhattanville   0.800 (20-5)   21-5 SKY C14   
   44   9.792   8   Bates   0.708 (17-7)   18-7 NESCAC C15   
   45   9.778   7   Centre   0.778 (14-4)   20-4 SCAC C16   
   46   9.773   8   Maryville (Tenn.)   0.864 (19-3)   19-6 GSAC B3   
   47   9.765   5   Hope   0.824 (14-3)   21-3 MIAA A   
   48   9.762   6   Hamilton   0.714 (15-6)   18-6 LL C17   
   49   9.739   7   Alvernia   0.913 (21-2)   22-4 PennaAC A Clinched   
   50   9.737   6   Westminster (Pa.)   0.842 (16-3)   18-7 PresAC B4  Lost in Pres AC Semis 18-8/16-4
   51   9.708   9   Husson   0.875 (21-3)   21-5 NAC A   
   52   9.652   4   New Jersey City   0.696 (16-7)   17-8 NJAC C19     Lost in NJAC Finals 18-9/17-8
   53   9.650   5   Elmhurst   0.750 (15-5)   19-5 CCIW C20   
   54   9.636   9   McMurry   0.818 (18-4)   19-6 ASC C21    Lost to Miss Coll in ASC- Semis
   55   9.625   8   King's   0.708 (17-7)   17-8 MACF C22   
   56   9.529   9   Lewis and Clark   0.765 (13-4)   18-6 NWC C23   
   57   9.500   6   Carthage   0.650 (13-7)   16-8 CCIW C24   
   58   9.500   7   Capital   0.667 (16-8)   16-8 OAC C24   
   59   9.476   8   Wittenberg   0.810 (17-4)   22-4 NCAC C26     Lost to OWU in NCAC Semis  22-5/17-5
   60   9.409   7   Grinnell   0.727 (16-6)   17-6 MWC A   
   61   9.364   9   FDU-Florham   0.636 (14-8)   17-8 MACF C27   
   62   9.360   10   Tufts   0.600 (15-10)   15-10 NESCAC C28   
   63   9.348   7   Utica   0.739 (17-6)   18-6 E8 C29   
   64   9.346   11   Western New England   0.731 (19-7)   19-7 GNAC A   
   65   9.318   10   DeSales   0.727 (16-6)   18-7 MACF C30   
   66   9.316   8   Wheaton (Ill.)   0.632 (12-7)   16-8 CCIW C31    Lost to Elmhurst in CCIW Semis 17-9/12-8
   67   9.300   5   Rowan   0.750 (15-5)   20-5 NJAC C32   

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2007, 09:32:42 PM
All right, bubble watchers.  Guilford was defeated by Bridgewater (South Region 7-15).  We need Bridgewater to lose in the next round (and bring their South Region record to 7-16 .304) to keep the Guilford defeat worth "0" 1 QOWI point!

I calculate the new Guilford QOWI as 231 points divided 24 games = 9.625.

Isn't it fun following the carnage and hoping that your team gets thru it!

Kinda like a wreck on the last lap at Daytona and your driver has to make it thru the smoke and wreckage!   :D ;D

(Thanks to David Collinge for the correction!)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jscwittfan on February 22, 2007, 09:36:07 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2007, 09:32:42 PM
Kinda like a wreck on the last lap at Daytona and your driver has to make it thru the smoke and wreckage!   :D ;D

If ever there was an analogy that effectively summed this whole mess up...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 22, 2007, 09:53:42 PM
UW-La Crosse defeats UW-Oshkosh and advances to the WIAC finals against UW-Stevens Point.  I think this result removes any lingering doubt about whether the WIAC will get three teams in.  (The answer is 'yes.')  So there's two Pool C's by the wayside: one to Oshkosh, the other to Saturday's LaX/SP loser.

Oshkosh is now at .750 in-region and should end up with a QoWI of 10.041.  They beat Stevens Point and Grinnell (regionally ranked teams.)
If LaX loses to SP tomorrow, they'll be at .708 and 9.917, with wins over Oshkosh (3x!) and St. Thomas.

I think they're both in.  Oh, and so is Stevens Point. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 22, 2007, 10:12:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2007, 09:32:42 PM
All right, bubble watchers.  Guilford was defeated by Bridgewater (South Region 7-15).  We need Bridgewater to lose in the next round (and bring their South Region record to 7-16 .304) to keep the Guilford defeat worth "0" QOWI points!

It'd still be worth 1 point, for the neutral site location.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 22, 2007, 10:15:10 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 22, 2007, 09:53:42 PM
UW-La Crosse defeats UW-Oshkosh and advances to the WIAC finals against UW-Stevens Point.  I think this result removes any lingering doubt about whether the WIAC will get three teams in.  (The answer is 'yes.')  So there's two Pool C's by the wayside: one to Oshkosh, the other to Saturday's LaX/SP loser.

Oshkosh is now at .750 in-region and should end up with a QoWI of 10.041.  They beat Stevens Point and Grinnell (regionally ranked teams.)
If LaX loses to SP tomorrow, they'll be at .708 and 9.917, with wins over Oshkosh (3x!) and St. Thomas.

I think they're both in.  Oh, and so is Stevens Point. ;)
I've had a feeling for a while that the west region was going to grab a high percentage of the Pool Cs. Between these two, and the automatic C for the MIAC loser (St. John's or St. Thomas) and a good chance of both Lewis and Clark and Whitworth getting in, we sure are hogging a lot of bids this year...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2007, 10:24:41 PM
dhf, I think that the current Pool C line is at about C14, QOWI = 9.800.

I think that L&C must win the NWC tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on February 22, 2007, 10:27:42 PM
can someone explain how those numbers are calculated I am kind of figuring it out by reading different posts but I was wondering if someone could tell me the actual formula
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 22, 2007, 10:28:54 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 22, 2007, 10:27:42 PM
can someone explain how those numbers are calculated I am kind of figuring it out by reading different posts but I was wondering if someone could tell me the actual formula

Look in the FAQ (http://www.d3hoops.com/faq.php?category=NCAA%20Tournament), it should help you out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on February 22, 2007, 11:02:10 PM
Is gordon college and the CCC a pool b team/conf or pool c, because i noticed they were the top team in the league and lost tonight.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2007, 11:04:33 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 22, 2007, 11:02:10 PM
Is gordon college and the CCC a pool b team/conf or pool c, because i noticed they were the top team in the league and lost tonight.

The CCC is a Pool A conference.  Its tourney winner gets the Pool A bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Matt Letourneau on February 23, 2007, 01:19:19 AM
I wouldn't really have believed this at the beginning of the year, but it now looks like the CAC will get both its final teams in--Hood and Catholic.  Catholic at 10.0 (and going up, with tonight's win over Mary Washington), and Hood at 9.875 (and a win over St. Mary's tonight).

Consensus seems to be that if Catholic loses the final, they're still in good shape.  If Hood loses, its in LESS good shape but still fairly strong.

Somewhat remarkable given the parity in the conference this year.  But Catholic had a strong regional out of conference run at the beginning of the season and has finished strong in league play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 23, 2007, 03:13:21 AM
Through Thursday:

Rank   QOWI   Rk in-reg   Team   Reg. W-L   Overall
1   11.625   1   Amherst   0.958 (23-1)   24-1
2   11.565   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.958 (23-1)   24-2
3   10.950   2   Trinity (Conn.)   0.850 (17-3)   21-3
4   10.810   3   Worcester Polytech   0.905 (19-2)   21-2
5   10.696   1   Chicago   0.818 (18-4)   20-4
6   10.692   2   St. Thomas   0.885 (23-3)   23-3
7   10.667   1   Mississippi College   0.952 (20-1)   22-2
8   10.625   4   Salem State   0.920 (23-2)   23-2
9   10.600   1   Lake Erie   0.950 (19-1)   23-2
10   10.520   5   Rhode Island College   0.880 (22-3)   22-3
11   10.476   2   Washington U.   0.810 (17-4)   19-4
12   10.412   3   Occidental   0.824 (14-3)   19-5
13   10.400   1   Brockport State   0.840 (21-4)   22-4
14   10.400   2   Virginia Wesleyan   0.880 (22-3)   23-3
15   10.391   4   St. John's   0.870 (20-3)   20-6
16   10.292   2   St. Lawrence   0.792 (19-5)   20-5
17   10.292   1   Ramapo   0.792 (19-5)   20-7
18   10.250   3   Aurora   0.913 (21-2)   23-2
19   10.238   3   DePauw   0.900 (18-2)   21-4
20   10.217   6   Keene State   0.826 (19-4)   22-4
21   10.217   3   Rochester   0.739 (17-6)   17-7
22   10.208   4   St. John Fisher   0.792 (19-5)   20-5
23   10.200   1   Messiah   0.800 (16-4)   19-6
24   10.174   2   Johns Hopkins   0.864 (19-3)   21-4
25   10.143   3   Lincoln   0.786 (11-3)   17-7
26   10.125   7   Brandeis   0.750 (18-6)   18-6
27   10.083   4   Augustana   0.833 (20-4)   20-5
28   10.080   4   Catholic   0.800 (20-5)   21-5
29   10.000   4   Averett   0.800 (16-4)   18-6
30   10.000   5   Loras   0.818 (18-4)   20-6
31   9.960   5   Hood   0.800 (20-5)   21-6
32   9.960   5   Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.840 (21-4)   21-4
33   9.957   2   John Carroll   0.739 (17-6)   18-8
34   9.913   6   UW-La Crosse   0.739 (17-6)   19-7
35   9.909   7   Whitworth   0.864 (19-3)   22-3
36   9.900   3   Wooster   0.900 (18-2)   23-3
37   9.870   5   New York University   0.783 (18-5)   19-5
38   9.833   8   UW-Oshkosh   0.750 (18-6)   21-6
39   9.800   6   King's   0.720 (18-7)   18-8
40   9.778   6   Centre   0.778 (14-4)   20-4
41   9.778   9   Lewis and Clark   0.778 (14-4)   19-6
42   9.773   7   Maryville (Tenn.)   0.864 (19-3)   19-6
43   9.762   6   Hamilton   0.714 (15-6)   18-6
44   9.741   2   Stevens   0.778 (21-6)   21-6
45   9.739   7   Alvernia   0.913 (21-2)   22-4
46   9.731   3   Manhattanville   0.808 (21-5)   22-5
47   9.708   8   Scranton   0.708 (17-7)   19-7
48   9.708   8   Bates   0.708 (17-7)   18-7
49   9.667   4   Hope   0.833 (15-3)   22-3
50   9.667   4   New Jersey City   0.708 (17-7)   18-8
51   9.636   8   McMurry   0.818 (18-4)   19-6
52   9.625   9   Husson   0.875 (21-3)   21-5
53   9.625   9   Guilford   0.833 (20-4)   21-4
54   9.619   5   Ohio Northern   0.667 (14-7)   19-7
55   9.565   9   DeSales   0.739 (17-6)   19-7
56   9.476   6   Wittenberg   0.810 (17-4)   22-4
57   9.450   7   Westminster (Pa.)   0.800 (16-4)   18-8
58   9.429   5   Elmhurst   0.762 (16-5)   20-5
59   9.360   10   Tufts   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
60   9.348   7   Utica   0.739 (17-6)   18-6
61   9.318   6   Grinnell   0.727 (16-6)   17-6
62   9.300   7   Wheaton (Ill.)   0.650 (13-7)   17-8
63   9.273   10   Greensboro   0.773 (17-5)   20-6
64   9.261   10   FDU-Florham   0.609 (14-9)   17-9
65   9.250   11   Bridgewater State   0.708 (17-7)   17-7
66   9.238   5   Richard Stockton   0.667 (14-7)   17-9
67   9.235   10   Redlands   0.765 (13-4)   17-7
68   9.200   8   Capital   0.680 (17-8)   17-8
69   9.190   9   Baldwin-Wallace   0.714 (15-6)   18-8
70   9.190   12   Colby   0.667 (14-7)   15-10
71   9.190   8   Plattsburgh State   0.714 (15-6)   18-8
72   9.148   11   UW-Whitewater   0.667 (18-9)   18-9
73   9.143   6   Rowan   0.714 (15-6)   20-6
74   9.136   11   Villa Julie   0.727 (16-6)   18-7
75   9.130   10   Penn State-Behrend   0.739 (17-6)   18-6
76   9.111   13   Western New England   0.704 (19-8)   19-8
77   9.083   12   Susquehanna   0.583 (14-10)   16-10
78   9.083   11   Otterbein   0.625 (15-9)   16-10
79   9.048   8   Carthage   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
80   9.045   13   Juniata   0.682 (15-7)   16-10
81   9.043   7   SUNY-Old Westbury   0.652 (15-8)   18-9
82   9.000   14   Babson   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
83   9.000   8   SUNY-Farmingdale   0.667 (16-8)   18-9
84   9.000   11   Millsaps   0.737 (14-5)   17-8
85   9.000   12   Pomona-Pitzer   0.688 (11-5)   16-8
86   8.962   14   York (Pa.)   0.615 (16-10)   16-10
87   8.958   9   William Paterson   0.625 (15-9)   15-10
88   8.955   15   Ursinus   0.682 (15-7)   16-9
89   8.952   13   Puget Sound   0.714 (15-6)   18-7
90   8.952   14   Buena Vista   0.667 (14-7)   17-8
91   8.952   15   Cal Lutheran   0.619 (13-8)   17-8
92   8.950   12   Carnegie Mellon   0.524 (11-10)   12-11
93   8.917   9   Transylvania   0.667 (16-8)   17-8
94   8.905   10   Carroll   0.667 (14-7)   14-8
95   8.889   11   North Central   0.611 (11-7)   16-9
96   8.880   16   Coe   0.680 (17-8)   19-8
97   8.800   15   Elms   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
98   8.783   17   Simpson   0.609 (14-9)   18-9
99   8.769   16   Lasell   0.615 (16-10)   16-10
100   8.760   10   Rutgers-Newark   0.600 (15-10)   17-10
101   8.750   16   Mary Washington   0.625 (15-9)   16-10
102   8.750   12   Bluffton   0.667 (14-7)   18-7
103   8.727   9   Vassar   0.636 (14-8)   15-9
104   8.720   18   Bethel   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
105   8.696   17   Williams   0.565 (13-10)   14-11
106   8.696   10   Oswego State   0.609 (14-9)   15-11
107   8.696   13   Edgewood   0.696 (16-7)   17-7
108   8.692   14   Dominican   0.654 (17-9)   17-9
109   8.684   17   Chestnut Hill   0.696 (16-7)   18-8
110   8.682   18   Baptist Bible   0.727 (16-6)   18-7
111   8.680   11   Clarkson   0.560 (14-11)   14-11
112   8.667   18   Gordon   0.667 (16-8)   19-8
113   8.667   12   Geneseo State   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
114   8.652   12   Texas-Dallas   0.696 (16-7)   18-7
115   8.600   19   Middlebury   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
116   8.556   13   Calvin   0.667 (12-6)   16-9
117   8.545   14   Bethany   0.682 (15-7)   19-8
118   8.522   13   Rochester Tech   0.565 (13-10)   14-11
119   8.500   19   Haverford   0.600 (12-8)   13-11
120   8.500   15   Ohio Wesleyan   0.636 (14-8)   17-9
121   8.500   20   Mass-Dartmouth   0.583 (14-10)   14-12
122   8.478   21   Westfield State   0.609 (14-9)   16-10
123   8.462   20   St. Mary's (Md.)   0.577 (15-11)   16-11
124   8.429   14   Ithaca   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
125   8.429   15   Webster   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
126   8.423   22   Endicott   0.577 (15-11)   15-11
127   8.391   15   SUNYIT   0.609 (14-9)   16-10
128   8.364   16   Lake Forest   0.591 (13-9)   14-9
129   8.353   19   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   0.588 (10-7)   15-10
130   8.333   23   Bowdoin   0.583 (14-10)   15-10
131   8.320   11   St. Joseph's (L.I.)   0.640 (16-9)   17-9
132   8.304   24   Emerson   0.652 (15-8)   16-9
133   8.304   12   York (N.Y.)   0.696 (16-7)   17-10
134   8.300   17   MacMurray   0.650 (13-7)   16-8
135   8.286   13   Trinity (Texas)   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
136   8.280   25   Rivier   0.720 (18-7)   19-8
137   8.261   18   Lakeland   0.609 (14-9)   16-10
138   8.238   19   Ripon   0.571 (12-9)   13-9
139   8.227   14   LeTourneau   0.636 (14-8)   15-9
140   8.208   20   Franklin   0.625 (15-9)   16-9
141   8.190   21   Defiance   0.619 (13-8)   16-8
142   8.190   22   Mt. St. Joseph   0.571 (12-9)   13-12
143   8.182   21   Wilkes   0.500 (11-11)   12-11
144   8.176   16   Tri-State   0.647 (11-6)   16-8
145   8.160   26   MIT   0.520 (13-12)   14-12
146   8.143   22   Lycoming   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
147   8.143   23   Hanover   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
148   8.118   20   Chapman   0.706 (12-5)   19-5
149   8.111   15   Hendrix   0.556 (10-8)   15-9
150   8.095   21   UW-Platteville   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
151   8.056   27   St. Joseph's (Maine)   0.611 (11-7)   17-7
152   8.048   24   Lawrence   0.524 (11-10)   13-10
153   8.043   23   Lebanon Valley   0.522 (12-11)   14-11
154   8.042   24   Widener   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
155   8.000   28   Springfield   0.462 (12-14)   12-14
156   8.000   22   Gustavus Adolphus   0.538 (14-12)   14-13
157   7.962   29   Wentworth Tech   0.615 (16-10)   16-11
158   7.960   16   Hardin-Simmons   0.560 (14-11)   14-11
159   7.958   17   Heidelberg   0.500 (12-12)   13-13
160   7.958   30   Western Connecticut   0.542 (13-11)   14-12
161   7.955   31   Eastern Connecticut   0.545 (12-10)   15-11
162   7.952   17   Roanoke   0.619 (13-8)   16-10
163   7.917   16   RPI   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
164   7.917   25   Wisconsin Lutheran   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
165   7.909   26   Manchester   0.545 (12-10)   15-10
166   7.900   25   Marymount   0.500 (10-10)   14-11
167   7.895   18   Albion   0.526 (10-9)   10-15
168   7.889   27   Fontbonne   0.556 (10-8)   14-11
169   7.889   23   Pacific   0.556 (10-8)   12-13
170   7.880   19   Wilmington   0.480 (12-13)   13-13
171   7.875   18   LaGrange   0.625 (10-6)   17-8
172   7.875   19   Oglethorpe   0.542 (13-11)   14-11
173   7.870   26   Gettysburg   0.565 (13-10)   13-12
174   7.864   24   Carleton   0.500 (11-11)   11-15
175   7.857   17   Union   0.524 (11-10)   11-13
176   7.826   13   Kings Point   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
177   7.808   32   Curry   0.577 (15-11)   15-12
178   7.783   20   Hampden-Sydney   0.565 (13-10)   16-10
179   7.773   27   Albright   0.364 (8-14)   10-14
180   7.773   18   Alfred   0.455 (10-12)   10-14
181   7.739   33   Emmanuel   0.478 (11-12)   12-15
182   7.739   28   North Park   0.478 (11-12)   13-12
183   7.727   19   Buffalo State   0.455 (10-12)   12-13
184   7.708   20   Hobart   0.417 (10-14)   11-14
185   7.706   20   Adrian   0.588 (10-7)   10-14
186   7.692   28   Pitt-Bradford   0.538 (14-12)   14-12
187   7.667   21   Grove City   0.524 (11-10)   15-12
188   7.667   21   Oneonta State   0.476 (10-11)   11-15
189   7.667   29   Eureka   0.571 (12-9)   15-9
190   7.654   25   St. Olaf   0.500 (13-13)   13-14
191   7.650   14   Montclair State   0.400 (8-12)   12-12
192   7.609   29   Eastern   0.609 (14-9)   16-11
193   7.609   22   Nazareth   0.435 (10-13)   11-14
194   7.591   15   Kean   0.455 (10-12)   13-12
195   7.583   30   Moravian   0.458 (11-13)   11-14
196   7.579   21   Methodist   0.421 (8-11)   11-14
197   7.571   22   Southwestern   0.476 (10-11)   11-14
198   7.565   31   Gwynedd-Mercy   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
199   7.565   34   Castleton State   0.565 (13-10)   15-11
200   7.545   16   New Jersey   0.409 (9-13)   12-14
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2007, 06:55:09 AM
Quote from: Matt Letourneau on February 23, 2007, 01:19:19 AM
I wouldn't really have believed this at the beginning of the year, but it now looks like the CAC will get both its final teams in--Hood and Catholic.  Catholic at 10.0 (and going up, with tonight's win over Mary Washington), and Hood at 9.875 (and a win over St. Mary's tonight).

Consensus seems to be that if Catholic loses the final, they're still in good shape.  If Hood loses, its in LESS good shape but still fairly strong.
Hey Matt... that consensus I think is just me. I wouldn't bet the world on my thoughts, the NCAA never follows them :). And I don't see anyone else posting that thought :).

But after yesterday's results and the new QOWI, I think both teams are in... but it would be better if Hood won the CAC title. Does CUA feel like rolling over?!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: systemfan86 on February 23, 2007, 08:11:40 AM
Quote from: systemfan86 on February 22, 2007, 08:55:28 AM
Wheaton beats Carthage to get in the CCIW tournament. Carthage was 6th in the Midwest and Wheaton was 8th - Grinnell was in between.  I presume that this drops Carthage outside the bubble, but does Wheaton need to win their first game in the CCIW tournament to move into consideration? Or would losing the second - and thus the need for a Pool C - cancel out any gain from a win?

As a Grinnell fan, I keep fighting the urge to think they could get a Pool C if they should lose the MWC tournament championship. My calculation says they'd end up at about 9.5 on QoWI which with Carthage and Wheaton's situation could still leave GC in the 6 slot in the MW. But everything else I'm reading says that while they might 'get to the table' for consideration against other regions' representatives, the MW region likely won't get past their #5 team in Pool C consideration.

Here's hoping it's not an issue and GC gets the AQ. ;)
:D :D
I looked at the updated QoWI calculations after last night and GC's number went down, but their regional rank went up. I couldn't figure out why.

Then it hit me. Dope! Carthage, the team you were commenting on, beat Grinnell in the first game of the year. Their loss could/did have a negative effect on the points Grinnell is credited with. Man, this is w-a-a-a-y too complicated. I now realize that it's stupid to 'project' the QoWI because too many game results can impact it.

Quote from: David Collinge on February 22, 2007, 09:53:42 PMOshkosh is now at .750 in-region and should end up with a QoWI of 10.041.  They beat Stevens Point and Grinnell (regionally ranked teams.)
Of course that comment made me feel better. It's been a while since a win over GC was viewed as a 'good win'.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 23, 2007, 02:47:18 PM
Here's an update of the WIAC Pool C situation...

2   11.565   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.958 (23-1)   24-2
34   9.913   6   UW-La Crosse   0.739 (17-6)   19-7
38   9.833   8   UW-Oshkosh   0.750 (18-6)   21-6

Point is (still) obviously in regardless.  Oshkosh dropped from a 10.17 to a 9.833 in QOWI.  La Crosse is up from 9.864 to 9.913.  With a loss, La Crosse will lose some QOWI and their regional win percentage will drop to 70.83%... and their QOWI, barring any other changes throughout the country, will drop to 9.7917.

Does the WIAC still have a chance for three teams?  Oshkosh could have really solidified their positioning with a win last night, La Crosse greatly improved their chances with the W.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 23, 2007, 02:54:02 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 23, 2007, 02:47:18 PM
Here's an update of the WIAC Pool C situation...

2   11.565   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.958 (23-1)   24-2
34   9.913   6   UW-La Crosse   0.739 (17-6)   19-7
38   9.833   8   UW-Oshkosh   0.750 (18-6)   21-6

Point is (still) obviously in regardless.  Oshkosh dropped from a 10.17 to a 9.833 in QOWI.  La Crosse is up from 9.864 to 9.913.  With a loss, La Crosse will lose some QOWI and their regional win percentage will drop to 70.83%... and their QOWI, barring any other changes throughout the country, will drop to 9.7917.

Does the WIAC still have a chance for three teams?  Oshkosh could have really solidified their positioning with a win last night, La Crosse greatly improved their chances with the W.

As I just noted on the QOWI page, there's an error (missing the UWSP-UWEC game). This means all of UWEC's opponents are too high.

UWSP should be 11.2500, UW LaCrosse should be 9.7391 and UW Oshkosh should be 9.667.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 23, 2007, 03:22:47 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 23, 2007, 02:54:02 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 23, 2007, 02:47:18 PM
Here's an update of the WIAC Pool C situation...

2   11.565   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.958 (23-1)   24-2
34   9.913   6   UW-La Crosse   0.739 (17-6)   19-7
38   9.833   8   UW-Oshkosh   0.750 (18-6)   21-6

Point is (still) obviously in regardless.  Oshkosh dropped from a 10.17 to a 9.833 in QOWI.  La Crosse is up from 9.864 to 9.913.  With a loss, La Crosse will lose some QOWI and their regional win percentage will drop to 70.83%... and their QOWI, barring any other changes throughout the country, will drop to 9.7917.

Does the WIAC still have a chance for three teams?  Oshkosh could have really solidified their positioning with a win last night, La Crosse greatly improved their chances with the W.

As I just noted on the QOWI page, there's an error (missing the UWSP-UWEC game). This means all of UWEC's opponents are too high.

UWSP should be 11.2500, UW LaCrosse should be 9.7391 and UW Oshkosh should be 9.667.

Ok then...  (CRAP)... with a loss, LaX would be right at Oshkosh's same 9.667.  That puts them both at approximately the 49 range, based on this early morning's projections.  This doesn't look like it effects any other contenders, as EC appears to have not have scheduled any world beaters in the non-conference.  Others, too, will drop, so 9.667 may be higher than at about approx 50 in the QOWI rankings.  Who would get the nod?  Oshkosh would have a win against UWSP, a win against Grinnell if they win the MWC, but a loss against Elmhurst if they go for the CCIW, La Crosse has a win against St. Thomas, but a loss against Loras.  Oshy would have a win % of .750, to LaX's .7083, but LaX won all three matchups against the Titans this year.

... This is getting about to the point that I just want to stop thinking about this and wait until tomorrow night's games are over so I don't have to think of all the different possibilities!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Matt Letourneau on February 23, 2007, 04:53:32 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 23, 2007, 06:55:09 AM
Quote from: Matt Letourneau on February 23, 2007, 01:19:19 AM
I wouldn't really have believed this at the beginning of the year, but it now looks like the CAC will get both its final teams in--Hood and Catholic.  Catholic at 10.0 (and going up, with tonight's win over Mary Washington), and Hood at 9.875 (and a win over St. Mary's tonight).

Consensus seems to be that if Catholic loses the final, they're still in good shape.  If Hood loses, its in LESS good shape but still fairly strong.
Hey Matt... that consensus I think is just me. I wouldn't bet the world on my thoughts, the NCAA never follows them :). And I don't see anyone else posting that thought :).

But after yesterday's results and the new QOWI, I think both teams are in... but it would be better if Hood won the CAC title. Does CUA feel like rolling over?!

Ha, well though you are quite the authority on these things, don't worry, I was taking into account more than just your opinion.  Quite a few other CAC types seem to feel the same way.  And yes, some of them are in Northeast DC!

HELL NO CUA's not rolling over.  We've got something to prove...the Cardinals want to go out on top.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: buf on February 23, 2007, 07:07:58 PM
Wittenberg just lost in the NCAC semis.  They have a good regional record but a not-so-good QOWI
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 23, 2007, 10:14:10 PM
Ramapo gets the NJAC pool A bid, NJCU sits on the pool C bubble now, and I don't think they get in with an 18-9 record.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2007, 03:36:37 AM
Overall   QOWI   In reg.   Team   Reg. rec.   Overall
1   11.625   1   Amherst   0.958 (23-1)   24-1
2   11.583   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.958 (23-1)   24-2
3   10.950   2   Trinity (Conn.)   0.850 (17-3)   21-3
4   10.810   3   Worcester Polytech   0.905 (19-2)   21-2
5   10.696   1   Chicago   0.818 (18-4)   20-4
6   10.692   2   St. Thomas   0.885 (23-3)   23-3
7   10.667   1   Lake Erie   0.952 (20-1)   24-2
8   10.600   4   Salem State   0.920 (23-2)   23-2
9   10.577   5   Rhode Island College   0.885 (23-3)   23-3
10   10.480   1   Ramapo   0.800 (20-5)   21-7
11   10.476   2   Washington U.   0.810 (17-4)   19-4
12   10.462   1   Brockport State   0.846 (22-4)   23-4
13   10.455   1   Mississippi College   0.955 (21-1)   23-2
14   10.412   3   Occidental   0.824 (14-3)   19-5
15   10.400   2   St. Lawrence   0.800 (20-5)   21-5
16   10.400   2   Virginia Wesleyan   0.880 (22-3)   23-3
17   10.391   4   St. John's   0.870 (20-3)   20-6
18   10.320   3   Aurora   0.920 (23-2)   24-2
19   10.280   3   St. John Fisher   0.800 (20-5)   21-5
20   10.250   6   Keene State   0.833 (20-4)   23-4
21   10.217   4   Rochester   0.739 (17-6)   17-7
22   10.200   1   Messiah   0.800 (16-4)   19-6
23   10.182   3   DePauw   0.864 (19-3)   22-4
24   10.174   2   Johns Hopkins   0.864 (19-3)   21-4
25   10.167   2   John Carroll   0.750 (18-6)   19-8
26   10.160   4   Augustana   0.840 (21-4)   21-5
27   10.143   3   Lincoln   0.786 (11-3)   18-7
28   10.125   7   Brandeis   0.750 (18-6)   18-6
29   10.105   3   Hope   0.842 (16-3)   23-3
30   10.080   4   Catholic   0.800 (20-5)   21-5
31   10.000   4   Wooster   0.905 (19-2)   24-3
32   10.000   5   Loras   0.818 (18-4)   20-6
33   9.960   5   Hood   0.800 (20-5)   21-6
34   9.947   4   Centre   0.789 (15-4)   21-4
35   9.923   5   Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.846 (22-4)   22-4
36   9.917   6   UW-Oshkosh   0.750 (18-6)   21-6
37   9.913   7   UW-La Crosse   0.739 (17-6)   19-7
38   9.909   8   Whitworth   0.864 (19-3)   22-3
39   9.870   5   New York University   0.783 (18-5)   19-5
40   9.864   6   Hamilton   0.727 (16-6)   19-6
41   9.857   6   Averett   0.810 (17-4)   19-6
42   9.826   7   Maryville (Tenn.)   0.870 (20-3)   20-6
43   9.800   6   King's   0.720 (18-7)   18-8
44   9.778   9   Lewis and Clark   0.778 (14-4)   19-6
45   9.760   8   Husson   0.880 (22-3)   22-5
46   9.750   7   Alvernia   0.917 (22-2)   23-4
47   9.741   2   Stevens   0.778 (21-6)   21-6
48   9.731   3   Manhattanville   0.808 (21-5)   22-5
49   9.708   9   Bates   0.708 (17-7)   18-7
50   9.708   8   Scranton   0.708 (17-7)   19-7
51   9.696   8   McMurry   0.826 (19-4)   20-6
52   9.625   9   Guilford   0.833 (20-4)   21-4
53   9.619   5   Ohio Northern   0.667 (14-7)   19-7
54   9.591   5   Elmhurst   0.773 (17-5)   21-5
55   9.565   9   DeSales   0.739 (17-6)   19-7
56   9.520   4   New Jersey City   0.680 (17-8)   18-9
57   9.500   7   Utica   0.750 (18-6)   19-6
58   9.450   6   Westminster (Pa.)   0.800 (16-4)   18-8
59   9.364   8   Plattsburgh State   0.727 (16-6)   19-8
60   9.364   7   Wittenberg   0.773 (17-5)   22-5
61   9.360   10   Tufts   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
62   9.308   8   Capital   0.692 (18-8)   18-8
63   9.292   9   Penn State-Behrend   0.750 (18-6)   19-6
64   9.261   10   Villa Julie   0.739 (17-6)   19-7
65   9.261   11   FDU-Florham   0.609 (14-9)   17-9
66   9.261   6   Grinnell   0.696 (16-7)   17-7
67   9.238   5   Richard Stockton   0.667 (14-7)   17-9
68   9.235   10   Redlands   0.765 (13-4)   17-7
69   9.200   10   Millsaps   0.750 (15-5)   18-8
70   9.190   11   Colby   0.667 (14-7)   15-10
71   9.190   7   Wheaton (Ill.)   0.619 (13-8)   17-9
72   9.148   11   UW-Whitewater   0.667 (18-9)   18-9
73   9.143   6   Rowan   0.714 (15-6)   20-6
74   9.143   8   Carthage   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
75   9.111   12   Western New England   0.704 (19-8)   19-8
76   9.091   10   Baldwin-Wallace   0.682 (15-7)   18-9
77   9.091   9   Carroll   0.682 (15-7)   15-8
78   9.083   12   Susquehanna   0.583 (14-10)   16-10
79   9.080   13   Bridgewater State   0.680 (17-8)   17-8
80   9.080   10   Transylvania   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
81   9.045   13   Juniata   0.682 (15-7)   16-10
82   9.043   7   SUNY-Old Westbury   0.652 (15-8)   18-9
83   9.000   14   Babson   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
84   9.000   8   SUNY-Farmingdale   0.667 (16-8)   18-9
85   9.000   14   Chestnut Hill   0.750 (15-5)   19-8
86   9.000   11   Otterbein   0.600 (15-10)   16-11
87   9.000   12   Pomona-Pitzer   0.688 (11-5)   16-8
88   8.962   15   Elms   0.692 (18-8)   19-8
89   8.962   15   York (Pa.)   0.615 (16-10)   16-10
90   8.958   9   William Paterson   0.625 (15-9)   15-10
91   8.955   16   Ursinus   0.682 (15-7)   16-9
92   8.952   13   Puget Sound   0.714 (15-6)   18-7
93   8.952   14   Buena Vista   0.667 (14-7)   17-8
94   8.952   15   Cal Lutheran   0.619 (13-8)   17-8
95   8.950   12   Carnegie Mellon   0.524 (11-10)   12-11
96   8.880   16   Coe   0.680 (17-8)   19-8
97   8.857   11   Bluffton   0.619 (13-8)   18-8
98   8.833   12   Edgewood   0.708 (17-7)   18-7
99   8.826   11   Greensboro   0.739 (17-6)   20-7
100   8.789   13   Calvin   0.684 (13-6)   17-9
101   8.789   13   North Central   0.579 (11-8)   16-10
102   8.783   14   Ohio Wesleyan   0.652 (15-8)   18-9
103   8.783   17   Simpson   0.609 (14-9)   18-9
104   8.760   10   Rutgers-Newark   0.600 (15-10)   17-10
105   8.750   16   Westfield State   0.625 (15-9)   17-10
106   8.750   17   Mary Washington   0.625 (15-9)   16-10
107   8.739   14   Lake Forest   0.609 (14-9)   15-9
108   8.704   17   Lasell   0.593 (16-11)   16-11
109   8.696   18   Williams   0.565 (13-10)   14-11
110   8.680   9   Clarkson   0.560 (14-11)   14-11
111   8.667   19   Gordon   0.667 (16-8)   19-8
112   8.667   10   Geneseo State   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
113   8.652   11   Vassar   0.609 (14-9)   15-10
114   8.640   18   Bethel   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
115   8.630   15   Dominican   0.630 (17-10)   17-10
116   8.625   12   Oswego State   0.583 (14-10)   15-12
117   8.609   18   Baptist Bible   0.696 (16-7)   18-8
118   8.600   20   Middlebury   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
119   8.591   16   Defiance   0.636 (14-8)   17-8
120   8.583   12   Texas-Dallas   0.667 (16-8)   18-8
121   8.545   15   Bethany   0.682 (15-7)   19-8
122   8.500   11   York (N.Y.)   0.708 (17-7)   18-10
123   8.500   19   Haverford   0.600 (12-8)   13-11
124   8.500   13   Trinity (Texas)   0.591 (13-9)   15-11
125   8.462   20   St. Mary's (Md.)   0.577 (15-11)   16-11
126   8.458   13   Rochester Tech   0.542 (13-11)   14-12
127   8.440   21   Mass-Dartmouth   0.560 (14-11)   14-13
128   8.423   22   Endicott   0.577 (15-11)   15-11
129   8.381   17   Mt. St. Joseph   0.571 (12-9)   13-12
130   8.364   14   Ithaca   0.545 (12-10)   14-12
131   8.364   18   Ripon   0.545 (12-10)   13-10
132   8.353   19   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   0.588 (10-7)   15-10
133   8.333   23   Bowdoin   0.583 (14-10)   15-10
134   8.333   15   SUNYIT   0.583 (14-10)   16-11
135   8.333   16   Tri-State   0.611 (11-7)   16-9
136   8.333   19   Hanover   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
137   8.320   12   St. Joseph's (L.I.)   0.640 (16-9)   17-9
138   8.318   20   Webster   0.591 (13-9)   16-10
139   8.304   24   Emerson   0.652 (15-8)   16-9
140   8.280   25   Rivier   0.720 (18-7)   19-8
141   8.238   21   Lawrence   0.524 (11-10)   13-10
142   8.208   22   Lakeland   0.583 (14-10)   16-11
143   8.200   23   Franklin   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
144   8.182   21   Wilkes   0.500 (11-11)   12-11
145   8.167   20   Chapman   0.722 (13-5)   20-5
146   8.160   26   MIT   0.520 (13-12)   14-12
147   8.158   24   Fontbonne   0.579 (11-8)   15-11
148   8.143   22   Lycoming   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
149   8.143   25   MacMurray   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
150   8.105   17   Albion   0.526 (10-9)   10-15
151   8.095   21   UW-Platteville   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
152   8.091   26   Manchester   0.545 (12-10)   15-10
153   8.077   14   Hardin-Simmons   0.577 (15-11)   15-11
154   8.056   27   St. Joseph's (Maine)   0.611 (11-7)   18-7
155   8.053   15   Hendrix   0.526 (10-9)   15-10
156   8.043   23   Lebanon Valley   0.522 (12-11)   14-11
157   8.042   24   Widener   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
158   8.000   28   Springfield   0.462 (12-14)   12-14
159   8.000   16   LaGrange   0.647 (11-6)   18-8
160   8.000   22   Gustavus Adolphus   0.538 (14-12)   14-13
161   7.962   29   Wentworth Tech   0.615 (16-10)   16-11
162   7.958   30   Western Connecticut   0.542 (13-11)   14-12
163   7.958   18   Heidelberg   0.500 (12-12)   13-13
164   7.955   31   Eastern Connecticut   0.545 (12-10)   15-11
165   7.952   17   Roanoke   0.619 (13-8)   16-10
166   7.917   16   RPI   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
167   7.917   27   Wisconsin Lutheran   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
168   7.913   18   LeTourneau   0.609 (14-9)   15-10
169   7.909   28   Eureka   0.591 (13-9)   16-9
170   7.900   25   Marymount   0.500 (10-10)   14-11
171   7.889   19   Adrian   0.556 (10-8)   10-15
172   7.889   23   Pacific   0.556 (10-8)   12-13
173   7.880   20   Wilmington   0.480 (12-13)   13-13
174   7.870   26   Gettysburg   0.565 (13-10)   13-12
175   7.864   24   Carleton   0.500 (11-11)   11-15
176   7.826   13   Kings Point   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
177   7.818   17   Union   0.500 (11-11)   11-14
178   7.808   32   Curry   0.577 (15-11)   15-12
179   7.773   18   Alfred   0.455 (10-12)   10-14
180   7.773   27   Albright   0.364 (8-14)   10-14
181   7.760   19   Oglethorpe   0.520 (13-12)   14-12
182   7.739   33   Emmanuel   0.478 (11-12)   12-15
183   7.739   29   North Park   0.478 (11-12)   13-12
184   7.727   19   Buffalo State   0.455 (10-12)   12-13
185   7.708   20   Hobart   0.417 (10-14)   11-14
186   7.696   20   Hampden-Sydney   0.565 (13-10)   16-10
187   7.667   21   Oneonta State   0.476 (10-11)   11-15
188   7.667   28   Pitt-Bradford   0.519 (14-13)   14-13
189   7.667   21   Grove City   0.524 (11-10)   15-12
190   7.650   14   Montclair State   0.400 (8-12)   12-12
191   7.609   22   Nazareth   0.435 (10-13)   11-14
192   7.609   29   Eastern   0.609 (14-9)   16-11
193   7.591   15   Kean   0.455 (10-12)   13-12
194   7.583   30   Moravian   0.458 (11-13)   11-14
195   7.577   25   St. Olaf   0.500 (13-13)   13-14
196   7.565   34   Castleton State   0.565 (13-10)   15-11
197   7.565   31   Gwynedd-Mercy   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
198   7.545   16   New Jersey   0.409 (9-13)   12-14
199   7.545   21   Southwestern   0.455 (10-12)   11-15
200   7.545   22   Emory   0.318 (7-15)   8-16
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 24, 2007, 12:14:26 PM
As we start play today, I'm looking at about seven locks for a Pool C bid: Messiah, the winner of NYU-Brandeis, the losers of RIC/Keene St, Catholic/Hood, St Thomas/St. Johns, and at least one team from both the Amherst/Trinity and MissC/UMHB pairings.

I'm looking at 25 teams who have a Pool C bid if they need it (I know, that's more than 18 but there is no way that they all lose).

Guilford is in good shape but not a lock. Wittenberg is in trouble. Grinnell looks like a lost cause.

Rochester is in with a win (as is the NYU/Brandeis winner noted above). The NYU/Brandeis loser is still in the mix, between Guilford and Wittenberg.

Surprises at this late date? Could Loras and Husson get Pool C bids with a loss? Would McMurry make the tournament with an upset of MissC today? Does Elmhurst still have a chance with a loss to Augustana?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2007, 04:11:41 PM
Virgina Wesleyan was upset by Hampden-Sydney today.  An unexpected pool C 'lock', reducing the margin of error still further for all bubble teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 24, 2007, 04:16:38 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 24, 2007, 12:14:26 PM
As we start play today, I'm looking at about seven locks for a Pool C bid: Messiah, the winner of NYU-Brandeis, the losers of RIC/Keene St, Catholic/Hood, St Thomas/St. Johns, and at least one team from both the Amherst/Trinity and MissC/UMHB pairings.

I'm looking at 25 teams who have a Pool C bid if they need it (I know, that's more than 18 but there is no way that they all lose).

Guilford is in good shape but not a lock. Wittenberg is in trouble. Grinnell looks like a lost cause.

Rochester is in with a win (as is the NYU/Brandeis winner noted above). The NYU/Brandeis loser is still in the mix, between Guilford and Wittenberg.

Surprises at this late date? Could Loras and Husson get Pool C bids with a loss? Would McMurry make the tournament with an upset of MissC today? Does Elmhurst still have a chance with a loss to Augustana?


You forgot the loser of WashU/Chicago.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 24, 2007, 04:18:32 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 24, 2007, 04:16:38 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 24, 2007, 12:14:26 PM
As we start play today, I'm looking at about seven locks for a Pool C bid: Messiah, the winner of NYU-Brandeis, the losers of RIC/Keene St, Catholic/Hood, St Thomas/St. Johns, and at least one team from both the Amherst/Trinity and MissC/UMHB pairings.

I'm looking at 25 teams who have a Pool C bid if they need it (I know, that's more than 18 but there is no way that they all lose).

Guilford is in good shape but not a lock. Wittenberg is in trouble. Grinnell looks like a lost cause.

Rochester is in with a win (as is the NYU/Brandeis winner noted above). The NYU/Brandeis loser is still in the mix, between Guilford and Wittenberg.

Surprises at this late date? Could Loras and Husson get Pool C bids with a loss? Would McMurry make the tournament with an upset of MissC today? Does Elmhurst still have a chance with a loss to Augustana?


You forgot the loser of WashU/Chicago.

Go figure. I'm a WashU alum, so I have no excuse for missing that one.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2007, 04:59:12 PM
Bubble teams just dodged a bullet in the AMCC - Penn State-Behrend led Lake Erie the whole game, but Lake Erie pulled in out by 1 in the final seconds.

However, UMHB just lost to HSU - haven't yet checked if UMHB is a 'lock', and even if so may not have been an unexpected pool C loss since that is the same conference as Miss Col.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2007, 05:07:09 PM
Men’s Basketball
The first record listed is the overall record, followed by record in regional games, through Sunday, Feb. 18, 2007. These are the last rankings we’ll see before they select teams. Teams in BOLD are Pool A candidates, unless already noted.

There may be some mistakes, due to updated games and my inability to remember every Pool B team in contention! lol

Feel free to "quote" and update it.

I'm headed to Point for the WIAC Final

Atlantic Region
1. Stevens 20-5 20-5 (LOST in Skyline Semis)
2. Ramapo 18-7 17-5 (won NJAC AQ)
3. Manhattanville 20-5 19-5 (plays SUNY-Old Westbury in Skyline Final)
4. New Jersey City 17-8 16-7 (LOST to Ramapo in NJAC Final)
5. Rowan 20-5 15-5  (LOST to Ramapo in NJAC Semis)

East Region
1. Brockport State 21-4 20-4 (plays Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final)
2. St. John Fisher 20-5 19-5 (plays Utica in Empire 8 Final)
3. St. Lawrence 20-5 19-5 (Won Liberty League AQ)
4. New York U. 19-5 18-5 (lost to Brandeis, needs a Pool C)
5 Rochester 17-7 17-6 (beat Carnegie Mellon, still needs a Pool C)

Great Lakes Region
1. Lake Erie 23-2 19- (Won AMCC AQ)
2. Wooster 22-3 17-2 (plays Ohio Wesleyan in NCAC Final)
3. John Carroll 17-8 16-6 (plays Capital in OAC Final)
4. Hope 21-3 14-3 (plays Calvin in MIAA Final)
5. Ohio Northern 19-6 14-6 (LOST to Otterbein in OAC Quarters)
6. Wittenberg 21-4 16-4 (LOST to Ohio Wesleyan in NCAC Semis)

Middle Atlantic Region
1. Johns Hopkins 21-4 20-3 (plays Gettysburg in Centennial Semis)
2. Messiah 19-5 16-3 (LOST to Widener in MAC-Commonwealth Semis)
3. Alvernia 21-4 20-2 (Won PnAC AQ)
4. Lincoln (Pa.) 16-7 11-3-IND:  POOL B
5. Catholic 19-5 18-5 (plays Hood in CAC Final)
6. Hood 19-6 18-5 (plays Catholic in CAC Final)
7. King’s (Pa.) 17-8 17-7 (plays DeSales in MAC-Freedom Final)
8. Scranton 19-6 17-6 (LOST to DeSales in MAC-Freedom Semis)

Midwest Region
1. Chicago 20-4 19-4 (LOST to Washington U.)
2. Augustana 20-5 20-4 (plays Elmhurst in CCIW Final)
3. Washington U. 19-4 17-4 (defeats Chicago in UAA, gets UAA AQ)
4. Aurora 23-2 22-2 (plays Edgewood in NathCon Final:  POOL B
5. Elmhurst 19-5 15-5 (plays Augustana in CCIW Final)
6. Carthage 16-8 13-7 ([Reg. season complete, did not make CCIW tourney)
7. Grinnell 17-6 16-6 (LOST to Lake Forest in MWC Semis)
8. Wheaton (Ill.) 16-8 12-7 (LOST to Elmhurst in CCIW Semis)

Northeast Region
1. Amherst 24-1 23-1 (plays Williams in NESCAC Final)
2. Salem State 22-2 22-2 (Won MASCAC AQ)
3. Trinity (Conn.) 21-4 17-4 (LOST to Williams in NESCAC Semis)
4. WPI 21-2 19-2 (plays Coast Guard in NEWMAC Final)
5. Rhode Island 21-3 21-3 (plays Keene State in LEC Final)
6. Keene State 21-4 18-4 (plays Rhode Island in LEC Final)
7. Brandeis 18-6 18-6 (defeated NYU, still needs a Pool C)
8. Bates 18-7 17-7 (LOST to Amherst in NESCAC Quarters)
9. Husson 20-5 20-3 (LOST to Elms in NAC Final)
10. Western New England 18-7 18-7 (LOST to Emmanuel in GNAC Semis)

South Region
1. Mississippi College 23-2 21-1 (plays Hardin-Simmons in ASC Final)
2. Va. Wesleyan 22-3 21-3 (LOST to Hampden-Sydney in ODAC Semis)
3. Guilford 21-3 20-3 (LOST to Bridgewater (Va) in ODAC Quarters)
4. DePauw 21-4 18-3 (plays Trinity (TX) in SCAC Semis)
5. Mary Hardin-Baylor 21-4 21-4 (LOST to Hardin-Simmons in ASC Semis)
6. Maryville (Tenn.) 19-6 19-3 (playing LaGrange in GSAC Final)-POOL B
7. Centre 20-4 14-4 (plays Millsaps in SCAC Semis)
8. McMurry 20-6 19-4 (lost to Mississippi College in ASC Semis)

West Region
1. UW-Stevens Point 22-2 21-1 (plays La Crosse in WIAC Final)
2. St. Thomas 22-3 22-3 (plays St. John's in MIAC Final)
3. St. John’s 19-6 19-3 (plays St. Thomas in MIAC Final)
4. UW-Oshkosh 20-5 17-5 (LOST to La Crosse in WIAC Semis)
5. Occidental 17-5 12-3 (Won SCIAC AQ)
6. Whitworth 22-3 19-3 (plays Lewis and Clark in NWC Final)
7. Loras 19-6 17-4 (plays Buena Vista in IIAC Final)
8. UW-La Crosse 17-7 15-6 (plays Stevens Point in WIAC Final)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hoaf on February 24, 2007, 05:27:24 PM
St. Lawrence won the LL by 1 over Hamilton. Do you think Hamilton has a shot with a 19-6 record and (16-6) record in the region. I believe they were 46th overall in the previous regional ranking.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pg04 on February 24, 2007, 05:52:22 PM
Bubble Buster in East, Brockport State falls to Plattsburgh in SUNYAC final, most likely taking a Pool C spot...  This pretty much eliminates whatever chance Hamilton might have had too. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 06:03:11 PM
Quote from: Hoaf on February 24, 2007, 05:27:24 PM
St. Lawrence won the LL by 1 over Hamilton. Do you think Hamilton has a shot with a 19-6 record and (16-6) record in the region. I believe they were 46th overall in the previous regional ranking.

Thoughts?

With a final QOWI of 9.630 and a RW% of .720, Ham Tech looks like a goner. Sorry, Hoaf.

Quote from: pg04 on February 24, 2007, 05:52:22 PM
Bubble Buster in East, Brockport State falls to Plattsburgh in SUNYAC final, most likely taking a Pool C spot...  This pretty much eliminates whatever chance Hamilton might have had too. 

No, since Pool C bids are apportioned nationally rather than regionally, the SUNYAC final doesn't specifically eliminate Hamilton. In incremental terms it does hurt Hamilton in that Brockport State will clearly get a Pool C berth, and thus B'port's loss shoves one more bubble team out the door of the plane without a parachute. But that means that Elmhurst, Guilford, UW-Oshkosh, etc., are hurt by the Cardinals' win in the SUNYAC final just as much as are the Conts.

Brockport State gets to the East Region's seat at the Pool C table in the smoke-filled room earlier than does Hamilton, but it won't effectively make any difference, inasmuch as those other bubble teams from the other regions don't have the numbers to outduel B'port for that specific Pool C spot, either.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pg04 on February 24, 2007, 06:08:17 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 06:03:11 PM
Quote from: Hoaf on February 24, 2007, 05:27:24 PM
St. Lawrence won the LL by 1 over Hamilton. Do you think Hamilton has a shot with a 19-6 record and (16-6) record in the region. I believe they were 46th overall in the previous regional ranking.

Thoughts?

With a final QOWI of 9.630 and a RW% of .720, Ham Tech looks like a goner. Sorry, Hoaf.

Quote from: pg04 on February 24, 2007, 05:52:22 PM
Bubble Buster in East, Brockport State falls to Plattsburgh in SUNYAC final, most likely taking a Pool C spot...  This pretty much eliminates whatever chance Hamilton might have had too. 

No, since Pool C bids are apportioned nationally rather than regionally, the SUNYAC final doesn't specifically eliminate Hamilton. In incremental terms it does hurt Hamilton in that Brockport State will clearly get a Pool C berth, and thus B'port's loss shoves one more bubble team out the door of the plane without a parachute. But that means that Elmhurst, Guilford, UW-Oshkosh, etc., are hurt by the Cardinals' win in the SUNYAC final just as much as are the Conts.

Brockport State gets to the East Region's seat at the Pool C table in the smoke-filled room earlier than does Hamilton, but it won't effectively make any difference, inasmuch as those other bubble teams from the other regions don't have the numbers to outduel B'port for that specific Pool C spot, either.

good point, and I didn't know the Hamilton QOWI either so they probably would have had trouble either way...Plus even if it had come down to the two, Port had a decisive victory over hamilton earlier in the year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:09:17 PM
Wash U beat Chicago, so the Maroons are a Pool C lock.

Averett narrowly avoided having to garner a Pool C bid themselves, as the Cougars outlasted NC Wesleyan in double overtime.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:09:17 PM
Wash U beat Chicago, so the Maroons are a Pool C lock.

Averett narrowly avoided having to garner a Pool C bid themselves, as the Cougars outlasted NC Wesleyan in double overtime.
was averett even a pool c contender? they aren't regionally ranked...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 24, 2007, 07:23:59 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:09:17 PM
Wash U beat Chicago, so the Maroons are a Pool C lock.

Averett narrowly avoided having to garner a Pool C bid themselves, as the Cougars outlasted NC Wesleyan in double overtime.

In the UAA, in addition to WashU being a Pool A qualifier and Chicago most likely being a pool C lock, Brandeis and Rochester both won.  Brandeis' win at NYU is a 15 point QOWI win and puts their overall QOWI around 10.32.  Rochesters win at home versus CMU is a 12 point QOWI win and puts their overall QOWI around 10.292.  Comparing these figures to the last QOWI report, both of these teams could be in the top 20 in the country in QOWI .   The UAA could get 4 teams in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 07:27:07 PM
I am editing the post by Old School as I get scores, just and FYI to those who haven't noticed :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:30:04 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:09:17 PM
Wash U beat Chicago, so the Maroons are a Pool C lock.

Averett narrowly avoided having to garner a Pool C bid themselves, as the Cougars outlasted NC Wesleyan in double overtime.
was averett even a pool c contender? they aren't regionally ranked...

Hence, the words "having to". ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 07:31:44 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:30:04 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:09:17 PM
Wash U beat Chicago, so the Maroons are a Pool C lock.

Averett narrowly avoided having to garner a Pool C bid themselves, as the Cougars outlasted NC Wesleyan in double overtime.
was averett even a pool c contender? they aren't regionally ranked...

Hence, the words "having to". ;D
I see, and that would be with what? Their mafia connections? ??? :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:33:43 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 07:31:44 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:30:04 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:09:17 PM
Wash U beat Chicago, so the Maroons are a Pool C lock.

Averett narrowly avoided having to garner a Pool C bid themselves, as the Cougars outlasted NC Wesleyan in double overtime.
was averett even a pool c contender? they aren't regionally ranked...

Hence, the words "having to". ;D
I see, and that would be with what? Their mafia connections? ??? :D

None was implied. Although I suppose that they could make an offer that the committee couldn't refuse.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 07:38:30 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:33:43 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 07:31:44 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:30:04 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 07:09:17 PM
Wash U beat Chicago, so the Maroons are a Pool C lock.

Averett narrowly avoided having to garner a Pool C bid themselves, as the Cougars outlasted NC Wesleyan in double overtime.
was averett even a pool c contender? they aren't regionally ranked...

Hence, the words "having to". ;D
I see, and that would be with what? Their mafia connections? ??? :D

None was implied. Although I suppose that they could make an offer that the committee couldn't refuse.
Let us in, or you'll be sleeping with the fishes... :D ;)

I'm totally into the idea of Averett and VA Wes having to play again. I like the idea of that rematch. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 08:35:39 PM
so it's on the most current page...

Atlantic Region
1. Stevens 20-5 20-5 (LOST in Skyline Semis)
2. Ramapo 18-7 17-5 (Won NJAC AQ)
3. Manhattanville 20-5 19-5 (Won Skyline AQ)
4. New Jersey City 17-8 16-7 (LOST to Ramapo in NJAC Final)
5. Rowan 20-5 15-5  (LOST to Ramapo in NJAC Semis)

East Region
1. Brockport State 21-4 20-4 (LOST to Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final)
2. St. John Fisher 20-5 19-5 (Won Empire 8 AQ)
3. St. Lawrence 20-5 19-5 (Won Liberty League AQ)
4. New York U. 19-5 18-5 (lost to Brandeis, needs a Pool C)
5 Rochester 17-7 17-6 (beat Carnegie Mellon, still needs a Pool C)

Great Lakes Region
1. Lake Erie 23-2 19- (Won AMCC AQ)
2. Wooster 23-3 18-2 (Won NCAC AQ)
3. John Carroll 17-8 16-6 (LOST to Capital in OAC Final)
4. Hope 21-4 14-4 (LOST to Calvin in MIAA Final)
5. Ohio Northern 19-6 14-6 (LOST to Otterbein in OAC Quarters)
6. Wittenberg 21-4 16-4 (LOST to Ohio Wesleyan in NCAC Semis)

Middle Atlantic Region
1. Johns Hopkins 21-4 20-3 (plays Haverford in Centennial Finals)
2. Messiah 19-5 16-3 (LOST to Widener in MAC-Commonwealth Semis)
3. Alvernia 21-4 20-2 (Won PnAC AQ)
4. Lincoln (Pa.) 16-7 11-3-IND:  POOL B
5. Catholic 19-5 18-5 (Won CAC AQ)
6. Hood 19-6 18-5 (LOST to Catholic in CAC Final)
7. King's (Pa.) 17-8 17-7 (Won MAC-Freedom AQ)
8. Scranton 19-6 17-6 (LOST to DeSales in MAC-Freedom Semis)

Midwest Region
1. Chicago 20-4 19-4 (LOST to Washington U.)
2. Augustana 20-5 20-4 (plays Elmhurst in CCIW Final)
3. Washington U. 19-4 17-4 (defeats Chicago in UAA, gets UAA AQ)
4. Aurora 23-2 22-2 (plays Edgewood in NathCon Final:  POOL B
5. Elmhurst 19-5 15-5 (plays Augustana in CCIW Final)
6. Carthage 16-8 13-7 ([Reg. season complete, did not make CCIW tourney)
7. Grinnell 17-6 16-6 (LOST to Lake Forest in MWC Semis)
8. Wheaton (Ill.) 16-8 12-7 (LOST to Elmhurst in CCIW Semis)

Northeast Region
1. Amherst 24-1 23-1 (plays Williams in NESCAC Final)
2. Salem State 22-2 22-2 (Won MASCAC AQ)
3. Trinity (Conn.) 21-4 17-4 (LOST to Williams in NESCAC Semis)
4. WPI 21-2 19-2 (plays Coast Guard in NEWMAC Final)
5. Rhode Island 21-3 21-3 (plays Keene State in LEC Final)
6. Keene State 21-4 18-4 (plays Rhode Island in LEC Final)
7. Brandeis 18-6 18-6 (defeated NYU, still needs a Pool C)
8. Bates 18-7 17-7 (LOST to Amherst in NESCAC Quarters)
9. Husson 20-5 20-3 (LOST to Elms in NAC Final)
10. Western New England 18-7 18-7 (LOST to Emmanuel in GNAC Semis)

South Region
1. Mississippi College 23-2 21-1 (plays Hardin-Simmons in ASC Final)
2. Va. Wesleyan 22-3 21-3 (LOST to Hampden-Sydney in ODAC Semis)
3. Guilford 21-3 20-3 (LOST to Bridgewater (Va) in ODAC Quarters)
4. DePauw 21-4 18-3 (plays Trinity (TX) in SCAC Semis)
5. Mary Hardin-Baylor 21-4 21-4 (LOST to Hardin-Simmons in ASC Semis;a 5-pt QOWI loss)
6. Maryville (Tenn.) 19-6 19-3 (defeated LaGrange in GSAC Final)-POOL B
7. Centre 20-4 14-4 (defeated Millsaps in SCAC Semis)
8. McMurry 20-6 19-4 (LOST to Mississippi College in ASC Semis)

West Region
1. UW-Stevens Point 22-2 21-1 (plays La Crosse in WIAC Final)
2. St. Thomas 22-3 22-3 (plays St. John's in MIAC Final)
3. St. John's 19-6 19-3 (plays St. Thomas in MIAC Final)
4. UW-Oshkosh 20-5 17-5 (LOST to La Crosse in WIAC Semis)
5. Occidental 17-5 12-3 (Won SCIAC AQ)
6. Whitworth 22-3 19-3 (Won NWC AQ)
7. Loras 19-6 17-4 (plays Buena Vista in IIAC Final)
8. UW-La Crosse 17-7 15-6 (plays Stevens Point in WIAC Final)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 08:53:37 PM
Whitworth beat L&C to grab the NWC's Pool A bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2007, 08:55:03 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 08:53:37 PM
Whitworth beat L&C to grab the NWC's Pool A bid.
Which really helps, because L&C was a real "C" buster!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 09:16:43 PM
hope loses... ouch...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 09:19:04 PM
The Tommies are blowing out the Johnnies; UST's up by 18 at the half.

UWSP was up by 15 over UWL, according to Just Bill's last update. That game, like several others, isn't tracking in real time on the scoreboard page.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 24, 2007, 09:19:46 PM
There's another POOL C bid gone. Of these 3 teams from the East, who do you think is out. ROCHESTER, HAMILTON AND UTICA. In my opinion, with the upsets today, I think all 3 might be out. My gut tells me ROCHESTER will be one of the last teams in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 09:21:33 PM
GS - the point-lacrosse game has live stats... link on front page...

JCU loses to Capital... ouch again
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 24, 2007, 09:21:54 PM
hey Pat, will there be a prediction from you guys like last year as to who will be in the tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 09:22:03 PM
Hamilton and Utica are already as dead as a doornail. Utica was out of it before the day even started.

Rochester's in. You can take it to the bank.

One more pertinent final in: Capital beat JCU. John Carroll joins the crew sitting on the Pool C bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 09:23:19 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 09:21:33 PM
GS - the point-lacrosse game has live stats... link on front page...

Thanks. Serves me right for staying on the scoreboard page rather than going back to the front page. Doesn't matter, anyway, since UWSP's winning in a romp.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 09:27:36 PM
if you press all the little +s you'd find out that info anyway...

I'm listening to the MIAC game while watching live stats for SCAC and WIAC... and this is probably the least I've been doing at once tonight... livestats are so cool! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 09:29:16 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 09:27:36 PM
if you press all the little +s you'd find out that info anyway...

I'm listening to the MIAC game while watching live stats for SCAC and WIAC... and this is probably the least I've been doing at once tonight... livestats are so cool! :)

Yeah, except that the UWL @ UWSP Live Stat has been frozen ever since I opened it five minutes ago. ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 24, 2007, 09:29:39 PM
JCU lost to Capital and Hope lost to Calvin tonight.

Based on what the other GL ranked teams did this week I think that JCU and Hope are competing for one Pool C bid. Its possible they both make it but I certainly am not confident of that at all. Hope's QoWI should be around 9.950 I believe, with a record of 23-4!
Anyone have thoughts on their chances?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 09:38:07 PM
Hope looks somewhat iffy to me. The problem with the Dutch is that they play so few regional games that a single loss can really hurt them. The drop from 16-3 to 16-4 makes their corresponding RW% plunge a steep one, from .842 to .800.

I've got Hope's QOWI at 9.900. According to Pat's numbers, they went into the MIAA title game with a QOWI of 10.105, and the loss is worth only six points.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2007, 09:39:20 PM
Trinity is beating DePauw by 10, and DPU has lost Tony James to his hamstring.  TU 51-41 11:25 left
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 09:40:48 PM
so it's on the most current page, and it has been updated thru Saturday's games!

Atlantic Region
1. Stevens 20-5 20-5 (LOST in Skyline Semis)
2. Ramapo 18-7 17-5 (Won NJAC AQ)
3. Manhattanville 20-5 19-5 (Won Skyline AQ)
4. New Jersey City 17-8 16-7 (LOST to Ramapo in NJAC Final)
5. Rowan 20-5 15-5  (LOST to Ramapo in NJAC Semis)

East Region
1. Brockport State 21-4 20-4 (LOST to Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final)
2. St. John Fisher 20-5 19-5 (Won Empire 8 AQ)
3. St. Lawrence 20-5 19-5 (Won Liberty League AQ)
4. New York U. 19-5 18-5 (lost to Brandeis, needs a Pool C)
5 Rochester 17-7 17-6 (beat Carnegie Mellon, still needs a Pool C)

Great Lakes Region
1. Lake Erie 23-2 19- (Won AMCC AQ)
2. Wooster 23-3 18-2 (Won NCAC AQ)
3. John Carroll 17-8 16-6 (LOST to Capital in OAC Final)
4. Hope 21-4 14-4 (LOST to Calvin in MIAA Final)
5. Ohio Northern 19-6 14-6 (LOST to Otterbein in OAC Quarters)
6. Wittenberg 21-4 16-4 (LOST to Ohio Wesleyan in NCAC Semis)

Middle Atlantic Region
1. Johns Hopkins 21-4 20-3 (plays Haverford in Centennial Finals)
2. Messiah 19-5 16-3 (LOST to Widener in MAC-Commonwealth Semis)
3. Alvernia 21-4 20-2 (Won PnAC AQ)
4. Lincoln (Pa.) 16-7 11-3-IND:  POOL B
5. Catholic 19-5 18-5 (Won CAC AQ)
6. Hood 19-6 18-5 (LOST to Catholic in CAC Final)
7. King's (Pa.) 17-8 17-7 (Won MAC-Freedom AQ)
8. Scranton 19-6 17-6 (LOST to DeSales in MAC-Freedom Semis)

Midwest Region
1. Chicago 20-4 19-4 (LOST to Washington U.)
2. Augustana 20-5 20-4 (Won CCIW AQl)
3. Washington U. 19-4 17-4 (defeats Chicago in UAA, gets UAA AQ)
4. Aurora 23-2 22-2 (plays Edgewood in NathCon Final:  POOL B
5. Elmhurst 19-5 15-5 (LOST in Augustana in CCIW Final)
6. Carthage 16-8 13-7 ([Reg. season complete, did not make CCIW tourney)
7. Grinnell 17-6 16-6 (LOST to Lake Forest in MWC Semis)
8. Wheaton (Ill.) 16-8 12-7 (LOST to Elmhurst in CCIW Semis)

Northeast Region
1. Amherst 24-1 23-1 (plays Williams in NESCAC Final)
2. Salem State 22-2 22-2 (Won MASCAC AQ)
3. Trinity (Conn.) 21-4 17-4 (LOST to Williams in NESCAC Semis)
4. WPI 21-2 19-2 (plays Coast Guard in NEWMAC Final)
5. Rhode Island 21-3 21-3 (Won LEC AQ)
6. Keene State 21-4 18-4 (LOST to Rhode Island in LEC Final)
7. Brandeis 18-6 18-6 (defeated NYU, still needs a Pool C)
8. Bates 18-7 17-7 (LOST to Amherst in NESCAC Quarters)
9. Husson 20-5 20-3 (LOST to Elms in NAC Final)
10. Western New England 18-7 18-7 (LOST to Emmanuel in GNAC Semis)

South Region
1. Mississippi College 23-2 21-1 (plays Hardin-Simmons in ASC Final)
2. Va. Wesleyan 22-3 21-3 (LOST to Hampden-Sydney in ODAC Semis)
3. Guilford 21-3 20-3 (LOST to Bridgewater (Va) in ODAC Quarters)
4. DePauw 21-4 18-3 (LOST to Trinity (TX) in SCAC Semis)
5. Mary Hardin-Baylor 21-4 21-4 (LOST to Hardin-Simmons in ASC Semis;a 5-pt QOWI loss)
6. Maryville (Tenn.) 19-6 19-3 (defeated LaGrange in GSAC Final)-POOL B
7. Centre 20-4 14-4 (defeated Millsaps in SCAC Semis)
8. McMurry 20-6 19-4 (LOST to Mississippi College in ASC Semis)

West Region
1. UW-Stevens Point 23-2 22-1 (Won WIAC AQ)
2. St. Thomas 22-3 22-3 (Won MIAC AQ)
3. St. John's 19-6 19-3 (LOST to St. Thomas in MIAC Final)
4. UW-Oshkosh 20-5 17-5 (LOST to La Crosse in WIAC Semis)
5. Occidental 17-5 12-3 (Won SCIAC AQ)
6. Whitworth 22-3 19-3 (Won NWC AQ)
7. Loras 19-6 17-4 (Won IIAC AQ)
8. UW-La Crosse 17-8 15-7 (LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 09:42:06 PM
point beats la crosse... that saves one pool C...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2007, 09:43:41 PM
DCH,

I responded over on the MIAA board.  The 23-4, alas, is irrelevant - in the eyes of the selection committee they went 16-4.  Still a winning % of .800 and a QOWI of 9.900 (198/20) should be pretty safe barring a huge number of further upsets.

BTW, pool C is not by region, so Hope and JCU are competing against EVERYONE, not just each other.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 24, 2007, 09:43:56 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 09:42:06 PM
point beats la crosse... that saves one pool C...

Thank goodness!!! Crossing my fingers for Hope.

Thanks for the info on the Pool C's. I find that whole Hope is just 16-4 not 23-4 to be such a silly way of figuring this out but it is what it is.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2007, 09:52:34 PM
Trinity is leading 61-49 over DePauw with 5:49 left.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 09:58:46 PM
A DePauw loss would leave them with a 9.913 QOWI and an .826 RW%. Those are pretty decent Pool C numbers.

Elmhurst is creeping up on Augie in the second half. An Augie loss puts them at an even 10 in the QOWI game, with an .808 RW%. Factor in their win over Wash U, and their current #2 rank in the Midwest, and you have to figure that they're going dancing with a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2007, 10:00:54 PM
We ASC teams need Trinity to beat Centre tomorrow.

Would SCAC Champion Trinity move into the Regional Rankings?  McMurry beat Trinity in December.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2007, 10:16:39 PM
Trinity 75, DPU 72 with 0:04 left.  TU throwing in.

DPU forces TU to take a time out on the in-bounds play.

Trinity 77, DPU 72. Final.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2007, 10:18:03 PM
UST 75
SJU 49

final

I calculate St. John's QOWI as 10.250 and the RW% of the Johnnies as .833. They're going to be almost at the head of the line when the Pool C tickets are handed out tomorrow.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 10:25:25 PM
augie won too.... there's another pool C safe, I just don't see elmhurst getting one, unfortunately :(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: re.frank on February 24, 2007, 10:26:20 PM
Do regional records reflect conference playoff games?

What are the primary criteria for Pool C bids?

Thanks, R
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 10:28:34 PM
yes they do, and read the FAQs about the tournament found on this site:

http://d3hoops.com/faq.php?category=NCAA%20Tournament
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2007, 10:47:34 PM
QOWI was updated at 02:36 am CST on Saturday February 24th.  Pool A = Bold;  Top 4 Pool B are in Italics.  (Corrections appreciated.)

Overall   QOWI   In reg.   Team   Reg. rec.   Overall
1   11.625   1   Amherst   0.958 (23-1)   24-1
2   11.583   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.958 (23-1)   24-2
3   10.950   2   Trinity (Conn.)   0.850 (17-3)   21-3
4   10.810   3   Worcester Polytech   0.905 (19-2)   21-2
5   10.696   1   Chicago   0.818 (18-4)   20-4
6   10.692   2   St. Thomas   0.885 (23-3)   23-3
7   10.667   1   Lake Erie   0.952 (20-1)   24-2
8   10.600   4   Salem State   0.920 (23-2)   23-2
9   10.577   5   Rhode Island College   0.885 (23-3)   23-3
10   10.480   1   Ramapo   0.800 (20-5)   21-7
11   10.476   2   Washington U.   0.810 (17-4)   19-4
12   10.462   1   Brockport State   0.846 (22-4)   23-4
13   10.455   1   Mississippi College   0.955 (21-1)   23-2
14   10.412   3   Occidental   0.824 (14-3)   19-5
15   10.400   2   St. Lawrence   0.800 (20-5)   21-5
16   10.400   2   Virginia Wesleyan   0.880 (22-3)   23-3
17   10.391   4   St. John's   0.870 (20-3)   20-6
18   10.320   3   Aurora   0.920 (23-2)   24-2
19   10.280   3   St. John Fisher   0.800 (20-5)   21-5
20   10.250   6   Keene State   0.833 (20-4)   23-4
21   10.217   4   Rochester   0.739 (17-6)   17-7
22   10.200   1   Messiah   0.800 (16-4)   19-6
23   10.182   3   DePauw   0.864 (19-3)   22-4
24   10.174   2   Johns Hopkins   0.864 (19-3)   21-4
25   10.167   2   John Carroll   0.750 (18-6)   19-8
26   10.160   4   Augustana   0.840 (21-4)   21-5
27   10.143   3   Lincoln   0.786 (11-3)   18-7
28   10.125   7   Brandeis   0.750 (18-6)   18-6
29   10.105   3   Hope   0.842 (16-3)   23-3
30   10.080   4   Catholic   0.800 (20-5)   21-5
31   10.000   4   Wooster   0.905 (19-2)   24-3
32   10.000   5   Loras   0.818 (18-4)   20-6
33   9.960   5   Hood   0.800 (20-5)   21-6
34   9.947   4   Centre   0.789 (15-4)   21-4
35   9.923   5   Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.846 (22-4)   22-4
36   9.917   6   UW-Oshkosh   0.750 (18-6)   21-6
37   9.913   7   UW-La Crosse   0.739 (17-6)   19-7
38   9.909   8   Whitworth   0.864 (19-3)   22-3
39   9.870   5   New York University   0.783 (18-5)   19-5
40   9.864   6   Hamilton   0.727 (16-6)   19-6
41   9.857   6   Averett   0.810 (17-4)   19-6
42   9.826   7   Maryville (Tenn.)   0.870 (20-3)   20-6
43   9.800   6   King's   0.720 (18-7)   18-8
44   9.778   9   Lewis and Clark   0.778 (14-4)   19-6
45   9.760   8   Husson   0.880 (22-3)   22-5
46   9.750   7   Alvernia   0.917 (22-2)   23-4
47   9.741   2   Stevens   0.778 (21-6)   21-6
48   9.731   3   Manhattanville   0.808 (21-5)   22-5
49   9.708   9   Bates   0.708 (17-7)   18-7
50   9.708   8   Scranton   0.708 (17-7)   19-7
51   9.696   8   McMurry   0.826 (19-4)   20-6
52   9.625   9   Guilford   0.833 (20-4)   21-4
53   9.619   5   Ohio Northern   0.667 (14-7)   19-7
54   9.591   5   Elmhurst   0.773 (17-5)   21-5
55   9.565   9   DeSales   0.739 (17-6)   19-7
56   9.520   4   New Jersey City   0.680 (17-8)   18-9
57   9.500   7   Utica   0.750 (18-6)   19-6
58   9.450   6   Westminster (Pa.)   0.800 (16-4)   18-8
59   9.364   8   Plattsburgh State   0.727 (16-6)   19-8
60   9.364   7   Wittenberg   0.773 (17-5)   22-5
61   9.360   10   Tufts   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
62   9.308   8   Capital   0.692 (18-8)   18-8
63   9.292   9   Penn State-Behrend   0.750 (18-6)   19-6
64   9.261   10   Villa Julie   0.739 (17-6)   19-7
65   9.261   11   FDU-Florham   0.609 (14-9)   17-9
66   9.261   6   Grinnell   0.696 (16-7)   17-7
67   9.238   5   Richard Stockton   0.667 (14-7)   17-9
68   9.235   10   Redlands   0.765 (13-4)   17-7
69   9.200   10   Millsaps   0.750 (15-5)   18-8
70   9.190   11   Colby   0.667 (14-7)   15-10
71   9.190   7   Wheaton (Ill.)   0.619 (13-8)   17-9
72   9.148   11   UW-Whitewater   0.667 (18-9)   18-9
73   9.143   6   Rowan   0.714 (15-6)   20-6
74   9.143   8   Carthage   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
75   9.111   12   Western New England   0.704 (19-8)   19-8
76   9.091   10   Baldwin-Wallace   0.682 (15-7)   18-9
77   9.091   9   Carroll   0.682 (15-7)   15-8
78   9.083   12   Susquehanna   0.583 (14-10)   16-10
79   9.080   13   Bridgewater State   0.680 (17-8)   17-8
80   9.080   10   Transylvania   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
81   9.045   13   Juniata   0.682 (15-7)   16-10
82   9.043   7   SUNY-Old Westbury   0.652 (15-8)   18-9
83   9.000   14   Babson   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
84   9.000   8   SUNY-Farmingdale   0.667 (16-8)   18-9
85   9.000   14   Chestnut Hill   0.750 (15-5)   19-8
86   9.000   11   Otterbein   0.600 (15-10)   16-11
87   9.000   12   Pomona-Pitzer   0.688 (11-5)   16-8
88   8.962   15   Elms   0.692 (18-8)   19-8
89   8.962   15   York (Pa.)   0.615 (16-10)   16-10
90   8.958   9   William Paterson   0.625 (15-9)   15-10
91   8.955   16   Ursinus   0.682 (15-7)   16-9
92   8.952   13   Puget Sound   0.714 (15-6)   18-7
93   8.952   14   Buena Vista   0.667 (14-7)   17-8
94   8.952   15   Cal Lutheran   0.619 (13-8)   17-8
95   8.950   12   Carnegie Mellon   0.524 (11-10)   12-11
96   8.880   16   Coe   0.680 (17-8)   19-8
97   8.857   11   Bluffton   0.619 (13-8)   18-8
98   8.833   12   Edgewood   0.708 (17-7)   18-7
99   8.826   11   Greensboro   0.739 (17-6)   20-7
100   8.789   13   Calvin   0.684 (13-6)   17-9
101   8.789   13   North Central   0.579 (11-8)   16-10
102   8.783   14   Ohio Wesleyan   0.652 (15-8)   18-9
103   8.783   17   Simpson   0.609 (14-9)   18-9
104   8.760   10   Rutgers-Newark   0.600 (15-10)   17-10
105   8.750   16   Westfield State   0.625 (15-9)   17-10
106   8.750   17   Mary Washington   0.625 (15-9)   16-10
107   8.739   14   Lake Forest   0.609 (14-9)   15-9
108   8.704   17   Lasell   0.593 (16-11)   16-11
109   8.696   18   Williams   0.565 (13-10)   14-11
110   8.680   9   Clarkson   0.560 (14-11)   14-11
111   8.667   19   Gordon   0.667 (16-8)   19-8
112   8.667   10   Geneseo State   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
113   8.652   11   Vassar   0.609 (14-9)   15-10
114   8.640   18   Bethel   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
115   8.630   15   Dominican   0.630 (17-10)   17-10
116   8.625   12   Oswego State   0.583 (14-10)   15-12
117   8.609   18   Baptist Bible   0.696 (16-7)   18-8
118   8.600   20   Middlebury   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
119   8.591   16   Defiance   0.636 (14-8)   17-8
120   8.583   12   Texas-Dallas   0.667 (16-8)   18-8
121   8.545   15   Bethany   0.682 (15-7)   19-8
122   8.500   11   York (N.Y.)   0.708 (17-7)   18-10
123   8.500   19   Haverford   0.600 (12-8)   13-11
124   8.500   13   Trinity (Texas)   0.591 (13-9)   15-11
125   8.462   20   St. Mary's (Md.)   0.577 (15-11)   16-11
126   8.458   13   Rochester Tech   0.542 (13-11)   14-12
127   8.440   21   Mass-Dartmouth   0.560 (14-11)   14-13
128   8.423   22   Endicott   0.577 (15-11)   15-11
129   8.381   17   Mt. St. Joseph   0.571 (12-9)   13-12
130   8.364   14   Ithaca   0.545 (12-10)   14-12
131   8.364   18   Ripon   0.545 (12-10)   13-10
132   8.353   19   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   0.588 (10-7)   15-10
133   8.333   23   Bowdoin   0.583 (14-10)   15-10
134   8.333   15   SUNYIT   0.583 (14-10)   16-11
135   8.333   16   Tri-State   0.611 (11-7)   16-9
136   8.333   19   Hanover   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
137   8.320   12   St. Joseph's (L.I.)   0.640 (16-9)   17-9
138   8.318   20   Webster   0.591 (13-9)   16-10
139   8.304   24   Emerson   0.652 (15-8)   16-9
140   8.280   25   Rivier   0.720 (18-7)   19-8
141   8.238   21   Lawrence   0.524 (11-10)   13-10
142   8.208   22   Lakeland   0.583 (14-10)   16-11
143   8.200   23   Franklin   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
144   8.182   21   Wilkes   0.500 (11-11)   12-11
145   8.167   20   Chapman   0.722 (13-5)   20-5
146   8.160   26   MIT   0.520 (13-12)   14-12
147   8.158   24   Fontbonne   0.579 (11-8)   15-11
148   8.143   22   Lycoming   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
149   8.143   25   MacMurray   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
150   8.105   17   Albion   0.526 (10-9)   10-15
151   8.095   21   UW-Platteville   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
152   8.091   26   Manchester   0.545 (12-10)   15-10
153   8.077   14   Hardin-Simmons   0.577 (15-11)   15-11
154   8.056   27   St. Joseph's (Maine)   0.611 (11-7)   18-7
155   8.053   15   Hendrix   0.526 (10-9)   15-10
156   8.043   23   Lebanon Valley   0.522 (12-11)   14-11
157   8.042   24   Widener   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
158   8.000   28   Springfield   0.462 (12-14)   12-14
159   8.000   16   LaGrange   0.647 (11-6)   18-8
160   8.000   22   Gustavus Adolphus   0.538 (14-12)   14-13
161   7.962   29   Wentworth Tech   0.615 (16-10)   16-11
162   7.958   30   Western Connecticut   0.542 (13-11)   14-12
163   7.958   18   Heidelberg   0.500 (12-12)   13-13
164   7.955   31   Eastern Connecticut   0.545 (12-10)   15-11
165   7.952   17   Roanoke   0.619 (13-8)   16-10
166   7.917   16   RPI   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
167   7.917   27   Wisconsin Lutheran   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
168   7.913   18   LeTourneau   0.609 (14-9)   15-10
169   7.909   28   Eureka   0.591 (13-9)   16-9
170   7.900   25   Marymount   0.500 (10-10)   14-11
171   7.889   19   Adrian   0.556 (10-8)   10-15
172   7.889   23   Pacific   0.556 (10-8)   12-13
173   7.880   20   Wilmington   0.480 (12-13)   13-13
174   7.870   26   Gettysburg   0.565 (13-10)   13-12
175   7.864   24   Carleton   0.500 (11-11)   11-15
176   7.826   13   Kings Point   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
177   7.818   17   Union   0.500 (11-11)   11-14
178   7.808   32   Curry   0.577 (15-11)   15-12
179   7.773   18   Alfred   0.455 (10-12)   10-14
180   7.773   27   Albright   0.364 (8-14)   10-14
181   7.760   19   Oglethorpe   0.520 (13-12)   14-12
182   7.739   33   Emmanuel   0.478 (11-12)   12-15
183   7.739   29   North Park   0.478 (11-12)   13-12
184   7.727   19   Buffalo State   0.455 (10-12)   12-13
185   7.708   20   Hobart   0.417 (10-14)   11-14
186   7.696   20   Hampden-Sydney   0.565 (13-10)   16-10
187   7.667   21   Oneonta State   0.476 (10-11)   11-15
188   7.667   28   Pitt-Bradford   0.519 (14-13)   14-13
189   7.667   21   Grove City   0.524 (11-10)   15-12
190   7.650   14   Montclair State   0.400 (8-12)   12-12
191   7.609   22   Nazareth   0.435 (10-13)   11-14
192   7.609   29   Eastern   0.609 (14-9)   16-11
193   7.591   15   Kean   0.455 (10-12)   13-12
194   7.583   30   Moravian   0.458 (11-13)   11-14
195   7.577   25   St. Olaf   0.500 (13-13)   13-14
196   7.565   34   Castleton State   0.565 (13-10)   15-11
197   7.565   31   Gwynedd-Mercy   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
198   7.545   16   New Jersey   0.409 (9-13)   12-14
199   7.545   21   Southwestern   0.455 (10-12)   11-15
200   7.545   22   Emory   0.318 (7-15)   8-16
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: re.frank on February 24, 2007, 10:56:50 PM
When is the next updated Quality of Win index going to be run?

How accurate are these in comparison to the committee's numbers?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2007, 11:03:09 PM
We'll run through tonight's games when all are in.

How accurate? I have no idea at this point. We keep trying to crosscheck against whatever we can get from committee members. I'm glad this measurement is going away.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2007, 11:04:05 PM
Quote from: re.frank on February 24, 2007, 10:56:50 PM
When is the next updated Quality of Win index going to be run?

How accurate are these in comparison to the committee's numbers?
Considering the "spirit" of QOWI theory and accurate application of QOWI theory to the data at hand, I think that they are more reliable.  Unfortunately, Pat has been more accurate about the playoffs than the committe on more than one occasion.    Unfortunately, that doesn't count either!  :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2007, 11:04:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2007, 11:03:09 PM
We'll run through tonight's games when all are in.

How accurate? I have no idea at this point. We keep trying to crosscheck against whatever we can get from committee members. I'm glad this measurement is going away.

Just after you get the bugs out!   :D :-\ ::) ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 24, 2007, 11:11:34 PM
What time is the bracket supposed to be announced tomorrow?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2007, 11:16:29 PM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 24, 2007, 11:11:34 PM
What time is the bracket supposed to be announced tomorrow?

Selections tomorrow;  brackets on Monday!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 24, 2007, 11:17:28 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2007, 11:16:29 PM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 24, 2007, 11:11:34 PM
What time is the bracket supposed to be announced tomorrow?

Selections tomorrow;  brackets on Monday!

oh, well in that case what time are the selections usually announced?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HopeConvert on February 24, 2007, 11:27:13 PM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 24, 2007, 09:43:56 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 24, 2007, 09:42:06 PM
point beats la crosse... that saves one pool C...

Thank goodness!!! Crossing my fingers for Hope.

Thanks for the info on the Pool C's. I find that whole Hope is just 16-4 not 23-4 to be such a silly way of figuring this out but it is what it is.
Rydenite!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2007, 11:32:59 PM
10ish ET. We'll have them up as soon as they come in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: re.frank on February 24, 2007, 11:52:12 PM
Where would you rank this cross section of teams for a Pool C bid after today's results?

Northwestern (Minn)
St. John's (Minn)
Rochester (NY)
Keene State (NH)
Brandeis (MA)
Messiah (PA)

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2007, 11:53:04 PM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 24, 2007, 11:17:28 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2007, 11:16:29 PM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 24, 2007, 11:11:34 PM
What time is the bracket supposed to be announced tomorrow?

Selections tomorrow;  brackets on Monday!

oh, well in that case what time are the selections usually announced?
Or you can listen to Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville)... and hear them announced there!

We will hit the air and stay through the announcements of teams!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 24, 2007, 11:54:58 PM
Quote from: re.frank on February 24, 2007, 11:52:12 PM
Where would you rank this cross section of teams for a Pool C bid after today's results?

Northwestern (Minn)
St. John's (Minn)
Rochester (NY)
Keene State (NH)
Brandeis (MA)
Messiah (PA)

Northwestern is a provisional member of D3 and as such is ineligible for a tournament berth.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2007, 11:58:21 PM
Through Saturday:

Overall   Points   In-reg rk   Team   Region Win%   Overall
1   11.680   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.960 (24-1)   25-2
2   11.640   1   Amherst   0.960 (24-1)   25-1
3   10.864   2   Worcester Polytech   0.909 (20-2)   22-2
4   10.818   1   Lake Erie   0.955 (21-1)   25-2
5   10.815   2   St. Thomas   0.889 (24-3)   24-3
6   10.704   3   Rhode Island College   0.889 (24-3)   24-3
7   10.667   4   Trinity (Conn.)   0.810 (17-4)   21-4
8   10.654   5   Salem State   0.923 (24-2)   24-2
9   10.636   1   Washington U.   0.818 (18-4)   20-4
10   10.609   1   Mississippi College   0.957 (22-1)   24-2
11   10.577   1   St. Lawrence   0.808 (21-5)   22-5
12   10.542   2   Chicago   0.792 (19-5)   20-5
13   10.480   1   Ramapo   0.800 (20-5)   21-7
14   10.462   3   Aurora   0.923 (24-2)   25-2
15   10.423   2   St. John Fisher   0.808 (21-5)   22-5
16   10.412   3   Occidental   0.824 (14-3)   19-5
17   10.320   6   Brandeis   0.760 (19-6)   19-6
18   10.308   4   Augustana   0.846 (22-4)   22-5
19   10.296   3   Brockport State   0.815 (22-5)   23-5
20   10.292   4   Rochester   0.750 (18-6)   18-7
21   10.269   1   Catholic   0.808 (21-5)   22-5
22   10.250   4   St. John's   0.833 (20-4)   20-7
23   10.200   2   Centre   0.800 (16-4)   22-4
24   10.192   3   Virginia Wesleyan   0.846 (22-4)   23-4
25   10.143   2   Lincoln   0.786 (11-3)   18-8
26   10.120   7   Keene State   0.800 (20-5)   23-5
27   10.091   2   Wooster   0.909 (20-2)   25-3
28   10.087   5   Whitworth   0.870 (20-3)   23-3
29   10.087   6   Loras   0.826 (19-4)   21-6
30   10.083   3   Johns Hopkins   0.875 (21-3)   22-4
31   10.040   3   John Carroll   0.720 (18-7)   19-9
32   10.000   4   Messiah   0.800 (16-4)   19-6
33   9.958   4   Maryville (Tenn.)   0.875 (21-3)   21-6
34   9.917   7   UW-Oshkosh   0.750 (18-6)   21-6
35   9.909   5   Averett   0.818 (18-4)   20-6
36   9.900   4   Hope   0.800 (16-4)   23-4
37   9.885   5   King's   0.731 (19-7)   19-8
38   9.870   6   DePauw   0.826 (19-4)   22-5
39   9.815   2   Manhattanville   0.815 (22-5)   23-5
40   9.808   6   Hood   0.769 (20-6)   21-7
41   9.792   8   UW-La Crosse   0.708 (17-7)   19-8
42   9.750   7   Alvernia   0.917 (22-2)   23-4
43   9.741   7   Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.815 (22-5)   22-5
44   9.741   3   Stevens   0.778 (21-6)   21-6
45   9.708   8   Scranton   0.708 (17-7)   19-7
46   9.708   5   New York University   0.750 (18-6)   19-6
47   9.708   8   Bates   0.708 (17-7)   18-7
48   9.696   6   Hamilton   0.696 (16-7)   19-7
49   9.654   9   Husson   0.846 (22-4)   22-6
50   9.632   9   Lewis and Clark   0.737 (14-5)   19-7
51   9.625   8   Guilford   0.833 (20-4)   21-4
52   9.619   5   Ohio Northern   0.667 (14-7)   19-7
53   9.609   7   Plattsburgh State   0.739 (17-6)   20-8
54   9.583   9   McMurry   0.792 (19-5)   20-7
55   9.520   4   New Jersey City   0.680 (17-8)   18-9
56   9.481   6   Capital   0.704 (19-8)   19-8
57   9.478   5   Elmhurst   0.739 (17-6)   21-6
58   9.458   9   Villa Julie   0.750 (18-6)   20-7
59   9.458   10   DeSales   0.708 (17-7)   19-8
60   9.450   7   Westminster (Pa.)   0.800 (16-4)   18-8
61   9.400   8   Utica   0.720 (18-7)   19-7
62   9.364   8   Wittenberg   0.773 (17-5)   22-5
63   9.360   10   Tufts   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
64   9.261   6   Grinnell   0.696 (16-7)   17-7
65   9.261   11   FDU-Florham   0.609 (14-9)   17-9
66   9.238   5   Richard Stockton   0.667 (14-7)   17-9
67   9.235   10   Redlands   0.765 (13-4)   17-7
68   9.231   7   Transylvania   0.692 (18-8)   19-8
69   9.200   9   Penn State-Behrend   0.720 (18-7)   19-7
70   9.190   8   Wheaton (Ill.)   0.619 (13-8)   17-9
71   9.185   11   Elms   0.704 (19-8)   20-8
72   9.148   11   UW-Whitewater   0.667 (18-9)   18-9
73   9.143   9   Carthage   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
74   9.143   6   Rowan   0.714 (15-6)   20-6
75   9.100   10   Calvin   0.700 (14-6)   18-9
76   9.091   10   Carroll   0.682 (15-7)   15-8
77   9.091   11   Baldwin-Wallace   0.682 (15-7)   18-9
78   9.091   12   Colby   0.636 (14-8)   15-11
79   9.080   13   Bridgewater State   0.680 (17-8)   17-8
80   9.074   14   Western New England   0.704 (19-8)   19-8
81   9.000   12   Pomona-Pitzer   0.688 (11-5)   16-8
82   9.000   10   Millsaps   0.714 (15-6)   18-9
83   9.000   12   Otterbein   0.600 (15-10)   16-11
84   9.000   7   SUNY-Farmingdale   0.667 (16-8)   18-9
85   9.000   15   Babson   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
86   8.958   8   SUNY-Old Westbury   0.625 (15-9)   18-10
87   8.958   9   William Paterson   0.625 (15-9)   15-10
88   8.958   16   Williams   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
89   8.952   13   Puget Sound   0.714 (15-6)   18-7
90   8.952   14   Cal Lutheran   0.619 (13-8)   17-8
91   8.905   12   Chestnut Hill   0.714 (15-6)   19-9
92   8.885   13   York (Pa.)   0.615 (16-10)   16-10
93   8.880   15   Coe   0.680 (17-8)   19-8
94   8.864   16   Buena Vista   0.636 (14-8)   17-9
95   8.857   11   Bluffton   0.619 (13-8)   18-8
96   8.857   13   Carnegie Mellon   0.524 (11-10)   12-12
97   8.833   14   Susquehanna   0.583 (14-10)   16-10
98   8.826   11   Greensboro   0.739 (17-6)   20-7
99   8.826   15   Juniata   0.652 (15-8)   16-11
100   8.789   12   North Central   0.579 (11-8)   16-10
101   8.783   17   Simpson   0.609 (14-9)   18-9
102   8.783   16   Ursinus   0.652 (15-8)   16-10
103   8.760   13   Edgewood   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
104   8.760   10   Rutgers-Newark   0.600 (15-10)   17-10
105   8.750   17   Mary Washington   0.625 (15-9)   16-10
106   8.739   14   Lake Forest   0.609 (14-9)   15-9
107   8.708   14   Ohio Wesleyan   0.625 (15-9)   18-10
108   8.704   17   Lasell   0.593 (16-11)   16-11
109   8.696   12   Trinity (Texas)   0.609 (14-9)   16-11
110   8.680   9   Clarkson   0.560 (14-11)   14-11
111   8.680   18   Westfield State   0.600 (15-10)   17-11
112   8.667   10   Geneseo State   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
113   8.667   19   Gordon   0.667 (16-8)   19-8
114   8.652   11   Vassar   0.609 (14-9)   15-10
115   8.640   18   Bethel   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
116   8.630   15   Dominican   0.630 (17-10)   17-10
117   8.625   12   Oswego State   0.583 (14-10)   15-12
118   8.609   18   Baptist Bible   0.696 (16-7)   18-8
119   8.600   20   Middlebury   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
120   8.524   19   Haverford   0.619 (13-8)   14-11
121   8.522   16   Defiance   0.609 (14-9)   17-9
122   8.500   13   Texas-Dallas   0.667 (16-8)   18-8
123   8.500   11   York (N.Y.)   0.708 (17-7)   18-10
124   8.462   20   St. Mary's (Md.)   0.577 (15-11)   16-11
125   8.458   13   Rochester Tech   0.542 (13-11)   14-12
126   8.455   15   Bethany   0.682 (15-7)   19-8
127   8.440   21   Mass-Dartmouth   0.560 (14-11)   14-13
128   8.423   22   Endicott   0.577 (15-11)   15-11
129   8.400   17   Fontbonne   0.600 (12-8)   16-11
130   8.381   18   Mt. St. Joseph   0.571 (12-9)   13-12
131   8.364   19   Ripon   0.545 (12-10)   13-10
132   8.364   14   Ithaca   0.545 (12-10)   14-12
133   8.353   19   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   0.588 (10-7)   15-10
134   8.346   23   Rivier   0.731 (19-7)   20-8
135   8.333   20   Hanover   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
136   8.333   14   Hardin-Simmons   0.593 (16-11)   16-11
137   8.333   16   Tri-State   0.611 (11-7)   16-9
138   8.333   15   SUNYIT   0.583 (14-10)   16-11
139   8.333   24   Bowdoin   0.583 (14-10)   15-10
140   8.320   12   St. Joseph's (L.I.)   0.640 (16-9)   17-9
141   8.318   21   Webster   0.591 (13-9)   16-10
142   8.304   25   Emerson   0.652 (15-8)   16-9
143   8.238   22   Lawrence   0.524 (11-10)   13-10
144   8.211   20   Chapman   0.737 (14-5)   21-5
145   8.208   23   Lakeland   0.583 (14-10)   16-11
146   8.200   24   Franklin   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
147   8.148   26   Wentworth Tech   0.630 (17-10)   17-11
148   8.143   25   MacMurray   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
149   8.143   21   Lycoming   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
150   8.115   27   MIT   0.500 (13-13)   14-13
151   8.105   17   Albion   0.526 (10-9)   10-15
152   8.095   21   UW-Platteville   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
153   8.091   26   Manchester   0.545 (12-10)   15-10
154   8.091   22   Wilkes   0.500 (11-11)   12-11
155   8.080   23   Widener   0.520 (13-12)   14-12
156   8.053   28   St. Joseph's (Maine)   0.632 (12-7)   19-7
157   8.000   22   Gustavus Adolphus   0.538 (14-12)   14-13
158   8.000   15   Roanoke   0.636 (14-8)   17-10
159   8.000   16   Hampden-Sydney   0.583 (14-10)   17-10
160   8.000   29   Springfield   0.462 (12-14)   12-14
161   7.958   18   Heidelberg   0.500 (12-12)   13-13
162   7.958   30   Western Connecticut   0.542 (13-11)   14-12
163   7.955   31   Eastern Connecticut   0.545 (12-10)   15-11
164   7.947   17   Hendrix   0.526 (10-9)   15-10
165   7.917   27   Wisconsin Lutheran   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
166   7.917   16   RPI   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
167   7.913   18   LeTourneau   0.609 (14-9)   15-10
168   7.900   24   Marymount   0.500 (10-10)   14-11
169   7.889   23   Pacific   0.556 (10-8)   12-13
170   7.889   19   Adrian   0.556 (10-8)   10-15
171   7.880   20   Wilmington   0.480 (12-13)   13-13
172   7.864   24   Carleton   0.500 (11-11)   11-15
173   7.826   13   Kings Point   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
174   7.818   21   Grove City   0.545 (12-10)   16-12
175   7.818   17   Union   0.500 (11-11)   11-14
176   7.783   28   Eureka   0.565 (13-10)   16-10
177   7.783   25   Lebanon Valley   0.522 (12-11)   14-11
178   7.778   19   LaGrange   0.611 (11-7)   18-9
179   7.773   18   Alfred   0.455 (10-12)   10-14
180   7.760   20   Oglethorpe   0.520 (13-12)   14-12
181   7.739   29   North Park   0.478 (11-12)   13-12
182   7.727   19   Buffalo State   0.455 (10-12)   12-13
183   7.708   20   Hobart   0.417 (10-14)   11-14
184   7.708   32   Emmanuel   0.458 (11-13)   12-16
185   7.667   26   Gettysburg   0.542 (13-11)   13-13
186   7.667   27   Pitt-Bradford   0.519 (14-13)   14-13
187   7.667   21   Oneonta State   0.476 (10-11)   11-15
188   7.667   33   Curry   0.556 (15-12)   15-13
189   7.650   14   Montclair State   0.400 (8-12)   12-12
190   7.609   28   Eastern   0.609 (14-9)   16-11
191   7.609   22   Nazareth   0.435 (10-13)   11-14
192   7.591   29   Albright   0.364 (8-14)   10-14
193   7.591   15   Kean   0.455 (10-12)   13-12
194   7.577   25   St. Olaf   0.500 (13-13)   13-14
195   7.565   30   Gwynedd-Mercy   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
196   7.565   34   Castleton State   0.565 (13-10)   15-11
197   7.545   16   New Jersey   0.409 (9-13)   12-14
198   7.542   22   Muskingum   0.458 (11-13)   12-13
199   7.542   17   Yeshiva   0.542 (13-11)   15-11
200   7.542   35   Roger Williams   0.583 (14-10)   15-10
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 24, 2007, 11:59:29 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 24, 2007, 11:54:58 PM
Quote from: re.frank on February 24, 2007, 11:52:12 PM
Where would you rank this cross section of teams for a Pool C bid after today's results?

Northwestern (Minn)
St. John's (Minn)
Rochester (NY)
Keene State (NH)
Brandeis (MA)
Messiah (PA)

Northwestern is a provisional member of D3 and as such is ineligible for a tournament berth.

The other five teams have a strong case for being Pool C teams if they do not win their conference tourneys. I know Messiah lost in its tourney already and is likely a Pool C lock. I am not sure about the conference tournament status of the other 4 teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Matt Letourneau on February 25, 2007, 12:37:54 AM
Catholic is #21 (with an AQ) and Hood at #40--still has a shot.

CUA is 9 spots ahead of Hopkins, with JHU playing #123 Haverford tomorrow (the Fords lost to the Cardinals at home earlier this season, btw)...I want a home game in DC!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2007, 01:22:05 AM
so it's on the most current page, and it has been updated thru Saturday's games!

I've added the current records and the overall current rank of the QOWI according to Pat's most recent chart...

Atlantic Region
1. (44) Stevens 21-6 21-6 (LOST in Skyline Semis)
2. (13) Ramapo 21-7 20-5 (Won NJAC AQ)
3. (39) Manhattanville 23-5 22-5 (Won Skyline AQ)
4. (55) New Jersey City 18-9 17-8 (LOST to Ramapo in NJAC Final)
5. (74) Rowan 20-6 15-6  (LOST to Ramapo in NJAC Semis)

East Region
1. (19) Brockport State 23-5 22-5 (LOST to Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final)
2. (15) St. John Fisher 22-5 21-5 (Won Empire 8 AQ)
3. (11) St. Lawrence 22-5 21-5 (Won Liberty League AQ)
4. (46) New York U. 19-6 18-6 (lost to Brandeis, needs a Pool C)
5. (20) Rochester 18-7 18-6 (beat Carnegie Mellon, still needs a Pool C)

Great Lakes Region
1. (4) Lake Erie 25-2 21-1 (Won AMCC AQ)
2. (27) Wooster 25-3 20-2 (Won NCAC AQ)
3. (31) John Carroll 19-9 18-7 (LOST to Capital in OAC Final)
4. (36) Hope 23-4 16-4 (LOST to Calvin in MIAA Final)
5. (52) Ohio Northern 19-7 14-7 (LOST to Otterbein in OAC Quarters)
6. (62) Wittenberg 22-5 17-5 (LOST to Ohio Wesleyan in NCAC Semis)

Middle Atlantic Region
1. (30) Johns Hopkins 22-4 21-3 (plays Haverford in Centennial Finals)
2. (32) Messiah 19-6 16-4 (LOST to Widener in MAC-Commonwealth Semis)
3. (42) Alvernia 23-4 22-2 (Won PnAC AQ)
4. (25) Lincoln (Pa.) 18-8 11-3-IND:  POOL B
5. (21) Catholic 22-5 21-5 (Won CAC AQ)
6. (40) Hood 21-7 20-6 (LOST to Catholic in CAC Final)
7. (37) King's (Pa.) 19-8 19-7 (Won MAC-Freedom AQ)
8. (45) Scranton 19-7 17-7 (LOST to DeSales in MAC-Freedom Semis)

Midwest Region
1. (12) Chicago 20-5 19-5 (LOST to Washington U., needs Pool C bid)
2. (18) Augustana 22-5 22-4 (Won CCIW AQ)
3. (9) Washington U. 12-4 18-4 (defeats Chicago in UAA, gets UAA AQ)
4. (14) Aurora 25-2 24-2 (Won NathCon Final:  POOL B
5. (57) Elmhurst 21-6 17-6 (LOST to Augustana in CCIW Final)
6. (73) Carthage 16-9 13-8 ([Reg. season complete, did not make CCIW tourney)
7. (64) Grinnell 17-7 16-7 (LOST to Lake Forest in MWC Semis)
8. (70) Wheaton (Ill.) 17-9 13-8 (LOST to Elmhurst in CCIW Semis)

Northeast Region
1. (2) Amherst 25-1 24-1 (plays Williams in NESCAC Final)
2. (8 ) Salem State 24-2 24-2 (Won MASCAC AQ)
3. (7) Trinity (Conn.) 21-4 17-4 (LOST to Williams in NESCAC Semis)
4. (3) WPI 22-2 20-2 (plays Coast Guard in NEWMAC Final)
5. (6) Rhode Island 24-3 24-3 (Won LEC AQ)
6. (26) Keene State 23-5 20-5 (LOST to Rhode Island in LEC Final)
7. (17) Brandeis 19-6 19-6 (defeated NYU, still needs a Pool C)
8. (47) Bates 18-7 17-7 (LOST to Amherst in NESCAC Quarters)
9. (49) Husson 22-6 22-4 (LOST to Elms in NAC Final)
10. (80) Western New England 19-8 19-8 (LOST to Emmanuel in GNAC Semis)

South Region
1. (10) Mississippi College 24-2 22-1 (plays Hardin-Simmons in ASC Final)
2. (24) Va. Wesleyan 23-4 22-4 (LOST to Hampden-Sydney in ODAC Semis)
3. (51) Guilford 21-4 20-4 (LOST to Bridgewater (Va) in ODAC Quarters)
4. (38) DePauw 22-5 19-4 (LOST to Trinity (TX) in SCAC Semis)
5. (43) Mary Hardin-Baylor 22-5 22-5 (LOST to Hardin-Simmons in ASC Semis;a 5-pt QOWI loss)
6. (33) Maryville (Tenn.) 21-6 21-3 (defeated LaGrange in GSAC Final)-POOL B
7. (23) Centre 22-4 16-4 (plays Trinity (TX) in SCAC Final)
8. (54) McMurry 20-7 19-5 (LOST to Mississippi College in ASC Semis)

West Region
1. (1) UW-Stevens Point 25-2 24-1 (Won WIAC AQ)
2. (5) St. Thomas 24-3 24-3 (Won MIAC AQ)
3. (23) St. John's 20-7 20-4 (LOST to St. Thomas in MIAC Final)
4. (34) UW-Oshkosh 21-6 18-6 (LOST to La Crosse in WIAC Semis)
5. (16) Occidental 19-5 14-3 (Won SCIAC AQ)
6. (28) Whitworth 23-3 20-3 (Won NWC AQ)
7. (29) Loras 21-6 19-4 (Won IIAC AQ)
8. (41) UW-La Crosse 19-8 17-7 (LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 25, 2007, 01:48:59 AM
Thanks OS... I'm sure I missed one or two teams wins and losses updating some of the results which must have been confusing...  :-[ I'm just not anywhere near 100% right now... sick, weak, bedridden and stir crazy is more like it! Rar. I almost went for a run today despite being way to sick to do that just because I couldn't stand being in the house anymore. :D :-X
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2007, 02:09:13 AM
Quote from: Old School on February 25, 2007, 01:22:05 AM
West Region
1. (1) UW-Stevens Point 25-2 24-1 (Won WIAC AQ)
2. (5) St. Thomas 24-3 24-3 (Won MIAC AQ)
3. (23) St. John's 20-7 20-4 (LOST to St. Thomas in MIAC Final)
4. (34) UW-Oshkosh 21-6 18-6 (LOST to La Crosse in WIAC Semis)
5. (16) Occidental 19-5 14-3 (Won SCIAC AQ)
6. (28) Whitworth 23-3 20-3 (Won NWC AQ)
7. (29) Loras 21-6 19-4 (Won IIAC AQ)
8. (41) UW-La Crosse 19-8 17-7 (LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final)

Looking at this region, it looks like it's the only one that went "chalk". lol  ;D :D ;)  Really, no upsets at all.  Oshkosh lost to the lower ranked La Crosse, but La Crosse was the #2 seed with Oshkosh the #3 in the WIAC tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2007, 03:39:00 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2007, 11:58:21 PM
Through Saturday:

Overall   Points   In-reg rk   Team   Region Win%   Overall
1   11.680   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.960 (24-1)   25-2
2   11.640   1   Amherst   0.960 (24-1)   25-1
3   10.864   2   Worcester Polytech   0.909 (20-2)   22-2
4   10.818   1   Lake Erie   0.955 (21-1)   25-2
5   10.815   2   St. Thomas   0.889 (24-3)   24-3
6   10.704   3   Rhode Island College   0.889 (24-3)   24-3
7   10.667   4   Trinity (Conn.)   0.810 (17-4)   21-4
8   10.654   5   Salem State   0.923 (24-2)   24-2
9   10.636   1   Washington U.   0.818 (18-4)   20-4
10   10.609   1   Mississippi College   0.957 (22-1)   24-2
11   10.577   1   St. Lawrence   0.808 (21-5)   22-5
12   10.542   2   Chicago   0.792 (19-5)   20-5
13   10.480   1   Ramapo   0.800 (20-5)   21-7
14   10.462   3   Aurora   0.923 (24-2)   25-2
15   10.423   2   St. John Fisher   0.808 (21-5)   22-5
16   10.412   3   Occidental   0.824 (14-3)   19-5
17   10.320   6   Brandeis   0.760 (19-6)   19-6
18   10.308   4   Augustana   0.846 (22-4)   22-5
19   10.296   3   Brockport State   0.815 (22-5)   23-5
20   10.292   4   Rochester   0.750 (18-6)   18-7
21   10.269   1   Catholic   0.808 (21-5)   22-5
22   10.250   4   St. John's   0.833 (20-4)   20-7
23   10.200   2   Centre   0.800 (16-4)   22-4
24   10.192   3   Virginia Wesleyan   0.846 (22-4)   23-4
25   10.143   2   Lincoln   0.786 (11-3)   18-8
26   10.120   7   Keene State   0.800 (20-5)   23-5
27   10.091   2   Wooster   0.909 (20-2)   25-3
28   10.087   5   Whitworth   0.870 (20-3)   23-3
29   10.087   6   Loras   0.826 (19-4)   21-6
30   10.083   3   Johns Hopkins   0.875 (21-3)   22-4
31   10.040   3   John Carroll   0.720 (18-7)   19-9
32   10.000   4   Messiah   0.800 (16-4)   19-6
33   9.958   4   Maryville (Tenn.)   0.875 (21-3)   21-6
34   9.917   7   UW-Oshkosh   0.750 (18-6)   21-6
35   9.909   5   Averett   0.818 (18-4)   20-6
36   9.900   4   Hope   0.800 (16-4)   23-4
37   9.885   5   King's   0.731 (19-7)   19-8
38   9.870   6   DePauw   0.826 (19-4)   22-5
39   9.815   2   Manhattanville   0.815 (22-5)   23-5
40   9.808   6   Hood   0.769 (20-6)   21-7
41   9.792   8   UW-La Crosse   0.708 (17-7)   19-8
42   9.750   7   Alvernia   0.917 (22-2)   23-4
43   9.741   7   Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.815 (22-5)   22-5
44   9.741   3   Stevens   0.778 (21-6)   21-6
45   9.708   8   Scranton   0.708 (17-7)   19-7
46   9.708   5   New York University   0.750 (18-6)   19-6
47   9.708   8   Bates   0.708 (17-7)   18-7
48   9.696   6   Hamilton   0.696 (16-7)   19-7
49   9.654   9   Husson   0.846 (22-4)   22-6
50   9.632   9   Lewis and Clark   0.737 (14-5)   19-7
51   9.625   8   Guilford   0.833 (20-4)   21-4
52   9.619   5   Ohio Northern   0.667 (14-7)   19-7
53   9.609   7   Plattsburgh State   0.739 (17-6)   20-8
54   9.583   9   McMurry   0.792 (19-5)   20-7
55   9.520   4   New Jersey City   0.680 (17-8)   18-9
56   9.481   6   Capital   0.704 (19-8)   19-8
57   9.478   5   Elmhurst   0.739 (17-6)   21-6
58   9.458   9   Villa Julie   0.750 (18-6)   20-7
59   9.458   10   DeSales   0.708 (17-7)   19-8
60   9.450   7   Westminster (Pa.)   0.800 (16-4)   18-8
61   9.400   8   Utica   0.720 (18-7)   19-7
62   9.364   8   Wittenberg   0.773 (17-5)   22-5
63   9.360   10   Tufts   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
64   9.261   6   Grinnell   0.696 (16-7)   17-7
65   9.261   11   FDU-Florham   0.609 (14-9)   17-9
66   9.238   5   Richard Stockton   0.667 (14-7)   17-9
67   9.235   10   Redlands   0.765 (13-4)   17-7
68   9.231   7   Transylvania   0.692 (18-8)   19-8
69   9.200   9   Penn State-Behrend   0.720 (18-7)   19-7
70   9.190   8   Wheaton (Ill.)   0.619 (13-8)   17-9
71   9.185   11   Elms   0.704 (19-8)   20-8
72   9.148   11   UW-Whitewater   0.667 (18-9)   18-9
73   9.143   9   Carthage   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
74   9.143   6   Rowan   0.714 (15-6)   20-6
75   9.100   10   Calvin   0.700 (14-6)   18-9
76   9.091   10   Carroll   0.682 (15-7)   15-8
77   9.091   11   Baldwin-Wallace   0.682 (15-7)   18-9
78   9.091   12   Colby   0.636 (14-8)   15-11
79   9.080   13   Bridgewater State   0.680 (17-8)   17-8
80   9.074   14   Western New England   0.704 (19-8)   19-8
81   9.000   12   Pomona-Pitzer   0.688 (11-5)   16-8
82   9.000   10   Millsaps   0.714 (15-6)   18-9
83   9.000   12   Otterbein   0.600 (15-10)   16-11
84   9.000   7   SUNY-Farmingdale   0.667 (16-8)   18-9
85   9.000   15   Babson   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
86   8.958   8   SUNY-Old Westbury   0.625 (15-9)   18-10
87   8.958   9   William Paterson   0.625 (15-9)   15-10
88   8.958   16   Williams   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
89   8.952   13   Puget Sound   0.714 (15-6)   18-7
90   8.952   14   Cal Lutheran   0.619 (13-8)   17-8
91   8.905   12   Chestnut Hill   0.714 (15-6)   19-9
92   8.885   13   York (Pa.)   0.615 (16-10)   16-10
93   8.880   15   Coe   0.680 (17-8)   19-8
94   8.864   16   Buena Vista   0.636 (14-8)   17-9
95   8.857   11   Bluffton   0.619 (13-8)   18-8
96   8.857   13   Carnegie Mellon   0.524 (11-10)   12-12
97   8.833   14   Susquehanna   0.583 (14-10)   16-10
98   8.826   11   Greensboro   0.739 (17-6)   20-7
99   8.826   15   Juniata   0.652 (15-8)   16-11
100   8.789   12   North Central   0.579 (11-8)   16-10
101   8.783   17   Simpson   0.609 (14-9)   18-9
102   8.783   16   Ursinus   0.652 (15-8)   16-10
103   8.760   13   Edgewood   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
104   8.760   10   Rutgers-Newark   0.600 (15-10)   17-10
105   8.750   17   Mary Washington   0.625 (15-9)   16-10
106   8.739   14   Lake Forest   0.609 (14-9)   15-9
107   8.708   14   Ohio Wesleyan   0.625 (15-9)   18-10
108   8.704   17   Lasell   0.593 (16-11)   16-11
109   8.696   12   Trinity (Texas)   0.609 (14-9)   16-11
110   8.680   9   Clarkson   0.560 (14-11)   14-11
111   8.680   18   Westfield State   0.600 (15-10)   17-11
112   8.667   10   Geneseo State   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
113   8.667   19   Gordon   0.667 (16-8)   19-8
114   8.652   11   Vassar   0.609 (14-9)   15-10
115   8.640   18   Bethel   0.680 (17-8)   18-8
116   8.630   15   Dominican   0.630 (17-10)   17-10
117   8.625   12   Oswego State   0.583 (14-10)   15-12
118   8.609   18   Baptist Bible   0.696 (16-7)   18-8
119   8.600   20   Middlebury   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
120   8.524   19   Haverford   0.619 (13-8)   14-11
121   8.522   16   Defiance   0.609 (14-9)   17-9
122   8.500   13   Texas-Dallas   0.667 (16-8)   18-8
123   8.500   11   York (N.Y.)   0.708 (17-7)   18-10
124   8.462   20   St. Mary's (Md.)   0.577 (15-11)   16-11
125   8.458   13   Rochester Tech   0.542 (13-11)   14-12
126   8.455   15   Bethany   0.682 (15-7)   19-8
127   8.440   21   Mass-Dartmouth   0.560 (14-11)   14-13
128   8.423   22   Endicott   0.577 (15-11)   15-11
129   8.400   17   Fontbonne   0.600 (12-8)   16-11
130   8.381   18   Mt. St. Joseph   0.571 (12-9)   13-12
131   8.364   19   Ripon   0.545 (12-10)   13-10
132   8.364   14   Ithaca   0.545 (12-10)   14-12
133   8.353   19   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   0.588 (10-7)   15-10
134   8.346   23   Rivier   0.731 (19-7)   20-8
135   8.333   20   Hanover   0.571 (12-9)   14-11
136   8.333   14   Hardin-Simmons   0.593 (16-11)   16-11
137   8.333   16   Tri-State   0.611 (11-7)   16-9
138   8.333   15   SUNYIT   0.583 (14-10)   16-11
139   8.333   24   Bowdoin   0.583 (14-10)   15-10
140   8.320   12   St. Joseph's (L.I.)   0.640 (16-9)   17-9
141   8.318   21   Webster   0.591 (13-9)   16-10
142   8.304   25   Emerson   0.652 (15-8)   16-9
143   8.238   22   Lawrence   0.524 (11-10)   13-10
144   8.211   20   Chapman   0.737 (14-5)   21-5
145   8.208   23   Lakeland   0.583 (14-10)   16-11
146   8.200   24   Franklin   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
147   8.148   26   Wentworth Tech   0.630 (17-10)   17-11
148   8.143   25   MacMurray   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
149   8.143   21   Lycoming   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
150   8.115   27   MIT   0.500 (13-13)   14-13
151   8.105   17   Albion   0.526 (10-9)   10-15
152   8.095   21   UW-Platteville   0.524 (11-10)   13-12
153   8.091   26   Manchester   0.545 (12-10)   15-10
154   8.091   22   Wilkes   0.500 (11-11)   12-11
155   8.080   23   Widener   0.520 (13-12)   14-12
156   8.053   28   St. Joseph's (Maine)   0.632 (12-7)   19-7
157   8.000   22   Gustavus Adolphus   0.538 (14-12)   14-13
158   8.000   15   Roanoke   0.636 (14-8)   17-10
159   8.000   16   Hampden-Sydney   0.583 (14-10)   17-10
160   8.000   29   Springfield   0.462 (12-14)   12-14
161   7.958   18   Heidelberg   0.500 (12-12)   13-13
162   7.958   30   Western Connecticut   0.542 (13-11)   14-12
163   7.955   31   Eastern Connecticut   0.545 (12-10)   15-11
164   7.947   17   Hendrix   0.526 (10-9)   15-10
165   7.917   27   Wisconsin Lutheran   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
166   7.917   16   RPI   0.500 (12-12)   13-12
167   7.913   18   LeTourneau   0.609 (14-9)   15-10
168   7.900   24   Marymount   0.500 (10-10)   14-11
169   7.889   23   Pacific   0.556 (10-8)   12-13
170   7.889   19   Adrian   0.556 (10-8)   10-15
171   7.880   20   Wilmington   0.480 (12-13)   13-13
172   7.864   24   Carleton   0.500 (11-11)   11-15
173   7.826   13   Kings Point   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
174   7.818   21   Grove City   0.545 (12-10)   16-12
175   7.818   17   Union   0.500 (11-11)   11-14
176   7.783   28   Eureka   0.565 (13-10)   16-10
177   7.783   25   Lebanon Valley   0.522 (12-11)   14-11
178   7.778   19   LaGrange   0.611 (11-7)   18-9
179   7.773   18   Alfred   0.455 (10-12)   10-14
180   7.760   20   Oglethorpe   0.520 (13-12)   14-12
181   7.739   29   North Park   0.478 (11-12)   13-12
182   7.727   19   Buffalo State   0.455 (10-12)   12-13
183   7.708   20   Hobart   0.417 (10-14)   11-14
184   7.708   32   Emmanuel   0.458 (11-13)   12-16
185   7.667   26   Gettysburg   0.542 (13-11)   13-13
186   7.667   27   Pitt-Bradford   0.519 (14-13)   14-13
187   7.667   21   Oneonta State   0.476 (10-11)   11-15
188   7.667   33   Curry   0.556 (15-12)   15-13
189   7.650   14   Montclair State   0.400 (8-12)   12-12
190   7.609   28   Eastern   0.609 (14-9)   16-11
191   7.609   22   Nazareth   0.435 (10-13)   11-14
192   7.591   29   Albright   0.364 (8-14)   10-14
193   7.591   15   Kean   0.455 (10-12)   13-12
194   7.577   25   St. Olaf   0.500 (13-13)   13-14
195   7.565   30   Gwynedd-Mercy   0.565 (13-10)   14-12
196   7.565   34   Castleton State   0.565 (13-10)   15-11
197   7.545   16   New Jersey   0.409 (9-13)   12-14
198   7.542   22   Muskingum   0.458 (11-13)   12-13
199   7.542   17   Yeshiva   0.542 (13-11)   15-11
200   7.542   35   Roger Williams   0.583 (14-10)   15-10

Let me know if I got it right or wrong, but I think the bold are all the A's and italics are the B's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 25, 2007, 11:13:16 AM
I have a question, which is probably a dumb one.  On the list above, NYU and Scranton have the same QOWI, but Scranton is listed higher (even though NYU has a better regional record).  Is Scranton listed higher for a reason, or is there really no difference in their ranking?  (I understand they are not in the same region so this doesnt really matter, but I was wondering because those two are right around that 18 team cutoff for Pool C, if you go just by QOWI).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Matt Letourneau on February 25, 2007, 11:20:26 AM
SAC--#92 York PA did not get the AQ out of the CAC, Catholic (also bolded) did.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on February 25, 2007, 11:41:18 AM
Someone must have already done this, but just in case, the top 18 C poolers, excluding teams not still playing for conference championships, bottoms out at no. 45 Scranton.
In the 7 championships remaining, none of the games appear to have 2 sure thing C bids facing each other. In fact, none of the lesser rated teams in each game would have a shot at a C bid if they lose.
However, Amherst, WPI, J Hopkins,Centre, and Misssissippi would all take a C bid away if they lose in their finals. 
The Current bottom 5, at least by this measuring stick are   Hood 40,  UW Lacrosse 41, Mary Hardin Baylor 43,  Stevens 44 and Scranton 45.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hugenerd on February 25, 2007, 11:58:47 AM
Quote from: hopefan on February 25, 2007, 11:41:18 AM
Someone must have already done this, but just in case, the top 18 C poolers, excluding teams not still playing for conference championships, bottoms out at no. 45 Scranton.
In the 7 championships remaining, none of the games appear to have 2 sure thing C bids facing each other. In fact, none of the lesser rated teams in each game would have a shot at a C bid if they lose.
However, Amherst, WPI, J Hopkins,Centre, and Misssissippi would all take a C bid away if they lose in their finals. 
The Current bottom 5, at least by this measuring stick are   Hood 40,  UW Lacrosse 41, Mary Hardin Baylor 43,  Stevens 44 and Scranton 45.

NYU has the same QOWI as scranton and a better regional record.  This goes back to my question earlier.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2007, 12:09:13 PM
There's no tiebreaker involved -- it's a very simple sort in Excel.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2007, 01:02:03 PM
Quote from: Matt Letourneau on February 25, 2007, 11:20:26 AM
SAC--#92 York PA did not get the AQ out of the CAC, Catholic (also bolded) did.

In my defense, I just copied from the earlier list, using the updated  QOWI numbers.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 25, 2007, 01:34:00 PM
willams and coast guard making it very interesting in the last few seconds!!!  :o :o :o :o :o

some pool c's may be eaten up in a few seconds...  :-\

edit: Amherst loses!!! Uh oh... this is going to be a crazy day...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 25, 2007, 01:37:56 PM
Does Coast Guard go by another name on the QoWI list we have on this page?

Also Amherst just blew the NESCAC after having a 15-0 lead and burst someone's bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 25, 2007, 01:39:18 PM
Holy cow!  :o :o :o  That's what happens when you have to play your arch-rival in the conference title game!  Thank goodness Ohio Wesleyan beat Wittenberg!  ;D

Does this mean that Amherst does not get a bye?  Opinions? 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 25, 2007, 01:40:27 PM
who's bubble just got burst by AMHERST and WPI losing?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 25, 2007, 01:40:54 PM
Another bubble bursts. Coast Guard is about to finish off WPI upo 71-66 with 8 seconds left.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 25, 2007, 01:41:15 PM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 25, 2007, 01:37:56 PM
Does Coast Guard go by another name on the QoWI list we have on this page?

Coast Guard is just 11-12 in-region on the season; it'd be no surprise if they are not in the top 200 in QoWI.

EDIT: they're 12-12 now! :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 25, 2007, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: fisheralum03 on February 25, 2007, 01:40:27 PM
who's bubble just got burst by AMHERST and WPI losing?

John Carroll, UW Oshkosh, Stevens, and Hood looked like the last 4 coming in.

UW Oshkosh may already be out since there's an apparent error in their QOWI (see the QOWI page).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 25, 2007, 01:44:34 PM
should any teams from the east be worried about what happened in AMHERST and WPI?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 25, 2007, 01:45:57 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 25, 2007, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: fisheralum03 on February 25, 2007, 01:40:27 PM
who's bubble just got burst by AMHERST and WPI losing?

John Carroll, UW Oshkosh, Stevens, and Hood looked like the last 4 coming in.

UW Oshkosh may already be out since there's an apparent error in their QOWI (see the QOWI page).


What about Guilford? They looked very low on the QoWI and seem to me they will be at least one of the teams to suffer from today's upsets.

As a Hope fan I couldn't be rooting harder for Mississippi College, John Hopkins or Centre right now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2007, 01:46:53 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 25, 2007, 01:39:18 PM
Does this mean that Amherst does not get a bye?  Opinions? 

Yes, they'll be called Coast Guard.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2007, 01:47:42 PM
Agreed DCHopeNut... Hope and Guilford are going to be very nervous tonight. Pool C bids are dropping faster than Oshkosh from #4 in the Preseason Top 25.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fisheralum03 on February 25, 2007, 01:50:41 PM
What are the chances a first round bye would go to St. John Fisher with Amherst losing today?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 25, 2007, 02:22:09 PM
Given the concentration of teams in the East/Northeast and SJF's late entry into the regional rankings, I'd say there is very little chance the Cards have a first round bye.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 25, 2007, 02:31:46 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 25, 2007, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: fisheralum03 on February 25, 2007, 01:40:27 PM
who's bubble just got burst by AMHERST and WPI losing?

John Carroll, UW Oshkosh, Stevens, and Hood looked like the last 4 coming in.

UW Oshkosh may already be out since there's an apparent error in their QOWI (see the QOWI page).


Let me correct this: due to the QOWI error, UW LaCrosse was probably already out (and now almost certainly out); UW Oshkosh is one of the last four.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2007, 02:38:38 PM
I think there's a few bubbles that just popped.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2007, 02:52:05 PM
Way to take care of business, Amherst and WPI! NOT.  So long La Crosse (though I didn't think they were in) and Oshkosh?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 25, 2007, 03:18:21 PM
OS,

The front page projections still have Oshy and LaX after the upsets... but I'm not sure if they're factoring in the apparent "fix"  ...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2007, 03:22:29 PM
so it's on the most current page, and it has been updated thru some of Sunday's games!

I've added the current records and the overall current rank of the QOWI according to Pat's most recent chart...

Atlantic Region
1. (44) Stevens 21-6 21-6 (LOST in Skyline Semis)
2. (13) Ramapo 21-7 20-5 (Won NJAC AQ)
3. (39) Manhattanville 23-5 22-5 (Won Skyline AQ)
4. (55) New Jersey City 18-9 17-8 (LOST to Ramapo in NJAC Final)
5. (74) Rowan 20-6 15-6  (LOST to Ramapo in NJAC Semis)

East Region
1. (19) Brockport State 23-5 22-5 (LOST to Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final)
2. (15) St. John Fisher 22-5 21-5 (Won Empire 8 AQ)
3. (11) St. Lawrence 22-5 21-5 (Won Liberty League AQ)
4. (46) New York U. 19-6 18-6 (lost to Brandeis, needs a Pool C)
5. (20) Rochester 18-7 18-6 (beat Carnegie Mellon, still needs a Pool C)

Great Lakes Region
1. (4) Lake Erie 25-2 21-1 (Won AMCC AQ)
2. (27) Wooster 25-3 20-2 (Won NCAC AQ)
3. (31) John Carroll 19-9 18-7 (LOST to Capital in OAC Final)
4. (36) Hope 23-4 16-4 (LOST to Calvin in MIAA Final)
5. (52) Ohio Northern 19-7 14-7 (LOST to Otterbein in OAC Quarters)
6. (62) Wittenberg 22-5 17-5 (LOST to Ohio Wesleyan in NCAC Semis)

Middle Atlantic Region
1. (30) Johns Hopkins 22-4 21-3 (plays Haverford in Centennial Finals)
2. (32) Messiah 19-6 16-4 (LOST to Widener in MAC-Commonwealth Semis)
3. (42) Alvernia 23-4 22-2 (Won PnAC AQ)
4. (25) Lincoln (Pa.) 18-8 11-3-IND:  POOL B
5. (21) Catholic 22-5 21-5 (Won CAC AQ)
6. (40) Hood 21-7 20-6 (LOST to Catholic in CAC Final)
7. (37) King's (Pa.) 19-8 19-7 (Won MAC-Freedom AQ)
8. (45) Scranton 19-7 17-7 (LOST to DeSales in MAC-Freedom Semis)

Midwest Region
1. (12) Chicago 20-5 19-5 (LOST to Washington U., needs Pool C bid)
2. (18) Augustana 22-5 22-4 (Won CCIW AQ)
3. (9) Washington U. 12-4 18-4 (defeats Chicago in UAA, gets UAA AQ)
4. (14) Aurora 25-2 24-2 (Won NathCon Final:  POOL B
5. (57) Elmhurst 21-6 17-6 (LOST to Augustana in CCIW Final)
6. (73) Carthage 16-9 13-8 ([Reg. season complete, did not make CCIW tourney)
7. (64) Grinnell 17-7 16-7 (LOST to Lake Forest in MWC Semis)
8. (70) Wheaton (Ill.) 17-9 13-8 (LOST to Elmhurst in CCIW Semis)

Northeast Region
1. (2) Amherst 25-2 24-2 (LOST to Williams in NESCAC Final)
2. (8 ) Salem State 24-2 24-2 (Won MASCAC AQ)
3. (7) Trinity (Conn.) 21-4 17-4 (LOST to Williams in NESCAC Semis)
4. (3) WPI 22-3 20-3 (LOST to Coast Guard in NEWMAC Final)
5. (6) Rhode Island 24-3 24-3 (Won LEC AQ)
6. (26) Keene State 23-5 20-5 (LOST to Rhode Island in LEC Final)
7. (17) Brandeis 19-6 19-6 (defeated NYU, still needs a Pool C)
8. (47) Bates 18-7 17-7 (LOST to Amherst in NESCAC Quarters)
9. (49) Husson 22-6 22-4 (LOST to Elms in NAC Final)
10. (80) Western New England 19-8 19-8 (LOST to Emmanuel in GNAC Semis)

South Region
1. (10) Mississippi College 24-2 22-1 (plays Hardin-Simmons in ASC Final)
2. (24) Va. Wesleyan 23-4 22-4 (LOST to Hampden-Sydney in ODAC Semis)
3. (51) Guilford 21-4 20-4 (LOST to Bridgewater (Va) in ODAC Quarters)
4. (38) DePauw 22-5 19-4 (LOST to Trinity (TX) in SCAC Semis)
5. (43) Mary Hardin-Baylor 22-5 22-5 (LOST to Hardin-Simmons in ASC Semis;a 5-pt QOWI loss)
6. (33) Maryville (Tenn.) 21-6 21-3 (defeated LaGrange in GSAC Final)-POOL B
7. (23) Centre 22-4 16-4 (plays Trinity (TX) in SCAC Final)
8. (54) McMurry 20-7 19-5 (LOST to Mississippi College in ASC Semis)

West Region
1. (1) UW-Stevens Point 25-2 24-1 (Won WIAC AQ)
2. (5) St. Thomas 24-3 24-3 (Won MIAC AQ)
3. (23) St. John's 20-7 20-4 (LOST to St. Thomas in MIAC Final)
4. (34) UW-Oshkosh 21-6 18-6 (LOST to La Crosse in WIAC Semis)
5. (16) Occidental 19-5 14-3 (Won SCIAC AQ)
6. (28) Whitworth 23-3 20-3 (Won NWC AQ)
7. (29) Loras 21-6 19-4 (Won IIAC AQ)
8. (41) UW-La Crosse 19-8 17-7 (LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on February 25, 2007, 04:21:28 PM
The front page projections were not updated since the early upsets - no one disappeared or was added on the C list ---- oops  thru a quirk of timing, it was updated!!!  I didn't refresh properly.   Amherst and WPI appear, Stevens and Guilford are gone  - Mary Hardin, UW Lac, Hood on the bubble - And Hopkins winning by only 2 in 2nd half!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2007, 04:35:39 PM
This site says John Hopkins won 68-61

Mississippi College up on (Mary) Hardin-Simmons  :D 61-55 with about 3 minutes to go.

Centre up 10 on Trinity (TX) with 15 to go.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Matt Letourneau on February 25, 2007, 04:47:35 PM
Yeah, I was following it on live stats--Haverford made a run and actually even took a lead for a minute, but Hopkins pulled it out. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 25, 2007, 04:50:33 PM
Hopkins, Mississippi College, and soon Centre will win the last three games that could affect the Pool C and thank goodness they actually won and saved some Pool C bids. However, with Amherst and WPI losing two Pool C bids were lost today. Based on D3hoops projections I think the two teams that will be left thanks to these upsets is Guilford and Stevens, which is what I see was just recently changed on the projections. So I am glad someonoe smarter than me agrees with me for once!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2007, 04:54:11 PM
Actually, I think HOPE will be left out!

admittingly said just to make you nervous  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2007, 05:14:10 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 25, 2007, 04:35:39 PM
This site says John Hopkins won 68-61

Mississippi College up on (Mary) Hardin-Simmons  :D 61-55 with about 3 minutes to go.

Centre up 10 on Trinity (TX) with 15 to go.
Actually John G. Hardin (http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/HH/fha62.html) was the benefactor for Hardin-Simmons.  His wife is considered the benefactress for Baylor Female College. :)


The Hardin family was the primary benefactors for Hardin-Simmons, Howard Payne, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor and Hardin College, the public junior college (Hardin College) that became Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls, and Buckner Childrens' Home in Dallas.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2007, 05:23:42 PM
You're no fun! lol  :P

They should form a super university, Mary Hardin-Baylor-Simmons.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2007, 07:06:31 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 25, 2007, 05:23:42 PM
You're no fun! lol  :P

They should form a super university, Mary Hardin-Baylor-Simmons.

Won't happen...if a town is big enough to have one Baptist Church, it is big enough to have two!

We have 6 Baptist related schools in the ASC and they don't like each other!   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: re.frank on February 25, 2007, 08:12:34 PM
Any thoughts on the chances of Keene State and/or Brandeis for a Pool C bid?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 25, 2007, 08:15:23 PM
Quote from: re.frank on February 25, 2007, 08:12:34 PM
Any thoughts on the chances of Keene State and/or Brandeis for a Pool C bid?

Both are in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2007, 08:25:53 PM

Through Saturday:

Overall   Points   In-reg rk   Team   Region Win%   Overall
1   11.680   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.960 (24-1)   25-2
2   11.640   1   Amherst   0.960 (24-1)   25-1
3   10.864   2   Worcester Polytech   0.909 (20-2)   22-2
4   10.818   1   Lake Erie   0.955 (21-1)   25-2
5   10.815   2   St. Thomas   0.889 (24-3)   24-3
6   10.704   3   Rhode Island College   0.889 (24-3)   24-3
7   10.667   4   Trinity (Conn.)   0.810 (17-4)   21-4
8   10.654   5   Salem State   0.923 (24-2)   24-2
9   10.636   1   Washington U.   0.818 (18-4)   20-4
10   10.609   1   Mississippi College   0.957 (22-1)   24-2
11   10.577   1   St. Lawrence   0.808 (21-5)   22-5
12   10.542   2   Chicago   0.792 (19-5)   20-5
13   10.480   1   Ramapo   0.800 (20-5)   21-7
14   10.462   3   Aurora   0.923 (24-2)   25-2
15   10.423   2   St. John Fisher   0.808 (21-5)   22-5
16   10.412   3   Occidental   0.824 (14-3)   19-5
17   10.320   6   Brandeis   0.760 (19-6)   19-6
18   10.308   4   Augustana   0.846 (22-4)   22-5
19   10.296   3   Brockport State   0.815 (22-5)   23-5
20   10.292   4   Rochester   0.750 (18-6)   18-7
21   10.269   1   Catholic   0.808 (21-5)   22-5
22   10.250   4   St. John's   0.833 (20-4)   20-7
23   10.200   2   Centre   0.800 (16-4)   22-4
24   10.192   3   Virginia Wesleyan   0.846 (22-4)   23-4
25   10.143   2   Lincoln   0.786 (11-3)   18-8
26   10.120   7   Keene State   0.800 (20-5)   23-5
27   10.091   2   Wooster   0.909 (20-2)   25-3
28   10.087   5   Whitworth   0.870 (20-3)   23-3
29   10.087   6   Loras   0.826 (19-4)   21-6
30   10.083   3   Johns Hopkins   0.875 (21-3)   22-4
31   10.040   3   John Carroll   0.720 (18-7)   19-9
32   10.000   4   Messiah   0.800 (16-4)   19-6
33   9.958   4   Maryville (Tenn.)   0.875 (21-3)   21-6
34   9.917   7   UW-Oshkosh   0.750 (18-6)   21-6
35   9.909   5   Averett   0.818 (18-4)   20-6
36   9.900   4   Hope   0.800 (16-4)   23-4
37   9.885   5   King's   0.731 (19-7)   19-8
38   9.870   6   DePauw   0.826 (19-4)   22-5
39   9.815   2   Manhattanville   0.815 (22-5)   23-5
40   9.808   6   Hood   0.769 (20-6)   21-7
41   9.792   8   UW-La Crosse   0.708 (17-7)   19-8
42   9.750   7   Alvernia   0.917 (22-2)   23-4
43   9.741   7   Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.815 (22-5)   22-5
44   9.741   3   Stevens   0.778 (21-6)   21-6
45   9.708   8   Scranton   0.708 (17-7)   19-7
46   9.708   5   New York University   0.750 (18-6)   19-6
47   9.708   8   Bates   0.708 (17-7)   18-7
48   9.696   6   Hamilton   0.696 (16-7)   19-7
49   9.654   9   Husson   0.846 (22-4)   22-6
50   9.632   9   Lewis and Clark   0.737 (14-5)   19-7
51   9.625   8   Guilford   0.833 (20-4)   21-4
52   9.619   5   Ohio Northern   0.667 (14-7)   19-7
53   9.609   7   Plattsburgh State   0.739 (17-6)   20-8
54   9.583   9   McMurry   0.792 (19-5)   20-7
55   9.520   4   New Jersey City   0.680 (17-8)   18-9
56   9.481   6   Capital   0.704 (19-8)   19-8
57   9.478   5   Elmhurst   0.739 (17-6)   21-6
58   9.458   9   Villa Julie   0.750 (18-6)   20-7
59   9.458   10   DeSales   0.708 (17-7)   19-8
60   9.450   7   Westminster (Pa.)   0.800 (16-4)   18-8
61   9.400   8   Utica   0.720 (18-7)   19-7
62   9.364   8   Wittenberg   0.773 (17-5)   22-5
63   9.360   10   Tufts   0.600 (15-10)   15-10
64   9.261   6   Grinnell   0.696 (16-7)   17-7
65   9.261   11   FDU-Florham   0.609 (14-9)   17-9
66   9.238   5   Richard Stockton   0.667 (14-7)   17-9
67   9.235   10   Redlands   0.765 (13-4)   17-7
68   9.231   7   Transylvania   0.692 (18-8)   19-8
69   9.200   9   Penn State-Behrend   0.720 (18-7)   19-7
70   9.190   8   Wheaton (Ill.)   0.619 (13-8)   17-9
71   9.185   11   Elms   0.704 (19-8)   20-8
72   9.148   11   UW-Whitewater   0.667 (18-9)   18-9
73   9.143   9   Carthage   0.619 (13-8)   16-9
74   9.143   6   Rowan   0.714 (15-6)   20-6
75   9.100   10   Calvin   0.700 (14-6)   18-9
76   9.091   10   Carroll   0.682 (15-7)   15-8
77   9.091   11   Baldwin-Wallace   0.682 (15-7)   18-9
78   9.091   12   Colby   0.636 (14-8)   15-11
79   9.080   13   Bridgewater State   0.680 (17-8)   17-8
80   9.074   14   Western New England   0.704 (19-8)   19-8
81   9.000   12   Pomona-Pitzer   0.688 (11-5)   16-8
82   9.000   10   Millsaps   0.714 (15-6)   18-9
83   9.000   12   Otterbein   0.600 (15-10)   16-11
84   9.000   7   SUNY-Farmingdale   0.667 (16-8)   18-9
85   9.000   15   Babson   0.600 (15-10)   16-10
86   8.958   8   SUNY-Old Westbury   0.625 (15-9)   18-10
87   8.958   9   William Paterson   0.625 (15-9)   15-10
88   8.958   16   Williams   0.583 (14-10)   15-11
89   8.952   13   Puget Sound   0.714 (15-6)   18-7
90   8.952   14   Cal Lutheran   0.619 (13-8)   17-8
91   8.905   12   Chestnut Hill   0.714 (15-6)   19-9
92   8.885   13   York (Pa.)   0.615 (16-10)   16-10
93   8.880   15   Coe   0.680 (17-8)   19-8
94   8.864   16   Buena Vista   0.636 (14-8)   17-9
95   8.857   11   Bluffton   0.619 (13-8)   18-8
96   8.857   13   Carnegie Mellon   0.524 (11-10)   12-12
97   8.833   14   Susquehanna   0.583 (14-10)   16-10
98   8.826   11   Greensboro   0.739 (17-6)   20-7
99   8.826   15   Juniata   0.652 (15-8)   16-11
100   8.789   12   North Central   0.579 (11-8)   16-10

This is what I have so far, feel free to check for errors. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2007, 08:47:43 PM
We changed our bracket. Did we not change the Pool C list? Possibly. Don't have time to look.

Regardless of QOWI change I think they get in. My $.02. Remember how those teams got in last year despite lower numbers than others?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 25, 2007, 09:03:20 PM
Well, looking at the numbers for last year, they weren't behind on the numbers - UW LaCrosse was in the top 18 on the numbers (arguably only Ill Wesleyan over Trinity CT went against the numbers).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2007, 10:57:30 PM
Atlantic Region
1. (44) Stevens 21-6 21-6 (LOST in Skyline Semis) POOL C
2. (13) Ramapo 21-7 20-5 (Won NJAC AQ)
3. (39) Manhattanville 23-5 22-5 (Won Skyline AQ)
4. (55) New Jersey City 18-9 17-8 (LOST to Ramapo in NJAC Final)
5. (74) Rowan 20-6 15-6  (LOST to Ramapo in NJAC Semis)

East Region
1. (19) Brockport State 23-5 22-5 (LOST to Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final) POOL C
2. (15) St. John Fisher 22-5 21-5 (Won Empire 8 AQ)
3. (11) St. Lawrence 22-5 21-5 (Won Liberty League AQ)
4. (46) New York U. 19-6 18-6 (lost to Brandeis, needs a Pool C)
5. (20) Rochester 18-7 18-6 (beat Carnegie Mellon, still needs a Pool C) POOL C

Great Lakes Region
1. (4) Lake Erie 25-2 21-1 (Won AMCC AQ)
2. (27) Wooster 25-3 20-2 (Won NCAC AQ)
3. (31) John Carroll 19-9 18-7 (LOST to Capital in OAC Final) POOL C
4. (36) Hope 23-4 16-4 (LOST to Calvin in MIAA Final) POOL C
5. (52) Ohio Northern 19-7 14-7 (LOST to Otterbein in OAC Quarters)
6. (62) Wittenberg 22-5 17-5 (LOST to Ohio Wesleyan in NCAC Semis)

Middle Atlantic Region
1. (30) Johns Hopkins 22-4 21-3 (plays Haverford in Centennial Finals)
2. (32) Messiah 19-6 16-4 (LOST to Widener in MAC-Commonwealth Semis) POOL C
3. (42) Alvernia 23-4 22-2 (Won PnAC AQ)
4. (25) Lincoln (Pa.) 18-8 11-3-IND:  POOL B
5. (21) Catholic 22-5 21-5 (Won CAC AQ)
6. (40) Hood 21-7 20-6 (LOST to Catholic in CAC Final) POOL C
7. (37) King's (Pa.) 19-8 19-7 (Won MAC-Freedom AQ)
8. (45) Scranton 19-7 17-7 (LOST to DeSales in MAC-Freedom Semis)

Midwest Region
1. (12) Chicago 20-5 19-5 (LOST to Washington U., needs Pool C bid) POOL C
2. (18) Augustana 22-5 22-4 (Won CCIW AQ)
3. (9) Washington U. 12-4 18-4 (defeats Chicago in UAA, gets UAA AQ)
4. (14) Aurora 25-2 24-2 (Won NathCon Final:  POOL B
5. (57) Elmhurst 21-6 17-6 (LOST to Augustana in CCIW Final)
6. (73) Carthage 16-9 13-8 ([Reg. season complete, did not make CCIW tourney)
7. (64) Grinnell 17-7 16-7 (LOST to Lake Forest in MWC Semis)
8. (70) Wheaton (Ill.) 17-9 13-8 (LOST to Elmhurst in CCIW Semis)

Northeast Region
1. (2) Amherst 25-2 24-2 (LOST to Williams in NESCAC Final) POOL C
2. (8 ) Salem State 24-2 24-2 (Won MASCAC AQ)
3. (7) Trinity (Conn.) 21-4 17-4 (LOST to Williams in NESCAC Semis) POOL C
4. (3) WPI 22-3 20-3 (LOST to Coast Guard in NEWMAC Final) POOL C
5. (6) Rhode Island 24-3 24-3 (Won LEC AQ)
6. (26) Keene State 23-5 20-5 (LOST to Rhode Island in LEC Final) POOL C
7. (17) Brandeis 19-6 19-6 (defeated NYU, still needs a Pool C) POOL C
8. (47) Bates 18-7 17-7 (LOST to Amherst in NESCAC Quarters)
9. (49) Husson 22-6 22-4 (LOST to Elms in NAC Final)
10. (80) Western New England 19-8 19-8 (LOST to Emmanuel in GNAC Semis)

South Region
1. (10) Mississippi College 24-2 22-1 (plays Hardin-Simmons in ASC Final)
2. (24) Va. Wesleyan 23-4 22-4 (LOST to Hampden-Sydney in ODAC Semis) POOL C
3. (51) Guilford 21-4 20-4 (LOST to Bridgewater (Va) in ODAC Quarters) POOL C
4. (38) DePauw 22-5 19-4 (LOST to Trinity (TX) in SCAC Semis) POOL C
5. (43) Mary Hardin-Baylor 22-5 22-5 (LOST to Hardin-Simmons in ASC POOL CSemis;a 5-pt QOWI loss)
6. (33) Maryville (Tenn.) 21-6 21-3 (defeated LaGrange in GSAC Final)-POOL B
7. (23) Centre 22-4 16-4 (plays Trinity (TX) in SCAC Final)
8. (54) McMurry 20-7 19-5 (LOST to Mississippi College in ASC Semis)

West Region
1. (1) UW-Stevens Point 25-2 24-1 (Won WIAC AQ)
2. (5) St. Thomas 24-3 24-3 (Won MIAC AQ)
3. (23) St. John's 20-7 20-4 (LOST to St. Thomas in MIAC Final) POOL C
4. (34) UW-Oshkosh 21-6 18-6 (LOST to La Crosse in WIAC Semis)
5. (16) Occidental 19-5 14-3 (Won SCIAC AQ)
6. (28) Whitworth 23-3 20-3 (Won NWC AQ)
7. (29) Loras 21-6 19-4 (Won IIAC AQ)
8. (41) UW-La Crosse 19-8 17-7 (LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 26, 2007, 09:11:30 AM
Here are my power rankings for the "C" teams, taken before all Hades broke loose in the tourneys.


Amherst - 3
Brandeis - 22
Brockport State - 46
Chicago - 5
DePauw - 28
Guilford - 7
Hood - 51
Hope - 23
John Carroll - 35
Keene State - 30
Mary Hardin-Baylor - 32
Messiah - 37
Rochester - 24
St. John's - 54
Stevens - 88
Trinity (Conn.) - 15
Virginia Wesleyan - 9
WPI - 20

Those not in the field:

WI - Oshkosh - 8
Elmhurst - 11
Wittenberg - 12
Ohio Northern - 16
NYU - 17
Lewis & Clark - 19
WI - LaCrosse - 29
Grinnell - 31
Wheaton - 38
Coe - 40
Carthage - 42
WI - Whitewater - 43
Bluffton - 44
Richard Stockton - 47
Baldwin Wallace - 48


A lot of good teams staying put. More than normal, it seems.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 26, 2007, 12:46:59 PM
Smed, Stockton?  Rowan and NJCU would have been considered before Stockton.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LAXGUY on February 26, 2007, 01:51:03 PM
Teams that made it a head of La Crosse that I don't understand...

Hope
record vs 20 win teams: 0-0
record vs 18-19 win teams: 1-2
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 6 (6-0)

Guilford
record vs 20 win teams: 2-2
record vs 18-19 win teams: 2-0
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 6 (6-0)

Stevens
record vs 20 win teams: 0-1
record vs 17-19 win teams: 2-4
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 7 (6-1)

Mary Hardin-Baylor
record vs 20 win teams: 2-2
record vs 18-19 win teams: 0-1
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 13 (13-0)

compared to...

UW-LA CROSSE
record vs 20 win teams: 4-4 (3 losses to the #1 team in the nation)
record vs 18-19 win teams: 3-0
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 2 (2-0)


General Thoughts
1) Mary Hardin-Baylor played 13 games against teams with 9 or fewer wins.
2) Who did Hope beat??? Calvin only solid team faced and went 1-2 vs them.
3) Stevens doesn't really have a quality win either, and they also lost to a "9 wins or fewer team."
4) Is it possible to have a more difficult schedule then La Crosse??? Not to mention they handled Calvin with ease.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2007, 01:58:00 PM
Those are all arguments that would be great if this were the Division I tournament, but Division III doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 26, 2007, 02:35:44 PM
Stockton has good power numbers and SOS (77th). Rowan is close in power rankings but they have a poor SOS (224). NJ CU's power rankings are lower and their SOS is mediocre.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 26, 2007, 02:38:17 PM
Quote from: LAXGUY on February 26, 2007, 01:51:03 PM

4) Is it possible to have a more difficult schedule then La Crosse??? Not to mention they handled Calvin with ease.


Well, yeah.

According to Massey, before the conference tournaments, Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton, and Augustana all had tougher schedules than LAX.

Calvin got better as the year went along and got hot at the right time.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 26, 2007, 02:46:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 26, 2007, 02:38:17 PM
According to Massey, before the conference tournaments... Wheaton... all had tougher schedules than LAX.
Wheaton played 6 teams in the NCAA tournament this year: Rivier (won), Whitworth (lost), Augustana (lost x2), Chicago (lost), Calvin (won) and Hope (won). And then we play in the toughest conference statistically to boot. Talk about a tough schedule!!!

I guess it should be noted that all our losses were close, and two of our wins were blowouts... Unfortunately, our record against those teams was 3-4! :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HopeConvert on February 26, 2007, 02:57:07 PM
Quote from: LAXGUY on February 26, 2007, 01:51:03 PM
Teams that made it a head of La Crosse that I don't understand...

Hope
record vs 20 win teams: 0-0
record vs 18-19 win teams: 1-2
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 6 (6-0)

Guilford
record vs 20 win teams: 2-2
record vs 18-19 win teams: 2-0
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 6 (6-0)

Stevens
record vs 20 win teams: 0-1
record vs 17-19 win teams: 2-4
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 7 (6-1)

Mary Hardin-Baylor
record vs 20 win teams: 2-2
record vs 18-19 win teams: 0-1
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 13 (13-0)

compared to...

UW-LA CROSSE
record vs 20 win teams: 4-4 (3 losses to the #1 team in the nation)
record vs 18-19 win teams: 3-0
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 2 (2-0)


General Thoughts
1) Mary Hardin-Baylor played 13 games against teams with 9 or fewer wins.
2) Who did Hope beat??? Calvin only solid team faced and went 1-2 vs them.
3) Stevens doesn't really have a quality win either, and they also lost to a "9 wins or fewer team."
4) Is it possible to have a more difficult schedule then La Crosse??? Not to mention they handled Calvin with ease.

Actually, Hope was 2-2 against Calvin this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 26, 2007, 06:06:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 26, 2007, 02:35:44 PM
Stockton has good power numbers and SOS (77th). Rowan is close in power rankings but they have a poor SOS (224). NJ CU's power rankings are lower and their SOS is mediocre.

That may be what your numbers point to, but the reality is Rowan finished as the number one seed in the South division (or whatever they call it) of the NJAC and the number two seed overall (Ramapo is actually a better team but Ramapo finished second in their division to NJCU) Beat Stockton in the Playoffs and had a higher regional ranking (not that i put much weight into that).  NJCU beat Stockton and Rowan head to head, won the regular season NJAC title and would have been on the selection committees list before Rowan who would have appeared before Stockton.

If you look at the schedules I think you would find that NJCU played a tougher schedule than Rowan or Stockton did.  They didn't play Lincoln twice and Ramapo three times.

I went back and checked and I will give Stockton credit for a comparable schedule to NJCU's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 26, 2007, 08:59:15 PM
This is in a vacuum with selection committees and what not. The numbers are what they are. Rowan's SOS is abysmal, and there HAS to be some difference in SOS for there to be a big gap between Stockton and NJCU.

Stockton beat Otterbein, Averett and Lincoln. They played a good game against Messiah and played Platteville, and playing the WIAC always helps the SOS. Stockton only played Lincoln once

Rowan really picked on some weak sisters early on (Medgar Evans, Phila. Bible, Apprentice, Cabrini). In my system, SOS matters over the long haul.

At any rate, Stockton was pretty low anyway, but before the conf. tourney they had a better power ranking than some "C" teams that made it in, and that's all I was trying to show.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: NW Hope Fan on February 26, 2007, 09:04:09 PM
Quote from: LAXGUY on February 26, 2007, 01:51:03 PM
Teams that made it a head of La Crosse that I don't understand...

Hope
record vs 20 win teams: 0-0
record vs 18-19 win teams: 1-2
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 6 (6-0)

Guilford
record vs 20 win teams: 2-2
record vs 18-19 win teams: 2-0
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 6 (6-0)

Stevens
record vs 20 win teams: 0-1
record vs 17-19 win teams: 2-4
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 7 (6-1)

Mary Hardin-Baylor
record vs 20 win teams: 2-2
record vs 18-19 win teams: 0-1
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 13 (13-0)

compared to...

UW-LA CROSSE
record vs 20 win teams: 4-4 (3 losses to the #1 team in the nation)
record vs 18-19 win teams: 3-0
teams faced with 9 or fewer wins: 2 (2-0)


General Thoughts
1) Mary Hardin-Baylor played 13 games against teams with 9 or fewer wins.
2) Who did Hope beat??? Calvin only solid team faced and went 1-2 vs them.
3) Stevens doesn't really have a quality win either, and they also lost to a "9 wins or fewer team."
4) Is it possible to have a more difficult schedule then La Crosse??? Not to mention they handled Calvin with ease.


Guess you just need to take care of business when you play teams like River Falls, Carleton and Eau Claire...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2007, 09:52:26 PM
If you want to see one portion of the (likely) future, check out the RPI rankings on the front page.  As far as I can tell, they still only used in-region games (rather than all d3 games) so I could see further improvement, BUT...

While I realize there are 4 other primary criteria as well, La Crosse, Oshkosh, and Elmhurst would certainly be 'locks' - DUH!  But read further - North Central and Wheaton would also be 'probables', and even Carthage (who didn't make the CCIW tourney) would be 'bubble'.  Just adding opponents' opponents records does wonders for teams in tougher regions/conferences!

GOOD RIDDANCE to QOWI! >:(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2007, 09:58:36 PM
Quote from: NW Hope Fan on February 26, 2007, 09:04:09 PM
Guess you just need to take care of business when you play teams like River Falls, Carleton and Eau Claire...

Sometimes posters forget to look at the losses as well as the wins.   :'( :-[  Oh well.  I should be in Aurora to see the mighty MIAA, even though they both got smoked by two CCIW teams that aren't in the tourney (Carthage and Wheaton, IL) 

Low blow, I know.  :D ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2007, 10:27:09 PM
This actually isn't meant to be the QOWI replacement. If I read correctly, and we will continue to track this down, the strength of schedule component in the future isn't going to take the winning percentage of the team itself, the way this formula does.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2007, 11:11:57 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2007, 10:27:09 PM
This actually isn't meant to be the QOWI replacement. If I read correctly, and we will continue to track this down, the strength of schedule component in the future isn't going to take the winning percentage of the team itself, the way this formula does.

OK.  I either read too much into earlier things you said or misremembered (either is highly possible!) - I thought the QOWI replacement would be basically just adding opponents' opponents records to the current metric: i.e., QOWI becomes the RPI.  Still, almost anything would be better than QOWI!

While I understand the rationale for encouraging regionalism, I suspect it is a solution in search of a problem.  How many d3 Presidents/ADs/coaches are going to have their teams flying all over the country to play 'marquee' games that .01% of the population knows or cares about?!  Overlapping the 'administrative regions' onto the definition of in-region (though I like it!) really put the lie to the rationale, IMO.  Sorry to keep using the same example, but for some reason it really sticks in my craw: how does Wheaton/Whitwworth = in-region, while Wheaton/Calvin = nonregion, advance the concept of encouraging 'regional' games?  In d1 there are mega $millions at stake - I wouldn't trust the Presidents/ADs/coaches either - but does d3 really need to ENFORCE such a rule?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 26, 2007, 11:13:22 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2007, 09:52:26 PM
If you want to see one portion of the (likely) future, check out the RPI rankings on the front page.  As far as I can tell, they still only used in-region games (rather than all d3 games) so I could see further improvement, BUT...

While I realize there are 4 other primary criteria as well, La Crosse, Oshkosh, and Elmhurst would certainly be 'locks' - DUH!  But read further - North Central and Wheaton would also be 'probables', and even Carthage (who didn't make the CCIW tourney) would be 'bubble'.  Just adding opponents' opponents records does wonders for teams in tougher regions/conferences!

GOOD RIDDANCE to QOWI! >:(

According to the power rankings, Bates and Tufts should be in before Elmhurst, North Central and Wheaton but I have not seen anybody arguing that they should be in this year. Babson would also be a lock for the tourney ahead of Wheaton. I could have missed it but I don't think anyone is debating Babson is better than Wheaton.

I am all for finding a more fair system as long as that is the goal, but most of these posts seem determined to find any system that gets as many CCIW and WIAA teams in the field. Using a power ranking will still be flawed but in favor of stronger conferences preying on weaker conferences within region. The Midwest and Northeast will get a boost due to the number of conferences.

Division I power rankings are more successful because there is quite a bit of cross-regional play. A Division III power ranking will still be regional with a very slim number of cross-regional games. Personally, I hope a strict RPI is not the direction the NCAA takes. I would like to see some system that incorporates elements from the current system an RPI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2007, 11:15:05 PM
Sigh. Every map has lines, Chuck. Why is Chicago in a different state from Gary even though Gary is so much closer than East St. Louis?

No matter where you draw the line, it's drawn.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2007, 11:40:23 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2007, 11:15:05 PM
Sigh. Every map has lines, Chuck. Why is Chicago in a different state from Gary even though Gary is so much closer than East St. Louis?

No matter where you draw the line, it's drawn.

An obvious truth, which I acknowlege.  But does it have any relevance to my larger question?

Is an Amherst or Chicago (with their $billion endowments) really going to suddenly seek out high QOWI/RPI/whatever schools 2000 miles away to beat up on when only 17,324 of us would even know or care about it? 

Obvious potential rejoinder: it only takes one or two billionaire alums who DO care to make it all pay off.  True, but is THAT what d3 schools are really fearful of?  I'm (so far, but I'll listen to counter-arguments!) convinced that the 'enforced' regionalism of the selection criteria is a solution in search of a problem.  Almost all (all?) d3 schools will schedule most of their games fairly locally because it makes no economic sense to do otherwise.  Notice I didn't even touch on academic reasons of missed class time, etc.  Can't d3 trust themselves to do the rational thing, without all the crazy rules?

[And if the NCAA mapping/travel department can get Hope to Carthage in <200 miles, I guarantee I can get Calvin to Hope in <200 miles!]
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 26, 2007, 11:45:28 PM
Quote from: Old School on February 26, 2007, 09:58:36 PM
Quote from: NW Hope Fan on February 26, 2007, 09:04:09 PM
Guess you just need to take care of business when you play teams like River Falls, Carleton and Eau Claire...

Sometimes posters forget to look at the losses as well as the wins.   :'( :-[  Oh well.  I should be in Aurora to see the mighty MIAA, even though they both got smoked by two CCIW teams that aren't in the tourney (Carthage and Wheaton, IL) 


losing by 7 and 3, and leading with 5 min to go  is getting smoked?  Only one team got smoked that weekend. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2007, 11:47:28 PM
Well, the thing is that if you divide the NCAA up into four regions, they are going to encompass more than 100 schools each, and in some places you're going to require a lot of real estate to find 100 schools.

Is it logical that a game 2,000 miles away is in region and others are not? No, not really. But is it better than what we had before, where (outside of Conn. and Mass.) in-region was maybe 80 or so schools? Absolutely. The people attacking this lose sight of that. It gives teams more options for opponents that will count. And frankly, the attacks on it are tiresome and annoying. Why can't people just take the improvement that was given?

This was an enhancement that the NCAA leadership offered when Division III members asked for it. I understand that it's not good enough for you, but it is better. Please accept it for that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2007, 12:15:56 AM
Using the RPI ratings from the front page, here's how are Pool C fight might have looked.  (AQ's are in bold; Pool B in italics.)

Rank Team Region Win%  Opp. Win% Opp. Opp. Win% RPI Region
1 Amherst 0.923 (24-2) 0.574 0.548 0.655 Northeast
2 UW-Stevens Point 0.960 (24-1) 0.552 0.537 0.650 West
3 Trinity (Conn.) 0.810 (17-4) 0.591 0.543 0.634 Northeast
4 Washington U. 0.818 (18-4) 0.561 0.548 0.622 Midwest
5 Brandeis 0.760 (19-6) 0.587 0.552 0.621 Northeast
6 Augustana 0.846 (22-4) 0.541 0.557 0.621 Midwest
7 Chicago 0.792 (19-5) 0.568 0.552 0.620 Midwest
8 Rhode Island College 0.889 (24-3) 0.524 0.540 0.619 Northeast
9 Rochester 0.750 (18-6) 0.586 0.549 0.618 East
10 WPI 0.870 (20-3) 0.521 0.541 0.613 Northeast
11 Ramapo 0.800 (20-5) 0.562 0.525 0.612 Atlantic
12 Salem State 0.923 (24-2) 0.503 0.512 0.610 Northeast
13 St. Thomas 0.889 (24-3) 0.516 0.507 0.607 West
14 Brockport State 0.815 (22-5) 0.532 0.519 0.600 East
15 UW-La Crosse 0.708 (17-7) 0.578 0.537 0.600 West
16 Mississippi College 0.958 (23-1) 0.470 0.500 0.599 South
17 Catholic 0.808 (21-5) 0.527 0.530 0.598 Middle Atl
18 St. John Fisher 0.808 (21-5) 0.529 0.519 0.596 East
19 UW-Oshkosh 0.750 (18-6) 0.548 0.538 0.596 West
20 Bates 0.708 (17-7) 0.575 0.523 0.595 Northeast
21 Centre 0.810 (17-4) 0.528 0.515 0.595 South
22 Tufts 0.600 (15-10) 0.612 0.552 0.594 Northeast
23 Elmhurst 0.739 (17-6) 0.539 0.560 0.594 Midwest
24 Loras 0.826 (19-4) 0.517 0.516 0.594 West
25 St. Lawrence 0.808 (21-5) 0.522 0.520 0.593 East
26 Keene State 0.800 (20-5) 0.515 0.540 0.593 Northeast
27 St. John's 0.833 (20-4) 0.508 0.507 0.589 West
28 Lincoln 0.786 (11-3) 0.523 0.521 0.588 Middle Atl
29 New York University 0.750 (18-6) 0.527 0.543 0.587 East
30 Messiah 0.800 (16-4) 0.510 0.528 0.587 Middle Atl
31 North Central 0.579 (11-8) 0.612 0.544 0.587 Midwest
32 Wooster 0.909 (20-2) 0.468 0.500 0.586 Great Lakes
33 Lake Erie 0.955 (21-1) 0.458 0.474 0.586 Great Lakes
34 Babson 0.600 (15-10) 0.601 0.538 0.585 Northeast
**************************************************
35 New Jersey City 0.680 (17-8) 0.562 0.535 0.585 Atlantic
36 Virginia Wesleyan 0.846 (22-4) 0.500 0.494 0.585 South
37 Wheaton (Ill.) 0.619 (13-8) 0.590 0.541 0.585 Midwest
38 Occidental 0.824 (14-3) 0.510 0.498 0.585 West
39 Williams 0.600 (15-10) 0.593 0.548 0.584 Northeast
40 Hood 0.769 (20-6) 0.520 0.526 0.584 Middle Atl
41 John Carroll 0.720 (18-7) 0.547 0.522 0.584 Great Lakes
42 Plattsburgh State 0.739 (17-6) 0.536 0.521 0.583 East
43 King's 0.731 (19-7) 0.535 0.529 0.583 Middle Atl
44 Johns Hopkins 0.880 (22-3) 0.471 0.504 0.582 Middle Atl
45 DePauw 0.826 (19-4) 0.488 0.522 0.581 South
46 Ohio Northern 0.667 (14-7) 0.565 0.527 0.581 Great Lakes
47 Lewis and Clark 0.737 (14-5) 0.540 0.501 0.580 West
48 Aurora 0.923 (24-2) 0.444 0.496 0.577 Midwest
49 Scranton 0.708 (17-7) 0.536 0.522 0.576 Middle Atl
50 Capital 0.704 (19-8) 0.535 0.529 0.576 Great Lakes
51 Averett 0.818 (18-4) 0.491 0.500 0.575 South
52 Carthage 0.619 (13-8) 0.570 0.542 0.575 Midwest
53 Mary Hardin-Baylor 0.815 (22-5) 0.488 0.502 0.573 South
54 Whitworth 0.870 (20-3) 0.451 0.521 0.573 West
55 Hamilton 0.696 (16-7) 0.539 0.515 0.572 East
56 Colby 0.636 (14-8) 0.555 0.540 0.572 Northeast
57 Bridgewater State 0.680 (17-8) 0.548 0.512 0.572 Northeast
58 McMurry 0.792 (19-5) 0.499 0.495 0.571 South
59 Richard Stockton 0.667 (14-7) 0.539 0.536 0.570 Atlantic
60 Rowan 0.714 (15-6) 0.520 0.527 0.570 Atlantic
61 Manhattanville 0.815 (22-5) 0.482 0.495 0.569 Atlantic
62 Guilford 0.833 (20-4) 0.468 0.496 0.566 South
63 Wittenberg 0.773 (17-5) 0.493 0.498 0.564 Great Lakes
64 Maryville (Tenn.) 0.875 (21-3) 0.433 0.512 0.563 South
65 Hope 0.800 (16-4) 0.474 0.504 0.563 Great Lakes
66 York (Pa.) 0.615 (16-10) 0.553 0.525 0.561 Middle Atl
67 UW-Whitewater 0.667 (18-9) 0.524 0.531 0.561 West
68 Stevens 0.778 (21-6) 0.484 0.493 0.560 Atlantic
69 William Paterson 0.625 (15-9) 0.545 0.522 0.559 Atlantic
70 Transylvania 0.692 (18-8) 0.516 0.514 0.559 Midwest
71 DeSales 0.708 (17-7) 0.498 0.529 0.558 Middle Atl
72 Alvernia 0.917 (22-2) 0.413 0.490 0.558 Middle Atl
73 Otterbein 0.600 (15-10) 0.554 0.524 0.558 Great Lakes
74 Coe 0.680 (17-8) 0.522 0.507 0.558 West
75 Utica 0.720 (18-7) 0.496 0.516 0.557 East

This a crude table, but I find the conclusions striking.  The WIAC would get 3 teams in, CCIW would get 3, NESCAC would get 5 + the AQ, UAA would get 4 + the AQ.  The cutoff would be Babson if rpi is the only criteria.

Which brings up something else, just by looking at this, I think a lot more weight is going to be put on Head-to-head, record vs ranked teams, etc.

But the bottom line is it puts the bigger and "stonger" D3 conferences in a much better position of catching C bids.  Which I think is what most of us really want to see.

I'm kind of excited to see this put into practice as it will undoubtedly affect seedings and pairing.  From the looks of it, it will be much much harder for a Lake Erie or Aurora to host a regional weekend.  What an entirely different tournament this would be. 8)


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2007, 12:25:06 AM
Pat,

I think we are fundamentally on the same page, though I am more impatient to reach the 'they lived happily ever after' page!  And I AM grateful for the advances over the last few years.

I just can't figure out why d3 feels they need the 'enforced' regionalism rules.  Rationality says that would be the norm anyway.  It just seems to me that it is either 'puffery' ('we're more academic than thou'!) or extreme self-doubt (that d3 institutions are just champing at the bit to violate the concept of regionality).  I apologize for repeating myself, but the whole set of rules just seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2007, 12:31:38 AM
Since regionalism is part of the overarching D-III philosophy, shouldn't it be written into these rules?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2007, 12:49:54 AM
Yes, EXCEPT...

If BOTH rationality and 'overarching D-III philosophy' point the same direction, are specific (sometimes confusing or nitpicky) rules necessary?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 27, 2007, 01:15:37 AM
I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I think that TRUE regionality (i.e. there are a certain number of Pool C's from each region) would be better even than what we currently have gotten. 

... Now, years like last year, this would have been terrible, of course, because the scales tipped in favor of the "power conferences..."


Let there be 2 Pool C bids from the West.  St. John's gets one, and then the WIAC ends up getting the second one... it puts ALOT more discussion into whether Oshkosh or La Crosse deserved the bid more, and they would be comparing the two conference foes for the bids, based on games played in the West region (and qualifying games from the administration regions...) as opposed to comparing West region teams' successes against the West region versus Northeast region teams' successes against NE Region teams.

The whole regionality of it is fairly absurd in the 21st century.  I understand that, yes, it is difficult for the primary selectors to really get to see and experience teams from the other side of their region, let alone from the other side of the country...  but what does it matter if it's selected off of national criterion as opposed to regional, on a national basis. 

... The more I think this over, the opponent's opponent winning percentage will be an improvement over JUST points earned from wins against opponents with x number of wins.  But if something ludicrous like winning 2/3 of a team's games does NOT count for the highest threshold, then this should be explicitly explained in the handbook which is so meticulously (cough, cough) put together.

BAH.  I just wish the NCAA at least APPEARED to care as much about all of this stuff as we do.  Is it too much to ask that they at least put up a facade of interest, care of detail and enthusiasm?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2007, 08:05:23 AM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2007, 12:15:56 AM
Using the RPI ratings from the front page, here's how are Pool C fight might have looked.  (AQ's are in bold; Pool B in italics.)

Rank Team Region Win%  Opp. Win% Opp. Opp. Win% RPI Region
1 Amherst 0.923 (24-2) 0.574 0.548 0.655 Northeast -1
2 UW-Stevens Point 0.960 (24-1) 0.552 0.537 0.650 West -1
3 Trinity (Conn.) 0.810 (17-4) 0.591 0.543 0.634 Northeast -2
4 Washington U. 0.818 (18-4) 0.561 0.548 0.622 Midwest -1
5 Brandeis 0.760 (19-6) 0.587 0.552 0.621 Northeast -3
6 Augustana 0.846 (22-4) 0.541 0.557 0.621 Midwest -2
7 Chicago 0.792 (19-5) 0.568 0.552 0.620 Midwest -3
8 Rhode Island College 0.889 (24-3) 0.524 0.540 0.619 Northeast -4
9 Rochester 0.750 (18-6) 0.586 0.549 0.618 East -1
10 WPI 0.870 (20-3) 0.521 0.541 0.613 Northeast -5
11 Ramapo 0.800 (20-5) 0.562 0.525 0.612 Atlantic -1
12 Salem State 0.923 (24-2) 0.503 0.512 0.610 Northeast -6
13 St. Thomas 0.889 (24-3) 0.516 0.507 0.607 West -2
14 Brockport State 0.815 (22-5) 0.532 0.519 0.600 East -2
15 UW-La Crosse 0.708 (17-7) 0.578 0.537 0.600 West -3
16 Mississippi College 0.958 (23-1) 0.470 0.500 0.599 South -1
17 Catholic 0.808 (21-5) 0.527 0.530 0.598 Middle Atl -1
18 St. John Fisher 0.808 (21-5) 0.529 0.519 0.596 East -3
19 UW-Oshkosh 0.750 (18-6) 0.548 0.538 0.596 West -4
20 Bates 0.708 (17-7) 0.575 0.523 0.595 Northeast -7
21 Centre 0.810 (17-4) 0.528 0.515 0.595 South -2
22 Tufts 0.600 (15-10) 0.612 0.552 0.594 Northeast -8
23 Elmhurst 0.739 (17-6) 0.539 0.560 0.594 Midwest -4
24 Loras 0.826 (19-4) 0.517 0.516 0.594 West -5
25 St. Lawrence 0.808 (21-5) 0.522 0.520 0.593 East -4
26 Keene State 0.800 (20-5) 0.515 0.540 0.593 Northeast -9
27 St. John's 0.833 (20-4) 0.508 0.507 0.589 West -6
28 Lincoln 0.786 (11-3) 0.523 0.521 0.588 Middle Atl -2
29 New York University 0.750 (18-6) 0.527 0.543 0.587 East -5
30 Messiah 0.800 (16-4) 0.510 0.528 0.587 Middle Atl -3
31 North Central 0.579 (11-8) 0.612 0.544 0.587 Midwest -5
32 Wooster 0.909 (20-2) 0.468 0.500 0.586 Great Lakes -1
33 Lake Erie 0.955 (21-1) 0.458 0.474 0.586 Great Lakes  -2
34 Babson 0.600 (15-10) 0.601 0.538 0.585 Northeast -10
**************************************************
35 New Jersey City 0.680 (17-8) 0.562 0.535 0.585 Atlantic
36 Virginia Wesleyan 0.846 (22-4) 0.500 0.494 0.585 South
37 Wheaton (Ill.) 0.619 (13-8) 0.590 0.541 0.585 Midwest
38 Occidental 0.824 (14-3) 0.510 0.498 0.585 West
39 Williams 0.600 (15-10) 0.593 0.548 0.584 Northeast
40 Hood 0.769 (20-6) 0.520 0.526 0.584 Middle Atl
41 John Carroll 0.720 (18-7) 0.547 0.522 0.584 Great Lakes
42 Plattsburgh State 0.739 (17-6) 0.536 0.521 0.583 East
43 King's 0.731 (19-7) 0.535 0.529 0.583 Middle Atl
44 Johns Hopkins 0.880 (22-3) 0.471 0.504 0.582 Middle Atl
45 DePauw 0.826 (19-4) 0.488 0.522 0.581 South
46 Ohio Northern 0.667 (14-7) 0.565 0.527 0.581 Great Lakes
47 Lewis and Clark 0.737 (14-5) 0.540 0.501 0.580 West
48 Aurora 0.923 (24-2) 0.444 0.496 0.577 Midwest
49 Scranton 0.708 (17-7) 0.536 0.522 0.576 Middle Atl
50 Capital 0.704 (19-8) 0.535 0.529 0.576 Great Lakes
51 Averett 0.818 (18-4) 0.491 0.500 0.575 South
52 Carthage 0.619 (13-8) 0.570 0.542 0.575 Midwest
53 Mary Hardin-Baylor 0.815 (22-5) 0.488 0.502 0.573 South
54 Whitworth 0.870 (20-3) 0.451 0.521 0.573 West
55 Hamilton 0.696 (16-7) 0.539 0.515 0.572 East
56 Colby 0.636 (14-8) 0.555 0.540 0.572 Northeast
57 Bridgewater State 0.680 (17-8) 0.548 0.512 0.572 Northeast
58 McMurry 0.792 (19-5) 0.499 0.495 0.571 South
59 Richard Stockton 0.667 (14-7) 0.539 0.536 0.570 Atlantic
60 Rowan 0.714 (15-6) 0.520 0.527 0.570 Atlantic
61 Manhattanville 0.815 (22-5) 0.482 0.495 0.569 Atlantic
62 Guilford 0.833 (20-4) 0.468 0.496 0.566 South
63 Wittenberg 0.773 (17-5) 0.493 0.498 0.564 Great Lakes
64 Maryville (Tenn.) 0.875 (21-3) 0.433 0.512 0.563 South
65 Hope 0.800 (16-4) 0.474 0.504 0.563 Great Lakes
66 York (Pa.) 0.615 (16-10) 0.553 0.525 0.561 Middle Atl
67 UW-Whitewater 0.667 (18-9) 0.524 0.531 0.561 West
68 Stevens 0.778 (21-6) 0.484 0.493 0.560 Atlantic
69 William Paterson 0.625 (15-9) 0.545 0.522 0.559 Atlantic
70 Transylvania 0.692 (18-8) 0.516 0.514 0.559 Midwest
71 DeSales 0.708 (17-7) 0.498 0.529 0.558 Middle Atl
72 Alvernia 0.917 (22-2) 0.413 0.490 0.558 Middle Atl
73 Otterbein 0.600 (15-10) 0.554 0.524 0.558 Great Lakes
74 Coe 0.680 (17-8) 0.522 0.507 0.558 West
75 Utica 0.720 (18-7) 0.496 0.516 0.557 East


Thanks sac, and +1!  This clearly shows that the Great Lakes Region has been overrated!    :D

This really puts the geographically dispersed areas of the country at a marked disadvantage.  This specific formula does not solve the problem of over-weighting the concentrated areas of the country, especially in the Northeast.

This is not what we want in the South. :-\ :(  Centre's is so high because they have 7 non-D3 games this season.  Three games in their 21 were Tourney games culled from the best 8 of the SCAC 10 teams.

Corrections appreciated.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2007, 08:18:34 AM
That list has no Pool C bids going to the South or the Great Lakes!
 
Rochester and NYU (UAA) each get one and so does Brockport (SUNYAC) in the East.

One Pool C bid goes to the Mid-Atlantic, and Lincoln takes it Pool B bid to D2.    ::)

I have to believe that a multi-million dollar research grant came out of the UAA Commissioners office to hugenerd's big computer to generate the UAA-Pool C bid Guarantee Proposal.  We see 4 UAA schools in the top 9 and NYU at #29.  :)

We left the Opp2R for a reason.  I think that the QOWI with the top stratum beginning at 2/3rd's of wins (.666) is better.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 27, 2007, 09:02:22 AM
Quote from: Old School on February 26, 2007, 09:58:36 PM
Quote from: NW Hope Fan on February 26, 2007, 09:04:09 PM
Guess you just need to take care of business when you play teams like River Falls, Carleton and Eau Claire...

Sometimes posters forget to look at the losses as well as the wins.   :'( :-[  Oh well.  I should be in Aurora to see the mighty MIAA, even though they both got smoked by two CCIW teams that aren't in the tourney (Carthage and Wheaton, IL) 

Oooooh..... mean! Pain, owww... :'(

(curls into the fetal position and rocks back and forth)

:D :P

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pufin on February 27, 2007, 09:03:03 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2007, 08:05:23 AM

This really puts the geographically dispersed areas of the country at a marked disadvantage.  This specific formula does not solve the problem of over-weighting the concentrated areas of the country, especially in the Northeast.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2007, 08:18:34 AM
That list has no Pool C bids going to the South or the Great Lakes!
 
Rochester and NYU (UAA) each get one and so does Brockport (SUNYAC) in the East.

One Pool C bid goes to the Mid-Atlantic, and Lincoln takes it Pool B bid to D2.  :D

We left the Opp2R for a reason.  I think that the QOWI with the top stratum beginning at 2/3rd's of wins (.666) is better.

These are some of the things I was thinking, too, when I saw the RPI list. Five of the top 10 are in the Northeast, and only two of the top 33 are from the Great Lakes. I am not impugning the Northeast here, there are many good teams in the region, but I think it leads us to question the metric.

There is a regional advantage in certain parts of the country, which schools can take advantage of (very much within the rules). Wooster and Wittenberg are stuck with the "Dorkson Eight" (Oberlin, Hiram, et al) because there aren't a lot of weaker high-winning-percentage teams for those schools to take on. Oberlin had a (I believe) 5-18 (.217) regional record. Replace Baldwin-Wallace, Washington & Lee, and Wilmington with three (potentially?) winnable games like (for example) MIT, Curry, and Emmanuel, and their regional record could be 8-18 (.347), giving the Woosters and Wittenbergs a boost.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 27, 2007, 09:06:18 AM
Incidentally, the NESCAC getting 5 teams? I'm all for the CCIW getting more than one bid and all, but this isn't better either. There has to be some better solution, and it probably unfortunately has to involve making the list not regional (taking into account things like Williams losing to Occidental would temper that NE list fast). Maybe we won't ever have a good solution? :-\

How about the WIAC and CCIW just start playing eachother only once?  ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: mrmike88 on February 27, 2007, 09:21:14 AM
Better yet, DHF, why not switch Wheaton (IL) with Wheaton (MA) to get a shot at all those NE teams?  Going down to once around helps a bit, but you guys will still all beat up on each other  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 27, 2007, 10:09:34 AM
Quote from: mrmike88 on February 27, 2007, 09:21:14 AM
Better yet, DHF, why not switch Wheaton (IL) with Wheaton (MA) to get a shot at all those NE teams?  Going down to once around helps a bit, but you guys will still all beat up on each other  :)
:D

Can you imagine? All of you students go over here to Mass, you guys all go over to Illinois. Ready, set... go!

While their weather is undoubtedly better than ours, we have some of the best food service in the country. Is there any chance their gym and work out facilities are better than ours?  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2007, 10:21:47 AM
Really with the system that is in place now, upsets are the only thing that throws it off.

This tournament's C bids by region:

NE - 5
E - 2
A - 1
MA - 2
S - 4
GL - 2
MW - 1
W - 1

Until you get to those last two, everything looks just fine.  If you go back and factor in all of those improbable conference upsets Williams, Coast Guard, Platsburgh and HampdenSydney (I'm leaving in the ones that could have been expected because that always happens), you would have two less from NE, one less from E and one less from the South.

Out of those four, you have to figure at least three of them go to the W-MW schools and even up the regional coverage that the NCAA really wants.

I think we have to look at this year as an aberration rather than an example.  I don't think you're going to see four absolute 'C' locks upset by teams with no shot at the tournament every year.

The upsets we normally see are usually more of the C contender sort, like Catholic-Hood or Ramapo-NJCU.  When you have so many upsets by non-bubble teams, it throws things off.  I agree that bringing opponent's opponents record into the process a little, maybe as another measure available to the committees, is good, just not on the level that that "RPI" rankings would give it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2007, 10:27:57 AM

In fact, looking back on it, there is probably more sense in the idea of creating a regional multiplier every year to help regulate the QOWI number.  If you use an opponent's opponent kind of system to create a multiplier that indicates conference strength, things would be a little more even.

4 losses in the MA might equal 6 or 7 in the MW.  I'll leave the actual math to those people who can do it (and there are certainly those capable of it here), but that's where the real trouble comes in.  We all know that 4 losses in the MW is not the same as 4 losses in the MA, but we have no way of quantifying it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 27, 2007, 10:34:46 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2007, 10:21:47 AM
Really with the system that is in place now, upsets are the only thing that throws it off.
That isn't a bad point. Last year the WIAC and the CCIW got 3 bids each. When the CCIW goes 75%ish against non-conf opponents I don't see how we could be having problems against non-conf opponents in terms of getting a Pool C... We just beat eachother up a little more than normal this year so that teams like Elmhurst, who only had one non-conf blip, ended up with a low in-region win % and QOWI.  :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smoothswat on February 27, 2007, 11:27:11 AM
I just hope you realize that your new and improved RPI system puts Tufts into the tourney.  They lost to Stevens, who you claim has no right to be in the tourney, by 21 points.  I suggest not to just change the system for the sake of changing the system because a few teams missed out that might have deserved bids.  Otherwise you'll be changing the system each year, and then you'll just end up like the BCS, where everyone is always unhappy with the outcome. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2007, 11:39:49 AM
Quote from: smoothswat on February 27, 2007, 11:27:11 AM
I just hope you realize that your new and improved RPI system puts Tufts into the tourney.  They lost to Stevens, who you claim has no right to be in the tourney, by 21 points. 

I've looked pretty hard and can't see where anyone on this thread made such a claim.  ???



I think the whole point is the RPI system will put the bigger, stronger conferences in a better position to get C bids, remember your regional ranking is still going to influence who gets discussed when it comes to C's.  I highly doubt some of the 4 and 5 th teams from a particular conference will always be ranked in  any particular year.

Other criteria, I hope, will play a bigger role in the selection process.

RPI and for that matter QOWI not only affects selection but also seeding.  It will be much harder for a team from a weaker conference to garner a high seed and host situation.
Probably the two biggest complaint quotes on this site are "How did team
A not get in over team C ?" and "How did team C get to host over team B"  On the surface at least RPI is an improvement in those areas.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2007, 12:22:24 PM
Quote from: smoothswat on February 27, 2007, 11:27:11 AM
I just hope you realize that your new and improved RPI system puts Tufts into the tourney.

It's just one measurement and it is not the one and only crtierion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 27, 2007, 12:25:20 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2007, 11:39:49 AM
I think the whole point is the RPI system will put the bigger, stronger conferences in a better position to get C bids, remember your regional ranking is still going to influence who gets discussed when it comes to C's.  I highly doubt some of the 4 and 5 th teams from a particular conference will always be ranked in  any particular year.

There will still be problems using the RPI where certain regions have an advantage, not just conferences. The south would be at a great disadvantage. Using the power rankings on the front page, no south teams would get an at-large this year including the defending NATIONAL CHAMPIONS, Virginia Wesleyan.

Large conferences like the ASC would take a hit because we play so many conference games. ASC West teams can schedule four out of conference games in a region where there aren't weaker leagues to cherry pick from. The CCIW has eleven out of conference opportunities to inflate their RPI.

I am not knocking the CCIW, just using them as an example. I understand they are the top confence right now. It is unfortunate they got the shaft, but it happens to some teams every year. I just don't think the NCAA should revamp everything just because one year that league only got one team in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 27, 2007, 12:50:01 PM
It was probably me that indicated Stevens did not belong.  I know the numbers say they do, but unless they have a great run and make me eat my words I say they are not that good a team.  They have played the scheduling game properly in my opinion and that has gotten them a most likely one and out invitation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: tjcummingsfan on February 27, 2007, 12:53:16 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 27, 2007, 12:25:20 PM
Large conferences like the ASC would take a hit because we play so many conference games. ASC West teams can schedule four out of conference games in a region where there aren't weaker leagues to cherry pick from. The CCIW has eleven out of conference opportunities to inflate their RPI.

I am not knocking the CCIW, just using them as an example. I understand they are the top confence right now. It is unfortunate they got the shaft, but it happens to some teams every year. I just don't think the NCAA should revamp everything just because one year that league only got one team in.

I think if it was just one year the NCAA wouldn't be revamping it.  The fact is the system is flawed, and this is a step in the right direction in allowing the kids who deserve to be practicing this afternoon for tourney games to have that opportunity next year. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2007, 12:59:12 PM
I actually believe that the way that the CCIW and WIAC were left out was "the perfect storm".

If Elmhurst beats Simpson, their QOWI rises by about 0.400.

If Oshkosh beats LaCrosse only one measly time out of three, their QOWI rises by about 0.400.

I can see the direct impact that a loss has on the QOWI, and roughly calculate it in a hurry.  In the oppsoppsrecord, I am not sure of the impact.


(What are going to call the Opponents' Opponent's Winning Percentage?  The Opponents' Opponent's Winning Percentage--the OOP?)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 27, 2007, 01:01:44 PM
Quote from: tjcummingsfan on February 27, 2007, 12:53:16 PM
I think if it was just one year the NCAA wouldn't be revamping it.  The fact is the system is flawed, and this is a step in the right direction in allowing the kids who deserve to be practicing this afternoon for tourney games to have that opportunity next year. 
I can't argue that the system isn't flawed, I know in some cases it does not work. But I am just pointing out that if we went strictly by the power rankings then a completely new group of deserving kids would be left at home.

Everyone is up in arms that #9 Oshkosh, #13 Elmhurst and #16 LaCrosse got left out. But the power rankings would have left out #4 Virginia Wesleyan, #10 Hope and #19 Guilford. How is that an improvement?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2007, 01:04:46 PM
Chris Brooks, I tell McMurry's Coach Holmes and MissCollege's Coach Jones to maximize their OOP!

Play on 14 ASC-West games (12 on the ASC-East).

Cherry pick 2-4 other D3's in this area that will help your OOP to make up for the bottom feeders in the conference.

Play the rest of your games versus NAIA, NCCAA, USCAA's, others and D2's.

Bold Challenge to all comers!

Tell me why that is not the ultimate strategy that McMurry and Miss College or anyone should not follow!

The OOPs does not build D3 or D3 conferences!

Okay friends, give me your best intellectual posts!  :)

Build a better mousetrap!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2007, 01:11:37 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 27, 2007, 01:01:44 PM
Quote from: tjcummingsfan on February 27, 2007, 12:53:16 PM
I think if it was just one year the NCAA wouldn't be revamping it.  The fact is the system is flawed, and this is a step in the right direction in allowing the kids who deserve to be practicing this afternoon for tourney games to have that opportunity next year. 
I can't argue that the system isn't flawed, I know in some cases it does not work. But I am just pointing out that if we went strictly by the power rankings then a completely new group of deserving kids would be left at home.

Everyone is up in arms that #9 Oshkosh, #13 Elmhurst and #16 LaCrosse got left out. But the power rankings would have left out #4 Virginia Wesleyan, #10 Hope, #14 Aurora and #19 Guilford. How is that an improvement?

Aurora would have gotten in; they're pool B this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 27, 2007, 01:21:37 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2007, 12:59:12 PM
(What are going to call the Opponents' Opponent's Winning Percentage?  The Opponents' Opponent's Winning Percentage--the OOP?)
:D I'm just glad I don't have to say that on the air.  :D  :D :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2007, 01:23:43 PM

We could call it the Percentage of Opponents' Opponents or POO.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 27, 2007, 06:15:29 PM
OOP, POO, I think the NCAA already uses those criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 27, 2007, 06:18:40 PM
Ralph, I don't know if your plan will work for the ASC, it is kind of the Rowan strategy and it isn't working that well for them.

Maybe the ASN needs to pull an NJAC go to two divisions and play double round robin schedule in division and one game each against the other divisions teams.  Or play only three teams from the other division each year, that would give you around 15 or 16 conference games and they room for cupcakes ala stevens.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2007, 06:37:36 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 27, 2007, 06:18:40 PM
Ralph, I don't know if your plan will work for the ASC, it is kind of the Rowan strategy and it isn't working that well for them.

Maybe the ASN needs to pull an NJAC go to two divisions and play double round robin schedule in division and one game each against the other divisions teams.  Or play only three teams from the other division each year, that would give you around 15 or 16 conference games and they room for cupcakes ala stevens.

Knight, we currently play double round robin intra-division and single round-robin interdivision to give us 20 or 21 games.

The travel is what kills our budgets.  It may cost $3000 to lease the bus for the 600-700 mile (occasionally 900-1500 mile) bus trips that may involve 2-3 nights on the road at least 6 times per year.

I believe that we have 5 strong men's program (top 100 calibre:  Miss Coll, UMHB, McM (#54 on these indices), HSU pre-season ASC-West favorite and tourney finalist, UT-Dallas the only D3 to defeat a D1 this year) and at least 6 and potentially 7 strong Women's programs (HPU, McMurry, HSU, ETBU, UMHB, Miss College and Concordia-Austin coached by former coach at USC and LA Sparks, Linda Sharp).

Several years back the conference only played 18 games including 4 crossovers.  That needs to be reconsidered.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 27, 2007, 07:10:26 PM
Ralph, that would be better or pull a MAC and form two conferences for basketball and some other sports where most of the schools have a team.  Maybe the Texican and the Mexican divisions, or even East and West if you want to be boring.   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2007, 08:15:59 PM
Not sure any other conferences are going to get the MAC Exception.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 27, 2007, 08:23:25 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2007, 08:15:59 PM
Not sure any other conferences are going to get the MAC Exception.
Yeah, but I still think they should try. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2007, 08:48:50 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2007, 08:15:59 PM
Not sure any other conferences are going to get the MAC Exception.

Why?  It seems silly to deny other conferences that exception if they continue to let the MAC do it.



[Edit: Oh wait, we're talking about the NCAA here, aren't we?  My bad.]
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2007, 10:49:14 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2007, 08:48:50 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2007, 08:15:59 PM
Not sure any other conferences are going to get the MAC Exception.

Why?  It seems silly to deny other conferences that exception if they continue to let the MAC do it.
[Edit: Oh wait, we're talking about the NCAA here, aren't we?  My bad.]
If the ASC were to attempt that, they would probably be required for the seceding conference to go thru the 2-year obligatory hoops.  That might be easier for the West to accomplish than the East.

With the addition of a very few programs, they could do it.

Is it worth it for the increase in cost to duplicate services for a second conference for the sake of an extra bid in M&W Hoops, M&W Soccer, M&W Tennis, Volleyball, Softball and Baseball?  That is the question for the presidents to answer.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 12:09:53 AM
The 2008 Men's Basketball Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2008/2008_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf) has been released.  :)

Pool A 38 (Pres AC is new.)
Pool B -- 4.
Pool C -- 17.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on October 24, 2007, 10:25:38 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 12:09:53 AM
The 2008 Men's Basketball Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2008/2008_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf) has been released.  :)

Pool A 38 (Pres AC is new.)
Pool B -- 4.
Pool C -- 17.

You mean the 1st version, before they change their minds in February? :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 11:28:44 PM
Quote from: sac on October 24, 2007, 10:25:38 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 12:09:53 AM
The 2008 Men's Basketball Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2008/2008_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf) has been released.  :)

Pool A 38 (Pres AC is new.)
Pool B -- 4.
Pool C -- 17.

You mean the 1st version, before they change their minds in February? :D
I do have two questions about the number of D-3 contests that Lincoln, Fisk and Neb Wes will be able to schedule.

I count one D3 opponent for Lincoln (http://www.fisk.edu/pdfs/athletics/2007-08BasketballSchedules.pdf).


Fisk only has 4 contests versus D-3 opponents this year.

Fisk 2007-08 schedule (http://www.fisk.edu/pdfs/athletics/2007-08BasketballSchedules.pdf).

(Please use Internet Explorer to browse.  Firefox is apparently not supported by the Fisk website.)

I count at most 10 possible games (http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/athletics/basketball/mens/schedule.php) versus D-3 opponents for Neb Wesleyan.

Are even 10 NebWes games enough to qualify for the post-season tourney by the Division III bylaws?

Did any school get an exemption from the NCAA?

The reason I ask is the pabegg calculated the number of schools in Pool B necessary for 4 bids is 37.  I am asking someone to help me understand how these schools qualify for Pool B.  If there are less than 37, then we get an extra Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 25, 2007, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 11:28:44 PMAre even 10 NebWes games enough to qualify for the post-season tourney by the Division III bylaws?

Did any school get an exemption from the NCAA?

According to last year's D3 men's basketball handbook, each school is required to play at least half of its games against in-region D3 opponents. In order to gain an exemption to this rule, the school has to file a formal waiver request that requires a lot of homework on the part of the applicant institution (copies of recent schedules, a list of reasons why scheduling half of your games against in-region D3 opponents is an unattainable goal, pertinent historical information regarding scheduling, proposed solutions and a proposed acceptable schedule, etc.). I don't know if NebWes did this last year, or this year, or how often the school's athletic department has done it in the recent past. I do know that the number of D3 games on the NebWes schedule has fallen off precipitously in recent years. Then again, their conference (the otherwise-all-NAIA GPAC) is absolutely huge and has gotten even bigger over the past few years. That presumably means more conference games for the Prairie Wolves, and fewer available dates for D3 regional games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2007, 01:04:04 AM
The same 50% rule is in the 2008 Handbook.  (Page 15 (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2008/2008_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf).)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 25, 2007, 08:35:25 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 25, 2007, 01:04:04 AM
The same 50% rule is in the 2008 Handbook.  (Page 15 (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2008/2008_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf).)

Yeah, but its never stopped NebWes from getting in before.  I assume they go easy on that waiver.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on October 25, 2007, 09:30:02 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 24, 2007, 11:28:44 PM
Did any school get an exemption from the NCAA?

The reason I ask is the pabegg calculated the number of schools in Pool B necessary for 4 bids is 37.  I am asking someone to help me understand how these schools qualify for Pool B.  If there are less than 37, then we get an extra Pool C bid.

My understanding is that the count of schools in each group is independent of whether the schools will have enough games to be eligible individually. If you look at the calculations, there's no entry for teams that are under the 50%, as opposed to re-classifiers and provisionals.

So Lincoln could be out if they are reclassifying this year, while Fisk and Nebraska Wesleyan are in regardless of the number of D3 games they play.

Also, regional games against Fisk and Nebraska Wesleyan will count as part of the regional record, OWP, and OOWP whether or not they reach 50%, as will games against year 3 and 4 provisionals.

I would assume that Nebraska Wesleyan has a standing exemption from the NCAA based on their geography. They were once a basketball power (and started WashU's streak of losing to Wesleyans in the tournament, since extended by Illinois Wesleyan and Virginia Wesleyan). But they haven't been terribly good in recent years.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on October 25, 2007, 11:22:08 AM
Ralph, I was able to access Fisk's schedule with Firefox.  Sorry if your Microsoft stock took a hit!  ;)

I've always assumed that the purpose of the pool structure was to provide (reasonably) equal championship access for all D3 schools regardless of conference status.  In that light, it seems odd if schools that have voluntarily recused themselves from that access (via scheduling that renders them non-qualifying), they could still be used to determine the depth of the pools. 

It seems to me that the NESCAC used to disallow their schools from participating in football playoffs, and perhaps they still do (as many of you know, I don't follow football.)  That makes me wonder if these schools are part of the Pool C calculation in football; I believe the effect would be to create an additional Pool C berth based on the membership of a number of schools, disregarding the fact that these schools are voluntarily ineligible for that berth.  Football experts, is that what happens?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 26, 2007, 01:55:34 AM
Quote from: pabegg on October 25, 2007, 09:30:02 AMI would assume that Nebraska Wesleyan has a standing exemption from the NCAA based on their geography. They were once a basketball power (and started WashU's streak of losing to Wesleyans in the tournament, since extended by Illinois Wesleyan and Virginia Wesleyan). But they haven't been terribly good in recent years.

It's also possible that D3 has rewritten the eligibility rules since the NWU program went into decline.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 26, 2007, 02:04:30 AM
NESCAC football is not factored into the bid allocation, no.

Gregory -- that's my belief as well.

Ralph -- Lincoln is a provisional D-II this year and has started to transition its schedule appropriately.

As for Fisk, I would assume they didn't know the rule was in place. Remember when their AD came onto the GSAC board with all guns blazing over the summer? He didn't seem to know about a lot of things.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 26, 2007, 10:25:32 PM
Thanks, Pat.

My question is to verify that these teams truly belong in Pool B, and Pool B should get the 4th bid, instead of the bid going to Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 26, 2007, 11:43:45 PM
Now, Ralph, you know the NCAA pool B/C routine - check back in February! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 26, 2007, 11:47:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 26, 2007, 11:43:45 PM
Now, Ralph, you know the NCAA pool B/C routine - check back in February! :)

:o ::) :'( :(

:D ;D

+1!

If the NCAA would just vet some of these things past Pat Coleman and some of Pat's unpaid consultants, things might go more smoothly.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wilburt on October 30, 2007, 01:48:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 26, 2007, 02:04:30 AM
As for Fisk, I would assume they didn't know the rule was in place. Remember when their AD came onto the GSAC board with all guns blazing over the summer? He didn't seem to know about a lot of things.

I thought you were not following FISK this year Pat?  You know what happens when you ass-u-me?   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 02, 2007, 08:53:28 PM
Not sure what you're getting at here, wilburt. There are two possible choices here: Fisk didn't know about the rule requiring 50% in-region play, or knew about it and deliberately flaunted it.

I guess a third option is that they didn't know how to calculate 50%, but that seems unlikely.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 17, 2008, 08:24:47 PM
I'm reviving this board with the first posting on my "estimated NCAA rankings" for games through Sunday 1/13.

Reg Conf Rank School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall
NE  13   01   Mass-Dartmouth            003  A w C       13-0 13-0
NE  90   02   Brandeis                  006  C 1         10-1 11-1
NE  16   03   Amherst                   007  A w C       10-1 10-2
NE  16   04   Middlebury                010  C 4         9-1 10-2
NE  12   05   Emerson                   016  A w C       8-1 9-1
NE  17   06   Worcester Polytech        031  A w C       10-2 11-3
NE  16   07   Trinity (Conn.)           032  C 10        8-2 10-3
NE  14   08   Salem State               037  A w C       9-2 9-2
NE  16   09   Bowdoin                   041  C 17        11-2 11-2
NE  13   10   Rhode Island College      045  C second    11-2 11-2
NE  16   11   Tufts                     051  C second    7-2 8-4
NE  16   12   Williams                  052  C second    11-1 12-1
NE  17   13   Wheaton (Mass.)           062  C third     8-3 9-3
EA  90   01   Rochester                 001  A w C       11-0 12-0
EA  23   02   Plattsburgh State         012  A w C       7-0 10-2
EA  21   03   Stevens                   015  A w C       12-1 12-1
EA  24   04   Vassar                    028  A w C       8-0 8-1
EA  21   05   Nazareth                  033  C 11        10-3 10-3
EA  23   06   Geneseo State             046  C second    8-2 9-2
EA  23   07   Oswego State              079              7-3 8-3
EA  24   08   Hamilton                  087              6-3 7-3
AT  32   01   Richard Stockton          059  A third     8-3 8-4
AT  32   02   William Paterson          083              10-3 10-3
AT  32   03   New Jersey City           100              7-3 10-4
AT  33   04   St. Joseph's (L.I.)       109  A other     8-2 9-2
AT  33   05   SUNY-Farmingdale          120              7-3 8-4
AT  32   06   Rutgers-Newark            121              7-4 8-6
AT  32   07   Rowan                     122              6-4 9-4
AT  31   08   York (N.Y.)               139  A other     9-5 11-6
MA  45   01   Gettysburg                004  A w C       8-1 10-2
MA  42   02   Widener                   005  A w C       10-0 12-1
MA  45   02   Ursinus                   014  C 5         8-1 11-2
MA  43   04   DeSales                   020  A w C       9-0 12-1
MA  42   05   Albright                  024  C 7         10-1 10-2
MA  42   06   Elizabethtown             038  C 15        9-1 12-1
MA  42   07   Messiah                   042  C second    9-3 10-4
MA  41   08   Hood                      050  A second    9-3 11-4
MA  44   09   Immaculata                056  A third     8-2 9-3
MA  41   10   York (Pa.)                065  C third     94 95
MA  43   11   Manhattanville            075              64 94
SO  51   01   Mary Hardin-Baylor        002  A w C       9-0 11-1
SO  52   02   Maryville (Tenn.)         023  B 1         8-2 12-2
SO  53   03   Virginia Wesleyan         025  A w C       8-2 9-3
SO  54   04   Millsaps                  026  A w C       8-0 12-1
SO  53   05   Bridgewater (Va.)         030  C 9         4-1 8-2
SO  53   06   Roanoke                   034  C 12        7-2 9-2
SO  54   07   Centre                    036  C 14        8-1 12-1
SO  51   08   Texas-Dallas              053  C second    9-2 10-3
SO  53   09   Guilford                  061  C third     73 83
SO  53   10   Randolph-Macon            073              5-2 10-2
SO  54   11   Trinity (Texas)           077              72 112
GL  90   01   Carnegie Mellon           008  C 2         7-1 10-2
GL  64   02   Capital                   017  A w C       10-2 11-2
GL  62   03   Hope                      019  A w C       4-1 10-2
GL  64   04   Heidelberg                021  C 6         9-1 11-2
GL  63   05   Wooster                   027  A w C       4-1 11-2
GL  64   06   Wilmington                054  C second    9-3 9-5
GL  63   07   Ohio Wesleyan             058  C third     7-2 8-4
GL  64   08   Ohio Northern             060  C third     6-3 9-5
GL  61   09   Lake Erie                 084  A other     8-2 8-4
MW  90   01   Washington U.             009  C 3         7-1 10-2
MW  71   02   Wheaton (Ill.)            018  A w C       8-2 11-2
MW  71   03   Augustana                 040  C 16        9-3 10-3
MW  74   04   Lawrence                  044  A second    5-1 7-1
MW  76   05   Westminster (Mo.)         048  A second    5-0 8-3
MW  71   06   Elmhurst                  055  C second    10-2 11-2
MW  72   07   Defiance                  076  A other     8-4 10-4
MW  71   08   Carthage                  078              3-2 6-6
MW  71   09   Illinois Wesleyan         082              6-4 7-6
MW  73   10   Aurora                    095  B 3         93 113
MW  90   11   Chicago                   101              65 75
WE  83   01   Puget Sound               011  A w C       7-0 11-1
WE  81   02   Loras                     013  A w C       7-1 10-3
WE  86   03   UW-Oshkosh                022  A w C       8-2 11-3
WE  86   04   UW-Whitewater             029  C 8         10-2 12-2
WE  86   05   UW-Stevens Point          035  C 13        9-3 11-3
WE  84   06   Occidental                039  A w C       5-1 10-2
WE  81   07   Buena Vista               043  C second    7-1 11-3
WE  82   08   St. Thomas                047  A second    8-2 10-3
WE  82   09   Carleton                  049  C second    10-2 10-2
WE  89   10   Nebraska Wesleyan         057  B 2         6-1 9-5
WE  84   11   Cal Lutheran              064  C third     8-2 10-2

Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A w C: Pool A, in likely Pool C range (1 to 13)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    blank: lower level Pool C


Here's how this works. I'm showing the same number of teams as in the regional rankings, plus 3 extra teams (like the old Honorable Mentions).

I've replaced the old QOWI/SOSI numbers with the RPI, so the ranking is a blend of RPI and winning percentage. I have no idea if this corresponds to how the committees will use the numbers this year, but it gives us something to start with.

Pool A teams are selected as the team with the best ranking in the conference; most of this is obvious in the regional rankings. Then the B and C teams are assigned in order.

Anyway, the UAA has the #1 spot in three regions, plus #2 in another. Wow. And 6 NESCAC teams on the list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on January 17, 2008, 10:08:01 PM
Its not even February yet and you are already crunching numbers! :o :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 18, 2008, 07:58:12 AM
Sac let me know that Hope's regional record was 5-1, not 4-1. I checked and Hope-Carthage is under 200 miles according to the committee.

All this really does is move Hope ahead of Capital in the rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 18, 2008, 01:51:43 PM
Quote from: pabegg on January 18, 2008, 07:58:12 AM
I checked and Hope-Carthage is under 200 miles according to the committee.


The committee yes, Rand-McNally no. ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 21, 2008, 10:02:18 PM
Reg Conf Rank Prior School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall
NE  13   01   01   Mass-Dartmouth            002  A w C       15-0 15-0
NE  16   02   03   Amherst                   003  A w C       13-1 13-2
NE  16   03   04   Middlebury                006  C 2         12-1 13-2
NE  90   04   02   Brandeis                  010  C 3         11-2 12-2
NE  16   05   07   Trinity (Conn.)           013  C 5         11-2 13-3
NE  13   06   10   Rhode Island College      024  C 9         13-2 13-2
NE  12   07   05   Emerson                   027  A w C       11-1 12-1
NE  16   08   14   Connecticut College       033  C 12        11-2 12-2
NE  16   09   09   Bowdoin                   034  C 13        13-3 13-3
NE  17   10   06   Worcester Polytech        038  A w C       11-3 12-4
NE  16   11   12   Williams                  047  C second    13-2 14-2
NE  14   12   08   Salem State               049  A second    10-3 10-3
NE  17   13   18   Coast Guard               055  C second    10-3 11-3

EA  90   01   01   Rochester                 001  A w C       13-0 14-0
EA  23   02   02   Plattsburgh State         008  A w C       9-0 12-2
EA  24   03   04   Vassar                    017  A w C       10-0 10-1
EA  21   04   05   Nazareth                  030  A w C       11-4 11-4
EA  21   05   03   Stevens                   039  C 16        13-2 13-2
EA  23   06   09   Brockport State           045  C second    7-3 9-5
EA  24   07   11   St. Lawrence              057  C third     6-3 7-6
EA  23   08   07   Oswego State              062  C third     8-4 9-4

AT  32   01   01   Richard Stockton          051  A second    10-3 10-4
AT  32   02   02   William Paterson          060  C third     12-3 12-3
AT  33   03   05   SUNY-Farmingdale          073  A other     9-3 10-4
AT  32   04   03   New Jersey City           096              8-4 11-5
AT  33   05   09   SUNY-Old Westbury         121              8-5 8-7
AT  32   06   06   Rutgers-Newark            123              8-5 9-7
AT  33   07   04   St. Joseph's (L.I.)       124              10-3 11-3
AT  31   08   08   York (N.Y.)               126  A other     11-5 13-6

MA  45   01   03   Ursinus                   004  A w C       10-1 13-2
MA  42   02   02   Widener                   007  A w C       11-0 14-1
MA  42   03   06   Elizabethtown             012  C 4         10-1 13-1
MA  45   04   01   Gettysburg                018  C 6         9-2 11-3
MA  43   05   04   DeSales                   023  A w C       10-1 13-2
MA  42   06   07   Messiah                   032  C 11        9-3 11-4
MA  42   07   05   Albright                  035  C 14        10-2 10-3
MA  41   08   08   Hood                      037  A w C       10-3 12-4
MA  44   09   09   Immaculata                067  A other     9-3 10-4
MA  41   10   10   York (Pa.)                070              105 106
MA  46   11   12   Juniata                   076  B 3         104 115

SO  54   01   04   Millsaps                  011  A w C       11-0 15-1
SO  53   02   06   Roanoke                   014  A w C       9-2 11-2
SO  53   03   03   Virginia Wesleyan         021  C 8         10-2 11-3
SO  51   04   01   Mary Hardin-Baylor        022  A w C       9-2 11-3
SO  52   05   02   Maryville (Tenn.)         025  B 1         10-2 15-2
SO  53   06   10   Randolph-Macon            042  C 18        7-2 12-2
SO  54   07   07   Centre                    050  C second    10-1 14-1
SO  54   08   11   Trinity (Texas)           059  C third     8-2 12-3
SO  53   09   09   Guilford                  069              84 94
SO  53   10   16   Washington and Lee        071              5-3 7-5
SO  51   11   18   Mississippi College       072              83 113

GL  62   01   03   Hope                      009  A w C       7-1 12-2
GL  64   02   02   Capital                   015  A w C       12-2 13-2
GL  64   03   04   Heidelberg                019  C 7         10-2 12-3
GL  90   04   01   Carnegie Mellon           046  C second    7-3 10-4
GL  63   05   05   Wooster                   064  A third     5-2 12-3
GL  63   06   07   Ohio Wesleyan             080              8-3 9-5
GL  64   07   06   Wilmington                081              10-4 10-6
GL  64   08   11   Muskingum                 086              8-3 9-4
GL  63   09   12   Wabash                    088              7-3 10-5

MW  90   01   01   Washington U.             005  C 1         9-1 12-2
MW  71   02   02   Wheaton (Ill.)            028  A w C       9-3 12-3
MW  74   03   04   Lawrence                  029  A w C       8-1 10-1
MW  71   04   03   Augustana                 044  C second    10-4 11-4
MW  74   05   12   Carroll                   052  C second    8-3 9-3
MW  71   06   06   Elmhurst                  058  C third     11-3 12-3
MW  71   07   08   Carthage                  063  C third     5-3 9-6
MW  90   08   11   Chicago                   082              8-5 9-5
MW  71   09   09   Illinois Wesleyan         090              7-5 8-7
MW  72   10   07   Defiance                  092  A other     95 115
MW  73   11   10   Aurora                    095  B 6         113 133

WE  81   01   07   Buena Vista               016  A w C       9-1 13-3
WE  86   02   05   UW-Stevens Point          020  A w C       11-3 13-3
WE  86   03   04   UW-Whitewater             026  C 10        11-2 13-2
WE  83   04   01   Puget Sound               031  A w C       8-1 12-2
WE  86   05   03   UW-Oshkosh                036  C 15        9-3 12-4
WE  83   06   17   Whitworth                 040  C 17        9-2 11-3
WE  84   07   06   Occidental                041  A w C       7-1 12-2
WE  82   08   08   St. Thomas                043  A second    9-2 11-3
WE  84   09   11   Cal Lutheran              048  C second    10-2 12-2
WE  81   10   02   Loras                     053  C second    7-3 10-5
WE  86   11   12   UW-Platteville            054  C second    10-3 11-4


Moving up: Buena Vista, Rhode Island, Lawrence, Messiah, Conn College, Hood, Whitworth, and Randolph-Macon.

Falling down: Augustana, Carnegie Mellon (in a big way), Centre, Salem State, Loras, Wooster, Bridgewater (Va)

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 27, 2008, 09:34:21 PM
Reg Conf Rank Prior School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  13   01   01   Mass-Dartmouth            001  A w C       17-0 17-0
NE  16   02   02   Amherst                   002  A w C       16-1 16-2
NE  16   03   05   Trinity (Conn.)           015  C 3         12-3 14-4
NE  16   04   03   Middlebury                017  C 4         12-3 13-4
NE  16   05   09   Bowdoin                   026  C 10        15-3 15-3
NE  90   06   04   Brandeis                  030  C 11        11-4 12-4
NE  12   07   07   Emerson                   033  A w C       12-2 13-2
NE  16   08   11   Williams                  035  C 13        14-3 15-3
NE  16   09   08   Connecticut College       036  C 14        13-3 14-3
NE  17   10   10   Worcester Polytech        051  A second    12-4 13-5
NE  12   11   17   Emmanuel                  052  C second    11-3 11-5
NE  13   12   06   Rhode Island College      057  C third     13-4 13-4
NE  14   13   12   Salem State               064  A third     11-4 11-4

EA  23   01   02   Plattsburgh State         003  A w C       11-0 14-2
EA  90   02   01   Rochester                 004  A w C       14-1 15-1
EA  21   03   04   Nazareth                  027  A w C       13-4 13-4
EA  21   04   05   Stevens                   041  C 18        15-2 15-2
EA  24   05   07   St. Lawrence              042  A second    9-3 10-6
EA  23   06   06   Brockport State           053  C second    8-4 10-6
EA  23   07   08   Oswego State              060  C third     10-4 11-4
EA  24   08   03   Vassar                    067  C third     11-2 11-3

AT  32   01   01   Richard Stockton          037  A w C       13-3 13-4
AT  32   02   02   William Paterson          045  C second    14-3 14-3
AT  33   03   03   SUNY-Farmingdale          068  A other     11-3 12-4
AT  32   04   04   New Jersey City           090              9-5 12-6
AT  33   05   05   SUNY-Old Westbury         092              10-5 10-7
AT  33   06   07   St. Joseph's (L.I.)       097              12-3 13-3
AT  31   07   08   York (N.Y.)               109  A other     12-5 14-6
AT  32   08   06   Rutgers-Newark            112              10-5 11-7

MA  45   01   01   Ursinus                   006  A w C       12-1 15-2
MA  42   02   02   Widener                   007  A w C       12-1 15-2
MA  43   03   05   DeSales                   011  A w C       12-1 15-2
MA  45   04   04   Gettysburg                014  C 2         11-2 13-3
MA  42   05   07   Albright                  019  C 6         12-2 12-3
MA  42   06   03   Elizabethtown             020  C 7         11-2 14-2
MA  42   07   06   Messiah                   043  C second    10-4 12-5
MA  44   08   09   Immaculata                054  A second    12-3 13-4
MA  41   09   10   York (Pa.)                061  C third     12-5 12-6
MA  41   10   08   Hood                      081  A other     105 126
MA  45   11   17   McDaniel                  094              115 125

SO  51   01   04   Mary Hardin-Baylor        016  A w C       11-2 13-3
SO  53   02   03   Virginia Wesleyan         021  A w C       12-2 13-3
SO  54   03   07   Centre                    022  C 8         12-1 16-1
SO  53   04   02   Roanoke                   023  C 9         11-3 13-3
SO  52   05   05   Maryville (Tenn.)         025  B 1         11-2 16-2
SO  54   06   01   Millsaps                  032  A w C       11-2 15-3
SO  53   07   09   Guilford                  049  C second    11-4 12-4
SO  54   08   14   DePauw                    050  C second    12-3 14-4
SO  51   09   11   Mississippi College       055  C second    103 133
SO  53   10   06   Randolph-Macon            056  C third     8-3 13-3
SO  53   11   10   Washington and Lee        058  C third     83 105

GL  62   01   01   Hope                      008  A w C       9-1 14-2
GL  64   02   03   Heidelberg                013  A w C       12-2 14-3
GL  64   03   02   Capital                   018  C 5         14-2 15-2
GL  63   04   06   Ohio Wesleyan             047  A second    10-3 11-5
GL  90   05   04   Carnegie Mellon           069              8-4 11-5
GL  63   06   05   Wooster                   073              7-2 14-3
GL  61   07   11   Penn State-Behrend        084  A other     12-3 13-4
GL  63   08   09   Wabash                    086              9-3 12-5
GL  64   09   07   Wilmington                087              10-5 10-7

MW  90   01   01   Washington U.             005  C 1         11-1 14-2
MW  74   02   03   Lawrence                  012  A w C       11-1 13-1
MW  71   03   04   Augustana                 031  A w C       12-4 13-4
MW  71   04   02   Wheaton (Ill.)            039  C 16        10-4 13-4
MW  71   05   07   Carthage                  044  C second    7-3 11-6
MW  90   06   08   Chicago                   062  C third     10-5 11-5
MW  71   07   06   Elmhurst                  066  C third     12-4 13-4
MW  71   08   09   Illinois Wesleyan         070              9-5 10-7
MW  72   09   10   Defiance                  078  A other     11-5 13-5
MW  73   10   11   Aurora                    082  B 4         133 153
MW  76   11   18   Fontbonne                 105  A other     92 133

WE  81   01   01   Buena Vista               009  A w C       11-1 15-3
WE  84   02   07   Occidental                010  A w C       9-1 14-2
WE  83   03   04   Puget Sound               024  A w C       10-1 14-2
WE  82   04   08   St. Thomas                028  A w C       12-2 14-3
WE  86   05   02   UW-Stevens Point          029  A w C       12-4 14-4
WE  86   06   11   UW-Platteville            034  C 12        12-3 13-4
WE  86   07   05   UW-Oshkosh                038  C 15        10-4 13-5
WE  86   08   03   UW-Whitewater             040  C 17        12-3 14-3
WE  81   09   10   Loras                     046  C second    10-3 13-5
WE  84   10   09   Cal Lutheran              048  C second    11-3 13-3
WE  89   11   14   Nebraska Wesleyan         063  B 2         6-1 10-7


Moving up: Bowdoin, Mary Hardin-Baylor, Centre, Millsaps, Occidental
Moving down: Vassar, Elizabethtown, Randolph-Macon, UW-Whitewater

We're getting closer to the real rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on January 27, 2008, 10:27:52 PM
I know its early...but with all the UW schools beating each other up it seems like the WIAC getting an at-large bid  might already be out the window.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on January 28, 2008, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: LogShow on January 27, 2008, 10:27:52 PM
I know its early...but with all the UW schools beating each other up it seems like the WIAC getting an at-large bid  might already be out the window.

You may be right, which is sort of too bad. Looking at pabegg's numbers the UW's have C-12, 15, and 17 with a number of meetings against each other and a conference tourney still to come. I think the possibility exists that they could beat themselves out of the tourney, which is unfortunate because I think there should be at least two WIAC teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 28, 2008, 10:12:32 AM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on January 28, 2008, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: LogShow on January 27, 2008, 10:27:52 PM
I know its early...but with all the UW schools beating each other up it seems like the WIAC getting an at-large bid  might already be out the window.

You may be right, which is sort of too bad. Looking at pabegg's numbers the UW's have C-12, 15, and 17 with a number of meetings against each other and a conference tourney still to come. I think the possibility exists that they could beat themselves out of the tourney, which is unfortunate because I think there should be at least two WIAC teams.
I think that there will be two WIAC teams, but the discussions that we have had concerning the elimination of red-shirting in the WIAC suggest that the WIAC of now is not the WIAC of a decade ago.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 04, 2008, 08:18:05 PM

Reg Conf Rank Prior School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  13   01   01   Mass-Dartmouth            001  A w C       19-0 19-0
NE  16   02   02   Amherst                   002  A w C       18-1 18-2
NE  16   03   04   Middlebury                009  C 2         14-3 15-4
NE  90   04   06   Brandeis                  020  C 5         13-4 14-4
NE  16   05   03   Trinity (Conn.)           021  C 5         13-4 15-5
NE  16   06   05   Bowdoin                   025  C 7         16-4 16-4
NE  17   07   10   Worcester Polytech        032  A w C       14-4 15-5
NE  13   08   12   Rhode Island College      041  C second    15-4 15-4
NE  16   09   09   Connecticut College       047  C second    14-4 15-4
NE  12   10   07   Emerson                   048  A second    14-3 15-3
NE  16   11   15   Bates                     054  C second    12-4 13-5
NE  16   12   08   Williams                  059  C third     14-5 15-5
NE  14   13   13   Salem State               066  A other     13-5 13-5

EA  23   01   01   Plattsburgh State         003  A w C       14-0 17-2
EA  90   02   02   Rochester                 004  A w C       15-2 16-2
EA  21   03   04   Stevens                   038  C 17        17-3 17-3
EA  21   04   03   Nazareth                  039  A second    13-5 13-5
EA  23   05   07   Oswego State              045  C second    12-4 14-4
EA  23   06   06   Brockport State           049  C second    11-4 13-6
EA  24   07   08   Vassar                    051  A second    14-2 14-3
EA  24   08   05   St. Lawrence              056  C third     10-4 11-7

AT  32   01   01   Richard Stockton          030  A w C       14-3 14-4
AT  32   02   02   William Paterson          033  C 12        16-3 16-3
AT  33   03   05   SUNY-Old Westbury         065  A other     12-5 12-7
AT  33   04   03   SUNY-Farmingdale          080              12-4 13-5
AT  33   05   06   St. Joseph's (L.I.)       094              14-3 15-3
AT  32   06   04   New Jersey City           112              10-6 13-7
AT  31   07   07   York (N.Y.)               120  A other     13-6 15-7
AT  31   08   10   Brooklyn                  127              14-5 17-5

MA  45   01   01   Ursinus                   005  A w C       14-1 17-2
MA  45   02   04   Gettysburg                007  C 1         13-2 15-3
MA  43   03   03   DeSales                   008  A w C       14-1 17-2
MA  42   04   02   Widener                   010  A w C       13-2 16-3
MA  42   05   05   Albright                  024  C 6         13-3 13-4
MA  41   06   09   York (Pa.)                050  A second    14-5 14-6
MA  42   07   07   Messiah                   052  C second    11-5 13-6
MA  42   08   06   Elizabethtown             053  C second    11-4 14-4
MA  46   09   14   Moravian                  077  B 3         14-5 15-5
MA  44   10   08   Immaculata                078  A other     124 13-5
MA  41   11   10   Hood                      089              116 13-7

SO  54   01   03   Centre                    013  A w C       14-1 18-1
SO  51   02   01   Mary Hardin-Baylor        014  A w C       13-2 15-3
SO  52   03   05   Maryville (Tenn.)         017  B 1         12-2 18-2
SO  53   04   02   Virginia Wesleyan         022  A w C       14-3 15-4
SO  53   05   04   Roanoke                   027  C 8         12-4 14-4
SO  53   06   07   Guilford                  029  C 10        13-4 14-4
SO  54   07   06   Millsaps                  035  C 14        12-2 17-3
SO  54   08   08   DePauw                    037  C 16        14-3 16-4
SO  53   09   11   Washington and Lee        044  C second    103 12-5
SO  53   10   10   Randolph-Macon            063  C third     9-4 14-4
SO  51   11   12   Texas-Dallas              070              124 13-5

GL  64   01   03   Capital                   012  A w C       15-3 16-3
GL  62   02   01   Hope                      016  A w C       10-2 15-3
GL  64   03   02   Heidelberg                036  C 15        13-3 15-4
GL  63   04   06   Wooster                   042  A second    9-2 16-3
GL  90   05   05   Carnegie Mellon           043  C second    10-4 13-5
GL  63   06   04   Ohio Wesleyan             060  C third     11-4 12-6
GL  64   07   09   Wilmington                068              12-5 12-7
GL  62   08   10   Albion                    069              8-3 12-5
GL  61   09   07   Penn State-Behrend        079  A other     14-3 15-4

MW  74   01   02   Lawrence                  011  A w C       12-2 14-2
MW  90   02   01   Washington U.             015  C 3         11-3 14-4
MW  71   03   03   Augustana                 019  A w C       14-4 15-4
MW  90   04   06   Chicago                   058  C third     11-6 12-6
MW  71   05   04   Wheaton (Ill.)            061  C third     11-5 14-5
MW  71   06   08   Illinois Wesleyan         064  C third     10-6 11-8
MW  71   07   07   Elmhurst                  071              13-5 14-5
MW  74   08   13   Carroll                   082              10-5 11-5
MW  73   09   10   Aurora                    084  B 5         14-4 16-4
MW  76   10   14   Webster                   090              115 13-5
MW  72   11   09   Defiance                  092  A other     126 14-6

WE  84   01   02   Occidental                006  A w C       11-1 16-2
WE  82   02   04   St. Thomas                018  A w C       14-2 16-3
WE  81   03   01   Buena Vista               023  A w C       12-2 16-4
WE  86   04   05   UW-Stevens Point          026  A w C       13-4 15-4
WE  86   05   06   UW-Platteville            028  C 9         14-3 15-4
WE  86   06   08   UW-Whitewater             031  C 11        14-3 16-3
WE  81   07   09   Loras                     034  C 13        12-3 15-5
WE  84   08   10   Cal Lutheran              040  C second    13-3 15-3
WE  83   09   03   Puget Sound               046  A second    11-2 15-3
WE  86   10   07   UW-Oshkosh                055  C third     11-5 14-6
WE  82   11   13   Gustavus Adolphus         057  C third     12-4 14-4



Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 17 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 18-27)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 28-37)
    A w C: Pool A, in likely Pool C range
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    blank: lower level Pool C

One week out from the real rankings. Again, I've ranked three more teams per region than will be in the actual rankings, just to indicate the teams that are close.

Not many big changes this week, except for Puget Sound dropping like a rock. WashU doesn't take much of a hit due to the quality of their losses. At this point, five conferences with multiple Pool C bids - the usual suspects except for the SCAC which places Centre, Millsaps, and DePauw in the mix.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 04, 2008, 08:52:22 PM
No suprise that Puget Sound dropped the quality of their opponent was awful...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 04, 2008, 10:37:25 PM
Sac pointed out to me that the scoreboard on the site shows Carnegie Mellon with 5 regional losses.

Carnegie Mellon - Johns Hopkins is not regional.

Great Lakes versus Mid-Atlantic, Admin region 1 vs. 2, Pittsburgh to Baltimore over 200 miles.

In the NFL, Pittsburgh and Baltimore are in the same division. Not in D3Hoops.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2008, 10:48:29 PM
Fixed... thanks pabegg!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on February 07, 2008, 06:01:05 AM
So what are the chances of a team like Buena Vista to reach the tournament if they say win the rest of their regular season games making them 21-4 and conference champs with one loss in the conference.  They reach the championship game but lose.  that would make them 22-5.  Even if they lose another game somewhere in their last 4 before the tournament and are 20-5 and dont win the conference tourney.  Would they get a bid into the NCAA tournament anyway.  Im not sure how this all works and could use an opinion...thanks ahead of time
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 07, 2008, 08:35:57 AM
Quote from: SLP-O-8 on February 07, 2008, 06:01:05 AM
So what are the chances of a team like Buena Vista to reach the tournament if they say win the rest of their regular season games making them 21-4 and conference champs with one loss in the conference.  They reach the championship game but lose.  that would make them 22-5.  Even if they lose another game somewhere in their last 4 before the tournament and are 20-5 and dont win the conference tourney.  Would they get a bid into the NCAA tournament anyway.  Im not sure how this all works and could use an opinion...thanks ahead of time
Right now, it looks like they might have a Pool C bid, if they don't earn the Pool A.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 07, 2008, 10:47:09 AM
Quote from: SLP-O-8 on February 07, 2008, 06:01:05 AM
So what are the chances of a team like Buena Vista to reach the tournament if they say win the rest of their regular season games making them 21-4 and conference champs with one loss in the conference.  They reach the championship game but lose.  that would make them 22-5.  Even if they lose another game somewhere in their last 4 before the tournament and are 20-5 and dont win the conference tourney.  Would they get a bid into the NCAA tournament anyway.  Im not sure how this all works and could use an opinion...thanks ahead of time
Right now they're #23 in my rankings nationally, which would be well inside the tournament range.

Since only regional games are included, they're 12-2 through Sunday, which is better than their 16-4 overall. By my count, they've got 5 conference games left plus up to three in the tournament.

My guess: they're in for sure with 1 loss, very likely with 2 losses, and in contention with 3. Wins over Loras would help because Loras is the only other contender from the conference.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 07, 2008, 12:05:51 PM
pabegg, thanks for doing your rankings - I think they're very interesting and helpful.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sumander on February 07, 2008, 12:24:19 PM
pabegg, the question was posed earlier this week on the MIAC board about Gustavus getting a Pool C bid. My answer based on your earlier rankings was.. "The MIAC is a one team league this year, unless St. Thomas gets upset in the conference tournament".

Gustavus would be the only team that would appear to be given consideration. What are your thoughts?

Thanks
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 07, 2008, 01:36:51 PM
Puget Sound dropped from 11th in your rankings to 46th.  If they lose another game aside from the finals of the conference tournament...see ya later at-large chances
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 07, 2008, 03:06:35 PM
Quote from: sumander on February 07, 2008, 12:24:19 PM
pabegg, the question was posed earlier this week on the MIAC board about Gustavus getting a Pool C bid. My answer based on your earlier rankings was.. "The MIAC is a one team league this year, unless St. Thomas gets upset in the conference tournament".

Gustavus would be the only team that would appear to be given consideration. What are your thoughts?

Thanks
I would think that Gustavus would be a Pool C contender with one more loss. Two losses would probably be too many, so they have to beat St. Thomas either in the regular season game or in post-season.

St. Thomas has two fewer losses, so the logic is almost identical: out with 4 losses, contender with 3, definitely in with 1 or 2 (and obviously a Pool A with 0).

Both schools have a strength of schedule that is almost exactly .5000, so they don't get ay help from that quarter.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sumander on February 07, 2008, 03:28:27 PM
Thanks pabegg!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on February 07, 2008, 11:34:45 PM
BV won at Wartburg on wednesday so that leaves 4 conference games left with a 13-2 record against the region and they are almost guaranteed a #1 or #2 in the conference tournament so thats only 2 games in the tournament.  They have loras at home left for the last game of the regular season.  Thanks for you help and i really hope you are right.  Would be great to see BV in the tournament again.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 10, 2008, 08:33:32 PM

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   02   0.6805 0.6135 0.5405 Amherst                   001  A w C       21-1 21-2
NE  13   02   01   0.6492 0.5539 0.5366 Mass-Dartmouth            002  A w C       20-1 20-1
NE  16   03   03   0.6413 0.6238 0.5176 Middlebury                011  C 3         16-4 17-5
NE  16   04   05   0.6400 0.6089 0.5424 Trinity (Conn.)           013  C 4         16-4 18-5
NE  16   05   06   0.6189 0.5638 0.5298 Bowdoin                   016  C 5         18-4 18-4
NE  90   06   04   0.6344 0.5831 0.5818 Brandeis                  018  C 6         15-4 16-4
NE  17   07   07   0.6045 0.5439 0.5408 Worcester Polytech        029  A w C       15-4 16-5
NE  16   08   11   0.6012 0.5628 0.5426 Bates                     044  C second    14-5 15-6
NE  12   09   10   0.5578 0.4347 0.5119 Emerson                   048  A second    17-3 18-3
NE  13   10   08   0.5898 0.5292 0.5387 Rhode Island College      049  C second    16-5 16-5
NE  14   11   13   0.5737 0.5240 0.4968 Salem State               056  A third     15-5 15-5
NE  12   12   14   0.5505 0.4556 0.5014 Emmanuel                  062  C third     15-4 15-6
NE  16   13   09   0.5707 0.5175 0.5333 Connecticut College       064  C third     15-6 16-6

EA  23   01   01   0.6378 0.5107 0.5296 Plattsburgh State         003  A w C       16-0 19-2
EA  90   02   02   0.6704 0.6328 0.5741 Rochester                 006  A w C       16-3 17-3
EA  23   03   06   0.6181 0.5850 0.5378 Brockport State           031  C 11        13-4 16-6
EA  21   04   04   0.6282 0.6083 0.5462 Nazareth                  033  A w C       15-5 15-5
EA  21   05   03   0.5724 0.4459 0.5340 Stevens                   035  C 13        19-3 19-3
EA  23   06   05   0.6013 0.5793 0.5242 Oswego State              047  C second    13-5 15-5
EA  24   07   08   0.5717 0.5289 0.5232 St. Lawrence              065  A third     12-5 13-8
EA  23   08   09   0.5487 0.4558 0.5334 Cortland State            074              15-5 17-5

AT  32   01   01   0.5971 0.5404 0.5180 Richard Stockton          036  A w C       15-4 15-5
AT  32   02   02   0.5878 0.5158 0.5195 William Paterson          040  C 17        16-4 16-4
AT  33   03   04   0.5596 0.4609 0.4833 SUNY-Farmingdale          053  A second    15-3 16-4
AT  33   04   03   0.5659 0.5592 0.4610 SUNY-Old Westbury         075              13-6 13-8
AT  31   05   07   0.5333 0.4602 0.4984 York (N.Y.)               103  A other     15-6 17-7
AT  33   06   05   0.5138 0.4134 0.4782 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       112              15-5 16-5
AT  32   07   06   0.5416 0.5189 0.5176 New Jersey City           119              11-7 14-8
AT  31   08   08   0.4962 0.3585 0.4952 Brooklyn                  123              17-5 20-5

MA  45   01   01   0.6300 0.5306 0.5177 Ursinus                   004  A w C       16-1 19-2
MA  45   02   02   0.6266 0.5512 0.5215 Gettysburg                005  C 1         15-2 17-3
MA  42   03   04   0.6133 0.5528 0.5240 Widener                   017  A w C       14-3 17-4
MA  43   04   03   0.5931 0.5223 0.5040 DeSales                   032  A w C       14-3 17-4
MA  42   05   07   0.6363 0.6517 0.5197 Messiah                   039  C 16        13-5 15-6
MA  42   06   05   0.5944 0.5282 0.5434 Albright                  041  C second    14-4 14-5
MA  41   07   06   0.5975 0.5601 0.5077 York (Pa.)                042  A second    16-5 16-6
MA  44   08   10   0.5523 0.4826 0.5070 Immaculata                070  A third     14-5 15-6
MA  46   09   09   0.5487 0.4621 0.5088 Moravian                  072  B 3         16-5 17-5
MA  42   10   08   0.5885 0.5847 0.5374 Elizabethtown             073              116 14-6
MA  43   11   14   0.5517 0.5158 0.5084 Manhattanville            090              126 15-6

SO  54   01   01   0.5945 0.4709 0.4988 Centre                    015  A w C       15-1 20-1
SO  51   02   02   0.5937 0.4872 0.5117 Mary Hardin-Baylor        019  A w C       16-2 18-3
SO  52   03   03   0.5883 0.4862 0.5059 Maryville (Tenn.)         022  B 1         14-2 20-2
SO  53   04   06   0.6103 0.5607 0.5302 Guilford                  027  A w C       15-4 16-4
SO  53   05   04   0.5995 0.5328 0.5324 Virginia Wesleyan         028  C 9         16-4 17-5
SO  54   06   07   0.5684 0.4536 0.4913 Millsaps                  037  C 14        14-2 19-3
SO  54   07   08   0.5751 0.4779 0.5113 DePauw                    038  C 15        15-3 18-4
SO  53   08   10   0.5901 0.5344 0.5417 Randolph-Macon            050  C second    12-4 17-4
SO  53   09   05   0.6074 0.6158 0.5140 Roanoke                   054  C second    136 15-6
SO  51   10   13   0.5513 0.4952 0.5091 Mississippi College       081              12-5 15-5
SO  51   11   11   0.5472 0.4755 0.5156 Texas-Dallas              083              135 14-6

GL  64   01   01   0.6130 0.5366 0.5287 Capital                   010  A w C       17-3 18-3
GL  62   02   02   0.5953 0.5024 0.5193 Hope                      020  A w C       12-2 17-3
GL  63   03   04   0.5952 0.5194 0.4957 Wooster                   024  A w C       11-2 18-3
GL  64   04   03   0.5792 0.5060 0.5272 Heidelberg                046  C second    14-4 16-5
GL  63   05   06   0.5861 0.5407 0.4985 Ohio Wesleyan             051  C second    13-4 14-6
GL  61   06   10   0.5572 0.4759 0.4876 Lake Erie                 057  A third     15-4 15-6
GL  61   07   09   0.5472 0.4235 0.4998 Penn State-Behrend        058  C third     16-3 17-4
GL  90   08   05   0.6111 0.6197 0.5798 Carnegie Mellon           066  C third     10-6 13-7
GL  62   09   08   0.5496 0.4582 0.5129 Albion                    069  C third     10-3 14-5

MW  90   01   02   0.6892 0.6892 0.5659 Washington U.             008  C 2         13-3 16-4
MW  74   02   01   0.6074 0.5217 0.5110 Lawrence                  009  A w C       14-2 16-2
MW  71   03   03   0.6314 0.5774 0.5709 Augustana                 014  A w C       16-4 17-4
MW  71   04   05   0.6046 0.5689 0.5583 Wheaton (Ill.)            045  C second    13-5 16-5
MW  71   05   06   0.6171 0.6237 0.5544 Illinois Wesleyan         055  C third     12-6 13-8
MW  74   06   08   0.5731 0.5389 0.4925 Carroll                   060  C third     13-5 14-5
MW  90   07   04   0.6199 0.6399 0.5683 Chicago                   061  C third     12-7 13-7
MW  76   08   10   0.5636 0.5283 0.4754 Webster                   068  A third     13-5 15-5
MW  71   09   07   0.5672 0.5189 0.5311 Elmhurst                  071  C third     14-6 15-6
MW  72   10   11   0.5520 0.5145 0.4949 Defiance                  085  A other     136 15-6
MW  73   11   09   0.5349 0.4542 0.4943 Aurora                    093  B 5         145 16-5

WE  84   01   01   0.6128 0.4940 0.5347 Occidental                007  A w C       13-1 18-2
WE  82   02   02   0.6012 0.4903 0.5295 St. Thomas                012  A w C       17-2 19-3
WE  86   03   05   0.6009 0.5082 0.5538 UW-Platteville            021  A w C       15-3 17-4
WE  86   04   04   0.6134 0.5665 0.5311 UW-Stevens Point          023  C 7         15-4 17-4
WE  81   05   03   0.5866 0.4644 0.5428 Buena Vista               025  A w C       14-2 18-4
WE  81   06   07   0.5985 0.5112 0.5479 Loras                     026  C 8         14-3 17-5
WE  84   07   08   0.5901 0.5026 0.5219 Cal Lutheran              030  C 10        15-3 17-3
WE  86   08   06   0.5802 0.4669 0.5448 UW-Whitewater             034  C 12        16-3 18-3
WE  86   09   10   0.6093 0.5844 0.5463 UW-Oshkosh                043  C second    13-5 16-6
WE  83   10   09   0.5643 0.4750 0.5070 Puget Sound               052  A second    12-3 16-4
WE  82   11   11   0.5702 0.5124 0.5192 Gustavus Adolphus         059  C third     14-5 16-5



Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 17 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 18-27)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 28-37)
    A w C: Pool A, in likely Pool C range
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    blank: lower level Pool C

Again, one more week without a lot of movement. Roanoke takes the biggest hit, along with Stevens. Brockport is the biggest gainer.
Again, with a lot of wins, Chicago takes a hit to whatever chances they had with the loss to Rochester.

Now we'll see the real rankings on Wednesday and find out how much things have changed from last year. Again, these rankings have been done using a straight replacement of the SOSI with the RPI, which is not probably the case.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on February 10, 2008, 09:02:06 PM
could you possibly explain the math behind the RPI system you are using?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 10, 2008, 09:41:49 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 10, 2008, 09:02:06 PM
could you possibly explain the math behind the RPI system you are using?
I'm using the standard RPI calculation:

Regional Winning Percentage (RWP) is the regional winning percentage
Opponents' Winning Percentage (OWP) is the average of the opponents winning percentage (excluding games  between the team in question and the opponent)
Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage (OOWP) is the average of the opponents OWP

RPI is then 1/4 RWP + 1/2 OWP + 1/4 OOWP. This is also expressed as 1/4 RWP + 3/4 SOS, where SOS is the Strength of Schedule and is calculated as 2/3 OWP + 1/3 OOWP.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 10, 2008, 09:46:44 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 10, 2008, 09:41:49 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 10, 2008, 09:02:06 PM
could you possibly explain the math behind the RPI system you are using?
I'm using the standard RPI calculation:

Regional Winning Percentage (RWP) is the regional winning percentage
Opponents' Winning Percentage (OWP) is the average of the opponents winning percentage (excluding games  between the team in question and the opponent)
Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage (OOWP) is the average of the opponents OWP

RPI is then 1/4 RWP + 1/2 OWP + 1/4 OOWP. This is also expressed as 1/4 RWP + 3/4 SOS, where SOS is the Strength of Schedule and is calculated as 2/3 OWP + 1/3 OOWP.


Is it possible to list the OWP and OOWP totals on your chart?  I don't know if that is something as simple as just copying/pasting something?  Certainly don't do it if it's a lot of trouble.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 10, 2008, 10:12:14 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 10, 2008, 09:46:44 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 10, 2008, 09:41:49 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 10, 2008, 09:02:06 PM
could you possibly explain the math behind the RPI system you are using?
I'm using the standard RPI calculation:

Regional Winning Percentage (RWP) is the regional winning percentage
Opponents' Winning Percentage (OWP) is the average of the opponents winning percentage (excluding games  between the team in question and the opponent)
Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage (OOWP) is the average of the opponents OWP

RPI is then 1/4 RWP + 1/2 OWP + 1/4 OOWP. This is also expressed as 1/4 RWP + 3/4 SOS, where SOS is the Strength of Schedule and is calculated as 2/3 OWP + 1/3 OOWP.


Is it possible to list the OWP and OOWP totals on your chart?  I don't know if that is something as simple as just copying/pasting something?  Certainly don't do it if it's a lot of trouble.

Thanks.

I've updated the chart to add RPI, OWP, and OOWP columns
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 10, 2008, 10:15:21 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 10, 2008, 09:41:49 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 10, 2008, 09:02:06 PM
could you possibly explain the math behind the RPI system you are using?
I'm using the standard RPI calculation:

Regional Winning Percentage (RWP) is the regional winning percentage
Opponents' Winning Percentage (OWP) is the average of the opponents winning percentage (excluding games  between the team in question and the opponent)
Opponents' Opponents' Winning Percentage (OOWP) is the average of the opponents OWP

RPI is then 1/4 RWP + 1/2 OWP + 1/4 OOWP. This is also expressed as 1/4 RWP + 3/4 SOS, where SOS is the Strength of Schedule and is calculated as 2/3 OWP + 1/3 OOWP.



It strikes me that I answered the question, but not the whole question.

Once I've got the RPI and RWP, I calculate a national ranking for each number, then combine the two rankings to get an overall national ranking. This process worked very well in the past with RWP and SOSI; I'm hoping that RPI provides an adequate replacement this year.

Once the regional rankings are released on Wednesday, I'll try to tweak my calculations to line up with the official rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 10, 2008, 11:12:24 PM
Are the OWP and the OOWP based solely off of teams that each particular ranked team has beaten or is it based off the entire schedule?

I THINK it's against every team, just clarifying...


It's interesting to me to see how things change from one week to the next...  UWSP had been ahead of Platteville, but they played two of the lower WIAC teams and they dropped as their OWP dropped to follow suit!

One more question... is the OWP and OOWP based off of the entire schedule, or just the ones that "count" (IE regional games)?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2008, 11:21:19 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 10, 2008, 11:12:24 PM
Are the OWP and the OOWP based solely off of teams that each particular ranked team has beaten or is it based off the entire schedule?

I THINK it's against every team, just clarifying...


It's interesting to me to see how things change from one week to the next...  UWSP had been ahead of Platteville, but they played two of the lower WIAC teams and they dropped as their OWP dropped to follow suit!

One more question... is the OWP and OOWP based off of the entire schedule, or just the ones that "count" (IE regional games)?
I understand it to be in-region games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on February 11, 2008, 01:07:48 AM
The same thing is happening to BV.  Their OWP and their OOWP are hurting them because everybody else in the IIAC besides them and Loras are constantly beating each other.  BV and Loras are 12-1 and 11-2 respectively in the conference and the next best is Coe at 7-6.  It wont get better the next two games either with Simpson and Central being towards the bottom of the standings.  It wont go up again until the finale against Loras.  Hopefully, it will be a third match between them in the tournament so it helps their OWP and OOWP at the very least.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 11, 2008, 05:09:17 AM
pabegg

According to your rankings does that mean the top 10 teams in the country are:

1. Amherst
2. UM-Darthmout
3. Plattsburgh St.
4. Ursinus
5. Gettsburg
6. UofR
7. Occidental
8. Wash. U.
9. Lawrence
10. Capital

Or does the ranking signify something else?  And it certainly looks like you've put a TON of effort into this. Thanks, it's nice to have something more to look at  for comparison purposes.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 11, 2008, 08:29:08 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 10, 2008, 11:12:24 PM
Are the OWP and the OOWP based solely off of teams that each particular ranked team has beaten or is it based off the entire schedule?

I THINK it's against every team, just clarifying...


It's interesting to me to see how things change from one week to the next...  UWSP had been ahead of Platteville, but they played two of the lower WIAC teams and they dropped as their OWP dropped to follow suit!

One more question... is the OWP and OOWP based off of the entire schedule, or just the ones that "count" (IE regional games)?

It is just the regional games. Of course, given the definition of regional games, this covers the vast majority of D3 games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 11, 2008, 08:34:44 AM
Quote from: magicman on February 11, 2008, 05:09:17 AM
pabegg

According to your rankings does that mean the top 10 teams in the country are:

1. Amherst
2. UM-Darthmout
3. Plattsburgh St.
4. Ursinus
5. Gettsburg
6. UofR
7. Occidental
8. Wash. U.
9. Lawrence
10. Capital

Or does the ranking signify something else?  And it certainly looks like you've put a TON of effort into this. Thanks, it's nice to have something more to look at  for comparison purposes.



Yes, that's the Top 10. But it's important to be clear what it's the Top 10 for.

Those are not the "ten best" teams in the country. Those are the "ten best" teams in an approximation of the rating system that will be used for the tournament. In addition, this does not take into account the other parts of the tournament rating, such as head-to-head and record versus ranked teams.

And even that is subject to how the committee works. For example, they've traditionally tried to seed the top 16 spots using the top 2 teams in all regions (except for the Atlantic and sometimes the East, where only the top team gets seeded), which is especially important given the neutral-site opening rounds.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2008, 08:53:23 AM
pabegg, thanks for the list.

As infrequently as the West coast hosts tourney games, you are making the case for Occidental to host a first round game this season, especially if UMHB earns the Pool A bid from the ASC, and Trinity TX or Southwestern does not win the SCAC.

Geographic proximity might also help Oxy's case if Cal Lutheran earned a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 11, 2008, 09:22:28 AM
Quote from: SLP-O-8 on February 11, 2008, 01:07:48 AM
The same thing is happening to BV.  Their OWP and their OOWP are hurting them because everybody else in the IIAC besides them and Loras are constantly beating each other.  BV and Loras are 12-1 and 11-2 respectively in the conference and the next best is Coe at 7-6.  It wont get better the next two games either with Simpson and Central being towards the bottom of the standings.  It wont go up again until the finale against Loras.  Hopefully, it will be a third match between them in the tournament so it helps their OWP and OOWP at the very least.

Just to clarify on this: it shouldn't matter much to BV or Loras who's winning the other games in the conference, since with a balanced schedule they get credit for both the W and the L in the calculations (one opponent's OWP is higher than before, the other's is lower).

Looking at the numbers for BV, their OWP is .4644, 289th in the country, and the OOWP is .5428, 22nd in the country, so their average opponent is a little below .500 with a tougher schedule than average, Their Strength of Schedule then calculates as 237th. Their RWP ties for 11th, which ends up giving them an RPI that is 49th; on balance they are 25th.

Numerically, they play in a pretty average conference. Their three non-conference games hurt them on the average (St. Olaf is just below average, and UW-Stout is "more bad" than Gustavus is good). The loss to Gustavus will hurt them on tournament selection, both head-to-head and on the results vs. ranked teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 11, 2008, 09:31:53 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2008, 08:53:23 AM
pabegg, thanks for the list.

As infrequently as the West coast hosts tourney games, you are making the case for Occidental to host a first round game this season, especially if UMHB earns the Pool A bid from the ASC, and Trinity TX or Southwestern does not win the SCAC.

Geographic proximity might also help Oxy's case if Cal Lutheran earned a Pool C bid.

If Oxy holds on to one of the top 2 spots in the West, they should host. Traditionally, the SoCal team has to stand in line behind teams with better records (normally due to the fact that SoCal teams beat up on each other). But the committee has been pretty consistent about giving hosting seeds to the top 2 teams in the region.

The NCAA has two options on making this happen: find three other teams that would have to fly anyway and ship them to LA, which is what I think that you're getting at, or find two teams that are a short drive away and pair them up opening round and then fly the winner to LA for a single game. If there were 2 NWC teams this would be an obvious situation. If WashU drops behind Lawrence and Augustana in the Midwest, you could match them with cross-town rival Webster from the SLIAC and then fly from St. Louis to Los Angeles for round two.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 11, 2008, 02:46:31 PM
The NWC is beating each other up this year.  The nost likely canidate would be Puget Sound.  Even if Puget Sound win the rest of thier games and loses in the conference final, I highly doubt that they will get an at-large bid.  The numbers are too much against them.  They have lost 3 region games and only Whitworth has a 66% or higher win percentage.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 11, 2008, 08:52:37 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 11, 2008, 08:34:44 AM
Quote from: magicman on February 11, 2008, 05:09:17 AM
pabegg

According to your rankings does that mean the top 10 teams in the country are:

1. Amherst
2. UM-Darthmout
3. Plattsburgh St.
4. Ursinus
5. Gettsburg
6. UofR
7. Occidental
8. Wash. U.
9. Lawrence
10. Capital

Or does the ranking signify something else?  And it certainly looks like you've put a TON of effort into this. Thanks, it's nice to have something more to look at  for comparison purposes.



Yes, that's the Top 10. But it's important to be clear what it's the Top 10 for.

Those are not the "ten best" teams in the country. Those are the "ten best" teams in an approximation of the rating system that will be used for the tournament. In addition, this does not take into account the other parts of the tournament rating, such as head-to-head and record versus ranked teams.

And even that is subject to how the committee works. For example, they've traditionally tried to seed the top 16 spots using the top 2 teams in all regions (except for the Atlantic and sometimes the East, where only the top team gets seeded), which is especially important given the neutral-site opening rounds.


pabegg
Thank you for clearing that up. I thought that it was something like that just wasn't sure.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2008, 09:37:32 PM
OxyBob... if I remember correctly, UMBH's coach was complaining - rightly so - because UMHB was facing Mississippi College in the first round. That is a same conference (ASC) match-up in the first round. That is a no-no for the NCAA. They don't want same conference schools facing each other in the first round - as I am sure no one would!

So, I wouldn't say he was pitching a hissy fit - as you say - for no good reason!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2008, 09:38:00 PM
Quote from: OxyBob on February 11, 2008, 09:28:42 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2008, 08:53:23 AM
As infrequently as the West coast hosts tourney games, you are making the case for Occidental to host a first round game this season, especially if UMHB earns the Pool A bid from the ASC, and Trinity TX or Southwestern does not win the SCAC.

Don't worry about it, Ralph. If it looks like Oxy might get a chance to host, then I'm sure the UMHB coach will whine and moan and pitch a hissy fit like he did last year and get the location changed to benefit UMHB.
OxyBob

Good evening, Bob.

Actually, I anticipate that UMHB plays one of the SCIAC teams.  I think that the SCIAC might get 2 teams in the tourney.

My problem last year is that UMHB should have played Oxy in the first round and have Maryville play Miss College.

As much power as Maryville Head Coach Randy Lambert is reported to have at the national level, it makes me think that he did not want to see his 8-year first-round victory winning streak come to an end at the hands of Mississippi College (against whom he has a losing record in the NCAA's).  It would not surprise me if he influenced the bracket, so he would play UMHB in the first round instead of Mississippi College.


Thanks for jumping in here, Dave McHugh!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2008, 09:39:06 PM
By the way, the NCAA admitted they made a mistake (as they also had with the number of Pool B bids) and made what was the only correct change they could.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2008, 09:40:39 PM
Interesting thoughts Ralph... and glad to "jump" when ever needed (I think!).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 11, 2008, 09:52:36 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2008, 09:37:32 PM
OxyBob... if I remember correctly, UMBH's coach was complaining - rightly so - because UMHB was facing Mississippi College in the first round. That is a same conference (ASC) match-up in the first round. That is a no-no for the NCAA. They don't want same conference schools facing each other in the first round - as I am sure no one would!

So, I wouldn't say he was pitching a hissy fit - as you say - for no good reason!

Ahh yes!  This was the "we didn't even know they were in the same conference" response from the committee.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2008, 09:56:48 PM
Umm... yes!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gray Fox on February 11, 2008, 10:51:23 PM
On a personal level, I'm hoping that UMHB hosts a SCIAC team.  The SCIAC now has a tournament and will probably eliminate one of the two possibilities by this shortsightedness.  If one of the lesser teams wins the tourney, UMHB will surely be hosting.  Save me a ticket. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2008, 10:51:47 PM
I don't see how his post back then... justified it. He was pointing out in what seemed like a sarcastic manner (thus the  :) :D) that maybe Maryville wanted the change. He then pointed out why they probably wouldn't want to run into Miss Col. in the first round.

That being said, I am quite sure Maryville didn't point out the mistake. I am sure the NCAA saw the problem thanks in part to D3hoops.com (http://www.d3hoops.com/notables.php?item=927) and from the ASC members (Miss Col. and UMHB). I am sure Maryville never entered the equation. Probably too busy booking their travel.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 11, 2008, 10:59:30 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2008, 09:37:32 PM
OxyBob... if I remember correctly, UMBH's coach was complaining - rightly so - because UMHB was facing Mississippi College in the first round. That is a same conference (ASC) match-up in the first round. That is a no-no for the NCAA. They don't want same conference schools facing each other in the first round - as I am sure no one would!

So, I wouldn't say he was pitching a hissy fit - as you say - for no good reason!

The NCAA squared up Clarmont and Oxy in 2005 in the first round were the winner's reward was a trip up to the pacific northwest to play Puget Sound.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2008, 11:04:00 PM
Quote from: OxyBob on February 11, 2008, 10:11:49 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2008, 09:38:00 PM
My problem last year is that UMHB should have played Oxy in the first round and have Maryville play Miss College.

You had no problem with it. On the contrary (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=1144.msg687908#msg687908), you were perfectly happy and justified it.
OxyBob
OxyBob, I don't read that as being happy that Oxy got the raw end of the deal.  I was more focused on the Maryville aspect of the story.

I deduce that UMHB was the #4 seed in the tourney by virtue of the fact that they were (1) originally scheduled to play the host and #1 seed, (2) and the visitor in the Maryville TN first round game (http://www.maryvillecollege.edu/athletics/stats/NCAAvsUMHB.pdf).  I don't know if Oxy was the #2 or the #3 seed in the original bracket.  I don't think that I was concerned as to how the MissCollege bracket was seeded.  If Oxy was the #3 seed, then it is logical that they play #1 seed Miss College in the first round to avoid the intra-conference game.

Thanks, Dave!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2008, 11:07:39 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 11, 2008, 10:59:30 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2008, 09:37:32 PM
OxyBob... if I remember correctly, UMBH's coach was complaining - rightly so - because UMHB was facing Mississippi College in the first round. That is a same conference (ASC) match-up in the first round. That is a no-no for the NCAA. They don't want same conference schools facing each other in the first round - as I am sure no one would!

So, I wouldn't say he was pitching a hissy fit - as you say - for no good reason!

The NCAA squared up Clarmont and Oxy in 2005 in the first round were the winner's reward was a trip up to the pacific northwest to play Puget Sound.
Yes, that was in the 48-team bracket, the away-home-bye bracket.  It was logical to use the geographical proximity format.  Claremont and Oxy got playoff bids.  UPS got the bye and caught the winner in the second round.

I think that someone (Oxy) hosts the first round game in southern California.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2008, 11:10:06 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 11, 2008, 10:59:30 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2008, 09:37:32 PM
OxyBob... if I remember correctly, UMBH's coach was complaining - rightly so - because UMHB was facing Mississippi College in the first round. That is a same conference (ASC) match-up in the first round. That is a no-no for the NCAA. They don't want same conference schools facing each other in the first round - as I am sure no one would!

So, I wouldn't say he was pitching a hissy fit - as you say - for no good reason!

The NCAA squared up Clarmont and Oxy in 2005 in the first round were the winner's reward was a trip up to the pacific northwest to play Puget Sound.
Actually, it was in 06. Thanks to Pat for helping me find that!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2008, 11:11:09 PM
Ralph -- don't worry about OB's posts. He's just become a grumpy old man over the past couple months.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 11, 2008, 11:22:35 PM
"Geographic proximity" (read number of flights) comes first. Not matching conference rivals comes second.

We're forgetting one thing, that Chapman is currently in position for a Pool B bid. In that case, it's highly likely that:

If Cal Lutheran makes it, CLU hosts Chapman, winner to Oxy (with bye).

If Cal Lutheran doesn't and Oxy holds onto hosting spot, then Oxy will host a group with Chapman, the NWC champion, and MHB.

If Cal Lutheran doesn't and Oxy can't hold onto hosting spot, then Oxy will host Chapman in the first round and then the winner will fly out somewhere (WashU or St. Thomas?) while MHB would get to host an all-flying group with the NWC champion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2008, 11:26:47 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 11, 2008, 11:22:35 PM
"Geographic proximity" (read number of flights) comes first. Not matching conference rivals comes second.

We're forgetting one thing, that Chapman is currently in position for a Pool B bid. In that case, it's highly likely that:

If Cal Lutheran makes it, CLU hosts Chapman, winner to Oxy (with bye).

If Cal Lutheran doesn't and Oxy holds onto hosting spot, then Oxy will host a group with Chapman, the NWC champion, and MHB.

If Cal Lutheran doesn't and Oxy can't hold onto hosting spot, then Oxy will host Chapman in the first round and then the winner will fly out somewhere (WashU or St. Thomas?) while MHB would get to host an all-flying group with the NWC champion.
Yes!  Great point! +1  :)

The only team that I see in bussing range for UMHB is Millsaps, and I don't think that Millsaps hosts.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 11, 2008, 11:28:26 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2008, 11:10:06 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 11, 2008, 10:59:30 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2008, 09:37:32 PM
OxyBob... if I remember correctly, UMBH's coach was complaining - rightly so - because UMHB was facing Mississippi College in the first round. That is a same conference (ASC) match-up in the first round. That is a no-no for the NCAA. They don't want same conference schools facing each other in the first round - as I am sure no one would!

So, I wouldn't say he was pitching a hissy fit - as you say - for no good reason!

The NCAA squared up Clarmont and Oxy in 2005 in the first round were the winner's reward was a trip up to the pacific northwest to play Puget Sound.
Actually, it was in 06. Thanks to Pat for helping me find that!

My fault I wasn't clear...05-06,  its all straight now though :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 11, 2008, 11:30:56 PM
It will be an interesting role reversal if UPS can get the NWC bid and if Oxy can hold on to its hosting.  The NWC would have to travel to the SCIAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2008, 11:39:30 PM
Or they could both be traveling somewhere else.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 11, 2008, 11:58:47 PM
Well, WEDNESDAY, FEB 13th is R-Day!

That's when the first REGIONAL RANKINGS come out!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 12, 2008, 12:33:36 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2008, 11:39:30 PM
Or they could both be traveling somewhere else.

that why I said "if"   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 12:37:10 AM
OK, just for the heck of it, my first bracket projection of the year. Based on results to date, Pool A bids going to the highest rated team in the conference, not the leader, except for the UAA.

From west to east, (weekend host listed first, midweek host second if 3-team bracket)

Occidental – Cal Lutheran (C) – Chapman (B)
St. Thomas – Buena Vista – UW-Whitewater (C) – Nebraska Wesleyan (B)
Washington U – UW Stevens Point (C) – Webster
Lawrence – Augustana – DePauw (C) – Defiance
Capital – Wooster – Lake Erie
Hope – UW-Platteville – Loras (C) – Bethany
Mary Hardin-Baylor – Maryville TN (B) – Millsaps (C) – Puget Sound
Centre – Guilford – Averett
Ursinus – William Paterson – Messiah (C) – Baptist Bible
Gettysburg (C) – DeSales – Virginia Wesleyan (C) – Immaculata
Richard Stockton (C) – Widener – Stevens (C) – Moravian (B)
Rochester (C) – Brockport (C) – York PA – York NY
Plattsburgh – Nazareth – WPI – Farmingdale
Amherst – Brandeis (C) – Emerson
Mass-Dartmouth – Bowdoin (C) – Salem St – Gordon
Middlebury (C) – Trinity CT (C) – St. Lawrence – Elms

This gives hosting to top 2 in each region except Atlantic, with extra seed to Northeast.

The "bottom 19" Pool A and B are separated as far as possible (some brackets must have two low seeds in the bracket, and all brackets have at least one bottom seed).

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2008, 02:01:42 AM
Alright, first run of these for the season for us:

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/owp.htm

OWP and OOWP for all teams through Sunday's games. Subject to entry errors, of course, although I have gone through all of the schedules at least once.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 09:10:55 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2008, 02:01:42 AM
Alright, first run of these for the season for us:

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/owp.htm

OWP and OOWP for all teams through Sunday's games. Subject to entry errors, of course, although I have gone through all of the schedules at least once.

North Central MN is not on the list; have they been held back? I thought they would be third-year provisional this year.

Is Finlandia being excluded because of their low number of regional games? I would think that since they have enough D3 games, they should be included even though their regional count is so low.

Overall, I'm off by about 50 games from your count (only Wentworth and Northwestern MN show up twice) and I'll check the discrepancies. Brockport is the only contender for Pool C that appears to be contested.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 09:16:59 AM
Quote from: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 09:10:55 AM
Brockport is the only contender for Pool C that appears to be contested.

Got that one already. Season opener with Rowan is not regional.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2008, 10:41:44 AM
Quote from: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 09:16:59 AM
Quote from: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 09:10:55 AM
Brockport is the only contender for Pool C that appears to be contested.

Got that one already. Season opener with Rowan is not regional.

Dammit -- I've changed that in the system at least once this season. Not sure why people keep changing it back.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2008, 01:51:55 PM
Heck - I have changed that to a non-regional game twice, at least!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Jacketfan2011 on February 12, 2008, 02:16:01 PM
I have a question but I will attempt to answer it myself.  I assume that Rochester's 16-3 regional record does not include their win over Ohio Wesleyan at Rochester.  Is that correct?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 02:22:13 PM
Quote from: Jacketfan2011 on February 12, 2008, 02:16:01 PM
I have a question but I will attempt to answer it myself.  I assume that Rochester's 16-3 regional record does not include their win over Ohio Wesleyan at Rochester.  Is that correct?

Correct, that game is not regional.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 02:23:30 PM
One obvious miss is that George Fox - Pacific Lutheran games should both be regional (only one is on the scoreboard).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2008, 03:37:00 PM
That has been fixed (Cal Lutheran/George Fox) on the scoreboard!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 04:26:26 PM
OK, here we go with a lot of fixes

Mass-Boston : Maine-Fort Kent is not D3
Wesleyan : Fisher is not D3
Redlands : West Coast Baptist is not D3

These look like regional games to me:

Nichols - York NY (under 200)
Keene St - New Paltz St (under 200)
Wentworth - Goucher (same admin region)
Wentworh - Rensselaer (under 200)
Hamilton - Middlebury (under 200)
Salisbury - St. Mary's MD (all criteria)
Bluffton - Carthage (same region)
Blackburn - Rose-Hulman (same region)

Middlebury - Merchant Marine looks like over 200, so it's not regional

NYU - Framingham is right at 200; I assume this has been checked and classified non-regional.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2008, 10:43:00 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 04:26:26 PM
OK, here we go with a lot of fixes

Mass-Boston : Maine-Fort Kent is not D3
Wesleyan : Fisher is not D3
Redlands : West Coast Baptist is not D3

These look like regional games to me:

Nichols - York NY (under 200)
Keene St - New Paltz St (under 200)
Wentworth - Goucher (same admin region)
Wentworh - Rensselaer (under 200)
Hamilton - Middlebury (under 200)
Salisbury - St. Mary's MD (all criteria)
Bluffton - Carthage (same region)
Blackburn - Rose-Hulman (same region)

Middlebury - Merchant Marine looks like over 200, so it's not regional

NYU - Framingham is right at 200; I assume this has been checked and classified non-regional.
Mass-Boston : Maine-Fort Kent is not D3 - FIXED
Wesleyan : Fisher is not D3 - FIXED
Redlands : West Coast Baptist is not D3 - FIXED

Nichols - York NY (under 200) - 156.4 from what I determined - FIXED
Keene St - New Paltz St (under 200) - 163.6 from what I determined - FIXED
Wentworth - Goucher (same admin region) - I should have spotted that sooner - FIXED
Wentworh - Rensselaer (under 200) - 166.3 from what I determined - FIXED
Hamilton - Middlebury (under 200) - 183.6 from what I determined - FIXED (this is no longer true after more research)
Salisbury - St. Mary's MD (all criteria) - not sure what happened, I inserted that as a regional game, though it is NOT a conference game - FIXED
Bluffton - Carthage (same region) - yep - FIXED
Blackburn - Rose-Hulman (same region) - yep - FIXED
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 11:00:37 PM
More fixes (some of these have my head spinning)

Shenandoah-Delaware Valley is over 200 miles, so non-regional
Transylvania - Marian IN is not D3
Marymount - La Roche is same region

and NYU-Framingham is under 200, so that's right and I've fixed it on mine.

There are a few discrepancies between the scoreboard and the D3 published OWP/OOWP records, such as Wheelock and Regis.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2008, 11:11:30 PM
Hey, guys, Middlebury/Hamilton I went over with a fine-toothed comb. Not 200 miles.

MSN Mappoint link (http://mappoint.msn.com/(fryj5k45tfgyowutrsctaz55)/directions.aspx?&StartName=198+College+Hill+Rd%2c+Clinton%2c+NY+13323-1218&StartLocation=43.05042%2c-75.40577&EndName=604+College+St%2c+Middlebury%2c+VT+05753&EndLocation=44.00998%2c-73.18133&DataSetLangID=USA&RouteType=Shortest&RouteUnit=Miles)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2008, 11:17:54 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2008, 11:11:30 PM
Hey, guys, Middlebury/Hamilton I went over with a fine-toothed comb. Not 200 miles.

MSN Mappoint link (http://mappoint.msn.com/(fryj5k45tfgyowutrsctaz55)/directions.aspx?&StartName=198+College+Hill+Rd%2c+Clinton%2c+NY+13323-1218&StartLocation=43.05042%2c-75.40577&EndName=604+College+St%2c+Middlebury%2c+VT+05753&EndLocation=44.00998%2c-73.18133&DataSetLangID=USA&RouteType=Shortest&RouteUnit=Miles)
Yep... did it a few more times a bit more detailed - not under 200 miles. Thanks Pat for double-checking me!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 11:25:24 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2008, 11:11:30 PM
Hey, guys, Middlebury/Hamilton I went over with a fine-toothed comb. Not 200 miles.

MSN Mappoint link (http://mappoint.msn.com/(fryj5k45tfgyowutrsctaz55)/directions.aspx?&StartName=198+College+Hill+Rd%2c+Clinton%2c+NY+13323-1218&StartLocation=43.05042%2c-75.40577&EndName=604+College+St%2c+Middlebury%2c+VT+05753&EndLocation=44.00998%2c-73.18133&DataSetLangID=USA&RouteType=Shortest&RouteUnit=Miles)

Talk about weird: when I enter the website that the NCAA lists, mappoint.msn.com, I get redirected to maps.live.com. At that site, the "shortest distance" route is 161.7 miles, cutting across Adirondack State Park.

So it all depends on what the definition of the web site is!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 12, 2008, 11:30:05 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 11:25:24 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2008, 11:11:30 PM
Hey, guys, Middlebury/Hamilton I went over with a fine-toothed comb. Not 200 miles.

MSN Mappoint link (http://mappoint.msn.com/(fryj5k45tfgyowutrsctaz55)/directions.aspx?&StartName=198+College+Hill+Rd%2c+Clinton%2c+NY+13323-1218&StartLocation=43.05042%2c-75.40577&EndName=604+College+St%2c+Middlebury%2c+VT+05753&EndLocation=44.00998%2c-73.18133&DataSetLangID=USA&RouteType=Shortest&RouteUnit=Miles)

Talk about weird: when I enter the website that the NCAA lists, mappoint.msn.com, I get redirected to maps.live.com. At that site, the "shortest distance" route is 161.7 miles, cutting across Adirondack State Park.

So it all depends on what the definition of the web site is!

Hmmmm....

does the Hope to Carthage ferry go across Adirondack State Park?

:D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 11:43:14 PM
Actually, the shortcut route does include the Ticonderoga ferry across Lake Champlain!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2008, 11:45:32 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 12, 2008, 11:00:37 PM
More fixes (some of these have my head spinning)

Shenandoah-Delaware Valley is over 200 miles, so non-regional
Transylvania - Marian IN is not D3
Marymount - La Roche is same region
Fixed these!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 12, 2008, 11:47:16 PM
Awesome, another magic mid-winter ferry.

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fre3.mm-a10.yimg.com%2Fimage%2F340638067&hash=1e29a4b8f41bc54730c77966fcd3379fb9dcedb6)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2008, 04:01:21 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2008, 02:01:42 AM
Alright, first run of these for the season for us:

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/owp.htm

OWP and OOWP for all teams through Sunday's games. Subject to entry errors, of course, although I have gone through all of the schedules at least once.

Thanks, Pat. Nice work, as usual.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2008, 04:10:44 AM
Quote from: sac on February 12, 2008, 11:47:16 PM
Awesome, another magic mid-winter ferry.

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fre3.mm-a10.yimg.com%2Fimage%2F340638067&hash=1e29a4b8f41bc54730c77966fcd3379fb9dcedb6)

Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys must've used MSN Mappoint.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2008, 03:19:16 PM
Regional rankings are out:
http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/category/ncaa-stuff/regional-rankings/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LU_nut on February 13, 2008, 04:20:14 PM
Give me a little help please Pat....as usual I am in the wilderness.

I understand the D3 top 25 means nothing relative to the regional rankings.  I assume that what you published earlier was trying to mimic the ranking based on wins and quality of schedule..............so, why is Augie and Wash U ahead of LU in the regional rankings?

I know there is some sort of answer, I just never take the time to really figure out how the D3 mechanism works.

LU_NUT
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 13, 2008, 04:23:57 PM
Quote from: LU_nut on February 13, 2008, 04:20:14 PM
Give me a little help please Pat....as usual I am in the wilderness.

I understand the D3 top 25 means nothing relative to the regional rankings.  I assume that what you published earlier was trying to mimic the ranking based on wins and quality of schedule..............so, why is Augie and Wash U ahead of LU in the regional rankings?

I know there is some sort of answer, I just never take the time to really figure out how the D3 mechanism works.

LU_NUT

I already answered on the MWC board feel free to follow-up if not clear.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 13, 2008, 04:37:07 PM
Quote from: LU_nut on February 13, 2008, 04:20:14 PM
Give me a little help please Pat....as usual I am in the wilderness.

I understand the D3 top 25 means nothing relative to the regional rankings.  I assume that what you published earlier was trying to mimic the ranking based on wins and quality of schedule..............so, why is Augie and Wash U ahead of LU in the regional rankings?

I know there is some sort of answer, I just never take the time to really figure out how the D3 mechanism works.

LU_NUT

The earlier rankings were mine, not Pat Coleman's, so let me explain what I'm seeing.

My rankings atttempt to take into account the "numerical" components of the NCAA rankings, which are the regional winning percentage and the OWP/OOWP strength of schedule numbers. In this case, the top 3 in the Midwest are WashU, Lawrence, and Augustana. Lawrence has the best regional winning percentage, but WashU's schedule is much tougher, and Augustana's is somewhat tougher.

The real rankings factor in head-to-head and record versus ranked teams. Lawrence is 0-1 with a loss to UWSP, while Augustana is 4-1 (including a win over WashU) and WashU is 5-2. So Augustana ends up jumping over both Lawrence and WashU into first.

No real surprises here.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 13, 2008, 04:52:25 PM
OK, now that the regional rankings are out, I thought that I'd compare the actual results to what my numbers generated.

First of all, I got 55 of the 58 teams in the rankings; the three that I missed were St. Joseph's LI, Moravian, and PSU-Behrend, all of which were in my first honorable mention spot. I even got 23 schools in exactly the same spot, and many of the rest were just switched with the school next to them.

The only big miss was UW-Whitewater in 8th rather than 4th; looking at things closer, 4-8 in the West were all very tightly packed in my numbers.

As noted in a previous post, Augustana jumps to 1st in the Midwest due to their head-to-head win over WashU and their strong record versus ranked teams. These two factors are hard (impossible?) to quantify, which is why I haven't tried. Likewise, I assume that Rochester passes Plattsburgh in the East due to record against ranked teams (7-2 versus 2-0).

So the important thing here is that even with the changes to OWP/OOWP, the NCAA rankings (and hence the tournament selection) are highly predictable. I wasn't sure that this was still going to be true.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on February 13, 2008, 05:12:20 PM
BV at #7 in West Region ouch.  I know they dont play the tough competition like the Wisconsin schools but with only 2 losses in the region that hurts.  Looks like they have to win the conference tournament to get the bid this year.  Only got Loras left in the regular that is in the regional rankings and the only team they have left with a good record. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2008, 05:14:41 PM
Regional rankings are listed below and color coded to give everyone an idea of where their team sits, in terms of who you want to root for!  For example, in the Midwest Region, Carroll College would really want Wheaton, Chicago and Ill.Wes. to drop games so they can move up the Pool C ladder.  And in the West Region, Stevens Point needs Occidental to keep that Pool A bid in the SCIAC and hope that Cal. Lutheran drops games to jump ahead of them in the Pool C race...looks like that loss out there to Cal. Lutheran really hurts Point right now.

BOLD is conference leader (Pool A)
RED is Pool C Contender
BLUE is Pool B contender...may need some help on those!

Atlantic Region
1. Richard Stockton 15-5 15-4 .544 .518 (NJAC)
2. William Paterson 16-4 16-4 .516 .518 (NJAC)
3. Farmingdale State 16-4 15-3 .462 .481 (SKY)
4. York (N.Y.) 17-7 15-6 .472 .495 (CUNYAC) (tied with Brooklyn)
5. St. Joseph's (L.I.) 16-5 15-5 .415 .477 (SKY)

East Region
1. Rochester 17-3 16-3 .629 .573 (UAA)
2. Plattsburgh State 19-2 16-0 .505 .524 (SUNYAC)
3. Brockport State 16-6 13-4 .585 .532 (SUNYAC)
4. Stevens 19-3 17-2 .447 .532 (Empire 8 )
5. Nazareth 15-5 15-5 .606 .544 (Empire 8 )

Great Lakes
1. Capital 18-3 17-3 .536 .530 (OAC)
2. Wooster 18-3 11-2 .525 .495 (NCAC)
3. Hope 17-3 10-2 .501 .519 (MIAA)
4. Ohio Wesleyan 14-6 13-4 .545 .498 (NCAC)
5. Heidelberg 16-5 14-4 .507 .528 (OAC)
6. Penn State-Behrend 17-4 15-3 .425 .501 (AMCC) (tied with Lake Erie)

Middle Atlantic Region
1. Ursinus 19-2 16-1 .526 .518 (Centennial)
2. Gettysburg 17-3 15-2 .553 .521 (Centennial)
3. Widener 17-4 14-3 .553 .524 (MAC Commonwealth)
4. Messiah 15-6 14-5 .650 .519 (MAC Commonwealth) (tied with Albright and Lycoming)
5. DeSales 17-4 14-3 .522 .507 (MAC Freedom) (tied with Manhattanville)
6. Albright 14-5 14-4 .528 .544 (MAC Commonwealth) (tied with Messiah and Lycoming)
7. York (Pa.) 16-6 16-5 .557 .506 (CAC)
8. Moravian 17-5 16-5 .462 .511 (LAND) (Pool B)

Midwest Region
1. Augustana 17-4 16-4 .573 .571 (CCIW)
2. Washington U. 16-4 13-3 .690 .556 (UAA)
3. Lawrence 16-2 14-2 .519 .511 (MWC)
4. Wheaton (Ill.)  16-5 12-5 .565 .559 (CCIW)
5. Chicago 13-7 12-7 .641 .569 (UAA)
6. Illinois Wesleyan 13-8 12-6 .619 .555 (CCIW)
7. Carroll 14-5 13-5 .537 .492 (MWC)
8. Webster 15-5 13-5 .529 .475 (SLIAC)

Northeast Region
1. Amherst 21-2 21-1 .616 .539 (NESCAC)
2. Mass-Dartmouth 20-1 20-1 .558 .540 (LEC) (Tied with Rhode Island College)
3. Bowdoin 18-4 18-4 .565 .529 (NESCAC)
4. Trinity (Conn.) 18-5 16-4 .610 .543 (NESCAC)
5. Middlebury 17-5 16-4 .609 .513 (NESCAC)
6. Brandeis 16-4 15-4 .583 .584 (UAA)
7. Worcester Tech 16-5 15-4 .548 .539 (NEWMAC)
8. Rhode Island College 16-5 16-5 .537 .541 (LEC) (Tied with Mass-Dartmouth)
9. Emerson 18-3 17-3 .437 .511 (GNAC)
10. Bates 15-6 14-5 .567 .540 (NESCAC)

South Region
1. Centre 20-1 15-1 .474 .497 (SCAC)
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor 18-3 16-2 .486 .511 (ASC)
3. Guilford 16-4 15-4 .562 .530 (ODAC)
4. Maryville (Tenn.) 20-2 14-2 .487 .505 (GSAC)
5. Virginia Wesleyan 17-5 16-4 .533 .534 (ODAC)
6. DePauw 18-4 14-3 .478 .514 (SCAC)
7. Millsaps 19-3 14-2 .456 .492 (SCAC)
8. Randolph-Macon 17-4 12-4 .534 .542 (ODAC)

West Region
1. Occidental 18-3 11-1 .496 .535 (SCIAC)
2. St. Thomas 19-3 17-2 .487 .529 (MIAC)
3. UW-Platteville 17-4 15-3 .510 .554 (WIAC) (tied with Whitewater)
4. UW-Whitewater 18-3 16-3 .466 .545 (WIAC) (tied with Platteville)
5. Cal Lutheran 17-3 13-3 .504 .522 (SCIAC)
6. UW-Stevens Point 17-4 15-4 .566 .530 (WIAC)
7. Buena Vista 18-4 14-2 .464 .543 (IIAC)
8. Loras 17-5 14-3 .511 .547 (IIAC)


Yes OS, Moravian (Landmark Conference) is Pool B this season and next.  +1!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 13, 2008, 10:43:33 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 13, 2008, 04:52:25 PM
OK, now that the regional rankings are out, I thought that I'd compare the actual results to what my numbers generated.

First of all, I got 55 of the 58 teams in the rankings; the three that I missed were St. Joseph's LI, Moravian, and PSU-Behrend, all of which were in my first honorable mention spot. I even got 23 schools in exactly the same spot, and many of the rest were just switched with the school next to them.

The only big miss was UW-Whitewater in 8th rather than 4th; looking at things closer, 4-8 in the West were all very tightly packed in my numbers.

As noted in a previous post, Augustana jumps to 1st in the Midwest due to their head-to-head win over WashU and their strong record versus ranked teams. These two factors are hard (impossible?) to quantify, which is why I haven't tried. Likewise, I assume that Rochester passes Plattsburgh in the East due to record against ranked teams (7-2 versus 2-0).

So the important thing here is that even with the changes to OWP/OOWP, the NCAA rankings (and hence the tournament selection) are highly predictable. I wasn't sure that this was still going to be true.


Great work Pabegg!  Looks like your "crystal ball" worked pretty well.  +1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2008, 10:58:07 PM
The regional rankings listed above only have 29 conferences of the 38 Pool A conferences.  If your conference is not listed, then look at your conference standings and check the conference policies on championships to see how you get a Pool A bid.

There are 58 teams listed in the Regional Rankings (The men have ranked one team for every playoff bid!)

I think that we are certain that the Pool C bubble-teams are on the bottom of those regions.

East Region -- no LL, no NEAC
Great Lakes -- no Pres AC
Mid-Atlantic -- no PnAC
Midwest -- no HCAC
Northeast -- no CCC, no NAC, no MASCAC.
West -- No NWC

Tip of the hat to Log Show for recognizing the NWC.

I completely overlooked it!   :-\

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 13, 2008, 11:40:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2008, 10:58:07 PM
The regional rankings listed above only have 30 conferences of the 38 Pool A conferences.  If your conference is not listed, then look at your conference standings and check the conference policies on championships to see how you get a Pool A bid.

There are 58 teams listed in the Regional Rankings (The men have ranked one team for every playoff bid!)

I think that we are certain that the Pool C bubble-teams are on the bottom of those regions.

East Region -- no LL, no NEAC
Great Lakes -- no Pres AC
Mid-Atlantic -- no PnAC
Midwest -- no HCAC
Northeast -- no CCC, no NAC, no MASCAC.




What about the West Region-- no NWC

Or am I misreading your post?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2008, 11:59:47 PM
Old School, this is going to sound like a CRAZY request!

Being that I - and I assume others - are red/green color blind, the red and green you used... hard to tell the difference with. Could we use blue for one of them? You don't have to change both, just one of them :).

That being said, and to ward off anyone questions, yes I do know which teams are Pool B and Pool C usually, but at quick clance, the color change helps.

I know... CRAZY!  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 14, 2008, 03:59:04 AM
Quote from: OxyBob on February 12, 2008, 09:20:04 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2008, 11:11:09 PM
Ralph -- don't worry about OB's posts. He's just become a grumpy old man over the past couple months.

I am not old.

OxyBob


OxyBob,

I saw that picture of you at the Cal Tech game back in Dec. I think. The one where the only person in the stands was you. You didn't  look old, or grumpy then. More like middle aged. And with Occidental's fine season this year you've gotta be anything but grumpy. :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 14, 2008, 09:01:43 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2008, 10:58:07 PM
The regional rankings listed above only have 29 conferences of the 38 Pool A conferences.  If your conference is not listed, then look at your conference standings and check the conference policies on championships to see how you get a Pool A bid.

There are 58 teams listed in the Regional Rankings (The men have ranked one team for every playoff bid!)

I think that we are certain that the Pool C bubble-teams are on the bottom of those regions.

East Region -- no LL, no NEAC
Great Lakes -- no Pres AC
Mid-Atlantic -- no PnAC
Midwest -- no HCAC
Northeast -- no CCC, no NAC, no MASCAC.
West -- No NWC

Tip of the hat to Log Show for recognizing the NWC.

I completely overlooked it!   :-\



I think we can go a little farther on this analysis.

Emerson, Farmingdale, York NY, York PA, PSU-Behrend, and Webster are all ranked, but have no shot at a Pool C. Their remaining games are all conference games in weak conferences, so even going unbeaten until losing the tournament final will not improve their rankings.

The top 11 Pool C bids would be in. That list looks to me like Trinity, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Brandeis, Brockport, the runners-up from Ursinus/Gettysburg, Guilford/Virginia Wesleyan, Washington/Rochester, Buena Vista/Loras, and the two runners-up from Platteville/Whitewater/Stevens Point.

The next 6 Pool C bids are the "in, but..." category, subject to losing their spot if someone gets upset. Those six look like Messiah, DePauw, Millsaps, Cal Lutheran, and the runners-up from William Paterson/Richard Stockton and Nazareth/Stevens.

The next tier are the teams that fall below the bubble: Rhode Island College, Bates, Albright, Randolph-Macon, Heidelberg, Ohio Wesleyan, and Wheaton. I'd also include unranked Oswego, Roanoke, and Oshkosh in this category, as they are likely the first off the list in their respective regions. Some of these schools have a real chance to move up, given the strength of their remaining conference schedule (such as Wheaton did last night). Others, maybe not.

Illinois Wesleyan, Carroll, and Chicago are even farther back. IWU and Chicago could move up with their difficult conference schedules, but I can't see Carroll going anywhere.

St. Joseph's LI isn't even on the radar; the Atlantic is incredibly weak this year and it's entirely possible that the NJAC runner-up starts the Pool C process at the top of the Atlantic list and never moves into the field.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 14, 2008, 01:13:15 PM
The NWC hasn't exactly been stellar this year.  The conference is competitive and every team plays each other tough, but no team has really separated themselves, they are all just beating each other up.  Which would be okay if the NWC was a power conference and also I don't think the NWC did a good job of playing "tough" nonconference schedules this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2008, 06:22:41 PM
Even though the Regional Rankings came out on Wednesday, I'm assuming those records are only through Sunday, correct.  Just wanted to make sure!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 14, 2008, 09:55:17 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 14, 2008, 06:22:41 PM
Even though the Regional Rankings came out on Wednesday, I'm assuming those records are only through Sunday, correct.  Just wanted to make sure!

That's right.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 15, 2008, 10:31:09 AM
PaBegg, OS: 

Really nice work.

I'm not convinced that Farmingdale State isn't alive for a Pool C big though, assuming they win out until the conference championship.

The selection committee seems to stick to its criteria pretty closely when awarding at-large bids.  They aren't going to withhold an at-large because someone is in a weak conference.  The Skyline got an at-large bid last year (Stevens) and the CUNYAC the year before (Baruch).

The NJAC teams continue to stumble with Richard Stockton and William Paterson both losing this week.  It's not inconceivable that Farmingdale State could move up a slot if that trend continues.  The Rams' OWP and OOWP isn't very impressive but a four-loss regional record would be.  And I don't think there's been a case yet under the expanded bracket where a region has received no at-large bids.

It's only a hypothetical but if the Rams are the first or second ranked team in the Atlantic...if they win out until the conference tournament...if the NJAC team in front of them (if any) wins the AQ and the Rams are the top Pool C candidate...they could still very well get an at-large bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2008, 11:06:51 AM
They've skipped over Atlantic C teams before ...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Cyclone0205 on February 15, 2008, 12:48:12 PM
I know this usually doesn't play a part in selection, but say Farmingdale is the Top Pool C bid from the Atlantic.  Does their tourney win in 05-06 and loss to the eventual national champions, followed by Stevens' sweet 16 appearance last year and loss to the eventual national champions, weigh at all on the committee? I know me personally as a voter, after seeing the success in recent years, might be a little more willing to take a chance on Farmingdale this season. 


I preface this by saying I haven't studied enough who they'd be on line against from other regions, but I was just wondering if the recent good tournament showings could help the rams at all.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2008, 12:53:36 PM
Quote from: Cyclone0205 on February 15, 2008, 12:48:12 PM
I know this usually doesn't play a part in selection, but say Farmingdale is the Top Pool C bid from the Atlantic.  Does their tourney win in 05-06 and loss to the eventual national champions, followed by Stevens' sweet 16 appearance last year and loss to the eventual national champions, weigh at all on the committee? I know me personally as a voter, after seeing the success in recent years, might be a little more willing to take a chance on Farmingdale this season. 


I preface this by saying I haven't studied enough who they'd be on line against from other regions, but I was just wondering if the recent good tournament showings could help the rams at all.
Past performance is not one of the criteria.

Trinity Women won the title in 2003 and did not get a Pool C bid the next year at 24-3 overall/22-3 in-region.

2006 Hardin-Simmons, a women's Final Four team, did not get a Pool C bid in 2007, 21-5 overall, 20-5 in-region after the Pool C Bids had been increased.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Jacketfan2011 on February 15, 2008, 01:05:05 PM
Wow!  That's harsh..
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Cyclone0205 on February 15, 2008, 01:11:36 PM
Wow.  Is that..umm..troubling to anyone else?


Maybe its because I'm so used to the D1 selection process where certain teams, by name/performance, you know have better shots at at large bids...but to be a final four team, have a great..not good...great record...and not make it in the tournament?  I find it hard to believe you found that many teams that were better than that Hardin-Simmons team in the Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2008, 01:25:23 PM
Quote from: Jacketfan2011 on February 15, 2008, 01:05:05 PM
Wow!  That's harsh..
HSU Cowgirls had 3 losses to Howard Payne, the #1 seed in the tournament (West/South Region or overall), a season split with McMurry (which also got a playoff bid) and an overtime loss at Southwestern (http://www.d3hoops.com/school/SWRN/womens/2007) in the second game of the season!

Lose no game that you should not lose!  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2008, 01:50:29 PM
Quote from: Cyclone0205 on February 15, 2008, 01:11:36 PM
Wow.  Is that..umm..troubling to anyone else?


Maybe its because I'm so used to the D1 selection process where certain teams, by name/performance, you know have better shots at at large bids...but to be a final four team, have a great..not good...great record...and not make it in the tournament?  I find it hard to believe you found that many teams that were better than that Hardin-Simmons team in the Pool C.
Well... in Division I, it also helps when you have a better schools to bids ratio, so teams with not-so-great winning percentages can get into the tournament.

There are over 400 schools at a bid ratio of 6.5/1... tougher selections in Division III.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2008, 03:16:34 PM
For comparison, ratio in D-I is about 5:1.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 15, 2008, 03:17:39 PM
If I did the math right, Div I's ratio for the men's tournament is 4.738

For D3 that would mean a tournament of 88 teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 15, 2008, 03:24:13 PM
88 teams doesn't really work, though. I think 64 would be nice.

Or we could invite 'em all! It'd be a hoop bonanza!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: keith45 on February 15, 2008, 03:30:54 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 13, 2008, 05:14:41 PM
Regional rankings are listed below and color coded to give everyone an idea of where their team sits, in terms of who you want to root for!  For example, in the Midwest Region, Carroll College would really want Wheaton, Chicago and Ill.Wes. to drop games so they can move up the Pool C ladder.  And in the West Region, Stevens Point needs Occidental to keep that Pool A bid in the SCIAC and hope that Cal. Lutheran drops games to jump ahead of them in the Pool C race...looks like that loss out there to Cal. Lutheran really hurts Point right now.

BOLD is conference leader (Pool A)
RED is Pool C Contender
BLUE is Pool B contender...may need some help on those!

Atlantic Region
1. Richard Stockton 15-5 15-4 .544 .518 (NJAC)
2. William Paterson 16-4 16-4 .516 .518 (NJAC)
3. Farmingdale State 16-4 15-3 .462 .481 (SKY)
4. York (N.Y.) 17-7 15-6 .472 .495 (CUNYAC) (tied with Brooklyn)
5. St. Joseph's (L.I.) 16-5 15-5 .415 .477 (SKY)

East Region
1. Rochester 17-3 16-3 .629 .573 (UAA)
2. Plattsburgh State 19-2 16-0 .505 .524 (SUNYAC)
3. Brockport State 16-6 13-4 .585 .532 (SUNYAC)
4. Stevens 19-3 17-2 .447 .532 (Empire 8 )
5. Nazareth 15-5 15-5 .606 .544 (Empire 8 )

Great Lakes
1. Capital 18-3 17-3 .536 .530 (OAC)
2. Wooster 18-3 11-2 .525 .495 (NCAC)
3. Hope 17-3 10-2 .501 .519 (MIAA)
4. Ohio Wesleyan 14-6 13-4 .545 .498 (NCAC)
5. Heidelberg 16-5 14-4 .507 .528 (OAC)
6. Penn State-Behrend 17-4 15-3 .425 .501 (AMCC) (tied with Lake Erie)

Middle Atlantic Region
1. Ursinus 19-2 16-1 .526 .518 (Centennial)
2. Gettysburg 17-3 15-2 .553 .521 (Centennial)
3. Widener 17-4 14-3 .553 .524 (MAC Commonwealth)
4. Messiah 15-6 14-5 .650 .519 (MAC Commonwealth) (tied with Albright and Lycoming)
5. DeSales 17-4 14-3 .522 .507 (MAC Freedom) (tied with Manhattanville)
6. Albright 14-5 14-4 .528 .544 (MAC Commonwealth) (tied with Messiah and Lycoming)
7. York (Pa.) 16-6 16-5 .557 .506 (CAC)
8. Moravian 17-5 16-5 .462 .511 (LAND) (Pool B)

Midwest Region
1. Augustana 17-4 16-4 .573 .571 (CCIW)
2. Washington U. 16-4 13-3 .690 .556 (UAA)
3. Lawrence 16-2 14-2 .519 .511 (MWC)
4. Wheaton (Ill.)  16-5 12-5 .565 .559 (CCIW)
5. Chicago 13-7 12-7 .641 .569 (UAA)
6. Illinois Wesleyan 13-8 12-6 .619 .555 (CCIW)
7. Carroll 14-5 13-5 .537 .492 (MWC)
8. Webster 15-5 13-5 .529 .475 (SLIAC)

Northeast Region
1. Amherst 21-2 21-1 .616 .539 (NESCAC)
2. Mass-Dartmouth 20-1 20-1 .558 .540 (LEC) (Tied with Rhode Island College)
3. Bowdoin 18-4 18-4 .565 .529 (NESCAC)
4. Trinity (Conn.) 18-5 16-4 .610 .543 (NESCAC)
5. Middlebury 17-5 16-4 .609 .513 (NESCAC)
6. Brandeis 16-4 15-4 .583 .584 (UAA)
7. Worcester Tech 16-5 15-4 .548 .539 (NEWMAC)
8. Rhode Island College 16-5 16-5 .537 .541 (LEC) (Tied with Mass-Dartmouth)
9. Emerson 18-3 17-3 .437 .511 (GNAC)
10. Bates 15-6 14-5 .567 .540 (NESCAC)

South Region
1. Centre 20-1 15-1 .474 .497 (SCAC)
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor 18-3 16-2 .486 .511 (ASC)
3. Guilford 16-4 15-4 .562 .530 (ODAC)
4. Maryville (Tenn.) 20-2 14-2 .487 .505 (GSAC)
5. Virginia Wesleyan 17-5 16-4 .533 .534 (ODAC)
6. DePauw 18-4 14-3 .478 .514 (SCAC)
7. Millsaps 19-3 14-2 .456 .492 (SCAC)
8. Randolph-Macon 17-4 12-4 .534 .542 (ODAC)

West Region
1. Occidental 18-3 11-1 .496 .535 (SCIAC)
2. St. Thomas 19-3 17-2 .487 .529 (MIAC)
3. UW-Platteville 17-4 15-3 .510 .554 (WIAC) (tied with Whitewater)
4. UW-Whitewater 18-3 16-3 .466 .545 (WIAC) (tied with Platteville)
5. Cal Lutheran 17-3 13-3 .504 .522 (SCIAC)
6. UW-Stevens Point 17-4 15-4 .566 .530 (WIAC)
7. Buena Vista 18-4 14-2 .464 .543 (IIAC)
8. Loras 17-5 14-3 .511 .547 (IIAC)


Yes OS, Moravian (Landmark Conference) is Pool B this season and next.  +1!  :)

I really thought Aurora would sneak in at 7 or 8 in the Midwest..if they win out, can they sneak in the NCAA's? They had a couple bad early season losses that really hurt I think..
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 15, 2008, 03:36:46 PM
keith45, Aurora is shooting for a pool B.  Since they didn't get listed in the regional rankings (but only two pool B teams did, and there are four slots), it is harder to assess where tey stand with the selection committee, but I'd say they have a very good shot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 15, 2008, 05:02:14 PM
QuoteThey've skipped over Atlantic C teams before...

Yeah, but have they skipped over any region entirely since the bracket expanded to 59 teams?  I know it's only a couple of years, but I thought every region had at least one at-large the past two seasons.  It turns out I was wrong.

2007 (just one listed)
Northeast: Amherst
East: Brockport State
Mid-Atlantic: Hood
Atlantic: Stevens
Midwest: None
South: Va Wes
West: St. John's
Great Lakes: Hope

2006 (just one listed)
Northeast: Tufts
East: Cortland State
Mid-Atlantic: Widener
Atlantic: Baruch
Midwest: IWU
South: Trinity (Texas)
West: UW-Stout
Great Lakes: Calvin
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 15, 2008, 05:03:26 PM
By my estimates, Aurora was #11 in the Midwest (behind Elmhurst and Defiance).

Using the same estimates, they're #4 for Pool B, just ahead of MSOE and Wisconsin Lutheran.

My guess is that one of the teams from the NAthC will make it, but not necessarily the tournament winner.


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 15, 2008, 05:16:32 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on February 15, 2008, 10:31:09 AM
I'm not convinced that Farmingdale State isn't alive for a Pool C big though, assuming they win out until the conference championship.

The selection committee seems to stick to its criteria pretty closely when awarding at-large bids.  They aren't going to withhold an at-large because someone is in a weak conference.  The Skyline got an at-large bid last year (Stevens) and the CUNYAC the year before (Baruch).


Stevens and Baruch were each much better placed nationally going into their conference tournaments in those years. Baruch was a complete lock for a Pool C bid in 2006, and Stevens was in good shape. My guess is that Farmingdale is at least a dozen teams lower in the analysis than Stevens was last year.

My point on conference strength is that schools in weak conferences are playing weak teams from here on out, which often means that their strength of schedule numbers will be falling. It's hard to make up ground when even a win may not help your rating.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 15, 2008, 05:30:43 PM
QuoteStevens and Baruch were each much better placed nationally going into their conference tournaments in those years. Baruch was a complete lock for a Pool C bid in 2006, and Stevens was in good shape.

While comparing QoWI to OWP/OOWP is beyond me, Stevens had six regional loses when they were selected last year.  That's two more than Farmingdale State has right now.  The Ducks debuted as No. 2 in the Atlantic with four regional loses in the first regional rankings of 2007.  I don't think that's significantly better shape than the Rams' spot in 2008.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2008, 07:06:34 PM
Remember the 2006 playoffs (http://www.d3sports.com/playoffs/mbbbracket2006.pdf)?

Oxy beat CMS in the Wednesday night game and then flew to Puget Sound, who got a bye, for the Saturday game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 15, 2008, 10:20:52 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on February 15, 2008, 05:02:14 PM
QuoteThey've skipped over Atlantic C teams before...

Yeah, but have they skipped over any region entirely since the bracket expanded to 59 teams?  I know it's only a couple of years, but I thought every region had at least one at-large the past two seasons.  It turns out I was wrong.

2007 (just one listed)
Northeast: Amherst
East: Brockport State
Mid-Atlantic: Hood
Atlantic: Stevens
Midwest: None
South: Va Wes
West: St. John's
Great Lakes: Hope

2006 (just one listed)
Northeast: Tufts
East: Cortland State
Mid-Atlantic: Widener
Atlantic: Baruch
Midwest: IWU
South: Trinity (Texas)
West: UW-Stout
Great Lakes: Calvin

Not that it matters to your point, but Hope was an at-large from the Great Lakes in 2007.  Calvin won the AQ from the MIAA.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 15, 2008, 11:41:28 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 15, 2008, 05:03:26 PM
By my estimates, Aurora was #11 in the Midwest (behind Elmhurst and Defiance).

Using the same estimates, they're #4 for Pool B, just ahead of MSOE and Wisconsin Lutheran.

My guess is that one of the teams from the NAthC will make it, but not necessarily the tournament winner.

pabegg,
   Who's #3 in your pool B rankings and, since you were so accurate with your regional rankings, could you list your top 10 for pool  B when you list your next region ranking?                                                 


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Downtown on February 16, 2008, 01:19:42 AM
QuoteUsing the same estimates, they're #4 for Pool B, just ahead of MSOE and Wisconsin Lutheran.

I like that there are Pool B bids, but I have a problem when schools like MSOE and Wisconsin Lutheran, who would finish in the bottom of the WIAC, can make it in the tourney. While this season it looks like the WIAC could have just one team in the tourney, despite having four top 25 teams.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 16, 2008, 04:24:41 AM

Quote from: magicman on February 14, 2008, 03:59:04 AM
Quote from: OxyBob on February 12, 2008, 09:20:04 AM
I saw that picture of you at the Cal Tech game back in Dec. I think. The one where the only person in the stands was you. You didn't  look old, or grumpy then. More like middle aged. And with Occidental's fine season this year you've gotta be anything but grumpy.

Rooting for my Tigers keeps me young, and I prefer curmudgeon to grumpy.

I wasn't the only one in the stands. I had a date with me...

http://gocaltech.com/images/mbkb/mbb_dec17.jpg?max_width=405

OxyBob
[/quote]

Sorry OB I forgot you brought a lady friend with you that night.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 16, 2008, 07:18:59 AM
Quote from: ronk on February 15, 2008, 11:41:28 PM
pabegg,
   Who's #3 in your pool B rankings and, since you were so accurate with your regional rankings, could you list your top 10 for pool  B when you list your next region ranking?                                                 


Yeah, I've got to get a post over on the Pool B page. Nebraska Wesleyan is the other team. They're in a weird situation with a limited number of D3 games, so the D3 Independents Tournament at the end of the season will really affect their chances positively or negatively.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2008, 11:12:00 AM
Quote from: Mr. Downtown on February 16, 2008, 01:19:42 AM
I like that there are Pool B bids, but I have a problem when schools like MSOE and Wisconsin Lutheran, who would finish in the bottom of the WIAC, can make it in the tourney. While this season it looks like the WIAC could have just one team in the tourney, despite having four top 25 teams.

As you know, Mr. DT, d3hoops.com's Top 25 is as legitimate as MY Top 25, if I were to have one, when it comes to what the NCAA thinks!  There has always been a number of Top 25 teams that don't make the tourney at the end of the year.  There are only 4 Pool B bids and I'm not sure how many conferences don't have AQs, aside from the NathCon (another year in Pool B after this year?) and the GSAC (Maryville).  Plus you have a handful of independents (16?).  I guess I could look up in the handbook, but I'm too lazy.

Aside from Aurora, Maryville and Chapman (and Green Mountain? 17-4) not sure who else is a Pool B candidate. 

Tomorrow, I hope to have an updated list of the regional rankings with this week's results included.  It should be interesting!

EDIT:  I see the NEWMAC only has 6 teams in it's league, and I thought you needed at least 7 to get an AQ.  So, throw in Worchester Polytech at 17-5...and of course the LANDMARK is a new conference, so Moravian (17-5) is in there!  Does that make you feel better? lol

Quote from: gordonmann on February 15, 2008, 05:02:14 PM
2007 (just one listed)
Midwest: None

2006 (just one listed)
Midwest: IWU

I'm guessing the Midwest doesn't have many teams to choose from.  Aren't they one of the smaller regions?  Anyway, aside from the CCIW, there aren't many leagues that can consistently put in two teams, one AQ and one Pool C.  The CCIW, like the WIAC, beat each other up and if they do that enough, boom, one bid.  The Midwest Conference usually is a two-horse race and the team that doesn't win the conference tourney doesn't have a good enough record to get that Pool C bid.  I think it was 206 when Carroll and Lawrence got in...last year LU had an "off year", while Grinnell lost in the semis of the tourney at home and Carroll was the only one to get in.  Of course, the NathCon was Pool B eligible and Aurora got in.  Chicago and Washington U. are the only UAA members in the region. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 16, 2008, 12:19:15 PM
Quote from: Mr. Downtown on February 16, 2008, 01:19:42 AM
I like that there are Pool B bids, but I have a problem when schools like MSOE and Wisconsin Lutheran, who would finish in the bottom of the WIAC, can make it in the tourney. While this season it looks like the WIAC could have just one team in the tourney, despite having four top 25 teams.



You know, that happens. There's one way to get into the tourney, and that's WIN your conference tourney. Otherwise, you put it into the hands of others. It is unfair to exclude any Pool A team because they have a weak conference, and unfair to exclude Pool B teams if the NCAA has decided that those teams should have a chance for representation in the tourney.

I would prefer that all conference champs make it, myself, and that the NCAA rely less on regionality in the at-large process.

During the D-1 tourney I get sick of elitists who think that power conferences have a birthright on multiple NCAA bids (see Packer, Billy) and the mid majors don't deserve a chance, and the low majors no chance at all. They're members in good standing of the NCAA so they deserve a tourney chance.

Same with D-3. Yes. some B's aren't strong, but some A's aren't strong, either. And if you don't wanna mess around with a "C", then win the league. Otherwise, no complaining allowed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 16, 2008, 12:30:09 PM
Sac:

Yes, all the teams I listed were at-large recipients.  That was my point.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 16, 2008, 12:33:09 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on February 16, 2008, 12:30:09 PM
Sac:

Yes, all the teams I listed were at-large recipients.  That was my point.

I know, I edited it, you had Calvin as an at-large in 2007, they won the AQ, Hope was the at-large team that year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2008, 01:57:59 PM
Quote from: Mr. Downtown on February 16, 2008, 01:19:42 AM
QuoteUsing the same estimates, they're #4 for Pool B, just ahead of MSOE and Wisconsin Lutheran.

I like that there are Pool B bids, but I have a problem when schools like MSOE and Wisconsin Lutheran, who would finish in the bottom of the WIAC, can make it in the tourney. While this season it looks like the WIAC could have just one team in the tourney, despite having four top 25 teams.
Mr. Downtown,
If you were a "common" fan, who is just reading the boards for something to do on a Saturday afternoon, then I would let the remark pass.

However, we haven't met, but your signature line lists some accolades that I assume you have earned.  Therefore, I believe that your voice to your listeners is very important in educating them to the principles behind the D3 playoffs.

The NCAA is inherently just with respect to access to the post-season.

1)  Individual Conferences (and their member teams) can determine how the Automatic Qualifier (Pool A) Bid is awarded.  The UAA has no tourney; the WIAC does.

2)  Pool B is comprised of:

-- members of conferences that are in transition, e.g., the Landmark for 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Northwest Conference in football in 2006-07 or the NATHC in 2006-07 and 2007-08, or
-- members of conferences that do not have seven members, e.g., the 4-member Great South AC Men or even the 4-member WIAC in Men's Soccer, and
-- the independents.

In basketball, that is 38 schools.

3)  D-III determines the access ratio for the playoff bids in all sports.  With the current NCAA March Madness "paycheck", we got the number of bids (in all sports) increased from 1 bid for every 7.5 schools to 1 bid for every 6.5 schools.  Divide 387 eligible schools by 6.5 to get 59 bids.  With those 59 bids in D-III men, D-III voted on one automatic qualifier bid for every one of the 38 full conferences, i.e., conferences having a minimum seven members.  (The 15-member ASC does not get 2 Pool A bids.)

4)  That leaves 21 bids.  The NCAA divided the 38 conferences into the number of teams belonging to those 38 conferences (344) to get the access ratio of 9.29, (according to the Handbook)   The NCAA has considered the 38 Pool B schools as if they were four big conferences.  The 38 Pool B schools were divided by the 9.29 access ration to give 4.09 bids.  That was truncated to 4 bids.  That is equal access, and every calculation for bids is done that way in every sport.

(Please follow my math here. In 2009, the NATHC should move to Pool A bid and take its 12 teams that are allocated to Pool B.  Those teams are allocated to Pool A and Pool C.  At first calculation, Pool B shrinks 38 schools to 26 schools and from 4 bids (4.09) to 2 bids, 26 schools divided [(356 / 39 or 9.31)]  = 2.79 bids.  In effect, the bid from the NATHC'S going to Pool A takes one bid from Pool B and transfers another Pool B bid to Pool C.  One of those coveted Pool C bids is partially due to the large numbers of members in the 12-team NATHC and the 15-team ASC.  In fact, there is a chance that there will only be one bid in Pool B allocated in 2009.)


5)  Every team that has not received a bid is now considered in Pool C, for the remaining 17 bids.  The formulae take over.  If the WIAC is so much better that they deserve so many bids, then they should be able to get that extra boost in the OWP and the OOWP.  The adoption of the OWP and the OOWP has been specifically implemented to favor the "stronger" conferences.

The playoffs in D-III is about equal access with limited money.

I hope that this has helped fans understand the nature of the Pools across all sports.

Thanks to pabegg for his proofreading.  His "unofficial" runs of the OWP and the OOWP have increased our understanding of the process.  Over the last 5-7 years, the process has gotten better and more transparent.  After all of the bids have been awarded at the end of the seasons, we now realize that the debate has been about the last 1-2 bids, which is about as transparent as one can make it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 16, 2008, 02:33:28 PM
Ralph,

I'd add just one more point to what is a terrific description of the process:

Conferences don't get at-large bids, schools get at-large bids.

No matter how strong your conference is, if your runners-up beat up on each other, they'll be at a disadvantage relative to a conference where the second-place team loses only to the automatic qualifier.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 16, 2008, 11:43:33 PM
Well said, Ralph and Patrick.

Mr. D, it's completely fair that NAthC teams such as MSOE and Wisconsin Lutheran have as much access to a potential tourney appearance as do the WIAC schools. It's no different than in the D1 tournament, where every year teams like Coastal Carolina, Rider, Arkansas-Little Rock, Bucknell, etc., get automatic bids through their conferences, in spite of the fact that they're often no match for the middle-of-the-pack power conference teams that get left out of the tournament and have to go to the NIT instead, much less the power-conference teams that actually make the tourney and typically drub those unknown schools in the first round by thirty points or more.

The NCAA's primary interest in staging national tournaments is to fairly distribute access to all member schools -- not to stage national tournaments that necessarily have all of the best teams in them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Cards7580 on February 17, 2008, 12:04:34 AM

i believe Vermont beat Syracuse one year and Didn't Siena come close another year.  And who can forget any time Princeton has played.   Anything is possible once you get in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Cards7580 on February 17, 2008, 12:08:49 AM
Plattsburgh State was 9-1 in their league during the 1975-76 season but something like 12-17 overall. They ended up in the final 4 (4th place) to everyone's surprise.   In 1978-89 season they were 18-8 but lost a tie-breaker to Potsdam for an NCAA Bid and didn't get in. Despite victories over Division I Vermont, Albany, Oneonta, a strong Norwich team and two close loses to Division I teams Hartwick and NY Tech.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 17, 2008, 01:10:00 AM
Quote from: Cards7580 on February 17, 2008, 12:04:34 AM

i believe Vermont beat Syracuse one year and Didn't Siena come close another year.  And who can forget any time Princeton has played.   Anything is possible once you get in.

Siena a #14 seed did beat Stanford a #3 seed about 15 years ago when Mike Deane was their coach. They played Minnesota in their next game and lost a close one in their attempt to get to the sweet sixteen.  And around that same time frame give or take a few years, a #15 Richmond Spiders beat a # 2 Syracuse, still the biggest upset in Divsion 1 as no #16 seed has ever beaten a #1. Vermont did beat Syracuse a couple of years ago as a #13 seed (I think). UVM Coach Tom Brennan, now an ESPN college hoop analyst, retired on that high note of his coaching career.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 17, 2008, 01:30:25 AM
Ralph, pabegg, and Gregory,

Thank you for the detailed information concerning the D3 NCAA selection process. It certainly cleared up questions that I didn't know the answers to. Should be required reading for everyone who posts on the hoops boards.   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2008, 01:37:05 PM
Here are Wednesday's regional rankings (I left everything "As Is", so if there was a change in conference leaders, the Pool A and Pool C teams are from Wednesday's release).   This should give posters & lurkers an overall look on how other teams faired and if it helped or hurt their team.

BOLD is conference leader (Pool A)
RED is Pool C Contender
BLUE is Pool B contender...may need some help on those!

Atlantic Region
1. Richard Stockton 15-5 15-4 (NJAC): LOST at Rutgers-Camden 87-74, def. New Jersey 83-72.
2. William Paterson 16-4 16-4 (NJAC): LOST to Montclair State 69-61, won at New Jersey City 61-53.
3. Farmingdale State 16-4 15-3 (SKY):  Won at New York City Tech 104-59, def. Bard 105-66, def. Mount St. Mary 92-60.
4. York (N.Y.) 17-7 15-6 (CUNYAC) (tied with Brooklyn):  def. Ramapo 72-66, def. Lehman 59-54 (REGULAR SEASON COMPLETE)
5. St. Joseph's (L.I.) 16-5 15-5 (SKY):  Won at Mount St. Vincent 112-108, won at SUNY-Purchase 74-59.

East Region
1. Rochester 17-3 16-3 (UAA):  LOST at Brandeis 68-64, LOST at NYU 92-85 2OT.
2. Plattsburgh State 19-2 16-0 (SUNYAC):  def. New Paltz State 87-68, def. Oneonta State 83-59.
3. Brockport State 16-6 13-4 (SUNYAC):  Def. Buffalo State 89-73, def. Fredonia State 86-69.
4. Stevens 19-3 17-2 (Empire 8 ):  Def. Hunter 69-55, LOST at Utica 65-59.
5. Nazareth 15-5 15-5 (Empire 8 ):  Won at Alfred 88-73, LOST to Utica 85-77, def. Harwick 90-61.

Great Lakes
1. Capital 18-3 17-3 (OAC):  Won at Mount Union 80-68, def. Ohio Northern 83-75.
2. Wooster 18-3 11-2 (NCAC):  Won at Denison 82-64, def. Wittenberg 66-61.
3. Hope 17-3 10-2 (MIAA):  Won at Adrian 70-48, def. Alma 92-43.
4. Ohio Wesleyan 14-6 13-4 (NCAC): Won at Wittenberg 72-69, LOST at Earlhman 79-73.
5. Heidelberg 16-5 14-4 (OAC):  Won at John Carroll 82-74, LOST to Otterbein 81-66
6. Penn State-Behrend 17-4 15-3 (AMCC) (tied with Lake Erie):  Def. Medaille 71-61, def. La Roche 69-61.

Middle Atlantic Region
1. Ursinus 19-2 16-1 (Centennial):  Won at Franklin and Marshall 77-60, won at Dickinson 88-62.
2. Gettysburg 17-3 15-2 (Centennial):  Won at Johns Hopkins 67-56, def. Swarthmore 69-55.
3. Widener 17-4 14-3 (MAC Commonwealth):  Def. Lebanon Valley 58-44, won at Messiah 75-62.
4. Messiah 15-6 14-5 (MAC Commonwealth) (tied with Albright and Lycoming):  LOST at Lycoming 75-53, LOST to Widener 75-62.
5. DeSales 17-4 14-3 (MAC Freedom) (tied with Manhattanville):  Won at Delaware Valley 78-63, def. FDU-Florham 75-47.
6. Albright 14-5 14-4 (MAC Commonwealth) (tied with Messiah and Lycoming):  LOST at Elizabethtown 79-75, LOST to Lycoming 75-73.
7. York (Pa.) 16-6 16-5 (CAC):  Def. Wesley 84-77.
8. Moravian 17-5 16-5 (LAND) (Pool B):  Won at Goucher 78-71, LOST at Catholic 85-79.

Midwest Region
1. Augustana 17-4 16-4 (CCIW): LOST at Wheaton (IL) 73-60, won at Millikin 59-56.
2. Washington U. 16-4 13-3 (UAA):  Won at Case Western Reserve 71-68, won at Emory 78-71 in OT.
3. Lawrence 16-2 14-2 (MWC):  Won at Ripon 87-83, def. Beloit 72-48.
4. Wheaton (Ill.)  16-5 12-5 (CCIW):  Def. Augustana 73-60, LOST to Illinois Wesleyan 61-59.
5. Chicago 13-7 12-7 (UAA):  Won at Emory 87-73, won at Case Western Reserve 84-56.
6. Illinois Wesleyan 13-8 12-6 (CCIW):  Def. Millikin 95-52, won at Wheaton (IL) 61-59.
7. Carroll 14-5 13-5 (MWC):  LOST at St. Norbert 69-59.
8. Webster 15-5 13-5 (SLIAC):  Def. Greenville 82-64, won at MacMurray 83-72.

Northeast Region
1. Amherst 21-2 21-1 (NESCAC):  Def. Trinity (Conn.) 69-58. 
2. Mass-Dartmouth 20-1 20-1 (LEC) (Tied with Rhode Island College):  LOST to Rhode Island College 79-72, won at Eastern Connecticut 80-76.
3. Bowdoin 18-4 18-4 (NESCAC):  Def. Tufts 71-66, LOST to Bates 65-62.
4. Trinity (Conn.) 18-5 16-4 (NESCAC):  LOST at Amherst 69-58.
5. Middlebury 17-5 16-4 (NESCAC):  Def. Wesleyan 75-71, LOST to Connecticut College 93-86.
6. Brandeis 16-4 15-4 (UAA):  Def. Rochester 68-64, def. Carnegie Mellon 84-81.
7. Worcester Tech 16-5 15-4 (NEWMAC):  Def. Springfield 70-68, Def. MIT 81-46.
8. Rhode Island College 16-5 16-5 (LEC) (Tied with Mass-Dartmouth):  Won at Mass-Dortmouth 79-72, def. Southern Maine 79-72.
9. Emerson 18-3 17-3 (GNAC):  Won at Mount Ida 88-70, won at Rivier 72-70 OT
10. Bates 15-6 14-5 (NESCAC):  LOST at Colby 68-65, won at Bowdoin 65-62.

South Region
1. Centre 20-1 15-1 (SCAC):  Won at DePauw 69-66.
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor 18-3 16-2 (ASC):  Won at Howard Payne 71-68, won at Sul Ross State 78-58.
3. Guilford 16-4 15-4 (ODAC):  Won at Hampden-Sydney 78-71, def. Bridgewater (Va.) 77-69.  Def.  Eastern Mennonite, 100-93.
4. Maryville (Tenn.) 20-2 14-2 (GSAC):  Won at Huntingdon 69-61.
5. Virginia Wesleyan 17-5 16-4 (ODAC):  Won at Eastern Mennonite 78-68.  Won at Randolph-Macon 69-66. 
6. DePauw 18-4 14-3 (SCAC):  LOST to Centre 69-66.
7. Millsaps 19-3 14-2(SCAC):  Won at Southwestern 80-71.  Won at Trinity (TX) 77-68.
8. Randolph-Macon 17-4 12-4 (ODAC):  Won at Bridgewater (Va.) 72-64, LOST to Virginia Wesleyan 69-66.

West Region
1. Occidental 18-3 11-1 (SCIAC):  Won at Redlands 83-80 OT, LOST at Ponoma-Pitzer 62-47
2. St. Thomas 19-3 17-2 (MIAC):  Def. Augsburg 72-60.
3. UW-Platteville 17-4 15-3 (WIAC) (tied with Whitewater):  LOST to Whitewater 70-66, LOST to Superior 70-59.
4. UW-Whitewater 18-3 16-3 (WIAC) (tied with Platteville):  Won at Platteville 70-66, LOST at Stevens Point 76-47.
5. Cal Lutheran 17-3 13-3 (SCIAC):  Def. Caltech 91-48, def. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 53-50.
6. UW-Stevens Point 17-4 15-4 (WIAC):  Won at Eau Claire 89-68, def. Whitewater 76-47.
7. Buena Vista 18-4 14-2 (IIAC):  Def. Simpson 103-65.
8. Loras 17-5 14-3 (IIAC):  Def. Luther 61-43.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2008, 01:51:46 PM
Actually, York NY advances in the CUNYAC tournament -- the semifinal games just aren't loaded up yet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on February 17, 2008, 03:23:02 PM
With Platteville losing twice and Whitewater losing once, and Occidental losing once too, where does the West region stand?  When are the new regional rankings going to come out as well?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2008, 03:37:35 PM
Wednesdays.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 17, 2008, 03:42:49 PM
Quote from: SLP-O-8 on February 17, 2008, 03:23:02 PM
With Platteville losing twice and Whitewater losing once, and Occidental losing once too, where does the West region stand?  When are the new regional rankings going to come out as well?

Puget Sound could have had a chance to move up with 2 wins but couldn't get it down against Whitworth
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2008, 05:32:55 PM
St Joseph's NY 74, at Purchase 59 (http://www.sjcny.edu/page.php/prmID/1860)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2008, 06:50:52 PM
Thanks -- not many Friday/Saturday results left to get in there. We'll definitely run SOS numbers tonight.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on February 17, 2008, 08:49:19 PM
Um check that, Brandeis DEFEATED carnegie mellon 84-81, you have this as a loss.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2008, 08:52:25 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 17, 2008, 08:49:19 PM
Um check that, Brandeis DEFEATED Carnegie Mellon 84-81, you have this as a loss.
Corrected!  Thanks!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on February 17, 2008, 09:42:06 PM
So what is the formula for ranking these pool c teams/ what are the rankings looking like for the top 17 right now?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2008, 11:32:12 PM
Thought I would post this from the WIAC page.  Talking about a mess in the West Regional Rankings...and all this prior to the league tourneys!

Quote
West Region
1. Occidental 18-3 11-1 (SCIAC):  Won at Redlands 83-80 OT, LOST at Ponoma-Pitzer 62-47
2. St. Thomas 19-3 17-2 (MIAC):  Def. Augsburg 72-60.
3. UW-Platteville 17-4 15-3 (WIAC) (tied with Whitewater):  LOST to Whitewater 70-66, LOST to Superior 70-59.
4. UW-Whitewater 18-3 16-3 (WIAC) (tied with Platteville):  Won at Platteville 70-66, LOST at Stevens Point 76-47.
5. Cal Lutheran 17-3 13-3 (SCIAC):  Def. Caltech 91-48, def. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 53-50.
6. UW-Stevens Point 17-4 15-4 (WIAC):  Won at Eau Claire 89-68, def. Whitewater 76-47.
7. Buena Vista 18-4 14-2 (IIAC):  Def. Simpson 103-65.
8. Loras 17-5 14-3 (IIAC):  Def. Luther 61-43.

Not sure what to think about the next West Regional Rankings.

It could be:

1. St. Thomas (leads MIAC)
2. Cal Lutheran (tied with Occidental for SCIAC lead)
3. Stevens Point (tied with Oshkosh and Whitewater for WIAC lead)
4. Whitewater (tied with Oshkosh and Stevens Point for WIAC lead)
5. Occidental (tied with Cal Lutheran for SCIAC lead)
6. Buena Vista (leads IIAC)
7. Loras (one game back in IIAC)
8. Oshkosh (tied with Whitewater and Stevens Point for WIAC lead) 
8.  Whitworth (tied with Puget Sound for NWC lead)

St. Thomas, Cal. Lutheran and Stevens Point all move up, obviously.  I'm not sure if Point will leapfrog Lutheran, even with a win against a fellow ranked opponent.  Lutheran still has that win over Point in it's back pocket.  I don't see Occidental falling behind Buena Vista and Loras simply because their regional record will still be about the same and I'm not sure those wins over Simpson and Luther for BV and Loras are too impressive anyway.  Whitewater will be hard to figure out since they beat a ranked team ahead of them on the road and then lost to a ranked team behind them on the road.  It doesn't matter if they lost by 2 or 29.  Though Puget Sound isn't in the rankings, a win over them by Whitworth should boost their profile a little, while Oshkosh's win over River Falls probably won't stand out.  Chapman is a Pool B team, but I still don't think they'll get in the rankings.  They do have good wins against Cal. Lutheran and Whitworth and losing a close 2nd game to Cal. Lutheran and Plattsburgh State (doesn't count anyway) and a loss to Occidental.

As you can see, it's a mess.  As we know:

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 01:50:41 PM
Here we go with my numbers for this week. Remember that this is an attempt to model the NCAA ranking methodology using the "hard" numbers of winning percentage and strength of schedule.

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   01   0.6839 0.6150 0.5489 Amherst                   001  A w C       22-1 22-2
NE  13   02   02   0.6426 0.5639 0.5294 Mass-Dartmouth            003  A w C       21-2 21-2
NE  90   03   06   0.6444 0.5910 0.5859 Brandeis                  008  C 2         17-4 18-4
NE  17   04   07   0.6115 0.5474 0.5415 Worcester Polytech        016  A w C       17-4 18-5
NE  16   05   04   0.6161 0.5723 0.5282 Bowdoin                   020  C 4         19-5 19-5
NE  16   06   03   0.6363 0.6175 0.5485 Trinity (Conn.)           026  C 7         16-5 18-6
NE  16   07   05   0.6222 0.6023 0.5223 Middlebury                027  C 8         16-5 18-6
NE  13   08   10   0.6045 0.5499 0.5357 Rhode Island College      031  C 11        18-5 18-5
NE  12   09   09   0.5554 0.4282 0.5015 Emerson                   043  A second    19-3 20-3
NE  16   10   08   0.6008 0.5672 0.5417 Bates                     047  C second    16-6 17-7
NE  15   11   14   0.5727 0.5272 0.4865 Elms                      055  A second    15-5 17-6
NE  14   12   11   0.5712 0.5285 0.5007 Salem State               060  A third     16-6 16-6
NE  12   13   12   0.5515 0.4728 0.4987 Emmanuel                  062  C third     16-5 16-7

EA  23   01   01   0.6286 0.4913 0.5317 Plattsburgh State         002  A w C       18-0 21-2
EA  90   02   02   0.6493 0.6371 0.5613 Rochester                 022  C 5         16-5 17-5
EA  23   03   03   0.6095 0.5555 0.5373 Brockport State           028  C 9         15-4 18-6
EA  21   04   04   0.6001 0.5592 0.5430 Nazareth                  041  A w C       17-6 17-6
EA  21   05   05   0.5641 0.4472 0.5287 Stevens                   042  C 17        20-4 20-4
EA  23   06   06   0.6013 0.5830 0.5168 Oswego State              050  C second    13-5 16-5
EA  24   07   07   0.5870 0.5453 0.5204 St. Lawrence              052  A second    14-5 15-8
EA  23   08   10   0.5427 0.4378 0.5333 Cortland State            076              16-5 18-5

AT  33   01   03   0.5624 0.4557 0.4810 SUNY-Farmingdale          038  A w C       18-3 19-4
AT  32   02   02   0.5829 0.5199 0.5192 William Paterson          039  A w C       17-5 17-5
AT  32   03   01   0.5748 0.5081 0.5211 Richard Stockton          051  C second    16-5 16-6
AT  33   04   04   0.5612 0.5351 0.4602 SUNY-Old Westbury         074              15-6 15-8
AT  31   05   05   0.5430 0.4697 0.4934 York (N.Y.)               082  A other     17-6 19-7
AT  33   06   06   0.5165 0.4071 0.4790 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       101              17-5 18-5
AT  32   07   10   0.5387 0.5141 0.5156 Montclair State           126              11-7 14-9
AT  32   08   09   0.5323 0.5066 0.5047 Rowan                     131              11-7 16-7

MA  45   01   01   0.6287 0.5256 0.5161 Ursinus                   004  A w C       18-1 21-2
MA  45   02   02   0.6198 0.5309 0.5225 Gettysburg                005  C 1         17-2 19-3
MA  42   03   03   0.6191 0.5501 0.5340 Widener                   009  A w C       16-3 19-4
MA  41   04   07   0.5991 0.5609 0.5019 York (Pa.)                034  A w C       17-5 17-6
MA  43   05   04   0.5688 0.4625 0.5081 DeSales                   036  A w C       16-3 19-4
MA  42   06   05   0.6169 0.6481 0.5216 Messiah                   057  C third     13-7 15-8
MA  42   07   06   0.5820 0.5422 0.5436 Albright                  059  C third     14-6 14-7
MA  42   08   10   0.5818 0.5783 0.5392 Elizabethtown             083              12-7 15-7
MA  46   09   09   0.5378 0.4544 0.5031 Moravian                  087  B 4         17-6 18-6
MA  42   10   16   0.5768 0.5792 0.5489 Lycoming                  094              128 15-8
MA  46   11   13   0.5450 0.4976 0.5032 Juniata                   097  B 6         157 16-8

SO  54   01   01   0.6101 0.5001 0.4989 Centre                    006  A w C       16-1 21-1
SO  51   02   02   0.5945 0.4832 0.5116 Mary Hardin-Baylor        014  A w C       18-2 20-3
SO  53   03   05   0.6074 0.5431 0.5251 Virginia Wesleyan         017  A w C       18-4 19-5
SO  53   04   04   0.6073 0.5403 0.5305 Guilford                  019  C 3         18-4 19-4
SO  54   05   06   0.5840 0.4756 0.4958 Millsaps                  024  C 6         16-2 21-3
SO  52   06   03   0.5817 0.4729 0.4986 Maryville (Tenn.)         030  B 1         15-2 21-2
SO  54   07   07   0.5698 0.5000 0.5016 DePauw                    049  C second    14-4 18-5
SO  53   08   08   0.5926 0.5592 0.5299 Randolph-Macon            054  C second    13-5 18-5
SO  51   09   11   0.5554 0.4870 0.5107 Mississippi College       066  C third     145 17-5
SO  53   10   09   0.5968 0.6127 0.5118 Roanoke                   070  C third     13-7 15-7
SO  53   11   13   0.5595 0.5193 0.5327 Washington and Lee        084              126 14-8

GL  64   01   01   0.6098 0.5232 0.5291 Capital                   012  A w C       19-3 20-3
GL  63   02   03   0.5960 0.5146 0.4883 Wooster                   018  A w C       13-2 20-3
GL  62   03   02   0.5911 0.4857 0.5180 Hope                      023  A w C       14-2 19-3
GL  64   04   04   0.5800 0.4973 0.5253 Heidelberg                035  C 14        16-4 18-5
GL  62   05   09   0.5770 0.5038 0.5005 Albion                    037  C 15        12-3 16-5
GL  61   06   07   0.5570 0.4408 0.4964 Penn State-Behrend        044  A second    17-3 19-4
GL  61   07   06   0.5532 0.4556 0.4921 Lake Erie                 053  C second    17-4 17-6
GL  63   08   05   0.5803 0.5458 0.4929 Ohio Wesleyan             056  C second    14-5 15-7
GL  64   09   10   0.5651 0.5155 0.5153 Wilmington                069  C third     15-6 15-8

MW  90   01   01   0.6740 0.6458 0.5712 Washington U.             007  A w C       15-3 18-4
MW  74   02   02   0.6041 0.5089 0.5099 Lawrence                  010  A w C       16-2 18-2
MW  71   03   03   0.6228 0.5811 0.5563 Augustana                 021  A w C       17-5 18-5
MW  90   04   07   0.6157 0.5911 0.5804 Chicago                   045  C second    14-6 15-7
MW  71   05   05   0.6157 0.6085 0.5457 Illinois Wesleyan         046  C second    14-6 15-8
MW  71   06   04   0.5973 0.5740 0.5570 Wheaton (Ill.)            058  C third     13-6 17-6
MW  71   07   09   0.5698 0.5094 0.5331 Elmhurst                  061  C third     16-6 17-6
MW  76   08   08   0.5544 0.4948 0.4782 Webster                   063  A third     15-5 17-5
MW  73   09   11   0.5473 0.4586 0.4994 Aurora                    064  B 2         17-5 19-5
MW  72   10   10   0.5526 0.4982 0.4999 Defiance                  080  A other     156 17-6
MW  74   11   06   0.5675 0.5457 0.4943 Carroll                   081              136 14-6

WE  82   01   02   0.6021 0.4921 0.5241 St. Thomas                011  A w C       18-2 20-3
WE  86   02   04   0.6211 0.5749 0.5252 UW-Stevens Point          013  A w C       17-4 19-4
WE  84   03   01   0.6024 0.5056 0.5412 Occidental                015  A w C       12-2 19-3
WE  81   04   05   0.5852 0.4594 0.5398 Buena Vista               025  A w C       15-2 19-4
WE  81   05   06   0.5932 0.4994 0.5408 Loras                     029  C 10        15-3 18-5
WE  84   06   08   0.5852 0.4884 0.5307 Cal Lutheran              032  C 12        15-3 19-3
WE  86   07   07   0.5861 0.4985 0.5379 UW-Whitewater             033  C 13        17-4 19-4
WE  86   08   09   0.6026 0.5668 0.5401 UW-Oshkosh                040  C 16        14-5 17-6
WE  86   09   03   0.5832 0.5227 0.5375 UW-Platteville            048  C second    15-5 17-6
WE  82   10   11   0.5666 0.5180 0.5161 Gustavus Adolphus         067  C third     15-6 17-6
WE  89   11   12   0.5348 0.3758 0.5304 Nebraska Wesleyan         068  B 3         6-1 13-10


A good week for Brandeis, Rhode Island College, Farmingdale, York PA

Not so good for Occidental and Platteville. Rochester survives the bad results due to strength of their opponents.

OK, I've fixed the issues that I've found. DePauw drops out of Pool C, replaced by Albion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on February 18, 2008, 02:47:17 PM
I think Brandeis and Rochester literally switched places after this weekend. As Brandeis goes from 6-2 and I think Rochester from 2-6, although I am not totally positive on the Rochester move. That being said as of right now, the UAA still has 4 teams in the tournament on the mens side.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 03:28:22 PM
pabegg, a few discrepancies between your chart and D3hoops:

* Chicago is 14-6, not 14-7 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

* DePauw is 14-4, not 15-4 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

* Cal Lutheran is 15-3, not 16-4

* Wheaton (IL) is 13-6, not 14-6


Also note, Guilford is currently the leader (Pool A) in the ODAC.  Virginia Wesleyan is a C candidate right now, not the A.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 03:42:16 PM
Also...

Stevens is the A in the E8 right now...Nazareth the C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 18, 2008, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 03:28:22 PM
pabegg, a few discrepancies between your chart and D3hoops:

* Chicago is 14-6, not 14-7 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

* DePauw is 14-4, not 15-4 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

Hyde Park and Greencastle are only about 170 miles apart.  Should be in-region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 18, 2008, 04:01:12 PM
St. Thomas always seems to have a high west region ranking every year...but I don't even remember them making much noise in the tourney
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 04:07:31 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 03:28:22 PM
pabegg, a few discrepancies between your chart and D3hoops:

* Chicago is 14-6, not 14-7 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

* DePauw is 14-4, not 15-4 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

* Cal Lutheran is 15-3, not 16-4

* Wheaton (IL) is 13-6, not 14-6


Also note, Guilford is currently the leader (Pool A) in the ODAC.  Virginia Wesleyan is a C candidate right now, not the A.

I found the Cal Lutheran error and I'm in the process of rerunning (it affected a bunch of lower ranked West Coast teams as well).

I forgot about the error on Chicago-DePauw (well under 200 miles but not according to the official web site). Same with Wheaton-Calvin which is close to 200 miles. I've got 5 other discrepancies on the regional games, all involving teams with lower records.

My Pool A assignments are not based on the standings, except for the UAA. The team with the best overall rating gets the Pool A assignment (since they are the most likely to win the conference tournament). So Nazareth and Guilford are correct under this process.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2008, 04:12:10 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 18, 2008, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 03:28:22 PM
pabegg, a few discrepancies between your chart and D3hoops:

* Chicago is 14-6, not 14-7 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

* DePauw is 14-4, not 15-4 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

Hyde Park and Greencastle are only about 170 miles apart.  Should be in-region.

Not on mappoint.msn.com, which insists the shortest possible distance is via Indianapolis.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sumander on February 18, 2008, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 18, 2008, 04:01:12 PM
St. Thomas always seems to have a high west region ranking every year...but I don't even remember them making much noise in the tourney

In the last seven years St. Thomas has qualified for the NCAA 3 times: 07,06,02. Their record is 1-3 in those 3 trips.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Drake Palmer on February 18, 2008, 04:41:25 PM
Quote from: sumander on February 18, 2008, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 18, 2008, 04:01:12 PM
St. Thomas always seems to have a high west region ranking every year...but I don't even remember them making much noise in the tourney

In the last seven years St. Thomas has qualified for the NCAA 3 times: 07,06,02. Their record is 1-3 in those 3 trips.

West region is tough.

Last big bang by St. Thomas on the national scene was when they reached the final four in 1994.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 18, 2008, 04:49:01 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2008, 04:12:10 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 18, 2008, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 03:28:22 PM
pabegg, a few discrepancies between your chart and D3hoops:

* Chicago is 14-6, not 14-7 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

* DePauw is 14-4, not 15-4 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)


Hyde Park and Greencastle are only about 170 miles apart.  Should be in-region.

Not on mappoint.msn.com, which insists the shortest possible distance is via Indianapolis.

painfull
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 04:57:46 PM
OK, I've updated the rankings up above.

My discrepancies from the records used to generate the OWP/OOWP on this site are as follows:

York NY to Nichols is under 200 miles
La Roche and Marymount are both Mid-Atlantic
Regis and Wheelock are both Northeast
I've got one more win for MSOE and one more loss for MBBC (compare their conference records on their own pages to the NAthC standings page)
I think that Finlandia's 3 regional games should count (1 for Alma and 2 for Northland)

That's it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2008, 05:10:25 PM
La Roche/Marymount was fixed a week or two ago... not sure why it was changed back to a non-regional game. However, it has been fixed again.

The York (NY)/Nichols game was also fixed a week or two ago... it has also been fixed once again.

Regis/Wheelock indicated regional when I looked at it and I know of no one else changing that right now. So, it is correct.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2008, 05:24:22 PM
I found these 6 conferences are not listed in pabegg's tabulations.

Northeast Region
CCC -- Roger Williams currently leads.

Mid-Atlantic Region
Penn AC -- Alvernia
NEAC  -- Baptist Bible

Great Lakes Region
Presidents AC --  Bethany WV

South Region
USA South AC -- Methodist

West Region
Northwest Conference -- Whitworth has the tie-breaker.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 18, 2008, 06:14:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2008, 04:12:10 PM

Not on mappoint.msn.com, which insists the shortest possible distance is via Indianapolis.

That's just wrong and silly. Just truck up 231 to Lafayette, then hop on I-65 towards Chi-town. Yeesh.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: BJ - DSU SID on February 18, 2008, 06:38:19 PM
PABegg,

Loving that chart you did.  I wish I could give you karma points.  Any chance you inputted that data into an excel sheet and can PDF it, so I can print it out and view it.  Maybe I'll try to copy and paste your info. and do it myself.

Anyways, great stuff.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2008, 06:52:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 18, 2008, 06:14:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2008, 04:12:10 PM

Not on mappoint.msn.com, which insists the shortest possible distance is via Indianapolis.

That's just wrong and silly. Just truck up 231 to Lafayette, then hop on I-65 towards Chi-town. Yeesh.

mappoint's route MAY be the quickest; it is a blatant lie to call it the "shortest possible distance".  This may be the biggest 'crock' since the 'magic ferry' for Hope-Carthage.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 07:07:06 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2008, 06:52:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 18, 2008, 06:14:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2008, 04:12:10 PM

Not on mappoint.msn.com, which insists the shortest possible distance is via Indianapolis.

That's just wrong and silly. Just truck up 231 to Lafayette, then hop on I-65 towards Chi-town. Yeesh.

mappoint's route MAY be the quickest; it is a blatant lie to call it the "shortest possible distance".  This may be the biggest 'crock' since the 'magic ferry' for Hope-Carthage.

Oh, it's not the quickest either.  Seriously - do a Mapquest on 5530 S. Ellis Ave. in Chicago to Greencastle, IN and look at the map.  Going through Indianapolis is just silly.

IWU's game at Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (Claremont, CA) was in-region...Chicago's at DePauw is not.  Crazy stuff.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2008, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 07:07:06 PM
...

IWU's game at Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (Claremont, CA) was in-region.

Why, shucks, TitanQ...
you go up on the roof of the AllState building there in Bloomington, look just over the Rockies, and you can almost see Claremont.   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2008, 07:15:05 PM
Pat, does the NCAA ever overrule mappoint when it is CLEARLY wrong, or is it absolute inerrant gospel?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 07:16:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2008, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 07:07:06 PM
...

IWU's game at Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (Claremont, CA) was in-region.

Why, shucks, TitanQ...
you go up on the roof of the AllState building there in Bloomington, look just over the Rockies, and you can almost see Claremont.   :D

Good Neighbor, Ralph...not Good Hands! :)

http://www.statefarm.com/about/careers/our_locations/corporate/corporate.asp

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2008, 07:20:10 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 07:16:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2008, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 07:07:06 PM
...

IWU's game at Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (Claremont, CA) was in-region.

Why, shucks, TitanQ...
you go up on the roof of the AllState building there in Bloomington, look just over the Rockies, and you can almost see Claremont.   :D

Good Neighbor, Ralph...not Good Hands! :)

http://www.statefarm.com/about/careers/our_locations/corporate/corporate.asp
Well, the building is tall enough, but I dribbled that one off my foot!

You are right!  "Not good hands!"

Slow, white, and short with an 8" vertical leap!   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 18, 2008, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2008, 07:15:05 PM
Pat, does the NCAA ever overrule mappoint when it is CLEARLY wrong, or is it absolute inerrant gospel?

Depends on the year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2008, 07:22:42 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2008, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2008, 07:15:05 PM
Pat, does the NCAA ever overrule mappoint when it is CLEARLY wrong, or is it absolute inerrant gospel?
Depends on the year.
:D  :D  :D!  +1!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2008, 07:30:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2008, 07:20:10 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 07:16:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2008, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 07:07:06 PM
...

IWU's game at Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (Claremont, CA) was in-region.

Why, shucks, TitanQ...
you go up on the roof of the AllState building there in Bloomington, look just over the Rockies, and you can almost see Claremont.   :D

Good Neighbor, Ralph...not Good Hands! :)

http://www.statefarm.com/about/careers/our_locations/corporate/corporate.asp
Well, the building is tall enough, but I dribbled that one off my foot!

You are right!  "Not good hands!"

Slow, white, and short with an 8" vertical leap!   :D

I dunno - if my calculations are right, with the earth's curvature the State Farm building would need to be 577,634 stories high.  They proposed that, but the Bloomington planning commission turned them down.  Danged bureaucracy! :o
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 09:40:39 PM
Does anyone have a feel for how the committees are using - and will use at the national level - the OWP and OOWP numbers?  Is there any chance they will simply add them together, creating one number?

For example, just taking the top Pool C candidates (teams that are not in sole possession of 1st place in a Pool A conference), here is how they stack when you take OWP + OOWP:

1 Rochester (East) – 1.198
2 Brandeis (NE) – 1.177
3 Chicago (MW) – 1.171
4 Trinity, CT (NE) – 1.166
5 Illinois Wesleyan* (MW) – 1.154
6 Augustana* (MW) – 1.137
7 Wheaton, IL (MW) – 1.131
8 Middlebury (NE) – 1.124
9 Bates (NE) – 1.109
10 UW-Oshkosh* (West) – 1.107
11 Nazareth (East) – 1.102
12 UW- Stevens Point* (West) – 1.100
13 Bowdoin (NE) – 1.100
14 Cortland State (East) - 1.100
15 Oswego State (East) - 1.100
16 Mass-Dartmouth* (NE) - 1.093
17 Brockport St (East) – 1.093
18 Randolph-Macon (South) – 1.089
19 Rhode Island* (NE) - 1.086
20 Widener (Mid Atl) – 1.084
21 Virginia Wesleyan (South) – 1.068
22 UW-Platteville (West) - 1.060
23 Gettysburg (Mid Atl) – 1.053
24 Occidental* (West) - 1.047
25 Elmhurst (MW) – 1.042

* currently tied for a conference lead (might be a Pool A team)

Any chance this is the number that gets used with in-region winning % (and other primary criteria) in ranking the teams?  Or are OWP and OOWP evaluated as two totally separate numbers?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 18, 2008, 09:53:03 PM
I actually read the tournament manual last night. (dorky I know)  At least on the women's side it doesn't appear they followed the criteria correctly

example, Great Lakes Region

1. Thomas More 19-0 in region record
2. Hope 21-0 in region record with both OWP and OOWP being higher than Thomas More.  (I could be wrong on this as I can't find the table today)

I have no idea what the committee's are doing any more, or how they are interpreting the info.  They can't even get Hope's in-region record correct on the men's side.


Did I also read the manual right and there is only one regional committee for both the men's and women's tournaments?

Its just plugging numbers in now isn't it.   Sad!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2008, 09:56:42 PM
I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP - or am I mixing it up with RPI?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2008, 10:02:47 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2008, 09:53:03 PM
I actually read the tournament manual last night. (dorky I know)  At least on the women's side it doesn't appear they followed the criteria correctly

example, Great Lakes Region

1. Thomas More 19-0 in region record
2. Hope 21-0 in region record with both OWP and OOWP being higher than Thomas More.  (I could be wrong on this as I can't find the table today)

I have no idea what the committee's are doing any more, or how they are interpreting the info.  They can't even get Hope's in-region record correct on the men's side.


Did I also read the manual right and there is only one regional committee for both the men's and women's tournaments?

Its just plugging numbers in now isn't it.   Sad!
I have that Hope women have an in-region record thru Sunday February 10 of 18-0.

Thru the same day, I have Thomas More's in-region record as 18-0.  I see an in-region win over #3 DePauw, a "result against a regionally ranked opponent".

As I understand the criteria, all criteria are considered equally.  I assume that the committee acknowledged the win over DePauw in the rankings.

Men and Women have separate committees.  The committee members are listed in each Handbook.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2008, 10:07:13 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2008, 09:53:03 PM
I actually read the tournament manual last night. (dorky I know)  At least on the women's side it doesn't appear they followed the criteria correctly

example, Great Lakes Region

1. Thomas More 19-0 in region record
2. Hope 21-0 in region record with both OWP and OOWP being higher than Thomas More.  (I could be wrong on this as I can't find the table today)

I have no idea what the committee's are doing any more, or how they are interpreting the info.  They can't even get Hope's in-region record correct on the men's side.


Did I also read the manual right and there is only one regional committee for both the men's and women's tournaments?

Its just plugging numbers in now isn't it.   Sad!

The SOS numbers are linked from the front page story today and I added a link this afternoon from the right-hand menu rail so they're always accessible.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 10:07:45 PM
Thomas More is 2-0 against ranked opponents, while Hope is 1-0. Not much to go on, but there's an advantage to Thomas More there, balancing the advantage to Hope on the OWP/OOWP.

It's still somewhat subjective given the criteria at hand.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 10:11:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2008, 09:56:42 PM
I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP - or am I mixing it up with RPI?

That's the RPI Strength of Schedule formula. I would not be surprised if they're using that for D3.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 10:12:07 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2008, 10:02:47 PMMen and Women have separate coimmittees.  The committee members are listed in each Handbook.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2008/2008_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf

Appendix E has the Regional Advisory Committee members.  The national committee members are on pages 8-9.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 18, 2008, 10:15:15 PM
Sorry I mistyped, Hope women are 20-0 and thats off the D3hoops.com site.


.....and I was reading the men's manual, assuming it was the same for the women.  My bad.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 18, 2008, 10:16:23 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 10:11:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2008, 09:56:42 PM
I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP - or am I mixing it up with RPI?

That's the RPI Strength of Schedule formula. I would not be surprised if they're using that for D3.



I would be surprised because its not in the handbook.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 10:18:31 PM
Richard Stockton beat Manhattanville tonight in a game that was just added to the schedule a couple of weeks ago. The Handbook says

"In addition, only games listed on the institution's originally submitted schedule will be considered for tournament selection purposes. The addition of games not listed on the institution's published schedule as an aid for selection shall not be considered."

So does that mean this game will not be considered in the selection process. Does anyone know?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 10:19:04 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 10:11:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2008, 09:56:42 PM
I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP - or am I mixing it up with RPI?

That's the RPI Strength of Schedule formula. I would not be surprised if they're using that for D3.


The problem is, nowhere in the Handbook does it explain a) the relationship between OWP and OOWP, and b) the weight OWP/OOWP is given relative to other primary criteria.  

I'd feel a lot better knowing that every region, and the national committee, is on the same page, but for some reason I think we're going to see different interpretations region to region.

They'd be better off explaining exactly how all of these numbers are supposed to be used in the Handbook and then making sure the rules are followed.  

Dave McHugh, I wonder if you can get someone from the national committee on Hoopsville to discuss all of this?  I think there are a lot of people who would like to understand it better.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 10:21:22 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2008, 10:16:23 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 10:11:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2008, 09:56:42 PM
I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP - or am I mixing it up with RPI?

That's the RPI Strength of Schedule formula. I would not be surprised if they're using that for D3.



I would be surprised because its not in the handbook.
Actually, nothing's in the handbook in that regard. The selection criteria is "strength-of-schedule" which has subitems OWP and OOWP. There's nothing in there about how to combine the subitems to get strength-of-schedule, which is what leads me to guess that they're using the traditional combination.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 18, 2008, 10:42:12 PM
Pabegg,

I remember you saying something about how Rochester's two losses didn't hurt them too dramatically because of the quality of the opponents.

So, Heidelberg plays Capital (#1 GL region) Wednesday, and I guess I'm trying to figure out if this is a "must-win" for 'Berg for a Pool C bid or not.  Because Capital is such a strong opponent, could 'Berg survive a loss like that?

A loss Wednesday to Capital, plus a loss to Capital or someone else in the OAC tournament leaves 'Berg at best 19-6 in-region, plus 3 of those losses could be to Capital.  I remember that last year teams with 6-7 in-region losses were serious bubble teams, but I wonder if OWP and OOWP changes the calculus?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 18, 2008, 10:42:12 PM
Pabegg,

I remember you saying something about how Rochester's two losses didn't hurt them too dramatically because of the quality of the opponents.

So, Heidelberg plays Capital (#1 GL region) Wednesday, and I guess I'm trying to figure out if this is a "must-win" for 'Berg for a Pool C bid or not.  Because Capital is such a strong opponent, could 'Berg survive a loss like that?

A loss Wednesday to Capital, plus a loss to Capital or someone else in the OAC tournament leaves 'Berg at best 19-6 in-region, plus 3 of those losses could be to Capital.  I remember that last year teams with 6-7 in-region losses were serious bubble teams, but I wonder if OWP and OOWP changes the calculus?


I'll chime in and let Patrick answer when he can.

I've been examining the Pool C situation pretty closely lately and I have Heidelberg right on the bubble right now.  They really need to finish the regular season with two wins if they're going to lose in the OAC tournament.  While Heidelberg's in-region winning percentage is very good (16-4, .800), their OWP is very low (.497).  For comparison, Rochester's OWP is .637.

They need to win that Capital game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 18, 2008, 10:57:59 PM
That's about what I expected.  Do you therefore also have Albion on the outside looking in?  The Britons appear to be statistically in a dead heat with Heidelberg.

No one else in the GL region seems to have a serious Pool C shot (save, of course, for a Pool A team that gets upset in conference tournaments).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 11:03:08 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 18, 2008, 10:57:59 PM
That's about what I expected.  Do you therefore also have Albion on the outside looking in?  The Britons appear to be statistically in a dead heat with Heidelberg.

No one else in the GL region seems to have a serious Pool C shot (save, of course, for a Pool A team that gets upset in conference tournaments).

I have Heidelburg in better shape than Albion -- I don't think Albion has a realistic shot at a Pool C.  OWP/OOWP of .504/.499 is the problem.

And regarding the Great Lakes, I think you're right -- Heidelburg has the best Pool C case in the region, but again, they on the bubble at best right now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 18, 2008, 11:13:30 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 11:03:08 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 18, 2008, 10:57:59 PM
That's about what I expected.  Do you therefore also have Albion on the outside looking in?  The Britons appear to be statistically in a dead heat with Heidelberg.

No one else in the GL region seems to have a serious Pool C shot (save, of course, for a Pool A team that gets upset in conference tournaments).

I have Heidelburg in better shape than Albion -- I don't think Albion has a realistic shot at a Pool C.  OWP/OOWP of .504/.499 is the problem.
And regarding the Great Lakes, I think you're right -- Heidelburg has the best Pool C case in the region, but again, they on the bubble at best right now.

Thats not going to get better with Tri-State 7-9 in-region and Alma 2-13 in-region on the schedule this week, plus tournament games next week that may not provide much better numbers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 18, 2008, 11:33:15 PM
Talking Pool C bids is interesting and one of my favorite things to talk about on the boards.  I only wish Puget Sound had a shot :-\...it would be much more exciting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 18, 2008, 11:42:45 PM
Pabegg, you are great with all the Pool C stuff...a true number cruncher!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2008, 12:07:10 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 10:19:04 PM
[Dave McHugh, I wonder if you can get someone from the national committee on Hoopsville to discuss all of this?  I think there are a lot of people who would like to understand it better.
Working on it! :)

Quote from: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 10:18:31 PM
Richard Stockton beat Manhattanville tonight in a game that was just added to the schedule a couple of weeks ago. The Handbook says

"In addition, only games listed on the institution’s originally submitted schedule will be considered for tournament selection purposes. The addition of games not listed on the institution’s published schedule as an aid for selection shall not be considered."

So does that mean this game will not be considered in the selection process. Does anyone know?
From what I read in the handbook, schedules needed to be in my November 5, 2007. I am not sure if additions for any reason are allowed.

Finally, the criteria from the handbook:
The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
[See Appendix B for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.]
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
Note:
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only.
• Conference postseason contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 19, 2008, 12:31:19 AM
I have a question on the primary criteria which I believe has been discussed before, but it may have been before they added the administrative regions qualifier.  If teams are in-region due to administrative regions, but ranked in different regions (e.g., IWU vs. Oxy), is that a relevant game for the primary criterion of 'record against regionally-ranked teams'?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 19, 2008, 01:09:02 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2008, 04:12:10 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 18, 2008, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 03:28:22 PM
pabegg, a few discrepancies between your chart and D3hoops:

* Chicago is 14-6, not 14-7 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

* DePauw is 14-4, not 15-4 (Chicago @ DePauw not in-region)

Hyde Park and Greencastle are only about 170 miles apart.  Should be in-region.

Not on mappoint.msn.com, which insists the shortest possible distance is via Indianapolis.

Right, because U.S. 231 between Lafayette and Greencastle is clearly a mirage and doesn't exist in the real world.

Perhaps if the state of Indiana dug a canal from Lafayette to Greencastle and then ran a ferry down it from the I-65 Lafayette exit to DePauw's parking lot, mappoint.msn.com would recognize the route and the D3 selection committee could therefore consider Chicago @ DePauw a regional game. ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2008, 01:12:17 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 19, 2008, 12:31:19 AM
I have a question on the primary criteria which I believe has been discussed before, but it may have been before they added the administrative regions qualifier.  If teams are in-region due to administrative regions, but ranked in different regions (e.g., IWU vs. Oxy), is that a relevant game for the primary criterion of 'record against regionally-ranked teams'?

Yes. It doesn't say "record against regionally-ranked teams in the same region as you." :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: NYBB on February 19, 2008, 01:18:15 AM
Is Brooklyn going to get a Pool C bid?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 19, 2008, 01:19:47 AM
Quote from: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 10:21:22 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2008, 10:16:23 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 18, 2008, 10:11:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2008, 09:56:42 PM
I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP - or am I mixing it up with RPI?

That's the RPI Strength of Schedule formula. I would not be surprised if they're using that for D3.



I would be surprised because its not in the handbook.
Actually, nothing's in the handbook in that regard. The selection criteria is "strength-of-schedule" which has subitems OWP and OOWP. There's nothing in there about how to combine the subitems to get strength-of-schedule, which is what leads me to guess that they're using the traditional combination.

I'm not sure how the committee is going to combine OWP and OOWP, either, but it's pretty clear from the way that the primary criteria are listed in the handbook (see D-Mac's last post) that they will be combined. That should answer, at least in part, Bob's question about the weight of OWP and OOWP relative to the primary criteria as a whole. OWP and OOWP combine to form one of the five primary criteria, so if the committee holds true to the handbook neither OWP nor OOWP should by itself carry as much weight as do win-loss percentage, head-to-head, etc.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 19, 2008, 02:58:14 AM
Shouldn't the criteria just be all the teams in the D3Hoops.com Top 25 that didn't get the AQ  :) ;) :D ;D  :P

I would vote for that rule change :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 19, 2008, 06:55:17 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 18, 2008, 10:42:12 PM
Pabegg,

I remember you saying something about how Rochester's two losses didn't hurt them too dramatically because of the quality of the opponents.

So, Heidelberg plays Capital (#1 GL region) Wednesday, and I guess I'm trying to figure out if this is a "must-win" for 'Berg for a Pool C bid or not.  Because Capital is such a strong opponent, could 'Berg survive a loss like that?

A loss Wednesday to Capital, plus a loss to Capital or someone else in the OAC tournament leaves 'Berg at best 19-6 in-region, plus 3 of those losses could be to Capital.  I remember that last year teams with 6-7 in-region losses were serious bubble teams, but I wonder if OWP and OOWP changes the calculus?


I'll chime in and let Patrick answer when he can.

I've been examining the Pool C situation pretty closely lately and I have Heidelberg right on the bubble right now.  They really need to finish the regular season with two wins if they're going to lose in the OAC tournament.  While Heidelberg's in-region winning percentage is very good (16-4, .800), their OWP is very low (.497).  For comparison, Rochester's OWP is .637.

They need to win that Capital game.
I'd concur with Bob that they need to beat Capital to make the tournament as a Pool C.

I've got them at #14 for Pool C bids, which is really on the bubble at the moment, as normally 4-6 of these bids go away when higher ranked teams get upset in their conference tournaments. So even running the table into the conference final might not be enough, depending on what the teams around them do.

Their strength of schedule numbers are actually pretty comparable to teams around them, such as Cal Lutheran, UW-Whitewater, and Albion. But where Heidelberg is at a disadvantage is that they've only played one ranked team (Capital), which will hurt them in that aspect of the selection.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2008, 09:23:19 AM
Just found out that DePauw/Chicago IS a regional game. (The error with DePauw was the game with Colorado College.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 19, 2008, 10:30:29 AM
Our long national nightmare is over. But still, we wasted all this bandwidth on the Dannies! Yeesh.... ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 19, 2008, 11:39:35 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 19, 2008, 10:30:29 AM
Our long national nightmare is over. But still, we wasted all this bandwidth on the Dannies! Yeesh.... ::)

Don't fret, smed.  My objection was on behalf of the Maroons - the Dannies were just an unfortunate by-product! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 19, 2008, 11:46:47 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2008, 09:23:19 AM
Just found out that DePauw/Chicago IS a regional game. (The error with DePauw was the game with Colorado College.)
That make put a stake in Chicago's Pool C chances, by adding a regional loss, and bring DePauw back into the picture.

If Chicago wins its final 3 games, they get the Pool A autobid for the UAA, according to some of the calculations on UAA tie-breakers that have been done here.

If they're 2-1, it's hard to imagine them getting in even with no upset losses by the top tier of teams in conference tournaments.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 19, 2008, 12:09:17 PM
QuoteIs Brooklyn going to get a Pool C bid?

PABegg is better suited to discuss the numerical criteria, but that looks highly unlikely.

The Bridges were not listed in the first regional rankings which are a fair indication which teams the selection committee will have its eyes on.  Brooklyn's opponents winning percentage (http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/owp.htm) (.359) hurts.  No ranked teams had a percentage below .400.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 19, 2008, 12:48:08 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on February 19, 2008, 12:09:17 PM
QuoteIs Brooklyn going to get a Pool C bid?

PABegg is better suited to discuss the numerical criteria, but that looks highly unlikely.

The Bridges were not listed in the first regional rankings which are a fair indication which teams the selection committee will have its eyes on.  Brooklyn's opponents winning percentage (http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/owp.htm) (.359) hurts.  No ranked teams had a percentage below .400.

how many unranked teams had a percentage that low?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: imderekpoe on February 19, 2008, 12:58:51 PM
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2008, 12:48:08 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on February 19, 2008, 12:09:17 PM
QuoteIs Brooklyn going to get a Pool C bid?

PABegg is better suited to discuss the numerical criteria, but that looks highly unlikely.

The Bridges were not listed in the first regional rankings which are a fair indication which teams the selection committee will have its eyes on.  Brooklyn's opponents winning percentage (http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/owp.htm) (.359) hurts.  No ranked teams had a percentage below .400.

how many unranked teams had a percentage that low?

Looks like a total of 19 teams (out of 396) had an OWP lower than .400.  Brooklyn's is only better than Fisk (.342), Keystone (.337), Randolph (.311) and Green Mountain (.301)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: DPU3619 on February 19, 2008, 01:01:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 19, 2008, 10:30:29 AM
Our long national nightmare is over. But still, we wasted all this bandwidth on the Dannies! Yeesh.... ::)


>:(

I was fairly certain that the Chicago game was a region game.  Somebody had mentioned something to me about the problem with Colorado about a week ago, but for the life of me, I couldn't remember who it was or if they had any idea what they were talking about.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 19, 2008, 01:13:48 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on February 19, 2008, 12:09:17 PM
QuoteIs Brooklyn going to get a Pool C bid?

PABegg is better suited to discuss the numerical criteria, but that looks highly unlikely.

The Bridges were not listed in the first regional rankings which are a fair indication which teams the selection committee will have its eyes on.  Brooklyn's opponents winning percentage (http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/owp.htm) (.359) hurts.  No ranked teams had a percentage below .400.

Brooklyn stands at about #140 nationally, which is about 100 spots off of what they would need to be in Pool C contention. They are about #9 in the Atlantic Region, and even the top teams (Farmingdale and Richard Stockton) are on the bubble if they don't win the conference tournaments.

Brooklyn would need to be at about 2-3 losses on that weak a schedule to be in contention for a Pool C.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pufin on February 19, 2008, 01:39:29 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 19, 2008, 01:13:48 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on February 19, 2008, 12:09:17 PM
QuoteIs Brooklyn going to get a Pool C bid?

PABegg is better suited to discuss the numerical criteria, but that looks highly unlikely.

The Bridges were not listed in the first regional rankings which are a fair indication which teams the selection committee will have its eyes on.  Brooklyn's opponents winning percentage (http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/owp.htm) (.359) hurts.  No ranked teams had a percentage below .400.
Brooklyn stands at about #140 nationally, which is about 100 spots off of what they would need to be in Pool C contention. They are about #9 in the Atlantic Region, and even the top teams (Farmingdale and Richard Stockton) are on the bubble if they don't win the conference tournaments.

Brooklyn would need to be at about 2-3 losses on that weak a schedule to be in contention for a Pool C.




Looks like the CUNYAC has already started their conference tournament. (Seems awfully early, yet) Three of the top four teams (including Brooklyn) lost first round games at home. Brooklyn is now just looking for an ECAC bid at this point.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2008, 01:58:48 PM
Just my opinion, but here is how I see it as of today, with teams in each category listed from top to bottom.  Let me know if I am missing anyone...


* Teams that are currently tied for 1st place in their league

Current conference leaders that would be lock Pool C's:

Amherst (NESCAC, NE)       
Washington U. (UAA, MW)   
Plattsburg St (SUNYAC, East)      
Mass-Dartmouth* (LEC, NE)       
Ursinus (CC, Mid Atl)   
Centre (SCAC, South)   
St. Thomas (MIAC, West)         
Capital (OAC, GL)         
Augustana* (CCIW, MW)         
UW- Stevens Point* (WIAC, West)         
Lawrence (MWC, MW)      
Occidental* (SCIAC, West)          
Mary Hardin-Baylor (ASC, South)         
Guilford (ODAC, South)
Hope (MIAA, GL)            
Wooster (NCAC, GL)      


Current conf. leaders that have a C chance, but certainly not a lock:

Worcester Poly (NEWMAC, NE)   
York, Pa (CAC, Mid-Alt)   
Buena Vista (IIAC, West)
Rhode Island* (LEC, NE)          
Illinois Wesleyan* (CCIW, MW)          
Cal Lutheran* (SCIAC, West)          
UW-Whitewater* (WIAC, West)      
UW-Oshkosh* (WIAC, West)      
Nazareth (E8, East)      
DeSales (MACF, Mid-Atl)         
Stevens (E8, East)         
St. Lawrence (LL, East)         
Farmingdale St (SKY, Atl)
William Paterson (NJAC, Atl)      
    

Current conf. leaders with no chance at a C:

Elms (NAC, NE)
Lake Erie* (AMCC, GL)
Penn St - Behrend* (AMCC, GL)
Emmanuel (GNAC, NE)         
Lycoming (MACC, Mid-Atl)         
Webster (SLIAC, MW)         
Puget Sound* (NWC, West)      
Defiance (HCAC, MW)         
Whitworth* (NWC, West)         
Moravian (Land, Mid-Atl)         
York, NY* (CUNYAC, Atl)         
Fitchburg State (MASCAC, NE)         
Alvernia (PnAC, Mid-Atl)
Bethany (PrAC, GL)
Roger Williams (CCC, NE)
Methodist* (USAC, South)
Brooklyn* (CUNYAC, Atl)
Baptist Bible (NEAC, East)
Ferrum* (USAC, South)
   

Teams not currently in the lead in their conf. who are C locks:

Mass-Dartmouth* (LEC, NE)          
Brandeis (UAA, NE)       
Rochester (UAA, East)          
Gettysburg (CC, Mid Atl)          
Trinity, CT (NESCAC, NE)          
Widener (MACC, Mid Atl)       
Augustana* (CCIW, MW)      
UW- Stevens Point* (WIAC, West)         
Occidental* (SCIAC, West)       
Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC, South)          
Middlebury (NESCAC, NE)          
Brockport St (SUNYAC, East)    


Next tier of C candidates -- on the bubble:

Bowdoin (NESCAC, NE)
Loras (IIAC, West)       
Rhode Island* (LEC, NE)          
Cortland State (SUNYAC, East)       
Millsaps (SCAC, South)          
Illinois Wesleyan* (CCIW, MW)          
Cal Lutheran* (SCIAC, West)          
UW-Whitewater* (WIAC, West)         
UW-Oshkosh* (WIAC, West)         
Chicago (UAA, MW)      
Bates (NESCAC, NE)
UW-Platteville (WIAC, West)   


Anyone not listed:

Very little chance for a Pool C bid - better win the AQ.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2008, 02:05:34 PM
Please remember that the Landmark Conference is a Pool B conference.  If  Moravian doesn't earn a B, then a C is "iffy".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on February 19, 2008, 02:20:18 PM
Alot of the current conference leaders will need to win their tournaments for Chicago to get in. I think the Maroons deserve a place in the tourny given how they have played in the UAA, but their out of conference record will hurt them. That being said if they get in that should make 5 out of 8 UAA teams in the tourney, which would be pretty darn impressive.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 19, 2008, 02:46:17 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 19, 2008, 02:20:18 PM
Alot of the current conference leaders will need to win their tournaments for Chicago to get in. I think the Maroons deserve a place in the tourny given how they have played in the UAA, but their out of conference record will hurt them. That being said if they get in that should make 5 out of 8 UAA teams in the tourney, which would be pretty darn impressive.

5 teams?  I think you may mean 4.

From my count, WashU, Rochester, and Brandeis will likely make it with Chicago on the bubble.  I dont think NYU, CMU, CWRU or EU have a chance.  (CMU and NYU should make the ECAC, meaning 6 post season teams if Chicago makes the tourney).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2008, 02:48:00 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 19, 2008, 02:46:17 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 19, 2008, 02:20:18 PM
Alot of the current conference leaders will need to win their tournaments for Chicago to get in. I think the Maroons deserve a place in the tourny given how they have played in the UAA, but their out of conference record will hurt them. That being said if they get in that should make 5 out of 8 UAA teams in the tourney, which would be pretty darn impressive.

5 teams?  I think you may mean 4.

From my count, WashU, Rochester, and Brandeis will likely make it with Chicago on the bubble.  I dont think NYU, CMU, CWRU or EU have a chance.  (CMU and NYU should make the ECAC, meaning 6 post season teams if Chicago makes the tourney).
hugenerd,
Rochester?  NCAA or ECAC?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Jacketfan2011 on February 19, 2008, 02:58:58 PM

hugenerd,
Rochester?  NCAA or ECAC?
[/quote]

Not to step on a ginormus nerds toes, but NCAA fo' sho'.  Why wouldn't they be?  At this point?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 19, 2008, 03:14:45 PM
The only reason they wouldnt is that they are 1-4 in their last 5, but that said, there are many reasons they should make it (at this point).

I think Rochester is going to make the field (NCAA).  They should win the last 3 games (Case and Emory at home, and CMU on the road).  If they dont win the last 3, they may have more to worry about, but with their current OWP being 6 in the country, being ranked #6 by massey overall and #2 in SOS (#27 overall and #12 SOS with MOV), and with all of their losses being in conference, with four of those being on the road (two of them to top 5 caliber national teams), I dont think you can keep them out at 20-5.  Also, regardless of their record (or 5 losses), they are the best team in the east region (plattsburgh may have an argument also).  Their only loss to a "real" east region team is to NYU and that was in 2OT on the road.  They have beaten: 2 of the top 3 teams in the E8 (giving Nazareth 2 of their 6 losses and beating St. John Fisher) and 2 of the top 3 SUNYAC teams (Cortland and Brockport).  In addition to dominating their east region opponents, they have beaten WashU and Brandeis once each.  As long as they win out (giving them a 9-5 UAA mark), they should be safe (another loss could land them on the bubble).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: iwumichigander on February 19, 2008, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 19, 2008, 02:46:17 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 19, 2008, 02:20:18 PM
Alot of the current conference leaders will need to win their tournaments for Chicago to get in. I think the Maroons deserve a place in the tourny given how they have played in the UAA, but their out of conference record will hurt them. That being said if they get in that should make 5 out of 8 UAA teams in the tourney, which would be pretty darn impressive.

5 teams?  I think you may mean 4.

From my count, WashU, Rochester, and Brandeis will likely make it with Chicago on the bubble.  I dont think NYU, CMU, CWRU or EU have a chance.  (CMU and NYU should make the ECAC, meaning 6 post season teams if Chicago makes the tourney).
UChgo 4 non-conference in region losses (Trinty (Tx), DePauw, Wheaton (Il) & Loras) together with a 1 pt loss to Rochester (a game Chgo probably should have won) have them in a bad place.  And, I don't see UChgo running the table in the UAA 3-0 with the games it has remaining. Even with the UAA's dispersion into the Administrative Regions, I just don't see the Committee putting more than two UAA teams in the NCAA tournament unless a few other teams in those administrative regions do a 'deep dive'
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 19, 2008, 04:16:32 PM
Quote from: iwumichigander on February 19, 2008, 03:38:24 PM
UChgo 4 non-conference in region losses (Trinty (Tx), DePauw, Wheaton (Il) & Loras) together with a 1 pt loss to Rochester (a game Chgo probably should have won) have them in a bad place.  And, I don't see UChgo running the table in the UAA 3-0 with the games it has remaining.

They have a chance because all those games are at home, but it will still be difficult.


Quote from: iwumichigander on February 19, 2008, 03:38:24 PM
Even with the UAA's dispersion into the Administrative Regions, I just don't see the Committee putting more than two UAA teams in the NCAA tournament unless a few other teams in those administrative regions do a 'deep dive'

They will definitely get more then 2, unless Rochester and Brandeis completely collapse down the stretch.  The UAA had 3 teams in the tourney last year, so why wouldnt they get that many this year?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2008, 04:21:11 PM
The UAA will get at least 3 teams in - Wash U, Rochester, and Brandeis are locks.  Chicago is on the Pool C bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2008, 04:34:31 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2008, 01:58:48 PM
Just my opinion, but here is how I see it as of today, with teams in each category listed from top to bottom.  Let me know if I am missing anyone...


* Teams that are currently tied for 1st place in their league

Current conference leaders that would be lock Pool C's:         
UW- Stevens Point* (WIAC, West)         
   
Next tier of C candidates -- on the bubble:         
UW-Oshkosh* (WIAC, West)         

UW-Platteville (WIAC, West)   

Call me a pessimist, but I wouldn't consider Stevens Point A LOCK for a Pool C bid just yet...and I don't think Oshkosh or Platteville will get a Pool C bid at all.  Or, you could just mean "if the tourney bids were given out today"...not sure.  ???  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Basketball23 on February 19, 2008, 04:57:03 PM
I would throw Albion and Heidelberg on the Pool C bubble list as well. With as tough as the Great Lakes region is I would be shocked if that region didnt get a single Pool C bid.

Also what is the ECAC? I feel like i missed something
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 19, 2008, 05:08:32 PM
Quote from: Basketball23 on February 19, 2008, 04:57:03 PM
I would throw Albion and Heidelberg on the Pool C bubble list as well. With as tough as the Great Lakes region is I would be shocked if that region didnt get a single Pool C bid.



Heidelberg needs to beat Capital Wednesday and have a good showing in the OAC tournament.

Albion needs to make the final of the MIAA tournament without a slip up between now and then.

Calvin's in-region record is 9-3, an unbeaten week and makeing the MIAA tournament Championship with a win over Hope or Albion in the semi's would put them in the discussion.  Esp if they were able to beat Hope twice in 10 days.

Losses for any of these teams before the Tournament finals puts their chances in jeopardy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2008, 05:08:38 PM
Quote from: Basketball23 on February 19, 2008, 04:57:03 PM
I would throw Albion and Heidelberg on the Pool C bubble list as well. With as tough as the Great Lakes region is I would be shocked if that region didnt get a single Pool C bid.

Also what is the ECAC? I feel like i missed something

That could be the reason why it doesn't get one.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 19, 2008, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: Basketball23 on February 19, 2008, 04:57:03 PM
I would throw Albion and Heidelberg on the Pool C bubble list as well. With as tough as the Great Lakes region is I would be shocked if that region didnt get a single Pool C bid.

Also what is the ECAC? I feel like i missed something

ECAC is the Eastern Coast Athletic Conference.  They hold four  NIT-like regional tournaments at the end of each  year (8 teams each).  ECAC only goes as west as Pennsylvania and I dont think it goes much further south either (than PA).

More info at www.ecac.org
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2008, 06:52:05 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 19, 2008, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: Basketball23 on February 19, 2008, 04:57:03 PM
I would throw Albion and Heidelberg on the Pool C bubble list as well. With as tough as the Great Lakes region is I would be shocked if that region didnt get a single Pool C bid.

Also what is the ECAC? I feel like i missed something

ECAC is the Eastern Coast Athletic Conference.  They hold four  NIT-like regional tournaments at the end of each  year (8 teams each).  ECAC only goes as west as Pennsylvania and I dont think it goes much further south either (than PA).

More info at www.ecac.org

It's a bigger deal in New Jersey because the NJAC teams participate, but in New England its more a goal of the smaller conferences as the NESCAC teams stay out of it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2008, 07:02:26 PM
Quote from: Basketball23 on February 19, 2008, 04:57:03 PM

Also what is the ECAC?

Quote from: hugenerd on February 19, 2008, 05:32:16 PM

ECAC is the Eastern Coast Athletic Conference.  They hold four  NIT-like regional tournaments at the end of each  year (8 teams each).  ECAC only goes as west as Pennsylvania and I dont think it goes much further south either (than PA).
Yeah, by the time you get to Ohio, it is definitely the North Coast Athletic Conference!   ;D   :D   8)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on February 20, 2008, 12:35:20 AM
Actually ECAC technically goes as far west as chicago and down south to the carolinas except in d3 they dont include these areas in their tournaments. However in division 1 especially in sports like track you have schools from the midwest and southeast competing.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2008, 12:46:01 AM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 20, 2008, 12:35:20 AM
Actually ECAC technically goes as far west as chicago and down south to the carolinas except in d3 they dont include these areas in their tournaments. However in division 1 especially in sports like track you have schools from the midwest and southeast competing.

Not really. In Division I you have school (singular) from the midwest competing. For some reason that totally escapes me, the University of Illinois-Chicago is an ECAC member. Most of the other Horizon League schools besides UIC are not ECAC members, so there isn't a conference-affiliation purpose behind UIC's ECAC membership. And it certainly doesn't seem to serve much purpose in the realm of competition, since Chicago is a long way away from the East Coast.

In D3, the ECAC member that's the furthest west is Lake Erie College in Painesville, Ohio, just east of Cleveland. That school is leaving D3 to move to D2, and when it does Bethany College (Bethany, West Virginia) will then be the only ECAC school west of the Pennsylvania state line -- and, like Lake Erie, Bethany is barely west of Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on February 20, 2008, 12:54:53 AM
I am simply stating what I remember reading one time advertised on the ECAC website.

As a member of an ECAC institution, and an attendee at this past summer's UAA SAAC meetings, I pushed to propose legislation for a +2 tournament for ECAC and most agreed, but it was never pushed past anything but an interesting discussion.

Honestly I in a way agree with the NESCAC's position of not participating in the ECAC, in a way it is a joke. I sometimes get upset when teams at Brandeis boast about their ECAC wins. I was happy when we were given the Jostens award, as it has been granted to some very prestigious universities in its short span (princeton, georgetown to name a few). However it is sort of meaningless to be ECAC champion.

How awesome is it to say "We are ECAC champions....well okay only New England Champions, well actually really we are the best team in New England that did not make NCAA and isnt in the NESCAC. This usually means your the best of the teams with a .500-.550 record.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2008, 01:10:56 AM
Maybe so, but it's extra games tacked on to the end of your season. That's a good thing for the fans, and it's a good reward for the players (as well as an opportunity for them to develop their games further). Quite frankly, as a fan and alumnus of a midwestern D3 school, I wish that we had something like the ECAC postseason tourney out here. The more postseason basketball, the better.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 20, 2008, 09:30:40 AM
Quote from: Basketball23 on February 19, 2008, 04:57:03 PM
I would throw Albion and Heidelberg on the Pool C bubble list as well. With as tough as the Great Lakes region is I would be shocked if that region didnt get a single Pool C bid.

Also what is the ECAC? I feel like i missed something

I have Heidelberg as the #1 Pool C candidate from the Great Lakes and Albion #2.  But I have Heidelberg behind such teams as Chicago, Bates, and Oswego State, who are on the bubble at best. 

Heidelberg definitely needs to beat Capital tonight just to get on the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 20, 2008, 12:48:04 PM
There have been a few upsets on Monday and Tuesday. Here's how they impact the race for Pool C bids.

Widener's loss doesn't hurt them that much yet; they are still projected as a Pool A team (despite not being the top seed in their tournament). With a win last night they might have clinched a Pool C bid; with a loss in their season finale and another in the tournament, they will be on the bubble.

DeSales, on the other hand, probably lost their margin of error. With their D3 regular season done, they would now be on the outside looking in if they don't win the Pool A bid.

Messiah and Emmanuel said goodbye to any Pool C chances with their losses.

Emerson beat Emmanuel in the battle for the top of the GNAC and improved their chances of a Pool C bid; they're definitely on the bubble if they only have one more loss.

Bubble summary: DeSales drops below the line, Emerson moves above the line, no net change.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 20, 2008, 03:32:20 PM
REGIONAL RANKINGS ARE OUT:
http://ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/polls/rankings/diviii
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 20, 2008, 04:37:16 PM
They are showing Chicago-DePauw as regional.

But not Hope-Carthage?

Lycoming and Messiah regional records can't be right, unless they are considering PSU-Harrisburg regional, which they shouldn't be yet.

Looks like they think Middlebury-Hamilton is regional.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 20, 2008, 04:52:59 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 20, 2008, 04:37:16 PM
They are showing Chicago-DePauw as regional.

Is that a correction from last week? As I recall hearing Chicago-DePauw was considered not in-region last week for some ridiculous reason.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 20, 2008, 04:59:12 PM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 20, 2008, 04:52:59 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 20, 2008, 04:37:16 PM
They are showing Chicago-DePauw as regional.

Is that a correction from last week? As I recall hearing Chicago-DePauw was considered not in-region last week for some ridiculous reason.

Pat confirmed on this board yesterday that they have fixed it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 20, 2008, 05:23:50 PM
Looking at the regional rankings, I have no problem with the Atlantic with the exception of Old Westbury, there is no way they are a better team than any of the NJAC teams with similar records.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 20, 2008, 06:22:18 PM
They've finally determined that the Love Boat between Hope and Carthage was asinine. Thankfully!

Middlebury and Hamilton are less than 200 miles apart, I believe. Google has it as 186 miles between Middlebury, VT and Clinton, NY. However, if I was taking the trip, I'd go the scenic way through the Adirondacks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2008, 08:07:53 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 19, 2008, 12:07:10 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 10:19:04 PM
[Dave McHugh, I wonder if you can get someone from the national committee on Hoopsville to discuss all of this?  I think there are a lot of people who would like to understand it better.
Working on it! :)
Wartburg's AD and Men's NCAA Committee Chairman Gary Grace as agreed to join us on Hoopsville Sunday.

He will be on LIVE at 6:15 PM EST Sunday.
He will be followed by ODAC Commissioner Brad Bankston and possibly Salem CC boss Carey Harveycutter.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2008, 08:16:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 20, 2008, 06:22:18 PM
They've finally determined that the Love Boat between Hope and Carthage was asinine. Thankfully!

Middlebury and Hamilton are less than 200 miles apart, I believe. Google has it as 186 miles between Middlebury, VT and Clinton, NY. However, if I was taking the trip, I'd go the scenic way through the Adirondacks.
Pat and I actually spent awhile on Middlebury and Hamilton. While 186 is what Google has... the NCAA uses MSN Mappoint and its short distance (not straight line), it is over 200 - if I remember correctly! (Pat, do I remember correctly?)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 20, 2008, 09:14:39 PM
Quote from: sac on February 19, 2008, 05:08:32 PM
Quote from: Basketball23 on February 19, 2008, 04:57:03 PM
I would throw Albion and Heidelberg on the Pool C bubble list as well. With as tough as the Great Lakes region is I would be shocked if that region didnt get a single Pool C bid.



Heidelberg needs to beat Capital Wednesday and have a good showing in the OAC tournament.

Albion needs to make the final of the MIAA tournament without a slip up between now and then.

Calvin's in-region record is 9-3, an unbeaten week and makeing the MIAA tournament Championship with a win over Hope or Albion in the semi's would put them in the discussion.  Esp if they were able to beat Hope twice in 10 days.

Losses for any of these teams before the Tournament finals puts their chances in jeopardy.


Heidelberg does its part, so far, beating Capital tonight 80-74 @ Capital.  They split the season series with each winning at the other.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2008, 09:41:56 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 20, 2008, 08:16:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 20, 2008, 06:22:18 PM
They've finally determined that the Love Boat between Hope and Carthage was asinine. Thankfully!

Middlebury and Hamilton are less than 200 miles apart, I believe. Google has it as 186 miles between Middlebury, VT and Clinton, NY. However, if I was taking the trip, I'd go the scenic way through the Adirondacks.
Pat and I actually spent awhile on Middlebury and Hamilton. While 186 is what Google has... the NCAA uses MSN Mappoint and its short distance (not straight line), it is over 200 - if I remember correctly! (Pat, do I remember correctly?)

I ran it tonight.  I got 201 miles.

Does it seem that Google Maps is more user-friendly than mappoint.msn?   ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2008, 10:29:35 PM
Ralph - user friendly is against the NCAA's moto! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HopeConvert on February 20, 2008, 10:56:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 20, 2008, 06:22:18 PM
They've finally determined that the Love Boat between Hope and Carthage was asinine. Thankfully!

Middlebury and Hamilton are less than 200 miles apart, I believe. Google has it as 186 miles between Middlebury, VT and Clinton, NY. However, if I was taking the trip, I'd go the scenic way through the Adirondacks.
They couldn't have done that in a year where Hope loses to Carthage? :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 21, 2008, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 20, 2008, 10:29:35 PM
Ralph - user friendly is against the NCAA's moto! :)

Common sense is against the NCAA's moto :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on February 21, 2008, 12:22:34 AM
Does mappoint brag as being the official distance calculator of the ncaa?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 21, 2008, 12:36:08 AM
Final just in...Oxy beats Cal Lutheran.  Cal Lu was 5th in the west region rankings, how does this affect their Pool C bid?  What about if they win out then lose in SCIAC championship game?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2008, 12:50:58 AM
Listed is last week's regional ranking and record

New (2nd list) Regional Rankings; games played through Sunday, Feb. 17

Black is conference leader
Red is Pool C contender
Blue is Pool B contender

Atlantic
1. *(LW1; 1-1) Richard Stockton 16-6 16-5 (NJAC)
2. *(LW2; 1-1) William Paterson 17-5 17-5 (NJAC)
3. (LW3; 3-0) Farmingdale State 19-4 18-3 (SKY)
4. (LW4; 2-0) York (N.Y.) 19-7 17-6 (SUNYAC)-tied with Brooklyn
5. (LWNR; 2-0) SUNY-Old Westbury  14-9 14-7 (SKY)

*William Paterson leads the NJAC North Div.
*Richard Stockton leads the NJAC South Div.

Dropping out:  St. Joseph's (L.I.)-5th (2-0)

East
1. (LW2; 2-0) Plattsburgh State 21-2 18-0 (SUNYAC)
2. (LW1; 0-2) Rochester 17-5 16-5 (UAA)
3. (LW3; 2-0) Brockport State 18-6 15-4 (SUNYAC)
4. (LW4; 1-1) Stevens 20-4 20-4 (Empire 8 )
5. (LW5; 2-1) Nazareth 17-6 17-6 (Empire 8 )

Great Lakes
1. (LW1; 2-0) Capital 20-3 19-3 (OAC)
2. (LW2; 2-0) Wooster 20-3 13-2 (NCAC)
3. (LW3; 2-0) Hope 19-3 13-2 (MIAA)
4. (LWNR; 2-0) Albion 16-5 12-3 (MIAA)
5. (LW6; 2-0) Penn State-Behrend 19-4 17-3 (AMCC)-tied with Lake Erie
6. (LW5; 2-0) Heidelberg 18-5 16-4 (OAC)

Dropping out:  Ohio Wesleyan-4th (1-1)

Middle Atlantic
1. (LW1; 2-0) Ursinus 22-2 19-1 (Centennial)
2. (LW2; 2-0) Gettysburg 19-3 17-2 (Centennial)
3. (LW3; 2-0) Widener 19-4 16-3 (MACC)
4. (LW5; 2-0) DeSales 19-4 16-3 (MACF)
5. (LW7; 1-0) York (Pa.) 17-6 17-5 (CAC)
6. (LW4; 0-2) Messiah 15-8 14-7 (MACC)
7. (LW8; 1-1) Moravian 18-6 17-6 (LAND)-tied with Juniata and Susquehanna
8. (LWNR; 2-0) Lycoming 15-8 13-7 (MACC)

*LAND (Landmark) is Pool B conference.

Dropping out:  Albright-6th (0-2)

Midwest
1. (LW2; 2-0) Washington U. 18-4 15-3 (UAA)
2. (LW1; 1-1) Augustana 18-5 17-5 (CCIW)
3. (LW3; 2-0) Lawrence 18-2 16-2 (MWC)
4. (LW5; 2-0) Chicago 15-7 14-7 (UAA)
5. (LW6; 2-0) Illinois Wesleyan 15-8 14-6 (CCIW)
6. (LW4; 1-1) Wheaton (Ill.) 17-6 13-6 (CCIW)
7. (LWNR; 2-0) Elmhurst 17-6 16-6 (CCIW)
8. (LW7; 0-1) Carroll 14-6 13-6 (MWC)

Dropping out:  Webster-8th (2-0)

Northeast
1. (LW1; 1-0) Amherst 22-2 22-1 (NESCAC)
2. (LW2; 1-1) Mass-Dartmouth 21-2 21-2 (LEC) tied with RIC
3. (LW6; 2-0) Brandeis 18-4 17-4 (UAA)
4. (LW7; 2-0) Worcester Tech 18-5 17-4 (NEWMAC)
5. (LW8; 2-0) Rhode Island College 18-5 18-5 (LEC) tied with Mass-Dartmouth
6. (LW3, 1-1) Bowdoin 19-5 19-5 (NESCAC)
7. (LW4; 1-1) Trinity (Conn.) 18-6 16-5 (NESCAC)
8. (LW5; 1-1) Middlebury 18-6 17-5 (NESCAC)
9. (LW9; 2-0) Emerson 20-3 19-3 (GNAC) tied with Emmanuel
10. (LW10; 2-1) Bates 17-7 16-6 (NESCAC)

South
1. (LW1; 1-0) Centre 21-1 16-1 (SCAC)
2. *(LW2; 2-0) Mary Hardin-Baylor 20-3 18-2 (ASC)
3. (LW3; 3-0) Guilford 19-4 18-4 (ODAC)
4. (LW5; 2-0) Virginia Wesleyan 19-5 18-4 (ODAC)
5. (LW4; 1-0) Maryville (Tenn.) 21-2 15-2 (GSAC)
6. (LW6; 0-1) DePauw 18-5 15-4 (SCAC)
7. (LW7; 2-0) Millsaps 21-3 16-2 (SCAC)
8. (LW8; 1-1) Randolph-Macon 18-5 13-5 (ODAC)

*Mary Hardin-Baylor leads ASC-West

West
1. (LW6; 2-0) UW-Stevens Point 19-4 17-4 (WIAC) tied with Whitewater and Oshkosh
2. (LW2; 1-0) St. Thomas 20-3 18-2 (MIAC)
3. (LW1; 1-1) Occidental 19-3 12-2 (SCIAC) tied with Cal. Lutheran
4. (LW4; 1-1) UW-Whitewater 19-4 17-4 (WIAC) tied with Stevens Point and Oshkosh
5. (LW5; 2-0) Cal Lutheran 19-3 15-3 (SCIAC) tied with Occidental
6. (LW7; 1-0) Buena Vista 19-4 15-2 (IIAC)
7. (LW3; 0-2) UW-Platteville 17-6 15-5 (WIAC)
8. (LWNR; 1-0) UW-Oshkosh 17-6 14-5 (WIAC) tied with Stevens Point and Whitewater

Dropping out:  Loras-8th (1-0)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on February 21, 2008, 12:52:31 AM
#6 in West Region Bv also lost tonight to Central 73-71. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2008, 12:53:24 AM
Thanks Old School for the help. +k!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2008, 12:54:48 AM
Quote from: LogShow on February 21, 2008, 12:36:08 AM
Final just in...Oxy beats Cal Lutheran.  Cal Lu was 5th in the west region rankings, how does this affect their Pool C bid?  What about if they win out then lose in SCIAC championship game?
Losing in the Tourney final gives them another loss, too!

I think that their Pool C chances went down the tubes!

Pool A or nothing!

I generally think that the team's best chances are to win out.  If you are considering Pool C and especially if you aren't from one of the real Power Conferences (NESCAC which statistically dominates the Northeast, the CCIW, the WIAC, the UAA or maybe Hope/Calvin), then you aren't good enough.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2008, 12:58:19 AM
Old School, please remember that the MAC-C has two seasons to get back to 7 teams.  The MAC-C is Pool A this year.  See page 14 (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2008/2008_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf).

Moravian is Pool B!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2008, 01:01:26 AM
OK, thanks.  I had Morvian bolded because they were leading their conference...I'll change both.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 21, 2008, 01:18:16 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 20, 2008, 08:07:53 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 19, 2008, 12:07:10 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2008, 10:19:04 PM
[Dave McHugh, I wonder if you can get someone from the national committee on Hoopsville to discuss all of this?  I think there are a lot of people who would like to understand it better.
Working on it! :)
Wartburg's AD and Men's NCAA Committee Chairman Gary Grace as agreed to join us on Hoopsville Sunday.

He will be on LIVE at 6:15 PM EST Sunday.
He will be followed by ODAC Commissioner Brad Bankston and possibly Salem CC boss Carey Harveycutter.

Carey Harveycutter, what a great name.  With a name like that he should be doing baseball games on radio.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 21, 2008, 01:34:22 AM
Old School or pabegg:

Last week Stevens Tech was listed as having a 17-2 Regional won-loss record. They split 2 games during the week so why isn't their regional record 18-3 instead of 20-4 which is their overall record? NCAA also had them at 17-2 last week and 20-4 this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 21, 2008, 01:36:16 AM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 20, 2008, 10:56:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 20, 2008, 06:22:18 PM
They've finally determined that the Love Boat between Hope and Carthage was asinine. Thankfully!

Middlebury and Hamilton are less than 200 miles apart, I believe. Google has it as 186 miles between Middlebury, VT and Clinton, NY. However, if I was taking the trip, I'd go the scenic way through the Adirondacks.
They couldn't have done that in a year where Hope loses to Carthage? :)

:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 21, 2008, 06:52:40 AM
Quote from: magicman on February 21, 2008, 01:34:22 AM
Old School or pabegg:

Last week Stevens Tech was listed as having a 17-2 Regional won-loss record. They split 2 games during the week so why isn't their regional record 18-3 instead of 20-4 which is their overall record? NCAA also had them at 17-2 last week and 20-4 this week.
The 17-2 last week was wrong. (It was one of the discrepancies that I noted in my comments in the Daily Dose). All of Stevens' games end up being regional.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 21, 2008, 08:09:03 AM
Here's how last night's games affect things on the Pool C front.

Paterson and Farmingdale drop below the bubble, joining Stockton as teams that have little chance of getting a Pool C bid; I'd now project Stockton as the more likely NJAC winner.

Heidelberg did what they needed to do; they held their spot the good side of the bubble; Capital drops to 3rd in the region and misses the chance to clinch a Pool C bid.

Behrend joins Heidelberg and Albion as teams on the bubble, as well as remaining the favorite for the AMCC Pool A bid.

Wheaton goes up, Illinois Wesleyan goes down, but both are still on the outside looking in. This may have been IWU's last chance to play into a Pool C bid.

Occidental moves up to #2 in the West, while Cal Lutheran slips a little (they're now on the bubble while they probably could have clinched a bid with a win).

Buena Vista's loss puts them on the bubble; Loras slips ahead of them as the likely Pool A from Iowa.

St. Thomas drops to 4th in the West, but still above the bubble. Oshkosh falls from the bubble with their loss.

Net changes in Pool C: Oshkosh is out, replaced by an idle DePauw as the 17th Pool C team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 21, 2008, 12:56:56 PM
Pabegg,  if the NCAA committee had to meet today to choose the Pool C teams, which teams from the West are in?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 21, 2008, 01:23:16 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 21, 2008, 12:56:56 PM
Pabegg,  if the NCAA committee had to meet today to choose the Pool C teams, which teams from the West are in?

Whitewater definitely.
Buena Vista and Cal Lutheran are in the top 17, so they would be in if there are no Pool A upsets. If we had the usual run of upsets (5 or 6) I think that they would be out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 21, 2008, 04:07:37 PM
Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2008, 04:29:57 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 21, 2008, 01:34:22 AM
Old School or pabegg:

Last week Stevens Tech was listed as having a 17-2 Regional won-loss record. They split 2 games during the week so why isn't their regional record 18-3 instead of 20-4 which is their overall record? NCAA also had them at 17-2 last week and 20-4 this week.

No clue, last week's overall record was 19-3, and if they go 1-1, that puts them at 20-4.  I see as well that their regional record was 17-2 and should be 18-3 now, but maybe they figured they were all in-region now...don't know.

edit:  missed pabegg's response...basically the same thing I said! lol  Sorry for repeat.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2008, 04:52:03 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 21, 2008, 12:22:34 AM
Does mappoint brag as being the official distance calculator of the ncaa?

No, the NCAA brags it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 21, 2008, 08:40:41 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 21, 2008, 06:52:40 AM
Quote from: magicman on February 21, 2008, 01:34:22 AM
Old School or pabegg:

Last week Stevens Tech was listed as having a 17-2 Regional won-loss record. They split 2 games during the week so why isn't their regional record 18-3 instead of 20-4 which is their overall record? NCAA also had them at 17-2 last week and 20-4 this week.
The 17-2 last week was wrong. (It was one of the discrepancies that I noted in my comments in the Daily Dose). All of Stevens' games end up being regional.


Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 21, 2008, 04:29:57 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 21, 2008, 01:34:22 AM
Old School or pabegg:

Last week Stevens Tech was listed as having a 17-2 Regional won-loss record. They split 2 games during the week so why isn't their regional record 18-3 instead of 20-4 which is their overall record? NCAA also had them at 17-2 last week and 20-4 this week.

No clue, last week's overall record was 19-3, and if they go 1-1, that puts them at 20-4.  I see as well that their regional record was 17-2 and should be 18-3 now, but maybe they figured they were all in-region now...don't know.

edit:  missed pabegg's response...basically the same thing I said! lol  Sorry for repeat.

Thanks, pabegg & old school.

I was trying to figure out the 1st week who those non-regional games were against and the best I could come up with was maybe Middlebury. But that left 2 more and I didn't have a clue who they were. Now it all makes sense. 8)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 21, 2008, 11:56:42 PM
Good work OS.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 22, 2008, 01:07:00 AM
There has been quite a few Losses in the West Region...the next West Region ranking should be quite interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Downtown on February 22, 2008, 11:31:05 AM
I wouldn't even know where to begin with the West Region. The only teams that are not shaky are Stevens Point, Occidental, and Whitewater (despite their blow out loss to Point).

Everyone else is on unstable ground. Honestly, if I were on the selection committee, I probably take the Automatic bids, and if they make it to the conference tourney final, either Whitewater or Point.

As a whole, I'm thinking 6 teams out of the West make it into the dance. Compared to other regions, and that's not a whole lot.

And yes, a lot of WIAC fans are going to claim that once again, the committee over looked the quality of our teams. I just don't think teams like Platteville and Oshkosh are very deserving of a Pool C bid, right now.

That can change in a hurry though, especially with this Saturday. Like I said, the West region is on shaky ground. If you want to see any other team get themselves into postition before tourney time, it will be Platteville. A loss on their home court all assures almost no chance of getting a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 22, 2008, 12:15:01 PM
Impact of last night's games on the Pool C picture:

Very little.

Mary Hardin-Baylor solidifies their position with the win. Have they clinched a spot yet? Not quite, as two losses puts them on the bubble.

Mississippi College and Coast Guard's very slim Pool C chances improved, but it won't be enough barring an incredible round of upsets of teams ahead of them.

Nobody else with Pool C chances played.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sciacguru on February 22, 2008, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 21, 2008, 08:09:03 AM
Occidental moves up to #2 in the West, while Cal Lutheran slips a little (they're now on the bubble while they probably could have clinched a bid with a win).

Does CLU's win over Gettysburg (#2 ranked region team, 20-3) hold any substance in the decision making for a Pool C bid, since that was not a regional win?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 22, 2008, 02:02:40 PM
Quote from: sciacguru on February 22, 2008, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 21, 2008, 08:09:03 AM
Occidental moves up to #2 in the West, while Cal Lutheran slips a little (they're now on the bubble while they probably could have clinched a bid with a win).

Does CLU's win over Gettysburg (#2 ranked region team, 20-3) hold any substance in the decision making for a Pool C bid, since that was not a regional win?
Because it's not a regional game, it falls under the secondary criteria, not the primary criteria. Which means they could use it if they can't decide using the primary criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 22, 2008, 04:30:20 PM
Quote from: Mr. Downtown on February 22, 2008, 11:31:05 AM
I wouldn't even know where to begin with the West Region. The only teams that are not shaky are Stevens Point, Occidental, and Whitewater (despite their blow out loss to Point).

Everyone else is on unstable ground. Honestly, if I were on the selection committee, I probably take the Automatic bids, and if they make it to the conference tourney final, either Whitewater or Point.

As a whole, I'm thinking 6 teams out of the West make it into the dance. Compared to other regions, and that's not a whole lot.

And yes, a lot of WIAC fans are going to claim that once again, the committee over looked the quality of our teams. I just don't think teams like Platteville and Oshkosh are very deserving of a Pool C bid, right now.

That can change in a hurry though, especially with this Saturday. Like I said, the West region is on shaky ground. If you want to see any other team get themselves into postition before tourney time, it will be Platteville. A loss on their home court all assures almost no chance of getting a Pool C bid.

So you are thinking that barring upsets in the conference tournaments the entire West region might only get about 2 at-large bids?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2008, 09:27:55 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 21, 2008, 10:09:10 PM
West
1. UW-Stevens Point:  Def. La Crosse 89-62; plays at Platteville on Sat.
2. St. Thomas:  LOST at Concordia-Moorhead 67-57; plays at St. John's on Sat.
3. Occidental:  Def. Cal. Lutheran 67-63; plays at Whittier on Sat.
4. UW-Whitewater:  Def. Oshkosh 66-51; plays River Falls on Sat.
5. Cal Lutheran:  LOST at Occidental 67-63; plays at Redlands on Sat.
6. Buena Vista:  LOST at Central 73-71; plays Loras on Sat.
7. UW-Platteville:  Def. Eau Claire 75-58; plays Stevens Point on Sat.
8. UW-Oshkosh:  LOST at Whitewater 66-51; plays Superior on Sat.

Quote from: LogShow on February 22, 2008, 04:30:20 PM
So you are thinking that barring upsets in the conference tournaments the entire West region might only get about 2 at-large bids?

They may only get one.  Say the top teams in each conference win the conference tourneys.

St. Thomas:  MIAC
Stevens Point/Whitewater:  WIAC
Occidental:  SCIAC
Puget Sound:  NWC
Buena Vista:  IIAC

Who else could get an at-large bid at this time with at least one more loss.  The loser of Stevens Point and Whitewater will probably get a Pool C.  Loras (outside looking in) has to play Buena Vista tomorrow.  Cal Lutheran just lost to Occidental and for them to get a Pool C, they have to lose again.  No NWC team seems to be on the radar for a Pool C bid.  Unless Platteville wins out until the conference tourney, I don't see them having a chance...unless they beat Point twice (once tomorrow to end the regular season) or Point and Whitewater each.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 22, 2008, 11:34:10 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2008, 01:58:48 PM
Just my opinion, but here is how I see it as of today, with teams in each category listed from top to bottom.  Let me know if I am missing anyone...


* Teams that are currently tied for 1st place in their league

Current conference leaders that would be lock Pool C's:

Amherst (NESCAC, NE)       
Washington U. (UAA, MW)   
Plattsburg St (SUNYAC, East)      
Mass-Dartmouth* (LEC, NE)       
Ursinus (CC, Mid Atl)   
Centre (SCAC, South)   
St. Thomas (MIAC, West)         
Capital (OAC, GL)         
Augustana* (CCIW, MW)         
UW- Stevens Point* (WIAC, West)         
Lawrence (MWC, MW)      
Occidental* (SCIAC, West)          
Mary Hardin-Baylor (ASC, South)         
Guilford (ODAC, South)
Hope (MIAA, GL)            
Wooster (NCAC, GL)      


Current conf. leaders that have a C chance, but certainly not a lock:

Worcester Poly (NEWMAC, NE)   
York, Pa (CAC, Mid-Alt)   
Buena Vista (IIAC, West)
Rhode Island* (LEC, NE)          
Illinois Wesleyan* (CCIW, MW)          
Cal Lutheran* (SCIAC, West)          
UW-Whitewater* (WIAC, West)      
UW-Oshkosh* (WIAC, West)      
Nazareth (E8, East)      
DeSales (MACF, Mid-Atl)         
Stevens (E8, East)         
St. Lawrence (LL, East)         
Farmingdale St (SKY, Atl)
William Paterson (NJAC, Atl)      
    

Current conf. leaders with no chance at a C:

Elms (NAC, NE)
Lake Erie* (AMCC, GL)
Penn St - Behrend* (AMCC, GL)
Emmanuel (GNAC, NE)         
Lycoming (MACC, Mid-Atl)         
Webster (SLIAC, MW)         
Puget Sound* (NWC, West)      
Defiance (HCAC, MW)         
Whitworth* (NWC, West)         
Moravian (Land, Mid-Atl)         
York, NY* (CUNYAC, Atl)         
Fitchburg State (MASCAC, NE)         
Alvernia (PnAC, Mid-Atl)
Bethany (PrAC, GL)
Roger Williams (CCC, NE)
Methodist* (USAC, South)
Brooklyn* (CUNYAC, Atl)
Baptist Bible (NEAC, East)
Ferrum* (USAC, South)
   

Teams not currently in the lead in their conf. who are C locks:

Mass-Dartmouth* (LEC, NE)          
Brandeis (UAA, NE)       
Rochester (UAA, East)          
Gettysburg (CC, Mid Atl)          
Trinity, CT (NESCAC, NE)          
Widener (MACC, Mid Atl)       
Augustana* (CCIW, MW)      
UW- Stevens Point* (WIAC, West)         
Occidental* (SCIAC, West)       
Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC, South)          
Middlebury (NESCAC, NE)          
Brockport St (SUNYAC, East)    


Next tier of C candidates -- on the bubble:

Bowdoin (NESCAC, NE)
Loras (IIAC, West)       
Rhode Island* (LEC, NE)          
Cortland State (SUNYAC, East)       
Millsaps (SCAC, South)          
Illinois Wesleyan* (CCIW, MW)          
Cal Lutheran* (SCIAC, West)          
UW-Whitewater* (WIAC, West)         
UW-Oshkosh* (WIAC, West)         
Chicago (UAA, MW)      
Bates (NESCAC, NE)
UW-Platteville (WIAC, West)   


Anyone not listed:

Very little chance for a Pool C bid - better win the AQ.

From Q's list a few days ago, we can strike our first casualty of the teams leading conferences with no C chance list as John Jay takes down York(Ny)

No York v York game this year, and we welcome John Jay at 13-15 as the first invitee to the dance.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 22, 2008, 11:45:23 PM
Is it to early to strike UW Oshkosh from the C list?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Downtown on February 23, 2008, 12:27:19 AM
No.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 23, 2008, 01:33:29 PM
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2008, 11:45:23 PM
Is it to early to strike UW Oshkosh from the C list?

No, not with 6 in-region losses.  If they don't get the AQ then they will have atleast 7 in-region losses.  I just don't see how you can give a at-large bid to them
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 23, 2008, 01:35:35 PM
Anyone want to throw out a guess as to how many at-large bids the UAA gets?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2008, 01:44:08 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 23, 2008, 01:35:35 PM
Anyone want to throw out a guess as to how many at-large bids the UAA gets?

It depends who gets the AQ.  If Chicago wins it, the UAA will get 3 Pool C bids.  If Wash U or Brandeis are the Pool A team (meaning Chicago would drop one of their final two games - both home, vs Brandeis, vs Wash U), I think 2 Pool C's for the UAA.  I think Chicago is out with another loss.

Right now the UAA standings are:

Brandeis 9-3
Chicago 9-3
Wash U 9-3
Rochester 7-5

I see Brandeis, Wash U, and Rochester as Pool C locks and Chicago, with 7 in-region losses, on the bubble...with regional loss #8 bursting the bubble. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 23, 2008, 02:10:50 PM
I know they play in a tough league, but 7 in-region losses sure seems like a lot to be considered for Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2008, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 23, 2008, 02:10:50 PM
I know they play in a tough league, but 7 in-region losses sure seems like a lot to be considered for Pool C.

In-region winning % is only one of the primary criteria.  Chicago is great is one of the other biggies - strength of schedule.  OWP = .601 (13th in country).   

Illinois Wesleyan is basically in the same boat - 7 in-region losses, but the #6 OWP in the nation (.617).  5 of IWU's 7 regional losses are to conference leaders:

@ Wash U (1st, UAA)
@ Chicago (1st, UAA)
@ Occidental (1st, SCIAC)
vs Augustana (1st CCIW)
@ Augustana (1st CCIW)

The new OWP/OOWP system should keep teams like Chicago and IWU at least on the bubble, whereas with QOWI they'd be dead.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 23, 2008, 03:05:54 PM
I'm a little late with my daily update on Pool C status, given that games have started today, but here goes:

Brandeis improved their Pool C situation a little; I believe that they have clinched a Pool C bid with only two games left; WashU slips behind Brandeis in Pool C positioning, but is still the most likely Pool A winner from the UAA.

Stevens drops from the good side of the bubble to the bad side, replaced by Bates.

Chicago moves up but not yet into the field. With 1-1 against WashU and Brandeis, can they move into the field? (At 2-0, they've got a Pool A bid).

Oswego kissed their Pool C chances goodbye.


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 23, 2008, 04:37:40 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2008, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 23, 2008, 02:10:50 PM
I know they play in a tough league, but 7 in-region losses sure seems like a lot to be considered for Pool C.

In-region winning % is only one of the primary criteria.  Chicago is great is one of the other biggies - strength of schedule.  OWP = .601 (13th in country).   

Illinois Wesleyan is basically in the same boat - 7 in-region losses, but the #6 OWP in the nation (.617).  5 of IWU's 7 regional losses are to conference leaders:

@ Wash U (1st, UAA)
@ Chicago (1st, UAA)
@ Occidental (1st, SCIAC)
vs Augustana (1st CCIW)
@ Augustana (1st CCIW)

The new OWP/OOWP system should keep teams like Chicago and IWU at least on the bubble, whereas with QOWI they'd be dead.

Interesting, thanks for the info Q!  I forgot about the other criteria
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2008, 04:47:56 PM
I have been using a spreadsheet to track Pool C.  I decide to run a very, very simple calculation for games through Friday 2/22:

In-region winning % + (OWP + OOWP)

The results follow.  Columns are: Wins, Losses, Winning %, OWP, OOWP, OWP+OOWP, Win % + (OWP + OOWP)

(Disclaimer - I am not suggesting the committee uses this calculation, so just take it for what it's worth!)

* = team currently tied for 1st in league


1   Amherst (NESCAC, NE)   22   1   0.957   0.616   0.550   1.166   2.123
2   Plattsburg St (SUNYAC, East)   19   0   1.000   0.510   0.529   1.039   2.039
3   Washington U.* (UAA, MW)   15   4   0.789   0.650   0.569   1.219   2.008
4   Brandeis* (UAA, NE)    18   4   0.818   0.605   0.585   1.190   2.008 - C1
5   Mass-Dartmouth* (LEC, NE)    22   2   0.917   0.540   0.532   1.072   1.989
6   Ursinus (CC, Mid Atl)   19   1   0.950   0.512   0.516   1.028   1.978
7   Centre (SCAC, South)   17   1   0.944   0.515   0.496   1.011   1.955
8   Rochester (UAA, East)    17   5   0.773   0.611   0.561   1.172   1.945 - C2
9   Gettysburg (CC, Mid Atl)    18   2   0.900   0.525   0.519   1.044   1.944 - C3
10   Occidental (SCIAC, West)    13   2   0.867   0.531   0.533   1.064   1.931
11   Trinity, CT (NESCAC, NE)    16   5   0.762   0.614   0.550   1.164   1.926 - C4
12   Augustana (CCIW, MW)   18   5   0.783   0.586   0.557   1.143   1.926
13   Lawrence (MWC, MW)   17   2   0.895   0.519   0.508   1.027   1.922
14   UW-Stevens Point* (WIAC, West)   18   4   0.818   0.564   0.528   1.092   1.910
15   Worcester Poly (NEWMAC, NE)   18   4   0.818   0.553   0.538   1.091   1.909
16   Mary Hardin-Baylor (ASC, South)   19   2   0.905   0.493   0.507   1.000   1.905
17   Guilford (ODAC, South)   19   4   0.826   0.544   0.528   1.072   1.898
18   Bowdoin (NESCAC, NE)   19   5   0.792   0.571   0.529   1.100   1.892 - C5
19   Widener (MACC, Mid Atl)    16   4   0.800   0.557   0.534   1.091   1.891 - C6
20   Capital (OAC, GL)   19   4   0.826   0.540   0.523   1.063   1.889
21   Hope (MIAA, GL)   14   2   0.875   0.517   0.497   1.014   1.889
22   Brockport St (SUNYAC, East)    15   4   0.789   0.560   0.536   1.096   1.885 - C7
23   Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC, South)    18   4   0.818   0.543   0.522   1.065   1.883 - C8
24   Loras* (IIAC, West)    16   3   0.842   0.499   0.541   1.040   1.882
25   Middlebury (NESCAC, NE)    16   5   0.762   0.595   0.525   1.120   1.882 - C9
26   Wooster (NCAC, GL)   14   2   0.875   0.509   0.490   0.999   1.874
27   Rhode Island* (LEC, NE)    19   5   0.792   0.550   0.532   1.082   1.874 -C10
28   St. Thomas (MIAC, West)   18   3   0.857   0.493   0.522   1.015   1.872
29   UW-Whitewater* (WIAC, West)   18   4   0.818   0.505   0.537   1.042   1.860 - C11
30   Millsaps (SCAC, South)    16   2   0.889   0.475   0.494   0.969   1.858 - C12
31   Chicago* (UAA, MW)   15   7   0.682   0.601   0.569   1.170   1.852 - C13
32   Heidelberg (OAC, GL)    17   4   0.810   0.516   0.524   1.040   1.850- C14
33   Buena Vista* (IIAC, West)   15   3   0.833   0.473   0.534   1.007   1.840 - C15
34   Maryville (GSAC, South)   15   2   0.882   0.461   0.495   0.956   1.838 - Pool B
35   Nazareth* (E8, East)   18   6   0.750   0.548   0.538   1.086   1.836
36   Bates (NESCAC, NE)    16   6   0.727   0.566   0.541   1.107   1.834 - C16
37   York, Pa (CAC, Mid-Alt)   18   5   0.783   0.543   0.503   1.046   1.829
38   Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW, MW)    14   7   0.667   0.617   0.544   1.161   1.828 - C17


39   St. Lawrence (LL, East)   15   5   0.750   0.560   0.515   1.075   1.825
40   Cal Lutheran (SCIAC, West)    15   4   0.789   0.507   0.526   1.033   1.822
41   Penn State - Behrend (AMCC, GL)   18   3   0.857   0.468   0.494   0.962   1.819
42   Wheaton, IL (CCIW, MW)    14   6   0.700   0.565   0.554   1.119   1.819
43   Albright (MACC, Mid-Atl   15   6   0.714   0.557   0.544   1.101   1.815
44   UW-Oshkosh (WIAC, West)   14   6   0.700   0.580   0.535   1.115   1.815
45   Richard Stockton (NJAC, Atl)   18   5   0.783   0.509   0.523   1.032   1.815
46   Emerson (GNAC, NE)   20   3   0.870   0.442   0.502   0.944   1.814
47   UW-Platteville (WIAC, West)    16   5   0.762   0.510   0.539   1.049   1.811
48   Albion (MIAA, GL)   13   3   0.813   0.498   0.498   0.996   1.809
49   DePauw (SCAC, South)    16   4   0.800   0.499   0.509   1.008   1.808
50   Randolph-Macon (ODAC, South)   14   5   0.737   0.542   0.528   1.070   1.807
51   Stevens* (E8, East)   20   5   0.800   0.461   0.525   0.986   1.786
52   Elms (NAC, NE)   16   5   0.762   0.540   0.484   1.024   1.786
53   Roanoke (ODAC, South)   15   7   0.682   0.586   0.514   1.100   1.782
54   William Paterson (NJAC, Atlantic)   17   6   0.739   0.524   0.517   1.041   1.780
55   Messiah (MACC, Mid-Atl)   13   8   0.619   0.633   0.527   1.160   1.779
56   Oswego State (SUNYAC, East)    13   6   0.684   0.575   0.517   1.092   1.776
57   Elmhurst (CCIW, MW)    17   6   0.739   0.499   0.536   1.035   1.774
58   DeSales (MACF, Mid-Atl)   16   4   0.800   0.465   0.505   0.970   1.770
59   Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC, GL)    15   5   0.750   0.528   0.492   1.020   1.770
60   Williams (NESCAC, NE)   16   7   0.696   0.532   0.541   1.073   1.769
61   Salem State (MASCAC, NE)   18   6   0.750   0.512   0.503   1.015   1.765
62   Farmingdale St (SKY, Atl)   18   4   0.818   0.469   0.476   0.945   1.763
63   Nebraska Wesleyan (IND, West)   6   1   0.857   0.375   0.530   0.905   1.762
64   Conn College (NESCAC, NE)   16   7   0.696   0.527   0.535   1.062   1.758
65   Mississippi College (ASC, South)   15   5   0.750   0.498   0.508   1.006   1.756
66   Coast Guard (NEWMAC, NE)   16   6   0.727   0.496   0.529   1.025   1.752
67   Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC, West)   16   6   0.727   0.504   0.518   1.022   1.749
68   Lycoming (MACC, Mid-Atl)   13   8   0.619   0.578   0.552   1.130   1.749
69   Hamilton (LL, East)   15   6   0.714   0.526   0.503   1.029   1.743
70   Webster (SLIAC, MW)   16   5   0.762   0.492   0.481   0.973   1.735
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2008, 04:50:22 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2008, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 23, 2008, 02:10:50 PM
I know they play in a tough league, but 7 in-region losses sure seems like a lot to be considered for Pool C.

In-region winning % is only one of the primary criteria.  Chicago is great is one of the other biggies - strength of schedule.  OWP = .601 (13th in country).   

Illinois Wesleyan is basically in the same boat - 7 in-region losses, but the #6 OWP in the nation (.617).  5 of IWU's 7 regional losses are to conference leaders:

@ Wash U (1st, UAA)
@ Chicago (1st, UAA)
@ Occidental (1st, SCIAC)
vs Augustana (1st CCIW)
@ Augustana (1st CCIW)

The new OWP/OOWP system should keep teams like Chicago and IWU at least on the bubble, whereas with QOWI they'd be dead.
I hope that someone will run the QOWI versus the OWP/OOWP.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Downtown on February 23, 2008, 06:35:36 PM
I think their are no questions if Oshkosh should be considered for a Pool C bid, after leading by 8 at half, they lose to a very young and inexperienced UW-Superior by 10 today.

Superior is very dangerous (they also knocked off Platteville) and for anyone that has ever slighty paid attention to the WIAC, the rise of the Yellowjackets is a bit surprising, but this team will be contending for the WIAC title next year, and perhaps after.

Now eyes turn to Platteville as the Pioneers and Pointers tip off. If Platteville loses tonight, its another team that the West can scratch off from the Pool C contenders list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2008, 07:19:11 PM
Q, thanks for doing that chart, but (despite the parentheses) the way you calculated it gives twice as much weight to OWP and OOWP as to in-region winning percentage.  (If you wanted 'SOS' to count equally with in-region %, you'd need to divide the sum of OWP and OOWP by 2, then add IR%.)  While we just don't know what the selection committee will do with OWP and OOWP, your weighting seems unlikely.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2008, 08:39:44 PM
Not up on scoreboard yet, but a WIAC poster has Platteville routing UWSP by 19(?)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Downtown on February 23, 2008, 10:09:20 PM
Don't count out Platteville yet. Jeff Skemp is a senior who has the talent and power to take the Pioneers to a NCAA bid.

You could still see three teams coming out of the WIAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: voice on February 23, 2008, 10:15:52 PM
Mr. Ypsi - did you think I was dreaming the UWSP-UWP final score??? ??? ??? :'(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2008, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: voice on February 23, 2008, 10:15:52 PM
Mr. Ypsi - did you think I was dreaming the UWSP-UWP final score??? ??? ??? :'(


Sorry, but I like 'official' confirmation before I stick my neck out too far! :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2008, 11:28:22 PM
It'll be interesting how the rankings will look like in the West Region.  Point lost big time.  They now have 5 in-region losses and then to get a Pool C, they'd take in another in-region loss.  6 should get them in, depending on the rest of the West Region.  They may have to play Platteville again in the semis, if both get that far.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 23, 2008, 11:53:20 PM
Quote from: Mr. Downtown on February 23, 2008, 10:09:20 PM
Don't count out Platteville yet. Jeff Skemp is a senior who has the talent and power to take the Pioneers to a NCAA bid.

You could still see three teams coming out of the WIAC.

Junior, actually, unfortunately for the entire rest of the conference...  Platteville is going to be the team to beat next year, even with up-and-coming Superior and Point with everybody back but Hicklin.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2008, 12:08:40 AM
Tom, IWU lost to NPU by 10 in OT.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 24, 2008, 03:31:02 AM
Tom,

Occidental lost to Whittier 69-65

Cal Lutheran beat Redlands 70-64
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 24, 2008, 04:15:50 AM
Buena Vista 80-79 over Loras
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Downtown on February 24, 2008, 10:02:34 AM
One can make a case that the top 3 team's in the West Region would be WIAC teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 24, 2008, 10:07:13 AM
Daily update on Pool C issues:

Heidelberg and Whitewater have clinched their Pool C bids, joining Gettysburg, Brandeis, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Virginia Wesleyan, and Trinity CT as likely Pool C teams.

PS-Behrend and Emerson have moved up so they will be in Pool C contention if they fail to win their conference tournaments.

Brockport and Rhode Island lost their margin of error; they now sit firmly on the bubble.

UW-Platteville replaces Stevens as the last team in the current Pool C; Stevens does, however, replace Hamilton as the most likely Pool A from the E8.

York PA is still a likely Pool A, but they are no longer in contention for Pool C.

Scranton passes Moravian for the last Pool B.


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2008, 11:04:31 AM
Saturday's results included...

Results and schedules for this week (Feb. 18-Feb. 24)

Atlantic
1. Richard Stockton:  def. Manhattanville 84-71; won at Kean 70-65.
2. William Paterson:  LOST to Ramapo 83-80 OT; Won at Rutgers-Newark 61-58.
3. Farmingdale State: LOST at St. Joseph's (L.I.) 91-81; Won at Yeshiva 73-43.
4. York (N.Y.): def. Hunter 89-77 in semis; LOST to John Jay in CUNYAC Final 68-54.
5. SUNY-Old Westbury:  def. SUNY-Purchase 96-45; Won at SUNY-Maritime 82-67.

East
1. Plattsburgh State:  Won at Cortland State 56-53; Won at SUNYIT 86-75.
2. Rochester:  Def. Case Western Reserve 75-56; Def. Emory 76-63.
3. Brockport State:  LOST at Geneseo State 72-62.
4. Stevens:  LOST at Ithaca 93-82.
5. Nazareth:  Won at Elmira 84-57; LOST at Ithaca 88-84.

Great Lakes
1. Capital:  LOST to Heidelberg 80-74; Won at Otterbein 87-77.   
2. Wooster:  Def. Allegheny 84-74; Won at Earlham 92-65.
3. Hope:  Def. Calvin 76-59; Won at Tri-State 74-57.
4. Albion:  Def. Tri-State 60-50; def. Alma 84-74.
5. Penn State-Behrend:  Def. Lake Erie 70-65; Won at Pitt-Bradford 69-54.
6. Heidelberg: Won at Capital 80-74; Won at Muskingum 108-102 2OT.

Middle Atlantic
1. Ursinus:  Def. Haverford 82-75 OT; Won at Muhlenberg 72-69.
2. Gettysburg:  Won at Franklin and Marshall 75-68; def. McDaniel 78-57.
3. Widener:  LOST at Albright 86-81 OT; def. Elizabethtown 84-68.
4. DeSales:  LOST at Arcadia 66-62 OT; Won at Bloomsburg 75-67.
5. York (Pa.):  Won at Gallaudet 112-69; LOST at Marymount 94-83.
6. Messiah:  LOST at Lebanon Valley 68-65; LOST to Albright 82-70.
7. Moravian: LOST to Scranton 82-60.
8. Lycoming:  Won at Elizabethtown 56-54; LOST to Lebanon Valley 72-68.

Midwest
1. Washington U.:  LOST to Brandeis 68-66; def. plays NYU 61-52.
2. Augustana:  Def. Illinois Wesleyan 83-67; Won at North Central (IL) 63-59.
3. Lawrence:  Def. St. Norbert 69-61; Won at Carroll 92-80.
4. Chicago:  Def. NYU 81-62; def. Brandeis 74-66.
5. Illinois Wesleyan:  LOST at Augustana 83-67; LOST to North Park 67-57 OT.
6. Wheaton (Ill.):  Won at Millikin 65-56; def. Elmhurst 78-69.
7. Elmhurst:  Def. North Central (IL) 88-67; LOST at Wheaton (IL) 78-69.
8. Carroll:  LOST at Ripon 96-90; LOST to Lawrence 92-80.

Northeast
1. Amherst:  Def. Colby 86-69 in NESCAC quarters 
2. Mass-Dartmouth:  Won at Mass-Boston 92-72; Def. Plymouth State 80-67.
3. Brandeis:  Won at Washington U. 68-66; LOST at Chicago 66-74.
4. Worcester Tech:  Won at Wheaton (MA) 109-58; def. Babson 65-49.
5. Rhode Island College:  Def. Western Connecticut 71-60; LOST at Eastern Connecticut 79-77.
6. Bowdoin:  Def. Bates 83-50 in NESCAC quarters.
7. Trinity (Conn.):  Def. Connecticut College 69-60 in NESCAC quarters.
8. Middlebury:  Def. Williams in 96-59 NESCAC quarters.
9. Emerson:  Def. Emmanuel 82-79; Def. Norwich 74-48.
10. Bates:  Won at Bowdoin 65-62; LOST at Bowdoin 83-50 in NESCAC quarters

South
1. Centre:  Won at Olgethorpe 65-59; won at Sewanee 82-50.
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor:  Def. Hardin-Simmons 82-76; def. McMurry 70-59.
3. Guilford:  Won at Washington and Lee 65-52; def. Emory and Henry 122-104.
4. Virginia Wesleyan:  Def. Lynchburg 86-52.
5. Maryville (Tenn.):  Def. Piedmont 98-70.
6. DePauw:  Won at Sewanee 66-51; LOST at Oglethorpe, 80-86 2OT.
7. Millsaps:  Def. Hendrix 78-55.
8. Randolph-Macon:  Won at Eastern Mennonite 82-55; Def. Hampden-Sydney 72-66.

West
1. UW-Stevens Point:  Def. La Crosse 89-62; LOST at Platteville 84-65.
2. St. Thomas:  LOST at Concordia-Moorhead 67-57; Won at St. John's 82-63.
3. Occidental:  Def. Cal. Lutheran 67-63; LOST to Whittier 69-65.
4. UW-Whitewater:  Def. Oshkosh 66-51; def. River Falls 80-75.
5. Cal Lutheran:  LOST at Occidental 67-63; Won at Redlands 70-64.
6. Buena Vista:  LOST at Central 73-71; Def. Loras 80-79.
7. UW-Platteville:  Def. Eau Claire 75-58; Def. Stevens Point 84-65.
8. UW-Oshkosh:  LOST at Whitewater 66-51; LOST to Superior 77-67.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 24, 2008, 01:47:02 PM
Wow the west region is a mess.  Seems like none of the teams can hold their position down the final stretch of the season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 24, 2008, 01:48:38 PM
So is Oxy on the bubble now if they don't win the SCIAC's AQ?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ajsnc13 on February 24, 2008, 09:31:43 PM
how many teams do people think will get pool c bids from the nescac?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on February 24, 2008, 09:45:39 PM
at most 2 pool c, probably only 1. so 2 bids tops total from the NESCAC, Amherst + whoever is in the final, and then maybe middlebury.....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2008, 10:10:25 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on February 24, 2008, 09:45:39 PM
at most 2 pool c, probably only 1. so 2 bids tops total from the NESCAC, Amherst + whoever is in the final, and then maybe middlebury.....

They only have a chance at 2 C's if Amherst doesn't win the tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2008, 10:12:59 PM
Pat and Mark pointed out on Hoopsville... the NESCAC has a chance at seeing three teams in the NCAA tournament. I am working to get the archives up so you can listen to those thoughts!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 12:52:39 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2008, 04:47:56 PM
I have been using a spreadsheet to track Pool C.  I decide to run a very, very simple calculation for games through Friday 2/22:

In-region winning % + (OWP + OOWP)

The results follow.  Columns are: Wins, Losses, Winning %, OWP, OOWP, OWP+OOWP, Win % + (OWP + OOWP)

(Disclaimer - I am not suggesting the committee uses this calculation, so just take it for what it's worth!)

* = team currently tied for 1st in league


1   Amherst (NESCAC, NE)   22   1   0.957   0.616   0.550   1.166   2.123
2   Plattsburg St (SUNYAC, East)   19   0   1.000   0.510   0.529   1.039   2.039
3   Washington U.* (UAA, MW)   15   4   0.789   0.650   0.569   1.219   2.008
4   Brandeis* (UAA, NE)    18   4   0.818   0.605   0.585   1.190   2.008 - C1
5   Mass-Dartmouth* (LEC, NE)    22   2   0.917   0.540   0.532   1.072   1.989
.
.
.

Titan, did you only do this calculation for teams that were ranked?  I noticed that Carnegie Mellon was missing from the list and their rating (under your metric) would be 1.803-1.834 (depending on how current the records you used are).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 25, 2008, 02:28:12 AM
I think its funny how in the post the mathimatical expression  "8 )"  was accidentally interpreted by the computer program as  8)

Just some unintentional comedy for ya :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 10:25:44 AM
I have another question that someone can hopefully help me with.  Isnt this OWP and OOWP metric inherently flawed?  And by flawed I mean, giving some conferences a large advantage over others in a significant Pool C criteria.  This is really meant to be a gauge at how good your opponents are, but by counting conference games you are in effect "watering down" this statistic.  This occurs because, every time there is a conference game, one of your opponents loses and one wins (assuming you play everyone in  our conferece at least once).

To think of this in simpler terms, lets take the case of a conference that requires their teams to only play conference games and that there are 26 teams in the conference, with each team playing each other once.  At the end of of the season, you will have a distribution of final records ranging from 25-0 to 0-25; however, if you add up all the wins and all the losses for all the teams in the conference, the numbers will be exactly the same, or in other words, the average record for any closed system of teams will be 0.500 (since every team must win and lose in any given game).  Therefore, every team in this conference will have a OWP and an OOWP of 0.500.  Obviously, in this case, OWP and OOWP are useless because they dont differentiated any of the teams from one another (not much different from reality).

Which brings me back to my point, by including all these conference games in the OWP and OOWP calculation, what you are really doing is just bunching everyone's OWP and OOWP numbers near 0.500.  So in fact, the OWP and OOWP are really just a "watered down" measure of the strength of your out of conference opponents' records. 

Another way of looking at this is to think of the "in-playing" (or "in-breeding", if you will) of your schedule.  To explain what I mean by this, let us take, for example, an out-of-conference team you play and that no one else on your schedule plays. If you beat them, you have just hurt your own OWP by giving your own opponent a loss. However, that team still has the possibility of winning the 24 other games on its schedule without handing anyone on your schedule a loss. This is not the case, however, for conference games.  Since the nature of conference games is that every team plays each other at least once, there will be a lot of "in-playing" or teams on your schedule that play each other.  So regardless of who wins your conference games, one of the team's on your schedule will lose and another one will win (net = 0.500 winning percentage). This will affect your OWP negatively if you play a difficult schedule (by dropping your OWP closer to 0.500) or improve your OWP if you play a weak schedule (by increasing your OWP closer to 0.500). Either way, it will have the net effect of moving everyone's OWP toward 0.500. As you can imagine, this hurts the teams that play more conference games more significantly than it does those who play fewer conference games. UAA, for example, plays 14 conference games and the NESCAC only plays 9

This also explains why OWP and OOWP numbers will approach 0.500 as the seasons progresses, because you will play more and more conference games, which will water down your numbers even more (and bunch up all the teams even more).  We see this bias clearly in that ALL OWP and OOWP are in the approximate range of 0.35-0.65 (through about 80% of the season), making it very hard to use this statistic to sort out the top teams.  Through about 21 games, Babson was the leader in OWP with 0.654, and this number will only drop as the season finishes up (all their remaining games are in conference).

If I am incorrect in my analysis, I apologize in advance, but if I am not, shouldn't this issue really be addressed before the committee uses this as a primary criteria for pool c selection.  (If OWP and OOWP is calculated using only in-region games the bias is even worse as only out-of-conference games can be out-of-region).

Finally, I was just listening to the podcast on the daily dose with Gary Grace and he was talking about they way they use OWP and OOWP.  His main argument for the importance for OWP was that it is a metric that  teams can control by picking a more difficult schedule.  This isnt completely true because it does not take into account the games you have to play in-conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2008, 10:45:46 AM
hugenerd - there is a lot you cover and while you raise an interesting point with conferences, I don't have the time today to convey my thoughts on it. However... there was one thing I wanted to touch on.

Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 10:25:44 AM
Finally, I was just listening to the podcast on the daily dose with Gary Grace and he was talking about they way they use OWP and OOWP.  His main argument for the importance for OWP was that it is a metric that  teams can control by picking a more difficult schedule.  This isnt completely true because it does not take into account the games you have to play in-conference.
This is something that while you may not think is controlled by coaches, it can be. Conferences with teams at the top always in contention with other teams that are notoriously bad need to step up and challenge those lower teams. Coaches need to step up and say, "hey, we are trying to compete here, but you are dragging us down." Sure, this doesn't sound PC, but if a conference wants to be respected and have contenders in the NCAA's, they can't let the bottom of the conference falter year in and year out.

So, yes it is a disadvantage to those conferneces in the middle of the road on near the bottom, but at the same time, you don't want to punish those in conferences that are challenging and produce very good teams despite their record. In years past with the QOWI, many teams were rewarded for beating up on bad teams - they were compariable with a team that barely got through their conference unscathed. The reason was there was NO comparison to who those teams were playing.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 25, 2008, 10:54:43 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 25, 2008, 10:45:46 AM
hugenerd - there is a lot you cover and while you raise an interesting point with conferences, I don't have the time today to convey my thoughts on it. However... there was one thing I wanted to touch on.

Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 10:25:44 AM
Finally, I was just listening to the podcast on the daily dose with Gary Grace and he was talking about they way they use OWP and OOWP.  His main argument for the importance for OWP was that it is a metric that  teams can control by picking a more difficult schedule.  This isnt completely true because it does not take into account the games you have to play in-conference.
This is something that while you may not think is controlled by coaches, it can be. Conferences with teams at the top always in contention with other teams that are notoriously bad need to step up and challenge those lower teams. Coaches need to step up and say, "hey, we are trying to compete here, but you are dragging us down." Sure, this doesn't sound PC, but if a conference wants to be respected and have contenders in the NCAA's, they can't let the bottom of the conference falter year in and year out.

So, yes it is a disadvantage to those conferneces in the middle of the road on near the bottom, but at the same time, you don't want to punish those in conferences that are challenging and produce very good teams despite their record. In years past with the QOWI, many teams were rewarded for beating up on bad teams - they were compariable with a team that barely got through their conference unscathed. The reason was there was NO comparison to who those teams were playing.

Now we'll see if I misunderstand this all. But isn't a team at the top of its conference awarded if teams at the bottom schedule and beat up on even worse teams in the non-conference schedule. For example, if the bottom half of the MIAA, which had a terrible non-conference this year had scheduled the biggest cream puffs in the country they would have a better non-conference record, which would improve the OWP of the upper tier MIAA teams. So the advantage is for perennially top heavy conference teams to want lower teams in their conference to play cream puffs in the non-conference season because as hugenerd mentions the conference OWP will break down to .500 in any league that has a balanced home and away schedule.

The counter is that in improving OWP the other conference teams may hurt your OOWP. While it is likley a team that is bad enough to lose to a conference's bottom tier will lose a lot that is not assured. Maybe the rest of that teams schedule includes even more cream puffs.

Finally, does the OWP include all games, even non-d3 games? If so, the argument I mention above is even stronger.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 10:56:18 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 25, 2008, 10:45:46 AM
hugenerd - there is a lot you cover and while you raise an interesting point with conferences, I don't have the time today to convey my thoughts on it. However... there was one thing I wanted to touch on.

Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 10:25:44 AM
Finally, I was just listening to the podcast on the daily dose with Gary Grace and he was talking about they way they use OWP and OOWP.  His main argument for the importance for OWP was that it is a metric that  teams can control by picking a more difficult schedule.  This isnt completely true because it does not take into account the games you have to play in-conference.
This is something that while you may not think is controlled by coaches, it can be. Conferences with teams at the top always in contention with other teams that are notoriously bad need to step up and challenge those lower teams. Coaches need to step up and say, "hey, we are trying to compete here, but you are dragging us down." Sure, this doesn't sound PC, but if a conference wants to be respected and have contenders in the NCAA's, they can't let the bottom of the conference falter year in and year out.

So, yes it is a disadvantage to those conferneces in the middle of the road on near the bottom, but at the same time, you don't want to punish those in conferences that are challenging and produce very good teams despite their record. In years past with the QOWI, many teams were rewarded for beating up on bad teams - they were compariable with a team that barely got through their conference unscathed. The reason was there was NO comparison to who those teams were playing.

It seems like it would be more useful, in that case, to use a teams OWP out-of-conference.  Meaning, still take into account all the teams you play (including conference teams), but only calculate the OWP and OOWP with their out-of-conference schedule.  This should give you a better feeling of the strong teams and conferences without pushing all the numbers towards 0.500.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 10:58:20 AM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 25, 2008, 10:54:43 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 25, 2008, 10:45:46 AM
hugenerd - there is a lot you cover and while you raise an interesting point with conferences, I don't have the time today to convey my thoughts on it. However... there was one thing I wanted to touch on.

Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 10:25:44 AM
Finally, I was just listening to the podcast on the daily dose with Gary Grace and he was talking about they way they use OWP and OOWP.  His main argument for the importance for OWP was that it is a metric that  teams can control by picking a more difficult schedule.  This isnt completely true because it does not take into account the games you have to play in-conference.
This is something that while you may not think is controlled by coaches, it can be. Conferences with teams at the top always in contention with other teams that are notoriously bad need to step up and challenge those lower teams. Coaches need to step up and say, "hey, we are trying to compete here, but you are dragging us down." Sure, this doesn't sound PC, but if a conference wants to be respected and have contenders in the NCAA's, they can't let the bottom of the conference falter year in and year out.

So, yes it is a disadvantage to those conferneces in the middle of the road on near the bottom, but at the same time, you don't want to punish those in conferences that are challenging and produce very good teams despite their record. In years past with the QOWI, many teams were rewarded for beating up on bad teams - they were compariable with a team that barely got through their conference unscathed. The reason was there was NO comparison to who those teams were playing.

Now we'll see if I misunderstand this all. But isn't a team at the top of its conference awarded if teams at the bottom schedule and beat up on even worse teams in the non-conference schedule. For example, if the bottom half of the MIAA, which had a terrible non-conference this year had scheduled the biggest cream puffs in the country they would have a better non-conference record, which would improve the OWP of the upper tier MIAA teams. So the advantage is for perennially top heavy conference teams to want lower teams in their conference to play cream puffs.

The counter is that in improving OWP the other conference teams may hurt your OOWP but this is not assured.

I agree with DCHopenut.  The bottom teams in the conference playing better teams will only improve your OOWP, but will actually drop your OWP because these teams will probably lose more if they play stronger teams.  And, as Gary Grace said, OWP is more important than OOWP, so the bad teams in your conference playing good teams would actually work against you.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2008, 10:59:09 AM
DCHopeNut - your example would crush the OOWP. If the bottom teams in the MIAA were beating up other bad teams, the OWP would be high, but the OOWP would be very low. The committees would see that in a sense "read through" the fact that the OWP is over-inflated.
Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 10:56:18 AM
It seems like it would be more useful, in that case, to use a teams OWP out-of-conference.  Meaning, still take into account all the teams you play (including conference teams), but only calculate the OWP and OOWP with their out-of-conference schedule.  This should give you a better feeling of the strong teams and conferences without pushing all the numbers towards 0.500.  Just a thought.
hungenerd - then you are eliminating a good conference from the equation... and some teams only play maybe two or three teams out of conference because of the size of their conferences. So... the good conferences tough schedules would not be counted AND those in large conferences would have barely a handful of games to compare against. That just isn't an option for many reasons.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 25, 2008, 11:01:49 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 25, 2008, 10:59:09 AM
DCHopeNut - your example would crush the OOWP. If the bottom teams in the MIAA were beating up other bad teams, the OWP would be high, but the OOWP would be very low. The committees would see that in a sense "read through" the fact that the OWP is over-inflated.

That leads to two questions:

1) Isn't OWP given greater strength than OOWP? (I don't trust the NCAA to read through anything).

2) I added this question into my post above because I couldnt' find the answer but a lot has happened on the board since then. Does the OWP and OOWP include a teams entire schedule? Or just D3 games? Or just in-region?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2008, 11:06:49 AM
DCHopeNut - my initial reaction/answer is that any non D3 games are NOT counted in the process. Also, the OWP is certainly looked at first, but it isn't like the OOWP is ignored. I am sure during a conversation of a team who has a big OWP that someone says - yes, but... look at the OOWP.

There is a reason they got rid of the QOWI and it was the fact that teams opponents - opponents winning percentage was NOT being looked at!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 25, 2008, 11:10:43 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 25, 2008, 11:06:49 AM
DCHopeNut - my initial reaction/answer is that any non D3 games are NOT counted in the process. Also, the OWP is certainly looked at first, but it isn't like the OOWP is ignored. I am sure during a conversation of a team who has a big OWP that someone says - yes, but... look at the OOWP.

There is a reason they got rid of the QOWI and it was the fact that teams opponents - opponents winning percentage was NOT being looked at!

I admit that with the announcement of teams delayed until Monday the extra time does suggest the committee has a better opportunity to look through an uncommonly high OWP.

I just found this http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/owp.htm

That compilation only includes in-region games. Pat, is this the official policy of the NCAA or the assumption of d3hoops?

EDIT 2:PointSpecial on February 10, 2008, 11:12:24 pm
Are the OWP and the OOWP based solely off of teams that each particular ranked team has beaten or is it based off the entire schedule?

I THINK it's against every team, just clarifying...


It's interesting to me to see how things change from one week to the next...  UWSP had been ahead of Platteville, but they played two of the lower WIAC teams and they dropped as their OWP dropped to follow suit!

One more question... is the OWP and OOWP based off of the entire schedule, or just the ones that "count" (IE regional games)? End quote

Ralph Turner's response.
I understand it to be in-region games. [/quote]
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 11:27:18 AM
+1 hugenerd!

The OWP works in the parts of the country with numerous teams, but name the D-III teams that are immediately to the south of Millsaps, Mississippi College, Louisiana College, Texas Lutheran, Trinity, Schreiner, McMurry, Sul Ross State, etc.  :)

I maintain that the NESCAC only plays single round robin to boost its OWP, and therefore its members can avoid inflicting another loss on its "bottom feeders".  Those NESCAC "bottom feeders" then in turn can defeat a "top rung" team from the CCC or the MASCAC or NAC or "future NECC" that has boosted its OWP on their own double round robin bottom feeders.

(I proved this back on the old message board in 2005.  Currently, Tufts is 11-13 on the season, 10-5 in non-conference and 1-8 in conference.  Assume that they would be 2-16 in a double round-robin format, and that 10-5 non-conference record becomes no better than 2-5, and the Tufts season record becomes 4-21!  Put that and the season records of the other NESCAC teams reflecting a "double round robin" into the Amherst OWP!  I will concede the autonomy to the NESCAC in scheduling the conference games to their needs, but let's not unfairly award Amherst the benefits that accrue thereto, or what some might consider "gaming the system".)

I heard Mr Grace talking about the way that the committee considers these factors in its deliberations, especially with the West and South Region (beginning about 8 minutes into the interview).  I am glad that that consideration is on the table.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2008, 11:29:55 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 25, 2008, 10:45:46 AM
hugenerd - there is a lot you cover and while you raise an interesting point with conferences, I don't have the time today to convey my thoughts on it. However... there was one thing I wanted to touch on.

Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 10:25:44 AM
Finally, I was just listening to the podcast on the daily dose with Gary Grace and he was talking about they way they use OWP and OOWP.  His main argument for the importance for OWP was that it is a metric that  teams can control by picking a more difficult schedule.  This isnt completely true because it does not take into account the games you have to play in-conference.
This is something that while you may not think is controlled by coaches, it can be. Conferences with teams at the top always in contention with other teams that are notoriously bad need to step up and challenge those lower teams. Coaches need to step up and say, "hey, we are trying to compete here, but you are dragging us down." Sure, this doesn't sound PC, but if a conference wants to be respected and have contenders in the NCAA's, they can't let the bottom of the conference falter year in and year out.

I disagree that teams are able to control that at all, over 2/3's of most teams OWP will come from conference games, on top of that you have tournaments.  You have absolutely zero control who you'll play in those tournaments.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 11:41:19 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 25, 2008, 10:59:09 AM
DCHopeNut - your example would crush the OOWP. If the bottom teams in the MIAA were beating up other bad teams, the OWP would be high, but the OOWP would be very low. The committees would see that in a sense "read through" the fact that the OWP is over-inflated.
Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 10:56:18 AM
It seems like it would be more useful, in that case, to use a teams OWP out-of-conference.  Meaning, still take into account all the teams you play (including conference teams), but only calculate the OWP and OOWP with their out-of-conference schedule.  This should give you a better feeling of the strong teams and conferences without pushing all the numbers towards 0.500.  Just a thought.
hungenerd - then you are eliminating a good conference from the equation... and some teams only play maybe two or three teams out of conference because of the size of their conferences. So... the good conferences tough schedules would not be counted AND those in large conferences would have barely a handful of games to compare against. That just isn't an option for many reasons.

OK, I see your point, but the OWP is useless in the case of these conferences anyway.  Take Mary-Hardin Baylor for example (or any other team in the ASC).  Since they play 21 conference games, every team in this conference has an OWP and OOWP of ~0.500.  Just to prove my point, I compile this data:

(Through 22 games, data from d3hoops.com)
Team     OWP    OOWP
Mississippi College      0.507     0.507
Texas-Dallas                0.485     0.510
Texas-Tyler                  0.498     0.514
Letourneou                  0.497     0.507
East Texas Baptist       0.520     0.504
Louisiana College        0.531     0.498
Ozarks                         0.517     0.496

MHB                             0.494     0.505
Concordia-Austin         0.498     0.505
Hardin-Simmons          0.507     0.504
Howard Payne             0.503     0.504
McMurry                       0.492     0.505
Sul Ross State             0.506     0.504
Schreiner                     0.505     0.504
Texas Lutheran           0.516     0.503

As you can see, every value is within 0.02 of 0.500 except for one.  And, if you can believe this, the numbers will actually get closer to 0.500 after the numbers are run with all of their games (I used the data on the d3hoops.com site through 22 games). This without a doubt confirms my argument made in my long post on the last page.  OWP and OOWP doesnt tell you anything about these teams that play alot of conference games.  The committee is punishing these teams because they play 21 conference games.  If I were in the ASC I would be irate, because teams like those in the NESCAC who only play 9 conference games are getting a HUGE advantage over my teams just because they dont play their conference opponents twice.  I understand that is is only one criteria and may be used as a "tiebreaker", or whatever, but why should teams from these conferences automatically lose the tiebreaker just because their conference has a 21+ game conference schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2008, 12:10:47 PM
Quote from: DCHopeNut on February 25, 2008, 11:10:43 AM
I just found this http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/owp.htm

That compilation only includes in-region games. Pat, is this the official policy of the NCAA or the assumption of d3hoops?

The Handbook makes it clear that regional competition-only is evaluated for the primary criteria...

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2008/2008_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf

(page 16)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2008, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 11:41:19 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 25, 2008, 10:59:09 AM
DCHopeNut - your example would crush the OOWP. If the bottom teams in the MIAA were beating up other bad teams, the OWP would be high, but the OOWP would be very low. The committees would see that in a sense "read through" the fact that the OWP is over-inflated.
Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 10:56:18 AM
It seems like it would be more useful, in that case, to use a teams OWP out-of-conference.  Meaning, still take into account all the teams you play (including conference teams), but only calculate the OWP and OOWP with their out-of-conference schedule.  This should give you a better feeling of the strong teams and conferences without pushing all the numbers towards 0.500.  Just a thought.
hungenerd - then you are eliminating a good conference from the equation... and some teams only play maybe two or three teams out of conference because of the size of their conferences. So... the good conferences tough schedules would not be counted AND those in large conferences would have barely a handful of games to compare against. That just isn't an option for many reasons.

OK, I see your point, but the OWP is useless in the case of these conferences anyway.  Take Mary-Hardin Baylor for example (or any other team in the ASC).  Since they play 21 conference games, every team in this conference has an OWP and OOWP of ~0.500.  Just to prove my point, I compile this data:

(Through 22 games, data from d3hoops.com)
Team     OWP    OOWP
Mississippi College      0.507     0.507
Texas-Dallas                0.485     0.510
Texas-Tyler                  0.498     0.514
Letourneou                  0.497     0.507
East Texas Baptist       0.520     0.504
Louisiana College        0.531     0.498
Ozarks                         0.517     0.496

MHB                             0.494     0.505
Concordia-Austin         0.498     0.505
Hardin-Simmons          0.507     0.504
Howard Payne             0.503     0.504
McMurry                       0.492     0.505
Sul Ross State             0.506     0.504
Schreiner                     0.505     0.504
Texas Lutheran           0.516     0.503

As you can see, every value is within 0.02 of 0.500 except for one.  And, if you can believe this, the numbers will actually get closer to 0.500 after the numbers are run with all of their games (I used the data on the d3hoops.com site through 22 games). This without a doubt confirms my argument made in my long post on the last page.  OWP and OOWP doesnt tell you anything about these teams that play alot of conference games.  The committee is punishing these teams because they play 21 conference games.  If I were in the ASC I would be irate, because teams like those in the NESCAC who only play 9 conference games are getting a HUGE advantage over my teams just because they dont play their conference opponents twice.  I understand that is is only one criteria and may be used as a "tiebreaker", or whatever, but why should teams from these conferences automatically lose the tiebreaker just because their conference has a 21+ game conference schedule.

I attempted to make this point to the ASC when I addressed their coaches and conference administrators a few years back. ASC teams do not help themselves, either, by scheduling a large portion of their non-conference games against scholarship schools, which does not weigh into this important metric whatsoever.

If the ASC teams are irate, they need only look at their own non-conference scheduling practices, not at other conferences' scheduling.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 25, 2008, 12:21:24 PM
Would it be a better metric if for conference games only the OOWP was considered and OWP ignored?  The OWP for conference games in a conference with an even number of teams will always end up at .500.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2008, 12:15:27 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 11:41:19 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 25, 2008, 10:59:09 AM
DCHopeNut - your example would crush the OOWP. If the bottom teams in the MIAA were beating up other bad teams, the OWP would be high, but the OOWP would be very low. The committees would see that in a sense "read through" the fact that the OWP is over-inflated.
Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 10:56:18 AM
It seems like it would be more useful, in that case, to use a teams OWP out-of-conference.  Meaning, still take into account all the teams you play (including conference teams), but only calculate the OWP and OOWP with their out-of-conference schedule.  This should give you a better feeling of the strong teams and conferences without pushing all the numbers towards 0.500.  Just a thought.
hungenerd - then you are eliminating a good conference from the equation... and some teams only play maybe two or three teams out of conference because of the size of their conferences. So... the good conferences tough schedules would not be counted AND those in large conferences would have barely a handful of games to compare against. That just isn't an option for many reasons.

OK, I see your point, but the OWP is useless in the case of these conferences anyway.  Take Mary-Hardin Baylor for example (or any other team in the ASC).  Since they play 21 conference games, every team in this conference has an OWP and OOWP of ~0.500.  Just to prove my point, I compile this data:

(Through 22 games, data from d3hoops.com)
Team     OWP    OOWP
Mississippi College      0.507     0.507
Texas-Dallas                0.485     0.510
Texas-Tyler                  0.498     0.514
Letourneou                  0.497     0.507
East Texas Baptist       0.520     0.504
Louisiana College        0.531     0.498
Ozarks                         0.517     0.496

MHB                             0.494     0.505
Concordia-Austin         0.498     0.505
Hardin-Simmons          0.507     0.504
Howard Payne             0.503     0.504
McMurry                       0.492     0.505
Sul Ross State             0.506     0.504
Schreiner                     0.505     0.504
Texas Lutheran           0.516     0.503

As you can see, every value is within 0.02 of 0.500 except for one.  And, if you can believe this, the numbers will actually get closer to 0.500 after the numbers are run with all of their games (I used the data on the d3hoops.com site through 22 games). This without a doubt confirms my argument made in my long post on the last page.  OWP and OOWP doesnt tell you anything about these teams that play alot of conference games.  The committee is punishing these teams because they play 21 conference games.  If I were in the ASC I would be irate, because teams like those in the NESCAC who only play 9 conference games are getting a HUGE advantage over my teams just because they dont play their conference opponents twice.  I understand that is is only one criteria and may be used as a "tiebreaker", or whatever, but why should teams from these conferences automatically lose the tiebreaker just because their conference has a 21+ game conference schedule.

I attempted to make this point to the ASC when I addressed their coaches and conference administrators a few years back. ASC teams do not help themselves, either, by scheduling a large portion of their non-conference games against scholarship schools, which does not weigh into this important metric whatsoever.

If the ASC teams are irate, they need only look at their own non-conference scheduling practices, not at other conferences' scheduling.

I understand that out-of-conference scheduling is up to each individual school, but I dont think in the case of the ASC, even if they played their 4 out-of-conference games against d3 in-region schools, it would make much difference in their OWP.  They would have to change the way they play their entire conference schedule.  This may not be possible due to travel restrictions/costs, availability of non-conference teams, etc.  I still think it gives conferences who only play a few conference games, too much of an advantage.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: All-around on February 25, 2008, 12:22:33 PM
Lets say Amherst and UMD win both their tournaments and recieve pool A bids.

Is it fair to say Trinity and Bowdoin recieve pool C's.

And then who else...

RIC is next I am assuming?

Can a team like a 24-4 emerson college recieve one?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 25, 2008, 12:31:17 PM
Here are my updated rankings with games through Sunday:

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   01   0.6787 0.6016 0.5535 Amherst                   001  A w C       23-1 23-2
NE  13   02   02   0.6285 0.5319 0.5303 Mass-Dartmouth            003  A w C       23-2 23-2
NE  17   03   04   0.6136 0.5434 0.5414 Worcester Polytech        010  A w C       19-4 20-5
NE  90   04   03   0.6456 0.6100 0.5798 Brandeis                  014  C 2         18-5 19-5
NE  16   05   05   0.6194 0.5724 0.5327 Bowdoin                   015  C 3         20-5 20-5
NE  16   06   06   0.6277 0.5999 0.5283 Middlebury                020  C 5         18-5 19-6
NE  16   07   07   0.6387 0.6165 0.5490 Trinity (Conn.)           022  C 7         17-5 19-6
NE  12   08   09   0.5648 0.4419 0.5003 Emerson                   034  A w C       21-3 22-3
NE  13   09   08   0.5961 0.5469 0.5305 Rhode Island College      039  C 15        19-6 19-6
NE  16   10   10   0.5977 0.5765 0.5423 Bates                     050  C second    16-7 17-8
NE  15   11   11   0.5691 0.5102 0.4832 Elms                      054  A second    17-5 19-6
NE  14   12   12   0.5714 0.5110 0.5036 Salem State               056  A second    19-6 19-6

EA  23   01   01   0.6309 0.4980 0.5276 Plattsburgh State         002  A w C       20-0 23-2
EA  90   02   02   0.6343 0.5948 0.5649 Rochester                 017  C 4         18-5 19-5
EA  23   03   03   0.6049 0.5691 0.5312 Brockport State           035  C 13        15-5 18-7
EA  24   04   07   0.5954 0.5527 0.5144 St. Lawrence              037  A w C       16-5 17-8
EA  21   05   05   0.5613 0.4607 0.5236 Stevens                   046  A second    20-5 20-5
EA  21   06   04   0.5906 0.5552 0.5319 Nazareth                  052  C second    18-7 18-7
EA  23   07   06   0.5788 0.5420 0.5169 Oswego State              058  C second    15-6 18-6

AT  32   01   03   0.5814 0.5108 0.5214 Richard Stockton          036  A w C       18-5 18-6
AT  33   02   01   0.5590 0.4666 0.4767 SUNY-Farmingdale          043  A second    19-4 20-5
AT  32   03   02   0.5802 0.5275 0.5158 William Paterson          049  C second    18-6 18-6

MA  45   01   01   0.6227 0.5120 0.5145 Ursinus                   004  A w C       20-1 23-2
MA  45   02   02   0.6199 0.5294 0.5161 Gettysburg                005  C 1         19-2 21-3
MA  42   03   03   0.6160 0.5601 0.5343 Widener                   016  A w C       17-4 20-5
MA  42   04   07   0.5963 0.5568 0.5443 Albright                  045  C second    16-6 16-7
MA  41   05   04   0.5825 0.5390 0.5020 York (Pa.)                047  A second    18-6 18-7
MA  43   06   05   0.5589 0.4651 0.5055 DeSales                   051  A second    16-4 20-5

SO  54   01   01   0.6129 0.5031 0.4981 Centre                    006  A w C       18-1 23-1
SO  51   02   02   0.6004 0.4940 0.5047 Mary Hardin-Baylor        008  A w C       20-2 22-3
SO  53   03   04   0.6053 0.5306 0.5267 Guilford                  011  A w C       20-4 21-4
SO  53   04   03   0.5970 0.5198 0.5225 Virginia Wesleyan         021  C 6         19-4 20-5
SO  54   05   05   0.5847 0.4756 0.4929 Millsaps                  024  C 8         17-2 22-3
SO  52   06   06   0.5719 0.4511 0.4967 Maryville (Tenn.)         030  B 1         16-2 22-2
SO  53   07   08   0.5885 0.5384 0.5272 Randolph-Macon            044  C second    15-5 20-5
SO  54   08   07   0.5708 0.5063 0.5088 DePauw                    053  C second    16-5 19-6
SO  51   09   09   0.5707 0.5070 0.5066 Mississippi College       055  C second    165 19-5

GL  62   01   03   0.5979 0.5064 0.4963 Hope                      012  A w C       15-2 21-3
GL  64   02   01   0.6035 0.5284 0.5239 Capital                   013  A w C       20-4 21-4
GL  63   03   02   0.5852 0.4844 0.4899 Wooster                   025  A w C       15-2 22-3
GL  64   04   04   0.5941 0.5189 0.5202 Heidelberg                028  C 9         18-4 20-5
GL  61   05   06   0.5719 0.4662 0.4917 Penn State-Behrend        032  A w C       19-3 21-4
GL  62   06   05   0.5678 0.4744 0.4987 Albion                    040  C 16        14-3 18-5
GL  63   07   08   0.5751 0.5255 0.4874 Ohio Wesleyan             048  C second    16-5 17-7

MW  74   01   02   0.6142 0.5245 0.5077 Lawrence                  007  A w C       18-2 20-2
MW  90   02   01   0.6647 0.6467 0.5652 Washington U.             009  A w C       16-4 19-5
MW  71   03   03   0.6244 0.5752 0.5553 Augustana                 018  A w C       19-5 20-5
MW  90   04   05   0.6183 0.6053 0.5670 Chicago                   041  C 17        16-7 17-7
MW  71   05   06   0.6042 0.5769 0.5489 Wheaton (Ill.)            042  C second    15-6 19-6
MW  76   06   08   0.5595 0.4926 0.4801 Webster                   057  A second    17-5 19-5
MW  73   07   09   0.5525 0.4662 0.4949 Aurora                    059  B 2         18-5 20-5

WE  82   01   01   0.5960 0.4990 0.5222 St. Thomas                019  A w C       19-3 21-4
WE  84   02   03   0.6004 0.5309 0.5275 Occidental                023  A w C       13-3 20-4
WE  86   03   02   0.6143 0.5747 0.5251 UW-Stevens Point          026  A w C       18-5 20-5
WE  81   04   04   0.5903 0.4958 0.5276 Buena Vista               027  A w C       16-3 20-5
WE  86   05   07   0.5874 0.4923 0.5391 UW-Whitewater             029  C 10        19-4 21-4
WE  81   06   05   0.5929 0.5183 0.5350 Loras                     031  C 11        16-4 19-6
WE  84   07   06   0.5809 0.4975 0.5285 Cal Lutheran              033  C 12        16-4 20-4
WE  86   08   09   0.5898 0.5256 0.5351 UW-Platteville            038  C 14        17-5 19-6
WE  89   09   11   0.5398 0.3873 0.5274 Nebraska Wesleyan         060  B 3         6-1 13-12


I've trimmed the rankings down to the top 60 nationally, as no one below that has any shot at a Pool C bid.

The top 31, through Loras, have probably clinched a Pool C bid already if they need one.

The next set of teams down to #41 Chicago are on the bubble, subject to seeing bids disappear with hgiher ranked teams gettting upset in conference tournaments.

There typically isn't much movement in tournament week. With the exception of the UAA, Pool C contestants will have exactly one loss this week (no losses would mean that they win the Pool A bid). NOTE: I just realized that the St. Louis and Southern Cal conferences both have one league game left before tournament time. So Cal Lutheran must win their final regular season game to hold onto their position.

Scranton leads Chapman and Moravian in the race for the final Pool B slot, but Nebraska Wesleyan's bid really depends on how they do in the D3 Independents Tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 25, 2008, 12:21:24 PM
Would it be a better metric if for conference games only the OOWP was considered and OWP ignored?  The OWP for conference games in a conference with an even number of teams will always end up at .500.

It doesnt matter if the number of conference games is even, as long as someone wins and someone loses every game, the average will 0.500.

OOWP is only slightly better than OWP.  Lets say you play in a league where everyone plays 14 conference games, therefore 14*14/(25*25) = 31% of the games used to calculate OWP are in-conference ; for OOWP, this number drops to 14^3/25^3 = 18%.  Only slightly better.

Lets see how # of conference games will effect different conferences.  In the NESCAC they only 9 conference games, so the % of conference games used to calculate your OWP is 9*9/(25*25) = 13%.  On the other hand, in the ASC (21 conference games), this percent is 21^2/25^2=71%.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fpc85 on February 25, 2008, 01:17:58 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 11:27:18 AM
+1 hugenerd!

The OWP works in the parts of the country with numerous teams, but name the D-III teams that are immediately to the south of Millsaps, Mississippi College, Louisiana College, Texas Lutheran, Trinity, Schreiner, McMurry, Sul Ross State, etc.  :)

I maintain that the NESCAC only plays single round robin to boost its OWP, and therefore its members can avoid inflicting another loss on its "bottom feeders".  Those NESCAC "bottom feeders" then in turn can defeat a "top rung" team from the CCC or the MASCAC or NAC or "future NECC" that has boosted its OWP on their own double round robin bottom feeders.

(I proved this back on the old message board in 2005.  Currently, Tufts is 11-13 on the season, 10-5 in non-conference and 1-8 in conference.  Assume that they would be 2-16 in a double round-robin format, and that 10-5 non-conference record becomes no better than 2-5, and the Tufts season record becomes 4-21!  Put that and the season records of the other NESCAC teams reflecting a "double round robin" into the Amherst OWP!  I will concede the autonomy to the NESCAC in scheduling the conference games to their needs, but let's not unfairly award Amherst the benefits that accrue thereto, or what some might consider "gaming the system".)

I heard Mr Grace talking about the way that the committee considers these factors in its deliberations, especially with the West and South Region (beginning about 8 minutes into the interview).  I am glad that that consideration is on the table.
If no rules are broken why should they be penalized. It is the rules that should be changed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 01:22:13 PM
The SCAC is similarly afflicted with OWP's at parity.

193 Centre               18-1     .947     0.503     0.498
278 Millsaps              17-2     .895     0.476     0.493
176 DePauw             16-5     .762     0.506     0.509
219 Oglethorpe        14-7     .667     0.496     0.511
231 Trinity (Texas)     13-7     .650     0.493     0.509
226 Hendrix                8-10     .444     0.494     0.495
172 Southwestern      8-11     .421     0.507     0.498
116 Rhodes                7-12     .368     0.523     0.490
118 Austin                 8-15     .348     0.523     0.483
141 Sewanee              6-16     .273     0.516     0.496
158 Colorado College      0-18     .000     0.511     0.502

I believe that it is the lack of schools in proximity that prevents these schools from rising to the top.  It seems to me to be a "compounding interest" problem.

Hugenerd showed one component of it, but the fact the Northeast Region schools (and the UAA schools) can build schedules that pick the cream of the cream allows them to hit the high OWP numbers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 01:42:26 PM
Quote from: fpc85 on February 25, 2008, 01:17:58 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 11:27:18 AM
+1 hugenerd!

The OWP works in the parts of the country with numerous teams, but name the D-III teams that are immediately to the south of Millsaps, Mississippi College, Louisiana College, Texas Lutheran, Trinity, Schreiner, McMurry, Sul Ross State, etc.  :)

I maintain that the NESCAC only plays single round robin to boost its OWP, and therefore its members can avoid inflicting another loss on its "bottom feeders".  Those NESCAC "bottom feeders" then in turn can defeat a "top rung" team from the CCC or the MASCAC or NAC or "future NECC" that has boosted its OWP on their own double round robin bottom feeders.

(I proved this back on the old message board in 2005.  Currently, Tufts is 11-13 on the season, 10-5 in non-conference and 1-8 in conference.  Assume that they would be 2-16 in a double round-robin format, and that 10-5 non-conference record becomes no better than 2-5, and the Tufts season record becomes 4-21!  Put that and the season records of the other NESCAC teams reflecting a "double round robin" into the Amherst OWP!  I will concede the autonomy to the NESCAC in scheduling the conference games to their needs, but let's not unfairly award Amherst the benefits that accrue thereto, or what some might consider "gaming the system".)

I heard Mr Grace talking about the way that the committee considers these factors in its deliberations, especially with the West and South Region (beginning about 8 minutes into the interview).  I am glad that that consideration is on the table.
If no rules are broken why should they be penalized. It is the rules that should be changed.
I agree. No one should be penalized, but also the integrity and accuracy of the statistical tool should be understood.

I have used the example of Rogers Hornsby and George Brett last year in a Daily Dose blog when we were considering the validity of the QOWI.  We may need to consider that in the OWP/OOWP's that we are seeing.

http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2007/02/25/waiting-for-the-rules-to-change/

Quote#  Ralph Turner Says:
February 27th, 2007 at 9:31 pm

I will appreciate some real statisticians to post, but I remember a stat about the best baseball Batting Average ever, Rogers Hornsby 1924 .424 or George Brett's 1980 .390.

It seems that Brett's .390 was higher in terms of Standard Deviations above the mean than Hornsby's.

Do we have a sufficiently large "n" to determine whether Amherst's Opponents opponents record is higher above the mean than UW-SP's or Mississippi College's or Wooster's? If we have a regionally based statistic, doesn't the standard deviations above the mean consider that?

Thanks.

An understanding of the "regional natures" [my quotations, not his] was one of Mr Grace's specific points in his interview last night.  It is different in the West and the South than in other regions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 25, 2008, 02:28:42 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2008, 12:15:27 PM
I attempted to make this point to the ASC when I addressed their coaches and conference administrators a few years back. ASC teams do not help themselves, either, by scheduling a large portion of their non-conference games against scholarship schools, which does not weigh into this important metric whatsoever.

If the ASC teams are irate, they need only look at their own non-conference scheduling practices, not at other conferences' scheduling.

Pat, I understand what you are saying and that point is valid, but I wouldn't put all of the blame on the ASC coaches. The scarcity of Division III schools in this part of the country is a huge problem that other regions of the country, outside of the West, do not deal with. I would expect that the travel budgets for other teams already pale in comparison to the ASC shools. Most teams are forced to use the other 4-5 nonconference games to play guaranteed games, or stay at home. 99% of Division III administrations would do the same thing under similiar circumstances.

There was a map posted a few weeks back showing the location of the all DIII institutions. I think most people would be surprised how few DIII schools there actually are in the South and West regions compared to other parts of the country.

I know there are some ways the schedules could be better, but scheduling alone will never make up the difference. And I don't know if nonconference scheduling will ever be much better considering the already very large travel budgets for conference games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Cards7580 on February 25, 2008, 04:11:58 PM
A breakdown of Division III schools locations

131 = Northeast  Maine to New York
  98 = Atlantic      Pennsylvania to South Carolina
120 = Central      MN, WI, MI, OU, IN, IL, KY, MO, IA
  17 = SouthEast AR, TN, LA, MS, AL, GA, FL
  19 = Midwest     ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, MY, WY, CO
  22 = West          WA, OR, CA, ID, NV, UT, AZ, NM

These numbers may have changed because I think the numbers are a couple of years old, but the general idea is most of the Division III schools are in three basic areas.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 25, 2008, 04:58:31 PM
A further break down of the west:

WA = 4
OR = 5  The NWC

Southern Cal = 8   The SCIAC

Throw in UC Santa Cruz and thats 18 of the 22
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 05:02:26 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 25, 2008, 04:58:31 PM
A further break down of the west:

WA = 4
OR = 5  The NWC

Southern Cal = 8   The SCIAC

Throw in UC Santa Cruz and thats 18 of the 22

Cal State East Bay, Menlo, Chapman and provisional LaSierra.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2008, 05:17:13 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 25, 2008, 02:28:42 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2008, 12:15:27 PM
I attempted to make this point to the ASC when I addressed their coaches and conference administrators a few years back. ASC teams do not help themselves, either, by scheduling a large portion of their non-conference games against scholarship schools, which does not weigh into this important metric whatsoever.

If the ASC teams are irate, they need only look at their own non-conference scheduling practices, not at other conferences' scheduling.

Pat, I understand what you are saying and that point is valid, but I wouldn't put all of the blame on the ASC coaches.

I'm sorry -- if ASC coaches do not make out their own schedules then I will shift my focus to the ADs.

However, as long as you have control over your schedule, then you have no reason to complain if, as a league, you hover at .500.

Hugenerd -- I don't think I agree with your assessment that scheduling more D-III non-conference opponents would have little effect. I did a really quick count and it looks like the ASC played 13 non-ASC games against regional opponents and 42 against non-regional or non-Division III opponents. (Plus, there were a couple non-conference games against conference teams, which are essentially the same as conference games to this metric.)

Are you sure that if the ASC had played three times more non-conference regional games that there wouldn't be an effect?

I hope your table, however, finds its way into the conference meetings this offseason. This is precisely the symptoms you find with an inbred schedule, and it is what I warned of.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 25, 2008, 05:21:38 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 05:02:26 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 25, 2008, 04:58:31 PM
A further break down of the west:

WA = 4
OR = 5  The NWC

Southern Cal = 8   The SCIAC

Throw in UC Santa Cruz and thats 18 of the 22

Cal State East Bay, Menlo, Chapman and provisional LaSierra.

Oh yeah thanks!  So basically, ID, NV, UT, AZ, NM are included in the west region but there aren't any schools.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2008, 06:07:59 PM
In basketball.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pbrooks3 on February 25, 2008, 06:09:26 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 11:27:18 AM
+1 hugenerd!

The OWP works in the parts of the country with numerous teams, but name the D-III teams that are immediately to the south of Millsaps, Mississippi College, Louisiana College, Texas Lutheran, Trinity, Schreiner, McMurry, Sul Ross State, etc.  :)

I maintain that the NESCAC only plays single round robin to boost its OWP, and therefore its members can avoid inflicting another loss on its "bottom feeders".  Those NESCAC "bottom feeders" then in turn can defeat a "top rung" team from the CCC or the MASCAC or NAC or "future NECC" that has boosted its OWP on their own double round robin bottom feeders.

(I proved this back on the old message board in 2005.  Currently, Tufts is 11-13 on the season, 10-5 in non-conference and 1-8 in conference.  Assume that they would be 2-16 in a double round-robin format, and that 10-5 non-conference record becomes no better than 2-5, and the Tufts season record becomes 4-21!  Put that and the season records of the other NESCAC teams reflecting a "double round robin" into the Amherst OWP!  I will concede the autonomy to the NESCAC in scheduling the conference games to their needs, but let's not unfairly award Amherst the benefits that accrue thereto, or what some might consider "gaming the system".)

I heard Mr Grace talking about the way that the committee considers these factors in its deliberations, especially with the West and South Region (beginning about 8 minutes into the interview).  I am glad that that consideration is on the table.

Excellent argument explaining things, Ralph. :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 25, 2008, 07:56:35 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2008, 05:17:13 PM
I'm sorry -- if ASC coaches do not make out their own schedules then I will shift my focus to the ADs.

However, as long as you have control over your schedule, then you have no reason to complain if, as a league, you hover at .500.

Hugenerd -- I don't think I agree with your assessment that scheduling more D-III non-conference opponents would have little effect. I did a really quick count and it looks like the ASC played 13 non-ASC games against regional opponents and 42 against non-regional or non-Division III opponents. (Plus, there were a couple non-conference games against conference teams, which are essentially the same as conference games to this metric.)

Are you sure that if the ASC had played three times more non-conference regional games that there wouldn't be an effect?

I hope your table, however, finds its way into the conference meetings this offseason. This is precisely the symptoms you find with an inbred schedule, and it is what I warned of.

First of all, this has less to do about scheduling and more to do about money. Maybe coaches have total control over who they play in your region of the country where travel budgets don't matter with a Division III opponent at every corner, but options are limited here with so few DIII members. Coaches still answer to administrators and have to work within the framework of budgets.

I'm not saying it's impossible, you are 100% correct to say it could be done better. But  even if there were plenty of DIII opponents and travel was not a consideration, it's still easy to see that 4 nonconference games have little affect on a team's RPI when compared to 12-15 nonconference games for others. The 20-21 conference games were instituted because there are so few DIII opponents and teams needed games. Lowering that number will probably only make the problem worse.

There isn't a perfect system and really there's no one to blame for it, DIII is bigger in certain parts of the country but hopefully it will continue to expand to our regions. I really don't think the OWP and OOWP are that big of a deal because regional winning % is still most important and most deserving teams from the South will get an opportunity in the NCAA Tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2008, 08:02:27 PM
I think it's also clear that playing your four or five non-conference games against regional opponents would have more impact than playing one of them that way.

If the ASC doesn't like the hand its dealt, that's fine. But it needs to play its hand better than it is.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2008, 08:07:29 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 25, 2008, 07:56:35 PM
The 20-21 conference games were instituted because there are so few DIII opponents and teams needed games. Lowering that number will probably only make the problem worse.

It would at least give the schools that want to make the effort the opportunity to do so, and if the ASC is that strong, then it will benefit everyone in the OOWP, even the schools who play Wiley and Belhaven and LSU-Shreveport.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 08:32:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2008, 05:17:13 PM
Are you sure that if the ASC had played three times more non-conference regional games that there wouldn't be an effect?

Obviously it could make a slight difference but it depends on the quality of the opponents you play.  It will still not make as big a difference as having 16 non-conference games compared to 4.

What it comes down to is this:  If OWP and OOWP are only used for tiebreakers to rank teams in-region (and is pretty much not used in the south or west), then I guess it is better than using a coinflip. 

However, if there is a team from the south, like Mississippi College (19-5),  and they are being compared to a team from the northeast, midwest, etc., and the committee cant differentiate on any other metric and work their way down the criteria list to OWP and OOWP and say, "Eureka! The 4th team from the NESCAC (19-6) has an OWP of 0.615 and MC only has an OWP of 0.507, thats a difference of 0.108, that is clearly significant." Then I have a big problem of using OWP as a criteria because that 0.108 means nothing.  It just means that the 4th NESCAC team didnt have as in-bred a schedule.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2008, 08:57:35 PM
Chris, I agree with your larger point (even with 'wiser' scheduling, the ASC is at a disadvantage in playing the OWP card), but your specific numbers are off.  As far as I know, only the NESCAC has a single round-robin format, providing 16 non-con games.  Otherwise, very few conferences would have 12-15 non-con games: an 8-team league doing a double round-robin has 11 such games; a 9-team has but 9; etc.

Pat, if it would be readily available for you, could you list the # of conference games by conference?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 25, 2008, 09:04:23 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2008, 08:07:29 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 25, 2008, 07:56:35 PM
The 20-21 conference games were instituted because there are so few DIII opponents and teams needed games. Lowering that number will probably only make the problem worse.

It would at least give the schools that want to make the effort the opportunity to do so, and if the ASC is that strong, then it will benefit everyone in the OOWP, even the schools who play Wiley and Belhaven and LSU-Shreveport.

The problem is that there will always be far fewer teams wanting that opportunity so I doubt the coaches would vote to lower conference games for financial concerns. ASC member schools are just like DIII's throughout the country who don't have unlimited resources, and most would not spend even more to travel all around the country to improve the ASC's OWP and OOWP.  I doubt there is a conference anywhere in the country who would handle the situation any differently under the same cirumstances. Conferences like the NESCAC work the system well, but it is also convenient in many instances.

But even if travel wasn't considered, how many teams in this area would actually help the RPI that much. Trinity is already playing two ASC teams, and there really isn't another team in this area within 500 miles of the Texas schools. The only logical game not being played would be a MS College vs Millsaps game, but that's just one game. LC is already playing Millsaps. There are few DIII teams here, and even fewer who could actually help the numbers.

Having said that, I still don't think this is a big deal as long as the regional winning percentage is the primary criteria. The ASC has usually managed to get two teams in the tourney most years which is better than most conferences. That is plenty of opportunity to prove yourself in the NCAA Tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 25, 2008, 09:06:02 PM
pabegg,

You mention in your updated rankings "the next set of teams down to #39 Chicago are on the bubble" but you're showing Rhode Island College as #39. #40 is Albion and Chcago is #41. If Chicago is in fact #39 would they be the C 15?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 25, 2008, 09:07:32 PM
The NJAC went to the two division format a few years ago, they play the other four teams in their division twice and the teams from the other division once for a total of 13 conference games.  This was done so the schools could schedule more OOC regional games and Rowan could load up on Bible Colleges.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2008, 09:10:07 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 25, 2008, 08:32:28 PM
What it comes down to is this:  If OWP and OOWP are only used for tiebreakers to rank teams in-region (and is pretty much not used in the south or west), then I guess it is better than using a coinflip. 

However, if there is a team from the south, like Mississippi College (19-5),  and they are being compared to a team from the northeast, midwest, etc., and the committee cant differentiate on any other metric and work their way down the criteria list to OWP and OOWP and say, "Eureka! The 4th team from the NESCAC (19-6) has an OWP of 0.615 and MC only has an OWP of 0.507, thats a difference of 0.108, that is clearly significant." Then I have a big problem of using OWP as a criteria because that 0.108 means nothing.  It just means that the 4th NESCAC team didnt have as in-bred a schedule.

Per Gary Grace, 2008 Division III Men's Basketball Committee Chairman, it's more the latter.  Last night on Hoopsville when asked how in-region winning % and strength of schedule (OWP, with OOWP used to break ties basically) are weighted relative to each other, he said, "We really try to weigh them fairly equally."  In other words, OWP/OOWP is used much more extensively than just as a tie-breaker.  It is a major criterion.

Note, he was also pretty clear that they realize there are different situations from region to region. "You try to weigh what is happening within that region and try to figure out how to apply that outside the region as best you can," he explained.  That said, other criteria fairly equal - winning %, for example - my guess is that teams with good OWP numbers have a big advantage over teams that don't.  In the end, I think the numbers are the numbers.  When Trinity (CT) is sitting there with a .615 OWP and Mississippi College with a .507, I'm pretty sure I know who gets in first.

http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2008/02/25/preparing-for-the-ncaa-tournament-selections/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 25, 2008, 09:13:57 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2008, 09:06:02 PM
pabegg,

You mention in your updated rankings "the next set of teams down to #39 Chicago are on the bubble" but you're showing Rhode Island College as #39. #40 is Albion and Chcago is #41. If Chicago is in fact #39 would they be the C 15?

Chicago is #41 (and the last team on the bubble, just behind RIC and Albion).

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 25, 2008, 09:19:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2008, 08:57:35 PM
Chris, I agree with your larger point (even with 'wiser' scheduling, the ASC is at a disadvantage in playing the OWP card), but your specific numbers are off.  As far as I know, only the NESCAC has a single round-robin format, providing 16 non-con games.  Otherwise, very few conferences would have 12-15 non-con games: an 8-team league doing a double round-robin has 11 such games; a 9-team has but 9; etc.

Pat, if it would be readily available for you, could you list the # of conference games by conference?

Mr. Ypsi, I jumped into this topic about the OOWP and the OWP, but I really don't think it's a big deal right now. The number of nonconference games is irrelevent, there still just aren't enough DIII teams down here to play nonconference. As long as regional winning % is the primary component of regional rankings, it really doesn't matter. But if the OWP and OOWP start leaving out qualified deep south teams with better regional records, then that will be a different story.

But to give everyone an idea of what travel is like down here, I will list MS College's travel dates this year with some quesses on the mileage.
1. Had a 1200 mile roundtrip weekend to UMHB & Concordia.
2. A 1500 mile roundtrip to play Texas Lutheran and Schreiner.
3. A 900 mile roundtrip to play UT-Dallas and UT-Tyler.
4. A 600 mile roundtrip to play LeTourneau and ETBU.
5. 1200 mile roundtrip to play LA College and LeTournea.

All of these trips are by bus, plus MC took an extra trip to fly to Hampden-Sydney's tourney. The travel here is brutal, but more importantly expensive. I guess for MC, fewer conference trips might leave room for a trip somewhere else, but for teams in the central to west side of the ASC, there just aren't any opponents to play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2008, 09:22:49 PM
Stevens Point on the ropes...

http://livestats.internetconsult.com/uwsp/mbball/

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2008, 09:27:37 PM
Chris, one partial solution was suggested by Ralph on your home board - luring 'snowbird' teams to holiday tourneys.  The Texas teams can bring in CCIW, MWC, WIAC, etc. teams and be in-region.  Just going from memory, I believe the administrative regions would allow MC to bring down pretty much any GL team.  That's two more in-region games, and THEY pay for the travel!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: martin on February 25, 2008, 09:32:11 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2008, 09:22:49 PM
Stevens Point on the ropes...

http://livestats.internetconsult.com/uwsp/mbball/



Are we going to witness another WIAC ritual seppuku like 2001?

2001
Tuesday, Feb. 20
Quarterfinals
UW-Stout (#8) 90, UW-Whitewater (#1) 49 (at Whitewater)
UW-Eau Claire (#4) 83, UW-Superior (#5) 76 (at Eau Claire)
UW-Oshkosh (#6) 95, UW-River Falls (#3) 87 (Overtime) (at River Falls)
UW-Platteville (#7) 57, UW-Stevens Point (#2) 56 (at Stevens Point)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 25, 2008, 09:33:42 PM
Quote from: martin on February 25, 2008, 09:32:11 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2008, 09:22:49 PM
Stevens Point on the ropes...

http://livestats.internetconsult.com/uwsp/mbball/



Are we going to witness another WIAC ritual seppuku like 2001?

2001
Tuesday, Feb. 20
Quarterfinals
UW-Stout (#8) 90, UW-Whitewater (#1) 49 (at Whitewater)
UW-Eau Claire (#4) 83, UW-Superior (#5) 76 (at Eau Claire)
UW-Oshkosh (#6) 95, UW-River Falls (#3) 87 (Overtime) (at River Falls)
UW-Platteville (#7) 57, UW-Stevens Point (#2) 56 (at Stevens Point)

Whitewater is the only one with a comfortable lead right now, the other three seeds are fighting to stay alive.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedawg on February 25, 2008, 09:39:37 PM
I just listened to the recent Hoopsville.  Can someone point me to the NCAA rules regarding travel, cost, proximity, etc that deal with how the committee is allowed to seed teams? 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2008, 09:42:46 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on February 25, 2008, 09:39:37 PM
I just listened to the recent Hoopsville.  Can someone point me to the NCAA rules regarding travel, cost, proximity, etc that deal with how the committee is allowed to seed teams? 

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2008/2008_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 25, 2008, 09:53:39 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2008, 09:27:37 PM
Chris, one partial solution was suggested by Ralph on your home board - luring 'snowbird' teams to holiday tourneys.  The Texas teams can bring in CCIW, MWC, WIAC, etc. teams and be in-region.  Just going from memory, I believe the administrative regions would allow MC to bring down pretty much any GL team.  That's two more in-region games, and THEY pay for the travel!

Mr. Ypsi,  we would love to host a Christmas Tournament in our coliseum every year, but we currently have a scheduling conflict on campus that has not allowed the use of our facility. Maybe it can be worked out in the future, but that is the reason we have not brought teams down during the holidays. Bringing a team like Illinois Wesleyan down to this part of the country would be great for DIII basketball in the area.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 09:56:36 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2008, 09:27:37 PM
Chris, one partial solution was suggested by Ralph on your home board - luring 'snowbird' teams to holiday tourneys.  The Texas teams can bring in CCIW, MWC, WIAC, etc. teams and be in-region.  Just going from memory, I believe the administrative regions would allow MC to bring down pretty much any GL team.  That's two more in-region games, and THEY pay for the travel!
I will make the case for Mississippi College and Millsaps...

Come down and visit the Vicksburg Battlefield, the Natchez Trace and the USS Cairo in Vicksburg. Make that part of the trip.

For Huntingdon College, I very strongly recommend the Civil Rights Museum, the F. Scott Fitzgerald Museum and the Museums from the War Between the States. 

Yes, Mississippi is in Administrative Region #3...all of the Great Lakes teams.

For Abilene (McMurry and Hardin-Simmons) Frontier Texas museum and Buffalo Gap Village (a 1880's frontier town operated in conjunction with the History Department at McMurry).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 09:57:11 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 25, 2008, 09:53:39 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2008, 09:27:37 PM
Chris, one partial solution was suggested by Ralph on your home board - luring 'snowbird' teams to holiday tourneys.  The Texas teams can bring in CCIW, MWC, WIAC, etc. teams and be in-region.  Just going from memory, I believe the administrative regions would allow MC to bring down pretty much any GL team.  That's two more in-region games, and THEY pay for the travel!

Mr. Ypsi,  we would love to host a Christmas Tournament in our coliseum every year, but we currently have a scheduling conflict on campus that has not allowed the use of our facility. Maybe it can be worked out in the future, but that is the reason we have not brought teams down during the holidays. Bringing a team like Illinois Wesleyan down to this part of the country would be great for DIII basketball in the area.
Do it Classic style with Millsaps at Millsaps!

(IWU is not in-region, but the HCAC schools, the MIAA schools, the OAC, and the AMCC schools not in Pennsylvania are in-region.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Downtown on February 25, 2008, 10:04:33 PM
WIAC does the nation a favor.

Say good-bye to Oshkosh and Platteville. No chance for Pool C anymore.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 25, 2008, 10:08:05 PM
Quote from: Mr. Downtown on February 25, 2008, 10:04:33 PM
WIAC does the nation a favor.

Say good-bye to Oshkosh and Platteville. No chance for Pool C anymore.

Not so fast. Oshkosh is done, but Platteville clings to life. They will be in the mix if there aren't a rash of upsets for the Pool A bids. (If nothing else, they should be the West Regional team under consideration when the whole thing finishes).

So Platteville becomes the first team rooting for favorites. This would include Stevens Point and Whitewater to win the WIAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2008, 10:15:56 PM
Why don't you come up here!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2008, 10:19:56 PM
17-6, 4-3 vs ranked opponents.  Eau Claire was 9-13 in region, the OWP and OOWP while good now will come down..........and I'll add team that lose in quarterfinals rarely make the NCAA tournament


Looks iffy for Platteville......infact I think they're done.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 25, 2008, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2008, 10:19:56 PM
17-6, 4-3 vs ranked opponents.  Eau Claire was 9-13 in region, the OWP and OOWP while good now will come down.

Looks iffy for Platteville.



I think Platteville needs everything to hold perfectly to form. They have to be clinging to the 16th or 17th Pool C bid at best and history pretty much dictates at least 3 upsets when it comes to Pool A's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on February 25, 2008, 10:47:07 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 25, 2008, 09:33:42 PM
Quote from: martin on February 25, 2008, 09:32:11 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2008, 09:22:49 PM
Stevens Point on the ropes...

http://livestats.internetconsult.com/uwsp/mbball/



Are we going to witness another WIAC ritual seppuku like 2001?

2001
Tuesday, Feb. 20
Quarterfinals
UW-Stout (#8) 90, UW-Whitewater (#1) 49 (at Whitewater)
UW-Eau Claire (#4) 83, UW-Superior (#5) 76 (at Eau Claire)
UW-Oshkosh (#6) 95, UW-River Falls (#3) 87 (Overtime) (at River Falls)
UW-Platteville (#7) 57, UW-Stevens Point (#2) 56 (at Stevens Point)

Whitewater is the only one with a comfortable lead right now, the other three seeds are fighting to stay alive.

Point pulls out an OT win to avoid seppuku.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2008, 12:57:54 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 11:27:18 AM(I proved this back on the old message board in 2005.  Currently, Tufts is 11-13 on the season, 10-5 in non-conference and 1-8 in conference.  Assume that they would be 2-16 in a double round-robin format, and that 10-5 non-conference record becomes no better than 2-5, and the Tufts season record becomes 4-21!  Put that and the season records of the other NESCAC teams reflecting a "double round robin" into the Amherst OWP!  I will concede the autonomy to the NESCAC in scheduling the conference games to their needs, but let's not unfairly award Amherst the benefits that accrue thereto, or what some might consider "gaming the system".)

Yes! Yes! Exactly! Now you people can see why Ralph is the Hall of Famer's Hall of Famer! ;) :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 26, 2008, 01:01:25 AM
Quote from: OxyBob on February 25, 2008, 10:20:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 09:56:36 PM
Come down and visit the Vicksburg Battlefield, the Natchez Trace and the USS Cairo in Vicksburg. Make that part of the trip.

Come see a cemetery, a hiking trail, and an old, rusty boat. Wow, that sounds like a hell of an exciting trip.

OxyBob

Bob, that's good +1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2008, 01:04:12 AM
Quote from: OxyBob on February 25, 2008, 01:58:30 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 25, 2008, 10:45:46 AM
Conferences with teams at the top always in contention with other teams that are notoriously bad need to step up and challenge those lower teams. Coaches need to step up and say, "hey, we are trying to compete here, but you are dragging us down." Sure, this doesn't sound PC, but if a conference wants to be respected and have contenders in the NCAA's, they can't let the bottom of the conference falter year in and year out.

Oh, right, I'd love to hear that imaginary conversation between one coach making that suggestion to another coach.

Coach A: "Hey, we are trying to compete here, but you're dragging us down."
Very Polite Coach B: "Thanks for calling. I'm hanging up now." <click>

OR

Coach A: "Hey, we are trying to compete here, but you're dragging us down."
Coach B: "Go !@#$ yourself." <click>

I dare anyone to read this post without laughing. Bravo, O-Bob!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 26, 2008, 01:09:43 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2008, 12:57:54 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 11:27:18 AM(I proved this back on the old message board in 2005.  Currently, Tufts is 11-13 on the season, 10-5 in non-conference and 1-8 in conference.  Assume that they would be 2-16 in a double round-robin format, and that 10-5 non-conference record becomes no better than 2-5, and the Tufts season record becomes 4-21!  Put that and the season records of the other NESCAC teams reflecting a "double round robin" into the Amherst OWP!  I will concede the autonomy to the NESCAC in scheduling the conference games to their needs, but let's not unfairly award Amherst the benefits that accrue thereto, or what some might consider "gaming the system".)



Yes! Yes! Exactly! Now you people can see why Ralph is the Hall of Famer's Hall of Famer! ;) :D

I agree. Both Ralph and hugenerd make some pretty valid points. Plus k to both.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2008, 01:28:34 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 24, 2008, 11:04:31 AM
West
1. UW-Stevens Point:  Def. La Crosse 89-62; LOST at Platteville 84-65.
2. St. Thomas:  LOST at Concordia-Moorhead 67-57; Won at St. John's 82-63.
3. Occidental:  Def. Cal. Lutheran 67-63; LOST to Whittier 69-65.
4. UW-Whitewater:  Def. Oshkosh 66-51; def. River Falls 80-75.
5. Cal Lutheran:  LOST at Occidental 67-63; Won at Redlands 70-64.
6. Buena Vista:  LOST at Central 73-71; Def. Loras 80-79.
7. UW-Platteville:  Def. Eau Claire 75-58; Def. Stevens Point 84-65.
8. UW-Oshkosh:  LOST at Whitewater 66-51; LOST to Superior 77-67.

I think Platteville is clinging to life after their loss to Eau Claire tonight. 

Wednesday's rankings will obviously give us a better idea.  With nearly everyone losing last week, aside from Whitewater and Platteville, those two could be #1 and #2 in Wednesday's rankings.  Platteville tops #1 West Region Stevens Point, and while everyone else ahead of them lost (besides Whitewater), they could jump because they beat a regionally ranked opponent.  It could very well be:

1.  Whitewater
2.  Platteville
3.  Stevens Point

Get chalk to happen (St. Thomas, Oxy and BV to win their conference tourneys), that leaves the Point/Whitewater loser (best case scenario for Platteville) and Cal. Lutheran left, along with whomever replaces Oshkosh in the rankings.  At worst, they could be the #2 ranked team in the West Region and Point/Whitewater would probably go early.  You never know.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 26, 2008, 02:41:31 AM
Quote from: magicman on February 26, 2008, 01:01:25 AM
Quote from: OxyBob on February 25, 2008, 10:20:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 09:56:36 PM
Come down and visit the Vicksburg Battlefield, the Natchez Trace and the USS Cairo in Vicksburg. Make that part of the trip.

Come see a cemetery, a hiking trail, and an old, rusty boat. Wow, that sounds like a hell of an exciting trip.

OxyBob

Bob, that's good +1

You might try reading some of his posts in the SCIAC board...quality humor.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 26, 2008, 02:43:54 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 26, 2008, 01:28:34 AM
I think Platteville is clinging to life after their loss to Eau Claire tonight. 

Wednesday's rankings will obviously give us a better idea.  With nearly everyone losing last week, aside from Whitewater and Platteville, those two could be #1 and #2 in Wednesday's rankings.  Platteville tops #1 West Region Stevens Point, and while everyone else ahead of them lost (besides Whitewater), they could jump because they beat a regionally ranked opponent.  It could very well be:

1.  Whitewater
2.  Platteville
3.  Stevens Point

Get chalk to happen (St. Thomas, Oxy and BV to win their conference tourneys), that leaves the Point/Whitewater loser (best case scenario for Platteville) and Cal. Lutheran left, along with whomever replaces Oshkosh in the rankings.  At worst, they could be the #2 ranked team in the West Region and Point/Whitewater would probably go early.  You never know.

Exactly!  Especailly when it is dealing with the NCAA selection commettiee
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 26, 2008, 08:26:19 AM
I think the OWP and the OOWP are much better measures than the QOWI. Now, if they'd just get rid of the regionality and make it more national when picking "C"s....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 26, 2008, 09:19:07 AM
Quote from: OxyBob on February 25, 2008, 10:20:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2008, 09:56:36 PM
Come down and visit the Vicksburg Battlefield, the Natchez Trace and the USS Cairo in Vicksburg. Make that part of the trip.

Come see a cemetery, a hiking trail, and an old, rusty boat. Wow, that sounds like a hell of an exciting trip.

OxyBob

The Natchez Trace isn't a hiking trail, but that's still pretty funny. +1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 26, 2008, 10:48:51 AM
Tuesday night's Pool C impact games

In all cases, the Pool C candidate is listed first

Regular season

Webster vs. Westminster MO
Occidental vs. LaVerne
Cal Lutheran vs. Pomona-Pitzer

Tournaments

LEC QF
Mass-Dartmouth vs. Mass-Boston
Rhode Island College vs. Plymouth St.

GNAC QF
Emerson vs. Daniel Webster

NAC QF
Elms vs. Maine-Farmington

SUNYAC QF
Plattsburgh vs. Fredonia
Brockport vs. Oneonta
Oswego vs. Potsdam

CAC QF
York PA vs. Salisbury

NCAC QF
Wooster vs. Oberlin
Ohio Wesleyan vs. Hiram

Analysis

Wooster, Mass-Dartmouth, and Plattsburgh would be Pool C locks with a loss tonight.

Emerson, Rhode Island College and Brockport are a lot like UW-Platteville last night: a loss will be nearly fatal.

Elms, Oswego, York, and Ohio Wesleyan are done with a loss tonight.

Webster still has faint Pool C chances if they don't win their conference, but a loss tonight would require them to win the Pool A bid.

Cal Lutheran has good Pool C chances at the moment, which would probably be ended by a loss tonight.

Occidental makes the NCAAs with a win tonight; a loss puts them on the bubble going into the conference tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 26, 2008, 10:51:53 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 26, 2008, 01:28:34 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 24, 2008, 11:04:31 AM
West
1. UW-Stevens Point:  Def. La Crosse 89-62; LOST at Platteville 84-65.
2. St. Thomas:  LOST at Concordia-Moorhead 67-57; Won at St. John's 82-63.
3. Occidental:  Def. Cal. Lutheran 67-63; LOST to Whittier 69-65.
4. UW-Whitewater:  Def. Oshkosh 66-51; def. River Falls 80-75.
5. Cal Lutheran:  LOST at Occidental 67-63; Won at Redlands 70-64.
6. Buena Vista:  LOST at Central 73-71; Def. Loras 80-79.
7. UW-Platteville:  Def. Eau Claire 75-58; Def. Stevens Point 84-65.
8. UW-Oshkosh:  LOST at Whitewater 66-51; LOST to Superior 77-67.

I think Platteville is clinging to life after their loss to Eau Claire tonight. 

Wednesday's rankings will obviously give us a better idea.  With nearly everyone losing last week, aside from Whitewater and Platteville, those two could be #1 and #2 in Wednesday's rankings.  Platteville tops #1 West Region Stevens Point, and while everyone else ahead of them lost (besides Whitewater), they could jump because they beat a regionally ranked opponent.  It could very well be:

1.  Whitewater
2.  Platteville
3.  Stevens Point

Get chalk to happen (St. Thomas, Oxy and BV to win their conference tourneys), that leaves the Point/Whitewater loser (best case scenario for Platteville) and Cal. Lutheran left, along with whomever replaces Oshkosh in the rankings.  At worst, they could be the #2 ranked team in the West Region and Point/Whitewater would probably go early.  You never know.

Despite the fact that Platteville just beat Point, I don't see them jumping FIVE full places to be on top of them.  Especially after last night.  They MIGHT have had some upward movement, especially due to other losses above them, but you've got to remember that they've just lost two straight, those being non-ranked teams.

With last night's loss, any gain they might have had will be lost.

WIAC fans just became HUGE fans of the West region conference favorites!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 26, 2008, 11:11:35 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 26, 2008, 10:51:53 AM
Despite the fact that Platteville just beat Point, I don't see them jumping FIVE full places to be on top of them.  Especially after last night.  They MIGHT have had some upward movement, especially due to other losses above them, but you've got to remember that they've just lost two straight, those being non-ranked teams.

With last night's loss, any gain they might have had will be lost.

WIAC fans just became HUGE fans of the West region conference favorites!

Remember that the regional rankings will be based on games through Sunday, not last night. So last night's disaster isn't counted.

That having been said, I don't see Platteville jumping up that much.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Downtown on February 26, 2008, 11:18:01 AM
It could just be me, but I don't think the committee is going take many teams out of the West from the Pool C pool.

Probably the automatics and either Point or WW.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 26, 2008, 12:00:59 PM
How important is the last published regional ranking? I've done some research into this from the last six years.

In all but three cases, no team has won a Pool C bid without the teams ahead of them in the last published regional ranking also getting one.

Here's the picture from last year, for example:
Atlantic: #1 Stevens IN, #4 NJCU Out
East: #5 Rochester IN, #4 NYU Out (THIS IS ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS)
Great Lakes: #4 Hope IN, #5 Ohio Northern Out
Mid-Atlantic: #6 Hood IN, #8 Scranton Out
Midwest: #1 Chicago IN, #5 Elmhurst Out
Northeast: #7 Brandeis IN, #8 Bates Out
South: #5 Mary Hardin-Baylor IN, #8 McMurry Out
West: #3 St. Johns IN, #4 UW-Oshkosh Out

Where there are gaps (such as #2 and #3 in Atlantic), these were Pool A or Pool B teams and therefore not relevant to the comparison.

What are the exceptions?

1) As noted above, in 2007, Rochester passed NYU into the tournament. Rochester went 1-0, while NYU went 0-1.

2) In 2006, #4 Utica passed #3 NYU into the tournament. NYU went 0-1 in the last week while Utica went 2-1.

3) In 2005, #6 Lebanon Valley passed #5 Scranton into the tournament. LV went 1-1 in the last week while Scranton went 0-1.

The obvious common bond among the three losers is that they went 0-1 for the week.

Just something to think about as we approach selection weekend.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 26, 2008, 01:09:35 PM
Do you think Rochester, Brandeis, or WashU get dropped with an 0-1 week?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 26, 2008, 01:36:11 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 26, 2008, 01:09:35 PM
Do you think Rochester, Brandeis, or WashU get dropped with an 0-1 week?
No, they've already done enough to make it.

Although they would drop in the rankings, none of that would affect Pool C chances (Brandeis would end up behind whichever NESCAC contenders win in the semis, WashU and Rochester would only be caught by Pool A teams such as Chicago and potentially Brockport).

Only Chicago is in risk of having the 0-1 trap hit them this year. A 16-8 Chicago would probably be caught by the second place CCIW school and be in real trouble as far as making the tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 26, 2008, 02:19:02 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 26, 2008, 11:11:35 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 26, 2008, 10:51:53 AM
Despite the fact that Platteville just beat Point, I don't see them jumping FIVE full places to be on top of them.  Especially after last night.  They MIGHT have had some upward movement, especially due to other losses above them, but you've got to remember that they've just lost two straight, those being non-ranked teams.

With last night's loss, any gain they might have had will be lost.

WIAC fans just became HUGE fans of the West region conference favorites!

Remember that the regional rankings will be based on games through Sunday, not last night. So last night's disaster isn't counted.

That having been said, I don't see Platteville jumping up that much.

Ah... I didn't realize that the NCAA was going to release another regional rankings prior to the selection next Monday.  The point becomes moot when this week's games are taken into account, but...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 26, 2008, 02:45:02 PM
It helps Platteville that 5 teams ahead of them in the rankings lost, so they may move up 2 or 3 spots this week and then lose those same 2 or 3 spots for next weeks poll.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 26, 2008, 02:48:32 PM
QuoteAh... I didn't realize that the NCAA was going to release another regional rankings prior to the selection next Monday.  The point becomes moot when this week's games are taken into account, but...

My understanding is that the NCAA will have another regional rankings upon which it will make tournament selections, but those rankings will not be released.  To put it differently, this week's rankings (games through Sunday) will be the last ones we see.  There will be one more ranking but it won't be published.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2008, 03:31:43 PM
Gordon - I was going to post the same. The NCAA will come out with a regional ranking on Wednesday that is based on games through Sunday.

The committees will then do another set of regional rankings on Sunday after the games are completed, but that is only for the national committee's use... not for public consumption.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2008, 04:12:21 PM
 
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 26, 2008, 10:51:53 AM
Despite the fact that Platteville just beat Point, I don't see them jumping FIVE full places to be on top of them.  Especially after last night.  They MIGHT have had some upward movement, especially due to other losses above them, but you've got to remember that they've just lost two straight, those being non-ranked teams.

With last night's loss, any gain they might have had will be lost.

WIAC fans just became HUGE fans of the West region conference favorites!

Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 21, 2008, 12:50:58 AM
West
1. (LW6; 2-0) UW-Stevens Point 19-4 17-4 (WIAC) tied with Whitewater and Oshkosh
2. (LW2; 1-0) St. Thomas 20-3 18-2 (MIAC)
3. (LW1; 1-1) Occidental 19-3 12-2 (SCIAC) tied with Cal. Lutheran
4. (LW4; 1-1) UW-Whitewater 19-4 17-4 (WIAC) tied with Stevens Point and Oshkosh
5. (LW5; 2-0) Cal Lutheran 19-3 15-3 (SCIAC) tied with Occidental
6. (LW7; 1-0) Buena Vista 19-4 15-2 (IIAC)
7. (LW3; 0-2) UW-Platteville 17-6 15-5 (WIAC)
8. (LWNR; 1-0) UW-Oshkosh 17-6 14-5 (WIAC) tied with Stevens Point and Whitewater

Dropping out:  Loras-8th (1-0)


Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 24, 2008, 11:04:31 AM
West
1. UW-Stevens Point:  Def. La Crosse 89-62; LOST at Platteville 84-65.
2. St. Thomas:  LOST at Concordia-Moorhead 67-57; Won at St. John's 82-63.
3. Occidental:  Def. Cal. Lutheran 67-63; LOST to Whittier 69-65.
4. UW-Whitewater:  Def. Oshkosh 66-51; def. River Falls 80-75.
5. Cal Lutheran:  LOST at Occidental 67-63; Won at Redlands 70-64.
6. Buena Vista:  LOST at Central 73-71; Def. Loras 80-79.
7. UW-Platteville:  Def. Eau Claire 75-58; Def. Stevens Point 84-65.
8. UW-Oshkosh:  LOST at Whitewater 66-51; LOST to Superior 77-67.


Point Special, you have to understand that last night's game doesn't mean anything to THIS WEEK'S rankings.  The only games that matter for Wednesday's rankings are their wins against Eau Claire last week and the win against Point on Saturday.  That puts Platteville at 2-0 while everyone else (aside from Whitewater) was 1-1. 

Cal. Lutheran and Point lost away to regionally ranked opponents while St. Thomas, Occidental and Buena Vista all lost to teams not ranked in the region.  If you look at last week's rankings and the results that determined those rankings, you'll see that St. Thomas, Cal. Lutheran and Buena Vista didn't lose, yet Point jumped St. Thomas and Cal. Lutheran to claim the #1 spot thanks to their wins against La Crosse and regionally ranked Whitewater.

On that basis, Platteville beating regionally ranked Point, going 2-0 while everyone else was 1-1 (again, aside from Whitewater, and Oshkosh who went 0-2), I think Platteville definitely has a shot at #2 in Wednesday's regional ranking.  I definitely didn't think that Point would jump 5 spots to #1 even though two teams ahead of them also went without a loss.

Oh yeah, news to me about losing two straight...that only effected last week's rankings, doesn't matter (I don't think!)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2008, 04:14:24 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2008, 02:45:02 PM
It helps Platteville that 5 teams ahead of them in the rankings lost, so they may move up 2 or 3 spots this week and then lose those same 2 or 3 spots for next weeks poll.

It's tourney time.  I don't think it matters too much because if those other teams don't lose this week, they get Pool A bids (thus Platteville doesn't have to worry about them).  If they lose, then they are in the same boat as Platteville, another loss.  I guess it depends on when and who those teams lose to.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 26, 2008, 07:25:12 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 26, 2008, 04:12:21 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 26, 2008, 10:51:53 AM
Despite the fact that Platteville just beat Point, I don't see them jumping FIVE full places to be on top of them.  Especially after last night.  They MIGHT have had some upward movement, especially due to other losses above them, but you've got to remember that they've just lost two straight, those being non-ranked teams.

With last night's loss, any gain they might have had will be lost.

WIAC fans just became HUGE fans of the West region conference favorites!

Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 21, 2008, 12:50:58 AM
West
1. (LW6; 2-0) UW-Stevens Point 19-4 17-4 (WIAC) tied with Whitewater and Oshkosh
2. (LW2; 1-0) St. Thomas 20-3 18-2 (MIAC)
3. (LW1; 1-1) Occidental 19-3 12-2 (SCIAC) tied with Cal. Lutheran
4. (LW4; 1-1) UW-Whitewater 19-4 17-4 (WIAC) tied with Stevens Point and Oshkosh
5. (LW5; 2-0) Cal Lutheran 19-3 15-3 (SCIAC) tied with Occidental
6. (LW7; 1-0) Buena Vista 19-4 15-2 (IIAC)
7. (LW3; 0-2) UW-Platteville 17-6 15-5 (WIAC)
8. (LWNR; 1-0) UW-Oshkosh 17-6 14-5 (WIAC) tied with Stevens Point and Whitewater

Dropping out:  Loras-8th (1-0)


Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 24, 2008, 11:04:31 AM
West
1. UW-Stevens Point:  Def. La Crosse 89-62; LOST at Platteville 84-65.
2. St. Thomas:  LOST at Concordia-Moorhead 67-57; Won at St. John's 82-63.
3. Occidental:  Def. Cal. Lutheran 67-63; LOST to Whittier 69-65.
4. UW-Whitewater:  Def. Oshkosh 66-51; def. River Falls 80-75.
5. Cal Lutheran:  LOST at Occidental 67-63; Won at Redlands 70-64.
6. Buena Vista:  LOST at Central 73-71; Def. Loras 80-79.
7. UW-Platteville:  Def. Eau Claire 75-58; Def. Stevens Point 84-65.
8. UW-Oshkosh:  LOST at Whitewater 66-51; LOST to Superior 77-67.


Point Special, you have to understand that last night's game doesn't mean anything to THIS WEEK'S rankings.  The only games that matter for Wednesday's rankings are their wins against Eau Claire last week and the win against Point on Saturday.  That puts Platteville at 2-0 while everyone else (aside from Whitewater) was 1-1. 

Cal. Lutheran and Point lost away to regionally ranked opponents while St. Thomas, Occidental and Buena Vista all lost to teams not ranked in the region.  If you look at last week's rankings and the results that determined those rankings, you'll see that St. Thomas, Cal. Lutheran and Buena Vista didn't lose, yet Point jumped St. Thomas and Cal. Lutheran to claim the #1 spot thanks to their wins against La Crosse and regionally ranked Whitewater.

On that basis, Platteville beating regionally ranked Point, going 2-0 while everyone else was 1-1 (again, aside from Whitewater, and Oshkosh who went 0-2), I think Platteville definitely has a shot at #2 in Wednesday's regional ranking.  I definitely didn't think that Point would jump 5 spots to #1 even though two teams ahead of them also went without a loss.

Oh yeah, news to me about losing two straight...that only effected last week's rankings, doesn't matter (I don't think!)

I didn't realize there would be another regional ranking put out.  I thought we had just the final one for next week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 26, 2008, 09:59:05 PM
York PA goes down to Salisbury 76-71. This ends any Pool C chances for York, which were pretty slim to start with.

A week ago, both Yorks (NY and PA) were favorites to return to the tournament. Now both are done.

So far, it looks like all of the other contenders have made their way through.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 12:32:05 AM
Below is a table listing all the conferences, ranked in the order of the average OWP for all the teams in the conference (all statistics include only in-region games and are taken from the SOS data on the d3hoops.com site).  AVG. WP is the average winning percentage for teams in the conference (followed by the standard deviation for that statistic), AVG. OWP is the average OWP for all teams in the conference (followed by the standard deviation for that statistic), AVG OOWP is the average OOWP for all teams in the conference (followed by the standard deviation for that statistic, WP HI/LO is the ratio of the team with teh highest OWP in that conference divided by the team with the lowest OWP, and WP/OWP is the ratio of conference winning percentage to conference OWP.  I just want to point out a few things:

1) OWP and OOWP standard deviations are generally very low for teams within their conference, meaning that teams, on average, have similar OWP within conferences (there are some exceptions).

2) Most conferences have an OWP HI/LO in the range of 1.15-1.25, signifying that they play a decent mix of teams in their region, conferences above 1.25 usually have one or two teams that are playing very sub-par out of conference opponents and therefore bringing down the conference OWP, conferences with OWP HI/LO's in the range 1.1-1.15 tend to schedule many of the same teams for their out of conference games (slightly inbred schedule) and teams below 1.1 tend to have either alot of conference games, lots of out-of region games, and/or very few out of conference opponents to choose from causing everyone to play the same teams out of conference (highly inbred schedule).

3) Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the WP/OWP column.  For nearly every conference, the ratio of overall winning percentage divided by opponents winning percentage is almost exactly 1.  This tells us that any given teams OWP is highly dependent on the conferences winning percentage, more than their own.  This comes about because in most conferences, you play the majority of your games in conference, which causes your teams OWP to be influenced greatly by not only your results, but that of every team in your conference.  In fact, if you do a least-squared regression on the conference winning percentage versus the conferences OWP, you get a high correlation (R^2= 0.89, [AVG. OWP] = 0.6741*[AVG. WP] + 0.1652).

If anybody wants the data for any given conference, just ask, I didnt want to post all 38 conference's data because it would take way too much space and nobody would read it (hopefully someone will read this).

ConferenceAVG. WPST.DEV.AVG. OWPST.DEV.AVG. OOWPST.DEV.OWP HI/LOWP/OWP
UAA0.62090.18230.59760.04030.56450.00991.22011.04
MACC0.62170.12960.58620.02950.53930.00861.12701.06
NESCAC0.66140.18900.57910.03080.53990.01061.17481.14
NEWMAC0.55160.16510.56290.05080.53970.00901.32660.98
CCIW0.57300.17010.55790.03580.53900.01121.20791.03
WIAC0.53310.22700.53870.03430.52660.00931.19110.99
SCIAC0.52510.25430.53330.02640.52140.00831.15660.98
LEC0.52830.26870.52850.02240.52110.00571.13741.00
OAC0.52590.21310.52740.01920.52100.00321.12351.00
ODAC0.54170.23790.52700.02060.51850.00851.15001.03
SUNYAC0.51640.26970.52510.03220.51860.01051.20760.98
IIAC0.50490.21360.52410.02700.51800.00911.17760.96
NJAC0.52320.20740.52410.01830.51030.00921.13351.00
E80.52100.23320.52070.02720.51530.01031.20651.00
MIAC0.51670.21670.51750.01780.51160.00611.11891.00
MASCAC0.52830.16350.51300.02800.50030.01641.14741.03
CC0.51370.26150.50980.01350.50850.00481.08851.01
LL0.50510.21820.50710.03800.50700.00721.3051.00
ASC0.50880.20930.50510.01200.50470.00421.09481.01
SCAC0.52500.28630.50440.01410.49850.00871.09871.04
MACF0.46240.27850.50040.02300.50270.01071.13550.92
MWC0.50720.19820.49830.02950.50350.00661.20041.02
USAC0.48760.11020.49590.02980.49530.00721.17980.98
CAC0.49340.17790.48990.03160.49390.00871.21951.01
AMCC0.49320.21850.48730.02340.48620.00501.16561.01
NWC0.50180.19120.48660.02310.49100.00321.16061.03
NCAC0.47450.26800.48620.02720.48830.00621.24350.98
HCAC0.48140.17960.48570.03050.49060.00461.21510.99
MIAA0.47600.27200.48440.02500.48930.00541.15490.98
PnAC0.46490.23580.47840.02810.48480.01211.22250.97
GNAC0.52050.24090.47810.02600.48490.00911.18141.09
CUNYAC0.44060.22030.47230.04590.48280.00871.48200.93
CCC0.42820.16520.46630.02840.47800.01411.23710.92
NAC0.43100.21240.45010.03230.47370.01401.24270.96
PrAC0.40190.20800.44630.04170.46060.02291.28310.90
SLIAC0.43680.28670.44580.03930.45980.01201.29350.98
NEAC0.37740.18600.39340.02750.44030.00481.23240.96

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2008, 12:42:41 AM
Highly inbred...ASC and SCAC!

Two of the lowest three.   SCAC -- Southwestern, Trinity, Colorado College, Austin College, Hendrix, Millsaps and Sewanee all played games versus the ASC schools.

+1 hugenerd!

Correction --

I mis-read the original post that hugenerd had included all of the conferences.  My subsequent review shows me that the ASC and SCAC are in the middle of all of the conferences in D3.

See my next assessment below.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 01:36:13 AM
Bravo, Hugenerd! +k

It may take me several days (at least) to assimilate and figure out how to interpret much of this data, but one datum jumped out at me: it should surprise no one that the outlier on WP/OWP was NESCAC.  Their single round-robin 'games' the system perfectly (though probably still not AS much as with the late, unlamented QOWI).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 08:17:07 AM
Pool C update for Wednesday morning

Last night York PA said goodbye. None of the other losers last night had any chance at Pool C.

Occidental locked down their Pool C bid if they don't win the conference tournament, and Cal Lutheran guaranteed that they will be a Pool C contender if they don't. Webster kept their slim Pool C chances alive (probably a moot point, since they are perhaps the most prohibitive favorite in any conference tournament this weekend).

Tonight's tournaments with a Pool C impact:

In all cases, the Pool C candidate is listed first, except that some games now have two Pool C contenders

MAC Commonwealth SF
Widener vs. Albright (both in contention)

MAC Freedom SF
DeSales vs. Wilkes

MIAA QF
Hope vs. Alma
Albion vs. Kalamazoo

NCAC QF
Ohio Wesleyan vs. Hiram

OAC QF
Capital vs. Mount Union
Heidelberg vs. John Carroll

WIAC SF
Stevens Point vs. Eau Claire
Whitewater vs. Superior

Analysis

Widener, Hope, Capital, and Stevens Point would be Pool C locks with a loss tonight.
Heidelberg and Whitewater could probably absorb a loss tonight, but it would push them onto the bubble; on the other hand, a win locks up a Pool C bid.
For Albion, a loss would be nearly fatal (the UW-Platteville category)
Albright, DeSales, and Ohio Wesleyan would be done with a loss tonight.

Current Pool C contenders (no games left to play)

Bates
UW-Platteville

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bionbrit on February 27, 2008, 08:48:52 AM
Pabegg- I really like this info

Quick question. If Albion was ranked over Heidelberg in the GL region last week, why would Heidelberg be in a class above Albion in your anaylsis. Do you think the berg will jump Albion in the rankings today, or does it have to do with John Carroll being a better loss/win then Kzoo?  Thanks for the info. Also if /when Albion wins tonight do they move into the can absorb a loss to Calvin and get in catergory on Friday?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2008, 10:00:10 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 12:32:05 AM
1) OWP and OOWP standard deviations are generally very low for teams within their conference, meaning that teams, on average, have similar OWP within conferences (there are some exceptions).


Great work on this...thank you!

Here are the CCIW's OWP's...

Illinois Wesleyan 0.610
Wheaton: 0.577
Augustana: 0.575
Carthage 0.573
North Central: 0.573
North Park 0.535
Millikin: .515
Elmhurst: 0.505

The CCIW is a pretty "standard" league - 8 teams, a double round robin format, and geographically located in an area with plenty of non-conference, in-region games to play.  It seems clear to me the CCIW teams can influence their OWP significantly via their non-conference schedule - there is a big gap between Illinois Wesleyan (.610) and Elmhurst (.505).

Looking in more detail...

Illinois Wesleyan (in-region non-conf games)
Occidental  .812
Wash U  .800
Webster  .773
Chicago .696
Dominican .583
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps .556
Hanover .522
Illinois College  .381

Elmhurst (in-region non-conf games)
Hope  .882
UW-Oshkosh  .667
Anderson .542
Benedictine  .476
Tri-State  .389
Eureka .348
Mount St. Joseph  .273
Simpson  .261
Manchester  .143
MacMurray .056



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 10:17:33 AM
Quote from: bionbrit on February 27, 2008, 08:48:52 AM
Pabegg- I really like this info

Quick question. If Albion was ranked over Heidelberg in the GL region last week, why would Heidelberg be in a class above Albion in your anaylsis. Do you think the berg will jump Albion in the rankings today, or does it have to do with John Carroll being a better loss/win then Kzoo?  Thanks for the info. Also if /when Albion wins tonight do they move into the can absorb a loss to Calvin and get in catergory on Friday?

'Berg beat Capital last week, so I expect them to move ahead of Albion. I had them essentially tied in my numbers through 2/17, but there's a notable gap in the 2/24 numbers. I will be surprised if the NCAA rankings that come out today don't reflect this.

I think Albion needs to win their first two games to stay on the good side of the bubble. Since they are only 14-3 in region, each additional loss hits them harder than others.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HopeConvert on February 27, 2008, 10:18:14 AM
I haven't carefully parsed hugenerd's data, but this conversation does raise a question for me that I'm confident one of you can answer. Let's take Hope's game against Alma tonight as an example. Given Alma's poor record, a Hope win tonight would actually lower Hope's OWP, although that might be offset somewhat by the OOWP (given that Alma's opponents records are inflated by having played Alma), even if the OOWP numbers are dissipated over a larger n. Then too, I would think the OWP would remain constant win or lose (that is, Alma's WP counts either way). I'm wondering, however, if it's possible that Hope's Pool C prospects would actually be improved by a loss to Alma rather than a win. In terms of their regional ranking, a win against Alma doesn't really help them that much - but how much would a loss hurt them? Given that Hope is a "lock" anyway, it might be a moot point, but is it unthinkable that there might be a team that's more borderline than Hope that could benefit more from a loss than a win? Just wondering...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 27, 2008, 10:23:51 AM
HC - I think I get your point, but you're leaving out the fact that the loss affects regional record, which is at least equal in consideration to OWP and OOWP. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HopeConvert on February 27, 2008, 10:39:29 AM
Oh sure - that's why I asked how much a loss would hurt them. That's the calculation, and while I can't imagine a team intentionally losing a game, at the same time I wonder if there could be situations where the loss would affect the regional rankings less than a win would. I don't know the answer to that, although I suspect it would be highly unlikely. I suppose it goes to my suspicions about using OWP and OOWP. In part it's a two-edged sword: if the idea is to get teams to play a tougher non-conference schedule, since the conference schedule will zero out pretty much, then - assuming a tougher non-con would lead to more losses -  I'm not sure a team would actually be that motivated. I'm not sure there is a good answer to this dilemma, but neither am I sure that OWP and OOWP are the best solutions. Usually when organizers resort to such arcane formluae, it's because they're trying to substitute some faux objectivity for judgment. That may be because the logistics of judgment are too difficult, or because they're just trying to immunize themselves against criticism - but in either case, I don't see OWP and OOWP as being much of a measure.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 10:53:09 AM
Let's be clear: Hope would end up with the same OOP/OOWP win or lose tonight.

The OOP is the average of the Opponent's Winning Percentage in the games not involving the team in question. So in the Hope-Alma case, Alma is 3-15 in region, with 2 losses to Hope, so they are 3-13 as far as Hope's OWP calculation is concerned (or .1875). So tonight's game will add another .1875 to Hope's total, reducing their OWP to .492 from .508.

So it's not a matter of winning or losing; Hope drops in this category simply by playing the game.

Of course, all of that is dwarfed by the potential of dropping the RWP from .882 to .833 if they lose the game (it goes up to .889 if they win).

This happened to Mass-Dartmouth last night as they beat their last place sister school Mass-Boston and dropped in the numbers.

D1 hockey has a provision for ignoring games like these, where the net impact on the RPI (a weighted average of RWP, OOP, and OOWP) is negative, then the game is ignored.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2008, 10:56:36 AM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 27, 2008, 10:18:14 AM
I haven't carefully parsed hugenerd's data, but this conversation does raise a question for me that I'm confident one of you can answer. Let's take Hope's game against Alma tonight as an example. Given Alma's poor record, a Hope win tonight would actually lower Hope's OWP, although that might be offset somewhat by the OOWP (given that Alma's opponents records are inflated by having played Alma), even if the OOWP numbers are dissipated over a larger n. Then too, I would think the OWP would remain constant win or lose (that is, Alma's WP counts either way). I'm wondering, however, if it's possible that Hope's Pool C prospects would actually be improved by a loss to Alma rather than a win. In terms of their regional ranking, a win against Alma doesn't really help them that much - but how much would a loss hurt them? Given that Hope is a "lock" anyway, it might be a moot point, but is it unthinkable that there might be a team that's more borderline than Hope that could benefit more from a loss than a win? Just wondering...

Anytime you start asking if it'd be better to lose than win, you're over-thinking! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 11:07:17 AM
Like pabegg said, upping alma's win total by one will hardly effect Hope's overall OWP (since it will be 1 of 20^2 or so games, raising their OWP with a loss compared to a win potentially by about 0.002).  However, it would cause a much larger drop in their regional winning percentage, as pabegg said, by about 0.05.  There is really no way of controlling your OWP and OOWP, other than scheduling teams at the top of traditionally strong conferences.  Also, it will never be beneficial to lose a game, compared to winning a game, for your own case to make the NCAAs.  For example, take the case of Babson, they played a really difficult out of conference schedule and have the highest OWP in the country, but they have a losing record and have no chance at the tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2008, 11:07:42 AM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 27, 2008, 10:18:14 AM
I'm wondering, however, if it's possible that Hope's Pool C prospects would actually be improved by a loss to Alma rather than a win.

Must I get my Herm Edwards quote out again??

"You play to WIN the game!"
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 11:12:38 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2008, 12:42:41 AM
Highly inbred...ASC and SCAC!

Two of the lowest three.   SCAC -- Southwestern, Trinity, Colorado College, Austin College, Hendrix, Millsaps and Sewanee all played games versus the ASC schools.

+1 hugenerd!

Correction --

I mis-read the original post that hugenerd had included all of the conferences.  My subsequent review shows me that the ASC and SCAC are in the middle of all of the conferences in D3.

See my next assessment below.

I think your assessment was correct.  The ASC and SCAC have two of the 3 lowest OWP HI/LO, which is the criteria I created to judge the extent of "inbreeding" in the schedule.  They both are in the middle of the pack for overall OWP, but that is for the reason we discussed a few days ago (nearly all their games are in conference or against common opponents say their OWP and OOWP are very close to 0.500).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2008, 11:21:12 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2008, 10:00:10 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 12:32:05 AM
1) OWP and OOWP standard deviations are generally very low for teams within their conference, meaning that teams, on average, have similar OWP within conferences (there are some exceptions).


Great work on this...thank you!

Here are the CCIW's OWP's...

Illinois Wesleyan 0.610
Wheaton: 0.577
Augustana: 0.575
Carthage 0.573
North Central: 0.573
North Park 0.535
Millikin: .515
Elmhurst: 0.505

The CCIW is a pretty "standard" league - 8 teams, a double round robin format, and geographically located in an area with plenty of non-conference, in-region games to play.  It seems clear to me the CCIW teams can influence their OWP significantly via their non-conference schedule - there is a big gap between Illinois Wesleyan (.610) and Elmhurst (.505).

Looking in more detail...

Illinois Wesleyan (in-region non-conf games)
Occidental  .812
Wash U  .800
Webster  .773
Chicago .696
Dominican .583
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps .556
Hanover .522
Illinois College  .381

Elmhurst (in-region non-conf games)
Hope  .882
UW-Oshkosh  .667
Anderson .542
Benedictine  .476
Tri-State  .389
Eureka .348
Mount St. Joseph  .273
Simpson  .261
Manchester  .143
MacMurray .056
Titan Q illustrates the geographic isolation of the SCAC and the ASC.

The SCAC plays a 16-game schedule.  They play double round robin inside each 6-team division and single round robin in the inter-division schedule.  (Because the NCAA does not count the games with first-year provisional team, Birmingham- Southern, in the in-region records, you only get 14 or 15 in-region games from the conference play.)

SCAC teams also usually play one ASC team as part of their in-region schedule as I cited above.  the ASC's OOWP is .5047; the SCAC's .4985.  I interpret the "OOWP HI/LO" of the ASC 1.0947 and the SCAC 1.0987 to be a measure of the geographic isolation.

(I interpret the Centennial Conference's OOWP HI/LO of 1.0885 to reflect "league parity" in a geographic area of robust statistical activity.)

Comments are appreciated.

hugenerd answered some of my concerns in his post just previous to this one.

hugenerd is really helping us understand what the numbers are telling us!  +1! Again!  Thanks!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2008, 11:23:30 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 11:12:38 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2008, 12:42:41 AM
Highly inbred...ASC and SCAC!

Two of the lowest three.   SCAC -- Southwestern, Trinity, Colorado College, Austin College, Hendrix, Millsaps and Sewanee all played games versus the ASC schools.

+1 hugenerd!

Correction --

I mis-read the original post that hugenerd had included all of the conferences.  My subsequent review shows me that the ASC and SCAC are in the middle of all of the conferences in D3.

See my next assessment below.

I think your assessment was correct.  The ASC and SCAC have two of the 3 lowest OWP HI/LO, which is the criteria I created to judge the extent of "inbreeding" in the schedule.  They both are in the middle of the pack for overall OWP, but that is for the reason we discussed a few days ago (nearly all their games are in conference or against common opponents say their OWP and OOWP are very close to 0.500).

Remember, there is an advantage to the "inbreeding" situation too.  While no ASC team can achieve an OWP of .600+, they also can't end up with one of .450 or so and below.  The average ASC OWP is .505 -- that is exactly the OWP of Elmhurst of the CCIW.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2008, 11:23:30 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 11:12:38 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2008, 12:42:41 AM
Highly inbred...ASC and SCAC!

Two of the lowest three.   SCAC -- Southwestern, Trinity, Colorado College, Austin College, Hendrix, Millsaps and Sewanee all played games versus the ASC schools.

+1 hugenerd!

Correction --

I mis-read the original post that hugenerd had included all of the conferences.  My subsequent review shows me that the ASC and SCAC are in the middle of all of the conferences in D3.

See my next assessment below.

I think your assessment was correct.  The ASC and SCAC have two of the 3 lowest OWP HI/LO, which is the criteria I created to judge the extent of "inbreeding" in the schedule.  They both are in the middle of the pack for overall OWP, but that is for the reason we discussed a few days ago (nearly all their games are in conference or against common opponents say their OWP and OOWP are very close to 0.500).

Remember, there is an advantage to the "inbreeding" situation too.  While no ASC team can achieve an OWP of .600+, they also can't end up with one of .450 or so and below.  The average ASC OWP is .505 -- that is exactly the OWP of Elmhurst of the CCIW.

Yeah, but Elmhurst isnt going to impress anyone with the OWP and get an advantage from it.  0.500 is not a good OWP for a bubble team and is going to cause you to be at a disadvantage against other bubble teams with 0.6+ or even 0.55+.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 11:30:20 AM
Re: the Hope example.  While they cannot benefit from losing, they are a lock anyway and a loss would certainly help the MIAA!  How altruistic are the Dutch feeling? ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2008, 11:31:49 AM
I think that we are highlighting the value of the other criteria such as the "In-region results against regionally ranked teams" (evaluating the willingness to play the cream of the cream).

I have one other nagging question.

If I were doing a research paper in Sociology 101 on the validity of the OWP and OOWP to designate superiority of a NESCAC school over an SCAC or WIAC school, would my sociology professor accept the validity of the statistical tool?   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 11:38:42 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2008, 11:31:49 AM
I think that we are highlighting the value of the other criteria such as the "In-region results against regionally ranked teams" (evaluating the willingness to play the cream of the cream).

I have one other nagging question.

If I were doing a research paper in Sociology 101 on the validity of the OWP and OOWP to designate superiority of a NESCAC school over an SCAC or WIAC school, would my sociology professor accept the validity of the statistical tool?   :D

Most sociology professors don't know squat about statistics.  If you were unfortunate enough that I was your prof, you'd be wise to staple a benjamin to your paper! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 11:39:17 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2008, 11:21:12 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2008, 10:00:10 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 12:32:05 AM
1) OWP and OOWP standard deviations are generally very low for teams within their conference, meaning that teams, on average, have similar OWP within conferences (there are some exceptions).


Great work on this...thank you!

Here are the CCIW's OWP's...

Illinois Wesleyan 0.610
Wheaton: 0.577
Augustana: 0.575
Carthage 0.573
North Central: 0.573
North Park 0.535
Millikin: .515
Elmhurst: 0.505

The CCIW is a pretty "standard" league - 8 teams, a double round robin format, and geographically located in an area with plenty of non-conference, in-region games to play.  It seems clear to me the CCIW teams can influence their OWP significantly via their non-conference schedule - there is a big gap between Illinois Wesleyan (.610) and Elmhurst (.505).

Looking in more detail...

Illinois Wesleyan (in-region non-conf games)
Occidental  .812
Wash U  .800
Webster  .773
Chicago .696
Dominican .583
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps .556
Hanover .522
Illinois College  .381

Elmhurst (in-region non-conf games)
Hope  .882
UW-Oshkosh  .667
Anderson .542
Benedictine  .476
Tri-State  .389
Eureka .348
Mount St. Joseph  .273
Simpson  .261
Manchester  .143
MacMurray .056
Titan Q illustrates the geographic isolation of the SCAC and the ASC.

The SCAC plays a 16-game schedule.  They play double round robin inside each 6-team division and single round robin in the inter-division schedule.  (Because the NCAA does not count the games with first-year provisional team, Birmingham- Southern, in the in-region records, you only get 14 or 15 in-region games from the conference play.)

SCAC teams also usually play one ASC team as part of their in-region schedule as I cited above.  the ASC's OOWP is .5047; the SCAC's .4985.  I interpret the "OOWP HI/LO" of the ASC 1.0947 and the SCAC 1.0987 to be a measure of the geographic isolation.

(I interpret the Centennial Conference's OOWP HI/LO of 1.0885 to reflect "league parity" in a geographic area of robust statistical activity.)

Comments are appreciated.

hugenerd answered some of my concerns in his post just previous to this one.

hugenerd is really helping us understand what the numbers are telling us!  +1! Again!  Thanks!  :)

The main reason the centennial conference has a low OWP HI/LO is: 1) they play 18 conference games (a pretty high number compared to most other conferences) and 2) the teams in this conference seem to play alot of out of region games (which causes their in-region records to be comprised mainly of their conference games: Ursinus has only 3 non-conference in region games, gettysburg 3, hopkins 6, mcdaniel 6, dickinson 1, muhlenberg 4, franklin and marshall 5, haverford 4, swarthmore 4, and washington college 6).  That means only 42 of their 222 regional games count for OWP (<19%).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 11:40:42 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2008, 11:31:49 AM
I think that we are highlighting the value of the other criteria such as the "In-region results against regionally ranked teams" (evaluating the willingness to play the cream of the cream).

I have one other nagging question.

If I were doing a research paper in Sociology 101 on the validity of the OWP and OOWP to designate superiority of a NESCAC school over an SCAC or WIAC school, would my sociology professor accept the validity of the statistical tool?   :D

I would say No, the OWP doesnt tell you much.  I think it has as much to do with the way the schedules are set up (16 out-of conference games) and that there are so many d3 schools to choose from in the northeast so there isnt as much overlap between schedules.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HopeConvert on February 27, 2008, 11:45:11 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2008, 10:56:36 AM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 27, 2008, 10:18:14 AM


Anytime you start asking if it'd be better to lose than win, you're over-thinking! :)
True. Useful in my vocation, deadly in my avocations (especially on the golf course).

Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 10:53:09 AM

So it's not a matter of winning or losing; Hope drops in this category simply by playing the game.

Of course, all of that is dwarfed by the potential of dropping the RWP from .882 to .833 if they lose the game (it goes up to .889 if they win).

This happened to Mass-Dartmouth last night as they beat their last place sister school Mass-Boston and dropped in the numbers.

D1 hockey has a provision for ignoring games like these, where the net impact on the RPI (a weighted average of RWP, OOP, and OOWP) is negative, then the game is ignored.


I guess that's what I'm getting at. How can you be penalized after a victory? I think that goes to Ralph's point about the validity of the tool itself. I was wondering out loud whether there might be an extreme circumstance where it might be better to lose, simply because I'm not convinced that it's a good measure either.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 11:30:20 AM
Re: the Hope example.  While they cannot benefit from losing, they are a lock anyway and a loss would certainly help the MIAA!  How altruistic are the Dutch feeling? ;D

Evidently you haven't spent much time in West Michigan. "Dutch" and "altruistic" rarely appear in the same sentence.  ;)

I appreciate the contributions I read on this page. Good work!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2008, 11:46:31 AM
By the way, I've learned that in the CCIW's annual post-season meeting yesterday, a coach actually proposed moving to a single round robin format to create a level playing field with the NESCAC and to give more CCIW teams a chance to make the tournament.  It was dismissed after some discussion, but I found it very interesting that it came up.

As it see it, the NESCAC is the one league that has a huge advantage with the way the metrics work.  The way they operate is their business, but I hope the national committee considers their inherent advantages in selecting Pool C teams and in seeding.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2008, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 27, 2008, 11:45:11 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 11:30:20 AM
Re: the Hope example.  While they cannot benefit from losing, they are a lock anyway and a loss would certainly help the MIAA!  How altruistic are the Dutch feeling? ;D

Evidently you haven't spent much time in West Michigan. "Dutch" and "altruistic" rarely appear in the same sentence.  ;)

I appreciate the contributions I read on this page. Good work!
Greetings Hope Convert!

Our friend, Mr Ypsi, is from Michigan.  I am not sure if it is "West" enough!

I was "ROTFLMAO" at his poignancy!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 11:55:24 AM
I've done my latest comparison of the records listed for OWP on the D3 site with my own numbers. Here are the issues that I have:

2/20 Oswego-SUNYIT is regional
Milwaukee Engineering has 16 wins on their schedule through Sunday (now 17), all regional, but the OWP calc shows them at 15-9.
Maranatha Baptist has 17 losses on their schedule through Sunday (2 non-D3), but the OWP calc shows them at 3-14.
Southern Maine is missing the 2/12 Mass-Boston game from their schedule. Weirdly enough, it's on UMB's.
Thiel - Geneva is not regional
Regis looks like 7-16 to me, so I'm not sure why the OWP page has 6-16
Wheelock looks like 1-24 to me (all games regional), so I'm not sure why the OWP page has 1-23.
Finlandia's 3 regional games should count.

Middlebury-Hamilton is apparently regional according to Middlebury's record published in regional rankings.

With the exception of the Middlebury and perhaps Oswego, none of this makes a big difference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 12:00:38 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 27, 2008, 11:45:11 AM
I guess that's what I'm getting at. How can you be penalized after a victory? I think that goes to Ralph's point about the validity of the tool itself. I was wondering out loud whether there might be an extreme circumstance where it might be better to lose, simply because I'm not convinced that it's a good measure either.


Just to make sure I made myself clear. Losing always hurts the numbers. It has no mathematical impact on the OWP/OOWP and harms the RWP.

What is harmful is the act of playing bad teams. Even with a win tonight, Hope's combined numbers go down a little. But if they lose, they go down a lot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 27, 2008, 12:20:44 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2008, 11:46:31 AM
By the way, I've learned that in the CCIW's annual post-season meeting yesterday, a coach actually proposed moving to a single round robin format to create a level playing field with the NESCAC and to give more CCIW teams a chance to make the tournament.  It was dismissed after some discussion, but I found it very interesting that it came up.

As it see it, the NESCAC is the one league that has a huge advantage with the way the metrics work.  The way they operate is their business, but I hope the national committee considers their inherent advantages in selecting Pool C teams and in seeding.



I think what the NJAC did splitting a ten team conference into two divisions is the best of both worlds.  While it is not gaming the system like the NESCAC does, it also eliminates 5 conference games and the teams don't beat each other up as much.  They also did a nice job of splitting the traditional powers between the two, although the north is the stronger division overall with NJCU, Ramapo, WPU and MSU in it.  I would think more conferences would be looking at a solution like this.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2008, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2008, 10:56:36 AM
Anytime you start asking if it'd be better to lose than win, you're over-thinking! :)

Esp when Alma's involved.

.......but thats the Calvin grad in 'Convert'. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 01:02:27 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 12:00:38 PM
Just to make sure I made myself clear. Losing always hurts the numbers. It has no mathematical impact on the OWP/OOWP and harms the RWP.

I would agree, if you put the word "significant" in front of "mathematical", because it does have a miniscule impact (you are giving your opponent a victory so their WP will increase), but, in reality, the result of a single game on your OWP is pretty much negligible (and even less so on your OOWP).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 01:28:12 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 01:02:27 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 12:00:38 PM
Just to make sure I made myself clear. Losing always hurts the numbers. It has no mathematical impact on the OWP/OOWP and harms the RWP.

I would agree, if you put the word "significant" in front of "mathematical", because it does have a miniscule impact (you are giving your opponent a victory so their WP will increase), but, in reality, the result of a single game on your OWP is pretty much negligible (and even less so on your OOWP).

No so. Your opponent doesn't get credit for its win over you. As I described up-post, the games against you don't count in the calculation.

Again, using the Hope-Alma example: Alma starts the day at 3-15 in the region, with 2 of those losses to Hope. When it comes time to calculate Hope's OWP, Alma's record is treated as 3-13 (.1875) and the OWP average is calculated using the .1875 number (twice because of the two games). After tonight, a third copy of .1875 will be entered into Hope's calculations. So it doesn't matter whether Alma is 4-15 by beating Hope or 3-16 by losing, the 3-13 record is all that is used in the OWP.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 01:43:43 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 27, 2008, 12:20:44 PM

I think what the NJAC did splitting a ten team conference into two divisions is the best of both worlds.  While it is not gaming the system like the NESCAC does, it also eliminates 5 conference games and the teams don't beat each other up as much.  They also did a nice job of splitting the traditional powers between the two, although the north is the stronger division overall with NJCU, Ramapo, WPU and MSU in it.  I would think more conferences would be looking at a solution like this.

Actually, this is quite common, playing two games against your own division and one against the other division.

The NAC, CUNYAC, SUNYAC, NJAC, ASC, and SCAC all have this kind of scheduling. In some leagues, there are actual divisions, and in others there are not.

The NESCAC actually has a bit of this already, as two old "mini-conferences" already have a second game scheduled: Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin each play each other a second time for the "CBB" crown and Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan each play each other a second time.

So going to full 2 and 1 scheduling would only add 2 games to the schedules of these six, which will not have enough impact on the numbers to change the objections of those who claim the NESCAC is "gaming" the system.

In practical terms, the NESCAC would have a hard time splitting into two divisions, because the weekend scheduling is built around travel partners and one set of travel partners would have to be in separate divisions (Wesleyan and Conn College). I think the league would have to go to 12 schools before this is possible.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2008, 01:50:59 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 01:43:43 PM

So going to full 2 and 1 scheduling would only add 2 games to the schedules of these six, which will not have enough impact on the numbers to change the objections of those who claim the NESCAC is "gaming" the system.


The potential to rack up 2 more "in-region" losses would be big.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 01:58:03 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 01:28:12 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 01:02:27 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 12:00:38 PM
Just to make sure I made myself clear. Losing always hurts the numbers. It has no mathematical impact on the OWP/OOWP and harms the RWP.

I would agree, if you put the word "significant" in front of "mathematical", because it does have a miniscule impact (you are giving your opponent a victory so their WP will increase), but, in reality, the result of a single game on your OWP is pretty much negligible (and even less so on your OOWP).

No so. Your opponent doesn't get credit for its win over you. As I described up-post, the games against you don't count in the calculation.

Again, using the Hope-Alma example: Alma starts the day at 3-15 in the region, with 2 of those losses to Hope. When it comes time to calculate Hope's OWP, Alma's record is treated as 3-13 (.1875) and the OWP average is calculated using the .1875 number (twice because of the two games). After tonight, a third copy of .1875 will be entered into Hope's calculations. So it doesn't matter whether Alma is 4-15 by beating Hope or 3-16 by losing, the 3-13 record is all that is used in the OWP.


So then for OOWP, do they not count games in which the teams in question are involved.  For example, If team A has beaten team B twice, and team B has beaten team C twice.  If team A has also beaten team C twice,  do these games not count in the OOWP?  (To further clarify, lets say team A is 16-4, team B is 10-10, and team C is 5-15, when you are calculating team A's OOWP, is team C 5-15, 5-13, or 5-11?)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 27, 2008, 01:59:28 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 01:43:43 PM
The NESCAC actually has a bit of this already, as two old "mini-conferences" already have a second game scheduled: Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin each play each other a second time for the "CBB" crown and Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan each play each other a second time.

They have a name, too; Amherst, Wesleyan, and Williams constitute the "Little Three."
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 02:19:20 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 01:58:03 PM

So then for OOWP, do they not count games in which the teams in question are involved.  For example, If team A has beaten team B twice, and team B has beaten team C twice.  If team A has also beaten team C twice,  do these games not count in the OOWP?  (To further clarify, lets say team A is 16-4, team B is 10-10, and team C is 5-15, when you are calculating team A's OOWP, is team C 5-15, 5-13, or 5-11?)

OOWP is actually simpler. Once you've done the OWP calculation for every team, you simply average the OWP of all your opponents (weighted by the number of time that you've played them).

So in the example, once you've calculated B's OWP (treating C's record as 5-13) and all the other OWP's on A's schedule, then average all of those OOP's (again, weighted by the number of games against each team).

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 02:22:49 PM
Rankings are out

http://ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/polls/rankings/diviii (http://ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/polls/rankings/diviii)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 03:02:07 PM
Regional correction: Lycoming has a 13-8 regional record. Upon further review, their game with Shenandoah is not regional. Williamsport, PA to Winchester, VA is 198 miles, but from the campus addresses, it's 200.3.

Thoughts on the ranking, from west to east

Whitewater #1 in the west? Seems generous but consistent with their #4 last week.
Platteville is at #6, but has already dropped to virtual #8 with their loss.

Great Lakes I got exactly, with Heidelberg moving ahead of Albion due to their win over Capital.

DePauw and Miss College are a coin flip at the bottom of the south, with the same record and statistically identical OWP and OOWP values.

I'm a little surprised that Albright is not higher; then again, I thought they deserved to be in the poll at #7 last week, so their gain from probable #9 to #6 makes sense to me.

The RIC-Trinity-Middlebury order must be due to the fact that RIC beat Trinity, and Trinity beat Middlebury. I would think that Middlebury jumps to the top of the group if they beat Trinity in the NESCAC SF.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2008, 04:25:54 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 03:02:07 PM
Thoughts on the ranking, from west to east

Whitewater #1 in the west? Seems generous but consistent with their #4 last week.
Platteville is at #6, but has already dropped to virtual #8 with their loss.

Why is that, everyone else lost in that region!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2008, 04:30:56 PM
Pabegg, I think that we can now look at your calculations with the understanding that the last 4-6 Pool C bid teams will be the last ones at the table, and that the last minute outcomes in the tourneys will juggle the final results.

If you are "C-10" or better, then win your tourney!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 04:32:43 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 27, 2008, 04:25:54 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 03:02:07 PM
Thoughts on the ranking, from west to east

Whitewater #1 in the west? Seems generous but consistent with their #4 last week.
Platteville is at #6, but has already dropped to virtual #8 with their loss.

Why is that, everyone else lost in that region!

I'm assuming your question is about Whitewater's #1. I just don't think that Whitewater has the best numbers in the region. It's also possible that they're in first based on the non-mathematical components used to rank teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scooterman on February 27, 2008, 04:59:07 PM
pabegg--In your opinion what does Brockport St. got to do to get Pool C bid if they dont get AQ by winning SUNY tourney? I thought getting to finals with Plattsburgh would do it, am I right?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 05:00:30 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 02:19:20 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 01:58:03 PM

So then for OOWP, do they not count games in which the teams in question are involved.  For example, If team A has beaten team B twice, and team B has beaten team C twice.  If team A has also beaten team C twice,  do these games not count in the OOWP?  (To further clarify, lets say team A is 16-4, team B is 10-10, and team C is 5-15, when you are calculating team A's OOWP, is team C 5-15, 5-13, or 5-11?)

OOWP is actually simpler. Once you've done the OWP calculation for every team, you simply average the OWP of all your opponents (weighted by the number of time that you've played them).

So in the example, once you've calculated B's OWP (treating C's record as 5-13) and all the other OWP's on A's schedule, then average all of those OOP's (again, weighted by the number of games against each team).



So they only account for your wins in the first order, they dont worry about your victories against opponents opponents.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 05:02:19 PM
What??? Chicago beats Brandeis and NYU and drops a spot in the rankings? How do you explain that?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: monsoon on February 27, 2008, 05:06:05 PM
All of this math is making my head hurt - and that's just from reading about it, not doing the work!  Thanks to those of you trying to make sense out of all of this.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2008, 05:07:52 PM
Is the issue that they got passed by Wheaton, who has a head-to-head win against Chicago and a better winning percentage?

Wheaton is no longer being weighed down by its two losses to regionally ranked IWU. IWU is no longer regionally ranked.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2008, 06:28:57 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 05:02:19 PM
What??? Chicago beats Brandeis and NYU and drops a spot in the rankings? How do you explain that?

Each week the regional committees reevaluate all of the candidates using the stated primary criteria...

* In-region winning %
* Strength of schedule
* In-region head to head
* In-region common opponents
* Record vs regionally ranked teams


Use this to evaluate Chicago vs Wheaton and I think you'll see why Wheaton comes out ahead.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 07:20:22 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2008, 05:07:52 PM
Is the issue that they got passed by Wheaton, who has a head-to-head win against Chicago and a better winning percentage?

Wheaton is no longer being weighed down by its two losses to regionally ranked IWU. IWU is no longer regionally ranked.

Yes, the Thunder definitely owe the Vikings of NPU a huge thank you.  My guess is that that will be forthcoming several weeks after hell freezes over! :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 08:14:18 PM
I can understand how Wheaton could be ahead of Chicago, it is just the timing that is odd.  Chicago beats a top 10 national team and they drop.  The IWU point is fine, but it is still odd to me that you beat an "in-region" opponent with the 8th highest OWP in the country and you drop ground.  I was actually surprised to see them as high as fourth last week and I am just as surprised to see them drop after what they did this weekend.  The NCAA has to be using some sort of purely mathematical algorithm, or else they would not have had Chicago that high last week and then dropped them this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 08:39:00 PM
hugenerd, but the IWU team (against which Wheaton was 0-2) that dropped out of the in-region rankings (greatly raising a primary criterion for the Thunder) was #9 in the country in OWP.  Kinda negates the #8 OWP factor?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2008, 08:50:02 PM
Alright, whatever.  It doesnt matter that much anyway, Chicago still has to win this weekend to make it to the tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 08:56:49 PM
Agreed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 09:44:02 PM
Quote from: OxyBob on February 27, 2008, 09:19:35 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2008, 08:39:00 PM
hugenerd, but the IWU team (against which Wheaton was 0-2) that dropped out of the in-region rankings (greatly raising a primary criterion for the Thunder) was #9 in the country in OWP.  Kinda negates the #8 OWP factor?

I think you'd have to agree that IWU's OWP is overinflated, based on this post:

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 31, 2008, 04:11:25 PM
For Oxy, Plattsburgh has an impressive record, but IMO is somewhat overrated (top 25, sure, but maybe not top 20); Oxy won by 5 in home area, though not at home.  And while I'm a die-hard Titan rooter, don't put too much stock in Oxy's 21-point home win vs. IWU edging Wheaton (in Bloomington); as a largely freshman team, the Titans in December were definitely not the Titans of late January.

IWU therefore benefited in its OWP by virtue of having played and lost to Oxy, which beat a "somewhat overrated" Plattsburgh team; and besides, IWU wasn't really itself when it played Oxy. Right?

OxyBob

OB, I realize that your schtick is to be the curmudgeon, but this is getting a bit tiresome. 

As you well know, OWP and poll rankings have nothing to do with one another.  And I see nothing terribly controversial in assuming a freshman-dominated team will be better later in the season than earlier.  And it is a fact that Wheaton benefited tremendously (in terms of selection criteria) when IWU dropped out of the regional rankings.

So, is it JUST a comedy routine, or do you have a problem?  Either way, kindly find a new foil.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 27, 2008, 10:24:02 PM
Everyone in contention holds serve in the GL region in their respective first round games (with PSU-Behrend to play Friday):

Hope over Alma 75-51 and Albion over Kalamazoo 64-56 in the MIAA.
OWU beats Hiram 84-66 tonight in a game postponed a day because of weather; Wooster won yesterday.
Heidelberg beats John Carroll 104-74 and Capital dispatches Mount Union 67-54.

Pabegg- Did 'Berg lock up a C bid with that win?  OWU on the outside looking in?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 10:49:32 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 27, 2008, 10:24:02 PM
Pabegg- Did 'Berg lock up a C bid with that win?  OWU on the outside looking in?

I think so. It means that they will not be caught by Behrend or Albion unless those schools win their tournaments and skip off to Pool A. Since Hope or Wooster would be early Pool C selections if they lose again, Heidelberg will be on the board very early with very good numbers.

Ohio Wesleyan falls farther away from making Pool C as teams like Heidelberg and Albion (and their equivalents around the country) win games. They're just not going to be able to pass people at this rate.


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 10:58:02 PM
Pool C update for Wednesday night

Tonight it looks like we said goodbye to Albright. None of the other losers had a Pool C chance.

Widener, Hope, Capital, Stevens Point, Heidelberg and Whitewater are now in the tournament. We also know that the WIAC Pool A bid will go to Stevens Point or Whitewater while the other will get a very early Pool C bid.

Albion remains on the good side of the bubble with their win.
DeSales and Ohio Wesleyan keep alive faint Pool C chances

Current Pool C contenders (no games left to play)

Bates
UW-Platteville
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sciacguru on February 27, 2008, 11:04:50 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 10:58:02 PM
Pool C update for Wednesday night

We also know that the WIAC Pool A bid will go to Stevens Point or Whitewater while the other will get a very early Pool C bid.

For Cal Lutheran's continued chance at a Pool C (if AQ doesnt work out), I think they are siliently cheering for Point to run the table.  Both UWSP and UWWW are in regardless, but CLU will take all the help possible.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 11:16:35 PM
Quote from: sciacguru on February 27, 2008, 11:04:50 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 10:58:02 PM
Pool C update for Wednesday night

We also know that the WIAC Pool A bid will go to Stevens Point or Whitewater while the other will get a very early Pool C bid.

For Cal Lutheran's continued chance at a Pool C (if AQ doesnt work out), I think they are siliently cheering for Point to run the table.  Both UWSP and UWWW are in regardless, but CLU will take all the help possible.

After tonight, their cheering is probably best directed elsewhere. Either UW school gets in ahead of them as a Pool C, so they really don't care who wins the WIAC. Better rooting options in the west would be Buena Vista or St. Thomas.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pg04 on February 28, 2008, 12:33:49 AM
Quote from: scooterman on February 27, 2008, 04:59:07 PM
pabegg--In your opinion what does Brockport St. got to do to get Pool C bid if they dont get AQ by winning SUNY tourney? I thought getting to finals with Plattsburgh would do it, am I right?

Yes, I would like some analysis on this as well... Unfortunately I haven't followed this as closely as I usually do but does Brockport State have to win the SUNYAC to get in? 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2008, 12:40:52 AM
Quote from: pg04 on February 28, 2008, 12:33:49 AM
Quote from: scooterman on February 27, 2008, 04:59:07 PM
pabegg--In your opinion what does Brockport St. got to do to get Pool C bid if they dont get AQ by winning SUNY tourney? I thought getting to finals with Plattsburgh would do it, am I right?

Yes, I would like some analysis on this as well... Unfortunately I haven't followed this as closely as I usually do but does Brockport State have to win the SUNYAC to get in? 
Practically speaking, yes.  I think that 13th is too close to the bubble.  That is five spots into the bubble.  Rochester is the first C off the table from the East Region at this minute.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2008, 12:41:26 AM
It really surprised me to see that Platteville stayed at the #7 spot in the West Region even though Buena Vista and Cal. Lutheran, who were both directly ahead of Platteville, LOST, while Platteville topped the #1 team in the regional ranking, Point...and went 2-0.

With that said, there is no way that Platteville is getting a Pool C bid.  There are two WIAC teams and two SCIAC teams ahead of them.  Platteville lost to Eau Claire in the first round of the WIAC tourney.  So, at the very least, you'll have one WIAC team and one SCIAC team ahead of Platteville in the pecking order.  If St. Thomas loses or Loras tops Buena Vista in the IIAC final (if things go as planned), then Platteville would be about the 4th or 5th team in line in the West region alone.  

I'm pretty sure both Whitewater and Point secured spots.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pg04 on February 28, 2008, 12:45:01 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2008, 12:40:52 AM
Quote from: pg04 on February 28, 2008, 12:33:49 AM
Quote from: scooterman on February 27, 2008, 04:59:07 PM
pabegg--In your opinion what does Brockport St. got to do to get Pool C bid if they dont get AQ by winning SUNY tourney? I thought getting to finals with Plattsburgh would do it, am I right?

Yes, I would like some analysis on this as well... Unfortunately I haven't followed this as closely as I usually do but does Brockport State have to win the SUNYAC to get in? 
Practically speaking, yes.  I think that 13th is too close to the bubble.  That is five spots into the bubble.  Rochester is the first C off the table from the East Region at this minute.

Thanks Ralph, I guess they'll just have to do it the hard way.  The loss at home at the end of the season is looking like a killer. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2008, 12:57:46 AM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 11:16:35 PM
Quote from: sciacguru on February 27, 2008, 11:04:50 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 10:58:02 PM
Pool C update for Wednesday night

We also know that the WIAC Pool A bid will go to Stevens Point or Whitewater while the other will get a very early Pool C bid.

For Cal Lutheran's continued chance at a Pool C (if AQ doesnt work out), I think they are siliently cheering for Point to run the table.  Both UWSP and UWWW are in regardless, but CLU will take all the help possible.

After tonight, their cheering is probably best directed elsewhere. Either UW school gets in ahead of them as a Pool C, so they really don't care who wins the WIAC. Better rooting options in the west would be Buena Vista or St. Thomas.


Yes, but Cal Lu beat Stevens Point back on New Year's Day, and if Point ends up in Pool A, it's gotta help Cal Lu's Pool C chances at least a little (in OWP if nothing else).  I think that was probably sciacguru's line of reasoning.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2008, 12:59:08 AM
Quote from: scooterman on February 27, 2008, 04:59:07 PM
pabegg--In your opinion what does Brockport St. got to do to get Pool C bid if they dont get AQ by winning SUNY tourney? I thought getting to finals with Plattsburgh would do it, am I right?
Sorry, I missed this earlier on my way out the door.

I don't think Brockport can guarantee themselves a Pool C bid. Depending on the number of upsets of teams ahead of them nationally, they could be anywhere from 95% certain to 5% on Sunday night.

As it stands, Rochester will move off the Pool C board very early, which means Brockport will be in consideration for a long time, which can only help.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2008, 12:59:57 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2008, 12:57:46 AM
Yes, but Cal Lu beat Stevens Point back on New Year's Day, and if Point ends up in Pool A, it's gotta help Cal Lu's Pool C chances at least a little (in OWP if nothing else).  I think that was probably sciacguru's line of reasoning.

As a Pointer fan, that was such a painful loss to listen to!  :'( >:( :D ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2008, 01:02:54 AM
Oh yeah,

If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to put up this week's regional rankings and results as well...then Ralph or someone with power can edit it if needed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2008, 01:08:19 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 28, 2008, 01:02:54 AM
Oh yeah,

If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to put up this week's regional rankings and results as well...then Ralph or someone with power can edit it if needed.
Glad to help...

I think that the Pool C board has been even better this year.

Pabegg has been a big help with his number-crunching!  As I have said before, his numbers are unofficial, but I think that we are seeing the last few teams at the table.

I don't think that there will be any surprises when the final list comes down.  I will be interested in how the committee arrived at the final list.

This thing is getting more transparent every  season.

Take home lesson...

if you can point to one game that you should not have lost, then that was probably the game that did you in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2008, 01:17:54 AM
Yeah, glad to help on this.

I think it's always the last three Pool C's that kind of get us (the first 14 are no-brainers in retrospect).

Sometimes it comes down to how the committee looks at a great record from a week conference (usually no, but not always). Sometimes it comes down to a team with an really tough schedule that looks like they have too many losses to make it, but they do. And sometimes it comes down to a judgment call about the relative merits of the different rating criteria, as it is apparent that different regions use different judgments.

But Ralph is right; except for my UAA boys, everyone with a Pool C shot lost in the conference tournament and so this is all a second chance to keep playing (just ask 2007 national champion Amherst).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sciacguru on February 28, 2008, 01:39:00 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2008, 12:57:46 AM
Yes, but Cal Lu beat Stevens Point back on New Year's Day, and if Point ends up in Pool A, it's gotta help Cal Lu's Pool C chances at least a little (in OWP if nothing else).  I think that was probably sciacguru's line of reasoning.

Exactly, thanks Dave.

Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 28, 2008, 12:59:57 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2008, 12:57:46 AM
Yes, but Cal Lu beat Stevens Point back on New Year's Day, and if Point ends up in Pool A, it's gotta help Cal Lu's Pool C chances at least a little (in OWP if nothing else).  I think that was probably sciacguru's line of reasoning.

As a Pointer fan, that was such a painful loss to listen to!  :'( >:( :D ;)

But a great game to watch!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: with age comes? on February 28, 2008, 04:42:38 AM
New to this board but find it very interesting.. pabegg you seem to be the resident expert.. St Lawrence just jumped ahead of Bport in the east regional rankings, if they both lose in the tournament finals is it possible for both of them to get pool c bids?  St Law is at home and will probably win their tournament but Bport has to travel to the fartherst corner of the state and beat Plattsburgh (most likely) to win their tournament and has a much more difficult road.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2008, 07:11:13 AM
Quote from: with age comes? on February 28, 2008, 04:42:38 AM
New to this board but find it very interesting.. pabegg you seem to be the resident expert.. St Lawrence just jumped ahead of Bport in the east regional rankings, if they both lose in the tournament finals is it possible for both of them to get pool c bids?  St Law is at home and will probably win their tournament but Bport has to travel to the fartherst corner of the state and beat Plattsburgh (most likely) to win their tournament and has a much more difficult road.
One of the more interesting questions out there is who gets ranked higher in the situation you just outlined. If St. Lawrence loses the final to Vassar or Hamilton, will they be able to stay ahead of Brockport losing to Plattsburgh?

My guess is no, that their current margin is so small that if St. Lawrence gets upset, then they will drop behind Brockport who will, after all, lose to a Plattsburgh team that no one in the region has beaten.

As I've commented elsewhere, Brockport would be a true bubble team in this scenario. I can't imagine a scenario where Brockport would be in the first 12 Pool C bids, so they'll be fighting for one of the last 5. That doesn't leave much room for St. Lawrence behind them.

With enough non-upsets in conference tournaments, both could get in. But if schools like Wooster or St. Thomas or WPI or Hope or Augustana go down, each of those could take a Pool C bid off of the table, and leave Brockport fighting for 1 or 2 spots instead of 5.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pbrooks3 on February 28, 2008, 07:33:22 AM
pabegg, the SCAC tournament begins tomorrow. Centre won the regular season and has the 23-game winning streak. What do you see happening if Centre doesn't get the automatic qualifier by winning the SCAC tournament?  Is there any scenario where the SCAC gets at least one Pool C bid this year?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2008, 07:43:37 AM
Quote from: pbrooks3 on February 28, 2008, 07:33:22 AM
pabegg, the SCAC tournament begins tomorrow. Centre won the regular season and has the 23-game winning streak. What do you see happening if Centre doesn't get the automatic qualifier by winning the SCAC tournament?  Is there any scenario where the SCAC gets at least one Pool C bid this year?
Centre is in, no matter what.
If Millsaps avoids the dreaded first round upset, that should be enough to get them in.
Certainly a Centre-Millsaps final will be between 2 schools that know they are in the tournament.
Anyone else? Maybe a longshot chance for DePauw if they can upset Centre in the SF and lose to Millsaps in the final, but not much of one.

So 90% chance of one Pool C bid, <1% chance of two.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 28, 2008, 08:03:47 AM
Ralph,
  I originally put this post on the women's ASC board but thought I would put it here as well for discussion.

   I had posted earlier in the week that I didn't think the OWP/OOWP was a big deal right now for isolated conferences but obviously I was wrong. I was looking over this year's regional rankings compared to last year and the new RPI is having a big impact in my opinion.

   Last year, in most cases teams were usually ranked according to regional winning percentage with a few exceptions here and there, but usually teams were within a loss of one another. This year there are several cases in which teams with two more losses, and sometimes even three more regional losses, are being ranked ahead of teams with better records. That did not happen much last year unless one team had played far more regional games.

    I would like to know what everyone thinks so far, but the system seems to have added a good bit more weight to regions with more teams. For example, teams in the Northeast like Brandeis-Middlebury-Trinity (Conn) are RPI Top 20 nationally with five regional losses. Mississippi College and DePauw are outside the Top 50 with five regional losses with SOS slightly above .500.

    I'm really not trying to call those teams out, I'm sure they are worthy, but asking some questions and trying to get some feedback. Are the schedules of the Northeast teams that much harder in reality, or are the OWP/OOWP numbers boosted by having plenty of teams to cherry pick with good records. Just hard to believe that an average  difference  in OWP/OOWP of .507 to .560 would be 30-40 places nationally in the Pool C bids.

    To me it looks like the new system is giving equal weight to OWP - OOWP - regional winning %, which makes your actual record just a small fraction of the ranking criteria, or at least much smaller than years past.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2008, 08:43:52 AM
Please remember that pabegg's RPI is "his number".  The criteria are explicitly outlined as in-region won-loss and the OWP/OOWP.  Everything that we have heard about the two is that the W-L and the OWP/OOWP are two different and distinct criteria as considered by the committee.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2008, 09:13:02 AM
Good morning Chris,

:D :D :D
About 10 pages back (earlier this week), I talked about the impact of the single round robin.

Click here (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=4232.1485).

About that part of the thread is where the real theoretical dissection of the new system begins among us posters.

Using Tufts as an example, the Jumbos are 1-9 in the NESCAC.  If we assume that 2-16 is a reasonable outcome in double round-robin, their 11-13 goes to 4-21.  There would be similar impacts to all of the NESCAC schools in-region records.  Amherst's OWP and OOWP are not nearly as impressive when evaluated on an "apples and apples" basis, e.g., the CCIW or the WIAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 28, 2008, 10:02:48 AM
It appears that if William Paterson and Stockton both make it to the NJAC championship game, the loser would be the top C candidate from the Atlantic.  Not sure if they would get in, but they would be considered.  I think they are the only two really serious contenders for a C bid in the Atlantic, Farmingdale is a long shot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2008, 11:03:02 AM
The CCC is also a single round robin. But they seem to be the recipients of the death blows by the NESCAC. The CCC could probably break into divisions. Heck, the NESCAC could divisionize itself and play 13 conference games. That'd be better, right?



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 28, 2008, 11:05:56 AM
Any conference with 10+ teams would be smart to break into divisions and play double round robin in division and single with the other division.  Especially the teams in the East, Northeast, Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions, there are so many good regional opponents within a few hours for the majority of schools.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 28, 2008, 12:06:56 PM
Interestingly, the NATHC who gains their Pool A bid next season is planning on splitting into divisions.  They plan to have 4 North teams, 4 South teams and four centrally located teams that rotate between the two divisions from year to year.  Thanks NATHC for keeping it simple!   ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 28, 2008, 12:50:01 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 28, 2008, 11:05:56 AM
Any conference with 10+ teams would be smart to break into divisions and play double round robin in division and single with the other division.  Especially the teams in the East, Northeast, Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions, there are so many good regional opponents within a few hours for the majority of schools.

I like that idea...problems solved!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2008, 01:42:45 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 28, 2008, 12:06:56 PM
Interestingly, the NATHC who gains their Pool A bid next season is planning on splitting into divisions.  They plan to have 4 North teams, 4 South teams and four centrally located teams that rotate between the two divisions from year to year.  Thanks NATHC for keeping it simple!   ::)
I am glad to hear how they were going to handle this.

It must be a pragmatic attempt to address the geography.  They really don't break into a pure north-south, and they have 12 men and 13 women.  If they accept Mt Mary as a 14th women's  member (a big "If' Mt Mary passes the provisional requirements), then that is even more reason to have some uniqueness to the divisions.

Those schools in the middle will bounce around like a shuttlecock!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2008, 01:56:53 PM
By the way... something I have been thinking about. Despite the great work of crunching numbers by "pabegg", we need to becareful and assume that is how the Pool C will be divided up. The NCAA isn't automated and they certainly have plenty of determining factors before they make a decision.

That being said, if the teams are selected exactly how "pabegg" has them in the computer system... we should send the program to the NCAA and tell them to not worry about selecting teams formally, we will know exactly what to look for!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 28, 2008, 02:12:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2008, 01:42:45 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 28, 2008, 12:06:56 PM
Interestingly, the NATHC who gains their Pool A bid next season is planning on splitting into divisions.  They plan to have 4 North teams, 4 South teams and four centrally located teams that rotate between the two divisions from year to year.  Thanks NATHC for keeping it simple!   ::)
I am glad to hear how they were going to handle this.

It must be a pragmatic attempt to address the geography.  They really don't break into a pure north-south, and they have 12 men and 13 women.  If they accept Mt Mary as a 14th women's  member (a big "If' Mt Mary passes the provisional requirements), then that is even more reason to have some uniqueness to the divisions.

Those schools in the middle will bounce around like a shuttlecock!

The NATHC isn't thrilled about the prospect of Mt. Mary.  I'm not sure they would be admitted if and when they pass provisional NCAA status

There have been rumblings that Maranatha and their new president might decide to drop the NCAA affiliation altogether and go strictly NCCAA.  The NATHC is starting football in 2008 and there's some question whether MBBC will be able to complete the season with a healthy squad.  That might be signal the beginning of the end for MBBC in the NCAA and the NATHC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 28, 2008, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 28, 2008, 12:06:56 PM
Interestingly, the NATHC who gains their Pool A bid next season is planning on splitting into divisions.  They plan to have 4 North teams, 4 South teams and four centrally located teams that rotate between the two divisions from year to year.  Thanks NATHC for keeping it simple!   ::)

I live where the NATHC is and I tried to split them into divisions but it isn't easy using geography. The 5 Illinois schools of aurora (aurora), benedictine (lisle), concordia-il (river forest), dominican(river forest), and rockford (rockford) are in the South. that would be easy. And so is Marian (Fond du Lac) and Lakeland (Howards Grove) in the north. I guess Concordia-WI (Mequon) and Maranatha (Watertown) are the next fartherst north. Unfortunately for the three teams in the middle that I have are Edgewood (madison), Wisconsin Lutheran (Milwaukee) and MSOE (Milwaukee). Because of travel I would put Edgewood in the north since they are off in the west compared to the other schools and multiple trips to river forest are worse than trips to howards grove. That means my last two schools are Wisconsin Lutheran and MSOE. i feel stupid having to split the Milwaukee schools into seperate divisions but if I must MSOE is further North by a couple of city blocks. Alverno for womens can be thrown into either one. If Mt. Mary were to join they would be in north and alverno would be in the south.

That means my divisions are:
North- Concordia-WI, Edgewood, Lakeland, Maranatha, Marian, MSOE, (Mt. Mary if needed)
South-Aurora, Benedictine, Concordia-IL, Dominican, Rockford, Wisconsin Lutheran, (Alverno if needed)

I have no clue what the NATHC really has in mind.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2008, 04:40:59 PM
One of the factors in the selection process is record against ranked teams. This is obviously a simple calculation as long as you know who the ranked teams are.

We know who is currently ranked. How could this change based on this week's results?

Here are my thoughts, by region:

Northeast: Top 6 will still be there. Trinity, Middlebury, Emerson, and Elms could drop out. Bates and Salem St are potential replacements. If Emerson or Elms are upset, will they fall below the idle Bates? With a SF loss, would Trinity or Middlebury fall out of the top 10?

East: Top 2 are safe. St. Lawrence, Brockport, and Stevens could drop out. Nazareth, Oswego, and Geneseo are potential replacements. Oswego and Geneseo would have to get the Pool A autobid in order to join the rankings.

Atlantic: Top 3 are safe. York and St Joseph's LI could drop out. Ramapo and Montclair are potential replacements. Old Westbury would have been the first replacement, but they went and lost in their first tournament game.

Mid-Atlantic: Top 5 are safe. Albright, Lycoming, and Scranton could drop out. Messiah, Kings, and Juniata are potential replacements.

South: Top 6 are safe. Randolph-Macon and Mississippi College could drop out. DePauw is the only potential replacement I see.

Great Lakes: Top 4 are safe. PSU-Behrend and Albion could drop out. Ohio Wesleyan and Carnegie Mellon are potential replacements. What happens if CMU beats Rochester this Saturday? Would they replace a PSU-Behrend that loses in the AMCC tournament?

Midwest: Top 5 are safe. Elmhurst, Aurora, and Webster could drop out. Illinois Wesleyan and Defiance are potential replacements. Is there any question that IWU would be ranked as the CCIW tournament champion?

West: Top 5 are safe. Platteville, Cal Lutheran, and Loras could drop out. But who could replace them? The Carleton/Gustavus winner, perhaps. Is there any chance that Nebraska Wesleyan or Chapman gets ranked with a 2-0 weekend. Obviously Platteville has set themselves up to drop from the rankings with their 0-1 week (they should be below CLU and Loras), but they won't drop out unless there's someone there to take their place.

Actually, the one thing I realized is how tight things are in the west. There's probably less distance between 1 and 8 this week in the West than say 3 and 4 in the Mid-Atlantic or the Midwest. So there could be a lot of movement within that top 8 this week, which of course affects seeding as well.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 28, 2008, 04:57:47 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 28, 2008, 02:43:50 PM
That means my divisions are:
North- Concordia-WI, Edgewood, Lakeland, Maranatha, Marian, MSOE, (Mt. Mary if needed)
South-Aurora, Benedictine, Concordia-IL, Dominican, Rockford, Wisconsin Lutheran, (Alverno if needed)

I have no clue what the NATHC really has in mind.

From what I know, the NATHC is planning on this:

South: Dominican, Benedictine, Aurora, Concordia Chicago
North:  Lakeland, Marian, Concordia Wisconsin, MSOE
Alternating rotation:  Edgewood, Rockford, Maranatha, Wis. Lutheran (Alverno)

(I could have flip-flopped MSOE and WLC. I'm not sure)

I like the two divisions, but I'm not really a fan of the schools alternating between the divisions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2008, 05:03:58 PM
Tonight's tournaments with a Pool C impact:

In all cases, the Pool C candidate is listed first.

GNAC SF
Emerson vs. St. Joseph's ME

NJAC SF
Richard Stockton vs. Ramapo
William Paterson vs. Montclair

Skyline SF
Farmingdale vs. SUNY-Maritime

SLIAC SF
Webster vs. Maryville MO

IIAC SF
Buena Vista vs. Dubuque
Loras vs. Coe

MIAC SF
St. Thomas vs. Bethel


Analysis

St. Thomas would be a Pool C lock with a loss tonight.
Buena Vista and Loras could probably absorb a loss tonight, but it would push them onto the bubble; on the other hand, a win should lock up a Pool C bid, but I'm just not sure about the West this year, given how tightly bunched #1 through #8 are.
For Emerson and Richard Stockton, a loss would be nearly fatal (the UW-Platteville category)
Farmingdale, William Paterson and Webster would be done with a loss tonight.

Current Pool C contenders (no games left to play)

Bates
UW-Platteville

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 28, 2008, 05:49:45 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 28, 2008, 12:59:57 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2008, 12:57:46 AM
Yes, but Cal Lu beat Stevens Point back on New Year's Day, and if Point ends up in Pool A, it's gotta help Cal Lu's Pool C chances at least a little (in OWP if nothing else).  I think that was probably sciacguru's line of reasoning.

As a Pointer fan, that was such a painful loss to listen to!  :'( >:( :D ;)

I totally agree...  That one pretty much sucked!  To have a 15 point lead at the half and to get killed on the boards, and then still to have opportunities to win!  Still gives me a bad taste in my mouth!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2008, 06:16:00 PM
Loras plays Coe (yes, it's unlisted).

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 28, 2008, 10:59:36 PM
William Paterson and Stockton advance to meet on Saturday for the NJAC championship.  The loser still has a shot at a Pool C bid, slim but a shot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on February 28, 2008, 11:02:10 PM
BV won 91-86 and Loras won 82-64 i believe to set up a huge game saturday night in Storm Lake.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2008, 11:03:07 PM
Pool C's night is over, with one upset as Webster goes down to Maryville MO. Despite an unbeaten conference regular season, it looks like six losses is just too much for at at-large bid out of such a weak conference.

St. Thomas is now in.
The Iowa runner-up (Buena Vista or Loras) is about 99% certain; I still have a nagging doubt about the possibility that they lose out.
The NJAC will have its top two teams in the final; the loser will be in contention (and likely the first Atlantic team on the board), but still not guaranteed a spot.

Emerson and Farmingdale have kept alive their slim Pool C chances, and moved one win away from the Pool A bid.

It's a good night for the bubble teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2008, 11:43:07 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 28, 2008, 10:59:36 PM
William Paterson and Stockton advance to meet on Saturday for the NJAC championship.  The loser still has a shot at a Pool C bid, slim but a shot.

Quote from: pabegg on February 28, 2008, 11:03:07 PM
The Iowa runner-up (Buena Vista or Loras) is about 99% certain; I still have a nagging doubt about the possibility that they lose out.

I find it interesting that the loser of the William Paterson/Richard Stockton game that pits the top two teams in the Atlantic region has a "slimmer" chance of getting a Pool C bid than Loras, who is 8th in the West Region.  They will have at least one WIAC and one SCIAC ahead of them in the pecking order.

Of course, I thought Platteville would move up too.  So, what do I know?!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 28, 2008, 11:52:15 PM
I know every season is different, but there have been better NJAC runner up teams in previous years that haven't gotten a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2008, 12:00:24 AM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 28, 2008, 11:52:15 PM
I know every season is different, but there have been better NJAC runner up teams in previous years that haven't gotten a Pool C bid.

In terms of their regional ranking?  I mean #1 plays #2 in the region...and #3 plays #5 with #4 already losing.  I would think the loser of #1 v #2 wouldn't drop too far down their own region, let alone the overall rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: with age comes? on February 29, 2008, 12:56:36 AM
pabegg- do you think that Vassar has a ghost of a chance for a pool c bid if they lose to St Law in the liberty league championship and b-ports gets beat in the semi's of the sunyac of getting a pool c or does the weak non-conference schedule doom them unless they win the tournament?  Noticed they did not make your list of potential replacements in the east..
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fcnews on February 29, 2008, 01:27:02 AM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 08:17:07 AM
Pool C update for Wednesday morning

Last night York PA said goodbye. None of the other losers last night had any chance at Pool C.

Occidental locked down their Pool C bid if they don't win the conference tournament, and Cal Lutheran guaranteed that they will be a Pool C contender if they don't. Webster kept their slim Pool C chances alive (probably a moot point, since they are perhaps the most prohibitive favorite in any conference tournament this weekend).

The SLIAC #1 seed has not won the conference tourney since 1994.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 29, 2008, 02:46:28 AM
Quote from: fcnews on February 29, 2008, 01:27:02 AM
Quote from: pabegg on February 27, 2008, 08:17:07 AM
Pool C update for Wednesday morning

Last night York PA said goodbye. None of the other losers last night had any chance at Pool C.

Occidental locked down their Pool C bid if they don't win the conference tournament, and Cal Lutheran guaranteed that they will be a Pool C contender if they don't. Webster kept their slim Pool C chances alive (probably a moot point, since they are perhaps the most prohibitive favorite in any conference tournament this weekend).

The SLIAC #1 seed has not won the conference tourney since 1994.

......and I was thinking 4 straight years in the MIAA was long. :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 29, 2008, 06:27:21 AM
Quote from: with age comes? on February 29, 2008, 12:56:36 AM
pabegg- do you think that Vassar has a ghost of a chance for a pool c bid if they lose to St Law in the liberty league championship and b-ports gets beat in the semi's of the sunyac of getting a pool c or does the weak non-conference schedule doom them unless they win the tournament?  Noticed they did not make your list of potential replacements in the east..
No chance.

Their strength of schedule absolutely kills them. It's worse than any serious Pool C competitor. The next worst is Emerson, who has two fewer losses and would be 50-50 if they lose their final.

On that schedule, Vassar would need three fewer losses to get in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 29, 2008, 06:40:06 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 28, 2008, 11:43:07 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 28, 2008, 10:59:36 PM
William Paterson and Stockton advance to meet on Saturday for the NJAC championship.  The loser still has a shot at a Pool C bid, slim but a shot.

Quote from: pabegg on February 28, 2008, 11:03:07 PM
The Iowa runner-up (Buena Vista or Loras) is about 99% certain; I still have a nagging doubt about the possibility that they lose out.

I find it interesting that the loser of the William Paterson/Richard Stockton game that pits the top two teams in the Atlantic region has a "slimmer" chance of getting a Pool C bid than Loras, who is 8th in the West Region.  They will have at least one WIAC and one SCIAC ahead of them in the pecking order.

Of course, I thought Platteville would move up too.  So, what do I know?!

It's a reminder of the national nature of the tournament. Based on the ranking system, all four West conferences are "better" than the NJAC. So why should the NJAC benefit by being in a weaker area?

Loras and BV also did better with their conference schedule, with a combined 5 losses over 32 games versus 6 over 26 for Stockton and Paterson. So they separated themselves from the league pack a little more. After all, we're not talking about a bid for the MIAC, where the second place team lost 6 conference games.

Heck, the Platteville versus Paterson argument could be very relevant come Sunday if Stockton wins the NJAC. With the lack of upsets, that could be the discussion for C spot #17.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: BJ - DSU SID on February 29, 2008, 09:56:59 AM
PaBegg,

What's your opinion on DeSales (Mid-Atlantic) pool "C" chances?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 29, 2008, 10:20:09 AM
Quote from: BJ - DSU SID on February 29, 2008, 09:56:59 AM
PaBegg,

What's your opinion on DeSales (Mid-Atlantic) pool "C" chances?

Not good. They probably pass York in the regional rankings to sit at #4. Assuming Widener and either Ursinus or Gettysburg get the Pool A bids, they'll be second in Pool C consideration for the Mid-Atlantic. The Centennial runner-up will go early, leaving DeSales as the Mid-Atlantic team under consideration for a long time.

Their OWP is just not good, comparable to Albion and Farmingdale. Their only ranked opponent is Albright (who may fall out after their loss).

They needed some of the teams ahead of them to lose this week, as so far it hasn't been there.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: BJ - DSU SID on February 29, 2008, 10:36:02 AM
Thanks...hopefully we don't have to worry about a possible "C" bid and we get the "A", but I just wanted to see your thoughts before things get crazy tomorrow.

Enjoy the weekend's action.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on February 29, 2008, 10:53:50 AM
Quote from: pabegg on February 29, 2008, 06:40:06 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 28, 2008, 11:43:07 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 28, 2008, 10:59:36 PM
William Paterson and Stockton advance to meet on Saturday for the NJAC championship.  The loser still has a shot at a Pool C bid, slim but a shot.

Quote from: pabegg on February 28, 2008, 11:03:07 PM
The Iowa runner-up (Buena Vista or Loras) is about 99% certain; I still have a nagging doubt about the possibility that they lose out.

I find it interesting that the loser of the William Paterson/Richard Stockton game that pits the top two teams in the Atlantic region has a "slimmer" chance of getting a Pool C bid than Loras, who is 8th in the West Region.  They will have at least one WIAC and one SCIAC ahead of them in the pecking order.

Of course, I thought Platteville would move up too.  So, what do I know?!

It's a reminder of the national nature of the tournament. Based on the ranking system, all four West conferences are "better" than the NJAC. So why should the NJAC benefit by being in a weaker area?

Loras and BV also did better with their conference schedule, with a combined 5 losses over 32 games versus 6 over 26 for Stockton and Paterson. So they separated themselves from the league pack a little more. After all, we're not talking about a bid for the MIAC, where the second place team lost 6 conference games.

Heck, the Platteville versus Paterson argument could be very relevant come Sunday if Stockton wins the NJAC. With the lack of upsets, that could be the discussion for C spot #17.



Hopefully both teams get in because they both are very tough teams to deal with.  I dont suppose it hurts having the NCAA committee chairman being from your conference either.  Im sure he has seen both teams play plenty this year and will take that into consideration
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 29, 2008, 11:03:57 AM
If William Paterson does make the tournament, they could go fairly deep.  They play such aggressive D and they play it well that they can keep themselves in most games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ajsnc13 on February 29, 2008, 11:09:45 AM
pabegg, what do you think is bowdoin's chances of getting a pool c bid if they lose to amherst?  Does the outcome of Trinity/Middlebury effect Bowdoin's chances?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 29, 2008, 11:40:36 AM
Quote from: ajsnc13 on February 29, 2008, 11:09:45 AM
pabegg, what do you think is bowdoin's chances of getting a pool c bid if they lose to amherst?  Does the outcome of Trinity/Middlebury effect Bowdoin's chances?

The middle (4-8) of the Northeast is really confusing right now, as so many of the non-numerical factors are coming into play. For instance, RIC beat Trinity, so that's one comparison that likely to go RIC's way if it comes down to it; it also becomes a "common opponent" result when comparing RIC and the other NESCAC schools.

Does the Middlebury/Trinity loser fall below Emerson if Emerson loses in their final? Possibly.

For Bowdoin to miss the Pool C bid, they would have to fall below the Middlebury/Trinity loser. Given Bowdoin's lead in this weeks' rankings, that's not likely to happen. Since Bowdoin beat Trinity and lost to Middlebury, I would think that there would be more risk if Middlebury loses that game.

Bottom line: the second and third ranked NESCAC teams are in along with Amherst, the fourth is at worst on the bubble.



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fpc85 on February 29, 2008, 04:40:36 PM
pabegg,
If bowdoin loses to amherst tomorrow they have a legit shot at a pool c?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: formerbant10 on February 29, 2008, 06:51:30 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 29, 2008, 11:40:36 AM
Quote from: ajsnc13 on February 29, 2008, 11:09:45 AM
pabegg, what do you think is bowdoin's chances of getting a pool c bid if they lose to amherst?  Does the outcome of Trinity/Middlebury effect Bowdoin's chances?

The middle (4-8) of the Northeast is really confusing right now, as so many of the non-numerical factors are coming into play. For instance, RIC beat Trinity, so that's one comparison that likely to go RIC's way if it comes down to it; it also becomes a "common opponent" result when comparing RIC and the other NESCAC schools.

Trinity has beaten Midd and WPI, and has a higher RPI than both, just to add to the mess the NE is.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2008, 06:54:28 PM
Trinity TX beat DePauw in 2OT.  If anyone still had DePauw on the bubble, I believe it just popped.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2008, 09:00:22 PM
IWU 81, Wheaton 78.  Wheaton's chances were just done in by the CCIW decision to hold a conference tourney (just like Elmhurst last year).  While I still (sorta) support the tourney, it is a definite negative for a power conference to get extra pool C teams.  It gives a second chance to worthy teams who otherwise would definitely fall short (like my Titans), but overall it will almost certainly 'kill' more teams than it benefits.  If Augie wins the tourney, the CCIW will (again!) be a one-team conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 29, 2008, 09:21:44 PM
Albion lost to Calvin earlier tonight, which I think takes them outside the Pool C conversation.

In the NCAC, Wooster is getting beaten up at home by Wabash 68-51 with a little over 6 minutes left. It looks like Wooster will seal up a Pool C bid for itself barring a huge comeback.

UPDATE:
Ohio Northern had a late lead over Capital in the OAC but Capital gets it to OT and wins saving a Pool C bid for someone else for now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2008, 10:19:57 PM
Randy Mac squanders a huge lead to their dreaded rivals, and falls in the ODAC quarters.  If anyone had them as a bubble team, it popped.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 29, 2008, 10:35:22 PM
Plattsburgh State comes from 14 down in the 2nd half to beat Geneseo State in the SUNYAC semi-finals 65-57.

Plattsburgh State will face Oswego State, who beat Brockport St. 87-72, on Sat. afternoon for the SUNYAC Championship.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 29, 2008, 10:40:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2008, 09:00:22 PM
IWU 81, Wheaton 78.  Wheaton's chances were just done in by the CCIW decision to hold a conference tourney (just like Elmhurst last year).  While I still (sorta) support the tourney, it is a definite negative for a power conference to get extra pool C teams.  It gives a second chance to worthy teams who otherwise would definitely fall short (like my Titans), but overall it will almost certainly 'kill' more teams than it benefits.  If Augie wins the tourney, the CCIW will (again!) be a one-team conference.

At least the NESCAC only plays a single round robin, or else each team could potentially lose more than just one additional game. 

If the UAA played a single round robin, 5 or 6 teams in the conference could have had 20 wins this season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2008, 10:51:28 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 29, 2008, 10:40:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2008, 09:00:22 PM
IWU 81, Wheaton 78.  Wheaton's chances were just done in by the CCIW decision to hold a conference tourney (just like Elmhurst last year).  While I still (sorta) support the tourney, it is a definite negative for a power conference to get extra pool C teams.  It gives a second chance to worthy teams who otherwise would definitely fall short (like my Titans), but overall it will almost certainly 'kill' more teams than it benefits.  If Augie wins the tourney, the CCIW will (again!) be a one-team conference.

At least the NEWMAC only plays a single round robin, or else each team could potentially lose more than just one additional game. 

If the UAA played a single round robin, 5 or 6 teams in the conference could have had 20 wins this season.

NEWMAC plays a double round-robin.  It is the NESCAC we 'abuse' for playing a single.  If the CCIW did a single round-robin, they could probably say the same, though maybe the UAA and CCIW better not schedule too many games against each other - they went 2-2.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 29, 2008, 10:59:42 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2008, 10:51:28 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 29, 2008, 10:40:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2008, 09:00:22 PM
IWU 81, Wheaton 78.  Wheaton's chances were just done in by the CCIW decision to hold a conference tourney (just like Elmhurst last year).  While I still (sorta) support the tourney, it is a definite negative for a power conference to get extra pool C teams.  It gives a second chance to worthy teams who otherwise would definitely fall short (like my Titans), but overall it will almost certainly 'kill' more teams than it benefits.  If Augie wins the tourney, the CCIW will (again!) be a one-team conference.

At least the NEWMAC only plays a single round robin, or else each team could potentially lose more than just one additional game. 

If the UAA played a single round robin, 5 or 6 teams in the conference could have had 20 wins this season.

NEWMAC plays a double round-robin.  It is the NESCAC we 'abuse' for playing a single.  If the CCIW did a single round-robin, they could probably say the same, though maybe the UAA and CCIW better not schedule too many games against each other - they went 2-2.

Yeah, sorry, I was just posting on the NEWMAC board so I guess it was stuck in my mind. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2008, 11:04:44 PM
I've got no stats, but I seem to recall at least 4 or 5 concussions this year in d3 alone just from reading the boards.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 29, 2008, 11:18:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2008, 11:04:44 PM
I've got no stats, but I seem to recall at least 4 or 5 concussions this year in d3 alone just from reading the boards.

Thanks, everyone else can ignore my question.  I did a search.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2008, 11:43:41 PM
Wooster was absolutely CRUSHED by Wabash tonight, but since margin of victory (defeat) is not a criterion, I certainly assume they are a leadpipe-cinch for a C.  Our first (though probably not last) diminution of the C pool.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 29, 2008, 11:48:10 PM
With Oxy and Cal Lutheran at the half, here's my take on the Pool C damage tonight.

Wooster becomes the first Pool C team on the men's side with their loss.

Heidelberg, Millsaps and Virginia Wesleyan erased any questions about Pool C bids with their wins; they are now locks, if they weren't already.

PS-Behrend is close to a lock now with the win.

Rhode Island College solidified their status on the bubble.

Brockport, St. Lawrence, Albion and Wheaton joined the UW-Platteville brigade of "not looking good."

Randolph-Macon, Mississippi College, and DePauw said goodbye. I think Stevens did too, although their loss wasn't as bad a loss as the others.

Elms and Nazareth improved their slim hopes for a Pool C.

Ohio Wesleyan became the favorite for the Pool A bid out of the NCAC, but may have taken a slight hit on their Pool C chances because a loss to Wabash would hurt them more than a loss to Wooster.

More in the morning.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2008, 01:13:05 AM
With Oxy and Cal Lu both losing, would I fit with other's perceptions to say that Oxy is our second pool C, and Cal Lu is on the low side of the bubble?  Or are both in danger?  (Or both safe?)

d3 'island' teams are tough! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2008, 01:19:17 AM
I'll make RED the tournament (AQ) winners
I'll make BLUE  Pool C contenders

Was it GREEN that I can't use? (color blind)

Don't worry, there will be a lot more color come Sunday!

Team W-L  Reg.
W-L OWP OOWP

Atlantic Region
1. Richard Stockton  18-6  18-5 .511 .521 (NJAC):  Def. Ramapo 60-59 in NJAC semis; plays William Paterson in NJAC final on Sat.
2. William Paterson  18-6  18-6 .526 .516 (NJAC):  Def. Monclair State 71-61 in NJAC semis; plays Richard Stockton in NJAC final on Sat.
3. Farmingdale State  20-5  19-4 .466 .477 (SKY):  Def. SUNY-Maritime 84-69 in Skyline semis; plays St. Joseph's (L.I.) in Skyline final on Sat.
4. York (N.Y.)  20-8  18-7 .539 .502 (CUNYAC):  LOST to John Jay in CUNYAC final 68-54.
5. St. Joseph's (L.I.)  20-5  19-5 .433 .477 (SKY):  Def. Yeshiva 73-52 in Skyline semis; plays Farmingdale State in Skyline final on Sat.

East Region
1. Plattsburgh State  23-2  20-0 .496 .527 (SUNYAC):  Def. Fredonia State 72-62 in SUNYAC quarters; def. Geneseo State 65-57 in SUNYAC semis; plays Owego State in SUNYAC finals on Sat.
2. Rochester  19-5  18-5 .595 .565 (UAA):  Plays at Carnegie Mellon on Sat.
3. St. Lawrence  17-8  16-5 .555 .515 (Liberty):  LOST to Clarkson 54-48 in Liberty semis.
4. Brockport State  18-7  15-5 .570 .531 (SUNYAC):  Def. Oneonta State 77-70 in SUNYAC quarters; LOST to Oswego State 87-72 in SUNYAC semis .
5. Stevens  20-5 20-5 .460 .524 (Empire 8 ):  LOST to Nazareth 81-70 at Ithaca in E8 semis.

Great Lakes Region
1. Hope  21-3  15-2 .508 .494 (MIAA):  Def. Alma 75-51 in MIAA 1st round; def. Adrian 83-64 in MIAA semis; plays Calvin in MIAA final on Sat.
2. Capital  21-4  20-4 .528 .524 (OAC):  Def. Mount Union 67-54 in OAC quarters; def. Ohio Northern 81-76 in OAC semis; plays Heidelberg in OAC final on Sat.
3. Wooster  22-3  15-2 .484 .490 (NCAC):  Def. Oberlin 104-71 in NCAC quarters; LOST to Wabash 87-63 in NCAC semis.
4. Heidelberg  20-5  18-4 .519 .521 (OAC):  Def. John Carroll 104-74 in OAC quarters; def. Baldwin-Wallace 99-80 in OAC semis; plays Capital in OAC final on Sat..
5. Penn State-Behrend  21-4  19-3 .466 .492 (AMCC):  Def. Penn State-Altoona 62-42 in AMCC semis; plays Lake Erie in AMCC final on Sat.
6. Albion  18-5  14-3 .476 .496 (MIAA):  Def. Kalamazoo 64-56 in MIAA 1st round; LOST to Calvin 75-58 at Hope in MIAA semis

Middle Atlantic Region
1. Ursinus  23-2  20-1 .512 .515 (Centennial):  Plays Dickinson in Cent. semis on Sat.
2. Gettysburg  21-3  19-2 .529 .516 (Centennial):  Plays Johns Hopkins at Ursinus in Cent. semis on Sat.
3. Widener  20-5  17-4 .560 .535 (MACC):  Won at Albright 67-53 in MACC semis; plays at Lycoming in MACC final on Sat.
4. York (Pa.)  18-7  18-6 .539 .502 (CAC):  LOST to Salisbury 76-71 in CAC quarters.
5. DeSales  20-5  16-4 .465 .506 (MACF):  Def. Wilkes 69-53 in MACF semis; plays King's in MACF final on Sat.
6. Albright  16-7  16-6 .559 .544 (MACC):  LOST to Widener 67-53 in MACC semis.
7. Lycoming  16-9  13-8 .567 .554 (MACC):  Def. Lebanon Valley 71-56 in MACC semis; plays Widener in MACC final on Sat.
8. Scranton  17-8  15-8 .538 .504 (LAND):  Won at Moravian 79-78 in Landmark semis; plays Juniata in Landmark final on Sat.

Midwest Region
1. Augustana  20-5  19-5 .575 .555 (CCIW):  Def. Elmhurst 69-68 OT in CCIW semis; plays Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW final on Sat.
2. Washington U.  19-5  16-4 .647 .565 (UAA):  Plays at Chicago on Sat.
3. Lawrence  20-2  18-2 .555 .515 (MWC):  Def St. Norbert 59-58 in MWC semis; plays Carroll in MWC final on Sat.
4. Wheaton (Ill.)  19-6  15-6 .577 .549 (CCIW):  LOST Illinois Wesleyan 81-78 in CCIW semis at Augustana.
5. Chicago  17-7  16-7 .605 .568 (UAA):  Plays Washington U. on Sat.
6. Elmhurst  18-7  17-7 .505 .537 (CCIW):  LOST at Augustana 69-68 OT in CCIW semis.
7. Aurora  20-5  18-5 .465 .496 (NathCon):  Def. Benedictine 96-75 in NathCon quarters; def. MSOE 89-64 in NathCon semis; plays Lakeland in NathCon final on Sun.
8. Webster  19-5  17-5 .492 .481 (SLIAC): Def. Westminster (Mo.) 62-40; LOST to Maryville (Mo.) 76-73 in SLIAC semis.

Northeast Region
1. Amherst  23-2  23-1 .601 .553 (NESCAC):  Plays Bowdoin in NESCAC semis on Sat.
2. Mass-Dartmouth  23-2  23-2 .530 .529 (Little East):  Def. Mass-Boston 131-63 in LE quarters; def. Southern Maine 75-69 in LE semis; plays Rhode Island College in Little East final on Sat.
3. Brandeis  19-5  18-5 .610 .580 (UAA):  Plays NYU on Sat.
4. Worcester Tech  20-5  19-4 .535 .495 (NEWMAC):  Plays Babson in NEWMAC semis on Sat.
5. Bowdoin  20-5  20-5 .571 .533 (NESCAC):  Plays at Amherst in NESCAC semis on Sat.
6. Rhode Island College  19-6  19-6 .545 .529 (LEC):  Def. Plymouth State 77-58 in LEC quarters; def. Keene State 68-63 at UMass-Dartmouth in LEC semis; plays Mass-Dartmouth in Little East final on Sat.
7. Trinity (Conn.)  19-6  17-5 .615 .549 (NESCAC):  Plays Middlebury at Amherst in NESCAC semis on Sat.
8. Middlebury  19-6  18-5 .596 .528 (NESCAC):  Plays Trinity (Conn.) at Amherst in NESCAC semis on Sat.
9. Emerson  22-3  21-3 .442 .499 (GNAC):  Def. Daniel Webster 93-70 in GNAC quarters; def. St. Joseph's (Maine) 79-75 in GNAC semis; plays Lasell in GNAC final on Sat (?)
10. Elms  19-6  17-5 .512 .483 (NAC):  Def. Maine-Farmington 79-65 in NAC quarters; def. Becker 78-53 in NAC semis; plays Lesley in NAC final on Sat.

South Region
1. Centre  23-1  18-1 .503 .498 (SCAC):  Def. Austin 67-53 at Hendrix in SCAC quarters; plays Trinity (TX) in SCAC semis on Sat.
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor  22-3  20-2 .494 .505 (ASC):  Def. East Texas Baptist 66-50 in ASC quarters; plays Hardin-Simmons in ASC semis on Sat.
3. Guilford  21-4  20-4 .531 .527 (ODAC):  Def. Eastern Mennonite 81-66 in ODAC quarters; plays Roanoke in ODAC semis on Sat.
4. Virginia Wesleyan  20-5  19-4 .520 .522 (ODAC):  Def. Bridgewater 78-69 in ODAC quarters; plays Hampden-Sydney in ODAC semis on Sat.
5. Millsaps  22-3  17-2 .476 .493 (SCAC):  Def. Rhodes 86-57 at Hendrix in SCAC quarters; plays Hendrix in SCAC semis on Sat.
6. Maryville (Tenn.)  22-2  16-2 .451 .497 (GSAC):  Def. Huntingdon 84-65 at Piedmont in GSAC semis; plays Piedmont in GSAC final on Sat.
7. Randolph-Macon  20-5  15-5 .538 .527 (ODAC):  LOST to Hampden-Sydney 69-67 in ODAC quarters.
8. Mississippi College  19-5  16-5 .507 .507 (ASC):  LOST to Howard Payne 94-90  (OT) in ASC quarters.

West Region
1. UW-Whitewater  21-4  19-4 .492 .540 (WIAC):  Def. Stout 78-67 in WIAC quarters; Def. Superior 77-73 OT in WIAC semis; Plays Stevens Point in WIAC final on Sat.
2. St. Thomas  21-4  19-3 .499 .522 (MIAC):  Def. Bethel 69-68  in MIAC semis; plays Gustavus Adolphus in MIAC final on Sat. (?)
3. Occidental  20-4  13-3 .531 .527 (SCIAC):  Def. La Verne 67-57; LOST Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 66-62 in SCIAC semis.
4. UW-Stevens Point  20-5  18-5 .575 .525 (WIAC):  Def. La Crosse 74-66 OT in WIAC quarters; def. Eau Claire 88-65 in WIAC semis; plays at Whitewater in WIAC final on Sat.
5. Buena Vista  20-5  16-3 .496 .528 (IIAC):  Def. Dubuque 91-86 in IIAC semis; plays Loras in IIAC final.
6. Cal Lutheran  20-4  16-4 .498 .529 (SCIAC):  Def. Ponoma-Pitzer 70-51; LOST to Pomona-Pitzer 54-44 in SCIAC semis.
7. UW-Platteville  19-6  17-5 .526 .535 (WIAC):  LOST to Eau Claire 84-80 in WIAC quarters.
8. Loras  19-6  16-4 .518 .535 Def. Coe in 82-64 IIAC semis; plays Buena Vista in IIAC final.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 01, 2008, 09:29:20 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 29, 2008, 11:18:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2008, 11:04:44 PM
I've got no stats, but I seem to recall at least 4 or 5 concussions this year in d3 alone just from reading the boards.

Thanks, everyone else can ignore my question.  I did a search.

I was already working on that part...  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2008, 12:34:23 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 29, 2008, 11:48:10 PM
Ohio Wesleyan became the favorite for the Pool A bid out of the NCAC, but may have taken a slight hit on their Pool C chances because a loss to Wabash would hurt them more than a loss to Wooster.


You think Ohio Wesleyan is better than Wabash?  Wabash has impressed me all season long.  I've thought of them as the second best team in the conference most of the year.  Ohio Wesleyan doesn't play well on the road.  I guess Wabash did finish lower in the conference, but I don't think you can say one team is clearly better than the other.  I'll take Wabash to get the Pool A bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on March 01, 2008, 12:43:17 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2008, 12:34:23 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 29, 2008, 11:48:10 PM
Ohio Wesleyan became the favorite for the Pool A bid out of the NCAC, but may have taken a slight hit on their Pool C chances because a loss to Wabash would hurt them more than a loss to Wooster.


You think Ohio Wesleyan is better than Wabash?  Wabash has impressed me all season long.  I've thought of them as the second best team in the conference most of the year.  Ohio Wesleyan doesn't play well on the road.  I guess Wabash did finish lower in the conference, but I don't think you can say one team is clearly better than the other.  I'll take Wabash to get the Pool A bid.

OWU finished second in the NCAC at 12-4; Wabash was 5th at 10-6.  The teams split, with Wabash winning at home by 5 and OWU winning at home by 29.  OWU beat Wittenberg on the road, beat Albion at a neutral site, and lost close games at both Wooster and Rochester. 

With everything that Patrick does for these conversations, I don't expect him to have inside knowledge of all of the conference races.  When he says that OWU is the favorite, I'm sure he's merely reflecting the fact that they are the #2 seed vs. Wabash as the #5 seed.  In my opinion, OWU has been the better team all season, but Wabash is certainly peaking at the right time, and to me this game is a pick'em.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on March 01, 2008, 12:46:20 PM
I'm throwing this out and asking others to tell me where I'm wrong with this list.  Thanks!

Certain Pool Cs (with 7 spots already taken)?
1)   NJAC runnerup (Richard Stockton / Wm. Paterson)
2)   Rochester
3)   Brandeis
4)   OAC Runnerup: Capital/Heidelberg
5)   Wooster
6)   Second ODAC team (Guilford / Virginia Wesleyan)
7)   WIAC runnerup
8 )   Plattsburgh State, if not the AQ
9)   Ursinus, if not the AQ
10)   Washington U, if not the AQ
11)   Hope, if not the AQ
12)   Augustana, if not the AQ
13)   Lawrence, if not the AQ
14)   Amherst, if not the AQ
15)   Centre, if not the AQ
16)   Mary Hardin-Baylor, if not the AQ
17)   Mass-Dartmouth, if not the AQ

Possible Pool Cs? - order is arbitrary
1)   Skyline runnerup (St. Joseph's / Farmingdale State)
2)   Brockport State
3)   St. Lawrence
4)   Stevens
5)   Albion
6)   York
7)   DeSales, if not the AQ
8 )   Widener, if not the AQ
9)   Albright
10)   Gettysburg, if not the AQ
11)   Illinois Wesleyan
12)   Webster
13)   Bowdoin, if not the AQ
14)   Millsaps, if not the AQ
15)   Maryville, if not the AQ
16)   Virginia Wesleyan, if not the AQ
17)     St. Thomas, if not the AQ
18)   Randolph-Macon
19)   Mississippi College
20)   IIAC runnerup (Buena Vista / Loras)
21)   Cal Lutheran
22)   UW - Platteville
23)   Occidental
24)    Elmhurst
25)    Wheaton
26)    Worcester Tech, if not the AQ
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Cards7580 on March 01, 2008, 12:49:45 PM
"...2)   Brockport State..."

the loses to Geneseo and Oswego late will hurt
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2008, 12:51:26 PM
Quote from: algernon on March 01, 2008, 12:46:20 PM

Possible Pool Cs?
1)   Skyline runnerup (St. Joseph's / Farmingdale State)
2)   Brockport State
3)   St. Lawrence
4)   Stevens
5)   Albion
6)   York
7)   DeSales, if not the AQ
8 )   Widener, if not the AQ
9)   Albright
10)   Wheaton
11)   Elmhurst
12)   Webster
13)   Aurora
14)   Bowdoin, if not the AQ
15)   Millsaps, if not the AQ
16)   Maryville, if not the AQ
17)   Virginia Wesleyan, if not the AQ
18)   Randolph-Macon
19)   Mississippi College
20)   IIAC runnerup (Buena Vista / Loras)
21)   Cal Lutheran
22)   UW - Platteville
23)   Occidental


After last night, when all 5 criteria are applied, Illinois Wesleyan is actually the CCIW's #1 Pool C team - not Wheaton or Elmhurst.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on March 01, 2008, 01:06:10 PM
Quote from: algernon on March 01, 2008, 12:46:20 PM
4)   NCAC Runnerup: Capital/Heidelberg

Thanks for the list, algernon.  Cap/'Berg is for the OAC title/OAC runner up.  NCAC final is Wabash/OWU, neither of which likely gets Pool C consideration.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on March 01, 2008, 01:14:28 PM
Thanks for the corrections and input.  I've already made some changes to the list above.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jagluski on March 01, 2008, 01:46:46 PM
Quote from: algernon on March 01, 2008, 12:46:20 PM
I'm throwing this out and asking others to tell me where I'm wrong with this list.  Thanks!

Certain Pool Cs (with 7 spots already taken)?
1)   NJAC runnerup (Richard Stockton / Wm. Paterson)
2)   Rochester
3)   Brandeis
4)   OAC Runnerup: Capital/Heidelberg
5)   Wooster
6)   Second ODAC team (Guilford / Virginia Wesleyan)
7)   WIAC runnerup
8 )   Plattsburgh State, if not the AQ
9)   Ursinus, if not the AQ
10)   Washington U, if not the AQ
11)   Hope, if not the AQ
12)   Augustana, if not the AQ
13)   Lawrence, if not the AQ
14)   Amherst, if not the AQ
15)   Centre, if not the AQ
16)   Mary Hardin-Baylor, if not the AQ
17)   St. Thomas, if not the runnerup

Possible Pool Cs? - order is arbitrary
1)   Skyline runnerup (St. Joseph's / Farmingdale State)
2)   Brockport State
3)   St. Lawrence
4)   Stevens
5)   Albion
6)   York
7)   DeSales, if not the AQ
8 )   Widener, if not the AQ
9)   Albright
10)   Gettysburg, if not the AQ
11)   Illinois Wesleyan
12)   Webster
13)   Aurora
14)   Bowdoin, if not the AQ
15)   Millsaps, if not the AQ
16)   Maryville, if not the AQ
17)   Virginia Wesleyan, if not the AQ
18)   Randolph-Macon
19)   Mississippi College
20)   IIAC runnerup (Buena Vista / Loras)
21)   Cal Lutheran
22)   UW - Platteville
23)   Occidental
24)    Elmhurst
25)    Wheaton

I think you're missing the University of Chicago, if they lose to Wash U today, as a possibility.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2008, 02:02:19 PM
Quote from: jagluski on March 01, 2008, 01:46:46 PM
I think you're missing the University of Chicago, if they lose to Wash U today, as a possibility.

I don't think so.  They would have 8 in-region losses.  Why does Brandeis and Rochester have better shots than Wash. U?  Also, I would think Aurora is a lock for a Pool B bid, opening up another slot in Pool C.

Midwest Region
1. Augustana  20-5  19-5 .575 .555 (CCIW):  Def. Elmhurst 69-68 OT in CCIW semis; plays Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW final on Sat.
2. Washington U.  19-5  16-4 .647 .565 (UAA):  Plays at Chicago on Sat.
3. Lawrence  20-2  18-2 .555 .515 (MWC):  Def St. Norbert 59-58 in MWC semis; plays Carroll in MWC final on Sat.
4. Wheaton (Ill.)  19-6  15-6 .577 .549 (CCIW):  LOST Illinois Wesleyan 81-78 in CCIW semis at Augustana.
5. Chicago  17-7  16-7 .605 .568 (UAA):  Plays Washington U. on Sat.
6. Elmhurst  18-7  17-7 .505 .537 (CCIW):  LOST at Augustana 69-68 OT in CCIW semis.
7. Aurora  20-5  18-5 .465 .496 (NathCon):  Def. Benedictine 96-75 in NathCon quarters; def. MSOE 89-64 in NathCon semis; plays Lakeland in NathCon final on Sun.
8. Webster  19-5  17-5 .492 .481 (SLIAC): Def. Westminster (Mo.) 62-40; LOST to Maryville (Mo.) 76-73 in SLIAC semis.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jagluski on March 01, 2008, 02:05:10 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 01, 2008, 02:02:19 PM
Quote from: jagluski on March 01, 2008, 01:46:46 PM
I think you're missing the University of Chicago, if they lose to Wash U today, as a possibility.

I don't think so.  They would have 8 in-region losses.  Why does Brandeis and Rochester have better shots than Wash. U?  Also, I would think Aurora is a lock for a Pool B bid, opening up another slot in Pool C.

Midwest Region
1. Augustana  20-5  19-5 .575 .555 (CCIW):  Def. Elmhurst 69-68 OT in CCIW semis; plays Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW final on Sat.
2. Washington U.  19-5  16-4 .647 .565 (UAA):  Plays at Chicago on Sat.
3. Lawrence  20-2  18-2 .555 .515 (MWC):  Def St. Norbert 59-58 in MWC semis; plays Carroll in MWC final on Sat.
4. Wheaton (Ill.)  19-6  15-6 .577 .549 (CCIW):  LOST Illinois Wesleyan 81-78 in CCIW semis at Augustana.
5. Chicago  17-7  16-7 .605 .568 (UAA):  Plays Washington U. on Sat.
6. Elmhurst  18-7  17-7 .505 .537 (CCIW):  LOST at Augustana 69-68 OT in CCIW semis.
7. Aurora  20-5  18-5 .465 .496 (NathCon):  Def. Benedictine 96-75 in NathCon quarters; def. MSOE 89-64 in NathCon semis; plays Lakeland in NathCon final on Sun.
8. Webster  19-5  17-5 .492 .481 (SLIAC): Def. Westminster (Mo.) 62-40; LOST to Maryville (Mo.) 76-73 in SLIAC semis.


I wasn't saying it was likely, but I think they would have to be considered.

And he said that the Pool C teams were in no order...I think he put the locks above the teams that may get a Pool A.  I think Wash U would be a Pool C before Brandeis and Rochester.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 01, 2008, 02:36:29 PM
Here's my list

Locks, no Pool A chance

Rochester
Wooster
Brandeis
Occidental

Locks if they don't win Pool A

Plattsburgh State
Hope
Capital
Ursinus
Gettysburg
Widener
Augustana
Washington U.
Lawrence
Amherst
Mass-Dartmouth
Worcester Tech
Bowdoin
Centre
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Guilford
Virginia Wesleyan
Millsaps
UW-Whitewater
St. Thomas
UW-Stevens Point

(I realize that this is 22 locks, but there is no statistical possibility of that many upsets).

Lock if loses final, probable if loses SF

Middlebury
Trinity CT

Probable if loses

Richard Stockton won Pool A
William Paterson lost
Heidelberg
Rhode Island College
Buena Vista
Loras

Possible

Brockport State
Wheaton (Ill.)
Cal Lutheran
UW-Platteville

Possible if loses

Penn State-Behrend
DeSales
Chicago
Emerson lost
Elms Won Pool A

Longshot

St. Lawrence
Stevens
Albion
York (Pa.)
Elmhurst
Randolph-Macon
Mississippi College
Bates

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on March 01, 2008, 03:22:46 PM
I've thrown out Aurora (above), since they'll get a Pool B, and thrown in UMass-Dartmouth and Worcester Tech, since I overlooked them.

Your list makes sense to me, pabegg.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2008, 04:51:41 PM
Pool C MAY be losing another slot - Lawrence down by 13 at the half.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 01, 2008, 04:55:06 PM
Quote from: algernon on March 01, 2008, 03:22:46 PM
I've thrown out Aurora (above), since they'll get a Pool B, and thrown in UMass-Dartmouth and Worcester Tech, since I overlooked them.

Your list makes sense to me, pabegg.

It likely doesn't affect anything, but Aurora and Lakeland are going to OT in the NATHC final.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 01, 2008, 05:09:33 PM
Well, it affects their psyche.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 01, 2008, 05:12:36 PM
#6 Lakeland defeats #1 Aurora in oT 82-77.  Lakeland won the NATHC Tourney title by winning three straight overtime road games.  I wonder if that's EVER happened before.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 01, 2008, 05:39:57 PM
Chicago wins the UAA by beating WashU 74-66.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jagluski on March 01, 2008, 05:40:49 PM
Another Pool C bid is spoken for.  Chicago beats Wash U 74-66 to take the UAA's Pool A bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2008, 06:03:25 PM
Quote from: pabegg on March 01, 2008, 02:36:29 PM
Here's my list

Locks, no Pool A chance

Rochester
Wooster
Brandeis
Occidental

Locks if they don't win Pool A

Plattsburgh State
Hope
Capital
Ursinus
Gettysburg
Widener
Augustana
Washington U.
Lawrence
Amherst
Mass-Dartmouth
Worcester Tech
Bowdoin
Centre
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Guilford
Virginia Wesleyan
Millsaps
UW-Whitewater
St. Thomas
UW-Stevens Point

(I realize that this is 22 locks, but there is no statistical possibility of that many upsets).

Lock if loses final, probable if loses SF

Middlebury
Trinity CT

Probable if loses

Richard Stockton won Pool A
William Paterson lost
Heidelberg
Rhode Island College
Buena Vista
Loras

Possible

Brockport State
Wheaton (Ill.)
Cal Lutheran
UW-Platteville

Possible if loses

Penn State-Behrend
DeSales
Chicago
Emerson lost
Elms Won Pool A

Longshot

St. Lawrence
Stevens
Albion
York (Pa.)
Elmhurst
Randolph-Macon
Mississippi College
Bates

Keep in mind, pabegg only takes two of the five primary criteria into account in his calculations and Pool C projections - in-region winning % and strength of schedule.  These certainly seem to be the two that carry the greatest weight, but the other three (head-to-head, common opponents, record vs regionally ranked teams) are definitely used.

He has Wheaton as a "possible."  As I posted earlier, there is no way Wheaton gets in before Illinois Wesleyan - after last night, IWU has now defeated Wheaton 3 times this year.  I can guarantee you that IWU's 3-0 head-to-head vs Wheaton will put the Titans ahead of the Thunder in the final ranking tomorrow.

I don't think the CCIW is going to get a Pool C bid if IWU loses at Augustana tonight in the conference tournament title game, but pabegg's order is definitely off - the CCIW's Pool C teams will be ranked IWU #1, Wheaton #2, Elmhurst #3.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: larry_u on March 01, 2008, 06:13:50 PM
Lawrence beats Carroll 98-95 in OT securing their A bid and only 1 team from the MWC
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 01, 2008, 06:22:10 PM
Bob is probably right on the CCIW situation. With the losses by Aurora, Webster, and Elmhurst, IWU probably passes all of these three; Chicago passes Wheaton for 4th. At this point IWU would probably be ahead of Wheaton for 5th.

Unfortunately for both of them, IWU would still have very little shot. So I would downgrade Wheaton and add Illinois Wesleyan to the longshot list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2008, 06:40:55 PM
Plattsburgh State wins the SUNYAC Championship defeating Oswego State 89-75. Plattsburgh completes a perfect season in the conference with a 19-0 mark as well as an undefeated season on their home court at 12-0. They stretch their record to 26-2 and have now won 19 straight games. Only perfect regional record in the country at 23-0.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 01, 2008, 06:56:21 PM
Updated list

Here's my list

Locks, no Pool A chance (5)

Rochester
Wooster
Brandeis
Washington U.
Mass-Dartmouth

Loser of Pool A game is a lock (3)

Ursinus or Gettysburg
Centre or Millsaps
UW-Whitewater or UW-Stevens Point

Locks if they don't win Pool A (10)

Hope
Capital
Augustana
Amherst
Bowdoin
Worcester Tech
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Guilford
Virginia Wesleyan
St. Thomas

Lock if loses final, good chance if loses SF (2)

Middlebury
Trinity CT

Good chance (2)

Occidental
William Paterson

Good chance if loses (2)

Heidelberg
Buena Vista or Loras

Some chance (5)

Brockport State
Cal Lutheran
UW-Platteville
DeSales
Emerson

Little chance (10)

St. Lawrence
Stevens
Albion
York (Pa.)
Elmhurst
Randolph-Macon
Mississippi College
Bates
Illinois Wesleyan
Wheaton (Ill.)

I'm starting to get a little nervous on some of the count numbers; there may be too many locks on the list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 01, 2008, 07:00:48 PM
The tension is mounting. And we have to wait until MONDAY!  >:(

I have an 8AM CST conference call with a client, then a metric ton of work to do for another. Sigh...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: All-around on March 01, 2008, 07:12:48 PM
How many Pool C bids are available and then how many by region?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2008, 07:13:53 PM
Quote from: All-around on March 01, 2008, 07:12:48 PM
How many Pool C bids are available and then how many by region?

17 bids; no regional allocation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2008, 07:29:56 PM

Amherst goes down by 1 to Bowdoin.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2008, 08:04:27 PM
Clarkson beats Hamilton 58-53 and wins the automatic bid for the Liberty League. They end up with an 11-16 record.

Nazareth defeats St. John Fisher 64-63 to win the automatic bid from the Empire 8 conference. They end up with a 20-7 record.

UMass-Dartmouth loses to Rhode Island College 55-52. There goes another Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 01, 2008, 08:48:11 PM
Hopefully there arent too many Pool A upsets tomorrow, or else, as you said pabegg, you have ~19 locks listed with only 17 Pool C spots!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2008, 09:09:24 PM
#3 Hope beats Calvin 88-72 to claim the automatic bid from the MIAA conference. That helps the Pool C hopefuls.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2008, 09:15:34 PM
UW-Whitewater up on UW-Stevens Point 55-46 7:45 left to play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2008, 09:24:40 PM
Capital loses to Heidelberg 83-75 as Heidelberg claims the automatic bid for the OAC conference. There goes another Pool C bid to Capital.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2008, 09:40:13 PM
Not the same Pool C bid that would've gone to Heidelberg?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2008, 09:41:12 PM

Can we get an update of the regional rankings and results of those teams, or will we wait until games are over tonight?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2008, 09:42:53 PM
Pat, I seem to recall a running tally of AQs along the bar on the front page in past years.  Is that still somewhere that I just haven't found?

EDIT:  Nevermind - I found the blog.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2008, 09:49:18 PM
UW-Whitewater beats UW-Stevens Pt. 75-71 to win the automatic bid from the WIAC. Steven Point gets a Pool C.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2008, 09:58:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2008, 09:40:13 PM
Not the same Pool C bid that would've gone to Heidelberg?

Heidelberg was only a good chance Pool C before they won. But yeah, I guess you could say Capital got Heidelberg's Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2008, 10:01:24 PM

Augustana is just finishing up a CCIW tourney win.  I guess IWU goes into the "hopeful" column.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hope1 on March 01, 2008, 10:01:59 PM
hope beat calvin tonight
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2008, 10:04:39 PM
Augie downs IWU 71-60.  The CCIW will (again!) be a one-team conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2008, 10:10:14 PM
Trinity(Conn) beats Middlebury 72-63 to advance to the Championship of the NESCAC conference against Bowdoin on Sunday afternoon at 2:30

Virginia Wesleyan beats Hampden-Sydney 68-55 to advance to the Championship game of the ODAC against Guilford who beat Roanoke 67-57.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2008, 10:16:13 PM

St. Thomas wins the MIAC 76-73; they took the lead in the last minute.  Another problem averted.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2008, 10:17:57 PM
St Thomas beats Gustavus Adolphus 76-73 to win the automatic bid from the MIAC conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2008, 10:41:27 PM
Quote from: pabegg on March 01, 2008, 06:56:21 PM
Updated list and updating his list even more...

Here's my list

Locks, no Pool A chance (5)

Rochester
Wooster
Brandeis
Washington U.
Mass-Dartmouth

Loser of Pool A game is a lock (3)

Ursinus or Gettysburg
Centre or Millsaps
UW-Whitewater Pool A or UW-Stevens Point

Locks if they don't win Pool A (7  6)

Hope Pool A
Capital
Augustana Pool A
Amherst
Bowdoin (Plays Trinity CT at Amherst for Pool A)
Worcester Tech
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Guilford or Virginia Wesleyan
St. Thomas Pool A

Lock if loses final, good chance if loses SF (2)

Middlebury lost to Trinity in SF
Trinity CT  (Plays Bowdoin at Amherst for NESCAC Pool A)

Good chance (2)

Occidental
William Paterson

17 (after the NESCAC Pool A) to this point.

Good chance if loses (2)

Heidelberg Pool A
Buena Vista or Loras

Some chance (5)

Brockport State
Cal Lutheran
UW-Platteville
DeSales
Emerson

Little chance (10)

St. Lawrence
Stevens
Albion
York (Pa.)
Elmhurst
Randolph-Macon
Mississippi College
Bates
Illinois Wesleyan
Wheaton (Ill.)

I'm starting to get a little nervous on some of the count numbers; there may be too many locks on the list.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: CityD3 on March 01, 2008, 10:42:32 PM
farmingdale state beats st. joe's-LI to get the automatic bid from the skyline conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 01, 2008, 10:56:28 PM
Amherst should be in the Lock column, they no longer have a chance at the Pool A since they lost to Bowdoin.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2008, 11:51:52 PM
Not sure if STEVENS POINT is a lock.  A lot of higher regionally ranked teams lost.  With Whitewater and St. Thomas taking care of business, Point should move up to the top Pool C bid in the West Region since Oxy lost in the semis, Buena Vista lost the IIAC final (ranked behind Point) and Cal. Lutheran also losing in the SCIAC semis.  Still, it's going to be a nervous wait for us Pointer fans.

Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2008, 09:41:12 PM
Can we get an update of the regional rankings and results of those teams, or will we wait until games are over tonight?

I was at the WIAC championship game tonight.  I'll try to update the list, if that's what you mean, Hoops Fan.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 01, 2008, 11:53:10 PM
Last update for the night, includes some re-running

Most are in order, give or take a couple of places

Locks, no Pool A chance ( 8 )

Amherst
Mass-Dartmouth
Brandeis
Rochester
Capital
Washington U.
UW-Stevens Point
Wooster

Loser of Pool A game is a lock ( 4 )

Ursinus or Gettysburg
Bowdoin or Trinity CT
Guilford or Virginia Wesleyan
Centre or Millsaps

Locks if they don't win Pool A ( 2 )

Worcester Tech
Mary Hardin-Baylor

Contenders ( 8 )

Buena Vista
Middlebury
Occidental
Emerson
Cal Lutheran
William Paterson
Brockport State
St. Lawrence

So 12-14 bids will be gone for the locks, and that means 3-5 of the final 8 will make it.

Any thoughts on this list?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2008, 11:57:33 PM
I would think that Oxy would be a lock, especially since IWU will (presumably) be back in the regional rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 02, 2008, 12:04:49 AM
Is Trinity (CT) really a lock if they lose?  They would have 7 losses (6 in-region, i believe, they also have a a bad loss at home vs. Springfield).  I, personally, have no opinion, just curious as to why they would be considered a lock at this point?  What makes a 7 loss Trinity team a lock over a 5 loss Oxy team, for example?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 02, 2008, 12:05:56 AM
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps hit a 3 at the buzzer against Pomona-Pitzer to send it to overtime tied at 45.

Pomona-Pitzer wins 53-55 in OT to grab the automatic bid in the SCIAC conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2008, 12:15:16 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 01, 2008, 05:12:36 PM
#6 Lakeland defeats #1 Aurora in oT 82-77.  Lakeland won the NATHC Tourney title by winning three straight overtime road games.  I wonder if that's EVER happened before.

Wow, what a great run by my Muskies!  3 road OT wins is quite a feat, especially against the top 3 seeds in the league!  For some reason I thought that game was tomorrow afternoon and I was planning on heading down to the Chicago area to watch it.  I wanted to see the Chicago v Washington U. matchup, but that game started at 3 pm and I wasn't going to make the WIAC final in Whitewater at that time...so, I only made 7 games in 6 days during "Championship Week"!!  lol  ;D :D ;)

Monday:  Stevens Point's win over La Crosse was a lot harder than expected thanks to La Crosse's freshman guard Tony Mane going off for 37 before the Pointers prevailed in OT.  To make matters even more stressful, I was getting updates via text message of Eau Claire's upset win over #2 Platteville, meaning we got to host again!

Tuesday:  I went down to Wisconsin Lutheran College to witness the first of three overtime road victories for Lakeland College.  The other time they met during the regular season, WLC was 20-38 from beyond the arc while Chris Salibrech (sp?) for Lakeland hit 10 of them himself on his way to 39 pts, I think!  He started out good on Tuesday going 6-8 in the first half.  Contraversial call at the end as the ref blew the whistle a split second before the buzzer went off at the end of regulation.  He pointed to the Lakeland bench for a timeout and then waived off his own call!  After a meeting with his fellow refs, they decided the timeout was called too late!  Uh?  Lakeland pulls it out in OT.

Wednesday:  I'm back at Point for a surprisingly easy win over Eau Claire.  I get updates via text message as Whitewater is taken into overtime against Superior, hoping for an upset so Point can host the Final.  It doesn't go our way as Whitewater wins at OT after we win by 20+ (I think).

Thursday:  I'm in Whitewater for the first of two times this week to see the women Pointers take on 2nd seeded Whitewater.  They win a great game to knock off the Warhawks and set up a road meeting with Eau Claire for the tourney title.  Today the Pointer women knocked off Eau Claire to get the AQ.  Point knocked off Whitewater and Eau Claire twice EACH in a span of about a week and half.  WW and EC tied for 1st in the league at 14-2.

Friday:  Headed to Appleton to see two fantastic games in the MWC tourney as #3 Carroll College held off #2 Grinnell 124-122 and Lawrence survived #4 St. Norbert 59-58.  Both games came down to the last possession.  I didn't think the MWC final would hold up to the two semi-final games, but I was wrong at LU was taken into OT vs. Carroll College before prevailing to clinch the AQ.

Saturday:  Back down in Whitewater to see the #1 seed hold off a big rally by #3 Stevens Point.  Rebounding (WW had 10 offensive rebounds), clutch baskets by Whitewater and some poor free throw shooting (9-14) by Point doomed the visitors who now have to wait until Monday for their Pool C fate.

Hopefully they have 6 games left in their season!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2008, 12:38:56 AM
As for Trinty CT... I don't think they are lock. And if Bowdoin losses, that means 6 regional losses for them as well... not sure if that locks them into the tournament, either.

BTW - watched the semis from the NESCAC - besides no audio in the first game (which actually caused me to miss the end of that game, when you are work, audio usually helps clue you in if you aren't watching :)), it was a very good job and production by D3Cast.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 02, 2008, 01:07:36 AM
Whitworth beats Puget Sound 96-69 to claim the NWC automatic bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2008, 01:20:49 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on March 02, 2008, 12:38:56 AM
As for Trinty CT... I don't think they are lock. And if Bowdoin losses, that means 6 regional losses for them as well... not sure if that locks them into the tournament, either.

I think there will be a lot of teams with 6 in-region losses getting in...at least I hope, with Stevens Point being one of those teams with 6 in-region losses.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on March 02, 2008, 01:35:17 AM
My take after today's games:

Certain Pool Cs (with 11 spots already taken)?

1)   William Paterson
2)   Rochester
3)   Brandeis
4)   Capital
5)   Wooster
6)   ODAC Runnerup (Guilford / Virginia Wesleyan)
7)   UW - Stevens Point
8 )   Amherst
9)   Washington U
10)   UMass-Dartmouth
11)   Centennial Runnerup (Ursinus/Gettysburg)
12)   Centre, if not the AQ
13)   Mary Hardin-Baylor, if not the AQ

Possible Pool Cs? - order is arbitrary

1)   Brockport State
2)   St. Lawrence
3)   Albion
4)   DeSales
5)   Illinois Wesleyan
6)   Bowdoin, if not the AQ
7)   Millsaps, if not the AQ
8 )   Randolph-Macon
9)   Buena Vista
10)   Cal Lutheran
11)   UW - Platteville
12)   Occidental
13)    Wheaton
14)    Worcester Tech, if not the AQ
15)    Trinity (CT), if not the AQ
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Willy Wonka on March 02, 2008, 01:44:01 AM
I'm not seeing Gustavus Adolphus listed anywhere on these lists. I haven't followed the national scene all that closely this season, but they finished 19-8 with quality wins against St. Thomas and Buena Vista — mixed in with a few bad losses.

Is it even worth holding our breath for the selection show?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 02, 2008, 04:14:35 AM
Quote from: magicman on March 02, 2008, 01:07:36 AM
Whitworth beats Puget Sound 96-69 to claim the NWC automatic bid.
I was there and it was a 2nd half beat down.  UPS season ends as WW holds them to 1-16 from 3 in second half..  WW will be a dangerous 1st round opponent.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 02, 2008, 08:47:26 AM
Here's where Pool C looks to me Sunday morning:   
   
I've included the last regional ranking in parentheses.   
   
The first set of bids (Group 1) are:   
   Rochester (EA#2)
   Capital (GL#2)
   Washington U. (MW#2)
   Amherst (NE#1)
   Mass-Dartmouth (NE#2)
   Brandeis (NE#3)
The loser of the following games will also be in Group 1:   
   Ursinus (MA#1) and Gettysburg (MA#2)
   Bowdoin (NE#5) and Trinity (NE#7)
   Centre (SO#1) and Millsaps (SO#5)
The second set of bids (Group 2) are:   
   Wooster (GL#3)
   Middlebury (NE#8)
   UW-Stevens Point (WE#4)
   Buena Vista (WE#5)
   
WPI (NE#4) would probably end up in group 1 with a loss, although their numbers indicate a chance that they might fall to group 2.   
Mary Hardin-Baylor (SO#2) would be in group 1 with a loss.   
Guilford (SO#3) would be in group 1 with a loss; Virginia Wesleyan (SO#4) would be in group 2 with a loss   
   
It appears that Millsaps will be ahead of Virginia Wesleyan in the region if they both lose; but it's not certain.   

Occidental's upset loss on Friday has dropped them two spots down in the West, behind UWSP and BV.   
   
There are at least 14 Pool C bids above, and as many as 16 if WPI and MHB lose in their finals.   

Group 1 teams are absolutely secure.   

Group 2 teams look very good by comparison to the teams that follow them. They were ranked ahead of the Group 3 teams coming in to this week (Occidental excepted) and have no embarassing losses. Still, someone is free to make a case for switching Group 2 and 3 teams.
   
The bubble teams (Group 3) are:   
   William Paterson (AT#2)
   St. Lawrence (EA#3)
   Brockport (EA#4)
   Albion (GL#6)
   DeSales (MA#5)
   Albright (MA#6)
   Emerson (NE#9)
   Occidental (WE#3)
   Cal Lutheran (WE#6)
   UW-Platteville (WE#7)
   
No one from the Midwest or South is on the bubble. The next South team is Randolph-Macon, while the next Midwest team is Wheaton, Webster, or Illinois Wesleyan.   

The one thing that most of the bubble teams have in common is some bad losses this week. Only William Paterson had a no-apologies week, with a close loss to region #1 Richard Stockton.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 02, 2008, 10:28:12 AM
Quote from: Willy Wonka on March 02, 2008, 01:44:01 AM
I'm not seeing Gustavus Adolphus listed anywhere on these lists. I haven't followed the national scene all that closely this season, but they finished 19-8 with quality wins against St. Thomas and Buena Vista — mixed in with a few bad losses.

Is it even worth holding our breath for the selection show?

With no regional ranking, I doubt it...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on March 02, 2008, 11:27:43 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 02, 2008, 12:15:16 AMso, I only made 7 games in 6 days during "Championship Week"!!  lol  ;D :D ;)

I make my score 8 for the week:
Monday: none
Tuesday: Wabash at Kenyon men, Earlham at Kenyon women
Wednesday: Hiram at Ohio Wesleyan men, same matchup women
Thursday: Capital at Baldwin-Wallace women
Friday: NCAC women's semifinals at Kenyon (OWU vs Wittenberg, Denison vs. Kenyon)
Saturday: NCAC men's championship at Wooster (OWU vs. Wabash)

I'm at 69 games (37 men, 32 women) headed into the NCAAs.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on March 02, 2008, 12:00:51 PM
Dave  you just wait til I'm retired - I'll see so many games-----   ah shoot, my wife will still be around to say NO!!!!  :'(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2008, 12:20:03 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 02, 2008, 11:27:43 AM
I make my score 8 for the week:
Monday: none
Tuesday: Wabash at Kenyon men, Earlham at Kenyon women
Wednesday: Hiram at Ohio Wesleyan men, same matchup women
Thursday: Capital at Baldwin-Wallace women
Friday: NCAC women's semifinals at Kenyon (OWU vs Wittenberg, Denison vs. Kenyon)
Saturday: NCAC men's championship at Wooster (OWU vs. Wabash)

I'm at 69 games (37 men, 32 women) headed into the NCAAs.  :)

I think you have me crushed when it comes to total games though.  I might be close when it comes to men's games because the only women's games I see are usually a result of double-headers.  You beat me in the Championship week games, but were they as exciting as mine? lol.  I'll have to count going into the NCAAs.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on March 02, 2008, 12:22:41 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 02, 2008, 12:20:03 PMYou beat me in the Championship week games, but were they as exciting as mine? lol.  I'll have to count going into the NCAAs.

You're just jealous that you don't get to see as many Hiram games as I do.  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on March 02, 2008, 01:45:46 PM
another C bid may be off the boards as Coast Guard beats WPI   -  a C to WPI?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 02:13:09 PM
Millsaps is pounding Centre 46 - 25.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 02, 2008, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 02:13:09 PM
Millsaps is pounding Centre 46 - 25.

sac is pounding his head on the wall

no, no, no, no, I don't want to be #1, I don't want to be #1, no, no, no, no :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 02, 2008, 02:47:06 PM
Millsaps beat Centre 69-60 to win the automatic bid from the SCAC conference
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frank_ezelle on March 02, 2008, 02:48:16 PM
Millsaps takes the SCAC Championship game with a win over Centre, 69-60.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 02:49:16 PM
It looks like nobody wants to host. A lot of the likely suspects have lost this weekend. Who is going to get byes?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 02, 2008, 03:03:10 PM
Quote from: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 02:49:16 PM
It looks like nobody wants to host. A lot of the likely suspects have lost this weekend. Who is going to get byes?

With the best record in all of D3Hoops at 26-2,  the longest winning streak in Div. III at 19 straight games, an unblemished conference record of 19-0 and winners of 3 straight SUNYAC Championships, my vote goes to Plattsburgh State to get a 1st round bye.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 03:09:18 PM
That's ONE. How about Augie?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 02, 2008, 03:31:50 PM
Quote from: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 03:09:18 PM
That's ONE. How about Augie?

Augustana certainly should be considered, as well as Plattsburgh, Amherst, UW-Whitewater, Centre, and Hope. Guilford, if they win today might get into the mix. But the top 4 right now should be, Hope, Whitewater, Plattsburgh, and Augustana, because of their runs to their conference championships. You should be rewarded for that. At least that's usually what happens in Div. I.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2008, 03:35:13 PM

Trinity is handing it to Bowdoin right now.  Perhaps Bowdoin is on a lull after the big win last night?  Trinity is playing very well.


Ursinius is up 3 with 15 seconds to play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2008, 03:38:02 PM

Ursinius over Gettysburgh 85-78.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on March 02, 2008, 03:49:26 PM
Once all the games are done could someone post last week's regional ranking with who lost so maybe we can try to sort this mess out?  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 02, 2008, 04:15:18 PM
Quote from: magicman on March 02, 2008, 03:31:50 PM
Quote from: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 03:09:18 PM
That's ONE. How about Augie?

Augustana certainly should be considered, as well as Plattsburgh, Amherst, UW-Whitewater, Centre, and Hope. Guilford, if they win today might get into the mix. But the top 4 right now should be, Hope, Whitewater, Plattsburgh, and Augustana, because of their runs to their conference championships. You should be rewarded for that. At least that's usually what happens in Div. I.

This is Division III, not Division I. It doesn't work that way here. In D3, the five primary criteria are applied, a final set of regional rankings are created, and then the bracket is seeded according to how those regional rankings play out (with such additional considerations as geography and seating capacity thrown in as well). At least three of the four top seeds in each of the four sections of the bracket will get a bye, and possibly all four will get them if a second bye isn't needed for the geographic orphans on the West Coast and in the Mid-South.

This "run to the conference championship" stuff doesn't enter into it at all, because that's not one of the five primary criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 02, 2008, 04:16:26 PM
Quote from: magicman on March 02, 2008, 03:31:50 PM
Quote from: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 03:09:18 PM
That's ONE. How about Augie?

Augustana certainly should be considered, as well as Plattsburgh, Amherst, UW-Whitewater, Centre, and Hope. Guilford, if they win today might get into the mix. But the top 4 right now should be, Hope, Whitewater, Plattsburgh, and Augustana, because of their runs to their conference championships. You should be rewarded for that. At least that's usually what happens in Div. I.

At least 1, possibly 2 of the byes will be used to solve geographical issues.  Such as travel out in the Western tournament reps, and in the deep South.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 02, 2008, 05:10:44 PM
So according to pabegg's list, there are 13 locks (listed below), leaving room for 4 spots from the contender list.

Amherst
Mass-Dartmouth
Brandeis
Rochester
Capital
Washington U.
UW-Stevens Point
Wooster
Gettysburg
Bowdoin
Virginia Wesleyan or Guilford
Centre
Worcester Tech


Contenders ( 8 )

Buena Vista
Middlebury
Occidental
Emerson
Cal Lutheran
William Paterson
Brockport State
St. Lawrence
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2008, 05:13:06 PM
Not sure if all my colors are right.  For some reason my fiance's computer is color blind and I can't tell if I have all the correct teams with the correct colors unless I read all the color=red and color=blue text!

LAST GAME HAS GUILFORD AND VIRGINIA WESLEYAN GOING INTO OT.  I'D GUESS THE LOSER IS A LOCK FOR POOL C.


I'll make RED the tournament (AQ) winners
I'll make BLUE  Pool C contenders

Was it GREEN that I can't use? (color blind)

Don't worry, there will be a lot more color come Sunday!

Team W-L  Reg.
W-L OWP OOWP

Atlantic Region
1. Richard Stockton  18-6  18-5 .511 .521 (NJAC):  Def. Ramapo 60-59 in NJAC semis; def. William Paterson 67-66 in NJAC final.
2. William Paterson  18-6  18-6 .526 .516 (NJAC):  Def. Monclair State 71-61 in NJAC semis; LOST to Richard Stockton 67-66 in NJAC final
3. Farmingdale State  20-5  19-4 .466 .477 (SKY):  Def. SUNY-Maritime 84-69 in Skyline semis; def. St. Joseph's (L.I.) 91-71 in Skyline final
4. York (N.Y.)  20-8  18-7 .539 .502 (CUNYAC):  LOST to John Jay in CUNYAC final 68-54.
5. St. Joseph's (L.I.)  20-5  19-5 .433 .477 (SKY):  Def. Yeshiva 73-52 in Skyline semis; LOST to Farmingdale State 91-71 in Skyline final

East Region
1. Plattsburgh State  23-2  20-0 .496 .527 (SUNYAC):  Def. Fredonia State 72-62 in SUNYAC quarters; def. Geneseo State 65-57 in SUNYAC semis; def. Owego State 89-75 in SUNYAC finals
2. Rochester  19-5  18-5 .595 .565 (UAA): Won at Carnegie Mellon 74-67
3. St. Lawrence  17-8  16-5 .555 .515 (Liberty):  LOST to Clarkson 54-48 in Liberty semis.
4. Brockport State  18-7  15-5 .570 .531 (SUNYAC):  Def. Oneonta State 77-70 in SUNYAC quarters; LOST to Oswego State 87-72 in SUNYAC semis .
5. Stevens  20-5 20-5 .460 .524 (Empire 8 ):  LOST to Nazareth 81-70 at Ithaca in E8 semis.

Great Lakes Region
1. Hope  21-3  15-2 .508 .494 (MIAA):  Def. Alma 75-51 in MIAA 1st round; def. Adrian 83-64 in MIAA semis; def. Calvin 88-72 in MIAA final
2. Capital  21-4  20-4 .528 .524 (OAC):  Def. Mount Union 67-54 in OAC quarters; def. Ohio Northern 81-76 in OAC semis; LOST to Heidelberg 83-75 in OAC final
3. Wooster  22-3  15-2 .484 .490 (NCAC):  Def. Oberlin 104-71 in NCAC quarters; LOST to Wabash 87-63 in NCAC semis.
4. Heidelberg  20-5  18-4 .519 .521 (OAC):  Def. John Carroll 104-74 in OAC quarters; def. Baldwin-Wallace 99-80 in OAC semis; def. Capital 83-75 in OAC final
5. Penn State-Behrend  21-4  19-3 .466 .492 (AMCC):  Def. Penn State-Altoona 62-42 in AMCC semis; def. Lake Erie 57-54 in AMCC final
6. Albion  18-5  14-3 .476 .496 (MIAA):  Def. Kalamazoo 64-56 in MIAA 1st round; LOST to Calvin 75-58 at Hope in MIAA semis

Middle Atlantic Region
1. Ursinus  23-2  20-1 .512 .515 (Centennial):  Def. Dickinson 93-79 in Centennial semis; def. Gettysburg 85-78 in Centennial final
2. Gettysburg  21-3  19-2 .529 .516 (Centennial):  def. Johns Hopkins 80-69 at Ursinus in Cent. semis; LOST to Ursinus 85-78 in Centennial final 
3. Widener  20-5  17-4 .560 .535 (MACC):  Won at Albright 67-53 in MACC semis; Won at Lycoming 75-61 in MACC final
4. York (Pa.)  18-7  18-6 .539 .502 (CAC):  LOST to Salisbury 76-71 in CAC quarters.
5. DeSales  20-5  16-4 .465 .506 (MACF):  Def. Wilkes 69-53 in MACF semis; LOST to King's 71-62 in MACF final
6. Albright  16-7  16-6 .559 .544 (MACC):  LOST to Widener 67-53 in MACC semis.
7. Lycoming  16-9  13-8 .567 .554 (MACC):  Def. Lebanon Valley 71-56 in MACC semis; LOST to Widener 75-61 in MACC final
8. Scranton  17-8  15-8 .538 .504 (LAND):  Won at Moravian 79-78 in Landmark semis; def. Juniata 64-57 in Landmark final

Midwest Region
1. Augustana  20-5  19-5 .575 .555 (CCIW):  Def. Elmhurst 69-68 OT in CCIW semis; def. Illinois Wesleyan 71-60 in CCIW final
2. Washington U.  19-5  16-4 .647 .565 (UAA):  LOST at Chicago 74-66
3. Lawrence  20-2  18-2 .555 .515 (MWC):  Def St. Norbert 59-58 in MWC semis; def. Carroll 98-95 OT in MWC final
4. Wheaton (Ill.)  19-6  15-6 .577 .549 (CCIW):  LOST Illinois Wesleyan 81-78 in CCIW semis at Augustana.
5. Chicago  17-7  16-7 .605 .568 (UAA):  def. Washington U. 74-66
6. Elmhurst  18-7  17-7 .505 .537 (CCIW):  LOST at Augustana 69-68 OT in CCIW semis.
7. Aurora  20-5  18-5 .465 .496 (NathCon):  Def. Benedictine 96-75 in NathCon quarters; def. MSOE 89-64 in NathCon semis; LOST to Lakeland 82-77 OT in NathCon final (POOL B CANDIDATE)
8. Webster  19-5  17-5 .492 .481 (SLIAC): Def. Westminster (Mo.) 62-40; LOST to Maryville (Mo.) 76-73 in SLIAC semis.

Northeast Region
1. Amherst  23-2  23-1 .601 .553 (NESCAC):  LOST to Bowdoin 65-64 in NESCAC semis
2. Mass-Dartmouth  23-2  23-2 .530 .529 (Little East):  Def. Mass-Boston 131-63 in LE quarters; def. Southern Maine 75-69 in LE semis; LOST to Rhode Island College 55-52 in Little East final
3. Brandeis  19-5  18-5 .610 .580 (UAA): def. NYU 58-44
4. Worcester Tech  20-5  19-4 .535 .495 (NEWMAC):  def. Babson 60-59 in NEWMAC semis; LOST to Coast Guard 82-66 in NEWMAC final
5. Bowdoin  20-5  20-5 .571 .533 (NESCAC):  Won at Amherst 65-64 in NESCAC semis; LOST to Trinity (Conn) 74-55 in NESCAC final
6. Rhode Island College  19-6  19-6 .545 .529 (LEC):  Def. Plymouth State 77-58 in LEC quarters; def. Keene State 68-63 at UMass-Dartmouth in LEC semis; def. Mass-Dartmouth 55-52 in Little East final
7. Trinity (Conn.)  19-6  17-5 .615 .549 (NESCAC):  def. Middlebury 72-63 at Amherst in NESCAC semis; def. Bowdoin 74-55 in NESCAC final
8. Middlebury  19-6  18-5 .596 .528 (NESCAC):  LOST to Trinity 72-63(Conn.) at Amherst in NESCAC semis
9. Emerson  22-3  21-3 .442 .499 (GNAC):  Def. Daniel Webster 93-70 in GNAC quarters; def. St. Joseph's (Maine) 79-75 in GNAC semis; LOST to Lasell 86-72 in GNAC final
10. Elms  19-6  17-5 .512 .483 (NAC):  Def. Maine-Farmington 79-65 in NAC quarters; def. Becker 78-53 in NAC semis; def Lesley 72-65 in NAC final

South Region
1. Centre  23-1  18-1 .503 .498 (SCAC):  Def. Austin 67-53 at Hendrix in SCAC quarters; def. Trinity (TX) 70-57 in SCAC semis; LOST to Millsaps 69-60 in SCAC final 
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor  22-3  20-2 .494 .505 (ASC):  Def. East Texas Baptist 66-50 in ASC quarters; def. Hardin-Simmons 60-55 in ASC semis; def. Concordia-Austin 82-73 in ASC final
3. Guilford  21-4  20-4 .531 .527 (ODAC):  Def. Eastern Mennonite 81-66 in ODAC quarters; def. Roanoke 67-57 in ODAC semis; plays Virginia Wesleyan in ODAC final on Sun.
4. Virginia Wesleyan  20-5  19-4 .520 .522 (ODAC):  Def. Bridgewater 78-69 in ODAC quarters; def. Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in ODAC semis; plays Guilford in ODAC final on Sun.
5. Millsaps  22-3  17-2 .476 .493 (SCAC):  Def. Rhodes 86-57 at Hendrix in SCAC quarters; def. Hendrix 73-68 in SCAC semis; def. Centre 69-60 in SCAC final 
6. Maryville (Tenn.)  22-2  16-2 .451 .497 (GSAC):  Def. Huntingdon 84-65 at Piedmont in GSAC semis; def. Piedmont 90-79 in GSAC final (POOL B CANDIDATE)
7. Randolph-Macon  20-5  15-5 .538 .527 (ODAC):  LOST to Hampden-Sydney 69-67 in ODAC quarters.
8. Mississippi College  19-5  16-5 .507 .507 (ASC):  LOST to Howard Payne 94-90  (OT) in ASC quarters.

West Region
1. UW-Whitewater  21-4  19-4 .492 .540 (WIAC):  Def. Stout 78-67 in WIAC quarters; Def. Superior 77-73 OT in WIAC semis; def. Stevens Point 75-71 in WIAC final
2. St. Thomas  21-4  19-3 .499 .522 (MIAC):  Def. Bethel 69-68  in MIAC semis; def. Gustavus Adolphus 76-73 in MIAC final
3. Occidental  20-4  13-3 .531 .527 (SCIAC):  Def. La Verne 67-57; LOST Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 66-62 in SCIAC semis.
4. UW-Stevens Point  20-5  18-5 .575 .525 (WIAC):  Def. La Crosse 74-66 OT in WIAC quarters; def. Eau Claire 88-65 in WIAC semis; LOST at Whitewater 75-71 in WIAC final
5. Buena Vista  20-5  16-3 .496 .528 (IIAC):  Def. Dubuque 91-86 in IIAC semis; LOST to Loras77-69 in IIAC final.
6. Cal Lutheran  20-4  16-4 .498 .529 (SCIAC):  Def. Ponoma-Pitzer 70-51; LOST to Pomona-Pitzer 54-44 in SCIAC semis.
7. UW-Platteville  19-6  17-5 .526 .535 (WIAC):  LOST to Eau Claire 84-80 in WIAC quarters.
8. Loras  19-6  16-4 .518 .535 Def. Coe in 82-64 IIAC semis; def. Buena Vista 77-69 in IIAC final
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2008, 05:14:37 PM

ODAC final in OT.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dutch_Man on March 02, 2008, 05:38:15 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on March 02, 2008, 05:10:44 PM
So according to pabegg's list, there are 13 locks (listed below), leaving room for 4 spots from the contender list.

Amherst
Mass-Dartmouth
Brandeis
Rochester
Capital
Washington U.
UW-Stevens Point
Wooster
Gettysburg
Bowdoin
Virginia Wesleyan or Guilford
Centre
Worcester Tech


Contenders ( 8 )

Buena Vista
Middlebury
Occidental
Emerson
Cal Lutheran
William Paterson
Brockport State
St. Lawrence

They really think 4 teams from the UAA are going to get in. I am sure 3 will but 4 seems like a lot. But I guess they are all pretty deserving teams so I wouldn't have a problem with it. The best teams should be in it and these 4 teams happen to be in (arguably) the best conference in D3. I guess it will be interesting to see if Wash U., Rochester, and Brandeis join Chicago.

Just over 16 hours till we find out!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2008, 05:40:40 PM

The UAA has the advantage that they're spread across three regions.  Chicago has the AQ, so the other three don't have to sit behind a conference opponent before they are considered.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on March 02, 2008, 05:43:56 PM
My take after today's games:

Certain Pool Cs

1)   Amherst - Northeast #1, 23-3
2)   Centre - South #1, 25-2
3)   UMass-Dartmouth - Northeast #2, 25-3
4)   Brandeis - Northeast #3, 20-5
5)   Washington U - Midwest #2, 19-6
6)   UW - Stevens Point - West #4, 22-6
7)   Wooster - Great Lakes #3, 23-4
8 )   Capital - Great Lakes #2, 23-5
9)   Rochester - East #2, 20-5
10)   Virginia Wesleyan - South #4, 22-6
11)   William Paterson - Atlantic #2, 19-7
12)   Gettysburg - Mid Atlantic #2, 22-4

My bet is that 5 of the following will get Pool Cs bids:

1)   DeSales - Mid Atlantic #5, 21-6
2)   Worcester Tech - Northeast #4, 21-6
3)   Bowdoin - Northeast #5, 21-6, lost to Trinity in finals
4)   Randolph-Macon - South #7, 20-6, lost to Hampden-Sydney in quarterfinals
5)   Occidental - West #3, 21-5, lost to Claremont-Mudd-Scripps in SCIAC semis
6)   Buena Vista - West #5, 21-6, lost to Loras in IIAC final
7)   Cal Lutheran - West #6, 21-5, lost to Pomona-Pitzer in SCIAC semis
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 02, 2008, 06:00:24 PM
My gut reaction guess as to the five:

Occidental
Buena Vista
St. Lawrence
DeSales
Randolph Macon
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 06:01:05 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 02, 2008, 04:15:18 PM
Quote from: magicman on March 02, 2008, 03:31:50 PM
Quote from: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 03:09:18 PM
That's ONE. How about Augie?

Augustana certainly should be considered, as well as Plattsburgh, Amherst, UW-Whitewater, Centre, and Hope. Guilford, if they win today might get into the mix. But the top 4 right now should be, Hope, Whitewater, Plattsburgh, and Augustana, because of their runs to their conference championships. You should be rewarded for that. At least that's usually what happens in Div. I.

This is Division III, not Division I. It doesn't work that way here. In D3, the five primary criteria are applied, a final set of regional rankings are created, and then the bracket is seeded according to how those regional rankings play out (with such additional considerations as geography and seating capacity thrown in as well). At least three of the four top seeds in each of the four sections of the bracket will get a bye, and possibly all four will get them if a second bye isn't needed for the geographic orphans on the West Coast and in the Mid-South.

This "run to the conference championship" stuff doesn't enter into it at all, because that's not one of the five primary criteria.

Well, performance in the last 25% of a team's schedule IS in the secondary criteria, so that's kind of like what he's talking about, but it's hard to know how often that really comes into consideration.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 02, 2008, 06:09:53 PM
Something to consider in terms of the primary criterion of 'record against ranked teams' - alas, we don't see the final rankings, but some guess can be made.  F'rinstance, IWU (which fell out last week) will almost certainly be back.  Not enough to help themselves, probably, but it gives an extra win each to WashU (which won't need it) and to Oxy (which might).  (For seeding purposes, it also gives THREE more wins to Augie, though if Elmhurst drops out, there goes the gain.)

What other ins or outs would people expect in terms of regional rankings?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 02, 2008, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 06:01:05 PM
Well, performance in the last 25% of a team's schedule IS in the secondary criteria, so that's kind of like what he's talking about, but it's hard to know how often that really comes into consideration.

Read the fine print, only if the committee seeks persmission from the national committee......my assumption would be this only comes up in the event of ties.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 02, 2008, 06:17:05 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?

I would say that's probably accurate, though I'm unsure of Lawrence, you could put Aurora, Chicago and Steven Point there pretty easily.  They've used the bye up in Minnesota a couple times in recent years, I'd say thats a good bet as well.  I'm kind of likeing Hope to get a bye, but there seems to be plenty of teams to get to Holland rather easily.

Between Whitewater/Augustana/Lawrence I have a hunch only 2 of those will be hosting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:18:45 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?
Millsaps can be bused to UMHB.

Maryville MO Fontbonne College in St Louis can be bused to Millsaps (497 miles).

Maryville TN can be bused to Millsaps.

However, UMHB can ascend to #1 in the South with the Centre loss.

Does Chapman play PP and then the winner go to Belton (UMHB)?

Here is my off-the-wall southwestern bracket...

Millsaps hosts as a #2 for geographic proximity sake and plays #3 Maryville TN
UMHB plays #4 Maryville MO.

My bad!  Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 02, 2008, 06:20:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:18:45 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?
Millsaps can be bused to UMHB.

Maryville MO can be bused to Millsaps.

Marville TN can be bused to Millsaps.

However, UMHB can ascend to #1 in the South with the Centre loss.

Does Chapman play PP and then the winner go to Belton (UMHB)?

What about Whitworth?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:22:37 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 06:20:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:18:45 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?
Millsaps can be bused to UMHB.

Maryville MO can be bused to Millsaps.

Marville TN can be bused to Millsaps.

However, UMHB can ascend to #1 in the South with the Centre loss.

Does Chapman play PP and then the winner go to Belton (UMHB)?

What about Whitworth?
Use an away home bye 3-pod for the west coast teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 06:33:20 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?
How is Lawrence geographically isolated?  UWSP, UWW, Aurora and Chicago are all easy trips.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on March 02, 2008, 06:35:23 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:22:37 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 06:20:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:18:45 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?
Millsaps can be bused to UMHB.

Maryville MO can be bused to Millsaps.

Marville TN can be bused to Millsaps.

However, UMHB can ascend to #1 in the South with the Centre loss.

Does Chapman play PP and then the winner go to Belton (UMHB)?

What about Whitworth?
Use an away home bye 3-pod for the west coast teams.

I think Occidental will get in and you could have a 4 team west coast pod. Only one flight needed. Only problem is that Whitworth is probably the most deserving to host out of those 4 teams and that will require 3 flights.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 02, 2008, 06:36:36 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 06:33:20 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?
How is Lawrence geographically isolated?  UWSP, UWW, Aurora and Chicago are all easy trips.

Perhaps by "geographically isolated" scottiedawg was thinking more in terms of depth of snow than of number of miles. :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 06:40:57 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 06:01:05 PM
Well, performance in the last 25% of a team's schedule IS in the secondary criteria, so that's kind of like what he's talking about, but it's hard to know how often that really comes into consideration.

Read the fine print, only if the committee seeks persmission from the national committee......my assumption would be this only comes up in the event of ties.

The entire secondary criteria is only used in the case of a tie.  I don't get your point.

My point was performance at the end of the season is in the criteria, although its the secondary criteria and, without being on the committee, it's hard to know how often its really used.  I would guess rarely.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 02, 2008, 06:55:35 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 06:40:57 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 06:01:05 PM
Well, performance in the last 25% of a team's schedule IS in the secondary criteria, so that's kind of like what he's talking about, but it's hard to know how often that really comes into consideration.

Read the fine print, only if the committee seeks persmission from the national committee......my assumption would be this only comes up in the event of ties.

The entire secondary criteria is only used in the case of a tie.  I don't get your point.

My point was performance at the end of the season is in the criteria, although its the secondary criteria and, without being on the committee, it's hard to know how often its really used.  I would guess rarely.

Exactly, to break ties that can't be broken with secondary criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:59:18 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on March 02, 2008, 06:35:23 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:22:37 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 06:20:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:18:45 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?
Millsaps can be bused to UMHB.

Maryville MO can be bused to Millsaps.

Marville TN can be bused to Millsaps.

However, UMHB can ascend to #1 in the South with the Centre loss.

Does Chapman play PP and then the winner go to Belton (UMHB)?

What about Whitworth?
Use an away home bye 3-pod for the west coast teams.

I think Occidental will get in and you could have a 4 team west coast pod. Only one flight needed. Only problem is that Whitworth is probably the most deserving to host out of those 4 teams and that will require 3 flights.
In that case, fly Whitworth the midwest.  One flight!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ILive4This on March 02, 2008, 07:05:03 PM
With Amherst and UMD losing in their tournaments, any chance Brandeis Men host games in the tournament?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2008, 07:06:53 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on March 02, 2008, 07:05:03 PM
With Amherst and UMD losing in their tournaments, any chance Brandeis Men host games in the tournament?

I would think so.  It will all depend on where they fall in the rankings.  I think at least a first round game would be in order.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: thebear on March 02, 2008, 07:13:52 PM
I have Brandeis 4 and Amherst 3 in the Northeast/East Pod.

I have Plattsburgh 1 & Trinity 2.

That would say all would host rounds 1 & 2.

Natural first round rivalries that match records & seeding:

Plattsburgh - Clarkson
Trinity - Coast Guard
Anherst - Elms
Brandeis - Lasell

Be interesting to see what the committee decides.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 07:14:43 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 06:55:35 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 06:40:57 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 06:01:05 PM
Well, performance in the last 25% of a team's schedule IS in the secondary criteria, so that's kind of like what he's talking about, but it's hard to know how often that really comes into consideration.

Read the fine print, only if the committee seeks persmission from the national committee......my assumption would be this only comes up in the event of ties.

The entire secondary criteria is only used in the case of a tie.  I don't get your point.

My point was performance at the end of the season is in the criteria, although its the secondary criteria and, without being on the committee, it's hard to know how often its really used.  I would guess rarely.

Exactly, to break ties that can't be broken with secondary criteria.

My assumption was different.  I would assume that once they invole the secondary criteria they treat each item equally.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frank_ezelle on March 02, 2008, 07:22:46 PM
I like Ralph's scenario with Millsaps hosting, but am I looking at the wrong Maryville in Missouri?  The one in the SLIAC lost in the finals of their tournament and finished the season at 13-14.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 07:26:53 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 06:33:20 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?
How is Lawrence geographically isolated?  UWSP, UWW, Aurora and Chicago are all easy trips.

I appreciate the humor.  I mistakenly assumed Lawrence, Kansas, not Appleton, WI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 07:36:26 PM
Fontbonne University (21-6) from STL beat Maryville (Mo.) for the SLIAC AQ.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 02, 2008, 07:42:13 PM
Quote from: frank_ezelle on March 02, 2008, 07:22:46 PM
I like Ralph's scenario with Millsaps hosting, but am I looking at the wrong Maryville in Missouri?  The one in the SLIAC lost in the finals of their tournament and finished the season at 13-14.

Maryville, Tennessee will be in the tournament as a Pool B.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on March 02, 2008, 07:48:28 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:59:18 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on March 02, 2008, 06:35:23 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:22:37 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 06:20:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:18:45 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?
Millsaps can be bused to UMHB.

Maryville MO can be bused to Millsaps.

Marville TN can be bused to Millsaps.

However, UMHB can ascend to #1 in the South with the Centre loss.

Does Chapman play PP and then the winner go to Belton (UMHB)?

What about Whitworth?
Use an away home bye 3-pod for the west coast teams.

I think Occidental will get in and you could have a 4 team west coast pod. Only one flight needed. Only problem is that Whitworth is probably the most deserving to host out of those 4 teams and that will require 3 flights.
In that case, fly Whitworth the midwest.  One flight!

That's true but how would have the 3 team pod match up with Ponoma-Pitzer, Chapman, and Occidental.  Ponoma just isn't good enough to have the bye, Occidental I don't think desrves it after losing in the conference tourney and if you give it to Chapman you have two conference teams playing each other in the first round.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on March 02, 2008, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:18:45 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?
Millsaps can be bused to UMHB.

Maryville MO can be bused to Millsaps.

Maryville TN can be bused to Millsaps.

However, UMHB can ascend to #1 in the South with the Centre loss.

Does Chapman play PP and then the winner go to Belton (UMHB)?

Here is my off-the-wall southwestern bracket...

Millsaps hosts as a #2 for geographic proximity sake and plays #3 Maryville TN
UMHB plays #4 Maryville MO.

Fontbonne beat Maryville, MO yesterday, but they also are within the 500 mile rule I think, or at least is very close.

With one less loss, I think Mississippi College would have completed this bracket with the Choctaws, UMHB and Maryville (TN) playing at Millsaps. Don't be surprised to see UMHB and Maryville at Millsaps, with the 4th team flown in. The same thing happened at MS College last year with UMHB and Maryville busing, and Occidental flown in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 07:58:51 PM
Fontbonne College in St Louis can be bused to Millsaps (492 miles).

My bad, but it holds anyway.  FC to the Millsaps' Hanger Dome as the #4 seed in that bracket.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 08:00:35 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on March 02, 2008, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 06:18:45 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on March 02, 2008, 06:10:28 PM
As far as teams that are candidates for a geographically isolated bye, I only see Mary Hardin Baylor, Lawrence, and Millsaps as possibilities.  Thoughts?
Millsaps can be bused to UMHB.

Maryville MO can be bused to Millsaps.

Maryville TN can be bused to Millsaps.

However, UMHB can ascend to #1 in the South with the Centre loss.

Does Chapman play PP and then the winner go to Belton (UMHB)?

Here is my off-the-wall southwestern bracket...

Millsaps hosts as a #2 for geographic proximity sake and plays #3 Maryville TN
UMHB plays #4 Maryville MO.

Fontbonne beat Maryville, MO yesterday, but they also are within the 500 mile rule I think, or at least is very close.

With one less loss, I think Mississippi College would have completed this bracket with the Choctaws, UMHB and Maryville (TN) playing at Millsaps. Don't be surprised to see UMHB and Maryville at Millsaps, with the 4th team flown in. The same thing happened at MS College last year with UMHB and Maryville busing, and Occidental flown in.
Chris, please remember that last year there was not a Chapman, getting a Pool B in southern California.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on March 02, 2008, 07:48:28 PM
...
That's true but how would have the 3 team pod match up with Ponoma-Pitzer, Chapman, and Occidental.  Pomona just isn't good enough to have the bye, Occidental I don't think deserves it after losing in the conference tourney and if you give it to Chapman you have two conference teams playing each other in the first round.
Losing in the conference tourney is not necessarily a disqualifying criterion for Oxy.

If the rest of the criteria for Oxy are better, and Oxy filed the paper work to host, then the committee might give them a game or two.

A few years ago, Maryville hosted in the first round for geographic reasons and Mississippi College got a bye.  Mississippi College then went to Maryville TN for the second game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on March 02, 2008, 08:12:51 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 08:00:35 PM
Chris, please remember that last year there was not a Chapman, getting a Pool B in southern California.

Question for you Ralph. Since it looks like the West Coast teams might all stay out there, could you see a scenario in which MS College squeezes in as the 4th team at Millsaps regional due to no travel costs, rather than flying a 4th team to Millsaps. Though they will be low nationally on the pool C list, the Choctaws should be #8 in the south region rankings and will have a 1/2 game better regional record than #7 Randolph-Macon. Seems like that is what happened with the HSU women two years ago when they played at McMurry.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pbrooks3 on March 02, 2008, 08:13:12 PM
Ralph, I'm thinking Centre should host 1st round.  Got any insights as to what might happen and who might come to Danville if Centre hosts?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 02, 2008, 08:18:39 PM
Anyone know if the D3hoops crew will be doing bracket projections this year?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 08:22:54 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 08:18:39 PM
Anyone know if the D3hoops crew will be doing bracket projections this year?

Women's projections are already posted.  Men will be up soon, I would guess.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 08:25:44 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on March 02, 2008, 08:12:51 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 08:00:35 PM
Chris, please remember that last year there was not a Chapman, getting a Pool B in southern California.

Question for you Ralph. Since it looks like the West Coast teams might all stay out there, could you see a scenario in which MS College squeezes in just due to no travel costs, rather than flying a 4th team to Millsaps. Though they will be low nationally on the pool C list, the Choctaws should be #8 in the south region rankings. Seems like that is what happened with the HSU women two years ago when they played at McMurry.
Chris, I really don't see MissCollege making the tourney.  The OWP and the OOWP are lousy as we have discussed on the ASC board.  Miss College has no worthy South Region (Ranked opponent) wins.

We have 16 first round brackets.  There are 11 4-pods and five 3-pods.

I can see Jackson hosting four teams that can be bused, as I mentioned above.

On Hoopsville just now, Pat Coleman thinks that UMHB might even host a game, probably in a 3-pod.  That lets Millsaps get bused to Wash StL, if they host.  You can bus Maryville TN to Wash StL.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 08:26:45 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 08:22:54 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2008, 08:18:39 PM
Anyone know if the D3hoops crew will be doing bracket projections this year?

Women's projections are already posted.  Men will be up soon, I would guess.
Actually all of the gurus who would do the projections are talking about the tourney on Hoopsville.

Go to the front page and join us!

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 02, 2008, 08:31:16 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on March 02, 2008, 08:12:51 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2008, 08:00:35 PM
Chris, please remember that last year there was not a Chapman, getting a Pool B in southern California.

Question for you Ralph. Since it looks like the West Coast teams might all stay out there, could you see a scenario in which MS College squeezes in just due to no travel costs, rather than flying a 4th team to Millsaps. Though they will be low nationally on the pool C list, the Choctaws should be #8 in the south region rankings. Seems like that is what happened with the HSU women two years ago when they played at McMurry.

Chris,

Bracketing and host duties are subject to travel costs and finances, but selection into the tourney is NOT.  It's done on on-court performance only according to the written criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 08:33:51 PM
The committee needs to consider that Wash U., with new construction going on, has no parking. Huge problem. This from the team accross the street. I really don't see Wash U. hosting, with Saturdays loss to Chicago. They move to 19-6. Fontbonne does not want to walk 50 meters to play Wash U. for the second straight year. Great reward.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2008, 08:50:40 PM

There's too many good teams in the region for WashU to host.

Whitewater and Augustana both have a better shot.  Even Lawrence has the record to get to host (although the size of the gym isn't ideal).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 02, 2008, 10:11:33 PM
Tom, you keep listing Scranton as an AQ, the Landshark conference does not have an AQ this year, they are in pool B.  Otherwise great work.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2008, 10:15:16 PM
Quote from: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 08:33:51 PM
The committee needs to consider that Wash U., with new construction going on, has no parking. Huge problem. This from the team accross the street. I really don't see Wash U. hosting, with Saturdays loss to Chicago. They move to 19-6. Fontbonne does not want to walk 50 meters to play Wash U. for the second straight year. Great reward.

Would you rather get sent 497 miles on a bus?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jagluski on March 02, 2008, 10:17:33 PM
Quote from: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 08:33:51 PM
The committee needs to consider that Wash U., with new construction going on, has no parking. Huge problem. This from the team accross the street. I really don't see Wash U. hosting, with Saturdays loss to Chicago. They move to 19-6. Fontbonne does not want to walk 50 meters to play Wash U. for the second straight year. Great reward.

What Fontbonne wants has nothing to do with whether or not Wash U hosts.  And trust me, the committee could care less what Fontbonne wants.  Let's be honest here though, you don't want to walk across the street to Wash U because you're never able to beat the Bears.

That being said, I wouldn't expect Wash U to host either.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 10:23:53 PM
Titan Q - I like bus rides. Sorry your time got squeezed on Hoopsville. We waited all night for ya. Good job with the women's explanations.

Nice Comment Jagluski - Nobody said the NCAA cares.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 02, 2008, 10:31:20 PM
I saw on the front page that d3hoops made projections for the womens field, any idea if they made projections for the men, and, if so, where they can be found?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 10:33:18 PM
On Hoopsville they said they would be up in about an hour.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 02, 2008, 10:44:28 PM
Quote from: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 10:33:18 PM
On Hoopsville they said they would be up in about an hour.

Thanks
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2008, 11:27:38 PM
LAST GAME HAS GUILFORD AND VIRGINIA WESLEYAN GOING INTO OT.  I'D GUESS THE LOSER IS A LOCK FOR POOL C.


I'll make RED the tournament (AQ) winners
I'll make BLUE  Pool C contenders

Was it GREEN that I can't use? (color blind)

Don't worry, there will be a lot more color come Sunday!

Team W-L  Reg.
W-L OWP OOWP

Atlantic Region
1. Richard Stockton  18-6  18-5 .511 .521 (NJAC):  Def. Ramapo 60-59 in NJAC semis; def. William Paterson 67-66 in NJAC final.
2. William Paterson  18-6  18-6 .526 .516 (NJAC):  Def. Monclair State 71-61 in NJAC semis; LOST to Richard Stockton 67-66 in NJAC final
3. Farmingdale State  20-5  19-4 .466 .477 (SKY):  Def. SUNY-Maritime 84-69 in Skyline semis; def. St. Joseph's (L.I.) 91-71 in Skyline final
4. York (N.Y.)  20-8  18-7 .539 .502 (CUNYAC):  LOST to John Jay in CUNYAC final 68-54.
5. St. Joseph's (L.I.)  20-5  19-5 .433 .477 (SKY):  Def. Yeshiva 73-52 in Skyline semis; LOST to Farmingdale State 91-71 in Skyline final

East Region
1. Plattsburgh State  23-2  20-0 .496 .527 (SUNYAC):  Def. Fredonia State 72-62 in SUNYAC quarters; def. Geneseo State 65-57 in SUNYAC semis; def. Owego State 89-75 in SUNYAC finals
2. Rochester  19-5  18-5 .595 .565 (UAA): Won at Carnegie Mellon 74-67
3. St. Lawrence  17-8  16-5 .555 .515 (Liberty):  LOST to Clarkson 54-48 in Liberty semis.
4. Brockport State  18-7  15-5 .570 .531 (SUNYAC):  Def. Oneonta State 77-70 in SUNYAC quarters; LOST to Oswego State 87-72 in SUNYAC semis .
5. Stevens  20-5 20-5 .460 .524 (Empire 8 ):  LOST to Nazareth 81-70 at Ithaca in E8 semis.

Great Lakes Region
1. Hope  21-3  15-2 .508 .494 (MIAA):  Def. Alma 75-51 in MIAA 1st round; def. Adrian 83-64 in MIAA semis; def. Calvin 88-72 in MIAA final
2. Capital  21-4  20-4 .528 .524 (OAC):  Def. Mount Union 67-54 in OAC quarters; def. Ohio Northern 81-76 in OAC semis; LOST to Heidelberg 83-75 in OAC final
3. Wooster  22-3  15-2 .484 .490 (NCAC):  Def. Oberlin 104-71 in NCAC quarters; LOST to Wabash 87-63 in NCAC semis.
4. Heidelberg  20-5  18-4 .519 .521 (OAC):  Def. John Carroll 104-74 in OAC quarters; def. Baldwin-Wallace 99-80 in OAC semis; def. Capital 83-75 in OAC final
5. Penn State-Behrend  21-4  19-3 .466 .492 (AMCC):  Def. Penn State-Altoona 62-42 in AMCC semis; def. Lake Erie 57-54 in AMCC final
6. Albion  18-5  14-3 .476 .496 (MIAA):  Def. Kalamazoo 64-56 in MIAA 1st round; LOST to Calvin 75-58 at Hope in MIAA semis

Middle Atlantic Region
1. Ursinus  23-2  20-1 .512 .515 (Centennial):  Def. Dickinson 93-79 in Centennial semis; def. Gettysburg 85-78 in Centennial final
2. Gettysburg  21-3  19-2 .529 .516 (Centennial):  def. Johns Hopkins 80-69 at Ursinus in Cent. semis; LOST to Ursinus 85-78 in Centennial final 
3. Widener  20-5  17-4 .560 .535 (MACC):  Won at Albright 67-53 in MACC semis; Won at Lycoming 75-61 in MACC final
4. York (Pa.)  18-7  18-6 .539 .502 (CAC):  LOST to Salisbury 76-71 in CAC quarters.
5. DeSales  20-5  16-4 .465 .506 (MACF):  Def. Wilkes 69-53 in MACF semis; LOST to King's 71-62 in MACF final
6. Albright  16-7  16-6 .559 .544 (MACC):  LOST to Widener 67-53 in MACC semis.
7. Lycoming  16-9  13-8 .567 .554 (MACC):  Def. Lebanon Valley 71-56 in MACC semis; LOST to Widener 75-61 in MACC final
8. Scranton  17-8  15-8 .538 .504 (LAND):  Won at Moravian 79-78 in Landmark semis; def. Juniata 64-57 in Landmark final (POOL B CANDIDATE)

Midwest Region
1. Augustana  20-5  19-5 .575 .555 (CCIW):  Def. Elmhurst 69-68 OT in CCIW semis; def. Illinois Wesleyan 71-60 in CCIW final
2. Washington U.  19-5  16-4 .647 .565 (UAA):  LOST at Chicago 74-66
3. Lawrence  20-2  18-2 .555 .515 (MWC):  Def St. Norbert 59-58 in MWC semis; def. Carroll 98-95 OT in MWC final
4. Wheaton (Ill.)  19-6  15-6 .577 .549 (CCIW):  LOST Illinois Wesleyan 81-78 in CCIW semis at Augustana.
5. Chicago  17-7  16-7 .605 .568 (UAA):  def. Washington U. 74-66
6. Elmhurst  18-7  17-7 .505 .537 (CCIW):  LOST at Augustana 69-68 OT in CCIW semis.
7. Aurora  20-5  18-5 .465 .496 (NathCon):  Def. Benedictine 96-75 in NathCon quarters; def. MSOE 89-64 in NathCon semis; LOST to Lakeland 82-77 OT in NathCon final (POOL B CANDIDATE)
8. Webster  19-5  17-5 .492 .481 (SLIAC): Def. Westminster (Mo.) 62-40; LOST to Maryville (Mo.) 76-73 in SLIAC semis.

Northeast Region
1. Amherst  23-2  23-1 .601 .553 (NESCAC):  LOST to Bowdoin 65-64 in NESCAC semis
2. Mass-Dartmouth  23-2  23-2 .530 .529 (Little East):  Def. Mass-Boston 131-63 in LE quarters; def. Southern Maine 75-69 in LE semis; LOST to Rhode Island College 55-52 in Little East final
3. Brandeis  19-5  18-5 .610 .580 (UAA): def. NYU 58-44
4. Worcester Tech  20-5  19-4 .535 .495 (NEWMAC):  def. Babson 60-59 in NEWMAC semis; LOST to Coast Guard 82-66 in NEWMAC final
5. Bowdoin  20-5  20-5 .571 .533 (NESCAC):  Won at Amherst 65-64 in NESCAC semis; LOST to Trinity (Conn) 74-55 in NESCAC final
6. Rhode Island College  19-6  19-6 .545 .529 (LEC):  Def. Plymouth State 77-58 in LEC quarters; def. Keene State 68-63 at UMass-Dartmouth in LEC semis; def. Mass-Dartmouth 55-52 in Little East final
7. Trinity (Conn.)  19-6  17-5 .615 .549 (NESCAC):  def. Middlebury 72-63 at Amherst in NESCAC semis; def. Bowdoin 74-55 in NESCAC final
8. Middlebury  19-6  18-5 .596 .528 (NESCAC):  LOST to Trinity 72-63(Conn.) at Amherst in NESCAC semis
9. Emerson  22-3  21-3 .442 .499 (GNAC):  Def. Daniel Webster 93-70 in GNAC quarters; def. St. Joseph's (Maine) 79-75 in GNAC semis; LOST to Lasell 86-72 in GNAC final
10. Elms  19-6  17-5 .512 .483 (NAC):  Def. Maine-Farmington 79-65 in NAC quarters; def. Becker 78-53 in NAC semis; def Lesley 72-65 in NAC final

South Region
1. Centre  23-1  18-1 .503 .498 (SCAC):  Def. Austin 67-53 at Hendrix in SCAC quarters; def. Trinity (TX) 70-57 in SCAC semis; LOST to Millsaps 69-60 in SCAC final 
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor  22-3  20-2 .494 .505 (ASC):  Def. East Texas Baptist 66-50 in ASC quarters; def. Hardin-Simmons 60-55 in ASC semis; def. Concordia-Austin 82-73 in ASC final
3. Guilford  21-4  20-4 .531 .527 (ODAC):  Def. Eastern Mennonite 81-66 in ODAC quarters; def. Roanoke 67-57 in ODAC semis; def. Virginia Wesleyan in ODAC final 91-80.
4. Virginia Wesleyan  20-5  19-4 .520 .522 (ODAC):  Def. Bridgewater 78-69 in ODAC quarters; def. Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in ODAC semis; LOST to Guilford in ODAC final 91-80
5. Millsaps  22-3  17-2 .476 .493 (SCAC):  Def. Rhodes 86-57 at Hendrix in SCAC quarters; def. Hendrix 73-68 in SCAC semis; def. Centre 69-60 in SCAC final 
6. Maryville (Tenn.)  22-2  16-2 .451 .497 (GSAC):  Def. Huntingdon 84-65 at Piedmont in GSAC semis; def. Piedmont 90-79 in GSAC final (POOL B CANDIDATE)
7. Randolph-Macon  20-5  15-5 .538 .527 (ODAC):  LOST to Hampden-Sydney 69-67 in ODAC quarters.
8. Mississippi College  19-5  16-5 .507 .507 (ASC):  LOST to Howard Payne 94-90  (OT) in ASC quarters.

West Region
1. UW-Whitewater  21-4  19-4 .492 .540 (WIAC):  Def. Stout 78-67 in WIAC quarters; Def. Superior 77-73 OT in WIAC semis; def. Stevens Point 75-71 in WIAC final
2. St. Thomas  21-4  19-3 .499 .522 (MIAC):  Def. Bethel 69-68  in MIAC semis; def. Gustavus Adolphus 76-73 in MIAC final
3. Occidental  20-4  13-3 .531 .527 (SCIAC):  Def. La Verne 67-57; LOST Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 66-62 in SCIAC semis.
4. UW-Stevens Point  20-5  18-5 .575 .525 (WIAC):  Def. La Crosse 74-66 OT in WIAC quarters; def. Eau Claire 88-65 in WIAC semis; LOST at Whitewater 75-71 in WIAC final
5. Buena Vista  20-5  16-3 .496 .528 (IIAC):  Def. Dubuque 91-86 in IIAC semis; LOST to Loras77-69 in IIAC final.
6. Cal Lutheran  20-4  16-4 .498 .529 (SCIAC):  Def. Ponoma-Pitzer 70-51; LOST to Pomona-Pitzer 54-44 in SCIAC semis.
7. UW-Platteville  19-6  17-5 .526 .535 (WIAC):  LOST to Eau Claire 84-80 in WIAC quarters.
8. Loras  19-6  16-4 .518 .535 Def. Coe in 82-64 IIAC semis; def. Buena Vista 77-69 in IIAC final
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: interestedparty on March 02, 2008, 11:58:10 PM
Pool B guesses: Maryville, Aurora, Scranton, Chapman (duh! on all four of these)

Pool C guesses:

Amherst
Centre
Mass-Dartmouth
Gettysburg
Brandeis
Washington U.
Rochester
Capital
Wooster
Virginia Wesleyan
UW-Stevens Point -- top 11 all locks I think

WPI
Bowdoin
Buena Vista -- these 3 really probable

15. Middlebury over Emerson -- Middlebury ranked higher last week and bad loss for Emerson

16. Occidental over Cal Lutheran -- need a 4th team for a pod out West and they are probably deserving anyway with overall record and higher OWP than Cal Lutheran

17. Brockport State over Cal Lutheran, Emerson, Albion -- 5th team out West would cause problems, too many NE teams already, dead heat with Albion, but much higher OWP

Just left out -- Emerson, Cal Lutheran, Albion, William Paterson, St. Lawrence, DeSales

Good OWP, not-good-enough RR -- Oswego State, Albright, Bates, Wheaton
Good RR, bad OWP -- Webster, Stevens, St. Joseph's, Lake Erie, Vassar

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on March 03, 2008, 12:02:03 AM
Interested party:

Keep in mind that St. Lawrence started the week ranked in front of Brockport and has the head-to-head victory over the Golden Eagles.  I'm not sure Brockport has done anything to warrant them getting a C before the Saints do (and I'm not sure either will).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2008, 12:04:16 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2008, 08:50:40 PM

There's too many good teams in the region for WashU to host.

Whitewater and Augustana both have a better shot.  Even Lawrence has the record to get to host (although the size of the gym isn't ideal).

LU hosted two years ago, I think.  They seemed to do a pretty good job.  It's a small gym, but they cleared out the place between the two games...it was a pain in the butt to leave the gym after the 1st game and go stand at the back of the line to get back in for the 2nd game.  I figured we should've gotten rewarded by letting us stay in the gym since we'd been there for the first game.  That was my only issue. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2008, 12:08:04 AM
Quote from: interestedparty on March 02, 2008, 11:58:10 PM
17. Brockport State over Cal Lutheran, Emerson, Albion -- 5th team out West would cause problems, too many NE teams already, dead heat with Albion, but much higher OWP

I know that when giving out bids for host teams, geography comes into play, but I wouldn't imagine the NCAA picking one team over another simply because "it would cause problems" or "too many teams in [pick a region] already"...I don't think there is anything in the selection criteria that would lead me to believe that's the case.  I've been wrong before!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 03, 2008, 12:10:44 AM
Not like the old days when the 8 'best' teams from each region were selected, all the pool c's could come from the same region if it were possible.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Downtown on March 03, 2008, 12:28:39 AM
I
Quoteknow that when giving out bids for host teams, geography comes into play

Yep. This year's Women's Volleyball Tournament created a storm in the Midwest when Whitewater  had to travel to St. Thomas (Minneapolis) while there was a regional in Carthage (Kenosha, WI).

Picking Host Schools, just concerning the Midwest, I think if I was on the committee I would pick Whitewater and Lawrence. Whitewater can pull in teams like Washington U. and Augustana, while Lawrence brings in St. Thomas and Stevens Point.

Plus, Lawrence is located in downtown Appleton, which has plenty to offer such as hotels and restaurants for teams and their fans (The Paper Valley Hotel, just down the block from the University, is where the Green Bay Packers Opponents stay, so if it's good for the NFL, it should be good for the NCAA  ;D :D )

Even though they are in the same state, and just 2 1/2 hours away from each other, I think one can make a very strong case that both schools should be hosting in the Midwest.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Marty Peretz on March 03, 2008, 12:31:36 AM
Wash.U. will have plenty of parking available since 75 percent of their home crowd is made of students and the first weekend of tournament play marks the beginning of spring break. That said, I don't think my Bears will get a home game...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 03, 2008, 12:32:44 AM
Pool C locks, contenders or HM?  Who doesn't like the locks?  How many true contenders and HM'S?  Anyone missing?

LOCKS: Amherst, Centre, Mass-Dartmouth, Gettysburg, UW-Stevens Point,
Brandeis, Washington U., Rochester, Capital, Wooster, Virginia Wesleyan

CONTENDERS: WPI, Bowdoin, Buena Vista, Middlebury, Emerson, Occidental,
Cal Lutheran, Brockport State, Albion

HONORABLE MENTION: William Paterson, St. Lawrence, DeSales, Oswego State,
Albright, Bates, Wheaton, Webster, Stevens, St. Joseph's, Lake Erie, Vassar
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wc2viking on March 03, 2008, 12:33:55 AM
Hey, Downtown, I like how you think!  Maybe LU could finally get a win against UW-SP if the stars align at Alexander Gym.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on March 03, 2008, 12:38:48 AM
What time can we expect to see the predictions?  You guys did such a great job on the womans that im excited to see the mens
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 03, 2008, 12:48:36 AM
Quote from: SLP-O-8 on March 03, 2008, 12:38:48 AM
What time can we expect to see the predictions?  You guys did such a great job on the womans that im excited to see the mens
Here (http://www.d3hoops.com/).

I know that Pat must pull his hair every time someone asks a question that is clearly visible on the front page of the web site!

If this site is like many others, I suspect that the metric that he needs is page views of the front page!  Always check the front page for info!  That is how he has built this site.  If you compare this site to the NAIA's or to D2football.com, you see how easy it is to get the information that you need.

And be sure to tune into Hoopsville in the morning.

I know that I shall have strawberries and cream with my Breakfast at Hoopsville.  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 03, 2008, 12:53:58 AM
Quote from: fcnews on March 02, 2008, 08:33:51 PM
The committee needs to consider that Wash U., with new construction going on, has no parking. Huge problem. This from the team accross the street. I really don't see Wash U. hosting, with Saturdays loss to Chicago. They move to 19-6.

Wash U is actually 16-5 for tournament selection purposes, which is slightly better than 19-6. I don't know how much difference that will make.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: All-around on March 03, 2008, 12:54:41 AM
Ralph he is asking for the predictions that were suppose to be up before midnight tonight?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on March 03, 2008, 01:00:26 AM
Unless im overlooking something im looking for their mens predictions because i know they did a great job on the womans predictions because they only got one of the field mixed up
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 03, 2008, 01:02:19 AM
Quote from: Mr. Downtown on March 03, 2008, 12:28:39 AM
Picking Host Schools, just concerning the Midwest, I think if I was on the committee I would pick Whitewater and Lawrence.

Why in the world would you do that? Well, aside from your obvious desire for a short trip to see a tournament game, that is. ;)

Augustana was ranked higher than Lawrence in last week's regional rankings. Augustana will be ranked higher than Lawrence in tomorrow morning's unreleased regional rankings. If there are two schools on either side of the Lombardi-Halas Line that will be hosting games next weekend, they'll be Augustana and UWW, not Lawrence and UWW.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 03, 2008, 01:05:36 AM
Quote from: All-around on March 03, 2008, 12:54:41 AM
Ralph he is asking for the predictions that were suppose to be up before midnight tonight?
Sorry!  I know that most of the gurus who will sit in on that D3hoops.com conference call were all talking on the Hoopsville show until 10:30 ET.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 03, 2008, 01:05:54 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 03, 2008, 12:48:36 AM
Quote from: SLP-O-8 on March 03, 2008, 12:38:48 AM
What time can we expect to see the predictions?  You guys did such a great job on the womans that im excited to see the mens
Here (http://www.d3hoops.com/).

I know that Pat must pull his hair every time someone asks a question that is clearly visible on the front page of the web site!

Not a problem anymore, since I've given Pat the URL to handle that eventuality:

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tbsimmons.com%2Fimages%2Fupset%2520boss.JPG&hash=059017642b0a39a47c9d08fc5d9e029483e9c5f2)

;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gray Fox on March 03, 2008, 01:08:52 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 02, 2008, 11:27:38 PM


West Region
1. UW-Whitewater  21-4  19-4 .492 .540 (WIAC):  Def. Stout 78-67 in WIAC quarters; Def. Superior 77-73 OT in WIAC semis; def. Stevens Point 75-71 in WIAC final
2. St. Thomas  21-4  19-3 .499 .522 (MIAC):  Def. Bethel 69-68  in MIAC semis; def. Gustavus Adolphus 76-73 in MIAC final
3. Occidental  20-4  13-3 .531 .527 (SCIAC):  Def. La Verne 67-57; LOST Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 66-62 in SCIAC semis.
4. UW-Stevens Point  20-5  18-5 .575 .525 (WIAC):  Def. La Crosse 74-66 OT in WIAC quarters; def. Eau Claire 88-65 in WIAC semis; LOST at Whitewater 75-71 in WIAC final
5. Buena Vista  20-5  16-3 .496 .528 (IIAC):  Def. Dubuque 91-86 in IIAC semis; LOST to Loras77-69 in IIAC final.
6. Cal Lutheran  20-4  16-4 .498 .529 (SCIAC):  Def. Ponoma-Pitzer 70-51; LOST to Pomona-Pitzer 54-44 in SCIAC semis.
7. UW-Platteville  19-6  17-5 .526 .535 (WIAC):  LOST to Eau Claire 84-80 in WIAC quarters.
8. Loras  19-6  16-4 .518 .535 Def. Coe in 82-64 IIAC semis; def. Buena Vista 77-69 in IIAC final

Where is Pomona, the SCIAC tournament champ?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 03, 2008, 01:10:45 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on March 03, 2008, 01:08:52 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 02, 2008, 11:27:38 PM


West Region
1. UW-Whitewater  21-4  19-4 .492 .540 (WIAC):  Def. Stout 78-67 in WIAC quarters; Def. Superior 77-73 OT in WIAC semis; def. Stevens Point 75-71 in WIAC final
2. St. Thomas  21-4  19-3 .499 .522 (MIAC):  Def. Bethel 69-68  in MIAC semis; def. Gustavus Adolphus 76-73 in MIAC final
3. Occidental  20-4  13-3 .531 .527 (SCIAC):  Def. La Verne 67-57; LOST Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 66-62 in SCIAC semis.
4. UW-Stevens Point  20-5  18-5 .575 .525 (WIAC):  Def. La Crosse 74-66 OT in WIAC quarters; def. Eau Claire 88-65 in WIAC semis; LOST at Whitewater 75-71 in WIAC final
5. Buena Vista  20-5  16-3 .496 .528 (IIAC):  Def. Dubuque 91-86 in IIAC semis; LOST to Loras77-69 in IIAC final.
6. Cal Lutheran  20-4  16-4 .498 .529 (SCIAC):  Def. Ponoma-Pitzer 70-51; LOST to Pomona-Pitzer 54-44 in SCIAC semis.
7. UW-Platteville  19-6  17-5 .526 .535 (WIAC):  LOST to Eau Claire 84-80 in WIAC quarters.
8. Loras  19-6  16-4 .518 .535 Def. Coe in 82-64 IIAC semis; def. Buena Vista 77-69 in IIAC final

Where is Pomona, the SCIAC tournament champ?

Tom was using last weekend's regional rankings. PP was not ranked in last week's West Region rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sciacguru on March 03, 2008, 01:15:08 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on March 03, 2008, 01:08:52 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 02, 2008, 11:27:38 PM


West Region
1. UW-Whitewater  21-4  19-4 .492 .540 (WIAC):  Def. Stout 78-67 in WIAC quarters; Def. Superior 77-73 OT in WIAC semis; def. Stevens Point 75-71 in WIAC final
2. St. Thomas  21-4  19-3 .499 .522 (MIAC):  Def. Bethel 69-68  in MIAC semis; def. Gustavus Adolphus 76-73 in MIAC final
3. Occidental  20-4  13-3 .531 .527 (SCIAC):  Def. La Verne 67-57; LOST Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 66-62 in SCIAC semis.
4. UW-Stevens Point  20-5  18-5 .575 .525 (WIAC):  Def. La Crosse 74-66 OT in WIAC quarters; def. Eau Claire 88-65 in WIAC semis; LOST at Whitewater 75-71 in WIAC final
5. Buena Vista  20-5  16-3 .496 .528 (IIAC):  Def. Dubuque 91-86 in IIAC semis; LOST to Loras77-69 in IIAC final.
6. Cal Lutheran  20-4  16-4 .498 .529 (SCIAC):  Def. Ponoma-Pitzer 70-51; LOST to Pomona-Pitzer 54-44 in SCIAC semis.
7. UW-Platteville  19-6  17-5 .526 .535 (WIAC):  LOST to Eau Claire 84-80 in WIAC quarters.
8. Loras  19-6  16-4 .518 .535 Def. Coe in 82-64 IIAC semis; def. Buena Vista 77-69 in IIAC final

Where is Pomona, the SCIAC tournament champ?
Probably still standing in its zone that noboby seems to be able to shoot over?!?!?! >:(

Sorry, just a little frostbit after watching the Kingsmen's cold shooting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gray Fox on March 03, 2008, 01:17:46 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 03, 2008, 01:10:45 AM
Tom was using last weekend's regional rankings. PP was not ranked in last week's West Region rankings.
Thanks,  I think I skipped too many pages. :-[
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2008, 01:38:23 AM
Yep this process is runnign longer than usual. We have 12 C's in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 03, 2008, 01:40:44 AM
Projections work better if people have time to read and ponder them ;) :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2008, 01:58:18 AM
Projections work better if they're done right and not rushed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2008, 01:58:35 AM
Ask last year's men's national committee. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on March 03, 2008, 01:59:58 AM
haha it is very true...keep up the good hard work and thanks for giving us some very good insight all year long again
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2008, 02:24:28 AM
Job half done. Bracketing next.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/projected.htm
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on March 03, 2008, 02:42:47 AM
Can't wait for 9am West coast time tomorrow!  There are going to be some real happy and really disappointed teams!  Its almost time for analysis and predictions!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2008, 06:40:14 AM
projections:

BRACKET 7
1 Augustana
2 Lawrence
3 Washington U.
4 UW-Stevens Point
5 Chicago
6 Aurora
7 Loras
8 Fontbonne

Ouch.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 03, 2008, 07:20:57 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2008, 02:24:28 AM
Job half done. Bracketing next.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/projected.htm
Pat,

Could you let us know who was on the final Pool C board?

This projection looks good.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 03, 2008, 08:06:27 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2008, 02:24:28 AM
Job half done. Bracketing next.

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/08/projected.htm
Wow!  I am amazed at the bracketing, but just getting the Pool C's off the board is something!

Three SCIAC's!  One might think that the committee is trying to atone for past slights in one season.  However, there were a bunch of losses in the West Region last week.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on March 03, 2008, 11:23:57 AM
Pat .....

What is your all's reasoning, in projecting both Bowdoin (21-6) and Middlebury (19-7) in the tournament, resulting in 4 NESCAC schools, while leaving Randolph-Macon (20-6) out of the tournament, resulting in only 2 ODAC schools.

It seems to me that the projection is inconsistent with:

I'm wondering whether Middlebury shouldn't be replaced by Randolph-Macon and would be interested in hearing the thinking of the DIIIhoops experts.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 03, 2008, 11:41:42 AM
First off... Middlebury and Bowdoin may have had what you refered to as weak out-of-conference opponents... but their OWP and the OOWP are stronger than RMC's.
13 Middlebury 17-6 .739 0.593 0.530 2-4 RR
110 Randolph-Macon 15-6 .714 0.525 0.530 1-3 RR

Secondly, the comparison to the NCAA Tournament performances over the past 5 years is negated by the fact those results mean nothing to selecting this year's tournament.

Thirdly, just because Guilford is predicted to get a bye doesn't mean they are a top-5 seed... it is much to do with geography than top teams. Howard Payne on the women's side as the only bye, versus Hope, but because of HPU's location and the teams that made the tournament from that region, it made sense to give the bye.

Fourtly, RMC's going 1-3 against regionally ranked teams is not better than Middlebury's 2-4 record against regionally ranked teams.

When you look at the hard numbers, RMC probably won't get in over Middlebury and Bowdoin... though we will wait to hear what the NCAA has to say in just over 15 minutes!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on March 03, 2008, 11:57:24 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on March 03, 2008, 11:41:42 AM
First off... Middlebury and Bowdoin may have had what you refered to as weak out-of-conference opponents... but their OWP and the OOWP are stronger than RMC's.
13 Middlebury 17-6 .739 0.593 0.530 2-4 RR
110 Randolph-Macon 15-6 .714 0.525 0.530 1-3 RR

Secondly, the comparison to the NCAA Tournament performances over the past 5 years is negated by the fact those results mean nothing to selecting this year's tournament.

Thirdly, just because Guilford is predicted to get a bye doesn't mean they are a top-5 seed... it is much to do with geography than top teams. Howard Payne on the women's side as the only bye, versus Hope, but because of HPU's location and the teams that made the tournament from that region, it made sense to give the bye.

Fourtly, RMC's going 1-3 against regionally ranked teams is not better than Middlebury's 2-4 record against regionally ranked teams.

When you look at the hard numbers, RMC probably won't get in over Middlebury and Bowdoin... though we will wait to hear what the NCAA has to say in just over 15 minutes!

Thanks.  It's good to hear your thinking on this .... exactly what I was looking for, and I understand it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jagluski on March 03, 2008, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: algernon on March 03, 2008, 11:57:24 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on March 03, 2008, 11:41:42 AM
First off... Middlebury and Bowdoin may have had what you refered to as weak out-of-conference opponents... but their OWP and the OOWP are stronger than RMC's.
13 Middlebury 17-6 .739 0.593 0.530 2-4 RR
110 Randolph-Macon 15-6 .714 0.525 0.530 1-3 RR

Secondly, the comparison to the NCAA Tournament performances over the past 5 years is negated by the fact those results mean nothing to selecting this year's tournament.

Thirdly, just because Guilford is predicted to get a bye doesn't mean they are a top-5 seed... it is much to do with geography than top teams. Howard Payne on the women's side as the only bye, versus Hope, but because of HPU's location and the teams that made the tournament from that region, it made sense to give the bye.

Fourtly, RMC's going 1-3 against regionally ranked teams is not better than Middlebury's 2-4 record against regionally ranked teams.

When you look at the hard numbers, RMC probably won't get in over Middlebury and Bowdoin... though we will wait to hear what the NCAA has to say in just over 15 minutes!

Thanks.  It's good to hear your thinking on this .... exactly what I was looking for, and I understand it.

Also, conference affiliation is irrelevant to the NCAA.  Whether or not it should be is a completely different discussion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: NYBB on March 03, 2008, 12:02:13 PM
almost selection time!  let's see what happens.  i'm just wondering what seed Rochester gets..
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 03, 2008, 12:06:24 PM
NCAA site says postponed to 12:30.

Wonder if they're still working, or just sidelined by their fancy new technology?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2008, 12:08:40 PM
Quote from: NYBB on March 03, 2008, 12:02:13 PM
almost selection time!  let's see what happens.  i'm just wondering what seed Rochester gets..

They don't really "seed" teams.  D3hoops does, unofficially.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 03, 2008, 12:11:13 PM
Now the NCAA says 12:00 again, but they're not running yet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: iwumichigander on March 03, 2008, 12:16:14 PM
Quote from: pabegg on March 03, 2008, 12:06:24 PM
NCAA site says postponed to 12:30.

Wonder if they're still working, or just sidelined by their fancy new technology?

Wow, a 'technical foul' ?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 03, 2008, 12:30:26 PM
Wheaton is in, this is the first surprise.

Cal Lutheran looks like they're out. The west coast is Occidental hosting Whitworth-PP winner.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jagluski on March 03, 2008, 12:34:51 PM
How about that regional at Augustana with Augustana, Aurora, Wooster, and Wash U?

Wow.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 03, 2008, 12:35:32 PM
Or maybe they've got Cal Lutheran - Chapman with the winning flying somewhere?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2008, 12:41:00 PM
Quote from: jagluski on March 03, 2008, 12:34:51 PM
How about that regional at Augustana with Augustana, Aurora, Wooster, and Wash U?

Wow.

My thoughts exactly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dothedew on March 03, 2008, 12:45:38 PM
Or a "potential" Sectional of Hope, Centre, UW-Whitewater, Occidental
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wizbegs1304 on March 03, 2008, 12:46:24 PM
Pointers fans are out there wondering if they are gonna get a shot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jagluski on March 03, 2008, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 03, 2008, 12:41:00 PM
Quote from: jagluski on March 03, 2008, 12:34:51 PM
How about that regional at Augustana with Augustana, Aurora, Wooster, and Wash U?

Wow.

My thoughts exactly.

The NCAA does this every year...I guess we shouldn't be too stunned.  Whoever wins this "regional of death" is my favorite to make the Final Four.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 03, 2008, 12:53:05 PM
Wheaton in, Cal Lutheran out is only Pool C miss

Moravian in, Chapman out is only Pool B miss.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 03, 2008, 01:41:59 PM
Quote from: jagluski on March 03, 2008, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 03, 2008, 12:41:00 PM
Quote from: jagluski on March 03, 2008, 12:34:51 PM
How about that regional at Augustana with Augustana, Aurora, Wooster, and Wash U?

Wow.

My thoughts exactly.

The NCAA does this every year...I guess we shouldn't be too stunned.  Whoever wins this "regional of death" is my favorite to make the Final Four.


Not only the really rough opening weekend, but the winner of that scrum gets whoever comes out of St. Thomas, Buena Vista, Chicago, and Stevens Point.

That's six top 15 teams in an 8 team section.  The least they could have done was swap one of those pods with one from the South.  It's not like the match-ups for sectionals matter since all four teams will be in the same place.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2008, 01:47:32 PM
I'll make RED the tournament (AQ) winners
I'll make BLUE  Pool C contenders

Team W-L  Reg.
W-L OWP OOWP

Atlantic Region
1. Richard Stockton  18-6  18-5 .511 .521 (NJAC):  Def. Ramapo 60-59 in NJAC semis; def. William Paterson 67-66 in NJAC final.
2. William Paterson  18-6  18-6 .526 .516 (NJAC):  Def. Monclair State 71-61 in NJAC semis; LOST to Richard Stockton 67-66 in NJAC final
3. Farmingdale State  20-5  19-4 .466 .477 (SKY):  Def. SUNY-Maritime 84-69 in Skyline semis; def. St. Joseph's (L.I.) 91-71 in Skyline final
4. York (N.Y.)  20-8  18-7 .539 .502 (CUNYAC):  LOST to John Jay in CUNYAC final 68-54.
5. St. Joseph's (L.I.)  20-5  19-5 .433 .477 (SKY):  Def. Yeshiva 73-52 in Skyline semis; LOST to Farmingdale State 91-71 in Skyline final

East Region
1. Plattsburgh State  23-2  20-0 .496 .527 (SUNYAC):  Def. Fredonia State 72-62 in SUNYAC quarters; def. Geneseo State 65-57 in SUNYAC semis; def. Owego State 89-75 in SUNYAC finals
POOL C 2. Rochester  19-5  18-5 .595 .565 (UAA): Won at Carnegie Mellon 74-67
3. St. Lawrence  17-8  16-5 .555 .515 (Liberty):  LOST to Clarkson 54-48 in Liberty semis.
4. Brockport State  18-7  15-5 .570 .531 (SUNYAC):  Def. Oneonta State 77-70 in SUNYAC quarters; LOST to Oswego State 87-72 in SUNYAC semis .
5. Stevens  20-5 20-5 .460 .524 (Empire 8 ):  LOST to Nazareth 81-70 at Ithaca in E8 semis.

Great Lakes Region
1. Hope  21-3  15-2 .508 .494 (MIAA):  Def. Alma 75-51 in MIAA 1st round; def. Adrian 83-64 in MIAA semis; def. Calvin 88-72 in MIAA final
POOL C 2. Capital  21-4  20-4 .528 .524 (OAC):  Def. Mount Union 67-54 in OAC quarters; def. Ohio Northern 81-76 in OAC semis; LOST to Heidelberg 83-75 in OAC final
POOL C 3. Wooster  22-3  15-2 .484 .490 (NCAC):  Def. Oberlin 104-71 in NCAC quarters; LOST to Wabash 87-63 in NCAC semis.
4. Heidelberg  20-5  18-4 .519 .521 (OAC):  Def. John Carroll 104-74 in OAC quarters; def. Baldwin-Wallace 99-80 in OAC semis; def. Capital 83-75 in OAC final
5. Penn State-Behrend  21-4  19-3 .466 .492 (AMCC):  Def. Penn State-Altoona 62-42 in AMCC semis; def. Lake Erie 57-54 in AMCC final
6. Albion  18-5  14-3 .476 .496 (MIAA):  Def. Kalamazoo 64-56 in MIAA 1st round; LOST to Calvin 75-58 at Hope in MIAA semis

Middle Atlantic Region
1. Ursinus  23-2  20-1 .512 .515 (Centennial):  Def. Dickinson 93-79 in Centennial semis; def. Gettysburg 85-78 in Centennial final
POOL C 2. Gettysburg  21-3  19-2 .529 .516 (Centennial):  def. Johns Hopkins 80-69 at Ursinus in Cent. semis; LOST to Ursinus 85-78 in Centennial final 
3. Widener  20-5  17-4 .560 .535 (MACC):  Won at Albright 67-53 in MACC semis; Won at Lycoming 75-61 in MACC final
4. York (Pa.)  18-7  18-6 .539 .502 (CAC):  LOST to Salisbury 76-71 in CAC quarters.
5. DeSales  20-5  16-4 .465 .506 (MACF):  Def. Wilkes 69-53 in MACF semis; LOST to King's 71-62 in MACF final
6. Albright  16-7  16-6 .559 .544 (MACC):  LOST to Widener 67-53 in MACC semis.
7. Lycoming  16-9  13-8 .567 .554 (MACC):  Def. Lebanon Valley 71-56 in MACC semis; LOST to Widener 75-61 in MACC final
POOL B 8. Scranton  17-8  15-8 .538 .504 (LAND):  Won at Moravian 79-78 in Landmark semis; def. Juniata 64-57 in Landmark final (POOL B CANDIDATE)

MORAVIAN GETS IN AS A POOL B BID

Midwest Region
1. Augustana  20-5  19-5 .575 .555 (CCIW):  Def. Elmhurst 69-68 OT in CCIW semis; def. Illinois Wesleyan 71-60 in CCIW final
POOL C 2. Washington U.  19-5  16-4 .647 .565 (UAA):  LOST at Chicago 74-66
3. Lawrence  20-2  18-2 .555 .515 (MWC):  Def St. Norbert 59-58 in MWC semis; def. Carroll 98-95 OT in MWC final
POOL C 4. Wheaton (Ill.)  19-6  15-6 .577 .549 (CCIW):  LOST Illinois Wesleyan 81-78 in CCIW semis at Augustana.
5. Chicago  17-7  16-7 .605 .568 (UAA):  def. Washington U. 74-66
6. Elmhurst  18-7  17-7 .505 .537 (CCIW): LOST at Augustana 69-68 OT in CCIW semis.
POOL B 7. Aurora  20-5  18-5 .465 .496 (NathCon):  Def. Benedictine 96-75 in NathCon quarters; def. MSOE 89-64 in NathCon semis; LOST to Lakeland 82-77 OT in NathCon final (POOL B CANDIDATE)
8. Webster  19-5  17-5 .492 .481 (SLIAC): Def. Westminster (Mo.) 62-40; LOST to Maryville (Mo.) 76-73 in SLIAC semis.

Northeast Region
POOL C 1. Amherst  23-2  23-1 .601 .553 (NESCAC):  LOST to Bowdoin 65-64 in NESCAC semis
POOL C 2. Mass-Dartmouth  23-2  23-2 .530 .529 (Little East):  Def. Mass-Boston 131-63 in LE quarters; def. Southern Maine 75-69 in LE semis; LOST to Rhode Island College 55-52 in Little East final
POOL C 3. Brandeis  19-5  18-5 .610 .580 (UAA): def. NYU 58-44
POOL C 4. Worcester Tech  20-5  19-4 .535 .495 (NEWMAC):  def. Babson 60-59 in NEWMAC semis; LOST to Coast Guard 82-66 in NEWMAC final
POOL C 5. Bowdoin  20-5  20-5 .571 .533 (NESCAC):  Won at Amherst 65-64 in NESCAC semis; LOST to Trinity (Conn) 74-55 in NESCAC final
6. Rhode Island College  19-6  19-6 .545 .529 (LEC):  Def. Plymouth State 77-58 in LEC quarters; def. Keene State 68-63 at UMass-Dartmouth in LEC semis; def. Mass-Dartmouth 55-52 in Little East final
7. Trinity (Conn.)  19-6  17-5 .615 .549 (NESCAC):  def. Middlebury 72-63 at Amherst in NESCAC semis; def. Bowdoin 74-55 in NESCAC final
POOL C 8. Middlebury  19-6  18-5 .596 .528 (NESCAC):  LOST to Trinity 72-63(Conn.) at Amherst in NESCAC semis
9. Emerson  22-3  21-3 .442 .499 (GNAC):  Def. Daniel Webster 93-70 in GNAC quarters; def. St. Joseph's (Maine) 79-75 in GNAC semis; LOST to Lasell 86-72 in GNAC final
10. Elms  19-6  17-5 .512 .483 (NAC):  Def. Maine-Farmington 79-65 in NAC quarters; def. Becker 78-53 in NAC semis; def Lesley 72-65 in NAC final

South Region
POOL C 1. Centre  23-1  18-1 .503 .498 (SCAC):  Def. Austin 67-53 at Hendrix in SCAC quarters; def. Trinity (TX) 70-57 in SCAC semis; LOST to Millsaps 69-60 in SCAC final 
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor  22-3  20-2 .494 .505 (ASC):  Def. East Texas Baptist 66-50 in ASC quarters; def. Hardin-Simmons 60-55 in ASC semis; def. Concordia-Austin 82-73 in ASC final
3. Guilford  21-4  20-4 .531 .527 (ODAC):  Def. Eastern Mennonite 81-66 in ODAC quarters; def. Roanoke 67-57 in ODAC semis; def. Virginia Wesleyan in ODAC final 91-80.
POOL C 4. Virginia Wesleyan  20-5  19-4 .520 .522 (ODAC):  Def. Bridgewater 78-69 in ODAC quarters; def. Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in ODAC semis; LOST to Guilford in ODAC final 91-80
5. Millsaps  22-3  17-2 .476 .493 (SCAC):  Def. Rhodes 86-57 at Hendrix in SCAC quarters; def. Hendrix 73-68 in SCAC semis; def. Centre 69-60 in SCAC final 
POOL B 6. Maryville (Tenn.)  22-2  16-2 .451 .497 (GSAC):  Def. Huntingdon 84-65 at Piedmont in GSAC semis; def. Piedmont 90-79 in GSAC final (POOL B CANDIDATE)
7. Randolph-Macon  20-5  15-5 .538 .527 (ODAC):  LOST to Hampden-Sydney 69-67 in ODAC quarters.
8. Mississippi College  19-5  16-5 .507 .507 (ASC):  LOST to Howard Payne 94-90  (OT) in ASC quarters.

West Region
1. UW-Whitewater  21-4  19-4 .492 .540 (WIAC):  Def. Stout 78-67 in WIAC quarters; Def. Superior 77-73 OT in WIAC semis; def. Stevens Point 75-71 in WIAC final
2. St. Thomas  21-4  19-3 .499 .522 (MIAC):  Def. Bethel 69-68  in MIAC semis; def. Gustavus Adolphus 76-73 in MIAC final
POOL C 3. Occidental  20-4  13-3 .531 .527 (SCIAC):  Def. La Verne 67-57; LOST Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 66-62 in SCIAC semis.
POOL C 4. UW-Stevens Point  20-5  18-5 .575 .525 (WIAC):  Def. La Crosse 74-66 OT in WIAC quarters; def. Eau Claire 88-65 in WIAC semis; LOST at Whitewater 75-71 in WIAC final
POOL C 5. Buena Vista  20-5  16-3 .496 .528 (IIAC):  Def. Dubuque 91-86 in IIAC semis; LOST to Loras77-69 in IIAC final.
6. Cal Lutheran  20-4  16-4 .498 .529 (SCIAC):  Def. Ponoma-Pitzer 70-51; LOST to Pomona-Pitzer 54-44 in SCIAC semis.
7. UW-Platteville  19-6  17-5 .526 .535 (WIAC):  LOST to Eau Claire 84-80 in WIAC quarters.
8. Loras  19-6  16-4 .518 .535 Def. Coe in 82-64 IIAC semis; def. Buena Vista 77-69 in IIAC final



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 03, 2008, 02:01:58 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 03, 2008, 01:41:59 PM
Quote from: jagluski on March 03, 2008, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 03, 2008, 12:41:00 PM
Quote from: jagluski on March 03, 2008, 12:34:51 PM
How about that regional at Augustana with Augustana, Aurora, Wooster, and Wash U?

Wow.

My thoughts exactly.

The NCAA does this every year...I guess we shouldn't be too stunned.  Whoever wins this "regional of death" is my favorite to make the Final Four.


Not only the really rough opening weekend, but the winner of that scrum gets whoever comes out of St. Thomas, Buena Vista, Chicago, and Stevens Point.

That's six top 15 teams in an 8 team section.  The least they could have done was swap one of those pods with one from the South.  It's not like the match-ups for sectionals matter since all four teams will be in the same place.
Actually, I think that the committee has spread this out pretty well.  There are two southern brackets to help dilute the lower left bracket.  I like the upper left bracket, with the exception of no Chapman.  That bracket brings in teams from the far West, the West, a fusion pod out of the South team, a Midwest team and two Great Lakes teams and a Great lakes Bracket that gets a bye.

The general opinion of fans outside the MidAltantic/Atlantic/East/Northeast Regions is that there are only a dozen teams from those four regions that fans west of the Appalachians consider "parity".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on March 03, 2008, 02:16:01 PM
Quote from: pabegg on March 03, 2008, 12:53:05 PM
Wheaton in, Cal Lutheran out is only Pool C miss

Moravian in, Chapman out is only Pool B miss.


Just a few thoughts on how everything worked out on the west coast. WW definately earned their spot in the NCAA (AQ) but considering they weren't ever ranked in the regional rankings (maybe the last secret rankings) it is very suprising they get a bye and get to host.  There are 5 total byes, if they were strictly given on merit, then WW wouldn't even been considered, because they aren't one of the top 5 teams in country.  But since the NCAA doesn't make any money on this tournament and tries to cut corners, WW gets the bye then gets to host.  Also I am pretty sure that in the rules it states that two teams from the same conference shall not meet each other in the first round. 

I think that what would have made the most sense would have been to give Chapman the bid and let Oxy host, then it could have been a 4-team pod of WW, Chapman, Oxy, and Pomona.  With WW playing Pomona and Oxy playing Chapman.  That way only WW would have had to fly and the NCAA could have saved their money, and that way the bye could have been better used else where.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2008, 02:21:09 PM
Though Cal. Lutheran had a better record, Wheaton, off the top of my head, probably had a better record against regionally ranked teams (Cal. Lutheran beat Stevens Point but lost to Oxy twice).  Wheaton also has huge advantage in opponents winning % and also a slight advantage in opponents' opponent's winning %...among other things.

Wheaton only had to have Washington U come off the board before "sitting" at the Pool C table, while Cal. Lutheran had to go through Stevens Point, Occidental and Buena Vista before they got their place at the table...and I'm sure Washington U. went off the board pretty fast.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 03, 2008, 02:30:07 PM
Tom, don't forget that IWU almost certainly re-entered the regional rankings (though, alas, we will never know for sure).  That would add 0-3 to Wheaton's record.  Given the head-to-head results, and IWU's OWP (finished up, what, 6th in the country?), I just don't understand how Wheaton got in over the Titans.  (I didn't expect either to get in.)

Although I don't understand it, nevertheless sincere congratulations to the Thunder - represent well!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2008, 02:31:56 PM
I didn't really know much about the IWU v Wheaton argument...I was just referring Wheaton v Cal. Lutheran.  I'll let you CCIW guys fight over the former argument!  :D ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 03, 2008, 02:36:05 PM
Oops, I wasn't paying attention!  As my last sentence might hint, I thought I was commenting on the CCIW board! :-[
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 03, 2008, 02:39:12 PM
Quote from: LogShow on March 03, 2008, 02:16:01 PM

Just a few thoughts on how everything worked out on the west coast. WW definately earned their spot in the NCAA (AQ) but considering they weren't ever ranked in the regional rankings (maybe the last secret rankings) it is very suprising they get a bye and get to host.  There are 5 total byes, if they were strictly given on merit, then WW wouldn't even been considered, because they aren't one of the top 5 teams in country.  But since the NCAA doesn't make any money on this tournament and tries to cut corners, WW gets the bye then gets to host.  Also I am pretty sure that in the rules it states that two teams from the same conference shall not meet each other in the first round. 

I think that what would have made the most sense would have been to give Chapman the bid and let Oxy host, then it could have been a 4-team pod of WW, Chapman, Oxy, and Pomona.  With WW playing Pomona and Oxy playing Chapman.  That way only WW would have had to fly and the NCAA could have saved their money, and that way the bye could have been better used else where.


The bids come first. Once they determined that Chapman and Cal Lutheran were out, that left them with three west coast teams.

The next consideration was number of flights. That's why Occidental and Pomona-Pitzer are playing, because it eliminates the need to fly both of them.

So it was all about the number of flights.

If Chapman or Cal Lutheran had made it, Occidental would have hosted a four-team regional with Whitworth the only flight. If both had made it, Whitworth would have been flying eastwards, as the projected bracket had it.

It's a very simple set of rules.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 03, 2008, 02:49:55 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 03, 2008, 01:41:59 PM
Quote from: jagluski on March 03, 2008, 12:48:37 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 03, 2008, 12:41:00 PM
Quote from: jagluski on March 03, 2008, 12:34:51 PM
How about that regional at Augustana with Augustana, Aurora, Wooster, and Wash U?

Wow.

My thoughts exactly.

The NCAA does this every year...I guess we shouldn't be too stunned.  Whoever wins this "regional of death" is my favorite to make the Final Four.


Not only the really rough opening weekend, but the winner of that scrum gets whoever comes out of St. Thomas, Buena Vista, Chicago, and Stevens Point.

That's six top 15 teams in an 8 team section.  The least they could have done was swap one of those pods with one from the South.  It's not like the match-ups for sectionals matter since all four teams will be in the same place.

Last year that same section had 7 ranked teams all from the top 14.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on March 03, 2008, 02:54:12 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 03, 2008, 01:41:59 PM
Not only the really rough opening weekend, but the winner of that scrum gets whoever comes out of St. Thomas, Buena Vista, Chicago, and Stevens Point.

That's six top 15 teams in an 8 team section.  The least they could have done was swap one of those pods with one from the South.  It's not like the match-ups for sectionals matter since all four teams will be in the same place.
I'll just note that one of the so-called "South pods" isn't really a South pod .... Guilford and Averett are indeed from the south, but Widener and St. Mary's (Md.) are Mid-Atlantic teams.

One of the South teams is clearly among the best in the country.  The #12 Guilford Quakers will be tough for #7 Wash U, #9 Augustana, #11 Wooster, or anyone else to beat.  They're led by last year's D3 Player of the Year, Ben Strong, are 4-0 against other NCAA tournament entries, and have now won 16 in a row in one of the toughest conferences in the country.  I don't think anyone really wants to face them in the Sweet Sixteen instead of one of the western teams like #8 UW - Stevens Point or #21 St. Thomas.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 03, 2008, 02:01:58 PMActually, I think that the committee has spread this out pretty well.  There are two southern brackets to help dilute the lower left bracket.  I like the upper left bracket, with the exception of no Chapman.  That bracket brings in teams from the far West, the West, a fusion pod out of the South team, a Midwest team and two Great Lakes teams and a Great lakes Bracket that gets a bye.

The general opinion of fans outside the MidAltantic/Atlantic/East/Northeast Regions is that there are only a dozen teams from those four regions that fans west of the Appalachians consider "parity".

Then there are a couple more teams that are neither in the MidAltantic/Atlantic/East/Northeast Regions nor west of the Appalachians .... #12 Guilford and #18 Virginia Wesleyan, both from the ODAC ..... ;)

Here's an interesting note on Virginia Wesleyan:  Since December 8, the Marlins are 18-1 when their opponent has been anyone other than the Guilford Quakers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 03, 2008, 02:54:51 PM
Quote from: pabegg on March 03, 2008, 12:53:05 PM
Wheaton in, Cal Lutheran out is only Pool C miss

Moravian in, Chapman out is only Pool B miss.

Chapman out is no surprise.  They would have had losses to WW, OXY and PP in their pod.  Cal Lu had there chance when Oxy flopped, but then they flopped same night.  Wheaton wins the coin toss by my guesstimation over Cal Lu if it even happened.

To whomever was talking about regional orphans last week and 3 pods....THANKS!  My team Whitworth, definitely caught a break.  We will take it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2008, 02:57:51 PM
I HATE CHELSEA.

GO MANCHESTER UNITED.

LOL... ??? >:( ;D :D ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 03, 2008, 03:17:55 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 03, 2008, 02:57:51 PM
I HATE CHELSEA.

GO MANCHESTER UNITED.

LOL... ??? >:( ;D :D ;)
Oh please don't start that.  We would crash the server.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: elfinley on March 03, 2008, 06:48:10 PM


[/quote]Chapman out is no surprise.  They would have had losses to WW, OXY and PP in their pod.  Cal Lu had there chance when Oxy flopped, but then they flopped same night.  Wheaton wins the coin toss by my guesstimation over Cal Lu if it even happened.

To whomever was talking about regional orphans last week and 3 pods....THANKS!  My team Whitworth, definitely caught a break.  We will take it.
[/quote]

Actually, Chapman beat WW in December.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scooterman on March 03, 2008, 10:58:50 PM
The East Region might as well not even play games only 4 teams worthy of going to the tourney. Bport, Oswego, Cortland and Geneseo with 19 or more wins? No respect as usual. That's my opinion--Bport's losses to combined 157-33 records. Where is the justice?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 03, 2008, 10:59:26 PM
Yes my bad, WW did lose to Chapman in their first game.  I was thinking about the smack down they put on Pomona.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2008, 01:10:23 AM
Quote from: scooterman on March 03, 2008, 10:58:50 PM
The East Region might as well not even play games only 4 teams worthy of going to the tourney. Bport, Oswego, Cortland and Geneseo with 19 or more wins? No respect as usual.

Gotta remember the East only has 38 teams overall.


Quote from: scooterman on March 03, 2008, 10:58:50 PM
That's my opinion--Bport's losses to combined 157-33 records. Where is the justice?

Who did Brockport beat?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 04, 2008, 01:20:29 AM
Was glad to see Plattsburgh State get a 1st round bye. Thought they deserved one, as well as Hope and Amherst. I got 3 of the 5. Don't think anyone could have picked Whitworth and UMass-Dartmouth as the other 2. Not saying their undeserving, just hard to pick.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 04, 2008, 05:13:58 AM
Quote from: scooterman on March 03, 2008, 10:58:50 PM
The East Region might as well not even play games only 4 teams worthy of going to the tourney. Bport, Oswego, Cortland and Geneseo with 19 or more wins? No respect as usual. That's my opinion--Bport's losses to combined 157-33 records. Where is the justice?

The SUNYAC hasn't had a Final Four team in twenty years -- and the general consensus among D3 national observers is that the sections in which the SUNYAC reps are placed have frequently been the easiest path to the Final Four.

Respect has to be earned. Perhaps this is the year that Plattsburgh State will earn some for you folks.

Quote from: magicman on March 04, 2008, 01:20:29 AM
Was glad to see Plattsburgh State get a 1st round bye. Thought they deserved one, as well as Hope and Amherst. I got 3 of the 5. Don't think anyone could have picked Whitworth and UMass-Dartmouth as the other 2. Not saying their undeserving, just hard to pick.

Actually, Whitworth was undeserving; the Pirates (20-6, 18-5 in region) weren't even in last week's West Region rankings. They got their bye by virtue of their geographic isolation. I don't have a problem with that, though, because the NWC teams have frequently been hamstrung by their location in D3 Siberia. In that sense, Whitworth's bye feels sort of a like a case of just deserts for that conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Cards7580 on March 05, 2008, 10:43:07 AM
"...The SUNYAC hasn't had a Final Four team in twenty years -- and the general consensus among D3 national observers is that the sections in which the SUNYAC reps are placed have frequently been the easiest path to the Final Four...."

Hmm, I guess the U of R and St John Fisher might think differently based on last years results.
And Wooster didn't exactly "walk all over" Brockport last year.

A 26-2 record isn't easy to obtain either, no matter who or where you play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2008, 11:26:21 AM
One year does not establish a new trend.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 05, 2008, 11:32:09 AM
We need the mutual fund disclaimer

"Past results are not a predictor of future success"  something like that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 05, 2008, 12:27:16 PM
Yes, 26-2 is all fine and well and good. But their SOS, according to Massey (using MOV) was 237. The SUNYAC was ranked 34th in conference strength as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 05, 2008, 04:39:37 PM
Quote from: Cards7580 on March 05, 2008, 10:43:07 AM
A 26-2 record isn't easy to obtain either, no matter who or where you play.

Home court and an undefeated record didn't help Lawrence that well... :-[ ::) :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on March 06, 2008, 01:07:54 AM
True, but IWU had a heck of a team that year...could have very easily been national champs
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2008, 03:32:41 AM
Quote from: Cards7580 on March 05, 2008, 10:43:07 AM
"...The SUNYAC hasn't had a Final Four team in twenty years -- and the general consensus among D3 national observers is that the sections in which the SUNYAC reps are placed have frequently been the easiest path to the Final Four...."

Hmm, I guess the U of R and St John Fisher might think differently based on last years results.
And Wooster didn't exactly "walk all over" Brockport last year.

I was speaking more about the lack of depth in the Northeast and East regions in general than to the SUNYAC specifically. But Pat is right; one year does not constitute a trend.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 08, 2008, 01:16:52 AM
And the Bumblin' Bs live 'up' to their name with an 0-4 record.  They even took down Murvul's streak. :(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 08, 2008, 01:33:14 AM
C's 9-1 vs A's, so far.



Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 08, 2008, 01:16:52 AM
And the Bumblin' Bs live 'up' to their name with an 0-4 record.  They even took down Murvul's streak. :(

Little less bumble than in past years.  Margins of 11, 18, 6 and 8.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 08, 2008, 01:43:28 AM
Quote from: sac on March 08, 2008, 01:33:14 AM
C's 9-1 vs A's, so far.



Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 08, 2008, 01:16:52 AM
And the Bumblin' Bs live 'up' to their name with an 0-4 record.  They even took down Murvul's streak. :(

Little less bumble than in past years.  Margins of 11, 18, 6 and 8.

By scores, yes.  But it included losing to a team with a losing record, and taking Murvul down with 'em.  I'd say the 'bumble' still lives. :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on March 08, 2008, 11:25:16 AM
Quote from: sac on March 08, 2008, 01:33:14 AM
C's 9-1 vs A's, so far.

I make it 10-0 at a quick glance; all three C losses (COW, WPI, Midd) were to other C's (WUSTL, VWC, Roch).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 08, 2008, 01:38:29 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 08, 2008, 11:25:16 AM
Quote from: sac on March 08, 2008, 01:33:14 AM
C's 9-1 vs A's, so far.

I make it 10-0 at a quick glance; all three C losses (COW, WPI, Midd) were to other C's (WUSTL, VWC, Roch).

Now I come up with 9-0 for the C's over A's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 09, 2008, 11:34:26 AM
I'll keep track of the results from Pool C and Pool B.

Pool A-PA; Pool B-PB; Pool C-PC

Rochester:  Def. Middlebury 56-43 (Pool C); def. Penn-State Behrend 65-56 (Pool A):
Capital: Def. Bethany 92-70 (Pool A); LOST to Hope 92-72 (Pool A):
Wooster:  LOST to Washington U. 79-74 (Pool C): 
Gettysburg:  Def. Salem St. 95-87 (Pool A); def. Elms 66-65:  (Pool A):
Washington U.:  Def. Wooster 79-74 (Pool C); def. Augustana 70-67 OT (Pool A):   
Wheaton (IL):  Def. Lawrence 93-83 in OT (Pool A) ; def. Loras 76-73 (Pool A):
Amherst: def. John Jay 96-74 (Pool A): 
Mass-Dartmouth:  LOST to Coast Guard 50-47 (Pool A):
Brandeis:  Def. Lasell 80-59 (Pool A); def. Bowdoin 68-53 (Pool C): 
Worcester Polytech Inst:  LOST to Virginia Wesleyan 80-75 (Pool C):
Bowdoin:  Def. Curry 79-49 (Pool A); LOST to Brandeis 68-53 (Pool C):
Middlebury:  LOST to Rochester 56-43 (Pool C): 
Centre:  Def. Franklin 75-61 (Pool A); LOST to Ohio Wesleyan 82-65 (Pool A): 
Virginia Wesleyan:  Def. Worcester Polytech 80-75 (Pool C); LOST to Ursinus 70-64 (Pool A):
Occidental:  Def. Ponoma-Pitzer 52-51 (Pool A); LOST to Whitworth 83-75 (Pool A):
Stevens Point: Def. Univ. of Chicago 67-53 (Pool A); LOST to Buena Vista 54-53 (Pool C):
Buena Vista: Def. St. Thomas 72-70 (Pool A); def. Stevens Point 54-53 (Pool C):

Aurora:  LOST to Augustana 72-61 (Pool A):  0-1 v PA
Scranton:  LOST to Elms 71-53 (Pool A): 0-1 v PA
Moravian: LOST to John Jay 80-74 (Pool A):  0-1 v PA
Maryville (TN):   LOST to Millsaps 80-72 (Pool A): 0-1 v PA

RESULTS BY ROUND

1st Round

Pool C v Pool A (9-0)
Capital def. Bethany
Gettysburg def. Salem St.
Wheaton (IL) def. Lawrence
Brandeis def. Lasell
Bowdoin def. Curry
Centre def. Franklin
Occidental def. Ponoma-Pitzer
Stevens Point def. U. of Chicago
Buena Vista def. St. Thomas

Pool C v Pool C (3-3)
Rochester def. Middlebury
Washington U. def. Wooster
Virginia Wesleyan def. Worcester Polytech

Pool C's Amherst and Mass-Dartmouth had byes.

14 Pool Cs still alive

Pool C v Pool B
None

2nd Round
Pool C v Pool A (5-5)
Rochester def. Penn-State Behrend
Gettysburg def. Elms
Washington U. def. Augustana
Wheaton (IL) def. Loras
Amherst def. John Jay

Capital LOST to Hope
Mass-Dartmouth LOST to Coast Guard
Centre LOST to Ohio Wesleyan
Virginia Wesleyan LOST to Ursinus
Occidental LOST to Whitworth

Pool C v Pool C  (2-2)
Brandeis def. Bowdoin
Buena Vista def. Stevens Point

All Pool B's eliminated already

7 Pool Cs alive

Updated for archive sake

Third Round

Pool C vs. Pool A (3-2)
Rochester LOST to Coast Guard
Gettysburg LOST to Ursinus
Wheaton IL beat Whitworth
Amherst beat Richard Stockton
Brandeis beat Plattsburgh

Pool C vs. Pool C  (1-1)
WashStL def. Buena Vista in OT.

Pool C goes 4-3. Four remain.

Fourth Round

Pool C vs. Pool A(1-1)

Wheaton IL LOST to Hope
Wash StL beat Millsaps

Pool C vs. Pool C (1-1)

Amherst def. Brandeis

Pool C goes 2-2

Final Four

Pool C vs. Pool A (2-0)
WashStL beat Hope
Amherst beat Ursinus

Pool C vs. Pool C (1-1)

WashStL def. Amherst for the Championship.

Pool C goes 3-1.

Final tally: 28-16 for Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 18, 2009, 10:02:51 PM
Time to revive this board with the first run of my number crunching for this year.

For those of you who are new or need a refresh, these are my estimates of what the regional rankings would be if they were run this week. These reflect only the winning percentage and strength of schedule components of the rankings, not the head-to-head, common opponents, and record versus ranked components of the rankings; history shows that this ranking process is a pretty good approximation and a good starting point for discussion.

I've ranked three more schools per region than will appear in the official rankings, to try to give an idea of who's close.

At the moment, the CCIW would only have two teams in, with a whole bunch close; three obvious WIAC; three obvious UAA (plus a bubble NYU).


Reg Conf Rank RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   0.6453 0.5686 0.5154 Middlebury                003  C 1         13-1 14-2
NE  13   02   0.6241 0.5216 0.5366 Mass-Dartmouth            013  A w C       11-1 13-1
NE  16   03   0.6067 0.4694 0.5714 Amherst                   014  A w C       11-1 13-1
NE  17   04   0.6287 0.5587 0.5404 Worcester Polytech        015  A w C       12-2 12-3
NE  14   05   0.6217 0.5522 0.5364 Salem State               024  A w C       11-2 12-2
NE  17   06   0.5994 0.5141 0.5235 MIT                       030  C 11        11-2 12-4
NE  18   07   0.5757 0.4282 0.5233 Elms                      033  B 1         12-1 13-1
NE  12   08   0.5848 0.5324 0.5244 Emerson                   046  A second    9-3 9-3
NE  16   09   0.5841 0.5288 0.5289 Williams                  047  C 21        12-4 12-5
NE  17   10   0.5979 0.5737 0.5301 Wheaton (Mass.)           057  C 27        10-4 10-6
NE  11   11   0.5636 0.4963 0.4617 Gordon                    059  A third     8-2 10-3
NE  90   12   0.6381 0.6882 0.5606 Brandeis                  063  C 31        8-5 8-5
NE  16   13   0.5889 0.5755 0.5045 Colby                     064  C 32        7-3 10-4

EA  21   01   0.6358 0.5317 0.5569 Ithaca                    004  A w C       12-1 14-1
EA  24   02   0.6058 0.5264 0.4956 Hamilton                  023  C 6         7-1 9-4
EA  90   03   0.6352 0.6002 0.5549 Rochester                 027  C 9         11-3 11-3
EA  21   04   0.6040 0.5328 0.5322 St. John Fisher           031  C 12        9-2 12-2
EA  90   05   0.6450 0.6539 0.5449 New York University       036  C 14        8-3 10-3
EA  23   06   0.5818 0.5005 0.5080 Fredonia State            040  C 17        9-2 10-3
EA  24   07   0.6181 0.6045 0.5634 St. Lawrence              045  A second    7-3 9-3
EA  23   08   0.5991 0.5832 0.5635 Oneonta State             066  A third     8-4 10-5

AT  32   01   0.6286 0.5641 0.5291 Richard Stockton          016  A w C       12-2 15-2
AT  32   02   0.5798 0.4708 0.5204 William Paterson          038  C 16        12-2 12-2
AT  33   03   0.5725 0.4738 0.4964 SUNY-Farmingdale          043  A second    11-2 11-2
AT  31   04   0.5560 0.4329 0.5008 Baruch                    052  A second    12-2 14-3
AT  33   05   0.5538 0.4313 0.5066 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       058  C 28        11-2 12-2
AT  31   06   0.5391 0.4170 0.5222 Brooklyn                  079              12-3 12-3
AT  32   07   0.5601 0.5628 0.4994 Montclair State           102              8-5 11-5
AT  31   08   0.5289 0.4855 0.5017 Lehman                    116              9-5 11-5

MA  45   01   0.6288 0.5140 0.5639 Franklin and Marshall     008  A w C       12-1 13-1
MA  41   02   0.6055 0.5085 0.5051 St. Mary's (Md.)          021  A w C       9-1 12-3
MA  45   03   0.6105 0.5277 0.5686 McDaniel                  026  C 8         9-2 11-3
MA  45   04   0.5949 0.4840 0.5655 Gettysburg                032  C 13        11-2 11-2
MA  44   05   0.5656 0.4263 0.5097 Gwynedd-Mercy             039  A w C       9-1 10-2
MA  43   06   0.5611 0.4424 0.5135 DeSales                   050  A second    11-2 12-2
MA  45   07   0.5796 0.5093 0.5307 Johns Hopkins             053  C 24        10-3 10-4
MA  42   08   0.6051 0.6072 0.5135 Widener                   055  A second    9-4 11-4
MA  41   09   0.5395 0.3919 0.5172 Wesley                    069  C 36        6-1 8-5
MA  46   10   0.5496 0.4567 0.5070 Catholic                  076  B 2         72 13-3
MA  42   11   0.5644 0.5539 0.5070 Albright                  087              95 11-5

SO  51   01   0.6295 0.5229 0.5490 Texas-Dallas              007  A w C       12-1 14-1
SO  54   02   0.6041 0.4793 0.5412 Trinity (Texas)           019  A w C       11-1 14-1
SO  53   03   0.5825 0.4071 0.5158 Randolph-Macon            025  C 7         10-0 12-3
SO  51   04   0.6073 0.5563 0.4983 McMurry                   028  C 10        9-2 10-4
SO  53   05   0.6004 0.5276 0.5281 Roanoke                   034  A w C       9-2 14-2
SO  53   06   0.5889 0.5385 0.4931 Guilford                  042  C 19        11-3 12-3
SO  54   07   0.5808 0.5205 0.5322 Centre                    054  C 25        9-3 12-3
SO  51   08   0.5787 0.5101 0.5447 LeTourneau                056  C 26        9-3 10-5
SO  54   09   0.5767 0.5102 0.5365 DePauw                    061  C 29        93 12-4
SO  54   10   0.5552 0.4677 0.4854 Oglethorpe                067  C 34        8-2 12-3
SO  55   11   0.5629 0.5269 0.5311 North Carolina Wesleyan   083  A           42 10-4

GL  62   01   0.6252 0.4866 0.5278 Calvin                    005  A w C       4-0 9-5
GL  64   02   0.6325 0.5420 0.5231 Capital                   006  A w C       12-1 14-1
GL  90   03   0.6725 0.6271 0.5608 Carnegie Mellon           010  C 2         7-1 11-2
GL  64   04   0.6014 0.5634 0.5286 John Carroll              041  C 18        9-3 11-4
GL  64   05   0.5947 0.5569 0.5149 Ohio Northern             044  C 20        9-3 11-4
GL  63   06   0.5837 0.5387 0.5075 Wooster                   048  A second    9-3 10-5
GL  62   07   0.6261 0.7100 0.4842 Hope                      075              3-2 10-5
GL  61   08   0.5444 0.4883 0.4739 Penn State-Behrend        088  A           8-3 9-5
GL  63   09   0.5510 0.4991 0.5133 Hiram                     090              9-4 10-5

MW  71   01   0.6705 0.5572 0.5674 Wheaton (Ill.)            001  A w C       11-0 15-0
MW  90   02   0.6036 0.4845 0.5224 Washington U.             017  A w C       12-1 13-1
MW  71   03   0.6417 0.6013 0.5459 North Central             020  C 5         9-2 11-4
MW  72   04   0.6073 0.5670 0.4951 Transylvania              029  A w C       8-2 11-4
MW  74   05   0.5772 0.4360 0.5202 St. Norbert               035  A w C       11-1 12-1
MW  74   06   0.6039 0.5443 0.5413 Carroll                   037  C 15        11-3 11-3
MW  71   07   0.6009 0.5656 0.5389 Elmhurst                  049  C 22        11-4 11-4
MW  71   08   0.6040 0.6021 0.5452 Carthage                  062  C 30        6-3 11-4
MW  71   09   0.5816 0.5365 0.5260 Millikin                  065  C 33        8-3 10-4
MW  72   10   0.5635 0.4968 0.5103 Anderson                  068  C 35        93 12-4
MW  71   11   0.5756 0.5078 0.5535 Augustana                 070  C 37        114 12-4

WE  82   01   0.6530 0.5457 0.5208 St. Thomas                002  A w C       13-0 14-0
WE  83   02   0.6177 0.4501 0.5708 Puget Sound               009  A w C       10-0 13-2
WE  86   03   0.6727 0.6368 0.5506 UW-Stevens Point          011  A w C       13-2 13-2
WE  86   04   0.6614 0.5978 0.5832 UW-Whitewater             012  C 3         13-2 14-2
WE  86   05   0.6525 0.6084 0.5748 UW-Platteville            018  C 4         9-2 14-2
WE  81   06   0.6035 0.4831 0.5313 Buena Vista               022  A w C       11-1 14-1
WE  83   07   0.5817 0.5251 0.5267 Whitworth                 051  C 23        9-3 12-3
WE  84   08   0.5507 0.4528 0.4972 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    073  A           8-2 10-4
WE  83   09   0.5942 0.5907 0.5705 Lewis and Clark           080              5-3 11-4
WE  84   10   0.5416 0.4647 0.4872 Cal Lutheran              081              9-3 11-4
WE  89   11   0.5237 0.3887 0.4711 Chapman                   086  B 3         11-2 13-2

Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 3 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A w C: Pool A, in likely Pool C range (1 to 13)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    blank: lower level Pool C
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 18, 2009, 11:19:18 PM
Quote from: pabegg on January 18, 2009, 10:02:51 PM
Time to revive this board with the first run of my number crunching for this year.

For those of you who are new or need a refresh, these are my estimates of what the regional rankings would be if they were run this week. These reflect only the winning percentage and strength of schedule components of the rankings, not the head-to-head, common opponents, and record versus ranked components of the rankings; history shows that this ranking process is a pretty good approximation and a good starting point for discussion.

I've ranked three more schools per region than will appear in the official rankings, to try to give an idea of who's close.

At the moment, the CCIW would only have two teams in, with a whole bunch close; three obvious WIAC; three obvious UAA (plus a bubble NYU).


Reg Conf Rank RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   0.6453 0.5686 0.5154 Middlebury                003  C 1         13-1 14-2
NE  13   02   0.6241 0.5216 0.5366 Mass-Dartmouth            013  A w C       11-1 13-1
NE  16   03   0.6067 0.4694 0.5714 Amherst                   014  A w C       11-1 13-1
NE  17   04   0.6287 0.5587 0.5404 Worcester Polytech        015  A w C       12-2 12-3
NE  14   05   0.6217 0.5522 0.5364 Salem State               024  A w C       11-2 12-2
NE  17   06   0.5994 0.5141 0.5235 MIT                       030  C 11        11-2 12-4
NE  18   07   0.5757 0.4282 0.5233 Elms                      033  B 1         12-1 13-1
NE  12   08   0.5848 0.5324 0.5244 Emerson                   046  A second    9-3 9-3
NE  16   09   0.5841 0.5288 0.5289 Williams                  047  C 21        12-4 12-5
NE  17   10   0.5979 0.5737 0.5301 Wheaton (Mass.)           057  C 27        10-4 10-6
NE  11   11   0.5636 0.4963 0.4617 Gordon                    059  A third     8-2 10-3
NE  90   12   0.6381 0.6882 0.5606 Brandeis                  063  C 31        8-5 8-5
NE  16   13   0.5889 0.5755 0.5045 Colby                     064  C 32        7-3 10-4

EA  21   01   0.6358 0.5317 0.5569 Ithaca                    004  A w C       12-1 14-1
EA  24   02   0.6058 0.5264 0.4956 Hamilton                  023  C 6         7-1 9-4
EA  90   03   0.6352 0.6002 0.5549 Rochester                 027  C 9         11-3 11-3
EA  21   04   0.6040 0.5328 0.5322 St. John Fisher           031  C 12        9-2 12-2
EA  90   05   0.6450 0.6539 0.5449 New York University       036  C 14        8-3 10-3
EA  23   06   0.5818 0.5005 0.5080 Fredonia State            040  C 17        9-2 10-3
EA  24   07   0.6181 0.6045 0.5634 St. Lawrence              045  A second    7-3 9-3
EA  23   08   0.5991 0.5832 0.5635 Oneonta State             066  A third     8-4 10-5

AT  32   01   0.6286 0.5641 0.5291 Richard Stockton          016  A w C       12-2 15-2
AT  32   02   0.5798 0.4708 0.5204 William Paterson          038  C 16        12-2 12-2
AT  33   03   0.5725 0.4738 0.4964 SUNY-Farmingdale          043  A second    11-2 11-2
AT  31   04   0.5560 0.4329 0.5008 Baruch                    052  A second    12-2 14-3
AT  33   05   0.5538 0.4313 0.5066 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       058  C 28        11-2 12-2
AT  31   06   0.5391 0.4170 0.5222 Brooklyn                  079              12-3 12-3
AT  32   07   0.5601 0.5628 0.4994 Montclair State           102              8-5 11-5
AT  31   08   0.5289 0.4855 0.5017 Lehman                    116              9-5 11-5

MA  45   01   0.6288 0.5140 0.5639 Franklin and Marshall     008  A w C       12-1 13-1
MA  41   02   0.6055 0.5085 0.5051 St. Mary's (Md.)          021  A w C       9-1 12-3
MA  45   03   0.6105 0.5277 0.5686 McDaniel                  026  C 8         9-2 11-3
MA  45   04   0.5949 0.4840 0.5655 Gettysburg                032  C 13        11-2 11-2
MA  44   05   0.5656 0.4263 0.5097 Gwynedd-Mercy             039  A w C       9-1 10-2
MA  43   06   0.5611 0.4424 0.5135 DeSales                   050  A second    11-2 12-2
MA  45   07   0.5796 0.5093 0.5307 Johns Hopkins             053  C 24        10-3 10-4
MA  42   08   0.6051 0.6072 0.5135 Widener                   055  A second    9-4 11-4
MA  41   09   0.5395 0.3919 0.5172 Wesley                    069  C 36        6-1 8-5
MA  46   10   0.5496 0.4567 0.5070 Catholic                  076  B 2         72 13-3
MA  42   11   0.5644 0.5539 0.5070 Albright                  087              95 11-5

SO  51   01   0.6295 0.5229 0.5490 Texas-Dallas              007  A w C       12-1 14-1
SO  54   02   0.6041 0.4793 0.5412 Trinity (Texas)           019  A w C       11-1 14-1
SO  53   03   0.5825 0.4071 0.5158 Randolph-Macon            025  C 7         10-0 12-3
SO  51   04   0.6073 0.5563 0.4983 McMurry                   028  C 10        9-2 10-4
SO  53   05   0.6004 0.5276 0.5281 Roanoke                   034  A w C       9-2 14-2
SO  53   06   0.5889 0.5385 0.4931 Guilford                  042  C 19        11-3 12-3
SO  54   07   0.5808 0.5205 0.5322 Centre                    054  C 25        9-3 12-3
SO  51   08   0.5787 0.5101 0.5447 LeTourneau                056  C 26        9-3 10-5
SO  54   09   0.5767 0.5102 0.5365 DePauw                    061  C 29        93 12-4
SO  54   10   0.5552 0.4677 0.4854 Oglethorpe                067  C 34        8-2 12-3
SO  55   11   0.5629 0.5269 0.5311 North Carolina Wesleyan   083  A           42 10-4

GL  62   01   0.6252 0.4866 0.5278 Calvin                    005  A w C       4-0 9-5
GL  64   02   0.6325 0.5420 0.5231 Capital                   006  A w C       12-1 14-1
GL  90   03   0.6725 0.6271 0.5608 Carnegie Mellon           010  C 2         7-1 11-2
GL  64   04   0.6014 0.5634 0.5286 John Carroll              041  C 18        9-3 11-4
GL  64   05   0.5947 0.5569 0.5149 Ohio Northern             044  C 20        9-3 11-4
GL  63   06   0.5837 0.5387 0.5075 Wooster                   048  A second    9-3 10-5
GL  62   07   0.6261 0.7100 0.4842 Hope                      075              3-2 10-5
GL  61   08   0.5444 0.4883 0.4739 Penn State-Behrend        088  A           8-3 9-5
GL  63   09   0.5510 0.4991 0.5133 Hiram                     090              9-4 10-5

MW  71   01   0.6705 0.5572 0.5674 Wheaton (Ill.)            001  A w C       11-0 15-0
MW  90   02   0.6036 0.4845 0.5224 Washington U.             017  A w C       12-1 13-1
MW  71   03   0.6417 0.6013 0.5459 North Central             020  C 5         9-2 11-4
MW  72   04   0.6073 0.5670 0.4951 Transylvania              029  A w C       8-2 11-4
MW  74   05   0.5772 0.4360 0.5202 St. Norbert               035  A w C       11-1 12-1
MW  74   06   0.6039 0.5443 0.5413 Carroll                   037  C 15        11-3 11-3
MW  71   07   0.6009 0.5656 0.5389 Elmhurst                  049  C 22        11-4 11-4
MW  71   08   0.6040 0.6021 0.5452 Carthage                  062  C 30        6-3 11-4
MW  71   09   0.5816 0.5365 0.5260 Millikin                  065  C 33        8-3 10-4
MW  72   10   0.5635 0.4968 0.5103 Anderson                  068  C 35        93 12-4
MW  71   11   0.5756 0.5078 0.5535 Augustana                 070  C 37        114 12-4

WE  82   01   0.6530 0.5457 0.5208 St. Thomas                002  A w C       13-0 14-0
WE  83   02   0.6177 0.4501 0.5708 Puget Sound               009  A w C       10-0 13-2
WE  86   03   0.6727 0.6368 0.5506 UW-Stevens Point          011  A w C       13-2 13-2
WE  86   04   0.6614 0.5978 0.5832 UW-Whitewater             012  C 3         13-2 14-2
WE  86   05   0.6525 0.6084 0.5748 UW-Platteville            018  C 4         9-2 14-2
WE  81   06   0.6035 0.4831 0.5313 Buena Vista               022  A w C       11-1 14-1
WE  83   07   0.5817 0.5251 0.5267 Whitworth                 051  C 23        9-3 12-3
WE  84   08   0.5507 0.4528 0.4972 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    073  A           8-2 10-4
WE  83   09   0.5942 0.5907 0.5705 Lewis and Clark           080              5-3 11-4
WE  84   10   0.5416 0.4647 0.4872 Cal Lutheran              081              9-3 11-4
WE  89   11   0.5237 0.3887 0.4711 Chapman                   086  B 3         11-2 13-2

Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 3 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A w C: Pool A, in likely Pool C range (1 to 13)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    blank: lower level Pool C


Nice Job. +
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 18, 2009, 11:50:01 PM
How many Pool C's do we have this year again?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 19, 2009, 12:13:07 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 18, 2009, 11:50:01 PM
How many Pool C's do we have this year again?
18 Pool C bids (3 Pool B bids).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 19, 2009, 07:57:55 PM
NathCon gets the 38th bid right?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 19, 2009, 08:08:40 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on January 19, 2009, 07:57:55 PM
NathCon gets the 38th bid right?
Yes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 20, 2009, 02:16:41 PM
2009 NCAA Division III Men's Basketball Championship Handbook (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2009/3_mbasketball_handbook.pdf) states there are 39 automatic qualifying conferences (page 14).  There are 3 Pool Bs and 18 Pool Cs for a total of 60 teams.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 20, 2009, 02:24:23 PM
Which means one less bye to work with, or around.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: goscots on January 20, 2009, 09:51:16 PM
Quote from: pabegg on January 18, 2009, 10:02:51 PM
Time to revive this board with the first run of my number crunching for this year.

For those of you who are new or need a refresh, these are my estimates of what the regional rankings would be if they were run this week. These reflect only the winning percentage and strength of schedule components of the rankings, not the head-to-head, common opponents, and record versus ranked components of the rankings; history shows that this ranking process is a pretty good approximation and a good starting point for discussion.

I've ranked three more schools per region than will appear in the official rankings, to try to give an idea of who's close.

At the moment, the CCIW would only have two teams in, with a whole bunch close; three obvious WIAC; three obvious UAA (plus a bubble NYU).


Reg Conf Rank RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   0.6453 0.5686 0.5154 Middlebury                003  C 1         13-1 14-2
NE  13   02   0.6241 0.5216 0.5366 Mass-Dartmouth            013  A w C       11-1 13-1
NE  16   03   0.6067 0.4694 0.5714 Amherst                   014  A w C       11-1 13-1
NE  17   04   0.6287 0.5587 0.5404 Worcester Polytech        015  A w C       12-2 12-3
NE  14   05   0.6217 0.5522 0.5364 Salem State               024  A w C       11-2 12-2
NE  17   06   0.5994 0.5141 0.5235 MIT                       030  C 11        11-2 12-4
NE  18   07   0.5757 0.4282 0.5233 Elms                      033  B 1         12-1 13-1
NE  12   08   0.5848 0.5324 0.5244 Emerson                   046  A second    9-3 9-3
NE  16   09   0.5841 0.5288 0.5289 Williams                  047  C 21        12-4 12-5
NE  17   10   0.5979 0.5737 0.5301 Wheaton (Mass.)           057  C 27        10-4 10-6
NE  11   11   0.5636 0.4963 0.4617 Gordon                    059  A third     8-2 10-3
NE  90   12   0.6381 0.6882 0.5606 Brandeis                  063  C 31        8-5 8-5
NE  16   13   0.5889 0.5755 0.5045 Colby                     064  C 32        7-3 10-4

EA  21   01   0.6358 0.5317 0.5569 Ithaca                    004  A w C       12-1 14-1
EA  24   02   0.6058 0.5264 0.4956 Hamilton                  023  C 6         7-1 9-4
EA  90   03   0.6352 0.6002 0.5549 Rochester                 027  C 9         11-3 11-3
EA  21   04   0.6040 0.5328 0.5322 St. John Fisher           031  C 12        9-2 12-2
EA  90   05   0.6450 0.6539 0.5449 New York University       036  C 14        8-3 10-3
EA  23   06   0.5818 0.5005 0.5080 Fredonia State            040  C 17        9-2 10-3
EA  24   07   0.6181 0.6045 0.5634 St. Lawrence              045  A second    7-3 9-3
EA  23   08   0.5991 0.5832 0.5635 Oneonta State             066  A third     8-4 10-5

AT  32   01   0.6286 0.5641 0.5291 Richard Stockton          016  A w C       12-2 15-2
AT  32   02   0.5798 0.4708 0.5204 William Paterson          038  C 16        12-2 12-2
AT  33   03   0.5725 0.4738 0.4964 SUNY-Farmingdale          043  A second    11-2 11-2
AT  31   04   0.5560 0.4329 0.5008 Baruch                    052  A second    12-2 14-3
AT  33   05   0.5538 0.4313 0.5066 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       058  C 28        11-2 12-2
AT  31   06   0.5391 0.4170 0.5222 Brooklyn                  079              12-3 12-3
AT  32   07   0.5601 0.5628 0.4994 Montclair State           102              8-5 11-5
AT  31   08   0.5289 0.4855 0.5017 Lehman                    116              9-5 11-5

MA  45   01   0.6288 0.5140 0.5639 Franklin and Marshall     008  A w C       12-1 13-1
MA  41   02   0.6055 0.5085 0.5051 St. Mary's (Md.)          021  A w C       9-1 12-3
MA  45   03   0.6105 0.5277 0.5686 McDaniel                  026  C 8         9-2 11-3
MA  45   04   0.5949 0.4840 0.5655 Gettysburg                032  C 13        11-2 11-2
MA  44   05   0.5656 0.4263 0.5097 Gwynedd-Mercy             039  A w C       9-1 10-2
MA  43   06   0.5611 0.4424 0.5135 DeSales                   050  A second    11-2 12-2
MA  45   07   0.5796 0.5093 0.5307 Johns Hopkins             053  C 24        10-3 10-4
MA  42   08   0.6051 0.6072 0.5135 Widener                   055  A second    9-4 11-4
MA  41   09   0.5395 0.3919 0.5172 Wesley                    069  C 36        6-1 8-5
MA  46   10   0.5496 0.4567 0.5070 Catholic                  076  B 2         72 13-3
MA  42   11   0.5644 0.5539 0.5070 Albright                  087              95 11-5

SO  51   01   0.6295 0.5229 0.5490 Texas-Dallas              007  A w C       12-1 14-1
SO  54   02   0.6041 0.4793 0.5412 Trinity (Texas)           019  A w C       11-1 14-1
SO  53   03   0.5825 0.4071 0.5158 Randolph-Macon            025  C 7         10-0 12-3
SO  51   04   0.6073 0.5563 0.4983 McMurry                   028  C 10        9-2 10-4
SO  53   05   0.6004 0.5276 0.5281 Roanoke                   034  A w C       9-2 14-2
SO  53   06   0.5889 0.5385 0.4931 Guilford                  042  C 19        11-3 12-3
SO  54   07   0.5808 0.5205 0.5322 Centre                    054  C 25        9-3 12-3
SO  51   08   0.5787 0.5101 0.5447 LeTourneau                056  C 26        9-3 10-5
SO  54   09   0.5767 0.5102 0.5365 DePauw                    061  C 29        93 12-4
SO  54   10   0.5552 0.4677 0.4854 Oglethorpe                067  C 34        8-2 12-3
SO  55   11   0.5629 0.5269 0.5311 North Carolina Wesleyan   083  A           42 10-4

GL  62   01   0.6252 0.4866 0.5278 Calvin                    005  A w C       4-0 9-5
GL  64   02   0.6325 0.5420 0.5231 Capital                   006  A w C       12-1 14-1
GL  90   03   0.6725 0.6271 0.5608 Carnegie Mellon           010  C 2         7-1 11-2
GL  64   04   0.6014 0.5634 0.5286 John Carroll              041  C 18        9-3 11-4
GL  64   05   0.5947 0.5569 0.5149 Ohio Northern             044  C 20        9-3 11-4
GL  63   06   0.5837 0.5387 0.5075 Wooster                   048  A second    9-3 10-5
GL  62   07   0.6261 0.7100 0.4842 Hope                      075              3-2 10-5
GL  61   08   0.5444 0.4883 0.4739 Penn State-Behrend        088  A           8-3 9-5
GL  63   09   0.5510 0.4991 0.5133 Hiram                     090              9-4 10-5

MW  71   01   0.6705 0.5572 0.5674 Wheaton (Ill.)            001  A w C       11-0 15-0
MW  90   02   0.6036 0.4845 0.5224 Washington U.             017  A w C       12-1 13-1
MW  71   03   0.6417 0.6013 0.5459 North Central             020  C 5         9-2 11-4
MW  72   04   0.6073 0.5670 0.4951 Transylvania              029  A w C       8-2 11-4
MW  74   05   0.5772 0.4360 0.5202 St. Norbert               035  A w C       11-1 12-1
MW  74   06   0.6039 0.5443 0.5413 Carroll                   037  C 15        11-3 11-3
MW  71   07   0.6009 0.5656 0.5389 Elmhurst                  049  C 22        11-4 11-4
MW  71   08   0.6040 0.6021 0.5452 Carthage                  062  C 30        6-3 11-4
MW  71   09   0.5816 0.5365 0.5260 Millikin                  065  C 33        8-3 10-4
MW  72   10   0.5635 0.4968 0.5103 Anderson                  068  C 35        93 12-4
MW  71   11   0.5756 0.5078 0.5535 Augustana                 070  C 37        114 12-4

WE  82   01   0.6530 0.5457 0.5208 St. Thomas                002  A w C       13-0 14-0
WE  83   02   0.6177 0.4501 0.5708 Puget Sound               009  A w C       10-0 13-2
WE  86   03   0.6727 0.6368 0.5506 UW-Stevens Point          011  A w C       13-2 13-2
WE  86   04   0.6614 0.5978 0.5832 UW-Whitewater             012  C 3         13-2 14-2
WE  86   05   0.6525 0.6084 0.5748 UW-Platteville            018  C 4         9-2 14-2
WE  81   06   0.6035 0.4831 0.5313 Buena Vista               022  A w C       11-1 14-1
WE  83   07   0.5817 0.5251 0.5267 Whitworth                 051  C 23        9-3 12-3
WE  84   08   0.5507 0.4528 0.4972 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    073  A           8-2 10-4
WE  83   09   0.5942 0.5907 0.5705 Lewis and Clark           080              5-3 11-4
WE  84   10   0.5416 0.4647 0.4872 Cal Lutheran              081              9-3 11-4
WE  89   11   0.5237 0.3887 0.4711 Chapman                   086  B 3         11-2 13-2

Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 3 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A w C: Pool A, in likely Pool C range (1 to 13)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    blank: lower level Pool C


It's probably obvious to everyone else but what does it mean when there is only an "A" on the line?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 20, 2009, 10:44:41 PM
Pabegg had a legend at the bottom of the list, but here is a summary:

A stands for Pool A, which means they are leading their conference and therefore projected to win their conference and get the automatic bid to the NCAAs.  B stands for Pool B, which are teams that are either independent or play in conferences that do not get an automatic bid.  There are 3 pool B selections this year to the NCAA tourney.  C ? stands for Pool C (with the ? their respective ranking within that pool according to pabeggs ratings), these are essentially at large bids for teams that did not get automatic bids.  A w C means that even if that team didnt win their conference, they have a good shot at an at large bid (Pool C).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 21, 2009, 06:44:53 AM
The single A represents teams that are below the "third tier" (teams that would be ranked from 29 to 38 in Pool C). These are schools who have the best rating in their conference but almost no chance of a Pool C bid.

Similarly, the lines with blanks represent teams that have almost no shot of a Pool C who aren't the top ranked conference team.

I guess I've never had the situation in the past where one of these teams made the ranking list and so I hadn't included that in the legend. Each year there are about 7 or 8 conferences who fall into this category.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 21, 2009, 09:18:58 AM
I like the poll at the top, but I wish that there were a third choice...

Which ever way that conference wishes to handle the bid.

The tourney keeps teams playing.  Players can still hope for the magical run.

However, I honestly believe that George Fox earned a Pool C bid in baseball last year, because they did not sustain 2 losses in a post-season tourney.  That kept the winning percentage that much higher.

As we get closer to tournament time, please remember that post-season tournament loss will drop a team reasonably far, unless they have a very good in-region percentage going into the tourney!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 21, 2009, 10:38:04 AM
I believe that's the main reason why the WIAC gave the 1st and 2nd seeds byes this year...a 6-team tourney, instead of 8. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 21, 2009, 10:53:06 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on January 21, 2009, 10:38:04 AM
I believe that's the main reason why the WIAC gave the 1st and 2nd seeds byes this year...a 6-team tourney, instead of 8. 

Is it right to assume the idea was to give the 1 and 2 seeds a better chance at advancing?  or was it strictly to cut down on the expense of running two more games?

I like the 6 team format over the 4 team format(CCIW), but I still prefer a whole conference get to participate.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 21, 2009, 11:17:09 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on January 21, 2009, 10:38:04 AM
I believe that's the main reason why the WIAC gave the 1st and 2nd seeds byes this year...a 6-team tourney, instead of 8. 

That comment doesnt really make sense.  The two last place teams arent going to have a chance at an at large either way.  The top six still have to play in the tourney and 5 of them will sustain losses.  The six team tourney may even hurt the top two teams because it will decrease their in-region winning percentage by having potentially one less win.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 21, 2009, 11:20:09 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on January 21, 2009, 11:17:09 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on January 21, 2009, 10:38:04 AM
I believe that's the main reason why the WIAC gave the 1st and 2nd seeds byes this year...a 6-team tourney, instead of 8. 

That comment doesnt really make sense.  The two last place teams arent going to have a chance at an at large either way.  The top six still have to play in the tourney and 5 of them will sustain losses.  The six team tourney may even hurt the top two teams because it will decrease their in-region winning percentage by having potentially one less win.

I believe it would help  because they wouldn't be playing the 7th or 8th seeded teams, thus not hurting their OWP and OOWP numbers

Its sad that NCAA bids come down to math.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 21, 2009, 11:23:04 AM
Quote from: sac on January 21, 2009, 11:20:09 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on January 21, 2009, 11:17:09 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on January 21, 2009, 10:38:04 AM
I believe that's the main reason why the WIAC gave the 1st and 2nd seeds byes this year...a 6-team tourney, instead of 8. 

That comment doesnt really make sense.  The two last place teams arent going to have a chance at an at large either way.  The top six still have to play in the tourney and 5 of them will sustain losses.  The six team tourney may even hurt the top two teams because it will decrease their in-region winning percentage by having potentially one less win.

I believe it would help  because they wouldn't be playing the 7th or 8th seeded teams, thus not hurting their OWP and OOWP numbers

Its sad that NCAA bids come down to math.

Yeah, but isnt OWP and OOWP secondary criteria and your in-region record primary criteria?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 21, 2009, 11:36:33 AM
No, they're all primary criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 21, 2009, 11:39:34 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 21, 2009, 11:36:33 AM
No, they're all primary criteria.

Pat,

So which would you think would be better, to have one more in-region win (and a higher winning percentage) or a slightly higher OWP?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 21, 2009, 12:05:46 PM
I am not sure we've seen enough data to really know, but it seems the last couple years that high winning percentages with low opponents' numbers are not enough to get in. That's just an anecdotal observation, though.

Wheaton (Ill.) getting in last year with a strong schedule and lower winning percentage is a good example.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 21, 2009, 12:32:27 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 21, 2009, 12:05:46 PM
I am not sure we've seen enough data to really know, but it seems the last couple years that high winning percentages with low opponents' numbers are not enough to get in. That's just an anecdotal observation, though.

Wheaton (Ill.) getting in last year with a strong schedule and lower winning percentage is a good example.

Although I guess 1 game out of 27 or 28 (with conference tourney games) would not have that large of an effect on either OWP or in-region winning percentage.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 21, 2009, 01:18:55 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on January 21, 2009, 11:17:09 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on January 21, 2009, 10:38:04 AM
I believe that's the main reason why the WIAC gave the 1st and 2nd seeds byes this year...a 6-team tourney, instead of 8. 

That comment doesnt really make sense.  The two last place teams arent going to have a chance at an at large either way.  The top six still have to play in the tourney and 5 of them will sustain losses.  The six team tourney may even hurt the top two teams because it will decrease their in-region winning percentage by having potentially one less win.

The 7 and 8 seeds have won 3 of the 20 matchups between 1/8 and 2/7 in the 10 year history of the WIAC tourney, including #2 Platteville losing to #7 Eau Claire last season.  Those games have been rather competitive, actually, with 12 of the remaining 17 outcomes being by 15 points or less.  15 seems like a fairly large margin... but these are the top two and 2/3 of the bottom 3 teams in the WIAC.  It would seem that these games would be by a wider margin, but that does go to show the parity in the WIAC.

I posted a more extensive discussion about the new 6-team format HERE (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4423.msg1017283#msg1017283) on the WIAC page.

And just my two cents... I think this will just solidify the top two teams as the ones who win the tourney and the auto-bid.  The top seeds have won 6 tourney titles, with the 2 seed winning two and the 4 seed winning the other two.



Getting back to the original point, though...

Let's look at some numbers.

I'll take Stevens Point's numbers as they currently stand for OWP and OOWP and I'll project that they will lose one game the rest of the season and have the #1 seed in the conference tourney, just for discussion.

Point is currently at 13-2 with 10 reg season games remaining, so let's say they end the year at 22-3.  OWP and OOWP are 0.6368 0.5506 respectively.

In the 8-team tourney, let's say they would play River Falls (projected 10-15), Oshkosh (projected 15-11 with first round win) and Platteville (projected 24-4 with first and second and third round win), beating RF and Oshkosh but losing to Platteville in the final.

Point's record would be 24-4, OWP would be at .6331... OWP goes down and winning percentage goes from .88 to .857

In the 6-team tourney, Point plays Oshkosh (15-11 first round win) and loses to Platteville (23-4 first round bye, second round win, third round win).

Point is now 23-4, OWP would be at .6421, it actually goes up, and winning percentage goes from .88 to .8518.

UWSP would be a lock with these numbers... so the point is relatively moot, and I did make several assumptions... the main one being that the OWP for all regular season opponents would remain constant throughout the WIAC tourney.  This, of course, is not an assumption that really can be made... because the OWP won't stay the same for ANY team... it's going to fluctuate with each and every game.  It also assumes that Point plays the highest possible (projected) seeded teams.  With a first round upset of a #5 seed of, say, Eau Claire over Oshkosh, that's a lower win percentage team in round two... and if there is an upset in the second round by any team other than (projected) 3 seed Whitewater, there will be a more dramatic drop to the OWP.

The second assumption I made was that overall record is synonymous with regional record.  That is not true either, so these numbers are skewed in that regard to... likely in a negative way, as the WIAC has beaten their non-D3 opponents pretty handily this year, as usual... and they don't play too many out of region games with D3 opponents.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 26, 2009, 10:38:52 AM
Here are my updated approximations to the regional rankings for games through 1/25.

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall
NE  16   01   01    0.6330 0.5338 0.5268 Middlebury                003  A w C       15-1 16-2
NE  17   02   04    0.6371 0.5617 0.5499 Worcester Polytech        008  A w C       14-2 14-3
NE  13   03   02    0.6261 0.5605 0.5262 Mass-Dartmouth            015  A w C       12-2 14-2
NE  14   04   05    0.6140 0.5586 0.5260 Salem State               024  A w C       13-3 14-3
NE  17   05   06    0.5900 0.4881 0.5268 MIT                       026  C 8         12-2 13-4
NE  18   06   07    0.5688 0.4187 0.5044 Elms                      028  B 1         14-1 15-1
NE  16   07   03    0.5857 0.4562 0.5732 Amherst                   029  C 10        12-2 14-2
NE  14   08   nr    0.5915 0.5329 0.5312 Bridgewater State         044  C 19        10-3 11-5
NE  16   09   13    0.5972 0.5544 0.5300 Colby                     045  C 20        9-3 12-4
NE  12   10   nr    0.6020 0.5774 0.5199 Lasell                    047  A second    11-4 11-4
NE  13   11   nr    0.5839 0.5276 0.5303 Rhode Island College      052  C 23        12-4 12-4
NE  16   12   09    0.5753 0.4890 0.5453 Williams                  053  C 24        14-4 14-5
NE  90   13   12    0.6252 0.6337 0.5457 Brandeis                  054  C 26        11-5 11-5

EA  21   01   01    0.6317 0.5229 0.5523 Ithaca                    006  A w C       13-1 15-1
EA  24   02   02    0.6217 0.5396 0.5076 Hamilton                  011  A w C       9-1 11-4
EA  21   03   04    0.6035 0.5110 0.5460 St. John Fisher           020  C 5         11-2 14-2
EA  90   04   05    0.6136 0.5656 0.5376 New York University       027  C 9         11-3 13-3
EA  90   05   03    0.6232 0.5982 0.5463 Rochester                 036  C 13        12-4 12-4
EA  21   06   nr    0.6004 0.5812 0.5468 Rochester Tech            058  C 29        9-4 12-4
EA  24   07   07    0.5985 0.5926 0.5165 St. Lawrence              060  C 31        9-4 11-4
EA  23   08   09    0.5836 0.5346 0.5510 Oneonta State             062  A third     10-4 12-5

AT  32   01   01    0.6255 0.5536 0.5198 Richard Stockton          012  A w C       14-2 17-2
AT  33   02   03    0.5794 0.4801 0.4827 SUNY-Farmingdale          030  A w C       14-2 14-2
AT  32   03   02    0.5794 0.4911 0.5121 William Paterson          043  C 18        14-3 14-3
AT  31   04   04    0.5672 0.4859 0.4847 Baruch                    050  A second    13-3 15-4
AT  33   05   05    0.5409 0.4030 0.5003 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       065  C 34        12-2 13-2
AT  32   06   07    0.5623 0.5425 0.4974 Montclair State           079              10-5 13-5
AT  31   07   06    0.5244 0.4068 0.5064 Brooklyn                  090              14-4 14-4
AT  31   08   08    0.5169 0.4376 0.5047 Lehman                    125              11-5 13-5

MA  45   01   01    0.6344 0.5600 0.5510 Franklin and Marshall     010  A w C       13-2 14-2
MA  41   02   09    0.5872 0.4750 0.4989 Wesley                    021  C 6         9-1 11-5
MA  43   03   06    0.5898 0.4863 0.5115 DeSales                   022  A w C       14-2 15-2
MA  45   04   03    0.6163 0.5726 0.5508 McDaniel                  032  C 11        10-3 12-4
MA  45   05   04    0.5949 0.5149 0.5501 Gettysburg                037  C 14        12-3 12-3
MA  41   06   02    0.5846 0.5045 0.4963 St. Mary's (Md.)          038  A w C       10-2 13-4
MA  44   07   05    0.5636 0.4154 0.5070 Gwynedd-Mercy             039  A w C       11-1 12-2
MA  42   08   08    0.5961 0.5658 0.5193 Widener                   049  A second    11-4 13-4
MA  45   09   07    0.5812 0.5338 0.5241 Johns Hopkins             056  C 27        11-4 11-5
MA  46   10   nr    0.5462 0.4883 0.5024 Scranton                  081  B 2         125 13-5
MA  46   11   10    0.5338 0.4528 0.5025 Catholic                  089  B 3         83 14-4

SO  54   01   02    0.6077 0.4826 0.5372 Trinity (Texas)           014  A w C       13-1 16-1
SO  51   02   01    0.6129 0.5281 0.5287 Texas-Dallas              018  A w C       13-2 15-2
SO  51   03   04    0.6040 0.5268 0.5165 McMurry                   019  C 4         11-2 12-4
SO  54   04   07    0.5923 0.5306 0.5223 Centre                    041  C 16        11-3 14-3
SO  53   05   03    0.5621 0.4081 0.5157 Randolph-Macon            042  C 17        11-1 13-4
SO  53   06   05    0.5742 0.5016 0.5244 Roanoke                   055  A second    10-3 15-3
SO  53   07   06    0.5738 0.5186 0.5079 Guilford                  059  C 30        12-4 13-4
SO  55   08   11    0.5718 0.5433 0.5006 Christopher Newport       075  A           7-3 11-6
SO  51   09   08    0.5599 0.5036 0.5180 LeTourneau                076              104 11-6
SO  54   10   09    0.5523 0.4877 0.5195 DePauw                    078              10-4 13-5
SO  53   11   nr    0.5474 0.5112 0.5004 Washington and Lee        087              84 12-4

GL  64   01   02    0.6281 0.5303 0.5185 Capital                   004  A w C       14-1 16-1
GL  90   02   03    0.6407 0.6031 0.5383 Carnegie Mellon           017  C 3         9-2 13-3
GL  62   03   01    0.5894 0.5148 0.4945 Calvin                    031  A w C       5-1 10-6
GL  64   04   04    0.5860 0.5215 0.5318 John Carroll              048  C 21        10-3 12-4
GL  62   05   07    0.5883 0.5722 0.4944 Hope                      057  C 28        5-2 12-5
GL  63   06   06    0.5594 0.4722 0.5077 Wooster                   061  A third     11-3 12-5
GL  64   07   05    0.5772 0.5373 0.5200 Ohio Northern             064  C 33        10-4 12-5
GL  63   08   09    0.5418 0.4693 0.4954 Hiram                     080              11-4 12-5
GL  61   09   08    0.5391 0.4814 0.4791 Penn State-Behrend        084  A           10-4 11-6

MW  90   01   02    0.6374 0.5385 0.5392 Washington U.             002  A w C       14-1 15-1
MW  71   02   01    0.6415 0.5805 0.5591 Wheaton (Ill.)            013  A w C       11-2 15-2
MW  72   03   04    0.6105 0.5500 0.5089 Transylvania              023  A w C       10-2 13-4
MW  71   04   03    0.6370 0.6165 0.5456 North Central             025  C 7         10-3 12-5
MW  71   05   07    0.6244 0.5918 0.5494 Elmhurst                  033  C 12        13-4 13-4
MW  74   06   05    0.5674 0.4108 0.5193 St. Norbert               034  A w C       13-1 14-1
MW  74   07   06    0.5883 0.5007 0.5391 Carroll                   040  C 15        13-3 13-3
MW  71   08   11    0.5834 0.5007 0.5675 Augustana                 051  C 22        13-4 14-4
MW  71   09   08    0.6201 0.6542 0.5355 Carthage                  066  C 35        7-4 12-5
MW  71   10   09    0.5641 0.5000 0.5420 Millikin                  069  C 38        104 12-5
MW  72   11   10    0.5629 0.5104 0.5168 Anderson                  071              104 13-5

WE  82   01   01    0.6448 0.5266 0.5261 St. Thomas                001  A w C       16-0 17-0
WE  86   02   03    0.6788 0.6390 0.5548 UW-Stevens Point          005  A w C       15-2 15-2
WE  83   03   02    0.6180 0.4602 0.5516 Puget Sound               007  A w C       12-0 15-2
WE  86   04   05    0.6496 0.5898 0.5725 UW-Platteville            009  C 1         11-2 16-2
WE  86   05   04    0.6473 0.5983 0.5690 UW-Whitewater             016  C 2         14-3 15-3
WE  81   06   06    0.5796 0.4653 0.5211 Buena Vista               035  A w C       13-2 16-2
WE  82   07   11    0.5601 0.5007 0.5059 Bethel                    068  C 37        11-4 13-4
WE  83   08   07    0.5624 0.5052 0.5249 Whitworth                 072              10-4 13-4
WE  84   09   08    0.5302 0.4505 0.4699 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    083  A           9-3 11-5
WE  83   10   09    0.5747 0.5680 0.5629 Lewis and Clark           086              6-4 12-5
WE  84   11   10    0.5217 0.4057 0.4898 Cal Lutheran              092              11-3 13-4


Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A w C: Pool A, in likely Pool C range (1 to 13)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    A: lower level Pool A
    blank: lower level Pool C


Big move this week by Wesley, but not a lot of change from last week otherwise.

If you're extra observant, you might notice that the table contains the "prior ranking" column that wasn't there last week.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2009, 01:42:55 AM
7 days before the 1st regional rankings come out! Wahoo!!! (Wed. Feb. 4)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2009, 01:44:17 AM
Quote from: sac on January 20, 2009, 02:24:23 PM
Which means one less bye to work with, or around.

I'm guessing that far west team won't get that undeserved bye.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on January 28, 2009, 07:55:50 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on January 28, 2009, 01:44:17 AM
Quote from: sac on January 20, 2009, 02:24:23 PM
Which means one less bye to work with, or around.

I'm guessing that far west team won't get that undeserved bye.

If you build a tournament based on my rankings above, the only geographically isolated schools (500+ miles) are:

Puget Sound
the SCIAC winner, with CMS in the lead
Trinity, Texas-Dallas, and McMurry are isolated from every one else but not from each other.

This means that the NCAA committee can build a tournament with only two flights (UPS and CMS). The easiest way to do this would be to fly CMS down to San Antonio to make that a four-team pod and to fly UPS to one of the pods hosted by St. Thomas, UWSP, WashU, or Wheaton.

If UPS runs the table and finishes undefeated, they would be in line to host a pod, which could be done by creating a three-team pod by facing off a couple of the teams from the Chicago-Wisconsin area (Carroll, Elmhurst, North Central, St. Norbert, the NAthC representative) and then putting the winner on a flight to the west coast. This only uses one flight but does take up the bye spot for UPS.

The only other issue with geographical isolation is Buena Vista, who may end up being restricted to playing at St. Thomas as they are over 500 miles from most of the other potential hosts.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 28, 2009, 08:54:24 PM
#3 UWSP leads 48-31 in Pnt at the half

#4 UW Platte leads 33-19 in Oshkosh

UW lax leads #6 UWW 36-30 @ half

#14 St Norbs leads #24 Carroll 40-32 @ the half

#7 Wheaton and North Central knotted @ 19 w/ 9 mins til half
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 28, 2009, 10:25:03 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 28, 2009, 08:54:24 PM
#3 UWSP leads 48-31 in Pnt at the half;  UWSP won

#4 UW Platte leads 33-19 in Oshkosh; UWP won easily

UW lax leads #6 UWW 36-30 @ half;  UWW 64, UW-Lax 61

#14 St Norbs leads #24 Carroll 40-32 @ the half;  SNC 76 Carroll 65

#7 Wheaton and North Central knotted @ 19 w/ 9 mins til half; NCC 81 Wheaton 66, Final
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 02, 2009, 12:24:20 AM
Here's my updated regional ranking estimates, while we wait for the real ones on Wednesday:

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall
NE  16   01   01    0.6303 0.5299 0.5168 Middlebury                005  A w C       17-1 18-2
NE  17   02   02    0.6425 0.5676 0.5458 Worcester Polytech        007  A w C       16-2 16-3
NE  13   03   03    0.6173 0.5294 0.5281 Mass-Dartmouth            013  A w C       15-2 17-2
NE  18   04   05    0.5750 0.4295 0.4998 Elms                      025  B 1         16-1 17-1
NE  17   05   05    0.6003 0.5293 0.5301 MIT                       027  C 7         13-3 14-5
NE  14   06   04    0.6098 0.5698 0.5219 Salem State               028  A w C       14-4 15-4
NE  16   07   07    0.5844 0.4773 0.5594 Amherst                   032  C 10        14-3 16-3
NE  14   08   08    0.5828 0.4981 0.5351 Bridgewater State         036  C 14        12-3 13-5
NE  13   09   11    0.5929 0.5351 0.5237 Rhode Island College      038  C 15        14-4 14-4
NE  16   10   09    0.5999 0.5811 0.5233 Colby                     048  C 21        10-4 13-5
NE  16   11   12    0.5767 0.5171 0.5359 Williams                  055  C 27        14-5 14-6
NE  90   12   12    0.6095 0.6163 0.5388 Brandeis                  056  C 28        12-6 12-6
NE  17   13   nr    0.5908 0.5838 0.5288 Wheaton (Mass.)           063  C 33        12-6 12-8

EA  21   01   01    0.6332 0.5198 0.5556 Ithaca                    006  A w C       15-1 17-1
EA  24   02   02    0.6162 0.5615 0.5086 Hamilton                  017  C 3         10-2 12-5
EA  24   03   07    0.6060 0.5851 0.5205 St. Lawrence              042  A w C       11-4 13-4
EA  90   04   05    0.5973 0.5658 0.5355 Rochester                 046  C 19        13-5 13-5
EA  21   05   06    0.5928 0.5557 0.5456 Rochester Tech            052  C 24        10-4 13-4
EA  21   06   03    0.5749 0.5123 0.5418 St. John Fisher           060  C 31        11-4 14-4
EA  90   07   04    0.5773 0.5441 0.5336 New York University       067  C 36        11-5 13-5
EA  23   08   08    0.5678 0.5449 0.5345 Oneonta State             080  A           11-6 13-7

AT  32   01   01    0.6111 0.5227 0.5102 Richard Stockton          012  A w C       16-2 19-2
AT  33   02   02    0.5800 0.4748 0.4815 SUNY-Farmingdale          022  A w C       16-2 16-2
AT  32   03   03    0.5758 0.5021 0.5093 William Paterson          045  C 18        15-4 15-4
AT  31   04   04    0.5585 0.4511 0.4984 Baruch                    050  A second    15-3 17-4
AT  33   05   05    0.5440 0.3989 0.4961 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       054  C 26        15-2 16-2
AT  32   06   06    0.5653 0.5303 0.4947 Montclair State           070              12-5 15-5
AT  31   07   07    0.5365 0.4290 0.4986 Brooklyn                  076              15-4 16-4
AT  31   08   08    0.5198 0.4608 0.4910 Lehman                    122              12-6 14-6

MA  45   01   01    0.6193 0.5210 0.5463 Franklin and Marshall     008  A w C       16-2 17-2
MA  41   02   02    0.5815 0.4479 0.5135 Wesley                    020  A w C       11-1 13-5
MA  44   03   07    0.5787 0.4424 0.4967 Gwynedd-Mercy             023  A w C       14-1 15-2
MA  41   04   06    0.5849 0.4901 0.5022 St. Mary's (Md.)          026  C 6         12-2 15-4
MA  45   05   04    0.6153 0.5895 0.5323 McDaniel                  030  C 8         12-4 14-5
MA  43   06   03    0.5784 0.4850 0.5103 DeSales                   039  A w C       15-3 16-3
MA  45   07   05    0.5890 0.5452 0.5434 Gettysburg                049  C 22        13-5 13-5
MA  42   08   08    0.5817 0.5578 0.5052 Widener                   059  A third     12-5 14-5
MA  46   09   nr    0.5432 0.4977 0.4898 Susquehanna               083  B 2         11-5 13-6
MA  44   10   nr    0.5288 0.4569 0.4790 Cabrini                   092              135 13-5
MA  46   11   10    0.5390 0.4863 0.4991 Scranton                  093  B 3         136 14-6

SO  51   01   02    0.6135 0.5272 0.5170 Texas-Dallas              014  A w C       15-2 17-2
SO  54   02   01    0.6142 0.5299 0.5218 Trinity (Texas)           015  A w C       14-2 17-2
SO  53   03   07    0.6042 0.5664 0.5064 Guilford                  029  A w C       14-4 15-4
SO  51   04   03    0.5887 0.5203 0.5144 McMurry                   033  C 11        12-3 13-5
SO  53   05   05    0.5776 0.4726 0.5080 Randolph-Macon            035  C 13        12-2 14-5
SO  54   06   04    0.6018 0.5757 0.5057 Centre                    040  C 16        12-4 15-4
SO  54   07   10    0.5774 0.5251 0.5095 DePauw                    051  C 23        12-4 15-5
SO  53   08   06    0.5613 0.4968 0.5182 Roanoke                   066  C 35        11-4 16-4
SO  51   09   09    0.5562 0.5136 0.5101 LeTourneau                077              115 12-7
SO  55   10   08    0.5477 0.5127 0.4985 Christopher Newport       085  A           8-4 12-7
SO  51   11   nr    0.5414 0.4892 0.4994 Mississippi College       086              115 13-5

GL  64   01   01    0.6291 0.5579 0.5181 Capital                   009  A w C       15-2 17-2
GL  64   02   04    0.6038 0.5464 0.5225 John Carroll              024  C 5         12-3 14-4
GL  62   03   05    0.5979 0.5532 0.5077 Hope                      034  C 12        7-2 14-5
GL  90   04   02    0.5973 0.5439 0.5321 Carnegie Mellon           041  C 17        10-3 14-4
GL  62   05   03    0.5692 0.4472 0.5075 Calvin                    043  A w C       7-1 12-6
GL  64   06   07    0.5742 0.5108 0.5254 Ohio Northern             053  C 25        12-4 14-5
GL  63   07   08    0.5637 0.4934 0.5033 Hiram                     061  C 32        13-4 14-5
GL  63   08   06    0.5605 0.4955 0.5011 Wooster                   062  A third     12-4 13-6
GL  61   09   09    0.5425 0.4663 0.4873 Penn State-Behrend        074  A           12-4 13-6

MW  90   01   01    0.6479 0.5554 0.5396 Washington U.             001  A w C       16-1 17-1
MW  71   02   02    0.6437 0.6105 0.5537 Wheaton (Ill.)            016  A w C       12-3 16-3
MW  71   03   05    0.6311 0.5895 0.5559 Elmhurst                  018  C 4         15-4 15-4
MW  74   04   06    0.5796 0.4367 0.5073 St. Norbert               019  A w C       15-1 16-1
MW  72   05   03    0.6012 0.5238 0.5112 Transylvania              021  A w C       11-2 14-4
MW  71   06   04    0.6336 0.6274 0.5464 North Central             031  C 9         11-4 13-6
MW  71   07   08    0.5822 0.5095 0.5731 Augustana                 047  C 20        14-5 15-5
MW  74   08   07    0.5789 0.5385 0.5162 Carroll                   057  C 29        13-5 13-5
MW  71   09   09    0.6043 0.6293 0.5430 Carthage                  069  C 38        8-5 13-6
MW  71   10   10    0.5685 0.5187 0.5491 Millikin                  071              115 13-6
MW  72   11   11    0.5447 0.4833 0.5248 Anderson                  082              115 14-6

WE  82   01   01    0.6347 0.5050 0.5289 St. Thomas                002  A w C       18-0 19-0
WE  83   02   03    0.6339 0.4913 0.5532 Puget Sound               003  A w C       14-0 17-2
WE  86   03   02    0.6679 0.6129 0.5571 UW-Stevens Point          004  A w C       16-2 17-2
WE  86   04   04    0.6419 0.5656 0.5698 UW-Platteville            010  C 1         13-2 18-2
WE  86   05   05    0.6440 0.5814 0.5711 UW-Whitewater             011  C 2         16-3 17-3
WE  81   06   06    0.5738 0.4482 0.5163 Buena Vista               037  A w C       15-2 18-2
WE  83   07   08    0.5701 0.5027 0.5251 Whitworth                 058  C 30        12-4 15-4
WE  82   08   07    0.5527 0.4656 0.5148 Bethel                    065  C 34        13-4 15-4
WE  84   09   09    0.5386 0.4467 0.4752 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    073  A           11-3 13-5
WE  81   10   nr    0.5448 0.4803 0.4964 Cornell                   078              13-5 15-5
WE  82   11   nr    0.5421 0.4882 0.5043 Augsburg                  084              11-5 11-7

Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A w C: Pool A, in Pool C range (1 to 18)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    A: lower level Pool A
    blank: lower level Pool C

Some thoughts on this:

Horrible week for the UAA as Rochester, NYU, and Carnegie get upset, causing the first 2 to lose their Pool C spots; meanwhile Brandeis loses their real shot at a Pool A bid; they'll need to win at WashU and get some help (although winning all seven games in the second half should get them a Pool C bid at 19-6). WashU does roll into the #1 seed in the nation (with its strength of schedule overcoming the loss).

CCIW and WIAC are the only conferences in line for 2 Pool C bids, and Augustana isn't far out for a 3rd CCIW bid.

The statistical model shows Calvin as the "better" team while the NCAA prediction model shows Hope as the higher ranked team, so I pick Calvin to win the conference and Hope to compete favorably for Pool C.

On the Pool B side, just give the bid to Elms already. While they haven't mathematically clinched, they would just about have to lose their last 8 games to miss, and it's a safe bet that they won't do that. Susquehanna and Scranton are the only other B's on the chart, but it's tightened up in Pool B.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 02, 2009, 01:21:27 PM
Not a huge deal...

But, Stevens Point's RPI, OWP and OOWP are all higher than Puget Sound's, yet ranked lower than Puget Sound.  I suppose the in-region record is really a big factor!!! lol :-)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 02, 2009, 03:41:53 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 02, 2009, 01:21:27 PM
Not a huge deal...

But, Stevens Point's RPI, OWP and OOWP are all higher than Puget Sound's, yet ranked lower than Puget Sound.  I suppose the in-region record is really a big factor!!! lol :-)

Old School, can't you let Puget Sound get a crumb once and a while?  lol  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on February 02, 2009, 03:49:46 PM
I was just thinking how do they pick the host sites for the first couple rounds.  What are the chances of Buena Vista being a host site?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 02, 2009, 03:55:59 PM
Quote from: SLP-O-8 on February 02, 2009, 03:49:46 PM
I was just thinking how do they pick the host sites for the first couple rounds.  What are the chances of Buena Vista being a host site?

For both geographic reasons and because of the cluster of powers in their general vicinity, I would guess it is much more likely that they will be guests of St. Thomas or a WIAC school.  (Or, if St. Thomas draws a bye, BV might host school X, then go to Minnesota.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 02, 2009, 04:07:19 PM
By the looks of things, the MidWest/West brackets are going to be crowded this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on February 02, 2009, 04:08:56 PM
Thanks for the help.  I figured they might have to move up in the region to get a chance at hosting with the monsters that be in the West region.  I can't complain if their on the road cuz it will make one hell of a road trip not matter what just like last year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dblock on February 02, 2009, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 02, 2009, 12:24:20 AM
Here's my updated regional ranking estimates, while we wait for the real ones on Wednesday:

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall
NE  16   01   01    0.6303 0.5299 0.5168 Middlebury                005  A w C       17-1 18-2
NE  17   02   02    0.6425 0.5676 0.5458 Worcester Polytech        007  A w C       16-2 16-3
NE  13   03   03    0.6173 0.5294 0.5281 Mass-Dartmouth            013  A w C       15-2 17-2
NE  18   04   05    0.5750 0.4295 0.4998 Elms                      025  B 1         16-1 17-1
NE  17   05   05    0.6003 0.5293 0.5301 MIT                       027  C 7         13-3 14-5
NE  14   06   04    0.6098 0.5698 0.5219 Salem State               028  A w C       14-4 15-4
NE  16   07   07    0.5844 0.4773 0.5594 Amherst                   032  C 10        14-3 16-3
NE  14   08   08    0.5828 0.4981 0.5351 Bridgewater State         036  C 14        12-3 13-5
NE  13   09   11    0.5929 0.5351 0.5237 Rhode Island College      038  C 15        14-4 14-4
NE  16   10   09    0.5999 0.5811 0.5233 Colby                     048  C 21        10-4 13-5
NE  16   11   12    0.5767 0.5171 0.5359 Williams                  055  C 27        14-5 14-6
NE  90   12   12    0.6095 0.6163 0.5388 Brandeis                  056  C 28        12-6 12-6
NE  17   13   nr    0.5908 0.5838 0.5288 Wheaton (Mass.)           063  C 33        12-6 12-8
EA  21   01   01    0.6332 0.5198 0.5556 Ithaca                    006  A w C       15-1 17-1
EA  24   02   02    0.6162 0.5615 0.5086 Hamilton                  017  C 3         10-2 12-5
EA  24   03   07    0.6060 0.5851 0.5205 St. Lawrence              042  A w C       11-4 13-4
EA  90   04   05    0.5973 0.5658 0.5355 Rochester                 046  C 19        13-5 13-5
EA  21   05   06    0.5928 0.5557 0.5456 Rochester Tech            052  C 24        10-4 13-4
EA  21   06   03    0.5749 0.5123 0.5418 St. John Fisher           060  C 31        11-4 14-4
EA  90   07   04    0.5773 0.5441 0.5336 New York University       067  C 36        11-5 13-5
EA  23   08   08    0.5678 0.5449 0.5345 Oneonta State             080  A           11-6 13-7
AT  32   01   01    0.6111 0.5227 0.5102 Richard Stockton          012  A w C       16-2 19-2
AT  33   02   02    0.5800 0.4748 0.4815 SUNY-Farmingdale          022  A w C       16-2 16-2
AT  32   03   03    0.5758 0.5021 0.5093 William Paterson          045  C 18        15-4 15-4
AT  31   04   04    0.5585 0.4511 0.4984 Baruch                    050  A second    15-3 17-4
AT  33   05   05    0.5440 0.3989 0.4961 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       054  C 26        15-2 16-2
AT  32   06   06    0.5653 0.5303 0.4947 Montclair State           070              12-5 15-5
AT  31   07   07    0.5365 0.4290 0.4986 Brooklyn                  076              15-4 16-4
AT  31   08   08    0.5198 0.4608 0.4910 Lehman                    122              12-6 14-6
MA  45   01   01    0.6193 0.5210 0.5463 Franklin and Marshall     008  A w C       16-2 17-2
MA  41   02   02    0.5815 0.4479 0.5135 Wesley                    020  A w C       11-1 13-5
MA  44   03   07    0.5787 0.4424 0.4967 Gwynedd-Mercy             023  A w C       14-1 15-2
MA  41   04   06    0.5849 0.4901 0.5022 St. Mary's (Md.)          026  C 6         12-2 15-4
MA  45   05   04    0.6153 0.5895 0.5323 McDaniel                  030  C 8         12-4 14-5
MA  43   06   03    0.5784 0.4850 0.5103 DeSales                   039  A w C       15-3 16-3
MA  45   07   05    0.5890 0.5452 0.5434 Gettysburg                049  C 22        13-5 13-5
MA  42   08   08    0.5817 0.5578 0.5052 Widener                   059  A third     12-5 14-5
MA  46   09   nr    0.5432 0.4977 0.4898 Susquehanna               083  B 2         11-5 13-6
MA  44   10   nr    0.5288 0.4569 0.4790 Cabrini                   092              135 13-5
MA  46   11   10    0.5390 0.4863 0.4991 Scranton                  093  B 3         136 14-6
SO  51   01   02    0.6135 0.5272 0.5170 Texas-Dallas              014  A w C       15-2 17-2
SO  54   02   01    0.6142 0.5299 0.5218 Trinity (Texas)           015  A w C       14-2 17-2
SO  53   03   07    0.6042 0.5664 0.5064 Guilford                  029  A w C       14-4 15-4
SO  51   04   03    0.5887 0.5203 0.5144 McMurry                   033  C 11        12-3 13-5
SO  53   05   05    0.5776 0.4726 0.5080 Randolph-Macon            035  C 13        12-2 14-5
SO  54   06   04    0.6018 0.5757 0.5057 Centre                    040  C 16        12-4 15-4
SO  54   07   10    0.5774 0.5251 0.5095 DePauw                    051  C 23        12-4 15-5
SO  53   08   06    0.5613 0.4968 0.5182 Roanoke                   066  C 35        11-4 16-4
SO  51   09   09    0.5562 0.5136 0.5101 LeTourneau                077              115 12-7
SO  55   10   08    0.5477 0.5127 0.4985 Christopher Newport       085  A           8-4 12-7
SO  51   11   nr    0.5414 0.4892 0.4994 Mississippi College       086              115 13-5
GL  64   01   01    0.6291 0.5579 0.5181 Capital                   009  A w C       15-2 17-2
GL  64   02   04    0.6038 0.5464 0.5225 John Carroll              024  C 5         12-3 14-4
GL  62   03   05    0.5979 0.5532 0.5077 Hope                      034  C 12        7-2 14-5
GL  90   04   02    0.5973 0.5439 0.5321 Carnegie Mellon           041  C 17        10-3 14-4
GL  62   05   03    0.5692 0.4472 0.5075 Calvin                    043  A w C       7-1 12-6
GL  64   06   07    0.5742 0.5108 0.5254 Ohio Northern             053  C 25        12-4 14-5
GL  63   07   08    0.5637 0.4934 0.5033 Hiram                     061  C 32        13-4 14-5
GL  63   08   06    0.5605 0.4955 0.5011 Wooster                   062  A third     12-4 13-6
GL  61   09   09    0.5425 0.4663 0.4873 Penn State-Behrend        074  A           12-4 13-6
MW  90   01   01    0.6479 0.5554 0.5396 Washington U.             001  A w C       16-1 17-1
MW  71   02   02    0.6437 0.6105 0.5537 Wheaton (Ill.)            016  A w C       12-3 16-3
MW  71   03   05    0.6311 0.5895 0.5559 Elmhurst                  018  C 4         15-4 15-4
MW  74   04   06    0.5796 0.4367 0.5073 St. Norbert               019  A w C       15-1 16-1
MW  72   05   03    0.6012 0.5238 0.5112 Transylvania              021  A w C       11-2 14-4
MW  71   06   04    0.6336 0.6274 0.5464 North Central             031  C 9         11-4 13-6
MW  71   07   08    0.5822 0.5095 0.5731 Augustana                 047  C 20        14-5 15-5
MW  74   08   07    0.5789 0.5385 0.5162 Carroll                   057  C 29        13-5 13-5
MW  71   09   09    0.6043 0.6293 0.5430 Carthage                  069  C 38        8-5 13-6
MW  71   10   10    0.5685 0.5187 0.5491 Millikin                  071              115 13-6
MW  72   11   11    0.5447 0.4833 0.5248 Anderson                  082              115 14-6
WE  82   01   01    0.6347 0.5050 0.5289 St. Thomas                002  A w C       18-0 19-0
WE  83   02   03    0.6339 0.4913 0.5532 Puget Sound               003  A w C       14-0 17-2
WE  86   03   02    0.6679 0.6129 0.5571 UW-Stevens Point          004  A w C       16-2 17-2
WE  86   04   04    0.6419 0.5656 0.5698 UW-Platteville            010  C 1         13-2 18-2
WE  86   05   05    0.6440 0.5814 0.5711 UW-Whitewater             011  C 2         16-3 17-3
WE  81   06   06    0.5738 0.4482 0.5163 Buena Vista               037  A w C       15-2 18-2
WE  83   07   08    0.5701 0.5027 0.5251 Whitworth                 058  C 30        12-4 15-4
WE  82   08   07    0.5527 0.4656 0.5148 Bethel                    065  C 34        13-4 15-4
WE  84   09   09    0.5386 0.4467 0.4752 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    073  A           11-3 13-5
WE  81   10   nr    0.5448 0.4803 0.4964 Cornell                   078              13-5 15-5
WE  82   11   nr    0.5421 0.4882 0.5043 Augsburg                  084              11-5 11-7

Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A w C: Pool A, in Pool C range (1 to 18)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    A: lower level Pool A
    blank: lower level Pool C

Some thoughts on this:

Horrible week for the UAA as Rochester, NYU, and Carnegie get upset, causing the first 2 to lose their Pool C spots; meanwhile Brandeis loses their real shot at a Pool A bid; they'll need to win at WashU and get some help (although winning all seven games in the second half should get them a Pool C bid at 19-6). WashU does roll into the #1 seed in the nation (with its strength of schedule overcoming the loss).

CCIW and WIAC are the only conferences in line for 2 Pool C bids, and Augustana isn't far out for a 3rd CCIW bid.

The statistical model shows Calvin as the "better" team while the NCAA prediction model shows Hope as the higher ranked team, so I pick Calvin to win the conference and Hope to compete favorably for Pool C.

On the Pool B side, just give the bid to Elms already. While they haven't mathematically clinched, they would just about have to lose their last 8 games to miss, and it's a safe bet that they won't do that. Susquehanna and Scranton are the only other B's on the chart, but it's tightened up in Pool B.



Pardon my ignorance but as of today with :
EA  90   07   04    0.5773 0.5441 0.5336 New York University       067  C 36        11-5 13-5

is NYU in or no? i'm honestly not sure how to read the chart.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 02, 2009, 04:27:02 PM
Quote from: dblock on February 02, 2009, 04:24:16 PM
Pardon my ignorance but as of today with :
EA  90   07   04    0.5773 0.5441 0.5336 New York University       067  C 36        11-5 13-5

is NYU in or no? i'm honestly not sure how to read the chart.

Right now, Pabegg has them as the 36th Pool C team,  there are 18 Pool C bids............so as of today no.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dblock on February 02, 2009, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: sac on February 02, 2009, 04:27:02 PM
Quote from: dblock on February 02, 2009, 04:24:16 PM
Pardon my ignorance but as of today with :
EA  90   07   04    0.5773 0.5441 0.5336 New York University       067  C 36        11-5 13-5

is NYU in or no? i'm honestly not sure how to read the chart.

Right now, Pabegg has them as the 36th Pool C team,  there are 18 Pool C bids............so as of today no.

hahah thank you sir. that settled my question quite quick.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2009, 02:17:41 AM
Quote from: LogShow on February 02, 2009, 03:41:53 PM
Old School, can't you let Puget Sound get a crumb once and a while?  lol  :)

I cheered for them when they were in the Lawrence sectional a couple of years ago.  Does that count? lol  ::) ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 03, 2009, 02:32:35 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 03, 2009, 02:17:41 AM
Quote from: LogShow on February 02, 2009, 03:41:53 PM
Old School, can't you let Puget Sound get a crumb once and a while?  lol  :)

I cheered for them when they were in the Lawrence sectional a couple of years ago.  Does that count? lol  ::) ;)

Lol, okay I will give that to you  :D.  UWSP has burned UPS enough.  I would have liked to see how far UPS would have made it if they were on the other side of the bracket from UWSP. 

We might end up with the same fate this year...I am willing to bet our two schools will be matched up in the sweet 16 again.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 04, 2009, 02:10:55 PM
You can find regional rankings at:
http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/DIIIMBBRANKING2-4-09
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 04, 2009, 02:37:14 PM
Thanks. We have them on our blog ready for commentary and for everyone to correct the NCAA's regional records. :)

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2009/02/04/alert-regional-rankings-released/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 04, 2009, 02:42:38 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 04, 2009, 02:37:14 PM
Thanks. We have them on our blog ready for commentary and for everyone to correct the NCAA's regional records. :)

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2009/02/04/alert-regional-rankings-released/

OK, Pat, I'm on it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 04, 2009, 02:50:51 PM
You da man!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 04, 2009, 07:03:58 PM
Here are the Pool C teams from last year, listed in order of in-region winning %...

Amherst (NESCAC), 23-2 (.920)
Centre (SCAC), 20-2 (.909)
Mass-Dartmouth (LEC), 25-3 (.893)
Gettysburg (CC), 20-3 (.870)
Wooster (NCAC), 16-3 (.842)
Brandeis (UAA), 19-4 (.826)
Capital (OAC), 22-5 (.815)
Buena Vista (IIAC), 17-4 (.809)
Va. Wesleyan (ODAC), 21-5 (.808)
Worcester Poly (NEWMAC), 20-5 (.800)
Rochester (UAA), 19-5 (.792)
Bowdoin (NESCAC), 21-6 (.777)
Occidental (SCIAC), 14-4 (.777)
UW-Stevens Point (WIAC), 20-6 (.769)
Wash U (UAA), 16-5 (.762)
Middlebury (NESCAC), 18-6 (.750)
Wheaton (CCIW), 15-7 (.682)

By conference...

NESCAC – 3
UAA - 3
CC – 1
CCIW - 1
IIAC - 1
LEC – 1
NCAC – 1
NEWMAC - 1
OAC – 1
ODAC - 1
SCAC – 1
SCIAC – 1
WIAC - 1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 04, 2009, 11:35:20 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2008, 01:08:19 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 28, 2008, 01:02:54 AM
Oh yeah,

If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to put up this week's regional rankings and results as well...then Ralph or someone with power can edit it if needed.
Glad to help...

I think that the Pool C board has been even better this year.

Pabegg has been a big help with his number-crunching!  As I have said before, his numbers are unofficial, but I think that we are seeing the last few teams at the table.

I don't think that there will be any surprises when the final list comes down.  I will be interested in how the committee arrived at the final list.

This thing is getting more transparent every  season.

Take home lesson...

if you can point to one game that you should not have lost, then that was probably the game that did you in.

I was trying to review our Pool C discussions from last year, and it seems the pabegg's tabular printouts of the OWP/OOWP and in-region records have disappeared.

That is sad, because they added great value to our learning how to use the data!

Sorry, my bad!  I did not search far enough back into the postings!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 05, 2009, 12:01:43 AM
This is the last one I see.

Quote from: pabegg on February 25, 2008, 12:31:17 PM
Here are my updated rankings with games through Sunday:

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   01   0.6787 0.6016 0.5535 Amherst                   001  A w C       23-1 23-2
NE  13   02   02   0.6285 0.5319 0.5303 Mass-Dartmouth            003  A w C       23-2 23-2
NE  17   03   04   0.6136 0.5434 0.5414 Worcester Polytech        010  A w C       19-4 20-5
NE  90   04   03   0.6456 0.6100 0.5798 Brandeis                  014  C 2         18-5 19-5
NE  16   05   05   0.6194 0.5724 0.5327 Bowdoin                   015  C 3         20-5 20-5
NE  16   06   06   0.6277 0.5999 0.5283 Middlebury                020  C 5         18-5 19-6
NE  16   07   07   0.6387 0.6165 0.5490 Trinity (Conn.)           022  C 7         17-5 19-6
NE  12   08   09   0.5648 0.4419 0.5003 Emerson                   034  A w C       21-3 22-3
NE  13   09   08   0.5961 0.5469 0.5305 Rhode Island College      039  C 15        19-6 19-6
NE  16   10   10   0.5977 0.5765 0.5423 Bates                     050  C second    16-7 17-8
NE  15   11   11   0.5691 0.5102 0.4832 Elms                      054  A second    17-5 19-6
NE  14   12   12   0.5714 0.5110 0.5036 Salem State               056  A second    19-6 19-6

EA  23   01   01   0.6309 0.4980 0.5276 Plattsburgh State         002  A w C       20-0 23-2
EA  90   02   02   0.6343 0.5948 0.5649 Rochester                 017  C 4         18-5 19-5
EA  23   03   03   0.6049 0.5691 0.5312 Brockport State           035  C 13        15-5 18-7
EA  24   04   07   0.5954 0.5527 0.5144 St. Lawrence              037  A w C       16-5 17-8
EA  21   05   05   0.5613 0.4607 0.5236 Stevens                   046  A second    20-5 20-5
EA  21   06   04   0.5906 0.5552 0.5319 Nazareth                  052  C second    18-7 18-7
EA  23   07   06   0.5788 0.5420 0.5169 Oswego State              058  C second    15-6 18-6

AT  32   01   03   0.5814 0.5108 0.5214 Richard Stockton          036  A w C       18-5 18-6
AT  33   02   01   0.5590 0.4666 0.4767 SUNY-Farmingdale          043  A second    19-4 20-5
AT  32   03   02   0.5802 0.5275 0.5158 William Paterson          049  C second    18-6 18-6

MA  45   01   01   0.6227 0.5120 0.5145 Ursinus                   004  A w C       20-1 23-2
MA  45   02   02   0.6199 0.5294 0.5161 Gettysburg                005  C 1         19-2 21-3
MA  42   03   03   0.6160 0.5601 0.5343 Widener                   016  A w C       17-4 20-5
MA  42   04   07   0.5963 0.5568 0.5443 Albright                  045  C second    16-6 16-7
MA  41   05   04   0.5825 0.5390 0.5020 York (Pa.)                047  A second    18-6 18-7
MA  43   06   05   0.5589 0.4651 0.5055 DeSales                   051  A second    16-4 20-5

SO  54   01   01   0.6129 0.5031 0.4981 Centre                    006  A w C       18-1 23-1
SO  51   02   02   0.6004 0.4940 0.5047 Mary Hardin-Baylor        008  A w C       20-2 22-3
SO  53   03   04   0.6053 0.5306 0.5267 Guilford                  011  A w C       20-4 21-4
SO  53   04   03   0.5970 0.5198 0.5225 Virginia Wesleyan         021  C 6         19-4 20-5
SO  54   05   05   0.5847 0.4756 0.4929 Millsaps                  024  C 8         17-2 22-3
SO  52   06   06   0.5719 0.4511 0.4967 Maryville (Tenn.)         030  B 1         16-2 22-2
SO  53   07   08   0.5885 0.5384 0.5272 Randolph-Macon            044  C second    15-5 20-5
SO  54   08   07   0.5708 0.5063 0.5088 DePauw                    053  C second    16-5 19-6
SO  51   09   09   0.5707 0.5070 0.5066 Mississippi College       055  C second    165 19-5

GL  62   01   03   0.5979 0.5064 0.4963 Hope                      012  A w C       15-2 21-3
GL  64   02   01   0.6035 0.5284 0.5239 Capital                   013  A w C       20-4 21-4
GL  63   03   02   0.5852 0.4844 0.4899 Wooster                   025  A w C       15-2 22-3
GL  64   04   04   0.5941 0.5189 0.5202 Heidelberg                028  C 9         18-4 20-5
GL  61   05   06   0.5719 0.4662 0.4917 Penn State-Behrend        032  A w C       19-3 21-4
GL  62   06   05   0.5678 0.4744 0.4987 Albion                    040  C 16        14-3 18-5
GL  63   07   08   0.5751 0.5255 0.4874 Ohio Wesleyan             048  C second    16-5 17-7

MW  74   01   02   0.6142 0.5245 0.5077 Lawrence                  007  A w C       18-2 20-2
MW  90   02   01   0.6647 0.6467 0.5652 Washington U.             009  A w C       16-4 19-5
MW  71   03   03   0.6244 0.5752 0.5553 Augustana                 018  A w C       19-5 20-5
MW  90   04   05   0.6183 0.6053 0.5670 Chicago                   041  C 17        16-7 17-7
MW  71   05   06   0.6042 0.5769 0.5489 Wheaton (Ill.)            042  C second    15-6 19-6
MW  76   06   08   0.5595 0.4926 0.4801 Webster                   057  A second    17-5 19-5
MW  73   07   09   0.5525 0.4662 0.4949 Aurora                    059  B 2         18-5 20-5

WE  82   01   01   0.5960 0.4990 0.5222 St. Thomas                019  A w C       19-3 21-4
WE  84   02   03   0.6004 0.5309 0.5275 Occidental                023  A w C       13-3 20-4
WE  86   03   02   0.6143 0.5747 0.5251 UW-Stevens Point          026  A w C       18-5 20-5
WE  81   04   04   0.5903 0.4958 0.5276 Buena Vista               027  A w C       16-3 20-5
WE  86   05   07   0.5874 0.4923 0.5391 UW-Whitewater             029  C 10        19-4 21-4
WE  81   06   05   0.5929 0.5183 0.5350 Loras                     031  C 11        16-4 19-6
WE  84   07   06   0.5809 0.4975 0.5285 Cal Lutheran              033  C 12        16-4 20-4
WE  86   08   09   0.5898 0.5256 0.5351 UW-Platteville            038  C 14        17-5 19-6
WE  89   09   11   0.5398 0.3873 0.5274 Nebraska Wesleyan         060  B 3         6-1 13-12


I've trimmed the rankings down to the top 60 nationally, as no one below that has any shot at a Pool C bid.

The top 31, through Loras, have probably clinched a Pool C bid already if they need one.

The next set of teams down to #41 Chicago are on the bubble, subject to seeing bids disappear with hgiher ranked teams gettting upset in conference tournaments.

There typically isn't much movement in tournament week. With the exception of the UAA, Pool C contestants will have exactly one loss this week (no losses would mean that they win the Pool A bid). NOTE: I just realized that the St. Louis and Southern Cal conferences both have one league game left before tournament time. So Cal Lutheran must win their final regular season game to hold onto their position.

Scranton leads Chapman and Moravian in the race for the final Pool B slot, but Nebraska Wesleyan's bid really depends on how they do in the D3 Independents Tournament.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 05, 2009, 09:22:49 AM
That's the last one, Pat. I'm surprised that I never posted final numbers, although I certainly ran them after all the games ended.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2009, 01:08:33 AM
Pool A:  Conference leaders
 

Atlantic
1. Richard Stockton 19-2 16-2 (NJAC)
2. Farmingdale State 16-2 16-2 (SKY)
3. William Paterson 15-4 15-4 (NJAC)
4. Baruch 17-4 15-3 (CUNYAC)
5. Montclair State 15-5 12-5 (NJAC)

East
1. Ithaca 17-1 15-1 (E8)
2. St. Lawrence 13-4 11-4 (LL)
3. Hamilton 12-5 10-1 (LL)
4. Rochester 13-5 13-5 (UAA)
5. Rochester Tech 14-4 11-4 (E8)

Great Lakes
1. Capital 17-2 15-2 (OAC)-tied with John Carroll
2. Carnegie Mellon 14-4 10-3 (UAA)
3. John Carroll  14-4 12-3 (OAC)-tied with Capital
4. Calvin 12-6 7-1 (MIAA)
5. Hope 14-5 7-2 (MIAA)
6. Ohio Northern 14-5 12-4 (OAC)

Middle Atlantic
1. Franklin & Marshall 17-2 16-2 (CC)
2. Gwynedd-Mercy 15-2 14-1 (CSAC)
3. DeSales 16-3 15-3 (MACF)
4. Wesley  12-5 10-1 (CAC)
5. St. Mary's (Md.) 15-4 12-2 (CAC)
6. McDaniel 14-5 12-4 (CC)
7. Widener 14-5 12-5 (MACC)
8. Gettysburg 13-5 13-5 (CC)

Midwest
1. Washington U. 17-1 16-1 (UAA)
2. Elmhurst  15-4 15-4 (CCIW)
3. Wheaton (Ill.) 16-3 12-3 (CCIW)
4. St. Norbert 16-1 15-1 (MWC)
5. Transylvania 14-4 11-2 (HCAC) *Franklin leads HCAC
6. Augustana 15-5 14-5 (CCIW)
7. North Central (Ill.) 13-6 11-4 (CCIW)
8. Carroll 13-5 13-5 (MWC)

Northeast
1. Worcester Polytech 16-3 16-2 (NEWMAC)-tied with MIT
2. Middlebury 18-2 16-1 (NESCAC)
3. Mass-Dartmouth 17-2 15-2 (LEC)-tied with Rhode Island College
4. Elms 17-1 16-1 (NECC)
5. Salem State 15-4 14-4 (MASCAC)-tied with Bridgewater St.
6. MIT 14-5 13-3 (NEWMAC)-tied with WPI
7. Colby 13-5 10-4 (NESCAC)
8. Rhode Island College 14-4 14-4 (LEC)-tied with Mass-Dartmouth
9. Amherst 16-3 14-3 (NESCAC)
10. Bridgewater State 13-5 12-3 (MASCAC)-tied with Salem St.

South
1. Trinity (Texas) 17-2 14-2 (SCAC)
2. Texas-Dallas 17-2 15-2 (ASC)
3. Guilford  15-4 14-4 (ODAC)-tied with Randolph-Macon
4. McMurry 13-5 12-3 (ASC)
5. Randolph-Macon 14-5 12-2 (ODAC)-tied with Guilford
6. DePauw 15-5 12-4 (SCAC)
7. Centre 15-4 12-4 (SCAC)
8. LeTourneau 13-6 12-4 (ASC)

West
1. UW-Stevens Point 17-2 16-2 (WIAC)
2. St. Thomas 19-0 18-0 (MIAC)
3. UW-Platteville 18-2 13-2 (WIAC)
4. Puget Sound 17-2 14-0 (NWC)
5. UW-Whitewater 17-3 16-3 (WIAC)
6. Buena Vista 18-2 15-2 (IIAC)
7. Whitworth 15-4 13-4 (NWC)
8. Bethel 15-4 13-4 (MIAC)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 06, 2009, 10:21:29 AM
After reading the front page story about UNE, I was wondering where they stood as far as Pool A/C bids go.  I don't see them listed above.  Does that mean that the CCC champion is a Pool B invitee?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2009, 10:46:40 AM
No, they still have an automatic bid. They just aren't among the 10 best teams in the Northeast (really low OWP). The GNAC and NAC also have automatic bids but no teams listed in that region's rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 07, 2009, 05:50:20 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 06, 2009, 01:08:33 AM
Pool A:  Conference leaders
 

Atlantic
1. Richard Stockton 19-2 16-2 (NJAC)
2. Farmingdale State 16-2 16-2 (SKY)
3. William Paterson 15-4 15-4 (NJAC)
4. Baruch 17-4 15-3 (CUNYAC)
5. Montclair State 15-5 12-5 (NJAC)

East
1. Ithaca 17-1 15-1 (E8)
2. St. Lawrence 13-4 11-4 (LL)
3. Hamilton 12-5 10-1 (LL)
4. Rochester 13-5 13-5 (UAA)
5. Rochester Tech 14-4 11-4 (E8)

Great Lakes
1. Capital 17-2 15-2 (OAC)-tied with John Carroll
2. Carnegie Mellon 14-4 10-3 (UAA)
3. John Carroll  14-4 12-3 (OAC)-tied with Capital
4. Calvin 12-6 7-1 (MIAA)
5. Hope 14-5 7-2 (MIAA)
6. Ohio Northern 14-5 12-4 (OAC)

Middle Atlantic
1. Franklin & Marshall 17-2 16-2 (CC)
2. Gwynedd-Mercy 15-2 14-1 (CSAC)
3. DeSales 16-3 15-3 (MACF)
4. Wesley  12-5 10-1 (CAC)
5. St. Mary's (Md.) 15-4 12-2 (CAC)
6. McDaniel 14-5 12-4 (CC)
7. Widener 14-5 12-5 (MACC)
8. Gettysburg 13-5 13-5 (CC)

Midwest
1. Washington U. 17-1 16-1 (UAA)
2. Elmhurst  15-4 15-4 (CCIW)
3. Wheaton (Ill.) 16-3 12-3 (CCIW)
4. St. Norbert 16-1 15-1 (MWC)
5. Transylvania 14-4 11-2 (HCAC) *Franklin leads HCAC
6. Augustana 15-5 14-5 (CCIW)
7. North Central (Ill.) 13-6 11-4 (CCIW)
8. Carroll 13-5 13-5 (MWC)

Northeast
1. Worcester Polytech 16-3 16-2 (NEWMAC)-tied with MIT
2. Middlebury 18-2 16-1 (NESCAC)
3. Mass-Dartmouth 17-2 15-2 (LEC)-tied with Rhode Island College
4. Elms 17-1 16-1 (NECC)
5. Salem State 15-4 14-4 (MASCAC)-tied with Bridgewater St.
6. MIT 14-5 13-3 (NEWMAC)-tied with WPI
7. Colby 13-5 10-4 (NESCAC)
8. Rhode Island College 14-4 14-4 (LEC)-tied with Mass-Dartmouth
9. Amherst 16-3 14-3 (NESCAC)
10. Bridgewater State 13-5 12-3 (MASCAC)-tied with Salem St.

South
1. Trinity (Texas) 17-2 14-2 (SCAC)
2. Texas-Dallas 17-2 15-2 (ASC)
3. Guilford  15-4 14-4 (ODAC)-tied with Randolph-Macon
4. McMurry 13-5 12-3 (ASC)
5. Randolph-Macon 14-5 12-2 (ODAC)-tied with Guilford
6. DePauw 15-5 12-4 (SCAC)
7. Centre 15-4 12-4 (SCAC)
8. LeTourneau 13-6 12-4 (ASC)

West
1. UW-Stevens Point 17-2 16-2 (WIAC)
2. St. Thomas 19-0 18-0 (MIAC)
3. UW-Platteville 18-2 13-2 (WIAC)
4. Puget Sound 17-2 14-0 (NWC)
5. UW-Whitewater 17-3 16-3 (WIAC)
6. Buena Vista 18-2 15-2 (IIAC)
7. Whitworth 15-4 13-4 (NWC)
8. Bethel 15-4 13-4 (MIAC)


Tom,
Ithaca is not currently the E8 conference leader. Their record in the conference is 10-1,  good for 2nd place. Rochester Tech is 11-0 having beaten Ithaca back on Jan. 11th 87-84 on the buzzer beater that wasn't. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 07, 2009, 11:49:59 PM
picky, picky. lol

Thanks for the catch!  ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 08, 2009, 06:18:20 PM
With respect to conference leaders, remember that only the UAA will select its Pool A representative by regular season record. In any other conference, the conference regular season champ doesn't get anything but the #1 seed (and the right to host in many but not all conferences).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2009, 11:34:02 PM
I understand that.  I just put the conference leaders down for the Pool A spot simply to say, "if the season ended today" type thing, without the conference tourneys being played...that's all.

So, with the conference leaders getting the #1 seed in their respective conference tourneys, "barring upsets", they'd get the Pool A.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2009, 01:01:17 AM
Pool A:  Conference leaders
 
This Week's Results
Atlantic
1. Richard Stockton 19-2 16-2 (NJAC) (2-0) WON at Kean, BEAT New Jersey
2. Farmingdale State 16-2 16-2 (SKY)-tied with St. Joseph's (L.I.) (3-0) BEAT New York City Tech, WON at Bard, BEAT Mount St. Mary
3. William Paterson 15-4 15-4 (NJAC) (3-0) WON at John Jay, WON at Manhattanville, BEAT New Jersey City
4. Baruch 17-4 15-3 (CUNYAC) (2-0) BEAT CCNY, BEAT Staten Island
5. Montclair State 15-5 12-5 (NJAC) (2-0) WON at New Jersey City, BEAT Ramapo

East
1. Ithaca 17-1 15-1 (E8) (3-0) WON at St. John Fisher, BEAT Hartwick, BEAT Alfred
2. St. Lawrence 13-4 11-4 (LL) (3-0) WON at Clarkson, BEAT Union, BEAT Skidmore
3. Hamilton 12-5 10-1 (LL) (2-0) WON at RPI, WON at Vassar
4. Rochester 13-5 13-5 (UAA) (2-0) BEAT Emory, BEAT Case Western Reserve
5. Rochester Tech 14-4 11-4 (E8) (2-0) BEAT Alfred, BEAT SUNY-Cobleskill

Great Lakes
1. Capital 17-2 15-2 (OAC) (1-1) BEAT Marietta, LOST at Muskingum
2. Carnegie Mellon 14-4 10-3 (UAA) (2-0) BEAT Case Western Reserve, BEAT Emory
3. John Carroll  14-4 12-3 (OAC) (2-0) WON at Mount Union, BEAT Ohio Northern
4. Calvin 12-6 7-1 (MIAA) (2-0) WON at Alma, BEAT Adrian
5. Hope 14-5 7-2 (MIAA) (1-1) LOST at Albion, BEAT Kalamazoo
6. Ohio Northern 14-5 12-4 (OAC) (1-1) BEAT Otterbein, LOST at John Carroll

Middle Atlantic
1. Franklin & Marshall 17-2 16-2 (CC) (2-0) BEAT Johns Hopkins, BEAT Washington College
2. Gwynedd-Mercy 15-2 14-1 (CSAC) Cabrini leads the CSAC (0-3) LOST at Marywood, LOST at Baptist Bible, LOST at Cabrini
3. DeSales 16-3 15-3 (MACF) (1-0) BEAT Wilkes
4. Wesley  12-5 10-1 (CAC) (2-1) BEAT STevenson, LOST at Marymount, WON at Salisbury
5. St. Mary's (Md.) 15-4 12-2 (CAC) (3-0) WON at Salisbury, BEAT Hood, BEAT York (Pa)
6. McDaniel 14-5 12-4 (CC) (2-0) BEAT Swarthmore, BEAT Ursinus
7. Widener 14-5 12-5 (MACC) (2-0) WON at Arcadia, BEAT Elizabethtown
8. Gettysburg 13-5 13-5 (CC) (1-1) WON at Dickinson, LOST to Muhlenberg

Midwest
1. Washington U. 17-1 16-1 (UAA) (2-0) BEAT New York University, BEAT Brandeis
2. Elmhurst  15-4 15-4 (CCIW) tied with Wheaton (1-1) BEAT Augustana, LOST at Millikin
3. Wheaton (Ill.) 16-3 12-3 (CCIW) tied with Elmhurst (2-0) BEAT Millikin, BEAT North Park
4. St. Norbert 16-1 15-1 (MWC) (1-2) LOST to Lawrence, LOST at Monmouth, BEAT Lake Forest
5. Transylvania 14-4 11-2 (HCAC) tied with Franklin (2-0) BEAT Defiance, WON at Rose-Hulman
6. Augustana 15-5 14-5 (CCIW) (1-1) LOST at Elmhurst, BEAT Carthage
7. North Central (Ill.) 13-6 11-4 (CCIW) (1-1) WON at North Park, LOST to Illinois Wesleyan
8. Carroll 13-5 13-5 (MWC) (1-1) LOST at Lake Forest, WON at Illinois College

Northeast
1. Worcester Polytech 16-3 16-2 (NEWMAC) (0-1) LOST at Clark
2. Middlebury 18-2 16-1 (NESCAC) (2-0) BEAT Bowdoin, BEAT Colby
3. Mass-Dartmouth 17-2 15-2 (LEC)-tied with Rhode Island College (2-0) BEAT Tufts, BEAT Keene State
4. Elms 17-1 16-1 (NECC) (1-0) WON at Mitchell
5. Salem State 15-4 14-4 (MASCAC) (2-0) BEAT Massachusetts College, WON at Westfield State
6. MIT 14-5 13-3 (NEWMAC) (2-1) BEAT Mass-Boston, BEAT Springfield, LOST to Coast Guard
7. Colby 13-5 10-4 (NESCAC) (1-2) BEAT Southern Maine, LOST at Williams, LOST at Middlebury
8. Rhode Island College 14-4 14-4 (LEC)-tied with Mass-Dartmouth (2-0) BEAT Amherst, WON at Plymouth State
9. Amherst 16-3 14-3 (NESCAC) (2-1) LOST at Rhode Island College, WON at Bates, WON at Tufts
10. Bridgewater State 13-5 12-3 (MASCAC) (2-0) BEAT Framingham State, WON at Fitchburg State

South
1. Trinity (Texas) 17-2 14-2 (SCAC) (2-0) BEAT University of Dallas, BEAT Southwestern
2. Texas-Dallas 17-2 15-2 (ASC) (1-1) BEAT Louisiana College, LOST to Mississippi College
3. Guilford  15-4 14-4 (ODAC)-tied with Randolph-Macon (2-0) WON at Hampden-Sydney, BEAT Washington and Lee
4. McMurry 13-5 12-3 (ASC) (2-1) BEAT Hardin-Simmons, LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor BEAT Concordia-Austin
5. Randolph-Macon 14-5 12-2 (ODAC)-tied with Guilford (2-0) BEAT Roanoke, WON at Lynchburg
6. DePauw 15-5 12-4 (SCAC) (2-0) WON at Birmingham-Southern, WON at Rhodes
7. Centre 15-4 12-4 (SCAC) (2-0) WON Rhodes, WON at Birmingham-Southern
8. LeTourneau 13-6 12-4 (ASC) (1-1) LOST at East Texas Baptist, WON at Texas-Tyler

West
1. UW-Stevens Point 17-2 16-2 (WIAC) (2-0) WON at Stout, BEAT Superior
2. St. Thomas 19-0 18-0 (MIAC) (2-0) BEAT St. Mary's (Minn), WON at Carleton
3. UW-Platteville 18-2 13-2 (WIAC) (2-0) BEAT River Falls, BEAT La Crosse
4. Puget Sound 17-2 14-0 (NWC) (2-0) BEAT Pacific Lutheran, BEAT George Fox
5. UW-Whitewater 17-3 16-3 (WIAC) (2-0) WON at Eau Claire, BEAT Stout
6. Buena Vista 18-2 15-2 (IIAC) (2-0) BEAT Wartburg, BEAT Cornell
7. Whitworth 15-4 13-4 (NWC) (2-0) BEAT Willamette, BEAT Linfield
8. Bethel 15-4 13-4 (MIAC) (1-1) LOST to Hamline, WON at St. Olaf

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 09, 2009, 01:55:50 AM
pabegg,

I'm wondering why both your regional rankings and the NCAA regional ranking just released show St. Lawrence with an 11-4 regional record. At the time their overall record was 13-4. They have in region losses to Ithaca and RPI. On Nov. 21st and 22nd they played in a season opening tournament at Williams and lost to Ursinus(in Collegeville, PA), which is over 300 miles from Canton N.Y. where St. Lawrence is located, yet is being called an in region loss. The day after the Ursinus loss they beat Southern Vermont(Bennington, VT) which is around 250 miles from Canton. And that was considered an out of region win.  On Jan. 2nd and 3rd they travel to Buffalo for a tournament and lose to Widener(Chester, PA), also over 300 miles from Canton, NY, yet once again this is also showing as an in region loss. The next day they beat Heidelberg(Tiffin, Ohio) and this is their other out of region win. At first I thought maybe the tournament location determines the mileage requirement but even then Williamstown, Mass and Buffalo are both well over 200 miles from St. Lawrence. All 4 teams they played in those 2 tournaments are over 200 miles away and if the losses count, then why shouldn't the wins count? I would appreciate your insight. Thanks. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 09, 2009, 02:34:08 AM
Magicman, the states of NY and PA constitute Administrative Region #2.

That is one of the definitions of in-region.

(The others are Evaluation Regions and the 200-mile radius, in addition to members of the same conference.)

:)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 09, 2009, 02:47:59 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 09, 2009, 02:34:08 AM
Magicman, the states of NY and PA constitute Administrative Region #2.

That is one of the definitions of in-region.

(The others are Evaluation Regions and the 200-mile radius, in addition to members of the same conference.)

:)

Thanks Ralph. I almost e-mailed you with my question knowing you'd have the answer.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: with age came? on February 09, 2009, 03:18:57 AM
Hey Magicman - see you already got your answer.  Hope our Cards & Knights claw their way back into the playoff picture.  Think your cards may be a point guard away.  Knights have control of their own destiny but game against the Statesman loams large!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2009, 08:25:52 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 09, 2009, 01:01:17 AM
5. Hope 14-5 7-2 (MIAA) (2-0) WON at Albion, BEAT Kalamazoo

FYI, Hope LOST at Albion this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2009, 11:35:14 AM
Nice catch.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 09, 2009, 11:44:07 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2009, 08:25:52 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 09, 2009, 01:01:17 AM
5. Hope 14-5 7-2 (MIAA) (2-0) WON at Albion, BEAT Kalamazoo

FYI, Hope LOST at Albion this week.
And, there wasn't a single bit of schadenfreude associated with that post, either.   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 09, 2009, 12:35:13 PM
This week's update:


Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   01    0.6232 0.5149 0.5156 Middlebury                006  A w C       18-1 20-2
NE  13   02   03    0.6199 0.5267 0.5312 Mass-Dartmouth            011  A w C       17-2 19-2
NE  17   03   02    0.6254 0.5583 0.5429 Worcester Polytech        013  A w C       16-3 16-4
NE  18   04   04    0.5774 0.4357 0.4938 Elms                      021  B 1         17-1 18-1
NE  14   05   06    0.6076 0.5507 0.5290 Salem State               022  A w C       16-4 17-4
NE  14   06   08    0.5947 0.5108 0.5339 Bridgewater State         025  A w C       14-3 15-5
NE  13   07   09    0.6022 0.5409 0.5273 Rhode Island College      026  C 5         16-4 16-4
NE  16   08   07    0.5832 0.4907 0.5516 Amherst                   033  C 10        16-4 18-4
NE  17   09   05    0.5816 0.5028 0.5315 MIT                       041  C 15        15-4 16-6
NE  11   10   nr    0.5492 0.4233 0.5002 University of New England 052  A second    17-3 18-3
NE  16   11   nr    0.5870 0.5818 0.5177 Bowdoin                   057  C 26        14-7 14-7
NE  16   12   11    0.5732 0.5224 0.5339 Williams                  060  C 29        15-6 15-7
NE  16   13   10    0.5844 0.5821 0.5263 Colby                     066  C 35        11-6 14-7

EA  21   01   01    0.6378 0.5284 0.5469 Ithaca                    002  A w C       18-1 20-1
EA  24   02   02    0.6138 0.5119 0.5083 Hamilton                  008  C 1         12-1 14-5
EA  24   03   03    0.6139 0.5797 0.5185 St. Lawrence              023  A w C       14-4 16-4
EA  21   04   05    0.6017 0.5538 0.5490 Rochester Tech            036  C 12        12-4 16-4
EA  90   05   04    0.5935 0.5432 0.5375 Rochester                 042  C 16        15-5 15-5
EA  23   06   08    0.5668 0.5338 0.5328 Oneonta State             072  A           12-6 14-7
EA  21   07   06    0.5706 0.5502 0.5351 St. John Fisher           080              11-6 14-6
EA  21   08   nr    0.5786 0.6021 0.5103 Utica                     088              12-8 12-8

AT  32   01   01    0.6120 0.5157 0.5167 Richard Stockton          012  A w C       18-2 21-2
AT  33   02   02    0.5760 0.4566 0.4863 SUNY-Farmingdale          028  A w C       19-2 19-2
AT  33   03   05    0.5619 0.4241 0.4994 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       040  C 14        18-2 19-2
AT  32   04   03    0.5758 0.4896 0.5060 William Paterson          044  C 18        18-4 18-4
AT  31   05   04    0.5510 0.4308 0.4922 Baruch                    049  A second    17-3 19-4
AT  32   06   06    0.5696 0.5214 0.4986 Montclair State           058  C 27        14-5 17-5
AT  31   07   07    0.5389 0.4250 0.4962 Brooklyn                  067  C 36        17-4 18-4
AT  31   08   08    0.5153 0.4216 0.5039 Lehman                    117              15-6 17-6

MA  45   01   01    0.6245 0.5267 0.5446 Franklin and Marshall     007  A w C       18-2 19-2
MA  41   02   04    0.5818 0.4701 0.5047 St. Mary's (Md.)          024  A w C       15-2 18-4
MA  45   03   05    0.6078 0.5598 0.5336 McDaniel                  031  C 8         14-4 16-5
MA  43   04   06    0.5766 0.4737 0.5169 DeSales                   034  A w C       16-3 17-3
MA  41   05   02    0.5701 0.4506 0.5125 Wesley                    037  C 13        13-2 15-6
MA  42   06   08    0.5821 0.5428 0.5058 Widener                   047  A second    14-5 16-5
MA  45   07   07    0.5832 0.5472 0.5382 Gettysburg                054  C 23        14-6 14-6
MA  44   08   03    0.5507 0.4654 0.4940 Gwynedd-Mercy             059  C 28        14-4 15-5
MA  44   09   10    0.5451 0.4772 0.4762 Cabrini                   070  A third     15-5 15-5
MA  46   10   11    0.5464 0.4888 0.4935 Scranton                  079  B 2         156 16-6
MA  46   11   09    0.5366 0.4988 0.4820 Susquehanna               100  B 3         126 14-7

SO  54   01   02    0.6078 0.5154 0.5115 Trinity (Texas)           015  A w C       16-2 19-2
SO  51   02   01    0.5997 0.5208 0.5149 Texas-Dallas              020  A w C       16-3 18-3
SO  53   03   03    0.6008 0.5454 0.5122 Guilford                  027  A w C       16-4 17-4
SO  53   04   05    0.5792 0.4675 0.5070 Randolph-Macon            029  C 6         14-2 16-5
SO  54   05   06    0.5972 0.5611 0.5017 Centre                    035  C 11        13-4 17-4
SO  51   06   04    0.5784 0.5109 0.5138 McMurry                   045  C 19        14-4 15-6
SO  54   07   07    0.5697 0.5007 0.5128 DePauw                    053  C 22        13-4 17-5
SO  51   08   08    0.5691 0.5214 0.5113 LeTourneau                061  C 30        13-5 14-7
SO  51   09   11    0.5655 0.5196 0.5006 Mississippi College       064  C 33        135 15-5
SO  53   10   08    0.5609 0.5207 0.5148 Roanoke                   073              11-5 16-5
SO  55   11   10    0.5491 0.4989 0.5063 Christopher Newport       084  A           94 13-7

GL  64   01   01    0.6177 0.5578 0.5132 Capital                   016  A w C       16-3 18-3
GL  64   02   02    0.6135 0.5545 0.5214 John Carroll              019  C 4         14-3 16-4
GL  90   03   04    0.5940 0.5197 0.5367 Carnegie Mellon           032  C 9         12-3 16-4
GL  62   04   05    0.5645 0.4307 0.4968 Calvin                    038  A w C       9-1 14-6
GL  63   05   08    0.5783 0.5157 0.5041 Wooster                   046  A second    14-4 15-6
GL  63   06   nr    0.5773 0.5381 0.5109 Ohio Wesleyan             055  C 24        13-5 14-6
GL  62   07   03    0.5748 0.5348 0.5022 Hope                      056  C 25        8-3 15-6
GL  64   08   06    0.5687 0.5154 0.5218 Ohio Northern             062  C 31        13-5 15-6
GL  61   09   09    0.5419 0.4526 0.4845 Penn State-Behrend        068  A third     14-4 15-6

MW  90   01   01    0.6532 0.5604 0.5444 Washington U.             001  A w C       18-1 19-1
MW  71   02   02    0.6432 0.5950 0.5592 Wheaton (Ill.)            014  A w C       14-3 18-3
MW  72   03   05    0.6133 0.5418 0.5030 Transylvania              017  A w C       13-2 16-4
MW  71   04   03    0.6240 0.5906 0.5532 Elmhurst                  030  C 7         16-5 16-5
MW  71   05   06    0.6162 0.6000 0.5590 North Central             043  C 17        12-5 14-7
MW  74   06   04    0.5590 0.4466 0.5007 St. Norbert               048  A second    16-3 17-3
MW  71   07   07    0.5834 0.5226 0.5739 Augustana                 050  C 20        15-6 16-6
MW  71   08   10    0.5827 0.5563 0.5514 Millikin                  063  C 32        12-6 14-7
MW  74   09   08    0.5684 0.5295 0.5143 Carroll                   065  C 34        14-6 14-6
MW  71   10   09    0.6037 0.6312 0.5524 Carthage                  071  C 38        96 14-7
MW  74   11   nr    0.5438 0.4995 0.4889 Grinnell                  092              115 14-6

WE  82   01   01    0.6280 0.4941 0.5237 St. Thomas                003  A w C       20-0 21-0
WE  86   02   03    0.6574 0.5865 0.5566 UW-Stevens Point          004  A w C       18-2 19-2
WE  83   03   02    0.6189 0.4657 0.5442 Puget Sound               005  A w C       16-0 19-2
WE  86   04   04    0.6338 0.5423 0.5754 UW-Platteville            009  C 2         14-2 19-2
WE  86   05   05    0.6400 0.5715 0.5669 UW-Whitewater             010  C 3         17-3 18-3
WE  81   06   06    0.5874 0.4665 0.5220 Buena Vista               018  A w C       17-2 20-2
WE  83   07   07    0.5684 0.4845 0.5269 Whitworth                 051  C 21        14-4 17-4
WE  86   08   nr    0.5767 0.5568 0.5462 UW-Eau Claire             074              11-6 13-8
WE  82   09   08    0.5434 0.4610 0.5150 Bethel                    076              14-5 16-5
WE  84   10   09    0.5373 0.4623 0.4744 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    081  A           12-4 14-6
WE  81   11   10    0.5473 0.4956 0.4981 Cornell                   082              14-6 16-6


Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A w C: Pool A, in Pool C range (1 to 18)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    A: lower level Pool A
    blank: lower level Pool C

As always, 3 more teams per region than the NCAA.

Big movers:
MIT down from 5 to 9 (from secure Pool C to marginal Pool C)
St. Joseph's (LI) leaps from 5 to 3 and onto the Pool C bubble
Wesley drops from 2 to 5 and onto the Pool C bubble
Gwynedd-Mercy drops from 3 to 8 and probably loses their Pool C chances
Wooster from 8 to 5; still on the outside for Pool C
Hope from 3 to 7; with a limited number of regional games, each loss is a killer

The West Region has 6 of the top 18 teams on this measure and two clear Pool C bids (as all of the Big 3 WIAC schools will make it) but no other teams. Whitworth could sit at the table for a long time but not get in. On the other hand, with upset Pool A teams in the Iowa, Minnesota, and Northwest, this tournament could be heavily weighted towards the west.

On the Pool B side, there are three schools in the table, Elms, Scranton, and Susquehanna. Elms is all but a lock, Scranton is looking good for second, and Susquehanna is merely the tip of an iceberg of very competitive teams for 3rd.

UPDATE: Fixed OWP, OOWP (it's a weird Excel bug that doesn't always recalculate formulas even when F9 is pressed).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on February 09, 2009, 02:20:30 PM
Did Stevens Point really drop that far on OWP in 1 weeks time?

WE  86   03   02    0.6679 0.6129 0.5571 UW-Stevens Point 004  A w C 16-2 17-2

WE  86   02   03    0.6574 0.4657 0.5442 UW-Stevens Point  004  A w C 18-2 19-2

OWP for the week was .416 (Stout 7-13/Superior 10-11 = 17-24)  A nearly .1500 drop doesn't seem right somehow. ???

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 09, 2009, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 09, 2009, 02:20:30 PM
Did Stevens Point really drop that far on OWP in 1 weeks time?

WE  86   03   02    0.6679 0.6129 0.5571 UW-Stevens Point 004  A w C 16-2 17-2

WE  86   02   03    0.6574 0.4657 0.5442 UW-Stevens Point  004  A w C 18-2 19-2

OWP for the week was .416 (Stout 7-13/Superior 10-11 = 17-24)  A nearly .1500 drop doesn't seem right somehow. ???



No they didn't. I'll find the bug and repost.

UPDATE: Fixed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2009, 10:03:47 PM
The first bracket of the year that I have seen.  Pool C'ers may find this interesting.

http://www.d3bracketology.bravehost.com/ (http://www.d3bracketology.bravehost.com/)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2009, 10:15:20 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2009, 10:03:47 PM
The first bracket of the year that I have seen.  Pool C'ers may find this interesting.

http://www.d3bracketology.bravehost.com/ (http://www.d3bracketology.bravehost.com/)
It is using out-of-date information!

Elms is now Pool B from the NECC and not a Pool A from the NAC.

That knocks Maryville TN out.

Keystone is no longer in the NEAC.  The NEAC will determine its Pool A bid with a tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on February 10, 2009, 10:26:34 PM
The site asks for help from fans if you see there is an error. Ill email them your comment Ralph.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 10, 2009, 10:28:46 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2009, 10:03:47 PM
The first bracket of the year that I have seen.  Pool C'ers may find this interesting.

http://www.d3bracketology.bravehost.com/ (http://www.d3bracketology.bravehost.com/)

They have FIVE CCIW teams making the tournament............so zero cred.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on February 10, 2009, 10:30:26 PM
I think they are making changes to it now, because the site is disabled...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2009, 11:25:26 PM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on February 10, 2009, 10:26:34 PM
The site asks for help from fans if you see there is an error. Ill email them your comment Ralph.
Thanks, I emailed him the info as well.

We see UT-Dallas busing to Trinity, and the winner going to WUSTL.  Oh, fun!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2009, 11:37:04 PM
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2009, 10:28:46 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2009, 10:03:47 PM
The first bracket of the year that I have seen.  Pool C'ers may find this interesting.

http://www.d3bracketology.bravehost.com/ (http://www.d3bracketology.bravehost.com/)

They have FIVE CCIW teams making the tournament............so zero cred.
I agree.  At least four of those CCIW teams garner losses from here on out.

In his last four, Brandeis is not even listed on pabegg's chart.

Augie is currently #50, Bowdoin is #57!

Carthage is #71!

That is skipping over St Joe's L.I. NY #40, and William Paterson #44 from the NJAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 10, 2009, 11:46:46 PM
That bracket is pretty disconnected from reality.  It has 12-8 Brandeis making the tourney. Brandeis is currently 4 games back of WashUin the UAA with 5 games to go, but WashU holds the tiebreak so they are effectively 5 back with 5 to go (UAA has no tourney).  That means Brandeis would some how get a Pool C with 8 in region losses (no Pool C team made it in the tourney with 8 region losses last year).

After seing Brandeis in the bracket, I stopped looking through it, but I am sure some people who follow d3 closely set it up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 10, 2009, 11:52:13 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2009, 11:37:04 PM
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2009, 10:28:46 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2009, 10:03:47 PM
The first bracket of the year that I have seen.  Pool C'ers may find this interesting.

http://www.d3bracketology.bravehost.com/ (http://www.d3bracketology.bravehost.com/)

They have FIVE CCIW teams making the tournament............so zero cred.
I agree.  At least four of those CCIW teams garner losses from here on out.

In his last four, Brandeis is not even listed on pabegg's chart.

Augie is currently #50, Bowdoin is #57!

Carthage is #71!

That is skipping over St Joe's L.I. NY #40, and William Paterson #44 from the NJAC.

Before you scoff TOO hard, notice who is #1 in SOS this week.

But, yeah, they are AQ or go home.  (Of course, that is what Wheaton assumed last year.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on February 10, 2009, 11:56:59 PM
yeah its a little weird that someone willing to put the effort into making the webpage and bracket wouldnt check and take into consideration the great info that pabegg posts... well, it sure quickly triggered some discussion
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2009, 12:08:05 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 10, 2009, 11:52:13 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2009, 11:37:04 PM
Quote from: sac on February 10, 2009, 10:28:46 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2009, 10:03:47 PM
The first bracket of the year that I have seen.  Pool C'ers may find this interesting.

http://www.d3bracketology.bravehost.com/ (http://www.d3bracketology.bravehost.com/)

They have FIVE CCIW teams making the tournament............so zero cred.
I agree.  At least four of those CCIW teams garner losses from here on out.

In his last four, Brandeis is not even listed on pabegg's chart.

Augie is currently #50, Bowdoin is #57!

Carthage is #71!

That is skipping over St Joe's L.I. NY #40, and William Paterson #44 from the NJAC.

Before you scoff TOO hard, notice who is #1 in SOS this week.

But, yeah, they are AQ or go home.  (Of course, that is what Wheaton assumed last year.)
I believe that Carthage's OWP/OOWP has been considered in the pabegg's ranking!

Quote• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).


I need a valued opinion...

Mr Ypsi and/or others, do you read Strength of Schedule to be the OWP/OOWP or does Strength of Schedule include the numerical rank as well as the raw data from OWP and OOWP?

Thanks. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2009, 12:11:38 AM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on February 10, 2009, 11:56:59 PM
yeah its a little weird that someone willing to put the effort into making the webpage and bracket wouldnt check and take into consideration the great info that pabegg posts... well, it sure quickly triggered some discussion
Pabegg's data is becoming very critical in our analyses.  We may be able to surmise the last 8 teams on the table come Selection Sunday. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 11, 2009, 12:23:22 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2009, 12:11:38 AM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on February 10, 2009, 11:56:59 PM
yeah its a little weird that someone willing to put the effort into making the webpage and bracket wouldnt check and take into consideration the great info that pabegg posts... well, it sure quickly triggered some discussion
Pabegg's data is becoming very critical in our analyses.  We may be able to surmise the last 8 teams on the table come Selection Sunday. :)

I think pabegg's data is awesome.  I look forward to it every week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2009, 12:24:04 AM
The  old PnAc is the new CSAC.

It is 397 miles from Guilford to Capital.  That is good.

Bowdoin to Ithaca is 489 miles.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2009, 12:24:55 AM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2009, 12:23:22 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2009, 12:11:38 AM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on February 10, 2009, 11:56:59 PM
yeah its a little weird that someone willing to put the effort into making the webpage and bracket wouldnt check and take into consideration the great info that pabegg posts... well, it sure quickly triggered some discussion
Pabegg's data is becoming very critical in our analyses.  We may be able to surmise the last 8 teams on the table come Selection Sunday. :)

I think pabegg's data is awesome.  I look forward to it every week.
Same here.

I think that we are one more selection cycle away from canonizing it!   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 11, 2009, 12:31:21 AM

QuoteI need a valued opinion...

Mr Ypsi and/or others, do you read Strength of Schedule to be the OWP/OOWP or does Strength of Schedule include the numerical rank as well as the raw data from OWP and OOWP?

I don't really consider either a strength of schedule.  But it gets tossed around that way.


Example from last year Wash U's inregion record 16-5, Ursinas' inregion record 22-1.........if you played both you get more 'credit' for playing Ursinas but clearly WashU was the much better team.

OWP and OOWP just tell you how many games your opponents won, nothing more.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2009, 06:36:29 AM
Well sac... the OWP tells you how many games your opponents won, while the OOWP balances out if a team that is 20-1 is beating nothing but sub-.500 teams while a 16-5 team is battling a tough schedule with maybe half of its opponents at better than .500. So... there is some math that keeps a team with a great record (Chapman) from getting too much credit for beating up an easy schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 11, 2009, 10:58:32 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2009, 06:36:29 AM
Well sac... the OWP tells you how many games your opponents won, while the OOWP balances out if a team that is 20-1 is beating nothing but sub-.500 teams while a 16-5 team is battling a tough schedule with maybe half of its opponents at better than .500. So... there is some math that keeps a team with a great record (Chapman) from getting too much credit for beating up an easy schedule.

Team A plays Haverford (10-1) ..................Haverford played Ursinas(20-1)

Team B plays Augustana.(10-1).................Augustana played Washington(16-5)

Guess which one is going to have a higher OOWP Dave?  It really doesn't balance anything out, it just perpetuates the notion that wins is the way to rate a teams strength.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2009, 11:43:17 AM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2009, 10:58:32 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2009, 06:36:29 AM
Well sac... the OWP tells you how many games your opponents won, while the OOWP balances out if a team that is 20-1 is beating nothing but sub-.500 teams while a 16-5 team is battling a tough schedule with maybe half of its opponents at better than .500. So... there is some math that keeps a team with a great record (Chapman) from getting too much credit for beating up an easy schedule.

Team A plays Haverford (10-1) ..................Haverford played Ursinas(20-1)

Team B plays Augustana.(10-1).................Augustana played Washington(16-5)

Guess which one is going to have a higher OOWP Dave?  It really doesn't balance anything out, it just perpetuates the notion that wins is the way to rate a teams strength.

I guess Teams A and B should have played more than just one game!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 11, 2009, 11:46:16 AM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2009, 10:58:32 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2009, 06:36:29 AM
Well sac... the OWP tells you how many games your opponents won, while the OOWP balances out if a team that is 20-1 is beating nothing but sub-.500 teams while a 16-5 team is battling a tough schedule with maybe half of its opponents at better than .500. So... there is some math that keeps a team with a great record (Chapman) from getting too much credit for beating up an easy schedule.

Team A plays Haverford (10-1) ..................Haverford played Ursinas(20-1)

Team B plays Augustana.(10-1).................Augustana played Washington(16-5)

Guess which one is going to have a higher OOWP Dave?  It really doesn't balance anything out, it just perpetuates the notion that wins is the way to rate a teams strength.

Guess I'll explain it better

Haverford and Augustana have played the exact same schedule, except for the games with Washington/Ursinas and teams A/B.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2009, 11:55:51 AM
To get the most ideal SOS rating, one may wish to include OOOWP, OOOOWP, and OOOOOWP etc.  Many people feel that OWP and OOWP will get you 'close enough' to true SOS.

If this was included, the games against Wash U and Ursinus may be more accurately reflected.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 11, 2009, 12:01:20 PM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2009, 12:31:21 AM

QuoteI need a valued opinion...

Mr Ypsi and/or others, do you read Strength of Schedule to be the OWP/OOWP or does Strength of Schedule include the numerical rank as well as the raw data from OWP and OOWP?

I don't really consider either a strength of schedule.  But it gets tossed around that way.


Example from last year Wash U's inregion record 16-5, Ursinas' inregion record 22-1.........if you played both you get more 'credit' for playing Ursinas but clearly WashU was the much better team.

OWP and OOWP just tell you how many games your opponents won, nothing more.

Both OWP and OOWP are heavily tied to the conference you are in.  Since most teams have a majority of their games in conference (NESCAC is an exception, they only play 9 +tourney), the OWP and OOWP of that team will approach the average OWP and OOWP of that conference. For example, in the case where all 25 of your games are against conference opponents, your OWP and OOWP will be 0.500.  That is why it is important to play very strong out of conference teams if you want a Pool C, because if you play cupcakes your ceiling is around 0.500 for both those numbers.  It also doesnt help if you are in a conference that plays 18 or more conference games so it is basically impossible to get very high OWP and OOWP numbers. That is also why an OWP or OOWP of 0.500 should not be considered a very good value.  In my opinion, anything over 0.6 is exceptional (A), 0.55 and above is good (B), 0.525 and above is ok (C), 0.50 and above is barely passing (D) and below 0.5 means that your out of conference schedule was, for the most part, filled with bad teams (teams with losing records).

The main issue, for me, with OWP and OOWP, is that the metric relies too heavily on the number of conference games your league has.  You could be in the best conference, but if your schedule has 2/3 conference games, you are essentially weighting your OWP by 2/3*(0.5)+1/3(OWP of out of conference teams).  It is not an easy problem, but it would be nice if they could come up with a metric that is independent of the number of conference games your team plays (and other factors that are mandated by the conference) and only focused on the strength of your league and the out of conference games that your team schedules. If you play in a strong conference, you should be rewarded and if you schedule a tough out of conference schedule, you also should be rewarded.  However, I dont think you should be punished because your larger conference plays double-round robin and therefore 18 of your games are in conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2009, 12:42:46 PM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2009, 10:58:32 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2009, 06:36:29 AM
Well sac... the OWP tells you how many games your opponents won, while the OOWP balances out if a team that is 20-1 is beating nothing but sub-.500 teams while a 16-5 team is battling a tough schedule with maybe half of its opponents at better than .500. So... there is some math that keeps a team with a great record (Chapman) from getting too much credit for beating up an easy schedule.

Team A plays Haverford (10-1) ..................Haverford played Ursinas(20-1)

Team B plays Augustana.(10-1).................Augustana played Washington(16-5)

Guess which one is going to have a higher OOWP Dave?  It really doesn't balance anything out, it just perpetuates the notion that wins is the way to rate a teams strength.
Sac, if you look at the ASC teams, they are all around .500.

McMurry gets into the North Central group with that game.
UT-Dallas gets into the Guilford group with their game.

The best place to look at these OWP/OOWP values are with the final 2007-08 group on these sites, both men and women.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2009, 12:45:02 PM
+1! Hugenerd!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2009, 12:50:46 PM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2009, 11:46:16 AM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2009, 10:58:32 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2009, 06:36:29 AM
Well sac... the OWP tells you how many games your opponents won, while the OOWP balances out if a team that is 20-1 is beating nothing but sub-.500 teams while a 16-5 team is battling a tough schedule with maybe half of its opponents at better than .500. So... there is some math that keeps a team with a great record (Chapman) from getting too much credit for beating up an easy schedule.

Team A plays Haverford (10-1) ..................Haverford played Ursinas(20-1)

Team B plays Augustana.(10-1).................Augustana played Washington(16-5)

Guess which one is going to have a higher OOWP Dave?  It really doesn't balance anything out, it just perpetuates the notion that wins is the way to rate a teams strength.

Guess I'll explain it better

Haverford and Augustana have played the exact same schedule, except for the games with Washington/Ursinas and teams A/B.

I guess that is why MANY teams play more than one game outside of conference and usually do NOT have the exact same schedule as other opponents. Heck, if everyone played the exact same schedules, I am sure it would be easier to pick the tourney teams AND do the Top 25!

It comes down to scheduling and best preparing yourself for the season and possible post-season selection. The rules haven't changed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 11, 2009, 01:00:23 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2009, 12:50:46 PM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2009, 11:46:16 AM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2009, 10:58:32 AM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 11, 2009, 06:36:29 AM
Well sac... the OWP tells you how many games your opponents won, while the OOWP balances out if a team that is 20-1 is beating nothing but sub-.500 teams while a 16-5 team is battling a tough schedule with maybe half of its opponents at better than .500. So... there is some math that keeps a team with a great record (Chapman) from getting too much credit for beating up an easy schedule.

Team A plays Haverford (10-1) ..................Haverford played Ursinas(20-1)

Team B plays Augustana.(10-1).................Augustana played Washington(16-5)

Guess which one is going to have a higher OOWP Dave?  It really doesn't balance anything out, it just perpetuates the notion that wins is the way to rate a teams strength.

Guess I'll explain it better

Haverford and Augustana have played the exact same schedule, except for the games with Washington/Ursinas and teams A/B.

I guess that is why MANY teams play more than one game outside of conference and usually do NOT have the exact same schedule as other opponents. Heck, if everyone played the exact same schedules, I am sure it would be easier to pick the tourney teams AND do the Top 25!

It comes down to scheduling and best preparing yourself for the season and possible post-season selection. The rules haven't changed.

This is a hypothetical, only to demonstrate OWP, OOWP is not a strength of schedule measure.  I thought I'd use smaller numbers so it would be easier to understand.

I made no arguments about how many games anyone should play.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 11, 2009, 01:09:00 PM
This system is decidedly better than the previous system, at the very least because it allows teams who are "deserving" to get a bid.  The previous system allowed only the most "deserving" under certain very stringent criteria to make it. 

Ultimately, if a team is relying on a Pool C, then they're not as good as they could be or they haven't done what they needed to do to get a bid.  This is a rather broad statement, I understand, but each conference (that has an auto-bid) has provisions to get a bid to the NCAA tournament.  Now, decidedly, the tournament has come a long way to being a championship where the best teams are competing for the title instead of just being a championship based off of  involvement.  We're pretty darn close to getting a championship where all of the "championship caliber" teams are competing for the championship.  Now, "championship caliber" is a subjective term... and the NCAA tournament selection tries to be as objective as possible. 

In terms of the number of games a conference has, that is set by the conference.  They can change the number if they so desire, so as to better prepare themselves for the NCAA tournament... insomuch as playing more non-con games could prepare you... I think that generally, the conference is the equalizer... but it is certainly true that a team from a stronger conference will likely be more prepared to play in tough games... they just might have a tougher time getting to the NCAA tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 11, 2009, 02:58:12 PM
The MIAC plays 20 of their 25 games in conference...ummm.  Advantage NESCAC?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2009, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 11, 2009, 02:58:12 PM
The MIAC plays 20 of their 25 games in conference...ummm.  Advantage NESCAC?
The ASC plays 20/21 (East Division/West Division) games in-conference!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2009, 04:48:40 PM
http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2009/02/11/ncaa-regional-rankings/
Regional rankings released.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 11, 2009, 08:24:30 PM
Just to clarify this point, I am going to use the ASC teams an ideal example of how not to use the system to your advantage.  The ASC appears to be the conference with the most "in-bred" schedules, meaning nearly all of their opponents and opponents' opponents are from the same group of teams (the other teams in the ASC).  As comparison, I will use the NESCAC and UAA as counter examples (each has advantages due to different reasons)

OWP and OOWP for ASC teams (with 4-6 conference games to go, these numbers will likely approach 0.500 even more):

Taxas-Dallas 0.521 0.515
Letourneau 0.521 0.511
Miss. College 0.520 0.501
Texas-Tyler  0.537 0.508
East Texas Baptist 0.503 0.509
Ozarks 0.503 0.507
LA College 0.520 0.503

McMurry 0.511 0.514
MHB 0.550 0.509
Concordia 0.473 0.494
Hardin Simmons 0.503 0.510
Sul Ross State 0.466 0.504
Texas Lutheran  0.467 0.504
Schreiner 0.499 0.501
Howard Payne 0.466 0.504

Even though each of these teams has about 20% of their games left (and all of them in conference), all of the OWP and OOWP numbers are clustered very close to 0.500.  In fact, only one team, MHB, has an OWP of 0.55 or higher and only 2 have OWP have OWP's of 0.525 or higher. In terms of OOWP, there is no team with a value greater than 0.515.

The NESCAC, on the other hand:

Middlebury 0.515 0.516
Amehrst 0.491 0.552
Williams 0.522 0.534
Colby 0.582 0.526
Bowdoin 0.582 0.518
Trinity 0.573 0.533
Bates 0.573 0.514
Conn College 0.506 0.532
Wesleyan 0.536 0.501
Tufts 0.555 0.530

We see here that 5 of 10 teams have OWPs over 0.55.  In the NESCAC, the OWP is more of a reflection of the schedule that the teams scheduled out of conference.  You can also see that Amherst's OWP is the lowest in the conference, while their OOWP is the highest.  This is likely due to the fact that their out-of-conference schedule was filled with cupcakes while most of their other opponents, including those in the conference, played tougher schedules so Amherst's OOWP is high.

Here is another example, the UAA, that you would expect to have a range of OWP and OOWP because there will likely be very little "in-breeding" in their out of conference schedules beause they are in geographically different regions:

WashU 0.560 0.545
CMU 0.520 0.537
Rochester  0.543 0.538
Brandeis 0.605 0.540
Case 0.553 0.520
Chicago 0.594 0.533
NYU 0.532 0.536
Emory  0.530 0.503

We see that although the UAA plays more conference games (given the season is not over yet and each team has 5 more conference games) than the NESCAC, they are also at an advantage because most teams play in different regions of the country and therefore have less common opponents in their out of conference schedules (or less "in-breeding" within their schedules).  All teams but one have OWP greater than 0.525 and 4 of 8 have higher than 0.55.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 11, 2009, 09:00:57 PM

You also see the NESCAC advantage of playing in a region with lots of teams.  The so called "second tier" schools in New England (essentially some of the best non-con competition a NESCAC school can schedule) all have better winning percentages simply by virtue of how many lower level schools are out there.

For example, the University of New England, this season, is sitting at 19-3.  They've played virtually no one of great significance.  In past years, this is the kind of team (solid, but with an inflated record) that Amherst would beat and greatly improve their SOSI).  With the new system, a win against UNE wouldn't count for as much.  However, the problem is just moved down the line.  UNE played Colby, Tufts, and Bates this season, so the inflated 19-3 is still helping Amherst and Middlebury.

The sheer size of the NE region means that there is a slightly more padded schedule for everyone, unless a school chooses to avoid the cupcakes.  We've seen in the past several season what avoiding the cupcakes gets a school (ten losses and no shot at the post-season, usually).

I do think it's a better system, but not by much.  And, of course, so long as the criteria continues to be regional while choosing nationally, being in a tough region will hurt rather than help a team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2009, 09:02:17 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 11, 2009, 08:24:30 PM
Just to clarify this point, I am going to use the ASC teams an ideal example of how not to use the system to your advantage.  The ASC appears to be the conference with the most "in-bred" schedules, meaning nearly all of their opponents and opponents' opponents are from the same group of teams (the other teams in the ASC).  As comparison, I will use the NESCAC and UAA as counter examples (each has advantages due to different reasons)

OWP and OOWP for ASC teams (with 4-6 conference games to go, these numbers will likely approach 0.500 even more):  (In-region, non-conference games are listed)

Taxas-Dallas 0.521 0.515  (Austin College - SCAC x2, Guilford - ODAC)
Letourneau 0.521 0.511   (Lake Forest - MWC and UWW - WIAC at UMHB)
Miss. College 0.520 0.501  (Rust - Indep, Sewanee - SCAC)
Texas-Tyler  0.537 0.508   (Guilford - ODAC at UT-Dallas)
East Texas Baptist 0.503 0.509  (Austin College - SCAC, UDallas NEAC)
Ozarks 0.503 0.507  (Hendrix- SCAC)
LA College 0.520 0.503 (Millsaps - SCAC)

McMurry 0.511 0.514 (North Central - CCIW; and St Vincent PA in Las Vegas)
MHB 0.550 0.509  (Lake Forest- MWC, UWW - WIAC, Trinity TX - SCAC, Southwestern - SCAC)
Concordia 0.473 0.494 (none; beat WPI 86-85)
Hardin Simmons 0.503 0.510 (UDallas - NEAC, Austin - SCAC, Southwestern - SCAC)
Sul Ross State 0.466 0.504 (none)
Texas Lutheran  0.467 0.504 (none; lost to Anderson 79-84)
Schreiner 0.499 0.501 (Trinity - SCAC, Southwestern - SCAC)
Howard Payne 0.466 0.504 (none; lost to Anderson 93-78)

Even though each of these teams has about 20% of their games left (and all of them in conference), all of the OWP and OOWP numbers are clustered very close to 0.500.  In fact, only one team, MHB, has an OWP of 0.55 or higher and only 2 have OWP have OWP's of 0.525 or higher. In terms of OOWP, there is no team with a value greater than 0.515.

The NESCAC, on the other hand:

Middlebury 0.515 0.516
Amehrst 0.491 0.552
Williams 0.522 0.534
Colby 0.582 0.526
Bowdoin 0.582 0.518
Trinity 0.573 0.533
Bates 0.573 0.514
Conn College 0.506 0.532
Wesleyan 0.536 0.501
Tufts 0.555 0.530

We see here that 5 of 10 teams have OWPs over 0.55.  In the NESCAC, the OWP is more of a reflection of the schedule that the teams scheduled out of conference.  You can also see that Amherst's OWP is the lowest in the conference, while their OOWP is the highest.  This is likely due to the fact that their out-of-conference schedule was filled with cupcakes while most of their other opponents, including those in the conference, played tougher schedules so Amherst's OOWP is high.

Here is another example, the UAA, that you would expect to have a range of OWP and OOWP because there will likely be very little "in-breeding" in their out of conference schedules beause they are in geographically different regions:

WashU 0.560 0.545
CMU 0.520 0.537
Rochester  0.543 0.538
Brandeis 0.605 0.540
Case 0.553 0.520
Chicago 0.594 0.533
NYU 0.532 0.536
Emory  0.530 0.503

We see that although the UAA plays more conference games (given the season is not over yet and each team has 5 more conference games) than the NESCAC, they are also at an advantage because most teams play in different regions of the country and therefore have less common opponents in their out of conference schedules (or less "in-breeding" within their schedules).  All teams but one have OWP greater than 0.525 and 4 of 8 have higher than 0.55.

hugenerd, I have been applauding your posts for a couple of weeks now!

This post is worth dozens of karma!  There are several of us in the ASC who have been fighting this.  I will cut-and-paste this on the ASC board.
Here is another analysis (from the Pool C board) of what we are not doing to help ASC teams to get NCAA Pool C bids.  We have been used as an example of doing it the wrong way!

The non-conference D-III games that you see in the ASC are the only D-III teams in the area!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 11, 2009, 09:26:44 PM
Thanks.  It would be nice if the ASC adapted to the system by changing their format, but then again you never know if the NCAA will change the system again.  However, in any system if you are playing 80% (or more, non-d3 and out-of-region games dont count) of your region games in conference it is hard to get a handle how good a team is with respect the rest of the country.  With such a small sample size against non conference opponents (5 games or less), it is hard to think of a system where you would get a good idea of the relative strength of that team against the rest of the country.  Massey only has the ASC as having 67  games against out-of conference opponents (I dont know how many are non d3 or non region), which comes out to about 4.5 per team.  I think the system could use reform regardless.  However, I guess there is some added bonus to the schools, because I am sure they dont have to worry as much about filling a schedule and they probably have more consistent travel costs.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 11, 2009, 10:40:42 PM
hugenerd,
That was a great explanation. Plus k from me as well. If I remember correctly didn't you have to give a similar explanation last year around this time? 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hoosier Titan on February 11, 2009, 10:42:24 PM
Another +k from me, hugenerd.  Great explanation!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 11, 2009, 11:31:51 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 11, 2009, 09:26:44 PM
Thanks.  It would be nice if the ASC adapted to the system by changing their format, but then again you never know if the NCAA will change the system again.  However, in any system if you are playing 80% (or more, non-d3 and out-of-region games dont count) of your region games in conference it is hard to get a handle how good a team is with respect the rest of the country.  With such a small sample size against non conference opponents (5 games or less), it is hard to think of a system where you would get a good idea of the relative strength of that team against the rest of the country.  Massey only has the ASC as having 67  games against out-of conference opponents (I dont know how many are non d3 or non region), which comes out to about 4.5 per team.  I think the system could use reform regardless.  However, I guess there is some added bonus to the schools, because I am sure they dont have to worry as much about filling a schedule and they probably have more consistent travel costs.

Hugenerd,
   I agree with a lot of your points, but there is very little a conference like the ASC can do to "change their format" to better fit the system. I noticed a couple posts about the current system being better, which it is for some conferences, but for many it is worse. This is just an opinion, but this system is still not much better, it just shifted around which teams receive benefit and which do not.

For example, in an area like the deep south there just aren't the # of DIII teams. The 20/21 conference games has less to do with travel costs and more to do with just playing DIII games. If the ASC lowers the number of conference games and travel costs are taken into consideration, then many teams will face local NAIA schools and only play 15-16 DIII games. A great deal of money is already spent on travel with teams so spread out, which makes it even harder to actually spend more money to find quality DIII opponents for those 4-5 nonconference games.

Conferences like the NESCAC have been further strengthened with the system due to the availability of weaker conferences to prey on and more emphasis on the strength of schedule. But to be honest I don't know how you could improve the system unless you factored in NAIA teams, which I'm not sure would be much better anyway. Teams playing in regions of the country where DIII opponents are plentiful will continue to benefit from the ranking system and the opportunity to play home sectionals in the NCAA Tourney.

Having said that, I do think there has been a lot of effort to make the process better, and you certainly can't fault teams or conferences for using whatever advantages they have to improve their situation. But the system isn't any better for regions with few DIII teams like the south and the west coast.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 12, 2009, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 11, 2009, 11:31:51 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 11, 2009, 09:26:44 PM
Thanks.  It would be nice if the ASC adapted to the system by changing their format, but then again you never know if the NCAA will change the system again.  However, in any system if you are playing 80% (or more, non-d3 and out-of-region games dont count) of your region games in conference it is hard to get a handle how good a team is with respect the rest of the country.  With such a small sample size against non conference opponents (5 games or less), it is hard to think of a system where you would get a good idea of the relative strength of that team against the rest of the country.  Massey only has the ASC as having 67  games against out-of conference opponents (I dont know how many are non d3 or non region), which comes out to about 4.5 per team.  I think the system could use reform regardless.  However, I guess there is some added bonus to the schools, because I am sure they dont have to worry as much about filling a schedule and they probably have more consistent travel costs.

Hugenerd,
   I agree with a lot of your points, but there is very little a conference like the ASC can do to "change their format" to better fit the system. I noticed a couple posts about the current system being better, which it is for some conferences, but for many it is worse. This is just an opinion, but this system is still not much better, it just shifted around which teams receive benefit and which do not.

For example, in an area like the deep south there just aren't the # of DIII teams. The 20/21 conference games has less to do with travel costs and more to do with just playing DIII games. If the ASC lowers the number of conference games and travel costs are taken into consideration, then many teams will face local NAIA schools and only play 15-16 DIII games. A great deal of money is already spent on travel with teams so spread out, which makes it even harder to actually spend more money to find quality DIII opponents for those 4-5 nonconference games.

Conferences like the NESCAC have been further strengthened with the system due to the availability of weaker conferences to prey on and more emphasis on the strength of schedule. But to be honest I don't know how you could improve the system unless you factored in NAIA teams, which I'm not sure would be much better anyway. Teams playing in regions of the country where DIII opponents are plentiful will continue to benefit from the ranking system and the opportunity to play home sectionals in the NCAA Tourney.

Having said that, I do think there has been a lot of effort to make the process better, and you certainly can't fault teams or conferences for using whatever advantages they have to improve their situation. But the system isn't any better for regions with few DIII teams like the south and the west coast.

Agreed. In any system, it seems like you are going to have winners and losers.  I think the NCAA is trying to use as simple a formula as possible to solve the problem (hence the 1-15 point system earlier and now the OWP and OOWP), but the problem doesnt appear to be that simple.  It may be worthwhile to compile a more complicated statistic, such as the RPI or whatever Massey uses.  It just seems a bit unjust to me that the number of conference games you play can affect two primary NCAA criteria (not even the quality of your league or oppoents, but the number of conference games).

Anyway thanks for the positive feedback, and I did make a similar explanation last year.  I think I went a little more in depth last year with examples but I think everyone who wants to get it gets it by now.

The bigger problem with OWP and OOWP is that it not only clusters all the numbers together for conferences like the ASC, but all the numbers in general are pretty tightly grouped around 0.500. If you look at the numbers for the entire country, the spread is very small: the average for all OWP numbers is roughly 0.50 with a standard deviation of 0.054 and for OOWP the average is 0.50 with a standard deviation of 0.027.  This essentially means that you need to look at the third decimal place to distinguish between most teams and what does that mean really?  Does the NCAA really choose team A over team B if they have similar records and team A has an OWP of 0.530 and team B has an OWP of 0.527?  I think OWP and OOWP is really only effective if there is a large gap between two schools, like 0.25 or higher, but even then you need to be careful when comparing teams between regions and teams that are in dissimilar conferences.  OWP and OOWP seem like they could be useful when ranking teams within a region, but I would have a lot of reservations when using it to select Pool C teams when it comes down to 8 teams from 8 different regions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 12, 2009, 09:25:15 AM
RPI -- isn't any better, it uses OWP and OOWP, ........what does that really tell you?

RPI isn't without controversy on the D1 level either, they've just been force fed it now for so long, they've come to accept it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2009, 11:02:35 AM
Quote from: sac on February 12, 2009, 09:25:15 AM
RPI -- isn't any better, it uses OWP and OOWP, ........what does that really tell you?

RPI isn't without controversy on the D1 level either, they've just been force fed it now for so long, they've come to accept it.


They also select their at-large berths with national criteria and the RPI is not a determining factor, but an aid.

If the selection process wasn't so tied to OWP and OOWP, people might have less complaints.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 12, 2009, 11:59:50 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 12, 2009, 09:10:48 AM
The bigger problem with OWP and OOWP is that it not only clusters all the numbers together for conferences like the ASC, but all the numbers in general are pretty tightly grouped around 0.500. If you look at the numbers for the entire country, the spread is very small: the average for all OWP numbers is roughly 0.50 with a standard deviation of 0.054 and for OOWP the average is 0.50 with a standard deviation of 0.027.  This essentially means that you need to look at the third decimal place to distinguish between most teams and what does that mean really?  Does the NCAA really choose team A over team B if they have similar records and team A has an OWP of 0.530 and team B has an OWP of 0.527?  I think OWP and OOWP is really only effective if there is a large gap between two schools, like 0.25 or higher, but even then you need to be careful when comparing teams between regions and teams that are in dissimilar conferences.  OWP and OOWP seem like they could be useful when ranking teams within a region, but I would have a lot of reservations when using it to select Pool C teams when it comes down to 8 teams from 8 different regions.

I haven't given this a great deal of thought, but I wonder what the bracket would look like if each region had a specified number of pool c teams. At least way each region would be comparing apples to apples instead of having a west coast pool c team against a northeast region pool c team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2009, 12:13:42 PM
Chris - that sounds like what the NCAA used to do! All bids were allocated to a certain number of teams from each region. That caused some MAJOR problems when teams that were obviously strong in say the Midwest were not taken while teams who were certainly less strong in the Mid-Atlantic were taken. That isn't a solution worth going back to!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dark Knight on February 12, 2009, 01:13:01 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 11, 2009, 12:01:20 PM
The main issue, for me, with OWP and OOWP, is that the metric relies too heavily on the number of conference games your league has.  You could be in the best conference, but if your schedule has 2/3 conference games, you are essentially weighting your OWP by 2/3*(0.5)+1/3(OWP of out of conference teams).

This points out a real problem -- but it may actually understate the problem.  Teams don't play themselves, so teams with records above .500 will have OWPs below .500 for conference games, and vice versa.

If a team goes 13-1 in a conference with 8 teams playing a double round robbin, that means the remaining teams will have 36 wins and 48 losses, or an OWP of .428 for conference games. A team going 3-11 would have an OWP of .548.

So above average teams get a ding to the OWP that depends on how far above average they are in a conference and how many games they play in-conference -- but not on how good the conference is, directly. Their OWP would be weighted by 2/3 * (something less than 0.5) + 1/3 (OWP of out-of-conference games).

I expect this could be addressed by adding some kind of quality-of-conference term...


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 12, 2009, 01:54:25 PM
Quote from: Dark Knight on February 12, 2009, 01:13:01 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 11, 2009, 12:01:20 PM
The main issue, for me, with OWP and OOWP, is that the metric relies too heavily on the number of conference games your league has.  You could be in the best conference, but if your schedule has 2/3 conference games, you are essentially weighting your OWP by 2/3*(0.5)+1/3(OWP of out of conference teams).

This points out a real problem -- but it may actually understate the problem.  Teams don't play themselves, so teams with records above .500 will have OWPs below .500 for conference games, and vice versa.

If a team goes 13-1 in a conference with 8 teams playing a double round robbin, that means the remaining teams will have 36 wins and 48 losses, or an OWP of .428 for conference games. A team going 3-11 would have an OWP of .548.

So above average teams get a ding to the OWP that depends on how far above average they are in a conference and how many games they play in-conference -- but not on how good the conference is, directly. Their OWP would be weighted by 2/3 * (something less than 0.5) + 1/3 (OWP of out-of-conference games).

I expect this could be addressed by adding some kind of quality-of-conference term...




That problem could be solved by eliminating that game from your opponent's winning percentage. Say you beat Team A who is 12-5. Then that teams record these purposes would be 12-4. Then you wouldn't be hurting your own OWP by beating teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 12, 2009, 01:55:54 PM
Dark Knight,  it is true that teams don't play themselves but they don't get hurt for beating teams either.  If a conference had 8 teams and none of them played any in-region-out-of-conference games, everyone would have an OWP of 0.500.  (You don't coun't a teams loss against yourself when figuring OWP).  After the first round of games, each team would have played 7 games and, for OWP purposes, would figure each opponent as playing 6 games (example: Calvin doesn't count Hope-Calvin games while figuring out Hope's contribution to their OWP so beating Hope doesn't hurt Calvin's OWP).

As hugenerd pointed out the value of OWP and OOWP as a metric increases as the amount of region and conference mixing increases.  The more in-breading that goes on (conferences like my example above) the more and more the OWP number trends toward 0.500 for all teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 12, 2009, 03:17:28 PM


   WEEK 1      WEEK 2   
   ATLANTIC REGION      ATLANTIC REGION   
   Richard Stockton 19-2, 16-2      Richard Stockton 21-2, 18-2   
   Farmingdale State 16-2, 16-2      Farmingdale State 19-2, 19-2   
   William Paterson 15-4, 15-4      William Paterson 18-4, 18-4   
   Baruch 17-4, 15-3      Baruch 19-4, 17-3   
   Montclair State 15-5, 12-5      St. Joseph's (L.I.) 19-2, 18-2   
            
   EAST REGION      EAST REGION   
   Ithaca 17-1, 15-1      Ithaca 20-1, 18-1   
   St. Lawrence 13-4, 11-4      St. Lawrence 16-4, 14-4   
   Hamilton 12-5, 10-1      Hamilton 14-5, 12-1   
   Rochester 13-5, 13-5      Rochester 15-5, 15-5   
   Rochester Tech 14-4, 11-4      Rochester Tech 16-4, 12-4   
            
   GREAT LAKES REGION      GREAT LAKES REGION   
   Capital 17-2, 15-2      Capital 18-3, 16-3   
   Carnegie Mellon 14-4, 10-3      Carnegie Mellon 16-4, 12-3   
   John Carroll 14-4, 12-3      John Carroll 16-4, 14-3   
   Calvin 12-6, 7-1      Calvin 14-6, 9-1   
   Hope 14-5, 7-2      Wooster 15-6, 14-4   
   Ohio Northern 14-5, 12-4      Ohio Northern 15-6, 13-5   
            
   MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION      MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION   
   Franklin and Marshall 17-2, 16-2      Franklin and Marshall 19-2, 18-2   
   Gwynedd-Mercy 15-2, 14-1      DeSales 17-3, 16-3   
   DeSales 16-3, 15-3      St. Mary's (Md.) 18-4 15-2   
   Wesley 12-5, 10-1      Wesley 15-6, 13-2   
   St. Mary's (Md.) 15-4, 12-2      McDaniel 16-5, 14-4   
   McDaniel 14-5, 12-4      Gwynedd-Mercy 15-5, 14-4   
   Widener 14-5, 12-5      Widener 16-5, 14-5   
   Gettysburg 13-5, 13-5      Gettysburg 14-6, 14-6   
            
   MIDWEST REGION      MIDWEST REGION   
   Washington U. 17-1, 16-1      Washington U. 19-1, 18-1   
   Elmhurst 15-4, 15-4      Wheaton (Ill.) 18-3, 14-3   
   Wheaton (Ill.) 16-3, 12-3      Tranylvania 16-4, 13-2   
   St. Norbert 16-1, 15-1      Elmhurst 16-5, 16-5   
   Tranylvania 14-4, 11-2      St. Norbert 17-3, 16-3   
   Augustana 15-5, 14-5      Augustana 16-6, 15-6   
   North Central 13-6, 11-4      North Central 14-7, 12-5   
   Carroll 13-5, 13-5      Lawrence 14-6, 14-6   
            
   NORTHEAST REGION      NORTHEAST REGION   
   Worcester Polytech 16-3, 16-2      Middlebury 20-2, 18-1   
   Middlebury 18-2, 16-1      Mass-Dartmouth 19-2, 17-2   
   Mass-Dartmouth 17-2, 15-2      Elms 18-1, 17-1   
   Elms 17-1, 16-1      Worcester Polytech 16-4, 16-3   
   Salem State 15-4, 14-4      Rhode Island College 16-4, 16-4   
   MIT 14-5, 13-3      Bridgewater State 15-5, 14-3   
   Colby 13-5, 10-4      Salem State 17-4, 16-4   
   Rhode Island College 14-4, 14-4      Amherst 18-4, 16-4   
   Amherst 16-3, 14-3      MIT 16-6, 15-4   
   Bridgewater State 13-5, 12-3      Univ. of New England 18-3, 17-3   
            
   SOUTH REGION      SOUTH REGION   
   Trinity (Texas) 17-2, 14-2      Trinity (Texas) 19-2, 16-2   
   Texas Dallas 17-2, 15-2      Texas Dallas 18-3, 16-3   
   Guilford 15-4, 14-4      Guilford 17-4, 16-4   
   McMurry 13-5, 12-3      McMurry 15-6, 14-4   
   Randolph-Macon 14-5, 12-2      Randolph-Macon 16-5, 14-2   
   DePauw 15-5, 12-4      DePauw 17-5, 13-4   
   Centre 15-4, 12-4      Centre 17-4, 13-4   
   LeTourneau 13-6, 12-4      Mississippi College 15-5, 13-5   
            
   WEST REGION      WEST REGION   
   Stevens Point 17-2, 16-2      Stevens Point 19-2, 18-2   
   St. Thomas 19-0, 18-0      St. Thomas 21-0, 20-0   
   Platteville 18-2, 13-2      Platteville 19-2, 14-2   
   Puget Sound 17-2, 14-0      Puget Sound 19-2, 16-0   
   Whitewater 17-3, 16-3      Whitewater 18-3, 17-3   
   Buena Vista 18-2, 15-2      Buena Vista 20-2, 17-2   
   Whitworth 15-4, 13-4      Whitworth 17-4, 15-4   
   Bethel 15-4, 13-4      Bethel 16-5, 14-5   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dark Knight on February 12, 2009, 03:40:50 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 12, 2009, 01:55:54 PM
You don't coun't a teams loss against yourself when figuring OWP

Aah, that would fix that problem. Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 12, 2009, 03:55:24 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 12, 2009, 12:13:42 PM
Chris - that sounds like what the NCAA used to do! All bids were allocated to a certain number of teams from each region. That caused some MAJOR problems when teams that were obviously strong in say the Midwest were not taken while teams who were certainly less strong in the Mid-Atlantic were taken. That isn't a solution worth going back to!

Dave,
  I agree with your opinion of the Midwest and I do remember some very good teams getting left out, but let me play devil's advocate just to give a dissenting opinion. There was an uproar every year about a CCIW or UAA team left out and that was a big reason why the switch was made to the new ranking process, and it has helped the midwest which I agree with. But I think a couple other outcomes have also resulted.  

1. Some regions are getting too many teams in who are not better teams, just beneficiaries of the many DIII area teams.
2. It has further decreased the chances of teams in the deep south or west coast to host sectionals, because they are more ostracized now than they have ever been.

I realize there are regions with much more DIII history than we have in the south, and the west coast as well, but I see great teams down here every year too and teams will have a hard time coming down here and winning in the NCAA Tourney. The Howard Payne women were finally able to get to Salem and win a NC last year when they hosted a sectional. The #3 UW-Whitewater men struggled at UMHB this christmas playing a relatively close game against a 14-7 LeTourneau team, then lost to a 14-7 Mary Hardin-Baylor team.  

I think the current system was shaped by a perception that may or may not be true. It doesn't bother me to give each region equal treatment because I know there is no way to accurately know who the top 30-40 DIII teams are anyway because of how regionalized Division III is every year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2009, 04:58:08 PM
Chris - we would then have to roll back the definition of a regional game as well, then. Right now for a Mid-Atlantic Region team based in Maryland, any game in the Mid-Atlantic Region, as well as within 200 miles (i.e. in PA and VA), AND any game played in the NCAA Geographic Zone Maryland is located in (i.e. teams in Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Mass, Rhode Island, and Maine) ALL count as regional games. That is very much NOT the region they are assigned to. If you went by NCAA geographic regions (four of them), you might be closer to something, but I think the map would have to be redrawn.

I promise you that weaker teams in the Mid-Atlantic will get into this tournament over more-deserving teams in other regions under the old plan. I know this because I am in the Mid-Atlantic Region and I don't think Gettysburg is better than the top half of the CCIW. But in your plan (and the former NCAA one), they would be in while maybe only two CCIW teams get in. Plus the fact, you would have to go to brackets that allow less flexiability. You can't say that you are picking the teams via each region and then move those teams out of that region's bracket. That wouldn't seem fair. The new bracket would force far MORE conference games early on and most regional teams knocking each other out of the tournament simply to get four teams from four different regions to the championship weekend.

Sure, the extreme west part of the West Region isn't going to get much travel help from the NCAA in the current format, but I don't think it will change in your format. If anything, more WIAC teams might make the tourney since they are in the West Region and tend to rank higher then the rest of the teams in the region. That would end up giving you the same problem you have now.

The NCAA is closer now to a better solution in picking teams, but they aren't on the actual solution. We at least have a bit more of a "national" region record then we did just a few years ago. However, they probably aren't going to go to every game counting anytime soon, because it would handicap too many teams that can't afford to fly around the country playing games to make them look better. They may be able to come up with a better formula. Heck, just a short time ago they only based things on an OWP... at least they have added the OOWP. I am sure more tinkering will happen in the future.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 12, 2009, 05:40:05 PM
I agree with D-Mac.  The system has improved over the last 6-7 years that I have been dissecting the data.

The administrative region and 200-mile radius rules have made big differences.

I don't see any other solutions that we are going to get added into the structure.

The ASC could help itself, if it could add about 3-4 more teams and split into 2 conferences.  I don't see any prospects to move to D3 on the horizon.

The next feature about the playoffs that has emerged is how much deeper into the Pool of quality teams that the extra Pool C bids have tapped.  The 1:6.5 ratio is about right.  Parity in D3 is incredible.

We are extremely unlikely to host a sectional.  HPU women were lucky to get one, even when they were undefeated.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 12, 2009, 06:40:49 PM
Through Sunday, 2/8, here is the Massey Index top 60 by region...

http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2009&sub=III&mid=6


West (19)
1. St. Thomas
2. UW-Platteville
3. UW-Stevens Point
5. Puget Sound
6. UW-Whitewater
10. Buena Vista
12. Lewis & Clark
14. Whitworth
19. Carleton
21. UW-Oshkosh
24. UW-Eau Claire
31. Bethel
35. UW-La Crosse
41. Augsburg
43. Cornell
44. Loras
50. UW-Superior
55. St. John's
58. Chapman

Midwest (13)
4. Wash U
7. Wheaton
8. Elmhurst
11. Augustana
16. Carthage
18. St. Norbert
20. North Central
25. Millikin
27. Carroll
36. Ill. Wesleyan
39. Transylvania
42. Lawrence
60. Grinnell

South (11)
9. Trinity (Tx)
22. Dallas
30. Guilford
34. McMurry
37. Centre
38. DePauw
46. Randolph-Macon
47. Le Tourneau
52. Mary Hardin-Baylor
54. Mississippi College
59. Roanoke

Great Lakes (9)
15. Capital
28. John Carroll
32. Carnegie Mellon
33. Hope
40. Calvin
49. Ohio Northern
50. Ohio Wesleyan
55. St. Vincent
56. Wooster

East (3)
13. Itaca
51. Rochester
57. Rochester Tech

Mid-Atlantic (2)
17. Franklin & Marshall
45. McDaniel

Northeast (2)
26. Middlebury
29. Mass-Dartmouth

Atlantic (1)
23. Richard Stockton
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 12, 2009, 07:14:16 PM
Dave,
  I'm not disagreeing with you on most of this, and that's certainly not "my plan". Like I said, this isn't something I have spent hours thinking about but I was just throwing it out there for discussion.

I agree with Ralph that this is better than the old way overall, but just not for certain regions. My only point is there is still a lot about the process that is not "fair" to areas of the country and the OWP and OOWP hurt us. I'm happy for the CCIW that they are getting more teams in and I also think it's a great league, but they've won one national championship in the last 21 years. Until last year, the UAA had not won a national championship in 17 years.

I'm not knocking those leagues because they do have several Final Fours, but I just think there is a lot of parity in DIII these days, much more than in the past and certainly much more than is reflected by the OWP and OOWP.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2009, 08:49:29 PM
The South has 50 out of 395 teams eligible for the tournament, 12.7%

In a 59-team bracket, 12.7% is 7.47 teams.

The South Region got eight teams in the tournament last year out of 59
The South Region got nine teams in the tournament in 2007.
The South Region got seven teams in the tournament in 2006, right on par.

In a 48-team bracket, 12.7% is 6.06 teams.
The South Region got six teams in the tournament in 2005, right on par.
The South Region got seven teams in the tournament in 2004.

I'm not seeing how the South is hurt by having at-large teams selected nationally. The number of automatic bids in this region has remained consistent: ASC, SCAC, ODAC, USAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 12, 2009, 11:14:26 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2009, 08:49:29 PM
The South has 50 out of 395 teams eligible for the tournament, 12.7%

In a 59-team bracket, 12.7% is 7.47 teams.

The South Region got eight teams in the tournament last year out of 59
The South Region got nine teams in the tournament in 2007.
The South Region got seven teams in the tournament in 2006, right on par.

In a 48-team bracket, 12.7% is 6.06 teams.
The South Region got six teams in the tournament in 2005, right on par.
The South Region got seven teams in the tournament in 2004.

I'm not seeing how the South is hurt by having at-large teams selected nationally. The number of automatic bids in this region has remained consistent: ASC, SCAC, ODAC, USAC.

Pat,
   Thanks for posting that information, maybe the OWP and OOWP are not having much of an impact. The ASC and SCAC are the only conferences in the south really affected, the ODAC and USAC are close enough to DIII's to get games.
   I guess the only time it would be an issue is if you had a northeast or midwest team get into the tourney with more losses than an ASC or SCAC team due to the OWP and OOWP numbers. I haven't looked to see if it's happened or not. But it is an impossible situation with the ASC and SCAC so isolated. The current system is probably pretty close to as good as it gets for the majority of DIII.
   Still, the biggest issue for isolated teams will always be travel. And that will never be fixed unless the NCAA wants to fork over the money for it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2009, 11:23:14 PM
Or if institutions commit to it. This is still regular-season games we're talking about, right? The NCAA's travel is a different issue that I don't think is part of the OWP/OOWP discussion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 12, 2009, 11:57:16 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 12, 2009, 11:14:26 PM

   Still, the biggest issue for isolated teams will always be travel. And that will never be fixed unless the NCAA wants to fork over the money for it.

The NCAA is already saying they'll keep D1 teams as close to home as possible.   I'd expect the D3 bracket to have fewer teams moving around this year.   No Wooster to Augustana's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2009, 12:15:23 AM
Did they reverse course on that? I just saw yesterday they were saying the exact opposite.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 13, 2009, 12:28:47 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2009, 12:15:23 AM
Did they reverse course on that? I just saw yesterday they were saying the exact opposite.

maybe they reverse, reverse corsed?.........I saw that on Sunday or Monday.  So, don't know I guess.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 13, 2009, 12:33:26 AM
I heard the same thing, here is an article on it:

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/9204096/NCAA-will-try-to-keep-tourney-teams-close-to-home
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2009, 12:35:10 AM
Ahh, see, I read this and I took it to mean business as usual.

QuoteNCCA tournament selection committee chairman Mike Slive said his group still will try to keep teams close to their home fans, as it has in the past, but not if it would result in unfair competition.

They already made some moves toward this a couple years ago and they seem to be saying they'd do more of the same. (BTW, that's AP's typo in the quote.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2009, 12:36:08 AM
QuoteIt's a program the committee has used since 2002, and while it can sometimes help the committee decide whether to send a team to, say, Birmingham or Denver, Slive insists travel expenses will not play a more significant role in seeding and bracketing than they have in the past.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 13, 2009, 12:44:20 AM
At this point,  I am sure the NCAA is going to say what they think they should say right now (with the economic climate), but, as they seem to admit in the article, financial considerations arent going to cause changes in seeding or trump any other basketball-related criteria. Maybe they would switch around some 13-15 seeds to get teams closer to home but I cant see them doing anything controversial with any of the real contenders.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 13, 2009, 10:50:23 PM
Pat,

I guess ESPN interpreted the NCAA statements the way you did the first time:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3897386

Its funny, because both articles say essentially exactly the same thing, with the same exact quotes, except FOX has the headline "NCAA will try to keep tourney teams close to home" while ESPN writes "Economy won't factor into tournament pairings " and "Economy won't play larger role" as their two headlines for the article.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2009, 10:53:55 PM
ESPN.com probably has people who know college basketball better than Fox does. At ESPN they know this is the way it's been done the past couple years. At Fox they keep wondering what this sport is that North Carolina and Duke are good at.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 14, 2009, 02:10:31 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2009, 10:53:55 PM
ESPN.com probably has people who know college basketball better than Fox does. At ESPN they know this is the way it's been done the past couple years. At Fox they keep wondering what this sport is that North Carolina and Duke are good at.

Boy, isn't that the truth!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dark Knight on February 14, 2009, 08:02:04 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 12, 2009, 06:40:49 PM
Through Sunday, 2/8, here is the Massey Index top 60 by region...

http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2009&sub=III&mid=6

West (19)
Midwest (13)
South (11)
Great Lakes (9)
East (3)
Mid-Atlantic (2)
Northeast (2)
Atlantic (1)

Interesting. The four west regions have 88% of the top 60 and the four east regions have 12%.

If there is any regional discrepancy to try to address in the pool C criteria, I'd think it would be this one.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 14, 2009, 07:16:55 PM
Great research, Titan Q!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 15, 2009, 01:37:42 AM
    Regional rankings list Trinity(Tex) & Augustana; suppose they end up #1 Pool C candidates in their respective regions.
    Potential problem: handbook lists among selection reps the coach of Trinity and the AD of Augustana. Are (1)these reps eliminated from Pool C deliberation as long as their schools are on the table as the #1 regional rep, or,earlier, (2)may they rank the region to which they belong which rankings are used in the Pool C deliberations, or (3) do they participate in the tournament bracketing if their schools are chosen, whether via Pool A/C?
   Just wondering where the lines are drawn, if any, or do we rely on integrity of the reps?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2009, 01:44:02 AM
The coaches will recuse themselves from the process.

Coach Cunningham has too much integrity to ruin the system.

He wants a process that is enduring and consistent with the highest tenets of professionalism.

Being the highest Pool C bid in each region is probably the easiest.  You virtually come off first.

As for bracketing, Trinity is either hosting a three-pod or a four-pod or being flown somewhere else.

As for Augie, there are too many other candidates to host first round games in his area for that to be a problem.  Besides there are other considerations, such as in-conference members that will affect the bracketing in that part of the country.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2009, 01:45:25 AM
I think they are allowed to participate in 2, only when their team is not being discussed.

I would suspect they are allowed to participate in the bracketing process when their part of the country is not being worked on.

I can't imagine they are allowed to participate in 1, since that goes against how it's been described to us.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 16, 2009, 09:41:33 AM
OK, here we go for this week:

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   01    0.6132 0.5143 0.5196 Middlebury                008  A w C       19-2 21-3
NE  17   02   03    0.6358 0.5727 0.5408 Worcester Polytech        009  A w C       18-3 18-4
NE  13   03   02    0.6148 0.5373 0.5274 Mass-Dartmouth            014  A w C       18-3 20-3
NE  18   04   04    0.5892 0.4594 0.4858 Elms                      015  B 1         20-1 21-1
NE  13   05   07    0.6126 0.5481 0.5279 Rhode Island College      023  C 6         19-4 19-4
NE  14   06   06    0.6046 0.5220 0.5325 Bridgewater State         025  A w C       16-3 17-5
NE  14   07   05    0.5973 0.5455 0.5256 Salem State               032  C 9         17-5 18-5
NE  16   08   08    0.5929 0.5265 0.5459 Amherst                   035  C 11        17-5 19-5
NE  11   09   10    0.5594 0.4399 0.4943 University of New England 042  A w C       19-3 20-3
NE  16   10   13    0.5908 0.5671 0.5292 Colby                     049  C 20        14-6 17-7
NE  17   11   09    0.5702 0.5168 0.5329 MIT                       055  C 24        15-6 16-8
NE  16   12   11    0.5884 0.5818 0.5234 Bowdoin                   058  C 27        16-8 16-8
NE  90   13   nr    0.6049 0.6229 0.5375 Brandeis                  060  C 28        14-8 14-8

EA  21   01   01    0.6417 0.5375 0.5395 Ithaca                    003  A w C       20-1 22-1
EA  24   02   02    0.6135 0.5406 0.5062 Hamilton                  012  C 2         13-2 15-6
EA  24   03   03    0.6212 0.5820 0.5210 St. Lawrence              024  A w C       16-4 18-4
EA  21   04   04    0.5785 0.5460 0.5378 Rochester Tech            063  C 31        13-6 17-6
EA  90   05   05    0.5787 0.5466 0.5399 Rochester                 064  C 32        15-7 15-7
EA  21   06   08    0.5841 0.5850 0.5141 Utica                     067  C 34        15-8 15-8
EA  23   07   nr    0.5557 0.4845 0.5265 Geneseo State             069  A third     16-6 17-6
EA  21   08   07    0.5740 0.5663 0.5318 St. John Fisher           079              12-7 15-7

AT  32   01   01    0.6110 0.5139 0.5117 Richard Stockton          011  A w C       19-2 22-2
AT  33   02   02    0.5872 0.4755 0.4849 SUNY-Farmingdale          022  A w C       21-2 21-2
AT  31   03   05    0.5626 0.4501 0.4865 Baruch                    039  A w C       19-3 21-4
AT  33   04   03    0.5601 0.4423 0.4923 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       040  C 14        19-3 20-3
AT  32   05   04    0.5730 0.4976 0.5051 William Paterson          043  C 15        19-5 19-5
AT  32   06   06    0.5737 0.5235 0.4977 Montclair State           047  C 19        15-5 19-5
AT  31   07   07    0.5340 0.4325 0.4883 Brooklyn                  080              18-5 19-5
AT  31   08   08    0.5149 0.4599 0.4878 Lehman                    129              15-8 17-8

MA  45   01   01    0.6262 0.5287 0.5383 Franklin and Marshall     006  A w C       20-2 21-2
MA  41   02   02    0.5809 0.4636 0.5014 St. Mary's (Md.)          028  A w C       17-2 20-4
MA  45   03   03    0.5948 0.5473 0.5344 McDaniel                  036  C 12        15-5 17-6
MA  42   04   06    0.5892 0.5435 0.5078 Widener                   041  A w C       16-5 18-5
MA  43   05   04    0.5677 0.4917 0.5147 DeSales                   048  A second    17-5 18-5
MA  41   06   05    0.5563 0.4478 0.5063 Wesley                    050  C 21        14-3 16-7
MA  44   07   08    0.5483 0.4464 0.4907 Gwynedd-Mercy             059  A second    17-4 18-5
MA  46   08   10    0.5512 0.4862 0.4935 Scranton                  072  B 2         17-6 18-6
MA  44   09   09    0.5485 0.4908 0.4734 Cabrini                   073  C 38        17-6 17-6
MA  46   10   11    0.5411 0.4883 0.4878 Susquehanna               091  B 3         14-6 16-7
MA  45   11   07    0.5549 0.5222 0.5387 Gettysburg                099              14-8 14-8

SO  51   01   02    0.6039 0.5221 0.5142 Texas-Dallas              019  A w C       18-3 20-3
SO  53   02   04    0.5914 0.4817 0.5073 Randolph-Macon            021  C 5         17-2 19-5
SO  54   03   01    0.5999 0.5199 0.5098 Trinity (Texas)           026  A w C       17-3 20-3
SO  54   04   05    0.6050 0.5697 0.5026 Centre                    029  C 7         14-4 18-4
SO  53   05   03    0.5939 0.5222 0.5131 Guilford                  030  A w C       18-4 19-4
SO  51   06   09    0.5796 0.5335 0.5014 Mississippi College       045  C 17        15-5 17-5
SO  51   07   06    0.5652 0.5016 0.5077 McMurry                   052  C 22        15-5 16-7
SO  54   08   07    0.5678 0.5195 0.5103 DePauw                    056  C 25        13-5 17-6
SO  55   09   nr    0.5587 0.5063 0.5000 Averett                   065  A third     135 16-8
SO  51   10   08    0.5610 0.5148 0.5145 LeTourneau                066  C 33        14-6 15-8
SO  51   11   nr    0.5612 0.5209 0.5075 Mary Hardin-Baylor        070  C 36        167 16-7

GL  64   01   01    0.6193 0.5522 0.5154 Capital                   013  A w C       18-3 20-3
GL  64   02   02    0.6115 0.5416 0.5208 John Carroll              018  C 4         16-3 18-4
GL  62   03   04    0.5876 0.4686 0.4965 Calvin                    020  A w C       11-1 16-6
GL  63   04   05    0.5828 0.5133 0.5047 Wooster                   037  A w C       16-4 17-6
GL  90   05   03    0.5921 0.5335 0.5366 Carnegie Mellon           038  C 13        13-4 17-5
GL  63   06   06    0.5798 0.5315 0.5063 Ohio Wesleyan             044  C 16        15-5 16-6
GL  64   07   08    0.5716 0.5334 0.5194 Ohio Northern             057  C 26        14-6 16-7
GL  62   08   07    0.5692 0.5446 0.4951 Hope                      068  C 35        9-4 16-7
GL  61   09   09    0.5412 0.4724 0.4831 Penn State-Behrend        082              14-5 16-7

MW  90   01   01    0.6436 0.5397 0.5424 Washington U.             001  A in        20-1 21-1
MW  71   02   02    0.6469 0.5914 0.5625 Wheaton (Ill.)            010  A w C       16-3 20-3
MW  72   03   03    0.6082 0.5533 0.5028 Transylvania              027  A w C       14-3 17-5
MW  71   04   05    0.6272 0.6068 0.5585 North Central             031  C 8         14-5 16-7
MW  71   05   04    0.6145 0.5825 0.5538 Elmhurst                  034  C 10        17-6 17-6
MW  74   06   06    0.5570 0.4602 0.4982 St. Norbert               051  A second    17-4 18-4
MW  71   07   07    0.5859 0.5407 0.5666 Augustana                 053  C 23        16-7 17-7
MW  74   08   nr    0.5491 0.4925 0.4971 Lawrence                  078              15-6 15-6
MW  71   09   10    0.5993 0.6266 0.5558 Carthage                  081              10-7 15-8
MW  74   10   11    0.5435 0.4804 0.4912 Grinnell                  083              135 16-6
MW  74   11   09    0.5521 0.5145 0.5127 Carroll                   089              147 14-7

WE  82   01   01    0.6330 0.5061 0.5199 St. Thomas                002  A w C       22-0 23-0
WE  83   02   03    0.6249 0.4799 0.5399 Puget Sound               004  A w C       18-0 21-2
WE  86   03   02    0.6532 0.5984 0.5525 UW-Stevens Point          005  C 1         19-3 20-3
WE  86   04   05    0.6522 0.5929 0.5595 UW-Whitewater             007  A w C       19-3 20-3
WE  86   05   04    0.6246 0.5483 0.5683 UW-Platteville            016  C 3         15-3 20-3
WE  81   06   06    0.5941 0.4764 0.5188 Buena Vista               017  A w C       19-2 22-2
WE  83   07   07    0.5738 0.5128 0.5195 Whitworth                 046  C 18        15-5 18-5
WE  84   08   10    0.5561 0.4833 0.4800 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    054  A second    14-4 16-6
WE  81   09   11    0.5594 0.5017 0.5068 Cornell                   062  C 30        16-6 18-6
WE  82   10   09    0.5565 0.5024 0.5068 Bethel                    071  C 37        15-6 17-6
WE  86   11   08    0.5790 0.5758 0.5329 UW-Eau Claire             076              12-7 14-9


Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A in: clinched Pool A bid
    A w C: Pool A, in Pool C range (1 to 18)
    A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
    A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
    A: lower level Pool A
    blank: lower level Pool C

The likely Pool C conferences where the likely Pool A changed are the WIAC (Stevens Point to Whitewater) and MASCAC (Salem State to Bridgewater State).

Bad weeks for RIT (12th to 31st), Rochester (16th to 32nd), MIT (15th to 24th), Wesley (13th to 21st), and Gettysburg (23rd to out of contention).

Good weeks for North Central (17th to 8th), Ohio Wesleyan (24th to 16th), Mississippi College (33rd to 17th), Montclair State (27th to 19th), and Colby (35th to 20th).

Since we're starting conference tournament play, that means that some teams have at most one loss ahead of them. For example, this means that Middlebury has a guaranteed Pool C spot and Amherst will be at worst on the bubble.

In addition, we've reached the point where some teams have done enough that they'd be in even if they lose out. I think that list includes Ithaca, Franklin and Marshall, Richard Stockton, St. Thomas, and Puget Sound.

Pool B remains with Elms as a lock, and Scranton and Susquehanna leading the pack for the other 2.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2009, 12:53:58 PM

So, apparently, I now have the ability to edit polls?  Or have I had that ability for a while and noticed it?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 16, 2009, 01:09:59 PM
If that's a poll you created, yes, you probably have had that ability for a while. If it's someone else's poll then that came more recently, I think.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Coach C on February 16, 2009, 09:26:47 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2009, 01:45:25 AM
I think they are allowed to participate in 2, only when their team is not being discussed.

I would suspect they are allowed to participate in the bracketing process when their part of the country is not being worked on.

I can't imagine they are allowed to participate in 1, since that goes against how it's been described to us.

Unless the rules hav recently changed, you are correct Mr. Coleman.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on February 16, 2009, 10:30:07 PM
someone told me Rust College had a very slim chance 2 make the playoffs
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Coach C on February 16, 2009, 10:39:55 PM
Well first, if Rust was going to possibly make the playoffs, it would be as a Pool B, not a Pool C.  And the only way they can make it as a Pool B is if about 10 Pool B teams suddenly pull out of the NCAA in the next week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2009, 03:03:53 AM
They are a Pool B candidate first and if they don't get one of the three bids they move into Pool C.  Not sure if any Pool B eligible team ever missed out and then got selected as a Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2009, 03:09:50 AM
Re: Poll.   Tough choice there. Do teams put up NCAA Tournament Participant banners in the gym?  I think I'd rather have a Conference Champion banner.  I guess they have Conference Tournament Champion banners!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on February 17, 2009, 03:29:11 AM
I was just thinking about with the stacked West Region and it got me thinking about  hosting.  Can like St Thomas host 1st/2nd round games and like the Sweet 16 round as well.  I  just used them as an example.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2009, 05:01:37 AM
I got that question about Rust a few shows back on Hoopsville and thought I answered it then... no chance Rust makes the NCAA Tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 17, 2009, 06:44:36 AM
Quote from: SLP-O-8 on February 17, 2009, 03:29:11 AM
I was just thinking about with the stacked West Region and it got me thinking about  hosting.  Can like St Thomas host 1st/2nd round games and like the Sweet 16 round as well.  I  just used them as an example.
Yes, they can host both weekends. The second weekend hosts will be determined on the Sunday of the opening weekend, and as always with D3, geography trumps seeding. Last year WashU hosted the second weekend because both Buena Vista and Millsaps were within 500 miles, even though WashU was probably the lower seed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 17, 2009, 05:19:08 PM
Patrick or anyone else,

Is it possible to post a list of the conferences that are almost certainly "One Bid Only" leagues this year?  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 17, 2009, 05:22:53 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 17, 2009, 05:19:08 PM
Patrick or anyone else,

Is it possible to post a list of the conferences that are almost certainly "One Bid Only" leagues this year?  Thanks.

I'll get the list up tonight; I don't have the time at the moment.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 17, 2009, 06:05:11 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 17, 2009, 03:03:53 AM
They are a Pool B candidate first and if they don't get one of the three bids they move into Pool C.  Not sure if any Pool B eligible team ever missed out and then got selected as a Pool C.

I'm pretty sure that it's never happened, although you're right that it works that way in theory.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2009, 07:03:11 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 17, 2009, 06:05:11 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 17, 2009, 03:03:53 AM
They are a Pool B candidate first and if they don't get one of the three bids they move into Pool C.  Not sure if any Pool B eligible team ever missed out and then got selected as a Pool C.

I'm pretty sure that it's never happened, although you're right that it works that way in theory.
I do not recall it happening in basketball.  It has happened in baseball.

Emory and WashUStL in 2006 (http://www.titans.uwosh.edu/NCAAChampionship/2006/Regionals/Participants.html)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 17, 2009, 08:23:14 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 17, 2009, 05:19:08 PM
Patrick or anyone else,

Is it possible to post a list of the conferences that are almost certainly "One Bid Only" leagues this year?  Thanks.
Here are the conferences with the top team
SCIAC - Claremont Mudd Scripps
SLIAC - Westminster MO
MWC - St. Norbert
NAthC - Milwaukee Engineering
PresAC - Thomas More
AMCC - Medaille
USAC - Averett
CSAC - Gwynedd Mercy
Freedom - DeSales
SUNYAC - Geneseo
NEAC - SUNYIT
NAC - Husson
GNAC - Lasell
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 17, 2009, 08:29:42 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 17, 2009, 08:23:14 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 17, 2009, 05:19:08 PM
Patrick or anyone else,

Is it possible to post a list of the conferences that are almost certainly "One Bid Only" leagues this year?  Thanks.
Here are the conferences with the top team
SCIAC - Claremont Mudd Scripps
SLIAC - Westminster MO
MWC - St. Norbert
NAthC - Milwaukee Engineering
PresAC - Thomas More
AMCC - Medaille
USAC - Averett
CSAC - Gwynedd Mercy
Freedom - DeSales
SUNYAC - Geneseo
NEAC - SUNYIT
NAC - Husson
GNAC - Lasell


What about the CCC?  Do you think UNE gets in if they dont win their tourney?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 17, 2009, 08:41:15 PM
UNE has a slim chance if they win out into the CCC final. So I can't cross the CCC off of the two-bid list yet.

Last year, the GNAC's Emerson was in a similar position, and came up about 1 or 2 spots short.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 17, 2009, 08:43:51 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 17, 2009, 08:41:15 PM
UNE has a slim chance if they win out into the CCC final. So I can't cross the CCC off of the two-bid list yet.

Last year, the GNAC's Emerson was in a similar position, and came up about 1 or 2 spots short.


So I guess their game coming up at Gordon is pretty big.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Coach C on February 17, 2009, 09:42:38 PM
There's no way the CCC gets 2 bids with the UNE schedule.  It's just not possible.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 17, 2009, 09:47:49 PM
Quote from: Coach C on February 17, 2009, 09:42:38 PM
There's no way the CCC gets 2 bids with the UNE schedule.  It's just not possible.

I tend to agree with you, but you dont want to mess with the Joe Lunardi of d3.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bombers798891 on February 17, 2009, 11:05:40 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 17, 2009, 09:47:49 PM
Quote from: Coach C on February 17, 2009, 09:42:38 PM
There's no way the CCC gets 2 bids with the UNE schedule.  It's just not possible.

I tend to agree with you, but you dont want to mess with the Joe Lunardi of d3.

Does the E8 get two bids if IC wins the conference? That puts RIT, at best, at 19-8. I know the east is down this season, but that's not the world's best record, especially if they close out something like 3-4. They would possibly have two wins over a Top 10 IC team, but the rest of the E8 seems pretty not special. How good can a 15-8 SJF team be if they are 7-7 in conference?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 17, 2009, 11:50:51 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on February 17, 2009, 11:05:40 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 17, 2009, 09:47:49 PM
Quote from: Coach C on February 17, 2009, 09:42:38 PM
There's no way the CCC gets 2 bids with the UNE schedule.  It's just not possible.

I tend to agree with you, but you dont want to mess with the Joe Lunardi of d3.

Does the E8 get two bids if IC wins the conference? That puts RIT, at best, at 19-8. I know the east is down this season, but that's not the world's best record, especially if they close out something like 3-4. They would possibly have two wins over a Top 10 IC team, but the rest of the E8 seems pretty not special. How good can a 15-8 SJF team be if they are 7-7 in conference?

I think what Patrick is saying is that there are some conference that will only get one bid, with nearly 100% certainty.  While there are other conferences like the CCC and E8 that are most likely going to only get 1 bid, but, even if it is 95% likely they would not get an at large, the conference is not "mathematically-eliminated" from getting an at large bid.  I think we have illustrated a few conferences that are very likely only to get one bid, but there are still some remote scenarios where it is conceivable they could get a second bid; for example, if the top regular season team's wins all their games except for the tourney final (and also gets help from other "safe" teams holding serve in their conference tourneys).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 18, 2009, 03:34:14 AM
Interesting throughts re: the WIAC...

You swapped WW and SP for the A and a C bid... but SP still has a game lead over WW and Platteville with the game against Platteville on Saturday in Point for the conference title (even if Point would lose tomorrow).  Whitewater needs help, any way you look at it and even if Platteville knocks off SP, WW will still be the 3 seed in the WIAC tournament (lost 2 road games = lose tie breaker) and thus they will have to play an extra game and travel to the 2 seed (coin flip, either SP or Plt).  WW has a better chance if Point beats Plt and wins the conference outright, making WW the 2 seed and allowing them to host and forcing Plt to play an extra game and travel.  There are very interesting dynamics this year as the WIAC tournament is a 6 team tournament instead of an 8 team tournament, so seeds 1 and 2 have a first round bye.

Everything changes, of course, if one of the big three loses tomorrow... and all three have road games (SP at La Crosse, Platte at EC, WW at Oshkosh).  SP beat LaX by 12, WW beat Osh by 9, and Pl beat EC by 29... but EC knocked Plt out of the WIAC tourney and ended their season last year.  On that same night, LaX took Point to overtime.  Should be interesting!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2009, 05:02:47 AM
A reminder for everyone... another factor that is going to come into play is when the favorite of a conference that would easily get into the NCAA Tournament despite and AQ... doesn't win the AQ. That means more deserving teams are put into the Pool C mix and those teams who "need help" to get into the tournament are in more trouble.

Teams like UNE simply need to win-out, period. If UNE needs to rely on a Pool C bid because they couldn't get the job done in the CCC Tournament, they may end their season there. There are a lot of teams that could make an argument in Pool C and UNE's resume isn't going to stand up nearly as well as most.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 18, 2009, 06:44:36 AM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on February 17, 2009, 11:05:40 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 17, 2009, 09:47:49 PM
Quote from: Coach C on February 17, 2009, 09:42:38 PM
There's no way the CCC gets 2 bids with the UNE schedule.  It's just not possible.

I tend to agree with you, but you dont want to mess with the Joe Lunardi of d3.

Does the E8 get two bids if IC wins the conference? That puts RIT, at best, at 19-8. I know the east is down this season, but that's not the world's best record, especially if they close out something like 3-4. They would possibly have two wins over a Top 10 IC team, but the rest of the E8 seems pretty not special. How good can a 15-8 SJF team be if they are 7-7 in conference?

The E8 is really pretty easy. Ithaca is in the tournament. Anyone else will have to win the tournament.

This is in contrast to conferences where even the #1 team won't make the NCAAs if they don't win the conference tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 18, 2009, 06:48:41 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 17, 2009, 11:50:51 PM
I think what Patrick is saying is that there are some conference that will only get one bid, with nearly 100% certainty.  While there are other conferences like the CCC and E8 that are most likely going to only get 1 bid, but, even if it is 95% likely they would not get an at large, the conference is not "mathematically-eliminated" from getting an at large bid.  I think we have illustrated a few conferences that are very likely only to get one bid, but there are still some remote scenarios where it is conceivable they could get a second bid; for example, if the top regular season team's wins all their games except for the tourney final (and also gets help from other "safe" teams holding serve in their conference tourneys).

Exactly.

When you ask a statistican for analysis, you're always going to get both the "most likely" and "I can't rule it out" extremes. "Most likely" UNE has no chance for a Pool C bid, but "I can't rule it out."

Unlike, say, the GNAC, which has no chance of a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: oldchap on February 18, 2009, 01:00:54 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 17, 2009, 08:23:14 PM
Here are the conferences with the top team
SCIAC - Claremont Mudd Scripps
<snip>

I have a question: currently, there are 4 teams vying for the Pool A AQ in the SCIAC. What would happen if a team other than CMS wins it? Does it mean that CMS would be eligible for a Pool C bid and what are their chances?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 18, 2009, 01:09:26 PM
Quote from: oldchap on February 18, 2009, 01:00:54 PM
I have a question: currently, there are 4 teams vying for the Pool A AQ in the SCIAC. What would happen if a team other than CMS wins it? Does it mean that CMS would be eligible for a Pool C bid and what are their chances?
Every team that is eligible for the national tournament is eligible for a Pool C bid, except those that have already received bids via Pools A or B.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Coach C on February 18, 2009, 01:51:11 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 18, 2009, 06:48:41 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 17, 2009, 11:50:51 PM
I think what Patrick is saying is that there are some conference that will only get one bid, with nearly 100% certainty.  While there are other conferences like the CCC and E8 that are most likely going to only get 1 bid, but, even if it is 95% likely they would not get an at large, the conference is not "mathematically-eliminated" from getting an at large bid.  I think we have illustrated a few conferences that are very likely only to get one bid, but there are still some remote scenarios where it is conceivable they could get a second bid; for example, if the top regular season team's wins all their games except for the tourney final (and also gets help from other "safe" teams holding serve in their conference tourneys).

Exactly.

When you ask a statistican for analysis, you're always going to get both the "most likely" and "I can't rule it out" extremes. "Most likely" UNE has no chance for a Pool C bid, but "I can't rule it out."

Unlike, say, the GNAC, which has no chance of a Pool C bid.


Well - I'll go out on the limb Patrick is unwilling to.  If the CCC gets 2 bids, I will abstain from adult beverages in Salem.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 18, 2009, 01:52:47 PM
Quote from: oldchap on February 18, 2009, 01:00:54 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 17, 2009, 08:23:14 PM
Here are the conferences with the top team
SCIAC - Claremont Mudd Scripps
<snip>

I have a question: currently, there are 4 teams vying for the Pool A AQ in the SCIAC. What would happen if a team other than CMS wins it? Does it mean that CMS would be eligible for a Pool C bid and what are their chances?
CMS would be eligible, but they have no chance (that was the point of the list originally, to list out conferences where there will be only the Pool A bid).

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 18, 2009, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 18, 2009, 01:09:26 PM
Quote from: oldchap on February 18, 2009, 01:00:54 PM
I have a question: currently, there are 4 teams vying for the Pool A AQ in the SCIAC. What would happen if a team other than CMS wins it? Does it mean that CMS would be eligible for a Pool C bid and what are their chances?
Every team that is eligible for the national tournament is eligible for a Pool C bid, except those that have already received bids via Pools A or B.

... But eligibility and likelihood are two completely different things...

In order to be considered for a Pool C bid, a team has to be the top available team up for a particular region.  This slotting of regional teams is shown in the regional rankings.  The final regional ranking isn't released, so we don't know what it really is... but it can be projected with tools like pabeggs lists.  Only CMS is listed here... and they are projected as a second tier Pool B team (selected numbers 19-28).  In other words, they likely are not going to get a Pool C pick because there are too many teams that are higher up than they are.  As it stands, they are pretty far down even in their own region...  they weren't even listed in the last regional rankings.  Another is scheduled to come out today, I believe... but even thouhh Stevens Point and Whitewater both lost, they were pretty far ahead of CMS... so CMS wont be able to catch them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 18, 2009, 02:06:53 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 18, 2009, 01:52:47 PM
Quote from: oldchap on February 18, 2009, 01:00:54 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 17, 2009, 08:23:14 PM
Here are the conferences with the top team
SCIAC - Claremont Mudd Scripps
<snip>

I have a question: currently, there are 4 teams vying for the Pool A AQ in the SCIAC. What would happen if a team other than CMS wins it? Does it mean that CMS would be eligible for a Pool C bid and what are their chances?
CMS would be eligible, but they have no chance (that was the point of the list originally, to list out conferences where there will be only the Pool A bid).



Brevity is not my strong suit... this answer works just as well... or possibly even better!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2009, 03:35:01 PM
New Regional Rankings are out:

http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/DIIIMBBRANKING2-18-09 (http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/DIIIMBBRANKING2-18-09)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 18, 2009, 11:06:35 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 18, 2009, 06:48:41 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 17, 2009, 11:50:51 PM
I think what Patrick is saying is that there are some conference that will only get one bid, with nearly 100% certainty.  While there are other conferences like the CCC and E8 that are most likely going to only get 1 bid, but, even if it is 95% likely they would not get an at large, the conference is not "mathematically-eliminated" from getting an at large bid.  I think we have illustrated a few conferences that are very likely only to get one bid, but there are still some remote scenarios where it is conceivable they could get a second bid; for example, if the top regular season team's wins all their games except for the tourney final (and also gets help from other "safe" teams holding serve in their conference tourneys).

Exactly.

When you ask a statistican for analysis, you're always going to get both the "most likely" and "I can't rule it out" extremes. "Most likely" UNE has no chance for a Pool C bid, but "I can't rule it out."

Unlike, say, the GNAC, which has no chance of a Pool C bid.



You may be able to rule it out now, UNE goes down to Gordon tonight.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 19, 2009, 07:41:50 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 18, 2009, 11:06:35 PM
You may be able to rule it out now, UNE goes down to Gordon tonight.
Well, that settles that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 19, 2009, 09:08:56 AM
Here's what Wednesday's games did to Pool C consideration:

Whitewater and Platteville dropped a few spots, but both are still comfortable (#3 and #6 Pool C teams, respectively). As a result, Stevens Point takes over as the likely Pool A team from the WIAC.

North Central drops with their loss to Elmhurst from #8 to #13 among Pool C teams; they're now on the bubble. Elmhurst strengthens their hold on a Pool C bid at #9.

Montclair State's win over William Paterson switches these two teams in the rankings, they're at #14 and #19, respectively. Both are on the bubble, but Montclair's sweep of Paterson probably means they would be ahead in the final selection.

As stated above, UNE's loss eliminates their Pool C chances, but they're still likely Pool A.

Wesley's loss finishes their chances.

Cornell, Hope, and Bethel gained ground but are likely too little, too late for Pool C bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pbrooks3 on February 19, 2009, 06:46:08 PM
Patrick, what do you seeing playing out in the SCAC.  I'm thinking Trinity is in unless they have a huge collapse.  What about Centre?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 19, 2009, 09:09:09 PM
Quote from: pbrooks3 on February 19, 2009, 06:46:08 PM
Patrick, what do you seeing playing out in the SCAC.  I'm thinking Trinity is in unless they have a huge collapse.  What about Centre?

I think that both Trinity and Centre are in with one more loss, and probably with two losses.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fcnews on February 21, 2009, 02:43:46 AM
Looks like the South region is again setting up for a challenge for the NCAA to place. With Trinity and Texas Dallas at the top of region rankings, who is within 500 miles of either team. Same with West Coast. Probably UPS and winner of SCIAC, No other west coast team to involve.

Any comments?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 21, 2009, 07:15:02 AM
Quote from: fcnews on February 21, 2009, 02:43:46 AM
Looks like the South region is again setting up for a challenge for the NCAA to place. With Trinity and Texas Dallas at the top of region rankings, who is within 500 miles of either team. Same with West Coast. Probably UPS and winner of SCIAC, No other west coast team to involve.

Any comments?
Whitworth is still in the mix in the NWC for a Pool C. Chapman is still in the mix for a Pool B.

Without Whitworth and Chapman, the setup would seem to be clear. Fly the SCIAC winner and someone else to Texas, and let UPS host a three-team pod with the opening game somewhere in the Chicago/Milwaukee area.

If Chapman makes it, we've got the traditional three-team pod on the West Coast and two teams would have to fly to Texas.

If Whitworth makes it, there's a real mess.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2009, 10:09:40 AM
There is so much balance in the ASC, it is possible for any of the 8 teams to win the tourney.

Let's assume that Trinity TX gets into the tourney.
If UT-Dallas gets a Pool C, then 6 of the other 7 teams are within 500 miles of San Antonio.  (Mississippi College is 596 miles to San Antonio and is even 507 miles to WashStL.  Sul Ross is 506 miles from UTDallas.  SRSU can go to San Antonio, 376 miles.

It is even possible for the University of Dallas to win the Pool A bid from the NEAC in that conference's tourney.  Trinity might host a 3-pod or a 4-pod.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2009, 12:48:00 PM
IF Trinity hosts a 3-pod, doesn't that mean Team A goes and plays Team B and the winner goes to Trinity?  Or, I guess it's possible for Trinity to host Team A and if they win, host Team B who has a bye?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 22, 2009, 12:55:39 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 22, 2009, 12:48:00 PM
IF Trinity hosts a 3-pod, doesn't that mean Team A goes and plays Team B and the winner goes to Trinity?  Or, I guess it's possible for Trinity to host Team A and if they win, host Team B who has a bye?

The three-team pod would likely result from having a 3rd school within 500 miles of Trinity, due to an upset in the ASC or SCAC tournaments.

I believe that soccer has done that second scenario, but not basketball.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2009, 02:45:34 PM
Back in the 2005 tourney, Trinity hosted Texas Dallas and then hosted Ponoma Pitzer, who had a first round bye, in the 2nd round.  I thought I remembered something like that happening...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 22, 2009, 03:05:16 PM
pabegg,
   I have a question for you. How much weight do you give the win/loss record, OWP and OOWP in your RPI calculations? Do you know what value the NCAA gives them when they come up with their RPI? Dave or Pat could also answer, I might have missed it but I haven't seen that published anywhere.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 22, 2009, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 22, 2009, 03:05:16 PM
pabegg,
   I have a question for you. How much weight do you give the win/loss record, OWP and OOWP in your RPI calculations? Do you know what value the NCAA gives them when they come up with their RPI? Dave or Pat could also answer, I might have missed it but I haven't seen that published anywhere.
RPI is the standard 25%-50%-25% mix that D1 uses (or at least they have in the past).

RPI is not part of the official D3 logic, but I've found that it lines up well with the strength of schedule component of the D3 ranking.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 22, 2009, 05:37:43 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 22, 2009, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 22, 2009, 03:05:16 PM
pabegg,
   I have a question for you. How much weight do you give the win/loss record, OWP and OOWP in your RPI calculations? Do you know what value the NCAA gives them when they come up with their RPI? Dave or Pat could also answer, I might have missed it but I haven't seen that published anywhere.
RPI is the standard 25%-50%-25% mix that D1 uses (or at least they have in the past).

RPI is not part of the official D3 logic, but I've found that it lines up well with the strength of schedule component of the D3 ranking.


Thanks for the info, I wouldn't be surprised if they are using those percentages considering how close you were last year predicting Pool C's. JMO, but for DIII that is weighted too heavily toward the OWP considering how regional DIII is.

For example, a 20-5 team with OWP of .500 would produce equal RPI numbers to a 15-10 team with .600 OWP as long as the OOWP were the same. I don't think those two teams should be equal. But I guess it depends on how the committee is using the RPI number in relation to the actual win/loss records.

The reason I asked is I'm curious if the committees are looking at a numerical value to rank the teams similiar to how they did with the QOWI, or if there is more room for subjectivity using the different criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 22, 2009, 05:51:10 PM
I'm jumping the gun here, with results through 4pm today, including the UAA games. I'll post final numbers, probably in the morning.

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  17   01   02    0.6402 0.5737 0.5439 Worcester Polytech        005  A w C       20-3 20-4
NE  16   02   01    0.6138 0.5123 0.5217 Middlebury                006  A w C       20-2 22-3
NE  13   03   03    0.6085 0.5196 0.5251 Mass-Dartmouth            013  A w C       20-3 22-3
NE  13   04   05    0.6156 0.5505 0.5214 Rhode Island College      014  C 3         21-4 21-4
NE  18   05   04    0.5833 0.4459 0.4830 Elms                      023  B 1         23-1 24-1
NE  14   06   07    0.6116 0.5646 0.5256 Salem State               025  A w C       19-5 20-5
NE  14   07   06    0.5942 0.5161 0.5349 Bridgewater State         032  C 9         17-4 18-6
NE  16   08   08    0.5966 0.5282 0.5474 Amherst                   034  C 10        18-5 20-5
NE  11   09   09    0.5623 0.4618 0.4923 University of New England 041  A w C       20-4 21-4
NE  16   10   12    0.5952 0.5863 0.5283 Bowdoin                   050  C 19        17-8 17-8
NE  17   11   11    0.5712 0.5094 0.5386 MIT                       052  C 21        16-6 17-8
NE  90   12   13    0.5950 0.5886 0.5390 Brandeis                  055  C 24        16-8 16-8
NE  16   13   nr    0.5730 0.5231 0.5375 Williams                  061  C 28        17-7 17-8

EA  21   01   01    0.6407 0.5377 0.5366 Ithaca                    001  A w C       22-1 24-1
EA  24   02   02    0.6087 0.5166 0.5129 Hamilton                  010  C 1         16-2 18-6
EA  24   03   03    0.6103 0.5775 0.5137 St. Lawrence              028  A w C       17-5 19-5
EA  21   04   06    0.5842 0.5718 0.5135 Utica                     062  C 29        17-8 17-8
EA  90   05   05    0.5694 0.5417 0.5349 Rochester                 075              16-8 16-8
EA  23   06   nr    0.5506 0.4950 0.4982 Fredonia State            083              15-6 16-8
EA  21   07   04    0.5713 0.5678 0.5311 Rochester Tech            086              13-8 17-8
EA  61   08   nr    0.5374 0.4809 0.4737 Medaille                  093  A           15-6 19-6

AT  32   01   01    0.6026 0.4971 0.5073 Richard Stockton          009  A w C       20-2 23-2
AT  33   02   02    0.5932 0.4841 0.4845 SUNY-Farmingdale          016  A w C       23-2 23-2
AT  33   03   04    0.5616 0.4377 0.4958 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       037  C 11        21-3 22-3
AT  32   04   06    0.5852 0.5404 0.4980 Montclair State           038  C 12        16-5 20-5
AT  31   05   03    0.5591 0.4407 0.4882 Baruch                    040  A w C       20-3 22-4
AT  32   06   06    0.5748 0.5131 0.5037 William Paterson          042  C 13        20-6 20-6
AT  31   07   07    0.5278 0.4106 0.4915 Brooklyn                  085              20-5 21-5
AT  31   08   08    0.5189 0.4618 0.4887 Lehman                    119              16-8 18-8

MA  45   01   01    0.6069 0.5295 0.5350 Franklin and Marshall     022  A w C       20-4 21-4
MA  41   02   02    0.5874 0.4766 0.4963 St. Mary's (Md.)          024  A w C       18-2 21-4
MA  42   03   04    0.5925 0.5368 0.5138 Widener                   035  A w C       18-5 20-5
MA  43   04   05    0.5719 0.4928 0.5103 DeSales                   039  A w C       19-5 20-5
MA  45   05   03    0.5920 0.5546 0.5316 McDaniel                  043  C 14        16-6 18-7
MA  44   06   07    0.5557 0.4536 0.4894 Gwynedd-Mercy             048  A second    19-4 20-5
MA  45   07   11    0.5762 0.5517 0.5345 Gettysburg                066  C 33        16-8 16-8
MA  46   08   08    0.5534 0.4882 0.4872 Scranton                  067  B 2         18-6 19-6
MA  41   09   06    0.5509 0.4861 0.4944 Wesley                    072  C 38        14-5 16-9
MA  44   10   09    0.5434 0.4682 0.4773 Cabrini                   077              19-6 19-6
MA  46   11   10    0.5353 0.4682 0.4904 Susquehanna               096  B 3         15-6 17-7

SO  53   01   02    0.5916 0.4776 0.5111 Randolph-Macon            018  C 5         18-2 20-5
SO  54   02   03    0.5972 0.5059 0.5132 Trinity (Texas)           019  A w C       19-3 22-3
SO  51   03   01    0.5992 0.5290 0.5126 Texas-Dallas              027  A w C       19-4 21-4
SO  54   04   04    0.6019 0.5565 0.5015 Centre                    029  C 7         16-4 20-4
SO  53   05   05    0.5868 0.4999 0.5140 Guilford                  030  A w C       20-4 21-4
SO  54   06   08    0.5700 0.5135 0.5059 DePauw                    047  C 18        15-5 19-6
SO  51   07   07    0.5604 0.4815 0.5058 McMurry                   053  C 22        17-5 18-7
SO  55   08   08    0.5642 0.5117 0.4967 Averett                   056  A second    14-5 17-8
SO  51   09   06    0.5648 0.5124 0.5069 Mississippi College       059  C 26        16-6 18-6
SO  55   10   nr    0.5599 0.5083 0.5010 Christopher Newport       069  C 35        13-5 17-8
SO  51   11   11    0.5603 0.5102 0.5008 Mary Hardin-Baylor        070  C 36        18-7 18-7

GL  64   01   01    0.6085 0.5252 0.5139 Capital                   012  A w C       20-3 22-3
GL  64   02   02    0.6102 0.5328 0.5182 John Carroll              015  C 4         18-3 20-4
GL  62   03   03    0.5783 0.4814 0.4934 Calvin                    033  A w C       12-2 17-7
GL  63   04   04    0.5751 0.4900 0.5023 Wooster                   036  A w C       18-4 19-6
GL  90   05   05    0.5846 0.5363 0.5317 Carnegie Mellon           044  C 15        14-5 18-6
GL  62   06   08    0.5640 0.5137 0.4953 Hope                      060  C 27        11-4 18-7
GL  63   07   06    0.5613 0.5094 0.4993 Ohio Wesleyan             065  C 32        16-6 17-7
GL  64   08   05    0.5622 0.5241 0.5190 Ohio Northern             079              15-7 17-8
GL  61   09   09    0.5422 0.4853 0.4838 Penn State-Behrend        089              15-6 17-8

MW  90   01   01    0.6383 0.5498 0.5384 Washington U.             004  A in        21-2 22-2
MW  71   02   02    0.6486 0.5869 0.5634 Wheaton (Ill.)            007  A w C       18-3 22-3
MW  72   03   03    0.6055 0.5377 0.5048 Transylvania              020  A w C       16-3 19-5
MW  71   04   05    0.6187 0.5776 0.5594 Elmhurst                  031  C 8         19-6 19-6
MW  71   05   04    0.6125 0.6136 0.5563 North Central             046  C 17        14-7 16-9
MW  71   06   07    0.5865 0.5349 0.5678 Augustana                 051  C 20        17-7 18-7
MW  74   07   06    0.5561 0.4750 0.5015 St. Norbert               057  A second    17-5 18-5
MW  74   08   11    0.5645 0.5270 0.5085 Carroll                   068  C 34        16-7 16-7
MW  74   09   08    0.5513 0.4893 0.4992 Lawrence                  076              16-6 16-6
MW  74   10   10    0.5472 0.4797 0.4927 Grinnell                  078              14-5 17-6
MW  73   11   nr    0.5446 0.4799 0.4985 Benedictine               084  A           18-7 18-7

WE  82   01   01    0.6306 0.5021 0.5182 St. Thomas                002  A w C       24-0 25-0
WE  83   02   02    0.6217 0.4753 0.5361 Puget Sound               003  A w C       20-0 23-2
WE  86   03   03    0.6442 0.5969 0.5499 UW-Stevens Point          008  A w C       20-4 21-4
WE  86   04   04    0.6336 0.5711 0.5588 UW-Whitewater             011  C 2         20-4 21-4
WE  81   05   06    0.5909 0.4711 0.5123 Buena Vista               017  A w C       20-2 23-2
WE  86   06   05    0.6219 0.5618 0.5641 UW-Platteville            021  C 6         16-4 21-4
WE  83   07   07    0.5723 0.5038 0.5196 Whitworth                 045  C 16        16-5 19-5
WE  84   08   08    0.5582 0.4790 0.4748 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    049  A second    16-4 18-6
WE  82   09   10    0.5644 0.5059 0.5068 Bethel                    054  C 23        17-6 19-6
WE  81   10   09    0.5635 0.5059 0.5031 Cornell                   058  C 25        17-6 19-6
WE  84   11   nr    0.5330 0.4332 0.4928 Cal Lutheran              082              17-5 19-6


Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
   B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
   C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
   C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
   C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
   A in: clinched Pool A bid
   A w C: Pool A, in Pool C range (1 to 18)
   A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
   A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
   A: lower level Pool A
   blank: lower level Pool C
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 22, 2009, 05:56:02 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 22, 2009, 05:37:43 PM

Thanks for the info, I wouldn't be surprised if they are using those percentages considering how close you were last year predicting Pool C's. JMO, but for DIII that is weighted too heavily toward the OWP considering how regional DIII is.

For example, a 20-5 team with OWP of .500 would produce equal RPI numbers to a 15-10 team with .600 OWP as long as the OOWP were the same. I don't think those two teams should be equal. But I guess it depends on how the committee is using the RPI number in relation to the actual win/loss records.

The reason I asked is I'm curious if the committee's are looking at a numerical value to rank the teams similiar to how they did with the QOWI, or if there is more room for subjectivity using the different criteria.

We have no idea how the committee actually uses the OWP/OOWP numbers. My work has been to model the committee results, as implemented throughout the season in the regional rankings.

From what I can tell, teams with the best schedules get their results improved by about 2 wins (turning 17-8 into 19-6) and teams with the worst schedules lose about 2 wins, while most teams are somewhere in the middle.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2009, 06:11:51 PM
Seeing Hamilton as "C1" makes me realize how challenging it is to make a national decision (Pool C) using regional results.  On December 7 on a neutral court, I watched IWU cruise by Hamilton...

http://www.iwusports.com/custompages/MBB/MBB2009/IWU6.HTM

The night before, Wash U also dominated Hamilton.

IWU finished 7th (out of eight) in the CCIW...Hamilton would most likely finish 7th or 8th in the CCIW.  (Massey has Hamilton #86.)   

Hamilton's losses to IWU and Wash U didn't count (they were not in-region), but they help provide perspective on how Hamilton stacks up...especially with IWU, as that was a neutral court game.  What would Hamilton's in-region record be with IWU's schedule?

When IWU @ Occidental counts as in-region, it just does not make sense not to use all D3 games.  Really hoping that change is made at some point.  That wouldn't solve the problem of different regions being stronger than others, but it would be nice if all D3 games at least factored in.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augiefan on February 22, 2009, 06:27:04 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2009, 06:11:51 PM
it just does not make sense not to use all D3 games.  Really hoping that change is made at some point.  That wouldn't solve the problem of different regions being stronger than others, but it would be nice if all D3 games at least factored in.



I agree totally. The current system penalizes the top conferences and the top regions. All games should be factored in for Pool C bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2009, 06:35:23 PM
Quote from: augiefan on February 22, 2009, 06:27:04 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2009, 06:11:51 PM
it just does not make sense not to use all D3 games.  Really hoping that change is made at some point.  That wouldn't solve the problem of different regions being stronger than others, but it would be nice if all D3 games at least factored in.



I agree totally. The current system penalizes the top conferences and the top regions. All games should be factored in for Pool C bids.
Wait, isn't that what the OWP/OOWP was to do for us?  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 22, 2009, 07:18:31 PM
Quote from: augiefan on February 22, 2009, 06:27:04 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2009, 06:11:51 PM
it just does not make sense not to use all D3 games.  Really hoping that change is made at some point.  That wouldn't solve the problem of different regions being stronger than others, but it would be nice if all D3 games at least factored in.



I agree totally. The current system penalizes the top conferences and the top regions. All games should be factored in for Pool C bids.

Actually this system is better for the better conferences than the old SOSI was,  the CCIW, WIAC and NESCAC should get multiple teams in every year under this system.

Contrary to popular opinion in the CCIW, it does not deserve 4 bids just because its fans believe they deserve 4 bids every year.  Two most years, three occasionally.  This system will do that.

...but I also agree all D3 games should count it would make things 100% better.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2009, 07:35:48 PM
The topic I brought up has nothing to do with SOS, sac.  It has to do with the simple reality of a national decision being based strictly on regional criteria, and the fact that some regions are deeper than others (West vs East, say).

The only SOS implication is along the same lines - the fact that you have to compare the SOS of two teams, while Team A's region may be a lot better than Team B's.

I don't see a solution really, but again, if Hamilton is Pool C #1, that says quite a bit about how this works.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 22, 2009, 07:38:47 PM
merely refuting augiefan's asertion that this system penalizes the better conferences and regions when I don't believe thats the case.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2009, 07:41:26 PM
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2009, 07:38:47 PM
merely refuting augiefan's asertion that this system penalizes the better conferences and regions when I don't believe thats the case.

So with Hamilton as the #1 Pool C and, say, UW-Platteville #6, you don't see UW-P being penalized for playing in a better region than Hamilton?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 22, 2009, 07:49:24 PM
...yeah thats dumb, but on the whole the WIAC, CCIW etc will get more teams in over a longer period of time using this system than they would have with SOSI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2009, 07:53:32 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2009, 07:41:26 PM
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2009, 07:38:47 PM
merely refuting augiefan's asertion that this system penalizes the better conferences and regions when I don't believe thats the case.

So with Hamilton as the #1 Pool C and, say, UW-Platteville #6, you don't see UW-P being penalized for playing in a better region than Hamilton?
But pabegg's calculations are not the NCAA's.

In 2008 only Rochester earned a Pool C from the East Region and no team earned a Pool C from the Atlantic Region.

Maybe the committee leaves Hamilton on the table as they left the Atlantic Region last year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: titan2000 on February 22, 2009, 08:33:48 PM
So St. Norberts College of the MWC has lost 3 of its last 4 and its listed as an A ?   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 22, 2009, 08:36:49 PM
Quote from: titan2000 on February 22, 2009, 08:33:48 PM
So St. Norberts College of the MWC has lost 3 of its last 4 and its listed as an A ?   

By the numbers, they still have the best overall record in the MWC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2009, 08:46:20 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 22, 2009, 08:36:49 PM
Quote from: titan2000 on February 22, 2009, 08:33:48 PM
So St. Norberts College of the MWC has lost 3 of its last 4 and its listed as an A ?   

By the numbers, they still have the best overall record in the MWC.


Anyway to switch that up this time of year, Patrick?  St. Norbert is the #4-seed in the MWC tournament.  Can you make the conference tournament #1 seeds the AQ team?  Or would that be too manual of a process?

Again, thanks for all you do on this stuff.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 22, 2009, 08:56:13 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2009, 08:46:20 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 22, 2009, 08:36:49 PM
Quote from: titan2000 on February 22, 2009, 08:33:48 PM
So St. Norberts College of the MWC has lost 3 of its last 4 and its listed as an A ?   

By the numbers, they still have the best overall record in the MWC.


Anyway to switch that up this time of year, Patrick?  St. Norbert is the #4-seed in the MWC tournament.  Can you make the conference tournament #1 seeds the AQ team?  Or would that be too manual of a process?

Again, thanks for all you do on this stuff.
OK, maybe #1 seeds makes sense now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 22, 2009, 09:05:43 PM
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2009, 07:18:31 PM
Quote from: augiefan on February 22, 2009, 06:27:04 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2009, 06:11:51 PM
it just does not make sense not to use all D3 games.  Really hoping that change is made at some point.  That wouldn't solve the problem of different regions being stronger than others, but it would be nice if all D3 games at least factored in.



I agree totally. The current system penalizes the top conferences and the top regions. All games should be factored in for Pool C bids.

Actually this system is better for the better conferences than the old SOSI was,  the CCIW, WIAC and NESCAC should get multiple teams in every year under this system.

Contrary to popular opinion in the CCIW, it does not deserve 4 bids just because its fans believe they deserve 4 bids every year.  Two most years, three occasionally.  This system will do that.

...but I also agree all D3 games should count it would make things 100% better.

I think it makes sense for the regional committees to use the regional records for regional rankings, but it definitely seems like once they have the top Pool C candidate from each region (the 8 teams under consideration), they should switch to numbers accounting for all games in d3.  It seems only logical that if you are comparing teams betweeen regions that you would also use games between regions.  Also, unless I am mistaken, didnt I read somewhere that the regional and final national committees are different?  So it seems like it would be alright to let the regional people use regional numbers and national picks be made with national numbers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2009, 09:23:16 PM
I always considered #1 seeds the "conference AQs"...no big deal.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2009, 09:26:37 PM
hungenerd - I believe, if I am not mistaken, the head of each regional committee makes up the national committee. So they bring the arguement for each team in their region to the table.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 22, 2009, 10:09:57 PM
  If they stay with the regional emphasis, here's a scheduling strawman for discussion:

  The AD for Misericordia(northeastern Pa. with many close 200+ out-of region opponents) who's the Mid-Atlantic rep on the NCAA says to his coach after this year's Pool C deliberations: if you want to have the best chance at Pool C selection, then I suggest
1) 14 conference in-region games(11-3)
2) play 3 local in-region(maybe Scranton,Susquehanna,Keystone)(2-1)
3) play 4 weekend out-of-region tournaments against tough teams(ok,at least 1 toughie/tournament)
       (New England tipoff-Elms,Amherst)
       (Wooster Invitational-Wooster,John Carroll)
       (Las Vegas Desert Classic(UW-whoever,Augustana)
       (Catholic Holiday-Catholic,Va. Wesleyan)

  Your in-region is 13-4, a .765 winning %, maybe 3-5 out-of-region for an overall 16-9

or some tweaking of the idea. What sayest thou?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 22, 2009, 10:19:54 PM
Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on February 22, 2009, 09:26:37 PM
hungenerd - I believe, if I am not mistaken, the head of each regional committee makes up the national committee. So they bring the arguement for each team in their region to the table.

Thanks
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 22, 2009, 10:35:55 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 22, 2009, 10:09:57 PM
  If they stay with the regional emphasis, here's a scheduling strawman for discussion:

  The AD for Misericordia(northeastern Pa. with many close 200+ out-of region opponents) who's the Mid-Atlantic rep on the NCAA says to his coach after this year's Pool C deliberations: if you want to have the best chance at Pool C selection, then I suggest
1) 14 conference in-region games(11-3)
2) play 3 local in-region(maybe Scranton,Susquehanna,Keystone)(2-1)
3) play 4 weekend out-of-region tournaments against tough teams(ok,at least 1 toughie/tournament)
       (New England tipoff-Elms,Amherst)
       (Wooster Invitational-Wooster,John Carroll)
       (Las Vegas Desert Classic(UW-whoever,Augustana)
       (Catholic Holiday-Catholic,Va. Wesleyan)

  Your in-region is 13-4, a .765 winning %, maybe 3-5 out-of-region for an overall 16-9

or some tweaking of the idea. What sayest thou?


I believe you just described Hamilton's season.  Playing your toughest games out of region is pretty smart.  Knowing they are in a pretty weak league, they schedule their toughest competition out of region and get good experience going 2-4, and finish 16-2 in  the East region for a #2 ranking.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2009, 11:23:47 AM
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2009, 07:18:31 PM
Contrary to popular opinion in the CCIW, it does not deserve 4 bids just because its fans believe they deserve 4 bids every year.

We do?

This is an exceptionally strong year for the CCIW, and I would have no problem at all with one of the four teams in the CCIW tourney being left out of the dance in March. Three CCIW reps seems legitimate to me, even though I suspect that the league might only get in two instead. I have yet to see any poster on CCIW Chat argue that the league deserves three Pool C bids this year on top of the Pool A bid.

In fact, the only time I ever remember a poster pushing for four CCIW teams in the tourney was the notorious lopsided year of '05-'06, when all four CCIW teams were in the Top 25 at season's end.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 12:00:32 PM
Its not unprecedented.  4 UAA teams made it last year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2009, 12:32:28 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2009, 07:53:32 PM
Maybe the committee leaves Hamilton on the table as they left the Atlantic Region last year.

The top Pool C candidate in the Atlantic Region was William Paterson.  The last publicized regional ranking had their record at 18-6 regional record and then a loss to the NJAC final.  Their OWP was .526 and their OOWP was just .516.

William Paterson  18-6  18-6 .526 .516 (NJAC):

Listed below are the last teams in each region that got a Pool C and then the next Pool C candidate that didn't.

Rochester  19-5  18-5 .595 .565 (UAA): (only one from East Region)
St. Lawrence  17-8  16-5 .555 .515 (Liberty):

Wooster  22-3  15-2 .484 .490 (NCAC): (2nd from Great Lakes)
Albion  18-5  14-3 .476 .496 (MIAA):

Gettysburg  21-3  19-2 .529 .516 (Centennial): (only one from Mid-Atlantic)
York (Pa.)  18-7  18-6 .539 .502 (CAC):

Wheaton (Ill.)  19-6  15-6 .577 .549 (CCIW): (2nd from Midwest)
Elmhurst  18-7  17-7 .505 .537 (CCIW):

Middlebury  19-6  18-5 .596 .528 (NESCAC): (6th from Northeast)
Emerson  22-3  21-3 .442 .499 (GNAC):

Virginia Wesleyan  20-5  19-4 .520 .522 (ODAC): (2nd from South)
Randolph-Macon  20-5  15-5 .538 .527 (ODAC):

Buena Vista  20-5  16-3 .496 .528 (IIAC): (3rd from West)
Cal Lutheran  20-4  16-4 .498 .529 (SCIAC):



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 23, 2009, 12:59:05 PM
I know this has been posted somewhere at sometime and I apologize for asking, but I don't get the Pool C ratings and  the positioning that results.  Are the rankings not determined by the totals of RPI, OWP & OOWP?   I took a random (OK, sort of random) look at two teams.  William Patterson is listed (and I understand these positions are estimates) as C13 (ranked 42) which I believe that they "would" be the 13th Pool C team in the tournament.  The total of their RPI, OWP & OOWP is 1.5916.  Rochester is ranked 75 and is not assigned a Pool C number, indicating they are outside looking in.  Not that I disagree with that, but with a combined RPI, OWP & OOWP of 1.646 I am not sure why Patterson is a mortal lock and UR gets to go on Spring Break.  Again, I am pretty sure I asked this last year.  I promise to print the answer if anyone responds.

I just looked at Hamilton's numbers.   As the  #1 C team, their combined RPI, OWP & OOWP is 1.6382, also less than UR's. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2009, 01:10:25 PM
At first glance, William Paterson's winning percentage is significantly higher than Rochester's.

WP-20-6 or 76.9%
UR-16-8 or 66.6%




Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TeeDub on February 23, 2009, 01:28:39 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 23, 2009, 01:10:25 PM
At first glance, William Paterson's winning percentage is significantly higher than Rochester's.

WP-20-6 or 76.9%
UR-16-8 or 66.6%


It appears that way on the second glance as well... ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 23, 2009, 01:34:11 PM
Quote from: Jordis Rocks on February 23, 2009, 01:28:39 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 23, 2009, 01:10:25 PM
At first glance, William Paterson's winning percentage is significantly higher than Rochester's.

WP-20-6 or 76.9%
UR-16-8 or 66.6%


It appears that way on the second glance as well... ;)

...and third.  So what I was missing is that WP is an unlisted factor, making Patterson's combined score 2.36 to UR's 2.31.  That's a pretty small disparity.  Good thing we got's mathmutatical types to do the cypherin'
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 23, 2009, 01:38:12 PM
Well, you're combining RPI, OWP and OOWP. RPI already considers OWP and OOWP so you are basically counting them twice.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 23, 2009, 01:48:17 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 23, 2009, 01:38:12 PM
Well, you're combining RPI, OWP and OOWP. RPI already considers OWP and OOWP so you are basically counting them twice.

So my lack of understanding goes deeper.  I am just trying to understand how teams are assigned their Pool C status while coming from a statistical lineage that is limited to batting average and ERA.  And my mother thinks she's seen changes in her life.  Indoor plumbing, electric lights and television is nothing compared to OOWP, WHIP and RPI (a fine institution, by the way).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2009, 01:50:03 PM
Handbook (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2009/3_mbasketball_handbook.pdf)

The handbook lists Winning % against regional opponents as one of 5 primary criteria.  So, it's listed!  ??? :o ;D

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 23, 2009, 02:04:23 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 23, 2009, 01:50:03 PM
Handbook (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2009/3_mbasketball_handbook.pdf)

The handbook lists Winning % against regional opponents as one of 5 primary criteria.  So, it's listed!  ??? :o ;D



So using the teams I mentioned, how are the rankings determined?  In looking at the Pool C listings under this topic, I added RPI, OWP & OOWP to come up with a score.  That isn't right, I gather, as RPI already considers OWP & OOWP.  And I didn't add in region winning percentage, as I didn't see that as a category.  So what makes Patterson the pick for the 13th Pool C bid?   Or Hamilton the #1 pick? 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2009, 02:57:44 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 12:00:32 PM
Its not unprecedented.  4 UAA teams made it last year.

It's not a matter of precedent. I'm well aware that leagues have had four teams make it into the tourney in the past; in fact, the NJAC and the WIAC accomplished that feat long before the UAA ever did. I was simply responding to sac's charge that CCIW fans believe their league deserves four bids every season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 03:13:43 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2009, 02:57:44 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 12:00:32 PM
Its not unprecedented.  4 UAA teams made it last year.

It's not a matter of precedent. I'm well aware that leagues have had four teams make it into the tourney in the past; in fact, the NJAC and the WIAC accomplished that feat long before the UAA ever did. I was simply responding to sac's charge that CCIW fans believe their league deserves four bids every season.

My comment wasnt directed to you, really.  I just meant that it is not unprecedented that a league could get 4 teams, so therefore: so what if you think they deserve four this year?  I mean, if those are the teams you follow, you are allowed to have a biased regional perspective.  Thats why we have these boards and the multi-regional boards specifically.

I guess my comment could be interpreted different ways, though. Not every day when you can make a post intending to defend somebody, but make it so vague that you end up offending them for questioning their basketball knowledge.  Thats pretty awesome.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 23, 2009, 03:22:33 PM
Pat,
  You or Dave might have an answer for this. Has the NCAA published or revealed exactly how much importance they give to win/loss record, OWP and OOWP. Pabegg is using the 25%/50%/25% model for his RPI values, but it would be nice to know for sure how much weight each has now.

  The criteria the NCAA uses for regional selection obviously greatly influences how coaches schedule games and you would think the process would be detailed in the handbook. Also it seems like there is not as much emphasis on the # of regional games played, for a while there was emphasis on playing as many DIII regional opponents as possible in the nonconference schedule, but I'm not sure that's still the case.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2009, 04:12:06 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 23, 2009, 03:22:33 PM
Pat,
  You or Dave might have an answer for this. Has the NCAA published or revealed exactly how much importance they give to win/loss record, OWP and OOWP. Pabegg is using the 25%/50%/25% model for his RPI values, but it would be nice to know for sure how much weight each has now.

  The criteria the NCAA uses for regional selection obviously greatly influences how coaches schedule games and you would think the process would be detailed in the handbook. Also it seems like there is not as much emphasis on the # of regional games played, for a while there was emphasis on playing as many DIII regional opponents as possible in the nonconference schedule, but I'm not sure that's still the case.

Chris, I don't think they have any desire to spell it out in that much detail.  They have clearly identified and communicated 5 primary criteria, and have intentionally left themselves some flexibility in evaluating the 5.  I don't disagree with that approach.  I don't think being tied to a specific weighting between the primary criteria would be healthy.

Here is some recommended listening from March 2008.  Dave McHugh interviews Gary Grace (Wartburg), who I believe was the national chair last year...

http://www.d3hoops.com/audio/08/grace022408.mp3

Among other things, they discuss the relationship of OWP to OOWP, which gets at some of your question.  Take a few minutes if you have not heard this.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2009, 04:13:32 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 03:13:43 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2009, 02:57:44 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 12:00:32 PM
Its not unprecedented.  4 UAA teams made it last year.

It's not a matter of precedent. I'm well aware that leagues have had four teams make it into the tourney in the past; in fact, the NJAC and the WIAC accomplished that feat long before the UAA ever did. I was simply responding to sac's charge that CCIW fans believe their league deserves four bids every season.

My comment wasnt directed to you, really.  I just meant that it is not unprecedented that a league could get 4 teams, so therefore: so what if you think they deserve four this year?  I mean, if those are the teams you follow, you are allowed to have a biased regional perspective.  Thats why we have these boards and the multi-regional boards specifically.

I guess my comment could be interpreted different ways, though. Not every day when you can make a post intending to defend somebody, but make it so vague that you end up offending them for questioning their basketball knowledge.  Thats pretty awesome.

Three cheers for the ambiguity of the English language! ;)

And people wonder why I drone on and on trying to explain myself sometimes. ;)

Back to the point at hand: I certainly wouldn't object if the CCIW got three Pool C's alongside the Pool A, of course. I don't see it happening, since that would mean that one of the Pool C's is going to Augie or NCC, and I can't envision either of them managing to finagle a Pool C bid on Selection Sunday.

I'm ambivalent about the word "deserve", though. I'm certain that Wheaton, Elmhurst, Augie, and NCC are all among the top 57 teams in D3 (leaving the three Pool B bids out of it), and I'm not really going out on a limb in saying that; Ken Massey and his magic thinkbox have all four within D3's top fifteen, (http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2009&sub=III&mid=6) so in that sense I do feel that the CCIW deserves four berths. But the selection process doesn't work that way, and I'm as aware of that as anyone. Therefore, I don't feel any sense of entitlement regarding the CCIW getting three Pool C berths.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 23, 2009, 11:12:19 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2009, 04:12:06 PM
Chris, I don't think they have any desire to spell it out in that much detail.  They have clearly identified and communicated 5 primary criteria, and have intentionally left themselves some flexibility in evaluating the 5.  I don't disagree with that approach.  I don't think being tied to a specific weighting between the primary criteria would be healthy.

Here is some recommended listening from March 2008.  Dave McHugh interviews Gary Grace (Wartburg), who I believe was the national chair last year...

http://www.d3hoops.com/audio/08/grace022408.mp3

Among other things, they discuss the relationship of OWP to OOWP, which gets at some of your question.  Take a few minutes if you have not heard this.

Titan,
  Thanks for that link, lots of information and a great interview from Dave. I think Dave asked about every question possible and most were answered. I still would like to know if there is a benefit from playing more regional games, based on that interview I would not think the benefit is there anymore and playing 15 regional games is as good as 20.

We disagree on a couple points though. I'm glad the QOWI system is gone but I do miss the numerical value applied to teams because in my opinion it was much less subjective. Having 5 criteria all listed as primary makes it much easier for coaches to play favorites and manipulate the numbers in certain instances. And I think the lack of detailed instruction does put committee members in a bad spot when making tough decisions and does little to protect them from scrutiny.

This is a minor thing, but I would also think the lack of detail gives an advantage to coaches serviing on the committees with first hand knowledge of how the process works, while the other coaches are trying to figure out what is best for them. I would like to see an explained numerical number produced from the regional record, OWP and OOWP. Then if there is significant difference, you go to the other criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 23, 2009, 11:22:30 PM
OK, here are the rankings with all of the games through Sunday.

Analysis at the bottom

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  17   01   02    0.6402 0.5737 0.5439 Worcester Polytech        005  A w C       20-3 20-4
NE  16   02   01    0.6138 0.5123 0.5217 Middlebury                006  A w C       20-2 22-3
NE  13   03   03    0.6085 0.5196 0.5251 Mass-Dartmouth            013  C 4         20-3 22-3
NE  13   04   05    0.6156 0.5505 0.5213 Rhode Island College      015  A w C       21-4 21-4
NE  18   05   04    0.5833 0.4459 0.4830 Elms                      023  B 1         23-1 24-1
NE  14   06   07    0.6116 0.5646 0.5256 Salem State               025  A w C       19-5 20-5
NE  14   07   06    0.5942 0.5161 0.5349 Bridgewater State         033  C 9         17-4 18-6
NE  16   08   08    0.5967 0.5282 0.5475 Amherst                   034  C 10        18-5 20-5
NE  11   09   09    0.5623 0.4618 0.4923 University of New England 042  A w C       20-4 21-4
NE  16   10   12    0.5952 0.5863 0.5283 Bowdoin                   050  C 19        17-8 17-8
NE  17   11   11    0.5712 0.5094 0.5386 MIT                       053  C 22        16-6 17-8
NE  90   12   13    0.5957 0.5886 0.5390 Brandeis                  054  C 23        16-8 16-8
NE  11   13   nr    0.5514 0.4794 0.4740 Gordon                    061  C 30        17-5 19-6

EA  21   01   01    0.6422 0.5377 0.5369 Ithaca                    001  A w C       22-1 24-1
EA  24   02   02    0.6089 0.5166 0.5133 Hamilton                  009  C 1         16-2 18-6
EA  24   03   03    0.6104 0.5775 0.5138 St. Lawrence              029  A w C       17-5 19-5
EA  21   04   06    0.5842 0.5713 0.5141 Utica                     063  C 32        17-8 17-8
EA  90   05   05    0.5713 0.5417 0.5351 Rochester                 070  C 37        16-8 16-8
EA  23   06   nr    0.5507 0.4950 0.4986 Fredonia State            083              15-6 16-8
EA  21   07   04    0.5715 0.5678 0.5315 Rochester Tech            087              13-8 17-8
EA  61   08   nr    0.5374 0.4803 0.4747 Medaille                  093  A           15-6 19-6

AT  32   01   01    0.6024 0.4964 0.5076 Richard Stockton          010  A w C       20-2 23-2
AT  33   02   02    0.5942 0.4866 0.4837 SUNY-Farmingdale          014  A w C       23-2 23-2
AT  33   03   04    0.5623 0.4397 0.4949 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       037  C 11        21-3 22-3
AT  32   04   06    0.5853 0.5404 0.4985 Montclair State           040  C 13        16-5 20-5
AT  31   05   03    0.5591 0.4396 0.4875 Baruch                    041  A w C       20-3 22-4
AT  32   06   06    0.5748 0.5132 0.5037 William Paterson          044  C 15        20-6 20-6
AT  31   07   07    0.5283 0.4112 0.4908 Brooklyn                  086              20-5 21-5
AT  31   08   08    0.5191 0.4608 0.4880 Lehman                    118              16-8 18-8

MA  45   01   01    0.6066 0.5289 0.5350 Franklin and Marshall     022  A w C       20-4 21-4
MA  41   02   02    0.5874 0.4766 0.4963 St. Mary's (Md.)          024  A w C       18-2 21-4
MA  42   03   04    0.5925 0.5368 0.5138 Widener                   035  A w C       18-5 20-5
MA  43   04   05    0.5719 0.4928 0.5103 DeSales                   039  A w C       19-5 20-5
MA  45   05   03    0.5920 0.5546 0.5315 McDaniel                  043  C 14        16-6 18-7
MA  44   06   07    0.5557 0.4536 0.4895 Gwynedd-Mercy             048  A second    19-4 20-5
MA  46   07   08    0.5534 0.4882 0.4872 Scranton                  066  B 2         18-6 19-6
MA  45   08   11    0.5761 0.5517 0.5344 Gettysburg                067  C 35        16-8 16-8
MA  41   09   06    0.5509 0.4861 0.4944 Wesley                    071  C 38        14-5 16-9
MA  44   10   09    0.5435 0.4682 0.4776 Cabrini                   077              19-6 19-6
MA  46   11   10    0.5353 0.4682 0.4904 Susquehanna               096  B 3         15-6 17-7

SO  53   01   02    0.5916 0.4776 0.5111 Randolph-Macon            018  C 5         18-2 20-5
SO  54   02   03    0.5971 0.5059 0.5130 Trinity (Texas)           019  A w C       19-3 22-3
SO  51   03   01    0.5992 0.5290 0.5126 Texas-Dallas              027  A w C       19-4 21-4
SO  54   04   04    0.6036 0.5565 0.5015 Centre                    028  C 7         16-4 20-4
SO  53   05   05    0.5868 0.4999 0.5140 Guilford                  030  A w C       20-4 21-4
SO  54   06   08    0.5707 0.5135 0.5059 DePauw                    047  C 18        15-5 19-6
SO  51   07   07    0.5604 0.4815 0.5058 McMurry                   052  C 21        17-5 18-7
SO  55   08   08    0.5642 0.5117 0.4967 Averett                   056  C 25        14-5 17-8
SO  51   09   06    0.5648 0.5124 0.5069 Mississippi College       059  C 28        16-6 18-6
SO  55   10   nr    0.5599 0.5083 0.5010 Christopher Newport       068  A third     13-5 17-8
SO  51   11   11    0.5603 0.5102 0.5007 Mary Hardin-Baylor        069  C 36        18-7 18-7

GL  64   01   01    0.6085 0.5252 0.5139 Capital                   012  C 3         20-3 22-3
GL  64   02   02    0.6102 0.5328 0.5182 John Carroll              016  A w C       18-3 20-4
GL  62   03   03    0.5783 0.4814 0.4934 Calvin                    032  A w C       12-2 17-7
GL  63   04   04    0.5751 0.4900 0.5023 Wooster                   036  A w C       18-4 19-6
GL  90   05   05    0.5853 0.5363 0.5317 Carnegie Mellon           045  C 16        14-5 18-6
GL  62   06   08    0.5640 0.5137 0.4953 Hope                      060  C 29        11-4 18-7
GL  63   07   06    0.5613 0.5094 0.4993 Ohio Wesleyan             065  C 34        16-6 17-7
GL  64   08   05    0.5623 0.5241 0.5190 Ohio Northern             080              15-7 17-8
GL  61   09   09    0.5422 0.4853 0.4838 Penn State-Behrend        089              15-6 17-8

MW  90   01   01    0.6383 0.5508 0.5384 Washington U.             004  A in        21-2 22-2
MW  71   02   02    0.6486 0.5869 0.5635 Wheaton (Ill.)            007  A w C       18-3 22-3
MW  72   03   03    0.6056 0.5377 0.5048 Transylvania              020  A w C       16-3 19-5
MW  71   04   05    0.6192 0.5786 0.5596 Elmhurst                  031  C 8         19-6 19-6
MW  71   05   04    0.6131 0.6147 0.5563 North Central             046  C 17        14-7 16-9
MW  71   06   07    0.5865 0.5349 0.5679 Augustana                 051  C 20        17-7 18-7
MW  74   07   06    0.5560 0.4750 0.5014 St. Norbert               057  C 26        17-5 18-5
MW  74   08   11    0.5638 0.5256 0.5085 Carroll                   074              16-7 16-7
MW  74   09   08    0.5512 0.4893 0.4990 Lawrence                  076              16-6 16-6
MW  74   10   10    0.5472 0.4797 0.4926 Grinnell                  078  A           14-5 17-6
MW  73   11   nr    0.5449 0.4805 0.4986 Benedictine               084  A           18-7 18-7

WE  82   01   01    0.6306 0.5021 0.5182 St. Thomas                002  A w C       24-0 25-0
WE  83   02   02    0.6201 0.4719 0.5365 Puget Sound               003  A w C       20-0 23-2
WE  86   03   03    0.6442 0.5969 0.5496 UW-Stevens Point          008  A w C       20-4 21-4
WE  86   04   04    0.6329 0.5696 0.5592 UW-Whitewater             011  C 2         20-4 21-4
WE  81   05   06    0.5909 0.4711 0.5122 Buena Vista               017  A w C       20-2 23-2
WE  86   06   05    0.6219 0.5618 0.5638 UW-Platteville            021  C 6         16-4 21-4
WE  83   07   07    0.5764 0.5065 0.5201 Whitworth                 038  C 12        17-5 20-5
WE  84   08   08    0.5584 0.4795 0.4748 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    049  A second    16-4 18-6
WE  82   09   10    0.5644 0.5059 0.5069 Bethel                    055  C 24        17-6 19-6
WE  81   10   09    0.5635 0.5059 0.5031 Cornell                   058  C 27        17-6 19-6
WE  84   11   nr    0.5330 0.4332 0.4927 Cal Lutheran              082              17-5 19-6

Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
   B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
   C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
   C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
   C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
   A in: clinched Pool A bid
   A w C: Pool A, in Pool C range (1 to 18)
   A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
   A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
   A: lower level Pool A
   blank: lower level Pool C


WashU is in as a Pool A.

In the worst case, every favorite loses in their conference tournament. In that case, the top 18 schools on the board would need Pool C bids. Teams 2-10 would be guaranteed one of those spots.

In a normal year, five Pool C bids will go to teams who get upset. This puts the current cutoff at #40 Montclair State, but only teams down to #34 Amherst can be certain of being in that top 40. Schools 11-22 are statistical locks (over 95% chance) while schools 23-34 will have to sweat out any unusual patterns of upsets.

Schools #35 down to #47 DePauw would be in today, but they'll be on the bubble come Sunday if nothing else changes.

Schools from #48 to #63 Utica are on the wrong side of the bubble, and probably need Pool A bids, but could be in consideration with a strong run in their tournaments.

Notable are Carnegie Mellon and Brandeis, who are the only Pool C contenders who could go unbeaten this week (since for everyone else, an unbeaten week means a Pool A bid). They could jump up about five spots with a 1-0 week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2009, 11:27:18 PM
Chris,

In my understanding, QOWI is only replaced by OWP and OOWP - both are equally objective, but OWP and OOWP are more precise.  And I would side with Q: a certain degree of subjectivity is a plus, not a minus (though it COULD be abused).  For example, I wouldn't want MOV to be institutionalized (and encourage running up scores), but I tend to be suspicious of teams that can only barely edge 'inferior' teams as opposed to those who can consistently 'put away' teams before sending in the subs. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 11:38:04 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 23, 2009, 11:22:30 PM
OK, here are the rankings with all of the games through Sunday.

Analysis at the bottom

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  17   01   02    0.6402 0.5737 0.5439 Worcester Polytech        005  A w C       20-3 20-4
NE  16   02   01    0.6138 0.5123 0.5217 Middlebury                006  A w C       20-2 22-3
NE  13   03   03    0.6085 0.5196 0.5251 Mass-Dartmouth            013  C 4         20-3 22-3
NE  13   04   05    0.6156 0.5505 0.5213 Rhode Island College      015  A w C       21-4 21-4
NE  18   05   04    0.5833 0.4459 0.4830 Elms                      023  B 1         23-1 24-1
NE  14   06   07    0.6116 0.5646 0.5256 Salem State               025  A w C       19-5 20-5
NE  14   07   06    0.5942 0.5161 0.5349 Bridgewater State         033  C 9         17-4 18-6
NE  16   08   08    0.5967 0.5282 0.5475 Amherst                   034  C 10        18-5 20-5
NE  11   09   09    0.5623 0.4618 0.4923 University of New England 042  A w C       20-4 21-4
NE  16   10   12    0.5952 0.5863 0.5283 Bowdoin                   050  C 19        17-8 17-8
NE  17   11   11    0.5712 0.5094 0.5386 MIT                       053  C 22        16-6 17-8
NE  90   12   13    0.5957 0.5886 0.5390 Brandeis                  054  C 23        16-8 16-8
NE  11   13   nr    0.5514 0.4794 0.4740 Gordon                    061  C 30        17-5 19-6

EA  21   01   01    0.6422 0.5377 0.5369 Ithaca                    001  A w C       22-1 24-1
EA  24   02   02    0.6089 0.5166 0.5133 Hamilton                  009  C 1         16-2 18-6
EA  24   03   03    0.6104 0.5775 0.5138 St. Lawrence              029  A w C       17-5 19-5
EA  21   04   06    0.5842 0.5713 0.5141 Utica                     063  C 32        17-8 17-8
EA  90   05   05    0.5713 0.5417 0.5351 Rochester                 070  C 37        16-8 16-8
EA  23   06   nr    0.5507 0.4950 0.4986 Fredonia State            083              15-6 16-8
EA  21   07   04    0.5715 0.5678 0.5315 Rochester Tech            087              13-8 17-8
EA  61   08   nr    0.5374 0.4803 0.4747 Medaille                  093  A           15-6 19-6

AT  32   01   01    0.6024 0.4964 0.5076 Richard Stockton          010  A w C       20-2 23-2
AT  33   02   02    0.5942 0.4866 0.4837 SUNY-Farmingdale          014  A w C       23-2 23-2
AT  33   03   04    0.5623 0.4397 0.4949 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       037  C 11        21-3 22-3
AT  32   04   06    0.5853 0.5404 0.4985 Montclair State           040  C 13        16-5 20-5
AT  31   05   03    0.5591 0.4396 0.4875 Baruch                    041  A w C       20-3 22-4
AT  32   06   06    0.5748 0.5132 0.5037 William Paterson          044  C 15        20-6 20-6
AT  31   07   07    0.5283 0.4112 0.4908 Brooklyn                  086              20-5 21-5
AT  31   08   08    0.5191 0.4608 0.4880 Lehman                    118              16-8 18-8

MA  45   01   01    0.6066 0.5289 0.5350 Franklin and Marshall     022  A w C       20-4 21-4
MA  41   02   02    0.5874 0.4766 0.4963 St. Mary's (Md.)          024  A w C       18-2 21-4
MA  42   03   04    0.5925 0.5368 0.5138 Widener                   035  A w C       18-5 20-5
MA  43   04   05    0.5719 0.4928 0.5103 DeSales                   039  A w C       19-5 20-5
MA  45   05   03    0.5920 0.5546 0.5315 McDaniel                  043  C 14        16-6 18-7
MA  44   06   07    0.5557 0.4536 0.4895 Gwynedd-Mercy             048  A second    19-4 20-5
MA  46   07   08    0.5534 0.4882 0.4872 Scranton                  066  B 2         18-6 19-6
MA  45   08   11    0.5761 0.5517 0.5344 Gettysburg                067  C 35        16-8 16-8
MA  41   09   06    0.5509 0.4861 0.4944 Wesley                    071  C 38        14-5 16-9
MA  44   10   09    0.5435 0.4682 0.4776 Cabrini                   077              19-6 19-6
MA  46   11   10    0.5353 0.4682 0.4904 Susquehanna               096  B 3         15-6 17-7

SO  53   01   02    0.5916 0.4776 0.5111 Randolph-Macon            018  C 5         18-2 20-5
SO  54   02   03    0.5971 0.5059 0.5130 Trinity (Texas)           019  A w C       19-3 22-3
SO  51   03   01    0.5992 0.5290 0.5126 Texas-Dallas              027  A w C       19-4 21-4
SO  54   04   04    0.6036 0.5565 0.5015 Centre                    028  C 7         16-4 20-4
SO  53   05   05    0.5868 0.4999 0.5140 Guilford                  030  A w C       20-4 21-4
SO  54   06   08    0.5707 0.5135 0.5059 DePauw                    047  C 18        15-5 19-6
SO  51   07   07    0.5604 0.4815 0.5058 McMurry                   052  C 21        17-5 18-7
SO  55   08   08    0.5642 0.5117 0.4967 Averett                   056  C 25        14-5 17-8
SO  51   09   06    0.5648 0.5124 0.5069 Mississippi College       059  C 28        16-6 18-6
SO  55   10   nr    0.5599 0.5083 0.5010 Christopher Newport       068  A third     13-5 17-8
SO  51   11   11    0.5603 0.5102 0.5007 Mary Hardin-Baylor        069  C 36        18-7 18-7

GL  64   01   01    0.6085 0.5252 0.5139 Capital                   012  C 3         20-3 22-3
GL  64   02   02    0.6102 0.5328 0.5182 John Carroll              016  A w C       18-3 20-4
GL  62   03   03    0.5783 0.4814 0.4934 Calvin                    032  A w C       12-2 17-7
GL  63   04   04    0.5751 0.4900 0.5023 Wooster                   036  A w C       18-4 19-6
GL  90   05   05    0.5853 0.5363 0.5317 Carnegie Mellon           045  C 16        14-5 18-6
GL  62   06   08    0.5640 0.5137 0.4953 Hope                      060  C 29        11-4 18-7
GL  63   07   06    0.5613 0.5094 0.4993 Ohio Wesleyan             065  C 34        16-6 17-7
GL  64   08   05    0.5623 0.5241 0.5190 Ohio Northern             080              15-7 17-8
GL  61   09   09    0.5422 0.4853 0.4838 Penn State-Behrend        089              15-6 17-8

MW  90   01   01    0.6383 0.5508 0.5384 Washington U.             004  A in        21-2 22-2
MW  71   02   02    0.6486 0.5869 0.5635 Wheaton (Ill.)            007  A w C       18-3 22-3
MW  72   03   03    0.6056 0.5377 0.5048 Transylvania              020  A w C       16-3 19-5
MW  71   04   05    0.6192 0.5786 0.5596 Elmhurst                  031  C 8         19-6 19-6
MW  71   05   04    0.6131 0.6147 0.5563 North Central             046  C 17        14-7 16-9
MW  71   06   07    0.5865 0.5349 0.5679 Augustana                 051  C 20        17-7 18-7
MW  74   07   06    0.5560 0.4750 0.5014 St. Norbert               057  C 26        17-5 18-5
MW  74   08   11    0.5638 0.5256 0.5085 Carroll                   074              16-7 16-7
MW  74   09   08    0.5512 0.4893 0.4990 Lawrence                  076              16-6 16-6
MW  74   10   10    0.5472 0.4797 0.4926 Grinnell                  078  A           14-5 17-6
MW  73   11   nr    0.5449 0.4805 0.4986 Benedictine               084  A           18-7 18-7

WE  82   01   01    0.6306 0.5021 0.5182 St. Thomas                002  A w C       24-0 25-0
WE  83   02   02    0.6201 0.4719 0.5365 Puget Sound               003  A w C       20-0 23-2
WE  86   03   03    0.6442 0.5969 0.5496 UW-Stevens Point          008  A w C       20-4 21-4
WE  86   04   04    0.6329 0.5696 0.5592 UW-Whitewater             011  C 2         20-4 21-4
WE  81   05   06    0.5909 0.4711 0.5122 Buena Vista               017  A w C       20-2 23-2
WE  86   06   05    0.6219 0.5618 0.5638 UW-Platteville            021  C 6         16-4 21-4
WE  83   07   07    0.5764 0.5065 0.5201 Whitworth                 038  C 12        17-5 20-5
WE  84   08   08    0.5584 0.4795 0.4748 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    049  A second    16-4 18-6
WE  82   09   10    0.5644 0.5059 0.5069 Bethel                    055  C 24        17-6 19-6
WE  81   10   09    0.5635 0.5059 0.5031 Cornell                   058  C 27        17-6 19-6
WE  84   11   nr    0.5330 0.4332 0.4927 Cal Lutheran              082              17-5 19-6

Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
   B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
   C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
   C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
   C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
   A in: clinched Pool A bid
   A w C: Pool A, in Pool C range (1 to 18)
   A second: Pool A, in second tier Pool C
   A third: Pool A, in third tier Pool C
   A: lower level Pool A
   blank: lower level Pool C


WashU is in as a Pool A.

In the worst case, every favorite loses in their conference tournament. In that case, the top 18 schools on the board would need Pool C bids. Teams 2-10 would be guaranteed one of those spots.

In a normal year, five Pool C bids will go to teams who get upset. This puts the current cutoff at #40 Montclair State, but only teams down to #34 Amherst can be certain of being in that top 40. Schools 11-22 are statistical locks (over 95% chance) while schools 23-34 will have to sweat out any unusual patterns of upsets.

Schools #35 down to #47 DePauw would be in today, but they'll be on the bubble come Sunday if nothing else changes.

Schools from #48 to #63 Utica are on the wrong side of the bubble, and probably need Pool A bids, but could be in consideration with a strong run in their tournaments.

Notable are Carnegie Mellon and Brandeis, who are the only Pool C contenders who could go unbeaten this week (since for everyone else, an unbeaten week means a Pool A bid). They could jump up about five spots with a 1-0 week.


Patrick,

Since you mention CMU and Brandeis, I have a question for you (or two).  Since your rankings dont take into account other criteria like head-to-head, etc., I have some questions for you about what you think will happen in the rankings from what you have seen so far.  First, with regards to Brandeis,  lets say Brandeis goes up to #9 in these weeks NE rankings since UNE lost last week (Amherst was #8 last week).  If next weekend Brandeis wins their game at NYU and Amherst loses somewhere in the NESCAC tourney, what chance do you think there is of the committee flipping Brandeis and Amherst in the rankings?  If Amherst loses again, that would give them 6 and Brandeis would have 8 (but 5 of those are to regionally ranked opponents, and 2 of those to WashU).  Brandeis obviously beat Amherst at their place recently and has also beaten regionally ranked RIC, who Amherst lost to this month.  

With regards to CMU, you have them ranked below Wooster, but with the head-to-head in their favor, CMU has consistenly ranked above Wooster in the weekly polls (even though your calculated RPI for CMU was lower than Wooster last week).  If CMU wins against Rochester, giving them 5 regional losses and John Carroll loses their tourney, giving them 4 region losses, what do you think CMU's chances are of skipping above them?  CMU will also likely have a considerable OWP and OOWP advantage over John Carroll (CMU is currently .557 .531, compared to JCU's .524 .523).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 23, 2009, 11:48:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2009, 11:27:18 PM
Chris,

In my understanding, QOWI is only replaced by OWP and OOWP - both are equally objective, but OWP and OOWP are more precise.  And I would side with Q: a certain degree of subjectivity is a plus, not a minus (though it COULD be abused).  For example, I wouldn't want MOV to be institutionalized (and encourage running up scores), but I tend to be suspicious of teams that can only barely edge 'inferior' teams as opposed to those who can consistently 'put away' teams before sending in the subs. 

Mr. Ypsi,
   Here is the difference in my opinion, and the committee might already be doing this but I don't think so after listening to the interview from last year.
    I do agree including OWP and OOWP are much more precise, but I don't know why they aren't implemented just like QOWI. The QOWI value included regional record and strength of schedule to an extent. QOWI was not more effective, but having that numerical value to go by certainly was less subjective than having five criteria that can be used. Teams were almost always ranked by the QOWI number.
   You could do the same thing with regional record, OWP and OOWP and just produce an RPI value that is most important in ranking the teams. If that value has significant difference, then the other criteria is used.
   I think that puts coaches in an easier position, it better educates other coaches how they should be scheduling, and the NCAA limits coaches taking care of each other or playing favorites. I would think that is a concern on some level with competing coaches so involved in the process.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2009, 11:55:46 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 23, 2009, 11:48:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2009, 11:27:18 PM
Chris,

In my understanding, QOWI is only replaced by OWP and OOWP - both are equally objective, but OWP and OOWP are more precise.  And I would side with Q: a certain degree of subjectivity is a plus, not a minus (though it COULD be abused).  For example, I wouldn't want MOV to be institutionalized (and encourage running up scores), but I tend to be suspicious of teams that can only barely edge 'inferior' teams as opposed to those who can consistently 'put away' teams before sending in the subs. 

Mr. Ypsi,
   Here is the difference in my opinion, and the committee might already be doing this but I don't think so after listening to the interview from last year.
    I do agree including OWP and OOWP are much more precise, but I don't know why they aren't implemented just like QOWI. The QOWI value included regional record and strength of schedule to an extent. QOWI was not more effective, but having that numerical value to go by certainly was less subjective than having five criteria that can be used. Teams were almost always ranked by the QOWI number.
   You could do the same thing with regional record, OWP and OOWP and just produce an RPI value that is most important in ranking the teams. If that value has significant difference, then the other criteria is used.
   I think that puts coaches in an easier position, it better educates other coaches how they should be scheduling, and the NCAA limits coaches taking care of each other or playing favorites. I would think that is a concern on some level with competing coaches so involved in the process.
>:(

Except we can't get ASC coaches to understand how this works!

Pat Coleman came to Texas in 2004 and could not convince them.

We still mandate 20/21, so that eliminates the flexibility in the schedules.

Whether budgetary constraints, or other issues, we (the ASC) still play a lot of NAIA's and D1's and D2's.

I personally am glad that MOV is not a criterion.  Participation is the key in D3.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 24, 2009, 12:26:51 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2009, 11:55:46 PM
Except we can't get ASC coaches to understand how this works!

Pat Coleman came to Texas in 2004 and could not convince them.

We still mandate 20/21, so that eliminates the flexibility in the schedules.

Whether budgetary constraints, or other issues, we (the ASC) still play a lot of NAIA's and D1's and D2's.

I personally am glad that MOV is not a criterion.  Participation is the key in D3.

Ralph,
  I'm not sure that's entirely fair. There were several teams in the ASC who did take the advice, the UMHB men and MC women are good examples. Many top ASC teams did make good changes to the schedule, but you can't expect all the teams to do so. Many teams aren't worried about the NCAA Tournament and lowering conference games will only add NAIA to the nonconference, which will still result in a conference OWP around .500.
   But to be honest I am not sure myself how the system works or how I would advise someone to schedule. If playing more regional games is not rewarded, then I might tell coaches to play NAIA teams for their tough games since they don't count.
   ASC coaches are always going to be limited by the conference schedule, and an OWP of .525 - .550 is about as good as it is going to get, far short of some .600 you see from some regions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2009, 01:03:25 AM
Thanks for the response.

Plusses:

--UMHB-LeTU for the UWW game (and Lake Forest)
--UTD-UTT for the Guilford game (and LSU-Shreveport in the tourney)
--UTD can always get games with Austin College (twice).
--MissCollege Rust and Sewanee are South Region. (I wish you could get some in-region games out of the Great Lakes.  IMHO, Rust and Sewanee did not raise your OWP/OOWP like UWW did for UMHB and LeTU.)
--LaCollege for Millsaps.
--UOzarks for Hendrix. (They also played Maryville MO and Webster which are relatively close to Ozarks but are not in-region! >:( )
--ETBU for getting Austin College and UDallas.


CTX got WPI to come south.  It is not in-region, but it is a great win over Pabegg's #5 team nationally! (Concordia-TX finished 3rd in the ASC-West)
HSU for UDallas, Southwestern and Austin College.
HPU and TLU got Anderson on a "snow-bird" trip.
UMHB also got TU and Southwestern.
McMurry got North Central IL.  (Non-region St Vincent PA (22-3) was the other team in the tourney in Las Vegas.)
Schreiner got Trinity and Southwestern.

As I look more closely at these games, there are just no more schools available to add practically to the schedules without traveling out of the area.  Only the SCIAC and the NWC are more isolated.   :-\

That makes OWP/OOWP less valuable as a tool to evaluate this part of the country.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 24, 2009, 06:36:46 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 23, 2009, 11:38:04 PM
Patrick,

Since you mention CMU and Brandeis, I have a question for you (or two).  Since your rankings dont take into account other criteria like head-to-head, etc., I have some questions for you about what you think will happen in the rankings from what you have seen so far.  First, with regards to Brandeis,  lets say Brandeis goes up to #9 in these weeks NE rankings since UNE lost last week (Amherst was #8 last week).  If next weekend Brandeis wins their game at NYU and Amherst loses somewhere in the NESCAC tourney, what chance do you think there is of the committee flipping Brandeis and Amherst in the rankings?  If Amherst loses again, that would give them 6 and Brandeis would have 8 (but 5 of those are to regionally ranked opponents, and 2 of those to WashU).  Brandeis obviously beat Amherst at their place recently and has also beaten regionally ranked RIC, who Amherst lost to this month.  

With regards to CMU, you have them ranked below Wooster, but with the head-to-head in their favor, CMU has consistenly ranked above Wooster in the weekly polls (even though your calculated RPI for CMU was lower than Wooster last week).  If CMU wins against Rochester, giving them 5 regional losses and John Carroll loses their tourney, giving them 4 region losses, what do you think CMU's chances are of skipping above them?  CMU will also likely have a considerable OWP and OOWP advantage over John Carroll (CMU is currently .557 .531, compared to JCU's .524 .523).

To be honest, I don't know how the committees will deal with those details. Until the committee releases more information about the process, none of us really knows.

However, the committees are nothing if not consistent. Whatever goes into their rankings every week shows up week after week. So if the Great Lakes committee has decided to rank Carnegie Mellon ahead of Wooster due to the head-to-head, I would expect that factor to be there in the selection process.

When the real rankings come out on Wednesday, expect those rankings to be very close to what the final selection rankings will be. Over the last several years, very few teams have gotten into the tournament by passing a team ranked above them in the final week. In all but one case, those situations have involved a team that went 0-1 in the week and dropped down, rather than someone moving up with a good week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2009, 07:06:13 AM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 23, 2009, 11:48:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2009, 11:27:18 PM
Chris,

In my understanding, QOWI is only replaced by OWP and OOWP - both are equally objective, but OWP and OOWP are more precise.  And I would side with Q: a certain degree of subjectivity is a plus, not a minus (though it COULD be abused).  For example, I wouldn't want MOV to be institutionalized (and encourage running up scores), but I tend to be suspicious of teams that can only barely edge 'inferior' teams as opposed to those who can consistently 'put away' teams before sending in the subs. 

Mr. Ypsi,
   Here is the difference in my opinion, and the committee might already be doing this but I don't think so after listening to the interview from last year.
    I do agree including OWP and OOWP are much more precise, but I don't know why they aren't implemented just like QOWI. The QOWI value included regional record and strength of schedule to an extent. QOWI was not more effective, but having that numerical value to go by certainly was less subjective than having five criteria that can be used. Teams were almost always ranked by the QOWI number.
   You could do the same thing with regional record, OWP and OOWP and just produce an RPI value that is most important in ranking the teams. If that value has significant difference, then the other criteria is used.
   I think that puts coaches in an easier position, it better educates other coaches how they should be scheduling, and the NCAA limits coaches taking care of each other or playing favorites. I would think that is a concern on some level with competing coaches so involved in the process.

Chris, a few years ago when QOWI was around, the same 5 primary criteria were used to evaluate teams:

1. In-region winning %
2. Strength of schedule
3. In-region head-to-head
4. In-region common opponents
5. In-region results vs regionally ranked teams.

The only difference now is that OWP/OOWP is the metric used for #2, instead of QOWI.

When you say, "QOWI was not more effective, but having that numerical value to go by certainly was less subjective than having five criteria that can be used. Teams were almost always ranked by the QOWI number", two things to keep in mind:

1) Again, the same 5 primary criteria - without specific weighting assigned - were used three years ago.  As is the case today, we're safe to say that in-region winning % was by far the most heavily weighted, with strength of schedule (then QOWI, now OWP/OOWP) second, and the other three as kind of "tie-breakers."

2) While D3hoops.com may have ranked teams in order of QOWI for purposes of projecting Pool C bids, that is not what the Regional Advisory Committees and the national committee did at all.  Those groups went through the same exact process the RAC's have been using all season long in 2008-09, and that the national committee will use this Sunday...with the only difference being, QOWI is now replaced with OWP/OOWP.  (Just as Patrick Abegg's projection process with the new OWP/OOWP system, while very helpful and accurate, is not how the RAC's and national committee do this at all.)


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2009, 07:33:00 AM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 23, 2009, 11:12:19 PM
This is a minor thing, but I would also think the lack of detail gives an advantage to coaches serviing on the committees with first hand knowledge of how the process works, while the other coaches are trying to figure out what is best for them.


Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 23, 2009, 11:48:30 PM
   I think that puts coaches in an easier position, it better educates other coaches how they should be scheduling, and the NCAA limits coaches taking care of each other or playing favorites. I would think that is a concern on some level with competing coaches so involved in the process.

Chris, I see where you are coming from, but I honestly think Division III coaches know exactly how they need to schedule.  We've been using this "in-region" process for several years now, and I think everyone knows...

* In-region D3 games are the only ones that count.

* Strength of schedule will be considered.

* In-region winning % is the most significant criteria - gotta win games. 


With this system, there is hardly any margin for the good ole boys network.  Think about it - a computer model (Patrick Abegg's) picked 16 of the 17 Pool C's last year.  That % will probably be about the same this year.  (In years past, D3hoops.com was nailing a huge % of Pool C's as well, basically using numbers.)

Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 23, 2009, 11:12:19 PMI still would like to know if there is a benefit from playing more regional games, based on that interview I would not think the benefit is there anymore and playing 15 regional games is as good as 20.

I think the answer ultimately depends on how those additional in-region games affect your resume in terms of the 5 selection criteria.  Bottom line, you have to finish with the best in-region winning % possible.  Beating other good teams along the way helps too. 

Coaches have to evaluate their situation and schedule accordingly.  A coach in a league who expects to lose 4-5 conference games, even as a top 3 team, should look at things differently than a coach who thinks he can go through his or her league with 1-2 losses.

It is clear that non-conference, in-region equity goes a long way to building the resume.  But if you can't win, say, 80%+ of those non-conference, in-region games, it won't help to play them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: luvikings on February 24, 2009, 10:28:11 AM
Lawrence is 17-6, not 16-6.. it is wrong on the top 25 where they are ranked #25 and in your pool C breakdowns.  Somehow, their game at Ripon on saturday (they won 97-75) was left out but has been corrected on the team page and conference page.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 24, 2009, 10:29:07 AM
Tuesday of Tournament Week is normally reserved for major upsets and last chances for low-ranked teams as many conferences play their quarterfinal round.

Losses tonight by UW-Whitewater, Rhode Island College, or Mass-Dartmouth would be embarassing but would not keep those schools out of the tournament.

Wooster would likely see their Pool C hopes go away with an upset loss tonight.

The interesting situation is in the NJAC, where they've moved to the semifinals already. Richard Stockton, who's done enough to clinch a Pool C berth, takes on William Paterson, who is on the bubble. I think Paterson needs a win to make the NCAAs, but they might have a chance even with a loss. On the other side of the bracket, Montclair State must avoid the upset by Rutgers-Newark to maintain their spot on the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: golden_dome on February 24, 2009, 11:51:21 AM
Titan,
   Thanks for the responses, we agree for the most part. I think the system now is much better with a more accurate strength fo schedule component, as long as it is implemented like we think it is. I hope there is an RPI number derived from the regional record, OWP and OOWP that the committees go by for the most part, then if it's close you see the other criteria come into play.
   I would disagree with you on how the QOWI was implemented. I do know that regional rankings were greatly dependent on the QOWI number, then if it was close you saw other criteria invovled. But 9 times out of 10 the the rankings went by the QOWI.

Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2009, 07:33:00 AM
Chris, I see where you are coming from, but I honestly think Division III coaches know exactly how they need to schedule.  We've been using this "in-region" process for several years now, and I think everyone knows...

* In-region D3 games are the only ones that count.

* Strength of schedule will be considered.

* In-region winning % is the most significant criteria - gotta win games. 

With this system, there is hardly any margin for the good ole boys network. 

Again, I agree for the most part. I just don't see any benefit to not giving a detailed explanation of the process in the handbook considering we have competing coaches making the regional ranking decisions, and they don't all like each other. Could you imagine what people would say if Division I were done that way and it determined who got in the NCAA Tournament. Nothing wrong with it, but the less room for ambiguity the better.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 24, 2009, 12:35:10 PM
Getting in the D3 tournament is also not the end-all, be-all for a large portion of the D3 community.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2009, 12:51:25 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 24, 2009, 11:51:21 AMI would disagree with you on how the QOWI was implemented. I do know that regional rankings were greatly dependent on the QOWI number, then if it was close you saw other criteria invovled. But 9 times out of 10 the the rankings went by the QOWI. 

I think, however, that was due to the fact that QOWI almost directly tracked with in-region winning %.  With QOWI, a win over a bad team was significantly better than a loss to a great team.  At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure a list of the top QOWI teams tracked very, very closely with a list of the top in-region winning percentages.  Using both in-region winning % and QOWI was redundant, which is why it was scrapped in favor of a more traditional "strength of schedule" element.

As long as we have been doing this in-region thing, I'm sure that in-region winning % has always been the biggie.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2009, 12:59:31 PM
A post I made 3 seasons ago, from the archives...

Quote from: Titan Q on February 07, 2006, 06:49:11 PM
The NCAA Division III Tournament Committee does not look at the D3hoops.com Top 25 poll at all.  D3hoops.com is a private website run with no tie to the NCAA.  The complete criteria for tournament selection and seeding is spelled out in the 2006 Championship Handbook:

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2006/2006_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf

See "Primary Criteria", starting on page 15 and continuing and page 16...

* Win-loss percentage against regional opponents
* Quality of Wins Index
* In-region head-to-head competition
* In-region results vs common opponents
* In-region results vs regionally ranked teams (only teams ranked at the time of the ranking/selection process count as "ranked")

I don't think anyone has any idea how the committee weighs these 5 primary criteria, but it seems like in-region win-loss % and QOWI are the big two.

(Just to confirm how the primary criteria was defined then.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2009, 01:20:24 PM
2009 Criteria


http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2009/3_mbasketball_handbook.pdf

QuoteSelection Criteria.

Primary Criteria

The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests leading up to NCAA
championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).

• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
[See Appendix B for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.]
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

Note:
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/
selection process only.
• Conference postseason contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth
years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members
shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.

Secondary Criteria

If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the
secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not
listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-of-region
Division III and all other opponents including those contests versus opponents from
other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).

• Out-of-region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non Division III opponents.
• Results versus all Division III ranked teams.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus all common opponents.
• Overall DIII Strength of Schedule.

Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by
the basketball committee.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2009, 08:31:02 PM
Good news on the scoreboard.  Richard Stockton 61 WPU 43 in the NJAC Semis  12:00 left.

We (non-Atlantic) Pool C fans need no viable Pool C candidates from the Atlantic on the table. We need Richard Stockton to take care of business this week.

Regional Rankings from Feb 18th
QuoteAtlantic Region
1. Richard Stockton 22-2 19-2
2. Farmingdale State 21-2 21-2
3. William Paterson 19-5 19-5
4. Baruch 21-4 19-3
5. St. Joseph's (L.I.) 20-3 19-3
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2009, 08:50:13 PM

RIC and UMASS-D both hold serve tonight.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 24, 2009, 08:50:59 PM
Rutgers Newark upsets Montclair State with a 3 at the buzzer to win by 1 (according to the livestats).  Another one of pabegg's bubble teams go down.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 24, 2009, 08:56:47 PM
Final: Richard Stockton 83 - William Patterson 67
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2009, 09:41:51 PM

River Falls is hanging with Whitewater in the second half.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on February 24, 2009, 09:56:46 PM
WW 84 to 81 with ball and 11 seconds to go
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on February 24, 2009, 09:59:07 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 24, 2009, 09:56:46 PM
WW 84 to 81 with ball and 11 seconds to go

Final 86 to 81
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2009, 10:35:49 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 24, 2009, 09:59:07 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 24, 2009, 09:56:46 PM
WW 84 to 81 with ball and 11 seconds to go

Final 86 to 81
Do we Pool C fans (all of us against everybody else who might be taking the Pool C bid that each of us wants) breathe a sigh of relief?

Big question...Would a first round loss to UWRF knocked UWW so deep into the West Regional rankings that they might not have gotten to the table?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 24, 2009, 10:46:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2009, 10:35:49 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 24, 2009, 09:59:07 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 24, 2009, 09:56:46 PM
WW 84 to 81 with ball and 11 seconds to go

Final 86 to 81
Do we Pool C fans (all of us against everybody else who might be taking the Pool C bid that each of us wants) breathe a sigh of relief?

Big question...Would a first round loss to UWRF knocked UWW so deep into the West Regional rankings that they might not have gotten to the table?

I don't think so, the three WIAC's seem to be a lock, I'm not sure it matters which one wins the A bid, so long as its one of those 3.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 09:25:16 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 24, 2009, 08:56:47 PM
Final: Richard Stockton 83 - William Patterson 67
Rutgers-Newark 58 Montclair State 57.

Now we need RSNJ to earn the Pool A.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2009, 10:29:16 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 09:25:16 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 24, 2009, 08:56:47 PM
Final: Richard Stockton 83 - William Patterson 67
Rutgers-Newark 58 Montclair State 57.

Now we need RSNJ to earn the Pool A.

Ralph,

I think you and I are cheering for the same teams so far (I am sure you will be cheering for WPI in the NEWMAC while I will be cheering for MIT).  With regards to tournaments that began last night, it would be nice to see a Richard Stockton win, as you said, and for Wooster to take care of business in their tourney.  I dont think their were any other conference tourneys with teams that had bubble Pool C chances that played last night (I would consider the 3 WIAC schools essentially locks at this point).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2009, 12:39:52 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 09:25:16 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 24, 2009, 08:56:47 PM
Final: Richard Stockton 83 - William Patterson 67
Rutgers-Newark 58 Montclair State 57.

Now we need RSNJ to earn the Pool A.

Atlantic Region
1. Richard Stockton 22-2 19-2
2. Farmingdale State 21-2 21-2
3. William Paterson 19-5 19-5
4. Baruch 21-4 19-3
5. St. Joseph's (L.I.) 20-3 19-3
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2009, 12:42:59 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2009, 10:35:49 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 24, 2009, 09:59:07 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 24, 2009, 09:56:46 PM
WW 84 to 81 with ball and 11 seconds to go

Final 86 to 81
Do we Pool C fans (all of us against everybody else who might be taking the Pool C bid that each of us wants) breathe a sigh of relief?

Big question...Would a first round loss to UWRF knocked UWW so deep into the West Regional rankings that they might not have gotten to the table?


West Region
1. St. Thomas 22-0 22-0
2. Puget Sound 21-2 18-0
3. UW-Whitewater 20-3 19-3
4. UW-Stevens Point 20-3 19-3
5. UW-Platteville 20-3 15-3
6. Buena Vista 22-2 19-2
7. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 16-6 14-4
8. Whitworth 18-5 16-5

I think the WIAC 3 are locks...actually, they could get FOUR because Oshkosh always plays Point tough and if they beat Point, and then play Whitewater...they've already beaten Whitewater at home and they lost a close one in Whitewater...

I think the key was for Whitewater to win their opening round game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2009, 03:14:21 PM
New regional Rankings out:

http://www.ncaa.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncaa/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/DIIIMBK22509Regional
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2009, 03:18:09 PM
Pabegg, looks like Amherst isnt so safe at #34 in your rankings.  Brandeis jumps ahead of them this week. So, as long as Brandeis wins this week against NYU, Brandeis would have to get a Pool C before Amherst would get one.  That cant bode too well for the Lord Jeffs.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: watcher on February 25, 2009, 03:52:17 PM
I also have a question, st mary's college of maryland are they safe for an at large bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 25, 2009, 04:00:29 PM
Quote from: watcher on February 25, 2009, 03:52:17 PM
I also have a question, st mary's college of maryland are they safe for an at large bid.
Not quite safe, but will be in barring an extreme number of upsets in conference tournaments.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Walter17 on February 25, 2009, 04:05:00 PM
Trinity (TX), are they in?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2009, 04:13:48 PM
Pabegg,

What do you think this week's regional rankings, along with your RPI numbers, tells you about the Pool C picture?  I would obviously like your thoughts on Amherst/Brandeis but also in other regions, are there any surprises that would change the category you put a team in (lock vs. safe bubble vs. outside of bubble)?   (Due to my lack of knowledge of other conferences, I will use another UAA school as an example).  For example, you had CMU at #45 overall in your RPI, but they are ranked ahead of #32 Calvin and #36 Wooster in the regional rankings.  You had said that #34 or better is probably safe, but with CMU (#45) and Brandeis (#54) being ranked ahead of teams in your top #34 in the regional rankings, do you have any ideas on how this thing will play out?

I am sorry to ask you so many questions but I am very curious as to your thoughts.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 05:24:45 PM
My first thought was that the East Regional Committee injected a dose of sanity by 'flipping" SLU and Hamilton when evaluating the teams versus the numbers (numbers as we see them from pabegg's calculations.)

I think that is why we don't want something "carved in stone".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 25, 2009, 07:58:36 PM
Assuming all of the conference winners (top ranked west region teams) win their conference tourneys.  What are Whitworth's chances of getting an at-large, assuming they get one more in-region win and then lose in the NWC championship game?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 08:13:25 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 25, 2009, 07:58:36 PM
Assuming all of the conference winners (top ranked west region teams) win their conference tourneys.  What are Whitworth's chances of getting an at-large, assuming they get one more in-region win and then lose in the NWC championship game?

Let's assume no upsets in the conference tourneys in the West and the three WIAC'S finish at the top.

West Region
1. St. Thomas 22-0 22-0
2. Puget Sound 21-2 18-0
3. UW-Whitewater 20-3 19-3
4. UW-Stevens Point 20-3 19-3
5. UW-Platteville 20-3 15-3
6. Buena Vista 22-2 19-2
7. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 16-6 14-4
8. Whitworth 18-5 16-5

The first two WIAC's come off the table in a hurry.

Now we are looking at 17-6 teams around the country.

My first impression is that Whitworth is comfortably in that C13-C18 bubble.

I think that you should hope for Chapman and CMS to do well and give you a playoff game at Puget Sound.  That has to be a first round bracket where Whitworth plays CMS in the first game and UPS gets Chapman.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2009, 09:28:47 PM
The above posting of regional rankings was last weeks...

This is todays.

West Region
1. St. Thomas 25-0 24-0
2. Puget Sound 23-2 20-0
3. UW-Stevens Point 21-4 20-4
4. UW-Whitewater 21-4 20-4
5. UW-Platteville 21-4 16-4
6. Buena Vista 23-2 20-2
7. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 18-6 16-4
8. Whitworth 20-5 18-5

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 09:40:38 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 25, 2009, 09:28:47 PM
The above posting of regional rankings was last weeks...

This is today's.

West Region
1. St. Thomas 25-0 24-0MIAC
2. Puget Sound 23-2 20-0NWC
3. UW-Stevens Point 21-4 20-4 WIAC
4. UW-Whitewater 21-4 20-4
5. UW-Platteville 21-4 16-4
6. Buena Vista 23-2 20-2 IIAC
7. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 18-6 16-4 SCIAC
8. Whitworth 20-5 18-5
Thanks and +1!   :)

Deck chairs have been re-arranged.   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 10:15:46 PM
Men's regional rankings (FINAL PUBLIC RANKING)
Records listed are overall record, followed by in-region record.
Atlantic Region
1. Richard Stockton 23-2 20-2
2. Farmingdale State 23-2 23-2
3. Montclair State 20-5 16-5
4. William Paterson 20-6 20-6
5. Baruch 22-4 20-3

East Region
1. Ithaca 24-1 22-1
2. St. Lawrence 19-5 17-5
3. Hamilton 18-6 16-2
4. Utica 17-8 17-8
5. Rochester 16-8 16-8

Great Lakes Region
1. John Carroll 20-4 18-3
2. Capital 22-3 20-3
3. Carnegie Mellon 18-6 14-5
5. Wooster 19-6 18-4
4. Calvin 17-7 12-2
6. Ohio Wesleyan 17-7 16-6

Middle Atlantic Region
1. St. Mary's (Md.) 21-4 18-2
2. Franklin & Marshall 21-4 20-4
3. DeSales 20-5 19-5
4. Widener 20-5 18-5
5. Gwynedd-Mercy 20-5 19-4
6. McDaniel 18-7 16-6
7. Cabrini 19-6 19-6
8. Scranton 19-6 18-6

Midwest Region
1. Wheaton (Ill.) 22-3 18-3
2. Washington U. 22-2 21-2
3. Elmhurst 19-6 19-6
4. Transylvania 19-5 16-3
5. Lawrence 17-6 17-6
6. Augustana 18-7 17-7
7. Carroll 16-7 16-7
8. North Central (Ill.) 16-9 14-7

Northeast Region
1. Worcester Tech 20-4 20-3
2. Middlebury 22-3 20-2
3. Elms 24-1 23-1
4. Rhode Island College 21-4 21-4
5. Mass-Dartmouth 22-3 20-3
6. Salem State 20-5 19-5
7. Bridgewater State 18-6 17-4
8. Brandeis 16-8 16-8
9. Amherst 20-5 18-5
10. Bowdoin 17-8 17-8

South Region
1. Trinity (Texas) 22-3 19-3
2. Texas-Dallas 21-4 19-4
3. Guilford 21-4 20-4
4. Randolph-Macon 20-5 18-2
5. Centre 20-4 16-4
6. McMurry 18-7 17-5
7. DePauw 19-6 15-5
8. Roanoke 19-6 14-6

West Region
1. St. Thomas 25-0 24-0
2. Puget Sound 23-2 20-0
3. UW-Stevens Point 21-4 20-4
4. UW-Whitewater 21-4 20-4
5. UW-Platteville 21-4 16-4
6. Buena Vista 23-2 20-2
7. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 18-6 16-4
8. Whitworth 20-5 18-5
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2009, 10:22:22 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 10:15:46 PM
Great Lakes Region
1. John Carroll 20-4 18-3
2. Capital 22-3 20-3
3. Carnegie Mellon 18-6 14-5
5. Wooster 19-6 18-4
4. Calvin 17-7 12-2
6. Ohio Wesleyan 17-7 16-6

The above has caused some confusion on the Great Lakes board. Anyone who can clarify?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 25, 2009, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 08:13:25 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 25, 2009, 07:58:36 PM
Assuming all of the conference winners (top ranked west region teams) win their conference tourneys.  What are Whitworth's chances of getting an at-large, assuming they get one more in-region win and then lose in the NWC championship game?

Let's assume no upsets in the conference tourneys in the West and the three WIAC'S finish at the top.

West Region
1. St. Thomas 22-0 22-0
2. Puget Sound 21-2 18-0
3. UW-Whitewater 20-3 19-3
4. UW-Stevens Point 20-3 19-3
5. UW-Platteville 20-3 15-3
6. Buena Vista 22-2 19-2
7. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 16-6 14-4
8. Whitworth 18-5 16-5

The first two WIAC's come off the table in a hurry.

Now we are looking at 17-6 teams around the country.

My first impression is that Whitworth is comfortably in that C13-C18 bubble.

I think that you should hope for Chapman and CMS to do well and give you a playoff game at Puget Sound.  That has to be a first round bracket where Whitworth plays CMS in the first game and UPS gets Chapman.
I would agree that Whitworth will be under consideration in this scenario, but their chances depend on the number of upsets elsewhere.

If Whitworth gets in as a C, they're definitely heading back to Puget Sound. If Chapman doesn't make it, they'll be joined by the SCIAC champ and someone else; if Chapman does make it, it's too early to tell what will happen.

If Whitworth grabs the Pool A bid, UPS isn't guaranteed of hosting and then a number of scenarios can take place.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 25, 2009, 10:39:43 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 05:24:45 PM
My first thought was that the East Regional Committee injected a dose of sanity by 'flipping" SLU and Hamilton when evaluating the teams versus the numbers (numbers as we see them from pabegg's calculations.)

I think that is why we don't want something "carved in stone".

They didn't flip them. The rankings have been Ithaca - St. Lawrence - Hamilton all four weeks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 11:23:23 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 25, 2009, 10:39:43 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 05:24:45 PM
My first thought was that the East Regional Committee injected a dose of sanity by 'flipping" SLU and Hamilton when evaluating the teams versus the numbers (numbers as we see them from pabegg's calculations.)

I think that is why we don't want something "carved in stone".

They didn't flip them. The rankings have been Ithaca - St. Lawrence - Hamilton all four weeks.
Duh...
thanks!  +1!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 25, 2009, 11:52:01 PM
Last things first. Wednesday's results provided no upsets that will impact the Pool C standings.

Tonight is my first attempt to look at who I think is in tournament position based on the regional rankings rather than the numbers. It is highly unlikely that the "unseen" final regional rankings will be much different from this week's rankings.

Based on the regional rankings released earlier today, I'd tend to think that the following 31 are in with Pool C's if they need them (obviously if we have a huge run of upsets, not all of these would get in). Some of the bottom teams in each region might be in trouble with an upset loss (e.g. Bridgewater State will be in if they lose to Salem State in the MASCAC final but might be out if they lose to Westfield State in the semi).

Atlantic Region
1. Richard Stockton 23-2 20-2
2. Farmingdale State 23-2 23-2

East Region
1. Ithaca 24-1 22-1
2. St. Lawrence 19-5 17-5
3. Hamilton 18-6 16-2

Great Lakes Region
1. John Carroll 20-4 18-3
2. Capital 22-3 20-3

Middle Atlantic Region
1. St. Mary's (Md.) 21-4 18-2
2. Franklin & Marshall 21-4 20-4
3. DeSales 20-5 19-5
4. Widener 20-5 18-5

Midwest Region
1. Wheaton (Ill.) 22-3 18-3
3. Elmhurst 19-6 19-6
4. Transylvania 19-5 16-3

Northeast Region
1. Worcester Tech 20-4 20-3
2. Middlebury 22-3 20-2
4. Rhode Island College 21-4 21-4
5. Mass-Dartmouth 22-3 20-3
6. Salem State 20-5 19-5
7. Bridgewater State 18-6 17-4

South Region
1. Trinity (Texas) 22-3 19-3
2. Texas-Dallas 21-4 19-4
3. Guilford 21-4 20-4
4. Randolph-Macon 20-5 18-2
5. Centre 20-4 16-4

West Region
1. St. Thomas 25-0 24-0
2. Puget Sound 23-2 20-0
3. UW-Stevens Point 21-4 20-4
4. UW-Whitewater 21-4 20-4
5. UW-Platteville 21-4 16-4
6. Buena Vista 23-2 20-2

Of these 31, there are 22 conferences represented, so there could be as few as 9 Pool C bids out of this group.

Of the remaining teams, Brandeis and Carnegie Mellon have the advantage of no conference tournament; I think they'd join the previous group if they go 1-0 this weekend.

Any of the other regionally ranked teams except Utica, Rochester, Cabrini, Roanoke, and Ohio Wesleyan are conceivable Pool C's. I think that St. Joseph's LI might have a chance if they lose the conference final to Farmingdale (they'd move back into the regional rankings.)

Montclair may have lost their chance with the loss to Rutgers-Newark. William Paterson would be a longshot now that they're done.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 12:01:04 AM
Thanks, pabegg.  +1 for all that work.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2009, 01:22:46 AM
22 Pool A bids
+9 Strong Pool C bids
31 teams from Pool A conferences

31 Pool A & C's
17 Pool A conferences not in the Regional Rankings or are "unsafe" Pool A's like Baruch
+3 Pool B bids
51  bids so far.


That leaves 9 Pool C bids for these 18 teams on the table.  If we use pabegg's 31, then we assume that the tourneys have had no surprises, and everyone except the UAA's have one more loss.  Here is who is on the table for the final Pool C bids.

Men's regional rankings
Records listed are overall record, followed by in-region record.
Atlantic Region

3. Montclair State 20-5 16-5  (Has lost in Semis)
4. William Paterson 20-6 20-6 (Has lost in Semis)
5. Baruch 22-4 20-3   CUNYAC Pool A

East Region

4. Utica 17-8 17-8
5. Rochester 16-8 16-8 UAA one game left hosting CMU

Great Lakes Region

3. Carnegie Mellon 18-6 14-5 (Pool C fans are rooting for CMU)
5. Wooster 19-6 18-4  NCAC Pool A
4. Calvin 17-7 12-2  MIAA Pool A
6. Ohio Wesleyan 17-7 16-6

Middle Atlantic Region

5. Gwynedd-Mercy 20-5 19-4 CSAC Pool A
6. McDaniel 18-7 16-6
7. Cabrini 19-6 19-6
8. Scranton 19-6 18-6  Pool B

Midwest Region

5. Lawrence 17-6 17-6 (? Pool A Midwest Conference ?)
6. Augustana 18-7 17-7
7. Carroll 16-7 16-7
8. North Central (Ill.) 16-9 14-7

Northeast Region

8. Brandeis 16-8 16-8  (one game vs NYU)
9. Amherst 20-5 18-5
10. Bowdoin 17-8 17-8

South Region

6. McMurry 18-7 17-5
7. DePauw 19-6 15-5
8. Roanoke 19-6 14-6

West Region

7. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 18-6 16-4  SCIAC Pool A
8. Whitworth 20-5 18-5


I think that I have thought thru correctly.

Comments appreciated.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 26, 2009, 01:37:14 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2009, 01:22:46 AM
Great Lakes Region

3. Carnegie Mellon 18-6 14-5 (Pool C fans are rooting for CMU)
5. Wooster 19-6 18-4  NCAC Pool A
4. Calvin 17-7 12-2  MIAA Pool A
6. Ohio Wesleyan 17-7 16-6

You might be assuming too much here about Calvin even in a hypothesis....

Calvin plays Olivet Friday, it was Olivet who handed Calvin their first lost at their new home 60-57
http://miaa.org/mbb/stats/0809/caol0121.htm

If they make the Championship game they'll play Albion or Hope

They beat both twice.....

vs Albion   79-73,  67-62
http://miaa.org/mbb/stats/0809/m124caab.htm
http://miaa.org/mbb/stats/0809/0218caab.htm

vs Hope   66-64, 63-62 both came down to the final play, one went in, one didn't.
http://miaa.org/mbb/stats/0809/0117calv.htm
http://miaa.org/mbb/stats/0809/0211caho.htm

Calvin winning the MIAA tournament is far from a forgone conclusion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2009, 01:46:43 AM
Same can be said for lots of teams, though, sac. I wouldn't take it personally or single Calvin out as a particularly unsafe Pool A.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 26, 2009, 01:51:52 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2009, 01:46:43 AM
Same can be said for lots of teams, though, sac. I wouldn't take it personally or single Calvin out as a particularly unsafe Pool A.

who took it personally, geez man its the league I follow and it was obvious to me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2009, 01:57:03 AM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2009, 01:37:14 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2009, 01:22:46 AM
Great Lakes Region

3. Carnegie Mellon 18-6 14-5 (Pool C fans are rooting for CMU)
5. Wooster 19-6 18-4  NCAC Pool A
4. Calvin 17-7 12-2  MIAA Pool A
6. Ohio Wesleyan 17-7 16-6

You might be assuming too much here about Calvin even in a hypothesis....

Calvin plays Olivet Friday, it was Olivet who handed Calvin their first lost at their new home 60-57
http://miaa.org/mbb/stats/0809/caol0121.htm

If they make the Championship game they'll play Albion or Hope

They beat both twice.....

vs Albion   79-73,  67-62
http://miaa.org/mbb/stats/0809/m124caab.htm
http://miaa.org/mbb/stats/0809/0218caab.htm

vs Hope   66-64, 63-62 both came down to the final play, one went in, one didn't.
http://miaa.org/mbb/stats/0809/0117calv.htm
http://miaa.org/mbb/stats/0809/0211caho.htm

Calvin winning the MIAA tournament is far from a forgone conclusion.
My thoughts on that post were to see who would be on the table when the "sure things" were given bids.

Calvin losing in the tourney knocks them off.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 26, 2009, 02:00:42 AM
Quote from: pabegg on February 25, 2009, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2009, 08:13:25 PM
Quote from: LogShow on February 25, 2009, 07:58:36 PM
Assuming all of the conference winners (top ranked west region teams) win their conference tourneys.  What are Whitworth's chances of getting an at-large, assuming they get one more in-region win and then lose in the NWC championship game?

Let's assume no upsets in the conference tourneys in the West and the three WIAC'S finish at the top.

West Region
1. St. Thomas 22-0 22-0
2. Puget Sound 21-2 18-0
3. UW-Whitewater 20-3 19-3
4. UW-Stevens Point 20-3 19-3
5. UW-Platteville 20-3 15-3
6. Buena Vista 22-2 19-2
7. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 16-6 14-4
8. Whitworth 18-5 16-5

The first two WIAC's come off the table in a hurry.

Now we are looking at 17-6 teams around the country.

My first impression is that Whitworth is comfortably in that C13-C18 bubble.

I think that you should hope for Chapman and CMS to do well and give you a playoff game at Puget Sound.  That has to be a first round bracket where Whitworth plays CMS in the first game and UPS gets Chapman.
I would agree that Whitworth will be under consideration in this scenario, but their chances depend on the number of upsets elsewhere.

If Whitworth gets in as a C, they're definitely heading back to Puget Sound. If Chapman doesn't make it, they'll be joined by the SCIAC champ and someone else; if Chapman does make it, it's too early to tell what will happen.

If Whitworth grabs the Pool A bid, UPS isn't guaranteed of hosting and then a number of scenarios can take place.


Thanks for the input!  I am really hoping that UPS can pull off two more wins and get to host...there isn't anything better then going to a NCAA game in your own gym   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 26, 2009, 10:43:50 AM
I've expanded on my analysis from last night.

Washington University is in with the UAA regular season title.

Six teams are Pool B candidates, for three spots.
Elms is a certainty
Scranton is also ranked; they play Susquehanna in the Landmark final and I think the winner locks up a bid.
Maryville TN and Chapman need to win all of their games against weak opponents to contend with the Scranton/Susquehanna loser for the 3rd bid.
Becker is a wild card; if they upset Elms in the NECC tournament, they could make as good a case as anyone for #3.

Five teams are Pool C candidates only, having been eliminated from Pool A play.
Carnegie Mellon and Brandeis each have one UAA regular season game left. Both would be in contention with a win and CMU would still have a chance with a loss.
Montclair State and William Paterson lost in tournament play and only have faint chances.
Rochester has a very faint hope if they can beat Carnegie Mellon in their last UAA game.

105 teams are still alive for Pool A but have no Pool C chances

This includes ranked teams Cabrini and Claremont-Mudd-Scripps.            

49 teams are still in contention for a Pool C bid that can still win their Pool A bid. Some of these Pool C hopes are pretty faint, but they still exist.               

This includes unranked teams Averett and St. Joseph's LI.

Here are the 49 with their regional ranking, next tournament game, and Pool C status
(Lock = 100%, Safe = 99% In Contention = 50-98%+ Chance = 1-49%, all of which depend on upsets for Pool A).

   St. Thomas   WE   1   F Sat   Lock
   Puget Sound   WE   2   SF Thu   Lock
   UW-Stevens Point   WE   3   SF Thu   Lock
   UW-Whitewater   WE   4   SF Thu   Lock
   UW-Platteville   WE   5   SF Thu   Lock
   Buena Vista   WE   6   SF Thu   Safe
   Whitworth   WE   7   SF Thu   In Contention
   Wheaton (Ill.)   MW   1   SF Fri   Lock
   Elmhurst   MW   3   SF Fri   Safe
   Transylvania   MW   4   SF Fri   Safe
   Lawrence   MW   5   SF Fri   Chance
   Augustana   MW   6   SF Fri   In Contention
   Carroll   MW   7   SF Fri   Chance
   North Central   MW   8   SF Fri   Chance
   John Carroll   GL   1   SF Fri   Safe
   Capital   GL   2   SF Fri   Safe
   Wooster   GL   4   SF Fri   In Contention
   Calvin   GL   5   SF Fri   In Contention
   Trinity (Texas)   SO   1   QF Fri   Safe
   Texas-Dallas   SO   2   QF Fri   Safe
   Guilford   SO   3   QF Fri   Safe
   Randolph-Macon   SO   4   QF Fri   Safe
   Centre   SO   5   QF Fri   Safe
   McMurry   SO   6   QF Fri   In Contention
   DePauw   SO   7   QF Fri   In Contention
   Roanoke   SO   8   QF Fri   Chance
   Averett   SO      SF Fri   Chance
   St. Mary's (Md.)   MA   1   SF Thu   Safe
   Franklin and Marshall   MA   2   SF Sat   Safe
   DeSales   MA   3   F Sat   Safe
   Widener   MA   4   F Sat   Safe
   Gwynedd-Mercy   MA   5   F Fri   In Contention
   McDaniel   MA   6   SF Sat   In Contention
   Richard Stockton   AT   1   F Fri   Lock
   SUNY-Farmingdale   AT   2   SF Thu   Safe
   Baruch   AT   5   F Fri   Chance
   St. Joseph's (L.I.)   AT      SF Thu   Chance
   Ithaca   EA   1   SF Sat   Lock
   St. Lawrence   EA   2   SF Fri   Safe
   Hamilton   EA   3   SF Fri   Safe
   Utica   EA   4   SF Sat   Chance
   Worcester Polytech   NE   1   SF Sat   Lock
   Middlebury   NE   2   SF Sat   Lock
   Rhode Island College   NE   4   SF Fri   Safe
   Mass-Dartmouth   NE   5   SF Fri   Safe
   Salem State   NE   6   SF Thu   Safe
   Bridgewater State   NE   7   SF Thu   Safe
   Amherst   NE   9   SF Sat   In Contention
   Bowdoin   NE   10   SF Sat   Chance


How can the Pool C picture change Thursday night?               
I don't think anyone can "clinch" a Pool C bid tonight, but several teams can help or hurt their chances.
Only one team, St. Joseph's LI, is in a must-win situation for Pool C chances.      
If Stevens Point beats Oshkosh, we'll know that there will be exactly two Pool C bids from the WIAC; if not, there could be three.
Teams on the bubble are rooting hard for St. Mary's MD to win their tournament and hold onto the Pool A.
Salem State, Bridgwater State, and Whitworth could breathe a lot easier with a win tonight, although they'll still be around with a loss.               
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 89Pirate on February 26, 2009, 10:59:45 AM
Thanks pabegg for your work on this, it is very insightful.  You answered my question on Whitworth before I could ask it, so instead, I will ask this.

If Whitworth can grab the AQ, is there a chance that they would host over UPS?  Does the committee favor AQ's over at-larges for venues?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2009, 11:08:47 AM
I count: 10 locks, 21 safe, 9 in contention, and 9 chance teams.
Using Ralph's 17 no-shot-at-C conferences + 1 (Wash U) + 3 (Pool B) + 10 (locks) + 21 (safe) = 52 bids
8 bids remain for the 23 "in contention" and "chance" teams.  8 upsets will turn these into "out of contention" and "no chance".  Is this correct?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2009, 11:09:58 AM
Quote from: 89Pirate on February 26, 2009, 10:59:45 AM
Does the committee favor AQ's over at-larges for venues?

It does not. It favors the entire season resume.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 11:53:25 AM
What I found to be most interesting from this week's poll is that UNE's loss last week to Gordon actually hurt Amherst more than it hurt UNE.  UNE had a slim chance at a Pool C anyway, but Amherst was in pretty good contention.  However, when Amherst lost and Brandeis was bumped up a spot in the rankings, directly adjacent to Amherst, Brandeis overtook them because in a head-to-head comparison there is a very strong argument for Brandeis to be considered the better team.  So UNE's loss dropped Amherst from a being "Safe" to being "In Contention."  That just amuses me for some reason, because if UNE had won, in all likelyhood, Amherst would have stayed at 8, UNE at 9, and Brandeis at 10.


Something similar could happen in the selection process.  Let's say CMU wins this weekend over NYU and they have a pretty good resume for a Pool C.  However, lets say while CMU is still on the board (meaning they are tops in their region and being considered along with the other top region teams for a Pool C spot), Brandeis enters the top spot in the NE.  How do you rank Brandeis below CMU when Brandeis beat CMU twice this year?  In all likelihood, that would mean that Brandeis would be ranked a spot ahead of CMU, which could result in both of them either getting in (if in the previous 1-7 rankings, CMU was high up the list) or both of them being left out (if CMU wasnt that high up the list and Brandeis holds CMU near the bottom of that list for the remaining C selections). 

For some reason, I really enjoy the dynamics of the selection process.  Its not just how good your resume is, but how good you compare to the teams that you are actually being compared to.  For example, hypothetically, if you compare a 20-6 Wooster team to 17-8 Brandeis, you may come up with Wooster being the better candidate (this is completely hypothetical, I know CMU and Wooster would not be in Pool C contention at the same time, and Wooster would have to lose again to be in Pool C contention).  That would give you the order;

Wooster
Brandeis

But lets say you had CMU to the mix of teams you are comparing.  In this case CMU beat Wooster and has essentially the same number of losses, therefore you would rank CMU above Wooster, but because Brandeis swept CMU, your rankings could now look like this:

Brandeis
CMU
Wooster

Really interesting to me how the rankings can change depending on which teams you compare.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2009, 01:13:44 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 11:53:25 AM
What I found to be most interesting from this week's poll is that UNE's loss last week to Gordon actually hurt Amherst more than it hurt UNE.  UNE had a slim chance at a Pool C anyway, but Amherst was in pretty good contention.  However, when Amherst lost and Brandeis was bumped up a spot in the rankings, directly adjacent to Amherst, Brandeis overtook them because in a head-to-head comparison there is a very strong argument for Brandeis to be considered the better team.  So UNE's loss dropped Amherst from a being "Safe" to being "In Contention."  That just amuses me for some reason, because if UNE had won, in all likelyhood, Amherst would have stayed at 8, UNE at 9, and Brandeis at 10.


Something similar could happen in the selection process.  Let's say CMU wins this weekend over NYU and they have a pretty good resume for a Pool C.  However, lets say while CMU is still on the board (meaning they are tops in their region and being considered along with the other top region teams for a Pool C spot), Brandeis enters the top spot in the NE.  How do you rank Brandeis below CMU when Brandeis beat CMU twice this year?  In all likelihood, that would mean that Brandeis would be ranked a spot ahead of CMU, which could result in both of them either getting in (if in the previous 1-7 rankings, CMU was high up the list) or both of them being left out (if CMU wasnt that high up the list and Brandeis holds CMU near the bottom of that list for the remaining C selections). 

For some reason, I really enjoy the dynamics of the selection process.  Its not just how good your resume is, but how good you compare to the teams that you are actually being compared to.  For example, hypothetically, if you compare a 20-6 Wooster team to 17-8 Brandeis, you may come up with Wooster being the better candidate (this is completely hypothetical, I know CMU and Wooster would not be in Pool C contention at the same time, and Wooster would have to lose again to be in Pool C contention).  That would give you the order;

Wooster
Brandeis

But lets say you had CMU to the mix of teams you are comparing.  In this case CMU beat Wooster and has essentially the same number of losses, therefore you would rank CMU above Wooster, but because Brandeis swept CMU, your rankings could now look like this:

Brandeis
CMU
Wooster

Really interesting to me how the rankings can change depending on which teams you compare.
If CMU and Brandeis are on the table at the same time, then Brandeis would have the Head-to-Head and the better record against common opponents. (Basically UAA.  I didn't see another common opponent). 

As a deep C fan, I don't want the Rochester win to help Rochester leapfrog "my team" unless it knocks CMU deep into Pool C!

It is fun!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 01:58:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2009, 01:13:44 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 11:53:25 AM
What I found to be most interesting from this week's poll is that UNE's loss last week to Gordon actually hurt Amherst more than it hurt UNE.  UNE had a slim chance at a Pool C anyway, but Amherst was in pretty good contention.  However, when Amherst lost and Brandeis was bumped up a spot in the rankings, directly adjacent to Amherst, Brandeis overtook them because in a head-to-head comparison there is a very strong argument for Brandeis to be considered the better team.  So UNE's loss dropped Amherst from a being "Safe" to being "In Contention."  That just amuses me for some reason, because if UNE had won, in all likelyhood, Amherst would have stayed at 8, UNE at 9, and Brandeis at 10.


Something similar could happen in the selection process.  Let's say CMU wins this weekend over NYU and they have a pretty good resume for a Pool C.  However, lets say while CMU is still on the board (meaning they are tops in their region and being considered along with the other top region teams for a Pool C spot), Brandeis enters the top spot in the NE.  How do you rank Brandeis below CMU when Brandeis beat CMU twice this year?  In all likelihood, that would mean that Brandeis would be ranked a spot ahead of CMU, which could result in both of them either getting in (if in the previous 1-7 rankings, CMU was high up the list) or both of them being left out (if CMU wasnt that high up the list and Brandeis holds CMU near the bottom of that list for the remaining C selections). 

For some reason, I really enjoy the dynamics of the selection process.  Its not just how good your resume is, but how good you compare to the teams that you are actually being compared to.  For example, hypothetically, if you compare a 20-6 Wooster team to 17-8 Brandeis, you may come up with Wooster being the better candidate (this is completely hypothetical, I know CMU and Wooster would not be in Pool C contention at the same time, and Wooster would have to lose again to be in Pool C contention).  That would give you the order;

Wooster
Brandeis

But lets say you had CMU to the mix of teams you are comparing.  In this case CMU beat Wooster and has essentially the same number of losses, therefore you would rank CMU above Wooster, but because Brandeis swept CMU, your rankings could now look like this:

Brandeis
CMU
Wooster

Really interesting to me how the rankings can change depending on which teams you compare.
If CMU and Brandeis are on the table at the same time, then Brandeis would have the Head-to-Head and the better record against common opponents. (Basically UAA.  I didn't see another common opponent). 

As a deep C fan, I don't want the Rochester win to help Rochester leapfrog "my team" unless it knocks CMU deep into Pool C!

It is fun!

Yeah, you essentially have the same case with Brandeis/Amherst as you do with Brandeis/CMU.  Brandeis would be ranked higher in both cases but they have 3 more losses.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 26, 2009, 02:29:05 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2009, 11:08:47 AM
I count: 10 locks, 21 safe, 9 in contention, and 9 chance teams.
Using Ralph's 17 no-shot-at-C conferences + 1 (Wash U) + 3 (Pool B) + 10 (locks) + 21 (safe) = 52 bids
8 bids remain for the 23 "in contention" and "chance" teams.  8 upsets will turn these into "out of contention" and "no chance".  Is this correct?

Almost. Ralph's math was off by 1, as there are 16 no-shot-at-C conferences (39 Pool A - 1 for Wash U - 22 on my list = 16). So the over/under on upsets is 9.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sumander on February 26, 2009, 05:03:33 PM
PaBegg, Little tiff over on the West board. What are Bethel's chances of a pool C. Bid?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 26, 2009, 05:34:35 PM
Quote from: sumander on February 26, 2009, 05:03:33 PM
PaBegg, Little tiff over on the West board. What are Bethel's chances of a pool C. Bid?

Negligible.

While they might be on the national board early, I can't see the case for selecting them.

They haven't beaten anyone in contention, as they're 0-2 vs. St. Thomas (and would be 0-3 as a Pool C contender). It's hard to see them picked over a team like DePauw, who's 15-5 and 2-1 vs. ranked teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sumander on February 26, 2009, 05:47:15 PM
Thank You!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: cubs on February 26, 2009, 07:28:16 PM
Point 35
UWO 30

Halftime

Pointers end half on a 5-0 run after UWO tied it at 30 with just over 2:00 left in the half.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 07:49:28 PM
Upset Alert:

St. Mary's (MD) trailing to Marymount by 1 at the half, not looking good for someone's Pool C if that holds up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: cubs on February 26, 2009, 08:03:19 PM
Point 43
UWO 38

Under 16:00 Media timeout

UWO opens second half with an 8-0 run to take 38-35 lead, but Point answers with an 8-0 run of their own to make it 43-38.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 08:11:54 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 07:49:28 PM
Upset Alert:

St. Mary's (MD) trailing to Marymount by 1 at the half, not looking good for someone's Pool C if that holds up.

St. Marys opens the half on a 20-8 run.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: cubs on February 26, 2009, 08:12:53 PM
Point 52
UWO 44

12:47 Remaining

UWO cuts into Point's lead and makes it 45-44, but Point goes on another quick 7-0 run to ake a 52-44 lead.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: cubs on February 26, 2009, 08:24:30 PM
Point 69
UWO 63

3:49 Remaining
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 08:26:28 PM
Marymount takes the lead over St.Mary's with 6 minutes left, 62-61.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2009, 08:29:28 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 08:26:28 PM
Marymount takes the lead over St.Mary's with 6 minutes left, 62-61.

You beat me!   :)

So now.  This is  "Pool A" St Mary's MD 62, "Pool C" Marymount 61?   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 08:32:09 PM
SMC retakes the lead by 1 with 3:30 to go.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: cubs on February 26, 2009, 08:33:52 PM
Point 72
UWO 65

2:23 Remaining
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 08:38:04 PM
Marymount up 2 with 1:20 left.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 08:41:20 PM
SMC with a couple clutch plays down the stretch, they are up 3 with 6 seconds left.


Marymount makes a 3 at the buzzer to force OT.

AND

AND

The live stats stopped working (apparently St. Marys beat Hood on Jan 10)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: cubs on February 26, 2009, 08:47:52 PM
Point 81
UWO 69

FINAL

Point closes game on a 10-4 run over the final 3:12 to put the game away.

No worries for the Pool C candidates, as the favorite wins.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 26, 2009, 09:03:44 PM
Buena Vista vs. Wartburg tied at 55, 16 minutes to go, has also frozen on livestats.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 26, 2009, 09:04:24 PM
Marymount upsets St. Marys 86-81.

Add another Pool C contender to the mix.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 26, 2009, 09:07:38 PM
Wartburg now up 6, 10:53 to go.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2009, 09:19:52 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 26, 2009, 09:07:38 PM
Wartburg now up 6, 10:53 to go.
Wartburg 74 BV 68 5:14 left.
Wartburg 76 BV 70 2:32 left. BV has not hit a FG for 4+ minutes
Wartburg 78 BV 72 1:19 left. BV cannot hit a 3FG.
Wartburg 78 BV 74 1:06 left. BV FG inside. Wartburg ball.
Wartburg 82 BV 77 0:32 left.
Wartburg 83 BV 81 0:12 left.
Wartburg 84 BV 81 0:06 left.
Wartburg at the line shooting two, makes one

Wartburg 85 BV 81 Final
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2009, 09:56:18 PM
Probably both teams are in anyway but great game:
http://www.d3hoops.com/audio/
UWW and UWP in overtime.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wizbegs1304 on February 26, 2009, 11:28:37 PM
Platteville a winner by 3
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 27, 2009, 02:13:05 AM
Whitworth won, still keeping their Pool C hopes alive
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2009, 03:13:56 AM
Buena Vista's loss doesn't help matters though.  You have to hope Whitworth jumps them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2009, 06:51:41 AM
What we know, Friday morning version

The two big upsets, with Buena Vista and St. Mary's losing, send those two teams to the Pool C list as the first two members of the "looks like in, but..." category.

In the WIAC and MASCAC, the chance of an upset winner is now gone; exactly three WIAC and two MASCAC teams will make the tournament, although who is the A and who is the C is still up for grabs (and in the WIAC's case, could well determine hosting).

On Thursday, we had 31 teams playing for anywhere from 18 to 40 spots (22 potential Pool A plus the 18 C's). Now those 31 will be fit into 20 to 38 spots. So things are a little tighter, but not dramatically so.

On to the day of drama that is Tournament Friday, with Pool A bids on the line, lots of semifinals, and the four-game day in the ASC, SCAC, and NEAC (and of course the ODAC!).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2009, 06:57:03 AM
Patrick, what do you think of this...

11 of 18 bids accounted for (Friday am)
(in no particular order)
1. UW-Whitewater
2. UW Stevens Point or UW-Platteville (WIAC)
3. Buena Vista
4. St. Mary's (Md.)
5. Capital or John Carroll (OAC)
6. Randolph-Macon or Guilford (ODAC)
7. Trinity (Tx) or Centre (SCAC)
8. Salem St or Bridgewater St (MASCAC)
9. Middlebury or Amherst (NESCAC)
10. Farmingdale St. or St. Joseph's (Sky)
11. Mass-Dartmouth or Rhode Island (LEC)


"Upset Proof" Teams
Ithaca (E8)
St. Thomas (MIAC)
Puget Sound (NWC)
Worcester Poly (NEWMAC)
Wheaton (CCIW)
Hamilton (Liberty)
Richard Stockton (NJAC)
Transylvania (HCAC)
Franklin & Marshall (CC)
Calvin (MIAA)
Texas-Dallas (ASC)
Wooster (NCAC)

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 27, 2009, 08:38:34 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2009, 06:57:03 AM
Patrick, what do you think of this...

11 of 18 bids accounted for (Friday am)
(in no particular order)
1. UW-Whitewater
2. UW Stevens Point or UW-Platteville (WIAC)
3. Buena Vista
4. St. Mary's (Md.)
5. Capital or John Carroll (OAC)
6. Randolph-Macon or Guilford (ODAC)
7. Trinity (Tx) or Centre (SCAC)
8. Salem St or Bridgewater St (MASCAC)
9. Middlebury or Amherst (NESCAC)
10. Farmingdale St. or St. Joseph's (Sky)
11. Mass-Dartmouth or Rhode Island (LEC)


"Upset Proof" Teams
Ithaca (E8)
St. Thomas (MIAC)
Puget Sound (NWC)
Worcester Poly (NEWMAC)
Wheaton (CCIW)
Hamilton (Liberty)
Richard Stockton (NJAC)
Transylvania (HCAC)
Franklin & Marshall (CC)
Calvin (MIAA)
Texas-Dallas (ASC)
Wooster (NCAC)



St. Joseph's seems to me to be a stretch.
Amherst is behind Brandeis in the regional rankings, so they'd have to sweat a Pool C.

I'm more optimistic for the Mid-Atlantic teams (DeSales, Widener) than the Great Lakes teams (Calvin, Wooster).

St. Lawrence is ranked ahead of Hamilton, so I think their chances are at least as good.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2009, 09:04:53 AM
Given that the #5, #6, and #7 seeds advanced to the semifinals in the NCAC, I don't like Wooster's chances in Pool C if the Scots are upset at home by Kenyon tonight or Wabash/Allegheny tomorrow night.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 27, 2009, 09:25:49 AM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2009, 09:04:53 AM
Given that the #5, #6, and #7 seeds advanced to the semifinals in the NCAC, I don't like Wooster's chances in Pool C if the Scots are upset at home by Kenyon tonight or Wabash/Allegheny tomorrow night.

Certainly Wooster's best bet is to get the A bid, but since conference tourney seed of the team you lost to isn't a criterion for the committee, it won't necessarily matter that much.  Tonight, at least, by playing Kenyon, Wooster is actually playing a team with a better winning percentage than Wittenberg (the NCAC #4) would've have had, and that is a criteria for the NCAA.

From my very unscientific viewpoint, a win tonight should make Wooster pretty safe, regardless of what happens tomorrow.  A loss tonight is different...probably puts Wooster on the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2009, 10:45:23 AM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 27, 2009, 09:25:49 AM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2009, 09:04:53 AM
Given that the #5, #6, and #7 seeds advanced to the semifinals in the NCAC, I don't like Wooster's chances in Pool C if the Scots are upset at home by Kenyon tonight or Wabash/Allegheny tomorrow night.

Certainly Wooster's best bet is to get the A bid, but since conference tourney seed of the team you lost to isn't a criterion for the committee, it won't necessarily matter that much.  Tonight, at least, by playing Kenyon, Wooster is actually playing a team with a better winning percentage than Wittenberg (the NCAC #4) would've have had, and that is a criteria for the NCAA.

From my very unscientific viewpoint, a win tonight should make Wooster pretty safe, regardless of what happens tomorrow.  A loss tonight is different...probably puts Wooster on the bubble.

I disagree,  if Wooster wins tonight and needs a Pool C, that means that they would lose another game to a relatively bad team (either 13-12 Wabash or 12-14 Allegheny).  There is a miniscule chance of them getting a Pool C if that happens for the following reasons: 1)  JCU or Capital will definitely be ahead of them in the GL for Pool C consideration; 2) CMU will definitely be ahead of them for Pool C consideration in the GL, even if they lose to Rochester (see this week's regional rankings, a CMU loss to Rochester, a regionally ranked team,  is not as bad as Wooster losing to a ~0.500 team);  3) Do you really think the GL are going to get 3 or 4 Pool Cs (If Calvin doesnt win their tourney they may even be ranked ahead of Wooster) ?  There were already 2 upsets last night that are likely going to take up two of the bids (St. Marys and Buena Vista), which only leaves 16.  If you factor in that there will likely be a couple more upsets and the fact that the west, midwest and northeast are all very strong at the top, Wooster better win their tournament if they want a good chance. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: walzy31 on February 27, 2009, 11:51:00 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 27, 2009, 10:01:37 AM
Update when results come in.

I left out the regular season records so it fits.

RED means they have lost, regular season/conference tourney is complete and they are Pool C eligible.

BLUE means they have won the Pool A bid and have been removed from the regional rankings.


   Atlantic      REG      CONF.      RESULTS   
   Richard Stockton      20-2      NJAC      BEAT William Paterson; plays Rutgers-Newark in NJAC Final on Sat.   
   Farmingdale State      23-2      SKY      BEAT SUNY-Old Westbury; plays St. Joseph's (L.I.) in SKY Finals on Sat.   
   Monclair State      16-5      NJAC      LOST to Rutgers-Newark in NJAC semis   
   William Paterson      20-6      NJAC      LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis   
   Baruch      20-3      CUNYAC      BEAT Lehman; plays Brooklyn in CUNYAC Final on Sat.   
                        
   
Don't forget that when teams win or get knocked out of their conference tourneys, that their in-region record changes. Montclair St and William Patterson each picked up another in-region loss and should be 16-6 and 20-7, respectively.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2009, 03:35:17 PM
Guilford has just fallen in double OT.  Is that another C gone, or will the Quakers be "sweatin' on the bubble"?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2009, 04:54:33 PM
Walzy31....

Yeah, I know.  The records are through Sunday, which the NCAA uses to put out this week's rankings (last public ones). 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2009, 05:10:53 PM
Blog post on a topic that might be of interest here:

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2009/02/27/ncaa-must-release-its-data/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2009, 06:37:41 PM
VWC has jumped to 9-2 lead over Randy Mac 13:12.

VWC 32, RMC 22; Halftime.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2009, 07:00:49 PM
DePauw was upset today by a team they recently beat by 27.  Would it be safe to say that (losing this early) they have gone from 'in contention' to 'roadkill'?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: larry_u on February 27, 2009, 07:32:08 PM
Any remote chance Carroll had is now gone as # 25 Lawrence beats Carroll 90-66 in the first Midwest Conference semi-final.

LU still has a chance if they would slip up to Grinnell or St. Norbert tomorrow.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2009, 08:00:29 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2009, 06:37:41 PM
VWC has jumped to 9-2 lead over Randy Mac 13:12.

VWC 32, RMC 22; Halftime.
VWC beats RMC (76-63 Final)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2009, 08:04:20 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2009, 08:00:29 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2009, 06:37:41 PM
VWC has jumped to 9-2 lead over Randy Mac 13:12.

VWC 32, RMC 22; Halftime.
VWC beats RMC (76-63 Final)

Very interesting!  With Guilford and Randy Mac both losing in the quarter-finals, is the ODAC suddenly a three-team league, or does one (or both) of them sit home?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2009, 08:34:50 PM
Seems unlikely, unless it's Roanoke which wins it all now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2009, 09:37:44 PM
We'll get a chance to really find out where Hamilton stands. They lost to RPI 64-55 in the LL semis.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2009, 09:43:02 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2009, 08:34:50 PM
Seems unlikely, unless it's Roanoke which wins it all now.


They're down 15 at the half.  This ODAC seems to be pretty deep.  It will be a shame if they only get two in now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2009, 09:45:36 PM

Pat, do you have the St Norbert-Grinnell video up?  This is one heck of a game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2009, 09:54:40 PM

It looks like Baruch is going down.  I doubt they're a C contender, but they were regionally ranked.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2009, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2009, 09:54:40 PM

It looks like Baruch is going down.  I doubt they're a C contender, but they were regionally ranked.
A weaker team will replace them if they fall off the rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2009, 10:14:48 PM
NCC leading Wheaton 51-49 in 2nd half.  Video...

http://www.wheaton.edu/wetn/
Title: Hampden Sydney 70, Roanoke 65 FINAL
Post by: Jeremybozz on February 27, 2009, 10:30:33 PM
 Roanoke will not be an NCAA team. Given todays events, I thought the Maroons had a shot if they made it to the ODAC Finals.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2009, 10:40:39 PM

After the performance tonight, if Kent Raymond is still injured, then it's only fair for everyone else.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 27, 2009, 10:45:00 PM
Wheaton beats North Central 77-66 behind Kent Raymonds 36 pts.

The Thunder take on Elmhurst tomorrow night for the CCIW championship.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2009, 10:45:17 PM

St Lawrence's website has them with a win tonight as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2009, 11:06:04 PM
I think that we Pool C'ers need Wheaton IL to hold serve tomorrow night against Elmhurst.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 27, 2009, 11:07:14 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2009, 10:45:17 PM

St Lawrence's website has them with a win tonight as well.

Yes, they defeated Clarkson 88-64 and face the #3 seed RPI who upset #2 Hamilton
in the 1st semifinal 64-55. Pool C bid for Hamilton might have gotten a little shaky with a semifinal loss instead of loss in the championship. Pool C hopefuls don't want to see RPI winning tomorrow afternoon against SLU.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2009, 11:16:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2009, 11:06:04 PM
I think that we Pool C'ers need Wheaton IL to hold serve tomorrow night against Elmhurst.

I suspect that doesn't matter much.  Wheaton would be a quicker pick as a C, but Elmhurst seems also a lock.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 27, 2009, 11:27:17 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 27, 2009, 10:45:00 PM
Wheaton beats North Central 77-66 behind Kent Raymonds 36 pts.

The Thunder take on Elmhurst tomorrow night for the CCIW championship.

It's for the CCIW's Pool A bid. Wheaton is already the CCIW champion.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2009, 11:16:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2009, 11:06:04 PM
I think that we Pool C'ers need Wheaton IL to hold serve tomorrow night against Elmhurst.

I suspect that doesn't matter much.  Wheaton would be a quicker pick as a C, but Elmhurst seems also a lock.

I'm not 100% sold on Elmhurst having clinched a Pool C berth. I'd like to see how it shakes out after tonight's damage across the country is tallied up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 12:03:43 AM
Greg, deep down, I agree with you.  But after winning 81% of their non-con games, if the CCIW ends up a 1-team league I'm gonna really get upset with the criteria! :o

If there is any room for common sense in the criteria, Elmhurst has to be in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 28, 2009, 12:35:04 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 12:03:43 AM
Greg, deep down, I agree with you.  But after winning 81% of their non-con games, if the CCIW ends up a 1-team league I'm gonna really get upset with the criteria! :o

If there is any room for common sense in the criteria, Elmhurst has to be in.

There is no room for common sense........its all numbers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2009, 01:30:02 AM
Update when results come in.

I left out the regular season records so it fits.

RED means they have lost, regular season/conference tourney is complete and they are Pool C eligible.

BLUE means they have won the Pool A bid and have been removed from the regional rankings.


   Atlantic      REG      CONF.      RESULTS   
   Farmingdale State      23-2      SKY      BEAT SUNY-Old Westbury; plays St. Joseph's (L.I.) in SKY Finals on Sat.   
   Monclair State      16-5      NJAC      LOST to Rutgers-Newark in NJAC semis   
   William Paterson      20-6      NJAC      LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis   
   Baruch      20-3      CUNYAC      BEAT Lehman; LOST to Brooklyn in CUNYAC Final.   
                        
   EAST      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Ithaca      22-1      E8      Plays Nazareth in E8 semis on Sat.   
   St. Lawrence      17-5      LL      BEAT Clarkson; plays RPI in Liberty League Final on Sat.   
   Hamilton      16-2      LL      LOST to RPI   in LL semis
   Utica      17-8      E8      Plays Rochester Tech in E8 semis on Sat.   
   Rochester      16-8      UAA      Plays Carnegie Mellon on Sat.   
                        
   Great Lakes      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   John Carroll      18-3      OAC      BEAT Heidelberg; BEAT Muskingum; plays Capital in OAC Final on Sat.   
   Capital      20-3      OAC      BEAT Mount Union, BEAT Ohio Northern; plays John Carroll in OAC Final on Sat.   
   Carnegie Mellon      14-5      UAA      Plays Rochester on Sat.   
   Wooster      18-4      NCAC      BEAT Denison; BEAT Kenyon; plays Wabash in NCAC Final on Sat.   
   Calvin       12-2      MIAA      BEAT Trine; BEAT Olivet; plays Hope in MIAA Final on Sat.   
   Ohio Wesleyan      16-6      NCAC      LOST to Allegheny in NCAC quarterfinals   
                        
   Middle Atlantic      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   St. Mary's (Md)      18-2      CAC      LOST to Marymount in CAC semis   
   Franklin & Marshall      20-4      CC      Plays Muhlenberg in CC semis on Sat.   
   DeSales      18-5      MACF      BEAT Wilkes; plays Manhattanville in MACF Final on Sat.   
   Widener      18-5      MACC      BEAT Messiah; plays Elizabethtown in MACC Final on Sat.   
   McDaniel      16-6      CC      Plays Gettysburg in CC semis on Sat.   
   Cabrini      19-6      CSAC      BEAT Keystone; LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy in CSAC Final.   
   Scranton      18-6      LAND      BEAT Catholic; plays Susquehanna in LAND Final on Sat.   
                        
   Midwest      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Wheaton (IL)      18-3      CCIW      BEAT North Central (Ill); plays Elmhurst in CCIW Final on Sat.   
   Washington U.      21-2      UAA      Plays Chicago on Sat.   
   Elmhurst      19-6      CCIW      BEAT Augustana; plays Wheaton (IL) in CCIW Final on Sat.   
   Transylvania      16-3      HCAC      BEAT Anderson;plays Franklin in HCAC Final on Sat.   
   Lawrence      17-6      MWC      BEAT Carroll; plays Grinnell in MWC Final on Sat.   
   Augustana      17-7      CCIW      LOST to Elmhurst in CCIW semis   
   Carroll      16-7      MWC      LOST to Lawrence in MWC semis   
   North Central (IL)      14-7      CCIW      LOST to Wheaton (IL) in CCIW semis.   
                        
   Northeast      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Worcester Tech      20-3      NEWMAC      Plays Springfield in NEWMAC semis on Sat.   
   Middlebury      20-2      NESCAC      Plays Bowdoin in NESCAC semis on Sat.   
   Elms      23-1      NECC      BEAT Wheelock; plays Becker in NECC Final on Sat.   
   Rhode Island Coll.      21-4      LEC      BEAT Southern Maine; BEAT Keene State; plays Mass-Dartmouth in LEC Final on Sat.   
   Mass-Dartmouth      20-3      LEC      BEAT Mass-Boston; BEAT Western Connecticut; plays RIC in LEC Final on Sat.   
   Salem State      19-5      MASCAC      BEAT Framingham State; Plays Bridgewater State in MASCAC Final on Sat.   
   Bridgewater State      17-4      MASCAC      BEAT Westfield State; plays Salem State in MASCAC Final on Sat.   
   Brandeis      16-8      UAA      Plays New York University on Sat.   
   Amherst      18-5      NESCAC      Plays Williams in NESCAC semis on Sat.   
   Bowdoin      17-8      NESCAC      Plays Middlebury in NESCAC semis on Sat.   
                        
   South      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Trinity (Texas)      19-3      SCAC      BEAT Sewanee; plays Southwestern in SCAC semis on Sat.   
   Texas-Dallas      19-4      ASC      BEAT Sul Ross State; plays Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC semis on Sat.   
   Guilford      20-4      ODAC      LOST to Washington and Lee in ODAC quarters.   
   Randolph-Macon      18-2      ODAC      LOST Virginia Wesleyan in ODAC quarters.   
   Centre      16-4      SCAC      BEAT Austin; plays Hendrix in SCAC semis on Sat.   
   McMurry      17-5      ASC      BEAT Texas-Tyler; plays Mississippi College in ASC semis on Sat.   
   DePauw      15-5      SCAC      LOST Southwestern in SCAC quarters.   
   Roanoke      14-6      ODAC      LOST Hampden-Sydney in ODAC quarters.   
                        
   West      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   St. Thomas      24-0      MIAC      BEAT Gustavus Adolphus; plays Bethel in MIAC Final on Sat.   
   Puget Sound      20-0      NWC      BEAT Lewis and Clark; plays Whitworth in NWC Final on Sat.   
   UW-Stevens Point      20-4      WIAC      BEAT Oshkosh; plays Platteville in WIAC Final on Sat.   
   UW-Whitewater      20-4      WIAC      BEAT River Falls; LOST to Platteville   
   UW-Platteville      16-4      WIAC      BEAT Whitewater; plays Stevens Point in WIAC Final on Sat.   
   Buena Vista      20-2      IIAC      LOST to Wartburg in IIAC semis   
   CMS      16-4      SCIAC      BEAT Caltech; BEAT Cal. Lutheran; plays Ponoma-Pitzer in SCIAC Final on Sat.   
   Whitworth      18-5      NWC      BEAT Linfield; plays Puget Sound in NWC Final on Sat.   
                        
                        
   POOL A BIDS                     
   TEAM      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Washington U.        21-2      UAA      Plays Chicago on Sat.   
   Richard Stockton       20-2      NJAC      BEAT William Paterson; BEAT Rutgers-Newark in NJAC Final
   Gwynedd-Mercy      19-4      CSAC      BEAT Baptist Bible; BEAT Cabrini CSAC Final.   
   Brooklyn      23-5*      CUNYAC      BEAT York (N.Y.); BEAT Baruch in CUNYAC Final.   


* overall record

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2009, 01:37:54 AM
Brooklyn also won an AQ tonight.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 01:46:20 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 12:03:43 AM
Greg, deep down, I agree with you.  But after winning 81% of their non-con games, if the CCIW ends up a 1-team league I'm gonna really get upset with the criteria! :o

If there is any room for common sense in the criteria, Elmhurst has to be in.

On further thought, based on Wednesday's regional rankings, IF Elmhurst is a C candidate, they will almost certainly be the first C in the Midwest.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Midwest will have zero C's?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 28, 2009, 01:51:43 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 01:46:20 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 12:03:43 AM
Greg, deep down, I agree with you.  But after winning 81% of their non-con games, if the CCIW ends up a 1-team league I'm gonna really get upset with the criteria! :o

If there is any room for common sense in the criteria, Elmhurst has to be in.

On further thought, based on Wednesday's regional rankings, IF Elmhurst is a C candidate, they will almost certainly be the first C in the Midwest.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Midwest will have zero C's?

Is this an out of body experience or are you fully aware you just asked a question while quoting yourself?   ??? :D ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2009, 01:52:33 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 01:46:20 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 12:03:43 AM
Greg, deep down, I agree with you.  But after winning 81% of their non-con games, if the CCIW ends up a 1-team league I'm gonna really get upset with the criteria! :o

If there is any room for common sense in the criteria, Elmhurst has to be in.

On further thought, based on Wednesday's regional rankings, IF Elmhurst is a C candidate, they will almost certainly be the first C in the Midwest.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Midwest will have zero C's?

Not sure who you're talking to, but if it's Sac, then all he's suggesting is that common sense is not what's going to get Elmhurst in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2009, 01:53:55 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2009, 01:37:54 AM
Brooklyn also won an AQ tonight.

Yeah, I know...but I was strictly using the teams from the last public regional rankings.  I don't plan on putting the NathCon's AQ on the list below, for example.  ;D

I also noted on Baruch's line that they lost to Brooklyn in the CUNYAC Final, thus giving the AQ to Brooklyn.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2009, 01:55:34 AM
I think that Elmhurst is a lock as a "C".  Look at the carnage of the other regions.

MW#3 should lose to MW#1.  All other Pool C's from the Midwest are farther down.

The Atlantic is decimated.  The bottom fell out of the South.  The West is a lock for the top schools and BV shot themselves in the foot.

The Northeast will have a few, but we have had few surprises there.

The Mid-Atlantic has cooperated, so far.  The Great Lakes has few surprises at the top.

St Lawrence needs to take care of business in the East.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 02:06:20 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2009, 01:52:33 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 01:46:20 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 12:03:43 AM
Greg, deep down, I agree with you.  But after winning 81% of their non-con games, if the CCIW ends up a 1-team league I'm gonna really get upset with the criteria! :o

If there is any room for common sense in the criteria, Elmhurst has to be in.

On further thought, based on Wednesday's regional rankings, IF Elmhurst is a C candidate, they will almost certainly be the first C in the Midwest.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Midwest will have zero C's?

Not sure who you're talking to, but if it's Sac, then all he's suggesting is that common sense is not what's going to get Elmhurst in.

;D

I guess I was still talking to Greg (and second-guessing my agreement with him)!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pbrooks3 on February 28, 2009, 03:24:19 AM
Quote from: larry_u on February 27, 2009, 07:32:08 PM
Any remote chance Carroll had is now gone as # 25 Lawrence beats Carroll 90-66 in the first Midwest Conference semi-final.

LU still has a chance if they would slip up to Grinnell or St. Norbert tomorrow.

I believe roadkill describes it appropriately!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smcmfan on February 28, 2009, 03:26:12 AM
This is for the gurus like Coleman and Abegg...I am an avid Smcm fan and have been for the last couple years since they have been building the program up. I would like to know does smcm still have a chance at getting into the tourney. They are first in their region and were considered to host the first and maybe second round i heard. I just wanted to know what you think, can they still get a pool c bid even after losing in the semis of their conf. tourney?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 08:02:09 AM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2009, 12:35:04 AM
There is no room for common sense........its all numbers.

That is mostly true, but not completely.  Wheaton got in last year on common sense.  I talked to members of the Midwest committee and national committee last year in Salem on how that shook up, and it was 100% common sense-based.

There are some really, really good basketball guys involved in this process.  While they are constrained by the NCAA's criteria to a large degree, they also try their best to inject a little common sense where possible.

2009 committee members on the final page...

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2009/3_mbasketball_handbook.pdf
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 28, 2009, 08:34:15 AM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2009, 01:51:43 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 01:46:20 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 12:03:43 AM
Greg, deep down, I agree with you.  But after winning 81% of their non-con games, if the CCIW ends up a 1-team league I'm gonna really get upset with the criteria! :o

If there is any room for common sense in the criteria, Elmhurst has to be in.

On further thought, based on Wednesday's regional rankings, IF Elmhurst is a C candidate, they will almost certainly be the first C in the Midwest.  Are you seriously suggesting that the Midwest will have zero C's?

Is this an out of body experience or are you fully aware you just asked a question while quoting yourself?   ??? :D ;)

Just don't use an easy button to find a lost easy button.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 08:42:12 AM
I posted this on the CCIW board, but it applies to discussion here too...


Quote from: sac on February 28, 2009, 02:04:23 AM

The real interesting part is who becomes Pool C #2 from the Midwest........the even more interesting part is we'll never see these final rankings.  yay! NCAA!

Outstanding point.  As Old School posted yesterday...


RED means they have lost, regular season/conference tourney is complete and they are Pool C eligible.

BLUE means they have won the Pool A bid and have been removed from the regional rankings.



   Midwest      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Wheaton (IL)      18-3      CCIW      BEAT North Central (Ill); plays Elmhurst in CCIW Final on Sat.   
   Washington U.      21-2      UAA      Plays Chicago on Sat.   
   Elmhurst      19-6      CCIW      BEAT Augustana; plays Wheaton (IL) in CCIW Final on Sat.   
   Transylvania      16-3      HCAC      BEAT Anderson;plays Franklin in HCAC Final on Sat.   
   Lawrence      17-6      MWC      BEAT Carroll; plays Grinnell in MWC Final on Sat.   
   Augustana      17-7      CCIW      LOST to Elmhurst in CCIW semis   
   Carroll      16-7      MWC      LOST to Lawrence in MWC semis   
   North Central (IL)      14-7      CCIW      LOST to Wheaton (IL) in CCIW semis.   
                        


If Transylvania beats Franklin at home tomorrow in the HCAC conference tournament title game, and Lawrence beats Grinnell, I think Augustana probably ends up as the Midwest's #2-rated Pool C team - Carroll and NCC lost yesterday too.  The Midwest committee will have to make that decision tomorrow, and it is a critical one.  To be discussed for a Pool C bid, you have to get to the table, and I do not see any Midwest Pool C candidate after the top 2 getting to the table.

If Augustana does end up the #2 Pool C candidate from the Midwest, Viking fans may not want to completely give up hope quite yet.  The odds would still be long, as most likely the Midwest's #2 Pool C candidate is going to be left sitting on the table from the time Elmhurst is put in (somewhere around Pool C slot #10 of 18) - or from the time Wheaton is put in, much higher, if that is the case - to the time Pool C #18 is selected.  But maybe at the national level they discuss the strength of the Midwest region this year (the region has been strong this year).   

Also remember, last year the Midwest committee did a terrific job of giving the region its best chance to get 2 Pool C bids.  Wash U, which lost to Chicago one year ago today and did not win the UAA, was a lock as the Midwest's top Pool C candidate.  But in the final ranking, the MW committee made a very important decision - they ranked Wheaton ahead of IWU, even though IWU was 3-0 vs Wheaton.  As a Pool C candidate, IWU had no chance to get in - the in-region record (15-9) just was not competitive.  But Wheaton stood a fighting chance at the national level, so they ranked Wheaton ahead of IWU to give the region a fighting chance at another Pool C.  If they do the same this year (assuming Transy and Lawrence win tonight), they'll put Augustana in that slot.

Again, the odds are that the Midwest's #2 Pool candidate is not getting in, but there will at least be a faint heartbeat for that team. 

(Transylvania losing to Franklin today would be the final knockout blow for Augie - they'd become that #2.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2009, 10:12:09 AM
Sac, Titan Q and Old School, I think that you make the case for the Augie getting the 17th or 18th Pool C bid.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2009, 10:33:12 AM
Don't worry about the MWC teams.  There's no question Carroll won't be going anywhere...same with Grinnell if they lose since they aren't even in the rankings.  If Larry U loses today, I think they might actually drop behind Augustana since the Augies lost to a higher ranking team (though LU would have one more win, going 1-1 this week).

Elmhurst is a lock for being top dog in the MW rankings, if Transy wins.  Actually, a Lawrence faithful would like to have Elmhurst win tonight so Wheaton can be one of the 1st Pool C bids to be taken, thus putting Lawrence at the table sooner.  But like I said, Augie might jump ahead of them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 89Pirate on February 28, 2009, 10:40:23 AM
Is there anybody out here who is willing to give me an idea of the West Region picture at this point?  Specifically for my interest, is Whitworth in even if they lose the NWC final tonight?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 10:49:59 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2009, 10:12:09 AM
Sac, Titan Q and Old School, I think that you make the case for the Augie getting the 17th or 18th Pool C bid.

I still think Augustana is a longshot, and quite frankly that they have really underachieved this season, but if the Vikings are the #2 Pool C candidate from a very strong region, I think they have a chance...even when stacked up against much better in-region winning percentages from other regions.   Maybe even some secondary criteria helps them out - like Augustana vs Hamilton (East).  Augie 2-0 vs IWU, Hamilton 0-1 vs IWU.

I think most would agree the Midwest is strong enough to deserve 2 of the 18 Pool C's.  I know that is "common sense" vs actual criteria, but as I posted above, there is evidence of some of that type of discussion in this process.

As we have discussed, the biggest flaw with the current system - which I don't see a fix coming anytime soon for - is the fact they will be making a national Pool C decision based on regional data.  Some regions are stronger and deeper than others, yet the system does not include any consideration for that.  This is where I hope, when evaluating Team A vs Team B from different regions, there is at least an informal discussion along the lines of, "What would Team A's in-region record be in Team B's region?" and vice versa.  Would Hamilton be .842 in-region with Augustana's Midwest schedule this year?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2009, 10:51:32 AM
Quote from: 89Pirate on February 28, 2009, 10:40:23 AM
Is there anybody out here who is willing to give me an idea of the West Region picture at this point?  Specifically for my interest, is Whitworth in even if they lose the NWC final tonight?


   West      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   St. Thomas      24-0      MIAC      BEAT Gustavus Adolphus; plays Bethel in MIAC Final on Sat.   
   Puget Sound      20-0      NWC      BEAT Lewis and Clark; plays Whitworth in NWC Final on Sat.   
   UW-Stevens Point      20-4      WIAC      BEAT Oshkosh; plays Platteville in WIAC Final on Sat.   
   UW-Whitewater      20-4      WIAC      BEAT River Falls; LOST to Platteville   
   UW-Platteville      16-4      WIAC      BEAT Whitewater; plays Stevens Point in WIAC Final on Sat.   
   Buena Vista      20-2      IIAC      LOST to Wartburg in IIAC semis   
   CMS      16-4      SCIAC      BEAT Caltech; BEAT Cal. Lutheran; plays Ponoma-Pitzer in SCIAC Final on Sat.   
   Whitworth      18-5      NWC      BEAT Linfield; plays Puget Sound in NWC Final on Sat.   
                        
                        
   POOL A BIDS                     
   TEAM      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Washington U.        21-2      UAA      Plays Chicago on Sat.   
   Richard Stockton       20-2      NJAC      BEAT William Paterson; BEAT Rutgers-Newark in NJAC Final
   Gwynedd-Mercy      19-4      CSAC      BEAT Baptist Bible; BEAT Cabrini CSAC Final.   
   Brooklyn      23-5*      CUNYAC      BEAT York (N.Y.); BEAT Baruch in CUNYAC Final.   


* overall record

Doesn't look good with two WIAC teams and possibly Claremont-Mudd-Scripps ahead of them.  Whitworth may jump them if they lose to a higher ranked Puget Sound team. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2009, 11:08:14 AM
I count Brooklyn's in-region record as 22-5 (No provisional St Joseph's Brooklyn)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2009, 12:24:44 PM
OK, here's my Saturday morning analysis, which has run into Saturday afternoon here in the east.

The top 31 Pool C contenders from the start of the week are down to 19 conferences that could produce Pool A, with Brooklyn's upset of Baruch.

Pool A bids for ranked teams (3)

Washington U.
Gwynedd-Mercy
Richard Stockton

Pool A bids for unranked teams (1)

Brooklyn

Locks for Pool C   

Locks for Pool C for eliminated teams (1)   

UW-Whitewater   

Locks for Pool C for final loser (4)   

UW-Stevens Point or UW-Platteville   
Wheaton (Ill.) or Elmhurst   
John Carroll or Capital   
Rhode Island College or Mass-Dartmouth   

Locks for Pool C if loses (5)   

St. Thomas   (F Sat)
Puget Sound   (F Sat)
Ithaca   (SF Sat)
Worcester Polytech   (SF Sat)
Middlebury   (SF Sat)

So there are 5 to 10 Pool C locks, leaving 8 to 13 bids   

Probable Pool C

Probable Pool C for eliminated teams (5)   

Buena Vista   
Guilford   
Randolph-Macon   
St. Mary's (Md.)   
Hamilton   

Probable Pool C for final loser (1)   

Salem State or Bridgewater State   

Probable Pool C if loses final (5)   

Transylvania   (F Sat)
DeSales   (F Sat)
Widener   (F Sat)
SUNY-Farmingdale   (F Sat)
St. Lawrence   (F Sat)

Probable Pool C if loses semifinal or final (2)   

Texas-Dallas   (SF Sat)
Franklin and Marshall   (SF Sat)

Probable Pool C for at least one of these ASC teams (2)   

Trinity (Texas)   (SF Sat)
Centre   (SF Sat)

There are 7 to 15 Pool C bids here. So the worst case is that 7 of these teams will not get bids, while the best case is for 6 bids to be left after this group.   

In Contention if there are any bids left

In Contention eliminated teams (1)   

Augustana   

In Contention favored to win Pool A bid (2)   

Wooster   (F Sat)
Calvin   (F Sat)

In Contention and Pool A underdog (4)   

Whitworth   (F Sat)
McMurry   (SF Sat)
McDaniel   (SF Sat)
Amherst   (SF Sat)

In Contention with no Pool A chances (2)   

Carnegie Mellon   (r/s Sat)
Brandeis   (r/s Sat)

There's a very long shot that Pool C bids leak out of this group. In that case, here's who's left.   
   
Eliminated   
   
DePauw   
Montclair State   
William Paterson   
   
Still playing   
   
Lawrence   (F Sat)
Utica   (SF Sat)
Rochester   (r/s Sat)
Bowdoin   (SF Sat)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2009, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: 89Pirate on February 28, 2009, 10:40:23 AM
Is there anybody out here who is willing to give me an idea of the West Region picture at this point?  Specifically for my interest, is Whitworth in even if they lose the NWC final tonight?

UPS and St. Thomas will have Pool C bids if they need them with a loss today.
The WIAC loser and UW-Whitewater have Pool C bids.
Buena Vista will need to sweat out upsets, but they're in good shape.
Claremont has no Pool C chance
Whitworth would replace Buena Vista in national consideration once BV gets in. They have a chance, however slim, of getting a Pool C bid but it really depends on a lack of upsets around the country. The last two days haven't been kind to them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: watcher on February 28, 2009, 12:42:01 PM
so where does smcm stand for a pool c how worried should they be
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2009, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: watcher on February 28, 2009, 12:42:01 PM
so where does smcm stand for a pool c how worried should they be
Like Buena Vista, they'll have to sweat out potential upsets, but they're probably in (98%+).

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2009, 03:17:20 PM

Middlebury's in the NESCAC championship game.  They've doubled up Bowdoin with ten minutes to go.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 03:30:56 PM
Today's Bubble Burster games (all times CST)...

Conference tournament championship games
St. Lawrence (vs RPI, 2:00pm)
Widener (vs Elizabethtown, 2:00pm)
DeSales (vs Manhattanville, 3:00pm)
Farmingdale St. (vs St. Joseph's L.I., 6:00pm)
Wooster (vs Wabash, 6:00pm)
Transylvania (vs Franklin, 6:30pm)
Calvin (vs Hope, 6:30pm)
St. Thomas (vs Bethel, 7:30pm)
Puget Sound (vs Whitworth, 8:00pm)

Conference tournament semi-final games
Middlebury (vs Bowdoin, 1:00pm)
Franklin & Marshall (vs Muhlenberg, 2:00pm)
Ithaca (vs Nazareth, 3:00pm)
Worcester Polytech (vs Springfield, 3:30pm)
Texas-Dallas (vs Mary Hardin-Baylor, 3:30pm)


Scoreboard: http://www.d3hoops.com/schedule/mens/2009-02-28


*** changed MIAA game to 7:30

**** changed MIAA game time back to 6:30 because Q listed them as CST like a knuckle head. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2009, 04:42:15 PM
PL 25 SP 20 halftime.  SP was up 18 - 11 and scored at halftime buzzer.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2009, 04:48:45 PM
RPI has upset St. Lawrence to win a Pool A
Widener has won their Pool A

McDaniel and McMurry have lost in their SF
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 05:07:30 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 28, 2009, 04:48:45 PM
RPI has upset St. Lawrence to win a Pool A

Please tell me the Liberty League is not getting 3 teams.

http://www.d3hoops.com/conference/LL/mens

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2009, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 05:07:30 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 28, 2009, 04:48:45 PM
RPI has upset St. Lawrence to win a Pool A

Please tell me the Liberty League is not getting 3 teams.

http://www.d3hoops.com/conference/LL/mens


I can't tell you that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2009, 05:56:35 PM
Ithaca goes down.

I'm signing off, see you about 11 ET
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: larry_u on February 28, 2009, 06:05:18 PM
Lawrence wins the MWC Pool A bid.  Take them off the Pool C bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 06:09:19 PM
Springfield upsets Worcester Poly.

Bubbles are bursting all across the land.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2009, 06:09:55 PM
So if Middlebury wins tomorrow, Brandeis will be on the table pretty early for Pool C; do they have a realistic chance?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2009, 06:10:05 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 06:09:19 PM
Springfield upsets Worcester Poly.

Bubbles are bursting all across the land.

Nevermind.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Thunder Dutch on February 28, 2009, 06:13:12 PM
Question: when do at-large teams and brackets get announced? Is d3hoops going to have some kind of selection show? or on ncaa.com?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on February 28, 2009, 06:48:54 PM
On ESPN of course  :D  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SLP-O-8 on February 28, 2009, 07:00:54 PM
Is the Wartburg guy still the chairman of the selection committee?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2009, 07:04:52 PM
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2009/3_mbasketball_handbook.pdf

Handbook page 8-9.

Westminster AD James Dafler is the chair.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 28, 2009, 07:29:54 PM
38-37 Wooster leads Wabash at the half.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 28, 2009, 08:24:31 PM
Final Score: 84-72 Wooster over Wabash.

Wooster will take the NCAC Pool A bid into the NCAA Championship.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 08:34:53 PM
Elmhurst @ Wheaton (CCIW conference tournament title game), live video...

http://www.wheaton.edu/wetn/

If you have not seen Kent Raymond play, you woud enjoy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: monsoon on February 28, 2009, 09:09:33 PM
Hope took the MIAA pool-A bid, winning 69-59 at Calvin.  Calvin's on the Pool C table, but likely on the outside looking in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 09:27:09 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 03:16:23 PM

Conference tournament championship games
St. Lawrence (vs RPI, 2:00pm) lost
Widener (vs Elizabethtown, 2:00pm) won
DeSales (vs Manhattanville, 3:00pm) won
Farmingdale St. (vs St. Joseph's L.I., 6:00pm) lost
Wooster (vs Wabash, 6:00pm) won
Transylvania (vs Franklin, 6:30pm) won
Calvin (vs Hope, 6:30pm) lost
St. Thomas (vs Bethel, 7:30pm)
Puget Sound (vs Whitworth, 8:00pm)

Conference tournament semi-final games
Middlebury (vs Bowdoin, 1:00pm) won
Franklin & Marshall (vs Muhlenberg, 2:00pm) won
Ithaca (vs Nazareth, 3:00pm) lost
Worcester Polytech (vs Springfield, 3:30pm) lost
Texas-Dallas (vs Mary Hardin-Baylor, 3:30pm) won

Scoreboard: http://www.d3hoops.com/schedule/mens/2009-02-28

Another bad result for Pool C bubble teams...

Farmingdale St. loses to St. Joseph's (L.I.)

What a day.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 09:36:53 PM
Elmhurst 49
Wheaton 37

10:00
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sharmony on February 28, 2009, 09:42:26 PM
Is the loser of Elmhurst and Wheaton a lock for a Pool C bid?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2009, 09:44:58 PM
Update when results come in.

I left out the regular season records so it fits.

RED means they have lost, regular season/conference tourney is complete and they are Pool C eligible.

BLUE means they have won the Pool A bid from their respective conference




   Atlantic      REG      CONF.      RESULTS   
   Richard Stockton       20-2      NJAC      BEAT William Paterson; BEAT Rutgers-Newark in NJAC Final
   Farmingdale State      23-2      SKY      BEAT SUNY-Old Westbury; LOST to St. Joseph's (L.I.) in SKY Finals    
   Monclair State      16-5      NJAC      LOST to Rutgers-Newark in NJAC semis   
   William Paterson      20-6      NJAC      LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis   
   Baruch      20-3      CUNYAC      BEAT Lehman; LOST to Brooklyn in CUNYAC Final.   
                        
   EAST      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Ithaca      22-1      E8      LOST Nazareth in E8 semis   
   St. Lawrence      17-5      LL      BEAT Clarkson; LOST to RPI in Liberty League Final   
   Hamilton      16-2      LL      LOST to RPI   in LL semis
   Utica      17-8      E8      LOST to Rochester Tech in E8 semis.   
   Rochester      16-8      UAA      LOST to Carnegie Mellon on Sat.   
                        
   Great Lakes      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   John Carroll      18-3      OAC      BEAT Heidelberg; BEAT Muskingum; BEAT Capital in OAC Final   
   Capital      20-3      OAC      BEAT Mount Union, BEAT Ohio Northern; LOST to John Carroll in OAC Final    
   Carnegie Mellon      14-5      UAA      BEAT Rochester    
   Wooster      18-4      NCAC      BEAT Denison; BEAT Kenyon; BEAT Wabash in NCAC Final   
   Calvin       12-2      MIAA      BEAT Trine; BEAT Olivet; LOST to Hope in MIAA Final   
   Ohio Wesleyan      16-6      NCAC      LOST to Allegheny in NCAC quarterfinals   
                        
   Middle Atlantic      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   St. Mary's (Md)      18-2      CAC      LOST to Marymount in CAC semis   
   Franklin & Marshall      20-4      CC      BEAT Muhlenberg; plays Gettysburg in Centennial Conference Final on Sun.   
   DeSales      18-5      MACF      BEAT Wilkes; BEAT Manhattanville in MACF Final   
   Widener      18-5      MACC      BEAT Messiah; BEAT Elizabethtown in MACC Final.   
   Gwynedd-Mercy      19-4      CSAC      BEAT Baptist Bible; BEAT Cabrini CSAC Final.   
   McDaniel      16-6      CC      LOST to Gettysburg in CC semis.   
   Cabrini      19-6      CSAC      BEAT Keystone; LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy in CSAC Final.   
   Scranton      18-6      LAND      BEAT Catholic; BEAT Susquehanna in LAND Final.   
                        
   Midwest      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Wheaton (IL)      18-3      CCIW      BEAT North Central (Ill); plays Elmhurst in CCIW Final on Sat.   
   Washington U.      21-2      UAA      BEAT Chicago on Sat.   
   Elmhurst      19-6      CCIW      BEAT Augustana; plays Wheaton (IL) in CCIW Final on Sat.   
   Transylvania      16-3      HCAC      BEAT Anderson; BEAT Franklin in HCAC Final.   
   Lawrence      17-6      MWC      BEAT Carroll; BEAT Grinnell in MWC Final.   
   Augustana      17-7      CCIW      LOST to Elmhurst in CCIW semis   
   Carroll      16-7      MWC      LOST to Lawrence in MWC semis   
   North Central (IL)      14-7      CCIW      LOST to Wheaton (IL) in CCIW semis.   
                        
   Northeast      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Worcester Tech      20-3      NEWMAC      LOST to Springfield in NEWMAC semis    
   Middlebury      20-2      NESCAC      BEAT Bowdoin; plays Amherst in NESCAC Final on Sun.   
   Elms      23-1      NECC      BEAT Wheelock; BEAT Becker in NECC Final   
   Rhode Island Coll.      21-4      LEC      BEAT Southern Maine; BEAT Keene State; LOST to Mass-Dartmouth in LEC Final   
   Mass-Dartmouth      20-3      LEC      BEAT Mass-Boston; BEAT Western Connecticut; BEAT RIC in LEC Final   
   Salem State      19-5      MASCAC      BEAT Framingham State; LOST to Bridgewater State in MASCAC Final.   
   Bridgewater State      17-4      MASCAC      BEAT Westfield State; BEAT Salem State in MASCAC Final    
   Brandeis      16-8      UAA      BEAT New York University   
   Amherst      18-5      NESCAC      BEAT Williams; plays Middlebury in NESCAC Final on Sun.   
   Bowdoin      17-8      NESCAC      LOST to Middlebury in NESCAC semis   
                        
   South      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Trinity (Texas)      19-3      SCAC      BEAT Sewanee; LOST to Southwestern in SCAC semis   
   Texas-Dallas      19-4      ASC      BEAT Sul Ross State; BEAT Mary Hardin-Baylor; plays Mississippi College in ASC Final on Sun.   
   Guilford      20-4      ODAC      LOST to Washington and Lee in ODAC quarters.   
   Randolph-Macon      18-2      ODAC      LOST Virginia Wesleyan in ODAC quarters.   
   Centre      16-4      SCAC      BEAT Austin; BEAT Hendrix; plays Southwestern in SCAC Final on Sat.   
   McMurry      17-5      ASC      BEAT Texas-Tyler; LOST to Mississippi College in ASC semis    
   DePauw      15-5      SCAC      LOST Southwestern in SCAC quarters.   
   Roanoke      14-6      ODAC      LOST Hampden-Sydney in ODAC quarters.   
                        
   West      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   St. Thomas      24-0      MIAC      BEAT Gustavus Adolphus; plays Bethel in MIAC Final on Sat.   
   Puget Sound      20-0      NWC      BEAT Lewis and Clark; plays Whitworth in NWC Final on Sat.   
   UW-Stevens Point      20-4      WIAC      BEAT Oshkosh; BEAT Platteville in WIAC Final   
   UW-Whitewater      20-4      WIAC      BEAT River Falls; LOST to Platteville   
   UW-Platteville      16-4      WIAC      BEAT Whitewater; LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final   
   Buena Vista      20-2      IIAC      LOST to Wartburg in IIAC semis   
   CMS      16-4      SCIAC      BEAT Caltech; BEAT Cal. Lutheran; plays Ponoma-Pitzer in SCIAC Final on Sat.   
   Whitworth      18-5      NWC      BEAT Linfield; plays Puget Sound in NWC Final on Sat.   
                        
                        
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 09:46:32 PM
Quote from: sharmony on February 28, 2009, 09:42:26 PM
Is the loser of Elmhurst and Wheaton a lock for a Pool C bid?

Yes.

But Wheaton would go much quicker than Elmhurst.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sharmony on February 28, 2009, 10:08:50 PM
That's what I thought.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2009, 10:17:26 PM
Elmhurst led for about 39 minutes, but Wheaton prevails.

Elmhurst should go maybe 10-12 in C.  What's interesting is that Augie will be next up for the Midwest.  While their credentials are not the greatest, has the Midwest ever failed to get a second C (at least since expansion)?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: watcher on February 28, 2009, 10:22:12 PM
as it stands now with all these upsets what teams would you say bubbles have been busted or very close on the edge
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2009, 10:43:24 PM
I think 14 Pool C's are accounted for (in no particular order)...

1. UW-Whitewater
2. Buena Vista
3. St. Mary's (Md)
4. Guilford
5. UW-Platteville
6. Elmhurst
7. Capital
8. Rhode Island
9. Hamilton or St. Lawrence
10. Salem St.
11. Trinity-Tx
12. Ithaca
13. Farmingdale St.
14. Worcester Poly

Next up (in no particular order)...

* Randolph-Macon
* St. Lawrence
* Augustana
* Carnegie-Mellon
* Calvin
* Amherst
* Whitworth
* Hamilton or St. Lawrence
* Brandeis

The teams that end up being outside the top 4 in this group will be the big losers from today. 


Bubble Burster in progress: Whitworth @ Puget Sound

Bubble Burster games tomorrow...

Middlebury (vs Amherst)
Centre (vs Southwestern)
Franklin & Marshall (vs Gettysburg)
Texas-Dallas (vs Mississippi Coll)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2009, 10:49:48 PM
Quote from: Thunder Dutch on February 28, 2009, 06:13:12 PM
Question: when do at-large teams and brackets get announced? Is d3hoops going to have some kind of selection show? or on ncaa.com?

Yes, we'll have a show on Hoopsville on Monday morning.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 28, 2009, 11:31:32 PM
Another Pool C might be in trouble.  UPS is down 9 with under 8 minutes to go.  They are losing to Whitworth, who was ranked #8 in the West last week but are likely a weak bubble team if they dont win this game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on February 28, 2009, 11:35:36 PM
Locks for Pool C   

Locks for Pool C for eliminated teams (7)   

UW-Whitewater   
UW-Platteville   
Elmhurst   
Capital   
Rhode Island College   
Ithaca   
Worcester Polytech   

Locks for Pool C if loses (2)   

Puget Sound   F Sat
Middlebury   F Sun

So there are 7 to 9 Pool C locks, leaving 9 to 11 bids

Probable Pool C

Probable Pool C for eliminated teams (9)

Buena Vista
Guilford
Randolph-Macon
St. Mary's (Md.)
Hamilton
Salem State
SUNY-Farmingdale
St. Lawrence
Trinity (Texas)

Probable Pool C if loses final (3)   

Texas-Dallas   F Sun
Franklin and Marshall   F Sun
Centre   F Sun

There are 9 to 12 Pool C bids here. That's almost certainly too many.   

In Contention if there are any bids left   

In Contention eliminated teams (5)   

Augustana   
Calvin   
McMurry   
McDaniel   
Carnegie Mellon   

In Contention and Pool A underdog (2)   

Whitworth   F Sat
Amherst   F Sun
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2009, 11:42:06 PM
Whitworth up 65-60 with 4:45 to go
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 28, 2009, 11:44:19 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 28, 2009, 11:35:36 PM
Locks for Pool C   

Locks for Pool C for eliminated teams (7)   

UW-Whitewater   
UW-Platteville   
Elmhurst   
Capital   
Rhode Island College   
Ithaca   
Worcester Polytech   

Locks for Pool C if loses (2)   

Puget Sound   F Sat
Middlebury   F Sun

So there are 7 to 9 Pool C locks, leaving 9 to 11 bids

Probable Pool C

Probable Pool C for eliminated teams (9)

Buena Vista
Guilford
Randolph-Macon
St. Mary's (Md.)
Hamilton
Salem State
SUNY-Farmingdale
St. Lawrence
Trinity (Texas)

Probable Pool C if loses final (3)   

Texas-Dallas   F Sun
Franklin and Marshall   F Sun
Centre   F Sun

There are 9 to 12 Pool C bids here. That's almost certainly too many.   

In Contention if there are any bids left   

In Contention eliminated teams (5)   

Augustana   
Calvin   
McMurry   
McDaniel   
Carnegie Mellon   

In Contention and Pool A underdog (2)   

Whitworth   F Sat
Amherst   F Sun


Pabegg,

I dont know if this is me being a homer or what, but could you tell me what distinguishes Capital so greatly from Carnegie Mellon.  Obviously Capital has the in-region winning percentage (22-4 vs. 15-5), but CMU seems to hold the advantage in all the other criteria.  CMU will have higher OWP/OOWP, CMU is 2-0 against great lakes region opponents (Capital is 1-2 if Ohio Wesleyan drops off the final rankings, or 2-2 if they stay), there is obviously no head-to-head, but against common oppenents CMU is 1-0 and Capital is 1-2.  Would it be completely inconceivable for CMU to be ranked ahead of Capital in the final GL rankings (lets say if JCU were #1, for CMU to be #2, and then Capital at #3)?  Obviously the committee does not look purely at winning percentage because Brandeis was ranked ahead of Amherst last week, CMU was ranked ahead of Wooster and Calvin, etc.

Any commments or explanation would be great.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 28, 2009, 11:47:02 PM
UPS in a whole lot of trouble, down 68-60, Whitworth shooting FTs, under 3 to go.


Just like that UPS cuts it to 4 with under 2 remaining.

2 Point game, under :56 to play, UPS with the ball.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pradam on February 28, 2009, 11:53:31 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 28, 2009, 11:35:36 PM
Locks for Pool C   

Locks for Pool C for eliminated teams (7)   

UW-Whitewater   
UW-Platteville   
Elmhurst   
Capital   
Rhode Island College   
Ithaca   
Worcester Polytech   

Locks for Pool C if loses (2)   

Puget Sound   F Sat
Middlebury   F Sun

So there are 7 to 9 Pool C locks, leaving 9 to 11 bids

Probable Pool C

Probable Pool C for eliminated teams (9)

Buena Vista
Guilford
Randolph-Macon
St. Mary's (Md.)
Hamilton
Salem State
SUNY-Farmingdale
St. Lawrence
Trinity (Texas)

Probable Pool C if loses final (3)   

Texas-Dallas   F Sun
Franklin and Marshall   F Sun
Centre   F Sun

There are 9 to 12 Pool C bids here. That's almost certainly too many.   

In Contention if there are any bids left   

In Contention eliminated teams (5)   

Augustana   
Calvin   
McMurry   
McDaniel   
Carnegie Mellon   

In Contention and Pool A underdog (2)   

Whitworth   F Sat
Amherst   F Sun


This may also be my "homerism" talking, but what distinguishes Augustana/Calvin/McMurry/McDaniel from Brandeis?  I get that Carnegie has a leg up, but why those four?  (I'm asking honestly, not being mean or anything).  Calvin, McMurry and McDaniel all have eight regional losses, like Brandeis, but lower OWP numbers (I'd guess).  Glancing quickly at the schedules, the only win against a currently regional-ranked opponent between the three of them is McDaniel's win over F&M (and that was a split).  Brandeis beat RIC and Amherst, plus Carnegie twice. 

Augustana's only win against a regionally-ranked team was Elmhurst, if I'm not mistaken.  They have the high OWP, but no real wins to show for it. 

Also, I'm confused as to why Hamilton is such a lock.  They have six regional losses in a weak region and only one win against a regionally-ranked opponent (Utica).  What am I missing? 

Just curious.  I'm sure there are explanations that I'm missing.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pradam on February 28, 2009, 11:55:53 PM
Quote from: pradam on February 28, 2009, 11:53:31 PM
Quote from: pabegg on February 28, 2009, 11:35:36 PM
Locks for Pool C   

Locks for Pool C for eliminated teams (7)   

UW-Whitewater   
UW-Platteville   
Elmhurst   
Capital   
Rhode Island College   
Ithaca   
Worcester Polytech   

Locks for Pool C if loses (2)   

Puget Sound   F Sat
Middlebury   F Sun

So there are 7 to 9 Pool C locks, leaving 9 to 11 bids

Probable Pool C

Probable Pool C for eliminated teams (9)

Buena Vista
Guilford
Randolph-Macon
St. Mary's (Md.)
Hamilton
Salem State
SUNY-Farmingdale
St. Lawrence
Trinity (Texas)

Probable Pool C if loses final (3)   

Texas-Dallas   F Sun
Franklin and Marshall   F Sun
Centre   F Sun

There are 9 to 12 Pool C bids here. That's almost certainly too many.   

In Contention if there are any bids left   

In Contention eliminated teams (5)   

Augustana   
Calvin   
McMurry   
McDaniel   
Carnegie Mellon   

In Contention and Pool A underdog (2)   

Whitworth   F Sat
Amherst   F Sun


This may also be my "homerism" talking, but what distinguishes Augustana/Calvin/McMurry/McDaniel from Brandeis?  I get that Carnegie has a leg up, but why those four?  (I'm asking honestly, not being mean or anything).  Calvin, McMurry and McDaniel all have eight regional losses, like Brandeis, but lower OWP numbers (I'd guess).  Glancing quickly at the schedules, the only win against a currently regional-ranked opponent between the three of them is McDaniel's win over F&M (and that was a split).  Brandeis beat RIC and Amherst, plus Carnegie twice. 

Augustana's only win against a regionally-ranked team was Elmhurst, if I'm not mistaken.  They have the high OWP, but no real wins to show for it. 

Also, I'm confused as to why Hamilton is such a lock.  They have six regional losses in a weak region and only one win against a regionally-ranked opponent (Utica).  What am I missing? 

Just curious.  I'm sure there are explanations that I'm missing.

Ahh...forget it.  I was looking at overall record, not regional record.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 28, 2009, 11:57:30 PM
UPS and Whitworth tied with :13 left.  Great come back either way for UPS (but Im hoping they win).

AND WE ARE GOING TO OT.  UPS has to feel good about that, being down 9 with under 3 to go. If you have a chance, look at the play by play of the last minute, huge shot making for both teams.  UPS hit a 3 to go up by 1, but Whit countered with a 3 of their own to go up 2, but UPS made another shot to tie it with :14 left.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2009, 11:59:15 PM
UPs and Whitworth go to OT tied at 72
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2009, 11:59:21 PM
Looks like a heckuva game in Tacoma. Back-and-forth in the last thirty seconds of regulation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2009, 12:02:31 AM
Actually McMurry has 6 regional losses.  (18-6 in-region)

The logjam begins at about an in-region W/L of .800.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 01, 2009, 12:03:02 AM
UPS' top scorer on the night, Foster, has fouled out with 19 points. Whit has a 3 point lead with about 3 to play.

UPS ties it on their next posession.  77-77

Whit now up 4 with the ball, 2:06 to play

Whit up 7 with 1 to play

Not to go out on a limb or anything, but I think its over, Whit up 9, with only :47 to play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2009, 12:13:30 AM
Whitworth  scores 5 unanswered pts to break out of 77 all tie and take control. UPS suffers 1st D3 loss of the year
Pool C hopefuls take another hit.  Final score 90-80 Whitworth
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 01, 2009, 12:14:54 AM
Another Pool C is gone, Whitworth defeats UPS 90-80.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2009, 12:15:12 AM
I think that we have a 3-pod on the West Coast.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 01, 2009, 12:17:44 AM
Big props to Whitworth. Most teams would've folded after coughing up a nine-point lead with three minutes left in regulation in a hostile gym. But the Pirates gutted it out and won in overtime.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2009, 12:15:12 AM
I think that we have a 3-pod on the West Coast.

Looks that way to me, too, unless Chapman somehow gets that third Pool B bid.

Thursday: SCIAC champ vs. Whitworth
Saturday: Thursday winner @ UPS
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 12:19:35 AM
Seems very likely, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 01, 2009, 12:24:04 AM
But is it CMS @ Whitworth, or Whitworth @ CMS on Thursday night? Do the Pirates leapfrog the Stags in the final unseen rankings due to the fact that they beat West Region #2 Puget Sound while CMS only beat lowly PP?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2009, 12:25:42 AM
Not sure this is the appropriate board, but couldn't find anything better for national consideration.  ODAC final will be #7 VWC vs. #8 W & L - can anyone come up with lower seeds in a final? :o
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2009, 12:28:56 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 01, 2009, 12:24:04 AM
But is it CMS @ Whitworth, or Whitworth @ CMS on Thursday night? Do the Pirates leapfrog the Stags in the final unseen rankings due to the fact that they beat West Region #2 Puget Sound while CMS only beat lowly PP?

In any case, "you wanna play that Thursday game, because you have not won an NCAA Tournament Game".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2009, 12:46:48 AM
So, at this point there may be 12 pool C slots gone already?  That's even before the finals tomorrow.


Someone is going to really burn now that Farmingdale State takes a C spot away.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2009, 12:59:23 AM

I'm figuring (in no particular order):

Farmingdale
Ithaca
Capital
St. Mary's (MD)
Elmhurst
WPI
RIC
Guilford
Randolph Macon
Puget Sound
Whitewater
Platteville

This doesn't, but maybe could, include:

Buena Vista
Trinity/Centre loser
Salem State
St Lawrence

Leaving these teams really worried:

Carnegie Mellon
Augustana
Brandeis
McMurry
Calvin
Hamilton
Montclair State

And these teams who would be locks with losses tomorrow:

Texas-Dallas
Middlebury
Franklin & Marshall
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2009, 01:37:04 AM
Update when results come in.

I left out the regular season records so it fits.

RED means they have lost, regular season/conference tourney is complete and they are Pool C eligible.

BLUE means they have won the Pool A bid from their respective conference




   Atlantic      REG      CONF.      RESULTS   
   Richard Stockton       20-2      NJAC      BEAT William Paterson; BEAT Rutgers-Newark in NJAC Final
   Farmingdale State      23-2      SKY      BEAT SUNY-Old Westbury; LOST to St. Joseph's (L.I.) in SKY Finals    
   Monclair State      16-5      NJAC      LOST to Rutgers-Newark in NJAC semis   
   William Paterson      20-6      NJAC      LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis   
   Baruch      20-3      CUNYAC      BEAT Lehman; LOST to Brooklyn in CUNYAC Final.   
                        
   EAST      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Ithaca      22-1      E8      LOST Nazareth in E8 semis   
   St. Lawrence      17-5      LL      BEAT Clarkson; LOST to RPI in Liberty League Final   
   Hamilton      16-2      LL      LOST to RPI   in LL semis
   Utica      17-8      E8      LOST to Rochester Tech in E8 semis.   
   Rochester      16-8      UAA      LOST to Carnegie Mellon on Sat.   
                        
   Great Lakes      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   John Carroll      18-3      OAC      BEAT Heidelberg; BEAT Muskingum; BEAT Capital in OAC Final   
   Capital      20-3      OAC      BEAT Mount Union, BEAT Ohio Northern; LOST to John Carroll in OAC Final    
   Carnegie Mellon      14-5      UAA      BEAT Rochester    
   Wooster      18-4      NCAC      BEAT Denison; BEAT Kenyon; BEAT Wabash in NCAC Final   
   Calvin       12-2      MIAA      BEAT Trine; BEAT Olivet; LOST to Hope in MIAA Final   
   Ohio Wesleyan      16-6      NCAC      LOST to Allegheny in NCAC quarterfinals   
                        
   Middle Atlantic      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   St. Mary's (Md)      18-2      CAC      LOST to Marymount in CAC semis   
   Franklin & Marshall      20-4      CC      BEAT Muhlenberg; LOST to Gettysburg in Centennial Conference Final    
   DeSales      18-5      MACF      BEAT Wilkes; BEAT Manhattanville in MACF Final   
   Widener      18-5      MACC      BEAT Messiah; BEAT Elizabethtown in MACC Final.   
   Gwynedd-Mercy      19-4      CSAC      BEAT Baptist Bible; BEAT Cabrini CSAC Final.   
   McDaniel      16-6      CC      LOST to Gettysburg in CC semis.   
   Cabrini      19-6      CSAC      BEAT Keystone; LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy in CSAC Final.   
   Scranton      18-6      LAND      BEAT Catholic; BEAT Susquehanna in LAND Final.   
                        
   Midwest      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Wheaton (IL)      18-3      CCIW      BEAT North Central (Ill); BEAT Elmhurst in CCIW Final   
   Washington U.      21-2      UAA      BEAT Chicago on Sat.   
   Elmhurst      19-6      CCIW      BEAT Augustana; LOST to Wheaton (IL) in CCIW Final on Sat.   
   Transylvania      16-3      HCAC      BEAT Anderson; BEAT Franklin in HCAC Final.   
   Lawrence      17-6      MWC      BEAT Carroll; BEAT Grinnell in MWC Final.   
   Augustana      17-7      CCIW      LOST to Elmhurst in CCIW semis   
   Carroll      16-7      MWC      LOST to Lawrence in MWC semis   
   North Central (IL)      14-7      CCIW      LOST to Wheaton (IL) in CCIW semis.   
                        
   Northeast      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Worcester Tech      20-3      NEWMAC      LOST to Springfield in NEWMAC semis    
   Middlebury      20-2      NESCAC      BEAT Bowdoin; BEAT Amherst in NESCAC Final   
   Elms      23-1      NECC      BEAT Wheelock; BEAT Becker in NECC Final (NECC is Pool B eligible)   
   Rhode Island Coll.      21-4      LEC      BEAT Southern Maine; BEAT Keene State; LOST to Mass-Dartmouth in LEC Final   
   Mass-Dartmouth      20-3      LEC      BEAT Mass-Boston; BEAT Western Connecticut; BEAT RIC in LEC Final   
   Salem State      19-5      MASCAC      BEAT Framingham State; LOST to Bridgewater State in MASCAC Final.   
   Bridgewater State      17-4      MASCAC      BEAT Westfield State; BEAT Salem State in MASCAC Final    
   Brandeis      16-8      UAA      BEAT New York University   
   Amherst      18-5      NESCAC      BEAT Williams; LOST to Middlebury in NESCAC Final    
   Bowdoin      17-8      NESCAC      LOST to Middlebury in NESCAC semis   
                        
   South      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Trinity (Texas)      19-3      SCAC      BEAT Sewanee; LOST to Southwestern in SCAC semis   
   Texas-Dallas      19-4      ASC      BEAT Sul Ross State; BEAT Mary Hardin-Baylor; BEAT Mississippi College in ASC Final.   
   Guilford      20-4      ODAC      LOST to Washington and Lee in ODAC quarters.   
   Randolph-Macon      18-2      ODAC      LOST Virginia Wesleyan in ODAC quarters.   
   Centre      16-4      SCAC      BEAT Austin; BEAT Hendrix; BEAT Southwestern in SCAC Final     
   McMurry      17-5      ASC      BEAT Texas-Tyler; LOST to Mississippi College in ASC semis    
   DePauw      15-5      SCAC      LOST Southwestern in SCAC quarters.   
   Roanoke      14-6      ODAC      LOST Hampden-Sydney in ODAC quarters.   
                        
   West      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   St. Thomas      24-0      MIAC      BEAT Gustavus Adolphus; BEAT Bethel in MIAC Final   
   Puget Sound      20-0      NWC      BEAT Lewis and Clark; LOST to Whitworth in NWC Final   
   UW-Stevens Point      20-4      WIAC      BEAT Oshkosh; BEAT Platteville in WIAC Final   
   UW-Whitewater      20-4      WIAC      BEAT River Falls; LOST to Platteville   
   UW-Platteville      16-4      WIAC      BEAT Whitewater; LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final   
   Buena Vista      20-2      IIAC      LOST to Wartburg in IIAC semis   
   CMS      16-4      SCIAC      BEAT Caltech; BEAT Cal. Lutheran; BEAT Ponoma-Pitzer in SCIAC Final.   
   Whitworth      18-5      NWC      BEAT Linfield; BEAT Puget Sound in NWC Final   
                        
                        
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2009, 02:35:48 AM
So if Chapman gets in, you have two CA teams and two Oregon teams...fly two to Whitworth and bus UPS there?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 02:36:46 AM
UPS would be the higher seed, significantly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2009, 02:40:13 AM
My quick thinking based it on Whitworth beating them in the final, though UPS swept them in the regular season...so, CMS/P-P and Chapman flying to UPS and Whitworth bussing there?

I guess that 1st/2nd round quad is basically set then?  Or, can a South Region team get into the mix there?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 01, 2009, 02:43:31 AM
We might have a riot on our hands but all 3 west coasters could fly East.

I would guess SCIAC to Whitworth, winner to UPS.........NCAA foots the bus ride to UPS and extra night in hotel if the SCIAC wins.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2009, 02:47:08 AM
We might have an isolated bracket of Trinity, UT-Dallas and Southwestern.  There are two orphans for a Sectional.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 01, 2009, 02:48:34 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2009, 02:47:08 AM
We might have an isolated bracket of Trinity, UT-Dallas and Southwestern.  There are two orphans for a Sectional.

Thats where I could see flying in the SCIAC team to Texas, and the two Pacific Northwest teams to Minnesota.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 01, 2009, 03:06:24 AM
The Great Lakes is weird,  Cap and JCU both seem like shoe-ins to host but there just aren't enough teams in the area, maybe one gets a bye?.  Is either really a top 4 seed?  Either one of the two is getting shipped somewhere and only 1 hosts or some other teams are getting shipped to the Great Lakes........or we get one tough 1st/2nd round bracket.

I can see Transylvania going to JCU or Capital, they've gone that direction before.  But I could see Transy going South as well.  There's Wooster, JCU, Cap and maybe Carnegie Mellon, but I can't see Cap and JCU being in the same bracket, they're both to highly ranked.  Bringing one team in, makes one an orphan.

I could see Hope going to Ohio somewhere, that would make 6, still need 2 more.........perhaps Calvin.

A pod of Wheaton, Elmhurst, Aurora and Hope makes the most travel sense, but I have no idea where Hope might fit into the seedings.  4 or 5 or 6 would be my guess and that seems to jibe with Elmhurst as a 4 or 5.  Aurora might be in the #8 range.

Hope's history with assignments is mixed  2002 we went to St. Norbert then Carthage.   2003 a bye, then UW-Oshkosh/Mil-Engineering winner.  2006 hosted UW-LaCrosse, Wisc-Lutheran, Calvin.  2007 went to Aurora with Chicago and Calvin.  2008 a bye, hosted Capital/Bethany winner.

I would lean toward Hope going to Wheaton but I could see them going as far as Stevens Point or Platteville to the West.   JCU or Cap to the East.


I can't believe I even get to think about this stuff.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2009, 03:24:38 AM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2009, 03:06:24 AM
The Great Lakes is weird,  Cap and JCU both seem like shoe-ins to host but there just aren't enough teams in the area, maybe one gets a bye?. 

I can't believe I even get to think about this stuff.  :)

I actually thought about it...I was trying to think of quads for teams that the WIAC was involved in.  I already shipped Hope and Transylvania your way!  I won't go through it here, but the senario I came up with has too many teams in that region, with Wheaton, Washington U and St. Thomas all NOT having a bye.  Stevens Point most likely won't host because the women have preference in odd years and I think the Point women have a good shot at it this year.  I'd be glad to throw some of those strong midwest area teams towards Ohio!  I have it posted in the WIAC page.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 03:50:26 AM
Our projections are up:
http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/09/projected.htm
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2009, 04:23:59 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 03:50:26 AM
Our projections are up:
http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/09/projected.htm

In looking over your projections, shouldn't Bracket 2 have the 6th seed listed as Empire 8 winner or do you know for a fact that RIT is going to win over Nazareth ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 07:14:38 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2009, 12:59:23 AM
This doesn't, but maybe could, include:
Trinity/Centre loser

Trinity (Tx) lost to Southwestern yesterday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 07:18:30 AM
I think 15 of the 18 Pool C's are basically accounted for:

(in no particular order)

1. UW-Whitewater
2. Buena Vista
3. St. Mary's (Md)
4. Guilford
5. UW-Platteville
6. Elmhurst
7. Capital
8. Rhode Island
9. St. Lawrence
10. Salem St.
11. Trinity-Tx
12. Ithaca
13. Farmingdale St.
14. Worcester Poly
15. Puget Sound

Candidates for final 3 spots:

(in no particular order)

* Randolph-Macon
* St. Lawrence
* Augustana
* Carnegie-Mellon
* Calvin
* Amherst
* Hamilton
* Brandeis


Bubble Burster games today (all times EST)

Middlebury vs Amherst, 12:00pm
Texas-Dallas vs Mississippi Coll, 2:30pm
Franklin & Marshall vs Gettysburg, 3:00pm
Centre vs Southwestern, 3:30pm
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 01, 2009, 07:43:07 AM
Here's what I think happens in the final polls that is significant for Pool C:

NE: UNE replaces Bowdoin at #10
EA: RIT replaces Rochester at #5
AT: St. Joseph's (LI) comes in at #3, dropping Baruch
MA: Wesley comes in at #8, dropping Cabrini
SO: Averett comes in at #6 and Mississippi College at #7, dropping DePauw and Roanoke
GL: Hope replaces Ohio Wesleyan at #5
MW and WE have no change in their members

Basically, the same ordering holds true within each region on the Pool C competitors.

So the following come off of the board early, from East to West: WPI, RIC, Ithaca, St. Lawrence, Capital, Elmhurst, Puget Sound, Whitewater, and Platteville.

This leaves the last 9 from the following, with each region in order (no chance teams in parenthesis)

NE: Salem State, Brandeis, Amherst, Bowdoin
EA: Hamilton, (Utica)
AT: Farmingdale, (Montclair State)
MA: St. Mary's MD, (McDaniel)
SO: Trinity TX, Guilford, Randolph-Macon, (Miss College)
GL: Carnegie Mellon, Calvin
MW: (Augustana)
WE: Buena Vista, (Bethel)

I disagree with Pat on the order of Salem State and Brandeis, Trinity and Guilford within their regions.

I would take Salem State, Brandeis, Hamilton, Farmingdale, St. Mary's MD, Trinity, Guilford, Carnegie, and Buena Vista. This means that I disagree with Pat on Hamilton vs. Amherst.

Middlebury, Centre, Franklin and Marshall, and Texas-Dallas would make the field if they lose today, bumping four teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 08:03:28 AM
Patrick, despite what the numbers say, I just do not think the Liberty League is getting 2 Pool C bids (and 3 teams in).  I also do not think Hamilton will get selected over Augustana - I actually think the common opponent is going to be discussed (Augie 2-0 vs IWU, Hamilton 0-1 vs IWU).  I don't necessarily think Augustana is getting in (I think they are a real longshot), but I can't see Hamilton getting in over Augie.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 08:41:17 AM
D3hoops.com Pool C projections by region:

Northeast (5)
WPI, Rhode Island, Brandies, Salem St, Amherst

West (4)
Puget Sound, UW-Whitewater, UW-Platteville, Buena Vista

East (2)
Ithaca, St. Lawrence

Great Lakes (2)
Capital, Carnegie Mellon

South (2)
Guilford, Trinity (Tx)

Atlantic (1)
Farmingdale St.

Mid-Atlantic (1)
St. Mary's (Md)

Midwest (1)
Elmhurst

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 08:54:08 AM
The 10 highest Massey-rated teams not projected in the field by D3hoops.com:

http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2009&sub=III&mid=6

#10 Augustana (Midwest)
#16 North Central (Midwest)
#17 Bethel (West)
#19 Lewis & Clark (West)
#20 Carthage (Midwest)
#23 Millikin (Midwest)
#26 Cornell (West)
#27 UW-Eau Claire (West)
#28 St. Norbert (Midwest)
#30 Chapman (West)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 01, 2009, 09:52:05 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 08:03:28 AM
Patrick, despite what the numbers say, I just do not think the Liberty League is getting 2 Pool C bids (and 3 teams in).  I also do not think Hamilton will get selected over Augustana - I actually think the common opponent is going to be discussed (Augie 2-0 vs IWU, Hamilton 0-1 vs IWU).  I don't necessarily think Augustana is getting in (I think they are a real longshot), but I can't see Hamilton getting in over Augie.

I don't see Amherst getting in over Hamilton.
Amherst will be 19-6, Hamilton will be 16-3. Amherst will have the stronger strength of schedule, but it's not like Hamilton has a bad SOS (at 141st, they're on a par with Richard Stockton and St. Thomas, also DePauw and Mississippi College; Amherst is 50th). Hamilton is 0-2 against ranked teams, while Amherst will be 1-3 if they lose to Middlebury. On common opponents, Hamilton is 1-0 vs. Williams while Amherst is 2-1. (If they go to non-regional games, Amherst gets a huge advantage, but I don't think that it gets there.)
I think that the three losses make a difference. This is not like Wheaton last year.

By contrast, Augustana is 17-8, 2-6 versus ranked teams, no one in common with Amherst or Hamilton, 26th SOS. Again, it looks like Hamilton and then Amherst to me.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 10:02:56 AM
Quote from: pabegg on March 01, 2009, 09:52:05 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 08:03:28 AM
Patrick, despite what the numbers say, I just do not think the Liberty League is getting 2 Pool C bids (and 3 teams in).  I also do not think Hamilton will get selected over Augustana - I actually think the common opponent is going to be discussed (Augie 2-0 vs IWU, Hamilton 0-1 vs IWU).  I don't necessarily think Augustana is getting in (I think they are a real longshot), but I can't see Hamilton getting in over Augie.

I don't see Amherst getting in over Hamilton.
Amherst will be 19-6, Hamilton will be 16-3. Amherst will have the stronger strength of schedule, but it's not like Hamilton has a bad SOS (at 141st, they're on a par with Richard Stockton and St. Thomas, also DePauw and Mississippi College; Amherst is 50th). Hamilton is 0-2 against ranked teams, while Amherst will be 1-3 if they lose to Middlebury. On common opponents, Hamilton is 1-0 vs. Williams while Amherst is 2-1. (If they go to non-regional games, Amherst gets a huge advantage, but I don't think that it gets there.)
I think that the three losses make a difference. This is not like Wheaton last year.

By contrast, Augustana is 17-8, 2-6 versus ranked teams, no one in common with Amherst or Hamilton, 26th SOS. Again, it looks like Hamilton and then Amherst to me.

Remember, it is "results vs regionally ranked teams", not "record."  The fact Augustana has played 8 games vs regionally ranked teams could very well be a big advantage over both Hamilton (2) and Amherst (4), and others.  A committee member could say, "Sure Augustana has lost 8 in-region games, but 6 were against regionally ranked teams."  I was told by a national committee member last year in Salem that Wheaton got in because the # of games they had played vs regionally ranked teams was so high relative to the other final candidates - almost a second strength of schedule measure.

No one seems real clear on how "results vs regionally ranked teams" is used, but I'm confident it goes way beyond just record.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 01, 2009, 10:10:14 AM
Some thoughts on geography:

UPS and Whitworth are an isolated pair in the Northwest.
CMS is alone at the moment in SoCal, but could get Chapman as well
UTD and Trinity are an isolated pair in Texas.
Mississippi College would be within 500 miles of UTD and no one else.

If UTD wins today, the bracket could be done with as little as two flights, by creating opening round games in Texas and Washington, with one set of winners flying to CMS and another somewhere else. If Miss Coll wins today, UTD could host a four-team pod by flying in CMS and the Washington state winner would fly somewhere (St. Thomas would be the easiest and they deserve the bye anyway).

Using the new rule that allows for an extra flight, I would fly CMS and anyone else to Texas to create a four team pod, and fly the Washington winner somewhere. If Miss Coll wins, I'd consider creating four team pods at both UPS and UTD, since that would only take three flights.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2009, 11:20:05 AM
I'll agree with Bob on this one.  I was reading posts before I got to his and thought exactly that...OK, what is better, a team that goes 1-1 vs regional ranked opponents or a team that goes 2-6.  Yeah, Team B has a lot more losses, but playing more ranked opponents tells me their schedule was a lot harder.  I guess that would also show up in the OWP.  But in contrast, their OOWP might be lower than Team A.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 11:21:11 AM
Quote from: magicman on March 01, 2009, 04:23:59 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 03:50:26 AM
Our projections are up:
http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/09/projected.htm

In looking over your projections, shouldn't Bracket 2 have the 6th seed listed as Empire 8 winner or do you know for a fact that RIT is going to win over Nazareth ;)

As you can see, we projected some winners. If Nazareth were to win they might not be seeded sixth. When the champion is irrelevant for seeding and selection, we don't bother to project a winner.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 11:31:08 AM
Quote from: pabegg on March 01, 2009, 07:43:07 AM
Here's what I think happens in the final polls that is significant for Pool C:

NE: UNE replaces Bowdoin at #10
EA: RIT replaces Rochester at #5
AT: St. Joseph's (LI) comes in at #3, dropping Baruch
MA: Wesley comes in at #8, dropping Cabrini
SO: Averett comes in at #6 and Mississippi College at #7, dropping DePauw and Roanoke
GL: Hope replaces Ohio Wesleyan at #5
MW and WE have no change in their members

Basically, the same ordering holds true within each region on the Pool C competitors.

So the following come off of the board early, from East to West: WPI, RIC, Ithaca, St. Lawrence, Capital, Elmhurst, Puget Sound, Whitewater, and Platteville.

This leaves the last 9 from the following, with each region in order (no chance teams in parenthesis)

NE: Salem State, Brandeis, Amherst, Bowdoin
EA: Hamilton, (Utica)
AT: Farmingdale, (Montclair State)
MA: St. Mary's MD, (McDaniel)
SO: Trinity TX, Guilford, Randolph-Macon, (Miss College)
GL: Carnegie Mellon, Calvin
MW: (Augustana)
WE: Buena Vista, (Bethel)

I disagree with Pat on the order of Salem State and Brandeis, Trinity and Guilford within their regions.

I would take Salem State, Brandeis, Hamilton, Farmingdale, St. Mary's MD, Trinity, Guilford, Carnegie, and Buena Vista. This means that I disagree with Pat on Hamilton vs. Amherst.

Middlebury, Centre, Franklin and Marshall, and Texas-Dallas would make the field if they lose today, bumping four teams.


I ranked Maryville in the South instead of Averett.

I had Trinity ahead of Guilford initially, but since Trinity was 0-1 against my regionally ranked teams and Guilford was 1-1, I gave Guilford the nod.

Hamilton vs. Amherst: Common opponents.
Both beat Skidmore.
Hamilton lost at home to Middlebury; Amherst beat them at home (and projected to split two games).
Hamilton won at Williams; Amherst 1-1 with the win on a neutral floor.
Both beat Bates.

And let's not forget, we usually find ourselves in the secondary criteria this far down in Pool C, and Hamilton fares poorly in the secondary criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 11:33:46 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 08:54:08 AM
The 10 highest Massey-rated teams not projected in the field by D3hoops.com:

http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2009&sub=III&mid=6

#10 Augustana (Midwest)
#16 North Central (Midwest)
#17 Bethel (West)
#19 Lewis & Clark (West)
#20 Carthage (Midwest)
#23 Millikin (Midwest)
#26 Cornell (West)
#27 UW-Eau Claire (West)
#28 St. Norbert (Midwest)
#30 Chapman (West)

Cornell is in. That's the IIAC's automatic bid.

Bethel may fall from 17 once Massey counts Saturday's games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 89Pirate on March 01, 2009, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 01, 2009, 02:35:48 AM
So if Chapman gets in, you have two CA teams and two Oregon teams...fly two to Whitworth and bus UPS there?
Old School - did you really just say two Oregon teams?  Last time I checked, Tacoma and Spokane were still in Washington...just had to razz you a little bit for this one...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2009, 01:35:28 PM
Middlebury on top of Amherst 73-68 with 1:05 remaining.

Looks like Middlebury will claim the Pool A bid for the NESCAC as they 're up 76-68 with 14 sceonds left

Final score Middlebury wins 77-68.  Amherst will likely grab a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 01, 2009, 01:52:11 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 01, 2009, 02:35:48 AM
So if Chapman gets in, you have two CA teams and two Oregon teams...fly two to Whitworth and bus UPS there?
Oregon?  C'mon!!!!

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2009, 12:15:12 AM
I think that we have a 3-pod on the West Coast.

It sure would be nice to have the 2 NWC's get shipped to different brackets.  I think the conference could show something, rather than self devouring itself...but I know the deal.  Heck if the WIAC can get split 3 way, as projected, so can the NWC.  We can only hope.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2009, 01:59:20 PM
Not sure where that came from!  I know I didn't do well in geography in high school, but I also know I passed.  Must have been lack of sleep or something.  I can't explain that. 

As an All-American poster, I'm ashamed of myself! lol  :D ;D ??? :P :'(

Yeah, I know they are in Washington...maybe I just still excited about last night's WIAC sweep for the men and women.  Now UPS and Whitworth will play extra hard against the Pointers if they play them or maybe someone will come with a sign that says what state you guys are from!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2009, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on March 01, 2009, 01:52:11 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 01, 2009, 02:35:48 AM
So if Chapman gets in, you have two CA teams and two Oregon teams...fly two to Whitworth and bus UPS there?
Oregon?  C'mon!!!!

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2009, 12:15:12 AM
I think that we have a 3-pod on the West Coast.

It sure would be nice to have the 2 NWC's get shipped to different brackets.  I think the conference could show something, rather than self devouring itself...but I know the deal.  Heck if the WIAC can get split 3 way, as projected, so can the NWC.  We can only hope.

Yes, I understand how you feel.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2009, 02:01:05 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 01, 2009, 01:59:20 PM
Not sure where that came from!  I know I didn't do well in geography in high school, but I also know I passed.  Must have been lack of sleep or something.  I can't explain that. 

As an All-American poster, I'm ashamed of myself! lol  :D ;D ??? :P :'(

Yeah, I know they are in Washington...maybe I just still excited about last night's WIAC sweep for the men and women.  Now UPS and Whitworth will play extra hard against the Pointers if they play them or maybe someone will come with a sign that says what state you guys are from!
Yes, I understand how you feel.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2009, 02:01:54 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on March 01, 2009, 01:52:11 PM
It sure would be nice to have the 2 NWC's get shipped to different brackets.  I think the conference could show something, rather than self devouring itself...but I know the deal.  Heck if the WIAC can get split 3 way, as projected, so can the NWC.  We can only hope.

They aren't isolated like those guys from Oregon! lol :-)  Plus, the NCAA doesn't support Chelsea!  Go Man Utd!!  Carling Cup Champs!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 01, 2009, 02:45:55 PM
I don't know why I can't find this but when is the field of 60 announced, today or tommorrow?

Are they doing it like last year when they announce teams today, pairings tommorrow?

These are all things I just haven't thought about.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 02:47:40 PM
They didn't do teams first with men.

This year, everything is tomorrow.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: knightmoves on March 01, 2009, 02:54:05 PM
Pat,

What time tomorrow will all the teams & pairings be announced for all to see?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: buf on March 01, 2009, 03:02:06 PM
Quote from: knightmoves on March 01, 2009, 02:54:05 PM
Pat,

What time tomorrow will all the teams & pairings be announced for all to see?

I believe women are at 11:00AM (eastern) and men at 11:30AM (eastern)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2009, 03:12:32 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 11:21:11 AM
Quote from: magicman on March 01, 2009, 04:23:59 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 03:50:26 AM
Our projections are up:
http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/09/projected.htm

In looking over your projections, shouldn't Bracket 2 have the 6th seed listed as Empire 8 winner or do you know for a fact that RIT is going to win over Nazareth ;)

As you can see, we projected some winners. If Nazareth were to win they might not be seeded sixth. When the champion is irrelevant for seeding and selection, we don't bother to project a winner.

Good guess! RIT downs Nazareth 76-71.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on March 01, 2009, 03:13:31 PM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2009, 02:45:55 PM
These are all things I just haven't thought about.

That's a nice problem to find yourself in, isn't it?   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 04:15:15 PM
F&M down 3, 55-58, heading down the stretch in a Bubble Burster.  Live video link on the frontpage.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
Gettysburg knocks off F&M...another Pool C gone.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 04:32:27 PM
I think 16 of the 18 Pool C's are basically accounted for:

(in no particular order)

1. UW-Whitewater
2. Buena Vista
3. St. Mary's (Md)
4. Guilford
5. UW-Platteville
6. Elmhurst
7. Capital
8. Rhode Island
9. St. Lawrence
10. Salem St.
11. Trinity-Tx
12. Ithaca
13. Farmingdale St.
14. Worcester Poly
15. Puget Sound
16. Franklin & Marshall

Candidates for final 2 spots:

(in no particular order)

* Randolph-Macon
* Hamilton
* Augustana
* Carnegie-Mellon
* Calvin
* Amherst
* Brandeis
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2009, 04:52:58 PM
It seems like these 7 are the first in:

Puget Sound
UW-Whitewater
UW-Platteville
Ithaca
Elmhurst
Capital
WPI


So then for the rest of the Pool C process, it stacks up something like this...

Atlantic – Farmingdale St.

East – St. Lawrence, Hamilton

Great Lakes – Carnegie Mellon, Calvin

Mid-Atlantic – St. Mary's (Md), Franklin & Marshall

Midwest – Augustana

Northeast – Rhode Island, Salem St, Brandeis, Amherst

South – Guilford, Trinity (Tx), Randolph-Macon

West – Buena Vista


If anyone wants to add updated in-region records and OWP/OOWP above, feel free to do so.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 01, 2009, 05:17:20 PM
Im failing to see a huge difference between CMU's resume and Capital's in the GL.  Capital has the advantage in winning percentage, but CMU has slight edge in OWP/OOWP, CMU is 2-0 against GL ranked teams (they have also beaten Rochester and Averett whou could be ranked in other regions), while Capital is 1-2 against GL ranked teams (assuming Ohio Wesleyan drops out with their loss this week, otherwise 2-2), CMU is also 1-0 against common opponents, while Capital is 1-2. Capital has obviously piled up a bunch more wins, but they havent necessarily beaten good teams.  Of CMUs's 5 losses, 2 are to WasU and 2 are to Brandeis, both with greater than 68% winning percentage).  CMU only has one bad region loss, to CWRU.  Of Capital's 4 losses, 2 are to strong opponents (JCU twice), while 2 are to weaker opponents.  Unless the committee goes solely on the higher number of wins (CMU has played 5 out of region games, going 4-1) and winning percentage, I think CMU has a pretty fair argument to be right up there with Capital.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 01, 2009, 05:23:09 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on March 01, 2009, 05:17:20 PM
Im failing to see a huge difference between CMU's resume and Capital's in the GL.  Capital has the advantage in winning percentage, but CMU has slight edge in OWP/OOWP, CMU is 2-0 against GL ranked teams (they have also beaten Rochester and Averett whou could be ranked in other regions), while Capital is 1-2 against GL ranked teams (assuming Ohio Wesleyan drops out with their loss this week, otherwise 2-2), CMU is also 1-0 against common opponents, while Capital is 1-2. Capital has obviously piled up a bunch more wins, but they havent necessarily beaten good teams.  Of CMUs's 5 losses, 2 are to WasU and 2 are to Brandeis, both with greater than 68% winning percentage).  CMU only has one bad region loss, to CWRU.  Of Capital's 4 losses, 2 are to strong opponents (JCU twice), while 2 are to weaker opponents.  Unless the committee goes solely on the higher number of wins (CMU has played 5 out of region games, going 4-1) and winning percentage, I think CMU has a pretty fair argument to be right up there with Capital.

Are they using once ranked always ranked this year............if thats the case Capitals games with ONU and OWU would count towards record vs ranked teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 01, 2009, 05:24:34 PM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2009, 05:23:09 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on March 01, 2009, 05:17:20 PM
Im failing to see a huge difference between CMU's resume and Capital's in the GL.  Capital has the advantage in winning percentage, but CMU has slight edge in OWP/OOWP, CMU is 2-0 against GL ranked teams (they have also beaten Rochester and Averett whou could be ranked in other regions), while Capital is 1-2 against GL ranked teams (assuming Ohio Wesleyan drops out with their loss this week, otherwise 2-2), CMU is also 1-0 against common opponents, while Capital is 1-2. Capital has obviously piled up a bunch more wins, but they havent necessarily beaten good teams.  Of CMUs's 5 losses, 2 are to WasU and 2 are to Brandeis, both with greater than 68% winning percentage).  CMU only has one bad region loss, to CWRU.  Of Capital's 4 losses, 2 are to strong opponents (JCU twice), while 2 are to weaker opponents.  Unless the committee goes solely on the higher number of wins (CMU has played 5 out of region games, going 4-1) and winning percentage, I think CMU has a pretty fair argument to be right up there with Capital.

Are they using once ranked always ranked this year............if thats the case Capitals games with ONU and OWU would count towards record vs ranked teams.

No, only the final, hidden, ranking. See above posts for my guess as to how things changed from last week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 01, 2009, 05:26:03 PM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2009, 05:23:09 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on March 01, 2009, 05:17:20 PM
Im failing to see a huge difference between CMU's resume and Capital's in the GL.  Capital has the advantage in winning percentage, but CMU has slight edge in OWP/OOWP, CMU is 2-0 against GL ranked teams (they have also beaten Rochester and Averett whou could be ranked in other regions), while Capital is 1-2 against GL ranked teams (assuming Ohio Wesleyan drops out with their loss this week, otherwise 2-2), CMU is also 1-0 against common opponents, while Capital is 1-2. Capital has obviously piled up a bunch more wins, but they havent necessarily beaten good teams.  Of CMUs's 5 losses, 2 are to WasU and 2 are to Brandeis, both with greater than 68% winning percentage).  CMU only has one bad region loss, to CWRU.  Of Capital's 4 losses, 2 are to strong opponents (JCU twice), while 2 are to weaker opponents.  Unless the committee goes solely on the higher number of wins (CMU has played 5 out of region games, going 4-1) and winning percentage, I think CMU has a pretty fair argument to be right up there with Capital.

Are they using once ranked always ranked this year............if thats the case Capitals games with ONU and OWU would count towards record vs ranked teams.

I was assuming that JCU would be the only remaining ranked team Capital has played.  CMU has beaten JCU and Wooster this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2009, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on March 01, 2009, 05:17:20 PM
Im failing to see a huge difference between CMU's resume and Capital's in the GL.  Capital has the advantage in winning percentage, but CMU has slight edge in OWP/OOWP, CMU is 2-0 against GL ranked teams (they have also beaten Rochester and Averett whou could be ranked in other regions), while Capital is 1-2 against GL ranked teams (assuming Ohio Wesleyan drops out with their loss this week, otherwise 2-2), CMU is also 1-0 against common opponents, while Capital is 1-2. Capital has obviously piled up a bunch more wins, but they havent necessarily beaten good teams.  Of CMUs's 5 losses, 2 are to WasU and 2 are to Brandeis, both with greater than 68% winning percentage).  CMU only has one bad region loss, to CWRU.  Of Capital's 4 losses, 2 are to strong opponents (JCU twice), while 2 are to weaker opponents.  Unless the committee goes solely on the higher number of wins (CMU has played 5 out of region games, going 4-1) and winning percentage, I think CMU has a pretty fair argument to be right up there with Capital.

In the past in-region winning percentage has counted for more than perhaps it should.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Marty Peretz on March 01, 2009, 05:33:32 PM
Neither Hamilton nor St. Lawrence should get in. The quality of basketball in the Liberty League just isn't good enough to warrant it being a two big league, particularly at the expense of the NESCAC and UAA getting in only one. I'd put Deis in over Carnegie because, despite having a weaker overall record, they swept the season series and played a much tougher schedule overall. I think Amherst would beat Brandeis in a rematch if they played again, but am very curious to see what the committee will do. It really is a toss-up between those two clubs in my opinion. Amherst's late-season win over Middlebury figures to really help them. Deis did beat the Jeffs but lack a signature win other than that (and even that win isn't terribly signature since Amherst itself is on the bubble). If Deis could have pulled off the home win over Wash.U. and lost the same number of games (ie: dropping one of the games they ended up winning vs an inferior opponent) I'd consider them a lock, but 8 losses is a lot, even if they were mostly to respectable opponents. Record against tournament teams (as in teams who've already won their conference tournament): 0-3. Plus, they lost to WPI and Lasell. They beat RIC, Carnegie, and Amherst, but those are all bubble teams. Amherst has a better overall record and one significant win going for them. Amherst blew out Lasell but lost to RIC. Wow, this is really tough. I'm going to stop rambling because this is an incredibly hard decision, but I do think that in the east it should come down to these teams with respect to a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 01, 2009, 05:42:13 PM
Quote from: Marty Peretz on March 01, 2009, 05:33:32 PM
Neither Hamilton nor St. Lawrence should get in. The quality of basketball in the Liberty League just isn't good enough to warrant it being a two big league, particularly at the expense of the NESCAC and UAA getting in only one. I'd put Deis in over Carnegie because, despite having a weaker overall record, they swept the season series and played a much tougher schedule overall. I think Amherst would beat Brandeis in a rematch if they played again, but am very curious to see what the committee will do. It really is a toss-up between those two clubs in my opinion. Amherst's late-season win over Middlebury figures to really help them. Deis did beat the Jeffs but lack a signature win other than that (and even that win isn't terribly signature since Amherst itself is on the bubble). If Deis could have pulled off the home win over Wash.U. and lost the same number of games (ie: dropping one of the games they ended up winning vs an inferior opponent) I'd consider them a lock, but 8 losses is a lot, even if they were mostly to respectable opponents. Record against tournament teams (as in teams who've already won their conference tournament): 0-3. Plus, they lost to WPI and Lasell. They beat RIC, Carnegie, and Amherst, but those are all bubble teams. Amherst has a better overall record and one significant win going for them. Amherst blew out Lasell but lost to RIC. Wow, this is really tough. I'm going to stop rambling because this is an incredibly hard decision, but I do think that in the east it should come down to these teams with respect to a Pool C bid.

Just one minor correction, you were discussing the northeast in terms of Pool C (Brandeis, Amherst, RIC, etc.)  LL teams are in the east (Hamilton, St. Lawrence).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2009, 05:48:55 PM


Marty has a good point with Brandeis having two wins over Mellon.  I believe that is taken into consideration if they're on the table at the same time, isn't it?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 01, 2009, 05:50:40 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2009, 05:48:55 PM


Marty has a good point with Brandeis having two wins over Mellon.  I believe that is taken into consideration if they're on the table at the same time, isn't it?

If they are on the table at the same time it would.  If you go back a few pages on the UAA board its discussed in more depth.  CMU has a shot to get off the board before Brandeis gets on, though, but it depends if the committee takes CMU over RIC or Salem State, if they do, CMU would be off before Brandeis gets on.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2009, 06:43:35 PM

Any chance we're going to get one of Abegg's numerical rundowns tonight?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on March 01, 2009, 07:36:29 PM
Quote from: Marty Peretz on March 01, 2009, 05:33:32 PM
Neither Hamilton nor St. Lawrence should get in. The quality of basketball in the Liberty League just isn't good enough to warrant it being a two big league, particularly at the expense of the NESCAC and UAA getting in only one. I'd put Deis in over Carnegie because, despite having a weaker overall record, they swept the season series and played a much tougher schedule overall. I think Amherst would beat Brandeis in a rematch if they played again, but am very curious to see what the committee will do. It really is a toss-up between those two clubs in my opinion. Amherst's late-season win over Middlebury figures to really help them. Deis did beat the Jeffs but lack a signature win other than that (and even that win isn't terribly signature since Amherst itself is on the bubble). If Deis could have pulled off the home win over Wash.U. and lost the same number of games (ie: dropping one of the games they ended up winning vs an inferior opponent) I'd consider them a lock, but 8 losses is a lot, even if they were mostly to respectable opponents. Record against tournament teams (as in teams who've already won their conference tournament): 0-3. Plus, they lost to WPI and Lasell. They beat RIC, Carnegie, and Amherst, but those are all bubble teams. Amherst has a better overall record and one significant win going for them. Amherst blew out Lasell but lost to RIC. Wow, this is really tough. I'm going to stop rambling because this is an incredibly hard decision, but I do think that in the east it should come down to these teams with respect to a Pool C bid.

Yeah, the quality of the Liberty League is terrible ??? but St. Lawrence was good enough to beat NESCAC Champs, Middlebury 84-71 and they ain't no bubble team, And yet NESCAC could get 2 bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 01, 2009, 09:02:07 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2009, 06:43:35 PM

Any chance we're going to get one of Abegg's numerical rundowns tonight?

By request, and remember that these are just estimates and do not reflect all of the selection criteria.

Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   02    0.6259 0.5300 0.5270 Middlebury                004  A in        22-2 24-3
NE  13   02   03    0.6110 0.5167 0.5257 Mass-Dartmouth            010  A in        23-3 25-3
NE  17   03   01    0.6257 0.5643 0.5411 Worcester Polytech        013  C 4         20-4 20-5
NE  18   04   05    0.5878 0.4537 0.4823 Elms                      014  B 1         25-1 26-1
NE  13   05   04    0.6096 0.5467 0.5234 Rhode Island College      021  C 9         23-5 23-5
NE  14   06   07    0.6052 0.5297 0.5354 Bridgewater State         022  A in        19-4 20-6
NE  16   07   08    0.6013 0.5507 0.5438 Amherst                   031  C 15        19-6 21-6
NE  14   08   06    0.6081 0.5690 0.5249 Salem State               034  C 17        20-6 21-6
NE  11   09   09    0.5719 0.4717 0.4923 University of New England 037  A in        23-4 24-4
NE  17   10   11    0.5773 0.5038 0.5416 MIT                       042  A in        19-6 20-8
NE  90   11   12    0.5958 0.5841 0.5349 Brandeis                  050  C 23        17-8 17-8
NE  12   12   nr    0.5697 0.5131 0.5025 St. Joseph's (Maine)      051  A in        21-7 21-7
NE  16   13   10    0.5936 0.5951 0.5305 Bowdoin                   059  C 29        17-9 17-9

EA  21   01   01    0.6305 0.5339 0.5374 Ithaca                    003  C 1         22-2 24-2
EA  24   02   02    0.5953 0.5129 0.5135 Hamilton                  020  C 8         16-3 18-7
EA  24   03   03    0.6035 0.5755 0.5128 St. Lawrence              038  C 18        18-6 20-6
EA  21   04   04    0.5761 0.5673 0.5159 Utica                     067  C 35        17-9 17-9
EA  21   05   07    0.5852 0.5770 0.5346 Rochester Tech            070  A in        15-8 19-8
EA  61   06   08    0.5488 0.4892 0.4779 Medaille                  076  A in        17-6 21-6
EA  23   07   06    0.5506 0.4953 0.5035 Fredonia State            077              17-7 18-9
EA  90   08   05    0.5657 0.5452 0.5323 Rochester                 080              16-9 16-9

AT  32   01   01    0.6134 0.5152 0.5068 Richard Stockton          007  A in        22-2 25-2
AT  33   02   02    0.5939 0.5015 0.4837 SUNY-Farmingdale          015  C 5         24-3 24-3
AT  33   03   03    0.5754 0.4615 0.4940 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       027  A in        23-3 24-3
AT  31   04   05    0.5621 0.4622 0.4842 Baruch                    046  C 22        21-4 23-5
AT  32   05   06    0.5715 0.5201 0.5052 William Paterson          055  C 26        20-7 20-7
AT  32   06   04    0.5748 0.5363 0.4993 Montclair State           058  C 28        16-6 20-6
AT  31   07   07    0.5417 0.4323 0.4873 Brooklyn                  066  A in        22-5 23-5
AT  31   08   08    0.5141 0.4653 0.4859 Lehman                    126              16-9 18-9

MA  45   01   01    0.6031 0.5352 0.5345 Franklin and Marshall     019  C 7         21-5 22-5
MA  43   02   04    0.5825 0.5051 0.5122 DeSales                   028  A in        21-5 22-5
MA  41   03   02    0.5760 0.4755 0.4957 St. Mary's (Md.)          030  C 14        18-3 21-5
MA  42   04   03    0.5943 0.5303 0.5167 Widener                   033  A in        20-5 22-5
MA  44   05   06    0.5647 0.4648 0.4894 Gwynedd-Mercy             044  A in        21-4 22-5
MA  45   06   05    0.5832 0.5527 0.5318 McDaniel                  053  C 25        16-7 18-8
MA  46   07   07    0.5644 0.4997 0.4889 Scranton                  054  B 2         20-6 21-6
MA  45   08   08    0.5905 0.5686 0.5327 Gettysburg                057  A in        18-8 18-8
MA  41   09   09    0.5589 0.4902 0.4933 Wesley                    060  A in        16-5 18-9
MA  44   10   10    0.5489 0.4892 0.4765 Cabrini                   073              20-7 20-7
MA  46   11   11    0.5386 0.4847 0.4894 Susquehanna               090  B 5         16-7 18-8

SO  51   01   03    0.6068 0.5343 0.5125 Texas-Dallas              017  A in        22-4 24-4
SO  54   02   04    0.6137 0.5594 0.5100 Centre                    018  A in        19-4 23-4
SO  53   03   01    0.5828 0.4817 0.5108 Randolph-Macon            024  C 11        18-3 20-6
SO  54   04   02    0.5846 0.4946 0.5158 Trinity (Texas)           029  C 13        20-4 23-4
SO  53   05   05    0.5757 0.4958 0.5112 Guilford                  043  C 21        20-5 21-5
SO  55   06   08    0.5751 0.5152 0.4975 Averett                   047  A in        17-5 20-8
SO  51   07   09    0.5706 0.5289 0.5047 Mississippi College       052  C 24        18-7 20-7
SO  51   08   07    0.5580 0.4873 0.5073 McMurry                   063  C 32        18-6 19-8
SO  54   09   06    0.5626 0.5131 0.5100 DePauw                    065  C 34        15-6 19-7
SO  51   10   11    0.5612 0.5198 0.5015 Mary Hardin-Baylor        071  C 38        19-8 19-8
SO  55   11   10    0.5571 0.5133 0.5016 Christopher Newport       075              14-6 18-9

GL  64   01   02    0.6174 0.5369 0.5209 John Carroll              009  A in        21-3 23-4
GL  64   02   01    0.6095 0.5381 0.5156 Capital                   016  C 6         22-4 24-4
GL  63   03   04    0.5792 0.4870 0.5031 Wooster                   035  A in        21-4 22-6
GL  62   04   03    0.5785 0.4960 0.4984 Calvin                    039  C 19        14-3 19-8
GL  62   05   06    0.5827 0.5271 0.4988 Hope                      040  A in        14-4 21-7
GL  90   06   05    0.5918 0.5449 0.5273 Carnegie Mellon           041  C 20        15-5 19-6
GL  64   07   08    0.5577 0.5223 0.5196 Ohio Northern             081              16-8 18-9
GL  63   08   07    0.5480 0.4992 0.4979 Ohio Wesleyan             084              16-7 17-8
GL  61   09   09    0.5353 0.4870 0.4854 Penn State-Behrend        096              15-7 17-9

MW  90   01   01    0.6335 0.5390 0.5396 Washington U.             002  A in        22-2 23-2
MW  71   02   02    0.6590 0.5982 0.5702 Wheaton (Ill.)            006  A in        20-3 24-3
MW  72   03   03    0.6154 0.5479 0.5085 Transylvania              011  A in        18-3 21-5
MW  71   04   04    0.6250 0.5991 0.5609 Elmhurst                  032  C 16        20-7 20-7
MW  74   05   09    0.5655 0.5005 0.5011 Lawrence                  049  A in        19-6 19-6
MW  71   06   06    0.5824 0.5409 0.5679 Augustana                 061  C 30        17-8 18-8
MW  71   07   05    0.6108 0.6241 0.5588 North Central             062  C 31        14-8 16-10
MW  74   08   07    0.5520 0.4835 0.5017 St. Norbert               072              17-6 18-6
MW  74   09   10    0.5544 0.5050 0.4931 Grinnell                  074              15-6 18-7
MW  74   10   08    0.5580 0.5283 0.5089 Carroll                   078              16-8 16-8
MW  71   11   nr    0.5628 0.5285 0.5578 Millikin                  086              14-8 16-9

WE  82   01   01    0.6357 0.5117 0.5193 St. Thomas                001  A in        26-0 27-0
WE  83   02   02    0.6183 0.4914 0.5360 Puget Sound               005  C 2         21-1 24-3
WE  86   03   03    0.6501 0.6007 0.5528 UW-Stevens Point          008  A in        22-4 23-4
WE  86   04   04    0.6221 0.5607 0.5594 UW-Whitewater             012  C 3         21-5 22-5
WE  86   05   06    0.6246 0.5820 0.5616 UW-Platteville            023  C 10        17-5 22-5
WE  81   06   05    0.5786 0.4657 0.5133 Buena Vista               025  C 12        20-3 23-3
WE  83   07   07    0.5927 0.5304 0.5184 Whitworth                 036  A in        19-5 22-5
WE  84   08   08    0.5662 0.4781 0.4827 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    045  A in        19-4 21-6
WE  81   09   10    0.5711 0.5096 0.5049 Cornell                   048  A in        19-6 21-6
WE  82   10   09    0.5691 0.5261 0.5041 Bethel                    056  C 27        18-7 20-7
WE  89   11   nr    0.5132 0.3529 0.4972 Chapman                   089  B 4         17-3 24-3


Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A in: clinched Pool A bid
    blank: lower level Pool C
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: oldchap on March 01, 2009, 09:17:19 PM
Quote from: pabegg on March 01, 2009, 09:02:07 PM

By request, and remember that these are just estimates and do not reflect all of the selection criteria.

Question:

I assume that B3 is Maryville. Why is it not in your estimate?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 01, 2009, 09:23:41 PM
Quote from: oldchap on March 01, 2009, 09:17:19 PM
Quote from: pabegg on March 01, 2009, 09:02:07 PM

By request, and remember that these are just estimates and do not reflect all of the selection criteria.

Question:

I assume that B3 is Maryville. Why is it not in your estimate?
Not in the South's top 11
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Marty Peretz on March 01, 2009, 10:40:02 PM
How is it determined which pods get 7 teams and which get 8? And why don't they just go to 64 teams with 8 in a pod? Sorry, I'm still an amateur with the d3 selection criteria (and in some ways, suspect I always will be)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Marty Peretz on March 01, 2009, 10:45:48 PM
One last thing...

The pool c's aren't decided according to region, correct? As in, it's just the top 18 remaining teams from anywhere in the country that are selected?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 10:49:37 PM
Quote from: Marty Peretz on March 01, 2009, 10:40:02 PM
How is it determined which pods get 7 teams and which get 8? And why don't they just go to 64 teams with 8 in a pod? Sorry, I'm still an amateur with the d3 selection criteria (and in some ways, suspect I always will be)

Well, there is one tournament spot for every 6.5 teams that sponsor the sport. That's why -- we don't have 64*6.5 teams playing Division III men's basketball.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 02, 2009, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: Marty Peretz on March 01, 2009, 10:45:48 PM
One last thing...

The pool c's aren't decided according to region, correct? As in, it's just the top 18 remaining teams from anywhere in the country that are selected?
Correct.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedawg on March 02, 2009, 11:55:05 AM
Using Massey's MOV ratings:

Top-Left Bracket (AVG=54.73)
10. John Carroll
14. UT Dallas
15. Capital
20. Centre
21. Transylvania
30. Wooster
35. Guilford
40. Carnegie Mellon
49. Maryville
57. Trinity
65. Averett
70. Gettysburg
116. Brockport St.
118. Thomas More
161. Medaille

Bottom-Left Bracket (AVG=26.07)
1. UW Stevens Point
2. St. Thomas
3. Wheaton
4. Puget Sound
5. UW Whitewater
6. UW Platteville
7. Whitworth
8. Lawrence
9. Elmhurst
11. Washington U
36. Cornell
42. Hope
50. Claremont Mudd Scripps
59. Aurora
148. Fontbonne

Top-Right Bracket (AVG=91.73)
18. Richard Stockton
24. Middlebury
41. RIC
45. Elms
51. Amherst
63. Bridgewater MA
78. Farmingdale
84. St. Lawrence
97. Brooklyn
102. MIT
133. U of New England
138. Gwynedd-Mercy
157. SUNYIT
158. St. Joseph's ME
187. RPI

Top-Right Bracket (AVG=93.2)
22. UMD
23. Ithaca
26. Brandeis
56. Widener
62. VA Wesleyan
71. Salem St
72. WPI
83. F&M
90. St. Joseph's LI
91. Scranton
114. Baruch
123. Rochester Tech
134. DeSales
183. Wesley
248. Husson

I realize that the nature of D3 makes proximity a huge, huge issue.  I also realize that the Massey MOV ratings are NOT the selection criteria.  However, a little bit more parity could be desired.  If I'm WashU, Wheaton, UWP, UWSP, UWW, Puget Sound, or St. Thomas, I think I have a right to be disgruntled


Edited to add Wooster
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LogShow on March 02, 2009, 12:16:20 PM
That is a TRUE statement!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 02, 2009, 12:49:29 PM
So if I read the brackets right, the NCAA believes UW Platteville is a #8 seed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2009, 12:50:07 PM
Yeah. Isn't that grand?  :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2009, 12:53:20 PM
RED means they have lost, regular season/conference tourney is complete and they are Pool C eligible.

BLUE means they have won the Pool A bid from their respective conference




   Atlantic      REG      CONF.      RESULTS   
   Richard Stockton       20-2      NJAC      BEAT William Paterson; BEAT Rutgers-Newark in NJAC Final
   Farmingdale State      23-2      SKY      BEAT SUNY-Old Westbury; LOST to St. Joseph's (L.I.) in SKY Finals    
   Monclair State      16-5      NJAC      LOST to Rutgers-Newark in NJAC semis   [/s]
   William Paterson      20-6      NJAC      LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis   
   Baruch      20-3      CUNYAC      BEAT Lehman; LOST to Brooklyn in CUNYAC Final.   
                        
   EAST      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Ithaca      22-1      E8      LOST Nazareth in E8 semis   
   St. Lawrence      17-5      LL      BEAT Clarkson; LOST to RPI in Liberty League Final   
   Hamilton      16-2      LL      LOST to RPI   in LL semis
   Utica      17-8      E8      LOST to Rochester Tech in E8 semis.   
   Rochester    16-8      UAA      LOST to Carnegie Mellon on Sat.   
                        
   Great Lakes      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   John Carroll      18-3      OAC      BEAT Heidelberg; BEAT Muskingum; BEAT Capital in OAC Final   
   Capital      20-3      OAC      BEAT Mount Union, BEAT Ohio Northern; LOST to John Carroll in OAC Final    
   Carnegie Mellon      14-5      UAA      BEAT Rochester    
   Wooster      18-4      NCAC      BEAT Denison; BEAT Kenyon; BEAT Wabash in NCAC Final   
   Calvin       12-2      MIAA      BEAT Trine; BEAT Olivet; LOST to Hope in MIAA Final   
   Ohio Wesleyan      16-6      NCAC      LOST to Allegheny in NCAC quarterfinals   
                        
   Middle Atlantic      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   St. Mary's (Md)      18-2      CAC      LOST to Marymount in CAC semis   
   Franklin & Marshall      20-4      CC      BEAT Muhlenberg; LOST to Gettysburg in Centennial Conference Final    
   DeSales      18-5      MACF      BEAT Wilkes; BEAT Manhattanville in MACF Final   
   Widener      18-5      MACC      BEAT Messiah; BEAT Elizabethtown in MACC Final.   
   Gwynedd-Mercy      19-4      CSAC      BEAT Baptist Bible; BEAT Cabrini CSAC Final.   
   McDaniel      16-6      CC      LOST to Gettysburg in CC semis.   
   Cabrini      19-6      CSAC      BEAT Keystone; LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy in CSAC Final.   
   Scranton      18-6      LAND      BEAT Catholic; BEAT Susquehanna in LAND Final.   
                        
   Midwest      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Wheaton (IL)      18-3      CCIW      BEAT North Central (Ill); BEAT Elmhurst in CCIW Final   
   Washington U.      21-2      UAA      BEAT Chicago on Sat.   
   Elmhurst      19-6      CCIW      BEAT Augustana; LOST to Wheaton (IL) in CCIW Final on Sat.   
   Transylvania      16-3      HCAC      BEAT Anderson; BEAT Franklin in HCAC Final.   
   Lawrence      17-6      MWC      BEAT Carroll; BEAT Grinnell in MWC Final.   
   Augustana      17-7      CCIW      LOST to Elmhurst in CCIW semis   
   Carroll      16-7      MWC      LOST to Lawrence in MWC semis   
   North Central (IL)      14-7      CCIW      LOST to Wheaton (IL) in CCIW semis.   
                        
   Northeast      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Worcester Tech      20-3      NEWMAC      LOST to Springfield in NEWMAC semis    
   Middlebury      20-2      NESCAC      BEAT Bowdoin; BEAT Amherst in NESCAC Final   
   Elms      23-1      NECC      BEAT Wheelock; BEAT Becker in NECC Final (NECC is Pool B eligible)   
   Rhode Island Coll.      21-4      LEC      BEAT Southern Maine; BEAT Keene State; LOST to Mass-Dartmouth in LEC Final   
   Mass-Dartmouth      20-3      LEC      BEAT Mass-Boston; BEAT Western Connecticut; BEAT RIC in LEC Final   
   Salem State      19-5      MASCAC      BEAT Framingham State; LOST to Bridgewater State in MASCAC Final.   
   Bridgewater State      17-4      MASCAC      BEAT Westfield State; BEAT Salem State in MASCAC Final    
   Brandeis      16-8      UAA      BEAT New York University   
   Amherst      18-5      NESCAC      BEAT Williams; LOST to Middlebury in NESCAC Final    
   Bowdoin      17-8      NESCAC      LOST to Middlebury in NESCAC semis   
                        
   South      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   Trinity (Texas)      19-3      SCAC      BEAT Sewanee; LOST to Southwestern in SCAC semis   
   Texas-Dallas      19-4      ASC      BEAT Sul Ross State; BEAT Mary Hardin-Baylor; BEAT Mississippi College in ASC Final.   
   Guilford      20-4      ODAC      LOST to Washington and Lee in ODAC quarters.   
   Randolph-Macon      18-2      ODAC      LOST Virginia Wesleyan in ODAC quarters.   
   Centre      16-4      SCAC      BEAT Austin; BEAT Hendrix; BEAT Southwestern in SCAC Final     
   McMurry      17-5      ASC      BEAT Texas-Tyler; LOST to Mississippi College in ASC semis    
   DePauw      15-5      SCAC      LOST Southwestern in SCAC quarters.   
   Roanoke      14-6      ODAC      LOST Hampden-Sydney in ODAC quarters.   
                        
   West      REG      CONF      RESULTS   
   St. Thomas      24-0      MIAC      BEAT Gustavus Adolphus; BEAT Bethel in MIAC Final   
   Puget Sound      20-0      NWC      BEAT Lewis and Clark; LOST to Whitworth in NWC Final   
   UW-Stevens Point      20-4      WIAC      BEAT Oshkosh; BEAT Platteville in WIAC Final   
   UW-Whitewater      20-4      WIAC      BEAT River Falls; LOST to Platteville   
   UW-Platteville      16-4      WIAC      BEAT Whitewater; LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final   
   Buena Vista      20-2      IIAC      LOST to Wartburg in IIAC semis   
   CMS      16-4      SCIAC      BEAT Caltech; BEAT Cal. Lutheran; BEAT Ponoma-Pitzer in SCIAC Final.   
   Whitworth      18-5      NWC      BEAT Linfield; BEAT Puget Sound in NWC Final   
                        
                        
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2009, 01:00:47 PM
I have one extra Pool C, 19 instead of 18...help me out...maybe a Pool C team is actually a Pool B?  I'm lost!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 02, 2009, 01:02:35 PM
I count 18, I can only guess you counted Franklin and Marshall as two different schools. :P
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on March 02, 2009, 01:03:19 PM
I counted 19 as well. St. Mary's is on the list but not crossed out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2009, 01:24:47 PM
Got it, St. Mary's!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 05, 2009, 10:06:00 AM
First Round Tourney matchups

POOL A v POOL A
Wooster (A) vs. Gettysburg (A)
Medaille (A) at John Carroll (A)
Averett (A) at Centre (A)
Fontbonne (A) at Wheaton (Ill) (A)
Washington U. (A) vs. Lawrence (A)
Aurora (A) at St. Thomas (Minn) (A)
UW-Stevens Point (A) vs. Cornell (A)
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (A) at Whitworth (A)
St. Joseph's (Maine) (A) at Bridgewater State (A)
RPI (A) at Richard Stockton (A)
Virginia Wesleyan (A) at Widener (A)
St. Joseph's LI (A) at DeSales (A)

POOL A v POOL B
Elms (B) vs. SUNYIT (A)

POOL A v POOL C
Thomas More (A) at Capital (C)
Brockport State (A) vs. Carnegie Mellon (C)
Transylvania (A) vs. Guilford (C)
UW-Platteville (C) vs. Hope (A)
MIT (A) at Rhode Island College (C)
U. of New England (A) vs. Farmingdale State (C)
Brooklyn (A) at St. Lawrence (C)
Amherst (C) vs. Gwynedd-Mercy (A)
Salem State (C) vs. Rochester Tech (A)
Wesley (A) at Franklin & Marshall (C)
Husson (A) at Worcester Polytech (C)
Mass-Dartmouth (A) vs. Baruch (C)

POOL C v POOL C
UW-Whitewater (C) at Elmhurst (C)

POOL C v POOL B
Maryville (Tenn) (B) at Trinity (Texas) (C)
Brandeis (C) vs. Scranton (B)

TEAMS WITH 1st ROUND BYES
Puget Sound-(C)
Texas-Dallas-(A)
Ithaca-(C)
Middlebury-(A)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 05, 2009, 10:15:25 AM
Wow, if I'm correct, only one C v C matchup and the 4 resulting Thursday games won't result in any C v C matchups on Saturday for the bye teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2009, 10:26:41 AM
+1!  Old school!

May I cut and paste this on the Bumblin'B's board?   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 05, 2009, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2009, 10:26:41 AM
+1!  Old school!

May I cut and paste this on the Bumblin'B's board?   ;)

You don't have to ask for permission, you just need to get your team in the Fantasy League! lol  ??? ;D :D ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on March 05, 2009, 12:13:43 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 05, 2009, 10:06:00 AM
TEAMS WITH 1st ROUND BYES
Puget Sound-(C)
Texas-Dallas-(A)
Ithaca-(C)
Middlebury-(A)
As you can plainly see, awarding byes on the basis of geography rather than merit is just a bunch of caca.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: TeeDub on March 05, 2009, 01:03:21 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 05, 2009, 12:13:43 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 05, 2009, 10:06:00 AM
TEAMS WITH 1st ROUND BYES
Puget Sound-(C)
Texas-Dallas-(A)
Ithaca-(C)
Middlebury-(A)
As you can plainly see, awarding byes on the basis of geography rather than merit is just a bunch of caca.

very clever! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2009, 02:28:11 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 05, 2009, 12:13:43 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 05, 2009, 10:06:00 AM
TEAMS WITH 1st ROUND BYES
Puget Sound-(C)
Texas-Dallas-(A)
Ithaca-(C)
Middlebury-(A)
As you can plainly see, awarding byes on the basis of geography rather than merit is just a bunch of caca.
QuoteYou wanna play that Thursday game.

                                                               --- The Wisdom of Hoopsville

If wish that UTD had played on Thursday.

If I am a high seed, and I am getting a "lower half seed" at home, then I want to play the first round game!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 19, 2009, 04:43:15 PM
Ralph asked me to put together this analysis of how much impact one game has on the rankings.

Here are the numbers on the four teams that he asked me to look at:

McMurry 18-6 regional, .7500 RWP, .4873 OWP, .5073 OOWP, .4940 SOS, .5580 RPI
ranked 77 on RPI, 52 on RWP, 63 combined, 8th in South Region, 32nd Pool C team

North Central IL 14-8 regional, .6364 RWP, .6241 OWP, .5588 OOWP, .6023 SOS, .6108 RPI
ranked 17 on RPI, 107 on RWP, 60 combined, 7th in Midwest Region, 29th Pool C team

Augustana 17-8 regional, .6800 RWP, .5409 OWP, .5679 OOWP, .5499 SOS, .5824 RPI
ranked 42 on RPI, 82 on RWP, 59 combined, 6th in Midwest Region, 28th Pool C team

McDaniel 16-7 regional, .6957 RWP, .5527 OWP, .5318 OOWP, .5457 SOS, .5832 RPI
ranked 38 on RPI, 76 on RWP, 55 combined, 6th in Mid-Atlantic Region, 25th Pool C team

So that's the baseline for these schools.

Ralph then asked me to change a couple of losses to wins for McMurry, Augustana, and McDaniel. Here's what happens:

McMurry beats Sul Ross State to end up 19-5 instead.
.7917 RWP, .4873 OWP, .5074 OOWP, .4940 SOS, .5684 RPI
ranked 62 on RPI, 41 on RWP, 53 combined, 7th in South Region, 25th Pool C team

and then McMurry beats UT-Tyler to end up 20-4 instead.
.8333 RWP, .4873 OWP, .5080 OOWP, .4942 SOS, .5790 RPI
ranked 45 on RPI, 28 on RWP, 36 combined, 5th in South Region, 18th Pool C team
In this case, I would have expected them to have come out of the South ahead of Guilford and have made the tournament.

Ralph also asked what the impact of the two McMurry wins would be on North Central, who played McMurry this season.

North Central IL 14-8 regional, .6364 RWP, .6280 OWP, .5588 OOWP, .6049 SOS, .6128 RPI
ranked 16 on RPI, 107 on RWP, 63 combined, 6th in Midwest Region, 28th Pool C team
on these numbers, they would nose ahead of Augustana (although the actual comparison would be highly impacted by the head-to-head and common games).

OK, now reset all the games back and give Augustana a win over UW-Lax to reach 18-7
.7200 RWP, .5409 OWP, .5705 OOWP, .5508 SOS, .5931 RPI
ranked 31 on RPI, 66 on RWP, 48 combined, 5th in Midwest Region, 23rd Pool C team

and then give Augustana a win over Elmhurst to reach 19-6
.7600 RWP, .5409 OWP, .5712 OOWP, .5510 SOS, .6032 RPI
ranked 24 on RPI, 48 on RWP, 33 combined, 4th in Midwest Region, 16th Pool C team
with these numbers, they would have passed Elmhurst and likely made it into the tournament

Finally, reset all the games back and give McDaniel a win over Washington College to reach 17-6
.7391 RWP, .5527 OWP, .5322 OOWP, .5459 SOS, .5942 RPI
ranked 29 on RPI, 61 on RWP, 43 combined, 5th in Mid-Atlantic Region, 22nd Pool C team

and then give them a win over St. Mary's MD to reach 18-5
.7826 RWP, .5527 OWP, .5353 OOWP, .5469 SOS, .6058 RPI
ranked 22 on RPI, 42 on RWP, 29 combined, 2nd in Mid-Atlantic Region, 14th Pool C team
they would have replaced St. Mary's as the MA team on the board in late consideration and probably have gotten in.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2009, 05:37:48 PM
Thank you so much!

When I get home, I will look at this more carefully to see how the variables interact.  +1!  :)


One in-region loss makes a difference of 3-8 places in pabegg's Pool C table.

There is very minimal impact from changing one outcome on another team's OWP/OOWP in the Pool C evaluation (McMurry having 2 more wins over in-region opponents in a closed system such as the ASC and its impact on North Central IL.)

There is a huge "bottleneck" of teams that are vying for the last Pool C bid.

Please look at McDaniel.

16-7  =  25th Pool C team
17-6  =  22nd Pool C team
18-5  =  14th Pool C team
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 19, 2009, 07:46:53 PM
Quote from: pabegg on March 19, 2009, 04:43:15 PM
Ralph asked me to put together this analysis of how much impact one game has on the rankings.

Ralph then asked me to change a couple of losses to wins for McMurry, Augustana, and McDaniel. Here's what happens:

Ralph also asked what the impact of the two McMurry wins would be on North Central, who played McMurry this season.

Sounds like this "Ralph" guy is kind of needed.  I'd probably stay away from him if I were you!  :D ;D ;) ::) :P

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2009, 05:37:48 PM
Thank you so much!

At least he said "Thanks you so much!"  ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2009, 07:56:42 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 19, 2009, 07:46:53 PM
Quote from: pabegg on March 19, 2009, 04:43:15 PM
Ralph asked me to put together this analysis of how much impact one game has on the rankings.

Ralph then asked me to change a couple of losses to wins for McMurry, Augustana, and McDaniel. Here's what happens:

Ralph also asked what the impact of the two McMurry wins would be on North Central, who played McMurry this season.

Sounds like this "Ralph" guy is kind of needed.  I'd probably stay away from him if I were you!  :D ;D ;) ::) :P

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2009, 05:37:48 PM
Thank you so much!

At least he said "Thanks you so much!"  ::)
:D :D :D

I saw this as a "Rosetta Stone" to unlock this season's Pool C questions.  It looks like in-region percentage is a big factor, and that it is difficult to take too many teams out of one region for only "18 Pool C bids".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2009, 08:12:15 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 05, 2009, 10:06:00 AM
First Round Tourney matchups

POOL A v POOL A
Wooster (A) vs. Gettysburg (A)
Medaille (A) at John Carroll (A)
Averett (A) at Centre (A)
Fontbonne (A) at Wheaton (Ill) (A)
Washington U. (A) vs. Lawrence (A)
Aurora (A) at St. Thomas (Minn) (A)
UW-Stevens Point (A) vs. Cornell (A)
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (A) at Whitworth (A)
St. Joseph's (Maine) (A) at Bridgewater State (A)
RPI (A) at Richard Stockton (A)
Virginia Wesleyan (A) at Widener (A)
St. Joseph's LI (A) at DeSales (A)

POOL A v POOL B  Pool A 1, Pool B 0
Elms (B) vs. SUNYIT (A)

POOL A v POOL C   Pool A 3, Pool C 9
Thomas More (A) at Capital (C)
Brockport State (A) vs. Carnegie Mellon (C)
Transylvania (A) vs. Guilford (C)
UW-Platteville (C) vs. Hope (A)
MIT (A) at Rhode Island College (C)
U. of New England (A) vs. Farmingdale State (C)
Brooklyn (A) at St. Lawrence (C)
Amherst (C) vs. Gwynedd-Mercy (A)
Salem State (C) vs. Rochester Tech (A)
Wesley (A) at Franklin & Marshall (C)
Husson (A) at Worcester Polytech (C)
Mass-Dartmouth (A) vs. Baruch (C)

POOL C v POOL C  Pool C 1-1
UW-Whitewater (C) at Elmhurst (C)

POOL C v POOL B   Pool C 2, Pool B 0
Maryville (Tenn) (B) at Trinity (Texas) (C)
Brandeis (C) vs. Scranton (B)

TEAMS WITH 1st ROUND BYES
Puget Sound-(C)
Texas-Dallas-(A)
Ithaca-(C)
Middlebury-(A)

Pool C 9, Pool A 3
Pool C 2, Pool B 0


Pool C total 12-4 (first round)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2009, 08:47:43 PM
SECOND ROUND

Pool A vs Pool A

St. Thomas (A) beat UW-Stevens Point (A)
Bridgewater St (A) beat Middlebury (A)
Richard Stockton (A) beat Gwynedd-Mercy (A)

Pool A vs Pool C -- Pool A 6, Pool C 6 wins

UT-Dallas (A) beat Trinity TX (C)
Capital (C) beat Wooster (A)
John Carroll (A) beat Carnegie-Mellon (C)
Guilford (C) beat Averett (A)
Wheaton IL (A) beat UW-Platteville (C)
Washington U MO (A) beat UW-Whitewater (C)
Puget Sound (C) beat Whitworth (A)
Farmingdale State (C) beat MIT (A)
Salem State (C) beat Widener (A)
Mass-Dartmouth (A) beat WPI (C)
DeSales (A) beat Ithaca (C)
St Lawrence (C) beat SUNYIT (A)

Pool C vs. Pool C -- Pool C 1-1

F&M (C) beat Brandeis (C)

THIRD ROUND

Pool A vs Pool A

WashU (A) beat Wheaton IL (A)
DeSales (A) beat Mass-Dartmouth (A)

Pool A vs Pool C --  Pool A 3 wins, Pool C 2 wins

UT-Dallas (A) beat Capital (C)
Guilford (C) beat John Carroll (A)
St Thomas (A) beat Puget Sound (C)
Farmingdale State (C) beat Bridgewater St (A)
Richard Stockton (A) beat St Lawrence (C)

Pool C vs. Pool C  (1-1)

F&M (C) beat Salem State (C)

FOURTH ROUND

Pool A 1, Pool C 2

Guilford (C) beat UT-Dallas (A)
F&M (C) beat DeSales (A)
Richard Stockton (A) beat Farmington State (C)

Washington U (A) beat St Thomas (A)


Round #2 -#4

Pool C 12 wins, 12 losses.

Total thru four rounds, Pool C 24 wins, 16 losses

FINAL FOUR

Washington U (A) beat Guilford (C)

Richard Stockton (A) beat F&M (C)

Guilford  (C) beats F&M  (C)

Pool C 1 win, 3 losses

Final Tally --  Pool C 25 wins, 19 losses
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pabegg on March 19, 2009, 09:46:36 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2009, 05:37:48 PM
Thank you so much!
You're welcome.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 20, 2009, 12:32:14 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2009, 07:56:42 PM
It looks like in-region percentage is a big factor, and that it is difficult to take too many teams out of one region for only "18 Pool C bids".

The Northeast Region took 5 of 18 this year and 6 of 19 last year.  I would say that's a pretty big % from one region with 8 total regions.  I realize that region has 10 teams in its regional rankings while others don't, but I still think they are hogging all the Pool Cs!  :P ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 20, 2009, 12:47:13 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 20, 2009, 12:32:14 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2009, 07:56:42 PM
It looks like in-region percentage is a big factor, and that it is difficult to take too many teams out of one region for only "18 Pool C bids".

The Northeast Region took 5 of 18 this year and 6 of 19 last year.  I would say that's a pretty big % from one region with 8 total regions.  I realize that region has 10 teams in its regional rankings while others don't, but I still think they are hogging all the Pool Cs!  :P ;)
Yes, I stand corrected.

And Ithaca, Farmington State, Baruch and St Lawrence.

9 of 18... from the Northeast, East and Atlantic (71 + 35 + 31 =) 137 (35%) teams of the 395 eligible schools.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 20, 2009, 12:57:35 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 20, 2009, 12:47:13 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 20, 2009, 12:32:14 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2009, 07:56:42 PM
It looks like in-region percentage is a big factor, and that it is difficult to take too many teams out of one region for only "18 Pool C bids".

The Northeast Region took 5 of 18 this year and 6 of 19 last year.  I would say that's a pretty big % from one region with 8 total regions.  I realize that region has 10 teams in its regional rankings while others don't, but I still think they are hogging all the Pool Cs!  :P ;)
Yes, I stand corrected.

And Ithaca, Farmington State, Baruch and St Lawrence.

9 of 18... from the Northeast, East and Atlantic (71 + 35 + 31 =) 137 (35%) teams of the 395 eligible schools.



That IS what happens when you use regional criteria to pick a national tournament.  At the risk of sounding too much like a CCIW chauvinist, if you were forced to bet on Augustana, North Central, or Carthage vs. Farmington St., Baruch, or St. Lawrence, where would you lay your money?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 20, 2009, 01:06:07 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 20, 2009, 12:57:35 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 20, 2009, 12:47:13 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 20, 2009, 12:32:14 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2009, 07:56:42 PM
It looks like in-region percentage is a big factor, and that it is difficult to take too many teams out of one region for only "18 Pool C bids".

The Northeast Region took 5 of 18 this year and 6 of 19 last year.  I would say that's a pretty big % from one region with 8 total regions.  I realize that region has 10 teams in its regional rankings while others don't, but I still think they are hogging all the Pool Cs!  :P ;)
Yes, I stand corrected.

And Ithaca, Farmington State, Baruch and St Lawrence.

9 of 18... from the Northeast, East and Atlantic (71 + 35 + 31 =) 137 (35%) teams of the 395 eligible schools.



That IS what happens when you use regional criteria to pick a national tournament.  At the risk of sounding too much like a CCIW chauvinist, if you were forced to bet on Augustana, North Central, or Carthage vs. Farmington St., Baruch, or St. Lawrence, where would you lay your money?
This needs to be addressed by the Championships Committee.

(I am curious to see how Guilford does versus Wash U.  Titan Q made the comment in Sunday's Hoopsville about the relative strength of the Midwest, West and South Region.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 26, 2009, 12:33:58 PM
It's with sadness that I have to report the death of Patrick Abegg. We will miss him.
http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2009/04/26/rip-patrick-abegg/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 26, 2009, 09:53:37 PM
Quote from: pabegg on March 19, 2009, 09:46:36 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2009, 05:37:48 PM
Thank you so much!
You're welcome.


:'(

EDIT:  April 26, 2009

I seldom use that "smiley", because there is usually so little that I have to cry about.

I don't necessarily cry for pabegg, but the sadness is present.

This was my last exchange with pabegg, and his response was his penultimate post.

(Penultimate... That sounds like a good word in the vocabulary of a WashUStL grad.   ;)  )

He contributed so much to our enjoyment of these boards.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 26, 2009, 10:34:13 PM
Patrick Abegg was on my very, very short list for the message board Hall of Fame. I'm skipping the normal peer voting process and promoting him now. Sorry we didn't get to do this while he was alive.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:51:08 AM
I
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:51:43 AM
Need 5
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:53:09 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:51:43 AM
Need 5

posts before I
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:53:39 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:53:09 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:51:43 AM
Need 5

posts before I

can give my first
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:54:04 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:53:39 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:53:09 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:51:43 AM
Need 5

posts before I

can give my first

+k
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:55:38 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:54:04 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:53:39 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:53:09 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:51:43 AM
Need 5

posts before I

can give my first

+k


which I'd like to give to Mr. Abegg
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 27, 2009, 02:18:14 PM
That is really terrible news. My thoughts and prayers go out to Patrick's family. Forty-four is much too young an age to die.

There are undoubtedly so many other ways in which those who knew him and loved him will miss him, but D3 basketball fans will certainly miss his statistical contributions to this site, especially in terms of compiling Pool C contender data here in the Pool C room. His unexpected passing will leave a huge hole come next February.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 26, 2009, 10:34:13 PM
Patrick Abegg was on my very, very short list for the message board Hall of Fame. I'm skipping the normal peer voting process and promoting him now. Sorry we didn't get to do this while he was alive.

Great gesture, Pat. I wholeheartedly support it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 28, 2009, 03:38:01 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 26, 2009, 10:34:13 PM
Patrick Abegg was on my very, very short list for the message board Hall of Fame. I'm skipping the normal peer voting process and promoting him now. Sorry we didn't get to do this while he was alive.
"And the crowd goes wild!"

Well done, Pat C.... well done.

I wrote my thoughts on the Daily Dose, but to summarize: I was just getting to know Pat Abegg this season and his information became something I always had printed up next to me on Hoopsville each night. His work was incrediable and may never be topped - but I would love to see someone step up to the line.

To his family, my deepest sympathies and heart-felt thanks for sharing him with us all these years.

Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:55:38 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:54:04 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:53:39 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:53:09 AM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on April 27, 2009, 05:51:43 AM
Need 5
posts before I
can give my first
+k
which I'd like to give to Mr. Abegg
Usually people get slack for doing something like this, but this is one of the best reasons I have seen it done for. +k for just the honest effort.

And of course, +k to Abegg, just because he deserves more than we can give him for his work. Hall of Famer, indeed!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: BUBeaverFan on April 28, 2009, 03:52:28 PM
My thoughts and prayers go out to Patrick's Family.  He will be missed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on April 28, 2009, 03:53:19 PM
Being named a Hall of Famer - A touching honor that Pat Abegg would have truly appreciated - well done, Pat Coleman....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on April 28, 2009, 11:31:25 PM
In honor of Patrick, I thought it would be nice to share this clip on basketball analytics from the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference 2009 (at MIT) that was held earlier this year.  It is a long clip (over an hour) but it is interesting for you nerds out there.  Panelists include Mark Stein, John Hollinger, and Mark Cuban, among others:

http://techtv.mit.edu/videos/2287-basketball-analytics

Additional sessions of the conference can be found on the right hand panel (topics such as globilization of sports, sports in a recession, and the value of an icon player).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on April 29, 2009, 01:33:17 AM
My thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends.  I don't know what the majority of my fellow D3hoopsters look like, so when I read the article on the daily dose and saw his picture with his family, it sure makes it a lot harder to swallow.  He definitely felt like family on this site.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WLCALUM83 on April 29, 2009, 07:16:08 AM
I remember assisting him with posting Men's Hoops and Women's Hoops schedules. When I started D3 soccer scheduling boards, he helped me there, too.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 29, 2009, 12:36:05 PM

I was really looking forward to the increasing benefit of having an official bracketologist around.  I will miss the interaction we've had.  It's truly a sad day to lose such a young man.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on April 29, 2009, 09:39:51 PM
 :( &  :'(
Will miss his contributions here, loved going over his stats which were so much more in-depth than NCAA.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on May 01, 2009, 04:26:32 AM
What a sad day this is for all D3hoops fans. I always considered Patrick's regional rankings to be the most accurate statistics available and looked forward to them each and every time they were updated. A final plus k for our newest Hall of Famer.   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on June 30, 2009, 02:29:59 PM
Looks like the NCAA is changing their stance on championship data reporting to the public:

http://ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/committee+approves+pilot+championships-data+reporting_06_30_09_ncaa_news
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 24, 2009, 10:04:36 AM
Is it too early to begin the Pool C discussion? No? Ok, then here's some regional rankings through games of 12/23/2009.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    RPI      NAT   Pool      REG   OVR   CONF     Team
                                    
NE   01   0.857   0.622   0.509   0.6523   020   A   C     6-1   7-1   NAC      Thomas
NE   02   0.714   0.682   0.517   0.6488   023   B   001   5-2   6-2   NECC     Elms
NE   03   0.875   0.593   0.514   0.6440   025   A   C     7-1   7-1   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   04   0.750   0.585   0.556   0.6190   036   C   016   6-2   6-2   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   05   1.000   0.478   0.516   0.6181   037   A   C     5-0   7-0   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   06   0.600   0.655   0.560   0.6175   038   C   017   3-2   5-2   NESCAC   Bates
NE   07   0.857   0.500   0.598   0.6138   043   C   021   6-1   7-1   UAA      Brandeis
NE   08   0.400   0.767   0.518   0.6128   045   C   022   2-3   4-3   NAC      Husson
NE   09   0.750   0.569   0.540   0.6067   050   C   026   6-2   6-2   NESCAC   Bowdoin
NE   10   0.875   0.500   0.532   0.6017   058   C   031   7-1   8-1   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   11   0.889   0.435   0.607   0.5918   070   A         8-1   9-1   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   12   0.875   0.439   0.612   0.5912   071   C   041   7-1   7-1   NESCAC   Colby
NE   13   0.500   0.696   0.453   0.5861   074   C   044   4-4   4-4   NESCAC   Wesleyan
NE   14   1.000   0.385   0.564   0.5834   078   C   047   9-0   11-0  NEWMAC   MIT
                                    
E   001   0.875   0.696   0.494   0.6906   007   A   C     7-1   8-1   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   002   0.875   0.660   0.547   0.6852   008   C   002   7-1   7-1   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
E   003   0.800   0.667   0.504   0.6594   017   C   006   4-1   7-1   UAA      Rochester
E   004   0.833   0.583   0.540   0.6351   030   A   C     5-1   6-2   E8       Ithaca
E   005   0.833   0.563   0.568   0.6317   032   C   012   5-1   6-2   SUNYAC   Cortland State
E   006   0.833   0.531   0.566   0.6155   042   C   020   5-1   6-1   E8       Stevens
E   007   1.000   0.444   0.549   0.6094   049   C   025   8-0   10-0  AMCC     Medaille
E   008   0.833   0.526   0.500   0.5965   066   A         5-1   7-1   LL       Skidmore
                                    
A   001   0.857   0.623   0.521   0.6558   019   A   C     6-1   7-3   NJAC     Montclair State
A   002   0.625   0.712   0.509   0.6393   027   C   009   5-3   6-3   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   003   0.714   0.636   0.477   0.6159   040   A   C     5-2   5-2   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   004   0.833   0.548   0.526   0.6136   044   A   C-2   5-1   6-1   CUNYAC   Baruch
A   005   0.833   0.514   0.561   0.6055   052   A   C-2   5-1   7-1   SKY      St. Josephs (L.I.)
A   006   0.778   0.533   0.555   0.5999   060   C   033   7-2   8-2   NJAC     Rowan
A   007   0.889   0.452   0.578   0.5926   068   C   039   8-1   8-2   NJAC     Ramapo
A   008   0.444   0.726   0.454   0.5876   072   C   042   4-5   5-5   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
                                    
MA   01   0.857   0.720   0.515   0.7030   006   A   C     6-1   6-3   MACF     Alvernia
MA   02   0.667   0.744   0.527   0.6703   011   A   C     4-2   5-4   MACC     Messiah
MA   03   0.875   0.617   0.545   0.6634   015   A   C     7-1   9-1   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   04   0.875   0.543   0.647   0.6523   021   C   008   7-1   8-1   MACC     Albright
MA   05   0.727   0.625   0.551   0.6321   031   C   011   8-3   8-3   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   06   0.778   0.589   0.512   0.6170   039   C   018   7-2   8-2   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   07   0.625   0.642   0.542   0.6124   046   C   023   5-3   6-4   LAND     Susquehanna
MA   08   0.750   0.564   0.546   0.6057   051   A   C-2   6-2   6-2   CC       Franklin and Marshall
                                    
S   001   1.000   0.586   0.491   0.6658   013   A   C     5-0   8-0   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   002   1.000   0.545   0.561   0.6630   016   C   005   5-0   8-1   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   003   1.000   0.541   0.523   0.6511   022   N/A       6-0   8-0   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   004   0.714   0.732   0.411   0.6472   024   A   C     5-2   7-2   ASC      McMurry
S   005   0.889   0.475   0.576   0.6035   054   C   027   8-1   8-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   006   0.714   0.643   0.402   0.6004   059   C   032   5-2   5-2   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   007   0.875   0.471   0.578   0.5986   063   C   035   7-1   9-1   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   008   0.750   0.500   0.599   0.5872   073   C   043   6-2   7-2   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   009   0.667   0.564   0.536   0.5824   080   C   049   6-3   6-3   UAA      Emory
S   010   0.750   0.509   0.553   0.5804   082   B   003   6-2   8-2   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   011   0.600   0.577   0.516   0.5675   105   C   068   3-2   4-3   ODAC     Roanoke
                                    
GL   01   1.000   0.833   0.591   0.8144   001   A   C     2-0   5-4   MIAA     Hope
GL   02   1.000   0.567   0.568   0.6757   010   A   C     9-0   10-1  OAC      Wilmington
GL   03   0.000   1.000   0.625   0.6563   018   C   007   0-1   3-5   MIAA     Calvin
GL   04   0.778   0.594   0.543   0.6270   033   C   013   7-2   7-2   OAC      John Carroll
GL   05   0.714   0.634   0.514   0.6240   035   C   015   5-2   6-2   UAA      Case Western Reserve
GL   06   0.714   0.613   0.502   0.6105   047   A   C-2   5-2   5-2   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   07   0.571   0.680   0.480   0.6029   055   C   028   4-3   4-3   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
GL   08   0.556   0.672   0.492   0.5978   064   C   036   5-4   5-5   OAC      Mount Union
GL   09   0.750   0.547   0.545   0.5973   065   C   037   6-2   6-2   AMCC     Frostburg State
                                    
MW   01   1.000   0.667   0.557   0.7227   003   A   C     5-0   8-0   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.800   0.684   0.552   0.6802   009   A   C     4-1   7-2   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.714   0.629   0.574   0.6363   029   C   010   5-2   6-2   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   04   0.778   0.574   0.577   0.6256   034   C   014   7-2   7-3   CCIW     Augustana
MW   05   0.750   0.571   0.570   0.6156   041   C   019   6-2   7-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   06   0.571   0.640   0.568   0.6047   053   A   C-2   4-3   4-3   MWC      Carroll
MW   07   1.000   0.409   0.590   0.6021   056   C   029   6-0   7-0   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   08   0.714   0.558   0.567   0.5995   061   C   034   5-2   6-2   MWC      Illinois College
MW   09   0.889   0.492   0.523   0.5987   062   A         8-1   9-1   HCAC     Anderson
MW   10   0.375   0.717   0.532   0.5851   076   A         3-5   3-6   NATHC    Wisconsin Lutheran
MW   11   0.667   0.561   0.550   0.5846   077   C   046   4-2   6-2   UAA      Chicago
                                    
W   001   1.000   0.658   0.584   0.7249   002   A   C     11-0  11-0  WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   002   0.889   0.694   0.605   0.7203   004   C   001   8-1   8-2   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   003   1.000   0.654   0.527   0.7086   005   A   C     4-0   7-0   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.900   0.587   0.593   0.6669   012   C   003   9-1   9-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   005   0.857   0.617   0.567   0.6647   014   C   004   6-1   6-1   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   006   0.909   0.538   0.577   0.6407   026   B   002   10-1  10-1  IND      Chapman
W   007   1.000   0.509   0.535   0.6385   028   A   C     8-0   9-1   IIAC     Cornell
W   008   0.714   0.587   0.553   0.6104   048   C   024   5-2   7-3   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   009   0.667   0.622   0.457   0.5920   069   C   040   4-2   5-3   MIAC     St. Johns
W   010   0.667   0.575   0.504   0.5802   083   C   051   4-2   4-2   MIAC     Augsburg
W   011   0.667   0.579   0.494   0.5798   085   C   052   4-2   5-4   IIAC     Buena Vista
W   012   0.200   0.800   0.517   0.5793   088   C   054   1-4   4-6   WIAC     UW-Stout
                                    
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                        
         B   Pool B eligible team                        
         C   At large candidate                        
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                        
                                    
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                        
                                    
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                         
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                         
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                        

"Last Four In"
Mass-Dartmouth -- LEC
Bates -- NESCAC
St. Marys (Md.) -- CAC
Illinois Wesleyan -- CCIW

"First Four Out"
Stevens -- E8
Brandeis -- UAA
Husson -- NAC
Susquehanna -- LAND
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 24, 2009, 12:25:12 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 24, 2009, 10:04:36 AM
Is it too early to begin the Pool C discussion? No? Ok, then here's some regional rankings through games of 12/23/2009.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    RPI      NAT   Pool      REG   OVR   CONF     Team
                                    
NE   01   0.857   0.622   0.509   0.6523   020   A   C     6-1   7-1   NAC      Thomas
NE   02   0.714   0.682   0.517   0.6488   023   B   001   5-2   6-2   NECC     Elms
NE   03   0.875   0.593   0.514   0.6440   025   A   C     7-1   7-1   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   04   0.750   0.585   0.556   0.6190   036   C   016   6-2   6-2   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   05   1.000   0.478   0.516   0.6181   037   A   C     5-0   7-0   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   06   0.600   0.655   0.560   0.6175   038   C   017   3-2   5-2   NESCAC   Bates
NE   07   0.857   0.500   0.598   0.6138   043   C   021   6-1   7-1   UAA      Brandeis
NE   08   0.400   0.767   0.518   0.6128   045   C   022   2-3   4-3   NAC      Husson
NE   09   0.750   0.569   0.540   0.6067   050   C   026   6-2   6-2   NESCAC   Bowdoin
NE   10   0.875   0.500   0.532   0.6017   058   C   031   7-1   8-1   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   11   0.889   0.435   0.607   0.5918   070   A         8-1   9-1   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   12   0.875   0.439   0.612   0.5912   071   C   041   7-1   7-1   NESCAC   Colby
NE   13   0.500   0.696   0.453   0.5861   074   C   044   4-4   4-4   NESCAC   Wesleyan
NE   14   1.000   0.385   0.564   0.5834   078   C   047   9-0   11-0  NEWMAC   MIT
                                    
E   001   0.875   0.696   0.494   0.6906   007   A   C     7-1   8-1   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   002   0.875   0.660   0.547   0.6852   008   C   002   7-1   7-1   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
E   003   0.800   0.667   0.504   0.6594   017   C   006   4-1   7-1   UAA      Rochester
E   004   0.833   0.583   0.540   0.6351   030   A   C     5-1   6-2   E8       Ithaca
E   005   0.833   0.563   0.568   0.6317   032   C   012   5-1   6-2   SUNYAC   Cortland State
E   006   0.833   0.531   0.566   0.6155   042   C   020   5-1   6-1   E8       Stevens
E   007   1.000   0.444   0.549   0.6094   049   C   025   8-0   10-0  AMCC     Medaille
E   008   0.833   0.526   0.500   0.5965   066   A         5-1   7-1   LL       Skidmore
                                    
A   001   0.857   0.623   0.521   0.6558   019   A   C     6-1   7-3   NJAC     Montclair State
A   002   0.625   0.712   0.509   0.6393   027   C   009   5-3   6-3   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   003   0.714   0.636   0.477   0.6159   040   A   C     5-2   5-2   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   004   0.833   0.548   0.526   0.6136   044   A   C-2   5-1   6-1   CUNYAC   Baruch
A   005   0.833   0.514   0.561   0.6055   052   A   C-2   5-1   7-1   SKY      St. Josephs (L.I.)
A   006   0.778   0.533   0.555   0.5999   060   C   033   7-2   8-2   NJAC     Rowan
A   007   0.889   0.452   0.578   0.5926   068   C   039   8-1   8-2   NJAC     Ramapo
A   008   0.444   0.726   0.454   0.5876   072   C   042   4-5   5-5   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
                                    
MA   01   0.857   0.720   0.515   0.7030   006   A   C     6-1   6-3   MACF     Alvernia
MA   02   0.667   0.744   0.527   0.6703   011   A   C     4-2   5-4   MACC     Messiah
MA   03   0.875   0.617   0.545   0.6634   015   A   C     7-1   9-1   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   04   0.875   0.543   0.647   0.6523   021   C   008   7-1   8-1   MACC     Albright
MA   05   0.727   0.625   0.551   0.6321   031   C   011   8-3   8-3   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   06   0.778   0.589   0.512   0.6170   039   C   018   7-2   8-2   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   07   0.625   0.642   0.542   0.6124   046   C   023   5-3   6-4   LAND     Susquehanna
MA   08   0.750   0.564   0.546   0.6057   051   A   C-2   6-2   6-2   CC       Franklin and Marshall
                                    
S   001   1.000   0.586   0.491   0.6658   013   A   C     5-0   8-0   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   002   1.000   0.545   0.561   0.6630   016   C   005   5-0   8-1   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   003   1.000   0.541   0.523   0.6511   022   N/A       6-0   8-0   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern*
S   004   0.714   0.732   0.411   0.6472   024   A   C     5-2   7-2   ASC      McMurry
S   005   0.889   0.475   0.576   0.6035   054   C   027   8-1   8-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   006   0.714   0.643   0.402   0.6004   059   C   032   5-2   5-2   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   007   0.875   0.471   0.578   0.5986   063   C   035   7-1   9-1   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   008   0.750   0.500   0.599   0.5872   073   C   043   6-2   7-2   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   009   0.667   0.564   0.536   0.5824   080   C   049   6-3   6-3   UAA      Emory
S   010   0.750   0.509   0.553   0.5804   082   B   003   6-2   8-2   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   011   0.600   0.577   0.516   0.5675   105   C   068   3-2   4-3   ODAC     Roanoke
                                    
GL   01   1.000   0.833   0.591   0.8144   001   A   C     2-0   5-4   MIAA     Hope
GL   02   1.000   0.567   0.568   0.6757   010   A   C     9-0   10-1  OAC      Wilmington
GL   03   0.000   1.000   0.625   0.6563   018   C   007   0-1   3-5   MIAA     Calvin
GL   04   0.778   0.594   0.543   0.6270   033   C   013   7-2   7-2   OAC      John Carroll
GL   05   0.714   0.634   0.514   0.6240   035   C   015   5-2   6-2   UAA      Case Western Reserve
GL   06   0.714   0.613   0.502   0.6105   047   A   C-2   5-2   5-2   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   07   0.571   0.680   0.480   0.6029   055   C   028   4-3   4-3   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
GL   08   0.556   0.672   0.492   0.5978   064   C   036   5-4   5-5   OAC      Mount Union
GL   09   0.750   0.547   0.545   0.5973   065   C   037   6-2   6-2   AMCC     Frostburg State
                                    
MW   01   1.000   0.667   0.557   0.7227   003   A   C     5-0   8-0   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.800   0.684   0.552   0.6802   009   A   C     4-1   7-2   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.714   0.629   0.574   0.6363   029   C   010   5-2   6-2   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   04   0.778   0.574   0.577   0.6256   034   C   014   7-2   7-3   CCIW     Augustana
MW   05   0.750   0.571   0.570   0.6156   041   C   019   6-2   7-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   06   0.571   0.640   0.568   0.6047   053   A   C-2   4-3   4-3   MWC      Carroll
MW   07   1.000   0.409   0.590   0.6021   056   C   029   6-0   7-0   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   08   0.714   0.558   0.567   0.5995   061   C   034   5-2   6-2   MWC      Illinois College
MW   09   0.889   0.492   0.523   0.5987   062   A         8-1   9-1   HCAC     Anderson
MW   10   0.375   0.717   0.532   0.5851   076   A         3-5   3-6   NATHC    Wisconsin Lutheran
MW   11   0.667   0.561   0.550   0.5846   077   C   046   4-2   6-2   UAA      Chicago
                                    
W   001   1.000   0.658   0.584   0.7249   002   A   C     11-0  11-0  WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   002   0.889   0.694   0.605   0.7203   004   C   001   8-1   8-2   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   003   1.000   0.654   0.527   0.7086   005   A   C     4-0   7-0   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.900   0.587   0.593   0.6669   012   C   003   9-1   9-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   005   0.857   0.617   0.567   0.6647   014   C   004   6-1   6-1   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   006   0.909   0.538   0.577   0.6407   026   B   002   10-1  10-1  IND      Chapman
W   007   1.000   0.509   0.535   0.6385   028   A   C     8-0   9-1   IIAC     Cornell
W   008   0.714   0.587   0.553   0.6104   048   C   024   5-2   7-3   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   009   0.667   0.622   0.457   0.5920   069   C   040   4-2   5-3   MIAC     St. Johns
W   010   0.667   0.575   0.504   0.5802   083   C   051   4-2   4-2   MIAC     Augsburg
W   011   0.667   0.579   0.494   0.5798   085   C   052   4-2   5-4   IIAC     Buena Vista
W   012   0.200   0.800   0.517   0.5793   088   C   054   1-4   4-6   WIAC     UW-Stout
                                    
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                        
         B   Pool B eligible team                        
         C   At large candidate                        
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                        
                                    
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                        
                                    
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                         
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                         
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                        


"Last Four In"
Mass-Dartmouth -- LEC
Bates -- NESCAC
St. Marys (Md.) -- CAC
Illinois Wesleyan -- CCIW

"First Four Out"
Stevens -- E8
Brandeis -- UAA
Husson -- NAC
Susquehanna -- LAND

NO!  Not too early...

Let's observe a cybermoment of silence to remember our posting pal, Patrick Abegg, whose diligence and dedication made these message boards a wonderful place to enjoy our favorite spectator sports.


.......................................................................  Good luck to Patrick's WUStL Bears!


And, on with the season!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 24, 2009, 12:33:08 PM
Please remember that Birmingham Southern is 3rd year provisional and is ineligible for the playoffs.

Results against them do count when calculating OWP/OOWP.

Knightslappy has designated this with the N/A.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: iwumichigander on December 24, 2009, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 24, 2009, 12:25:12 PM
NO!  Not too early...

And, on with the season!
I agree with Ralph.  It would be very interesting to watch the change in the "pool".  I think it could also help everyone including the novices get a better understanding how this thing works.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on December 24, 2009, 02:51:36 PM
When calculating these numbers, do only region games count for OWP and OOWP numbers?

Also, I looked up a couple schools and did not get identical numbers.  I am failing to see Hope's second region win.  They beat Calvin, but who else?  Their only other d3 win is Wheaton, but they lost to Carthage so I dont see how you would count one win for their WP and discount the other.  Also, Calvin has no other region games besides the Hope game, so their WP in the Great Lakes is 0 (so Hopes OWP should be 0, not close to 1, unless you count their games against Midwest teams).

It does not seem very intuitive to me to use region winning percentage for WP, but then use all d3 results for OWP and OOWP.  Is this in fact the case or are these calculations just off completely?

I am may be missing something, but if you are only supposed to use region games for WP, OWP, and OOWP, I am getting numbers that are much different.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 24, 2009, 03:02:15 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 24, 2009, 02:51:36 PM
When calculating these numbers, do only region games count for OWP and OOWP numbers?

Also, I looked up a couple schools and did not get identical numbers.  I am failing to see Hope's second region win.  They beat Calvin, but who else?  Their only other d3 win is Wheaton, but they lost to Carthage so I dont see how you would count one win for their WP and discount the other.  Also, Calvin has no other region games besides the Hope game, so their WP in the Great Lakes is 0 (so Hopes OWP should be 0, not close to 1, unless you count their games against Midwest teams).

It does not seem very intuitive to me to use region winning percentage for WP, but then use all d3 results for OWP and OOWP.  Is this in fact the case or are these calculations just off completely?

I am may be missing something, but if you are only supposed to use region games for WP, OWP, and OOWP, I am getting numbers that are much different.

All numbers (except the OVR record) are for in-region games only.

Hope has beaten Calvin and Wheaton in-region. Carthage is out-of-region for Hope. Wheaton is inside of 200 miles from Hope, but Carthage is outside of the 200 mile radius.

When calculating OWP remember that you don't coun't the opponents record against yourself i.e. Calvin is 0-0 (not 0-1) in the eyes of the Hope OWP calculation, and likewise Hope is 1-0 (not 2-0) in Calvin's OWP calculation.

OOWP, on the other hand, counts all games.

Maybe the best way to explain this is that OWP measures my direct strength of schedule and OOWP measures my opponents direct strength of schedule. I don't affect my own strength of schedule (my schedule wasn't harder just because I lost all my games), but I do affect my opponents strength of schedule.

I hope that helps. If you're still getting different numbers let me know and I'll check for errors.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on December 24, 2009, 03:05:55 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 24, 2009, 03:02:15 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 24, 2009, 02:51:36 PM
When calculating these numbers, do only region games count for OWP and OOWP numbers?

Also, I looked up a couple schools and did not get identical numbers.  I am failing to see Hope's second region win.  They beat Calvin, but who else?  Their only other d3 win is Wheaton, but they lost to Carthage so I dont see how you would count one win for their WP and discount the other.  Also, Calvin has no other region games besides the Hope game, so their WP in the Great Lakes is 0 (so Hopes OWP should be 0, not close to 1, unless you count their games against Midwest teams).

It does not seem very intuitive to me to use region winning percentage for WP, but then use all d3 results for OWP and OOWP.  Is this in fact the case or are these calculations just off completely?

I am may be missing something, but if you are only supposed to use region games for WP, OWP, and OOWP, I am getting numbers that are much different.

All numbers (except the OVR record) are for in-region games only.

Hope has beaten Calvin and Wheaton in-region. Carthage is out-of-region for Hope. Wheaton is inside of 200 miles from Hope, but Carthage is outside of the 200 mile radius.

When calculating OWP remember that you don't coun't the opponents record against yourself i.e. Calvin is 0-0 (not 0-1) in the eyes of the Hope OWP calculation and likewise Hope is 1-0 (not 2-0) in Calvin's OWP calculation.

OOWP, on the other hand, counts all games.

I hope that helps. If you're still getting different numbers let me know and I'll check for errors.
Sorry for the confusion, I forgot about the 200 mile rule.  That fixes the major errors, the other erorrs I was getting were minor.  They could be one game I have wrong or one game you have wrong, but not a big deal either way.

Thanks for running the numbers, I understand the mistake now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on December 24, 2009, 03:14:20 PM
Thanks to KnightSlappy for doing the Pool C statistics. Plus K. One question though, both Oneonta St. and Plattsburgh St. are 7-1 in region, however that 1 loss by Oneonta was to Plattsburgh on Oneonta's home court. Plattsburgh's 1 loss was on the road at Elms. Shouldn't that give Plattsburgh the edge over Oneonta as Plattsburgh won the head to head meeting? Perhaps that doesn't matter. Just asking.

Plattsburgh would also have the Pool A bid because of their win over Oneonta. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 24, 2009, 03:24:04 PM
Quote from: magicman on December 24, 2009, 03:14:20 PM
Thanks to KnightSlappy for doing the Pool C statistics. Plus K. One question though, both Oneonta St. and Plattsburgh St. are 7-1 in region, however that 1 loss by Oneonta was to Plattsburgh on Oneonta's home court. Plattsburgh's 1 loss was on the road at Elms. Shouldn't that give Plattsburgh the edge over Oneonta as Plattsburgh won the head to head meeting? Perhaps that doesn't matter. Just asking.

Plattsburgh would also have the Pool A bid because of their win over Oneonta. 

In the eyes of the committee? They'll probably be ranked ahead of Oneonta. These are pretty much strictly RPI based rankings, and Oneonta has the edge in that department for now.

As for pool A bids, for now I give them to the top RPI in the conference. Since they're (mostly) given out to conference tournament winners I figure the top RPI team has as good a shot as anyone at winning that bid.

Strict RPI isn't always the best way to rank a region this early in the year (see Calvin's W-L record for proof), but it's still pretty good. I'm sure it'll get better as the season progresses and teams play more and more regional games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on December 24, 2009, 03:32:33 PM
Also, this early in the season, when you have some teams with only 2-5 in-region games, you can get some absurdly high or low numbers.  The numbers will have more meaning come February when the NCAA starts releasing rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on December 24, 2009, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 24, 2009, 03:24:04 PM
Quote from: magicman on December 24, 2009, 03:14:20 PM
Thanks to KnightSlappy for doing the Pool C statistics. Plus K. One question though, both Oneonta St. and Plattsburgh St. are 7-1 in region, however that 1 loss by Oneonta was to Plattsburgh on Oneonta's home court. Plattsburgh's 1 loss was on the road at Elms. Shouldn't that give Plattsburgh the edge over Oneonta as Plattsburgh won the head to head meeting? Perhaps that doesn't matter. Just asking.

Plattsburgh would also have the Pool A bid because of their win over Oneonta. 

In the eyes of the committee? They'll probably be ranked ahead of Oneonta. These are pretty much strictly RPI based rankings, and Oneonta has the edge in that department for now.

As for pool A bids, for now I give them to the top RPI in the conference. Since they're (mostly) given out to conference tournament winners I figure the top RPI team has as good a shot as anyone at winning that bid.

Strict RPI isn't always the best way to rank a region this early in the year (see Calvin's W-L record for proof), but it's still pretty good. I'm sure it'll get better as the season progresses and teams play more and more regional games.

Thanks KS. I can accept that. We all know that what we see now isn't what we'll have by the time tournament selection day rolls around. I'm just happy to see 3 SUNYAC schools in the top 5 in the East. Now that's something I hope doesn't change. But I'm sure after they beat up on each other it will.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on December 24, 2009, 05:28:57 PM
Knight,

So the MIT win over RPI should count as in-region, based on the 200 mile rule (It does not appear to be counted as in-region in your rankings because MITs region record only shows 9-0). I just mapquested it and it is 172 miles from the address on the RPI website to 77 Mass. Ave. in Cambridge.  This should also increase their OWP somewhat, as RPI's only loss is to MIT.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 24, 2009, 05:52:45 PM
https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

Officially, MIT to RPI is 173.0 Miles.

Great pick-up!   :)

+1 to both of you!




Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 24, 2009, 05:54:02 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 24, 2009, 05:28:57 PM
Knight,

So the MIT win over RPI should count as in-region, based on the 200 mile rule (It does not appear to be counted as in-region in your rankings because MITs region record only shows 9-0). I just mapquested it and it is 172 miles from the address on the RPI website to 77 Mass. Ave. in Cambridge.  This should also increase their OWP somewhat, as RPI's only loss is to MIT.

You're right it should be counted, and I'll make sure it gets updated on my sheet.

I'm currently going off of the d3hoops.com team schedules, so if they don't have the "•" next to the game, then I don't count it unless I catch it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 24, 2009, 05:55:52 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 24, 2009, 05:52:45 PM
https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

Officially, MIT to RPI is 173.0 Miles.

Great pick-up!   :)

+1 to both of you!

Ralph, I just spent the last 15-20 minutes re-searching for that link to verify, and after I find it, you go and post it two minutes before I post! You could have saved me a lot of trouble if you posted a few minutes ago!  :D ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 24, 2009, 05:59:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 24, 2009, 05:55:52 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 24, 2009, 05:52:45 PM
https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

Officially, MIT to RPI is 173.0 Miles.

Great pick-up!   :)

+1 to both of you!

Ralph, I just spent the last 15-20 minutes re-searching for that link to verify, and after I find it, you go and post it two minutes before I post! You could have saved me a lot of trouble if you posted a few minutes ago!  :D ;D
Ehh, I was sitting at my desk doing some end-of-the-year stuff and watching the Star Wars marathon on Spike TV, except they are showing the re-make and not the old original tapes.

(IMHO, the most dramatic special effects scene in history is when the Star Destroyer in Episode IV comes across the screen.  That was one huge space ship!  It is coming op right now.   ;) )

Now you have the official link!  :)


Talk about a guy with a cool name, my IT guy's last name is Kessel, as in the "spice mines of Kessel" and the Kessel run".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on December 24, 2009, 06:06:51 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 24, 2009, 05:54:02 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 24, 2009, 05:28:57 PM
Knight,

So the MIT win over RPI should count as in-region, based on the 200 mile rule (It does not appear to be counted as in-region in your rankings because MITs region record only shows 9-0). I just mapquested it and it is 172 miles from the address on the RPI website to 77 Mass. Ave. in Cambridge.  This should also increase their OWP somewhat, as RPI's only loss is to MIT.

You're right it should be counted, and I'll make sure it gets updated on my sheet.

I'm currently going off of the d3hoops.com team schedules, so if they don't have the "•" next to the game, then I don't count it unless I catch it.

What would the NCAA do without either of you!

If you were wondering, I am sitting on a plane with a baby crying (not mine) and my daughter punching me in the arm repeatedly because she is going nuts from sitting in one place for5 hours and eating about a pound of M&Ms. At least I can say that these 5 hours werent a waste now that I made that MIT-RPI pickup.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 24, 2009, 06:13:03 PM
We have a really bad ice storm going on over and to the west of DFW.

Ranger Hill is a 6% grade just east of Ranger TX on I-20.

The Ice Storm has shut down I-20.

In 2001-02, McMurry had to cancel a game at Mississippi College because a November ice storm shut down I-20.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on December 24, 2009, 06:56:09 PM
It's like all the way down in the sixties here in L.A.  Brrrrr.  But unlike Ralph, I'm not a whiny baby.  ;)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think there's some amount of irony in hugenerd finding another hole in the NCAA's goofy arbitrary-200-mile-limited-travel-restriction-based ranking schema while traveling somewhere on a commercial airline.   ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on December 24, 2009, 07:13:39 PM
Officially, Vassar to Brandeis is 192.0 miles according to the NCAA's calculations.

Brandeis men should be 7-1 in-region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on December 24, 2009, 08:20:10 PM
In St Louis, that ice that Ralph is getting is rain, and it has rained steady for 24 hours.....   Instead of being iced in or snowed in, I may be flooded in!!!


ahh but santa brought a new 52 inch Samsung for the living room and I just finished connecting it to the dish!!!!!   When's the next game??????   Well will have to settle for Ralphie and a Christmas Story.

Seriously guys, Merry Christmas to you all  -   you are all very good friends!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on December 24, 2009, 08:47:42 PM
KnightSlappy,
I was checking on Plattsburgh State's regional record and I don't think their loss to Elms College should be counted as a regional game. The mileage from the official link that Ralph provided shows the distance from Plattsburgh, N.Y.  to Elms campus in Chicopee, Mass. as 242 miles. Also don't think Plattsburgh's win over Husson University from Bangor Maine should be counted as the mileage chart shows that to be 337 miles.  Both Husson and Elms are in the Northeast region, and are not in the same NCAA administrative region as Plattsburgh St. which is in Region 2 (New York and Pennslyvania). I know that the Plattsburgh team page on D3hoops shows both of these as regional games but I don't see how that's possible. I think Plattsburgh's  regional record should be 6-0. You might want to update your sheet on those 2 games, unless I missed something. I remember last year I thought there was a mistake on a teams regional record and Ralph came on to correct me that even though it was like 350 miles between schools they were in the same administrative region. But I don't see how these 2 games (Elms and Husson) become in-region.    
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 24, 2009, 09:35:08 PM
Quote from: magicman on December 24, 2009, 08:47:42 PM
KnightSlappy,
I was checking on Plattsburgh State's regional record and I don't think their loss to Elms College should be counted as a regional game. The mileage from the official link that Ralph provided shows the distance from Plattsburgh, N.Y.  to Elms campus in Chicopee, Mass. as 242 miles. Also don't think Plattsburgh's win over Husson University from Bangor Maine should be counted as the mileage chart shows that to be 337 miles.  Both Husson and Elms are in the Northeast region, and are not in the same NCAA administrative region as Plattsburgh St. which is in Region 2 (New York and Pennslyvania). I know that the Plattsburgh team page on D3hoops shows both of these as regional games but I don't see how that's possible. I think Plattsburgh's  regional record should be 6-0. You might want to update your sheet on those 2 games, unless I missed something. I remember last year I thought their was a mistake on a teams regional record and Ralph came on to correct me that even though it was like 350 miles between schools they were in the same administrative region. But I don't see how these 2 games (Elms and Husson) become in-region.    

I changed these games.

Quote from: deiscanton on December 24, 2009, 07:13:39 PM
Officially, Vassar to Brandeis is 192.0 miles according to the NCAA's calculations.

Brandeis men should be 7-1 in-region.

Changed this one as well, thanks!

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 24, 2009, 09:51:28 PM
This update should include the regional game corrections that were found.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    RPI      NAT   Pool      REG   OVR   CONF     Team
                                    
NE   01   0.857   0.622   0.513   0.6534   020   A   C     6-1   7-1   NAC      Thomas
NE   02   0.875   0.593   0.514   0.6440   024   A   C     7-1   7-1   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   03   0.600   0.679   0.547   0.6261   033   A   C     3-2   5-2   NESCAC   Bates
NE   04   0.750   0.593   0.550   0.6214   036   C   016   6-2   6-2   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   05   1.000   0.478   0.516   0.6181   037   C   017   5-0   7-0   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   06   0.500   0.727   0.497   0.6130   042   C   021   2-2   4-3   NAC      Husson
NE   07   0.667   0.639   0.487   0.6078   048   B   002   4-2   6-2   NECC     Elms
NE   08   0.750   0.569   0.541   0.6071   049   C   025   6-2   6-2   NESCAC   Bowdoin
NE   09   0.875   0.463   0.610   0.6027   055   C   028   7-1   7-1   UAA      Brandeis
NE   10   0.875   0.500   0.532   0.6017   058   C   031   7-1   8-1   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   11   1.000   0.412   0.570   0.5983   064   A         10-0  11-0  NEWMAC   MIT
NE   12   0.889   0.435   0.611   0.5926   069   C   039   8-1   9-1   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   13   0.875   0.439   0.613   0.5915   072   C   042   7-1   7-1   NESCAC   Colby
NE   14   0.500   0.696   0.452   0.5858   076   C   046   4-4   4-4   NESCAC   Wesleyan
                                    
E   001   1.000   0.676   0.509   0.7150   005   A   C     6-0   7-1   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
E   002   0.875   0.704   0.491   0.6933   008   C   002   7-1   8-1   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   003   0.800   0.667   0.504   0.6594   017   C   006   4-1   7-1   UAA      Rochester
E   004   0.833   0.583   0.539   0.6348   028   A   C     5-1   6-2   E8       Ithaca
E   005   0.833   0.563   0.568   0.6317   031   C   012   5-1   6-2   SUNYAC   Cortland State
E   006   0.833   0.531   0.566   0.6155   041   C   020   5-1   6-1   E8       Stevens
E   007   1.000   0.444   0.549   0.6094   047   C   024   8-0   10-0  AMCC     Medaille
E   008   0.833   0.526   0.498   0.5961   067   A         5-1   7-1   LL       Skidmore
                                    
A   001   0.857   0.623   0.520   0.6556   019   A   C     6-1   7-3   NJAC     Montclair State
A   002   0.625   0.698   0.514   0.6339   029   C   010   5-3   6-3   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   003   0.714   0.636   0.477   0.6159   039   A   C     5-2   5-2   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   004   0.833   0.548   0.523   0.6129   043   A   C-2   5-1   6-1   CUNYAC   Baruch
A   005   0.833   0.514   0.558   0.6046   052   A   C-2   5-1   7-1   SKY      St. Josephs (L.I.)
A   006   0.778   0.533   0.555   0.5999   060   C   033   7-2   8-2   NJAC     Rowan
A   007   0.889   0.452   0.578   0.5926   070   C   040   8-1   8-2   NJAC     Ramapo
A   008   0.444   0.726   0.453   0.5873   073   C   043   4-5   5-5   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
                                    
MA   01   0.857   0.720   0.515   0.7030   007   A   C     6-1   6-3   MACF     Alvernia
MA   02   0.667   0.744   0.527   0.6703   011   A   C     4-2   5-4   MACC     Messiah
MA   03   0.875   0.617   0.545   0.6634   015   A   C     7-1   9-1   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   04   0.875   0.543   0.646   0.6519   021   C   008   7-1   8-1   MACC     Albright
MA   05   0.727   0.625   0.551   0.6321   030   C   011   8-3   8-3   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   06   0.778   0.589   0.512   0.6170   038   C   018   7-2   8-2   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   07   0.625   0.642   0.540   0.6121   044   C   022   5-3   6-4   LAND     Susquehanna
MA   08   0.750   0.564   0.546   0.6057   050   A   C-2   6-2   6-2   CC       Franklin and Marshall
                                    
S   001   1.000   0.586   0.491   0.6658   013   A   C     5-0   8-0   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   002   1.000   0.545   0.561   0.6630   016   C   005   5-0   8-1   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   003   1.000   0.541   0.523   0.6511   022   N/A       6-0   8-0   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   004   0.714   0.732   0.411   0.6472   023   A   C     5-2   7-2   ASC      McMurry
S   005   0.889   0.475   0.576   0.6035   053   C   026   8-1   8-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   006   0.714   0.643   0.402   0.6004   059   C   032   5-2   5-2   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   007   0.875   0.471   0.578   0.5986   063   C   035   7-1   9-1   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   008   0.750   0.500   0.599   0.5872   074   C   044   6-2   7-2   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   009   0.667   0.564   0.536   0.5824   080   C   049   6-3   6-3   UAA      Emory
S   010   0.750   0.509   0.553   0.5804   083   B   003   6-2   8-2   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   011   0.600   0.577   0.516   0.5675   106   C   069   3-2   4-3   ODAC     Roanoke
                                    
GL   01   1.000   0.833   0.591   0.8144   001   A   C     2-0   5-4   MIAA     Hope
GL   02   1.000   0.567   0.568   0.6757   010   A   C     9-0   10-1  OAC      Wilmington
GL   03   0.000   1.000   0.625   0.6563   018   C   007   0-1   3-5   MIAA     Calvin
GL   04   0.778   0.594   0.543   0.6270   032   C   013   7-2   7-2   OAC      John Carroll
GL   05   0.714   0.634   0.514   0.6240   035   C   015   5-2   6-2   UAA      Case Western Reserve
GL   06   0.714   0.613   0.502   0.6105   045   A   C-2   5-2   5-2   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   07   0.571   0.680   0.480   0.6029   054   C   027   4-3   4-3   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
GL   08   0.556   0.672   0.492   0.5978   065   C   036   5-4   5-5   OAC      Mount Union
GL   09   0.750   0.547   0.545   0.5973   066   C   037   6-2   6-2   AMCC     Frostburg State
                                    
MW   01   1.000   0.667   0.557   0.7227   003   A   C     5-0   8-0   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.800   0.684   0.552   0.6802   009   A   C     4-1   7-2   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.714   0.629   0.574   0.6363   027   C   009   5-2   6-2   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   04   0.778   0.574   0.577   0.6256   034   C   014   7-2   7-3   CCIW     Augustana
MW   05   0.750   0.571   0.570   0.6156   040   C   019   6-2   7-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   06   0.571   0.640   0.568   0.6047   051   A   C-2   4-3   4-3   MWC      Carroll
MW   07   1.000   0.409   0.590   0.6021   056   C   029   6-0   7-0   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   08   0.714   0.558   0.567   0.5995   061   C   034   5-2   6-2   MWC      Illinois College
MW   09   0.889   0.492   0.523   0.5987   062   A         8-1   9-1   HCAC     Anderson
MW   10   0.375   0.717   0.532   0.5851   077   A         3-5   3-6   NATHC    Wisconsin Lutheran
MW   11   0.667   0.561   0.550   0.5846   078   C   047   4-2   6-2   UAA      Chicago
                                    
W   001   1.000   0.658   0.584   0.7249   002   A   C     11-0  11-0  WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   002   0.889   0.694   0.605   0.7203   004   C   001   8-1   8-2   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   003   1.000   0.654   0.527   0.7086   006   A   C     4-0   7-0   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.900   0.587   0.593   0.6669   012   C   003   9-1   9-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   005   0.857   0.617   0.567   0.6647   014   C   004   6-1   6-1   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   006   0.909   0.538   0.577   0.6407   025   B   001   10-1  10-1  IND      Chapman
W   007   1.000   0.509   0.535   0.6385   026   A   C     8-0   9-1   IIAC     Cornell
W   008   0.714   0.587   0.553   0.6104   046   C   023   5-2   7-3   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   009   0.667   0.622   0.457   0.5920   071   C   041   4-2   5-3   MIAC     St. Johns
W   010   0.667   0.575   0.504   0.5802   084   C   051   4-2   4-2   MIAC     Augsburg
W   011   0.667   0.579   0.494   0.5798   085   C   052   4-2   5-4   IIAC     Buena Vista
W   012   0.200   0.800   0.517   0.5793   088   C   054   1-4   4-6   WIAC     UW-Stout
                                    
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                        
         B   Pool B eligible team                        
         C   At large candidate                        
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                        
                                    
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                        
                                    
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                         
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                         
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                        
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on December 24, 2009, 10:54:50 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on December 24, 2009, 06:56:09 PM
It's like all the way down in the sixties here in L.A.  Brrrrr.  But unlike Ralph, I'm not a whiny baby.  ;)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think there's some amount of irony in hugenerd finding another hole in the NCAA's goofy arbitrary-200-mile-limited-travel-restriction-based ranking schema while traveling somewhere on a commercial airline.   ::)

I was just in LA...for about 2.5 hours.  Now in San Diego and it is nice!  Pleasant change from the Boston December weather to this.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on December 25, 2009, 10:22:59 PM
Here is a question for anyone who has any thoughts.  I didnt read the handbook myself, but below is a quote from the Pool B board:

Quote from: sac on December 13, 2009, 07:47:42 PM
Those interested in OWP and OOWP should read the section on strength of schedule.  For 2010 and 2011 they will be using a weighted average of 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP.  I believe this is a fairly significant change from years passed if memory serves me correctly.

So 2/3 OWP, 1/3 OOWP is standard in RPI (.25 WP, .5 OWP, .25 OOWP, OWP is weighted twice as much as OOWP), but it is not explicitly stated how WP is going to be utilized.  If both WP and (OWP, OOWP) are primary criteria and are weighted equally, would that mean that D3 RPI would be an average of the WP and (2/3 OWP, 1/3 OOWP) numbers.  In other words, would d3 RPI be more like 0.5WP + 0.5(2/3)OWP + 0.5 (1/3) OOWP = 0.5 WP+1/3OWP+1/6OOWP? Obviously, how you use WP will make a huge difference on the way you would rank each team.

Anyone have any thoughts?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 25, 2009, 11:24:30 PM
My thought has been that nothing is actually changing for rpi. The selection comittee is just confirming how they will be using owp and oowp in relation to each other (and that the relationship is the same as the traditional rpi calculation). It's also important to note that the handbook hasn't stated that an actual rpi number is used in the official number. We'll have to see how the official rankings compare to the calculated values when they come out.

It's my understanding that Mr Abegg used rpi as the primary factor in his calculations and he was nearly always spot on.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 25, 2009, 11:31:46 PM
Thanks -- if you have any more corrections please chime in. I've made those changes and now that I have a little more time I will be starting my usual audit of games myself.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on December 26, 2009, 12:33:51 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 25, 2009, 11:24:30 PM
My thought has been that nothing is actually changing for rpi. The selection comittee is just confirming how they will be using owp and oowp in relation to each other (and that the relationship is the same as the traditional rpi calculation). It's also important to note that the handbook hasn't stated that an actual rpi number is used in the official number. We'll have to see how the official rankings compare to the calculated values when they come out.

It's my understanding that Mr Abegg used rpi as the primary factor in his calculations and he was nearly always spot on.

Not now, but when rankings start coming out in February, it may be interesting to see how the actual rankings compare with the numbers calculated either way.  I am sure it will make some difference depending on the weighting used for each value in the rankings, but it may not be  more than a few teams swapped here and there.  Obviously not something that must be done but it could be interesting to see what happens.

Mr. Abegg did use pure RPI, but he did adjust teams in his official rankings according to head-to-head results (which is also a primary criteria).  For example, when he calculated the RPI, if the rankings were 1. Team A, 2. Team B, and 3. Team C and Team B was 1-0 vs. Team A during the season, his rankings would be 1. Team B, 2. Team A, and 3. Team C.  By doing these types of adjustments he was always very accurate.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 04, 2010, 02:52:59 PM
Through games of Sunday 1/3/2010 -- includes results reported on d3hoops.com at 11:00 p.m. EST on Sunday night.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                    
NE   01   0.857   0.639   0.504   0.6598   012   A   C       6-1     7-1   NAC      Thomas
NE   02   1.000   0.552   0.516   0.6548   014   A   C       5-0     9-0   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   03   0.600   0.655   0.562   0.6180   037   C   016     3-2     5-4   NESCAC   Bates
NE   04   0.800   0.570   0.526   0.6162   040   A   C       8-2     8-2   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   05   0.500   0.727   0.477   0.6079   044   C   020     2-2     4-3   NAC      Husson
NE   06   0.875   0.492   0.539   0.5993   051   C   025     7-1     8-1   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   07   0.750   0.538   0.546   0.5933   060   C   034     6-2     7-2   NESCAC   Bowdoin
NE   08   1.000   0.394   0.574   0.5908   065   A          10-0    11-1   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   09   0.600   0.625   0.511   0.5901   067   C   039     6-4     6-4   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   10   0.875   0.433   0.610   0.5879   072   C   042     7-1     7-1   UAA      Brandeis
NE   11   0.667   0.585   0.489   0.5817   075   B   003     4-2     6-2   NECC     Elms
NE   12   0.900   0.408   0.601   0.5792   079   C   048     9-1    10-1   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   13   0.833   0.439   0.592   0.5759   085   C   053     5-1     7-2   NESCAC   Colby
NE   14   0.714   0.543   0.487   0.5721   090   A           5-2     6-4   CCC      Colby-Sawyer
                                    
E   001   1.000   0.667   0.492   0.7063   005   A   C       6-0     7-1   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
E   002   0.875   0.678   0.493   0.6810   007   C   003     7-1     8-1   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   003   0.800   0.639   0.527   0.6511   017   C   006     4-1     7-1   UAA      Rochester
E   004   0.833   0.563   0.580   0.6347   023   C   009     5-1     6-2   SUNYAC   Cortland State
E   005   0.833   0.548   0.545   0.6184   036   A   C       5-1     8-2   E8       Ithaca
E   006   1.000   0.452   0.553   0.6143   041   A   C      10-0    12-0   AMCC     Medaille
E   007   0.778   0.565   0.548   0.6141   042   C   019     7-2     8-2   UAA      New York University
E   008   0.750   0.544   0.539   0.5941   057   C   031     6-2     7-3   E8       Nazareth
                                    
A   001   0.875   0.588   0.514   0.6414   021   A   C       7-1     8-3   NJAC     Montclair State
A   002   0.889   0.548   0.533   0.6296   026   A   C       8-1     9-1   CUNYAC   Baruch
A   003   0.800   0.600   0.503   0.6257   029   A   C       8-2     9-2   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   004   0.700   0.627   0.546   0.6248   030   C   012     7-3     8-3   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   005   0.833   0.541   0.562   0.6192   034   A   C       5-1     7-1   SKY      St. Josephs (L.I.)
A   006   0.900   0.494   0.584   0.6177   039   C   018     9-1     9-2   NJAC     Ramapo
A   007   0.500   0.720   0.480   0.6048   047   C   021     5-5     7-5   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
A   008   0.778   0.523   0.551   0.5936   059   C   033     7-2     8-2   NJAC     Rowan
                                    
MA   01   0.875   0.733   0.530   0.7180   002   A   C       7-1     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   02   0.900   0.609   0.586   0.6758   009   C   004     9-1    10-1   MACC     Albright
MA   03   0.900   0.603   0.563   0.6671   010   A   C       9-1    11-1   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   04   0.714   0.672   0.535   0.6485   018   C   007     5-2     6-4   MACC     Messiah
MA   05   0.727   0.638   0.533   0.6339   025   C   010     8-3     8-3   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   06   0.800   0.571   0.575   0.6294   027   A   C       8-2     8-2   CC       Franklin and Marshall
MA   07   0.714   0.627   0.535   0.6261   028   C   011     5-2     6-3   CC       McDaniel
MA   08   0.800   0.573   0.533   0.6198   033   C   014     8-2    10-2   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
                                    
S   001   1.000   0.532   0.545   0.6523   016   A   C       6-0     9-1   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   002   1.000   0.563   0.466   0.6477   020   C   008     4-0    10-0   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   003   0.714   0.681   0.421   0.6243   031   A   C       5-2     7-3   ASC      McMurry
S   004   0.875   0.538   0.490   0.6104   043   N/A         7-1     9-1   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   005   0.889   0.468   0.564   0.5970   055   C   029     8-1    10-1   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   006   0.667   0.629   0.458   0.5955   056   C   030     6-3     6-4   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   007   0.750   0.525   0.577   0.5941   058   C   032     6-2     7-3   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   008   0.909   0.440   0.578   0.5921   061   C   035    10-1    10-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   009   0.750   0.543   0.523   0.5897   068   B   002     6-2    10-2   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   010   0.778   0.500   0.549   0.5816   076   C   045     7-2     8-2   ODAC     Washington and Lee
S   011   0.727   0.551   0.474   0.5758   086   A           8-3     8-3   SCAC     Austin
                                    
GL   01   1.000   0.800   0.494   0.7736   001   A   C       2-0     7-4   MIAA     Hope
GL   02   0.900   0.571   0.550   0.6482   019   A   C       9-1    10-2   OAC      Wilmington
GL   03   0.778   0.561   0.501   0.5999   050   C   024     7-2     8-3   UAA      Case Western Reserve
GL   04   0.500   0.708   0.476   0.5980   053   C   027     4-4     4-4   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
GL   05   0.750   0.564   0.488   0.5916   063   C   036     6-2     6-3   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   06   0.600   0.631   0.503   0.5913   064   C   037     6-4     7-4   OAC      John Carroll
GL   07   0.750   0.476   0.586   0.5720   091   C   056     6-2     8-4   OAC      Heidelberg
GL   08   0.545   0.618   0.495   0.5694   093   C   058     6-5     7-5   OAC      Baldwin-Wallace
GL   09   0.500   0.623   0.506   0.5632   104   C   067     5-5     5-7   OAC      Mount Union
                                    
MW   01   0.800   0.674   0.560   0.6773   008   A   C       4-1     8-3   CCIW     Carthage
MW   02   0.857   0.614   0.528   0.6533   015   A   C       6-1     9-1   UAA      Washington U.
MW   03   0.800   0.571   0.532   0.6186   035   C   015     8-2     9-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   04   0.571   0.649   0.552   0.6053   045   A   C-2     4-3     6-3   MWC      Carroll
MW   05   0.833   0.540   0.489   0.6005   049   C   023     5-1     6-5   CCIW     North Central (Ill.)
MW   06   0.833   0.494   0.545   0.5918   062   A          10-2    11-2   HCAC     Defiance
MW   07   0.375   0.716   0.550   0.5895   069   A           3-5     3-6   NATHC    Wisconsin Lutheran
MW   08   0.900   0.488   0.480   0.5886   071   C   041     9-1    11-1   HCAC     Anderson
MW   09   0.875   0.437   0.562   0.5776   082   C   051     7-1     8-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   10   0.700   0.512   0.580   0.5760   083   C   052     7-3     7-4   CCIW     Augustana
MW   11   0.700   0.507   0.571   0.5715   092   C   057     7-3     8-3   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
                                    
W   001   0.923   0.667   0.573   0.7073   003   A   C      12-1    12-1   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   002   0.909   0.651   0.616   0.7068   004   C   001    10-1    11-2   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   003   0.909   0.643   0.582   0.6942   006   C   002    10-1    11-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   004   0.833   0.647   0.534   0.6653   011   A   C       5-1     8-1   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   005   0.857   0.603   0.560   0.6561   013   C   005     6-1     6-3   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   006   0.909   0.565   0.503   0.6355   022   B   001    10-1    11-2   IND      Chapman
W   007   0.778   0.591   0.578   0.6345   024   A   C       7-2     9-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   008   0.750   0.597   0.540   0.6210   032   C   013     6-2     6-2   MIAC     Augsburg
W   009   0.750   0.582   0.558   0.6179   038   C   017     6-2     8-4   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   010   0.625   0.651   0.494   0.6051   046   A   C-2     5-3     7-5   IIAC     Buena Vista
W   011   0.714   0.590   0.499   0.5984   052   C   026     5-2     6-3   MIAC     St. Johns
W   012   0.333   0.762   0.505   0.5906   066   C   038     1-2     2-8   NWC      Lewis and Clark
                                    
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                        
         B   Pool B eligible team                        
         C   At large candidate                        
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                        
                                    
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                        
                                    
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                         
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                         
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                        
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on January 04, 2010, 02:59:51 PM
Knight, what weight did you assign to in-region winning % vs strength of schedule?  These numbers seem unrealistic.  For example, 3-5 Wisc Lutheran ahead of 9-1 Anderson?  There's just no way.  In reality, about 90% of the selection process seems to come down to in-region winning %.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 04, 2010, 03:35:42 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on January 04, 2010, 02:59:51 PM
Knight, what weight did you assign to in-region winning % vs strength of schedule?  These numbers seem unrealistic.  For example, 3-5 Wisc Lutheran ahead of 9-1 Anderson?  There's just no way.  In reality, about 90% of the selection process seems to come down to in-region winning %.

I use the standard RPI calculation of 0.25 x WP + 0.75 x SOS

Wisc Lutheran has had the 5th toughest schedule while Anderson has had the 251st toughest schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on January 04, 2010, 05:32:36 PM
KnightSlappy,
Williams has a regional record of 8-0. That doesn't get them on the Northeast list?
Or is their SOS so bad that its keeping them off?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 04, 2010, 06:19:37 PM
Quote from: magicman on January 04, 2010, 05:32:36 PM
KnightSlappy,
Williams has a regional record of 8-0. That doesn't get them on the Northeast list?
Or is their SOS so bad that its keeping them off?

Williams sits 17th in the NE region, it is indeed the 0.333 OWP that is keeping them down.

Mississippi College is 21 in the South despite a 6-0 in region record thanks to their 0.2195 OWP.

The extremely high (and low) strength of schedules will (should) regress toward 0.500 as the season progresses.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 04, 2010, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 04, 2010, 06:19:37 PM
Quote from: magicman on January 04, 2010, 05:32:36 PM
KnightSlappy,
Williams has a regional record of 8-0. That doesn't get them on the Northeast list?
Or is their SOS so bad that its keeping them off?

Williams sits 17th in the NE region, it is indeed the 0.333 OWP that is keeping them down.

Mississippi College is 21 in the South despite a 6-0 in region record thanks to their 0.2195 regional percentage.

The extremely high (and low) strength of schedules will (should) regress toward 0.500 as the season progresses.

Exactly.

Dont get too caught up in these numbers.  At this point in the season, where most teams have played 10 region games or less, and almost no conference games, these rankings are more about the teams you have played than your actual performance.  The numbers will work themselves out as the season progresses (Knight is using the standard RPI formula, you can wikipedia it if you would like).  As stated, all the SOS numbers will move toward .500 as the conference seasons begin.  By seasons end, every team in the ASC will have a SOS of 0.500 plus or minus 0.01 (as will any other conference that plays most of its games in conference).  Right now these numbers just dont mean a whole lot, other than for some interesting conversation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 17, 2010, 12:57:08 AM
Knight, will you be posting new RPI numbers any time soon?  I am just curious how they have changed over the past two weeks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 17, 2010, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on January 17, 2010, 12:57:08 AM
Knight, will you be posting new RPI numbers any time soon?  I am just curious how they have changed over the past two weeks.

** Updated to include Sunday's results**

Numbers include regional results only.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                    
NE   01   0.909   0.549   0.548   0.6388   010   A   C      10-1    14-1   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   02   1.000   0.481   0.532   0.6236   015   A   C      14-0    15-1   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   03   0.846   0.507   0.591   0.6129   022   C   011    11-2    11-2   UAA      Brandeis
NE   04   0.889   0.494   0.553   0.6076   026   C   014     8-1    10-2   NESCAC   Colby
NE   05   0.800   0.536   0.529   0.6005   032   A   C      12-3    12-3   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   06   1.000   0.407   0.559   0.5935   042   C   023    12-0    14-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   07   0.667   0.586   0.511   0.5871   050   C   028    10-5    10-5   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   08   0.700   0.539   0.545   0.5807   060   A           7-3     8-5   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   09   0.786   0.503   0.530   0.5804   062   C   033    11-3    12-3   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   10   0.625   0.579   0.505   0.5719   074   A           5-3     8-4   NAC      Husson
NE   11   0.750   0.496   0.516   0.5646   085   A           9-3    10-3   CCC      Gordon
NE   12   0.400   0.684   0.490   0.5643   086   C   050     4-6     6-8   NESCAC   Bates
NE   13   0.778   0.451   0.560   0.5600   092   C   055     7-2     8-2   NAC      Thomas
NE   14   0.750   0.483   0.517   0.5583   093   C   056     9-3    10-3   LEC      Western Connecticut
                                    
E   001   0.800   0.609   0.534   0.6380   011   C   005     8-2    12-2   UAA      Rochester
E   002   0.846   0.584   0.531   0.6364   012   A   C      11-2    12-2   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   003   0.786   0.531   0.561   0.6023   031   A   C      11-3    12-3   E8       St. John Fisher
E   004   0.714   0.546   0.576   0.5955   038   C   020    10-4    11-5   E8       Nazareth
E   005   0.625   0.625   0.503   0.5946   040   C   021     5-3     8-4   SUNYAC   Brockport State
E   006   0.692   0.565   0.555   0.5942   041   C   022     9-4    10-4   UAA      New York University
E   007   0.750   0.551   0.520   0.5927   043   C   024     9-3    12-4   E8       Ithaca
E   008   0.636   0.620   0.484   0.5904   045   C   025     7-4     8-5   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
                                    
A   001   0.938   0.492   0.548   0.6175   019   A   C      15-1    15-1   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.733   0.599   0.538   0.6172   020   C   009    11-4    12-4   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   003   0.643   0.642   0.500   0.6065   028   A   C       9-5    11-5   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
A   004   0.786   0.559   0.495   0.5997   035   A   C      11-3    12-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   005   0.857   0.482   0.534   0.5888   048   C   027    12-2    13-2   CUNYAC   Baruch
A   006   0.667   0.580   0.517   0.5858   053   C   029     8-4    11-4   NJAC     Rowan
A   007   0.800   0.476   0.563   0.5788   063   C   034    12-3    12-4   NJAC     Ramapo
A   008   0.667   0.565   0.518   0.5785   064   C   035     8-4    11-5   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
                                    
MA   01   0.857   0.669   0.529   0.6810   002   A   C      12-2    13-2   MACC     Albright
MA   02   0.727   0.672   0.542   0.6533   005   C   002     8-3     9-5   MACC     Messiah
MA   03   0.833   0.613   0.550   0.6525   006   C   003    10-2     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   04   0.846   0.531   0.541   0.6121   023   A   C      11-2    13-2   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   05   0.846   0.523   0.540   0.6080   025   C   013    11-2    13-2   MACC     Lycoming
MA   06   0.733   0.581   0.534   0.6071   027   C   015    11-4    11-4   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   07   0.786   0.547   0.522   0.6002   033   C   017    11-3    13-3   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   08   0.615   0.642   0.496   0.5990   036   C   019     8-5    10-6   LAND     Susquehanna
                                    
S   001   1.000   0.579   0.514   0.6680   004   A   C      10-0    13-1   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   002   0.933   0.500   0.544   0.6194   017   C   007    14-1    14-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   003   0.857   0.542   0.531   0.6181   018   C   008    12-2    14-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   004   0.889   0.517   0.531   0.6134   021   C   010     8-1    14-1   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   005   0.818   0.526   0.513   0.5960   037   B   001     9-2    14-2   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   006   0.733   0.566   0.490   0.5891   047   A   C-2    11-4    11-4   SCAC     Austin
S   007   0.818   0.516   0.496   0.5864   051   N/A         9-2    13-2   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   008   0.714   0.553   0.488   0.5773   068   A          10-4    10-5   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   009   0.846   0.465   0.526   0.5753   070   C   039    11-2    12-3   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   010   0.692   0.531   0.520   0.5687   078   C   044     9-4    10-4   UAA      Emory
S   011   0.786   0.463   0.513   0.5563   096   C   057    11-3    12-4   SCAC     Southwestern
                                    
GL   01   0.833   0.543   0.504   0.6061   029   A   C       5-1     9-6   MIAA     Calvin
GL   02   0.786   0.528   0.524   0.5914   044   A   C-2    11-3    12-4   OAC      Wilmington
GL   03   0.833   0.500   0.494   0.5817   058   C   031    10-2    10-3   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   04   0.786   0.477   0.539   0.5700   075   A          11-3    11-4   NCAC     Wooster
GL   05   0.643   0.570   0.495   0.5695   077   C   043     9-5    10-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   06   0.727   0.496   0.554   0.5684   079   C   045     8-3    10-5   OAC      Heidelberg
GL   07   0.778   0.484   0.502   0.5619   090   C   053     7-2    10-5   MIAA     Albion
GL   08   0.750   0.490   0.486   0.5537   105   A          12-4    12-4   PrAC     Thomas Moore
GL   09   0.667   0.515   0.516   0.5532   106   C   066     8-4     9-5   UAA      Case Western Reserve
                                    
MW   01   0.778   0.634   0.563   0.6521   007   A   C       7-2    11-4   CCIW     Carthage
MW   02   0.818   0.625   0.536   0.6510   008   A   C       9-2    12-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   03   0.857   0.574   0.536   0.6353   013   C   006    12-2    13-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   04   0.800   0.518   0.501   0.5843   056   A          12-3    13-3   HCAC     Defiance
MW   05   0.917   0.408   0.545   0.5696   076   A          11-1    12-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   06   0.929   0.424   0.497   0.5683   080   C   046    13-1    15-1   HCAC     Anderson
MW   07   0.643   0.535   0.554   0.5665   082   C   048     9-5    10-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   08   0.909   0.402   0.513   0.5564   095   A          10-1    11-4   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   09   0.417   0.653   0.499   0.5552   099   C   060     5-7     7-7   UAA      Chicago
MW   10   0.533   0.595   0.491   0.5537   104   C   065     8-7     9-7   HCAC     Transylvania
MW   11   0.643   0.506   0.557   0.5531   107   C   067     9-5     9-6   CCIW     Augustana
                                    
W   001   0.933   0.626   0.568   0.6886   001   A   C      14-1    15-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   002   0.875   0.624   0.555   0.6694   003   C   001    14-2    14-2   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   003   0.786   0.608   0.570   0.6431   009   C   004    11-3    12-4   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   004   0.818   0.584   0.537   0.6309   014   A   C       9-2    12-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   005   0.846   0.533   0.572   0.6213   016   A   C      11-2    13-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   006   0.833   0.534   0.531   0.6083   024   C   012    10-2    10-4   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   007   0.667   0.591   0.564   0.6034   030   C   016     8-4    10-6   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   008   0.769   0.551   0.529   0.5998   034   C   018    10-3    10-3   MIAC     Augsburg
W   009   0.667   0.576   0.538   0.5892   046   C   026     8-4     9-5   MIAC     St. Johns
W   010   0.833   0.507   0.503   0.5877   049   A   C-2    10-2    11-4   IIAC     Cornell
W   011   0.923   0.453   0.496   0.5814   059   B   002    12-1    14-2   IND      Chapman
W   012   1.000   0.362   0.583   0.5765   069   C   038     6-0     8-6   NWC      Linfield
                                    
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                        
         B   Pool B eligible team                        
         C   At large candidate                        
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                        
                                    
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                        
                                    
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                         
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                         
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                        
                                    
      Updated:   1/17/2010                           
                           
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 17, 2010, 02:23:33 PM
Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 17, 2010, 10:06:52 PM
I updated my previous regional ranking post to include games through Sunday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 17, 2010, 10:55:51 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 17, 2010, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on January 17, 2010, 12:57:08 AM
Knight, will you be posting new RPI numbers any time soon?  I am just curious how they have changed over the past two weeks.

** Updated to include Sunday's results**

Numbers include regional results only.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                    
                     
MW   01   0.778   0.634   0.563   0.6521   007   A   C       7-2    11-4   CCIW     Carthage
MW   02   0.818   0.625   0.536   0.6510   008   A   C       9-2    12-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   03   0.857   0.574   0.536   0.6353   013   C   006    12-2    13-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   04   0.800   0.518   0.501   0.5843   056   A          12-3    13-3   HCAC     Defiance
MW   05   0.917   0.408   0.545   0.5696   076   A          11-1    12-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   06   0.929   0.424   0.497   0.5683   080   C   046    13-1    15-1   HCAC     Anderson
MW   07   0.643   0.535   0.554   0.5665   082   C   048     9-5    10-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   08   0.909   0.402   0.513   0.5564   095   A          10-1    11-4   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   09   0.417   0.653   0.499   0.5552   099   C   060     5-7     7-7   UAA      Chicago
MW   10   0.533   0.595   0.491   0.5537   104   C   065     8-7     9-7   HCAC     Transylvania
MW   11   0.643   0.506   0.557   0.5531   107   C   067     9-5     9-6   CCIW     Augustana
                                    
                     


Not sure how you are calculating A and C representatives or if it even matters but......

You've got Defiance listed as the 'A'  representative from the HCAC, but Anderson currently has a 3 game lead on the Yellowjackets in the HCAC standings

http://www.heartlandconf.org/sports/mbkb/index
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 18, 2010, 09:35:30 AM
Quote from: sac on January 17, 2010, 10:55:51 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 17, 2010, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on January 17, 2010, 12:57:08 AM
Knight, will you be posting new RPI numbers any time soon?  I am just curious how they have changed over the past two weeks.

** Updated to include Sunday's results**

Numbers include regional results only.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                    
                     
MW   01   0.778   0.634   0.563   0.6521   007   A   C       7-2    11-4   CCIW     Carthage
MW   02   0.818   0.625   0.536   0.6510   008   A   C       9-2    12-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   03   0.857   0.574   0.536   0.6353   013   C   006    12-2    13-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   04   0.800   0.518   0.501   0.5843   056   A          12-3    13-3   HCAC     Defiance
MW   05   0.917   0.408   0.545   0.5696   076   A          11-1    12-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   06   0.929   0.424   0.497   0.5683   080   C   046    13-1    15-1   HCAC     Anderson
MW   07   0.643   0.535   0.554   0.5665   082   C   048     9-5    10-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   08   0.909   0.402   0.513   0.5564   095   A          10-1    11-4   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   09   0.417   0.653   0.499   0.5552   099   C   060     5-7     7-7   UAA      Chicago
MW   10   0.533   0.595   0.491   0.5537   104   C   065     8-7     9-7   HCAC     Transylvania
MW   11   0.643   0.506   0.557   0.5531   107   C   067     9-5     9-6   CCIW     Augustana
                                    
                     


Not sure how you are calculating A and C representatives or if it even matters but......

You've got Defiance listed as the 'A'  representative from the HCAC, but Anderson currently has a 3 game lead on the Yellowjackets in the HCAC standings

http://www.heartlandconf.org/sports/mbkb/index

I'm using the RPI leader as Pool A representative. Since most conferences award the bid via a tournament, actual standings don't much matter.

Washington U also still has the A bid, but they find themselves down a game too. The UAA may be the only tricky conference for me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 18, 2010, 01:15:57 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 18, 2010, 09:35:30 AM
Quote from: sac on January 17, 2010, 10:55:51 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 17, 2010, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on January 17, 2010, 12:57:08 AM
Knight, will you be posting new RPI numbers any time soon?  I am just curious how they have changed over the past two weeks.

** Updated to include Sunday's results**

Numbers include regional results only.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                    
                     
MW   01   0.778   0.634   0.563   0.6521   007   A   C       7-2    11-4   CCIW     Carthage
MW   02   0.818   0.625   0.536   0.6510   008   A   C       9-2    12-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   03   0.857   0.574   0.536   0.6353   013   C   006    12-2    13-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   04   0.800   0.518   0.501   0.5843   056   A          12-3    13-3   HCAC     Defiance
MW   05   0.917   0.408   0.545   0.5696   076   A          11-1    12-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   06   0.929   0.424   0.497   0.5683   080   C   046    13-1    15-1   HCAC     Anderson
MW   07   0.643   0.535   0.554   0.5665   082   C   048     9-5    10-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   08   0.909   0.402   0.513   0.5564   095   A          10-1    11-4   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   09   0.417   0.653   0.499   0.5552   099   C   060     5-7     7-7   UAA      Chicago
MW   10   0.533   0.595   0.491   0.5537   104   C   065     8-7     9-7   HCAC     Transylvania
MW   11   0.643   0.506   0.557   0.5531   107   C   067     9-5     9-6   CCIW     Augustana
                                    
                     


Not sure how you are calculating A and C representatives or if it even matters but......

You've got Defiance listed as the 'A'  representative from the HCAC, but Anderson currently has a 3 game lead on the Yellowjackets in the HCAC standings

http://www.heartlandconf.org/sports/mbkb/index

I'm using the RPI leader as Pool A representative. Since most conferences award the bid via a tournament, actual standings don't much matter.

Washington U also still has the A bid, but they find themselves down a game too. The UAA may be the only tricky conference for me.
With that disclaimer, then we should not have any problems.  Besides, the current RPI leader will need the best ranking that it can get should it not earn the Pool A bid in the tourneys for everyone else except the UAA.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 19, 2010, 10:33:05 PM
Knightslappy... can I throw an idea to you?

I know the NCAA committees are not looking at OWP and OOWP seperately this year or next (and maybe longer). They are using a weighted scale to create a combined number they will use when comparing teams. Any chance you can include that in your report? The equation is (OWP X .667) + (OOWP X .333) = SOS.

Just a thought. I know people will start wondering this kind of thing when the NCAA releases its data... so I thought it might be helpful.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 20, 2010, 08:59:28 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 19, 2010, 10:33:05 PM
Knightslappy... can I throw an idea to you?

I know the NCAA committees are not looking at OWP and OOWP seperately this year or next (and maybe longer). They are using a weighted scale to create a combined number they will use when comparing teams. Any chance you can include that in your report? The equation is (OWP X .667) + (OOWP X .333) = SOS.

Just a thought. I know people will start wondering this kind of thing when the NCAA releases its data... so I thought it might be helpful.

Thanks!

Updated with SOS included.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                       
NE   01   0.909   0.545   0.541   0.544   0.6352   012   A   C      10-1    14-1   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   02   1.000   0.480   0.530   0.497   0.6224   017   A   C      14-0    15-1   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   03   0.846   0.513   0.583   0.536   0.6139   022   C   011    11-2    11-2   UAA      Brandeis
NE   04   0.889   0.484   0.543   0.504   0.6000   030   C   016     8-1    10-2   NESCAC   Colby
NE   05   0.813   0.532   0.523   0.529   0.5999   031   A   C      13-3    13-3   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   06   1.000   0.409   0.553   0.457   0.5927   043   C   023    13-0    15-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   07   0.727   0.550   0.540   0.547   0.5920   046   A   C-2     8-3     9-5   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   08   0.800   0.519   0.526   0.521   0.5909   048   C   024    12-3    13-3   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   09   0.667   0.590   0.486   0.555   0.5832   056   A           8-4     9-5   GNAC     Emerson
NE   10   0.688   0.551   0.516   0.539   0.5762   066   C   034    11-5    11-5   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   11   0.769   0.474   0.515   0.488   0.5581   091   C   055    10-3    10-4   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   12   0.400   0.673   0.486   0.611   0.5580   092   C   056     4-6     6-8   NESCAC   Bates
NE   13   0.800   0.442   0.548   0.477   0.5579   093   A           8-2     9-2   NAC      Thomas
NE   14   0.750   0.478   0.514   0.490   0.5550   095   A           9-3    10-3   CCC      Gordon
                                       
E   001   0.846   0.589   0.532   0.570   0.6388   010   A   C      11-2    12-2   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   002   0.800   0.591   0.530   0.571   0.6281   015   C   006     8-2    12-2   UAA      Rochester
E   003   0.769   0.547   0.531   0.542   0.5984   034   A   C      10-3    13-4   E8       Ithaca
E   004   0.714   0.544   0.578   0.555   0.5951   039   C   020    10-4    11-5   E8       Nazareth
E   005   0.800   0.506   0.566   0.526   0.5947   040   C   021    12-3    13-3   E8       St. John Fisher
E   006   0.625   0.624   0.500   0.582   0.5930   041   C   022     5-3     8-4   SUNYAC   Brockport State
E   007   0.929   0.470   0.503   0.481   0.5927   044   A   C-2    13-1    15-1   AMCC     Medaille
E   008   0.692   0.557   0.551   0.555   0.5894   049   C   025     9-4    10-4   UAA      New York University
                                       
A   001   0.941   0.516   0.541   0.524   0.6286   014   A   C      16-1    16-1   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.750   0.581   0.545   0.569   0.6144   021   C   010    12-4    13-4   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   003   0.786   0.552   0.498   0.534   0.5970   037   C   019    11-3    12-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   004   0.667   0.596   0.508   0.567   0.5918   047   A   C-2    10-5    12-5   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
A   005   0.800   0.516   0.525   0.519   0.5892   050   C   026    12-3    13-3   CUNYAC   Baruch
A   006   0.667   0.580   0.515   0.559   0.5856   053   C   028     8-4    12-4   NJAC     Rowan
A   007   0.615   0.596   0.511   0.568   0.5797   061   C   030     8-5     9-7   NJAC     Montclair State
A   008   0.714   0.561   0.483   0.535   0.5796   062   A          10-4    10-4   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
                                       
MA   01   0.857   0.663   0.529   0.618   0.6779   002   A   C      12-2    13-2   MACC     Albright
MA   02   0.833   0.614   0.547   0.592   0.6522   005   C   002    10-2     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   03   0.727   0.656   0.547   0.620   0.6467   007   C   003     8-3     9-5   MACC     Messiah
MA   04   0.846   0.532   0.536   0.534   0.6119   023   A   C      11-2    13-2   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   05   0.846   0.529   0.534   0.530   0.6093   024   C   012    11-2    13-2   MACC     Lycoming
MA   06   0.733   0.586   0.526   0.566   0.6078   025   C   013    11-4    11-4   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   07   0.615   0.647   0.494   0.596   0.6008   028   A   C       8-5    10-6   LAND     Susquehanna
MA   08   0.786   0.548   0.517   0.538   0.5997   033   C   018    11-3    13-3   CAC      York (Pa.)
                                       
S   001   1.000   0.569   0.515   0.551   0.6632   004   A   C      10-0    13-1   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   002   0.857   0.549   0.524   0.541   0.6200   018   C   007    12-2    14-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   003   0.938   0.500   0.538   0.513   0.6189   019   C   008    15-1    15-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   004   0.889   0.505   0.531   0.514   0.6077   026   C   014     8-1    14-1   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   005   0.818   0.529   0.512   0.524   0.5973   036   B   001     9-2    14-2   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   006   0.733   0.577   0.493   0.549   0.5952   038   A   C-2    11-4    11-4   SCAC     Austin
S   007   0.818   0.512   0.501   0.508   0.5856   052   N/A         9-2    13-2   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   008   0.857   0.476   0.522   0.491   0.5828   057   A          12-2    13-3   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   009   0.714   0.553   0.493   0.533   0.5782   064   C   032    10-4    10-5   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   010   0.692   0.531   0.518   0.527   0.5682   078   C   044     9-4    10-4   UAA      Emory
S   011   0.786   0.467   0.514   0.482   0.5582   090   C   054    11-3    12-4   SCAC     Southwestern
                                       
GL   01   0.833   0.543   0.506   0.531   0.6065   027   A   C       5-1     9-6   MIAA     Calvin
GL   02   0.786   0.531   0.524   0.528   0.5928   042   A   C-2    11-3    12-4   OAC      Wilmington
GL   03   0.833   0.496   0.492   0.495   0.5793   063   C   031    10-2    10-4   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   04   0.643   0.571   0.496   0.546   0.5703   072   C   040     9-5    10-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   05   0.786   0.478   0.536   0.497   0.5693   073   A          11-3    11-4   NCAC     Wooster
GL   06   0.727   0.493   0.553   0.513   0.5664   082   C   047     8-3    10-5   OAC      Heidelberg
GL   07   0.778   0.484   0.501   0.490   0.5618   087   C   052     7-2    10-5   MIAA     Albion
GL   08   0.750   0.490   0.485   0.488   0.5536   103   A          12-4    12-4   PrAC     Thomas Moore
GL   09   0.818   0.446   0.501   0.464   0.5528   106   C   066     9-2    13-2   NCAC     Wittenberg
                                       
MW   01   0.818   0.628   0.535   0.597   0.6522   006   A   C       9-2    12-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.778   0.623   0.560   0.602   0.6458   008   A   C       7-2    11-4   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.857   0.573   0.534   0.560   0.6344   013   C   005    12-2    13-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   04   0.800   0.518   0.502   0.513   0.5845   055   A          12-3    13-3   HCAC     Defiance
MW   05   0.917   0.410   0.540   0.453   0.5691   074   A          11-1    12-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   06   0.929   0.424   0.498   0.448   0.5684   077   C   043    13-1    15-1   HCAC     Anderson
MW   07   0.643   0.531   0.554   0.539   0.5647   084   C   049     9-5    10-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   08   0.909   0.410   0.513   0.444   0.5602   089   A          10-1    11-4   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   09   0.643   0.509   0.555   0.525   0.5541   099   C   060     9-5     9-6   CCIW     Augustana
MW   10   0.533   0.595   0.492   0.561   0.5539   102   C   063     8-7     9-7   HCAC     Transylvania
MW   11   0.727   0.482   0.522   0.495   0.5534   104   C   064     8-3     9-3   MWC      Ripon
                                       
W   001   0.933   0.620   0.566   0.602   0.6848   001   A   C      14-1    15-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   002   0.875   0.616   0.554   0.595   0.6652   003   C   001    14-2    14-2   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   003   0.786   0.607   0.567   0.594   0.6417   009   C   004    11-3    12-4   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   004   0.833   0.588   0.538   0.572   0.6370   011   A   C      10-2    13-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   005   0.857   0.542   0.562   0.549   0.6258   016   A   C      12-2    14-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   006   0.846   0.544   0.536   0.541   0.6173   020   C   009    11-2    11-4   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   007   0.667   0.587   0.562   0.579   0.6007   029   C   015     8-4    10-6   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   008   0.769   0.549   0.531   0.543   0.5998   032   C   017    10-3    10-3   MIAC     Augsburg
W   009   0.846   0.521   0.502   0.514   0.5974   035   A   C      11-2    12-4   IIAC     Cornell
W   010   0.615   0.594   0.536   0.574   0.5847   054   C   029     8-5     9-6   MIAC     St. Johns
W   011   0.923   0.453   0.495   0.467   0.5811   058   B   002    12-1    14-2   IND      Chapman
W   012   1.000   0.362   0.581   0.435   0.5761   067   C   035     6-0     8-6   NWC      Linfield
                                       
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                           
         B   Pool B eligible team                           
         C   At large candidate                           
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                           
                                       
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                           
                                       
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                            
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                            
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                           
                                       
      Updated:   1/20/2010                              
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 20, 2010, 11:54:29 AM
Thank you so much! +k
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 20, 2010, 01:30:17 PM
The five lowest top 25 teams, in terms of SOS:

School (Top 25 ranking) : SOS

Anderson (11th) : 0.448

St. Norbert (13th) : 0.453

Williams (5th) : 0.457

Chapman (14th) : 0.467

Medaille (24th) : 0.481

Knightslappy, Amherst isnt on your list of top NE teams, would they make this list?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 20, 2010, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on January 20, 2010, 01:30:17 PM
The five lowest top 25 teams, in terms of SOS:

School (Top 25 ranking) : SOS

Anderson (11th) : 0.448

St. Norbert (13th) : 0.453

Williams (5th) : 0.457

Chapman (14th) : 0.467

Medaille (24th) : 0.481

Knightslappy, Amherst isnt on your list of top NE teams, would they make this list?

I have Amherst as the #20 team in the NE region with an RPI of 0.5433 and a SOS of 0.474.

But also remember that the SOS is for regional games only.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 20, 2010, 03:29:36 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 20, 2010, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on January 20, 2010, 01:30:17 PM
Knightslappy, Amherst isnt on your list of top NE teams, would they make this list?

I have Amherst as the #20 team in the NE region with an RPI of 0.5433 and a SOS of 0.474.

But also remember that the SOS is for regional games only.

KnS, what are Amherst's OWP and OOWP?  Do you have that handy?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 20, 2010, 04:02:12 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 20, 2010, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on January 20, 2010, 01:30:17 PM
The five lowest top 25 teams, in terms of SOS:

School (Top 25 ranking) : SOS

Anderson (11th) : 0.448

St. Norbert (13th) : 0.453

Williams (5th) : 0.457

Chapman (14th) : 0.467

Medaille (24th) : 0.481

Knightslappy, Amherst isnt on your list of top NE teams, would they make this list?

I have Amherst as the #20 team in the NE region with an RPI of 0.5433 and a SOS of 0.474.

But also remember that the SOS is for regional games only.

I understand that, but most of the teams games are regional.  The RMC game would obviously help Williams SOS, but when the NCAA ranks the teams regionally in two weeks, they wont take that into consideration anyway.  In your rankings tables, you still have a national ranking based on the regional RPI, so this is the same kind of thing.

According to that number, Amherst would take over 5th position at the bottom of the SOS list, followed by Medaille, and UT-Dallas.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 20, 2010, 04:05:47 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 20, 2010, 03:29:36 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 20, 2010, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on January 20, 2010, 01:30:17 PM
Knightslappy, Amherst isnt on your list of top NE teams, would they make this list?

I have Amherst as the #20 team in the NE region with an RPI of 0.5433 and a SOS of 0.474.

But also remember that the SOS is for regional games only.

KnS, what are Amherst's OWP and OOWP?  Do you have that handy?

REG  Rank    Team      WP     OWP    OOWP     RPI   NAT   CON Status    REG   OVR    CONF
NE   20   Amherst   .7500   .4467   .5299   .5433   119   6   C   078   9-3   10-3   NESCAC
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 24, 2010, 04:38:38 PM
RPI-Regional Rankings through games so far today:

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                       
NE   01   0.800   0.547   0.578   0.557   0.6179   015   C   007    12-3    12-3   UAA      Brandeis
NE   02   0.923   0.497   0.541   0.512   0.6146   019   A   C      12-1    16-1   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   03   0.909   0.482   0.562   0.509   0.6087   024   C   011    10-1    12-2   NESCAC   Colby
NE   04   0.938   0.473   0.537   0.494   0.6052   028   A   C      15-1    16-2   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   05   0.813   0.522   0.521   0.522   0.5943   038   C   021    13-3    14-3   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   06   0.769   0.533   0.541   0.536   0.5940   039   A   C-2    10-3    11-5   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   07   1.000   0.406   0.560   0.457   0.5928   041   C   023    15-0    17-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   08   0.765   0.544   0.519   0.535   0.5928   042   A   C-2    13-4    13-4   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   09   0.706   0.570   0.515   0.551   0.5901   043   C   024    12-5    12-5   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   10   0.692   0.571   0.489   0.543   0.5806   057   A           9-4    10-5   GNAC     Emerson
NE   11   0.706   0.532   0.519   0.527   0.5721   070   C   039    12-5    12-5   LEC      Rhode Island College
NE   12   0.833   0.449   0.551   0.483   0.5703   074   A          10-2    11-2   NAC      Thomas
NE   13   0.786   0.487   0.519   0.497   0.5695   076   A          11-3    12-3   CCC      Gordon
NE   14   0.636   0.559   0.506   0.541   0.5651   080   C   046     7-4    10-5   NAC      Husson
                                       
E   001   0.786   0.567   0.524   0.552   0.6108   022   A   C      11-3    12-3   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   002   0.824   0.519   0.553   0.531   0.6038   031   A   C      14-3    15-3   E8       St. John Fisher
E   003   0.667   0.611   0.525   0.582   0.6035   032   C   015     8-4    12-4   UAA      Rochester
E   004   0.727   0.576   0.509   0.553   0.5968   034   C   017     8-3    11-4   SUNYAC   Brockport State
E   005   0.733   0.540   0.543   0.541   0.5891   044   C   025    11-4    12-4   E8       Stevens
E   006   0.667   0.567   0.553   0.562   0.5884   045   C   026    10-5    11-5   UAA      New York University
E   007   0.733   0.527   0.566   0.540   0.5884   046   C   027    11-4    12-5   E8       Nazareth
E   008   0.714   0.559   0.521   0.546   0.5884   047   C   028    10-4    13-5   E8       Ithaca
                                       
A   001   0.947   0.496   0.537   0.510   0.6192   014   A   C      18-1    18-1   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.813   0.561   0.506   0.543   0.6102   023   A   C      13-3    14-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   003   0.722   0.582   0.543   0.569   0.6072   026   C   012    13-5    14-5   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   004   0.824   0.500   0.554   0.518   0.5944   037   C   020    14-3    14-4   NJAC     Ramapo
A   005   0.688   0.573   0.502   0.549   0.5837   051   A          11-5    14-5   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
A   006   0.643   0.571   0.531   0.558   0.5789   063   C   037     9-5    13-5   NJAC     Rowan
A   007   0.533   0.635   0.505   0.592   0.5772   067   C   038     8-7     9-9   NJAC     Montclair State
A   008   0.706   0.531   0.512   0.524   0.5697   075   C   042    12-5    13-5   CUNYAC   Baruch
                                       
MA   01   0.875   0.611   0.539   0.587   0.6589   003   A   C      14-2    15-2   MACC     Albright
MA   02   0.786   0.601   0.552   0.585   0.6348   008   C   002    11-3     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   03   0.769   0.601   0.543   0.582   0.6288   010   C   003    10-3    11-5   MACC     Messiah
MA   04   0.867   0.550   0.540   0.547   0.6266   011   C   004    13-2    15-2   MACC     Lycoming
MA   05   0.800   0.557   0.518   0.544   0.6079   025   A   C      12-3    14-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   06   0.706   0.592   0.534   0.572   0.6056   027   C   013    12-5    12-5   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   07   0.600   0.624   0.501   0.583   0.5874   049   C   029     9-6    11-7   LAND     Susquehanna
MA   08   0.750   0.542   0.509   0.531   0.5857   050   C   030    12-4    14-4   CAC      York (Pa.)
                                       
S   001   0.875   0.560   0.521   0.547   0.6293   009   A   C      14-2    16-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   002   0.941   0.507   0.540   0.518   0.6236   012   C   005    16-1    16-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   003   0.917   0.513   0.524   0.517   0.6166   016   C   008    11-1    14-2   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   004   0.818   0.556   0.532   0.548   0.6156   018   C   009     9-2    15-2   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   005   0.846   0.539   0.525   0.534   0.6123   021   B   001    11-2    16-2   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   006   0.733   0.561   0.529   0.551   0.5962   035   C   018    11-4    12-4   UAA      Emory
S   007   0.833   0.487   0.514   0.496   0.5804   059   N/A        10-2    14-2   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   008   0.867   0.473   0.502   0.483   0.5789   064   A          13-2    14-3   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   009   0.706   0.541   0.498   0.527   0.5716   071   A          12-5    12-5   SCAC     Austin
S   010   0.750   0.517   0.499   0.511   0.5708   073   C   041    12-4    14-4   SCAC     DePauw
S   011   0.750   0.498   0.497   0.498   0.5607   085   C   049    12-4    12-5   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
                                       
GL   01   0.875   0.543   0.502   0.529   0.6158   017   A   C       7-1    11-6   MIAA     Calvin
GL   02   0.800   0.545   0.526   0.539   0.6039   030   A   C      12-3    13-4   OAC      Wilmington
GL   03   0.846   0.490   0.495   0.492   0.5806   056   C   034    11-2    11-4   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   04   0.667   0.577   0.500   0.551   0.5801   061   C   035    10-5    11-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   05   0.750   0.526   0.518   0.523   0.5797   062   C   036     6-2    11-6   MIAA     Hope
GL   06   0.813   0.483   0.521   0.496   0.5750   069   A          13-3    13-4   NCAC     Wooster
GL   07   0.692   0.514   0.484   0.504   0.5512   099   C   061     9-4    13-4   NCAC     Wittenberg
GL   08   0.727   0.497   0.481   0.491   0.5503   102   N/A         8-3    11-7   PrAC     Geneva
GL   09   0.692   0.475   0.551   0.501   0.5485   104   C   065     9-4    11-6   OAC      Heidelberg
                                       
MW   01   0.846   0.594   0.548   0.579   0.6458   004   A   C      11-2    14-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.818   0.591   0.562   0.581   0.6405   005   A   C       9-2    13-4   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.800   0.558   0.539   0.552   0.6140   020   C   010    12-3    13-3   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   04   0.688   0.586   0.541   0.571   0.6003   033   C   016    11-5    12-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   05   0.938   0.441   0.502   0.461   0.5803   060   A          15-1    17-1   HCAC     Anderson
MW   06   0.929   0.417   0.539   0.457   0.5752   068   A          13-1    14-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   07   0.688   0.514   0.553   0.527   0.5671   079   C   045    11-5    11-6   CCIW     Augustana
MW   08   0.923   0.413   0.508   0.444   0.5640   081   A          12-1    13-4   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   09   0.500   0.616   0.520   0.584   0.5631   082   C   047     7-7     9-7   UAA      Chicago
MW   10   0.765   0.475   0.506   0.485   0.5550   095   C   057    13-4    14-4   HCAC     Defiance
MW   11   0.529   0.585   0.502   0.557   0.5501   103   C   064     9-8    10-8   HCAC     Transylvania
                                       
W   001   0.941   0.602   0.564   0.589   0.6772   001   A   C      16-1    17-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   002   0.882   0.628   0.553   0.603   0.6730   002   C   001    15-2    15-2   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   003   0.857   0.576   0.542   0.564   0.6376   006   A   C      12-2    15-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.867   0.565   0.543   0.558   0.6349   007   A   C      13-2    15-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   005   0.750   0.591   0.557   0.580   0.6224   013   C   006    12-4    13-5   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   006   0.800   0.541   0.538   0.540   0.6051   029   C   014    12-3    12-5   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   007   0.875   0.494   0.520   0.503   0.5959   036   C   019     7-1     9-7   NWC      Linfield
W   008   0.733   0.555   0.531   0.547   0.5935   040   C   022    11-4    11-4   MIAC     Augsburg
W   009   0.647   0.570   0.545   0.561   0.5829   052   C   031    11-6    11-6   WIAC     UW-Eau Claire
W   010   0.571   0.597   0.557   0.584   0.5806   055   C   033     8-6    10-8   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   011   0.933   0.437   0.515   0.463   0.5805   058   B   002    14-1    16-2   IND      Chapman
W   012   0.500   0.617   0.549   0.595   0.5709   072   C   040     6-6     9-8   WIAC     UW-Stout
                                       
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                           
         B   Pool B eligible team                           
         C   At large candidate                           
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                           
                                       
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                           
                                       
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                            
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                            
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                           
                                       
      Updated:   1/24/2010                              
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 24, 2010, 05:30:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 24, 2010, 04:38:38 PM

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                       
W   001   0.941   0.602   0.564   0.589   0.6772   001   A   C      16-1    17-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   002   0.882   0.628   0.553   0.603   0.6730   002   C   001    15-2    15-2   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   003   0.857   0.576   0.542   0.564   0.6376   006   A   C      12-2    15-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.867   0.565   0.543   0.558   0.6349   007   A   C      13-2    15-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   005   0.750   0.591   0.557   0.580   0.6224   013   C   006    12-4    13-5   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   006   0.800   0.541   0.538   0.540   0.6051   029   C   014    12-3    12-5   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   007   0.875   0.494   0.520   0.503   0.5959   036   C   019     7-1     9-7   NWC      Linfield
W   008   0.733   0.555   0.531   0.547   0.5935   040   C   022    11-4    11-4   MIAC     Augsburg
W   009   0.647   0.570   0.545   0.561   0.5829   052   C   031    11-6    11-6   WIAC     UW-Eau Claire
W   010   0.571   0.597   0.557   0.584   0.5806   055   C   033     8-6    10-8   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   011   0.933   0.437   0.515   0.463   0.5805   058   B   002    14-1    16-2   IND      Chapman
W   012   0.500   0.617   0.549   0.595   0.5709   072   C   040     6-6     9-8   WIAC     UW-Stout
   


The West is looking more and more to me like a 1 Pool C region (barring upsets of both Point and Whitewater, or St. Thomas, or Whitworth).  Even though La Crosse is #6 right now, they've lost 3 of their last 4 and their previous 2 wins were by 6 points or less.  Unless they suddenly get hot and sweep through the rest of the conference schedule, they're probably going to lose another game or two... and then they'd get another loss from the conference tournament.

Similarly, Gustavus has lost 2 of their last 4.  They're just one game back in their conference... so they might be able to take over the top spot, but if they lose too many more, they'll be even more on the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 24, 2010, 05:59:11 PM
Conferences with no teams ranked (by region).

Northeast:  MASCAC
East:  LL, NEAC*
Atlantic:  Skyline
Mid-Atlantic: Centennial, CSAC, MAC Freedom
South:  USA South
Great Lakes:  Pres AC
Midwest:  None
West:  IIAC, SCIAC

(*) designates a multi-region conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on January 24, 2010, 11:42:36 PM
KnightSlappy,
I noticed when you came out with your Regional Rankings a few days ago on January 20th you had Medaille listed at #7 in the East with a regional record of 13-1 and overall record of 15-1. I believe their regional record should have been 14-1 as the only team they played in those 16 games that wasn't a regional game was non-D3 Paul Smith's. I'm not sure what other team wasn't considered to be a regional game but it might have been Franciscan (Ohio) since Medaille's team page doesn't have the regional symbol next to that school, but they are in Medaille's conference making it a regional matchup. They also have another game with them on Jan. 30th, so you would then be off by 2 games if the correction is not made.

Your current Regional Rankings doesn't have Medaille ranked at all and I just wondered if their current (and correct, I believe) regional record of 16-1, instead of the 15-1 you probably have them at, would boost them into the rankings. It may not, but you still need to make that correction, unless I'm wrong for some reason and I'm missing something that I don't know about.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 25, 2010, 12:22:46 AM
Franciscan Steubenville is provisional year #3, and so their games will count towards in-region status.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on January 25, 2010, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 25, 2010, 12:22:46 AM
Franciscan Steubenville is provisional year #3, and so their games will count towards in-region status.

Thanks, Ralph. plus k.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 25, 2010, 01:32:40 AM
Huh -- time flies. I thought they were only in Year Two.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nescac1 on January 25, 2010, 07:26:22 AM
Williams' strength of schedule will soon improve dramatically (at Hamilton, Middlebury, Amherst, and Trinity, hosting Bowdoin and Colby, 64-29 combined record, including two road games against top 20 squads) ... very back-loaded schedule this year. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 25, 2010, 08:58:51 AM
Quote from: magicman on January 24, 2010, 11:42:36 PM
KnightSlappy,
I noticed when you came out with your Regional Rankings a few days ago on January 20th you had Medaille listed at #7 in the East with a regional record of 13-1 and overall record of 15-1. I believe their regional record should have been 14-1 as the only team they played in those 16 games that wasn't a regional game was non-D3 Paul Smith's. I'm not sure what other team wasn't considered to be a regional game but it might have been Franciscan (Ohio) since Medaille's team page doesn't have the regional symbol next to that school, but they are in Medaille's conference making it a regional matchup. They also have another game with them on Jan. 30th, so you would then be off by 2 games if the correction is not made.

Your current Regional Rankings doesn't have Medaille ranked at all and I just wondered if their current (and correct, I believe) regional record of 16-1, instead of the 15-1 you probably have them at, would boost them into the rankings. It may not, but you still need to make that correction, unless I'm wrong for some reason and I'm missing something that I don't know about.

Quote from: magicman on January 25, 2010, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 25, 2010, 12:22:46 AM
Franciscan Steubenville is provisional year #3, and so their games will count towards in-region status.

Thanks, Ralph. plus k.

Thanks for the heads up guys. I go off of the d3hoops schedules so I missed that Franciscan was year three as well. With the correction it looks like Medaille will move up to #5 in the East Region, not becuase of that one win, but because their other conference opponents pretty much all got another conference win also.

Interesting thing is that this also moved PS-Behrend down from #3 to #6 in the GL.

I'll post another update with the changes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 25, 2010, 09:31:27 AM
Through Sunday's games. I've included Franciscan (Ohio) as in-region.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                       
NE   01   0.800   0.547   0.578   0.557   0.6179   015   C   007    12-3    12-3   UAA      Brandeis
NE   02   0.923   0.497   0.541   0.512   0.6145   019   A   C      12-1    16-1   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   03   0.909   0.482   0.562   0.509   0.6087   023   C   011    10-1    12-2   NESCAC   Colby
NE   04   0.938   0.473   0.537   0.494   0.6052   028   A   C      15-1    16-2   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   05   0.813   0.522   0.521   0.522   0.5943   037   C   020    13-3    14-3   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   06   0.769   0.533   0.541   0.536   0.5940   038   A   C-2    10-3    11-5   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   07   1.000   0.406   0.560   0.457   0.5928   041   C   023    15-0    17-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   08   0.765   0.544   0.519   0.535   0.5928   042   A   C-2    13-4    13-4   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   09   0.706   0.570   0.515   0.551   0.5900   045   C   025    12-5    12-5   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   10   0.692   0.571   0.489   0.543   0.5806   058   A           9-4    10-5   GNAC     Emerson
NE   11   0.706   0.532   0.519   0.527   0.5721   069   C   038    12-5    12-5   LEC      Rhode Island College
NE   12   0.833   0.449   0.551   0.483   0.5703   072   A          10-2    11-2   NAC      Thomas
NE   13   0.786   0.487   0.519   0.497   0.5695   074   A          11-3    12-3   CCC      Gordon
NE   14   0.636   0.559   0.506   0.541   0.5650   080   C   045     7-4    10-5   NAC      Husson
                                       
E   001   0.786   0.567   0.524   0.553   0.6108   021   A   C      11-3    12-3   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   002   0.824   0.521   0.554   0.532   0.6050   030   A   C      14-3    15-3   E8       St. John Fisher
E   003   0.667   0.611   0.525   0.583   0.6036   032   C   015     8-4    12-4   UAA      Rochester
E   004   0.727   0.576   0.509   0.553   0.5969   034   C   017     8-3    11-4   SUNYAC   Brockport State
E   005   0.941   0.464   0.501   0.477   0.5927   043   A   C-2    16-1    17-1   AMCC     Medaille
E   006   0.733   0.545   0.542   0.544   0.5911   044   C   024    11-4    12-4   E8       Stevens
E   007   0.733   0.530   0.566   0.542   0.5897   046   C   026    11-4    12-5   E8       Nazareth
E   008   0.714   0.561   0.521   0.548   0.5896   047   C   027    10-4    13-5   E8       Ithaca
                                       
A   001   0.947   0.496   0.537   0.510   0.6192   014   A   C      18-1    18-1   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.813   0.561   0.506   0.543   0.6104   022   A   C      13-3    14-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   003   0.722   0.582   0.543   0.569   0.6072   025   C   012    13-5    14-5   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   004   0.824   0.498   0.554   0.517   0.5933   040   C   022    14-3    14-4   NJAC     Ramapo
A   005   0.688   0.573   0.502   0.549   0.5837   051   A          11-5    14-5   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
A   006   0.643   0.571   0.531   0.558   0.5789   062   C   036     9-5    13-5   NJAC     Rowan
A   007   0.533   0.635   0.505   0.592   0.5772   065   C   037     8-7     9-9   NJAC     Montclair State
A   008   0.706   0.531   0.512   0.524   0.5698   073   C   040    12-5    13-5   CUNYAC   Baruch
                                       
MA   01   0.875   0.611   0.540   0.587   0.6591   003   A   C      14-2    15-2   MACC     Albright
MA   02   0.786   0.601   0.552   0.585   0.6350   008   C   002    11-3     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   03   0.769   0.603   0.541   0.583   0.6293   009   C   003    10-3    11-5   MACC     Messiah
MA   04   0.867   0.554   0.538   0.549   0.6282   010   C   004    13-2    15-2   MACC     Lycoming
MA   05   0.800   0.557   0.519   0.544   0.6081   024   A   C      12-3    14-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   06   0.706   0.592   0.534   0.572   0.6058   027   C   013    12-5    12-5   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   07   0.600   0.624   0.501   0.583   0.5876   049   C   029     9-6    11-7   LAND     Susquehanna
MA   08   0.750   0.544   0.510   0.533   0.5870   050   C   030    12-4    14-4   CAC      York (Pa.)
                                       
S   001   0.875   0.559   0.518   0.545   0.6279   011   A   C      14-2    16-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   002   0.941   0.500   0.539   0.513   0.6201   013   C   006    16-1    16-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   003   0.917   0.516   0.521   0.518   0.6174   016   C   008    11-1    14-2   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   004   0.818   0.560   0.532   0.550   0.6173   017   C   009     9-2    15-2   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   005   0.846   0.527   0.526   0.527   0.6067   026   B   001    11-2    16-2   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   006   0.733   0.561   0.527   0.549   0.5954   036   C   019    11-4    12-4   UAA      Emory
S   007   0.846   0.485   0.510   0.494   0.5817   055   N/A        11-2    15-2   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   008   0.867   0.473   0.501   0.483   0.5786   063   A          13-2    14-3   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   009   0.750   0.519   0.496   0.512   0.5712   070   A          12-4    14-4   SCAC     DePauw
S   010   0.706   0.538   0.495   0.524   0.5693   075   C   041    12-5    12-5   SCAC     Austin
S   011   0.625   0.561   0.498   0.540   0.5612   083   C   047    10-6    11-6   SCAC     Oglethorpe
                                       
GL   01   0.875   0.543   0.502   0.530   0.6159   018   A   C       7-1    11-6   MIAA     Calvin
GL   02   0.800   0.545   0.526   0.539   0.6041   031   A   C      12-3    13-4   OAC      Wilmington
GL   03   0.667   0.581   0.499   0.554   0.5819   054   C   033    10-5    11-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   04   0.750   0.526   0.518   0.523   0.5797   061   C   035     6-2    11-6   MIAA     Hope
GL   05   0.813   0.483   0.522   0.496   0.5752   067   A          13-3    13-4   NCAC     Wooster
GL   06   0.800   0.468   0.505   0.480   0.5602   086   C   050    12-3    11-4   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   07   0.727   0.503   0.484   0.497   0.5545   096   N/A         8-3    11-7   PrAC     Geneva
GL   08   0.692   0.514   0.485   0.504   0.5512   100   C   061     9-4    13-4   NCAC     Wittenberg
GL   09   0.692   0.475   0.552   0.501   0.5487   104   C   065     9-4    11-6   OAC      Heidelberg
                                       
MW   01   0.846   0.594   0.548   0.579   0.6458   004   A   C      11-2    14-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.818   0.591   0.562   0.581   0.6406   005   A   C       9-2    13-4   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.800   0.558   0.539   0.552   0.6139   020   C   010    12-3    13-3   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   04   0.688   0.586   0.542   0.571   0.6004   033   C   016    11-5    12-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   05   0.938   0.441   0.502   0.461   0.5804   059   A          15-1    17-1   HCAC     Anderson
MW   06   0.929   0.417   0.539   0.457   0.5752   066   A          13-1    14-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   07   0.688   0.514   0.553   0.527   0.5671   078   C   044    11-5    11-6   CCIW     Augustana
MW   08   0.923   0.417   0.505   0.446   0.5655   079   A          12-1    13-4   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   09   0.500   0.616   0.520   0.584   0.5632   082   C   046     7-7     9-7   UAA      Chicago
MW   10   0.765   0.475   0.506   0.485   0.5551   095   C   057    13-4    14-4   HCAC     Defiance
MW   11   0.529   0.585   0.501   0.557   0.5501   103   C   064     9-8    10-8   HCAC     Transylvania
                                       
W   001   0.941   0.602   0.565   0.589   0.6773   001   A   C      16-1    17-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   002   0.882   0.628   0.554   0.603   0.6731   002   C   001    15-2    15-2   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   003   0.857   0.576   0.542   0.564   0.6376   006   A   C      12-2    15-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.867   0.571   0.542   0.561   0.6374   007   A   C      13-2    15-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   005   0.750   0.591   0.557   0.580   0.6225   012   C   005    12-4    13-5   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   006   0.800   0.541   0.538   0.540   0.6051   029   C   014    12-3    12-5   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   007   0.875   0.494   0.523   0.504   0.5965   035   C   018     7-1     9-7   NWC      Linfield
W   008   0.733   0.555   0.532   0.547   0.5935   039   C   021    11-4    11-4   MIAC     Augsburg
W   009   0.647   0.570   0.545   0.562   0.5829   052   C   031    11-6    11-6   WIAC     UW-Eau Claire
W   010   0.571   0.597   0.557   0.584   0.5806   057   C   034     8-6    10-8   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   011   0.938   0.422   0.518   0.454   0.5749   068   B   002    15-1    16-2   IND      Chapman
W   012   0.500   0.617   0.550   0.595   0.5710   071   C   039     6-6     9-8   WIAC     UW-Stout
                                       
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                           
         B   Pool B eligible team                           
         C   At large candidate                           
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                           
                                       
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                           
                                       
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                            
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                            
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                           
                                       
      Updated:   1/25/2010                              

I'm still a bit perplexed as to why the MAC Commonwealth is getting so much love. 4 of the top 10 RPIs in the country seems wrong to me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on January 26, 2010, 03:26:19 AM
Quote from: nescac1 on January 25, 2010, 07:26:22 AM
Williams' strength of schedule will soon improve dramatically (at Hamilton, Middlebury, Amherst, and Trinity, hosting Bowdoin and Colby, 64-29 combined record, including two road games against top 20 squads) ... very back-loaded schedule this year.  

Yes, their SOS will get significantly better. The bigger question is what might happen to their won-loss record. I think the best they'll do is 4-2 over that stretch, which will still leave them at 21-3 (19-2 in region) heading into the NESCAC tournament. They might slide a bit in the Top 25 poll but should still be in good shape for a Pool C bid even if they lose another regional game in the playoffs.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on January 26, 2010, 04:29:16 AM
KnightSlappy,
In looking over Brockport State's regional record, a game against Geneseo State played as part of the Wendy's Classic Tournament in Rochester on Jan. 15th, is not listed as a regional game. Not sure why that wouldn't be in region. I believe Brockport's regional record should be 9-3, unless I'm missing something that's out of the ordinary about that game. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2010, 08:33:36 AM
Quote from: magicman on January 26, 2010, 04:29:16 AM
KnightSlappy,
In looking over Brockport State's regional record, a game against Geneseo State played as part of the Wendy's Classic Tournament in Rochester on Jan. 15th, is not listed as a regional game. Not sure why that wouldn't be in region. I believe Brockport's regional record should be 9-3, unless I'm missing something that's out of the ordinary about that game. 

Yep, should be a regional game. Fixed it in my sheet. Interestingly, it didn't change their RPI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on January 26, 2010, 08:44:28 AM
I haven't paid enough attention to SOS etal, so I'm curious... How often does it seem to come into play in the decision making....  How often does a team with a very good regional record not get in because of a weaker strength of schedule?  Are there any prime examples from the last couple of years?

Being closely associated with the SLIAC, I'm well aware that a second team from the conference has no hope of being chosen for the field, but it hasn't impacted because generally, no non tourney winner comes close to having a good regional record.   But this year, Westminster could well run the SLIAC table, and if they were to be upset in the Conference tourney, would still offer up a regional record of something like 21-3, but with a very low SOS....     what does history tell us happens in a case like this?  Does the third or 4th CCIW/UAA/ODC team with 6 or 7 or 8 regional losses become the 62nd/63rd team, or would that starry regional record vs weak competition take precedence?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 26, 2010, 09:35:33 AM
Quote from: hopefan on January 26, 2010, 08:44:28 AM
I haven't paid enough attention to SOS etal, so I'm curious... How often does it seem to come into play in the decision making....  How often does a team with a very good regional record not get in because of a weaker strength of schedule?  Are there any prime examples from the last couple of years?

Being closely associated with the SLIAC, I'm well aware that a second team from the conference has no hope of being chosen for the field, but it hasn't impacted because generally, no non tourney winner comes close to having a good regional record.   But this year, Westminster could well run the SLIAC table, and if they were to be upset in the Conference tourney, would still offer up a regional record of something like 21-3, but with a very low SOS....     what does history tell us happens in a case like this?  Does the third or 4th CCIW/UAA/ODC team with 6 or 7 or 8 regional losses become the 62nd/63rd team, or would that starry regional record vs weak competition take precedence?

I think it really depends on who's doing the ranking.  We'll know more about how each region is ranking teams once the first regional rankings come out.  Usually a low SOS will drop a team a couple notches only if they play in a lesser conference.  So Westminster is definitely in that boat.  I happen to think that they're a pretty good team this year and deserving of a C spot (assuming they do indeed end up at 21-3 or 20-4 and assuming there aren't too many other conference tournament upsets).  A lot will depend on how they are viewed by the committee doing the regional ranking.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scout on January 26, 2010, 10:07:12 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 26, 2010, 09:35:33 AM
Quote from: hopefan on January 26, 2010, 08:44:28 AM
I haven't paid enough attention to SOS etal, so I'm curious... How often does it seem to come into play in the decision making....  How often does a team with a very good regional record not get in because of a weaker strength of schedule?  Are there any prime examples from the last couple of years?

Being closely associated with the SLIAC, I'm well aware that a second team from the conference has no hope of being chosen for the field, but it hasn't impacted because generally, no non tourney winner comes close to having a good regional record.   But this year, Westminster could well run the SLIAC table, and if they were to be upset in the Conference tourney, would still offer up a regional record of something like 21-3, but with a very low SOS....     what does history tell us happens in a case like this?  Does the third or 4th CCIW/UAA/ODC team with 6 or 7 or 8 regional losses become the 62nd/63rd team, or would that starry regional record vs weak competition take precedence?

I think it really depends on who's doing the ranking.  We'll know more about how each region is ranking teams once the first regional rankings come out.  Usually a low SOS will drop a team a couple notches only if they play in a lesser conference.  So Westminster is definitely in that boat.  I happen to think that they're a pretty good team this year and deserving of a C spot (assuming they do indeed end up at 21-3 or 20-4 and assuming there aren't too many other conference tournament upsets).  A lot will depend on how they are viewed by the committee doing the regional ranking.

Granted, I follow The Commonwealth Coast Conference a little more closely than most... So this question is more for my benefit than anything else.

But considering Westminster's case, would Gordon be in a similar situation? I'm not saying they're going to run the table the rest of the way. But if they were to do so, what are their chances of a Pool C spot?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 26, 2010, 11:27:10 AM
Quote from: scout on January 26, 2010, 10:07:12 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 26, 2010, 09:35:33 AM
Quote from: hopefan on January 26, 2010, 08:44:28 AM
I haven't paid enough attention to SOS etal, so I'm curious... How often does it seem to come into play in the decision making....  How often does a team with a very good regional record not get in because of a weaker strength of schedule?  Are there any prime examples from the last couple of years?

Being closely associated with the SLIAC, I'm well aware that a second team from the conference has no hope of being chosen for the field, but it hasn't impacted because generally, no non tourney winner comes close to having a good regional record.   But this year, Westminster could well run the SLIAC table, and if they were to be upset in the Conference tourney, would still offer up a regional record of something like 21-3, but with a very low SOS....     what does history tell us happens in a case like this?  Does the third or 4th CCIW/UAA/ODC team with 6 or 7 or 8 regional losses become the 62nd/63rd team, or would that starry regional record vs weak competition take precedence?

I think it really depends on who's doing the ranking.  We'll know more about how each region is ranking teams once the first regional rankings come out.  Usually a low SOS will drop a team a couple notches only if they play in a lesser conference.  So Westminster is definitely in that boat.  I happen to think that they're a pretty good team this year and deserving of a C spot (assuming they do indeed end up at 21-3 or 20-4 and assuming there aren't too many other conference tournament upsets).  A lot will depend on how they are viewed by the committee doing the regional ranking.

Granted, I follow The Commonwealth Coast Conference a little more closely than most... So this question is more for my benefit than anything else.

But considering Westminster's case, would Gordon be in a similar situation? I'm not saying they're going to run the table the rest of the way. But if they were to do so, what are their chances of a Pool C spot?

In my opinion, in order to even have a shot, they would need to run the regular season schedule so that their only other loss would be in their conference tourney.  The MIT loss wont hurt them too much, but their other two losses are to teams with losing records.  If they lost another game it would also likely be to a team with ~0.500 record as there are really no other teams with spectacular records in the CCC.  That would be 3 bad losses, if they lose another during the regular season that would be 4.  Their SOS is also below .500, so that is not going to help them.  They also will have no wins over regionally ranked teams, which does not boost their resume (their best wins right now are against 10-5 Husson and 10-6 Wheellock). To feel comfortable they need to win their conference tourney, but they may have on outside shot to get into the discussion if they are 21-4, but I am not sure if a CCC team has ever gotten a Pool C and I wouldnt bank on that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scout on January 26, 2010, 11:45:14 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on January 26, 2010, 11:27:10 AM
Quote from: scout on January 26, 2010, 10:07:12 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 26, 2010, 09:35:33 AM
Quote from: hopefan on January 26, 2010, 08:44:28 AM
I haven't paid enough attention to SOS etal, so I'm curious... How often does it seem to come into play in the decision making....  How often does a team with a very good regional record not get in because of a weaker strength of schedule?  Are there any prime examples from the last couple of years?

Being closely associated with the SLIAC, I'm well aware that a second team from the conference has no hope of being chosen for the field, but it hasn't impacted because generally, no non tourney winner comes close to having a good regional record.   But this year, Westminster could well run the SLIAC table, and if they were to be upset in the Conference tourney, would still offer up a regional record of something like 21-3, but with a very low SOS....     what does history tell us happens in a case like this?  Does the third or 4th CCIW/UAA/ODC team with 6 or 7 or 8 regional losses become the 62nd/63rd team, or would that starry regional record vs weak competition take precedence?

I think it really depends on who's doing the ranking.  We'll know more about how each region is ranking teams once the first regional rankings come out.  Usually a low SOS will drop a team a couple notches only if they play in a lesser conference.  So Westminster is definitely in that boat.  I happen to think that they're a pretty good team this year and deserving of a C spot (assuming they do indeed end up at 21-3 or 20-4 and assuming there aren't too many other conference tournament upsets).  A lot will depend on how they are viewed by the committee doing the regional ranking.

Granted, I follow The Commonwealth Coast Conference a little more closely than most... So this question is more for my benefit than anything else.

But considering Westminster's case, would Gordon be in a similar situation? I'm not saying they're going to run the table the rest of the way. But if they were to do so, what are their chances of a Pool C spot?

In my opinion, in order to even have a shot, they would need to run the regular season schedule so that their only other loss would be in their conference tourney.  The MIT loss wont hurt them too much, but their other two losses are to teams with losing records.  If they lost another game it would also likely be to a team with ~0.500 record as there are really no other teams with spectacular records in the CCC.  That would be 3 bad losses, if they lose another during the regular season that would be 4.  Their SOS is also below .500, so that is not going to help them.  They also will have no wins over regionally ranked teams, which does not boost their resume (their best wins right now are against 10-5 Husson and 10-6 Wheellock). To feel comfortable they need to win their conference tourney, but they may have on outside shot to get into the discussion if they are 21-4, but I am not sure if a CCC team has ever gotten a Pool C and I wouldnt bank on that.

Gordon actually got a Pool C bid in 05-06. I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you. I don't think there's any way they'd get a bid unless they ran the table and lost the conference championship.

It was just a question for the masses...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 26, 2010, 12:20:38 PM
Thanks for the heads-up, guys. This is how our data gets better, with everyone's eyes on it.

Long story short -- any Wendy's game had the potential to be tagged wrong, with pairings being updated. Roberts Wesleyan's presence in the field meant we couldn't simply tag every game as regional at the outset.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 26, 2010, 12:30:38 PM
A couple of pertinent Pool C/NCAA tournament hosting questions (maybe just pertinent to me, but...)

Do we know (i.e. have they told us) if the NCAA selection committee uses the RPI [.25(WP)+.5(OWP)+.25(OOWP)] as a primary or secondary criterion for Pool C selection... or is this merely a projection using the standard definition of RPI... and other individual numbers (like WP, OWP, or OOWP) are the actual criteria?

Who has the hosting preference this year, men or women?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2010, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 26, 2010, 09:35:33 AM
Quote from: hopefan on January 26, 2010, 08:44:28 AM
I haven't paid enough attention to SOS etal, so I'm curious... How often does it seem to come into play in the decision making....  How often does a team with a very good regional record not get in because of a weaker strength of schedule?  Are there any prime examples from the last couple of years?

Being closely associated with the SLIAC, I'm well aware that a second team from the conference has no hope of being chosen for the field, but it hasn't impacted because generally, no non tourney winner comes close to having a good regional record.   But this year, Westminster could well run the SLIAC table, and if they were to be upset in the Conference tourney, would still offer up a regional record of something like 21-3, but with a very low SOS....     what does history tell us happens in a case like this?  Does the third or 4th CCIW/UAA/ODC team with 6 or 7 or 8 regional losses become the 62nd/63rd team, or would that starry regional record vs weak competition take precedence?

I think it really depends on who's doing the ranking.  We'll know more about how each region is ranking teams once the first regional rankings come out.  Usually a low SOS will drop a team a couple notches only if they play in a lesser conference.  So Westminster is definitely in that boat.  I happen to think that they're a pretty good team this year and deserving of a C spot (assuming they do indeed end up at 21-3 or 20-4 and assuming there aren't too many other conference tournament upsets).  A lot will depend on how they are viewed by the committee doing the regional ranking.

Westminster is in the same position that Anderson and St. Norbert are in (the three are nearly identical with respect to WP, OWP, and OOWP).

According to RPI they all rank below 11-5 CCIW Wheaton, and above 11-5 CCIW Augustana. It really is a case by case, team by team comparison. We'll have to see how the NCAA feels about them when the first few sets of rankings come out.

My gut feeling on Westminster right now is that they might sneak in should they run the table but lose the tourney final, but another loss on top of that may be too much for their schedule to overcome.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scout on January 26, 2010, 12:35:10 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 26, 2010, 12:30:38 PM
A couple of pertinent Pool C/NCAA tournament hosting questions (maybe just pertinent to me, but...)

Do we know (i.e. have they told us) if the NCAA selection committee uses the RPI [.25(WP)+.5(OWP)+.25(OOWP)] as a primary or secondary criterion for Pool C selection... or is this merely a projection using the standard definition of RPI... and other individual numbers (like WP, OWP, or OOWP) are the actual criteria?

Who has the hosting preference this year, men or women?

I could be wrong... but I think the women had the preference last year. Which would give the men hosting preference this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2010, 12:37:18 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 26, 2010, 12:30:38 PM
A couple of pertinent Pool C/NCAA tournament hosting questions (maybe just pertinent to me, but...)

Do we know (i.e. have they told us) if the NCAA selection committee uses the RPI [.25(WP)+.5(OWP)+.25(OOWP)] as a primary or secondary criterion for Pool C selection... or is this merely a projection using the standard definition of RPI... and other individual numbers (like WP, OWP, or OOWP) are the actual criteria?

Who has the hosting preference this year, men or women?

I have not seen the NCAA say that they calculate an RPI to rank teams. For me, it's just a projection but WP and SOS (the defined two-thirds OWP and one-third OOWP) are the actual criteria. They may calculate an RPI, but I don't believe it's stated or promised.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 26, 2010, 12:38:43 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 26, 2010, 12:30:38 PM
Do we know (i.e. have they told us) if the NCAA selection committee uses the RPI [.25(WP)+.5(OWP)+.25(OOWP)] as a primary or secondary criterion for Pool C selection... or is this merely a projection using the standard definition of RPI... and other individual numbers (like WP, OWP, or OOWP) are the actual criteria?

The handbook for this year is pretty similar to past years.  They will use in-region winning percentage and the SOS figure as primary criteria.  RPI is not mentioned anywhere I can see.  I don't think selection will go any differently than it did last year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 26, 2010, 01:04:05 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2010, 12:37:18 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 26, 2010, 12:30:38 PM
A couple of pertinent Pool C/NCAA tournament hosting questions (maybe just pertinent to me, but...)

Do we know (i.e. have they told us) if the NCAA selection committee uses the RPI [.25(WP)+.5(OWP)+.25(OOWP)] as a primary or secondary criterion for Pool C selection... or is this merely a projection using the standard definition of RPI... and other individual numbers (like WP, OWP, or OOWP) are the actual criteria?

Who has the hosting preference this year, men or women?

I have not seen the NCAA say that they calculate an RPI to rank teams. For me, it's just a projection but WP and SOS (the defined two-thirds OWP and one-third OOWP) are the actual criteria. They may calculate an RPI, but I don't believe it's stated or promised.

I can't remember from years past... but is there any evidence that the selection goes pretty purely along RPI lines? (like, this year, could we assume that, say, the top 15 RPI teams will be selected and then 4 of the next 6 or so...?)

I know that it's an inexact science and there is some wiggle room persay...  but have we seen a correlation in the past?

Quote from: scout on January 26, 2010, 12:35:10 PM
I could be wrong... but I think the women had the preference last year. Which would give the men hosting preference this year.

That's what I thought too (reasons why Point and Wash U couldn't host and further exacerbating the travesty that was the Midwest/West bracket last year).


As an aside.. can a travesty be exacerbated?  I'm not sure if technically that means what I'm trying to say, but it does sound pretty cool!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 26, 2010, 02:09:53 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 26, 2010, 01:04:05 PM
As an aside.. can a travesty be exacerbated?  I'm not sure if technically that means what I'm trying to say, but it does sound pretty cool!

Not only can a travesty be exacerbated, it can also be augmented, intensified, accentuated, redoubled, magnified, and metastasized. However, since it is a travesty, we should all endeavor to ameliorate it. ;)

(Incidentally, even though it was coined for a TV commercial for a fifth-rate beer, I'm disappointed that "traveshamockery" never caught on permanently as a successful neologism. I love that term!)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on January 26, 2010, 02:41:02 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 26, 2010, 02:09:53 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 26, 2010, 01:04:05 PM
As an aside.. can a travesty be exacerbated?  I'm not sure if technically that means what I'm trying to say, but it does sound pretty cool!

Not only can a travesty be exacerbated, it can also be augmented, intensified, accentuated, redoubled, magnified, and metastasized. However, since it is a travesty, we should all endeavor to ameliorate it. ;)

(Incidentally, even though it was coined for a TV commercial for a fifth-rate beer, I'm disappointed that "traveshamockery" never caught on permanently as a successful neologism. I love that term!)

And if we get another "bracket of death" like last year it could be all of the above!! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on January 26, 2010, 03:11:42 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 24, 2010, 05:30:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 24, 2010, 04:38:38 PM

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                       
W   001   0.941   0.602   0.564   0.589   0.6772   001   A   C      16-1    17-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   002   0.882   0.628   0.553   0.603   0.6730   002   C   001    15-2    15-2   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   003   0.857   0.576   0.542   0.564   0.6376   006   A   C      12-2    15-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.867   0.565   0.543   0.558   0.6349   007   A   C      13-2    15-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   005   0.750   0.591   0.557   0.580   0.6224   013   C   006    12-4    13-5   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   006   0.800   0.541   0.538   0.540   0.6051   029   C   014    12-3    12-5   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   007   0.875   0.494   0.520   0.503   0.5959   036   C   019     7-1     9-7   NWC      Linfield
W   008   0.733   0.555   0.531   0.547   0.5935   040   C   022    11-4    11-4   MIAC     Augsburg
W   009   0.647   0.570   0.545   0.561   0.5829   052   C   031    11-6    11-6   WIAC     UW-Eau Claire
W   010   0.571   0.597   0.557   0.584   0.5806   055   C   033     8-6    10-8   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   011   0.933   0.437   0.515   0.463   0.5805   058   B   002    14-1    16-2   IND      Chapman
W   012   0.500   0.617   0.549   0.595   0.5709   072   C   040     6-6     9-8   WIAC     UW-Stout
   


The West is looking more and more to me like a 1 Pool C region (barring upsets of both Point and Whitewater, or St. Thomas, or Whitworth).  Even though La Crosse is #6 right now, they've lost 3 of their last 4 and their previous 2 wins were by 6 points or less.  Unless they suddenly get hot and sweep through the rest of the conference schedule, they're probably going to lose another game or two... and then they'd get another loss from the conference tournament.

Similarly, Gustavus has lost 2 of their last 4.  They're just one game back in their conference... so they might be able to take over the top spot, but if they lose too many more, they'll be even more on the bubble.
I'd be interested to see a ranking of the conferences by SOS.  I believe the MIAC and the WIAC had one of their better non-conference years meaning their SOS should improve as the conference season progresses compared to other pool C teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 26, 2010, 03:51:50 PM
Quote from: scout on January 26, 2010, 12:35:10 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 26, 2010, 12:30:38 PM
A couple of pertinent Pool C/NCAA tournament hosting questions (maybe just pertinent to me, but...)

Do we know (i.e. have they told us) if the NCAA selection committee uses the RPI [.25(WP)+.5(OWP)+.25(OOWP)] as a primary or secondary criterion for Pool C selection... or is this merely a projection using the standard definition of RPI... and other individual numbers (like WP, OWP, or OOWP) are the actual criteria?

Who has the hosting preference this year, men or women?

I could be wrong... but I think the women had the preference last year. Which would give the men hosting preference this year.

You are correct ...........Even years men have hosting priorities in rounds 1 and 2, odd years the women have priority.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on January 26, 2010, 04:10:56 PM
Quote from: sac on January 26, 2010, 03:51:50 PM
Quote from: scout on January 26, 2010, 12:35:10 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 26, 2010, 12:30:38 PM
A couple of pertinent Pool C/NCAA tournament hosting questions (maybe just pertinent to me, but...)

Do we know (i.e. have they told us) if the NCAA selection committee uses the RPI [.25(WP)+.5(OWP)+.25(OOWP)] as a primary or secondary criterion for Pool C selection... or is this merely a projection using the standard definition of RPI... and other individual numbers (like WP, OWP, or OOWP) are the actual criteria?

Who has the hosting preference this year, men or women?

I could be wrong... but I think the women had the preference last year. Which would give the men hosting preference this year.

You are correct ...........Even years men have hosting priorities in rounds 1 and 2, odd years the women have priority.


http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2010/10_3_mbasketball.pdf
(top of page 8)

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2010, 04:16:50 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on January 26, 2010, 04:10:56 PM
Quote from: sac on January 26, 2010, 03:51:50 PM
Quote from: scout on January 26, 2010, 12:35:10 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 26, 2010, 12:30:38 PM
A couple of pertinent Pool C/NCAA tournament hosting questions (maybe just pertinent to me, but...)

Do we know (i.e. have they told us) if the NCAA selection committee uses the RPI [.25(WP)+.5(OWP)+.25(OOWP)] as a primary or secondary criterion for Pool C selection... or is this merely a projection using the standard definition of RPI... and other individual numbers (like WP, OWP, or OOWP) are the actual criteria?

Who has the hosting preference this year, men or women?

I could be wrong... but I think the women had the preference last year. Which would give the men hosting preference this year.

You are correct ...........Even years men have hosting priorities in rounds 1 and 2, odd years the women have priority.


http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2010/10_3_mbasketball.pdf
(top of page 8)

I see that the handbook's cover says it was updated yesterday, but sadly neither UMPI or Menlo are denoted as declaring for NAIA playoffs. I'm still confused about the both of them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 26, 2010, 05:16:23 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 25, 2010, 09:31:27 AM
I'm still a bit perplexed as to why the MAC Commonwealth is getting so much love. 4 of the top 10 RPIs in the country seems wrong to me.

Well, this is an inexact metric, insomuch as there's a possibility that there's a closed subgroup composed of a certain number of teams that have only played themselves... and so there would be teams in that subgroup who would rank as the best teams... but could be very much inferior to other top teams. 

That's actually what we have in the regional set-up...  Teams compete against other teams from their region and unless there's lots of regional parity, the top teams look really good.

I think this will temper a little bit as more of these teams lose, but the top 5 teams in the MACC went 9-1, 9-1, 8-2, 8-2, and 7-2 in non-conference schedule.  They're showing that they are the cream of the Mid-Atlantic region.  But there are 28 more losses to be "handed out" to the MACC (plus one additional to make the teams Pool C "eligible" in the conference tournament.  A maximum of 18 of those losses can go to the bottom 3 teams... so 10 of them will be distributed amongst the top 5 teams, and all but 1 will get an additional loss besides.

The teams will start weeding themselves out...  One of the teams isn't even going to make the conference tournament (though I don't know what their specific rules are... there looked to be a play-in game last year in the MAC Freedom), and you've gotta think that, with a few more losses, these teams would be near the bottom of the regional rankings... meaning that, while it seems likely that there could be 3 teams, it's not a guarantee depending on lots of hypothetical situations I don't want to spend the effort to figure out.

I'm not sure if this is still accurate... but per the "Ranking D-III Conferences" (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=6620.msg1157516#msg1157516) thread, the MACC was 4th in the land, winning 71.0% of their games.

Quote from: AO on January 26, 2010, 03:11:42 PM
I'd be interested to see a ranking of the conferences by SOS.  I believe the MIAC and the WIAC had one of their better non-conference years meaning their SOS should improve as the conference season progresses compared to other pool C teams.

The WIAC is currently at 60-17 against all non-con opponents with three games to go (50-12 vs. D-III).  The MIAC is .654 overall (.689 against D-III).  The WIAC is the top conference and the MIAC is 5th, at least as of January 6th.  I don't know if that counts for regional games only (I think not), so the numbers and rankings are going to be off a bit.

The MIAC is canabalizing itself a bit at the top.  I don't know that there's a dominant team... though St. Thomas and Gustavus may be able to hold off the others and both make it in... but GAC (lost 2/4) needs to stop their recent trend in the same way La Crosse does (lost 3/4).    The WIAC is canabalizing itself on the bottom... and by bottom, I mean everyone but Point and Whitewater.

Quote from: sac on January 26, 2010, 03:51:50 PM
You are correct ...........Even years men have hosting priorities in rounds 1 and 2, odd years the women have priority.

What about in the Sweet 16?  Does the hosting priority continue there too?  Or does it switch...?

In 03-04, Point couldn't host the Sweet 16 because the women were hosting (not to mention Puget Sound had a better case... though the NCAA would have only had to fly 2 teams instead of 3), but in 04-05, Point did host (women weren't a factor that year). 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on January 26, 2010, 05:36:49 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 26, 2010, 05:16:23 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 25, 2010, 09:31:27 AM
I'm still a bit perplexed as to why the MAC Commonwealth is getting so much love. 4 of the top 10 RPIs in the country seems wrong to me.

Well, this is an inexact metric, insomuch as there's a possibility that there's a closed subgroup composed of a certain number of teams that have only played themselves... and so there would be teams in that subgroup who would rank as the best teams... but could be very much inferior to other top teams.  

That's actually what we have in the regional set-up...  Teams compete against other teams from their region and unless there's lots of regional parity, the top teams look really good.

I think this will temper a little bit as more of these teams lose, but the top 5 teams in the MACC went 9-1, 9-1, 8-2, 8-2, and 7-2 in non-conference schedule.  They're showing that they are the cream of the Mid-Atlantic region.  But there are 28 more losses to be "handed out" to the MACC (plus one additional to make the teams Pool C "eligible" in the conference tournament.  A maximum of 18 of those losses can go to the bottom 3 teams... so 10 of them will be distributed amongst the top 5 teams, and all but 1 will get an additional loss besides.

The teams will start weeding themselves out...  One of the teams isn't even going to make the conference tournament (though I don't know what their specific rules are... there looked to be a play-in game last year in the MAC Freedom), and you've gotta think that, with a few more losses, these teams would be near the bottom of the regional rankings... meaning that, while it seems likely that there could be 3 teams, it's not a guarantee depending on lots of hypothetical situations I don't want to spend the effort to figure out.

I'm not sure if this is still accurate... but per the "Ranking D-III Conferences" (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=6620.msg1157516#msg1157516) thread, the MACC was 4th in the land, winning 71.0% of their games.

Quote from: AO on January 26, 2010, 03:11:42 PM
I'd be interested to see a ranking of the conferences by SOS.  I believe the MIAC and the WIAC had one of their better non-conference years meaning their SOS should improve as the conference season progresses compared to other pool C teams.

The WIAC is currently at 60-17 against all non-con opponents with three games to go (50-12 vs. D-III).  The MIAC is .654 overall (.689 against D-III).  The WIAC is the top conference and the MIAC is 5th, at least as of January 6th.  I don't know if that counts for regional games only (I think not), so the numbers and rankings are going to be off a bit.

The MIAC is canabalizing itself a bit at the top.  I don't know that there's a dominant team... though St. Thomas and Gustavus may be able to hold off the others and both make it in... but GAC (lost 2/4) needs to stop their recent trend in the same way La Crosse does (lost 3/4).    The WIAC is canabalizing itself on the bottom... and by bottom, I mean everyone but Point and Whitewater.

Quote from: sac on January 26, 2010, 03:51:50 PM
You are correct ...........Even years men have hosting priorities in rounds 1 and 2, odd years the women have priority.

What about in the Sweet 16?  Does the hosting priority continue there too?  Or does it switch...?

In 03-04, Point couldn't host the Sweet 16 because the women were hosting (not to mention Puget Sound had a better case... though the NCAA would have only had to fly 2 teams instead of 3), but in 04-05, Point did host (women weren't a factor that year).  

PointSpecial,
For the Sectionals it is just the reverse of the 1st 2 rounds. Even years Women host, odd years, Men host. Again this is at the top of page 8 in the handbook.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 26, 2010, 06:11:46 PM
Quote from: magicman on January 26, 2010, 05:36:49 PM
PointSpecial,
For the Sectionals it is just the reverse of the 1st 2 rounds. Even years Women host, odd years, Men host. Again this is at the top of page 8 in the handbook.


I completely looked past that second part.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 26, 2010, 06:42:09 PM
For those curious... RPI seems to be only for Division I. There is no RPI from what I have been told and read in NCAA... there is a regional record and an SOS - that's about it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 26, 2010, 07:24:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 26, 2010, 06:42:09 PM
For those curious... RPI seems to be only for Division I. There is no RPI from what I have been told and read in NCAA... there is a regional record and an SOS - that's about it.

Since these are the primary criteria, I am curious how they weight the two.  Obviously with RPI, WP is weighted 0.25 while SOS is weighted 0.75, but I am curious if in d3 it is weighted more like 50/50 or if WP is even given more consideration.  It may be interesting, when the first rankings come out, to compare the rankings using the traditional RPI format to a 50/50 WP/SOS format.  Maybe that would shed some light on how they weight the two?  Just a thought.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on January 26, 2010, 08:56:26 PM
Final numbers from Selection Sunday 2009, courtesy of the late Patrick Abegg, with the selected Pool C teams in red...


Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   02    0.6259 0.5300 0.5270 Middlebury                004  A in        22-2 24-3
NE  13   02   03    0.6110 0.5167 0.5257 Mass-Dartmouth            010  A in        23-3 25-3
NE  17   03   01    0.6257 0.5643 0.5411 Worcester Polytech        013  C 4         20-4 20-5
NE  18   04   05    0.5878 0.4537 0.4823 Elms                      014  B 1         25-1 26-1
NE  13   05   04    0.6096 0.5467 0.5234 Rhode Island College      021  C 9         23-5 23-5
NE  14   06   07    0.6052 0.5297 0.5354 Bridgewater State         022  A in        19-4 20-6
NE  16   07   08    0.6013 0.5507 0.5438 Amherst                   031  C 15        19-6 21-6
NE  14   08   06    0.6081 0.5690 0.5249 Salem State               034  C 17        20-6 21-6
NE  11   09   09    0.5719 0.4717 0.4923 University of New England 037  A in        23-4 24-4
NE  17   10   11    0.5773 0.5038 0.5416 MIT                       042  A in        19-6 20-8
NE  90   11   12    0.5958 0.5841 0.5349 Brandeis                   050  C 23        17-8 17-8
NE  12   12   nr    0.5697 0.5131 0.5025 St. Joseph's (Maine)      051  A in        21-7 21-7
NE  16   13   10    0.5936 0.5951 0.5305 Bowdoin                   059  C 29        17-9 17-9

EA  21   01   01    0.6305 0.5339 0.5374 Ithaca                      003  C 1         22-2 24-2
EA  24   02   02    0.5953 0.5129 0.5135 Hamilton                  020  C 8         16-3 18-7
EA  24   03   03    0.6035 0.5755 0.5128 St. Lawrence               038  C 18        18-6 20-6
EA  21   04   04    0.5761 0.5673 0.5159 Utica                     067  C 35        17-9 17-9
EA  21   05   07    0.5852 0.5770 0.5346 Rochester Tech            070  A in        15-8 19-8
EA  61   06   08    0.5488 0.4892 0.4779 Medaille                  076  A in        17-6 21-6
EA  23   07   06    0.5506 0.4953 0.5035 Fredonia State            077              17-7 18-9
EA  90   08   05    0.5657 0.5452 0.5323 Rochester                 080              16-9 16-9

AT  32   01   01    0.6134 0.5152 0.5068 Richard Stockton          007  A in        22-2 25-2
AT  33   02   02    0.5939 0.5015 0.4837 SUNY-Farmingdale            015  C 5         24-3 24-3
AT  33   03   03    0.5754 0.4615 0.4940 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       027  A in        23-3 24-3
AT  31   04   05    0.5621 0.4622 0.4842 Baruch                     046  C 22        21-4 23-5
AT  32   05   06    0.5715 0.5201 0.5052 William Paterson          055  C 26        20-7 20-7
AT  32   06   04    0.5748 0.5363 0.4993 Montclair State           058  C 28        16-6 20-6
AT  31   07   07    0.5417 0.4323 0.4873 Brooklyn                  066  A in        22-5 23-5
AT  31   08   08    0.5141 0.4653 0.4859 Lehman                    126              16-9 18-9

MA  45   01   01    0.6031 0.5352 0.5345 Franklin and Marshall      019  C 7         21-5 22-5
MA  43   02   04    0.5825 0.5051 0.5122 DeSales                   028  A in        21-5 22-5
MA  41   03   02    0.5760 0.4755 0.4957 St. Mary's (Md.)          030  C 14        18-3 21-5
MA  42   04   03    0.5943 0.5303 0.5167 Widener                   033  A in        20-5 22-5
MA  44   05   06    0.5647 0.4648 0.4894 Gwynedd-Mercy             044  A in        21-4 22-5
MA  45   06   05    0.5832 0.5527 0.5318 McDaniel                  053  C 25        16-7 18-8
MA  46   07   07    0.5644 0.4997 0.4889 Scranton                  054  B 2         20-6 21-6
MA  45   08   08    0.5905 0.5686 0.5327 Gettysburg                057  A in        18-8 18-8
MA  41   09   09    0.5589 0.4902 0.4933 Wesley                    060  A in        16-5 18-9
MA  44   10   10    0.5489 0.4892 0.4765 Cabrini                   073              20-7 20-7
MA  46   11   11    0.5386 0.4847 0.4894 Susquehanna               090  B 5         16-7 18-8

SO  51   01   03    0.6068 0.5343 0.5125 Texas-Dallas              017  A in        22-4 24-4
SO  54   02   04    0.6137 0.5594 0.5100 Centre                    018  A in        19-4 23-4
SO  53   03   01    0.5828 0.4817 0.5108 Randolph-Macon            024  C 11        18-3 20-6
SO  54   04   02    0.5846 0.4946 0.5158 Trinity (Texas)            029  C 13        20-4 23-4
SO  53   05   05    0.5757 0.4958 0.5112 Guilford                   043  C 21        20-5 21-5
SO  55   06   08    0.5751 0.5152 0.4975 Averett                   047  A in        17-5 20-8
SO  51   07   09    0.5706 0.5289 0.5047 Mississippi College       052  C 24        18-7 20-7
SO  51   08   07    0.5580 0.4873 0.5073 McMurry                   063  C 32        18-6 19-8
SO  54   09   06    0.5626 0.5131 0.5100 DePauw                    065  C 34        15-6 19-7
SO  51   10   11    0.5612 0.5198 0.5015 Mary Hardin-Baylor        071  C 38        19-8 19-8
SO  55   11   10    0.5571 0.5133 0.5016 Christopher Newport       075              14-6 18-9

GL  64   01   02    0.6174 0.5369 0.5209 John Carroll              009  A in        21-3 23-4
GL  64   02   01    0.6095 0.5381 0.5156 Capital                    016  C 6         22-4 24-4
GL  63   03   04    0.5792 0.4870 0.5031 Wooster                   035  A in        21-4 22-6
GL  62   04   03    0.5785 0.4960 0.4984 Calvin                    039  C 19        14-3 19-8
GL  62   05   06    0.5827 0.5271 0.4988 Hope                      040  A in        14-4 21-7
GL  90   06   05    0.5918 0.5449 0.5273 Carnegie Mellon            041  C 20        15-5 19-6
GL  64   07   08    0.5577 0.5223 0.5196 Ohio Northern             081              16-8 18-9
GL  63   08   07    0.5480 0.4992 0.4979 Ohio Wesleyan             084              16-7 17-8
GL  61   09   09    0.5353 0.4870 0.4854 Penn State-Behrend        096              15-7 17-9

MW  90   01   01    0.6335 0.5390 0.5396 Washington U.             002  A in        22-2 23-2
MW  71   02   02    0.6590 0.5982 0.5702 Wheaton (Ill.)            006  A in        20-3 24-3
MW  72   03   03    0.6154 0.5479 0.5085 Transylvania              011  A in        18-3 21-5
MW  71   04   04    0.6250 0.5991 0.5609 Elmhurst                   032  C 16        20-7 20-7
MW  74   05   09    0.5655 0.5005 0.5011 Lawrence                  049  A in        19-6 19-6
MW  71   06   06    0.5824 0.5409 0.5679 Augustana                 061  C 30        17-8 18-8
MW  71   07   05    0.6108 0.6241 0.5588 North Central             062  C 31        14-8 16-10
MW  74   08   07    0.5520 0.4835 0.5017 St. Norbert               072              17-6 18-6
MW  74   09   10    0.5544 0.5050 0.4931 Grinnell                  074              15-6 18-7
MW  74   10   08    0.5580 0.5283 0.5089 Carroll                   078              16-8 16-8
MW  71   11   nr    0.5628 0.5285 0.5578 Millikin                  086              14-8 16-9

WE  82   01   01    0.6357 0.5117 0.5193 St. Thomas                001  A in        26-0 27-0
WE  83   02   02    0.6183 0.4914 0.5360 Puget Sound                005  C 2         21-1 24-3
WE  86   03   03    0.6501 0.6007 0.5528 UW-Stevens Point          008  A in        22-4 23-4
WE  86   04   04    0.6221 0.5607 0.5594 UW-Whitewater              012  C 3         21-5 22-5
WE  86   05   06    0.6246 0.5820 0.5616 UW-Platteville            023  C 10        17-5 22-5
WE  81   06   05    0.5786 0.4657 0.5133 Buena Vista               025  C 12        20-3 23-3
WE  83   07   07    0.5927 0.5304 0.5184 Whitworth                 036  A in        19-5 22-5
WE  84   08   08    0.5662 0.4781 0.4827 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    045  A in        19-4 21-6
WE  81   09   10    0.5711 0.5096 0.5049 Cornell                   048  A in        19-6 21-6
WE  82   10   09    0.5691 0.5261 0.5041 Bethel                    056  C 27        18-7 20-7
WE  89   11   nr    0.5132 0.3529 0.4972 Chapman                   089  B 4         17-3 24-3


Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A in: clinched Pool A bid
    blank: lower level Pool C
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2010, 09:55:29 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on January 26, 2010, 08:56:26 PM
Final numbers from Selection Sunday 2009, courtesy of the late Patrick Abegg, with the selected Pool C teams in red...

So, unless I missed someone, 16 of the top 19 RPI Pool C teams got in, including 13 of the top 14. Guilford and Baruch were the two bigger outliers, but both had at least 20 regional wins. North Central, the #7 RPI, missed with a 14-8 regional record.

I didn't go back and look at head to head results or results against ranked teams, but it seems that generally the highest RPI teams did make it, with some exceptions for poor (or better) regional marks.

I believe that Mr. Abegg used the traditional formula for RPI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 26, 2010, 10:00:17 PM
weren't there only 18 Pool C's last year?


Hamilton got stiffed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 26, 2010, 10:10:52 PM
Quote from: sac on January 26, 2010, 10:00:17 PM
weren't there only 18 Pool C's last year?


Hamilton got stiffed.
Yes, 18 Pool C bids in 2009.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on January 26, 2010, 10:21:02 PM
Quote from: sac on January 26, 2010, 10:00:17 PM

Hamilton got stiffed.

I was at this game...

http://www.iwusports.com/custompages/MBB/MBB2009/IWU6.HTM

IWU 70
Hamilton 55


IWU was 5-9, 7th place, in the CCIW last year.  The Titans held several leads of 20 vs Hamilton I believe.  

Hamilton did not look like a tournament team to me.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2010, 10:47:43 PM
Quote from: sac on January 26, 2010, 10:00:17 PM
weren't there only 18 Pool C's last year?


Hamilton got stiffed.

That was the 16 of the top 19, plus the two outliers.

If you predicted by straight RPI, you'd have gotten three wrong. Hamilton, North Central and Bowdoin would have been in, and Trinity TX, Guilford, and Baruch would have been out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 26, 2010, 10:57:29 PM
There were 18 Pool C bids in 2009.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2010, 11:14:51 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 26, 2010, 10:57:29 PM
There were 18 Pool C bids in 2009.
Affirmative.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on January 27, 2010, 03:05:28 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on January 26, 2010, 10:21:02 PM
Quote from: sac on January 26, 2010, 10:00:17 PM

Hamilton got stiffed.

I was at this game...

http://www.iwusports.com/custompages/MBB/MBB2009/IWU6.HTM

IWU 70
Hamilton 55


IWU was 5-9, 7th place, in the CCIW last year.  The Titans held several leads of 20 vs Hamilton I believe.  

Hamilton did not look like a tournament team to me.  

sac,
Hamilton had a bad loss in the 1st round (semi-finals) of their conference tournament, to a 13-12 RPI team. If they win that game and lose in the conference finals to St. Lawrence I believe they would have gotten a Pool C. To make matters worse St. Lawrence, the likely Pool A winner, also got upset the next day by RPI and ended up with a Pool C that would have gone to Hamilton. There was no way 3 teams from the Liberty League were going to the Dance.

Titan Q,
In all fairness to Hamilton, they were missing, arguably, their best player for the IWU game last year. If they had gotten in they probably would have faced Richard Stockton in the 1st round anyway (that's who RPI played) and lost. St Lawrence went on to the sweet 16 and lost to Richard Stockton 71-68 and SLU was clearly the best team in the LL last year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fantastic50 on January 27, 2010, 08:29:04 AM
If anyone has final numbers (record, regional record, OWP, OOWP, record vs. ranked regional opponents, etc.) for seasons prior to 2009, please send me a message.  I'm a math professor at Wooster, and am interested in having a student work on modeling the Pool C selections.  The hope would be to at least get a better sense of how in-region WP, OWP, and OOWP are weighted.  Thanks for any help that anyone can provide with the data!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on January 27, 2010, 08:30:38 AM
I think the most significant thing about Patrick Abegg's numbers last year (in terms of predicting Pool C bids), is that he did a very good job identifying the potential order of the Pool C candidates by region.  Everyone familiar with the selection process (each region having a team "at the table", etc) knows just how important that factor is.

I only see three teams he missed:

1) Hamilton in front of St. Lawrence in the East, and
2) Randolph-Macon in front of both Trinity and Guilford in the South.
3) Calvin ahead of Carnegie Mellon in the Great Lakes


It will always be very difficult for us to predict how the national selection committee will evaluate two Pool C candidates from different regions (I think the philosophy probably changes every year based on committee personnel to some degree).  But if we can get close to figuring out the order for each region, I think it makes it pretty easy to nail about 16 or 17 of the 19.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2010, 08:51:27 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on January 27, 2010, 08:30:38 AM
It will always be very difficult for us to predict how the national selection committee will evaluate two Pool C candidates from different regions (I think the philosophy probably changes every year based on committee personnel to some degree).  But if we can get close to figuring out the order for each region, I think it makes it pretty easy to nail about 16 or 17 of the 19.

This is key. As selection committee personell turns over, the way they handle the bubble teams probably changes also. So figuring out who those last 2 or 3 teams are going to be may be impossible for any model to determine.

Based on last year's results, it seems that RPI alone may be good enough to determine 16 or so of the Pool C teams. H*p*fully the regional rankings leading up to selection day will give us an idea of how the NCAA's rankings match up to, or differ from, RPI rankings so that we can make a more educated prediction than a plain RPI number would otherwise give us.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 27, 2010, 11:38:58 AM
Remembering Calvin and Hamilton specifically, I think it's worth noting that both would have struggled in the secondary criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 27, 2010, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2010, 08:51:27 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on January 27, 2010, 08:30:38 AM
It will always be very difficult for us to predict how the national selection committee will evaluate two Pool C candidates from different regions (I think the philosophy probably changes every year based on committee personnel to some degree).  But if we can get close to figuring out the order for each region, I think it makes it pretty easy to nail about 16 or 17 of the 19.

This is key. As selection committee personell turns over, the way they handle the bubble teams probably changes also. So figuring out who those last 2 or 3 teams are going to be may be impossible for any model to determine.

Based on last year's results, it seems that RPI alone may be good enough to determine 16 or so of the Pool C teams. H*p*fully the regional rankings leading up to selection day will give us an idea of how the NCAA's rankings match up to, or differ from, RPI rankings so that we can make a more educated prediction than a plain RPI number would otherwise give us.
Hmmm...

"H*p*fully"

Knightslappy, I have a question.

My Jewish friends refer to the Almighty in print by spelling that word, "G*d".

Is that same principle being used here?  

Just curious  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2010, 02:27:10 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 27, 2010, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2010, 08:51:27 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on January 27, 2010, 08:30:38 AM
It will always be very difficult for us to predict how the national selection committee will evaluate two Pool C candidates from different regions (I think the philosophy probably changes every year based on committee personnel to some degree).  But if we can get close to figuring out the order for each region, I think it makes it pretty easy to nail about 16 or 17 of the 19.

This is key. As selection committee personell turns over, the way they handle the bubble teams probably changes also. So figuring out who those last 2 or 3 teams are going to be may be impossible for any model to determine.

Based on last year's results, it seems that RPI alone may be good enough to determine 16 or so of the Pool C teams. H*p*fully the regional rankings leading up to selection day will give us an idea of how the NCAA's rankings match up to, or differ from, RPI rankings so that we can make a more educated prediction than a plain RPI number would otherwise give us.
Hmmm...

"H*p*fully"

Knightslappy, I have a question.

My Jewish friends refer to the Almighty in print by spelling that word, "G*d".

Is that same principle being used here? 

Just curious  ;)

Pretty much the opposite.  ;) ;)

I just couldn't bring myself to type it during Rivalry week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on January 27, 2010, 11:14:51 PM
Quote from: fantastic50 on January 27, 2010, 08:29:04 AM
If anyone has final numbers (record, regional record, OWP, OOWP, record vs. ranked regional opponents, etc.) for seasons prior to 2009, please send me a message.  I'm a math professor at Wooster, and am interested in having a student work on modeling the Pool C selections.  The hope would be to at least get a better sense of how in-region WP, OWP, and OOWP are weighted.  Thanks for any help that anyone can provide with the data!
Best. I.S. (http://wooster.edu/Independent-Study) Ever.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fantastic50 on January 28, 2010, 09:15:43 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 27, 2010, 11:14:51 PM
Quote from: fantastic50 on January 27, 2010, 08:29:04 AM
If anyone has final numbers (record, regional record, OWP, OOWP, record vs. ranked regional opponents, etc.) for seasons prior to 2009, please send me a message.  I'm a math professor at Wooster, and am interested in having a student work on modeling the Pool C selections.  The hope would be to at least get a better sense of how in-region WP, OWP, and OOWP are weighted.  Thanks for any help that anyone can provide with the data!
Best. I.S. (http://wooster.edu/Independent-Study) Ever.

LOL!  Perhaps not quite enough there for a senior I.S., but I'm thinking this might make a nice sophomore research project.  Hopefully, a couple of students will be doing something similar (using neural networks) on D-I this summer, since there's a mountain of data readily available on D-I basketball.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2010, 09:59:37 AM
Through scores reported through Thursday's (1/28/2010) games:

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                       
NE   01   0.800   0.542   0.578   0.554   0.6155   017   C   008    12-3    12-3   UAA      Brandeis
NE   02   0.929   0.497   0.525   0.507   0.6121   019   A   C      13-1    17-1   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   03   0.917   0.469   0.562   0.500   0.6041   024   C   011    11-1    13-2   NESCAC   Colby
NE   04   0.941   0.465   0.533   0.488   0.6013   027   A   C      16-1    17-2   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   05   1.000   0.425   0.551   0.467   0.6003   028   C   014    16-0    18-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   06   0.722   0.581   0.513   0.558   0.5990   029   A   C      13-5    13-5   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   07   0.786   0.520   0.533   0.524   0.5897   042   A   C-2    11-3    12-5   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   08   0.722   0.558   0.513   0.543   0.5881   045   C   025    13-5    13-5   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   09   0.765   0.519   0.518   0.518   0.5801   057   C   033    13-4    14-4   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   10   0.846   0.463   0.541   0.489   0.5782   060   A          11-2    12-2   NAC      Thomas
NE   11   0.667   0.555   0.488   0.532   0.5659   073   A          10-5    11-6   GNAC     Emerson
NE   12   0.667   0.535   0.521   0.530   0.5643   078   C   044    12-6    12-6   LEC      Rhode Island College
NE   13   0.733   0.502   0.519   0.508   0.5642   079   C   045    11-4    12-4   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   14   0.429   0.665   0.487   0.606   0.5614   082   C   048     6-8    8-10   NESCAC   Bates
                                       
E   001   0.833   0.541   0.547   0.543   0.6155   016   A   C      15-3    16-3   E8       St. John Fisher
E   002   0.667   0.606   0.532   0.581   0.6026   025   C   012     8-4    12-4   UAA      Rochester
E   003   0.769   0.547   0.525   0.539   0.5968   031   A   C      10-3    12-4   SUNYAC   Brockport State
E   004   0.733   0.566   0.520   0.551   0.5963   033   C   016    11-4    12-4   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   005   0.750   0.547   0.530   0.541   0.5932   038   C   020    12-4    13-4   E8       Stevens
E   006   0.714   0.559   0.527   0.548   0.5898   041   C   023    10-4    13-5   E8       Ithaca
E   007   0.667   0.569   0.547   0.562   0.5881   044   C   024    10-5    11-5   UAA      New York University
E   008   0.688   0.555   0.553   0.554   0.5877   047   C   027    11-5    12-6   E8       Nazareth
                                       
A   001   0.950   0.502   0.530   0.511   0.6208   014   A   C      19-1    19-1   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.824   0.557   0.509   0.541   0.6115   021   A   C      14-3    15-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   003   0.722   0.584   0.538   0.569   0.6072   022   C   010    13-5    14-5   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   004   0.824   0.500   0.549   0.516   0.5931   039   C   021    14-3    14-4   NJAC     Ramapo
A   005   0.706   0.548   0.505   0.534   0.5769   061   A          12-5    15-5   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
A   006   0.667   0.538   0.534   0.537   0.5693   069   C   037    10-5    14-5   NJAC     Rowan
A   007   0.706   0.526   0.484   0.512   0.5605   083   A          12-5    12-5   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
A   008   0.667   0.524   0.524   0.524   0.5597   085   C   050    10-5    11-6   NJAC     New Jersey
                                       
MA   01   0.875   0.599   0.539   0.579   0.6532   003   A   C      14-2    15-2   MACC     Albright
MA   02   0.786   0.604   0.540   0.583   0.6335   007   C   002    11-3     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   03   0.867   0.554   0.534   0.547   0.6271   010   C   003    13-2    16-2   MACC     Lycoming
MA   04   0.769   0.589   0.536   0.571   0.6207   015   C   007    10-3    11-5   MACC     Messiah
MA   05   0.813   0.561   0.514   0.545   0.6119   020   A   C      13-3    15-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   06   0.706   0.587   0.529   0.568   0.6025   026   C   013    12-5    12-5   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   07   0.813   0.524   0.513   0.520   0.5933   037   A   C-2    13-3    14-4   MACF     DeSales
MA   08   0.600   0.633   0.503   0.590   0.5922   040   C   022     9-6    11-7   LAND     Susquehanna
                                       
S   001   0.882   0.564   0.515   0.547   0.6310   009   A   C      15-2    17-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   002   0.944   0.498   0.543   0.513   0.6209   013   C   006    17-1    17-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   003   0.917   0.512   0.521   0.515   0.6154   018   C   009    11-1    15-2   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   004   0.846   0.524   0.528   0.525   0.6056   023   B   001    11-2    16-3   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   005   0.733   0.565   0.527   0.552   0.5977   030   C   015    11-4    12-4   UAA      Emory
S   006   0.750   0.553   0.521   0.543   0.5945   034   C   017     9-3    15-3   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   007   0.846   0.482   0.515   0.493   0.5815   055   N/A        11-2    15-2   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   008   0.875   0.472   0.499   0.481   0.5794   059   A          14-2    14-3   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   009   0.706   0.548   0.495   0.530   0.5743   065   A          12-5    12-5   SCAC     Austin
S   010   0.750   0.516   0.502   0.511   0.5711   068   C   036    12-4    14-4   SCAC     DePauw
S   011   0.765   0.502   0.494   0.499   0.5657   075   C   041    13-4    13-5   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
                                       
GL   01   0.813   0.523   0.528   0.525   0.5967   032   A   C      13-3    14-4   OAC      Wilmington
GL   02   0.889   0.480   0.507   0.489   0.5890   043   A   C-2     8-1    12-6   MIAA     Calvin
GL   03   0.688   0.582   0.499   0.554   0.5875   048   C   028    11-5    12-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   04   0.778   0.525   0.501   0.517   0.5820   053   C   031     7-2    12-6   MIAA     Hope
GL   05   0.824   0.481   0.517   0.493   0.5757   064   A          14-3    14-4   NCAC     Wooster
GL   06   0.800   0.457   0.500   0.471   0.5536   097   C   060    12-3    12-4   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   07   0.714   0.459   0.551   0.490   0.5458   106   C   068    10-4    12-6   OAC      Heidelberg
GL   08   0.722   0.471   0.507   0.483   0.5431   111   A          13-5    13-5   PrAC     Thomas More
GL   09   0.714   0.483   0.491   0.486   0.5427   113   C   073    10-4    14-4   NCAC     Wittenberg
                                       
MW   01   0.846   0.598   0.548   0.581   0.6474   004   A   C      11-2    14-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.833   0.579   0.557   0.571   0.6368   006   A   C      10-2    14-4   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.824   0.564   0.534   0.554   0.6212   012   C   005    14-3    15-3   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   04   0.706   0.565   0.541   0.557   0.5941   036   C   019    12-5    13-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   05   0.933   0.439   0.533   0.471   0.5863   050   A          14-1    15-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   06   0.882   0.462   0.498   0.474   0.5760   063   A          15-2    17-2   HCAC     Anderson
MW   07   0.778   0.510   0.499   0.506   0.5742   067   C   035    14-4    15-4   HCAC     Defiance
MW   08   0.500   0.625   0.521   0.590   0.5677   071   C   039     7-7     9-7   UAA      Chicago
MW   09   0.917   0.426   0.496   0.449   0.5658   074   A          11-1    14-4   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   10   0.647   0.529   0.553   0.537   0.5645   077   C   043    11-6    11-7   CCIW     Augustana
MW   11   0.500   0.588   0.496   0.557   0.5430   112   C   072     9-9    10-9   HCAC     Transylvania
                                       
W   001   0.889   0.642   0.554   0.613   0.6819   001   A   C      16-2    16-2   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   002   0.889   0.613   0.564   0.597   0.6698   002   C   001    16-2    17-2   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   003   0.867   0.578   0.543   0.567   0.6417   005   A   C      13-2    16-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.867   0.556   0.545   0.553   0.6310   008   A   C      13-2    15-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   005   0.765   0.581   0.562   0.575   0.6221   011   C   004    13-4    14-5   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   006   0.875   0.494   0.513   0.501   0.5942   035   C   018     7-1     9-7   NWC      Linfield
W   007   0.688   0.568   0.528   0.555   0.5879   046   C   026    11-5    11-5   MIAC     Augsburg
W   008   0.750   0.531   0.538   0.533   0.5873   049   C   029    12-4    12-6   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   009   0.571   0.595   0.557   0.582   0.5796   058   C   034     8-6    10-8   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   010   0.938   0.424   0.512   0.453   0.5742   066   B   002    15-1    18-2   IND      Chapman
W   011   0.611   0.555   0.550   0.554   0.5679   070   C   038    11-7    11-7   WIAC     UW-Eau Claire
W   012   0.600   0.565   0.534   0.555   0.5662   072   C   040     9-6    10-7   MIAC     St. Johns
                                       
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                           
         B   Pool B eligible team                           
         C   At large candidate                           
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                           
                                       
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                           
                                       
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                            
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                            
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                           
                                       
      Updated:   1/29/2010            
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on January 29, 2010, 04:27:06 PM
KnightSlappy,

Medaille was 5th in the East in your previous rankings with a 16-1 regional record and RPI of .5927. They win the only game they've played since then, are now 17-1 in Region and they fall off the list? How did Nazareth who was in 7th place previously with an RPI of .5897 lose their only game since then and move ahead of Medaille? Can that be right? Just asking because it seems odd. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2010, 04:37:01 PM
Quote from: magicman on January 29, 2010, 04:27:06 PM
KnightSlappy,

Medaille was 5th in the East in your previous rankings with a 16-1 regional record and RPI of .5927. They win the only game they've played since then, are now 17-1 in Region and they fall off the list? How did Nazareth who was in 7th place previously with an RPI of .5897 lose their only game since then and move ahead of Medaille? Can that be right? Just asking because it seems odd. 

I have 17-1 Medaille as #9 in the East now with an RPI of .5847. They took a hit to their OWP by playing 2-15 Hilbert. Because they already had a good WP, it couldn't go up that much by winning, so the 2-13 they took into their OWP from Hilbert hurt their RPI more than the win helped it.

Similar thing happened to Calvin from beating Alma (0-15) on wednesday. They only dropped one spot in the GL, but they went from the #18 RPI in the nation to #43, so their Pool C chances are affected.

Nazareth, on the other hand, lost to St. John Fisher (15-3). So even though they lost, their RPI wasn't hurt too badly becuase their OWP was boosted.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on January 29, 2010, 05:28:31 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2010, 04:37:01 PM
Quote from: magicman on January 29, 2010, 04:27:06 PM
KnightSlappy,

Medaille was 5th in the East in your previous rankings with a 16-1 regional record and RPI of .5927. They win the only game they've played since then, are now 17-1 in Region and they fall off the list? How did Nazareth who was in 7th place previously with an RPI of .5897 lose their only game since then and move ahead of Medaille? Can that be right? Just asking because it seems odd. 

I have 17-1 Medaille as #9 in the East now with an RPI of .5847. They took a hit to their OWP by playing 2-15 Hilbert. Because they already had a good WP, it couldn't go up that much by winning, so the 2-13 they took into their OWP from Hilbert hurt their RPI more than the win helped it.

Similar thing happened to Calvin from beating Alma (0-15) on wednesday. They only dropped one spot in the GL, but they went from the #18 RPI in the nation to #43, so their Pool C chances are affected.

Nazareth, on the other hand, lost to St. John Fisher (15-3). So even though they lost, their RPI wasn't hurt too badly becuase their OWP was boosted.

KS,

Thanks. I knew that Hilbert game wouldn't help much but thought  the loss by Naz, even a good loss, wouldn't push them ahead of Medaille. After all a W is usually better than an L. ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 29, 2010, 05:38:12 PM
Still is - imagine if Naz had beaten SJF! ;)

Or Medaille had lost to Hilbert!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scout on January 29, 2010, 07:29:29 PM
Quote from: magicman on January 29, 2010, 05:28:31 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2010, 04:37:01 PM
Quote from: magicman on January 29, 2010, 04:27:06 PM
KnightSlappy,

Medaille was 5th in the East in your previous rankings with a 16-1 regional record and RPI of .5927. They win the only game they've played since then, are now 17-1 in Region and they fall off the list? How did Nazareth who was in 7th place previously with an RPI of .5897 lose their only game since then and move ahead of Medaille? Can that be right? Just asking because it seems odd. 

I have 17-1 Medaille as #9 in the East now with an RPI of .5847. They took a hit to their OWP by playing 2-15 Hilbert. Because they already had a good WP, it couldn't go up that much by winning, so the 2-13 they took into their OWP from Hilbert hurt their RPI more than the win helped it.

Similar thing happened to Calvin from beating Alma (0-15) on wednesday. They only dropped one spot in the GL, but they went from the #18 RPI in the nation to #43, so their Pool C chances are affected.

Nazareth, on the other hand, lost to St. John Fisher (15-3). So even though they lost, their RPI wasn't hurt too badly becuase their OWP was boosted.

KS,

Thanks. I knew that Hilbert game wouldn't help much but thought  the loss by Naz, even a good loss, wouldn't push them ahead of Medaille. After all a W is usually better than an L. ;D

I'm assuming a similar case happened to Gordon in the Northeast. Once they started to play the other teams in TCCC play, the SOS and OWP probably began to drop significantly... hurting their numbers despite owning a 14-3 record.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: with age came? on January 30, 2010, 01:10:18 AM
Novice to this board - so no laughter please!!   Is this regional ranking d3 official or a accurate model based on criteria used by selection people? Also wondered about the total lack of a Liberty League team in the top eight of the east.  Some decent league wins Clarkson on the road over U of R and beating Cortland at home.  Skidmore over NYU. If memory serves Hobart over SJF early in the season too. Also some "good losses" (sounds like an oxymoron to me) to Middlebury and MIT by league members RPI & Skidmore.  Know there are some real "bad losses" Clarkson to Elmira etc. but I thought that at least one team would crack the region top 8. Curious only...knowledge is power!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 30, 2010, 09:25:02 AM
Quote from: with age came? on January 30, 2010, 01:10:18 AM
Novice to this board - so no laughter please!!   Is this regional ranking d3 official or a accurate model based on criteria used by selection people? Also wondered about the total lack of a Liberty League team in the top eight of the east.  Some decent league wins Clarkson on the road over U of R and beating Cortland at home.  Skidmore over NYU. If memory serves Hobart over SJF early in the season too. Also some "good losses" (sounds like an oxymoron to me) to Middlebury and MIT by league members RPI & Skidmore.  Know there are some real "bad losses" Clarkson to Elmira etc. but I thought that at least one team would crack the region top 8. Curious only...knowledge is power!!!

The rankings that I do are not official, the first real NCAA rankings will come out on the 3rd.

These rankings are based solely on RPI which uses two of the NCAA's Primary criteria in the formula. Winning Percentage, and Strength of Schedule.

In the past, RPI has been a reasonable (but not exact) indicator of the NCAA's official rankings.

As for the LL, there's just not any team with a good enough record to crack the rankings. Clarkson's got the best win percentage, at 0.6154 (very ho-hum), and they've had a pretty easy schedule (0.444), so their RPI comes out pretty low still (0.4869).

I have the top LL team as Skidmore (8-6). Their RPI of 0.5455 puts them #12 in the East Region.

Here's the Liberty League Data:

REG Rank Team          WP      OWP     OOWP     RPI   NAT   CON Pool      REG   OVR   CONF
E   12   Skidmore     .5714   .5645   .4815   .5455   107   1   A         8-6   10-6   LL
E   14   Union        .5385   .5650   .4835   .5380   123   2   C   083   7-6   7-8    LL
E   16   RPI          .6000   .5072   .4831   .5244   153   3   C   109   6-4   11-4   LL
E   17   Hamilton     .5000   .5280   .4998   .5139   177   4   C   132   6-6   7-8    LL
E   21   Hobart       .5625   .4545   .5390   .5027   210   5   C   163   9-7   9-7    LL
E   27   Clarkson     .6154   .4012   .5299   .4869   250   6   C   198   8-5   9-6    LL
E   28   St. Lawrence .4667   .4564   .5247   .4760   265   7   C   213   7-8   7-9    LL
E   31   Vassar       .0714   .5879   .4800   .4318   331   8   C   273   1-13  2-14   LL

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2010, 10:15:00 PM
As always, rankings based on in-region RPI.

Should be correct through Sunday's games, but let me know if you see an error:

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI      NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                       
NE   01   0.929   0.521   0.545   0.529   0.6290   007   A   C      13-1    15-2   NESCAC   Colby
NE   02   0.867   0.537   0.507   0.527   0.6122   016   C   007    13-2    17-2   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   03   0.824   0.521   0.573   0.538   0.6093   018   C   009    14-3    14-3   UAA      Brandeis
NE   04   1.000   0.446   0.539   0.477   0.6080   020   C   010    17-0    19-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   05   0.944   0.479   0.528   0.496   0.6078   021   A   C      17-1    18-2   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   06   0.684   0.590   0.509   0.563   0.5936   032   A   C      13-6    13-6   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   07   0.800   0.502   0.536   0.513   0.5851   044   A   C-2    12-3    13-5   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   08   0.684   0.566   0.510   0.548   0.5818   051   C   029    13-6    13-6   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   09   0.750   0.513   0.525   0.517   0.5752   060   C   034    12-4    13-4   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   10   0.722   0.534   0.511   0.526   0.5752   061   C   035    13-5    14-5   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   11   0.688   0.550   0.491   0.531   0.5698   069   A          11-5    12-6   GNAC     Emerson
NE   12   0.824   0.470   0.511   0.484   0.5689   072   C   040    14-3    14-4   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   13   0.824   0.468   0.511   0.482   0.5675   076   A          14-3    15-3   CCC      Gordon
NE   14   0.500   0.628   0.506   0.587   0.5656   079   C   045     8-8   10-10   NESCAC   Bates
                                       
E   001   0.778   0.567   0.525   0.553   0.6091   019   A   C      14-4    15-4   E8       Stevens
E   002   0.789   0.548   0.540   0.545   0.6063   023   C   012    15-4    16-4   E8       St. John Fisher
E   003   0.643   0.607   0.539   0.585   0.5992   026   C   014     9-5    13-5   UAA      Rochester
E   004   0.733   0.551   0.517   0.540   0.5881   039   A   C-2    11-4    13-5   SUNYAC   Brockport State
E   005   0.706   0.542   0.549   0.544   0.5847   045   C   024    12-5    13-5   UAA      New York University
E   006   0.667   0.564   0.540   0.556   0.5835   046   C   025    12-6    13-7   E8       Nazareth
E   007   0.947   0.438   0.503   0.460   0.5816   052   A          18-1    19-1   AMCC     Medaille
E   008   0.667   0.556   0.526   0.546   0.5759   057   C   032    10-5    13-6   E8       Ithaca
                                       
A   001   0.952   0.504   0.533   0.514   0.6234   010   A   C      20-1    20-1   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.700   0.587   0.537   0.571   0.6030   024   C   013    14-6    15-6   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   003   0.789   0.550   0.508   0.536   0.5991   027   A   C      15-4    16-4   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   004   0.789   0.511   0.542   0.522   0.5887   038   C   020    15-4    15-5   NJAC     Ramapo
A   005   0.722   0.534   0.510   0.526   0.5753   059   A          13-5    16-5   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
A   006   0.688   0.539   0.525   0.534   0.5725   065   C   037    11-5    15-6   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
A   007   0.625   0.562   0.528   0.550   0.5691   070   C   039    10-6    14-6   NJAC     Rowan
A   008   0.737   0.508   0.515   0.510   0.5669   077   C   043    14-5    15-5   CUNYAC   Baruch
                                       
MA   01   0.882   0.600   0.541   0.580   0.6559   003   A   C      15-2    16-2   MACC     Albright
MA   02   0.813   0.571   0.529   0.557   0.6211   011   C   003    13-3    16-3   MACC     Lycoming
MA   03   0.733   0.597   0.540   0.578   0.6166   014   C   005    11-4     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   04   0.722   0.601   0.526   0.576   0.6125   015   C   006    13-5    13-5   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   05   0.714   0.588   0.536   0.570   0.6064   022   C   011    10-4    11-7   MACC     Messiah
MA   06   0.824   0.529   0.520   0.526   0.6006   025   A   C      14-3    16-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   07   0.588   0.632   0.499   0.588   0.5878   040   C   021    10-7    12-8   LAND     Susquehanna
MA   08   0.765   0.542   0.501   0.528   0.5875   041   C   022    13-4    15-4   CAC      York (Pa.)
                                       
S   001   0.882   0.563   0.516   0.547   0.6310   006   A   C      15-2    17-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   002   0.947   0.507   0.541   0.519   0.6258   008   C   002    18-1    18-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   003   0.846   0.511   0.528   0.516   0.5989   028   C   015    11-2    15-3   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   004   0.882   0.504   0.500   0.502   0.5974   030   A   C      15-2    16-3   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   005   0.692   0.590   0.514   0.565   0.5966   031   C   016     9-4    15-4   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   006   0.737   0.563   0.498   0.541   0.5899   035   A   C      14-5    14-5   SCAC     Austin
S   007   0.786   0.531   0.512   0.524   0.5898   036   B   001    11-3    16-4   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   008   0.706   0.560   0.532   0.551   0.5894   037   C   019    12-5    13-5   UAA      Emory
S   009   0.800   0.498   0.509   0.502   0.5762   055   N/A        12-3    16-3   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   010   0.722   0.526   0.496   0.516   0.5676   074   C   042    13-5    15-5   SCAC     DePauw
S   011   0.778   0.491   0.500   0.494   0.5648   080   C   046    14-4    14-5   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
                                       
GL   01   0.800   0.548   0.499   0.532   0.5986   029   A   C       8-2    13-6   MIAA     Hope
GL   02   0.706   0.570   0.500   0.547   0.5868   042   A   C-2    12-5    13-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   03   0.765   0.520   0.525   0.522   0.5827   049   C   027    13-4    14-5   OAC      Wilmington
GL   04   0.800   0.509   0.502   0.507   0.5799   053   C   030     8-2    12-7   MIAA     Calvin
GL   05   0.833   0.465   0.512   0.481   0.5689   071   A          15-3    15-4   NCAC     Wooster
GL   06   0.813   0.469   0.498   0.479   0.5624   083   C   048    13-3    13-4   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   07   0.737   0.468   0.506   0.480   0.5445   114   A          14-5    14-5   PrAC     Thomas More
GL   08   0.778   0.440   0.503   0.461   0.5402   119   C   079    14-4    14-5   PrAC     Bethany
GL   09   0.556   0.543   0.508   0.531   0.5374   124   C   084    10-8    11-8   OAC      Baldwin-Wallace
                                       
MW   01   0.867   0.599   0.546   0.581   0.6528   004   A   C      13-2    16-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.846   0.600   0.553   0.584   0.6498   005   A   C      11-2    15-4   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.778   0.579   0.532   0.563   0.6170   013   C   004    14-4    15-4   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   04   0.938   0.435   0.526   0.465   0.5833   047   A   C-2    15-1    16-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   05   0.667   0.563   0.539   0.555   0.5829   048   C   026    12-6    13-6   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   06   0.882   0.457   0.493   0.469   0.5722   066   A          15-2    17-2   HCAC     Anderson
MW   07   0.737   0.516   0.495   0.509   0.5660   078   C   044    14-5    15-5   HCAC     Defiance
MW   08   0.667   0.511   0.558   0.527   0.5617   086   C   051    12-6    12-7   CCIW     Augustana
MW   09   0.923   0.401   0.500   0.434   0.5564   093   A          12-1    15-4   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   10   0.438   0.629   0.521   0.593   0.5541   096   C   059     7-9     9-9   UAA      Chicago
MW   11   0.571   0.554   0.516   0.541   0.5488   108   C   071     8-6    10-9   CCIW     North Central (Ill.)
                                       
W   001   0.895   0.612   0.560   0.595   0.6696   001   A   C      17-2    18-2   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   002   0.842   0.639   0.550   0.610   0.6678   002   C   001    16-3    16-3   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   003   0.875   0.540   0.544   0.542   0.6250   009   A   C      14-2    17-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.882   0.524   0.546   0.532   0.6192   012   A   C      15-2    17-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   005   0.722   0.580   0.563   0.574   0.6109   017   C   008    13-5    14-6   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   006   0.600   0.603   0.560   0.588   0.5914   033   C   017     9-6    11-8   WIAC     UW-Platteville
W   007   0.706   0.566   0.524   0.552   0.5903   034   C   018    12-5    12-5   MIAC     Augsburg
W   008   0.750   0.529   0.536   0.531   0.5858   043   C   023    12-4    12-6   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   009   0.500   0.633   0.549   0.605   0.5788   054   C   031     7-7    10-9   WIAC     UW-Stout
W   010   0.800   0.488   0.519   0.498   0.5735   063   C   036     8-2    10-8   NWC      Linfield
W   011   0.938   0.419   0.512   0.450   0.5716   067   B   002    15-1    18-2   IND      Chapman
W   012   0.625   0.564   0.532   0.553   0.5712   068   C   038    10-6    11-7   MIAC     St. Johns
                                       
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                           
         B   Pool B eligible team                           
         C   At large candidate                           
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                           
                                       
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                           
                                       
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                            
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                            
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                           
                                       
      Updated:   1/31/2010                              
      


The first set of NCAA rankings come out on Wednesday.

Maybe it's just me that missed this, but in the handbook it says that a set of rankings will be release on Sunday Feb. 28. Does that mean that there won't be a secret ranking this year? Did we already know this?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 31, 2010, 10:22:59 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2010, 10:15:00 PM
Maybe it's just me that missed this, but in the handbook it says that a set of rankings will be release on Sunday Feb. 28. Does that mean that there won't be a secret ranking this year? Did we already know this?

They have been talking about this quite often on Hoopsville this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on January 31, 2010, 10:35:31 PM
KnightSlappy,

I don't know if this will affect the Empire 8 teams that are ranked in the East region but I discovered that RIT had a game against Roberts Wesleyan on January 16th, and listed as a 99-76 RIT win on the D3Hoops team page. They actually lost that game 99-76 and that would make their won-loss record 8-10 instead of 9-9. The game is not an in-region result, so it might not matter.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 01, 2010, 09:40:31 AM
Quote from: magicman on January 31, 2010, 10:35:31 PM
KnightSlappy,

I don't know if this will affect the Empire 8 teams that are ranked in the East region but I discovered that RIT had a game against Roberts Wesleyan on January 16th, and listed as a 99-76 RIT win on the D3Hoops team page. They actually lost that game 99-76 and that would make their won-loss record 8-10 instead of 9-9. The game is not an in-region result, so it might not matter.

If it's out of region, it won't affect any of the calculated numbers so it won't change anything on my end. Thanks for the heads-up though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: with age came? on February 02, 2010, 11:59:25 PM
In my thirst for knowledge I show my ignorance.  I assume all league games are in region but I also thought that any game within a certain distance (200 or 250 miles perhaps) would count as in region as say RPI traveling to Middlebury (even though that team they are playing would be from the Northeast region).  Again knowledge is power.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2010, 12:02:53 AM
200 miles by the official NCAA mileage tables is the criterion.

https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/TES/exec/miles

173 miles and therefore in-region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 03, 2010, 10:23:09 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2010, 12:02:53 AM
200 miles by the official NCAA mileage tables is the criterion.

https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/TES/exec/miles

173 miles and therefore in-region.

Yeah, the RPI/MIT game was brought up earlier on this board.  That is in-region for both teams as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2010, 06:46:46 PM
Teams in BOLD lead their respective conferences-also known as Pool A - Automatic Qualifiers



Atlantic Region
1. William Paterson 19-1 20-1 (NJAC)
2. Merchant Marine 15-4 16-4 (LAND)-tied with Catholic
3. Ramapo 14-4 15-5 (NJAC)
4. York (N.Y.) 13-5 16-5 (CUNYAC)
5. Richard Stockton 14-5 14-6 (NJAC)

East Region
1. St. John Fisher 15-4 16-4 (Empire 8)
2. Stevens 15-4 15-4 (Empire 8)
3. New York University 12-5 13-5 (UAA)
4. Medaille 18-1 19-1(AMCC)
5. Rochester 9-5 13-5 (UAA)
6. Nazareth 12-6 13-7 (Empire 8)

Great Lakes Region
1. Wooster 15-3 15-4 (NCAC)
2. Wilmington (Ohio) 13-4 14-5 (OAC)-tied with John Carroll
3. Hope 8-2 13-6 (MIAA)
4. Calvin 8-2 12-7 (MIAA)
5. Penn State-Behrend 13-3 13-4 (AMCC)
6. Thomas More 14-5 14-5 (PrAC)

Middle Atlantic Region
1. Albright 14-1 16-2 (MAC-Commonwealth)
2. Lycoming 12-3 16-3 (MAC-Commonwealth)
3. Cabrini 16-2 16-2 (CSAC)
4. Franklin and Marshall 16-3 16-3 (Centennial)
5. St. Mary's (Md.) 13-3 16-3 (CAC)
6. Elizabethtown 13-5 13-5 (MAC-Commonwealth)
7. York (Pa.) 14-4 15-4 (CAC)
8. Alvernia 11-4 13-6 (MAC-Commonwealth)
9. Catholic 13-4 15-5 (LAND)-tied with Merchant Marine

Midwest Region
1. Washington U. 13-2 16-2 (UAA)
2. Carthage 11-2 15-4 (CCIW)
3. St. Norbert 15-1 16-1 (MWC)
4. Illinois Wesleyan 14-4 15-4 (CCIW)
5. Anderson 15-2 17-2 (HCAC)
6. Wheaton (Ill.) 12-6 13-6 (CCIW)
7. Augustana 12-6 12-7 (CCIW)
8. Westminster (Mo.) 12-1 15-4 (SLIAC)

Northeast Region
1. Williams 17-0 19-1(NESCAC)-tied with Colby
2. MIT 17-1 18-2 (NEWMAC)
3. Colby 13-1 15-2 (NESCAC)-tied with Williams
4. Middlebury 13-2 17-2 (NESCAC)
5. Brandeis 14-3 14-3 (UAA)
6. Bridgewater State 12-3 13-5 (MASCAC)
7. Gordon 14-3 15-3 (CCC)
8. Western Connecticut 12-4 13-4 (LEC)
9. Mass-Dartmouth 13-6 13-6 (LEC)
10. Rhode Island College 13-6 13-6 (LEC)
11. Eastern Connecticut 13-6 13-6 (LEC)

South Region
1. Guilford 18-1 18-1 (ODAC)
2. Virginia Wesleyan 15-2 17-2 (ODAC)
3. Texas-Dallas 15-2 16-3 (ASC-East)
4. Eastern Mennonite 11-2 15-3 (ODAC)
5. Maryville (Tenn.)11-3 16-4 (GSAC)  Pool B  
6. Austin 14-5 14-5 (SCAC-West)
7. Mary Hardin-Baylor 14-4 14-5 (ASC-West)
8. Mississippi College 11-3 15-3 (ASC-East)

West Region
1. UW-Whitewater 16-3 16-3 (WIAC)
2. UW-Stevens Point 17-2 18-2 (WIAC)
3. St. Thomas 14-2 17-2 (MIAC)
4. Whitworth 15-2 17-2 (NWC)
5. UW-La Crosse 13-5 14-6 (WIAC)
6. Gustavus Adolphus 12-4 12-6 (MIAC)
7. Chapman 15-1 18-2 (IND)  Pool B
8. Central 14-2 16-4 (IIAC)
9. Augsburg 12-5 13-5 (MIAC)


[EDIT] Respectfully proofread..  Pool B bids placed in italics!
ASC-West#1 seed hosts the men's tourney.
SCAC tourney is at Millsaps.

Great Job!  +1!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 03, 2010, 06:49:30 PM
Nicely done.

One small addition: Like Maryville (Tenn.), Chapman cannot get an A.  I know you know that, but it's for others using your handiwork. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 03, 2010, 07:02:39 PM
Nice work, Tom.

So as of today, the "first to the table"...

Ramapo (Atlantic)
Stevens (East)
Hope (Great Lakes)
Lycoming (Mid-Atlantic)
Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest)
Middlebury (Northeast)
Virginia Wesleyan (South)
UW-Stevens Point (West)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2010, 07:12:30 PM
Well, both Point and Whitewater can't have Pool A bids, so the "loser" would get the Pool C...right now, Point, since Whitewater has the tie-breaker.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 03, 2010, 07:13:55 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 03, 2010, 07:12:30 PM
Well, both Point and Whitewater can't have Pool A bids, so the "loser" would get the Pool C...right now, Point, since Whitewater has the tie-breaker.  ;)

Fixed (above)!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 03, 2010, 07:27:22 PM
[Thanks to Titan Q for catching this feat.]

The IWU women's team has defeated every other team ranked in their region!  I'm wondering if this is completely unprecedented, men or women?

I would think it is vanishingly rare for a team to have even played all the other ranked teams, much less beaten them all.  Kudos to Coach Mia Smith for what has to be one of the toughest schedules ever assembled! :o

Can anyone recall a team (men or women) ever before beating ALL the other teams ranked in their region?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 03, 2010, 07:51:35 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 03, 2010, 07:12:30 PM
Well, both Point and Whitewater can't have Pool A bids, so the "loser" would get the Pool C...right now, Point, since Whitewater has the tie-breaker.  ;)

Technically Point has a 1/2 game lead, so the tie breaker doesn't apply... but if both teams win out, you are correct.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 03, 2010, 11:27:29 PM
KnightSlappy, or Ralph, or Pat,
Maybe one of you guys would know the answer to this. KS shows Stevens Tech with a 14-4 regional record and overall record of 15-4, which I believe is correct. Babson is the only school that is listed as being out of region on Stevens D3Hoops team page and using the official NCAA mileage chart that Ralph provided, the distance between those 2 schools is 205 miles which would make it an out of region contest. The NCAA Regional Rankings that came out on Wednesday has Stevens with a 15-4 record for both the East Region and overall. That can't be right can it? Or did Hoboken N.J. get 6 miles closer to Babson Park, Mass. in the past few months.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2010, 11:35:10 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 03, 2010, 11:27:29 PM
KnightSlappy, or Ralph, or Pat,
Maybe one of you guys would know the answer to this. KS shows Stevens Tech with a 14-4 regional record and overall record of 15-4, which I believe is correct. Babson is the only school that is listed as being out of region on Stevens D3Hoops team page and using the official NCAA mileage chart that Ralph provided, the distance between those 2 schools is 205 miles which would make it an out of region contest. The NCAA Regional Rankings that came out on Wednesday has Stevens with a 15-4 record for both the East Region and overall. That can't be right can it? Or did Pittsford, N.Y. get 6 miles closer to Babson Park, Mass. in the past few months.
Hoboken NJ and Babson Park MA are both in Administrative Region #1.  Thus it is an in-region game.

Admin Region #1 is MD, DC, DE, NJ, CT, RI, MA, NH, VT and ME.

Admin Region #2 is NY and PA.

Admin Region #3 is VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, AR, TN, KY, IN, MI, OH and WV.

Admin Region #4 is everything to the West.

Thanks for asking.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 04, 2010, 12:38:45 AM
Ralph,
Thanks for your reply. I knew they were in New Jersey. I copied the wrong city down when I looked up where Stevens was located and wasn't even thinking. I have since made the correction in my post. I thought because Stevens was in the East Region then their administrative region was Region 2. So Stevens is one of those odd schools that in addition to being the only school is the East Region that's not in New York, it's also the only school in the East Region that has a different administative region. I hope KnightSlappy is reading this post and the previous one, so he can make the correction in his rankings. Thanks again Ralph for your help.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 04, 2010, 12:57:21 AM
Quote from: magicman on February 04, 2010, 12:38:45 AM
Ralph,
Thanks for your reply. I knew they were in New Jersey. I copied the wrong city down when I looked up where Stevens was located and wasn't even thinking. I have since made the correction in my post. I thought because Stevens was in the East Region then their administrative region was Region 2. So Stevens is one of those odd schools that in addition to being the only school is the East Region that's not in New York, it's also the only school in the East Region that has a different administative region. I hope KnightSlappy is reading this post and the previous one, so he can make the correction in his rankings. Thanks again Ralph for your help.  
Actually, it is the best of all worlds for the Ducks.

They get the tiny East Evaluation Region with the E8, but they also get to pick up some good Admin Region #1 schools.  They also get the 200-mile radius which goes a long way into Pennasylvania.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 04, 2010, 01:12:21 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 04, 2010, 12:57:21 AM
Quote from: magicman on February 04, 2010, 12:38:45 AM
Ralph,
Thanks for your reply. I knew they were in New Jersey. I copied the wrong city down when I looked up where Stevens was located and wasn't even thinking. I have since made the correction in my post. I thought because Stevens was in the East Region then their administrative region was Region 2. So Stevens is one of those odd schools that in addition to being the only school is the East Region that's not in New York, it's also the only school in the East Region that has a different administative region. I hope KnightSlappy is reading this post and the previous one, so he can make the correction in his rankings. Thanks again Ralph for your help.  
Actually, it is the best of all worlds for the Ducks.

They get the tiny East Evaluation Region with the E8, but they also get to pick up some good Admin Region #1 schools.  They also get the 200-mile radius which goes a long way into Pennasylvania.

The best of all worlds for sure! Unless they travel a good distance for a holiday tournament, every game they play is a regional game. They probably cover more teams than anyone this side of the Mississippi. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 04, 2010, 01:34:25 AM
I see the Stevens team page has been corrected already and Babson is listed as a regional game. That was quick.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 04, 2010, 02:10:22 AM
Quote from: magicman on February 04, 2010, 01:12:21 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 04, 2010, 12:57:21 AM
Quote from: magicman on February 04, 2010, 12:38:45 AM

The best of all worlds for sure! Unless they travel a good distance for a holiday tournament, every game they play is a regional game. They probably cover more teams than anyone this side of the Mississippi. 

  Strictly speaking, the distance they travel for a holiday tournament is irrelevant; what matters is the distance between the opponents' campuses(not the site of the game), or the evaluation/admin regions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 04, 2010, 03:12:53 AM
ronk,
I wasn't referring to Stevens traveling to the Midwest and playing a team from their backyard, region, administrative region or someone within 200 miles of their campus. I thought we pretty much covered that in the previous posts on this topic.  My point and Ralph's best of all worlds post, was that just about anyone they play, because they're a Jersey team in a New York region with a Mid-Atlantic, New England administrative region, that also stretches deep into Pennslyvania, is going to be a regional game. As evidenced by the fact that every one of the 26 or 27 games they will play, prior to any post-season matchups, are all regional contests. There's probably a few other schools that also have that distinction but not sure if any of them would encompass an area with as many schools on their regional list as Stevens has.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2010, 09:41:49 AM
A little bit of a mixed bag for my rankings yesterday. I wasn't quite happy with the deviation from the NCAA's so I spent most of the night "in the basement" working on my calculations. I made a few tweaks to try to line up with the regional rankings better. I tweaked the way OWP and OOWP is calculate to match the numbers reported by the committee, and I also added in an RPI50 column. I'm now using this (a 50-50 WP to SOS ratio) to calculate rank and Pool C position. The traditional RPI is still calculated for your enjoyment.  :)

Here's how it looks with Wednesday's games (scores reported at about midnight eastern) added in:

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI50   RPI     NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                          
NE   01   1.000   0.455   0.540   0.483   0.742   0.613   001   A   C      17-0    19-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   02   0.947   0.484   0.528   0.499   0.723   0.611   006   A   C      18-1    19-2   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   03   0.933   0.481   0.555   0.506   0.720   0.613   009   C   002    14-1    16-2   NESCAC   Colby
NE   04   0.867   0.534   0.508   0.525   0.696   0.611   017   C   004    13-2    17-2   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   05   0.824   0.529   0.569   0.542   0.683   0.613   020   C   006    14-3    14-3   UAA      Brandeis
NE   06   0.813   0.510   0.534   0.518   0.665   0.591   031   A   C      13-3    14-5   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   07   0.833   0.490   0.508   0.496   0.665   0.581   032   A   C      15-3    15-4   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   08   0.833   0.463   0.506   0.477   0.655   0.566   035   A   C      15-3    16-3   CCC      Gordon
NE   09   0.765   0.487   0.525   0.499   0.632   0.566   057   A   C-2    13-4    14-4   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   10   0.700   0.586   0.515   0.562   0.631   0.597   058   C   023    14-6    14-6   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   11   0.722   0.538   0.509   0.529   0.625   0.577   065   C   029    13-5    14-5   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   12   0.750   0.467   0.518   0.484   0.617   0.550   074   A          12-4    13-4   NAC      Thomas
NE   13   0.722   0.505   0.520   0.510   0.616   0.563   076   C   037    13-5    14-5   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
NE   14   0.706   0.536   0.493   0.522   0.614   0.568   079   C   040    12-5    13-6   GNAC     Emerson
                                          
E   001   0.950   0.455   0.503   0.471   0.711   0.591   011   A   C      19-1    20-1   AMCC     Medaille
E   002   0.789   0.552   0.537   0.547   0.668   0.608   028   A   C      15-4    16-4   E8       St. John Fisher
E   003   0.789   0.551   0.527   0.543   0.666   0.605   030   C   008    15-4    15-4   E8       Stevens
E   004   0.750   0.531   0.519   0.527   0.638   0.583   048   A   C      12-4    14-5   SUNYAC   Brockport State
E   005   0.706   0.552   0.551   0.551   0.629   0.590   061   C   026    12-5    13-5   UAA      New York University
E   006   0.722   0.530   0.515   0.525   0.624   0.575   068   C   032    13-5    14-5   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   007   0.643   0.603   0.541   0.582   0.612   0.597   081   C   042     9-5    13-5   UAA      Rochester
E   008   0.667   0.550   0.538   0.546   0.606   0.576   085   C   046    12-6    13-7   E8       Nazareth
E   009   0.667   0.548   0.526   0.541   0.604   0.572   089   C   050    10-5    13-6   E8       Ithaca
                                          
A   001   0.955   0.521   0.527   0.523   0.739   0.631   002   A   C      21-1    21-1   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.789   0.550   0.509   0.536   0.663   0.599   033   A   C      15-4    16-4   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   003   0.750   0.534   0.533   0.534   0.642   0.588   044   C   014    15-5    15-6   NJAC     Ramapo
A   004   0.700   0.585   0.536   0.568   0.634   0.601   053   C   019    14-6    15-6   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   005   0.737   0.524   0.505   0.518   0.627   0.573   063   A   C-2    14-5    17-5   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
A   006   0.765   0.468   0.491   0.476   0.620   0.548   070   A          13-4    14-4   SKY      St. Josephs (L.I.)
A   007   0.722   0.524   0.484   0.511   0.616   0.564   075   C   036    13-5    13-5   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
A   008   0.765   0.450   0.495   0.465   0.615   0.540   077   C   038    13-4    13-4   SKY      SUNY-Maritime
                                          
MA   01   0.833   0.591   0.540   0.574   0.704   0.639   013   A   C      15-3    16-3   MACC     Albright
MA   02   0.850   0.487   0.516   0.497   0.673   0.585   023   A   C      17-3    17-3   CC       Franklin and Marshall
MA   03   0.895   0.430   0.492   0.451   0.673   0.562   024   A   C      17-2    17-2   CSAC     Cabrini
MA   04   0.833   0.509   0.519   0.512   0.673   0.593   025   A   C      15-3    17-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   05   0.733   0.596   0.535   0.576   0.655   0.615   036   C   009    11-4    12-7   MACC     Messiah
MA   06   0.765   0.551   0.530   0.544   0.654   0.599   037   C   010    13-4    16-4   MACC     Lycoming
MA   07   0.778   0.541   0.502   0.528   0.653   0.591   038   C   011    14-4    16-4   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   08   0.778   0.532   0.515   0.526   0.652   0.589   039   A   C      14-4    15-5   MACF     DeSales
MA   09   0.750   0.562   0.538   0.554   0.652   0.603   040   C   012    12-4     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   10   0.778   0.484   0.521   0.496   0.637   0.567   050   C   016    14-4    15-5   LAND     Catholic
MA   11   0.684   0.602   0.522   0.575   0.630   0.602   059   C   024    13-6    13-6   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   12   0.733   0.531   0.495   0.519   0.626   0.572   064   C   028    11-4    13-6   CAC      Wesley
                                          
S   001   0.950   0.511   0.548   0.523   0.737   0.630   003   A   C      19-1    19-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   002   0.889   0.563   0.520   0.549   0.719   0.634   010   C   003    16-2    18-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   003   0.882   0.505   0.496   0.502   0.692   0.597   018   A   C      15-2    16-3   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   004   0.857   0.504   0.530   0.512   0.685   0.599   019   C   005    12-2    16-3   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   005   0.786   0.534   0.509   0.526   0.656   0.591   034   B   002    11-3    16-4   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   006   0.800   0.485   0.510   0.493   0.647   0.570   041   N/A        12-3    16-3   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   007   0.750   0.548   0.501   0.532   0.641   0.587   046   A   C      15-5    15-5   SCAC     Austin
S   008   0.778   0.490   0.499   0.493   0.635   0.564   051   C   017    14-4    14-5   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   009   0.786   0.480   0.491   0.483   0.635   0.559   052   C   018    11-3    15-3   ASC      Mississippi College
S   010   0.706   0.564   0.531   0.553   0.629   0.591   060   C   025    12-5    13-5   UAA      Emory
S   011   0.714   0.537   0.527   0.533   0.624   0.579   067   C   031    10-4    16-4   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
                                          
GL   01   0.842   0.488   0.510   0.496   0.669   0.582   027   A   C      16-3    16-4   NCAC     Wooster
GL   02   0.818   0.521   0.508   0.517   0.668   0.592   029   A   C       9-2    14-6   MIAA     Hope
GL   03   0.778   0.503   0.530   0.512   0.645   0.578   042   A   C      14-4    15-5   OAC      Wilmington
GL   04   0.727   0.564   0.488   0.538   0.633   0.586   056   C   022     8-3    12-8   MIAA     Calvin
GL   05   0.765   0.491   0.495   0.492   0.629   0.560   062   C   027    13-4    13-5   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   06   0.706   0.563   0.509   0.545   0.625   0.585   066   C   030    12-5    14-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   07   0.750   0.478   0.505   0.487   0.618   0.553   073   A          15-5    15-5   PrAC     Thomas More
GL   08   0.737   0.440   0.500   0.460   0.598   0.529   094   C   055    14-5    14-6   PrAC     Bethany
GL   09   0.688   0.506   0.495   0.503   0.595   0.549   096   C   057    11-5    15-5   NCAC     Wittenberg
                                          
MW   01   0.867   0.607   0.544   0.586   0.726   0.656   005   A   C      13-2    16-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.857   0.608   0.551   0.589   0.723   0.656   007   A   C      12-2    16-4   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.941   0.427   0.520   0.458   0.700   0.579   015   A   C      16-1    17-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   04   0.789   0.589   0.537   0.572   0.681   0.626   021   C   007    15-4    16-4   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   05   0.889   0.433   0.500   0.455   0.672   0.564   026   A   C      16-2    18-2   HCAC     Anderson
MW   06   0.857   0.386   0.490   0.421   0.639   0.530   047   A   C      12-2    15-5   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   07   0.750   0.529   0.492   0.516   0.633   0.575   055   C   021    15-5    16-5   HCAC     Defiance
MW   08   0.684   0.513   0.554   0.527   0.605   0.566   088   C   049    13-6    13-7   CCIW     Augustana
MW   09   0.632   0.586   0.535   0.569   0.600   0.585   092   C   053    12-7    13-7   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   10   0.688   0.473   0.497   0.481   0.584   0.533   103   C   064    11-5    12-5   MWC      Ripon
MW   11   0.600   0.522   0.497   0.514   0.557   0.535   127   C   083     9-6     9-7   MWC      Illinois College
                                          
W   001   0.850   0.642   0.550   0.612   0.731   0.671   004   A   C      17-3    17-3   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   002   0.850   0.605   0.558   0.590   0.720   0.655   008   C   001    17-3    18-3   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   003   0.882   0.520   0.547   0.529   0.706   0.617   012   A   C      15-2    18-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.882   0.508   0.540   0.518   0.700   0.609   014   A   C      15-2    17-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   005   0.938   0.428   0.509   0.455   0.696   0.576   016   B   001    15-1    19-2   IND      Chapman
W   006   0.882   0.460   0.515   0.478   0.680   0.579   022   A   C      15-2    17-4   IIAC     Central
W   007   0.800   0.472   0.519   0.487   0.644   0.566   043   C   013     8-2    10-8   NWC      Linfield
W   008   0.818   0.458   0.481   0.466   0.642   0.554   045   A   C       9-2    14-5   SCIAC    Occidental
W   009   0.786   0.489   0.495   0.491   0.638   0.564   049   C   015    11-3    15-4   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
W   010   0.684   0.593   0.562   0.582   0.633   0.608   054   C   020    13-6    14-7   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   011   0.722   0.514   0.538   0.522   0.622   0.572   069   C   033    13-5    13-7   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   012   0.684   0.571   0.523   0.555   0.619   0.587   072   C   035    13-6    13-6   MIAC     Augsburg
                                          
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                              
         B   Pool B eligible team                              
         C   At large candidate                              
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                              
                                          
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                              
                                          
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                               
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                               
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                              
                                          
      RPI50:   50% WP and 50% SOS                                 
      RPI:   25% WP and 75% SOS                                 
                                          
      Updated:   2/4/2010                              


This new 50-50 ratio generally seemed to do a better job across the regions in ranking teams (though I stupidly updated to include games through Wednesday before I dug into it).

What do you guys think?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 04, 2010, 12:55:00 PM
I had hypothesized a while back that the 50-50 weighting may be more close to what they use, given the wording in the NCAA handbook (they are both primary criteria and no weight is given of one with respect to the other).  I think the way you have shown that the rankings follow the RPI50 is rather compelling.  So maybe the RPI50 + taking into account head-to-head with teams ranked close to eachother is how they do it?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2010, 01:11:28 PM
Maybe I am lost. While I appreciate the RPI information, why does it seem people are convinced the NCAA is using RPI to rank and thus select teams to the tournament? We all realize they do not use RPI, right?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2010, 01:38:38 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2010, 01:11:28 PM
Maybe I am lost. While I appreciate the RPI information, why does it seem people are convinced the NCAA is using RPI to rank and thus select teams to the tournament? We all realize they do not use RPI, right?

I think everyone is aware that neither RPI nor an RPI like number is expressly mentioned in the handbook, but why would they bother with a numerical wining percentage and strength of schedule criteria if they weren't going to compare the two in some sort of numerical way?

Even if the committee doesn't use an exact calculation to compare WP and SOS, there should exist some sort of correlation between an RPI-like calculation and the NCAA's rankings (before head to head adjustments and the such). Right?

IMO, I think the NCAA does do some sort of hard calculation with WP and SOS before they adjust for head to head and results vs. ranked opponents.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 04, 2010, 01:57:54 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2010, 01:38:38 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2010, 01:11:28 PM
Maybe I am lost. While I appreciate the RPI information, why does it seem people are convinced the NCAA is using RPI to rank and thus select teams to the tournament? We all realize they do not use RPI, right?

I think everyone is aware that neither RPI nor an RPI like number is expressly mentioned in the handbook, but why would they bother with a numerical wining percentage and strength of schedule criteria if they weren't going to compare the two in some sort of numerical way?

Even if the committee doesn't use an exact calculation to compare WP and SOS, there should exist some sort of correlation between an RPI-like calculation and the NCAA's rankings (before head to head adjustments and the such). Right?

IMO, I think the NCAA does do some sort of hard calculation with WP and SOS before they adjust for head to head and results vs. ranked opponents.
I don't know how this rpi150 is working out in the other regions, but in the West, the rankings favor strength of schedule over rpi as Gustavus is ranked ahead of Chapman. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 04, 2010, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2010, 01:11:28 PM
Maybe I am lost. While I appreciate the RPI information, why does it seem people are convinced the NCAA is using RPI to rank and thus select teams to the tournament? We all realize they do not use RPI, right?

David, I think most realize there is no actual RPI calculation used.  But this type of metric was a pretty good indicator of Pool C bids last year (see below), so it seems to be pretty useful.
-----------------------

Final numbers from Selection Sunday 2009, courtesy of the late Patrick Abegg, with the selected Pool C teams in red...


Reg Conf Rank Prior RPI    OWP    OOWP   School                    Natl Status      Reg Overall

NE  16   01   02    0.6259 0.5300 0.5270 Middlebury                004  A in        22-2 24-3
NE  13   02   03    0.6110 0.5167 0.5257 Mass-Dartmouth            010  A in        23-3 25-3
NE  17   03   01    0.6257 0.5643 0.5411 Worcester Polytech        013  C 4         20-4 20-5
NE  18   04   05    0.5878 0.4537 0.4823 Elms                      014  B 1         25-1 26-1
NE  13   05   04    0.6096 0.5467 0.5234 Rhode Island College      021  C 9         23-5 23-5
NE  14   06   07    0.6052 0.5297 0.5354 Bridgewater State         022  A in        19-4 20-6
NE  16   07   08    0.6013 0.5507 0.5438 Amherst                   031  C 15        19-6 21-6
NE  14   08   06    0.6081 0.5690 0.5249 Salem State               034  C 17        20-6 21-6
NE  11   09   09    0.5719 0.4717 0.4923 University of New England 037  A in        23-4 24-4
NE  17   10   11    0.5773 0.5038 0.5416 MIT                       042  A in        19-6 20-8
NE  90   11   12    0.5958 0.5841 0.5349 Brandeis                   050  C 23        17-8 17-8
NE  12   12   nr    0.5697 0.5131 0.5025 St. Joseph's (Maine)      051  A in        21-7 21-7
NE  16   13   10    0.5936 0.5951 0.5305 Bowdoin                   059  C 29        17-9 17-9

EA  21   01   01    0.6305 0.5339 0.5374 Ithaca                      003  C 1         22-2 24-2
EA  24   02   02    0.5953 0.5129 0.5135 Hamilton                  020  C 8         16-3 18-7
EA  24   03   03    0.6035 0.5755 0.5128 St. Lawrence               038  C 18        18-6 20-6
EA  21   04   04    0.5761 0.5673 0.5159 Utica                     067  C 35        17-9 17-9
EA  21   05   07    0.5852 0.5770 0.5346 Rochester Tech            070  A in        15-8 19-8
EA  61   06   08    0.5488 0.4892 0.4779 Medaille                  076  A in        17-6 21-6
EA  23   07   06    0.5506 0.4953 0.5035 Fredonia State            077              17-7 18-9
EA  90   08   05    0.5657 0.5452 0.5323 Rochester                 080              16-9 16-9

AT  32   01   01    0.6134 0.5152 0.5068 Richard Stockton          007  A in        22-2 25-2
AT  33   02   02    0.5939 0.5015 0.4837 SUNY-Farmingdale            015  C 5         24-3 24-3
AT  33   03   03    0.5754 0.4615 0.4940 St. Joseph's (L.I.)       027  A in        23-3 24-3
AT  31   04   05    0.5621 0.4622 0.4842 Baruch                     046  C 22        21-4 23-5
AT  32   05   06    0.5715 0.5201 0.5052 William Paterson          055  C 26        20-7 20-7
AT  32   06   04    0.5748 0.5363 0.4993 Montclair State           058  C 28        16-6 20-6
AT  31   07   07    0.5417 0.4323 0.4873 Brooklyn                  066  A in        22-5 23-5
AT  31   08   08    0.5141 0.4653 0.4859 Lehman                    126              16-9 18-9

MA  45   01   01    0.6031 0.5352 0.5345 Franklin and Marshall      019  C 7         21-5 22-5
MA  43   02   04    0.5825 0.5051 0.5122 DeSales                   028  A in        21-5 22-5
MA  41   03   02    0.5760 0.4755 0.4957 St. Mary's (Md.)          030  C 14        18-3 21-5
MA  42   04   03    0.5943 0.5303 0.5167 Widener                   033  A in        20-5 22-5
MA  44   05   06    0.5647 0.4648 0.4894 Gwynedd-Mercy             044  A in        21-4 22-5
MA  45   06   05    0.5832 0.5527 0.5318 McDaniel                  053  C 25        16-7 18-8
MA  46   07   07    0.5644 0.4997 0.4889 Scranton                  054  B 2         20-6 21-6
MA  45   08   08    0.5905 0.5686 0.5327 Gettysburg                057  A in        18-8 18-8
MA  41   09   09    0.5589 0.4902 0.4933 Wesley                    060  A in        16-5 18-9
MA  44   10   10    0.5489 0.4892 0.4765 Cabrini                   073              20-7 20-7
MA  46   11   11    0.5386 0.4847 0.4894 Susquehanna               090  B 5         16-7 18-8

SO  51   01   03    0.6068 0.5343 0.5125 Texas-Dallas              017  A in        22-4 24-4
SO  54   02   04    0.6137 0.5594 0.5100 Centre                    018  A in        19-4 23-4
SO  53   03   01    0.5828 0.4817 0.5108 Randolph-Macon            024  C 11        18-3 20-6
SO  54   04   02    0.5846 0.4946 0.5158 Trinity (Texas)            029  C 13        20-4 23-4
SO  53   05   05    0.5757 0.4958 0.5112 Guilford                   043  C 21        20-5 21-5
SO  55   06   08    0.5751 0.5152 0.4975 Averett                   047  A in        17-5 20-8
SO  51   07   09    0.5706 0.5289 0.5047 Mississippi College       052  C 24        18-7 20-7
SO  51   08   07    0.5580 0.4873 0.5073 McMurry                   063  C 32        18-6 19-8
SO  54   09   06    0.5626 0.5131 0.5100 DePauw                    065  C 34        15-6 19-7
SO  51   10   11    0.5612 0.5198 0.5015 Mary Hardin-Baylor        071  C 38        19-8 19-8
SO  55   11   10    0.5571 0.5133 0.5016 Christopher Newport       075              14-6 18-9

GL  64   01   02    0.6174 0.5369 0.5209 John Carroll              009  A in        21-3 23-4
GL  64   02   01    0.6095 0.5381 0.5156 Capital                    016  C 6         22-4 24-4
GL  63   03   04    0.5792 0.4870 0.5031 Wooster                   035  A in        21-4 22-6
GL  62   04   03    0.5785 0.4960 0.4984 Calvin                    039  C 19        14-3 19-8
GL  62   05   06    0.5827 0.5271 0.4988 Hope                      040  A in        14-4 21-7
GL  90   06   05    0.5918 0.5449 0.5273 Carnegie Mellon            041  C 20        15-5 19-6
GL  64   07   08    0.5577 0.5223 0.5196 Ohio Northern             081              16-8 18-9
GL  63   08   07    0.5480 0.4992 0.4979 Ohio Wesleyan             084              16-7 17-8
GL  61   09   09    0.5353 0.4870 0.4854 Penn State-Behrend        096              15-7 17-9

MW  90   01   01    0.6335 0.5390 0.5396 Washington U.             002  A in        22-2 23-2
MW  71   02   02    0.6590 0.5982 0.5702 Wheaton (Ill.)            006  A in        20-3 24-3
MW  72   03   03    0.6154 0.5479 0.5085 Transylvania              011  A in        18-3 21-5
MW  71   04   04    0.6250 0.5991 0.5609 Elmhurst                   032  C 16        20-7 20-7
MW  74   05   09    0.5655 0.5005 0.5011 Lawrence                  049  A in        19-6 19-6
MW  71   06   06    0.5824 0.5409 0.5679 Augustana                 061  C 30        17-8 18-8
MW  71   07   05    0.6108 0.6241 0.5588 North Central             062  C 31        14-8 16-10
MW  74   08   07    0.5520 0.4835 0.5017 St. Norbert               072              17-6 18-6
MW  74   09   10    0.5544 0.5050 0.4931 Grinnell                  074              15-6 18-7
MW  74   10   08    0.5580 0.5283 0.5089 Carroll                   078              16-8 16-8
MW  71   11   nr    0.5628 0.5285 0.5578 Millikin                  086              14-8 16-9

WE  82   01   01    0.6357 0.5117 0.5193 St. Thomas                001  A in        26-0 27-0
WE  83   02   02    0.6183 0.4914 0.5360 Puget Sound                005  C 2         21-1 24-3
WE  86   03   03    0.6501 0.6007 0.5528 UW-Stevens Point          008  A in        22-4 23-4
WE  86   04   04    0.6221 0.5607 0.5594 UW-Whitewater              012  C 3         21-5 22-5
WE  86   05   06    0.6246 0.5820 0.5616 UW-Platteville            023  C 10        17-5 22-5
WE  81   06   05    0.5786 0.4657 0.5133 Buena Vista               025  C 12        20-3 23-3
WE  83   07   07    0.5927 0.5304 0.5184 Whitworth                 036  A in        19-5 22-5
WE  84   08   08    0.5662 0.4781 0.4827 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps    045  A in        19-4 21-6
WE  81   09   10    0.5711 0.5096 0.5049 Cornell                   048  A in        19-6 21-6
WE  82   10   09    0.5691 0.5261 0.5041 Bethel                    056  C 27        18-7 20-7
WE  89   11   nr    0.5132 0.3529 0.4972 Chapman                   089  B 4         17-3 24-3


Reg        Region
Conf       Conference number
Rank      Regional ranking
Prior       Prior regional ranking
School
Natl     National ranking based on regional results
Status
    B + number: Pool B ranking (top 4 in tournament)
    C + number: Pool C ranking of 18 teams in tournament
    C second: second tier Pool C (spots 19-28)
    C third: third tier Pool C (spots 29-38)
    A in: clinched Pool A bid
    blank: lower level Pool C
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 04, 2010, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2010, 01:38:38 PM
IMO, I think the NCAA does do some sort of hard calculation with WP and SOS before they adjust for head to head and results vs. ranked opponents.

This is not correct actually.  I just spoke with Pat Cunningham (head coach, Trinity-Tx), the national committee chair, and he confirmed that WP and SOS are not mathmatically combined in anyway during the regional or national discussions.  (He did say OWP and OOWP are somehow combined.)

Towards the end of our conversation I heard another line ringing.  Pat looks at the caller I.D. and says, "It's Dave McHugh calling." :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 04, 2010, 02:53:27 PM
Another couple notes from that conversation with Pat...

* NCAA committee rep John Williams has charged the group to "look inside the numbers."  So while they are very much bound by the established criteria, there are a lot of "basketball conversations" (my term, not Pat's) that take place during the process.  

* It's clear that everyone involved in administering the process is aware of the challenges presented by SOS - including 1) issues surrounding using regional criteria to compare teams nationally, and 2) the problems presented due to the fact that some teams play a lot of non-conference games (like the CCIW teams - 11) and others do not (like the ASC), and the impact this has on OWP.  That doesn't mean OWP/OOWP are not used, but rather just that committee members realize they are not a perfect measure of SOS in Division III...especially when used to compare teams nationally.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2010, 03:24:54 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 04, 2010, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2010, 01:38:38 PM
IMO, I think the NCAA does do some sort of hard calculation with WP and SOS before they adjust for head to head and results vs. ranked opponents.

This is not correct actually.  I just spoke with Pat Cunningham (head coach, Trinity-Tx), the national committee chair, and he confirmed that WP and SOS are not mathmatically combined in anyway during the regional or national discussions.  (He did say OWP and OOWP are somehow combined.)

Towards the end of our conversation I heard another line ringing.  Pat looks at the caller I.D. and says, "It's Dave McHugh calling." :)

Yeah, well, you know, that was just, like, my opinion, man.

Fair enough.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 04, 2010, 04:20:37 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 04, 2010, 02:53:27 PM
Another couple notes from that conversation with Pat...

* NCAA committee rep John Williams has charged the group to "look inside the numbers."  So while they are very much bound by the established criteria, there are a lot of "basketball conversations" (my term, not Pat's) that take place during the process. 

* It's clear that everyone involved in administering the process is aware of the challenges presented by SOS - including 1) issues surrounding using regional criteria to compare teams nationally, and 2) the problems presented due to the fact that some teams play a lot of non-conference games (like the CCIW teams - 11) and others do not (like the ASC), and the impact this has on OWP.  That doesn't mean OWP/OOWP are not used, but rather just that committee members realize they are not a perfect measure of SOS in Division III...especially when used to compare teams nationally.
If the coaches are reviewing what the data are saying deeper down, then I can accept that.

The isolated conferences such as the ASC, the NWC, the SCIAC and to a lesser degree, the MIAC (which plays 20 conference games) are just rying to fill 25 game schedules with D-III opponents.

Those conference numbers are different than OWP/OOWP values that can be generated by the CCIW, the WIAC and especially the UAA and the NESCAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2010, 05:33:13 PM
It was indeed me calling! :) Though, Titan Q... Pat isn't the chair of the committee, he chairs the South Region and is on the national committee. The chair of the national committee will actually be on Hoopsville tonight: Charlie Brock from Springfield (MA).

I already knew there is no RPI, but Pat confirmed that as Titan Q mentioned. We will talk more with Brock about this tonight, but there isn't a hard and fast determination which should be taken at a higher "value" or factor, WL or the SOS. You can see this in each of the regional rankings... different emphasis or reward... whether it is SOS or WL. I also know that the regional committees "advise" their rankings to the naional committee which then goes and tweaks and changes if necessary before the rankings are officially released.

The point I am trying to make is... feel free to have an RPI... but tweaking your mathmetics to compensate for convesations and thinking by many coaches isn't going to get you what you are looking for. Each week, these conversations will change and adapt to more and more date being placed in front of the committees. Their decisions this week may change next week when numbers like OWP and OOWP change with more results.

Remember one thing in all of this... the committees actually factor in five criteria if they have all five to consider (which makes their jobs easier). When they don't, the main two are WL and SOS... and while the NCAA says that SOS is determined by a formula of (OWP x .667) + (OOWP x .333)... it does NOT indicate if the WL or the SOS should have more weight over the other when considering rankings. And I am quite sure it will never happen. The RPI works very well in Division I since there is so much "cross pollination" of teams. Teams on the west coast either play the teams on the east coast, or a team they have played has played those teams. As a result... you can get a good national "marker" and SOS in Division I. You simply can't compare a WL, OWP, and OOWP from a team like Whitworth to a team like Guilford... and it wouldn't be fair if we start to expect the NCAA to impliment such an RPI in Division III... because it wouldn't be a fair comparison.

I know we all look for hard numbers to get an idea of who is in and who is out... but there is only so far we can take these numbers before we have to just let conversations and smart people make the decisions. If it was all about hard numbers, we wouldn't have any excitement when it comes to the selections anyway... and even in DI they don't go exactly by the RPI!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 04, 2010, 06:32:42 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2010, 05:33:13 PM
It was indeed me calling! :) Though, Titan Q... Pat isn't the chair of the committee, he chairs the South Region and is on the national committee. The chair of the national committee will actually be on Hoopsville tonight: Charlie Brock from Springfield (MA).

I already knew there is no RPI, but Pat confirmed that as Titan Q mentioned. We will talk more with Brock about this tonight, but there isn't a hard and fast determination which should be taken at a higher "value" or factor, WL or the SOS. You can see this in each of the regional rankings... different emphasis or reward... whether it is SOS or WL. I also know that the regional committees "advise" their rankings to the naional committee which then goes and tweaks and changes if necessary before the rankings are officially released.

The point I am trying to make is... feel free to have an RPI... but tweaking your mathmetics to compensate for convesations and thinking by many coaches isn't going to get you what you are looking for. Each week, these conversations will change and adapt to more and more date being placed in front of the committees. Their decisions this week may change next week when numbers like OWP and OOWP change with more results.

Remember one thing in all of this... the committees actually factor in five criteria if they have all five to consider (which makes their jobs easier). When they don't, the main two are WL and SOS... and while the NCAA says that SOS is determined by a formula of (OWP x .667) + (OOWP x .333)... it does NOT indicate if the WL or the SOS should have more weight over the other when considering rankings. And I am quite sure it will never happen. The RPI works very well in Division I since there is so much "cross pollination" of teams. Teams on the west coast either play the teams on the east coast, or a team they have played has played those teams. As a result... you can get a good national "marker" and SOS in Division I. You simply can't compare a WL, OWP, and OOWP from a team like Whitworth to a team like Guilford... and it wouldn't be fair if we start to expect the NCAA to impliment such an RPI in Division III... because it wouldn't be a fair comparison.

I know we all look for hard numbers to get an idea of who is in and who is out... but there is only so far we can take these numbers before we have to just let conversations and smart people make the decisions. If it was all about hard numbers, we wouldn't have any excitement when it comes to the selections anyway... and even in DI they don't go exactly by the RPI!

Sanity!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 04, 2010, 07:49:47 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 04, 2010, 06:32:42 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2010, 05:33:13 PM
It was indeed me calling! :) Though, Titan Q... Pat isn't the chair of the committee, he chairs the South Region and is on the national committee. The chair of the national committee will actually be on Hoopsville tonight: Charlie Brock from Springfield (MA).

I already knew there is no RPI, but Pat confirmed that as Titan Q mentioned. We will talk more with Brock about this tonight, but there isn't a hard and fast determination which should be taken at a higher "value" or factor, WL or the SOS. You can see this in each of the regional rankings... different emphasis or reward... whether it is SOS or WL. I also know that the regional committees "advise" their rankings to the naional committee which then goes and tweaks and changes if necessary before the rankings are officially released.

The point I am trying to make is... feel free to have an RPI... but tweaking your mathmetics to compensate for convesations and thinking by many coaches isn't going to get you what you are looking for. Each week, these conversations will change and adapt to more and more date being placed in front of the committees. Their decisions this week may change next week when numbers like OWP and OOWP change with more results.

Remember one thing in all of this... the committees actually factor in five criteria if they have all five to consider (which makes their jobs easier). When they don't, the main two are WL and SOS... and while the NCAA says that SOS is determined by a formula of (OWP x .667) + (OOWP x .333)... it does NOT indicate if the WL or the SOS should have more weight over the other when considering rankings. And I am quite sure it will never happen. The RPI works very well in Division I since there is so much "cross pollination" of teams. Teams on the west coast either play the teams on the east coast, or a team they have played has played those teams. As a result... you can get a good national "marker" and SOS in Division I. You simply can't compare a WL, OWP, and OOWP from a team like Whitworth to a team like Guilford... and it wouldn't be fair if we start to expect the NCAA to impliment such an RPI in Division III... because it wouldn't be a fair comparison.

I know we all look for hard numbers to get an idea of who is in and who is out... but there is only so far we can take these numbers before we have to just let conversations and smart people make the decisions. If it was all about hard numbers, we wouldn't have any excitement when it comes to the selections anyway... and even in DI they don't go exactly by the RPI!

Sanity!

True, but as a SINGLE number to begin sorting out teams, I think KnightSlappy's RPI50 is a great start.  We can't know how the committee will weigh W% vs. SOS, so a 50-50 split is as good as we can do.

Dave, your warnings are good for 'newbies' (and appreciated!), but most of us realize there is NO simple formula to predict selections.  (And are grateful that there isn't!)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 04, 2010, 08:42:53 PM
If Knightslappy's number gets the regional committees to winnowing down the number to the ranked number plus 3-4 more, then okay.  Each region can deal with the characteristics that the PRI/SOS/OOWP/OWP gives.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 04, 2010, 09:24:36 PM
I spoke with a member of the Mid Atlantic regional selection committee who said two things on this subject:

- I wish we had an RPI like Division I does

- There has to be something better than the OWP and OOWP criteria we use.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 04, 2010, 09:29:44 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on February 04, 2010, 09:24:36 PM
I spoke with a member of the Mid Atlantic regional selection committee who said two things on this subject:

- I wish we had an RPI like Division I does

- There has to be something better than the OWP and OOWP criteria we use.



OWP and OOWP are components of RPI, they were never intended to be used as stand alone metrics.  Thats one thing I've never understood about using these numbers as the current criteria suggest.

RPI would be more useful if they counted all D3 games instead of just regional ones.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 04, 2010, 11:22:58 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on February 04, 2010, 09:24:36 PM
I spoke with a member of the Mid Atlantic regional selection committee who said two things on this subject:

- I wish we had an RPI like Division I does

- There has to be something better than the OWP and OOWP criteria we use.



I think an RPI type number would probably work for teams within one region, specifically those geographically smaller regions in which the teams all play each other.  It wouldn't work nationally.  It would probably be helpful for MA, E, NE, and Atlantic regions.  It might work for some of the others.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2010, 10:47:08 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 04, 2010, 07:49:47 PM
True, but as a SINGLE number to begin sorting out teams, I think KnightSlappy's RPI50 is a great start.  We can't know how the committee will weigh W% vs. SOS, so a 50-50 split is as good as we can do.

Dave, your warnings are good for 'newbies' (and appreciated!), but most of us realize there is NO simple formula to predict selections.  (And are grateful that there isn't!)

I've been doing some thinking, and weighing WP and SOS 50% against each other is actually weighing WP much more.

The top SOS in the land is 0.611 and the worst is 0.385. That mean's a team's SOS can only vary about 0.226 (I'm sure this doesn't change too much year to year). The high in-region WP is 1.000 and the low is 0.000 so we see full variation there.

So, the RPI50's contribution for WP can be a full 0.500, but the SOS contribution can only really vary by 0.113 at the most.

In the standard RPI, WP can vary up to 0.250 and SOS could vary up to 0.170, which get's us closer but still values WP higher than SOS variation.

Simply taking the number and figuring them against each other may not value the difference in schedule strength high enough. Do the committees take this into consideration? The committee member on Hoopsville said one of their mandates was to value all of the criteria the same, but I guess that still leaves some interpretation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 06, 2010, 10:49:39 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2010, 10:47:08 PM
Do the committees take this into consideration?

Your guess is as good as any of ours!

They obviously SHOULD take it into consideration, but...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2010, 10:31:13 PM
Here we go for this week. Through games reported at 10:00 pm eastern Sunday 2/7/2010. As always, let me know if you see an error.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI50   RPI     NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                          
NE   01   1.000   0.485   0.539   0.503   0.751   0.627   001   A   C      19-0    21-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   02   0.947   0.487   0.524   0.499   0.723   0.611   005   A   C      18-1    19-2   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   03   0.882   0.557   0.511   0.542   0.712   0.627   008   C   002    15-2    19-2   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   04   0.824   0.533   0.546   0.537   0.680   0.609   020   C   006    14-3    16-4   NESCAC   Colby
NE   05   0.850   0.491   0.511   0.498   0.674   0.586   024   A   C      17-3    17-4   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   06   0.824   0.509   0.528   0.516   0.670   0.593   029   A   C      14-3    15-5   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   07   0.789   0.520   0.569   0.536   0.663   0.600   033   C   008    15-4    15-4   UAA      Brandeis
NE   08   0.842   0.462   0.501   0.475   0.659   0.567   034   A   C      16-3    17-3   CCC      Gordon
NE   09   0.789   0.486   0.520   0.497   0.643   0.570   045   A   C      15-4    16-4   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   10   0.714   0.565   0.519   0.550   0.632   0.591   055   C   019    15-6    15-6   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   11   0.737   0.533   0.509   0.525   0.631   0.578   056   C   020    14-5    15-5   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   12   0.750   0.495   0.520   0.503   0.627   0.565   059   C   023    15-5    16-5   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
NE   13   0.684   0.566   0.485   0.539   0.612   0.576   074   C   036    13-6    14-7   GNAC     Emerson
NE   14   0.722   0.476   0.519   0.490   0.606   0.548   078   A          13-5    14-5   NAC      Thomas
                                          
E   001   0.905   0.459   0.502   0.473   0.689   0.581   014   A   C      19-2    20-2   AMCC     Medaille
E   002   0.810   0.523   0.549   0.532   0.671   0.601   028   A   C      17-4    18-4   E8       St. John Fisher
E   003   0.800   0.539   0.528   0.536   0.668   0.602   030   C   007    16-4    16-4   E8       Stevens
E   004   0.750   0.532   0.493   0.519   0.635   0.577   051   A   C      15-5    16-5   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   005   0.700   0.533   0.544   0.537   0.618   0.578   067   C   030    14-6    15-7   E8       Nazareth
E   006   0.684   0.531   0.557   0.540   0.612   0.576   073   C   035    13-6    14-6   UAA      New York University
E   007   0.750   0.436   0.491   0.454   0.602   0.528   084   A          12-4    16-4   NEAC     SUNYIT
E   008   0.667   0.549   0.509   0.536   0.601   0.568   085   C   045    12-6    14-7   SUNYAC   Brockport State
E   009   0.647   0.552   0.523   0.542   0.595   0.568   094   C   054    11-6    14-7   E8       Ithaca
                                          
A   001   0.955   0.521   0.524   0.522   0.738   0.630   002   A   C      21-1    21-1   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.810   0.552   0.513   0.539   0.674   0.607   023   A   C      17-4    18-4   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   003   0.762   0.532   0.535   0.533   0.647   0.590   043   C   013    16-5    16-6   NJAC     Ramapo
A   004   0.700   0.582   0.533   0.566   0.633   0.599   053   C   018    14-6    15-6   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   005   0.750   0.530   0.486   0.515   0.633   0.574   054   A   C      15-5    15-5   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
A   006   0.789   0.445   0.504   0.464   0.627   0.546   058   C   022    15-4    15-4   SKY      SUNY-Maritime
A   007   0.722   0.524   0.522   0.523   0.623   0.573   064   C   027    13-5    17-6   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
A   008   0.727   0.513   0.496   0.507   0.617   0.562   069   A          16-6    17-6   CUNYAC   Baruch
                                          
MA   01   0.789   0.598   0.538   0.578   0.684   0.631   017   A   C      15-4    16-4   MACC     Albright
MA   02   0.900   0.423   0.492   0.446   0.673   0.559   025   A   C      18-2    18-2   CSAC     Cabrini
MA   03   0.833   0.505   0.516   0.509   0.671   0.590   027   A   C      15-3    17-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   04   0.850   0.481   0.494   0.486   0.668   0.577   031   A   C      17-3    17-3   CC       Franklin and Marshall
MA   05   0.778   0.544   0.505   0.531   0.654   0.593   036   C   009    14-4    16-4   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   06   0.778   0.527   0.533   0.529   0.653   0.591   037   C   010    14-4    17-4   MACC     Lycoming
MA   07   0.733   0.592   0.537   0.573   0.653   0.613   039   C   011    11-4    12-7   MACC     Messiah
MA   08   0.789   0.530   0.487   0.515   0.652   0.584   041   A   C      15-4    16-5   MACF     DeSales
MA   09   0.750   0.559   0.539   0.552   0.651   0.602   042   C   012    12-4     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   10   0.700   0.612   0.502   0.576   0.638   0.607   048   C   015    14-6    14-6   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   11   0.778   0.481   0.522   0.495   0.636   0.566   049   C   016    14-4    15-5   LAND     Catholic
MA   12   0.733   0.534   0.490   0.519   0.626   0.573   060   C   024    11-4    13-6   CAC      Wesley
                                          
S   001   0.950   0.520   0.539   0.526   0.738   0.632   003   A   C      19-1    19-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   002   0.889   0.565   0.515   0.548   0.719   0.633   006   C   001    16-2    18-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   003   0.857   0.507   0.522   0.512   0.685   0.599   016   C   004    12-2    16-3   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   004   0.833   0.504   0.493   0.500   0.667   0.583   032   A   C      15-3    17-4   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   005   0.800   0.504   0.512   0.507   0.653   0.580   038   B   002    12-3    17-4   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   006   0.824   0.468   0.512   0.483   0.653   0.568   040   N/A        14-3    18-3   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   007   0.762   0.536   0.499   0.523   0.643   0.583   046   A   C      16-5    16-5   SCAC     Austin
S   008   0.750   0.505   0.490   0.500   0.625   0.562   062   C   025    12-4    16-4   ASC      Mississippi College
S   009   0.714   0.541   0.524   0.535   0.625   0.580   063   C   026    10-4    16-4   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   010   0.750   0.490   0.498   0.493   0.621   0.557   065   C   028    15-5    15-6   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   011   0.750   0.470   0.510   0.483   0.617   0.550   071   C   033    15-5    16-6   SCAC     Southwestern
                                          
GL   01   0.850   0.501   0.508   0.504   0.677   0.590   021   A   C      17-3    17-4   NCAC     Wooster
GL   02   0.833   0.522   0.506   0.516   0.675   0.596   022   A   C      10-2    15-6   MIAA     Hope
GL   03   0.750   0.547   0.492   0.529   0.639   0.584   047   C   014     9-3    13-8   MIAA     Calvin
GL   04   0.722   0.570   0.510   0.550   0.636   0.593   050   A   C      13-5    15-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   05   0.737   0.520   0.528   0.523   0.630   0.576   057   C   021    14-5    15-6   OAC      Wilmington
GL   06   0.762   0.480   0.506   0.489   0.625   0.557   061   A   C-2    16-5    16-5   PrAC     Thomas More
GL   07   0.722   0.495   0.492   0.494   0.608   0.551   075   C   037    13-5    13-6   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   08   0.706   0.506   0.470   0.494   0.600   0.547   086   C   046    12-5    16-5   NCAC     Wittenberg
GL   09   0.737   0.442   0.500   0.461   0.599   0.530   089   C   049    14-5    14-6   PrAC     Bethany
                                          
MW   01   0.882   0.607   0.550   0.588   0.735   0.662   004   A   C      15-2    18-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.800   0.609   0.543   0.587   0.693   0.640   013   A   C      12-3    16-5   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.895   0.445   0.516   0.468   0.682   0.575   018   A   C      17-2    18-2   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   04   0.800   0.572   0.540   0.562   0.681   0.621   019   C   005    16-4    17-4   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   05   0.889   0.432   0.501   0.455   0.672   0.563   026   A   C      16-2    18-2   HCAC     Anderson
MW   06   0.867   0.395   0.489   0.426   0.647   0.537   044   A   C      13-2    16-5   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   07   0.762   0.534   0.449   0.506   0.634   0.570   052   C   017    16-5    17-5   HCAC     Defiance
MW   08   0.700   0.536   0.532   0.535   0.618   0.576   068   C   031    14-6    14-7   CCIW     Augustana
MW   09   0.650   0.568   0.537   0.557   0.604   0.581   082   C   043    13-7    14-7   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   10   0.722   0.441   0.508   0.463   0.593   0.528   097   C   057    13-5    14-5   MWC      Ripon
MW   11   0.647   0.453   0.477   0.461   0.554   0.508   122   C   080    11-6    13-8   HCAC     Manchester
                                          
W   001   0.850   0.603   0.549   0.585   0.718   0.651   007   A   C      17-3    18-3   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   002   0.889   0.528   0.545   0.534   0.711   0.622   009   A   C      16-2    19-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   003   0.895   0.508   0.537   0.517   0.706   0.612   010   A   C      17-2    19-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   004   0.810   0.620   0.548   0.596   0.703   0.650   011   C   003    17-4    17-4   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   005   0.941   0.415   0.515   0.448   0.695   0.571   012   B   001    16-1    20-2   IND      Chapman
W   006   0.889   0.472   0.518   0.487   0.688   0.588   015   A   C      16-2    18-4   IIAC     Central
W   007   0.800   0.518   0.494   0.510   0.655   0.582   035   A   C      12-3    16-4   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
W   008   0.700   0.545   0.529   0.540   0.620   0.580   066   C   029    14-6    14-6   MIAC     Augsburg
W   009   0.750   0.486   0.480   0.484   0.617   0.551   070   C   032     9-3    14-6   SCIAC    Occidental
W   010   0.650   0.585   0.556   0.576   0.613   0.594   072   C   034    13-7    14-8   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   011   0.682   0.532   0.529   0.531   0.607   0.569   077   C   039    15-7    15-7   MIAC     Hamline
W   012   0.684   0.524   0.536   0.528   0.606   0.567   079   C   040    13-6    13-8   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
                                    
Pool:   A     Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                              
        B     Pool B eligible team                              
        C     At large candidate                              
        N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                              
                                    
B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                              

A Status:      C       Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                            
               C-2     2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                            
               Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                           
                                    
RPI50:   50% WP and 50% SOS                                 
RPI:     25% WP and 75% SOS                                 
                                    
Updated:      2/7/2010                              
                                    
Tournament "Locks":         Pool A/C:   2, (57 remain)                        
                                        Williams                        
                                        William Patterson                        
                            Pool B:     1, (1 remain)                        
                                        Chapman                        
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 07, 2010, 11:11:57 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2010, 10:31:13 PM
Here we go for this week. Through games reported at 10:00 pm eastern Sunday 2/7/2010. As always, let me know if you see an error.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI50   RPI     NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                          
NE   01   1.000   0.485   0.539   0.503   0.751   0.627   001   A   C      19-0    21-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   02   0.947   0.487   0.524   0.499   0.723   0.611   005   A   C      18-1    19-2   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   03   0.882   0.557   0.511   0.542   0.712   0.627   008   C   002    15-2    19-2   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   04   0.824   0.533   0.546   0.537   0.680   0.609   020   C   006    14-3    16-4   NESCAC   Colby
NE   05   0.850   0.491   0.511   0.498   0.674   0.586   024   A   C      17-3    17-4   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   06   0.824   0.509   0.528   0.516   0.670   0.593   029   A   C      14-3    15-5   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   07   0.789   0.520   0.569   0.536   0.663   0.600   033   C   008    15-4    15-4   UAA      Brandeis
NE   08   0.842   0.462   0.501   0.475   0.659   0.567   034   A   C      16-3    17-3   CCC      Gordon
NE   09   0.789   0.486   0.520   0.497   0.643   0.570   045   A   C      15-4    16-4   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   10   0.714   0.565   0.519   0.550   0.632   0.591   055   C   019    15-6    15-6   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   11   0.737   0.533   0.509   0.525   0.631   0.578   056   C   020    14-5    15-5   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   12   0.750   0.495   0.520   0.503   0.627   0.565   059   C   023    15-5    16-5   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
NE   13   0.684   0.566   0.485   0.539   0.612   0.576   074   C   036    13-6    14-7   GNAC     Emerson
NE   14   0.722   0.476   0.519   0.490   0.606   0.548   078   A          13-5    14-5   NAC      Thomas
                                          
E   001   0.905   0.459   0.502   0.473   0.689   0.581   014   A   C      19-2    20-2   AMCC     Medaille
E   002   0.810   0.523   0.549   0.532   0.671   0.601   028   A   C      17-4    18-4   E8       St. John Fisher
E   003   0.800   0.539   0.528   0.536   0.668   0.602   030   C   007    16-4    16-4   E8       Stevens
E   004   0.750   0.532   0.493   0.519   0.635   0.577   051   A   C      15-5    16-5   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   005   0.700   0.533   0.544   0.537   0.618   0.578   067   C   030    14-6    15-7   E8       Nazareth
E   006   0.684   0.531   0.557   0.540   0.612   0.576   073   C   035    13-6    14-6   UAA      New York University
E   007   0.750   0.436   0.491   0.454   0.602   0.528   084   A          12-4    16-4   NEAC     SUNYIT
E   008   0.667   0.549   0.509   0.536   0.601   0.568   085   C   045    12-6    14-7   SUNYAC   Brockport State
E   009   0.647   0.552   0.523   0.542   0.595   0.568   094   C   054    11-6    14-7   E8       Ithaca
                                          
A   001   0.955   0.521   0.524   0.522   0.738   0.630   002   A   C      21-1    21-1   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.810   0.552   0.513   0.539   0.674   0.607   023   A   C      17-4    18-4   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   003   0.762   0.532   0.535   0.533   0.647   0.590   043   C   013    16-5    16-6   NJAC     Ramapo
A   004   0.700   0.582   0.533   0.566   0.633   0.599   053   C   018    14-6    15-6   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   005   0.750   0.530   0.486   0.515   0.633   0.574   054   A   C      15-5    15-5   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
A   006   0.789   0.445   0.504   0.464   0.627   0.546   058   C   022    15-4    15-4   SKY      SUNY-Maritime
A   007   0.722   0.524   0.522   0.523   0.623   0.573   064   C   027    13-5    17-6   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
A   008   0.727   0.513   0.496   0.507   0.617   0.562   069   A          16-6    17-6   CUNYAC   Baruch
                                          
MA   01   0.789   0.598   0.538   0.578   0.684   0.631   017   A   C      15-4    16-4   MACC     Albright
MA   02   0.900   0.423   0.492   0.446   0.673   0.559   025   A   C      18-2    18-2   CSAC     Cabrini
MA   03   0.833   0.505   0.516   0.509   0.671   0.590   027   A   C      15-3    17-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   04   0.850   0.481   0.494   0.486   0.668   0.577   031   A   C      17-3    17-3   CC       Franklin and Marshall
MA   05   0.778   0.544   0.505   0.531   0.654   0.593   036   C   009    14-4    16-4   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   06   0.778   0.527   0.533   0.529   0.653   0.591   037   C   010    14-4    17-4   MACC     Lycoming
MA   07   0.733   0.592   0.537   0.573   0.653   0.613   039   C   011    11-4    12-7   MACC     Messiah
MA   08   0.789   0.530   0.487   0.515   0.652   0.584   041   A   C      15-4    16-5   MACF     DeSales
MA   09   0.750   0.559   0.539   0.552   0.651   0.602   042   C   012    12-4     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   10   0.700   0.612   0.502   0.576   0.638   0.607   048   C   015    14-6    14-6   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   11   0.778   0.481   0.522   0.495   0.636   0.566   049   C   016    14-4    15-5   LAND     Catholic
MA   12   0.733   0.534   0.490   0.519   0.626   0.573   060   C   024    11-4    13-6   CAC      Wesley
                                          
S   001   0.950   0.520   0.539   0.526   0.738   0.632   003   A   C      19-1    19-1   ODAC     Guilford
S   002   0.889   0.565   0.515   0.548   0.719   0.633   006   C   001    16-2    18-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   003   0.857   0.507   0.522   0.512   0.685   0.599   016   C   004    12-2    16-3   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   004   0.833   0.504   0.493   0.500   0.667   0.583   032   A   C      15-3    17-4   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   005   0.800   0.504   0.512   0.507   0.653   0.580   038   B   002    12-3    17-4   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   006   0.824   0.468   0.512   0.483   0.653   0.568   040   N/A        14-3    18-3   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   007   0.762   0.536   0.499   0.523   0.643   0.583   046   A   C      16-5    16-5   SCAC     Austin
S   008   0.750   0.505   0.490   0.500   0.625   0.562   062   C   025    12-4    16-4   ASC      Mississippi College
S   009   0.714   0.541   0.524   0.535   0.625   0.580   063   C   026    10-4    16-4   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   010   0.750   0.490   0.498   0.493   0.621   0.557   065   C   028    15-5    15-6   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   011   0.750   0.470   0.510   0.483   0.617   0.550   071   C   033    15-5    16-6   SCAC     Southwestern
                                          
GL   01   0.850   0.501   0.508   0.504   0.677   0.590   021   A   C      17-3    17-4   NCAC     Wooster
GL   02   0.833   0.522   0.506   0.516   0.675   0.596   022   A   C      10-2    15-6   MIAA     Hope
GL   03   0.750   0.547   0.492   0.529   0.639   0.584   047   C   014     9-3    13-8   MIAA     Calvin
GL   04   0.722   0.570   0.510   0.550   0.636   0.593   050   A   C      13-5    15-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   05   0.737   0.520   0.528   0.523   0.630   0.576   057   C   021    14-5    15-6   OAC      Wilmington
GL   06   0.762   0.480   0.506   0.489   0.625   0.557   061   A   C-2    16-5    16-5   PrAC     Thomas More
GL   07   0.722   0.495   0.492   0.494   0.608   0.551   075   C   037    13-5    13-6   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   08   0.706   0.506   0.470   0.494   0.600   0.547   086   C   046    12-5    16-5   NCAC     Wittenberg
GL   09   0.737   0.442   0.500   0.461   0.599   0.530   089   C   049    14-5    14-6   PrAC     Bethany
                                          
MW   01   0.882   0.607   0.550   0.588   0.735   0.662   004   A   C      15-2    18-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.800   0.609   0.543   0.587   0.693   0.640   013   A   C      12-3    16-5   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.895   0.445   0.516   0.468   0.682   0.575   018   A   C      17-2    18-2   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   04   0.800   0.572   0.540   0.562   0.681   0.621   019   C   005    16-4    17-4   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   05   0.889   0.432   0.501   0.455   0.672   0.563   026   A   C      16-2    18-2   HCAC     Anderson
MW   06   0.867   0.395   0.489   0.426   0.647   0.537   044   A   C      13-2    16-5   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   07   0.762   0.534   0.449   0.506   0.634   0.570   052   C   017    16-5    17-5   HCAC     Defiance
MW   08   0.700   0.536   0.532   0.535   0.618   0.576   068   C   031    14-6    14-7   CCIW     Augustana
MW   09   0.650   0.568   0.537   0.557   0.604   0.581   082   C   043    13-7    14-7   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   10   0.722   0.441   0.508   0.463   0.593   0.528   097   C   057    13-5    14-5   MWC      Ripon
MW   11   0.647   0.453   0.477   0.461   0.554   0.508   122   C   080    11-6    13-8   HCAC     Manchester
                                          
W   001   0.850   0.603   0.549   0.585   0.718   0.651   007   A   C      17-3    18-3   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   002   0.889   0.528   0.545   0.534   0.711   0.622   009   A   C      16-2    19-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   003   0.895   0.508   0.537   0.517   0.706   0.612   010   A   C      17-2    19-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   004   0.810   0.620   0.548   0.596   0.703   0.650   011   C   003    17-4    17-4   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   005   0.941   0.415   0.515   0.448   0.695   0.571   012   B   001    16-1    20-2   IND      Chapman
W   006   0.889   0.472   0.518   0.487   0.688   0.588   015   A   C      16-2    18-4   IIAC     Central
W   007   0.800   0.518   0.494   0.510   0.655   0.582   035   A   C      12-3    16-4   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
W   008   0.700   0.545   0.529   0.540   0.620   0.580   066   C   029    14-6    14-6   MIAC     Augsburg
W   009   0.750   0.486   0.480   0.484   0.617   0.551   070   C   032     9-3    14-6   SCIAC    Occidental
W   010   0.650   0.585   0.556   0.576   0.613   0.594   072   C   034    13-7    14-8   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   011   0.682   0.532   0.529   0.531   0.607   0.569   077   C   039    15-7    15-7   MIAC     Hamline
W   012   0.684   0.524   0.536   0.528   0.606   0.567   079   C   040    13-6    13-8   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
                                          
      Pool:   A   Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                              
         B   Pool B eligible team                              
         C   At large candidate                              
         N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                              
                                          
      B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                              
                                          
      A Status:   C   Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                               
         C-2   2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                               
         Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                              
                                          
      RPI50:   50% WP and 50% SOS                                 
      RPI:   25% WP and 75% SOS                                 
                                          
      Updated:   2/7/2010                                 

Conferences that are not represented in the table.

East -- Liberty League
South -- USA South AC
Midwest -- NATHC

+1! Knightslappy!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pineconefan on February 08, 2010, 12:52:18 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 07, 2010, 11:11:57 PM
Conferences that are not represented in the table.

East -- Liberty League
South -- USA South AC
Midwest -- NATHC

+1! Knightslappy!

Also the UMAC in the west.  But perhaps they don't count because they don't have the AQ yet?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 08, 2010, 07:13:47 AM
Quote from: pineconefan on February 08, 2010, 12:52:18 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 07, 2010, 11:11:57 PM
Conferences that are not represented in the table.

East -- Liberty League
South -- USA South AC
Midwest -- NATHC

+1! Knightslappy!

Also the UMAC in the west.  But perhaps they don't count because they don't have the AQ yet?
Yes, and the NECC  in the Northeast does not have a Pool A bid yet, either. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 08, 2010, 10:45:56 AM
Probably don't have to worry about the USAC... as they will only get the AQ in that conference. Won't affect Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on February 08, 2010, 12:11:08 PM
I haven't been following very closely - but - I notice Birmingham Southern rated in the south - are they eligible for a tourney slot, or are they still provisional - If provisional, should they be included?  I notice they didn't get mentioned in first regional ratings....

Knightslappy, thanks so much for posting this each week....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2010, 12:15:13 PM
Quote from: hopefan on February 08, 2010, 12:11:08 PM
I haven't been following very closely - but - I notice Birmingham Southern rated in the south - are they eligible for a tourney slot, or are they still provisional - If provisional, should they be included?  I notice they didn't get mentioned in first regional ratings....

Knightslappy, thanks so much for posting this each week....

They are ineligible to be ranked by the NCAA and they cannot receive a tournament bid. I include them becuase I think it may be interesting to some to see where they might have ranked.

I note the non-eligible teams with an "N/A" in the pool column.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 08, 2010, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2010, 12:15:13 PM
Quote from: hopefan on February 08, 2010, 12:11:08 PM
I haven't been following very closely - but - I notice Birmingham Southern rated in the south - are they eligible for a tourney slot, or are they still provisional - If provisional, should they be included?  I notice they didn't get mentioned in first regional ratings....

Knightslappy, thanks so much for posting this each week....

They are ineligible to be ranked by the NCAA and they cannot receive a tournament bid. I include them becuase I think it may be interesting to some to see where they might have ranked.

I note the non-eligible teams with an "N/A" in the pool column.
and games against BSC count as in-region contests.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: swingO on February 09, 2010, 12:44:43 AM
Perhaps I don't understand all of Knight Slappy's criteria, but how can Brooklyn be omitted from the Atlantic when they beat Old Westbury and Baruch head to head,have a better conference record than most of those teams(10-1,tied 1st CUNYAC), have a better strength of schedule than SUNY MARITIME, and have won 12 games in a row to be 17-5. Baruch hasn't beaten anyone good since December. Does head to head play mean nothing?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 09, 2010, 12:49:30 AM
Not so much to an RPI-type system. That's why humans do the regional rankings, to help take those things into account.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2010, 10:21:41 AM
Quote from: swingO on February 09, 2010, 12:44:43 AM
Perhaps I don't understand all of Knight Slappy's criteria, but how can Brooklyn be omitted from the Atlantic when they beat Old Westbury and Baruch head to head,have a better conference record than most of those teams(10-1,tied 1st CUNYAC), have a better strength of schedule than SUNY MARITIME, and have won 12 games in a row to be 17-5. Baruch hasn't beaten anyone good since December. Does head to head play mean nothing?

Coach, my rankings sort teams based on "equal" weighting of winning percentage and strength of schedule. You may feel free to adjust accoridingly based on head to head, and common opponents and results vs. regionally ranked teams.

You have to go to the fifth decimal place to find any difference in SOS between Brooklyn and SUNY-Maritime (and we're talking an 18th percentile SOS here...). Baruch and Old Westbury both have MUCH better numerical SOS numbers (and similar winning percentages). That's why my rankings end up the way they do (I have Brooklyn 9th in the region by the way).

Again, I don't evaluate the validity of each SOS number like the NCAA might, nor do I include head to head adjustments and the like; it would simply take more time than I am willig to put into it.

My hope is that the data I put out would allow for others to get a feel for how the regions may look, and to foster discussions, like this one, about how the regional committees may rank teams and who may get selected in Pool C once all of the criteria is considered.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedoug on February 09, 2010, 11:42:56 AM
Knightslappy:  Thanks for all the work.  A question:

You have Chapman #1 and Maryville (TN) # 2 in Pool B; here are the comparisons:

              OWP     OOWP     SOS      RPI150     RPI

C.             .415       .515       .448        .695      .571
MC.           .504       .512       .507        .653      .580

How did you decide which was ahead of which?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: scottiedoug on February 09, 2010, 11:42:56 AM
Knightslappy:  Thanks for all the work.  A question:

You have Chapman #1 and Maryville (TN) # 2 in Pool B; here are the comparisons:

              OWP     OOWP     SOS      RPI150     RPI

C.             .415       .515       .448        .695      .571
MC.           .504       .512       .507        .653      .580

How did you decide which was ahead of which?

Right now, my rankings are entirely based on the RPI50 category (to rank regions, conferences, and pools). This takes equal weighting from WP and SOS and calculates a combined RPI-like value. I prefer the standard RPI myself, but the 50-50 weighting seemed to match the NCAA's first rankings better.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedoug on February 09, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Thanks, KS:

To what extent do games that are not NCAA D3 and "in region" count in your calculations?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2010, 02:40:22 PM
Quote from: scottiedoug on February 09, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Thanks, KS:

To what extent do games that are not NCAA D3 and "in region" count in your calculations?

I only include in-region results.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2010, 04:26:17 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 10, 2010, 04:02:56 PM

New Regional Rankings out.  Sorry for the outside link, Pat.  Feel free to change it when you get yours up.

http://www.ncaa.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/020310aae.html

That's last week's rankings, from 2/3/10
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 10, 2010, 04:37:52 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2010, 04:26:17 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 10, 2010, 04:02:56 PM

New Regional Rankings out.  Sorry for the outside link, Pat.  Feel free to change it when you get yours up.

http://www.ncaa.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/020310aae.html

That's last week's rankings, from 2/3/10

Here is the link for the new rankings.

http://www.ncaa.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/021010aac.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2010, 04:47:10 PM
http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/10/2010-regional-rankings-week-2/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2010, 05:01:38 PM
Sorry I got those mixed up.  I trusted a link without double checking - total bonehead move.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 10, 2010, 05:17:02 PM
KnightSlappy,
I don't know whether this will affect your rankings or not but the team page for Ohio Wesleyan has 2 wrong scores listed. On Dec. 30th Grove City beat Ohio Wesleyan 61-53 instead of 74-67 as  the team page is showing. That probably doesn't affect your figures. However on Jan 30th. the team page is showing Ohio Wesleyan beating Hiram 79-71, when in fact Hiram won that game 79-71. The Bishops record is not 11-10 overall but 10-11 and the conference record is 7-5 instead of 8-4. This will affect their regional record and their winning percentage, as well as the owp and oowp for their opponents. I'll send a copy of this to Pat so he can make the changes. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 10, 2010, 07:20:17 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2010, 04:47:10 PM
http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/10/2010-regional-rankings-week-2/
West Region is perfectly odd. 

West Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. UW-Whitewater 17-4 17-4
2. UW-Stevens Point 17-3 18-3
3. St. Thomas 16-2 19-2
4. Whitworth 17-2 19-2
5. Central 16-2 18-4
6. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 12-3 16-4
7. Chapman 16-1 20-2
8. Hamline 15-7 15-7
9. Augsburg 14-6 15-6
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2010, 07:26:41 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 10, 2010, 05:17:02 PM
KnightSlappy,
I don't know whether this will affect your rankings or not but the team page for Ohio Wesleyan has 2 wrong scores listed. On Dec. 30th Grove City beat Ohio Wesleyan 61-53 instead of 74-67 as  the team page is showing. That probably doesn't affect your figures. However on Jan 30th. the team page is showing Ohio Wesleyan beating Hiram 79-71, when in fact Hiram won that game 79-71. The Bishops record is not 11-10 overall but 10-11 and the conference record is 7-5 instead of 8-4. This will affect their regional record and their winning percentage, as well as the owp and oowp for their opponents. I'll send a copy of this to Pat so he can make the changes. 

I caught the Hiram-OWU game last week, but thanks for the heads up!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 11, 2010, 02:34:52 AM


Through games of Sunday, Feb. 7, 2010.

Conference leaders in BOLD - Conference leaders (and records) may have changed since Sunday

Previous ranking in (...)

Men's regional rankings


Atlantic Region
1. (1) William Paterson 20-1 21-1 (NJAC)
2. (2) Merchant Marine 17-4 18-4 (LAND)
3. (3) Ramapo 15-5 16-6 (NJAC)
4. (NR) Rutgers-Newark 13-5 17-6 (NJAC)
5. (5) Richard Stockton 15-5 15-6 (NJAC)

Dropping out:  York (N.Y.) (CUNYAC)

East Region
1. (1) St. John Fisher 17-4 18-4 (Empire 8)
2. (2) Stevens 16-4 16-4 (Empire 8)
3. (4) Medaille 19-2 20-2 (AMCC)
4. (NR) Oneonta State 15-5 16-5
5. (3) New York University 13-6 14-6 (UAA)
6. (6) Nazareth 14-6 15-7 (Empire 8)

Dropping out:  Rochester (UAA)

Great Lakes Region
1. (1) Wooster 17-3 17-4 (NCAC)
2. (3) Hope 10-2 15-6 (MIAA) - tied with Calvin
3. (NR) John Carroll 13-5 15-5 (OAC)
4. (6) Thomas More 16-5 16-5 (PrAC)
5. (2) Wilmington 14-5 15-6 (OAC)
6. (4) Calvin 9-3 13-8 (MIAA) - tied with Hope

Middle Atlantic Region
1. (1) Albright 14-3 16-4 (MAC-Commonwealth) - tied with Lycoming
2. (4) Franklin & Marshall 17-3 17-3 (Centennial)
3. (2) Lycoming 13-4 17-4 (MAC-Commonwealth) - tied with Albright
4. (3) Cabrini 18-2 18-2 (CSAC)
5. (5) St. Mary's (Md.) 14-3 17-3 (CAC)
6. (6) Elizabethtown 14-6 14-6 (MAC-Commonwealth)
7. (7) York (Pa.) 15-4 16-4 (CAC)
8. (8) Alvernia 12-4 14-6 (MAC-Commonwealth)
9. (NR) DeSales 15-4 16-5 (MAC-Freedom)

Dropping out:  Catholic (LAND)

Midwest Region
1. (1) Washington U. 15-2 18-2 (UAA)
2. (2) Carthage 12-3 16-5 (CCIW) - tied with Illinois Wesleyan
3. (4) Illinois Wesleyan 16-4 17-4 (CCIW) - tied with Carthage
4. (5) Anderson 16-2 18-2 (HCAC)
5. (3) St. Norbert 17-2 18-2 (MWC)
6. (6) Wheaton (Ill.) 13-7 14-7 (CCIW)
7. (7) Augustana 14-6 14-7 (CCIW)
8. (NR) Defiance 15-5 17-5 (HCAC)

Dropping out:  Westminster (Mo.) (SLIAC)

Northeast Region
1. (1) Williams 19-0 21-1 (NESCAC)
2. (2) MIT 18-1 19-2 (NEWMAC)
3. (4) Middlebury 15-2 19-2 (NESCAC)
4. (6) Bridgewater State 14-3 15-5 (MASCAC)
5. (3) Colby 14-3 16-4 (NESCAC)
6. (5) Brandeis 15-4 15-4 (UAA)
7. (8) Western Connecticut 15-4 16-4 (LEC)
8. (9) Mass.-Dartmouth 15-6 15-6 (LEC)
9. (NR) Albertus Magnus 17-3 17-4 (GNAC)
10. (7) Gordon 16-3 17-3 (CCC)
11. (NR) WPI 14-5 15-5 (NEWMAC)

Dropping out:  Eastern Connecticut (LEC), Rhode Island College (LEC)

South Region
1. (1) Guilford 19-1 19-1 (ODAC)
2. (2) Virginia Wesleyan 16-2 18-2 (ODAC)
3. (3) Texas-Dallas 16-3 17-4 (ASC-East)
4. (4) Eastern Mennonite 12-2 16-3 (ODAC)
5. (6) Austin 16-5 16-5 (SCAC)
6. (7) Mary Hardin-Baylor 15-5 15-6 (ASC-West)
7. (NR) Randolph-Macon 10-4 16-4 (ODAC)
8. (5) Maryville (Tenn.) 12-3 17-4 (GSAC) Pool B

Dropping out:  Mississippi College (ASC-East)

West Region
1. (1) UW-Whitewater 17-4 17-4 (WIAC) - tied with Stevens Point
2. (2) UW-Stevens Point 17-3 18-3 (WIAC) - tied with Whitewater
3. (3) St. Thomas 16-2 19-2 (MIAC)
4. (4) Whitworth 17-2 19-2 (NWC)
5. (8) Central 16-2 18-4 (IIAC)
6. (NR) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 12-3 16-4 (SCIAC)
7. (7) Chapman 16-1 20-2 (Independent) Pool B
8. (NR) Hamline 15-7 15-7 (MIAC)
9. (9) Augsburg 14-6 15-6 (MIAC)

Dropping out:  La Crosse (WIAC), Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2010, 10:12:32 AM
Anyone have any ideas on this one?

In the Great Lakes, Wilmington is #5 and Calvin is #6.

Primary Criteria:
WP: Calvin 0.750, Wilmington 0.737
SOS: Calvin 0.536, Wilmington 0.524
Head-to-Head: None
Common Opponents: Even/slight adv. Wilmington Calvin 1-0 vs. ONU, Wilmington 1-0 vs. ONU (Does margin factor in?)
vs. in-region ranked teams: Even/slight adv. Calvin. Calvin 1-2 all vs. #2 Hope, Wilmington 1-2, 1-1 vs. #3 JCU, 0-1 vs. #4 Thomas More.

Secondary Criteria:
Overall D3 WP: Wilmington 0.750, Calvin 0.706
Overall WP: Wilmington 0.714, Calvin 0.636
Results vs. D3 Ranked: Calvin 1-1, 1-0 vs. Carthage, 0-1 vs. Wheaton. Wilmington: None
OVR D3 SOS: Didn't calculate, but Calvin adds: Carthage, Wheaton, Lake Forest, Loras, and Lewis and Clark, Wilmington adds: Spalding

I know I'm looking at this one with my slappy glasses on, but I would pick Calvin in this matchup.
They have a slight advantage on 2 primary criteria, and maybe 2 slight advantages in the secondary (I would figure 1-1 vs. out-of-region ranked teams is better than 0-0) and I would think their overall schedule remains tougher with the likes of Wheaton and Carthage on it. Wilmington's only advantages rest in the secondary with overall and overall D3 winning percentages.

This has to be very very close.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2010, 10:23:46 AM
The overall winning percentages are a significant advantage for Wilmington. Those aren't slight.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2010, 10:50:53 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2010, 10:23:46 AM
The overall winning percentages are a significant advantage for Wilmington. Those aren't slight.

Which is why I didn't qualify them as such.

It just leaves me with a couple of questions:

Once the committee decides to look into secondary criteria, are the primary considered 'even' and ignored?
If not, do the primary criteria weigh more heavily than the secondary criteria, or is it equally judged?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2010, 11:09:14 AM
No, you didn't, but you definitely buried them. :)

I suspect this is something that every committee deals with differently. But if you do get to the secondary criteria, that means the primary criteria are considered even. I believe the wording is "if the primary criteria do not result in a decision" being reached.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 11, 2010, 11:16:46 AM
I have to put forward my general theory that subconsciously the committee sees Wilmington at 14-5 in region and Calvin at 9-3 and that large discrepancy in games played in region affects what happens.

It's a close case and certainly an argument could be made for both teams to be #5.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2010, 11:28:08 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2010, 11:09:14 AM
No, you didn't, but you definitely buried them. :)

I suspect this is something that every committee deals with differently. But if you do get to the secondary criteria, that means the primary criteria are considered even. I believe the wording is "if the primary criteria do not result in a decision" being reached.

You must forgive my slappiness.  :)

Thanks, for the explanation. So it was deemed too close to call in the primary, but Wilmington was awarded the secondary criteria. I guess I can accept that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ScotsFan on February 11, 2010, 12:53:27 PM
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut on February 11, 2010, 11:16:46 AM
I have to put forward my general theory that subconsciously the committee sees Wilmington at 14-5 in region and Calvin at 9-3 and that large discrepancy in games played in region affects what happens.

It's a close case and certainly an argument could be made for both teams to be #5.

I have no idea what goes on behind the closed doors of the rankings committee, but I can't help but agree with hopenut and think this has to weigh heavily, at least subconsiously on the committee members.  Look at Wooster and Hope atop the rankings.  The same argument can be made there.  An in-region record of 17-3 looks a lot more convincing than a record of 10-2. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 12, 2010, 01:35:14 PM
Regional data through games of Thursday 2/11/2010 (11 pm eastern). Only in-region results are used in data calculation. Teams sorted based on 50-50 weighting of winning percentage and strength of schedule.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI50   RPI     NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                          
NE   01   1.000   0.488   0.541   0.506   0.753   0.629   001   A   C      19-0    21-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   02   0.950   0.493   0.524   0.503   0.727   0.615   004   A   C      19-1    20-2   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   03   0.882   0.563   0.513   0.546   0.714   0.630   008   C   001    15-2    19-2   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   04   0.833   0.540   0.545   0.542   0.687   0.615   018   C   005    15-3    17-4   NESCAC   Colby
NE   05   0.800   0.525   0.564   0.538   0.669   0.604   029   C   007    16-4    16-4   UAA      Brandeis
NE   06   0.842   0.462   0.498   0.474   0.658   0.566   035   A   C      16-3    18-4   CCC      Gordon
NE   07   0.810   0.497   0.506   0.500   0.655   0.578   036   A   C      17-4    17-5   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   08   0.778   0.514   0.527   0.518   0.648   0.583   043   A   C      14-4    15-6   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   09   0.750   0.528   0.512   0.522   0.636   0.579   051   C   018    15-5    16-5   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   10   0.762   0.499   0.518   0.505   0.633   0.569   053   C   020    16-5    17-5   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
NE   11   0.727   0.545   0.523   0.538   0.632   0.585   055   A   C-2    16-6    16-6   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   12   0.750   0.498   0.517   0.504   0.627   0.566   060   C   024    15-5    16-5   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   13   0.700   0.560   0.489   0.536   0.618   0.577   067   C   029    14-6    15-7   GNAC     Emerson
NE   14   0.682   0.547   0.514   0.536   0.609   0.573   075   C   037    15-7    15-7   LEC      Rhode Island College
                                          
E   001   0.905   0.466   0.497   0.476   0.691   0.583   016   A   C      19-2    20-2   AMCC     Medaille
E   002   0.818   0.522   0.547   0.530   0.674   0.602   025   A   C      18-4    19-4   E8       St. John Fisher
E   003   0.810   0.518   0.530   0.522   0.666   0.594   031   C   009    17-4    17-4   E8       Stevens
E   004   0.750   0.528   0.492   0.516   0.633   0.575   054   A   C-2    15-5    16-5   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   005   0.684   0.531   0.558   0.540   0.612   0.576   074   C   036    13-6    14-6   UAA      New York University
E   006   0.750   0.437   0.487   0.454   0.602   0.528   081   A          12-4    17-4   NEAC     SUNYIT
E   007   0.667   0.539   0.529   0.536   0.601   0.568   082   C   043    12-6    15-7   E8       Ithaca
E   008   0.667   0.547   0.508   0.534   0.600   0.567   083   C   044    12-6    14-7   SUNYAC   Brockport State
E   009   0.667   0.528   0.544   0.533   0.600   0.567   084   C   045    14-7    15-8   E8       Nazareth
                                          
A   001   0.955   0.526   0.523   0.525   0.740   0.632   002   A   C      21-1    21-1   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.810   0.552   0.511   0.538   0.674   0.606   026   A   C      17-4    18-4   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   003   0.773   0.510   0.536   0.519   0.646   0.582   046   C   015    17-5    17-6   NJAC     Ramapo
A   004   0.714   0.570   0.534   0.558   0.636   0.597   052   C   019    15-6    16-6   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   005   0.800   0.440   0.500   0.460   0.630   0.545   058   A   C-2    16-4    17-4   SKY      SUNY-Maritime
A   006   0.727   0.551   0.484   0.529   0.628   0.579   059   C   023    16-6    16-6   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
A   007   0.722   0.525   0.523   0.524   0.623   0.574   064   C   027    13-5    17-6   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
A   008   0.739   0.496   0.500   0.498   0.618   0.558   066   A   C-2    17-6    18-6   CUNYAC   Baruch
                                          
MA   01   0.905   0.441   0.490   0.458   0.681   0.569   020   A   C      19-2    19-2   CSAC     Cabrini
MA   02   0.800   0.568   0.542   0.559   0.679   0.619   022   A   C      16-4    17-4   MACC     Albright
MA   03   0.864   0.495   0.473   0.488   0.676   0.582   024   A   C      19-3    19-3   CC       Franklin and Marshall
MA   04   0.833   0.501   0.516   0.506   0.670   0.588   028   A   C      15-3    17-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   05   0.750   0.603   0.542   0.583   0.666   0.625   030   C   008    12-4    13-7   MACC     Messiah
MA   06   0.789   0.544   0.508   0.532   0.661   0.596   033   C   010    15-4    17-4   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   07   0.800   0.533   0.488   0.518   0.659   0.588   034   A   C      16-4    17-5   MACF     DeSales
MA   08   0.778   0.528   0.534   0.530   0.654   0.592   038   C   012    14-4    17-4   MACC     Lycoming
MA   09   0.722   0.584   0.543   0.571   0.646   0.609   044   C   013    13-5     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   10   0.778   0.488   0.523   0.500   0.639   0.569   049   C   016    14-4    15-5   LAND     Catholic
MA   11   0.700   0.612   0.503   0.576   0.638   0.607   050   C   017    14-6    14-6   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   12   0.733   0.526   0.485   0.512   0.623   0.567   065   C   028    11-4    13-6   CAC      Wesley
                                          
S   001   0.905   0.530   0.533   0.531   0.718   0.624   006   A   C      19-2    19-2   ODAC     Guilford
S   002   0.900   0.525   0.525   0.525   0.712   0.619   009   C   002    18-2    20-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   003   0.867   0.539   0.519   0.532   0.699   0.616   012   C   004    13-2    17-3   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   004   0.833   0.501   0.491   0.498   0.666   0.582   032   A   C      15-3    18-4   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   005   0.824   0.465   0.511   0.481   0.652   0.566   039   N/A        14-3    18-3   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   006   0.800   0.501   0.510   0.504   0.652   0.578   040   B   002    12-3    18-4   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   007   0.750   0.547   0.530   0.542   0.646   0.594   045   C   014    12-4    18-4   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   008   0.762   0.531   0.498   0.520   0.641   0.581   047   A   C      16-5    16-5   SCAC     Austin
S   009   0.765   0.502   0.493   0.499   0.632   0.565   056   C   021    13-4    17-4   ASC      Mississippi College
S   010   0.762   0.481   0.497   0.486   0.624   0.555   062   C   026    16-5    16-6   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   011   0.750   0.472   0.506   0.483   0.617   0.550   070   C   032    15-5    16-6   SCAC     Southwestern
                                          
GL   01   0.857   0.514   0.501   0.510   0.684   0.597   019   A   C      18-3    18-4   NCAC     Wooster
GL   02   0.846   0.510   0.508   0.509   0.678   0.594   023   A   C      11-2    16-6   MIAA     Hope
GL   03   0.769   0.567   0.484   0.539   0.654   0.597   037   C   011    10-3    14-8   MIAA     Calvin
GL   04   0.737   0.555   0.513   0.541   0.639   0.590   048   A   C      14-5    16-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   05   0.773   0.459   0.508   0.475   0.624   0.549   063   A   C-2    17-5    17-5   PrAC     Thomas More
GL   06   0.737   0.504   0.490   0.499   0.618   0.558   068   C   030    14-5    14-6   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   07   0.700   0.527   0.526   0.527   0.613   0.570   073   C   035    14-6    15-7   OAC      Wilmington
GL   08   0.722   0.495   0.472   0.488   0.605   0.546   079   C   041    13-5    17-5   NCAC     Wittenberg
GL   09   0.700   0.464   0.496   0.474   0.587   0.531   097   C   056    14-6    14-7   NCAC     Wabash
                                          
MW   01   0.882   0.605   0.551   0.587   0.735   0.661   003   A   C      15-2    18-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.813   0.586   0.549   0.574   0.693   0.633   014   A   C      13-3    17-5   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.900   0.461   0.513   0.478   0.689   0.584   017   A   C      18-2    19-2   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   04   0.810   0.556   0.536   0.549   0.679   0.614   021   C   006    17-4    18-4   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   05   0.900   0.416   0.504   0.446   0.673   0.559   027   A   C      18-2    20-2   HCAC     Anderson
MW   06   0.875   0.397   0.491   0.428   0.652   0.540   041   A   C      14-2    17-5   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   07   0.762   0.527   0.452   0.502   0.632   0.567   057   C   022    16-5    17-5   HCAC     Defiance
MW   08   0.667   0.574   0.534   0.560   0.614   0.587   072   C   034    14-7    15-7   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   09   0.667   0.543   0.528   0.538   0.602   0.570   080   C   042    14-7    14-8   CCIW     Augustana
MW   10   0.684   0.471   0.499   0.481   0.582   0.532   102   C   061    13-6    14-6   MWC      Ripon
MW   11   0.667   0.431   0.486   0.449   0.558   0.504   121   C   079    12-6    14-8   HCAC     Manchester
                                          
W   001   0.857   0.603   0.550   0.585   0.721   0.653   005   A   C      18-3    19-3   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   002   0.895   0.533   0.538   0.535   0.715   0.625   007   A   C      17-2    20-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   003   0.818   0.621   0.549   0.597   0.708   0.652   010   C   003    18-4    18-4   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   004   0.895   0.510   0.534   0.518   0.706   0.612   011   A   C      17-2    19-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   005   0.941   0.420   0.516   0.452   0.697   0.574   013   B   001    16-1    20-2   IND      Chapman
W   006   0.895   0.475   0.515   0.489   0.692   0.590   015   A   C      17-2    19-4   IIAC     Central
W   007   0.813   0.483   0.498   0.488   0.650   0.569   042   A   C      13-3    17-4   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
W   008   0.714   0.546   0.526   0.539   0.627   0.583   061   C   025    15-6    15-6   MIAC     Augsburg
W   009   0.667   0.572   0.560   0.568   0.617   0.593   069   C   031    14-7    15-8   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   010   0.684   0.489   0.511   0.497   0.590   0.544   092   C   051    13-6    14-8   IIAC     Cornell
W   011   0.588   0.613   0.551   0.592   0.590   0.591   094   C   053    10-7    13-9   WIAC     UW-Stout
W   012   0.652   0.524   0.528   0.525   0.589   0.557   095   C   054    15-8    15-8   MIAC     Hamline
                                          
Pool:   A     Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                                    
       B     Pool B eligible team                                    
       C     At large candidate                                    
       N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                                    
                                          
B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                                    

A Status:      C       Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                                  
              C-2     2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                                  
              Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                                 
                                          
RPI50:   50% WP and 50% SOS                                       
RPI:     25% WP and 75% SOS                                       
                                          
Updated:      2/12/2010                                    
                                          
Tournament "Locks":         Pool A/C:   2, (57 remain)                              
                                       Williams                              
                                       William Patterson                              
                           Pool B:     1, (1 remain)                              
                                       Chapman                     

I've added tournamnet "locks" to the bottom. They're teams that should be in even if they lose out. I've only found three at this point.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: BJ - DSU SID on February 12, 2010, 07:58:10 PM
Great stuff Knight Slappy.

Appreciate the hard work.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2010, 10:16:06 PM
Regional data through games of Sunday 2/14/2010. Only in-region results are used in data calculation. Teams sorted based on 50-50 weighting of winning percentage and strength of schedule.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI50   RPI     NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                          
NE   01   1.000   0.497   0.538   0.511   0.755   0.633   001   A   C      21-0    23-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   02   0.952   0.479   0.527   0.495   0.724   0.610   004   A   C      20-1    21-2   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   03   0.895   0.568   0.512   0.549   0.722   0.636   005   C   001    17-2    21-2   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   04   0.800   0.524   0.538   0.529   0.664   0.597   028   C   005    16-4    18-5   NESCAC   Colby
NE   05   0.773   0.544   0.565   0.551   0.662   0.606   031   C   007    17-5    17-5   UAA      Brandeis
NE   06   0.842   0.467   0.490   0.475   0.658   0.567   035   A   C      16-3    19-4   CCC      Gordon
NE   07   0.789   0.514   0.525   0.518   0.654   0.586   039   A   C      15-4    16-6   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   08   0.762   0.516   0.515   0.516   0.639   0.578   046   C   015    16-5    17-5   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   09   0.773   0.486   0.506   0.492   0.633   0.563   050   A   C      17-5    17-6   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   10   0.696   0.560   0.515   0.545   0.620   0.582   060   A   C-2    16-7    16-7   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   11   0.714   0.539   0.495   0.525   0.619   0.572   061   C   024    15-6    16-7   GNAC     Emerson
NE   12   0.696   0.545   0.522   0.537   0.616   0.577   065   C   028    16-7    16-7   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
NE   13   0.727   0.487   0.517   0.497   0.612   0.555   070   C   033    16-6    17-6   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
NE   14   0.696   0.524   0.522   0.524   0.610   0.567   077   C   038    16-7    16-7   LEC      Rhode Island College
                                          
E   001   0.909   0.475   0.501   0.484   0.697   0.590   015   A   C      20-2    21-2   AMCC     Medaille
E   002   0.818   0.528   0.534   0.530   0.674   0.602   024   A   C      18-4    19-4   E8       St. John Fisher
E   003   0.773   0.516   0.528   0.520   0.646   0.583   043   C   013    17-5    17-5   E8       Stevens
E   004   0.773   0.529   0.492   0.517   0.645   0.581   044   A   C      17-5    18-5   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   005   0.700   0.538   0.501   0.525   0.613   0.569   069   C   032    14-6    15-7   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
E   006   0.700   0.521   0.527   0.523   0.611   0.567   073   C   036    14-6    17-7   E8       Ithaca
E   007   0.765   0.443   0.483   0.456   0.610   0.533   075   A          13-4    18-4   NEAC     SUNYIT
E   008   0.667   0.549   0.556   0.551   0.609   0.580   078   C   039    14-7    15-7   UAA      New York University
E   009   0.684   0.538   0.510   0.529   0.607   0.568   080   C   041    13-6    15-7   SUNYAC   Brockport State
                                          
A   001   0.955   0.535   0.529   0.533   0.744   0.638   003   A   C      21-1    22-1   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.826   0.552   0.508   0.537   0.682   0.610   020   A   C      19-4    20-4   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   003   0.762   0.580   0.532   0.564   0.663   0.613   029   C   006    16-5    17-6   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   004   0.739   0.548   0.489   0.528   0.634   0.581   048   A   C      17-6    17-6   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
A   005   0.737   0.535   0.519   0.530   0.633   0.582   049   C   016    14-5    17-6   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
A   006   0.727   0.535   0.533   0.534   0.631   0.583   051   C   017    16-6    17-7   NJAC     Ramapo
A   007   0.773   0.461   0.498   0.473   0.623   0.548   058   C   023    17-5    18-5   SKY      St. Josephs (L.I.)
A   008   0.750   0.492   0.500   0.495   0.622   0.559   059   A   C-2    18-6    19-6   CUNYAC   Baruch
                                          
MA   01   0.810   0.563   0.539   0.555   0.682   0.618   019   A   C      17-4    18-4   MACC     Albright
MA   02   0.909   0.431   0.495   0.452   0.681   0.567   021   A   C      20-2    20-2   CSAC     Cabrini
MA   03   0.842   0.513   0.514   0.513   0.678   0.595   022   A   C      16-3    18-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   04   0.870   0.490   0.466   0.482   0.676   0.579   023   A   C      20-3    20-3   CC       Franklin and Marshall
MA   05   0.810   0.539   0.489   0.522   0.666   0.594   027   A   C      17-4    18-5   MACF     DeSales
MA   06   0.765   0.563   0.544   0.557   0.661   0.609   033   C   009    13-4    14-7   MACC     Messiah
MA   07   0.765   0.537   0.533   0.536   0.650   0.593   041   C   012    13-4    18-4   MACC     Lycoming
MA   08   0.750   0.542   0.505   0.529   0.640   0.585   045   C   014    15-5    17-5   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   09   0.737   0.508   0.513   0.510   0.623   0.567   056   C   021    14-5    16-6   LAND     Catholic
MA   10   0.684   0.573   0.541   0.562   0.623   0.593   057   C   022    13-6     ---   MACC     Alvernia
MA   11   0.750   0.483   0.495   0.487   0.618   0.553   063   C   026    12-4    15-6   CAC      Wesley
MA   12   0.667   0.602   0.499   0.568   0.617   0.592   064   C   027    14-7    14-7   MACC     Elizabethtown
                                          
S   001   0.909   0.524   0.538   0.529   0.719   0.624   006   A   C      20-2    20-2   ODAC     Guilford
S   002   0.875   0.520   0.531   0.523   0.699   0.611   011   C   003    14-2    18-3   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   003   0.857   0.543   0.526   0.537   0.697   0.617   013   C   004    18-3    20-3   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   004   0.833   0.503   0.491   0.499   0.666   0.583   026   A   C      15-3    18-4   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   005   0.813   0.510   0.517   0.512   0.662   0.587   030   B   002    13-3    19-4   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   006   0.765   0.568   0.528   0.555   0.660   0.607   034   C   010    13-4    19-4   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   007   0.833   0.453   0.514   0.474   0.653   0.563   040   N/A        15-3    19-3   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   008   0.773   0.533   0.499   0.522   0.647   0.584   042   A   C      17-5    18-5   SCAC     Austin
S   009   0.773   0.469   0.496   0.478   0.625   0.552   054   C   019    17-5    17-6   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   010   0.722   0.507   0.492   0.502   0.612   0.557   071   C   034    13-5    17-5   ASC      Mississippi College
S   011   0.700   0.495   0.488   0.493   0.596   0.545   087   C   047    14-6    16-7   ASC      McMurry
                                          
GL   01   0.857   0.527   0.497   0.517   0.687   0.602   018   A   C      12-2    17-6   MIAA     Hope
GL   02   0.818   0.530   0.496   0.519   0.668   0.594   025   A   C      18-4    18-5   NCAC     Wooster
GL   03   0.786   0.540   0.485   0.522   0.654   0.588   037   C   011    11-3    15-8   MIAA     Calvin
GL   04   0.737   0.547   0.510   0.535   0.636   0.585   047   A   C      14-5    17-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   05   0.737   0.509   0.467   0.495   0.616   0.556   066   C   029    14-5    18-5   NCAC     Wittenberg
GL   06   0.700   0.523   0.520   0.522   0.611   0.567   074   C   037    14-6    16-7   OAC      Wilmington
GL   07   0.739   0.470   0.503   0.481   0.610   0.546   076   A          17-6    17-6   PrAC     Thomas More
GL   08   0.700   0.511   0.493   0.505   0.603   0.554   082   C   043    14-6    14-7   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   09   0.714   0.466   0.491   0.474   0.594   0.534   088   C   048    15-6    15-7   PrAC     Bethany
                                          
MW   01   0.895   0.616   0.548   0.593   0.744   0.669   002   A   C      17-2    20-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.824   0.582   0.548   0.571   0.697   0.634   014   A   C      14-3    18-5   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.905   0.460   0.510   0.477   0.691   0.584   017   A   C      19-2    20-2   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   04   0.773   0.556   0.538   0.550   0.661   0.606   032   C   008    17-5    18-5   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   05   0.857   0.424   0.502   0.450   0.654   0.552   038   A   C      18-3    20-3   HCAC     Anderson
MW   06   0.824   0.412   0.490   0.438   0.631   0.534   052   A   C      14-3    17-6   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   07   0.762   0.523   0.450   0.498   0.630   0.564   053   C   018    16-5    18-5   HCAC     Defiance
MW   08   0.682   0.585   0.533   0.568   0.625   0.596   055   C   020    15-7    16-7   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   09   0.682   0.529   0.529   0.529   0.605   0.567   081   C   042    15-7    15-8   CCIW     Augustana
MW   10   0.700   0.463   0.500   0.475   0.588   0.532   094   C   054    14-6    15-6   MWC      Ripon
MW   11   0.684   0.428   0.482   0.446   0.565   0.505   117   C   074    13-6    15-8   HCAC     Manchester
                                          
W   001   0.864   0.584   0.553   0.574   0.719   0.646   007   A   C      19-3    20-3   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   002   0.900   0.536   0.535   0.536   0.718   0.627   008   A   C      18-2    21-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   003   0.826   0.622   0.545   0.596   0.711   0.654   009   C   002    19-4    19-4   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   004   0.905   0.497   0.540   0.512   0.708   0.610   010   A   C      19-2    21-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   005   0.944   0.416   0.529   0.454   0.699   0.577   012   B   001    17-1    22-2   IND      Chapman
W   006   0.895   0.486   0.515   0.495   0.695   0.595   016   A   C      17-2    19-4   IIAC     Central
W   007   0.824   0.476   0.501   0.484   0.654   0.569   036   A   C      14-3    18-4   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
W   008   0.667   0.566   0.557   0.563   0.615   0.589   067   C   030    14-7    15-8   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   009   0.682   0.551   0.524   0.542   0.612   0.577   072   C   035    15-7    15-7   MIAC     Augsburg
W   010   0.667   0.517   0.530   0.521   0.594   0.558   089   C   049    14-7    14-9   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   011   0.714   0.454   0.487   0.465   0.589   0.527   091   C   051    10-4    15-7   SCIAC    Occidental
W   012   0.652   0.526   0.527   0.526   0.589   0.558   092   C   052    15-8    15-8   MIAC     Hamline
                                          
Pool:   A     Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                                    
       B     Pool B eligible team                                    
       C     At large candidate                                    
       N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                                    
                                          
B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                                    

A Status:      C       Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                                  
              C-2     2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                                  
      In      Clinched Pool A bid                                 
              Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                                 
                                          
RPI50:   50% WP and 50% SOS                                       
RPI:     25% WP and 75% SOS                                       
                                          
Updated:      2/15/2010                                    
                                          
Tournament "Locks":         Pool A/C:   3, (56 remain)                              
                                       Williams                              
                                       William Patterson                              
                                        Washington U.                              
                           Pool B:     1, (1 remain)                              
                                       Chapman                              
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 18, 2010, 02:58:32 AM
I'll post the regional rankings stuff later today.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 18, 2010, 09:24:18 PM

Games through Sun. Feb. 14...results and schedule this week

Men's rankings

Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. (1) William Paterson 21-1 22-1 (NJAC) - LOST at Rutgers-Newark; BEAT New Jersey City
2. (2) Merchant Marine 18-4 20-4 (LAND) - at Drew 2/20
3. (4) Rutgers-Newark 13-5 17-6 (NJAC) - BEAT William Paterson; WON at Ramapo; vs. Kean 2/20
4. (3) Ramapo 16-6 17-7 (NJAC) - LOST to Rutgers-Newark
5. (5) Richard Stockton 17-5 17-6 (NJAC) - BEAT Rutgers-Camden; BEAT New Jersey

Previously ranked:  York (N.Y.) (CUNYAC)

East Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. (1) St. John Fisher 18-4 19-4 (Empire 8) - WON at Nazareth; vs. Utica 2/19
2. (3) Medaille 20-2 21-2 (AMCC) - LOST to Pitt-Bradford; at Pitt-Greensburg 2/20
3. (4) Oneonta State 17-5 18-5 (SUNYAC) - BEAT Cortland State; at New Paltz State 2/19
4. (2) Stevens 17-5 17-5 (Empire 8) - vs. Ithaca 2/19; vs. Rochester Tech 2/21
5. (5) New York University 14-7 15-7 (UAA) - at Emory 2/19; at Rochester 2/21
6. (NA) Plattsburgh State 13-6 15-7 (SUNYAC) - BEAT Potsdam State; vs. Geneseo State 2/19, vs. Brockport State 2/20

Dropping out:  Nazareth (Empire 8)
Previously ranked:  Rochester (UAA)

Great Lakes Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. (2) Hope 12-2 17-6 (MIAA) - LOST at Adrian; vs. Trine 2/20
2. (3) John Carroll 15-5 17-5 (OAC) - WON at Heidelberg; vs. Ohio Northern 2/20
3. (1) Wooster 18-4 18-5 (NCAC) - BEAT Ohio Wesleyan; at Earlham 2/20
4. (6) Calvin 11-3 15-8 (MIAA) - WON at Albion; vs. Alma 2/20
5. (NA) Wittenberg 14-5 18-5 (NCAC) - LOST to Wabash; at Oberlin 2/20
6. (4) Thomas More 17-6 17-6 (PrAC) - WON at Thiel; at Vincent 2/20

Dropping out:  Wilmington (OAC) Wilmington was #2 in the 1st rankings

Middle Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. (1) Albright 17-4 18-4 (MAC-Commonwealth) - BEAT Alvernia; vs. Messiah 2/20
2. (2) Franklin & Marshall 20-3 20-3 (Centennial) - LOST to John Hopkins; vs. Dickinson 2/20
3. (3) Lycoming 14-4 18-4 (MAC-Commonwealth) - WON at Messiah; at Elizabethtown 2/18; vs. Widener 2/20
4. (5) St. Mary's (Md.) 16-3 18-3 (CAC) - BEAT Wesley; WON at Gallaudet; vs. York (Pa.) 2/20; at Mary Washington 2/21
5. (4) Cabrini 20-2 20-2 (CSAC) - WON at Gwynedd-Mercy; vs. Centenary 2/18; at Neumann 2/20
6. (9) DeSales 17-4 18-5 (MAC-Freedom) - WON at Wilkes; vs. FDU-Florham 2/20
7. (7) York (Pa.) 16-5 17-5 (CAC) - at St. Mary's (Md) 2/20; at Gallaudet 2/21
8. (NR) Messiah 13-4 14-7 (MAC-Commonwealth) - LOST to Lycoming; vs. Lebanon Valley 2/18; at Albright 2/20
9. (NR) Catholic 14-5 16-6 (LAND) - LOST to Scranton; at Goucher 2/20


Dropping out:  Elizabethtown (MAC-Commonwealth); Alvernia (MAC-Commonwealth)


Midwest Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. (1) Washington U. 17-2 20-2 (UAA) - vs. Case Western Reserve 2/19; vs. Carnegie Mellon 2/21
2. (2) Carthage 14-3 18-5 (CCIW) - BEAT North Park; at Milikin 2/20
3. (5) St. Norbert 19-2 20-2 (MWC) - at Carroll 2/20
4. (6) Wheaton (Ill.) 15-7 16-7 (CCIW) - BEAT Milikin; at Elmhurst 2/20
5. (3) Illinois Wesleyan 17-5 18-5 (CCIW) - WON at Augustana; at North Park 2/20
6. (4) Anderson 18-3 20-3 (HCAC) - BEAT Manchester; at Hanover 2/20
7. (8) Defiance 16-5 18-5 (HCAC) - BEAT Bluffton; at Franklin 2/20
8. (7) Augustana 15-7 15-8 (CCIW) - LOST to Illinois Wesleyan; vs. North Central (Ill) 2/20

Northeast Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. (1) Williams 21-0 23-1 (NESCAC) - vs. Wesleyan 2/20
2. (2) MIT 20-1 21-2 (NEWMAC) - LOST at Wheaton (Mass); at Springfield 2/20
3. (3) Middlebury 17-2 21-2 (NESCAC) - WON at Green Mountain; vs. Trinity (Conn) 2/20
4. (6) Brandeis 17-5 17-5 (UAA) - at Rochester 2/19; at Emory 2/21
5. (5) Colby 16-4 18-5 (NESCAC) - vs. Amherst 2/20
6. (4) Bridgewater State 15-4 16-6 (MASCAC) - LOST at Salem State; vs. Massachusetts College 2/20
7. (NR) Rhode Island College 16-7 16-7 (LEC) - WON at Mass-Dartmouth; vs. Plymouth State 2/20
8. (NR) Eastern Connecticut 16-7 16-7 (LEC) - LOST to Western Connecticut; at Southern Maine 2/20
9. (10) Gordon 18-4 19-4 (CCC) - BEAT Univ. of New England; vs. Salve Regina 2/20
10. (11) WPI 16-5 17-5 (NEWMAC) - LOST to Springfield; vs. Clark 2/20
11. (7) Western Connecticut 15-6 16-6 (LEC) - WON at Eastern Connecticut; vs. Mass-Boston 2/20

Dropping out:  Mass-Dartmouth (LEC), Albertus Magnus (GNAC)

South Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. (4) Eastern Mennonite 14-2 18-3 (ODAC) - tied with Guilford - BEAT Virginia Wesleyan; BEAT Bridgewater (Va.); vs. Washington and Lee 2/20 
2. (1) Guilford 20-2 20-2 (ODAC) - tied with Eastern Mennonite; WON at Washington and Lee; BEAT Emory and Henry; at Randolph 2/20
3. (3) Texas-Dallas 17-3 18-4 (ASC-East) - WON at Texas-Tyler; vs. East Texas Baptist 2/18; vs. LeTourneau 2/20
4. (2) Virginia Wesleyan 18-3 20-3 (ODAC) - LOST at Eastern Mennonite; at Hampden-Sydney 2/20
5. (5) Austin 18-5 18-5 (SCAC) - tied with Birmingham-Southern - at Hendrix 2/19; at Millsaps 2/21
6. (7) Randolph-Macon 13-4 19-4 (ODAC) - BEAT Lynchburg; LOST to Hampden-Sydney
7. (8) Maryville (Tenn.) 13-3 19-4 (GSAC) POOL B - at Covenant 2/17; vs. Piedmont 2/20
8. (6) Mary Hardin-Baylor 17-5 17-6 (ASC-West) - at Sul Ross State 2/18; at Howard Payne 2/20

Previously ranked:  Mississippi College (ASC-East)

West Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. (1) UW-Whitewater 19-4 19-4 (WIAC) - tied with Stevens Point - WON at Oshkosh; vs. Superior 2/20
2. (2) UW-Stevens Point 19-3 20-3 (WIAC) - tied with Whitewater - WON at Platteville; at La Crosse 2/20
3. (3) St. Thomas 18-2 21-2 (MIAC) - BEAT Gustavus Adolphus; at Hamline 2/20
4. (4) Whitworth 19-2 21-2 (NWC) - WON at Whitman; at Linfield 2/20
5. (5) Central 17-2 19-4 (IIAC) - WON at Coe; vs. Cornell 2/20
6. (6) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 14-3 18-4 (SCIAC) - WON at Whittier; vs. Pomona-Pitzer 2/20
7. (7) Chapman 17-1 22-2 (Independent) POOL B - at West Coast Baptist
8. (9) Augsburg 15-7 16-7 (MIAC) - WON at Bethel; at St. Mary's (Minn) 2/20
9. (NR) UW-La Crosse 14-7 15-8 (WIAC) - WON at River Falls; vs. Stevens Point 2/20

Dropping out:  Hamline (MIAC)

Previously ranked:  Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC)


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2010, 09:17:21 PM
Sorry for the delay, and it may be of little use by now, but here's the data through Sunday's games.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI     RPI50   NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                          
NE   01   1.000   0.489   0.541   0.506   0.630   0.753   001   A   C      22-0    24-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   02   0.905   0.550   0.515   0.538   0.630   0.722   005   C   001    19-2    23-2   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   03   0.913   0.476   0.529   0.493   0.598   0.703   011   A   C      21-2    22-3   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   04   0.810   0.525   0.535   0.529   0.599   0.669   024   C   005    17-4    19-5   NESCAC   Colby
NE   05   0.833   0.469   0.495   0.478   0.567   0.656   036   A   C      20-4    21-4   CCC      Gordon
NE   06   0.750   0.546   0.561   0.551   0.601   0.650   037   C   010    18-6    18-6   UAA      Brandeis
NE   07   0.792   0.474   0.507   0.485   0.562   0.639   043   A   C      19-5    19-6   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   08   0.762   0.508   0.523   0.513   0.575   0.637   044   A   C      16-5    17-7   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   09   0.739   0.522   0.520   0.522   0.576   0.630   050   C   017    17-6    18-6   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   10   0.739   0.525   0.497   0.516   0.572   0.627   054   C   021    17-6    18-7   GNAC     Emerson
NE   11   0.750   0.493   0.510   0.499   0.562   0.624   061   C   026    18-6    19-6   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
NE   12   0.720   0.531   0.517   0.526   0.575   0.623   062   A   C-2    18-7    18-7   LEC      Rhode Island College
NE   13   0.739   0.492   0.515   0.499   0.559   0.619   066   C   029    17-6    18-6   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   14   0.680   0.548   0.518   0.538   0.574   0.609   075   C   036    17-8    17-8   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
                                          
E   001   0.833   0.526   0.533   0.528   0.605   0.681   019   A   C      20-4    21-4   E8       St. John Fisher
E   002   0.833   0.479   0.495   0.484   0.571   0.659   030   A   C      20-4    21-4   AMCC     Medaille
E   003   0.792   0.527   0.508   0.521   0.588   0.656   034   A   C      19-5    20-5   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   004   0.739   0.516   0.506   0.513   0.569   0.626   057   C   023    17-6    18-7   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
E   005   0.714   0.543   0.522   0.536   0.580   0.625   060   C   025    15-6    18-7   E8       Ithaca
E   006   0.708   0.528   0.525   0.527   0.572   0.618   067   C   030    17-7    17-7   E8       Stevens
E   007   0.789   0.410   0.478   0.433   0.522   0.611   073   A          15-4    21-4   NEAC     SUNYIT
E   008   0.652   0.549   0.552   0.550   0.576   0.601   085   C   045    15-8    16-8   UAA      New York University
E   009   0.652   0.542   0.527   0.537   0.566   0.595   087   C   046    15-8    16-9   E8       Nazareth
                                          
A   001   0.917   0.543   0.528   0.538   0.633   0.727   003   A   C      22-2    23-2   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.833   0.529   0.512   0.523   0.601   0.678   020   A   C      20-4    21-4   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   003   0.783   0.558   0.529   0.548   0.607   0.665   027   C   006    18-5    19-6   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   004   0.773   0.552   0.522   0.542   0.600   0.657   033   C   009    17-5    20-6   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
A   005   0.760   0.516   0.491   0.508   0.571   0.634   047   A   C      19-6    19-6   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
A   006   0.792   0.452   0.497   0.467   0.548   0.629   052   C   019    19-5    20-5   SKY      St. Josephs (L.I.)
A   007   0.739   0.520   0.497   0.512   0.569   0.626   058   A   C-2    17-6    20-6   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
A   008   0.760   0.486   0.501   0.491   0.558   0.625   059   C   024    19-6    20-6   CUNYAC   Baruch
                                          
MA   01   0.920   0.460   0.489   0.469   0.582   0.695   015   A   C      23-2    23-2   CSAC     Cabrini
MA   02   0.870   0.517   0.516   0.516   0.605   0.693   016   A   C      20-3    21-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   03   0.783   0.568   0.539   0.558   0.615   0.671   023   A   C      18-5    19-5   MACC     Albright
MA   04   0.840   0.481   0.510   0.491   0.578   0.666   026   A   C      21-4    21-4   CC       Franklin and Marshall
MA   05   0.826   0.497   0.510   0.501   0.582   0.664   029   A   C      19-4    20-5   MACF     DeSales
MA   06   0.750   0.580   0.535   0.565   0.611   0.658   032   C   008    15-5    16-8   MACC     Messiah
MA   07   0.750   0.550   0.541   0.547   0.598   0.648   039   C   012    15-5    20-5   MACC     Lycoming
MA   08   0.739   0.515   0.510   0.513   0.570   0.626   056   C   022    17-6    19-6   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   09   0.727   0.506   0.510   0.507   0.562   0.617   068   C   031    16-6    18-7   LAND     Catholic
MA   10   0.737   0.486   0.502   0.491   0.553   0.614   069   C   032    14-5    17-7   CAC      Wesley
MA   11   0.667   0.569   0.530   0.556   0.584   0.611   072   C   034    16-8    16-8   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   12   0.682   0.481   0.527   0.496   0.543   0.589   093   C   051    15-7    17-8   LAND     Scranton
                                          
S   001   0.920   0.503   0.535   0.514   0.615   0.717   006   A   C      23-2    23-2   ODAC     Guilford
S   002   0.895   0.530   0.530   0.530   0.621   0.712   009   C   002    17-2    21-3   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   003   0.870   0.519   0.502   0.513   0.602   0.691   017   A   C      20-3    21-4   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   004   0.826   0.551   0.522   0.541   0.612   0.684   018   C   004    19-4    21-4   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   005   0.824   0.510   0.511   0.511   0.589   0.667   025   B   002    14-3    21-4   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   006   0.760   0.529   0.506   0.521   0.581   0.641   041   A   C      19-6    19-6   SCAC     Austin
S   007   0.737   0.549   0.530   0.543   0.592   0.640   042   C   013    14-5    20-5   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   008   0.792   0.462   0.499   0.475   0.554   0.633   048   C   015    19-5    19-6   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   009   0.762   0.478   0.518   0.491   0.559   0.627   055   N/A        16-5    20-5   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   010   0.696   0.516   0.498   0.510   0.556   0.603   082   C   042    16-7    18-7   SCAC     DePauw
S   011   0.700   0.506   0.500   0.504   0.553   0.602   084   C   044    14-6    18-6   ASC      Mississippi College
                                          
GL   01   0.833   0.511   0.501   0.508   0.589   0.671   022   A   C      20-4    20-5   NCAC     Wooster
GL   02   0.813   0.530   0.488   0.516   0.590   0.664   028   A   C      13-3    18-7   MIAA     Hope
GL   03   0.813   0.508   0.492   0.503   0.580   0.658   031   C   007    13-3    17-8   MIAA     Calvin
GL   04   0.773   0.555   0.509   0.539   0.598   0.656   035   A   C      17-5    19-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   05   0.739   0.524   0.520   0.523   0.577   0.631   049   C   016    17-6    18-7   OAC      Wilmington
GL   06   0.760   0.474   0.504   0.484   0.553   0.622   064   A   C-2    19-6    19-6   PrAC     Thomas More
GL   07   0.739   0.476   0.497   0.483   0.547   0.611   074   C   035    17-6    17-7   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   08   0.714   0.506   0.486   0.499   0.553   0.607   076   C   037    15-6    19-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
GL   09   0.739   0.464   0.494   0.474   0.540   0.606   077   C   038    17-6    17-7   PrAC     Bethany
                                          
MW   01   0.905   0.590   0.551   0.577   0.659   0.741   002   A   IN     19-2    22-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.842   0.556   0.543   0.552   0.624   0.697   013   A   C      16-3    20-5   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.864   0.470   0.505   0.482   0.577   0.673   021   A   C      19-3    20-3   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   04   0.750   0.558   0.530   0.549   0.599   0.649   038   C   011    18-6    19-6   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   05   0.826   0.441   0.498   0.460   0.552   0.643   040   A   C      19-4    21-4   HCAC     Anderson
MW   06   0.783   0.488   0.498   0.492   0.564   0.637   046   C   014    18-5    20-5   HCAC     Defiance
MW   07   0.708   0.554   0.532   0.547   0.587   0.628   053   C   020    17-7    18-7   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   08   0.778   0.432   0.479   0.448   0.530   0.613   070   A          14-4    17-7   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   09   0.667   0.537   0.539   0.538   0.570   0.602   083   C   043    16-8    16-9   CCIW     Augustana
MW   10   0.652   0.494   0.504   0.497   0.536   0.575   105   C   062    15-8    15-9   HCAC     Hanover
MW   11   0.667   0.466   0.507   0.479   0.526   0.573   107   C   064    14-7    14-9   MWC      Lake Forest
                                          
W   001   0.909   0.541   0.533   0.538   0.631   0.724   004   A   C      20-2    23-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   002   0.913   0.515   0.523   0.518   0.617   0.715   007   A   C      21-2    23-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   003   0.840   0.608   0.548   0.588   0.651   0.714   008   A   C      21-4    21-4   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   004   0.833   0.584   0.553   0.574   0.638   0.703   010   C   003    20-4    21-4   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   005   0.944   0.422   0.519   0.454   0.577   0.699   012   B   001    17-1    22-2   IND      Chapman
W   006   0.905   0.474   0.508   0.485   0.590   0.695   014   A   C      19-2    21-4   IIAC     Central
W   007   0.789   0.480   0.495   0.485   0.561   0.637   045   A   C      15-4    19-5   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
W   008   0.696   0.568   0.557   0.564   0.597   0.630   051   C   018    16-7    17-8   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   009   0.708   0.536   0.526   0.532   0.576   0.620   065   C   028    17-7    17-7   MIAC     Augsburg
W   010   0.750   0.448   0.487   0.461   0.533   0.605   079   C   040    12-4    17-7   SCIAC    Occidental
W   011   0.760   0.425   0.462   0.437   0.518   0.599   086   B   004    19-6    19-6   UMAC     Northwestern (Minn.)
W   012   0.652   0.541   0.526   0.536   0.565   0.594   088   C   047    15-8   15-10   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus

Pool:   A     Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                                    
        B     Pool B eligible team                                    
        C     At large candidate                                    
        N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                                    
                                          
B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                                    

A Status:      C       Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                                  
               C-2     2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                                  
      IN   Clinched Pool A bid                                 
               Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                                 
                                          
RPI50:   50% WP and 50% SOS                                       
RPI:     25% WP and 75% SOS                                       
                                          
Updated:      2/23/2010                                    
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2010, 09:32:47 PM
Knightslappy, thanks again for doing this.  Great stuff.

In the Midwest, I do not see Anderson as a Pool A that is safe as a C.  This week Anderson is going to be ranked behind both Wheaton and Illinois Wesleyan (two Pool C bubble teams) in the region again.  Anderson has a home loss to Augustana...IWU and Wheaton both swept Augustana.

With a loss in the HCAC tournament, Anderson would probably be behind both Wheaton and IWU in the final Midwest ranking...they might never get to the table.

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/17/2010-regional-rankings-week-3/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2010, 09:52:04 PM
So first stab at the "mortal locks"...the current Pool A's that would be guaranteed a C in the event of a conference tournament upset.

(In order of Knightslappy's national ranking)

1. Williams (1)
2. William Paterson (3)
3. St. Thomas (4)
4. Guilford (6)
5. Whitworth (7)
6. UW-Whitewater (8)
7. MIT (11)
8. Carthage (13)
9. Central (14)
10. Cabrini (15)
11. St. Mary's (16)
12. Texas-Dallas (17)
13. St. John Fisher (19)
14. St. Norbert (21)
15. Wooster (22)


What does everyone think of this list of 15?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 23, 2010, 10:13:00 PM
Looks good except Guilford isn't the ODAC #1 seed, Eastern Mennonite is... but I think both of them are in anyway, so it's moot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2010, 10:18:32 PM
It's hard to get my numbers to line up with the official rankings, especially since I am only considering two of the criteria (and not critically examining either of them).

Without any scientific study, it has seemed from the past two weeks that the RPI50 category (that I am currently using to rank teams) does a good job of picking the teams that will be ranked, and then standard RPI does a better job of ranking those teams in the region.

For example, in the midwest, 8 of the top 9 teams that I have listed will be the teams that are ranked, but looking at the standard RPI, Anderson is pretty weak and will likely be ranked behind IWU and Wheaton, as Titan Q points out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2010, 10:20:23 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 23, 2010, 10:13:00 PM
Looks good except Guilford isn't the ODAC #1 seed, Eastern Mennonite is... but I think both of them are in anyway, so it's moot.

Revised...

(In order of Knightslappy's national ranking)

1. Williams (1) - OK if Middlebury wins the A...they are a lock C
2. William Paterson (3)
3. St. Thomas (4)
4. Whitworth (7)
5. UW-Whitewater (8) - OK if Stevens Point wins the A since they are a lock C
6. Eastern Mennonite (9) - OK if Guilford of Va. Wesleyan wins the A since both are C locks anyway
7. MIT (11)
8. Carthage (13)
9. Central (14)
10. Cabrini (15)
11. St. Mary's (16)
12. Texas-Dallas (17)
13. St. John Fisher (19)
14. St. Norbert (21)
15. Wooster (22)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2010, 10:22:35 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2010, 09:52:04 PM
So first stab at the "mortal locks"...the current Pool A's that would be guaranteed a C in the event of a conference tournament upset.

(In order of Knightslappy's national ranking)

1. Williams (1)
2. William Paterson (3)
3. St. Thomas (4)
4. Guilford (6)
5. Whitworth (7)
6. UW-Whitewater (8)
7. MIT (11)
8. Carthage (13)
9. Central (14)
10. Cabrini (15)
11. St. Mary's (16)
12. Texas-Dallas (17)
13. St. John Fisher (19)
14. St. Norbert (21)
15. Wooster (22)


What does everyone think of this list of 15?

Would be interesting to also note the conferences that have another likely Pool C team (Stevens Point in the WIAC), so that an "upset" by that team wouldn't take away a Pool C bid.

**Edit** Titan Q beat me to it!

Quote from: PointSpecial on February 23, 2010, 10:13:00 PM
Looks good except Guilford isn't the ODAC #1 seed, Eastern Mennonite is... but I think both of them are in anyway, so it's moot.

Yeah, same with Hope in the MIAA (not on this list). I've been doing it by RPI because it's impossible to project a tournament winner, and manually checking all the standings every time is not fun.  :D

ziggy and I attempted a tournament projection, you can find what we came up with through the link in my signature.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2010, 10:33:17 PM
It's also worth mentioning that the teams that are listed as "A  C" are not necessarily "locks" but rather their RPI50 is simply inside the range as set by the 19 Pool C's. (There are 30 "A  C" teams).  Basically, these are teams that would be in (according to RPI50) if there were no other upsets.

Here's how RPI50 distributes the bids, for multi-bid conferences:

ODAC   4
MACC   3
NESCAC   3
NJAC   3
WIAC   3
ASC   2
CCIW   2
HCAC   2
MIAA   2
NEWMAC   2
OAC   2
SKY   2
UAA   2
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2010, 10:43:47 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2010, 10:20:23 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 23, 2010, 10:13:00 PM
Looks good except Guilford isn't the ODAC #1 seed, Eastern Mennonite is... but I think both of them are in anyway, so it's moot.

Revised...

(In order of Knightslappy's national ranking)

1. Williams (1)   NE
2. William Paterson (3)   Atl
3. St. Thomas (4)  W
4. Whitworth (7)    W
5. UW-Whitewater (8) - OK if Stevens Point wins the A since they are a lock C  W
6. Eastern Mennonite (9) - OK if Guilford of Va. Wesleyan wins the A since both are C locks anyway  S
7. MIT (11)  NE
8. Carthage (13)   MW
9. Central (14)      W
10. Cabrini (15)     MA
11. St. Mary's (16)     MA
12. Texas-Dallas (17)    S
13. St. John Fisher (19)     E
14. St. Norbert (21)           MW
15. Wooster (22)       GL

Titan, I have taken your ranking and placed them on the table, region by region, round by round.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 23, 2010, 10:48:06 PM
Q,

The two teams that jump out to me on that list are Cabrini and Central.  They both have very nice in-region records but have pretty weak SOS.  Also, I know we are just going by KnightSlappy's rankings which are a good estimate but Cabrini was 5th in region last week.  They both may be locks if they make their tourney final and play well.

At this time last year, everyone was counting St. Marys (MD) as a lock and we saw their 20-3 record failed to hold up after getting upset in their conference tourney.  Buena Vista also had a similar fate last year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2010, 10:50:04 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 23, 2010, 10:48:06 PM
Q,

The two teams that jump out to me on that list are Cabrini and Central.  They both have very nice in-region records but have pretty weak SOS.  Also, I know we are just going by KnightSlappy's rankings which are a good estimate but Cabrini was 5th in region last week.  They both may be locks if they make their tourney final and play well.

At this time last year, everyone was counting St. Marys (MD) as a lock and we saw their 20-3 record failed to hold up after getting upset in their conference tourney.  Buena Vista also had a similar fate last year.

I struggled with those two.  You could be right, Augie...who knows.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 23, 2010, 10:53:56 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2010, 10:20:23 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 23, 2010, 10:13:00 PM
Looks good except Guilford isn't the ODAC #1 seed, Eastern Mennonite is... but I think both of them are in anyway, so it's moot.

Revised...

(In order of Knightslappy's national ranking)

1. Williams (1) - OK if Middlebury wins the A...they are a lock C
2. William Paterson (3)
3. St. Thomas (4)
4. Whitworth (7)
5. UW-Whitewater (8) - OK if Stevens Point wins the A since they are a lock C
6. Eastern Mennonite (9) - OK if Guilford of Va. Wesleyan wins the A since both are C locks anyway
7. MIT (11)
8. Carthage (13)
9. Central (14)
10. Cabrini (15)
11. St. Mary's (16)
12. Texas-Dallas (17)
13. St. John Fisher (19)
14. St. Norbert (21)
15. Wooster (22)


I'm not sure that there can be 15 mortal locks.

The list I ... admittedly ad hoc'ed ... on the show Sunday night went down to the first nine but not any deeper.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2010, 11:05:52 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 23, 2010, 10:53:56 PM

I'm not sure that there can be 15 mortal locks.

Yes, "mortal locks" is probably too strong a term for some of those teams.

In any event, it's a list of "bubble bursters"...the teams the Pool C hopefuls needs to root for.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 24, 2010, 08:17:43 PM
There is a link to the final region rankings at:

MIT Basketball Blog (http://mitbasketball.blogspot.com/2010/02/mit-drops-spot-in-final-regular-season.html)

it is also now on the front page at:

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/24/2010-regional-ranking-week-4/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 24, 2010, 08:40:21 PM
I also posted the rankings in the D3hoops blog LINK (http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/24/2010-regional-ranking-week-4/#comment-5922)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2010, 02:56:34 AM


Men's rankings

BOLD is conference leaders

Purple are Pool C candidates

Atlantic Region
1.(1) William Paterson 22-2 23-2 (NJAC) BEAT Ramapo in NJAC semis; plays Richard Stockton in NJAC Final on Saturday
2.(2) Merchant Marine 20-4 21-4 (LAND) BEAT Susquehanna in Landmark semis; plays Scranton in Landmark Final on Saturday
3.(3)  Rutgers-Newark  16-5 20-6 (NJAC) LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis
4.(5) Richard Stockton 19-5 19-6 (NJAC) BEAT Rutgers-Newark in NJAC semis; plays William Paterson in NJAC Final on Saturday
5.(4) Ramapo 17-7 18-8 (NJAC) LOST to William Paterson in NJAC semis;

Previously ranked:  York (N.Y.) (CUNYAC)

East Region
1.(1) St. John Fisher 20-4 21-4 (Empire 8); plays Stevens in Empire 8 semis on Friday
2.(6) Plattsburgh State 17-6 18-7 (SUNYAC) tied with Oneonta State; BEAT New Paltz State in SUNYAC quarterfinals; plays Brockport State in SUNYAC semis on Friday
3.(3) Oneonta State 19-5 20-5 (SUNYAC) tied with Plattsburgh State; BEAT Oswego State in SUNYAC quarterfinals; plays Cortland State in SUNYAC semis on Friday
4.(NA) Ithaca 15-6 18-7 (Empire 8)  plays Nazareth in Empire 8 semis on Friday  
5.(2) Medaille 20-4 21-4 (AMCC); plays Frostburg State in AMCC semis on Friday
6.(5) New York University 15-8 16-8 (UAA); plays at Brandeis on Saturday

Dropping out:  Stevens (Empire 8)

Previously ranked:  Nazareth (Empire 8), Rochester (UAA)

Great Lakes Region
1.(2) John Carroll 17-5 19-5 (OAC); BEAT Marietta in OAC quarterfinals; plays Heidelberg in OAC semis on Friday.
2.(3) Wooster 20-4 20-5 (NCAC); BEAT Kenyon in NCAC quarterfinals; plays Ohio Wesleyan in NCAC semis on Friday.
3.(1) Hope 13-3 18-7 (MIAA); BEAT Trine in MIAA quarterfinals; plays Adrian in MIAA semis on Friday.
4.(4) Calvin 13-3 17-8 (MIAA); BEAT Alma in MIAA quarterfinals; plays Olivet in MIAA semis on Friday.
5.(6) Thomas More 19-6 19-6 (PrAC) tied with Grove City; BEAT Waynesburg in PrAC quarterfinals; plays Bethany in PrAC semis on Thursday.
6.(NA) Wilmington 17-6 18-7 (OAC); BEAT Mount Union in OAC quarterfinals; plays Capital in OAC semis on Friday.

Dropping out:  Wittenberg (NCAC)

Middle Atlantic Region
1.(4) St. Mary's (Md.) 20-3 22-3 (CAC); plays Marymount in CAC semis on Thursday.
2.(1) Albright 18-5 19-5 (MACC) tied with Lycoming; BEAT Messiah in MACC semis; plays Lycoming in MACC Final on Saturday
3.(2) Franklin and Marshall 21-4 21-4 (Centennial); plays Muhlenberg in Centennial semis on Saturday
4.(5) Cabrini 23-2 23-2 (CSAC); BEAT Immaculata in CSAC semis; plays Neumann in CSAC Final on Saturday
5.(3) Lycoming 16-5 20-5 (MACC) tied with Albright; BEAT Elizabethtown in MACC semis; plays Albright in MACC Final on Saturday
6.(6) DeSales 19-4 20-5 (MACF); BEAT King's in MACF semis; plays Misericordia in MACF Final on Saturday
7.(8) Messiah 15-5 16-8 (MACC); LOST to Albright in MACC semis
8.(7) York (Pa.) 18-6 19-6 (CAC); plays Wesley in CAC semis on Thursday
9.(NA) Wesley 14-5 17-7 (CAC); BEAT Salisbury in CAC 1st round; plays York (Pa.) in CAC semis on Thursday

Dropping out:  Catholic (LAND)

Previously ranked:  Elizabethtown (MACC); Alvernia (MACC)

Midwest Region
1.(1) Washington U. 19-2 22-2 (UAA); plays at Chicago on Saturday
2.(2) Carthage 16-3 20-5 (CCIW); plays Augustana in CCIW semis on Friday
3.(4) Wheaton (Ill.) 17-7 18-7 (CCIW); plays Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW semis on Friday
4.(5) Illinois Wesleyan 18-6 19-6 (CCIW); plays Wheaton in CCIW semis on Friday
5.(3) St. Norbert 19-3 20-3 (MWC); plays Ripon in MWC semis on Friday
6.(6) Anderson 19-4 21-4 (HCAC); plays Manchester in HCAC semis on Friday
7.(7) Defiance 18-5 20-5 (HCAC); BEAT Franklin in HCAC 1st round; plays Hanover in HCAC semis on Friday
8.(8) Augustana 16-8 16-9 (CCIW); plays Carthage in CCIW semis on Friday

Northeast Region
1.(1) Williams 22-0 24-1 (NESCAC); plays Bates in NESCAC semis on Friday
2.(3) Middlebury 19-2 23-2 (NESCAC); plays Colby in NESCAC semis on Friday
3.(2) MIT 21-2 22-3 (NEWMAC); plays Clark in NEWMAC semis on Saturday
4.(5) Colby 17-4 19-5 (NESCAC); plays Middlebury in NESCAC semis on Friday
5.(4) Brandeis 18-6 18-6 (UAA); plays NYU on Saturday
6.(7) Rhode Island College 18-7 18-7 (LEC); plays Mass-Dartmouth in LEC semis on Friday
7.(6) Bridgewater State 16-5 17-7 (MASCAC); plays Worcester State in MASCAC semis on Thursday
8.(9) Gordon 20-4 21-4 (CCC); BEAT Endicott in CCC quarterfinals; plays Colby-Sawyer in CCC semis on Thursday
9.(11) Western Connecticut 17-6 18-6 (LEC); plays Eastern Connecticut in LEC semis on Friday
10.(10) WPI 17-6 18-6 (NEWMAC); BEAT Coast Guard in NEWMAC quarterfinals; plays Springfield in NEWMAC semis on Saturday
11.(8)Eastern Connecticut 17-8 17-8 (LEC); BEAT Keene State in LEC quarterfinals; plays Western Connecticut in LEC semis on Friday


Previously ranked:  Mass-Dartmouth (LEC); Albertus Magnus (GNAC)

South Region
1.(1) Eastern Mennonite 17-2 21-3 (ODAC) tied with Guilford; plays Bridgewater in ODAC quarterfinals on Friday
2.(2) Guilford 23-2 23-2 (ODAC) tied with Eastern Mennonite; plays Lynchburg in ODAC quarterfinals on Friday
3.(3) Texas-Dallas 20-3 21-4 (ASC-East); plays Sul Ross State in ASC quarterfinals on Friday
4.(4) Virginia Wesleyan 19-4 21-4 (ODAC); plays Washington and Lee in ODAC quarterfinals on Friday
5.(6) Randolph-Macon 14-5 20-5 (ODAC); plays Hampden-Sydney in ODAC quarterfinals on Friday
6.(7) Maryville (Tenn.) 14-3 21-4 (GSAC) Pool B; plays Huntingdon in GSAC semis on Friday
7.(5) Austin 19-6 19-6 (SCAC); plays Rhodes in SCAC quarterfinals on Friday
8.(8) Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-5 19-6 (ASC-West); plays Texas-Tyler in ASC quarterfinals on Friday

Previously ranked:  Mississippi College (ASC-East)

West Region
1.(1) UW-Whitewater 21-4 21-4 (WIAC); plays Superior in WIAC semis on Thursday
2.(3) St. Thomas 20-2 23-2 (MIAC); plays Carleton in MIAC semis on Thursday
3.(4) Whitworth 21-2 23-2 (NWC); plays Lewis and Clark in NWC semis on Thursday
4.(2) UW-Stevens Point 20-4 21-4 (WIAC); plays Stout in WIAC semis on Thursday
5.(5) Central 19-2 21-4 (IIAC); plays Dubuque in IIAC semis on Thursday
6.(7) Chapman 17-1 23-2 (Independent) Pool B
7.(9) La Crosse 16-7 17-8 (WIAC); LOST to Superior in WIAC quarterfinals
8.(6) Claremont–Mudd-Scripps 15-4 19-5 (SCIAC)
9.(8) Augsburg 17-7 18-7 (MIAC); BEAT St. John's in MIAC quarterfinals; plays Gustavus Adolphus in MIAC semis on Thursday
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 25, 2010, 04:22:01 AM
Old School,
In the East region you are showing Ithaca losing to Stevens. Actually Ithaca beat Stevens 76-63, but that game was played on Feb 19th and is already included in their regional record of 15-6. It was Ithaca's final game of the regular season and earned them the #2 seed in the Empire 8 tournament. Stevens beat Elmira 73-49 on Feb 23 in their final regular season game which gave them the 4th seed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2010, 11:44:29 AM
Thats the game I looked at.  I thought Ithaca, but it was Elmira on the 23rd. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2010, 12:04:35 PM
Just a reminder... we will get the actual FINAL regional rankings Sunday or Monday... so we know how teams lined up for selections and bracketing.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2010, 12:09:27 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2010, 12:04:35 PM
Just a reminder... we will get the actual FINAL regional rankings Sunday or Monday... so we know how teams lined up for selections and bracketing.

Are they going to re-bracket after Pat sends in the corrections?  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 12:25:52 PM
Next Games for the "Bubble Bursters"

Williams (NESCAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Bates

William Paterson (NJAC, Atlantic) – Saturday, vs Richard Stockton

St. Thomas (MIAC, West) – Thursday, vs Carleton

Whitworth (NWC, West) – Thursday, vs Lewis & Clark

UW-Whitewater (WIAC, West) – Thursday, vs UW-Superior

Eastern Mennonite (ODAC, South) – Friday, vs Bridgewater (*neutral court)

MIT (NEWMAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Clark

Carthage (CCIW, Midwest) – Friday, vs Augustana

Central (IIAC, West) – Thursday, vs Dubuque

Cabrini (CSAC, Mid-Atlantic) – Friday, vs Neumann

St. Mary's (CAC, Mid-Atlantic) – Thursday, vs Marymount

Texas-Dallas (ASC, South) – Friday, vs Sul Ross St

St. John Fisher (E8, East) – Friday, vs Stevens

St. Norbert (MWC, Midwest) – Friday, vs Ripon

Wooster (NCAC, Great Lakes) – Friday, vs Ohio Wesleyan


* only neutral court game I believe
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 12:32:05 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 12:25:52 PM
Next Games for the "Bubble Bursters"

Williams (NESCAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Bates

UW-Whitewater (WIAC, West) – Thursday, vs UW-Superior


I only view these as bubble bursters if Middlebury and UW-Stevens Point don't go on to win conference tournaments following a loss by either Williams or Whitewater
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 12:32:52 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 12:32:05 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 12:25:52 PM
Next Games for the "Bubble Bursters"

Williams (NESCAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Bates

UW-Whitewater (WIAC, West) – Thursday, vs UW-Superior


I only view these as bubble bursters if Middlebury and UW-Stevens Point don't go on to win conference tournaments following a loss by either Williams or Whitewater

Absolutely agree.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 12:36:27 PM
Not sure I should have St. Norbert on that list based on the current regional rankings...

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/24/2010-regional-ranking-week-4/


It's possible the only bubble that might burst with a loss is their own.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2010, 12:44:27 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 12:25:52 PM
William Paterson (NJAC, Atlantic) – Saturday, vs Richard Stockton

What the consensus feeling on Richard Stockton? I know they're not a Pool C lock by any means, but they could still receive a bid should they lose.

I would probably include John Carroll in there as well. Probably not a lock for a C, but they are on top of the GL rankings and they'd certainly take some of the elbow room out of the bubble picture.

John Carroll (OAC, Great Lakes) - Friday, vs. Heidelberg

Thanks for the list!

Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 12:36:27 PM
Not sure I should have St. Norbert on that list based on the current regional rankings...

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/24/2010-regional-ranking-week-4/

It's possible the only bubble that might burst with a loss is their own.

Even if they don't make the cut, they still will make things a lot tighter, so I find it useful to have them on the list. Similar to my feelings on John Carroll and Wooster.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2010, 12:44:27 PM
Even if they don't make the cut, they still will make things a lot tighter, so I find it useful to have them on the list. Similar to my feelings on John Carroll and Wooster.

And that was really my intention...to identify the losses that would be make things tighter.  Either definitely, or potentially.  Agree John Carroll should be there.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 12:47:41 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 12:36:27 PM
Not sure I should have St. Norbert on that list based on the current regional rankings...

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/24/2010-regional-ranking-week-4/


It's possible the only bubble that might burst with a loss is their own.

Of the teams listed as potential bubble bursters MIT, Central, Cabrini, Texas-Dallas, and St. Norbert have strength-of-schedules below .500; I wouldn't be comfortable taking a loss if I were them, although some are in better shape than others.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 12:48:31 PM
(added John Carroll)


Next Games for the "Bubble Bursters"

Williams (NESCAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Bates

William Paterson (NJAC, Atlantic) – Saturday, vs Richard Stockton

St. Thomas (MIAC, West) – Thursday, vs Carleton

Whitworth (NWC, West) – Thursday, vs Lewis & Clark

UW-Whitewater (WIAC, West) – Thursday, vs UW-Superior

Eastern Mennonite (ODAC, South) – Friday, vs Bridgewater (*neutral court)

MIT (NEWMAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Clark

Carthage (CCIW, Midwest) – Friday, vs Augustana

Central (IIAC, West) – Thursday, vs Dubuque

Cabrini (CSAC, Mid-Atlantic) – Friday, vs Neumann

St. Mary's (CAC, Mid-Atlantic) – Thursday, vs Marymount

Texas-Dallas (ASC, South) – Friday, vs Sul Ross St

St. John Fisher (E8, East) – Friday, vs Stevens

St. Norbert (MWC, Midwest) – Friday, vs Ripon

Wooster (NCAC, Great Lakes) – Friday, vs Ohio Wesleyan

John Carroll (OAC, Great Lakes) - Friday, vs Heidelberg


* only neutral court game I believe
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 25, 2010, 01:03:03 PM
What do people think about La Crosse's chances at a Pool C bid?  I've been looking at them versus other on-the-bubble teams like Wheaton and IWU, and I think they may be on the table at the same time (barring any big upsets in the West, or elsewhere across the country, for that matter).


West Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. Wisconsin-Whitewater 21-4 21-4 A
2. St. Thomas (Minnesota) 20-2 23-2 A
3. Whitworth 21-2 23-2 A
4. Wisconsin-Stevens Point 20-4 21-4 C
5. Central (Iowa) 19-2 21-4 A
6. Chapman 17-1 23-2 B
7. Wisconsin-La Crosse 16-8 17-9 C?  (record updated to reflect Tuesday's loss)
8. Claremont–Mudd-Scripps 15-4 19-5 A
9. Augsburg 17-7 18-7


If everything holds serve in the West, then La Crosse will be on the table pretty early.  They're the second non-conference leading/Pool C lock in the West after Stevens Point who will be off the table pretty quickly.  Things get stickier if both SP and WW lose, or if Whitworth or St. Thomas lose... but let's just pretend that they all win and SP/WW get taken early.

How does La Crosse stack up?

I think it might possibly come down to LaX and Wheaton and/or IWU. 

Midwest Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. Washington-St. Louis 19-2 22-2 A
2. Carthage 16-3 20-5 A
3. Wheaton (Illinois) 18-8 19-8  C?
4. Illinois Wesleyan 18-7 19-7  C?

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI50   RPI     NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
W    08   0.667   0.568   0.557   0.564   0.597   0.630   051   C   018    16-8    17-9   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
MW   07   0.692   0.554   0.532   0.547   0.587   0.628   053   C   020    18-8    18-7   CCIW     Wheaton (IL)
MW   04   0.720   0.558   0.530   0.549   0.599   0.649   038   C   011    18-8    19-6   CCIW     IWU

I updated these numbers through next Saturday, projecting Wheaton beating IWU and then losing to Carthage.  The OWP/OOWP/SOS won't change too much between now and then, but the win % would, so I changed above based on this situation.

How Wheaton/LaX stack up?

• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents Wheaton (.692-.667)
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition) (LaX .564-.547)
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP) (weighted 2/3).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP) (weighted 1/3).
- Add OWP and OOWP to give total strength of schedule
• In-region head-to-head competition (--)
• In-region results versus common regional opponents (LaX 1-0 vs. Elmhurst Wheaton 2-0)
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams (LaX 2-3, Wheaton currently 4-3, would be 5-4 if they beat IWU and lose Sat to either Carthage or Augie)

I'm not sure if that's decisive, but Wheaton may have the tops.

If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision by the committee, the following secondary criteria (for ranking and selections) will be evaluated:
• Out-of-region head-to-head competition (- -)
• Overall Division III win-loss percentage (Wheaton 19-8 vs. La Crosse 15-8)
• Results versus common non Division III opponents (- -)
• Results versus all Division III ranked teams (LaX 3-3, Wheaton 5-4 or 6-5 with the above scenario)
• Overall win-loss percentage
• Results versus all common opponents.
• Overall DIII Strength of Schedule.

I guess it looks like Wheaton still has the upper hand so they'd get in.  IWU has a better regional W%, so if they win tomorrow and then lose in the final, they might move ahead of Wheaton and could be head to head with LaX... but LaX may actually drop with their loss Tuesday (doesn't look like that was taken into account with the rankings last night)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2010, 01:09:30 PM
I got the John Carroll question via email and here is what I wrote yesterday in that email:
For starters, if John Carroll loses in the conference tournament they will NOT end up being the #1 ranked team in the region. They will fall in the final rankings which are done on Sunday.

That being said, those teams ranked ahead of them will probably be automatic bid teams, which would move John Carroll to the top of the Great Lakes Region (or second) when it comes time to pick Pool C bids. That gives them an advantage in this situation.

So, when they get put up on "the board" with each of the other top Pool C teams in each region (one from each region are on the board at a time), John Carroll will have a 17-6 or 18-6 in-region record which certainly isn't the best, but isn't horrible either. Their advantage will be the fact they have a roughly .539 SOS (last SOS numbers from D3hoops.com: http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/10/sos.htm) and that will help them as the national committee chooses teams.

The problem John Carroll could have in place is if there are a number of upsets in conference tournaments of "lock" teams like Williams, Guilford, UW-Whitewater, UW-Stevens Point, St. Norbert (maybe), William Paterson, MIT, etc. That pits much better teams in terms of regional records and SOS on the board against John Carroll, putting a selection of the Blue Streaks further and further along in the selection process.

I think John Carroll is safe, but a combination of a loss and upsets in other tournaments could make it dicey.

Just my opinion. Also my opinion... I don't think Richard Stockton has a chance at a Pool C bid... but that is guy; I haven't looked at all the numbers, just yet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 01:16:55 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2010, 01:09:30 PM
Also my opinion... I don't think Richard Stockton has a chance at a Pool C bid... but that is guy; I haven't looked at all the numbers, just yet.

As it stands now they figure to be the first on the board in the Atlantic, my guess is they get in barring a huge number of conference tournament upsets. They should have a better wp and sos than John Carroll and you said they're in (which I agree with).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2010, 01:24:02 PM
I think we get two NJAC teams in, from the looks of it. Stockton's resume is comparable nationally. I actually ended up with three NJAC teams in the Pool C list I did last night but conference upsets would probably bounce one of them out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 01:29:34 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2010, 01:24:02 PM
I think we get two NJAC teams in, from the looks of it. Stockton's resume is comparable nationally. I actually ended up with three NJAC teams in the Pool C list I did last night but conference upsets would probably bounce one of them out.

I agree with you Pat. Since Stockton just beat Rutgers-Newark I expect that Stockton is in while Rutgers-Newark will have to wait out their fate a bit longer.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 25, 2010, 02:17:13 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 25, 2010, 01:03:03 PM
What do people think about La Crosse's chances at a Pool C bid?  I've been looking at them versus other on-the-bubble teams like Wheaton and IWU, and I think they may be on the table at the same time (barring any big upsets in the West, or elsewhere across the country, for that matter).


West Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. Wisconsin-Whitewater 21-4 21-4 A
2. St. Thomas (Minnesota) 20-2 23-2 A
3. Whitworth 21-2 23-2 A
4. Wisconsin-Stevens Point 20-4 21-4 C
5. Central (Iowa) 19-2 21-4 A
6. Chapman 17-1 23-2 B
7. Wisconsin-La Crosse 16-8 17-9 C?  (record updated to reflect Tuesday's loss)
8. Claremont–Mudd-Scripps 15-4 19-5 A
9. Augsburg 17-7 18-7


If everything holds serve in the West, then La Crosse will be on the table pretty early.  They're the second non-conference leading/Pool C lock in the West after Stevens Point who will be off the table pretty quickly.  Things get stickier if both SP and WW lose, or if Whitworth or St. Thomas lose... but let's just pretend that they all win and SP/WW get taken early.

How does La Crosse stack up?

I think it might possibly come down to LaX and Wheaton and/or IWU. 

Midwest Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. Washington-St. Louis 19-2 22-2 A
2. Carthage 16-3 20-5 A
3. Wheaton (Illinois) 18-8 19-8  C?
4. Illinois Wesleyan 18-7 19-7  C?

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI50   RPI     NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
W    08   0.667   0.568   0.557   0.564   0.597   0.630   051   C   018    16-8    17-9   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
MW   07   0.692   0.554   0.532   0.547   0.587   0.628   053   C   020    18-8    18-7   CCIW     Wheaton (IL)
MW   04   0.720   0.558   0.530   0.549   0.599   0.649   038   C   011    18-8    19-6   CCIW     IWU

I updated these numbers through next Saturday, projecting Wheaton beating IWU and then losing to Carthage.  The OWP/OOWP/SOS won't change too much between now and then, but the win % would, so I changed above based on this situation.

How Wheaton/LaX stack up?

• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents Wheaton (.692-.667)
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition) (LaX .564-.547)
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP) (weighted 2/3).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP) (weighted 1/3).
- Add OWP and OOWP to give total strength of schedule
• In-region head-to-head competition (--)
• In-region results versus common regional opponents (LaX 1-0 vs. Elmhurst Wheaton 2-0)
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams (LaX 2-3, Wheaton currently 4-3, would be 5-4 if they beat IWU and lose Sat to either Carthage or Augie)

I'm not sure if that's decisive, but Wheaton may have the tops.

If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision by the committee, the following secondary criteria (for ranking and selections) will be evaluated:
• Out-of-region head-to-head competition (- -)
• Overall Division III win-loss percentage (Wheaton 19-8 vs. La Crosse 15-8)
• Results versus common non Division III opponents (- -)
• Results versus all Division III ranked teams (LaX 3-3, Wheaton 5-4 or 6-5 with the above scenario)
• Overall win-loss percentage
• Results versus all common opponents.
• Overall DIII Strength of Schedule.

I guess it looks like Wheaton still has the upper hand so they'd get in.  IWU has a better regional W%, so if they win tomorrow and then lose in the final, they might move ahead of Wheaton and could be head to head with LaX... but LaX may actually drop with their loss Tuesday (doesn't look like that was taken into account with the rankings last night)
If Augsburg beats Gustavus tonight, I think they get ranked ahead of LAX and Augsburg is a fairly poor pool c candidate, so LAX might not get to the table in the first place.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2010, 02:41:38 PM
I dont think people have to worry about a bubble burster out of the ODAC, unless someone other than Guilford, EMU, or VWC win.  RMC was ranked #1 for a couple weeks earlier in the year, how do they stack up now for a Pool C?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2010, 03:10:19 PM
I had Macon on my list. Going to post something on the blog.

Agreed with AO about Augsburg being a fairly poor Pool C candidate. However, I did get that far down the list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 25, 2010, 03:15:50 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2010, 12:04:35 PM
Just a reminder... we will get the actual FINAL regional rankings Sunday or Monday... so we know how teams lined up for selections and bracketing.

  Are we getting them before the selections are announced?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 25, 2010, 03:52:54 PM
KnightSlappy or Pat,
Now that Plattsburgh St. and Oneonta St. are ranked #2 and #3 in the East behind St. John Fisher, what are the chances, assuming Fisher wins a Pool A bid and 1 of these 2 SUNYAC teams wins the Pool A bid that the other one, with 1 more loss, gets a Pool C bid? 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2010, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2010, 03:52:54 PM
KnightSlappy or Pat,
Now that Plattsburgh St. and Oneonta St. are ranked #2 and #3 in the East behind St. John Fisher, what are the chances, assuming Fisher wins a Pool A bid and 1 of these 2 SUNYAC teams wins the Pool A bid that the other one, with 1 more loss, gets a Pool C bid? 

Pat's Pool C projection has them both in: http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/25/taking-a-whack-at-pool-c/

ziggy and I did our projection without the benefit of the NCAA's rankings (we had to predict the rankings) so we had Oneonta as the Pool A and Plattsburgh as one of the teams left on the table.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 25, 2010, 04:18:46 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2010, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2010, 03:52:54 PM
KnightSlappy or Pat,
Now that Plattsburgh St. and Oneonta St. are ranked #2 and #3 in the East behind St. John Fisher, what are the chances, assuming Fisher wins a Pool A bid and 1 of these 2 SUNYAC teams wins the Pool A bid that the other one, with 1 more loss, gets a Pool C bid? 

Pat's Pool C projection has them both in: http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/25/taking-a-whack-at-pool-c/

ziggy and I did our projection without the benefit of the NCAA's rankings (we had to predict the rankings) so we had Oneonta as the Pool A and Plattsburgh as one of the teams left on the table.

Thanks,
I didn't see that link on the front page. I also was looking at the bracket Ziggy and you did the other day on the mitten sports report. I thought you had Ithaca in the field but didn't see them included in the brackets you made out. Was that the case or did I miss something?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2010, 04:20:48 PM
What I find as a really intriguing possibility - what if the 5, 6, 7, or 8 seed wins the ODAC?  EMU, Guilford, and Va Wes would be locks to give the ODAC four teams; could Randy Mac give them five?!  (I know four has happened before; would five from a single conference be unprecedented?)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fritzdis on February 25, 2010, 04:26:19 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 12:48:31 PM
(added John Carroll)


Next Games for the "Bubble Bursters"

Williams (NESCAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Bates

William Paterson (NJAC, Atlantic) – Saturday, vs Richard Stockton

St. Thomas (MIAC, West) – Thursday, vs Carleton

Whitworth (NWC, West) – Thursday, vs Lewis & Clark

UW-Whitewater (WIAC, West) – Thursday, vs UW-Superior

Eastern Mennonite (ODAC, South) – Friday, vs Bridgewater (*neutral court)

MIT (NEWMAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Clark

Carthage (CCIW, Midwest) – Friday, vs Augustana

Central (IIAC, West) – Thursday, vs Dubuque

Cabrini (CSAC, Mid-Atlantic) – Friday, vs Neumann

St. Mary's (CAC, Mid-Atlantic) – Thursday, vs Marymount

Texas-Dallas (ASC, South) – Friday, vs Sul Ross St

St. John Fisher (E8, East) – Friday, vs Stevens

St. Norbert (MWC, Midwest) – Friday, vs Ripon

Wooster (NCAC, Great Lakes) – Friday, vs Ohio Wesleyan

John Carroll (OAC, Great Lakes) - Friday, vs Heidelberg


* only neutral court game I believe


As a "bubble burster" list (as opposed to a "locks" list), I think Merchant Marine, Albright, and maybe Franklin & Marshall should be considered, as they were all high in the regional rankings and have similar numbers as some of the teams on the list.

(All of the below is as of Sunday)

Merchant Marine had the same WP as Wooster with a higher OWP and OOWP.  Being second in the region behind William Patterson (who would get a quick Pool C bid should they lose), MM should be on the table early if they lose.  The caveat is that Richard Stockton may have passed MM with their win over Rutgers-Newark.  If WP wins the NJAC, RS could well be the first to the table from the Atlantic.

Albright had a higher WP, OWP, and OOWP than John Carroll.  They were also 2nd in the region, but if St. Mary's loses, they won't be picked as fast as Patterson.  If St. Mary's wins their AQ, however, Albright would probably be 1st to the table from the Mid-Atlantic region.  As the "best" (based on the rankings) Pool C candidate from the MACC, I'd classify them as a potential bubble-burster, even though Lycoming is the #1 seed.

F&M has numbers pretty similar to St. Norbert, but they're ranked higher in their region, so F&M would be more likely to get to the table early (it's not clear who would be higher in the final ranking if F&M and Cabrini both lose).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 04:27:25 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2010, 04:18:46 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2010, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2010, 03:52:54 PM
KnightSlappy or Pat,
Now that Plattsburgh St. and Oneonta St. are ranked #2 and #3 in the East behind St. John Fisher, what are the chances, assuming Fisher wins a Pool A bid and 1 of these 2 SUNYAC teams wins the Pool A bid that the other one, with 1 more loss, gets a Pool C bid?  

Pat's Pool C projection has them both in: http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/25/taking-a-whack-at-pool-c/

ziggy and I did our projection without the benefit of the NCAA's rankings (we had to predict the rankings) so we had Oneonta as the Pool A and Plattsburgh as one of the teams left on the table.

Thanks,
I didn't see that link on the front page. I also was looking at the bracket Ziggy and you did the other day on the mitten sports report. I thought you had Ithaca in the field but didn't see them included in the brackets you made out. Was that the case or did I miss something?

We put Ithaca in the St. John Fisher pod.

Our biggest, and really only significant, variance from our rankings at the time of our projection to the latest regional rankings was in regard to Plattsburgh State's placement. Their .7273 winning percentage didin't do much for us considering the .4754 SOS (ranked 271 nationally). Clearly the NCAA feels otherwise which is either a good thing for them or a bad thing for Pool C hopefuls out of the East.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 25, 2010, 04:39:11 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 04:27:25 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2010, 04:18:46 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2010, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2010, 03:52:54 PM
KnightSlappy or Pat,
Now that Plattsburgh St. and Oneonta St. are ranked #2 and #3 in the East behind St. John Fisher, what are the chances, assuming Fisher wins a Pool A bid and 1 of these 2 SUNYAC teams wins the Pool A bid that the other one, with 1 more loss, gets a Pool C bid?  

Pat's Pool C projection has them both in: http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/25/taking-a-whack-at-pool-c/

ziggy and I did our projection without the benefit of the NCAA's rankings (we had to predict the rankings) so we had Oneonta as the Pool A and Plattsburgh as one of the teams left on the table.

Thanks,
I didn't see that link on the front page. I also was looking at the bracket Ziggy and you did the other day on the mitten sports report. I thought you had Ithaca in the field but didn't see them included in the brackets you made out. Was that the case or did I miss something?

We put Ithaca in the St. John Fisher pod.

Our biggest, and really only significant, variance from our rankings at the time of our projection to the latest regional rankings was in regard to Plattsburgh State's placement. Their .7273 winning percentage didin't do much for us considering the .4754 SOS (ranked 271 nationally). Clearly the NCAA feels otherwise which is either a good thing for them or a bad thing for Pool C hopefuls out of the East.
Ziggy,
I can't find the St John Fisher pod either, but I did find the Ramapo, Merchant Marine, Cabrini, and Rutgers-Newark pod listed in 2 places, near the top and at the bottom of the right hand side. Must be 2 other teams not listed as well. Thought I was going blind for a while there. ;) :D ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 04:40:25 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2010, 04:39:11 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 04:27:25 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2010, 04:18:46 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2010, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2010, 03:52:54 PM
KnightSlappy or Pat,
Now that Plattsburgh St. and Oneonta St. are ranked #2 and #3 in the East behind St. John Fisher, what are the chances, assuming Fisher wins a Pool A bid and 1 of these 2 SUNYAC teams wins the Pool A bid that the other one, with 1 more loss, gets a Pool C bid?  

Pat's Pool C projection has them both in: http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/25/taking-a-whack-at-pool-c/

ziggy and I did our projection without the benefit of the NCAA's rankings (we had to predict the rankings) so we had Oneonta as the Pool A and Plattsburgh as one of the teams left on the table.

Thanks,
I didn't see that link on the front page. I also was looking at the bracket Ziggy and you did the other day on the mitten sports report. I thought you had Ithaca in the field but didn't see them included in the brackets you made out. Was that the case or did I miss something?

We put Ithaca in the St. John Fisher pod.

Our biggest, and really only significant, variance from our rankings at the time of our projection to the latest regional rankings was in regard to Plattsburgh State's placement. Their .7273 winning percentage didin't do much for us considering the .4754 SOS (ranked 271 nationally). Clearly the NCAA feels otherwise which is either a good thing for them or a bad thing for Pool C hopefuls out of the East.
Ziggy,
I can't find the St John Fisher pod either, but I did find the Ramapo, Merchant Marine, Cabrini, and Rutgers-Newark pod listed in 2 places, near the top and at the bottom of the right hand side. Must be 2 other teams not listed as well. Thought I was going blind for a while there. ;) :D ;D

Its on there, it was updated.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 25, 2010, 04:49:25 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 04:40:25 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2010, 04:39:11 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2010, 04:27:25 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2010, 04:18:46 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2010, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2010, 03:52:54 PM
KnightSlappy or Pat,
Now that Plattsburgh St. and Oneonta St. are ranked #2 and #3 in the East behind St. John Fisher, what are the chances, assuming Fisher wins a Pool A bid and 1 of these 2 SUNYAC teams wins the Pool A bid that the other one, with 1 more loss, gets a Pool C bid?  

Pat's Pool C projection has them both in: http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/25/taking-a-whack-at-pool-c/

ziggy and I did our projection without the benefit of the NCAA's rankings (we had to predict the rankings) so we had Oneonta as the Pool A and Plattsburgh as one of the teams left on the table.

Thanks,
I didn't see that link on the front page. I also was looking at the bracket Ziggy and you did the other day on the mitten sports report. I thought you had Ithaca in the field but didn't see them included in the brackets you made out. Was that the case or did I miss something?

We put Ithaca in the St. John Fisher pod.

Our biggest, and really only significant, variance from our rankings at the time of our projection to the latest regional rankings was in regard to Plattsburgh State's placement. Their .7273 winning percentage didin't do much for us considering the .4754 SOS (ranked 271 nationally). Clearly the NCAA feels otherwise which is either a good thing for them or a bad thing for Pool C hopefuls out of the East.
Ziggy,
I can't find the St John Fisher pod either, but I did find the Ramapo, Merchant Marine, Cabrini, and Rutgers-Newark pod listed in 2 places, near the top and at the bottom of the right hand side. Must be 2 other teams not listed as well. Thought I was going blind for a while there. ;) :D ;D

Its on there, it was updated.

Well, it is now, but I just pulled the page up 20 minutes ago and it didn't have the Fisher pod on the bottom then. I used the link off your brother's post.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 10:09:13 PM
Someone's bubble is bursting tonight...

Carleton 66
St. Thomas 54

2:00 left

(Carleton will face Gustavus Adolphus in the MIAC title game.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 25, 2010, 10:11:30 PM
Stout leads Stevens Point 38-34 and Superior leads Whitewater 36-35, both games at the half.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2010, 10:13:25 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 10:09:13 PM
Someone's bubble is bursting tonight...

Carleton 66
St. Thomas 54

2:00 left

(Carleton will face Gustavus Adolphus in the MIAC title game.)

St. Thomas cuts it to 4 with 1:00.

And the foul fest begins.

And now it's only a 3 point lead for Carleton with 41 seconds to go.

...but Carleton regains control and wins 73-67
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 25, 2010, 10:24:39 PM
Stout leads Stevens Point 49-42 with 15:51 in the half
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2010, 10:29:57 PM
Anyone expecting Carleton to down the Tommies tonite is either a Carlie or a liar! :D 

Now the countdown begins - will the Tommies be the very first Pool C, or will an even bigger fish get fried?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WUPHF on February 25, 2010, 10:36:16 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2010, 10:29:57 PM
Now the countdown begins - will the Tommies be the very first Pool C, or will an even bigger fish get fried?

Hmm...how about some Walleye.  We are talking about the Minnesota afterall.  Carleton played a great game and everything fell for them tonight (65 percent in the second half).  St. Thomas almost got them in the end with a few big three pointers, but to no avail.

That is a big time upset!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 25, 2010, 10:43:23 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 25, 2010, 10:24:39 PM
Stout leads Stevens Point 49-42 with 15:51 in the half

Point now leads 65-57.  Whitewater leads 58-48
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 25, 2010, 10:53:20 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2010, 10:29:57 PM
Anyone expecting Carleton to down the Tommies tonite is either a Carlie or a liar! :D 

Now the countdown begins - will the Tommies be the very first Pool C, or will an even bigger fish get fried?

Nites from the MIAC board saw it coming, though he did think Augsburg would get by Gustavus tonight.
Quote from: Nites on February 24, 2010, 07:11:43 PM
Quote from: AO on February 24, 2010, 12:54:50 PM
If I were an Augie fan, I'd be watching whitworth, central and claremont-ms.  They could get to the table very early and the committee would be looking at a team with 3 losses to St. Thomas and a very strong strength of schedule (boosted by the additional loss to the tommies).  In the end, 8 losses might just be too many to overcome.

You mean boosted by an additional loss to Carleton, in which case St. Thomas gets the Pool C bid and Auggie goes home.  :o  What do you think of that scenario?    :)
It was a rough night for one-loss regular season-conference champions from St. Paul tonight as my squad (Northwestern) went down by a similar margin.  The motivation wasn't there for either team as the tommies were guaranteed a bid, and Northwestern is in the UMAC which doesn't get the AQ till next year, and doesn't have a shot at a c or b bid.   

So who did Carleton knock out tonight?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 11:01:50 PM
Next Games for the "Bubble Bursters"

Williams (NESCAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Bates

William Paterson (NJAC, Atlantic) – Saturday, vs Richard Stockton

St. Thomas (MIAC, West) – lost to Carleton

Whitworth (NWC, West) – Thursday, vs Lewis & Clark

Eastern Mennonite (ODAC, South) – Friday, vs Bridgewater

MIT (NEWMAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Clark

Carthage (CCIW, Midwest) – Friday, vs Augustana

Central (IIAC, West) – Saturday, vs Buena Vista

Cabrini (CSAC, Mid-Atlantic) – Friday, vs Neumann

St. Mary's (CAC, Mid-Atlantic) – Saturday, vs Wesley

Texas-Dallas (ASC, South) – Friday, vs Sul Ross St

St. John Fisher (E8, East) – Friday, vs Stevens

St. Norbert (MWC, Midwest) – Friday, vs Ripon

Wooster (NCAC, Great Lakes) – Friday, vs Ohio Wesleyan

John Carroll (OAC, Great Lakes) - Friday, vs Heidelberg

Merchant Marine (LAND, Atlantic) - Saturday, vs Scranton

Franklin & Marshall (CC, Mid-Atlantic) - Saturday, vs Muhlenberg


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 11:09:13 PM
I removed UW-Whitewater from the Bubble Burster list...they face Stevens Point in the WIAC title game, and both are in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: cubs on February 25, 2010, 11:09:26 PM
Stevens Point and Whitewater help the Pool C hopefuls as both come back from halftime deficits to win by double digits.  Both teams are already in, so that should help the rest of the Pool C's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2010, 09:00:40 AM
Heading into Friday with only one major upset isn't too bad, is it? Although, I'm sure things are just heating up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2010, 10:21:20 AM
I'll update the Regional rankings list tonight after the games, and after I return home from work. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 26, 2010, 11:10:47 AM
In the event of a school having both teams qualify, which gender has hosting priorities in the 1st/2nd round this year?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 26, 2010, 11:12:31 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 26, 2010, 11:10:47 AM
In the event of a school having both teams qualify, which gender has hosting priorities in the 1st/2nd round this year?

Men
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2010, 12:11:31 PM
Men have priority in the regional rounds in even numbered years... with women getting priority in the sectional rounds.
Women have priority in the regional rounds in odd numbered years... with men getting priority in the sectional rounds.

Case in point... looks like William Paterson women will be on the road even though they deserve to host the first weekend... because the men also deserve to host the opening rounds.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 26, 2010, 12:13:51 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2010, 12:11:31 PM
Men have priority in the regional rounds in even numbered years... with women getting priority in the sectional rounds.
Women have priority in the regional rounds in odd numbered years... with men getting priority in the sectional rounds.

Case in point... looks like William Paterson women will be on the road even though they deserve to host the first weekend... because the men also deserve to host the opening rounds.

Same for Wash U
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 26, 2010, 12:21:33 PM
Both WIAC finals are UW-Stevens Point at UW-Whitewater, so it could be an issue there too.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2010, 12:43:57 PM
Just Bill... we are talking about hosting in the NCAA tournament. I don't think UW-Whitewater women will be hosting in the first rounds of the tournament considering their current regional ranking.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 26, 2010, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2010, 12:43:57 PM
Just Bill... we are talking about hosting in the NCAA tournament. I don't think UW-Whitewater women will be hosting in the first rounds of the tournament considering their current regional ranking.

I'd consider them a reasonable shot to host if they win on Saturday and enter the NCAA's as the outright WIAC champ and WIAC tournament champ.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 26, 2010, 02:20:49 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 26, 2010, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2010, 12:43:57 PM
Just Bill... we are talking about hosting in the NCAA tournament. I don't think UW-Whitewater women will be hosting in the first rounds of the tournament considering their current regional ranking.

I'd consider them a reasonable shot to host if they win on Saturday and enter the NCAA's as the outright WIAC champ and WIAC tournament champ.

...but there is no potential loss of hosting privileges for their women's teams because of it. That was the discussion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 26, 2010, 08:56:03 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2010, 11:01:50 PM
Next Games for the "Bubble Bursters"

Wooster (NCAC, Great Lakes) – Friday, vs Ohio Wesleyan

John Carroll (OAC, Great Lakes) - Friday, vs Heidelberg
Wooster 87, OWU 70
Heidelberg 104, JCU 97
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2010, 09:46:44 PM
(ASC-East #1) UT-Dallas vs (ASC-East #3) ETBU 2pm Sat
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2010, 02:11:18 AM
Men's rankings
Pool A bids

BOLD is conference leaders

Purple are Pool C candidates



Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) William Paterson 22-2 23-2 (NJAC) BEAT Ramapo in NJAC semis; plays Richard Stockton in NJAC Final on Saturday
2.(2) Merchant Marine 20-4 21-4 (LAND) BEAT Susquehanna in Landmark semis; plays Scranton in Landmark Final on Saturday
3.(3)  Rutgers-Newark  16-5 20-6 (NJAC) LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis
4.(5) Richard Stockton 19-5 19-6 (NJAC) BEAT Rutgers-Newark in NJAC semis; plays William Paterson in NJAC Final on Saturday
5.(4) Ramapo 17-7 18-8 (NJAC) LOST to William Paterson in NJAC semis;

Previously ranked:  York (N.Y.) (CUNYAC)-BEAT Hunter in CUNYAC semis; plays Brooklyn in CUNYAC Final on Saturday

East Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) St. John Fisher 20-4 21-4 (Empire 8); BEAT Stevens in Empire 8 semis, plays Nazareth in Empire 8 Final on Saturday
2.(6) Plattsburgh State 17-6 18-7 (SUNYAC) tied with Oneonta State; BEAT New Paltz State in SUNYAC quarterfinals; BEAT Brockport State in SUNYAC semis; plays Oneonta State in SUNYAC Final on Saturday
3.(3) Oneonta State 19-5 20-5 (SUNYAC) tied with Plattsburgh State; BEAT Oswego State in SUNYAC quarterfinals; BEAT Cortland State in SUNYAC semis; plays Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final on Saturday
4.(NA) Ithaca 15-6 18-7 (Empire 8) LOST to Nazareth in Empire 8 semis  
5.(2) Medaille 20-4 21-4 (AMCC); BEAT Frostburg State in AMCC semis; plays Pitt-Bradford in AMCC Final on Saturday
6.(5) New York University 15-8 16-8 (UAA); plays at Brandeis on Saturday

Dropping out:  Stevens (Empire 8)-LOST to St. John Fisher in E8 semis

Previously ranked:  Nazareth (Empire 8)-plays St. John Fisher in E8 Final, Rochester (UAA)

Great Lakes Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(2) John Carroll 17-5 19-5 (OAC); BEAT Marietta in OAC quarterfinals; LOST to Heidelberg in OAC semis.
2.(3) Wooster 20-4 20-5 (NCAC); BEAT Kenyon in NCAC quarterfinals; BEAT Ohio Wesleyan in NCAC semis; plays Wittenberg in NCAC Final on Saturday
3.(1) Hope 13-3 18-7 (MIAA); BEAT Trine in MIAA quarterfinals; BEAT Adrian in MIAA semis; plays Calvin in MIAA Final on Saturday.
4.(4) Calvin 13-3 17-8 (MIAA); BEAT Alma in MIAA quarterfinals; BEAT Olivet in MIAA semis; plays Hope in MIAA Final on Saturday
5.(6) Thomas More 19-6 19-6 (PrAC) tied with Grove City; BEAT Waynesburg in PrAC quarterfinals; BEAT Bethany in PrAC semis; plays Grove City in PrAC Final on Saturday
6.(NA) Wilmington 17-6 18-7 (OAC); BEAT Mount Union in OAC quarterfinals; BEAT Capital in OAC semis; plays Heidelberg in OAC Final on Saturday.

Dropping out:  Wittenberg (NCAC)-BEAT Wabash in NCAC semis; plays Wooster in NCAC Final on Saturday

Middle Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(4) St. Mary's (Md.) 20-3 22-3 (CAC); BEAT Marymount in CAC semis; plays Wesley in CAC Final on Saturday.
2.(1) Albright 18-5 19-5 (MACC) tied with Lycoming; BEAT Messiah in MACC semis; plays Lycoming in MACC Final on Saturday
3.(2) Franklin and Marshall 21-4 21-4 (Centennial); plays Muhlenberg in Centennial semis on Saturday
4.(5) Cabrini 23-2 23-2 (CSAC); BEAT Immaculata in CSAC semis; BEAT Neumann in CSAC Final
5.(3) Lycoming 16-5 20-5 (MACC) tied with Albright; BEAT Elizabethtown in MACC semis; plays Albright in MACC Final on Saturday
6.(6) DeSales 19-4 20-5 (MACF); BEAT King's in MACF semis; plays Misericordia in MACF Final on Saturday
7.(8) Messiah 15-5 16-8 (MACC); LOST to Albright in MACC semis
8.(7) York (Pa.) 18-6 19-6 (CAC); LOST to Wesley in CAC semis.
9.(NA) Wesley 14-5 17-7 (CAC); BEAT Salisbury in CAC 1st round; BEAT York (Pa.) in CAC semis; plays St. Mary's in CAC Final on Saturday

Dropping out:  Catholic (LAND)

Previously ranked:  Elizabethtown (MACC)- LOST to Lycoming in MACC semis; Alvernia (MACC)

Midwest Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Washington U. 19-2 22-2 (UAA); plays at Chicago on Saturday
2.(2) Carthage 16-3 20-5 (CCIW); BEAT Augustana in CCIW semis; plays Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW Final on Saturday
3.(4) Wheaton (Ill.) 17-7 18-7 (CCIW); LOST to Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW semis
4.(5) Illinois Wesleyan 18-6 19-6 (CCIW); BEAT Wheaton in CCIW semis; plays Carthage in CCIW Final on Saturday
5.(3) St. Norbert 19-3 20-3 (MWC); BEAT Ripon in MWC semis; plays Carroll U. in MWC Final on Saturday
6.(6) Anderson 19-4 21-4 (HCAC); BEAT Manchester in HCAC semis; plays Defiance in HCAC Final on Saturday
7.(7) Defiance 18-5 20-5 (HCAC); BEAT Franklin in HCAC 1st round; BEAT Hanover in HCAC semis; plays Anderson in HCAC Final on Saturday
8.(8) Augustana 16-8 16-9 (CCIW); LOST to Carthage in CCIW semis

Northeast Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Williams 22-0 24-1 (NESCAC); plays Bates in NESCAC semis on Saturday
2.(3) Middlebury 19-2 23-2 (NESCAC); plays Colby in NESCAC semis on Saturday
3.(2) MIT 21-2 22-3 (NEWMAC); plays Clark in NEWMAC semis on Saturday
4.(5) Colby 17-4 19-5 (NESCAC); plays Middlebury in NESCAC semis on Saturday
5.(4) Brandeis 18-6 18-6 (UAA); plays NYU on Saturday
6.(7) Rhode Island College 18-7 18-7 (LEC); BEAT Mass-Dartmouth in LEC semis; plays Western Connecticut in LEC Final on Saturday
7.(6) Bridgewater State 16-5 17-7 (MASCAC); BEAT Worcester State in MASCAC semis; plays Framingham State in MASCAC Final on Saturday
8.(9) Gordon 20-4 21-4 (CCC); BEAT Endicott in CCC quarterfinals; BEAT Colby-Sawyer in CCC semis; plays Curry in CCC Final on Saturday
9.(11) Western Connecticut 17-6 18-6 (LEC); BEAT Eastern Connecticut in LEC semis; plays Rhode Island College in LEC Final Saturday
10.(10) WPI 17-6 18-6 (NEWMAC); BEAT Coast Guard in NEWMAC quarterfinals; plays Springfield in NEWMAC semis on Saturday
11.(8)Eastern Connecticut 17-8 17-8 (LEC); BEAT Keene State in LEC quarterfinals; LOST to Western Connecticut in LEC semis

Previously ranked:  Mass-Dartmouth (LEC)-LOST to Rhode Island College in LEC semis; Albertus Magnus (GNAC)-plays Emerson in GNAC Final on Saturday

South Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Eastern Mennonite 17-2 21-3 (ODAC) tied with Guilford; BEAT Bridgewater in ODAC quarterfinals; plays Randolph-Macon in ODAC semis on Saturday
2.(2) Guilford 23-2 23-2 (ODAC) tied with Eastern Mennonite; BEAT Lynchburg in ODAC quarterfinals; plays Virginia Wesleyan in ODAC semis on Saturday
3.(3) Texas-Dallas 20-3 21-4 (ASC-East); BEAT Sul Ross State in ASC quarterfinals; plays East Texas Baptist in ASC semis on Saturday
4.(4) Virginia Wesleyan 19-4 21-4 (ODAC); BEAT Washington and Lee in ODAC quarterfinals; plays Guilford in ODAC semis on Saturday
5.(6) Randolph-Macon 14-5 20-5 (ODAC); BEAT Hampden-Sydney in ODAC quarterfinals; plays Eastern Mennonite in ODAC semis on Saturday
6.(7) Maryville (Tenn.) 14-3 21-4 (GSAC) Pool B; plays La Grange  in GSAC Final on Saturday
7.(5) Austin 19-6 19-6 (SCAC); plays Rhodes in SCAC quarterfinals on Friday
8.(8) Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-5 19-6 (ASC-West); BEAT Texas-Tyler in ASC quarterfinals; plays Mississippi College in ASC semis on Saturday

Previously ranked:  Mississippi College (ASC-East)-BEAT Concordia Austin in ASC quarterfinals; plays Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC semis on Saturday

West Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) UW-Whitewater 21-4 21-4 (WIAC); BEAT Superior in WIAC semis; plays UW-Stevens Point in WIAC Final on Saturday
2.(3) St. Thomas 20-2 23-2 (MIAC); LOST to Carleton in MIAC semis
3.(4) Whitworth 21-2 23-2 (NWC); BEAT Lewis and Clark in NWC semis; plays George Fox in NWC Final onSaturday
4.(2) UW-Stevens Point 20-4 21-4 (WIAC); BEAT Stout in WIAC semis; plays UW-Whitewater in WIAC Final on Saturday
5.(5) Central 19-2 21-4 (IIAC); BEAT Dubuque in IIAC semis; plays Buena Vista in IIAC Final on Saturday
6.(7) Chapman 17-1 23-2 (Independent) Pool B
7.(9) La Crosse 16-7 17-8 (WIAC); LOST to Superior in WIAC quarterfinals
8.(6) Claremont–Mudd-Scripps 15-4 19-5 (SCIAC) BEAT Occidental in SCIAC semis; plays Ponoma-Pitzer in SCIAC Final on Saturday
9.(8) Augsburg 17-7 18-7 (MIAC); BEAT St. John's in MIAC quarterfinals; LOST to Gustavus Adolphus in MIAC semis
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: mailsy on February 27, 2010, 02:28:21 AM
Old School,

Cabrini beat Neumann Friday and won the automatic bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2010, 10:40:15 AM
Next Games for the "Bubble Bursters"

Williams (NESCAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Bates

William Paterson (NJAC, Atlantic) – Saturday, vs Richard Stockton

St. Thomas (MIAC, West) – lost to Carleton

Whitworth (NWC, West) – Saturday, vs George Fox

Eastern Mennonite (ODAC, South) – Saturday, vs Randolph-Macon

MIT (NEWMAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Clark

Central (IIAC, West) – Saturday, vs Buena Vista

Carthage (CCIW, Midwest) - Saturday, vs Illinois Wesleyan

St. Mary's (CAC, Mid-Atlantic) – Saturday, vs Wesley

John Carroll (OAC, Great Lakes) - lost to Heidelberg

Texas-Dallas (ASC, South) – Saturday, vs East Texas Baptist

St. John Fisher (E8, East) – Saturday, vs Nazareth

St. Norbert (MWC, Midwest) – Saturday, vs Carroll

Wooster (NCAC, Great Lakes) – Saturday, vs Wittenberg

Merchant Marine (LAND, Atlantic) - Saturday, vs Scranton

Franklin & Marshall (CC, Mid-Atlantic) - Saturday, vs Muhlenberg

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 27, 2010, 11:16:29 AM
Old School,
Maryville (Tenn.) beat Huntington  79-71 on Friday night. Plays Lagrange in GSAC final on Saturday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 27, 2010, 02:53:44 PM
I just received word from Plattsburgh St. that the SUNYAC Championship game between Oneonta St and Plattsburgh St will be a live webcast by PSTV this afternoon at 4:00 PM. Here's the link:

http://primelink1.net/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2010, 03:08:57 PM
Another C slot has disappeared - MIT fell to Clark, 71-59.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2010, 03:31:11 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2010, 03:08:57 PM
Another C slot has disappeared - MIT fell to Clark, 71-59.

MIT shot a season low 17% from 3, tough way to go out. They were also missing their starting shooting guard for the second game in a row.   MIT had a lead about half way through the second half, but from then on they went ice cold and Clark mounted a huge run to take the win.  I hope they dont fall too much in the regional poll.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 27, 2010, 07:41:01 PM
At the half in Wooster:

Wooster 45, Wittenberg 27

Scots have dominated their arch-rivals in the first half, shooting 45% while holding the Tigers under 30%.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2010, 07:56:39 PM
Randy Mac downs EMU.  If there was any real doubt, that should clinch four spots for the ODAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2010, 08:35:22 PM
It looks like Anderson is about to lose to Defiance (down 4 w/ 18 seconds to go).

I haven't done the Pool C homework on Anderson - would they be a definite 'bubble-buster', or would they themselves be on the bubble?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2010, 08:40:36 PM
Anderson falls, 70-65, to Defiance.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dc_has_been on February 27, 2010, 08:44:03 PM
I have wondered about both Defiance and Anderson depending on who lost the HCAC tournament.  Now with DC out of the equation, Anderson is 22-5 but a very weak SOS and no real dominate wins over top teams other than Wittenberg & Defiance if you want to count that one.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 27, 2010, 08:46:48 PM
Wooster wins the NCAC Tournament, 88-77 over Wittenberg.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: usee on February 27, 2010, 11:13:56 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2010, 10:40:15 AM
Next Games for the "Bubble Bursters"

Williams (NESCAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Bates

William Paterson (NJAC, Atlantic) – Saturday, vs Richard Stockton

St. Thomas (MIAC, West) – lost to Carleton

Whitworth (NWC, West) – Saturday, vs George Fox

Eastern Mennonite (ODAC, South) – Saturday, vs Randolph-Macon

MIT (NEWMAC, Northeast) – Saturday, vs Clark

Central (IIAC, West) – Saturday, vs Buena Vista

Carthage (CCIW, Midwest) - Saturday, vs Illinois Wesleyan

St. Mary's (CAC, Mid-Atlantic) – Saturday, vs Wesley

John Carroll (OAC, Great Lakes) - lost to Heidelberg

Texas-Dallas (ASC, South) – Saturday, vs East Texas Baptist

St. John Fisher (E8, East) – Saturday, vs Nazareth

St. Norbert (MWC, Midwest) – Saturday, vs Carroll

Wooster (NCAC, Great Lakes) – Saturday, vs Wittenberg

Merchant Marine (LAND, Atlantic) - Saturday, vs Scranton

Franklin & Marshall (CC, Mid-Atlantic) - Saturday, vs Muhlenberg



In addition to the two in red above, 3 others lost making 5 bubble bursting losses (eastern Menonite, St John Fisher, MIT). Anderson also lost to Defiance and may be added to this list. Th only game that is not yet final is the Whitworth game and they lead by 18 in the second half.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2010, 12:24:54 AM
Posted this on the CCIW board in regards to IWU and Wheaton, but will post here too...


I see 9 Pool C teams that will get in before the highest ranked team in the Midwest (which almost certainly will be IWU).  These are in no order...

* St. Thomas
* St. John Fisher
* John Carroll
* MIT
* Eastern Mennonite
* Virginia Wesleyan
* Guilford/Randolph-Macon loser (tomorrow)
* UW-Whitewater
* Williams/Middlebury loser (tomorrow)

(I'm putting 4 ODAC teams in...3 Pool C's.)

I see two games tomorrow that could potentially add teams to this list:

- Gettysburg @ Franklin & Marshall (need F&M to win)
- Texas-Dallas @ Mary Hardin-Baylor (need Texas-Dallas to win)

So if IWU is the highest ranked Midwest Pool C candidate, I think they probably enter the selection process behind 9 teams...11 at the most (if F&M and Texas-Dallas both lose).  Now, there are 19 Pool C bids available, so they have 10 rounds or so to get selected.  And if you look at the resumes of the candidates after those top 9, there are not that many better than IWU's overall.  Several have better in-region winning %, but IWU is helped by a strong strength of schedule and several wins over other regionally ranked teams (Carthage, Wheaton, Augustana twice).

After those 11 near locks listed above (assuming both F&M and Texas-Dallas lose tomorrow), I see IWU in the next tier of Pool C candidates, alongside teams like the following (again, in no order):

* Richard Stockton
* Oneonta St
* Illinois Wesleyan
* Lycoming
* Colby
* Brandeis
 

If the Midwest committee ranks IWU ahead of Wheaton (which again, almost has to happen), I feel very confident IWU gets in somewhere in the neighborhood of round 13 or so...and about #17 at the absolute worst.  I believe the Titans are in good shape.

I think Wheaton is out.  With the upsets that have taken place, I just don't think the .680 in-region winning percentage will be competitive. Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think it looks good for Wheaton.

I think the final 2-3 Pool C spots will come down to this group of teams:

* Rutgers-Newark
* Ithaca
* Calvin
* Thomas More
* Messiah
* Wheaton (IL)
* Anderson
* Austin
* UW-La Crosse
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2010, 01:59:52 AM
Pool A   (Automatic Qualifier)

Pool C  

Conference Leader

Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
AQ1.(1) William Paterson  22-2 23-2 (NJAC)  BEAT Richard Stockton in NJAC Final
AQ2.(2) Merchant Marine 20-4 21-4 (LAND) BEAT Scranton in Landmark Final
3.(3)  Rutgers-Newark  16-5 20-6 (NJAC) LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis
4.(5) Richard Stockton  19-5 19-6 (NJAC) LOST  to William Paterson in NJAC Final
5.(4) Ramapo 17-7 18-8 (NJAC) LOST to William Paterson in NJAC semis;

Previously ranked:  York (N.Y.)   (CUNYAC) LOST to Brooklyn in CUNYAC Final

East Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) St. John Fisher   20-4 21-4 (Empire 8); LOST  to Nazareth in Empire 8 Final
AQ2.(6) Plattsburgh State   17-6 18-7 (SUNYAC) BEAT Oneonta State in SUNYAC Final
3.(3) Oneonta State   19-5 20-5 (SUNYAC) LOST to Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final
4.(NA) Ithaca  15-6 18-7 (Empire 8) LOST to Nazareth in Empire 8 semis  
AQ5.(2) Medaille   20-4 21-4 (AMCC); BEAT Pitt-Bradford in AMCC Final
6.(5) New York University 15-8 16-8 (UAA); LOST to Brandeis  

Dropping out:  Stevens  (Empire 8)

Previously ranked: AQ Nazareth  (Empire 8) BEAT St. John Fisher in Empire 8 Final, Rochester   (UAA) BEAT Emory

Great Lakes Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(2) John Carroll   17-5 19-5 (OAC) LOST to Heidelberg in OAC semis.
AQ2.(3)  Wooster  20-4 20-5 (NCAC); BEAT Wittenberg in NCAC Final
AQ3.(1) Hope  13-3 18-7 (MIAA); BEAT Calvin in MIAA Final
4.(4) Calvin  13-3 17-8 (MIAA); LOST  to Hope in MIAA Final
5.(6) Thomas More   19-6 19-6 (PrAC) LOST to Grove City in PrAC Final
AQ6.(NA) Wilmington  17-6 18-7 (OAC); BEAT Heidelberg in OAC Final.

Dropping out:  Wittenberg  (NCAC) LOST to Wooster in NCAC Final

Middle Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
AQ1.(4) St. Mary's  20-3 22-3 (CAC); BEAT Wesley in CAC Final
AQ2.(1) Albright  18-5 19-5 (MACC) BEAT Lycoming in MACC Final  
3.(2) Franklin and Marshall 21-4 21-4 (Centennial); plays Gettysburg in Centennial Final on Sunday
AQ4.(5) Cabrini  23-2 23-2 (CSAC); BEAT Neumann in CSAC Final
5.(3) Lycoming 16-5 20-5 (MACC) LOST to Albright in MACC Final  
AQ6.(6) DeSales  19-4 20-5 (MACF); BEAT Misericordia in MACF Final
7.(8) Messiah 15-5 16-8 (MACC); LOST to Albright in MACC semis
8.(7) York (Pa)  18-6 19-6 (CAC); LOST to Wesley in CAC semis
9.(NA) Wesley  14-5 17-7 (CAC);  LOST to St. Mary's (Md) in CAC Final

Dropping out:  Catholic  (LAND) LOST  to Scranton in LAND semis

Previously ranked:  Elizabethtown (MACC) LOST to Lycoming in MACC semis, Alvernia (MACC)


Midwest Region In-Region Record Overall Record
AQ1.(1) Washington U  19-2 22-2 (UAA); BEAT Chicago
AQ2.(2) Carthage  16-3 20-5 (CCIW); BEAT Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW Final
3.(4)  Wheaton (Ill) 17-7 18-7 (CCIW); LOST  to Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW semis
4.(5)  Illinois Wesleyan  18-6 19-6 (CCIW); LOST  to Carthage in CCIW Final
AQ5.(3) St. Norbert  19-3 20-3 (MWC); BEAT Carroll U. in MWC Final
6.(6)  Anderson 19-4 21-4 (HCAC); LOST  to Defiance in HCAC Final
AQ7.(7) Defiance  18-5 20-5 (HCAC); BEAT Anderson in HCAC Final
8.(8) Augustana  16-8 16-9 (CCIW); LOST  to Carthage in CCIW semis

Northeast Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Williams 22-0 24-1 (NESCAC); plays Middlebury in NESCAC Final on Sunday
2.(3) Middlebury 19-2 23-2 (NESCAC); plays Williams in NESCAC Final on Sunday
3.(2)  MIT 21-2 22-3 (NEWMAC);  LOST to Clark in NEWMAC semis
4.(5) Colby  17-4 19-5 (NESCAC); LOST to Middlebury in NESCAC semis
5.(4) Brandeis 18-6 18-6 (UAA); BEAT NYU on
AQ6.(7) Rhode Island College   18-7 18-7 (LEC); BEAT Western Connecticut in LEC Final
AQ7.(6) Bridgewater State  16-5 17-7 (MASCAC); BEAT Framingham State in MASCAC Final
AQ8.(9) Gordon  20-4 21-4 (CCC); BEAT Curry in CCC Final
9.(11) Western Connecticut   17-6 18-6 (LEC);  LOST to Rhode Island College in LEC Final  
10.(10) WPI 17-6 18-6 (NEWMAC); plays Clark in NEWMAC Final on Sunday
11.(8)Eastern Connecticut   17-8 17-8 (LEC); LOST to Western Connecticut in LEC semis

Previously ranked:  Mass-Dartmouth (LEC); AQ Albertus Magnus  (GNAC) BEAT Emerson in GNAC Final

South Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Eastern Mennonite   17-2 21-3 (ODAC) LOST to Randolph-Macon in ODAC semis
2.(2) Guilford 23-2 23-2 (ODAC) Plays Randolph-Macon in ODAC Final on Sunday
3.(3) Texas-Dallas 20-3 21-4 (ASC-East); plays Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC Final
4.(4) Virginia Wesleyan   19-4 21-4 (ODAC); LOST to Guilford in ODAC semis  
5.(6) Randolph-Macon 14-5 20-5 (ODAC); plays Guilford in ODAC Final
6.(7) Maryville (Tenn.) 14-3 21-4 (GSAC) Pool B; BEAT La Grange in GSAC Final
7.(5) Austin  19-6 19-6 (SCAC); LOST  to DePauw in SCAC semis
8.(8) Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-5 19-6 (ASC-West); plays Texas Dallas in ASC Final

Previously ranked:  Mississippi College   (ASC-East) LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC semis

West Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Whitewater  21-4 21-4 (WIAC);  LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final
2.(3) St. Thomas  20-2 23-2 (MIAC);  LOST to Carleton in MIAC semis
AQ3.(4) Whitworth  21-2 23-2 (NWC); BEAT George Fox in NWC Final
AQ4.(2) Stevens Point  20-4 21-4 (WIAC); BEAT Whitewater in WIAC Final
AQ5.(5)Central  19-2 21-4 (IIAC) BEAT Buena Vista in IIAC Final
6.(7) Chapman 17-1 23-2 (Independent) Pool B
7.(9) La Crosse 16-7 17-8 (WIAC); LOST to Superior in WIAC quarterfinals
AQ8.(6) Claremont–Mudd-Scripps   15-4 19-5 (SCIAC) BEAT Ponoma-Pitzer in SCIAC Final
9.(8) Augsburg   17-7 18-7 (MIAC); LOST  to Gustavus Adolphus in MIAC semis
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2010, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2010, 12:24:54 AM
I think Wheaton is out.  With the upsets that have taken place, I just don't think the .680 in-region winning percentage will be competitive. Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think it looks good for Wheaton.

I think the final 2-3 Pool C spots will come down to this group of teams:

* Rutgers-Newark
* Ithaca
* Calvin
* Thomas More
* Messiah
* Wheaton (IL)
* Anderson
* Austin
* UW-La Crosse


So if your 15 listed above get in (as I believe they will) and Texas-Dallas and F&M win, we have 4 spots left.

Wheaton's SOS is monster compared to everyone else's, plus, as Pat points out in his projection, they beat Calvin head to head, should the committee look to the secondary.

when ziggy and I did our projection last night, we pretty much had this on the board (can't remember exactly what it was but we had Calvin ahead of Thomas More in our GL rankings, and UMHB ahead of Austin in the south, Wheaton ahead of Anderson in the MW). We ended up taking Rutgers-Newark, Messiah, Calvin, and Wheaton.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: usee on February 28, 2010, 01:15:51 PM
KnightSlappy, I think those are exactly the questions I have.  Q says .680 in region winning percentage is bad (it is) but Wheaton's SOS is the best and both are primary criteria so what do you do. The Thunder also have the win vs Calvin (out of region) and are 2-1 against IWU (does the most recent loss count most? I think the committee has to rank IWU ahead of Wheaton simply because their overall resume looks a little better but it's not a slam dunk given the HTH season record).

As a Wheaton fan I am resigned to the fact the Thunder may be done and 4 losses by two points or less may be their undoing. The one that hurts the most right now is the in region loss to Hamline in December. We knew then it was huge and now it may be the thing that keeps Wheaton out of the tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 28, 2010, 01:32:21 PM
Quote from: USee on February 28, 2010, 01:15:51 PM
KnightSlappy, I think those are exactly the questions I have.  Q says .680 in region winning percentage is bad (it is) but Wheaton's SOS is the best and both are primary criteria so what do you do. The Thunder also have the win vs Calvin (out of region) and are 2-1 against IWU (does the most recent loss count most? I think the committee has to rank IWU ahead of Wheaton simply because their overall resume looks a little better but it's not a slam dunk given the HTH season record).

As a Wheaton fan I am resigned to the fact the Thunder may be done and 4 losses by two points or less may be their undoing. The one that hurts the most right now is the in region loss to Hamline in December. We knew then it was huge and now it may be the thing that keeps Wheaton out of the tourney.

the thing about the final Pool C candidates is that they all have faults. Whether it be SOS or WP there are no perfect choices. Wheaton does have the great SOS but they will likely be compared to Mary Hardin-Baylor who has a great WP but terrible SOS. Wheaton's wins over regionally ranked opponents put them over the top for us.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2010, 03:03:26 PM
My 3 tiers of Pool C candidates are:

(Teams within tiers are not listed in any order.)

First In
* St. Thomas
* St. John Fisher
* John Carroll
* MIT
* Eastern Mennonite
* Virginia Wesleyan
* Guilford/Randolph-Macon loser (2:30pm CST)
* UW-Whitewater
* Middlebury

Two teams that could join this list today with losses:

* Franklin & Marshall (hosts Gettysburg, 2:00pm CST)
* Texas-Dallas (@ Mary Hardin-Baylor, 2:00pm CST)

Second Tier (safely in)
* Richard Stockton
* Oneonta St
* Illinois Wesleyan
* Lycoming
* Colby
* Brandeis

The Bubble (4 spots available if F&M and Texas-Dallas both win)
* Rutgers-Newark
* Ithaca
* Calvin
* Thomas More
* Messiah
* Wheaton (IL)
* Anderson
* Austin
* UW-La Crosse


If Texas-Dallas and F&M both win, I'm starting to think Wheaton is in as about #17 and Anderson has a chance to get #18 or #19.  (With 2 more from the Bubble list above rounding out the last four in.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2010, 03:13:14 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 28, 2010, 01:32:21 PM
the thing about the final Pool C candidates is that they all have faults. Whether it be SOS or WP there are no perfect choices. Wheaton does have the great SOS but they will likely be compared to Mary Hardin-Baylor who has a great WP but terrible SOS. Wheaton's wins over regionally ranked opponents put them over the top for us.

Something to consider is that the national committee knows the flaws in the current SOS system, especially as it impacts the ASC teams.  I had a discussion with South region chair Pat Cunningham about this a month or so ago actually.  (And I think national chair Charlie Brock acknowledged this problem on Hoopsville earlier in the year.)  Because the ASC teams play so incredibly few non-conference games, their SOS really can't possibly stray too far from .500.  It's not like, say, the CCIW where 11 non-conference games allow for SOS to be built up over .600 or so.

I guess I'm just saying, realize the national committee will not just simply look at a team like Wheaton's SOS relative to a Mary Hardin-Baylor and automatically decide Wheaton gets and edge due to SOS.  They do look beyond the numbers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2010, 03:37:48 PM
Bubble Trouble?

UMHB is on a 12-0 run, taking a 10-point lead with 4 minutes 'til the half.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2010, 03:39:13 PM
On the other hand, F & M leads by 15 at the half.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2010, 03:45:39 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2010, 03:13:14 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 28, 2010, 01:32:21 PM
the thing about the final Pool C candidates is that they all have faults. Whether it be SOS or WP there are no perfect choices. Wheaton does have the great SOS but they will likely be compared to Mary Hardin-Baylor who has a great WP but terrible SOS. Wheaton's wins over regionally ranked opponents put them over the top for us.

Something to consider is that the national committee knows the flaws in the current SOS system, especially as it impacts the ASC teams.  I had a discussion with South region chair Pat Cunningham about this a month or so ago actually.  (And I think national chair Charlie Brock acknowledged this problem on Hoopsville earlier in the year.)  Because the ASC teams play so incredibly few non-conference games, their SOS really can't possibly stray too far from .500.  It's not like, say, the CCIW where 11 non-conference games allow for SOS to be built up over .600 or so.

I guess I'm just saying, realize the national committee will not just simply look at a team like Wheaton's SOS relative to a Mary Hardin-Baylor and automatically decide Wheaton gets and edge due to SOS.  They do look beyond the numbers.


But UMHB's SOS has been so far below .500 this year... the large number of conference games should actually be helping them.

May not matter though, UMHB has a 14 point lead just before halftime.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2010, 03:47:50 PM
UMHB trailed 23-25 when they went on a 16-0 run!  They lead at the half, 42-30.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2010, 04:31:01 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2010, 03:13:14 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 28, 2010, 01:32:21 PM
the thing about the final Pool C candidates is that they all have faults. Whether it be SOS or WP there are no perfect choices. Wheaton does have the great SOS but they will likely be compared to Mary Hardin-Baylor who has a great WP but terrible SOS. Wheaton's wins over regionally ranked opponents put them over the top for us.

Something to consider is that the national committee knows the flaws in the current SOS system, especially as it impacts the ASC teams.  I had a discussion with South region chair Pat Cunningham about this a month or so ago actually.  (And I think national chair Charlie Brock acknowledged this problem on Hoopsville earlier in the year.)  Because the ASC teams play so incredibly few non-conference games, their SOS really can't possibly stray too far from .500.  It's not like, say, the CCIW where 11 non-conference games allow for SOS to be built up over .600 or so.

I guess I'm just saying, realize the national committee will not just simply look at a team like Wheaton's SOS relative to a Mary Hardin-Baylor and automatically decide Wheaton gets and edge due to SOS.  They do look beyond the numbers.
Thanks for the comments, Titan Q.

The debates that we have had on the ASC boards is that coaches have to fill 25 dates each season.

For all practical purposes, the closest 20/21 opponents (the double round robin and single crossover schedule for the 7 member East and the 8 member West divisions) are the conference members are the conference members.  Filling 20/21 dates on the schedule locks out those dates as ones that can be used to schedule with another team that is nearby.  Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College, University of Dallas, and Millsaps are basically the only schools nearby that can fill those dates.  Every other D3 opponent is a plane flight.

We can jokingly refer to the ASC conference tourney as a "play-in" tourney.  Both UTD and UMHB have been ranked in the Regional Rankings.  If the conference were split, then they could take a Pool C bid away from D-III and have another Pool A to distribute.  (Also, An extra Pool A bid might shift the distribution of first round pods because of geographic proximity.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2010, 04:37:25 PM
Franklin and Marshall downs Gettsburg 66-62 to win the Centennial Conference Championship
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2010, 04:39:33 PM
UT-Dallas coming back against Mary Hardin-Baylor, only down by 3 64-61 with 4 minutes to play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2010, 04:44:12 PM
Dallas closes to within 2 at 65-63 with a 16-1 run but UNHB now ahead 69-63 with 2:08 to go.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2010, 04:57:54 PM
Guilford leads Randy-Macon 69-61 with 5:10 left to play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:00:04 PM
Mary Hardin-Baylor hits their foul shots down the stretch and pulls away from UT-Dallas 80-70 to claim the ASC Tournament Championship.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2010, 05:02:00 PM
Being on the Texas island, will the rematch be in the first round, or not 'til the second?!

I'm gonna guess that the big loser was Anderson.  Either them or Calvin.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:11:05 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2010, 05:02:00 PM
Being on the Texas island, will the rematch be in the first round, or not 'til the second?!

I'm gonna guess that the big loser was Anderson.  Either them or Calvin.

I would guess the 2nd round, but anything's possible considering their location.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:16:11 PM
Live stats on the Guilford game has frozen at 5:10 to play, for the past 20 minutes. Game is probably over by now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2010, 05:17:28 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:16:11 PM
Live stats on the Guilford game has frozen at 5:10 to play, for the past 20 minutes. Game is probably over by now.

On the ODAC board they have Guilford winning big (about 16, if I recall).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:29:58 PM
Wow! USA just scored against Canada with 15 seconds to play in the game to tie it up 2-2.  Now headed to overtime.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 28, 2010, 05:34:20 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:29:58 PM
Wow! USA just scored against Canada with 15 seconds to play in the game to tie it up 2-2.  Now headed to overtime.

If USA takes the Pool A then Canada will certainly take someone's Pool C bid away.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2010, 05:34:41 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:29:58 PM
Wow! USA just scored against Canada with 15 seconds to play in the game to tie it up 2-2.  Now headed to overtime.

Now, now, accuracy counts!  There were 24.4 seconds left! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:36:27 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2010, 05:17:28 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:16:11 PM
Live stats on the Guilford game has frozen at 5:10 to play, for the past 20 minutes. Game is probably over by now.

On the ODAC board they have Guilford winning big (about 16, if I recall).

Thanks Mr. Y.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: donho on February 28, 2010, 05:38:41 PM
  Guilford won 81-65. >:(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:43:45 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2010, 05:34:41 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:29:58 PM
Wow! USA just scored against Canada with 15 seconds to play in the game to tie it up 2-2.  Now headed to overtime.

Now, now, accuracy counts!  There were 24.4 seconds left! ;D

I was just going with what the announcers said when play resumed after the goal. Were you watching the game?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 28, 2010, 05:44:18 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:43:45 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2010, 05:34:41 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:29:58 PM
Wow! USA just scored against Canada with 15 seconds to play in the game to tie it up 2-2.  Now headed to overtime.

Now, now, accuracy counts!  There were 24.4 seconds left! ;D

I was just going with what the announcers said when play resumed after the goal. Were you watching the game?

I'm glued to it. Unbelieveable.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2010, 05:57:55 PM
Tough loss for the USA. But much better results this Olympics than the last one.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 28, 2010, 05:59:57 PM
Can someone remind me will they be announcing the teams who are in tonight and the brackets tomorrow? Or is it everything tomorrow?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2010, 06:21:08 PM
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut on February 28, 2010, 05:59:57 PM
Can someone remind me will they be announcing the teams who are in tonight and the brackets tomorrow? Or is it everything tomorrow?

I believe it's everything tomorrow. That's what they have done in the past.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: cubs on February 28, 2010, 06:55:37 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2010, 12:24:54 AM
I think Wheaton is out.  With the upsets that have taken place, I just don't think the .680 in-region winning percentage will be competitive. Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think it looks good for Wheaton.

I think the final 2-3 Pool C spots will come down to this group of teams:

* Rutgers-Newark
* Ithaca
* Calvin
* Thomas More
* Messiah
* Wheaton (IL)
* Anderson
* Austin
* UW-La Crosse
Hard to believe is still in the conversation despite losing 6 of their last 8 games.  To think if they would have went 4-4 over the last 8 games, they would likely have earned one of the last Pool c spots.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 28, 2010, 06:59:14 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 28, 2010, 06:21:08 PM
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut on February 28, 2010, 05:59:57 PM
Can someone remind me will they be announcing the teams who are in tonight and the brackets tomorrow? Or is it everything tomorrow?

I believe it's everything tomorrow. That's what they have done in the past.

I seem to remember one year they released the teams on one day, and the pairings the next. :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2010, 07:04:11 PM
Listening to the Hoopsville interview with the Anderson head coach.  A whole bunch of sour grapes being thrown around there...wow.

* They had a game "stolen" from them at Hanover
* No one will play them (including teams that regularly play the likes of Wash U and other great programs)
* Inferred some type of reason other than criteria is why Wheaton and IWU are ranked higher in the region
* Wants credit for playing Platteville...even though out of region


Interesting interview.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2010, 07:05:36 PM

Hey can someone fill me in on why we think Witt will be ahead of Wilmington on the GL Region list?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 28, 2010, 07:32:19 PM
Quote from: cubs on February 28, 2010, 06:55:37 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2010, 12:24:54 AM
I think Wheaton is out.  With the upsets that have taken place, I just don't think the .680 in-region winning percentage will be competitive. Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think it looks good for Wheaton.

I think the final 2-3 Pool C spots will come down to this group of teams:

* Rutgers-Newark
* Ithaca
* Calvin
* Thomas More
* Messiah
* Wheaton (IL)
* Anderson
* Austin
* UW-La Crosse
Hard to believe is still in the conversation despite losing 6 of their last 8 games.  To think if they would have went 4-4 over the last 8 games, they would likely have earned one of the last Pool c spots.

Yeah, La Crosse really shot themselves in the foot.  Then in they followed with the shin and the thigh.  They were in a GREAT spot for a Pool C at the end of December... but then absolutely fell apart.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2010, 07:34:01 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2010, 07:05:36 PM

Hey can someone fill me in on why we think Witt will be ahead of Wilmington on the GL Region list?
Do we think that?  We certainly think that Wilmington will keep playing this week and Wittenberg will not, making their relative positions on the GL list irrelevant.  Nevertheless, this component of "we" doesn't expect Witt to be ranked at all (in the GL), much less ahead of Wilma.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AUStudent on February 28, 2010, 08:39:36 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2010, 07:04:11 PM
Listening to the Hoopsville interview with the Anderson head coach.  A whole bunch of sour grapes being thrown around there...wow.

* They had a game "stolen" from them at Hanover
* No one will play them (including teams that regularly play the likes of Wash U and other great programs)
* Inferred some type of reason other than criteria is why Wheaton and IWU are ranked higher in the region
* Wants credit for playing Platteville...even though out of region


Interesting interview.
where can i listen to this at?

thanks


quote formatting fixed
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2010, 10:20:37 PM
Front page of D3hoops.com is always a good place to check for interesting things. Show was on from 5-9:30 ET.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2010, 10:53:17 PM
Pool A   (Automatic Qualifier)

Pool C  

Conference Leader

Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
AQ1.(1) William Paterson  22-2 23-2 (NJAC)  BEAT Richard Stockton in NJAC Final
AQ2.(2) Merchant Marine 20-4 21-4 (LAND) BEAT Scranton in Landmark Final
3.(3)  Rutgers-Newark  16-5 20-6 (NJAC) LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis
4.(5) Richard Stockton  19-5 19-6 (NJAC) LOST  to William Paterson in NJAC Final
5.(4) Ramapo 17-7 18-8 (NJAC) LOST to William Paterson in NJAC semis;

Previously ranked:  York (N.Y.)   (CUNYAC) LOST to Brooklyn in CUNYAC Final

East Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) St. John Fisher   20-4 21-4 (Empire 8); LOST  to Nazareth in Empire 8 Final
AQ2.(6) Plattsburgh State   17-6 18-7 (SUNYAC) BEAT Oneonta State in SUNYAC Final
3.(3) Oneonta State   19-5 20-5 (SUNYAC) LOST to Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final
4.(NA) Ithaca  15-6 18-7 (Empire 8) LOST to Nazareth in Empire 8 semis  
AQ5.(2) Medaille   20-4 21-4 (AMCC); BEAT Pitt-Bradford in AMCC Final
6.(5) New York University 15-8 16-8 (UAA); LOST to Brandeis  

Dropping out:  Stevens  (Empire 8)

Previously ranked: AQ Nazareth  (Empire 8) BEAT St. John Fisher in Empire 8 Final, Rochester   (UAA) BEAT Emory

Great Lakes Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(2) John Carroll   17-5 19-5 (OAC) LOST to Heidelberg in OAC semis.
AQ2.(3)  Wooster  20-4 20-5 (NCAC); BEAT Wittenberg in NCAC Final
AQ3.(1) Hope  13-3 18-7 (MIAA); BEAT Calvin in MIAA Final
4.(4) Calvin  13-3 17-8 (MIAA); LOST  to Hope in MIAA Final
5.(6) Thomas More   19-6 19-6 (PrAC) LOST to Grove City in PrAC Final
AQ6.(NA) Wilmington  17-6 18-7 (OAC); BEAT Heidelberg in OAC Final.

Dropping out:  Wittenberg  (NCAC) LOST to Wooster in NCAC Final

Middle Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
AQ1.(4) St. Mary's  20-3 22-3 (CAC); BEAT Wesley in CAC Final
AQ2.(1) Albright  18-5 19-5 (MACC) BEAT Lycoming in MACC Final  
AQ3.(2) Franklin and Marshall 21-4 21-4 (Centennial); BEAT Gettysburg in Centennial Final
AQ4.(5) Cabrini  23-2 23-2 (CSAC); BEAT Neumann in CSAC Final
5.(3) Lycoming 16-5 20-5 (MACC) LOST to Albright in MACC Final  
AQ6.(6) DeSales  19-4 20-5 (MACF); BEAT Misericordia in MACF Final
7.(8) Messiah 15-5 16-8 (MACC); LOST to Albright in MACC semis
8.(7) York (Pa)  18-6 19-6 (CAC); LOST to Wesley in CAC semis
9.(NA) Wesley  14-5 17-7 (CAC);  LOST to St. Mary's (Md) in CAC Final

Dropping out:  Catholic  (LAND) LOST  to Scranton in LAND semis

Previously ranked:  Elizabethtown (MACC) LOST to Lycoming in MACC semis, Alvernia (MACC)


Midwest Region In-Region Record Overall Record
AQ1.(1) Washington U  19-2 22-2 (UAA); BEAT Chicago
AQ2.(2) Carthage  16-3 20-5 (CCIW); BEAT Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW Final
3.(4)  Wheaton (Ill) 17-7 18-7 (CCIW); LOST  to Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW semis
4.(5)  Illinois Wesleyan  18-6 19-6 (CCIW); LOST  to Carthage in CCIW Final
AQ5.(3) St. Norbert  19-3 20-3 (MWC); BEAT Carroll U. in MWC Final
6.(6)  Anderson 19-4 21-4 (HCAC); LOST  to Defiance in HCAC Final
AQ7.(7) Defiance  18-5 20-5 (HCAC); BEAT Anderson in HCAC Final
8.(8) Augustana  16-8 16-9 (CCIW); LOST  to Carthage in CCIW semis

Northeast Region In-Region Record Overall Record
AQ1.(1) Williams 22-0 24-1 (NESCAC); BEAT Middlebury in NESCAC Final
2.(3) Middlebury 19-2 23-2 (NESCAC); LOST to Williams in NESCAC Final
3.(2)  MIT 21-2 22-3 (NEWMAC);  LOST to Clark in NEWMAC semis
4.(5) Colby  17-4 19-5 (NESCAC); LOST to Middlebury in NESCAC semis
5.(4) Brandeis 18-6 18-6 (UAA); BEAT NYU
AQ6.(7) Rhode Island College   18-7 18-7 (LEC); BEAT Western Connecticut in LEC Final
AQ7.(6) Bridgewater State  16-5 17-7 (MASCAC); BEAT Framingham State in MASCAC Final
AQ8.(9) Gordon  20-4 21-4 (CCC); BEAT Curry in CCC Final
9.(11) Western Connecticut   17-6 18-6 (LEC);  LOST to Rhode Island College in LEC Final  
10.(10) WPI 17-6 18-6 (NEWMAC);  LOST to Clark in NEWMAC Final
11.(8)Eastern Connecticut   17-8 17-8 (LEC); LOST to Western Connecticut in LEC semis

Previously ranked:  Mass-Dartmouth (LEC); AQ Albertus Magnus  (GNAC) BEAT Emerson in GNAC Final

South Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Eastern Mennonite   17-2 21-3 (ODAC) LOST to Randolph-Macon in ODAC semis
AQ2.(2) Guilford 23-2 23-2 (ODAC) BEAT Randolph-Macon in ODAC Final
3.(3) Texas-Dallas 20-3 21-4 (ASC-East); LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC Final
4.(4) Virginia Wesleyan   19-4 21-4 (ODAC); LOST to Guilford in ODAC semis  
5.(6) Randolph-Macon 14-5 20-5 (ODAC); LOST to Guilford in ODAC Final
6.(7) Maryville (Tenn.) 14-3 21-4 (GSAC) Pool B; BEAT La Grange in GSAC Final
7.(5) Austin  19-6 19-6 (SCAC); LOST  to DePauw in SCAC semis
AQ8.(8) Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-5 19-6 (ASC-West) BEAT Texas Dallas in ASC Final

Previously ranked:  Mississippi College   (ASC-East) LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC semis

West Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Whitewater  21-4 21-4 (WIAC);  LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final
2.(3) St. Thomas  20-2 23-2 (MIAC);  LOST to Carleton in MIAC semis
AQ3.(4) Whitworth  21-2 23-2 (NWC); BEAT George Fox in NWC Final
AQ4.(2) Stevens Point  20-4 21-4 (WIAC); BEAT Whitewater in WIAC Final
AQ5.(5)Central  19-2 21-4 (IIAC) BEAT Buena Vista in IIAC Final
6.(7) Chapman 17-1 23-2 (Independent) Pool B
7.(9) La Crosse 16-7 17-8 (WIAC); LOST to Superior in WIAC quarterfinals
AQ8.(6) Claremont–Mudd-Scripps   15-4 19-5 (SCIAC) BEAT Ponoma-Pitzer in SCIAC Final
9.(8) Augsburg   17-7 18-7 (MIAC); LOST  to Gustavus Adolphus in MIAC semis
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2010, 11:00:12 PM
POOL C CONTENDERS WITHOUT AQ'S INCLUDED.  Just to make it a little easier!

Conference Leader

Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
3.(3)  Rutgers-Newark  16-5 20-6 (NJAC) LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis
4.(5) Richard Stockton  19-5 19-6 (NJAC) LOST  to William Paterson in NJAC Final
5.(4) Ramapo 17-7 18-8 (NJAC) LOST to William Paterson in NJAC semis;

Previously ranked:  York (N.Y.)   (CUNYAC) LOST to Brooklyn in CUNYAC Final

East Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) St. John Fisher   20-4 21-4 (Empire 8); LOST  to Nazareth in Empire 8 Final
3.(3) Oneonta State   19-5 20-5 (SUNYAC) LOST to Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final
4.(NA) Ithaca  15-6 18-7 (Empire 8) LOST to Nazareth in Empire 8 semis  
6.(5) New York University 15-8 16-8 (UAA); LOST to Brandeis  

Dropping out:  Stevens  (Empire 8)

Previously ranked:  Rochester   (UAA) BEAT Emory

Great Lakes Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(2) John Carroll   17-5 19-5 (OAC) LOST to Heidelberg in OAC semis.
4.(4) Calvin  13-3 17-8 (MIAA); LOST  to Hope in MIAA Final
5.(6) Thomas More   19-6 19-6 (PrAC) LOST to Grove City in PrAC Final

Dropping out:  Wittenberg  (NCAC) LOST to Wooster in NCAC Final

Middle Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
5.(3) Lycoming 16-5 20-5 (MACC) LOST to Albright in MACC Final  
7.(8) Messiah 15-5 16-8 (MACC); LOST to Albright in MACC semis
8.(7) York (Pa)  18-6 19-6 (CAC); LOST to Wesley in CAC semis
9.(NA) Wesley  14-5 17-7 (CAC);  LOST to St. Mary's (Md) in CAC Final

Dropping out:  Catholic  (LAND) LOST  to Scranton in LAND semis

Previously ranked:  Elizabethtown (MACC) LOST to Lycoming in MACC semis, Alvernia (MACC)


Midwest Region In-Region Record Overall Record
3.(4)  Wheaton (Ill) 17-7 18-7 (CCIW); LOST  to Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW semis
4.(5)  Illinois Wesleyan  18-6 19-6 (CCIW); LOST  to Carthage in CCIW Final
6.(6)  Anderson 19-4 21-4 (HCAC); LOST  to Defiance in HCAC Final
8.(8) Augustana  16-8 16-9 (CCIW); LOST  to Carthage in CCIW semis

Northeast Region In-Region Record Overall Record
2.(3) Middlebury 19-2 23-2 (NESCAC); LOST to Williams in NESCAC Final
3.(2)  MIT 21-2 22-3 (NEWMAC);  LOST to Clark in NEWMAC semis
4.(5) Colby  17-4 19-5 (NESCAC); LOST to Middlebury in NESCAC semis
5.(4) Brandeis 18-6 18-6 (UAA); BEAT NYU
9.(11) Western Connecticut   17-6 18-6 (LEC);  LOST to Rhode Island College in LEC Final  
10.(10) WPI 17-6 18-6 (NEWMAC);  LOST to Clark in NEWMAC Final
11.(8)Eastern Connecticut   17-8 17-8 (LEC); LOST to Western Connecticut in LEC semis

Previously ranked:  Mass-Dartmouth (LEC);

South Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Eastern Mennonite   17-2 21-3 (ODAC) LOST to Randolph-Macon in ODAC semis 
3.(3) Texas-Dallas 20-3 21-4 (ASC-East); LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC Final
4.(4) Virginia Wesleyan   19-4 21-4 (ODAC); LOST to Guilford in ODAC semis  
5.(6) Randolph-Macon 14-5 20-5 (ODAC); LOST to Guilford in ODAC Final
7.(5) Austin  19-6 19-6 (SCAC); LOST  to DePauw in SCAC semis

Previously ranked:  Mississippi College   (ASC-East) LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC semis

West Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Whitewater  21-4 21-4 (WIAC);  LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final
2.(3) St. Thomas  20-2 23-2 (MIAC);  LOST to Carleton in MIAC semis
7.(9) La Crosse 16-7 17-8 (WIAC); LOST to Superior in WIAC quarterfinals
9.(8) Augsburg   17-7 18-7 (MIAC); LOST  to Gustavus Adolphus in MIAC semis

[/quote]
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2010, 11:07:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2010, 04:31:01 PMThe debates that we have had on the ASC boards is that coaches have to fill 25 dates each season.

For all practical purposes, the closest 20/21 opponents (the double round robin and single crossover schedule for the 7 member East and the 8 member West divisions) are the conference members are the conference members.  Filling 20/21 dates on the schedule locks out those dates as ones that can be used to schedule with another team that is nearby.  Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College, University of Dallas, and Millsaps are basically the only schools nearby that can fill those dates.  Every other D3 opponent is a plane flight.

There's Rust and Hendrix, too, and I think that Rhodes might be within range of a couple ASC schools. But, yeah, the pickings are slim. All the more reason why the ASC should welcome the arrival of Centenary and New Orleans into D3, regardless of whether or not either school actually joins the ASC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2010, 11:26:17 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2010, 11:07:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2010, 04:31:01 PMThe debates that we have had on the ASC boards is that coaches have to fill 25 dates each season.

For all practical purposes, the closest 20/21 opponents (the double round robin and single crossover schedule for the 7 member East and the 8 member West divisions) are the conference members are the conference members.  Filling 20/21 dates on the schedule locks out those dates as ones that can be used to schedule with another team that is nearby.  Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College, University of Dallas, and Millsaps are basically the only schools nearby that can fill those dates.  Every other D3 opponent is a plane flight.

There's Rust and Hendrix, too, and I think that Rhodes might be within range of a couple ASC schools. But, yeah, the pickings are slim. All the more reason why the ASC should welcome the arrival of Centenary and New Orleans into D3, regardless of whether or not either school actually joins the ASC.
Yeah, but that still doesn't increase the pool by that much.   :-\  Besides, Rust is another 279 miles farther east of Ozarks and 254 miles north of Mississippi College.

We should see the response by the ASC Presidents to the University of New Orleans, when they have re-classified, in June 2010 after the ASC Presidents meeting.

Centenary is still in the Summit League thru June 2011, unless the Summit League wants to cut its travel expenses (and without affecting its AQ bids) and releases Centenary to re-classify.  The re-classifiication deadline is about May 15th.

In both cases, games will not count as in-region for 2 more years beyond that.

Now if the ASC can get about three more teams to join, then the conference may be able to split into 2 conferences.  The ASC membership is just too tenuous at maintaining the member numbers of participants in the full complement of 7 full members in the five men's and women's sports that a conference needs to sponsor.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 01, 2010, 12:24:26 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2010, 11:26:17 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2010, 11:07:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2010, 04:31:01 PMThe debates that we have had on the ASC boards is that coaches have to fill 25 dates each season.

For all practical purposes, the closest 20/21 opponents (the double round robin and single crossover schedule for the 7 member East and the 8 member West divisions) are the conference members are the conference members.  Filling 20/21 dates on the schedule locks out those dates as ones that can be used to schedule with another team that is nearby.  Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College, University of Dallas, and Millsaps are basically the only schools nearby that can fill those dates.  Every other D3 opponent is a plane flight.

There's Rust and Hendrix, too, and I think that Rhodes might be within range of a couple ASC schools. But, yeah, the pickings are slim. All the more reason why the ASC should welcome the arrival of Centenary and New Orleans into D3, regardless of whether or not either school actually joins the ASC.
Yeah, but that still doesn't increase the pool by that much.   :-\  Besides, Rust is another 279 miles farther east of Ozarks and 254 miles north of Mississippi College.

True, but Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana are all in NCAA Administrative Region 3, so Rust, Rhodes, and Hendrix are therefore in-region opponents for all the various ASC teams in those states. And in your neck of the woods, a 250- or 280-mile road trip is a nice little joyride. ;)

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2010, 11:26:17 PM
Now if the ASC can get about three more teams to join, then the conference may be able to split into 2 conferences.  The ASC membership is just too tenuous at maintaining the member numbers of participants in the full complement of 7 full members in the five men's and women's sports that a conference needs to sponsor. 

Any rumors afoot as to more Texas schools shifting over to D3? Not that Texans would be all that interested in following in the footsteps of Nebraskans, of course .... :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 07:59:53 AM
Can someone calculate what Anderson's OOWP would have been had they never played (and beaten) Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham, and Oberlin?

I believe their OWP would have been .548 (assuming I understand how it's calculated), but I'm not sure of the right way to calculate OOWP.  If their OOWP remained at .495, they'd have a SOS of .530, along with a WP of .750, giving them a resume very similar to John Carroll (I believe both even went 2-2 in-region against ranked opponents).

(I'm basing all these numbers off the SOS page, which looks like it hasn't been updated with Sunday's games.  I'm assuming the numbers will be largely unchanged for the teams in question.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on March 01, 2010, 08:44:28 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2010, 10:20:37 PM
Front page of D3hoops.com is always a good place to check for interesting things. Show was on from 5-9:30 ET.

Is there still a way to download hoopsville podcasts in mp3 format?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 01, 2010, 09:08:17 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 07:59:53 AM
Can someone calculate what Anderson's OOWP would have been had they never played (and beaten) Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham, and Oberlin?

I believe their OWP would have been .548 (assuming I understand how it's calculated), but I'm not sure of the right way to calculate OOWP.  If their OOWP remained at .495, they'd have a SOS of .530, along with a WP of .750, giving them a resume very similar to John Carroll (I believe both even went 2-2 in-region against ranked opponents).

(I'm basing all these numbers off the SOS page, which looks like it hasn't been updated with Sunday's games.  I'm assuming the numbers will be largely unchanged for the teams in question.)

Why bother, they did play Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham and Oberlin.........everybody has  few weak opponents on the schedule
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2010, 09:31:03 AM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2010, 09:08:17 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 07:59:53 AM
Can someone calculate what Anderson's OOWP would have been had they never played (and beaten) Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham, and Oberlin?

I believe their OWP would have been .548 (assuming I understand how it's calculated), but I'm not sure of the right way to calculate OOWP.  If their OOWP remained at .495, they'd have a SOS of .530, along with a WP of .750, giving them a resume very similar to John Carroll (I believe both even went 2-2 in-region against ranked opponents).

(I'm basing all these numbers off the SOS page, which looks like it hasn't been updated with Sunday's games.  I'm assuming the numbers will be largely unchanged for the teams in question.)

Why bother, they did play Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham and Oberlin.........everybody has  few weak opponents on the schedule
Last season, I asked Pabegg to run some scenarios changing one or two variables on one team (McMurry) and how it impacted the numbers on other schools.  Here is his answer.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.2384

The home loss to Transylvania may be the loss that prevents Anderson from getting a Pool C bid.

If the HCAC awarded the AQ bid to the regular season winner as the UAA does, then this discussion would be moot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 09:35:39 AM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2010, 09:08:17 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 07:59:53 AM
Can someone calculate what Anderson's OOWP would have been had they never played (and beaten) Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham, and Oberlin?

I believe their OWP would have been .548 (assuming I understand how it's calculated), but I'm not sure of the right way to calculate OOWP.  If their OOWP remained at .495, they'd have a SOS of .530, along with a WP of .750, giving them a resume very similar to John Carroll (I believe both even went 2-2 in-region against ranked opponents).

(I'm basing all these numbers off the SOS page, which looks like it hasn't been updated with Sunday's games.  I'm assuming the numbers will be largely unchanged for the teams in question.)

Why bother, they did play Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham and Oberlin.........everybody has  few weak opponents on the schedule

Mostly, I'm just curious.  Not everyone plays even 1 team with a record as bad as those 4.  For John Carroll, for example, I believe the worst opponent's record was Muskigum at 7-17 in-region (Oberlin's 5-17 mark was the best of the 4 I mentioned).

Maybe Anderson's coach was right, and no one is willing to schedule them, but scheduling non-conference teams like Alma, Earlham, and Oberlin, who have all had terrible records for the last several years, makes it very hard to secure a Pool C bid.  The numbers seem to indicate that they actually would have been better off scheduling non-D3 teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on March 01, 2010, 09:50:13 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 09:35:39 AM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2010, 09:08:17 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 07:59:53 AM
Can someone calculate what Anderson's OOWP would have been had they never played (and beaten) Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham, and Oberlin?

I believe their OWP would have been .548 (assuming I understand how it's calculated), but I'm not sure of the right way to calculate OOWP.  If their OOWP remained at .495, they'd have a SOS of .530, along with a WP of .750, giving them a resume very similar to John Carroll (I believe both even went 2-2 in-region against ranked opponents).

(I'm basing all these numbers off the SOS page, which looks like it hasn't been updated with Sunday's games.  I'm assuming the numbers will be largely unchanged for the teams in question.)

Why bother, they did play Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham and Oberlin.........everybody has  few weak opponents on the schedule

Mostly, I'm just curious.  Not everyone plays even 1 team with a record as bad as those 4.  For John Carroll, for example, I believe the worst opponent's record was Muskigum at 7-17 in-region (Oberlin's 5-17 mark was the best of the 4 I mentioned).

Maybe Anderson's coach was right, and no one is willing to schedule them, but scheduling non-conference teams like Alma, Earlham, and Oberlin, who have all had terrible records for the last several years, makes it very hard to secure a Pool C bid.  The numbers seem to indicate that they actually would have been better off scheduling non-D3 teams.

Calvin - a bubble team as well - played Alma 3 times this year.  Anderson is not alone in having games against that kind of opponent.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2010, 09:50:32 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 09:35:39 AM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2010, 09:08:17 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 07:59:53 AM
Can someone calculate what Anderson's OOWP would have been had they never played (and beaten) Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham, and Oberlin?

I believe their OWP would have been .548 (assuming I understand how it's calculated), but I'm not sure of the right way to calculate OOWP.  If their OOWP remained at .495, they'd have a SOS of .530, along with a WP of .750, giving them a resume very similar to John Carroll (I believe both even went 2-2 in-region against ranked opponents).

(I'm basing all these numbers off the SOS page, which looks like it hasn't been updated with Sunday's games.  I'm assuming the numbers will be largely unchanged for the teams in question.)

Why bother, they did play Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham and Oberlin.........everybody has  few weak opponents on the schedule

Mostly, I'm just curious.  Not everyone plays even 1 team with a record as bad as those 4.  For John Carroll, for example, I believe the worst opponent's record was Muskigum at 7-17 in-region (Oberlin's 5-17 mark was the best of the 4 I mentioned).

Maybe Anderson's coach was right, and no one is willing to schedule them, but scheduling non-conference teams like Alma, Earlham, and Oberlin, who have all had terrible records for the last several years, makes it very hard to secure a Pool C bid.  The numbers seem to indicate that they actually would have been better off scheduling non-D3 teams.

Or simply winning their tournament.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 09:59:53 AM
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on March 01, 2010, 09:50:13 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 09:35:39 AM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2010, 09:08:17 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 07:59:53 AM
Can someone calculate what Anderson's OOWP would have been had they never played (and beaten) Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham, and Oberlin?

I believe their OWP would have been .548 (assuming I understand how it's calculated), but I'm not sure of the right way to calculate OOWP.  If their OOWP remained at .495, they'd have a SOS of .530, along with a WP of .750, giving them a resume very similar to John Carroll (I believe both even went 2-2 in-region against ranked opponents).

(I'm basing all these numbers off the SOS page, which looks like it hasn't been updated with Sunday's games.  I'm assuming the numbers will be largely unchanged for the teams in question.)

Why bother, they did play Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham and Oberlin.........everybody has  few weak opponents on the schedule

Mostly, I'm just curious.  Not everyone plays even 1 team with a record as bad as those 4.  For John Carroll, for example, I believe the worst opponent's record was Muskigum at 7-17 in-region (Oberlin's 5-17 mark was the best of the 4 I mentioned).

Maybe Anderson's coach was right, and no one is willing to schedule them, but scheduling non-conference teams like Alma, Earlham, and Oberlin, who have all had terrible records for the last several years, makes it very hard to secure a Pool C bid.  The numbers seem to indicate that they actually would have been better off scheduling non-D3 teams.

Calvin - a bubble team as well - played Alma 3 times this year.  Anderson is not alone in having games against that kind of opponent.

And that may hurt Calvin's chances.  Being in the same conference as Alma, they didn't have a choice in the scheduling (like Anderson with Bluffton).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2010, 10:02:43 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 09:59:53 AM
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on March 01, 2010, 09:50:13 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 09:35:39 AM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2010, 09:08:17 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 01, 2010, 07:59:53 AM
Can someone calculate what Anderson's OOWP would have been had they never played (and beaten) Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham, and Oberlin?

I believe their OWP would have been .548 (assuming I understand how it's calculated), but I'm not sure of the right way to calculate OOWP.  If their OOWP remained at .495, they'd have a SOS of .530, along with a WP of .750, giving them a resume very similar to John Carroll (I believe both even went 2-2 in-region against ranked opponents).

(I'm basing all these numbers off the SOS page, which looks like it hasn't been updated with Sunday's games.  I'm assuming the numbers will be largely unchanged for the teams in question.)

Why bother, they did play Alma, Bluffton (x2), Earlham and Oberlin.........everybody has  few weak opponents on the schedule

Mostly, I'm just curious.  Not everyone plays even 1 team with a record as bad as those 4.  For John Carroll, for example, I believe the worst opponent's record was Muskigum at 7-17 in-region (Oberlin's 5-17 mark was the best of the 4 I mentioned).

Maybe Anderson's coach was right, and no one is willing to schedule them, but scheduling non-conference teams like Alma, Earlham, and Oberlin, who have all had terrible records for the last several years, makes it very hard to secure a Pool C bid.  The numbers seem to indicate that they actually would have been better off scheduling non-D3 teams.

Calvin - a bubble team as well - played Alma 3 times this year.  Anderson is not alone in having games against that kind of opponent.

And that may hurt Calvin's chances.  Being in the same conference as Alma, they didn't have a choice in the scheduling (like Anderson with Bluffton).
As Pat Coleman has said many times, "which game did you lose that you should not have lost?"

When Pool C comes around, you almost have to be perfect on your home court.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 10:14:27 AM
Bracket: http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/mbb-bracket2010.pdf
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2010, 10:15:11 AM
I thought Wesley had a strong case, I just didn't expect them to get to the table before Messiah.

With that plus the creativity in bracketing, the committee really seems to have done a good job of spreading out the field a little.

Well done.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 10:15:57 AM
Agreed -- I think this is fairly nicely done.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2010, 10:18:35 AM

Two of the NE pods are a little weak, but not outrageously so and two of the South pods are a little stacked, but again not outrageously so.

We have a shot of getting at least 14 of the top 16 schools into the sweet 16.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2010, 11:56:13 AM
POOL C WINNERS

Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
3.(3)  Rutgers-Newark  16-5 20-6 (NJAC) LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis
4.(5) Richard Stockton  19-5 19-6 (NJAC) LOST  to William Paterson in NJAC Final
5.(4) Ramapo 17-7 18-8 (NJAC) LOST to William Paterson in NJAC semis;

Previously ranked:  York (N.Y.)   (CUNYAC) LOST to Brooklyn in CUNYAC Final

East Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) St. John Fisher   20-4 21-4 (Empire 8); LOST  to Nazareth in Empire 8 Final
3.(3) Oneonta State   19-5 20-5 (SUNYAC) LOST to Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final
4.(NA) Ithaca  15-6 18-7 (Empire 8) LOST to Nazareth in Empire 8 semis  
6.(5) New York University 15-8 16-8 (UAA); LOST to Brandeis  

Dropping out:  Stevens  (Empire 8)

Previously ranked:  Rochester   (UAA) BEAT Emory

Great Lakes Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(2) John Carroll   17-5 19-5 (OAC) LOST to Heidelberg in OAC semis.
4.(4) Calvin  13-3 17-8 (MIAA); LOST  to Hope in MIAA Final
5.(6) Thomas More   19-6 19-6 (PrAC) LOST to Grove City in PrAC Final

Dropping out:  Wittenberg  (NCAC) LOST to Wooster in NCAC Final

Middle Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
5.(3) Lycoming 16-5 20-5 (MACC) LOST to Albright in MACC Final  
7.(8) Messiah 15-5 16-8 (MACC); LOST to Albright in MACC semis
8.(7) York (Pa)  18-6 19-6 (CAC); LOST to Wesley in CAC semis
9.(NA) Wesley  14-5 17-7 (CAC);  LOST to St. Mary's (Md) in CAC Final

Dropping out:  Catholic  (LAND) LOST  to Scranton in LAND semis

Previously ranked:  Elizabethtown (MACC) LOST to Lycoming in MACC semis, Alvernia (MACC)


Midwest Region In-Region Record Overall Record
3.(4)  Wheaton (Ill) 17-7 18-7 (CCIW); LOST  to Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW semis
4.(5)  Illinois Wesleyan  18-6 19-6 (CCIW); LOST  to Carthage in CCIW Final
6.(6)  Anderson 19-4 21-4 (HCAC); LOST  to Defiance in HCAC Final
8.(8) Augustana  16-8 16-9 (CCIW); LOST  to Carthage in CCIW semis

Northeast Region In-Region Record Overall Record
2.(3) Middlebury 19-2 23-2 (NESCAC); LOST to Williams in NESCAC Final
3.(2)  MIT 21-2 22-3 (NEWMAC);  LOST to Clark in NEWMAC semis
4.(5) Colby  17-4 19-5 (NESCAC); LOST to Middlebury in NESCAC semis
5.(4) Brandeis 18-6 18-6 (UAA); BEAT NYU
9.(11) Western Connecticut   17-6 18-6 (LEC);  LOST to Rhode Island College in LEC Final  
10.(10) WPI 17-6 18-6 (NEWMAC);  LOST to Clark in NEWMAC Final
11.(8)Eastern Connecticut   17-8 17-8 (LEC); LOST to Western Connecticut in LEC semis

Previously ranked:  Mass-Dartmouth (LEC);

South Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Eastern Mennonite   17-2 21-3 (ODAC) LOST to Randolph-Macon in ODAC semis 
3.(3) Texas-Dallas 20-3 21-4 (ASC-East); LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC Final
4.(4) Virginia Wesleyan   19-4 21-4 (ODAC); LOST to Guilford in ODAC semis  
5.(6) Randolph-Macon 14-5 20-5 (ODAC); LOST to Guilford in ODAC Final
7.(5) Austin  19-6 19-6 (SCAC); LOST  to DePauw in SCAC semis

Previously ranked:  Mississippi College   (ASC-East) LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC semis

West Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Whitewater  21-4 21-4 (WIAC);  LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final
2.(3) St. Thomas  20-2 23-2 (MIAC);  LOST to Carleton in MIAC semis
7.(9) La Crosse 16-7 17-8 (WIAC); LOST to Superior in WIAC quarterfinals
9.(8) Augsburg   17-7 18-7 (MIAC); LOST  to Gustavus Adolphus in MIAC semis

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2010, 12:12:15 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 10:15:57 AM
Agreed -- I think this is fairly nicely done.

The power was far more dispersed this year.  Had it been as concentrated as last year, I wonder if they would have produced another Bracket of Death?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 12:15:22 PM
They still moved UWW and Whitworth out, which they could have done last year with UWW and UPS but failed to.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2010, 12:19:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 12:15:22 PM
They still moved UWW and Whitworth out, which they could have done last year with UWW and UPS but failed to.

Good point.  Thumbs up to the selection committee.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2010, 12:22:17 PM
For those that followed my numbers all year:

Standard RPI (25% winning percentage and 75% SOS) picked 16 out of 19 Pool C teams.
It had Messiah, Colby, and UW-LaCrosse as in, and Anderson, Wheaton, and Wesley as out.

RPI50 (50-50 WP to SOS ratio) also picked 16 of 19 teams.
It had Messiah, Colby, and Calvin as in, and the same three above as out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2010, 12:24:54 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2010, 12:22:17 PM
For those that followed my numbers all year:

Standard RPI (25% winning percentage and 75% SOS) picked 16 out of 19 Pool C teams.
It had Messiah, Colby, and UW-LaCrosse as in, and Anderson, Wheaton, and Wesley as out.

RPI50 (50-50 WP to SOS ratio) also picked 16 of 19 teams.
It had Messiah, Colby, and Calvin as in, and the same three above as out.

It seems like those last three were the big problem to pick.  Obviously they relied on secondary criteria, which makes it a little more subjective.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2010, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 01, 2010, 11:56:13 AM
POOL C WINNERS

Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
3.(3)  Rutgers-Newark  16-5 20-6 (NJAC) LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis
4.(5) Richard Stockton  19-5 19-6 (NJAC) LOST  to William Paterson in NJAC Final
5.(4) Ramapo 17-7 18-8 (NJAC) LOST to William Paterson in NJAC semis;

Previously ranked:  York (N.Y.)   (CUNYAC) LOST to Brooklyn in CUNYAC Final

East Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) St. John Fisher   20-4 21-4 (Empire 8); LOST  to Nazareth in Empire 8 Final
3.(3) Oneonta State   19-5 20-5 (SUNYAC) LOST to Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final
4.(NA) Ithaca  15-6 18-7 (Empire 8) LOST to Nazareth in Empire 8 semis  
6.(5) New York University 15-8 16-8 (UAA); LOST to Brandeis  

Dropping out:  Stevens  (Empire 8)

Previously ranked:  Rochester   (UAA) BEAT Emory

Great Lakes Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(2) John Carroll   17-5 19-5 (OAC) LOST to Heidelberg in OAC semis.
4.(4) Calvin  13-3 17-8 (MIAA); LOST  to Hope in MIAA Final
5.(6) Thomas More   19-6 19-6 (PrAC) LOST to Grove City in PrAC Final

Dropping out:  Wittenberg  (NCAC) LOST to Wooster in NCAC Final

Middle Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
5.(3) Lycoming 16-5 20-5 (MACC) LOST to Albright in MACC Final  
7.(8) Messiah 15-5 16-8 (MACC); LOST to Albright in MACC semis
8.(7) York (Pa)  18-6 19-6 (CAC); LOST to Wesley in CAC semis
9.(NA) Wesley  14-5 17-7 (CAC);  LOST to St. Mary's (Md) in CAC Final

Dropping out:  Catholic  (LAND) LOST  to Scranton in LAND semis

Previously ranked:  Elizabethtown (MACC) LOST to Lycoming in MACC semis, Alvernia (MACC)


Midwest Region In-Region Record Overall Record
3.(4)  Wheaton (Ill) 17-7 18-7 (CCIW); LOST  to Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW semis
4.(5)  Illinois Wesleyan  18-6 19-6 (CCIW); LOST  to Carthage in CCIW Final
6.(6)  Anderson 19-4 21-4 (HCAC); LOST  to Defiance in HCAC Final
8.(8) Augustana  16-8 16-9 (CCIW); LOST  to Carthage in CCIW semis

Northeast Region In-Region Record Overall Record
2.(3) Middlebury 19-2 23-2 (NESCAC); LOST to Williams in NESCAC Final
3.(2)  MIT 21-2 22-3 (NEWMAC);  LOST to Clark in NEWMAC semis
4.(5) Colby  17-4 19-5 (NESCAC); LOST to Middlebury in NESCAC semis
5.(4) Brandeis 18-6 18-6 (UAA); BEAT NYU
9.(11) Western Connecticut   17-6 18-6 (LEC);  LOST to Rhode Island College in LEC Final  
10.(10) WPI 17-6 18-6 (NEWMAC);  LOST to Clark in NEWMAC Final
11.(8)Eastern Connecticut   17-8 17-8 (LEC); LOST to Western Connecticut in LEC semis

Previously ranked:  Mass-Dartmouth (LEC);

South Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Eastern Mennonite   17-2 21-3 (ODAC) LOST to Randolph-Macon in ODAC semis 
3.(3) Texas-Dallas 20-3 21-4 (ASC-East); LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC Final
4.(4) Virginia Wesleyan   19-4 21-4 (ODAC); LOST to Guilford in ODAC semis  
5.(6) Randolph-Macon 14-5 20-5 (ODAC); LOST to Guilford in ODAC Final
7.(5) Austin  19-6 19-6 (SCAC); LOST  to DePauw in SCAC semis

Previously ranked:  Mississippi College   (ASC-East) LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC semis

West Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Whitewater  21-4 21-4 (WIAC);  LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final
2.(3) St. Thomas  20-2 23-2 (MIAC);  LOST to Carleton in MIAC semis
7.(9) La Crosse 16-7 17-8 (WIAC); LOST to Superior in WIAC quarterfinals
9.(8) Augsburg   17-7 18-7 (MIAC); LOST  to Gustavus Adolphus in MIAC semis



If someone has the time, we should update this with the final regional/overall records.  These records are through last Tuesday, right?  If updated, it will be a valuable thing to look back on next year as we try to sort out Pool C.

Good work, Tom.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2010, 12:29:41 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2010, 12:24:54 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2010, 12:22:17 PM
For those that followed my numbers all year:

Standard RPI (25% winning percentage and 75% SOS) picked 16 out of 19 Pool C teams.
It had Messiah, Colby, and UW-LaCrosse as in, and Anderson, Wheaton, and Wesley as out.

RPI50 (50-50 WP to SOS ratio) also picked 16 of 19 teams.
It had Messiah, Colby, and Calvin as in, and the same three above as out.

It seems like those last three were the big problem to pick.  Obviously they relied on secondary criteria, which makes it a little more subjective.

Also head to head and common oponents (in-region) is unlikely across regions, so there's two more primary criteria out the window. Maybe that's why RPI does a better job picking Pool C than it does ranking the regions? The WP and SOS are the two HUGE factors in Pool C selection.

ziggy and I spent several hours doing selections, and we were only able to do one better than RPI, same for the d3hoops.com projection too.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2010, 12:36:10 PM
The records listed were from the last regional rankings, which go through that previous SUNDAY.  I was too lazy to update the records!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on March 01, 2010, 01:55:29 PM
Did we get the final NCAA regional rankings?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2010, 02:29:59 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 01, 2010, 01:55:29 PM
Did we get the final NCAA regional rankings?

The NCAA site says the rankings on the 24th were the "last of the season."  I don't think we're getting the rankings they used to pick the tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2010, 02:38:09 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2010, 02:29:59 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 01, 2010, 01:55:29 PM
Did we get the final NCAA regional rankings?

The NCAA site says the rankings on the 24th were the "last of the season."  I don't think we're getting the rankings they used to pick the tournament.

Per the Handbook, a final ranking was supposed to come out yesterday (page 17)...

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2010/10_3_mbasketball.pdf
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2010, 02:40:24 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2010, 02:38:09 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2010, 02:29:59 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 01, 2010, 01:55:29 PM
Did we get the final NCAA regional rankings?

The NCAA site says the rankings on the 24th were the "last of the season."  I don't think we're getting the rankings they used to pick the tournament.

Per the Handbook, a final ranking was supposed to come out yesterday (page 17)...

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2010/10_3_mbasketball.pdf

I'll let you make that phone call.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 01, 2010, 02:54:44 PM
I was expecting one also, but in last week's poll it says "final poll" more than once.  I wonder if they had a change of heart.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 01, 2010, 02:55:57 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on March 01, 2010, 02:54:44 PM
I was expecting one also, but in last week's poll it says "final poll" more than once.  I wonder if they had a change of heart.
The final regional rankings are only seen by the selection committees.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2010, 02:58:26 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on March 01, 2010, 02:55:57 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on March 01, 2010, 02:54:44 PM
I was expecting one also, but in last week's poll it says "final poll" more than once.  I wonder if they had a change of heart.
The final regional rankings are only seen by the selection committees.

That was supposed to change this year.  Evidently is has not.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2010, 02:59:22 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on March 01, 2010, 02:55:57 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on March 01, 2010, 02:54:44 PM
I was expecting one also, but in last week's poll it says "final poll" more than once.  I wonder if they had a change of heart.
The final regional rankings are only seen by the selection committees.

That's how it was always done in the past, but this year. Sunday Feb, 28 also appeared on the list of days, leading many to believe they would release the rankings... as it says they would.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 03:04:05 PM
I made the call. Via email, but I made it. We'll see.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2010, 07:47:57 PM
The final regional rankings will be released... I know there was a slight miscommunication in the "home office"... and I believe they will be released sometime soon.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 01, 2010, 08:47:06 PM
MIT Basketball Blog already has the link up to the final rankings released today:

MIT Basketball Blog (http://mitbasketball.blogspot.com/2010/03/mit-falls-to-5th-in-final-ne-region.html)

Also now on the front page:

http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/03/01/final-2010-regional-rankings/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2010, 06:19:18 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2010, 09:17:21 PM
Sorry for the delay, and it may be of little use by now, but here's the data through Sunday's games.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI     RPI50   NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                          
NE   01   1.000   0.489   0.541   0.506   0.630   0.753   001   A   C      22-0    24-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   02   0.905   0.550   0.515   0.538   0.630   0.722   005   C   001    19-2    23-2   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   03   0.913   0.476   0.529   0.493   0.598   0.703   011   A   C      21-2    22-3   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   04   0.810   0.525   0.535   0.529   0.599   0.669   024   C   005    17-4    19-5   NESCAC   Colby
NE   05   0.833   0.469   0.495   0.478   0.567   0.656   036   A   C      20-4    21-4   CCC      Gordon
NE   06   0.750   0.546   0.561   0.551   0.601   0.650   037   C   010    18-6    18-6   UAA      Brandeis
NE   07   0.792   0.474   0.507   0.485   0.562   0.639   043   A   C      19-5    19-6   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   08   0.762   0.508   0.523   0.513   0.575   0.637   044   A   C      16-5    17-7   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   09   0.739   0.522   0.520   0.522   0.576   0.630   050   C   017    17-6    18-6   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   10   0.739   0.525   0.497   0.516   0.572   0.627   054   C   021    17-6    18-7   GNAC     Emerson
NE   11   0.750   0.493   0.510   0.499   0.562   0.624   061   C   026    18-6    19-6   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
NE   12   0.720   0.531   0.517   0.526   0.575   0.623   062   A   C-2    18-7    18-7   LEC      Rhode Island College
NE   13   0.739   0.492   0.515   0.499   0.559   0.619   066   C   029    17-6    18-6   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   14   0.680   0.548   0.518   0.538   0.574   0.609   075   C   036    17-8    17-8   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
                                          
E   001   0.833   0.526   0.533   0.528   0.605   0.681   019   A   C      20-4    21-4   E8       St. John Fisher
E   002   0.833   0.479   0.495   0.484   0.571   0.659   030   A   C      20-4    21-4   AMCC     Medaille
E   003   0.792   0.527   0.508   0.521   0.588   0.656   034   A   C      19-5    20-5   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   004   0.739   0.516   0.506   0.513   0.569   0.626   057   C   023    17-6    18-7   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
E   005   0.714   0.543   0.522   0.536   0.580   0.625   060   C   025    15-6    18-7   E8       Ithaca
E   006   0.708   0.528   0.525   0.527   0.572   0.618   067   C   030    17-7    17-7   E8       Stevens
E   007   0.789   0.410   0.478   0.433   0.522   0.611   073   A          15-4    21-4   NEAC     SUNYIT
E   008   0.652   0.549   0.552   0.550   0.576   0.601   085   C   045    15-8    16-8   UAA      New York University
E   009   0.652   0.542   0.527   0.537   0.566   0.595   087   C   046    15-8    16-9   E8       Nazareth
                                          
A   001   0.917   0.543   0.528   0.538   0.633   0.727   003   A   C      22-2    23-2   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.833   0.529   0.512   0.523   0.601   0.678   020   A   C      20-4    21-4   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   003   0.783   0.558   0.529   0.548   0.607   0.665   027   C   006    18-5    19-6   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   004   0.773   0.552   0.522   0.542   0.600   0.657   033   C   009    17-5    20-6   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
A   005   0.760   0.516   0.491   0.508   0.571   0.634   047   A   C      19-6    19-6   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
A   006   0.792   0.452   0.497   0.467   0.548   0.629   052   C   019    19-5    20-5   SKY      St. Josephs (L.I.)
A   007   0.739   0.520   0.497   0.512   0.569   0.626   058   A   C-2    17-6    20-6   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
A   008   0.760   0.486   0.501   0.491   0.558   0.625   059   C   024    19-6    20-6   CUNYAC   Baruch
                                          
MA   01   0.920   0.460   0.489   0.469   0.582   0.695   015   A   C      23-2    23-2   CSAC     Cabrini
MA   02   0.870   0.517   0.516   0.516   0.605   0.693   016   A   C      20-3    21-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   03   0.783   0.568   0.539   0.558   0.615   0.671   023   A   C      18-5    19-5   MACC     Albright
MA   04   0.840   0.481   0.510   0.491   0.578   0.666   026   A   C      21-4    21-4   CC       Franklin and Marshall
MA   05   0.826   0.497   0.510   0.501   0.582   0.664   029   A   C      19-4    20-5   MACF     DeSales
MA   06   0.750   0.580   0.535   0.565   0.611   0.658   032   C   008    15-5    16-8   MACC     Messiah
MA   07   0.750   0.550   0.541   0.547   0.598   0.648   039   C   012    15-5    20-5   MACC     Lycoming
MA   08   0.739   0.515   0.510   0.513   0.570   0.626   056   C   022    17-6    19-6   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   09   0.727   0.506   0.510   0.507   0.562   0.617   068   C   031    16-6    18-7   LAND     Catholic
MA   10   0.737   0.486   0.502   0.491   0.553   0.614   069   C   032    14-5    17-7   CAC      Wesley
MA   11   0.667   0.569   0.530   0.556   0.584   0.611   072   C   034    16-8    16-8   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   12   0.682   0.481   0.527   0.496   0.543   0.589   093   C   051    15-7    17-8   LAND     Scranton
                                          
S   001   0.920   0.503   0.535   0.514   0.615   0.717   006   A   C      23-2    23-2   ODAC     Guilford
S   002   0.895   0.530   0.530   0.530   0.621   0.712   009   C   002    17-2    21-3   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   003   0.870   0.519   0.502   0.513   0.602   0.691   017   A   C      20-3    21-4   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   004   0.826   0.551   0.522   0.541   0.612   0.684   018   C   004    19-4    21-4   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   005   0.824   0.510   0.511   0.511   0.589   0.667   025   B   002    14-3    21-4   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   006   0.760   0.529   0.506   0.521   0.581   0.641   041   A   C      19-6    19-6   SCAC     Austin
S   007   0.737   0.549   0.530   0.543   0.592   0.640   042   C   013    14-5    20-5   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   008   0.792   0.462   0.499   0.475   0.554   0.633   048   C   015    19-5    19-6   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   009   0.762   0.478   0.518   0.491   0.559   0.627   055   N/A        16-5    20-5   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   010   0.696   0.516   0.498   0.510   0.556   0.603   082   C   042    16-7    18-7   SCAC     DePauw
S   011   0.700   0.506   0.500   0.504   0.553   0.602   084   C   044    14-6    18-6   ASC      Mississippi College
                                          
GL   01   0.833   0.511   0.501   0.508   0.589   0.671   022   A   C      20-4    20-5   NCAC     Wooster
GL   02   0.813   0.530   0.488   0.516   0.590   0.664   028   A   C      13-3    18-7   MIAA     Hope
GL   03   0.813   0.508   0.492   0.503   0.580   0.658   031   C   007    13-3    17-8   MIAA     Calvin
GL   04   0.773   0.555   0.509   0.539   0.598   0.656   035   A   C      17-5    19-5   OAC      John Carroll
GL   05   0.739   0.524   0.520   0.523   0.577   0.631   049   C   016    17-6    18-7   OAC      Wilmington
GL   06   0.760   0.474   0.504   0.484   0.553   0.622   064   A   C-2    19-6    19-6   PrAC     Thomas More
GL   07   0.739   0.476   0.497   0.483   0.547   0.611   074   C   035    17-6    17-7   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   08   0.714   0.506   0.486   0.499   0.553   0.607   076   C   037    15-6    19-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
GL   09   0.739   0.464   0.494   0.474   0.540   0.606   077   C   038    17-6    17-7   PrAC     Bethany
                                          
MW   01   0.905   0.590   0.551   0.577   0.659   0.741   002   A   IN     19-2    22-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.842   0.556   0.543   0.552   0.624   0.697   013   A   C      16-3    20-5   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.864   0.470   0.505   0.482   0.577   0.673   021   A   C      19-3    20-3   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   04   0.750   0.558   0.530   0.549   0.599   0.649   038   C   011    18-6    19-6   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   05   0.826   0.441   0.498   0.460   0.552   0.643   040   A   C      19-4    21-4   HCAC     Anderson
MW   06   0.783   0.488   0.498   0.492   0.564   0.637   046   C   014    18-5    20-5   HCAC     Defiance
MW   07   0.708   0.554   0.532   0.547   0.587   0.628   053   C   020    17-7    18-7   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   08   0.778   0.432   0.479   0.448   0.530   0.613   070   A          14-4    17-7   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   09   0.667   0.537   0.539   0.538   0.570   0.602   083   C   043    16-8    16-9   CCIW     Augustana
MW   10   0.652   0.494   0.504   0.497   0.536   0.575   105   C   062    15-8    15-9   HCAC     Hanover
MW   11   0.667   0.466   0.507   0.479   0.526   0.573   107   C   064    14-7    14-9   MWC      Lake Forest
                                          
W   001   0.909   0.541   0.533   0.538   0.631   0.724   004   A   C      20-2    23-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   002   0.913   0.515   0.523   0.518   0.617   0.715   007   A   C      21-2    23-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   003   0.840   0.608   0.548   0.588   0.651   0.714   008   A   C      21-4    21-4   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   004   0.833   0.584   0.553   0.574   0.638   0.703   010   C   003    20-4    21-4   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   005   0.944   0.422   0.519   0.454   0.577   0.699   012   B   001    17-1    22-2   IND      Chapman
W   006   0.905   0.474   0.508   0.485   0.590   0.695   014   A   C      19-2    21-4   IIAC     Central
W   007   0.789   0.480   0.495   0.485   0.561   0.637   045   A   C      15-4    19-5   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
W   008   0.696   0.568   0.557   0.564   0.597   0.630   051   C   018    16-7    17-8   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   009   0.708   0.536   0.526   0.532   0.576   0.620   065   C   028    17-7    17-7   MIAC     Augsburg
W   010   0.750   0.448   0.487   0.461   0.533   0.605   079   C   040    12-4    17-7   SCIAC    Occidental
W   011   0.760   0.425   0.462   0.437   0.518   0.599   086   B   004    19-6    19-6   UMAC     Northwestern (Minn.)
W   012   0.652   0.541   0.526   0.536   0.565   0.594   088   C   047    15-8   15-10   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus

Pool:   A     Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                                    
       B     Pool B eligible team                                    
       C     At large candidate                                    
       N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                                    
                                          
B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                                    

A Status:      C       Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                                  
              C-2     2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                                  
      IN   Clinched Pool A bid                                 
              Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                                 
                                          
RPI50:   50% WP and 50% SOS                                       
RPI:     25% WP and 75% SOS                                       
                                          
Updated:      2/23/2010                                    


Do you have a final pre-tournament run of the data?  IMHO, I think that it tightens the "bubble" parameters that we can consider in subsequent seasons.

Thanks for your efforts.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2010, 09:30:12 AM
...I'll come out of my sulking corner to finish out the year. Should be correct through games leading up to the tournament.

REG   #   WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI     RPI50   NAT   Pool        REG     OVR   CONF     Team
                                          
NE   01   1.000   0.508   0.549   0.522   0.641   0.761   001   A   IN     24-0    26-1   NESCAC   Williams
NE   02   0.870   0.580   0.519   0.559   0.637   0.714   006   C   001    20-3    24-3   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   03   0.875   0.478   0.531   0.496   0.591   0.685   017   C   005    21-3    22-4   NEWMAC   MIT
NE   04   0.852   0.476   0.503   0.485   0.577   0.669   029   A   IN     23-4    24-4   CCC      Gordon
NE   05   0.760   0.548   0.561   0.552   0.604   0.656   031   C   010    19-6    19-6   UAA      Brandeis
NE   06   0.773   0.534   0.541   0.536   0.595   0.655   032   C   011    17-5    19-6   NESCAC   Colby
NE   07   0.815   0.481   0.514   0.492   0.573   0.653   035   A   IN     22-5    22-6   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   08   0.783   0.518   0.524   0.520   0.586   0.652   037   A   IN     18-5    19-7   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   09   0.741   0.545   0.524   0.538   0.589   0.639   047   A   IN     20-7    20-7   LEC      Rhode Island College
NE   10   0.731   0.528   0.504   0.520   0.573   0.626   056   C   023    19-7    20-8   GNAC     Emerson
NE   11   0.731   0.515   0.529   0.520   0.573   0.625   057   A   IN     19-7    20-7   NEWMAC   Worcester Polytech
NE   12   0.760   0.471   0.487   0.476   0.547   0.618   059   B   003    19-6    21-6   NECC     Elms
NE   13   0.720   0.505   0.520   0.510   0.563   0.615   065   C   029    18-7    19-7   LEC      Western Connecticut
NE   14   0.667   0.559   0.523   0.547   0.577   0.607   078   C   040    18-9    18-9   LEC      Mass-Dartmouth
                                          
E   001   0.808   0.542   0.536   0.540   0.607   0.674   026   C   008    21-5    22-5   E8       St. John Fisher
E   002   0.846   0.488   0.502   0.493   0.581   0.669   028   A   IN     22-4    23-4   AMCC     Medaille
E   003   0.778   0.536   0.515   0.529   0.591   0.653   036   C   012    21-6    22-6   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
E   004   0.769   0.525   0.516   0.522   0.584   0.646   040   A   IN     20-6    21-7   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
E   005   0.810   0.427   0.498   0.451   0.540   0.630   051   A   IN     17-4    24-4   NEAC     SUNYIT
E   006   0.680   0.562   0.531   0.552   0.584   0.616   063   A   IN     17-8    18-9   E8       Nazareth
E   007   0.682   0.545   0.528   0.539   0.575   0.611   071   C   035    15-7    18-8   E8       Ithaca
E   008   0.692   0.520   0.531   0.524   0.566   0.608   076   C   039    18-8    18-8   E8       Stevens
E   009   0.632   0.558   0.536   0.551   0.571   0.591   088   C   049    12-7   14-11   E8       Rochester Tech
                                          
A   001   0.923   0.556   0.536   0.549   0.643   0.736   003   A   IN     24-2    25-2   NJAC     William Paterson
A   002   0.846   0.533   0.521   0.529   0.608   0.688   016   A   IN     22-4    23-4   LAND     Merchant Marine
A   003   0.760   0.577   0.534   0.563   0.612   0.662   030   C   009    19-6    20-7   NJAC     Richard Stockton
A   004   0.739   0.554   0.529   0.546   0.594   0.643   043   C   016    17-6    20-7   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
A   005   0.741   0.529   0.497   0.518   0.574   0.629   052   C   021    20-7    20-7   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
A   006   0.778   0.467   0.507   0.480   0.555   0.629   053   A   IN     21-6    22-6   CUNYAC   Brooklyn
A   007   0.720   0.528   0.501   0.519   0.569   0.619   058   C   024    18-7    21-7   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
A   008   0.760   0.457   0.502   0.472   0.544   0.616   062   C   027    19-6    20-6   SKY      St. Josephs (L.I.)
                                          
MA   01   0.926   0.470   0.494   0.478   0.590   0.702   012   A   IN     25-2    25-2   CSAC     Cabrini
MA   02   0.880   0.524   0.519   0.522   0.612   0.701   013   A   IN     22-3    24-3   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   03   0.800   0.582   0.547   0.570   0.628   0.685   018   A   IN     20-5    21-5   MACC     Albright
MA   04   0.852   0.487   0.516   0.496   0.585   0.674   024   A   IN     23-4    23-4   CC       Franklin and Marshall
MA   05   0.840   0.505   0.514   0.508   0.591   0.674   025   A   IN     21-4    22-5   MACF     DeSales
MA   06   0.727   0.563   0.546   0.558   0.600   0.642   044   C   017    16-6    21-6   MACC     Lycoming
MA   07   0.714   0.586   0.539   0.570   0.606   0.642   045   C   018    15-6    16-9   MACC     Messiah
MA   08   0.727   0.508   0.507   0.508   0.563   0.618   060   C   025    16-6    19-8   CAC      Wesley
MA   09   0.708   0.509   0.516   0.511   0.560   0.610   073   C   037    17-7    19-7   CAC      York (Pa.)
MA   10   0.696   0.507   0.513   0.509   0.555   0.602   082   C   043    16-7    18-8   LAND     Catholic
MA   11   0.640   0.569   0.536   0.558   0.579   0.599   084   C   045    16-9    16-9   MACC     Elizabethtown
MA   12   0.667   0.508   0.529   0.515   0.553   0.591   090   C   051    16-8    18-9   LAND     Scranton
                                          
S   001   0.929   0.522   0.541   0.528   0.628   0.729   004   A   IN     26-2    26-2   ODAC     Guilford
S   002   0.857   0.528   0.537   0.531   0.613   0.694   015   C   004    18-3    22-4   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
S   003   0.846   0.525   0.507   0.519   0.601   0.683   021   C   006    22-4    23-5   ASC      Texas-Dallas
S   004   0.800   0.565   0.524   0.551   0.613   0.675   023   C   007    20-5    22-5   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
S   005   0.842   0.496   0.520   0.504   0.588   0.673   027   B   002    16-3    23-4   GSAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
S   006   0.815   0.489   0.505   0.494   0.574   0.654   033   A   IN     22-5    22-6   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
S   007   0.727   0.578   0.533   0.563   0.604   0.645   041   C   014    16-6    22-6   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
S   008   0.741   0.518   0.514   0.517   0.573   0.629   054   C   022    20-7    20-7   SCAC     Austin
S   009   0.762   0.472   0.527   0.490   0.558   0.626   055   N/A        16-5    20-5   SCAC     Birmingham-Southern
S   010   0.708   0.508   0.522   0.513   0.562   0.611   072   C   036    17-7    18-8   SCAC     Centre
S   011   0.714   0.503   0.506   0.504   0.557   0.609   074   C   038    15-6    19-7   ASC      Mississippi College
                                          
GL   01   0.842   0.543   0.496   0.527   0.606   0.685   019   A   IN     16-3    21-7   MIAA     Hope
GL   02   0.852   0.503   0.514   0.507   0.593   0.679   022   A   IN     23-4    23-5   NCAC     Wooster
GL   03   0.769   0.525   0.524   0.525   0.586   0.647   038   A   IN     20-6    21-7   OAC      Wilmington
GL   04   0.789   0.502   0.504   0.503   0.575   0.646   039   C   013    15-4    19-9   MIAA     Calvin
GL   05   0.750   0.544   0.515   0.534   0.588   0.642   046   C   019    18-6    20-6   OAC      John Carroll
GL   06   0.750   0.473   0.505   0.484   0.550   0.617   061   C   026    21-7    21-7   PrAC     Thomas More
GL   07   0.708   0.527   0.490   0.515   0.563   0.611   070   C   034    17-7    21-7   NCAC     Wittenberg
GL   08   0.720   0.477   0.505   0.486   0.545   0.603   081   C   042    18-7    18-8   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   09   0.720   0.465   0.498   0.476   0.537   0.598   085   C   046    18-7    18-8   PrAC     Bethany
                                          
MW   01   0.909   0.581   0.555   0.572   0.656   0.741   002   A   IN     20-2    23-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.857   0.566   0.548   0.560   0.634   0.708   008   A   IN     18-3    22-5   CCIW     Carthage
MW   03   0.875   0.484   0.510   0.493   0.588   0.684   020   A   IN     21-3    22-3   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   04   0.808   0.496   0.507   0.500   0.577   0.654   034   A   IN     21-5    23-5   HCAC     Defiance
MW   05   0.731   0.571   0.535   0.559   0.602   0.645   042   C   015    19-7    20-7   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   06   0.800   0.463   0.505   0.477   0.558   0.639   048   C   020    20-5    22-5   HCAC     Anderson
MW   07   0.810   0.442   0.487   0.457   0.545   0.633   050   A   IN     17-4    20-7   SLIAC    Westminster (Mo.)
MW   08   0.680   0.557   0.537   0.550   0.583   0.615   064   C   028    17-8    18-8   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   09   0.640   0.545   0.543   0.544   0.568   0.592   087   C   048    16-9   16-10   CCIW     Augustana
MW   10   0.654   0.488   0.501   0.493   0.533   0.573   100   C   059    17-9   17-10   NATHC    Milwaukee Engineering
MW   11   0.609   0.546   0.495   0.529   0.549   0.569   106   C   065    14-9    16-9   MWC      Carroll
                                          
W   001   0.920   0.517   0.531   0.522   0.622   0.721   005   A   IN     23-2    25-2   NWC      Whitworth
W   002   0.846   0.588   0.560   0.578   0.645   0.712   007   A   IN     22-4    23-4   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
W   003   0.870   0.544   0.536   0.541   0.623   0.705   009   C   002    20-3    23-3   MIAC     St. Thomas
W   004   0.913   0.487   0.513   0.496   0.600   0.704   010   A   IN     21-2    23-4   IIAC     Central
W   005   0.815   0.615   0.552   0.594   0.649   0.704   011   C   003    22-5    22-5   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
W   006   0.944   0.425   0.522   0.458   0.579   0.701   014   B   001    17-1    23-2   IND      Chapman
W   007   0.773   0.503   0.500   0.502   0.570   0.637   049   A   IN     17-5    21-6   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
W   008   0.667   0.559   0.562   0.560   0.587   0.613   066   C   030    16-8    17-9   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
W   009   0.692   0.534   0.532   0.533   0.573   0.613   067   C   031    18-8    18-8   MIAC     Augsburg
W   010   0.679   0.542   0.528   0.538   0.573   0.608   075   A   IN     19-9    19-9   MIAC     Carleton
W   011   0.640   0.548   0.530   0.542   0.567   0.591   089   C   050    16-9   16-11   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
W   012   0.731   0.422   0.467   0.437   0.511   0.584   095   B   004    19-7    19-7   UMAC     Northwestern (Minn.)

Pool:   A     Top ranked team in Pool A eligible conference                                    
        B     Pool B eligible team                                    
        C     At large candidate                                    
        N/A   Not eligible for postseason participation                                    
                                          
B or C #      Rank in Pool (C or B)                                    

A Status:      C       Pool A candidate, would rank within top 19 of Pool C                                  
               C-2     2nd tier Pool A candidate, would rank 20-29 of Pool C                                  
      IN   Clinched Pool A bid                                 
               Blank   Ranks outside of the top 29 of Pool C                                 
                                          
RPI50:   50% WP and 50% SOS                                       
RPI:     25% WP and 75% SOS                                       
                                          
Updated:      3/4/2010                        


Feel free to leave (or message) me comments, criticism, and suggestions for next year (or if you don't want me to post next year :)).

I'm already planning on including some numbers for all d3 games for entertainment purposes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 04, 2010, 10:39:05 AM
Why are you sulking?   ???  and why wouldn't we want you to post?  Did I miss something?  ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 04, 2010, 10:45:41 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 04, 2010, 10:39:05 AM
Why are you sulking?   ???  and why wouldn't we want you to post?  Did I miss something?  ::)

He's a Calvin supporter, and they didn't get selected.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2010, 11:41:05 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 04, 2010, 10:45:41 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 04, 2010, 10:39:05 AM
Why are you sulking?   ???  and why wouldn't we want you to post?  Did I miss something? 

He's a Calvin supporter, and they didn't get selected.

Not only that, but he projected them as the 13th selection and they didn't get in.  I have to admit, Calvin and Colby both seem to have a good case for sulking.

The committee really seems to have made a statement about scheduling with the Anderson selection.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on March 04, 2010, 11:47:32 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2010, 11:41:05 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 04, 2010, 10:45:41 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 04, 2010, 10:39:05 AM
Why are you sulking?   ???  and why wouldn't we want you to post?  Did I miss something? 

He's a Calvin supporter, and they didn't get selected.

Not only that, but he projected them as the 13th selection and they didn't get in.  I have to admit, Calvin and Colby both seem to have a good case for sulking.

The committee really seems to have made a statement about scheduling with the Anderson selection.

Being the 13th selection was based on RPI which only accounts for two of the primary criteria. We still had Calvin in the tournament in our projection, but they got in much closer to the end of Pool C.

In the end, Calvin's exclusion was probably due to their 1-3 record vs. regionally ranked teams; a number not included in their #13 projection.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2010, 12:22:59 PM
Quote from: ziggy on March 04, 2010, 11:47:32 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2010, 11:41:05 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 04, 2010, 10:45:41 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 04, 2010, 10:39:05 AM
Why are you sulking?   ???  and why wouldn't we want you to post?  Did I miss something?

He's a Calvin supporter, and they didn't get selected.

Not only that, but he projected them as the 13th selection and they didn't get in.  I have to admit, Calvin and Colby both seem to have a good case for sulking.

The committee really seems to have made a statement about scheduling with the Anderson selection.

Being the 13th selection was based on RPI which only accounts for two of the primary criteria. We still had Calvin in the tournament in our projection, but they got in much closer to the end of Pool C.

In the end, Calvin's exclusion was probably due to their 1-3 record vs. regionally ranked teams; a number not included in their #13 projection.

The 13th is actually based on RPI50, they were in the 20s in standard RPI.

This makes two years in a row that the Knights would have almost certainly made a 64 team tournament.  :'(

Will next year's numbers be the same, as far as 61 bids, 40 A's, 2 B's, and 19 C's?

[Edit: Forgot NECC and UMAC are due for Pool A next year. Will that make 42 A's, 1 B, 18 C's?]

I've started to put together my update for next year's SOS&RPI program. I'm including D3 WP, D3 SOS, and D3 RPI (not to figure in the calculations, just for display). I'm also hoping to include results vs. regionally ranked opponents, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to calculate that into a formula for a ranking or not.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2010, 12:33:22 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2010, 11:41:05 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 04, 2010, 10:45:41 AM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 04, 2010, 10:39:05 AM
Why are you sulking?   ???  and why wouldn't we want you to post?  Did I miss something?

He's a Calvin supporter, and they didn't get selected.

Not only that, but he projected them as the 13th selection and they didn't get in.  I have to admit, Calvin and Colby both seem to have a good case for sulking.

The committee really seems to have made a statement about scheduling with the Anderson selection.

I can't seem to find "committee statements" in the handbook for selection criteria. :)

I'm not actually sulking. I did let out an audible groan when Anderson was announced, but I quickly accepted Calvin's fate. I was thinking it was probably 50-50 whether or not they'd get in, and in the end they just didn't do enough to force the committee's hand.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2010, 01:25:28 PM
But using the secondary criteria to make a statement, definitely do-able.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on March 04, 2010, 05:07:44 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2010, 09:30:12 AM
...I'll come out of my sulking corner to finish out the year. Should be correct through games leading up to the tournament.

There's plenty of room on the Stevens Point bandwagon... and we have a great chance to meet and beat Hope in the second round!  What more reason do you need?!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2010, 05:25:09 PM
Slappy: I had a question from a reader that was more up your alley, looking for a ranking of all 61 MBB tournament teams, top to bottom. It's perfect for the RPI and it's akin to something Patrick Abegg did for our 2008 preview. What do you think?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2010, 06:48:18 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2010, 05:25:09 PM
Slappy: I had a question from a reader that was more up your alley, looking for a ranking of all 61 MBB tournament teams, top to bottom. It's perfect for the RPI and it's akin to something Patrick Abegg did for our 2008 preview. What do you think?

I can have an in-region breakdown posted on here in a short bit.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2010, 06:56:26 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2010, 12:22:59 PM
...

[Edit: Forgot NECC and UMAC are due for Pool A next year. Will that make 42 A's, 1 B, 18 C's?]

I agree.  I project 18 Pool C bids and 1 Pool B bid next year.  Five more teams are scheduled to become new members in August 2010.  I don't think that we will get an extra bid next season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2010, 07:29:22 PM
2010 tournament team RPI rankings

Rankings use in-region results only (I would like to use all D3, but that will have to wait until next year.)

RNK  REG  Team               CONF    WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI   Pool
01   MW   Washington U.      UAA     0.909   0.581   0.555   0.572   0.656   A
02   WE   UW-Whitewater      WIAC    0.815   0.615   0.552   0.594   0.649   C
03   WE   UW-Stevens Point   WIAC    0.846   0.588   0.560   0.578   0.645   A
04   AT   William Paterson   NJAC    0.923   0.556   0.536   0.549   0.643   A   
05   NE   Williams           NESCAC  1.000   0.508   0.549   0.522   0.641   A   
06   NE   Middlebury         NESCAC  0.870   0.580   0.519   0.559   0.637   C   
07   MW   Carthage           CCIW    0.857   0.566   0.548   0.560   0.634   A   
08   SO   Guilford           ODAC    0.929   0.522   0.541   0.528   0.628   A   
09   MA   Albright           MACC    0.800   0.582   0.547   0.570   0.628   A   
10   WE   St. Thomas         MIAC    0.870   0.544   0.536   0.541   0.623   C   
11   WE   Whitworth          NWC     0.920   0.517   0.531   0.522   0.622   A   
12   SO   Virginia Wesleyan  ODAC    0.800   0.565   0.524   0.551   0.613   C   
13   SO   Eastern Mennonite  ODAC    0.857   0.528   0.537   0.531   0.613   C   
14   AT   Richard Stockton   NJAC    0.760   0.577   0.534   0.563   0.612   C   
15   MA   St. Marys (Md.)    CAC     0.880   0.524   0.519   0.522   0.612   A   
16   AT   Merchant Marine    LAND    0.846   0.533   0.521   0.529   0.608   A   
17   EA   St. John Fisher    E8      0.808   0.542   0.536   0.540   0.607   C   
18   GL   Hope               MIAA    0.842   0.543   0.496   0.527   0.606   A   
19   NE   Brandeis           UAA     0.760   0.548   0.561   0.552   0.604   C   
20   SO   Randolph-Macon     ODAC    0.727   0.578   0.533   0.563   0.604   C   
21   MW   Illinois Wesleyan  CCIW    0.731   0.571   0.535   0.559   0.602   C   
22   SO   Texas-Dallas       ASC     0.846   0.525   0.507   0.519   0.601   C   
23   WE   Central            IIAC    0.913   0.487   0.513   0.496   0.600   A   
24   MA   Lycoming           MACC    0.727   0.563   0.546   0.558   0.600   C   
25   AT   Rutgers-Newark     NJAC    0.739   0.554   0.529   0.546   0.594   C   
26   GL   Wooster            NCAC    0.852   0.503   0.514   0.507   0.593   A   
27   EA   Oneonta State      SUNYAC  0.778   0.536   0.515   0.529   0.591   C   
28   MA   DeSales            MACF    0.840   0.505   0.514   0.508   0.591   A   
29   NE   MIT                NEWMAC  0.875   0.478   0.531   0.496   0.591   C   
30   MA   Cabrini            CSAC    0.926   0.470   0.494   0.478   0.590   A   
31   NE   Rhode Island Coll. LEC     0.741   0.545   0.524   0.538   0.589   A   
32   SO   Maryville (Tenn.)  GSAC    0.842   0.496   0.520   0.504   0.588   B   
33   MW   St. Norbert        MWC     0.875   0.484   0.510   0.493   0.588   A   
34   GL   John Carroll       OAC     0.750   0.544   0.515   0.534   0.588   C   
35   NE   Bridgewater State  MASCAC  0.783   0.518   0.524   0.520   0.586   A   
36   GL   Wilmington         OAC     0.769   0.525   0.524   0.525   0.586   A   
37   MA   Franklin&Marshall  CC      0.852   0.487   0.516   0.496   0.585   A   
38   EA   Plattsburgh State  SUNYAC  0.769   0.525   0.516   0.522   0.584   A   
39   EA   Nazareth           E8      0.680   0.562   0.531   0.552   0.584   A   
40   MW   Wheaton (Ill.)     CCIW    0.680   0.557   0.537   0.550   0.583   C   
41   EA   Medaille           AMCC    0.846   0.488   0.502   0.493   0.581   A   
42   WE   Chapman            IND     0.944   0.425   0.522   0.458   0.579   B   
43   NE   Gordon             CCC     0.852   0.476   0.503   0.485   0.577   A   
44   MW   Defiance           HCAC    0.808   0.496   0.507   0.500   0.577   A   
45   SO   Mary Hardin-Baylor ASC     0.815   0.489   0.505   0.494   0.574   A   
46   WE   Carleton           MIAC    0.679   0.542   0.528   0.538   0.573   A   
47   NE   Albertus Magnus    GNAC    0.815   0.481   0.514   0.492   0.573   A   
48   NE   Clark              NEWMAC  0.731   0.515   0.529   0.520   0.573   A   
49   WE   Claremont-M-S      SCIAC   0.773   0.503   0.500   0.502   0.570   A   
50   SO   Centre             SCAC    0.692   0.533   0.504   0.523   0.566   A   
51   MA   Wesley             CAC     0.727   0.508   0.507   0.508   0.563   C   
52   MW   Anderson           HCAC    0.800   0.463   0.505   0.477   0.558   C   
53   AT   Brooklyn           CUNYAC  0.778   0.467   0.507   0.480   0.555   A   
54   AT   SUNY-Purchase      SKY     0.714   0.487   0.503   0.492   0.548   A   
55   MW   Westminster (Mo.)  SLIAC   0.810   0.442   0.487   0.457   0.545   A   
56   EA   SUNYIT             NEAC    0.810   0.427   0.498   0.451   0.540   A   
57   MW   Aurora             NATHC   0.630   0.485   0.515   0.495   0.529   A   
58   EA   St. Lawrence       LL      0.615   0.485   0.517   0.496   0.526   A   
59   GL   Grove City         PrAC    0.680   0.461   0.500   0.474   0.526   A   
60   NE   Maine-Farmington   NAC     0.560   0.497   0.507   0.500   0.515   A   
61   SO   Chris. Newport     USAC    0.524   0.475   0.493   0.481   0.492   A   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 04, 2010, 08:30:54 PM
Whitewater is 22-5 overall, not sure where those records you have came from.

Skimming through, a lot seem to be wrong...John Carroll, Defiance...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2010, 08:33:10 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 04, 2010, 08:30:54 PM
Whitewater is 22-5 overall, not sure where those records you have came from.

Skimming through, a lot seem to be wrong...John Carroll, Defiance...

Yep, looks like the last two columns didn't take when the spreadsheet got sorted.  :-[

Quick fix for now, took off the records. I'll try to correct tonight.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on March 04, 2010, 11:17:34 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2010, 07:29:22 PM
2010 tournament team RPI rankings

Rankings use in-region results only (I would like to use all D3, but that will have to wait until next year.)

RNK  REG  Team               CONF    WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI   Pool
01   MW   Washington U.      UAA     0.909   0.581   0.555   0.572   0.656   A
02   WE   UW-Whitewater      WIAC    0.815   0.61557   MW

   Would u be able to it for the women's tournament, also?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2010, 09:13:52 AM
Quote from: ronk on March 04, 2010, 11:17:34 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2010, 07:29:22 PM
2010 tournament team RPI rankings

Rankings use in-region results only (I would like to use all D3, but that will have to wait until next year.)

RNK  REG  Team               CONF    WP      OWP     OOWP    SOS     RPI   Pool
01   MW   Washington U.      UAA     0.909   0.581   0.555   0.572   0.656   A
02   WE   UW-Whitewater      WIAC    0.815   0.61557   MW

   Would u be able to it for the women's tournament, also?

No, I don't have the data on the Women's teams. Sorry.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 09, 2010, 02:45:34 AM
BOLD is AQs

GREEN are Pool C winners

crossed out failed in Pool C bids

Through games of Sunday, Feb. 28, 2010.

Men's rankings

Atlantic Region
1. William Paterson 24-2 25-2
2. Merchant Marine 22-4 23-4
3. Richard Stockton 19-6 20-7
4. Rutgers-Newark 16-6 20-7
5. SUNY-Old Westbury 20-7 20-7


East Region
1. St. John Fisher 21-5 22-5
2. Plattsburgh State 20-6 21-7
3. Medaille 22-4 23-4
4. Oneonta State 21-6 22-6
5. Nazareth 17-8 18-9
6. Ithaca 15-7 18-8

Great Lakes Region
1. Wooster 23-4 23-5
2. Hope 16-3 21-7
3. Wilmington (Ohio) 20-6 21-7
4. John Carroll 18-6 20-6
5. Calvin 15-4 19-9
6. Wittenberg 17-7 21-7

Middle Atlantic Region
1. St. Mary's (Md.) 22-3 24-3
2. Albright 20-5 21-5
3. Cabrini 25-2 25-2
4. Franklin and Marshall 23-4 23-4
5. DeSales 21-4 22-5
6. Lycoming 17-6 21-6
7. Wesley 16-6 19-8
8. Messiah 15-6 16-9
9. York (Pa.) 17-7 19-7

Midwest Region
1. Washington U. 20-2 23-2
2. Carthage 18-3 22-5
3. St. Norbert 21-3 22-3
4. Illinois Wesleyan 19-7 20-7
5. Defiance 21-5 23-5
6. Wheaton (Ill.) 17-8 18-8
7. Anderson 20-5 22-5
8. Augustana 16-9 16-10

Northeast Region
1. Williams 24-0 26-1
2. Middlebury 20-3 24-3
3. Rhode Island College 20-7 20-7
4. Brandeis 19-6 19-6
5. MIT 21-3 22-4
6. Colby 17-5 19-6
7. Bridgewater State 18-5 19-7
8. Gordon 23-4 24-4
9. Western Connecticut State 18-7 19-7
10. WPI 19-7 20-7
11. Albertus Magnus 22-5 22-6

South Region
1. Guilford 26-2 26-2
2. Eastern Mennonite 18-3 22-4
3. Texas-Dallas 22-4 23-5
4. Randolph-Macon 16-6 22-6
5. Virginia Wesleyan 20-5 22-5
6. Maryville (Tenn.) 16-3 23-4
7. Austin 20-7 20-7
8. Mary Hardin-Baylor 22-5 22-6

West Region
1. Whitworth 23-2 25-2
2. UW-Stevens Point 22-4 23-4
3. UW-Whitewater 22-5 22-5
4. St. Thomas 20-4 23-3
5. Central 21-2 23-4
6. Chapman 17-1 23-2
7. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 17-5 21-6
8. Carleton 19-9 19-9
9. UW-La Crosse 16-8 17-9
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 09, 2010, 02:47:20 AM
This is with the last regional rankings made public with records prior to the last week's results.

POOL C CONTENDERS WITHOUT AQ'S INCLUDED.  Just to make it a little easier!

Conference Leader

Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
3.(3)  Rutgers-Newark  16-5 20-6 (NJAC) LOST to Richard Stockton in NJAC semis
4.(5) Richard Stockton  19-5 19-6 (NJAC) LOST  to William Paterson in NJAC Final
5.(4) Ramapo 17-7 18-8 (NJAC) LOST to William Paterson in NJAC semis;

Previously ranked:  York (N.Y.)   (CUNYAC) LOST to Brooklyn in CUNYAC Final

East Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) St. John Fisher   20-4 21-4 (Empire 8); LOST  to Nazareth in Empire 8 Final
3.(3) Oneonta State   19-5 20-5 (SUNYAC) LOST to Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final
4.(NA) Ithaca  15-6 18-7 (Empire 8) LOST to Nazareth in Empire 8 semis  
6.(5) New York University 15-8 16-8 (UAA); LOST to Brandeis  

Dropping out:  Stevens  (Empire 8)

Previously ranked:  Rochester   (UAA) BEAT Emory

Great Lakes Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(2) John Carroll   17-5 19-5 (OAC) LOST to Heidelberg in OAC semis.
4.(4) Calvin  13-3 17-8 (MIAA); LOST  to Hope in MIAA Final
5.(6) Thomas More   19-6 19-6 (PrAC) LOST to Grove City in PrAC Final

Dropping out:  Wittenberg  (NCAC) LOST to Wooster in NCAC Final

Middle Atlantic Region In-Region Record Overall Record
5.(3) Lycoming 16-5 20-5 (MACC) LOST to Albright in MACC Final  
7.(8) Messiah 15-5 16-8 (MACC); LOST to Albright in MACC semis
8.(7) York (Pa)  18-6 19-6 (CAC); LOST to Wesley in CAC semis
9.(NA) Wesley  14-5 17-7 (CAC);  LOST to St. Mary's (Md) in CAC Final

Dropping out:  Catholic  (LAND) LOST  to Scranton in LAND semis

Previously ranked:  Elizabethtown (MACC) LOST to Lycoming in MACC semis, Alvernia (MACC)


Midwest Region In-Region Record Overall Record
3.(4)  Wheaton (Ill) 17-7 18-7 (CCIW); LOST  to Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW semis
4.(5)  Illinois Wesleyan  18-6 19-6 (CCIW); LOST  to Carthage in CCIW Final
6.(6)  Anderson 19-4 21-4 (HCAC); LOST  to Defiance in HCAC Final
8.(8) Augustana  16-8 16-9 (CCIW); LOST  to Carthage in CCIW semis

Northeast Region In-Region Record Overall Record
2.(3) Middlebury 19-2 23-2 (NESCAC); LOST to Williams in NESCAC Final
3.(2)  MIT 21-2 22-3 (NEWMAC);  LOST to Clark in NEWMAC semis
4.(5) Colby  17-4 19-5 (NESCAC); LOST to Middlebury in NESCAC semis
5.(4) Brandeis 18-6 18-6 (UAA); BEAT NYU
9.(11) Western Connecticut   17-6 18-6 (LEC);  LOST to Rhode Island College in LEC Final  
10.(10) WPI 17-6 18-6 (NEWMAC);  LOST to Clark in NEWMAC Final
11.(8)Eastern Connecticut   17-8 17-8 (LEC); LOST to Western Connecticut in LEC semis

Previously ranked:  Mass-Dartmouth (LEC);

South Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Eastern Mennonite   17-2 21-3 (ODAC) LOST to Randolph-Macon in ODAC semis 
3.(3) Texas-Dallas 20-3 21-4 (ASC-East); LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC Final
4.(4) Virginia Wesleyan   19-4 21-4 (ODAC); LOST to Guilford in ODAC semis  
5.(6) Randolph-Macon 14-5 20-5 (ODAC); LOST to Guilford in ODAC Final
7.(5) Austin  19-6 19-6 (SCAC); LOST  to DePauw in SCAC semis

Previously ranked:  Mississippi College   (ASC-East) LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC semis

West Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1.(1) Whitewater  21-4 21-4 (WIAC);  LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final
2.(3) St. Thomas  20-2 23-2 (MIAC);  LOST to Carleton in MIAC semis
7.(9) La Crosse 16-7 17-8 (WIAC); LOST to Superior in WIAC quarterfinals
9.(8) Augsburg   17-7 18-7 (MIAC); LOST  to Gustavus Adolphus in MIAC semis

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on November 05, 2010, 10:35:59 AM
New for 2010-11...


Effective with the 2011 championship, the calculation of the strength of schedule (SOS) for men's basketball will include a statistical component that gives significance to games played on the road.  The basketball committee proposed that a multiplier of 1.4 be added to OWP for those games played away from home.  In addition, the same multiplier (1.4) should be included for those games played on the road for the OOWP.  A multiplier of 1.0 (no positive or negative effect) should be included in the OWP and OOWP for all neutral games.  A multiplier of 0.6 should be included in the OWP and OOWP for all home games. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on November 05, 2010, 10:39:51 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 05, 2010, 10:35:59 AM
New for 2010-11...


Effective with the 2011 championship, the calculation of the strength of schedule (SOS) for men's basketball will include a statistical component that gives significance to games played on the road.  The basketball committee proposed that a multiplier of 1.4 be added to OWP for those games played away from home.  In addition, the same multiplier (1.4) should be included for those games played on the road for the OOWP.  A multiplier of 1.0 (no positive or negative effect) should be included in the OWP and OOWP for all neutral games.  A multiplier of 0.6 should be included in the OWP and OOWP for all home games. 

Source? Women's too or just men's?  It would seem odd if this was a men's only rule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on November 05, 2010, 10:57:00 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 05, 2010, 10:35:59 AM
New for 2010-11...


Effective with the 2011 championship, the calculation of the strength of schedule (SOS) for men's basketball will include a statistical component that gives significance to games played on the road.  The basketball committee proposed that a multiplier of 1.4 be added to OWP for those games played away from home.  In addition, the same multiplier (1.4) should be included for those games played on the road for the OOWP.  A multiplier of 1.0 (no positive or negative effect) should be included in the OWP and OOWP for all neutral games.  A multiplier of 0.6 should be included in the OWP and OOWP for all home games. 


Seriously?  Road games are going to count more than double what home games count?  That seems a little steep.  1.0, 1.2, and 1.4 seems a little more in line, to me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on November 05, 2010, 11:09:25 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on November 05, 2010, 10:39:51 AM
Source?

Per an e-mail from one of the Regional Advisory Committee members.

That's all I know about it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on November 05, 2010, 01:32:32 PM
This is not good. I thought I was nearly done with my regional ranking spreadsheet. :( Tack several more hours of work on.

They can do this, but they can't do a blinkin' RPI calculation?

I think they use a similar multiplyer in DI, but they use it for the winning percentage portion, I believe the OWP and OOWP's are left alone. Curious.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on November 05, 2010, 05:30:01 PM
Did they pick these constants out of a hat?  I would like to know who proposed this and the rationale they used to justify it.  Why dont we just go back to the 1-15 scale.    I hope this is some sort of early (or late) April Fools joke.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 05, 2010, 09:42:45 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on November 05, 2010, 05:30:01 PM
Did they pick these constants out of a hat?  I would like to know who proposed this and the rationale they used to justify it.  Why dont we just go back to the 1-15 scale.    I hope this is some sort of early (or late) April Fools joke.
The 0-15 scale was easy to use and probably approximates the new system, after a 25 game season.

Good teams will win and almost good teams will have lost 1 game that they should not have lost and will stay.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on November 19, 2010, 10:48:58 AM
This seems like a simple OWP question I should know the answer to, but I don't...

Does your result vs a given in-region opponent count in the calculation of your own OWP?  For example, IWU beat Benedictine...then Benedictine beat Cornell (both games in-region for BU).  As far as IWU's OWP, is Benedictine 1-1 or 1-0 right now?

Thanks for your help.



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on November 19, 2010, 11:08:42 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on November 19, 2010, 10:48:58 AM
This seems like a simple OWP question I should know the answer to, but I don't...

Does your result vs a given in-region opponent count in the calculation of your own OWP?  For example, IWU beat Benedictine...then Benedictine beat Cornell (both games in-region for BU).  As far as IWU's OWP, is Benedictine 1-1 or 1-0 right now?

Thanks for your help.

1-0. You removes games versus yourself in the OWP calcultion, but not the OOWP calcultion.

So, you can't hurt your SOS by winning a game, you actually boost is slightly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on November 29, 2010, 04:53:20 PM
I'm tracking in-region WP, OWP, OOWP, SOS, and RPI again this year in the regional-ranking format. I'll be posting the charts on my blog, becuase it's a little easier to format things in HTML than it is using the forum.  :(

Permalink: http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

Way too early to do this, but I'm starting now anyway. As always, let me know if you see any errors. I'm sure there are still bugs to be worked out of the spreadsheet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 01, 2010, 08:44:26 AM
The handbook is out: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/basketball/2011/11_3_mbasketball.pdf

61 bids. 42 Pool A's, 2 Pool B's, and only 17 Pool C's  :(

Looks like no Pool A status for the NECC?... Nope... The handbook looks wrong. Lists NECC as an AQ conference, but also lists all the teams as Pool B. Looks like maybe it should actually be 18 C's and 1 B?

Here's the OWP/OOWP adjustment:
Home/Away Multiplier. A multiplier of 1.4 shall be added to the OWP for those
games played away from home. In addition, the same multiplier (1.4) shall be included
for those games played on the road for the OOWP. A multiplier of 1/0 (no positive
or negative effect) will be included in the OWP and OOWP for all neutral games. A
multiplier of 0.6 shall be included in the OWP and OOWP for all home games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on December 01, 2010, 09:13:35 AM
The handbook is wrong.... NEVER!!.... ::) ::)    Again and again....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2010, 09:36:00 AM
Thanks for finding the Handbook.

I had checked a couple of times last week, but my searches were not finding it.  This says it is a November 19, 2010 update.  Looks like there will be a few more updates.   :-\   ;)

I agree with your assessment...1 Pool B bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on December 01, 2010, 02:58:22 PM
Quote from: hopefan on December 01, 2010, 09:13:35 AM
The handbook is wrong.... NEVER!!.... ::) ::)    Again and again....

The bracket is also wrong...again.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2010, 07:21:17 PM
Quote from: ziggy on December 01, 2010, 02:58:22 PM
Quote from: hopefan on December 01, 2010, 09:13:35 AM
The handbook is wrong.... NEVER!!.... ::) ::)    Again and again....

The bracket is also wrong...again.
+1!  They only bracketed for 60 teams!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 01, 2010, 08:22:04 PM
Also just found out that the 42 conferences have been granted automatic bids for the "2009" championship. If we're retroactively handing out bids, can we go back and see if Calvin would have made a 61 team field?  ;D

They also claim a 6.5 tournament access ratio, but even though 403 / 6.5 = 62 (exactly), we're only seeing 61 bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 02, 2010, 07:35:16 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 01, 2010, 08:22:04 PM
Also just found out that the 42 conferences have been granted automatic bids for the "2009" championship. If we're retroactively handing out bids, can we go back and see if Calvin would have made a 61 team field?  ;D

They also claim a 6.5 tournament access ratio, but even though 403 / 6.5 = 62 (exactly), we're only seeing 61 bids.
The funding for the tournaments usually lags a year.  Next year (2011-12), we should have 62 bids.  That should be an extra Pool C bid.  :)

Also, remember that the Commonwealth Coast Conference goes away in 2011-12.  That throws about 12 more teams into Pool B for 2 years.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 03, 2010, 08:41:33 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 02, 2010, 07:35:16 PM
Also, remember that the Commonwealth Coast Conference goes away in 2011-12.  That throws about 12 more teams into Pool B for 2 years.

It's not official yet, but that's not going to happen.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: CrashDavisD3 on December 03, 2010, 08:55:09 AM
Quote from: ziggy on December 01, 2010, 02:58:22 PM
Quote from: hopefan on December 01, 2010, 09:13:35 AM
The handbook is wrong.... NEVER!!.... ::) ::)    Again and again....

The bracket is also wrong...again.
NCAA should had over the all the handbooks for all sports to CAL TECH Students. The accuracy and quality would improve 1000%..... :D ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 03, 2010, 09:06:29 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on December 03, 2010, 08:41:33 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 02, 2010, 07:35:16 PM
Also, remember that the Commonwealth Coast Conference goes away in 2011-12.  That throws about 12 more teams into Pool B for 2 years.

It's not official yet, but that's not going to happen.
That post begs the question...

Has the threat to disband The Commonwealth Coast Conference had the desired effect of "chasing" away the "uninvited"?

If the teams that were not wanted have moved to other conferences, then why go thru Pool B without the Automatic Qualifier (AQ) for 2 years?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 03, 2010, 05:51:58 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 03, 2010, 09:06:29 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on December 03, 2010, 08:41:33 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 02, 2010, 07:35:16 PM
Also, remember that the Commonwealth Coast Conference goes away in 2011-12.  That throws about 12 more teams into Pool B for 2 years.

It's not official yet, but that's not going to happen.
That post begs the question...

Has the threat to disband The Commonwealth Coast Conference had the desired effect of "chasing" away the "uninvited"?

If the teams that were not wanted have moved to other conferences, then why go thru Pool B without the Automatic Qualifier (AQ) for 2 years?

There's no official word yet, but the rumblings I'm hearing say exactly that - the nine defectors will probably rejoin the one remaining team and play with ten next year.

When you think about it, it makes the most sense.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 04, 2010, 09:23:01 PM
12/2 handbook update: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/basketball/2011/11_3_mbasketball.pdf

18 Pool C's and 1 Pool B. That looks better.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 05, 2010, 08:04:00 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 04, 2010, 09:23:01 PM
12/2 handbook update: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/basketball/2011/11_3_mbasketball.pdf

18 Pool C's and 1 Pool B. That looks better.
The guys in Indianapolis must have discovered the Pool C message board at D3boards.com.      ;)    :D    ;D

(Did you see if any other clerical errors or typos were corrected?)



I think that that is the cleanest revision that I can remember.

And to have occurred by December 2nd is remarkable.  Now let's look at the Women's...

which I do not find posted yet.   :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 05, 2010, 08:00:52 PM
From the Handbook...

QuoteRegional rankings. The men's basketball committee will release regional rankings
on the following dates:
• Wednesday, February 2
• Wednesday, February 9
• Wednesday, February 16
• Wednesday, February 23
• Sunday, February 27
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 05, 2010, 09:54:26 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 05, 2010, 08:00:52 PM
From the Handbook...

QuoteRegional rankings. The men's basketball committee will release regional rankings
on the following dates:
• Wednesday, February 2
• Wednesday, February 9
• Wednesday, February 16
• Wednesday, February 23
• Sunday, February 27

Does it say anything about whether that last one will be made public (even though they said it would last year, but never was).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on December 05, 2010, 11:03:03 PM
The last one was made public last year.

http://www.ncaa.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/030110aae.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on December 05, 2010, 11:19:00 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on December 05, 2010, 09:54:26 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 05, 2010, 08:00:52 PM
From the Handbook...

QuoteRegional rankings. The men's basketball committee will release regional rankings
on the following dates:
• Wednesday, February 2
• Wednesday, February 9
• Wednesday, February 16
• Wednesday, February 23
• Sunday, February 27

Does it say anything about whether that last one will be made public (even though they said it would last year, but never was).

The Sunday date would be the final regional rankings as that is Seclection Sunday so it looks like the handbook is telling us they are releasing the final rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 06, 2010, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 05, 2010, 11:03:03 PM
The last one was made public last year.

http://www.ncaa.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/030110aae.html

Was that really out before the tournament started?  I couldn't find it anywhere.  Releasing it after the selection is over is sort of useless.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on December 06, 2010, 11:03:26 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on December 06, 2010, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 05, 2010, 11:03:03 PM
The last one was made public last year.

http://www.ncaa.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/030110aae.html

Was that really out before the tournament started?  I couldn't find it anywhere.  Releasing it after the selection is over is sort of useless.

If you look at the URL, it was released on March 1, 2010 (the NCAA always has the date in the URL).  Since the tournament started on March 4, it was released 3 days before the tournament started.  The final rankings and selection are completed on the same day, which in this case was Sunday, February 28, which can spill over into the next day in some cases (Monday, March 1). They released the rankings the same day they released the tournament bracket.

Further, I linked to the release on this board on March 1, the day it was released:

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1184234#msg1184234

Therefore, all you needed to do was look at this board the Monday it was released.

The NCAA kept their word in this case. I dont think it is feasible to expect them to release the rankings prior to the NCAA selection, since they are both completed on essentially the same day.  I am not sure if there is even anyone in the NCAA office to post things on weekends, which would make that Monday the first day that it could have been posted.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 06, 2010, 11:45:11 AM
RPI-based regional rankings thru Sunday's games:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2010/12/regional-rankings-1262010.html

I'm not adjusting the OWP and OOWP yet; I don't have home/road/neutral designations.

A few schedules are still missing as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 08, 2010, 06:20:07 AM
The final poll was conducted on Selection Sunday but was not released until after Monday's announcement of who was going (and who wasn't going) to the tournament... that way there would still be a measure of "surprise" on Monday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on December 08, 2010, 11:12:25 AM
  Some might think they wanted to avoid complaints about their final ranking before they released the selections based on that ranking.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 08, 2010, 09:14:22 PM
I think the handbook is still incorrectly listing Birmingham-Southern as championship eligible, but I think they're in their last year of the reclassifying process.

Took a ton and a half of digging, but here's the chart: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/AMA/DIII%20Membership/Provisional,%20Reclass%20%20Exploratory%20Chart.pdf

They should not be eligible.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 08, 2010, 09:53:19 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on December 03, 2010, 05:51:58 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 03, 2010, 09:06:29 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on December 03, 2010, 08:41:33 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 02, 2010, 07:35:16 PM
Also, remember that the Commonwealth Coast Conference goes away in 2011-12.  That throws about 12 more teams into Pool B for 2 years.

It's not official yet, but that's not going to happen.
That post begs the question...

Has the threat to disband The Commonwealth Coast Conference had the desired effect of "chasing" away the "uninvited"?

If the teams that were not wanted have moved to other conferences, then why go thru Pool B without the Automatic Qualifier (AQ) for 2 years?

There's no official word yet, but the rumblings I'm hearing say exactly that - the nine defectors will probably rejoin the one remaining team and play with ten next year.

When you think about it, it makes the most sense.


Just heard.  It is official, but there will be no press release.  The nine teams that were going to leave the CCC are staying in the CCC.  So with ENC remaining they'll be a ten team conference next season, playing a full double round robin for 18 conference games.  They'll remain in Pool A.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 10, 2010, 10:32:13 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 08, 2010, 09:14:22 PM
I think the handbook is still incorrectly listing Birmingham-Southern as championship eligible, but I think they're in their last year of the reclassifying process.

Took a ton and a half of digging, but here's the chart: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/AMA/DIII%20Membership/Provisional,%20Reclass%20%20Exploratory%20Chart.pdf

They should not be eligible.

12/8 handbook update: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/basketball/2011/11_3_mbasketball.pdf

They've corrected Birmingham-Southern to identify them as a reclassifying institution.

I'm now convinced they read this board.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on December 10, 2010, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 10, 2010, 10:32:13 PM
I'm now convinced they read this board.
The Handbook fails to recognize Wooster as the 2010-11 National Champions...(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnoisen.com%2FSmileys%2Fcyna%2Fwhistling2.gif&hash=643df003478c141f36962cb121cdf374b22323c8)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 13, 2010, 03:37:47 PM
New regional RPI-rankings up on the blog: http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2010/12/regional-rankings-1213.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 14, 2010, 04:23:20 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 13, 2010, 03:37:47 PM
New regional RPI-rankings up on the blog: http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2010/12/regional-rankings-1213.html
+1!  Thanks for doing this.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 14, 2010, 04:25:53 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 14, 2010, 04:23:20 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 13, 2010, 03:37:47 PM
New regional RPI-rankings up on the blog: http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2010/12/regional-rankings-1213.html
+1!  Thanks for doing this.

Every Monday (except next Monday).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 27, 2010, 10:35:53 AM
Latest in-region RPI Rankings: http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2010/12/regional-rankings-12272010.html

I think I'll go through my sheet and manually add hom/road/neutral games once we get a ways into January's conference schedule. Not too many neutral site games then. It'll take me a while to do, but hopefully I'll have rankings with the new OWP and OOWP weights once it's time to actually pay close attention to this stuff.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: toooldtoplay on December 28, 2010, 06:59:23 PM
In your pool C worksheet, there are no NEWMAC teams. I would think both WPI and MIT would be ranked in NE.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 28, 2010, 07:41:26 PM
Quote from: toooldtoplay on December 28, 2010, 06:59:23 PM
In your pool C worksheet, there are no NEWMAC teams. I would think both WPI and MIT would be ranked in NE.
Springfield!

Please wait a second and understand what Knightslappy is dong for us.

You may have WPI and MIT may have quality teams, but they have not demonstrated that their numbers belong in what is a mathematical calculation.  In basketball, we start seeing the value of these indices when we have 22-25 games in formulae.

However there is a technical glitch in the software.  There are obtrusive "yellow-ized" pixels that are cluttering the line on which Calvin is listed.   ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on December 28, 2010, 07:43:01 PM
Quote from: toooldtoplay on December 28, 2010, 06:59:23 PM
In your pool C worksheet, there are no NEWMAC teams. I would think both WPI and MIT would be ranked in NE.

Actually KnightSlappy has 2 teams from the NEWMAC conference in his rankings. He has Springfield and he also has WPI. He just made a slight mistake and typed in MASCAC for WPI's conference probably because in the list of teams for the Northeast region, WPI and Worcester State are next to each other.. And it's still too early to be concerned about where the teams are ranked in the region right now.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 28, 2010, 08:00:18 PM
Quote from: magicman on December 28, 2010, 07:43:01 PM
Quote from: toooldtoplay on December 28, 2010, 06:59:23 PM
In your pool C worksheet, there are no NEWMAC teams. I would think both WPI and MIT would be ranked in NE.

Actually KnightSlappy has 2 teams from the NEWMAC conference in his rankings. He has Springfield and he also has WPI. He just made a slight mistake and typed in MASCAC for WPI's conference probably because in the list of teams for the Northeast region, WPI and Worcester State are next to each other.. And it's still too early to be concerned about where the teams are ranked in the region right now.  

Yep, I transposed those two conferences for those two schools. It's fixed for future rankings. With the old d3hoops.com schedules, the conference pulled in automatically. This year I had to type them in by hand, and I'm susceptible to mistakes.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 03, 2011, 02:23:46 PM
http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/01/regional-rankings-132011.html

The latest in-region RPI rankings. My goal is to have the home/neutral/road weighting for next week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2011, 04:10:46 PM
It's next week, and the latest batch of RPI regional rankings are here (home/neutral/road SOS weights included!):

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/01/regional-rankings-11011.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 10, 2011, 04:16:45 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2011, 04:10:46 PM
It's next week, and the latest batch of RPI regional rankings are here (home/neutral/road SOS weights included!):

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/01/regional-rankings-11011.html

Nicely done!

Perhaps it's a meaningless excercize... but how different are these results from the non-SOS weighted results (I'm not sure if this is easy to figure out or not... just wondering if you know).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2011, 04:19:51 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 10, 2011, 04:16:45 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2011, 04:10:46 PM
It's next week, and the latest batch of RPI regional rankings are here (home/neutral/road SOS weights included!):

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/01/regional-rankings-11011.html

Nicely done!

Perhaps it's a meaningless excercize... but how different are these results from the non-SOS weighted results (I'm not sure if this is easy to figure out or not... just wondering if you know).

Here's the West Region RPI's without the weights (the number out front is their rank with weights). 'w' columns are the weighted values.

     Team              WP     SOS     wSOS    RPI     wRPI
02   St. Thomas       1.000   0.626   0.568   0.720   0.676
04   Whitworth        1.000   0.584   0.542   0.688   0.656
03   UW-Stevens Point 0.833   0.626   0.622   0.678   0.675
01   UW-River Falls   0.917   0.579   0.609   0.663   0.686
21   Lewis and Clark  0.800   0.596   0.468   0.647   0.551
05   Chapman          0.909   0.538   0.569   0.631   0.654
10   Carleton         0.625   0.597   0.595   0.604   0.602
17   UW-La Crosse     0.636   0.586   0.537   0.599   0.562
18   UW-Superior      0.769   0.534   0.486   0.593   0.557
09   Pacific Lutheran 0.625   0.572   0.598   0.585   0.605
08   Augsburg         0.667   0.549   0.586   0.579   0.606
15   UW-Whitewater    0.615   0.542   0.560   0.561   0.574
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2011, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2011, 04:10:46 PM
It's next week, and the latest batch of RPI regional rankings are here (home/neutral/road SOS weights included!):

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/01/regional-rankings-11011.html
Nice job, except the line with Calvin has those "yellow-ized" pixels obscuring it.   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2011, 04:41:14 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2011, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2011, 04:10:46 PM
It's next week, and the latest batch of RPI regional rankings are here (home/neutral/road SOS weights included!):

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/01/regional-rankings-11011.html
Nice job, except the line with Calvin has those "yellow-ized" pixels obscuring it.   :D

Hmmm, don't know why that keeps happening.  ??? 8-)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 10, 2011, 04:44:02 PM
Wow... interesting that the "next three" WIAC teams drop as much as they do when the weighting is applied.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2011, 04:46:45 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 10, 2011, 04:44:02 PM
Wow... interesting that the "next three" WIAC teams drop as much as they do when the weighting is applied.

I think a lot of it has to do with other teams filling in the gap rather than just a big drop on their part. Especially in the case of UW-W.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 10, 2011, 05:47:29 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2011, 04:46:45 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on January 10, 2011, 04:44:02 PM
Wow... interesting that the "next three" WIAC teams drop as much as they do when the weighting is applied.

I think a lot of it has to do with other teams filling in the gap rather than just a big drop on their part. Especially in the case of UW-W.

True, especially in Whitewater's case... but looking at Superior... they drop below Whitewater and everybody else on the Top 12 you've posted (except Lewis and Clark, who hardly has any regional games).  That just seems counter-intuitive, especially because they have a higher winning percentage than the teams the dropped below... and the teams that jumped them.

Maybe I'm a little rusty on the calculation of the RPI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on January 10, 2011, 06:11:51 PM
The way that the NCAA is applying the home/away multiplier to the OWP and OOWP jsut doesn't make sense.  They use the same multiplier values (1.4 and 0.6) in Div I but the multiplier only is factored in to your Winning Percentage.  It doesn't apply to the OWP or OOWP.

Just a quick example:

If you play a .500 team, here is the adjustment depending on where you play the team.

Neutral  0.500
Home    0.300
Away     0.700

So it is basically saying that because you played on the road, that team is much harder to beat and the opposite at home.  Now this may be true but it is generally accepted that the home court advantage is around 3-4 points.  I don't think that is a big enough advantage to turn a .500 team into a .700 team just since you were on the road and vice-versa.

Now, for most teams over the course of the season, it should equal out pretty well that maybe this won't be a huge problem but it does have the chance to really skew the OWP if a team plays mostly at home or on the road.

This may be a bad example but imagine you are a mediocre team and play only teams either at 0.250 or 0.750.  You'll beat all the 0.250 teams and lose to all the 0.750 teams.  In the old way, you'd have a OWP of 0.500 since you played both types of teams the same amount of times.  Now, your OWP would change depending on the game location.  Imagine playing all bad teams at home and all good away and vice versa, here is your OWP:

play bad @ home, good away:  OWP = 0.6
play good @ home, bad away:  OWP = 0.4

Maybe this was their intention but it just seems like the 40% weighting is too much.  It seems like someone on the DIII board decided to use the DI multipliers without actually researching how the multiplier is used in the DI RPI formula.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: seinfeld on January 10, 2011, 11:08:54 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2011, 04:10:46 PM
It's next week, and the latest batch of RPI regional rankings are here (home/neutral/road SOS weights included!):

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/01/regional-rankings-11011.html

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like you overlooked Wooster in your regional rankings. I'm sure they are No. 1 after beating Wabash on Saturday. Thanks for doing this.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on January 10, 2011, 11:54:19 PM
Quote from: seinfeld on January 10, 2011, 11:08:54 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2011, 04:10:46 PM
It's next week, and the latest batch of RPI regional rankings are here (home/neutral/road SOS weights included!):

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/01/regional-rankings-11011.html

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like you overlooked Wooster in your regional rankings. I'm sure they are No. 1 after beating Wabash on Saturday. Thanks for doing this.

Wooster is #1 in the Great Lakes in the google doc (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmWUuLqSMyzudGRTZU9JNExCVlFxQXRxYlhxc3Q1UHc&hl=en&authkey=CKPC8CE#gid=0) version of KnightSlappy's work.  I assume he was doing some sort of copy-paste over to the blog and missed them.

Thanks for doing these, KS!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 11, 2011, 08:28:42 AM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 10, 2011, 11:54:19 PM
Quote from: seinfeld on January 10, 2011, 11:08:54 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2011, 04:10:46 PM
It's next week, and the latest batch of RPI regional rankings are here (home/neutral/road SOS weights included!):

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/01/regional-rankings-11011.html

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like you overlooked Wooster in your regional rankings. I'm sure they are No. 1 after beating Wabash on Saturday. Thanks for doing this.

Wooster is #1 in the Great Lakes in the google doc (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmWUuLqSMyzudGRTZU9JNExCVlFxQXRxYlhxc3Q1UHc&hl=en&authkey=CKPC8CE#gid=0) version of KnightSlappy's work.  I assume he was doing some sort of copy-paste over to the blog and missed them.

Thanks for doing these, KS!


It was really an evil plot to make Calvin appear higher on the list! Fixed it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on January 14, 2011, 04:00:29 PM
do rust hav a chance at a pool C bid...i think we should if we end the season at 19-6
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on January 14, 2011, 04:02:43 PM
or Chapman
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on January 14, 2011, 04:02:52 PM
Funny you should ask!

Rust is eligible for Pool B first, the board for which is here.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=2870.0

The folks there are discussing the likelihood of Pool B teams (like Rust) getting a Pool C bid so this question is well timed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on January 24, 2011, 12:18:58 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on January 10, 2011, 06:11:51 PM
The way that the NCAA is applying the home/away multiplier to the OWP and OOWP jsut doesn't make sense.  They use the same multiplier values (1.4 and 0.6) in Div I but the multiplier only is factored in to your Winning Percentage.  It doesn't apply to the OWP or OOWP.

Just a quick example:

If you play a .500 team, here is the adjustment depending on where you play the team.

Neutral  0.500
Home    0.300
Away     0.700

So it is basically saying that because you played on the road, that team is much harder to beat and the opposite at home.  Now this may be true but it is generally accepted that the home court advantage is around 3-4 points.  I don't think that is a big enough advantage to turn a .500 team into a .700 team just since you were on the road and vice-versa.

Now, for most teams over the course of the season, it should equal out pretty well that maybe this won't be a huge problem but it does have the chance to really skew the OWP if a team plays mostly at home or on the road.

This may be a bad example but imagine you are a mediocre team and play only teams either at 0.250 or 0.750.  You'll beat all the 0.250 teams and lose to all the 0.750 teams.  In the old way, you'd have a OWP of 0.500 since you played both types of teams the same amount of times.  Now, your OWP would change depending on the game location.  Imagine playing all bad teams at home and all good away and vice versa, here is your OWP:

play bad @ home, good away:  OWP = 0.6
play good @ home, bad away:  OWP = 0.4

Maybe this was their intention but it just seems like the 40% weighting is too much.  It seems like someone on the DIII board decided to use the DI multipliers without actually researching how the multiplier is used in the DI RPI formula.

Some fun scenarios thanks to the weighting system:

Just wait until a team with a good, but not great, Pool C resume gets whacked because they hosted the conference tournament but failed to win it. Finishing out the year with two or three home dates can take a dent out of an SOS just because of the way the NCAA has decided to weight it. If I'm a team hovering just north of a .700 in region I think I'd rather take my chances on a neutral/away court.

Amherst plays 16 home and just 7 road games in-region this season. It is a good thing they are undefeated so far because their SOS is in the low .400s thanks to the weighting system. Late road games with Middlebury and Williams will help but it won't ever look good compared to a lot of teams.

Moral of the story: The weighted SOS comes out in the wash during a double round robin conference season but will have an adverse effect on conference tournament hosts and teams that play home-heavy schedules. Perhaps one intended consequence and one not-so-intended.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 24, 2011, 12:39:34 PM
Yeah, the 40% weighting seems to be waaaay too high.

Playing a team with a 0.950 winning percentage (a very good team) at home is only going to give you an SOS  of 0.480 for that game.

Conversely, playing a 0.265 winning percentage team (a pretty bad team) on the road is going to give you a .481 SOS for that game.

We'll assume OOWP's in both instances are very nearly 0.500

This just doesn't make any sense to me. Here, the NCAA is saying that it's slightly more difficult to beat a .265 (say, Johns Hopkins) team on the road than it is to beat a .950 (say, Virginia Wesleyan) team at home.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 24, 2011, 11:02:59 PM
From the Handbook

QuoteRegional rankings. The men's basketball committee will release regional rankings
on the following dates:
• Wednesday, February 2
• Wednesday, February 9
• Wednesday, February 16
• Wednesday, February 23
• Sunday, February 27

The committee will rank 6.5 percent (equivalent to the bracket size ratio) of teams
in each region (or a minimum of four teams, whichever is greater), by applying the
championships selection criteria. Based on 2010 sponsorship reports, the following
number of teams will be ranked in each region:


Region   #of Eligible Team/Bracket Ratio        # of Ranked Teams
Atlantic Region 32/6.5 5
East Region 37/6.5 6
Great Lakes Region      40/6.5 6
Mid-Atlantic Region      57/6.5 9
Midwest Region 49/6.5 8
Northeast Region 73/6.5 11
South Region 51/6.5 8
West Region 60/6.5 9
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 24, 2011, 11:29:05 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 24, 2011, 12:39:34 PM
Yeah, the 40% weighting seems to be waaaay too high.

Playing a team with a 0.950 winning percentage (a very good team) at home is only going to give you an SOS  of 0.480 for that game.

Conversely, playing a 0.265 winning percentage team (a pretty bad team) on the road is going to give you a .481 SOS for that game.

We'll assume OOWP's in both instances are very nearly 0.500

This just doesn't make any sense to me. Here, the NCAA is saying that it's slightly more difficult to beat a .265 (say, Johns Hopkins) team on the road than it is to beat a .950 (say, Virginia Wesleyan) team at home.

It would be nice if they justified the numbers a bit.  It seems like the competition committee went out for a few rounds one evening and decided on these numbers at the end of the night.

I dont think it would take too long to get someone to look at the numbers to see what the true, average home court advantage is in D3.  I think Massey actually calculates this for every team, so if you wanted to weight it equally across all teams, you could just average his numbers.  Although Massey does bring up a good point, in that home court is not the same advantage for every arena and every program.  Therefore, I think it is difficult to try to put any single number on a a home court advantage.  The 0.6, 1.4 designation is just ridiculous however.  If they wanted to create a 40% advantage for home over away they should have gone with 0.83/1.17.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 25, 2011, 12:10:08 AM
So, I passed the previous conversation along to a member of the committee. This is the response I got

QuoteThat is not quite accurate with the numbers we are working with.  But in principle we are saying you should win home games and it is harder to win away games.  Below are accurate numbers for example given:

.95 X .6 = .570  (home)    .95 X 1.4 = 1.33 (away)     Difference of .760

.265 X 1.4 = .371             .265 X .6 =  .159  (home)   Difference of .212

The multiplier of 1.4 & .6 may have to be tweaked (will have to gather data to verify), but the principle is accurate.   

Right now it is the same as playing a .400 team on road (.560)  vs. .900 team at home (.540).

A Multiplier of 1.3 and .7 means that playing a .500 team away (.650) is similar to playing a .900 team at home .630.

This (1.4 & .6) is the multiplier that Division I and II have used in their SOS or RPI indexes for the past few years.

Again, we may have to have further discussions on tweaking the system.  But I like the fact that right now it encourages you to play good teams on the road.


In principle if you play 24 games a/g .500 teams, 12 home and 12 away, the net effect is 1.00 or put another way H/A will not effect SOS.

The multiplier becomes more in play with better teams (because you are obviously working with a higher number). See example above.

The net effect of playing a VERY GOOD team (.750+ W-L%) either at home or away will be dramatic.  Again see example above. 

I put this out here for the math guys to look at.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 25, 2011, 12:34:40 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 25, 2011, 12:10:08 AM
So, I passed the previous conversation along to a member of the committee. This is the response I got

QuoteThat is not quite accurate with the numbers we are working with.  But in principle we are saying you should win home games and it is harder to win away games.  Below are accurate numbers for example given:

.95 X .6 = .570  (home)    .95 X 1.4 = 1.33 (away)     Difference of .760

.265 X 1.4 = .371             .265 X .6 =  .159  (home)   Difference of .212

The multiplier of 1.4 & .6 may have to be tweaked (will have to gather data to verify), but the principle is accurate.   

Right now it is the same as playing a .400 team on road (.560)  vs. .900 team at home (.540).

A Multiplier of 1.3 and .7 means that playing a .500 team away (.650) is similar to playing a .900 team at home .630.

This (1.4 & .6) is the multiplier that Division I and II have used in their SOS or RPI indexes for the past few years.

Again, we may have to have further discussions on tweaking the system.  But I like the fact that right now it encourages you to play good teams on the road.


In principle if you play 24 games a/g .500 teams, 12 home and 12 away, the net effect is 1.00 or put another way H/A will not effect SOS.

The multiplier becomes more in play with better teams (because you are obviously working with a higher number). See example above.

The net effect of playing a VERY GOOD team (.750+ W-L%) either at home or away will be dramatic.  Again see example above. 

I put this out here for the math guys to look at.

Well, I suppose I'm one of the 'math guys', but I don't have to go any further than his sixth line (or calculate anything).  If beating a .400 team on the road scores MORE than beating a .900 team at home, the 'correction factor' is obviously too large!  Good grief!  Yes, there is home court advantage, but that is absurd. :P
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on January 25, 2011, 12:48:20 AM
What they are saying is that it is 2.33 times harder to win on the road than at home, across the board.

To be honest, when you think about it some ways it makes sense.  For example, if two equally matched teams, A and B, played 10 times only only at team A's facility, this stat says that team A should win 7 out of 10 times.  This doesnt seem that outrageous, although team A is winning 2.33 times more often than team B.  However, I dont like how it does make a bigger difference playing good teams, especially in conferences where there is single round robin (ie, NESCAC, what if one of the big 3 hosted the other two that seasons, that would be a disadvantage of ~0.75*2, divided by ~ 20 in region games, thats a decrease in your OWP of 0.075 right off the bat).  I am also not a fan of having a metric that is supposed to be on a 0 to 1 scale, but teams are able to get over 1.  

Also, if you think about the fact that SOS factors in twice as much as WP in RPI calculations, playing all your games away could have a huge affect on your RPI.  If we ignore OOWP for the moment, and just consider OWP = SOS, you can also come up with some examples that make this system seem horrible (compared to "24 games a/g .500 teams, 12 home and 12 away, the net effect is 1.00 or put another way H/A will not effect SOS").  For example, a team that plays all games on the road and goes undefeated against teams that all have a WP of 0.400 will have a higher SOS and RPI than a team that plays all games at home and goes undefeated against teams that all have a WP of 0.900 (echoing Mr. Ypsi's sentiment).  We can play these games all day, but it depends on how you look at it.

Maybe a system where, among equal teams, the home team was expected to win 6 out of 10 would be better.  That is, a weight of 0.8 and 1.2.  Who knows what is best though?  I think the best thing would be to actually look at some data and figure out what the true home court advantage is, just so it does not seem like all these numbers are just guesses.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 25, 2011, 08:20:41 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 25, 2011, 12:10:08 AM
So, I passed the previous conversation along to a member of the committee. This is the response I got

Quote#1 That is not quite accurate with the numbers we are working with.  But in principle we are saying you should win home games and it is harder to win away games.  Below are accurate numbers for example given:

.95 X .6 = .570  (home)    .95 X 1.4 = 1.33 (away)     Difference of .760

.265 X 1.4 = .371             .265 X .6 =  .159  (home)   Difference of .212

The multiplier of 1.4 & .6 may have to be tweaked (will have to gather data to verify), but the principle is accurate.   

Right now it is the same as playing a .400 team on road (.560)  vs. .900 team at home (.540).

A Multiplier of 1.3 and .7 means that playing a .500 team away (.650) is similar to playing a .900 team at home .630.

#2 This (1.4 & .6) is the multiplier that Division I and II have used in their SOS or RPI indexes for the past few years.

Again, we may have to have further discussions on tweaking the system.  #3 But I like the fact that right now it encourages you to play good teams on the road.


In principle if you play 24 games a/g .500 teams, 12 home and 12 away, the net effect is 1.00 or put another way H/A will not effect SOS.

The multiplier becomes more in play with better teams (because you are obviously working with a higher number). See example above.

#4  The net effect of playing a VERY GOOD team (.750+ W-L%) either at home or away will be dramatic.  Again see example above. 

I put this out here for the math guys to look at.

#1 He's ignoring the fact that OOWP also gets the multiplier, so we can't just use the OWP and say "this is what it will do to your schedule". OWP and OOWP are not separated in the criteria, they are combined into a single SOS. His 0.950 and 0.265 number make it look like the SOS for the 0.950 opponent (at home) is higher, but IT ISN'T. Assuming 0.500 OOWPs (a fair assumption to do "what if" calcs).

2/3 x 0.950 x 0.6 + 1/3 x 0.500 x 0.6 = 0.480
2/3 x 0.265 x 1.4 + 1/3 x 0.500 x 1.4 = 0.481

The SOS number from each individual game should be a measure of how difficult it was to win that game.

#2 Is this basically an admission that they simply are using the multipliers from DI without really looking at how to apply them?

#3 How does it "encourage you to play good teams on the road" if the multipliers came out after the teams did their scheduling. Unless, that is, they informed the schools like two years ago that the changes would be in place for this year. I'm not intimate withscheduling details, but the impression I get (from Calvin) is that schedules are more or less complete a year in advance.

#4 This is not true. The best (non weighted) OWP out there is Carnegie Mellon at 0.689. Let's say you played an undefeated CMU team at home.

SOS = 2/3 x 1.000 x 0.6 + 1/3 x 0.689 x 0.6 = 0.538

This is really the best possible SOS for a home game! 0.538! That will have nothing like a dramatic effect on a tournament hopeful's SOS!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on January 25, 2011, 08:53:18 AM
I am suddenly very scared that the first regional rankings are only a week away...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 25, 2011, 01:08:59 PM
Yeah, I haven't followed too much this year, but in the West, there are these conferences below.  Strictly by overall record:

NWC
Whitworth 17-0 (8-0)
Lewis and Clark 14-3 (7-1)

WIAC
River Falls 16-2 (9-0)
Stevens Point 15-3 (7-2)
Whitewater 12-5 (5-3)

MIAC
St. Thomas 15-1 (10-1)
Gustavus Adolphus 11-5 (9-2)
Augsburg 11-5 (6-5)

UMAC-Best team is 11-6 in a bad conference (Northwestern)

IIAC
Coe 13-5 (7-2)
Luther 11-6 (8-1 in conf)
Dubuque 11-6 (5-3)

Independent
Chapman 16-3

SCIAC
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 9-6 (5-0)

Looks like in the past, there have been 9 teams in the West Region rankings.  Here's just a quick guess without any real research on strength of schedule or regional record.

1. Whitworth
2. St. Thomas
3. River Falls
4. Stevens Point
5. Lewis and Clark
6. Coe
7. Gustavus Adolphus
8. Whitewater
9. Chapman

Even though Whitworth hasn't lost yet, I could see St. Thomas being #1 with wins over River Falls and Stevens Point.  I could also see Whitewater ahead of Coe and Gustavus Adolphus.  Of course, Point and Whitewater play this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 25, 2011, 09:40:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 24, 2011, 11:02:59 PM
From the Handbook

QuoteRegional rankings. The men's basketball committee will release regional rankings
on the following dates:
• Wednesday, February 2
• Wednesday, February 9
• Wednesday, February 16
• Wednesday, February 23
• Sunday, February 27

The committee will rank 6.5 percent (equivalent to the bracket size ratio) of teams
in each region (or a minimum of four teams, whichever is greater), by applying the
championships selection criteria. Based on 2010 sponsorship reports, the following
number of teams will be ranked in each region:


Region   #of Eligible Team/Bracket Ratio        # of Ranked Teams
Atlantic Region 32/6.5 5
East Region 37/6.5 6
Great Lakes Region      40/6.5 6
Mid-Atlantic Region      57/6.5 9
Midwest Region 49/6.5 8
Northeast Region 73/6.5 11
South Region 51/6.5 8
West Region 60/6.5 9

Yes, 9 teams will be ranked regionally.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 25, 2011, 09:48:08 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 25, 2011, 09:40:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 24, 2011, 11:02:59 PM
From the Handbook

QuoteRegional rankings. The men's basketball committee will release regional rankings
on the following dates:
• Wednesday, February 2
• Wednesday, February 9
• Wednesday, February 16
• Wednesday, February 23
• Sunday, February 27

The committee will rank 6.5 percent (equivalent to the bracket size ratio) of teams
in each region (or a minimum of four teams, whichever is greater), by applying the
championships selection criteria. Based on 2010 sponsorship reports, the following
number of teams will be ranked in each region:


Region   #of Eligible Team/Bracket Ratio        # of Ranked Teams
Atlantic Region 32/6.5 5
East Region 37/6.5 6
Great Lakes Region      40/6.5 6
Mid-Atlantic Region      57/6.5 9
Midwest Region 49/6.5 8
Northeast Region 73/6.5 11
South Region 51/6.5 8
West Region 60/6.5 9

Yes, 9 teams will be ranked regionally.

My favorite part of the handbook. The part where you have to know what they mean, not what they say. Good thing they give examples.   :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 25, 2011, 10:20:20 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 24, 2011, 11:02:59 PM
From the Handbook

QuoteRegional rankings. The men's basketball committee will release regional rankings
on the following dates:
• Wednesday, February 2
• Wednesday, February 9
• Wednesday, February 16
• Wednesday, February 23
• Sunday, February 27

The committee will rank 6.5 percent (equivalent to the bracket size ratio) of teams
in each region (or a minimum of four teams, whichever is greater), by applying the
championships selection criteria. Based on 2010 sponsorship reports, the following
number of teams will be ranked in each region:


Region   #of Eligible Team/Bracket Ratio        # of Ranked Teams        Actual ratio
Atlantic Region 32/6.5 54.923
East Region 37/6.5 65.692
Great Lakes Region      40/6.5 66.153
Mid-Atlantic Region      57/6.5 98.769
Midwest Region 49/6.5 87.538
Northeast Region 73/6.5 1111.230
South Region 51/6.5 87.846
West Region 60/6.5 99.230

Yes, 9 teams will be ranked regionally.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on January 26, 2011, 12:08:40 AM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on January 25, 2011, 01:08:59 PM
Yeah, I haven't followed too much this year, but in the West, there are these conferences below.  Strictly by overall record:

NWC
Whitworth 17-0 (8-0)
Lewis and Clark 14-3 (7-1)

WIAC
River Falls 16-2 (9-0)
Stevens Point 15-3 (7-2)
Whitewater 12-5 (5-3)

MIAC
St. Thomas 15-1 (10-1)
Gustavus Adolphus 11-5 (9-2)
Augsburg 11-5 (6-5)

UMAC-Best team is 11-6 in a bad conference (Northwestern)

IIAC
Coe 13-5 (7-2)
Luther 11-6 (8-1 in conf)
Dubuque 11-6 (5-3)

Independent
Chapman 16-3

SCIAC
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 9-6 (5-0)

Looks like in the past, there have been 9 teams in the West Region rankings.  Here's just a quick guess without any real research on strength of schedule or regional record.

1. Whitworth
2. St. Thomas
3. River Falls
4. Stevens Point
5. Lewis and Clark
6. Coe
7. Gustavus Adolphus
8. Whitewater
9. Chapman

Even though Whitworth hasn't lost yet, I could see St. Thomas being #1 with wins over River Falls and Stevens Point.  I could also see Whitewater ahead of Coe and Gustavus Adolphus.  Of course, Point and Whitewater play this week.

Knightslappy has his regional RPI rankings for the west as:


Reg.   Rank   Team   Conference   WP   wSOS   wRPI   Nat.   Pool   Status   REG   D3            OVR
WE   1   UW-River Falls   WIAC   0.933   0.568   0.659   2   A   C   14-1   14-1      16-2
WE   2   UW-Stevens Point WIAC  0.824   0.589   0.648   4   C   2   14-3   15-3      15-3
WE   3   Chapman   IND                   0.933   0.548   0.644   5   B   1   14-1   15-1      16-3
WE   4   St. Thomas   MIAC   0.933   0.544   0.641   6   A   C   14-1   14-1      15-1
WE   5   Whitworth   NWC          1.000   0.504   0.628   8   A   C   17-0   17-0      17-0
WE   6   Lewis and Clark   NWC   0.889   0.525   0.616   13   C   3   8-1   8-1      14-3
WE   7   Carleton   MIAC           0.692   0.575   0.604   26   C   8   9-4   9-4      9-6
WE   8   Whitman   NWC                   0.600   0.602   0.602   30   C   11   6-4   7-4      11-6
WE   9   Hamline   MIAC           0.563   0.614   0.601   31   C   12   9-7   9-7      9-7
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2011, 02:02:21 PM

A page exists for the regional rankings; there is just no content yet.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional_rankings
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 02, 2011, 02:17:21 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 02, 2011, 02:02:21 PM

A page exists for the regional rankings; there is just no content yet.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional_rankings

I am not sure if that is going to be the actual location of the rankings or not.

You can type anything after ".../d3/" and a blank page appears with the same heading.

For example:  http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/Hoops_Fan (http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/Hoops_Fan)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 02, 2011, 02:33:31 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 02, 2011, 02:02:21 PM

A page exists for the regional rankings; there is just no content yet.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional_rankings
My page was last updated Dec 31, 1969.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 02, 2011, 03:01:04 PM
Dec. 31, 1969 is a system default date on some servers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 02, 2011, 03:09:55 PM
They're up now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 02, 2011, 03:10:21 PM
First regional rankings: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/02/ncaas-mens-regional-rankings/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2011, 03:13:50 PM

I'm surprised to see Montclair State so far down in the Atlantic.  They're listed as 10-4 in-region, but I don't think that's right.  Maybe 12 or 13 in region.  They have three wins over non-d3 opponents, but with the expanded region criteria, I think all their other games are in-region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 02, 2011, 03:36:07 PM
Hoops Fan - that is correct... 10 wins in region for Montclair State... checked their schedule on D3hoops.com: http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/Montclair_State/men/2010-11/index
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2011, 03:42:44 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 02, 2011, 03:36:07 PM
Hoops Fan - that is correct... 10 wins in region for Montclair State... checked their schedule on D3hoops.com: http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/Montclair_State/men/2010-11/index

Right.  I forgot NY and PA were separated out as their own geographical region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 02, 2011, 03:52:06 PM
Yep - and New Paltz only is in region because of the 200 miles.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 02, 2011, 04:16:49 PM
Anyone know if the NCAA is releasing the data like they did last year?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 02, 2011, 04:49:25 PM
I would suspect they plan to but they probably hadn't considered how that would work once they changed to their new website.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 02, 2011, 05:06:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 02, 2011, 04:49:25 PM
I would suspect they plan to but they probably hadn't considered how that would work once they changed to their new website.

The NCAA is full of forward thinkers
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 02, 2011, 05:38:18 PM
Interesting AMCC dynamic.  La Roche is #2 in Mid-Atlantic (btw, thats higher than St. Mary's), while Penn State-Behrend is #6 in the Great Lakes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2011, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 02, 2011, 05:38:18 PM
Interesting AMCC dynamic.  La Roche is #2 in Mid-Atlantic (btw, thats higher than St. Mary's), while Penn State-Behrend is #6 in the Great Lakes.

I think we're seeing the multipliers have an effect here.  St. Mary's have only five in-region road games.  They've played a lot of neutral court games.  I think I read the neutral court games are calculated differently.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 02, 2011, 09:42:09 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 02, 2011, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 02, 2011, 05:38:18 PM
Interesting AMCC dynamic.  La Roche is #2 in Mid-Atlantic (btw, thats higher than St. Mary's), while Penn State-Behrend is #6 in the Great Lakes.

I think we're seeing the multipliers have an effect here.  St. Mary's have only five in-region road games.  They've played a lot of neutral court games.  I think I read the neutral court games are calculated differently.

Yes, neutral have a 1.0 multiplier (home 0.6 and away is 1.4, as you know).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 02, 2011, 11:00:31 PM
A point of clarification on primary criteria.  'Results against regionally-ranked teams' is a primary criterion if 'in-region'; a secondary criterion for those ranked in other regions.  What if the game itself was in-region (by another criterion) but the opponents are ranked in different regions - primary or secondary?

(What brought this question to mind was the women's IWU/DePauw game.  It is an in-region game, but IWU is #1 in the Central; DePauw is presumably #7 [i.e., not currently ranked] in the Great Lakes.  Primary or secondary?  Since DePauw won that game - though lost to Central #6 Millikin, also in-region by 200-mile rule - these could be important in getting 14-2 DePauw into the rankings.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 02, 2011, 11:04:49 PM
I would say secondary.  As far as I know, there are different committees for each region.  Therefore, a committee in one region may not even know if a given team is ranked in another region when they are doing their rankings. 

Pat, do you know if there is a lot of communication between regions during this ranking process?  Do they really iterate based on secondary criteria after each region submits their initial list?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 02, 2011, 11:18:42 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 02, 2011, 11:04:49 PM
I would say secondary.  As far as I know, there are different committees for each region.  Therefore, a committee in one region may not even know if a given team is ranked in another region when they are doing their rankings. 

Pat, do you know if there is a lot of communication between regions during this ranking process?  Do they really iterate based on secondary criteria after each region submits their initial list?

True for the FIRST rankings, but haven't they gone to a 'once ranked, always ranked' set up?

I suspect you are correct, but the criterion is very vaguely written: "In-region results versus regionally ranked teams".  IWU/DePauw and Millikin/DePauw are both in-region games.  It doesn't spell out that the ranking must be in the same region. :P
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 02, 2011, 11:45:25 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 02, 2011, 11:04:49 PM
I would say secondary.  As far as I know, there are different committees for each region.  Therefore, a committee in one region may not even know if a given team is ranked in another region when they are doing their rankings. 

Pat, do you know if there is a lot of communication between regions during this ranking process?  Do they really iterate based on secondary criteria after each region submits their initial list?

I don't think there is any at the level of the regional call but on the national call, obviously, all regions are supposed to be represented.

Indeed, men's basketball is a once-ranked/always-ranked sport.

Women's basketball, of course, is not.

Go figure.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 03, 2011, 01:04:55 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 02, 2011, 11:45:25 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 02, 2011, 11:04:49 PM
I would say secondary.  As far as I know, there are different committees for each region.  Therefore, a committee in one region may not even know if a given team is ranked in another region when they are doing their rankings. 

Pat, do you know if there is a lot of communication between regions during this ranking process?  Do they really iterate based on secondary criteria after each region submits their initial list?

I don't think there is any at the level of the regional call but on the national call, obviously, all regions are supposed to be represented.

Indeed, men's basketball is a once-ranked/always-ranked sport.

Women's basketball, of course, is not.

Go figure.

It doesn't surprise me that different regional committees would interpret things differently.  It DOES surprise me that different genders of the same sport would have flat-out different selection rules. :P

I suspect I've already received the answer, but, Pat, if two teams are in-region, but ranked in different regions, IS the 'results against ranked teams' a secondary rather than primary criterion?

Do you have any idea whether committees tend to use common sense on rankings in other regions?  (For example, the Central region could have been pretty certain IWU victim Kean was going to be ranked; the GL region committee might have been uncertain about Millikin - whom DePauw lost to - but certainly could have assumed IWU - whom DePauw beat - would be regionally ranked.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 03, 2011, 01:20:44 AM
I believe "in-region results against regionally ranked teams" is meant to include games against teams ranked in other regions, if they are regional games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 03, 2011, 02:04:49 AM
If they publish the pdf with all that information, like they did last year, you could check this. Any word on those documents being released?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2011, 07:16:38 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 03, 2011, 02:04:49 AM
If they publish the pdf with all that information, like they did last year, you could check this. Any word on those documents being released?
This is the only pdf with which I am familiar.

Championship Handbook (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/basketball/2011/11_3_mbasketball.pdf)

I may have overlooked it, but I have not seen that wording about "in-region, inter-regional" contestants who may be regionally ranked.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 03, 2011, 07:25:32 AM
I know from talking to regional members and national members that if a team beats another regionally ranked opponent in a different region it is counted.

Now... I think if the game is considered a regional game, it is in the first-criteria. If it is not a regional game, it would be put in the second-criteria.

We are working to see if we can have a number of these questions answered Sunday on Hoopsville. Remember, it will be a special time of 2-4 PM EST so you don't miss the great ads during some athletic event most of us probably don't care about! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 03, 2011, 10:48:03 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 02, 2011, 11:45:25 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 02, 2011, 11:04:49 PM
I would say secondary.  As far as I know, there are different committees for each region.  Therefore, a committee in one region may not even know if a given team is ranked in another region when they are doing their rankings. 

Pat, do you know if there is a lot of communication between regions during this ranking process?  Do they really iterate based on secondary criteria after each region submits their initial list?

I don't think there is any at the level of the regional call but on the national call, obviously, all regions are supposed to be represented.

Indeed, men's basketball is a once-ranked/always-ranked sport.

Women's basketball, of course, is not.

Go figure.

It was pointed out to me that the page in the handbook that says women's is not once-ranked/always-ranked ALSO says that women's basketball is OR/AR.

It will be corrected. Women's basketball is indeed OR/AR.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 03, 2011, 11:20:38 AM
Sorry for not specifying what pdf I was talking about.  I meant the pdf that was released last year along with the regional rankings that listed in-region winning percentage, SOS, and record against ranked opponents for all teams in each region (I think there was a seperate pdf for each region).  If would be easy to figure out fromt he record vs. ranked opponents column as to whether they treat those wins as a primary or secondary criteria (as only the primary criteria was listed in the pdf release). 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2011, 02:30:09 PM
Pat and Dave began the converstion about the new SOS multipliers and how they relate (or don't) to the multiplers used by the Division I committee on yesterday's episode of Hoopsville.

I investigated the issue for today's blog post (with graphics!): http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/02/ncaa-doesnt-earn-any-trust-points-with.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 07, 2011, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2011, 02:30:09 PM
Pat and Dave began the converstion about the new SOS multipliers and how they relate (or don't) to the multiplers used by the Division I committee on yesterday's episode of Hoopsville.

I investigated the issue for today's blog post (with graphics!): http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/02/ncaa-doesnt-earn-any-trust-points-with.html

Excellent work!!  +k

Even without statistical analysis it is intuitively obvious (to me, at least) that the multipliers are WAY to big.  Yes there is a home-court advantage, but if these multipliers were accurate it is amazing that road wins EVER happen (except for completely mis-matched teams)!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2011, 02:53:59 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 07, 2011, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2011, 02:30:09 PM
Pat and Dave began the converstion about the new SOS multipliers and how they relate (or don't) to the multiplers used by the Division I committee on yesterday's episode of Hoopsville.

I investigated the issue for today's blog post (with graphics!): http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/02/ncaa-doesnt-earn-any-trust-points-with.html

Excellent work!!  +k

Even without statistical analysis it is intuitively obvious (to me, at least) that the multipliers are WAY to big.  Yes there is a home-court advantage, but if these multipliers were accurate it is amazing that road wins EVER happen (except for completely mis-matched teams)!

Right. By intuition we always knew it was way off, but to see just how much it's changing RPI in comparision to the D-I adjustment was a bit surprising even to me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Coach C on February 07, 2011, 03:12:41 PM
Nice work Ms. Ypsi.  I am not a math guy by any means, but I will tell you that 40% is just too high no matter how you use it as an adjustment.

In my experience, playing a bad team in there gym is not really much harder than playing them at home or on a neutral floor.  I mean how much harder is it to beat Cal tech at their place than in Vegas?

Similarly, teams that are +.500 on the road are generally tough to play anywhere.  Good teams can beat you at their place or at yours. 

There are a lot of factors that go into the quality of a road win.  Was it over break?  If so, this probably isn't that big a differential from you own gym unless you're Hope or Calvin, pulling in rabid fans from the local community.    How far did you to play the game?  While this isn't a be-all and end-all, I can tell you from hard experience that the further you travel the harder it generally is to play on the other end.

I've got no idea where .4 came from, but it's WAY to large a modifier to be accurate.

C
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 09, 2011, 02:52:47 PM
Newest men's regional rankings are up. Pass it on:

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/09/ncaas-2011-regional-rankings-week-2/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2011, 02:54:29 PM
The missing #3 MA team has got to be St. Mary's (Md.), but I don't think the listed records are correct. I have them as 16-2 in-region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 09, 2011, 03:03:14 PM
I did include St. Mary's even though the NCAA left St. Mary's off its list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 09, 2011, 03:16:27 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2011, 02:53:59 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 07, 2011, 02:43:02 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2011, 02:30:09 PM
Pat and Dave began the converstion about the new SOS multipliers and how they relate (or don't) to the multiplers used by the Division I committee on yesterday's episode of Hoopsville.

I investigated the issue for today's blog post (with graphics!): http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/02/ncaa-doesnt-earn-any-trust-points-with.html

Excellent work!!  +k

Even without statistical analysis it is intuitively obvious (to me, at least) that the multipliers are WAY to big.  Yes there is a home-court advantage, but if these multipliers were accurate it is amazing that road wins EVER happen (except for completely mis-matched teams)!

Right. By intuition we always knew it was way off, but to see just how much it's changing RPI in comparision to the D-I adjustment was a bit surprising even to me.


Nice analysis.  I was thinking about this ever since the discussion was mentioned on hoopsville.  I agree the 1.4 and .6 is not accurate for DIII (I mean the hoopsville promo says "more upsets than..."(I can't remember the rest)) :)

I think it should be weighted.   Unlike D1, there are a lot of long distance bus trips.  That can put alot of wear and tear on team.  DIII schools are vastly different and so are the tournaments.  It is hard to put such a uniform weight region to region, when the scope of DIII is so different.

   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 10, 2011, 09:06:51 AM
Regarding Pat Coleman's concerns about the accuracy of the men's SOS data in the regional rankings, as listed in his comments that posted the links:

  http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/09/ncaas-2011-regional-rankings-week-2/#comments  (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/09/ncaas-2011-regional-rankings-week-2/#comments)

His comments on the data were posted at 5:14 PM yesterday-- Feb. 9, 2011

I checked the files this morning, and at first glance, the NCAA may have updated the files since Pat Coleman
s comments to give the up to date regional results on the men's side through Sunday, Feb. 6.

I computed the average OWP of the Brandeis men with my newly purchased pocket calculator, for instance, and I found that the number given for Brandeis's average OWP was correct with the multiplier factored in, given the data presented.  With the in-region records of the Brandeis men's opponents factored in as given by the NCAA, I had Brandeis's average OWP at .469 with the home/away multiplier (which is the number that the NCAA gave for Brandeis), and at .495 without the home/away multiplier. 

This result was through the game at Rochester on Feb. 6, so the road game at Amherst will be factored in next week's regional rankings.

I haven't calculated the numbers yet for the Emory and the Rochester men, but since the average OWP for the Brandeis men seemed correct to me, I don't believe that the average OWPs with the multiplier for Emory and Rochester will be radically different than what the NCAA computed.

I trust that KnightSlappy will check some of the numbers to confirm the accuracy....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2011, 09:48:56 AM
My SOS numbers are off 0.002 - 0.006 on most teams.

I'm seeing the biggest difference in the OOWP numbers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2011, 11:02:35 AM
That suggests they're being done properly, then, with only a couple of games here and there being marked incorrectly on the NCAA said.

Good catch on the updates, Deiscanton.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on February 10, 2011, 11:42:46 AM
I tink Pat, Knightslappy, Desi, Ypsi need to conduct an online course for some of us old heads who have fallen behind....  3 credits for "Modern Math and Computing for the Everyday D3Hoops Fan"....   I've totally lost the concepts!!! ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 10, 2011, 12:05:49 PM
Quote from: hopefan on February 10, 2011, 11:42:46 AM
I tink Pat, Knightslappy, Desi, Ypsi need to conduct an online course for some of us old heads who have fallen behind....  3 credits for "Modern Math and Computing for the Everyday D3Hoops Fan"....   I've totally lost the concepts!!! ;D ;D ;D

That's exactly why I adhere to the "Win and everything else takes care of itself" philosophy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on February 10, 2011, 07:14:14 PM
Is it a D3 win or Lose when a team play Berry
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2011, 07:41:53 PM
Don't believe Berry's games count right now...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on February 10, 2011, 07:46:42 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2011, 07:41:53 PM
Don't believe Berry's games count right now...
why it don't
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2011, 07:54:43 PM
Both Berry and Covenant are provisional members of D3... they are not full-fledged members as they have to go through a four year process before becoming a full-time member.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on February 10, 2011, 08:46:12 PM
It would be nice if Rust can get in as a Pool C cause if they do Rust will be the team to watch the record my not show it but this is a hard team to beat if they get in...Rust has been playing on the road alot this year but Rust need to be talked about at least i know its gone be hard
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: NEPAFAN on February 10, 2011, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: RustCollege on February 10, 2011, 08:46:12 PM
It would be nice if Rust can get in as a Pool C cause if they do Rust will be the team to watch the record my not show it but this is a hard team to beat if they get in...Rust has been playing on the road alot this year but Rust need to be talked about at least i know its gone be hard


Do you speak English?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on February 10, 2011, 08:49:07 PM
Quote from: RustCollege on February 10, 2011, 08:46:12 PM
It would be nice if Rust can get in as a Pool C cause if they do Rust will be the team to watch the record my not show it but this is a hard team to beat if they get in...Rust has been playing on the road alot this year but Rust need to be talked about at least i know its gone be hard
I know its a long shot but give Rust a shot
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: zander on February 10, 2011, 09:20:34 PM
Quote from: NEPAFAN on February 10, 2011, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: RustCollege on February 10, 2011, 08:46:12 PM
It would be nice if Rust can get in as a Pool C cause if they do Rust will be the team to watch the record my not show it but this is a hard team to beat if they get in...Rust has been playing on the road alot this year but Rust need to be talked about at least i know its gone be hard

Is that school tough to get into?
Do you speak English?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: zander on February 10, 2011, 09:23:01 PM
I looked it up...ACT-16
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on February 10, 2011, 09:39:28 PM
Quote from: zander on February 10, 2011, 09:23:01 PM
I looked it up...ACT-16
Look here my boy you are not funny at all soooooooooooo try again
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on February 10, 2011, 09:41:58 PM
Quote from: NEPAFAN on February 10, 2011, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: RustCollege on February 10, 2011, 08:46:12 PM
It would be nice if Rust can get in as a Pool C cause if they do Rust will be the team to watch the record my not show it but this is a hard team to beat if they get in...Rust has been playing on the road alot this year but Rust need to be talked about at least i know its gone be hard


Do you speak English?
tell me if you understand this SHUT UP do you have something better to do
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 10, 2011, 09:44:36 PM
Quote from: RustCollege on February 10, 2011, 08:49:07 PM
Quote from: RustCollege on February 10, 2011, 08:46:12 PM
It would be nice if Rust can get in as a Pool C cause if they do Rust will be the team to watch the record my not show it but this is a hard team to beat if they get in...Rust has been playing on the road alot this year but Rust need to be talked about at least i know its gone be hard
I know its a long shot but give Rust a shot

Whether we agree with it or not, the Pool C formula is pretty simple.  Play regional opponents and beat them.  If you don't beat them, then you won't be regionally ranked as high as they are... and thus the opponent will be "on the board" sooner, and they will be "talked about."

If a team isn't the top regionally-ranked team from their region at any one moment in the selection process, then they won't (can't) get a Pool C bid.  That's how the selection process works... each region's top regionally ranked team is compared against the other regions' top regionally ranked team.

Their in-region winning percentage, strength of schedule, record vs. regionally ranked opponents, etc, are compared, and the team with the best resume is selected.  The next-highest team from that region then takes the top spot, and this continues until all 18 (for men) Pool C bids are exhausted.

That's right, only 18.  That's 18 out of... 403 D-III teams, I believe.  That's less than the top 5% of teams in the country.

Rust is a Pool B team (i.e. a team from a conference without an automatic bid, typically received by winning the conference tournament).  Historically, Pool B teams have not had resumes that could have earned them a Pool C bid.  In other words, if not for the Pool B bid, they wouldn't have gotten in. 

This year, there's only one Pool B bid, which will be taken by Chapman, who's only lost one D-III game.  For other Pool B teams to have gotten looks, they would need better resumes.  None of the other Pool B contenders are even regionally ranked.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2011, 11:33:53 PM
Epic NCAA math fail.

The D3 men's committee chair was on Hoopsville discussing the H/A multipliers on the SOS. He referenced a study (D1, I think) that says that home teams win 60% of the time.

Actual home winning percentage: 0.600
Expected home winning percentage: 0.500

0.600 / 0.500 = 1.2

Actual road winning percentage: 0.400
Expected road winning percentage: 0.500

0.400 / 0.500 = 0.8


There was a second study referenced (D3 this time, but limited data) that suggests the home team in D3 wins 58%-66% of the time

0.580 / 0.500 = 1.16
0.660 / 0.500 = 1.32

... averaging those... 1.24

Not sure how 1.4 / 0.6 is justified. If you already have those studies, it takes about 90 seconds with a calculator (or 3 minutes using fingers and toes) to pick much more reasonable numbers in the 1.2 / 0.8 range.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 10, 2011, 11:42:17 PM
KS,

This IS the NCAA we are discussing.  Can we be certain they HAVE fingers and toes? ;D

1.4 and .6 are SO far out of reasonable that one wonders whether they have descended from a different planet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2011, 06:32:36 AM
Mr. Ypsi - they haven't come from another planet... I talked to the Men's Committee Chairman Dave Martin last night on Hoopsville and he explained where the number came from and how it may be used in the future as well.

You can listen to the interview here (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/12601869) and it starts about 30 minutes into the show.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 11, 2011, 08:01:26 AM
Quote from: deiscanton on February 10, 2011, 09:06:51 AM
Regarding Pat Coleman's concerns about the accuracy of the men's SOS data in the regional rankings, as listed in his comments that posted the links:

  http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/09/ncaas-2011-regional-rankings-week-2/#comments  (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/09/ncaas-2011-regional-rankings-week-2/#comments)

His comments on the data were posted at 5:14 PM yesterday-- Feb. 9, 2011

I checked the files this morning, and at first glance, the NCAA may have updated the files since Pat Coleman
s comments to give the up to date regional results on the men's side through Sunday, Feb. 6.

I computed the average OWP of the Brandeis men with my newly purchased pocket calculator, for instance, and I found that the number given for Brandeis's average OWP was correct with the multiplier factored in, given the data presented.  With the in-region records of the Brandeis men's opponents factored in as given by the NCAA, I had Brandeis's average OWP at .469 with the home/away multiplier (which is the number that the NCAA gave for Brandeis), and at .495 without the home/away multiplier. 

This result was through the game at Rochester on Feb. 6, so the road game at Amherst will be factored in next week's regional rankings.

I haven't calculated the numbers yet for the Emory and the Rochester men, but since the average OWP for the Brandeis men seemed correct to me, I don't believe that the average OWPs with the multiplier for Emory and Rochester will be radically different than what the NCAA computed.

I trust that KnightSlappy will check some of the numbers to confirm the accuracy....

Deis,
What's the web site? I'm just getting data from 2/2/11, not the newest. Scranton's in-region record was shy 1 win for the 1st week and I suspect it'll be shy 2 wins for the 2nd week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2011, 10:16:22 AM
PDFs tend to cache -- hit refresh and you should see the updated info.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 11, 2011, 11:36:49 AM
Refresh doesn't change the data for me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2011, 12:20:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2011, 06:32:36 AM
Mr. Ypsi - they haven't come from another planet... I talked to the Men's Committee Chairman Dave Martin last night on Hoopsville and he explained where the number came from and how it may be used in the future as well.

You can listen to the interview here (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/12601869) and it starts about 30 minutes into the show.

He explained where they came from (D1), and he also explained that they are used in a different application (RPI).

Actually it's used in the winning percentage portion of the RPI calculation.

They identified a mode of transportation and used it without considering the differences in application.

This would be like Calvin and Hope fans both wanting to go to Milwaukee. Calvin fans drive around the lake, but the Hope fans think this is a roundabout way of getting there. They like the idea of using a car, it's readily available and they don't have to go through the extra work of finding a different type of vehicle, but they don't want to drive all the way around the lake (who wants to go through Chicago traffic anyway?). They plan on driving straight across the lake, so they hop in their cars and head west, straight into Lake Michigan, and sink.

But wasn't it perfectly justifiable that they used cars? Calvin fans used cars and they got to Milwaukee just fine, so you can't fault the Hope fans for sinking.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 11, 2011, 12:54:06 PM
Here are the detailed men's SOS data links, for your perusal:

Note:  I'm noticing the problem with the Middle Atlantic Region SOS data file not being updated for this week as well-- still showing as Generated from Feb. 2, 2011.    The other region SOS data files are fine, however.

When checking data, pay particular attention to schedules involving in-region games against teams from the Middle Atlantic Region in light of ronk's problem being brought to our attention.

Atlantic Region:   http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=20&division=3  (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=20&division=3)

East Region:   http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=10&division=3  (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=10&division=3)

Great Lakes Region:  http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=30&division=3  (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=30&division=3)

Middle Atlantic Region:  http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=15&division=3  (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=15&division=3) 

Midwest Region:    http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=35&division=3  (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=35&division=3)

Northeast Region:   http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=5&division=3  (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=5&division=3)

South Region:   http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=25&division=3  (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=25&division=3)

West Region:   http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=40&division=3  (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=40&division=3)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 11, 2011, 06:41:54 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2011, 07:54:43 PM
Both Berry and Covenant are provisional members of D3... they are not full-fledged members as they have to go through a four year process before becoming a full-time member.

There's more to it than that. Programs that are in the third or fourth year of the four-year provisional period are considered full members in terms of their opponents' records; in other words, if you play an in-region game against a third- or fourth-year provisional team, the win or loss will count towards your record in the eyes of D3's regional and national committees.

However, Berry and Covenant are currently second-year provisional members, so those games don't count for Rust as far as the selection committee is concerned. Next year, Rust's games against those two opponents will count, even though Berry and Covenant will still be provisional members.

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2011, 12:20:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2011, 06:32:36 AM
Mr. Ypsi - they haven't come from another planet... I talked to the Men's Committee Chairman Dave Martin last night on Hoopsville and he explained where the number came from and how it may be used in the future as well.

You can listen to the interview here (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/12601869) and it starts about 30 minutes into the show.

He explained where they came from (D1), and he also explained that they are used in a different application (RPI).

Actually it's used in the winning percentage portion of the RPI calculation.

They identified a mode of transportation and used it without considering the differences in application.

This would be like Calvin and Hope fans both wanting to go to Milwaukee. Calvin fans drive around the lake, but the Hope fans think this is a roundabout way of getting there. They like the idea of using a car, it's readily available and they don't have to go through the extra work of finding a different type of vehicle, but they don't want to drive all the way around the lake (who wants to go through Chicago traffic anyway?). They plan on driving straight across the lake, so they hop in their cars and head west, straight into Lake Michigan, and sink.

But wasn't it perfectly justifiable that they used cars? Calvin fans used cars and they got to Milwaukee just fine, so you can't fault the Hope fans for sinking.

Nothing says "rivalry" like a good old-fashioned word problem.

"If the Hope fan bus is traveling south on a one-lane road at 80 mph, and the Calvin fan bus is traveling north on the same road at 90 mph ..."

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 11, 2011, 08:11:55 PM
The rest of the MIAA is very happy! :o

The only thing better would be if they were the Hope and Calvin team buses! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 12, 2011, 01:33:19 AM
Lets use West Conn as an example here:
Lets say they finish the regular season unbeaten (which would have wins over Keene state & Eastern), and make the LEC finals and lose to RIC.  That'll leave them at 23-4, probably no worse then #5 in the Northeast, would that be good enough to snag one of 16 remaining pool C bids (assuming the NESCAC gets 2 which seems likely)??  Plattsburgh state losing isn't helping the cause, and the only other win is against WPI.  Hopefully we can take out our nemisis RIC and not worry about otherwise I'll be extremely nervous in a few weeks.

I just wanted to get a neutral fan's observer, and someone who knows the ranking system on this topic.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 12, 2011, 01:44:41 AM
  It'll depend on how many Pool C candidates are ahead of your team in its region and how many upsets there are in the conference playoffs that determine the AQs(automatically qualifying); i.e., the more top 30 teams that fail to win the Pool A spot will then take a Pool C berth leaving fewer for the others.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 12, 2011, 07:19:23 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 12, 2011, 01:44:41 AM
 It'll depend on how many Pool C candidates are ahead of your team in its region and how many upsets there are in the conference playoffs that determine the AQs(automatically qualifying); i.e., the more top 30 teams that fail to win the Pool A spot will then take a Pool C berth leaving fewer for the others.
It is really unusual to have the #3 or #4 Pool C bid team in the region earn a slot except maybe out the the Northeast Region!

Assume the highest ranked team in the region from a particular conference earns the Pool A bid.  We will assign the UAA's bid to Rochester.  The AMCC is a multi-region conference; we will give the AAMC bid to LaRoche which leads the conference today.  This is a rough look at Pool C today.  If your team in not on these rankings, then you really need to win your conference tourney!

Men's rankings
Atlantic Region
1 Ramapo 17-4 16-2  NJAC
2 Kean 15-7 14-5  NJAC
3 Mount Saint Mary 15-5 15-5  SKY
4 SUNY-Purchase 16-4 16-4  SKY
5 Montclair State 17-5 11-5  NJAC

East
1 Oswego State 16-3 16-3 SUNYAC
2 Rochester 16-4 15-3  UAA
3 Hobart 16-4 16-3   LL
4 Stevens 15-5 15-5   E8
5 Ithaca 15-5 14-5   E8
6 Plattsburgh State 14-6 13-4  SUNYAC

Great Lakes
1 Wooster 20-1 17-1  NCAC
2 Hope 16-5 12-1      MIAA
3 Wabash 17-4 16-4   NCAC
4 Marietta 19-2 16-2  OAC
5 Penn State-Behrend 18-2 18-1   AMCC  (I will throw PSU-B into Pool C. LaRoche has a better record as of 2/13. Thanks to Magicman for the proofreading.)
6 Thiel 15-6 12-3   Pres AC

Middle Atlantic
1 La Roche 19-2 18-2  AMCC
2 Wesley 15-6 14-2  CAC
3 St. Mary's (Md.) 18-4 15-2      CAC
4 Elizabethtown 16-4 15-4  MACC
5 Cabrini 16-4 16-4   CSAC
6 Keystone 16-4 16-4  CSAC
7 DeSales 16-5 14-5   MACF
8 Gwynedd-Mercy 16-4 15-3  CSAC
9 Franklin and Marshall 17-4 15-4  CC

Midwest
1 Augustana (Ill.) 20-1 19-1  CCIW
2 Concordia (Wis.) 17-3 15-2   NATHC
3 Hanover 15-5 15-5   HCAC
4 Illinois Wesleyan 15-5 14-5  CCIW
5 Edgewood 14-7 14-5  NATHC
6 Manchester 15-6 14-5  HCAC
7 Milwaukee School of Engineering 15-5 14-5  NATHC
8 St. Norbert 16-4 16-4  MWC

Northeast
1 Williams 21-1 19-1  NESCAC
2 Middlebury 18-1 16-1  NESCAC
3 Amherst 20-0 19-0  NESCAC
4 Western Connecticut State 19-2 18-2  LEC
5 WPI   18-3 18-2   NEWMAC
6 Becker 17-3 17-3  NECC
7 Elms 15-6 13-5  NECC
8 Rhode Island College 13-7 13-7  LEC
9 Brandeis 13-6 13-6  UAA
10 Bowdoin 13-7 13-7  NESCAC
11 MIT 15-6 15-5  NEWMAC

South
1 Virginia Wesleyan 19-1 16-1  ODAC
2 Randolph-Macon 19-3 17-3   ODAC
3 Ferrum 19-2 16-2   USASouth
4 Mary Hardin-Baylor 17-4 17-4   ASC-West
5 Texas-Dallas 16-5 15-4   ASC-East
6 Emory 16-4 15-4 UAA
7 Centre 15-4 13-4  SCAC
8 North Carolina Wesleyan 15-6 10-4  USASouth

West
1 Whitworth 21-0 21-0  NWC
2 St. Thomas 18-2 17-2   MIAC
3 UW-River Falls 19-3 17-2   WIAC
4 UW-Stevens Point 18-3 17-3  WIAC
5 Chapman 18-3 14-1  Pool B
6 Carleton 13-7 13-5  MIAC
7 Whitman 15-6 10-4   NWC
8 Lewis and Clark 15-6 9-4   NWC
9 St. Olaf 15-6 14-6 MIAC

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 13, 2011, 06:37:55 AM
As of this morning, (6:34 AM Eastern Sunday, Feb. 13), I rechecked the Middle Atlantic SOS data file, and the file should now be up to date showing the games up to Feb. 6-- I have a heading on the file that now says Generated from Feb. 9, 2011 at 3:54 PM Eastern on that file.  

I await ronk's confirmation on this.

Note:  The current Middle Atlantic SOS data file shows Scranton with an in-region record of 14-4 (.778) as of Feb. 6.    That is incorrect.   Scranton's in-region record should be at 15-4 (.789) as of Feb. 6.  I believe that the computer incorrectly confuses Scranton as having played the Div I Centenary Gents of Louisiana-- which is reclassifying to Division III to join the American Southwest Conference-- that conference membership for the Gents to take effect in a few years-- on their schedule where it should read that Scranton played the current DIII Centenary Cyclones of New Jersey-- that should explain the discrepancy.    

I will also check the status of Cazenovia-- that may be another explanation for it as well, although I think that the first explanation is the more likely answer for the problem.

Update:  Cazenovia is a full member of NCAA Division III according to page 41 of the Men's DIII NCAA Basketball Championship Handbook, so Centenary explains the discrepancy-- the computer assumed that Scranton played the reclassifying Centenary Gents (Louisiana) this season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
Thanks, 'Deis.

As you will recall, Cazenovia will be in-region for Scranton, because they are both in Administration Region #2 (the states of NY and PA).

And yes, Centenary College of Louisiana will be a first year provisional year and a member of the ASC next season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 13, 2011, 11:54:14 PM
Quote from: deiscanton on February 13, 2011, 06:37:55 AM
As of this morning, (6:34 AM Eastern Sunday, Feb. 13), I rechecked the Middle Atlantic SOS data file, and the file should now be up to date showing the games up to Feb. 6-- I have a heading on the file that now says Generated from Feb. 9, 2011 at 3:54 PM Eastern on that file.  

I await ronk's confirmation on this.

Note:  The current Middle Atlantic SOS data file shows Scranton with an in-region record of 14-4 (.778) as of Feb. 6.    That is incorrect.   Scranton's in-region record should be at 15-4 (.789) as of Feb. 6.  I believe that the computer incorrectly confuses Scranton as having played the Div I Centenary Gents of Louisiana-- which is reclassifying to Division III to join the American Southwest Conference-- that conference membership for the Gents to take effect in a few years-- on their schedule where it should read that Scranton played the current DIII Centenary Cyclones of New Jersey-- that should explain the discrepancy.    

I will also check the status of Cazenovia-- that may be another explanation for it as well, although I think that the first explanation is the more likely answer for the problem.

Update:  Cazenovia is a full member of NCAA Division III according to page 41 of the Men's DIII NCAA Basketball Championship Handbook, so Centenary explains the discrepancy-- the computer assumed that Scranton played the reclassifying Centenary Gents (Louisiana) this season.

I'll confirm that I can get the revised Mid-Atlantic info for 2/9/11 now. I'm suspecting that the missing Scranton victory is not with Centenary, but Kean, which qualifies as in-region by being closer than 200 miles criteria. I say Kean because they also list Scranton with a 1-1 record versus regionally ranked opponents instead of what it should be 2-1(wins:Cabrini,Kean; loss E-town). These 2 items together leads me to believe the missing victory is Kean instead of Centenary. I've emailed the Scranton coaching staff, but they haven't responded yet after their weekend road trip and a hospitalization for one of the players.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2011, 01:37:30 PM
Good work Ralph!  As you may remember, I usually do the regional rankings by conference and "conference leaders" list.  I've been busy lately and it doesn't help that the prego wife needs my services more than usual! LOL.  Thanks.  If I get to it, I might do it after this week's rankings on Wednesday.  Good job!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 14, 2011, 09:01:49 PM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2011, 01:37:30 PM
Good work Ralph!  As you may remember, I usually do the regional rankings by conference and "conference leaders" list.  I've been busy lately and it doesn't help that the prego wife needs my services more than usual! LOL.  Thanks.  If I get to it, I might do it after this week's rankings on Wednesday.  Good job!

It would appear she's already received your services.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 14, 2011, 09:04:20 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 14, 2011, 09:01:49 PM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2011, 01:37:30 PM
Good work Ralph!  As you may remember, I usually do the regional rankings by conference and "conference leaders" list.  I've been busy lately and it doesn't help that the prego wife needs my services more than usual! LOL.  Thanks.  If I get to it, I might do it after this week's rankings on Wednesday.  Good job!

It would appear she's already received your services.
Old school is such a stud!   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2011, 10:48:07 AM
You guys kill me! LOL ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2011, 03:27:05 PM
Week 3 Regional Rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/16/ncaa-2011-regional-rankings-week-3/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 16, 2011, 05:13:40 PM
In the MBB: University Athletic Association page, I have posted the chances of the UAA getting a Pool C bid.  Based on the current regional rankings today, I have changed my outlook of the UAA picture to "1 Pool C bid possible for the UAA, but not definite."

Emory's #5 in South ranking raises the possibilty of getting 2 UAA men's teams in the tournament-- with the chances being best if both Emory and Rochester end up as UAA Co-Champions.

Detailed analysis of the UAA picture is on the MBB: University Athletic Association page.  Please read my post there and give your comments.

Tournament resumes of UAA teams realistically in hunt for NCAAs:

(As you can see, I believe that Brandeis, at #10 in the Northeast, is too far down the regional rankings at this point to get a Pool C bid.)

Rochester-- #2 in East-- UAA Pool A Leader

In-region record of 17-3 (.850), SOS of .487, 4-1 vs regionally ranked opponents (1-0 vs Emory (#5 in South-- UAA), 2-0 vs Brandeis (#10 in Northeast-- UAA), and 1-1 split vs Hobart (#5 in East).

Emory-- #5 in South-- Pool C candidate

In-region record of 17-4 (.810), SOS of .441, 1-2 vs regionally ranked opponents (1-1 vs Brandeis (#10 in Northeast-- UAA), 0-1 vs Rochester (#2 in East-- UAA)).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2011, 06:25:31 PM
Quote from: deiscanton on February 16, 2011, 05:13:40 PM
In the MBB: University Athletic Association page, I have posted the chances of the UAA getting a Pool C bid.  Based on the current regional rankings today, I have changed my outlook of the UAA picture to "1 Pool C bid possible for the UAA, but not definite."

Emory's #5 in South ranking raises the possibilty of getting 2 UAA men's teams in the tournament-- with the chances being best if both Emory and Rochester end up as UAA Co-Champions.

Detailed analysis of the UAA picture is on the MBB: University Athletic Association page.  Please read my post there and give your comments.

Tournament resumes of UAA teams realistically in hunt for NCAAs:

(As you can see, I believe that Brandeis, at #10 in the Northeast, is too far down the regional rankings at this point to get a Pool C bid.)

Rochester-- #2 in East-- UAA Pool A Leader

In-region record of 17-3 (.850), SOS of .487, 4-1 vs regionally ranked opponents (1-0 vs Emory (#5 in South-- UAA), 2-0 vs Brandeis (#10 in Northeast-- UAA), and 1-1 split vs Hobart (#5 in East).

Emory-- #5 in South-- Pool C candidate

In-region record of 17-4 (.810), SOS of .441, 1-2 vs regionally ranked opponents (1-1 vs Brandeis (#10 in Northeast-- UAA, 0-1 vs Rochester (#2 in East-- UAA).
Deis, what is the tie-breaking procedure for the UAA in the event of a tie between Rochester and Emory at 12-2?

If they are co-champs, then I think that Rochester is a Pool C lock out of the East Region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 16, 2011, 06:42:17 PM
It depends on where Brandeis and Chicago finish in the UAA standings.

See my post in the MBB: University Athletic Association forum-- Reply #3042-- where I review the UAA tiebreaker procedures.

Tiebreaker #1-- the head-to-head between the co-champions will not break the deadlock.  Neither will Tiebreaker #3-- Best UAA road record among the co-champions, as Rochester and Emory will have each gone 5-2 in UAA road play.

Tiebreaker #2 is results between the co-champions and the subsequent finishers in the UAA standings until the deadlock is broken.

Wash U cannot break the tie as both Rochester and Emory swept Wash U.  Rochester and Emory would also have swept all of the other teams save for Brandeis and Chicago.

To summarize

(1)  If Brandeis finishes ahead of Chicago in the UAA standings, then Rochester wins the tiebreaker due to the fact that Rochester swept Brandeis while Emory split with Brandeis.

(2)  If Chicago finishes ahead of Brandeis in the UAA standings, then Emory wins the tiebreaker due to the fact that Emory swept Chicago while Rochester split with Chicago.

(3)  If both Brandeis and Chicago remain in a tie for any position in the UAA standings, the automatic bid will be decided by a coin flip, as both Emory and Rochester will have gone 3-1 vs Brandeis and Chicago, and tiebreaker #2 will not settle the deadlock.

(4)  The coin flip is the final tiebreaker-- Tiebreaker #4.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2011, 06:49:28 PM
As usual, and excellent informative post.

I think that UT-Dallas is vulnerable in the ASC tourney.  Their losses came at McMurry (who has had much success against UT-D in the last few years), at UMHB, and at Mississippi College.  They also only had a 4 point road win over HSU.  The Mississippi College game Monday in Dallas was won when MIssissippi College tied with 5 seconds left.  Then MC stole the full court in-bound pass attempt, but the player called a timeout that Mississippi College did not have.  UTD sank both technicals and won by 2.  (The Mississippi College "Hail Mary" was no good.)

UTD is not that much of home court advantage because of how many alumni from other colleges live in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex as opposed to Clinton MS (Mississippi College) or Marshall TX (East Texas Baptist). Mississippi College is on the verge of not making the ASC tourney for the first time ever!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2011, 10:04:26 PM
I'm probably a bit premature on this, but this is my list of "don't even show up to your conference tournament 'cuz you're alreay in" list of cold-hard-lead-pipe locks. I'll revise in the coming days if I feel one of them wasn't cold, hard, or lead enough.

Northeast:
Williams
Middlebury
WPI
Becker
Amherst

East:
Oswego State

Atlantic:
Ramapo

Mid-Atlantic:
La Roche

South:
Virginia Wesleyan
Randolph-Macon

Great Lakes:
Wooster
Hope

Midwest:
Augustana
Concordia (Wi.)

West:
Chapman
Whitworth
St. Thomas
UW-Stevens Point
UW-River Falls
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2011, 10:12:21 PM
Thanks, there are the first 18 Pool C bids that need to be Pool A bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2011, 10:15:55 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2011, 10:12:21 PM
Thanks, there are the first 18 Pool C bids that need to be Pool A bids.

(plus Chapman's Pool B)

Three are from the NESCAC, so there probably won't be an "upset" there. And either ODAC or WIAC listed could win without being considered an upset.

If your team is on the bubble, these are the teams to root for this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2011, 10:34:36 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2011, 10:12:21 PM
Thanks, there are the first 18 Pool C bids that need to be Pool A bids.
And duhhhh,

There are only 18 Pool C bids to give.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2011, 10:44:03 PM
I'm taking River Falls off the list. Just got the update that they lost today.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 20, 2011, 02:13:22 PM
As a result of the Rochester win over Case today combined with Emory's loss to Carnegie Mellon, Rochester has clinched the UAA Men's Title and the automatic bid to the NCAAs.

Emory will need a Pool C bid to make it to the NCAAs.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2011, 02:18:20 PM
KnightSlappy - I wouldn't put anyone in the Atlantic on any type of "lock" for the NCAA tourney... including Ramapo.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2011, 02:19:10 PM
Quote from: deiscanton on February 20, 2011, 02:13:22 PM
As a result of the Rochester win over Case today combined with Emory's loss to Carnegie Mellon, Rochester has clinched the UAA Men's Title and the automatic bid to the NCAAs.

Emory will need a Pool C bid to make it to the NCAAs.
Okay Pool C fans, everyone needs to root for Rochester to beat Emory next week in Atlanta.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 20, 2011, 04:38:44 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2011, 02:19:10 PM
Quote from: deiscanton on February 20, 2011, 02:13:22 PM
As a result of the Rochester win over Case today combined with Emory's loss to Carnegie Mellon, Rochester has clinched the UAA Men's Title and the automatic bid to the NCAAs.

Emory will need a Pool C bid to make it to the NCAAs.
Okay Pool C fans, everyone needs to root for Rochester to beat Emory next week in Atlanta.

Ummmm...OK.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2011, 06:01:11 PM
I put in RED the results that were LOSSES.  I crossed out conference leaders
Green is Pool B
Atlantic Region
1 Ramapo 17-3 18-5 (NJAC):  2-0 for the week; plays Montclair State in semis 2/22
2 Kean 16-5 17-7 (NJAC):  1-0 for the week; plays New Jersey City in semis 2/22
3 Mount Saint Mary (N.Y.) 17-5 17-5 (SKY):  1-2 for the week; BYE into semis 2/24
4 SUNY-Purchase 19-4 19-4 (SKY):  2-0 for the week; BYE into semis 2/24
5 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 17-3 19-3 (SKY): 1-2 for the week; plays Mount Saint Vincent in quarterfinal 2/22



East Region
1 Oswego State 19-3 19-3 (SUNYAC):   3-0 for the week; plays Potsdam State in quarterfinal 2/22
2 Rochester 17-3 18-4 (UAA): 2-0 for the week; plays at Emory 2/26
3 Stevens 17-5 17-5 (E8): 2-1 for the week; plays Hartwick in semis 2/25
4 Ithaca 16-5 17-5 (E8):  3-0 for the week; plays St. John Fisher in semis 2/25
5 Hobart 18-4 18-5 (LL):  1-1 for the week; plays Hamilton in semis 2/25
6 Medaille 18-4 18-5 (AMCC):  1-1 for the week; plays Pitt-Bradford in quarterfinal 2/22



Great Lakes Region
1 Wooster 18-2 21-2 (NCAC):  2-0 for the week; plays Allegheny in quarterfinal 2/22
2 Hope 14-1 18-5 (MIAA): 1-1 for the week; plays Alma in quarterfinal 2/23
3 Marietta 18-2 21-2 (OAC):  1-1 for the week; plays Wilmington in quarterfinal 2/22
4 Penn State-Behrend 20-2 20-3 (AMCC): 2-0 for the week; BYE into semis 2/25
5 Wittenberg 14-3 17-5 (NCAC):  0-2 for the week; plays Denison in quarterfinal 2/22
6 Thiel 14-3 17-6 (PrAC):  1-0 for the week; plays Waynesburg in quarterfinal 2/22



Middle Atlantic Region
1 La Roche 20-2 21-2 (AMCC): 2-0 for the week; BYE into semis 2/25
2 Cabrini 19-4 19-4 (CSAC): 1-1 for the week; plays Neumann in semis 2/22
3 St. Mary's (Md.) 17-3 19-5 (CAC): 1-0 for the week; BYE into semis 2/24
4 Wesley 15-3 16-7 (CAC): 0-2  for the week; BYE into semis 2/24
5 DeSales 16-5 18-5 (MACF): 0-2 for the week; plays Misericordia in semis 2/23
6 Gwynedd-Mercy 17-4 18-5 (CSAC): 2-0 for the week; plays Keystone in semis 2/22
7 Franklin and Marshall 17-4 19-4 (CC): 1-1 for the week; BYE into semis 2/26
8 Keystone 18-5 18-5 (CSAC):  3-0 for the week; plays at Gwynedd-Mercy in semis 2/22
9 Alvernia 14-5 15-5 (MACC):  1-1 for the week; plays Messiah in semis 2/23



Midwest Region
1 Augustana 21-1 22-1 (CCIW):  0-1 for the week; plays at Illinois Wesleyan 2/22
2 Concordia (Wis.) 17-2 19-3 (NathCon): 2-0 for the week; plays Wisconsin Lutheran in quarterfinal 2/23
3 Hanover 17-5 17-5 (HCAC):  1-1 for the week; BYE into semis 2/26
4 Edgewood 16-5 16-7 (NAthCon): 0-2 for the week; plays Lakeland in quarterfinal 2/23
5 Manchester 16-5 17-6 (HCAC): 2-0 for the week; BYE into semis 2/26
6 Illinois Wesleyan 15-6 16-6 (CCIW): 1-1 for the week; plays Augustana 2/22
7 Anderson 14-6 16-7 (HCAC): 1-1 for the week; plays Bluffton in quarterfinal 2/25 
8 Milwaukee Engineering 16-6 17-6 (NathCon):  2-0 for the week; plays Aurora in quarterfinal 2/23



Northeast Region
1 Williams 21-1 22-1 (NESCAC):  1-0 for the week; plays Trinity (Conn.) in semis 2/26
2 Middlebury 18-1 20-1 (NESCAC):  3-0 for the week; plays Amherst in semis 2/26
3 WPI 20-2 20-3 (NEWMAC):  1-1 for the week; BYE into semis 2/26
4 Becker 20-3 20-3 (NECC):  2-0 for the week;
5 Amherst 20-2 21-2 (NESCAC):  1-0 for the week; plays Middlebury in semis 2/26
6 Western Connecticut State 18-4 19-4 (LEC):  2-0 for the week; BYE into semis 2/25
7 Rhode Island College 15-7 15-7 (LEC): 2-0 for the week; BYE into semis 2/25
8 Elms 14-6 16-7 (NECC):  2-0 for the week;
9 MIT 16-6 16-7 (NEWMAC):  1-1 for the week; plays Springfield in semis 2/26
10 Brandeis 15-7 15-7 (UAA):  1-1 for the week; plays at NYU 2/26
11 Eastern Connecticut State 14-6 16-7 (LEC):  1-1 for the week; plays Plymouth State in quarterfinal 2/22



South Region
1 Virginia Wesleyan 17-2 (ODAC):  2-1 for the week; BYE into quarterfinals 2/25
2 Randolph-Macon 18-4 (ODAC):  1-0 for the week; BYE into quarterfinals 2/25
3 Ferrum 18-3  (USAC):  0-1 for the week; plays Averett in quarterfinals 2/22
4 Texas-Dallas 16-4 (ASC):  3-0 for the week; plays Concordia (Texas) in quarterfinals 2/25
5 Emory 17-4 (UAA):  1-1 for the week; plays Rochester 2/26
6 Centre 15-4 (SCAC):  1-0 for the week, plays at Birmingham Southern 2/20
7 North Carolina Wesleyan 12-4 (USAC):  2-0 for the week; BYE into semis 2/25
8 Eastern Mennonite 12-4 (ODAC):  3-0 for the week; BYE into quarterfinals 2/25



West Region
1 Whitworth 23-0 (NWC):  1-1 for the week; plays Pacific Lutheran in semis 2/24
2 St. Thomas 18-3 (MIAC):  3-0 for the week; BYE into semis
3 UW-Stevens Point 19-3 (WIAC):  2-0 for the week; BYE into semis
4 UW-River Falls 17-3 (WIAC):  0-2 for the week; BYE into semis
5 Chapman 14-1 (IND):  2-0 for the week; plays at La Sierra 2/22
6 Carleton 15-5 (MIAC):  3-0 for the week; BYE into semis
7 Whitman 12-4 (NWC):  1-1 for the week, plays Lewis and Clark in semi 2/24
8 Lewis and Clark 11-4 (NWC):  1-1 for the week; plays at Whitman in semi 2/24
9 St. Olaf 15-6 (MIAC):  1-2 for the week; plays Gustavus Adolphus in quartefinal 2/22
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 20, 2011, 06:06:05 PM
I don't know if Emory will get a Pool C even if they beat Rochester next Saturday.

True, that win would make Emory 2-2 vs regionally ranked opponents.

Emory's SOS probably did not get a massive boost from their .441 this week, even with the 1.4 multiplier.

Playing Rochester at home next week means that Emory will not get the benefit of the 1.4 road multiplier boost-- Emory has to take a 0.6 multiplier handicap for the home game.

The best that Emory can hope for in-region will be 19-5 (.792)-- I'm not sure that regional percentage will be high enough given a weak SOS.

We will just have to wait until Wednesday's rankings to see how far Emory drops in the South Region-- the Eagles will take a hit for losing at Carnegie Mellon today.

But yeah, if Rochester wins next Saturday, the UAA will be a 1 bid league-- no doubt about it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2011, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on February 20, 2011, 04:38:44 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2011, 02:19:10 PM
Quote from: deiscanton on February 20, 2011, 02:13:22 PM
As a result of the Rochester win over Case today combined with Emory's loss to Carnegie Mellon, Rochester has clinched the UAA Men's Title and the automatic bid to the NCAAs.

Emory will need a Pool C bid to make it to the NCAAs.
Okay Pool C fans, everyone needs to root for Rochester to beat Emory next week in Atlanta.

Ummmm...OK.
Yes, to push Emory deeper into the South Region Regional Rankings.

I appreciate deis' assessment, but I want Emory proverbially buried in the South Region rankings.

For us Pool C fans,

1)  If we have no chance of a Pool C bid, then win your tourney.
2)  To improve your Pool C chances root for the "higher/stronger team" to inflict losses on the teams that are behind it.
3)  If your team drops from favored Pool A status, kinds like the Pole Position in Auto Racing, then you hope that no conference favorites lose.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2011, 06:40:45 PM
(Provisional) Birmingham-Southern beat Centre, 67-63.

BSC is not eligible for the SCAC post-season tourney, so they did everyone a favor.

If we can get Centre knocked out of the regional rankings, then maybe another ASC team might creep into the rankings next Wednesday.

Only UTD has a chance at a Pool C, and I think that they  need to go 2-1 in the ASC Tourney to do that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 20, 2011, 07:23:07 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2011, 02:18:20 PM
KnightSlappy - I wouldn't put anyone in the Atlantic on any type of "lock" for the NCAA tourney... including Ramapo.

Where do you think Ramapo would come up short?

New DIII bracketology projection tonight: http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/d3-bracketology.html

The committee will have their hands full, a lot of tough decisions to be made (Ramapo would not have been one of them, however) and so the last four in as of tonight can't afford any upsets in conference tournaments.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2011, 12:49:23 PM
I do like the "once ranked, always ranked" feature.

It adds a few teams that are on the cusp of Pool C so you can get a good view of the teams on the edge of consideration.

In the South Region, we have had the same 7 teams ranked in each ranking, but the other 3 teams have provided some extra info, especially in the ASC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on February 21, 2011, 04:04:53 PM
who are the top 15 teams in the south
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 21, 2011, 04:17:49 PM
Quote from: RustCollege on February 21, 2011, 04:04:53 PM
who are the top 15 teams in the south

Virginia Wesleyan
Randolph-Macon
Texas-Dallas
Birmingham-Southern
Ferrum
North Carolina Wesleyan
Eastern Mennonite
Emory
McMurry
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Centre
Christopher Newport
Guilford
Hampden-Sydney
East Texas Baptist
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on February 21, 2011, 06:19:53 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 21, 2011, 04:17:49 PM
Quote from: RustCollege on February 21, 2011, 04:04:53 PM
who are the top 15 teams in the south

Virginia Wesleyan
Randolph-Macon
Texas-Dallas
Birmingham-Southern
Ferrum
North Carolina Wesleyan
Eastern Mennonite
Emory
McMurry
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Centre
Christopher Newport
Guilford
Hampden-Sydney
East Texas Baptist
Where would Maryville and Rust be
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2011, 07:28:56 PM
Just curious who has hosting rights this year in the first round.  I know it rotates each year.  Is  it the men?  Then the women would have hosting rights the 2nd weekend.  Or is it the women 1st round this year?

Edit:  women have rights for the 1st round this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 21, 2011, 08:03:52 PM
Sorry for the stupid question, but how does hosting work??

I know both the men and women can't host during the same weekend, so either the Amherst men or women will hit the road the first weekend.  If your hosting an ECAC game for the women;s game, could you host an NCAA game for the men's team or vice versa??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2011, 08:11:12 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 21, 2011, 08:03:52 PM
Sorry for the stupid question, but how does hosting work??

I know both the men and women can't host during the same weekend, so either the Amherst men or women will hit the road the first weekend.  If your hosting an ECAC game for the women;s game, could you host an NCAA game for the men's team or vice versa??
I don't think so.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on February 21, 2011, 08:55:18 PM
Quote from: RustCollege on February 21, 2011, 06:19:53 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 21, 2011, 04:17:49 PM
Quote from: RustCollege on February 21, 2011, 04:04:53 PM
who are the top 15 teams in the south

Virginia Wesleyan
Randolph-Macon
Texas-Dallas
Birmingham-Southern
Ferrum
North Carolina Wesleyan
Eastern Mennonite
Emory
McMurry
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Centre
Christopher Newport
Guilford
Hampden-Sydney
East Texas Baptist
Where would Maryville and Rust be

Home for the holidays.

Rust is 53rd (out of 53) in the south region SOS. Maryville is 4th, but 0-4 against in region ranked teams and at 10-7, are 19th in region W-L.


http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=25&division=3 (http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=25&division=3)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 21, 2011, 09:42:26 PM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2011, 07:28:56 PM
Just curious who has hosting rights this year in the first round.  I know it rotates each year.  Is  it the men?  Then the women would have hosting rights the 2nd weekend.  Or is it the women 1st round this year?

Edit:  women have rights for the 1st round this year.

Does this mean UW-SP can't host this year?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2011, 09:45:19 PM
If the UWSP women are selected to host, yes. (The fact that they play in separate gyms has been said in the past to not be a factor.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 89Pirate on February 21, 2011, 10:39:43 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2011, 09:45:19 PM
If the UWSP women are selected to host, yes. (The fact that they play in separate gyms has been said in the past to not be a factor.)
So, if the UWSP Women are still in at round 3/4, Whitworth could that round - knowing they will still be in it?!?!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2011, 10:41:44 PM
It reverses in round 3/4. Men have hosting priority if both teams are in line to host.

In even years it's the reverse.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 89Pirate on February 21, 2011, 10:44:02 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2011, 10:41:44 PM
It reverses in round 3/4. Men have hosting priority if both teams are in line to host.

In even years it's the reverse.
LOL - did that answer my question?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2011, 11:19:30 PM
Yes. And not in your favor. :)

If the UW-SP women are still in the tournament in round 3/4 of 2011 (or any odd year) they could not be chosen to host over the UWSP men. The men would have priority if both are in line to host.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 89Pirate on February 22, 2011, 12:20:45 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2011, 11:19:30 PM
Yes. And not in your favor. :)

If the UW-SP women are still in the tournament in round 3/4 of 2011 (or any odd year) they could not be chosen to host over the UWSP men. The men would have priority if both are in line to host.
Ok, so really, i just need UWSP to lose and Whitworth to win to keep hosting...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2011, 01:09:49 AM
 Hey 89pirate! I don't want to hear that kind of talk from you!  >:(  ;D

You do have to worry about St. Thomas as well.  They are ranked higher than Point in the region.  I would think if Point and St. Thomas get Pool C bids and win their first weekend games and Whitworth gets an AQ and wins, that would give them the upper hand going into the next weekend.  Lots of games to be played.  First thing is first!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 09:10:39 AM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2011, 01:09:49 AM
Hey 89pirate! I don't want to hear that kind of talk from you!  >:(  ;D

You do have to worry about St. Thomas as well.  They are ranked higher than Point in the region.  I would think if Point and St. Thomas get Pool C bids and win their first weekend games and Whitworth gets an AQ and wins, that would give them the upper hand going into the next weekend.  Lots of games to be played.  First thing is first!

There could be hosting competition from Augustana as well. It all comes down to how the NCAA aligns the brackets.
Whitworth is a guaranteed flight no matter what so they would be very easy to send away from the West/Midwest. The sectional that Whitworth was in last year was a quasi Great Lakes/South bracket.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2011, 10:36:03 AM
I wouldn't say Whitworth is gaurunteed a flight unless you are talking about Salem.

Whitworth could be like Puget Sound a few years back and host in the Sectionals. Granted, I believe, if memory serves, Puget Sound benefited from the fact that both Stevens Point teams where in the sectionals and it was the women's year to host.

With Whitworth being the #1 regionally ranked team (and that won't change this week)... there is a decent chance the committee may give them the chance to host the Sectionals.

That being said, it does depend on the ENTIRE bracket... how many flights the committee is allowed to book (expect)... and if those flights would be used in other parts of the bracket (like in the South Region - VWC could be hosting and like a few years back, UMHB was flown out to Virginia Beach for the Sectionals).

Personally... I think Whitworth deserves to host, only because all of the rest of the teams in the West and Midwest seem to get that opportunity due to bracket restrictions. If the committee can reward Whitworth with hosting since their resume puts them #1 in the region - I am all for having three teams shipped to the Northwest.

Ah... but we won't get an inkling until February 28th... and we won't know until March 7th! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2011, 10:43:51 AM
Well, a guaranteed flight for Whitworth or three flights for their opponents. There's a guaranteed flight involved with them playing.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 10:45:52 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2011, 10:36:03 AM
I wouldn't say Whitworth is gaurunteed a flight unless you are talking about Salem.

Whitworth could be like Puget Sound a few years back and host in the Sectionals. Granted, I believe, if memory serves, Puget Sound benefited from the fact that both Stevens Point teams where in the sectionals and it was the women's year to host.

With Whitworth being the #1 regionally ranked team (and that won't change this week)... there is a decent chance the committee may give them the chance to host the Sectionals.

That being said, it does depend on the ENTIRE bracket... how many flights the committee is allowed to book (expect)... and if those flights would be used in other parts of the bracket (like in the South Region - VWC could be hosting and like a few years back, UMHB was flown out to Virginia Beach for the Sectionals).

Personally... I think Whitworth deserves to host, only because all of the rest of the teams in the West and Midwest seem to get that opportunity due to bracket restrictions. If the committee can reward Whitworth with hosting since their resume puts them #1 in the region - I am all for having three teams shipped to the Northwest.

Ah... but we won't get an inkling until February 28th... and we won't know until March 7th! :)

in or out, a flight is a flight. Whitworth hosting a sectional means three teams are flying in, going to a sectional means one flight out.

We know that the NCAA only allows a certain number of flights so it depends on what that number is.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 22, 2011, 10:52:39 AM
We all know the NCAA works to MINIMIZE flights, but is there any eveidence that they have an actual magic number that they won't exceed?  I've heard rumors of that on this board, but I've never actual seen that in print or spoken by any NCAA representative. If someone has proof of a magic number of flights, please post.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 10:54:53 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 22, 2011, 10:52:39 AM
We all know the NCAA works to MINIMIZE flights, but is there any eveidence that they have an actual magic number that they won't exceed?  I've heard rumors of that on this board, but I've never actual seen that in print or spoken by any NCAA representative. If someone has proof of a magic number of flights, please post.

It was stated in the hoopsville interview. The number was not revealed but its existence was acknowledged.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2011, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 10:54:53 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 22, 2011, 10:52:39 AM
We all know the NCAA works to MINIMIZE flights, but is there any eveidence that they have an actual magic number that they won't exceed?  I've heard rumors of that on this board, but I've never actual seen that in print or spoken by any NCAA representative. If someone has proof of a magic number of flights, please post.

It was stated in the hoopsville interview. The number was not revealed but its existence was acknowledged.

Yeah, Dave Martin, committee chair, said that the NCAA gives them a number each year. They are strictly told not to exceed the limit.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2011, 11:03:38 AM
Dave Martin also said they don't know that "number" until probably a time period like this week or this coming weekend. And yes... they are told not to exceed it. I am assuming that the flights to Salem do not count in that tally... but I am not 100% sure about that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2011, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 10:54:53 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 22, 2011, 10:52:39 AM
We all know the NCAA works to MINIMIZE flights, but is there any eveidence that they have an actual magic number that they won't exceed?  I've heard rumors of that on this board, but I've never actual seen that in print or spoken by any NCAA representative. If someone has proof of a magic number of flights, please post.

It was stated in the hoopsville interview. The number was not revealed but its existence was acknowledged.

Yeah, Dave Martin, committee chair, said that the NCAA gives them a number each year. They are strictly told not to exceed the limit.


Possible flight scenarios based on current bracketology (http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/d3-bracketology.html):
- A California team to somewhere (Assuming Chapman plays SCIAC winner in first round of three team pod)
- 2 teams into or out of Texas (since the projection has 2 ASC teams and they can't play in the first round by rule)
- Three teams to Whitworth for sectional
- NCAA probably has to reserve two flights for potential final four teams

That's seven flights and that sounds like a lot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 22, 2011, 11:16:44 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2011, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 10:54:53 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 22, 2011, 10:52:39 AM
We all know the NCAA works to MINIMIZE flights, but is there any eveidence that they have an actual magic number that they won't exceed?  I've heard rumors of that on this board, but I've never actual seen that in print or spoken by any NCAA representative. If someone has proof of a magic number of flights, please post.

It was stated in the hoopsville interview. The number was not revealed but its existence was acknowledged.

Yeah, Dave Martin, committee chair, said that the NCAA gives them a number each year. They are strictly told not to exceed the limit.
How many flights occured last year?  2009?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 11:24:13 AM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 22, 2011, 11:16:44 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2011, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 10:54:53 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 22, 2011, 10:52:39 AM
We all know the NCAA works to MINIMIZE flights, but is there any eveidence that they have an actual magic number that they won't exceed?  I've heard rumors of that on this board, but I've never actual seen that in print or spoken by any NCAA representative. If someone has proof of a magic number of flights, please post.

It was stated in the hoopsville interview. The number was not revealed but its existence was acknowledged.

Yeah, Dave Martin, committee chair, said that the NCAA gives them a number each year. They are strictly told not to exceed the limit.
How many flights occured last year?  2009?

Five flights jump out to me from last year:
Chapman to Whitworth
Wheaton to Mary Hardin-Baylor
Whitworth to Guilford
UW-Stevens Point to Salem
Williams to Salem
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2011, 11:25:06 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 11:04:07 AM
- 2 teams into or out of Texas (since the projection has 2 ASC teams and they can't play in the first round by rule)

They can play in the first round if the NCAA deems fit. Happens all the time in other sports. Could take the winner of a game like that and fly it to a bye team like with California.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 11:27:47 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2011, 11:25:06 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 11:04:07 AM
- 2 teams into or out of Texas (since the projection has 2 ASC teams and they can't play in the first round by rule)

They can play in the first round if the NCAA deems fit. Happens all the time in other sports. Could take the winner of a game like that and fly it to a bye team like with California.

Thanks, didn't realize that was a soft rule.

Perhaps that will happen with the winner going to Whitworth. The Cali schools would be the other likely candidate although Chapman's resume may be too good to force a Whitworth/Chapman second round game due to geography.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 22, 2011, 11:33:29 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2011, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 10:54:53 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 22, 2011, 10:52:39 AM
We all know the NCAA works to MINIMIZE flights, but is there any eveidence that they have an actual magic number that they won't exceed?  I've heard rumors of that on this board, but I've never actual seen that in print or spoken by any NCAA representative. If someone has proof of a magic number of flights, please post.

It was stated in the hoopsville interview. The number was not revealed but its existence was acknowledged.

Yeah, Dave Martin, committee chair, said that the NCAA gives them a number each year. They are strictly told not to exceed the limit.


Possible flight scenarios based on current bracketology (http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/d3-bracketology.html):
- A California team to somewhere (Assuming Chapman plays SCIAC winner in first round of three team pod)
- 2 teams into or out of Texas (since the projection has 2 ASC teams and they can't play in the first round by rule)
- Three teams to Whitworth for sectional
- NCAA probably has to reserve two flights for potential final four teams

That's seven flights and that sounds like a lot.

Actually it's 8 flights. 1+2+3+2=8. But you can send one team to Texas for a three team pod to drop it to seven. It does sound like a lot but I would almost think the Final Four doesn't count. That would be way too dificult to figure out a bracket some years for 2 teams in the Virginia area if there the top teams are Calvin, Whitworth, McMurry and Bowdoin. Even so 6 then seems like a lot. 5 might happen. Last year on a quick count I came up with 4 without counting the Final Four (someone may want to check that count). In 2009 I came up with 4 on a quick count.

Edit: Ralph Turner's comment on the Bracketology Blog from yesterday could scrap another flight into Texas bringing the total down to 4 for the first two weekend which seems to be what the committee has been doing in the past. One for the California schools and three (one of which is the Texas pod champion) into Whitworth.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 89Pirate on February 22, 2011, 11:42:43 AM
Wow, didnt expect that much reaction from my comment.

Sorry Old School - I bleed Crimson and Black and have the tattoo to prove it.  Forgot about the Tommies too...

I know, i know, I need to be patient and see how the conference tourneys play out.  I am pretty confident that Whitworth will take the NWC but others tourneys seem to be tougher.

In the end, hopefully the committee will give the Pirates some credit for their regional AND national rankings this year, and make that option at least possible.

What are people thinking will happen with rounds 1/2?  Whitworth bye, waiting for Chapman v SCIAC winner in round 1?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 22, 2011, 11:42:47 AM
Speaking of flights, whats the milage that a team can fly to a destination vs. bussing or does it depend??  I have to assume any school more then 550-600 miles away the school gets the opportunity to fly there, less then 500 is probably bussing only, and 675 or more is probably flight only unless the school wants to save money.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 22, 2011, 11:44:17 AM
Quote from: 7express on February 22, 2011, 11:42:47 AM
Speaking of flights, whats the milage that a team can fly to a destination vs. bussing or does it depend??  I have to assume any school more then 550-600 miles away the school gets the opportunity to fly there, less then 500 is probably bussing only, and 675 or more is probably flight only unless the school wants to save money.

The number from the NCAA is 500 miles. Less than that the NCAA will only pay for bussing. More than that the NCAA will pay for a flight.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 11:47:46 AM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 22, 2011, 11:33:29 AM

Actually it's 8 flights. 1+2+3+2=8. But you can send one team to Texas for a three team pod to drop it to seven. It does sound like a lot but I would almost think the Final Four doesn't count. That would be way too dificult to figure out a bracket some years for 2 teams in the Virginia area if there the top teams are Calvin, Whitworth, McMurry and Bowdoin. Even so 6 then seems like a lot. 5 might happen. Last year on a quick count I came up with 4 without counting the Final Four (someone may want to check that count). In 2009 I came up with 4 on a quick count.

Edit: Ralph Turner's comment on the Bracketology Blog from yesterday could scrap another flight into Texas bringing the total down to 4 for the first two weekend which seems to be what the committee has been doing in the past. One for the California schools and three (one of which is the Texas pod champion) into Whitworth.

Thanks for correcting my math  :-\

The committee can kind of control flights to Salem since a 500 mile line due east from salem is about the western edge of kentcuky. Rotate that into an arc and most schools are inside the 500 mile radius except for the West, Midwest, Michigan schools in the Great Lakes and the northern portion of the Northeast. The NCAA can guarantee themselves no more than 2 flights by setting up the bracket accordingly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 22, 2011, 11:49:47 AM
Quote from: 89Pirate on February 22, 2011, 11:42:43 AM
In the end, hopefully the committee will give the Pirates some credit for their regional AND national rankings this year, and make that option at least possible.

The committee does not recognize any national rankings
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2011, 12:00:33 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 22, 2011, 11:44:17 AM
Quote from: 7express on February 22, 2011, 11:42:47 AM
Speaking of flights, whats the milage that a team can fly to a destination vs. bussing or does it depend??  I have to assume any school more then 550-600 miles away the school gets the opportunity to fly there, less then 500 is probably bussing only, and 675 or more is probably flight only unless the school wants to save money.

The number from the NCAA is 500 miles. Less than that the NCAA will only pay for bussing. More than that the NCAA will pay for a flight.
Can't remember where they were headed due to my winter-snow-storm-in-early-at-work-on-no-sleep brain... but Mount Union women bussed themselves to Illinois BY CHOICE. It was over 500 miles, but they chose to bus it... so there is always the chance a team can say thanks... but no thanks! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2011, 12:08:09 PM
Wash U.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2011, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 11:04:07 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2011, 11:00:02 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 10:54:53 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 22, 2011, 10:52:39 AM
We all know the NCAA works to MINIMIZE flights, but is there any eveidence that they have an actual magic number that they won't exceed?  I've heard rumors of that on this board, but I've never actual seen that in print or spoken by any NCAA representative. If someone has proof of a magic number of flights, please post.

It was stated in the hoopsville interview. The number was not revealed but its existence was acknowledged.

Yeah, Dave Martin, committee chair, said that the NCAA gives them a number each year. They are strictly told not to exceed the limit.


Possible flight scenarios based on current bracketology (http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/d3-bracketology.html):
- A California team to somewhere (Assuming Chapman plays SCIAC winner in first round of three team pod)
- 2 teams into or out of Texas (since the projection has 2 ASC teams and they can't play in the first round by rule)
- Three teams to Whitworth for sectional
- NCAA probably has to reserve two flights for potential final four teams

That's seven flights and that sounds like a lot.

First Round playoff games against conference members?  Happens often in Football and has happened in women's basketball, too.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: thebear on February 22, 2011, 12:25:02 PM
Then there's also the oddball situations that develop from moving teams out of region.

In '03-04 Potsdam won the conference tournament in a upset, got sent for a first rounder to PS-Behrend in Erie, 366 miles through the snow belt.  Bears won that Thursday night game, but then drew Wooster (with a first round bye) -  Bears played on Saturday night .  Potsdam - Wooster was 520 miles (through the snow belt).  That was probably punishment by the tournament gods for upsetting their Pool C apple cart.  Kids were gone from Wednesday noon until Sunday afternoon.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 22, 2011, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2011, 11:25:06 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 11:04:07 AM
- 2 teams into or out of Texas (since the projection has 2 ASC teams and they can't play in the first round by rule)

They can play in the first round if the NCAA deems fit. Happens all the time in other sports. Could take the winner of a game like that and fly it to a bye team like with California.

From the handbook: Teams from the same conference do not have to play one another in the first round as
long as geographic proximity is maintained.

You'd think they would change the emphasis and say they can't play each other as
long as geographic proximity is maintained.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2011, 03:06:45 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 22, 2011, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2011, 11:25:06 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 22, 2011, 11:04:07 AM
- 2 teams into or out of Texas (since the projection has 2 ASC teams and they can't play in the first round by rule)

They can play in the first round if the NCAA deems fit. Happens all the time in other sports. Could take the winner of a game like that and fly it to a bye team like with California.

From the handbook: Teams from the same conference do not have to play one another in the first round as
long as geographic proximity is maintained.

You'd think they would change the emphasis and say they can't play each other as
long as geographic proximity is maintained.

They don't have to, but the NCAA does it all the time for geographic orphans.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2011, 03:22:16 PM
Quote from: thebear on February 22, 2011, 12:25:02 PM
Then there's also the oddball situations that develop from moving teams out of region.

In '03-04 Potsdam won the conference tournament in a upset, got sent for a first rounder to PS-Behrend in Erie, 366 miles through the snow belt.  Bears won that Thursday night game, but then drew Wooster (with a first round bye) -  Bears played on Saturday night .  Potsdam - Wooster was 520 miles (through the snow belt).  That was probably punishment by the tournament gods for upsetting their Pool C apple cart.  Kids were gone from Wednesday noon until Sunday afternoon.
That was back before the current March Madness money gave us all of the extra Pool C bids.

Back then, the hosting mentality (IMHO) in the 3-team pods was

#3  -- be glad you're in the tourney  (Potsdam State)
#2  -- deserves to have a home game  (PSU-Behrend)
#1  -- deserves a first round bye.   (Wooster)

(This recalls the old Hoopsville lead-in...  "You wanna play that first round game... You haven't played a [NCAA] tourney game.")

Now, if you are the "weaker" seed from a conference and get moved to a weaker region, then the conference has a chance to go deeper into the playoffs, by knocking a good team out, if your conference really is one of the stronger one, and stronger than the teams in the conference going to the "out-of-region" bracket

IMHO, if your team is a relatively weak one, and you are moved to populate the bottom half of the bracket, then the committee has tried to seed the bracket closer to a #1 - #"64" scenario.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2011, 08:12:42 PM
For the record... the D3 committees in basketball have done a decent job seperating conference teams in the last maybe ten years that I can remember. There have been occasions where they have not done this in California (where I remember their hands were basically tied) and Texas (where I remember they later changed the pod so the teams would avoid each other in the first round).

I can't say conference vs. conference in the first round is something I am overly concerned about.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 22, 2011, 09:13:43 PM
Pool C hopefuls around the country can breathe a huge sigh of relief as "cold, hard lead pipe lock" Wooster narrowly escapes in its NCAC quarterfinal with a 62-57 win over Allegheny.

Everything goes according to form in the NCAC tonight, with Ohio Wesleyan, Wabash and Wittenberg advance to the NCAC semifinals on Friday at Wooster. Wooster draws Ohio Wesleyan and Wabash and Wittenberg may be playing for an NCAA bid in the other semifinal.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 22, 2011, 09:17:29 PM
Ramapo loses to Montclair State tonight in the NJAC tournament. Welcome to the bubble Road Runners.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2011, 09:23:47 PM
Ramapo's loss means those already on the bubble are starting to feel it get unstable.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2011, 09:34:30 PM
Atlantic Region
1 Ramapo 17-3 18-5 (NJAC):  2-0 for the week; plays lost to Montclair State in semis 2/22
2 Kean 16-5 17-7 (NJAC):  1-0 for the week; plays lost to New Jersey City in semis 2/22
3 Mount Saint Mary (N.Y.) 17-5 17-5 (SKY):  1-2 for the week; BYE into semis 2/24
4 SUNY-Purchase 19-4 19-4 (SKY):  2-0 for the week; BYE into semis 2/24
5 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 17-3 19-3 (SKY): 1-2 for the week; beat Mount Saint Vincent in quarterfinal 2/22
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2011, 03:50:51 PM
Final Regional Rankings are out before Selection Sunday: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/category/ncaa-stuff/regional-rankings/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2011, 02:14:36 AM
BOLD is conference leader meaning they get a Pool A bid
GREEN is Pool C candidate meaning they cannot get a Pool A bid


Atlantic Region
1 Ramapo 19-3 20-5 (NJAC):  LOST to Montclair State 67-64 in semis  
2 SUNY-Purchase 21-4 21-4 (SKY):  Plays Old Westbury in semis 2/24
3 Kean 17-5 18-7 (NJAC):  LOST to NJCU 75-61 in semis
4 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 18-5 20-5 (SKY):  BEAT Mount Saint Vincent 68-60, plays Mount Saint Mary in semis 2/24
5 Mount Saint Mary 18-7 18-7 (SKY):  Plays St. Joseph's (L.I.) in semis 2/24


East Region
1 Oswego State 22-3 22-3 (SUNYAC):   BEAT Potsdam State 64-50 in quarterfinals, plays Brockport State in semis 2/25  
2 Ithaca 19-5 20-5  (E8):  Plays St. John Fisher in semis 2/25
3 Rochester 19-3 20-4 (UAA):  Plays Emory 2/26
4 Stevens 19-6 19-6 (E8):  Plays Hartwick in semis 2/25
5 Hobart 19-5 19-6 (LL):  Plays Hamilton in semis 2/25
6 Buffalo State 15-6 18-6 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Cortland State 75-56 in quarterfinals, plays Plattsburgh State in semis 2/25

Great Lakes Region
1 Wooster 20-2 23-2 (NCAC):   BEAT Allegheny 62-57 in quarterfinals, plays Ohio Wesleyan in semis 2/25
2 Marietta 19-3 22-3 (OAC):  BEAT Wilmington 84-73 in quarterfinals, plays Heidelberg in semis 2/24
3 Penn State-Behrend 22-2 22-3 (AMCC):  Plays Medaille in semis 2/25
4 Hope 15-2 19-6 (MIAA):  BEAT Alma 110-77 in quarterfinals, plays Adrian in semis 2/25
5 Thiel 15-3 18-6 (PrAC):  BEAT Waynesburg 73-63 in quarterfinals, plays Thomas More in semis 2/24
6 Wabash 18-5 19-5 (NCAC):  BEAT Kenyon 72-61 in quarterfinals, plays Wittenberg in semis 2/25


Middle Atlantic Region
1 La Roche 22-2 23-2 (AMCC):  Plays Hilbert in semis 2/25
2 St. Mary's (Md.) 18-3 20-5 (CAC):   Plays Mary Washington in semis 2/24
3 Cabrini 20-5 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Neumann 79-76 in semis, plays Gwynedd-Mercy in final 2/25
4 Gwynedd-Mercy 19-4 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Keystone 85-65 in semis, plays Cabrini in final 2/25
5 Keystone 21-5 21-5 (CSAC):  LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy 85-65 in semis
6 Lebanon Valley 17-6 19-6 (MACC):  BEAT Widener 58-56 in semis, plays Alvernia in final 2/26
7 Franklin and Marshall 18-5 20-5:  (CC):  Plays Haverford in semis 2/26
8 DeSales 16-7 18-7 (MACF): BEAT Misericordia 78-69 in semis, plays Delaware Valley in final 2/26
9 Wesley 15-5 16-9 (CAC):  Plays Salisbury in semis 2/24


Midwest Region
1 Concordia (Wis.) 20-2 22-3 (NATH):   Plays Edgewood in semis 2/25
2 Augustana 21-2 22-2 (CCIW):  Plays Wheaton in semis 2/25
3 Manchester 18-5 19-6 (HCAC):  Plays winner of Rose-Hulman/Transylvania in semis 2/26  
4 Hanover 18-6 18-6 (HCAC):  Plays winner of Anderson/Bluffton in semis 2/26
5 Anderson 15-7 17-8 (HCAC):  Plays Bluffton in quarterfinals 2/25
6 Milwaukee Engineering 18-6 19-6 (NATH):  LOST to Aurora 72-67 in quarterfinals
7 Benedictine 17-6 18-7 (NATH):  BEAT Rockford 91-76 in quarterfinals, plays Aurora in semis 2/25  
8 St. Norbert 18-5 18-5 (MWC):  Plays Ripon in semis 2/25


Northeast Region
1 Williams 21-1 23-1 (NESCAC):  Plays Trinity (Conn.) in semis 2/26
2 Middlebury 20-1 23-1 (NESCAC):  Plays Amherst in semis 2/26
3 WPI 21-3 21-4 (NEWMAC):  Plays Coast Guard in semis 2/26
4 Becker 22-3 22-3 (NECC):  Plays Newbury in semis 2/25  
5 Amherst 21-2 22-2 (NESCAC):  Plays Middlebury in semis 2/26
6 Western Connecticut State 20-4 21-4 (LEC):  Plays Eastern Connecticut State in semis 2/25
7 Rhode Island College 17-7 17-7 (LEC):  Plays Keene State in semis 2/25
8 Elms 16-6 18-7 (NECC):  Plays Southern Vermont in semis 2/25
9 Eastern Connecticut State 15-7 17-8 (LEC):  Plays Western Connecticut State in semis 2/25  
10 Brandeis 16-8 16-8 (UAA):  Plays at NYU 2/26
11 Roger Williams 17-8 17-8 (CCC):  LOST  to Endicott 71-68 in CCC quarterfinals


South Region
1 Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 22-3 (ODAC):   Plays Washington and Lee in quarterfinals 2/25
2 Randolph-Macon 20-4 21-4 (ODAC):  Plays Roanoke in quarterfinals 2/25
3 Texas-Dallas 19-4 20-5 (ASC):  Plays Concordia (Texas) in quarterfinals 2/25
4 Ferrum 18-4 21-4 (USAC):  Plays Christopher Newport 2/25
5 Eastern Mennonite 15-4 21-4 (ODAC):  Plays Hampden-Sydney in quarterfinals 2/25
6 North Carolina Wesleyan 14-4 19-6 (USAC):  Plays Greensboro in semis 2/25
7 Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-6 19-6 (ASC): Plays Texas-Tyler in quarterfinals 2/25  
8 Emory 18-5 19-5 (UAA):  Plays Rochester 2/25


West Region
1 Whitworth 24-1 24-1 (NWC):   Plays Pacific Lutheran in semis 2/24
2 St. Thomas 21-3 22-3 (MIAC):  Plays Hamline in semis 2/25
3 UW-Stevens Point 21-3 22-3 (WIAC):   Plays Superior in semis 2/24
4 Chapman 14-1 21-3 (IND):   BEAT La Sierra 61-56, plays Univ. of Dallas 2/25
5 Carleton 18-5 18-7 (MIAC):  Plays Gustavus Adolphus in semis 2/25
6 UW-River Falls 17-5 19-6 (WIAC):  Plays Platteville in semis 2/24
7 Whitman 13-5 18-7 (NWC):  Plays Lewis and Clark in semis 2/24
8 Lewis and Clark 12-5 18-7 (NWC):  Plays Whitman in semis 2/24
9 UW-Whitewater 16-8 17-8 (WIAC):  LOST to Superior 78-72 in quarterfinals
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 24, 2011, 02:29:56 AM
That's a lot of work Old School.  Good Job and plus k.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2011, 07:55:22 AM
Quote from: magicman on February 24, 2011, 02:29:56 AM
That's a lot of work Old School.  Good Job and plus k.
Ditto and thanks!

+1!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 24, 2011, 08:52:18 AM
Old School--

I just wanted to let you know that Rochester wrapped up the UAA automatic bid on Sunday, February 20, 2011-- Rochester got a 2 game lead over Emory with 1 game to play in the UAA when they won at Case on Sunday and 2nd place team Emory lost at Carnegie Mellon.   The UAA does not have a conference tournament, but concludes double round-robin play on Saturday, Feb. 26 when the respective travel partners play each other.  (Beginning this season, all of the UAA travel partners play each other on the first and last games of the UAA double round-robin.)

Emory and Brandeis should be marked in green to reflect this.

(Note: I believe that Brandeis is too far down in the regional rankings at this point to get a Pool C bid, and Emory may be too far down as well-- we will see.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2011, 09:09:17 AM
Thanks deiscanton.  I know they don't have a post season tourney, but I was in tourney mode and didn't even think about putting Brandeis and Emory in green.  I'll correct that.  Good catch!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 10:40:09 AM
Pretty quiet so far.

Ramapo is in, I think, and Kean and Keystone will be sitting on the bubble.

Brandeis, Roger Williams, Milwaukee Engineering, and UW-Whitewater are out.

**Edit** I think Emory is also out.

Did I miss any 'Pool C' ranked teams?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 24, 2011, 11:00:59 AM
I think Keystone is out, GMC and Cabrini are both in no matter who wins Friday.  Can't see the CSAC sending three teams but you never know.  I still think Kean will still end up making it along with Ramapo.  We'll find out Monday

Brandeis and RWU are too far down in the regional rankings to make it, and Eastern (#9 in the Northeast) needs to win the LEC to get in, imo.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2011, 11:33:46 AM
Not sure GMC or Cabrini stack-up against a lot of the stronger Pool C contenders say from the NESCAC, ODAC, and other conferences. There is no way the CSAC gets three bids... two might be pushing it, especially with upsets in conference action.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 24, 2011, 11:46:43 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2011, 11:33:46 AM
Not sure GMC or Cabrini stack-up against a lot of the stronger Pool C contenders say from the NESCAC, ODAC, and other conferences. There is no way the CSAC gets three bids... two might be pushing it, especially with upsets in conference action.

The NESCAC teams should be fine but Eastern Mennonite shouldn't feel comfortable about anything.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 11:57:10 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2011, 11:33:46 AM
Not sure GMC or Cabrini stack-up against a lot of the stronger Pool C contenders say from the NESCAC, ODAC, and other conferences. There is no way the CSAC gets three bids... two might be pushing it, especially with upsets in conference action.

The two odd-teams out from the NESCAC plus RMC and/or Virginia Wesleyan are a cut above everyone else in Pool C. These will be the top three or four Pool C selections.

After that, we get into River Falls territory. Maybe also the AMCC loser is in there. Probably also Ramapo. Possibly Carleton.

There's seven or eight bids gone, and now we're at the point where Cabrini or Gwynedd-Mercy could be discussed. There's not a whole lot of separation right now from these spots on, so they're not "in", but they stack up well with everyone minus the teams I mention above.

Of course, we'll have upsets to push these teams down and fill in the gaps.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 24, 2011, 11:59:26 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 10:40:09 AM
Pretty quiet so far.

Ramapo is in, I think, and Kean and Keystone will be sitting on the bubble.

Brandeis, Roger Williams, Milwaukee Engineering, and UW-Whitewater are out.

**Edit** I think Emory is also out.

Did I miss any 'Pool C' ranked teams?

No, I think that you are fine in that regard.   Brandeis should be one of the top 2 seeds in the ECAC New England Tournament next week.   Roger Williams's season is over-- the Hawks did not declare that they wanted to be considered for ECAC New England Tournament selection.   Elms will probably be the other one of the top 2 seeds in the ECAC New England Tournament as well if they don't make NCAA as the NECC AQ or as a Pool C selection-- the Blazers did declare that they wanted to be considered for the ECAC New England Tournament as well.

I think that Emory is probably out as well no matter what happens on Saturday, but I will probably watch that men's game between Rochester and Emory as part of the UAA coverage.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 12:07:49 PM
It's time for everyone's favorite game.

PICK THE RESUME!!!!!! (cue game show music)

TEAM A: WP 0.808, SOS 0.510, 4-0 vRRO
TEAM B: WP 0.789, SOS 0.489, 2-2 vRRO
TEAM C: WP 0.833, SOS 0.488, 2-3 vRRO

In which order would you select the following teams?

(all three teams would require a loss to gain a Pool C bid)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 24, 2011, 12:08:41 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 12:07:49 PM
It's time for everyone's favorite game.

PICK THE RESUME!!!!!! (cue game show music)

TEAM A: WP 0.808, SOS 0.510, 4-0 vRRO
TEAM B: WP 0.789, SOS 0.489, 2-2 vRRO
TEAM C: WP 0.833, SOS 0.488, 2-3 vRRO

In which order would you select the following teams?

I'll go A-C-B
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LustyLarryintheToilet on February 24, 2011, 12:09:36 PM
Honestly, if you were putting together a "tournament resume" i'd much rather have Kean's than Ramapo's.  Kean beat Alvernia, Desales and Ramapo, where Ramapo hasnt beaten anyone.  

I wont be surprised by anything out of the CSAC.  I think Cabrini is safe even with a loss.  They are 4-0 vs GMC/Keystone.  But GMC's only significant wins of season are over Keystone (winning the rubber match).  Keystone at least defeated Oswego, albeit early in season.  Part of me thinks, especially if upsets start happening all over the place, that GM is not safe w/o a Pool A qualification.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2011, 12:17:52 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 24, 2011, 12:08:41 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 12:07:49 PM
It's time for everyone's favorite game.

PICK THE RESUME!!!!!! (cue game show music)

TEAM A: WP 0.808, SOS 0.510, 4-0 vRRO
TEAM B: WP 0.789, SOS 0.489, 2-2 vRRO
TEAM C: WP 0.833, SOS 0.488, 2-3 vRRO

In which order would you select the following teams?

I'll go A-C-B
Same here, A-C-B.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 12:19:35 PM
Ralph and Ziggy both agree that they like Cabrini, then Gwynedd-Mercy, then Eastern Mennonite.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 24, 2011, 12:24:10 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 12:19:35 PM
Ralph and Ziggy both agree that they like Cabrini, then Gwynedd-Mercy, then Eastern Mennonite.

EMU needs a win over Randolph-Macon in the ODAC semi-final
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 12:24:20 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 12:07:49 PM
It's time for everyone's favorite game.

PICK THE RESUME!!!!!! (cue game show music)

TEAM A: WP 0.808, SOS 0.510, 4-0 vRRO
TEAM B: WP 0.789, SOS 0.489, 2-2 vRRO
TEAM C: WP 0.833, SOS 0.488, 2-3 vRRO

In which order would you select the following teams?

(all three teams would require a loss to gain a Pool C bid)

I should have also thrown in TEAM D: WP 0.778, SOS 0.498, 3-4 vRRO.

That's Keystone.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 12:26:10 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 24, 2011, 12:24:10 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 12:19:35 PM
Ralph and Ziggy both agree that they like Cabrini, then Gwynedd-Mercy, then Eastern Mennonite.

EMU needs a win over Randolph-Macon in the ODAC semi-final

That would probably allow them to leap-frog Gwynedd-Mercy, but not quite Cabrini.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2011, 12:34:44 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 12:19:35 PM
Ralph and Ziggy both agree that they like Cabrini, then Gwynedd-Mercy, then Eastern Mennonite.
The question reminded me of the old 1970's sexist joke about the millionaire who was looking for a wife, back before social media, Match.com and e-harmony.

The three candidates were:

1) Outstanding lawyer. She made partner by the time she was 29.  Handled the account of a $3B company and acquired accounts of companies worth another $2B in associated dealings.  Billings for the previous year were $10M. Hobbies: Skiing.

2) Up-and-comng business woman.  Just turned around her business unit from -14% two years earlier, to +1% last year and then +20% this year.  Streamlined several processes in her business unit that have been adopted company wide which have increased Earnings per Share by 18% alone.  Hobbies: French cooking.

3) New York Times best-selling authoress who had had 3 #1's in the last 2 years.  Engaging personality who is the hit of the New York society scene. Named the most eligible bachelorette by one periodical which follows the New York society scene.  Hobbies: Equestrian sports.

Which one did he pick?

The blonde with the big, er, smile.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 24, 2011, 03:11:01 PM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2011, 09:09:17 AM
Thanks deiscanton.  I know they don't have a post season tourney, but I was in tourney mode and didn't even think about putting Brandeis and Emory in green.  I'll correct that.  Good catch!

Thanks, Old School   +1 :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2011, 05:24:16 PM
Quote from: LustyLarryintheToilet on February 24, 2011, 12:09:36 PM
Honestly, if you were putting together a "tournament resume" i'd much rather have Kean's than Ramapo's.  Kean beat Alvernia, Desales and Ramapo, where Ramapo hasnt beaten anyone.  

I wont be surprised by anything out of the CSAC.  I think Cabrini is safe even with a loss.  They are 4-0 vs GMC/Keystone.  But GMC's only significant wins of season are over Keystone (winning the rubber match).  Keystone at least defeated Oswego, albeit early in season.  Part of me thinks, especially if upsets start happening all over the place, that GM is not safe w/o a Pool A qualification.

Yet Kean has a far worse in-region record than Ramapo and the Roadrunners have played UW-Stevens Point if it went to secondary criteria.

As for the CSAS, KnightSlappy alluded to it... if there are any upsets (i.e. EMU wins the ODAC, Augustana, Wooster, Whitworth, Owsego St., Becker, etc. lose) the CSAC will fall further and further down. That is why I think two teams is not a gauruntee at this point. Thus, ziggy, my point that some conferences like the NESCAC are going to take plenty of bids (i.e. 3 NESCAC, maybe 3 ODAC). It doesn't leave a lot of bids left.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LustyLarryintheToilet on February 24, 2011, 08:33:29 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2011, 05:24:16 PM
Quote from: LustyLarryintheToilet on February 24, 2011, 12:09:36 PM
Honestly, if you were putting together a "tournament resume" i'd much rather have Kean's than Ramapo's.  Kean beat Alvernia, Desales and Ramapo, where Ramapo hasnt beaten anyone.  

I wont be surprised by anything out of the CSAC.  I think Cabrini is safe even with a loss.  They are 4-0 vs GMC/Keystone.  But GMC's only significant wins of season are over Keystone (winning the rubber match).  Keystone at least defeated Oswego, albeit early in season.  Part of me thinks, especially if upsets start happening all over the place, that GM is not safe w/o a Pool A qualification.

Yet Kean has a far worse in-region record than Ramapo and the Roadrunners have played UW-Stevens Point if it went to secondary criteria.

As for the CSAS, KnightSlappy alluded to it... if there are any upsets (i.e. EMU wins the ODAC, Augustana, Wooster, Whitworth, Owsego St., Becker, etc. lose) the CSAC will fall further and further down. That is why I think two teams is not a gauruntee at this point. Thus, ziggy, my point that some conferences like the NESCAC are going to take plenty of bids (i.e. 3 NESCAC, maybe 3 ODAC). It doesn't leave a lot of bids left.

i wouldnt call a 2game diference far worse (17-6 vs 19-4).  give me qualty wins any day over an inflated record.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2011, 10:45:31 PM
Pac Lutheran is not making Pool C fans very happy right now. They lead Whitworth 32-28 at the half.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 24, 2011, 10:59:38 PM
I will let the pool C board know when Pirates take a decent lead. Sitting courtside so I will try and make it quick. Now tied 32-32.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 24, 2011, 11:33:11 PM
Pirates up 8, 2 minutes to go.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2011, 11:44:58 PM
Whitman holds seed, 79-76 over L&C in the NWC Semis.

Good news for all.  The West looks like it has gone accordingly and without surprises.

The top 7 are playing for 3 Pool A bids, 1 Pool B bid and 3 Pool C bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2011, 02:40:28 AM
Just bringing this forward.  Should be able to update after tonights games. 


BOLD is conference leader meaning they get a Pool A bid
GREEN is Pool C candidate meaning they cannot get a Pool A bid


Atlantic Region
1 Ramapo 19-3 20-5 (NJAC):  LOST to Montclair State 67-64 in semis  
2 SUNY-Purchase 21-4 21-4 (SKY):  BEAT Old Westbury 85-74 in semis; plays St. Joseph's (L.I.) in final 2/26
3 Kean 17-5 18-7 (NJAC):  LOST to NJCU 75-61 in semis
4 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 18-5 20-5 (SKY):  BEAT Mount Saint Vincent 68-60, BEAT Mount Saint Mary 78-75 OT in semis; plays SUNY-Purchase in final 2/26
5 Mount Saint Mary 18-7 18-7 (SKY):  LOST to St. Joseph's (L.I.) 78-75 OT in semis



East Region
1 Oswego State 22-3 22-3 (SUNYAC):   BEAT Potsdam State 64-50 in quarterfinals, plays Brockport State in semis 2/25  
2 Ithaca 19-5 20-5  (E8):  Plays St. John Fisher in semis 2/25
3 Rochester 19-3 20-4 (UAA):  Plays Emory 2/26
4 Stevens 19-6 19-6 (E8):  Plays Hartwick in semis 2/25
5 Hobart 19-5 19-6 (LL):  Plays Hamilton in semis 2/25
6 Buffalo State 15-6 18-6 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Cortland State 75-56 in quarterfinals, plays Plattsburgh State in semis 2/25

Great Lakes Region
1 Wooster 20-2 23-2 (NCAC):   BEAT Allegheny 62-57 in quarterfinals, plays Ohio Wesleyan in semis 2/25
2 Marietta 19-3 22-3 (OAC):  BEAT Wilmington 84-73 in quarterfinals, BEAT Heidelberg 70-55 in semis; plays John Carroll in final 2/26
3 Penn State-Behrend 22-2 22-3 (AMCC):  Plays Medaille in semis 2/25
4 Hope 15-2 19-6 (MIAA):  BEAT Alma 110-77 in quarterfinals, plays Adrian in semis 2/25
5 Thiel 15-3 18-6 (PrAC): BEAT Waynesburg 73-63 in quarterfinals, BEAT Thomas More 78-65 in semis; plays Bethany in final 2/26
6 Wabash 18-5 19-5 (NCAC):  BEAT Kenyon 72-61 in quarterfinals, plays Wittenberg in semis 2/25


Middle Atlantic Region
1 La Roche 22-2 23-2 (AMCC):  Plays Hilbert in semis 2/25
2 St. Mary's (Md.) 18-3 20-5 (CAC):   BEAT Mary Washington 79-57 in semis; plays Wesley in final 2/26
3 Cabrini 20-5 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Neumann 79-76 in semis, plays Gwynedd-Mercy in final 2/25
4 Gwynedd-Mercy 19-4 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Keystone 85-65 in semis, plays Cabrini in final 2/25
5 Keystone 21-5 21-5 (CSAC):  LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy 85-65 in semis
6 Lebanon Valley 17-6 19-6 (MACC):  BEAT Widener 58-56 in semis, plays Alvernia in final 2/26
7 Franklin and Marshall 18-5 20-5:  (CC):  Plays Haverford in semis 2/26
8 DeSales 16-7 18-7 (MACF): BEAT Misericordia 78-69 in semis, plays Delaware Valley in final 2/26
9 Wesley 15-5 16-9 (CAC):   BEAT Salisbury 75-74 in semis; plays St. Mary's (Md.) in final 2/26


Midwest Region
1 Concordia (Wis.) 20-2 22-3 (NATH):   Plays Edgewood in semis 2/25
2 Augustana 21-2 22-2 (CCIW):  Plays Wheaton in semis 2/25
3 Manchester 18-5 19-6 (HCAC):  Plays winner of Rose-Hulman/Transylvania in semis 2/26  
4 Hanover 18-6 18-6 (HCAC):  Plays winner of Anderson/Bluffton in semis 2/26
5 Anderson 15-7 17-8 (HCAC):  Plays Bluffton in quarterfinals 2/25
6 Milwaukee Engineering 18-6 19-6 (NATH):  LOST to Aurora 72-67 in quarterfinals
7 Benedictine 17-6 18-7 (NATH):  BEAT Rockford 91-76 in quarterfinals, plays Aurora in semis 2/25  
8 St. Norbert 18-5 18-5 (MWC):  Plays Ripon in semis 2/25


Northeast Region
1 Williams 21-1 23-1 (NESCAC):  Plays Trinity (Conn.) in semis 2/26
2 Middlebury 20-1 23-1 (NESCAC):  Plays Amherst in semis 2/26
3 WPI 21-3 21-4 (NEWMAC):  Plays Coast Guard in semis 2/26
4 Becker 22-3 22-3 (NECC):  Plays Newbury in semis 2/25  
5 Amherst 21-2 22-2 (NESCAC):  Plays Middlebury in semis 2/26
6 Western Connecticut State 20-4 21-4 (LEC):  Plays Eastern Connecticut State in semis 2/25
7 Rhode Island College 17-7 17-7 (LEC):  Plays Keene State in semis 2/25
8 Elms 16-6 18-7 (NECC):  Plays Southern Vermont in semis 2/25
9 Eastern Connecticut State 15-7 17-8 (LEC):  Plays Western Connecticut State in semis 2/25  
10 Brandeis 16-8 16-8 (UAA):  Plays at NYU 2/26
11 Roger Williams 17-8 17-8 (CCC):  LOST  to Endicott 71-68 in CCC quarterfinals


South Region
1 Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 22-3 (ODAC):   Plays Washington and Lee in quarterfinals 2/25
2 Randolph-Macon 20-4 21-4 (ODAC):  Plays Roanoke in quarterfinals 2/25
3 Texas-Dallas 19-4 20-5 (ASC):  Plays Concordia (Texas) in quarterfinals 2/25
4 Ferrum 18-4 21-4 (USAC):  Plays Christopher Newport 2/25
5 Eastern Mennonite 15-4 21-4 (ODAC):  Plays Hampden-Sydney in quarterfinals 2/25
6 North Carolina Wesleyan 14-4 19-6 (USAC):  Plays Greensboro in semis 2/25
7 Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-6 19-6 (ASC): Plays Texas-Tyler in quarterfinals 2/25  
8 Emory 18-5 19-5 (UAA):  Plays Rochester 2/25


West Region
1 Whitworth 24-1 24-1 (NWC):   BEAT Pacific Lutheran 74-63 in semis; plays Whitman in final 2/26
2 St. Thomas 21-3 22-3 (MIAC):  Plays Hamline in semis 2/25
3 UW-Stevens Point 21-3 22-3 (WIAC):   BEAT Superior 84-52 in semis; plays River Falls in final 2/26
4 Chapman 14-1 21-3 (IND):   BEAT La Sierra 61-56, plays Univ. of Dallas 2/25
5 Carleton 18-5 18-7 (MIAC):  Plays Gustavus Adolphus in semis 2/25
6 UW-River Falls 17-5 19-6 (WIAC):  BEAT Platteville 69-60 in semis; plays Stevens Point in final 2/26
7 Whitman 13-5 18-7 (NWC):  BEAT Lewis and Clark 79-76 in semis; plays Whitworth in final 2/26
8 Lewis and Clark 12-5 18-7 (NWC):  LOST to Whitman 79-76 in semis
9 UW-Whitewater 16-8 17-8 (WIAC):  LOST to Superior 78-72 in quarterfinal
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 25, 2011, 02:41:31 AM
Pool C hopefuls have to be happy with the way things have played out so far. Very few upsets to date. Of course that could all change after Friday night.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2011, 02:42:10 AM
Looks like only Lewis and Clark and Mount Saint Mary's fell into Pool C consideration with losses tonight.  There will be a lot more tomorrow.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 07:51:00 AM
I think that we had 6 upsets in conference play in last year's conference tournaments, so the 6 projected Pool C teams fell off the bubble.

I think that L&C and MtSt Mary's fell off the bubble, but of course, if you are more than 2-3 down the list from each region going into the tourney, as they were, then you must win the tourney!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 09:36:39 AM
The CSAC and NJAC punch tickets tonight.

In the CSAC, I think Cabrini has a really good Pool C shot if they lose. Gwynedd-Mercy would be on the bubble, but I think they can get in too.

The NJAC teams don't have great Pool C resumes. Neither Montclair State nor New Jersey City would gain Pool C consideration if they lost.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 09:54:34 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 09:36:39 AM
The CSAC and NJAC punch tickets tonight.

In the CSAC, I think Cabrini has a really good Pool C shot if they lose. Gwynedd-Mercy would be on the bubble, but I think they can get in too.

The NJAC teams don't have great Pool C resumes. Neither Montclair State nor New Jersey City would gain Pool C consideration if they lost.
So, do you think that the Mid-Atlantic gets one Pool C bid of the 18 available?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 10:01:32 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 09:54:34 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 09:36:39 AM
The CSAC and NJAC punch tickets tonight.

In the CSAC, I think Cabrini has a really good Pool C shot if they lose. Gwynedd-Mercy would be on the bubble, but I think they can get in too.

The NJAC teams don't have great Pool C resumes. Neither Montclair State nor New Jersey City would gain Pool C consideration if they lost.
So, do you think that the Mid-Atlantic gets one Pool C bid of the 18 available?

Depends on what happens with La Roche and St. Mary's (Md.) in their tournaments. Both would be in with a Pool C I suppose.

And I'm still not willing to say that Keystone is out yet either.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 10:40:34 AM
Kinghtslappy, does your blog run the teams by decreasing "power index" so we can get an idea of where these teams are on the final list, and where the final loss will drop them?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 10:46:25 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 10:40:34 AM
Kinghtslappy, does your blog run the teams by decreasing "power index" so we can get an idea of where these teams are on the final list, and where the final loss will drop them?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

I can go into my spreasheet and plug in individual losses at this point, but I can't really do everyone's losses all at once.

Right now on my spreadsheet, teams that have lost (Ramapo, Kean, Keystone, etc.) are mixed in with teams that haven't lost yet (Wabash, Eastern Mennonite, etc.).

I can post the 'Pool C' list as of now, but we'll have to take into account that some teams have yet to lose. Is that what you're looking for?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 11:04:25 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 10:46:25 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 10:40:34 AM
Kinghtslappy, does your blog run the teams by decreasing "power index" so we can get an idea of where these teams are on the final list, and where the final loss will drop them?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

I can go into my spreasheet and plug in individual losses at this point, but I can't really do everyone's losses all at once.

Right now on my spreadsheet, teams that have lost (Ramapo, Kean, Keystone, etc.) are mixed in with teams that haven't lost yet (Wabash, Eastern Mennonite, etc.).

I can post the 'Pool C' list as of now, but we'll have to take into account that some teams have yet to lose. Is that what you're looking for?
Yes.

When we had the old SOS system before OWP/OOWP, I knew a loss was worth about 6 places on the index.

And when pabegg (RIP) ran his numbers back in 2009 for the last time, we could get an idea of how much a loss might drop a team.

Thanks.  (Please take us thru the Top 100.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 11:39:45 AM
Top 100 teams (with estimated Pool) by my "best fit" rating formula:

001   --   A   --   0.822   Williams
002   --   A   --   0.780   Whitworth
003   --   C   --   0.778   Middlebury
004   --   A   --   0.769   St. Thomas
005   --   B   --   0.767   Chapman
006   --   A   --   0.767   UW-Stevens Point
007   --   A   --   0.758   Concordia (Wis.)
008   --   A   --   0.758   WPI
009   --   A   --   0.751   Wooster
010   --   A   --   0.748   Becker
011   --   A   --   0.747   Augustana
012   --   A   --   0.742   La Roche
013   --   A   --   0.740   Virginia Wesleyan
014   --   A   --   0.740   Oswego State
015   --   C   --   0.739   Randolph-Macon
016   --   C   --   0.735   Amherst
017   --   A   --   0.732   Western Connecticut
018   --   C   --   0.727   Penn State-Behrend
019   --   A   --   0.725   Ithaca
020   --   A   --   0.724   Hope
021   --   A   --   0.722   Rochester
022   --   C   --   0.722   UW-River Falls
023   --   C   --   0.716   Carleton
024   --   A   --   0.714   St. Marys (Md.)
025   --   C   --   0.713   Ramapo
026   --   A   --   0.710   SUNY-Purchase
027   --   A   --   0.707   Thiel
028   --   C   --   0.707   Gwynedd-Mercy
029   --   A   --   0.705   Cabrini
030   --   C   --   0.704   Texas-Dallas
031   --   C   --   0.703   Rhode Island College
032   --   C   --   0.697   Hobart
033   --   A   --   0.695   Marietta
034   --   C   --   0.692   Wabash
035   --   C   --   0.690   Keystone
036   --   A   --   0.685   North Carolina Wesleyan
037   --   A   --   0.685   Manchester
038   --   C   --   0.684   Hanover
039   --   C   --   0.683   Ferrum
040   --   C   --   0.683   St. Josephs (L.I.)
041   --   C   --   0.683   Eastern Mennonite
042   --   C   --   0.682   Stevens
043   --   C   --   0.679   Whitman
044   --   C   --   0.677   Wittenberg
045   --   C   --   0.676   Kean
046   --   C   --   0.676   Wesley
047   --   A   --   0.667   Montclair State
048   --   C   --   0.666   Medaille
049   --   C   --   0.665   Elms
050   --   C   --   0.664   Emory
051   --   A   --   0.664   McMurry
052   --   A   --   0.663   Franklin and Marshall
053   --   A   --   0.662   Scranton
054   --   C   --   0.661   Hamline
055   --   C   --   0.661   Mary Hardin-Baylor
056   --   C   --   0.659   Illinois Wesleyan
057   --   C   --   0.658   Lebanon Valley
058   --   A   --   0.658   St. Norbert
059   --   C   --   0.657   Benedictine
060   --   C   --   0.657   Bethany
061   --   A   --   0.657   Alvernia
062   --   C   --   0.657   Buffalo State
063   --   C   --   0.656   Anderson
064   --   A   --   0.656   Centre
065   --   C   --   0.655   Lewis and Clark
066   --   A   --   0.653   RPI
067   --   C   --   0.653   Plattsburgh State
068   --   C   --   0.652   North Central (Ill.)
069   --   C   --   0.650   New Jersey City
070   --   C   --   0.649   Edgewood
071   --   C   --   0.649   Rutgers-Newark
072   --   A   --   0.645   DeSales
073   --   A   --   0.645   Salem State
074   --   C   --   0.644   Wheaton (Ill.)
075   --   A   --   0.642   St. Josephs (Maine)
076   --   C   --   0.642   Eastern Connecticut
077   --   C   --   0.641   John Carroll
078   --   C   --   0.640   Calvin
079   --   C   --   0.640   UW-Platteville
080   --   C   --   0.639   Milwaukee Engineering
081   --   C   --   0.638   Washington U.
082   --   A   --   0.637   Webster
083   --   A   --   0.636   Husson
084   --   C   --   0.635   Christopher Newport
085   --   C   --   0.635   Bridgewater State
086   --   C   --   0.634   Guilford
087   --   C   --   0.633   Pacific Lutheran
088   --   C   --   0.633   UW-Whitewater
089   --   C   --   0.632   Skidmore
090   --   C   --   0.631   Grinnell
091   --   A   --   0.631   Northwestern (Minn.)
092   --   C   --   0.630   Mount St. Mary
093   --   C   --   0.630   Bowdoin
094   --   C   --   0.630   Brandeis
095   --   C   --   0.630   Trinity (Conn.)
096   --   C   --   0.629   St. Olaf
097   --   A   --   0.629   Luther
098   --   C   --   0.629   UW-Superior
099   --   C   --   0.628   Richard Stockton
100   --   C   --   0.627   UW-La Crosse


By in-region RPI:

001   --   A   --   0.671   --   Williams
002   --   B   --   0.640   --   Chapman
003   --   A   --   0.630   --   UW-Stevens Point
004   --   C   --   0.624   --   Middlebury
005   --   A   --   0.622   --   WPI
006   --   C   --   0.621   --   Rhode Island College
007   --   C   --   0.620   --   UW-River Falls
008   --   C   --   0.620   --   Randolph-Macon
009   --   A   --   0.618   --   Whitworth
010   --   A   --   0.618   --   St. Thomas
011   --   A   --   0.614   --   Ithaca
012   --   A   --   0.609   --   Augustana
013   --   A   --   0.608   --   Becker
014   --   A   --   0.606   --   Concordia (Wis.)
015   --   A   --   0.606   --   Western Connecticut
016   --   A   --   0.601   --   Virginia Wesleyan
017   --   A   --   0.600   --   Montclair State
018   --   A   --   0.598   --   Hope
019   --   C   --   0.597   --   Carleton
020   --   A   --   0.597   --   Wooster
021   --   C   --   0.591   --   Hobart
022   --   C   --   0.590   --   Trinity (Conn.)
023   --   A   --   0.590   --   Oswego State
024   --   C   --   0.589   --   Ramapo
025   --   C   --   0.588   --   Bowdoin
026   --   C   --   0.588   --   Washington U.
027   --   C   --   0.585   --   Hamline
028   --   A   --   0.585   --   La Roche
029   --   A   --   0.584   --   Cabrini
030   --   C   --   0.583   --   Lewis and Clark
031   --   C   --   0.583   --   North Central (Ill.)
032   --   C   --   0.582   --   UW-Platteville
033   --   C   --   0.582   --   Hanover
034   --   C   --   0.582   --   Texas-Dallas
035   --   A   --   0.581   --   Thiel
036   --   A   --   0.579   --   North Carolina Wesleyan
037   --   C   --   0.579   --   Whitman
038   --   C   --   0.578   --   Stevens
039   --   A   --   0.577   --   Rochester
040   --   A   --   0.575   --   St. Marys (Md.)
041   --   C   --   0.575   --   Wittenberg
042   --   C   --   0.575   --   Gwynedd-Mercy
043   --   C   --   0.572   --   Kean
044   --   C   --   0.572   --   Illinois Wesleyan
045   --   A   --   0.572   --   SUNY-Purchase
046   --   A   --   0.571   --   RPI
047   --   A   --   0.570   --   Manchester
048   --   C   --   0.570   --   Anderson
049   --   C   --   0.569   --   New Jersey City
050   --   C   --   0.568   --   Wesley
051   --   C   --   0.568   --   Elms
052   --   C   --   0.568   --   Keystone
053   --   C   --   0.567   --   Wabash
054   --   C   --   0.566   --   Amherst
055   --   A   --   0.566   --   DeSales
056   --   C   --   0.566   --   UW-Superior
057   --   C   --   0.565   --   Richard Stockton
058   --   C   --   0.564   --   Eastern Mennonite
059   --   C   --   0.564   --   Wheaton (Ill.)
060   --   C   --   0.563   --   Penn State-Behrend
061   --   C   --   0.563   --   Maryville (Tenn.)
062   --   C   --   0.563   --   UW-Whitewater
063   --   C   --   0.563   --   Gustavus Adolphus
064   --   A   --   0.562   --   McMurry
065   --   C   --   0.562   --   Pacific Lutheran
066   --   C   --   0.562   --   St. Johns
067   --   C   --   0.561   --   Bethany
068   --   C   --   0.561   --   Ohio Wesleyan
069   --   A   --   0.560   --   Marietta
070   --   C   --   0.560   --   Buffalo State
071   --   C   --   0.559   --   Messiah
072   --   C   --   0.558   --   John Carroll
073   --   C   --   0.558   --   UW-La Crosse
074   --   C   --   0.556   --   Nazareth
075   --   C   --   0.556   --   Guilford
076   --   C   --   0.555   --   Lebanon Valley
077   --   A   --   0.555   --   Centre
078   --   C   --   0.555   --   Ferrum
079   --   C   --   0.554   --   Plattsburgh State
080   --   C   --   0.554   --   Augsburg
081   --   C   --   0.554   --   Skidmore
082   --   C   --   0.553   --   Carthage
083   --   C   --   0.553   --   St. Josephs (L.I.)
084   --   C   --   0.553   --   Calvin
085   --   A   --   0.553   --   Franklin and Marshall
086   --   C   --   0.552   --   Salisbury
087   --   C   --   0.552   --   Rutgers-Newark
088   --   C   --   0.551   --   Mary Hardin-Baylor
089   --   C   --   0.551   --   Misericordia
090   --   C   --   0.551   --   Edgewood
091   --   C   --   0.551   --   Hamilton
092   --   C   --   0.550   --   Randolph
093   --   C   --   0.550   --   Olivet
094   --   C   --   0.550   --   Eastern Connecticut
095   --   A   --   0.549   --   St. Norbert
096   --   A   --   0.548   --   Luther
097   --   C   --   0.547   --   Bridgewater State
098   --   A   --   0.547   --   Alvernia
099   --   C   --   0.547   --   Elizabethtown
100   --   C   --   0.547   --   Emory


By Winning Percentage:

001   --   A   --   0.962   --   Whitworth
002   --   A   --   0.957   --   Williams
003   --   C   --   0.952   --   Middlebury
004   --   B   --   0.933   --   Chapman
005   --   A   --   0.917   --   La Roche
006   --   C   --   0.917   --   Penn State-Behrend
007   --   A   --   0.913   --   Concordia (Wis.)
008   --   A   --   0.913   --   Wooster
009   --   C   --   0.913   --   Amherst
010   --   A   --   0.889   --   Hope
011   --   A   --   0.885   --   Oswego State
012   --   A   --   0.880   --   UW-Stevens Point
013   --   A   --   0.880   --   Becker
014   --   A   --   0.875   --   WPI
015   --   A   --   0.875   --   St. Thomas
016   --   A   --   0.875   --   Augustana
017   --   A   --   0.875   --   Marietta
018   --   A   --   0.870   --   Virginia Wesleyan
019   --   A   --   0.864   --   Rochester
020   --   A   --   0.864   --   St. Marys (Md.)
021   --   A   --   0.850   --   Thiel
022   --   A   --   0.846   --   SUNY-Purchase
023   --   C   --   0.833   --   Randolph-Macon
024   --   A   --   0.833   --   Western Connecticut
025   --   C   --   0.833   --   Gwynedd-Mercy
026   --   C   --   0.826   --   Ramapo
027   --   C   --   0.826   --   Texas-Dallas
028   --   C   --   0.826   --   Ferrum
029   --   A   --   0.808   --   Cabrini
030   --   C   --   0.800   --   St. Josephs (L.I.)
031   --   C   --   0.800   --   Medaille
032   --   A   --   0.792   --   Ithaca
033   --   C   --   0.792   --   Hobart
034   --   C   --   0.792   --   Wabash
035   --   C   --   0.789   --   Eastern Mennonite
036   --   C   --   0.783   --   UW-River Falls
037   --   C   --   0.783   --   Carleton
038   --   A   --   0.783   --   Manchester
039   --   A   --   0.783   --   Franklin and Marshall
040   --   A   --   0.783   --   St. Norbert
041   --   C   --   0.783   --   Emory
042   --   A   --   0.783   --   Scranton
043   --   A   --   0.783   --   Husson
044   --   A   --   0.778   --   North Carolina Wesleyan
045   --   C   --   0.778   --   Keystone
046   --   C   --   0.773   --   Wesley
047   --   A   --   0.769   --   St. Josephs (Maine)
048   --   A   --   0.769   --   Salem State
049   --   A   --   0.769   --   Northwestern (Minn.)
050   --   A   --   0.762   --   Centre
051   --   C   --   0.760   --   Stevens
052   --   C   --   0.760   --   Mary Hardin-Baylor
053   --   C   --   0.750   --   Wittenberg
054   --   C   --   0.750   --   Lebanon Valley
055   --   C   --   0.750   --   Benedictine
056   --   A   --   0.750   --   Webster
057   --   C   --   0.741   --   Bethany
058   --   C   --   0.739   --   Hanover
059   --   C   --   0.739   --   Kean
060   --   A   --   0.739   --   McMurry
061   --   C   --   0.737   --   Whitman
062   --   C   --   0.727   --   Elms
063   --   C   --   0.727   --   Buffalo State
064   --   C   --   0.727   --   Plattsburgh State
065   --   A   --   0.727   --   Alvernia
066   --   C   --   0.722   --   Minnesota-Morris
067   --   C   --   0.720   --   Milwaukee Engineering
068   --   C   --   0.720   --   Johnson and Wales
069   --   C   --   0.714   --   Grinnell
070   --   C   --   0.714   --   Westminster (Mo.)
071   --   C   --   0.714   --   Rust
072   --   C   --   0.708   --   Rhode Island College
073   --   C   --   0.708   --   Illinois Wesleyan
074   --   A   --   0.708   --   DeSales
075   --   C   --   0.708   --   Rutgers-Newark
076   --   C   --   0.708   --   Edgewood
077   --   C   --   0.708   --   MIT
078   --   C   --   0.708   --   Wentworth
079   --   C   --   0.706   --   Calvin
080   --   C   --   0.696   --   Eastern Connecticut
081   --   A   --   0.682   --   RPI
082   --   C   --   0.682   --   Anderson
083   --   C   --   0.682   --   Catholic
084   --   C   --   0.682   --   Coe
085   --   C   --   0.680   --   John Carroll
086   --   A   --   0.680   --   Luther
087   --   C   --   0.680   --   Bridgewater State
088   --   C   --   0.680   --   Mount St. Mary
089   --   A   --   0.667   --   Montclair State
090   --   C   --   0.667   --   Lewis and Clark
091   --   C   --   0.667   --   New Jersey City
092   --   C   --   0.667   --   Skidmore
093   --   C   --   0.667   --   Brandeis
094   --   C   --   0.667   --   Christopher Newport
095   --   C   --   0.667   --   East Texas Baptist
096   --   C   --   0.667   --   Illinois College
097   --   C   --   0.667   --   DePauw
098   --   A   --   0.667   --   Staten Island
099   --   C   --   0.667   --   St. Vincent
100   --   C   --   0.667   --   Baruch


Let me know if you want different info or for this to be presented differently.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 11:56:46 AM
I think that the Top 100 "Best Fit" gives us the range of teams who are on the bubble, and where the bubble is on that list.  We can look at C1 thru C18 and then go from there.  And your list does not have the impact of the "final loss".

"C18" is roughly about #42 Stevens, so any Pool C beyond #55 or #60 is out of luck.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 12:00:24 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 11:56:46 AM
I think that the Top 100 "Best Fit" gives us the range of teams who are on the bubble, and where the bubble is on that list.  We can look at C1 thru C18 and then go from there.  And your list does not have the impact of the "final loss".

"C18" is roughly about #42 Stevens, so any Pool C beyond #55 or #60 is out of luck.

Thanks.

These numbers are through last night, so some teams do have the final loss built in.

But, yes,  most of the bubble teams still need to lose.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 25, 2011, 12:22:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 10:46:25 AM
Right now on my spreadsheet, teams that have lost (Ramapo, Kean, Keystone, etc.) are mixed in with teams that haven't lost yet (Wabash, Eastern Mennonite, etc.).

Excellent use of the word "yet."  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 12:34:25 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 25, 2011, 12:22:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 10:46:25 AM
Right now on my spreadsheet, teams that have lost (Ramapo, Kean, Keystone, etc.) are mixed in with teams that haven't lost yet (Wabash, Eastern Mennonite, etc.).

Excellent use of the word "yet."  :)

Not to slight EMU or Wabash fans :-[
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Will2Win on February 25, 2011, 12:49:23 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 12:34:25 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 25, 2011, 12:22:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 10:46:25 AM
Right now on my spreadsheet, teams that have lost (Ramapo, Kean, Keystone, etc.) are mixed in with teams that haven't lost yet (Wabash, Eastern Mennonite, etc.).

Excellent use of the word "yet."  :)

Not to slight EMU or Wabash fans :-[

No prob KnightSlappy!! 8-)
Good Work btw. Would give ya +K if I could haha
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 06:15:40 PM
IMHO, I think that you need to read Knightslappy's Top 100 Best Fit by looking for teams in your region and where they stand relative to yours.

8 teams are brought to the table at a time and the best one is selected from those 8.  The next best team from the region of the team selected moves up to the table.

I think that C1 thru C10 are locks. I think that they are gone by the first 13-14 rounds.  After C10, then I think that things start to get scary.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2011, 07:32:17 PM
Witt nips Wabash, (65-63?).  What would be the current view of each of them as Pool C candidates?

My take would be that 'bash is now in severe danger, while Witt is in good shape unless there's a whole rash of presumed AQ upsets.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 08:04:02 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2011, 07:32:17 PM
Witt nips Wabash, (65-63?).  What would be the current view of each of them as Pool C candidates?

My take would be that 'bash is now in severe danger, while Witt is in good shape unless there's a whole rash of presumed AQ upsets.
I think that you are right.  Witt would have the head-to-head (2 games to one).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on February 25, 2011, 09:11:44 PM
Another Pool C spot in trouble, St. Thomas trails by 17 late in the first half.

http://cdn1.ustream.tv/swf/4/viewer.322.swf?&cid=17604/base&vrsl=c.4.543&cgw=8657/origo-hun;5502132;6034348;6034389;6073485;6073496;6296462;6542609;6808566;6944778;6944781;6959723;7004774 (http://cdn1.ustream.tv/swf/4/viewer.322.swf?&cid=17604/base&vrsl=c.4.543&cgw=8657/origo-hun;5502132;6034348;6034389;6073485;6073496;6296462;6542609;6808566;6944778;6944781;6959723;7004774)

Hamline 45-35 at the half.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 25, 2011, 09:42:22 PM
#2 Whitworth and Whitman both win Thursday night.  This sets up a third game with the only team Whitworth lost to this season.  Game at 7pm Saturday at Whitworth.  Winner gets the Pool A, loser gets thrown in Pool C pool.

Shame Whitman lost last Friday at Pacific.  I think without that loss they could have been a serious contender for Pool C even if they lose Sat.  Whitworth is a lock for tournament, but a loss Saturday would be a major blow and would probably force yet another Whitman game in round 1.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 25, 2011, 09:45:46 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 25, 2011, 09:11:44 PM
Another Pool C spot in trouble, St. Thomas trails by 17 late in the first half.

http://cdn1.ustream.tv/swf/4/viewer.322.swf?&cid=17604/base&vrsl=c.4.543&cgw=8657/origo-hun;5502132;6034348;6034389;6073485;6073496;6296462;6542609;6808566;6944778;6944781;6959723;7004774 (http://cdn1.ustream.tv/swf/4/viewer.322.swf?&cid=17604/base&vrsl=c.4.543&cgw=8657/origo-hun;5502132;6034348;6034389;6073485;6073496;6296462;6542609;6808566;6944778;6944781;6959723;7004774)

Hamline 45-35 at the half.
Looks like a 1 point lead for Hamline now.  Thanks for posting the link.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 25, 2011, 09:47:34 PM
Wooster defeats Ohio Wesleyan 70-62, setting up Wooster vs. Wittenberg tomorrow night at 7 for the NCAC automatic bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 10:01:49 PM
I have tried to line the conferences by regions in columns.

NE  EAST    ATL    MIDATL     SOUTH     GL     MW    W

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 11:39:45 AM
Top 100 teams (with estimated Pool) by my "best fit" rating formula:

001   --   A   --   0.822   Williams       NESCAC
002   --   A   --   0.780   Whitworth                                                                                   NWC
003   --   C1   --   0.778   Middlebury           NESCAC
004   --   A   --   0.769   St. Thomas                                                                                 MIAC
005   --   B   --   0.767   Chapman                                                                                      IND
006   --   A   --   0.767   UW-Stevens Point                                                                            WIAC
007   --   A   --   0.758   Concordia (Wis.)                                                                 NATHC
008   --   A   --   0.758   WPI                   NEWMAC
009   --   A   --   0.751   Wooster                                                                    NCAC
010   --   A   --   0.748   Becker               NECC
011   --   A   --   0.747   Augustana                                                                          CCIW
012   --   A   --   0.742   La Roche                                                                   AMCC
013   --   A   --   0.740   Virginia Wesleyan                                              ODAC
014   --   A   --   0.740   Oswego State                  SUNYAC                          
015   --   C2   --   0.739   Randolph-Macon                                                ODAC
016   --   C3   --   0.735   Amherst              NESCAC
017   --   A   --   0.732   Western Connecticut   LEC
018   --   C4   --   0.727   Penn State-Behrend                             AMCC                        
019   --   A   --   0.725   Ithaca                               E8
020   --   A   --   0.724   Hope                                                                         MIAA
021   --   A   --   0.722   Rochester                         UAA
022   --   C5   --   0.722   UW-River Falls                                                                             WIAC  
023   --   C6   --   0.716   Carleton                                                                                     MIAC
024   --   A   --   0.714   St. Marys (Md.)                                    CAC
025   --   C7   --   0.713   Ramapo                                   NJAC
026   --   A   --   0.710   SUNY-Purchase                         SKY
027   --   A   --   0.707   Thiel                                                              PresAC                          
028   --   C8   --   0.707   Gwynedd-Mercy                                  CSAC
029   --   A   --   0.705   Cabrini                                              CSAC
030   --   C9   --   0.704   Texas-Dallas                                              ASC
031   --   C10   --   0.703   Rhode Island College    LEC
032   --   C11   --   0.697   Hobart                            LL
033   --   A   --   0.695   Marietta                                                                OAC
034   --   C12   --   0.692   Wabash                                                               NCAC
035   --   C13   --   0.690   Keystone                                            CSAC
036   --   A   --   0.685   North Carolina Wesleyan                                      USAS
037   --   A   --   0.685   Manchester                                                                        HCAC
038   --   C14   --   0.684   Hanover                                                                           HCAC
039   --   C15   --   0.683   Ferrum                                                        USAS
040   --   C16   --   0.683   St. Josephs (L.I.)                    SKY                
041   --   C17   --   0.683   Eastern Mennonite                                            ODAC
042   --   C18   --   0.682   Stevens                          E8
043   --   C19   --   0.679   Whitman                                                                                      NWC
044   --   C20   --   0.677   Wittenberg                                                         NCAC
045   --   C21   --   0.676   Kean                                   NJAC
046   --   C22   --   0.676   Wesley                                          CAC
047   --   A C   --   0.667   Montclair State                     NJAC
048   --   C23   --   0.666   Medaille                       AMCC                                  
049   --   C24   --   0.665   Elms                    NECC
050   --   C25   --   0.664   Emory                                                        UAA
051   --   A   --   0.664   McMurry
052   --   A   --   0.663   Franklin and Marshall
053   --   A   --   0.662   Scranton
054   --   C   --   0.661   Hamline
055   --   C   --   0.661   Mary Hardin-Baylor
056   --   C   --   0.659   Illinois Wesleyan
057   --   C   --   0.658   Lebanon Valley
058   --   A   --   0.658   St. Norbert
059   --   C   --   0.657   Benedictine
060   --   C   --   0.657   Bethany
061   --   A   --   0.657   Alvernia
062   --   C   --   0.657   Buffalo State
063   --   C   --   0.656   Anderson
064   --   A   --   0.656   Centre
065   --   C   --   0.655   Lewis and Clark
066   --   A   --   0.653   RPI
067   --   C   --   0.653   Plattsburgh State
068   --   C   --   0.652   North Central (Ill.)
069   --   C   --   0.650   New Jersey City                          NJAC
070   --   C   --   0.649   Edgewood
071   --   C   --   0.649   Rutgers-Newark
072   --   A   --   0.645   DeSales
073   --   A   --   0.645   Salem State
074   --   C   --   0.644   Wheaton (Ill.)
075   --   A   --   0.642   St. Josephs (Maine)
076   --   C   --   0.642   Eastern Connecticut
077   --   C   --   0.641   John Carroll
078   --   C   --   0.640   Calvin
079   --   C   --   0.640   UW-Platteville
080   --   C   --   0.639   Milwaukee Engineering
081   --   C   --   0.638   Washington U.
082   --   A   --   0.637   Webster
083   --   A   --   0.636   Husson
084   --   C   --   0.635   Christopher Newport
085   --   C   --   0.635   Bridgewater State
086   --   C   --   0.634   Guilford
087   --   C   --   0.633   Pacific Lutheran
088   --   C   --   0.633   UW-Whitewater
089   --   C   --   0.632   Skidmore
090   --   C   --   0.631   Grinnell
091   --   A   --   0.631   Northwestern (Minn.)
092   --   C   --   0.630   Mount St. Mary
093   --   C   --   0.630   Bowdoin
094   --   C   --   0.630   Brandeis
095   --   C   --   0.630   Trinity (Conn.)
096   --   C   --   0.629   St. Olaf
097   --   A   --   0.629   Luther
098   --   C   --   0.629   UW-Superior
099   --   C   --   0.628   Richard Stockton
100   --   C   --   0.627   UW-La Crosse


By in-region RPI:

001   --   A   --   0.671   --   Williams
002   --   B   --   0.640   --   Chapman
003   --   A   --   0.630   --   UW-Stevens Point
004   --   C   --   0.624   --   Middlebury
005   --   A   --   0.622   --   WPI
006   --   C   --   0.621   --   Rhode Island College
007   --   C   --   0.620   --   UW-River Falls
008   --   C   --   0.620   --   Randolph-Macon
009   --   A   --   0.618   --   Whitworth
010   --   A   --   0.618   --   St. Thomas
011   --   A   --   0.614   --   Ithaca
012   --   A   --   0.609   --   Augustana
013   --   A   --   0.608   --   Becker
014   --   A   --   0.606   --   Concordia (Wis.)
015   --   A   --   0.606   --   Western Connecticut
016   --   A   --   0.601   --   Virginia Wesleyan
017   --   A   --   0.600   --   Montclair State
018   --   A   --   0.598   --   Hope
019   --   C   --   0.597   --   Carleton
020   --   A   --   0.597   --   Wooster
021   --   C   --   0.591   --   Hobart
022   --   C   --   0.590   --   Trinity (Conn.)
023   --   A   --   0.590   --   Oswego State
024   --   C   --   0.589   --   Ramapo
025   --   C   --   0.588   --   Bowdoin
026   --   C   --   0.588   --   Washington U.
027   --   C   --   0.585   --   Hamline
028   --   A   --   0.585   --   La Roche
029   --   A   --   0.584   --   Cabrini
030   --   C   --   0.583   --   Lewis and Clark
031   --   C   --   0.583   --   North Central (Ill.)
032   --   C   --   0.582   --   UW-Platteville
033   --   C   --   0.582   --   Hanover
034   --   C   --   0.582   --   Texas-Dallas
035   --   A   --   0.581   --   Thiel
036   --   A   --   0.579   --   North Carolina Wesleyan
037   --   C   --   0.579   --   Whitman
038   --   C   --   0.578   --   Stevens
039   --   A   --   0.577   --   Rochester
040   --   A   --   0.575   --   St. Marys (Md.)
041   --   C   --   0.575   --   Wittenberg
042   --   C   --   0.575   --   Gwynedd-Mercy
043   --   C   --   0.572   --   Kean
044   --   C   --   0.572   --   Illinois Wesleyan
045   --   A   --   0.572   --   SUNY-Purchase
046   --   A   --   0.571   --   RPI
047   --   A   --   0.570   --   Manchester
048   --   C   --   0.570   --   Anderson
049   --   C   --   0.569   --   New Jersey City
050   --   C   --   0.568   --   Wesley
051   --   C   --   0.568   --   Elms
052   --   C   --   0.568   --   Keystone
053   --   C   --   0.567   --   Wabash
054   --   C   --   0.566   --   Amherst
055   --   A   --   0.566   --   DeSales
056   --   C   --   0.566   --   UW-Superior
057   --   C   --   0.565   --   Richard Stockton
058   --   C   --   0.564   --   Eastern Mennonite
059   --   C   --   0.564   --   Wheaton (Ill.)
060   --   C   --   0.563   --   Penn State-Behrend
061   --   C   --   0.563   --   Maryville (Tenn.)
062   --   C   --   0.563   --   UW-Whitewater
063   --   C   --   0.563   --   Gustavus Adolphus
064   --   A   --   0.562   --   McMurry
065   --   C   --   0.562   --   Pacific Lutheran
066   --   C   --   0.562   --   St. Johns
067   --   C   --   0.561   --   Bethany
068   --   C   --   0.561   --   Ohio Wesleyan
069   --   A   --   0.560   --   Marietta
070   --   C   --   0.560   --   Buffalo State
071   --   C   --   0.559   --   Messiah
072   --   C   --   0.558   --   John Carroll
073   --   C   --   0.558   --   UW-La Crosse
074   --   C   --   0.556   --   Nazareth
075   --   C   --   0.556   --   Guilford
076   --   C   --   0.555   --   Lebanon Valley
077   --   A   --   0.555   --   Centre
078   --   C   --   0.555   --   Ferrum
079   --   C   --   0.554   --   Plattsburgh State
080   --   C   --   0.554   --   Augsburg
081   --   C   --   0.554   --   Skidmore
082   --   C   --   0.553   --   Carthage
083   --   C   --   0.553   --   St. Josephs (L.I.)
084   --   C   --   0.553   --   Calvin
085   --   A   --   0.553   --   Franklin and Marshall
086   --   C   --   0.552   --   Salisbury
087   --   C   --   0.552   --   Rutgers-Newark
088   --   C   --   0.551   --   Mary Hardin-Baylor
089   --   C   --   0.551   --   Misericordia
090   --   C   --   0.551   --   Edgewood
091   --   C   --   0.551   --   Hamilton
092   --   C   --   0.550   --   Randolph
093   --   C   --   0.550   --   Olivet
094   --   C   --   0.550   --   Eastern Connecticut
095   --   A   --   0.549   --   St. Norbert
096   --   A   --   0.548   --   Luther
097   --   C   --   0.547   --   Bridgewater State
098   --   A   --   0.547   --   Alvernia
099   --   C   --   0.547   --   Elizabethtown
100   --   C   --   0.547   --   Emory


By Winning Percentage:

001   --   A   --   0.962   --   Whitworth
002   --   A   --   0.957   --   Williams
003   --   C   --   0.952   --   Middlebury
004   --   B   --   0.933   --   Chapman
005   --   A   --   0.917   --   La Roche
006   --   C   --   0.917   --   Penn State-Behrend
007   --   A   --   0.913   --   Concordia (Wis.)
008   --   A   --   0.913   --   Wooster
009   --   C   --   0.913   --   Amherst
010   --   A   --   0.889   --   Hope
011   --   A   --   0.885   --   Oswego State
012   --   A   --   0.880   --   UW-Stevens Point
013   --   A   --   0.880   --   Becker
014   --   A   --   0.875   --   WPI
015   --   A   --   0.875   --   St. Thomas
016   --   A   --   0.875   --   Augustana
017   --   A   --   0.875   --   Marietta
018   --   A   --   0.870   --   Virginia Wesleyan
019   --   A   --   0.864   --   Rochester
020   --   A   --   0.864   --   St. Marys (Md.)
021   --   A   --   0.850   --   Thiel
022   --   A   --   0.846   --   SUNY-Purchase
023   --   C   --   0.833   --   Randolph-Macon
024   --   A   --   0.833   --   Western Connecticut
025   --   C   --   0.833   --   Gwynedd-Mercy
026   --   C   --   0.826   --   Ramapo
027   --   C   --   0.826   --   Texas-Dallas
028   --   C   --   0.826   --   Ferrum
029   --   A   --   0.808   --   Cabrini
030   --   C   --   0.800   --   St. Josephs (L.I.)
031   --   C   --   0.800   --   Medaille
032   --   A   --   0.792   --   Ithaca
033   --   C   --   0.792   --   Hobart
034   --   C   --   0.792   --   Wabash
035   --   C   --   0.789   --   Eastern Mennonite
036   --   C   --   0.783   --   UW-River Falls
037   --   C   --   0.783   --   Carleton
038   --   A   --   0.783   --   Manchester
039   --   A   --   0.783   --   Franklin and Marshall
040   --   A   --   0.783   --   St. Norbert
041   --   C   --   0.783   --   Emory
042   --   A   --   0.783   --   Scranton
043   --   A   --   0.783   --   Husson
044   --   A   --   0.778   --   North Carolina Wesleyan
045   --   C   --   0.778   --   Keystone
046   --   C   --   0.773   --   Wesley
047   --   A   --   0.769   --   St. Josephs (Maine)
048   --   A   --   0.769   --   Salem State
049   --   A   --   0.769   --   Northwestern (Minn.)
050   --   A   --   0.762   --   Centre
051   --   C   --   0.760   --   Stevens
052   --   C   --   0.760   --   Mary Hardin-Baylor
053   --   C   --   0.750   --   Wittenberg
054   --   C   --   0.750   --   Lebanon Valley
055   --   C   --   0.750   --   Benedictine
056   --   A   --   0.750   --   Webster
057   --   C   --   0.741   --   Bethany
058   --   C   --   0.739   --   Hanover
059   --   C   --   0.739   --   Kean
060   --   A   --   0.739   --   McMurry
061   --   C   --   0.737   --   Whitman
062   --   C   --   0.727   --   Elms
063   --   C   --   0.727   --   Buffalo State
064   --   C   --   0.727   --   Plattsburgh State
065   --   A   --   0.727   --   Alvernia
066   --   C   --   0.722   --   Minnesota-Morris
067   --   C   --   0.720   --   Milwaukee Engineering
068   --   C   --   0.720   --   Johnson and Wales
069   --   C   --   0.714   --   Grinnell
070   --   C   --   0.714   --   Westminster (Mo.)
071   --   C   --   0.714   --   Rust
072   --   C   --   0.708   --   Rhode Island College
073   --   C   --   0.708   --   Illinois Wesleyan
074   --   A   --   0.708   --   DeSales
075   --   C   --   0.708   --   Rutgers-Newark
076   --   C   --   0.708   --   Edgewood
077   --   C   --   0.708   --   MIT
078   --   C   --   0.708   --   Wentworth
079   --   C   --   0.706   --   Calvin
080   --   C   --   0.696   --   Eastern Connecticut
081   --   A   --   0.682   --   RPI
082   --   C   --   0.682   --   Anderson
083   --   C   --   0.682   --   Catholic
084   --   C   --   0.682   --   Coe
085   --   C   --   0.680   --   John Carroll
086   --   A   --   0.680   --   Luther
087   --   C   --   0.680   --   Bridgewater State
088   --   C   --   0.680   --   Mount St. Mary
089   --   A   --   0.667   --   Montclair State
090   --   C   --   0.667   --   Lewis and Clark
091   --   C   --   0.667   --   New Jersey City
092   --   C   --   0.667   --   Skidmore
093   --   C   --   0.667   --   Brandeis
094   --   C   --   0.667   --   Christopher Newport
095   --   C   --   0.667   --   East Texas Baptist
096   --   C   --   0.667   --   Illinois College
097   --   C   --   0.667   --   DePauw
098   --   A   --   0.667   --   Staten Island
099   --   C   --   0.667   --   St. Vincent
100   --   C   --   0.667   --   Baruch


Let me know if you want different info or for this to be presented differently.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 25, 2011, 10:28:32 PM
Five games in the East Region with Pool C ramifications.

1. The top rated team in the East region, Oswego State, got upset by Brockport State 74-70 in a game that just finished. Oswego will take a Pool C bid from some hopeful team as they were projected to get a Pool A.

2. The 2nd ranked team in the East region, Ithaca, was upset by St. John Fisher. If the East region gets 2 Pool C bids they will get the 2nd one. All others need not apply because there will not be a 3rd at large bid coming out of the East. There may not even be a 2nd.

3. The #1 seed in the Liberty League Hobart ( 5th ranked team in the East Region) was upset by the #4 seed Hamilton.

4. The #2 seed in the Empire 8 Stevens Tech (4th ranked team in the East region) was beaten by the #3 Seed
Hartwick 76-73

5. The co-champs of the Liberty League RPI was beaten by the 3 seed Skidmore 76-69.

Buffalo State will face Brockport State for the Pool A bid in the SUNYAC

St John Fisher will face Hartwick for the PoolA bid in the Empire 8

Skidmore will face Hamilton for the Pool A bid in the Liberty vLeague    

 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 10:37:44 PM
Knightslappy had Hobart at a Pool C.

I am not sure who was the "A" from the LL.

IMHO,

Hobart is toast!

Rochester just earned a hosting bid.

Oswego State and SJF probably fall to mid-range for C bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LustyLarryintheToilet on February 25, 2011, 10:42:40 PM
Wow, these upsets are disastrous news for fringe bubble teams.  GMC is in trouble, as well as my team (F&M) if they dont win the CC. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 10:46:31 PM
In Knightslappy's projections, the Top 50 is 24 Pool A's, 1 Pool B and 25 Pool C's, before Montclair State, Oswego State and SJF.


To Kinghtslappy's table, I have added Cabrini as the CSAC Pool A and New Jersey City U as the NJAC Pool A.

I also move Montclair State from "A" to "C".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 25, 2011, 11:00:30 PM
WOW LL, and E-8 got obliterated tonight.  I saw the Stevens loss to Hartwick comming, but definatly didn't see Ithaca losing to SJF comming.  SJF (#4) at Hartwick (#3) for the E-8's auto bid, and in the LL #3 (Skidmore) is hosting #4 (Hamilton) for the LL's auto bid.  Oswego state should still be good for a Pool C, Hobart, and Stevens are done, same with RPI but they didn't have much of a shot anyways.  Ithaca fans will be nervous on Monday, they could go either way.  LEC looks like a 1 bid league now if West Conn wins it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 26, 2011, 12:02:54 AM
94-70 Eastern over Western??  Why didn't they just stay at school and watch the women play??  Pool C contenders can breathe easy, this team shouldn't be playing in the NCAA's.  3 losses in 5 games and could really be 5 losses in 5 games (Eastern blew an 8 point lead with 8 minutes to play 10 days ago, and struggled mightily against 8-15 UMass-Boston last Saturday)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2011, 12:40:00 AM
GREEN is Pool C candidate (Lost in conf. tourney-UAA does not have a conf. tourney)
BLUE secured a Pool A bid (Automatic qualifier)
CROSSED OUT is the conference leader (reg. season)

Atlantic Region
1 Ramapo 19-3 20-5 (NJAC):  LOST to Montclair State 67-64 in semis  
2 SUNY-Purchase 21-4 21-4 (SKY):  BEAT Old Westbury 85-74 in semis; plays St. Joseph's (L.I.) in final 2/26
3 Kean 17-5 18-7 (NJAC):  LOST to NJCU 75-61 in semis
4 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 18-5 20-5 (SKY):  BEAT Mount Saint Vincent 68-60, BEAT Mount Saint Mary 78-75 OT in semis; plays SUNY-Purchase in final 2/26
5 Mount Saint Mary 18-7 18-7 (SKY):  LOST to St. Joseph's (L.I.) 78-75 OT in semis


East Region
1 Oswego State 22-3 22-3 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Potsdam State 64-50 in quarterfinals, LOST Brockport State 74-70 in semis  
2 Ithaca 19-5 20-5  (E8):  LOST to St. John Fisher 88-75 in semis
3 Rochester 19-3 20-4 (UAA):  Plays Emory 2/26
4 Stevens 19-6 19-6 (E8):  LOST to Hartwick 76-73 in semis
5 Hobart 19-5 19-6 (LL):  LOST to Hamilton 62-60 in semis
6 Buffalo State 15-6 18-6 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Cortland State 75-56 in quarterfinals, BEAT Plattsburgh State 87-79 in semis; plays Brockport State in final 2/26


Great Lakes Region
1 Wooster 20-2 23-2 (NCAC):  BEAT Allegheny 62-57 in quarterfinals, BEAT Ohio Wesleyan 70-62 in semis; plays Wittenberg in final 2/26
2 Marietta 19-3 22-3 (OAC):  BEAT Wilmington 84-73 in quarterfinals, BEAT Heidelberg 70-55 in semis; plays John Carroll in final 2/26
3 Penn State-Behrend 22-2 22-3 (AMCC):  BEAT Medaille 58-51 in semis; plays La Roche in final 2/26
4 Hope 15-2 19-6 (MIAA):  BEAT Alma 110-77 in quarterfinals, BEAT Adrian 63-45 in semis; plays Calvin in final 2/26
5 Thiel 15-3 18-6 (PrAC):  BEAT Waynesburg 73-63 in quarterfinals, BEAT Thomas More 78-65 in semis; plays Bethany in final 2/26
6 Wabash 18-5 19-5 (NCAC):  BEAT Kenyon 72-61 in quarterfinals, LOST to Wittenberg 65-63 in semis


Middle Atlantic Region  Updated thru 2/26
1 La Roche 22-2 23-2 (AMCC):  BEAT Hilbert 86-69 in semis; beat Penn State-Behrend in final 2/26
2 St. Mary's (Md.) 18-3 20-5 (CAC):  BEAT Mary Washington 79-57 in semis; plays Wesley in final 2/26
3 Cabrini 20-5 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Neumann 79-76 in semis, BEAT Gwynedd-Mercy 92-70 in final
4 Gwynedd-Mercy 19-4 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Keystone 85-65 in semis, LOST to Cabrini 92-70 in final
5 Keystone 21-5 21-5 (CSAC):  LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy 85-65 in semis
6 Lebanon Valley 17-6 19-6 (MACC):  BEAT Widener 58-56 in semis, lost to Alvernia in final 2/26
7 Franklin and Marshall 18-5 20-5 (CC): Beat Haverford in semis 2/26, plays Dickinson on 2/27
8 DeSales 16-7 18-7 (MACF): BEAT Misericordia 78-69 in semis, lost to Delaware Valley in final 2/26
9 Wesley 15-5 16-9 (CAC):  BEAT Salisbury 75-74 in semis; lost to St. Mary's (Md.) in final 2/26


Midwest Region
1 Concordia (Wis.) 20-2 22-3 (NATH):   LOST to Edgewood 95-89 in semis
2 Augustana 21-2 22-2 (CCIW):  BEAT Wheaton 73-58 in semis; plays Illinois Wesleyan in final 2/26
3 Manchester 18-5 19-6 (HCAC):  Plays Transylvania in semis 2/26  
4 Hanover 18-6 18-6 (HCAC):  Plays Anderson in semis 2/26
5 Anderson 15-7 17-8 (HCAC):  BEAT Bluffton 75-60 in quarterfinals; plays Hanover in semis 2/26
6 Milwaukee Engineering 18-6 19-6 (NATH):  LOST to Aurora 72-67 in quarterfinals
7 Benedictine 17-6 18-7 (NATH):  BEAT Rockford 91-76 in quarterfinals, BEAT Aurora 71-60 in semis; plays Edgewood in final 2/26  
8 St. Norbert 18-5 18-5 (MWC):  BEAT Ripon 75-52 in semis; plays Grinnell in final 2/26


Northeast Region
1 Williams 21-1 23-1 (NESCAC): Plays Trinity (Conn.) in semis 2/26
2 Middlebury 20-1 23-1 (NESCAC):  Plays Amherst in semis 2/26
3 WPI 21-3 21-4 (NEWMAC):  Plays Coast Guard in semis 2/26
4 Becker 22-3 22-3 (NECC):  BEAT Newbury 84-75 in semis; plays Elms in final 2/26  
5 Amherst 21-2 22-2 (NESCAC):  Plays Middlebury in semis 2/26
6 Western Connecticut State 20-4 21-4 (LEC):  LOST Eastern Connecticut State 94-70 in semis
7 Rhode Island College 17-7 17-7 (LEC):  BEAT Keene State 102-92 2OT in semis; plays Eastern Connecticut Sate in final 2/26
8 Elms 16-6 18-7 (NECC):  BEAT Southern Vermont 88-73 in semis; plays Becker in final 2/26
9 Eastern Connecticut State 15-7 17-8 (LEC):  BEAT Western Connecticut State 94-70 in semis; plays Rhode Island College in final 2/26  
10 Brandeis 16-8 16-8 (UAA):  Plays at NYU 2/26
11 Roger Williams 17-8 17-8 (CCC):  LOST to Endicott 71-68 in CCC quarterfinals


South Region
1 Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 22-3 (ODAC):  BEAT Washington and Lee 98-78  in quarterfinals; plays Randolph in semis 2/26
2 Randolph-Macon 20-4 21-4 (ODAC):  BEAT Roanoke 63-56 in quarterfinals; plays Eastern Mennonite in semis 2/26
3 Texas-Dallas 19-4 20-5 (ASC):  BEAT Concordia (Texas) 85-70 in quarterfinals; plays Mary Hardin-Baylor in semis 2/26
4 Ferrum 18-4 21-4 (USAC):  BEAT Christopher Newport 87-81 in semis; plays North Carolina Wesleyan in final 2/27
5 Eastern Mennonite 15-4 21-4 (ODAC):  BEAT Hampden-Sydney 76-75 in quarterfinals; plays in Randolph-Macon in semis 2/26
6 North Carolina Wesleyan 14-4 19-6 (USAC): BEAT Greensboro 86-69 in semis; plays Ferrum in finals 2/27
7 Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-6 19-6 (ASC): BEAT Texas-Tyler 73-68 in quarterfinals; plays Texas-Dallas in semis 2/26  
8 Emory 18-5 19-5 (UAA):  Plays Rochester 2/26


West Region
1 Whitworth 24-1 24-1 (NWC):  BEAT Pacific Lutheran 74-63 in semis; plays Whitman in final 2/26
2 St. Thomas 21-3 22-3 (MIAC): BEAT Hamline 78-70in semis; plays Gustavus Adolphus in final 2/26
3 UW-Stevens Point 21-3 22-3 (WIAC): BEAT Superior 84-52 in semis; plays River Falls in final 2/26
4 Chapman 14-1 21-3 (IND):  BEAT La Sierra 61-56, plays Univ. of Dallas 2/25
5 Carleton 18-5 18-7 (MIAC):  LOST to Gustavus Adolphus 70-64 in semis
6 UW-River Falls 17-5 19-6 (WIAC):  BEAT Platteville 69-60 in semis; plays Stevens Point in final 2/26
7 Whitman 13-5 18-7 (NWC):  BEAT Lewis and Clark 79-76 in semis; plays Whitworth in final 2/26
8 Lewis and Clark 12-5 18-7 (NWC):  LOST to Whitman 79-76 in semis
9 UW-Whitewater 16-8 17-8 (WIAC):  LOST to Superior 78-72 in quarterfinals
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2011, 12:41:06 AM
Teams that have lost that look to be in decent Pool C range:

Concordia (Wis.)
Western Connecticut
Oswego State
Ramapo
Ithaca
Gwynedd-Mercy
Carleton

Teams that have lost that are on the Pool C bubble:

Keystone
Wabash
Hobart
Kean

Teams that have not lost that look to be in decent Pool C range:

Middlebury
Randolph-Macon
Penn State-Behrend
Amherst
UW-River Falls

Teams that have not lost that look to be on the Pool C bubble:

Eastern Mennonite
Wittenberg
Ferrum
St. Josephs (L.I.)
Hanover
Whitman

'Projected A's'
AMCC   La Roche
ASC   Texas-Dallas
CAC   St. Marys (Md.)
CC   Franklin and Marshall
CCC   Wentworth
CCIW   Augustana
CSAC   Cabrini
CUNYAC   Staten Island
E8   St. John Fisher
GNAC   St. Josephs (Maine)
HCAC   Manchester
IIAC   Luther
LAND   Scranton
LEC   Rhode Island College
LL   Skidmore
MACC   Alvernia
MACF   DeSales
MASCAC   Salem State
MIAA   Hope
MIAC   St. Thomas
MWC   St. Norbert
NAC   Husson
NATHC   Benedictine
NCAC   Wooster
NEAC   Penn State-Harrisburg
NECC   Becker
NESCAC   Williams
NEWMAC   WPI
NJAC   New Jersey City
NWC   Whitworth
OAC   Marietta
ODAC   Virginia Wesleyan
PrAC   Thiel
SCAC   Centre
SCIAC   Redlands
SKY   SUNY-Purchase
SLIAC   Webster
SUNYAC   Buffalo State
UAA   Rochester
UMAC   Northwestern (Minn.)
USAC   North Carolina Wesleyan
WIAC   UW-Stevens Point
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2011, 02:03:23 AM
Regionally ranked games remaining

Atlantic Region
#2 SUNY-Purchase vs. #4 St. Joseph's (L.I.) in SKY final 2/26

East Region
#3 Rochester vs. #8 South Region Emory 2/26
#6 Buffalo State vs. unranked Brockport State in SUNYAC final 2/26

Great Lakes Region
#1 Wooster vs. unranked Wittenberg in NCAC final 2/26
#2 Marietta vs. unranked John Carroll in OAC final 2/26
#3 Penn State-Behrend vs. #1 Middle Atlantic Region La Roche in AMCC final 2/26
#4 Hope vs. unranked Calvin in MIAA final 2/26
#5 Thiel vs. unranked Bethany in PrAC final 2/26

Middle Atlantic Region
#1 La Roche vs. #3 Great Lakes Region Penn State-Behrend in AMCC final 2/26
#2 St. Mary's (Md.) vs. #9 Wesley in CAC final 2/26
#3 Cabrini clinched CSAC AQ bid
#6 Lebanon Valley vs. unranked Alvernia in MACC final 2/26
#7 Franklin and Marshall vs. unranked Haverford in CC semis 2/26
#8 DeSales plays unranked Delaware Valley in MACF final 2/26

Midwest Region
#2 Augustana vs. unranked Illinois Wesleyan in CCIW final 2/26
#3 Manchester vs. unranked Transylvania in HCAC semis 2/26
#4 Hanover vs. #5 Anderson in HCAC semis 2/26
#7 Benedictine vs. unranked Edgewood in NATHCON final 2/26
#8 St. Norbert vs. unranked Grinnell in MWC final 2/26

Northeast Region
#1 Williams vs. unranked Trinity (Conn.) in NESCAC semis 2/26
#2 Middlebury vs. #5 Amherst in NESCAC semis 2/26
#3 WPI vs. unranked Coast Guard in NEWMAC semis 2/26
#4 Becker vs. #8 Elms in NECC final 2/26
#7 Rhodes Island College vs. #9 Eastern Connecticut State in LEC final 2/26
#10 Brandeis vs. unranked NYU 2/26

South Region
#1 Virginia Wesleyan vs. unranked Randolph in ODAC semis 2/26
#2 Randolph-Macon vs. #5 Eastern Mennonite in ODAC semis 2/26
#3 Texas-Dallas vs. #7 Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC semis 2/26
#4 Ferrum vs. #6 North Carolina Wesleyan in USAC final 2/27
#8 Emory vs. #3 East Region Rochester 2/26

West Region
#1 Whitworth vs. #7 Whitman in NWC Final 2/26
#2 St. Thomas vs. unranked Gustavus Adolphus in MIAC Final 2/26
#3 Stevens Point vs. #6 River Falls in WIAC Final 2/26
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2011, 10:23:35 AM
Thanks Old School.  You are off-line as I post this, so I could not PM you in a timely fashion.  May I suggest another item to add to this list?

I have inserted the Pool A winners in their respective regions. I will designate the teams that did not appear in the regional rankings as NR, and those that did with the PR and the highest ranking (PR6) in a previous appearance.  Thanking you, in advance.

Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2011, 12:40:00 AM
GREEN is Pool C candidate (Lost in conf. tourney-UAA does not have a conf. tourney)
BLUE secured a Pool A bid (Automatic qualifier)
CROSSED OUT is the conference leader (reg. season)

Atlantic Region
1 Ramapo 19-3 20-5 (NJAC):  LOST to Montclair State 67-64 in semis 
2 SUNY-Purchase 21-4 21-4 (SKY):  BEAT Old Westbury 85-74 in semis; plays St. Joseph's (L.I.) in final 2/26
3 Kean 17-5 18-7 (NJAC):  LOST to NJCU 75-61 in semis
4 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 18-5 20-5 (SKY):  BEAT Mount Saint Vincent 68-60, BEAT Mount Saint Mary 78-75 OT in semis; plays SUNY-Purchase in final 2/26
5 Mount Saint Mary 18-7 18-7 (SKY):  LOST to St. Joseph's (L.I.) 78-75 OT in semis

NR New Jersey City  (NJAC)


East Region
1 Oswego State 22-3 22-3 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Potsdam State 64-50 in quarterfinals, LOST Brockport State 74-70 in semis 
2 Ithaca 19-5 20-5  (E8):  LOST to St. John Fisher 88-75 in semis
3 Rochester 19-3 20-4 (UAA):  Plays Emory 2/26
4 Stevens 19-6 19-6 (E8):  LOST to Hartwick 76-73 in semis
5 Hobart 19-5 19-6 (LL):  LOST to Hamilton 62-60 in semis
6 Buffalo State 15-6 18-6 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Cortland State 75-56 in quarterfinals, BEAT Plattsburgh State 87-79 in semis; plays Brockport State in final 2/26


Great Lakes Region
1 Wooster 20-2 23-2 (NCAC):  BEAT Allegheny 62-57 in quarterfinals, BEAT Ohio Wesleyan 70-62 in semis; plays Wittenberg in final 2/26
2 Marietta 19-3 22-3 (OAC):  BEAT Wilmington 84-73 in quarterfinals, BEAT Heidelberg 70-55 in semis; plays John Carroll in final 2/26
3 Penn State-Behrend 22-2 22-3 (AMCC):  BEAT Medaille 58-51 in semis; plays La Roche in final 2/26
4 Hope 15-2 19-6 (MIAA):  BEAT Alma 110-77 in quarterfinals, BEAT Adrian 63-45 in semis; plays Calvin in final 2/26
5 Thiel 15-3 18-6 (PrAC):  BEAT Waynesburg 73-63 in quarterfinals, BEAT Thomas More 78-65 in semis; plays Bethany in final 2/26
6 Wabash 18-5 19-5 (NCAC):  BEAT Kenyon 72-61 in quarterfinals, LOST to Wittenberg 65-63 in semis


Middle Atlantic Region
1 La Roche 22-2 23-2 (AMCC):  BEAT Hilbert 86-69 in semis; plays Penn State-Behrend in final 2/26
2 St. Mary's (Md.) 18-3 20-5 (CAC):  BEAT Mary Washington 79-57 in semis; plays Wesley in final 2/26
3 Cabrini 20-5 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Neumann 79-76 in semis, BEAT Gwynedd-Mercy 92-70 in final
4 Gwynedd-Mercy 19-4 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Keystone 85-65 in semis, LOST to Cabrini 92-70 in final
5 Keystone 21-5 21-5 (CSAC):  LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy 85-65 in semis
6 Lebanon Valley 17-6 19-6 (MACC):  BEAT Widener 58-56 in semis, plays Alvernia in final 2/26
7 Franklin and Marshall 18-5 20-5 (CC):  Plays Haverford in semis 2/26
8 DeSales 16-7 18-7 (MACF): BEAT Misericordia 78-69 in semis, plays Delaware Valley in final 2/26
9 Wesley 15-5 16-9 (CAC):  BEAT Salisbury 75-74 in semis; plays St. Mary's (Md.) in final 2/26


Midwest Region
1 Concordia (Wis.) 20-2 22-3 (NATH):  LOST to Edgewood 95-89 in semis
2 Augustana 21-2 22-2 (CCIW):  BEAT Wheaton 73-58 in semis; plays Illinois Wesleyan in final 2/26
3 Manchester 18-5 19-6 (HCAC):  Plays Transylvania in semis 2/26 
4 Hanover 18-6 18-6 (HCAC):  Plays Anderson in semis 2/26
5 Anderson 15-7 17-8 (HCAC):  BEAT Bluffton 75-60 in quarterfinals; plays Hanover in semis 2/26
6 Milwaukee Engineering 18-6 19-6 (NATH):  LOST to Aurora 72-67 in quarterfinals
7 Benedictine 17-6 18-7 (NATH):  BEAT Rockford 91-76 in quarterfinals, BEAT Aurora 71-60 in semis; plays Edgewood in final 2/26 
8 St. Norbert 18-5 18-5 (MWC):  BEAT Ripon 75-52 in semis; plays Grinnell in final 2/26


Northeast Region
1 Williams 21-1 23-1 (NESCAC): Plays Trinity (Conn.) in semis 2/26
2 Middlebury 20-1 23-1 (NESCAC):  Plays Amherst in semis 2/26
3 WPI 21-3 21-4 (NEWMAC):  Plays Coast Guard in semis 2/26
4 Becker 22-3 22-3 (NECC):  BEAT Newbury 84-75 in semis; plays Elms in final 2/26 
5 Amherst 21-2 22-2 (NESCAC):  Plays Middlebury in semis 2/26
6 Western Connecticut State 20-4 21-4 (LEC):  LOST Eastern Connecticut State 94-70 in semis
7 Rhode Island College 17-7 17-7 (LEC):  BEAT Keene State 102-92 2OT in semis; plays Eastern Connecticut Sate in final 2/26
8 Elms 16-6 18-7 (NECC):  BEAT Southern Vermont 88-73 in semis; plays Becker in final 2/26
9 Eastern Connecticut State 15-7 17-8 (LEC):  BEAT Western Connecticut State 94-70 in semis; plays Rhode Island College in final 2/26 
10 Brandeis 16-8 16-8 (UAA):  Plays at NYU 2/26
11 Roger Williams 17-8 17-8 (CCC):  LOST to Endicott 71-68 in CCC quarterfinals


South Region
1 Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 22-3 (ODAC):  BEAT Washington and Lee 98-78  in quarterfinals; plays Randolph in semis 2/26
2 Randolph-Macon 20-4 21-4 (ODAC):  BEAT Roanoke 63-56 in quarterfinals; plays Eastern Mennonite in semis 2/26
3 Texas-Dallas 19-4 20-5 (ASC):  BEAT Concordia (Texas) 85-70 in quarterfinals; plays Mary Hardin-Baylor in semis 2/26
4 Ferrum 18-4 21-4 (USAC):  BEAT Christopher Newport 87-81 in semis; plays North Carolina Wesleyan in final 2/27
5 Eastern Mennonite 15-4 21-4 (ODAC):  BEAT Hampden-Sydney 76-75 in quarterfinals; plays in Randolph-Macon in semis 2/26
6 North Carolina Wesleyan 14-4 19-6 (USAC): BEAT Greensboro 86-69 in semis; plays Ferrum in finals 2/27
7 Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-6 19-6 (ASC): BEAT Texas-Tyler 73-68 in quarterfinals; plays Texas-Dallas in semis 2/26 
8 Emory 18-5 19-5 (UAA):  Plays Rochester 2/26


West Region
1 Whitworth 24-1 24-1 (NWC):  BEAT Pacific Lutheran 74-63 in semis; plays Whitman in final 2/26
2 St. Thomas 21-3 22-3 (MIAC): BEAT Hamline 78-70in semis; plays Gustavus Adolphus in final 2/26
3 UW-Stevens Point 21-3 22-3 (WIAC): BEAT Superior 84-52 in semis; plays River Falls in final 2/26
4 Chapman 14-1 21-3 (IND):  BEAT La Sierra 61-56, plays Univ. of Dallas 2/25
5 Carleton 18-5 18-7 (MIAC):  LOST to Gustavus Adolphus 70-64 in semis
6 UW-River Falls 17-5 19-6 (WIAC):  BEAT Platteville 69-60 in semis; plays Stevens Point in final 2/26
7 Whitman 13-5 18-7 (NWC):  BEAT Lewis and Clark 79-76 in semis; plays Whitworth in final 2/26
8 Lewis and Clark 12-5 18-7 (NWC):  LOST to Whitman 79-76 in semis
9 UW-Whitewater 16-8 17-8 (WIAC):  LOST to Superior 78-72 in quarterfinals

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2011, 10:40:31 AM
You can add those!  I think I was on for about 2 1/2 hours this morning and The Wife didn't like that too much.  I'm on enough...plus, tonight's a huge night of updating.  I can hear the wrath already.  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: mailsy on February 26, 2011, 11:20:49 AM
Thanks Old School and KnightSlappy for providing this information.  It is great to keep updated without looking all over D3 for it.  Again, thanks for your time and effort. 

ps.  Good luck tonight.   It's never good to get any "wrath"  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 26, 2011, 12:17:49 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 10:37:44 PM
Knightslappy had Hobart at a Pool C.

I am not sure who was the "A" from the LL.

IMHO,

Hobart is toast!

Rochester just earned a hosting bid.

Oswego State and SJF probably fall to mid-range for C bids.

If the UofR women are also ranked #1 in the East, will they get to host before the men?  Or do they both host?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2011, 12:19:09 PM
Women have priority the first weekend, men the second in 2011 (and other odd-numbered years).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2011, 03:25:21 PM

Becker is losing their championship game by 10 with five to play.  They've been down the whole game.  They're not nearly good enough to be a playoff team, but this loss would still give them a chance at a C.  Hopefully they'll lose and drop down far enough to be out of consideration.

This is exactly the case I've been talking about for a while now.  A decent team racking up gaudy numbers against other weak opponents with good records inflated by the number of teams in the NE region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on February 26, 2011, 04:28:20 PM
Becker does lose to Elms and could take a C spot....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 26, 2011, 05:46:05 PM
Buffalo State claims the SUNYAC Championship as they defeat Brockport State 67-50.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 26, 2011, 05:47:06 PM
Stevens Point wins the WIAC conference tournament championship 79-56
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2011, 07:48:23 PM
Possible bubble-trouble: VWC falls by four to Randolph in the semis.  Bubble teams certainly hoped for a VWC/RMC final (EMU might make it anyway, but no way Randolph would have).

Does this lift Randolph to bubble territory, or are they too far down?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 26, 2011, 07:52:51 PM
VW and RM I think are safe Pool C teams. EMU has to win IMO to get in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 26, 2011, 08:07:28 PM
Halftime in the OAC Championship and John Carroll leads Marietta 49-28.

That's bad news for Pool C bubble teams unless Marietta can pull off the second-half comeback.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 26, 2011, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 26, 2011, 07:52:51 PM
VW and RM I think are safe Pool C teams. EMU has to win IMO to get in.

I think Randy-Macon, Virginia Wesleyan and Eastern Mennonite are all in unless Randolph wins the Championship. And even then they might get 4 teams in. It's happened before that a league got 4 bids.

Mr. Y, Randolph is too far down. They are not even regionally ranked. They would have to win it to get in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 26, 2011, 08:20:28 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 26, 2011, 08:07:28 PM
Halftime in the OAC Championship and John Carroll leads Marietta 49-28.

That's bad news for Pool C bubble teams unless Marietta can pull off the second-half comeback.

I think this kills Wabash and may make Wittenberg teeter as well. Elms' win did no favors to anyone but them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 26, 2011, 08:33:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 26, 2011, 08:20:28 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 26, 2011, 08:07:28 PM
Halftime in the OAC Championship and John Carroll leads Marietta 49-28.

That's bad news for Pool C bubble teams unless Marietta can pull off the second-half comeback.

I think this kills Wabash and may make Wittenberg teeter as well. Elms' win did no favors to anyone but them.

Don't count Marietta out yet.  Lead cut to 6 at 53-59 JCU, still 15 minutes left.  Great first five minutes for the Pioneers.

25 points for Marietta in the first 6 minutes of the second half after only scoring 28 in the entire first half...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: DeWayneCarter on February 26, 2011, 08:37:23 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 26, 2011, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 26, 2011, 07:52:51 PM
VW and RM I think are safe Pool C teams. EMU has to win IMO to get in.

I think Randy-Macon, Virginia Wesleyan and Eastern Mennonite are all in unless Randolph wins the Championship. And even then they might get 4 teams in. It's happened before that a league got 4 bids.

Mr. Y, Randolph is too far down. They are not even regionally ranked. They would have to win it to get in.

If Randolph wins the ODAC, especially if they win it over RMC instead of EMU, I think only 3 teams will get in... VWC, Randolph and RMC. Yeah 4 teams made it out of the ODAC last year, but the 4 teams that made it were all ranked 1-4 in the conference, all made it to the conference semi-finals, and were all ranked in the top 10 or top 15 at the time the selections were made. I think EMU at LEAST has to make it to the championship game of the ODAC if Randolph ends up winning the whole thing.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 26, 2011, 08:39:52 PM
Quote from: DeWayneCarter on February 26, 2011, 08:37:23 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 26, 2011, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 26, 2011, 07:52:51 PM
VW and RM I think are safe Pool C teams. EMU has to win IMO to get in.

I think Randy-Macon, Virginia Wesleyan and Eastern Mennonite are all in unless Randolph wins the Championship. And even then they might get 4 teams in. It's happened before that a league got 4 bids.

Mr. Y, Randolph is too far down. They are not even regionally ranked. They would have to win it to get in.

If Randolph wins the ODAC, especially if they win it over RMC instead of EMU, I think only 3 teams will get in... VWC, Randolph and RMC. Yeah 4 teams made it out of the ODAC last year, but the 4 teams that made it were all ranked 1-4 in the conference, all made it to the conference semi-finals, and were all ranked in the top 10 or top 15 at the time the selections were made. I think EMU at LEAST has to make it to the championship game of the ODAC if Randolph ends up winning the whole thing.
You may be right but I don't think Randolph wins the tournament. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wooscotsfan on February 26, 2011, 08:42:23 PM
Final:  Wooster 82  Wittenberg 68

Wooster clinches the NCAC automatic bid to the NCAA tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 26, 2011, 08:43:32 PM
Looks like St. Norbert will take care of business and take the MWC auto and keep others on the bubble rather than knocking someone out.

Not often you see this stat (with 4+ minutes left):

3-pointers attempted
Grinnell: 54
SNC: 0

And yes, well aware of the style Grinnell plays, but that spread is still rare.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 26, 2011, 08:52:08 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 26, 2011, 08:33:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 26, 2011, 08:20:28 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 26, 2011, 08:07:28 PM
Halftime in the OAC Championship and John Carroll leads Marietta 49-28.

That's bad news for Pool C bubble teams unless Marietta can pull off the second-half comeback.

I think this kills Wabash and may make Wittenberg teeter as well. Elms' win did no favors to anyone but them.

Don't count Marietta out yet.  Lead cut to 6 at 53-59 JCU, still 15 minutes left.  Great first five minutes for the Pioneers.

25 points for Marietta in the first 6 minutes of the second half after only scoring 28 in the entire first half...


69-69 in Marietta. Marietta has erased a 20+ point deficit to tie JCU with 6:30 to go...


Live feed: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/marietta-college-athletics
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: DeWayneCarter on February 26, 2011, 08:55:18 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 26, 2011, 08:39:52 PM
Quote from: DeWayneCarter on February 26, 2011, 08:37:23 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 26, 2011, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 26, 2011, 07:52:51 PM
VW and RM I think are safe Pool C teams. EMU has to win IMO to get in.

I think Randy-Macon, Virginia Wesleyan and Eastern Mennonite are all in unless Randolph wins the Championship. And even then they might get 4 teams in. It's happened before that a league got 4 bids.

Mr. Y, Randolph is too far down. They are not even regionally ranked. They would have to win it to get in.

If Randolph wins the ODAC, especially if they win it over RMC instead of EMU, I think only 3 teams will get in... VWC, Randolph and RMC. Yeah 4 teams made it out of the ODAC last year, but the 4 teams that made it were all ranked 1-4 in the conference, all made it to the conference semi-finals, and were all ranked in the top 10 or top 15 at the time the selections were made. I think EMU at LEAST has to make it to the championship game of the ODAC if Randolph ends up winning the whole thing.
You may be right but I don't think Randolph wins the tournament. ;)

Hey man... I wouldnt count them out... idk how familiar you are with the ODAC but in the ODAC Tournament, anything can happen lol..... they beat EMU the first time they met (lost by 30 the second time) and played RMC close, so you never know what could happen in a rematch... Virginia Wesleyan had already beat Randolph TWICE this season and look at what happened... you can't ignore that scenario
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 26, 2011, 08:57:47 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 26, 2011, 08:43:32 PM
Looks like St. Norbert will take care of business and take the MWC auto and keep others on the bubble rather than knocking someone out.

Not often you see this stat (with 4+ minutes left):

3-pointers attempted
Grinnell: 54
SNC: 0

And yes, well aware of the style Grinnell plays, but that spread is still rare.

That stat doesn't stand...  One of the Norbs subs jacked a 3 with :04 left!

SNC wins 89-67 to take the MWC bid
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: DeWayneCarter on February 26, 2011, 09:04:37 PM
And lookie here.. EMU trails Randolph Macon 40-29 at the half
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 26, 2011, 09:38:22 PM
Benedictine beats Edgewood 70-59 to take the NAthCon Tourney championship

This game didn't have direct Pool C consequences... but it's pretty clear that for the first time, the NAthCon will be getting two teams in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 26, 2011, 10:08:30 PM
Some parts of the Great Lakes Region don't get quite the ink that others do, and those parts roared up and knocked two teams squarely into Pool C contention tonight:

AMCC championship: LaRoche 55, Penn St.-Behrend 53 (Behrend was #3 in the latest GL ranking)
President's AC championship: Bethany 74, Thiel 67 (Thiel was #5 in the latest GL ranking)

LaRoche, a team you can't root against, was getting in anyway as the #1 in the Mid-Atlantic, but Bethany needed this win to punch their ticket.  These results leave Behrend nervous and Thiel in a flopsweat.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 26, 2011, 10:13:01 PM
Augustana beats IWU 76-52 and helps a bubble team somewhere.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 26, 2011, 10:17:27 PM
Randolph Macon defeats Eastern Mennonite 90-79 and will meet Randolph for the Championship.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2011, 10:44:50 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 26, 2011, 08:43:32 PM
Looks like St. Norbert will take care of business and take the MWC auto and keep others on the bubble rather than knocking someone out.

Not often you see this stat (with 4+ minutes left):

3-pointers attempted
Grinnell: 54
SNC: 0

And yes, well aware of the style Grinnell plays, but that spread is still rare.

No, it isn't rare at all. Check out Grinnell's game-by-game team statistics. (http://www.midwestconference.org/custompages/Statistics/2010-11/Men%27s%20Basketball/gc.htm#tgbg.tem) Lots of Pioneers games have lopsided trey-attempt statistics like that, particularly in MWC games (since the opposing teams in Grinnell's league are all well aware of the best methods to counteract the Arseneault System).

Take a look at the January 21 Beloit win over Grinnell, f'rinstance. Grinnell attempted 60 treys, while Beloit didn't attempt any. Ripon (twice), Lawrence, Carroll, and Beloit also played games against Grinnell in which they each attempted only one trey. In those five games Grinnell attempted 81, 60, 52, 52, and 43 treys, respectively.

In other words, there's nothing rare about that spread at all. It's just another day at the office for Grinnell.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 26, 2011, 10:54:06 PM
Unless you were in late game 'catch up' mode, why would you take a "3" against Grinnell?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2011, 10:56:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 26, 2011, 10:54:06 PM
Unless you were in late game 'catch up' mode, why would you take a "3" against Grinnell?

Exactly. I've been told by various MWC observers that attempting a trey against Grinnell is considered to be the ultimate no-no and a sure ticket to the bench for a chewing-out by the coach.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2011, 11:15:39 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2011, 10:44:50 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 26, 2011, 08:43:32 PM
Looks like St. Norbert will take care of business and take the MWC auto and keep others on the bubble rather than knocking someone out.

Not often you see this stat (with 4+ minutes left):

3-pointers attempted
Grinnell: 54
SNC: 0

And yes, well aware of the style Grinnell plays, but that spread is still rare.

No, it isn't rare at all. Check out Grinnell's game-by-game team statistics. (http://www.midwestconference.org/custompages/Statistics/2010-11/Men%27s%20Basketball/gc.htm#tgbg.tem) Lots of Pioneers games have lopsided trey-attempt statistics like that, particularly in MWC games (since the opposing teams in Grinnell's league are all well aware of the best methods to counteract the Arseneault System).

Take a look at the January 21 Beloit win over Grinnell, f'rinstance. Grinnell attempted 60 treys, while Beloit didn't attempt any. Ripon (twice), Lawrence, Carroll, and Beloit also played games against Grinnell in which they each attempted only one trey. In those five games Grinnell attempted 81, 60, 52, 52, and 43 treys, respectively.

In other words, there's nothing rare about that spread at all. It's just another day at the office for Grinnell.

Grinnell is being outshown in their own state! :o  This week's SI reports that West Burlington HS attempted 103 treys on Feb. 12th - believed to be a national record.  Alas, they missed all but 8 of them and lost to Danville, 109-25! :P

Obvious questions:

a.  How can you get off 103 3-pointers in a 32 minute (I assume) game?

b.  How can you MISS 95 of them?

No word in the account on how many threes Danville took or made.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 26, 2011, 11:42:59 PM
Whitworth taking care of business and saving a pool C for someone else. Pirates lead 69-47 with 2:16 left.
D trips in a row to March!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 26, 2011, 11:49:25 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 26, 2011, 11:42:59 PM
D trips in a row to March!!!!

Say, that's pretty good.  Even Wooster, the winningest team in the entire NCAA since 2000, has only been to XVI of the last XVII tournaments.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 26, 2011, 11:52:45 PM
ROFL David!  Damn Blackberry...  D = 5 if you press the right button. Go Pirates!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2011, 11:54:02 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 26, 2011, 11:49:25 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 26, 2011, 11:42:59 PM
D trips in a row to March!!!!

Say, that's pretty good.  Even Wooster, the winningest team in the entire NCAA since 2000, has only been to XVI of the last XVII tournaments.  :)

50 O 50! :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2011, 01:49:31 AM
Atlantic Region
Done

East Region
Done

Great Lakes Region
Done

Mid-Atlantic Region
#7 Franklin and Marshall vs. Dickinson in CC final

Midwest Region
#3 Manchester vs. #4 Hanover in HCAC final

Northeast Region
#1 Williams vs. #2 Middlebury in NESCAC final
#3 WPI vs. MIT in NEWMAC final

South Region
#2 Randolph-Macon vs. Randolph in ODAC final
#4 Ferrum vs. #6 North Carolina Wesleyan in USAC final
#7 Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. McMurry in ASC final

West Region
#2 St. Thomas vs. Gustavus Adolphus in MIAC final
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2011, 01:50:08 AM
GREEN is Pool C candidate (Lost in conf. tourney-UAA does not have a conf. tourney)
BLUE secured a Pool A bid (Automatic qualifier)
CROSSED OUT is the conference leader (reg. season)



Atlantic Region
1 Ramapo 19-3 20-5 (NJAC):  LOST to Montclair State 67-64 in semis 
2 SUNY-Purchase 21-4 21-4 (SKY):  BEAT Old Westbury 85-74 in semis; BEAT St. Joseph's (L.I.) 81-66 in final
3 Kean 17-5 18-7 (NJAC):  LOST to NJCU 75-61 in semis
4 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 18-5 20-5 (SKY):  BEAT Mount Saint Vincent 68-60, BEAT Mount Saint Mary 78-75 OT in semis; LOST to SUNY-Purchase 81-66 in final
5 Mount Saint Mary 18-7 18-7 (SKY):  LOST to St. Joseph's (L.I.) 78-75 OT in semis


East Region
1 Oswego State 22-3 22-3 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Potsdam State 64-50 in quarterfinals, LOST Brockport State 74-70 in semis
2 Ithaca 19-5 20-5  (E8):  LOST to St. John Fisher 88-75 in semis
3 Rochester 19-3 20-4 (UAA):  LOST to Emory 83-72
4 Stevens 19-6 19-6 (E8):  LOST to Hartwick 76-73 in semis
5 Hobart 19-5 19-6 (LL):  LOST to Hamilton 62-60 in semis
6 Buffalo State 15-6 18-6 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Cortland State 75-56 in quarterfinals, BEAT Plattsburgh State 87-79 in semis; BEAT Brockport State 67-50 in final


Great Lakes Region
1 Wooster 20-2 23-2 (NCAC):  BEAT Allegheny 62-57 in quarterfinals, BEAT Ohio Wesleyan 70-62 in semis; BEAT Wittenberg 82-68 in final
2 Marietta 19-3 22-3 (OAC):  BEAT Wilmington 84-73 in quarterfinals, BEAT Heidelberg 70-55 in semis; BEAT John Carroll 88-85 in final
3 Penn State-Behrend 22-2 22-3 (AMCC):  BEAT Medaille 58-51 in semis; LOST to La Roche 55-53 in final 
4 Hope 15-2 19-6 (MIAA):   BEAT Alma 110-77 in quarterfinals, BEAT Adrian 63-45 in semis; BEAT Calvin in final 72-67
5 Thiel 15-3 18-6 (PrAC):  BEAT Waynesburg 73-63 in quarterfinals, BEAT Thomas More 78-65 in semis; LOST to Bethany 74-67 in final
6 Wabash 18-5 19-5 (NCAC):  BEAT Kenyon 72-61 in quarterfinals, LOST to Wittenberg 65-63 in semis


Middle Atlantic Region
1 La Roche 22-2 23-2 (AMCC):   BEAT Hilbert 86-69 in semis; BEAT Penn State-Behrend 55-53 in final
2 St. Mary's (Md.) 18-3 20-5 (CAC):  BEAT Mary Washington 79-57 in semis; BEAT Wesley 97-65 in final
3 Cabrini 20-5 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Neumann 79-76 in semis, BEAT Gwynedd-Mercy 92-70 in final
4 Gwynedd-Mercy 19-4 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Keystone 85-65 in semis, LOST to Cabrini 92-70 in final
5 Keystone 21-5 21-5 (CSAC):  LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy 85-65 in semis
6 Lebanon Valley 17-6 19-6 (MACC):  BEAT Widener 58-56 in semis, LOST to Alvernia in final 57-55
7 Franklin and Marshall 18-5 20-5 (CC):  BEAT Haverford 71-62 in semis; plays Dickinson in final 2/27
8 DeSales 16-7 18-7 (MACF): BEAT Misericordia 78-69 in semis, LOST to Delaware Valley 79-58 in final
9 Wesley 15-5 16-9 (CAC):  BEAT Salisbury 75-74 in semis; LOST to St. Mary's (Md.) 97-65 in final


Midwest Region
1 Concordia (Wis.) 20-2 22-3 (NATH):  LOST to Edgewood 95-89 in semis
2 Augustana 21-2 22-2 (CCIW):   BEAT Wheaton 73-58 in semis; BEAT Illinois Wesleyan 76-52 in final
3 Manchester 18-5 19-6 (HCAC):  BEAT Transylvania 68-65 in semis; plays Hanover in final 2/27 
4 Hanover 18-6 18-6 (HCAC):  BEAT Anderson 62-50 in semis; plays Manchester in final 2/27
5 Anderson 15-7 17-8 (HCAC):  BEAT Bluffton 75-60 in quarterfinals; LOST to Hanover 62-50 in semis
6 Milwaukee Engineering 18-6 19-6 (NATH):  LOST to Aurora 72-67 in quarterfinals
7 Benedictine 17-6 18-7 (NATH):  BEAT Rockford 91-76 in quarterfinals, BEAT Aurora 71-60 in semis; BEAT Edgewood in final 70-59 
8 St. Norbert 18-5 18-5 (MWC):  BEAT Ripon 75-52 in semis; BEAT Grinnell in final 89-67


Northeast Region
1 Williams 21-1 23-1 (NESCAC): BEAT Trinity (Conn.) in semis 79-69; plays Middlebury in final 2/27
2 Middlebury 20-1 23-1 (NESCAC):  BEAT Amherst 67-67 in semis; plays Williams in final 2/27
3 WPI 21-3 21-4 (NEWMAC):  BEAT Coast Guard 62-51 in semis; plays MIT in final 2/27
4 Becker 22-3 22-3 (NECC):  BEAT Newbury 84-75 in semis; LOST Elms 79-65 in final 
5 Amherst 21-2 22-2 (NESCAC):  LOST to Middlebury 67-61 in semis
6 Western Connecticut State 20-4 21-4 (LEC):  LOST Eastern Connecticut State 94-70 in semis
7 Rhode Island College 17-7 17-7 (LEC):   BEAT Keene State 102-92 2OT in semis; BEAT Eastern Connecticut Sate 62-49 in final
8 Elms 16-6 18-7 (NECC):  BEAT Southern Vermont 88-73 in semis; BEAT Becker 79-65 in final
9 Eastern Connecticut State 15-7 17-8 (LEC):  BEAT Western Connecticut State 94-70 in semis; LOST to Rhode Island College 62-49 in final   
10 Brandeis 16-8 16-8 (UAA):  LOST to NYU 70-54
11 Roger Williams 17-8 17-8 (CCC):  LOST to Endicott 71-68 in CCC quarterfinals


South Region
1 Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 22-3 (ODAC):  BEAT Washington and Lee 98-78  in quarterfinals; LOST to Randolph 80-76 in semis
2 Randolph-Macon 20-4 21-4 (ODAC):  BEAT Roanoke 63-56 in quarterfinals; BEAT Eastern Mennonite 90-79 in semis; plays Randolph in final 2/27
3 Texas-Dallas 19-4 20-5 (ASC):   BEAT Concordia (Texas) 85-70 in quarterfinals; LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor 77-69 in semis
4 Ferrum 18-4 21-4 (USAC):  BEAT Christopher Newport 87-81 in semis; plays North Carolina Wesleyan in final 2/27
5 Eastern Mennonite 15-4 21-4 (ODAC):  BEAT Hampden-Sydney 76-75 in quarterfinals; LOST to Randolph-Macon 90-79 in semis
6 North Carolina Wesleyan 14-4 19-6 (USAC): BEAT Greensboro 86-69 in semis; plays Ferrum in finals 2/27
7 Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-6 19-6 (ASC): BEAT Texas-Tyler 73-68 in quarterfinals; BEAT Texas-Dallas 77-69 in semis; plays McMurry in ASC final 2/27   
8 Emory 18-5 19-5 (UAA):  BEAT Rochester 83-72

West Region
1 Whitworth 24-1 24-1 (NWC):  BEAT Pacific Lutheran 74-63 in semis; BEAT Whitman 74-50 in final
2 St. Thomas 21-3 22-3 (MIAC): BEAT Hamline 78-70in semis; plays Gustavus Adolphus in final 2/27
3 UW-Stevens Point 21-3 22-3 (WIAC): BEAT Superior 84-52 in semis; BEAT River Falls 79-56 in final
4 Chapman 14-1 21-3 (IND):  BEAT La Sierra 61-56, BEAT Univ. of Dallas 73-43
5 Carleton 18-5 18-7 (MIAC):  LOST to Gustavus Adolphus 70-64 in semis
6 UW-River Falls 17-5 19-6 (WIAC):  BEAT Platteville 69-60 in semis; LOST Stevens Point 79-56 in final
7 Whitman 13-5 18-7 (NWC):  BEAT Lewis and Clark 79-76 in semis; LOST to Whitworth 74-50 in final
8 Lewis and Clark 12-5 18-7 (NWC):  LOST to Whitman 79-76 in semis
9 UW-Whitewater 16-8 17-8 (WIAC):  LOST to Superior 78-72 in quarterfinals

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: njachoopsfan on February 27, 2011, 04:17:05 AM
Pat - Ramapo is #1 in their region but lost in the opening round of their tournament, what are their chances of hosting...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2011, 09:21:07 AM
Out of the "Top 25" on Knightslappy's power index, there were about 5-6 real upsets that really hurt the field:

-- Concordia WI   Benedictine/NATHC
-- Becker  -- Elms/NECC
-- VWC, if Randolph wins the ODAC
-- Oswego State's loss -- Buffalo State earned the Pool A from the SUNYAC
-- Ithaca  -- but which team earning the E8 Pool A bid (SJF or Hartwick) damages Ithaca more, so that they fall farther in the rankings of Pool C?
-- Ramapo -- NJCU/NJAC
-- WPI -- MIT/NEWMAC

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Jon on February 27, 2011, 11:12:43 AM
If F&M wins, who is the first Mid-Atlantic Pool C consideration?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bengalsrule on February 27, 2011, 11:51:38 AM
Does anyone know when the final regional rankings come out today??? ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 27, 2011, 12:21:45 PM








18 Pool C bids will be handed out.  Ralph is correct in saying you



can name some safe teams for Pool C.

MY 8 this morning (are not in order of anything):

1.  MID/Williams loser
2.  Ramapo
3.  Oswego St.
4.  Penn St. Behrend
5.  Concordia Wisc.
6.  Virginia Wesleyan
7.  Amherst
8.  Gwenedd- Mercy

There are 9 more C's to be given and as many as 4 "safe C's" awarded if those teams lose today.  I think we have half upsets and I predict the next 7 strongest C bids will compete with each other.

Who are the next 15 competing, assuming you accept my first 9?

D (5) hour drive, check in later.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2011, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: Bengalsrule on February 27, 2011, 11:51:38 AM
Does anyone know when the final regional rankings come out today??? ???

We don't know for sure that they do.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: UMHBPROF on February 27, 2011, 12:38:37 PM
Will UTD stay ahead of Mary Hardin-Baylor in the Regional Rankings/Pool C? They are both 21-6 and UMHB is 2-0 against them including a win on UTD's home floor yesterday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 27, 2011, 01:26:24 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 27, 2011, 12:21:45 PM
18 Pool C bids will be handed out.  Ralph is correct in saying you can name some safe teams for Pool C.

MY 8 this morning (are not in order of anything):
1.  MID/Williams loser
2.  Ramapo
3.  Oswego St.
4.  Penn St. Behrend
5.  Concordia Wisc.
6.  Virginia Wesleyan
7.  Amherst
8.  Gwenedd- Mercy

There are 9 more C's to be given and as many as 4 "safe C's" awarded if those teams lose today.  I think we have half upsets and I predict the next 7 strongest C bids will compete with each other.

Who are the next 15 competing, assuming you accept my first 9?

I have Becker,  Western Conn. and Ithaca on my "lock" list. I also have GMC, but I'm not totally sold on the Griffins being a lock. Outstanding region win pct., but very weak SOS and record vs. ranked teams. Obviously, those numbers will change to account for the past week and we won't know those numbers. With that said I think GMC will get in, just not sure it's a "lock."

Sure I'm leaving someone out, but here's what I've got. Obviously, if some of these lost (St. Thomas, Randolph-Macon) they move to that "lock" position. I think Ferrum/NC Wesleyan loser is an interesting case, and I think if F&M loses it isn't a lock, either.

Carleton
Eastern Mennonite
Ferrum  (moves to Pool A by beating NC Wesleyan)
Franklin & Marshall  (moves to Pool A by beating Dickinson)
Hanover  (moves to Pool A by beating Manchester)
Hobart
Kean
Keystone
Manchester (moves to Pool A by beating Hanover)
Medaille
NC Wesleyan (moves to Pool A by beating Ferrum)
St. Thomas (moves to Pool A by beating Gustavus)
Stevens
Thiel
UT-Dallas
Wabash
UW-River Falls
Witt
WPI (could move to Pool A with win in NEWMAC Finals today)

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 27, 2011, 01:29:25 PM
Quote from: UMHBPROF on February 27, 2011, 12:38:37 PM
Will UTD stay ahead of Mary Hardin-Baylor in the Regional Rankings/Pool C? They are both 21-6 and UMHB is 2-0 against them including a win on UTD's home floor yesterday.

I think that Dallas has only 5 losses.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2011, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: algernon on February 27, 2011, 01:29:25 PM
Quote from: UMHBPROF on February 27, 2011, 12:38:37 PM
Will UTD stay ahead of Mary Hardin-Baylor in the Regional Rankings/Pool C? They are both 21-6 and UMHB is 2-0 against them including a win on UTD's home floor yesterday.

I think that Dallas has only 5 losses.
However, if McMurry moves into the final (and unseen) Regional Ranking with an ASC Championship, then that will give UTD another "loss versus a regionally ranked team". (McMurry beat UTD in the regular season).
UMHB would pick up 1 win and 2 losses versus McMurry (21-7/20-6 in-region)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 27, 2011, 01:44:04 PM
Middlebury defeats Williams 63-54 to win the NESCAC Pool A bid. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on February 27, 2011, 02:32:46 PM
Looks like another lower echelon Pool C team will lose out as MIT is up 15 over WPI with less than 2 minutes left.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2011, 02:44:02 PM
I am at the game as I type this. WPI did MIT a favor by playing Carr, he hobbled around for 25 minutes to the tune of 4 points and 2 rebounds. They were probably better off playing someone healthy.

3rd NCAA appearance in a row for MIT.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 27, 2011, 02:55:51 PM
Add WPI to the bubble list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WcsuAlum on February 27, 2011, 03:27:50 PM
What are the chances of Western Connecticut getting the pool C bid with WPI losing in there conference championship today?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 27, 2011, 03:33:41 PM
Looks like Manchester is going to grab the HCAC's auto--leading 68-56 with 1:28 left.

St. Thomas up on Gustavus 34-26 with under 5 minutes left in the MIAC
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2011, 03:39:26 PM
I think WPI is pretty much a lock. They only have 4 D3 losses and you can only really call one of them bad, and that was their sole conference defeat in-season. Their SOS is good also. There is no way they drop below Becker, West Conn, or Amherst. They will probably be second on the board from the NE after Williams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 27, 2011, 03:40:21 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on February 27, 2011, 03:39:26 PM
I think WPI is pretty much a lock. They only have 4 D3 losses and you can only really call one of them bad, and that was their sole conference defeat in-season. Their SOS is good also. There is no way they drop below Becker, West Conn, or Amherst. They will probably be second on the board from the NE after Williams.

Agreed. Nice numbers across the board for WPI. They are in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2011, 04:09:40 PM
Just FYI on Midwest...

Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2011, 04:05:36 PM
I've heard that the final Midwest ranking is done, and it goes...

1. Augustana (Pool A)
2. Concordia (Pool C candidate)
3. Manchester (Pool A)
4. Hanover (Pool C candidate)
5. Illinois Wesleyan (Pool C candidate)
6. Benedictine (Pool A)
7. Edgewood (Pool C candidate)
8. St. Norbert (Pool A)

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2011, 04:53:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2011, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: Bengalsrule on February 27, 2011, 11:51:38 AM
Does anyone know when the final regional rankings come out today??? ???

We don't know for sure that they do.
I don't think they will be out until tomorrow after the brackets are announced... they aren't announcing who is in or out tonight... releasing the regional rankings would essentially give the same info away.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 27, 2011, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2011, 04:53:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2011, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: Bengalsrule on February 27, 2011, 11:51:38 AM
Does anyone know when the final regional rankings come out today??? ???

We don't know for sure that they do.
I don't think they will be out until tomorrow after the brackets are announced... they aren't announcing who is in or out tonight... releasing the regional rankings would essentially give the same info away.

But... the Handbook does say the rankings will be released today, FWIW
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2011, 04:57:29 PM
I know what the handbook says... I also know what happened last year... and I also know they don't want to take any of the excitement away from the selection shows tomorrow... so put it this way... I would be shocked if regional rankings appeared today... and they won't be out until at least late tonight anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 27, 2011, 04:57:54 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 27, 2011, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2011, 04:53:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2011, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: Bengalsrule on February 27, 2011, 11:51:38 AM
Does anyone know when the final regional rankings come out today??? ???

We don't know for sure that they do.
I don't think they will be out until tomorrow after the brackets are announced... they aren't announcing who is in or out tonight... releasing the regional rankings would essentially give the same info away.

But... the Handbook does say the rankings will be released today, FWIW

Since when has any NCAA sport committee followed what's written in the handbook? :P
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2011, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 27, 2011, 04:57:54 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 27, 2011, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2011, 04:53:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2011, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: Bengalsrule on February 27, 2011, 11:51:38 AM
Does anyone know when the final regional rankings come out today??? ???

We don't know for sure that they do.
I don't think they will be out until tomorrow after the brackets are announced... they aren't announcing who is in or out tonight... releasing the regional rankings would essentially give the same info away.

But... the Handbook does say the rankings will be released today, FWIW

Since when has any NCAA sport committee followed what's written in the handbook? :P
That post makes you eligible for a change in identity as part of a witness protection and relocation program.   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 27, 2011, 05:09:20 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 27, 2011, 04:57:54 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 27, 2011, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2011, 04:53:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2011, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: Bengalsrule on February 27, 2011, 11:51:38 AM
Does anyone know when the final regional rankings come out today??? ???

We don't know for sure that they do.
I don't think they will be out until tomorrow after the brackets are announced... they aren't announcing who is in or out tonight... releasing the regional rankings would essentially give the same info away.

But... the Handbook does say the rankings will be released today, FWIW

Since when has any NCAA sport committee followed what's written in the handbook? :P

... If I recall from previous years, if what they do doesn't gel with what is written in the handbook, they just change the handbook...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2011, 05:15:04 PM
I have brought this forward in hopes that knightslappy has an updated version.  This version has Ramapo (and a few others) with  one more loss than the teams that lost later in the week.  (I like the Top 12, down thru Carleton. I start seeing the teams on the bubble at Ramapo.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2011, 08:57:42 AM

I think that we need to see this chart after the Pool A's have been removed.

We can pull off the highest 10 Pool C's and then start divvying the teams by region.

The upsets have really tightened up the prospects of Pool C bids falling to the teams deep (like around #35 and beyond).

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 10:01:49 PM
I have tried to line the conferences by regions in columns.

NE  EAST    ATL    MIDATL     SOUTH     GL     MW    W

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2011, 11:39:45 AM
Top 100 teams (with estimated Pool) by my "best fit" rating formula:

001   --   A C1   --   0.822   Williams       NESCAC
002   --   A   --   0.780   Whitworth                                                                                   NWC
003   --   A   --   0.778   Middlebury           NESCAC
004   --   A   --   0.769   St. Thomas                                                                                 MIAC
005   --   B   --   0.767   Chapman                                                                                      IND
006   --   A   --   0.767   UW-Stevens Point                                                                            WIAC
007   --   A C2   --   0.758   Concordia (Wis.)                                                                 NATHC
008   --   A C3   --   0.758   WPI                   NEWMAC
009   --   A   --   0.751   Wooster                                                                    NCAC
010   --   A C4   --   0.748   Becker               NECC
011   --   A   --   0.747   Augustana                                                                          CCIW
012   --   A   --   0.742   La Roche                                                                   AMCC
013   --   A C5   --   0.740   Virginia Wesleyan                                              ODAC
014   --   A C6   --   0.740   Oswego State                  SUNYAC                          
015   --   A   --   0.739   Randolph-Macon                                                ODAC
016   --   C7   --   0.735   Amherst              NESCAC
017   --   A C8   --   0.732   Western Connecticut   LEC
018   --   C9   --   0.727   Penn State-Behrend                             AMCC                        
019   --   A C10   --   0.725   Ithaca                               E8
020   --   A   --   0.724   Hope                                                                         MIAA
021   --   A   --   0.722   Rochester                         UAA
022   --   C11   --   0.722   UW-River Falls                                                                             WIAC  
023   --   C12   --   0.716   Carleton                                                                                     MIAC
024   --   A   --   0.714   St. Marys (Md.)                                    CAC
025   --   C13   --   0.713   Ramapo                                   NJAC
026   --   A   --   0.710   SUNY-Purchase                         SKY
027   --   A   --   0.707   Thiel                                                              PresAC                          
028   --   C14   --   0.707   Gwynedd-Mercy                                  CSAC
029   --   A   --   0.705   Cabrini                                              CSAC
030   --   C15   --   0.704   Texas-Dallas                                              ASC
031   --   A   --   0.703   Rhode Island College    LEC
032   --   C16   --   0.697   Hobart                            LL
033   --   A   --   0.695   Marietta                                                                OAC
034   --   C17   --   0.692   Wabash                                                               NCAC
035   --   C18   --   0.690   Keystone                                            CSAC
036   --   A   --   0.685   North Carolina Wesleyan                                      USAS
037   --   A   --   0.685   Manchester                                                                        HCAC
038   --   C   --   0.684   Hanover                                                                           HCAC
039   --   C   --   0.683   Ferrum                                                        USAS
040   --   C   --   0.683   St. Josephs (L.I.)                    SKY                
041   --   C   --   0.683   Eastern Mennonite                                            ODAC
042   --   C   --   0.682   Stevens                          E8
043   --   C   --   0.679   Whitman                                                                                      NWC
044   --   C   --   0.677   Wittenberg                                                                NCAC
045   --   C   --   0.676   Kean                                   NJAC
046   --   C   --   0.676   Wesley                                          CAC
047   --   A C   --   0.667   Montclair State                     NJAC
048   --   C   --   0.666   Medaille                       AMCC                                  
049   --   A   --   0.665   Elms                    NECC
050   --   C   --   0.664   Emory                                                        UAA
051   --   A   --   0.664   McMurry                                                             ASC
052   --   A   --   0.663   Franklin and Marshall                             CC
053   --   A   --   0.662   Scranton
054   --   C   --   0.661   Hamline
055   --   C   --   0.661   Mary Hardin-Baylor
056   --   C   --   0.659   Illinois Wesleyan
057   --   C   --   0.658   Lebanon Valley
058   --   A   --   0.658   St. Norbert
059   --   C   --   0.657   Benedictine
060   --   C   --   0.657   Bethany
061   --   A   --   0.657   Alvernia
062   --   C   --   0.657   Buffalo State
063   --   C   --   0.656   Anderson
064   --   A   --   0.656   Centre                                                             SCAC
065   --   C   --   0.655   Lewis and Clark
066   --   A   --   0.653   RPI
067   --   C   --   0.653   Plattsburgh State
068   --   C   --   0.652   North Central (Ill.)
069   --   C   --   0.650   New Jersey City                          NJAC
070   --   C   --   0.649   Edgewood
071   --   C   --   0.649   Rutgers-Newark
072   --   A   --   0.645   DeSales
073   --   A   --   0.645   Salem State
074   --   C   --   0.644   Wheaton (Ill.)
075   --   A   --   0.642   St. Josephs (Maine)
076   --   C   --   0.642   Eastern Connecticut
077   --   C   --   0.641   John Carroll
078   --   C   --   0.640   Calvin
079   --   C   --   0.640   UW-Platteville
080   --   C   --   0.639   Milwaukee Engineering
081   --   C   --   0.638   Washington U.
082   --   A   --   0.637   Webster
083   --   A   --   0.636   Husson
084   --   C   --   0.635   Christopher Newport
085   --   C   --   0.635   Bridgewater State
086   --   C   --   0.634   Guilford
087   --   C   --   0.633   Pacific Lutheran
088   --   C   --   0.633   UW-Whitewater
089   --   C   --   0.632   Skidmore
090   --   C   --   0.631   Grinnell
091   --   A   --   0.631   Northwestern (Minn.)
092   --   C   --   0.630   Mount St. Mary
093   --   C   --   0.630   Bowdoin
094   --   C   --   0.630   Brandeis
095   --   C   --   0.630   Trinity (Conn.)
096   --   C   --   0.629   St. Olaf
097   --   A   --   0.629   Luther
098   --   C   --   0.629   UW-Superior
099   --   C   --   0.628   Richard Stockton
100   --   C   --   0.627   UW-La Crosse


By in-region RPI:

001   --   A   --   0.671   --   Williams
002   --   B   --   0.640   --   Chapman
003   --   A   --   0.630   --   UW-Stevens Point
004   --   C   --   0.624   --   Middlebury
005   --   A   --   0.622   --   WPI
006   --   C   --   0.621   --   Rhode Island College
007   --   C   --   0.620   --   UW-River Falls
008   --   C   --   0.620   --   Randolph-Macon
009   --   A   --   0.618   --   Whitworth
010   --   A   --   0.618   --   St. Thomas
011   --   A   --   0.614   --   Ithaca
012   --   A   --   0.609   --   Augustana
013   --   A   --   0.608   --   Becker
014   --   A   --   0.606   --   Concordia (Wis.)
015   --   A   --   0.606   --   Western Connecticut
016   --   A   --   0.601   --   Virginia Wesleyan
017   --   A   --   0.600   --   Montclair State
018   --   A   --   0.598   --   Hope
019   --   C   --   0.597   --   Carleton
020   --   A   --   0.597   --   Wooster
021   --   C   --   0.591   --   Hobart
022   --   C   --   0.590   --   Trinity (Conn.)
023   --   A   --   0.590   --   Oswego State
024   --   C   --   0.589   --   Ramapo
025   --   C   --   0.588   --   Bowdoin
026   --   C   --   0.588   --   Washington U.
027   --   C   --   0.585   --   Hamline
028   --   A   --   0.585   --   La Roche
029   --   A   --   0.584   --   Cabrini
030   --   C   --   0.583   --   Lewis and Clark
031   --   C   --   0.583   --   North Central (Ill.)
032   --   C   --   0.582   --   UW-Platteville
033   --   C   --   0.582   --   Hanover
034   --   C   --   0.582   --   Texas-Dallas
035   --   A   --   0.581   --   Thiel
036   --   A   --   0.579   --   North Carolina Wesleyan
037   --   C   --   0.579   --   Whitman
038   --   C   --   0.578   --   Stevens
039   --   A   --   0.577   --   Rochester
040   --   A   --   0.575   --   St. Marys (Md.)
041   --   C   --   0.575   --   Wittenberg
042   --   C   --   0.575   --   Gwynedd-Mercy
043   --   C   --   0.572   --   Kean
044   --   C   --   0.572   --   Illinois Wesleyan
045   --   A   --   0.572   --   SUNY-Purchase
046   --   A   --   0.571   --   RPI
047   --   A   --   0.570   --   Manchester
048   --   C   --   0.570   --   Anderson
049   --   C   --   0.569   --   New Jersey City
050   --   C   --   0.568   --   Wesley
051   --   C   --   0.568   --   Elms
052   --   C   --   0.568   --   Keystone
053   --   C   --   0.567   --   Wabash
054   --   C   --   0.566   --   Amherst
055   --   A   --   0.566   --   DeSales
056   --   C   --   0.566   --   UW-Superior
057   --   C   --   0.565   --   Richard Stockton
058   --   C   --   0.564   --   Eastern Mennonite
059   --   C   --   0.564   --   Wheaton (Ill.)
060   --   C   --   0.563   --   Penn State-Behrend
061   --   C   --   0.563   --   Maryville (Tenn.)
062   --   C   --   0.563   --   UW-Whitewater
063   --   C   --   0.563   --   Gustavus Adolphus
064   --   A   --   0.562   --   McMurry
065   --   C   --   0.562   --   Pacific Lutheran
066   --   C   --   0.562   --   St. Johns
067   --   C   --   0.561   --   Bethany
068   --   C   --   0.561   --   Ohio Wesleyan
069   --   A   --   0.560   --   Marietta
070   --   C   --   0.560   --   Buffalo State
071   --   C   --   0.559   --   Messiah
072   --   C   --   0.558   --   John Carroll
073   --   C   --   0.558   --   UW-La Crosse
074   --   C   --   0.556   --   Nazareth
075   --   C   --   0.556   --   Guilford
076   --   C   --   0.555   --   Lebanon Valley
077   --   A   --   0.555   --   Centre
078   --   C   --   0.555   --   Ferrum
079   --   C   --   0.554   --   Plattsburgh State
080   --   C   --   0.554   --   Augsburg
081   --   C   --   0.554   --   Skidmore
082   --   C   --   0.553   --   Carthage
083   --   C   --   0.553   --   St. Josephs (L.I.)
084   --   C   --   0.553   --   Calvin
085   --   A   --   0.553   --   Franklin and Marshall
086   --   C   --   0.552   --   Salisbury
087   --   C   --   0.552   --   Rutgers-Newark
088   --   C   --   0.551   --   Mary Hardin-Baylor
089   --   C   --   0.551   --   Misericordia
090   --   C   --   0.551   --   Edgewood
091   --   C   --   0.551   --   Hamilton
092   --   C   --   0.550   --   Randolph
093   --   C   --   0.550   --   Olivet
094   --   C   --   0.550   --   Eastern Connecticut
095   --   A   --   0.549   --   St. Norbert
096   --   A   --   0.548   --   Luther
097   --   C   --   0.547   --   Bridgewater State
098   --   A   --   0.547   --   Alvernia
099   --   C   --   0.547   --   Elizabethtown
100   --   C   --   0.547   --   Emory


By Winning Percentage:

001   --   A   --   0.962   --   Whitworth
002   --   A   --   0.957   --   Williams
003   --   C   --   0.952   --   Middlebury
004   --   B   --   0.933   --   Chapman
005   --   A   --   0.917   --   La Roche
006   --   C   --   0.917   --   Penn State-Behrend
007   --   A   --   0.913   --   Concordia (Wis.)
008   --   A   --   0.913   --   Wooster
009   --   C   --   0.913   --   Amherst
010   --   A   --   0.889   --   Hope
011   --   A   --   0.885   --   Oswego State
012   --   A   --   0.880   --   UW-Stevens Point
013   --   A   --   0.880   --   Becker
014   --   A   --   0.875   --   WPI
015   --   A   --   0.875   --   St. Thomas
016   --   A   --   0.875   --   Augustana
017   --   A   --   0.875   --   Marietta
018   --   A   --   0.870   --   Virginia Wesleyan
019   --   A   --   0.864   --   Rochester
020   --   A   --   0.864   --   St. Marys (Md.)
021   --   A   --   0.850   --   Thiel
022   --   A   --   0.846   --   SUNY-Purchase
023   --   C   --   0.833   --   Randolph-Macon
024   --   A   --   0.833   --   Western Connecticut
025   --   C   --   0.833   --   Gwynedd-Mercy
026   --   C   --   0.826   --   Ramapo
027   --   C   --   0.826   --   Texas-Dallas
028   --   C   --   0.826   --   Ferrum
029   --   A   --   0.808   --   Cabrini
030   --   C   --   0.800   --   St. Josephs (L.I.)
031   --   C   --   0.800   --   Medaille
032   --   A   --   0.792   --   Ithaca
033   --   C   --   0.792   --   Hobart
034   --   C   --   0.792   --   Wabash
035   --   C   --   0.789   --   Eastern Mennonite
036   --   C   --   0.783   --   UW-River Falls
037   --   C   --   0.783   --   Carleton
038   --   A   --   0.783   --   Manchester
039   --   A   --   0.783   --   Franklin and Marshall
040   --   A   --   0.783   --   St. Norbert
041   --   C   --   0.783   --   Emory
042   --   A   --   0.783   --   Scranton
043   --   A   --   0.783   --   Husson
044   --   A   --   0.778   --   North Carolina Wesleyan
045   --   C   --   0.778   --   Keystone
046   --   C   --   0.773   --   Wesley
047   --   A   --   0.769   --   St. Josephs (Maine)
048   --   A   --   0.769   --   Salem State
049   --   A   --   0.769   --   Northwestern (Minn.)
050   --   A   --   0.762   --   Centre
051   --   C   --   0.760   --   Stevens
052   --   C   --   0.760   --   Mary Hardin-Baylor
053   --   C   --   0.750   --   Wittenberg
054   --   C   --   0.750   --   Lebanon Valley
055   --   C   --   0.750   --   Benedictine
056   --   A   --   0.750   --   Webster
057   --   C   --   0.741   --   Bethany
058   --   C   --   0.739   --   Hanover
059   --   C   --   0.739   --   Kean
060   --   A   --   0.739   --   McMurry
061   --   C   --   0.737   --   Whitman
062   --   C   --   0.727   --   Elms
063   --   C   --   0.727   --   Buffalo State
064   --   C   --   0.727   --   Plattsburgh State
065   --   A   --   0.727   --   Alvernia
066   --   C   --   0.722   --   Minnesota-Morris
067   --   C   --   0.720   --   Milwaukee Engineering
068   --   C   --   0.720   --   Johnson and Wales
069   --   C   --   0.714   --   Grinnell
070   --   C   --   0.714   --   Westminster (Mo.)
071   --   C   --   0.714   --   Rust
072   --   C   --   0.708   --   Rhode Island College
073   --   C   --   0.708   --   Illinois Wesleyan
074   --   A   --   0.708   --   DeSales
075   --   C   --   0.708   --   Rutgers-Newark
076   --   C   --   0.708   --   Edgewood
077   --   C   --   0.708   --   MIT
078   --   C   --   0.708   --   Wentworth
079   --   C   --   0.706   --   Calvin
080   --   C   --   0.696   --   Eastern Connecticut
081   --   A   --   0.682   --   RPI
082   --   C   --   0.682   --   Anderson
083   --   C   --   0.682   --   Catholic
084   --   C   --   0.682   --   Coe
085   --   C   --   0.680   --   John Carroll
086   --   A   --   0.680   --   Luther
087   --   C   --   0.680   --   Bridgewater State
088   --   C   --   0.680   --   Mount St. Mary
089   --   A   --   0.667   --   Montclair State
090   --   C   --   0.667   --   Lewis and Clark
091   --   C   --   0.667   --   New Jersey City
092   --   C   --   0.667   --   Skidmore
093   --   C   --   0.667   --   Brandeis
094   --   C   --   0.667   --   Christopher Newport
095   --   C   --   0.667   --   East Texas Baptist
096   --   C   --   0.667   --   Illinois College
097   --   C   --   0.667   --   DePauw
098   --   A   --   0.667   --   Staten Island
099   --   C   --   0.667   --   St. Vincent
100   --   C   --   0.667   --   Baruch


Let me know if you want different info or for this to be presented differently.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 27, 2011, 05:17:03 PM
R-MC up 68-42 with under a minute remaining so I'm declaring them a winner.  Them, along with St. Thomas holding on might have just saved Wabash/Eastern Mennonite/Carleton's season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 27, 2011, 05:24:51 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2011, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 27, 2011, 04:57:54 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 27, 2011, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2011, 04:53:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2011, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: Bengalsrule on February 27, 2011, 11:51:38 AM
Does anyone know when the final regional rankings come out today??? ???

We don't know for sure that they do.
I don't think they will be out until tomorrow after the brackets are announced... they aren't announcing who is in or out tonight... releasing the regional rankings would essentially give the same info away.

But... the Handbook does say the rankings will be released today, FWIW

Since when has any NCAA sport committee followed what's written in the handbook? :P
That post makes you eligible for a change in identity as part of a witness protection and relocation program.   ;)

Thanks for the laugh on this stressful bubble-watch Sunday! If I could +k I would.  ;D

I coach women's golf here at Carleton as well and I make similar complaints in that sport, so I'm likely already on the NCAA's blacklist. Heck, at least men's basketball has a handbook--I ran two NCAA Swimming Championships without one in 2006! The NCAA never got around to making the edits submitted by the committee.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 27, 2011, 05:59:52 PM
Here's my 18 pool C's (not neccessarly in order):
Virginia Wesleyan
Oswego state
Williams
Amherst
WPI
Wisconsin-River Falls
Ramapo
Becker
Concordia (WI)
Wittenberg
Eastern Mennonite
Ferrum
Western Connecticut
Kean
Penn state-Behrend
Texas-Dallas
Ithaca
Gwynedd-Mercy

Gwynedd-Mercy, Ithaca & Dallas are my last 3 in (in that order)
Wabash and Carleton my last 2 out in that order.


Lets see how many of these I get right, I'll go between 5-10.  What's everyone thoughts??  Would you add another team in, if so who would you replace??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 27, 2011, 06:07:36 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 27, 2011, 05:59:52 PM
Here's my 18 pool C's (not neccessarly in order):
Virginia Wesleyan
Oswego state
Williams
Amherst
WPI
Wisconsin-River Falls
Ramapo
Becker
Concordia (WI)
Wittenberg
Eastern Mennonite
Ferrum
Western Connecticut
Kean
Penn state-Behrend
Texas-Dallas
Ithaca
Gwynedd-Mercy

Gwynedd-Mercy, Ithaca & Dallas are my last 3 in (in that order)
Wabash and Carleton my last 2 out in that order.


Lets see how many of these I get right, I'll go between 5-10.  What's everyone thoughts??  Would you add another team in, if so who would you replace??


Not so sure on Witt, Eastern Mennonite or Ferrum. None of those have the SOS or wins over regionally-ranked foes that Carleton, Wabash or Hanover possess. I'd even throw Stevens into that mix with those last three.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Will2Win on February 27, 2011, 06:48:16 PM
Do you guys think Eastern Mennonite's luck is up this year or have they done just enough to sneak in the field of 61??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2011, 07:05:10 PM
http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/d3-bracketology.html

This is the KnightSlappy projection.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 27, 2011, 07:08:56 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 27, 2011, 06:07:36 PM
Not so sure on Witt, Eastern Mennonite or Ferrum. None of those have the SOS or wins over regionally-ranked foes that Carleton, Wabash or Hanover possess. I'd even throw Stevens into that mix with those last three.

Witt has wins over Wooster, Wabash (2x), and Kean, just off the top of my head.  Those wins over Wabash surely put the Tigers ahead of the Little Giants on the final GL rankings.  Also I believe Witt has a better SOS than Wabash, although as I don't follow these things closely, I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2011, 07:21:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2011, 07:05:10 PM
http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/d3-bracketology.html

This is the KnightSlappy projection.

Thiel, Ferrum, St. Joseph (L.I.), Wabash, and Eastern Mennonite could all sneak in. I have them as out, but if you're a fan of these teams, you better be watching the selection show.

Any of Hanover, Wittenberg, Texas-Dallas, Keystone could get pushed out.

These are really the last nine for the final four spots. It gets kinda tough in there.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 27, 2011, 07:22:50 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 27, 2011, 07:08:56 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 27, 2011, 06:07:36 PM
Not so sure on Witt, Eastern Mennonite or Ferrum. None of those have the SOS or wins over regionally-ranked foes that Carleton, Wabash or Hanover possess. I'd even throw Stevens into that mix with those last three.

Witt has wins over Wooster, Wabash (2x), and Kean, just off the top of my head.  Those wins over Wabash surely put the Tigers ahead of the Little Giants on the final GL rankings.  Also I believe Witt has a better SOS than Wabash, although as I don't follow these things closely, I could be wrong.
And I haven't dug into all the head-to-head stuff by team, either. I've just been using the info provided by the NCAA with each week's regional ranking, copying over all that info by team into a spreadsheet and then pulling over teams that I and others feel are Pool C contenders for comparisons sake.

One thing that jumps out at me in terms of Witt and Wabash, and this could change with this week's results, is that Witt didn't appear in last week's regional rankings and Wabash did. So, the committee felt, as of last week, that Wabash stood ahead of Witt.

With that said, Knightslappy has Witt in the field and Wabash out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2011, 07:40:43 PM
Once ranked, always ranked...I believe.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2011, 08:15:16 PM
Quote from: bossman on February 27, 2011, 06:48:16 PM
Do you guys think Eastern Mennonite's luck is up this year or have they done just enough to sneak in the field of 61??

I don't think they're definitely out, but that last loss was not helpful.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on February 27, 2011, 08:34:04 PM
My guesses for brackets: (@=host)

WEST
Redlands at Chapman
Winner to Whitworth

Northwestern (MN) at St. Thomas@
UWRF vs Carleton

UWSP Vs Luther
St Norbert at Concordia@

UT-Dallas at Augustana@
McMurry vs Webster

SOUTH
Benedictine vs Manchester
Hanover at Hope@

Centre vs Wittenburg
Marietta at Wooster@

LaRoche vs Bethany
Alvernia at Va Wesleyan@

F&M at RMC@
NC Wesleyan vs St. Mary's

EAST

PS-Behrendt vs Wells
Buffalo St at Rochester@

Husson vs Skidmore
winner to Middlebury@

Hartwick at Oswego State@
Ithaca vs Keystone

Del Valley vs Scranton
Medgar Evers at New Jersey City@

NORTH

Cabrini vs Gwynedd-Mercy
SUNY-Purchase at Ramapo@

RI College vs Elms
Salve Regina at Amherst@

Johnson & Wales vs Bridgewater St
Becker at WPI@

MIT vs W. Conn
winner at Williams@

Just used Knightslappy's projections and proximity for the most part, trying to keep top teams from meeting too early.






Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2011, 08:36:23 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2011, 08:15:16 PM
Quote from: bossman on February 27, 2011, 06:48:16 PM
Do you guys think Eastern Mennonite's luck is up this year or have they done just enough to sneak in the field of 61??

I don't think they're definitely out, but that last loss was not helpful.

Though I don't understand the sentiment that Ferrum goes in before EMU.  I haven't carefully studied the numbers and criteria, but I DO know that EMU beat Ferrum, as did HSC (whom EMU beat twice).  If the criteria are otherwise reasonably similar (and I believe they are, with perhaps even a slight nod to EMU), I would think h-to-h would carry a great deal of weight.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HopeConvert on February 27, 2011, 08:41:56 PM
KnightSlappy's projections have only 5 teams which are effectively west of the Mississippi. I'll defer to others on this, but I can't see how the NCAA will have a sectional in Spokane given what it would take to get three other teams there. It's much easier to send Whitworth packing. How might they handle those 5 teams (two in SoCal, two in TX)?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2011, 08:43:35 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 27, 2011, 08:34:04 PM
My guesses for brackets: (@=host)

WEST
Redlands at Chapman
Winner to Whitworth

Northwestern (MN) at St. Thomas@
UWRF vs Carleton

UWSP Vs Luther
St Norbert at Concordia@

UT-Dallas at Augustana@
McMurry vs Webster

SOUTH
Benedictine vs Manchester
Hanover at Hope@

Centre vs Wittenburg
Marietta at Wooster@

LaRoche vs Bethany
Alvernia at Va Wesleyan@

F&M at RMC@
NC Wesleyan vs St. Mary's

EAST

PS-Behrendt vs Wells
Buffalo St at Rochester@

Husson vs Skidmore
winner to Middlebury@

Hartwick at Oswego State@
Ithaca vs Keystone

Del Valley vs Scranton
Medgar Evers at New Jersey City@

NORTH

Cabrini vs Gwynedd-Mercy
SUNY-Purchase at Ramapo@

RI College vs Elms
Salve Regina at Amherst@

Johnson & Wales vs Bridgewater St
Becker at WPI@

MIT vs W. Conn
winner at Williams@

Just used Knightslappy's projections and proximity for the most part, trying to keep top teams from meeting too early.
I like!  Send us the tickets!   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2011, 08:48:50 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 27, 2011, 08:41:56 PM
KnightSlappy's projections have only 5 teams which are effectively west of the Mississippi. I'll defer to others on this, but I can't see how the NCAA will have a sectional in Spokane given what it would take to get three other teams there. It's much easier to send Whitworth packing. How might they handle those 5 teams (two in SoCal, two in TX)?

There are still 3 byes - I'd bet Whitworth gets one, then hosts the winner of Redlands/Chapman.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: seinfeld on February 27, 2011, 08:50:37 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 27, 2011, 08:34:04 PM
Centre vs Wittenburg
Marietta at Wooster@

There's about a zero chance of this grouping happening. Marietta and Wooster definitely won't face each other in the first round. They are the top two teams in the GL, and both are well clear of Centre and Wittenberg. And Wooster has already played Wittenberg three times this year, including just yesterday. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but it seems pretty unlikely. Teams like Penn St. Behrend, Hanover and Rochester (and definitely Thiel if they happen to get in) probably have a better chance of being paired with Wooster than Wittenberg. Of course you could have LaRoche put in place of Wooster and facing either Centre or Wittenberg, and this would make more sense.

But then again, as a Wooster fan I'm happy they will be hosting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: mailsy on February 27, 2011, 08:58:37 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 27, 2011, 08:34:04 PM
My guesses for brackets: (@=host)
NORTH
Cabrini vs Gwynedd-Mercy
SUNY-Purchase at Ramapo@

Just used Knightslappy's projections and proximity for the most part, trying to keep top teams from meeting too early.




This will not happen.  They played each other in the CSAC final.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2011, 09:04:04 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 27, 2011, 08:41:56 PM
KnightSlappy's projections have only 5 teams which are effectively west of the Mississippi. I'll defer to others on this, but I can't see how the NCAA will have a sectional in Spokane given what it would take to get three other teams there. It's much easier to send Whitworth packing. How might they handle those 5 teams (two in SoCal, two in TX)?

A couple years ago they sent Wheaton down to Texas.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 27, 2011, 09:11:21 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 27, 2011, 08:34:04 PM
My guesses for brackets: (@=host

EAST

PS-Behrendt vs Wells
Buffalo St at Rochester@

Not sure if the Rochester men will be able to host. The Rochester women are #1 in the East and the women have priority for the 1st round.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2011, 09:12:26 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2011, 09:04:04 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 27, 2011, 08:41:56 PM
KnightSlappy's projections have only 5 teams which are effectively west of the Mississippi. I'll defer to others on this, but I can't see how the NCAA will have a sectional in Spokane given what it would take to get three other teams there. It's much easier to send Whitworth packing. How might they handle those 5 teams (two in SoCal, two in TX)?

A couple years ago they sent Wheaton down to Texas.

Wheaton went to TrinityTX and then up to UT-D to handle geographic isolation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on February 27, 2011, 09:22:45 PM
Several obvious mis-steps in my bracketology. :P

Forgot all about the women having first dibs on hosting. Meaning several other teams such as Hope, Amherst, etc won't be at home in the 1st/2nd rounds. Just threw it together in a half hour, hopefully the NCAA committee will spend more time ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: thebear on February 27, 2011, 09:24:42 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 27, 2011, 09:11:21 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 27, 2011, 08:34:04 PM
My guesses for brackets: (@=host

EAST

PS-Behrendt vs Wells
Buffalo St at Rochester@

Not sure if the Rochester men will be able to host. The Rochester women are #1 in the East and the women have priority for the 1st round.



Oswego can, Big Gym (2500+), Centrally located, but they may also be hosting hockey at the same time, so may not have put in a bid.

If you do a calculation on the schools in the east region, Oswego is the most centrally located school.

Only problem is once you get there, and it snows, you may need to leave by dogsled...

But... Geneseo (won 21 of last 22) won regular season and Conference tournament ... Rochester did not.  Geneseo could host, close to Rochester, no conflict with men's team, and another bigger gym, centrally located.  Keuka is also a short trip away, so NCAA could save $ there as well.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WcsuAlum on February 27, 2011, 09:30:11 PM
Hey I heard on the show tonight that you guys probably wouldn't have westconn in the tournament? All this waiting is killing me! Can anyone give me a logical answer on whether they'd have the colonials in the tournament or not?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2011, 10:25:56 PM
Bracketology's (Matt Daniels) projections overlaid on Old School's table.  (X= on the table)

Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2011, 01:50:08 AM
GREEN is Pool C candidate (Lost in conf. tourney-UAA does not have a conf. tourney)
BLUE secured a Pool A bid (Automatic qualifier)
CROSSED OUT is the conference leader (reg. season)



Atlantic Region
1C Ramapo 19-3 20-5 (NJAC):  LOST to Montclair State 67-64 in semis  
2 SUNY-Purchase 21-4 21-4 (SKY):  BEAT Old Westbury 85-74 in semis; BEAT St. Joseph's (L.I.) 81-66 in final
3 Kean 17-5 18-7 (NJAC):  LOST to NJCU 75-61 in semis
4X St. Joseph's (L.I.) 18-5 20-5 (SKY):  BEAT Mount Saint Vincent 68-60, BEAT Mount Saint Mary 78-75 OT in semis; LOST to SUNY-Purchase 81-66 in final
5 Mount Saint Mary 18-7 18-7 (SKY):  LOST to St. Joseph's (L.I.) 78-75 OT in semis


East Region
1C Oswego State 22-3 22-3 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Potsdam State 64-50 in quarterfinals, LOST Brockport State 74-70 in semis
2 Ithaca 19-5 20-5  (E8):  LOST to St. John Fisher 88-75 in semis
3 Rochester 19-3 20-4 (UAA):  LOST to Emory 83-72
4 Stevens 19-6 19-6 (E8):  LOST to Hartwick 76-73 in semis
5X Hobart 19-5 19-6 (LL):  LOST to Hamilton 62-60 in semis
6 Buffalo State 15-6 18-6 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Cortland State 75-56 in quarterfinals, BEAT Plattsburgh State 87-79 in semis; BEAT Brockport State 67-50 in final


Great Lakes Region
1 Wooster 20-2 23-2 (NCAC):  BEAT Allegheny 62-57 in quarterfinals, BEAT Ohio Wesleyan 70-62 in semis; BEAT Wittenberg 82-68 in final
2 Marietta 19-3 22-3 (OAC):  BEAT Wilmington 84-73 in quarterfinals, BEAT Heidelberg 70-55 in semis; BEAT John Carroll 88-85 in final
3C Penn State-Behrend 22-2 22-3 (AMCC):  BEAT Medaille 58-51 in semis; LOST to La Roche 55-53 in final  
4 Hope 15-2 19-6 (MIAA):   BEAT Alma 110-77 in quarterfinals, BEAT Adrian 63-45 in semis; BEAT Calvin in final 72-67
5X Thiel 15-3 18-6 (PrAC):  BEAT Waynesburg 73-63 in quarterfinals, BEAT Thomas More 78-65 in semis; LOST to Bethany 74-67 in final
6 Wabash 18-5 19-5 (NCAC):  BEAT Kenyon 72-61 in quarterfinals, LOST to Wittenberg 65-63 in semis
NR C Wittenberg  LOST in NCAC Finals to Wooster.


Middle Atlantic Region
1C La Roche 22-2 23-2 (AMCC):   BEAT Hilbert 86-69 in semis; BEAT Penn State-Behrend 55-53 in final
2C St. Mary's (Md.) 18-3 20-5 (CAC):  BEAT Mary Washington 79-57 in semis; BEAT Wesley 97-65 in final
3C Cabrini 20-5 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Neumann 79-76 in semis, BEAT Gwynedd-Mercy 92-70 in final
4 Gwynedd-Mercy 19-4 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Keystone 85-65 in semis, LOST to Cabrini 92-70 in final
5C Keystone 21-5 21-5 (CSAC):  LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy 85-65 in semis
6 Lebanon Valley 17-6 19-6 (MACC):  BEAT Widener 58-56 in semis, LOST to Alvernia in final 57-55
7 Franklin and Marshall 18-5 20-5 (CC):  BEAT Haverford 71-62 in semis; beat Dickinson in final 2/27
8 DeSales 16-7 18-7 (MACF): BEAT Misericordia 78-69 in semis, LOST to Delaware Valley 79-58 in final
9X Wesley 15-5 16-9 (CAC):  BEAT Salisbury 75-74 in semis; LOST to St. Mary's (Md.) 97-65 in final


Midwest Region
1C Concordia (Wis.) 20-2 22-3 (NATH):   LOST to Edgewood 95-89 in semis
2 Augustana 21-2 22-2 (CCIW):   BEAT Wheaton 73-58 in semis; BEAT Illinois Wesleyan 76-52 in final
3 Manchester 18-5 19-6 (HCAC):  BEAT Transylvania 68-65 in semis; beat Hanover in final 2/27  
4C Hanover 18-6 18-6 (HCAC):  BEAT Anderson 62-50 in semis; Lost to Manchester in final 2/27
5 Anderson 15-7 17-8 (HCAC):  BEAT Bluffton 75-60 in quarterfinals; LOST to Hanover 62-50 in semis
6 Milwaukee Engineering 18-6 19-6 (NATH):  LOST to Aurora 72-67 in quarterfinals
7 Benedictine 17-6 18-7 (NATH):  BEAT Rockford 91-76 in quarterfinals, BEAT Aurora 71-60 in semis; BEAT Edgewood in final 70-59  
8 St. Norbert 18-5 18-5 (MWC):  BEAT Ripon 75-52 in semis; BEAT Grinnell in final 89-67
NRX Edgewood


Northeast Region
1C Williams 21-1 23-1 (NESCAC): BEAT Trinity (Conn.) in semis 79-69; Lost to Middlebury in final 2/27
2 Middlebury 20-1 23-1 (NESCAC):  BEAT Amherst 67-67 in semis; plays Williams in final 2/27
3C WPI 21-3 21-4 (NEWMAC):  BEAT Coast Guard 62-51 in semis; lost to MIT in final 2/27
4C Becker 22-3 22-3 (NECC):  BEAT Newbury 84-75 in semis; LOST Elms 79-65 in final  
5C Amherst 21-2 22-2 (NESCAC):  LOST to Middlebury 67-61 in semis
6C Western Connecticut State 20-4 21-4 (LEC):  LOST Eastern Connecticut State 94-70 in semis
7 Rhode Island College 17-7 17-7 (LEC):   BEAT Keene State 102-92 2OT in semis; BEAT Eastern Connecticut Sate 62-49 in final
8X Elms 16-6 18-7 (NECC):  BEAT Southern Vermont 88-73 in semis; BEAT Becker 79-65 in final
9 Eastern Connecticut State 15-7 17-8 (LEC):  BEAT Western Connecticut State 94-70 in semis; LOST to Rhode Island College 62-49 in final  
10 Brandeis 16-8 16-8 (UAA):  LOST to NYU 70-54
11 Roger Williams 17-8 17-8 (CCC):  LOST to Endicott 71-68 in CCC quarterfinals


South Region
1C Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 22-3 (ODAC):  BEAT Washington and Lee 98-78  in quarterfinals; LOST to Randolph 80-76 in semis
2 Randolph-Macon 20-4 21-4 (ODAC):  BEAT Roanoke 63-56 in quarterfinals; BEAT Eastern Mennonite 90-79 in semis; Beat Randolph in final 2/27
3C Texas-Dallas 19-4 20-5 (ASC):   BEAT Concordia (Texas) 85-70 in quarterfinals; LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor 77-69 in semis
4 Ferrum 18-4 21-4 (USAC):  BEAT Christopher Newport 87-81 in semis; LOST to North Carolina Wesleyan in final 2/27, 74-70 OT
5 Eastern Mennonite 15-4 21-4 (ODAC):  BEAT Hampden-Sydney 76-75 in quarterfinals; LOST to Randolph-Macon 90-79 in semis
6 North Carolina Wesleyan 14-4 19-6 (USAC):[/s] BEAT Greensboro 86-69 in semis; beat Ferrum in finals 2/27
7 Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-6 19-6 (ASC): BEAT Texas-Tyler 73-68 in quarterfinals; BEAT Texas-Dallas 77-69 in semis; LOST to McMurry in ASC final 2/27  
8 Emory 18-5 19-5 (UAA):  BEAT Rochester 83-72


West Region
1 Whitworth 24-1 24-1 (NWC):  BEAT Pacific Lutheran 74-63 in semis; BEAT Whitman 74-50 in final
2 St. Thomas 21-3 22-3 (MIAC): BEAT Hamline 78-70in semis; plays Gustavus Adolphus in final 2/27
3 UW-Stevens Point 21-3 22-3 (WIAC): BEAT Superior 84-52 in semis; BEAT River Falls 79-56 in final
4 Chapman 14-1 21-3 (IND):  BEAT La Sierra 61-56, BEAT Univ. of Dallas 73-43
5C Carleton 18-5 18-7 (MIAC):  LOST to Gustavus Adolphus 70-64 in semis
6C UW-River Falls 17-5 19-6 (WIAC):  BEAT Platteville 69-60 in semis; LOST Stevens Point 79-56 in final
7X Whitman 13-5 18-7 (NWC):  BEAT Lewis and Clark 79-76 in semis; LOST to Whitworth 74-50 in final
8 Lewis and Clark 12-5 18-7 (NWC):  LOST to Whitman 79-76 in semis
9 UW-Whitewater 16-8 17-8 (WIAC):  LOST to Superior 78-72 in quarterfinals


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2011, 10:36:42 PM
ALL RESULTS FINAL

GREEN is Pool C candidate (Lost in conf. tourney-UAA does not have a conf. tourney)
BLUE secured a Pool A bid (Automatic qualifier)
CROSSED OUT is the conference leader (reg. season)



Atlantic Region
1 Ramapo 19-3 20-5 (NJAC):  LOST to Montclair State 67-64 in semis  
2 SUNY-Purchase 21-4 21-4 (SKY):  BEAT Old Westbury 85-74 in semis; BEAT St. Joseph's (L.I.) 81-66 in final
3 Kean 17-5 18-7 (NJAC):  LOST to NJCU 75-61 in semis
4 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 18-5 20-5 (SKY):  BEAT Mount Saint Vincent 68-60, BEAT Mount Saint Mary 78-75 OT in semis; LOST to SUNY-Purchase 81-66 in final
5 Mount Saint Mary 18-7 18-7 (SKY):  LOST to St. Joseph's (L.I.) 78-75 OT in semis


East Region
1 Oswego State 22-3 22-3 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Potsdam State 64-50 in quarterfinals, LOST Brockport State 74-70 in semis
2 Ithaca 19-5 20-5  (E8):  LOST to St. John Fisher 88-75 in semis
3 Rochester 19-3 20-4 (UAA):  LOST to Emory 83-72
4 Stevens 19-6 19-6 (E8):  LOST to Hartwick 76-73 in semis
5 Hobart 19-5 19-6 (LL):  LOST to Hamilton 62-60 in semis
6 Buffalo State 15-6 18-6 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Cortland State 75-56 in quarterfinals, BEAT Plattsburgh State 87-79 in semis; BEAT Brockport State 67-50 in final


Great Lakes Region
1 Wooster 20-2 23-2 (NCAC):  BEAT Allegheny 62-57 in quarterfinals, BEAT Ohio Wesleyan 70-62 in semis; BEAT Wittenberg 82-68 in final
2 Marietta 19-3 22-3 (OAC):  BEAT Wilmington 84-73 in quarterfinals, BEAT Heidelberg 70-55 in semis; BEAT John Carroll 88-85 in final
3 Penn State-Behrend 22-2 22-3 (AMCC):  BEAT Medaille 58-51 in semis; LOST to La Roche 55-53 in final  
4 Hope 15-2 19-6 (MIAA):   BEAT Alma 110-77 in quarterfinals, BEAT Adrian 63-45 in semis; BEAT Calvin in final 72-67
5 Thiel 15-3 18-6 (PrAC):  BEAT Waynesburg 73-63 in quarterfinals, BEAT Thomas More 78-65 in semis; LOST to Bethany 74-67 in final
6 Wabash 18-5 19-5 (NCAC):  BEAT Kenyon 72-61 in quarterfinals, LOST to Wittenberg 65-63 in semis


Middle Atlantic Region
1 La Roche 22-2 23-2 (AMCC):   BEAT Hilbert 86-69 in semis; BEAT Penn State-Behrend 55-53 in final
2 St. Mary's (Md.) 18-3 20-5 (CAC):  BEAT Mary Washington 79-57 in semis; BEAT Wesley 97-65 in final
3 Cabrini 20-5 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Neumann 79-76 in semis, BEAT Gwynedd-Mercy 92-70 in final
4 Gwynedd-Mercy 19-4 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Keystone 85-65 in semis, LOST to Cabrini 92-70 in final
5 Keystone 21-5 21-5 (CSAC):  LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy 85-65 in semis
6 Lebanon Valley 17-6 19-6 (MACC):  BEAT Widener 58-56 in semis, LOST to Alvernia in final 57-55
7 Franklin and Marshall 18-5 20-5 (CC):  BEAT Haverford 71-62 in semis; BEAT Dickinson 75-55 in final  
8 DeSales 16-7 18-7 (MACF): BEAT Misericordia 78-69 in semis, LOST to Delaware Valley 79-58 in final
9 Wesley 15-5 16-9 (CAC):  BEAT Salisbury 75-74 in semis; LOST to St. Mary's (Md.) 97-65 in final


Midwest Region
1 Concordia (Wis.) 20-2 22-3 (NATH):   LOST to Edgewood 95-89 in semis
2 Augustana 21-2 22-2 (CCIW):   BEAT Wheaton 73-58 in semis; BEAT Illinois Wesleyan 76-52 in final
3 Manchester 18-5 19-6 (HCAC):  BEAT Transylvania 68-65 in semis; BEAT Hanover 79-69 in final  
4 Hanover 18-6 18-6 (HCAC):  BEAT Anderson 62-50 in semis; LOST to Manchester 79-69 in final
5 Anderson 15-7 17-8 (HCAC):  BEAT Bluffton 75-60 in quarterfinals; LOST to Hanover 62-50 in semis
6 Milwaukee Engineering 18-6 19-6 (NATH):  LOST to Aurora 72-67 in quarterfinals
7 Benedictine 17-6 18-7 (NATH):  BEAT Rockford 91-76 in quarterfinals, BEAT Aurora 71-60 in semis; BEAT Edgewood in final 70-59  
8 St. Norbert 18-5 18-5 (MWC):  BEAT Ripon 75-52 in semis; BEAT Grinnell in final 89-67


Northeast Region
1 Williams 21-1 23-1 (NESCAC): BEAT Trinity (Conn.) in semis 79-69; LOST Middlebury 63-54 in final
2 Middlebury 20-1 23-1 (NESCAC):  BEAT Amherst 67-67 in semis; BEAT Williams 63-54 in final  
3 WPI 21-3 21-4 (NEWMAC): BEAT Coast Guard 62-51 in semis; LOST MIT in final
4 Becker 22-3 22-3 (NECC):  BEAT Newbury 84-75 in semis; LOST Elms 79-65 in final  
5 Amherst 21-2 22-2 (NESCAC):  LOST to Middlebury 67-61 in semis
6 Western Connecticut State 20-4 21-4 (LEC):  LOST Eastern Connecticut State 94-70 in semis
7 Rhode Island College 17-7 17-7 (LEC):   BEAT Keene State 102-92 2OT in semis; BEAT Eastern Connecticut Sate 62-49 in final
8 Elms 16-6 18-7 (NECC):  BEAT Southern Vermont 88-73 in semis; BEAT Becker 79-65 in final
9 Eastern Connecticut State 15-7 17-8 (LEC):  BEAT Western Connecticut State 94-70 in semis; LOST to Rhode Island College 62-49 in final  
10 Brandeis 16-8 16-8 (UAA):  LOST to NYU 70-54
11 Roger Williams 17-8 17-8 (CCC):  LOST to Endicott 71-68 in CCC quarterfinals


South Region
1 Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 22-3 (ODAC):  BEAT Washington and Lee 98-78  in quarterfinals; LOST to Randolph 80-76 in semis
2 Randolph-Macon 20-4 21-4 (ODAC):  BEAT Roanoke 63-56 in quarterfinals; BEAT Eastern Mennonite 90-79 in semis; BEAT Randolph 68-43 in final  
3 Texas-Dallas 19-4 20-5 (ASC):   BEAT Concordia (Texas) 85-70 in quarterfinals; LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor 77-69 in semis
4 Ferrum 18-4 21-4 (USAC):  BEAT Christopher Newport 87-81 in semis; LOST to North Carolina Wesleyan 74-70 OT in final  
5  Eastern Mennonite 15-4 21-4 (ODAC):   BEAT Hampden-Sydney 76-75 in quarterfinals;  LOST  to Randolph-Macon 90-79 in semis
6 North Carolina Wesleyan 14-4 19-6 (USAC): BEAT Greensboro 86-69 in semis; BEAT Ferrum in finals 2/27
7 Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-6 19-6 (ASC): BEAT Texas-Tyler 73-68 in quarterfinals; BEAT Texas-Dallas 77-69 in semis; LOST McMurry 72-65 in ASC final    
8 Emory 18-5 19-5 (UAA):  BEAT Rochester 83-72

West Region
1  Whitworth 24-1 24-1 (NWC):  BEAT Pacific Lutheran 74-63 in semis; BEAT Whitman 74-50 in final
2 St. Thomas 21-3 22-3 (MIAC): BEAT Hamline 78-70in semis; BEAT Gustavus Adolphus 83-77 in final
3 UW-Stevens Point 21-3 22-3 (WIAC): BEAT Superior 84-52 in semis; BEAT River Falls 79-56 in final
4 Chapman 14-1 21-3 (IND):  BEAT La Sierra 61-56, BEAT Univ. of Dallas 73-43
5 Carleton 18-5 18-7 (MIAC):  LOST to Gustavus Adolphus 70-64 in semis
6 UW-River Falls 17-5 19-6 (WIAC):  BEAT Platteville 69-60 in semis; LOST Stevens Point 79-56 in final
7 Whitman 13-5 18-7 (NWC):  BEAT Lewis and Clark 79-76 in semis; LOST to Whitworth 74-50 in final
8 Lewis and Clark 12-5 18-7 (NWC):  LOST to Whitman 79-76 in semis
9 UW-Whitewater 16-8 17-8 (WIAC):  LOST to Superior 78-72 in quarterfinals
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2011, 10:43:16 PM
Pool C ONLY

Atlantic Region
1 Ramapo 19-3 20-5 (NJAC):  LOST to Montclair State 67-64 in semis  
3 Kean 17-5 18-7 (NJAC):  LOST to NJCU 75-61 in semis
4 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 18-5 20-5 (SKY):  BEAT Mount Saint Vincent 68-60, BEAT Mount Saint Mary 78-75 OT in semis; LOST to SUNY-Purchase 81-66 in final
5 Mount Saint Mary 18-7 18-7 (SKY):  LOST to St. Joseph's (L.I.) 78-75 OT in semis


East Region
1 Oswego State 22-3 22-3 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Potsdam State 64-50 in quarterfinals, LOST Brockport State 74-70 in semis
2 Ithaca 19-5 20-5  (E8):  LOST to St. John Fisher 88-75 in semis
4 Stevens 19-6 19-6 (E8):  LOST to Hartwick 76-73 in semis
5 Hobart 19-5 19-6 (LL):  LOST to Hamilton 62-60 in semis


Great Lakes Region
3 Penn State-Behrend 22-2 22-3 (AMCC):  BEAT Medaille 58-51 in semis; LOST to La Roche 55-53 in final  
5 Thiel 15-3 18-6 (PrAC):  BEAT Waynesburg 73-63 in quarterfinals, BEAT Thomas More 78-65 in semis; LOST to Bethany 74-67 in final
6 Wabash 18-5 19-5 (NCAC):  BEAT Kenyon 72-61 in quarterfinals, LOST to Wittenberg 65-63 in semis

**Wittenberg:  LOST to Wooster in NCAC Final

Middle Atlantic Region
4 Gwynedd-Mercy 19-4 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Keystone 85-65 in semis, LOST to Cabrini 92-70 in final
5 Keystone 21-5 21-5 (CSAC):  LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy 85-65 in semis
6 Lebanon Valley 17-6 19-6 (MACC):  BEAT Widener 58-56 in semis, LOST to Alvernia in final 57-55  
8 DeSales 16-7 18-7 (MACF): BEAT Misericordia 78-69 in semis, LOST to Delaware Valley 79-58 in final
9 Wesley 15-5 16-9 (CAC):  BEAT Salisbury 75-74 in semis; LOST to St. Mary's (Md.) 97-65 in final


Midwest Region
1 Concordia (Wis.) 20-2 22-3 (NATH):   LOST to Edgewood 95-89 in semis  
4 Hanover 18-6 18-6 (HCAC):  BEAT Anderson 62-50 in semis; LOST to Manchester 79-69 in final
5 Anderson 15-7 17-8 (HCAC):  BEAT Bluffton 75-60 in quarterfinals; LOST to Hanover 62-50 in semis
6 Milwaukee Engineering 18-6 19-6 (NATH):  LOST to Aurora 72-67 in quarterfinals
 
**Edgewood:  LOST to Benedictine in NATH Final

Northeast Region
1 Williams 21-1 23-1 (NESCAC): BEAT Trinity (Conn.) in semis 79-69; LOST Middlebury 63-54 in final  
3 WPI 21-3 21-4 (NEWMAC): BEAT Coast Guard 62-51 in semis; LOST MIT in final
4 Becker 22-3 22-3 (NECC):  BEAT Newbury 84-75 in semis; LOST Elms 79-65 in final  
5 Amherst 21-2 22-2 (NESCAC):  LOST to Middlebury 67-61 in semis
6 Western Connecticut State 20-4 21-4 (LEC):  LOST Eastern Connecticut State 94-70 in semis
9 Eastern Connecticut State 15-7 17-8 (LEC):  BEAT Western Connecticut State 94-70 in semis; LOST to Rhode Island College 62-49 in final  
10 Brandeis 16-8 16-8 (UAA):  LOST to NYU 70-54
11 Roger Williams 17-8 17-8 (CCC):  LOST to Endicott 71-68 in CCC quarterfinals


South Region
1 Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 22-3 (ODAC):  BEAT Washington and Lee 98-78  in quarterfinals; LOST to Randolph 80-76 in semis
3 Texas-Dallas 19-4 20-5 (ASC):   BEAT Concordia (Texas) 85-70 in quarterfinals; LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor 77-69 in semis
4 Ferrum 18-4 21-4 (USAC):  BEAT Christopher Newport 87-81 in semis; LOST to North Carolina Wesleyan 74-70 OT in final  
5  Eastern Mennonite 15-4 21-4 (ODAC):   BEAT Hampden-Sydney 76-75 in quarterfinals;  LOST  to Randolph-Macon 90-79 in semis
7 Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-6 19-6 (ASC): BEAT Texas-Tyler 73-68 in quarterfinals; BEAT Texas-Dallas 77-69 in semis; LOST McMurry 72-65 in ASC final    
8 Emory 18-5 19-5 (UAA):  BEAT Rochester 83-72

West Region
5 Carleton 18-5 18-7 (MIAC):  LOST to Gustavus Adolphus 70-64 in semis
6 UW-River Falls 17-5 19-6 (WIAC):  BEAT Platteville 69-60 in semis; LOST Stevens Point 79-56 in final
7 Whitman 13-5 18-7 (NWC):  BEAT Lewis and Clark 79-76 in semis; LOST to Whitworth 74-50 in final
8 Lewis and Clark 12-5 18-7 (NWC):  LOST to Whitman 79-76 in semis
9 UW-Whitewater 16-8 17-8 (WIAC):  LOST to Superior 78-72 in quarterfinals
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 27, 2011, 10:58:51 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2011, 09:04:04 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 27, 2011, 08:41:56 PM
KnightSlappy's projections have only 5 teams which are effectively west of the Mississippi. I'll defer to others on this, but I can't see how the NCAA will have a sectional in Spokane given what it would take to get three other teams there. It's much easier to send Whitworth packing. How might they handle those 5 teams (two in SoCal, two in TX)?

A couple years ago they sent Wheaton down to Texas.



Last year, actually
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2011, 11:06:11 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 27, 2011, 10:58:51 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2011, 09:04:04 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 27, 2011, 08:41:56 PM
KnightSlappy's projections have only 5 teams which are effectively west of the Mississippi. I'll defer to others on this, but I can't see how the NCAA will have a sectional in Spokane given what it would take to get three other teams there. It's much easier to send Whitworth packing. How might they handle those 5 teams (two in SoCal, two in TX)?

A couple years ago they sent Wheaton down to Texas.



Last year, actually

The years all meld together when you hit 40
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 27, 2011, 11:07:17 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2011, 11:06:11 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 27, 2011, 10:58:51 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2011, 09:04:04 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 27, 2011, 08:41:56 PM
KnightSlappy's projections have only 5 teams which are effectively west of the Mississippi. I'll defer to others on this, but I can't see how the NCAA will have a sectional in Spokane given what it would take to get three other teams there. It's much easier to send Whitworth packing. How might they handle those 5 teams (two in SoCal, two in TX)?

A couple years ago they sent Wheaton down to Texas.



Last year, actually

The years all meld together when you hit 40

That's what I hear... I'll let you know when I get there!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 27, 2011, 11:17:19 PM
Quote from: WcsuAlum on February 27, 2011, 09:30:11 PM
Hey I heard on the show tonight that you guys probably wouldn't have westconn in the tournament? All this waiting is killing me! Can anyone give me a logical answer on whether they'd have the colonials in the tournament or not?


This is killing me.  Lucky I have an easy class tomorrow up in Danbury (I get to shoot around at Feldman arena), because if I had my math class I don't think I would make it through to 1:00.  Either way I'll be sweating bullets for the car ride home at 12:30.  Will be close, I think their in, but you never know how much the committee looks at recent play.  A couple years ago Mass-Dartmouth started 19-0 peaked as high as #2 in the country, and then fizzled down the stretch losing 3 of their last 6 including an embarressing loss in the LEC tournament to RIC I believe.  Not only did they make the tournament, they ended up hosting a pod.  Granted Western wasn't 19-0 or was in the top 10 but if you go by that Western SHOULD be in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WcsuAlum on February 27, 2011, 11:46:34 PM
Hopefully your right! I feel like Western could be a surprise, I've seen this team at their best, and if this team gets it together and gets in this tournament, they may make a STRONG run. The committee needs to put this team in the NCAA tournament. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2011, 11:59:37 PM
It doesn't look good for WCSU.  ECSU will probably jump them in the regional standings and FIVE Northeast Region teams need to be picked before WCSU even gets to the table.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 28, 2011, 12:24:39 AM
Quote from: WcsuAlum on February 27, 2011, 11:46:34 PM
Hopefully your right! I feel like Western could be a surprise, I've seen this team at their best, and if this team gets it together and gets in this tournament, they may make a STRONG run. The committee needs to put this team in the NCAA tournament. 


Thats the thing, they have the talent to compete with anyone in the country.  Match them up with any of the big 3 of the NESCAC and its a lot closer then people may think.  If they don't get in, they have no one to blame but themselves finishing with 3 losses in their final 5 games when they all but had a bid sewn up.  I'm still holding out hope.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 28, 2011, 12:26:06 AM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2011, 11:59:37 PM
It doesn't look good for WCSU.  ECSU will probably jump them in the regional standings and FIVE Northeast Region teams need to be picked before WCSU even gets to the table.


So, if I have this right assuming Eastern jumps them in the rankings, Eastern would have to be in the tournament before Western even gets considered??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WcsuAlum on February 28, 2011, 12:38:03 AM
Just remember that western did beat eastern twice, did beat rhode island, beat wpi by 15, beat plattsburgh state when they were ranked, beat trinity and colby who are two necsac teams. No way Eastern jumps Western to being considered for the tournament. At the end of the day, Western is still 21-5, they have an all-american on their team, they lost twice on the road, two neutral and 1 home. 21 wins regardless of when and how they won, they pulled out 21 wins, hit the 20 mark and have some big wins, something most teams can't say. There's no way I see the committee not letting them in two years in a row.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2011, 12:50:56 AM
Greetings...

This is what the committee will consider.

Quote from: WcsuAlum on February 28, 2011, 12:38:03 AM
Just remember that western did beat eastern twice, (Head-to-head)

did beat rhode island, (result against a regionally ranked team; 1-1 vs RIC)
beat wpi by 15, (result against a regionally ranked team, margin of victory does not matter)
beat plattsburgh state when they were ranked, (secondary criterion, ranked team non-in-region)
beat trinity and colby who are two necsac teams.  (in-region games and count towards in-region record)



No way Eastern jumps Western to being considered for the tournament.

At the end of the day, Western is still 21-5 (and 20-5 in-region)
they have an all-american on their team, (not a criterion)
they lost twice on the road, two neutral and 1 home. (already considered and factored into the OWP/OOWP)
21 wins regardless of when and how they won, they pulled out 21 wins, hit the 20 mark and have some big wins, something most teams can't say. (number of wins is considered in the OWP/OOWP and regional record.  20 is not a magic number.)

There's no way I see the committee not letting them in two years in a row.
Also look at:

20-5 Northeast Region record (.800) as I said before
Who else beat Trinity and Colby, WPI and RIC?
Regional Rankings

Northeast Region
1 Williams 21-1 23-1  Pool C
2 Middlebury 20-1 23-1  Pool A
3 WPI 21-3 21-4  Pool C
4 Becker 22-3 22-3  Pool C
5 Amherst 21-2 22-2   Pool C
6 Western Connecticut State 20-4 21-4  Pool C
7 Rhode Island College 17-7 17-7  Pool A
8 Elms 16-6 18-7  Pool A
9 Eastern Connecticut State 15-7 17-8
10 Brandeis 16-8 16-8
11 Roger Williams 17-8 17-8

I think that WCSU is in, but for the reasons listed.  This amazing thing is that 5 of the 18 Pool C bids are going to the Northeast in this scenario.  That is what has everyone intrigued and WCSU fans worried.

Here is the link to the handbook. (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/basketball/2011/11_3_mbasketball.pdf)   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WcsuAlum on February 28, 2011, 01:05:11 AM
Thanks for the explanation. I figured they would be in but hearing all these opinions is driving me crazy! They have to get in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2011, 06:11:26 AM
7express,

Yes, if ECSU would jump them, they would have to be picked before WCSU would get a shot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fritzdis on February 28, 2011, 07:13:32 AM
I think there's only 1 primary criterion where ECSU comes out ahead of WCSU.

All of these list WCSU then ECSU:

WP: .808 vs. .680
SOS: .531 vs. .511+ (I assume ECSU has gone up in the last 3 games, but not ahead of WCSU)
Head-to-head: 2-1
Common opponents: 11-3 vs. 13-3
Ranked opponents: 4-2 vs. 1-6

I'll be pretty shocked if ECSU jumps WCSU.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 28, 2011, 07:32:20 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on February 28, 2011, 07:13:32 AM
I think there's only 1 primary criterion where ECSU comes out ahead of WCSU.

All of these list WCSU then ECSU:

WP: .808 vs. .680
SOS: .531 vs. .511+ (I assume ECSU has gone up in the last 3 games, but not ahead of WCSU)
Head-to-head: 2-1
Common opponents: 11-3 vs. 13-3
Ranked opponents: 4-2 vs. 1-6

I'll be pretty shocked if ECSU jumps WCSU.

From my point of view, I think that it is more likely that Eastern Connecticut will be a top seed, along with Brandeis, in the ECAC New England tournament that starts on Wednesday, than it will be that ECSU gets a Pool C bid.  (Both Brandeis and Eastern Connecticut declared for ECAC consideration.)

I'm awaiting the NCAA selections later today, and then I will await the ECAC call for my marching orders-- I believe that Eastern Connecticut and Brandeis will host games on Wednesday should ECSU not get picked as a Pool C.  Brandeis gets either a #1 or #2 seed in the ECACs depending on the NCAA call.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 09:19:41 AM
Pat's Pool C projections are out:

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/27/mens-bracketology/

We both agree on:

Amherst, Becker, Carleton, Concordia (Wis.), Gwynedd-Mercy, Hanover, Ithaca, Oswego State, Penn State-Behrend, Ramapo, UW-River Falls, Virginia Wesleyan, Western Connecticut, Williams, Wittenberg, and WPI getting in.

I have Texas-Dallas and Keystone as my last two in.

Pat likes Kean and Mary Hardin-Baylor instead.

I can't really argue with him. There are several teams vying for the last couple of spots, and a lot depends on how exactly the final regional rankings end up.

My last ten out are:

Thiel
Ferrum
St. Josephs (L.I.)
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Wabash
Eastern Mennonite
Whitman
Kean
Hobart
Wesley

You could make cases for any of these teams, but, of course, they all have good cases for why they should be left out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 28, 2011, 01:39:59 PM
So it looks like Pat and KnightSlappy came to a compromise. Pat got Mary Hardin-Baylor and no Kean. KnightSlappy got Texas-Dallas and no Keystone. :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 28, 2011, 01:41:46 PM
So someone's going to have to explain to me how in the h-e-double hockey sticks Carleton didn't make it when they held 2 of the primary selection criteria over 6 other teams (IWU, UMHB, Witt, Hanover, UT-Dallas and GMC) to their 1 over Carleton and yet the Knights didn't get selected?

And I'm using the updated numbers posted on the NCAA's website this morning. I'm especially seeing read over Witt, who was 18-8 in region (.692) to Carleton's 18-6 (.750). Carleton was 5-4 vs. regionally-ranked teams to IWU's 2-2. IWU did have Carleton on SOS (.543 vs. .528), which sure changed a ton over the last week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2011, 01:46:11 PM
So KS, you didn't have Illinois Wesleyan among your top 28 Pool C teams, and still they got in?   ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 01:52:19 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2011, 01:46:11 PM
So KS, you didn't have Illinois Wesleyan among your top 28 Pool C teams, and still they got in?   ???

The crazy IWU love that has gone on throughout the year from many different sources has baffled me.

They did have a pretty good SOS though.

I really thought IWU was closer to Calvin than Carleton, but I was wrong.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 28, 2011, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 01:52:19 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2011, 01:46:11 PM
So KS, you didn't have Illinois Wesleyan among your top 28 Pool C teams, and still they got in?   ???

The crazy IWU love that has gone on throughout the year from many different sources has baffled me.

They did have a pretty good SOS though.

I really thought IWU was closer to Calvin than Carleton, but I was wrong.

KS, thanks for all your work this year. I used to work at Alma so I know the MIAA and how passionate folks are about their hoops in Western Michigan.

I think the numbers show that IWU is closer to Calvin. Numbers don't lie--committees do, apparently.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 28, 2011, 01:56:52 PM
Thanks for lettting me know that the final SOS data has been released.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on February 28, 2011, 02:11:01 PM
NCAA final regional rankings. Links at bottom of page show regional scores.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3 (http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2011, 02:29:28 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 28, 2011, 02:11:01 PM
NCAA final regional rankings. Links at bottom of page show regional scores.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3 (http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3)

Teams "at the table" when the selection was completed:
St. Joseph's (Long Island)
Stevens
Wabash
Lebanon Valley
Edgewood
ECSU
Ferrum
Carleton

Note the absence of Keystone and Eastern Mennonite, each #7 in their respective regions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Will2Win on February 28, 2011, 02:31:35 PM
Can someone be so kind to post the south regions final rankings for me?? It wont display on my computer at the moment...Thanks!  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
Quote from: bossman on February 28, 2011, 02:31:35 PM
Can someone be so kind to post the south regions final rankings for me?? It wont display on my computer at the moment...Thanks!  ;D
SOUTH         
1   Virginia Wesleyan   23-4   21-4
2   Randolph-Macon   24-4   23-4
3   McMurry   20-6   21-7
4   Mary Hardin-Baylor   21-7   21-7
5   Texas-Dallas   20-5   21-6
6   Ferrum   20-5   23-5
7   Eastern Mennonite   16-5   22-5
8   North Carolina Wesleyan   16-4   21-6
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 28, 2011, 02:33:29 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 28, 2011, 02:11:01 PM
NCAA final regional rankings. Links at bottom of page show regional scores.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3 (http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3)

I'd still like an explanation as to how Marietta is ranked ahead of Hope.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Will2Win on February 28, 2011, 02:36:44 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
Quote from: bossman on February 28, 2011, 02:31:35 PM
Can someone be so kind to post the south regions final rankings for me?? It wont display on my computer at the moment...Thanks!  ;D
SOUTH         
1   Virginia Wesleyan   23-4   21-4
2   Randolph-Macon   24-4   23-4
3   McMurry   20-6   21-7
4   Mary Hardin-Baylor   21-7   21-7
5   Texas-Dallas   20-5   21-6
6   Ferrum   20-5   23-5
7   Eastern Mennonite   16-5   22-5
8   North Carolina Wesleyan   16-4   21-6

Thanks David!!!
+k for you as soon as I have the ability to do so :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2011, 02:44:59 PM

So we can be pretty sure that IWU was the last team in, most likely over Wabash, Ferrum, and Carleton?

Yeah, I think picking IWU was a mistake.  Out of the other three, Ferrum deserved to be there.

EMU got left out on schedule, I presume.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2011, 03:40:27 PM
Quote from: bossman on February 28, 2011, 02:36:44 PM
Thanks David!!!
+k for you as soon as I have the ability to do so :)

Karma transmitted, per your request.   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 28, 2011, 03:44:19 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 28, 2011, 02:33:29 PM
Quote from: frodotwo on February 28, 2011, 02:11:01 PM
NCAA final regional rankings. Links at bottom of page show regional scores.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3 (http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3)

I'd still like an explanation as to how Marietta is ranked ahead of Hope.

Absolutely, especially after the explanation the guy revealing the brackets made regarding how the criteria are supposed to be used.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there is no primary criteria that Marietta ranked better than Hope, its supposed to end there.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 03:52:51 PM
I think it's a mistake to believe that when you play so many secondary-criteria games that the NCAA won't look at them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 28, 2011, 03:54:29 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 03:52:51 PM
I think it's a mistake to believe that when you play so many secondary-criteria games that the NCAA won't look at them.

But that's not how the guy announcing the brackets worded his opening.  Is he incorrect?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 28, 2011, 03:56:51 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 03:52:51 PM
I think it's a mistake to believe that when you play so many secondary-criteria games that the NCAA won't look at them.

Understood, but they also state that secondary criteria is used only when a decision can not be made based on primary criteria.

The difference in wSOS numbers for Hope and Marietta is staggering
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 03:58:06 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2011, 03:54:29 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 03:52:51 PM
I think it's a mistake to believe that when you play so many secondary-criteria games that the NCAA won't look at them.

But that's not how the guy announcing the brackets worded his opening.  Is he incorrect?

I have no doubt that Chris Fitzpatrick has no idea what goes on on the NCAA selection conference calls. That boilerplate wording is used all the time, but every committee deals with things differently.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 28, 2011, 04:01:23 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 03:58:06 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2011, 03:54:29 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 03:52:51 PM
I think it's a mistake to believe that when you play so many secondary-criteria games that the NCAA won't look at them.

But that's not how the guy announcing the brackets worded his opening.  Is he incorrect?

I have no doubt that Chris Fitzpatrick has no idea what goes on on the NCAA selection conference calls. That boilerplate wording is used all the time, but every committee deals with things differently.

That is a problem, why define a process with a set of criteria and then ignore it?
The lesson I learned from this year is to go out and beat a bunch of crappy teams, SOS is the red-headed step child of primary criteria.

modify: There are certainly examples to the contrary (IWU) but I am still having a hard time figuring out the optimum balance between WP and SOS.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 04:03:06 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 28, 2011, 04:01:23 PM
That is a problem, why define a process with a set of criteria and then ignore it?

Conversely, why reward a team that ignores the criteria?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 28, 2011, 04:05:53 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 04:03:06 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 28, 2011, 04:01:23 PM
That is a problem, why define a process with a set of criteria and then ignore it?

Conversely, why reward a team that ignores the criteria?

which criteria was ignored in this case? (by the team)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 04:18:02 PM
I think you and I both know and this is not a firestorm that's worth opening up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 28, 2011, 04:22:34 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 04:03:06 PM

Conversely, why reward a team that ignores the criteria?

Good God Pat come on!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 04:26:52 PM
So assuming IWU was team #18, the final data for the final group at the table was...

(In-region winning %/In-region SOS/Record vs ranked teams)

* Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543/2-2
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504/3-4
* Stevens (E): .731/.512/2-2
* Wabash (GL): .760/.499/4-3
* Leb Valley (Mid Atl): .720/.509/2-3
* Eastern Conn (NE): .680/.526/1-6
* Ferrum (S): .800/.471/1-3
* Carleton (W): .750/.528/5-4


It looks like the national committee used SOS in determining #18.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 04:38:54 PM
If you want teams to play a certain number of in-region games, say so.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2011, 04:39:09 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 04:26:52 PM
So assuming IWU was team #18, the final data for the final group at the table was...

(In-region winning %/In-region SOS/Record vs ranked teams)

* Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543/2-2
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504/3-4
* Stevens (E): .731/.512/2-2
* Wabash (GL): .760/.499/4-3
* Leb Valley (Mid Atl): .720/.509/2-3
* Eastern Conn (NE): .680/.526/1-6
* Ferrum (S): .800/.471/1-3
* Carleton (W): .750/.528/5-4


It looks like the national committee used SOS in determining #18.
Carleton makes a strong case, too.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 04:39:36 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 04:26:52 PM
So assuming IWU was team #18, the final data for the final group at the table was...

(In-region winning %/In-region SOS/Record vs ranked teams)

* Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543/2-2
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504/3-4
* Stevens (E): .731/.512/2-2
* Wabash (GL): .760/.499/4-3
* Leb Valley (Mid Atl): .720/.509/2-3
* Eastern Conn (NE): .680/.526/1-6
* Ferrum (S): .800/.471/1-3
* Carleton (W): .750/.528/5-4


It looks like the national committee used SOS in determining #18.

* Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543/2-2  region rank 5
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504/3-4   region rank 3
* Stevens (E): .731/.512/2-2  region rank 5

I believe these were the last 3 of the above group on the table and St Joseph's sub 500 record against regionlly ranked opponents opened the door for the 5th rank teams.

In the head to head IWU vs Stevens, IWU came out on top based on what?  Regional strength, check for IWU; SOS, check for IWU.  IWU lost to Augustana, Stevens lost to Hartwick, check for IWU.  Checkmate. 

Not to mention perhaps needing a team to complete the last bracket, a non EAST bracket.  So in that case, Carleton would have been awfully close but a 6th rank couldn't overtake the 5th of IWU.  Carleton has my vote for most sympathy.  If they get regionally voted ahead of UW-River Falls, they could be in under my theory.



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 05:03:11 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 04:38:54 PM
If you want teams to play a certain number of in-region games, say so.

Perhaps this is their way of saying it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:05:40 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 04:39:36 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 04:26:52 PM
So assuming IWU was team #18, the final data for the final group at the table was...

(In-region winning %/In-region SOS/Record vs ranked teams)

* Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543/2-2
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504/3-4
* Stevens (E): .731/.512/2-2
* Wabash (GL): .760/.499/4-3
* Leb Valley (Mid Atl): .720/.509/2-3
* Eastern Conn (NE): .680/.526/1-6
* Ferrum (S): .800/.471/1-3
* Carleton (W): .750/.528/5-4


It looks like the national committee used SOS in determining #18.

* Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543/2-2  region rank 5
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504/3-4   region rank 3
* Stevens (E): .731/.512/2-2  region rank 5

I believe these were the last 3 of the above group on the table and St Joseph's sub 500 record against regionlly ranked opponents opened the door for the 5th rank teams.

In the head to head IWU vs Stevens, IWU came out on top based on what?  Regional strength, check for IWU; SOS, check for IWU.  IWU lost to Augustana, Stevens lost to Hartwick, check for IWU.  Checkmate. 

Not to mention perhaps needing a team to complete the last bracket, a non EAST bracket.  So in that case, Carleton would have been awfully close but a 6th rank couldn't overtake the 5th of IWU.  Carleton has my vote for most sympathy.  If they get regionally voted ahead of UW-River Falls, they could be in under my theory.

They don't take regional positioning into consideration. Just becuase you're #11 in the west region, doesn't mean you'll be considered lower than #2 in the Atlantic.

IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:08:09 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 05:03:11 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 04:38:54 PM
If you want teams to play a certain number of in-region games, say so.

Perhaps this is their way of saying it.

I'm not interested in "ways of saying it". Either say it or don't. Use the criteria specified, or specify new criteria.

I'd be perfectly fine if they want to add "number of regional games" or "number of regional wins". Just say it, so everyone knows. Just don't punish teams for not playing your special number of games (especially while denying them a game or two each year that should be considered in-region).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 05:10:09 PM
Pool C's by region, in order of final regional ranking...

(In-region winning %/SOS/Record vs regionally ranked teams)

Northeast (5)
(2) Williams: .920/.558/5-2
(3) WPI: .846/.516/4-3
(4) Becker: .852/.505/4-2
(5) Amherst: .875/.464/4-3
(6) Western Conn: .800/.531/4-2

South (3)
(1) Virginia Wesleyan: .840/.506/4-1
(4) Mary Hardin-Baylor: .750/.508/3-1
(5) Texas-Dallas: .800/.485/202

Midwest (3)
(2) Concordia: .875/.501/5-1
(4) Hanover: .731/.542/4-4
(5) Illinois Wesleyan: .692/.543/2-2

Great Lakes (2)
(4) Penn St - Behrend: .885/.481/4-3
(5) Wittenberg: .727/.486/3-3

East (2)
(1) Oswego St: .852/.507/5-1
(2) Ithaca: .760/.547/4-2

West (1)
(5) UW-River Falls: .750/.585/2-4

Atlantic (1)
(2) Ramapo: .826/.507/2-2

Mid-Atlantic (1)
(4) Gwynedd-Mercy: .800/.502/2-4
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 05:11:45 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:05:40 PM
IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.

Please explain, KnightSlappy.  Just not quite sure what you mean here.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 05:12:38 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:05:40 PM
They don't take regional positioning into consideration. Just becuase you're #11 in the west region, doesn't mean you'll be considered lower than #2 in the Atlantic.

IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.
Wow, I am surprised to hear this.  Seems Regional rankings has everything to do with pool C.  Why have them if they don't come into play?  I thought they wanted some geo balance in the tournament not just raw stats.  I don't think something is right with "They don't take regional positioning into consideration."

I think Titan's table suggest otherwise.  But hey, It's just my theory.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 05:23:31 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:08:09 PM
I'd be perfectly fine if they want to add "number of regional games" or "number of regional wins". Just say it, so everyone knows. Just don't punish teams for not playing your special number of games (especially while denying them a game or two each year that should be considered in-region).

I completely agree with this.  In this last decade, Division III has come up with some very transparent, black & white rules of play for selection.  If the powers that be want teams to play a certain # of in-region games, they just need to put that in the handbook.

(Note, I say this not having any idea if Hope was "penalized" or not...I just think any and all rules should be transparent.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:37:40 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 05:11:45 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:05:40 PM
IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.

Please explain, KnightSlappy.  Just not quite sure what you mean here.

Thanks.

If I had it my way, Carleton and IWU would be very close here, and maybe IWU gets the nod, because I think that the difference in SOS is significant.

But all year, the rankings have seemed to suggest a 50-50 weighting of the SOS and WP, and that clearly isn't going on here.

Plus, the fact that the number of games versus regionally ranked (and not just the percentage) seems to have swayed past sets of rankings. Carleton played 9, and IWU played 4, with similar percentages. So, even if IWU and Carleton were close (on a RPI-style 25% WP, 75% SOS weighting), I would have thought the difference in vRRO games would push Carleton over the edge.

I'll admit that I haven't dug into the secondary criteria, so maybe there is something there to consider.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 05:45:35 PM
I would say one thing to that -- this is the only time where we get to see a national list based out of these regional rankings. So if there's something we're seeing for the first time, it could be because the selection is only made once.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 05:50:51 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:37:40 PM
But all year, the rankings have seemed to suggest a 50-50 weighting of the SOS and WP, and that clearly isn't going on here.

I've really only paid attention to the details of the Midwest rankings this year, but I do not think that has been the case in that particular region this year.  What comes to mind is where St. Norbert has been regionally ranked consistently relative to teams with worse in-region winning percentages but better SOS.

Again, that is just the Midwest I'm thinking about and we're discussing a national issue here.  I'd have to dig into it to have a better feel.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2011, 06:03:30 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 05:12:38 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:05:40 PM
They don't take regional positioning into consideration. Just becuase you're #11 in the west region, doesn't mean you'll be considered lower than #2 in the Atlantic.

IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.
Wow, I am surprised to hear this.  Seems Regional rankings has everything to do with pool C.  Why have them if they don't come into play?  I thought they wanted some geo balance in the tournament not just raw stats.  I don't think something is right with "They don't take regional positioning into consideration."

I think Titan's table suggest otherwise.  But hey, It's just my theory.

The only impact regional rankings have on national selection (as far as we know, or as far as the guidelines say anyway) is to determine what teams are under consideration at any moment.  The national committee can't consider every team in Pool C all at once, so they use the eight regional rankings to winnow the field.  The first bid awarded to a Pool C is determined from a pool of the highest-ranked teams in each region that have not already been selected from Pools A or B.  The selection is then made using whatever combination of primary and secondary criteria the national committee sees fit to use, applied to those eight teams.  Say for argument's sake that Williams (NE #2) was that first team selected.  The next selection is made from a pool of the other seven highest-remaining-ranked teams and WPI, the NE #3 who steps up to take Williams' place "at the table."  The committee doesn't take geographic balance into consideration--or at least they don't admit to it.

The national committee isn't required to, and seemingly doesn't, use the same weighting of criteria as any or all of the regional committees.  That means that it is at least possible that the national committee would have gladly awarded a bid to a team like Eastern Mennonite, based on how that committee views the world, but couldn't because EMU never got to the table, blocked by Ferrum, a team that the national committee did not choose for a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 28, 2011, 06:18:17 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2011, 06:03:30 PM
The national committee isn't required to, and seemingly doesn't, use the same weighting of criteria as any or all of the regional committees.  That means that it is at least possible that the national committee would have gladly awarded a bid to a team like Eastern Mennonite, based on how that committee views the world, but couldn't because EMU never got to the table, blocked by Ferrum, a team that the national committee did not choose for a Pool C bid.

I think this is right on.

In light of that, however, think about what goes on here compared to the NCAA committee level. To get to the point where we are today in the selection process it has taken a total of nine committees, eight at the regional level and one on the national level. Each committee takes a defined procedure and comes to their own conclusion (not a knock, it's the nature of the beast as currently defined).

It seems to me the NCAA is missing a huge slice of consistency in the name of keeping a number of people involved in the process at the committee level. Has anyone stopped to ask if this is even necessary? Look at this board, we have two people (KnightSlappy and Pat Coleman) that has taken upon themselves to essentially undertake the entire process on their own independently.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2011, 06:21:39 PM
David - one thing to keep in mind... if the national committee, which is made up of the chairs of each of the regional committees, along with the NCAA felt that the regional committee did not rank their teams fairly or in an order they felt was correct based on criteria and such... they would change those rankings and tell that particular committee they did so based on what they determined was the reason. It has been done often even during the season... while I can't speak to exact examples, my sources tell me it isn't that uncommon. That being said, it usually isn't something like the #8 team jumps to #4 or something... but #4 might swap with #5, etc.

Also, the national committee does weigh the same criteria as the regional committees, but they are weighing it on a national scope, not a regional only scope, which changes maybe how those numbers are interrupted. The regional committees take their numbers and rank their teams accordingly based on the numbers in their region... the national committee uses the same numbers and selects teams accordingly. Again... the Midwest Region chair is on the national committee and would make arguments for his region's team as would the chair from say the South... and it is discussed.

I just don't think that the national committee does things differently... they just have a more national scope and have to consider more options and numbers then regional advisory committees.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
Thanks David Collinge.  Excellent explanation and assistance. 

So the committee is not specifically restricted from geographic balance consideration so they may "in the back of their minds" choose to include that element in their determinations/selections.  Seems national committee is making a strong effort to get top 10-16 teams away from each other and then build a bracket that keeps expenses down which is better than the other way around.  This might help explain the MHB and IW choices.  Had they "needed" another midwest team, perhaps Carleton is in and a NE team is out.

How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2011, 06:46:12 PM
nwhoops - there used be a time that "x" number of teams came out of each region. Look at the regional rankings and that was the number of teams and the actual teams that were brought out of each region for a tournament. There was no national scope at all and many of the best teams in the country were left home because of it.

We have thankfully abandoned that dumb idea and gone to a more national scope and our bracket brings on a more nationally feel. We have complained too much of "brackets of death"... now we can look at a bracket and feel good that more of the best teams have a chance to go far into the tournament.

Also... the bracket is not even considered until the teams are selected. I have had long conversations with many who have or do serve on regional and national committees and this couldn't be emphasized enough to me. The teams are selected first... then they look at how to bracket everyone. They aren't choosing teams based on if they can make the tournament bracket work better with Team A then with Team B or Team C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 06:48:52 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2011, 06:46:12 PM
nwhoops - there used be a time that "x" number of teams came out of each region. Look at the regional rankings and that was the number of teams and the actual teams that were brought out of each region for a tournament. There was no national scope at all and many of the best teams in the country were left home because of it.

We have thankfully abandoned that dumb idea and gone to a more national scope and our bracket brings on a more nationally feel. We have complained too much of "brackets of death"... now we can look at a bracket and feel good that more of the best teams have a chance to go far into the tournament.

Also... the bracket is not even considered until the teams are selected. I have had long conversations with many who have or do serve on regional and national committees and this couldn't be emphasized enough to me. The teams are selected first... then they look at how to bracket everyone. They aren't choosing teams based on if they can make the tournament bracket work better with Team A then with Team B or Team C.
Thanks!  No bracket until a field is selected.  Good!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2011, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

There's going to have to be three flights, I think.  The West winner has to fly to Whitworth, right?

After that, the Whitworth and McMurry pods will both have to fly to the second weekend.

I was wondering, for the sectionals, if the cost of flights comes into play for hosting.  For example, it's probably cheaper to fly to Minneapolis (St. Thomas) than to go to Stevens Point or Augustana.  Would they take that into consideration when choosing a host?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2011, 09:21:57 PM
Geography and "fiscal responsibility" will trump any regional ranking if that is the case. For example, Whitworth is probably heading on the road. And wherever they can get teams to without too many flights and with more buses will constitute a hosting.

St. Thomas or Augustana are going to be the leaders here. Augustana is the higher regionally ranked team... St. Thomas could be a cheaper flight... but that is stuff based on research by those at Indy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 28, 2011, 09:41:30 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:37:40 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 05:11:45 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:05:40 PM
IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.

Please explain, KnightSlappy.  Just not quite sure what you mean here.

Thanks.

If I had it my way, Carleton and IWU would be very close here, and maybe IWU gets the nod, because I think that the difference in SOS is significant.

But all year, the rankings have seemed to suggest a 50-50 weighting of the SOS and WP, and that clearly isn't going on here.

Plus, the fact that the number of games versus regionally ranked (and not just the percentage) seems to have swayed past sets of rankings. Carleton played 9, and IWU played 4, with similar percentages. So, even if IWU and Carleton were close (on a RPI-style 25% WP, 75% SOS weighting), I would have thought the difference in vRRO games would push Carleton over the edge.

I'll admit that I haven't dug into the secondary criteria, so maybe there is something there to consider.

I had thought by this point in the day I would have settled down, but that's not the case.

Plain and simple, the Knights got screwed. Not because I'm a fan and I think they deserve to be in because they're great or something like that, but the NUMBERS JUST DON'T ADD UP!!!!!!

The criteria published by the NCAA says that "all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order)." To me, that means that all will be weighted equally.

The criteria also states "The NCAA has defined the following as secondary selection criteria if the primary criteria does not result in a decision." {emphasis added by me}

If you look at that primary criteria, Carleton had a better regional win pct. and results vs. regionally ranked teams than IWU and Witt. IWU and Witt had better SOS numbers. Pat stated on our FB page today that he didn't think the committee puts much weight if the numbers are so close in any category. If that's the case, I call major BS (not on Pat, on the committee). If the committee is really saying "well, they're so close, it's a wash on that criteria," then where is the tipping point? Is 19-5 that much better than 16-5 to be "significant?" If your numbers are better, even if only by a small amount, that's better and you should hold that criteria over the other team. Even if it's only one game--they all should count the same, right?

This banter about SOS numbers being so much better and being the reason is interesting. Let's put all the numbers into percentages.

Carleton .750 Reg Win%/.528 SOS/.556 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (5-4)
Witt       .727 Reg Win%/.552 SOS/.500 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (3-3)
IWU       .692 Reg Win%/.543 SOS/.500 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (2-2)
GMC      .800 Reg Win%/.502 SOS/.333 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (2-4)
Hanover .731 Reg Win%/.542 SOS/.500 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (4-4)
UTD       .800 Reg Win%/.502 SOS/.667 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (2-1)
UMHB    .750 Reg Win%/.508 SOS/.750 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (3-1)

When you look at it that way, Carleton's .556 winning percentage vs. regionally-ranked teams certainly looks "significant" to me vs. those that are .500 (or .333, goodness gracious sakes alive how did a team receive a Pool C that lost 4 of 6 against other regionally-ranked teams?)

It's just hard to fathom, looking at those numbers, how these six were all picked over Carleton when it held 2 of 3 primary criteria over all four of the six, and if you want to argue that SOS is the most important one, than Carleton should have been picked over UTD and UMHB.

I'm certainly open to someone explaining to me how this played out like it did. 

The final thing I'll say in this post is what a major snub to the West Region (BTW, home of the defending national champions, so the region must be pretty strong). How does a region with six conference and 60 total teams merit only 1 Pool C bid? There's no way to be able to tell, using the NCAA criteria, that the Northeast Region is that much better than the West. The West Region has 14.9% of the Division III teams, yet received a mere 5.5% of the Pool C bids. While I don't want to see a return to allotted bids by region, it's hard to see how the committee could really sit there and say that the West #2 was worse than other regions #3-5.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 09:51:46 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2011, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

There's going to have to be three flights, I think.  The West winner has to fly to Whitworth, right?

After that, the Whitworth and McMurry pods will both have to fly to the second weekend.

I was wondering, for the sectionals, if the cost of flights comes into play for hosting.  For example, it's probably cheaper to fly to Minneapolis (St. Thomas) than to go to Stevens Point or Augustana.  Would they take that into consideration when choosing a host?
There is only ONE flight in the first 2 rounds.  Winner of McMurry pod will fly, TWO.  So round 3 COULD be hosted by Whitworth and keep flights below the "goal", if it even exists, of 5 flights before Final Four.  Didn't we count 5 flights last year?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2011, 09:54:34 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 09:51:46 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2011, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

There's going to have to be three flights, I think.  The West winner has to fly to Whitworth, right?

After that, the Whitworth and McMurry pods will both have to fly to the second weekend.

I was wondering, for the sectionals, if the cost of flights comes into play for hosting.  For example, it's probably cheaper to fly to Minneapolis (St. Thomas) than to go to Stevens Point or Augustana.  Would they take that into consideration when choosing a host?
There is only ONE flight in the first 2 rounds.  Winner of McMurry pod will fly, TWO.  So round 3 COULD be hosted by Whitworth and keep flights below the "goal", if it even exists, of 5 flights before Final Four.  Didn't we count 5 flights last year?



How could you, of all people, overlook that the winner of Redlands/Chapman will be FLYING to Spokane?! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2011, 10:03:26 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 28, 2011, 09:41:30 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:37:40 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 05:11:45 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2011, 05:05:40 PM
IWU over Carleton just doesn't seem to fit the mold that's been set with every set of regional rankings this year.

Please explain, KnightSlappy.  Just not quite sure what you mean here.

Thanks.

If I had it my way, Carleton and IWU would be very close here, and maybe IWU gets the nod, because I think that the difference in SOS is significant.

But all year, the rankings have seemed to suggest a 50-50 weighting of the SOS and WP, and that clearly isn't going on here.

Plus, the fact that the number of games versus regionally ranked (and not just the percentage) seems to have swayed past sets of rankings. Carleton played 9, and IWU played 4, with similar percentages. So, even if IWU and Carleton were close (on a RPI-style 25% WP, 75% SOS weighting), I would have thought the difference in vRRO games would push Carleton over the edge.

I'll admit that I haven't dug into the secondary criteria, so maybe there is something there to consider.

I had thought by this point in the day I would have settled down, but that's not the case.

Plain and simple, the Knights got screwed. Not because I'm a fan and I think they deserve to be in because they're great or something like that, but the NUMBERS JUST DON'T ADD UP!!!!!!

The criteria published by the NCAA says that "all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order)." To me, that means that all will be weighted equally.

The criteria also states "The NCAA has defined the following as secondary selection criteria if the primary criteria does not result in a decision." {emphasis added by me}

If you look at that primary criteria, Carleton had a better regional win pct. and results vs. regionally ranked teams than IWU and Witt. IWU and Witt had better SOS numbers. Pat stated on our FB page today that he didn't think the committee puts much weight if the numbers are so close in any category. If that's the case, I call major BS (not on Pat, on the committee). If the committee is really saying "well, they're so close, it's a wash on that criteria," then where is the tipping point? Is 19-5 that much better than 16-5 to be "significant?" If your numbers are better, even if only by a small amount, that's better and you should hold that criteria over the other team. Even if it's only one game--they all should count the same, right?

This banter about SOS numbers being so much better and being the reason is interesting. Let's put all the numbers into percentages.

Carleton .750 Reg Win%/.528 SOS/.556 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (5-4)
Witt       .727 Reg Win%/.552 SOS/.500 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (3-3)
IWU       .692 Reg Win%/.543 SOS/.500 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (2-2)
GMC      .800 Reg Win%/.502 SOS/.333 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (2-4)
Hanover .731 Reg Win%/.542 SOS/.500 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (4-4)
UTD       .800 Reg Win%/.502 SOS/.667 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (2-1)
UMHB    .750 Reg Win%/.508 SOS/.750 Win% vs. Region Ranked Teams (3-1)

When you look at it that way, Carleton's .556 winning percentage vs. regionally-ranked teams certainly looks "significant" to me vs. those that are .500 (or .333, goodness gracious sakes alive how did a team receive a Pool C that lost 4 of 6 against other regionally-ranked teams?)

It's just hard to fathom, looking at those numbers, how these six were all picked over Carleton when it held 2 of 3 primary criteria over all four of the six, and if you want to argue that SOS is the most important one, than Carleton should have been picked over UTD and UMHB.

I'm certainly open to someone explaining to me how this played out like it did.  

The final thing I'll say in this post is what a major snub to the West Region (BTW, home of the defending national champions, so the region must be pretty strong). How does a region with six conference and 60 total teams merit only 1 Pool C bid? There's no way to be able to tell, using the NCAA criteria, that the Northeast Region is that much better than the West. The West Region has 14.9% of the Division III teams, yet received a mere 5.5% of the Pool C bids. While I don't want to see a return to allotted bids by region, it's hard to see how the committee could really sit there and say that the West #2 was worse than other regions #3-5.
SOS is the most unjust criterion for the regionally isolated teams in the ASC.

There are literally only 6 non-ASC D3 teams within range of the ASC (Trinity, Southwestern, Hendrix, Millsaps, Austin College and UDallas).  There are no teams for us to play.  IN fact, the OWP/OOWP of the SCAC will take a hit as it becomes more isolated with the loss of Depauw to the NCAC and the addition of UDallas, down here in the middle of "D3-nowhere".

If the ASC wants to play in-region games against teams that will have an OWP that can raise their OWP above .500 then ASC has to fly.

McMurry to Guilford and also played Averett.

UT-Tyler went to LaGrange.  (Coach Haynes is a wonderful guy and outstanding leader of men, but his W/L and OWP did not help UTT or the ASC.)

Concordia-TX brought in Beloit and UW-Platteville to help a little.

Howard Payne went to Rhodes and Rust (622 miles).  Not much help there.

I believe that Carleton was the "19th Pool C bid".  The lack of the win over GAC in the semis, that would have padded the totals, is the difference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 10:11:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2011, 09:54:34 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 09:51:46 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2011, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

There's going to have to be three flights, I think.  The West winner has to fly to Whitworth, right?

After that, the Whitworth and McMurry pods will both have to fly to the second weekend.

I was wondering, for the sectionals, if the cost of flights comes into play for hosting.  For example, it's probably cheaper to fly to Minneapolis (St. Thomas) than to go to Stevens Point or Augustana.  Would they take that into consideration when choosing a host?
There is only ONE flight in the first 2 rounds.  Winner of McMurry pod will fly, TWO.  So round 3 COULD be hosted by Whitworth and keep flights below the "goal", if it even exists, of 5 flights before Final Four.  Didn't we count 5 flights last year?



How could you, of all people, overlook that the winner of Redlands/Chapman will be FLYING to Spokane?! ;D
I didn't.  That is the only Round 1 or 2 flight.  And I mentioned it, "One out West".  I might have missed one somewhere else, have I?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 28, 2011, 10:18:59 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2011, 10:03:26 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 28, 2011, 09:41:30 PM
Carleton should have been picked over UTD and UMHB.
SOS is the most unjust criterion for the regionally isolated teams in the ASC.

There are literally only 6 non-ASC D3 teams within range of the ASC (Trinity, Southwestern, Hendrix, Millsaps, Austin College and UDallas).  There are no teams for us to play.  IN fact, the OWP/OOWP of the SCAC will take a hit as it becomes more isolated with the loss of Depauw to the NCAC and the addition of UDallas, down here in the middle of "D3-nowhere".

If the ASC wants to play in-region games against teams that will have an OWP that can raise their OWP above .500 then ASC has to fly.

McMurry to Guilford and also played Averett.

UT-Tyler went to LaGrange.  (Coach Haynes is a wonderful guy and outstanding leader of men, but his W/L and OWP did not help UTT or the ASC.)

Concordia-TX brought in Beloit and UW-Platteville to help a little.

Howard Payne went to Rhodes and Rust (622 miles).  Not much help there.

I believe that Carleton was the "19th Pool C bid".  The lack of the win over GAC in the semis, that would have padded the totals, is the difference.

Thanks for the reply, Ralph.

I hesitated to put that part in about UMHB and UTD because I know the challenges teams down your way face. Plus, to me, they had so few games vs. regionally-ranked teams, but they delivered in those games. I had UTD in before Carleton, but not UMHB.

The Knights knew that a win over GAC would have helped and if they had taken care of business, probably no problem. My issue isn't that they didn't get in, it's more how they didn't get in that burns me. It seems that the NCAA didn't follow their own published guidelines, or so it seems. If they went to secondary criteria I don't have a firm grasp on those numbers, mostly because Carleton (and others in this area of the country) don't need to go out of region for out of conference games, so most of those criteria don't apply. One thing I will say in regards to ASC and other geographically isolated schools is that those schools like Carleton shouldn't be punished for being able to play lots of regional games. The committee should just judge the numbers and the records the teams earn, not what could have been or what they might think.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 10:33:11 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 28, 2011, 09:41:30 PM
The criteria published by the NCAA says that "all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order)." To me, that means that all will be weighted equally.

This has never been the case.  While the handbook does not spell out how exactly the primary criteria data is weighted, I think everyone familiar with the process will tell you that those factors are not weighted equally. 

There has always been a lot of subjectivity in the "weighting" process.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 28, 2011, 10:40:13 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 10:33:11 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 28, 2011, 09:41:30 PM
The criteria published by the NCAA says that "all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order)." To me, that means that all will be weighted equally.

This has never been the case.  While the handbook does not spell out how exactly the primary criteria data is weighted, I think everyone familiar with the process will tell you that those factors are not weighted equally. 

There has always been a lot of subjectivity in the "weighting" process.

Good to know. Sure leaves a lot of wiggle room.  :-\

I would guess, if that's the case the the chatter I've heard here that SOS is weighted more than the other criteria, how Carleton was passed over in favor of GMC and UMHB.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 10:51:35 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 28, 2011, 10:40:13 PM
Good to know. Sure leaves a lot of wiggle room.  :-\

I would guess, if that's the case the the chatter I've heard here that SOS is weighted more than the other criteria, how Carleton was passed over in favor of GMC and UMHB.

I don't think anyone has said that "SOS is weighted more than the other criteria" as a blanket statement -- we know that is not the case overall.  (In-region winning percentage has always been the biggie.)  But when the committee gets down to the end of the process - the last couple Pool C's - I think they look at everything and just try to find some type of differentiating point they think makes sense.  It could be anything really.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2011, 11:00:04 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 10:11:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2011, 09:54:34 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 09:51:46 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2011, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

There's going to have to be three flights, I think.  The West winner has to fly to Whitworth, right?

After that, the Whitworth and McMurry pods will both have to fly to the second weekend.

I was wondering, for the sectionals, if the cost of flights comes into play for hosting.  For example, it's probably cheaper to fly to Minneapolis (St. Thomas) than to go to Stevens Point or Augustana.  Would they take that into consideration when choosing a host?
There is only ONE flight in the first 2 rounds.  Winner of McMurry pod will fly, TWO.  So round 3 COULD be hosted by Whitworth and keep flights below the "goal", if it even exists, of 5 flights before Final Four.  Didn't we count 5 flights last year?



How could you, of all people, overlook that the winner of Redlands/Chapman will be FLYING to Spokane?! ;D
I didn't.  That is the only Round 1 or 2 flight.  And I mentioned it, "One out West".  I might have missed one somewhere else, have I?

My bad. :-[  I somehow read it as you thinking the Texas flight was the only one in the first two rounds (which you correctly recognized was not until round 3).

I haven't done a careful check of sectionals, but kind of assume Whitworth to wherever and Texas to wherever are probably the only flights (maybe one other outlier, but don't know who it would be).

Because you're out there on the 'island' you might remember better than me - has it ever been established whether or not the d3 allotment for flights includes the FF?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on February 28, 2011, 11:06:22 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2011, 10:51:35 PM
Quote from: carletonsid on February 28, 2011, 10:40:13 PM
Good to know. Sure leaves a lot of wiggle room.  :-\

I would guess, if that's the case the the chatter I've heard here that SOS is weighted more than the other criteria, how Carleton was passed over in favor of GMC and UMHB.

I don't think anyone has said that "SOS is weighted more than the other criteria" as a blanket statement -- we know that is not the case overall.  (In-region winning percentage has always been the biggie.)  But when the committee gets down to the end of the process - the last couple Pool C's - I think they look at everything and just try to find some type of differentiating point they think makes sense.  It could be anything really.

Not to take a shot here, but anything? Like uniform colors? :P Guess the committee preferred green over navy!

If in-region win percentage is tops, than Carleton ( 18-6/.750) certainly far trumps IWU (18-8/.692) and is certainly stronger than Hanover (19-7/.731). We'll never know, I guess, and that's the travesty of the situation. The schools involved should know EXACTLY how teams are selected and what criteria they're ranked on and which ones matter the most. All this cloak-and-dagger crap is so frustrating. Might was well not even publish criteria and just pick teams by some super-secret RPI formula.   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 11:17:36 PM
Someone at Carleton should ask their regional chair. You are entitled to ask the question.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 11:37:48 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2011, 11:00:04 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 10:11:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2011, 09:54:34 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 09:51:46 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2011, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

There's going to have to be three flights, I think.  The West winner has to fly to Whitworth, right?

After that, the Whitworth and McMurry pods will both have to fly to the second weekend.

I was wondering, for the sectionals, if the cost of flights comes into play for hosting.  For example, it's probably cheaper to fly to Minneapolis (St. Thomas) than to go to Stevens Point or Augustana.  Would they take that into consideration when choosing a host?
There is only ONE flight in the first 2 rounds.  Winner of McMurry pod will fly, TWO.  So round 3 COULD be hosted by Whitworth and keep flights below the "goal", if it even exists, of 5 flights before Final Four.  Didn't we count 5 flights last year?



How could you, of all people, overlook that the winner of Redlands/Chapman will be FLYING to Spokane?! ;D
I didn't.  That is the only Round 1 or 2 flight.  And I mentioned it, "One out West".  I might have missed one somewhere else, have I?

My bad. :-[  I somehow read it as you thinking the Texas flight was the only one in the first two rounds (which you correctly recognized was not until round 3).

I haven't done a careful check of sectionals, but kind of assume Whitworth to wherever and Texas to wherever are probably the only flights (maybe one other outlier, but don't know who it would be).

Because you're out there on the 'island' you might remember better than me - has it ever been established whether or not the d3 allotment for flights includes the FF?
The real question is does this exist?  If It does, and let's say it is 5 and does NOT include the FF, then Whitworth could host 3 "Flyers" and hit the number.  In fact, potential for a charter for some Ohio schools to depart Ohio (men and woman), stop in MINN unload and proceed to Spokane.  Never know...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:12:38 AM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 11:37:48 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2011, 11:00:04 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 10:11:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2011, 09:54:34 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 09:51:46 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2011, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

There's going to have to be three flights, I think.  The West winner has to fly to Whitworth, right?

After that, the Whitworth and McMurry pods will both have to fly to the second weekend.

I was wondering, for the sectionals, if the cost of flights comes into play for hosting.  For example, it's probably cheaper to fly to Minneapolis (St. Thomas) than to go to Stevens Point or Augustana.  Would they take that into consideration when choosing a host?
There is only ONE flight in the first 2 rounds.  Winner of McMurry pod will fly, TWO.  So round 3 COULD be hosted by Whitworth and keep flights below the "goal", if it even exists, of 5 flights before Final Four.  Didn't we count 5 flights last year?



How could you, of all people, overlook that the winner of Redlands/Chapman will be FLYING to Spokane?! ;D
I didn't.  That is the only Round 1 or 2 flight.  And I mentioned it, "One out West".  I might have missed one somewhere else, have I?

My bad. :-[  I somehow read it as you thinking the Texas flight was the only one in the first two rounds (which you correctly recognized was not until round 3).

I haven't done a careful check of sectionals, but kind of assume Whitworth to wherever and Texas to wherever are probably the only flights (maybe one other outlier, but don't know who it would be).

Because you're out there on the 'island' you might remember better than me - has it ever been established whether or not the d3 allotment for flights includes the FF?
The real question is does this exist?  If It does, and let's say it is 5 and does NOT include the FF, then Whitworth could host 3 "Flyers" and hit the number.  In fact, potential for a charter for some Ohio schools to depart Ohio (men and woman), stop in MINN unload and proceed to Spokane.  Never know...
I honestly don't know what it is like this year, but about a decade ago, the women's bracket supposedly overspent their budget.

I think that Whitworth would have gotten to host a sectional if there were a third travel orphan, to allow the NCAA to allow a fourth.

The NWC has to face it.  You are not going to host a sectional  Unless you have some incredible lucky breaks, such as quality teams unable to host in the even-numbered years because the women's team needs the gym that weekend to host their sectionals.

Undefeated (in D3) Mississippi College, the top seed in the South, was sent Wittenberg in 2006.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4502.1305
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 01, 2011, 12:23:57 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:12:38 AM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 11:37:48 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2011, 11:00:04 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 10:11:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2011, 09:54:34 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 09:51:46 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2011, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
How many flights are scheduled right now?  One out west?

There's going to have to be three flights, I think.  The West winner has to fly to Whitworth, right?

After that, the Whitworth and McMurry pods will both have to fly to the second weekend.

I was wondering, for the sectionals, if the cost of flights comes into play for hosting.  For example, it's probably cheaper to fly to Minneapolis (St. Thomas) than to go to Stevens Point or Augustana.  Would they take that into consideration when choosing a host?
There is only ONE flight in the first 2 rounds.  Winner of McMurry pod will fly, TWO.  So round 3 COULD be hosted by Whitworth and keep flights below the "goal", if it even exists, of 5 flights before Final Four.  Didn't we count 5 flights last year?



How could you, of all people, overlook that the winner of Redlands/Chapman will be FLYING to Spokane?! ;D
I didn't.  That is the only Round 1 or 2 flight.  And I mentioned it, "One out West".  I might have missed one somewhere else, have I?

My bad. :-[  I somehow read it as you thinking the Texas flight was the only one in the first two rounds (which you correctly recognized was not until round 3).

I haven't done a careful check of sectionals, but kind of assume Whitworth to wherever and Texas to wherever are probably the only flights (maybe one other outlier, but don't know who it would be).

Because you're out there on the 'island' you might remember better than me - has it ever been established whether or not the d3 allotment for flights includes the FF?
The real question is does this exist?  If It does, and let's say it is 5 and does NOT include the FF, then Whitworth could host 3 "Flyers" and hit the number.  In fact, potential for a charter for some Ohio schools to depart Ohio (men and woman), stop in MINN unload and proceed to Spokane.  Never know...
I honestly don't know what it is like this year, but about a decade ago, the women's bracket supposedly overspent their budget.

I think that Whitworth would have gotten to host a sectional if there were a third travel orphan, to allow the NCAA to allow a fourth.

The NWC has to face it.  You are not going to host a sectional  Unless you have some incredible lucky breaks, such as quality teams unable to host in the even-numbered years because the women's team needs the gym that weekend to host their sectionals.

Undefeated (in D3) Mississippi College, the top seed in the South, was sent Wittenberg in 2006.
Yes, most of us realize and accept the truly unlikely possibilty, regardless of merit, that we will host a 3rd round sectional.  A perfect alignment of factors would make it possible, OR a budget/allotment was standard for flights.  If that was a published fact, then the odds go up.  A top seed should not have to travel to a lower seeds home court in a perfect, nonexistent, D3 world.  Not too often a geo orphan is a legit top seed.  What happened to Mississippi at Guilford that year anyway?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 01, 2011, 12:26:04 AM
The whole discussion about this seems pretty darn silly since the NCAA just got a bank vault of cash for the rights to the D-1 tournament.

And while promoting regional games is noble, when teams like Carleton, EMU and Wabash are left out of the tournament because of that criteria just doesn't seem right.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 01, 2011, 12:32:35 AM
Quote from: smedindy on March 01, 2011, 12:26:04 AM
The whole discussion about this seems pretty darn silly since the NCAA just got a bank vault of cash for the rights to the D-1 tournament.

And while promoting regional games is noble, when teams like Carleton, EMU and Wabash are left out of the tournament because of that criteria just doesn't seem right.
True.  Maybe we can get better ratios and have a 64 field next year.  Then we can hear about how 65, 66 & 67 got hosed.  ::)  #1 seeds should ALWAYS host or even better, 8 teams at 2 neutral sites for round 3 & 4 super tournaments.  Lets spend that money!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:46:13 AM
Just Bill's excellent post about the Stevens Point rule...

the year that L&C hosted a sectional with Sul Ross State, Lawrence and UWSP.

Quote from: Just Bill on February 28, 2011, 09:59:21 PM
If you saw it called the "Stevens Point Rule" that references 2004. Both the UWSP men and women were selected to host a sectional. With no rule against it, the two NCAA committee chairs discussed the feasibility of allowing Point to host them both simultaneously. Point was willing to do both, but the chairs ultimately decided that it was not feasible to do both equitably.

At that point, the chairs asked UWSP to choose which one they would rather host. Then-AD Frank O'Brien wisely had no interest in picking one team over the other and he refused to name a preference, insisting UWSP was capable of hosting both.

Ultimately the decision rested on the two committee chairs. They decided that since the women were seeded higher than the men, they would get the right to host. The men were shipped to Puget Sound. (Lawrence would have been the preferred geogrhical choice, but their gym does not meet sectional standards.)

Both teams won their sectionals with the men winning their first national title and the women placing fourth and missing out on two titles in three years. The next year the NCAA put in the current rotation system.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:52:23 AM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on March 01, 2011, 12:23:57 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:12:38 AM
...

I honestly don't know what it is like this year, but about a decade ago, the women's bracket supposedly overspent their budget.

I think that Whitworth would have gotten to host a sectional if there were a third travel orphan, to allow the NCAA to allow a fourth.

The NWC has to face it.  You are not going to host a sectional  Unless you have some incredible lucky breaks, such as quality teams unable to host in the even-numbered years because the women's team needs the gym that weekend to host their sectionals.

Undefeated (in D3) Mississippi College, the top seed in the South, was sent Wittenberg in 2006.
Yes, most of us realize and accept the truly unlikely possibilty, regardless of merit, that we will host a 3rd round sectional.  A perfect alignment of factors would make it possible, OR a budget/allotment was standard for flights.  If that was a published fact, then the odds go up.  A top seed should not have to travel to a lower seeds home court in a perfect, nonexistent, D3 world.  Not too often a geo orphan is a legit top seed.  What happened to Mississippi at Guilford that year anyway?
I believe that it was 2007 that Mississippi College was #1.  They were shipped to VWC, (not Guilford, my bad.  Guilford had the famous triple OT game with Lincoln in the game before the MC-VWC game.)

Here is the discussion of that game.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4502.2415
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 01, 2011, 01:33:12 AM
I think some people are forgetting that D3 Championships are about access not necessarily quality. 


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2011, 10:07:25 AM
A look at SOS for all 61 tournament teams, with the 18 Pool C's in bold...


1. UW-River Falls, C: .585
2. Rhode Island, A: .576
3. Middlebury, A: .573
4. Williams, C: .558
5. Wittenberg, C: .552
6. Randolph-Macon, A: .548
7. Ithaca, C: .547
8. Illinois Wesleyan, C: .543
9. Hanover, C: .542
10. UW-Stevens Point, A: .540
11. Elms, A: .534
12. Western Conn, C: .531
13. New Jersey City, A: .530
14. Augustana, A: .527
15. Chapman, B: .525
16. Delware Valley, A: .525
17. St. Thomas, A: .523
18. Bethany, A: .519
19. Bridgewater St, A: .519
20. Skidmore, A: .517
21. WPI, C: .516
22. McMurry, A: .515
23. Buffalo St, A: .510
24. Salve Regina, A: .510
25. Mary Hardin-Baylor, C: .508
26. Oswego St, C: .507
27. Ramapo, C: .507
28. Rochester, A: .507
29. Va Wesleyan, C: .506
30. Becker, C: .505
31. Cabrini, A: .504
32. Gwynedd-Mercy, C: .502
33. Concordia (WI), C: .501
34. Hartrick, A: .501
35. Centre, A: .496
36. Whitworth, A: .496
37. Hope, A: .492
38. MIT, A: .492
39. Alvernia, A: .488
40. Luther, A: .487
41. Manchester, A: .487
42. NC Wesleyan, A: .486
43. Purchase, A: .486
44. Wooster, A: .486
45. Texas-Dallas, C: .485
46. Johnson & Wales, A: .482
47. Penn St-Behrend, C: .481
48. St. Mary's (Md), A: .479
49. Wells, A: .471
50. Benedictine, A: .471
51. La Roche, A: .466
52. Amherst, C: .464
53. Franklin & Marshall, A: .463
54. Medgar Evers, A: .463
55. St. Norbert, A: .462
56. Marietta, A: .456
57. Scranton, A: .451
58. Redlands, A: .433
59. Northwestern, A: .430
60. Webster, A: .430
61. Husson, A: .421
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 10:41:12 AM
TEAM A: 0.684 WP, 0.543 SOS, 1-2 vRRO
TEAM B: 0.692 WP, 0.543 SOS, 2-2 vRRO

TEAM B is the obvious choice between these two teams, and there are other criteria to discuss, but the similarity is surprising to me.

TEAM B was a Pool C selection, but TEAM A never had a prayer.

Calvin and IWU.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2011, 10:53:25 AM

SOS is a big deal for the committee.  It has been for the decade plus I've been following d3.  It's probably more important, in my opinion, than it should be.

For IWU's sake, I hope the gave against River Falls is at least close.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 10:53:25 AM

SOS is a big deal for the committee.  It has been for the decade plus I've been following d3.  It's probably more important, in my opinion, than it should be.

For IWU's sake, I hope the gave against River Falls is at least close.

The big problem with SOS is that in a vacuum, it means nothing.

Winning percentage doesn't mean a heckuva lot on it's own either.

The two need to be connected to each other and weighed against each other the same way every time. I know some people grumble about RPI's and computer rankings, but I would love it if D3 combined the WP and SOS in some mathmatical way, and then adjusted that based on head-to-head and vRRO and the like.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carletonsid on March 01, 2011, 11:27:07 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 10:53:25 AM

SOS is a big deal for the committee.  It has been for the decade plus I've been following d3.  It's probably more important, in my opinion, than it should be.

For IWU's sake, I hope the gave against River Falls is at least close.

The big problem with SOS is that in a vacuum, it means nothing.

Winning percentage doesn't mean a heckuva lot on it's own either.

The two need to be connected to each other and weighed against each other the same way every time. I know some people grumble about RPI's and computer rankings, but I would love it if D3 combined the WP and SOS in some mathmatical way, and then adjusted that based on head-to-head and vRRO and the like.

I agree to an extent, but I think SOS and regional win pct. give a pretty good indicator of a team's relative success, and then if you sprinkle in vRRO and take a look at head-to-head, it should give you a good idea of the team's merits.

To me, if a team has a strong RWP (regional win percentage) and solid SOS, along with a good amount of games vRRO, that shows they should be considered. It seems with this year's selections, though, that somehow the committee used a bit of both RWP and SOS, but not consistently. For instance, they took two teams with .800 RWP but SOS of .502. On the flip, they took teams with RWP of .727 and .692, yet SOS of .552 and .543. So perhaps an .800 RWP was a clincher, as was an SOS of .540+. That would explain taking IWU and Witt (SOS of .543 & .552, respectively). UTD and GMC had RWP of .800.

For me, though, it's great if you have a strong SOS but you need to win those games, which is why it's hard to see how Witt and IWU were picked over Carleton. Anyone can play a tough schedule, but the point is to win the games. Plus, Carleton won as many games vRRO (5) as Witt and IWU combined (5).

So maybe a RPI rating is the way to go. It would make things much more transparent and programs out there would know how the process works in a more black-and-white way. It would also back the committee in a corner, so to speak, in making the selections. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not.  I've been involved in NCAA selections for golf and I chair the All-American committee for golf as well, and everything is very cut-and-dried in that sport because you have volumes of numbers and basically an RPI system created by Golfstat that is used at all NCAA divisions. Division I has an RPI system, so why not Division III? I think the major problem, no matter what system you use, is there just isn't enough play across regions so there's no way to really compare, and the sample size you have for comparison is so small it would skew the system. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2011, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 10:53:25 AM

SOS is a big deal for the committee.  It has been for the decade plus I've been following d3.  It's probably more important, in my opinion, than it should be.

For IWU's sake, I hope the gave against River Falls is at least close.

The big problem with SOS is that in a vacuum, it means nothing.

Winning percentage doesn't mean a heckuva lot on it's own either.

The two need to be connected to each other and weighed against each other the same way every time. I know some people grumble about RPI's and computer rankings, but I would love it if D3 combined the WP and SOS in some mathmatical way, and then adjusted that based on head-to-head and vRRO and the like.

Exactly.  That's why I think it's overvalued.  I've said over and over, Becker doesn't deserve to be in the tournament.  They've got fantastic numbers, mostly because, if you plan it right, you can get a high SOS in the NE without actually beating anyone of note.

A high SOS in the Midwest is a bit more impressive.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:00:52 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 10:53:25 AM

SOS is a big deal for the committee.  It has been for the decade plus I've been following d3.  It's probably more important, in my opinion, than it should be.

For IWU's sake, I hope the gave against River Falls is at least close.

The big problem with SOS is that in a vacuum, it means nothing.

Winning percentage doesn't mean a heckuva lot on it's own either.

The two need to be connected to each other and weighed against each other the same way every time. I know some people grumble about RPI's and computer rankings, but I would love it if D3 combined the WP and SOS in some mathmatical way, and then adjusted that based on head-to-head and vRRO and the like.

Exactly.  That's why I think it's overvalued.  I've said over and over, Becker doesn't deserve to be in the tournament.  They've got fantastic numbers, mostly because, if you plan it right, you can get a high SOS in the NE without actually beating anyone of note.A high SOS in the Midwest is a bit more impressive.

+1!   :)

But when you have a conference that is so large, and needs D-III games from inside the conference to fill a 25 game schedule so badly that you can never get the numbers to have a viable model, you need a person.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: iwumichigander on March 01, 2011, 12:14:52 PM
Q - Div III Allotment for Flights?
A - NCAA develops budgets for each sport and championship.  So perhaps a right way to approach the question is a budget versus allotment.  Within the budget, some funding exists for flights.  Usually, it is admittedly very limited which is why, for example,  Div III has the 500 mile rule.  If you search ncaa.org you can probably find budgets from prior years.  I have never been able find the current seasons' budget online during the season.  As Pat noted, your regional committee member might help with the info.

Division III still gets most of its funding for basketball championships from Division I.
P.S. - If you compare Div I to Div III you are only going to be ill.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 01, 2011, 12:19:22 PM
Flight allotment:
How about the equality question with the women?  Suppose we can count 5 guaranteed flights in the Ladies brackets. Does that mean men "have" the same budget?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 12:19:49 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:00:52 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 10:53:25 AM

SOS is a big deal for the committee.  It has been for the decade plus I've been following d3.  It's probably more important, in my opinion, than it should be.

For IWU's sake, I hope the gave against River Falls is at least close.

The big problem with SOS is that in a vacuum, it means nothing.

Winning percentage doesn't mean a heckuva lot on it's own either.

The two need to be connected to each other and weighed against each other the same way every time. I know some people grumble about RPI's and computer rankings, but I would love it if D3 combined the WP and SOS in some mathmatical way, and then adjusted that based on head-to-head and vRRO and the like.

Exactly.  That's why I think it's overvalued.  I've said over and over, Becker doesn't deserve to be in the tournament.  They've got fantastic numbers, mostly because, if you plan it right, you can get a high SOS in the NE without actually beating anyone of note.A high SOS in the Midwest is a bit more impressive.

+1!   :)

But when you have a conference that is so large, and needs D-III games from inside the conference to fill a 25 game schedule so badly that you can never get the numbers to have a viable model, you need a person.  :)

Are the ASC SOS numbers really that unfair?

according to my sheet, which may be slightly off from the official NCAA calcs, they vary from 0.532 to 0.484 with an average of 0.506.

The NATHCON, for comparison (another large league, but in a well populated D3 area), varied from 0.536 to 0.457 with an average of 0.489.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2011, 12:20:21 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on March 01, 2011, 12:19:22 PM
Flight allotment:
How about the equality question with the women?  Suppose we can count 5 guaranteed flights in the Ladies brackets. Does that mean men "have" the same budget?
The simple answer is: sure, why not.
The harder answer is: really not sure.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: iwumichigander on March 01, 2011, 12:30:51 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2011, 12:20:21 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on March 01, 2011, 12:19:22 PM
Flight allotment:
How about the equality question with the women?  Suppose we can count 5 guaranteed flights in the Ladies brackets. Does that mean men "have" the same budget?
The simple answer is: sure, why not.
The harder answer is: really not sure.
Dave - From memory, the budgets for women vs men are not the same.  The variation within divisions is probably driven by geographic and the number of participating schools.  I seem to remember Pat posting recently there are more D3 women than men institutions (as an example of why the men have a smaller bracket).  Offsetting that, the men's tournament generates more direct revenue than women's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:34:47 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 12:19:49 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:00:52 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 10:53:25 AM

SOS is a big deal for the committee.  It has been for the decade plus I've been following d3.  It's probably more important, in my opinion, than it should be.

For IWU's sake, I hope the gave against River Falls is at least close.

The big problem with SOS is that in a vacuum, it means nothing.

Winning percentage doesn't mean a heckuva lot on it's own either.

The two need to be connected to each other and weighed against each other the same way every time. I know some people grumble about RPI's and computer rankings, but I would love it if D3 combined the WP and SOS in some mathmatical way, and then adjusted that based on head-to-head and vRRO and the like.

Exactly.  That's why I think it's overvalued.  I've said over and over, Becker doesn't deserve to be in the tournament.  They've got fantastic numbers, mostly because, if you plan it right, you can get a high SOS in the NE without actually beating anyone of note.A high SOS in the Midwest is a bit more impressive.

+1!   :)

But when you have a conference that is so large, and needs D-III games from inside the conference to fill a 25 game schedule so badly that you can never get the numbers to have a viable model, you need a person.  :)

Are the ASC SOS numbers really that unfair?

according to my sheet, which may be slightly off from the official NCAA calcs, they vary from 0.532 to 0.484 with an average of 0.506.

The NATHCON, for comparison (another large league, but in a well populated D3 area), varied from 0.536 to 0.457 with an average of 0.489.
Knightslappy,

Thanks for the response.  Can you share the link for the OWP/OOWP numbers?

Who is 0.532 and who is ..484?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 01:05:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:34:47 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 12:19:49 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:00:52 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 10:53:25 AM

SOS is a big deal for the committee.  It has been for the decade plus I've been following d3.  It's probably more important, in my opinion, than it should be.

For IWU's sake, I hope the gave against River Falls is at least close.

The big problem with SOS is that in a vacuum, it means nothing.

Winning percentage doesn't mean a heckuva lot on it's own either.

The two need to be connected to each other and weighed against each other the same way every time. I know some people grumble about RPI's and computer rankings, but I would love it if D3 combined the WP and SOS in some mathmatical way, and then adjusted that based on head-to-head and vRRO and the like.

Exactly.  That's why I think it's overvalued.  I've said over and over, Becker doesn't deserve to be in the tournament.  They've got fantastic numbers, mostly because, if you plan it right, you can get a high SOS in the NE without actually beating anyone of note.A high SOS in the Midwest is a bit more impressive.

+1!   :)

But when you have a conference that is so large, and needs D-III games from inside the conference to fill a 25 game schedule so badly that you can never get the numbers to have a viable model, you need a person.  :)

Are the ASC SOS numbers really that unfair?

according to my sheet, which may be slightly off from the official NCAA calcs, they vary from 0.532 to 0.484 with an average of 0.506.

The NATHCON, for comparison (another large league, but in a well populated D3 area), varied from 0.536 to 0.457 with an average of 0.489.
Knightslappy,

Thanks for the response.  Can you share the link for the OWP/OOWP numbers?

Who is 0.532 and who is ..484?

This is what I have, which is not exactly the official numbers, but it's what I've been working with all year.

Howard Payne   0.532
University of the Ozarks   0.525
Texas Lutheran   0.519
McMurry   0.517
Sul Ross State   0.516
Hardin-Simmons   0.511
Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.509
Schreiner   0.503
Texas-Tyler   0.500
Mississippi College   0.500
Concordia (Texas)   0.497
East Texas Baptist   0.496
Louisiana College   0.490
Texas-Dallas   0.488
LeTourneau   0.484
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 02:17:27 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 01:05:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:34:47 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 12:19:49 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:00:52 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 10:53:25 AM

SOS is a big deal for the committee.  It has been for the decade plus I've been following d3.  It's probably more important, in my opinion, than it should be.

For IWU's sake, I hope the gave against River Falls is at least close.

The big problem with SOS is that in a vacuum, it means nothing.

Winning percentage doesn't mean a heckuva lot on it's own either.

The two need to be connected to each other and weighed against each other the same way every time. I know some people grumble about RPI's and computer rankings, but I would love it if D3 combined the WP and SOS in some mathmatical way, and then adjusted that based on head-to-head and vRRO and the like.

Exactly.  That's why I think it's overvalued.  I've said over and over, Becker doesn't deserve to be in the tournament.  They've got fantastic numbers, mostly because, if you plan it right, you can get a high SOS in the NE without actually beating anyone of note.A high SOS in the Midwest is a bit more impressive.

+1!   :)

But when you have a conference that is so large, and needs D-III games from inside the conference to fill a 25 game schedule so badly that you can never get the numbers to have a viable model, you need a person.  :)

Are the ASC SOS numbers really that unfair?

according to my sheet, which may be slightly off from the official NCAA calcs, they vary from 0.532 to 0.484 with an average of 0.506.

The NATHCON, for comparison (another large league, but in a well populated D3 area), varied from 0.536 to 0.457 with an average of 0.489.
Knightslappy,

Thanks for the response.  Can you share the link for the OWP/OOWP numbers?

Who is 0.532 and who is ..484?

This is what I have, which is not exactly the official numbers, but it's what I've been working with all year.



The ASC plays single round-robin inter-division and double round robin intra-division.  The West played 21 games; the East played 20 games.  Here are the non-conference D-III games by each team.  The in-region record is listed. (The Division, West or East, is listed before the school name. Neutral site = n.  Non-in-region = Italics.)
Division   Team OWP   In-region record  In-region D-3 foes.

W -  Howard Payne   0.532      6-18       at Rhodes, at Rust, at Austin College
E -  University of the Ozarks   0.525   5-18  Hendrix, at Birmingham-Southern, (at Covenant PY-2)
W -  Texas Lutheran     0.519    11-12  (played only 24 games) (n)Willamette, (n) ETBU/non-conferenceW -  McMurry   0.517  20-6  at Guilford, (n) Averett
W -  Sul Ross State   0.516  7-14  None -- geographically, SRSU played  4 of the closest non D-3 schools near them, within 350 miles.
Hardin-Simmons   0.511  15-8   at Southwestern, (n) Trinity
Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.509  21-7   Southwestern, at Austin, Willamette, ETBU non-conferenceSchreiner   0.503          10-14        at Trinity,  at Southwestern,   UDallas    
Texas-Tyler   0.500      12-12     (n) Huntingdon, at LaGrange (650 miles)
Mississippi College   0.500      11-11  at Millsaps (only played 24 games)
Concordia (Texas)   0.497       15-10  Southwestern,  UW-Platteville, Beloit  
East Texas Baptist   0.496       16-10  (n) UDallas, at Austin, at UMHB/non-conf, (n)Texas Lutheran/non-confLouisiana College   0.490       10-10  None (only 24 games)  Lacollege is the only D3 in the state of Louisiana
Texas-Dallas   0.488      21-5  (only played 24 games.  Ausitn College, at Austin, Stevenson, at UDallas
LeTourneau   0.484   at Austin, (n) UDallas, Hendrix, at Hendrix


Does Howard Payne get that OWP by playing 3 medicore teams on the road?



The ASC plays single round-robin inter-division and double round robin intra-division.  The West played 21 games; the East played 20 games.  Here are the non-conference D-III games by each team.  The in-region record is listed. (The Division, West or East, is listed before the school name. Neutral site = n.  Non-in-region = Italics.)
Division   Team OWP   In-region record  In-region D-3 foes.

W -  Howard Payne   0.532      6-18       at Rhodes, at Rust, at Austin College
E -  University of the Ozarks   0.525   5-18  Hendrix, at Birmingham-Southern, (at Covenant PY-2)
W -  Texas Lutheran     0.519    11-12  (played only 24 games) (n)Willamette, (n) ETBU/non-conference
W -  McMurry   0.517  20-6  at Guilford, (n) Averett
W -  Sul Ross State   0.516  7-14  None -- geographically, SRSU played  4 of the closest non D-3 schools near them, within 350 miles.
W -  Hardin-Simmons   0.511  15-8   at Southwestern, (n) Trinity
W - Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.509  21-7   Southwestern, at Austin, Willamette, ETBU non-conference
W - Schreiner   0.503          10-14        at Trinity,  at Southwestern,   UDallas    
E- Texas-Tyler   0.500      12-12     (n) Huntingdon, at LaGrange (650 miles)
E- Mississippi College   0.500      11-11  at Millsaps (only played 24 games)
W - Concordia (Texas)   0.497       15-10  Southwestern,  UW-Platteville, Beloit  
E - East Texas Baptist   0.496       16-10  (n) UDallas, at Austin, at UMHB/non-conf, (n)TLU/non-conf
E - Louisiana College   0.490       10-10  None (only 24 games)  Lacollege is the only D3 in the state of Louisiana
E - Texas-Dallas   0.488      21-5  (only played 24 games.  Ausitn College, at Austin, Stevenson, at UDallas
E - LeTourneau   0.484   at Austin, (n) UDallas, Hendrix, at Hendrix

Sixteen unique in-region opponents and 30 games:

SCAC  7 schools, 20 games
UDallas (SCAC in 2011-12)  4 games
Rust HPU at Rust
Guilford McM at Guilford
Averett     McM at Guilford
Willamette 2 games (at UMHB and TLU (n)
Huntingdon UTT at Huntingdon
LaGrange      UTT at LaGrange
UW-Platteville  at CTX
Beloit at CTX

It is common in the ASC to play a D-1 team as a money game.  Several schools then use the "D-1" money to finance a "plane flight tourney".



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2011, 02:28:28 PM
Here is my best guess at the order the Pool C's were selected...

1. Williams (NE): .920/.558
2. Concordia (MW): .875/.501
3. WPI (NE): .846/.516
4. Virginia Wesleyan (S): .840/.506
5. Penn St-Behrend (GL): .885/.481
6. Oswego St (E): .852/.507
7. Becker (NE): .852/.505
8. Ramapo (Atl): .826/.507
9. Gwynedd-Mercy (Mid-Atl): .800/.502
10. Amherst (NE): .875/.464
11. UW-River Falls (W): .750/.585
12. Ithaca (E): .760/.547
13. Mary Hardin-Baylor (S): .750/.508
14. Western Conn (NE): .800/.531
15. Hanover (MW): .731/.542
16. Wittenberg (GL): .727/.552
17. Texas-Dallas (S): .800/.485
18. Illinois Wesleyan (MW): .692/.543


Left on the board, in the order of selection competitiveness (by my estimation):

* Carleton (W): .750/.528
* Ferrum (S): .800/.471
* St. Joseph's LI (Atl): .769/.504
* Wabash (GL): .760/.499
* Edgewood (MW): .692/.547
* Stevens (E): .731/.512
* Leb Valley (Mid Atl): .720/.509
* Eastern Conn (NE): .680/.526


(Obviously I have just listed winning % and SOS above.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on March 01, 2011, 05:14:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 02:17:27 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 01:05:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:34:47 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 12:19:49 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:00:52 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2011, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 10:53:25 AM

SOS is a big deal for the committee.  It has been for the decade plus I've been following d3.  It's probably more important, in my opinion, than it should be.

For IWU's sake, I hope the gave against River Falls is at least close.

The big problem with SOS is that in a vacuum, it means nothing.

Winning percentage doesn't mean a heckuva lot on it's own either.

The two need to be connected to each other and weighed against each other the same way every time. I know some people grumble about RPI's and computer rankings, but I would love it if D3 combined the WP and SOS in some mathmatical way, and then adjusted that based on head-to-head and vRRO and the like.

Exactly.  That's why I think it's overvalued.  I've said over and over, Becker doesn't deserve to be in the tournament.  They've got fantastic numbers, mostly because, if you plan it right, you can get a high SOS in the NE without actually beating anyone of note.A high SOS in the Midwest is a bit more impressive.

+1!   :)

But when you have a conference that is so large, and needs D-III games from inside the conference to fill a 25 game schedule so badly that you can never get the numbers to have a viable model, you need a person.  :)

Are the ASC SOS numbers really that unfair?

according to my sheet, which may be slightly off from the official NCAA calcs, they vary from 0.532 to 0.484 with an average of 0.506.

The NATHCON, for comparison (another large league, but in a well populated D3 area), varied from 0.536 to 0.457 with an average of 0.489.
Knightslappy,

Thanks for the response.  Can you share the link for the OWP/OOWP numbers?

Who is 0.532 and who is ..484?

This is what I have, which is not exactly the official numbers, but it's what I've been working with all year.



The ASC plays single round-robin inter-division and double round robin intra-division.  The West played 21 games; the East played 20 games.  Here are the non-conference D-III games by each team.  The in-region record is listed. (The Division, West or East, is listed before the school name. Neutral site = n.  Non-in-region = Italics.)
Division   Team OWP   In-region record  In-region D-3 foes.

W -  Howard Payne   0.532      6-18       at Rhodes, at Rust, at Austin College
E -  University of the Ozarks   0.525   5-18  Hendrix, at Birmingham-Southern, (at Covenant PY-2)
W -  Texas Lutheran     0.519    11-12  (played only 24 games) (n)Willamette, (n) ETBU/non-conference
W -  McMurry   0.517  20-6  at Guilford, (n) Averett
W -  Sul Ross State   0.516  7-14  None -- geographically, SRSU played  4 of the closest non D-3 schools near them, within 350 miles.
Hardin-Simmons   0.511  15-8   at Southwestern, (n) Trinity
Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.509  21-7   Southwestern, at Austin, Willamette, ETBU non-conference
Schreiner   0.503          10-14        at Trinity,  at Southwestern,   UDallas    
Texas-Tyler   0.500      12-12     (n) Huntingdon, at LaGrange (650 miles)
Mississippi College   0.500      11-11  at Millsaps (only played 24 games)
Concordia (Texas)   0.497       15-10  Southwestern,  UW-Platteville, Beloit  
East Texas Baptist   0.496       16-10  (n) UDallas, at Austin, at UMHB/non-conf, (n)Texas Lutheran/non-confLouisiana College   0.490       10-10  None (only 24 games)  Lacollege is the only D3 in the state of Louisiana
Texas-Dallas   0.488      21-5  (only played 24 games.  Ausitn College, at Austin, Stevenson, at UDallas
LeTourneau   0.484   at Austin, (n) UDallas, Hendrix, at Hendrix


Does Howard Payne get that OWP by playing 3 mediocre teams on the road?



The ASC plays single round-robin inter-division and double round robin intra-division.  The West played 21 games; the East played 20 games.  Here are the non-conference D-III games by each team.  The in-region record is listed. (The Division, West or East, is listed before the school name. Neutral site = n.  Non-in-region = Italics.)
Division   Team OWP   In-region record  In-region D-3 foes.

W -  Howard Payne   0.532      6-18       at Rhodes, at Rust, at Austin College
E -  University of the Ozarks   0.525   5-18  Hendrix, at Birmingham-Southern, (at Covenant PY-2)
W -  Texas Lutheran     0.519    11-12  (played only 24 games) (n)Willamette, (n) ETBU/non-conference
W -  McMurry   0.517  20-6  at Guilford, (n) Averett
W -  Sul Ross State   0.516  7-14  None -- geographically, SRSU played  4 of the closest non D-3 schools near them, within 350 miles.
W -  Hardin-Simmons   0.511  15-8   at Southwestern, (n) Trinity
W - Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.509  21-7   Southwestern, at Austin, Willamette, ETBU non-conference
W - Schreiner   0.503          10-14        at Trinity,  at Southwestern,   UDallas   
E- Texas-Tyler   0.500      12-12     (n) Huntingdon, at LaGrange (650 miles)
E- Mississippi College   0.500      11-11  at Millsaps (only played 24 games)
W - Concordia (Texas)   0.497       15-10  Southwestern,  UW-Platteville, Beloit 
E - East Texas Baptist   0.496       16-10  (n) UDallas, at Austin, at UMHB/non-conf, (n)TLU/non-conf
E - Louisiana College   0.490       10-10  None (only 24 games)  Lacollege is the only D3 in the state of Louisiana
E - Texas-Dallas   0.488      21-5  (only played 24 games.  Ausitn College, at Austin, Stevenson, at UDallas
E - LeTourneau   0.484   at Austin, (n) UDallas, Hendrix, at Hendrix


But i dont think Rust was or is mediocre you can ask Howard Payne that.....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2011, 05:22:24 PM
Howard Payne was 6-18 according to that list. I don't know how Rust would prove non-mediocrity in that matchup.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on March 01, 2011, 05:30:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2011, 05:22:24 PM
Howard Payne was 6-18 according to that list. I don't know how Rust would prove non-mediocrity in that matchup.
Rust also played Webster
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 05:40:26 PM
Rust beat HPU by 1 at home.

McMurry beat HPU by 20 at home and on the road.  That was my framework for stating that Rust (18-7) was mediocre.   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on March 01, 2011, 06:00:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 05:40:26 PM
Rust beat HPU by 1 at home.

McMurry beat HPU by 20 at home and on the road.  That was my framework for stating that Rust (18-7) was mediocre.   ;)
It be like that sometimes well when next season come around come watch Rust play thats all i ask
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 06:04:04 PM
Quote from: RustCollege on March 01, 2011, 06:00:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 05:40:26 PM
Rust beat HPU by 1 at home.

McMurry beat HPU by 20 at home and on the road.  That was my framework for stating that Rust (18-7) was mediocre.   ;)
It be like that sometimes well when next season come around come watch Rust play thats all i ask
I thought that Rust put together a very good schedule for an independent who is a long way from a lot of schools.

Getting HPU to play you (and Rhodes) was very good, for both teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: RustCollege on March 01, 2011, 06:25:41 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 06:04:04 PM
Quote from: RustCollege on March 01, 2011, 06:00:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 05:40:26 PM
Rust beat HPU by 1 at home.

McMurry beat HPU by 20 at home and on the road.  That was my framework for stating that Rust (18-7) was mediocre.   ;)
It be like that sometimes well when next season come around come watch Rust play thats all i ask
I thought that Rust put together a very good schedule for an independent who is a long way from a lot of schools.

Getting HPU to play you (and Rhodes) was very good, for both teams.
yea it is but i just wish we can get Miss College would play a home and home with Rust
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 02, 2011, 12:51:38 AM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2011, 01:33:12 AM
I think some people are forgetting that D3 Championships are about access not necessarily quality. 


Oh, I'm all for access for the Pool A's. If you have a legit conference, you deserve a bid.

The "C"'s though should be quality.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 02, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
Quote from: smedindy on March 02, 2011, 12:51:38 AM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2011, 01:33:12 AM
I think some people are forgetting that D3 Championships are about access not necessarily quality.  


Oh, I'm all for access for the Pool A's. If you have a legit conference, you deserve a bid.

The "C"'s though should be quality.
THE NCAA's CORE PURPOSE IS TO govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.  

Can we somehow hold them to the mission statement in funding the D3 tournaments?  Fairness and equity are not existent in our tourney until the Final Four.   Selecting a team(s) to play 4 home games is competitively UNFAIR and UNEQUITABLE.  The NCAA can and should make an effort to expand ITS OWN CORE PURPOSE from 4 games to at least the final 16 games of the D3 tournaments under new President Mark Emmert.  

He states, "Behaviors that undermine the collegiate model wherever they occur are a threat to those basic values, and we can't tolerate them. If we believe in those values, we need to be ready to defend them, and if we don't, we have to be ready to accept the criticism that comes from not doing so.  During the next few months, I will work with NCAA presidential groups in all three divisions to propose rules that close glaring loopholes and begin to align behaviors with our values."

Neutral site round 3 and 4 games can be planned and located to easily allow four (4) team fan bases to travel instead of the current UNFAIR and UNEQUITABLE three (3) fan bases.  Using the current hosting process, these sites could be announced at the release of the bracket.  This would allow for travel planning to begin much earlier for potential teams, students, and fan bases.  No one can effectively argue that playing at home has no advantage.  Busing and lodging 4 more teams (16 vs 12) is not a significant increase in expense and the potential for a more lucrative gate and larger venues could offset the 25% added expense.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2011, 11:25:42 AM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on March 02, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
Quote from: smedindy on March 02, 2011, 12:51:38 AM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2011, 01:33:12 AM
I think some people are forgetting that D3 Championships are about access not necessarily quality.  


Oh, I'm all for access for the Pool A's. If you have a legit conference, you deserve a bid.

The "C"'s though should be quality.
THE NCAA's CORE PURPOSE IS TO govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.  

Can we somehow hold them to the mission statement in funding the D3 tournaments?  Fairness and equity are not existent in our tourney until the Final Four.   Selecting a team(s) to play 4 home games is competitively UNFAIR and UNEQUITABLE.  The NCAA can and should make an effort to expand ITS OWN CORE PURPOSE from 4 games to at least the final 16 games of the D3 tournaments under new President Mark Emmert.  

He states, "Behaviors that undermine the collegiate model wherever they occur are a threat to those basic values, and we can't tolerate them. If we believe in those values, we need to be ready to defend them, and if we don't, we have to be ready to accept the criticism that comes from not doing so.  During the next few months, I will work with NCAA presidential groups in all three divisions to propose rules that close glaring loopholes and begin to align behaviors with our values."

Neutral site round 3 and 4 games can be planned and located to easily allow four (4) team fan bases to travel instead of the current UNFAIR and UNEQUITABLE three (3) fan bases.  Using the current hosting process, these sites could be announced at the release of the bracket.  This would allow for travel planning to begin much earlier for potential teams, students, and fan bases.  No one can effectively argue that playing at home has no advantage.  Busing and lodging 4 more teams (16 vs 12) is not a significant increase in expense and the potential for a more lucrative gate and larger venues could offset the 25% added expense.

In every sport,  yes, it becomes a significant increase.

Ballpark costs for a travel group of 20 for an NCAA playoff game.  (I am uncertain about the current per diem rules.)

15 hotel rooms ($100/night each in west Texas.  How much in St Louis or Chicago?  $150?)  =  $1500 - $2250
Charter Bus miles are now in the $5-7/mile range times  avg. 600 miles round trip = $3000 - $4200
Per diem $75 per person for a party of 20 for 3 days = $4500
Total = $9050 - $10250
Times 3 three teams  =  $27150 - $30750



Plane flight for the fourth

Rooms = $1500 - $2250
Local Transportation Charter 200 miles at $5-7/ mile =   $1000-1400
Per diem $75 per peson for a party of 20 for 3 days =            $4500
Plane flight $400 per person for 20 = $8000
Total  =  $14000- $16150

Expenses for using 16 neutral sites (just beginning to consider the expenses)

Practice facility rentals at a new site for 4 teams = X
Facility rental for the tourney = Y
Extra team traveling = $10250 - $10950
Sicteen extra teams traveling = $164,000 - $175,200
Extra expenses for using neutral sites times 16?
For every sport across D-III...  =  $ Big bucks

I sure do hope that the next March Madness Contract can bring in more money that will trickle down to D-III.
I will appreciate any corrections to these numbers and assumptions.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2011, 11:28:45 AM
The neutral site thing has been talked about, but there's a problem in that there's not actually a lot of interest among Division III schools in bidding on hosting an event they won't be participating in. I would say baseball does this successfully, but even then most of the host schools have teams with hopes of making the regionals.

Also, I would say hosting an event in May is easier than in mid-March because the baseball playoffs don't overlap with the regular season in other sports.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 02, 2011, 11:36:53 AM
Ralph:  It isn't 16 extra teams traveling if we are talking rounds 3 and 4, It is 4.

Pat:  Lack of interest is sad and disappointing.  Should be a win win in it somehow.  Besides, what comes around goes around, pay it forward....all apply.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dahlby on March 02, 2011, 11:40:51 AM
Bidding as a neutral site host results in lower bids for the NCAA because of the unknown home town attendance, if the bidder does not make the playoffs. It would be interesting to have data from a school that hosted  a non-participating neutral playoff versus when they hosted a playoff where that school participated. Schools don't want to lose money on hosting (when you consider the guarantee paid to the NCAA) so the bid would be naturally lower.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 02, 2011, 11:58:41 AM
Quote from: dahlby on March 02, 2011, 11:40:51 AM
Bidding as a neutral site host results in lower bids for the NCAA because of the unknown home town attendance, if the bidder does not make the playoffs. It would be interesting to have data from a school that hosted  a non-participating neutral playoff versus when they hosted a playoff where that school participated. Schools don't want to lose money on hosting (when you consider the guarantee paid to the NCAA) so the bid would be naturally lower.

I can tell you that when Hope hosted the women's final four in 08 and 09 the actual crowd was about 1/3 of what was expected had Hope advanced to the Final Four in a 3,500 seat arena.

Its been 20+ years but when Hope also hosted the women's final four in 1990 attendance was around 2200 to 2500 in a smaller building (capacity 2700), vs around 1,000 for the two final fours in 2008 and 2009 in Holland where Hope didn't participate.

But it seems any event that involves Hope's large supporting crowd really isn't the norm around D3.


Unless its the Championship weekend, neutral site games to me are a bad idea and seem contradictory to the D3 philosophy.  I really don't even like the pod system we use now.  Hosting NCAA tournament games is a great experience for the host school and fans, and 13 teams are denied that opportunity in round 1 because of the pod system.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2011, 12:05:02 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2011, 11:58:41 AM
Quote from: dahlby on March 02, 2011, 11:40:51 AM
Bidding as a neutral site host results in lower bids for the NCAA because of the unknown home town attendance, if the bidder does not make the playoffs. It would be interesting to have data from a school that hosted  a non-participating neutral playoff versus when they hosted a playoff where that school participated. Schools don't want to lose money on hosting (when you consider the guarantee paid to the NCAA) so the bid would be naturally lower.

I can tell you that when Hope hosted the women's final four in 08 and 09 the actual crowd was about 1/3 of what was expected had Hope advanced to the Final Four in a 3,500 seat arena.

Its been 20+ years but when Hope also hosted the women's final four in 1990 attendance was around 2200 to 2500 in a smaller building (capacity 2700), vs around 1,000 for the two final fours in 2008 and 2009 in Holland where Hope didn't participate.

But it seems any event that involves Hope's large supporting crowd really isn't the norm around D3.


Unless its the Championship weekend, neutral site games to me are a bad idea and seem contradictory to the D3 philosophy.  I really don't even like the pod system we use now.  Hosting NCAA tournament games is a great experience for the host school and fans, and 13 teams are denied that opportunity in round 1 because of the pod system.

Okay, choose your preference.

61/64 team tourney with the current format in which there are "16" hosts sites in the first round?

48 team tourney under the old Away/Home/Bye scenario that allows for 32 host sites for first/second round action?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2011, 12:11:38 PM
I would probably reject those as being the only two choices. We had 64 teams once with Thursday/Saturday games and it seemed to be alright.

I whole-heartedly agree with sac about it being a big loss for those schools that no longer get home games. The only group that really benefits here is NCAA administrators who have to deal with fewer hosting sites.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2011, 12:21:47 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2011, 12:11:38 PM
I would probably reject those as being the only two choices. We had 64 teams once with Thursday/Saturday games and it seemed to be alright.

I whole-heartedly agree with sac about it being a big loss for those schools that no longer get home games. The only group that really benefits here is NCAA administrators who have to deal with fewer hosting sites.
When was the Thursday/Saturday thing done? I remember the 64-team field when Goucher made it and it was a Friday/Saturday thing. The next year we were back to 48 or whatever and I remember CUA beating LVC (?) on Thursday and then coming to Goucher on Saturday for the second round.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2011, 12:32:18 PM
I remember a Lawrence fan complaining about the Thursday/Saturday schedule when LU had to travel to St. Thomas(?) and then home and then go to UWSP on Saturday.  That complaint now would involve 3 teams.  If they changed it back, wouldn't it involve 16 then (or whatever the number would be)?  I realize part of the reason would be that Point didn't play Thursday, but even if it had, it probably would've been at home. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on March 02, 2011, 12:33:54 PM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2011, 12:32:18 PM
I remember a Lawrence fan complaining about the Thursday/Saturday schedule when LU had to travel to St. Thomas(?) and then home and then go to UWSP on Saturday.  That complaint now would involve 3 teams.  If they changed it back, wouldn't it involve 16 then (or whatever the number would be)?  I realize part of the reason would be that Point didn't play Thursday, but even if it had, it probably would've been at home. 

I actually just wrote about that on the Hoopsville thread last night... Here's the discussion, brought over...:

Quote from: PointSpecial on March 01, 2011, 04:40:35 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2011, 03:36:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 11:25:03 AM
The Wisdom of Hoopsville

"You wanna play that Thrusday game."

                                       --Hoopsville opening theme

(Please help me with the origins, date and speaker for this pearl.  I cited the quote on the Pool C board back in 2009.  UTD actually beat Trinity TX on their way to the Elite 8.  UTD lost Guilford in OT.)

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2009, 02:28:11 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 05, 2009, 12:13:43 PM
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 05, 2009, 10:06:00 AM
TEAMS WITH 1st ROUND BYES
Puget Sound-(C)
Texas-Dallas-(A)
Ithaca-(C)
Middlebury-(A)
As you can plainly see, awarding byes on the basis of geography rather than merit is just a bunch of caca.
QuoteYou wanna play that Thursday game.

                                                               --- The Wisdom of Hoopsville

If wish that UTD had played on Thursday.

If I am a high seed, and I am getting a "lower half seed" at home, then I want to play the first round game!

That's me, from the 2005 Selection Sunday night broadcast, responding to a comment from a Buena Vista fan complaining that they did not get a first-round bye. In the 48-team bracket I think getting your feet wet is very helpful, and especially for a program that had accomplished what BVU had to that point.

I can attest to that, too... we got spanked at home by Gustavus Adolphus after a first round bye and a really good regular season in 02-03.  We didn't have as good a regular season in 03-04... so we hosted Benedictine in that Thursday game before traveling back to Gustavus on Saturday.  I think that in 02-03, the experience really got Gustavus ready to come to SP... and it propelled them to the Final.

For us, the Thursday game in 03-04 really helped us get our feet wet... and it gave us the confidence to go into Gustavus and grind out a tough victory.  And for us (not sure about Gustavus...) the game against Gustavus was really a marquis win.  It showed us that we could compete with the best.  And I think that it allowed us to take the best that Lawrence and Williams had to throw at us and respond.

The next year, in 04-05, we had the experience... we really didn't need the Thursday game and I actually think we benefitted from it.  We got to rest while Lawrence had to travel to St. Peter to play at GAC... and then turn around and plat at Stevens Point two nights later.


For this reason (though it's this reason only...) I like the pods.  Instead of a team having to travel on Thursday and beat the home team and then turn around and travel again on Saturday to take on another home team, that team has the luxury of only 1) having to travel once 2) getting an extra day to prepare for the first opponent and 3) getting a few extra hours rest after playing the early game for the contest on Saturday night.


But I don't like how half of the teams get a home game taken away from them.  If they played well enough to earn that first round home game, then they should get the extra advantage... they shouldn't be penalized...  Truly, the pod host has a distinct advantage in both of their games and the next-best team in the pod (the other would-be host) has a neutral game and then is the visitor.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dahlby on March 02, 2011, 12:36:01 PM
At least with 4 team pods where one of the participants is hosting, that student body would enjoy the experience. When teams travel, especially long distances, it limits the traveling team's student fans ability to experience the playoffs. Parents are usually the ones that will travel to wherever.

Playing Friday/Saturday limits the amount of classes that the student athletes miss.
2 games over a weekend is enough. Any more to a pod would require at least 3 games in a 3 or 4 day period and would be a strain on the hosting school. The NW and Southern Caliifornia  teams would usually require Thursday/Saturday games, to hold the travel down to 1 team flying from Southern California or the NW. If the NW doesn't have 2 qualifiers, then fly someone to the NW from the Midwest to have a four team pod on the west coast.

I am in favor of keeping the pods as regional as possible and as close to home as possible
to facilitate the regional flavor of the game, limit missed school and give student body's the opportunity to support their teams. I really don't care if Team A had already played team B once or twice. It makes for a good rematch. Spreading the teams out and playing in neutral sites will only reduce the already scarce dollars available for D3 playoffs.

Just my thoughts, IMHO.


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dahlby on March 02, 2011, 12:39:21 PM
"Mac",

There can't be a Friday/Saturday game(s) when two teams from the NW/SCal areas play and travel north or south to meet a team from the north or south. It physically cannot be done due to the distance factor. And it is cheaper to have 2 SCal teams play down here and only have the winner fly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2011, 12:39:34 PM
So you are in favor of the pod system over the neutral site system, but would take Thurs/Sat. games with two hosts in Rd 1 over the pod system?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dahlby on March 02, 2011, 12:48:22 PM
Old-School:
I think we posted at the same time. See my posting above yours. I only would favor the Thursday/Saturday scenario under the above posted circumstance.

On the other hand, if 4 schools were within an hour or so bus ride of each other, I would have no problem with splitting a four team pod. There would be more student participation, the players could sleep in their own beds, they would miss less school, and there would be more money for the NCAA. Chapman plays Redlands Thursday nite, only an hour or so bus ride. Our 2400 plus/minus gym will be packed for the game with fans from both teams, just as it was for the unforgetable CMS/Chapman playoff game last year.

I am not that familiar with travel distances iin the other parts of the country, but it seems that some areas would be similiar to S Cal.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 02, 2011, 12:48:44 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2011, 12:21:47 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2011, 12:11:38 PM
I would probably reject those as being the only two choices. We had 64 teams once with Thursday/Saturday games and it seemed to be alright.

I whole-heartedly agree with sac about it being a big loss for those schools that no longer get home games. The only group that really benefits here is NCAA administrators who have to deal with fewer hosting sites.
When was the Thursday/Saturday thing done? I remember the 64-team field when Goucher made it and it was a Friday/Saturday thing. The next year we were back to 48 or whatever and I remember CUA beating LVC (?) on Thursday and then coming to Goucher on Saturday for the second round.

I think you have to go back to the early 90's up through the mid 90's.  While I was in school Hope played on a Thursday twice, one year at Allegheny, a couple years later at Wittenberg.   Two days later played at Calvin.  I think travel distance played into when the games were played, and have very vague memories of 1st round games being either on Thursday or Friday.

As late as 1998 I can remember Allegheny coming to Holland on a Saturday after having played a first round game vs someone on Thursday.  Hope had a bye that year, that was the 48 team field years.

In 1997 Hope hosted Denison and Wooster on Thursday/Saturday first and second round games as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2011, 12:49:01 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2011, 12:21:47 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2011, 12:11:38 PM
I would probably reject those as being the only two choices. We had 64 teams once with Thursday/Saturday games and it seemed to be alright.

I whole-heartedly agree with sac about it being a big loss for those schools that no longer get home games. The only group that really benefits here is NCAA administrators who have to deal with fewer hosting sites.
When was the Thursday/Saturday thing done? I remember the 64-team field when Goucher made it and it was a Friday/Saturday thing. The next year we were back to 48 or whatever and I remember CUA beating LVC (?) on Thursday and then coming to Goucher on Saturday for the second round.

In 1996 it was Thursday-Saturday. I remember specifically because the first round wasn't played in March, it was played on Feb. 29.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 02, 2011, 12:49:55 PM
Point and dahlby, great points.  I'm in favor of a pod system if it regionalizes the teams so that fans can actually enjoy the tournament experience.  The last two years seemed to do that.  This year, the NCAA seemed to expand the pods so there are several geographic dichotomies, limiting fan options for travel.  Perhaps the answer is to make the pods sat night/sunday afternoon.  Most people i talk to cant travel 300 miles on friday, but are using the caveat i might go saturday "if we win."  Sat/Sun takes that out of the equation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 02, 2011, 12:52:01 PM
Quote from: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 02, 2011, 12:49:55 PM
Point and dahlby, great points.  I'm in favor of a pod system if it regionalizes the teams so that fans can actually enjoy the tournament experience.  The last two years seemed to do that.  This year, the NCAA seemed to expand the pods so there are several geographic dichotomies, limiting fan options for travel.  Perhaps the answer is to make the pods sat night/sunday afternoon.  Most people i talk to cant travel 300 miles on friday, but are using the caveat i might go saturday "if we win."  Sat/Sun takes that out of the equation.

The problem with that is there are a number of schools who regularly make the tourney who will not play on Sundays.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dahlby on March 02, 2011, 12:52:53 PM
Larry,
Good point also, but there may be some religious concerns.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2011, 01:00:51 PM
Quote from: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 02, 2011, 12:49:55 PM
Point and dahlby, great points.  I'm in favor of a pod system if it regionalizes the teams so that fans can actually enjoy the tournament experience.  The last two years seemed to do that.  This year, the NCAA seemed to expand the pods so there are several geographic dichotomies, limiting fan options for travel.

I think it impacts F&M fans more, which is Larry's perspective, but it is not different than last year.

Last year's Mid-Atlantic teams:

Lycoming sent to Eastern Mennonite
DeSales sent to William Paterson (along with MIT)
Albright at home (with Clark sent there from Worcester, Mass., talk about your dichotomies)
Franklin and Marshall sent to Merchant Marine
Wesley sent to Merchant Marine
St. Mary's at home (with SUNY-Purchase sent there from the Connecticut/New York border)

This year Mid-Atlantic teams are more spread but there are also more Mid-Atlantic teams, eight instead of six. If you only focus on a couple of teams your perspective may be different than the actual big picture.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 02, 2011, 01:20:58 PM
And a voice from above said "On the second day, thou shalt rest (and travel). PodBible Genesis 1:something.

And a voice from above said "Back to back and on the third day, thou shalt rest (and travel). Book of Neutral Site, HQ's Salem Virginia.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on March 02, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
Quote from: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 02, 2011, 12:49:55 PM
This year, the NCAA seemed to expand the pods so there are several geographic dichotomies, limiting fan options for travel.

I'm not sure about all of them... but some actually aren't too bad at all.

Look at the Concordia (WI) and the St. Thomas pods.  Yes, there is one outlier in each (Luther @ CUW and IWU @ UST), but the other three schools are within a 2-3 hour drive.

There is certainly a limit, based on geography... and also based on how good the teams actually are.  Think about it... Williams and Amherst are 60 miles away, but they wouldn't meet until the Elite 8.  Now, if they do as they are favored and make it out of the first two weekends, one of them WILL host the sectional... and it will be just a quick jaunt over for the game.

Quote from: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 02, 2011, 12:49:55 PM
Perhaps the answer is to make the pods sat night/sunday afternoon.  Most people i talk to cant travel 300 miles on friday, but are using the caveat i might go saturday "if we win."  Sat/Sun takes that out of the equation.

Interestingly, my Concordia example may not be a great one... I actually am taking a "wait and see" attitude for my Pointers.  I work until 5:00 and the game is at 5:30, and I would have a minimum hour and 15 minute drive.  In Chicago/Milwaukee rush hour traffic (with construction) that's not going to happen... I'd love to catch even the second half, but that isn't guaranteed.  If the game start time was pushed back even a half hour (so 6:00 and 8:00 for the games) then I'd realistically be able to leave a few minutes early from work and get there at a reasonable time... but I'll just head home and catch it.

One counter to the Sat/Sun argument (and even the Fri/Sat) argument is the D-I tournament... some of those games are going on at 11:00 AM!  I know it's a different animal... but at least the effort has been made to mitigate the lost class time and make at least minimal provisions for fan travel.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 02, 2011, 01:50:25 PM
ahhh, forgot the sunday thing!  Yeah thatd probably be a deal breaker for enough schools.

Pat, i'm more than capable of separating my own fan interests from the conversation.  The pod system is great fun if its done in a way that lets fans, students, etc travel to both games.  Some are stronger than others this year. 

Point special, you make some great points.  i faced the same problem with Long Island last year, and i live in north jersey!  to get across the GW (even going into town) on a friday is tough, although in that case if my team had the second game i wouldve been able to do it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on March 02, 2011, 02:36:46 PM
Quote from: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 02, 2011, 01:50:25 PM
i faced the same problem with Long Island last year, and i live in north jersey!  to get across the GW (even going into town) on a friday is tough, although in that case if my team had the second game i wouldve been able to do it.

Yeah, like I said, I hope to be able to see the Saturday game... but for the Friday game, it would almost be better if the game was prohibitively far as opposed to being close... but just out of my reach!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on March 02, 2011, 02:43:13 PM
that's what has placated me about skipping a 7 1/2 hour drive to Williams from DC for Scranton's game; video will help also; just not the same as being there; u at least have a reasonable expectation of having a 2nd game(and others).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: MIAA in Exile on March 02, 2011, 11:40:47 PM
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2011, 12:48:44 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2011, 12:21:47 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2011, 12:11:38 PM
I would probably reject those as being the only two choices. We had 64 teams once with Thursday/Saturday games and it seemed to be alright.

I whole-heartedly agree with sac about it being a big loss for those schools that no longer get home games. The only group that really benefits here is NCAA administrators who have to deal with fewer hosting sites.
When was the Thursday/Saturday thing done? I remember the 64-team field when Goucher made it and it was a Friday/Saturday thing. The next year we were back to 48 or whatever and I remember CUA beating LVC (?) on Thursday and then coming to Goucher on Saturday for the second round.

I think you have to go back to the early 90's up through the mid 90's.  While I was in school Hope played on a Thursday twice, one year at Allegheny, a couple years later at Wittenberg.   Two days later played at Calvin.  I think travel distance played into when the games were played, and have very vague memories of 1st round games being either on Thursday or Friday.

As late as 1998 I can remember Allegheny coming to Holland on a Saturday after having played a first round game vs someone on Thursday.  Hope had a bye that year, that was the 48 team field years.

In 1997 Hope hosted Denison and Wooster on Thursday/Saturday first and second round games as well.


SAC. You should remember 1995... Hope played on a Thursday too...Baldwin Wallace...who then drove to Witt for a Saturday tilt.  Fun fact #1 we had to return the bus on Friday, so two athletic staff folks brought us vans in Toledo and we switched.  Fun fact #2...#1 assistant on BW team...Calvin AD Jim Timmer. Fun fact #3. None of us brought a second set of clothes so we had to do laundry in Springfield. Fun fact #5 I had the same tie as GVW ( his had won 26 straight) he even mentioned it to me pre game...a true class man.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 03, 2011, 12:36:13 AM
.....and my therapist said I had made so much progress.  :'(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on March 03, 2011, 01:25:49 AM
Quote from: MIAA in Exile on March 02, 2011, 11:40:47 PM
SAC. You should remember 1995... Hope played on a Thursday too...Baldwin Wallace...who then drove to Witt for a Saturday tilt.  Fun fact #1 we had to return the bus on Friday, so two athletic staff folks brought us vans in Toledo and we switched.  Fun fact #2...#1 assistant on BW team...Calvin AD Jim Timmer. Fun fact #3. None of us brought a second set of clothes so we had to do laundry in Springfield. Fun fact #5 I had the same tie as GVW ( his had won 26 straight) he even mentioned it to me pre game...a true class man.

Fun fact #4...There is NOOOOOOOOO Fun fact #4.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FY9cTXl5ApEk%2F0.jpg&hash=c2ba63a60f14b67d90563375d69808daa81ba857)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2011, 01:07:45 AM
Hoopsville tonight...

We get another bid next season.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2011, 01:13:02 AM
Oh good, because here I thought maybe I didn't ask any good questions, from reading the haters on the Centennial Conference board. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2011, 10:18:04 AM
Pat - you were clearly lousy... what were you thinking?! Oh that's right... we should ask questions with more of a national appeal instead of a few fans in one region who can't figure out what the rest of the fan base has! :) Sorry... sarcasm has taken over this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on March 04, 2011, 10:31:06 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2011, 01:13:02 AM
Oh good, because here I thought maybe I didn't ask any good questions, from reading the haters on the Centennial Conference board. :)

Pat, great follow up on the comment about the committee's interpretation of "results versus regionally ranked". There is certainly some insight gained from this interview; thanks to you and Dave for making it happen.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2011, 11:11:39 AM
WHAT?! We asked a good question??? Man - thought I blew that interview from what other people have told me (tongue-in-cheek).

In all seriousness, thank you Ziggy... appreciate that you could take something away from the interview. We work hard to get people like Dave Martin on the show and it's rewarding if fans feel they learned something or at least got something from the interview that provides better insight.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on March 04, 2011, 11:25:34 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2011, 11:11:39 AM
WHAT?! We asked a good question??? Man - thought I blew that interview from what other people have told me (tongue-in-cheek).

In all seriousness, thank you Ziggy... appreciate that you could take something away from the interview. We work hard to get people like Dave Martin on the show and it's rewarding if fans feel they learned something or at least got something from the interview that provides better insight.

Unfortunately there are many more people that are content to complain rather than take the time to understand the process. Those that are willing to learn the process can gain a lot from the segments with Dave Martin.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2011, 11:32:00 AM
Feel free to go say that on the Landmark board, where someone thinks Mid-Atlantic fans are the most knowledgeable in Division III.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 04, 2011, 12:09:35 PM
Quote from: ziggy on March 04, 2011, 11:25:34 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2011, 11:11:39 AM
WHAT?! We asked a good question??? Man - thought I blew that interview from what other people have told me (tongue-in-cheek).

In all seriousness, thank you Ziggy... appreciate that you could take something away from the interview. We work hard to get people like Dave Martin on the show and it's rewarding if fans feel they learned something or at least got something from the interview that provides better insight.

Unfortunately there are many more people that are content to complain rather than take the time to understand the process. Those that are willing to learn the process can gain a lot from the segments with Dave Martin.

Ziggy, there is a big difference between constructive criticism and complaining.  Those who were listening to last night's broadcast were looking for a few things:  First, why was a highly ranked Eastern Mennonite team not included in the tournament?  Second, the RMC debacle and what can be done to rectify that in the future?  Third, why an unusual amount of travel for certain teams?  The first was addressed (sort of), the second was answered well, and the third was brushed off.  He answered by saying, well the NABC likes more travel.  That leads to a great follow-up question, at any point did geographic diversity trump seeding?  And if so does that hurt the overall bracket process?  Of course, those questions were not asked.

My only gripe about the bracket was i felt F&M earned GMC's spot (a shorter trip to Ramapo, over a lengthy hike South).  If the Committee chair simply said, we did the seeds, thats where F&M fell, and we're ok with that travel, fine, end of story, all fans rejoice and drink champagne.  But he didnt say that, he was led into a "coaches like travel" discussion.  So does the desire to expand pods trump seeding, a question not just Mid atlantic fans have i'm sure?  we'll never know

and to be fair, Pat asked a great question about judging wins vs regionaly ranked teams equally.  Funny, since its the same thing ive been debating with DMac all week.  Committees have the ability to look behind the numbers and not take them at face value, and it was nice to see Dave Martin agree with me on that point. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2011, 12:29:12 PM
Larry - you aren't listening... clearly:

- You probably know this, as Dave Martin explained, but to follow up for those not following... EMU didn't make it because they were ranked behind Ferrum in the region and Ferrum didn't make it. You can't take a team ranked behind another an put them in the tournament unless they earned their way there with the AQ.

- Dave did say that there was a miscommunication somewhere, but he hasn't gotten answer as to why (or can't state it publicly for all I know). You can be sure they will work to make sure that doesn't happen again. I also said after the commercial break that we tried to talk to the women's chair, but she was unavailable for Hoopsville.

- The unusual amount of travel for certain teams is not new... so the question is actually old. However, to answer it again as many have and as Dave has in this interview and in the past... geography trumps seeding (which actually, there isn't seeding, just regional rankings) when the trips are outside of the 500 mile rule (i.e. Whitworth which will probably not host next weekend if they are still in the tournament if Wooster or Marietta are still in as well - though Whitworth deserves to host more then the others).

His comment about the NABC (and he did indicate NCAA meetings in this or last interview) was to say that the coaches around the country want more travel - but not just to see other places, but help the tournament have more of a national feel and not just a regional beat-up contest eliminating teams that don't deserve to face off early with another highly ranked team.

The geography thing does hurt the process - as Dave mentioned - because they have to consider the number of flights involved and thus teams in Texas and the Northwest/West get screwed out of hosting later in the tournament as a result. It also is a challenge to try and keep good teams from running into one another early on when mileage becomes an issue. This is also something that has been talked about in Division III for at least five or more years - so it isn't new.

Those questions have been asked in the past... but apparently you just started to follow this stuff or didn't care because it hadn't affected your team until this year. I can't ask the same question every time I have someone on when the answer is always the same... and people on the boards besides Pat and I have also pointed this out.

Again... there are NO seeds... they base it on making sure not to repeat too many similiar regional rankings - not perfect, but they do their best. And if I asked about seeds, as everyone knows the answer would  have been - none exist... so it would be pointless to ask it again.

And I refer you back to the "behind the numbers" post I had in the Mid-Atlantic board... that was a discussion based on getting the final teams picked... not necessarily to EVERY decision that is made, especially when the primary criteria has an easy team to pick from the other.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 04, 2011, 01:30:21 PM
d-mac, Bra-Vo!  youre finally starting to give me legit answers to what i've been posting all week in regards to travel. 

Here's the thing, i'll never buy the BS that coaches want to travel simply to see new places, that are of course confined to a 500 mile distance.  If they want to travel, they can do that in preseason/holiday tourneys.  They want to travel for the exact reason you brought up, they want to prevent having to go against top teams until as late as possible in the tournament. 

Now i dont live in a vacuum.  Yes, teams have to travel and have traveled for years.  The question is, how many teams in a specific pod should be forced to go a long distance?  And then, which teams do indeed make the trip?  Lets be fair though, the committee might not use a sophisticated seeding system but clearly they have a seeding process in mind or else we'd be whining about a plethora of 2nd round matchups taking place in the first round. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2011, 02:19:04 PM
With the concentration of teams that one has in the BOS-WASH megalopolis, it only makes sense to break up the regions and have cross region play.  It gives us a chance to see which conferences are better than others in a longitudinal fashion over several seasons.

Seeding can be done on the east coast, but in other parts of the country, especially west of the Appalachians and south of the Potomac, travel constraints prevent a reasonable seeding effort.

I don't mind a consideration given to the mindset of
1) deserves to host a pod
2) deserves a "neutral site" for the first round game.
3) just won the conference for the first time in 30 years and just glad to be playing in an NCAA tourney game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2011, 07:40:30 PM
Lusty - I have been giving you the same answer every time... it is getting to the point I feel like I have repeated myself too many times and it is giving me headache. I have also talked about it plenty of times on Hoopsville... so it isn't I am finally answering your questions... I think you are finally reading them or hearing the answers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2011, 07:41:47 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2011, 07:40:30 PM
Lusty - I have been giving you the same answer every time... it is getting to the point I feel like I have repeated myself too many times and it is giving me headache. I have also talked about it plenty of times on Hoopsville... so it isn't I am finally answering your questions... I think you are finally reading them or hearing the answers.
+1!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 04, 2011, 08:19:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2011, 01:07:45 AM
Hoopsville tonight...

We get another bid next season.



This is great news!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: iwumichigander on March 04, 2011, 08:40:47 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 10:53:25 AM

SOS is a big deal for the committee.  It has been for the decade plus I've been following d3.  It's probably more important, in my opinion, than it should be.

For IWU's sake, I hope the gave against River Falls is at least close.
Final IWU 83 River Falls 76
I think we took care of business and your concern --- close enough?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 04, 2011, 09:52:50 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2011, 07:40:30 PM
Lusty - I have been giving you the same answer every time... it is getting to the point I feel like I have repeated myself too many times and it is giving me headache. I have also talked about it plenty of times on Hoopsville... so it isn't I am finally answering your questions... I think you are finally reading them or hearing the answers.

look out, DMac got a Turner point!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 04, 2011, 10:23:09 PM
The NathCon and AMCC, two traditionally below average conferences get 2 teams in and both go out in round 1.  The Nathcon held its own I suppose with a couple close losses.

Hard to get excited about the Pool C process when it identifies teams with gaudy records as better than teams that have played in tougher conferences all season long.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2011, 10:41:19 PM
Quote from: iwumichigander on March 04, 2011, 08:40:47 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2011, 10:53:25 AM

SOS is a big deal for the committee.  It has been for the decade plus I've been following d3.  It's probably more important, in my opinion, than it should be.

For IWU's sake, I hope the gave against River Falls is at least close.
Final IWU 83 River Falls 76
I think we took care of business and your concern --- close enough?

I picked IWU to win.  I'm on board.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2011, 10:42:03 PM

I do have to formally apologize to Becker.  The oldest school in the tournament is not the worst.  Apparently Scranton is also quite bad.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on March 04, 2011, 10:42:42 PM
Quote from: sac on March 04, 2011, 10:23:09 PM
The NathCon and AMCC, two traditionally below average conferences get 2 teams in and both go out in round 1.  The Nathcon held its own I suppose with a couple close losses.

Hard to get excited about the Pool C process when it identifies teams with gaudy records as better than teams that have played in tougher conferences all season long.



I can't vouch for the AMCC... but the NathCon held its own this year.  They wouldn't have gotten two bids if CUW hadn't been knocked off, but they did... heck, they were #24 in the last poll and were the top team ranked in the Midwest in the second-to-last regional rankings.

I really feel for teams like Eastern Mennonite and Carleton in their situations, but the at-large team from the NAthCon wasn't a team that was just on the brink.  They were the champion of a conference that did pretty well against others in the region.

Two of last year's final four participants barely squeaked by tonight.  St. Thomas was taken to the brink against Northwestern and was down 2 at the half.  This is the NCAA tournament... just because a team loses doesn't mean that they didn't deserve the bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 04, 2011, 10:47:44 PM
Amherst gets the Friday Pool C award.  Wow!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 04, 2011, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2011, 10:42:03 PM

I do have to formally apologize to Becker.  The oldest school in the tournament is not the worst.  Apparently Scranton is also quite bad.

I don't have my worksheet in front of me but I had Medgar Evers and Wells rated very low, I can't recall who exactly was #61.  Becker actually came out somewhere in the middle of the field.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
Quote from: sac on March 04, 2011, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2011, 10:42:03 PM

I do have to formally apologize to Becker.  The oldest school in the tournament is not the worst.  Apparently Scranton is also quite bad.

I don't have my worksheet in front of me but I had Medgar Evers and Wells rated very low, I can't recall who exactly was #61.  Becker actually came out somewhere in the middle of the field.

No, I think Wells has to be the worst.  I would have said Husson before their performance tonight.  Becker proved me, and their reputation and schedule wrong this evening.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fritzdis on March 04, 2011, 11:29:13 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
Becker proved me, and their reputation and schedule wrong this evening.

Knowing nothing of their reputation, I'm not sure I understand what's so terrible about their schedule.  They went undefeated in their conference (where they have no control over the quality of their opponents) until the championship game.  They won at RIC (T-1st in LEC reg. season), went 1-1 against WPI (1st in NEWMAC reg. season), lost at Salem State (1st in MASCAC reg. season), beat Anna Maria (not a "big" win, I know, but 1st in CCC reg. season), and had a "bad" loss at Albertus Magnus (T-2nd in GNAC reg. season).

I understand they played a few very bad teams out of conference, and they didn't play anyone from the NESCAC.  Otherwise, it seems they scheduled several of the best second-tier teams in the region.  I'm not suggesting they should be considered among the top teams in D3, but it seems awfully harsh to have considered them among the very worst teams in the field because of that schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2011, 11:34:30 PM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 04, 2011, 11:29:13 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
Becker proved me, and their reputation and schedule wrong this evening.

Knowing nothing of their reputation, I'm not sure I understand what's so terrible about their schedule.  They went undefeated in their conference (where they have no control over the quality of their opponents) until the championship game.  They won at RIC (T-1st in LEC reg. season), went 1-1 against WPI (1st in NEWMAC reg. season), lost at Salem State (1st in MASCAC reg. season), beat Anna Maria (not a "big" win, I know, but 1st in CCC reg. season), and had a "bad" loss at Albertus Magnus (T-2nd in GNAC reg. season).

I understand they played a few very bad teams out of conference, and they didn't play anyone from the NESCAC.  Otherwise, it seems they scheduled several of the best second-tier teams in the region.  I'm not suggesting they should be considered among the top teams in D3, but it seems awfully harsh to have considered them among the very worst teams in the field because of that schedule.

Almost every one of those "big" wins was over teams when they were playing poorly.  RIC, AMC, and WPI were much better at the end of the year than at the beginning.  Even so, other than WPI, none of those teams are more than middling NE region schools.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fritzdis on March 05, 2011, 12:04:49 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2011, 11:34:30 PM
Quote from: fritzdis on March 04, 2011, 11:29:13 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
Becker proved me, and their reputation and schedule wrong this evening.

Knowing nothing of their reputation, I'm not sure I understand what's so terrible about their schedule.  They went undefeated in their conference (where they have no control over the quality of their opponents) until the championship game.  They won at RIC (T-1st in LEC reg. season), went 1-1 against WPI (1st in NEWMAC reg. season), lost at Salem State (1st in MASCAC reg. season), beat Anna Maria (not a "big" win, I know, but 1st in CCC reg. season), and had a "bad" loss at Albertus Magnus (T-2nd in GNAC reg. season).

I understand they played a few very bad teams out of conference, and they didn't play anyone from the NESCAC.  Otherwise, it seems they scheduled several of the best second-tier teams in the region.  I'm not suggesting they should be considered among the top teams in D3, but it seems awfully harsh to have considered them among the very worst teams in the field because of that schedule.

Almost every one of those "big" wins was over teams when they were playing poorly.  RIC, AMC, and WPI were much better at the end of the year than at the beginning.  Even so, other than WPI, none of those teams are more than middling NE region schools.

RIC won their next 6 games (Becker was their first).  WPI won the 2 games prior to their first meeting (a Becker win), as well as the 3 games following it (mostly against bad competition, but all with ease).  The 2nd WPI game (a Becker loss) was Becker's 1st game after Christmas (and WPI's 2nd - they lost their 1st to WCU then won 13 in a row), so the "timing" argument could go in Becker's favor there.  Admittedly, simply looking back at the results doesn't tell you whether the teams were necessarily playing at high levels when they met Becker, but the results don't seem to indicate that Becker caught them at just the right times.

I think Penn State-Behrend might consider RIC better than middling.

I have no problem with the idea that Becker's resume was among the 10-15 worst entering the tournament, but to single them out as possibly the worst because of the schedule seems strange to me.  I apologize if you stated other reasons in prior posts, as I have not been following this thread in its entirety.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 05, 2011, 08:44:41 AM
On the topic of the worst Pool C team, when you take last night into the equation I have to throw Gwynedd Mercy into the conversation.  GMC's only stake to a pool C berth was going 2-1 against Keystone.  They went 0-3 vs Cabrini, and lost their only remotely legitimate non-conference game vs York.  No disrespect to Buffalo St, but there you have a team that had some luck due to Oswego's first round conf tourney upset, and they pulled away convincingly in the 2nd half. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2011, 12:18:44 PM
Sometimes the bracket makes it easy to pick surprise teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 05, 2011, 07:12:50 PM
Quote from: sac on March 04, 2011, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2011, 10:42:03 PM

I do have to formally apologize to Becker.  The oldest school in the tournament is not the worst.  Apparently Scranton is also quite bad.

I don't have my worksheet in front of me but I had Medgar Evers and Wells rated very low, I can't recall who exactly was #61.  Becker actually came out somewhere in the middle of the field.

Becker came in at #38 on my sheet out of 60.

The bottom 5 on my sheet were

56. Hartwick
57. Deleware Valley
58. Medgar Evers
59. Salve Regina
60. Wells.

Of my bottom 12 only Johnson And Wales won in the first round.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 05, 2011, 07:30:56 PM
sac, note that the tourney has 61 teams.

Or were you mercifully omitting mention of #61?! :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 05, 2011, 07:32:22 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 05, 2011, 07:30:56 PM
sac, note that the tourney has 61 teams.

Or were you mercifully omitting mention of #61?! :D

Wasn't able to rate Husson, sorry thought the quote contained that info.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2011, 07:36:24 PM
Quote from: sac on March 05, 2011, 07:12:50 PM
...
Becker came in at #38 on my sheet out of 60.

The bottom on 5 my sheet were

56. Hartwick
57. Deleware Valley
58. Medgar Evers
59. Salve Regina
60. Wells.

Of my bottom 12 only Johnson And Wales won in the first round.
Where was J&W's opponent Ramapo ranked in your index?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 05, 2011, 07:40:34 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2011, 07:36:24 PM
Quote from: sac on March 05, 2011, 07:12:50 PM
...
Becker came in at #38 on my sheet out of 60.

The bottom on 5 my sheet were

56. Hartwick
57. Deleware Valley
58. Medgar Evers
59. Salve Regina
60. Wells.

Of my bottom 12 only Johnson And Wales won in the first round.
Where was J&W's opponent Ramapo ranked in your index?

I'll have to get back to you later on that one, its on another computer and it doesn't like me right now.  I know they weren't among the top 25.

I have MHB and McMurry as an even matchup, how's that compare to your thinking?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2011, 08:27:23 PM
Quote from: sac on March 05, 2011, 07:40:34 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2011, 07:36:24 PM
Quote from: sac on March 05, 2011, 07:12:50 PM
...
Becker came in at #38 on my sheet out of 60.

The bottom on 5 my sheet were

56. Hartwick
57. Deleware Valley
58. Medgar Evers
59. Salve Regina
60. Wells.

Of my bottom 12 only Johnson And Wales won in the first round.
Where was J&W's opponent Ramapo ranked in your index?

I'll have to get back to you later on that one, its on another computer and it doesn't like me right now.  I know they weren't among the top 25.

I have MHB and McMurry as an even matchup, how's that compare to your thinking?
Yes, all three ASC teams are equal.  UMHB and McM seem to have UT-D's number, but in round robin play in the ASC, they end up with roughly the same records in a season.  UT-D may match up better against non-ASC national opponents, tho'.  It is really funny in this conference!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2011, 08:33:59 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2011, 08:27:23 PM
Quote from: sac on March 05, 2011, 07:40:34 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2011, 07:36:24 PM
Quote from: sac on March 05, 2011, 07:12:50 PM
...
Becker came in at #38 on my sheet out of 60.

The bottom on 5 my sheet were

56. Hartwick
57. Deleware Valley
58. Medgar Evers
59. Salve Regina
60. Wells.

Of my bottom 12 only Johnson And Wales won in the first round.
Where was J&W's opponent Ramapo ranked in your index?

I'll have to get back to you later on that one, its on another computer and it doesn't like me right now.  I know they weren't among the top 25.

I have MHB and McMurry as an even matchup, how's that compare to your thinking?
Yes, all three ASC teams are equal.  UMHB and McM seem to have UT-D's number, but in round robin play in the ASC, they end up with roughly the same records in a season.  UT-D may match up better against non-ASC national opponents, tho'.  It is really funny in this conference!

Of course it is UMHB leading 35-19 with 2:00 minutes in the half.  UMHB is really hot tonight!

The Wisdom of Hoopsville

"You wanna play that first round game."


UMHB 58, McMurry 53;  5 minutes left.

UMHB 62, McMurry 59; 1:15 left.

It was 40-24 at the half.

UMHB 69 McM 67;  0:01.2 sec

Final -- UMHB 70 at McM 67
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 05, 2011, 11:03:54 PM
Going into tonight, I had 3 games as statistical toss-ups.

Augustana 88 Hope 80 OT
Mary Hardin-Baylor 70 McMurry 67
Cabrini 91 Purchase 84

I had two games as statistical mismatches

UWSP 76 Luther 56
Williams 84 Becker 63
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2011, 11:05:46 PM
Quote from: sac on March 05, 2011, 11:03:54 PM
Going into tonight, I had 3 games as statistical toss-ups.

Augustana 88 Hope 80 OT
Mary Hardin-Baylor 70 McMurry 67
Cabrini 91 Purchase 84

I had two games as statistical mismatches

UWSP 76 Luther 56
Williams 84 Becker 63
I think that you nailed them.  Cabrini and Purchase was undecided until the last flurry of activity, late in the game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 05, 2011, 11:07:13 PM
Quote from: sac on March 05, 2011, 11:03:54 PM
Going into tonight, I had 3 games as statistical toss-ups.

Augustana 88 Hope 80 OT
Mary Hardin-Baylor 70 McMurry 67
Cabrini 91 Purchase 84

I had two games as statistical mismatches

UWSP 76 Luther 56
Williams 84 Becker 63
Two? No Whitworth?  ::) ;)  56-33 early second half.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 05, 2011, 11:11:20 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2011, 11:05:46 PM
Quote from: sac on March 05, 2011, 11:03:54 PM
Going into tonight, I had 3 games as statistical toss-ups.

Augustana 88 Hope 80 OT
Mary Hardin-Baylor 70 McMurry 67
Cabrini 91 Purchase 84

I had two games as statistical mismatches

UWSP 76 Luther 56
Williams 84 Becker 63
I think that you nailed them.  Cabrini and Purchase was undecided until the last flurry of activity, late in the game.

Oh I didn't nail them, math nailed them. ;)

Math also had RMC as a favorite to beat St. Mary's.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 05, 2011, 11:11:55 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on March 05, 2011, 11:07:13 PM
Quote from: sac on March 05, 2011, 11:03:54 PM
Going into tonight, I had 3 games as statistical toss-ups.

Augustana 88 Hope 80 OT
Mary Hardin-Baylor 70 McMurry 67
Cabrini 91 Purchase 84

I had two games as statistical mismatches

UWSP 76 Luther 56
Williams 84 Becker 63
Two? No Whitworth?  ::) ;)  56-33 early second half.

I'm sure Whitworth was the solid favorite, but Williams and UWSP were huge favorites on my sheet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 05, 2011, 11:20:28 PM
Quote from: sac on March 05, 2011, 11:11:55 PM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on March 05, 2011, 11:07:13 PM
Quote from: sac on March 05, 2011, 11:03:54 PM
Going into tonight, I had 3 games as statistical toss-ups.

Augustana 88 Hope 80 OT
Mary Hardin-Baylor 70 McMurry 67
Cabrini 91 Purchase 84

I had two games as statistical mismatches

UWSP 76 Luther 56
Williams 84 Becker 63
Two? No Whitworth?  ::) ;)  56-33 early second half.

I'm sure Whitworth was the solid favorite, but Williams and UWSP were huge favorites on my sheet.
True, we are forced to play the #12 team because of geography.  
Chapman not giving up.  62-47
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2011, 10:02:50 PM
Through two rounds:

Pool C teams are 14-14 which includes 4 matchups of Pool C teams.

Williams vs. Becker in 2nd round
WPI vs. Amherst in 2nd round
UWRF vs. IWU in 1st round
Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. Texas-Dallas in 1st round

8 of 18 were one and done

4 are 2-0 and are in the Sweet 16-VWU, Williams, Amherst and Mary Hardin-Baylor
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 06, 2011, 10:29:57 PM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2011, 10:02:50 PM
Through two rounds:

Pool C teams are 14-14 which includes 4 matchups of Pool C teams.

Williams vs. Becker in 2nd round
WPI vs. Amherst in 2nd round
UWRF vs. IWU in 1st round
Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. Texas-Dallas in 1st round

8 of 18 were one and done

4 are 2-0 and are in the Sweet 16-VWU, Williams, Amherst and Mary Hardin-Baylor

so 8/18 Pool C were one and done, if pool B won Round 1, that means 18/42 Pool C were one and done.  Basically a wash, 44% vs 43%.  Any thoughts on if that validates the committees Pool C selections?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 06, 2011, 11:01:50 PM
Quote from: LustyLarryintheToilet on March 06, 2011, 10:29:57 PM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2011, 10:02:50 PM
Through two rounds:

Pool C teams are 14-14 which includes 4 matchups of Pool C teams.

Williams vs. Becker in 2nd round
WPI vs. Amherst in 2nd round
UWRF vs. IWU in 1st round
Mary Hardin-Baylor vs. Texas-Dallas in 1st round

8 of 18 were one and done

4 are 2-0 and are in the Sweet 16-VWU, Williams, Amherst and Mary Hardin-Baylor

so 8/18 Pool C were one and done, if pool B won Round 1, that means 18/42 Pool C A were one and done.  Basically a wash, 44% vs 43%.  Any thoughts on if that validates the committees Pool C selections?
Yes, I believe that it does to the best that it can.

Other factors that will impact that record include the bracketing, the considerations of travel and previous conference matchups, and geography (which trumps everything).

Each of those factors could be changed in various ways.  Substituting or changing any of those variables might give a different outcome, but we are asking whether the 19th and 20th Pool C bid would have fared any better than #17 and #18. 

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2011, 11:03:37 PM
Sure, but I think there is a greater number of Pool A teams playing against each other than Pool C teams playing each other.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 06, 2011, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2011, 11:03:37 PM
Sure, but I think there is a greater number of Pool A teams playing against each other than Pool C teams playing each other.  
Which gets the higher Pool A versus the lower Pool A's.

If you look at the bracketing and seeding in D1 March Madness, the 14's, 15's and 16's are the AQ's from your MEAC'S, Southland's, Summit's, etc going against the AQ's of the Big East, ACC, Big XII, etc.

D-1's Pool C bids are in the mid-seeds, e.g., the #6-#11's.  Usually the lowest "Pool C" bid in March Madness is about a #12 or high #13.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: (509)Rat on March 08, 2011, 04:05:50 PM
I'm sure the CCIW have seen this...but in honor of a Pool C team, IWU

Jacob Tucker Dunk Reel (http://www.thescore.com/buzz/articles/121309-best-white-dunker-ever)

Featured on Hot Clicks...which has posted a lot of DIII links as of late
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 08, 2011, 04:28:03 PM
Quote from: (509)Rat on March 08, 2011, 04:05:50 PM
I'm sure the CCIW have seen this...but in honor of a Pool C team, IWU

Jacob Tucker Dunk Reel (http://www.thescore.com/buzz/articles/121309-best-white-dunker-ever)

Featured on Hot Clicks...which has posted a lot of DIII links as of late

Thanks for posting that.  But for the record, Illinois College (MWC) and Illinois Wesleyan University (CCIW) are two different schools. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 08, 2011, 04:52:27 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 08, 2011, 04:28:03 PM
Quote from: (509)Rat on March 08, 2011, 04:05:50 PM
I'm sure the CCIW have seen this...but in honor of a Pool C team, IWU

Jacob Tucker Dunk Reel (http://www.thescore.com/buzz/articles/121309-best-white-dunker-ever)

Featured on Hot Clicks...which has posted a lot of DIII links as of late

Thanks for posting that.  But for the record, Illinois College (MWC) and Illinois Wesleyan University (CCIW) are two different schools. ;)
That video explains how a 5'11" guy averages 7.1 rebs a game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 08, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
At least when the NCAA mixed up Randolph-Macon's picture by printing Randolph's picture instead, they are in the same conference! LOL  ;D :D ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: (509)Rat on March 08, 2011, 05:13:22 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 08, 2011, 04:28:03 PM
Quote from: (509)Rat on March 08, 2011, 04:05:50 PM
I'm sure the CCIW have seen this...but in honor of a Pool C team, IWU

Jacob Tucker Dunk Reel (http://www.thescore.com/buzz/articles/121309-best-white-dunker-ever)

Featured on Hot Clicks...which has posted a lot of DIII links as of late

Thanks for posting that.  But for the record, Illinois College (MWC) and Illinois Wesleyan University (CCIW) are two different schools. ;)

Woops! Should have read closer. I was mesmerized by the elevation and didn't stop to read the article. Well, so much for a Pool C related post...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ScotsFan on March 08, 2011, 08:03:28 PM
That dude can do that and he's only 5'freaking11"??  :o  If he's not invited to the national dunk contest druing the Final Four weekend, there's something wrong.  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 22, 2011, 12:03:07 PM
Could someone be so kind to post a link to the massey ratings again.  I don't feel like scrolling back a million pages to find it.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 22, 2011, 12:11:38 PM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on March 22, 2011, 12:03:07 PM
Could someone be so kind to post a link to the massey ratings again.  I don't feel like scrolling back a million pages to find it.  Thanks!

Ever heard of Google?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on March 22, 2011, 01:07:39 PM
http://masseyratings.com/ (http://masseyratings.com/)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 22, 2011, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 22, 2011, 01:07:39 PM
http://masseyratings.com/ (http://masseyratings.com/)

Give an Old School a link and he surfs for a day, teach an Old School to Google and he buries himself in Massey data for a lifetime.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on March 22, 2011, 02:27:40 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 22, 2011, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 22, 2011, 01:07:39 PM
http://masseyratings.com/ (http://masseyratings.com/)

Give an Old School a link and he surfs for a day, teach an Old School to Google and he buries himself in Massey data for a lifetime.

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he'll be warm the rest of his life!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 22, 2011, 02:30:18 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 22, 2011, 12:11:38 PM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on March 22, 2011, 12:03:07 PM
Could someone be so kind to post a link to the massey ratings again.  I don't feel like scrolling back a million pages to find it.  Thanks!

Ever heard of Google?
The baby is rattling his brain.  After a few more years of marriage, he will be totally housebroken!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 22, 2011, 07:19:33 PM
Where do I find the list that has the SOS, OWP, OOWP etc?  Or do I have to google that as well?  ;D ;D :D ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: frodotwo on March 22, 2011, 07:48:58 PM
Quote from: Old School-Greek Tragedy on March 22, 2011, 07:19:33 PM
Where do I find the list that has the SOS, OWP, OOWP etc?  Or do I have to google that as well?  ;D ;D :D ;)

I try to use the excuse that I can't do it myself too. It only works once and then people catch on.       ::)      http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: CityD3 on June 07, 2011, 02:36:47 PM
What will happen to the automatic bid that goes to teams that are not Automatic Qualifiers now that Chapman is joining th SCIAC?? Does this open that spot up to Rust, Finlandia?? Are they planning to get rid of this Pool?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on June 07, 2011, 04:34:46 PM
Good question.  That topic is addressed in the Pool B board, which is here:

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=2870.0
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on June 09, 2011, 12:01:12 PM
I found this interesting. NCAA Division II has decided to rank the order of their primary and secondary (they call it "tiebreaker") criteria. In addition they've added a "Performance Indicator" point system which looks curiously like D-III's old Quality of Wins Index. Seems confusing to me.

Linky: http://bit.ly/jgk3v2
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on June 09, 2011, 01:23:09 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on June 09, 2011, 12:01:12 PM
I found this interesting. NCAA Division II has decided to rank the order of their primary and secondary (they call it "tiebreaker") criteria. In addition they've added a "Performance Indicator" point system which looks curiously like D-III's old Quality of Wins Index. Seems confusing to me.

Linky: http://bit.ly/jgk3v2

QoWI was eliminated before I became interested in the bracketology scene (so I'm not really intimate with how it worked), but I don't mind it as one piece of criteria. Especially at #7. I would obviously prefer to see the points distributed with respect to RPI (not winning percentage), and I'd like to see some research done to assign better point values.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think I'd like to see a linear-weights-RPI-style QoWI system replace the results vs. regionally ranked opponents criterion. I actually think that would work well.

I think the priority ranking is just telling us what we already know. Who wouldn't have ranked it in that order, or at least very very close to that order? (combining OWP and OOWP into SOS). I like that they came out and said it though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on June 09, 2011, 03:27:23 PM
I'm just not real clear on how a ranked order of criteria works.

Does it mean if Team A is higher than Team B on criteria #1, you stop? If that's the case, there will hardly ever be a need to go beyond #2 or #3.

Do we evaluate all seven criteria, but then apply a weighting system to the results? Something like this?

Criteria 1 - Team A (x7)
Criteria 2 - Team B (x6)
Criteria 3 - Team B (x5)
Criteria 4 - Team A (x4)
Criteria 5 - Team A (x3)
Criteria 6 - Team B (x2)
Criteria 7 - Team A (x1)
Total - Team A 15, Team B 13. Team A wins.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on June 09, 2011, 03:45:51 PM
I still don't think they're telling us the priority weight, just that winning percentage is more important than SOS (and so on down the line). I don't think they'll ever commit to a specific formula.

It's kinda like an ingredient list in food packaging. It's listed in order from most to least, but you can't directly infer the recipe.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 05, 2011, 03:16:40 PM
I have my first set of 'regional rankings' up on my blog.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/12/reginal-rankings-1252011.html

I'm doing things are pretty much the same as last year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on December 05, 2011, 05:47:59 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 05, 2011, 03:16:40 PM
I have my first set of 'regional rankings' up on my blog.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/12/reginal-rankings-1252011.html

I'm doing things are pretty much the same as last year.

I'm not optimistic about Olivet's Pool C chances.  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 05, 2011, 05:57:02 PM
Are you going to award a Pool A designation to the highest ranked ASC team, in this case HSU?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 05, 2011, 06:42:15 PM
Quote from: sac on December 05, 2011, 05:47:59 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 05, 2011, 03:16:40 PM
I have my first set of 'regional rankings' up on my blog.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/12/reginal-rankings-1252011.html

I'm doing things are pretty much the same as last year.

I'm not optimistic about Olivet's Pool C chances.  ;D

Yeah, Millikin seems a bit south of the bubble as well. :P

I applaud the 'Dean of Knightslappy U' for his efforts, but Pool C talk 3 weeks before Christmas?! 8-)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on December 05, 2011, 08:16:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 05, 2011, 03:16:40 PM
I have my first set of 'regional rankings' up on my blog.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/12/reginal-rankings-1252011.html

I'm doing things are pretty much the same as last year.

I see one mistake... but it looks like it's just the schedule that's wrong.  UWSP is reported as being 4-1 in-region, but they're actually 3-1.  The game against York (PA) is showing on the schedule as in-region and it should not be.

I figure there may be a list of games like these... so rather than report them individually, it might be better to do them all at once.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 05, 2011, 08:45:41 PM
I think Pat usually goes through the schedules around christmastime doing error checking. I find a few things on my own, but I won't see everything. But yeah, I get the data from the mothership, so if its wrong here, it'll be wrong in my data.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 05, 2011, 10:16:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 05, 2011, 05:57:02 PM
Are you going to award a Pool A designation to the highest ranked ASC team, in this case HSU?

Thanks.

Actually, my Pool A currently goes to Texas Lutheran who has the best RPI when counting all games versus D3. Slightly edging out Texas-Dallas.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 05, 2011, 10:26:16 PM
I actually checked that game ahead of time... and removed the "region" part of the game... someone either added it by mistake or it was added in some other fashion. We will try and get it resolved soon (if it isn't already).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on December 05, 2011, 10:43:56 PM
  It's about time to activate my suggestion from last year to have NCAA regional committees publish their schedule of in and out-of-region games before they rank teams so that we can authenticate their status; as a reminder, the Scranton women's team was ranked higher and the men's team lower because of incorrect regional games; it affected not only them but also the teams they played and the teams above and below them in the regional rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on December 06, 2011, 08:02:30 AM
Quote from: ronk on December 05, 2011, 10:43:56 PM
  It's about time to activate my suggestion from last year to have NCAA regional committees publish their schedule of in and out-of-region games before they rank teams so that we can authenticate their status; as a reminder, the Scranton women's team was ranked higher and the men's team lower because of incorrect regional games; it affected not only them but also the teams they played and the teams above and below them in the regional rankings.

Good suggestion Ronk. I've thought the same thing and believe Pat brought this up in an article either last year or 2 years ago. He  pointed out all the mistakes he'd found and hadn't even finished going through all the regions at the time he wrote the article. With all the eyes that would peruse an NCAA published schedule checking for errors, I have to believe that once we were finished it would be the most correct set of regional rankings, that the NCAA has ever had ;D I just don't think it will happen though. I think, the NCAA thinks, they can do the job correctly and they need no help from the minions on the D3hoops website. Too bad because it's excellent help and it's free.     
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 06, 2011, 08:12:42 AM
I think they're probably afraid of that much transparency because they know there will be a lot of mistakes. They'd rather be wrong than embarrassed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on December 06, 2011, 08:15:23 AM
could someone give an elementary primer that I can reference as to what goes into the Regional rankings... it's been several years since I got involved, I may play with it this year, but need a refresher... slappy, magic, whover... thanks
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 06, 2011, 11:32:32 AM
Quote from: hopefan on December 06, 2011, 08:15:23 AM
could someone give an elementary primer that I can reference as to what goes into the Regional rankings... it's been several years since I got involved, I may play with it this year, but need a refresher... slappy, magic, whover... thanks

The regional ranking process uses the same criteria as tournament selection.

http://www.d3hoops.com/interactive/faq/ncaatournament#seed

I always use the d3hoops FAQ (linked above) when I need to review primary/secondary criteria. We don't yet have the handbook for '11-12, so I'm assuming it's the same as it was last year for now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 06, 2011, 11:57:10 AM
FYI - the committee isn't afraid of transparency. I have many a conversation with committee members and they agree transparency is a good thing because ultimately it helps them make better decisions especially when based on corrected or correct information (versus being given bad information).

That being said, each region is responsible to make sure regional games are accounted for correctly. However, there are still people on regional committees along with many other coaches who simply do not know or care to update themselves on exactly what are regional games. This is sadly a fact. Whether it is simple ignorance or just an inability to stay on top of things, I don't know, but many times mistakes are coming from the actual regional committees.

Now, the other problem could be the NCAA. They tend to make the decisions on what can be or won't be released to the public. If the NCAA agrees to release data ahead of time and during the season for double-checking, they will. If they feel it is something they rather not do, they won't. Also, I know they have struggled in the past to get the information into a place where it is easy to be checked. That has changed and I know the system they use, but they probably aren't going to release that to the general public. Also, it comes back to coaches and such to make sure their regions and their games are accounted correctly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 12, 2011, 09:20:51 PM
New 'regional rankings' posted to the blog:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/12/regional-rankings-12122012.html

Midwest region appears interesting with lots of teams from non-power conferences near the top.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on December 14, 2011, 11:01:51 AM
When is D3 going to get rid of the "regional' classifications?  Seems like more of a headache for everyone involved.  Do we really fear that some D3 is going to play an independent jet-setting class-missing schedule?  Furthermore, would that harm any of the other d3 teams if some teams did decide to miss more class?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on December 14, 2011, 11:10:03 AM
I've thought for a couple years now that the "regional" definitions were so big and so inclusive, it would make more sense to do away with them. Make all games vs. D-IIIs count.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 11:13:03 AM
I for one want to keep D-3 away from the insane travel of some D-1 programs that sacrifice themselves to make their athletic department nut on guarantee games.

While I don't like the current over-emphasis on regional games, some schools can pay for the travel, but a focus on regional games levels that playing field for those who have-not.



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on December 14, 2011, 11:16:26 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 11:13:03 AM
I for one want to keep D-3 away from the insane travel of some D-1 programs that sacrifice themselves to make their athletic department nut on guarantee games.

While I don't like the current over-emphasis on regional games, some schools can pay for the travel, but a focus on regional games levels that playing field for those who have-not.

I just don't think that's reasonably going to happen. Those ridiculous, cross country, weeknight games in D-I happen because TV foots the bill with a guarantee. That's not about to happen in D-III. I think the regional definition has become a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 14, 2011, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on December 14, 2011, 11:10:03 AM
I've thought for a couple years now that the "regional" definitions were so big and so inclusive, it would make more sense to do away with them. Make all games vs. D-IIIs count.

It really depends on where you are in the country, and how much your admin region 'helps you out' with games in surrounding states.

For a team like Calvin, the answer is not much. The GL region ends with MI and some of IN which is the exact border of Admin Region 3 (we gain the HCAC). And Lake Michigan makes pretty much all WI and IL games over 200 miles. Triple whammy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 14, 2011, 11:22:30 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 11:13:03 AM
I for one want to keep D-3 away from the insane travel of some D-1 programs that sacrifice themselves to make their athletic department nut on guarantee games.

While I don't like the current over-emphasis on regional games, some schools can pay for the travel, but a focus on regional games levels that playing field for those who have-not.

My stance, though, is that I'd rather see the regional definition be slightly "too big" than the least bit restrictive on anyone.

Basically, there's no way in a sane world that Calvin-Wheaton is out of region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 11:27:06 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on December 14, 2011, 11:16:26 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 11:13:03 AM
I for one want to keep D-3 away from the insane travel of some D-1 programs that sacrifice themselves to make their athletic department nut on guarantee games.

While I don't like the current over-emphasis on regional games, some schools can pay for the travel, but a focus on regional games levels that playing field for those who have-not.

I just don't think that's reasonably going to happen. Those ridiculous, cross country, weeknight games in D-I happen because TV foots the bill with a guarantee. That's not about to happen in D-III. I think the regional definition has become a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

A lot of those games are games that TV wouldn't touch, Bill. Did ESPN pay to televise Indiana vs. Savannah State? How about Minnesota vs. Mt. St. Mary's?

I agree that Wheaton vs. Calvin should be regional, of course.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on December 14, 2011, 11:35:14 AM
Of course not. I guess I should have said TV and/or the host school. Minnesota footed the bill for Mt. St. Mary's. Indiana footed the bill for Savannah State. Do you really think D-III's are going to start paying gurantee games big enough to get Fontbonne to fly to Boston on a Tuesday? I don't.

I think is bigger is better too. I'd just go to the extreme and lift the restriction completely.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 11:39:49 AM
There had to be some problem or perceived problem that the NCAA tried to fix with this system. Of course, they overplayed the hand, but there had to be an impetus about some teams with more travel $$ playing those who were far versus those who were near.

When was this system implemented?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on December 14, 2011, 11:48:15 AM
It's more an evolution of the tournament selection process than a rule to fix an anticipated problem.

When D-III first started the national tournament was made up of regional brackets and you knew exactly how many teams from each region would be in it (ie, 6 teams from each of 8 regions). Because the regional brackets were all little islands that you couldn't move off of, it made sense to only use a strict regional games policy to compare teams.

Of couse, some regions were good and some regions sucked were not so good. Eventually the membership wanted bigger brackets, more flexibility in bracketing, elimination of the x number of teams per region restrictions. So the NCAA slowly moved that way, but for a while the regional definition and emphasis didn't change. Now the regional definition has become more flexible to be more consistent with the more flexible selection process (200-mile rule, administrative regions). All that was good.

I just think we've reached the point now where it's not really necessary anymore. Let all D-III games count. It's particularily silly in baseball when teams from all over the country travel to Florida and then request the tournament organizers to only give them regional games. Isn't part of the reason for these trips to play across regions so we can play someone we ordinarily couldn't play and have some data to make comparisions across regions?

I think some schools have feared a wealthy school flying all over and using that as part of their recruting pitch, but I just don't think it's very likely to be a problem. The UAA has been flying everywhere for years and while that's a good league, it doesn't automatically make them national title shoe-ins.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on December 14, 2011, 03:53:31 PM
The D3 tournament also moved to Automatic Qualifiers, which gave a whole bunch of conferences who always had difficulty making the tournament a way in (Presidents, AMCC) for example.  The tournament became about access not quality.  I believe the emergence of the AQ's brought about the pool system along with a move to unify the tournament selection process across all sports using a ratio system.


We've had the pool system for almost a decade now.  There really is not a problem with the pool system, the problem lies in the details of the criteria within the pool system and how it is or isn't used to select and seed teams.



As for what determines a regional game, originally it was your region plus 200 miles.  I don't know where the 200 miles came from, I suppose someone in a suit and tie thought it was a reasonable number.  Then of course they found out there was a difference in how software calculated distances, so use of a certain software had to be established.   

Then a bunch of schools complained about how the 200 mile rule really doesn't help them and greatly helps others..........so the NCAA took the totally bureaucratic way out and included 'administrative regions' which the NCAA could then point at and say well you've got plenty of schools to play now (even if most of them aren't practical).   So they fixed the problem without actually fixing the problem and Calvin/Wheaton is still not in-region, but Wheaton/Whitworth is.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 14, 2011, 04:27:47 PM
Quote from: sac on December 14, 2011, 03:53:31 PM
So they fixed the problem without actually fixing the problem and Calvin/Wheaton is still not in-region, but Wheaton/Whitworth is.

Right, Calvin gets to play in-region games with Mississippi College, but not with 5 of the 12 closest non-conference D3 shools.  ::)

Facts I love: 20 of Calvin's closest 25 non-conference-D3 opponents are in the Midwest Region, 4 are in the GL Region, and 1 is in the West Region. 11 of those 25 schools are out-of-region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on December 14, 2011, 04:43:13 PM
This is my point. What's the benefit of maintaining a regional definition anymore? Do away with it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 04:48:44 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 14, 2011, 04:27:47 PM
Quote from: sac on December 14, 2011, 03:53:31 PM
So they fixed the problem without actually fixing the problem and Calvin/Wheaton is still not in-region, but Wheaton/Whitworth is.

Right, Calvin gets to play in-region games with Mississippi College, but not with 5 of the 12 closest non-conference D3 shools.  ::)

Facts I love: 20 of Calvin's closest 25 non-conference-D3 opponents are in the Midwest Region, 4 are in the GL Region, and 1 is in the West Region. 11 of those 25 schools are out-of-region.

Well, the solution is clear. Calvin needs to move itself!  ;)

I was trying to cast about for answers on why the current situation evolved. But I wonder if there's more of an issue in other sports? I think the sensible thing would be at least to have an 'adjoining state' codicil attached to the administrative region, and a common-sense rule about holiday tournaments (and spring break trips).

Obviously, the regional records don't bother some teams, otherwise Hope wouldn't have just two D-3 games right now. (Teams on an "island' don't really count in that observation. You do what you can with what you gots...)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on December 14, 2011, 05:04:29 PM
So we add an adjoining state rule and we add exemptions for holiday and spring break trips. What's left that's NOT in-region? Why bother?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 14, 2011, 05:58:09 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 04:48:44 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 14, 2011, 04:27:47 PM
Quote from: sac on December 14, 2011, 03:53:31 PM
So they fixed the problem without actually fixing the problem and Calvin/Wheaton is still not in-region, but Wheaton/Whitworth is.

Right, Calvin gets to play in-region games with Mississippi College, but not with 5 of the 12 closest non-conference D3 shools.  ::)

Facts I love: 20 of Calvin's closest 25 non-conference-D3 opponents are in the Midwest Region, 4 are in the GL Region, and 1 is in the West Region. 11 of those 25 schools are out-of-region.

Well, the solution is clear. Calvin needs to move itself!  ;)

I was trying to cast about for answers on why the current situation evolved. But I wonder if there's more of an issue in other sports? I think the sensible thing would be at least to have an 'adjoining state' codicil attached to the administrative region, and a common-sense rule about holiday tournaments (and spring break trips).

Obviously, the regional records don't bother some teams, otherwise Hope wouldn't have just two D-3 games right now. (Teams on an "island' don't really count in that observation. You do what you can with what you gots...)
NO! Calvin was pre-destined to be where it is!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 07:18:07 PM
Bill,

Again, maybe it's different for other sports. Not that NC Wesleyan would play Becker in the regular season, but that wouldn't be a regional game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 07:22:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 14, 2011, 05:58:09 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 04:48:44 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 14, 2011, 04:27:47 PM
Quote from: sac on December 14, 2011, 03:53:31 PM
So they fixed the problem without actually fixing the problem and Calvin/Wheaton is still not in-region, but Wheaton/Whitworth is.

Right, Calvin gets to play in-region games with Mississippi College, but not with 5 of the 12 closest non-conference D3 shools.  ::)

Facts I love: 20 of Calvin's closest 25 non-conference-D3 opponents are in the Midwest Region, 4 are in the GL Region, and 1 is in the West Region. 11 of those 25 schools are out-of-region.

Well, the solution is clear. Calvin needs to move itself!  ;)

I was trying to cast about for answers on why the current situation evolved. But I wonder if there's more of an issue in other sports? I think the sensible thing would be at least to have an 'adjoining state' codicil attached to the administrative region, and a common-sense rule about holiday tournaments (and spring break trips).

Obviously, the regional records don't bother some teams, otherwise Hope wouldn't have just two D-3 games right now. (Teams on an "island' don't really count in that observation. You do what you can with what you gots...)
NO! Calvin was pre-destined to be where it is!

HAH!

What is Calvin's record against any of the Wesleyan schools?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 14, 2011, 07:49:56 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on December 14, 2011, 11:48:15 AM
It's more an evolution of the tournament selection process than a rule to fix an anticipated problem.

When D-III first started the national tournament was made up of regional brackets and you knew exactly how many teams from each region would be in it (ie, 6 teams from each of 8 regions). Because the regional brackets were all little islands that you couldn't move off of, it made sense to only use a strict regional games policy to compare teams.

Of couse, some regions were good and some regions sucked were not so good. Eventually the membership wanted bigger brackets, more flexibility in bracketing, elimination of the x number of teams per region restrictions. So the NCAA slowly moved that way, but for a while the regional definition and emphasis didn't change. Now the regional definition has become more flexible to be more consistent with the more flexible selection process (200-mile rule, administrative regions). All that was good.

I just think we've reached the point now where it's not really necessary anymore. Let all D-III games count. It's particularily silly in baseball when teams from all over the country travel to Florida and then request the tournament organizers to only give them regional games. Isn't part of the reason for these trips to play across regions so we can play someone we ordinarily couldn't play and have some data to make comparisions across regions?

I think some schools have feared a wealthy school flying all over and using that as part of their recruting pitch, but I just don't think it's very likely to be a problem. The UAA has been flying everywhere for years and while that's a good league, it doesn't automatically make them national title shoe-ins.

What he said.

Quote from: sac on December 14, 2011, 03:53:31 PM
The D3 tournament also moved to Automatic Qualifiers, which gave a whole bunch of conferences who always had difficulty making the tournament a way in (Presidents, AMCC) for example.  The tournament became about access not quality.  I believe the emergence of the AQ's brought about the pool system along with a move to unify the tournament selection process across all sports using a ratio system.

Automatic qualifiers for member conferences have been around pretty much from the beginning of D3, sac. The access-first tournament philosophy has been true across all NCAA divisions for decades. The only reason why certain conferences such as the Presidents and AMCC had trouble getting bids in the past was because they didn't meet the seven-full-members criterion for NCAA recognition of the conference as meriting an autobid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 14, 2011, 10:41:41 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 07:22:17 PM

HAH!

What is Calvin's record against any of the Wesleyan schools?
I cannot find the Media Guide that lists Calvin's all-time records against D3 schools.

Methodist schools include Illinois Wesleyan, Baldwin Wallace, Mount Union, Ohio Wesleyan, Nebraska Wesleyan, and

Adrian, Albion, Allegheny, Birmingham-Southern, Cornell, DePauw, Emory & Henry, Emory, Ferrum, Green Mountain, Greensboro, Hamline, Hendrix, Huntingdon, Lebanon Valley, LaGrange, Lycoming, MacMurray, McMurry, Methodist, Millsaps, North Central IL, NCWC, Ohio Northern, Otterbein, Randolph, Randolph-Macon, Shenandoah, Simpson, Southwestern, Puget Sound, VWC, and Willamette.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 14, 2011, 11:04:39 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 14, 2011, 10:41:41 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 14, 2011, 07:22:17 PM

HAH!

What is Calvin's record against any of the Wesleyan schools?
I cannot find the Media Guide that lists Calvin's all-time records against D3 schools.

Methodist schools include Illinois Wesleyan, Baldwin Wallace, Mount Union, Ohio Wesleyan, Nebraska Wesleyan, and

Adrian, Albion, Allegheny, Birmingham-Southern, Cornell, DePauw, Emory & Henry, Emory, Ferrum, Green Mountain, Greensboro, Hamline, Hendrix, Huntingdon, Lebanon Valley, LaGrange, Lycoming, MacMurray, McMurry, Methodist, Millsaps, North Central IL, NCWC, Ohio Northern, Otterbein, Randolph, Randolph-Macon, Shenandoah, Simpson, Southwestern, Puget Sound, VWC, and Willamette.

Those are all schools affiliated with the United Methodist Church. Another D3 school, Greenville, is affiliated with the Free Methodist Church. Other D3 institutions that are affiliated with denominations rooted in the Holiness movement (i.e., Wesleyan in theology and practice) are Anderson (Church of God, Anderson, IN), Eastern Nazarene (Church of the Nazarene), and Crown (Christian & Missionary Alliance).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on December 15, 2011, 08:52:50 AM
I hope people got the joke...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 15, 2011, 08:52:50 AM
I hope people got the joke...
I was, too.

The fun thing about these boards is that many of the readers have a traditional liberal arts education that gave them a foundation in history, philosophy and theology to understand many of the sidemarks that we make.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on December 15, 2011, 09:29:51 AM
It is a quite literate board.

Now I must go get my tweed jacket with elbow patches, stoke up my pipe, and begin my annual re-read of The Decameron!  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 10:40:49 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 15, 2011, 09:29:51 AM
It is a quite literate board.

Now I must go get my tweed jacket with elbow patches, stoke up my pipe, and begin my annual re-read of The Decameron!  ;)
If you start today, you should have it done by Christmas Eve! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: thebear on December 15, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
I agree with the posters regarding adjoining state vs. Administrative region.  The three D-III schools here in the North Country have to travel 90 miles to play any other Division III school other than each other.  There are exactly 7 Vermont schools outside of the administrative region that are less than 200 miles from us.

I think it's ludicrous that a NY team can play a regional game against a team from Pennsylvania (our three North Country Schools are 235 miles from the closest Pennsylvania Border), but not from New Jersey, Massachusetts or Connecticut, the borders of which are closer than two of our conference opponents (Buff State and Fredonia) in the same state.

We played at Williams, and neither of the games count.  Williams is 206 miles from Potsdam.   However we play at the Desales tournament (Allentown - about 350 miles) and both games count because the schools are from Pennsylvania & NY.

I say let all fully initiated Division III opponents count.  I really would like to see an RPI for Division III, I think the massey ratings data base could generate one pretty easily.  Reward teams for playing difficult non-conference schedules and for doing well against the better teams in their conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 15, 2011, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: thebear on December 15, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
I say let all fully initiated Division III opponents count.  I really would like to see an RPI for Division III, I think the massey ratings data base could generate one pretty easily.  Reward teams for playing difficult non-conference schedules and for doing well against the better teams in their conference.

We've been over this before.  Those sorts of ratings would be great, but they only work if teams are playing national schedules and getting way out of region on a regular basis.  It penalizes conferences with lots of in-conference games - and the NE region gets much stronger numbers because of how many teams are in such a close proximity.

I'm not a huge fan of how things are done now, but I've spent a decade thinking about this and I'm not sure how they could do it much better.

Adjoining states makes some sense, especially for those schools near the edge of their region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 03:40:15 PM
Quote from: thebear on December 15, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
I agree with the posters regarding adjoining state vs. Administrative region.  The three D-III schools here in the North Country have to travel 90 miles to play any other Division III school other than each other.  There are exactly 7 Vermont schools outside of the administrative region that are less than 200 miles from us.

I think it's ludicrous that a NY team can play a regional game against a team from Pennsylvania (our three North Country Schools are 235 miles from the closest Pennsylvania Border), but not from New Jersey, Massachusetts or Connecticut, the borders of which are closer than two of our conference opponents (Buff State and Fredonia) in the same state.

We played at Williams, and neither of the games count.  Williams is 206 miles from Potsdam.   However we play at the Desales tournament (Allentown - about 350 miles) and both games count because the schools are from Pennsylvania & NY.

I say let all fully initiated Division III opponents count.  I really would like to see an RPI for Division III, I think the massey ratings data base could generate one pretty easily.  Reward teams for playing difficult non-conference schedules and for doing well against the better teams in their conference.
The effect of having a game that is "not counted as in-region" now might become a game "not played" under a new system.

In the case of baseball, we get to see plenty of "non-region" games thruout the season as northern teams go south.

Good examples include Marietta which used to come to Texas to play mid-season teams on its spring break.

The NJAC schools make a Carolina run to play "non-region" games as part of spring training.

Illinois Wesleyan comes to Mississippi College for "non-region" games in March.

I concede that there are anecdotal pockets where the mileage falls just short.  Upstate NY, Calvin-Wheaton and a few others.

For the most part, I think that the value of the "non-region" game, which falls to "secondary criteria", is not appreciated by most fans.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 15, 2011, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 03:40:15 PM
Quote from: thebear on December 15, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
I agree with the posters regarding adjoining state vs. Administrative region.  The three D-III schools here in the North Country have to travel 90 miles to play any other Division III school other than each other.  There are exactly 7 Vermont schools outside of the administrative region that are less than 200 miles from us.

I think it's ludicrous that a NY team can play a regional game against a team from Pennsylvania (our three North Country Schools are 235 miles from the closest Pennsylvania Border), but not from New Jersey, Massachusetts or Connecticut, the borders of which are closer than two of our conference opponents (Buff State and Fredonia) in the same state.

We played at Williams, and neither of the games count.  Williams is 206 miles from Potsdam.   However we play at the Desales tournament (Allentown - about 350 miles) and both games count because the schools are from Pennsylvania & NY.

I say let all fully initiated Division III opponents count.  I really would like to see an RPI for Division III, I think the massey ratings data base could generate one pretty easily.  Reward teams for playing difficult non-conference schedules and for doing well against the better teams in their conference.
The effect of having a game that is "not counted as in-region" now might become a game "not played" under a new system.

In the case of baseball, we get to see plenty of "non-region" games thruout the season as northern teams go south.

Good examples include Marietta which used to come to Texas to play mid-season teams on its spring break.

The NJAC schools make a Carolina run to play "non-region" games as part of spring training.

Illinois Wesleyan comes to Mississippi College for "non-region" games in March.

I concede that there are anecdotal pockets where the mileage falls just short.  Upstate NY, Calvin-Wheaton and a few others.

For the most part, I think that the value of the "non-region" game, which falls to "secondary criteria", is not appreciated by most fans.

It's not quite as anecdotal when it's your school.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 03:42:12 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on December 15, 2011, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: thebear on December 15, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
I say let all fully initiated Division III opponents count.  I really would like to see an RPI for Division III, I think the massey ratings data base could generate one pretty easily.  Reward teams for playing difficult non-conference schedules and for doing well against the better teams in their conference.

We've been over this before.  Those sorts of ratings would be great, but they only work if teams are playing national schedules and getting way out of region on a regular basis.  It penalizes conferences with lots of in-conference games - and the NE region gets much stronger numbers because of how many teams are in such a close proximity.

I'm not a huge fan of how things are done now, but I've spent a decade thinking about this and I'm not sure how they could do it much better.

Adjoining states makes some sense, especially for those schools near the edge of their region.

But what schools in adjoining states are not covered by the Administrative Region rule and the 200-mile radius rule?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 03:50:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 15, 2011, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 03:40:15 PM

...
I concede that there are anecdotal pockets where the mileage falls just short.  Upstate NY, Calvin-Wheaton and a few others.

For the most part, I think that the value of the "non-region" game, which falls to "secondary criteria", is not appreciated by most fans.

It's not quite as anecdotal when it's your school.
Respectfully Knight, Michigan and Illinois are not even "adjacent"?

Would you accept the "200 mile" radius rule being "250 miles"?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 15, 2011, 04:01:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 03:50:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 15, 2011, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 03:40:15 PM

...
I concede that there are anecdotal pockets where the mileage falls just short.  Upstate NY, Calvin-Wheaton and a few others.

For the most part, I think that the value of the "non-region" game, which falls to "secondary criteria", is not appreciated by most fans.

It's not quite as anecdotal when it's your school.
Respectfully Knight, Michigan and Illinois are not even "adjacent"?

Would you accept the "200 mile" radius rule being "250 miles"?

Sure they are. Michigan shares a legal border with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.

The Minnesota and Illinois borders are in the middle of lakes, but they exist.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on December 15, 2011, 04:11:47 PM
Technically Illinois and Michigan share waters of Lake Michigan, so that would help the Michigan schools.  It would also make Minnesota and Wisconsin in-region.

Its how D2 does things so obviously it has merits to them.  I do not know if Illinois/Michigan is considered adjacent in D2.  There are only a couple D2 schools in Illinois anyway, and the GLIAC schedules are pretty much full of conference competition anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on December 15, 2011, 04:44:52 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 03:42:12 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on December 15, 2011, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: thebear on December 15, 2011, 02:48:48 PM
I say let all fully initiated Division III opponents count.  I really would like to see an RPI for Division III, I think the massey ratings data base could generate one pretty easily.  Reward teams for playing difficult non-conference schedules and for doing well against the better teams in their conference.

We've been over this before.  Those sorts of ratings would be great, but they only work if teams are playing national schedules and getting way out of region on a regular basis.  It penalizes conferences with lots of in-conference games - and the NE region gets much stronger numbers because of how many teams are in such a close proximity.

I'm not a huge fan of how things are done now, but I've spent a decade thinking about this and I'm not sure how they could do it much better.

Adjoining states makes some sense, especially for those schools near the edge of their region.

But what schools in adjoining states are not covered by the Administrative Region rule and the 200-mile radius rule?

Calvin and Hope play an annual game with Carthage that is not considered in-region by current standards that would be with an adjoining states rule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: thebear on December 15, 2011, 08:30:56 PM
Larger States with vast regions near national borders.  If you draw a 200 mile circle around the Potsdam, Clarkson, St. Lawrence cluster, over 50% is in another country, I'm sure the same is true for the Northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota schools that are in D-III.

I still think it's stupid that New England & New Jersey are out of region for many Northern, Central & Western New York Schools.

Perhaps then they could schedule some decent non-conference games.


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 15, 2011, 09:12:16 PM
And that's the thing too. The 200 miles is by road, so schools with geographical limitations are hardly helped out by this rule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 15, 2011, 09:28:07 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 15, 2011, 09:12:16 PM
And that's the thing too. The 200 miles is by road, so schools with geographical limitations are hardly helped out by this rule.

Yeah, you probably remember the running joke re: the CCIW/MIAA showdown - if they'd just keep the damn ferry running in winter, Carthage would be in region for both Hope and Calvin! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on December 15, 2011, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: thebear on December 15, 2011, 08:30:56 PM
Larger States with vast regions near national borders.  If you draw a 200 mile circle around the Potsdam, Clarkson, St. Lawrence cluster, over 50% is in another country, I'm sure the same is true for the Northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota schools that are in D-III.

I still think it's stupid that New England & New Jersey are out of region for many Northern, Central & Western New York Schools.

Perhaps then they could schedule some decent non-conference games.

Excellent point Bear! Plattsburgh State has those same issues as Canada is only 15 minutes north of us.  At least we have Vermont next to us but not a lot of schools outside of Middlebury, (who we schedule just about every year) would be considered a decent non-conference game. Occasionally Norwich has a competitive  team but not many schools in Vermont have a very strong S.O.S. I guess we have to be happy that we can find D3 opponents close by even if it does drag our owp and oowp down. Our coach has tried to get stronger opponents within our region to do an alternating home and home series. They want us to go there but not many want to come here. SLU and Clarkson usually do every year but hard to get anyone else in the E8 or LL that are willing to make the long haul north.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on December 15, 2011, 10:10:54 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 15, 2011, 09:28:07 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 15, 2011, 09:12:16 PM
And that's the thing too. The 200 miles is by road, so schools with geographical limitations are hardly helped out by this rule.

Yeah, you probably remember the running joke re: the CCIW/MIAA showdown - if they'd just keep the damn ferry running in winter, Carthage would be in region for both Hope and Calvin! ;D

Only the magic ferry Mr Y.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 15, 2011, 10:33:51 PM
Quote from: magicman on December 15, 2011, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: thebear on December 15, 2011, 08:30:56 PM
Larger States with vast regions near national borders.  If you draw a 200 mile circle around the Potsdam, Clarkson, St. Lawrence cluster, over 50% is in another country, I'm sure the same is true for the Northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota schools that are in D-III.

I still think it's stupid that New England & New Jersey are out of region for many Northern, Central & Western New York Schools.

Perhaps then they could schedule some decent non-conference games.

Excellent point Bear! Plattsburgh State has those same issues as Canada is only 15 minutes north of us.  At least we have Vermont next to us but not a lot of schools outside of Middlebury, (who we schedule just about every year) would be considered a decent non-conference game. Occasionally Norwich has a competitive  team but not many schools in Vermont have a very strong S.O.S. I guess we have to be happy that we can find D3 opponents close by even if it does drag our owp and oowp down. Our coach has tried to get stronger opponents within our region to do an alternating home and home series. They want us to go there but not many want to come here. SLU and Clarkson usually do every year but hard to get anyone else in the E8 or LL that are willing to make the long haul north.

It will definitely help out the North Country schools if and when SUNY-Canton joins D3. The 'roos are currently in the D3 exploratory phase.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 10:53:26 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 15, 2011, 10:33:51 PM
Quote from: magicman on December 15, 2011, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: thebear on December 15, 2011, 08:30:56 PM
Larger States with vast regions near national borders.  If you draw a 200 mile circle around the Potsdam, Clarkson, St. Lawrence cluster, over 50% is in another country, I'm sure the same is true for the Northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota schools that are in D-III.

I still think it's stupid that New England & New Jersey are out of region for many Northern, Central & Western New York Schools.

Perhaps then they could schedule some decent non-conference games.

Excellent point Bear! Plattsburgh State has those same issues as Canada is only 15 minutes north of us.  At least we have Vermont next to us but not a lot of schools outside of Middlebury, (who we schedule just about every year) would be considered a decent non-conference game. Occasionally Norwich has a competitive  team but not many schools in Vermont have a very strong S.O.S. I guess we have to be happy that we can find D3 opponents close by even if it does drag our owp and oowp down. Our coach has tried to get stronger opponents within our region to do an alternating home and home series. They want us to go there but not many want to come here. SLU and Clarkson usually do every year but hard to get anyone else in the E8 or LL that are willing to make the long haul north.

It will definitely help out the North Country schools if and when SUNY-Canton joins D3. The 'roos are currently in the D3 exploratory phase.
Two more conference games each in the SUNYAC or NEAC...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 15, 2011, 11:47:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 10:53:26 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 15, 2011, 10:33:51 PM
Quote from: magicman on December 15, 2011, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: thebear on December 15, 2011, 08:30:56 PM
Larger States with vast regions near national borders.  If you draw a 200 mile circle around the Potsdam, Clarkson, St. Lawrence cluster, over 50% is in another country, I'm sure the same is true for the Northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota schools that are in D-III.

I still think it's stupid that New England & New Jersey are out of region for many Northern, Central & Western New York Schools.

Perhaps then they could schedule some decent non-conference games.

Excellent point Bear! Plattsburgh State has those same issues as Canada is only 15 minutes north of us.  At least we have Vermont next to us but not a lot of schools outside of Middlebury, (who we schedule just about every year) would be considered a decent non-conference game. Occasionally Norwich has a competitive  team but not many schools in Vermont have a very strong S.O.S. I guess we have to be happy that we can find D3 opponents close by even if it does drag our owp and oowp down. Our coach has tried to get stronger opponents within our region to do an alternating home and home series. They want us to go there but not many want to come here. SLU and Clarkson usually do every year but hard to get anyone else in the E8 or LL that are willing to make the long haul north.

It will definitely help out the North Country schools if and when SUNY-Canton joins D3. The 'roos are currently in the D3 exploratory phase.
Two more conference games each in the SUNYAC or NEAC...

An an extra in-region non-conference game for each of the North Country schools who won't be in the same league as the 'roos.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on December 16, 2011, 03:01:14 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 15, 2011, 11:47:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 15, 2011, 10:53:26 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 15, 2011, 10:33:51 PM
Quote from: magicman on December 15, 2011, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: thebear on December 15, 2011, 08:30:56 PM
Larger States with vast regions near national borders.  If you draw a 200 mile circle around the Potsdam, Clarkson, St. Lawrence cluster, over 50% is in another country, I'm sure the same is true for the Northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota schools that are in D-III.

I still think it's stupid that New England & New Jersey are out of region for many Northern, Central & Western New York Schools.

Perhaps then they could schedule some decent non-conference games.

Excellent point Bear! Plattsburgh State has those same issues as Canada is only 15 minutes north of us.  At least we have Vermont next to us but not a lot of schools outside of Middlebury, (who we schedule just about every year) would be considered a decent non-conference game. Occasionally Norwich has a competitive  team but not many schools in Vermont have a very strong S.O.S. I guess we have to be happy that we can find D3 opponents close by even if it does drag our owp and oowp down. Our coach has tried to get stronger opponents within our region to do an alternating home and home series. They want us to go there but not many want to come here. SLU and Clarkson usually do every year but hard to get anyone else in the E8 or LL that are willing to make the long haul north.

It will definitely help out the North Country schools if and when SUNY-Canton joins D3. The 'roos are currently in the D3 exploratory phase.
Two more conference games each in the SUNYAC or NEAC...

An an extra in-region non-conference game for each of the North Country schools who won't be in the same league as the 'roos.

I would think they will join NEAC where the schools are closer to their level of play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: thebear on December 16, 2011, 09:00:17 PM
SUNY Canton's President has already said he wants them to join the SUNYAC, but Morrisville and SUNYIT both found the NEAC easier pickings. 

Canton in the current SUNYAC would strand Plattsburgh without a travel partner, and mean two road trips to the far end of the state for the other teams in hoops & hockey.

Even a ten team conference is at a disadvantage with the magic number for bids at 6.5.  One answer might be an SUNYAC East SUNYAC West each with 7 teams, and thus getting two AQ's. 

Then we could pick up Cobleskill, Morrisville, Canton & SUNYIT.

Alignment would be:

East
New Paltz
Oneonta
Plattsburgh
Potsdam
Cobleskill
Canton
SUNYIT

West
Morrisville
Cortland
Oswego
Geneseo
Brockport
Fredonia
Buff State

They could play double round robin (12 games), and still have room for decent out of conference games.



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 16, 2011, 09:08:22 PM
Quote from: thebear on December 16, 2011, 09:00:17 PM
SUNY Canton's President has already said he wants them to join the SUNYAC, but Morrisville and SUNYIT both found the NEAC easier pickings. 

Canton in the current SUNYAC would strand Plattsburgh without a travel partner, and mean two road trips to the far end of the state for the other teams in hoops & hockey.

Even a ten team conference is at a disadvantage with the magic number for bids at 6.5.  One answer might be an SUNYAC East SUNYAC West each with 7 teams, and thus getting two AQ's. 

Then we could pick up Cobleskill, Morrisville, Canton & SUNYIT.

Alignment would be:

East
New Paltz
Oneonta
Plattsburgh
Potsdam
Cobleskill
Canton
SUNYIT

West
Morrisville
Cortland
Oswego
Geneseo
Brockport
Fredonia
Buff State

They could play double round robin (12 games), and still have room for decent out of conference games.
Respectfully, no! 14 teams in 2 divisions does earn 2 Pool A bids.  McMurry is a member of the 15-team ASC. We have had the two division format for 10 years and the NCAA has not changed its policy to permit us 2 Pool A bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on December 16, 2011, 09:30:41 PM
Ralph is right. A two-division league does not earn two AQs even with 7 teams on each side. The only exception is the MAC Commonwealth and Freedom, but they were grandfathered in, and they essentially act like two independent conferences anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 19, 2011, 02:41:17 PM
My regional rankings through Sunday's games (12/18/2011)

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/12/regional-rankings-12192011.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 28, 2011, 09:15:59 AM
Another regional rankings update.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/12/regional-rankings-12282011.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on December 28, 2011, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 28, 2011, 09:15:59 AM
Another regional rankings update.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/12/regional-rankings-12282011.html

Thanks again for doing this, KnightSlappy!

I posted the following on the CCIW board a couple days ago.  Same Midwest teams, just different order...


Quote from: Titan Q on December 26, 2011, 10:17:35 AM
This is an update to something I posted about a week ago.  It's my best projection at how the top Midwest Region teams stack up right now, based on NCAA seeding/selection criteria. 

(These are "in-region" records - games vs non-D3s or out-of-region D3s have been excluded.  I also listed wins over other teams on this list and wins vs prominent teams from other regions if the game was counted as "in-region", as well as all in-region losses.)

1. Transylvania (HCAC), 9-0 (won vs Wabash)
2. Augustana (CCIW), 8-1 (won vs UW-Stevens Point...lost @ Wash U)
3. Grinnell (MWC), 7-0 (won vs Ripon)
4. Ripon (MWC), 5-1 (won vs Illinois Wesleyan...lost @ Grinnell)
5. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW), 7-2 (won vs Wash U...lost @ Ripon, @ UW-Whitewater)
6. Washington U (UAA), 7-2 (won vs Augustana, vs Wheaton...lost @ Whitworth, @ IWU)
7. Wheaton (CCIW), 7-2 (won vs Whitman...lost @ Hope, @ Wash U)
8. Edgewood (NATHC), 7-1 (won vs Lake Forest, @ Lakeland...lost vs UW-Stevens Point)
9. Hanover (HCAC), 6-2 (won vs Ohio Wesleyan, vs Rose-Hulman...lost vs Ohio Northern, @ Manchester)
10. Lake Forest (MWC), 7-1 (won vs Lakeland...lost @ Edgewood)
11. Rose-Hulman (HCAC), 9-2 (none...lost vs Wabash, @ Hanover)
12. Lakeland (NATHC), 4-2 (none...lost @ Lake Forest, vs Edgewood)

(The only Midwest Region conference I do not have representation for is the SLIAC.)


Transylvania's win over Wabash on 12/21 was huge (Wabash is in the Great Lakes region but that game was "in-region" for both teams.)  Wabash is 7-1 in-region, including a win over Wooster.  The Little Giants are right near the top of the Great Lakes region picture right now.  This could be a non-conference win that ends up really helping Transylvania as the season plays out.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on December 28, 2011, 11:15:41 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on December 28, 2011, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 28, 2011, 09:15:59 AM
Another regional rankings update.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/12/regional-rankings-12282011.html

Thanks again for doing this, KnightSlappy!

I posted the following on the CCIW board a couple days ago.  Same Midwest teams, just different order...


Quote from: Titan Q on December 26, 2011, 10:17:35 AM
This is an update to something I posted about a week ago.  It's my best projection at how the top Midwest Region teams stack up right now, based on NCAA seeding/selection criteria. 

(These are "in-region" records - games vs non-D3s or out-of-region D3s have been excluded.  I also listed wins over other teams on this list and wins vs prominent teams from other regions if the game was counted as "in-region", as well as all in-region losses.)

1. Transylvania (HCAC), 9-0 (won vs Wabash)
2. Augustana (CCIW), 8-1 (won vs UW-Stevens Point…lost @ Wash U)
3. Grinnell (MWC), 7-0 (won vs Ripon)
4. Ripon (MWC), 5-1 (won vs Illinois Wesleyan…lost @ Grinnell)
5. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW), 7-2 (won vs Wash U…lost @ Ripon, @ UW-Whitewater)
6. Washington U (UAA), 7-2 (won vs Augustana, vs Wheaton…lost @ Whitworth, @ IWU)
7. Wheaton (CCIW), 7-2 (won vs Whitman…lost @ Hope, @ Wash U)
8. Edgewood (NATHC), 7-1 (won vs Lake Forest, @ Lakeland…lost vs UW-Stevens Point)
9. Hanover (HCAC), 6-2 (won vs Ohio Wesleyan, vs Rose-Hulman…lost vs Ohio Northern, @ Manchester)
10. Lake Forest (MWC), 7-1 (won vs Lakeland…lost @ Edgewood)
11. Rose-Hulman (HCAC), 9-2 (none…lost vs Wabash, @ Hanover)
12. Lakeland (NATHC), 4-2 (none…lost @ Lake Forest, vs Edgewood)

(The only Midwest Region conference I do not have representation for is the SLIAC.)


Transylvania's win over Wabash on 12/21 was huge (Wabash is in the Great Lakes region but that game was "in-region" for both teams.)  Wabash is 7-1 in-region, including a win over Wooster.  The Little Giants are right near the top of the Great Lakes region picture right now.  This could be a non-conference win that ends up really helping Transylvania as the season plays out.


I was surprised at how much love Edgewood has received from the strength of schedule calculation.

Here's a comparison with Augustana (in-region numbers only).

Edgewood raw SOS: .578, with H/A multiplier: .607
Augustana raw SOS: .521, with H/A multiplier: .480

Augustana has played 3 on the road, 5 at home, and 1 at a neutral site. Edgewood has played 4 on the road and 4 at home.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on December 28, 2011, 04:47:31 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 28, 2011, 11:15:41 AM
I was surprised at how much love Edgewood has received from the strength of schedule calculation.

Here's a comparison with Augustana (in-region numbers only).

Edgewood raw SOS: .578, with H/A multiplier: .607
Augustana raw SOS: .521, with H/A multiplier: .480

Augustana has played 3 on the road, 5 at home, and 1 at a neutral site. Edgewood has played 4 on the road and 4 at home.

I agree - that is surprising.

When other parts of the primary criteria are considered, I think the UW-Stevens Point common opponent result puts Augie safely ahead of Edgewood right now. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 03, 2012, 02:27:59 PM
Through Monday, 1/2/2012

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/01/regional-rankings-132012.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on January 03, 2012, 02:31:35 PM
Nice to see the NCAC have four of the top six in the GL!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 03, 2012, 04:58:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 03, 2012, 02:31:35 PM
Nice to see the NCAC have four of the top six in the GL!

NCAC has made quite a jump this year. I have them ranked fifth in D3 based on my simple RPI averaging calc.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2012, 07:31:38 AM
Let's do another week of 'regional rankings'!

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/01/regional-rankings-1102012.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 16, 2012, 04:04:00 PM
Updated:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/01/regional-rankings-1162012.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 19, 2012, 01:49:13 PM
Using my spreadsheet data, I ranked all teams' Pool C chances using three 'quick and dirty' methods. For each method, I pulled out three tiers -- top 19, next 19, third 19. Here's how it came out (listed alphabetically by tier).

Method 1Method 2Method 3
AmherstAmherstAmherst
CabriniCabrini
Claremont-Mudd-ScrippsClaremont-Mudd-ScrippsClaremont-Mudd-Scripps
DubuqueDubuque
Eastern ConnecticutEastern ConnecticutEastern Connecticut
EmoryEmory
HopeHope
Illinois Wesleyan
Lake ForestLake ForestLake Forest
Mary Hardin-BaylorMary Hardin-BaylorMary Hardin-Baylor
MiddleburyMiddleburyMiddlebury
MITMIT
Rhode Island CollegeRhode Island CollegeRhode Island College
Rochester
St. Josephs (L.I.)St. Josephs (L.I.)
St. Marys (Md.)
St. Thomas
UW-Stevens PointUW-Stevens PointUW-Stevens Point
UW-WhitewaterUW-WhitewaterUW-Whitewater
Virginia WesleyanVirginia Wesleyan
Wabash
Washington U.Washington U.Washington U.
Western ConnecticutWestern ConnecticutWestern Connecticut
Wheaton (Ill.)
WittenbergWittenberg
WPIWPI
---------------------
Albertus MagnusAlbertus Magnus
Birmingham-SouthernBirmingham-Southern
Cabrini
CatholicCatholic
Dubuque
Emory
Franklin and MarshallFranklin and Marshall
George Fox
Hardin-Simmons
HartwickHartwick
HobartHobartHobart
Hope
Illinois WesleyanIllinois Wesleyan
KeystoneKeystone
LycomingLycomingLycoming
Mary WashingtonMary WashingtonMary Washington
MIT
New Jersey City
New York UniversityNew York University
Randolph-MaconRandolph-MaconRandolph-Macon
St. Josephs (L.I.)
St. Josephs (Maine)
Staten IslandStaten IslandStaten Island
TransylvaniaTransylvania
Tufts
UW-River Falls
Virginia Wesleyan
WabashWabash
Wheaton (Ill.)Wheaton (Ill.)
Whitworth
Wilkes
William PatersonWilliam PatersonWilliam Paterson
Wittenberg
WPI
---------------------
Becker
BethanyBethany
Catholic
Christopher Newport
Concordia (Wis.)Concordia (Wis.)
EdgewoodEdgewoodEdgewood
GrinnellGrinnell
HanoverHanover
Hardin-SimmonsHardin-Simmons
Keystone
LutherLutherLuther
Mass-Dartmouth
Messiah
NazarethNazarethNazareth
New Jersey CityNew Jersey City
Ohio WesleyanOhio WesleyanOhio Wesleyan
Ramapo
Rose-HulmanRose-HulmanRose-Hulman
St. Josephs (Maine)St. Josephs (Maine)
St. Marys (Md.)St. Marys (Md.)
St. ThomasSt. Thomas
Susquehanna
Transylvania
TuftsTufts
UW-La Crosse
UW-River FallsUW-River Falls
WesleyanWesleyanWesleyan
WhitworthWhitworth
WilkesWilkes
WoosterWoosterWooster

Lots of these would get Pool A's, so tier 1's are looking like 'Pool C locks', tier 2's look solid, and tier 3 would be the bubble (generally speaking).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bengalsrule on January 24, 2012, 02:49:17 PM
Any regional rankings this week???????? ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 24, 2012, 02:54:25 PM
Yeah. Been a busy week. I should have them up today (with results thru monday).

[edit] Men's rankings are now up on my blog.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/01/regional-rankings-1242012.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on January 24, 2012, 05:04:28 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 24, 2012, 02:54:25 PM
Yeah. Been a busy week. I should have them up today (with results thru monday).

[edit] Men's rankings are now up on my blog.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/01/regional-rankings-1242012.html

I know this is on the Pool C board but do you know who the top Pool B team is that isn't in your regional rankings. Nebraska Wesleyan is in the West Rankings but there is questions as to whether they will be eligible for the D3 Tourney due to their lack of D3 games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2012, 12:37:06 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on January 24, 2012, 05:04:28 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 24, 2012, 02:54:25 PM
Yeah. Been a busy week. I should have them up today (with results thru monday).

[edit] Men's rankings are now up on my blog.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/01/regional-rankings-1242012.html

I know this is on the Pool C board but do you know who the top Pool B team is that isn't in your regional rankings. Nebraska Wesleyan is in the West Rankings but there is questions as to whether they will be eligible for the D3 Tourney due to their lack of D3 games.

My current system ranks Pool B as:

1  Nebraska Wesleyan
2  UC Santa Cruz
3  Maryville (Tenn.)
4  St. Josephs (Bklyn.)
5  Rust

I think both Neb Wesleyan and UC Santa Cruz would require a waiver for the "50% of games being in-region D3" rule in order to receive the berth.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2012, 02:06:29 PM
Plenty to talk about when it comes to Pool C... so make sure you tune into Hoopsville tonight!

Men's National Committee Chair Ken Schumann will join us to talk about the upcoming regional rankings (February 8th) and the slight changes in the selection process this year.

Show runs from 7 - 9 PM EST.

And you can follow us on multiple social media platforms:
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #hoopsville (now over 900 followers)
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com (http://www.d3hoopsville.com)
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville)
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
Ustream: www.ustream.tv/channel/hoopsville (http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hoopsville)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 30, 2012, 10:47:28 PM
If you missed Hoopsville last night and the chat with MBB Championship Committee Chair Ken Schumann, here is the link to the archive:
http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2011-12/jan29 (http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2011-12/jan29)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 02, 2012, 11:42:37 AM
I went through the exercise of selecting tournament teams this morning (no actual bracketing):

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/d3-bracketology.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 02, 2012, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 02, 2012, 11:42:37 AM
I went through the exercise of selecting tournament teams this morning (no actual bracketing):

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/d3-bracketology.html

Great work!

Not that it matters much, but I think Grinnell gets the Pool A over Lake Forest since the Pioneers beat the Foresters in their only meeting thus far.  They end the season at Darby.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 02, 2012, 06:45:47 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 02, 2012, 06:09:25 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 02, 2012, 11:42:37 AM
I went through the exercise of selecting tournament teams this morning (no actual bracketing):

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/d3-bracketology.html

Great work!

Not that it matters much, but I think Grinnell gets the Pool A over Lake Forest since the Pioneers beat the Foresters in their only meeting thus far.  They end the season at Darby.

Yeah, I'm not really concerned with the nitty gritty of tiebreakers and such since either one would need to win the tournament to receive the bid anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Falcons04 on February 03, 2012, 11:21:35 PM
KS -

I've started following your weekly projections for the regional rankings and wanted to say thanks for the information.  Also, I see you have 3 WIAC teams in your projected field, including UW-River Falls as a Pool C team.  I'm curious if you have some thoughts on how solid their position is at this point.  Their best wins are UW-Stevens Point (x2) and St. Thomas, but they have a couple in-region losses to middle of the pack teams.  Are they currently on pretty solid footing, or do they need to have another win over either Stevens Point or Whitewater to solidify a bid (unless they win conf. tourney, of course)?   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 04, 2012, 12:12:18 AM
I hope it happens, but I'm not counting on the LEC getting 4 teams in.   If they couldn't get Eastern in last year, I highly doubt they get in whoever finishes 4th.  Plus the conference is going to beat each up the next 2 weeks: Keene @ Western, Eastern @ Western, Eastern @ Keene, Western @ RIC, Keene @ RIC all matchups the final 5 LEC games.  Also, the dreadful road losses by Western to Plymouth & USM will probably come back to bite them.

I guess it's possibile if every other team that's supposed to get in wins their conference (i.e. Middlebury OR Amherst winning the NESCAC tournament since both are locks), and those 4 LEC teams comprise the top 7 in the Northeast, but really will be tough.

Also, I'm not entirely sure, but let's say hypothetically the 4 LEC teams at seasons end in the Northeast region are Keene at 3, Western at 4, Eastern at 5 and RIC at 7.  Let's say RIC wins the conference tournament to get the auto bid don't Keene AND Western have to get picked before Eastern does since both of those teams would've been higher in the regional rankings??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WAlum on February 04, 2012, 09:24:16 AM
Pool C contender Grinnell goes down to Ripon last night.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
Quote from: Falcons04 on February 03, 2012, 11:21:35 PM
KS -

I've started following your weekly projections for the regional rankings and wanted to say thanks for the information.  Also, I see you have 3 WIAC teams in your projected field, including UW-River Falls as a Pool C team.  I'm curious if you have some thoughts on how solid their position is at this point.  Their best wins are UW-Stevens Point (x2) and St. Thomas, but they have a couple in-region losses to middle of the pack teams.  Are they currently on pretty solid footing, or do they need to have another win over either Stevens Point or Whitewater to solidify a bid (unless they win conf. tourney, of course)?

I wouldn't think they would need a win versus UWSP or UWW, but they probably can't afford to lose to someone else as well.

If any league deserves 3 bids, it's probably the WIAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 04, 2012, 04:08:05 PM
I think River Falls is in better position than Stevens Point, if Whitewater gets the Pool A.  River Falls only has 3 in-region losses, as compared to Point's 4.  River Falls also beat Point twice.  Granted, the Falcon's other in-region losses were to Whitewater, Puget Sound and Superior.  Point's other losses are to Augustana (who looked pretty good until a 3-game slide to start the month) and St. John's (who beat St. Thomas twice, but still has 6 conference losses).

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
If any league deserves 3 bids, it's probably the WIAC.

Throw in the NESCAC with Middlebury, Amherst and Williams, though Williams has 5 losses already.  Oops.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2012, 06:29:00 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 04, 2012, 04:08:05 PM
I think River Falls is in better position than Stevens Point, if Whitewater gets the Pool A.  River Falls only has 3 in-region losses, as compared to Point's 4.  River Falls also beat Point twice.  Granted, the Falcon's other in-region losses were to Whitewater, Puget Sound and Superior.  Point's other losses are to Augustana (who looked pretty good until a 3-game slide to start the month) and St. John's (who beat St. Thomas twice, but still has 6 conference losses).

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
If any league deserves 3 bids, it's probably the WIAC.

Throw in the NESCAC with Middlebury, Amherst and Williams, though Williams has 5 losses already.  Oops.

UWSP has the top SOS in D3. They're looking really good still.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: mailsy on February 04, 2012, 06:49:12 PM
Knightslappy,

How much do you think the regional rankings, based on your fine work that you do, will change in the MidAtlantic region since both F&M and Keystone lost today?

Thanks
mailsy
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 04, 2012, 07:37:49 PM
Quote from: WAlum on February 04, 2012, 09:24:16 AM
Pool C contender Grinnell goes down to Ripon last night.

... and today as well, this time to the St. Norbert "No Apostrophe S" Green Knights.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2012, 08:30:08 PM
Quote from: mailsy on February 04, 2012, 06:49:12 PM
Knightslappy,

How much do you think the regional rankings, based on your fine work that you do, will change in the MidAtlantic region since both F&M and Keystone lost today?

Thanks
mailsy

I haven't done a total update, but this is what I'm currently looking at (includes F&M and Keystone's results).

1   Cabrini
2   Franklin and Marshall
3   Keystone
4   St. Marys (Md.)
5   Lycoming
6   Mary Washington
7   Penn State-Harrisburg
8   Messiah
9   Misericordia
10   Catholic
11   Alvernia
12   Widener
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 05, 2012, 10:08:04 PM
I'm super exciting in anticipation for this week's 1st Regional Rankings!  My wife, not so much.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: mailsy on February 05, 2012, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2012, 08:30:08 PM
Quote from: mailsy on February 04, 2012, 06:49:12 PM
Knightslappy,

How much do you think the regional rankings, based on your fine work that you do, will change in the MidAtlantic region since both F&M and Keystone lost today?

Thanks
mailsy

I haven't done a total update, but this is what I'm currently looking at (includes F&M and Keystone's results).

1   Cabrini
2   Franklin and Marshall
3   Keystone
4   St. Marys (Md.)
5   Lycoming
6   Mary Washington
7   Penn State-Harrisburg
8   Messiah
9   Misericordia
10   Catholic
11   Alvernia
12   Widener

Thanks Knightslappy.   It looks like those losses won't effect their standing in the region to much.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2012, 08:39:11 AM
Updated regional rankings:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/regional-rankings-262012.html

bear in mind that I don't have the benefit of adjusting for 'results versus regionally ranked' yet (next week).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2012, 09:14:55 AM
You have those games listed through 1/30, but should be through yesterday?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2012, 09:15:53 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2012, 09:14:55 AM
You have those games listed through 1/30, but should be through yesterday?

Yes! Thanks. (fixed)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2012, 02:45:26 PM
And now another bracketology post.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/bracketology-262012.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 08, 2012, 01:05:00 PM
Anyone know what time the regional rankings come out??  I leave at like 4:40 for class tonight, hopefully I get to see them before I leave.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2012, 02:55:03 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 08, 2012, 01:05:00 PM
Anyone know what time the regional rankings come out??  I leave at like 4:40 for class tonight, hopefully I get to see them before I leave.

Looks like they were always out before 4:00 EST last year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2012, 04:23:15 PM
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional_rankings

rankings
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: cubs on February 08, 2012, 10:14:05 PM
In a pair of WIAC games with Pool C implications:

River Falls 58
Superior 57
-UWRF's Aaron Anderson hits go-ahead three pointer with 0:07 remaining following a miss at the FT line by Superior for the victory.

Stevens Point 87
Oshkosh 83  OT
-With an 86-83 lead, Point withstands a barrage of three point misses (three) in the final seconds by Oshkosh to escape with a victory over the Titans who are still looking for their first WIAC victory this season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: mailsy on February 08, 2012, 10:56:41 PM
KnightSlappy,

What do you think was the difference in MidAtlantic rankings, with F&M being 5 and other teams moving up?  Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2012, 03:27:19 PM


   ATLANTIC                                 
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REGIONAL      OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Staten Island      CUNYAC      15-2      16-4      WON at York (NY) 72-63, WON at Megar Evers 93-81, at Brooklyn (2/10)   
   #2      William Paterson      NJAC      19-3      19-3      WON at Rutgers-Newark 57-55, vs New Jersey City (2/11)   
   #3      St. Joseph's (LI)      SKY      17-1      17-2      WON at SUNY-Maritime 91-73, vs. Yeshiva (2/11)   
   #4      Richard Stockton      NJAC      14-6      15-7      WON vs Rutgers-Camden 80-57, vs Rowan (2/11)   
   #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      14-4      16-5      WON at Montclair State 76-59, at William Paterson (2/11)   
   EAST                                 
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REGIONAL      OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Hartwick      E8      19-2      20-2      at Nazareth (2/10), at St. John Fisher (2/11)   
   #2      Oswego State      SUNYAC      17-2      17-3      at Oneonta State 2/10, at New Paltz State 2/11   
   #3      NYU      UAA      17-2      17-2      WON vs New Paltz State 73-61, at Emory 2/10, at Rochester 2/12   
   #4      Hobart      LL      15-4      16-4      WON at Union, 62-60, vs Skidmore 2/10, vs RPI 2/11   
   #5      Medaille      AMCC      19-2      20-2      vs Penn State-Altoona 2/11   
   #6      Nazareth      E8      15-5      15-7      vs Hartwick (2/10), vs Stevens (2/11)   
   GREAT LAKES                                 
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REGIONAL      OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Hope      MIAA       12-0      20-1      WON at Kalamazoo 87-59, at Calvin 2/11   
   #2      Wittenberg      NCAC      15-3      17-4      LOST at Wabash 55-49, vs Wooster 2/11   
   #3      Wooster      NCAC      16-3      18-3      WON at Ohio Wesleyan, at Wittenberg 2/11   
   #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      15-5      16-5      LOST vs Wooster 54-50, at Hiram 2/11   
   #5      Wabash      NCAC      13-6      15-6      WON vs Wittenberg 55-49, at Kenyon 2/11   
   #6      Capital      OAC      13-6      14-7      WON vs Otterbein 86-75, at Baldwin-Wallace 2/11   
   MID-ATLANTIC                                 
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REGIONAL      OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Cabrini      CSAC      21-0      21-1      WON at Neumann 73-60, vs Philadelphia Bible 2/11   
   #2      Keystone      CSAC      17-3      17-3      LOST vs Gwynedd-Mercy 100-96, WON vs Marywood 84-71, at Centenary 2/11   
   #3      Lycoming      MACC      15-4      17-5      LOST at Messiah 59-57, vs Widener 2/11   
   #4      Mary Washington      CAC      14-4      15-6      WON at Hood 77-46, at York (Pa) 2/11   
   #5      Franklin & Marshall      CC      19-2      19-2      WON vs Gettysburg 60-53, vs Swarthmore 2/11   
   #6      St. Mary's (Md)      CAC      14-5      16-6      WON vs Salisbury 59-42, at Welsey 2/11   
   #7      Messiah      MACC      13-6      14-6      WON vs Lycoming 59-57, at Arcadia 2/11   
   #8      Misericordia      MACF      15-6      15-6      WON vs Eastern 94-89, at Delaware Valley 2/11   
   #9      Alvernia      MACC      13-6      15-6      LOST at Albright 65-57, vs Elizabethtown 2/11   
   MIDWEST                                 
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REGIONAL      OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Washington U.      UAA      15-4      15-5      vs Case Western Reserve 2/10, vs Carnegie Mellon 2/12   
   #2      Transylvania      HCAC      18-1      19-2      WON vs Mount St. Joseph 67-58, vs Manchester 2/11   
   #3      Lake Forest      MWC      17-2      18-2      at Monmouth 2/11   
   #4      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      15-4      17-4      LOST at Carthage 69-67, at North Central (IL) 2/11   
   #5      North Central (IL)      CCIW      14-4      15-6      WON at Illinois Wesleyan 80-73, vs Wheaton (IL) 2/11   
   #6      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      14-5      16-5      LOST to North Central (IL) 80-73, at Carthage 2/11   
   #7      Edgewood      NATH      14-5      16-5      at Maranatha Baptist 2/9, vs Wisconsin Lutheran 2/11   
   #8      Concordia (WI)      NATH      15-4      16-4      WON vs Lakeland 106-102, at Maranatha Baptist 2/11   
   NORTHEAST                                 
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REGIONAL      OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Amherst      NESCAC      18-2      20-2      vs Williams 2/10, vs Middlebury 2/11   
   #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      18-1      20-1      at Trinity (Conn) 2/10, at Amherst 2/11   
   #3      Rhode Island College      LEC      16-4      16-4      LOST at Mass-Dartmouth 73-68, vs Bates 2/9, at Southern Maine 2/11   
   #4      W. Connecticut      LEC      17-4      17-4      WON vs Eastern Connecticut 82-81, vs Keene State 2/11   
   #5      WPI      NEWMAC      16-4      16-4      LOST at Wheaton (Mass) 71-69, vs Springfield 2/11   
   #6      E. Connecticut      LEC      17-4      17-4      LOST at Western Connecticut 82-81, vs Mass-Dartmouth 2/11   
   #7      MIT      NEWMAC      20-1      20-1      BEAT vs Babson 59-47, at Clark 2/11   
   #8      Keene State      LEC      14-3      17-4      WON at Plymouth State 86-71, at Western Connecticut 2/11   
   #9      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      17-4      17-5      at Bowdoin 2/10, at Colby 2/11   
   #10      Tufts      NESCAC      16-6      16-6      at Hamilton 2/10   
   #11      Becker      NECC      16-4      16-4      WON vs Elms 60-43, vs Lesley 2/9, at Southern Vermont 2/11   
   #12      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      20-1      20-1      WON at Trinity (Conn) 85-73, at Lasell 2/11   
   SOUTH                                 
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REGIONAL      OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Mary Hardin-Baylor      ASC      19-1      20-1      vs Hardin-Simmons 2/9, vs McMurry 2/11   
   #2      Virginia Wesleyan      ODAC      17-2      18-2      LOST at Randolph-Macon 54-51, vs Hampden-Sydney 2/11   
   #3      Birmingham-Southern      SCAC      17-1      20-1      vs Centre 2/10, vs Sewanee 2/12   
   #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      14-3      17-4      WON vs Virginia Wesleyan 54-51, vs Roanoke 2/11   
   #5      Christopher Newport      USAC      15-4      18-4      vs Greensboro 2/11   
   #6      Emory      UAA      16-4      16-4      vs NYU 2/10, vs Brandeis 2/12   
   #7      Guilford      ODAC      14-5      15-6      WON vs Washington and Lee 68-49, at Randolph 2/11   
   #8      Hardin-Simmons      ASC      14-5      16-5      at Mary-Hardin-Baylor 2/9, at Concordia (Texas) 2/11   
   WEST                                 
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REGIONAL      OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      River Falls      WIAC      16-3      16-5      WON vs Superior 58-57, vs Oshkosh 2/11   
   #2      Stevens Point      WIAC      16-4      18-4      WON at Oshkosh 87-83 OT   
   #3      Whitewater      WIAC      19-2      19-2      WON at Platteville 77-58, at Superior 2/11   
   #4      Whitworth      NWC      17-2      18-3      at Linfield 2/10, at Pacific 2/11   
   #5      CMS      SCIAC      13-1      19-1      WON vs Caltech 93-62, at Redlands 2/11   
   #6      St. Thomas      MIAC      14-6      15-6      vs Concordia-Moorhead 2/11   
   #7      Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      14-5      15-5      WON at St. Mary's (Minn) 64-44, vs Macalester 2/11   
   #8      Dubuque      IIAC      15-3      16-6      LOST vs Wartburg 73-66, at Buena Vista 2/11   
   #9      Whitman      NWC      13-6      15-6      at Pacific 2/10, at Linfield 2/11   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2012, 07:25:25 PM
Just taking a look at the CCIW, they could be in big trouble.  Wheaton and IWU have already lost this week.  Wheaton has to play NCC this weekend too.  IWU has to travel to Carthage, who just knocked off Wheaton!

Wash U, Tranys and Lake Forest are all conference leaders, so we'll put them in Pool A.  So, at this time, the CCIW teams will be first in line for Pool C bids in the Midwest Region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2012, 07:28:46 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2012, 07:25:25 PM
Just taking a look at the CCIW, they could be in big trouble.  Wheaton and IWU have already lost this week.  Wheaton has to play NCC this weekend too.  IWU has to travel to Carthage, who just knocked off Wheaton!

Wash U, Tranys and Lake Forest are all conference leaders, so we'll put them in Pool A.  So, at this time, the CCIW teams will be first in line for Pool C bids in the Midwest Region.

I did another bracketology update on the blog, and I had IWU falling out. Wheaton still looked OK for a Pool C.

Nice work on the table, by the way. +k
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Violet_Nation on February 09, 2012, 10:08:16 PM
KnightSlappy,
I'm a little curious about Rochester's jump in your Bracketology post.  In your previous post they weren't even on your bubble, and now you list them as in. Is that due entirely to SOS? I'm all for more UAA teams in the field, but I'm surprised to see a 13-7 team that did not make the regional rankings in the field. Of course, I'm pretty hopeless in understanding how Pool C works. I'm just hoping my Violets can edge out Wash, Brandeis, etc for the Pool A.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 10, 2012, 12:44:58 AM
I saw St. Joseph's (LI) get absolutely steamrolled by Mount St. Mary tonight.  Down 54-21 at halftime, MSM could've scored 8 second half points and still won as the final was 99-61.  If the Skyline wasn't already a 1 bid league, it sure looks that way now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2012, 08:30:39 AM
Quote from: Violet_Nation on February 09, 2012, 10:08:16 PM
KnightSlappy,
I'm a little curious about Rochester's jump in your Bracketology post.  In your previous post they weren't even on your bubble, and now you list them as in. Is that due entirely to SOS? I'm all for more UAA teams in the field, but I'm surprised to see a 13-7 team that did not make the regional rankings in the field. Of course, I'm pretty hopeless in understanding how Pool C works. I'm just hoping my Violets can edge out Wash, Brandeis, etc for the Pool A.

Yeah, it might be a bit of a stretch considering they weren't ranked, but they have a dynamite SOS, and they've played 8 games versus regionally ranked opponents. Their margin for error is probably quite small though. I had them as the very last team in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 11, 2012, 11:12:01 AM
   Did anybody find any incorrect in-region records of the teams regionally ranked? Even if the NCAA got them all right, we still won't know the accuracy of the other 700 teams(across both genders) that are unranked but could affect their own non-ranking in addition to the ranked teams. This is important for Pool C selection and tournament hosting/traveling decisions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 11, 2012, 11:45:32 AM
Thought experiment for you guys, which team do you think should be ranked higher regionally:

Team EC: 17-5, OWP/OOWP ~0.535, but unweighted OWP in games they have actually won 0.449 (record of 5 teams they have lost to ~0.800).

Team MT: 21-1, OWP/OOWP ~0.495.

Is it enough to show up to 5 games against good teams and lose to boost your OWP/OOWP to get a high ranking? At what point does actually winning those games matter?.

If you believe team EC should be ranked higher than team MT, than how important is OWP/OOWP? What if we compare team EC to team BU:

Team BU: 12-9, OWP/OOWP ~0.610. This team has also beat the #1 ranked team in the region.

In each case there is a 4 loss difference, but what misleadingly appears to be a high OWP/OOWP value difference (misleading because they are losing to most of the teams that are boosting their OWP/OOWP).

Without any head-to-head information, how does it make sense that team EC is ranked ahead of team MT, but Team BU is not even ranked?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2012, 12:27:28 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 11, 2012, 11:45:32 AM
Thought experiment for you guys, which team do you think should be ranked higher regionally:

Team EC: 17-5, OWP/OOWP ~0.535, but unweighted OWP in games they have actually won 0.449 (record of 5 teams they have lost to ~0.800).

Team MT: 21-1, OWP/OOWP ~0.495.

Is it enough to show up to 5 games against good teams and lose to boost your OWP/OOWP to get a high ranking? At what point does actually winning those games matter?.

If you believe team EC should be ranked higher than team MT, than how important is OWP/OOWP? What if we compare team EC to team BU:

Team BU: 12-9, OWP/OOWP ~0.610. This team has also beat the #1 ranked team in the region.

In each case there is a 4 loss difference, but what misleadingly appears to be a high OWP/OOWP value difference (misleading because they are losing to most of the teams that are boosting their OWP/OOWP).

Without any head-to-head information, how does it make sense that team EC is ranked ahead of team MT, but Team BU is not even ranked?

What's MIT's OWP from the games they've won (taking out the loss to WPI)?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 11, 2012, 06:56:11 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 10, 2012, 12:44:58 AM
I saw St. Joseph's (LI) get absolutely steamrolled by Mount St. Mary tonight.  Down 54-21 at halftime, MSM could've scored 8 second half points and still won as the final was 99-61.  If the Skyline wasn't already a 1 bid league, it sure looks that way now.

East Conn lost to this team by 14.

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2012, 12:27:28 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 11, 2012, 11:45:32 AM
Thought experiment for you guys, which team do you think should be ranked higher regionally:

Team EC: 17-5, OWP/OOWP ~0.535, but unweighted OWP in games they have actually won 0.449 (record of 5 teams they have lost to ~0.800).

Team MT: 21-1, OWP/OOWP ~0.495.

Is it enough to show up to 5 games against good teams and lose to boost your OWP/OOWP to get a high ranking? At what point does actually winning those games matter?.

If you believe team EC should be ranked higher than team MT, than how important is OWP/OOWP? What if we compare team EC to team BU:

Team BU: 12-9, OWP/OOWP ~0.610. This team has also beat the #1 ranked team in the region.

In each case there is a 4 loss difference, but what misleadingly appears to be a high OWP/OOWP value difference (misleading because they are losing to most of the teams that are boosting their OWP/OOWP).

Without any head-to-head information, how does it make sense that team EC is ranked ahead of team MT, but Team BU is not even ranked?

What's MIT's OWP from the games they've won (taking out the loss to WPI)?

I just got home and ran the weighted OWP numbers (did not run OOWP, but this should only help MIT since this value was higher for MIT last week).

This is what I got through todays games.

MITs weighted OWP for all games: 0.486 (projected at the end of season, with only WPI left: 0.505)
MITs weighted OWP in wins: 0.482 (22 games)
MITs Weighted OWP in losses: 0.571 (1 game)

East Conn's weighted OWP for all games: 0.535 (no projection as they have more than 1 game left)
East Conn's weighted OWP in wins: 0.440 (18 games)
East Conn's weighted OWP in losses: 0.875 (5 games)

So essentially by just showing up for those 5 games, they gained nearly an entire 0.1 in the OWP calculation.  I guess scheduling those games (well actually 3 of them are league games, so they didnt really schedule them, they just showed up), really shows how good they are.

I will try running the same calcs for some other NE region ranked teams if I get some time later.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 12, 2012, 01:48:31 PM
UPDATED THROUGH YESTERDAY'S GAMES

I may have made a mistake here and there, but hopefully it's pretty accurate



   ATLANTIC                           
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REG./OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Staten Island      CUNYAC      15-2, 16-4      WON at York (NY) 72-63, WON at Megar Evers 93-81, at WON at Brooklyn 73-66   
   #2      William Paterson      NJAC      19-3, 19-3      WON at Rutgers-Newark 57-55, WON vs New Jersey City 85-79   
   #3      St. Joseph's (LI)      SKY      17-1, 17-2      WON at SUNY-Maritime 91-73, LOST at Mount St. Mary 99-61, WON vs. Yeshiva 91-59   
   #4      Richard Stockton      NJAC      14-6, 15-7      WON vs Rutgers-Camden 80-57, WON vs Rowan  80-77   
   #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      14-4, 16-5      WON at Montclair State 76-59, LOST at William Paterson 85-79   
   EAST                           
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REG./OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Hartwick      E8      19-2, 20-2      WON at Nazareth 83-65, WON at St. John Fisher 64-62   
   #2      Oswego State      SUNYAC      17-2, 17-3      WON at Oneonta State 68-55, WON  at New Paltz State 92-68   
   #3      NYU      UAA      17-2, 17-2      WON vs New Paltz State 73-61, LOST at Emory 73-70 , at Rochester 2/12   
   #4      Hobart      LL      15-4, 16-4      WON at Union, 62-60, WON vs Skidmore 60-49, WON vs RPI 104-89   
   #5      Medaille      AMCC      19-2, 20-2      WON at Penn State-Altoona 84-69   
   #6      Nazareth      E8      15-5, 15-7      LOST vs Hartwick 83-65, WON vs Stevens 77-61   
   GREAT LAKES                           
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REG./OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Hope      MIAA       12-0, 20-1      WON vs Kalamazoo 87-59, WON at Calvin 83-70   
   #2      Wittenberg      NCAC      15-3, 17-4      LOST at Wabash 55-49, WON vs Wooster 68-62   
   #3      Wooster      NCAC      16-3, 18-3      WON at Ohio Wesleyan 54-50, LOST at Wittenberg 68-62   
   #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      15-5, 16-5      LOST vs Wooster 54-50, WON at Hiram 79-73   
   #5      Wabash      NCAC      13-6, 15-6      WON vs Wittenberg 55-49, WON at Kenyon 79-51   
   #6      Capital      OAC      13-6, 14-7      WON vs Otterbein 86-75, LOST at Baldwin-Wallace 75-64   
   MID-ATLANTIC                           
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REG./OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Cabrini      CSAC      21-0, 21-1      WON at Neumann 73-60, WON vs Philadelphia Bible 85-55   
   #2      Keystone      CSAC      17-3, 17-3      LOST vs Gwynedd-Mercy 100-96, WON vs Marywood 84-71, WON at Centenary 110-93   
   #3      Lycoming      MACC      15-4, 17-5      LOST at Messiah 59-57, LOST vs Widener 70-69   
   #4      Mary Washington      CAC      14-4, 15-6      WON at Hood 77-46, LOST at York (Pa) 76-68   
   #5      Franklin & Marshall      CC      19-2, 19-2      WON vs Gettysburg 60-53, WON vs Swarthmore 77-59   
   #6      St. Mary's (Md)      CAC      14-5, 16-6      WON vs Salisbury 59-42, WON at Welsey 94-68   
   #7      Messiah      MACC      13-6, 14-6      WON vs Lycoming 59-57, at WON Arcadia 62-61   
   #8      Misericordia      MACF      15-6, 15-6      WON vs Eastern 94-89, WON at Delaware Valley 86-66   
   #9      Alvernia      MACC      13-6, 15-6      LOST at Albright 65-57, WON vs Elizabethtown 70-67   
   MIDWEST                           
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REG./OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Washington U.      UAA      15-4, 15-5      WON vs Case Western Reserve 78-60, vs Carnegie Mellon TODAY   
   #2      Transylvania      HCAC      18-1, 19-2      WON vs Mount St. Joseph 67-58, WON vs Manchester 72-52   
   #3      Lake Forest      MWC      17-2, 18-2      WON at Monmouth 72-53   
   #4      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      15-4, 17-4      LOST at Carthage 69-67, WON at North Central (IL) 64-61   
   #5      North Central (IL)      CCIW      14-4, 15-6      WON at Illinois Wesleyan 80-73, LOST vs Wheaton (IL) 64-61   
   #6      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      14-5, 16-5      LOST to North Central (IL) 80-73, WON at Carthage 69-64   
   #7      Edgewood      NATH      14-5, 16-5      WON at Maranatha Baptist 72-59, WON vs Wisconsin Lutheran 70-65   
   #8      Concordia (WI)      NATH      15-4, 16-4      WON vs Lakeland 106-102 OT, WON at Maranatha Baptist 71-45   
   NORTHEAST                           
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REG./OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Amherst      NESCAC      18-2, 20-2      WON vs Williams 80-78, vs WON vs Middlebury 77-75 OT   
   #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      18-1, 20-1      WON at Trinity (Conn) 76-47, LOST at Amherst 77-75 OT   
   #3      Rhode Island College      LEC      16-4, 16-4      LOST at Mass-Dartmouth 73-68, vs WON vs Bates 77-61, WON at Southern Maine 77-65   
   #4      W. Connecticut      LEC      17-4, 17-4      WON vs Eastern Connecticut 82-81 OT, WON vs Keene State 108-105 OT   
   #5      WPI      NEWMAC      16-4, 16-4      LOST at Wheaton (Mass) 71-69, WON vs Springfield 70-69   
   #6      E. Connecticut      LEC      17-4, 17-4      LOST at Western Connecticut 82-81 OT, WON  vs Mass-Dartmouth 72-65   
   #7      MIT      NEWMAC      20-1, 20-1      WON vs Babson 59-47, WON  at Clark 63-60 OT   
   #8      Keene State      LEC      14-3, 17-4      WON at Plymouth State 86-71, LOST at Western Connecticut 108-105 OT   
   #9      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      17-4, 17-5      WON at Bowdoin 74-61, WON at Colby 76-70   
   #10      Tufts      NESCAC      16-6, 16-6      LOST at Hamilton 67-64   
   #11      Becker      NECC      16-4, 16-4      WON vs Elms 60-43, WON vs Lesley 89-57, WON at Southern Vermont 81-52   
   #12      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      20-1, 20-1      WON at Trinity (Conn) 85-73, WON at Lasell 76-73   
   SOUTH                           
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REG./OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Mary Hardin-Baylor      ASC      19-1, 20-1      WON vs Hardin-Simmons 89-80, WON vs McMurry 90-87   
   #2      Virginia Wesleyan      ODAC      17-2, 18-2      LOST at Randolph-Macon 54-51, WON vs Hampden-Sydney 73-71   
   #3      Birmingham-Southern      SCAC      17-1, 20-1      WON vs Centre 81-64, vs Sewanee TODAY   
   #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      14-3, 17-4      WON vs Virginia Wesleyan 54-51, WON vs Roanoke 110-72   
   #5      Christopher Newport      USAC      15-4, 18-4      WON vs Greensboro 106-79   
   #6      Emory      UAA      16-4, 16-4      WON vs NYU 73-70, vs Brandeis TODAY   
   #7      Guilford      ODAC      14-5, 15-6      WON vs Washington and Lee 68-49, LOST at Randolph 67-58   
   #8      Hardin-Simmons      ASC      14-5, 16-5      LOST at Mary-Hardin-Baylor 89-80, WON at Concordia (Texas) 92-88   
   WEST                           
   RANK      TEAM      CONFERENCE      REG./OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      River Falls      WIAC      16-3, 16-5      WON vs Superior 58-57, WON vs Oshkosh 85-71   
   #2      Stevens Point      WIAC      16-4, 18-4      WON at Oshkosh 87-83 OT   
   #3      Whitewater      WIAC      19-2, 19-2      WON at Platteville 77-58, LOST at Superior 60-58   
   #4      Whitworth      NWC      17-2, 18-3      WON at Linfield 95-67, WON at Pacific 76-54   
   #5      CMS      SCIAC      13-1, 19-1      WON vs Caltech 93-62, WON at Redlands 75-65   
   #6      St. Thomas      MIAC      14-6, 15-6      WON vs Concordia-Moorhead 62-54   
   #7      Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      14-5, 15-5      WON at St. Mary's (Minn) 64-44, WON vs Macalester 68-52   
   #8      Dubuque      IIAC      15-3, 16-6      LOST vs Wartburg 73-66, LOST at Buena Vista 70-56   
   #9      Whitman      NWC      13-6, 15-6      WON at Pacific 78-71, WON at Linfield 87-60   
                              
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 12, 2012, 02:20:19 PM
These are the records as of the rankings, right?  Without the results of this week added?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 12, 2012, 08:02:04 PM
Yes, I will update records with the new rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2012, 02:02:49 PM
With Regional Ranking #2 coming out tomorrow, I thought I'd post last week's rankings with their record for the week to give us an idea of any possible movement.


   ATL                           
   WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL      REC   
   #1      Staten Island      CUNYAC      15-2, 16-4       3-0   
   #2      William Paterson      NJAC      19-3, 19-3       2-0   
   #3      St. Joseph's (LI)      SKY      17-1, 17-2       2-1   
   #4      Richard Stockton      NJAC      14-6, 15-7       2-0   
   #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      14-4, 16-5       1-1   

Not sure if St. Joseph's loss to Mount St. Mary's will be enough for Richard Stockton to leapfrog them.  I don't know who the #6 team would be to jump NJCU.




   EAST                           
   WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      Hartwick      E8      19-2, 20-2       2-0   
   #2      Oswego State      SUNYAC      17-2, 17-3       2-0   
   #3      NYU      UAA      17-2, 17-2       1-2   
   #4      Hobart      LL      15-4, 16-4       3-0   
   #5      Medaille      AMCC      19-2, 20-2       1-0   
   #6      Nazareth      E8      15-5, 15-7       1-1   

NYU is sure to drop, possibly completely out?  Probably not.


   GR. LK.                           
   WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      Hope      MIAA       12-0, 20-1       2-0   
   #2      Wittenberg      NCAC      15-3, 17-4       1-1   
   #3      Wooster      NCAC      16-3, 18-3       1-1   
   #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      15-5, 16-5       1-1   
   #5      Wabash      NCAC      13-6, 15-6       2-0   
   #6      Capital      OAC      13-6, 14-7       1-1   

I wouldn't think Wabash would jump over Witt, Woos and ONU, probably the latter, at the least.




   MID.ATL                           
   WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      Cabrini      CSAC      21-0, 21-1       2-0   
   #2      Keystone      CSAC      17-3, 17-3       2-1   
   #3      Lycoming      MACC      15-4, 17-5       0-2   
   #4      Mary Washington      CAC      14-4, 15-6       1-1   
   #5      Franklin & Marshall      CC      19-2, 19-2       2-0   
   #6      St. Mary's (Md)      CAC      14-5, 16-6       2-0   
   #7      Messiah      MACC      13-6, 14-6       2-0   
   #8      Misericordia      MACF      15-6, 15-6       2-0   
   #9      Alvernia      MACC      13-6, 15-6       1-1   

Lycoming is obviously the big loser.



   MW                           
   WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      Washington U.      UAA      15-4, 15-5       2-0   
   #2      Transylvania      HCAC      18-1, 19-2       2-0   
   #3      Lake Forest      MWC      17-2, 18-2       1-0   
   #4      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      15-4, 17-4       1-1   
   #5      North Central (IL)      CCIW      14-4, 15-6       1-1   
   #6      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      14-5, 16-5       1-1   
   #7      Edgewood      NATH      14-5, 16-5       2-0   
   #8      Concordia (WI)      NATH      15-4, 16-4       2-0   

All three CCIW teams beat up on each other, basically, so not sure if the NathCon teams will move up or not.  I wouldn't imagine so.



   NE                           
   WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      Amherst      NESCAC      18-2, 20-2       2-0   
   #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      18-1, 20-1       1-1   
   #3      Rhode Island College      LEC      16-4, 16-4       2-1   
   #4      W. Connecticut      LEC      17-4, 17-4       2-0   
   #5      WPI      NEWMAC      16-4, 16-4       1-1   
   #6      E. Connecticut      LEC      17-4, 17-4       1-1   
   #7      MIT      NEWMAC      20-1, 20-1       2-0   
   #8      Keene State      LEC      14-3, 17-4       1-1   
   #9      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      17-4, 17-5       2-0   
   #10      Tufts      NESCAC      16-6, 16-6       0-1   
   #11      Becker      NECC      16-4, 16-4       3-0   
   #12      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      20-1, 20-1       2-0   

Lots of losers, but probably not a lot of movement



   SOUTH                           
   WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      Mary Hardin-Baylor      ASC      19-1, 20-1       2-0   
   #2      Virginia Wesleyan      ODAC      17-2, 18-2       1-1   
   #3      Birmingham-Southern      SCAC      17-1, 20-1       2-0   
   #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      14-3, 17-4       2-0   
   #5      Christopher Newport      USAC      15-4, 18-4       1-0   
   #6      Emory      UAA      16-4, 16-4       2-0   
   #7      Guilford      ODAC      14-5, 15-6       1-1   
   #8      Hardin-Simmons      ASC      14-5, 16-5       1-1   

I don't think Virginia Wesleyan will drop too much.



   WEST                           
   WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      River Falls      WIAC      16-3, 16-5       2-0   
   #2      Stevens Point      WIAC      16-4, 18-4       1-0   
   #3      Whitewater      WIAC      19-2, 19-2       1-1   
   #4      Whitworth      NWC      17-2, 18-3       2-0   
   #5      CMS      SCIAC      13-1, 19-1       2-0   
   #6      St. Thomas      MIAC      14-6, 15-6       1-0   
   #7      Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      14-5, 15-5       2-0   
   #8      Dubuque      IIAC      15-3, 16-6       0-2   
   #9      Whitman      NWC      13-6, 15-6       2-0   

Could CMS and Whitworth jump Whitewater?  Possibly Whitworth, but probably not CMS.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WAlum on February 14, 2012, 02:31:24 PM
The NCAC teams also beat up each other.  The NCAC had four of the top five teams in the Great Lakes rankings last week and all four played another regionally ranked team.  Wooster and Wittenberg played both of their games against regionally ranked teams.  #3 Wooster beat #4 Ohio Wesleyan, #5 Wabash beat #2 Wittenberg, and #2 Wittenberg beat #3 Wooster.  Tomorrow night, Wabash and OWU play one another.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 14, 2012, 04:07:07 PM
Another reason for movement this week is that the first week did not incorporate 'results against regionally-ranked opponents' (since there were as yet no ranked teams.  The inclusion of that criterion may shake things up at least as much as last week's record.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 14, 2012, 05:08:25 PM
Just for a taste... here's the West's RR's showing games against regionally ranked opponents:

River Falls 3-1  (one game against Whitewater forthcoming)
Stevens Point 5-2 (Augustana could potentially become regionally ranked, giving SP another loss, but better to play a RR team and lose than not to play at all)
Whitewater 4-2 (one game against River Falls forthcoming
Whitworth 1-2 (they play Whitman tonight, so this will be another RR game... lost last time at home)
CMS 0-0
St. Thomas 1-3
Gustavus Adolphus 3-1
Dubuque 0-0
Whitman 1-2 (they play Whitworth tonight at home, beat 'em on the road last time)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 14, 2012, 07:54:02 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 14, 2012, 05:08:25 PM
Just for a taste... here's the West's RR's showing games against regionally ranked opponents:

River Falls 3-1  (one game against Whitewater forthcoming)
Stevens Point 5-2 (Augustana could potentially become regionally ranked, giving SP another loss, but better to play a RR team and lose than not to play at all)Whitewater 4-2 (one game against River Falls forthcoming
Whitworth 1-2 (they play Whitman tonight, so this will be another RR game... lost last time at home)
CMS 0-0
St. Thomas 1-3
Gustavus Adolphus 3-1
Dubuque 0-0
Whitman 1-2 (they play Whitworth tonight at home, beat 'em on the road last time)

why?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 14, 2012, 10:34:04 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 14, 2012, 07:54:02 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 14, 2012, 05:08:25 PM
Just for a taste... here's the West's RR's showing games against regionally ranked opponents:

River Falls 3-1  (one game against Whitewater forthcoming)
Stevens Point 5-2 (Augustana could potentially become regionally ranked, giving SP another loss, but better to play a RR team and lose than not to play at all)Whitewater 4-2 (one game against River Falls forthcoming
Whitworth 1-2 (they play Whitman tonight, so this will be another RR game... lost last time at home)
CMS 0-0
St. Thomas 1-3
Gustavus Adolphus 3-1
Dubuque 0-0
Whitman 1-2 (they play Whitworth tonight at home, beat 'em on the road last time)

why?

Shows you played a competitive schedule
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2012, 07:28:58 AM
Ronk: The criteria say "results" against regionally ranked opponents, not winning percentage. Better to have results than to not have results.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2012, 08:36:18 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2012, 07:28:58 AM
Ronk: The criteria say "results" against regionally ranked opponents, not winning percentage. Better to have results than to not have results.

I personally have never liked this criterion. Because if you have a WP and an SOS, what does results versus regionally ranked add? If two teams looked like this:

Team 1
WP: .750
SOS: .525
vRRO: 2-0

Team 2
WP: .750
SOS: .525
vRRO: 0-0

You can't say that Team 1 has played a more difficult schedule, because they have identical SOS numbers. You could say they have two "good wins", but to end up with the same SOS they've probably also suffered a couple of "bad losses".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2012, 09:08:09 AM
Apparently have "good wins" is better than having "bad losses." 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2012, 09:35:31 AM
Honestly, not sure you are going to have that good a WL record and an SOS without having played some regionally ranked opponents... if your SOS is that good... then you had to have played good teams... and those teams are probably ranked - even if they are ranked in a different region!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2012, 10:01:03 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2012, 09:35:31 AM
Honestly, not sure you are going to have that good a WL record and an SOS without having played some regionally ranked opponents... if your SOS is that good... then you had to have played good teams... and those teams are probably ranked - even if they are ranked in a different region!

If it's an out-of-region game, it won't show up in your SOS.

Dubuque: .750 WP, .519 SOS, zero games versus ranked teams.

Hope and Lake Forest have SOS's above .520 and have each only played one ranked opponent.

(and Dave, you still need to respond to my email :))
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 15, 2012, 10:24:54 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2012, 08:36:18 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2012, 07:28:58 AM
Ronk: The criteria say "results" against regionally ranked opponents, not winning percentage. Better to have results than to not have results.

I personally have never liked this criterion. Because if you have a WP and an SOS, what does results versus regionally ranked add? If two teams looked like this:

Team 1
WP: .750
SOS: .525
vRRO: 2-0

Team 2
WP: .750
SOS: .525
vRRO: 0-0

You can't say that Team 1 has played a more difficult schedule, because they have identical SOS numbers. You could say they have two "good wins", but to end up with the same SOS they've probably also suffered a couple of "bad losses".

Team 3
vRRO: 1-1
Team 4
vRRO: 0-1

  With teams 3 and 4 also having the same WP and SOS as teams 1 and 2, I can see ranking team 3 ahead of team 2, for having a stronger schedule as a subdivision(bonus points for vRRO) within SOS, but not team 4 ahead of team2, also. That's rewarding non-performance.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 15, 2012, 11:16:40 AM
I posted the following last night in the Northeast regional board.  Thought it made sense for the discussion here too.  If you imagine the 0.800 WP teams in the following example as "regionally ranked", then I do think the regionally ranked criteria can help differentiate between two schedules with the same SOS.  I would argue that schedule A is harder than schedule B for a team that has a winning percentage in the 0.75-0.8 range.  Meaning that they should be expect to beat either a 0.5 WP team or a 0.3 WP team but maybe split the 0.8 games:


I would agree that the first regional rankings weren't perfect.  Hopefully they will continue to evolve and the committee members will take a closer look at results vs. common teams and those things to get a better feel for the teams...not that they shouldn't already have that feeling 20 some games into the season.  My problem with OWP stems from relying on this "average" number.  By taking the average, you really lose valuable information about the difficulty of the games played.  Simple example below of 2 different schedules, both with an OWP of 0.500

Sched A:  games vs. teams with win % of: 0.8, 0.8, 0.3, 0.3, 0.3
Sched B:  games vs. teams with win % of: 0.5, 0.5, 0.5 ,0.5, 0.5

So, if you have 2 teams that went 4-1 versus these different schedule, their "numbers" would look the same but they actually played a schedule of different difficulty (in my opinion).  Hopefully that makes some sense and is just one drawback to the OWP/OOWP idea.

Also, to go off something you have alluded to earlier, we seem to make a big deal between SOS values of like 0.52 and 0.48 or something like that.  How different are these values really?  It would be nice to look at the distribution of these numbers, probably peaked around 0.5 but wonder how tightly they are packed around that number (i.e. standard deviation).  Knightslappy?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2012, 11:26:46 AM
Knightslappy... thought I did respond!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2012, 11:31:33 AM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 15, 2012, 11:16:40 AM
Also, to go off something you have alluded to earlier, we seem to make a big deal between SOS values of like 0.52 and 0.48 or something like that.  How different are these values really?  It would be nice to look at the distribution of these numbers, probably peaked around 0.5 but wonder how tightly they are packed around that number (i.e. standard deviation).  Knightslappy?

Based on today's numbers that I have, one standard deviation is .041.

One standard deviation in winning percentage is .225
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 15, 2012, 02:35:18 PM
We don't have the regional rankings yet (as far as I know...)

But the data files have been updated.

For example, here's the West:

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=40&division=3


Good through 2/13
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2012, 02:37:14 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 15, 2012, 02:35:18 PM
We don't have the regional rankings yet (as far as I know...)

But the data files have been updated.

For example, here's the West:

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=40&division=3


Good through 2/13

Now we do.

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 15, 2012, 02:39:10 PM
And they make a lot more sense, at least for the NE.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2012, 02:52:27 PM
Told you to be patient, Hugenerd ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 15, 2012, 03:03:23 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2012, 02:52:27 PM
Told you to be patient, Hugenerd ;)

I still think the rankings should have been closer to this last week, as nothing has really changed in the past week, but at least you can somewhat justify the current rankings.  I would still put MIT ahead of West Conn, as West Conn has 2 losses to ~0.500 teams (games they should have won), but the way the criteria are setup, you dont get penalized that much for bad losses. Albertus also is in a tough spot, because of the quality of their conference opponents, but that is a difficult case to deal with under pretty much any criteria.

Hopefully MIT will come out tonight and show they deserve their ranking, as they get their biggest test of the year so far, in a rivalry game at WPI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2012, 03:13:24 PM
Looks like I've been dealing with Rochester wrong in the Bracketology posts. They look like the biggest outlier according to the raw numbers, but upon closer inspection, they're 0-2 to Nazareth (who's 0-1 to Medaille), so the Jackets are probably going to be on the wrong side of the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 15, 2012, 05:01:03 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2012, 08:36:18 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2012, 07:28:58 AM
Ronk: The criteria say "results" against regionally ranked opponents, not winning percentage. Better to have results than to not have results.

I personally have never liked this criterion. Because if you have a WP and an SOS, what does results versus regionally ranked add? If two teams looked like this:

Team 1
WP: .750
SOS: .525
vRRO: 2-0

Team 2
WP: .750
SOS: .525
vRRO: 0-0

You can't say that Team 1 has played a more difficult schedule, because they have identical SOS numbers. You could say they have two "good wins", but to end up with the same SOS they've probably also suffered a couple of "bad losses".

I think you mean WP at the end of this post. SOS is not affected by Ws and Ls.
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2012, 09:08:09 AM
Apparently have "good wins" is better than having "bad losses." 

I would go as far as saying, under the current criteria, 'good losses' are better than average wins, in terms of how they affect OWP.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2012, 05:03:13 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 15, 2012, 03:03:23 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2012, 02:52:27 PM
Told you to be patient, Hugenerd ;)

I still think the rankings should have been closer to this last week, as nothing has really changed in the past week, but at least you can somewhat justify the current rankings.  I would still put MIT ahead of West Conn, as West Conn has 2 losses to ~0.500 teams (games they should have won), but the way the criteria are setup, you dont get penalized that much for bad losses. Albertus also is in a tough spot, because of the quality of their conference opponents, but that is a difficult case to deal with under pretty much any criteria.

Hopefully MIT will come out tonight and show they deserve their ranking, as they get their biggest test of the year so far, in a rivalry game at WPI.

Obivously results against regionally ranked opponents goes a long way since West Conn has played 6 (going 4-2) just within their conference, along with going 1-1 with other regionally ranked opponents in Albertus Magnus and Richard Stockton.  I think MIT has just two (0-1 vs. WPI and 1-0 vs. Tufts).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 15, 2012, 08:52:43 PM
MIT is able to take care of WPI on the road.  They trailed 35-31 at the half, but started the 2nd on a 21-1 run and take control of the game.  More coverage on the NEWMAC board.

Because of the away weighting factor, this game will increase MITs OWP by nearly a full 0.02, and should but their OWP/OOWP in the ~0.52 ballpark.  Unfortunately, because MIT won the conference and are hosting the NEWMAC tourney, they will be penalized with potentially two home games that will be weighted 0.75, and could bring their OWP value down slightly prior to the NCAA selections.  On the other hand, WPI has the opportunity to improve upon their OWP value with neutral/away games, which will hopefully help their Pool C chances.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SilversSports on February 16, 2012, 12:55:05 AM
Could be a shakeup coming next week in the West as SP and RF lost tonight and either WW or RF will lose for sure on Saturday. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2012, 06:41:14 AM
True, but Whitewater did lose last week to Superior and no one jumped them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 16, 2012, 06:11:13 PM
Disclaimer:  If all this SOS number crunching stuff bugs you, might as well skip this post  :D

Lately there has been a bunch of talk about the SOS and if it's fair, etc., etc.  I wanted to take a look at the modifier that is being used to weight home and away games.  The current modifier is 1.25 for away games and 0.75 for home games.  I'll steal an example from Hugenerd that shows how these two games are practically viewed as equals when the weighting is used:

23-2 played at home:  0.92 OWP x 0.75 = 0.69 OWP
14-11 played on the road: 0.56 OWP x 1.25 = 0.70 OWP

So, the NCAA is basically saying that playing these two teams in different locations causes the difficulty of the games to be nearly equal...I can then interpret that to mean that they would expect the same outcome (win/loss) in either situation (or atleast the same chance to win or lose).  With my database of games, I was able to explore this question.

Since the OWP calculation is done with the teams' current winning percentages, that is waht I used to evaluate this (instead of using the win % at the time of the actual game).  I took all 4529 games between Division III teams that are in my database as of today.  I looked strictly at what the home and away teams' winning percentages were and which team won the game.  I first looked at a 0.500 WP team (actually all teams slightly above and below this).  I analyzed each of their games and looked at how often they won vs. other teams over a range of winning percentages.  I also broke these results up into home and away games.  So out of this I get how often a 0.500 team beats any other team rated by the opposing team's winning percentage.  I could also find the break even point where a 0.500 team should be expected to win half their games.  Here is what I found:

For a 0.500 WP team, they can be expected to win half of their games against teams with the following winning percentages:

When at home:  0.617
When on the road:  0.417

This makes complete sense that they should beat better teams at home and struggle more on the road.  If I have analyzed this correctly, then factors around 1.19 and 0.81  would be appropriate to account for this difference.

I also wondered if this same value would hold for good and bad teams.  So, I tried this for teams near 0.75 WP and teams near 0.25 WP.  Here is what I have found:

A 0.750 WP team can be expected to win half of their games against:
When at home: 0.857
When on the road: 0.650

This spread would come out with factors of 1.14 and 0.86

A 0.250 WP team can be expected to win half of their games against:
When at home: 0.317
When on the road: 0.172

This spread would come out with factors of 1.28 and 0.72 

In the end, I think the weighting factors of 1.25/0.75 are a bit too extreme but not terrible.  I think the results from the 0.250 WP set are a bit skewed so I discount those more than I do the other two sets of data.



Another way I looked at it was by taking these same three teams (0.25,0.50, and 0.75) and seeing how likely they would be to beat a 23-2 team at home or a 14-11 team on the road.  If we use the NCAA's weighting factors then we should see them have an equal likelihood of winning the games...but we don't.






  Team 
  Chance of beating 23-2 @ home 
  Chance of beating 14-11 on road 
0.25 WP
< 1%
9%
0.50 WP
20%
35%
0.75 WP
45%
57%
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fritzdis on February 16, 2012, 08:29:06 PM
I think the multipliers are also applied to OOWP, which makes for the following "equivalent" games:

Home vs 1.000 WP, .500 OWP - 0.75 * (1 * 2/3 + 0.5 * 1/3) = 0.625
Road vs .500 WP, .500 OWP - 1.25 * (0.5 * 2/3 + 0.5 * 1/3) = 0.625

Home vs 1.000 WP, .700 OWP - 0.75 * (1 * 2/3 + 0.7 * 1/3) = 0.675
Road vs .660 WP, .300 OWP - 1.25 * (0.66 * 2/3 + 0.3 * 1/3) = 0.675
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 16, 2012, 08:38:02 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 16, 2012, 06:11:13 PM
In the end, I think the weighting factors of 1.25/0.75 are a bit too extreme but not terrible.  I think the results from the 0.250 WP set are a bit skewed so I discount those more than I do the other two sets of data.

The 1.25/.75 is so, so much better than the 1.4/0.6 they used a year ago (but still a bit high). Sounds like my feelings then line up pretty well with what you're saying now. I did some rough calculations and figured 1.2/0.8 would be decent.

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2011, 11:33:53 PM
Not sure how 1.4 / 0.6 is justified... it takes about 90 seconds with a calculator (or 3 minutes using fingers and toes) to pick much more reasonable numbers in the 1.2 / 0.8 range.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 16, 2012, 08:39:02 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 16, 2012, 06:11:13 PM
Disclaimer:  If all this SOS number crunching stuff bugs you, might as well skip this post  :D

Lately there has been a bunch of talk about the SOS and if it's fair, etc., etc.  I wanted to take a look at the modifier that is being used to weight home and away games.  The current modifier is 1.25 for away games and 0.75 for home games.  I'll steal an example from Hugenerd that shows how these two games are practically viewed as equals when the weighting is used:

23-2 played at home:  0.92 OWP x 0.75 = 0.69 OWP
14-11 played on the road: 0.56 OWP x 1.25 = 0.70 OWP

So, the NCAA is basically saying that playing these two teams in different locations causes the difficulty of the games to be nearly equal...I can then interpret that to mean that they would expect the same outcome (win/loss) in either situation (or atleast the same chance to win or lose).  With my database of games, I was able to explore this question.

Since the OWP calculation is done with the teams' current winning percentages, that is waht I used to evaluate this (instead of using the win % at the time of the actual game).  I took all 4529 games between Division III teams that are in my database as of today.  I looked strictly at what the home and away teams' winning percentages were and which team won the game.  I first looked at a 0.500 WP team (actually all teams slightly above and below this).  I analyzed each of their games and looked at how often they won vs. other teams over a range of winning percentages.  I also broke these results up into home and away games.  So out of this I get how often a 0.500 team beats any other team rated by the opposing team's winning percentage.  I could also find the break even point where a 0.500 team should be expected to win half their games.  Here is what I found:

For a 0.500 WP team, they can be expected to win half of their games against teams with the following winning percentages:

When at home:  0.617
When on the road:  0.417

This makes complete sense that they should beat better teams at home and struggle more on the road.  If I have analyzed this correctly, then factors around 1.19 and 0.81  would be appropriate to account for this difference.

I also wondered if this same value would hold for good and bad teams.  So, I tried this for teams near 0.75 WP and teams near 0.25 WP.  Here is what I have found:

A 0.750 WP team can be expected to win half of their games against:
When at home: 0.857
When on the road: 0.650

This spread would come out with factors of 1.14 and 0.86

A 0.250 WP team can be expected to win half of their games against:
When at home: 0.317
When on the road: 0.172

This spread would come out with factors of 1.28 and 0.72 

In the end, I think the weighting factors of 1.25/0.75 are a bit too extreme but not terrible.  I think the results from the 0.250 WP set are a bit skewed so I discount those more than I do the other two sets of data.



Another way I looked at it was by taking these same three teams (0.25,0.50, and 0.75) and seeing how likely they would be to beat a 23-2 team at home or a 14-11 team on the road.  If we use the NCAA's weighting factors then we should see them have an equal likelihood of winning the games...but we don't.






  Team 
  Chance of beating 23-2 @ home 
  Chance of beating 14-11 on road 
0.25 WP
< 1%
9%
0.50 WP
20%
35%
0.75 WP
45%
57%

This is fantastic.  My only question is, why cant someone at the NCAA do this? And, instead of just using one season, why cant they do it over a 5-10 year period to get a larger data set.  This would give some justification to the modifier, rather than just guessing one and hoping it sticks (I think we all remember that last year the modifiers were 1.40 and 0.60, which were absolutely outrageous).

What I take from this data is that the current modifier is really only valid for bad teams, when the likelihood of winning or losing is low.  However, the modifier should not really be catered to this subset of teams, as they are not the ones that need to be conisdered for the postseason, or even the 0.500 group.  Therefore, based on just this analysis (I would feel more comfortable if the NCAA would do one spanning more seasons), I think a home/away factor of 1.15/0.85 would probably be most appropriate, considering that most teams that are in the postseason discussion will have records of ~0.75 or better.  Or, better yet, they could find the average record of teams that make the postseason (which may or may not be higher than 0.75) and calculate the modifier based on teams with a record similar to that.

Well done superfan, hopefully someone at the NCAA is reading this or that the idea of substantiating the multiplier by using an actual empirical analysis is considered.  It would be nicer to have some defense of the numbers that are used, rather than having to listen to certain posters coming on here and repeatedly 'justify' the multiplier by saying 'thats how it is defined in the handbook' or those two numbers are clearly significantly different.  I would even take it a step further and have the NCAA do more than compare just OWP/OOWPs arbitrarily.  Why not expand the SOS formula further?  We have computers now, right? Is truncating at the 2nd term (OOWP) a good approximation?  I am pretty sure if you get someone who knows how to code, you could have them numerically compute a more true SOS by doing a numerical sum that expands out many more terms.  Also, if so much weight is going to be given to SOS, why not look seperately at SOS in wins compared to just overall SOS?  Does it make sense to give teams tons of credit in a primary criteria for playing teams they cant beat?  If you have over a 0.540 SOS overall, but only a 0.440 SOS in wins, is that really telling us you can beat good teams?  With the way the mulipliers are setup now, there are many examples that can be given where this is in fact the case.

Obviously its too late for this year, but hopefully the NCAA will be more rigorous in their methodology in the years ahead.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 16, 2012, 08:43:37 PM
Quote from: fritzdis on February 16, 2012, 08:29:06 PM
I think the multipliers are also applied to OOWP, which makes for the following "equivalent" games:

Home vs 1.000 WP, .500 OWP - 0.75 * (1 * 2/3 + 0.5 * 1/3) = 0.625
Road vs .500 WP, .500 OWP - 1.25 * (0.5 * 2/3 + 0.5 * 1/3) = 0.625

Home vs 1.000 WP, .700 OWP - 0.75 * (1 * 2/3 + 0.7 * 1/3) = 0.675
Road vs .660 WP, .300 OWP - 1.25 * (0.66 * 2/3 + 0.3 * 1/3) = 0.675

Thanks, I forgot to clarify that I had to assume an OWP of 0.5 for these calcs.  In the offseason I'm going to try to look at it a bit deeper and include all of last years games also so I should have over 10,000 data points to work with.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2012, 10:24:23 PM
HERE IS THE REGIONAL RANKINGS FOR WEEK 2 WITH THIS WEEK'S SCHEDULES AND RESULTS SO FAR

TEAMS IN BOLD ARE CONFERENCE LEADERS



   ATL                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #2      William Paterson**      NJAC      21-3, 21-3      WON vs CCNY 75-49   
   #2      #1      Staten Island      CUNYAC      18-2, 19-4      WON at St. Joseph's (Bklyn) 76-54   
   #3      #3      St. Joseph's (LI)      SKY      19-2, 19-3      WON at SUNY-Old Westbury 102-81, at SUNY-Purchase 2/18   
   #4      #4      Richard Stockton**      NJAC      16-6, 17-7      WON at Kean 80-77   
   #5      #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      15-5, 17-6      LOST vs Rutgers-Newark 55-51   
                                    
   EAST                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      Hartwick      E8      21-2, 22-2      vs Stevens 2/18   
   #2      #2      Oswego State      SUNYAC      19-2, 19-3      WON vs Geneseo St. 67-56, vs Buffalo St. 2/17, vs Fredonia St. 2/18   
   #3      #4      Hobart      LL      18-4, 19-4      at Bard 2/17, at Vassar 2/18   
   #4      #3      NYU      UAA      18-4, 18-4      vs Chicago 2/17, vs Washington U. 2/19   
   #5      #5      Medaille      AMCC      20-2, 21-2      WON vs D'Youville, vs La Roche 2/18   
   #6      #6      Nazareth      E8       16-6, 16-8      at St. John Fisher 2/18   
                                    
   GR. LK.                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      Hope      MIAA      14-0, 22-1      WON at Olivet 75-60, vs Trine 2/18   
   #2      #2      Wittenberg      NCAC      16-4, 18-5      WON at DePauw 56-55, vs Hiram 2/18   
   #3      #3      Wooster      NCAC      17-4, 19-4      WON vs Allegheny 91-61, vs DePauw 2/18   
   #4      #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      16-6, 17-6      WON at Wabash 82-81, Denison 2/18   
   #5      #5      Wabash      NCAC      15-6, 17-6      LOST vs Ohio Wesleyan 82-81, at Oberlin 2/18   
   #6      N/A      Bethany (W.Va.)      PrAC      19-2, 20-3      WON vs Westminster (Pa.) 91-65, at St. Vincent 2/18   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
         #6      Capital      OAC      14-7, 15-8         
                                    
   MID.ATL                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      Cabrini      CSAC      23-0, 23-1      WON at Keystone 96-85   
   #2      #2      Keystone      CSAC      20-4, 20-4      LOST vs Cabrini 96-85   
   #3      #5      Franklin & Marshall      CC      21-2, 21-2      WON at Johns Hopkins 71-63, at Dickinson 2/18   
   #4      #4      Mary Washington*      CAC      15-5, 16-7      WON vs Stevenson 94-59, at Wesley 2/18   
   #5      #6      St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      16-5, 18-6      vs Frostburg State 2/18   
   #6      #7      Messiah      MACC      15-6, 16-6      WON at Alvernia 57-54, vs Elizabethtown 2/18   
   #7      #8      Misericordia      MACF      17-6, 17-6      WON vs King's 60-53, at Manhattanville 2/18   
   #8      N/A      Widener      MACC      13-6, 17-6      WON vs Lebanon Valley 91-70, at Albright 2/18   
   #9      #3      Lycoming      MACC      15-6, 17-7      WON at Elizabethtown 69-68, vs Alvernia 2/18   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
         #9      Alvernia      MACC      14-7, 16-7         
                                    
   MW                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      Washington U.      UAA      17-4, 17-5      at Brandeis 2/17, at NYU 2/19   
   #2      #3      Lake Forest      MWC      18-2, 19-2      WON vs Knox 64-50, at Grinnell 2/18   
   #3      #2      Transylvania      HCAC      20-1, 21-2      WON at Hanover 74-65, at Bluffton 2/18   
   #4      #4      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      16-5, 18-5      vs North Park 2/18   
   #5      #5      North Central (IL)      CCIW      15-5, 16-7      WON at North Park 75-49, vs Millikin 2/18    
   #6      #6      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      15-6, 17-6      WON at Millikin 84-45, vs Elmhurst 2/18   
   #7      N/A      Hanover      HCAC      16-5, 16-6      LOST vs Transylvania 74-65, at Rose-Hulman 2/18   
   #8      #7      Edgewood      NATH      16-5, 18-5      LOST at Concordia (WI) 69-66, vs Concordia (IL) 2/18   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
         #8      Concordia (WI)      NATH      17-4, 18-4         
                                    
   NE                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      Amherst      NESCAC      20-2, 22-2      vs Hamilton 2/18   
   #2      #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      20-2, 22-2      vs Williams 2/18   
   #3      #4      W. Connecticut      LEC      19-4, 19-4      LOST at Rhode Island College 79-78, vs Plymouth State 2/18   
   #4      #7      MIT      NEWMAC      22-1, 22-1      WON at WPI 71-66   
   #5      #8      Keene State*      LEC      15-4, 18-5      LOST vs Eastern Connecticut 65-62, at Rhode Island College 2/18   
   #6      #3      Rhode Island College      LEC      18-5, 18-5      WON Western Connecticut 79-78, vs Keene State 2/18   
   #7      #5      WPI      NEWMAC      17-5, 17-5      LOST vs MIT 71-66, vs Clark 2/18   
   #8      #9      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      19-4, 19-5      vs Bowdoin 2/18   
   #9      #6      E. Connecticut*      LEC      18-5, 18-5      WON at Keene State 65-62, at Mass-Boston 2/18   
   #10      #12      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      22-1, 22-1      WON at Johnson and Wales 87-73, vs St. Joseph's (Maine) 2/18   
   #11      #11      Becker      NECC      19-4, 19-4      WON at Wheelock 74 -69, at Mitchell 2/18   
   #12      #10      Tufts      NESCAC      16-7, 16-7      vs Bates 2/18   
                                    
   SOUTH                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      Mary Hardin-Baylor      ASC      21-1, 22-1      vs Schreiner 2/16, at Texas Lutheran 2/18   
   #2      #2      Virginia Wesleyan      ODAC      18-3, 19-3      WON at Lynchburg 73-62, vs Emory and Henry 2/18, vs Washington and Lee 2/19   
   #3      #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      16-3, 19-4      at hampden-Sydney 2/18   
   #4      #3      Birmingham-Southern      SCAC      19-1, 22-1      WON at Berry 69-58, vs Oglethorpe 2/18   
   #5      #6      Emory      UAA      18-4, 18-4      at Carnegie Mellon 2/17, at Case Western Reserve 2/19   
   #6      #5      Christopher Newport      USAC      16-4, 19-4      WON at Shenandoah 69-60, vs Averett 2/18   
   #7      #7      Guilford      ODAC      15-6, 16-7      at Eastern Mennonite 2/18   
   #8      #8      Hardin-Simmons      ASC      15-6, 17-6      vs Sul Ross State 2/16, vs Howard Payne 2/18   
                                    
   WEST                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      River Falls*      WIAC      18-3, 18-5      LOST at La Crosse 74-66, vs Whitewater 2/18   
   #2      #2      Stevens Point*      WIAC      17-4, 19-4      LOST vs Stout 67-64 OT, at Eau Claire 2/18   
   #3      #3      Whitewater*      WIAC      20-3, 20-3      WON vs Oshkosh 76-64, at River Falls 2/18   
   #4      #4      Whitworth      NWC      19-2, 20-3      WON at Whitman 81-74, vs Willamette 2/18   
   #5      #5      CMS      SCIAC      15-1, 21-1      WON at Cal Lutheran 57-46, at Occidental 2/18   
   #6      #7      Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      17-5, 18-5      WON at Concordia-Moorhead, vs Bethel 2/18   
   #7      #6      St. Thomas      MIAC      15-6, 16-6      WON at Bethel 69-55, vs St. Mary's (MN) 2/18   
   #8      #9      Whitman      NWC      15-6, 17-6      LOST vs Whitworth 81-74, vs Willamette 2/17   
   #9      N/A      Puget Sound      NWC      13-5, 18-5      at Lewis and Clarke 2/17, at Linfield 2/18   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
         #8      Dubuque      IIAC      15-5, 16-8         
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2012, 10:50:01 PM
IN THIS TABLE, I TOOK OUT THE CONFERENCE LEADERS, USING THEM AS POOL A (AUTOMATIC QUALIFIERS).  IF TEAMS WERE TIED ATOP THEIR RESPECTIVE CONFERENCE, I TOOK OUT THE HIGHER RANKED TEAM. 

I'm going to take a quick look at each region and throw out some thoughts.  I'm not an expert at the Pool C decision-making process, I've never played an expert on T.V. and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in quite sometime.  Admittedly, I haven't had time to look at SOS and stuff like that.  I'm just basing my initial thoughts on the regional rankings.

Comments are encouraged!



   ATL                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #4      #4      Richard Stockton**      NJAC      16-6, 17-7      WON at Kean 80-77   
   #5      #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      15-5, 17-6      LOST vs Rutgers-Newark 55-51   
                                    

Richard Stockton will probably have to get into the NJAC Final and lose to William Paterson to secure a Pool C spot.  I don't NJCU has a chance considering they already lost this week.


   EAST                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #4      #3      NYU      UAA      18-4, 18-4      vs Chicago 2/17, vs Washington U. 2/19   
   #6      #6      Nazareth      E8       16-6, 16-8      at St. John Fisher 2/18   
                                    

I think NYU is in.  Sorry Nazareth.   


   GR. LK.                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #3      #3      Wooster      NCAC      17-4, 19-4      WON vs Allegheny 91-61, vs DePauw 2/18   
   #4      #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      16-6, 17-6      WON at Wabash 82-81, Denison 2/18   
   #5      #5      Wabash      NCAC      15-6, 17-6      LOST vs Ohio Wesleyan 82-81, at Oberlin 2/18   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
         #6      Capital      OAC      14-7, 15-8         
                                    

Wooster is in, but the rest of the NCAC is on the fence, at best.



   MID.ATL                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #2      #2      Keystone      CSAC      20-4, 20-4      LOST vs Cabrini 96-85   
   #5      #6      St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      16-5, 18-6      vs Frostburg State 2/18   
   #8      N/A      Widener      MACC      13-6, 17-6      WON vs Lebanon Valley 91-70, at Albright 2/18   
   #9      #3      Lycoming      MACC      15-6, 17-7      WON at Elizabethtown 69-68, vs Alvernia 2/18   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
         #9      Alvernia      MACC      14-7, 16-7         
                                    

Keystone should be in, and possibly St. Mary's



   MW                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #4      #4      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      16-5, 18-5      vs North Park 2/18   
   #6      #6      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      15-6, 17-6      WON at Millikin 84-45, vs Elmhurst 2/18   
   #7      N/A      Hanover      HCAC      16-5, 16-6      LOST vs Transylvania 74-65, at Rose-Hulman 2/18   
   #8      #7      Edgewood      NATH      16-5, 18-5      LOST at Concordia (WI) 69-66, vs Concordia (IL) 2/18   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
         #8      Concordia (WI)      NATH      17-4, 18-4         
                                    

I think the CCIW is only getting one Pool C team and the NathCon is just getting the Pool A.



   NE                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #2      #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      20-2, 22-2      vs Williams 2/18   
   #3      #4      W. Connecticut      LEC      19-4, 19-4      LOST at Rhode Island College 79-78, vs Plymouth State 2/18   
   #6      #3      Rhode Island College      LEC      18-5, 18-5      WON Western Connecticut 79-78, vs Keene State 2/18   
   #7      #5      WPI      NEWMAC      17-5, 17-5      LOST vs MIT 71-66, vs Clark 2/18   
   #8      #9      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      19-4, 19-5      vs Bowdoin 2/18   
   #9      #6      E. Connecticut*      LEC      18-5, 18-5      WON at Keene State 65-62, at Mass-Boston 2/18   
   #12      #10      Tufts      NESCAC      16-7, 16-7      vs Bates 2/18   
                                    

The LEC could get two Pool Cs out of Eastern Connecticut, Western Connecticut and Rhode Island College.  Middlebury is a lock, but WPI could be left out.



   SOUTH                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #3      #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      16-3, 19-4      at hampden-Sydney 2/18   
   #5      #6      Emory      UAA      18-4, 18-4      at Carnegie Mellon 2/17, at Case Western Reserve 2/19   
   #7      #7      Guilford      ODAC      15-6, 16-7      at Eastern Mennonite 2/18   
   #8      #8      Hardin-Simmons      ASC      15-6, 17-6      vs Sul Ross State 2/16, vs Howard Payne 2/18   
                                    

I think it'll be real tough for two ODAC teams to get in.



   WEST                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #2      #2      Stevens Point*      WIAC      17-4, 19-4      LOST vs Stout 67-64 OT, at Eau Claire 2/18   
   #3      #3      Whitewater*      WIAC      20-3, 20-3      WON vs Oshkosh 76-64, at River Falls 2/18   
   #7      #6      St. Thomas      MIAC      15-6, 16-6      WON at Bethel 69-55, vs St. Mary's (MN) 2/18   
   #8      #9      Whitman      NWC      15-6, 17-6      LOST vs Whitworth 81-74, vs Willamette 2/17   
   #9      N/A      Puget Sound      NWC      13-5, 18-5      at Lewis and Clarke 2/17, at Linfield 2/18   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
         #8      Dubuque      IIAC      15-5, 16-8         

The WIAC isn't making it easy on themselves, but should still get two Pool Cs.  St. Thomas is on the fence.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2012, 12:00:09 AM
I agree Greek Tragedy. Thx.   :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SilversSports on February 17, 2012, 12:27:25 AM
Also, UWRF gets hurt a little bit for next week's rankings with Puget Sound breaking into the ranks as the Falcons lost at PS in November. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 06:17:03 AM
Quote from: SilversSports on February 17, 2012, 12:27:25 AM
Also, UWRF gets hurt a little bit for next week's rankings with Puget Sound breaking into the ranks as the Falcons lost at PS in November.

You can look at that two ways.  It HELPS them because it's another RESULT against a regionally ranked opponent, and then it HURTS because they LOST to them.  I think we've figured out on this board that it's better to lose against regionally ranked opponents than not to play them at all.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 17, 2012, 08:05:15 AM
I think Illinois Wesleyan, WPI, and Randolph Macon all have a better chance of getting a Pool C bid than a potential 8 loss Richard Stockton team, irrespective of whether they make the finals of their conference tournament (they currently have 7 losses overall, and another one would give them 8).  I think they dont have any real chance at a Pool C, because even if they make the top 8 for consideration, it does not appear to me their record would stack up well to teams from other regions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 17, 2012, 08:56:16 AM
You are right about NJCU GT, they are not even in the NJAC tournament, they are toast.  The only NJAC with a Pool C shot is William Paterson, if they lose in the NJAC tournament, if they win the tournament they are the only NJAC rep in the NCAA's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 09:18:43 AM
Richard Stockton has 6 in-region losses.  Overall losses don't matter.  I would put them ahead of WPI because they have the same amount of losses, but I'm pretty sure RS has played more regionally ranked opponents.  At this time, RS is #4 and WPI is #7.  More teams to go through before WPI even makes the table.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 09:34:18 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 06:17:03 AM
Quote from: SilversSports on February 17, 2012, 12:27:25 AM
Also, UWRF gets hurt a little bit for next week's rankings with Puget Sound breaking into the ranks as the Falcons lost at PS in November.

You can look at that two ways.  It HELPS them because it's another RESULT against a regionally ranked opponent, and then it HURTS because they LOST to them.  I think we've figured out on this board that it's better to lose against regionally ranked opponents than not to play them at all.

I think it's pretty equal, actually. I've found decent correlation with percentage versus regionally ranked opponents helping teams out in the rankings, but not with games played so far. Still not 100% what they're actually looking for here.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 09:40:53 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 09:18:43 AM
Richard Stockton has 6 in-region losses.  Overall losses don't matter.  I would put them ahead of WPI because they have the same amount of losses, but I'm pretty sure RS has played more regionally ranked opponents.  At this time, RS is #4 and WPI is #7.  More teams to go through before WPI even makes the table.

Overall losses do matter in the secondary criteria.

I agree with those saying that Richard Stockton will have hardly a prayer at a Pool C. (And this is all before considering upsets).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 09:45:52 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2012, 10:50:01 PM

The LEC could get two Pool Cs out of Eastern Connecticut, Western Connecticut and Rhode Island College.  Middlebury is a lock, but WPI could be left out.
----------
I think it'll be real tough for two ODAC teams to get in.


Don't count the LEC out from getting three C's. It's always a stretch, but they have the numbers.
---------
You mean two Pool C's for the ODAC, right? I agree. I think Va Wes and RMC are looking pretty safe, but the only way they get two C's is for Guilford or Hampden-Sydney or someone to win the tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 10:20:06 AM
Teams that are probably locks even if they lose out (not necessarily an exhaustive list):

Amherst
Cabrini
Hartwick
Hope
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Middlebury
MIT
Staten Island
Transylvania
UW-Whitewater
Virginia Wesleyan
Whitworth
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 17, 2012, 10:22:16 AM
I think Wooster and Witt are on that list, perhaps.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 17, 2012, 10:22:36 AM
What is the number of Pool C bids this year...?  19?


That's an important number to look at in terms of the Pool C possibilities when looking at regional rankings.  It's also important to see who's on the table and actually being compared... just like the NCAA committee will do.

As an aside, who has hosting preference for the first pod this year, men or women?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 10:25:47 AM
I think it's the mens year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 10:30:54 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 17, 2012, 10:22:16 AM
I think Wooster and Witt are on that list, perhaps.

You could really only have 19 locks at this point, because if every league had an upset then you'd burn through this lis pretty quickly. I really only wanted to name the tippy topp.

In all reasonableness, though, Woo and Witt are in. Yes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 17, 2012, 11:01:11 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 09:18:43 AM
Richard Stockton has 6 in-region losses.  Overall losses don't matter.  I would put them ahead of WPI because they have the same amount of losses, but I'm pretty sure RS has played more regionally ranked opponents.  At this time, RS is #4 and WPI is #7.  More teams to go through before WPI even makes the table.

As Knight said, once you get the national table, overall losses do matter as a secondary criteria.  Also, WPI's SOS is one of the highest in the country (their OWP is 0.617, their OWP/OOWP is 0.588, RS's is 0.521/0.525).

Also, RS has not played more regionally ranked teams.  In last week's release, RS had a 1-2 record vs. regionally ranked opponents and WPI was 2-2.  I dont know if RS played anymore games this week, but WPI had one additional game vs a regionally ranked opponent, which will only boost their SOS further (because MIT's only loss is to WPI, with respect to OWP calculations for WPI, MIT is 22-0).

Therefore, considering for both teams to be in the Pool C conversation, they would need to lose at least 1 more game (in their conference tourney), that would give both teams 7 region losses, and RS 8 overall losses.  Given the weight SOS has been given in this years rankings, even if everything else is tied (for example, both teams had a nearly identical result vs. their only common opponent, West Conn), I would think that WPIs 0.588+ OWP/OOWP would trump RS's 0.525 (Note that WPIs OWP/OOWP will undoubtedly increase, as they already played MIT since the last release and they will play Springfield on a neutral court and possibly MIT on the road again, if they were to meet MIT in the NEWMAC finals, that game would count as a single game OWP value of 1.25, which will bring their OWP even higher than the current 0.617 it sits at now).  I am not saying WPI is a strong Pool C candidate, just that they have a much better chance than RS.  RS has no chance at a Pool C in my opinion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 11:11:05 AM
My bad on overall records not counting.  ::)  remember, I don't claim to be an expert!  :D

And I do mean 2 Pool C teams for the ODAC

Here's a scheduling quirk if I understand (almost) everything correctly.

Stevens Point beat Richard Stockton, but that game doesn't count as a regional opponent.  Yet that result will factor in when it comes to results against regionally ranked opponents!

Ummm.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 17, 2012, 11:12:26 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 10:30:54 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 17, 2012, 10:22:16 AM
I think Wooster and Witt are on that list, perhaps.

You could really only have 19 locks at this point, because if every league had an upset then you'd burn through this lis pretty quickly. I really only wanted to name the tippy topp.

In all reasonableness, though, Woo and Witt are in. Yes.

And, realistically, there may not BE 19 locks at this point.  Every team probably has a minimum of two games left and perhaps as many as 4 or 5 in some cases... so that could approach being a full 1/5th of the 25 game season... and it could vault someone ahead of others you could potentially put on that list.


... For a lock to truly be a lock, we've got to think about a perfect storm situation where everybody on this list gets upset.  After these 12, who would even be on the board?


One quibble I have with your list is putting Whitewater and Whitworth as locks and not including Stevens Point or River Falls.

I fully acknowledge that both lost this past week and they would each have to lose again to be eligible for Pool C... but they're currently 1/2 in the West, ahead of both Whitewater and Whitworth.  There may be enough of a shake-up in the regional rankings to put both Whits ahead (-ewater and -worth), but it's not immediately obvious that this will happen... due to Whitewater's loss last week which kept them firmly in the third slot.


There are so many possibilities here... if Whitewater manages to sweep River Falls and Point wins at Eau Claire, that makes SP the top seed in the WIAC tournament and River Falls the #3... playing an additional game on Tuesday in a game that, as I mentioned earlier, has been just a bear...

And it really begs the question of what would happen in the West.  It seems like River Falls is on top by virtue of their sweep of Point and Point is on top of Whitewater b/c SP swept WW... but what if WW completes the sweep of RF?

I'd almost think that would have to put WW in the top spot in the West... vaulting over RF... and then what happens with Whitworth?  You can't put them ahead of WW due to the head to head... but they would have a better resume than Point, it would seem (except that Point has one of the top SOS in the country and a bundle of games vs. Reg Ranked opponents to boot).


Oy... so much to think about... so many possibilities!  Kind of just want to get to a week from Sunday so we have the full slate of data to work with!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 11:20:35 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 11:11:05 AM
My bad on overall records not counting.  ::)  remember, I don't claim to be an expert!  :D

And I do mean 2 Pool C teams for the ODAC

Here's a scheduling quirk if I understand (almost) everything correctly.

Stevens Point beat Richard Stockton, but that game doesn't count as a regional opponent.  Yet that result will factor in when it comes to results against regionally ranked opponents!

Ummm.

Only in the secondary criteria.

For primary, it's in-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 11:32:41 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 17, 2012, 11:12:26 AM
... For a lock to truly be a lock, we've got to think about a perfect storm situation where everybody on this list gets upset.  After these 12, who would even be on the board?

Right, that's why I only named 12. Next up would be (not necessarily in order):

Rhode Island College
UW-RF
UW-SP
Wash U.

I'm less comfortable with calling these teams "locks", though they're all pretty much certain to be in at this point.

Maybe put in Western Conn for RIC based on the last rankings. Gosh, but probably not becasue RIC just beat them. Shrug.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 11:37:48 AM
Hugenerd, what do you think the NE looks like at this point?

Amherst
Middlebury
MIT
RIC
W. Conn
E. Conn/WPI
E. Conn/WPI
Albertus Magnus/Wesleyan/Keene St.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 17, 2012, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 09:18:43 AM
Richard Stockton has 6 in-region losses.  Overall losses don't matter.  I would put them ahead of WPI because they have the same amount of losses, but I'm pretty sure RS has played more regionally ranked opponents.  At this time, RS is #4 and WPI is #7.  More teams to go through before WPI even makes the table.

When the final regional rankings come out William Paterson will be ranked higher than Stockton, Stockton' and any NJAC team not coached by Jose Rembibas will have to win the NJAC tournament to see the NCAA's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 01:10:04 PM
I will be sure to be more prepared prior to posting!  :-X. I do appreciated the corrections though.  In my defense, I did state my opinions based on "a quick look" with "initial thoughts based on the (current) regional rankings."

I incorrectly thought RS had played more games against regionally ranked opponents because I saw that both William Paterson and NJCU were regionally ranked and I knew Stevens Point had played them as well.  Off the top of my head, I could only think of MIT as WPI's ranked opponent.  Admittedly, I didn't have time to scroll through their schedules.  I also forgot that the NJAC has two divisions, cutting the number of times RS played William Paterson (and NJCU?).

I do think things will be a lot clearer next week with only conference tournament games remaining, aside from the UAA.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 17, 2012, 01:15:32 PM
Whoever loses tomorrow between RIC and Keene state is out of the pool C picture, especially if it's RIC.  granted, Keene does have the win over Middlebury, but losing 3 straight to end the year when you were 2 games up with 3 games to play looks bad.  If Western somehow manages to lose to Plymouth state againat home we should be out of it as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 17, 2012, 01:15:32 PM
Whoever loses tomorrow between RIC and Keene state is out of the pool C picture, especially if it's RIC.  granted, Keene does have the win over Middlebury, but losing 3 straight to end the year when you were 2 games up with 3 games to play looks bad.  If Western somehow manages to lose to Plymouth state again at home we should be out of it as well.

RIC is darn near a lock right now. It would definitely hurt them, but wouldn't knock them out. They'll have one of the top five SOS's of any of the Pool C candidates. A mid .700s WP wouldn't knock them out either.

They'd still be in ahead of WPI, who I think is a strong Pool C candidate.

For Keene... maybe it does knock them out. Onto the bubble, at least.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 17, 2012, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 11:32:41 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 17, 2012, 11:12:26 AM
... For a lock to truly be a lock, we've got to think about a perfect storm situation where everybody on this list gets upset.  After these 12, who would even be on the board?

Right, that's why I only named 12. Next up would be (not necessarily in order):

Rhode Island College
UW-RF
UW-SP
Wash U.

I'm less comfortable with calling these teams "locks", though they're all pretty much certain to be in at this point.

Maybe put in Western Conn for RIC based on the last rankings. Gosh, but probably not becasue RIC just beat them. Shrug.

Are you basing these locks purely on numbers or are you taking into account regional rankings?

B/C, as I said, Whitworth and Whitewater are currently below UWSP and UWRF in the West... as is Transylvania behind Wash U in the MW.

That's a moot point... if Wash U wins 2 of their next three or on Saturday against NYU, they'll have the UAA A bid locked up.


I didn't look at the other regions to see if any locks would be below non-locks... but that could really be an issue.  If they're third or fourth in a region behind a non-lock, they could be in trouble.


... I fully acknowledge that these aren't the final rankings... and the locks may move above the non-locks.

It's just something to watch out for.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 02:25:57 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 17, 2012, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 11:32:41 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 17, 2012, 11:12:26 AM
... For a lock to truly be a lock, we've got to think about a perfect storm situation where everybody on this list gets upset.  After these 12, who would even be on the board?

Right, that's why I only named 12. Next up would be (not necessarily in order):

Rhode Island College
UW-RF
UW-SP
Wash U.

I'm less comfortable with calling these teams "locks", though they're all pretty much certain to be in at this point.

Maybe put in Western Conn for RIC based on the last rankings. Gosh, but probably not becasue RIC just beat them. Shrug.

Are you basing these locks purely on numbers or are you taking into account regional rankings?

B/C, as I said, Whitworth and Whitewater are currently below UWSP and UWRF in the West... as is Transylvania behind Wash U in the MW.

That's a moot point... if Wash U wins 2 of their next three or on Saturday against NYU, they'll have the UAA A bid locked up.


I didn't look at the other regions to see if any locks would be below non-locks... but that could really be an issue.  If they're third or fourth in a region behind a non-lock, they could be in trouble.


... I fully acknowledge that these aren't the final rankings... and the locks may move above the non-locks.

It's just something to watch out for.

Basing it just on the numbers, but keep in mind that UWSP and UWRF both have suffered losses since the last rankings came out. Not inconceivable that WW and UW-W coud have "moved up" ahead of UWSP and UWRF.

The premise is for teams to lose out and still be locks. For Wash U, that would mean three consecutive losses. For Transylvania, it would mean only two losses.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 17, 2012, 05:14:17 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 02:25:57 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 17, 2012, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 11:32:41 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 17, 2012, 11:12:26 AM
... For a lock to truly be a lock, we've got to think about a perfect storm situation where everybody on this list gets upset.  After these 12, who would even be on the board?

Right, that's why I only named 12. Next up would be (not necessarily in order):

Rhode Island College
UW-RF
UW-SP
Wash U.

I'm less comfortable with calling these teams "locks", though they're all pretty much certain to be in at this point.

Maybe put in Western Conn for RIC based on the last rankings. Gosh, but probably not becasue RIC just beat them. Shrug.

Are you basing these locks purely on numbers or are you taking into account regional rankings?

B/C, as I said, Whitworth and Whitewater are currently below UWSP and UWRF in the West... as is Transylvania behind Wash U in the MW.

That's a moot point... if Wash U wins 2 of their next three or on Saturday against NYU, they'll have the UAA A bid locked up.


I didn't look at the other regions to see if any locks would be below non-locks... but that could really be an issue.  If they're third or fourth in a region behind a non-lock, they could be in trouble.


... I fully acknowledge that these aren't the final rankings... and the locks may move above the non-locks.

It's just something to watch out for.

Basing it just on the numbers, but keep in mind that UWSP and UWRF both have suffered losses since the last rankings came out. Not inconceivable that WW and UW-W coud have "moved up" ahead of UWSP and UWRF.

The premise is for teams to lose out and still be locks. For Wash U, that would mean three consecutive losses. For Transylvania, it would mean only two losses.

It's not necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison... but Whitewater lost last week and stayed at #3 even though Whitworth won.  It's certainly possible that one or both could move to either 1 or 2... but it doesn't seem that likely at this point.

There's a lot of basketball to be played between now and Wednesday.  If Whitewater loses on Saturday, they're going to have to turn right back around and play on Tuesday.  Should they lose that, they likely would slide below Whitworth.

If River Falls loses, it depends on if Point beats Eau Claire to determine who plays on Tuesday.  With a Point win, RF would have to turn around and play on Tuesday.  With a Point loss, RF would become the #2 seed and Point would have to play on Tuesday.


If history is a good guide, that Tuesday game will be tough... and the tournament as a whole doesn't bode well for that #3 seed.



I can foresee a potential situation where Whitewater would leap over Point... but it would include at least one, if not two losses due to their head to head result.

I don't really see a situation where Whitworth could leap over all three before the next poll.




.... Actually, I've been giving misinformation.  The WIAC changed the timing of the tournament this year... instead of Tue/Thurs/Sat, now it's Wed/Fri/Sun.

So the chances of any monumental moves in the West before the next regional rankings aren't tremendous in my opinion... at this point.  After tomorrow, it could be a different case!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 09:32:34 PM
So would someone be so kind to post a link to where I can find the SOS, OWP and OOWP.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 17, 2012, 09:54:03 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 09:32:34 PM
So would someone be so kind to post a link to where I can find the SOS, OWP and OOWP.  Thanks!
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

Bottom of page.

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2012, 11:37:48 AM
Hugenerd, what do you think the NE looks like at this point?

Amherst
Middlebury
MIT
RIC
W. Conn
E. Conn/WPI
E. Conn/WPI
Albertus Magnus/Wesleyan/Keene St.

That looks about right, I would personally but WPI and Albertus Magnus above East Conn. If Middlebury loses in their conference tourney, and MIT wins theirs, I think MIT has a shot at #2 also.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 10:36:22 PM
UPDATING

HERE IS THE REGIONAL RANKINGS FOR WEEK 2 WITH THIS WEEK'S SCHEDULES AND RESULTS SO FAR

TEAMS IN BOLD ARE CONFERENCE LEADERS



   ATL                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #2      William Paterson**      NJAC      21-3, 21-3      WON vs CCNY 75-49   
   #2      #1      Staten Island      CUNYAC      18-2, 19-4      WON at St. Joseph's (Bklyn) 76-54   
   #3      #3      St. Joseph's (LI)      SKY      19-2, 19-3      WON at SUNY-Old Westbury 102-81, at SUNY-Purchase 2/18   
   #4      #4      Richard Stockton**      NJAC      16-6, 17-7      WON at Kean 80-77   
   #5      #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      15-5, 17-6      LOST vs Rutgers-Newark 55-51   
                                    
   EAST                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      Hartwick      E8      21-2, 22-2      vs Stevens 2/18   
   #2      #2      Oswego State      SUNYAC      19-2, 19-3      WON vs Geneseo St. 67-56, WON vs Buffalo St. 78-73, vs Fredonia St. 2/18   
   #3      #4      Hobart      LL      18-4, 19-4      WON at Bard 65-48, at Vassar 2/18   
   #4      #3      NYU      UAA      18-4, 18-4      WON vs Chicago 79-69, vs Washington U. 2/19   
   #5      #5      Medaille      AMCC      20-2, 21-2      WON vs D'Youville, vs La Roche 2/18   
   #6      #6      Nazareth      E8       16-6, 16-8      at St. John Fisher 2/18   
                                    
   GR. LK.                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      Hope      MIAA      14-0, 22-1      WON at Olivet 75-60, vs Trine 2/18   
   #2      #2      Wittenberg      NCAC      16-4, 18-5      WON at DePauw 56-55, vs Hiram 2/18   
   #3      #3      Wooster      NCAC      17-4, 19-4      WON vs Allegheny 91-61, vs DePauw 2/18   
   #4      #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      16-6, 17-6      WON at Wabash 82-81, Denison 2/18   
   #5      #5      Wabash      NCAC      15-6, 17-6      LOST vs Ohio Wesleyan 82-81, at Oberlin 2/18   
   #6      N/A      Bethany (W.Va.)      PrAC      19-2, 20-3      WON vs Westminster (Pa.) 91-65, at St. Vincent 2/18   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
         #6      Capital      OAC      14-7, 15-8         
                                    
   MID.ATL                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      Cabrini      CSAC      23-0, 23-1      WON at Keystone 96-85   
   #2      #2      Keystone      CSAC      20-4, 20-4      LOST vs Cabrini 96-85   
   #3      #5      Franklin & Marshall      CC      21-2, 21-2      WON at Johns Hopkins 71-63, at Dickinson 2/18   
   #4      #4      Mary Washington*      CAC      15-5, 16-7      WON vs Stevenson 94-59, at Wesley 2/18   
   #5      #6      St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      16-5, 18-6      vs Frostburg State 2/18   
   #6      #7      Messiah      MACC      15-6, 16-6      WON at Alvernia 57-54, vs Elizabethtown 2/18   
   #7      #8      Misericordia      MACF      17-6, 17-6      WON vs King's 60-53, at Manhattanville 2/18   
   #8      N/A      Widener      MACC      13-6, 17-6      WON vs Lebanon Valley 91-70, at Albright 2/18   
   #9      #3      Lycoming      MACC      15-6, 17-7      WON at Elizabethtown 69-68, vs Alvernia 2/18   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
         #9      Alvernia      MACC      14-7, 16-7         
                                    
   MW                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      Washington U.      UAA      17-4, 17-5      LOST at Brandeis 79-69, at NYU 2/19   
   #2      #3      Lake Forest      MWC      18-2, 19-2      WON vs Knox 64-50, at Grinnell 2/18   
   #3      #2      Transylvania      HCAC      20-1, 21-2      WON at Hanover 74-65, at Bluffton 2/18   
   #4      #4      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      16-5, 18-5      vs North Park 2/18   
   #5      #5      North Central (IL)      CCIW      15-5, 16-7      WON at North Park 75-49, vs Millikin 2/18    
   #6      #6      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      15-6, 17-6      WON at Millikin 84-45, vs Elmhurst 2/18   
   #7      N/A      Hanover      HCAC      16-5, 16-6      LOST vs Transylvania 74-65, at Rose-Hulman 2/18   
   #8      #7      Edgewood      NATH      16-5, 18-5      LOST at Concordia (WI) 69-66, vs Concordia (IL) 2/18   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
         #8      Concordia (WI)      NATH      17-4, 18-4         
                                    
   NE                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      Amherst      NESCAC      20-2, 22-2      vs Hamilton 2/18   
   #2      #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      20-2, 22-2      vs Williams 2/18   
   #3      #4      W. Connecticut      LEC      19-4, 19-4      LOST at Rhode Island College 79-78, vs Plymouth State 2/18   
   #4      #7      MIT      NEWMAC      22-1, 22-1      WON at WPI 71-66   
   #5      #8      Keene State*      LEC      15-4, 18-5      LOST vs Eastern Connecticut 65-62, at Rhode Island College 2/18   
   #6      #3      Rhode Island College      LEC      18-5, 18-5      WON Western Connecticut 79-78, vs Keene State 2/18   
   #7      #5      WPI      NEWMAC      17-5, 17-5      LOST vs MIT 71-66, vs Clark 2/18   
   #8      #9      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      19-4, 19-5      vs Bowdoin 2/18   
   #9      #6      E. Connecticut*      LEC      18-5, 18-5      WON at Keene State 65-62, at Mass-Boston 2/18   
   #10      #12      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      22-1, 22-1      WON at Johnson and Wales 87-73, vs St. Joseph's (Maine) 2/18   
   #11      #11      Becker      NECC      19-4, 19-4      WON at Wheelock 74 -69, at Mitchell 2/18   
   #12      #10      Tufts      NESCAC      16-7, 16-7      vs Bates 2/18   
                                    
   SOUTH                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      Mary Hardin-Baylor      ASC      21-1, 22-1      WON vs Schreiner 79-74, at Texas Lutheran 2/18   
   #2      #2      Virginia Wesleyan      ODAC      18-3, 19-3      WON at Lynchburg 73-62, vs Emory and Henry 2/18, vs Washington and Lee 2/19   
   #3      #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      16-3, 19-4      at hampden-Sydney 2/18   
   #4      #3      Birmingham-Southern      SCAC      19-1, 22-1      WON at Berry 69-58, vs Oglethorpe 2/18   
   #5      #6      Emory      UAA      18-4, 18-4      LOST at Carnegie Mellon 82-79, at Case Western Reserve 2/19   
   #6      #5      Christopher Newport      USAC      16-4, 19-4      WON at Shenandoah 69-60, vs Averett 2/18   
   #7      #7      Guilford      ODAC      15-6, 16-7      at Eastern Mennonite 2/18   
   #8      #8      Hardin-Simmons      ASC      15-6, 17-6      WON vs Sul Ross State 94-74, vs Howard Payne 2/18   
                                    
   WEST                                 
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL         
   #1      #1      River Falls*      WIAC      18-3, 18-5      LOST at La Crosse 74-66, vs Whitewater 2/18   
   #2      #2      Stevens Point*      WIAC      17-4, 19-4      LOST vs Stout 67-64 OT, at Eau Claire 2/18   
   #3      #3      Whitewater*      WIAC      20-3, 20-3      WON vs Oshkosh 76-64, at River Falls 2/18   
   #4      #4      Whitworth      NWC      19-2, 20-3      WON at Whitman 81-74, vs Willamette 2/18   
   #5      #5      CMS      SCIAC      15-1, 21-1      WON at Cal Lutheran 57-46, at Occidental 2/18   
   #6      #7      Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      17-5, 18-5      WON at Concordia-Moorhead, vs Bethel 2/18   
   #7      #6      St. Thomas      MIAC      15-6, 16-6      WON at Bethel 69-55, vs St. Mary's (MN) 2/18   
   #8      #9      Whitman      NWC      15-6, 17-6      LOST vs Whitworth 81-74, vs Willamette 2/17   
   #9      N/A      Puget Sound      NWC      13-5, 18-5      at Lewis and Clarke 2/17, at Linfield 2/18   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
         #8      Dubuque      IIAC      15-5, 16-8         
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 10:40:38 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 17, 2012, 09:54:03 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2012, 09:32:34 PM
So would someone be so kind to post a link to where I can find the SOS, OWP and OOWP.  Thanks!
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

Bottom of page.

Thanks.  Funny, I found that page, but didn't know those links down at the bottom were for SOS and OWP!  Oops.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 18, 2012, 10:21:11 PM
So... I anticipate a pretty big shake-up in the West as Point and River Falls drop both of their contests this week.

Whitewater will undoubtably move to #1 and Whitworth probably to #2.  It's entirely possible that CMS will jump over one or both of Stevens Point and River Falls
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 18, 2012, 11:15:27 PM
Midwest is a mess too.

Wash U., Transy, Lake Forest and Edgewood all go 1-1. Hanover goes 0-2. CUW who dropped out last week goes 2-0 including a win over Edgewood. Only the three CCIW teams get through unscathed. We'll see if Augustana can get into the ranking this week as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2012, 03:13:13 AM
UPDATED THROUGH SATURDAY'S GAMES.  ITS GOING TO BE A MESS NEXT WEEK!



   ATL                                       
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL      REC      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #2      William Paterson**      NJAC      21-3, 21-3       1-0      WON vs CCNY 75-49   
   #2      #1      Staten Island      CUNYAC      18-2, 19-4       2-0      WON at St. Joseph's (Bklyn) 76-54, WON vs John Jay 85-65   
   #3      #3      St. Joseph's (LI)      SKY      19-2, 19-3       2-0      WON at SUNY-Old Westbury 102-81, WON at SUNY-Purchase 92-89   
   #4      #4      Richard Stockton**      NJAC      16-6, 17-7       1-0      WON at Kean 80-77   
   #5      #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      15-5, 17-6       0-1      LOST vs Rutgers-Newark 55-51; SEASON COMPLETE   
                                          
   EAST                                       
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL               
   #1      #1      Hartwick      E8      21-2, 22-2       1-0      WON vs Stevens 91-76   
   #2      #2      Oswego State      SUNYAC      19-2, 19-3       3-0      WON vs Geneseo St. 67-56, vs WON vs Buffalo St. 78-73,WON vs Fredonia St. 75-44   
   #3      #4      Hobart      LL      18-4, 19-4       2-0      WON at Bard 65-48, WON at Vassar 69-43   
   #4      #3      NYU      UAA      18-4, 18-4       1-0*      WON vs Chicago 79-69, vs Washington U. 2/19   
   #5      #5      Medaille      AMCC      20-2, 21-2       2-0      WON vs D'Youville 83-82, WON vs La Roche 77-70   
   #6      #6      Nazareth      E8       16-6, 16-8       1-0      WON at St. John Fisher 68-62 OT   
                                          
   GR. LK.                                       
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL               
   #1      #1      Hope      MIAA      14-0, 22-1       2-0      WON at Olivet 75-60, vs WON vs Trine 65-46   
   #2      #2      Wittenberg      NCAC      16-4, 18-5       2-0      WON at DePauw 56-55, WON vs Hiram 72-50   
   #3      #3      Wooster      NCAC      17-4, 19-4       2-0      WON vs Allegheny 91-61, WON vs DePauw 74-67   
   #4      #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      16-6, 17-6       2-0      WON at Wabash 82-81, WON vs Denison 83-77   
   #5      #5      Wabash      NCAC      15-6, 17-6       1-1      LOST vs Ohio Wesleyan 82-81, WON at Oberlin 69-32   
   #6      N/A      Bethany (W.Va.)      PrAC      19-2, 20-3       2-0      WON vs Westminster (Pa.) 91-65, WON at St. Vincent 76-64   
                                          
               DROPPING OUT                           
         #6      Capital      OAC      14-7, 15-8               
                                          
   MID.ATL                                       
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL               
   #1      #1      Cabrini      CSAC      23-0, 23-1       1-0      WON at Keystone 96-85   
   #2      #2      Keystone      CSAC      20-4, 20-4       0-1      LOST vs Cabrini 96-85   
   #3      #5      Franklin & Marshall      CC      21-2, 21-2       2-0      WON at Johns Hopkins 71-63, WON at Dickinson 63-53   
   #4      #4      Mary Washington*      CAC      15-5, 16-7       1-1      WON vs Stevenson 94-59, LOST at Wesley 73-70   
   #5      #6      St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      16-5, 18-6       1-0      WON vs Frostburg State 95-81   
   #6      #7      Messiah      MACC      15-6, 16-6       2-0      WON at Alvernia 57-54, WON vs Elizabethtown 72-47   
   #7      #8      Misericordia      MACF      17-6, 17-6       2-0      WON vs King's 60-53, WON at Manhattanville 77-71   
   #8      N/A      Widener      MACC      13-6, 17-6       1-1      WON vs Lebanon Valley 91-70, LOST at Albright 87-68   
   #9      #3      Lycoming      MACC      15-6, 17-7       1-1      WON at Elizabethtown 69-68, LOST vs Alvernia 68-60   
                                          
               DROPPING OUT                           
         #9      Alvernia      MACC      14-7, 16-7               
                                          
   MW                                       
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL               
   #1      #1      Washington U.      UAA      17-4, 17-5       0-1*      LOST at Brandeis 79-69, at NYU 2/19   
   #2      #3      Lake Forest      MWC      18-2, 19-2       1-1      WON vs Knox 64-50, LOST at Grinnell 112-101   
   #3      #2      Transylvania      HCAC      20-1, 21-2       1-1      WON at Hanover 74-65, LOST at Bluffton 83-65   
   #4      #4      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      16-5, 18-5       1-0      WON vs North Park 75-59   
   #5      #5      North Central (IL)      CCIW      15-5, 16-7       2-0      WON at North Park 75-49, WON vs Millikin 91-58   
   #6      #6      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      15-6, 17-6       2-0      WON at Millikin 84-45, WON vs Elmhurst 79-60   
   #7      N/A      Hanover      HCAC      16-5, 16-6       0-2      LOST vs Transylvania 74-65, LOST at Rose-Hulman 75-61   
   #8      #7      Edgewood      NATH      16-5, 18-5       1-1      LOST at Concordia (WI) 69-66, WON vs Concordia (IL) 74-62   
                                          
               DROPPING OUT                           
         #8      Concordia (WI)      NATH      17-4, 18-4               
                                          
   NE                                       
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL               
   #1      #1      Amherst      NESCAC      20-2, 22-2       1-0      WON vs Hamilton 86-66   
   #2      #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      20-2, 22-2       1-0      WON vs Williams 73-61   
   #3      #4      W. Connecticut      LEC      19-4, 19-4       1-1      LOST at Rhode Island College 79-78, WON vs Plymouth State 90-70   
   #4      #7      MIT      NEWMAC      22-1, 22-1       1-0      WON at WPI 71-66   
   #5      #8      Keene State*      LEC      15-4, 18-5       0-2      LOST  vs Eastern Connecticut 65-62, LOST at Rhode Island College 65-57   
   #6      #3      Rhode Island College      LEC      18-5, 18-5       2-0      WON Western Connecticut 79-78, WON vs Keene State 65-57   
   #7      #5      WPI      NEWMAC      17-5, 17-5       1-1      LOST vs MIT 71-66, WON vs Clark 75-54   
   #8      #9      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      19-4, 19-5       1-0      WON vs Bowdoin 78-59   
   #9      #6      E. Connecticut*      LEC      18-5, 18-5       2-0      WON at Keene State 65-62, WON at Mass-Boston 76-68   
   #10      #12      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      22-1, 22-1       2-0      WON at Johnson and Wales 87-73, WON vs St. Joseph's (Maine) 75-62   
   #11      #11      Becker      NECC      19-4, 19-4       2-0      WON at Wheelock 74 -69, WON at Mitchell 87-49   
   #12      #10      Tufts      NESCAC      16-7, 16-7       0-1      LOST vs Bates 57-54   
                                          
   SOUTH                                       
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL               
   #1      #1      Mary Hardin-Baylor      ASC      21-1, 22-1       2-0      WON vs Schreiner 79-74, WON at Texas Lutheran 60-53   
   #2      #2      Virginia Wesleyan      ODAC      18-3, 19-3       2-0*      WON at Lynchburg 73-62, WON vs Emory and Henry 84-60, vs Washington and Lee 2/19   
   #3      #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      16-3, 19-4       0-1      LOST at Hampden-Sydney 79-71   
   #4      #3      Birmingham-Southern      SCAC      19-1, 22-1       2-0      WON at Berry 69-58, WON vs Oglethorpe 92-80   
   #5      #6      Emory      UAA      18-4, 18-4       0-1*      LOST at Carnegie Mellon 82-79, at Case Western Reserve 2/19   
   #6      #5      Christopher Newport      USAC      16-4, 19-4       2-0      WON at Shenandoah 69-60, WON vs Averett 99-95   
   #7      #7      Guilford      ODAC      15-6, 16-7       0-1      LOST at Eastern Mennonite 62-61   
   #8      #8      Hardin-Simmons      ASC      15-6, 17-6       2-0      WON vs Sul Ross State 94-74, WON vs Howard Payne 82-70   
                                          
   WEST                                       
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG./OVERALL               
   #1      #1      River Falls*      WIAC      18-3, 18-5       0-2      LOST at La Crosse 74-66, LOST vs Whitewater 55-53   
   #2      #2      Stevens Point*      WIAC      17-4, 19-4       0-2      LOST vs Stout 67-64 OT, LOST at Eau Claire 77-58   
   #3      #3      Whitewater*      WIAC      20-3, 20-3       2-0      WON vs Oshkosh 76-64, WON at River Falls 55-53   
   #4      #4      Whitworth      NWC      19-2, 20-3       2-0      WON at Whitman 81-74, WON vs Willamette 93-65   
   #5      #5      CMS      SCIAC      15-1, 21-1       2-0      WON at Cal Lutheran 57-46, WON at Occidental 55-47   
   #6      #7      Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      17-5, 18-5       1-1      WON at Concordia-Moorhead, LOST vs Bethel 68-52   
   #7      #6      St. Thomas      MIAC      15-6, 16-6       2-0      WON at Bethel 69-55, WON vs St. Mary's (MN) 70-40   
   #8      #9      Whitman      NWC      15-6, 17-6       1-1      LOST vs Whitworth 81-74, WON vs Willamette 103-71   
   #9      N/A      Puget Sound      NWC      13-5, 18-5       1-1      LOST at Lewis and Clarke 78-72, WON at Linfield 80-67   
                                          
               DROPPING OUT                           
         #8      Dubuque      IIAC      15-5, 16-8               
                                          
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2012, 03:35:27 AM
Just using teams currently in the Regional Rankings


LOCKS?
William Paterson
Staten Island
St. Joseph's (RI)
Hartwick
Oswego State
Hope
Franklin & Marshall
Amherst
Middlebury
MIT
Albertus Magnus
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Virginia Wesleyan
Birmingham Southern
Whitewater
Whitworth
CMS

GOOD BETS
Hobart
NYU
Medaille
Wittenberg
Wooster
Cabrini
Keystone
Washington U.
Lake Forest
Transylvania
Wheaton (IL)
North Central
W. Connecticut
Rhode Island College
Randolph-Macon
Emory
Christopher Newport
River Falls
St. Thomas

ON THE BUBBLE
Richard Stockton
Nazareth
Ohio Wesleyan
Bethany Lutheran
St. Mary's (Md)
Messiah
Misericordia
Illinois Wesleyan
Keene State
WPI
Wesleyan (Conn)
E. Connecticut
Becker
Guilford
Hardin-Simmons
Stevens Point
Gustavus Adolphus

LOOKING IN
NJCU
Wabash
Widener
Lycoming
Hanover
Edgewood
Tufts
Whitman
Puget Sound
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 08:59:23 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 18, 2012, 10:21:11 PM
So... I anticipate a pretty big shake-up in the West as Point and River Falls drop both of their contests this week.

Whitewater will undoubtably move to #1 and Whitworth probably to #2.  It's entirely possible that CMS will jump over one or both of Stevens Point and River Falls

I think CMS stays at 5. Either way though, UWSP still looks closer to a lock than a bubble team to me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2012, 09:08:40 AM
Several reasons I have River Falls "a good bet" and Stevens Point "a bubble team" is because one of the Falcon's losses this week was to Whitewater, a regionally ranked opponent.  In addition, River Falls started ahead of Point in the rankings and River Falls swept Point in the regular season.  As the WIAC tourney is set up, RF and Point could meet for a 3rd time.  Obviously, that will go a long way.  On a side note, it looks like potential All Conference player and point guard for the Pointers, Tyler Tillema, could be out for the rest of the season with an ankle injury suffered in their loss against Stout.  He did not play in the season finale and it showed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 09:17:30 AM
Thanks for keeping track of the results, GT!.  Here is how I look at it...


"Bubble Bursters" (Currents A's who would be C locks)
1. Cabrini (Mid-Atl, CSAC), 24-0
2. Hope (GL, MIAA), 16-0
3. Albertus Magnus (NE, GNAC), 24-1
4. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC), 23-1
5. MIT (NE, NEWMAC), 23-1
6. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC), 22-3
7. Birmingham Southern (South, SCAC), 21-1
8. Amherst (NE, NESCAC), 21-2
9. Whitworth (West, NWC), 21-2
10. CMS (West, SCIAC), 17-1
11. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atl, CC), 23-2
12. William Paterson (Atlantic, NJAC), 22-3
13. Hartwick (East, E8), 22-3
14. Oswego St (East, SUNYAC), 22-3
15. Medaille (East, AMCC), 22-2
16. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC), 20-3
17. Staten Island (Atlantic, CUNYAC), 20-2
18. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC), 21-2
19. Bethany (GL, PrAC), 22-2
20. St. Joseph's (Atlantic, Sky), 21-2
21. Lake Forest (Midwest, MWC), 19-3
22. Wittenberg (GL, NCAC), 18-4

(For every team on this list that does not win a Pool C bid, start clipping off the bottom of my Pool C list below).


Current Pool A's That are Regionally Ranked But are Not Pool C Locks (would go into the middle of the C mix below)
Becker (NE, NECC), 21-4
Hobart (East, LL), 20-4
East Connecticut (NE, LEC), 20-5
Misericordia (Mid-Atl, MACF), 19-6
Christopher Newport (South, USAC), 18-4
Washington U (Midwest, UAA), 18-5
North Central (Midwest, CCIW), 17-5
St. Thomas (West, MIAC), 17-6
Messiah (Atl, MACC), 17-6
St. Mary's, MD (Mid-Atl, CAC), 16-6
Concordia, WI (Midwest, NathC), 19-4 - should get back in MW this week


Current Pool C's
1. Middlebury (NE, NESCAC), 21-2 (NE C #1)
2. New York U (East, UAA), 20-4 (East C #1)
3. Wooster (GL, NCAC), 19-4 (GL C #1)
4. Keystone (Mid-Atl, CSAC), 20-5 (Mid-Atl C#1)
5. Western Connecticut (NE, LEC), 20-5 (NE C #2)
6. Randolph-Macon (South, ODAC), 16-4 (South C #1)
7. UW-River Falls (West, WIAC), 18-5 (West C #1)
8. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW), 17-5 (Midwest C #1)
9. Emory (South, UAA), 18-5 (South C #2)
10. Ohio Wesleyan (GL, NCAC), 18-6 (GL C #2)
11. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW), 17-6 (Midwest C #2)
12. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC), 17-6 (Atlantic C #1)
13. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW), 18-5 (Midwest C #3) - should enter MW rankings this week ahead of Hanover and Edgewood
14. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC), 17-6 (West C #2)
15. Rhode Island (NE, LEC), 20-5 (NE C #3)
16. Gustavus Adolphus (West, MIAC), 18-6 (West C #3)
17. Wesleyan (NE, NESCAC), 20-4 (NE C #4)
18. WPI (NE, NEWMAC), 18-6 (NE C #5)
19. Mary Washington (Mid-Atl, CAC), 16-6 (Mid-Atl C #2)


Wrong Side of the Pool C Bubble
20. Nazareth (East, E8), 17-6 (East C #2)
21. New Jersey City (Atlantic, NJAC), 15-6 (Atlantic C #2)
22. Hardin-Simmons (South, ASC), 17-6 (South C #3)
23. Wabash (GL, NCAC), 16-7 (GL C #3)
24. Whitman (West, NWC), 16-7 (West C #4)
25. Edgewood (Midwest, NathC), 17-6 (Midwest C #4)
26. Keene State (NE, LEC), 16-6 (NE C #6)
27. Hanover (Midwest, HCAC), 16-7 (Midwest C#5)
28. Tufts (NE, NESCAC), 16-8 (NE C #7)
29. Guilford (South, ODAC), 15-7 (South C #4)
30. Widener (Mid-Atl, MACC), 14-7 (Mid-Atl C #3)
31. Lycoming (Mid-Atl, MACC), 16-7 (Mid-Atl C #4)
32. Puget Sound (West, NWC), 14-6 (West C #5)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2012, 09:24:42 AM
Nice work, TQ.

I think Concordia (WI) will jump back in with a win over Edgewood this week (and over Benedictine). 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2012, 09:24:42 AM
Nice work, TQ.

I think Concordia (WI) will jump back in with a win over Edgewood this week (and over Benedictine).

Agree.  I will add them above.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2012, 09:40:14 AM
I think they get their own group, Current Pool A's NOT currently Regionally Ranked, but previously were.  ::) ;D :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 09:17:30 AM
Thanks for keeping track of the results, GT!.  Here is how I look at it...


"Bubble Bursters" (Currents A's who would be C locks)
1. Cabrini (Mid-Atl, CSAC), 24-0
2. Hope (GL, MIAA), 16-0
3. Albertus Magnus (NE, GNAC), 24-1
4. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC), 23-1
5. MIT (NE, NEWMAC), 23-1
6. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC), 22-3
7. Birmingham Southern (South, SCAC), 21-1
8. Amherst (NE, NESCAC), 21-2
9. Whitworth (West, NWC), 21-2
10. CMS (West, SCIAC), 17-1
11. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atl, CC), 23-2
12. William Paterson (Atlantic, NJAC), 22-3
13. Hartwick (East, E8), 22-3
14. Oswego St (East, SUNYAC), 22-3
15. Medaille (East, AMCC), 22-2
16. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC), 20-3
17. Staten Island (Atlantic, CUNYAC), 20-2
18. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC), 21-2
19. Bethany (GL, PrAC), 22-2
20. St. Joseph's (Atlantic, Sky), 21-2
21. Lake Forest (Midwest, MWC), 19-3
22. Wittenberg (GL, NCAC), 18-4

You can't have 22 Pool C locks with only 19 Pool C spots.

Bethany probably shouldn't be on this list.

And no freaking way that Augustana is a "current Pool C".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 10:40:18 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:37:21 AM
And no freaking way that Augustana is a "current Pool C".

Why?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:42:57 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 10:40:18 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:37:21 AM
And no freaking way that Augustana is a "current Pool C".

Why?

The horrid .466 SOS with a decent-but-not-great .783 WP isn't going to give them a leg up on anyone.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 10:44:15 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:37:21 AM
You can't have 22 Pool C locks with only 19 Pool C spots.

Obviously you are correct, but I think for purposes here it makes sense to list it that way.  Afterall, we know that all of these won't get upset.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 10:47:38 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:42:57 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 10:40:18 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:37:21 AM
And no freaking way that Augustana is a "current Pool C".

Why?

The horrid .466 SOS with a decent-but-not-great .783 WP isn't going to give them a leg up on anyone.

I definitely understand Augustana has a big SOS problem, but when you stack up all criteria and consider how the selection process works, which teams that I currently have below Augustana do you put ahead?  And why?

Not saying you are wrong, but just want to hear your take with the whole picture considered.



13. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW), 18-5 (Midwest C #3) - should enter MW rankings this week ahead of Hanover and Edgewood
14. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC), 17-6 (West C #2)
15. Rhode Island (NE, LEC), 20-5 (NE C #3)
16. Gustavus Adolphus (West, MIAC), 18-6 (West C #3)
17. Wesleyan (NE, NESCAC), 20-4 (NE C #4)
18. WPI (NE, NEWMAC), 18-6 (NE C #5)
19. Mary Washington (Mid-Atl, CAC), 16-6 (Mid-Atl C #2)

20. Nazareth (East, E8), 17-6 (East C #2)
21. New Jersey City (Atlantic, NJAC), 15-6 (Atlantic C #2)
22. Hardin-Simmons (South, ASC), 17-6 (South C #3)
23. Wabash (GL, NCAC), 16-7 (GL C #3)
24. Whitman (West, NWC), 16-7 (West C #4)
25. Edgewood (Midwest, NathC), 17-6 (Midwest C #4)
26. Keene State (NE, LEC), 16-6 (NE C #6)
27. Hanover (Midwest, HCAC), 16-7 (Midwest C#5)
28. Tufts (NE, NESCAC), 16-8 (NE C #7)
29. Guilford (South, ODAC), 15-7 (South C #4)
30. Widener (Mid-Atl, MACC), 14-7 (Mid-Atl C #3)
31. Lycoming (Mid-Atl, MACC), 16-7 (Mid-Atl C #4)
32. Puget Sound (West, NWC), 14-6 (West C #5)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:53:09 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 10:47:38 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:42:57 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 10:40:18 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:37:21 AM
And no freaking way that Augustana is a "current Pool C".

Why?

The horrid .466 SOS with a decent-but-not-great .783 WP isn't going to give them a leg up on anyone.

I definitely understand Augustana has a big SOS problem, but when you stack up all criteria do you think all 6 teams I have below them are really ahead of the Vikings right now?  And why?

Not saying you are wrong, but just want to hear your take with the whole picture considered.



13. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW), 18-5 (Midwest C #3) - should enter MW rankings this week ahead of Hanover and Edgewood
14. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC), 17-6 (West C #2)
15. Rhode Island (NE, LEC), 20-5 (NE C #3)
16. Gustavus Adolphus (West, MIAC), 18-6 (West C #3)
17. Wesleyan (NE, NESCAC), 20-4 (NE C #4)
18. WPI (NE, NEWMAC), 18-6 (NE C #5)
19. Mary Washington (Mid-Atl, CAC), 16-6 (Mid-Atl C #2)

UW-Stevens Point has a .590 SOS(!) and a 4-2 record versus regionally ranked.
Rhode Island College has a .588 SOS and a 5-4 record v. regionally ranked.
WPI: .588 SOS

I think your list doesn't put enough stock in SOS in general.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 10:56:35 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:53:09 AM
UW-Stevens Point has a .590 SOS(!) and a 4-2 record versus regionally ranked.

Augustana beat UW-Stevens Point - that why I put the Vikings ahead of the Pointers.

And yes, I tried to find SOS numbers and results vs regionally ranked, but those NCAA data sheets would not come up for me for some reason (server issues on their end I guess).  So yes, my work is rough.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:57:32 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 10:56:35 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:53:09 AM
UW-Stevens Point has a .590 SOS(!) and a 4-2 record versus regionally ranked.

Augustana beat UW-Stevens Point

They won't be on the table at the same time probably.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 11:03:52 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:57:32 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 10:56:35 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:53:09 AM
UW-Stevens Point has a .590 SOS(!) and a 4-2 record versus regionally ranked.

Augustana beat UW-Stevens Point

They won't be on the table at the same time probably.

UW-Stevens Point probably is ahead of Augustana, despite the head-to-head.  I agree.

But to your "no freakin way..." comment, don't you think Augustana is in the Top 19 right now?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 19, 2012, 11:05:31 AM
I wouldn't consider any team that hasn't yet appeared in the regional rankings to be safely in the Top 19 Pool C teams. Augie may get there, but they are far from "safe" at this time.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 11:06:47 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 19, 2012, 11:05:31 AM
I wouldn't consider any team that hasn't yet appeared in the regional rankings to be safely in the Top 19 Pool C teams. Augie may get there, but they are far from "safe" at this time.

But I think it's very clear based on results of the last week, Augustana will be in the rankings this week.  So if I'm projecting things, I think I need to include that.

I took results since the last ranking into account while compiling my list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 11:20:48 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 11:03:52 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:57:32 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 10:56:35 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 10:53:09 AM
UW-Stevens Point has a .590 SOS(!) and a 4-2 record versus regionally ranked.

Augustana beat UW-Stevens Point

They won't be on the table at the same time probably.

UW-Stevens Point probably is ahead of Augustana, despite the head-to-head.  I agree.

But to your "no freakin way..." comment, don't you think Augustana is in the Top 19 right now?

I think I have Augie around 34 (after removing A's)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 19, 2012, 12:13:47 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 11:06:47 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 19, 2012, 11:05:31 AM
I wouldn't consider any team that hasn't yet appeared in the regional rankings to be safely in the Top 19 Pool C teams. Augie may get there, but they are far from "safe" at this time.

But I think it's very clear based on results of the last week, Augustana will be in the rankings this week.  So if I'm projecting things, I think I need to include that.

I took results since the last ranking into account while compiling my list.

Sure, figure it in, but to say they're safe as a Top 19 Pool C? No. That's what I disagree on.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 19, 2012, 12:20:37 PM
No one is safe in "C" until their name is called.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 19, 2012, 01:23:27 PM
What's the average number of pool A teams that end up losing their conference tournaments this time of year?

As a pure guess, unless you're among the top half of the pool C list, your chances are pretty slim.


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 01:44:53 PM
Wash U wins the UAA championship (and Pool A bid) in a thriller @ NYU.  The Bears gave up about a 7-point lead with 6:00 or so to play and went down 5 with a a couple minutes left.  But down the stretch NYU missed FTs, had a big turnover, missed a layup, and gave up some big offensive rebounds.

Wash U is our first Pool A team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 02:06:38 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 01:44:53 PM
Wash U wins the UAA championship (and Pool A bid) in a thriller @ NYU.  The Bears gave up about a 7-point lead with 6:00 or so to play and went down 5 with a a couple minutes left.  But down the stretch NYU missed FTs, had a big turnover, missed a layup, and gave up some big offensive rebounds.

Wash U is our first Pool A team.

This puts NYU in a must win situation at Brandeis to end the season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 02:23:28 PM
I think Augustana is going to have a tough time cracking the MW regional rankings this week even. I could see Grinnell jumping in ahead of them.

Grinnell: .810 WP, .471 SOS, 2-0 vRRO
Augustana: .783 WP, .466 SOS, 3-4 vRRO

I'm not sure if there are any applicable common opponents or anything, but it's possible that Grinnell comes in at #8.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 19, 2012, 03:28:26 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 02:23:28 PM
I think Augustana is going to have a tough time cracking the MW regional rankings this week even. I could see Grinnell jumping in ahead of them.

Grinnell: .810 WP, .471 SOS, 2-0 vRRO
Augustana: .783 WP, .466 SOS, 3-4 vRRO

I'm not sure if there are any applicable common opponents or anything, but it's possible that Grinnell comes in at #8.

2 common opponents.

St. Norbert and Knox,  Augustana won both, Grinnell split with St. Norbert and beat Knox twice.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 04:08:38 PM
While on an 8-mile run this morning (half marathon training), it struck me that I needed to do a little mock Pool C selection.  I felt my first stab at this earlier today was too incomplete. 

This process was pretty eye opening actually - glad I did it.  I think I have the in-region records correct through today, as well as the results vs regionally ranked.  For SOS, I'm using the numbers through  the last regional ranking (what is on the current regional data sheets).

Please let me know if you find inaccurate numbers, or if you think I have lined team up incorrectly within regions.

Opine away...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 04:08:52 PM
(Games through Sunday, Feb 19)

Round 1
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Wooster (NCAC): 19-4 (.826), .543, 3-3
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Wheaton (CCIW): 17-5 (.773), .564, 4-3
(NE) Middlebury (NESCAC): 21-2 (.913), .567, 2-2 
(S) Randolph-Macon (ODAC): 16-4 (.800), .508, 3-2
(W) UW-River Falls (WIAC): 18-5 (.783), .549, 3-2

Round 2
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Wooster (NCAC): 19-4 (.826), .543, 3-3
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Wheaton (CCIW): 17-5 (.773), .564, 4-3
(NE) Western Conn (LEC): 20-5 (.800), .567, 6-3
(S) Randolph-Macon (ODAC): 16-4 (.800), .508, 3-2
(W) UW-River Falls (WIAC): 18-5 (.783), .549, 3-2

Round 3
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Wooster (NCAC): 19-4 (.826), .543, 3-3
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Wheaton (CCIW): 17-5 (.773), .564, 4-3
(NE) Rhode Island (LEC), 20-5 (.800), .591, 3-4
(S) Randolph-Macon (ODAC): 16-4 (.800), .508, 3-2
(W) UW-River Falls (WIAC): 18-5 (.783), .549, 3-2

Round 4
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Wooster (NCAC): 19-4 (.826), .543, 3-3
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Wheaton (CCIW): 17-5 (.773), .564, 4-3
(NE) Wesleyan (NESCAC), 20-4 (.833), .506, 3-2
(S) Randolph-Macon (ODAC): 16-4 (.800), .508, 3-2
(W) UW-River Falls (WIAC): 18-5 (.783), .549, 3-2

Round 5
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC), 18-6 (.750), .551, 2-4
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Wheaton (CCIW): 17-5 (.773), .564, 4-3
(NE) Wesleyan (NESCAC), 20-4 (.833), .506, 3-2
(S) Randolph-Macon (ODAC): 16-4 (.800), .508, 3-2
(W) UW-River Falls (WIAC): 18-5 (.783), .549, 3-2

Round 6
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC), 18-6 (.750), .551, 2-4
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): 17-6 (.739), .565, 2-4
(NE) Wesleyan (NESCAC), 20-4 (.833), .506, 3-2
(S) Randolph-Macon (ODAC): 16-4 (.800), .508, 3-2
(W) UW-River Falls (WIAC): 18-5 (.783), .549, 3-2

Round 7
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC), 18-6 (.750), .551, 2-4
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): 17-6 (.739), .565, 2-4
(NE) Wesleyan (NESCAC), 20-4 (.833), .506, 3-2 
(S) Randolph-Macon (ODAC): 16-4 (.800), .508, 3-2
(W) UW-Stevens Point (WIAC): 17-6 (.739), .596, 4-2

Round 8
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC), 18-6 (.750), .551, 2-4
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): 17-6 (.739), .565, 2-4
(NE) WPI (NEWMAC): 18-6 (.750), .588, 2-3
(S) Randolph-Macon (ODAC): 16-4 (.800), .508, 3-2
(W) UW-Stevens Point (WIAC): 17-6 (.739), .596, 4-2

Round 9
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC), 18-6 (.750), .551, 2-4
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): 17-6 (.739), .565, 2-4
(NE) WPI (NEWMAC): 18-6 (.750), .588, 2-3 
(S) Emory (UAA): 19-5 (.792), .514, 2-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point (WIAC): 17-6 (.739), .596, 4-2 

Round 10
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC), 18-6 (.750), .551, 2-4
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): 17-6 (.739), .565, 2-4
(NE) WPI (NEWMAC): 18-6 (.750), .588, 2-3 
(S) Emory (UAA): 19-5 (.792), .514, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC): 18-6 (.750), .509, 2-1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 04:09:02 PM
Round 11
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC), 18-6 (.750), .551, 2-4 
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): 17-6 (.739), .565, 2-4
(NE) Keene State (LEC), 16-6 (.727), .558), 3-2
(S) Emory (UAA): 19-5 (.792), .514, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC): 18-6 (.750), .509, 2-1

Round 12
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): 17-6 (.739), .565, 2-4
(NE) Keene State (LEC), 16-6 (.727), .558, 3-2
(S) Emory (UAA): 19-5 (.792), .514, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC): 18-6 (.750), .509, 2-1

Round 13
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2
(MW) Augustana (CCIW), 18-5 (.783), .460, 3-4
(NE) Keene State (LEC), 16-6 (.727), .558, 3-2
(S) Emory (UAA): 19-5 (.792), .514, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC): 18-6 (.750), .509, 2-1

Round 14
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Keystone (CSAC): 20-5 (.800), .497, 0-2 
(MW) Augustana (CCIW), 18-5 (.783), .460, 3-4
(NE) Keene State (LEC), 16-6 (.727), .558, 3-2
(S) Hardin-Simmons (ASC), 17-6 (.739), .542, 0-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC): 18-6 (.750), .509, 2-1

Round 15
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2
(E) New York U (UAA): 19-5 (.798), .497, 2-2
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Mary Washington (CAC), 16-6 (.727), .526, 3-2
(MW) Augustana (CCIW), 18-5 (.783), .460, 3-4
(NE) Keene State (LEC), 16-6 (.727), .558, 3-2
(S) Hardin-Simmons (ASC), 17-6 (.739), .542, 0-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC): 18-6 (.750), .509, 2-1

Round 16
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2 
(E) Nazareth (E8), 17-6 (.739), .547, 0-4
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Mary Washington (CAC), 16-6 (.727), .526, 3-2
(MW) Augustana (CCIW), 18-5 (.783), .460, 3-4
(NE) Keene State (LEC), 16-6 (.727), .558, 3-2 
(S) Hardin-Simmons (ASC), 17-6 (.739), .542, 0-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC): 18-6 (.750), .509, 2-1

Round 17
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2 
(E) Nazareth (E8), 17-6 (.739), .547, 0-4
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Mary Washington (CAC), 16-6 (.727), .526, 3-2
(MW) Augustana (CCIW), 18-5 (.783), .460, 3-4 
(NE) Tufts (NESCAC), 16-8 (.667), .543, 0-4
(S) Hardin-Simmons (ASC), 17-6 (.739), .542, 0-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC): 18-6 (.750), .509, 2-1

Round 18
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2 
(E) Nazareth (E8), 17-6 (.739), .547, 0-4
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Mary Washington (CAC), 16-6 (.727), .526, 3-2
(MW) Grinnell (MW), 17-4 (.810), .465, 2-0
(NE) Tufts (NESCAC), 16-8 (.667), .543, 0-4
(S) Hardin-Simmons (ASC), 17-6 (.739), .542, 0-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC): 18-6 (.750), .509, 2-1

Round 19
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2 
(E) Nazareth (E8), 17-6 (.739), .547, 0-4
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Mary Washington (CAC), 16-6 (.727), .526, 3-2
(MW) Grinnell (MW), 17-4 (.810), .465, 2-0
(NE) Tufts (NESCAC), 16-8 (.667), .543, 0-4
(S) Hardin-Simmons (ASC), 17-6 (.739), .542, 0-3
(W) Whitman (NWC), 16-7 (.696), .525, 1-3
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 04:10:38 PM
Selections:

1.   Middlebury (NE)
2.   Western Connecticut (NE)
3.   Rhode Island (NE)
4.   Wooster (GL)
5.   Wheaton (MW)
6.   UW-River Falls (W)
7.   Wesleyan (NE)
8.   Randolph-Macon (S)
9.   UW-Stevens Point (W)
10.   WPI (NE)
11.   Ohio Wesleyan (GL)
12.    Illinois Wesleyan (MW)
13.    Emory (S)
14.    Keystone (MA)
15.    NYU (E)
16.    Keene State (NE)
17.    Augustana (MW)
18.    Gustavus Adolphus (W)
19.    Richard Stockton (Atl)


By Region:

Northeast = 6
West = 3
Midwest = 3
Great Lakes = 2
South = 2
Mid-Atlantic = 1
East = 1
Atlantic = 1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 04:19:28 PM
Takeaways...

* I'm not necessarily comfortable giving 6 of the 19 Pool C bids to one region, but from a numbers standpoint, those 6 NE teams seemed logical to me.  I do think there is a chance that after 5 get in, there could be a discussion of what I will call "regional balance."  I'm not sure if that ever comes up, but it just seemed strange to have so many from one region.


* This process may use objective data, but I found it to be incredibly subjective.  Basically I just found myself subjectively trying to weigh in-region winning percentage, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked teams in each round.  I'm not sure if the national committee has a more objective process for weighing all of the criteria or not.


* I did in fact put Augustana in.  First, I decided they would get the MW region nod this week (over Grinnell).  Then when I selected them, it came down to the fact that at that point (Round 17), not only did Augie have the best in-region winning % on the board, but the Vikings also had 3 wins over teams already in the field - Wheaton, UW-Stevens Point, and Illinois Wesleyan.  That combination stood out to me.  But again, this whole deal was extremely subjective.  It's just a matter of how you decide to interpret the data.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 19, 2012, 05:11:03 PM
Lets also not forget this is assuming no conference tourney upsets, and we are usually due for at least a handful of those each year. Therefore, if I were in the teens of those selections, I wouldn't feel too comfortable with a pool c bid right now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 05:34:22 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 19, 2012, 05:11:03 PM
Lets also not forget this is assuming no conference tourney upsets, and we are usually due for at least a handful of those each year. Therefore, if I were in the teens of those selections, I wouldn't feel too comfortable with a pool c bid right now.

That is an extremely important point.  We know there are upsets coming that will take Pool C bids away from the teams on my projection.  Would we say the average # of major upsets each year is 4-5?

Updating my original post from this morning...

"Bubble Bursters" (Currents A's that would steal C's)
1. Cabrini (Mid-Atl, CSAC), 24-0
2. Hope (GL, MIAA), 16-0
3. Albertus Magnus (NE, GNAC), 24-1
4. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC), 23-1
5. MIT (NE, NEWMAC), 23-1
6. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC), 22-3
7. Birmingham Southern (South, SCAC), 21-1
8. Amherst (NE, NESCAC), 21-2
9. Whitworth (West, NWC), 21-2
10. CMS (West, SCIAC), 17-1
11. Wittenberg (GL, NCAC), 18-4
12. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atl, CC), 23-2
13. William Paterson (Atlantic, NJAC), 22-3
14. Hartwick (East, E8), 22-3
15. Oswego St (East, SUNYAC), 22-3
16. Medaille (East, AMCC), 22-2
17. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC), 20-3
18. Staten Island (Atlantic, CUNYAC), 20-2
19. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC), 21-2
20. St. Joseph's (Atlantic, Sky), 21-2
21. Lake Forest (Midwest, MWC), 19-3
22. Eastern Connecticut (NE, LEC), 20-5
23. Hobart (East, LL), 20-4

(For every team on this list that does not win a Pool C bid, start clipping off the bottom of my Pool C list below).


The next tier of current Pool A's (competitive Pool C candidates, but not on par with "bubble bursters")
Bethany (GL, PrAC), 22-2
Becker (NE, NECC), 21-4
Misericordia (Mid-Atl, MACF), 19-6
Christopher Newport (South, USAC), 18-4
North Central (Midwest, CCIW), 17-5
St. Thomas (West, MIAC), 17-6
Messiah (Atl, MACC), 17-6
St. Mary's, MD (Mid-Atl, CAC), 16-6
Concordia, WI (Midwest, NathC), 19-4 - should get back in MW this week


Current Pool C Projection
1.   Middlebury (NE, NESCAC)
2.   Western Connecticut (NE, LEC)
3.   Rhode Island (NE), LEC)
4.   Wooster (GL, NCAC)
5.   Wheaton (MW, CCIW)
6.   UW-River Falls (W, WIAC)
7.   Wesleyan (NE, NESCAC)
8.   Randolph-Macon (S, ODAC)
9.   UW-Stevens Point (W, WIAC)
10.   WPI (NE, NEWMAC)
11.   Ohio Wesleyan (GL, NCAC)
12.    Illinois Wesleyan (MW, CCIW)
13.    Emory (S, UAA)
14.    Keystone (MA, CSAC)
15.    NYU (E, UAA)
16.    Keene State (NE, LEC)
17.    Augustana (MW, CCIW)
18.    Gustavus Adolphus (W, MIAC)
19.    Richard Stockton (Atl, NJAC)


Pool C "Left on the Table" Projection

(A) New Jersey City (NJAC), 15-6 (.714), .525, 1-2
(E) Nazareth (E8), 17-6 (.739), .547, 0-4
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Mary Washington (CAC), 16-6 (.727), .526, 3-2
(MW) Grinnell (MW), 17-4 (.810), .465, 2-0
(NE) Tufts (NESCAC), 16-8 (.667), .543, 0-4
(S) Hardin-Simmons (ASC), 17-6 (.739), .542, 0-3
(W) Whitman (NWC), 16-7 (.696), .525, 1-3

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: jaybird44 on February 19, 2012, 05:58:02 PM
Very interesting analysis.  I did the same sort of thing (not nearly as thorough as yours) last season, trying to figure out if Wash-U's women would sneak into the tournament.  I had the Bears going in as the 4th-to-last team, and it was a bit more nail-biting than that before they reportedly gained entry as one of the last 2 or 3 teams into the tournament.

Q, what half-marathon are you training for?  I'm gearing up for the GO! St. Louis half on April 15th.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 06:26:30 PM
Quote from: jaybird44 on February 19, 2012, 05:58:02 PM
Very interesting analysis.  I did the same sort of thing (not nearly as thorough as yours) last season, trying to figure out if Wash-U's women would sneak into the tournament.  I had the Bears going in as the 4th-to-last team, and it was a bit more nail-biting than that before they reportedly gained entry as one of the last 2 or 3 teams into the tournament.

Q, what half-marathon are you training for?  I'm gearing up for the GO! St. Louis half on April 15th.

Jaybird, I am training for the Lincoln (NE) half - technically, I am training for a 10-mile race in March first.  I actually did the St. Louis half last April (when I was living in Columbia, Mo).  Beware of some hills in the mile 8-10 range - those, and the heat that day, had me struggling down the stretch! 

Good luck!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2012, 09:25:31 PM
Great work, TQ!  I was thinking about doing something like that, but you saved me the time! LOL.  It'll be interesting next week when teams start falling! 

I'll try to update my Regional Rankings list each night. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2012, 09:51:11 PM
HERE ARE LAST YEAR'S RESULTS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HOW MANY UPSETS THERE WERE.

Looks like about 10 upsets.

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2011, 10:36:42 PM
ALL RESULTS FINAL

GREEN is Pool C candidate (Lost in conf. tourney-UAA does not have a conf. tourney)
BLUE secured a Pool A bid (Automatic qualifier)
CROSSED OUT is the conference leader (reg. season)



Atlantic Region
1 Ramapo 19-3 20-5 (NJAC):  LOST to Montclair State 67-64 in semis 
2 SUNY-Purchase 21-4 21-4 (SKY):  BEAT Old Westbury 85-74 in semis; BEAT St. Joseph's (L.I.) 81-66 in final
3 Kean 17-5 18-7 (NJAC):  LOST to NJCU 75-61 in semis
4 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 18-5 20-5 (SKY):  BEAT Mount Saint Vincent 68-60, BEAT Mount Saint Mary 78-75 OT in semis; LOST to SUNY-Purchase 81-66 in final
5 Mount Saint Mary 18-7 18-7 (SKY):  LOST to St. Joseph's (L.I.) 78-75 OT in semis


East Region
1 Oswego State 22-3 22-3 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Potsdam State 64-50 in quarterfinals, LOST Brockport State 74-70 in semis
2 Ithaca 19-5 20-5  (E8):  LOST to St. John Fisher 88-75 in semis
3 Rochester 19-3 20-4 (UAA):  LOST to Emory 83-72
4 Stevens 19-6 19-6 (E8):  LOST to Hartwick 76-73 in semis
5 Hobart 19-5 19-6 (LL):  LOST to Hamilton 62-60 in semis
6 Buffalo State 15-6 18-6 (SUNYAC):  BEAT Cortland State 75-56 in quarterfinals, BEAT Plattsburgh State 87-79 in semis; BEAT Brockport State 67-50 in final


Great Lakes Region
1 Wooster 20-2 23-2 (NCAC):  BEAT Allegheny 62-57 in quarterfinals, BEAT Ohio Wesleyan 70-62 in semis; BEAT Wittenberg 82-68 in final
2 Marietta 19-3 22-3 (OAC):  BEAT Wilmington 84-73 in quarterfinals, BEAT Heidelberg 70-55 in semis; BEAT John Carroll 88-85 in final
3 Penn State-Behrend 22-2 22-3 (AMCC):  BEAT Medaille 58-51 in semis; LOST to La Roche 55-53 in final 
4 Hope 15-2 19-6 (MIAA):   BEAT Alma 110-77 in quarterfinals, BEAT Adrian 63-45 in semis; BEAT Calvin in final 72-67
5 Thiel 15-3 18-6 (PrAC):  BEAT Waynesburg 73-63 in quarterfinals, BEAT Thomas More 78-65 in semis; LOST to Bethany 74-67 in final
6 Wabash 18-5 19-5 (NCAC):  BEAT Kenyon 72-61 in quarterfinals, LOST to Wittenberg 65-63 in semis


Middle Atlantic Region
1 La Roche 22-2 23-2 (AMCC):   BEAT Hilbert 86-69 in semis; BEAT Penn State-Behrend 55-53 in final
2 St. Mary's (Md.) 18-3 20-5 (CAC):  BEAT Mary Washington 79-57 in semis; BEAT Wesley 97-65 in final
3 Cabrini 20-5 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Neumann 79-76 in semis, BEAT Gwynedd-Mercy 92-70 in final
4 Gwynedd-Mercy 19-4 20-5 (CSAC):  BEAT Keystone 85-65 in semis, LOST to Cabrini 92-70 in final
5 Keystone 21-5 21-5 (CSAC):  LOST to Gwynedd-Mercy 85-65 in semis
6 Lebanon Valley 17-6 19-6 (MACC):  BEAT Widener 58-56 in semis, LOST to Alvernia in final 57-55
7 Franklin and Marshall 18-5 20-5 (CC):  BEAT Haverford 71-62 in semis; BEAT Dickinson 75-55 in final 
8 DeSales 16-7 18-7 (MACF): BEAT Misericordia 78-69 in semis, LOST to Delaware Valley 79-58 in final
9 Wesley 15-5 16-9 (CAC):  BEAT Salisbury 75-74 in semis; LOST to St. Mary's (Md.) 97-65 in final


Midwest Region
1 Concordia (Wis.) 20-2 22-3 (NATH):  LOST to Edgewood 95-89 in semis
2 Augustana 21-2 22-2 (CCIW):   BEAT Wheaton 73-58 in semis; BEAT Illinois Wesleyan 76-52 in final
3 Manchester 18-5 19-6 (HCAC):  BEAT Transylvania 68-65 in semis; BEAT Hanover 79-69 in final   
4 Hanover 18-6 18-6 (HCAC):  BEAT Anderson 62-50 in semis; LOST to Manchester 79-69 in final
5 Anderson 15-7 17-8 (HCAC):  BEAT Bluffton 75-60 in quarterfinals; LOST to Hanover 62-50 in semis
6 Milwaukee Engineering 18-6 19-6 (NATH):  LOST to Aurora 72-67 in quarterfinals
7 Benedictine 17-6 18-7 (NATH):  BEAT Rockford 91-76 in quarterfinals, BEAT Aurora 71-60 in semis; BEAT Edgewood in final 70-59 
8 St. Norbert 18-5 18-5 (MWC):  BEAT Ripon 75-52 in semis; BEAT Grinnell in final 89-67


Northeast Region
1 Williams 21-1 23-1 (NESCAC): BEAT Trinity (Conn.) in semis 79-69; LOST Middlebury 63-54 in final
2 Middlebury 20-1 23-1 (NESCAC):  BEAT Amherst 67-67 in semis; BEAT Williams 63-54 in final 
3 WPI 21-3 21-4 (NEWMAC): BEAT Coast Guard 62-51 in semis; LOST MIT in final
4 Becker 22-3 22-3 (NECC):  BEAT Newbury 84-75 in semis; LOST Elms 79-65 in final 
5 Amherst 21-2 22-2 (NESCAC):  LOST to Middlebury 67-61 in semis
6 Western Connecticut State 20-4 21-4 (LEC):  LOST Eastern Connecticut State 94-70 in semis
7 Rhode Island College 17-7 17-7 (LEC):   BEAT Keene State 102-92 2OT in semis; BEAT Eastern Connecticut Sate 62-49 in final
8 Elms 16-6 18-7 (NECC):  BEAT Southern Vermont 88-73 in semis; BEAT Becker 79-65 in final
9 Eastern Connecticut State 15-7 17-8 (LEC):  BEAT Western Connecticut State 94-70 in semis; LOST to Rhode Island College 62-49 in final   
10 Brandeis 16-8 16-8 (UAA):  LOST to NYU 70-54
11 Roger Williams 17-8 17-8 (CCC):  LOST to Endicott 71-68 in CCC quarterfinals


South Region
1 Virginia Wesleyan 20-3 22-3 (ODAC):  BEAT Washington and Lee 98-78  in quarterfinals; LOST to Randolph 80-76 in semis
2 Randolph-Macon 20-4 21-4 (ODAC):  BEAT Roanoke 63-56 in quarterfinals; BEAT Eastern Mennonite 90-79 in semis; BEAT Randolph 68-43 in final 
3 Texas-Dallas 19-4 20-5 (ASC):   BEAT Concordia (Texas) 85-70 in quarterfinals; LOST to Mary Hardin-Baylor 77-69 in semis
4 Ferrum 18-4 21-4 (USAC):  BEAT Christopher Newport 87-81 in semis; LOST to North Carolina Wesleyan 74-70 OT in final 
5  Eastern Mennonite 15-4 21-4 (ODAC):   BEAT Hampden-Sydney 76-75 in quarterfinals;  LOST  to Randolph-Macon 90-79 in semis
6 North Carolina Wesleyan 14-4 19-6 (USAC): BEAT Greensboro 86-69 in semis; BEAT Ferrum in finals 2/27
7 Mary Hardin-Baylor 19-6 19-6 (ASC): BEAT Texas-Tyler 73-68 in quarterfinals; BEAT Texas-Dallas 77-69 in semis; LOST McMurry 72-65 in ASC final   
8 Emory 18-5 19-5 (UAA):  BEAT Rochester 83-72

West Region
1  Whitworth 24-1 24-1 (NWC):  BEAT Pacific Lutheran 74-63 in semis; BEAT Whitman 74-50 in final
2 St. Thomas 21-3 22-3 (MIAC): BEAT Hamline 78-70in semis; BEAT Gustavus Adolphus 83-77 in final
3 UW-Stevens Point 21-3 22-3 (WIAC): BEAT Superior 84-52 in semis; BEAT River Falls 79-56 in final
4 Chapman 14-1 21-3 (IND):  BEAT La Sierra 61-56, BEAT Univ. of Dallas 73-43
5 Carleton 18-5 18-7 (MIAC):  LOST to Gustavus Adolphus 70-64 in semis
6 UW-River Falls 17-5 19-6 (WIAC):  BEAT Platteville 69-60 in semis; LOST Stevens Point 79-56 in final
7 Whitman 13-5 18-7 (NWC):  BEAT Lewis and Clark 79-76 in semis; LOST to Whitworth 74-50 in final
8 Lewis and Clark 12-5 18-7 (NWC):  LOST to Whitman 79-76 in semis
9 UW-Whitewater 16-8 17-8 (WIAC):  LOST to Superior 78-72 in quarterfinals
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 19, 2012, 11:14:24 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2012, 09:25:31 PM
Great work, TQ!  I was thinking about doing something like that, but you saved me the time! LOL.  It'll be interesting next week when teams start falling! 

I'll try to update my Regional Rankings list each night.

... Were you talking about the field selection or running the half marathon?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2012, 10:27:40 PM
Here is last week's regional rankings with THIS week's schedule.  I'll update the rankings when they come out on Wednesday.

Teams in RED are Pool C candidates
Teams in BLUE are Pool A winners
Teams with an asterisk* are regular season conference champions (or #1 seeds in conference tourneys due to tie-breakers)




   ATL                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #2      William Paterson      NJAC      vs Kean in NJAC semis 2/22   
   #2      #1      Staten Island*      CUNYAC      vs Baruch in CUNYAC semis 2/21   
   #3      #3      St. Joseph's (LI)*      SKY      vs Purchase/Old Westbury winner in SKY semis 2/23   
   #4      #4      Richard Stockton*      NJAC      vs Ramapo in NJAC semis 2/22   
   #5      #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      Regular season complete   
                              
   EAST                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      Hartwick*      E8      vs Ithaca in E8 semis 2/24   
   #2      #2      Oswego State*      SUNYAC      vs New Paltz in SUNYAC quarters 2/21   
   #3      #4      Hobart*      LL      vs Union in LL semis 2/22   
   #4      #3      NYU      UAA      at Brandeis 2/25   
   #5      #5      Medaille*      AMCC      vs D'Youville/Hilbert winner in AMCC semis 2/24   
   #6      #6      Nazareth      E8      vs Stevens in E8 semis 2/24   
                              
   GR. LK.                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      Hope*      MIAA      vs Calvin in MIAA semis 2/22   
   #2      #2      Wittenberg*      NCAC      vs Kenyon in NCAC quarters 2/21   
   #3      #3      Wooster      NCAC      vs DePauw in NCAC quarters 2/21   
   #4      #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      vs Hiram in NCAC quarters 2/21   
   #5      #5      Wabash      NCAC      vs Denison in NCAC quarters 2/21   
   #6      N/A      Bethany (W.Va.)*      PrAC      vs Waynesburg/Westminster winner in PrAC quarters 2/21   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
         #6      Capital      OAC         
                              
   MID.ATL                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      Cabrini*      CSAC      vs Immaculata in CSAC semis 2/21   
   #2      #2      Keystone      CSAC      vs Neumann in CSAC semis 2/21   
   #3      #5      Franklin & Marshall*      CC      vs Washington College/Johns Hopkins winner in semis 2/24   
   #4      #4      Mary Washington      CAC      vs Hood/Wesley winner in CAC semis 2/23   
   #5      #6      St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      vs Frostburg State/York winner in CAC semis 2/23   
   #6      #7      Messiah*      MACC      vs Albright in MACC semis 2/22   
   #7      #8      Misericordia*      MACF      vs FDU-Florham in MACF semis 2/22   
   #8      N/A      Widener      MACC      vs Lycoming in MACC semis 2/22   
   #9      #3      Lycoming      MACC      vs Widener in MACC semis 2/22   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
         #9      Alvernia      MACC         
                              
   MW                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      Washington U.*      UAA      at Chicago 2/25   
   #2      #3      Lake Forest*      MWC      vs Carroll in MWC semis 2/24   
   #3      #2      Transylvania*      HCAC      vs Anderson/Bluffton winner in HCAC semis 2/25   
   #4      #4      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      vs Augustana 2/21   
   #5      #5      North Central (IL)*      CCIW      vs TBA in CCIW semis 2/24   
   #6      #6      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      vs TBA in CCIW semis 2/24   
   #7      N/A      Hanover      HCAC      vs Defiance/Rose-Hulman winner in HCAC semis 2/25   
   #8      #7      Edgewood      NATH      vs Rockford in NATHCON quarters 2/21   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
         #8      Concordia (WI)*      NATH         
                              
   NE                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      Amherst*      NESCAC      vs Bates in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #2      #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      vs Wesleyan in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #3      #4      W. Connecticut      LEC      vs Plymouth State/Rhode Island College winner in LEC semis 2/24   
   #4      #7      MIT*      NEWMAC      vs Wheaton/Babson winner in NEWMAC semis 2/25   
   #5      #8      Keene State      LEC      vs Mass-Dartmouth in LEC 1st round 2/21   
   #6      #3      Rhode Island College      LEC      vs Plymouth State in LEC 1st round 2/21   
   #7      #5      WPI      NEWMAC      vs Springfield in NEWMAC semis 2/25   
   #8      #9      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      vs Middlebury in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #9      #6      E. Connecticut*      LEC      vs Mass-Dartmouth/Keene State in LEC semis 2/24   
   #10      #12      Albertus Magnus*      GNAC      vs Emerson in GNAC quarters 2/21   
   #11      #11      Becker*      NECC      vs Newbury/Daniel Webster winner in NECC semis 2/24   
   #12      #10      Tufts      NESCAC      SEASON COMPLETE   
                              
   SOUTH                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      Mary Hardin-Baylor*      ASC      TBA   
   #2      #2      Virginia Wesleyan*      ODAC      vs Washington and Lee/Emory & Henry winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
   #3      #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      vs Bridgewater/Eastern Mennonite winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
   #4      #3      Birmingham-Southern*      SCAC      vs Dallas in SCAC quarters 2/24   
   #5      #6      Emory      UAA      at Rochester 2/25   
   #6      #5      Christopher Newport*      USAC      vs Methodist/Ferrum winner in USAC semis 2/24   
   #7      #7      Guilford      ODAC      vs Roanoke/Randolph winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
   #8      #8      Hardin-Simmons      ASC      TBA   
                              
   WEST                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      River Falls      WIAC      vs TBA in WIAC semis 2/24   
   #2      #2      Stevens Point      WIAC      vs Superior in WIAC 1st round 2/22   
   #3      #3      Whitewater*      WIAC      vs TBA in WIAC semis 2/24   
   #4      #4      Whitworth*      NWC      vs Lewis & Clark in NWC semis 2/23   
   #5      #5      CMS*      SCIAC      vs Pomona-Pitzer 2/21   
   #6      #7      Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      TBA in MIAC semis 2/22   
   #7      #6      St. Thomas*      MIAC      TBA in MIAC semis 2/22   
   #8      #9      Whitman      NWC      at Puget Sound in NWC semis 2/23   
   #9      N/A      Puget Sound      NWC      vs Whitman in NWC semis 2/23   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
         #8      Dubuque      IIAC         
                              
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 21, 2012, 11:37:50 AM
Have we gotten an official word on the NCAA Selection Show? I believe I saw the women are on Monday at 2:30 PM ET, but I haven't seen anything regarding the men. Anyone have info?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2012, 11:38:57 AM
Here's what I have for this week's regional rankings (and accompanying tournament projections)

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/regional-rankings-2202012.html

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/bracketology-2212012.html

My ranking formula has predicted 75% of the ranked teams within one spot of where the committee places them. 89% within two spots. Not bad for ignoring two of the primary criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 21, 2012, 11:40:20 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 21, 2012, 11:37:50 AM
Have we gotten an official word on the NCAA Selection Show? I believe I saw the women are on Monday at 2:30 PM ET, but I haven't seen anything regarding the men. Anyone have info?

Nevermind. Just found it. Noon Eastern time.

http://web1.ncaa.org/NCAATV/exec/query
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 21, 2012, 01:13:05 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 21, 2012, 11:40:20 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 21, 2012, 11:37:50 AM
Have we gotten an official word on the NCAA Selection Show? I believe I saw the women are on Monday at 2:30 PM ET, but I haven't seen anything regarding the men. Anyone have info?

Nevermind. Just found it. Noon Eastern time.

http://web1.ncaa.org/NCAATV/exec/query

Which means (based on the last few years) it will begin around 2pm   :P
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2012, 02:25:12 PM
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 21, 2012, 01:13:05 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 21, 2012, 11:40:20 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 21, 2012, 11:37:50 AM
Have we gotten an official word on the NCAA Selection Show? I believe I saw the women are on Monday at 2:30 PM ET, but I haven't seen anything regarding the men. Anyone have info?

Nevermind. Just found it. Noon Eastern time.

http://web1.ncaa.org/NCAATV/exec/query

Which means (based on the last few years) it will begin around 2pm   :P

Zzzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 21, 2012, 09:37:36 PM
Probably safe to pull Wabash from the Pool C bubble list, as they fall at home to Denison by a final of 74-60 tonight in NCAC quarterfinal action.

16-8 (.667) in-region record won't be enough to get it done for the Little Giants, even with a good SOS.

Wooster, Ohio Wesleyan and Wittenberg all win and all stay firmly in the Pool C discussion. Wooster and OWU play each other in Friday's NCAC semifinals at Wittenberg. Loser of that one becomes a "likely" C candidate and hopes for minimal upsets around the country.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: stag44 on February 22, 2012, 12:18:43 AM
CMS just lost to PP, moving their record to 23-2, and 19-2 vs D3 Teams.

Curious to see if this would push them off any Pool C bids, especially if they were to lose in their conference tourney
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2012, 06:11:32 AM
Here is last week's regional rankings with THIS week's schedule.  I'll update the rankings when they come out on Wednesday.

Teams in RED are Pool C candidates
Teams in BLUE are Pool A winners
Teams with an asterisk* are regular season conference champions (or #1 seeds in conference tourneys due to tie-breakers)

UPDATED THROUGH TUESDAY'S GAMES...



   ATL                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #2      William Paterson      NJAC      vs Kean in NJAC semis 2/22   
   #2      #1      Staten Island*      CUNYAC      WON vs Baruch in 73-63, vs Medgar Evers in final 2/25   
   #3      #3      St. Joseph's (LI)*      SKY      vs Purchase/Old Westbury winner in SKY semis 2/23   
   #4      #4      Richard Stockton*      NJAC      vs Ramapo in NJAC semis 2/22   
   #5      #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      Regular season complete   
                              
   EAST                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      Hartwick*      E8      vs Ithaca in E8 semis 2/24   
   #2      #2      Oswego State*      SUNYAC      WON vs New Paltz 73-62, vs Brockport State in semis 2/24   
   #3      #4      Hobart*      LL      vs Union in LL semis 2/22   
   #4      #3      NYU      UAA      at Brandeis 2/25   
   #5      #5      Medaille*      AMCC      vs D'Youville/Hilbert winner in AMCC semis 2/24   
   #6      #6      Nazareth      E8      vs Stevens in E8 semis 2/24   
                              
   GR. LK.                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      Hope*      MIAA      vs Calvin in MIAA semis 2/22   
   #2      #2      Wittenberg*      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon 73-61, vs Denison in semis 2/24   
   #3      #3      Wooster      NCAC      WON vs DePauw 59-51, vs Ohio Wesleyan in semis 2/24   
   #4      #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      WON vs Hiram 96-86, vs Wooster in semis 2/24   
   #5      #5      Wabash      NCAC      LOST vs Denison 74-60 in quarters  SEASON COMPLETE   
   #6      N/A      Bethany (W.Va.)*      PrAC      WON vs Waynesburg 82-69, Washington & Jefferson in semis 2/23   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
         #6      Capital      OAC         
                              
   MID.ATL                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      Cabrini*      CSAC      WON vs Immaculata 87-68, vs Keystone in final 2/24   
   #2      #2      Keystone      CSAC      WON vs Neumann in 98-75, vs Cabrini in final 2/24   
   #3      #5      Franklin & Marshall*      CC      vs Washington College/Johns Hopkins winner in semis 2/24   
   #4      #4      Mary Washington      CAC      vs Hood/Wesley winner in CAC semis 2/23   
   #5      #6      St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      vs Frostburg State/York winner in CAC semis 2/23   
   #6      #7      Messiah*      MACC      vs Albright in MACC semis 2/22   
   #7      #8      Misericordia*      MACF      vs FDU-Florham in MACF semis 2/22   
   #8      N/A      Widener      MACC      vs Lycoming in MACC semis 2/22   
   #9      #3      Lycoming      MACC      vs Widener in MACC semis 2/22   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
         #9      Alvernia      MACC         
                              
   MW                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      Washington U.*      UAA      at Chicago 2/25   
   #2      #3      Lake Forest*      MWC      vs Carroll in MWC semis 2/24   
   #3      #2      Transylvania*      HCAC      vs Anderson/Bluffton winner in HCAC semis 2/25   
   #4      #4      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      WON vs Augustana 74-44, vs Illinois Wesleyan in semis 2/24   
   #5      #5      North Central (IL)*      CCIW      vs Augustana in semis 2/24   
   #6      #6      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      vs Wheaton in semis 2/24   
   #7      N/A      Hanover      HCAC      vs Defiance/Rose-Hulman winner in HCAC semis 2/25   
   #8      #7      Edgewood      NATH      WON vs Rockford 94-84, vs Benedictine 2/23   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
         #8      Concordia (WI)*      NATH         
                              
   NE                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      Amherst*      NESCAC      vs Bates in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #2      #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      vs Wesleyan in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #3      #4      W. Connecticut      LEC      vs Plymouth State/Rhode Island College winner in LEC semis 2/24   
   #4      #7      MIT*      NEWMAC      vs Wheaton/Babson winner in NEWMAC semis 2/25   
   #5      #8      Keene State      LEC      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64, plays Eastern Connecticut in semis 2/24   
   #6      #3      Rhode Island College      LEC      WON vs Plymouth State 79-48, plays Western Connecticut in semis 2/24   
   #7      #5      WPI      NEWMAC      vs Springfield in NEWMAC semis 2/25   
   #8      #9      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      vs Middlebury in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #9      #6      E. Connecticut*      LEC      vs Mass-Dartmouth/Keene State in LEC semis 2/24   
   #10      #12      Albertus Magnus*      GNAC      WON vs Emerson 82-58, vs Lasell in semis 2/23   
   #11      #11      Becker*      NECC      vs Newbury/Daniel Webster winner in NECC semis 2/24   
   #12      #10      Tufts      NESCAC      SEASON COMPLETE   
                              
   SOUTH                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      Mary Hardin-Baylor*      ASC      TBA   
   #2      #2      Virginia Wesleyan*      ODAC      vs Washington and Lee/Emory & Henry winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
   #3      #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      vs Bridgewater/Eastern Mennonite winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
   #4      #3      Birmingham-Southern*      SCAC      vs Dallas in SCAC quarters 2/24   
   #5      #6      Emory      UAA      at Rochester 2/25   
   #6      #5      Christopher Newport*      USAC      vs Methodist/Ferrum winner in USAC semis 2/24   
   #7      #7      Guilford      ODAC      vs Roanoke/Randolph winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
   #8      #8      Hardin-Simmons      ASC      TBA   
                              
   WEST                           
   WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.         
   #1      #1      River Falls      WIAC      vs TBA in WIAC semis 2/24   
   #2      #2      Stevens Point      WIAC      vs Superior in WIAC 1st round 2/22   
   #3      #3      Whitewater*      WIAC      vs TBA in WIAC semis 2/24   
   #4      #4      Whitworth*      NWC      vs Lewis & Clark in NWC semis 2/23   
   #5      #5      CMS*      SCIAC      LOST vs Pomona-Pitzer 51-50, vs Redlands in semis 2/24   
   #6      #7      Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      TBA in MIAC semis 2/22   
   #7      #6      St. Thomas*      MIAC      TBA in MIAC semis 2/22   
   #8      #9      Whitman      NWC      at Puget Sound in NWC semis 2/23   
   #9      N/A      Puget Sound      NWC      vs Whitman in NWC semis 2/23   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
         #8      Dubuque      IIAC         
                              
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2012, 09:43:45 AM

Shouldn't William Patterson and Wooster be in red also - or are you just marking the teams on the bubble?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 22, 2012, 09:53:01 AM
My guess is that he is marking teams that no longer have a shot at a Pool A (already eliminated from conference tourney or UAA teams).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2012, 09:58:23 AM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 22, 2012, 09:53:01 AM
My guess is that he its marking teams that no longer have a shot at a Pool A (already eliminated from conference tourney or UAA teams).

That makes sense.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2012, 01:20:08 PM
I will have the new regional rankings with the updated results from tonights games posted tomorrow morning.  Thanks for your patience!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2012, 06:25:27 PM
Quick look at this week's regional rankings.

Men's rankings
Atlantic Region
1 Staten Island 20-2 22-4
2 William Paterson 22-3 22-3
3 St. Joseph's (L.I.) 21-2 21-3
4 Richard Stockton 17-6 18-7
5 New Jersey City 15-6 17-7

East Region
1 Hartwick 22-2 23-2
2 Oswego State 22-2 22-3
3 Hobart 20-4 21-4
4 New York U. 19-5 19-5
5 Medaille 22-2 23-2
6 Nazareth 17-6 17-8

Great Lakes
1 Hope 16-0 24-1
2 Wittenberg 18-4 20-5
3 Wooster 19-4 21-4
4 Ohio Wesleyan 18-6 19-6
5 Bethany 21-2 22-3
6 John Carroll 15-6 18-6

Mid-Atlantic
1 Cabrini 24-0 24-1
2 Franklin & Marshall 23-2 23-2
3 St. Mary's (Md.) 17-5 19-6
4 Keystone 20-5 20-5
5 Messiah 17-6 18-6
6 Misericordia 19-6 19-6
7 Widener 14-7 18-7
8 Mary Washington 16-6 17-8
9 Albright 13-7 17-8

Midwest
1 Washington U. 18-5 18-6
2 Wheaton (Ill.) 17-5 19-5
3 Transylvania 21-2 22-3
4 Lake Forest 19-3 20-3
5 Illinois Wesleyan 17-6 19-6
6 Concordia (Wis.) 19-4 20-4
7 North Central (Ill.) 17-5 18-7
8 Augustana 18-5 19-5

Northeast
1 Amherst 21-2 23-2
2 Middlebury 21-2 23-2
3 MIT 23-1 23-1
4 Rhode Island College 20-5 20-5
5 Western Connecticut 20-5 20-5
6 Eastern Connecticut 20-5 20-5
7 WPI 18-6 18-6
8 Wesleyan 20-4 20-5
9 Albertus Magnus 24-1 24-1
10 Keene State 15-6 18-7
11 Becker 21-4 21-4
12 Salem State 17-7 18-7

South
1 Mary Hardin-Baylor 23-1 24-1
2 Virginia Wesleyan 21-3 22-3
3 Birmingham-Southern 21-1 24-1
4 Randolph-Macon 17-4 20-5
5 Christopher Newport 18-4 21-4
6 Emory 19-5 19-5
7 Hardin-Simmons 17-6 19-6
8 Texas-Dallas 19-4 21-4

West
1 UW-Whitewater 22-3 22-3
2 Whitworth 21-2 22-3
3 UW-River Falls 18-5 18-7
4 UW-Stevens Point 17-6 19-6
5 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 17-1 23-1
6 St. Thomas 18-6 19-6
7 Gustavus Adolphus 18-6 19-6
8 Puget Sound 14-6 19-6
9 Whitman 16-7 18-
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2012, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 02:23:28 PM
I think Augustana is going to have a tough time cracking the MW regional rankings this week even. I could see Grinnell jumping in ahead of them.

Grinnell: .810 WP, .471 SOS, 2-0 vRRO
Augustana: .783 WP, .466 SOS, 3-4 vRRO

I'm not sure if there are any applicable common opponents or anything, but it's possible that Grinnell comes in at #8.

Augie comes in at 8.

Despite winning twice, North Central gets jumped by IWU and Concordia (who wasn't ranked last week).  Concordia did beat "ranked at the time" Edgewood last week.  As expected, Edgewood and Hanover drop out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 22, 2012, 06:37:15 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2012, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 02:23:28 PM
I think Augustana is going to have a tough time cracking the MW regional rankings this week even. I could see Grinnell jumping in ahead of them.

Grinnell: .810 WP, .471 SOS, 2-0 vRRO
Augustana: .783 WP, .466 SOS, 3-4 vRRO

I'm not sure if there are any applicable common opponents or anything, but it's possible that Grinnell comes in at #8.

Augie comes in at 8.

...but after getting monkey stomped at Wheaton last night might go right back out unless they make a good showing at the CCIW tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2012, 07:59:38 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 22, 2012, 06:37:15 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2012, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2012, 02:23:28 PM
I think Augustana is going to have a tough time cracking the MW regional rankings this week even. I could see Grinnell jumping in ahead of them.

Grinnell: .810 WP, .471 SOS, 2-0 vRRO
Augustana: .783 WP, .466 SOS, 3-4 vRRO

I'm not sure if there are any applicable common opponents or anything, but it's possible that Grinnell comes in at #8.

Augie comes in at 8.

...but after getting monkey stomped at Wheaton last night might go right back out unless they make a good showing at the CCIW tournament.

True, but with the change to 'once ranked, always ranked', Wheaton, NCC, and IWU all pick up two more results vs. regionally-ranked teams.  Having moved up to #2 I think Wheaton is a lock regardless, but that could prove the difference for NCC and/or IWU ending on the good side of the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2012, 09:21:20 PM
Helps Point too, since they played Augustana, though they lost...it's still a result.

WORKING ON RANKINGS RIGHT NOW:

Atlantic Region must be pretty weak.  #5 NJCU loses last week, but no one jumps in this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2012, 11:55:07 PM
UPDATED THROUGH WEDNESDAY'S GAMES

Teams in RED are Pool C candidates
Teams in BLUE are Pool A winners
Teams with an asterisk* are regular season conference champions (or #1 seeds in conference tourneys due to tie-breakers)



         ATL                                 
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REC.      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #2      #1      Staten Island*      CUNYAC      20-2, 22-4      WON vs Baruch in 73-63, vs Medgar Evers in final 2/25   
   #2      #1      #2      William Paterson      NJAC      22-3, 22-3      WON vs Kean 72-56, vs Richard Stockton in final 2/25   
   #3      #3      #3      St. Joseph's (LI)*      SKY      21-2, 21-3      vs Purchase/Old Westbury winner in SKY semis 2/23   
   #4      #4      #4      Richard Stockton*      NJAC      17-6, 18-7      WON vs Ramapo 89-87 2OT, vs William Paterson in final 2/25   
   #5      #5      #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      15-6, 17-7      Regular season complete   
                                          
         EAST                                 
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REC.      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #1      #1      Hartwick*      E8      22-2, 23-2      vs Ithaca in E8 semis 2/24   
   #2      #2      #2      Oswego State*      SUNYAC      22-2, 22-3      WON vs New Paltz 73-62, vs Brockport State in semis 2/24   
   #3      #3      #4      Hobart*      LL      20-4, 21-4      WON vs Union 73-53, vs Skidmore in final 2/25   
   #4      #4      #3      NYU      UAA      19-5, 19-5      at Brandeis 2/25   
   #5      #5      #5      Medaille*      AMCC      22-2, 23-2      vs D'Youville/Hilbert winner in AMCC semis 2/24   
   #6      #6      #6      Nazareth      E8      17-6, 17-8      vs Stevens in E8 semis 2/24   
                                          
         GR. LK.                                 
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REC.      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #1      #1      Hope*      MIAA      16-0, 24-1      WON vs Calvin 87-80, vs Adrian in final 2/25   
   #2      #2      #2      Wittenberg*      NCAC      18-4, 20-5      WON vs Kenyon 73-61, vs Denison in semis 2/24   
   #3      #3      #3      Wooster      NCAC      19-4,21-4      WON vs DePauw 59-51, vs Ohio Wesleyan in semis 2/24   
   #4      #4      #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      18-6, 19-6      WON vs Hiram 96-86, vs Wooster in semis 2/24   
   #5      #6      N/A      Bethany (W.Va.)*      PrAC      21-2, 22-3      WON vs Waynesburg 82-69, Washington & Jefferson in semis 2/23   
   #6      N/A      N/A      John Carroll      OAC      15-6, 18-6      vs Wilmington in semis 2/23   
                                          
                     DROPPING OUT                     
   N/A      N/A      #6      Capital      OAC            vs Ohio Northern in semis 2/23   
   N/A      #5      #5      Wabash      NCAC            LOST vs Denison 74-60 in quarters  SEASON COMPLETE   
         MID.ATL                                 
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REC.      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #1      #1      Cabrini*      CSAC      24-0, 24-1      WON vs Immaculata 87-68, vs Keystone in final 2/24   
   #2      #3      #5      Franklin & Marshall*      CC      23-2, 23-2      vs Washington College/Johns Hopkins winner in semis 2/24   
   #3      #5      #6      St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      17-5, 19-6      vs Frostburg State/York winner in CAC semis 2/23   
   #4      #2      #2      Keystone      CSAC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Neumann 98-75, vs Cabrini in final 2/24   
   #5      #6      #7      Messiah*      MACC      17-6, 18-6      WON vs Albright 70-65 OT, vs Lycoming in final 2/25   
   #6      #7      #8      Misericordia*      MACF      19-6, 19-6      WON vs FDU-Florham 76-73, vs Wilkes in final 2/25   
   #7      #8      N/A      Widener      MACC      14-7, 18-7      LOST vs Lycoming 79-77 OT in MACC semis.  SEASON COMPLETE   
   #8      #4      #4      Mary Washington      CAC      16-6, 17-8      vs Hood/Wesley winner in CAC semis 2/23   
   #9      N/A      N/A      Albright       MACC      13-7, 17-8      LOST vs Messiah 70-65 OT in MACC semis.  SEASON COMPLETE   
                                          
                     DROPPING OUT                     
   N/A      N/A      #9      Alvernia      MACC            SEASON COMPLETE   
   N/A      #9      #3      Lycoming      MACC            WON vs Widener 79-77 OT, vs Messiah in MACC final 2/25   
                                          
         MW                                 
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REC.      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #1      #1      Washington U.*      UAA      18-5, 18-6      at Chicago 2/25   
   #2      #4      #4      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      17-5, 19-5      WON vs Augustana 74-44, vs Illinois Wesleyan in semis 2/24   
   #3      #3      #2      Transylvania*      HCAC      21-2, 22-3      vs Anderson/Bluffton winner in HCAC semis 2/25   
   #4      #2      #3      Lake Forest*      MWC      19-3, 20-3      vs Carroll in MWC semis 2/24   
   #5      #6      #6      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      17-6, 19-6      vs Wheaton in semis 2/24   
   #6      N/A      #8      Concordia (WI)*      NATH      19-4, 20-4      WON vs Marian 73-66, vs Lakeland in semis 2/23   
   #7      #5      #5      North Central (IL)*      CCIW      17-5, 18-7      vs Augustana in semis 2/24   
   #8      N/A      N/A      Augustana      CCIW      18-5, 19-5      LOST vs Wheaton 74-44, vs North Central in semis 2/24   
                                          
                     DROPPING OUT                     
   N/A      #7      N/A      Hanover      HCAC            vs Defiance/Rose-Hulman winner in HCAC semis 2/25   
   N/A      #8      #7      Edgewood      NATH            WON vs Rockford 94-84, vs Benedictine 2/23   
         NE                                 
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REC.      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #1      #1      Amherst*      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      vs Bates in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #2      #2      #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      vs Wesleyan in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #3      #4      #7      MIT*      NEWMAC      23-1, 23-1      vs Wheaton/Babson winner in NEWMAC semis 2/25   
   #4      #6      #3      Rhode Island College      LEC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Plymouth State 79-48, plays Western Connecticut in semis 2/24   
   #5      #3      #4      W. Connecticut      LEC      20-5, 20-5      vs Plymouth State/Rhode Island College winner in LEC semis 2/24   
   #6      #9      #6      E. Connecticut*      LEC      20-5, 20-5      vs Mass-Dartmouth/Keene State in LEC semis 2/24   
   #7      #7      #5      WPI      NEWMAC      18-6, 18-6      vs Springfield in NEWMAC semis 2/25   
   #8      #8      #9      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      20-4, 20-5      vs Middlebury in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #9      #10      #12      Albertus Magnus*      GNAC      24-1, 24-1      WON vs Emerson 82-58, vs Lasell in semis 2/23   
   #10      #5      #8      Keene State      LEC      15-6, 18-7      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64, plays Eastern Connecticut in semis 2/24   
   #11      #11      #11      Becker*      NECC      21-4, 21-4      vs Newbury/Daniel Webster winner in NECC semis 2/24   
   #12      N/A      N/A      Salem State*      MASCAC      17-7, 18-7      vs MLCA in semis 2/23   
                                          
                     DROPPING OUT                     
   N/A      #12      #10      Tufts      NESCAC            SEASON COMPLETE   
                                          
         SOUTH                                 
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REC.      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #1      #1      Mary Hardin-Baylor*      ASC      23-1, 24-1      vs Mississippi College in quarters 2/24   
   #2      #2      #2      Virginia Wesleyan*      ODAC      21-3, 22-3      vs Washington and Lee/Emory & Henry winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
   #3      #4      #3      Birmingham-Southern*      SCAC      21-1, 24-1      vs Dallas in SCAC quarters 2/24   
   #4      #3      #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      17-4, 20-5      vs Bridgewater/Eastern Mennonite winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
   #5      #6      #5      Christopher Newport*      USAC      18-4, 21-4      vs Methodist/Ferrum winner in USAC semis 2/24   
   #6      #5      #6      Emory      UAA      19-5, 19-5      at Rochester 2/25   
   #7      #8      #8      Hardin-Simmons      ASC      17-6, 19-6      vs Louisiana College in quarters 2/24   
   #8      N/A      N/A      Texas-Dallas      ASC      19-4, 21-4      vs Schreiner in quarters 2/24   
                                          
                     DROPPING OUT                     
   N/A      #7      #7      Guilford      ODAC            vs Roanoke/Randolph winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
                                          
         WEST                                 
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REC.      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #3      #3      Whitewater*      WIAC      22-3, 2-3      vs La Crosse in WIAC semis 2/24   
   #2      #4      #4      Whitworth*      NWC      21-2, 22-3      vs Lewis & Clark in NWC semis 2/23   
   #3      #1      #1      River Falls      WIAC      18-5, 18-7      vs Stevens Point in WIAC semis 2/24   
   #4      #2      #2      Stevens Point      WIAC      17-6, 19-6      WON vs Superior 62-52, vs River Falls in semis 2/24   
   #5      #5      #5      CMS*      SCIAC      17-1, 23-1      LOST vs Pomona-Pitzer 51-50, vs Redlands in semis 2/24   
   #6      #7      #6      St. Thomas*      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      Bethel in MIAC semis 2/24   
   #7      #6      #7      Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      St. John's in MIAC semis 2/24   
   #8      #9      N/A      Puget Sound      NWC      14-6, 19-6      vs Whitman in NWC semis 2/23   
   #9      #8      #9      Whitman      NWC      16-7, 18-7      at Puget Sound in NWC semis 2/23   
                                          
                     DROPPING OUT                     
               #8      Dubuque      IIAC               
                                          
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 23, 2012, 01:27:42 AM
Tom,
I think Emory should be in Red like NYU. Unless you don't consider them a Pool C candidate. ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2012, 06:09:23 AM
Quote from: magicman on February 23, 2012, 01:27:42 AM
Tom,
I think Emory should be in Red like NYU. Unless you don't consider them a Pool C candidate. ;D

Just like Tufts.  Lots of letters and symbols to look at, just missed them.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 23, 2012, 02:53:39 PM
Hey Greek, what do you think of the WCSU/RIC semifinal Friday night??  I think both teams are all but locks no matter what happens, other people think just the winner should feel safe.  Your take??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2012, 06:01:24 PM
In my unprofessional opinion, I think they are both safe.  They both have strong SOSs, solid OWP and a lot of vsRR.  The NE region is really strong.  I think Keene State needs the Pool A. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 23, 2012, 06:51:25 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 23, 2012, 02:53:39 PM
Hey Greek, [...]

I bet it never occurred to you that someone might call you that when you changed your moniker. Or maybe you're too young to remember...
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30for30.espn.com%2Fuploads%2Fclip_46_thumbnail.jpg&hash=2cf1395268e9102b817732f587899d94760d5d0c)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2012, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2012, 06:01:24 PM
In my unprofessional opinion, I think they are both safe.  They both have strong SOSs, solid OWP and a lot of vsRR.  The NE region is really strong.  I think Keene State needs the Pool A.

I actually like Keene as a C too (especially if they can beat Eastern Conn tomorrow), but obviously they're not as safe as RIC and Western Conn. I think those two are just about locks right now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2012, 08:05:49 PM
Upset alert: St. Joseph's (L.I.) trails SUNY-Purchase 71-50 with 12 minutes to go in the game. St. Joseph's would likely take a Pool C spot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2012, 08:49:15 PM

St Joe's and St. Mary's (MD) both hit Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2012, 08:53:09 PM
I'll have the updated table when the smoke clears tomorrow morning.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 23, 2012, 09:15:27 PM
John Carroll joins the Pool C candidates as they lose to Wilmington 79-74.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 23, 2012, 09:18:27 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 23, 2012, 09:15:27 PM
John Carroll joins the Pool C candidates as they lose to Wilmington 79-74.

JCU is most likely done as they are a poor Pool C candidate at best.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 23, 2012, 09:35:53 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2012, 06:01:24 PM
In my unprofessional opinion, I think they are both safe.  They both have strong SOSs, solid OWP and a lot of vsRR.  The NE region is really strong.  I think Keene State needs the Pool A.


That's what I'm saying; RIC is definitely safe whether they win or lose, Western should be in anyways, but is definitely in beating RIC.  I think Eastern gets in with a win over Keene.
As for Keene: imo, they have to be playing Saturday for the championship to even get back in the discussion, and even then, that might not be good enough.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2012, 09:40:30 PM
Quote from: sac on February 23, 2012, 09:18:27 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 23, 2012, 09:15:27 PM
John Carroll joins the Pool C candidates as they lose to Wilmington 79-74.

JCU is most likely done as they are a poor Pool C candidate at best.

JCU is showing up in my sheet as the #53 Pool C team at the moment. They're done.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2012, 09:47:01 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 23, 2012, 09:35:53 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2012, 06:01:24 PM
In my unprofessional opinion, I think they are both safe.  They both have strong SOSs, solid OWP and a lot of vsRR.  The NE region is really strong.  I think Keene State needs the Pool A.


That's what I'm saying; RIC is definitely safe whether they win or lose, Western should be in anyways, but is definitely in beating RIC.  I think Eastern gets in with a win over Keene.
As for Keene: imo, they have to be playing Saturday for the championship to even get back in the discussion, and even then, that might not be good enough.

I dunno I'm higher on Keene than that. I'm not willing to write them off, even if they lose to Eastern Conn. A win almost surely gets them in. LEC looks like a lock for three bids with a chance for four.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 23, 2012, 09:55:13 PM
Any chance Skyline has for 2 bids crashes down as St. Joseph's (LI) loses by 20+ at home to Purchase to fall into the pool C category joining St. Mary's & John Carroll.  Not a good result for Eastern who somehow lost by 20 on their home floor to this team.  Farmingdale state may join them, they were down 3 with 1:08 left last I saw...not that the Rams were gonna get a pool C anyways though...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2012, 10:11:54 PM
I think JCU is out.  Farmingdale State isn't even in the regional rankings, so if they lose, they are done.

I still think Keene needs a win in the semis to have a chance to get it. 

I think St. Mary's is in.  St. Joe's should be in.

Concordia (WI) is out.  They lost to Lakeland at home in the NATHCON semis.
It's Lakeland at Edgewood for the championship.  The first year of the NATHCON, Lakeland won 3 road games to take the tourney title, but there was no AQ for them, so LC, despite winning on a high note, didn't get a bid.  They could do it again, but this time for an NCAA bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2012, 10:21:50 PM
Concordia (Wis.) loses to Lakeland, they fall to Pool C, and probably off the bubble at that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2012, 10:33:51 PM
UPDATED THROUGH THURSDAY'S EARLY GAMES

NWC games are still in progress.

Teams in RED are Pool C candidates
Teams in BLUE are Pool A winners
Teams with an asterisk* are regular season conference champions (or #1 seeds in conference tourneys due to tie-breakers)



         ATL                                                   
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #2      #1      Staten Island*      CUNYAC      20-2, 22-4      0.905      0.549       0-2      WON vs Baruch in 73-63, vs Medgar Evers in final 2/25   
   #2      #1      #2      William Paterson      NJAC      22-3, 22-3      0.880      0.503       3-0      WON vs Kean 72-56, vs Richard Stockton in final 2/25   
   #3      #3      #3      St. Joseph's (LI)*      SKY      21-2, 21-3      0.913      0.470       1-0      LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 105-81   
   #4      #4      #4      Richard Stockton*      NJAC      17-6, 18-7      0.739      0.523       1-3      WON vs Ramapo 89-87 2OT, vs William Paterson in final 2/25   
   #5      #5      #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      15-6, 17-7      0.714      0.554       2-3      SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                            
         EAST                                                   
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #1      #1      Hartwick*      E8      22-2, 23-2      0.917      0.523       2-0      vs Ithaca in E8 semis 2/24   
   #2      #2      #2      Oswego State*      SUNYAC      22-2, 22-3      0.917      0.482       0-0      WON vs New Paltz 73-62, vs Brockport State in semis 2/24   
   #3      #3      #4      Hobart*      LL      20-4, 21-4      0.833      0.517       1-1      WON vs Union 73-53, vs Skidmore in final 2/25   
   #4      #4      #3      NYU      UAA      19-5, 19-5      0.792      0.491       2-2      at Brandeis 2/25   
   #5      #5      #5      Medaille*      AMCC      22-2, 23-2      0.917      0.431       1-0      vs D'Youville/Hilbert winner in AMCC semis 2/24   
   #6      #6      #6      Nazareth      E8      17-6, 17-8      0.739      0.549       0-4      vs Stevens in E8 semis 2/24   
                                                            
         GL                                                   
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #1      #1      Hope*      MIAA      16-0, 24-1      1.000      0.515       1-0      WON vs Calvin 87-80, vs Adrian in final 2/25   
   #2      #2      #2      Wittenberg*      NCAC      18-4, 20-5      0.818      0.539       6-1      WON vs Kenyon 73-61, vs Denison in semis 2/24   
   #3      #3      #3      Wooster      NCAC      19-4,21-4      0.826      0.522       3-3      WON vs DePauw 59-51, vs Ohio Wesleyan in semis 2/24   
   #4      #4      #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      18-6, 19-6      0.750      0.554       3-5      WON vs Hiram 96-86, vs Wooster in semis 2/24   
   #5      #6      N/A      Bethany (W.Va.)*      PrAC      21-2, 22-3      0.913      0.453       0-0      WON vs Waynesburg 82-69, WON vs Washington & Jefferson 82-69, vs TBA in final   
   #6      N/A      N/A      John Carroll      OAC      15-6, 18-6      0.714      0.499       1-1      LOST vs Wilmington 79-74   
                                                            
                     DROPPING OUT                                       
   N/A      N/A      #6      Capital      OAC      15-8      0.652      0.529       0-2      WON vs Ohio Northern 66-61, vs Wilmington in final   
   N/A      #5      #5      Wabash      NCAC      16-7      0.696      0.559       2-5      LOST vs Denison 74-60 in quarters  SEASON COMPLETE   
         MA                                                   
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #1      #1      Cabrini*      CSAC      24-0, 24-1      1.000      0.498       3-0      WON vs Immaculata 87-68, vs Keystone in final 2/24   
   #2      #3      #5      Franklin & Marshall*      CC      23-2, 23-2      0.920      0.456       3-0      vs Washington College/Johns Hopkins winner in semis 2/24   
   #3      #5      #6      St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      17-5, 19-6      0.773      0.568       1-3      LOST  vs York (Pa.) 61-58   
   #4      #2      #2      Keystone      CSAC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.490       0-2      WON vs Neumann 98-75, vs Cabrini in final 2/24   
   #5      #6      #7      Messiah*      MACC      17-6, 18-6      0.739      0.549       5-2      WON vs Albright 70-65 OT, vs Lycoming in final 2/25   
   #6      #7      #8      Misericordia*      MACF      19-6, 19-6      0.760      0.508       0-1      WON vs FDU-Florham 76-73, vs Wilkes in final 2/25   
   #7      #8      N/A      Widener      MACC      14-7, 18-7      0.667      0.565       4-4      LOST vs Lycoming 79-77 OT in MACC semis.     
   #8      #4      #4      Mary Washington      CAC      16-6, 17-8      0.727      0.522       3-2      WON vs Hood 56-54, vs York (Pa) in final   
   #9      N/A      N/A      Albright      MACC      13-7, 17-8      0.650      0.546       4-6      LOST vs Messiah 70-65 OT in MACC semis.     
                                                            
                     DROPPING OUT                                       
   N/A      N/A      #9      Alvernia      MACC      15-8      0.652      0.546       4-5      SEASON COMPLETE   
   N/A      #9      #3      Lycoming      MACC      16-7      0.696      0.516       3-4      WON vs Widener 79-77 OT, vs Messiah in MACC final 2/25   
                                                            
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2012, 10:41:32 PM


         MW                                                   
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #1      #1      Washington U.*      UAA      18-5, 18-6      0.783      0.581       5-3      at Chicago 2/25   
   #2      #4      #4      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      17-5, 19-5      0.773      0.552       4-3      WON vs Augustana 74-44, vs Illinois Wesleyan in semis 2/24   
   #3      #3      #2      Transylvania*      HCAC      21-2, 22-3      0.913      0.508       3-0      vs Anderson/Bluffton winner in HCAC semis 2/25   
   #4      #2      #3      Lake Forest*      MWC      19-3, 20-3      0.864      0.520       0-1      vs Carroll in MWC semis 2/24   
   #5      #6      #6      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.538       2-4      vs Wheaton in semis 2/24   
   #6      N/A      #8      Concordia (WI)*      NATH      19-4, 20-4      0.826      0.487       1-1      WON vs Marian 73-66, vs Lakeland in semis 2/23   
   #7      #5      #5      North Central (IL)*      CCIW      17-5, 18-7      0.773      0.501       2-2      vs Augustana in semis 2/24   
   #8      N/A      N/A      Augustana      CCIW      18-5, 19-5      0.783      0.466       3-4      LOST vs Wheaton 74-44, vs North Central in semis 2/24   
                                                            
                     DROPPING OUT                                       
   N/A      #7      N/A      Hanover      HCAC      16-7      0.696      0.515       1-2      vs Defiance/Rose-Hulman winner in HCAC semis 2/25   
   N/A      #8      #7      Edgewood      NATH      17-6      0.739      0.501       2-3      WON vs Rockford 94-84,  WON vs Benedictine 64-60, vs Lakeland in final   
         NE                                                   
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #1      #1      Amherst*      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      0.913      0.589       4-1      vs Bates in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #2      #2      #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      0.913      0.564       2-2      vs Wesleyan in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #3      #4      #7      MIT*      NEWMAC      23-1, 23-1      0.958      0.514       2-1      vs Wheaton/Babson winner in NEWMAC semis 2/25   
   #4      #6      #3      Rhode Island College      LEC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.586       5-4      WON vs Plymouth State 79-48, plays Western Connecticut in semis 2/24   
   #5      #3      #4      W. Connecticut      LEC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.568       6-3      vs Plymouth State/Rhode Island College winner in LEC semis 2/24   
   #6      #9      #6      E. Connecticut*      LEC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.545       3-5      vs Mass-Dartmouth/Keene State in LEC semis 2/24   
   #7      #7      #5      WPI      NEWMAC      18-6, 18-6      0.750      0.587       2-3      vs Springfield in NEWMAC semis 2/25   
   #8      #8      #9      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      20-4, 20-5      0.833      0.506       3-2      vs Middlebury in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #9      #10      #12      Albertus Magnus*      GNAC      24-1, 24-1      0.960      0.469       2-0      WON vs Emerson 82-58, WON vs Lasell 92-70, vs Anna Maria in final   
   #10      #5      #8      Keene State      LEC      15-6, 18-7      0.714      0.573       3-4      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64, plays Eastern Connecticut in semis 2/24   
   #11      #11      #11      Becker*      NECC      21-4, 21-4      0.840      0.489       0-3      vs Newbury/Daniel Webster winner in NECC semis 2/24   
   #12      N/A      N/A      Salem State*      MASCAC      17-7, 18-7      0.708      0.530       0-4      WON vs MLCA 96-75, vs TBA in final   
                                                            
                     DROPPING OUT                                       
   N/A      #12      #10      Tufts      NESCAC      16-9      0.640      0.534       0-4      SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                            
         STH                                                   
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #1      #1      Mary Hardin-Baylor*      ASC      23-1, 24-1      0.958      0.512       3-0      vs Mississippi College in quarters 2/24   
   #2      #2      #2      Virginia Wesleyan*      ODAC      21-3, 22-3      0.875      0.529       2-2      vs Washington and Lee/Emory & Henry winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
   #3      #4      #3      Birmingham-Southern*      SCAC      21-1, 24-1      0.955      0.455       0-0      vs Dallas in SCAC quarters 2/24   
   #4      #3      #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      17-4, 20-5      0.810      0.516       3-2      vs Bridgewater/Eastern Mennonite winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
   #5      #6      #5      Christopher Newport*      USAC      18-4, 21-4      0.818      0.503       1-4      vs Methodist/Ferrum winner in USAC semis 2/24   
   #6      #5      #6      Emory      UAA      19-5, 19-5      0.792      0.517       2-3      at Rochester 2/25   
   #7      #8      #8      Hardin-Simmons      ASC      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.523       0-3      vs Louisiana College in quarters 2/24   
   #8      N/A      N/A      Texas-Dallas      ASC      19-4, 21-4      0.826      0.475       0-2      vs Schreiner in quarters 2/24   
                                                            
                     DROPPING OUT                                       
   N/A      #7      #7      Guilford      ODAC            0.696      0.532       2-2      vs Roanoke/Randolph winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
                                                            
         WST                                                   
   WK3      WK2      WK1      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1      #3      #3      Whitewater*      WIAC      22-3, 2-3      0.880      0.551       5-2      vs La Crosse in WIAC semis 2/24   
   #2      #4      #4      Whitworth*      NWC      21-2, 22-3      0.913      0.503       4-2      WON vs Lewis & Clark 79-61, vs Puget Sound in final   
   #3      #1      #1      River Falls      WIAC      18-5, 18-7      0.783      0.558       3-3      vs Stevens Point in WIAC semis 2/24   
   #4      #2      #2      Stevens Point      WIAC      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.588       4-2      WON vs Superior 62-52, vs River Falls in semis 2/24   
   #5      #5      #5      CMS*      SCIAC      17-1, 23-1      0.944      0.484       0-0      LOST vs Pomona-Pitzer 51-50, vs Redlands in semis 2/24   
   #6      #7      #6      St. Thomas*      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      0.750      0.540       1-3      Bethel in MIAC semis 2/24   
   #7      #6      #7      Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      0.750      0.517       2-1      St. John's in MIAC semis 2/24   
   #8      #9      N/A      Puget Sound      NWC      14-6, 19-6      0.700      0.491       3-2      WON vs Whitman 79-62, vs Whitworth in final   
   #9      #8      #9      Whitman      NWC      16-7, 18-7      0.696      0.518       1-5      LOST vs Puget Sound 79-62   
                                                            
                     DROPPING OUT                                       
               #8      Dubuque      IIAC                                 
                                                            
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2012, 12:06:26 AM
Respectfully, UMHB now has a RR of 3-0...2 wins over HSU and a win over UTD.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2012, 05:51:33 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2012, 12:06:26 AM
Respectfully, UMHB now has a RR of 3-0...2 wins over HSU and a win over UTD.

Tell the NCAA.  ;)  I just copied from their page!  :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 24, 2012, 07:35:21 AM
Salem State will play Bridgewater State for the MASCAC title.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2012, 08:31:12 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2012, 05:51:33 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2012, 12:06:26 AM
Respectfully, UMHB now has a RR of 3-0...2 wins over HSU and a win over UTD.

Tell the NCAA.  ;)  I just copied from their page!  :-\
The NCAA may not have adjusted the number when UTD made the regional rankings.

Thanks for the list and +1!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 24, 2012, 08:49:51 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2012, 08:31:12 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2012, 05:51:33 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2012, 12:06:26 AM
Respectfully, UMHB now has a RR of 3-0...2 wins over HSU and a win over UTD.

Tell the NCAA.  ;)  I just copied from their page!  :-\
The NCAA may not have adjusted the number when UTD made the regional rankings.

Thanks for the list and +1!

They didn't because at the time the rankings were made, UT-D was not ranked, thus didn't count as a win for UMHB.  Next week should reflect the 3-0 record.  We had this discussion in the CCIW room yesterday of why this makes no sense..see Greg Sager for details.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 24, 2012, 10:24:29 AM
Nice work Tom.

I think the only result you missed above from last night was Concordia (WI) losing to Lakeland in OT 85-83.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2012, 11:33:26 AM
Ironic because I watched the live stats from the 2nd half through overtime! I even commented about Concordia's loss on this very board.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 24, 2012, 12:25:56 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 24, 2012, 08:49:51 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2012, 08:31:12 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2012, 05:51:33 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2012, 12:06:26 AM
Respectfully, UMHB now has a RR of 3-0...2 wins over HSU and a win over UTD.

Tell the NCAA.  ;)  I just copied from their page!  :-\
The NCAA may not have adjusted the number when UTD made the regional rankings.

Thanks for the list and +1!

They didn't because at the time the rankings were made, UT-D was not ranked, thus didn't count as a win for UMHB.  Next week should reflect the 3-0 record.  We had this discussion in the CCIW room yesterday of why this makes no sense..see Greg Sager for details.

I agree 100%, I had this argument with Dave McHugh a while back also.  Does this mean that a team ranked in the final rankings on Sunday doesn't count as a result vs. a regionally ranked opponent?

Same thing in the NE this week, MIT, Middlebury, WPI, etc. have all beaten Salem State, who was ranked for the first time this week, but it isnt showing up as a win vs. a regionally ranked opponent yet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2012, 02:42:29 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 24, 2012, 12:25:56 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 24, 2012, 08:49:51 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2012, 08:31:12 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2012, 05:51:33 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2012, 12:06:26 AM
Respectfully, UMHB now has a RR of 3-0...2 wins over HSU and a win over UTD.

Tell the NCAA.  ;)  I just copied from their page!  :-\
The NCAA may not have adjusted the number when UTD made the regional rankings.

Thanks for the list and +1!

They didn't because at the time the rankings were made, UT-D was not ranked, thus didn't count as a win for UMHB.  Next week should reflect the 3-0 record.  We had this discussion in the CCIW room yesterday of why this makes no sense..see Greg Sager for details.

I agree 100%, I had this argument with Dave McHugh a while back also.  Does this mean that a team ranked in the final rankings on Sunday doesn't count as a result vs. a regionally ranked opponent?

Same thing in the NE this week, MIT, Middlebury, WPI, etc. have all beaten Salem State, who was ranked for the first time this week, but it isnt showing up as a win vs. a regionally ranked opponent yet.

I think such a team would not count for the final regional rankings, but would count when they're considering Pool C slots at the national level.

Also, there is the additional consideration of teams already in the tournament - a consideration they won't have for the regional rankings, but may come into play nationally.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2012, 06:03:46 PM


                           
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Staten Island*      CUNYAC      20-2, 22-4      WON vs Baruch in 73-63, vs Medgar Evers in final 2/25   
   #2   William Paterson      NJAC      22-3, 22-3      WON vs Kean 72-56, vs Richard Stockton in final 2/25   
   #3   St. Joseph's (LI)*      SKY      21-2, 21-3      LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 105-81   
   #4   Richard Stockton*      NJAC      17-6, 18-7      WON vs Ramapo 89-87 2OT, vs William Paterson in final 2/25   
   #5   New Jersey City      NJAC      15-6, 17-7      SEASON COMPLETE   
                           
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Hartwick*      E8      22-2, 23-2      vs Ithaca in E8 semis 2/24   
   #2   Oswego State*      SUNYAC      22-2, 22-3      WON vs New Paltz 73-62, vs Brockport State in semis 2/24   
   #3   Hobart*      LL      20-4, 21-4      WON vs Union 73-53, vs Skidmore in final 2/25   
   #4   NYU      UAA      19-5, 19-5      at Brandeis 2/25   
   #5   Medaille*      AMCC      22-2, 23-2      vs D'Youville/Hilbert winner in AMCC semis 2/24   
   #6   Nazareth      E8      17-6, 17-8      vs Stevens in E8 semis 2/24   
                           
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Hope*      MIAA      16-0, 24-1      WON vs Calvin 87-80, vs Adrian in final 2/25   
   #2   Wittenberg*      NCAC      18-4, 20-5      WON vs Kenyon 73-61, vs Denison in semis 2/24   
   #3   Wooster      NCAC      19-4,21-4      WON vs DePauw 59-51, vs Ohio Wesleyan in semis 2/24   
   #4   Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      18-6, 19-6      WON vs Hiram 96-86, vs Wooster in semis 2/24   
   #5   Bethany (W.Va.)*      PrAC      21-2, 22-3      WON vs Waynesburg 82-69, WON vs Washington & Jefferson 82-69, vs TBA in final   
   #6   John Carroll      OAC      15-6, 18-6      LOST vs Wilmington 79-74   
                           
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Cabrini*      CSAC      24-0, 24-1      WON vs Immaculata 87-68, vs Keystone in final 2/24   
   #2   Franklin & Marshall*      CC      23-2, 23-2      vs Washington College/Johns Hopkins winner in semis 2/24   
   #3   St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      17-5, 19-6      LOST  vs York (Pa.) 61-58   
   #4   Keystone      CSAC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Neumann 98-75, vs Cabrini in final 2/24   
   #5   Messiah*      MACC      17-6, 18-6      WON vs Albright 70-65 OT, vs Lycoming in final 2/25   
   #6   Misericordia*      MACF      19-6, 19-6      WON vs FDU-Florham 76-73, vs Wilkes in final 2/25   
   #7   Widener      MACC      14-7, 18-7      LOST vs Lycoming 79-77 OT in MACC semis.     
   #8   Mary Washington      CAC      16-6, 17-8      WON vs Hood 56-54, vs York (Pa) in final   
   #9   Albright      MACC      13-7, 17-8      LOST vs Messiah 70-65 OT in MACC semis.     
                           
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Washington U.*      UAA      18-5, 18-6      at Chicago 2/25   
   #2   Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      17-5, 19-5      WON vs Augustana 74-44, vs Illinois Wesleyan in semis 2/24   
   #3   Transylvania*      HCAC      21-2, 22-3      vs Anderson/Bluffton winner in HCAC semis 2/25   
   #4   Lake Forest*      MWC      19-3, 20-3      vs Carroll in MWC semis 2/24   
   #5   Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      17-6, 19-6      vs Wheaton in semis 2/24   
   #6   Concordia (WI)*      NATH      19-4, 20-4      WON vs Marian 73-66, LOST vs Lakeland 85-83 OT   
   #7   North Central (IL)*      CCIW      17-5, 18-7      vs Augustana in semis 2/24   
   #8   Augustana      CCIW      18-5, 19-5      LOST vs Wheaton 74-44, vs North Central in semis 2/24   
                           
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Amherst*      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      vs Bates in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #2   Middlebury      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      vs Wesleyan in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #3   MIT*      NEWMAC      23-1, 23-1      vs Wheaton/Babson winner in NEWMAC semis 2/25   
   #4   Rhode Island College      LEC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Plymouth State 79-48, plays Western Connecticut in semis 2/24   
   #5   W. Connecticut      LEC      20-5, 20-5      vs Plymouth State/Rhode Island College winner in LEC semis 2/24   
   #6   E. Connecticut*      LEC      20-5, 20-5      vs Mass-Dartmouth/Keene State in LEC semis 2/24   
   #7   WPI      NEWMAC      18-6, 18-6      vs Springfield in NEWMAC semis 2/25   
   #8   Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      20-4, 20-5      vs Middlebury in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #9   Albertus Magnus*      GNAC      24-1, 24-1      WON vs Emerson 82-58, WON vs Lasell 92-70, vs Anna Maria in final   
   #10   Keene State      LEC      15-6, 18-7      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64, plays Eastern Connecticut in semis 2/24   
   #11   Becker*      NECC      21-4, 21-4      vs Newbury/Daniel Webster winner in NECC semis 2/24   
   #12   Salem State*      MASCAC      17-7, 18-7      WON vs MLCA 96-75, vs TBA in final   
                           
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Mary Hardin-Baylor*      ASC      23-1, 24-1      vs Mississippi College in quarters 2/24   
   #2   Virginia Wesleyan*      ODAC      21-3, 22-3      WON vs Washington and Lee 87-63, vs TBA in semis   
   #3   Birmingham-Southern*      SCAC      21-1, 24-1      WON vs U. of Dallas 82-59, vs TBA in semis   
   #4   Randolph-Macon      ODAC      17-4, 20-5      vs Bridgewater/Eastern Mennonite winner in ODAC quarters 2/24   
   #5   Christopher Newport*      USAC      18-4, 21-4      vs Methodist/Ferrum winner in USAC semis 2/24   
   #6   Emory      UAA      19-5, 19-5      at Rochester 2/25   
   #7   Hardin-Simmons      ASC      17-6, 19-6      WON vs Louisiana College 110-100, vs TBA in semis   
   #8   Texas-Dallas      ASC      19-4, 21-4      WON vs Schreiner 80-55, vs TBA in semis   
                           
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Whitewater*      WIAC      22-3, 2-3      vs La Crosse in WIAC semis 2/24   
   #2   Whitworth*      NWC      21-2, 22-3      WON vs Lewis & Clark 79-61, vs Puget Sound in final   
   #3   River Falls      WIAC      18-5, 18-7      vs Stevens Point in WIAC semis 2/24   
   #4   Stevens Point      WIAC      17-6, 19-6      WON vs Superior 62-52, vs River Falls in semis 2/24   
   #5   CMS*      SCIAC      17-1, 23-1      LOST vs Pomona-Pitzer 51-50, vs Redlands in semis 2/24   
   #6   St. Thomas*      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      Bethel in MIAC semis 2/24   
   #7   Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      St. John's in MIAC semis 2/24   
   #8   Puget Sound      NWC      14-6, 19-6      WON vs Whitman 79-62, vs Whitworth in final   
   #9   Whitman      NWC      16-7, 18-7      LOST vs Puget Sound 79-62   
                           
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 24, 2012, 07:34:08 PM
Well done. +k
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2012, 07:43:20 PM
Eastern Connecticut and Keene St going double OT
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 24, 2012, 07:51:21 PM
Carroll upsets MW #4 Lake Forest 77-70
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 24, 2012, 07:52:03 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2012, 05:34:22 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 19, 2012, 05:11:03 PM
Lets also not forget this is assuming no conference tourney upsets, and we are usually due for at least a handful of those each year. Therefore, if I were in the teens of those selections, I wouldn't feel too comfortable with a pool c bid right now.

That is an extremely important point.  We know there are upsets coming that will take Pool C bids away from the teams on my projection.  Would we say the average # of major upsets each year is 4-5?

Updating my original post from this morning...

"Bubble Bursters" (Currents A's that would steal C's)
1. Cabrini (Mid-Atl, CSAC), 24-0
2. Hope (GL, MIAA), 16-0
3. Albertus Magnus (NE, GNAC), 24-1
4. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC), 23-1
5. MIT (NE, NEWMAC), 23-1
6. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC), 22-3
7. Birmingham Southern (South, SCAC), 21-1
8. Amherst (NE, NESCAC), 21-2
9. Whitworth (West, NWC), 21-2
10. CMS (West, SCIAC), 17-1
11. Wittenberg (GL, NCAC), 18-4
12. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atl, CC), 23-2
13. William Paterson (Atlantic, NJAC), 22-3
14. Hartwick (East, E8), 22-3
15. Oswego St (East, SUNYAC), 22-3
16. Medaille (East, AMCC), 22-2
17. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC), 20-3
18. Staten Island (Atlantic, CUNYAC), 20-2
19. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC), 21-2
20. St. Joseph's (Atlantic, Sky), 21-2
21. Lake Forest (Midwest, MWC), 19-3
22. Eastern Connecticut (NE, LEC), 20-5
23. Hobart (East, LL), 20-4

(For every team on this list that does not win a Pool C bid, start clipping off the bottom of my Pool C list below).


The next tier of current Pool A's (competitive Pool C candidates, but not on par with "bubble bursters")
Bethany (GL, PrAC), 22-2
Becker (NE, NECC), 21-4
Misericordia (Mid-Atl, MACF), 19-6
Christopher Newport (South, USAC), 18-4
North Central (Midwest, CCIW), 17-5
St. Thomas (West, MIAC), 17-6
Messiah (Atl, MACC), 17-6
St. Mary's, MD (Mid-Atl, CAC), 16-6
Concordia, WI (Midwest, NathC), 19-4 - should get back in MW this week


Current Pool C Projection
1.   Middlebury (NE, NESCAC)
2.   Western Connecticut (NE, LEC)
3.   Rhode Island (NE), LEC)
4.   Wooster (GL, NCAC)
5.   Wheaton (MW, CCIW)
6.   UW-River Falls (W, WIAC)
7.   Wesleyan (NE, NESCAC)
8.   Randolph-Macon (S, ODAC)
9.   UW-Stevens Point (W, WIAC)
10.   WPI (NE, NEWMAC)
11.   Ohio Wesleyan (GL, NCAC)
12.    Illinois Wesleyan (MW, CCIW)
13.    Emory (S, UAA)
14.    Keystone (MA, CSAC)
15.    NYU (E, UAA)
16.    Keene State (NE, LEC)
17.    Augustana (MW, CCIW)
18.    Gustavus Adolphus (W, MIAC)
19.    Richard Stockton (Atl, NJAC)


Pool C "Left on the Table" Projection

(A) New Jersey City (NJAC), 15-6 (.714), .525, 1-2
(E) Nazareth (E8), 17-6 (.739), .547, 0-4
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Mary Washington (CAC), 16-6 (.727), .526, 3-2
(MW) Grinnell (MW), 17-4 (.810), .465, 2-0
(NE) Tufts (NESCAC), 16-8 (.667), .543, 0-4
(S) Hardin-Simmons (ASC), 17-6 (.739), .542, 0-3
(W) Whitman (NWC), 16-7 (.696), .525, 1-3


Just carrying this forward... I realize it's from last week so it may not be up to date, but the "locks" should still be locks I would think, shouldn't they?


If so, I think there are two of those "locks" who have lost... Lake Forest just dropped their game to Carroll and St. Joseph lost earlier this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 24, 2012, 07:54:53 PM
Wooster beats OWU 89-80, putting Wooster in the NCAC finals and solidifies a "C" at least. OWU now no doubt firmly on the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 24, 2012, 07:58:22 PM
Wheaton beats Illinois Wesleyan 69-56
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 24, 2012, 10:00:41 PM
River Falls beats Stevens Point 836-12
Whatewater beats La Crosse 66-55
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2012, 10:03:33 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 24, 2012, 10:00:41 PM
River Falls beats Stevens Point 836-12
Whatewater beats La Crosse 66-55

WOW!  That is the worst beat down EVER!! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wooscotsfan on February 24, 2012, 10:05:47 PM
Final:  Denison 66  Wittenberg 58

Witt is upset on their home floor and will likely take one of the Pool C bids.

NCAC tourney final tomorrow is Denison vs. Wooster
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2012, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 24, 2012, 10:05:47 PM
Final:  Denison 66  Wittenberg 58

Witt is upset on their home floor and will likely take one of the Pool C bids.

NCAC tourney final tomorrow is Denison vs. Wooster

I think most predictions had both Witt and Woo as pretty safe if they needed a Pool C, so it takes away a slot only if Denison upsets Woo.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wooscotsfan on February 24, 2012, 10:11:21 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2012, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 24, 2012, 10:05:47 PM
Final:  Denison 66  Wittenberg 58

Witt is upset on their home floor and will likely take one of the Pool C bids.

NCAC tourney final tomorrow is Denison vs. Wooster

I think most predictions had both Witt and Woo as pretty safe if they needed a Pool C, so it takes away a slot only if Denison upsets Woo.

Agreed - so how many D3 fans will be cheering for Wooster tomorrow tonight?  ;) :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2012, 10:20:52 PM
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 24, 2012, 10:11:21 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2012, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 24, 2012, 10:05:47 PM
Final:  Denison 66  Wittenberg 58

Witt is upset on their home floor and will likely take one of the Pool C bids.

NCAC tourney final tomorrow is Denison vs. Wooster

I think most predictions had both Witt and Woo as pretty safe if they needed a Pool C, so it takes away a slot only if Denison upsets Woo.

Agreed - so how many D3 fans will be cheering for Wooster tomorrow tonight?  ;) :D

Well, certainly all those whose team is 'on the bubble'.  Me, for example! ;)  (IWU lost to Wheaton tonite; my hope is that Lake Forest will fall below them [having lost to Carroll] so the Titans reach the table early enough that their SOS and results vs. regionally-ranked teams just might let them sneak in.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 24, 2012, 10:21:19 PM
Sometimes listening to D3 broadcasts is just funny.  I've tuned into CMS-Redlands and the announcer just said the D3 tournament selection works just like D1..........right down to saying it will be 64 teams.  Oh and it will be in Virginia this year.

Californians...what do you do?  8-)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 24, 2012, 10:23:09 PM
East Region Scores

Oswego defeats Brockport 64-57

Cortland beats Geneseo 68-59

Hartwick #1 in the East region, loses to Ithaca 79-67

Nazareth defeats Stevens 74-71

Medaille defeats Hilbert 63-52
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2012, 10:25:20 PM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2012, 10:21:19 PM
Sometimes listening to D3 broadcasts is just funny.  I've tuned into CMS-Redlands and the announcer just said the D3 tournament selection works just like D1..........right down to saying it will be 64 teams.  Oh and it will be in Virginia this year.

Californians...what do you do?  8-)
I will assume that that is not a political comment that belongs over on the Politics Board.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 24, 2012, 10:33:46 PM
Scores from the Northeast Region:

Eastern Connecticut 81 Keene State 76 in double OT

Rhode Island 75 Western Connecticut 74        Wow!  Western Connecticut was up by 9 with 1:29 left to play and lost as RIC hit 2 free throws with 9 seconds left and WC misfired on their final attempt.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2012, 10:34:36 PM
Western Connecticut loses a heartbreaker to Rhode Island College 75-74.  WConn was up eight with a minute to go; DaQuan Brooks scored 41 on 7-9 3pt shooting.  But he missed two threes in the last minute and one of his teammates committed a foul with four seconds left, up by 1.  RIC hit both FTs and won the game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: mailsy on February 24, 2012, 10:40:48 PM
Cabrini wins CSAC and is a Pool A.  Keystone is in Pool C territory.  With 6 losses(all in region) and 0-3 against regionally ranked(Cabrini), what do you see their chances of getting into the field of 62?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2012, 10:43:59 PM
Quote from: mailsy on February 24, 2012, 10:40:48 PM
Cabrini wins CSAC and is a Pool A.  Keystone is in Pool C territory.  With 6 losses(all in region) and 0-3 against regionally ranked(Cabrini), what do you see their chances of getting into the field of 62?
I think that Keystone is in the 13-19 slot bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2012, 10:46:04 PM
PRETTY CLOSE TO COMPLETE



                              
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Staten Island*      CUNYAC      20-2, 22-4      WON vs Baruch in 73-63, vs Medgar Evers in final 2/25   
   #2      William Paterson      NJAC      22-3, 22-3      WON vs Kean 72-56, vs Richard Stockton in final 2/25   
   #3      St. Joseph's (LI)*      SKY      21-2, 21-3      LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 105-81   
   #4      Richard Stockton*      NJAC      17-6, 18-7      WON vs Ramapo 89-87 2OT, vs William Paterson in final 2/25   
   #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      15-6, 17-7      SEASON COMPLETE   
                              
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Hartwick*      E8      22-2, 23-2      LOST vs Ithaca 79-67   
   #2      Oswego State*      SUNYAC      22-2, 22-3      WON vs New Paltz 73-62, WON vs Brockport State 64-57, vs Cortland State in final 2/25   
   #3      Hobart*      LL      20-4, 21-4      WON vs Union 73-53, vs Skidmore in final 2/25   
   #4      NYU      UAA      19-5, 19-5      at Brandeis 2/25   
   #5      Medaille*      AMCC      22-2, 23-2      WON vs Hilbert 63-52, vs PSU-Behrend in final 2/25   
   #6      Nazareth      E8      17-6, 17-8      WON vs Stevens 74-71, vs Ithaca in final 2/25   
                              
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Hope*      MIAA      16-0, 24-1      WON vs Calvin 87-80, vs Adrian in final 2/25   
   #2      Wittenberg*      NCAC      18-4, 20-5      WON vs Kenyon 73-61, LOST vs Denison 66-58   
   #3      Wooster      NCAC      19-4,21-4      WON vs DePauw 59-51, WON vs Ohio Wesleyan 89-80, vs Denison in final 2/25   
   #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      18-6, 19-6      WON vs Hiram 96-86, LOST vs Wooster in semis 2/24   
   #5      Bethany (W.Va.)*      PrAC      21-2, 22-3      WON vs Waynesburg 82-69, WON vs Washington & Jefferson 82-69, vs Thomas More in final 2/25   
   #6      John Carroll      OAC      15-6, 18-6      LOST vs Wilmington 79-74   
                              
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Cabrini*      CSAC      24-0, 24-1      WON vs Immaculata 87-68, WON vs Keystone 86-79 in final   
   #2      Franklin & Marshall*      CC      23-2, 23-2      WON vs Washington College 100-69, vs Muhlenberg in final 2/25   
   #3      St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      17-5, 19-6      LOST  vs York (Pa.) 61-58   
   #4      Keystone      CSAC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Neumann 98-75, LOST vs Cabrini 86-79   
   #5      Messiah*      MACC      17-6, 18-6      WON vs Albright 70-65 OT, vs Lycoming in final 2/25   
   #6      Misericordia*      MACF      19-6, 19-6      WON vs FDU-Florham 76-73, vs Wilkes in final 2/25   
   #7      Widener      MACC      14-7, 18-7      LOST vs Lycoming 79-77 OT in MACC semis.     
   #8      Mary Washington      CAC      16-6, 17-8      WON vs Hood 56-54, vs York (Pa) in final 2/25   
   #9      Albright      MACC      13-7, 17-8      LOST vs Messiah 70-65 OT in MACC semis.     
                              
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Washington U.*      UAA      18-5, 18-6      at Chicago 2/25   
   #2      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      17-5, 19-5      WON vs Augustana 74-44, WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 69-56, vs North Central in final   
   #3      Transylvania*      HCAC      21-2, 22-3      vs Anderson/Bluffton winner in HCAC semis 2/25   
   #4      Lake Forest*      MWC      19-3, 20-3      LOST vs Carroll 77-70   
   #5      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      17-6, 19-6      LOST vs Wheaton in semis 2/24   
   #6      Concordia (WI)*      NATH      19-4, 20-4      WON vs Marian 73-66, LOST vs Lakeland 85-83 OT   
   #7      North Central (IL)*      CCIW      17-5, 18-7      WON vs Augustana 63-56, vs Wheaton in final   
   #8      Augustana      CCIW      18-5, 19-5      LOST vs Wheaton 74-44, LOSTvs North Central in semis 2/24   
                              
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Amherst*      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      vs Bates in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      vs Wesleyan in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #3      MIT*      NEWMAC      23-1, 23-1      vs Wheaton/Babson winner in NEWMAC semis 2/25   
   #4      Rhode Island College      LEC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Plymouth State 79-48, WON vs Western Connecticut 75-74, vs Eastern Connecticut in final 2/25   
   #5      W. Connecticut      LEC      20-5, 20-5      LOST vs Rhode Island College in LEC semis 2/24   
   #6      E. Connecticut*      LEC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Keene State 81-76 2OT, vs Rhode Island College in final 2/25   
   #7      WPI      NEWMAC      18-6, 18-6      vs Springfield in NEWMAC semis 2/25   
   #8      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      20-4, 20-5      vs Middlebury in NESCAC semis 2/25   
   #9      Albertus Magnus*      GNAC      24-1, 24-1      WON vs Emerson 82-58, WON vs Lasell 92-70, vs Anna Maria in final 2/25   
   #10      Keene State      LEC      15-6, 18-7      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64, LOST vs Eastern Connecticut 81-76 2OT   
   #11      Becker*      NECC      21-4, 21-4      WON vs Newbury 83-60, vs Elms in final 2/25   
   #12      Salem State*      MASCAC      17-7, 18-7      WON vs MLCA 96-75, vs Bridgewater State in final 2/25   
                              
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Mary Hardin-Baylor*      ASC      23-1, 24-1      WON vs Mississippi College 75-63, vs McMurry in semis 2/25   
   #2      Virginia Wesleyan*      ODAC      21-3, 22-3      WON vs Washington and Lee 87-63, vs Hampden-Sydney in semis 2/25   
   #3      Birmingham-Southern*      SCAC      21-1, 24-1      WON vs U. of Dallas 82-59, vs Centre in semis 2/25   
   #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      17-4, 20-5      WON vs Eastern Mennonite 99-91 OT, vs TBA in semis   
   #5      Christopher Newport*      USAC      18-4, 21-4      WON vs Methodist 97-62, vs TBA in final   
   #6      Emory      UAA      19-5, 19-5      at Rochester 2/25   
   #7      Hardin-Simmons      ASC      17-6, 19-6      WON vs Louisiana College 110-100, vs TBA in semis   
   #8      Texas-Dallas      ASC      19-4, 21-4      WON vs Schreiner 80-55, vs TBA in semis   
                              
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Whitewater*      WIAC      22-3, 2-3      WON vs La Crosse 66-55, vs River Falls in final 2/26   
   #2      Whitworth*      NWC      21-2, 22-3      WON vs Lewis & Clark 79-61, vs Puget Sound in final 2/25   
   #3      River Falls      WIAC      18-5, 18-7      WON vs Stevens Point 76-51, vs Whitewater in final 2/26   
   #4      Stevens Point      WIAC      17-6, 19-6      WON vs Superior 62-52, LOST vs River Falls in semis 2/24   
   #5      CMS*      SCIAC      17-1, 23-1      LOST vs Pomona-Pitzer 51-50, vs Redlands in semis 2/24   
   #6      St. Thomas*      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      Bethel in MIAC semis 2/24   
   #7      Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      WON vs St. John's 64-52, vs TBA in final   
   #8      Puget Sound      NWC      14-6, 19-6      WON vs Whitman 79-62, vs Whitworth in final   
   #9      Whitman      NWC      16-7, 18-7      LOST vs Puget Sound 79-62   
                              
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2012, 10:50:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2012, 10:20:52 PM
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 24, 2012, 10:11:21 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2012, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 24, 2012, 10:05:47 PM
Final:  Denison 66  Wittenberg 58

Witt is upset on their home floor and will likely take one of the Pool C bids.

NCAC tourney final tomorrow is Denison vs. Wooster

I think most predictions had both Witt and Woo as pretty safe if they needed a Pool C, so it takes away a slot only if Denison upsets Woo.

Agreed - so how many D3 fans will be cheering for Wooster tomorrow tonight?  ;) :D

Well, certainly all those whose team is 'on the bubble'.  Me, for example! ;)  (IWU lost to Wheaton tonite; my hope is that Lake Forest will fall below them [having lost to Carroll] so the Titans reach the table early enough that their SOS and results vs. regionally-ranked teams just might let them sneak in.)

That will be hard to do. IWU will now almost certainly be ranked below NCC, so you're really also hoping for NCC to be able to leap over Lake Forest.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2012, 11:03:38 PM
I could see IWU jumping Lake Forest.  Their SOS will probably go up and they get 3 added results against regionally ranked opponents with the addition of Augie in the rankings and then playing Wheaton again.  What did Lake Forest do?  They lost to Carroll at home.

My safes:

St. Joseph's (LI)
Wittenberg
St. Mary's (Md)
Keystone
Hartwick
W. Connecticut
Stevens Point

I think Concordia is out.  Keene State is leaning towards out for me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2012, 11:17:30 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2012, 11:03:38 PM
I could see IWU jumping Lake Forest.  Their SOS will probably go up and they get 3 added results against regionally ranked opponents with the addition of Augie in the rankings and then playing Wheaton again.  What did Lake Forest do?  They lost to Carroll at home.

My safes:

St. Joseph's (LI)
Wittenberg
St. Mary's (Md)
Keystone
Hartwick
W. Connecticut
Stevens Point

I think Concordia is out.  Keene State is leaning towards out for me.


Lake Forest has a better resume than Keystone. Better WP, better SOS, and they're 0-1 vRRO instead of Keystone's 0-3.

I think Keystone's out, and I'm leaning toward Keene State being in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2012, 11:44:27 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2012, 10:50:38 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2012, 10:20:52 PM
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 24, 2012, 10:11:21 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2012, 10:09:05 PM
Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 24, 2012, 10:05:47 PM
Final:  Denison 66  Wittenberg 58

Witt is upset on their home floor and will likely take one of the Pool C bids.

NCAC tourney final tomorrow is Denison vs. Wooster

I think most predictions had both Witt and Woo as pretty safe if they needed a Pool C, so it takes away a slot only if Denison upsets Woo.

Agreed - so how many D3 fans will be cheering for Wooster tomorrow tonight?  ;) :D

Well, certainly all those whose team is 'on the bubble'.  Me, for example! ;)  (IWU lost to Wheaton tonite; my hope is that Lake Forest will fall below them [having lost to Carroll] so the Titans reach the table early enough that their SOS and results vs. regionally-ranked teams just might let them sneak in.)

That will be hard to do. IWU will now almost certainly be ranked below NCC, so you're really also hoping for NCC to be able to leap over Lake Forest.

Not sure why you are so certain NCC will be above IWU?  Either they beat Wheaton (in which case they are irrelevant for Pool C) or they also lose to them (in which case why would they jump IWU?).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 24, 2012, 11:49:41 PM
North Central 2 wins over IWU are probably a good place to start Mr. Y. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2012, 11:52:56 PM
IWU is in trouble, but at this point, the Titans are still a very competitive Pool C candidate down at the very end of the bubble for a few reasons...

* Strong SOS
* 3 wins over regionally ranked (might be more than other teams on the board in rounds 15-19)
* 9 total games played vs regionally ranked (has to be near the most of any Pool C candidate?)
* Win over Midwest #1 (Wash U)
* 2 secondary criteria wins over RR - Atlantic #1 (Staten Island), Great Lakes #5 (Bethany)


Below is my last 3 rounds (from Sunday).  This data is now out of date, as are some of the teams, but IWU would be competitive in this type of grouping for the reasons posted above.  If there are more upsets, however, there will be teams down in the final 3 rounds that will be much more competitive than these.



Round 17
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2 
(E) Nazareth (E8), 17-6 (.739), .547, 0-4
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Mary Washington (CAC), 16-6 (.727), .526, 3-2
(MW) Augustana (CCIW), 18-5 (.783), .460, 3-4 
(NE) Tufts (NESCAC), 16-8 (.667), .543, 0-4
(S) Hardin-Simmons (ASC), 17-6 (.739), .542, 0-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC): 18-6 (.750), .509, 2-1

Round 18
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2 
(E) Nazareth (E8), 17-6 (.739), .547, 0-4
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Mary Washington (CAC), 16-6 (.727), .526, 3-2
(MW) Grinnell (MW), 17-4 (.810), .465, 2-0
(NE) Tufts (NESCAC), 16-8 (.667), .543, 0-4
(S) Hardin-Simmons (ASC), 17-6 (.739), .542, 0-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus (MIAC): 18-6 (.750), .509, 2-1

Round 19
(Atl) Richard Stockton (NJAC): 17-6 (.739), .525, 1-2 
(E) Nazareth (E8), 17-6 (.739), .547, 0-4
(GL) Wabash (NCAC): 16-7 (.696), .576, 2-5
(MA) Mary Washington (CAC), 16-6 (.727), .526, 3-2
(MW) Grinnell (MW), 17-4 (.810), .465, 2-0
(NE) Tufts (NESCAC), 16-8 (.667), .543, 0-4
(S) Hardin-Simmons (ASC), 17-6 (.739), .542, 0-3
(W) Whitman (NWC), 16-7 (.696), .525, 1-3
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 12:25:42 AM
Through tonight, here is the data from the teams in the Midwest Pool C mix...

(SOS numbers are through Sunday, not tonight.)

* Wheaton: 18-5 (.782), .552, 6-4
* Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
* North Central: 18-5 (.782), .501, 5-2
* Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .538, 3-6


Regardless of the result of the Wheaton @ North Central game tomorrow, I believe both teams will end up ranked ahead of both Lake Forest and IWU.  Wheaton is an absolute Pool C lock...I believe they'd be one of the first 5 or so in.  I think North Central has moved into great Pool C territory - NCC has now added a 3-0 vs RR since the last ranking (once Augie is counted as RR).

The interesting conversation will be Lake Forest vs IWU.  A case can be made either way.  Do you go with winning % or with results vs regionally ranked (however that is interpreted)? 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2012, 01:03:36 AM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2012, 11:49:41 PM
North Central 2 wins over IWU are probably a good place to start Mr. Y. ;)

True, but they already had them before the last regional rankings.  Why would that change for the new rankings?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 05:11:46 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2012, 01:03:36 AM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2012, 11:49:41 PM
North Central 2 wins over IWU are probably a good place to start Mr. Y. ;)

True, but they already had them before the last regional rankings.  Why would that change for the new rankings?

Since the LAST regional rankings, they won one more game and that was against a regionally ranked opponent.  Plus, they are playing another regionally ranked opponent. So, at worst, it's a 1-1 record against two regionally ranked opponents vs. 0-1 record vs 1 regionally ranked opponent.  It could happen.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 08:32:51 AM
Projecting out various conference tournament results, below is a mock Pool C selection.

(Records are Selection Sunday projected records - not current.  SOS is through the last regional ranking.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 08:37:26 AM
Round 1
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .539, 6-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .552, 6-5
(NE) Middlebury: 22-3 (.880), .564, 2-3  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .558, 4-4

Round 2
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .539, 6-1 ***
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .552, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .586, 6-5
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .558, 4-4

Round 3
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .552, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .586, 6-5  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .558, 4-4

Round 4
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .552, 6-5
(NE) Western Conn: 20-6 (.769), .568, 6-5  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .558, 4-4

Round 5
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .552, 6-5  ***
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .506, 3-3
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .558, 4-4

Round 6
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .506, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .558, 4-4  ***

Round 7
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .506, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .588, 4-4 ***

Round 8
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .506, 3-3  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 9
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 19-7 (.731), .587, 2-4
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3 ***
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 10
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6 ***
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 19-7 (.731), .587, 2-4
(S) Emory: 19-5 (.792), .517, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 08:37:36 AM
Round 11
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0 ***
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 19-7 (.731), .587, 2-4
(S) Emory: 19-5 (.792), .517, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 12
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2 ***
(E) New York U: 19-5 (.792), .491, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 19-7 (.731), .587, 2-4
(S) Emory: 19-5 (.792), .517, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 13
(Atl) William Patterson: 23-4 (.852), .503, 3-1 ***
(E) New York U: 19-5 (.792), .491, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 19-7 (.731), .587, 2-4
(S) Emory: 19-5 (.792), .517, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 14
(Atl) New Jersey City: 15-6 (.714), .554, 2-3
(E) New York U: 19-5 (.792), .491, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 19-7 (.731), .587, 2-4 ***
(S) Emory: 19-5 (.792), .517, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 15
(Atl) New Jersey City: 15-6 (.714), .554, 2-3
(E) New York U: 19-5 (.792), .491, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) Keene St: 16-7 (.696), .573, 3-5 ***
(S) Emory: 19-5 (.792), .517, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 16
(Atl) New Jersey City: 15-6 (.714), .554, 2-3
(E) New York U: 19-5 (.792), .491, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1 ***
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .534, 0-4
(S) Emory: 19-5 (.792), .517, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 17
(Atl) New Jersey City: 15-6 (.714), .554, 2-3
(E) New York U: 19-5 (.792), .491, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3 ***
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .538, 3-6
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .534, 0-4
(S) Emory: 19-5 (.792), .517, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 18
(Atl) New Jersey City: 15-6 (.714), .554, 2-3
(E) New York U: 19-5 (.792), .491, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .490, 0-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .538, 3-6 ***
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .534, 0-4
(S) Emory: 19-5 (.792), .517, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 19
(Atl) New Jersey City: 15-6 (.714), .554, 2-3 
(E) New York U: 19-5 (.792), .491, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .490, 0-3
(MW) Augustana: 18-7 (.720), .466, 3-6
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .534, 0-4
(S) Emory: 19-5 (.792), .517, 2-3 ***
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 08:39:09 AM
Selections:

1.   Middlebury
2.   Wittenberg
3.   Rhode Island
4.   Western Conn
5.   Wheaton (IL)
6.   UW-Rivers
7.   UW-Stevens Point
8.   Wesleyan
9.   Randolph-Macon
10.   Ohio Wesleyan
11.   Hartwick
12.   St. Joseph's
13.    William Paterson
14.   WPI
15.   Keene St
16.   Lake Forest
17.   St. Mary's
18.   Illinois Wesleyan
19.   Emory


Obviously it gets extremely subjective towards the end.

Let me know if any mistakes in terms of the Pool C candidates, records, etc.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 25, 2012, 08:45:34 AM
Titan, I take it from your previous posts you assume Stockton will beat William Paterson?  If that happens I believe that Willy P will have the higher final Regional Ranking than St. Joes and therefore be on the board first.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 08:51:11 AM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 25, 2012, 08:45:34 AM
Titan, I take it from your previous posts you assume Stockton will beat William Paterson?  If that happens I believe that Willy P will have the higher final Regional Ranking than St. Joes and therefore be on the board first.

Yes, I picked home teams to win conference tournament games.  Richard Stockton hosts William Paterson.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 10:04:46 AM
What happens if Denison beats Wooster. Does the NCAC get FOUR teams in?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 10:25:02 AM
TQ, you have something funky going on with WPI and Keene State around Round 10. Looks like you accidentally took WPI off the board for a round.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 11:08:54 AM
Great work, TQ...and I mean the projections, not the training for the marathon, Point Special!  ;D.  Though your a better man than me for training for that.  I could never do that!  I would love to participate in that race up the Empire State building stairs!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 10:04:46 AM
What happens if Denison beats Wooster. Does the NCAC get FOUR teams in?

It's possible, but I have OWU as one of the last four in, and too many more upsets (Denison included) would shove them off the edge.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 11:34:43 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 10:25:02 AM
TQ, you have something funky going on with WPI and Keene State around Round 10. Looks like you accidentally took WPI off the board for a round.

Good catch...fixed.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 10:04:46 AM
What happens if Denison beats Wooster. Does the NCAC get FOUR teams in?

It's possible, but I have OWU as one of the last four in, and too many more upsets (Denison included) would shove them off the edge.

I have Ohio Wesleyan getting in at #10 right now.  So I'd say yes...a Denison win means 4 from the NCAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 10:04:46 AM
What happens if Denison beats Wooster. Does the NCAC get FOUR teams in?

It's possible, but I have OWU as one of the last four in, and too many more upsets (Denison included) would shove them off the edge.

I have Ohio Wesleyan getting in at #10 right now.  So I'd say yes...a Denison win means 4 from the NCAC.

I think that's at least a few spots too high. Especially in comparison to WPI. I don't see how OWU gets in before them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fritzdis on February 25, 2012, 12:20:17 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 10:04:46 AM
What happens if Denison beats Wooster. Does the NCAC get FOUR teams in?

It's possible, but I have OWU as one of the last four in, and too many more upsets (Denison included) would shove them off the edge.

I have Ohio Wesleyan getting in at #10 right now.  So I'd say yes...a Denison win means 4 from the NCAC.

I think that's at least a few spots too high. Especially in comparison to WPI. I don't see how OWU gets in before them.

TQ's selections seem to favor results vs. RRO (Wesleyan and RMC selected before Hartwick, for example).  I have no idea whether that's reflective of what we've seen from the selection committee in the past.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 12:27:53 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 08:39:09 AM
Selections:

1.   Middlebury
2.   Wittenberg
3.   Rhode Island
4.   Western Conn
5.   Wheaton (IL)
6.   UW-River Falls
7.   UW-Stevens Point
8.   Wesleyan
9.   Randolph-Macon
10.   Ohio Wesleyan
11.   Hartwick
12.   St. Joseph's
13.    William Paterson
14.   WPI
15.   Keene St
16.   Lake Forest
17.   St. Mary's
18.   Illinois Wesleyan
19.   Emory


(Records below would be those as a Pool C candidate - in other words, adding a loss in the conference tournament game.  In situations where teams still have 2 games to go, I assumed a win in the semifinal game.)

Bubble Burster Tier 1 (would be in my 1-14 range of Pool C - virtual Pool C locks)
1. Amherst: 22-3 (.880), .589, 4-2 - if Middlebury (current C) wins the NESCAC, this is a top 14 non-factor
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor: 25-2 (.926), .512, 2-0
3. MIT: 24-2 (.923), .514, 2-2 - if WPI (current C) wins the NEWMAC, this is a top 14 non-factor
4. Hope: 17-1 (.944), .515, 1-0
5. Va Wesleyan: 23-4 (.852), .529, 2-3 - if Randolph-Macon (current C) wins the ODAC, this is a top 14 non-factor
6. Transylvania: 22-3 (.880), .508, 3-1
7. Whitworth: 22-3 (.880), .503, 4-3
8. Wooster: 21-5 (.808), .522, 4-3
9. Messiah: 18-7 (.720), .549, 5-2
10. Staten Island: 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
11. Albertus Magnus: 26-2 (.929), .469, 2-0
12. Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .517, 1-1
13. Franklin & Marshall: 24-3 (.889), .456, 3-0
14. Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .455, 0-0

(I didn't include North Central/Wheaton here because I view them as essentially a Pool C push...just swap one out for the other in the top 10 or so.  Same with UW-Whitewater and UW-River Falls.  I don't see the CCIW and WIAC title games impacting Pool C.)


Bubble Burster Tier 2 (would be competitive in the 15-19 range of Pool C - on the bubble with my current 15-19 teams)
15. Mary Washington, 17-7 (.708), .522, 3-2
16. St. Thomas: 19-7 (.731), .540, 1-4
17. Oswego State: 24-3 (.889), .482, 0-0
18. Christopher Newport: 19-5 (.792), .503, 1-4
19. Bethany: 23-3 (.885), .453, 0-0
20. CMS: 18-3 (.857), .484, 0-0
21. Becker: 22-5 (.815), .489, 0-3
22. Nazareth: 18-7 (.720), .549, 0-4
23. Misericordia: 20-7 (.741), .508, 0-1


Let me know if I've made any mistakes in terms of who is still alive, records, etc...thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: fritzdis on February 25, 2012, 12:20:17 PM
TQ's selections seem to favor results vs. RRO (Wesleyan and RMC selected before Hartwick, for example).  I have no idea whether that's reflective of what we've seen from the selection committee in the past.

I don't have a scientific method for weighing the 3 numbers (winning %, SOS, results vs RR), but I will say that I looked at all 3 very closely for each team. 

I do think the "results vs regionally ranked" criterion helps as a "tie-breaker" of sorts, and I think it helps create separation.

As I said the last time I did this, it really ends up being a completely subjective analysis of objective information.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 01:18:23 PM
At the bottom of the South Region, HSU and UTD face off in Belton at 2pm CST.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 10:04:46 AM
What happens if Denison beats Wooster. Does the NCAC get FOUR teams in?

It's possible, but I have OWU as one of the last four in, and too many more upsets (Denison included) would shove them off the edge.

I have Ohio Wesleyan getting in at #10 right now.  So I'd say yes...a Denison win means 4 from the NCAC.

I think that's at least a few spots too high. Especially in comparison to WPI. I don't see how OWU gets in before them.


(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(NE) WPI: 19-7 (.731), .587, 2-4


It just depends how "results vs regionally ranked" is interpreted.  I think with 1 more win, and 3 more games played vs RR, OWU comes out ahead. 

But again, we have no idea how they really use that criterion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 10:04:46 AM
What happens if Denison beats Wooster. Does the NCAC get FOUR teams in?

It's possible, but I have OWU as one of the last four in, and too many more upsets (Denison included) would shove them off the edge.

I have Ohio Wesleyan getting in at #10 right now.  So I'd say yes...a Denison win means 4 from the NCAC.

I think that's at least a few spots too high. Especially in comparison to WPI. I don't see how OWU gets in before them.


(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(NE) WPI: 19-7 (.731), .587, 2-4


It just depends how "results vs regionally ranked" is interpreted.  I think with 1 more win, and 3 more games played vs RR, OWU comes out ahead. 

But again, we have no idea how they really use that criterion.

I think the .033 SOS difference is more than the exact same percentage in vRRO.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 02:01:02 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 01:35:44 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 10:04:46 AM
What happens if Denison beats Wooster. Does the NCAC get FOUR teams in?

It's possible, but I have OWU as one of the last four in, and too many more upsets (Denison included) would shove them off the edge.

I have Ohio Wesleyan getting in at #10 right now.  So I'd say yes...a Denison win means 4 from the NCAC.

I think that's at least a few spots too high. Especially in comparison to WPI. I don't see how OWU gets in before them.


(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(NE) WPI: 19-7 (.731), .587, 2-4


It just depends how "results vs regionally ranked" is interpreted.  I think with 1 more win, and 3 more games played vs RR, OWU comes out ahead. 

But again, we have no idea how they really use that criterion.

I think the .033 SOS difference is more than the exact same percentage in vRRO.
On the contrary, I would like to see where .587 stands in the region as an SOS.

I remember a stat that I say several years ago.  Whose batting average was higher?  George Brett .390 in 1980 or Rogers Hornsby's .424 in 1924?

Brett's .390 was almost 0.5 SD's above the mean than Hornsby's .424.

The Northeast Region is notorious for really high SOS's, just the opposite of the South (make that Texas) Region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 25, 2012, 02:07:33 PM
How much do you think losses to USM (11-14) and Plymouth state (9-16) are going to hurt Western??  I think 2 wins or Keene state get them in, but I'll be extremely nervous on Monday morning, especially if Wesleyan & Bates both win tonight, MIT loses, Hope loses, Paterson loses, etc.
As much as I dumped on St. Joes and the Skyline, they lost 3 d-3 games; 1 to a team that finished 18-9, 1 to a team that finished 20-7 and another to a team that will either finish 14-14 or 15-13.  Not great, but still better than losing to an 11-14 or 9-16 team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 02:07:41 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 02:01:02 PM
On the contrary, I would like to see where .587 stands in the region as an SOS.

I remember a stat that I say several years ago.  Whose batting average was higher?  George Brett .390 in 1980 or Rogers Hornsby's .424 in 1924?

Brett's .390 was almost 0.5 SD's above the mean than Hornsby's .424.

The Northeast Region is notorious for really high SOS's, just the opposite of the South (make that Texas) Region.

Good point on the NE, Ralph.  That said though, WPI's .587 is second only to UW-Stevens Point in the current Pool C landscape I believe.  After considering that, I probably do have them a little low.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 02:14:37 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 25, 2012, 02:07:33 PM
How much do you think losses to USM (11-14) and Plymouth state (9-16) are going to hurt Western??  I think 2 wins or Keene state get them in, but I'll be extremely nervous on Monday morning, especially if Wesleyan & Bates both win tonight, MIT loses, Hope loses, Paterson loses, etc.
As much as I dumped on St. Joes and the Skyline, they lost 3 d-3 games; 1 to a team that finished 18-9, 1 to a team that finished 20-7 and another to a team that will either finish 14-14 or 15-13.  Not great, but still better than losing to an 11-14 or 9-16 team.

Do not fret. Western is a cold hard lead pipe lock to grab a Pool C bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 02:20:38 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 10:04:46 AM
What happens if Denison beats Wooster. Does the NCAC get FOUR teams in?

It's possible, but I have OWU as one of the last four in, and too many more upsets (Denison included) would shove them off the edge.

I have Ohio Wesleyan getting in at #10 right now.  So I'd say yes...a Denison win means 4 from the NCAC.

I think that's at least a few spots too high. Especially in comparison to WPI. I don't see how OWU gets in before them.


(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(NE) WPI: 19-7 (.731), .587, 2-4


It just depends how "results vs regionally ranked" is interpreted.  I think with 1 more win, and 3 more games played vs RR, OWU comes out ahead. 

But again, we have no idea how they really use that criterion.

Hmmm. Also looks like WPI should be 3-3 vRRO.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2012, 02:38:28 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 10:04:46 AM
What happens if Denison beats Wooster. Does the NCAC get FOUR teams in?

It's possible, but I have OWU as one of the last four in, and too many more upsets (Denison included) would shove them off the edge.

I have Ohio Wesleyan getting in at #10 right now.  So I'd say yes...a Denison win means 4 from the NCAC.

I think that's at least a few spots too high. Especially in comparison to WPI. I don't see how OWU gets in before them.


(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(NE) WPI: 19-7 (.731), .587, 2-4


It just depends how "results vs regionally ranked" is interpreted.  I think with 1 more win, and 3 more games played vs RR, OWU comes out ahead. 

But again, we have no idea how they really use that criterion.

Knightslappy is correct, WPI is 3-3 vs. RR opponents.  Therefore, I can't imagine 3 additional regional losses helps OWU jump over them, especially with WPI's edge in SOS and identical winning percentage.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 02:41:03 PM
Early upset alert: Birmingham Southern trails Centre by 9 at the half. BSU would likely hit the middle of Pool C if this result held.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 02:54:33 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2012, 02:38:28 PM

Knightslappy is correct, WPI is 3-3 vs. RR opponents.  Therefore, I can't imagine 3 additional regional losses helps OWU jump over them, especially with WPI's edge in SOS and identical winning percentage.

Here is the last regional data sheet...

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=5&division=3


They had 2-3...and then I added the (hypothetical) loss to MIT for 2-4.

Is the sheet wrong, or did WPI play a RR opponent earlier this week?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 03:01:21 PM
My list has them just playing this weekend in the conference tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 03:23:23 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 02:54:33 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2012, 02:38:28 PM

Knightslappy is correct, WPI is 3-3 vs. RR opponents.  Therefore, I can't imagine 3 additional regional losses helps OWU jump over them, especially with WPI's edge in SOS and identical winning percentage.

Here is the last regional data sheet...

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=5&division=3


They had 2-3...and then I added the (hypothetical) loss to MIT for 2-4.

Is the sheet wrong, or did WPI play a RR opponent earlier this week?

They beat Salem State earlier in the year which is probably not included on the sheet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 03:44:22 PM
Birmingham Southern going down.  #3 in the south 77-58
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 25, 2012, 03:47:17 PM
I know it's early, hope Hope & NYU both losing at halftime.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedawg on February 25, 2012, 03:50:20 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 03:44:22 PM
Birmingham Southern going down.  #3 in the south 77-58

Does that push out Emory or IWU?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedawg on February 25, 2012, 03:50:57 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 25, 2012, 03:47:17 PM
I know it's early, hope Hope & NYU both losing at halftime.

The NYU-Brandeis game has no tournament implications though, right?

The Hope-Adrian one doesn't really either.

But both definitely compelling games to follow!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedawg on February 25, 2012, 03:52:48 PM
WPI down 9 to Springfield about midway through the 2nd half.  A loss puts them out, right?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 03:56:00 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on February 25, 2012, 03:50:57 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 25, 2012, 03:47:17 PM
I know it's early, hope Hope & NYU both losing at halftime.

The NYU-Brandeis game has no tournament implications though, right?

The Hope-Adrian one doesn't really either.

But both definitely compelling games to follow!

NYU is in a lose-and-out, win-and-bubble scenario.

Hope is in, but Adrian could take the Pool A bid and shove someone off the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedawg on February 25, 2012, 03:57:36 PM
Oh right, forgot about the MIAA AQ! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 04:01:57 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on February 25, 2012, 03:50:20 PM
Does that push out Emory or IWU?

In terms of IWU vs Emory, I believe IWU gets the nod due to a win over Wash U (Emory was swept by Wash U).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2012, 04:09:31 PM
Emory needs to win or their bubble pops completely. With a loss by BSC... Emory can't afford to be stuck behind them in the South Region. A win *may* boost them past BSC... but not sure.

By the way, the loss by BSC ends an 18-game winning streak and a three year home winning streak.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 04:19:23 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 02:41:03 PM
Early upset alert: Birmingham Southern trails Centre by 9 at the half. BSU would likely hit the middle of Pool C if this result held.

Welp, I was way off. BSU lost, and it looks like they may be on the backside of the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedawg on February 25, 2012, 04:24:21 PM
WPI goes down and another team falls off the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 04:26:28 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on February 25, 2012, 04:24:21 PM
WPI goes down and another team falls off the bubble.
Not really. I think they're in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedawg on February 25, 2012, 04:28:09 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 04:26:28 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on February 25, 2012, 04:24:21 PM
WPI goes down and another team falls off the bubble.
Not really. I think they're in.

Gotcha.  Looking at TitanQ's list, do they slot ahead of St. Mary's/Lake Forest?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 04:30:54 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on February 25, 2012, 04:28:09 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 04:26:28 PM
Quote from: scottiedawg on February 25, 2012, 04:24:21 PM
WPI goes down and another team falls off the bubble.
Not really. I think they're in.

Gotcha.  Looking at TitanQ's list, do they slot ahead of St. Mary's/Lake Forest?

I think WPI is still in too.  Winning % drops from the 19-7 (.731) I projected (with a championship game appearance) to 18-7 (.720).  But they still have the great SOS and a couple wins over regionally ranked.

I think they just fell a few spots, but still safe.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 04:33:42 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 04:19:23 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 02:41:03 PM
Early upset alert: Birmingham Southern trails Centre by 9 at the half. BSU would likely hit the middle of Pool C if this result held.

Welp, I was way off. BSU lost, and it looks like they may be on the backside of the bubble.

Agreed - Birmingham-Southern is probably in, but I think towards the last 5 in or so.  SOS and results vs RR problems.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 04:34:49 PM
Adrian takes a one point lead over Hope with about 1:50 to play. One to watch.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 04:37:32 PM
NYU beats Brandeis. NYU moves up to the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 25, 2012, 04:39:55 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 04:34:49 PM
Adrian takes a one point lead over Hope with about 1:50 to play. One to watch.

Can't, no video
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 04:41:12 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2012, 04:39:55 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 04:34:49 PM
Adrian takes a one point lead over Hope with about 1:50 to play. One to watch.

Can't, no video

What do you expect from a second-rate school like Hope?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 25, 2012, 04:42:07 PM
Hope Adrian tied at 60.  Teams like IWU & Lake Forest are rooting hard for Hope to pull it out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 25, 2012, 04:43:20 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 04:41:12 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 25, 2012, 04:39:55 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 04:34:49 PM
Adrian takes a one point lead over Hope with about 1:50 to play. One to watch.

Can't, no video

What do you expect from a second-rate school like Hope?

no video
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 04:43:28 PM
OT in Holland
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 05:01:05 PM
Hope wins in OT.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: monsoon on February 25, 2012, 05:01:19 PM
Hope survives.  The bubble teams can breathe again.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2012, 05:04:15 PM
Strange OT - 1 FG by the two teams combined in 5 minutes!  Hope made 5 FTs for the win, but Overway went 0-2 with 5 seconds remaining to give the Bulldogs a chance for double OT.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2012, 05:08:24 PM
I'm quite pessimistic about IWU's chances UNLESS Lake Forest's loss to unranked Carroll drops them below IWU (who lost to #2 Wheaton).  IF we reach the table early, SOS and RRRs just might sneak us in.

And, of course, NO MORE UPSETS! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 05:10:26 PM
Is Birmingham Southern ahead or behind OWU?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 05:33:20 PM
Late afternoon projection update...

(Regional records reflect a Pool C situation - assumes another loss for those still alive.)

Round 1
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .539, 6-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .552, 6-5
(NE) Middlebury: 22-3 (.880), .564, 2-3  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .558, 4-4

Round 2
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .539, 6-1 ***
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .552, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .586, 6-5
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .558, 4-4

Round 3
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .552, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .586, 6-5  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .558, 4-4

Round 4
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .552, 6-5
(NE) Western Conn: 20-6 (.769), .568, 6-5  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .558, 4-4

Round 5
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .552, 6-5  ***
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .506, 3-3
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .558, 4-4

Round 6
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .506, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .558, 4-4  ***

Round 7
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .506, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .588, 4-4 ***

Round 8
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .506, 3-3  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 9
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .587, 3-3
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .516, 3-3 ***
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 10
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .554, 3-6 ***
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .587, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .455, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 05:33:32 PM
Round 11
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .523, 2-0 ***
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .587, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .455, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 12
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2 ***
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .517, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .587, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .455, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 13
(Atl) William Paterson: 23-4 (.852), .503, 3-1 ***
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .517, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .587, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .455, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 14
(Atl) New Jersey City: 15-6 (.714), .554, 2-3
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .517, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .587, 3-3 ***
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .455, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 15
(Atl) New Jersey City: 15-6 (.714), .554, 2-3
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .517, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1
(NE) Keene St: 16-7 (.696), .573, 3-5 ***
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .455, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 16
(Atl) New Jersey City: 15-6 (.714), .554, 2-3
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .517, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .520, 0-1 ***
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .534, 0-4
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .455, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 17
(Atl) New Jersey City: 15-6 (.714), .554, 2-3
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .517, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .538, 3-6
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .534, 0-4
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .455, 0-0 ***
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 18
(Atl) New Jersey City: 15-6 (.714), .554, 2-3
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .517, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .568, 1-3 ***
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .538, 3-6 ***
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .534, 0-4
(S) Emory: 19-6 (.760), .517, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2

Round 19
(Atl) New Jersey City: 15-6 (.714), .554, 2-3 
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .517, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .499, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .490, 0-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .538, 3-6 ***
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .534, 0-4
(S) Emory: 19-6 (.760), .517, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .517, 2-2



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 05:45:24 PM
(Records below would be those as a Pool C candidate - in other words, adding a loss in the conference tournament game.  In situations where teams still have 2 games to go, I assumed a win in the semifinal game.)

Bubble Burster Tier 1 (Virtual Pool C locks - would clip teams off the bottom above)
1. Amherst: 22-3 (.880), .589, 4-2 - if Middlebury (current C) wins the NESCAC, this is an even exchange
2. Mary Hardin-Baylor: 25-2 (.926), .512, 2-0
3. MIT: 24-2 (.923), .514, 2-2
4. Va Wesleyan: 23-4 (.852), .529, 2-3 - if Randolph-Macon (current C) wins the ODAC, this is an even exchange
5. Transylvania: 22-3 (.880), .508, 3-1
6. Whitworth: 22-3 (.880), .503, 4-3
7. Wooster: 21-5 (.808), .522, 4-3
8. Staten Island: 21-3 (.875), .549, 0-2
9. Franklin & Marshall: 24-3 (.889), .456, 3-0


(I didn't include North Central/Wheaton here because I view them as essentially a Pool C push...just swap one out for the other in the top 10 or so.  Same with UW-Whitewater and UW-River Falls.  I don't see the CCIW and WIAC title games impacting Pool C.)


Bubble Burster Tier 2 (would be competitive in the 16-19 range of Pool C - on the bubble at best)
10. Mary Washington, 17-7 (.708), .522, 3-2
11. St. Thomas: 19-7 (.731), .540, 1-4
12. Christopher Newport: 19-5 (.792), .503, 1-4
13. Bethany: 23-3 (.885), .453, 0-0
14. CMS: 18-3 (.857), .484, 0-0

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2012, 05:57:49 PM
Emory may have just killed their chances... thumped by Rochester.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 06:00:13 PM
Hobart falls to Skidmore, probably knocking NYU out...but not sure Hobart is in.

(Reflected above now)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 25, 2012, 06:02:31 PM
Anyone have a list of current Pool A winners? Who's already earned their slot in the dance?

(Realizes this is the Pool C board, but not sure where else to ask...)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 06:04:21 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2012, 05:57:49 PM
Emory may have just killed their chances... thumped by Rochester.

I think Emory is done.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 25, 2012, 06:02:31 PM
Anyone have a list of current Pool A winners? Who's already earned their slot in the dance?

(Realizes this is the Pool C board, but not sure where else to ask...)

I could post Pool A winners from the Regional Rankings...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 25, 2012, 06:35:32 PM
Here's 4 Pool A winners from the East

#14 Oswego State wins the SUNYAC Tournament defeating Cortland State 66-57

Ithaca (14-13) defeats Nazareth 71-55 to win the Empire 8 Tournament.

Skidmore defeats Hobart 69-66 to win the Liberty league tournament.

Medaille defeats Penn State-Behrend 65-52 to win the AMCC Tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 06:56:01 PM


                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Staten Island*      CUNYAC      20-2, 22-4      WON vs Baruch in 73-63, vs Medgar Evers in final 2/25 COMING UP   
   William Paterson      NJAC      22-3, 22-3      WON vs Kean 72-56, vs Richard Stockton in final 2/25 COMING UP   
   St. Joseph's (LI)*      SKY      21-2, 21-3      LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 105-81   
   Richard Stockton*      NJAC      17-6, 18-7      WON vs Ramapo 89-87 2OT, vs William Paterson in final 2/25 COMING UP   
   New Jersey City      NJAC      15-6, 17-7      SEASON COMPLETE   
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Hartwick*      E8      22-2, 23-2      LOST vs Ithaca 79-67   
   Oswego State*      SUNYAC      22-2, 22-3      WON vs New Paltz 73-62, WON vs Brockport State 64-57, WON vs Cortland State 66-57   
   Hobart*      LL      20-4, 21-4      WON vs Union 73-53, LOST vs Skidmore 69-66   
   NYU      UAA      19-5, 19-5      WON at Brandeis 65-63   
   Medaille*      AMCC      22-2, 23-2      WON vs Hilbert 63-52, WON vs PSU-Behrend 65-52   
   Nazareth      E8      17-6, 17-8      WON vs Stevens 74-71, LOST vs Ithaca in final 71-55   
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Hope*      MIAA      16-0, 24-1      WON vs Calvin 87-80, WON vs Adrian 65-62 OT   
   Wittenberg*      NCAC      18-4, 20-5      WON vs Kenyon 73-61, LOST vs Denison 66-58   
   Wooster      NCAC      19-4,21-4      WON vs DePauw 59-51, WON vs Ohio Wesleyan 89-80, vs Denison in final 2/25 COMING UP   
   Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      18-6, 19-6      WON vs Hiram 96-86, LOST vs Wooster in semis 2/24   
   Bethany (W.Va.)*      PrAC      21-2, 22-3      WON vs Waynesburg 82-69, WON vs Washington & Jefferson 82-69, vs Thomas More in final 2/25 COMING UP   
   John Carroll      OAC      15-6, 18-6      LOST vs Wilmington 79-74   
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Cabrini*      CSAC      24-0, 24-1      WON vs Immaculata 87-68, WON vs Keystone 86-79 in final   
   Franklin & Marshall*      CC      23-2, 23-2      WON vs Washington College 100-69, vs Muhlenberg in final 2/25 COMING UP   
   St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      17-5, 19-6      LOST  vs York (Pa.) 61-58   
   Keystone      CSAC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Neumann 98-75, LOST vs Cabrini 86-79   
   Messiah*      MACC      17-6, 18-6      WON vs Albright 70-65 OT, WON vs Lycoming in final 68-59   
   Misericordia*      MACF      19-6, 19-6      WON vs FDU-Florham 76-73, WON vs Wilkes in final 69-42   
   Widener      MACC      14-7, 18-7      LOST vs Lycoming 79-77 OT in MACC semis.     
   Mary Washington      CAC      16-6, 17-8      WON vs Hood 56-54, vs York (Pa) in final 2/25 IN PROGRESS   
   Albright      MACC      13-7, 17-8      LOST vs Messiah 70-65 OT in MACC semis.     
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Washington U.*      UAA      18-5, 18-6      at Chicago 2/25   
   Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      17-5, 19-5      WON vs Augustana 74-44, WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 69-56, vs North Central in final COMING UP   
   Transylvania*      HCAC      21-2, 22-3      vs Anderson/Bluffton winner in HCAC semis 2/25 COMING UP   
   Lake Forest*      MWC      19-3, 20-3      LOST vs Carroll 77-70   
   Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      17-6, 19-6      LOST vs Wheaton in semis 2/24   
   Concordia (WI)*      NATH      19-4, 20-4      WON vs Marian 73-66, LOST vs Lakeland 85-83 OT   
   North Central (IL)*      CCIW      17-5, 18-7      WON vs Augustana 63-56, vs Wheaton in final COMING UP   
   Augustana      CCIW      18-5, 19-5      LOST vs Wheaton 74-44, LOSTvs North Central in semis 2/24   
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Amherst*      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      vs Bates in NESCAC semis 2/25 IN PROGRESS   
   Middlebury      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      vs Wesleyan in NESCAC semis 2/25 COMING UP   
   MIT*      NEWMAC      23-1, 23-1      WON vs Babson 65-42, vs TBA 2/26   
   Rhode Island College      LEC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Plymouth State 79-48, WON vs Western Connecticut 75-74, vs Eastern Connecticut in final 2/25 IN PROGRESS   
   W. Connecticut      LEC      20-5, 20-5      LOST vs Rhode Island College in LEC semis 2/24   
   E. Connecticut*      LEC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Keene State 81-76 2OT, vs Rhode Island College in final 2/25 IN PROGRESS   
   WPI      NEWMAC      18-6, 18-6      LOST vs Springfield 66-60   
   Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      20-4, 20-5      vs Middlebury in NESCAC semis 2/25 COMING UP   
   Albertus Magnus*      GNAC      24-1, 24-1      WON vs Emerson 82-58, WON vs Lasell 92-70, WON vs Anna Maria 88-54   
   Keene State      LEC      15-6, 18-7      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64, LOST vs Eastern Connecticut 81-76 2OT   
   Becker*      NECC      21-4, 21-4      WON vs Newbury 83-60, WON vs Elms 66-45   
   Salem State*      MASCAC      17-7, 18-7      WON vs MLCA 96-75, WON vs Bridgewater State in final 83-71   
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Mary Hardin-Baylor*      ASC      23-1, 24-1      WON vs Mississippi College 75-63, vs McMurry in semis 2/25 COMING UP   
   Virginia Wesleyan*      ODAC      21-3, 22-3      WON vs Washington and Lee 87-63, vs Hampden-Sydney in semis 2/25 IN PROGRESS   
   Birmingham-Southern*      SCAC      21-1, 24-1      WON vs U. of Dallas 82-59, LOST vs Centre 77-58   
   Randolph-Macon      ODAC      17-4, 20-5      WON vs Eastern Mennonite 99-91 OT, vs Randolph in semis 2/25 COMING UP   
   Christopher Newport*      USAC      18-4, 21-4      WON vs Methodist 97-62, Greensboro vs TBA in final 2/26   
   Emory      UAA      19-5, 19-5      LOST vs Rochester 92-73   
   Hardin-Simmons      ASC      17-6, 19-6      WON vs Louisiana College 110-100, WON vs Texas-Dallas 64-63, vs TBA in final 2/26   
   Texas-Dallas      ASC      19-4, 21-4      WON vs Schreiner 80-55, LOST vs Hardin-Simmons 64-63   
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Whitewater*      WIAC      22-3, 2-3      WON vs La Crosse 66-55, vs River Falls in final 2/26   
   Whitworth*      NWC      21-2, 22-3      WON vs Lewis & Clark 79-61, vs Puget Sound in final 2/25   
   River Falls      WIAC      18-5, 18-7      WON vs Stevens Point 76-51, vs Whitewater in final 2/26   
   Stevens Point      WIAC      17-6, 19-6      WON vs Superior 62-52, LOST vs River Falls in semis 2/24   
   CMS*      SCIAC      17-1, 23-1      LOST vs Pomona-Pitzer 51-50, vs Redlands in semis 2/24   
   St. Thomas*      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      WON vs Bethel 74-64, vs Gustavus Adolphus in final 2/26   
   Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      WON vs St. John's 64-52, vs St. Thomas in final 2/26   
   Puget Sound      NWC      14-6, 19-6      WON vs Whitman 79-62, vs Whitworth in final 2/26   
   Whitman      NWC      16-7, 18-7      LOST vs Puget Sound 79-62   
                        
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 25, 2012, 07:02:48 PM
Tom, I think Cabrini can be colored Blue.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 25, 2012, 07:04:54 PM
Atlantic Region #1 Staten Island locked in a tight one with Medgar Evers right now.  CSI up 81-78 with 1:12 to play

Update:  Looks like CSI hangs on to win 82-81 and helps those Pool C teams at the end of the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 07:14:24 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 25, 2012, 07:04:54 PM
Atlantic Region #1 Staten Island locked in a tight one with Medgar Evers right now.  CSI up 81-78 with 1:12 to play

Update:  Looks like CSI hangs on to win 82-81 and helps those Pool C teams at the end of the bubble.

Not only does this result help IWU in that it doesn't knock them off the bubble, but I think it's pretty big for IWU to have wins over 2 of the 8 regional #1 teams - Wash U (Midwest) and Staten Island (Atlantic).  Staten Island is a "secondary criteria" game, but I'm confident that result will factor in and really help IWU (as will the Bethany win I believe).  The Titans played a 3rd current #1 and lost - @ Whitewater.

I'm not sure if any other team has wins over 2 current #1 teams or not...that list can't be a long one.  This IWU fan is hoping it helps.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:23:03 PM
McMurry beats UMHB in the ASC Semi-final game in Belton, 77-69.
McMurry faces HSU on Sunday afternoon at 2pm.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 07:24:30 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:23:03 PM
McMurry beats UMHB in the ASC Semi-final game in Belton, 77-69.
McMurry faces HSU on Sunday afternoon at 2pm.

A bubble burster.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:26:38 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 07:24:30 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:23:03 PM
McMurry beats UMHB in the ASC Semi-final game in Belton, 77-69.
McMurry faces HSU on Sunday afternoon at 2pm.

A bubble burster.
We matched up well against UMHB this season.

We get to play HSU tomorrow. HSU swept the regular season series this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 07:29:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:26:38 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 07:24:30 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:23:03 PM
McMurry beats UMHB in the ASC Semi-final game in Belton, 77-69.
McMurry faces HSU on Sunday afternoon at 2pm.

A bubble burster.
We matched up well against UMHB this season.

We get to play HSU tomorrow. HSU swept the regular season series this year.

My dream of a McMurry-MacMurray tournament game stays alive!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 07:43:32 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 07:29:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:26:38 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 07:24:30 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:23:03 PM
McMurry beats UMHB in the ASC Semi-final game in Belton, 77-69.
McMurry faces HSU on Sunday afternoon at 2pm.

A bubble burster.
We matched up well against UMHB this season.

We get to play HSU tomorrow. HSU swept the regular season series this year.

My dream of a McMurry-MacMurray tournament game stays alive!

If that happens, I'll go grab some flubber and watch the game with Chip, Rob, and Ernie. Oh, and I'll keep the phone on mute if Barbra Stanwyck decides to call...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 07:48:10 PM
I'll update stuff tonight...movie time with the wife, by choice.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 07:48:10 PM
I'll update stuff tonight...movie time with the wife, by choice.  ;)
Whatcha gonna see?

Act of Valor?
Star Wars I in 3-D?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 25, 2012, 08:00:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 07:48:10 PM
I'll update stuff tonight...movie time with the wife, by choice.  ;)
Whatcha gonna see?

Act of Valor?
Star Wars I in 3-D?
Double Indemnity? (h/t to smedindy)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 25, 2012, 08:03:22 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2012, 07:29:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:26:38 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 07:24:30 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:23:03 PM
McMurry beats UMHB in the ASC Semi-final game in Belton, 77-69.
McMurry faces HSU on Sunday afternoon at 2pm.

A bubble burster.
We matched up well against UMHB this season.

We get to play HSU tomorrow. HSU swept the regular season series this year.

My dream of a McMurry-MacMurray tournament game stays alive!

I think they changed the score and Westminster (Mo.) actually won, buzzer beater I think....so I guess your dream will never come true
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 08:17:25 PM
A bubble team is sweating - Denison's leading Wooster 44-38 with 13 minutes left. The Scots were up by nine with just over two minutes to go in the first half. The Big Red loves its runs, though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 25, 2012, 08:24:47 PM
augie_superfan is correct. Westminster hit a 3 pointer at the buzzer to pull out the 58-56 win over MacMurray.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 25, 2012, 08:25:30 PM
Anyone else having trouble tonight in getting pages to load on d3hoops.com?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 08:28:10 PM
Wooster now up by one 49-48 with 6:04 left.

Edited: Wooster now up 53-49 with 1:50 left. A bubble may not be burst.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 25, 2012, 08:46:24 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 25, 2012, 08:25:30 PM
Anyone else having trouble tonight in getting pages to load on d3hoops.com?

Yep.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: augie_superfan on February 25, 2012, 08:47:48 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 25, 2012, 08:46:24 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 25, 2012, 08:25:30 PM
Anyone else having trouble tonight in getting pages to load on d3hoops.com?

Yep.

Thanks, I dont feel so crazy anymore
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 25, 2012, 08:49:12 PM
William paterson downs stockton for the NJAC championship
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2012, 08:51:02 PM
Wooster survives 53-51, saving a bubble spot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pizzashop on February 25, 2012, 08:51:47 PM
The slowdown is not just D3hoops. Everyone on the PrestoSports network has been at a crawl tonight. >:(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 25, 2012, 09:09:26 PM
Translyvania wins, keeping a potential Pool C bubble burster off the charts for the moment.  They have their conference final tomorrow.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 25, 2012, 09:22:55 PM
Middlebury wipes out Wesleylan (Conn), setting up an Amhurst/Middlebury final and Wesleyan goes to the Pool C candidates.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 25, 2012, 09:26:48 PM
Bethany (WV) holds off Thomas More and earns a Pool A spot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 25, 2012, 09:35:37 PM
Games of Pool C interest:

North Central up 8 on Wheaton with 13 minutes left.
Randolph-Macon up 8 on Randolph at halftime.
Whitworth vs. Puget Sound later.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 25, 2012, 09:47:56 PM
North Central up 18 on Wheaton
Randolph Macon down 1 against Randolph with 3 minutes left.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 25, 2012, 10:00:56 PM
Randolph Macon loses to Randolph and goes to the Pool C candidate pile.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 25, 2012, 10:10:48 PM
North Central finishes off Wheaton.

Wheaton goes to the Pool C pile.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 25, 2012, 10:16:17 PM
Ah, heck, here's my list:

Two tournament final games where both teams will make it (2)
Whitewater/Riverfalls
Amhurst/Middlebury

Definitely In (10)
St. Joseph's (LI)
Hartwick
Hobart
Wheaton (IL)
Lake Forest
W Connecticut
Rhode Island College
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Birmingham-Southern
Steven's Point

Bubble IN (7)
   NYU   
   Wittenberg*   
   Ohio Wesleyan   
   Keystone   
   Illinois Wesleyan   
   Wesleyan (CONN)
   Rhode Island College 

Bubble OUT (9)
   St. Mary's (Md)* 
   Augustana   
   Randolph-Macon   
   Emory   
   Whitman   
   Nazareth
   Richard Stockton*
   Concordia (WI)

Even further out (5)
   New Jersey City   
   John Carroll   
   Widener   
   Mary Washington   
   Albright   

Don't expect to make it if they lose tournament (2)
Puget Sound
Loser of St. Thomas/Gustavus Augustus
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 10:52:20 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 07:48:10 PM
I'll update stuff tonight...movie time with the wife, by choice.  ;)
Whatcha gonna see?

Act of Valor?
Star Wars I in 3-D?

It was a redbox movie.  More for spending quality time with my sick wife while our son is asleep rather than the actual movie itself!  BTW, we are seeing Act of Valor tomorrow...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 10:56:50 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 10:52:20 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 07:48:10 PM
I'll update stuff tonight...movie time with the wife, by choice.  ;)
Whatcha gonna see?

Act of Valor?
Star Wars I in 3-D?

It was a redbox movie.  More for spending quality time with my sick wife while our son is asleep rather than the actual movie itself!  BTW, we are seeing Act of Valor tomorrow...
You da man!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2012, 11:01:37 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 25, 2012, 10:16:17 PM
Ah, heck, here's my list:

Two tournament final games where both teams will make it (2)
Whitewater/Riverfalls
Amhurst/Middlebury

Definitely In (10)
St. Joseph's (LI)
Hartwick
Hobart
Wheaton (IL)
Lake Forest
W Connecticut
Rhode Island College
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Birmingham-Southern
Steven's Point

Bubble IN (7)
   NYU   
   Wittenberg*   
   Ohio Wesleyan   
   Keystone   
   Illinois Wesleyan   
   Wesleyan (CONN)
   Rhode Island College 

Bubble OUT (9)
   St. Mary's (Md)* 
   Augustana   
   Randolph-Macon   
   Emory   
   Whitman   
   Nazareth
   Richard Stockton*
   Concordia (WI)

Even further out (5)
   New Jersey City   
   John Carroll   
   Widener   
   Mary Washington   
   Albright   

Don't expect to make it if they lose tournament (2)
Puget Sound
Loser of St. Thomas/Gustavus Augustus

You have RIC both definitely in and bubble in.  Did you mean WPI for the bubble in?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 25, 2012, 11:26:06 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2012, 11:01:37 PM
You have RIC both definitely in and bubble in.  Did you mean WPI for the bubble in?

Nah, I just feel sorry for Rhode Island because it is such a small state. 

Last spot: I'll have to decide between Puget Sound (who is going down), WPI, Keene State and Randolph-Macon.

I'll go with WPI and hope someone get upset tomorrow so I don't have to think on it too much.



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 11:29:39 PM
In progress

Pomona-Pitzer vs Claremont-Mudd-Scripps for SCIAC title

Tomorrow's finals

Middlebury vs Amherst for NESCAC title
Springfield vs MIT for NEWMAC title
Randolph vs Virginia Wesleyan for ODAC title
River Falls vs Whitewater for WIAC title
Rose-Hulman vs Transylvania for HCAC title
Greensboro vs Christopher Newport for USAC title
Penn State-Harrisburg vs Morrisville State for NEAC title
Trinity (TX) vs Centre for SCAC title
Gustavus Adolphus vs St. Thomas for MIAC title
McMurry vs Hardin-Simmons for ASC title




                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Staten Island*      CUNYAC      20-2, 22-4      WON vs Baruch in 73-63, WON vs Medgar Evers 82-81   
   William Paterson      NJAC      22-3, 22-3      WON vs Kean 72-56, WON vs Richard Stockton 67-63   
   St. Joseph's (LI)*      SKY      21-2, 21-3      LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 105-81   
   Richard Stockton*      NJAC      17-6, 18-7      WON vs Ramapo 89-87 2OT, LOST vs William Paterson 67-63   
   New Jersey City      NJAC      15-6, 17-7      SEASON COMPLETE   
                        
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Hartwick*      E8      22-2, 23-2      LOST vs Ithaca 79-67   
   Oswego State*      SUNYAC      22-2, 22-3      WON vs New Paltz 73-62, WON vs Brockport State 64-57, WON vs Cortland State 66-57   
   Hobart*      LL      20-4, 21-4      WON vs Union 73-53, LOST vs Skidmore 69-66   
   NYU      UAA      19-5, 19-5      WON at Brandeis 65-63   
   Medaille*      AMCC      22-2, 23-2      WON vs Hilbert 63-52, WON vs PSU-Behrend 65-52   
   Nazareth      E8      17-6, 17-8      WON vs Stevens 74-71, LOST vs Ithaca in final 71-55   
                        
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Hope*      MIAA      16-0, 24-1      WON vs Calvin 87-80, WON vs Adrian 65-62 OT   
   Wittenberg*      NCAC      18-4, 20-5      WON vs Kenyon 73-61, LOST vs Denison 66-58   
   Wooster      NCAC      19-4,21-4      WON vs DePauw 59-51, WON vs Ohio Wesleyan 89-80, WON vs Denison 53-51   
   Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      18-6, 19-6      WON vs Hiram 96-86, LOST vs Wooster in semis 2/24   
   Bethany (W.Va.)*      PrAC      21-2, 22-3      WON vs Waynesburg 82-69, WON vs Washington & Jefferson 82-69, WON vs Thomas More 58-53   
   John Carroll      OAC      15-6, 18-6      LOST vs Wilmington 79-74   
                        
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Cabrini*      CSAC      24-0, 24-1      WON vs Immaculata 87-68, WON vs Keystone 86-79 in final   
   Franklin & Marshall*      CC      23-2, 23-2      WON vs Washington College 100-69, WON vs Muhlenberg 71-55   
   St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      17-5, 19-6      LOST  vs York (Pa.) 61-58   
   Keystone      CSAC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Neumann 98-75, LOST vs Cabrini 86-79   
   Messiah*      MACC      17-6, 18-6      WON vs Albright 70-65 OT, WON vs Lycoming in final 68-59   
   Misericordia*      MACF      19-6, 19-6      WON vs FDU-Florham 76-73, WON vs Wilkes in final 69-42   
   Widener      MACC      14-7, 18-7      LOST vs Lycoming 79-77 OT in MACC semis.     
   Mary Washington      CAC      16-6, 17-8      WON vs Hood 56-54, LOST vs York (Pa) 59-51   
   Albright      MACC      13-7, 17-8      LOST vs Messiah 70-65 OT in MACC semis.     
                        
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Washington U.*      UAA      18-5, 18-6      at Chicago 2/25   
   Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      17-5, 19-5      WON vs Augustana 74-44, WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 69-56, LOST vs North Central 75-58   
   Transylvania*      HCAC      21-2, 22-3      WON vs Anderson 71-59   
   Lake Forest*      MWC      19-3, 20-3      LOST vs Carroll 77-70   
   Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      17-6, 19-6      LOST vs Wheaton in semis 2/24   
   Concordia (WI)*      NATH      19-4, 20-4      WON vs Marian 73-66, LOST vs Lakeland 85-83 OT   
   North Central (IL)*      CCIW      17-5, 18-7      WON vs Augustana 63-56, WON vs Wheaton 75-58   
   Augustana      CCIW      18-5, 19-5      LOST vs Wheaton 74-44, LOSTvs North Central in semis 2/24   
                        
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Amherst*      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      WON vs Bates 97-74, vs Middlebury in final 2/26   
   Middlebury      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      WON vs Wesleyan 74-52, vs Amherst in final 2/26   
   MIT*      NEWMAC      23-1, 23-1      WON vs Babson 65-42, vs Springfield in final 2/26   
   Rhode Island College      LEC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Plymouth State 79-48, WON vs Western Connecticut 75-74, LOST vs Eastern Connecticut 82-60   
   W. Connecticut      LEC      20-5, 20-5      LOST vs Rhode Island College in LEC semis 2/24   
   E. Connecticut*      LEC      20-5, 20-5      WON vs Keene State 81-76 2OT, WON vs Rhode Island College 82-60   
   WPI      NEWMAC      18-6, 18-6      LOST vs Springfield 66-60   
   Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      20-4, 20-5      LOST vs Middlebury 74-52   
   Albertus Magnus*      GNAC      24-1, 24-1      WON vs Emerson 82-58, WON vs Lasell 92-70, WON vs Anna Maria 88-54   
   Keene State      LEC      15-6, 18-7      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64, LOST vs Eastern Connecticut 81-76 2OT   
   Becker*      NECC      21-4, 21-4      WON vs Newbury 83-60, WON vs Elms 66-45   
   Salem State*      MASCAC      17-7, 18-7      WON vs MLCA 96-75, WON vs Bridgewater State 83-71   
                        
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Mary Hardin-Baylor*      ASC      23-1, 24-1      WON vs Mississippi College 75-63, LOST vs McMurry 77-69   
   Virginia Wesleyan*      ODAC      21-3, 22-3      WON vs Washington and Lee 87-63, WON vs Hampden-Sydney 67-65, vs Randolph in final 2/26   
   Birmingham-Southern*      SCAC      21-1, 24-1      WON vs U. of Dallas 82-59, LOST vs Centre 77-58   
   Randolph-Macon      ODAC      17-4, 20-5      WON vs Eastern Mennonite 99-91 OT, LOST vs Randolph 58-51   
   Christopher Newport*      USAC      18-4, 21-4      WON vs Methodist 97-62, vs Greensboro in final 2/26   
   Emory      UAA      19-5, 19-5      LOST vs Rochester 92-73   
   Hardin-Simmons      ASC      17-6, 19-6      WON vs Louisiana College 110-100, WON vs Texas-Dallas 64-63, vs McMurry in final 2/26   
   Texas-Dallas      ASC      19-4, 21-4      WON vs Schreiner 80-55, LOST vs Hardin-Simmons 64-63   
                        
                        
   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   Whitewater*      WIAC      22-3, 2-3      WON vs La Crosse 66-55, vs River Falls in final 2/26   
   Whitworth*      NWC      21-2, 22-3      WON vs Lewis & Clark 79-61, WON vs Puget Sound 86-71   
   River Falls      WIAC      18-5, 18-7      WON vs Stevens Point 76-51, vs Whitewater in final 2/26   
   Stevens Point      WIAC      17-6, 19-6      WON vs Superior 62-52, LOST vs River Falls in semis 2/24   
   CMS*      SCIAC      17-1, 23-1      LOST vs Pomona-Pitzer 51-50, WON vs Redlands 67-65, vs Pomona-Pitzer in final 2/25   
   St. Thomas*      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      WON vs Bethel 74-64, vs Gustavus Adolphus in final 2/26   
   Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      WON vs St. John's 64-52, vs St. Thomas in final 2/26   
   Puget Sound      NWC      14-6, 19-6      WON vs Whitman 79-62, vs LOST Whitworth 86-71   
   Whitman      NWC      16-7, 18-7      LOST vs Puget Sound 79-62   
                        
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: (509)Rat on February 25, 2012, 11:32:56 PM
Whitworth just locked up the NWC auto-bid. Thought those of you holding out for a pool c bid would enjoy the news
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 11:34:04 PM
Saturday final projection (assuming CMS hangs on to large lead)...

(Regional records reflect a Pool C situation - assumes another loss for those still alive.)

Round 1
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .522, 6-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Middlebury: 22-3 (.880), .571, 2-3  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .557, 4-4

Round 2
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .522, 6-1 ***
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .591, 6-5
(S) Mary Hardin-Baylor: 24-2 (.923), 502, 2-0
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .557, 4-4

Round 3
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .591, 6-5
(S) Mary Hardin-Baylor: 24-2 (.923), 502, 2-0 ***
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .557, 4-4

Round 4
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .591, 6-5  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .557, 4-4

Round 5
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Western Conn: 20-6 (.769), .568, 6-5  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .557, 4-4

Round 6
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5  ***
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .557, 4-4

Round 7
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-River Falls: 18-7 (.720), .557, 4-4  ***

Round 8
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .593, 4-4 ***

Round 9
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0 ***
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .514, 2-2

Round 10
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .514, 2-2

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 11:34:17 PM
Round 11
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2 ***
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .586, 3-3
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .514, 2-2

Round 12
(Atl) Richard Stockton: 18-7 (.720), .517, 1-4
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .586, 3-3 ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .514, 2-2

Round 13
(Atl) Richard Stockton: 18-7 (.720), .517, 1-4
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6 ***
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Keene St: 16-7 (.696), .574, 3-5 ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .514, 2-2

Round 14
(Atl) Richard Stockton: 18-7 (.720), .517, 1-4
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Keene St: 16-7 (.696), .574, 3-5
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2 ***
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .514, 2-2

Round 15
(Atl) Richard Stockton: 18-7 (.720), .517, 1-4
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1 ***
(NE) Keene St: 16-7 (.696), .574, 3-5
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .514, 2-2

Round 16
(Atl) Richard Stockton: 18-7 (.720), .517, 1-4
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6
(NE) Keene St: 16-7 (.696), .574, 3-5 ***
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .514, 2-2

Round 17
(Atl) Richard Stockton: 18-7 (.720), .517, 1-4
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .530, 0-4
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0 ***
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .514, 2-2

Round 18
(Atl) Richard Stockton: 18-7 (.720), .517, 1-4
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3 ***
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .530, 0-4
(S) Emory: 19-6 (.760), .529, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .514, 2-2

Round 19
(Atl) Richard Stockton: 18-7 (.720), .517, 1-4
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6 ***
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .530, 0-4
(S) Emory: 19-6 (.760), .529, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .514, 2-2

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2012, 11:34:26 PM
Selection projections (Saturday final)...

1. Middlebury
2. Wittenberg
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor
4. Rhode Island
5. Western Connecticut
6. Wheaton
7. UW-River Falls
8. UW-Stevens Point
9. Hartwick
10. Wesleyan
11. St. Joseph's
12. WPI
13. Ohio Wesleyan
14. Randolph-Macon
15. Lake Forest
16. Keene St
17. Birmingham-Southern
18. St. Mary's
19. Illinois Wesleyan

Sunday impact games...


Bubble Burster Tier 1 (Virtual Pool C locks - would clip teams off the current Pool C list)
1. MIT: 24-2 (.923), .514, 2-2 - vs Springfield tomorrow in NEWMAC title
2. Va Wesleyan: 23-4 (.852), .529, 2-3 - vs Randolph tomorrow in ODAC title
3. Transylvania: 22-3 (.880), .508, 3-1 - vs Rose-Hulman tomorrow in HCAC title


Bubble Burster Tier 2 (would be competitive in the 16-19 range of Pool C - on the bubble at best)
4. St. Thomas: 19-7 (.731), .540, 1-4 - vs Gustavus Adolphus tomorrow in MIAC title
5. Christopher Newport: 19-5 (.792), .503, 1-4 - vs Greensboro tomorrow in USAC title


(Records above would be those as a Pool C candidate - in other words, adding a loss in the conference tournament game.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2012, 11:59:05 PM
Here is a list of just the Pool C teams.  For those playing tomorrow, I took out the higher ranking team as the Pool A.  These teams are:

Transylvania
Amherst
MIT
VWU
Christopher Newport
Hardin-Simmons
Whitewater
St. Thomas

The teams NOT in RED play tomorrow and are the lower rated team in their respective final



                                                
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #3      St. Joseph's (LI)*      SKY      21-2, 21-3      0.913      0.470       1-0      LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 105-81   
   #4      Richard Stockton*      NJAC      17-6, 18-7      0.739      0.523       1-3      WON vs Ramapo 89-87 2OT, LOST vs William Paterson 67-63   
   #5      New Jersey City      NJAC      15-6, 17-7      0.714      0.554       2-3      SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Hartwick*      E8      22-2, 23-2      0.917      0.523       2-0      LOST vs Ithaca 79-67   
   #3      Hobart*      LL      20-4, 21-4      0.833      0.517       1-1      WON vs Union 73-53, LOST vs Skidmore 69-66   
   #4      NYU      UAA      19-5, 19-5      0.792      0.491       2-2      WON at Brandeis 65-63   
   #6      Nazareth      E8      17-6, 17-8      0.739      0.549       0-4      WON vs Stevens 74-71, LOST vs Ithaca in final 71-55   
                                                
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #2      Wittenberg*      NCAC      18-4, 20-5      0.818      0.539       6-1      WON vs Kenyon 73-61, LOST vs Denison 66-58   
   #4      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      18-6, 19-6      0.750      0.554       3-5      WON vs Hiram 96-86, LOST vs Wooster in semis 2/24   
   #6      John Carroll      OAC      15-6, 18-6      0.714      0.499       1-1      LOST vs Wilmington 79-74   
                                                
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #3      St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      17-5, 19-6      0.773      0.568       1-3      LOST  vs York (Pa.) 61-58   
   #4      Keystone      CSAC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.490       0-2      WON vs Neumann 98-75, LOST vs Cabrini 86-79   
   #7      Widener      MACC      14-7, 18-7      0.667      0.565       4-4      LOST vs Lycoming 79-77 OT in MACC semis.     
   #8      Mary Washington      CAC      16-6, 17-8      0.727      0.522       3-2      WON vs Hood 56-54, LOST vs York (Pa) 59-51   
   #9      Albright      MACC      13-7, 17-8      0.650      0.546       4-6      LOST vs Messiah 70-65 OT in MACC semis.     
                                                
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #2      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      17-5, 19-5      0.773      0.552       4-3      WON vs Augustana 74-44, WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 69-56, LOST vs North Central 75-58   
   #4      Lake Forest*      MWC      19-3, 20-3      0.864      0.520       0-1      LOST vs Carroll 77-70   
   #5      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.538       2-4      LOST vs Wheaton in semis 2/24   
   #6      Concordia (WI)*      NATH      19-4, 20-4      0.826      0.487       1-1      WON vs Marian 73-66, LOST vs Lakeland 85-83 OT   
   #8      Augustana      CCIW      18-5, 19-5      0.783      0.466       3-4      LOST vs Wheaton 74-44, LOSTvs North Central in semis 2/24   
                                                
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #2      Middlebury      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      0.913      0.564       2-2      WON vs Wesleyan 74-52, vs Amherst in final 2/26   
   #4      Rhode Island College      LEC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.586       5-4      WON vs Plymouth State 79-48, WON vs Western Connecticut 75-74, LOST vs Eastern Connecticut 82-60   
   #5      W. Connecticut      LEC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.568       6-3      LOST vs Rhode Island College in LEC semis 2/24   
   #7      WPI      NEWMAC      18-6, 18-6      0.750      0.587       2-3      LOST vs Springfield 66-60   
   #8      Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      20-4, 20-5      0.833      0.506       3-2      LOST vs Middlebury 74-52   
   #10      Keene State      LEC      15-6, 18-7      0.714      0.573       3-4      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64, LOST vs Eastern Connecticut 81-76 2OT   
                                                
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1      Mary Hardin-Baylor*      ASC      23-1, 24-1      0.958      0.512       3-0      WON vs Mississippi College 75-63, LOST vs McMurry 77-69   
   #3      Birmingham-Southern*      SCAC      21-1, 24-1      0.955      0.455       0-0      WON vs U. of Dallas 82-59, LOST vs Centre 77-58   
   #4      Randolph-Macon      ODAC      17-4, 20-5      0.810      0.516       3-2      WON vs Eastern Mennonite 99-91 OT, LOST vs Randolph 58-51   
   #6      Emory      UAA      19-5, 19-5      0.792      0.517       2-3      LOST vs Rochester 92-73   
   #8      Texas-Dallas      ASC      19-4, 21-4      0.826      0.475       0-2      WON vs Schreiner 80-55, LOST vs Hardin-Simmons 64-63   
                                                
   WK3      TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #3      River Falls      WIAC      18-5, 18-7      0.783      0.558       3-3      WON vs Stevens Point 76-51, vs Whitewater in final 2/26   
   #4      Stevens Point      WIAC      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.588       4-2      WON vs Superior 62-52, LOST vs River Falls in semis 2/24   
   #7      Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      0.750      0.517       2-1      WON vs St. John's 64-52, vs St. Thomas in final 2/26   
   #8      Puget Sound      NWC      14-6, 19-6      0.700      0.491       3-2      WON vs Whitman 79-62, LOST vs Whitworth 86-71   
   #9      Whitman      NWC      16-7, 18-7      0.696      0.518       1-5      LOST vs Puget Sound 79-62   
                                                
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2012, 12:55:48 AM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 25, 2012, 06:02:31 PM
Anyone have a list of current Pool A winners? Who's already earned their slot in the dance?

(Realizes this is the Pool C board, but not sure where else to ask...)



   Region      CONFERENCE      TEAM   
   East      AMCC      Medaille   
   South      ASC      Hardin-Simmons/McMurry   
   Mid-Atlantic      CAC      York (Pa)   
   Mid-Atlantic      CC      Franklin & Marshall   
   Northeast      CCC      Endicott   
   Midwest      CCIW      North Central   
   Mid-Atlantic      CSAC      Cabrini   
   Atlantic      CUNYAC      Staten Island   
   East      E8      Ithaca   
   Northeast      GNAC      Albertus Magnus   
   South      GSAC      Maryville (TN)   
   Midwest      HCAC      Transylvania/Rose-Hulman   
   West      IIAC      Buena Vista   
   Atlantic      LAND      Scranton   
   Northeast      LEC      Eastern Connecticut   
   East      LL      Skidmore   
   Mid-Atlantic      MACC      Messiah   
   Mid-Atlantic      MACF      Misericordia   
   Northeast      MASCAC      Salem State   
   Great Lakes      MIAA      Hope   
   West      MIAC      St. Thomas/Gustavus Adolphus   
   Midwest      MWC      Carroll College   
   Northeast      NAC      Castleton State   
   Midwest      NATHCON      Edgewood   
   Great Lakes      NCAC      Wooster   
   East      NEAC      Penn. State-Harrisburg/Morrisville State   
   Northeast      NECC      Becker   
   Northeast      NESCAC      Amherst/Middlebury   
   Northeast      NEWMAC      MIT/Springfield   
   Atlantic      NJAC      William Paterson   
   West      NWC      Whitworth   
   Great Lakes      OAC      Capital   
   South      ODAC      Virginia Wesleyan/Randolph   
   Great Lakes      PrAC      Bethany   
   South      SCAC      Trinity (TX)/Centre   
   West      SCIAC      Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   
   Atlantic      SKY      Farmingdale State   
   Midwest      SLIAC      Westminster (Mo)   
   East      SUNYAC      Oswego State   
   Midwest      UAA      Washington U.   
   West      UMAC      Northwestern   
   South      USAC      Christopher Newport/Greensboro   
   West      WIAC      Whitewater/River Falls   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fritzdis on February 26, 2012, 01:15:12 AM
Maryville's not pool A, right?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2012, 01:43:41 AM
Yeah, I think.  I just listed all of the conference winners (or soon to be)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 26, 2012, 01:44:33 AM
Quote from: fritzdis on February 26, 2012, 01:15:12 AM
Maryville's not pool A, right?

Great South on the men's side doesn't get automatic entry to the field, Maryville will be the pool B selection in all likelyhood.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 26, 2012, 02:45:35 AM
Anyone know what time the show starts??  Women at 1:30, men at 3:00??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 26, 2012, 09:12:43 AM
Titan Q ... Why do you have Randolph-Macon on the board ahead of Birmingham-Southern, given that Birmingham-Southern was the Regional #3 in the last ranking and, since then, beat the University of Dallas (regional 6-18) and lost to Centre (regional 16-8), whereas RMC was the Regional #4 and, since then, beat Eastern Mennonite (regional 11-12)and lost to Randolph (regional 13-9)?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 26, 2012, 09:18:45 AM
The Selection Show on Monday?

Men at 12:00 Eastern, women (I think) at 2:00 Eastern.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 09:29:48 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 26, 2012, 09:12:43 AM
Titan Q ... Why do you have Randolph-Macon on the board ahead of Birmingham-Southern, given that Birmingham-Southern was the Regional #3 in the last ranking and, since then, beat the University of Dallas (regional 6-18) and lost to Centre (regional 16-8), whereas RMC was the Regional #4 and, since then, beat Eastern Mennonite (regional 11-12)and lost to Randolph (regional 13-9)?

Algernon, I could certainly have that order wrong.  I can definitely see Birmingham-Southern ahead of Randolph-Macon.  But here is why I landed where I did...

When BSC lost yesterday, I did a revised Pool C projection with BSC ahead of RMC.  I found that using that order, that the South's top Pool candidate actually got selected later (in my projection) than when I put RMC ahead.  In other words, very simply, I have RMC on the board first because I believe RMC is a better Pool C candidate than BSC...

* Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .516, 3-2
* Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .455, 0-0

Again, as I keep saying, we're really just talking about "subjective evaluation of objective data" - I see RMC as the better Pool C, but others may interpret the data in another way.

The regional advisory committee's job is to stack its teams up in the order that gives the region its best Pool C chances.  I'd slot RMC ahead of BSC, but I could definitely have that wrong.

Lake Forest vs Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest) is a similar situation...NYU vs Hobart (East) also comes to mind.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 26, 2012, 10:11:51 AM
Thanks for your reasoning.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 01:16:54 PM
Here's a link to my latest selections:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/bracketology-2262012.html

TQ and I differ on two picks, but one of mine (St. Thomas) probably won't make it because they still have to lose. I probably shouldn't have included them, but I did. Replacing them on my list would be either Emory or Birmingham-Southern (however that region plays out). Or perhaps NYU or Rochester.

I also disagree that IWU is in. But as he says, you never really know about those last couple of spots.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 01:25:07 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 01:16:54 PM
Here's a link to my latest selections:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/bracketology-2262012.html

TQ and I differ on two picks, but one of mine (St. Thomas) probably won't make it because they still have to lose. I probably shouldn't have included them, but I did. Replacing them on my list would be either Emory or Birmingham-Southern (however that region plays out). Or perhaps NYU or Rochester.

I also disagree that IWU is in. But as he says, you never really know about those last couple of spots.

I think Emory would have a hard time getting in over IWU due to a common opponent result - IWU beat Wash U, while Emory was swept by Wash U.

I also think IWU's "secondary criteria" wins over Staten Island (Atlantic #1) and Bethany (#5) are potential separating factors...in addition to "primary criteria" SOS and wins over RR.  Those factors may be enough, at that point of the bubble, to push IWU in.

But without question, those last 3 spots or so could go absolutely any direction. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2012, 01:44:48 PM
Bubble teams may resume breathing - the halftime score on scoreboard is reversed!  According to livestats, MIT is UP 10, not down 10!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 01:47:58 PM
Knightslappy, do you by chance have updated SOS numbers?  I've been using SOS through the last ranking, but obviously the numbers have moved a little this week.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 01:56:08 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 01:47:58 PM
Knightslappy, do you by chance have updated SOS numbers?  I've been using SOS through the last ranking, but obviously the numbers have moved a little this week.

here's what I'm using:

wSOS    Team
0.531   Adrian
0.457   Albertus Magnus
0.482   Albion
0.560   Albright
0.484   Alfred
0.513   Allegheny
0.512   Alma
0.543   Alvernia
0.580   Amherst
0.528   Anderson
0.525   Anna Maria
0.480   Arcadia
0.483   Augsburg
0.495   Augustana
0.438   Aurora
0.469   Austin
0.511   Averett
0.568   Babson
0.481   Baldwin-Wallace
0.486   Baptist Bible
0.487   Bard
0.538   Baruch
0.624   Bates
0.481   Becker
0.525   Beloit
0.468   Benedictine
0.444   Berry
0.437   Bethany
0.460   Bethany Lutheran
0.506   Bethel
0.443   Birmingham-Southern
0.456   Blackburn
0.502   Bluffton
0.536   Bowdoin
0.575   Brandeis
0.509   Bridgewater (Va.)
0.518   Bridgewater State
0.544   Brockport State
0.499   Brooklyn
0.535   Buena Vista
0.465   Buffalo State
0.492   Cabrini
0.513   Cal Lutheran
0.457   Caltech
0.540   Calvin
0.514   Capital
0.500   Carleton
0.574   Carnegie Mellon
0.507   Carroll
0.519   Carthage
0.518   Case Western Reserve
0.472   Castleton State
0.492   Catholic
0.446   Cazenovia
0.491   CCNY
0.474   Centenary
0.000   Centenary (La.)
0.497   Central
0.541   Centre
0.483   Chapman
0.557   Chicago
0.493   Christopher Newport
0.483   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
0.596   Clark
0.474   Clarkson
0.549   Coast Guard
0.504   Coe
0.532   Colby
0.427   Colby-Sawyer
0.458   Colorado College
0.511   Concordia (Ill.)
0.516   Concordia (Texas)
0.480   Concordia (Wis.)
0.500   Concordia-Moorhead
0.538   Connecticut College
0.503   Cornell
0.486   Cortland State
0.430   Covenant
0.419   Crown
0.495   Curry
0.425   Daniel Webster
0.542   Defiance
0.542   Delaware Valley
0.528   Denison
0.552   DePauw
0.482   DeSales
0.498   Dickinson
0.479   Dominican
0.534   Drew
0.490   Dubuque
0.467   DYouville
0.520   Earlham
0.479   East Texas Baptist
0.494   Eastern
0.536   Eastern Connecticut
0.521   Eastern Mennonite
0.443   Eastern Nazarene
0.496   Edgewood
0.552   Elizabethtown
0.534   Elmhurst
0.526   Elmira
0.513   Elms
0.478   Emerson
0.480   Emmanuel
0.529   Emory
0.503   Emory and Henry
0.465   Endicott
0.477   Eureka
0.462   Farmingdale State
0.531   FDU-Florham
0.469   Ferrum
0.518   Finlandia
0.477   Fitchburg State
0.463   Fontbonne
0.497   Framingham State
0.456   Franciscan (Ohio)
0.525   Franklin
0.452   Franklin and Marshall
0.500   Fredonia State
0.507   Frostburg State
0.471   Gallaudet
0.515   Geneseo State
0.501   Geneva
0.523   George Fox
0.494   Gettysburg
0.501   Gordon
0.468   Goucher
0.420   Green Mountain
0.447   Greensboro
0.435   Greenville
0.473   Grinnell
0.478   Grove City
0.534   Guilford
0.514   Gustavus Adolphus
0.459   Gwynedd-Mercy
0.552   Hamilton
0.499   Hamline
0.545   Hampden-Sydney
0.513   Hanover
0.529   Hardin-Simmons
0.509   Hartwick
0.536   Haverford
0.505   Heidelberg
0.478   Hendrix
0.446   Hilbert
0.501   Hiram
0.520   Hobart
0.535   Hood
0.511   Hope
0.514   Howard Payne
0.512   Hunter
0.444   Huntingdon
0.458   Husson
0.504   Illinois College
0.541   Illinois Wesleyan
0.532   Immaculata
0.593   Ithaca
0.491   John Carroll
0.504   John Jay
0.465   Johns Hopkins
0.516   Johnson and Wales
0.446   Johnson State
0.513   Juniata
0.485   Kalamazoo
0.550   Kean
0.574   Keene State
0.488   Kenyon
0.450   Keuka
0.504   Keystone
0.517   Kings
0.508   Knox
0.440   La Roche
0.517   La Verne
0.451   LaGrange
0.516   Lake Forest
0.498   Lakeland
0.435   Lancaster Bible
0.513   Lasell
0.511   Lawrence
0.543   Lebanon Valley
0.498   Lehman
0.442   Lesley
0.478   LeTourneau
0.541   Lewis and Clark
0.508   Linfield
0.525   Loras
0.496   Louisiana College
0.548   Luther
0.538   Lycoming
0.515   Lynchburg
0.452   Lyndon State
0.483   Macalester
0.494   MacMurray
0.415   Maine Maritime
0.438   Maine-Farmington
0.557   Maine-Presque Isle
0.536   Manchester
0.527   Manhattanville
0.470   Maranatha Baptist
0.476   Marian
0.502   Marietta
0.413   Martin Luther
0.502   Mary Hardin-Baylor
0.510   Mary Washington
0.496   Marymount
0.418   Maryville (Tenn.)
0.499   Marywood
0.520   Massachusetts College
0.537   Mass-Boston
0.565   Mass-Dartmouth
0.471   McDaniel
0.553   McMurry
0.427   Medaille
0.544   Medgar Evers
0.471   Merchant Marine
0.547   Messiah
0.560   Methodist
0.571   Middlebury
0.540   Millikin
0.498   Millsaps
0.466   Milwaukee Engineering
0.410   Minnesota-Morris
0.496   Misericordia
0.503   Mississippi College
0.509   MIT
0.434   Mitchell
0.504   Monmouth
0.526   Montclair State
0.499   Moravian
0.457   Morrisville State
0.448   Mount Aloysius
0.432   Mount Ida
0.511   Mount St. Joseph
0.450   Mount St. Mary
0.495   Mount St. Vincent
0.472   Mount Union
0.484   Muhlenberg
0.509   Muskingum
0.551   Nazareth
0.514   Nebraska Wesleyan
0.531   Neumann
0.432   New England College
0.550   New Jersey City
0.540   New Paltz State
0.494   New York University
0.458   Newbury
0.467   Nichols
0.492   North Carolina Wesleyan
0.500   North Central (Ill.)
0.408   North Central (Minn.)
0.529   North Park
0.441   Northland
0.455   Northwestern (Minn.)
0.444   Norwich
0.449   NYU-Poly
0.480   Oberlin
0.470   Occidental
0.482   Oglethorpe
0.533   Ohio Northern
0.551   Ohio Wesleyan
0.495   Olivet
0.552   Oneonta State
0.471   Oswego State
0.524   Otterbein
0.508   Pacific
0.505   Pacific Lutheran
0.496   Penn State-Abington
0.420   Penn State-Altoona
0.497   Penn State-Behrend
0.461   Penn State-Berks
0.466   Penn State-Harrisburg
0.469   Philadelphia Bible
0.459   Piedmont
0.463   Pitt-Bradford
0.480   Pitt-Greensburg
0.526   Plattsburgh State
0.572   Plymouth State
0.513   Pomona-Pitzer
0.524   Potsdam State
0.418   Presentation
0.466   Principia
0.513   Puget Sound
0.536   Ramapo
0.517   Randolph
0.515   Randolph-Macon
0.517   Redlands
0.462   Regis (Mass.)
0.591   Rhode Island College
0.501   Rhodes
0.517   Richard Stockton
0.503   Ripon
0.441   Rivier
0.518   Roanoke
0.568   Rochester
0.487   Rochester Tech
0.486   Rockford
0.476   Roger Williams
0.495   Rose-Hulman
0.473   Rosemont
0.507   Rowan
0.547   RPI
0.418   Rust
0.502   Rutgers-Camden
0.514   Rutgers-Newark
0.423   Sage
0.516   Salem State
0.509   Salisbury
0.458   Salve Regina
0.510   Schreiner
0.496   Scranton
0.487   Sewanee
0.491   Shenandoah
0.567   Simpson
0.511   Skidmore
0.554   Southern Maine
0.489   Southern Vermont
0.523   Southwestern
0.468   Spalding
0.543   Springfield
0.500   St. John Fisher
0.501   St. Johns
0.444   St. Josephs (Bklyn.)
0.470   St. Josephs (L.I.)
0.497   St. Josephs (Maine)
0.506   St. Lawrence
0.557   St. Marys (Md.)
0.489   St. Marys (Minn.)
0.497   St. Norbert
0.528   St. Olaf
0.427   St. Scholastica
0.534   St. Thomas
0.491   St. Vincent
0.541   Staten Island
0.511   Stevens
0.506   Stevenson
0.472   Suffolk
0.521   Sul Ross State
0.487   SUNY-Cobleskill
0.434   SUNYIT
0.478   SUNY-Maritime
0.491   SUNY-Old Westbury
0.505   SUNY-Purchase
0.524   Susquehanna
0.483   Swarthmore
0.485   TCNJ
0.512   Texas Lutheran
0.481   Texas-Dallas
0.487   Texas-Tyler
0.477   Thiel
0.428   Thomas
0.500   Thomas More
0.501   Transylvania
0.488   Trine
0.552   Trinity (Conn.)
0.488   Trinity (Texas)
0.530   Tufts
0.604   UC Santa Cruz
0.476   Union
0.460   University of Dallas
0.489   University of New England
0.477   University of the Ozarks
0.505   Ursinus
0.495   Utica
0.534   UW-Eau Claire
0.587   UW-La Crosse
0.551   UW-Oshkosh
0.524   UW-Platteville
0.557   UW-River Falls
0.593   UW-Stevens Point
0.574   UW-Stout
0.540   UW-Superior
0.546   UW-Whitewater
0.501   Vassar
0.531   Virginia Wesleyan
0.549   Wabash
0.498   Wartburg
0.506   Washington and Jefferson
0.548   Washington and Lee
0.491   Washington College
0.583   Washington U.
0.481   Waynesburg
0.504   Webster
0.482   Wells
0.447   Wentworth
0.546   Wesley
0.515   Wesleyan
0.568   Western Connecticut
0.478   Western New England
0.489   Westfield State
0.483   Westminster (Mo.)
0.471   Westminster (Pa.)
0.570   Wheaton (Ill.)
0.547   Wheaton (Mass.)
0.469   Wheelock
0.526   Whitman
0.487   Whittier
0.503   Whitworth
0.559   Widener
0.531   Wilkes
0.538   Willamette
0.505   William Paterson
0.552   Williams
0.523   Wilmington
0.490   Wisconsin Lutheran
0.522   Wittenberg
0.522   Wooster
0.483   Worcester State
0.586   WPI
0.478   Yeshiva
0.550   York (N.Y.)
0.545   York (Pa.)   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 02:01:14 PM
Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: scottiedawg on February 26, 2012, 02:13:00 PM
Springfield has surged back to take the lead over MIT.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: cardinalpride on February 26, 2012, 02:21:44 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 01:56:08 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 01:47:58 PM
Knightslappy, do you by chance have updated SOS numbers?  I've been using SOS through the last ranking, but obviously the numbers have moved a little this week.

here's what I'm using:

wSOS    Team


0.500   North Central (Ill.)



Knightslappy, what could've cause NCC sos to drop from .501 to .500 after playing Augustana and Wheaton?  ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2012, 02:27:45 PM
Looks like MIT saves the the Pool Cs a spot with getting by Springfield.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 26, 2012, 02:30:00 PM
Quote from: cardinalpride on February 26, 2012, 02:21:44 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 01:56:08 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 01:47:58 PM
Knightslappy, do you by chance have updated SOS numbers?  I've been using SOS through the last ranking, but obviously the numbers have moved a little this week.

here's what I'm using:

wSOS    Team


0.500   North Central (Ill.)



Knightslappy, what could've cause NCC sos to drop from .501 to .500 after playing Augustana and Wheaton?  ???

Rounding?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 26, 2012, 02:30:09 PM
Quote from: cardinalpride on February 26, 2012, 02:21:44 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 01:56:08 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 01:47:58 PM
Knightslappy, do you by chance have updated SOS numbers?  I've been using SOS through the last ranking, but obviously the numbers have moved a little this week.

here's what I'm using:

wSOS    Team


0.500   North Central (Ill.)



Knightslappy, what could've cause NCC sos to drop from .501 to .500 after playing Augustana and Wheaton?  ???


I'm not Knightslappy, but all of NCC's non-conference D3 foes lost their last games played, throw in Illinois Wesleyan.  That would be enough to drop it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 02:34:34 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2012, 02:30:09 PM
Quote from: cardinalpride on February 26, 2012, 02:21:44 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 01:56:08 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 01:47:58 PM
Knightslappy, do you by chance have updated SOS numbers?  I've been using SOS through the last ranking, but obviously the numbers have moved a little this week.

here's what I'm using:

wSOS    Team


0.500   North Central (Ill.)



Knightslappy, what could've cause NCC sos to drop from .501 to .500 after playing Augustana and Wheaton?  ???


I'm not Knightslappy, but all of NCC's non-conference D3 foes lost their last games played, throw in Illinois Wesleyan.  That would be enough to drop it.

This is probably the case. Also, Augustana and Wheaton were home games, so they each only added .520 -.540 of SOS. Not enough to really bring the whole thing up much.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 02:52:01 PM
Just realized I have been using an incorrect SOS for St. Joseph's (LI).  Somehow I was using .549 (which is outstanding)...the number is actually .470 (which is not so outstanding).

Based on .549, I had St. Joseph's going in at #13 (my projection from last night is on page #250).  With .470 I think it bumps them down to the 17-19 bubble range.

I'll have to look at that more later this evening when I do a final projection.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wooscotsfan on February 26, 2012, 02:52:25 PM
Christopher Newport trails Greensboro 31-25 at the half.  If CNU doesn't rally, they will join the Pool C hopefuls with a 22-5 record.

Rose Hulman starts 2nd half on a 16-4 run and now leads Transylvania 45-41 with 16:30 left.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2012, 03:20:42 PM
Alert to bubble teams - a tight one at Transy.  W/ 5+ to go, RHIT up by 2.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2012, 03:35:01 PM
RHIT misses the front of a 1 and one, Transy hits a 3 to tie it at 71 with 5 seconds left. Bad inbounds and Transy with the ball and 2.2 seconds left. Shot at the buzzer no good and we're headed to OT in the HCAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 03:51:16 PM
Rose-Hulman 76
Transylvania 73 (OT)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2012, 03:52:23 PM
I just heard a bubble pop - just hope it wasn't the Titans! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 03:54:21 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 03:51:16 PM
Rose-Hulman 76
Transylvania 73 (OT)

This probably ends IWU's chances.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2012, 03:57:46 PM
I'm still hoping that either the regional or national committee sees fit to drop Lake Forest behind the Titans - probably the only real chance we've got.

The other 'bubble-buster' game looked like a blowout at first (Va Wes jumped out to a 15-6 lead), but they just can't shake 'em so far - w/ just under 5 in the first half, Va Wes by 2.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2012, 04:09:22 PM
At the half, Va Wes 34, Randolph 32.

If Randolph wins, I'm not sure even jumping Lake Forest could save IWU. :P
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: onetinsoldier on February 26, 2012, 05:11:54 PM
pool c breathing a sigh of relief as Randolph fought with all their might, but va wes survived in the end.  if not for a blown over the back call by the officials, randolph wouldve had free throws to take the lead with a minute to go.  but either way, va wes gets the pool A bid from the odac preserving a pool c spot. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2012, 05:12:36 PM
Bubble teams may now resume breathing - Va Wes 65, Randolph 61.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2012, 05:27:51 PM
FINAL POOL C TABLE, I THINK



   ATL                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Staten Island*      CUNYAC      20-2, 22-4      0.905      0.549       0-2      WON vs Baruch in 73-63, WON vs Medgar Evers 82-81   
   #2   William Paterson      NJAC      22-3, 22-3      0.880      0.503       3-0      WON vs Kean 72-56, WON vs Richard Stockton 67-63   
   #3   St. Joseph's (LI)*      SKY      21-2, 21-3      0.913      0.470       1-0      LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 105-81   
   #4   Richard Stockton*      NJAC      17-6, 18-7      0.739      0.523       1-3      WON vs Ramapo 89-87 2OT, LOST vs William Paterson 67-63   
   #5   New Jersey City      NJAC      15-6, 17-7      0.714      0.554       2-3      SEASON COMPLETE   
                                             
   EAST                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Hartwick*      E8      22-2, 23-2      0.917      0.523       2-0      LOST vs Ithaca 79-67   
   #2   Oswego State*      SUNYAC      22-2, 22-3      0.917      0.482       0-0      WON vs New Paltz 73-62, WON vs Brockport State 64-57, WON vs Cortland State 66-57   
   #3   Hobart*      LL      20-4, 21-4      0.833      0.517       1-1      WON vs Union 73-53, LOST vs Skidmore 69-66   
   #4   NYU      UAA      19-5, 19-5      0.792      0.491       2-2      WON at Brandeis 65-63   
   #5   Medaille*      AMCC      22-2, 23-2      0.917      0.431       1-0      WON vs Hilbert 63-52, WON vs PSU-Behrend 65-52   
   #6   Nazareth      E8      17-6, 17-8      0.739      0.549       0-4      WON vs Stevens 74-71, LOST vs Ithaca in final 71-55   
                                             
   GL                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Hope*      MIAA      16-0, 24-1      1.000      0.515       1-0      WON vs Calvin 87-80, WON vs Adrian 65-62 OT   
   #2   Wittenberg*      NCAC      18-4, 20-5      0.818      0.539       6-1      WON vs Kenyon 73-61, LOST vs Denison 66-58   
   #3   Wooster      NCAC      19-4,21-4      0.826      0.522       3-3      WON vs DePauw 59-51, WON vs Ohio Wesleyan 89-80, WON vs Denison 53-51   
   #4   Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      18-6, 19-6      0.750      0.554       3-5      WON vs Hiram 96-86, LOST vs Wooster in semis 2/24   
   #5   Bethany (W.Va.)*      PrAC      21-2, 22-3      0.913      0.453       0-0      WON vs Waynesburg 82-69, WON vs Washington & Jefferson 82-69, WON vs Thomas More 58-53   
   #6   John Carroll      OAC      15-6, 18-6      0.714      0.499       1-1      LOST vs Wilmington 79-74   
                                             
   MA                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Cabrini*      CSAC      24-0, 24-1      1.000      0.498       3-0      WON vs Immaculata 87-68, WON vs Keystone 86-79 in final   
   #2   Franklin & Marshall*      CC      23-2, 23-2      0.920      0.456       3-0      WON vs Washington College 100-69, WON vs Muhlenberg 71-55   
   #3   St. Mary's (Md)*      CAC      17-5, 19-6      0.773      0.568       1-3      LOST  vs York (Pa.) 61-58   
   #4   Keystone      CSAC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.490       0-2      WON vs Neumann 98-75, LOST vs Cabrini 86-79   
   #5   Messiah*      MACC      17-6, 18-6      0.739      0.549       5-2      WON vs Albright 70-65 OT, WON vs Lycoming in final 68-59   
   #6   Misericordia*      MACF      19-6, 19-6      0.760      0.508       0-1      WON vs FDU-Florham 76-73, WON vs Wilkes in final 69-42   
   #7   Widener      MACC      14-7, 18-7      0.667      0.565       4-4      LOST vs Lycoming 79-77 OT in MACC semis.     
   #8   Mary Washington      CAC      16-6, 17-8      0.727      0.522       3-2      WON vs Hood 56-54, LOST vs York (Pa) 59-51   
   #9   Albright      MACC      13-7, 17-8      0.650      0.546       4-6      LOST vs Messiah 70-65 OT in MACC semis.     
                                             
   MW                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Washington U.*      UAA      18-5, 18-6      0.783      0.581       5-3      at Chicago 2/25   
   #2   Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      17-5, 19-5      0.773      0.552       4-3      WON vs Augustana 74-44, WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 69-56, LOST vs North Central 75-58   
   #3   Transylvania*      HCAC      21-2, 22-3      0.913      0.508       3-0      WON vs Anderson 71-59, LOST vs Rose-Hulman 76-73 OT   
   #4   Lake Forest*      MWC      19-3, 20-3      0.864      0.520       0-1      LOST vs Carroll 77-70   
   #5   Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.538       2-4      LOST vs Wheaton in semis 2/24   
   #6   Concordia (WI)*      NATH      19-4, 20-4      0.826      0.487       1-1      WON vs Marian 73-66, LOST vs Lakeland 85-83 OT   
   #7   North Central (IL)*      CCIW      17-5, 18-7      0.773      0.501       2-2      WON vs Augustana 63-56, WON vs Wheaton 75-58   
   #8   Augustana      CCIW      18-5, 19-5      0.783      0.466       3-4      LOST vs Wheaton 74-44, LOSTvs North Central in semis 2/24   
                                             
   NE                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Amherst*      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      0.913      0.589       4-1      WON vs Bates 97-74, WON vs Middlebury 71-69   
   #2   Middlebury      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      0.913      0.564       2-2      WON vs Wesleyan 74-52, LOST vs Amherst in final 2/26   
   #3   MIT*      NEWMAC      23-1, 23-1      0.958      0.514       2-1      WON vs Babson 65-42, WON vs Springfield 65-60   
   #4   Rhode Island College      LEC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.586       5-4      WON vs Plymouth State 79-48, WON vs Western Connecticut 75-74, LOST vs Eastern Connecticut 82-60   
   #5   W. Connecticut      LEC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.568       6-3      LOST vs Rhode Island College in LEC semis 2/24   
   #6   E. Connecticut*      LEC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.545       3-5      WON vs Keene State 81-76 2OT, WON vs Rhode Island College 82-60   
   #7   WPI      NEWMAC      18-6, 18-6      0.750      0.587       2-3      LOST vs Springfield 66-60   
   #8   Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      20-4, 20-5      0.833      0.506       3-2      LOST vs Middlebury 74-52   
   #9   Albertus Magnus*      GNAC      24-1, 24-1      0.960      0.469       2-0      WON vs Emerson 82-58, WON vs Lasell 92-70, WON vs Anna Maria 88-54   
   #10   Keene State      LEC      15-6, 18-7      0.714      0.573       3-4      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64, LOST vs Eastern Connecticut 81-76 2OT   
   #11   Becker*      NECC      21-4, 21-4      0.840      0.489       0-3      WON vs Newbury 83-60, WON vs Elms 66-45   
   #12   Salem State*      MASCAC      17-7, 18-7      0.708      0.530       0-4      WON vs MLCA 96-75, WON vs Bridgewater State 83-71   
                                             
   STH                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Mary Hardin-Baylor*      ASC      23-1, 24-1      0.958      0.512       3-0      WON vs Mississippi College 75-63, LOST vs McMurry 77-69   
   #2   Virginia Wesleyan*      ODAC      21-3, 22-3      0.875      0.529       2-2      WON vs Washington and Lee 87-63, WON vs Hampden-Sydney 67-65, WON vs Randolph 65-61   
   #3   Birmingham-Southern*      SCAC      21-1, 24-1      0.955      0.455       0-0      WON vs U. of Dallas 82-59, LOST vs Centre 77-58   
   #4   Randolph-Macon      ODAC      17-4, 20-5      0.810      0.516       3-2      WON vs Eastern Mennonite 99-91 OT, LOST vs Randolph 58-51   
   #5   Christopher Newport*      USAC      18-4, 21-4      0.818      0.503       1-4      WON vs Methodist 97-62, WON vs Greensboro 82-72   
   #6   Emory      UAA      19-5, 19-5      0.792      0.517       2-3      LOST vs Rochester 92-73   
   #7   Hardin-Simmons      ASC      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.523       0-3      WON vs Louisiana College 110-100, WON vs Texas-Dallas 64-63, LOST vs McMurry86-81 OT   
   #8   Texas-Dallas      ASC      19-4, 21-4      0.826      0.475       0-2      WON vs Schreiner 80-55, LOST vs Hardin-Simmons 64-63   
                                             
   WST                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR      SCHEDULE   
   #1   Whitewater*      WIAC      22-3, 2-3      0.880      0.551       5-2      WON vs La Crosse 66-55,  LOST vs River Falls 64-58   
   #2   Whitworth*      NWC      21-2, 22-3      0.913      0.503       4-2      WON vs Lewis & Clark 79-61, WON vs Puget Sound 86-71   
   #3   River Falls      WIAC      18-5, 18-7      0.783      0.558       3-3      WON vs Stevens Point 76-51, WON vs Whitewater 64-58   
   #4   Stevens Point      WIAC      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.588       4-2      WON vs Superior 62-52, LOST vs River Falls in semis 2/24   
   #5   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps*      SCIAC      17-1, 23-1      0.944      0.484       0-0      LOST vs Pomona-Pitzer 51-50, WON vs Redlands 67-65, WON vs Pomona-Pitzer 60-54   
   #6   St. Thomas*      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      0.750      0.540       1-3      WON vs Bethel 74-64, WON vs Gustavus Adolphus 66-62 OT   
   #7   Gustavus Adolphus      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      0.750      0.517       2-1      WON vs St. John's 64-52, LOST vs St. Thomas 66-62 OT   
   #8   Puget Sound      NWC      14-6, 19-6      0.700      0.491       3-2      WON vs Whitman 79-62, LOST vs Whitworth 86-71   
   #9   Whitman      NWC      16-7, 18-7      0.696      0.518       1-5      LOST vs Puget Sound 79-62   
                                             
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 05:48:09 PM
My final selections:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/final-bracketology.html

Pool C's:

Middlebury
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Rhode Island College
UW-Whitewater
Hartwick
Transylvania
Western Connecticut
Wheaton (Ill.)
UW-Stevens Point
WPI
Wittenberg
Hobart
St. Josephs (L.I.)
Lake Forest
Randolph-Macon
Keene State
St. Marys (Md.)
Wesleyan
Ohio Wesleyan
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 06:17:06 PM
My final 2012 Pool C projection (late Sunday afternoon)

Round 1
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .522, 6-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Middlebury: 22-3 (.880), .588, 2-3  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Whitewater: 23-4 (.852), .547, 5-3

Round 2
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .522, 6-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .591, 6-5
(S) Mary Hardin-Baylor: 24-2 (.923), 502, 2-0
(W) UW-Whitewater: 23-4 (.852), .547, 5-3 ***

Round 3
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .522, 6-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .591, 6-5
(S) Mary Hardin-Baylor: 24-2 (.923), 502, 2-0 ***
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .592, 4-4

Round 4
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .522, 6-1 ***
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .591, 6-5 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .592, 4-4

Round 5
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .591, 6-5 ***
(NE) Western Conn: 20-6 (.769), .568, 6-5 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .592, 4-4

Round 6
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5 
(NE) Western Conn: 20-6 (.769), .568, 6-5  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .592, 4-4

Round 7
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5  ***
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .592, 4-4

Round 8
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Transylvania: 22-3 (.880), .500, 3-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .592, 4-4 ***

Round 9
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Transylvania: 22-3 (.880), .500, 3-1 ***
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 10
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0 ***
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 06:17:20 PM
Round 11
St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 12
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .586, 3-3 ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 13
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6 ***
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Keene St: 16-7 (.696), .574, 3-5 ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 14
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Keene St: 16-7 (.696), .574, 3-5
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2 ***
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 15
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1 ***
(NE) Keene St: 16-7 (.696), .574, 3-5
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 16
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6
(NE) Keene St: 16-7 (.696), .574, 3-5 ***
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 17
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .530, 0-4
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0 ***
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 18
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3 ***
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .530, 0-4
(S) Emory: 19-6 (.760), .529, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 19
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6 *** (Factors - SOS, results vs RR, Staten Island/Bethany secondary criteria, my diploma)
(NE) Tufts: 16-9 (.640), .530, 0-4
(S) Emory: 19-6 (.760), .529, 2-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 06:17:28 PM
My Pool C's...

1. Middlebury
2. UW-Whitewater
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor
4. Wittenberg
5. Rhode Island
6. Western Connecticut
7. Wheaton
8. UW-Stevens Point
9. Transylvania
10. Hartwick
11. Wesleyan
12. WPI
13. Ohio Wesleyan
14. Randolph-Macon
15. Lake Forest*
16. Keene State
17. Birmingham-Southern
18. St. Mary's
19. Illinois Wesleyan*

* I did this projection based on Lake Forest being ranked higher in the final Midwest ranking...but I could see this going either way.  I think there is a good chance IWU will be ranked higher.


KnightSlappy and I disagree on 2 spots...

* He has Hobart and St. Joseph's in
* I have Birmingham-Southern and IWU in


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 06:19:23 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 02:52:01 PM
Just realized I have been using an incorrect SOS for St. Joseph's (LI).  Somehow I was using .549 (which is outstanding)...the number is actually .470 (which is not so outstanding).

Based on .549, I had St. Joseph's going in at #13 (my projection from last night is on page #250).  With .470 I think it bumps them down to the 17-19 bubble range.

I'll have to look at that more later this evening when I do a final projection.

The corrected SOS put St. Joseph's on the wrong side of the bubble for me.  When I had them in, I was using .549 somehow...they are actually .470.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 06:34:55 PM
Final SOS numbers, per request.

wSOS    Team
0.531   Adrian
0.456   Albertus Magnus
0.482   Albion
0.560   Albright
0.484   Alfred
0.513   Allegheny
0.512   Alma
0.543   Alvernia
0.580   Amherst
0.525   Anderson
0.525   Anna Maria
0.480   Arcadia
0.482   Augsburg
0.495   Augustana
0.437   Aurora
0.468   Austin
0.509   Averett
0.568   Babson
0.481   Baldwin-Wallace
0.486   Baptist Bible
0.487   Bard
0.538   Baruch
0.623   Bates
0.481   Becker
0.525   Beloit
0.468   Benedictine
0.442   Berry
0.437   Bethany
0.460   Bethany Lutheran
0.506   Bethel
0.441   Birmingham-Southern
0.456   Blackburn
0.501   Bluffton
0.535   Bowdoin
0.575   Brandeis
0.507   Bridgewater (Va.)
0.518   Bridgewater State
0.544   Brockport State
0.499   Brooklyn
0.534   Buena Vista
0.465   Buffalo State
0.492   Cabrini
0.513   Cal Lutheran
0.457   Caltech
0.540   Calvin
0.514   Capital
0.499   Carleton
0.574   Carnegie Mellon
0.507   Carroll
0.519   Carthage
0.518   Case Western Reserve
0.470   Castleton State
0.491   Catholic
0.447   Cazenovia
0.491   CCNY
0.474   Centenary
0.000   Centenary (La.)
0.497   Central
0.544   Centre
0.483   Chapman
0.557   Chicago
0.491   Christopher Newport
0.483   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
0.595   Clark
0.474   Clarkson
0.547   Coast Guard
0.504   Coe
0.531   Colby
0.426   Colby-Sawyer
0.458   Colorado College
0.510   Concordia (Ill.)
0.516   Concordia (Texas)
0.480   Concordia (Wis.)
0.499   Concordia-Moorhead
0.537   Connecticut College
0.503   Cornell
0.486   Cortland State
0.429   Covenant
0.419   Crown
0.494   Curry
0.425   Daniel Webster
0.541   Defiance
0.542   Delaware Valley
0.528   Denison
0.552   DePauw
0.482   DeSales
0.498   Dickinson
0.479   Dominican
0.534   Drew
0.490   Dubuque
0.467   DYouville
0.519   Earlham
0.479   East Texas Baptist
0.494   Eastern
0.536   Eastern Connecticut
0.519   Eastern Mennonite
0.443   Eastern Nazarene
0.495   Edgewood
0.551   Elizabethtown
0.533   Elmhurst
0.526   Elmira
0.513   Elms
0.478   Emerson
0.481   Emmanuel
0.529   Emory
0.501   Emory and Henry
0.465   Endicott
0.478   Eureka
0.462   Farmingdale State
0.531   FDU-Florham
0.468   Ferrum
0.518   Finlandia
0.477   Fitchburg State
0.463   Fontbonne
0.497   Framingham State
0.456   Franciscan (Ohio)
0.523   Franklin
0.452   Franklin and Marshall
0.500   Fredonia State
0.507   Frostburg State
0.469   Gallaudet
0.515   Geneseo State
0.501   Geneva
0.524   George Fox
0.494   Gettysburg
0.501   Gordon
0.468   Goucher
0.419   Green Mountain
0.465   Greensboro
0.435   Greenville
0.473   Grinnell
0.478   Grove City
0.531   Guilford
0.526   Gustavus Adolphus
0.459   Gwynedd-Mercy
0.553   Hamilton
0.498   Hamline
0.544   Hampden-Sydney
0.512   Hanover
0.533   Hardin-Simmons
0.509   Hartwick
0.536   Haverford
0.505   Heidelberg
0.477   Hendrix
0.446   Hilbert
0.501   Hiram
0.519   Hobart
0.535   Hood
0.511   Hope
0.513   Howard Payne
0.512   Hunter
0.443   Huntingdon
0.458   Husson
0.504   Illinois College
0.540   Illinois Wesleyan
0.532   Immaculata
0.593   Ithaca
0.491   John Carroll
0.504   John Jay
0.465   Johns Hopkins
0.515   Johnson and Wales
0.445   Johnson State
0.512   Juniata
0.485   Kalamazoo
0.550   Kean
0.573   Keene State
0.488   Kenyon
0.451   Keuka
0.505   Keystone
0.516   Kings
0.508   Knox
0.440   La Roche
0.517   La Verne
0.450   LaGrange
0.516   Lake Forest
0.497   Lakeland
0.433   Lancaster Bible
0.513   Lasell
0.511   Lawrence
0.542   Lebanon Valley
0.498   Lehman
0.442   Lesley
0.478   LeTourneau
0.541   Lewis and Clark
0.508   Linfield
0.525   Loras
0.495   Louisiana College
0.548   Luther
0.538   Lycoming
0.513   Lynchburg
0.450   Lyndon State
0.482   Macalester
0.494   MacMurray
0.415   Maine Maritime
0.437   Maine-Farmington
0.557   Maine-Presque Isle
0.534   Manchester
0.526   Manhattanville
0.469   Maranatha Baptist
0.475   Marian
0.502   Marietta
0.413   Martin Luther
0.502   Mary Hardin-Baylor
0.510   Mary Washington
0.496   Marymount
0.417   Maryville (Tenn.)
0.499   Marywood
0.520   Massachusetts College
0.537   Mass-Boston
0.565   Mass-Dartmouth
0.471   McDaniel
0.558   McMurry
0.427   Medaille
0.544   Medgar Evers
0.470   Merchant Marine
0.546   Messiah
0.559   Methodist
0.588   Middlebury
0.540   Millikin
0.498   Millsaps
0.466   Milwaukee Engineering
0.410   Minnesota-Morris
0.496   Misericordia
0.503   Mississippi College
0.509   MIT
0.434   Mitchell
0.504   Monmouth
0.526   Montclair State
0.498   Moravian
0.467   Morrisville State
0.448   Mount Aloysius
0.432   Mount Ida
0.509   Mount St. Joseph
0.450   Mount St. Mary
0.495   Mount St. Vincent
0.472   Mount Union
0.484   Muhlenberg
0.509   Muskingum
0.552   Nazareth
0.514   Nebraska Wesleyan
0.531   Neumann
0.432   New England College
0.550   New Jersey City
0.540   New Paltz State
0.494   New York University
0.458   Newbury
0.467   Nichols
0.491   North Carolina Wesleyan
0.500   North Central (Ill.)
0.408   North Central (Minn.)
0.529   North Park
0.440   Northland
0.454   Northwestern (Minn.)
0.444   Norwich
0.449   NYU-Poly
0.480   Oberlin
0.470   Occidental
0.481   Oglethorpe
0.533   Ohio Northern
0.551   Ohio Wesleyan
0.495   Olivet
0.552   Oneonta State
0.471   Oswego State
0.524   Otterbein
0.509   Pacific
0.506   Pacific Lutheran
0.495   Penn State-Abington
0.420   Penn State-Altoona
0.497   Penn State-Behrend
0.460   Penn State-Berks
0.471   Penn State-Harrisburg
0.469   Philadelphia Bible
0.458   Piedmont
0.463   Pitt-Bradford
0.480   Pitt-Greensburg
0.525   Plattsburgh State
0.572   Plymouth State
0.513   Pomona-Pitzer
0.524   Potsdam State
0.418   Presentation
0.466   Principia
0.513   Puget Sound
0.535   Ramapo
0.528   Randolph
0.514   Randolph-Macon
0.517   Redlands
0.462   Regis (Mass.)
0.591   Rhode Island College
0.500   Rhodes
0.516   Richard Stockton
0.503   Ripon
0.441   Rivier
0.516   Roanoke
0.568   Rochester
0.486   Rochester Tech
0.486   Rockford
0.476   Roger Williams
0.512   Rose-Hulman
0.473   Rosemont
0.506   Rowan
0.547   RPI
0.418   Rust
0.502   Rutgers-Camden
0.514   Rutgers-Newark
0.423   Sage
0.516   Salem State
0.510   Salisbury
0.458   Salve Regina
0.509   Schreiner
0.496   Scranton
0.486   Sewanee
0.489   Shenandoah
0.567   Simpson
0.510   Skidmore
0.553   Southern Maine
0.488   Southern Vermont
0.522   Southwestern
0.467   Spalding
0.561   Springfield
0.500   St. John Fisher
0.499   St. Johns
0.444   St. Josephs (Bklyn.)
0.470   St. Josephs (L.I.)
0.497   St. Josephs (Maine)
0.506   St. Lawrence
0.557   St. Marys (Md.)
0.488   St. Marys (Minn.)
0.497   St. Norbert
0.527   St. Olaf
0.427   St. Scholastica
0.534   St. Thomas
0.491   St. Vincent
0.541   Staten Island
0.511   Stevens
0.507   Stevenson
0.472   Suffolk
0.520   Sul Ross State
0.487   SUNY-Cobleskill
0.435   SUNYIT
0.478   SUNY-Maritime
0.491   SUNY-Old Westbury
0.505   SUNY-Purchase
0.522   Susquehanna
0.483   Swarthmore
0.485   TCNJ
0.512   Texas Lutheran
0.480   Texas-Dallas
0.487   Texas-Tyler
0.477   Thiel
0.427   Thomas
0.499   Thomas More
0.500   Transylvania
0.488   Trine
0.551   Trinity (Conn.)
0.492   Trinity (Texas)
0.529   Tufts
0.604   UC Santa Cruz
0.475   Union
0.460   University of Dallas
0.488   University of New England
0.477   University of the Ozarks
0.505   Ursinus
0.495   Utica
0.532   UW-Eau Claire
0.584   UW-La Crosse
0.550   UW-Oshkosh
0.523   UW-Platteville
0.573   UW-River Falls
0.592   UW-Stevens Point
0.572   UW-Stout
0.538   UW-Superior
0.547   UW-Whitewater
0.501   Vassar
0.534   Virginia Wesleyan
0.548   Wabash
0.498   Wartburg
0.506   Washington and Jefferson
0.547   Washington and Lee
0.491   Washington College
0.583   Washington U.
0.481   Waynesburg
0.504   Webster
0.481   Wells
0.447   Wentworth
0.546   Wesley
0.513   Wesleyan
0.568   Western Connecticut
0.478   Western New England
0.489   Westfield State
0.482   Westminster (Mo.)
0.471   Westminster (Pa.)
0.570   Wheaton (Ill.)
0.546   Wheaton (Mass.)
0.469   Wheelock
0.526   Whitman
0.487   Whittier
0.502   Whitworth
0.559   Widener
0.530   Wilkes
0.537   Willamette
0.505   William Paterson
0.550   Williams
0.523   Wilmington
0.489   Wisconsin Lutheran
0.522   Wittenberg
0.522   Wooster
0.483   Worcester State
0.585   WPI
0.478   Yeshiva
0.550   York (N.Y.)
0.545   York (Pa.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 06:58:41 PM
KnightSlappy, thank you very much for all you've done on the boards again this season to help us keep track of the Pool C picture.  One of the great things about the D3hoops.com community is all of the different individual contributions on the various boards - I know I speak for everyone that visits this board in saying that your contributions on Pool C are very much appreciated.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2012, 07:50:47 PM
I'd like to second Bob's kudos for the Dean of KnightSlappy U. for all the work that he's done. And I'd like to thank Darryl N. and Tom D. for their compiling work as well, while I'm at it.

I'd also like to point out that I got a chuckle out of the fine print in the "Round 19" section of Bob's 6:17 pm post.

Always read the fine print, people!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 26, 2012, 08:15:57 PM
My Final Pool C:
   WK3   TEAM   
   #1   Whitewater*   
   #1   Hartwick*   
   #1   Mary Hardin-Baylor*   
   #2   Middlebury   
   #2   Wheaton (IL)   
   #4   Stevens Point   
   #3   Transylvania*   
   #3   Hobart*   
   #5   W. Connecticut   
   #2   Wittenberg*   
   #4   Rhode Island College   
   #4   Ohio Wesleyan   
   #3   Birmingham-Southern*   
   #3   St. Joseph's (LI)*   
   #7   WPI   
   #3   St. Mary's (Md)*   
   #4   Randolph-Macon   
   #4   Lake Forest*   
   #10   Keene State   

Last Four OUT:

   #5   Illinois Wesleyan   
   #4   Richard Stockton*   
   #8   Wesleyan (Conn)   
   #7   Gustavus Adolphus   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pjunito on February 26, 2012, 08:22:25 PM
I am new to the boards and have a lot to learn. Thanks for the information posted by everyone here; I enjoy reading everyone's opinion. I respect that everyone is dedicated to helping people like me understand the bigger picture.....


Have fun watching the basketball games next week!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 06:58:41 PM
KnightSlappy, thank you very much for all you've done on the boards again this season to help us keep track of the Pool C picture.  One of the great things about the D3hoops.com community is all of the different individual contributions on the various boards - I know I speak for everyone that visits this board in saying that your contributions on Pool C are very much appreciated.

Thanks Q!

Just finished my super-nervous foray into Hoopsville. Hopefully I didn't sound too nerdy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2012, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 06:58:41 PM
KnightSlappy, thank you very much for all you've done on the boards again this season to help us keep track of the Pool C picture.  One of the great things about the D3hoops.com community is all of the different individual contributions on the various boards - I know I speak for everyone that visits this board in saying that your contributions on Pool C are very much appreciated.

Thanks Q!

Just finished my super-nervous foray into Hoopsville. Hopefully I didn't sound too nerdy.
No, you did okay for a guy from Calvin!  ;)

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Civic Minded on February 26, 2012, 09:47:29 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 06:58:41 PM
KnightSlappy, thank you very much for all you've done on the boards again this season to help us keep track of the Pool C picture.  One of the great things about the D3hoops.com community is all of the different individual contributions on the various boards - I know I speak for everyone that visits this board in saying that your contributions on Pool C are very much appreciated.

Thanks Q!

Just finished my super-nervous foray into Hoopsville. Hopefully I didn't sound too nerdy.

Good job, KS!  Add my thanks for all of your work this season!
Title: Thanks to Mssrs. Sager and Quillman
Post by: iwu70 on February 26, 2012, 11:01:43 PM
Greg, yes, I noticed Q's "fine print" too . . . and had a good laugh.  It is good to know that Q did in fact receive his IWU diploma afterall, as he's been correcting my spelling and posts all season.  I'm going to recommend to the IWU Board of Trustees, to the appropriate committee, that he be granted an Honorary Doctorate of Bracketology at the very next Commencement celebration on the IWU Quad.  I'm sure our four seniors -- Zimmer, Rudnicki, Kman and Gonzalez -- will give Q a standing ovation.

Thanks for all your posts -- Q and Greg -- this season.  Honestly, I love to get both of you guys riled up and into the normal GS and Q back and forth, give and take, . . . and, as a result, I learned alot from you both this season.  I consider you both the most knowledgeable and readable and helpful on CCIW chat and other boards.  So, a word of sincere thanks.

Let's hope Q is right and that by the skin of our green chiny, chin, chins, we, meaning IWU fans, somehow get a Titan bid for the dance on Monday. 

IWU70
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2012, 03:33:36 AM
Now that I'm pretty deep into my Pool C decision-making process for the night, I looked back here. Interesting discussion. Mine will look different from both Q's and Matt's.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2012, 03:49:42 AM
Not done with the bracketing portion but done with the selections:

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2012/02/27/our-2012-mens-projections/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2012, 06:04:29 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2012, 03:49:42 AM
Not done with the bracketing portion but done with the selections:

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2012/02/27/our-2012-mens-projections/

Oh, and added the bracket a little bit ago.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 06:53:56 AM
Here are the 15 teams that Pat Coleman, Matt Snyder (KnightSlappy), and I agree on...

Middlebury
UW-Whitewater
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Wittenberg
Rhode Island
Western Connecticut
Wheaton
UW-Stevens Point
Transylvania
Heartsick
WPI
Ohio Wesleyan
Randolph-Macon
Keene State
St. Mary's

And then we have 6 teams identified for the final 4 spots...

Wesleyan**
Lake Forest**
Illinois Wesleyan**
Hobart**
Birmingham-Southern**
Gustavus Adolphus*
St. Joseph's (LI)*

* picked by 1 of the 3
** picked by 2 of the 3
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 27, 2012, 08:49:19 AM
Titan Q .. It seems there should be 12 stars instead of 11, with 3 projectors looking at 4 spots.  Maybe not.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 08:56:25 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 06:53:56 AM
Here are the 15 teams that Pat Coleman, Matt Snyder (KnightSlappy), and I agree on...

Middlebury
UW-Whitewater
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Wittenberg
Rhode Island
Western Connecticut
Wheaton
UW-Stevens Point
Transylvania
Heartsick
WPI
Ohio Wesleyan
Randolph-Macon
Keene State
St. Mary's

And then we have 6 teams identified for the final 4 spots...

Wesleyan**
Lake Forest**
Illinois Wesleyan**
Hobart**
Birmingham-Southern**
Gustavus Adolphus*

* picked by 1 of the 3
** picked by 2 of the 3

Should also be St. Joseph's (L.I.)*
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 09:35:02 AM
Corrected...thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 10:18:28 AM
Probably a useless exercise with two hours to go, but I podded my selections (top teams host). I didn't necessarily double-check that I don't have conference foes facing off in the first round.

Amherst   NE
bye   
at Keene State   NE
St. Josephs (L.I.)   AT
   
Hope   GL
Westminster (Mo.)   MW
Wittenberg   GL
Medaille   EA
   
Middlebury   NE
Salve Regina   NE
Hobart   EA
Wesleyan   NE
   
Cabrini   MA
Capital   GL
Messiah   MA
St. Marys (Md.)   MA
   
MIT   NE
Castleton State   NE
Oswego State   EA
Becker   NE
   
Virginia Wesleyan   SO
Farmingdale State   AT
Franklin and Marshall   MA
Randolph-Macon   SO
   
Staten Island   AT
Ithaca   EA
WPI   NE
Christopher Newport   SO
   
Mary Hardin-Baylor   SO
Trinity (Texas)   SO
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   WE
McMurry   SO
   
UW-Whitewater   WE
Northwesten (Minn.)   WE
St. Thomas   WE
North Central (Ill.)   MW
   
Washington U.   MW
Maryville (Tenn.)   MW
Lake Forest   MW
Ohio Wesleyan   GL
   
UW-River Falls   WE
Carroll   MW
UW-Stevens Point   WE
Edgewood   MW
   
Hartwick   EA
Morrisville State   EA
Eastern Connecticut   NE
Bethany   GL
   
Rhode Island College   NE
Scranton   MA
Albertus Magnus   NE
Salem State   NE
   
Whitworth   WE
bye   
at Wooster   GL
York (Pa.)   MW
   
William Paterson   AT
Skidmore   EA
Western Connecticut   NE
Misericordia   MA
   
Wheaton (Ill.)   MW
Rose-Hulman   MW
Transylvania   MW
Buena Vista   WE
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bucket on February 27, 2012, 10:21:07 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 10:18:28 AM
Probably a useless exercise with two hours to go, but I podded my selections (top teams host). I didn't necessarily double-check that I don't have conference foes facing off in the first round.

Amherst   NE
bye   
at Keene State   NE
St. Josephs (L.I.)   AT
   
Hope   GL
Westminster (Mo.)   MW
Wittenberg   GL
Medaille   EA
   
Middlebury   NE
Salve Regina   NE
Hobart   EA
Wesleyan   NE
   
Cabrini   MA
Capital   GL
Messiah   MA
St. Marys (Md.)   MA
   
MIT   NE
Castleton State   NE
Oswego State   EA
Becker   NE
   
Virginia Wesleyan   SO
Farmingdale State   AT
Franklin and Marshall   MA
Randolph-Macon   SO
   
Staten Island   AT
Ithaca   EA
WPI   NE
Christopher Newport   SO
   
Mary Hardin-Baylor   SO
Trinity (Texas)   SO
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   WE
McMurry   SO
   
UW-Whitewater   WE
Northwesten (Minn.)   WE
St. Thomas   WE
North Central (Ill.)   MW
   
Washington U.   MW
Maryville (Tenn.)   MW
Lake Forest   MW
Ohio Wesleyan   GL
   
UW-River Falls   WE
Carroll   MW
UW-Stevens Point   WE
Edgewood   MW
   
Hartwick   EA
Morrisville State   EA
Eastern Connecticut   NE
Bethany   GL
   
Rhode Island College   NE
Scranton   MA
Albertus Magnus   NE
Salem State   NE
   
Whitworth   WE
bye   
at Wooster   GL
York (Pa.)   MW
   
William Paterson   AT
Skidmore   EA
Western Connecticut   NE
Misericordia   MA
   
Wheaton (Ill.)   MW
Rose-Hulman   MW
Transylvania   MW
Buena Vista   WE

If Wesleyan makes the tourney, I don't see them being in the same pod with Middlebury. I also don't see Va Wes and Randolph-Macon being in the same early pod.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HopeConvert on February 27, 2012, 10:47:20 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 10:18:28 AM
Probably a useless exercise with two hours to go, but I podded my selections (top teams host). I didn't necessarily double-check that I don't have conference foes facing off in the first round.

Amherst   NE
bye   
at Keene State   NE
St. Josephs (L.I.)   AT
   
Hope   GL
Westminster (Mo.)   MW
Wittenberg   GL
Medaille   EA
   
Middlebury   NE
Salve Regina   NE
Hobart   EA
Wesleyan   NE
   
Cabrini   MA
Capital   GL
Messiah   MA
St. Marys (Md.)   MA
   
MIT   NE
Castleton State   NE
Oswego State   EA
Becker   NE
   
Virginia Wesleyan   SO
Farmingdale State   AT
Franklin and Marshall   MA
Randolph-Macon   SO
   
Staten Island   AT
Ithaca   EA
WPI   NE
Christopher Newport   SO
   
Mary Hardin-Baylor   SO
Trinity (Texas)   SO
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   WE
McMurry   SO
   
UW-Whitewater   WE
Northwesten (Minn.)   WE
St. Thomas   WE
North Central (Ill.)   MW
   
Washington U.   MW
Maryville (Tenn.)   MW
Lake Forest   MW
Ohio Wesleyan   GL
   
UW-River Falls   WE
Carroll   MW
UW-Stevens Point   WE
Edgewood   MW
   
Hartwick   EA
Morrisville State   EA
Eastern Connecticut   NE
Bethany   GL
   
Rhode Island College   NE
Scranton   MA
Albertus Magnus   NE
Salem State   NE
   
Whitworth   WE
bye   
at Wooster   GL
York (Pa.)   MW
   
William Paterson   AT
Skidmore   EA
Western Connecticut   NE
Misericordia   MA
   
Wheaton (Ill.)   MW
Rose-Hulman   MW
Transylvania   MW
Buena Vista   WE

Whitworth is the tricky one. I remember watching Kent Raymond light them up at the DeVos in the first round. But sending them to Wooster seems a bit of a stretch. The UWW pod would be an interesting one.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 10:52:56 AM
That would be Wooster hosting York, with the winner flying to Spokane.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2012, 11:02:44 AM
Unless they are geographically isolated, I thought they tried to keep conference foes away from each other in the first 2 rounds.   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bucket on February 27, 2012, 11:04:17 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2012, 11:02:44 AM
Unless they are geographically isolated, I thought they tried to keep conference foes away from each other in the first 2 rounds.

They do. That's why I don't see Wes and Midd in the same pod, nor Va Wes and Randolph-Macon.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2012, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2012, 11:02:44 AM
Unless they are geographically isolated, I thought they tried to keep conference foes away from each other in the first 2 rounds.

First round for sure.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 11:20:36 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2012, 11:02:44 AM
Unless they are geographically isolated, I thought they tried to keep conference foes away from each other in the first 2 rounds.

No, the handbook only commits to the first round, and even then they allow the committee to break that rule if geography gets tricky.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2012, 11:23:24 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 11:20:36 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2012, 11:02:44 AM
Unless they are geographically isolated, I thought they tried to keep conference foes away from each other in the first 2 rounds.

No, the handbook only commits to the first round, and even then they allow the committee to break that rule if geography gets tricky.

...or, as in one famous incident, the committee doesn't realize two teams are from the same conference. ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 12:08:37 PM
I believe NYU is the only team to make it that none of the three projectors predicted would make it
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 12:17:46 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2012, 06:17:28 PM
My Pool C's...

1. Middlebury
2. UW-Whitewater
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor
4. Wittenberg
5. Rhode Island
6. Western Connecticut
7. Wheaton
8. UW-Stevens Point
9. Transylvania
10. Hartwick
11. Wesleyan
12. WPI
13. Ohio Wesleyan
14. Randolph-Macon
15. Lake Forest*
16. Keene State
17. Birmingham-Southern
18. St. Mary's
19. Illinois Wesleyan*

* I did this projection based on Lake Forest being ranked higher in the final Midwest ranking...but I could see this going either way.  I think there is a good chance IWU will be ranked higher.


I had 4 in that did not get in - Wesleyan, WPI, Lake Forest, Keene State.

The 4 that made it instead were - St. Joseph's (LI), Hobart, NYU, and Gustavus Adolphus.

(Obviously IWU ended up higher than Lake Forest in the final Midwest ranking.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 12:25:56 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2012, 05:48:09 PM
My final selections:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/final-bracketology.html

Pool C's:

Middlebury
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Rhode Island College
UW-Whitewater
Hartwick
Transylvania
Western Connecticut
Wheaton (Ill.)
UW-Stevens Point
WPI
Wittenberg
Hobart
St. Josephs (L.I.)
Lake Forest
Randolph-Macon
Keene State
St. Marys (Md.)
Wesleyan
Ohio Wesleyan

KnightSlappy had the exact same 4 off as I did - WPI, Lake Forest, Keene State, Wesleyan.

Replaced by - Illinois Wesleyan, Gustavus Adolphus, NYU, and Birmingham-Southern
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 12:29:45 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2012, 03:49:42 AM
Not done with the bracketing portion but done with the selections:

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2012/02/27/our-2012-mens-projections/

Middlebury
UW-Whitewater
Rhode Island College
Wheaton (Ill.)
Western Connecticut
UW-Stevens Point
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Wittenberg
Gustavus Adolphus
Transylvania
Hobart
Hartwick
WPI
Ohio Wesleyan
Illinois Wesleyan
Keene State
Randolph-Macon
St. Mary's (Md.)
Birmingham-Southern

Pat missed just 2 (I guess that is why he runs the site) - WPI and Keene State.

Replaced by - NYU and St. Joseph's (LI).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 12:34:41 PM
WPI has to be the biggest surprise ommission...followed by Keene State. 

In the NE, after Middlebury, Rhode Island, and Western Connecticut got in, either Wesleyan or WPI (do we know who was ranked higher?) sat on the board the rest of the process.

Seems like NYU has to be the biggest surprise to get in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 27, 2012, 12:34:57 PM
Titan Q drank enough of the green kool-aid to get his IWU team into the dance, despite all the nay-sayers that didn't think they would get a bid. Good job by Q, KnightSlappy and the Guru.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 12:35:24 PM
My only conclusion in all this is that the Committee doesn't know how to judge differences in SOS versus WP. It's easy to have a feel for what the difference in a .725 and .800 WP means but they don't seem to have a clue that a .585 SOS is ridiculously superior to a .510 SOS.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 12:46:16 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 27, 2012, 12:34:57 PM
Titan Q drank enough of the green kool-aid to get his IWU team into the dance, despite all the nay-sayers that didn't think they would get a bid. Good job by Q, KnightSlappy and the Guru.

The kool-aid helped me put the Titans in on my board...but so did SOS, results vs regionally ranked, and secondary criteria (wins @ Staten Island, vs Bethany).  IWU had a very strong resume outside of winning %. 

Not that we know IWU hit the board in the Midwest right after Wheaton and Transylvania (ahead of Lake Forest), I'd guess IWU got in around #16 or so.

It was certainly fun doing the selection projections.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 12:52:59 PM
Maybe the committee has seen that how they calculate their version of SOS isn't really much of an SOS at all...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 12:54:20 PM
So NYU   -- .800 WP -- .494 SOS -- 2-2 -- beats out
Wesleyan -- .800 WP -- .513 SOS -- 3-3

and

IWU -- .708 WP -- .540 SOS -- 3-6 -- beats out
WPI -- .720 WP -- .585 SOS -- 3-3
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 12:57:46 PM
Massey has NYU 29th power with 87th SOS, vs. Wesleyan with 38th power and 110th SOS and WPI with 62nd power and 95th SOS.

Of course, that's not the criteria, and St. Joe's was 103rd power and 300th SOS. That's the rub there.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 12:58:07 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 12:54:20 PM
So NYU   -- .800 WP -- .494 SOS -- 2-2 beats out
Wesleyan -- .800 WP -- .513 SOS -- 3-3

Only if .019 in SOS points is enough to go to secondary criteria. My guess is that when viewed as a percentile it may not be but when the committee looks at it they gave it a "close enough" and went to secondary.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 12:58:47 PM
IWU was 17th in Massey power and 10th in SOS. I think the committee got that one right.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2012, 01:01:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 12:58:47 PM
IWU was 17th in Massey power and 10th in SOS. I think the committee got that one right.

I also think a huge factor was their secondary criteria road wins against Staten Island and Bethany, both pool A teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:02:20 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2012, 01:01:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 12:58:47 PM
IWU was 17th in Massey power and 10th in SOS. I think the committee got that one right.

I also think a huge factor was their secondary criteria road wins against Staten Island and Bethany, both pool A teams.

But looking at IWU against WPI, how do you even get to the secondary criteria? It's indefensible!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2012, 01:04:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 12:52:59 PM
Maybe the committee has seen that how they calculate their version of SOS isn't really much of an SOS at all...

Maybe their SOS is a sign for, "HELP!  We don't know what we're doing!" 

After all the back and forth with knightslappy, and looking at the numbers, I was finally convinced Keene State would get in! LOL!  Oh well...I told ya they wouldn't! LOL (admittedly they got robbed).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:04:59 PM
I'm told the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:05:47 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:04:59 PM
I'm told the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so.

Ah yes, disregard or change your published process. That actually explains a lot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:09:23 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:02:20 PM
But looking at IWU against WPI, how do you even get to the secondary criteria? It's indefensible!

Do we know for sure that WPI was ever on the board?

(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .586, 3-3

Is it possible that the NE had Wesleyan higher, and Wesleyan blocked WPI?

Are we getting final regional rankings?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 01:12:16 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:09:23 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:02:20 PM
But looking at IWU against WPI, how do you even get to the secondary criteria? It's indefensible!

Do we know for sure that WPI was ever on the board?

(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .586, 3-3

Is it possible that the NE had Wesleyan higher, and Wesleyan blocked WPI?

Are we getting final regional rankings?

As of the last RR, WPI was #7 and Wesleyan was #8, I think they both played one game and lost.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:09:23 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:02:20 PM
But looking at IWU against WPI, how do you even get to the secondary criteria? It's indefensible!

Do we know for sure that WPI was ever on the board?

(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .586, 3-3

Is it possible that the NE had Wesleyan higher, and Wesleyan blocked WPI?

Are we getting final regional rankings?

WPI was ahead of Wesleyan last week, both went 0-1 after last rankings were released. Wesleyan must have jumped them somehow, but that is questionable in and of itself.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 01:12:43 PM
I bet Wesleyan blocked WPI.

This reminds me of Case not getting into the football playoffs with a 9-0 regional record and SJF made it into the playoffs with two losses. The East committee probably bypassed Endicott to get SJF on the table.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:12:55 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:05:47 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:04:59 PM
I'm told the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so.

Ah yes, disregard or change your published process. That actually explains a lot.

The handbook says...

"If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."

At that stage of the process (the final rounds), isn't it fair to say that there is always some type of debate using just primary criteria?  I don't think using secondary criteria late is disregarding the published process.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:12:55 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:05:47 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:04:59 PM
I'm told the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so.

Ah yes, disregard or change your published process. That actually explains a lot.

The handbook says...

"If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."

At that stage of the process (the final rounds), isn't it fair to say that there is always some type of debate using just primary criteria?  I don't think using secondary criteria late is disregarding the published process.

Not by default, no.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 01:14:56 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:12:55 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:05:47 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:04:59 PM
I'm told the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so.

Ah yes, disregard or change your published process. That actually explains a lot.

The handbook says...

"If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."

At that stage of the process (the final rounds), isn't it fair to say that there is always some type of debate using just primary criteria?  I don't think using secondary criteria late is disregarding the published process.

I think ziggy's point was that an IWU-WPI decision shouldn't need secondary criteria to result in a decision. IMO, WPI had a clear primary advantage.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
Wesleyan lost to Middlebury

WPI lost to Springfield.

maybe this was enough to change their regional position.  ? ? ?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 01:17:14 PM
Besides, if they were just using rote criteria, there wouldn't be the need for a committee. A functional technocrat would just follow the letter of the criteria, and not try to make it the best tournament possible.

The nature of this wacky season left some teams on the sidelines in the "C" round, but as always, the best thing you can do is avoid "C" entirely. Otherwise, you let yourself open to these decisions.

The only one I'm kind of floored by is St. Joseph's getting in. Pick your alternate "C"  candidate and I bet they beat St. Joseph's seven out of ten. Alas...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 01:17:45 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
Wesleyan lost to Middlebury

WPI lost to Springfield.

maybe this was enough to change their regional position.  ? ? ?

I think that can be the only explanation, that WPI got blocked, and they didn't think Wesleyan should get in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:18:59 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:12:33 PM
WPI was ahead of Wesleyan last week, both went 0-1 after last rankings were released. Wesleyan must have jumped them somehow, but that is questionable in and of itself.

I actually had Wesleyan ahead of WPI - I can't remember all that went into my thinking there.  But I do think it is very possible the NE did the same, but unlike me, the national committee did not every select Wesleyan.

Round 11
St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 12
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) WPI: 18-7 (.720), .586, 3-3 ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
Wesleyan lost to Middlebury

WPI lost to Springfield.

maybe this was enough to change their regional position.  ? ? ?

Which is what happened in the Midwest - IWU lost to Wheaton, while Lake Forest lost to Carroll.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:21:13 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 01:17:45 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
Wesleyan lost to Middlebury

WPI lost to Springfield.

maybe this was enough to change their regional position.  ? ? ?

I think that can be the only explanation, that WPI got blocked, and they didn't think Wesleyan should get in.

And I'll argue it's an explanation that is just as poor as WPI not being in the field. A .720 WP is one that generally passes the eyeball test and their SOS is what, top 5 percentile?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 01:23:07 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:21:13 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 01:17:45 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
Wesleyan lost to Middlebury

WPI lost to Springfield.

maybe this was enough to change their regional position.  ? ? ?

I think that can be the only explanation, that WPI got blocked, and they didn't think Wesleyan should get in.

And I'll argue it's an explanation that is just as poor as WPI not being in the field. A .720 WP is one that generally passes the eyeball test and their SOS is what, top 5 percentile?

top two percent of D3.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:24:59 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 01:23:07 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:21:13 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 01:17:45 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
Wesleyan lost to Middlebury

WPI lost to Springfield.

maybe this was enough to change their regional position.  ? ? ?

I think that can be the only explanation, that WPI got blocked, and they didn't think Wesleyan should get in.

And I'll argue it's an explanation that is just as poor as WPI not being in the field. A .720 WP is one that generally passes the eyeball test and their SOS is what, top 5 percentile?

top two percent of D3.

I rest my case


(probably not really)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 01:26:00 PM
I made this argument in football on why Case should have received a bid. (Though in retrospect, the committee putting in SJF was a master stroke - or just luck).

I believe the NCAC is moving away from hard / fast rules. And perhaps, again, they realize their SOS calculation isn't up to snuff.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2012, 03:35:09 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 12:46:16 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 27, 2012, 12:34:57 PM
Titan Q drank enough of the green kool-aid to get his IWU team into the dance, despite all the nay-sayers that didn't think they would get a bid. Good job by Q, KnightSlappy and the Guru.

The kool-aid helped me put the Titans in on my board...but so did SOS, results vs regionally ranked, and secondary criteria (wins @ Staten Island, vs Bethany).  IWU had a very strong resume outside of winning %. 

Not that we know IWU hit the board in the Midwest right after Wheaton and Transylvania (ahead of Lake Forest), I'd guess IWU got in around #16 or so.

It was certainly fun doing the selection projections.

I had IWU even higher on my board than Q did and I definitely do not drink the kool-aid. Just ask IWU fans on the board circa about 2002. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2012, 03:36:09 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 01:02:20 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2012, 01:01:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 12:58:47 PM
IWU was 17th in Massey power and 10th in SOS. I think the committee got that one right.

I also think a huge factor was their secondary criteria road wins against Staten Island and Bethany, both pool A teams.

But looking at IWU against WPI, how do you even get to the secondary criteria? It's indefensible!

I don't think you ever get to IWU vs. WPI. Seems the committee stuck Wesleyan ahead of WPI and that's where the NE at-large train derailed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 03:38:51 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2012, 03:36:09 PM
I don't think you ever get to IWU vs. WPI. Seems the committee stuck Wesleyan ahead of WPI and that's where the NE at-large train derailed.

Still a problem, it just got pushed to a different part of the process...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2012, 03:41:55 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 27, 2012, 03:38:51 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2012, 03:36:09 PM
I don't think you ever get to IWU vs. WPI. Seems the committee stuck Wesleyan ahead of WPI and that's where the NE at-large train derailed.

Still a problem, it just got pushed to a different part of the process...

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.nydailynews.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.443194%21%2Fimg%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg&hash=8878cdf0bca8e24364f0e0c28eb2ef3b92408a87) ?

WPI failed to maintain control of their ranking all the way to the ground. Happens.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 27, 2012, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 01:17:14 PM
Besides, if they were just using rote criteria, there wouldn't be the need for a committee. A functional technocrat would just follow the letter of the criteria, and not try to make it the best tournament possible.

The nature of this wacky season left some teams on the sidelines in the "C" round, but as always, the best thing you can do is avoid "C" entirely. Otherwise, you let yourself open to these decisions.

The only one I'm kind of floored by is St. Joseph's getting in. Pick your alternate "C"  candidate and I bet they beat St. Joseph's seven out of ten. Alas...

Keene state beats St. Joes 10 out of 10 times.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fritzdis on February 27, 2012, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 27, 2012, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 01:17:14 PM
Besides, if they were just using rote criteria, there wouldn't be the need for a committee. A functional technocrat would just follow the letter of the criteria, and not try to make it the best tournament possible.

The nature of this wacky season left some teams on the sidelines in the "C" round, but as always, the best thing you can do is avoid "C" entirely. Otherwise, you let yourself open to these decisions.

The only one I'm kind of floored by is St. Joseph's getting in. Pick your alternate "C"  candidate and I bet they beat St. Joseph's seven out of ten. Alas...

Keene state beats St. Joes 10 out of 10 times.

Care to explain this St. Joseph's result?

11/19    at Eastern Connecticut •    W, 90-76
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2012, 05:58:54 PM
POOL C BIDS



   ATL                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #3   St. Joseph's (LI)*  POOLC      SKY      21-2, 21-3      0.913      0.470       1-0       0-1   
   #4   Richard Stockton*      NJAC      17-6, 18-7      0.739      0.523       1-3       1-1   
   #5   New Jersey City      NJAC      15-6, 17-7      0.714      0.554       2-3       0-0   
                                             
   EAST                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #1   Hartwick*  POOL C      E8      22-2, 23-2      0.917      0.523       2-0       0-1   
   #3   Hobart*  POOL C      LL      20-4, 21-4      0.833      0.517       1-1       1-1   
   #4   NYU  POOL C      UAA      19-5, 19-5      0.792      0.491       2-2       1-0   
   #6   Nazareth      E8      17-6, 17-8      0.739      0.549       0-4       1-1   
                                             
   GL                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #2   Wittenberg* POOL C      NCAC      18-4, 20-5      0.818      0.539       6-1       1-1   
   #4   Ohio Wesleyan  POOL C      NCAC      18-6, 19-6      0.750      0.554       3-5       1-1   
   #6   John Carroll      OAC      15-6, 18-6      0.714      0.499       1-1       0-1   
                                             
   MA                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #3   St. Mary's (Md)*  POOL C      CAC      17-5, 19-6      0.773      0.568       1-3       0-1   
   #4   Keystone      CSAC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.490       0-2       1-1   
   #7   Widener      MACC      14-7, 18-7      0.667      0.565       4-4       0-1   
   #8   Mary Washington      CAC      16-6, 17-8      0.727      0.522       3-2       1-1   
   #9   Albright      MACC      13-7, 17-8      0.650      0.546       4-6       0-1   
                                             
   MW                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #2   Wheaton (IL)  POOL C      CCIW      17-5, 19-5      0.773      0.552       4-3       2-1   
   #3   Transylvania*  POOL C      HCAC      21-2, 22-3      0.913      0.508       3-0       1-1   
   #4   Lake Forest*      MWC      19-3, 20-3      0.864      0.520       0-1       0-1   
   #5   Illinois Wesleyan  POOL C      CCIW      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.538       2-4       0-1   
   #6   Concordia (WI)*      NATH      19-4, 20-4      0.826      0.487       1-1       1-1   
   #8   Augustana      CCIW      18-5, 19-5      0.783      0.466       3-4       0-2   
                                             
   NE                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #2   Middlebury  POOL C      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      0.913      0.564       2-2       1-1   
   #4   Rhode Island College  POOL C      LEC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.586       5-4       2-1   
   #5   W. Connecticut  POOL C      LEC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.568       6-3       0-1   
   #7   WPI      NEWMAC      18-6, 18-6      0.750      0.587       2-3       0-1   
   #8   Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      20-4, 20-5      0.833      0.506       3-2       0-1   
   #10   Keene State      LEC      15-6, 18-7      0.714      0.573       3-4       1-1   
                                             
   STH                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #1   Mary Hardin-Baylor*  POOL C      ASC      23-1, 24-1      0.958      0.512       3-0       1-1   
   #3   Birmingham-Southern*  POOL C      SCAC      21-1, 24-1      0.955      0.455       0-0       1-1   
   #4   Randolph-Macon  POOL C      ODAC      17-4, 20-5      0.810      0.516       3-2       1-1   
   #6   Emory      UAA      19-5, 19-5      0.792      0.517       2-3       0-1   
   #7   Hardin-Simmons      ASC      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.523       0-3       2-1   
   #8   Texas-Dallas      ASC      19-4, 21-4      0.826      0.475       0-2       1-1   
                                             
   WST                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #1   Whitewater*  POOL C      WIAC      22-3, 2-3      0.880      0.551       5-2       1-1   
   #4   Stevens Point  POOL C      WIAC      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.588       4-2       1-1   
   #7   Gustavus Adolphus  POOL C      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      0.750      0.517       2-1       1-1   
   #8   Puget Sound      NWC      14-6, 19-6      0.700      0.491       3-2       1-1   
   #9   Whitman      NWC      16-7, 18-7      0.696      0.518       1-5       0-1   
                                             
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2012, 06:07:39 PM
They're all in order of the last published regional rankings, except that IWU obviously jumped over Lake Forest.  (And there is speculation that Wesleyan jumped WPI and blocked them from ever reaching the table; I guess we'll see, if they do eventually air the final regional rankings.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 06:50:38 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 27, 2012, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 01:17:14 PM
Besides, if they were just using rote criteria, there wouldn't be the need for a committee. A functional technocrat would just follow the letter of the criteria, and not try to make it the best tournament possible.

The nature of this wacky season left some teams on the sidelines in the "C" round, but as always, the best thing you can do is avoid "C" entirely. Otherwise, you let yourself open to these decisions.

The only one I'm kind of floored by is St. Joseph's getting in. Pick your alternate "C"  candidate and I bet they beat St. Joseph's seven out of ten. Alas...

Keene state beats St. Joes 10 out of 10 times.

Let's not get all hyerbolic about it. This isn't Amherst vs. Oberlin...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 06:56:07 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2012, 06:07:39 PM
They're all in order of the last published regional rankings, except that IWU obviously jumped over Lake Forest.  (And there is speculation that Wesleyan jumped WPI and blocked them from ever reaching the table; I guess we'll see, if they do eventually air the final regional rankings.)

Projections would be easier if committees didn't spring-heel jack some teams over another.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2012, 07:06:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 06:56:07 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2012, 06:07:39 PM
They're all in order of the last published regional rankings, except that IWU obviously jumped over Lake Forest.  (And there is speculation that Wesleyan jumped WPI and blocked them from ever reaching the table; I guess we'll see, if they do eventually air the final regional rankings.)

Projections would be easier if committees didn't spring-heel jack some teams over another.

True, but as I've argued (here and elsewhere), I believe the IWU over LF was entirely justified.  (That their SOS's were not MORE dissimilar is a quirk of geography, and the utter collapse of Millikin; and we had ELEVEN games vs. RR opponents to their ONE.)  I've not studied the situation of Wesleyan and WPI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2012, 07:10:00 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2012, 07:06:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 06:56:07 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2012, 06:07:39 PM
They're all in order of the last published regional rankings, except that IWU obviously jumped over Lake Forest.  (And there is speculation that Wesleyan jumped WPI and blocked them from ever reaching the table; I guess we'll see, if they do eventually air the final regional rankings.)

Projections would be easier if committees didn't spring-heel jack some teams over another.

True, but as I've argued (here and elsewhere), I believe the IWU over LF was entirely justified.  (That their SOS's were not MORE dissimilar is a quirk of geography, and the utter collapse of Millikin; and we had ELEVEN games vs. RR opponents to their ONE.)  I've not studied the situation of Wesleyan and WPI.

WPI had a bad schedule and their losses were worse.  I took WPI off my radar for the top 25 after the first loss after the MIT win.  Beating a highly ranked team who also had a bad schedule doesn't help your case too much.

I'm amazed that WPI was ranked as highly as they were.

I was more interested that Keene wasn't higher - not really from my own personal evaluation, but because everyone else crunching the numbers seemed pretty high on them.  They didn't have a lot of wins in conference, but their schedule was more impressive than WPI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 07:15:37 PM
WPI's Massey SOS was 95th. That's not a 'bad' schedule at all, considering there are 400+ teams. Bethany has a 'bad' schedule. WPI's is in the top quartile.

WPI's is in the top quartile. Keene's schedule was 67th, so really in the neighborhood of WPI's.

Perception may be one thing, but the reality of at least one neutral party says it's not that much of a difference.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 27, 2012, 07:26:22 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 07:15:37 PM
WPI's Massey SOS was 95th. That's not a 'bad' schedule at all, considering there are 400+ teams. Bethany has a 'bad' schedule. WPI's is in the top quartile.

WPI's is in the top quartile. Keene's schedule was 67th, so really in the neighborhood of WPI's.

Perception may be one thing, but the reality of at least one neutral party says it's not that much of a difference.

Yeah, you want a bad schedule for a highly ranked team, according to Massey Birmingham Southern's schedule is ranked 332 (and before anyone mentions MIT, Massey has their schedule 146, within 35 of Middlebury, UMHB, VA Wesleyan, and East Conn).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2012, 08:07:41 PM
I think all of us are curious about Birmingham Southern.  They breezed through the SCAC, but played a pretty poor non-conference schedule, not helped by playing 3-22 Berry twice.  Their entire schedule consisted of 4 teams(7 games) with winning records and they lost 2 of those games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 08:11:43 PM
BSC, cursed by location?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 27, 2012, 08:42:10 PM
Missed three:

Had Lake Forest, WPI and Keene State in

Didn't have NYU, IWU and Gustavus Aldophus in.

Thoughts:
* From the first to second regional rankings, the committee flipped North Central and IWU despite the fact that neither team had done anything to warrant the change.  So I guess it is justifiable to bump IWU ahead of Lake Forest on a neutral-site loss to Wheaton being better than a home-loss to Carroll. 

* What I don't get is how IWU and Gustavus Aldophus then end up ahead of WPI and Keene State.  They all had similar records against regionally ranked opponents, similar records period and IWU had the worst SOS of the three.  That baffles me.

* Similarly, Lake Forest had a better record and SOS than NYU, so the two regional ranked wins were really valuable for NYU.  But then how does NYU get the bid over Wesleyan (Conn) since they had more wins against regionally ranked and a tougher schedule with a similar record.

* Basically, here's my problem.  Given those that made it, the figuring is that Wesleyan, WPI or Keene State had to be blocking the others, but at some point, the committee chose NYU over Wesleyan (which doesn't make sense) or IWU and GA over WPI or Keene State (similarly doesn't make sense).  So there was no consistancy except to ignore their criteria and go with gut opinions, so it's like the D1 process.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2012, 09:03:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 08:11:43 PM
BSC, cursed by location?
Yes and it won't get any better next season.

They need to add Emory, Maryville, a couple of ODAC's and some Administrative Region 3 powers out of the HCAC, OAC or NCAC to their 14 game conference schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 09:10:38 PM
They may have helped their future conference mate Berry get some games, which is noble, but hurt their numbers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 09:19:06 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2012, 08:42:10 PM

* What I don't get is how IWU and Gustavus Aldophus then end up ahead of WPI and Keene State.  They all had similar records against regionally ranked opponents, similar records period and IWU had the worst SOS of the three.  That baffles me.

As has been speculated on here today, the odds are very good that IWU and Gustavus Adolphus were never evaluated vs WPI or Keene State (sounds like Wesleyan must have been rated ahead of WPI in the NE).  Middlebury certainly got selected right at the beginning, and then was replaced in the NE at the table by Western Connecticut, which I had getting in at #6.  And then Wesleyan just sat there in the NE the rest of the process.

So let's say Round 15 looked like this...

Round 15
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) New York U: 20-5 (.800), .494, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2


How IWU and Gustavus Adolphus stack up in the criteria vs WPI and Keene State is not really relevant it appears.  You can stack IWU and Gustavus against the other 6 teams above, but I don't think WPI and Keene State.

I don't really understand how St. Joseph's (LI) got selected over Wesleyan.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2012, 09:41:27 PM
I think St. Joseph's is the team getting almost everyone in a bunch. Of course, they'll pull a couple of wins out of the tourney now (much like VCU last year in D-1...), but at least no one is being all Billy Packer about it. Yet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 27, 2012, 09:45:21 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 09:19:06 PM


So let's say Round 15 looked like this...

Round 15
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) New York U: 20-5 (.800), .494, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2


How IWU and Gustavus Adolphus stack up in the criteria vs WPI and Keene State is not really relevant it appears.  You can stack IWU and Gustavus against the other 6 teams above, but I don't think WPI and Keene State.

I don't really understand how St. Joseph's (LI) got selected over Wesleyan.

If Round 15 looks like that, then NYU and Wesleyan are on the table together until one or the other gets in.  I don't see how you choose NYU over Wesleyan based on that and the committee did at some point.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pjunito on February 27, 2012, 10:24:41 PM
As an Albertus fan... I hope not; St. Joe's will play with a chip on their shoulder.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 11:18:14 PM
Based on the selections we now have, here is a best guess at how the process played out.  This is certainly not perfect, but probably in the ballpark...


Round 1
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .522, 6-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Middlebury: 22-3 (.880), .588, 2-3  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Whitewater: 23-4 (.852), .547, 5-3

Round 2
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .522, 6-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .591, 6-5
(S) Mary Hardin-Baylor: 24-2 (.923), 502, 2-0
(W) UW-Whitewater: 23-4 (.852), .547, 5-3 ***

Round 3
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .522, 6-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .591, 6-5
(S) Mary Hardin-Baylor: 24-2 (.923), 502, 2-0 ***
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .592, 4-4

Round 4
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Wittenberg: 19-5 (.792), .522, 6-1 ***
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .591, 6-5 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .592, 4-4

Round 5
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5
(NE) Rhode Island: 22-6 (.786), .591, 6-5 ***
(NE) Western Conn: 20-6 (.769), .568, 6-5 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .592, 4-4

Round 6
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5 
(NE) Western Conn: 20-6 (.769), .568, 6-5  ***
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .592, 4-4

Round 7
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Wheaton: 18-6 (.750), .570, 6-5  ***
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .592, 4-4

Round 8
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Transylvania: 22-3 (.880), .500, 3-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) UW-Stevens Point: 18-7 (.720), .592, 4-4 ***

Round 9
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Transylvania: 22-3 (.880), .500, 3-1 ***
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 19-5 (.792), .515, 3-3
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 10
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hartwick: 22-3 (.880), .509, 2-0 ***
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6 
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 11:18:24 PM
Round 11
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1
(GL) Ohio Wesleyan: 19-7 (.731), .551, 3-6 ***
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 12
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Hobart: 21-5 (.808), .520, 1-1 ***
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 13
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) New York U: 20-5 (.800), .494, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) St. Mary's: 17-6 (.739), .557, 1-3 ***
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 14
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) New York U: 20-5 (.800), .494, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan: 17-7 (.708), .541, 3-6 ***
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 15
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) New York U: 20-5 (.800), .494, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Randolph-Macon: 18-5 (.783), .515, 3-2 ***
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 16
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) New York U: 20-5 (.800), .494, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2

Round 17
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) New York U: 20-5 (.800), .494, 2-2 ***
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Puget Sound: 15-7 (.682), .513, 3-3

Round 18
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2 ***
(E) Nazareth, 18-7 (.720), .549, 0-4
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Puget Sound: 15-7 (.682), .513, 3-3

Round 19
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Nazareth, 18-7 (.720), .549, 0-4
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Puget Sound: 15-7 (.682), .513, 3-3
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 11:21:07 PM
I still don't know how Wesleyan didn't get off the board.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2012, 12:14:47 AM
Trying to catch up and I think one thing that is being overlooked is the fact that the national committee isn't looking a just two teams side-by-side (i.e. NYU vs. WPI). They are looking at eight!

So, with a team from each region on the board there committee is looking at each team with the primary criteria and I wouldn't be surprised if that meant going in circles when you get down to the last five or so... they might not be able to pick one that cut-and-dry. So to make sure they get the last teams right they also look at the secondary criteria, so be it. I rather them make those difficult decisions with more information then less... plus the fact, I can't imagine when getting to that point that one team is cut-and-dry above all the rest.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 28, 2012, 12:27:29 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2012, 12:14:47 AM
Trying to catch up and I think one thing that is being overlooked is the fact that the national committee isn't looking a just two teams side-by-side (i.e. NYU vs. WPI). They are looking at eight!

So, with a team from each region on the board there committee is looking at each team with the primary criteria and I wouldn't be surprised if that meant going in circles when you get down to the last five or so... they might not be able to pick one that cut-and-dry. So to make sure they get the last teams right they also look at the secondary criteria, so be it. I rather them make those difficult decisions with more information then less... plus the fact, I can't imagine when getting to that point that one team is cut-and-dry above all the rest.

It doesn't change the fact that someone said NYU and no one said, "Wait, Wesleyan is better based on our criteria." 

And sometimes more information confuses the issue.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2012, 02:32:12 AM
Since we weren't in the room or on the call... we don't know what decisions were made when or what teams were picked when... we also don't know the discussions... there may have been something else keeping teams out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 28, 2012, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2012, 02:32:12 AM
Since we weren't in the room or on the call... we don't know what decisions were made when or what teams were picked when... we also don't know the discussions... there may have been something else keeping teams out.

No, we weren't.  But, if I were a journalist, there are certainly some interesting questions that have come out of these selections that would be worth pursuing for a better understanding of the process.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 28, 2012, 08:51:05 AM
Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2012, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2012, 02:32:12 AM
Since we weren't in the room or on the call... we don't know what decisions were made when or what teams were picked when... we also don't know the discussions... there may have been something else keeping teams out.

No, we weren't.  But, if I were a journalist, there are certainly some interesting questions that have come out of these selections that would be worth pursuing for a better understanding of the process.

I'll bet it was rock paper scissors.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pjunito on February 28, 2012, 09:00:10 AM
Did the national committee release the final regional rankings last year? I still don't understand why they wouldn't release it. People are going to have their own opinions regardless if they see it or not. The committee has made their decision and its final. What is the harm in showing the public how they came to this decision?

How long is the tenure for a chairperson? Is the Men's committee chair new this year?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 09:51:02 AM
Potentially interesting. Here's each region, their average SOS, and the standard deviation of SOS

RG   aSOS     STDEV
NE   0.501    0.052
WE   0.504    0.044
EA   0.499    0.040
SO   0.495    0.035
MA   0.501    0.034
AT   0.501    0.031
MW   0.502    0.031
GL   0.504    0.028
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2012, 10:13:35 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 09:51:02 AM
Potentially interesting. Here's each region, their average SOS, and the standard deviation of SOS

RG   aSOS     STDEV
NE   0.501    0.052
WE   0.504    0.044
EA   0.499    0.040
SO   0.495    0.035
MA   0.501    0.034
AT   0.501    0.031
MW   0.502    0.031
GL   0.504    0.028


Great!  Thanks for doing that!  One of the best posts of the season!

That is valuable information when we are looking at various regions.  I will bet that varies little over the course of several seasons.

+1! 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 28, 2012, 10:23:17 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 09:51:02 AM
Potentially interesting. Here's each region, their average SOS, and the standard deviation of SOS

RG   aSOS     STDEV
NE   0.501    0.052
WE   0.504    0.044
EA   0.499    0.040
SO   0.495    0.035
MA   0.501    0.034
AT   0.501    0.031
MW   0.502    0.031
GL   0.504    0.028


Can we assume that SOS's would be normally distributed?

If so, and if I remember my basic statistics correctly, this would indicate that if we were looking at a GL region team, a .532 SOS would indicate a 68th percentile SOS and a .560 SOS would be in the 95th percentile?

Similarly, if we had an East Region team, we'd see a .539 SOS as a 68th percentile in that region, and a .589 as a 95th percentile?

Totally possible I'm forgetting my stats though--I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 28, 2012, 10:47:31 AM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 28, 2012, 08:51:05 AM
Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2012, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2012, 02:32:12 AM
Since we weren't in the room or on the call... we don't know what decisions were made when or what teams were picked when... we also don't know the discussions... there may have been something else keeping teams out.

No, we weren't.  But, if I were a journalist, there are certainly some interesting questions that have come out of these selections that would be worth pursuing for a better understanding of the process.

I'll bet it was rock paper scissors.

Nah, that's too easy to figure out - had to be the new and improved rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iapcKVn7DdY
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 28, 2012, 11:57:34 AM
I see  Wesleyan being presented with a record of 20-5 in a lot of discussions here.  Wesleyan was 20-6 on the season.  http://www.nescac.com/sports/mbkb/2011-12/stats/WES.HTM
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 28, 2012, 11:59:54 AM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2012, 11:57:34 AM
I see  Wesleyan being presented with a record of 20-5 in a lot of discussions here.  Wesleyan was 20-6 on the season.  http://www.nescac.com/sports/mbkb/2011-12/stats/WES.HTM

They may be just using their regional record.  Their loss to Buffalo State is considered out-of-region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 12:08:33 PM
That may have been the secondary criteria that was part of the discussion on why they were left out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 28, 2012, 12:11:37 PM
I have to believe the loss to Buffalo State is what kept them out.

Even TitanQ has stated in the last 5 rounds pretty much everything is on the table.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2012, 12:18:54 PM
Quote from: pjunito on February 28, 2012, 09:00:10 AM
Did the national committee release the final regional rankings last year? I still don't understand why they wouldn't release it. People are going to have their own opinions regardless if they see it or not. The committee has made their decision and its final. What is the harm in showing the public how they came to this decision?

How long is the tenure for a chairperson? Is the Men's committee chair new this year?
They did not release the final regional rankings despite it being published they would in their Pre-Championship Handbook... and telling us on Hoopsville back in January (I will be locating that interview and make it available some time today).

Tenure of a chairperson varies. Last year Dave Martin was the chair for just one year... there have been chairs for multiple years. This year's chair is new this year, but has been on the national committee for a few years.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pjunito on February 28, 2012, 12:25:12 PM
Thanks D-Mac, he sounded like a politican on your show yesterday. My personal feeling is that the committee makes the decision; we should all respect it even if we don't agree. But tell us (fans, coaches, players) how the decisions were made. He responded as if he needed clearance to discuss the last four in and releasing the final regional rankings.

I think he did a poor job representing his committee yesterday. If I were a national or regional committee member, I would urge him to give the people what they want to know.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 12:27:34 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2012, 12:11:37 PM
I have to believe the loss to Buffalo State is what kept them out.

Even TitanQ has stated in the last 5 rounds pretty much everything is on the table.

Sure, Wesleyan, your numbers are as good or better across the board, but you did lose one out-of-region game to Buffalo State. Unfortunatley, we throw out a season's worth of data and over-emphasize random and arbitrart criteria around here. It's called "looking inside the numbers". We also use dart boards. Long story short -- you're out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 12:30:46 PM
It does have some presidence. Case was kept out of the football playoffs even though they had a 9-0 regional record because of a loss to Rochester. Again, a soulless technocrat could do the brackets if we wanted.

And again, win your league and you have no complaints.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 12:33:11 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 12:30:46 PM
It does have some presidence. Case was kept out of the football playoffs even though they had a 9-0 regional record because of a loss to Rochester. Again, a soulless technocrat could do the brackets if we wanted.

And again, win your league and you have no complaints.

I'd probably take Wesleyan's numbers even counting the Buffalo loss.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: onetinsoldier on February 28, 2012, 01:41:05 PM
I thought Dave's interview last night was very insightful as to the items surrounding Pool C.  The chair said point blank, they look at wins.  They understand SOS, but wins cannot be 100% ignored. 

Remember, the committee isnt telling Wesleyan that they failed to meet certain criteria.  The committee could only pick 19 at large teams.  With all the upsets, the first 9-11 were probably pretty easy.  After that, they just have to go with the information at their disposal and hope they make the right choices. 

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 01:48:31 PM
Quote from: onetinsoldier on February 28, 2012, 01:41:05 PM
I thought Dave's interview last night was very insightful as to the items surrounding Pool C.  The chair said point blank, they look at wins.  They understand SOS, but wins cannot be 100% ignored. 


Like Lake Forest's .826 winning percentage and Illinois Wesleyan's .708 winning percentage?

No one's recommending wins be ignored at all, but winning percentage in a vacuum means nothing. SOS in a vacuum means nothing. They only each carry meaning when related to the other.

What we've learned is that the committee has no idea how to approach the idea of SOS.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: onetinsoldier on February 28, 2012, 02:11:24 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 01:48:31 PM
Quote from: onetinsoldier on February 28, 2012, 01:41:05 PM
I thought Dave's interview last night was very insightful as to the items surrounding Pool C.  The chair said point blank, they look at wins.  They understand SOS, but wins cannot be 100% ignored. 


Like Lake Forest's .826 winning percentage and Illinois Wesleyan's .708 winning percentage?

No one's recommending wins be ignored at all, but winning percentage in a vacuum means nothing. SOS in a vacuum means nothing. They only each carry meaning when related to the other.

What we've learned is that the committee has no idea how to approach the idea of SOS.

Knight, in the above example wouldnt the regional associate for the Midwest have some say in the process? 

And while Lake was ahead of IllWes in the final RR, its entirely plausible a loss to wheaton vs a loss to Carroll pushed the SOS so high that IllWes was pushed to 4th in the Midwest. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2012, 02:36:18 PM
Yes... the regional committee does have a say... by ranking teams in order as they will appear at the national committee. Thus, Lake Forest and IWU were already decided by the regional committees and only ONE of them would be at the national committee's table at a time - they would never be considered on the national landscape at the same time.

And I think the committees do have a sense of how to work with the SOS... but they also have to measure that against other factors. I have talked to many members on regional and national committees and they say the SOS has helped them better understand teams records and results... but when it comes down to the final spots in a region or selection... there is so much info to parsec and get right, that sometimes one thing may be outweighed by another (and again, we are guessing as to what was the determining factor on some of these things - it might not have been just one thing... it could be several other criteria).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 02:51:59 PM
Right, but wheter we're talking about the regional rankings or the national selections, the process is the exact same. Teams are ranked/selected/seeded using the same criteria. It's just kind of odd that we saw (probably):

Wesleyan -- .800 WP -- .513 SOS
Over
WPI -- .720 WP -- .585 SOS

At the same time that we saw:

IWU -- .708 WP -- .540 SOS
Over
Lake Forest -- .826 WP -- .516 SOS

It just seems to me that if you're going to pick IWU over Lake Forest, then you pretty much also need to take WPI over Wesleyan.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2012, 03:21:12 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 02:51:59 PM
Right, but wheter we're talking about the regional rankings or the national selections, the process is the exact same. Teams are ranked/selected/seeded using the same criteria. It's just kind of odd that we saw (probably):

Wesleyan -- .800 WP -- .513 SOS
Over
WPI -- .720 WP -- .585 SOS

At the same time that we saw:

IWU -- .708 WP -- .540 SOS
Over
Lake Forest -- .826 WP -- .516 SOS

It just seems to me that if you're going to pick IWU over Lake Forest, then you pretty much also need to take WPI over Wesleyan.

But it's two different committees making the calls.  We don't know what rationale they used the week before to keep Lake Forest on top and if their loss in the semis of a weak conference had more impact than IWU's loss to a better team in a better conference.

If one committee did all the regional rankings, then there's a case.  That's just not how things go.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 03:27:48 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2012, 03:21:12 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 02:51:59 PM
Right, but wheter we're talking about the regional rankings or the national selections, the process is the exact same. Teams are ranked/selected/seeded using the same criteria. It's just kind of odd that we saw (probably):

Wesleyan -- .800 WP -- .513 SOS
Over
WPI -- .720 WP -- .585 SOS

At the same time that we saw:

IWU -- .708 WP -- .540 SOS
Over
Lake Forest -- .826 WP -- .516 SOS

It just seems to me that if you're going to pick IWU over Lake Forest, then you pretty much also need to take WPI over Wesleyan.

But it's two different committees making the calls.  We don't know what rationale they used the week before to keep Lake Forest on top and if their loss in the semis of a weak conference had more impact than IWU's loss to a better team in a better conference.

If one committee did all the regional rankings, then there's a case.  That's just not how things go.

National committee approves all rankings though, so it really is like "one committee". Shouldn't act like eight separate groups anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on February 28, 2012, 03:40:19 PM
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 28, 2012, 10:47:31 AM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 28, 2012, 08:51:05 AM
Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2012, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2012, 02:32:12 AM
Since we weren't in the room or on the call... we don't know what decisions were made when or what teams were picked when... we also don't know the discussions... there may have been something else keeping teams out.

No, we weren't.  But, if I were a journalist, there are certainly some interesting questions that have come out of these selections that would be worth pursuing for a better understanding of the process.

I'll bet it was rock paper scissors.

Nah, that's too easy to figure out - had to be the new and improved rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iapcKVn7DdY

+K, but still too easy to comprehend for the NCAA.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: iwumichigander on February 28, 2012, 03:47:18 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2012, 03:21:12 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 02:51:59 PM
Right, but wheter we're talking about the regional rankings or the national selections, the process is the exact same. Teams are ranked/selected/seeded using the same criteria. It's just kind of odd that we saw (probably):

Wesleyan -- .800 WP -- .513 SOS
Over
WPI -- .720 WP -- .585 SOS

At the same time that we saw:

IWU -- .708 WP -- .540 SOS
Over
Lake Forest -- .826 WP -- .516 SOS

It just seems to me that if you're going to pick IWU over Lake Forest, then you pretty much also need to take WPI over Wesleyan.

But it's two different committees making the calls.  We don't know what rationale they used the week before to keep Lake Forest on top and if their loss in the semis of a weak conference had more impact than IWU's loss to a better team in a better conference.

If one committee did all the regional rankings, then there's a case.  That's just not how things go.
I think maybe hung up here on the "process".  The criteria is the same for regional and national committees; but, no where does the guidelines say the criteria are absolutes. If absolutes, you might as well use a computer program like Massey, let some machine make the decision and be done with it.
Within each region, some latitude exists in terms of process and how much 'weight' a regional committee may place on one criteria element may not be the same as another regional committee.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 03:53:22 PM
Quote from: iwumichigander on February 28, 2012, 03:47:18 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2012, 03:21:12 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 02:51:59 PM
Right, but wheter we're talking about the regional rankings or the national selections, the process is the exact same. Teams are ranked/selected/seeded using the same criteria. It's just kind of odd that we saw (probably):

Wesleyan -- .800 WP -- .513 SOS
Over
WPI -- .720 WP -- .585 SOS

At the same time that we saw:

IWU -- .708 WP -- .540 SOS
Over
Lake Forest -- .826 WP -- .516 SOS

It just seems to me that if you're going to pick IWU over Lake Forest, then you pretty much also need to take WPI over Wesleyan.

But it's two different committees making the calls.  We don't know what rationale they used the week before to keep Lake Forest on top and if their loss in the semis of a weak conference had more impact than IWU's loss to a better team in a better conference.

If one committee did all the regional rankings, then there's a case.  That's just not how things go.
I think maybe hung up here on the "process".  The criteria is the same for regional and national committees; but, no where does the guidelines say the criteria are absolutes. If absolutes, you might as well use a computer program like Massey, let some machine make the decision and be done with it.
Within each region, some latitude exists in terms of process and how much 'weight' a regional committee may place on one criteria element may not be the same as another regional committee.

Exactly! Thanks for seeing things my way.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: onetinsoldier on February 28, 2012, 04:17:38 PM
knight,
A computer formula would be a disaster, because then you have a huge fight over what to use.  lets look at a D1 bubble team: RPI has Oral Roberts 40, Sagarin has them 68th, pomeroy 89th.  All are respected formulas and its across the board.  And if you settle on one formula, then teams schedule solely to meet that formula.  Or worse, you penalize top teams in horrible conferences that get upset in conf tourney. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 04:25:50 PM
Quote from: onetinsoldier on February 28, 2012, 04:17:38 PM
knight,
A computer formula would be a disaster, because then you have a huge fight over what to use.  lets look at a D1 bubble team: RPI has Oral Roberts 40, Sagarin has them 68th, pomeroy 89th.  All are respected formulas and its across the board.  And if you settle on one formula, then teams schedule solely to meet that formula.  Or worse, you penalize top teams in horrible conferences that get upset in conf tourney.

I'm not necessarily saying you need to go the route of a Massey, Sagarin, Pomeroy, or RPI, strictly speaking, but if you did, what we be the problem with simply averaging the rankings of the systems? You wouldn't have to pick one. That's pretty much what the BCS does.

I'm OK with the NCAA defining criteria, as they do now, but I think the method by which they compare and weigh each criterion against the others should also be strictly defined (and followed).

And I'm not concerned with teams scheduling to "meet the formula", because the best way to do that would be to play tough teams, and to beat them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
You have to have some nuance, though. It's elitist to think that a team isolated in geography, without a grand travel budget, and a large conference schedule can merely 'schedule tough teams and beat them.'

Then, what can happen is that teams may not give chances to some teams because they're not PERCEIVED to be 'tough' when in reality they are not easy outs.

The 'avoidance' factor doesn't happen as much as D-3 as it does in D-1, but you really need to take conference, geography, travel budgets, rivals and other considerations into account before segregating teams as 'tough' or 'weak' based on an unbending, unyielding hard-and-fast rule.

I'd much rather have a Birmingham Southern try to prove itself in the tourney after an untimely upset than a mid-pack team from a power conference. That adds flavor and color and gives hope to those who are unfairly tarred as 'weak' because of where they are, the conference they are in, and the fact they don't have the $$$ to go everywhere to play.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 28, 2012, 04:57:42 PM
Quote from: onetinsoldier on February 28, 2012, 04:17:38 PM
knight,
A computer formula would be a disaster, because then you have a huge fight over what to use.  lets look at a D1 bubble team: RPI has Oral Roberts 40, Sagarin has them 68th, pomeroy 89th.  All are respected formulas and its across the board.  And if you settle on one formula, then teams schedule solely to meet that formula.  Or worse, you penalize top teams in horrible conferences that get upset in conf tourney.

Teams are already scheduling (or trying) to meet the SOS demands in D3.  There are plenty of teams out there who schedule teams that will end up with gaudy looking records because they play in a weaker conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 05:02:28 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
You have to have some nuance, though. It's elitist to think that a team isolated in geography, without a grand travel budget, and a large conference schedule can merely 'schedule tough teams and beat them.'

Then, what can happen is that teams may not give chances to some teams because they're not PERCEIVED to be 'tough' when in reality they are not easy outs.

The 'avoidance' factor doesn't happen as much as D-3 as it does in D-1, but you really need to take conference, geography, travel budgets, rivals and other considerations into account before segregating teams as 'tough' or 'weak' based on an unbending, unyielding hard-and-fast rule.

I'd much rather have a Birmingham Southern try to prove itself in the tourney after an untimely upset than a mid-pack team from a power conference. That adds flavor and color and gives hope to those who are unfairly tarred as 'weak' because of where they are, the conference they are in, and the fact they don't have the $$$ to go everywhere to play.

If you want to factor in "isolation"? Fine. Define it with a numerical value. Do you want to factor in $$$? Define it with a numerical value. Do you want to add in a bonus for teams with all of their players' last names starting with "W"? Go ahead. But define what you want to do. And then do it. Fairly. Across the board.

We're ending up with an objective list, so let's take subjective decisions out of it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2012, 05:09:31 PM
You could NEVER come up with numerical values for a lot of these things... and then to have a guidance for each committee to use for weight... when each region is vastly different with teams, conferences, travel, expanse, etc.... just isn't fair. Not to mention the fact... the NE has TONS of schools which has a major impact on say something like vRRO... while the East has very few. This impacts how many teams can be ranked in the first place... and those what those results are. You can't then expect those committees to weight information like vRRO exactly the same. That is why there isn't an weight system on the criteria... there are too many other factors each committee individually have to consider in their regions to interpret what their SOS, vRRO, etc. actually mean.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
You can't put a number on many factors that is fair and right and true and just. It changes year over year, program to program, region to region.

You have to have a human element, otherwise you just have soulless number-crunching without the ability to bribe your way out of the gulag.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 28, 2012, 06:24:55 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2012, 05:09:31 PM
You could NEVER come up with numerical values for a lot of these things... and then to have a guidance for each committee to use for weight... when each region is vastly different with teams, conferences, travel, expanse, etc.... just isn't fair. Not to mention the fact... the NE has TONS of schools which has a major impact on say something like vRRO... while the East has very few. This impacts how many teams can be ranked in the first place... and those what those results are. You can't then expect those committees to weight information like vRRO exactly the same. That is why there isn't an weight system on the criteria... there are too many other factors each committee individually have to consider in their regions to interpret what their SOS, vRRO, etc. actually mean.

I agree with Dave and the conclusion that leads me to is that the regional approach is broken. How to reconcile that with the stated goals of Division III is the overarching problem.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 06:33:31 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2012, 05:09:31 PM
You could NEVER come up with numerical values for a lot of these things...

But that's exactly what we're doing we're doing currently.

4. Illinois Wesleyan
5. Lake Forest

or

Pool C #19 St Joe's
Pool C #20 Wesleyan

or whatever. They're currently taking all of the factors -- even the supposedly 'unquatifyable' ones -- and coming out with an ordered list. It would be impossible to do that without quantifying everything (even if it currently happens implicitly).

How could you weigh un-numberable factors against each other and ever come up with a conclusion?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 06:43:37 PM
I feel comfortable with the evolution of the selection process and where things stand today.  I don't want the 100% subjective "good ole boy" process we had as recently as 14-15 years ago, but I also don't want a 100% objective (computer-based) process. 

I think we have a process now that, assuming 19 Pool C bids, results in about 14 very clear cut picks...and then about 5 judgement calls, based on data.  I'm very comfortable with Division III athletics personnel (coaches, AD's), who are carefully and intentionally chosen for the roles, making these judgement calls. 




Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 28, 2012, 07:09:23 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 06:43:37 PM
I feel comfortable with the evolution of the selection process and where things stand today.  I don't want the 100% subjective "good ole boy" process we had as recently as 14-15 years ago, but I also don't want a 100% objective (computer-based) process. 

I think we have a process now that, assuming 19 Pool C bids, results in about 14 very clear cut picks...and then about 5 judgement calls, based on data.  I'm very comfortable with Division III athletics personnel (coaches, AD's), who are carefully and intentionally chosen for the roles, making these judgement calls.

I would have agreed with everything you just wrote a year ago when it looked like things were headed in the right direction. This year? It was a step back and I don't see how anyone that listened to Hoopsville last night can say otherwise.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 07:55:30 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 06:43:37 PM
I feel comfortable with the evolution of the selection process and where things stand today.  I don't want the 100% subjective "good ole boy" process we had as recently as 14-15 years ago, but I also don't want a 100% objective (computer-based) process. 

I think we have a process now that, assuming 19 Pool C bids, results in about 14 very clear cut picks...and then about 5 judgement calls, based on data.  I'm very comfortable with Division III athletics personnel (coaches, AD's), who are carefully and intentionally chosen for the roles, making these judgement calls.

Unfortunately, Bob, given the last two seasons I don't think that you're going to be viewed as an unimpeachably objective opinion on this subject. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 08:37:36 PM
I really need we need to stop with the ashes and sackcloth routine. There are issues - there will always be issues. Even a purely numerical autocratic unthinking system will have its biases and unfairness based on the criteria. I would rather have the ones from lesser conferences have a chance instead of loading up the tourney with the few.

Decision making of this type isn't ones and zeroes, and it shouldn't be. I'm a numbers guy but they are tools, not the shed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 08:57:35 PM
That being said the system can be improved. I don't like the uber-emphasis on regionality and I think the SOS needs to reflect an ACTUAL SOS using some power metric.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:03:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 08:37:36 PM
I really need we need to stop with the ashes and sackcloth routine. There are issues - there will always be issues. Even a purely numerical autocratic unthinking system will have its biases and unfairness based on the criteria. I would rather have the ones from lesser conferences have a chance instead of loading up the tourney with the few.

Decision making of this type isn't ones and zeroes, and it shouldn't be. I'm a numbers guy but they are tools, not the shed.

If I'm reading the Snyder brothers correctly, they're just as concerned about the national selection committee using the criteria in the manner in which those criteria are defined in the handbook as they are with the issue of the subjective weighting of said criteria. To wit, the Dean of KnightSlappy U.'s complaint that automatically introducing the secondary criteria willy-nilly into every analysis by the committee in the last five rounds of the Pool C process, as related to us by Bob, violates the process by rendering the terms "primary" and "secondary" null and void.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HopeConvert on February 28, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 07:55:30 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 06:43:37 PM
I feel comfortable with the evolution of the selection process and where things stand today.  I don't want the 100% subjective "good ole boy" process we had as recently as 14-15 years ago, but I also don't want a 100% objective (computer-based) process. 

I think we have a process now that, assuming 19 Pool C bids, results in about 14 very clear cut picks...and then about 5 judgement calls, based on data.  I'm very comfortable with Division III athletics personnel (coaches, AD's), who are carefully and intentionally chosen for the roles, making these judgement calls.

Unfortunately, Bob, given the last two seasons I don't think that you're going to be viewed as an unimpeachably objective opinion on this subject. ;)

Yep.

But, still, when you get to those bottom teams almost everyone is going to have something they can point to in their favor. WPI has a case, but NYU would have had a gripe also. The fact is that all those teams on the bubble didn't take care of things the way they ought to have, and are rounding out the field more than anything. I think most Hope fans are nervous about facing either UWSP or IWU (I suspect IWU will win), but Hope ought to win that game over a team that gets in at the end, whether it be IWU or WPI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 28, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 08:57:35 PM
That being said the system can be improved. I don't like the uber-emphasis on regionality and I think the SOS needs to reflect an ACTUAL SOS using some power metric.

In fairness to the NCAA, the system is improved quite a bit from when it was first introduced.  I hope they continue to tweak it, but mostly I hope they will be transparent.  Not just for the fans, but because the coaches and administrators that have to put together their schedules need to know clearly what the criteria are, not what they might or might be.


As an aside.....
I find the regional system kind of pointless and kind of arbitrary.  Pointless because we rank teams within a region, expecting them to play regional games.  Then when the brackets come out we send the 6 different Great Lakes regional teams to 5 different locations, none will play a regional opponent in round one.  Arbitrary because we draw lines like 200 miles and say anything over that doesn't count.  Why not 300 miles?  Arbitrary because we say administrative regions.  Why not adjacent states?  Arbitrary because games 201 miles away could possibly not count, but games 1,500 could count?  That makes no sense.


No matter how many Pool C's there are, there will always be 2 or 3 left at the table who "should" have received a bid.  Its just going to happen.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 09:27:45 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:03:51 PM
To wit, the Dean of KnightSlappy U.'s complaint that automatically introducing the secondary criteria willy-nilly into every analysis by the committee in the last five rounds of the Pool C process, as related to us by Bob, violates the process by rendering the terms "primary" and "secondary" null and void.

I don't think calling it "willy-nilly" if fair though.  It seems to me that there comes a point in the Pool C selection process every year - and I suspect it comes at about Round 15 or 16 - that it's just really hard to create separation using the primary criteria alone.

For example, in the post I made last night (projecting how the process may have played out), here is my Round 16...

Round 16
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) New York U: 20-5 (.800), .494, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2


Doesn't it make sense to go to secondary criteria at this point to look for help in making a decision?  And isn't it fair to say that Round 16 looks just about like this most years?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 09:31:19 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:03:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 08:37:36 PM
I really need we need to stop with the ashes and sackcloth routine. There are issues - there will always be issues. Even a purely numerical autocratic unthinking system will have its biases and unfairness based on the criteria. I would rather have the ones from lesser conferences have a chance instead of loading up the tourney with the few.

Decision making of this type isn't ones and zeroes, and it shouldn't be. I'm a numbers guy but they are tools, not the shed.

If I'm reading the Snyder brothers correctly, they're just as concerned about the national selection committee using the criteria in the manner in which those criteria are defined in the handbook as they are with the issue of the subjective weighting of said criteria. To wit, the Dean of KnightSlappy U.'s complaint that automatically introducing the secondary criteria willy-nilly into every analysis by the committee in the last five rounds of the Pool C process, as related to us by Bob, violates the process by rendering the terms "primary" and "secondary" null and void.

They did it for football too, though, by 'ignoring' Case's 9-0 regional record and bringing in their one loss to Rochester, which was out of region.

I don't mean to get all huffy - I just think that some teams need a deeper look because of their isolation, travel budgets and conferences (or a combo of all three) that may supercede strict adherence to the criteria. Tournaments are fun because of Cinderella - when a controversial at-large selection says "haters gonna hate" and wins a couple.

Some schools CAN plan a schedule to improve their "C" chances, and others have no such luxury because of where they are, and how few non-conference games they have. Is that truly a level playing field? The teams like Calvin, like IWU, like Amherst CAN stack games up. How can Birmingham Southern without breaking the bank?

Oh, and I'm not saying it's not improved!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 09:41:35 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
In fairness to the NCAA, the system is improved quite a bit from when it was first introduced.  I hope they continue to tweak it, but mostly I hope they will be transparent.  Not just for the fans, but because the coaches and administrators that have to put together their schedules need to know clearly what the criteria are, not what they might or might be.

Two really good points here by sac...

First, the system has gotten a lot better over the last 10 years or so - when this first came out, I think it was almost exclusively about in-region winning %.

And second, all involved with the selection process need to think long and hard about the decision to not release the final regional rankings.  That situation is, quite frankly, disturbing and disappointing. 

In my professional life, I'm remind almost daily of the importance of transparency.  People might not always agree with a difficult decision you've had to make, but if they know you are being open and honest throughout the process, 9 times out of 10 they will respect and support your decision.  When you create a perception that you are hiding stuff, or when you don't make the "rules" clear, you are in a lot trouble.  I would hope that the D3 selection committee values transparency and would like to create a sense of confidence and trust in the fans.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 09:42:39 PM
I agree with the transparency. I was glad when they released the RPI for D-1 for the world to see.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:44:28 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 09:27:45 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:03:51 PM
To wit, the Dean of KnightSlappy U.'s complaint that automatically introducing the secondary criteria willy-nilly into every analysis by the committee in the last five rounds of the Pool C process, as related to us by Bob, violates the process by rendering the terms "primary" and "secondary" null and void.

I don't think calling it "willy-nilly" if fair though.  It seems to me that there comes a point in the Pool C selection process every year - and I suspect it comes at about Round 15 or 16 - that it's just really hard to create separation using the primary criteria alone.

For example, in the post I made last night (projecting how the process may have played out), here is my Round 16...

Round 16
(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) New York U: 20-5 (.800), .494, 2-2
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3
(S) Birmingham-Southern: 23-2 (.920), .443, 0-0
(W) Gustavus Adolphus: 19-7 (.731), .526, 2-2


Doesn't it make sense to go to secondary criteria at this point to look for help in making a decision?  And isn't it fair to say that Round 16 looks just about like this most years?

You and Matt already had this discussion, so I don't see any need for me to rehash it -- especially since he's more than capable of articulating his own position. ;) My concern isn't with the mixing-in of the secondary criteria per se as a functional tool for separating out teams, as much as it is with the fact that it violates the rules in the handbook under which the committee is supposed to operate. That's why I call it "willy-nilly" ... it's as if the committee has a prearranged agreement to abide by the rules for the first fourteen rounds of the Pool C selection process, and to then throw the handbook into the trashcan for the final five rounds.

One big problem which keeps getting brought up here is transparency. This is a classic case of the committee's lack of transparency being glaring. And I suspect that the lack of transparency stems from the fact that the committee is flouting the rules by doing away with the terms "primary" and "secondary" towards the end of the Pool C selection process.

Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 09:31:19 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:03:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 08:37:36 PM
I really need we need to stop with the ashes and sackcloth routine. There are issues - there will always be issues. Even a purely numerical autocratic unthinking system will have its biases and unfairness based on the criteria. I would rather have the ones from lesser conferences have a chance instead of loading up the tourney with the few.

Decision making of this type isn't ones and zeroes, and it shouldn't be. I'm a numbers guy but they are tools, not the shed.

If I'm reading the Snyder brothers correctly, they're just as concerned about the national selection committee using the criteria in the manner in which those criteria are defined in the handbook as they are with the issue of the subjective weighting of said criteria. To wit, the Dean of KnightSlappy U.'s complaint that automatically introducing the secondary criteria willy-nilly into every analysis by the committee in the last five rounds of the Pool C process, as related to us by Bob, violates the process by rendering the terms "primary" and "secondary" null and void.

They did it for football too, though, by 'ignoring' Case's 9-0 regional record and bringing in their one loss to Rochester, which was out of region.

I don't mean to get all huffy - I just think that some teams need a deeper look because of their isolation, travel budgets and conferences (or a combo of all three) that may supercede strict adherence to the criteria. Tournaments are fun because of Cinderella - when a controversial at-large selection says "haters gonna hate" and wins a couple.

Some schools CAN plan a schedule to improve their "C" chances, and others have no such luxury because of where they are, and how few non-conference games they have. Is that truly a level playing field? The teams like Calvin, like IWU, like Amherst CAN stack games up. How can Birmingham Southern without breaking the bank?

Oh, and I'm not saying it's not improved!

Hey, I like Cinderellas as much as the next guy. In fact, I got into an argument last week in the CCIW football room with a North Central fan who would like more at-large football berths at the expense of the Pool A's given to the weak leagues, so that D3 can have a more competitive, blowout-free football tournament.

But Cinderellas, isolation, travel budgets, etc., aren't really things that concern me in this particular conversation. I'm more concerned with the committee abiding by its own rules and being transparent as to how it goes about its business.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 09:49:31 PM
But if you're not going to have some interpretation, then it's back to the unthinking technocrat and not bringing nuance and interpretation into it. Otherwise teams like Birmingham Southern this season will have no chance to get a "C". Yes, they should have won their tournament, but it's awful cold and callous to say "Sorry, we know you have to play your schedule and you wanted to help your future conference mate and you're stuck down in AL so it's hard to get games, but I MUST adhere to THIS criteria and you missed out by .05%"
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dahlby on February 28, 2012, 09:50:24 PM
Titan Q:

Plus K.... I agree 100%.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 09:51:41 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
As an aside.....
I find the regional system kind of pointless and kind of arbitrary.  Pointless because we rank teams within a region, expecting them to play regional games.  Then when the brackets come out we send the 6 different Great Lakes regional teams to 5 different locations, none will play a regional opponent in round one.  Arbitrary because we draw lines like 200 miles and say anything over that doesn't count.  Why not 300 miles?  Arbitrary because we say administrative regions.  Why not adjacent states?  Arbitrary because games 201 miles away could possibly not count, but games 1,500 could count?  That makes no sense.

And I completely agree with this too.  I know where they were trying to go with the regional thing in the beginning...but I think it's time to step back and realize that it is now kind of silly.

Illinois Wesleyan played @ Cal Lutheran (2000+ miles away) last season -- that game was in-region.  But when the Titans play Hope (260 miles away) the next 3 seasons, those games will be out-of-region.

We need to get a point where every D3 game counts.  Schools that have the budget and institutional support to travel can travel...those that don't can stay close to home.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:54:06 PM
There's no "nuance" and "interpretation" involved here. The terms "primary" and "secondary" mean what they mean. If you're not going to abide by those two terms, even if you have good reasons to jettison them, then either change the handbook or do away with it altogether.

Throwing out the rules on your own discretion, even if done with the best of intentions, is neither transparent nor ultimately in the best interest of fairness. What you sacrifice in the name of temporary expedience costs you in the long run in terms of credibility.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 09:57:50 PM
There obviously was nuance and interpretation, otherwise we wouldn't be spewing bandwidth. There's ALWAYS nuance and interpretation of primary and secondary criteria. It's obvious the handbook in football wasn't followed to the letter, and now here as well.

But is it the LETTER or the SPIRIT that we want? Is it better to reward a team for an outstanding season in a conference where they can't pile up the SOS, or a third-place team in a conference that can pile up the SOS because of where they are?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:59:07 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 09:51:41 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
As an aside.....
I find the regional system kind of pointless and kind of arbitrary.  Pointless because we rank teams within a region, expecting them to play regional games.  Then when the brackets come out we send the 6 different Great Lakes regional teams to 5 different locations, none will play a regional opponent in round one.  Arbitrary because we draw lines like 200 miles and say anything over that doesn't count.  Why not 300 miles?  Arbitrary because we say administrative regions.  Why not adjacent states?  Arbitrary because games 201 miles away could possibly not count, but games 1,500 could count?  That makes no sense.

And I completely agree with this too.  I know where they were trying to go with the regional thing in the beginning...but I think it's time to step back and realize that it is now kind of silly.

Illinois Wesleyan played @ Cal Lutheran (2000+ miles away) last season -- that game was in-region.  But when the Titans play Hope (260 miles away) the next 3 seasons, those games will be out-of-region.

We need to get a point where every D3 game counts.  Schools that have the budget and institutional support to travel can travel...those that don't can stay close to home.

I think that this, as well as sac's two earlier points about the process getting better over time and the unfortunate decision by the committee not to publish the final regional rankings, falls into the category of "preaching to the choir." I mean, I'm glad for the record that the two of you have reiterated these points for everyone to read, but I doubt that there's any D3 basketball fans out there who really believe at this point that the idea of a nationally-based tournament assembled by regionally-gathered data is sound in any way, shape, or form.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 10:00:47 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:44:28 PM
You and Matt already had this discussion, so I don't see any need for me to rehash it -- especially since he's more than capable of articulating his own position. ;) My concern isn't with the mixing-in of the secondary criteria per se as a functional tool for separating out teams, as much as it is with the fact that it violates the rules in the handbook under which the committee is supposed to operate. That's why I call it "willy-nilly" ... it's as if the committee has a prearranged agreement to abide by the rules for the first fourteen rounds of the Pool C selection process, and to then throw the handbook into the trashcan for the final five rounds.

So let me clarify what I was told.  It was basically that at some point in the process every year, the committee gets to this point (handbook quote)...

"If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."

On average, that tends to be with about 4-5 selections left to make.

I just don't see anything willy-nilly about the fact that the process gets extremely difficult late, and that at some point, the committee benefits from considering more data.



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 10:08:13 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 09:57:50 PM
There obviously was nuance and interpretation, otherwise we wouldn't be spewing bandwidth. There's ALWAYS nuance and interpretation of primary and secondary criteria.

Nuance and interpretation as to the particulars of the criteria as they're applied, yes. But there's no nuance and interpretation as to the meaning of the words "primary" and "secondary", or as to what constitutes the criteria that are called by those names. The five primary criteria are clearly listed in the handbook, and the word "primary" itself means that these five criteria take automatic precedence and are to be both the focal point of data analysis by the committee and distinct from the secondary criteria. These matters of definition are cut-and-dried.

Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 09:57:50 PMBut is it the LETTER or the SPIRIT that we want?

Where the letter is no longer honored, what spirit remains?

Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 09:57:50 PMIs it better to reward a team for an outstanding season in a conference where they can't pile up the SOS, or a third-place team in a conference that can pile up the SOS because of where they are?

In all honesty, I think that the answer is: c) none of the above. This takes us right back to the metanarrative, which is that a nationally-based tournament assembled by regionally-gathered data is by its very nature going to be blatantly unfair to teams that are handicapped by the NCAA's construction of its regions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 10:10:48 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:59:07 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 09:51:41 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
As an aside.....
I find the regional system kind of pointless and kind of arbitrary.  Pointless because we rank teams within a region, expecting them to play regional games.  Then when the brackets come out we send the 6 different Great Lakes regional teams to 5 different locations, none will play a regional opponent in round one.  Arbitrary because we draw lines like 200 miles and say anything over that doesn't count.  Why not 300 miles?  Arbitrary because we say administrative regions.  Why not adjacent states?  Arbitrary because games 201 miles away could possibly not count, but games 1,500 could count?  That makes no sense.

And I completely agree with this too.  I know where they were trying to go with the regional thing in the beginning...but I think it's time to step back and realize that it is now kind of silly.

Illinois Wesleyan played @ Cal Lutheran (2000+ miles away) last season -- that game was in-region.  But when the Titans play Hope (260 miles away) the next 3 seasons, those games will be out-of-region.

We need to get a point where every D3 game counts.  Schools that have the budget and institutional support to travel can travel...those that don't can stay close to home.

I think that this, as well as sac's two earlier points about the process getting better over time and the unfortunate decision by the committee not to publish the final regional rankings, falls into the category of "preaching to the choir." I mean, I'm glad for the record that the two of you have reiterated these points for everyone to read, but I doubt that there's any D3 basketball fans out there who really believe at this point that the idea of a nationally-based tournament assembled by regionally-gathered data is sound in any way, shape, or form.

But we wouldn't need to go completely national to make the system better. I think the regional criteria could stand to be expanded so that more (very reasonable) games should be counted. There's a middle ground between finding a way to get Calvin-Wheaton type games to count without necessarily having to go national. I think it's likely that this could happen (adjacent states, or whatnot).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 10:11:17 PM
Again, to go back to what TQ was saying, if you apply interpretation and nuance to the primary criteria and get no result, then you move to the secondary. That's what I was trying to say too, as well as stick up for the little guy and remind folks that not everyone can stack their schedules.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 10:12:32 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 10:10:48 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:59:07 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 09:51:41 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
As an aside.....
I find the regional system kind of pointless and kind of arbitrary.  Pointless because we rank teams within a region, expecting them to play regional games.  Then when the brackets come out we send the 6 different Great Lakes regional teams to 5 different locations, none will play a regional opponent in round one.  Arbitrary because we draw lines like 200 miles and say anything over that doesn't count.  Why not 300 miles?  Arbitrary because we say administrative regions.  Why not adjacent states?  Arbitrary because games 201 miles away could possibly not count, but games 1,500 could count?  That makes no sense.

And I completely agree with this too.  I know where they were trying to go with the regional thing in the beginning...but I think it's time to step back and realize that it is now kind of silly.

Illinois Wesleyan played @ Cal Lutheran (2000+ miles away) last season -- that game was in-region.  But when the Titans play Hope (260 miles away) the next 3 seasons, those games will be out-of-region.

We need to get a point where every D3 game counts.  Schools that have the budget and institutional support to travel can travel...those that don't can stay close to home.

I think that this, as well as sac's two earlier points about the process getting better over time and the unfortunate decision by the committee not to publish the final regional rankings, falls into the category of "preaching to the choir." I mean, I'm glad for the record that the two of you have reiterated these points for everyone to read, but I doubt that there's any D3 basketball fans out there who really believe at this point that the idea of a nationally-based tournament assembled by regionally-gathered data is sound in any way, shape, or form.

But we wouldn't need to go completely national to make the system better. I think the regional criteria could stand to be expanded so that more (very reasonable) games should be counted. There's a middle ground between finding a way to get Calvin-Wheaton type games to count without necessarily having to go national. I think it's likely that this could happen (adjacent states, or whatnot).

How does that help the D-3 teams on islands? How does that help a Birmingham Southern or Colorado College or teams in the ASC where they have little opportunity to play outside of their league?

Again, not everyone can just be flip and schedule SOS padding games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 10:15:26 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 10:12:32 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 10:10:48 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:59:07 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 09:51:41 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
As an aside.....
I find the regional system kind of pointless and kind of arbitrary.  Pointless because we rank teams within a region, expecting them to play regional games.  Then when the brackets come out we send the 6 different Great Lakes regional teams to 5 different locations, none will play a regional opponent in round one.  Arbitrary because we draw lines like 200 miles and say anything over that doesn't count.  Why not 300 miles?  Arbitrary because we say administrative regions.  Why not adjacent states?  Arbitrary because games 201 miles away could possibly not count, but games 1,500 could count?  That makes no sense.

And I completely agree with this too.  I know where they were trying to go with the regional thing in the beginning...but I think it's time to step back and realize that it is now kind of silly.

Illinois Wesleyan played @ Cal Lutheran (2000+ miles away) last season -- that game was in-region.  But when the Titans play Hope (260 miles away) the next 3 seasons, those games will be out-of-region.

We need to get a point where every D3 game counts.  Schools that have the budget and institutional support to travel can travel...those that don't can stay close to home.

I think that this, as well as sac's two earlier points about the process getting better over time and the unfortunate decision by the committee not to publish the final regional rankings, falls into the category of "preaching to the choir." I mean, I'm glad for the record that the two of you have reiterated these points for everyone to read, but I doubt that there's any D3 basketball fans out there who really believe at this point that the idea of a nationally-based tournament assembled by regionally-gathered data is sound in any way, shape, or form.

But we wouldn't need to go completely national to make the system better. I think the regional criteria could stand to be expanded so that more (very reasonable) games should be counted. There's a middle ground between finding a way to get Calvin-Wheaton type games to count without necessarily having to go national. I think it's likely that this could happen (adjacent states, or whatnot).

How does that help the D-3 teams on islands? How does that help a Birmingham Southern or Colorado College or teams in the ASC where they have little opportunity to play outside of their league?

Again, not everyone can just be flip and schedule SOS padding games.

It wouldn't necessarily help everyone, but it wouldn't hurt them either, would it? Why shouldn't we make improvements to the system if we can't get a perfect system.

And I don't understand your continual point that an adjustment for geographical limitations couldn't be applied to a one-number system.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 10:18:57 PM
We should make improvements, but the regional system can be just jettisoned and that'll be a big improvement.

Who makes determination of the adjustments? How much data do you use? What happens if your assumptions prove faulty as the year goes on? It's why they have multiple criteria for consideration. Again, I love numbers and number crunching but they're tools.

I'd rather have the committee take a chance than play it safe. That's just me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 10:18:57 PM
We should make improvements, but the regional system can be just jettisoned and that'll be a big improvement.

Who makes determination of the adjustments? How much data do you use? What happens if your assumptions prove faulty as the year goes on?

Who decides what the criteria is now? Who decided to use a 1.25/0.75 home/away weighting? The currently have numbers that the championship committee has decided upon. It would take that committee consulting with several groups of smart people to come up with good numbers.

I'm sure the NCAA has years and years worth of D3 data available. You would obviously test any system multiple times to be sure that it selected an agreeable field every time.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 10:24:31 PM
You will never get an 'agreeable' field. Someone will always kvetch that it was stacked against them. Plus I think the 'island' or 'travel budget' data is a lot more subjective than the home / road where there's more tangible results.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 10:25:59 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 10:00:47 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 09:44:28 PM
You and Matt already had this discussion, so I don't see any need for me to rehash it -- especially since he's more than capable of articulating his own position. ;) My concern isn't with the mixing-in of the secondary criteria per se as a functional tool for separating out teams, as much as it is with the fact that it violates the rules in the handbook under which the committee is supposed to operate. That's why I call it "willy-nilly" ... it's as if the committee has a prearranged agreement to abide by the rules for the first fourteen rounds of the Pool C selection process, and to then throw the handbook into the trashcan for the final five rounds.

So let me clarify what I was told.  It was basically that at some point in the process every year, the committee gets to this point (handbook quote)...

"If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."

On average, that tends to be with about 4-5 selections left to make.

I just don't see anything willy-nilly about the fact that the process gets extremely difficult late, and that at some point, the committee benefits from considering more data.

There's nothing willy-nilly about that at all. That's the way that the system was designed to work, as spelled out in the handbook.

But here's what you originally said:

Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:04:59 PM
I'm told the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so.

The implication here is that the committee is automatically moving into the secondary criteria in those final five rounds, as part of its normal deliberative process. At least, that's how everyone seems to have inferred what you said. And my complaint is that, by making it a prearranged part of the process, for however many iterations -- be it four rounds, five rounds, ten rounds, nineteen rounds, it doesn't matter -- the committee has compromised the distinction between the terms "primary" and "secondary" by enfolding all games played under the rubric of "primary criteria." In other words, it completely does away with the distinction between "primary" and "secondary" if you know ahead of time that you're going to use the secondary criteria.

Now, if that's not what you meant at all; if what you really meant was something more along the lines of what smeds said:

Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 10:11:17 PM
Again, to go back to what TQ was saying, if you apply interpretation and nuance to the primary criteria and get no result, then you move to the secondary.

... then there's no problem here. Because, as you can see, smeds applies both chronology and contingency to the process. It's chronological, because you go first to primary, and only afterwards to secondary. And it's contingent, because of the words "and get no result." If you do get a result, then you don't have to move on to the secondary criteria at all.

Now, if what you actually meant when you said this:

Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:04:59 PM
I'm told the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so.

... was something along the lines of, "I'm told that the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so, not as a rule but because the teams are so tightly bunched together at that point that you're never able to pry them apart using only the primary criteria, so you're forced almost as a habit to go to the secondary criteria," then I don't think we have a problem with how the committee operates. But I didn't get that perception from your original post ... and, not to speak for the Dean of KnightSlappy U., but I don't think that he read it that way, either.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 10:27:34 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 10:24:31 PM
You will never get an 'agreeable' field. Someone will always kvetch.

But then, at least, we'd have the discussion narrowed down to how much to weigh each of the criteria, not about whether or not we're applying the criteria, as written, fairly across the nation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 10:31:22 PM
... and just to keep things friendly, I'm not trying to attack anyone individually or as a group, I just am really interested and passionate about this type of stuff...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 10:32:33 PM
I think we all are. It's as if we should be in an establishment with beverages and our laptops accessing data, making sure that the beverages did not spill on the laptops.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 10:33:44 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 10:32:33 PM
I think we all are. It's as if we should be in an establishment with beverages and our laptops accessing data, making sure that the beverages did not spill on the laptops.

because that would ruin the beverage and ruin the laptop :/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 10:35:33 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2012, 10:25:59 PM
Now, if what you actually meant when you said this:

Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2012, 01:04:59 PM
I'm told the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so.

... was something along the lines of, "I'm told that the committee looks for secondary criteria for every team in those final 5 rounds or so, not as a rule but because the teams are so tightly bunched together at that point that you're never able to pry them apart using only the primary criteria, so you're forced almost as a habit to go to the secondary criteria," then I don't think we have a problem with how the committee operates. But I didn't get that perception from your original post ... and, not to speak for the Dean of KnightSlappy U., but I don't think that he read it that way, either.

This reflects exactly what I was told by a recent committee member.  I should have said that more carefully knowing the passion around this conversation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 10:43:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2012, 09:57:50 PM
There obviously was nuance and interpretation, otherwise we wouldn't be spewing bandwidth. There's ALWAYS nuance and interpretation of primary and secondary criteria. It's obvious the handbook in football wasn't followed to the letter, and now here as well.

There's no need to interpret something that has been clearly defined. Let's clearly define what we want the criteria to be, so that it's not left in the hands of coaches and AD's who've clearly not read the handbook.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 28, 2012, 10:46:15 PM
I really liked what Dave McHugh said about transparency regarding the process at the end of Hoopsville. It is still baffling to me that they are witholding the final regionsal rankings despite releasing them in previous years and the handbook saying that they should be released.  If everything was carried out properly, why not just release them?  It makes you think that there may be a mistake or something that they dont want to admit to.  Not saying this is true, just that the fact that they are witholding the final rankings makes you think that there may be a reason for it.

To carry on the theme of transparency, why not also release the justification for the home/away SOS weight factors?  If those factors (0.75/1.25) are really well thought out and justified, why not just provide the justification to be as transparent and upfront as possible?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2012, 10:53:06 PM
I forgot about a blog post I wrote in the summer about a one-number system.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/07/baseball-writers-mark-simon-and-tom.html

pretty much the same things I've already said here.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 28, 2012, 11:47:39 PM
In a system where teams don't play a national schedule, perhaps we're using too much objective criteria for determining national at-large bids.  We need people who will actually take the time to watch Illinois Wesleyan, WPI and Birmingham Southern.  Who would beat who rather than who could schedule better. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 12:21:17 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2012, 09:51:41 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2012, 09:26:43 PM
As an aside.....
I find the regional system kind of pointless and kind of arbitrary.  Pointless because we rank teams within a region, expecting them to play regional games.  Then when the brackets come out we send the 6 different Great Lakes regional teams to 5 different locations, none will play a regional opponent in round one.  Arbitrary because we draw lines like 200 miles and say anything over that doesn't count.  Why not 300 miles?  Arbitrary because we say administrative regions.  Why not adjacent states?  Arbitrary because games 201 miles away could possibly not count, but games 1,500 could count?  That makes no sense.

And I completely agree with this too.  I know where they were trying to go with the regional thing in the beginning...but I think it's time to step back and realize that it is now kind of silly.

Illinois Wesleyan played @ Cal Lutheran (2000+ miles away) last season -- that game was in-region.  But when the Titans play Hope (260 miles away) the next 3 seasons, those games will be out-of-region.

We need to get a point where every D3 game counts.  Schools that have the budget and institutional support to travel can travel...those that don't can stay close to home.
We could see a point where a game is not played because it would be in-region.

This is especially the case in baseball.  The New Jersey teams go to southern California for spring training. Other cold weather teams do spring training trips to non-region locales such as IWU's annual trip to Mississippi in March.  MIssissippi College and Millsaps are already 15-20 games into the season when IWU comes south in mid March.

I can only think of one more modification to the rules defining "in-region" that needs to be made to handle the special cases.  Others have mentioned it, but the adjacent state modification should be adopted.  These would be those cases where the 200-mile radius rule does not benefit those schools who want to access the schools in adjacent Administrative Regions.

New York picks up Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey.

Michigan picks up Wisconsin and Illinois.

Pennsylvania would pick up Maryland and Ohio.  That may not impact that many schools, but it might help in selected cases.

Illinois getting Indiana might help in baseball.

Okay, as I caught up, I saw the adjacent states comment by KnightSlappy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 12:34:42 AM
What will replace the Regional Evaluation committees which send the committee chair to the national committee?

You have to delegate the evaluation work to knowledgeable people who "know the landscape"  "in the region where they live and compete". The process is either semantically what we have now or it will be a handful of people in sitting in Indianapolis divvying out the bids.

"Regional" everything defines D-III (and D-II for that matter).  We did not even get rid of the Region concept in the D-III/D-IV debates back in 2006-07.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:07:19 AM
Something that I know most of you know, but may be worth reminding people... this regional set-up is not going away any time soon.

Why? Because this isn't just a basketball issue. Division III has mandated a regional mentality when it comes to not only ranking and selecting teams, but in scheduling (if they didn't care about teams traveling around the country, they wouldn't have regional criteria - they want teams to stay a bit more at "home" for whatever their reasons are - i think of many).

If the decision to abandon regional criteria and go with a national scope is made... it has to be made with every since Division III sport sponsored by the NCAA, not just basketball.. not just football... every sport. I just don't see that happening in a division that prides itself more about the student then making sure their teams are playing the very best at their best in the national spotlight - that's Division I.

The system has come a LONG way since the days of the Old Boys Network (my alma mater fell prey to that system). We have also come a long way since they started putting what we have in place now... into effect. I am not defending the committee, but I do know they work hard and I know a few of them personally and they bleed as much D3 blood as the rest of us... so they aren't going to steer wrong... and they aren't going to circumvent the rules... and they aren't going to do whatever they want, "willy-nilly" to do their job.

Did this year's bracket not live up to last years? Probably in some areas like a lot of regional teams playing one another when in the last two years we saw less of that. But it also has some more creativeness like the Texas pod... the CMS pod... etc. As Pat and I said, we are probably nit-picking details here because we are so used to having to find fault in the system.

We will always argue that some teams should have gotten in when others shouldn't have. We will always find numbers that work in the favor of our argument. We will also always point to ways to tweak things to make them better... but please remember it will never be perfect. Even the D1's don't get it perfect in everyone's eyes and they have a more inclusive system (for some).

Also, sometimes we see changes in the brackets and such because there is always change in the committees. I know the national committee has tried hard to keep the efforts of years past moving forward, but it doesn't always work. I think we saw that the loss of two committee members this season may have played a factor - just my opinion. But we can't expect humans, like ourselves, to get it right every time. That being said, I think this year's tournament is a very good one in many, many ways.

Finally, the transparency issue seems to be an NCAA one. Every time we take a step forward... we seem to take one backwards later on. I am working to figure out what happened... if I do find out, I will let you know. I don't think it is the committees that are holding back the transparency... I think they understand why there should be more. Why we have lost some of that this year is something we need to get to the bottom of, to be honest.

And some food for thought... if we went to a national scope and got rid of regional criteria... we would never have regional rankings to talk about or project based on... we would have nothing. Remember, there really isn't anything the NCAA produces for D1 in the weeks leading up to their tournament selections. We might actually be in a situation of LESS information.

Thanks for reading... I will head to bed now! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 01:18:08 AM
+1! Dave!  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 08:43:33 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:07:19 AM
If the decision to abandon regional criteria and go with a national scope is made... it has to be made with every since Division III sport sponsored by the NCAA, not just basketball.. not just football... every sport.

While we've been squibbling in here, the NCAA has announced this very change (sort of).

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/big-changes-coming-for-division-iii.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 29, 2012, 09:13:23 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 08:43:33 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:07:19 AM
If the decision to abandon regional criteria and go with a national scope is made... it has to be made with every since Division III sport sponsored by the NCAA, not just basketball.. not just football... every sport.

While we've been squibbling in here, the NCAA has announced this very change (sort of).

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/big-changes-coming-for-division-iii.html

Wow, that is huge and I fully support the decision.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 09:53:36 AM
The original article also states that the Championships Committee also considered increasing the 200-mile rule to 500 miles, but ultimately decided against that.  :'(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 29, 2012, 10:06:10 AM
Hope this passes, but sometimes these things fail at the end.

There isn't as much of a need for a 200-mile rule or a 500-mile rule if we do get to count all D3 games as part of the primary criteria. I would have preferred to see D2's "adjacent states" rule but I wonder if, if this passes, 200-300-500 miles becomes less important.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 29, 2012, 10:07:17 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 09:53:36 AM
The original article also states that the Championships Committee also considered increasing the 200-mile rule to 500 miles, but ultimately decided against that.  :'(

This would have been a massive help to a number of schools.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 29, 2012, 10:09:51 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 09:53:36 AM
The original article also states that the Championships Committee also considered increasing the 200-mile rule to 500 miles, but ultimately decided against that.  :'(

My disappointment in that is minimized by the decision to include all d3 games in the primary criteria. The 70% in-region games mandate acts as a tether to keep the d3 philosophy intact without brick-walling certain things that seem reasonable, i.e. a Calvin-Wheaton game should count for more than secondary criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 29, 2012, 10:10:32 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 29, 2012, 10:06:10 AM
Hope this passes, but sometimes these things fail at the end.

There isn't as much of a need for a 200-mile rule or a 500-mile rule if we do get to count all D3 games as part of the primary criteria. I would have preferred to see D2's "adjacent states" rule but I wonder if, if this passes, 200-300-500 miles becomes less important.

I'm reading this potential change as you have to play 70% of your schedule using the "in-region" definition, but all D3 games will count in the primary criteria.  So the 200 mile rule is still very much needed.

So even if you play a D3 team out of region, it doesn't count towards your 70% target.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 29, 2012, 10:14:23 AM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 10:10:32 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 29, 2012, 10:06:10 AM
Hope this passes, but sometimes these things fail at the end.

There isn't as much of a need for a 200-mile rule or a 500-mile rule if we do get to count all D3 games as part of the primary criteria. I would have preferred to see D2's "adjacent states" rule but I wonder if, if this passes, 200-300-500 miles becomes less important.

I'm reading this potential change as you have to play 70% of your schedule using the "in-region" definition, but all D3 games will count in the primary criteria.  So the 200 mile rule is still very much needed.

So even if you play a D3 team out of region, it doesn't count towards your 70% target.

It's needed to define the area from which 70% of a team's games come from but not in limiting a team's tournament resume. 30% of a 26-game schedule leaves 7.8 games to play out of region games. That doesn't seem overly restrictive for anyone. MIAA play alone takes those teams up to 53.8%.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 29, 2012, 10:22:11 AM
What the heck does Nebraska Wesleyan do now?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 29, 2012, 10:23:10 AM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 10:22:11 AM
What the heck does Nebraska Wesleyan do now?

Perhaps they can continue to seek waivers, as they have when they didn't meet the 50% criteria either.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 29, 2012, 10:28:25 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 29, 2012, 10:23:10 AM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 10:22:11 AM
What the heck does Nebraska Wesleyan do now?

Perhaps they can continue to seek waivers, as they have when they didn't meet the 50% criteria either.

Plus, they already have a de facto 500-mile rule based on their location within Administrative Region Four. Lincoln to Chicago is 524 miles but in-region. Sweep that arc across the map and I don't believe you'll find a d3 school within 500 miles of Lincoln that isn't in-region based on admin region four.

That's an institutional problem, not an NCAA problem.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 10:34:41 AM
Quote from: ziggy on February 29, 2012, 10:28:25 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 29, 2012, 10:23:10 AM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 10:22:11 AM
What the heck does Nebraska Wesleyan do now?

Perhaps they can continue to seek waivers, as they have when they didn't meet the 50% criteria either.

Plus, they already have a de facto 500-mile rule based on their location within Administrative Region Four. Lincoln to Chicago is 524 miles but in-region. Sweep that arc across the map and I don't believe you'll find a d3 school within 500 miles of Lincoln that isn't in-region based on admin region four.

That's an institutional problem, not an NCAA problem.

Maybe they need to consider whether or not D3 is where they want to be. I think they need to either join a D3 conference (not easy, since apparently they want into the IIAC, but the IIAC doesn't want them), become a D3 independent and commit financially to what that means, convince some of their friends to join D3, or just go with NAIA.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 29, 2012, 10:40:52 AM
At one point, one of the GPAC teams was on the list of schools exploring D-III status, but they did not continue into provisional status.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 11:33:44 AM
I actually was talking to someone today and this development was brought up, not because of this article, because neither of us had seen this. The person stated he had pushed for this exact model (though, he said 80% off the cuff, not sure if that was his number) and I liked it.

Basically, they are saying here that a team still has to be play a good majority of their games as "in-region" under the current criteria... but that any game they play can be considered when looking at a team's "resume." Personally, 70% seems a bit low (18 out of 26). I think maybe 75% or so... just because that means a team in a conference with a basic round-robin could play 6 teams anywhere in the country... that seems a bit high to me.

Now, a team like Nebraska Wesleyan could go for the waiver which is pretty much allowed every year, anyway. And to answer the question about what they want to do... from everything I have gathered this year, including from former coaches, they want to be D3 and have no intention of being NAIA or anything else.

Now, it does have to be passed... and the person I talked to wasn't sure if it was being taken seriously (again, before this article was produced). That being said, this is a move in a good direction... but man will it make it tough for regional rankings, in my opinion. What this will do with how teams are "slotted" could be very interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 11:45:37 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 11:33:44 AM
Now, a team like Nebraska Wesleyan could go for the waiver which is pretty much allowed every year, anyway. And to answer the question about what they want to do... from everything I have gathered this year, including from former coaches, they want to be D3 and have no intention of being NAIA or anything else.

But they have a foot on both sides of the fence playing in an NAIA conference (and even declaring for NAIA this season). I know it's "tough" for them, but are you really committed to being D3 if you're doing this while only playing 8 D3 games in a year?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 11:50:03 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 11:33:44 AM
this is a move in a good direction... but man will it make it tough for regional rankings, in my opinion. What this will do with how teams are "slotted" could be very interesting.

But in some ways it will make it easier. I don't think secondary criteria will necessarily need to be used as often, because that sounds like it will be mostly non-D3 game. I think the committee really likes secondary now, because it contains D3 games, which they (rightly) see as very valuable to selection. NAIA or D2? Probably not as much.

It also takes away the chance that two teams (say, Calvin and Hope) could have identical schedules, but different games be counted differently (say, Wheaton being in-region for Hope and not for Calvin).

I actually think it will make the regional rankings easier.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 12:05:47 PM
I think it will make regional rankings harder because a regional committee will have to weigh the schedule of a team playing games maybe on the other side of the country, against teams committee members may not be as familiar about as they are their own regional teams... that is how it could be harder.

And Nebraska Wesleyan plays the NAIA teams out of necessity. They have tried to get into a few conferences in D3 and been rejected. Personally, I think the SCAC might be a good fit (since they already have Colorado College in their mix), but I am not absolutely sure it is an option. Nebraska Wesleyan is trying to make D3 work... but until a conference accepts them... it will always be difficult.

Also remember, NAIA means scholarships... and that means an increase to their athletics budget... another challenge.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 12:11:08 PM
18 games out of 26 is really hard for Rust, and maybe Huntingdon next season, after the GSAC.  UC Santa Cruz and a few of the orphans ("orphans" because most teams have not tried to be "independent") may be in the same boat.

Aside from Calvin, which is in the isolated portion of the US called Michigan, specifically what other teams, outside the peculiar CCIW-MIAA debates, have had trouble with getting "in-region" games.

Please!  I will apprecate specific examples that are not already considered.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 12:17:01 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 12:11:08 PM
18 games out of 26 is really hard for Rust, and maybe Huntingdon next season, after the GSAC.  UC Santa Cruz and a few of the orphans ("orphans" because most teams have not tried to be "independent") may be in the same boat.

Teams with fewer than 18 regional games this year:

5    Nebraska Wesleyan
7    Maine-Presque Isle
9    UC Santa Cruz
14   Finlandia
15   Rust
16   Greenville
16   North Central (Minn.)
16   Chapman
16   Linfield
17   Presentation
17   St. Josephs (Bklyn.)
17   Calvin
17   Olivet
17   Occidental
17   Maranatha Baptist


and, just for fun, those with 18 or 19 regional games.

18   Hope
18   Principia
18   Colorado College
18   Piedmont
18   Adrian
18   George Fox
18   Pacific
18   Lewis and Clark
18   Willamette
18   Carthage
19   Gallaudet
19   Minnesota-Morris
19   Goucher
19   Caltech
19   Alma
19   Berry
19   Whittier
19   La Verne
19   Averett
19   Cal Lutheran
19   North Carolina Wesleyan
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 12:20:24 PM
Looks like: Michigan, Pacific Northwest, California, independents, BFE Minnesota, and the GSAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 12:55:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 29, 2012, 10:40:52 AM
At one point, one of the GPAC teams was on the list of schools exploring D-III status, but they did not continue into provisional status.

IIRC, Pat, there were three GPAC schools that were in the D3 exploratory phase a couple of years ago: Doane, Hastings, and Concordia (NE). As you indicated, none of them opted to take the next step into D3 provisional status.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 12:05:47 PMAnd Nebraska Wesleyan plays the NAIA teams out of necessity. They have tried to get into a few conferences in D3 and been rejected. Personally, I think the SCAC might be a good fit (since they already have Colorado College in their mix), but I am not absolutely sure it is an option. Nebraska Wesleyan is trying to make D3 work... but until a conference accepts them... it will always be difficult.

Also remember, NAIA means scholarships... and that means an increase to their athletics budget... another challenge.

D-Mac, NWU has been a dual member of D3 and the NAIA since the inception of D3 back in the mid-'70s. It has always declared at the start of the school year for the D3 men's basketball tournament, and has thus applied for (and received) the waiver ever since the 50%-regional-games rule was put into place. This may be the first season that NWU has declared instead for the NAIA tourney; if it isn't, it's still a relatively new development.

Throughout its stint as a D3 member, NWU has played in an NAIA-affiliated league. It used to be called the NIAC (Nebraska Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, then Nebraska-Iowa Athletic Conference), now it's called the GPAC (Great Plains Athletic Conference). Thus, Nebraska Wesleyan has been in a situation for close to four decades now in which it is the only member of its league that cannot grant athletic scholarships.

This has not impeded NWU one bit. If you go to the GPAC website and look at the list of all-sports rankings, you'll see that NWU has been the dominant school in the GPAC for many years now. It's won more all-sports trophies than any other GPAC school, and it almost always finishes in the top three or four of the league in the all-sports categories. Furthermore, NWU's history in the D3 men's basketball tournament is a storied one; the Prairie Wolves (formerly the Plainsmen) have a 24-16 all-time record in D3 tourney play, and have reached four Final Fours. Although the program has been down in recent years, in seasons past NWU always came into the D3 tournament sporting a very good record, mostly accumulated against NAIA schools.

In short, Nebraska Wesleyan's status as the only school in its league that can't give out athletic scholarships is of relatively little importance. This points to the fact that NAIA Division Two is largely analogous to D3 in terms of its level of competition (as we all know from following how the two divisions have fared against each other on the basketball court over the past decade, via the D3 vs. D1, D2, NAIA, Etc. room). Most NAIA-2 schools give out very minimal athletic scholarship money, if they give out any at all (many of them don't). They're allowed six scholarships for men's basketball, and it's my impression that most NAIA-2 head coaches divide up that money between all of their players, not just six of them. And at many schools, those six scholies aren't fully funded to begin with; they're only partial. I can recall an athlete from one of the Chicagoland Collegiate Athletic Conference's NAIA-2 schools telling me that he got $600 a year from his athletic scholarship, and that this was pretty typical. That's a paltry sum in light of what a student's tuition and room-and-board costs are at an NAIA school. The scholarship is thus more of a prestige item ("Yeah, I'm going to school on a basketball scholarship ... check me out, bro." ;)) than a practical source of financial support.

Bottom line: NWU's status as the lone D3 outfit in the GPAC (and in the NIAC before it) hasn't hurt the school's ability to compete in that league one single bit. NWU has no need to drop its D3 status and start handing out scholies.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PM
Greg - not saying they need to start handing them out... just stating that it becomes a strong option due to the fact that D3 doesn't hold them back. Just an observation... don't parsec it otherwise :).

But I do point out that I have had two guests on Hoopsville this season alone that have been former coaches at NWU that have stated they have made efforts to join a D3 conference and been denied. I believe that NWU wants to get out of the NAIA league and be a full member of D3... and the SCAC seems to make sense to me.

As for teams with low levels of regional games... Maine-Presque Isle is in a similar boat as NWU... they would probably apply for a waiver.

Also, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 01:54:36 PM
I think we need to keep welcoming Nebraska Wesleyan with open arms and not be elitist about it and 'force' them to make a decision.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 02:32:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PMBut I do point out that I have had two guests on Hoopsville this season alone that have been former coaches at NWU that have stated they have made efforts to join a D3 conference and been denied.

Yes, I know. NWU's been trying for years to get into a D3 league. It's not a new development. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the D3 exploratory phase that Concordia (NE), Hastings, and Doane underwent a couple of years ago came with a nudge from their friends at NWU.

Quote from: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 01:54:36 PM
I think we need to keep welcoming Nebraska Wesleyan with open arms and not be elitist about it and 'force' them to make a decision.

I agree. NWU is a charter member of D3, and I think that the perseverance for so many years of a school that faces such steep challenges in terms of scheduling D3 foes should count for something in the eyes of the NCAA. Plus, the fact that NWU doesn't fly all over the country in order to try to make its sports schedules work for in-region purposes is actually a tribute to the keep-the-kids-local-so-that-they-don't-miss-class ethos that lies behind D3's accent upon regional play.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PMAs for teams with low levels of regional games... Maine-Presque Isle is in a similar boat as NWU... they would probably apply for a waiver.

UMPI should always be given a waiver for winter sports, with no questions asked. For that school, it's not simply a matter of distance; it's also a matter of extremely difficult annual winter weather conditions and limited highway access.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PMAlso, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.

Try posting that in the MIAA room, D-Mac. They just love it in there when someone brings up the ol' "why can't Hope schedule more D3 games?" question. ;)

Most of the schools on the list posted by the Dean of KnightSlappy U. are geographical outliers that have legitimate reasons to ask for the annual waiver, but some have even less tenable reasons for not scheduling more games against in-region D3 competition than does Hope. Greenville, for example, is the lone holdout that still clings to the old SLIAC tradition of scheduling non-con games against ridiculous local competition such as Lincoln Chiropractic, St. Louis Pharmacy, St. Louis Christian, and Concordia (MO) (which isn't an undergraduate school at all; it's a postgraduate seminary). Greenville's fellow SLIAC offender Principia simply chooses to schedule lots of NAIA competition for reasons that escape me. Southern Illlinois and eastern Missouri are not loaded with local D3 competition, but it's not impossibly difficult to schedule D3 in-region non-con games if you're a SLIAC coach.

North Central (MN) is an independent, which means that the Rams have difficulty getting MIAC, WIAC, and UMAC teams to play them once the calendar turns over. St. Joe's of Brooklyn has a similar problem, although the plenitude of D3 schools in the greater NYC area makes it a little easier for the Bears to find D3 games in January and February. Maranatha Baptist really doesn't have a good excuse; it seems to play most or all of its non-con games against Bible schools every year rather than local D3 competition. (This is true in other sports as well.) It's not that hard for a team in central Wisconsin to find D3 games outside the circuit. I don't think that Maranatha schedules Bible schools for easy wins; I think it's more of an institutional kinship thing. Maranatha always strikes me as a school that values its NCCAA membership a lot more than it does its NCAA D3 membership.

Carthage is on the list because Bosko Djurickovic doesn't like to schedule. It's his least-favorite part of the job. Getting him to work on his team's schedule is like getting a kid to go to the dentist. Unfortunately, I think that his team suffers for it, because Carthage always seems to be hurting for in-region games.

I think that Goucher's presence on the list is just a single-season anomaly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 02:37:18 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 01:54:36 PM
I think we need to keep welcoming Nebraska Wesleyan with open arms and not be elitist about it and 'force' them to make a decision.

I don't mean to say they need to make a decision to abandon D3 altogether, but there's no way they can be selected to the postseason with only five D3 games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 02:42:59 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PM
Also, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.

But even you can admit it's ridiculous that five of the closest twelve (non-conference) D3 schools are out-of-region for Calvin.

Going out to 300 miles, Calvin could find 17 in-region games, and 13 out-of-region games. Only 57% of the closest 30 schools are in-region!

Only two non-con GL region teams are within 250 miles (but 13 MW region schools are).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PM
Greg - not saying they need to start handing them out... just stating that it becomes a strong option due to the fact that D3 doesn't hold them back. Just an observation... don't parsec it otherwise :).

But I do point out that I have had two guests on Hoopsville this season alone that have been former coaches at NWU that have stated they have made efforts to join a D3 conference and been denied. I believe that NWU wants to get out of the NAIA league and be a full member of D3... and the SCAC seems to make sense to me.
As for teams with low levels of regional games... Maine-Presque Isle is in a similar boat as NWU... they would probably apply for a waiver.

Also, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.
Respectfully, the SCAC is quaickly coming around to a nice "compact" conference.

I am waiting for Colorado College finally to move to D-II. They will have home for their scholarship men's hockey and really cut down their travel. CC has the block system where students only study one course at a time.  Travel had to be a real problem to Danville KY and Conway Arkansas.

The only thing that the SCAC needs after CC leaves will be for LeTourneau (whom may observers wondered if they did not get "feelers" to join).

Travel partners could be:

Trinity - Texas Lutheran  -- 40 miles apart
Southwestern - Schreiiner -- 90 miles apart and no traffic
UDallas - Austin College -- 60 miles apart
Centernary -LeTourneau -- 60 miles apart.

Football will take care of itself. The rest of the athletic programs will greatly benefit by many fewer nights on the road, if they decide to go with a Thursday/Friday or a Friday/Saturday format from the current formats in the ASC and the SCAC.

Nebraska Wesleyan just is not a match, unless they and Colorado College bring Football teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 02:46:03 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 02:42:59 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PM
Also, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.

But even you can admit it's ridiculous that five of the closest twelve (non-conference) D3 schools are out-of-region for Calvin.

Going out to 300 miles, Calvin could find 17 in-region games, and 13 out-of-region games. Only 57% of the closest 30 schools are in-region!

Only two non-con GL region teams are within 250 miles (but 13 MW region schools are).
... which brings us back to the "adjacent state" solution as we have in D-II.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 02:48:48 PM
Ralph, I thought that Concordia of Austin was the next ASC school in line to get poached by invited into the SCAC, not LeTourneau? ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 29, 2012, 02:49:50 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 02:32:53 PMMaranatha Baptist really doesn't have a good excuse; it seems to play most or all of its non-con games against Bible schools every year rather than local D3 competition. (This is true in other sports as well.) It's not that hard for a team in central Wisconsin to find D3 games outside the circuit. I don't think that Maranatha schedules Bible schools for easy wins; I think it's more of an institutional kinship thing. Maranatha always strikes me as a school that values its NCCAA membership a lot more than it does its NCAA D3 membership.
I can give you an answer on Maranatha Baptist. They have no interest in trying to qualify for the NCAA Tournament.

Their main focus is the NCCAA Tournament. Their membership in the NCAA is mostly a matter of scheduling convenience and travel cost savings. In order to be elgible for the NCCAA Tournament they have to play a certain number of games against Christian schools so that eats up their non-conference schedule. By being in the NCAA and the NathCon, they get an automatic 16 games scheduled per year, which are generally close and tougher competition than they face from many Christian schools. In fact, in the NCCAA power rating systems, they get credit just for playing D-III's even if they don't beat them. It's often why MBBC can be 10-16 overall and end up a #3 seed at the NCCAA Tournament.

Easier scheduling, less travel money spent, competition which makes them better, accumulate a resume toward the NCCAA Tournament. So win-win-win all the way around for MBBC. If someday they actually won the NathCon Tournament, I'm not sure what they'd do. They might actually decline the bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 02:54:05 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 02:48:48 PM
Ralph, I thought that Concordia of Austin was the next ASC school in line to get poached by invited into the SCAC, not LeTourneau? ;)
CTx might jump if they were asked.  I think that LeTU was only the early list...no sources from anyone that people might assume from me tho'.

The break-up of the ASC into a more manageable size may help this part of the country.

I think that CTX is more likely to add football than LeTU.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 29, 2012, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 29, 2012, 02:49:50 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 02:32:53 PMMaranatha Baptist really doesn't have a good excuse; it seems to play most or all of its non-con games against Bible schools every year rather than local D3 competition. (This is true in other sports as well.) It's not that hard for a team in central Wisconsin to find D3 games outside the circuit. I don't think that Maranatha schedules Bible schools for easy wins; I think it's more of an institutional kinship thing. Maranatha always strikes me as a school that values its NCCAA membership a lot more than it does its NCAA D3 membership.
I can give you an answer on Maranatha Baptist. They have no interest in trying to qualify for the NCAA Tournament.

Their main focus is the NCCAA Tournament. Their membership in the NCAA is mostly a matter of scheduling convenience and travel cost savings. In order to be elgible for the NCCAA Tournament they have to play a certain number of games against Christian schools so that eats up their non-conference schedule. By being in the NCAA and the NathCon, they get an automatic 16 games scheduled per year, which are generally close and tougher competition than they face from many Christian schools. In fact, in the NCCAA power rating systems, they get credit just for playing D-III's even if they don't beat them. It's often why MBBC can be 10-16 overall and end up a #3 seed at the NCCAA Tournament.

Easier scheduling, less travel money spent, competition which makes them better, accumulate a resume toward the NCCAA Tournament. So win-win-win all the way around for MBBC. If someday they actually won the NathCon Tournament, I'm not sure what they'd do. They might actually decline the bid.

They'd have to make the decision before that. Their NCCAA regional tournament was Thu-Sat this past weekend. The NAthCon semifinals would conflict with it. Every year I wonder what they would do if they qualified for the NAthCon Tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 03:05:20 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 29, 2012, 02:49:50 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 02:32:53 PMMaranatha Baptist really doesn't have a good excuse; it seems to play most or all of its non-con games against Bible schools every year rather than local D3 competition. (This is true in other sports as well.) It's not that hard for a team in central Wisconsin to find D3 games outside the circuit. I don't think that Maranatha schedules Bible schools for easy wins; I think it's more of an institutional kinship thing. Maranatha always strikes me as a school that values its NCCAA membership a lot more than it does its NCAA D3 membership.
I can give you an answer on Maranatha Baptist. They have no interest in trying to qualify for the NCAA Tournament.

Their main focus is the NCCAA Tournament. Their membership in the NCAA is mostly a matter of scheduling convenience and travel cost savings. In order to be elgible for the NCCAA Tournament they have to play a certain number of games against Christian schools so that eats up their non-conference schedule. By being in the NCAA and the NathCon, they get an automatic 16 games scheduled per year, which are generally close and tougher competition than they face from many Christian schools. In fact, in the NCCAA power rating systems, they get credit just for playing D-III's even if they don't beat them.

Easier scheduling, less travel money spent, competition which makes them better, accumulate a resume toward the NCCAA Tournament. So win-win-win all the way around for MBBC. If someday they actually won the NathCon Tournament, I'm not sure what they'd do. They might actually decline the bid.

If Maranatha Baptist ever won the NAthCon tourney, the Crusaders wouldn't have to worry about whether or not to accept the D3 tourney bid -- because such an outcome would mean that the End Times would be upon us, and the entire team and coaching staff would have been Raptured at the final buzzer of the NAthCon championship game. ;)

Seriously, though, thanks for the 411, Bill. It appears that MBBC does indeed have a good excuse for scheduling the way it does. It's just not a good excuse as far as D3 is concerned.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 02:54:05 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 02:48:48 PM
Ralph, I thought that Concordia of Austin was the next ASC school in line to get poached by invited into the SCAC, not LeTourneau? ;)
CTx might jump if they were asked.  I think that LeTU was only the early list...no sources from anyone that people might assume from me tho'.

The break-up of the ASC into a more manageable size may help this part of the country.

I think that CTX is more likely to add football than LeTU.

That would make sense. As a Christian tech school, LeTourneau fits a pretty specific niche, and it might be hard to recruit in such high numbers as football requires, given that niche. Also, LeTourneau's small ($10m) endowment makes me wonder if the school would have a hard time meeting the start-up costs involved with creating a football program.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 29, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
By the way, using NathCon reminded me that the Northern Athletics Conference is considering changing their name to avoid confusion with the North Atlantic Conference. I'm hopeful they might just keep the full name, but adopt the term "NathCon" as an everyday use name, but I have a feeling they'll do something not as interesting and add another letter or something.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 29, 2012, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 29, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
By the way, using NathCon reminded me that the Northern Athletics Conference is considering changing their name to avoid confusion with the North Atlantic Conference. I'm hopeful they might just keep the full name, but adopt the term "NathCon" as an everyday use name, but I have a feeling they'll do something not as interesting and add another letter or something.

My favorite, NAsCon never quite stuck.  I was really pushing for it hard there at the beginning.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 29, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PM

Also, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.

Really......12 years of having their coach in an interview on your radio show answering the same  questions discussing regional games and you still just don't get it.


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 29, 2012, 03:54:23 PM
Hope was on the show answering scheduling questions in 2001? :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 03:56:06 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 29, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
By the way, using NathCon reminded me that the Northern Athletics Conference is considering changing their name to avoid confusion with the North Atlantic Conference. I'm hopeful they might just keep the full name, but adopt the term "NathCon" as an everyday use name, but I have a feeling they'll do something not as interesting and add another letter or something.
Those schools are pretty close to Lake Michigan...

How about calling themselves the "Lake Michigan Conference"?    :D ;D 8-)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 03:58:49 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 03:56:06 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 29, 2012, 03:20:19 PM
By the way, using NathCon reminded me that the Northern Athletics Conference is considering changing their name to avoid confusion with the North Atlantic Conference. I'm hopeful they might just keep the full name, but adopt the term "NathCon" as an everyday use name, but I have a feeling they'll do something not as interesting and add another letter or something.
Those schools are pretty close to Lake Michigan...

How about calling themselves the "Lake Michigan Conference"?    :D ;D 8-)

It's always thrifty to recycle. ;)

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 29, 2012, 03:54:23 PM
Hope was on the show answering scheduling questions in 2001? :)

D-Mac, they're on to you! Better hide the time machine!

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesmedia.ign.com%2Fmovies%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F107%2F1079949%2Ftime-machines-through-er-time-20100325065957774.jpg&hash=74d7e204469ecf77021864add34debf0a5a73cf9)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 04:40:27 PM
Average number of regional games:

23.4   D3 AVG
   
21.7   WE
22.9   SO
23.1   GL
23.2   MW
23.9   MA
24.2   AT
24.2   EA
24.5   NE
   
12.8   IND
18.9   MIAA
19.1   SCIAC
19.9   NWC
21.0   SLIAC
22.4   MWC
22.6   UMAC
22.7   NEAC
23.0   ASC
23.0   CCIW
23.1   ODAC
23.1   USAC
23.4   LAND
23.4   MACC
23.5   SCAC
23.6   IIAC
23.7   LL
23.7   NESCAC
23.8   CAC
23.8   PrAC
23.9   MACF
24.0   E8
24.0   NEWMAC
24.1   NATHC
24.2   AMCC
24.2   NJAC
24.2   OAC
24.2   CUNYAC
24.3   CC
24.3   NAC
24.4   UAA
24.6   NECC
24.6   WIAC
24.6   MASCAC
24.7   NCAC
24.9   SKY
25.0   CSAC
25.0   MIAC
25.1   HCAC
25.1   SUNYAC
25.1   LEC
25.2   CCC
25.9   GNAC
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 04:44:23 PM
As you can see, HCAC, NCAC, and OAC all currently schedule more regional games than the average D3 teams does. Do they have room in their schedule to accept calls from the MIAA? Do they want to drive past those other Ohio and Indiana schools to head up to Michigan with regularity?

Obviously the MIAA teams are not without blame either. Many, many of us would like to see more D3 games scheduled.

Non-Calvin or Hope MIAA teams averaged 19.3 games, with a max of 21.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2012, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 04:44:23 PM
As you can see, HCAC, NCAC, and OAC all currently schedule more regional games than the average D3 teams does. Do they have room in their schedule to accept calls from the MIAA? Do they want to drive past those other Ohio and Indiana schools to head up to Michigan with regularity?

Obviously the MIAA teams are not without blame either. Many, many of us would like to see more D3 games scheduled.

Non-Calvin or Hope MIAA teams averaged 19.3 games, with a max of 21.

I don't know if the NCAA would be willing to do 'special exceptions' (but they did regularly waive the rules for NebWes), but the simplest solution would be that MIAA games against Chicago area schools are in-region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 29, 2012, 06:07:59 PM
I wonder if anyone has considered that the whole "regional philosophy" is corrupted by allowing the UAA schools to count their conference games as in-region. (To a lesser extent the old SCAC, too.) I mean, if the NCAA is really that adamant about forcing regional competition to keep the kids close to the classroom, then why do they sanction the ridiculous (and regionally unnecessary, lots of D3 competition near each UAA member's campus) travel schedule of these 8 schools? And these particular 8 schools are all in the top 5% of D3 in terms of "need to stay close to campus for lectures and labs and study time." The UAA schools have every right to band together and form a conference and schedule however they like, but that doesn't mean that the NCAA has to bless that decision. If in-region competition really matters that much, the the UAA should not have an automatic bid.

This is not an anti-UAA rant, by the way, in case you can't tell. I love the UAA.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PM

Also, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.

Really......12 years of having their coach in an interview on your radio show answering the same  questions discussing regional games and you still just don't get it.

I had their coach on this year and asked the same question... BECAUSE the women seem to have no problems with scheduling and they are just as good as the men... so I am curious... after 12 years... why their scheduling as not improved. Now, there did seem to be signs of heading in the direction of more D3 games in the years to come... and that was great to hear.

I understand the excuse that opponents won't schedule them and won't come to Hope... but I think that just doesn't hold water when the women's team certainly seems to have less problems.

As for the Goucher scheduling... chalk that up to a trip to Puerto Rico when they played one game that could count on the schedule... and a number of "scrimmages." Not sure why... not going to figure it out... but it certainly needs to improve! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 06:56:09 PM
I do not see that the UAA is corrupting the regional philosophy. Earlier on this board, we had an exhaustive discussion about the "regional-ness" of NYU's non-conference schedule.  If they had done what they needed to do against WashU this season, then they would have been the Pool A bid from the UAA, despite going 11-0 in their region.

For me, the "glue" to D-III usually has a high percentage of UAA games in the mix.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 29, 2012, 07:06:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PM

Also, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.

Really......12 years of having their coach in an interview on your radio show answering the same  questions discussing regional games and you still just don't get it.

I had their coach on this year and asked the same question... BECAUSE the women seem to have no problems with scheduling and they are just as good as the men... so I am curious... after 12 years... why their scheduling as not improved. Now, there did seem to be signs of heading in the direction of more D3 games in the years to come... and that was great to hear.

I understand the excuse that opponents won't schedule them and won't come to Hope... but I think that just doesn't hold water when the women's team certainly seems to have less problems.

As for the Goucher scheduling... chalk that up to a trip to Puerto Rico when they played one game that could count on the schedule... and a number of "scrimmages." Not sure why... not going to figure it out... but it certainly needs to improve! :)

Do you really think scheduling men's and women's games is the same?  Does it occur to you the women have an extra 2 MIAA games built in because their half of the MIAA is one school larger.  You still don't get its an MIAA problem, not just a Hope problem.  STILL after all this time you refuse to listen to anything anybody tells you, whether its me, administrators or the coaches who have given you the same exact answers in every interview you've done.  KS just put a nice chart up there with the avg. MIAA in-region games yet you appear to have ignored it completely.


Here's some math for you..........$5, $7, $10 x 3,000+, then factor in whatever % you want for concessions.

Then again, please tell us scheduling men's and women's games for Hope is the same.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2012, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 04:44:23 PM
As you can see, HCAC, NCAC, and OAC all currently schedule more regional games than the average D3 teams does. Do they have room in their schedule to accept calls from the MIAA? Do they want to drive past those other Ohio and Indiana schools to head up to Michigan with regularity?

Obviously the MIAA teams are not without blame either. Many, many of us would like to see more D3 games scheduled.

Non-Calvin or Hope MIAA teams averaged 19.3 games, with a max of 21.

I don't know if the NCAA would be willing to do 'special exceptions' (but they did regularly waive the rules for NebWes), but the simplest solution would be that MIAA games against Chicago area schools are in-region.
I think that we had made a very strong case for D-III to adopt the "adjacent state" rule.

Where else can the NCAA find a focus group of sophisticated users than on these boards?  I think that we have fleshed out this problem very well and proposed a solution with which the NCAA is familiar.

These are systemic problems of geography.  Michigan and upstate New York have one problem. The west coast, Texas and the deep South have another one.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 07:28:38 PM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 07:06:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PM

Also, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.

Really......12 years of having their coach in an interview on your radio show answering the same  questions discussing regional games and you still just don't get it.

I had their coach on this year and asked the same question... BECAUSE the women seem to have no problems with scheduling and they are just as good as the men... so I am curious... after 12 years... why their scheduling as not improved. Now, there did seem to be signs of heading in the direction of more D3 games in the years to come... and that was great to hear.

I understand the excuse that opponents won't schedule them and won't come to Hope... but I think that just doesn't hold water when the women's team certainly seems to have less problems.

As for the Goucher scheduling... chalk that up to a trip to Puerto Rico when they played one game that could count on the schedule... and a number of "scrimmages." Not sure why... not going to figure it out... but it certainly needs to improve! :)

Do you really think scheduling men's and women's games is the same?  Does it occur to you the women have an extra 2 MIAA games built in because their half of the MIAA is one school larger.  You still don't get its an MIAA problem, not just a Hope problem.  STILL after all this time you refuse to listen to anything anybody tells you, whether its me, administrators or the coaches who have given you the same exact answers in every interview you've done.  KS just put a nice chart up there with the avg. MIAA in-region games yet you appear to have ignored it completely.


Here's some math for you..........$5, $7, $10 x 3,000+, then factor in whatever % you want for concessions.

Then again, please tell us scheduling men's and women's games for Hope is the same.

Why don't the go the home-and-home route? I don't like it when teams don't have a split of home / road unless they have special circumstances. And no, a shiny gym isn't a special circumstance. Are teams not willing to do their road half of a home-and-home?

My bile is pointed more toward the D-1 power conferences, especially in football (but basketball is almost as ridiculous) but if Hope is holding out for home games then that may be the rub.

I ask because I don't know if that's what hope is doing. But they do have extra home games this year (12 home vs. 10 road and one of those roadies was a tourney).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 07:42:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2012, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 04:44:23 PM
As you can see, HCAC, NCAC, and OAC all currently schedule more regional games than the average D3 teams does. Do they have room in their schedule to accept calls from the MIAA? Do they want to drive past those other Ohio and Indiana schools to head up to Michigan with regularity?

Obviously the MIAA teams are not without blame either. Many, many of us would like to see more D3 games scheduled.

Non-Calvin or Hope MIAA teams averaged 19.3 games, with a max of 21.

I don't know if the NCAA would be willing to do 'special exceptions' (but they did regularly waive the rules for NebWes), but the simplest solution would be that MIAA games against Chicago area schools are in-region.
I think that we had made a very strong case for D-III to adopt the "adjacent state" rule.

Where else can the NCAA find a focus group of sophisticated users than on these boards?  I think that we have fleshed out this problem very well and proposed a solution with which the NCAA is familiar.

These are systemic problems of geography.  Michigan and upstate New York have one problem. The west coast, Texas and the deep South have another one.

Illinois and Michigan aren't adjacent though, so that wouldn't help the MIAA play CCIW teams unless I read the adjacent state rule wrong.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 07:47:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 07:42:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2012, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 04:44:23 PM
As you can see, HCAC, NCAC, and OAC all currently schedule more regional games than the average D3 teams does. Do they have room in their schedule to accept calls from the MIAA? Do they want to drive past those other Ohio and Indiana schools to head up to Michigan with regularity?

Obviously the MIAA teams are not without blame either. Many, many of us would like to see more D3 games scheduled.

Non-Calvin or Hope MIAA teams averaged 19.3 games, with a max of 21.

I don't know if the NCAA would be willing to do 'special exceptions' (but they did regularly waive the rules for NebWes), but the simplest solution would be that MIAA games against Chicago area schools are in-region.
I think that we had made a very strong case for D-III to adopt the "adjacent state" rule.

Where else can the NCAA find a focus group of sophisticated users than on these boards?  I think that we have fleshed out this problem very well and proposed a solution with which the NCAA is familiar.

These are systemic problems of geography.  Michigan and upstate New York have one problem. The west coast, Texas and the deep South have another one.

Illinois and Michigan aren't adjacent though.

Yes, they are. They share a common border that runs through the middle of Lake Michigan. I'm serious. It's a governmentally-recognized state border.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 08:03:31 PM
Greg... having lived in Chicago... I was under the impression Illinois and Michigan share a border over Lake Michigan... is that not the case? According to maps I have read, they do have a border in that sense.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 08:13:20 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 08:03:31 PM
Greg... having lived in Chicago... I was under the impression Illinois and Michigan share a border over Lake Michigan... is that not the case? According to maps I have read, they do have a border in that sense.

Yes, as I just told smeds, Illinois and Michigan have an official border that runs thru the center of Lake Michigan.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2012, 08:15:29 PM
Yeah, we'd have to see how the NCAA would write/interpret 'adjoining states'.  Michigan and Illinois do share a (very wet!) border, but by bus, Indiana might ruin everything! 8-)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 07:47:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 07:42:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2012, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 04:44:23 PM
As you can see, HCAC, NCAC, and OAC all currently schedule more regional games than the average D3 teams does. Do they have room in their schedule to accept calls from the MIAA? Do they want to drive past those other Ohio and Indiana schools to head up to Michigan with regularity?

Obviously the MIAA teams are not without blame either. Many, many of us would like to see more D3 games scheduled.

Non-Calvin or Hope MIAA teams averaged 19.3 games, with a max of 21.

I don't know if the NCAA would be willing to do 'special exceptions' (but they did regularly waive the rules for NebWes), but the simplest solution would be that MIAA games against Chicago area schools are in-region.
I think that we had made a very strong case for D-III to adopt the "adjacent state" rule.

Where else can the NCAA find a focus group of sophisticated users than on these boards?  I think that we have fleshed out this problem very well and proposed a solution with which the NCAA is familiar.

These are systemic problems of geography.  Michigan and upstate New York have one problem. The west coast, Texas and the deep South have another one.

Illinois and Michigan aren't adjacent though.

Yes, they are. They share a common border that runs through the middle of Lake Michigan. I'm serious. It's a governmentally-recognized state border.

I do understand that - I don't know if the NCAA will consider it without the Mr. Ypsi Bridge To Nowhere being built.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2012, 08:36:34 PM
Actually, in fact, an adjacent states rule (interpreted a certain way) would open up all of Wisconsin and Minnesota to the MIAA as well.  Wisconsin is obviously adjacent even aside from Lake Michigan (though how many MIAA teams would go to Wisconsin via the UP is doubtful!), and the UP and Minnesota share a border somewhere out in Lake Superior! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 08:43:38 PM
I was under the impression that the Upper Peninsula was more like another state.

If it weren't so darn cold up there, I understand that they would be doing the UP version of Swamp People for Reality Television.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 29, 2012, 08:47:55 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 07:47:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 07:42:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2012, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 04:44:23 PM
As you can see, HCAC, NCAC, and OAC all currently schedule more regional games than the average D3 teams does. Do they have room in their schedule to accept calls from the MIAA? Do they want to drive past those other Ohio and Indiana schools to head up to Michigan with regularity?

Obviously the MIAA teams are not without blame either. Many, many of us would like to see more D3 games scheduled.

Non-Calvin or Hope MIAA teams averaged 19.3 games, with a max of 21.

I don't know if the NCAA would be willing to do 'special exceptions' (but they did regularly waive the rules for NebWes), but the simplest solution would be that MIAA games against Chicago area schools are in-region.
I think that we had made a very strong case for D-III to adopt the "adjacent state" rule.

Where else can the NCAA find a focus group of sophisticated users than on these boards?  I think that we have fleshed out this problem very well and proposed a solution with which the NCAA is familiar.

These are systemic problems of geography.  Michigan and upstate New York have one problem. The west coast, Texas and the deep South have another one.

Illinois and Michigan aren't adjacent though.

Yes, they are. They share a common border that runs through the middle of Lake Michigan. I'm serious. It's a governmentally-recognized state border.

I do understand that - I don't know if the NCAA will consider it without the Mr. Ypsi Bridge To Nowhere being built.

It would be stunningly comical if the NCAA decided to use an adjoining states rule that ignored official state borders of the United States, just because those borders are water-based.

There are plenty of examples of adjacent states that don't share any actual land-land borders. Illinois, for one, shares a water-only border with Missouri, Iowa, and Kentucky in addition to Michigan.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 08:51:23 PM
Remember the Calvin-to-Wheaton ferry (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4596.msg719342#msg719342)? :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Civic Minded on February 29, 2012, 08:58:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 08:51:23 PM
Remember the Calvin-to-Wheaton ferry (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4596.msg719342#msg719342)? :)

Now there's a flashback!  Not sure whether to thank you or not.   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 09:02:38 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 08:43:38 PM
I was under the impression that the Upper Peninsula was more like another state.

If it weren't so darn cold up there, I understand that they would be doing the UP version of Swamp People for Reality Television.

Hey, the current and future love of my life is from the Yoooop!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 09:04:33 PM
Quote from: kiltedbryan on February 29, 2012, 08:47:55 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 08:26:23 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 29, 2012, 07:47:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 07:42:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2012, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 04:44:23 PM
As you can see, HCAC, NCAC, and OAC all currently schedule more regional games than the average D3 teams does. Do they have room in their schedule to accept calls from the MIAA? Do they want to drive past those other Ohio and Indiana schools to head up to Michigan with regularity?

Obviously the MIAA teams are not without blame either. Many, many of us would like to see more D3 games scheduled.

Non-Calvin or Hope MIAA teams averaged 19.3 games, with a max of 21.

I don't know if the NCAA would be willing to do 'special exceptions' (but they did regularly waive the rules for NebWes), but the simplest solution would be that MIAA games against Chicago area schools are in-region.
I think that we had made a very strong case for D-III to adopt the "adjacent state" rule.

Where else can the NCAA find a focus group of sophisticated users than on these boards?  I think that we have fleshed out this problem very well and proposed a solution with which the NCAA is familiar.

These are systemic problems of geography.  Michigan and upstate New York have one problem. The west coast, Texas and the deep South have another one.

Illinois and Michigan aren't adjacent though.

Yes, they are. They share a common border that runs through the middle of Lake Michigan. I'm serious. It's a governmentally-recognized state border.

I do understand that - I don't know if the NCAA will consider it without the Mr. Ypsi Bridge To Nowhere being built.

It would be stunningly comical if the NCAA decided to use an adjoining states rule that ignored official state borders of the United States, just because those borders are water-based.

There are plenty of examples of adjacent states that don't share any actual land-land borders. Illinois, for one, shares a water-only border with Missouri, Iowa, and Kentucky in addition to Michigan.

Rivers seem more like border-like things than a dashed line drawn by cartographers in the middle of a lake.

I got nailed on a Sporcle quiz because I didn't realize Singapore didn't share a land border with Malaysia.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: diehardfan on February 29, 2012, 09:10:59 PM
Quote from: Civic Minded on February 29, 2012, 08:58:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 08:51:23 PM
Remember the Calvin-to-Wheaton ferry (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4596.msg719342#msg719342)? :)

Now there's a flashback!  Not sure whether to thank you or not.   ;)
Haha, I just reminded Scott about this the other day! I stated on my FB page that I wanted to live somewhere where ferries were a normal part of daily life (I was vacationing in the Outer Banks), and one of my friends suggested I live in Michigan and work in Wisconsin. Hah.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 29, 2012, 09:27:58 PM
Quote from: diehardfan on February 29, 2012, 09:10:59 PM
Quote from: Civic Minded on February 29, 2012, 08:58:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 08:51:23 PM
Remember the Calvin-to-Wheaton ferry (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4596.msg719342#msg719342)? :)

Now there's a flashback!  Not sure whether to thank you or not.   ;)
Haha, I just reminded Scott about this the other day! I stated on my FB page that I wanted to live somewhere where ferries were a normal part of daily life (I was vacationing in the Outer Banks), and one of my friends suggested I live in Michigan and work in Wisconsin. Hah.

Magic Ferry people, Magic!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2012, 08:36:34 PM
Actually, in fact, an adjacent states rule (interpreted a certain way) would open up all of Wisconsin and Minnesota to the MIAA as well.  Wisconsin is obviously adjacent even aside from Lake Michigan (though how many MIAA teams would go to Wisconsin via the UP is doubtful!), and the UP and Minnesota share a border somewhere out in Lake Superior! ;)

Divison 2 has this adjacent state rule, and there the NCAA counts Illinois, Wisc, and Minnesota for Michigan.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Civic Minded on February 29, 2012, 10:05:13 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2012, 08:36:34 PM
Actually, in fact, an adjacent states rule (interpreted a certain way) would open up all of Wisconsin and Minnesota to the MIAA as well.  Wisconsin is obviously adjacent even aside from Lake Michigan (though how many MIAA teams would go to Wisconsin via the UP is doubtful!), and the UP and Minnesota share a border somewhere out in Lake Superior! ;)

Divison 2 has this adjacent state rule, and there the NCAA counts Illinois, Wisc, and Minnesota for Michigan.

Excellent!  Now if I live long enough to see the change for D3...   :o
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 29, 2012, 08:36:34 PM
Actually, in fact, an adjacent states rule (interpreted a certain way) would open up all of Wisconsin and Minnesota to the MIAA as well.  Wisconsin is obviously adjacent even aside from Lake Michigan (though how many MIAA teams would go to Wisconsin via the UP is doubtful!), and the UP and Minnesota share a border somewhere out in Lake Superior! ;)

Divison 2 has this adjacent state rule, and there the NCAA counts Illinois, Wisc, and Minnesota for Michigan.

Maybe there's hope for them yet.

But if there were a college on Semisopochnoi Island, would they be in the northeast region?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2012, 12:04:46 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 29, 2012, 07:28:38 PM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 07:06:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PM

Also, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.

Really......12 years of having their coach in an interview on your radio show answering the same  questions discussing regional games and you still just don't get it.

I had their coach on this year and asked the same question... BECAUSE the women seem to have no problems with scheduling and they are just as good as the men... so I am curious... after 12 years... why their scheduling as not improved. Now, there did seem to be signs of heading in the direction of more D3 games in the years to come... and that was great to hear.

I understand the excuse that opponents won't schedule them and won't come to Hope... but I think that just doesn't hold water when the women's team certainly seems to have less problems.

As for the Goucher scheduling... chalk that up to a trip to Puerto Rico when they played one game that could count on the schedule... and a number of "scrimmages." Not sure why... not going to figure it out... but it certainly needs to improve! :)

Do you really think scheduling men's and women's games is the same?  Does it occur to you the women have an extra 2 MIAA games built in because their half of the MIAA is one school larger.  You still don't get its an MIAA problem, not just a Hope problem.  STILL after all this time you refuse to listen to anything anybody tells you, whether its me, administrators or the coaches who have given you the same exact answers in every interview you've done.  KS just put a nice chart up there with the avg. MIAA in-region games yet you appear to have ignored it completely.


Here's some math for you..........$5, $7, $10 x 3,000+, then factor in whatever % you want for concessions.

Then again, please tell us scheduling men's and women's games for Hope is the same.

Why don't the go the home-and-home route? I don't like it when teams don't have a split of home / road unless they have special circumstances. And no, a shiny gym isn't a special circumstance. Are teams not willing to do their road half of a home-and-home?

My bile is pointed more toward the D-1 power conferences, especially in football (but basketball is almost as ridiculous) but if Hope is holding out for home games then that may be the rub.

I ask because I don't know if that's what hope is doing. But they do have extra home games this year (12 home vs. 10 road and one of those roadies was a tourney).

Well, more than that, the NCAA is basically punishing home games by discounting them by .25. Hurts F&M as well, playing all those games at home.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2012, 09:10:20 AM
Should surprise no one that the MIAA leads the nation in out-of-region D3 games played:

CONFERENCE     D3GP     RegGP     ooRegGP    NonD3
MIAA21.418.92.54.3
CCIW25.123.02.10.6
ODAC25.123.12.01.7
CAC25.323.81.60.8
ASC24.523.01.51.1
SCIAC20.419.11.34.9
NEWMAC25.324.01.30.0
LAND24.623.41.30.9
CUNYAC25.424.21.21.0
CC25.524.31.20.3
USAC24.323.11.12.3
SCAC24.623.51.11.3
E825.024.01.00.8
OAC25.224.21.01.0
SLIAC21.921.00.93.6
MASCAC25.424.60.90.7
NESCAC24.523.70.80.7
SUNYAC25.925.10.80.5
IND13.512.80.810.0
LL24.323.70.71.0
WIAC25.224.60.71.0
NECC25.224.60.70.4
NEAC23.422.70.61.9
MACC24.023.40.61.5
MACF24.523.90.61.1
UAA25.024.40.60.0
MWC23.022.40.60.4
NJAC24.824.20.61.1
AMCC24.824.20.60.9
PrAC24.323.80.62.2
NCAC25.224.70.51.2
HCAC25.625.10.50.3
LEC25.625.10.50.5
NWC20.319.90.45.3
NATHC24.524.10.41.8
SKY25.324.90.40.6
NAC24.724.30.41.4
CSAC25.325.00.30.8
CCC25.525.20.30.9
IIAC23.823.60.22.0
MIAC25.225.00.20.6
UMAC22.722.60.13.0
GNAC26.025.90.10.2
AVG24.223.40.81.5
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2012, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 07:06:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PM

Also, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.

Really......12 years of having their coach in an interview on your radio show answering the same  questions discussing regional games and you still just don't get it.

I had their coach on this year and asked the same question... BECAUSE the women seem to have no problems with scheduling and they are just as good as the men... so I am curious... after 12 years... why their scheduling as not improved. Now, there did seem to be signs of heading in the direction of more D3 games in the years to come... and that was great to hear.

I understand the excuse that opponents won't schedule them and won't come to Hope... but I think that just doesn't hold water when the women's team certainly seems to have less problems.

As for the Goucher scheduling... chalk that up to a trip to Puerto Rico when they played one game that could count on the schedule... and a number of "scrimmages." Not sure why... not going to figure it out... but it certainly needs to improve! :)

Do you really think scheduling men's and women's games is the same?  Does it occur to you the women have an extra 2 MIAA games built in because their half of the MIAA is one school larger.  You still don't get its an MIAA problem, not just a Hope problem.  STILL after all this time you refuse to listen to anything anybody tells you, whether its me, administrators or the coaches who have given you the same exact answers in every interview you've done.  KS just put a nice chart up there with the avg. MIAA in-region games yet you appear to have ignored it completely.


Here's some math for you..........$5, $7, $10 x 3,000+, then factor in whatever % you want for concessions.

Then again, please tell us scheduling men's and women's games for Hope is the same.

Hope was a bit ridiculous with their schedule this year. Eight games were non-D3. That IS a lot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: realist on March 01, 2012, 10:58:16 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2012, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 07:06:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PM

Also, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.

Really......12 years of having their coach in an interview on your radio show answering the same  questions discussing regional games and you still just don't get it.

I had their coach on this year and asked the same question... BECAUSE the women seem to have no problems with scheduling and they are just as good as the men... so I am curious... after 12 years... why their scheduling as not improved. Now, there did seem to be signs of heading in the direction of more D3 games in the years to come... and that was great to hear.

I understand the excuse that opponents won't schedule them and won't come to Hope... but I think that just doesn't hold water when the women's team certainly seems to have less problems.

As for the Goucher scheduling... chalk that up to a trip to Puerto Rico when they played one game that could count on the schedule... and a number of "scrimmages." Not sure why... not going to figure it out... but it certainly needs to improve! :)

Do you really think scheduling men's and women's games is the same?  Does it occur to you the women have an extra 2 MIAA games built in because their half of the MIAA is one school larger.  You still don't get its an MIAA problem, not just a Hope problem.  STILL after all this time you refuse to listen to anything anybody tells you, whether its me, administrators or the coaches who have given you the same exact answers in every interview you've done.  KS just put a nice chart up there with the avg. MIAA in-region games yet you appear to have ignored it completely.


Here's some math for you..........$5, $7, $10 x 3,000+, then factor in whatever % you want for concessions.

Then again, please tell us scheduling men's and women's games for Hope is the same.

Hope was a bit ridiculous with their schedule this year. Eight games were non-D3. That IS a lot.

Also they played a total of one (1) game outside of MI in the2011-2012 season to date. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: HopeConvert on March 01, 2012, 01:49:20 PM
Quote from: realist on March 01, 2012, 10:58:16 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2012, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 07:06:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: sac on February 29, 2012, 03:32:28 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2012, 01:49:01 PM

Also, per Hope... they can solve that easily. I have been frustrated with their schedule for years... and the reasons giving for why they can't get more D3 opponents is hard to keep listening to... when their women's team seems to get plenty of opponents in non-conference action, each year. Some of these schools need to buck up and figure it out... and not hide behind reasons that just sound more hollow then usual.

Really......12 years of having their coach in an interview on your radio show answering the same  questions discussing regional games and you still just don't get it.

I had their coach on this year and asked the same question... BECAUSE the women seem to have no problems with scheduling and they are just as good as the men... so I am curious... after 12 years... why their scheduling as not improved. Now, there did seem to be signs of heading in the direction of more D3 games in the years to come... and that was great to hear.

I understand the excuse that opponents won't schedule them and won't come to Hope... but I think that just doesn't hold water when the women's team certainly seems to have less problems.

As for the Goucher scheduling... chalk that up to a trip to Puerto Rico when they played one game that could count on the schedule... and a number of "scrimmages." Not sure why... not going to figure it out... but it certainly needs to improve! :)

Do you really think scheduling men's and women's games is the same?  Does it occur to you the women have an extra 2 MIAA games built in because their half of the MIAA is one school larger.  You still don't get its an MIAA problem, not just a Hope problem.  STILL after all this time you refuse to listen to anything anybody tells you, whether its me, administrators or the coaches who have given you the same exact answers in every interview you've done.  KS just put a nice chart up there with the avg. MIAA in-region games yet you appear to have ignored it completely.


Here's some math for you..........$5, $7, $10 x 3,000+, then factor in whatever % you want for concessions.

Then again, please tell us scheduling men's and women's games for Hope is the same.

Hope was a bit ridiculous with their schedule this year. Eight games were non-D3. That IS a lot.

Also they played a total of one (1) game outside of MI in the2011-2012 season to date. :)

I'm hoping they'll make it three (3) on March 17.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2012, 02:16:15 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2012, 09:25:46 AM
Hope was a bit ridiculous with their schedule this year. Eight games were non-D3. That IS a lot.
The MIAA schools in general schedule by that philosophy but Hope does seem to be on the high end even with that in mind.

Kevin Vande Streek was an active participant in the webinar on scheduling and the selection process that the D-III selection committee put on last spring. If they take that trip somewhere where they can get administrative region 2 games, they'll be in good shape. For example, for teams that come to the D3hoops.com Classic, we work really hard to get them two regional games. Not always possible with the mix of schools we get but we work really hard.

At Vegas, I think the Gustavus/Transylvania game we had, while it was non-region, got Gustavus in the tournament.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 01, 2012, 03:05:25 PM
They're not as isolated as some teams are, but there's no other game in town in Michigan for D-3 schools. However, nothing like jaunts down 75, 69 or US 31 to build character!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 01, 2012, 04:20:08 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2012, 02:16:15 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2012, 09:25:46 AM
Hope was a bit ridiculous with their schedule this year. Eight games were non-D3. That IS a lot.
The MIAA schools in general schedule by that philosophy but Hope does seem to be on the high end even with that in mind.

Kevin Vande Streek was an active participant in the webinar on scheduling and the selection process that the D-III selection committee put on last spring. If they take that trip somewhere where they can get administrative region 2 games, they'll be in good shape. For example, for teams that come to the D3hoops.com Classic, we work really hard to get them two regional games. Not always possible with the mix of schools we get but we work really hard.

At Vegas, I think the Gustavus/Transylvania game we had, while it was non-region, got Gustavus in the tournament.

You do understand you can't go to Florida every year.......like say Hope maybe did in 2008 and 2011

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2012, 04:29:59 PM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2012, 04:20:08 PM

You do understand you can't go to Florida every year.......like say Hope maybe did in 2008 and 2011


I do, of course. It isn't necessary to be so defensive. I am not the enemy here. (Heck, my post you quoted was basically about Calvin, wasn't it?)

When a team travels, travel for in-region games, not to Washington or Arizona. At least in Vegas we understand the in-region concept. We got the maximum number of in-region games for teams, and it would have been more except a couple of teams there were in the same conference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 01, 2012, 09:37:19 PM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2012, 04:20:08 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2012, 02:16:15 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2012, 09:25:46 AM
Hope was a bit ridiculous with their schedule this year. Eight games were non-D3. That IS a lot.
The MIAA schools in general schedule by that philosophy but Hope does seem to be on the high end even with that in mind.

Kevin Vande Streek was an active participant in the webinar on scheduling and the selection process that the D-III selection committee put on last spring. If they take that trip somewhere where they can get administrative region 2 games, they'll be in good shape. For example, for teams that come to the D3hoops.com Classic, we work really hard to get them two regional games. Not always possible with the mix of schools we get but we work really hard.

At Vegas, I think the Gustavus/Transylvania game we had, while it was non-region, got Gustavus in the tournament.

You do understand you can't go to Florida every year.......like say Hope maybe did in 2008 and 2011

Hence the jaunts down the highways to Indiana and Ohio, or are you scared of the OAC, HCAC and NCAC???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 01, 2012, 10:58:17 PM
Quote from: smedindy on March 01, 2012, 09:37:19 PM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2012, 04:20:08 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2012, 02:16:15 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2012, 09:25:46 AM
Hope was a bit ridiculous with their schedule this year. Eight games were non-D3. That IS a lot.
The MIAA schools in general schedule by that philosophy but Hope does seem to be on the high end even with that in mind.

Kevin Vande Streek was an active participant in the webinar on scheduling and the selection process that the D-III selection committee put on last spring. If they take that trip somewhere where they can get administrative region 2 games, they'll be in good shape. For example, for teams that come to the D3hoops.com Classic, we work really hard to get them two regional games. Not always possible with the mix of schools we get but we work really hard.

At Vegas, I think the Gustavus/Transylvania game we had, while it was non-region, got Gustavus in the tournament.

You do understand you can't go to Florida every year.......like say Hope maybe did in 2008 and 2011

Hence the jaunts down the highways to Indiana and Ohio, or are you scared of the OAC, HCAC and NCAC???

Yeah that's it.  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 01, 2012, 11:15:33 PM
Well, come on down! Home-and-home baby!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2012, 11:34:58 PM
Quote from: smedindy on March 01, 2012, 11:15:33 PM
Well, come on down! Home-and-home baby!
Easily done...home-and-home in a two-year contract.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 01, 2012, 11:40:56 PM
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.costumesupercenter.com%2Fcsc_inc%2Fimages%2Fitems%2F343x432%2F2251R.jpg&hash=0bb696fa0e96f54b0adb6541e79872a57e5197d0)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2012, 11:42:44 PM
Sorry sac, not Barbara Eden...  :-\
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 01, 2012, 11:46:43 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2012, 11:42:44 PM
Sorry sac, not Barbara Eden...  :-\

best I could do looking for that pose.  Its a very strange hole in the internet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on March 04, 2012, 02:21:17 AM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 16, 2012, 08:39:02 PM
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 16, 2012, 06:11:13 PM
Disclaimer:  If all this SOS number crunching stuff bugs you, might as well skip this post  :D

Lately there has been a bunch of talk about the SOS and if it's fair, etc., etc.  I wanted to take a look at the modifier that is being used to weight home and away games.  The current modifier is 1.25 for away games and 0.75 for home games.  I'll steal an example from Hugenerd that shows how these two games are practically viewed as equals when the weighting is used:

23-2 played at home:  0.92 OWP x 0.75 = 0.69 OWP
14-11 played on the road: 0.56 OWP x 1.25 = 0.70 OWP

So, the NCAA is basically saying that playing these two teams in different locations causes the difficulty of the games to be nearly equal...I can then interpret that to mean that they would expect the same outcome (win/loss) in either situation (or atleast the same chance to win or lose).  With my database of games, I was able to explore this question.

Since the OWP calculation is done with the teams' current winning percentages, that is waht I used to evaluate this (instead of using the win % at the time of the actual game).  I took all 4529 games between Division III teams that are in my database as of today.  I looked strictly at what the home and away teams' winning percentages were and which team won the game.  I first looked at a 0.500 WP team (actually all teams slightly above and below this).  I analyzed each of their games and looked at how often they won vs. other teams over a range of winning percentages.  I also broke these results up into home and away games.  So out of this I get how often a 0.500 team beats any other team rated by the opposing team's winning percentage.  I could also find the break even point where a 0.500 team should be expected to win half their games.  Here is what I found:

For a 0.500 WP team, they can be expected to win half of their games against teams with the following winning percentages:

When at home:  0.617
When on the road:  0.417

This makes complete sense that they should beat better teams at home and struggle more on the road.  If I have analyzed this correctly, then factors around 1.19 and 0.81  would be appropriate to account for this difference.

I also wondered if this same value would hold for good and bad teams.  So, I tried this for teams near 0.75 WP and teams near 0.25 WP.  Here is what I have found:

A 0.750 WP team can be expected to win half of their games against:
When at home: 0.857
When on the road: 0.650

This spread would come out with factors of 1.14 and 0.86

A 0.250 WP team can be expected to win half of their games against:
When at home: 0.317
When on the road: 0.172

This spread would come out with factors of 1.28 and 0.72 

In the end, I think the weighting factors of 1.25/0.75 are a bit too extreme but not terrible.  I think the results from the 0.250 WP set are a bit skewed so I discount those more than I do the other two sets of data.



Another way I looked at it was by taking these same three teams (0.25,0.50, and 0.75) and seeing how likely they would be to beat a 23-2 team at home or a 14-11 team on the road.  If we use the NCAA's weighting factors then we should see them have an equal likelihood of winning the games...but we don't.






  Team 
  Chance of beating 23-2 @ home 
  Chance of beating 14-11 on road 
0.25 WP
< 1%
9%
0.50 WP
20%
35%
0.75 WP
45%
57%

This is fantastic.  My only question is, why cant someone at the NCAA do this? And, instead of just using one season, why cant they do it over a 5-10 year period to get a larger data set.  This would give some justification to the modifier, rather than just guessing one and hoping it sticks (I think we all remember that last year the modifiers were 1.40 and 0.60, which were absolutely outrageous).

What I take from this data is that the current modifier is really only valid for bad teams, when the likelihood of winning or losing is low.  However, the modifier should not really be catered to this subset of teams, as they are not the ones that need to be conisdered for the postseason, or even the 0.500 group.  Therefore, based on just this analysis (I would feel more comfortable if the NCAA would do one spanning more seasons), I think a home/away factor of 1.15/0.85 would probably be most appropriate, considering that most teams that are in the postseason discussion will have records of ~0.75 or better.  Or, better yet, they could find the average record of teams that make the postseason (which may or may not be higher than 0.75) and calculate the modifier based on teams with a record similar to that.

Well done superfan, hopefully someone at the NCAA is reading this or that the idea of substantiating the multiplier by using an actual empirical analysis is considered.  It would be nicer to have some defense of the numbers that are used, rather than having to listen to certain posters coming on here and repeatedly 'justify' the multiplier by saying 'thats how it is defined in the handbook' or those two numbers are clearly significantly different.  I would even take it a step further and have the NCAA do more than compare just OWP/OOWPs arbitrarily.  Why not expand the SOS formula further?  We have computers now, right? Is truncating at the 2nd term (OOWP) a good approximation?  I am pretty sure if you get someone who knows how to code, you could have them numerically compute a more true SOS by doing a numerical sum that expands out many more terms.  Also, if so much weight is going to be given to SOS, why not look seperately at SOS in wins compared to just overall SOS?  Does it make sense to give teams tons of credit in a primary criteria for playing teams they cant beat?  If you have over a 0.540 SOS overall, but only a 0.440 SOS in wins, is that really telling us you can beat good teams?  With the way the mulipliers are setup now, there are many examples that can be given where this is in fact the case.

Obviously its too late for this year, but hopefully the NCAA will be more rigorous in their methodology in the years ahead.

Hey augie,

Just thought I would follow up about this.  I really think that if you did a full-fledged study about SOS modifiers over, lets say, the last 5 years, it would be publishable somewhere like here:

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?page_id=462

Also, for those of you doing your own mathematical rankings/game predictions, you may enjoy this paper that was published at the Sloan conference this year:

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Using-Cumulative-Win-Probabilities-to-Predict-NCAA-Performance-Bashuk.pdf
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 04, 2012, 12:57:33 PM
HERE'S A LIST OF THE REGIONAL RANKED TEAMS THAT MADE THE TOURNEY AND WHO'S LEFT.

Guess they got it right with IWU!

Scranton is the only unranked regional team to make it to the second weekend.



   ATL      
   WK3   TEAM   
   #1   Staten Island*   
   #2   William Paterson   
   #3   St. Joseph's (LI)*   
         
   EAST      
   WK3   TEAM   
   #1   Hartwick*   
   #2   Oswego State*   
   #3   Hobart*   
   #4   NYU   
   #5   Medaille*   
         
   GL      
   WK3   TEAM   
   #1   Hope*   
   #2   Wittenberg*   
   #3   Wooster   
   #4   Ohio Wesleyan   
   #5   Bethany (W.Va.)*   
         
   MA      
   WK3   TEAM   
   #1   Cabrini*   
   #2   Franklin & Marshall*   
   #3   St. Mary's (Md)*   
   #5   Messiah*   
   #6   Misericordia*   
         
   MW      
   WK3   TEAM   
   #1   Washington U.*   
   #2   Wheaton (IL)   
   #3   Transylvania*   
   #5   Illinois Wesleyan   
   #7   North Central (IL)*   
         
   NE      
   WK3   TEAM   
   #1   Amherst*   
   #2   Middlebury   
   #3   MIT*   
   #4   Rhode Island College   
   #5   W. Connecticut   
   #6   E. Connecticut*   
   #9   Albertus Magnus*   
   #11   Becker*   
   #12   Salem State*   
         
   STH      
   WK3   TEAM   
   #1   Mary Hardin-Baylor*   
   #2   Virginia Wesleyan*   
   #3   Birmingham-Southern*   
   #4   Randolph-Macon   
   #5   Christopher Newport*   
         
   WST      
   WK3   TEAM   
   #1   Whitewater*   
   #2   Whitworth*   
   #3   River Falls   
   #4   Stevens Point   
   #5   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps*   
   #6   St. Thomas*   
   #7   Gustavus Adolphus   
         
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on March 06, 2012, 02:19:26 PM
What about adjusting SOS to account for different numbers of conference games between conferences?  Does anyone know of conferences without a balanced schedule?

Simply take Team A's non-conference SOS and add the strength of the conference.

Team A would not be penalized for playing in a good league that plays a lot of conference games and Team B would not be helped by playing in a very poor league that plays a lot of conference games.

I assume we would give greater weight to the strength of the conference, maybe 75%.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on March 06, 2012, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: AO on March 06, 2012, 02:19:26 PM
What about adjusting SOS to account for different numbers of conference games between conferences?  Does anyone know of conferences without a balanced schedule?

Simply take Team A's non-conference SOS and add the strength of the conference.

Team A would not be penalized for playing in a good league that plays a lot of conference games and Team B would not be helped by playing in a very poor league that plays a lot of conference games.

I assume we would give greater weight to the strength of the conference, maybe 75%.

A couple I'm aware of.

NESCAC--does not play a round-robin schedule

NCAC--plays an imbalanced schedule

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 06, 2012, 02:35:53 PM
NESCAC doesn't play an official 'double round robin'. Conferences with divisions normally play each team in their division twice and the teams in the other division once. (See ASC and SCAC). That's not 'balanced'.

The NCAC has a 'double round robin minus two'. The powers that be decided that when Wabash was added they (and first Earlham and now DPU) would only play Allegheny and Hiram once. Of course, that causes other issues since other teams need to play just one conference game against certain teams and Denison, it was said, capitalized on that this year by not playing Witt and Wooster twice. Of course they shut people's yaps about that by beating Witt in the conference tourney.

When it was a nine-team league last year that concern went out the window.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on March 06, 2012, 02:52:16 PM
Solution: to account for unbalanced schedules, give greater weight in the conference strength caclulation to the teams that play twice.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 06, 2012, 03:10:55 PM
Quote from: AO on March 06, 2012, 02:19:26 PM
Team A would not be penalized for playing in a good league that plays a lot of conference games and Team B would not be helped by playing in a very poor league that plays a lot of conference games.


But this year we saw teams with good records and weak conferences already hurt by their bad SOS.  The regional rankings took SOS into more account for teams from bad conferences.

I'm not sure there's a way to mathematically adjust for that because it does happen the opposite way in some years.

You'd really need to figure the regional strength into the equation.  Cabrini plays in a relatively weak conference when compared nationally, but it's not that weak when compared to the MA region.  They benefit from a better SOS because the teams in their conference have a better SOS.

I saw somewhere someone had done regional comparisons for relative strength.  I think you'd do better factoring those in rather than conference strength - which would be included somewhat in the regional number.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on March 06, 2012, 03:14:45 PM
NathCon also plays an imbalanced schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 06, 2012, 03:29:57 PM
The last thing you want to do is double-penalize teams for their schedule. They may have some control of their at-large schedule but none for their conference schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on March 06, 2012, 03:38:37 PM
Maybe what we really need is a national ranking by coaches, the press or the committee to factor into the selections.  Clearly we do have voters using the secondary criteria to differentiate IWU, Gustavus and NYU from Wesleyan or WPI, but we don't have any transparent way of signaling to teams before selection about where those votes place them.  A top 50 national poll would help us understand the committee better before they select.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 06, 2012, 04:07:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on March 06, 2012, 03:29:57 PM
The last thing you want to do is double-penalize teams for their schedule. They may have some control of their at-large schedule but none for their conference schedule.

That's why I thought those regional numbers would work well, they don't diverge to radically, but they would make some real difference in judging regional criteria nationally. I forget what board it was on or who came up with them, but they made a lot of sense and should be able to be worked into an SOS figure somewhere.  I think it would go a long way towards correlating the differences in overall strength between regions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2012, 04:09:00 PM
ODAC plays and unbalanced schedule as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 06, 2012, 06:10:05 PM
Quote from: AO on March 06, 2012, 03:38:37 PM
Maybe what we really need is a national ranking by coaches, the press or the committee to factor into the selections.  Clearly we do have voters using the secondary criteria to differentiate IWU, Gustavus and NYU from Wesleyan or WPI, but we don't have any transparent way of signaling to teams before selection about where those votes place them.  A top 50 national poll would help us understand the committee better before they select.
IMHO, there is little difference between #15 and #35 and not much more difference between #30 and #70.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on March 06, 2012, 06:15:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 06, 2012, 06:10:05 PM
Quote from: AO on March 06, 2012, 03:38:37 PM
Maybe what we really need is a national ranking by coaches, the press or the committee to factor into the selections.  Clearly we do have voters using the secondary criteria to differentiate IWU, Gustavus and NYU from Wesleyan or WPI, but we don't have any transparent way of signaling to teams before selection about where those votes place them.  A top 50 national poll would help us understand the committee better before they select.
IMHO, there is little difference between #15 and #35 and not much more difference between #30 and #70.
Illinois Wesleyan might just be showing that there is a gap between them and some of the East Coast teams who might have similar numbers via inferior competition. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on March 06, 2012, 07:00:54 PM
Depends on the metrics. IWU's non-conference schedule wasn't that great on some fronts (but they were Illinois teams) and Millikin's awful season drags down a lot of the calculations.

But their power ratings were pretty strong in Massey and their Massey SOS is currently #2.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on July 20, 2012, 02:55:08 PM
The NCAA never did release the final Men's Regional Rankings, did they? Even thought the handbook said they would?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 20, 2012, 03:19:47 PM
That was cleared up back in March, I thought. While we were told by the men's committee chair at the time that he never indicated the rankings would be released (he indicated to me he thought we were talking about the regional rankings released the Wednesday prior - up to your interpretation), I was later told the NCAA basically said the final regional rankings would not be released in accordance to the fact other sports had not done so (i.e. football and others). So in keeping with consistency, no final regional rankings were released.

Now, I have been told by a few people that this has become a bone-of-contention for them and they didn't agree with this "step backwards" perse by the NCAA. I am not sure what next year will bring... but I wouldn't bet on those regional rankings being released unless there is a change overall in how the NCAA deals with regional rankings in all sports.

There is more to discuss with changes coming to next year's selections, tournament, etc. I hope to have a special Hoopsville On Demand podcast in the coming weeks with the new head(s) of the basketball committee(s). Stay tuned!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on November 29, 2012, 01:46:17 PM
Way too early for any of these numbers to mean anything, but here's the link to where I'll be running in-region RPI regional rankings (ignore the 2010-11 in the URL):

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

And I'm also running D3 wide RPI numbers this year:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/d3-rpi.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2013, 03:52:36 PM
Well, the 1st Regional Rankings come out next Wednesday, Feb. 6th. That means results through this weekend will count. 

Here's my quick view of what the West Rankings might look like, going into this week's games.  I may try to update my thoughts this weekend. 

Of course, I don't pretend to be an expert like some of you guys!

1. St. Thomas 18-1: Wins over Whitworth and Stevens Point
2. Stevens Point 18-2: Wins over Buena Vista, Augustana, Whitewater (2), Stout, La Crosse. Losses to St. Thomas and Concordia (TX)
3. Whitworth 18-1: Win over MHB.  Loss to St. Thomas
4. Whitewater 15-4: Wins over Aurora, La Crosse, IWU, Northwestern (MN). Losses to St. Norbert and Stevens Point (2)
5. Stout 15-4: Win over La Crosse. Losses to Whitewater (2) and Stevens Point.
6. Augsburg 15-4: Loss to St. Thomas

In contention 7-9

Northwestern (MN) 14-5: Win over Wheaton (IL). Losses to Buena Vista, Luther and Whitewater.
Buena Vista 14-5: Win over Northestern (MN). Loss to Stevens Point and Luther.
Luther 13-5: Win against Northwestern (MN) and Buena Vista. Losses to La Crosse, Stout.
Redlands 13-5: Losses to Whitworth and Buena Vista.
Platteville 14-6
La Crosse 13-6



Anyone else got some thoughts on this region or their guesses on other regions?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: NEPAFAN on January 28, 2013, 04:02:10 PM
Why is Scranton not in your MA rankings?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 28, 2013, 04:53:23 PM
Quote from: NEPAFAN on January 28, 2013, 04:02:10 PM
Why is Scranton not in your MA rankings?

Because they have a .737 winning percentage and a .487 strength of schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2013, 04:59:51 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 28, 2013, 04:53:23 PM
Quote from: NEPAFAN on January 28, 2013, 04:02:10 PM
Why is Scranton not in your MA rankings?

Because they have a .737 winning percentage and a .487 strength of schedule.

I guess more emphasis on the SOS?

Messiah has a .588 winning percentage and a .567 strength of schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 28, 2013, 05:02:39 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2013, 03:52:36 PM
Well, the 1st Regional Rankings come out next Wednesday, Feb. 6th. That means results through this weekend will count. 

Here's my quick view of what the West Rankings might look like, going into this week's games.  I may try to update my thoughts this weekend. 

Of course, I don't pretend to be an expert like some of you guys!

1. St. Thomas 18-1: Wins over Whitworth and Stevens Point
2. Stevens Point 18-2: Wins over Buena Vista, Augustana, Whitewater (2), Stout, La Crosse. Losses to St. Thomas and Concordia (TX)
3. Whitworth 18-1: Win over MHB.  Loss to St. Thomas
4. Whitewater 15-4: Wins over Aurora, La Crosse, IWU, Northwestern (MN). Losses to St. Norbert and Stevens Point (2)
5. Stout 15-4: Win over La Crosse. Losses to Whitewater (2) and Stevens Point.
6. Augsburg 15-4: Loss to St. Thomas

In contention 7-9

Northwestern (MN) 14-5: Win over Wheaton (IL). Losses to Buena Vista, Luther and Whitewater.
Buena Vista 14-5: Win over Northestern (MN). Loss to Stevens Point and Luther.
Luther 13-5: Win against Northwestern (MN) and Buena Vista. Losses to La Crosse, Stout.
Redlands 13-5: Losses to Whitworth and Buena Vista.
Platteville 14-6
La Crosse 13-6



Anyone else got some thoughts on this region or their guesses on other regions?

If you look at KS's regional rankings, it looks a bit different:


   Rank      Team      WP      wSOS      wRPI      REG      D3   
   1      UW-Whitewater      77.8%      0.657      0.687      14-4      14-4   
   2      UW-Stevens Point      90.0%      0.600      0.675      18-2      18-2   
   3      Buena Vista      72.2%      0.620      0.645      13-5      13-5   
   4      St. Thomas      94.7%      0.518      0.626      18-1      18-1   
   5      Whitworth      94.4%      0.503      0.613      17-1      17-1   
   6      Luther      81.3%      0.545      0.612      13-3      13-4   
   7      Dubuque      68.8%      0.564      0.595      11-5      11-5   
   8      Augsburg      78.9%      0.526      0.592      15-4      15-4   
   9      UW-Platteville      62.5%      0.571      0.585      10-6      11-6   
   10      Concordia-Moorhead      66.7%      0.555      0.583      12-6      12-6   
   11      UW-Stout      77.8%      0.515      0.581      14-4      14-4   
   12      Redlands      76.9%      0.505      0.571      10-3      11-3   
KS uses a blend of WP and SOS (I don't recall the exact percentages... 75/25? 50/50?)

These are obviously objective, based solely off the numbers.

Whitewater won't be above Stevens Point, even though WW has the #1 SOS in the country, because Point has 2 victories over them. Likewise, Point probably won't be above St. Thomas because UST won their matchup this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 28, 2013, 05:05:03 PM
When your SOS is below .500... you aren't going to get much love especially with 5 regional losses.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 28, 2013, 08:15:35 PM
KS, I like your South Region rankings. 

Please remember that the SCAC still has a Pool A bid this year and neither Trinity TX or Colorado College are in your top 11.

UMHB only lost to Whitworth by 9 in the first weekend in Spokane.  (How many hours did you spend on the road to make plane connections from Belton TX until you are in your hotel in Spokane WA?)  I have always thought that a transcontinental flight was worth about 4 extra points for Home Court Advantage.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: NEPAFAN on January 28, 2013, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2013, 04:59:51 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 28, 2013, 04:53:23 PM
Quote from: NEPAFAN on January 28, 2013, 04:02:10 PM
Why is Scranton not in your MA rankings?

Because they have a .737 winning percentage and a .487 strength of schedule.

I guess more emphasis on the SOS?

Messiah has a .588 winning percentage and a .567 strength of schedule.


They have beat Juniata twice...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 28, 2013, 09:36:29 PM
Quote from: John Gleich on January 28, 2013, 05:02:39 PM
If you look at KS's regional rankings, it looks a bit different:


   Rank      Team      WP      wSOS      wRPI      REG      D3   
   1      UW-Whitewater      77.8%      0.657      0.687      14-4      14-4   
   2      UW-Stevens Point      90.0%      0.600      0.675      18-2      18-2   
   3      Buena Vista      72.2%      0.620      0.645      13-5      13-5   
   4      St. Thomas      94.7%      0.518      0.626      18-1      18-1   
   5      Whitworth      94.4%      0.503      0.613      17-1      17-1   
   6      Luther      81.3%      0.545      0.612      13-3      13-4   
   7      Dubuque      68.8%      0.564      0.595      11-5      11-5   
   8      Augsburg      78.9%      0.526      0.592      15-4      15-4   
   9      UW-Platteville      62.5%      0.571      0.585      10-6      11-6   
   10      Concordia-Moorhead      66.7%      0.555      0.583      12-6      12-6   
   11      UW-Stout      77.8%      0.515      0.581      14-4      14-4   
   12      Redlands      76.9%      0.505      0.571      10-3      11-3   
KS uses a blend of WP and SOS (I don't recall the exact percentages... 75/25? 50/50?)

These are obviously objective, based solely off the numbers.

Whitewater won't be above Stevens Point, even though WW has the #1 SOS in the country, because Point has 2 victories over them. Likewise, Point probably won't be above St. Thomas because UST won their matchup this year.

+ a billion K for using my numbers correctly! Yes, it's strictly by the data (standard RPI so 25% WP, 75% SOS), and it's absolutely meant to be adjusted for head-to-head matchups and all that.

An odd thing I've found: seems to me that there are more .500's winning percentage teams with crazy high SOS numbers this year than in the past (they're cracking into my regional rankings with decent RPIs). Not sure if there's more parity across the division this year or what.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on January 28, 2013, 10:17:39 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 28, 2013, 05:05:03 PM
When your SOS is below .500... you aren't going to get much love especially with 5 regional losses.

If SOS equates with w/l record, I've got Scranton's OWL at 187-169(.525) with a road record of 5-1 for that adjustment
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 28, 2013, 10:39:36 PM
Quote from: ronk on January 28, 2013, 10:17:39 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 28, 2013, 05:05:03 PM
When your SOS is below .500... you aren't going to get much love especially with 5 regional losses.

If SOS equates with w/l record, I've got Scranton's OWL at 187-169(.525) with a road record of 5-1 for that adjustment

It doesn't. You subtract the games that the team in question played against its opponents when calculating SOS.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on January 28, 2013, 10:50:35 PM
 Then subtracting the team's record of 14-5 raises the SOS/OWL % to .540(182-155), if I got u right.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2013, 11:23:39 PM
Quote from: ronk on January 28, 2013, 10:50:35 PM
Then subtracting the team's record of 14-5 raises the SOS/OWL % to .540(182-155), if I got u right.

SOS weights the opponents' record at two-thirds, with the opponents' opponents' record as one-third. Plus the home-road adjustment.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 12:27:51 AM
Quote from: ronk on January 28, 2013, 10:50:35 PM
Then subtracting the team's record of 14-5 raises the SOS/OWL % to .540(182-155), if I got u right.

I think this explains Knightslappy's formula to get SOS.

For away games, a multiplier of 1.25 is being applied to SOS, and for home games, a multiplier of 0.75 is used.

So, if I understand this correctly, if you are 9-9 with 9 home wins and 9 away losses, you actually aren't .500 regarding SOS/OWL% because home wins count less than away wins.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 12:30:05 AM
Quote from: John Gleich on January 28, 2013, 05:02:39 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2013, 03:52:36 PM
Well, the 1st Regional Rankings come out next Wednesday, Feb. 6th. That means results through this weekend will count. 

Here's my quick view of what the West Rankings might look like, going into this week's games.  I may try to update my thoughts this weekend. 

Of course, I don't pretend to be an expert like some of you guys!

1. St. Thomas 18-1: Wins over Whitworth and Stevens Point
2. Stevens Point 18-2: Wins over Buena Vista, Augustana, Whitewater (2), Stout, La Crosse. Losses to St. Thomas and Concordia (TX)
3. Whitworth 18-1: Win over MHB.  Loss to St. Thomas
4. Whitewater 15-4: Wins over Aurora, La Crosse, IWU, Northwestern (MN). Losses to St. Norbert and Stevens Point (2)
5. Stout 15-4: Win over La Crosse. Losses to Whitewater (2) and Stevens Point.
6. Augsburg 15-4: Loss to St. Thomas

In contention 7-9

Northwestern (MN) 14-5: Win over Wheaton (IL). Losses to Buena Vista, Luther and Whitewater.
Buena Vista 14-5: Win over Northestern (MN). Loss to Stevens Point and Luther.
Luther 13-5: Win against Northwestern (MN) and Buena Vista. Losses to La Crosse, Stout.
Redlands 13-5: Losses to Whitworth and Buena Vista.
Platteville 14-6
La Crosse 13-6



Anyone else got some thoughts on this region or their guesses on other regions?

If you look at KS's regional rankings, it looks a bit different:


   Rank      Team      WP      wSOS      wRPI      REG      D3   
   1      UW-Whitewater      77.8%      0.657      0.687      14-4      14-4   
   2      UW-Stevens Point      90.0%      0.600      0.675      18-2      18-2   
   3      Buena Vista      72.2%      0.620      0.645      13-5      13-5   
   4      St. Thomas      94.7%      0.518      0.626      18-1      18-1   
   5      Whitworth      94.4%      0.503      0.613      17-1      17-1   
   6      Luther      81.3%      0.545      0.612      13-3      13-4   
   7      Dubuque      68.8%      0.564      0.595      11-5      11-5   
   8      Augsburg      78.9%      0.526      0.592      15-4      15-4   
   9      UW-Platteville      62.5%      0.571      0.585      10-6      11-6   
   10      Concordia-Moorhead      66.7%      0.555      0.583      12-6      12-6   
   11      UW-Stout      77.8%      0.515      0.581      14-4      14-4   
   12      Redlands      76.9%      0.505      0.571      10-3      11-3   
KS uses a blend of WP and SOS (I don't recall the exact percentages... 75/25? 50/50?)

These are obviously objective, based solely off the numbers.

Whitewater won't be above Stevens Point, even though WW has the #1 SOS in the country, because Point has 2 victories over them. Likewise, Point probably won't be above St. Thomas because UST won their matchup this year.

And to make myself clear, in now way was I comparing my subjective thoughts to Knightslappy's strict objective results by the numbers.  I actually posted my thoughts in the West Region board and then copied to the appropriate Pool C board here.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on January 29, 2013, 08:45:32 AM
Greek,
  With all due respect to Knightslappy's objective data, my interest was in our subjective opinions on what the regional rankings "should" be.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on January 29, 2013, 08:47:11 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2013, 11:23:39 PM
Quote from: ronk on January 28, 2013, 10:50:35 PM
Then subtracting the team's record of 14-5 raises the SOS/OWL % to .540(182-155), if I got u right.

SOS weights the opponents' record at two-thirds, with the opponents' opponents' record as one-third. Plus the home-road adjustment.

Those computations will be left with the students as an exercise. ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 11:01:56 AM
Quote from: ronk on January 29, 2013, 08:45:32 AM
Greek,
  With all due respect to Knightslappy's objective data, my interest was in our subjective opinions on what the regional rankings "should" be.

So, what do you think it should be? 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2013, 11:26:41 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2013, 11:23:39 PM
Quote from: ronk on January 28, 2013, 10:50:35 PM
Then subtracting the team's record of 14-5 raises the SOS/OWL % to .540(182-155), if I got u right.

SOS weights the opponents' record at two-thirds, with the opponents' opponents' record as one-third. Plus the home-road adjustment.

Also -- for the sake of bookkeeping -- I believe the OWP and OOWP components (after home/road weighting) are computed using the average of each team's component percentages, not the sum of the W/L totals. So:

If you played two teams who provide you with respective component OWP's of 5-5 (.500) and 20-0 (1.000), your OWP for these two combined woule be (1.000 x 0.500 / 2 = 0.750) not 25-5 (.833).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2013, 12:28:13 PM
Just a quick note in case anyone is curious... neutral games are considered 1.0 on the weighted scale and the weighted scale is used on OWP AND OOWP. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 29, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 12:30:05 AM
Quote from: John Gleich on January 28, 2013, 05:02:39 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2013, 03:52:36 PM
Well, the 1st Regional Rankings come out next Wednesday, Feb. 6th. That means results through this weekend will count. 

blah blah, long post

Anyone else got some thoughts on this region or their guesses on other regions?

If you look at KS's regional rankings, it looks a bit different:

blah blah other long post


And to make myself clear, in no way was I comparing my subjective thoughts to Knightslappy's strict objective results by the numbers.  I actually posted my thoughts in the West Region board and then copied to the appropriate Pool C board here.

Right. I wasn't saying you were. I actually wasn't, either. I was just taking data that was available that some might try to use to refute what you had there and put it into its proper context.

There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2013, 04:44:02 PM
Quote from: John Gleich on January 29, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.

I happen to believe the subjective should never come into play. Whenever subjectivity enters the mix, the fairness level decreases. It's impossible to treat all teams the same (or equally) while dealing in the realm of subjectives. And the NCAA selection committee must treat all teams the same in order to be transparent and credible.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 29, 2013, 05:08:34 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2013, 04:44:02 PM
Quote from: John Gleich on January 29, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.

I happen to believe the subjective should never come into play. Whenever subjectivity enters the mix, the fairness level decreases. It's impossible to treat all teams the same (or equally) while dealing in the realm of subjectives. And the NCAA selection committee must treat all teams the same in order to be transparent and credible.

Perhaps subjective is the wrong word... but I'm not sure what the right word would be.

The adjustments that need to be made due to head-to-head matchups, for example... what would you call those, if not subjective? The different regions treat the different criteria differently based on their interpretation... which is, by nature, subjective.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 29, 2013, 05:11:14 PM
By the way, I'm not trying to disagree with you... I think we're ultimately saying the same thing. We're just using language, of which our postmodern culture has watered down and stripped true and absolute meaning.   ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on January 29, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2013, 04:44:02 PM
Quote from: John Gleich on January 29, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.

I happen to believe the subjective should never come into play. Whenever subjectivity enters the mix, the fairness level decreases. It's impossible to treat all teams the same (or equally) while dealing in the realm of subjectives. And the NCAA selection committee must treat all teams the same in order to be transparent and credible.
Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 07:19:58 PM
Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Really, the regional rankings come out Feb. 6, which means all of this week's games games will be included too.  That leaves about 4 regular season games left and then conference tourney games.  When is the most difficult portion of their schedule supposed to come?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on January 29, 2013, 08:33:57 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 07:19:58 PM
Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Really, the regional rankings come out Feb. 6, which means all of this week's games games will be included too.  That leaves about 4 regular season games left and then conference tourney games.  When is the most difficult portion of their schedule supposed to come?
Do all d3 conferences play a double round robin?  Isn't the conference tournament considered the more difficult portion of the schedule? 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 29, 2013, 09:04:01 PM
Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 08:33:57 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 07:19:58 PM
Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Really, the regional rankings come out Feb. 6, which means all of this week's games games will be included too.  That leaves about 4 regular season games left and then conference tourney games.  When is the most difficult portion of their schedule supposed to come?
Do all d3 conferences play a double round robin?  Isn't the conference tournament considered the more difficult portion of the schedule?

Nope.  Some are too big to do a double, others would prefer to inflate their records by playing weaker competition.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 09:06:03 PM
Of course not, but to say the conference tournament is the most difficult portion of the schedule is hardly accurate.  It's not even part of the schedule for some teams.  In some leagues, only the top four teams make it.  If the top 8 teams make it, that gives those teams 3 extra games after the regular season.  So, are you telling me we should determine the regional rankings on 3 games or two in some cases?  The last regional rankings would include those results, that's why there are 3 or 4 regional rankings. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 09:10:19 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 29, 2013, 09:04:01 PM
Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 08:33:57 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 07:19:58 PM
Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

Really, the regional rankings come out Feb. 6, which means all of this week's games games will be included too.  That leaves about 4 regular season games left and then conference tourney games.  When is the most difficult portion of their schedule supposed to come?
Do all d3 conferences play a double round robin?  Isn't the conference tournament considered the more difficult portion of the schedule?

Nope.  Some are too big to do a double, others would prefer to inflate their records by playing weaker competition.

There has been complaints that the NESCAC doesn't play a full round robin...maybe because they are "too big".  But, the MIAC has 11 teams and they play a full round robin.  The MWC has 11 teams as well, they don't play a full round robin, but they play an unbalanced schedule to make an 18-game conference schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on January 29, 2013, 09:22:28 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2013, 09:06:03 PM
Of course not, but to say the conference tournament is the most difficult portion of the schedule is hardly accurate.  It's not even part of the schedule for some teams.  In some leagues, only the top four teams make it.  If the top 8 teams make it, that gives those teams 3 extra games after the regular season.  So, are you telling me we should determine the regional rankings on 3 games or two in some cases?  The last regional rankings would include those results, that's why there are 3 or 4 regional rankings.
I'd think for a lot of teams the conference tournament is the most difficult portion; you're facing teams who are either in the top 4 or are in a "win or go home" situation.  Teams also tend to be stronger at the end of the schedule versus the start barring injuries to star players.  There's not enough uniformity in scheduling or play across regions to claim that any objective ranking system is going to come up with the best at-large bids.  Subjectivity can go past the numbers to analyze the true strength of schedule.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2013, 09:37:29 PM
Quote from: AO on January 29, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2013, 04:44:02 PM
Quote from: John Gleich on January 29, 2013, 04:31:34 PM
There's both an objective and a subjective piece to these rankings.

The question is where do you start... do you start with the objective, and then make adjustments subjectively, or do you start with the subjective, and make changes based upon the objective data?

It seems to me like the objective should be the starting point, with subjective adjustments. It doesn't make logical sense to make adjustments based on objective data... because adjustments are, by nature, subjective acts.

I happen to believe the subjective should never come into play. Whenever subjectivity enters the mix, the fairness level decreases. It's impossible to treat all teams the same (or equally) while dealing in the realm of subjectives. And the NCAA selection committee must treat all teams the same in order to be transparent and credible.
Fairness level?  What does that mean?  Why not the simple goal of awarding the best teams?  SOS is flawed by different numbers of conference games and regionally ranked games are flawed by the nature of the schedule as a team may be ranked before the most difficult portion of their schedule.  We need more subjective eyes to discern between teams.  Be transparent by disclosing who is voting for who.

By fairness I mean taking the exact same criteria and applying it to each team in the exact same way. It doesn't have to be the current criteria -- in fact I recommend it not be -- but whatever it is needs to be handled in a systematic way.

They are trying to find the "best" teams, or rather the most qualified ones, but it's not done the same way every time for every team in every situation. That's a problem.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on January 29, 2013, 11:19:53 PM
Grinding out a double round robin is tougher than a conference tourney.

For those 'bigger' conferences, it's still tough because you SHOULD double round one division (or make up divisions internally) and single round the others. NESCAC - take note!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2013, 11:34:36 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 29, 2013, 11:19:53 PM
Grinding out a double round robin is tougher than a conference tourney.

For those 'bigger' conferences, it's still tough because you SHOULD double round one division (or make up divisions internally) and single round the others. NESCAC - take note!
Yes, because the tourney usually has the "rubber match" in those two conference divisions!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2013, 01:31:16 AM
Here is my updated subjective list for the West Region

Point drops down, but only slightly, with two losses this week.  Whitworth jumps the Pointers.  Point stays ahead of Whitewater (beat them twice) and Stout (beat them once), but just barely.  Whitewater had a good week topping La Crosse (who just beat Point) and exacting revenge on an earlier loss to St. Norbert (probably ranked in the Midwest Region).

Really not sure about Platteville and La Crosse.  Their records aren't very good, but I'm sure their SOS is way above Luther and Buena Vista and they have played a lot more teams that will be regionally ranked as well.  They could sneak in 8th or 9th.

I'm excited to see the 1st regional rankings this Wednesday.

Updated

1. St. Thomas 20-1...status quo...topped Augsburg
2. Whitworth 20-1...status quo
3. Stevens Point 18-4...lost to Platteville and La Crosse
4. Whitewater 17-4...beat La Crosse and St. Norb's
5. Stout 17-4...beat Platteville
6. Augsburg 15-5...lost to St. Thomas again
7. Luther 15-5
8. Buena Vista 16-5
9. Platteville 15-7...beat Point, lost to Stout
10. La Crosse 14-7...beat Point, lost to Whitewater
11. Northwestern (MN) 15-6...lost to Crown
12. Redlands 15-5
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 03, 2013, 02:25:24 PM
Here is how I see the Midwest heading into the first ranking this week...

Quote from: Titan Q on February 03, 2013, 02:21:12 PM
We will get our first regional rankings this Wednesday 2/6 (with games through Tuesday 2/5 included).  None of the teams in the Midwest mix play until Wednesday evening, so the in-region records you see below are the ones the Midwest Regional Advisory Committee will be using.

Here is my final projection of the ranking this week...

Midwest Region ranking projection (through Sunday, February 3)
1.      Ill. Wesleyan  .833 (15-3)/.515
2.      North Central  .842 (16-3)/.541
3.      Rose-Hulman  .900 (18-2)/.460
4.      Washington U  .789 (15-4)/.574
5.      Transylvania  .789 (15-4)/.577
6.      Wheaton  .737 (14-5)/.537
7.      Augustana  .750 (15-5)/.571
8.      Grinnell  .824 (14-3)/.482
-----
9.      St. Norbert  .789 (15-4)/.499

Notes
* My criteria includes 1) in-region winning %, 2) in-region SOS, and 3) in-region head-to-head.

* My SOS data is coming from KnightSlappy's regional ranking work on his blog.  These numbers are through 1/27, so the SOS figures are two games old in most cases.  I will update this when KnightSlappy does his next update.  Two games can make a significant difference. http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

* In-region head-to-head results considered:
  - Illinois Wesleyan - wins @ Wheaton, vs Augustana, vs NCC, @ Augustana, vs Wheaton...loss @ Wash U
  - North Central - wins vs Wheaton, vs Augustana...losses @ IWU, @ Wheaton
  - Transylvania - win @ Rose-Hulman...loss vs Rose-Hulman
  - Rose-Hulman - win @ Transylvania...loss @ Transylvania
  - Wash U - win vs IWU...loss @ Wheaton
  - Wheaton - wins @ Augustana, vs NCC, vs Wash U...losses @ NCC, vs IWU, @ IWU
  - Augustana - win @ St. Norbert...losses @NCC, @IWU, vs Wheaton, vs IWU
  - Grinnell - win @ St. Norbert
  - St. Norbert - no wins...losses vs Augustana, vs Grinnell

* Since there are no actual regional rankings yet, I have not factored in in-region results vs teams who will be ranked in other regions.  For example, Transylvania's win over Wooster (Great Lakes), Augustana's loss at UW-Stevens Point (West), Wash U's results vs UAA teams ranked in other regions, etc.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 03, 2013, 03:39:42 PM
The best way to sort out the top five in the Midwest right now might be to draw names out of a hat. You could make a good argument for any one of them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 03, 2013, 03:44:52 PM
I think the Great Lakes will look like (WP/SOS) :

1. Calvin (1.000/.423)
2. Wooster (.850/.547)
3. Ohio Wesleyan (.842/.554)
4. Thomas More (.895/.453)
5. St. Vincent (.824/.485)
6. Capital (.789/.500)
--------
7. Marietta (.762/.479)
8. Baldwin Wallace (.750/.480)
9. Hope (.667/.542)
10. Wittenberg (.647/.545)
11. Adrian (.625/.549)

St. Vincent is the least safe as their only "game" was a loss to Thomas More. Calvin doesn't have a good SOS, but they've beaten two teams that Wooster lost too (Adrian and Wabash) so there's some cushion there.

If it were up to me, I'd like to see Thomas More and (especially) St. Vincent out of the picture, but I know the committee loves winning percentage above SOS. I'd love to see Capital, Hope, and probably Marietta be 4, 5, and 6.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 03, 2013, 05:22:23 PM
Thomas More plays 3 players taller than 6-2.  They are 6-3, 6-4 and 6-4.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 03, 2013, 06:26:26 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 03, 2013, 03:39:42 PM
The best way to sort out the top five in the Midwest right now might be to draw names out of a hat. You could make a good argument for any one of them.

As I posted on the CCIW board...

In my Midwest region projection, I felt confident about spots:

* #1 (IWU) -  due to the number of wins IWU has against the other ranked teams.  Five might be the most wins any team in the country currently has over other teams in their region.  I haven't looked at that, but five seems like a huge number.

* #7 (Augie) and #8 (Grinnell) - seems to me these are the bottom two right now, all things considered.

But spots 2-6 were extremely difficult.  Honestly, you could make a case for absolutely any order between North Central, Rose-Hulman, Wash U, Transylvania, and Wheaton.

In my projection, I'm the least comfortable with where I have Wheaton (#6).  With wins over NCC, Augustana, and Wash U, the Thunder could easily be slotted higher.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2013, 08:53:55 PM
I didnt realize games were through Tuesday. I always thought it was through just Sunday's games. Interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 03, 2013, 09:48:41 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2013, 08:53:55 PM
I didnt realize games were through Tuesday. I always thought it was through just Sunday's games. Interesting.

I think that's the case.  Someone check me on that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 04, 2013, 01:01:34 AM
  MY Mid-Atlantic regional ranking projection(thru 3 Feb)

1. Catholic(17-2)
2. St. Mary's(14-2)
3. Wesley(14-2)
4. Albright(18-3)
5. F&M(13-4)
6. Dickinson(14-5)
7. Alvernia(16-4)
8. Scranton(15-6)
9. Cabrini(14-4)
10. Salisbury(12-6)
11. DeSales(15-5)
12. Arcadia(13-6)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 04, 2013, 03:54:05 AM
Their rankings are through Sunday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2013, 09:36:33 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 03, 2013, 06:26:26 PM
In my projection, I'm the least comfortable with where I have Wheaton (#6).  With wins over NCC, Augustana, and Wash U, the Thunder could easily be slotted higher.

And their win over Calvin isn't insignificant if things are tight. It would mean getting into the secondary criteria, but that could potentially be big for Wheaton.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 04, 2013, 09:36:58 AM
My South regional ranking projection (thru 3 Feb), with regional and overall records, and also SoS:

1.  Hampden-Sydney  (ODAC)      15-2        19-2     .520
2.  Mary Hardin-Baylor  (ASC)      18-3        18-3     .550
3.  Christopher Newport  (USAC)  14-3         15-3     .529
4.  Emory (UAA)                         14-4         14-4     .556
5.  Concordia (Texas) (ASC)         14-4         16-5     .547
6.  Centre (SAA)                          10-3         15-3     .512
7.  Guilford (ODAC)                      13-5         16-5     .542
8.  Virginia Wesleyan  (ODAC)       11-5         14-6     .511
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2013, 09:56:25 AM
Numbers are updated through Sunday:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 04, 2013, 11:03:06 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 04, 2013, 09:36:58 AM
My South regional ranking projection (thru 3 Feb), with regional and overall records, and also SoS:

1.  Hampden-Sydney  (ODAC)      15-2        19-2     .520    POOL A BID
2.  Mary Hardin-Baylor  (ASC)      18-3        18-3     .550     POOL A BID
3.  Christopher Newport  (USAC)  14-3         15-3     .529     POOL A BID
4.  Emory (UAA)                         14-4         14-4     .556    POOL C BID (Wash U leads the UAA)
5.  Concordia (Texas) (ASC)         14-4         16-5     .547    POOL C BID  (UMHB leads the ASC)
6.  Centre (SAA)                          10-3         15-3     .512   POOL B/C
7.  Guilford (ODAC)                      13-5         16-5     .542    POOL C BID  (H-SC leads the ODAC)
8.  Virginia Wesleyan  (ODAC)       11-5         14-6     .511     POOL C BID (H-SC leads the ODAC)
Looks good!  Close enough for us the follow.




Wrong!  Rochester leads the UAA!  Emory, Deis and WashU are tied for second at 6-3!

Sorry !
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 04, 2013, 11:04:35 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2013, 09:56:25 AM
Numbers are updated through Sunday:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

Awesome.  Thanks for all you do on this!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2013, 11:23:49 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 04, 2013, 11:03:06 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 04, 2013, 09:36:58 AM
My South regional ranking projection (thru 3 Feb), with regional and overall records, and also SoS:

1.  Hampden-Sydney  (ODAC)      15-2        19-2     .520    POOL A BID
2.  Mary Hardin-Baylor  (ASC)      18-3        18-3     .550     POOL A BID
3.  Christopher Newport  (USAC)  14-3         15-3     .529     POOL A BID
4.  Emory (UAA)                         14-4         14-4     .556    POOL C BID (Wash U leads the UAA)
5.  Concordia (Texas) (ASC)         14-4         16-5     .547    POOL C BID  (UMHB leads the ASC)
6.  Centre (SAA)                          10-3         15-3     .512   POOL B/C
7.  Guilford (ODAC)                      13-5         16-5     .542    POOL C BID  (H-SC leads the ODAC)
8.  Virginia Wesleyan  (ODAC)       11-5         14-6     .511     POOL C BID (H-SC leads the ODAC)
Looks good!  Close enough for us the follow.

I think Texas-Dallas will get ranked instead of Virginia Wesleyan but everyone else looks close. I'd bet on UMHB getting the top spot.

Randolph-Macon needs more wins, but they've played a tough schedule! 6 of their 8 losses have come against teams that will be regionally ranked come Wednesday. And a seventh, Randolph, may not be too far off the bottom of the South rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nescac1 on February 04, 2013, 11:51:29 AM
Interesting that in the New England numbers provided by KnightSlappy, Amherst is ranked below Brandeis, Williams, and RIC teams it beat, particularly Brandeis and RIC. 

I'd imagine the New England rankings will go something like this:  1. WPI, 2. tie ... Amherst/Williams/Midd (really, you could justify any order of these three), 5. RIC, 6. Brandeis, 7. MIT, 8. Curry.  Outside of the top four, and MAYBE RIC if it runs the table but loses late in the Little East tourney, I can't see any of these times earning an at-large big. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 04, 2013, 12:11:11 PM
If I understand correctly, KnightSlappy, the wRPI ranking you've presented is a starting point for the NCAA committee.  Is that right?  How does the NCAA go from your wRPI ranking:

Quote from: http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html
Reg.    Rank    Team    Conference    WP    wSOS    wRPI    Nat.    Pool    Status    REG    D3    vRRO    OVR
SO    1    Mary Hardin-Baylor    ASC    0.857    0.580    0.649    6    A    C     18-3    18-3    0-0    18-3
SO    2    Concordia (Texas)    ASC    0.778    0.555    0.611    23    C    8    14-4    14-4    0-0    16-5
SO    3    Randolph-Macon    ODAC    0.600    0.609    0.606    28    C    11    12-8    13-8    0-0    13-8
SO    4    Hampden-Sydney    ODAC    0.882    0.508    0.602    33    A    wC    15-2    18-2    0-0    19-2
SO    5    Guilford    ODAC    0.722    0.542    0.587    46    C    24    13-5    14-5    0-0    16-5
SO    6    Christopher Newport    USAC    0.824    0.506    0.585    48    A    bub    14-3    15-3    0-0    15-3
SO    7    Emory    UAA    0.737    0.523    0.577    58    C    32    14-5    14-5    0-0    14-5
SO    8    Texas-Dallas    ASC    0.714    0.528    0.574    64    C    37    15-6    15-6    0-0    15-6
SO    9    Centre    SAA    0.714    0.506    0.558    86    B    1    10-4    10-4    0-0    15-4
SO    10    Lynchburg    ODAC    0.706    0.507    0.557    89    C    56    12-5    16-5    0-0    16-5
SO    11    Virginia Wesleyan    ODAC    0.688    0.511    0.555    92    C    59    11-5    14-5    0-0    14-6

to something like this:

Quote from: algernon on February 04, 2013, 09:36:58 AM
1.  Hampden-Sydney  (ODAC)      15-2        19-2   
2.  Mary Hardin-Baylor  (ASC)      18-3        18-3         
3.  Christopher Newport  (USAC)  14-3         15-3         
4.  Emory (UAA)                         14-4         14-4   
5.  Concordia (Texas) (ASC)         14-4         16-5     
6.  Centre (SAA)                          10-3         15-3   
7.  Guilford (ODAC)                      13-5         16-5   
8.  Virginia Wesleyan  (ODAC)       11-5         14-6   

Are the criteria that alter the numbers-based wRPI ranking the same as these selection criteria for the 2010-11 tournament?

Quote from: http://www.d3hoops.com/interactive/faq/ncaatournament#seed
The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed:
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP) (weighted 2/3).
- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP) (weighted 1/3).
- Add OWP and OOWP to give total strength of schedule
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
Note:
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the rankings/selection process only.
• Conference postseason contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selection.

If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision by the committee, the following secondary criteria (for ranking and selections) will be evaluated:
• Out-of-region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non Division III opponents.
• Results versus all Division III ranked teams.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus all common opponents.
• Overall DIII Strength of Schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2013, 12:26:42 PM
The committee never comes up with an RPI number. They don't use any mathematical combination of the criteria; they're simply looking at winning percentage, SOS, results versus regionally ranked opponents, head-to-head results, and results versus common opponents individually for each team.

My wRPI number is 0.25 x WP + 0.75 x wSOS -- they don't actually use this.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2013, 01:03:43 PM
FYI - The RACs then have a conference call on Tuesday to discuss the rankings and then they immediately vote online individually on the regional rankings. Then on Wednesday morning, the national committee has a conference call where they discuss the rankings and make any adjustments they feel necessary (something that last year they were not allowed to do for the first time until the final rankings - we are back to the original way now). Then the regional rankings are made public Wednesday afternoon.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 04, 2013, 01:07:56 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2013, 12:26:42 PM
The committee never comes up with an RPI number. They don't use any mathematical combination of the criteria; they're simply looking at winning percentage, SOS, results versus regionally ranked opponents, head-to-head results, and results versus common opponents individually for each team.

My wRPI number is 0.25 x WP + 0.75 x wSOS -- they don't actually use this.

So they don't actually start with an wRPI or any other formula.  Thanks for the clarification of what happens.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 04, 2013, 01:23:50 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2013, 01:03:43 PM
FYI - The RACs then have a conference call on Tuesday to discuss the rankings and then they immediately vote online individually on the regional rankings. Then on Wednesday morning, the national committee has a conference call where they discuss the rankings and make any adjustments they feel necessary (something that last year they were not allowed to do for the first time until the final rankings - we are back to the original way now). Then the regional rankings are made public Wednesday afternoon.

Anyone know how to tap a phone?  ::)  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 04, 2013, 01:57:27 PM
National Committee and Regional Advisory Committee members can be found here, just FYI...

http://static.psbin.com/w/6/qxppu7z1rkr1ta/2013_Pre_Championship_DIII_Men-s_Basketball.pdf

Starting on page 10 of 32.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2013, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 04, 2013, 01:57:27 PM
National Committee and Regional Advisory Committee members can be found here, just FYI...

http://static.psbin.com/w/6/qxppu7z1rkr1ta/2013_Pre_Championship_DIII_Men-s_Basketball.pdf

Starting on page 10 of 32.

I wonder how the makeup of coaches affects the rankings. I would imagine that if Team A and Team B had very similar WP, SOS and the like, but Team A beat me soundly and Team B never played me, that I would be more inclined to vote Team A ahead of Team B.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2013, 02:36:20 PM
That's why there are a number of coaches... not just one LOL.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2013, 04:00:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2013, 02:36:20 PM
That's why there are a number of coaches... not just one LOL.

Right, but in the GL it's only six, and I don't believe the chair votes. That's not a lot of votes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 04, 2013, 04:02:49 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2013, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 04, 2013, 01:57:27 PM
National Committee and Regional Advisory Committee members can be found here, just FYI...

http://static.psbin.com/w/6/qxppu7z1rkr1ta/2013_Pre_Championship_DIII_Men-s_Basketball.pdf

Starting on page 10 of 32.

I wonder how the makeup of coaches affects the rankings. I would imagine that if Team A and Team B had very similar WP, SOS and the like, but Team A beat me soundly and Team B never played me, that I would be more inclined to vote Team A ahead of Team B.

That's why I typically wait until the first rankings are released before trying to make predictions.  The criteria is obviously the same every year, but the committees are always unique in the ways they use it and prioritize it.  Once we have one set of rankings it becomes easier to see what this particular group is going to do with the data this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 04, 2013, 04:07:43 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 04, 2013, 04:02:49 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2013, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 04, 2013, 01:57:27 PM
National Committee and Regional Advisory Committee members can be found here, just FYI...

http://static.psbin.com/w/6/qxppu7z1rkr1ta/2013_Pre_Championship_DIII_Men-s_Basketball.pdf

Starting on page 10 of 32.

I wonder how the makeup of coaches affects the rankings. I would imagine that if Team A and Team B had very similar WP, SOS and the like, but Team A beat me soundly and Team B never played me, that I would be more inclined to vote Team A ahead of Team B.

That's why I typically wait until the first rankings are released before trying to make predictions.  The criteria is obviously the same every year, but the committees are always unique in the ways they use it and prioritize it.  Once we have one set of rankings it becomes easier to see what this particular group is going to do with the data this year.
Why have a committee?  Isn't this an online vote?  Give every coach a vote.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2013, 04:54:17 PM
There is a committee... and only the ones on the committee are allowed to vote... and only if they participated in the conference call held just prior to voting being opened up. You can't have all coaches voting when we know many coaches don't even pay attention to the criteria or understand it.

And yes, the regional committee chair does not vote.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 04, 2013, 06:24:52 PM
With updated SOS numbers from KnightSlappy, here is a final shot at the Midwest...

Midwest Region ranking projection (through Sunday, February 3)
1.      Ill. Wesleyan  .833 (15-3)/.546
2.      North Central  .842 (16-3)/.519
3.      Rose-Hulman  .900 (18-2)/.485
4.      Transylvania  .789 (15-4)/.563
5.      Wheaton  .737 (14-5)/.549
6.      Washington U  .789 (15-4)/.547
7.      Augustana  .750 (15-5)/.558
8.      Grinnell  .824 (14-3)/.475
-----
9.      St. Norbert  .789 (15-4)/.516
 
Notes
* My criteria includes 1) in-region winning %, 2) in-region SOS, and 3) in-region head-to-head.

* In-region head-to-head results considered:
  - Illinois Wesleyan - wins @ Wheaton, vs Augustana, vs NCC, @ Augustana, vs Wheaton...loss @ Wash U
  - North Central - wins vs Wheaton, vs Augustana...losses @ IWU, @ Wheaton
  - Transylvania - win @ Rose-Hulman...loss vs Rose-Hulman
  - Rose-Hulman - win @ Transylvania...loss vs Transylvania
  - Wash U - win vs IWU...loss @ Wheaton
  - Wheaton - wins @ Augustana, vs NCC, vs Wash U...losses @ NCC, vs IWU, @ IWU
  - Augustana - win @ St. Norbert...losses @NCC, @IWU, vs Wheaton, vs IWU
  - Grinnell - win @ St. Norbert
  - St. Norbert - no wins...losses vs Augustana, vs Grinnell

* Since there are no actual regional rankings yet, I have not factored in in-region results vs teams who will be ranked in other regions.  For example, Transylvania's win over Wooster (Great Lakes), Augustana's loss at UW-Stevens Point (West), Wash U's results vs UAA teams ranked in other regions, etc.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2013, 06:42:08 PM
I can't remember if they factor those in on the first rankings either... I remember there was a thought at one point that they rank... then they go back and rerank... but since the vote is done online and I don't think there is a contingency for a second vote... I am pretty sure the results vs. regionally ranked opponents does not apply to the first regional rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 04, 2013, 06:58:51 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2013, 06:42:08 PM
I can't remember if they factor those in on the first rankings either... I remember there was a thought at one point that they rank... then they go back and rerank... but since the vote is done online and I don't think there is a contingency for a second vote... I am pretty sure the results vs. regionally ranked opponents does not apply to the first regional rankings.

Since the national committee goes back this year to the old way of reviewing regional committee's rankings even from the first round, might they factor in results vs. regionally-ranked opponents (perhaps including opponents ranked in other regions)?  Any idea on that?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2013, 07:04:04 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2013, 06:42:08 PM
I can't remember if they factor those in on the first rankings either... I remember there was a thought at one point that they rank... then they go back and rerank... but since the vote is done online and I don't think there is a contingency for a second vote... I am pretty sure the results vs. regionally ranked opponents does not apply to the first regional rankings.

Do you know what happens in the last ranking of the season? If, say, Randolph-Macon ended up sneaking into the bottom of the south region ranking, Catholic would (should) get the "credit" for another regional ranked opponent -- would this be an adjustment the national committee would make?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2013, 07:56:54 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 04, 2013, 06:58:51 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2013, 06:42:08 PM
I can't remember if they factor those in on the first rankings either... I remember there was a thought at one point that they rank... then they go back and rerank... but since the vote is done online and I don't think there is a contingency for a second vote... I am pretty sure the results vs. regionally ranked opponents does not apply to the first regional rankings.

Since the national committee goes back this year to the old way of reviewing regional committee's rankings even from the first round, might they factor in results vs. regionally-ranked opponents (perhaps including opponents ranked in other regions)?  Any idea on that?

I doubt it - the adjustments are when they don't agree with the RACs interpretation of things... I am quite sure the RvRO just doesn't happen in the first rankings.

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2013, 07:04:04 PM
Do you know what happens in the last ranking of the season? If, say, Randolph-Macon ended up sneaking into the bottom of the south region ranking, Catholic would (should) get the "credit" for another regional ranked opponent -- would this be an adjustment the national committee would make?

It could be adjusted, sure... but I have a feeling usually the regional committees get a good sense of what is going on in the other regions. However, this is a valid point that they may not know... and in that case the national committee would make that adjustment accordingly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 05, 2013, 09:22:43 PM
Here's a copy of a post that I put on the SUNYAC board early Monday morning showing Massey's rankings of the top teams in the East. It wouldn't surprise me to see the top 6 teams on this list in the East Region rankings tomorrow. I think the top 3 are a lock in that order and the next 3 are probably in as well.



Here are Massey's ranking of the top East Region teams through games of 2-2-13.
The number after the team is Massey's National ranking. He may update these later today so the numbers may change a bit.

1   Rochester         7
2   Cortland           26
3   Stevens           50
4   NYU                54
5   Hobart             56
6   Geneseo          86
7   Oswego           87
8   Union              88
9   Plattsburgh      91
10 Ithaca             99



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 06, 2013, 01:31:16 AM
I'm interested to see where RIC is Wednesday afternoon in the NE region.  A team that's 19-3 has a couple "good" wins (Brandeis, doesn't look too good now, only beat them by 2), MIT (by a lot [22?] but was without the two of MIT's better players), and is in a conference that is absolutely awful this year.  I'm wondering if they won out, lost in the LEC final if a 24-4 team (that would be their record in that scenerio) that's a perennial NCAA tournament team would be enough to get in??  I say if their ranked anywhere higher than 6th I say yes, 7th or lower I say no.  Thoughts??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 06, 2013, 04:27:57 AM
Quote from: 7express on February 06, 2013, 01:31:16 AM
I'm interested to see where RIC is Wednesday afternoon in the NE region.  A team that's 19-3 has a couple "good" wins (Brandeis, doesn't look too good now, only beat them by 2), MIT (by a lot [22?] but was without the two of MIT's better players), and is in a conference that is absolutely awful this year.  I'm wondering if they won out, lost in the LEC final if a 24-4 team (that would be their record in that scenerio) that's a perennial NCAA tournament team would be enough to get in??  I say if their ranked anywhere higher than 6th I say yes, 7th or lower I say no.  Thoughts??

KnightSlappy is showing them to be in pretty good shape in his regional rankings sitting in the 5th spot in the region and with a guaranteed pool C bid. If they finish 24-4 I think it's pretty safe to say they'll get a bid. Especially with their history of tournament play. Of the four teams ranked above them, 2 of them could get automatic bids and even if Amherst moves ahead of them bumping Rhode Island into the 6th spot, I'd still think they're a safe bet to get in. It will probably be the only way the LEC gets 2 teams in ths year is if someone upsets RIC for the tournament title.

With RIC beating Brandeis in their head to head matchup the regional committee might even have RIC ranked above Brandeis. And since Amherst also beat Brandeis and Williams it wouldn't surprise me to see the rankings something like this.

1.  WPI
2.  Amherst
3.  Williams
4.  Middlebury
5.  Rhode Island
6.  Brandeis
7.  MIT 

Massey's latest rankings has them listed like this:

1.  WPI
2.  Williams
3.  Middlebury
4.  Amherst
5.  Brandeis
6.  Rhode Island
7.  MIT
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 06, 2013, 07:36:13 AM
Magic,

I agree with the first set of rankings you have for the NE for spots 1-7.  There is a clear drop off after 7, though, going by Knightslappy's rankings  (http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html) for 8-15.  In other words, they way things look currently, MIT seems pretty locked into that 7 spot, with the top 6 also locked into those spots in no given order.  The reason why I say that is MIT has either beaten or split with the top contenders below them, and hold a better winning percentage, while they are 0-2 vs. teams in the 1-6 spots (WPI and RIC).  For example, MIT has beaten Curry, Tufts, and Clark, as well as splitting with Springfield (and holding a better place in the conference and a better WP currently) and I dont see a 10 loss Wesleyan team jumping them even with a real strong SOS. I think WPI, the 3 NESCAC schools, and RIC seem to be in pretty good shape for an at large, with Brandeis and MIT still needing to do a bit more to feel comfortable about getting an at-large bids.  Should be interesting to see the rankings when they are released today.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 06, 2013, 10:58:06 AM
Massey's latest rankings has them listed like this:

1.  WPI                       NEWMAC Pool A
2.  Williams                  NESCAC Pool A
3.  Middlebury              NESCAC Pool C
4.  Amherst                  NESCAC Pool C
5.  Brandeis                  UAA Pool C  (Rochester leads the conference and there is no tourney, unless I missed the change.)
6.  Rhode Island           LEC  Pool A
7.  MIT                       NEWMAC Pool C   --  looking like they might be 4th to the table.  In that region, that puts them on the bubble for me, that is, probably being on the table for the last Pool C bid's consideration.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2013, 11:10:18 AM
Quote from: magicman on February 06, 2013, 04:27:57 AM
Quote from: 7express on February 06, 2013, 01:31:16 AM
I'm interested to see where RIC is Wednesday afternoon in the NE region.  A team that's 19-3 has a couple "good" wins (Brandeis, doesn't look too good now, only beat them by 2), MIT (by a lot [22?] but was without the two of MIT's better players), and is in a conference that is absolutely awful this year.  I'm wondering if they won out, lost in the LEC final if a 24-4 team (that would be their record in that scenerio) that's a perennial NCAA tournament team would be enough to get in??  I say if their ranked anywhere higher than 6th I say yes, 7th or lower I say no.  Thoughts??

KnightSlappy is showing them to be in pretty good shape in his regional rankings sitting in the 5th spot in the region and with a guaranteed pool C bid. If they finish 24-4 I think it's pretty safe to say they'll get a bid. Especially with their history of tournament play. Of the four teams ranked above them, 2 of them could get automatic bids and even if Amherst moves ahead of them bumping Rhode Island into the 6th spot, I'd still think they're a safe bet to get in. It will probably be the only way the LEC gets 2 teams in ths year is if someone upsets RIC for the tournament title.

With RIC beating Brandeis in their head to head matchup the regional committee might even have RIC ranked above Brandeis. And since Amherst also beat Brandeis and Williams it wouldn't surprise me to see the rankings something like this.

The head-to-head will certainly knock Rhode Island College above Brandeis.

Quote from: magicman on February 06, 2013, 04:27:57 AM
1.  WPI
2.  Amherst
3.  Williams
4.  Middlebury
5.  Rhode Island
6.  Brandeis
7.  MIT 

I think this nails it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2013, 11:14:49 AM
HERE are last year's Pool C winners. I will again be compiling the list with the week's schedule but it may not be up until later tonight with the 1st ranking coming out this afternoon.


POOL C BIDS



   ATL                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #3   St. Joseph's (LI)*  POOLC      SKY      21-2, 21-3      0.913      0.470       1-0       0-1   
   #4   Richard Stockton*      NJAC      17-6, 18-7      0.739      0.523       1-3       1-1   
   #5   New Jersey City      NJAC      15-6, 17-7      0.714      0.554       2-3       0-0   
                                             
   EAST                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #1   Hartwick*  POOL C      E8      22-2, 23-2      0.917      0.523       2-0       0-1   
   #3   Hobart*  POOL C      LL      20-4, 21-4      0.833      0.517       1-1       1-1   
   #4   NYU  POOL C      UAA      19-5, 19-5      0.792      0.491       2-2       1-0   
   #6   Nazareth      E8      17-6, 17-8      0.739      0.549       0-4       1-1   
                                             
   GL                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #2   Wittenberg* POOL C      NCAC      18-4, 20-5      0.818      0.539       6-1       1-1   
   #4   Ohio Wesleyan  POOL C      NCAC      18-6, 19-6      0.750      0.554       3-5       1-1   
   #6   John Carroll      OAC      15-6, 18-6      0.714      0.499       1-1       0-1   
                                             
   MA                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #3   St. Mary's (Md)*  POOL C      CAC      17-5, 19-6      0.773      0.568       1-3       0-1   
   #4   Keystone      CSAC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.490       0-2       1-1   
   #7   Widener      MACC      14-7, 18-7      0.667      0.565       4-4       0-1   
   #8   Mary Washington      CAC      16-6, 17-8      0.727      0.522       3-2       1-1   
   #9   Albright      MACC      13-7, 17-8      0.650      0.546       4-6       0-1   
                                             
   MW                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #2   Wheaton (IL)  POOL C      CCIW      17-5, 19-5      0.773      0.552       4-3       2-1   
   #3   Transylvania*  POOL C      HCAC      21-2, 22-3      0.913      0.508       3-0       1-1   
   #4   Lake Forest*      MWC      19-3, 20-3      0.864      0.520       0-1       0-1   
   #5   Illinois Wesleyan  POOL C      CCIW      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.538       2-4       0-1   
   #6   Concordia (WI)*      NATH      19-4, 20-4      0.826      0.487       1-1       1-1   
   #8   Augustana      CCIW      18-5, 19-5      0.783      0.466       3-4       0-2   
                                             
   NE                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #2   Middlebury  POOL C      NESCAC      21-2, 23-2      0.913      0.564       2-2       1-1   
   #4   Rhode Island College  POOL C      LEC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.586       5-4       2-1   
   #5   W. Connecticut  POOL C      LEC      20-5, 20-5      0.800      0.568       6-3       0-1   
   #7   WPI      NEWMAC      18-6, 18-6      0.750      0.587       2-3       0-1   
   #8   Wesleyan (Conn)      NESCAC      20-4, 20-5      0.833      0.506       3-2       0-1   
   #10   Keene State      LEC      15-6, 18-7      0.714      0.573       3-4       1-1   
                                             
   STH                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #1   Mary Hardin-Baylor*  POOL C      ASC      23-1, 24-1      0.958      0.512       3-0       1-1   
   #3   Birmingham-Southern*  POOL C      SCAC      21-1, 24-1      0.955      0.455       0-0       1-1   
   #4   Randolph-Macon  POOL C      ODAC      17-4, 20-5      0.810      0.516       3-2       1-1   
   #6   Emory      UAA      19-5, 19-5      0.792      0.517       2-3       0-1   
   #7   Hardin-Simmons      ASC      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.523       0-3       2-1   
   #8   Texas-Dallas      ASC      19-4, 21-4      0.826      0.475       0-2       1-1   
                                             
   WST                                          
   WK3   TEAM      CON.      REG/OVERALL      WL%      SOS      RvsRR         
   #1   Whitewater*  POOL C      WIAC      22-3, 2-3      0.880      0.551       5-2       1-1   
   #4   Stevens Point  POOL C      WIAC      17-6, 19-6      0.739      0.588       4-2       1-1   
   #7   Gustavus Adolphus  POOL C      MIAC      18-6, 19-6      0.750      0.517       2-1       1-1   
   #8   Puget Sound      NWC      14-6, 19-6      0.700      0.491       3-2       1-1   
   #9   Whitman      NWC      16-7, 18-7      0.696      0.518       1-5       0-1   
                                             
[/quote]
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: mailsy on February 06, 2013, 11:35:01 AM
Here are the MidAtlantic standings in Massey vs Knightslappy's regional rankings:

Massey:
Team      Rec   Mass R   National      Reg
Catholic      19-2   0.69   14      1
St Mary's      19-2   0.69   15      2
Alvernia      17-4   0.52   31      3
Albright      18-3   0.46   39      4
Wesley      17-5   0.43   45      5
Arcadia      13-8   0.23   72      6
F&M             16-5   0.19   76      7
Dickinson      16-5   0.18   79      8
Salisbury      14-7   0.18   81      9
Cabrini      17-5   0.18   83      10
Messiah      12-8   0.17   84      11

Knightslappy:

1. Alvernia   MACC
2. St Mary's   CAC
3. Catholic   LAND
4. Wesley    CAC
5. Arcadia   MACC
6. Albright   MACC
7. F&M              CC
8. Juniata    LAND
9. Salisbury   CC
10. DeSales   MACF
11. Cabrini   CSAC
12. Messiah   MACC

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 06, 2013, 12:58:54 PM

Do we have an ETA on the release?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2013, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 06, 2013, 12:58:54 PM

Do we have an ETA on the release?

I think they've typically been between 3 and 4 PM ET in past years.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 04:04:19 PM
First rankings are always late... they pick up the pace in the next two.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2013, 05:01:56 PM
Raise your hand if you are hitting refresh on the regional rankings page!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 05:03:21 PM
HAND RAISED

Interestingly... the SOS numbers and such are new (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/06/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-1/), but the rankings aren't up there...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2013, 05:04:12 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 05:03:21 PM
HAND RAISED

Interestingly... the SOS numbers and such are new (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/06/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-1/), but the rankings aren't up there...

I've been trying for over an hour and can't get my OWP numbers to match theirs.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 05:04:59 PM
Sounds like user error LOL
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2013, 05:05:40 PM
That's what the NCAA would say. Any chance it's a matter of a game or two not being correct in terms of in-/out-of-region?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2013, 05:08:27 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2013, 05:05:40 PM
That's what the NCAA would say. Any chance it's a matter of a game or two not being correct in terms of in-/out-of-region?

I've taken two teams -- Calvin and Alma -- and made sure all their opponents' regional record matched my records (I found 3 errors in my data, one in theirs) but still didn't come up with their same numbers. Stuck with simple OWP first, because it's easiest to isolate. As long as opponent W-L records match, it should be easy.

I get .379 for Calvin's OWP, they show .371.

Closest I can get is summing all of the opponents wins and losses (instead of averaging the percentages) -- that comes out to .371 -- but that's not the right way to do it and wouldn't include any HA multiplier. This is why I pulled up Alma -- but theirs didn't come out the same.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2013, 05:16:15 PM
Three errors in your data -- does that include our data?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2013, 05:18:09 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2013, 05:16:15 PM
Three errors in your data -- does that include our data?

Yeah, I sent you a PM about the ones I found.

Kalamazoo vs. Rhodes should be IN
Alma vs. Wheaton should be OUT
Alma vs. Chicago should be OUT

then two more I just found

Ohio Northern vs. Hood should be OUT
Defiance vs. Frostburg St. should be OUT
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2013, 05:23:49 PM
Thanks. With me not being unemployed this year, I haven't been able to take the time to comb through games the way I used to. :(
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 06, 2013, 05:33:19 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2013, 05:23:49 PM
Thanks. With me not being unemployed this year, I haven't been able to take the time to comb through games the way I used to. :(
A mixed blessing...

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2013, 05:35:11 PM
Exactly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 06:02:21 PM
I guess I should be the one doing that then...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 06, 2013, 06:45:46 PM
This is shaping up to be one heck of a "Oh shoot, that was today?" moment for somebody.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 06, 2013, 06:56:05 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 06, 2013, 06:45:46 PM
This is shaping up to be one heck of a "Oh shoot, that was today?" moment for somebody.

Plus k ziggy, I was thinking the same thing. ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: madzillagd on February 06, 2013, 06:56:41 PM
The NCAA is so confused by the submission of WPI as the top ranked team they can't figure out how to move forward. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 07:03:56 PM
"You see... what happened was..."
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2013, 07:13:03 PM
Oh. We were supposed to meet at 4 PM? No wonder no one answered this morning!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 07:15:41 PM
Pretty good, Greek!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2013, 07:20:47 PM
Buehler? Buehler? Buehler?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2013, 07:34:23 PM
This one time at band camp...we were doing these rankings...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 08:27:50 PM
Greek - you are on a roll!

I am trying to get to the bottom of things... this is what I have learned from a source:

The SOS stuff is updated by the NCAA... the rankings are sent to Turner to update them on the site. This sounds weird I am sure, but Pat shared with me that this is probably done so sites like ours can't scoop them :). Anyway in my opinion, I am not sure how the SOS stuff can be updated on the site without Turner doing it - thus the regional rankings are not updated.

I am hoping to find out more from sources and maybe even see them updated on the site. However, I suspect that since they are not up by now, we are going to have to wait until the new business day starts.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 06, 2013, 08:31:05 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2013, 07:13:03 PM
Oh. We were supposed to meet at 4 PM? No wonder no one answered this morning!

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2013, 07:20:47 PM
Buehler? Buehler? Buehler?

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2013, 07:34:23 PM
This one time at band camp...we were doing these rankings...

The Greek is practicing his stand up routine, hoping for a halftime show at Salem this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 06, 2013, 09:42:12 PM
Regional Rankings just released by the NCAA. They will probably be up on the D3 website shortly.

I had both the regions in my neck of the woods, The East and Northeast team for team.

They should be up on D3hoops shortly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2013, 09:43:09 PM
So, you on NCAA page then?

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional_rankings
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 06, 2013, 09:47:36 PM
via NCAA webpage

ATLANTIC                  
1   Ramapo   18-1   20-2         
2   Old Westbury   18-1   19-3         
3   Purchase   16-4   16-4         
4   Richard Stockton   16-5   16-5         
5   Rutgers-Newark   15-6   16-6         
EAST                  
1   Rochester (N.Y.)   18-1   19-1         
2   SUNY Cortland   17-2   17-3         
3   Stevens Institute of Technology   15-3   17-3         
4   New York University   13-7   13-7         
5   Hobart   12-6   13-6         
6   SUNY Geneseo   14-6   14-7         
GREAT LAKES                  
1   Wooster   17-3   17-3         
2   Ohio Wesleyan   16-3   16-4         
3   Thomas More   17-2   18-3         
4   Calvin   15-0   19-2         
5   Saint Vincent   14-3   16-5         
6   Marietta   16-5   16-5         
MID-ATLANTIC                  
1   Catholic   16-2   19-2         
2   Albright   18-3   18-3         
3   St. Mary's (Md.)   14-2   19-2         
4   Alvernia   16-4   16-4         
5   Wesley   14-2   17-5         
6   Scranton   15-6   15-6         
7   Arcadia   13-6   13-8         
8   Cabrini   14-4   16-5         
9   Franklin & Marshall   13-4   16-5         
MIDWEST                  
1   Illinois Wesleyan   15-3   18-3         
2   Transylvania   15-4   16-5         
3   Wheaton (Ill.)   13-5   16-5         
4   Washington (Mo.)   15-4   16-4         
5   North Central (Ill.)   16-3   18-3         
6   Rose-Hulman   18-2   19-2         
7   Augustana (Ill.)   15-5   16-5         
8   St. Norbert   15-4   15-4         
NORTHEAST                  
1   WPI   21-0   21-0         
2   Amherst   20-2   20-2         
3   Williams   18-2   20-2         
4   Middlebury   16-1   19-1         
5   Rhode Island College   18-3   18-3         
6   Brandeis   15-5   15-5         
7   MIT   15-4   16-4         
8   Curry   15-6   15-6         
9   Westfield St.   15-4   17-4         
10   Springfield   15-7   15-7         
11   Eastern Conn. St.   14-4   14-7         
12   Albertus Magnus   20-2   20-3         
SOUTH                  
1   Hampden-Sydney   15-2   19-2         
2   Mary Hardin-Baylor   18-3   18-3         
3   Christopher Newport   14-3   15-3         
4   Concordia (Texas)   14-4   16-5         
5   Emory   14-5   14-5         
6   Virgina Wesleyan   11-5   14-6         
7   Lynchburg   12-5   16-5         
8   Guilford   13-5   16-5         
WEST                  
1   St. Thomas (Minn.)   20-1   20-1         
2   Whitworth   19-1   20-1         
3   Wisconsin-Stevens Point   18-4   18-4         
4   Wisconsin-Whitewater   16-4   17-4         
5   Wisconsin-Stout   16-4   17-4         
6   Buena Vista   15-5   16-5         
7   Augsburg   15-5   15-5         
8   Luther   14-4   15-6         
9   Concordia-Moorhead   15-6   15-7
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 06, 2013, 10:09:37 PM
I have a very hard time accepting what they did in the Great Lakes...and I don't believe that's just me being a homer.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 10:20:20 PM
Great Lakes makes sense to me... have you seen Calvin's SOS?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 06, 2013, 10:54:32 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 10:20:20 PM
Great Lakes makes sense to me... have you seen Calvin's SOS?

Yes, it is terrible. Like Thomas More's but without the losses.

GL committee must have chosen their six without ranking them then ranked after applying the results vs. regionally ranked. I still don't buy that getting Thomas More above Calvin.

The words from Mike DeWitt on his last Hoopsville appearance just don't jive for me with what the GL committee turned out. He was less than subtle in suggesting the importance of WP over SOS without officially suggesting it.

Calvin will battle a poor SOS for the rest of the year but that is just one view of the total picture. Other parts of the picture say Calvin is 3-0 compared to Wooster's 1-2 in games against common opponents and that while they have played a comparatively weak schedule, they haven't slipped up even once. It's one thing to knock a team for a bad SOS when they haven't dominated it, but Calvin has.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 11:00:10 PM
First of all, results vs. regionally ranked does not apply in the first rankings. Secondly, I put this on the NCAC board as well:

Calvin's SOS numbers: 0.371     0.499     0.414

Wooster:                  0.565     0.525      0.552
Thomas More:           0.463     0.498      0.475
Ohio Wesleyan:         0.555     0.511      0.541

I can probably see an argument for Thomas More since the numbers are closer... but they should be undefeated when their SOS is that poor compared to the other two.

And I don't think DeWitt said WP was more important than SOS and by saying "without officially suggesting it" you are clearly putting words in his mouth. He did say that in the past the SOS was weighed maybe more heavily than the WP, but that doesn't mean the SOS should be ignored when it is as bad as Calvin's.

And when you speak of common opponents and because I have not looked it up as I post this, are those opponents all in region?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2013, 11:02:08 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 11:00:10 PM
First of all, results vs. regionally ranked does not apply in the first rankings. Secondly, I put this on the NCAC board as well:

Calvin's SOS numbers: 0.371     0.499     0.414

Wooster:                  0.565     0.525      0.552
Thomas More:           0.463     0.498      0.475
Ohio Wesleyan:         0.555     0.511      0.541

I can probably see an argument for Thomas More since the numbers are closer... but they should be undefeated when their SOS is that poor compared to the other two.

And I don't think DeWitt said WP was more important than SOS and by saying "without officially suggesting it" you are clearly putting words in his mouth. He did say that in the past the SOS was weighed maybe more heavily than the WP, but that doesn't mean the SOS should be ignored when it is as bad as Calvin's.

And when you speak of common opponents and because I have not looked it up as I post this, are those opponents all in region?

Calvin 2-0 vs. Adrian, 1-0 versus Wabash. Wooster 0-1 vs. Adrian 1-1 vs. Wabash.

I'm also disputing how low they have Calvin's SOS. They clearly have Hope's in-region record wrong (should be 10-5 not 9-5).

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 11:03:08 PM
Thanks KnightSlappy!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2013, 11:10:21 PM
FWIW, I don't believe SOS has even been weighed as heavily across the board as it was in this rankings. And I mean that in a positive manner.

I think that's why ziggy and I are a bit dumbfounded, we've seen too many Penn State-Behrend teams climb the GL ranks with horrid SOS numbers and a .900 WP.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 11:11:42 PM
Last year we saw it weighed heavily in some regions (Northeast and Mid-Atlantic come to mind) and not in others. I know it was a bone of contention for many outsides and even insiders.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 06, 2013, 11:12:17 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 11:00:10 PM
First of all, results vs. regionally ranked does not apply in the first rankings. Secondly, I put this on the NCAC board as well:

Calvin's SOS numbers: 0.371     0.499     0.414

Wooster:                  0.565     0.525      0.552
Thomas More:           0.463     0.498      0.475
Ohio Wesleyan:         0.555     0.511      0.541

I can probably see an argument for Thomas More since the numbers are closer... but they should be undefeated when their SOS is that poor compared to the other two.

And I don't think DeWitt said WP was more important than SOS and by saying "without officially suggesting it" you are clearly putting words in his mouth. He did say that in the past the SOS was weighed maybe more heavily than the WP, but that doesn't mean the SOS should be ignored when it is as bad as Calvin's.

And when you speak of common opponents and because I have not looked it up as I post this, are those opponents all in region?

Any points I make debating the rankings or selection process will always be within the context of the actual criteria. I'm at least good enough for that!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2013, 11:18:46 PM
That's fine... it was an honest question.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 07, 2013, 05:51:16 AM
ALREADY LOTS OF CARNAGE

TEAMS IN BLUE ARE CONFERENCE LEADERS



   ATL      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      Ramapo      NJAC      18-1      20-2      0.500      LOST at Rutgers-Newark 72-69; vs Richard Stockton 2/9   
   2      SUNY-Old Westbury      SKY      18-1      19-3      0.517      WON at NYU-Poly 93-81; vs SUNY-Maritime 2/9   
   3      SUNY-Purchase      SKY      16-4      16-4      0.522      LOST at Trinity (Conn) 68-66; vs. Farmingdale St. 2/9   
   4      Ricard Stockton      NJAC      16-5      16-5      0.519      BEAT Rutgers-Camden 60-45; at Ramapo 2/9   
   5      Rutgers-Newark      NJAC      15-6      16-6      0.525      BEAT Ramapo 72-69; at Rowan 2/9   
                                          
   EAST      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      Rochester      UAA      18-1      19-1      0.580      at Chicago 2/8; at Washington U. 2/10   
   2      SUNY-Cortland      SUNYAC      17-2      17-3      0.514      BEAT Oneonta St 84-56; vs. Oswego St. 2/8   
   3      Stevens      E8      15-3      17-3      0.540      WON at Baruch 70-67; vs. Elmira 2/8; vs. Ithaca 2/9   
   4      NYU      UAA      13-7      13-7      0.612      at Case Western Reserve 2/8; at Carnegie Mellon 2/10   
   5      Hobart      LL       12-6      13-6      0.596      BEAT Union 85-82; at Vassar 2/8; at Bard 2/9   
   6      SUNY-Geneseo      SUNYAC      14-6      14-7      0.534      at Potsdam St. 2/8; at Plattsburgh St. 2/9   
                                          
   GT LK      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      Wooster      NCAC      17-3      17-3      0.552      BEAT Ohio Wesleyan 74-67 OT; vs. Wittenberg 2/9   
   2      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      16-3      16-4      0.541      LOST at Wooster 74-67 OT; vs. Hiram 2/9   
   3      Thomas More      PrAC      17-2      18-3      0.475      WON at Westminster (Pa) 83-77; vs. Thiel 2/9   
   4      Calvin      MIAA      15-0      19-2      0.414      WON at Alma 90-66; at Hope 2/9   
   5      St. Vincent      PrAC      14-3      16-5      0.493      at Geneva 2/6; at Bethany 2/9   
   6      Marietta      OAC      16-5      16-5      0.488      LOST to Capital 70-67; vs. Baldwin-Wallace 2/9   
                                          
   MID-ATL      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      Catholic      LAND      16-2      19-2      0.534      WON at Susquehanna 74-53; at Scanton 2/9   
   2      Albright      MACC      18-3      18-3      0.554      LOST at Hood 70-60; vs. Stevenson 2/9   
   3      St. Mary's (Md.)      CAC      14-2      19-2      0.546      BEAT Frostburg St. 73-53; at Marymount 2/9   
   4      Alvernia      MACC      16-4      16-4      0.562      BEAT York (Pa) 66-55; WON at Arcadia 64-47; vs. Widener 2/9   
   5      Wesley      CAC      14-2      17-5      0.509      BEAT Mary Washington 67-52; at York (Pa) 2/9   
   6      Scranton      LAND      15-6      15-6      0.539      WON at Drew 77-68; vs Catholic 2/9   
   7      Arcadia      MACC      13-6      13-8      0.579      LOST to Alvernia 64-47; vs. Lycoming 2/9   
   8      Cabrini      CSAC      14-4      16-5      0.490      WON at Cairn 99-76; BEAT Gwynedd-Mercy 80-68; vs. Rosemont 2/9   
   9      Franklin & Marshall      CC      13-4      16-5      0.512      WON at Gettysburg 56-49; at Swarthmore 2/9   
                                          
   MW      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      15-3      18-3      0.560      BEAT North Park 88-44; at Carthage 2/9   
   2      Transylvania      HCAC      15-4      16-5      0.565      WON at Mt. St. Joseph 65-39; at Manchester 2/9   
   3      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      13-5      16-5      0.577      BEAT Augustana 58-57; at Milikin 2/9   
   4      Washington U.      UAA      15-4      16-4      0.544      vs. Emory 2/8; vs. Rochester 2/10   
   5      North Central (IL)      CCIW      16-3      18-3      0.525      WON at Millikin 59-58; at Augustana 2/9   
   6      Rose-Hulman      HCAC      18-2      19-2      0.502      BEAT Franklin 72-63; at Defiance 2/9   
   7      Augustana       CCIW      15-5      16-5      0.549      LOST at Wheaton 58-57; vs. North Central 2/9   
   8      St. Norbert      MWC      15-4      15-4      0.525      BEAT Carroll 63-50; at Grinnell 2/9   
                                          
   NE      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      WPI      NEWMAC      21-0      21-0      0.548      BEAT Wheaton (Mass) 86-59; at Springfield 2/9   
   2      Amherst*      NESCAC      20-2      20-2      0.553      at Williams 2/8; at Middlebury 2/9   
   3      Williams*      NESCAC      18-2      20-2      0.553      vs. Amherst 2/8; vs. Trinity (Conn) 2/9   
   4      Middlebury      NESCAC      16-1      19-1      0.527      BEAT Lyndon State 89-59; vs. Trinity (Conn) 2/8; vs. Amherst 2/9   
   5      Rhode Island College      LEC      18-3      18-3      0.544      BEAT Mass-Dartmouth 71-60; vs. Southern Maine 2/9   
   6      Brandeis      UAA      15-5      15-5      0.588      at Carnegie Mellon 2/8; at Case Western Reserve 2/10   
   7      MIT      NEWMAC      15-4      16-4      0.553      WON at Babson 69-53; vs. Clark 2/9   
   8      Curry      CCC      15-6      15-6      0.555      BEAT Western New England 71-60; at Endicott 2/9   
   9      Westfield St.      MASCAC      15-4      17-4      0.517      WON at Massachusetts College 71-69; vs Western Connecticut 2/7   
   10      Springfield      NEWMAC      15-7      15-7      0.559      vs. WPI 2/9   
   11      Eastern Conn.      LEC      14-4      14-7      0.517      BEAT Western Conn. 64-51; at Mass-Dartmouth 2/9   
   12      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      20-2      20-3      0.454      vs. St. Joseph's (Maine) 2/9   
                                          
   SOUTH      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      Hampden-Sydney      ODAC      15-2      19-2      0.529      WON at Randolph-Macon 66-47; vs. Bridgewater 2/9   
   2      Mary Hardin-Baylor      ASC      18-3      18-3      0.552      vs. Schreiner 2/7; vs. Texas Lutheran 2/9   
   3      Christopher Newport      USAC      14-3      15-3      0.537      LOST to Virginia Wesleyan 79-66; at LaGrange 2/9   
   4      Concordia-Texas      ASC      14-4      16-5      0.536      vs Texas Lutheran 2/7; vs. Schreiner 2/9   
   5      Emory      UAA      14-5      14-5      0.561      at Washington U. 2/8; at Chicago 2/10   
   6      Virginia Wesleyan      ODAC       11-5      14-6      0.510      WON at Christopher Newport 79-66; WON at Eastern Mennonite 70-65; at Guilford 2/9   
   7      Lynchburg      ODAC       12-5      16-5      0.502      BEAT Roanoke 63-61; at Emory and Henry 2/9   
   8      Guilford      ODAC      13-5      16-5      0.530      LOST at Randolph 72-70; vs. Virginia Wesleyan 2/9   
                                          
   WEST      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      St. Thomas      MIAC      20-1      20-1      0.545      BEAT Bethel 75-64; WON at Gustavus Adolphus 68-63; at St. John's 2/9   
   2      Whitworth      NWC      19-1      20-1      0.546      LOST to Whitman 93-90 OT; vs. George Fox 2/9   
   3      Stevens Point      WIAC      18-4      18-4      0.593      BEAT Oshkosh 62-52   
   4      Whitewater      WIAC      16-4      17-4      0.606      BEAT Platteville 64-50; vs. Superior 2/9   
   5      Stout      WIAC      16-4      17-4      0.538      LOST at La Crosse 62-48; at Eau Claire 2/9   
   6      Buena Vista      IIAC      15-5      16-5      0.557      LOST to Dubuque 73-58; vs. Luther 2/9   
   7      Augsburg      MIAC      15-5      15-5      0.526      BEAT St. John's 106-87; LOST at Carleton 63-58; vs. St. Olaf 2/9   
   8      Luther      IIAC      14-4      15-6      0.497      BEAT Central 72-66 OT ; at Buena Vista 2/9   
   9      Concordia-Moorhead      MIAC      15-6      15-7      0.509      BEAT St. John's 74-67; at Hamline 2/9   
                                          
                                          
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2013, 08:29:14 AM
The NCAA has removed the data sheets and re-linked last year's final version.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 07, 2013, 08:38:14 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2013, 08:29:14 AM
The NCAA has removed the data sheets and re-linked last year's final version.

The NCAA, ladies and gentlemen...

[slow clap]
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2013, 08:42:26 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2013, 05:08:27 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2013, 05:05:40 PM
That's what the NCAA would say. Any chance it's a matter of a game or two not being correct in terms of in-/out-of-region?

I've taken two teams -- Calvin and Alma -- and made sure all their opponents' regional record matched my records (I found 3 errors in my data, one in theirs) but still didn't come up with their same numbers. Stuck with simple OWP first, because it's easiest to isolate. As long as opponent W-L records match, it should be easy.

I get .379 for Calvin's OWP, they show .371.

Closest I can get is summing all of the opponents wins and losses (instead of averaging the percentages) -- that comes out to .371 -- but that's not the right way to do it and wouldn't include any HA multiplier. This is why I pulled up Alma -- but theirs didn't come out the same.

Good thing I saved a few of the data sheets onto my computer.

Just re-did Calvin's numbers by hand and I'm still getting a different number. Please check my work:

W   L   R   rW  rL   rPCT    HAM    wPCT    Opponent
4   15  W   4   14   0.222   0.75   0.167   North Park
6   12  W   6   11   0.353   0.75   0.265   Anderson
3   16  W   3   15   0.167   1.25   0.208   at Manchester
2   8   W   2   7    0.222   1.25   0.278   at Finaldia
7   14  W   7   13   0.350   1.00   0.350   Wabash at Elmhurst
10  6   W   10  4    0.714   0.75   0.536   Adrian
3   15  W   3   13   0.188   1.25   0.234   at Albion
4   16  W   4   14   0.222   1.25   0.278   at Kalamazoo
6   11  W   6   10   0.375   0.75   0.281   Alma
9   5   W   9   4    0.692   0.75   0.519   Hope
12  6   W   12  5    0.706   1.25   0.882   at Trine
5   9   W   5   8    0.385   1.25   0.481   at Olivet
10  6   W   10  4    0.714   1.25   0.893   at Adrian
3   15  W   3   13   0.188   0.75   0.141   Albion
4   16  W   4   14   0.222   0.75   0.167   Kalamazoo
                        
                     0.381          0.379   Average OWP


W-L columns are each team's W-L record as per the NCAA data sheet. The rW-rL are the revised wins and losses after taking out the games in question. Revised percentage, home/away multiplier, and weighted percentage should be more self explanatory. I get .379 still, but the NCAA showed .371. A small difference sort of, but there shouldn't be any difference.

I'm fully willing to accept that I'm going something wrong, but I can't see what it is.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 07, 2013, 09:38:59 AM
 My annual refrain: how many inaccuracies of in-region vs. out-of-region games in the 1st rankings release? We have 1 citation already(Hope). Remember this affects teams that were ranked but shouldn't have been and teams that weren't but should have been, also, in addition to seeding and hosting in a couple weeks - too important to be left to the disinterested regulators who deny the opportunity to vet their data before they compose their rankings.
  Related issue: why the relevance of a D3 game should be affected by the distance between the schools(in-region vs. out-of-region. Every D3 game should be equally relevant. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 07, 2013, 09:42:57 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2013, 08:42:26 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2013, 05:08:27 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2013, 05:05:40 PM
That's what the NCAA would say. Any chance it's a matter of a game or two not being correct in terms of in-/out-of-region?

I've taken two teams -- Calvin and Alma -- and made sure all their opponents' regional record matched my records (I found 3 errors in my data, one in theirs) but still didn't come up with their same numbers. Stuck with simple OWP first, because it's easiest to isolate. As long as opponent W-L records match, it should be easy.

I get .379 for Calvin's OWP, they show .371.

Closest I can get is summing all of the opponents wins and losses (instead of averaging the percentages) -- that comes out to .371 -- but that's not the right way to do it and wouldn't include any HA multiplier. This is why I pulled up Alma -- but theirs didn't come out the same.

Good thing I saved a few of the data sheets onto my computer.

Just re-did Calvin's numbers by hand and I'm still getting a different number. Please check my work:

W   L   R   rW  rL   rPCT    HAM    wPCT    Opponent
4   15  W   4   14   0.222   0.75   0.167   North Park
6   12  W   6   11   0.353   0.75   0.265   Anderson
3   16  W   3   15   0.167   1.25   0.208   at Manchester
2   8   W   2   7    0.222   1.25   0.278   at Finaldia
7   14  W   7   13   0.350   1.00   0.350   Wabash at Elmhurst
10  6   W   10  4    0.714   0.75   0.536   Adrian
3   15  W   3   13   0.188   1.25   0.234   at Albion
4   16  W   4   14   0.222   1.25   0.278   at Kalamazoo
6   11  W   6   10   0.375   0.75   0.281   Alma
9   5   W   9   4    0.692   0.75   0.519   Hope
12  6   W   12  5    0.706   1.25   0.882   at Trine
5   9   W   5   8    0.385   1.25   0.481   at Olivet
10  6   W   10  4    0.714   1.25   0.893   at Adrian
3   15  W   3   13   0.188   0.75   0.141   Albion
4   16  W   4   14   0.222   0.75   0.167   Kalamazoo
                        
                     0.381          0.379   Average OWP


W-L columns are each team's W-L record as per the NCAA data sheet. The rW-rL are the revised wins and losses after taking out the games in question. Revised percentage, home/away multiplier, and weighted percentage should be more self explanatory. I get .379 still, but the NCAA showed .371. A small difference sort of, but there shouldn't be any difference.

I'm fully willing to accept that I'm going something wrong, but I can't see what it is.

Could it be Calvin's neutral site games are being incorrectly weighted as an away or home game in the NCAA's data?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2013, 09:47:59 AM
Quote from: sac on February 07, 2013, 09:42:57 AM
Could it be Calvin's neutral site games are being incorrectly weighted as an away or home game in the NCAA's data?

Calvin only had one neutral game (vs. Wabash at Elmhurst Tournament), but even marking that as a home game only takes it down to .373. I'm sure there's a way to incorrectly label home/away to get to the .371 though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2013, 09:51:21 AM
Just went though the same process with Thomas More and came up with a .443 OWP. NCAA's data had it at .463.

According to my hand calculations then, Calvin is -.008 points on the OWP and Thomas more was +.020 points. Assuming the OOWPs were right or at least close, this swing in OWP would account for one-third of the SOS gap between the two teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 09:52:12 AM
Someone's not keeping the abacus oiled up in Indy....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on February 07, 2013, 10:03:23 AM
What?  Things slipping through the cracks at the NCAA?  Never.  That is a tight ship over there.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fantastic50 on February 07, 2013, 11:56:36 AM
One of the weaknesses of the OWP metric is that it doesn't account for the difference between a schedule that is full of mediocre opponents versus one that has some solid opponents and some awful ones.  A good-but-not-great team may rip through the former undefeated, but will lose some against the latter slate.  Calvin's schedule seems lean a bit toward the latter, at least as compared to the SOS number.  While they have no great wins, games against Trine, Hope, Adrian (and even Alma and Wabash) aren't "gimmes", especially when some were played on the road.

Wooster and Calvin have taken different roads, but appear fairly even in overall; I think you could make an argument for either being #1 in the region, especially when Calvin's out-of-region losses are dropped. 

However, if Calvin is weaker than OWU or Thomas More, then the probability of Calvin being undefeated in-region would be very low.  Since Calvin has won all of those games, Calvin should be rated higher.  It's hard for me to see how Calvin and Wooster wouldn't be 1 and 2 in some order.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 12:01:18 PM
As we saw last night (TCU over Kansas), there really are no 'gimmies' in hoops, especially on the road.

OK, maybe Medgar Evers' women's team (bless their hearts...)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 07, 2013, 12:51:55 PM
Isn't it sacrilegious to mention D1 hoops on here unless a D3 team is playing them?  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 07, 2013, 01:03:02 PM
All data points are relative when you're making a valid argument!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ExBBaller40 on February 08, 2013, 03:01:12 AM
My blog post looking at the three regionally ranked teams from the WIAC and the one from the Midwest Conference and their first hopes at Pool C bids http://diiihoopsblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/blog-special-pool-c-chances.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 08, 2013, 05:10:44 PM
If anyone is curious, SOS numbers are back up on the NCAA site. You can get to them via the D3hoops.com blog (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/06/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-1/).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 08, 2013, 10:58:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 08, 2013, 05:10:44 PM
If anyone is curious, SOS numbers are back up on the NCAA site. You can get to them via the D3hoops.com blog (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/06/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-1/).

Did anybody get a good enough look at them before they were gone the first time to see if they're the same now, or if they changed?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2013, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 08, 2013, 10:58:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 08, 2013, 05:10:44 PM
If anyone is curious, SOS numbers are back up on the NCAA site. You can get to them via the D3hoops.com blog (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/06/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-1/).

Did anybody get a good enough look at them before they were gone the first time to see if they're the same now, or if they changed?

The couple numbers I looked at makes it look like they're the same.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 08, 2013, 11:39:50 PM
They are the same... apparently there was a mistaken key punch or something that simply took them offline. Not sure that is a legit excuse... but I am under no impression anything was changed.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 12:09:43 PM
For those of you I know want to know, there is a change in how the NCAA is calculating the SOS numbers... and it is for the better: Men's Strength of Schedule calculations changed (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/11/mens-strength-of-schedule-calculations-changed/)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 12:56:03 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 12:09:43 PM
For those of you I know want to know, there is a change in how the NCAA is calculating the SOS numbers... and it is for the better: Men's Strength of Schedule calculations changed (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/11/mens-strength-of-schedule-calculations-changed/)

Not for the better.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 01:04:53 PM
Disagreed, I guess.

The only reason the calculation was ever written in the handbook this way was because it was easier for the members of the committee to calculate, not because it was the right way to go. And despite that, it was still performed this way, not the way it was written, until recently. Perhaps even last season was the only time they performed the math as written in the book. Doing something "because it's easier" is how we ended up with the abomination known as the Quality of Wins Index. But we have computers and databases now, and easier isn't necessary.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 11, 2013, 01:35:33 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 12:56:03 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 12:09:43 PM
For those of you I know want to know, there is a change in how the NCAA is calculating the SOS numbers... and it is for the better: Men's Strength of Schedule calculations changed (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/11/mens-strength-of-schedule-calculations-changed/)

Not for the better.
They've basically just made any game against Nebraska Wesleyan meaningless.  That makes some sense as teams like Nebraska Wesleyan could have an inflated win% in the very few region games they play, but that brings up the bigger question of the stupidity of throwing the results of the rest of their games out the window to start with.  Isolationism might result in more in-region/d3 games but it doesn't result in awarding the best teams with the Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 01:37:01 PM
Quote from: AO on February 11, 2013, 01:35:33 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 12:56:03 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 12:09:43 PM
For those of you I know want to know, there is a change in how the NCAA is calculating the SOS numbers... and it is for the better: Men's Strength of Schedule calculations changed (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/11/mens-strength-of-schedule-calculations-changed/)

Not for the better.
They've basically just made any game against Nebraska Wesleyan meaningless.  That makes some sense as teams like Nebraska Wesleyan could have an inflated win% in the very few region games they play, but that brings up the bigger question of the stupidity of throwing the results of the rest of their games out the window to start with.  Isolationism might result in more in-region/d3 games but it doesn't result in awarding the best teams with the Pool C.

It's always been that way, with the exception of (I believe) last year. This is not as big a change as it seems.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 02:05:49 PM
Are they doing the same thing for the OOWP too?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 02:10:31 PM
Across the board... I just wasn't going to use a bigger example in the blog.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 02:35:27 PM
So now we're living in a world where (either all home or all road games):

Calvin 16-1
Transyvania 17-4
Finlandia 2-8
Thiel 11-7

would give you a better SOS than

Calvin 16-1
Transyvania 17-4
John Carroll 10-12
Wittenberg 12-7

even though just

Finlandia 2-8
Thiel 11-7

would give you a worse SOS than just

John Carroll 10-12
Wittenberg 12-7
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 02:36:24 PM
From the Great Lakes board:

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 01:03:16 PM
I hope this illustrates why this is bad:

Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Finlandia at home (2-8) gives you a tougher OWP (.748 OWP) than

Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Alma at home (6-13) (.690 OWP).

Old method gives the first set a .663 OWP and the second a .707 OWP.

Or more extreme, replace Alma with Ohio Northern (9-11) and it's still not as high of an OWP as vs. Finlandia.

To boil it down to the most simple example, the NCAA is saying that a game against a 10-10 team should count for a greater part of your SOS than a game against an 8-8 team despite no basis for saying that there is any difference in the strength of either opponent. How can this not be seen as a problem?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 11, 2013, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 02:36:24 PM
From the Great Lakes board:

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 01:03:16 PM
I hope this illustrates why this is bad:

Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Finlandia at home (2-8) gives you a tougher OWP (.748 OWP) than

Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Alma at home (6-13) (.690 OWP).

Old method gives the first set a .663 OWP and the second a .707 OWP.

Or more extreme, replace Alma with Ohio Northern (9-11) and it's still not as high of an OWP as vs. Finlandia.

To boil it down to the most simple example, the NCAA is saying that a game against a 10-10 team should count for a greater part of your SOS than a game against an 8-8 team despite no basis for saying that there is any difference in the strength of either opponent. How can this not be seen as a problem?

This process is also saying a 16-2 team from the CCIW is the same as a 16-2 team from the AMCC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 11, 2013, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 02:10:31 PM
Across the board... I just wasn't going to use a bigger example in the blog.
FYI, this change has the same effect on the women's SOS.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 11, 2013, 02:54:42 PM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 02:36:24 PM
From the Great Lakes board:

Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 01:03:16 PM
I hope this illustrates why this is bad:

Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Finlandia at home (2-8) gives you a tougher OWP (.748 OWP) than

Playing Calvin on the road (16-1) and Alma at home (6-13) (.690 OWP).

Old method gives the first set a .663 OWP and the second a .707 OWP.

Or more extreme, replace Alma with Ohio Northern (9-11) and it's still not as high of an OWP as vs. Finlandia.

To boil it down to the most simple example, the NCAA is saying that a game against a 10-10 team should count for a greater part of your SOS than a game against an 8-8 team despite no basis for saying that there is any difference in the strength of either opponent. How can this not be seen as a problem?

This process is also saying a 16-2 team from the CCIW is the same as a 16-2 team from the AMCC.
not true.  this problem existed before, and is mostly solved through the AMCC's poorer OOWP.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 03:04:48 PM
Quote from: AO on February 11, 2013, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 02:10:31 PM
Across the board... I just wasn't going to use a bigger example in the blog.
FYI, this change has the same effect on the women's SOS.

No... because the women do not use the weighted scale on games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 11, 2013, 03:09:24 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 03:04:48 PM
Quote from: AO on February 11, 2013, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 02:10:31 PM
Across the board... I just wasn't going to use a bigger example in the blog.
FYI, this change has the same effect on the women's SOS.

No... because the women do not use the weighted scale on games.
run your numbers again.  The difference is in weighing more heavily the games against teams with larger numbers of regional games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 03:25:52 PM
Quote from: AO on February 11, 2013, 03:09:24 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 03:04:48 PM
Quote from: AO on February 11, 2013, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 02:10:31 PM
Across the board... I just wasn't going to use a bigger example in the blog.
FYI, this change has the same effect on the women's SOS.

No... because the women do not use the weighted scale on games.
run your numbers again.  The difference is in weighing more heavily the games against teams with larger numbers of regional games.

The horribleness of it all has to do with summing the win and loss totals instead of averaging the percentages.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 03:25:52 PM
The horribleness of it all has to do with summing the win and loss totals instead of averaging the percentages.

I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 11, 2013, 03:54:28 PM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 03:25:52 PM
The horribleness of it all has to do with summing the win and loss totals instead of averaging the percentages.

I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.
You don't take away part of a hit if the opposing team played fewer games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 03:59:42 PM
Quote from: AO on February 11, 2013, 03:54:28 PM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 03:25:52 PM
The horribleness of it all has to do with summing the win and loss totals instead of averaging the percentages.

I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.
You also don't take away part of a hit if the opposing team played fewer games.

I like this for non-sequitir of the day ...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:09:04 PM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 03:25:52 PM
The horribleness of it all has to do with summing the win and loss totals instead of averaging the percentages.

I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

If Miguel Cabrera gets 192 hits in 600 AB, he is a .320 hitter.
If Migue Cabrera gets 200 hits in 625 AB, he is a .320 hitter.
In either case, the Detroit Tigers have a .320 hitter in their lineup.

If Adrian goes 15-5, they are a .750 team
If Adrian goes 18-6, they are a .750 team
In either case, Hope has a .750 team on their schedule.

If Hope plays Adrian twice in a 25 game schedule, Adrian should count 2/25ths towards Hope's SOS because that is the portion of the total schedule they represent. That is not what occurs through the calculation explanation revealed today.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 11, 2013, 04:17:45 PM
If Miguel Cabrera gets 90 hits in 300 AB, he is a .300 hitter.
If Migue Cabrera gets 200 hits in 625 AB, he is a .320 hitter.

the Detroit Tigers have a .314 hitter in their lineup not .310.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 04:18:31 PM
If you’re a pitcher and you’re about to face two hitters with lifetime lines of 2000-6000 (.333) then 1000-4000 (.250), you’d expect to give up hits to them at a .292 rate (.333 +.250 / 2), not a .300 (2000 + 1000 / 10000) rate.

Batting average is more akin to WP.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:20:34 PM
Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 04:17:45 PM
If Miguel Cabrera gets 90 hits in 300 AB, he is a .300 hitter.
If Migue Cabrera gets 200 hits in 625 AB, he is a .320 hitter.

the Detroit Tigers have a .314 hitter in their lineup not .310.

You are incorrectly applying snapshots in time. If after 300 AB he is a .300 hitter, the Tigers have a .300 hitter in their lineup. If after 625 ABs he is a .320 hitter, the Tigers have a .320 hitter in their lineup.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 04:21:43 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 04:18:31 PM
If you're a pitcher and you're about to face two hitters with lifetime lines of 2000-6000 (.333) then 1000-4000 (.250), you'd expect to give up hits to them at a .292 rate (.333 +.250 / 2), not a .300 (2000 + 1000 / 10000) rate.

Actually no... the proper way to do that math is the second part... even I know that from my years of being a math nerd before I decided to try something else. Averaging averages is easy and doesn't take into account the entire picture... it just takes into account a broad picture. This is about the raw numbers, not the averages. Raw wins and losses are more important that average winning percentage when you are dealing with such amounts of large data - especially if you want to get it right.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 04:22:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 04:21:43 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 04:18:31 PM
If you're a pitcher and you're about to face two hitters with lifetime lines of 2000-6000 (.333) then 1000-4000 (.250), you'd expect to give up hits to them at a .292 rate (.333 +.250 / 2), not a .300 (2000 + 1000 / 10000) rate.

Actually no... the proper way to do that math is the second part... even I know that from my years of being a math nerd before I decided to try something else. Averaging averages is easy and doesn't take into account the entire picture... it just takes into account a broad picture. This is about the raw numbers, not the averages. Raw wins and losses are more important that average winning percentage when you are dealing with such amounts of large data - especially if you want to get it right.

You're simply wrong here Dave.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:23:13 PM
It's an interesting amount of hand-wringing going on for something that is simply going back to the way it used to be done in very recent history.  ???

Dave -- not sure you're right about that last post. I think KS is right when it comes to batting average but that doesn't make it applicable to this.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 04:27:16 PM
Then maybe I am confused... but... if I hit 115 for 300 one year, I have a .383 average - but I missed two months due to injury.

If the next season I hit 200 for 650, I am a .308 hitter that season.

If I take the average of the averages - that would say I am a .346 hitter for my two year career. But if I take the raw data, then I am .332 hitter - isn't the last number more accurate because of the times I got to bat (950)... I hit the ball successfully 315 times. That means .332... not .346.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:27:43 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:23:13 PM
It's an interesting amount of hand-wringing going on for something that is simply going back to the way it used to be done in very recent history.  ???

Dave -- not sure you're right about that last post. I think KS is right when it comes to batting average but that doesn't make it applicable to this.

It's absolutely applicable. A .300 hitter is scary to a pitcher because he is a .300 hitter, not because he has done so over 3,000 or 5,000 at bats. A .500 team is no different a stumbling block in a schedule if they are 8-8 or 10-10 and therefore should be treated no differently in a strength of schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:30:05 PM
Right, but someone facing two batters back to back isn't going to be more likely to give up a hit to the person who had more at-bats.

Thing is, that just isn't what we're measuring here. We're measuring a team's batting average, akin to what sac said:

Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

We're not predicting how a team would do when playing Adrian (like we would predict this pitcher facing two batters), we're measuring how a group of teams performed (a group of batters). And if one team happened to play more measurable games than the other, so be it. It should count more.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:30:52 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 04:27:16 PM
Then maybe I am confused... but... if I hit 115 for 300 one year, I have a .383 average - but I missed two months due to injury.

If the next season I hit 200 for 650, I am a .308 hitter that season.

If I take the average of the averages - that would say I am a .346 hitter for my two year career. But if I take the raw data, then I am .332 hitter - isn't the last number more accurate because of the times I got to bat (950)... I hit the ball successfully 315 times. That means .332... not .346.

Your scenario is akin to winning percentage, not strength of schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 11, 2013, 04:33:27 PM
Everything would be better if the NCAA would just adopt the D-III Championship BeltTM.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:34:40 PM
Although I am not a statistician, I can see where it makes sense to average the SOS when creating an RPI. The thing is, we are not creating an RPI, and the team's winning percentage and its SOS are evaluated independently, rather than folded into one number.

That's why the wiki page references this, because that's an RPI, and that's why those who calculate RPIs for their site want to do this, but fact of that matter is, that's not what the NCAA is doing in D-II and D-III, and it is probably good to remember that. This is not merely a deconstructed RPI.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:36:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:30:05 PM
Right, but someone facing two batters back to back isn't going to be more likely to give up a hit to the person who had more at-bats.

Thing is, that just isn't what we're measuring here. We're measuring a team's batting average, akin to what sac said:

Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

We're not predicting how a team would do when playing Adrian (like we would predict this pitcher facing two batters), we're measuring how a group of teams performed (a group of batters). And if one team happened to play more measurable games than the other, so be it. It should count more.

If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 04:36:46 PM
Sheesh - it only took all day to come up with this thought:

I think the basis to this is that the strength of a team's schedule percentage should be based on the fact that they play more games than another team who may have the same WP, but less games doesn't necessarily mean more strength.

I am not sure if that makes complete sense... but I don't know if you can say a team has an equal strength of schedule by playing a number of games less than another team.

Team A is 15-5 in region - their strength is thus the fact they have played 20 games and won 15 of them.
Team B is 9-3 in region - same percentage, but they don't appear to have as strong a schedule because they have played 8 fewer games and won 6 fewer.

So why should we be allowing the 9-3 team to have an same strength of schedule as a 15-5 team? They have played far less games and haven't proven their .750 WP is as legit as the team that has played those 20 games. However, in the former math... we considered them even.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 04:38:31 PM
Batting average is winning percentage. It’s how many hits (wins) did I get without considering the quality of the pitcher (opponent).

OWP is like asking “how many hits (or wins, I’ve already lost the metaphor) would a neutral team get in a specific number of at-bats considering the quality of the pitcher.

If I’m facing each pitcher for one at bat, then all I care about is the rate at which he allows hits.

Verlander (.200)
Scherzer (.250)
Porcello (.300)

We’d expect to get a hit after facing these three pitchers 25% of the time. Even if Verlander has thrown to many more batters than Porcello has.

OWP, in it’s own way, is a measure of how many wins a neutral team would get given it’s schedule.

The number of batters he’s previously faced only matters to the degree that it truly reveals his true talent level. This is probably the sticking point -- that we don’t know a team’s true talent winning percentage, but we feel we know a 3-24 team is actually bad when a 1-8 team might have simply run into a string of bad luck.

The proper thing to do, though, when presented with “not enough data” is either to (1) scale down all numbers to the one with the fewest population size or (2) regress the numbers by adding in a number of games at a league-average rate (.500 in this case).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:39:34 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:36:05 PM
If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.

Those aren't your games. They're your opponents' games.

Your games are measured in your winning percentage and your opponents' games are measured in the SOS.

This has been fun and you can continue to argue it if you like but you won't be arguing it with me. Wasted too much of my time today on something that is basically a Ctrl-Z of a mistake in the handbook.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 04:36:46 PM
Sheesh - it only took all day to come up with this thought:

I think the basis to this is that the strength of a team's schedule percentage should be based on the fact that they play more games than another team who may have the same WP, but less games doesn't necessarily mean more strength.

I am not sure if that makes complete sense... but I don't know if you can say a team has an equal strength of schedule by playing a number of games less than another team.

Team A is 15-5 in region - their strength is thus the fact they have played 20 games and won 15 of them.
Team B is 9-3 in region - same percentage, but they don't appear to have as strong a schedule because they have played 8 fewer games and won 6 fewer.

So why should we be allowing the 9-3 team to have an same strength of schedule as a 15-5 team? They have played far less games and haven't proven their .750 WP is as legit as the team that has played those 20 games. However, in the former math... we considered them even.

But they haven't proven it isn't and therein lies the problem. With the eight extra games they could be 17-3 or they could be 9-11. The point is that we don't know, all we know is what they are and that is .750.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:42:18 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:39:34 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:36:05 PM
If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.

Those aren't your games. They're your opponents' games.

Your games are measured in your winning percentage and your opponents' games are measured in the SOS.

What I mean is 1/20th towards SOS.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2013, 04:50:31 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:39:34 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:36:05 PM
If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.

Those aren't your games. They're your opponents' games.

Your games are measured in your winning percentage and your opponents' games are measured in the SOS.

This has been fun and you can continue to argue it if you like but you won't be arguing it with me. Wasted too much of my time today on something that is basically a Ctrl-Z of a mistake in the handbook.

This is at least the fifth year in a row it's been written in the handbook as an average of the percentages.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 05:04:13 PM
It has been written that way, yet it has not been calculated that way, a point I have made at least twice previously today. I would guess it's probably because they borrowed the wording from D-I, which actually has an RPI, while D-III does not, and therefore does not average its SOSs.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:36:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:30:05 PM
Right, but someone facing two batters back to back isn't going to be more likely to give up a hit to the person who had more at-bats.

Thing is, that just isn't what we're measuring here. We're measuring a team's batting average, akin to what sac said:

Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

We're not predicting how a team would do when playing Adrian (like we would predict this pitcher facing two batters), we're measuring how a group of teams performed (a group of batters). And if one team happened to play more measurable games than the other, so be it. It should count more.

If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.

You have to remember the home and away weighting also, an away game is already weighted 2/3 higher than a home game, so your argument about each game counting toward 1/20th of the SOS doesnt make sense to begin with. 

I tend to like the new system better because it takes each of your opponents games as an individual event.  Therefore, for every game your opponent plays (that counts according to the NCAA criteria) you get either 1.25, 1.0, or 0.75 points (Home, Neutral, Away) towards your OWP statistic in either the Win or Loss column.  Then, you average over all events to give the OWP statistic.  In the previous method, whether your opponent played 4, 10 or 20 games, they were all treated the same.  As the number of events increase, the certainty of the statistic also increases.  Meaning that I have more confidence that a 12-12 team is a 0.500 team, than a 1-1 team, a 2-2 team, or even a 5-5 team, because we just dont have a lot of information on those teams yet.  The same analogy can be drawn to baseball as has already been discussed.  Do you have more confidence in someone who has gone 1-3 on the season to get a hit or someone who has gone 33-99?  The same thing is true here. When you have such small samples of data, your certainty in that team's WP is low. Thats why I have a problem with the previous batting average examples, you are never going to get 600 observations in basketball games for a single team in a season.  By averaging the WP for each opponent, you collapse the number of observations to the number of regional games played. Conversely, by doing it this way, you approximately square the number of observations.    As the number of events increases, your confidence in the true OWP of that team increases.  Scaling linearly with the number of events is the easiest way of doing this (which the NCAA has incorporated) and it could be debated whether it is the best way.  For example, in statistics, critical values for a t-stat are not linear, above 20 or 30 events you begin to approach the infinite observation t-stat.  However, for this purpose, I have absolutely no problem with what the NCAA is doing and think it is definitely an improvement on the alternative that is being debated.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 11, 2013, 05:31:23 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:36:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:30:05 PM
Right, but someone facing two batters back to back isn't going to be more likely to give up a hit to the person who had more at-bats.

Thing is, that just isn't what we're measuring here. We're measuring a team's batting average, akin to what sac said:

Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

We're not predicting how a team would do when playing Adrian (like we would predict this pitcher facing two batters), we're measuring how a group of teams performed (a group of batters). And if one team happened to play more measurable games than the other, so be it. It should count more.

If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.

You have to remember the home and away weighting also, an away game is already weighted 2/3 higher than a home game, so your argument about each game counting toward 1/20th of the SOS doesnt make sense to begin with. 

I tend to like the new system better because it takes each of your opponents games as an individual event.  Therefore, for every game your opponent plays (that counts according to the NCAA criteria) you get either 1.25, 1.0, or 0.75 points (Home, Neutral, Away) towards your OWP statistic in either the Win or Loss column.  Then, you average over all events to give the OWP statistic.  In the previous method, whether your opponent played 4, 10 or 20 games, they were all treated the same.  As the number of events increase, the certainty of the statistic also increases.  Meaning that I have more confidence that a 12-12 team is a 0.500 team, than a 1-1 team, a 2-2 team, or even a 5-5 team, because we just dont have a lot of information on those teams yet.  The same analogy can be drawn to baseball as has already been discussed.  Do you have more confidence in someone who has gone 1-3 on the season to get a hit or someone who has gone 33-99?  The same thing is true here. When you have such small samples of data, your certainty in that team's WP is low. Thats why I have a problem with the previous batting average examples, you are never going to get 600 observations in basketball games for a single team in a season.  By averaging the WP for each opponent, you collapse the number of observations to the number of regional games played. Conversely, by doing it this way, you approximately square the number of observations.    As the number of events increases, your confidence in the true OWP of that team increases.  Scaling linearly with the number of events is the easiest way of doing this (which the NCAA has incorporated) and it could be debated whether it is the best way.  For example, in statistics, critical values for a t-stat are not linear, above 20 or 30 events you begin to approach the infinite observation t-stat.  However, for this purpose, I have absolutely no problem with what the NCAA is doing and think it is definitely an improvement on the alternative that is being debated.
it's not merely a "measure of confidence" of the OWP, it is a penalty.  If you play Nebraska Wesleyan and have only 5 non-conference games, you likely won't make up the difference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 06:24:27 PM
In other words, the old way was based on the assumption a 9-3 team was going to like a 15-5 team should the 9-3 team have played 20 games. You can't base SOS numbers on assumptions... they should be based on hard numbers.

And if you decide to play Nebraska Wesleyan or the like, that is a decision that coach has made. It isn't like we have teams who all of the sudden change their minds and only play half their games in region. NW and others have long stranding track records or scenarios which everyone knows... and rewarding a team for playing a 3-3 NW the same as playing a 10-10 team doesn't make any sense.

If all games count when the committee looks at selecting Pool Bs and Cs and bracketing the teams, then the SOS should count all games and not the average.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 11, 2013, 06:29:28 PM
Quote from: AO on February 11, 2013, 05:31:23 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:36:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:30:05 PM
Right, but someone facing two batters back to back isn't going to be more likely to give up a hit to the person who had more at-bats.

Thing is, that just isn't what we're measuring here. We're measuring a team's batting average, akin to what sac said:

Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

We're not predicting how a team would do when playing Adrian (like we would predict this pitcher facing two batters), we're measuring how a group of teams performed (a group of batters). And if one team happened to play more measurable games than the other, so be it. It should count more.

If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.

You have to remember the home and away weighting also, an away game is already weighted 2/3 higher than a home game, so your argument about each game counting toward 1/20th of the SOS doesnt make sense to begin with. 

I tend to like the new system better because it takes each of your opponents games as an individual event.  Therefore, for every game your opponent plays (that counts according to the NCAA criteria) you get either 1.25, 1.0, or 0.75 points (Home, Neutral, Away) towards your OWP statistic in either the Win or Loss column.  Then, you average over all events to give the OWP statistic.  In the previous method, whether your opponent played 4, 10 or 20 games, they were all treated the same.  As the number of events increase, the certainty of the statistic also increases.  Meaning that I have more confidence that a 12-12 team is a 0.500 team, than a 1-1 team, a 2-2 team, or even a 5-5 team, because we just dont have a lot of information on those teams yet.  The same analogy can be drawn to baseball as has already been discussed.  Do you have more confidence in someone who has gone 1-3 on the season to get a hit or someone who has gone 33-99?  The same thing is true here. When you have such small samples of data, your certainty in that team's WP is low. Thats why I have a problem with the previous batting average examples, you are never going to get 600 observations in basketball games for a single team in a season.  By averaging the WP for each opponent, you collapse the number of observations to the number of regional games played. Conversely, by doing it this way, you approximately square the number of observations.    As the number of events increases, your confidence in the true OWP of that team increases.  Scaling linearly with the number of events is the easiest way of doing this (which the NCAA has incorporated) and it could be debated whether it is the best way.  For example, in statistics, critical values for a t-stat are not linear, above 20 or 30 events you begin to approach the infinite observation t-stat.  However, for this purpose, I have absolutely no problem with what the NCAA is doing and think it is definitely an improvement on the alternative that is being debated.
it's not merely a "measure of confidence" of the OWP, it is a penalty.  If you play Nebraska Wesleyan and have only 5 non-conference games, you likely won't make up the difference.

But isn't that the point?  They've been trying for years to force teams, even geographically isolated ones, to play d3 teams.  This is simply incentivizing something they've been trying to incentivize.  If NebWes wants d3 games against good teams, they're going to have to play more d3 games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 11, 2013, 06:31:08 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 11, 2013, 04:33:27 PM
Everything would be better if the NCAA would just adopt the D-III Championship BeltTM.

problem solved
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 06:32:25 PM
Quote from: AO on February 11, 2013, 05:31:23 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:36:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:30:05 PM
Right, but someone facing two batters back to back isn't going to be more likely to give up a hit to the person who had more at-bats.

Thing is, that just isn't what we're measuring here. We're measuring a team's batting average, akin to what sac said:

Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

We're not predicting how a team would do when playing Adrian (like we would predict this pitcher facing two batters), we're measuring how a group of teams performed (a group of batters). And if one team happened to play more measurable games than the other, so be it. It should count more.

If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.

You have to remember the home and away weighting also, an away game is already weighted 2/3 higher than a home game, so your argument about each game counting toward 1/20th of the SOS doesnt make sense to begin with. 

I tend to like the new system better because it takes each of your opponents games as an individual event.  Therefore, for every game your opponent plays (that counts according to the NCAA criteria) you get either 1.25, 1.0, or 0.75 points (Home, Neutral, Away) towards your OWP statistic in either the Win or Loss column.  Then, you average over all events to give the OWP statistic.  In the previous method, whether your opponent played 4, 10 or 20 games, they were all treated the same.  As the number of events increase, the certainty of the statistic also increases.  Meaning that I have more confidence that a 12-12 team is a 0.500 team, than a 1-1 team, a 2-2 team, or even a 5-5 team, because we just dont have a lot of information on those teams yet.  The same analogy can be drawn to baseball as has already been discussed.  Do you have more confidence in someone who has gone 1-3 on the season to get a hit or someone who has gone 33-99?  The same thing is true here. When you have such small samples of data, your certainty in that team's WP is low. Thats why I have a problem with the previous batting average examples, you are never going to get 600 observations in basketball games for a single team in a season.  By averaging the WP for each opponent, you collapse the number of observations to the number of regional games played. Conversely, by doing it this way, you approximately square the number of observations.    As the number of events increases, your confidence in the true OWP of that team increases.  Scaling linearly with the number of events is the easiest way of doing this (which the NCAA has incorporated) and it could be debated whether it is the best way.  For example, in statistics, critical values for a t-stat are not linear, above 20 or 30 events you begin to approach the infinite observation t-stat.  However, for this purpose, I have absolutely no problem with what the NCAA is doing and think it is definitely an improvement on the alternative that is being debated.
it's not merely a "measure of confidence" of the OWP, it is a penalty.  If you play Nebraska Wesleyan and have only 5 non-conference games, you likely won't make up the difference.

And if you play a non-region game, you get 0 games credit. That seems like a pretty steep penalty, but that's the way it is.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 11, 2013, 06:56:21 PM
LAST WEEK'S RESULTS (records not updated)



   ATL      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      Ramapo      NJAC      18-1      20-2      0.500      LOST at Rutgers-Newark 72-69; vs Richard Stockton 2/9 (rescheduled 2/11)   
   2      Old Westbury      SKY      18-1      19-3      0.517      WON at NYU-Poly 93-81; BEAT SUNY-Maritime 82-62   
   3      SUNY-Purchase      SKY      16-4      16-4      0.522      LOST at Trinity (Conn) 68-66; BEAT Farmingdale St. 84-65   
   4      Ricard Stockton      NJAC      16-5      16-5      0.519      BEAT Rutgers-Camden 60-45; at Ramapo 2/9 (rescheduled 2/11)   
   5      Rutgers-Newark      NJAC      15-6      16-6      0.525      BEAT Ramapo 72-69;WON at Rowan 73-69   
                                          
   EAST      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      Rochester      UAA      18-1      19-1      0.580      WON at Chicago 68-57; LOST at Washington U. 72-53   
   2      Cortland St.      SUNYAC      17-2      17-3      0.514      BEAT Oneonta St 84-56; BEAT Oswego St. 78-46   
   3      Stevens      E8      15-3      17-3      0.540      WON at Baruch 70-67; BEAT Elmira 59-46; BEAT Ithaca 87-65   
   4      NYU      UAA      13-7      13-7      0.612      LOST at Case Western Reserve 71-61;LOST at Carnegie Mellon 56-55   
   5      Hobart      LL       12-6      13-6      0.596      BEAT Union 85-82; WON at Vassar 61-53; WON at Bard 76-59   
   6      SUNY-Geneseo      SUNYAC      14-6      14-7      0.534      LOST at Potsdam St. 75-61; LOST at Plattsburgh St. 84-62   
                                          
   GT LK      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      Wooster      NCAC      17-3      17-3      0.552      BEAT Ohio Wesleyan 74-67 OT; BEAT Wittenberg 75-71   
   2      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      16-3      16-4      0.541      LOST at Wooster 74-67 OT; BEAT Hiram 63-61   
   3      Thomas More      PrAC      17-2      18-3      0.475      WON at Westminster (Pa) 83-77; BEAT Thiel 72-62   
   4      Calvin      MIAA      15-0      19-2      0.414      WON at Alma 90-66; LOST at Hope 73-70   
   5      St. Vincent      PrAC      14-3      16-5      0.493      WON at Geneva 74-66; WON at Bethany 69-66   
   6      Marietta      OAC      16-5      16-5      0.488      LOST to Capital 70-67; BEAT Baldwin-Wallace 72-70   
                                          
   MID-ATL      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      Catholic      LAND      16-2      19-2      0.534      WON at Susquehanna 74-53; LOST at Scanton 82-74   
   2      Albright      MACC      18-3      18-3      0.554      LOST at Hood 70-60; LOST to Stevenson 82-81   
   3      St. Mary's (Md.)      CAC      14-2      19-2      0.546      BEAT Frostburg St. 73-53; WON at Marymount 74-64   
   4      Alvernia      MACC      16-4      16-4      0.562      BEAT York (Pa) 66-55; WON at Arcadia 64-47; BEAT Widener 75-59   
   5      Wesley      CAC      14-2      17-5      0.509      BEAT Mary Washington 67-52; WON at York (Pa) 69-61   
   6      Scranton      LAND      15-6      15-6      0.539      WON at Drew 77-68; BEAT Catholic 82-74   
   7      Arcadia      MACC      13-6      13-8      0.579      LOST to Alvernia 64-47; LOST to Lycoming 82-76   
   8      Cabrini      CSAC      14-4      16-5      0.490      WON at Cairn 99-76; BEAT Gwynedd-Mercy 80-68; BEAT Rosemont 96-66   
   9      F & M       CC      13-4      16-5      0.512      WON at Gettysburg 56-49; LOST at Swarthmore 73-63   
                                          
   MW      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      15-3      18-3      0.560      BEAT North Park 88-44; WON at Carthage 78-59   
   2      Transylvania      HCAC      15-4      16-5      0.565      WON at Mt. St. Joseph 65-39; WON at Manchester 91-47   
   3      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      13-5      16-5      0.577      BEAT Augustana 58-57; WON at Milikin 62-52   
   4      Washington U.      UAA      15-4      16-4      0.544      BEAT Emory 68-65; BEAT Rochester 72-53   
   5      NCC      CCIW      16-3      18-3      0.525      WON at Millikin 59-58; WON at Augustana 76-62   
   6      Rose-Hulman      HCAC      18-2      19-2      0.502      BEAT Franklin 72-63; WON at Defiance 63-62   
   7      Augustana       CCIW      15-5      16-5      0.549      LOST at Wheaton 58-57; LOST to North Central 76-62   
   8      St. Nobert      MWC      15-4      15-4      0.525      BEAT Carroll 63-50; LOST at Grinnell 104-99   
                                          
   NE      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      WPI      NEWMAC      21-0      21-0      0.548      BEAT Wheaton (Mass) 86-59; LOST at Springfield 66-60   
   2      Amherst      NESCAC      20-2      20-2      0.553      WON at Williams 65-48; at Middlebury 2/9 (rescheduled 2/12)   
   3      Williams      NESCAC      18-2      20-2      0.553      LOST to Amherst 65-48; vs. Trinity (Conn) 2/9 (rescheduled 2/12)   
   4      Middlebury      NESCAC      16-1      19-1      0.527      BEAT Lyndon State 89-59; BEAT Trinity (Conn) 66-59; vs. Amherst 2/9 (rescheduled 2/12   
   5      RIC      LEC      18-3      18-3      0.544      BEAT Mass-Dartmouth 71-60; BEAT Southern Maine 64-46   
   6      Brandeis      UAA      15-5      15-5      0.588      WON at Carnegie Mellon 73-68; LOST at Case Western Reserve 56-47   
   7      MIT      NEWMAC      15-4      16-4      0.553      WON at Babson 69-53; vs. Clark 2/9 (rescheduled 2/11)   
   8      Curry      CCC      15-6      15-6      0.555      BEAT Western New England 71-60; at Endicott 2/9 (rescheduled 2/14)   
   9      Westfield St.      MASCAC      15-4      17-4      0.517      WON at Massachusetts College 71-69; BEAT Western Connecticut 72-59   
   10      Springfield      NEWMAC      15-7      15-7      0.559      BEAT WPI 66-60   
   11      Eastern Conn.      LEC      14-4      14-7      0.517      BEAT Western Conn. 64-51; at Mass-Dartmouth 2/9 (rescheduled 2/11)   
   12      Albertus Mag.      GNAC      20-2      20-3      0.454      vs. St. Joseph's (Maine) 2/9 (rescheduled 2/14)   
                                          
   SOUTH      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      Hamp-Syd        ODAC      15-2      19-2      0.529      WON at Randolph-Macon 66-47; BEAT Bridgewater 95-49   
   2      MHB      ASC      18-3      18-3      0.552      BEAT Schreiner 79-65; BEAT Texas Lutheran 74-54   
   3      Chris. Newport      USAC      14-3      15-3      0.537      LOST to Virg. Wesleyan 79-66; LOST at LaGrange 73-68; at Piedmont (cancelled)   
   4      Concordia (TX)   ASC      14-4      16-5      0.536      BEAT Texas Lutheran 92-86 ; BEAT Schreiner 115-92   
   5      Emory      UAA      14-5      14-5      0.561      LOST at Washington U. 68-65; WON at Chicago 82-59   
   6      Virginia Wesleyan      ODAC       11-5      14-6      0.510      WON at Christ New 79-66; WON at East Menn 70-65; WON at Guilford 70-62   
   7      Lynchburg      ODAC       12-5      16-5      0.502      BEAT Roanoke 63-61; WON at Emory and Henry 91-79   
   8      Guilford      ODAC      13-5      16-5      0.530      LOST at Randolph 72-70; LOST to Virginia Wesleyan 70-62   
                                          
   WEST      TEAM      CONF.      IN-REGION      OVERALL      SOS      SCHEDULE   
   1      St. Thomas      MIAC      20-1      20-1      0.545      BEAT Bethel 75-64; WON at Gustavus Adolphus 68-63; WON at St. John's 93-68   
   2      Whitworth      NWC      19-1      20-1      0.546      LOST to Whitman 93-90; LOST to George Fox 89-81   
   3      Stevens Point      WIAC      18-4      18-4      0.593      BEAT Oshkosh 62-52   
   4      Whitewater      WIAC      16-4      17-4      0.606      BEAT Platteville 64-50; BEAT Superior 84-53   
   5      Stout      WIAC      16-4      17-4      0.538      LOST at La Crosse 62-48; BEAT at Eau Claire 70-54   
   6      Buena Vista      IIAC      15-5      16-5      0.557      LOST to Dubuque 73-58; BEAT Luther 70-41   
   7      Augsburg      MIAC      15-5      15-5      0.526      BEAT St. John's 106-87; LOST at Carleton 63-58; BEAT St. Olaf 82-71   
   8      Luther      IIAC      14-4      15-6      0.497      BEAT Central 72-66 OT ; LOST at Buena Vista 70-41   
   9      Concord. Moorhead      MIAC      15-6      15-7      0.509      BEAT St. John's 74-67; WON at Hamline 90-78   
                                          
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 08:38:12 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 06:24:27 PM
In other words, the old way was based on the assumption a 9-3 team was going to like a 15-5 team should the 9-3 team have played 20 games. You can't base SOS numbers on assumptions... they should be based on hard numbers.

And if you decide to play Nebraska Wesleyan or the like, that is a decision that coach has made. It isn't like we have teams who all of the sudden change their minds and only play half their games in region. NW and others have long stranding track records or scenarios which everyone knows... and rewarding a team for playing a 3-3 NW the same as playing a 10-10 team doesn't make any sense.

If all games count when the committee looks at selecting Pool Bs and Cs and bracketing the teams, then the SOS should count all games and not the average.

Right, and the hard numbers say a 9-3 team is a .750 team, just like a 15-5 team. Both teams have achieved equally in their opportunities.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 11, 2013, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:36:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:30:05 PM
Right, but someone facing two batters back to back isn't going to be more likely to give up a hit to the person who had more at-bats.

Thing is, that just isn't what we're measuring here. We're measuring a team's batting average, akin to what sac said:

Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

We're not predicting how a team would do when playing Adrian (like we would predict this pitcher facing two batters), we're measuring how a group of teams performed (a group of batters). And if one team happened to play more measurable games than the other, so be it. It should count more.

If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.

You have to remember the home and away weighting also, an away game is already weighted 2/3 higher than a home game, so your argument about each game counting toward 1/20th of the SOS doesnt make sense to begin with. 

I tend to like the new system better because it takes each of your opponents games as an individual event.  Therefore, for every game your opponent plays (that counts according to the NCAA criteria) you get either 1.25, 1.0, or 0.75 points (Home, Neutral, Away) towards your OWP statistic in either the Win or Loss column.  Then, you average over all events to give the OWP statistic.  In the previous method, whether your opponent played 4, 10 or 20 games, they were all treated the same.  As the number of events increase, the certainty of the statistic also increases.  Meaning that I have more confidence that a 12-12 team is a 0.500 team, than a 1-1 team, a 2-2 team, or even a 5-5 team, because we just dont have a lot of information on those teams yet.  The same analogy can be drawn to baseball as has already been discussed.  Do you have more confidence in someone who has gone 1-3 on the season to get a hit or someone who has gone 33-99?  The same thing is true here. When you have such small samples of data, your certainty in that team's WP is low. Thats why I have a problem with the previous batting average examples, you are never going to get 600 observations in basketball games for a single team in a season.  By averaging the WP for each opponent, you collapse the number of observations to the number of regional games played. Conversely, by doing it this way, you approximately square the number of observations.    As the number of events increases, your confidence in the true OWP of that team increases.  Scaling linearly with the number of events is the easiest way of doing this (which the NCAA has incorporated) and it could be debated whether it is the best way.  For example, in statistics, critical values for a t-stat are not linear, above 20 or 30 events you begin to approach the infinite observation t-stat.  However, for this purpose, I have absolutely no problem with what the NCAA is doing and think it is definitely an improvement on the alternative that is being debated.

I doubt these points are being expressed over on the D1 message boards. ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 11, 2013, 09:32:09 PM
I have a headache.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 09:48:26 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 11, 2013, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:36:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:30:05 PM
Right, but someone facing two batters back to back isn't going to be more likely to give up a hit to the person who had more at-bats.

Thing is, that just isn't what we're measuring here. We're measuring a team's batting average, akin to what sac said:

Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

We're not predicting how a team would do when playing Adrian (like we would predict this pitcher facing two batters), we're measuring how a group of teams performed (a group of batters). And if one team happened to play more measurable games than the other, so be it. It should count more.

If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.

You have to remember the home and away weighting also, an away game is already weighted 2/3 higher than a home game, so your argument about each game counting toward 1/20th of the SOS doesnt make sense to begin with. 

I tend to like the new system better because it takes each of your opponents games as an individual event.  Therefore, for every game your opponent plays (that counts according to the NCAA criteria) you get either 1.25, 1.0, or 0.75 points (Home, Neutral, Away) towards your OWP statistic in either the Win or Loss column.  Then, you average over all events to give the OWP statistic.  In the previous method, whether your opponent played 4, 10 or 20 games, they were all treated the same.  As the number of events increase, the certainty of the statistic also increases.  Meaning that I have more confidence that a 12-12 team is a 0.500 team, than a 1-1 team, a 2-2 team, or even a 5-5 team, because we just dont have a lot of information on those teams yet.  The same analogy can be drawn to baseball as has already been discussed.  Do you have more confidence in someone who has gone 1-3 on the season to get a hit or someone who has gone 33-99?  The same thing is true here. When you have such small samples of data, your certainty in that team's WP is low. Thats why I have a problem with the previous batting average examples, you are never going to get 600 observations in basketball games for a single team in a season.  By averaging the WP for each opponent, you collapse the number of observations to the number of regional games played. Conversely, by doing it this way, you approximately square the number of observations.    As the number of events increases, your confidence in the true OWP of that team increases.  Scaling linearly with the number of events is the easiest way of doing this (which the NCAA has incorporated) and it could be debated whether it is the best way.  For example, in statistics, critical values for a t-stat are not linear, above 20 or 30 events you begin to approach the infinite observation t-stat.  However, for this purpose, I have absolutely no problem with what the NCAA is doing and think it is definitely an improvement on the alternative that is being debated.

I doubt these points are being expressed over on the D1 message boards. ;D

You dont have the same criteria in D1.  Also, it is much easier to handle the D1 situation, because there are less teams, they play more games, and there is more interaction between teams from different regions.  Therefore, the problem of applying an appropriate RPI metric is better defined.  The D3 problem is ill-defined, especially on a national level, which necessitates breaking the country up geographically and defining more strict criteria in order to allow for a better comparison between teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 11, 2013, 09:56:00 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 09:48:26 PMYou dont have the same criteria in D1.  Also, it is much easier to handle the D1 situation, because there are more teams

You mean more teams in the D1 tourney than in the D3 tourney, right? Because, in terms of divisional membership, D1 has 347 teams and D3 has 412.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 09:58:16 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 11, 2013, 09:56:00 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 09:48:26 PMYou dont have the same criteria in D1.  Also, it is much easier to handle the D1 situation, because there are more teams

You mean more teams in the D1 tourney than in the D3 tourney, right? Because, in terms of divisional membership, D1 has 347 teams and D3 has 412.

I actually meant to write less teams, and more games, but wrote more for both accidentally.

Of course more tournament teams (less teams overall).  Sorry for the confusion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 10:56:58 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 08:38:12 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 06:24:27 PM
In other words, the old way was based on the assumption a 9-3 team was going to like a 15-5 team should the 9-3 team have played 20 games. You can't base SOS numbers on assumptions... they should be based on hard numbers.

And if you decide to play Nebraska Wesleyan or the like, that is a decision that coach has made. It isn't like we have teams who all of the sudden change their minds and only play half their games in region. NW and others have long stranding track records or scenarios which everyone knows... and rewarding a team for playing a 3-3 NW the same as playing a 10-10 team doesn't make any sense.

If all games count when the committee looks at selecting Pool Bs and Cs and bracketing the teams, then the SOS should count all games and not the average.

Right, and the hard numbers say a 9-3 team is a .750 team, just like a 15-5 team. Both teams have achieved equally in their opportunities.

Now, there is no equality here... let's put it another way... the 9-3 team would be 4 games back of the 15-5 team if they were in the standings. If the 9-3 team wants to equal the 15-5 team with the later not playing any games, they will have to win six of the next eight games - THEN they will be equal.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 11, 2013, 11:06:57 PM
Win your conference tournament and you don't have to worry about a Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 11, 2013, 11:23:24 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 11, 2013, 11:06:57 PM
Win your conference tournament and you don't have to worry about a Pool C.

But you do have to worry about seeding and hosting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2013, 11:26:09 PM
Well this year hosting really isn't as big a concern at all (and seeding doesn't happen in Division III, remember). With 30 teams hosting the first week, 16 the next and 8 the following... the hosting is probably going to be pretty obvious.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 11:27:28 PM
Or at the very least, the schools we'll be talking about as bubble hosting teams will be 8 and 9 seeds instead of 4 and 5 seeds.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 11, 2013, 11:59:11 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 11, 2013, 11:06:57 PM
Win your conference tournament and you don't have to worry about a Pool C.
The ultimate "I know you're right, but it doesn't matter" argument.  Nebraska Wesleyan and Calvin are not scheduling non-d3 teams because they would rather fly off to California or Florida and miss class time.  Their decision of who they play seems entirely within the philosophy of D3, and as such should not be penalized.  Their student athletes should have a fair shot at earning at-large bid.

Dave: you still haven't admitted you were wrong about the different calculations also affecting the women.   No idea if the women even realized the difference, but it might be worth the effort to make a correction to your blog.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2013, 09:38:58 AM
AO... how does the calculation affect the women? They don't use the multiplier! So there is no influence on any games!

In a men's game a 9-4 record for a team you played on the road would have a record of 11.25 and 5. A women's game on the road has no multiplier so that team is still 9-4.

Tell me how the new calculations actually affect the women?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 12, 2013, 09:50:22 AM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:36:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:30:05 PM
Right, but someone facing two batters back to back isn't going to be more likely to give up a hit to the person who had more at-bats.

Thing is, that just isn't what we're measuring here. We're measuring a team's batting average, akin to what sac said:

Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

We're not predicting how a team would do when playing Adrian (like we would predict this pitcher facing two batters), we're measuring how a group of teams performed (a group of batters). And if one team happened to play more measurable games than the other, so be it. It should count more.

If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.

You have to remember the home and away weighting also, an away game is already weighted 2/3 higher than a home game, so your argument about each game counting toward 1/20th of the SOS doesnt make sense to begin with. 

The WP weighting is an entirely different issue and one I agree with.

Is it harder to beat a .500 team on the road than at home? Yes, so weight the game appropriately.
Is there any difference in playing a .500 team whether they are 10-10 or 8-8? I say no, so why should it count differently towards SOS?

We've gone around and around on the philosophy behind the whole thing but none of the supporters of this calculation method have been able to adequately respond to the real life examples KnightSlappy  has posted. Since those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still, I'm more interested in looking at the application of the calculation method in such examples as KS has presented.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 12, 2013, 09:52:10 AM
Thoughts on CCIW Pool C situation...

Quote from: Titan Q on February 11, 2013, 09:51:24 PM
Quote from: USee on February 11, 2013, 08:51:59 PM
Q

With the likely conference seeds set, what is the pool C picture for CCIW teams and what does each team have to do/avoid between now and selection Day?

Usee, I think it's first important to put some context around the numbers required to be a competitive Pool C candidate.  Last year, after the bracket was announced, I tried to project the order the Pool C's were taken.  Post #3866 here...

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.3855

There were 19 Pool C's picked (same as this year).  I guessed that the last 7 in were...

(in-region winning %/in-region SOS/in-region results vs regionally ranked)

Round 13 - St. Mary's, .739/.557/1-3
Round 14 - Illinois Wesleyan, .708/.541/3-6
Round 15 - Randolph-Macon, .783/.515, 3-2
Round 16 - Gustavus Adolphus, .731/.526/2-2
Round 17 - New York U., .800, .494, 2-2
Round 18 - St. Joseph's, .875, .470, 0-2
Round 19 - Birmingham-Southern, .920/.443/0-0

I projected that the teams left sitting at the table when the music stopped were:

(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Nazareth, 18-7 (.720), .549, 0-4
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 - I think we later guessed that some other NE team was ranked higher in the region
(W) Puget Sound: 15-7 (.682), .513, 3-3
**********

So now to where the CCIW teams stand.  Here are updated in-region records, w/ SOS that is a week old...and I've added results vs regionally ranked...

MW #1 - Illinois Wesleyan, 17-3 (.850)/.560 /5-2
MW #3 - Wheaton, 15-5 (.750)/.577/4-3
MW #5 - North Central, 18-3 (.857)/.525/3-2 
MW #7 - Augustana, 15-7 (.682)/.549/1-7

Minimum each needs to be in good Pool C shape (4 possible games left)...

- Illinois Wesleyan: 1-2 would leave the Titans 18-5 (.782)

- Wheaton: 2-1 would leave the Thunder 17-6 (.739)

- North Central: 1-2 would leave the Cardinals 19-5 (.792)

- Augustana: I don't see a realistic Pool C chance...3-1 leaves the Vikings 18-8 (.692)


Heading into the final two regular season games, it looks to me like IWU, North Central, and Wheaton are in very good shape for Pool C.   Augustana needs the AQ to get in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 12, 2013, 09:53:13 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2013, 09:38:58 AM
AO... how does the calculation affect the women? They don't use the multiplier! So there is no influence on any games!

In a men's game a 9-4 record for a team you played on the road would have a record of 11.25 and 5. A women's game on the road has no multiplier so that team is still 9-4.

Tell me how the new calculations actually affect the women?

But if another team is 19-4 then the 9-4 team counts 36% towards the SOS (13 games/36 total games) while the 19-4 counts 64% (23 games/36 total games) instead of 50-50.

(19+9)/(23+13) = .778
[(19/23)+(9/13)]/2 = .759
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2013, 10:00:21 AM
But ziggy... there is no change there. The original calculations have always had 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP... that has been the case for men and women... so there is no change in that calculation!

The only change we are talking about here involves the multipliers... the 1.25, 1.0, and 0.75 for road, neutral, and home games respectively. Since the women do not use those multipliers... their calculations do not change.

Again... the multipliers are now calculating on the individual records not the percentages in the men's results... and since the women do not use the multipliers the calculations of their numbers will not change.

Since the QOWI was done away with, I believe the OWP and OOWP have always been calculated as 2/3 + 1/3... and never 50-50.

Am I missing something in your argument?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 12, 2013, 10:03:20 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2013, 09:38:58 AM
AO... how does the calculation affect the women? They don't use the multiplier! So there is no influence on any games!

In a men's game a 9-4 record for a team you played on the road would have a record of 11.25 and 5. A women's game on the road has no multiplier so that team is still 9-4.

Tell me how the new calculations actually affect the women?
From your example, using last year's calculation, you'd come up with a .555 OWP, this year under the total wins/total games you come up with a .560
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 12, 2013, 10:06:35 AM
The only way to say there is no change is to say that the handbook has said one thing and the calculation has been done another way - like Pat has indicated is the case.

AO's point has to do with calculating OWP by averaging the individual win percentages vs. arriving at an OWP via the sum total of opponents' wins and loses.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2013, 10:16:24 AM
AHHHHHH!!!!!!! I see the point... thank you. As seen below...

Here is how my example works with the men:

Opp         W     L       Mult.        Raw W    Raw L
Team B    9    1    1.25    11.25    1.25
Team C    9    3    1.25    11.25    3.75
Team D    5    2    1.25    6.25    2.50
Team E    7    4    1.00    7.00    4.00
Team F    6    4    1.25    7.50    5.00
Team G    6    4    0.75    4.50    3.00
Team H    6    4    1.25    7.50    5.00
Team I    4    5    0.75    3.00    3.75
Team J    4    6    1.00    4.00    6.00
Team K    4    8    1.00    4.00    8.00
Team L    1    7    1.25    1.25    8.75
               Total:    67.50    51.00
               SOS (WP):    .5696

Now for the women:

Team B    9    1         .900
Team C    9    3         .750
Team D    5    2         .714
Team E    7    4         .636
Team F    6    4         .600
Team G    6    4         .600
Team H    6    4         .600
Team I    4    5         .444
Team J    4    6         .400
Team K    4    8         .333
Team L    1    7         .143
Total:      61    48
SOS:       .560             .556

OK... I apologize... I didn't see the point what so ever... and now I get it! :)

I will have to check with those in the know to see how this is affecting the women... which I assume it is. And AO... I will adjust my blog accordingly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 11:05:09 AM
Curious what the rankings will look like today in the Midwest and West rankings.

With #7 Augustana losing two games, they are surely to drop out? They did lose to two regionally ranked teams ahead of them. #8 St. Norbert also lost a game, to Grinnell. With two wins over the Green Knights, will Grinnell crack the rankings? Their SOS is still horrible. How about Westminster or Lakeland College? A team to look out for NEXT week could be Hanover. They play Transylvania and Rose-Hulman this week.

Over in the West #2 Whitworth dropped two. Whitewater could jump Point and the bottom 5 teams all took a loss.  I could see possibly Redlands and/or Northwestern (MN) jumping in. Northwestern has lost to Buena Vista, Luther and Whitewater while topping Wheaton. Redlands has lost to Whitworth and Buena Vista.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 13, 2013, 12:08:44 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 11:05:09 AM
Curious what the rankings will look like today in the Midwest and West rankings.

With #7 Augustana losing two games, they are surely to drop out? They did lose to two regionally ranked teams ahead of them. #8 St. Norbert also lost a game, to Grinnell. With two wins over the Green Knights, will Grinnell crack the rankings? Their SOS is still horrible. How about Westminster or Lakeland College? A team to look out for NEXT week could be Hanover. They play Transylvania and Rose-Hulman this week.

Over in the West #2 Whitworth dropped two. Whitewater could jump Point and the bottom 5 teams all took a loss.  I could see possibly Redlands and/or Northwestern (MN) jumping in. Northwestern has lost to Buena Vista, Luther and Whitewater while topping Wheaton. Redlands has lost to Whitworth and Buena Vista.

Ain't gonna happen. Point swept Whitewater. Even if Point should lose to Stout tonight, SP will still be above WW.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 12:33:50 PM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 13, 2013, 12:08:44 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 11:05:09 AM
Curious what the rankings will look like today in the Midwest and West rankings.

With #7 Augustana losing two games, they are surely to drop out? They did lose to two regionally ranked teams ahead of them. #8 St. Norbert also lost a game, to Grinnell. With two wins over the Green Knights, will Grinnell crack the rankings? Their SOS is still horrible. How about Westminster or Lakeland College? A team to look out for NEXT week could be Hanover. They play Transylvania and Rose-Hulman this week.

Over in the West #2 Whitworth dropped two. Whitewater could jump Point and the bottom 5 teams all took a loss.  I could see possibly Redlands and/or Northwestern (MN) jumping in. Northwestern has lost to Buena Vista, Luther and Whitewater while topping Wheaton. Redlands has lost to Whitworth and Buena Vista.

Ain't gonna happen. Point swept Whitewater. Even if Point should lose to Stout tonight, SP will still be above WW.

For the West I'll guess (not really adjusting for head-to-head except UWSP and UWW):

1. St. Thomas
2. UWSP
3. UWW
4. Whitworth (they're either above both UWSP and UWW or below both)
5. UW-Stout
6. Buena Vista (flip 5-6 if you want)
7. Augsburg
8. Redlands
9. Luther
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 01:43:00 PM
NEW RANKINGS ARE POSTED
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2013, 01:43:57 PM
On it thanks!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2013, 01:46:18 PM
Thanks again! Regional rankings:

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/13/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-2-2/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 02:12:36 PM
I didn't mean to steal your thunder.  ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 13, 2013, 12:08:44 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 11:05:09 AM
Curious what the rankings will look like today in the Midwest and West rankings.

With #7 Augustana losing two games, they are surely to drop out? They did lose to two regionally ranked teams ahead of them. #8 St. Norbert also lost a game, to Grinnell. With two wins over the Green Knights, will Grinnell crack the rankings? Their SOS is still horrible. How about Westminster or Lakeland College? A team to look out for NEXT week could be Hanover. They play Transylvania and Rose-Hulman this week.

Over in the West #2 Whitworth dropped two. Whitewater could jump Point and the bottom 5 teams all took a loss.  I could see possibly Redlands and/or Northwestern (MN) jumping in. Northwestern has lost to Buena Vista, Luther and Whitewater while topping Wheaton. Redlands has lost to Whitworth and Buena Vista.

Ain't gonna happen. Point swept Whitewater. Even if Point should lose to Stout tonight, SP will still be above ww.

Grinnell swept St. Norbert. So shouldn't they be ranked before St. Norbert?

Surprised to see Augie still ranked and above St. Norbert. I understand SOS and all, but really?

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 13, 2013, 03:05:23 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 03:00:27 PM
Grinnell swept St. Norbert. So shouldn't they be ranked before St. Norbert?

Surprised to see Augie still ranked and above St. Norbert. I understand SOS and all, but really?

Completely agree on St. Norbert/Grinnell - I don't get it.

Augustana beat St. Norbert, at St. Norbert (and not that it matters, but it was a blowout).  For me, head-to-head was applied properly here but not with St. Norbert/Grinnell. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2013, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 02:12:36 PM
I didn't mean to steal your thunder.  ;)

No, I was being sincere -- I wouldn't have even started checking the NCAA site for at least another hour. I do truly appreciate the heads-up. Just added our link in hopes that that is what people will distribute through the other boards.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 03:44:24 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 13, 2013, 03:05:23 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 03:00:27 PM
Grinnell swept St. Norbert. So shouldn't they be ranked before St. Norbert?

Surprised to see Augie still ranked and above St. Norbert. I understand SOS and all, but really?

Completely agree on St. Norbert/Grinnell - I don't get it.

Augustana beat St. Norbert, at St. Norbert (and not that it matters, but it was a blowout).  For me, head-to-head was applied properly here but not with St. Norbert/Grinnell.

I don't think head-to-head should make it automatic that they're ranked higher. St. Norbert has the .539 to .481 SOS advantage. And this committee loves SOS more than any committee in recent memory.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 04:00:42 PM
And as I have stated in other places, St. Norbert has one more result versus regionally ranked opponents and has three more games regionally on their record. Not sure if those are determining factors...

And Knight, while I agree SOS is certainly a major factor, I have seen decisions not necessarily based only on SOS. It is also a change from when SOS was ignored for WP instead. I think we are seeing a little of both in these decisions across the country.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 13, 2013, 04:03:03 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 03:44:24 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 13, 2013, 03:05:23 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 03:00:27 PM
Grinnell swept St. Norbert. So shouldn't they be ranked before St. Norbert?

Surprised to see Augie still ranked and above St. Norbert. I understand SOS and all, but really?

Completely agree on St. Norbert/Grinnell - I don't get it.

Augustana beat St. Norbert, at St. Norbert (and not that it matters, but it was a blowout).  For me, head-to-head was applied properly here but not with St. Norbert/Grinnell.

I don't think head-to-head should make it automatic that they're ranked higher. St. Norbert has the .539 to .481 SOS advantage. And this committee loves SOS more than any committee in recent memory.

My point in saying that UWSP would remain above UW Whitewater was simply that WW didn't suddenly have something on their resume that should bump them above the Pointers.

On the other hand, Grinnell won a head-to-head matchup. That would seem to be a rather significant milestone, especially because they swept St Norbs, but it also raises Grinnell's win% at the expense of SNC's.

But, it should be noted, that not only does SNC still have a significant SOS lead over the Pio's, and they do still have more overall regional wins. That, and the fact that SNC was ranked and Grinnell wasn't... so there may have been more Midwest teams in between the two MWC teams... where, now, Grinnell is the first unlisted team.

All speculation, of course, because we can't see what we're not shown.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 04:36:41 PM
Per Grinnell - something just dawned on me. In the results vs. regionally ranked opponents. Grinnell is 2-1 and St. Norbert is 1-0... take out the head-to-head in that category and St. Norbert is 1-0 and Grinnell is 0-0. I have no idea if the committee would have considered it that way... but I found it interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2013, 04:48:53 PM
Some thoughts:
A win against West-3 UW-Whitewater probably carries a lot of weight.
Secondary criteria don't help Grinnell.
Remember, it's two head-to-head wins for Grinnell over St. Norbert, not just one.
Both 14-3 against common opponents (no common non-conference opponents).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 13, 2013, 04:50:02 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 04:36:41 PM
Per Grinnell - something just dawned on me. In the results vs. regionally ranked opponents. Grinnell is 2-1 and St. Norbert is 1-0... take out the head-to-head in that category and St. Norbert is 1-0 and Grinnell is 0-0. I have no idea if the committee would have considered it that way... but I found it interesting.

A little confused here, Grinnell is listed as 2-0 (both wins against St. Norbert) and St. Norbert is listed as 1-2 (one win against UWW and 2 losses against Augie and UWW).  If you take away the head-to-head, Grinnell is 0-0, but St. Norbert is still 1-2.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 05:03:39 PM
I miss-wrote something... Grinnell is 2-0... St. Norbert is 1-2... take out the head to head and Grinnell is 0-0 and St. Norbert is 1-0. Sorry about that - multitasking got the best of me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 13, 2013, 05:06:30 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 05:03:39 PM
I miss-wrote something... Grinnell is 2-0... St. Norbert is 1-2... take out the head to head and Grinnell is 0-0 and St. Norbert is 1-0. Sorry about that - multitasking got the best of me.

St. Norbert has in-region losses to Augustana and UW-Whitewater, right? 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 05:10:24 PM
Yeah - got things confused with the head-to-head and such. Forget my previous...

St. Norbert has a win over UW-Whitewater and losses to Augustana and UW-Whitewater. Grinnell has just the wins wins versus St. Norbert.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 13, 2013, 05:25:07 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 04:00:42 PM
And as I have stated in other places, St. Norbert has one more result versus regionally ranked opponents and has three more games regionally on their record. Not sure if those are determining factors...

And Knight, while I agree SOS is certainly a major factor, I have seen decisions not necessarily based only on SOS. It is also a change from when SOS was ignored for WP instead. I think we are seeing a little of both in these decisions across the country.

I would agree with Q that TWO h-to-h wins by Grinnell should outweigh a .058 difference in SOS.  But where I think they REALLY overused SOS is having Calvin 6th in the Great Lakes - their SOS is admittedly rather pathetic, but 16-1 should be enough to put them at least 3rd or 4th.  And if they were higher, it might have allowed Hope to slip in at #6, thus giving them (so far) 2 more RRO results, which might help Calvin in seeding (or even making the tourney if they don't win the AQ).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
My final rant on the "new" OWP calculation method with what I think is "definitive proof" that's it's being implemented incorrectly.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

Also, yeah, sorry about the rough writing. My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 11:23:45 PM
I said this about a month ago.  When I was arguing in Grinnell's favor, it was because John Gleich was talking about head to head matchups.

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 17, 2013, 07:02:16 PM
Never too early for Pool C talk!   ::)

I think Grinnell is already in bad shape.  They are currently 11-3, but only 10-2 in the NCAA's eyes with two games not in-region.  Another thing against Grinnell is that they only play 22 games.  The MWC is already at a disadvantage as it seems they are limited to just 23, so losing a game and then playing two games the NCAA doesn't count really hurts Grinnell.  Another thing that kills Grinnell is that their SOS is horrible, sitting at about 213 right now.  They don't have too many chances to raise that either.  They only play St. Norbert again as they only play Carroll once (a loss).  Sure, they could end the season, say, 21-3, but they would have to beat St. Norbert again, and possibly in the MWC tourney and then lose in the final.  That would help a lot. 

Though with the same record, St. Norbert is in better shape.  All of their non-conference games are in-region.  In addition, their SOS is much stronger, coming in at 62.  Unlike Grinnell, St. Nobert will have played some potential regionally ranked opponents in Augustana and Whitewater.  That helps in the decision-making process come March.  They are 1-1 in those games and also play Whitewater again.  Even if they go 1-2 against Augustana and Whitewater, that record against regionally ranked opponents is better than going 0-0.  I think Grinnell's saving grace would be for St. Norbert to be regionally -ranked and have a good record against them, 1-0 so far.  There might be a possibility that Carroll could also be regionally ranked, and St. Norb's plays Grinnell and Carroll again. 

Carroll's loss to Lake Forest really hurt.  They have another loss now and their SOS is 89.  Carroll has played two teams that could be regionally ranked.  They lost to North Central and beat Rose-Hulman.  However, they did lose to St. Norbert and beat Grinnell.  They do have one more shot at St. Norbert.  Of course, St. Norbert could also be regionally ranked. 

The first regional rankings are a long way off, so no need to worry just yet!

I never really thought Grinnell had a shot at Pool C, I was just playing devil's advocate.  Some of my points were corrected, like 10-2 is actually better than 11-3. 

Regardless, being the last team in the Midwest Regional Rankings doesn't give you much of a shot anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2013, 11:29:15 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2013, 11:23:45 PM
Regardless, being the last team in the Midwest Regional Rankings doesn't give you much of a shot anyway.

Very good point. For the moment, MWC looks like a one-bid league.

Gotta wonder if Grinnell's November antics don't sit well with enough people on the committee that when they cast that secret ballot, they don't vote for the Pioneers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: izzy stradlin on February 13, 2013, 11:34:42 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
My final rant on the "new" OWP calculation method with what I think is "definitive proof" that's it's being implemented incorrectly.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

Also, yeah, sorry about the rough writing. My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

Wow!  I hadn't followed any of these changes with the multiplier but this is really really bad.   It's a 4th grade math error by someone on the Championship Committee.   They used a multiplier on the number of wins and losses separately and didn't realize that this removes the multiplier when calculating a percentage!   

Anyone on that committee needs to change careers to a field that doesn't involve numbers or go back to grade school out of embarrassment. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 11:49:42 PM
Considering it is actually statisticians who do the number crunching and suggestions (and I don't think any committees asked for the change)... I am not sure we can hang this on the men's committee or any other... especially since the NCAA Championships Committee approved the change in September.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 14, 2013, 12:21:24 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2013, 11:49:42 PM
Considering it is actually statisticians who do the number crunching and suggestions (and I don't think any committees asked for the change)... I am not sure we can hang this on the men's committee or any other... especially since the NCAA Championships Committee approved the change in September.
Why couldn't the men's committee point out the fault in the new SOS calculations?  If the Men's committee can add the multiplier to the SOS, what's stopping them from computing it correctly?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2013, 12:37:38 AM


   ATL                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   2      1      Old Westbury      SKY      20-1, 21-3      BEAT St. Joseph's (L.I.) 119-80; at Sage 2/16   
   1      2      Ramapo      NJAC      18-2, 20-3      BEAT Richard Stockton 74-64; LOST at William Paterson 61-60   
   5      3      Rutgers-Newark      NJAC      17-6, 18-6      BEAT Kean 79-62   
   4      4      Ricard Stockton      NJAC      17-5, 17-5      LOST at Ramapo 74-64; vs. Rowan 2/13   
   3      5      SUNY-Purchase      SKY      17-5, 17-5      BEAT  NYU-Poly 92-59; at SUNY-Maritime 2/14; vs. St. Joseph (L.I.) 2/16   
   EAST                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Rochester      UAA      19-2, 20-2      vs. Carnegie Mellon 2/15; vs. Case Western Reserve 2/17   
   2      2      SUNY-Cortland      SUNYAC      19-2, 19-3      BEAT New Paltz State 87-47; at Plattsburgh St. 2/15; at Potsdam St. 2/16   
   3      3      Stevens      E8      18-3, 20-3      at Alfred 2/15; at St. John Fisher 2/16   
   5      4      Hobart      LL      15-6, 16-6      WON at Rochester Tech 72-57; vs. Clarkson 2/16; vs. St. Lawrence 2/16   
   n/a      5      Plattsburgh St.      SUNYAC      15-6, 15-7      BEAT Potsdam State 92-69; vs. Cortland State 2/15; vs. Oswego State 2/16   
   n/a      6      Ithaca      E8      14-7, 15-7      BEAT Houghton 85-72; vs. Utica 2/15; vs. Nazareth 2/16   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   4      n/a      NYU      UAA            vs. Washington U. 2/15; vs. Chicago 2/17   
   6      n/a      SUNY-Geneseo      SUNYAC            at Fredonia St. 2/15; vs. Buffalo St. 2/16   
   GT LK                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Wooster      NCAC      19-3, 19-3      WON at Allegheny 86-64; at DePauw 2/16   
   2      2      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      17-4, 17-5      BEAT Wabash 79-64; at Denison 2/16   
   3      3      Thomas More      PrAC      19-2, 20-3      BEAT Bethany 73-69; at St. Vincent 2/16   
   n/a      4      Capital      OAC      17-4, 17-6      BEAT Muskingum 75-68; vs. Ohio Northern 2/16   
   5      5      St. Vincent      PrAC      16-3, 18-5      BEAT Waynesburg 67-59; vs. Thomas More 2/16   
   4      6      Calvin      MIAA      16-1, 20-3      BEAT Trine 61-59; vs. Olivet 2/16   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   6      n/a      Marietta      OAC            WON at Mount Union 93-81; at John Carroll 2/16   
   MID-ATL                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   4      1      Alvernia      MACC      19-4, 19-4      BEAT Hood 70-59; at Messiah 2/16   
   1      2      Catholic      LAND      17-3, 20-3      WON at Goucher 71-43; vs. Moravian 2/16   
   3      3      St. Mary's (Md.)      CAC      16-2, 21-2      LOST at Salisbury 72-71; vs. Mary Washington 2/16   
   2      4      Albright      MACC      18-5, 18-5      WON at Lycoming 90-87; at Elizabethtown 2/16   
   5      5      Wesley      CAC      16-2, 19-5      vs. Salisbury 2/16   
   6      6      Scranton      LAND      17-6, 17-6      WON at Moravian 71-66; at Goucher 2/16   
   8      7      Cabrini      CSAC      17-4, 19-5      WON at Marywood 81-56   
   n/a      8      DeSales      MACF      17-5, 18-5      BEAT Wilkes 82-74; vs. Eastern 2/16   
   n/a      9      Dickinson      CC      15-6, 17-6      WON at Gettysburg 61-58; at Franklin and Marshall 2/16   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   7      n/a      Arcadia      MACC            WON at Lebanon Valley 77-61; at Widener 2/16   
   9      n/a      Frank & Marsh      CC            BEAT Johns Hopkins 73-54; vs. Dickinson 2/16   
   MW                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      17-3, 20-3      vs. Millikin 2/16   
   4      2      Washington U.      UAA      17-4, 18-4      at NYU 2/15; at Brandeis 2/17   
   3      3      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      15-5, 18-5      vs. Carthage 2/16   
   5      4      North Central (IL)      CCIW      18-3, 20-3      vs. North Park 2/16   
   2      5      Transylvania      HCAC      17-4, 18-5      LOST to Hanover 73-70; vs. Bluffton 2/16   
   6      6      Rose-Hulman      HCAC      20-2, 21-2      LOST at Earlham 68-66; at Hanover 2/16   
   7      7      Augustana       CCIW      15-7, 16-7      at Elmhurst 2/16   
   8      8      St. Norbert      MWC      16-5, 16-5      BEAT Ripon 57-52; at Illinois College 2/16   
   NE                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      WPI      NEWMAC      22-1, 22-1      LOST at MIT 69-60; at Clark 2/16   
   2      2      Amherst      NESCAC      21-2, 21-2      WON at Middlebury 104-101 3OT; vs. Colby 2/16   
   3      3      Williams      NESCAC      18-3, 20-3      BEAT Trinity (Conn) 68-47; vs. Bates 2/16   
   4      4      Middlebury      NESCAC      18-1, 21-1      LOST to Amherst 104-101 3OT; vs. Wesleyan 2/16   
   5      5      RIC       LEC      20-3, 20-3      WON at Western Connecticut 69-60; at Keene State 2/16   
   7      6      MIT      NEWMAC      16-4, 17-4      BEAT Clark 69-44; BEAT WPI 69-60; vs. Wheelock 2/17   
   6      7      Brandeis      UAA      16-6, 16-6      vs. Chicago 2/15; vs. Washington U 2/17   
   10      8      Springfield      NEWMAC      16-7, 16-7      BEAT Clark 57-55; at Wheaton (Mass) 2/16   
   8      9      Curry      CCC      16-6, 16-6      LOST at Eastern Nazarene 100-80; at Endicott 2/14; vs. Wentworth 2/16   
   9      10      Westfield St.      MASCAC      17-4, 19-4      WON at Framingham State 77-59; vs. Fitchburg State 2/16   
   11      11      Eastern Conn.      LEC      15-4, 15-7      WON at Mass-Dartmouth 78-59; BEAT Keene State 93-84; vs. Mass-Boston 2/16   
   12      12      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      20-2, 20-3      WON at Coast Guard 87-82; vs. St. Joseph's (Maine) 2/14; at Johnson and Wales 2/16   
   SOUTH                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Ham-Syd      ODAC      17-2, 21-2      LOST to Virginia Wesleyan 78-77; at Emory and Henry 2/16   
   2      2      MHB      ASC      20-3, 20-3      vs. Howard Payne 2/14; vs. Sul Ross State 2/16   
   5      3      Emory      UAA      15-6, 15-6      vs. Case Western Reserve 2/15; vs. Carnegie Mellon 2/17   
   6      4      Vir. Wes.      ODAC      14-5, 17-6      WON at Hampden-Sydney 78-77; vs. Lynchburg 2/16   
   4      5      Concordia (TX)      ASC      16-4, 18-5      vs. Sul Ross State 2/14; vs. Howard Payne 2/16   
   3      6      Chris Newport      USAC      14-5, 15-5      BEAT North Carolina Wesleyan 93-67; at Averett 2/16; at Ferrum 2/17   
   n/a      7      Randolph      ODAC      13-4, 19-4      WON at Lynchburg 58-49; at Randolph-Macon 2/16   
   n/a      8      Texas-Dallas      ASC      17-6, 17-6      BEAT University of the Ozarks 67-50; vs. LeTourneau 2/16   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   7      n/a      Lynchburg      ODAC            LOST to Randolph 58-49; at Virginia Wesleyan 2/16   
   8      n/a      Guilford      ODAC            BEAT Emory and Henry 73-65; at Bridgewater (Va) 2/16   
   WEST                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      St. Thomas      MIAC      23-1 ,23-1      BEAT St. Olaf 62-57   
   3      2      Stevens Point      WIAC      19-4, 19-4      WON at Stout 76-74 OT; vs. Eau Claire 2/16   
   4      3      Whitewater      WIAC      18-4, 19-4      WON at Oshkosh 75-58; vs. River Falls 2/16   
   2      4      Whitworth      NWC      19-3, 20-3      at Linfield 2/15; at Williamette 2/16   
   6      5      Buena Vista      IIAC      16-6, 17-6      at Wartburg 2/13; vs. Coe 2/16   
   5      6      Stout      WIAC      17-5, 18-5      LOST to Stevens Point 76-74 OT; vs. Oshkosh 2/16   
   9      7      Con-Moorhead      MIAC      17-6, 17-7      vs. Gustavus Adolphus 2/16   
   n/a      8      Whitman      NWC      13-6, 16-7      at Williamette 2/15; at Linfield 2/16   
   7      9      Augsburg      MIAC      17-6, 17-6      BEAT Macalester 88-64; at St. Mary's (MN) 2/16   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   8      N/A      Luther      IIAC            vs. Coe 2/13; vs. Wartburg 2/16   
                                    
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 14, 2013, 02:06:18 AM
After catching up on the recent discussion on this thread regarding the new SOS formula, I can onbviously say that I hadn't thought about the new formula deeply enough initialy.  And, although I understand the NCAAs intent behind the new formula, I agree with Knightslappy and others that it was implemented incorrectly and is just flat out wrong.  I know there have been numerous examples of how you can come up with illogical SOS trends, or have the multipler cancel out given the proper circumstances, but the root of all these examples, I believe (although I could be wrong, it is late right now) is that the way the multipliers are used in the new method dont make any sense to begin with.  The whole point of the multiplier is to give credit because it is harder to win on the road than it is at home and, vice-versa, it is easier to lose on the road than it is at home.  Therefore, why do you use the same multiplier for both Raw wins and Raw losses for an opponent (examples to come, if this isnt clear)? Take the case of calculating an OWP for a team who has played a single opponent on the road, at home, or on a neutral court with a 0.500 record (I know Knightslappy has already shown this).  It doesnt matter how many games they have played, 1-1, 5-5, 100-100, you get the same weighted OWP regardless of where the game was played (home: 1-1 record, Raw Ws = 0.75, Raw Ls = 0.75, OWP = 0.5; away: 1-1 record, Raw Ws = 1.25, Raw Ls = 1.25, OWP = 0.5....the same is true no matter how many games they played for this single opponent).  It seems that the weighting factor should not be equal for Ws and Ls, to make an away game count for more than a home game (which is the intent of the factor to begin with, it seems). For example, if you played a team on the road, use a multiplier of 1.25 for that teams wins and 0.75 for that teams losses, and if you played that team at home you would use 0.75 for wins and 1.25 for losses to come up with Raw Ws and Raw Ls.  In this case, the example I showed previously for calculating an OWP for a team with a single opponent would result in the following: (home: 1-1 record, Raw Ws = 0.75, Raw Ls = 1.25, OWP = 0.375; away: 1-1 record, Raw Ws = 1.25, Raw Ls = 0.75, OWP = 0.625).  This seems more in line with the true intent of the weighting factor.

With that said, here a two approaches to improve the SOS calculation, given what my assumptions about the intent of the NCAA are, then you guys can go to town on why these are also terrible ideas:

Assumption 1:  NCAA wants to weight the OWP and OOWP calculation to adjust for the difficulty of away games vs. home games (hence the 1.25/0.75 multiplier).

Assumption 2: NCAA wants to also weight the OWP and OOWP calculation to take into account the number of in-region games that opponent has played.


Simplest approach:  Just do a weighted average OWP and OOWP. 
For simplicity, just take the case an OWP calculation for a team that has played 4 opponents:
Game 1: Away vs. (3-1) team
Game 2: Home vs. (16-4) team
Game 3: Neutral vs. (6-6) team
Game 4: Home vs. (2-8) team

1.Original method (1.25/1.0/.75 weighting, averaged over all games)
(0.75*1.25+0.80*0.75+0.50*1.0+0.20*.75)/4 games= 0.549 OWP

In this method, you dont take into account at all that your road game against a 0.750 team has only 4 games played that 'count,' while you have played other teams with a lot more games.  It seems that the NCAA feels Game 1, in this example, is being emphasized too heavily and artifically bring up the OWP.  Therefore, thw proposed #2 below, which actually causes the OWP to increase even more!

2.New 'Incorrect' Method:
(check my math): Raw Ws =23.25, Raw Ls = 16.25, OWP = 0.589

In this case, Game 2 gets over-emphasized because they have the most in-region games, especially the way the multipliers are implemented (which seems incorrect).

3.Weighted Average (weighted by total number of opponents games):

Here, you calculate each teams' raw OWP as you would in 1 above, but you weight each team by the number of region games. If every one of your opponents had the same number of region games, #1 above and this method would be equivalent.

[(0.75*1.25)*4 games+(0.80*0.75)*20 games+(0.50*1.0)*12 games+(0.20*.75)*10 games]/46 games = 0.505 OWP

Because the SOS is weighted by games, the win against the 3-1 team doesnt count as much as the other games, because that opponent only has 4 games played that 'count.' 


More complex approach: Use unequal scaling factors (Home and Away scaling factors are different for Ws and Ls, eg 0.75/1.25 and 1.25/0.75, respectively), as I mentioned in the first paragraph, and continue calculating Raw Ws and Raw Ls like the NCAA is doing now.  With the previous example, this would result in:

Game 1: Away vs. (3-1) team   (Scaling 1.25/0.75)  Raw Ws: 3.75, Raw Ls: 0.75
Game 2: Home vs. (16-4) team (Scaling 0.75/1.25) Raw Ws: 12, Raw Ls: 5
Game 3: Neutral vs. (6-6) team (Scaling 1.0/1.0)    Raw Ws: 6, Raw Ls: 6
Game 4: Home vs. (2-8) team (Scaling 0.75/1.25)   Raw Ws: 1.50, Raw Ls: 10

OWP: 23.25/45 = 0.517

You end up with something closer to the game-weighted approach in #3 above.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 14, 2013, 07:21:13 AM
This type of discussion and analysis just doesn't happen on a D1 board.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Charles on February 14, 2013, 07:28:32 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 14, 2013, 07:21:13 AM
This type of discussion and analysis just doesn't happen on a D1 board.

That's becasue this board has strange powers that can help or hurt college teams and their athletes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2013, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
My final rant on the "new" OWP calculation method with what I think is "definitive proof" that's it's being implemented incorrectly.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

Also, yeah, sorry about the rough writing. My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

And to bring all my examples back to Calvin :), had they played Manchester, Finlandia, and Wabash all at home (instead of road-road-neutral), the "new" calculation method would have increased their SOS by .008.

Is it still possible to defend the NCAA on this?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 14, 2013, 09:53:12 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 14, 2013, 07:21:13 AM
This type of discussion and analysis just doesn't happen on a D1 board.
Quote from: ronk on February 11, 2013, 09:27:31 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 11, 2013, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 11, 2013, 04:36:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2013, 04:30:05 PM
Right, but someone facing two batters back to back isn't going to be more likely to give up a hit to the person who had more at-bats.

Thing is, that just isn't what we're measuring here. We're measuring a team's batting average, akin to what sac said:

Quote from: sac on February 11, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
I'm not sure I see the horribleness, when you figure out a baseball teams batting avg you don't avg the percentages, nor do you average the percentages of a player to find the career average.

We're not predicting how a team would do when playing Adrian (like we would predict this pitcher facing two batters), we're measuring how a group of teams performed (a group of batters). And if one team happened to play more measurable games than the other, so be it. It should count more.

If I play a 20 game schedule, some games should count for more then 1/20th and some less than 1/20th? That is exactly what happens when the SOS calculation depends on the total number of games each individual opponent has played. And that is my issue.

You have to remember the home and away weighting also, an away game is already weighted 2/3 higher than a home game, so your argument about each game counting toward 1/20th of the SOS doesnt make sense to begin with. 

I tend to like the new system better because it takes each of your opponents games as an individual event.  Therefore, for every game your opponent plays (that counts according to the NCAA criteria) you get either 1.25, 1.0, or 0.75 points (Home, Neutral, Away) towards your OWP statistic in either the Win or Loss column.  Then, you average over all events to give the OWP statistic.  In the previous method, whether your opponent played 4, 10 or 20 games, they were all treated the same.  As the number of events increase, the certainty of the statistic also increases.  Meaning that I have more confidence that a 12-12 team is a 0.500 team, than a 1-1 team, a 2-2 team, or even a 5-5 team, because we just dont have a lot of information on those teams yet.  The same analogy can be drawn to baseball as has already been discussed.  Do you have more confidence in someone who has gone 1-3 on the season to get a hit or someone who has gone 33-99?  The same thing is true here. When you have such small samples of data, your certainty in that team's WP is low. Thats why I have a problem with the previous batting average examples, you are never going to get 600 observations in basketball games for a single team in a season.  By averaging the WP for each opponent, you collapse the number of observations to the number of regional games played. Conversely, by doing it this way, you approximately square the number of observations.    As the number of events increases, your confidence in the true OWP of that team increases.  Scaling linearly with the number of events is the easiest way of doing this (which the NCAA has incorporated) and it could be debated whether it is the best way.  For example, in statistics, critical values for a t-stat are not linear, above 20 or 30 events you begin to approach the infinite observation t-stat.  However, for this purpose, I have absolutely no problem with what the NCAA is doing and think it is definitely an improvement on the alternative that is being debated.

I doubt these points are being expressed over on the D1 message boards. ;D

That was my point before; in addition, our discussers only missed the game(Amherst/Middlebury)/discussion because they were teaching/taking a class themselves.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 14, 2013, 10:01:40 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2013, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
My final rant on the "new" OWP calculation method with what I think is "definitive proof" that's it's being implemented incorrectly.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

Also, yeah, sorry about the rough writing. My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

And to bring all my examples back to Calvin :), had they played Manchester, Finlandia, and Wabash all at home (instead of road-road-neutral), the "new" calculation method would have increased their SOS by .008.

Is it still possible to defend the NCAA on this?
Silly Calvin, they should have embraced the D3 philosophy and flew to Emory and Birmingham-Southern to find SOS boosting regional games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2013, 11:03:04 AM
Quote from: AO on February 14, 2013, 10:01:40 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2013, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
My final rant on the "new" OWP calculation method with what I think is "definitive proof" that's it's being implemented incorrectly.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

Also, yeah, sorry about the rough writing. My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

And to bring all my examples back to Calvin :), had they played Manchester, Finlandia, and Wabash all at home (instead of road-road-neutral), the "new" calculation method would have increased their SOS by .008.

Is it still possible to defend the NCAA on this?
Silly Calvin, they should have embraced the D3 philosophy and flew to Emory and Birmingham-Southern to find SOS boosting regional games.

They could have driven to Ohio a few times.  Five hour drives aren't fun, but they're also not completely outrageous.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2013, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

I either stay up really late (I was up until 12:30 when I work at 6 am) and/or get up really early (up at 4:30) to avoid such situations!  >:(  :D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 14, 2013, 11:08:00 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 14, 2013, 11:03:04 AM
Quote from: AO on February 14, 2013, 10:01:40 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2013, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
My final rant on the "new" OWP calculation method with what I think is "definitive proof" that's it's being implemented incorrectly.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

Also, yeah, sorry about the rough writing. My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

And to bring all my examples back to Calvin :), had they played Manchester, Finlandia, and Wabash all at home (instead of road-road-neutral), the "new" calculation method would have increased their SOS by .008.

Is it still possible to defend the NCAA on this?
Silly Calvin, they should have embraced the D3 philosophy and flew to Emory and Birmingham-Southern to find SOS boosting regional games.

They could have driven to Ohio a few times.  Five hour drives aren't fun, but they're also not completely outrageous.

Indiana as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 14, 2013, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2013, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
My final rant on the "new" OWP calculation method with what I think is "definitive proof" that's it's being implemented incorrectly.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

Also, yeah, sorry about the rough writing. My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

And to bring all my examples back to Calvin :), had they played Manchester, Finlandia, and Wabash all at home (instead of road-road-neutral), the "new" calculation method would have increased their SOS by .008.

Is it still possible to defend the NCAA on this?

Guys, don't miss the point here. This isn't about Calvin specifically or the particular opponents, it is about the methodology by which the NCAA determines the overall strength of a schedule.

The Calvin example here is a real world example (obviously) that has nothing to do with the geographical/regional curiosities that have been discussed ad nauseum. The underlying issue says Calvin would have been better off (for SOS purposes) playing Manchester, Finlandia and Wabash at home instead of road-road-neutral.

The way the home/road multiplier is applied and the SOS calculation is carried out, it magnifies the losses of poor road opponents (and minimizes the losses of poor home opponents) that it leads to a number that says a schedule containing a weak home opponent is stronger than a schedule containing a weak road opponent (as seen in KnightSlappy's example). That is an issue not caused by geography or fixed by driving to Ohio. [add: Or even playing more games. More games would water down the effect of this issue but it doesn't fix it. Again, the dissent from me, and KnightSlappy, has nothing to do with Calvin in specific. It is about challenging a methodology that is plain wrong.]
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 14, 2013, 11:30:54 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 14, 2013, 11:08:00 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 14, 2013, 11:03:04 AM
Quote from: AO on February 14, 2013, 10:01:40 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2013, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
My final rant on the "new" OWP calculation method with what I think is "definitive proof" that's it's being implemented incorrectly.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

Also, yeah, sorry about the rough writing. My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

And to bring all my examples back to Calvin :), had they played Manchester, Finlandia, and Wabash all at home (instead of road-road-neutral), the "new" calculation method would have increased their SOS by .008.

Is it still possible to defend the NCAA on this?
Silly Calvin, they should have embraced the D3 philosophy and flew to Emory and Birmingham-Southern to find SOS boosting regional games.

They could have driven to Ohio a few times.  Five hour drives aren't fun, but they're also not completely outrageous.

Indiana as well.
You can fly to Virginia and Alabama in far less than 5 hours.  Where are these schools not embracing the D3 philosophy that these stupid regional rules are based upon?  Who is missing class time?  Who is being harmed by playing NAIA teams? You're just penalizing the teams in out of the way geographic areas, not changing their scheduling philosophy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: oldknight on February 14, 2013, 11:59:53 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
My final rant on the "new" OWP calculation method with what I think is "definitive proof" that's it's being implemented incorrectly.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

Also, yeah, sorry about the rough writing. My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

I feel your pain.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 14, 2013, 12:03:13 PM
Can you fly to VA and AL in less than five hours from MI? If you have a private jet, yeah. But you're at the mercy of airline schedules and connecting flights. Never fun.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 14, 2013, 12:12:24 PM

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2013, 12:37:38 AM




   SOUTH                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Ham-Syd      ODAC      17-2, 21-2      LOST to Virginia Wesleyan 78-77; at Emory and Henry 2/16   
   2      2      MHB      ASC      20-3, 20-3      vs. Howard Payne 2/14; vs. Sul Ross State 2/16   
   5      3      Emory      UAA      15-6, 15-6      vs. Case Western Reserve 2/15; vs. Carnegie Mellon 2/17   
   6      4      Vir. Wes.      ODAC      14-5, 17-6      WON at Hampden-Sydney 78-77; vs. Lynchburg 2/16   
   4      5      Concordia (TX)      ASC      16-4, 18-5      vs. Sul Ross State 2/14; vs. Howard Payne 2/16   
   3      6      Chris Newport      USAC      14-5, 15-5      BEAT North Carolina Wesleyan 93-67; at Averett 2/16; at Ferrum 2/17   
   n/a      7      Randolph      ODAC      13-4, 19-4      WON at Lynchburg 58-49; at Randolph-Macon 2/16   
   n/a      8      Texas-Dallas      ASC      17-6, 17-6      BEAT University of the Ozarks 67-50; vs. LeTourneau 2/16   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   7      n/a      Lynchburg      ODAC            LOST to Randolph 58-49; at Virginia Wesleyan 2/16   
   8      n/a      Guilford      ODAC            BEAT Emory and Henry 73-65; at Bridgewater (Va) 2/16   
Wow!  UMHB is in the driver's seat for the #1 seed unless the committee values a sweep of the ODAC by HSC more than a sweep of the ASC by UMHB.  UMHB probably gets two more ranked opponents (UTD and CTX in the conference tourney.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 14, 2013, 12:19:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 14, 2013, 12:03:13 PM
Can you fly to VA and AL in less than five hours from MI? If you have a private jet, yeah. But you're at the mercy of airline schedules and connecting flights. Never fun.
riding a bus for 5 hours sounds like a lot of fun too....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on February 14, 2013, 12:31:15 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 14, 2013, 07:21:13 AM
This type of discussion and analysis just doesn't happen on a D1 board.

It doesn't happen in an NCAA board room either. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 14, 2013, 12:43:14 PM
Quote from: AO on February 14, 2013, 12:19:59 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 14, 2013, 12:03:13 PM
Can you fly to VA and AL in less than five hours from MI? If you have a private jet, yeah. But you're at the mercy of airline schedules and connecting flights. Never fun.
riding a bus for 5 hours sounds like a lot of fun too....

:)
Any trip to Sul Ross State. 

University of the Ozarks, or Mississippi College and Louisiana College to the ASC-West schools.

Trinity to Austin College or to Centenary in the SCAC
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 14, 2013, 01:10:04 PM
Depending on where you play in VA or AL, you're looking at a bus ride to the airport + flight + waiting + flight + bus ride to the college or hotel.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2013, 01:28:51 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 14, 2013, 07:21:13 AM
This type of discussion and analysis just doesn't happen on a D1 board.

True. Because MIT isn't a D-I school. :)

Hugenerd, this Spanish major/journalist/social media guy didn't understand any of that but, OK. Interesting. And wouldn't be the first time that the NCAA has taken a reasonable idea and implemented it poorly!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 14, 2013, 02:08:39 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 14, 2013, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2013, 09:32:51 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
My final rant on the "new" OWP calculation method with what I think is "definitive proof" that's it's being implemented incorrectly.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

Also, yeah, sorry about the rough writing. My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

And to bring all my examples back to Calvin :), had they played Manchester, Finlandia, and Wabash all at home (instead of road-road-neutral), the "new" calculation method would have increased their SOS by .008.

Is it still possible to defend the NCAA on this?

Guys, don't miss the point here. This isn't about Calvin specifically


Wait....what?  I'm out.....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 14, 2013, 04:24:35 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2013, 01:28:51 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 14, 2013, 07:21:13 AM
This type of discussion and analysis just doesn't happen on a D1 board.

True. Because MIT isn't a D-I school. :)

Hugenerd, this Spanish major/journalist/social media guy didn't understand any of that but, OK. Interesting. And wouldn't be the first time that the NCAA has taken a reasonable idea and implemented it poorly!

I'll give it one more shot at explaining it more clearly.  The point of the home away multiplier is to make a road game worth more than a home game in the SOS calculation.  With the Raw Ws and Raw Ls format, the multiplier no longer works that way if you use the same multipler for both Raw Ws and Raw Ls.

For example, if Team A has only played one team this season (for simplicity) and that team has a 1-1 record.  Team A's OWP is going to be 0.5 no matter where the game was played because:

Raw Ws = 1 * multiplier = multiplier
Raw Ls = 1 * multipler = multiplier

OWP = Raw Ws / (Raw Ws + Raw Ls) = multiplier / (multiplier + multiplier) = multiplier/ (2* multiplier) = 1/2

The multiplier completely cancels out in this extremely simplified example.  Which I think we can all agree is absolutely wrong.  Also, note that, although this is an extremely simplified example, the equation should work in any circumstance.  In any field of science, the first smell test to any equation is whether it collapses to the result you expect under simplifying conditions (unless there is some known condition where it will fail, such as division by 0).  If the SOS calculation doesn't work for the simplest possible situation (a team that played one game against a team that is 1-1), how can we expect it to work and be meaningful for a much larger set of games.  The metric just is not meaningful, its essentially a regression to the QOWI.


If you actually want to make a road game worth 2/3 more than a home game (which I believe is the motivation for the 1.25/0.75 multiplier), you can't just have a single multiplier for road games or home games, you have to have a different multiplier for road Raw Ws and road Raw Ls and the same for home games.  For example the multiplier for road Raw Ws should be 1.25 and for road Raw Ls should be 0.75.  Similarly, the multiplier for home Raw Ws should be 0.75 and for home Raw Ls should be 1.25.  Neutral court games would have a 1.0 multiplier for both.  Note that by doing this, you are saying that playing a team on the road is more difficult (the multipliers increase the value of that road opponents wins and decreases the value of the losses: for example, playing a 16-4 team on the road is like playing a 20 - 3 team on a neutral court) and playing a team at home is easier (the multipliers now decrease the value of that home opponents wins and increases the value of the losses: for example, playing a 16-4 team at home is like playing a 12 - 5 team on a neutral court).

Let's revisit the same, very simplified example.

If Team A played their 1-1 opponent on the road, you would get the following OWP:

Raw Ws = 1 * 1.25 = 1.25
Raw Ls = 1 * 0.75 = 0.75

OWP = 1.25/(1.25+0.75) = 0.625

If Team A played their 1-1 opponent on a neutral site, you would get the following OWP:

Raw Ws = 1 * 1.0 = 1.0
Raw Ls = 1 * 1.0 = 1.0

OWP = 1.0/(1.0 + 1.0) = 0.500

If Team A played their 1-1 opponent at home, you would get the following OWP:

Raw Ws = 1 * 0.75 = 0.75
Raw Ls = 1 * 1.25 = 1.25

OWP = 0.75/(0.75 + 1.25) = 0.375


Now we see that by using these multipliers, you get the expected result, which is a higher OWP for the game played on the road, than a game played on a neutral court or at home.  Further, the ratio between the road OWP and the home OWP is 0.625/0.375 = 1.66, which is expected given the multipliers of 1.25 road/0.75 home (1.25/0.75 = 1.66). Hence, a road game is valued 2/3 more than a home game, as is the intent of the multipliers to begin with.  This seems like what the NCAA had in mind, but their application of a single multiplier to both Raw Ws and Raw Ls was incorrect and results in SOS values that don't follow trends that make any rational sense.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 15, 2013, 02:48:21 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2013, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
My wife was giving me "the look" that maybe spending hours at game then coming home to do blogging wasn't quite approved.

I either stay up really late (I was up until 12:30 when I work at 6 am) and/or get up really early (up at 4:30) to avoid such situations!  >:(  :D

I just stay up all night for about 2 days in a row and then catch up with some sleep on the 3rd day.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 15, 2013, 06:59:14 AM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 14, 2013, 02:06:18 AM
After catching up on the recent discussion on this thread regarding the new SOS formula, I can onbviously say that I hadn't thought about the new formula deeply enough initialy.  And, although I understand the NCAAs intent behind the new formula, I agree with Knightslappy and others that it was implemented incorrectly and is just flat out wrong.  I know there have been numerous examples of how you can come up with illogical SOS trends, or have the multipler cancel out given the proper circumstances, but the root of all these examples, I believe (although I could be wrong, it is late right now) is that the way the multipliers are used in the new method dont make any sense to begin with.  The whole point of the multiplier is to give credit because it is harder to win on the road than it is at home and, vice-versa, it is easier to lose on the road than it is at home.  Therefore, why do you use the same multiplier for both Raw wins and Raw losses for an opponent (examples to come, if this isnt clear)? Take the case of calculating an OWP for a team who has played a single opponent on the road, at home, or on a neutral court with a 0.500 record (I know Knightslappy has already shown this).  It doesnt matter how many games they have played, 1-1, 5-5, 100-100, you get the same weighted OWP regardless of where the game was played (home: 1-1 record, Raw Ws = 0.75, Raw Ls = 0.75, OWP = 0.5; away: 1-1 record, Raw Ws = 1.25, Raw Ls = 1.25, OWP = 0.5....the same is true no matter how many games they played for this single opponent).  It seems that the weighting factor should not be equal for Ws and Ls, to make an away game count for more than a home game (which is the intent of the factor to begin with, it seems). For example, if you played a team on the road, use a multiplier of 1.25 for that teams wins and 0.75 for that teams losses, and if you played that team at home you would use 0.75 for wins and 1.25 for losses to come up with Raw Ws and Raw Ls.  In this case, the example I showed previously for calculating an OWP for a team with a single opponent would result in the following: (home: 1-1 record, Raw Ws = 0.75, Raw Ls = 1.25, OWP = 0.375; away: 1-1 record, Raw Ws = 1.25, Raw Ls = 0.75, OWP = 0.625).  This seems more in line with the true intent of the weighting factor.

With that said, here a two approaches to improve the SOS calculation, given what my assumptions about the intent of the NCAA are, then you guys can go to town on why these are also terrible ideas:

Assumption 1:  NCAA wants to weight the OWP and OOWP calculation to adjust for the difficulty of away games vs. home games (hence the 1.25/0.75 multiplier).

Assumption 2: NCAA wants to also weight the OWP and OOWP calculation to take into account the number of in-region games that opponent has played.


Simplest approach:  Just do a weighted average OWP and OOWP. 
For simplicity, just take the case an OWP calculation for a team that has played 4 opponents:
Game 1: Away vs. (3-1) team
Game 2: Home vs. (16-4) team
Game 3: Neutral vs. (6-6) team
Game 4: Home vs. (2-8) team

1.Original method (1.25/1.0/.75 weighting, averaged over all games)
(0.75*1.25+0.80*0.75+0.50*1.0+0.20*.75)/4 games= 0.549 OWP

In this method, you dont take into account at all that your road game against a 0.750 team has only 4 games played that 'count,' while you have played other teams with a lot more games.  It seems that the NCAA feels Game 1, in this example, is being emphasized too heavily and artifically bring up the OWP.  Therefore, thw proposed #2 below, which actually causes the OWP to increase even more!

2.New 'Incorrect' Method:
(check my math): Raw Ws =23.25, Raw Ls = 16.25, OWP = 0.589

In this case, Game 2 gets over-emphasized because they have the most in-region games, especially the way the multipliers are implemented (which seems incorrect).

3.Weighted Average (weighted by total number of opponents games):

Here, you calculate each teams' raw OWP as you would in 1 above, but you weight each team by the number of region games. If every one of your opponents had the same number of region games, #1 above and this method would be equivalent.

[(0.75*1.25)*4 games+(0.80*0.75)*20 games+(0.50*1.0)*12 games+(0.20*.75)*10 games]/46 games = 0.505 OWP

Because the SOS is weighted by games, the win against the 3-1 team doesnt count as much as the other games, because that opponent only has 4 games played that 'count.' 


More complex approach: Use unequal scaling factors (Home and Away scaling factors are different for Ws and Ls, eg 0.75/1.25 and 1.25/0.75, respectively), as I mentioned in the first paragraph, and continue calculating Raw Ws and Raw Ls like the NCAA is doing now.  With the previous example, this would result in:

Game 1: Away vs. (3-1) team   (Scaling 1.25/0.75)  Raw Ws: 3.75, Raw Ls: 0.75
Game 2: Home vs. (16-4) team (Scaling 0.75/1.25) Raw Ws: 12, Raw Ls: 5
Game 3: Neutral vs. (6-6) team (Scaling 1.0/1.0)    Raw Ws: 6, Raw Ls: 6
Game 4: Home vs. (2-8) team (Scaling 0.75/1.25)   Raw Ws: 1.50, Raw Ls: 10

OWP: 23.25/45 = 0.517

You end up with something closer to the game-weighted approach in #3 above.

So very well-stated!  I think that the Weighted Average approach is the correct statistical method to accomplish the stated goals.  I don't understand why the NCAA would use the formula that d-Mac has presented, if that is actually what they do, as it would make no sense at all, as it effectively knocks the "home/away" factor out of the equation (while purporting to include it).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2013, 11:04:48 PM
Please remember the key factor here... the formula is for ALL sports that use SOS including women's basketball, football, etc. Not that many use the multiplier, like women's basketball. I don't know who uses multipliers, but I gather that it may not be that wide spread.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 15, 2013, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2013, 11:04:48 PM
Please remember the key factor here... the formula is for ALL sports that use SOS including women's basketball, football, etc. Not that many use the multiplier, like women's basketball. I don't know who uses multipliers, but I gather that it may not be that wide spread.

Without a multiplier, that method is equivalent to calculating a game-weighted average.  Raw Ws would just equal the sum of all opponents wins and Raw Ls would be the sum of all opponents losses.

In the previous example, without scaling factors:
Game 1: Away vs. (3-1) team
Game 2: Home vs. (16-4) team
Game 3: Neutral vs. (6-6) team
Game 4: Home vs. (2-8) team

NCAA approach:
Raw Ws = 27, Raw Ls = 19, OWP = 27/46 = 0.587

Game-Weighted Average
OWP = [(0.75)*4+(0.80)*20+(0.50)*12+(0.20)*10]/46 = 27/46 = 0.587


The home/away mutliplier is what is incorporated incorrectly in the basketball OWP calculations.  This could be easily solved by including the multiplier in the game-weighted average approach (from a previous post):

Home/Away and Game-Weighted Average
OWP = [(0.75*1.25)*4 games+(0.80*0.75)*20 games+(0.50*1.0)*12 games+(0.20*.75)*10 games]/46 games = 0.505
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2013, 05:09:11 AM


   ATL                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   2      1      Old Westbury      SKY      20-1, 21-3      BEAT St. Joseph's (L.I.) 119-80; at Sage 2/16   
   1      2      Ramapo      NJAC      18-2, 20-3      BEAT Richard Stockton 74-64; LOST at William Paterson 61-60   
   5      3      Rutgers-Newark      NJAC      17-6, 18-6      BEAT Kean 79-62   
   4      4      Ricard Stockton      NJAC      17-5, 17-5      LOST at Ramapo 74-64; BEAT Rowan 79-64   
   3      5      SUNY-Purchase      SKY      17-5, 17-5      BEAT  NYU-Poly 92-59; WON at SUNY-Maritime 71-41; vs. St. Joseph (L.I.) 2/16   
   EAST                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Rochester      UAA      19-2, 20-2      BEAT Carnegie Mellon 81-77; vs. Case Western Reserve 2/17   
   2      2      SUNY-Cortland      SUNYAC      19-2, 19-3      BEAT New Paltz State 87-47; LOST at Plattsburgh St. 80-77; at Potsdam St. 2/16   
   3      3      Stevens      E8      18-3, 20-3      WON at Alfred 67-55; at St. John Fisher 2/16   
   5      4      Hobart      LL      15-6, 16-6      WON at Rochester Tech 72-57; BEAT Clarkson 74-66; vs. St. Lawrence 2/16   
   n/a      5      Plattsburgh St.      SUNYAC      15-6, 15-7      BEAT Potsdam State 92-69; BEAT Cortland State 80-77; vs. Oswego State 2/16   
   n/a      6      Ithaca      E8      14-7, 15-7      BEAT Houghton 85-72; LOST to Utica 69-66; vs. Nazareth 2/16   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   4      n/a      NYU      UAA            BEAT Washington U. 86-82; vs. Chicago 2/17   
   6      n/a      SUNY-Geneseo      SUNYAC            WON at Fredonia St. 94-80; vs. Buffalo St. 2/16   
   GT LK                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Wooster      NCAC      19-3, 19-3      WON at Allegheny 86-64; at DePauw 2/16   
   2      2      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      17-4, 17-5      BEAT Wabash 79-64; at Denison 2/16   
   3      3      Thomas More      PrAC      19-2, 20-3      BEAT Bethany 73-69; at St. Vincent 2/16   
   n/a      4      Capital      OAC      17-4, 17-6      BEAT Muskingum 75-68; vs. Ohio Northern 2/16   
   5      5      St. Vincent      PrAC      16-3, 18-5      BEAT Waynesburg 67-59; vs. Thomas More 2/16   
   4      6      Calvin      MIAA      16-1, 20-3      BEAT Trine 61-59; vs. Olivet 2/16   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   6      n/a      Marietta      OAC            WON at Mount Union 93-81; at John Carroll 2/16   
   MID-ATL                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   4      1      Alvernia      MACC      19-4, 19-4      BEAT Hood 70-59; at Messiah 2/16   
   1      2      Catholic      LAND      17-3, 20-3      WON at Goucher 71-43; vs. Moravian 2/16   
   3      3      St. Mary's (Md.)      CAC      16-2, 21-2      LOST at Salisbury 72-71; vs. Mary Washington 2/16   
   2      4      Albright      MACC      18-5, 18-5      WON at Lycoming 90-87; at Elizabethtown 2/16   
   5      5      Wesley      CAC      16-2, 19-5      vs. Salisbury 2/16   
   6      6      Scranton      LAND      17-6, 17-6      WON at Moravian 71-66; at Goucher 2/16   
   8      7      Cabrini      CSAC      17-4, 19-5      WON at Marywood 81-56   
   n/a      8      DeSales      MACF      17-5, 18-5      BEAT Wilkes 82-74; vs. Eastern 2/16   
   n/a      9      Dickinson      CC      15-6, 17-6      WON at Gettysburg 61-58; at Franklin and Marshall 2/16   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   7      n/a      Arcadia      MACC            WON at Lebanon Valley 77-61; at Widener 2/16   
   9      n/a      Frank & Marsh      CC            BEAT Johns Hopkins 73-54; vs. Dickinson 2/16   
   MW                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      17-3, 20-3      vs. Millikin 2/16   
   4      2      Washington U.      UAA      17-4, 18-4      LOST at NYU 86-82; at Brandeis 2/17   
   3      3      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      15-5, 18-5      vs. Carthage 2/16   
   5      4      North Central (IL)      CCIW      18-3, 20-3      vs. North Park 2/16   
   2      5      Transylvania      HCAC      17-4, 18-5      LOST to Hanover 73-70; vs. Bluffton 2/16   
   6      6      Rose-Hulman      HCAC      20-2, 21-2      LOST at Earlham 68-66; at Hanover 2/16   
   7      7      Augustana       CCIW      15-7, 16-7      at Elmhurst 2/16   
   8      8      St. Norbert      MWC      16-5, 16-5      BEAT Ripon 57-52; at Illinois College 2/16   
   NE                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      WPI      NEWMAC      22-1, 22-1      LOST at MIT 69-60; at Clark 2/16   
   2      2      Amherst      NESCAC      21-2, 21-2      WON at Middlebury 104-101 3OT; vs. Colby 2/16   
   3      3      Williams      NESCAC      18-3, 20-3      BEAT Trinity (Conn) 68-47; vs. Bates 2/16   
   4      4      Middlebury      NESCAC      18-1, 21-1      LOST to Amherst 104-101 3OT; vs. Wesleyan 2/16   
   5      5      RIC       LEC      20-3, 20-3      WON at Western Connecticut 69-60; at Keene State 2/16   
   7      6      MIT      NEWMAC      16-4, 17-4      BEAT Clark 69-44; BEAT WPI 69-60; vs. Wheelock 2/17   
   6      7      Brandeis      UAA      16-6, 16-6      BEAT Chicago 75-56; vs. Washington U 2/17   
   10      8      Springfield      NEWMAC      16-7, 16-7      BEAT Clark 57-55; at Wheaton (Mass) 2/16   
   8      9      Curry      CCC      16-6, 16-6      LOST at Eastern Nazarene 100-80; WON at Endicott 88-68; vs. Wentworth 2/16   
   9      10      Westfield St.      MASCAC      17-4, 19-4      WON at Framingham State 77-59; vs. Fitchburg State 2/16   
   11      11      Eastern Conn.      LEC      15-4, 15-7      WON at Mass-Dartmouth 78-59; BEAT Keene State 93-84; vs. Mass-Boston 2/16   
   12      12      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      20-2, 20-3      WON at Coast Guard 87-82; BEAT St. Joseph's (Maine) 76-66; at Johnson and Wales 2/16   
   SOUTH                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Ham-Syd      ODAC      17-2, 21-2      LOST to Virginia Wesleyan 78-77; at Emory and Henry 2/16   
   2      2      MHB      ASC      20-3, 20-3      LOST to Howard Payne 75-73; vs. Sul Ross State 2/16   
   5      3      Emory      UAA      15-6, 15-6      BEAT Case Western Reserve 106-87; vs. Carnegie Mellon 2/17   
   6      4      Vir. Wes.      ODAC      14-5, 17-6      WON at Hampden-Sydney 78-77; vs. Lynchburg 2/16   
   4      5      Concordia (TX)      ASC      16-4, 18-5      BEAT Sul Ross State 115-92; vs. Howard Payne 2/16   
   3      6      Chris Newport      USAC      14-5, 15-5      BEAT North Carolina Wesleyan 93-67; at Averett 2/16; at Ferrum 2/17   
   n/a      7      Randolph      ODAC      13-4, 19-4      WON at Lynchburg 58-49; at Randolph-Macon 2/16   
   n/a      8      Texas-Dallas      ASC      17-6, 17-6      BEAT University of the Ozarks 67-50; vs. LeTourneau 2/16   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   7      n/a      Lynchburg      ODAC            LOST to Randolph 58-49; at Virginia Wesleyan 2/16   
   8      n/a      Guilford      ODAC            BEAT Emory and Henry 73-65; at Bridgewater (Va) 2/16   
   WEST                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      St. Thomas      MIAC      23-1 ,23-1      BEAT St. Olaf 62-57   
   3      2      Stevens Point      WIAC      19-4, 19-4      WON at Stout 76-74 OT; vs. Eau Claire 2/16   
   4      3      Whitewater      WIAC      18-4, 19-4      WON at Oshkosh 75-58; vs. River Falls 2/16   
   2      4      Whitworth      NWC      19-3, 20-3      WON at Linfield 86-53; at Williamette 2/16   
   6      5      Buena Vista      IIAC      16-6, 17-6      WON at Wartburg 71-61; vs. Coe 2/16   
   5      6      Stout      WIAC      17-5, 18-5      LOST to Stevens Point 76-74 OT; vs. Oshkosh 2/16   
   9      7      Con-Moorhead      MIAC      17-6, 17-7      vs. Gustavus Adolphus 2/16   
   n/a      8      Whitman      NWC      13-6, 16-7      WON at Williamette 82-68; at Linfield 2/16   
   7      9      Augsburg      MIAC      17-6, 17-6      BEAT Macalester 88-64; at St. Mary's (MN) 2/16   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   8      N/A      Luther      IIAC            BEAT Coe 60-54 OT; vs. Wartburg 2/16   
                                    
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 16, 2013, 10:05:23 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2013, 11:04:48 PM
Please remember the key factor here... the formula is for ALL sports that use SOS including women's basketball, football, etc. Not that many use the multiplier, like women's basketball. I don't know who uses multipliers, but I gather that it may not be that wide spread.

Maybe for Division III but that is not true NCAA-wide. Division I uses SOS (as it is a component of RPI) and uses the standard calculation as KnightSlappy (and others) have advocated for. DI does use H/A multipliers but it is applied to WP.

This brings up another question: why can't the NCAA implement a single method across all divisions? After all, DI down to DIII all use WP and SOS, it is just that DI puts it into RPI and DIII uses them separately as primary criteria. There are reasons the numbers should be used differently based on philosophical differences between the divisions, but that should only influence how the numbers are used, not how they are calculated.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2013, 10:09:19 AM
Lota of debate in the WIAC board about Stout's chances of earning a Pool C bid. Most of us think they are pretty good. Taking a very quick glance, I think they look like being taken around the 10-12 mark, obviously with no upsets. What do you experts think?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 16, 2013, 12:28:40 PM
Regarding UW-Stout, recently I posted the following about Pool C from last year:

Quote from: Titan Q on February 11, 2013, 09:51:24 PM
Last year, after the bracket was announced, I tried to project the order the Pool C's were taken.  Post #3866 here...

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.3855

There were 19 Pool C's picked (same as this year).  I guessed that the last 7 in were...

(in-region winning %/in-region SOS/in-region results vs regionally ranked)

Round 13 - St. Mary's, .739/.557/1-3
Round 14 - Illinois Wesleyan, .708/.541/3-6
Round 15 - Randolph-Macon, .783/.515, 3-2
Round 16 - Gustavus Adolphus, .731/.526/2-2
Round 17 - New York U., .800, .494, 2-2
Round 18 - St. Joseph's, .875, .470, 0-2
Round 19 - Birmingham-Southern, .920/.443/0-0

I projected that the teams left sitting at the table when the music stopped were:

(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Nazareth, 18-7 (.720), .549, 0-4
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 - I think we later guessed that some other NE team was ranked higher in the region
(W) Puget Sound: 15-7 (.682), .513, 3-3


And in regards to Wheaton, said:

Quote from: Titan Q on February 11, 2013, 10:12:46 PM
I'd consider Wheaton virtually a Pool C lock at .739/.573/4-4 vs regionally ranked.

UW-Stout's numbers -- 17-6 (.739)/.534/1-4

Stout is a very competitive Pool C candidate, but I'm not sure I'd describe the chances as "pretty good", and I don't think I'd say rounds 10-12.  Rounds 10-12 are where I see Wheaton right now, and Wheaton is in better Pool C shape than Stout.  I see Stout more in the 16-18 range...something like that.  They could really use more than just that 1 win vs regionally ranked to feel better about things.  Of course, Stout's total number of games played vs regionally ranked (5 now) is going to help vs other bubble teams.

I should also note, when I refer to spots "10-12" or "16-18", I'm budgeting for the regular amount of conference tournament upsets, where presumed Pool A teams steal Pool Cs.  This might account for the difference in how Greek Tragedy are I are looking at UW-Stout right now (he said, "obviously with no upsets").

Just my take.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2013, 12:51:47 PM
That doesn't leave much room for error then! Stout will get an extra game than Wheaton with the Blue Devils playing a quarterfinal game next week and both will play a regionally ranked opponent in the semis (if Stout gets that far).

Thanks Bob.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 16, 2013, 02:07:09 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 16, 2013, 12:28:40 PM
Regarding UW-Stout, recently I posted the following about Pool C from last year:

Quote from: Titan Q on February 11, 2013, 09:51:24 PM
Last year, after the bracket was announced, I tried to project the order the Pool C's were taken.  Post #3866 here...

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.3855

There were 19 Pool C's picked (same as this year).  I guessed that the last 7 in were...

(in-region winning %/in-region SOS/in-region results vs regionally ranked)

Round 13 - St. Mary's, .739/.557/1-3
Round 14 - Illinois Wesleyan, .708/.541/3-6
Round 15 - Randolph-Macon, .783/.515, 3-2
Round 16 - Gustavus Adolphus, .731/.526/2-2
Round 17 - New York U., .800, .494, 2-2
Round 18 - St. Joseph's, .875, .470, 0-2
Round 19 - Birmingham-Southern, .920/.443/0-0

I projected that the teams left sitting at the table when the music stopped were:

(Atl) St. Joseph's (LI): 21-3 (.875), .470, 0-2
(E) Nazareth, 18-7 (.720), .549, 0-4
(GL) John Carroll: 15-7 (.682), .491, 1-1
(MA) Keystone: 21-6 (.778), .504, 0-3
(MW) Lake Forest: 19-4 (.826), .516, 0-1
(NE) Wesleyan: 20-5 (.800), .515, 3-3 - I think we later guessed that some other NE team was ranked higher in the region
(W) Puget Sound: 15-7 (.682), .513, 3-3


And in regards to Wheaton, said:

Quote from: Titan Q on February 11, 2013, 10:12:46 PM
I'd consider Wheaton virtually a Pool C lock at .739/.573/4-4 vs regionally ranked.

UW-Stout's numbers -- 17-6 (.739)/.534/1-4

Stout is a very competitive Pool C candidate, but I'm not sure I'd describe the chances as "pretty good", and I don't think I'd say rounds 10-12.  Rounds 10-12 are where I see Wheaton right now, and Wheaton is in better Pool C shape than Stout.  I see Stout more in the 16-18 range...something like that.  They could really use more than just that 1 win vs regionally ranked to feel better about things.  Of course, Stout's total number of games played vs regionally ranked (5 now) is going to help vs other bubble teams.

I should also note, when I refer to spots "10-12" or "16-18", I'm budgeting for the regular amount of conference tournament upsets, where presumed Pool A teams steal Pool Cs.  This might account for the difference in how Greek Tragedy are I are looking at UW-Stout right now (he said, "obviously with no upsets").

Just my take.

I think Stout is in the 15+ range right now before considering upsets. I just counted 14 non-conference-leading teams who had a better WP and also had an SOS within .010 of Stout's (or higher than Stout's).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 16, 2013, 04:13:47 PM
A rough look at how I see Pool C heading into Saturday's games, using in-region records and results vs regionally ranked through Friday 2/15.  (SOS is from the regional ranking week two data sheets, through 2/10.)

Through games of Friday, 2/15...

Pool C projection
1. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.583/6-2
2. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.562/3-3
3. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 15-5 (.750)/.573/4-3
4. North Central (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-3 (.857)/.531/3-2
5. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-4 (.818)/.552/3-3
6. Washington U. (Midwest, UAA) - 17-5 (.773)/.559/5-3
7. Emory (South, UAA) - 16-6 (.727)/.568/4-4
8. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 15-5 (.750)/.534/5-2
9. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 19-5 (.792)/.554/3-1
10. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 18-2 (.900)/.521/0-2
11. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-6 (.739)/.571/3-5
12. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 16-2 (.889)/.505/3-1
13. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 17-5 (.773)/.543/3-1
14. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 18-4 (.818)/.549/1-2
15. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 17-7 (.708)/.567/3-5
16. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.543/2-3
17. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 18-6 (.750)/.535/2-1
18. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 17-6 (.739)/.539/2-4
19. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.524/1-4
----------
20. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 17-6 (.739)/.534/1-4
21. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-2 (.909)/.478/1-2
22. Whitman (West, NWC) - 14-6 (.700)/.568/2-2
23. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 15-7 (.682)/.557/1-7
24. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 17-4 (.810)/.523/1-2
25. Eastern Connecticut (Northeast, LEC) - 17-4 (.810)/.511/1-1
26. St. Norbert (Midwest, MWC) - 17-5 (.773)/.540/1-2
27. SUNY-Purchase (Atlantic, Sky) - 19-5 (.792)/.522/1-2
28. Augsburg (West, MIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.525/1-3
29. Concordia-Moorhead (West, MIAC) - 17-6 (.739)/.508/2-2
30. Ithaca (East, E8) - 15-8 (.652)/.541/2-3
31.Randolph (South, ODAC) - 14-4 (.778)/.485/1-3
32. Texas-Dallas (South, ASC) - 18-6 (.750)/.517/0-3



Top "Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As who would most likely rank in Pool C top 19)
1. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-2 (.909)/.584/7-2
2. Amherst (Northeast, NESCAC) - 22-2 (.917)/.568/6-1
3. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 24-1 (.960)/.543/5-1
4. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 20-4 (.833)/.583/6-2
5. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 22-2 (.917)/.553/4-2
6. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-3 (.850)/.548/5-2
7. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-3 (.870)/.562/3-1
8. Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 21-3 (.875)/.539/3-3
9. Alvernia (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-4 (.833)/.552/4-2
10. Catholic (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 18-3 (.857)/.536/2-1
11. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-1 (.954)/.493/2-1
12. Whitworth (West, NWC) - 20-3 (.870)/.549/1-1
13. Stevens (East, E8) - 19-3 (.864)/.538/2-1
14. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 17-3 (.850)/.523/3-2
15. St. Mary's (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 16-3 (.842)/.516/3-2
16. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 20-4 (.833)/.540/2-1
17. Rose-Hulman (Midwest, HCAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.511/1-1
18. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 17-6 (.739)/.558/1-2


Let me know if you find errors in data, and if any thoughts.  Again, it's pretty rough...but a start.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 16, 2013, 04:53:16 PM
Not an error, but WPI just beat Clark, putting them in a tie for #1 in the NEWMAC with MIT.  Both teams are tied for every conference tiebreaker, but WPI holds the final, non-conference criteria, tiebreaker and will host next weekend.

Based on your rankings, both teams look like they are in pretty good shape for a Pool C bid, so bubble teams should probably be rooting for no team outside of those to win the NEWMAC tourney (Springfield, Clark, or Babson).  MIT would probably fall somewhere above Brandeis in your Pool C projection (based on regional rankings).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 16, 2013, 04:56:59 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 16, 2013, 04:53:16 PM
Not an error, but WPI just beat Clark, putting them in a tie for #1 in the NEWMAC with MIT.  Both teams are tied for every conference tiebreaker, but WPI holds the final, non-conference criteria, tiebreaker and will host next weekend.

Based on your rankings, both teams look like they are in pretty good shape for a Pool C bid, so bubble teams should probably be rooting for no team outside of those to win the NEWMAC tourney (Springfield, Clark, or Babson).  MIT would probably fall somewhere above Brandeis in your Pool C projection (based on regional rankings).

Just saw your NEWMAC post and adjusted...thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 16, 2013, 05:04:53 PM
What are your thoughts on putting Springfield so high?  I agree that they are a very good team, and have 3 big wins this year (Amherst, WPI, and MIT), but based on the NE regional rankings, its seems at least Middlebury should be ahead of them (I agree that Midd has beat pretty much no one except for Tufts, although they have played both Williams and Amherst close, which are their only games against regionally ranked opponents so far).  7 seems like a lot of losses though (5 to regionally ranked teams though).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 16, 2013, 05:10:52 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 16, 2013, 05:04:53 PM
What are your thoughts on putting Springfield so high?  I agree that they are a very good team, and have 3 big wins this year (Amherst, WPI, and MIT), but based on the NE regional rankings, its seems at least Middlebury should be ahead of them (I agree that Midd has beat pretty much no one except for Tufts, although they have played both Williams and Amherst close, which are their only games against regionally ranked opponents so far).  7 seems like a lot of losses though (5 to regionally ranked teams though).

Good catch...I just moved Middlebury ahead of Springfield.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 16, 2013, 05:35:42 PM
Quote from: realist on February 16, 2013, 05:24:46 PM
Augsburg 27, Concorida Moorhead 28, and St. thomas are not MIAA teams.
Now that you mention it where are the real MIAA teams? :)

Thanks, corrected the MIAA/MIAC error.

Calvin is a confusing situation for me.  Coming into today -- 17-1 (.944)/.432/0-0.  They are ranked behind Thomas More in the Great Lakes...and I don't have Thomas More in my Pool C top 19...so it wouldn't make sense to put Calvin on my "bubble burster" list.

As we speak, St. Vincent leads Thomas More by 13 with 11:00 to play - http://www.pacstream.net
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: realist on February 16, 2013, 05:41:29 PM
Q:  No problem.  I was just surprised to learn that some teams had switched from the MIAC to the MIAA.  My point really was why doesn't one team from the MIAA merit at least an honorable mention. :)

I know we are both (MI, and MN) in flyover country, but you are not in NYC. :)

That 17-1 "in region" list is so long it doesn't surprise me Calvin got lost. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 16, 2013, 05:43:49 PM
Quote from: realist on February 16, 2013, 05:41:29 PM
Q:  No problem.  I was just surprised to learn that some teams had switched from the MIAC to the MIAA.  My point really was why doesn't one team from the MIAA merit at least an honorable mention. :)

I know we are both (MI, and MN) in flyover country, but you are not in NYC. :)

Talk about flyover country -- I'm posting all of this from Nebraska! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 16, 2013, 05:45:24 PM
Quote from: realist on February 16, 2013, 05:41:29 PM
Q:  No problem.  I was just surprised to learn that some teams had switched from the MIAC to the MIAA.  My point really was why doesn't one team from the MIAA merit at least an honorable mention. :)

I know we are both (MI, and MN) in flyover country, but you are not in NYC. :)

He's in even flyover-er country!

Calvin has clinched themselves a .900+ in-region WP, it's up to the committee if they'll keep out that type of percentage. If they don't award a Pool C (should it come to that) it would be like saying they never had a chance to earn one with their schedule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 16, 2013, 05:51:40 PM
Wooster just lost to DePauw, so some of the calculus in the GL region could shift.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bucket on February 16, 2013, 05:54:52 PM
I'm a homer here, but Middlebury below MIT and Brandeis doesn't correspond with regional rankings. Having easily dispatched Wesleyan in the NESCAC quarters, Midd advances to play Williams in the semis. A loss to the Ephs (or Amherst in the finals) would not drop Midd below either MIT or Brandeis in the regional rankings. So, I guess you can project how "you see it," but this doesn't match with how the members of the committee—you know, the guys who pick the field—see it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 16, 2013, 05:56:04 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 16, 2013, 05:51:40 PM
Wooster just lost to DePauw, so some of the calculus in the GL region could shift.

I think they're on top of the region for good.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 16, 2013, 06:17:55 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 16, 2013, 05:56:04 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 16, 2013, 05:51:40 PM
Wooster just lost to DePauw, so some of the calculus in the GL region could shift.

I think they're on top of the region for good.

Were they predestined?! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 16, 2013, 06:20:04 PM
Quote from: Bucket on February 16, 2013, 05:54:52 PM
I'm a homer here, but Middlebury below MIT and Brandeis doesn't correspond with regional rankings. Having easily dispatched Wesleyan in the NESCAC quarters, Midd advances to play Williams in the semis. A loss to the Ephs (or Amherst in the finals) would not drop Midd below either MIT or Brandeis in the regional rankings. So, I guess you can project how "you see it," but this doesn't match with how the members of the committee—you know, the guys who pick the field—see it.

I think RIC and MIT could both jump Midd in next weeks rankings (I dont think MIT will be able to jump RIC with the head-to-head result).  Midd has a mediocre SOS (0.521) and have lost to the only regionally ranked teams they have played (I know they were close games, but MOV is not a criteria).  RIC and MIT do have an additional 1 and 2 losses, respectively, but they also have 3 wins against ranked opponents, including MITs win over #1 WPI last week.   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 16, 2013, 06:20:15 PM
Quote from: Bucket on February 16, 2013, 05:54:52 PM
I'm a homer here, but Middlebury below MIT and Brandeis doesn't correspond with regional rankings. Having easily dispatched Wesleyan in the NESCAC quarters, Midd advances to play Williams in the semis. A loss to the Ephs (or Amherst in the finals) would not drop Midd below either MIT or Brandeis in the regional rankings. So, I guess you can project how "you see it," but this doesn't match with how the members of the committee—you know, the guys who pick the field—see it.

That's a fair point about the regional rankings.  When I did this, I projected that MIT would move ahead of Middlebury in the next NE ranking.  Since the last ranking, MIT picked up the huge win over WPI...and Middlebury lost (albeit to Amherst in 3OT).  I think the numbers now suggest MIT over Middlebury in the regional ranking.

I do think Brandeis should remain the third of those three.  I reconfigured the order above to go: MIT, Middlebury, Brandeis.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 16, 2013, 06:31:03 PM
This has sort of evolved as the day has gone on.  A rough look at how I see Pool C heading into Saturday's games.  Notes about data:

* In-region records are through Friday 2/15. 
* SOS is from the regional ranking week two data sheets, through 2/10
* Results vs regionally ranked are through Friday 2/15


Pool C projection
1. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.583/6-2
2. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.562/3-3
3. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 15-5 (.750)/.573/4-3
4. North Central (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-3 (.857)/.531/3-2
5. Washington U. (Midwest, UAA) - 17-5 (.773)/.559/5-3
6. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-4 (.818)/.552/3-3
7. Emory (South, UAA) - 16-6 (.727)/.568/4-4
8. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 15-5 (.750)/.534/6-2
9. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 19-5 (.792)/.554/3-1
10. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 18-2 (.900)/.521/1-2
11. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-6 (.739)/.571/3-5
12. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 16-2 (.889)/.505/3-1
13. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 17-5 (.773)/.543/3-1
14. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 18-4 (.818)/.549/2-2
15. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-2 (.909)/.478/1-2
16. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 17-7 (.708)/.567/3-5
17. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.543/2-3
18. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 18-6 (.750)/.535/3-1
19. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 17-6 (.739)/.539/2-4
----------
20. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.524/1-4
21. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 17-6 (.739)/.534/1-4
22. Whitman (West, NWC) - 14-6 (.700)/.568/2-2
23. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 15-7 (.682)/.557/1-7
24. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 17-4 (.810)/.523/2-2
25. Eastern Connecticut (Northeast, LEC) - 17-4 (.810)/.511/1-1
26. St. Norbert (Midwest, MWC) - 17-5 (.773)/.540/1-2
27. SUNY-Purchase (Atlantic, Sky) - 19-5 (.792)/.522/1-2
28. Augsburg (West, MIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.525/1-3
29. Concordia-Moorhead (West, MIAC) - 17-6 (.739)/.508/2-2
30. Ithaca (East, E8) - 15-8 (.652)/.541/2-3
31. Randolph (South, ODAC) - 14-4 (.778)/.485/1-3
32. Texas-Dallas (South, ASC) - 18-6 (.750)/.517/0-3


Top "Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As who would most likely rank in Pool C top 19)
1. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-2 (.909)/.584/7-2
2. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 24-1 (.960)/.543/6-1
3. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 20-4 (.833)/.583/7-2
4. Amherst (Northeast, NESCAC) - 22-2 (.917)/.568/6-1
5. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 22-2 (.917)/.553/4-2
6. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-3 (.850)/.548/5-2
7. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-3 (.870)/.562/3-1
8. Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 21-3 (.875)/.539/3-3
9. Alvernia (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-4 (.833)/.552/4-2
10. Catholic (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 18-3 (.857)/.536/2-2
11. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-1 (.954)/.493/2-1
12. Whitworth (West, NWC) - 20-3 (.870)/.549/3-1
13. Stevens (East, E8) - 19-3 (.864)/.538/3-2
14. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 17-3 (.850)/.523/4-2
15. Cortland St. (East, SUNYAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.511/3-2
16. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 17-1 (.944)/.432/0-0
17. St. Mary's (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 16-3 (.842)/.516/3-2
18. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 20-4 (.833)/.540/3-2
19. Rose-Hulman (Midwest, HCAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.511/1-1
20. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 17-6 (.739)/.558/1-2
21. Hobart (East, LL) - 17-6 (.739)/.555/0-3


Let me know if you find errors in data, and if any thoughts.  Again, it's pretty rough...but a start.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2013, 07:54:41 PM
Howard Payne 75, at UMHB 73 (http://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/men/2012-13/contrib/2013021454gp54)

Thursday night in Belton.  This was the biggest upset in the ASC, (IMHO). UMHB had a road loss at ETBU during the early season cross-over schedule. That is not unusual.  The CRU did not defend home court in the last week of the season and contending for the #1 seed in the Region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 17, 2013, 12:33:49 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 16, 2013, 06:31:03 PM
This has sort of evolved as the day has gone on.  Here is the latest...data still through Friday.

A rough look at how I see Pool C heading into Saturday's games, using in-region records and results vs regionally ranked through Friday 2/15.  (SOS is from the regional ranking week two data sheets, through 2/10.)

Through games of Friday, 2/15...

Pool C projection
1. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.583/6-2
2. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.562/3-3
3. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 15-5 (.750)/.573/4-3
4. North Central (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-3 (.857)/.531/3-2
5. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-4 (.818)/.552/3-3
6. Washington U. (Midwest, UAA) - 17-5 (.773)/.559/5-3
7. Emory (South, UAA) - 16-6 (.727)/.568/4-4
8. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 15-5 (.750)/.534/5-2
9. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 19-5 (.792)/.554/3-1
10. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 18-2 (.900)/.521/0-2
11. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-6 (.739)/.571/3-5
12. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 16-2 (.889)/.505/3-1
13. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 17-5 (.773)/.543/3-1
14. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 18-4 (.818)/.549/1-2
15. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-2 (.909)/.478/1-2
16. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 17-7 (.708)/.567/3-5
17. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.543/2-3
18. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 18-6 (.750)/.535/2-1
19. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 17-6 (.739)/.539/2-4
----------
20. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.524/1-4
21. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 17-6 (.739)/.534/1-4
22. Whitman (West, NWC) - 14-6 (.700)/.568/2-2
23. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 15-7 (.682)/.557/1-7
24. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 17-4 (.810)/.523/1-2
25. Eastern Connecticut (Northeast, LEC) - 17-4 (.810)/.511/1-1
26. St. Norbert (Midwest, MWC) - 17-5 (.773)/.540/1-2
27. SUNY-Purchase (Atlantic, Sky) - 19-5 (.792)/.522/1-2
28. Augsburg (West, MIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.525/1-3
29. Concordia-Moorhead (West, MIAC) - 17-6 (.739)/.508/2-2
30. Ithaca (East, E8) - 15-8 (.652)/.541/2-3
31. Randolph (South, ODAC) - 14-4 (.778)/.485/1-3
32. Texas-Dallas (South, ASC) - 18-6 (.750)/.517/0-3



Top "Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As who would most likely rank in Pool C top 19)
1. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-2 (.909)/.584/7-2
2. Amherst (Northeast, NESCAC) - 22-2 (.917)/.568/6-1
3. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 24-1 (.960)/.543/5-1
4. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 20-4 (.833)/.583/6-2
5. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 22-2 (.917)/.553/4-2
6. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-3 (.850)/.548/5-2
7. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-3 (.870)/.562/3-1
8. Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 21-3 (.875)/.539/3-3
9. Alvernia (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-4 (.833)/.552/4-2
10. Catholic (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 18-3 (.857)/.536/2-1
11. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-1 (.954)/.493/2-1
12. Whitworth (West, NWC) - 20-3 (.870)/.549/1-1
13. Stevens (East, E8) - 19-3 (.864)/.538/2-1
14. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 17-3 (.850)/.523/3-2
15. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 17-1 (.944)/.432/0-0
16. St. Mary's (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 16-3 (.842)/.516/3-2
17. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 20-4 (.833)/.540/2-1
18. Rose-Hulman (Midwest, HCAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.511/1-1
19. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 17-6 (.739)/.558/1-2


Let me know if you find errors in data, and if any thoughts.  Again, it's pretty rough...but a start.

Scranton is 3(Catholic,Cabrini, Ithaca)-1 against regionally-ranked teams
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: ronk on February 17, 2013, 12:33:49 AM
Scranton is 3(Catholic,Cabrini, Ithaca)-1 against regionally-ranked teams

Good catch.  The NCAA data sheet (games through 2/10) had that one wrong...

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=15&division=3
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 09:12:31 AM
This morning at 11:00am Eastern, Wash U plays @ Brandeis.  I have both in right now, but today's loser definitely moves closer to the bubble (especially if it's Brandeis).

I consider the first 12-13 teams on my Pool C list "safe" at this point, but the teams lower than that are at the mercy of conference tournament upsets...and we know there will be a good number of these. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 17, 2013, 09:18:22 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: ronk on February 17, 2013, 12:33:49 AM
Scranton is 3(Catholic,Cabrini, Ithaca)-1 against regionally-ranked teams

Good catch.  The NCAA data sheet (games through 2/10) had that one wrong...

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=15&division=3

Hampden-Sydney's record against regionally ranked opponents would be 3-1, unless you are including the loss to Guilford .... ?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2013, 09:35:22 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: ronk on February 17, 2013, 12:33:49 AM
Scranton is 3(Catholic,Cabrini, Ithaca)-1 against regionally-ranked teams

Good catch.  The NCAA data sheet (games through 2/10) had that one wrong...

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=15&division=3

Was Ithaca newly ranked? They don't show games against teams that appear in that week's rankings because they're generated before the RAC calls.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2013, 09:55:26 AM
IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING...




   ATL                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   2      1      Old Westbury      SKY      20-1, 21-3      BEAT St. Joseph's (L.I.) 119-80; LOST at Sage 98-96   
   1      2      Ramapo      NJAC      18-2, 20-3      BEAT Richard Stockton 74-64; LOST at William Paterson 61-60   
   5      3      Rutgers-Newark      NJAC      17-6, 18-6      BEAT Kean 79-62   
   4      4      Ricard Stockton      NJAC      17-5, 17-5      LOST at Ramapo 74-64; BEAT Rowan 79-64   
   3      5      SUNY-Purchase      SKY      17-5, 17-5      BEAT  NYU-Poly 92-59; WON at SUNY-Maritime 71-41; BEAT St. Joseph (L.I.) 63-36   
   EAST                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Rochester      UAA      19-2, 20-2      BEAT Carnegie Mellon 81-77; vs. Case Western Reserve 2/17   
   2      2      SUNY-Cortland      SUNYAC      19-2, 19-3      BEAT New Paltz State 87-47; LOST at Plattsburgh St. 80-77; WON at Potsdam St. 69-56   
   3      3      Stevens      E8      18-3, 20-3      WON at Alfred 67-55;LOST at St. John Fisher 82-73   
   5      4      Hobart      LL      15-6, 16-6      WON at Rochester Tech 72-57; BEAT Clarkson 74-66; BEAT St. Lawrence 77-60   
   n/a      5      Plattsburgh St.      SUNYAC      15-6, 15-7      BEAT Potsdam State 92-69; BEAT Cortland State 80-77; BEAT Oswego State 71-63   
   n/a      6      Ithaca      E8      14-7, 15-7      BEAT Houghton 85-72; LOST to Utica 69-66; BEAT Nazareth 76-69   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   4      n/a      NYU      UAA            BEAT Washington U. 86-82; vs. Chicago 2/17   
   6      n/a      SUNY-Geneseo      SUNYAC            WON at Fredonia St. 94-80; BEAT Buffalo St. 83-67   
   GT LK                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Wooster      NCAC      19-3, 19-3      WON at Allegheny 86-64; LOST at DePauw 68-52
   2      2      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      17-4, 17-5      BEAT Wabash 79-64; BEAT at Denison 67-64   
   3      3      Thomas More      PrAC      19-2, 20-3      BEAT Bethany 73-69; LOST at St. Vincent 88-79   
   n/a      4      Capital      OAC      17-4, 17-6      BEAT Muskingum 75-68; BEAT Ohio Northern 61-47   
   5      5      St. Vincent      PrAC      16-3, 18-5      BEAT Waynesburg 67-59; BEAT Thomas More 88-79   
   4      6      Calvin      MIAA      16-1, 20-3      BEAT Trine 61-59; BEAT Olivet 86-60   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   6      n/a      Marietta      OAC            WON at Mount Union 93-81; LOST at John Carroll 74-68   
   MID-ATL                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   4      1      Alvernia      MACC      19-4, 19-4      BEAT Hood 70-59; WON at Messiah 73-67   
   1      2      Catholic      LAND      17-3, 20-3      WON at Goucher 71-43; BEAT Moravian 86-70   
   3      3      St. Mary's (Md.)      CAC      16-2, 21-2      LOST at Salisbury 72-71; BEAT Mary Washington 89-80   
   2      4      Albright      MACC      18-5, 18-5      WON at Lycoming 90-87; WON at Elizabethtown 71-61   
   5      5      Wesley      CAC      16-2, 19-5      LOST to Salisbury 83-78   
   6      6      Scranton      LAND      17-6, 17-6      WON at Moravian 71-66; WON at Goucher 61-58   
   8      7      Cabrini      CSAC      17-4, 19-5      WON at Marywood 81-56   
   n/a      8      DeSales      MACF      17-5, 18-5      BEAT Wilkes 82-74; BEAT Eastern 85-74   
   n/a      9      Dickinson      CC      15-6, 17-6      WON at Gettysburg 61-58; LOST at Franklin and Marshall 64-34   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   7      n/a      Arcadia      MACC            WON at Lebanon Valley 77-61; WON at Widener 79-73   
   9      n/a      Frank & Marsh      CC            BEAT Johns Hopkins 73-54; BEAT Dickinson 64-34   
   MW                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      17-3, 20-3      BEAT Millikin 68-54   
   4      2      Washington U.      UAA      17-4, 18-4      LOST at NYU 86-82; at Brandeis 2/17   
   3      3      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      15-5, 18-5      BEAT Carthage 64-58   
   5      4      North Central (IL)      CCIW      18-3, 20-3      BEAT North Park 88-61   
   2      5      Transylvania      HCAC      17-4, 18-5      LOST to Hanover 73-70; BEAT Bluffton 81-74   
   6      6      Rose-Hulman      HCAC      20-2, 21-2      LOST at Earlham 68-66; WON at Hanover 59-57   
   7      7      Augustana       CCIW      15-7, 16-7      WON at Elmhurst 66-61   
   8      8      St. Norbert      MWC      16-5, 16-5      BEAT Ripon 57-52; WON at Illinois College 70-68   
   NE                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      WPI      NEWMAC      22-1, 22-1      LOST at MIT 69-60; WON at Clark 66-51   
   2      2      Amherst      NESCAC      21-2, 21-2      WON at Middlebury 104-101 3OT; BEAT Colby 83-52   
   3      3      Williams      NESCAC      18-3, 20-3      BEAT Trinity (Conn) 68-47; BEAT Bates 88-79   
   4      4      Middlebury      NESCAC      18-1, 21-1      LOST to Amherst 104-101 3OT; BEAT Wesleyan 61-49   
   5      5      RIC       LEC      20-3, 20-3      WON at Western Connecticut 69-60; WON at Keene State 86-64   
   7      6      MIT      NEWMAC      16-4, 17-4      BEAT Clark 69-44; BEAT WPI 69-60; vs. Wheelock 2/17   
   6      7      Brandeis      UAA      16-6, 16-6      BEAT Chicago 75-56; vs. Washington U 2/17   
   10      8      Springfield      NEWMAC      16-7, 16-7      BEAT Clark 57-55; WON at Wheaton (Mass) 64-49   
   8      9      Curry      CCC      16-6, 16-6      LOST at Eastern Nazarene 100-80; WON at Endicott 88-68; BEAT Wentworth 73-61   
   9      10      Westfield St.      MASCAC      17-4, 19-4      WON at Framingham State 77-59; BEAT Fitchburg State 81-67   
   11      11      Eastern Conn.      LEC      15-4, 15-7      WON at Mass-Dartmouth 78-59; BEAT Keene State 93-84; BEAT Mass-Boston 74-44   
   12      12      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      20-2, 20-3      WON at Coast Guard 87-82; BEAT St. Joseph's (Maine) 76-66; LOST at Johnson and Wales 74-72   
   SOUTH                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Ham-Syd      ODAC      17-2, 21-2      LOST to Virginia Wesleyan 78-77; WON at Emory and Henry 82-61   
   2      2      MHB      ASC      20-3, 20-3      LOST to Howard Payne 75-73; BEAT Sul Ross State 87-61   
   5      3      Emory      UAA      15-6, 15-6      BEAT Case Western Reserve 106-87; vs. Carnegie Mellon 2/17   
   6      4      Vir. Wes.      ODAC      14-5, 17-6      WON at Hampden-Sydney 78-77; BEAT Lynchburg 71-54   
   4      5      Concordia (TX)      ASC      16-4, 18-5      BEAT Sul Ross State 115-92; BEAT Howard Payne 113-87   
   3      6      Chris Newport      USAC      14-5, 15-5      BEAT North Carolina Wesleyan 93-67; WON at Averett 77-56; at Ferrum 2/17   
   n/a      7      Randolph      ODAC      13-4, 19-4      WON at Lynchburg 58-49; LOST at Randolph-Macon 70-52   
   n/a      8      Texas-Dallas      ASC      17-6, 17-6      BEAT University of the Ozarks 67-50; BEAT LeTourneau 76-55   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   7      n/a      Lynchburg      ODAC            LOST to Randolph 58-49; LOST at Virginia Wesleyan 71-54   
   8      n/a      Guilford      ODAC            BEAT Emory and Henry 73-65; LOST at Bridgewater (Va) 78-75   
   WEST                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      REG/OVERALL      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      St. Thomas      MIAC      23-1 ,23-1      BEAT St. Olaf 62-57   
   3      2      Stevens Point      WIAC      19-4, 19-4      WON at Stout 76-74 OT; BEAT Eau Claire 68-34   
   4      3      Whitewater      WIAC      18-4, 19-4      WON at Oshkosh 75-58; BEAT River Falls 72-69   
   2      4      Whitworth      NWC      19-3, 20-3      WON at Linfield 86-53; WON at Williamette 86-67   
   6      5      Buena Vista      IIAC      16-6, 17-6      WON at Wartburg 71-61; BEAT Coe 72-63   
   5      6      Stout      WIAC      17-5, 18-5      LOST to Stevens Point 76-74 OT; BEAT Oshkosh 49-47   
   9      7      Con-Moorhead      MIAC      17-6, 17-7      BEAT Gustavus Adolphus 69-62   
   n/a      8      Whitman      NWC      13-6, 16-7      WON at Williamette 82-68; WON at Linfield 83-58   
   7      9      Augsburg      MIAC      17-6, 17-6      BEAT Macalester 88-64; WON at St. Mary's (MN) 71-60   
                                    
               DROPPING OUT                     
   8      N/A      Luther      IIAC            BEAT Coe 60-54 OT; BEAT Wartburg 78-61   
                                    
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 10:05:20 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2013, 09:35:22 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: ronk on February 17, 2013, 12:33:49 AM
Scranton is 3(Catholic,Cabrini, Ithaca)-1 against regionally-ranked teams

Good catch.  The NCAA data sheet (games through 2/10) had that one wrong...

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=15&division=3

Was Ithaca newly ranked? They don't show games against teams that appear in that week's rankings because they're generated before the RAC calls.

Good call...Ithaca jumped into the Week 2 East ranking but was not in the first.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 10:14:55 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 17, 2013, 09:18:22 AM
Hampden-Sydney's record against regionally ranked opponents would be 3-1, unless you are including the loss to Guilford .... ?

The last data sheet had H-S 3-1 vs regionally ranked, and then I added the Va Wesleyan loss mid-week and Randolph as a win (entered South ranking).

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=25&division=3


I have 4-2...

Wins - Lynchburg, Randolph, Guilford, Lynchburg
Losses - Guilford, Va Wesleyan


I should have clarified above that I tried to update the results vs regionally ranked through Friday 2/15.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 17, 2013, 10:29:35 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 10:14:55 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 17, 2013, 09:18:22 AM
Hampden-Sydney's record against regionally ranked opponents would be 3-1, unless you are including the loss to Guilford .... ?

I have...

Wins - Wesley, Guilford, Randolph
Loss - Guilford, Va Wesleyan

I tried my best to update the results vs regionally ranked when I put my Pool C projections together...I added the loss to Va Wesleyan from mid-week (which was not accounted for in the most recent regional ranking).

Isn't it based upon a team's record against others that are currently regionally ranked?  If so, then:

Wins - Wesley, Randolph, Randolph
Loss - Va Wesleyan
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 10:45:48 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 17, 2013, 10:29:35 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 10:14:55 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 17, 2013, 09:18:22 AM
Hampden-Sydney's record against regionally ranked opponents would be 3-1, unless you are including the loss to Guilford .... ?

I have...

Wins - Wesley, Guilford, Randolph
Loss - Guilford, Va Wesleyan

I tried my best to update the results vs regionally ranked when I put my Pool C projections together...I added the loss to Va Wesleyan from mid-week (which was not accounted for in the most recent regional ranking).

Isn't it based upon a team's record against others that are currently regionally ranked?  If so, then:

Wins - Wesley, Randolph, Randolph
Loss - Va Wesleyan

http://static.psbin.com/w/6/qxppu7z1rkr1ta/2013_Pre_Championship_DIII_Men-s_Basketball.pdf

Page 19: "Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at any time of the rankings/selection process."

As you'll hear posters frequently refer to this rule, "once ranked, always ranked."
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 17, 2013, 10:53:21 AM
Middlebury will also pick up their first regional win as a result of Plattsburgh entering the East rankings.  They will be 1-2 next week.  I wonder if that helps them remain in the Top 4 in the NE region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 17, 2013, 12:20:24 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 10:45:48 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 17, 2013, 10:29:35 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 10:14:55 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 17, 2013, 09:18:22 AM
Hampden-Sydney's record against regionally ranked opponents would be 3-1, unless you are including the loss to Guilford .... ?

I have...

Wins - Wesley, Guilford, Randolph
Loss - Guilford, Va Wesleyan

I tried my best to update the results vs regionally ranked when I put my Pool C projections together...I added the loss to Va Wesleyan from mid-week (which was not accounted for in the most recent regional ranking).

Isn't it based upon a team's record against others that are currently regionally ranked?  If so, then:

Wins - Wesley, Randolph, Randolph
Loss - Va Wesleyan

http://static.psbin.com/w/6/qxppu7z1rkr1ta/2013_Pre_Championship_DIII_Men-s_Basketball.pdf

Page 19: "Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at any time of the rankings/selection process."

As you'll hear posters frequently refer to this rule, "once ranked, always ranked."

Then Hampden-Sydney would be 5-2 ...

Wins - Wesley, Guilford, Randolph, Lynchburg, Lynchburg
Loss - Guilford, Va Wesleyan
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 12:29:53 PM
Quote from: algernon on February 17, 2013, 12:20:24 PM

Then Hampden-Sydney would be 5-2 ...

Wins - Wesley, Guilford, Randolph, Lynchburg, Lynchburg
Loss - Guilford, Va Wesleyan

Wesley is not an in-region game for H-S.  That win could help in secondary criteria, but not primary.  (I incorrectly listed Wesley in my earlier response to you, which I later edited.)

So 4-2.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2013, 01:05:55 PM
UPCOMING SCHEDULES FOR REGIONALLY RANKED TEAMS

TEAMS IN BLUE ARE CONFERENCE LEADERS/WINNERS



   ATL                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      UPCOMING SCHEDULE   
   2      1      Old Westbury      SKY      vs. Farmingdale State/Sage winner in SKY semis 2/21   
   1      2      Ramapo      NJAC      vs. William Paterson in NJAC semis 2/19   
   5      3      Rutgers-Newark      NJAC      vs. Richard Stockton in NJAC semis 2/19   
   4      4      Ricard Stockton      NJAC      at Rutgers-Newark in NJAC semis 2/19   
   3      5      SUNY-Purchase      SKY      vs. Mount St. Mary/Yeshiva winner in SKY semis 2/21   
   EAST                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Rochester      UAA       LOST to Case Western Reserve 57-51; at Emory 2/23   
   2      2      SUNY-Cortland      SUNYAC      vs. Oswego/Brockport winner in SUNYAC semis 2/22   
   3      3      Stevens      E8      vs. Utica in E8 semis 2/22   
   5      4      Hobart      LL      vs. Skidmore in LL semis 2/20   
   n/a      5      Plattsburgh St.      SUNYAC      vs. Geneseo/New Paltz winner in SUNYAC semis 2/22   
   n/a      6      Ithaca      E8      vs. Fisher in E8 semis 2/22   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
   4      n/a      NYU      UAA       LOST to Chicago 64-51; vs. Brandeis 2/23   
   6      n/a      SUNY-Geneseo      SUNYAC      vs. New Paltz in SUNYAC quarters 2/19   
   GT LK                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Wooster      NCAC      vs. Oberlin in NCAC quarters 2/19   
   2      2      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      vs. Denison in NCAC quarters 2/19   
   3      3      Thomas More      PrAC      vs. Geneva in PrAC quarters 2/19   
   n/a      4      Capital      OAC      vs. quarterfinal winner in OAC semis 2/21   
   5      5      St. Vincent      PrAC      vs. Westminster/Waynesburg winner in PrAC quarters 2/19   
   4      6      Calvin      MIAA      vs. Adrian in MIAA semis 2/21   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
   6      n/a      Marietta      OAC      vs. quarterfinal winner in OAC semis 2/21   
   MID-ATL                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   4      1      Alvernia      MACC      vs. Stevenson/Elizabethtown winner in MACC semis 2/20   
   1      2      Catholic      LAND      vs. Merchant Marine in LAND semis 2/20   
   3      3      St. Mary's (Md.)      CAC      vs. Frostburg St./Mary Washington winner in CAC semis 2/21   
   2      4      Albright      MACC      vs. Lycoming in MACC semis 2/20   
   5      5      Wesley      CAC      vs. York/Salisbury winner in CAC semis 2/21   
   6      6      Scranton      LAND      vs. Juniata in LAND semis 2/20   
   8      7      Cabrini      CSAC      vs. Neumann in CSAC semis 2/19   
   n/a      8      DeSales      MACF      vs. Fairleigh Dickinson in MACF semis 2/20   
   n/a      9      Dickinson      CC      vs. Johns Hopkins in CC semis 2/22   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
   7      n/a      Arcadia      MACC      vs Stevenson in MACC quarters 2/18   
   9      n/a      Frank & Marsh      CC      vs. Muhlenberg/Gettysburg winner in CC semis 2/22   
   MW                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.          
   1      1      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      at North Central 2/19   
   4      2      Washington U.      UAA      WON at Brandeis 76-60   
   3      3      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      at Elmhurst 2/19   
   5      4      North Central (IL)      CCIW      vs. Illinois Wesleyan 2/19   
   2      5      Transylvania      HCAC      vs Mount St. Joseph in HCAC quarters 2/19   
   6      6      Rose-Hulman      HCAC      vs. Defiance/Franklin winner in HCAC semis 2/22   
   7      7      Augustana       CCIW      vs. Millikin 2/19   
   8      8      St. Norbert      MWC      vs. Ripon in MWC semi 2/22   
   NE                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      WPI      NEWMAC      vs. Clark/Babson winner in NEWMAC semis 2/23   
   2      2      Amherst      NESCAC      vs Tufts in NESCAC semis 2/23   
   3      3      Williams      NESCAC      vs. Middlebury in NESCAC semis 2/23   
   4      4      Middlebury      NESCAC      vs. Williams in NESCAC semis 2/23   
   5      5      RIC       LEC      vs. Mass.-Dartmouth in LEC quarters 2/19   
   7      6      MIT      NEWMAC      vs. Wheelock 2/17; vs. Springfield in NEWMAC semis 2/23   
   6      7      Brandeis      UAA        LOST to Washington U 76-60   
   10      8      Springfield      NEWMAC      at MIT in NEWMAC semis 2/23   
   8      9      Curry      CCC      vs. Western New England in CCC quarters 2/19   
   9      10      Westfield St.      MASCAC      vs. Bridgewater St./Fitchburg St. winner in MASCAC semis 2/21   
   11      11      Eastern Conn.      LEC      vs. West. Conn. In LEC quarters 2/19   
   12      12      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      vs. Rivier in GNAC quarters 2/19   
   SOUTH                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Ham-Syd      ODAC      vs. Roanoke/Bridgewater winner in ODAC quarters 2/22   
   2      2      MHB      ASC      TBA   
   5      3      Emory      UAA      BEAT Carnegie Mellon 84-61   
   6      4      Vir. Wes.      ODAC      vs. East. Mennonite/Washington and Lee winner in ODAC quarters 2/22   
   4      5      Concordia (TX)      ASC      TBA   
   3      6      Chris Newport      USAC      at Ferrum 2/17   
   n/a      7      Randolph      ODAC      vs. Shenandoah/Lynchburg winner in ODAC quarters 2/22   
   n/a      8      Texas-Dallas      ASC      TBA   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
   7      n/a      Lynchburg      ODAC      vs Shenandoah in ODAC 1st Round 2/19   
   8      n/a      Guilford      ODAC      vs. Emory & Henry in ODAC 1st Round  2/19   
   WEST                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      St. Thomas      MIAC      vs. TBA in MIAC semis 2/22   
   3      2      Stevens Point      WIAC      vs. TBA in WIAC semis 2/21   
   4      3      Whitewater      WIAC      vs. TBA in WIAC semis 2/21   
   2      4      Whitworth      NWC      vs. Lewis & Clark in NWC semis 2/21   
   6      5      Buena Vista      IIAC      vs. Simpson/Dubuque winner in IIAC semis 2/21   
   5      6      Stout      WIAC      vs. Superior in WIAC quarters 2/19   
   9      7      Con-Moorhead      MIAC      vs. TBA in MIAC semis 2/22   
   n/a      8      Whitman      NWC      vs. George Fox in NWC semis (2/21)-assumed   
   7      9      Augsburg      MIAC      vs. St. John's in MIAC quarters 2/20   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
   8      N/A      Luther      IIAC      vs. Coe/Wartburg winner in IIAC semis 2/21   
                              
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 17, 2013, 01:22:01 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 12:29:53 PM
Quote from: algernon on February 17, 2013, 12:20:24 PM

Then Hampden-Sydney would be 5-2 ...

Wins - Wesley, Guilford, Randolph, Lynchburg, Lynchburg
Loss - Guilford, Va Wesleyan

Wesley is not an in-region game for H-S.  That win could help in secondary criteria, but not primary.  (I incorrectly listed Wesley in my earlier response to you, which I later edited.)

So 4-2.

The region doesn't seem to matter for results vs. ranked opponents.  For example, look at St. Norbert's results vs. ranked opponents listed in the NCAA spreadsheets from last week.  They were listed at 1-2, with the 1-1 being against UWW (West region) and the other loss being to Augie.  Or is that only because UWW meets the distance criteria for St. Norbert?

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=35&division=3

http://d3hoops.com/teams/St._Norbert/men/2012-13/index
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: monsoon on February 17, 2013, 01:28:35 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 17, 2013, 01:22:01 PM

The region doesn't seem to matter for results vs. ranked opponents.  For example, look at St. Norbert's results vs. ranked opponents listed in the NCAA spreadsheets from last week.  They were listed at 1-2, with the 1-1 being against UWW (West region) and the other loss being to Augie.  Or is that only because UWW meets the distance criteria for St. Norbert?

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=35&division=3

http://d3hoops.com/teams/St._Norbert/men/2012-13/index

St. Norbert / UWW is an in-region game.  Didn't check the mileage, but they're certainly in the same administrative region by both being in Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2013, 01:31:08 PM
And Illinois and Wisconsin are both in Region 4 of the administrative regions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2013, 01:40:10 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 17, 2013, 01:22:01 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 12:29:53 PM
Quote from: algernon on February 17, 2013, 12:20:24 PM

Then Hampden-Sydney would be 5-2 ...

Wins - Wesley, Guilford, Randolph, Lynchburg, Lynchburg
Loss - Guilford, Va Wesleyan

Wesley is not an in-region game for H-S.  That win could help in secondary criteria, but not primary.  (I incorrectly listed Wesley in my earlier response to you, which I later edited.)

So 4-2.

The region doesn't seem to matter for results vs. ranked opponents.  For example, look at St. Norbert's results vs. ranked opponents listed in the NCAA spreadsheets from last week.  They were listed at 1-2, with the 1-1 being against UWW (West region) and the other loss being to Augie.  Or is that only because UWW meets the distance criteria for St. Norbert?

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=35&division=3

http://d3hoops.com/teams/St._Norbert/men/2012-13/index

It does matter... if you play a game against a non-region opponent who is regionally ranked... it doesn't count as a regional game, as we know, and it doesn't count as a vRRO - see Calvin vs. Wheaton as the prime example. It is secondary criteria only.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 17, 2013, 01:50:33 PM
Thanks for the clarification, wasn't sure on that, hence the question at the end of that paragraph.

So the Plattsburgh game vs. Middlebury does count as a vRRO, correct?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2013, 01:50:58 PM
Yes... that game counts.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 02:19:01 PM
For a game to be counted in "results vs regionally ranked", it has to be an "in-region" game.  In other words, has to meet one of these four criteria...

1. All competition within an institution's defined region.

2. All competition within a 200-mile radius from one institution to another.

3. All competition within an institution's membership geographical region. The country is divided into four membership regions as listed below. For most institutions this should result in an expanded list of potential in-region opponents than in the past.
● Region 1:  Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont
● Region 2:  New York, Pennsylvania
● Region 3:  Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia
● Region 4: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming

4. All conference games.


D3hoops.com lists all of these game on the schedule pages with an asterisk.  In the case of Middlebury/Plattsburgh St, that is in-region - http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/Middlebury/men/2012-13/index - and so it counts in results vs regionally ranked.

On the flip side, Wheaton vs Calvin does not count under results vs regionally ranked (was not an in-region game).  It could factor into the selection process, but only as "secondary criteria."  IWU's Pool C resume was helped last year by two such wins (Staten Island, Bethany).

The fact that Wheaton and Calvin are 203 miles apart and does not count, while UW-Stevens Point vs Texas Dallas and St. Thomas vs Whitworth both count is another conversation altogether. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 17, 2013, 02:38:18 PM
Good place to note, that next year regions will matter less. As long as teams play 70% of their games in-region, then all games against D-III teams will count for primary criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2013, 02:45:37 PM
Well... we also may have regions realigned as well next year... though, I am not sure if they can get the work done or not.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 03:25:52 PM
Updated look at how I see Pool C through Sunday 2/17.  Notes about the data:

* In-region records are through Sunday 2/17 
* SOS is from the regional ranking-week 2 data sheets, through 2/10 (SOS is a game or two old)
* Results vs regionally ranked data through Sunday 2/17


(Losses from Saturday and Sunday are noted)

Pool C projection
1. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC) - 20-4 (.833)/.583/6-2
2. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.562/3-3
3. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 16-5 (.762)/.573/4-3
4. North Central (Midwest, CCIW) - 19-3 (.864)/.531/3-2
5. Washington U. (Midwest, UAA) - 18-5 (.783)/.559/6-3
6. Emory (South, UAA) - 17-6 (.739)/.568/4-4
7. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 16-5 (.762)/.534/7-2
8. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-4 (.818)/.552/3-3  (vs Wheelock, 7:00pm Sunday)
9. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
10. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-5 (.800)/.554/3-1
11. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 18-5 (.782)/.543/3-1
12. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.549/2-2
13. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.567/3-5
14. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 16-3 (.842)/.505/3-1  *lost vs Salisbury*
15. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-7 (.708)/.571/3-6  *lost vs Wash U*
16. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-6 (.760)/.535/3-1
17. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.543/2-3
18. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.478/1-2   *lost @ St. Vincent*
19. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.539/2-4
----------
20. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.534/1-4
21. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.524/1-4
22. Whitman (West, NWC) - 15-6 (.714)/.568/2-2
23. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 18-4 (.818)/.523/2-2
24. Eastern Connecticut (Northeast, LEC) - 18-4 (.818)/.511/1-1
25. SUNY-Purchase (Atlantic, Sky) - 20-5 (.800)/.522/1-2
26. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 16-7 (.696)/.557/1-7
27. Augsburg (West, MIAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.525/1-3
28. Concordia-Moorhead (West, MIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.508/2-2
29. Ithaca (East, E8) - 16-8 (.667)/.541/2-3
30. Texas-Dallas (South, ASC) - 19-6 (.760)/.517/0-3
31. Randolph (South, ODAC) - 14-5 (.737)/.485/1-3  *lost @ Randolph-Macon*

Top "Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
Tier one:
1. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 24-1 (.960)/.543/6-1
2. Amherst (Northeast, NESCAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.568/6-1
3. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-3 (.870)/.584/7-2  *lost vs Case Western Reserve*
4. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.583/7-2
5. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.553/4-2
6. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-3 (.857)/.548/5-2
7. Whitworth (West, NWC) - 21-3 (.875)/.549/3-1
8. Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3
9. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-4 (.833)/.562/3-1  *lost @ DePauw*
10. Alvernia (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 21-4 (.840)/.552/4-2
11. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.523/4-2
12. Catholic (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-3 (.864)/.536/2-2
13. Stevens (East, E8) - 19-4 (.826)/.538/3-2  *lost @ St. John Fisher*
14. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 21-4 (.840)/.540/3-2
15. St. Mary's (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-3 (.850)/.516/3-2
16. Cortland St. (East, SUNYAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.511/3-2

Tier two:
17. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.432/0-0
18. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-2 (.913)/.493/2-1  *lost @ Sage*
19. Rose-Hulman (Midwest, HCAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.511/1-1
20. St. Norbert (Midwest, MWC) - 18-5 (.783)/.540/1-2
21. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.558/1-2
22. Hobart (East, LL) - 18-6 (.750)/.555/0-3


Let me know if you find errors in data or if something looks out of whack.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2013, 05:25:03 PM
Very nice work, Bob!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 17, 2013, 06:19:23 PM
Thoughts and Questions:

* Now that Rochester had made it interesting, what are the tiebrakers in the UAA?  Generally, I see all 3 of the potential tie-ees in (Brandeis, Rochester and Washington), so it might not matter.

* I don't think the CCIW will have a bubble burst unless Augustana surprises as I can't see all of Wheaton, North Central and IWU in the tournament.

* Rutger-Newark vs. Richard Stockton looks almost like a play in game for the tournament at this point. 

* Does Stout have a realistic path to the tournament without winning the WIAC?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 06:41:19 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 17, 2013, 06:19:23 PM
Thoughts and Questions:

* Now that Rochester had made it interesting, what are the tiebrakers in the UAA?  Generally, I see all 3 of the potential tie-ees in (Brandeis, Rochester and Washington), so it might not matter.

* I don't think the CCIW will have a bubble burst unless Augustana surprises as I can't see all of Wheaton, North Central and IWU in the tournament.

* Rutger-Newark vs. Richard Stockton looks almost like a play in game for the tournament at this point. 

* Does Stout have a realistic path to the tournament without winning the WIAC?

I disagree on Brandeis, bopol (in terms of them being "in").  I have them #15 on the Pool C list right now.  If that's accurate, then Brandeis would be on the wrong side of the bubble with just 5 conference tournament upsets (from my "bubble burster"list).  And 5 seems to be about the average number of these upsets each year.  I believe Brandeis is very much on the bubble at this point.

I view IWU, North Central, and Wheaton all as being in great Pool C shape (and Augustana having no chance).  If Augustana somehow wins the CCIW tournament, which I can't see happening since Augie is 0-6 against IWU/NCC/Wheaton, I think the league would have 4 in.

UW-Stout is definitely on the bubble...but I see them as being on the wrong side.  They need a whole bunch of things to go right in the next 7 days to get in as a Pool C.  I view Stout as a longshot...they desperately need another win vs regionally ranked.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 17, 2013, 06:42:54 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 17, 2013, 06:19:23 PM
Thoughts and Questions:

* Now that Rochester had made it interesting, what are the tiebrakers in the UAA?  Generally, I see all 3 of the potential tie-ees in (Brandeis, Rochester and Washington), so it might not matter.

* I don't think the CCIW will have a bubble burst unless Augustana surprises as I can't see all of Wheaton, North Central and IWU in the tournament.

* Rutger-Newark vs. Richard Stockton looks almost like a play in game for the tournament at this point. 

* Does Stout have a realistic path to the tournament without winning the WIAC?

The three that could tie are Rochester, Washington, and Emory (not Brandeis).  IF Emory beats Rochester and WashU beats Chicago, there would be a 3-way tie, which if UAA tie-break rules are fairly typical (h-to-h, then conference opponents beginning from the top), WashU would win the AQ (split w/ Rochester, swept Emory, while Rochester would have split w/ Emory).  I don't know if these are the UAA tie-break procedures (I asked on the UAA board), but probably moot anyway, as all 3 appear to be veritable locks for a Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 17, 2013, 06:42:54 PM
The three that could tie are Rochester, Washington, and Emory (not Brandeis).  IF Emory beats Rochester and WashU beats Chicago, there would be a 3-way tie, which if UAA tie-break rules are fairly typical (h-to-h, then conference opponents beginning from the top), WashU would win the AQ (split w/ Rochester, swept Emory, while Rochester would have split w/ Emory).  I don't know if these are the UAA tie-break procedures (I asked on the UAA board), but probably moot anyway, as all 3 appear to be veritable locks for a Pool C.

I'm guessing bopol meant to type "Emory" instead of "Brandeis"...if he did, I agree with him.  Rochester, Wash U, and Emory are all safe bets to make the field.

A week ago Rochester was positioned to potentially be the overall #1-seed in the 2013 tournament.  Now they have to go to Emory and win just to claim the UAA's AQ.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 17, 2013, 07:52:43 PM
Just wanted to revisit your thoughts on the NEWMAC.  I think it is safe to say that WPI is in regardless of what they do in the tourney (even if they lost in the tourney, they should be real safe at 23-3 or 24-3). 

Now with regard to MIT and Springfield.  For either team to be in Pool C contention, they will need to pick up another loss, but that loss will be to a RRO.  Do you think MIT, at 20-5 or 21-5 (substract one out of region win), is definitely in at this point?  Also, can you realistically see an 8 loss Springfield team getting in?   Based on last week's regional rankings, I still think Brandeis would probably be ranked ahead of them (their numbers are similar, across the board, but I doubt Brandeis will be penalized for a loss to a good WashU team). 

As an MIT fan, the scenario that makes me most worried would be a case where Brandeis loses to NYU next week, and then Springfield beats MIT but then loses to WPI.  In this scenario, you could see a situation where MIT and Springfield are ranked next to eachother in the NE region rankings, and Springfield gets pushed ahead of MIT because of the 2-1 season advantage.  In that scenario, you could see that ranking keeping both teams out, as an 8 loss Springfield team may not be as competitive to the other region teams without the head-to-head results.  For that reason, MIT needs to take care of business next week, but if not, they better hope someone falls between them and Springfield.   3 losses may be sufficient to keep them ahead of Springfield and outweigh the season series loss (especially since it would be 2-1), but I wouldnt want to sweat that one out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 11:04:02 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 17, 2013, 07:52:43 PM
Just wanted to revisit your thoughts on the NEWMAC.  I think it is safe to say that WPI is in regardless of what they do in the tourney (even if they lost in the tourney, they should be real safe at 23-3 or 24-3). 

Now with regard to MIT and Springfield.  For either team to be in Pool C contention, they will need to pick up another loss, but that loss will be to a RRO.  Do you think MIT, at 20-5 or 21-5 (substract one out of region win), is definitely in at this point?  Also, can you realistically see an 8 loss Springfield team getting in?   Based on last week's regional rankings, I still think Brandeis would probably be ranked ahead of them (their numbers are similar, across the board, but I doubt Brandeis will be penalized for a loss to a good WashU team). 

As an MIT fan, the scenario that makes me most worried would be a case where Brandeis loses to NYU next week, and then Springfield beats MIT but then loses to WPI.  In this scenario, you could see a situation where MIT and Springfield are ranked next to eachother in the NE region rankings, and Springfield gets pushed ahead of MIT because of the 2-1 season advantage.  In that scenario, you could see that ranking keeping both teams out, as an 8 loss Springfield team may not be as competitive to the other region teams without the head-to-head results.  For that reason, MIT needs to take care of business next week, but if not, they better hope someone falls between them and Springfield.   3 losses may be sufficient to keep them ahead of Springfield and outweigh the season series loss (especially since it would be 2-1), but I wouldnt want to sweat that one out.

I agree that WPI is in for sure, whether Pool A or Pool C.  On Springfield/MIT...

With 1-1 in the NEWMAC tournament, I think MIT is safely in.  I have MIT at #8 now, and at 1-1 MIT really wouldn't lose ground to the field -- all teams in the Pool C mix at the end, except the UAAs, will lose another game too.  So even if MIT is really more like 12 now, I think they're pretty secure (with 1-1).  With a loss in the NEWMAC semis to Springfield, things get dicey.

For Springfield the situation isn't quite as positive.  With 1-1 in the conference tournament, I think Springfield would remain on the bubble (I consider spot #13 "the bubble" once you factor in conference tournament upsets), and have a decent chance to get in.  But if Springfield loses to MIT in the semis, I think they move to the wrong side of the bubble. 

Another big factor for Springfield is the regional ranking position relative to Brandeis.  In the third ranking, I predict the following for the top 8 spots in the NE...

1. Amherst
2. WPI
3. Williams
4. Rhode Island
5. MIT
6. Middlebury
7. Springfield
8. Brandeis

If Brandeis stays ahead of Springfield, that would be bad news for coach Brock's team.  I think when the dust settles, one of those two probably gets in as a Pool C, but not both.

Last year there was some kind of confusion about the final NE ranking.  I think it involved Wesleyan -- if I recall, many of us couldn't figure out how Wesleyan didn't get selected for Pool C, and we later speculated that some other team must have been ranked ahead of Wesleyan in the final ranking, and blocked Wesleyan from getting to the table.  Without question the final regional ranking order is huge - I think the Regional Advisory Committees have to really think hard about how the teams will fare in the national Pool C process when they put those rankings together.  I remember 5 years ago when IWU beat Wheaton 3 times, but the Midwest committee ranked Wheaton higher in the final poll...because Wheaton was the better Pool C candidate than IWU.  And they were right.  Wheaton ended up getting in...IWU would have had no chance and would have just sat there on the board and blocked Wheaton from ever being discussed.

Just my take FWIW!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 17, 2013, 11:13:53 PM
I agree with you for the most part (I could see Springfield and Brandeis flipped).

I really hope they take care of business next weekend, but IF MIT were to lose to Springfield, I would almost rather have the Pride win the NEWMAC tourney than possibly block MIT from a Pool C (by being potentially ranked ahead of them in NE region Pool C ranks due to the head-to-head result, although 3 less losses could still keep MIT ahead of them).  Youd think Amherst/Williams/Midd would come off the board real fast, as would WPI, and then just hope RIC is not upset.  In that case, MIT probably gets to the table with at least 10 spots remaining and would have a good chance at a Pool C.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 09:58:17 AM
Regional ranking-type numbers have been updated through Sunday (including results vRRO).

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Bucket on February 18, 2013, 11:22:03 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2013, 11:04:02 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 17, 2013, 07:52:43 PM
Just wanted to revisit your thoughts on the NEWMAC.  I think it is safe to say that WPI is in regardless of what they do in the tourney (even if they lost in the tourney, they should be real safe at 23-3 or 24-3). 

Now with regard to MIT and Springfield.  For either team to be in Pool C contention, they will need to pick up another loss, but that loss will be to a RRO.  Do you think MIT, at 20-5 or 21-5 (substract one out of region win), is definitely in at this point?  Also, can you realistically see an 8 loss Springfield team getting in?   Based on last week's regional rankings, I still think Brandeis would probably be ranked ahead of them (their numbers are similar, across the board, but I doubt Brandeis will be penalized for a loss to a good WashU team). 

As an MIT fan, the scenario that makes me most worried would be a case where Brandeis loses to NYU next week, and then Springfield beats MIT but then loses to WPI.  In this scenario, you could see a situation where MIT and Springfield are ranked next to eachother in the NE region rankings, and Springfield gets pushed ahead of MIT because of the 2-1 season advantage.  In that scenario, you could see that ranking keeping both teams out, as an 8 loss Springfield team may not be as competitive to the other region teams without the head-to-head results.  For that reason, MIT needs to take care of business next week, but if not, they better hope someone falls between them and Springfield.   3 losses may be sufficient to keep them ahead of Springfield and outweigh the season series loss (especially since it would be 2-1), but I wouldnt want to sweat that one out.

I agree that WPI is in for sure, whether Pool A or Pool C.  On Springfield/MIT...

With 1-1 in the NEWMAC tournament, I think MIT is safely in.  I have MIT at #8 now, and at 1-1 MIT really wouldn't lose ground to the field -- all teams in the Pool C mix at the end, except the UAAs, will lose another game too.  So even if MIT is really more like 12 now, I think they're pretty secure (with 1-1).  With a loss in the NEWMAC semis to Springfield, things get dicey.

For Springfield the situation isn't quite as positive.  With 1-1 in the conference tournament, I think Springfield would remain on the bubble (I consider spot #13 "the bubble" once you factor in conference tournament upsets), and have a decent chance to get in.  But if Springfield loses to MIT in the semis, I think they move to the wrong side of the bubble. 

Another big factor for Springfield is the regional ranking position relative to Brandeis.  In the third ranking, I predict the following for the top 8 spots in the NE...

1. Amherst
2. WPI
3. Williams
4. Rhode Island
5. MIT
6. Middlebury
7. Springfield
8. Brandeis


I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 11:33:59 AM
Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2013, 11:22:03 AM
I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)

Based on the updated SOS numbers KnightSlappy just posted, you are probably right.  I was basing my ranking off the following numbers (with SOS through 2/10 as I noted)...

- Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
- Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3

RIC was better in two of the three.

Now, Middlebury's SOS is .534 and RIC's is .530 per KnightSlappy.  That's enough to flip Middlebury back ahead of RIC for me.

Tonight I'll try to update my Pool C projections with the updated SOS...I'm guessing it will have some impact on my order.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 11:42:16 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 11:33:59 AM
Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2013, 11:22:03 AM
I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)

Based on the updated SOS numbers KnightSlappy just posted, you are probably right.  I was basing my ranking off the following numbers (with SOS through 2/10 as I noted)...

- Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
- Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3

RIC was better in two of the three.

Now, Middlebury's SOS is .534 and RIC's is .530 per KnightSlappy.  That's enough to flip Middlebury back ahead of RIC for me.

Tonight I'll try to update my Pool C projections with the updated SOS...I'm guessing it will have some impact on my order.

Also Tufts probably will slide into the rankings which would help out Middlebury.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2013, 12:00:04 PM
I need some perspective on how much difference there is in .004 of an SOS point.  Is 0.004 a statistical "wash"?

0.040 is one loss in a 25 game season.  RIC is "one-half" loss (0.25) behind Middlebury.

Just before he died in 2009, our UAA friend, Pabegg, calculated the difference that one loss would make for me.  Here is that link and his analysis.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.2384


Final edit...

As one looks thru pabegg's numbers, 0.004 is roughly one-half "McMurry" win in North Central's SOS.  Please remember that that SOS calculation did not have a home/away/neutral adjustment. 

Therefore Middlebury is slotted as "one-half Connecticut College win over Westminster PA" better than RIC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Charles on February 18, 2013, 12:05:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2013, 12:00:04 PM
I need some perspective on how much difference there is in .004 of an SOS point.  Is 0.004 a statistical "wash"?

0.040 is one loss in a 25 game season.  RIC is "one-half" loss (0.25) behind Middlebury.

Just before he died in 2009, our UAA friend, Pabegg, calculated the difference that one loss would make for me.  Here is that link and his analysis.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.2384

posts from the grave...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 12:07:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2013, 12:00:04 PM
I need some perspective on how much difference there is in .004 of an SOS point.  Is 0.004 a statistical "wash"?

0.040 is one loss in a 25 game season.  RIC is "one-half" loss (0.25) behind Middlebury.

(Just before he died in 2009, our UAA friend calculated the difference that one loss would make for me.  I am not sure where that is on these boards.  I will try to find that series of posts.)

It really depends on how the committee weighs the WP vs. SOS vs. the other criteria.

The spread in SOS is currently .227 (.612 to .385) and the spread of WP is currently .960 (.960 to .000) so .004 might be like .017 in winning percentage (which would be something like a half a win in a 25 game schedule).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2013, 12:22:31 PM
Quote from: Charles on February 18, 2013, 12:05:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2013, 12:00:04 PM
I need some perspective on how much difference there is in .004 of an SOS point.  Is 0.004 a statistical "wash"?

0.040 is one loss in a 25 game season.  RIC is "one-half" loss (0.25) behind Middlebury.

Just before he died in 2009, our UAA friend, Pabegg, calculated the difference that one loss would make for me.  Here is that link and his analysis.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.2384

posts from the grave...
Requiem in pace, pabegg!

Charles, (and I am not patronizing you) I am assuming that you were not a frequent poster on these boards back in 2009.   :)

Respectfully, pabegg was greatly admired and most deservedly Hall of Fame.  I am sure that he would have loved the discussions about the SOS that is being used this year. He would certainly have been a frequent and astute critic of the process and the outcome.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 18, 2013, 12:51:26 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 11:42:16 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 11:33:59 AM
Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2013, 11:22:03 AM
I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)

Based on the updated SOS numbers KnightSlappy just posted, you are probably right.  I was basing my ranking off the following numbers (with SOS through 2/10 as I noted)...

- Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
- Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3

RIC was better in two of the three.

Now, Middlebury's SOS is .534 and RIC's is .530 per KnightSlappy.  That's enough to flip Middlebury back ahead of RIC for me.

Tonight I'll try to update my Pool C projections with the updated SOS...I'm guessing it will have some impact on my order.

Also Tufts probably will slide into the rankings which would help out Middlebury.

However, Tufts being ranked would not affect the vRRO this week, it would only be considered in next week's rankings.  Thats why there are no vRRO the first week, they only take into account RRO from previous weeks (the same reason why the win over Plattsburgh did not give them a vRRO win last week and will this week).


Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2013, 12:00:04 PM
I need some perspective on how much difference there is in .004 of an SOS point.  Is 0.004 a statistical "wash"?

0.040 is one loss in a 25 game season.  RIC is "one-half" loss (0.25) behind Middlebury.

Just before he died in 2009, our UAA friend, Pabegg, calculated the difference that one loss would make for me.  Here is that link and his analysis.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.2384


Final edit...

As one looks thru pabegg's numbers, 0.004 is roughly one-half "McMurry" win in North Central's SOS.  Please remember that that SOS calculation did not have a home/away/neutral adjustment. 

Therefore Middlebury is slotted as "one-half Connecticut College win over Westminster PA" better than RIC.

I would consider 0.004 of SOS as a wash. Remember, its not just OWP, it also factors OOWP.  So it could also be one of your opponents opponents winning one more game, which seems pretty much negligible.  Remember that all of RICs losses are against teams that are ranked, including the top 2 teams.  I think the additional games against ranked teams gives them an edge.  Middlebury hasnt beaten any of the 12 teams ranked until now, so its hard to gauge where they fall just from the numbers, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 18, 2013, 01:08:56 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 11:33:59 AM
Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2013, 11:22:03 AM
I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)

Based on the updated SOS numbers KnightSlappy just posted, you are probably right.  I was basing my ranking off the following numbers (with SOS through 2/10 as I noted)...

- Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
- Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3

RIC was better in two of the three.

Now, Middlebury's SOS is .534 and RIC's is .530 per KnightSlappy.  That's enough to flip Middlebury back ahead of RIC for me.

Tonight I'll try to update my Pool C projections with the updated SOS...I'm guessing it will have some impact on my order.

You also have to remember that the way Knightslappy is calculating SOS (based on the explanation on the page linked above), is not the way the NCAA is doing it.  Therefore, despite Knightslappy having Midd slightly ahead, when the NCAA comes out with their numbers, RIC could still be ahead.  I think we all agree that the way the NCAA is doing it is incorrect currently (because the home/away multiplier essentially cancels out), but they are still going to be using their numbers when they are making decisions.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WUPHF on February 18, 2013, 01:19:36 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 18, 2013, 12:00:04 PM
Just before he died in 2009, our UAA friend, Pabegg, calculated the difference that one loss would make for me.  Here is that link and his analysis.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.2384

It looks like he is earning karma posthumously.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 01:44:41 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 18, 2013, 01:08:56 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 11:33:59 AM
Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2013, 11:22:03 AM
I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)

Based on the updated SOS numbers KnightSlappy just posted, you are probably right.  I was basing my ranking off the following numbers (with SOS through 2/10 as I noted)...

- Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
- Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3

RIC was better in two of the three.

Now, Middlebury's SOS is .534 and RIC's is .530 per KnightSlappy.  That's enough to flip Middlebury back ahead of RIC for me.

Tonight I'll try to update my Pool C projections with the updated SOS...I'm guessing it will have some impact on my order.

You also have to remember that the way Knightslappy is calculating SOS (based on the explanation on the page linked above), is not the way the NCAA is doing it.  Therefore, despite Knightslappy having Midd slightly ahead, when the NCAA comes out with their numbers, RIC could still be ahead.  I think we all agree that the way the NCAA is doing it is incorrect currently (because the home/away multiplier essentially cancels out), but they are still going to be using their numbers when they are making decisions.

I did change my numbers to match the NCAA, so my calculation method is the same.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 18, 2013, 12:51:26 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 11:42:16 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 11:33:59 AM
Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2013, 11:22:03 AM
I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)

Based on the updated SOS numbers KnightSlappy just posted, you are probably right.  I was basing my ranking off the following numbers (with SOS through 2/10 as I noted)...

- Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
- Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3

RIC was better in two of the three.

Now, Middlebury's SOS is .534 and RIC's is .530 per KnightSlappy.  That's enough to flip Middlebury back ahead of RIC for me.

Tonight I'll try to update my Pool C projections with the updated SOS...I'm guessing it will have some impact on my order.

Also Tufts probably will slide into the rankings which would help out Middlebury.

However, Tufts being ranked would not affect the vRRO this week, it would only be considered in next week's rankings.  Thats why there are no vRRO the first week, they only take into account RRO from previous weeks (the same reason why the win over Plattsburgh did not give them a vRRO win last week and will this week).


Do we know this though? I know it's not displayed on the regional data sheet PDF, but that's because they (i.e. the regional data sheets) are generated prior to the RAC call.

I know there's some ambiguity as to whether or not the RAC's re-consider the teams dynamically or not; I don't think the NCAA has provided a clear answer.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 18, 2013, 02:14:46 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 18, 2013, 12:51:26 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 11:42:16 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 11:33:59 AM
Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2013, 11:22:03 AM
I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)

Based on the updated SOS numbers KnightSlappy just posted, you are probably right.  I was basing my ranking off the following numbers (with SOS through 2/10 as I noted)...

- Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
- Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3

RIC was better in two of the three.

Now, Middlebury's SOS is .534 and RIC's is .530 per KnightSlappy.  That's enough to flip Middlebury back ahead of RIC for me.

Tonight I'll try to update my Pool C projections with the updated SOS...I'm guessing it will have some impact on my order.

Also Tufts probably will slide into the rankings which would help out Middlebury.

However, Tufts being ranked would not affect the vRRO this week, it would only be considered in next week's rankings.  Thats why there are no vRRO the first week, they only take into account RRO from previous weeks (the same reason why the win over Plattsburgh did not give them a vRRO win last week and will this week).


Do we know this though? I know it's not displayed on the regional data sheet PDF, but that's because they (i.e. the regional data sheets) are generated prior to the RAC call.

I know there's some ambiguity as to whether or not the RAC's re-consider the teams dynamic or not; I don't think the NCAA has provided a clear answer.

If there is in fact a week lag then the "final" regional rankings do not include all the data they should. Unless of course they force those results in as well, then it is a consistency of process issue.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2013, 04:06:44 PM
We do know that vRRO is based on the previous regional rankings... not the ones that come out the current week. There is no way for committees to know how a team has done versus an opponent who gets ranked for the first time AFTER the regional rankings are compiled. The data a regional committee is basing decisions on are based through Sunday's games. That means SOS, WP, vRRO and everything else are through Sunday. They then don't ask the other committee might rank teams to add more vRRO decisions and data. In fact, committees won't know how teams are finally ranked until all committee members (except the chairs) vote online after their conference calls on Tuesday morning.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 18, 2013, 04:10:31 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 01:44:41 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 18, 2013, 01:08:56 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 11:33:59 AM
Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2013, 11:22:03 AM
I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. Middlebury has a higher winning percentage, higher strength of schedule, higher RPI. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)

Based on the updated SOS numbers KnightSlappy just posted, you are probably right.  I was basing my ranking off the following numbers (with SOS through 2/10 as I noted)...

- Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.521/1-2
- Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.539/3-3

RIC was better in two of the three.

Now, Middlebury's SOS is .534 and RIC's is .530 per KnightSlappy.  That's enough to flip Middlebury back ahead of RIC for me.

Tonight I'll try to update my Pool C projections with the updated SOS...I'm guessing it will have some impact on my order.

You also have to remember that the way Knightslappy is calculating SOS (based on the explanation on the page linked above), is not the way the NCAA is doing it.  Therefore, despite Knightslappy having Midd slightly ahead, when the NCAA comes out with their numbers, RIC could still be ahead.  I think we all agree that the way the NCAA is doing it is incorrect currently (because the home/away multiplier essentially cancels out), but they are still going to be using their numbers when they are making decisions.

I did change my numbers to match the NCAA, so my calculation method is the same.

Ok, thanks.  I read the explanation at the top of your page and it still sounded the same as before, but I either could have read it wrong or it could have not been updated yet.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2013, 04:11:29 PM
But to expand on Dave's point, I believe the committee chairs have said in the past that for the final selection call, all of that information is then pulled in and considered.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2013, 04:14:12 PM
Yes... the final selection information, the information is updated to reflect all data accordingly and thus why the national committee tends to make changes on the final regional rankings more often than during the previous weeks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 18, 2013, 04:15:08 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2013, 04:11:29 PM
But to expand on Dave's point, I believe the committee chairs have said in the past that for the final selection call, all of that information is then pulled in and considered.

This is reassuring, hopefully they take it a step further and use it to tweak final regional rankings, as they have the power to do. [edit: which Dave has indicated is the case]

I can live with "once ranked, always ranked" but "ranked too late, never ranked" wasn't going to sit well with me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 05:13:48 PM
I'm to the point where I'd just rather go back to QoWI.

The more I learn the more I realize that we have (some/many) poorly conceived criteria implemented in poorer ways and considered differently year-to-year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 08:57:37 PM
I've updated this with KnightSlappy's SOS numbers - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html.  All data below is through Sunday, 2/17.


(Losses from Saturday and Sunday are noted)

Pool C projection
1. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC) - 20-4 (.833)/.578/4-3
2. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.554/3-3
3. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 16-5 (.762)/.566/4-3
4. Washington U. (Midwest, UAA) - 18-5 (.783)/.564/6-4
5. North Central (Midwest, CCIW) - 19-3 (.864)/.527/3-2
6. Emory (South, UAA) - 17-6 (.739)/.554/4-4
7. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.549/3-3 
8. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.534/1-2
9. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.512/4-2
10. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-5 (.800)/.544/3-1
11. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 18-5 (.782)/.541/3-1
12. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.537/2-2
13. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.557/3-5
14. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 16-3 (.842)/.506/3-1  *lost vs Salisbury*
15. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-7 (.708)/.567/3-6  *lost vs Wash U*
16. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-6 (.760)/.531/3-1
17. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.534/2-3
18. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.498/1-2   *lost @ St. Vincent*
19. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.544/2-4
----------
20. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.533/1-4
21. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.524/1-4
22. Whitman (West, NWC) - 15-6 (.714)/.538/2-2
23. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 18-4 (.818)/.514/2-2
24. Eastern Connecticut (Northeast, LEC) - 18-4 (.818)/.499/1-1
25. SUNY-Purchase (Atlantic, Sky) - 20-5 (.800)/.499/1-2
26. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 16-7 (.696)/.545/1-7
27. Augsburg (West, MIAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.504/1-3
28. Concordia-Moorhead (West, MIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.507/2-2
29. Ithaca (East, E8) - 16-8 (.667)/.541/2-3
30. Texas-Dallas (South, ASC) - 19-6 (.760)/.512/0-3
31. Randolph (South, ODAC) - 14-5 (.737)/.485/2-3  *lost @ Randolph-Macon*

Top "Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
Tier one:
1. Amherst (Northeast, NESCAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.571/6-1
2. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 24-1 (.960)/.538/6-1
3. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-3 (.870)/.567/7-2  *lost vs Case Western Reserve*
4. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.584/7-2
5. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.558/4-2
6. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-3 (.857)/.540/5-2
7. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 16-5 (.762)/.550/7-2
8. Whitworth (West, NWC) - 21-3 (.875)/.526/2-2
9. Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 22-3 (.880)/.530/3-3
10. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -20-4 (.833)/.552/3-1  *lost @ DePauw*
11. Alvernia (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 21-4 (.840)/.545/4-2
12. Ramapo (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.519/3-1
13. Catholic (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-3 (.864)/.520/2-2
14. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 21-4 (.840)/.533/3-2
15. Stevens (East, E8) - 19-4 (.826)/.530/3-2  *lost @ St. John Fisher*
16. St. Mary's (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-3 (.850)/.531/3-2
17. Cortland St. (East, SUNYAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.512/3-2

Tier two:
18. Rose-Hulman (Midwest, HCAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.505/1-1
19. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.493/1-1
20. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.444/0-0
21. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-2 (.913)/.492/2-1  *lost @ Sage*
22. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.487/1-2
23. St. Norbert (Midwest, MWC) - 18-5 (.783)/.533/1-2
24. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.562/1-2
25. Hobart (East, LL) - 18-6 (.750)/.537/0-4


Let me know if you find errors in data or if something looks out of whack.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 09:03:13 PM
How did you deal with Randolph-Macon?  I think they could be ranked in the South this week. Obviously they have WP issues, but they have one of the stronger SOS out there. They intrigue me greatly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 09:15:26 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2013, 09:03:13 PM
How did you deal with Randolph-Macon?  I think they could be ranked in the South this week. Obviously they have WP issues, but they have one of the stronger SOS out there. They intrigue me greatly.

Well, I only dealt with teams that were regionally ranked in week 1 or week 2...so I actually never looked at Randolph-Macon. 

Great SOS, and that 12 games played vs RR really stands out...but .625 just seems to low to really be in the Pool C mix in my opinion.

* Randolph-Macon (South, ODAC) - 15-9 (.625)/.568/4-8
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2013, 09:39:22 PM
VaWes is now the #1 seed in the ODAC tourney.  If you call them the Pool A team, how high would Hampden-Sydney be in your Pool C list?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2013, 09:46:17 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2013, 09:39:22 PM
VaWes is now the #1 seed in the ODAC tourney.  If you call them the Pool A team, how high would Hampden-Sydney be in your Pool C list?

Good catch...just adjusted above.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2013, 01:18:48 PM
A lot of games involving regionally ranked teams tonight. I will update tonight or tomorrow morning.  Hopefully for those bubble teams, things go their way!



UPCOMING SCHEDULES FOR REGIONALLY RANKED TEAMS

TEAMS IN BLUE ARE CONFERENCE LEADERS/WINNERS



   ATL                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      UPCOMING SCHEDULE   
   2      1      Old Westbury      SKY      vs. Farmingdale State/Sage winner in SKY semis 2/21   
   1      2      Ramapo      NJAC      vs. William Paterson in NJAC semis 2/19   
   5      3      Rutgers-Newark      NJAC      vs. Richard Stockton in NJAC semis 2/19   
   4      4      Ricard Stockton      NJAC      at Rutgers-Newark in NJAC semis 2/19   
   3      5      SUNY-Purchase      SKY      vs. Mount St. Mary/Yeshiva winner in SKY semis 2/21   
   EAST                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Rochester      UAA       LOST to Case Western Reserve 57-51; at Emory 2/23   
   2      2      SUNY-Cortland      SUNYAC      vs. Oswego/Brockport winner in SUNYAC semis 2/22   
   3      3      Stevens      E8      vs. Utica in E8 semis 2/22   
   5      4      Hobart      LL      vs. Skidmore in LL semis 2/20   
   n/a      5      Plattsburgh St.      SUNYAC      vs. Geneseo/New Paltz winner in SUNYAC semis 2/22   
   n/a      6      Ithaca      E8      vs. Fisher in E8 semis 2/22   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
   4      n/a      NYU      UAA       LOST to Chicago 64-51; vs. Brandeis 2/23   
   6      n/a      SUNY-Geneseo      SUNYAC      vs. New Paltz in SUNYAC quarters 2/19   
   GT LK                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Wooster      NCAC      vs. Oberlin in NCAC quarters 2/19   
   2      2      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      vs. Denison in NCAC quarters 2/19   
   3      3      Thomas More      PrAC      vs. Geneva in PrAC quarters 2/19   
   n/a      4      Capital      OAC      vs. quarterfinal winner in OAC semis 2/21   
   5      5      St. Vincent      PrAC      vs. Westminster/Waynesburg winner in PrAC quarters 2/19   
   4      6      Calvin      MIAA      vs. Adrian in MIAA semis 2/21   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
   6      n/a      Marietta      OAC      vs. quarterfinal winner in OAC semis 2/21   
   MID-ATL                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   4      1      Alvernia      MACC      vs. Stevenson/Elizabethtown winner in MACC semis 2/20   
   1      2      Catholic      LAND      vs. Merchant Marine in LAND semis 2/20   
   3      3      St. Mary's (Md.)      CAC      vs. Frostburg St./Mary Washington winner in CAC semis 2/21   
   2      4      Albright      MACC      vs. Lycoming in MACC semis 2/20   
   5      5      Wesley      CAC      vs. York/Salisbury winner in CAC semis 2/21   
   6      6      Scranton      LAND      vs. Juniata in LAND semis 2/20   
   8      7      Cabrini      CSAC      vs. Neumann in CSAC semis 2/19   
   n/a      8      DeSales      MACF      vs. Fairleigh Dickinson in MACF semis 2/20   
   n/a      9      Dickinson      CC      vs. Johns Hopkins in CC semis 2/22   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
   7      n/a      Arcadia      MACC      vs Stevenson in MACC quarters 2/18   
   9      n/a      Frank & Marsh      CC      vs. Muhlenberg/Gettysburg winner in CC semis 2/22   
   MW                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.          
   1      1      Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      at North Central 2/19   
   4      2      Washington U.      UAA      WON at Brandeis 76-60   
   3      3      Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      at Elmhurst 2/19   
   5      4      North Central (IL)      CCIW      vs. Illinois Wesleyan 2/19   
   2      5      Transylvania      HCAC      vs Mount St. Joseph in HCAC quarters 2/19   
   6      6      Rose-Hulman      HCAC      vs. Defiance/Franklin winner in HCAC semis 2/22   
   7      7      Augustana       CCIW      vs. Millikin 2/19   
   8      8      St. Norbert      MWC      vs. Ripon in MWC semi 2/22   
   NE                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      WPI      NEWMAC      vs. Clark/Babson winner in NEWMAC semis 2/23   
   2      2      Amherst      NESCAC      vs Tufts in NESCAC semis 2/23   
   3      3      Williams      NESCAC      vs. Middlebury in NESCAC semis 2/23   
   4      4      Middlebury      NESCAC      vs. Williams in NESCAC semis 2/23   
   5      5      RIC       LEC      vs. Mass.-Dartmouth in LEC quarters 2/19   
   7      6      MIT      NEWMAC      vs. Wheelock 2/17; vs. Springfield in NEWMAC semis 2/23   
   6      7      Brandeis      UAA        LOST to Washington U 76-60   
   10      8      Springfield      NEWMAC      at MIT in NEWMAC semis 2/23   
   8      9      Curry      CCC      vs. Western New England in CCC quarters 2/19   
   9      10      Westfield St.      MASCAC      vs. Bridgewater St./Fitchburg St. winner in MASCAC semis 2/21   
   11      11      Eastern Conn.      LEC      vs. West. Conn. In LEC quarters 2/19   
   12      12      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      vs. Rivier in GNAC quarters 2/19   
   SOUTH                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      Ham-Syd      ODAC      vs. Roanoke/Bridgewater winner in ODAC quarters 2/22   
   2      2      MHB      ASC      TBA   
   5      3      Emory      UAA      BEAT Carnegie Mellon 84-61   
   6      4      Vir. Wes.      ODAC      vs. East. Mennonite/Washington and Lee winner in ODAC quarters 2/22   
   4      5      Concordia (TX)      ASC      TBA   
   3      6      Chris Newport      USAC      at Ferrum 2/17   
   n/a      7      Randolph      ODAC      vs. Shenandoah/Lynchburg winner in ODAC quarters 2/22   
   n/a      8      Texas-Dallas      ASC      TBA   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
   7      n/a      Lynchburg      ODAC      vs Shenandoah in ODAC 1st Round 2/19   
   8      n/a      Guilford      ODAC      vs. Emory & Henry in ODAC 1st Round  2/19   
   WEST                           
   RNK1      RNK2      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      St. Thomas      MIAC      vs. TBA in MIAC semis 2/22   
   3      2      Stevens Point      WIAC      vs. TBA in WIAC semis 2/21   
   4      3      Whitewater      WIAC      vs. TBA in WIAC semis 2/21   
   2      4      Whitworth      NWC      vs. Lewis & Clark in NWC semis 2/21   
   6      5      Buena Vista      IIAC      vs. Simpson/Dubuque winner in IIAC semis 2/21   
   5      6      Stout      WIAC      vs. Superior in WIAC quarters 2/19   
   9      7      Con-Moorhead      MIAC      vs. TBA in MIAC semis 2/22   
   n/a      8      Whitman      NWC      vs. George Fox in NWC semis (2/21)-assumed   
   7      9      Augsburg      MIAC      vs. St. John's in MIAC quarters 2/20   
                              
               DROPPING OUT               
   8      N/A      Luther      IIAC      vs. Coe/Wartburg winner in IIAC semis 2/21   
                              
[/quote]
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 19, 2013, 01:36:43 PM
Thanks for compiling this. Just wanted to point out that the MIT/Springfield game is on a neutral court (WPI) and MIT defeated Wheelock 76-34.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pjunito on February 19, 2013, 01:50:57 PM
Greek,

Awesome job. I just wanted to say that Albertus fell out of the top 12 and Anna Maria won the regular season conference title.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2013, 06:19:53 AM
Looks like Richard Stockton is the only team that goes to Pool C. 



   ATL                                 
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   2      1            Old Westbury      SKY      vs. Farmingdale State in SKY semis 2/21   
   1      2            Ramapo      NJAC      BEAT William Paterson 83-58; vs. Rutgers-Newark in  Final 2/22   
   5      3            Rutgers-Newark      NJAC      BEAT Richard Stockton 49-46; vs. Ramapo in Final 2/22   
   4      4            Ricard Stockton      NJAC      LOST at Rutgers-Newark 49-46 in semis   
   3      5            SUNY-Purchase      SKY      vs. TBA in SKY semis 2/21   
                                    
   EAST                                 
   RNK1      RNK2            TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1            Rochester      UAA      at Emory 2/23   
   2      2            SUNY-Cortland      SUNYAC      vs. Oswego in SUNYAC semis 2/22   
   3      3            Stevens      E8      vs. Utica in E8 semis 2/22   
   5      4            Hobart      LL      vs. Skidmore in LL semis 2/20   
   n/a      5            Plattsburgh St.      SUNYAC      vs. Geneseo State in SUNYAC semis 2/22   
   n/a      6            Ithaca      E8      vs. Fisher in E8 semis 2/22   
                                    
                     DROPPING OUT               
   4      n/a            NYU      UAA      vs. Brandeis 2/23   
   6      n/a            SUNY-Geneseo      SUNYAC      BEAT New Paltz St. 98-80; vs. Plattsburgh St. in semis 2/22   
                                    
   GT LK                                 
   RNK1      RNK2            TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1            Wooster      NCAC      BEAT Oberlin 74-47; vs. Wittenberg in semis 2/22   
   2      2            Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      BEAT Denison 77-56; vs. Kenyon in semis 2/22   
   3      3            Thomas More      PrAC      BEAT Geneva 82-60; vs. Thiel in semis 2/21   
   n/a      4            Capital      OAC      vs. Mount Union in OAC semis 2/21   
   5      5            St. Vincent      PrAC      BEAT Waynesburg 72-62; vs. Washington and Jefferson in semis 2/21   
   4      6            Calvin      MIAA      vs. Adrian in MIAA semis 2/21   
                                    
                     DROPPING OUT               
   6      n/a            Marietta      OAC      vs. Wilmington in OAC semis 2/21   
                                    
   MID-ATL                                 
   RNK1      RNK2            TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   4      1            Alvernia      MACC      vs. Arcadia in MACC semis 2/20   
   1      2            Catholic      LAND      vs. Merchant Marine in LAND semis 2/20   
   3      3            St. Mary's (Md.)      CAC      vs. Mary Washington in CAC semis 2/21   
   2      4            Albright      MACC      vs. Lycoming in MACC semis 2/20   
   5      5            Wesley      CAC      vs. Salisbury in CAC semis 2/21   
   6      6            Scranton      LAND      vs. Juniata in LAND semis 2/20   
   8      7            Cabrini      CSAC      BEAT Neumann 90-77; at Keystone in Final 2/22   
   n/a      8            DeSales      MACF      vs. Fairleigh Dickinson in MACF semis 2/20   
   n/a      9            Dickinson      CC      vs. Johns Hopkins in CC semis 2/22   
                                    
                     DROPPING OUT               
   7      n/a            Arcadia      MACC      BEAT Stevenson 85-83; at Alvernia in semis 2/20   
   9      n/a            Frank & Marsh      CC      vs. TBA in CC semis 2/22   
                                    
   MW                                 
   RNK1      RNK2            TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1            Illinois Wesleyan      CCIW      LOST at North Central 87-83 OT; vs. Augustana in semis 2/22   
   4      2            Washington U.      UAA      vs. Chicago 2/23   
   3      3            Wheaton (IL)      CCIW      WON at Elmhurst 70-55; vs. North Central in semis 2/22   
   5      4            North Central (IL)      CCIW      BEAT Illinois Wesleyan 87-83 OT; vs Wheaton in semis 2/22   
   2      5            Transylvania      HCAC      BEAT Mount St. Joseph 75-57; vs. Hanover in semis 2/22   
   6      6            Rose-Hulman      HCAC      vs. Defiance in semis 2/22   
   7      7            Augustana       CCIW      BEAT Millikin 64-51; at Illinois Wesleyan in semis 2/22   
   8      8            St. Norbert      MWC      vs. Ripon in MWC semis 2/22   
                                    
   NE                                 
   RNK1      RNK2            TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1            WPI      NEWMAC      vs. TBA in NEWMAC semis 2/23   
   2      2            Amherst      NESCAC      vs. Tufts in NESCAC semis 2/23   
   3      3            Williams      NESCAC      vs. Middlebury in NESCAC semis 2/23   
   4      4            Middlebury      NESCAC      vs. Williams in NESCAC semis 2/23   
   5      5            RIC       LEC      BEAT Mass.-Dartmouth 62-58; vs. Southern Maine in semis 2/22   
   7      6            MIT      NEWMAC      vs. Springfield in NEWMAC semis 2/23   
   6      7            Brandeis      UAA      at NYU 2/23   
   10      8            Springfield      NEWMAC      at MIT in NEWMAC semis 2/23   
   8      9            Curry      CCC      BEAT Western New England 76-54; vs. Eastern Nazerene in semis 2/21   
   9      10            Westfield St.      MASCAC      vs. TBA in MASCAC semis 2/21   
   11      11            Eastern Conn.      LEC      BEAT West. Conn 65-54; vs. Keene State in semis 2/22   
   12      12            Albertus Magnus      GNAC      BEAT Rivier 84-65; vs. Johnson and Wales 2/21   
                                    
   SOUTH                                 
   RNK1      RNK2            TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1            Ham-Syd      ODAC      vs. Roanoke in ODAC quarters 2/22   
   2      2            MHB      ASC      vs. LeTourneau in quarters 2/22   
   5      3            Emory      UAA      BEAT Covenant 75-50; vs. Rochester 2/23   
   6      4            Vir. Wes.      ODAC      vs. Eastern Mennonite in ODAC quarters 2/22   
   4      5            Concordia (TX)      ASC      vs. Mississippi College in quarters 2/22   
   3      6            Chris Newport      USAC      vs. Averett in USAC quarters 2/21   
   n/a      7            Randolph      ODAC      vs. Lynchburg in ODAC quarters 2/22   
   n/a      8            Texas-Dallas      ASC      vs. Schreiner in quarters 2/22   
                                    
                     DROPPING OUT               
   7      n/a            Lynchburg      ODAC      BEAT Shenandoah 90-65; vs. Randolph in quarters 2/22   
   8      n/a            Guilford      ODAC      BEAT Emory & Henry 70-60; vs. Randolph-Macon in quarters 2/22   
                                    
   WEST                                 
   RNK1      RNK2            TEAM      CONF.      SCHEDULE   
   1      1            St. Thomas      MIAC      vs. TBA in MIAC semis 2/22   
   3      2            Stevens Point      WIAC      vs. Platteville in WIAC semis 2/21.   
   4      3            Whitewater      WIAC      vs. Stout in WIAC semis 2/21.   
   2      4            Whitworth      NWC      vs. Lewis & Clark in NWC semis 2/21   
   6      5            Buena Vista      IIAC      vs. Dubuque in IIAC semis 2/21   
   5      6            Stout      WIAC      BEAT Superior 78-64; at Whitewater in semis 2/21   
   9      7            Con-Moorhead      MIAC      vs. TBA in MIAC semis 2/22   
   n/a      8            Whitman      NWC      vs. George Fox in NWC semis 2/21   
   7      9            Augsburg      MIAC      vs. St. John's in MIAC quarters 2/20   
                                    
                     DROPPING OUT               
   8      N/A            Luther      IIAC      vs. Wartburg in IIAC semis 2/21   
                                    
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2013, 12:55:26 PM
The new regional rankings are out.  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 20, 2013, 12:58:55 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2013, 12:55:26 PM
The new regional rankings are out.  ;D

Pretty early this week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2013, 01:04:59 PM
Thanks!

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/20/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3-2013/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: NEPAFAN on February 20, 2013, 01:09:15 PM
Where did Cabrini go?  ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 01:10:53 PM
.473 SOS is hurting them...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: NEPAFAN on February 20, 2013, 01:12:46 PM
That easy to drop out without a loss? Interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 01:16:51 PM
Seen it before... remember the committees basically start from scratch each week (from what I have learned). It isn't like a Top 25 voter like myself who has the previous ballot in front of me and I consider if I want to move up or down or in or out. I believe they really start from scratch and see where teams fit in. Now, I could be wrong and they are starting from the previous ones and going from there - and if that is the case than F&M must have had a stronger argument (SOS) to move them back ahead of Cabrini - who I was surprised was in last week's regional rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 20, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
This is off topic, but when do the women's come out??  I thought they released them together.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2013, 01:37:20 PM
No, two separate groups with two separate people issuing releases.

About Salisbury -- they beat two regionally ranked opponents last week in St. Mary's and Wesley and Wesley is a common opponent that Cabrini lost to this year. Salisbury certainly had a better week than Cabrini did.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2013, 01:52:17 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 20, 2013, 12:58:55 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2013, 12:55:26 PM
The new regional rankings are out.  ;D

Pretty early this week.

About 12:15 last week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2013, 01:54:52 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2013, 01:52:17 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 20, 2013, 12:58:55 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2013, 12:55:26 PM
The new regional rankings are out.  ;D

Pretty early this week.

About 12:15 last week.

It's because they're not even trying anymore, it seems.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2013, 03:12:19 PM
Actually... its because the rankings are done by each region on TUESDAYS and then the national committee gets on a conference call early on Wednesdays and works for a few hours and then finalizes them. The reason they were so late the first week was actually because those at Turner who run the NCAA.com site screwed up and didn't post the rankings in a timely fashion. I promise you the national committee's call has probably ended at roughly the same time each week. These guys have been through a few run-throughs before the first regional rankings week... so it isn't something new to the RACs or the national committee.

I will also say having talked to coaches on regional committees and the national committee over the last decade, they spend countless hours on these things. They take them very seriously and they don't take the responsibility lightly. I am always impressed with those who serve on a committee the first time and see the work being done and have a whole new appreciation for not only the criteria and how their teams are affected by it... but the work these coaches do on a daily and weekly basis. I have yet to find a coach who may not have been complimentary of the ranking system then come back and discount the work or the criteria or the effort when they serve even just one year.

You may think they are not trying... but I dare you to poll these coaches and find that to be true. Just because you don't agree with the position doesn't mean the committees are not trying to do the best job possible.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 07:36:25 AM
Greek Tragedy, thanks for doing this again.  Great stuff.

What is the timeframe on the results you are listing?  Since Sunday?  I plan to update my Pool C projection list later today and just want to be clear on that piece.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hopefan on February 21, 2013, 08:24:53 AM
Agree with TQ, Greek Tragedy... I'm printing out to have at my side as I follow the results of the next 4 days....  this is the best week of the year!!!!!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2013, 08:30:18 AM
Im trying to update the results daily, but the records, SOS and vRRO are all from the NCAA page (results through Sunday) and wont be adjusted. Too much work for me! Sorry.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2013, 09:25:18 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2013, 08:30:18 AM
Im trying to update the results daily, but the records, SOS and vRRO are all from the NCAA page (results through Sunday) and won't be adjusted. Too much work for me! Sorry.

With your permission...
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2013, 05:45:53 AM
UPDATED WITH THIS WEEK'S REGIONAL RANKINGS, SOS and vRRO.  SOS and vRRO are all from the NCAA page (results through Sunday) and won't be adjusted.

POOL C teams in BLUE



   ATL                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      2      1      Ramapo      NJAC      19-3 (.864)      0.517       3-1      BEAT William Paterson 83-58; vs. Rutgers-Newark in  Final 2/22   
   2      1      2      Old Westbury      SKY      21-2 (.913)      0.491       2-1      vs. Farmingdale State in semis 2/21   
   5      3      3      Rutgers-Newark      NJAC      18-6 (.750)      0.534       2-3      BEAT Richard Stockton 49-46; vs. Ramapo in Final 2/22   
   4      4      4      Richard Stockton      NJAC      19-6 (.760)      0.537       1-4      LOST at Rutgers-Newark 49-46 in semis   
   3      5      5      SUNY-Purchase      SKY      20-5 (.800)      0.498       1-2      vs. Mount St. Mary in semis 2/21   
                                                      
   EAST                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Rochester      UAA      20-3 (.870)      0.572       7-2      at Emory 2/23   
   2      2      2      SUNY-Cortland      SUNYAC      21-3 (.875)      0.514       3-2      vs. Oswego St. in semis 2/22   
   3      3      3      Stevens      E8      19-4 (.826)      0.533       3-2      vs. Utica in semis 2/22   
   NR      5      4      Plattsburgh St.      SUNYAC      18-6 (.750)      0.545       2-4      vs. Geneseo State in semis 2/22   
   5      4      5      Hobart      LL      18-6 (.750)      0.538       0-4      BEAT Skidmore 77-72; vs. RPI in Final 2/23   
   NR      NR      6      Oswego State      SUNYAC      18-7 (.720)      0.501       2-5      BEAT Brockport St. 78-66; vs. Cortland St. in semis 2/22   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   NR      6      NR      Ithaca      E8      15-8 (.652)      0.537       2-3      vs. Fisher in E8 semis 2/22   
   4      NR      NR      NYU      UAA      14-10 (.583)      0.58       6-5      vs. Brandeis 2/23   
   6      NR      NR      SUNY-Geneseo      SUNYAC      16-8 (.667)      0.523       2-3      BEAT New Paltz St. 98-80; vs. Plattsburgh St. in semis 2/22   
                                                      
   GT LK                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Wooster      NCAC      20-4 (.833)      0.554       3-1      BEAT Oberlin 74-47; vs. Wittenberg in semis 2/22   
   2      2      2      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC      19-4 (.826)      0.537       2-2      BEAT Denison 77-56; vs. Kenyon in semis 2/22   
   5      5      3      St. Vincent      PrAC      18-3 (.857)      0.495       1-1      BEAT Waynesburg 72-62; vs. Washington and Jefferson in semis 2/21   
   3      3      4      Thomas More      PrAC      20-3 (.870)      0.499       1-2      BEAT Geneva 82-60; vs. Thiel in semis 2/21   
   NR      4      5      Capital      OAC      19-4 (.826)      0.487       1-2      vs. Mount Union in semis 2/21   
   4      6      6      Calvin      MIAA      18-1 (.947)      0.441       0-0      vs. Adrian in semis 2/21   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   6      NR      NR      Marietta      OAC      18-7 (.720)      0.500       1-3      vs. Wilmington in semis 2/21   
                                                      
   MID-ATL                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   4      1      1      Alvernia      MACC      21-4 (.840)      0.549       4-2      BEAT Arcadia 69-66; vs. Lycoming in Final 2/23   
   1      2      2      Catholic      LAND      19-3 (.864)      0.528       2-2      BEAT Merchant Marine 65-57; vs. Juniata in Final 2/23   
   2      4      3      Albright      MACC      20-5 (.800)      0.546       3-1      LOST to Lycoming 80-78 in semis   
   3      3      4      St. Mary's (Md.)      CAC      17-3 (.850)      0.531       3-2      vs. Mary Washington in semis 2/21   
   5      5      5      Wesley      CAC      16-3 (.842)      0.508       3-1      vs. Salisbury in semis 2/21   
   6      6      6      Scranton      LAND      19-6 (.760)      0.530       3-1      LOST to Juniata 84-74 2OT in semis   
   NR      8      7      DeSales      MACF      19-5 (.792)      0.493       1-1      BEAT Fairleigh Dickinson 59-57; vs. Delaware Valley in Final 2/23   
   NR      NR      8      Salisbury      CAC      15-5 (.750)      0.521       3-4      BEAT York (Pa) 80-60; at Wesley in semis 2/21   
   9      NR      9      Frank & Marsh      CC      16-5 (.762)      0.518       2-2      vs. TBA in semis 2/22   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   8      7      NR      Cabrini      CSAC      18-4 (.818)      0.473       0-2      BEAT Neumann 90-77; at Keystone in Final 2/22   
   NR      9      NR      Dickinson      CC      16-7 (.696)      0.513       2-1      vs. Johns Hopkins in semis 2/22   
   7      NR      NR      Arcadia      MACC      15-8 (.652)      0.558       1-4      BEAT Stevenson 85-83; LOST at Alvernia 69-66 in semis   
                                                      
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 11:44:24 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2013, 08:30:18 AM
Im trying to update the results daily, but the records, SOS and vRRO are all from the NCAA page (results through Sunday) and wont be adjusted. Too much work for me! Sorry.

Oh, absolutely.  I just wanted to make sure I knew when these results were from.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 02:07:26 PM
I've updated through Wednesday 2/21.  Notes about the data...

* In-region record is through Wed 2/21
* SOS is through Sun 2/17 (from data sheets)
* Results vs regionally ranked is through Wed 2/21


Pool C projection
1. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC) - 20-4 (.833)/.581/4-3
2. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.556/4-3
3. Washington U. (Midwest, UAA) - 18-5 (.783)/.567/6-4
4. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-5 (.773)/.568/4-3
5. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.536/2-2
6. North Central (Midwest, CCIW) - 20-3 (.870)/.528/4-2
7. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.552/4-3 
8. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.507/4-2
9. Emory (South, UAA) - 18-6 (.750)/.557/4-4
10. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.542/3-1
11. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 20-4 (.833)/.537/2-2
12. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.544/3-1
13. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 16-3 (.842)/.508/4-2 
14. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.545/4-4
15. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.561/3-5
16. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.534/3-3
17. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-7 (.708)/.570/4-6 
18. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 19-6 (.790)/.536/1-4
19. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.499/1-2   
----------
20. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 18-4 (.818)/.514/2-2
21. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.530/3-1
22. Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) – 16-5 (.762)/.521/3-4
23. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.537/1-5
24. Eastern Connecticut (Northeast, LEC) - 19-4 (.826)/.499/1-2
25. Tufts (Northeast, NESCAC) – 16-5 (.762)/.524/0-5
26. SUNY-Purchase (Atlantic, Sky) - 20-5 (.800)/.498/1-2
27. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-7 (.708)/.548/1-7
28. Concordia-Moorhead (West, MIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.507/2-2
29. Augsburg (West, MIAC) - 20-6 (.769)/.505/1-3
30. Whitman (West, NWC) - 15-6 (.714)/.540/2-2
31. Ithaca (East, E8) - 16-8 (.667)/.537/2-4
32. Texas-Dallas (South, ASC) - 19-6 (.760)/.511/0-3
33. Oswego State (East, SUNYAC) – 19-7 (.731)/.501/2-5
34. Randolph (South, ODAC) - 14-5 (.737)/.502/2-3

Top "Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
1. Amherst (Northeast, NESCAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.574/7-1
2. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 24-1 (.960)/.540/6-1
3. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.586/7-2.
4. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-3 (.870)/.572/7-2 
5. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.561/4-2
6. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 16-5 (.762)/.549/7-3
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-4 (.818)/.539/5-3
8. Alvernia (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 22-4 (.846)/.549/4-2
9. Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 23-3 (.885)/.530/3-3
10. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -21-4 (.840)/.554/3-1
11. Whitworth (West, NWC) - 21-3 (.875)/.526/2-2
12. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 21-4 (.840)/.533/3-2
13. St. Mary's (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-3 (.850)/.531/4-3
14. Cortland St. (East, SUNYAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.514/4-3
15. Ramapo (Atlantic, NJAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.517/3-1
16. Stevens (East, E8) - 19-4 (.826)/.533/3-2
17. Catholic (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 20-3 (.870)/.520/2-2
18. Rose-Hulman (Midwest, HCAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.505/1-1
19. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.495/1-1
20. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.487/1-2
21. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.441/0-0
22. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-2 (.913)/.491/2-1
23. St. Norbert (Midwest, MWC) - 18-5 (.783)/.534/1-2
24. Christopher Newport (South, USAC) - 17-5 (.773)/.535/0-2
25. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.561/1-2
26. Hobart (East, LL) - 19-6 (.760)/.538/0-4
27. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atlantic, CC) – 16-5 (.762)/.518/2-2


Let me know if you find Pool A vs Pool C issues, errors in data, or if something looks out of whack.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2013, 04:07:46 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 02:07:26 PM
Let me know if you find Pool A vs Pool C issues, errors in data, or if something looks out of whack.

Whitney Houston once said, "Crack is whack"

BTW, great work. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2013, 04:39:12 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2013, 05:49:10 AM


                                                      
   MW                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      IllinoisWesleyan      CCIW      18-3 (.857)      0.539       5-2      LOST at North Central 87-83 OT; vs. Augustana in semis 2/22   
   4      2      2      Washington U.      UAA      18-5 (.783)      0.567       6-4      vs. Chicago 2/23   
   3      3      3      Wheaton(IL)      CCIW      16-5 (.762)      0.568       4-3      WON at Elmhurst 70-55; vs. North Central in semis 2/22   
   5      4      4      NorthCentral(IL)      CCIW      19-3 (.864)      0.528       3-2      BEAT Illinois Wesleyan 87-83 OT; vs Wheaton in semis 2/22   
   2      5      5      Transylvania      HCAC      18-5 (.783)      0.542       3-1      BEAT Mount St. Joseph 75-57; vs. Hanover in semis 2/22   
   6      6      6      RoseHulman      HCAC      21-3 (.875)      0.505       1-1      vs. Defiance in semis 2/22   
   8      8      7      St.Norbert      MWC      18-5 (.783)      0.534       1-2      vs. Ripon in semis 2/22   
   7      7      8      Augustana       CCIW      16-7 (.696)      0.548       1-7      BEAT Millikin 64-51; at Illinois Wesleyan in semis 2/22   
                                                      
   NE                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   2      2      1      Amherst      NESCAC      23-2 (.920)      0.574       6-1      vs. Tufts in semis 2/23   
   1      1      2      WPI      NEWMAC      23-2 (.920)      0.561       4-2      vs. TBA in semis 2/23   
   3      3      3      Williams      NESCAC      20-3 (.870)      0.556       3-3      vs. Middlebury in semis 2/23   
   5      5      4      RIC       LEC      22-3 (.880)      0.53       3-3      BEAT Mass.-Dartmouth 62-58; vs. Southern Maine in semis 2/22   
   4      4      5      Middlebury      NESCAC      19-2 (.905)      0.536       1-2      vs. Williams in semis 2/23   
   7      6      6      MIT      NEWMAC       19-4 (.826)      0.552       3-3      vs. Springfield in semis 2/23   
   10      8      7      Springfield      NEWMAC      18-7 (.720)      0.561       3-5      at MIT in semis 2/23   
   6      7      8      Brandeis      UAA      17-7 (.708)      0.57       3-6      at NYU 2/23   
   8      9      9      Curry      CCC      18-7 (.720)      0.547       0-4      BEAT Western New England 76-54; vs. Eastern Nazerene in semis 2/21   
   9      10      10      Westfield St.      MASCAC      19-4 (.826)      0.500       1-0      vs. Fitchburg State in semis 2/21   
   11      11      11      Eastern Conn. St.      LEC      18-4 (.818)      0.499       1-1      BEAT West. Conn 65-54; vs. Keene State in semis 2/22   
   NR      NR      12      Tufts      NESCAC      16-5 (.762)      0.524       0-5      vs. Amherst in semis 2/23   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   12      12      NR      Albertus Magnus      GNAC      21-3 (.875)      0.441       0-0      BEAT Rivier 84-65; vs. Johnson and Wales in semis 2/21   
                                                      
   SOUTH                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   6      4      1      Vir. Wes.      ODAC      16-5 (.762)      0.549       7-2      vs. Eastern Mennonite in quarters 2/22   
   1      1      2      Ham-Syd      ODAC      18-3 (.857)      0.507       4-2      vs. Roanoke in quarters 2/22   
   2      2      3      MHB      ASC      21-4 (.840)      0.533       3-2      vs. LeTourneau in quarters 2/22   
   3      6      4      Chris Newport      USAC      17-5 (.773)      0.535       0-2      vs. Averett in quarters 2/21   
   5      3      5      Emory      UAA      17-6 (.739)      0.557       4-4      BEAT Covenant 75-50; vs. Rochester 2/23   
   4      5      6      Concordia (TX)      ASC      18-4 (.818)      0.514       2-2      vs. Mississippi College in quarters 2/22   
   NR      8      7      Texas-Dallas      ASC      19-6 (.760)      0.511       0-3      vs. Schreiner in quarters 2/22   
   NR      7      8      Randolph      ODAC      14-5 (.737)      0.502       2-3      vs. Lynchburg in quarters 2/22   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   7      NR      NR      Lynchburg      ODAC      14-7 (.667)      0.492       1-5      BEAT Shenandoah 90-65; vs. Randolph in quarters 2/22   
   8      NR      NR      Guilford      ODAC      14-8 (.636)      0.520       2-5      BEAT Emory & Henry 70-60; vs. Randolph-Macon in quarters 2/22   
                                                      
   WEST                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      St. Thomas      MIAC      24-1 (.960)      0.54       6-1      vs. TBA in semis 2/22   
   3      2      2      Stevens Point      WIAC      21-4 (.840)      0.586       7-2      vs. Platteville in semis 2/21.   
   4      3      3      Whitewater      WIAC      20-4 (.833)      0.581       4-3      vs. Stout in semis 2/21.   
   2      4      4      Whitworth      NWC      21-3 (.875)      0.526       2-2      vs. Lewis & Clark in semis 2/21   
   6      5      5      Buena Vista      IIAC      18-6 (.750)      0.561       1-2      vs. Dubuque in semis 2/21   
   5      6      6      Stout      WIAC      18-6 (.750)      0.536       1-4      BEAT Superior 78-64; at Whitewater in semis 2/21   
   9      7      7      Con-Moorhead      MIAC      18-6 (.750)      0.507       2-2      vs. TBA in semis 2/22   
   7      9      8      Augsburg      MIAC      19-6 (.760)      0.505       1-3      BEAT St. John's 74-67; vs. Concordia Moorhead in semis 2/22   
   NR      8      9      Whitman      NWC      15-6 (.714)      0.54       2-2      vs. George Fox in semis 2/21   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   8      NR      NR      Luther      IIAC      17-5 (.773)      0.512       1-2      vs. Wartburg in semis 2/21   
                                                      

Funny how it looks nicer in quotes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 07:44:02 PM
Pool C bubble game...

Thiel 39
Thomas More 30 (half)

http://livestats.prestosports.com/thomasmore/mbkb/?e=w3ejnjokxp9bq2ms
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: realist on February 21, 2013, 09:27:08 PM
T. More 86-80 Thiel
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2013, 09:33:37 PM
Platteville 54
Stevens Point 52

2 min to go.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2013, 09:50:06 PM

Down goes Point.

Platteville 60 UWSP 56
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 21, 2013, 09:50:06 PM

Down goes Point.

Platteville 60 UWSP 56

Crazy stuff.

Only a Pool C impact if UW-Whitewater does not win the WIAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2013, 09:51:57 PM

Whitewater 63, Stout 59.


Plateville vs Whitewater for the WIAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 21, 2013, 09:55:07 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 21, 2013, 09:50:06 PM

Down goes Point.

Platteville 60 UWSP 56

Crazy stuff.

Only a Pool C impact if UW-Whitewater does not win the WIAC.

Platteville provides some bad match ups for Stevens Point. All three games were tight... SP won the first, Platteville won the next two.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 21, 2013, 09:51:57 PM

Whitewater 63, Stout 59.


Plateville vs Whitewater for the WIAC.

Big-tme Pool C implications in that one...a UWP win pops a bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2013, 10:01:00 PM

Capital loses to Mount Union in the OAC semis.  That could be another Pool C spot gone.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Rafi on February 21, 2013, 10:06:11 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 02:07:26 PM
I've updated through Wednesday 2/21.  Notes about the data...

* In-region record is through Wed 2/21
* SOS is through Sun 2/17 (from data sheets)
* Results vs regionally ranked is through Wed 2/21


Pool C projection
1. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC) - 20-4 (.833)/.581/4-3
2. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.556/4-3
3. Washington U. (Midwest, UAA) - 18-5 (.783)/.567/6-4
4. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-5 (.773)/.568/4-3
5. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.536/2-2
6. North Central (Midwest, CCIW) - 20-3 (.870)/.528/4-2
7. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.552/4-3 
8. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.507/4-2
9. Emory (South, UAA) - 18-6 (.750)/.557/4-4
10. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.542/3-1
11. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 20-4 (.833)/.537/2-2
12. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.544/3-1
13. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 16-3 (.842)/.508/4-2 
14. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.545/4-4
15. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.561/3-5
16. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.534/3-3
17. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-7 (.708)/.570/4-6 
18. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 19-6 (.790)/.536/1-4
19. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.499/1-2   
----------
20. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 18-4 (.818)/.514/2-2
21. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.530/3-1
22. Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) – 16-5 (.762)/.521/3-4
23. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.537/1-5
24. Eastern Connecticut (Northeast, LEC) - 19-4 (.826)/.499/1-2
25. Tufts (Northeast, NESCAC) – 16-5 (.762)/.524/0-5
26. SUNY-Purchase (Atlantic, Sky) - 20-5 (.800)/.498/1-2
27. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-7 (.708)/.548/1-7
28. Concordia-Moorhead (West, MIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.507/2-2
29. Augsburg (West, MIAC) - 20-6 (.769)/.505/1-3
30. Whitman (West, NWC) - 15-6 (.714)/.540/2-2
31. Ithaca (East, E8) - 16-8 (.667)/.537/2-4
32. Texas-Dallas (South, ASC) - 19-6 (.760)/.511/0-3
33. Oswego State (East, SUNYAC) – 19-7 (.731)/.501/2-5
34. Randolph (South, ODAC) - 14-5 (.737)/.502/2-3

Top "Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
1. Amherst (Northeast, NESCAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.574/7-1
2. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 24-1 (.960)/.540/6-1
3. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.586/7-2.
4. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-3 (.870)/.572/7-2 
5. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.561/4-2
6. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 16-5 (.762)/.549/7-3
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-4 (.818)/.539/5-3
8. Alvernia (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 22-4 (.846)/.549/4-2
9. Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 23-3 (.885)/.530/3-3
10. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -21-4 (.840)/.554/3-1
11. Whitworth (West, NWC) - 21-3 (.875)/.526/2-2
12. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 21-4 (.840)/.533/3-2
13. St. Mary's (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-3 (.850)/.531/4-3
14. Cortland St. (East, SUNYAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.514/4-3
15. Ramapo (Atlantic, NJAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.517/3-1
16. Stevens (East, E8) - 19-4 (.826)/.533/3-2
17. Catholic (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 20-3 (.870)/.520/2-2
18. Rose-Hulman (Midwest, HCAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.505/1-1
19. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.495/1-1
20. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.487/1-2
21. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 18-1 (.947)/.441/0-0
22. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-2 (.913)/.491/2-1
23. St. Norbert (Midwest, MWC) - 18-5 (.783)/.534/1-2
24. Christopher Newport (South, USAC) - 17-5 (.773)/.535/0-2
25. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.561/1-2
26. Hobart (East, LL) - 19-6 (.760)/.538/0-4
27. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atlantic, CC) – 16-5 (.762)/.518/2-2


Let me know if you find Pool A vs Pool C issues, errors in data, or if something looks out of whack.

Q - I'm curious how North Central can drop a spot in your Pool C projections after beating the #1 team in their region?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 21, 2013, 10:10:46 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 21, 2013, 10:01:00 PM

Capital loses to Mount Union in the OAC semis.  That could be another Pool C spot gone.

Maybe, but Q has them only #20 on the 'bubble bursters' list.  I suspect it is more likely that Capital's bubble has burst.

Q, where would you put Capital on the Pool C list?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2013, 10:11:34 PM
I think Capital just shot their tournament hopes out the door... like Scranton probably did last night as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2013, 10:13:32 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2013, 10:11:34 PM
I think Capital just shot their tournament hopes out the door... like Scranton probably did last night as well.

Yeah, I just noticed the sub .500 SOS.  That's going to be a tough sell with five losses.  Scranton might be ahead of them on the list - and I don't think they have a prayer.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2013, 10:15:51 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 21, 2013, 10:10:46 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 21, 2013, 10:01:00 PM

Capital loses to Mount Union in the OAC semis.  That could be another Pool C spot gone.

Maybe, but Q has them only #20 on the 'bubble bursters' list.  I suspect it is more likely that Capital's bubble has burst.

Q, where would you put Capital on the Pool C list?

Capital is done. They're likely behind both the MIAA and PrAC runner(s) up(s) in the final (transparently hidden) rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2013, 10:18:20 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 21, 2013, 10:13:32 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2013, 10:11:34 PM
I think Capital just shot their tournament hopes out the door... like Scranton probably did last night as well.

Yeah, I just noticed the sub .500 SOS.  That's going to be a tough sell with five losses.  Scranton might be ahead of them on the list - and I don't think they have a prayer.

I don't think Scranton thinks they have a prayer :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 10:37:38 PM
Quote from: Rafi on February 21, 2013, 10:06:11 PM
Q - I'm curious how North Central can drop a spot in your Pool C projections after beating the #1 team in their region?

I projected both Wheaton and North Central to move ahead of Wash U in the Week 3 ranking (after Wash U lost @ NYU).  That did not happen...

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/20/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3-2013/

So it's not really that I have NCC "falling", just rather my regional ranking projection was not right.  And I also think Middlebury has moved up by now having 2 wins vs regionally ranked.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 10:39:18 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 21, 2013, 10:01:00 PM

Capital loses to Mount Union in the OAC semis.  That could be another Pool C spot gone.

Capital is done.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2013, 10:51:36 PM
I think Stout is out now. They needed a win over a regionally ranked team like Whitewater.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 10:58:26 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2013, 10:51:36 PM
I think Stout is out now. They needed a win over a regionally ranked team like Whitewater.

Agree...I think Stout is out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 21, 2013, 11:08:52 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2013, 10:18:20 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 21, 2013, 10:13:32 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2013, 10:11:34 PM
I think Capital just shot their tournament hopes out the door... like Scranton probably did last night as well.

Yeah, I just noticed the sub .500 SOS.  That's going to be a tough sell with five losses.  Scranton might be ahead of them on the list - and I don't think they have a prayer.

I don't think Scranton thinks they have a prayer :)

With the Jesuits, we always have a prayer.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Rafi on February 21, 2013, 11:21:09 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 10:37:38 PM
Quote from: Rafi on February 21, 2013, 10:06:11 PM
Q - I'm curious how North Central can drop a spot in your Pool C projections after beating the #1 team in their region?

I projected both Wheaton and North Central to move ahead of Wash U in the Week 3 ranking (after Wash U lost @ NYU).  That did not happen...

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/20/ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3-2013/

So it's not really that I have NCC "falling", just rather my regional ranking projection was not right.  And I also think Middlebury has moved up by now having 2 wins vs regionally ranked.

I was surprised that Wash U. didn't drop in the rankings.....I also thought they would after their loss to NYU. After the rankings came out, I went back to the criteria and tried a couple of things.  I have no idea how the committee 'blends' the criteria to rank the teams, but if they do something like ranking each criterion 1-8 (WvRRO is obviously harder to do this than with the others) and assigning that numeric value to each, AND then adding up what those total values are for each team......Wash U. would stay where they are doing this.  Whether college bball coaches put that much math into it might be questionable.

If IWU wins the conference tournament, they'll obviously stay on top of the rankings.  What will be interesting is what happens to North Central if they win the tournament.....their region win% would increase, their SOS would increase and their WvRRO would go to 6-2.  AND, I think Carroll might be on the cusp of entering the regional rankings if they do some damage in their conf tournament, which would take NCC's WvRRO to 7-2.

Obviously if NCC wins the tournament, they'll move from Pool C to Pool A, but I like to talk about the regional rankings.......because they not only have Pool C implications but hosting implications as well.  How they come up with the order is interesting and sometimes puzzling.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2013, 11:39:28 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 11:18:59 PM
Updated through Thursday 2/21.  Notes about the data...

* In-region record is through Thursday 2/21
* SOS is through Sun 2/17 (from data sheets)
* Results vs regionally ranked is through Thursday 2/21


Pool C projection
1. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.556/4-3
2. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.586/7-2
3. Washington U. (Midwest, UAA) - 18-5 (.783)/.567/6-4
4. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-5 (.773)/.568/4-3
5. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.536/2-2
6. North Central (Midwest, CCIW) - 20-3 (.870)/.528/4-2
7. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.552/4-3 
8. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.507/4-2
9. Emory (South, UAA) - 18-6 (.750)/.557/4-4
10. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.542/3-1
11. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 20-4 (.833)/.537/2-2
12. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.544/3-1
13. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-3 (.850)/.508/5-2 
14. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.545/4-4
15. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.561/3-5
16. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.534/3-3
17. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-7 (.708)/.570/4-6 
18. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 22-3 (.880)/.499/1-2   
19. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 18-4 (.818)/.514/2-2
----------
20. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.530/3-1
21. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/1-5
22. Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.521/3-5
23. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.537/1-5
24. Eastern Connecticut (Northeast, LEC) - 19-4 (.826)/.499/1-2
25. Tufts (Northeast, NESCAC) – 16-5 (.762)/.524/0-5
26. SUNY-Purchase (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-5 (.808)/.498/1-2
27. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.487/1-2
28. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-7 (.708)/.548/1-7
29. Concordia-Moorhead (West, MIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.507/2-2
30. Augsburg (West, MIAC) - 20-6 (.769)/.505/1-3
31. Whitman (West, NWC) - 15-6 (.714)/.540/2-2 *game in progress*
32. Ithaca (East, E8) - 16-8 (.667)/.537/2-4
33. Texas-Dallas (South, ASC) - 19-6 (.760)/.511/0-3
34. Oswego State (East, SUNYAC) – 19-7 (.731)/.501/2-5
35. Randolph (South, ODAC) - 14-5 (.737)/.502/2-3

Top "Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
1. Amherst (Northeast, NESCAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.574/7-1
2. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 24-1 (.960)/.540/6-1
3. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-3 (.870)/.572/7-2 
4. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.581/5-3
5. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.561/4-2
6. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 16-5 (.762)/.549/7-3
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-4 (.818)/.539/5-3
8. Alvernia (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 22-4 (.846)/.549/4-2
9. Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 23-3 (.885)/.530/3-3
10. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -21-4 (.840)/.554/3-1
11. Whitworth (West, NWC) - 21-3 (.875)/.526/2-2  *game in progress*
12. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 21-4 (.840)/.533/3-2
13. St. Mary's (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.531/4-3
14. Cortland St. (East, SUNYAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.514/4-3
15. Ramapo (Atlantic, NJAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.517/3-1
16. Stevens (East, E8) - 19-4 (.826)/.533/3-2
17. Catholic (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 20-3 (.870)/.520/2-2
18. Rose-Hulman (Midwest, HCAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.505/1-1
19. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.495/1-1
20. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 19-1 (.950)/.441/0-0
21. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.491/2-1
22. St. Norbert (Midwest, MWC) - 18-5 (.783)/.534/1-2
23. Christopher Newport (South, USAC) - 18-5 (.783)/.535/0-2
24. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.561/1-2
25. Hobart (East, LL) - 19-6 (.760)/.538/0-4
26. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atlantic, CC) – 16-5 (.762)/.518/2-2


Let me know if you find Pool A vs Pool C issues, errors in data, or if something looks out of whack.

Are you only including ranked teams? Seems to me that Hope should be in your top 35 Pool C mix. I think they'll be ahead of Capital in the GL even if they lose to Calvin in the MIAA finals.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 11:53:37 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2013, 11:39:28 PM
Are you only including ranked teams? Seems to me that Hope should be in your top 35 Pool C mix. I think they'll be ahead of Capital in the GL even if they lose to Calvin in the MIAA finals.

Yes, I've only been including regionally ranked teams (teams appearing in at least 1 of the 3 rankings).  But I went back and added Hope...and actually have them #20.

Interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2013, 11:57:13 PM
SUNY-Old Westbury lost today so they move to the Pool C side of things.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2013, 11:59:15 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 11:53:37 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2013, 11:39:28 PM
Are you only including ranked teams? Seems to me that Hope should be in your top 35 Pool C mix. I think they'll be ahead of Capital in the GL even if they lose to Calvin in the MIAA finals.

Yes, I've only been including regionally ranked teams (teams appearing in at least 1 of the 3 rankings).  But I went back and added Hope...and actually have them #20.

Interesting.

Where would you be slotting Calvin right now if they were a C? And how would that change if they end up getting a 1-2 vRRO from Hope getting ranked?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2013, 11:59:39 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2013, 11:57:13 PM
SUNY-Old Westbury lost today so they move to the Pool C side of things.

Just added...I have them right on the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2013, 12:02:42 AM
My kind of funky equation is saying this:

UW-Stevens Point
Williams
Washington U.
Middlebury
North Central (Ill.)
MIT
Wesley
Wheaton (Ill.)
Brandeis
Hampden-Sydney
Ohio Wesleyan
Emory
Plattsburgh State
Transylvania
UW-Platteville
Springfield
Albright
SUNY-Old Westbury
Thomas More
-----
Randolph-Macon
Rutgers-Newark
Concordia (Texas)
Richard Stockton
UW-Stout

Though I doubt UW-Platteville and Randolph-Macon would be considered so highly by the committee.

Also should be noted that we're mixing teams that are done with teams that are yet to lose.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2013, 12:06:31 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2013, 11:59:15 PM

Where would you be slotting Calvin right now if they were a C? And how would that change if they end up getting a 1-2 vRRO from Hope getting ranked?

Here is the tough thing.  Every time I do my list, I want to have Calvin higher on the "bubble burster" list...maybe at about 5 spots higher.  But because of the regional rankings, I can't move Calvin higher than St. Vincent...and I like where I have St. Vincent.

If Calvin got that 1-2 vs RR I think they'd move into the #4-spot in the Great Lakes, and I'd have them safely in Pool C.  Maybe in the 13-14 range.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2013, 12:14:52 AM
Updated through Thursday 2/21.  Notes about the data...

* In-region record is through Thursday 2/21
* SOS is through Sun 2/17 (from data sheets)
* Results vs regionally ranked is through Thursday 2/21


Pool C projection
1. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.556/4-3
2. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.586/7-2
3. Washington U. (Midwest, UAA) - 18-5 (.783)/.567/6-4
4. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-5 (.773)/.568/4-3
5. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.536/2-2
6. North Central (Midwest, CCIW) - 20-3 (.870)/.528/4-2
7. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.552/4-3 
8. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.507/4-2
9. Emory (South, UAA) - 18-6 (.750)/.557/4-4
10. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.542/3-1
11. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 20-4 (.833)/.537/2-2
12. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.544/3-1
13. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-3 (.850)/.508/5-2 
14. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.545/4-4
15. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.561/3-5
16. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.534/3-3
17. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-7 (.708)/.570/4-6 
18. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 22-3 (.880)/.499/1-2   
19. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 18-4 (.818)/.514/2-2
----------
20. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.491/2-1
21. Hope (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 15-5 (.750)/.533/1-3  not currently ranked in the GL
22. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.530/3-1
23. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/1-5
24. Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.521/3-5
25. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.537/1-5
26. Eastern Connecticut (Northeast, LEC) - 19-4 (.826)/.499/1-2
27. Tufts (Northeast, NESCAC) – 16-5 (.762)/.524/0-5
28. SUNY-Purchase (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-5 (.808)/.498/1-2
29. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.487/1-2
30. Whitman (West, NWC) - 16-6 (.727)/.540/2-2
31. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-7 (.708)/.548/1-7
32. Concordia-Moorhead (West, MIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.507/2-2
33. Augsburg (West, MIAC) - 20-6 (.769)/.505/1-3
34. Ithaca (East, E8) - 16-8 (.667)/.537/2-4
35. Texas-Dallas (South, ASC) - 19-6 (.760)/.511/0-3
36. Oswego State (East, SUNYAC) – 19-7 (.731)/.501/2-5
37. Randolph (South, ODAC) - 14-5 (.737)/.502/2-3

Top "Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
Would definitely fit in the top 19 above...
1. Amherst (Northeast, NESCAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.574/7-1
2. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 24-1 (.960)/.540/6-1
3. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-3 (.870)/.572/7-2 
4. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.581/5-3
5. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.561/4-2
6. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 16-5 (.762)/.549/7-3
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-4 (.818)/.539/5-3
8. Alvernia (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 22-4 (.846)/.549/4-2
9. Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 23-3 (.885)/.530/3-3
10. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -21-4 (.840)/.554/3-1
11. Whitworth (West, NWC) - 22-3 (.880)/.526/2-2 
12. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 21-4 (.840)/.533/3-2
13. St. Mary's (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.531/4-3
14. Cortland St. (East, SUNYAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.514/4-3
15. Ramapo (Atlantic, NJAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.517/3-1
16. Stevens (East, E8) - 19-4 (.826)/.533/3-2
17. Catholic (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 20-3 (.870)/.520/2-2

Would fit right at the end of the bubble (near spot 19)...
18. Rose-Hulman (Midwest, HCAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.505/1-1
19. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.495/1-1
20. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 19-1 (.950)/.441/0-0

Would be outside the top 19...
21. St. Norbert (Midwest, MWC) - 18-5 (.783)/.534/1-2
22. Christopher Newport (South, USAC) - 18-5 (.783)/.535/0-2
23. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.561/1-2
24. Hobart (East, LL) - 19-6 (.760)/.538/0-4
25. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atlantic, CC) – 16-5 (.762)/.518/2-2


Let me know if you find Pool A vs Pool C issues, errors in data, or if something looks out of whack.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2013, 05:54:57 AM
RESULTS THROUGH THURSDAY

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2013, 05:45:42 AM
I HAVE ADJUSTED THE REGIONAL RECORD AND THE vRRO FOR ONLY TEAMS THAT HAVE THEIR SEASONS COMPLETE.  IF THEY ARE STILL PLAYING, I HAVE NOT ADJUSTED THEIR RECORDS.




   ATL                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      2      1      Ramapo      NJAC      19-3       0.517       3-1      BEAT William Paterson 83-58; vs. Rutgers-Newark in  Final 2/22   
   2      1      2      Old.Westbury      SKY      21-3      0.491       2-1      LOST to Farmingdale State 81-69 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   5      3      3      Rutgers.Newark      NJAC      18-6       0.534       2-3      BEAT Richard Stockton 49-46; vs. Ramapo in Final 2/22   
   4      4      4      RicardStockton      NJAC      19-7      0.537       1-5      LOST at Rutgers-Newark 49-46 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   3      5      5      SUNYPurchase      SKY      20-5       0.498       1-2      BEATMount St. Mary 57-48; vs. Farmingdale State in Final 2/23   
                                                      
   EAST                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Rochester      UAA      20-3       0.572       7-2      at Emory 2/23   
   2      2      2      SUNY.Cortland      SUNYAC      21-3       0.514       3-2      vs. Oswego St. in semis 2/22   
   3      3      3      Stevens      E8      19-4       0.533       3-2      vs. Utica in semis 2/22   
   NR      5      4      Plattsburgh.State      SUNYAC      18-6       0.545       2-4      vs. Geneseo State in semis 2/22   
   5      4      5      Hobart      LL      18-6       0.538       0-4      BEATSkidmore 77-72; vs. RPI in Final 2/23   
   NR      NR      6      Oswego.State      SUNYAC      18-7       0.501       2-5      BEAT Brockport St. 78-66; vs. Cortland St. in semis 2/22   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   NR      6      NR      Ithaca      E8      15-8       0.537       2-3      vs. Fisher in E8 semis 2/22   
   4      NR      NR      NYU      UAA      14-10       0.58       6-5      vs. Brandeis 2/23   
   6      NR      NR      SUNY.Geneseo      SUNYAC      16-8       0.523       2-3      BEAT New Paltz St. 98-80; vs. Plattsburgh St. in semis 2/22   
                                                      
   GT LK                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Wooster      NCAC      20-4       0.554       3-1      BEAT Oberlin 74-47; vs. Wittenberg in semis 2/22   
   2      2      2      Ohio.Wesleyan      NCAC      19-4       0.537       2-2      BEAT Denison 77-56; vs. Kenyon in semis 2/22   
   5      5      3      St.Vincent      PrAC      18-3       0.495       1-1      BEAT Waynesburg 72-62; BEAT  Washington and Jefferson 85-75; vs. Thomas More in Final 2/23   
   3      3      4      Thomas.More      PrAC      20-3       0.499       1-2      BEAT Geneva 82-60; BEAT Thiel 86-80; vs. St. Vincent in Final 2/23   
   NR      4      5      Capital      OAC      19-5      0.487       1-2      LOST Mount Union 63-59 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   4      6      6      Calvin      MIAA      18-1       0.441       0-0       BEAT  Adrian 71-44; vs. Hope in Final 2/23   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   6      NR      NR      Marietta      OAC      18-7       0.500       1-3       BEAT   Wilmington 111-106 3 OT; vs. Mount Union in Final 2/23   
                                                      
   MID-ATL                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   4      1      1      Alvernia      MACC      21-4       0.549       4-2      BEAT Arcadia 69-66; vs. Lycoming in Final 2/23   
   1      2      2      Catholic      LAND      19-3       0.528       2-2      BEAT Merchant Marine 65-57; vs. Juniata in Final 2/23   
   2      4      3      Albright      MACC      20-6      0.546       3-1      LOST to Lycoming 80-78 SEASON COMPLETE   
   3      3      4      St.Mary's(Md.)      CAC      17-3       0.531       3-2      BEAT  Mary Washington 89-81; vs. Wesley in Final 2/23   
   5      5      5      Wesley      CAC      16-3       0.508       3-1      BEAT   Salisbury 73-66; vs. St. Mary's in Final 2/23   
   6      6      6      Scranton      LAND      19-7      0.530       3-1       LOST to Juniata 84-74 2OT  SEASON COMPLETE   
   NR      8      7      DeSales      MACF      19-5       0.493       1-1      BEAT Fairleigh Dickinson 59-57; vs. Delaware Valley in Final 2/23   
   NR      NR      8      Salisbury       CAC      15-6      0.521       3-5      BEAT York (Pa) 80-60; LOST at Wesley 73-66 in semis   SEASON COMPLETE     
   9      NR      9      Frank&Marsh      CC      16-5       0.518       2-2      vs. Muhlenberg in semis 2/22   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   8      7      NR      Cabrini      CSAC      18-4       0.473       0-2      BEAT Neumann 90-77; at Keystone in Final 2/22   
   NR      9      NR      Dickinson      CC      16-7      0.513       2-1      vs. Johns Hopkins in semis 2/22   
   7      NR      NR      Arcadia      MACC      15-9      0.558       1-5      BEAT Stevenson 85-83; LOST at Alvernia 69-66 SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2013, 05:55:40 AM
RESULTS THROUGH THURSDAY

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2013, 05:47:07 AM
I HAVE ADJUSTED THE REGIONAL RECORD AND THE vRRO FOR ONLY TEAMS THAT HAVE THEIR SEASONS COMPLETE.  IF THEY ARE STILL PLAYING, I HAVE NOT ADJUSTED THEIR RECORDS.




                                                      
   MW                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Illinois.Wesleyan      CCIW      18-3      0.539       5-2      LOST at North Central 87-83 OT; vs. Augustana in semis 2/22   
   4      2      2      WashingtonU.      UAA      18-5      0.567       6-4      vs. Chicago 2/23   
   3      3      3      Wheaton.(IL)      CCIW      16-5      0.568       4-3      BEAT at Elmhurst 70-55; vs. North Central in semis 2/22   
   5      4      4      North Central.(IL)      CCIW      19-3      0.528       3-2      BEAT Illinois Wesleyan 87-83 OT; vs Wheaton in semis 2/22   
   2      5      5      Transylvania      HCAC      18-5      0.542       3-1      BEAT Mount St. Joseph 75-57; vs. Hanover in semis 2/22   
   6      6      6      Rose.Hulman      HCAC      21-3      0.505       1-1      vs. Defiance in semis 2/22   
   8      8      7      St.Norbert      MWC      18-5      0.534       1-2      vs. Ripon in semis 2/22   
   7      7      8      Augustana       CCIW      16-7      0.548       1-7      BEAT Millikin 64-51; at Illinois Wesleyan in semis 2/22   
                                                      
   NE                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   2      2      1      Amherst      NESCAC      23-2      0.574       6-1      vs. Tufts in semis 2/23   
   1      1      2      WPI      NEWMAC      23-2      0.561       4-2      vs. TBA in semis 2/23   
   3      3      3      Williams      NESCAC      20-3      0.556       3-3      vs. Middlebury in semis 2/23   
   5      5      4      RIC       LEC      22-3      0.53       3-3      BEAT Mass.-Dartmouth 62-58; vs. Southern Maine in semis 2/22   
   4      4      5      Middlebury      NESCAC      19-2      0.536       1-2      vs. Williams in semis 2/23   
   7      6      6      MIT      NEWMAC      19-4      0.552       3-3      vs. Springfield in semis 2/23   
   10      8      7      Springfield      NEWMAC      18-7      0.561       3-5      at MIT in semis 2/23   
   6      7      8      Brandeis      UAA      17-7      0.57       3-6      at NYU 2/23   
   8      9      9      Curry      CCC      18-7      0.547       0-4      BEAT Western New England 76-54;  BEAT Eastern Nazerene 82-76; vs. Gordon in Final 2/23   
   9      10      10      Westfield State      MASCAC      19-5      0.500       1-0      LOST to Fitchburg State 68-61 in semis  SEASON COMPLETE   
   11      11      11      East.Conn.State      LEC      18-4      0.499       1-1      BEAT West. Conn 65-54; vs. Keene State in semis 2/22   
   NR      NR      12      Tufts      NESCAC      16-5      0.524       0-5      vs. Amherst in semis 2/23   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   12      12      NR      Albertus.Magnus      GNAC      21-3      0.441       0-0      BEAT Rivier 84-65; BEAT Johnson and Wales 104-77; vs. Anna Maria in Final 2/23   
                                                      
   SOUTH                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   6      4      1      Virginia.Wesleyan      ODAC      16-5      0.549       7-2      vs. Eastern Mennonite in quarters 2/22   
   1      1      2      Hampden.Sydney      ODAC      18-3      0.507       4-2      vs. Roanoke in quarters 2/22   
   2      2      3      MHB      ASC      21-4      0.533       3-2      vs. LeTourneau in quarters 2/22   
   3      6      4      Chris.Newport      USAC      17-5      0.535       0-2       BEAT Averett 74-58; vs. North Carolina Wesleyan in semis 2/22   
   5      3      5      Emory      UAA      17-6      0.557       4-4      BEAT Covenant 75-50; vs. Rochester 2/23   
   4      5      6      Concordia(TX)      ASC      18-4      0.514       2-2      vs. Mississippi College in quarters 2/22   
   NR      8      7      Texas.Dallas      ASC      19-6      0.511       0-3      vs. Schreiner in quarters 2/22   
   NR      7      8      Randolph      ODAC      14-5      0.502       2-3      vs. Lynchburg in quarters 2/22   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   7      NR      NR      Lynchburg      ODAC      14-7      0.492       1-5      BEAT Shenandoah 90-65; vs. Randolph in quarters 2/22   
   8      NR      NR      Guilford      ODAC      14-8      0.520       2-5      BEAT Emory & Henry 70-60; vs. Randolph-Macon in quarters 2/22   
                                                      
   WEST                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      St.Thomas      MIAC      24-1      0.540       6-1      vs. Carleton in semis 2/22   
   3      2      2      Stevens.Point      WIAC      21-5      0.586       7-2      LOST to Platteville 60-56 in semis  SEASON COMPLETE   
   4      3      3      Whitewater      WIAC      20-4      0.581       4-3      BEAT Stout 64-59; vs. Platteville in Final 2/23   
   2      4      4      Whitworth      NWC      21-3      0.526       2-2      BEAT Lewis & Clark 74-69; vs. Whitman in Final 2/23   
   6      5      5      Buena.Vista      IIAC      18-6      0.561       1-2      vs. Dubuque in semis 2/22   
   5      6      6      Stout      WIAC      18-7      0.536       1-5      BEAT Superior 78-64; LOST at Whitewater 64-59 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   9      7      7      Con.Moorhead      MIAC      18-6      0.507       2-2      vs. Augsburg in semis 2/22   
   7      9      8      Augsburg      MIAC      19-6      0.505       1-3      BEAT St. John's 74-67; vs. Concordia Moorhead in semis 2/22   
   NR      8      9      Whitman      NWC      15-6      0.540       2-2       BEAT George Fox 90-78; vs. Whitworth in Final 2/23   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   8      NR      NR      Luther      IIAC      17-5      0.512       1-2      vs. Wartburg in semis 2/22   
                                                      
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2013, 09:30:02 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2013, 12:06:31 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2013, 11:59:15 PM

Where would you be slotting Calvin right now if they were a C? And how would that change if they end up getting a 1-2 vRRO from Hope getting ranked?

Here is the tough thing.  Every time I do my list, I want to have Calvin higher on the "bubble burster" list...maybe at about 5 spots higher.  But because of the regional rankings, I can't move Calvin higher than St. Vincent...and I like where I have St. Vincent.

If Calvin got that 1-2 vs RR I think they'd move into the #4-spot in the Great Lakes, and I'd have them safely in Pool C.  Maybe in the 13-14 range.

If Hope beats Calvin tomorrow night, they (i.e. Hope) will certainly be ranked in the Great Lakes (they have a good chance of being ranked even if they lose). So, when it comes to possible Pool C consideration for Calvin, I think we'll want to include a 1-2 vRRO. Of course, Calvin will win tomorrow night so this is all academic.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on February 22, 2013, 09:57:35 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2013, 09:30:02 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2013, 12:06:31 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2013, 11:59:15 PM

Where would you be slotting Calvin right now if they were a C? And how would that change if they end up getting a 1-2 vRRO from Hope getting ranked?

Here is the tough thing.  Every time I do my list, I want to have Calvin higher on the "bubble burster" list...maybe at about 5 spots higher.  But because of the regional rankings, I can't move Calvin higher than St. Vincent...and I like where I have St. Vincent.

If Calvin got that 1-2 vs RR I think they'd move into the #4-spot in the Great Lakes, and I'd have them safely in Pool C.  Maybe in the 13-14 range.

If Hope beats Calvin tomorrow night, they (i.e. Hope) will certainly be ranked in the Great Lakes (they have a good chance of being ranked even if they lose). So, when it comes to possible Pool C consideration for Calvin, I think we'll want to include a 1-2 vRRO. Of course, Calvin will win tomorrow night so this is all academic.  :)

Calvin can get RRO results and wind up looking better for selection and seeding but probably only if they lose tomorrow.  How asinine is that?  I really just can't get over how badly the GL RAC has bungled the treatment of Calvin. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 22, 2013, 10:44:00 AM
This is how I see the Pool C bids lining up.  I'm heavily leaning on previous postings from Titan Q and Greek Tragedy.   Let me know what your thoughts are ....

--- NCAA bid seems certain: ----
1.   2nd NESCAC team:  Williams/Amherst/Middlebury
2.   3rd NESCAC team:  Williams/Amherst/Middlebury
3.   2nd NEWMAC team:  MIT/WPI
4.   2nd UAA team:  Rochester/Washington/Emory
5.   3rd UAA team:  Rochester/Washington/Emory
6.   2nd WIAC team:  Stevens Point
7.   2nd CCIW team:  Illinois Wesleyan/Wheaton/North Central
8.   3rd CCIW team:  Illinois Wesleyan/Wheaton/North Central
9.   2nd ODAC team:  Virginia Wesleyan/ Hampden-Sydney
--- Bid seems certain, if no AQ ---------------------------------------------------
10.   Whitewater, if no AQ
11.   St. Thomas, if no AQ
12.   Alvernia, if no AQ
13.   Rhode Island College, if no AQ
14.   Whitworth, if no AQ
15.   Mary Hardin-Baylor, if no AQ
16.   Cortland State, if no AQ
17.   Ramapo, if no AQ
18.   Stevens, if no AQ
19.   Catholic, if no AQ
--- These teams have a solid chance ---------------------------------------------------
20.   2nd HCAC team:  Transylvania/ Rose-Hulman?
21.   2nd NCAC team:  Wooster/Ohio Wesleyan?
22.   2nd CAC team:  Wesley/St. Mary's?
23.   2nd PrAC team: St. Vincent/ Thomas More?
24.   Albright?
25.   Plattsburgh State?
26.   Springfield?
27.   Rutgers-Newark?
28.   Brandeis?
29.   Concordia (TX)?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 22, 2013, 11:02:37 AM
I think Wooster's a lock even if they lose the AQ.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on February 22, 2013, 11:04:15 AM
I think you can pretty much lock up a spot for Wooster.  The Scots lost right before the first rankings came out and were still ranked first in the GL. Then they lost again and still wouldn't be budged from that top spot.  It seems Wooster has lapped the field in the GL region according to the committee.  Even if #2 OWU were to beat Wooster in the NCAC tournament, Wooster would still hold a 2-1 season h2h advantage.  All of that is to say that I don't think Wooster can be moved from the top ranking in the GL (and certainly not the highest available at-large team), and would be available immediately for at-large selection and there's just no way that they'd be passed up 19 times. 

OWU isn't quite as sure a thing if they don't win the NCAC tournament, but probably still in decent shape.  Again, given OWU's placement in the GL rankings, they'll be on the board early, if not immediately.  And then it's hard to find 19 teams that would be selected in front of OWU. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2013, 11:04:43 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 22, 2013, 11:02:37 AM
I think Wooster's a lock even if they lose the AQ.

Yeah, I'd put Wooster smack between Whitworth and UMHB on the above list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Charles on February 22, 2013, 12:39:04 PM
Quote from: algernon on February 22, 2013, 10:44:00 AM
This is how I see the Pool C bids lining up.  I'm heavily leaning on previous postings from Titan Q and Greek Tragedy.   Let me know what your thoughts are ....

--- NCAA bid seems certain: ----
1.   2nd NESCAC team:  Williams/Amherst/Middlebury
2.   3rd NESCAC team:  Williams/Amherst/Middlebury
3.   2nd NEWMAC team:  MIT/WPI
4.   2nd UAA team:  Rochester/Washington/Emory
5.   3rd UAA team:  Rochester/Washington/Emory
6.   2nd WIAC team:  Stevens Point
7.   2nd CCIW team:  Illinois Wesleyan/Wheaton/North Central
8.   3rd CCIW team:  Illinois Wesleyan/Wheaton/North Central
9.   2nd ODAC team:  Virginia Wesleyan/ Hampden-Sydney
--- Bid seems certain, if no AQ ---------------------------------------------------
10.   Whitewater, if no AQ
11.   St. Thomas, if no AQ
12.   Alvernia, if no AQ
13.   Rhode Island College, if no AQ
14.   Whitworth, if no AQ
15.   Mary Hardin-Baylor, if no AQ
16.   Cortland State, if no AQ
17.   Ramapo, if no AQ
18.   Stevens, if no AQ
19.   Catholic, if no AQ
--- These teams have a solid chance ---------------------------------------------------
20.   2nd HCAC team:  Transylvania/ Rose-Hulman?
21.   2nd NCAC team:  Wooster/Ohio Wesleyan?
22.   2nd CAC team:  Wesley/St. Mary's?
23.   2nd PrAC team: St. Vincent/ Thomas More?
24.   Albright?
25.   Plattsburgh State?
26.   Springfield?
27.   Rutgers-Newark?
28.   Brandeis?
29.   Concordia (TX)?

3 UAA bids, before an 11-19, really?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2013, 12:45:54 PM
Their SOSs and vRRO stand out, maybe Emory to a lesser degree than Wash U and Rochester.

Emory would also be 2nd at the table in the south with the loser of HSU and VWU going off the board quickly...(I saw that Ralph  ;D )
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2013, 12:55:55 PM
Quote from: Charles on February 22, 2013, 12:39:04 PM

3 UAA bids, before an 11-19, really?
Actually I took the listing as the logical classificiation of the first 19 bids and not as a numerical listing of the selection order.  :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 22, 2013, 01:29:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2013, 12:55:55 PM
Quote from: Charles on February 22, 2013, 12:39:04 PM

3 UAA bids, before an 11-19, really?
Actually I took the listing as the logical classificiation of the first 19 bids and not as a numerical listing of the selection order.  :)

That's how I meant it ... pretty much.  The first 9 are Pool C bids, for sure.  The second 10 are Pool C bids ... if they don't win the AQ.  (So that would be the end of it, right there, if ALL of the teams among the second 10 were to lose their conference tournament (!) and need a Pool C bid.) 

Of course, that will never happen.  My guess is that about 7 of the second 10 teams are going to win their conference's AQ, which leaves another 7 bids available for the final 10 teams that I've listed (#20-#29).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2013, 02:57:08 PM
Quote from: algernon on February 22, 2013, 01:29:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2013, 12:55:55 PM
Quote from: Charles on February 22, 2013, 12:39:04 PM

3 UAA bids, before an 11-19, really?
Actually I took the listing as the logical classificiation of the first 19 bids and not as a numerical listing of the selection order.  :)

That's how I meant it ... pretty much.  The first 9 are Pool C bids, for sure.  The second 10 are Pool C bids ... if they don't win the AQ.  (So that would be the end of it, right there, if ALL of the teams among the second 10 were to lose their conference tournament (!) and need a Pool C bid.) 

Of course, that will never happen.  My guess is that about 7 of the second 10 teams are going to win their conference's AQ, which leaves another 7 bids available for the final 10 teams that I've listed (#20-#29).

And, actually, I believe the UAA is down to only Wash U and Rochester for the Pool A given their tiebreaker scenarios, so really #20 is "in" right now too.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2013, 07:39:12 PM
Ohio Wesleyan wins its NCAC semifinal over Kenyon, seemingly locking up a Pool C berth for the Bishops, if they don't get the Pool A bid tomorrow night (over Wooster or Wittenberg).



Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 22, 2013, 07:41:42 PM
If Witt beats Wooster and OWU, then I bet the NCAC will get three in the field, depending on other upsets around the nation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 22, 2013, 07:53:20 PM
Transy is down 82-80 with 36 seconds left in the first HCAC semi-final. Could be interesting if Hanover wins the tourney knocking both Rose-Hulman and Transy to Pool C

Edit: Transy misses the front of a 1 and 1 and have to foul with 22 seconds left. Hits one of two, Transy goes the length of the floor for a quick layup. 83-82 Hanover with 14 seconds left and Hanover ball.

Edit 2: Hanover hits 2 free throws, blocks a 3 and gets fouled with 1.5 seconds left. 87-82 final and now Transy has to wait and hope their bubble hasn't burst.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 22, 2013, 09:55:56 PM
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 22, 2013, 07:39:12 PM
Ohio Wesleyan wins its NCAC semifinal over Kenyon, seemingly locking up a Pool C berth for the Bishops, if they don't get the Pool A bid tomorrow night (over Wooster or Wittenberg).

Wooster beats Wittenberg 78-66, in a game that was closer than the final score indicates.

This is the result that the Pool C hopefuls wanted in the NCAC. It'll be Wooster vs. Ohio Wesleyan tomorrow for the Pool A, but the loser is a virtual Pool C lock.

No one else will spoil the Pool C party from the NCAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2013, 10:05:56 PM

Augie over IWU.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 22, 2013, 10:14:23 PM
Dubuque beat Buena Vista

BV is on Q's chart but way down the C  bubble bursting list
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2013, 10:16:18 PM
CCIW final is Augie vs. NCC.  No problem for bubble teams if NCC prevails, but if Augie can pull two upsets in a row, that's a problem.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 22, 2013, 10:34:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2013, 10:16:18 PM
CCIW final is Augie vs. NCC.  No problem for bubble teams if NCC prevails, but if Augie can pull two upsets in a row, that's a problem.

How safe would Wheaton be with 6 losses and as the 4th team from the conference vying for a tournament selection?  If Rochester wins this weekend and Augie beats NCC, then Wheaton would be at best the 4th team up for consideration out of the Midwest.  They have a high SOS, so if they got to the table with sufficient spots left, they should be fine, but could an Augie win make them vulnerable also (especially if we see some more upsets this weekend)?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 22, 2013, 10:38:22 PM
Dodged another Pool C bubble burster earlier.  Carleton had their game with St. T down to 1 with 4:30 left but the Tommies pulled away like true future national champions do and won by 13. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2013, 11:01:10 PM
Quote from: sac on February 22, 2013, 10:38:22 PM
Dodged another Pool C bubble burster earlier.  Carleton had their game with St. T down to 1 with 4:30 left but the Tommies pulled away like true future national champions do and won by 13. ;)

Even closer -- it was tied and St. Thomas scored the final 13.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 22, 2013, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 22, 2013, 10:34:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2013, 10:16:18 PM
CCIW final is Augie vs. NCC.  No problem for bubble teams if NCC prevails, but if Augie can pull two upsets in a row, that's a problem.

How safe would Wheaton be with 6 losses and as the 4th team from the conference vying for a tournament selection?  If Rochester wins this weekend and Augie beats NCC, then Wheaton would be at best the 4th team up for consideration out of the Midwest.  They have a high SOS, so if they got to the table with sufficient spots left, they should be fine, but could an Augie win make them vulnerable also (especially if we see some more upsets this weekend)?

4-4 vs. Regionally Ranked Teams.  I think they are still in good shape.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2013, 11:51:23 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 22, 2013, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 22, 2013, 10:34:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2013, 10:16:18 PM
CCIW final is Augie vs. NCC.  No problem for bubble teams if NCC prevails, but if Augie can pull two upsets in a row, that's a problem.

How safe would Wheaton be with 6 losses and as the 4th team from the conference vying for a tournament selection?  If Rochester wins this weekend and Augie beats NCC, then Wheaton would be at best the 4th team up for consideration out of the Midwest.  They have a high SOS, so if they got to the table with sufficient spots left, they should be fine, but could an Augie win make them vulnerable also (especially if we see some more upsets this weekend)?

4-4 vs. Regionally Ranked Teams.  I think they are still in good shape.

But to be on the safe side, they should root for Emory to beat Rochester.  Then WashU is AQ, and they would only follow NCC and IWU to the table (which oughta happen with about 10-12 spots still open).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 23, 2013, 12:06:29 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2013, 11:51:23 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 22, 2013, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 22, 2013, 10:34:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2013, 10:16:18 PM
CCIW final is Augie vs. NCC.  No problem for bubble teams if NCC prevails, but if Augie can pull two upsets in a row, that's a problem.

How safe would Wheaton be with 6 losses and as the 4th team from the conference vying for a tournament selection?  If Rochester wins this weekend and Augie beats NCC, then Wheaton would be at best the 4th team up for consideration out of the Midwest.  They have a high SOS, so if they got to the table with sufficient spots left, they should be fine, but could an Augie win make them vulnerable also (especially if we see some more upsets this weekend)?

4-4 vs. Regionally Ranked Teams.  I think they are still in good shape.

But to be on the safe side, they should root for Emory to beat Rochester.  Then WashU is AQ, and they would only follow NCC and IWU to the table (which oughta happen with about 10-12 spots still open).

Looking at the two semi-final losers from the CCIW:

Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6/.568/4-4
Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5/.539/5-4

Obviously the strength of schedule numbers are old but Wheaton should get a slightly better bump than IWU playing NCC vs. Augie. 

We've seen some regional rankings really pay great weight to SOS and the W-L in the region looks pretty similar now for these two teams.  You really hope that the 2-0 head to head holds the correct weight that it should.  Either way I think both are in but it's interesting how compressed the resumes got this past week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2013, 12:12:01 AM
Updated through Friday 2/22.  Notes about the data...

* In-region record is through Friday 2/22
* SOS is through Sun 2/17 (from data sheets)
* Results vs regionally ranked is through Friday 2/22


Pool C projection
1. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.556/4-3
2. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.586/7-2
3. Washington U. (Midwest, UAA) - 18-5 (.783)/.567/6-4
4. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.536/2-2
5. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.552/4-3 
6. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.507/4-2
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.539/5-4
8. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6 (.739)/.568/4-4
9. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-3 (.850)/.508/5-2 
10. Emory (South, UAA) - 18-6 (.750)/.557/4-4
11. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.537/2-2
12. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.544/3-1
13. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.545/4-4
14. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.542/3-1
15. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.561/3-5
16. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-7 (.708)/.570/4-6 
17. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 22-3 (.880)/.499/1-2   
18. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 19-4 (.826)/.514/2-2
19. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.491/2-1
----------
20. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.534/3-4
21. Hope (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 15-5 (.750)/.533/1-3  not currently ranked in the GL
22. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.530/3-1
23. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/1-5
24. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-7 (.720/.548/2-7
25. Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.521/3-5
26. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.537/1-5
27. Eastern Connecticut (Northeast, LEC) - 19-5 (.792)/.499/1-2
28. Tufts (Northeast, NESCAC) – 16-5 (.762)/.524/0-5
29. SUNY-Purchase (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-5 (.808)/.498/1-2
30. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.487/1-2
31. Whitman (West, NWC) - 16-6 (.727)/.540/2-2
32. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.561/1-2
33. Concordia-Moorhead (West, MIAC) - 18-7 (.750)/.507/2-3
34. Augsburg (West, MIAC) - 21-6 (.720)/.505/2-3
35. Ithaca (East, E8) - 17-8 (.680)/.537/2-4
36. Texas-Dallas (South, ASC) - 20-6 (.769)/.511/0-3
37. Randolph (South, ODAC) - 15-5 (.750)/.502/3-3
38. Oswego State (East, SUNYAC) – 19-8 (.704)/.501/2-6


Top "Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
Would definitely fit in the top 19 above...
1. Amherst (Northeast, NESCAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.574/7-1
2. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 25-1 (.962)/.540/6-1
3. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-3 (.870)/.572/7-2 
4. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.581/5-3
5. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.561/4-2
6. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 17-5 (.773)/.549/7-3
7. North Central (Midwest, CCIW) - 21-3 (.875)/.528/5-2
8. Alvernia (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 22-4 (.846)/.549/4-2
9. Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 24-3 (.889)/.530/3-3
10. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -22-4 (.846)/.554/3-1
11. St. Mary's (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.531/4-3
12. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 22-4 (.846)/.533/3-2
13. Cortland St. (East, SUNYAC) - 22-3 (.880)/.514/5-3
14. Ramapo (Atlantic, NJAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.517/4-1
15. Whitworth (West, NWC) - 22-3 (.880)/.526/2-2 
16. Stevens (East, E8) - 20-4 (.833)/.533/3-2
17. Catholic (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 20-3 (.870)/.520/2-2
18. Rose-Hulman (Midwest, HCAC) - 22-3 (.880)/.505/1-1
19. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.495/1-1
20. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 19-1 (.950)/.441/0-0
21. St. Norbert (Midwest, MWC) - 19-5 (.792)/.534/1-2
22. Christopher Newport (South, USAC) - 18-5 (.792)/.535/0-2
23. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atlantic, CC) – 17-5 (.773)/.518/2-2
24. Hobart (East, LL) - 19-6 (.760)/.538/0-4
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 23, 2013, 12:14:21 AM
Since we're talking MW rankings, with Transy already losing tonight and RHIT not going to have an easy championship game tomorrow (beat Hanover twice this year by a combined 3 points) could one or both have their bubble burst in pool C? At best they're just behind 2 CCIW teams, but could be more if WashU and/or NCC don't get automatic bids.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 23, 2013, 12:24:25 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 23, 2013, 12:14:21 AM
Since we're talking MW rankings, with Transy already losing tonight and RHIT not going to have an easy championship game tomorrow (beat Hanover twice this year by a combined 3 points) could one or both have their bubble burst in pool C? At best they're just behind 2 CCIW teams, but could be more if WashU and/or NCC don't get automatic bids.

I would win if I was RHIT.. (is it just that easy? =)  )  An Augie win and or WashU not getting the Pool A bid makes the Midwest region very interesting with a lot of Pool C teams coming from there.  I'm not sure if there's any bias from the selection committee in terms of "we just picked 2 or 3 from the MW, lets look somewhere else for a bit" or not but not the most comfortable situation for Transy or RHIT who could be the 5 or 6 pool C teams available in the MW.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiltedbryan on February 23, 2013, 12:40:50 AM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 23, 2013, 12:24:25 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 23, 2013, 12:14:21 AM
Since we're talking MW rankings, with Transy already losing tonight and RHIT not going to have an easy championship game tomorrow (beat Hanover twice this year by a combined 3 points) could one or both have their bubble burst in pool C? At best they're just behind 2 CCIW teams, but could be more if WashU and/or NCC don't get automatic bids.

I would win if I was RHIT.. (is it just that easy? =)  )  An Augie win and or WashU not getting the Pool A bid makes the Midwest region very interesting with a lot of Pool C teams coming from there.  I'm not sure if there's any bias from the selection committee in terms of "we just picked 2 or 3 from the MW, lets look somewhere else for a bit" or not but not the most comfortable situation for Transy or RHIT who could be the 5 or 6 pool C teams available in the MW.

My understanding is that this sort of bias just simply doesn't exist. "Don't take too many teams from a region" isn't a criterion. The committee simply selects the team "at the table" that it deems to have the best current resume. If that's 7 MW teams in a row, then so be it.

However, of course, each region only gets to have one team "at the table" at a time, so you want to be ranked as high as possible in your region so that you are under consideration for as many rounds as possible. If you're solidly on the bubble line, you want to be ahead of the other "bubble line" teams in your region so that you get considered ahead of them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2013, 12:48:01 AM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 23, 2013, 12:06:29 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2013, 11:51:23 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 22, 2013, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 22, 2013, 10:34:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2013, 10:16:18 PM
CCIW final is Augie vs. NCC.  No problem for bubble teams if NCC prevails, but if Augie can pull two upsets in a row, that's a problem.

How safe would Wheaton be with 6 losses and as the 4th team from the conference vying for a tournament selection?  If Rochester wins this weekend and Augie beats NCC, then Wheaton would be at best the 4th team up for consideration out of the Midwest.  They have a high SOS, so if they got to the table with sufficient spots left, they should be fine, but could an Augie win make them vulnerable also (especially if we see some more upsets this weekend)?

4-4 vs. Regionally Ranked Teams.  I think they are still in good shape.

But to be on the safe side, they should root for Emory to beat Rochester.  Then WashU is AQ, and they would only follow NCC and IWU to the table (which oughta happen with about 10-12 spots still open).

Looking at the two semi-final losers from the CCIW:

Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6/.568/4-4
Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5/.539/5-4

Obviously the strength of schedule numbers are old but Wheaton should get a slightly better bump than IWU playing NCC vs. Augie. 

We've seen some regional rankings really pay great weight to SOS and the W-L in the region looks pretty similar now for these two teams.  You really hope that the 2-0 head to head holds the correct weight that it should.  Either way I think both are in but it's interesting how compressed the resumes got this past week.

But you're ignoring that on Tuesday IWU played NCC while Wheaton played 6-19 Elmhurst.

Playing Augie certainly trumps playing Elmhurst as far as SOS! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 23, 2013, 12:50:20 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2013, 12:48:01 AM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 23, 2013, 12:06:29 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2013, 11:51:23 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 22, 2013, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 22, 2013, 10:34:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2013, 10:16:18 PM
CCIW final is Augie vs. NCC.  No problem for bubble teams if NCC prevails, but if Augie can pull two upsets in a row, that's a problem.

How safe would Wheaton be with 6 losses and as the 4th team from the conference vying for a tournament selection?  If Rochester wins this weekend and Augie beats NCC, then Wheaton would be at best the 4th team up for consideration out of the Midwest.  They have a high SOS, so if they got to the table with sufficient spots left, they should be fine, but could an Augie win make them vulnerable also (especially if we see some more upsets this weekend)?

4-4 vs. Regionally Ranked Teams.  I think they are still in good shape.

But to be on the safe side, they should root for Emory to beat Rochester.  Then WashU is AQ, and they would only follow NCC and IWU to the table (which oughta happen with about 10-12 spots still open).

Looking at the two semi-final losers from the CCIW:

Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6/.568/4-4
Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5/.539/5-4

Obviously the strength of schedule numbers are old but Wheaton should get a slightly better bump than IWU playing NCC vs. Augie. 

We've seen some regional rankings really pay great weight to SOS and the W-L in the region looks pretty similar now for these two teams.  You really hope that the 2-0 head to head holds the correct weight that it should.  Either way I think both are in but it's interesting how compressed the resumes got this past week.

But you're ignoring that on Tuesday IWU played NCC while Wheaton played 6-19 Elmhurst.

Playing Augie certainly trumps playing Elmhurst as far as SOS! ;)

Good point.  I don't think it'll make up the difference between Wheaton's SOS and IWUs but the gap shouldn't extend any.  Still think they'll be about as close as resumes get and should both go in the top 10.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 23, 2013, 01:42:34 AM
Transylvania's very much on the bubble, they were Q's #13, 5th in the last regional poll, will certainly drop lower and you can always count on 5 or 6 upsets to eat up Pool C spots that end up going to teams who were the projected Pool A representatives.

Hanover is going to be 18-7 in-region if they lose to RHIT, their SOS is certainly inferior but they are now 3-0 against Transy, I would think they get a good look at being ranked in the super secret final rankings, possibly even ahead of Transy.  If that happens Transy isn't getting in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2013, 05:22:29 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2013, 05:20:04 AM
I DID NOT UPDATE THE RECORDS OR vRRO OF TEAMS THAT HAVE THEIR SEASONS COMPLETE



   ATL                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      2      1      Ramapo      NJAC      19-3       0.517       3-1      BEAT William Paterson 83-58;   BEAT Rutgers-Newark 67-65 in  Final    POOL A    
   2      1      2      Old.Westbury      SKY      21-3      0.491       2-1      LOST to Farmingdale State 81-69 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   5      3      3      Rutgers.Newark      NJAC      18-6       0.534       2-3      BEAT Richard Stockton 49-46; LOST Ramapo in 67-65 Final SEASON COMPLETE   
   4      4      4      RicardStockton      NJAC      19-7      0.537       1-5      LOST at Rutgers-Newark 49-46 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   3      5      5      SUNYPurchase      SKY      20-5       0.498       1-2      BEATMount St. Mary 57-48; vs. Farmingdale State in Final 2/23   
                                                      
   EAST                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Rochester      UAA      20-3       0.572       7-2      at Emory 2/23   
   2      2      2      SUNY.Cortland      SUNYAC      21-3       0.514       3-2      BEAT Oswego St. in 65-54;  vs Plattsburgh State in Final 2/23   
   3      3      3      Stevens      E8      19-4       0.533       3-2      BEAT Utica  102-66; vs. Ithaca in Final 2/23   
   NR      5      4      Plattsburgh.State      SUNYAC      18-6       0.545       2-4        BEAT Geneseo State 77-67; vs. Cortland State in Final 2/23   
   5      4      5      Hobart      LL      18-6       0.538       0-4      BEATSkidmore 77-72; vs. RPI in Final 2/23   
   NR      NR      6      Oswego.State      SUNYAC      18-7       0.501       2-5      BEAT Brockport St. 78-66;  LOST to Cortland St. 65-54   SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   NR      6      NR      Ithaca      E8      15-8       0.537       2-3      BEAT St. John Fisher 70-63; vs. Stevens in Final 2/23   
   4      NR      NR      NYU      UAA      14-10       0.58       6-5      vs. Brandeis 2/23   
   6      NR      NR      SUNY.Geneseo      SUNYAC      16-8       0.523       2-3      BEAT New Paltz St. 98-80; LOST to Plattsburgh St. 77-67  SEASON COMPLETE     
                                                      
   GT LK                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Wooster      NCAC      20-4       0.554       3-1      BEAT Oberlin 74-47;  BEAT Wittenberg 78-66; vs. Ohio Wesleyan in Final 2/23   
   2      2      2      Ohio.Wesleyan      NCAC      19-4       0.537       2-2      BEAT Denison 77-56;  BEAT Kenyon 77-64; vs. Wooster in Final 2/23   
   5      5      3      St.Vincent      PrAC      18-3       0.495       1-1      BEAT Waynesburg 72-62; BEAT  Washington and Jefferson 85-75; vs. Thomas More in Final 2/23   
   3      3      4      Thomas.More      PrAC      20-3       0.499       1-2      BEAT Geneva 82-60; BEAT Thiel 86-80; vs. St. Vincent in Final 2/23   
   NR      4      5      Capital      OAC      19-5      0.487       1-2      LOST Mount Union 63-59 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   4      6      6      Calvin      MIAA      18-1       0.441       0-0       BEAT  Adrian 71-44; vs. Hope in Final 2/23   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   6      NR      NR      Marietta      OAC      18-7       0.500       1-3       BEAT   Wilmington 111-106 3 OT; vs. Mount Union in Final 2/23   
                                                      
   MID-ATL                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   4      1      1      Alvernia      MACC      21-4       0.549       4-2      BEAT Arcadia 69-66; vs. Lycoming in Final 2/23   
   1      2      2      Catholic      LAND      19-3       0.528       2-2      BEAT Merchant Marine 65-57; vs. Juniata in Final 2/23   
   2      4      3      Albright      MACC      20-6      0.546       3-1      LOST to Lycoming 80-78 SEASON COMPLETE   
   3      3      4      St.Mary's(Md.)      CAC      17-3       0.531       3-2      BEAT  Mary Washington 89-81; vs. Wesley in Final 2/23   
   5      5      5      Wesley      CAC      16-3       0.508       3-1      BEAT   Salisbury 73-66; vs. St. Mary's in Final 2/23   
   6      6      6      Scranton      LAND      19-7      0.530       3-1       LOST to Juniata 84-74 2OT  SEASON COMPLETE   
   NR      8      7      DeSales      MACF      19-5       0.493       1-1      BEAT Fairleigh Dickinson 59-57; vs. Delaware Valley in Final 2/23   
   NR      NR      8      Salisbury       CAC      16-6      0.521       3-5      BEAT York (Pa) 80-60; LOST at Wesley 73-66 in semis   SEASON COMPLETE     
   9      NR      9      Frank&Marsh      CC      16-5       0.518       2-2      BEAT Muhlenberg 48-46; vs. Dickinson in Final 2/23   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   8      7      NR      Cabrini      CSAC      18-4       0.473       0-2      BEAT Neumann 90-77; BEAT Keystone 90-74 in Final  POOL A   
   NR      9      NR      Dickinson      CC      16-7      0.513       2-1      BEAT Johns Hopkins 73-64; vs. Franklin & Marshall in Final 2/23   
   7      NR      NR      Arcadia      MACC      16-9      0.558       1-5      BEAT Stevenson 85-83; LOST at Alvernia 69-66 SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2013, 05:23:00 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2013, 05:21:19 AM
I DID NOT UPDATE THE RECORDS AND vRRO FOR TEAMS THAT HAVE THEIR SEASONS COMPLETE




                                                      
   MW                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Illinois.Wesleyan        CCIW      18-3      0.539       5-2      LOST at North Central 87-83 OT;  LOST to Augustana 53-47  SEASON COMPLETE   
   4      2      2      WashingtonU.      UAA      18-5      0.567       6-4      vs. Chicago 2/23   
   3      3      3      Wheaton      CCIW      16-5      0.568       4-3      BEAT at Elmhurst 70-55;  LOST to North Central 59-50  SEASON COMPLETE   
   5      4      4      North Central.(IL)      CCIW      19-3      0.528       3-2      BEAT Illinois Wesleyan 87-83 OT; BEAT Wheaton 59-50; vs. Augustana in Final  2/23   
   2      5      5      Transylvania      HCAC      18-5      0.542       3-1      BEAT Mount St. Joseph 75-57; LOST to Hanover 87-82  SEASON COMPLETE   
   6      6      6      Rose.Hulman      HCAC      21-3      0.505       1-1       BEAT Defiance 81-59; vs Hanover in Final 2/23   
   8      8      7      St.Norbert      MWC      18-5      0.534       1-2       BEAT Ripon 75-65; vs. Carroll in Final 2/23   
   7      7      8      Augustana       CCIW      16-7      0.548       1-7      BEAT Millikin 64-51;  WON at Illinois Wesleyan 53-47; vs. North Central in Final 2/23   
                                                      
   NE                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   2      2      1      Amherst      NESCAC      23-2      0.574       6-1      vs. Tufts in semis 2/23   
   1      1      2      WPI      NEWMAC      23-2      0.561       4-2      vs. TBA in semis 2/23   
   3      3      3      Williams      NESCAC      20-3      0.556       3-3      vs. Middlebury in semis 2/23   
   5      5      4      RIC       LEC      22-3      0.53       3-3      BEAT Mass.-Dartmouth 62-58; BEAT Southern Maine 61-47; vs Keene State in Final 2/23   
   4      4      5      Middlebury      NESCAC      19-2      0.536       1-2      vs. Williams in semis 2/23   
   7      6      6      MIT      NEWMAC      19-4      0.552       3-3      vs. Springfield in semis 2/23   
   10      8      7      Springfield      NEWMAC      18-7      0.561       3-5      at MIT in semis 2/23   
   6      7      8      Brandeis      UAA      17-7      0.57       3-6      at NYU 2/23   
   8      9      9      Curry      CCC      18-7      0.547       0-4      BEAT Western New England 76-54;  BEAT Eastern Nazerene 82-76; vs. Gordon in Final 2/23   
   9      10      10      Westfield State      MASCAC      19-5      0.500       1-0      LOST to Fitchburg State 68-61 in semis  SEASON COMPLETE   
   11      11      11      East.Conn.State      LEC      18-4      0.499       1-1      BEAT West. Conn 65-54; LOST to Keene State 79-73 SEASON COMPLETE   
   NR      NR      12      Tufts      NESCAC      16-5      0.524       0-5      vs. Amherst in semis 2/23   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   12      12      NR      Albertus.Magnus      GNAC      21-3      0.441       0-0      BEAT Rivier 84-65; BEAT Johnson and Wales 104-77; vs. Anna Maria in Final 2/23   
                                                      
   SOUTH                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   6      4      1      Virginia.Wesleyan      ODAC      16-5      0.549       7-2      BEAT Eastern Mennonite 83-65; vs. Randolph in semis 2/23   
   1      1      2      Hampden.Sydney      ODAC      18-3      0.507       4-2      BEAT Roanoke 72-49; vs. Randolph-Macon in semis 2/23   
   2      2      3      MHB      ASC      21-4      0.533       3-2      BEAT LeTourneau 61-54; vs. Hardin-Simmons in semis 2/23   
   3      6      4      Chris.Newport      USAC      17-5      0.535       0-2       BEAT Averett 74-58; BEAT North Carolina Wesleyan 72-59; vs. Greensboro in Final 2/23   
   5      3      5      Emory      UAA      17-6      0.557       4-4      BEAT Covenant 75-50; vs. Rochester 2/23   
   4      5      6      Concordia(TX)      ASC      18-4      0.514       2-2      BEAT Mississippi College 78-76; vs. Texas-Dallas in semis 2/23   
   NR      8      7      Texas.Dallas      ASC      19-6      0.511       0-3      BEAT Schreiner 74-60; vs. Concordia (TX) in semis 2/23   
   NR      7      8      Randolph      ODAC      14-5      0.502       2-3      BEAT Lynchburg 76-57; vs. Virginia Wesleyan in semis 2/23   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   7      NR      NR       Lynchburg      ODAC      14-7      0.492       1-5      BEAT Shenandoah 90-65; LOST to Randolph 76-57 SEASON COMPLETE   
   8      NR      NR      Guilford      ODAC      14-8      0.520       2-5      BEAT Emory & Henry 70-60; LOST to Randolph-Macon 57-56  SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
   WEST                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      St.Thomas      MIAC      24-1      0.540       6-1      BEAT Carleton 70-57; vs. Augsburg in Final 2/23   
   3      2      2      Stevens.Point      WIAC      21-5      0.586       7-2      LOST to Platteville 60-56 in semis  SEASON COMPLETE   
   4      3      3      Whitewater      WIAC      20-4      0.581       4-3      BEAT Stout 64-59; vs. Platteville in Final 2/23   
   2      4      4      Whitworth      NWC      21-3      0.526       2-2      BEAT Lewis & Clark 74-69; vs. Whitman in Final 2/23   
   6      5      5      Buena.Vista       IIAC      18-6      0.561       1-2      LOST to Dubuque 64-61; SEASON COMPLETE   
   5      6      6      Stout      WIAC      19-7      0.536       1-5      BEAT Superior 78-64; LOST at Whitewater 64-59 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   9      7      7      Con.Moorhead      MIAC      18-6      0.507       2-2      LOST to Augsburg 74-67  SEASON COMPLETE   
   7      9      8      Augsburg      MIAC      19-6      0.505       1-3      BEAT St. John's 74-67;  BEAT Concordia Moorhead 74-67; vs. St. Thomas in Final 2/23   
   NR      8      9      Whitman      NWC      15-6      0.540       2-2       BEAT George Fox 90-78; vs. Whitworth in Final 2/23   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   8      NR      NR      Luther      IIAC      17-5      0.512       1-2      LOST to Wartburg 62-57  SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2013, 07:59:33 AM
TQ,

Not sure when the result came in last night, but Buena Vista lost to Dubuque and should be moved into your Pool C projections.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2013, 08:05:02 AM
Updated through Friday 2/22.  Notes about the data...

* In-region record is through Friday 2/22
* SOS is through Sun 2/17 (from data sheets)
* Results vs regionally ranked is through Friday 2/22


Pool C projection
1. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.556/4-3
2. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.586/7-2  done
3. Washington U. (Midwest, UAA) - 18-5 (.783)/.567/6-4
4. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-2 (.905)/.536/2-2
5. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.552/4-3 
6. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.507/4-2
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.539/5-4   done
8. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6 (.739)/.568/4-4
9. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-3 (.850)/.508/5-2 
10. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.545/5-4
11. Emory (South, UAA) - 18-6 (.750)/.557/4-4
12. Ohio Wesleyan (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.537/2-2
13. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.544/3-1
14. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.542/3-1   done
15. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.561/3-5
16. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-7 (.708)/.570/4-6 
17. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 22-3 (.880)/.499/1-2   
18. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 19-4 (.826)/.514/2-2
19. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.491/2-1  done
----------
20. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.534/3-4
21. Hope (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 15-5 (.750)/.533/1-3  not currently ranked in the GL
22. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.530/3-1
23. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/1-5
24. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-7 (.720/.548/2-7
25. Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.521/3-5
26. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.537/1-5
27. Eastern Connecticut (Northeast, LEC) - 19-5 (.792)/.499/1-2
28. Tufts (Northeast, NESCAC) – 16-5 (.762)/.524/0-5
29. SUNY-Purchase (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-5 (.808)/.498/1-2
30. Capital (Great Lakes, OAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.487/1-2
31. Whitman (West, NWC) - 16-6 (.727)/.540/2-2
32. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.561/1-2
33. Concordia-Moorhead (West, MIAC) - 18-7 (.750)/.507/2-3
34. Augsburg (West, MIAC) - 21-6 (.720)/.505/2-3
35. Ithaca (East, E8) - 17-8 (.680)/.537/2-4
36. Texas-Dallas (South, ASC) - 20-6 (.769)/.511/0-3
37. Randolph (South, ODAC) - 15-5 (.750)/.502/3-3
38. Oswego State (East, SUNYAC) – 19-8 (.704)/.501/2-6


Top "Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
Would definitely fit in the top 19 above...
1. Amherst (Northeast, NESCAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.574/7-1     vs Tufts, 1:00pm
2. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 25-1 (.962)/.540/6-1     vs Augsburg, 3:00pm
3. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-3 (.870)/.572/7-2     @ Emory*, 4:00pm
4. UW-Whitewater (West, WIAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.581/5-3      vs UW-Platteville, 8:00pm
5. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 23-2 (.920)/.561/4-2     vs Babson, 1:00pm
6. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 17-5 (.773)/.549/7-3      vs Randolph, 6:00pm
7. North Central (Midwest, CCIW) - 21-3 (.875)/.528/5-2      vs Augustana (at IWU), 7:30pm
8. Alvernia (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 22-4 (.846)/.549/4-2      vs Lycoming, 2:30pm
9. Rhode Island (Northeast, LEC) - 24-3 (.889)/.530/3-3      vs Keene State, 5:00pm
10. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -22-4 (.846)/.554/3-1      vs Ohio Wesleyan*, 7:00pm
11. St. Mary's (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 18-3 (.857)/.531/4-3     vs Wesley*, 4:00pm
12. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 22-4 (.846)/.533/3-2      vs Hardin-Simmons, 3:00pm
13. Cortland St. (East, SUNYAC) - 22-3 (.880)/.514/5-3      vs Plattsburgh State*, 4:00pm
14. Whitworth (West, NWC) - 22-3 (.880)/.526/2-2      vs Whitman, 10:00pm
15. Stevens (East, E8) - 20-4 (.833)/.533/3-2     vs Ithaca, 3:00pm
16. Catholic (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 20-3 (.870)/.520/2-2      vs Juniata, 6:00pm

Things get dicey here...
18. Rose-Hulman (Midwest, HCAC) - 22-3 (.880)/.505/1-1      vs Hanover, 7:00pm
19. St. Vincent (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 20-3 (.870)/.495/1-1      vs Thomas More, 7:30pm
20. Calvin (Great Lakes, MIAA) - 19-1 (.950)/.441/0-0      vs Hope, 7:30pm
21. St. Norbert (Midwest, MWC) - 19-5 (.792)/.534/1-2      vs Carroll, 4:00pm
22. Christopher Newport (South, USAC) - 18-5 (.792)/.535/0-2      vs Greensboro, 5:30pm
23. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atlantic, CC) – 17-5 (.773)/.518/2-2      vs Dickinson, 7:00pm
24. Hobart (East, LL) - 19-6 (.760)/.538/0-4      vs RPI, 3:00pm


* opponent that is currently projected in Pool C top 19

Give the numbers for your team, or other teams for that matter, a close look.  I'm trying my best to update in-region winning % and results vs RR, but could be an error here or there.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2013, 08:27:46 AM
Great work like usual, TQ!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2013, 12:41:22 PM
I think there are 16 games with big Pool C implications today.  Here is what Pool C bubble teams need to have happen today...


#1, 1:00pm - Amherst over Tufts (removing Tufts from Pool A contention - Amherst, Williams, Middlebury all projected in)

#2, 1:00pm - WPI over Babson (Babson is not currently projected as C)

#3, 2:30pm - Alvernia over Lycoming (Lycoming is not currenty projected as C)

#4, 3:00pm - Mary Hardin-Baylor over Hardin-Simmons (H-S is not currently projected as C)

#5, 3:00pm - St. Thomas over Augsburg (Augsburg is not currently projected as C)

#6, 3:00pm - Stevens over Ithaca (Ithaca is not currently projected as C)

#7, 3:00pm - MIT over Springfield (Springfield projected #15...a loss probably puts them on wrong side of bubble)

#8, 3:00pm - NYU over Brandeis, at NYU (Brandeis projected #16...a loss could put on wrong side of bubble)

#9, 5:00pm - Rhode Island over Keene St (Keene St is not currently projected as C)

#10, 6:00pm - Virginia Wesleyan over Randolph (Randolph is not currently projected as C)

#11, 6:00pm - Catholic over Juniata (Juniata is not currently projected as C)

#12, 7:00pm - Rose-Hulman over Hanover (Hanover is not currently projected as C)

#13, 7:30pm - Calvin over Hope (Hope is not currently projected as C)

#14, 8:00pm - Whitewater over Platteville (Platteville is not currently projected as C)

#15, 8:30pm - North Central over Augustana (Augustana is not currently projected as C)

#16, 10:00pm - Whitworth over Whitman (Whitman is not currently projected as C)


I don't think these games matter that much in terms of Pool C...

4:00pm - Rochester @ Emory (the group of Rochester/Emory/Wash U is all projected to be safely in already)

4:00pm - St. Mary's vs Wesley (Wesley projected at #9 Pool C)

4:00pm - Cortland St vs Plattsburgh St (Plattsburgh St projected in at #10)

7:00pm - Wooster vs Ohio Wesleyan (Ohio Wesleyan projected at #12 Pool C)

7:30pm - St. Vincent vs Thomas More (Thomas More win would just flip positions at the edge of the bubble)

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 23, 2013, 12:47:26 PM
  Thanks Q for putting that pertinent info in one spot chronologically 4 us bubble-watchers.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 23, 2013, 12:48:41 PM
What about:
3:00pm - MIT over Springfield

An 8th loss for Springfield would likely push them lower down the bubble.  Plus, with this result, bubble teams could rest a little easier with the NEWMAC championship tomorrow being between teams that will likely both be in anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2013, 12:59:50 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 23, 2013, 12:48:41 PM
What about:
3:00pm - MIT over Springfield

An 8th loss for Springfield would likely push them lower down the bubble.  Plus, with this result, bubble teams could rest a little easier with the NEWMAC championship tomorrow being between teams that will likely both be in anyway.

Great catch...I added.  I think a loss puts Springfield on the wrong side of the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2013, 01:08:28 PM
I also added Brandeis @ NYU - a loss would push Brandeis to the dark side possibly.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: howardjp on February 23, 2013, 01:24:03 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2013, 01:08:28 PM
I also added Brandeis @ NYU - a loss would push Brandeis to the dark side possibly.

Definitely fair, A Brandeis win could put them in a tie w/Emory, if Rochester wins, a loss would be tough.

And if Wash U somehow lost at home, and Emory lost, there would be a three way tie for 2nd ...

That's why they play the games .....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 23, 2013, 01:42:11 PM
WPI trailing 41-41 at the half to Babson.

Amherst down 35-32 to Tufts, also at the half.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2013, 02:00:25 PM
+1, Q!

Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 23, 2013, 02:26:25 PM
Amherst will win, so no bubble buster out of the NESCAC (Williams/Midd in the other semi).

WPI down 7 with 6 minutes to play against Babson (WPI won by an average of 30 points the previous two meetings this season).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 23, 2013, 02:45:00 PM
WPI wins on a putback with 1.5 seconds left, 66-64.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2013, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 23, 2013, 02:45:00 PM
WPI wins on a putback with 1.5 seconds left, 66-64.
That collective sigh heard across all of D3 was the teams on the Pool C bubble!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 23, 2013, 04:49:36 PM
After leading by double-digits, MIT could not convert down the stretch and fall to Springfield.

WPI vs. Springfield tomorrow for the NEWMAC AQ.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 23, 2013, 05:21:40 PM
Pool C bubble candidate Brandeis lost at NYU today, 59-57.

Will 'Deis's bubble pop on Monday?

Info:

Brandeis's in-region percentage now at 17-8 with loss at NYU today. (.680 in region)

Brandeis started the week regionally ranked at #8 in Northeast

Brandeis's SOS was at .570 going into this week.

Record vs RRO:  4-7 (.364)  Wins over Emory (#5 South), Wash U (#2 Midwest), Tufts (#12 Northeast), NYU (once ranked in East)

Losses to Emory (#5 South), Wash U (#2 Midwest), RI College (#4 Northeast), Amherst (#1 Northeast), Rochester (#1 East-- Deis lost twice to Rochester), and now NYU (once ranked in East).

Lot of losses for the Judges down the stretch late in season-- does NCAA take that into consideration?

Really going to sweat it out until Monday at 12:30 PM Eastern now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2013, 05:38:55 PM
Quote from: deiscanton on February 23, 2013, 05:21:40 PM
Pool C bubble candidate Brandeis lost at NYU today, 59-57.

Will 'Deis's bubble pop on Monday?

Info:

Brandeis's in-region percentage now at 17-8 with loss at NYU today. (.680 in region)

Brandeis started the week regionally ranked at #8 in Northeast

Brandeis's SOS was at .570 going into this week.

Record vs RRO:  4-7 (.364)  Wins over Emory (#5 South), Wash U (#2 Midwest), Tufts (#12 Northeast), NYU (once ranked in East)

Losses to Emory (#5 South), Wash U (#2 Midwest), RI College (#4 Northeast), Amherst (#1 Northeast), Rochester (#1 East-- Deis lost twice to Rochester), and now NYU (once ranked in East).

Lot of losses for the Judges down the stretch late in season-- does NCAA take that into consideration?

Really going to sweat it out until Monday at 12:30 PM Eastern now.

It will be a long wait for Brandeis...they are really on the bubble.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2013, 05:44:06 PM
E8 title game final...

Ithaca 70
Stevens 55


Maybe a bubble bursted here.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Emory defeats Rochester. Not a bubble burster in the traditional sense, but this may push Emory off the bubble to the positive side. Wash U. wins the UAA's Pool A bid. Rochester will be the #1 or #2 Pool C team off the board.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2013, 06:00:08 PM

Wesley missed two FTs with 13 seconds to go, allowing St Mary's to take the lead and win the CAC.  Wesley will be in the Pool C consideration, but much farther down than St. Mary's likely would have been.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2013, 06:03:43 PM

Cortland beat Plattsburgh - I'm not sure if Plattsburgh will make it to the table, but I think they were regionally ranked last week.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 23, 2013, 06:05:58 PM
Cortland State 75 Plattsburgh State 61 as Cortland claims the SUNYAC Championship and the automatic bid.

Hopefully Plattsburgh State will receive a Pool C bid but the loss by Rochester who will now need a Pool C bid and the loss by Stevens to Ithaca in the Empire 8 Championship will now mean that Plattsburgh will be the 3rd team from the East to get to the table after Rochester and Stevens. I think they are still safe but don't want to see too many more bubble bursters taking place.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 23, 2013, 06:12:14 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 23, 2013, 06:03:43 PM

Cortland beat Plattsburgh - I'm not sure if Plattsburgh will make it to the table, but I think they were regionally ranked last week.

They were ranked in 4th place behind Rochester, Cortland, and Stevens.

Titan Q had Plattsburgh projected as a #10 Pool C bid. That might drop a few places but I think they should still be in the top 16 or so.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2013, 06:17:08 PM
I have Stevens as the last of those Pool C hopefuls...on the bubble.  Rochester is obviously a lock...and I have Plattsburgh St in decent shape.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2013, 07:51:17 PM

Catholic sinks a last second shot to beat Juniata and save a Pool C spot for someone else.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 23, 2013, 08:40:18 PM
Tight one in the HCAC as expected... RHIT up 3 with 2:18 left trying to save a pool C spot by beating Hanover.

Edit: Hanover tied it with a 3, but Rose-Hulman has scored the last 4 to lead 61-57 with 24 seconds left and Hanover ball.

Edit 2: Rose hitting their free throws and win 64-59.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2013, 08:50:32 PM

Dickinson tops Franklin & Marshall.  Not sure if that's a pool C issue or not, F&M hasn't been great this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 23, 2013, 09:01:02 PM
Ohio Wesleyan bests Wooster at Wooster for the NCAC title.

Don't think it's a net loss since OWU probably was in line for a "C".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: realist on February 23, 2013, 09:30:35 PM
Calvin 77 Hope 57
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2013, 10:02:06 PM

Augie just cut it to 3 with two minutes to play.  Could we see four CCIW teams get in?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2013, 10:17:34 PM
Nope.

NCC 70, Augie 63. Three CCIW teams'll get in, not four.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2013, 10:22:21 PM
So what do we have for locks right now?

Amherst/Williams
Middlebury
Point
Wooster
IWU
Wheaton
MIT
Rochester
Hampden-Sydney

Any of these?

Old Westbury
Stevens
Thomas More
Albright
Wesley
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2013, 10:26:34 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 23, 2013, 10:02:06 PM

Augie just cut it to 3 with two minutes to play.  Could we see four CCIW teams get in?

Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2013, 10:17:34 PM
Nope.

NCC 70, Augie 63. Three CCIW teams'll get in, not four.

That tornadic wind you just sensed blowing by was thousands of bubble team fans and players exhaling. ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 23, 2013, 10:30:48 PM
Only if MIT is ranked above Springfield in the region.  We could potentially see another "block" situation with Springfield now holding the 2-1 head to head advantage over MIT (the teams were ranked 6 and 7 in the region, respectively, this week).  If Springfield does lose tomorrow, MIT will hold nearly a 0.100 advantage in WP (0.800 vs. 0.704, or 3 less losses) and the SOS and vRRO would be close to a wash (MIT will be around 0.56, Springfield will probably be around 0.57, MIT vRRO is 4-4, Springfield would be 4-6).  If Springfield wins tomorrow, WPI and MIT are probably both locks.  Therefore, the NEWMAC championship game tomorrow could potentially open up or take away 2 Pool C spots!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 23, 2013, 10:32:32 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 23, 2013, 10:22:21 PM
So what do we have for locks right now?

Amherst/Williams
Middlebury
Point
Wooster
IWU
Wheaton
MIT
Rochester
Hampden-Sydney

Any of these?

Old Westbury
Stevens
Thomas More
Albright
Wesley

Not a good feeling about Thomas More.  I have a list of Top 23 potential Pool Cs that I think will get in (because they include teams that haven't secured Pool A yet and up to 6 teams in that list can get Pool A) and I don't have Thomas More in that group, though I think they may be the best team outside of that group.  They are definitely bubble for now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2013, 10:35:41 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 23, 2013, 10:22:21 PM
So what do we have for locks right now?

Amherst/Williams  NE
Middlebury            NE
Point                     W
Wooster                GL
IWU                      MW
Wheaton               MW
MIT                       NE
Rochester             E
Hampden-Sydney  S

Any of these?

Old Westbury           A
Stevens                   E
Thomas More          GL
Albright                    MA
Wesley                    MA
As for locks?  I am looking who is on the table from the Mid-Atlantic and the Atlantic.

I think that Emory from the South moves off the table by now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2013, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2013, 10:32:32 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 23, 2013, 10:22:21 PM
So what do we have for locks right now?

Amherst/Williams
Middlebury
Point
Wooster
IWU
Wheaton
MIT
Rochester
Hampden-Sydney

Any of these?

Old Westbury
Stevens
Thomas More
Albright
Wesley

Not a good feeling about Thomas More.  I have a list of Top 23 potential Pool Cs that I think will get in (because they include teams that haven't secured Pool A yet and up to 6 teams in that list can get Pool A) and I don't have Thomas More in that group, though I think they may be the best team outside of that group.  They are definitely bubble for now.

Westbury seems shaky as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2013, 10:41:18 PM
My question about Old Westbury is, does the Atlantic Region go 19 rounds without a team coming off?

Does an NJAC jump ahead of Old Westbury in the final rankings?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2013, 10:44:47 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2013, 10:41:18 PM
My question about Old Westbury is, does the Atlantic Region go 19 rounds without a team coming off?

Does an NJAC jump ahead of Old Westbury in the final rankings?

I think "maybe" for the first one, although it's hard to imagine a conference call with each region represented and one of them not getting any Pool C bids.  Has that happened since expansion?  I know every committee is different, but the national committee has, in recent past, seemed to put more weight on winning percentage so long as the SOS is above .500.  That bodes well for Old Westbury.

On the second, I don't think so.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2013, 10:51:40 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2013, 10:41:18 PM
My question about Old Westbury is, does the Atlantic Region go 19 rounds without a team coming off?

Does an NJAC jump ahead of Old Westbury in the final rankings?

Considering the Atlantic this year, why not?

I've been prepping for the National Fantasy League, and even though other teams will get AQs, so far haven't bothered to check ANY team except Ramapo.  Once the bracket comes out, I'll check, but honestly, can you see any team in that region winning a tourney game against anyone outside that region except (maybe) Ramapo? :P
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2013, 10:52:26 PM
My kind-of-accurate-but-probably-not-really algorithm gives the following for Pool C:

Rochester
Williams
UW-Stevens Point
Middlebury
Illinois Wesleyan
MIT
Wooster
Emory
Randolph-Macon
Wesley
Plattsburgh State
Wheaton (Ill.)
Springfield
Concordia (Texas)
Brandeis
Stevens
UW-Platteville
Hampden-Sydney
Augustana
-----
Albright
SUNY-Old Westbury
Thomas More
Transylvania
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2013, 11:07:01 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2013, 10:52:26 PM
My kind-of-accurate-but-probably-not-really algorithm gives the following for Pool C:

Rochester  E#1
Williams     NE #1
UW-Stevens Point  W#1
Middlebury             NE  #2
Illinois Wesleyan      MW#1
MIT                        NE#3
Wooster                 GL#1
Emory                    S#1
Randolph-Macon     S#2
Wesley                     MA#1
Plattsburgh State      E#2
Wheaton (Ill.)           MW#2
Springfield                NE  #4
Concordia (Texas)     S#3
Brandeis                   NE  #5
Stevens                   E#3
UW-Platteville           W#2
Hampden-Sydney     S#4
Augustana                 MW#3
-----
Albright                         MA #2
SUNY-Old Westbury        A #1
Thomas More                GL #2
Transylvania                 GL  #3

Corrections appreciated.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 23, 2013, 11:44:03 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2013, 11:07:01 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2013, 10:52:26 PM
My kind-of-accurate-but-probably-not-really algorithm gives the following for Pool C:

Rochester  E#1
Williams     NE #1
UW-Stevens Point  W#1
Middlebury             NE  #2
Illinois Wesleyan      MW#1
MIT                        NE#3
Wooster                 GL#1
Emory                    S#1
Randolph-Macon     S#2
Wesley                     MA#1
Plattsburgh State      E#2
Wheaton (Ill.)           MW#2
Springfield                NE  #4
Concordia (Texas)     S#3
Brandeis                   NE  #5
Stevens                   E#3
UW-Platteville           W#2
Hampden-Sydney     S#4
Augustana                 MW#3
-----
Albright                         MA #2
SUNY-Old Westbury        A #1
Thomas More                GL #2
Transylvania                 GL  #3

Corrections appreciated.

I would have the MA be:
1. Albright
2. Scranton
3. Wesley
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:05:07 AM
Updated through Saturday 2/23.  Notes about the data...

* In-region record is through Saturday 2/23
* SOS is through Sun 2/17 (from data sheets)
* Results vs regionally ranked is through Saturday 2/23


Pool C projection
1. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.586/7-2 
2. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-4 (.833)/.572/7-3   
3. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.556/5-3
4. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.536/2-3
5. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -22-5 (.815)/.554/3-2
6. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.552/4-4
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.539/5-4 
8. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6 (.739)/.568/4-4
9. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.507/4-2
10. Emory (South, UAA) - 19-6 (.760)/.557/5-4
11. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-4 (.810)/.508/5-3
12. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.561/4-5
13. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.544/3-1
14. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.545/5-5
15. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 20-4 (.833)/.514/3-2
16. Stevens (East, E8) - 20-5 (.800)/.533/3-3 
17. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.542/3-1 
18. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.491/2-1 
19. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-8 (.680)/.570/4-7 
----------
20. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 22-4 (.846)/.499/1-3 
21. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.534/3-4
22. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.561/1-2
23. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-8 (.692)/.548/2-8
24. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.530/3-1
25. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atlantic, CC) – 17-6 (.739)/.518/2-3     
26. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/1-5
27. Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.521/3-5
28. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.537/1-5


"Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
1. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 25-1 (.962)/.540/6-1    vs Augsburg in MIAC final, Sunday 3:00pm
2. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 24-2 (.923)/.561/4-2   vs Springfield* in NEWMAC final, Sunday 1:00pm
3. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 18-5 (.782)/.549/8-3    vs Randolph-Macon in ODAC final, Sunday 3:30pm
4. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 23-4 (.852)/.533/3-2    vs Concordia-Texas in ASC final, Sunday 2:00pm

* I have Springfield on the wrong side of the bubble with a loss to WPI


Give the numbers for your team, or other teams for that matter, a close look.  I'm trying my best to update in-region winning % and results vs RR, but could be an error here or there.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 24, 2013, 12:28:13 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:05:07 AM
Updated through Saturday 2/23.  Notes about the data...

* In-region record is through Saturday 2/23
* SOS is through Sun 2/17 (from data sheets)
* Results vs regionally ranked is through Saturday 2/23


Pool C projection
1. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.586/7-2 
2. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-4 (.833)/.572/7-3   
3. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.556/5-3
4. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.536/2-3
5. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -22-5 (.815)/.554/3-2
6. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.552/4-4
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.539/5-4 
8. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6 (.739)/.568/4-4
9. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.507/4-2
10. Emory (South, UAA) - 19-6 (.760)/.557/5-4
11. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-4 (.810)/.508/5-3
12. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.561/4-5
13. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.544/3-1
14. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.545/5-5
15. Stevens (East, E8) - 20-5 (.800)/.533/3-3 
16. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 20-4 (.833)/.514/3-2
17. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.542/3-1 
18. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.491/2-1 
19. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-8 (.680)/.570/4-7 
----------
20. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 22-4 (.846)/.499/1-3 
21. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.534/3-4
22. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.561/1-2
23. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-8 (.692)/.548/2-8
24. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.530/3-1
25. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atlantic, CC) – 17-6 (.739)/.518/2-3     
26. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/1-5
27. Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.521/3-5
28. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.537/1-5


"Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
1. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 25-1 (.962)/.540/6-1    vs Augsburg in MIAC final, Sunday 3:00pm
2. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 24-2 (.923)/.561/4-2   vs Springfield* in NEWMAC final, Sunday 1:00pm
3. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 18-5 (.782)/.549/8-3    vs Randolph-Macon in ODAC final, Sunday 3:30pm
4. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 23-4 (.852)/.533/3-2    vs Concordia-Texas in ASC final, Sunday 2:00pm

* I have Springfield on the wrong side of the bubble with a loss to WPI


Give the numbers for your team, or other teams for that matter, a close look.  I'm trying my best to update in-region winning % and results vs RR, but could be an error here or there.  Thanks.

You think Brandeis would overtake Springfield even though they lost this week?  I think Springfield stays at least ahead of Brandeis in that 19th spot (based on last weeks rankings, and the fact the Springfield went 1-1 this week, with a win vRRO, while Brandeis lost its only game).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2013, 12:35:12 AM

I think they'll put Thomas More in.  Fantastic WP and they'll be over .500 SOS when you factor in the loss to St. Vincent.  They're exactly the kind of team who gets in at the end over a 7 or 8 loss team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:46:20 AM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 24, 2013, 12:28:13 AM
You think Brandeis would overtake Springfield even though they lost this week?  I think Springfield stays at least ahead of Brandeis in that 19th spot (based on last weeks rankings, and the fact the Springfield went 1-1 this week, with a win vRRO, while Brandeis lost its only game).

I agree that Springfield will be ranked ahead of Brandeis.  But I do think the WPI game is a "bubble burster" because it's very possible that...

1) A WPI win knocks Springfield lower than 19, and
2) I have Brandeis a couple spots too high right now.

In other words, with a WPI win, Springfield could end up #20 and Brandeis #21...or something like that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:48:37 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2013, 12:35:12 AM

I think they'll put Thomas More in.  Fantastic WP and they'll be over .500 SOS when you factor in the loss to St. Vincent.  They're exactly the kind of team who gets in at the end over a 7 or 8 loss team.

I went back and forth on Brandeis vs Thomas More for that 19th spot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2013, 12:53:58 AM
Titan Q, I will be surprised if a "#16" Concordia-Texas is given a Pool C bid causing an extra plane flight this year*, if we UMHB (Pool A -ASC) hosting Trinity (Pool A SCAC).  (Maybe it is my ASC-paranoia!)  CTX does have a nice win over RR UWSP and should be 3-3 vs RR.

We already have one flight, Redlands up to Whitworth.

*In any other year, you could send CTX to Trinity and the winner to UMHB who had a "geographic" bye.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 12:56:09 AM
I am pretty sure the committee isn't considering whether to select a team based on a flight... in fact, the NCAA doesn't start talking about flight until the bracket portion of the proceedings...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2013, 12:58:09 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 12:56:09 AM
I am pretty sure the committee isn't considering whether to select a team based on a flight... in fact, the NCAA doesn't start talking about flight until the bracket portion of the proceedings...
Just my paranoia...

And it is not paranoia, if they are out to get you anyway!   ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 03:20:04 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 03:18:35 AM


   ATL                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      2      1      Ramapo      NJAC      19-3       0.517       3-1      BEAT William Paterson 83-58;   BEAT Rutgers-Newark 67-65 in  Final    POOL A    
   2      1      2      Old.Westbury      SKY      21-2      0.491       2-1      LOST to Farmingdale State 81-69 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   5      3      3      Rutgers.Newark      NJAC      18-6       0.534       2-3      BEAT Richard Stockton 49-46; LOST Ramapo in 67-65 Final    SEASON COMPLETE   
   4      4      4      RicardStockton      NJAC      19-6      0.537       1-5      LOST at Rutgers-Newark 49-46 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   3      5      5      SUNYPurchase      SKY      20-5       0.498       1-2      BEATMount St. Mary 57-48; BEAT Farmingdale State 71-48  POOL A    
                                                      
   EAST                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Rochester      UAA      20-3       0.572       7-2       LOST at Emory 72-54  SEASON COMPLETE   
   2      2      2      SUNY.Cortland      SUNYAC      21-3       0.514       3-2      BEAT Oswego St. in 65-54;  BEAT Plattsburgh State75-61  POOL A   
   3      3      3      Stevens       E8      19-4       0.533       3-2      BEAT Utica  102-66; LOST to Ithaca 70-55  SEASON COMPLETE     
   NR      5      4      Plattsburgh.State      SUNYAC      18-6       0.545       2-4        BEAT Geneseo State 77-67;   LOST to Cortland State 75-61 SEASON COMPLETE   
   5      4      5      Hobart       LL      18-6       0.538       0-4      BEATSkidmore 77-72; BEAT  RPI 72-63  POOL A   
   NR      NR      6      Oswego.State      SUNYAC      18-7       0.501       2-5      BEAT Brockport St. 78-66;  LOST to Cortland St. 65-54   SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   NR      6      NR      Ithaca        E8      15-8       0.537       2-3      BEAT St. John Fisher 70-63;  BEAT Stevens 70-55  POOL A   
   4      NR      NR      NYU      UAA      14-10       0.58       6-5      BEAT Brandeis 59-57   SEASON COMPLETE   
   6      NR      NR      SUNY.Geneseo      SUNYAC      16-8       0.523       2-3      BEAT New Paltz St. 98-80; LOST to Plattsburgh St. 77-67  SEASON COMPLETE     
                                                      
   GT LK                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Wooster      NCAC      20-4       0.554       3-1      BEAT Oberlin 74-47;  BEAT Wittenberg 78-66; LOST to Ohio Wesleyan 76-66   SEASON COMPLETE    
   2      2      2      Ohio.Wesleyan       NCAC      19-4       0.537       2-2      BEAT Denison 77-56;  BEAT Kenyon 77-64;  BEAT Wooster 76-66 POOL A   
   5      5      3      St.Vincent        PrAC      18-3       0.495       1-1      BEAT Waynesburg 72-62; BEAT  Washington and Jefferson 85-75; BEAT  Thomas More 81-67  POOL A   
   3      3      4      Thomas.More       PrAC      20-3       0.499       1-2      BEAT Geneva 82-60; BEAT Thiel 86-80;  LOST to St. Vincent 81-67 SEASON COMPLETE   
   NR      4      5      Capital      OAC      19-4      0.487       1-2      LOST Mount Union 63-59 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   4      6      6      Calvin        MIAA      18-1       0.441       0-0       BEAT  Adrian 71-44; BEAT Hope 77-57 POOL A   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   6      NR      NR      Marietta      OAC      18-7       0.500       1-3       BEAT   Wilmington 111-106 3 OT; BEAT Mount Union 80-76  POOL A    
                                                      
   MID-ATL                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   4      1      1       Alvernia       MACC      21-4       0.549       4-2      BEAT Arcadia 69-66; BEAT Lycoming 78-68  POOL A   
   1      2      2       Catholic       LAND      19-3       0.528       2-2      BEAT Merchant Marine 65-57; BEAT Juniata 63-62  POOL A     
   2      4      3      Albright      MACC      20-5      0.546       3-1      LOST to Lycoming 80-78 SEASON COMPLETE   
   3      3      4      St.Mary's(Md.)        CAC      17-3       0.531       3-2      BEAT  Mary Washington 89-81; BEAT Wesley 79-78 OT  POOL A     
   5      5      5      Wesley      CAC      16-3       0.508       3-1      BEAT   Salisbury 73-66;  LOST St. Mary's 79-78 OT  SEASON COMPLETE   
   6      6      6      Scranton      LAND      19-6      0.530       3-1       LOST to Juniata 84-74 2OT  SEASON COMPLETE   
   NR      8      7      DeSales      MACF      19-5       0.493       1-1      BEAT Fairleigh Dickinson 59-57;  LOST to Delaware Valley 77-72   
   NR      NR      8      Salisbury       CAC      15-5      0.521       3-5      BEAT York (Pa) 80-60; LOST at Wesley 73-66 in semis   SEASON COMPLETE     
   9      NR      9      Frank&Marsh      CC      16-5       0.518       2-2      BEAT Muhlenberg 48-46; LOST to Dickinson 64-40  SEASON COMPLETE     
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   8      7      NR      Cabrini      CSAC      18-4       0.473       0-2      BEAT Neumann 90-77; BEAT Keystone 90-74 in Final  POOL A   
   NR      9      NR       Dickinson       CC      16-7      0.513       2-1      BEAT Johns Hopkins 73-64;  BEAT Franklin & Marshall 64-40   POOL A   
   7      NR      NR      Arcadia      MACC      16-9      0.558       1-5      BEAT Stevenson 85-83; LOST at Alvernia 69-66 SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 03:20:28 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 03:19:30 AM


                                                      
   MW                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Illinois.Wesleyan        CCIW      18-3      0.539       5-2      LOST at North Central 87-83 OT;  LOST to Augustana 53-47  SEASON COMPLETE   
   4      2      2      WashingtonU.      UAA      18-5      0.567       6-4      BEAT Chicago 72-54 POOL A   
   3      3      3      Wheaton      CCIW      16-5      0.568       4-3      BEAT at Elmhurst 70-55;  LOST to North Central 59-50  SEASON COMPLETE   
   5      4      4      North Central.(IL)      CCIW      19-3      0.528       3-2      BEAT Illinois Wesleyan 87-83 OT; BEAT Wheaton 59-50;  BEAT  Augustana 70-63  POOL A   
   2      5      5      Transylvania      HCAC      18-5      0.542       3-1      BEAT Mount St. Joseph 75-57; LOST to Hanover 87-82  SEASON COMPLETE   
   6      6      6      Rose.Hulman       HCAC      21-3      0.505       1-1       BEAT Defiance 81-59; BEAT Hanover 64-59  POOL A    
   8      8      7      St.NorbertSt.Norbert      MWC      18-5      0.534       1-2       BEAT Ripon 75-65; BEAT Carroll 92-68  POOL A    
   7      7      8      Augustana       CCIW      16-7      0.548       1-7      BEAT Millikin 64-51;  [bWON[/b] at Illinois Wesleyan 53-47;  LOST North Central 70-63   SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
   NE                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   2      2      1      Amherst      NESCAC      23-2      0.574       6-1      BEAT Tufts 80-64; vs. Williams in FINAL 2/24   
   1      1      2      WPI      NEWMAC      23-2      0.561       4-2      BEAT Babson 66-64; vs. Springfield in FINAL 2/24   
   3      3      3      Williams      NESCAC      20-3      0.556       3-3      BEAT  Middlebury 87-80 OT; vs. Amherst in FINAL 2/24   
   5      5      4      RIC        LEC      22-3      0.53       3-3      BEAT Mass.-Dartmouth 62-58; BEAT Southern Maine 61-47;  BEAT  Keene State 60-53  POOL A     
   4      4      5      Middlebury      NESCAC      19-2      0.536       1-2      LOST to Williams 87-80 OT  SEASON COMPLETE   
   7      6      6      MIT      NEWMAC      19-4      0.552       3-3      LOST Springfield 68-60  SEASON COMPLETE   
   10      8      7      Springfield      NEWMAC      18-7      0.561       3-5      BEAT MIT 68-60; vs WPI in FINAL 2/24   
   6      7      8      Brandeis      UAA      17-7      0.57       3-6      LOSTat NYU 59-57   SEASON COMPLETE   
   8      9      9      Curry      CCC      18-7      0.547       0-4      BEAT Western New England 76-54;  BEAT Eastern Nazerene 82-76; BEAT  Gordon 69-63  POOL A   
   9      10      10      Westfield State      MASCAC      19-4      0.500       1-0      LOST to Fitchburg State 68-61 in semis  SEASON COMPLETE   
   11      11      11      East.Conn.State      LEC      18-4      0.499       1-1      BEAT West. Conn 65-54; LOST to Keene State 79-73 SEASON COMPLETE   
   NR      NR      12      Tufts      NESCAC      16-5      0.524       0-5      LOST to Amherst 80-64  SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   12      12      NR      Albertus.Magnus      GNAC      21-3      0.441       0-0      BEAT Rivier 84-65; BEAT Johnson and Wales 104-77; BEAT Anna Maria 87-80  POOL A   
                                                      
   SOUTH                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   6      4      1      Virginia.Wesleyan      ODAC      16-5      0.549       7-2      BEAT Eastern Mennonite 83-65; BEAT Randolph78-68; vs. Randolph-Macon in FINAL 2/24   
   1      1      2      Hampden.Sydney      ODAC      18-3      0.507       4-2      BEAT Roanoke 72-49; LOST to Randolph-Macon  64-59 SEASON COMPLETE    
   2      2      3      MHB      ASC      21-4      0.533       3-2      BEAT LeTourneau 61-54; BEAT Hardin-Simmons 76-67; vs. Concordia (TX) in FINAL 2/24   
   3      6      4      tChris.Newport       USAC      17-5      0.535       0-2       BEAT Averett 74-58; BEAT North Carolina Wesleyan 72-59; BEAT Greensboro 81-74  POOL A    
   5      3      5      Emory      UAA      17-6      0.557       4-4      BEAT Covenant 75-50; BEAT Rochester 72-54   SEASON COMPLETE    
   4      5      6      Concordia(TX)      ASC      18-4      0.514       2-2      BEAT Mississippi College 78-76;  BEAT Texas-Dallas 82-75; vs. MHB in FINAL 2/24   
   NR      8      7      Texas.Dallas      ASC      19-6      0.511       0-3      BEAT Schreiner 74-60; LOST Concordia (TX) 82-75   
   NR      7      8      Randolph      ODAC      14-5      0.502       2-3      BEAT Lynchburg 76-57; LOST Virginia Wesleyan 78-68  SEASON COMPLETE    
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   7      NR      NR       Lynchburg      ODAC      14-7      0.492       1-5      BEAT Shenandoah 90-65; LOST to Randolph 76-57 SEASON COMPLETE   
   8      NR      NR      Guilford      ODAC      14-8      0.520       2-5      BEAT Emory & Henry 70-60; LOST to Randolph-Macon 57-56  SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
   WEST                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      St.Thomas      MIAC      24-1      0.540       6-1      BEAT Carleton 70-57; vs. Augsburg in Final 2/24   
   3      2      2      Stevens.Point      WIAC      21-4      0.586       7-2      LOST to Platteville 60-56 in semis  SEASON COMPLETE   
   4      3      3      Whitewater       WIAC      20-4      0.581       4-3      BEAT Stout 64-59; BEAT Platteville 66-55  POOL A    
   2      4      4      Whitworth       NWC      21-3      0.526       2-2      BEAT Lewis & Clark 74-69; BEAT Whitman 93-72  POOL A    
   6      5      5      Buena.Vista       IIAC      18-6      0.561       1-2      LOST to Dubuque 64-61; SEASON COMPLETE   
   5      6      6      Stout      WIAC      18-6      0.536       1-5      BEAT Superior 78-64; LOST at Whitewater 64-59 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   9      7      7      Con.Moorhead      MIAC      18-6      0.507       2-2      LOST to Augsburg 74-67  SEASON COMPLETE   
   7      9      8      Augsburg      MIAC      19-6      0.505       1-3      BEAT St. John's 74-67;  BEAT Concordia Moorhead 74-67; vs. St. Thomas in Final 2/24   
   NR      8      9      Whitman      NWC      15-6      0.540       2-2       BEAT George Fox 90-78; LOST  Whitworth 93-72   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   8      NR      NR      Luther      IIAC      17-5      0.512       1-2      LOST to Wartburg 62-57  SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 03:27:40 AM
POOL A AND REMAINING GAMES



   ATL                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      2      1      Ramapo      NJAC      19-3       0.517       3-1      BEAT William Paterson 83-58;   BEAT Rutgers-Newark 67-65 in  Final    POOL A    
   3      5      5      SUNYPurchase      SKY      20-5       0.498       1-2      BEATMount St. Mary 57-48; BEAT Farmingdale State 71-48  POOL A    
                                                      
   EAST                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   2      2      2      SUNY.Cortland      SUNYAC      21-3       0.514       3-2      BEAT Oswego St. in 65-54;  BEAT Plattsburgh State75-61  POOL A   
   5      4      5      Hobart       LL      18-6       0.538       0-4      BEATSkidmore 77-72; BEAT  RPI 72-63  POOL A   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   NR      6      NR      Ithaca        E8      15-8       0.537       2-3      BEAT St. John Fisher 70-63;  BEAT Stevens 70-55  POOL A   
                                                      
   GT LK                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   2      2      2      Ohio.Wesleyan       NCAC      19-4       0.537       2-2      BEAT Denison 77-56;  BEAT Kenyon 77-64;  BEAT Wooster 76-66 POOL A   
   5      5      3      St.Vincent        PrAC      18-3       0.495       1-1      BEAT Waynesburg 72-62; BEAT  Washington and Jefferson 85-75; BEAT  Thomas More 81-67  POOL A   
   4      6      6      Calvin        MIAA      18-1       0.441       0-0       BEAT  Adrian 71-44; BEAT Hope 77-57 POOL A   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   6      NR      NR      Marietta      OAC      18-7       0.500       1-3       BEAT   Wilmington 111-106 3 OT; BEAT Mount Union 80-76  POOL A    
                                                      
   MID-ATL                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   4      1      1       Alvernia       MACC      21-4       0.549       4-2      BEAT Arcadia 69-66; BEAT Lycoming 78-68  POOL A   
   1      2      2       Catholic       LAND      19-3       0.528       2-2      BEAT Merchant Marine 65-57; BEAT Juniata 63-62  POOL A     
   3      3      4      St.Mary's(Md.)        CAC      17-3       0.531       3-2      BEAT  Mary Washington 89-81; BEAT Wesley 79-78 OT  POOL A     
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   8      7      NR      Cabrini      CSAC      18-4       0.473       0-2      BEAT Neumann 90-77; BEAT Keystone 90-74 in Final  POOL A   
   NR      9      NR       Dickinson       CC      16-7      0.513       2-1      BEAT Johns Hopkins 73-64;  BEAT Franklin & Marshall 64-40   POOL A   
                                                      
                                                      
   MW                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   4      2      2      WashingtonU.      UAA      18-5      0.567       6-4      BEAT Chicago 72-54 POOL A   
   5      4      4      North Central.(IL)      CCIW      19-3      0.528       3-2      BEAT Illinois Wesleyan 87-83 OT; BEAT Wheaton 59-50;  BEAT  Augustana 70-63  POOL A   
   6      6      6      Rose.Hulman       HCAC      21-3      0.505       1-1       BEAT Defiance 81-59; BEAT Hanover 64-59  POOL A    
   8      8      7     St.Norbert      MWC      18-5      0.534       1-2       BEAT Ripon 75-65; BEAT Carroll 92-68  POOL A    
                                                      
   NE                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   5      5      4      RIC        LEC      22-3      0.53       3-3      BEAT Mass.-Dartmouth 62-58; BEAT Southern Maine 61-47;  BEAT  Keene State 60-53  POOL A     
   8      9      9      Curry      CCC      18-7      0.547       0-4      BEAT Western New England 76-54;  BEAT Eastern Nazerene 82-76; BEAT  Gordon 69-63  POOL A   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   12      12      NR      Albertus.Magnus      GNAC      21-3      0.441       0-0      BEAT Rivier 84-65; BEAT Johnson and Wales 104-77; BEAT Anna Maria 87-80  POOL A   
                                                      
   SOUTH                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   3      6      4      Chris.Newport       USAC      17-5      0.535       0-2       BEAT Averett 74-58; BEAT North Carolina Wesleyan 72-59; BEAT Greensboro 81-74  POOL A    
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
                                                      
   WEST                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   4      3      3      Whitewater       WIAC      20-4      0.581       4-3      BEAT Stout 64-59; BEAT Platteville 66-55  POOL A    
   2      4      4      Whitworth       NWC      21-3      0.526       2-2      BEAT Lewis & Clark 74-69; BEAT Whitman 93-72  POOL A    
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
                                                      
                                                      
   2      2      1      Amherst      NESCAC      23-2      0.574       6-1      BEAT Tufts 80-64; vs. Williams in FINAL 2/24   
   1      1      2      WPI      NEWMAC      23-2      0.561       4-2      BEAT Babson 66-64; vs. Springfield in FINAL 2/24   
   3      3      3      Williams      NESCAC      20-3      0.556       3-3      BEAT  Middlebury 87-80 OT; vs. Amherst in FINAL 2/24   
   10      8      7      Springfield      NEWMAC      18-7      0.561       3-5      BEAT MIT 68-60; vs WPI in FINAL 2/24   
   6      4      1      Virginia.Wesleyan      ODAC      16-5      0.549       7-2      BEAT Eastern Mennonite 83-65; BEAT Randolph78-68; vs. Randolph-Macon in FINAL 2/24   
   2      2      3      MHB      ASC      21-4      0.533       3-2      BEAT LeTourneau 61-54; BEAT Hardin-Simmons 76-67; vs. Concordia (TX) in FINAL 2/24   
   4      5      6      Concordia(TX)      ASC      18-4      0.514       2-2      BEAT Mississippi College 78-76;  BEAT Texas-Dallas 82-75; vs. MHB in FINAL 2/24   
   1      1      1      St.Thomas      MIAC      24-1      0.540       6-1      BEAT Carleton 70-57; vs. Augsburg in Final 2/24   
   7      9      8      Augsburg      MIAC      19-6      0.505       1-3      BEAT St. John's 74-67;  BEAT Concordia Moorhead 74-67; vs. St. Thomas in Final 2/24   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 03:33:50 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 03:33:24 AM
POOL C ONLY


   ATL                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   2      1      2      Old.Westbury      SKY      21-2      0.491       2-1      LOST to Farmingdale State 81-69 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   5      3      3      Rutgers.Newark      NJAC      18-6       0.534       2-3      BEAT Richard Stockton 49-46; LOST Ramapo in 67-65 Final    SEASON COMPLETE   
   4      4      4      RicardStockton      NJAC      19-6      0.537       1-5      LOST at Rutgers-Newark 49-46 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
   EAST                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Rochester      UAA      20-3       0.572       7-2       LOST at Emory 72-54  SEASON COMPLETE   
   3      3      3      Stevens       E8      19-4       0.533       3-2      BEAT Utica  102-66; LOST to Ithaca 70-55  SEASON COMPLETE     
   NR      5      4      Plattsburgh.State      SUNYAC      18-6       0.545       2-4        BEAT Geneseo State 77-67;   LOST to Cortland State 75-61 SEASON COMPLETE   
   NR      NR      6      Oswego.State      SUNYAC      18-7       0.501       2-5      BEAT Brockport St. 78-66;  LOST to Cortland St. 65-54   SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   4      NR      NR      NYU      UAA      14-10       0.58       6-5      BEAT Brandeis 59-57   SEASON COMPLETE   
   6      NR      NR      SUNY.Geneseo      SUNYAC      16-8       0.523       2-3      BEAT New Paltz St. 98-80; LOST to Plattsburgh St. 77-67  SEASON COMPLETE     
                                                      
   GT LK                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Wooster      NCAC      20-4       0.554       3-1      BEAT Oberlin 74-47;  BEAT Wittenberg 78-66; LOST to Ohio Wesleyan 76-66   SEASON COMPLETE    
   3      3      4      Thomas.More       PrAC      20-3       0.499       1-2      BEAT Geneva 82-60; BEAT Thiel 86-80;  LOST to St. Vincent 81-67 SEASON COMPLETE   
   NR      4      5      Capital      OAC      19-4      0.487       1-2      LOST Mount Union 63-59 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
                                                      
   MID-ATL                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   2      4      3      Albright      MACC      20-5      0.546       3-1      LOST to Lycoming 80-78 SEASON COMPLETE   
   5      5      5      Wesley      CAC      16-3       0.508       3-1      BEAT   Salisbury 73-66;  LOST St. Mary's 79-78 OT  SEASON COMPLETE   
   6      6      6      Scranton      LAND      19-6      0.530       3-1       LOST to Juniata 84-74 2OT  SEASON COMPLETE   
   NR      8      7      DeSales      MACF      19-5       0.493       1-1      BEAT Fairleigh Dickinson 59-57;  LOST to Delaware Valley 77-72   
   NR      NR      8      Salisbury       CAC      15-5      0.521       3-5      BEAT York (Pa) 80-60; LOST at Wesley 73-66 in semis   SEASON COMPLETE     
   9      NR      9      Frank&Marsh      CC      16-5       0.518       2-2      BEAT Muhlenberg 48-46; LOST to Dickinson 64-40  SEASON COMPLETE     
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   7      NR      NR      Arcadia      MACC      16-9      0.558       1-5      BEAT Stevenson 85-83; LOST at Alvernia 69-66 SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
                                                      
   MW                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      1      Illinois.Wesleyan        CCIW      18-3      0.539       5-2      LOST at North Central 87-83 OT;  LOST to Augustana 53-47  SEASON COMPLETE   
   3      3      3      Wheaton      CCIW      16-5      0.568       4-3      BEAT at Elmhurst 70-55;  LOST to North Central 59-50  SEASON COMPLETE   
   2      5      5      Transylvania      HCAC      18-5      0.542       3-1      BEAT Mount St. Joseph 75-57; LOST to Hanover 87-82  SEASON COMPLETE   
   7      7      8      Augustana       CCIW      16-7      0.548       1-7      BEAT Millikin 64-51;  [bWON[/b] at Illinois Wesleyan 53-47;  LOST North Central 70-63   SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
   NE                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   4      4      5      Middlebury      NESCAC      19-2      0.536       1-2      LOST to Williams 87-80 OT  SEASON COMPLETE   
   7      6      6      MIT      NEWMAC      19-4      0.552       3-3      LOST Springfield 68-60  SEASON COMPLETE   
   6      7      8      Brandeis      UAA      17-7      0.57       3-6      LOSTat NYU 59-57   SEASON COMPLETE   
   9      10      10      Westfield State      MASCAC      19-4      0.500       1-0      LOST to Fitchburg State 68-61 in semis  SEASON COMPLETE   
   11      11      11      East.Conn.State      LEC      18-4      0.499       1-1      BEAT West. Conn 65-54; LOST to Keene State 79-73 SEASON COMPLETE   
   NR      NR      12      Tufts      NESCAC      16-5      0.524       0-5      LOST to Amherst 80-64  SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
                                                      
   SOUTH                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   1      1      2      Hampden.Sydney      ODAC      18-3      0.507       4-2      BEAT Roanoke 72-49; LOST to Randolph-Macon  64-59 SEASON COMPLETE    
   5      3      5      Emory      UAA      17-6      0.557       4-4      BEAT Covenant 75-50; BEAT Rochester 72-54   SEASON COMPLETE    
   NR      8      7      Texas.Dallas      ASC      19-6      0.511       0-3      BEAT Schreiner 74-60; LOST Concordia (TX) 82-75   
   NR      7      8      Randolph      ODAC      14-5      0.502       2-3      BEAT Lynchburg 76-57; LOST Virginia Wesleyan 78-68  SEASON COMPLETE    
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   7      NR      NR       Lynchburg      ODAC      14-7      0.492       1-5      BEAT Shenandoah 90-65; LOST to Randolph 76-57 SEASON COMPLETE   
   8      NR      NR      Guilford      ODAC      14-8      0.520       2-5      BEAT Emory & Henry 70-60; LOST to Randolph-Macon 57-56  SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                      
   WEST                                                   
   RNK1      RNK2      RNK3      TEAM      CONF.      REG/WIN%      SOS      vRRO      SCHEDULE   
   3      2      2      Stevens.Point      WIAC      21-4      0.586       7-2      LOST to Platteville 60-56 in semis  SEASON COMPLETE   
   6      5      5      Buena.Vista       IIAC      18-6      0.561       1-2      LOST to Dubuque 64-61; SEASON COMPLETE   
   5      6      6      Stout      WIAC      18-6      0.536       1-5      BEAT Superior 78-64; LOST at Whitewater 64-59 in semis SEASON COMPLETE   
   9      7      7      Con.Moorhead      MIAC      18-6      0.507       2-2      LOST to Augsburg 74-67  SEASON COMPLETE   
   NR      8      9      Whitman      NWC      15-6      0.540       2-2       BEAT George Fox 90-78; LOST  Whitworth 93-72   
                                                      
                     DROPPING OUT                                 
   8      NR      NR      Luther      IIAC      17-5      0.512       1-2      LOST to Wartburg 62-57  SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 08:57:24 AM
OK, final day of the regular season.  Some key games still to play.

Just bumping this up...my projection, updated through Saturday 2/23.  Notes about the data...

* In-region record is through Saturday 2/23
* SOS is through Sun 2/17 (from data sheets)
* Results vs regionally ranked is through Saturday 2/23


Pool C projection
1. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.586/7-2 
2. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-4 (.833)/.572/7-3   
3. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.556/5-3
4. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.536/2-3
5. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -22-5 (.815)/.554/3-2
6. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.552/4-4
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.539/5-4 
8. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6 (.739)/.568/4-4
9. Emory (South, UAA) - 19-6 (.760)/.557/5-4
10. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.507/4-2
11. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-4 (.810)/.508/5-3
12. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.561/4-5
13. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.544/3-1
14. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.545/5-5
15. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 20-4 (.833)/.514/3-2
16. Stevens (East, E8) - 20-5 (.800)/.533/3-3 
17. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.542/3-1 
18. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.491/2-1 
19. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-8 (.680)/.570/4-7 
----------
20. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 22-4 (.846)/.499/1-3 
21. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.534/3-4
22. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.561/1-2
23. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-8 (.692)/.548/2-8
24. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.530/3-1
25. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atlantic, CC) – 17-6 (.739)/.518/2-3     
26. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/1-5
27. Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.521/3-5
28. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.537/1-5


"Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
1. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 25-1 (.962)/.540/6-1    vs Augsburg in MIAC final, Sunday 3:00pm
2. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 24-2 (.923)/.561/4-2   vs Springfield* in NEWMAC final, Sunday 1:00pm
3. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 18-5 (.782)/.549/8-3    vs Randolph-Macon in ODAC final, Sunday 3:30pm
4. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 23-4 (.852)/.533/3-2    vs Concordia-Texas in ASC final, Sunday 2:00pm

* I have Springfield on the wrong side of the bubble with a loss to WPI


Give the numbers for your team, or other teams for that matter, a close look.  I'm trying my best to update in-region winning % and results vs RR, but could be an error here or there.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2013, 09:06:57 AM
Respectfully, Greek,

CTX has an in-region win over UWSP and 2 wins over UT-D.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 09:09:17 AM
Maybe through a community effort we can arrive at projections for final rankings in all 8 regions?

Here is mine for the Midwest...

1. North Central - 22-3 (.880)/.528/6-2   Pool A
2. Washington U. - 19-5 (.792)/.567/6-4   Pool A
3. Illinois Wesleyan - 18-5 (.783)/.539/5-4 
4. Wheaton - 17-6 (.739)/.568/4-4
5. Rose-Hulman - 23-3 (.885)/.505/1-1   Pool A
6. Transylvania  - 19-6 (.760)/.542/3-1 
7. Augustana - 18-8 (.692)/.548/2-8
8. St. Norbert - 20-5 (.800)/.534/1-2 Pool A    
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 24, 2013, 09:58:27 AM
   Team                       RegWL   Overall     RegRkOppo.
1 Virginia Wesleyan     18-5    21-6           8-2
2 Mary Hardin-Baylor     23-4    23-4         3-2
3 Emory                          19-6    19-6       5-4
4 Hampden-Sydney     19-4    23-4           4-2
5 Christopher Newport   20-5    21-5         0-2
6 Concordia (Texas)       20-4    22-5         2-2
7 Texas-Dallas                20-7    20-7        0-4
8 Randolph                   15-6    21-6         2-4
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 10:07:27 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 24, 2013, 09:58:27 AM
   Team                       RegWL   Overall     RegRkOppo.
1 Virginia Wesleyan     18-5    21-6           8-2
2 Mary Hardin-Baylor     23-4    23-4         3-2
3 Emory                          19-6    19-6       5-4
4 Hampden-Sydney     19-4    23-4           4-2
5 Christopher Newport   20-5    21-5         0-2
6 Concordia (Texas)       20-4    22-5         2-2
7 Texas-Dallas                20-7    20-7        0-4
8 Randolph                   15-6    21-6         2-4

I believe Virginia Wesleyan is 8-3 vs regionally ranked, and Concordia (Tx) is 3-2.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 10:10:56 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2013, 09:06:57 AM
Respectfully, Greek,

CTX has an in-region win over UWSP and 2 wins over UT-D.

I haven't had time to change over regional records and vRRO, even though I said I would try.  Those stats are through Sunday's results per NCAA page.  You'll have to look at TQ's list to get that up-to-date information.  Sorry for the inconvenience.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 10:12:56 AM
Thanks for doing all of your results tracking for the ranked teams, Greek Tragedy!  That's been key to my Pool C projection process.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 10:40:00 AM
Q, How close to consideration would you have Randolph-Macon in pool c?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 24, 2013, 10:49:13 AM
You're right, Titan Q.  A revision:

   Team                       RegWL   Overall     RegRkOppo.
1 Virginia Wesleyan     18-5    21-6           8-3
2 Mary Hardin-Baylor     23-4    23-4         3-2
3 Emory                          19-6    19-6       5-4
4 Hampden-Sydney     19-4    23-4           4-2
6 Concordia (Texas)       20-4    22-5         3-2
5 Christopher Newport   20-5    21-5         0-2
7 Texas-Dallas                20-7    20-7        0-4
8 Randolph                   15-6    21-6         2-4

Mary Hardin-Baylor v Concordia AND VWC v R-MC are games with big implications for the rankings.

An R-MC win would not only give them the ODAC AQ with a 18-9 record (19-9 overall), but might result in their entering the rankings at #7 or #8, which would affect RegRkOppo for VWC and HSC.  Randolph-Macon would be 7-8 against regionally ranked opponents.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dcahill44 on February 24, 2013, 11:27:57 AM
What do you guys think about the East Region? who will get a pool C? Plattsburgh state has put together a decent resume.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 24, 2013, 11:46:48 AM
For grins and giggles (with an allowance that I need to look at it more, but I need to leave for some family stuff now), here are my top 25 teams that haven't gained Pool A yet (as many as 6 can).

IN
   Amherst   
   WPI   
   St.Thomas   
   Stevens.Point   
   Rochester   
   Williams   
   Illinois.Wesleyan    
   Wooster   
   MHB   

SHOULD BE IN, but a notch below IN:
   Middlebury   
   Wheaton   
   MIT   
   Emory   
   Virginia.Wesleyan   
   Albright   
   Stevens   
   Transylvania   

BUBBLE:
   Buena.Vista    
   Springfield   
   Brandeis   
   Concordia(TX)   
   Plattsburgh.State   
   Rutgers.Newark   
   Old.Westbury   
   Hampden.Sydney   

FWIW.  I'll need to study it carefully to see if I am totally happy with it but need to go.  For example, I want to rethink Thomas More and a few others...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:08:25 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 10:40:00 AM
Q, How close to consideration would you have Randolph-Macon in pool c?

Great catch.  After looking at Randolph-Macon, quite frankly, I have them in at #17 at this point - how can you leave out a team with 7 wins vs regionally ranked, and 15 games played?? 

Now the problem, of course, is that for R-M to be a Pool C team, they have to lose today...which puts the in-region record at 16-10 (.615).  Can a 10-loss/.615 team really get in?  They'll still have those 7 wins vs regionally ranked, and the games played total moves to an unheard of 16!

Really interesting situation...including the fact that R-M has never been ranked in the South.  I think a team with 7 wins vs regionally ranked and 16 games played absolutely has to get in.

Great Pool C drama.
-----------------------

* In-region record is through Saturday 2/23
* SOS is through Sun 2/17 (from data sheets)
* Results vs regionally ranked is through Saturday 2/23


Pool C projection
1. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.586/7-2 
2. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-4 (.833)/.572/7-3   
3. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 21-3 (.875)/.556/5-3
4. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.536/2-3
5. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -22-5 (.815)/.554/3-2
6. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.552/4-4
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.539/5-4 
8. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6 (.739)/.568/4-4
9. Emory (South, UAA) - 19-6 (.760)/.557/5-4
10. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.507/6-3 (2-1 added assuming R-M gets ranked in South)
11. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-4 (.810)/.508/5-3
12. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.561/4-5
13. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.544/3-1
14. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.545/5-5
15. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.542/4-1  (1-0 added assuming R-M gets ranked in South)
16. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 20-4 (.833)/.514/3-2
17. Randolph-Macon (South, ODAC) - 16-9 (.640)/.565/7-8 (not currently ranked in the South region)
18. Stevens (East, E8) - 20-5 (.800)/.533/3-3 
19. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.491/2-1
----------
20. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-8 (.680)/.570/4-7 
21. Thomas More (Great Lakes, PrAC) - 22-4 (.846)/.499/1-3 
22. Rutgers-Newark (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.534/3-4
23. Buena Vista (West, IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.561/1-2
24. Augustana (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-8 (.692)/.548/2-8
25. Scranton (Mid-Atlantic, LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.530/3-1
26. Franklin & Marshall (Mid-Atlantic, CC) – 17-6 (.739)/.518/2-3     
27. UW-Stout (West, WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/1-5
28. Salisbury (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.521/3-6  (0-1 added assuming R-M gets ranked in South)
29. Richard Stockton (Atlantic, NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.537/1-5


"Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
1. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 25-1 (.962)/.540/6-1    vs Augsburg in MIAC final, Sunday 3:00pm
2. WPI (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 24-2 (.923)/.561/4-2   vs Springfield* in NEWMAC final, Sunday 1:00pm
3. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 18-5 (.782)/.549/8-4    vs Randolph-Macon in ODAC final, Sunday 3:30pm
4. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 23-4 (.852)/.533/3-2    vs Concordia-Texas in ASC final, Sunday 2:00pm

* I have Springfield on the wrong side of the bubble with a loss to WPI


Give the numbers for your team, or other teams for that matter, a close look.  I'm trying my best to update in-region winning % and results vs RR, but could be an error here or there.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Also, Randolph-Macon getting ranked in the South (which seems like a slam dunk) impacts all kinds of "results vs regionally ranked."  In terms of Pool C...

* give Transylvania 1-0...move to 4-1
* give Hampden-Sydney 2-1...move to 6-3
* give Virginia Wesleyan 0-1...move to 8-4


All kinds of stuff riding on the Randolph-Macon situation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 24, 2013, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: dcahill44 on February 24, 2013, 11:27:57 AM
What do you guys think about the East Region? who will get a pool C? Plattsburgh state has put together a decent resume.

There is no requirement that any given region receives a Pool C.  With that said, in the East, Rochester and Stevens will still be ranked ahead of Plattsburgh in the Pool C discussions.  Rochester should get selected rather early, but Stevens is more of a bubble team, so I don't think things are looking good for an 8-loss PS team.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 24, 2013, 12:29:59 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Also, Randolph-Macon getting ranked in the South (which seems like a slam dunk) impacts all kinds of "results vs regionally ranked).  In terms of Pool C...

* give Transylvania 1-0...move to 4-1
* give Hampden-Sydney 2-1...move to 6-3
* give Virginia Wesleyan 0-1...move to 8-4


All kinds of stuff riding on the Randolph-Macon situation.

It would again point out what a huge advantage it is to be in a region where more teams get ranked.  18-9 teams hardly ever get ranked in the Great Lakes, East or Atlantic  Regions.  Terribly unfair if RRO is going to be used as such a high priority criteria.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 12:34:18 PM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2013, 12:29:59 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Also, Randolph-Macon getting ranked in the South (which seems like a slam dunk) impacts all kinds of "results vs regionally ranked).  In terms of Pool C...

* give Transylvania 1-0...move to 4-1
* give Hampden-Sydney 2-1...move to 6-3
* give Virginia Wesleyan 0-1...move to 8-4


All kinds of stuff riding on the Randolph-Macon situation.

It would again point out what a huge advantage it is to be in a region where more teams get ranked.  18-9 teams hardly ever get ranked in the Great Lakes, East or Atlantic  Regions.  Terribly unfair if RRO is going to be used as such a high priority criteria.

I don't think anyone is saying it is a higher priority... it is just that RMC has such an unbelievable number and that RMC being ranked will have an affect on those other school's numbers. And further more, we have seen that vRRO has been considered by regional committees for several years as a deciding factor... so a team with 16 games vRROs will probably get some attention. There are five criteria after all that will be weighed...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:37:23 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 12:34:18 PM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2013, 12:29:59 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Also, Randolph-Macon getting ranked in the South (which seems like a slam dunk) impacts all kinds of "results vs regionally ranked).  In terms of Pool C...

* give Transylvania 1-0...move to 4-1
* give Hampden-Sydney 2-1...move to 6-3
* give Virginia Wesleyan 0-1...move to 8-4


All kinds of stuff riding on the Randolph-Macon situation.

It would again point out what a huge advantage it is to be in a region where more teams get ranked.  18-9 teams hardly ever get ranked in the Great Lakes, East or Atlantic  Regions.  Terribly unfair if RRO is going to be used as such a high priority criteria.

I don't think anyone is saying it is a higher priority... it is just that RMC has such an unbelievable number and that RMC being ranked will have an affect on those other school's numbers. And further more, we have seen that vRRO has been considered by regional committees for several years as a deciding factor... so a team with 16 games vRROs will probably get some attention. There are five criteria after all that will be weighed...

I think you are missing Scott's main point though - "It would again point out what a huge advantage it is to be in a region where more teams get ranked.  18-9 teams hardly ever get ranked in the Great Lakes, East or Atlantic  Regions."

More ranked teams means more "results vs regional ranked"...and more "results vs regionally ranked" is a big advantage.

Seems hard to argue with that point., unless I'm missing something.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 12:39:04 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 24, 2013, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: dcahill44 on February 24, 2013, 11:27:57 AM
What do you guys think about the East Region? who will get a pool C? Plattsburgh state has put together a decent resume.

There is no requirement that any given region receives a Pool C.  With that said, in the East, Rochester and Stevens will still be ranked ahead of Plattsburgh in the Pool C discussions.  Rochester should get selected rather early, but Stevens is more of a bubble team, so I don't think things are looking good for an 8-loss PS team.

I'm not sure it's a given that Stevens remains ranked ahead of Plattsburgh in the East Region.

Plattsburgh: .731/.559/5-5
Stevens: .800/.533/3-3

It's probably really close.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:41:38 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 12:39:04 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 24, 2013, 12:26:50 PM
Quote from: dcahill44 on February 24, 2013, 11:27:57 AM
What do you guys think about the East Region? who will get a pool C? Plattsburgh state has put together a decent resume.

There is no requirement that any given region receives a Pool C.  With that said, in the East, Rochester and Stevens will still be ranked ahead of Plattsburgh in the Pool C discussions.  Rochester should get selected rather early, but Stevens is more of a bubble team, so I don't think things are looking good for an 8-loss PS team.

I'm not sure it's a given that Stevens remains ranked ahead of Plattsburgh in the East Region.

Plattsburgh: .731/.559/5-5
Stevens: .800/.533/3-3

It's probably really close.

Agree.  I have Plattsburgh St ahead of Stevens in the final East ranking.  It's close, but I think it's pretty clear.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 24, 2013, 12:44:18 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:37:23 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 12:34:18 PM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2013, 12:29:59 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Also, Randolph-Macon getting ranked in the South (which seems like a slam dunk) impacts all kinds of "results vs regionally ranked).  In terms of Pool C...

* give Transylvania 1-0...move to 4-1
* give Hampden-Sydney 2-1...move to 6-3
* give Virginia Wesleyan 0-1...move to 8-4


All kinds of stuff riding on the Randolph-Macon situation.

It would again point out what a huge advantage it is to be in a region where more teams get ranked.  18-9 teams hardly ever get ranked in the Great Lakes, East or Atlantic  Regions.  Terribly unfair if RRO is going to be used as such a high priority criteria.

I don't think anyone is saying it is a higher priority... it is just that RMC has such an unbelievable number and that RMC being ranked will have an affect on those other school's numbers. And further more, we have seen that vRRO has been considered by regional committees for several years as a deciding factor... so a team with 16 games vRROs will probably get some attention. There are five criteria after all that will be weighed...

I think you are missing Scott's main point though - "It would again point out what a huge advantage it is to be in a region where more teams get ranked.  18-9 teams hardly ever get ranked in the Great Lakes, East or Atlantic  Regions."

More ranked teams means more "results vs regional ranked"...and more "results vs regionally ranked" is a big advantage.

Seems hard to argue with that point., unless I'm missing something.

That's exactly the point.

There is virtually nothing a coach can do to assure themselves a high number of RRO games, its luck, fortune and being in a big enough region where 3 or 4 of your conference teams end up ranked.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 12:44:30 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:37:23 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 12:34:18 PM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2013, 12:29:59 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Also, Randolph-Macon getting ranked in the South (which seems like a slam dunk) impacts all kinds of "results vs regionally ranked).  In terms of Pool C...

* give Transylvania 1-0...move to 4-1
* give Hampden-Sydney 2-1...move to 6-3
* give Virginia Wesleyan 0-1...move to 8-4


All kinds of stuff riding on the Randolph-Macon situation.

It would again point out what a huge advantage it is to be in a region where more teams get ranked.  18-9 teams hardly ever get ranked in the Great Lakes, East or Atlantic  Regions.  Terribly unfair if RRO is going to be used as such a high priority criteria.

I don't think anyone is saying it is a higher priority... it is just that RMC has such an unbelievable number and that RMC being ranked will have an affect on those other school's numbers. And further more, we have seen that vRRO has been considered by regional committees for several years as a deciding factor... so a team with 16 games vRROs will probably get some attention. There are five criteria after all that will be weighed...

I think you are missing Scott's main point though - "It would again point out what a huge advantage it is to be in a region where more teams get ranked.  18-9 teams hardly ever get ranked in the Great Lakes, East or Atlantic  Regions."

More ranked teams means more "results vs regional ranked"...and more "results vs regionally ranked" is a big advantage.

Seems hard to argue with that point., unless I'm missing something.

Understand that point... I just don't know if it is proven necessarily. Sure... more schools with more regional losses have gotten in from regions that have more ranked teams, but I also think there are other factors at play in those scenarios than just the number of vRROs. RMC's SOS is a major factor and honestly I can't remember a time a team had a number that high.

There is certainly an issue of regions being unbalanced and the fact that schools have moved from a region to another because of a conference change in recent years (i.e. Hamilton, Cornell, etc.) has made it worse. Regional Realignment is being done because this is one of the problems (and other sports where there aren't enough regions)... but to compound the problem, presidents rightly or wrongly want all conference teams in the same region - I just don't see this being the solution.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 12:50:46 PM
Average number of regionally ranked games played by region:

SO   4.5
WE   4.4
EA   5.3
MW   3.9
MA   4.9
GL   4.5
NE   4.3
AT   4.5
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2013, 12:59:41 PM
Quote from: algernon on February 24, 2013, 10:49:13 AM
You're right, Titan Q.  A revision:

   Team                       RegWL   Overall     RegRkOppo.
1 Virginia Wesleyan     18-5    21-6           8-3
2 Mary Hardin-Baylor     23-4    23-4         3-2
3 Emory                          19-6    19-6       5-4
4 Hampden-Sydney     19-4    23-4           4-2
6 Concordia (Texas)       20-4    22-5         3-2
5 Christopher Newport   20-5    21-5         0-2
7 Texas-Dallas                20-7    20-7        0-4
8 Randolph                   15-6    21-6         2-4

Mary Hardin-Baylor v Concordia AND VWC v R-MC are games with big implications for the rankings.

An R-MC win would not only give them the ODAC AQ with a 18-9 record (19-9 overall), but might result in their entering the rankings at #7 or #8, which would affect RegRkOppo for VWC and HSC.  Randolph-Macon would be 7-8 against regionally ranked opponents.
I agree.

I can make the case for someone to knock Randolph out of the #8 slot.  Does RMC or does the Centre/BSC winner make the better case for #8?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 01:20:45 PM
Updated SOS included from KnightSlappy - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

In-region record, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked are all through Saturday 2/23 now.  Sunday losses by Williams and Springfield now included.


Pool C projection
1. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.585/7-2 
2. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-4 (.833)/.575/7-3   
3. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.566/5-4
4. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.545/2-3
5. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -22-5 (.815)/.557/3-2
6. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.556/5-4 
7. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.555/4-4
8. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6 (.739)/.566/4-4
9. Emory (South, UAA) - 19-6 (.760)/.556/5-4
10. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.512/6-3*
11. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-4 (.810)/.530/5-3
12. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.546/3-1
13. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.559/5-5
14. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.548/4-1* 
15. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 20-4 (.833)/.529/3-2  vs Mary Hardin-Baylor, 3:00pm
16. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.563/4-6
17. Randolph-Macon* (South, ODAC) - 16-9 (.640)/.576/7-8  vs Virginia Wesleyan, 3:30pm
18. Stevens (East, E8) - 20-5 (.800)/.533/3-3 
19. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.500/2-1
----------
Left at the table...
(NE) Brandeis (UAA) - 17-8 (.680)/.569/4-7 
(GL) Thomas More (PrAC) - 22-4 (.846)/.512/1-3 
(AT) Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.548/3-4
(MW) Augustana (CCIW) - 18-8 (.692)/.553/2-8
(W) Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2
(MA) Scranton (LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/3-1
(S) Texas-Dallas (ASC) - 20-7 (.741)/.516/0-4
(E) Oswego St (SUNYAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.518/2-6

Won't get to the table...
(MA) Franklin & Marshall (CC) – 17-6 (.739)/.533/2-3     
(W) UW-Stout (WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.542/1-5
(MA) Salisbury (CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.535/3-6*
(AT) Richard Stockton (NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.544/1-5


"Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
1. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 25-1 (.962)/.542/6-1    vs Augsburg in MIAC final, Sunday 3:00pm
2. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 18-5 (.782)/.557/8-4*    vs Randolph-Macon in ODAC final, Sunday 3:30pm
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 23-4 (.852)/.540/3-2    vs Concordia-Texas in ASC final, Sunday 2:00pm


* My projections assume that Randolph-Macon will be included in the final South ranking.  The following results vs regionally ranked have been applied:
   - Transylvania: 1-0
   - Hampden-Sydney: 2-1
   - Virginia Wesleyan: 0-1
   - Salisbury: 0-1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: kiko on February 24, 2013, 01:22:17 PM
15 or 16 games versus RRO is a crazy high number.  They could have half that and most folks would say their schedule was pretty tough.

It would be interesting to see what sort of consideration RM gets were they to not win the AQ.  Alas, if they are considered but don't get a dance card, we'll never know it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 10:12:56 AM
Thanks for doing all of your results tracking for the ranked teams, Greek Tragedy!  That's been key to my Pool C projection process.

No problem! You have done a great job and so have a lot of thers. This is what makes this time of year so fun.

I will be gone for most of the day as Greek Jr celebrates his 2nd birthday today. We get to host 10 kids and 15 adults. Wish me luck!  ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 24, 2013, 01:33:18 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 10:12:56 AM
Thanks for doing all of your results tracking for the ranked teams, Greek Tragedy!  That's been key to my Pool C projection process.

No problem! You have done a great job and so have a lot of thers. This is what makes this time of year so fun.

I will be gone for most of the day as Greek Jr celebrates his 2nd birthday today. We get to host 10 kids and 15 adults. Wish me luck!  ???

Are they all 'in-region'?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 24, 2013, 01:41:46 PM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2013, 01:33:18 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 10:12:56 AM
Thanks for doing all of your results tracking for the ranked teams, Greek Tragedy!  That's been key to my Pool C projection process.

No problem! You have done a great job and so have a lot of thers. This is what makes this time of year so fun.

I will be gone for most of the day as Greek Jr celebrates his 2nd birthday today. We get to host 10 kids and 15 adults. Wish me luck!  ???

Are they all 'in-region'?

Don't forget about the multiplier. Adults count for .8, Kids count for 1.2.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 24, 2013, 02:06:27 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 10:12:56 AM
Thanks for doing all of your results tracking for the ranked teams, Greek Tragedy!  That's been key to my Pool C projection process.

No problem! You have done a great job and so have a lot of thers. This is what makes this time of year so fun.

I will be gone for most of the day as Greek Jr celebrates his 2nd birthday today. We get to host 10 kids and 15 adults. Wish me luck!  ???

That's a nice ratio... Wait until the kids outnumber the adults. Went to a 3 yr old's party... 15 kids with 15 adults. Over been to a few where there are more kids though... Those Getty crazy. Happy Birthday to New School!! ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: tigerfan64 on February 24, 2013, 02:20:10 PM
As a Hampden-Sydney fan how worried should I be tommorow on whether or not my 23-4 Tigers get a Pool C bid....especially if 2-1 and gets add to their record against regionally ranked opponents depending on those stinking Yellow Jackets getting ranked regionally
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 02:20:38 PM
None... they are in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WUPHF on February 24, 2013, 02:37:02 PM
Springfield and WPI going to overtime.  No idea why I am watching, but this has been a good game.  The crowd is the best Division III crowd I have seen this season.

http://wpi.prestosports.com/video/live
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 03:11:46 PM
Updated SOS included from KnightSlappy - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

In-region record, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked are all through Saturday 2/23 now.  Sunday losses by Williams and Springfield now included.


Pool C projection
1. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.585/7-2 
2. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-4 (.833)/.575/7-3   
3. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.566/5-4
4. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.545/2-3
5. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -22-5 (.815)/.557/3-2
6. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.556/5-4 
7. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.555/4-4
8. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6 (.739)/.566/4-4
9. Emory (South, UAA) - 19-6 (.760)/.556/5-4
10. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.512/6-3*
11. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-4 (.810)/.530/5-3
12. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.546/3-1
13. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.559/5-5
14. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.548/4-1* 
15. Concordia-Tx (South, ASC) - 20-4 (.833)/.529/3-2    vs Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC final, in progress
16. Randolph-Macon* (South, ODAC) - 16-9 (.640)/.576/7-8    vs Virginia Wesleyan in ODAC final, 3:30pm
17. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.563/4-6
18. Stevens (East, E8) - 20-5 (.800)/.533/3-3 
19. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.500/2-1
----------
Left at the table...
(NE) Brandeis (UAA) - 17-8 (.680)/.569/4-7 
(GL) Thomas More (PrAC) - 22-4 (.846)/.512/1-3 
(AT) Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.548/3-4
(MW) Augustana (CCIW) - 18-8 (.692)/.553/2-8
(W) Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2
(MA) Scranton (LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/3-1
(S) Texas-Dallas (ASC) - 20-7 (.741)/.516/0-4
(E) Oswego St (SUNYAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.518/2-6

Won't get to the table...
(MA) Franklin & Marshall (CC) – 17-6 (.739)/.533/2-3     
(W) UW-Stout (WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.542/1-5
(MA) Salisbury (CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.535/3-6*
(AT) Richard Stockton (NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.544/1-5


"Bubble Bursters" (presumed Pool As that would be competitive in Pool C)
1. St. Thomas (West, MIAC) - 25-1 (.962)/.542/6-1    vs Augsburg in MIAC final, in progress
2. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 18-5 (.782)/.557/8-4*    vs Randolph-Macon in ODAC final, Sunday 3:30pm
3. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 23-4 (.852)/.540/3-2    vs Concordia-Texas in ASC final, in progress


* My projections assume that Randolph-Macon will be included in the final South ranking.  The following results vs regionally ranked have been applied:
   - Transylvania: 1-0
   - Hampden-Sydney: 2-1
   - Virginia Wesleyan: 0-1
   - Salisbury: 0-1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2013, 03:16:03 PM
Quote from: WUH on February 24, 2013, 02:37:02 PM
Springfield and WPI going to overtime.  No idea why I am watching, but this has been a good game.  The crowd is the best Division III crowd I have seen this season.

http://wpi.prestosports.com/video/live

You were watching because you are a D-III fan and that game was awesome!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 24, 2013, 03:36:41 PM
WPI beats Springfield 79-72 in overtime.  Will be interesting to see where they slot MIT/Springfield in New England.  I think 1 gets in, not both.  Will the 2-1 head to head record be enough to offset 8(??) losses and bump Springfield ahead of MIT??  I doubt it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 03:37:58 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 24, 2013, 03:36:41 PM
WPI beats Springfield 79-72 in overtime.  Will be interesting to see where they slot MIT/Springfield in New England.  I think 1 gets in, not both.  Will the 2-1 head to head record be enough to offset 8(??) losses and bump Springfield ahead of MIT??  I doubt it.

I have both MIT (#7) and Springfield (#17) in at this point for whatever that's worth.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 03:43:31 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 03:37:58 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 24, 2013, 03:36:41 PM
WPI beats Springfield 79-72 in overtime.  Will be interesting to see where they slot MIT/Springfield in New England.  I think 1 gets in, not both.  Will the 2-1 head to head record be enough to offset 8(??) losses and bump Springfield ahead of MIT??  I doubt it.

I have both MIT (#7) and Springfield (#17) in at this point for whatever that's worth.

Any plans to do a round by round selection simulation (putting eight up on the board each time) like you did last year?  I'm not sure it changes much but I did find it very interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 04:33:26 PM
For those of you that know the West region better than me: is there any way Platteville jumps in ahead of Stout and Buena Vista?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 24, 2013, 04:48:14 PM
Mary Hardin Baylor down 64-71 with 4:42 remaining.  How are their pool C chances??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 24, 2013, 04:50:45 PM
I think Platteville is 15-9 in region with a 2-8 record against RRO.

They got dropped by Stout twice. 

I can't see them moving ahead of Stout or Buena Vista.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 24, 2013, 04:51:55 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 24, 2013, 04:48:14 PM
Mary Hardin Baylor down 64-71 with 4:42 remaining.  How are their pool C chances??

I like them.  I think they'll get in pretty easily if they don't win today.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2013, 04:52:08 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 24, 2013, 04:48:14 PM
Mary Hardin Baylor down 64-71 with 4:42 remaining.  How are their pool C chances??
UMHB, very good.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 24, 2013, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 04:33:26 PM
For those of you that know the West region better than me: is there any way Platteville jumps in ahead of Stout and Buena Vista?
region win pct# is still too low at .625, I think Augsburg would be ahead of Platteville as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 04:55:26 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 04:33:26 PM
For those of you that know the West region better than me: is there any way Platteville jumps in ahead of Stout and Buena Vista?

Of that West group after Stevens Point, I have...

1. Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2
2. UW-Stout (WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.542/1-5 (swept Platteville)
3. UW-Platteville - 15-9 (.625)//.601/2-8
4. Augsburg - 21-7 (.750)/.514/2-3

I don't think any will get in.  I have Stevens Point getting in #1 and then Buena Vista sitting on the board for 18 rounds without getting picked.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 04:56:17 PM
Quote from: AO on February 24, 2013, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 04:33:26 PM
For those of you that know the West region better than me: is there any way Platteville jumps in ahead of Stout and Buena Vista?
region win pct# is still too low at .625, I think Augsburg would be ahead of Platteville as well.

Just asking because they have a .601 SOS according to my numbers which is huge.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 04:57:43 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 04:55:26 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 04:33:26 PM
For those of you that know the West region better than me: is there any way Platteville jumps in ahead of Stout and Buena Vista?

Of that West group after Stevens Point, I have...

1. Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2
2. UW-Stout (WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.542/1-5 (swept Platteville)
3. UW-Platteville - 15-9 (.625)//.601/7-2
4. Augsburg - 21-7 (.750)/.514/2-3

I don't think any will get in.  I have Stevens Point getting in #1 and then Buena Vista sitting on the board for 18 rounds without getting picked.

"If" Platteville hit the board first (big if) do you think they get taken?  Their SOS and wins against regionally ranked would be very very favorable.  Could the regional rankers consider a tweak to the final rankings for this reason?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2013, 05:00:28 PM
UMHB is on an 8-point run. UMHB was down 78-68 with 1:02 left.

Now it is CTX 78-76 with 31.2 secs left.

CTX 80-76 with 19 secs left.

CTX wins after losing the 2 regular season meetings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 05:02:19 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 04:57:43 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 04:55:26 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 04:33:26 PM
For those of you that know the West region better than me: is there any way Platteville jumps in ahead of Stout and Buena Vista?

Of that West group after Stevens Point, I have...

1. Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2
2. UW-Stout (WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.542/1-5 (swept Platteville)
3. UW-Platteville - 15-9 (.625)//.601/7-2
4. Augsburg - 21-7 (.750)/.514/2-3

I don't think any will get in.  I have Stevens Point getting in #1 and then Buena Vista sitting on the board for 18 rounds without getting picked.

"If" Platteville hit the board first (big if) do you think they get taken?  Their SOS and wins against regionally ranked would be very very favorable.  Could the regional rankers consider a tweak to the final rankings for this reason?

Hard to put them ahead of Stout when Stout has two wins head-to-head. We have seen this before in this conference, if memory serves, and it ended up with both missing out.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 05:06:17 PM
Updated SOS included from KnightSlappy - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

In-region record, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked are all through Saturday 2/23 now.  Sunday losses by Williams, Springfield, Mary Hardin-Baylor, and Virginia Wesleyan now included.


Pool C projection
1. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.585/7-2 
2. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-4 (.833)/.575/7-3   
3. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.566/5-4
4. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.545/2-3
5. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -22-5 (.815)/.557/3-2
6. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.557/8-5*
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.556/5-4 
8. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 23-5 (.821)/.540/3-3
9. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.555/4-4
10. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6 (.739)/.566/4-4
11. Emory (South, UAA) - 19-6 (.760)/.556/5-4
12. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.512/6-3*
13. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-4 (.810)/.530/5-3
14. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.546/3-1
15. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.559/5-5
16. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.548/4-1* 
17. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.563/4-6
18. Stevens (East, E8) - 20-5 (.800)/.533/3-3 
19. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.500/2-1
----------
Left at the table...
(NE) Brandeis (UAA) - 17-8 (.680)/.569/4-7 
(GL) Thomas More (PrAC) - 22-4 (.846)/.512/1-3 
(AT) Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.548/3-4
(MW) Augustana (CCIW) - 18-8 (.692)/.553/2-8
(W) Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2
(MA) Scranton (LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/3-1
(S) Texas-Dallas (ASC) - 20-7 (.741)/.516/0-4
(E) Oswego St (SUNYAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.518/2-6

Won't get to the table...
(MA) Franklin & Marshall (CC) – 17-6 (.739)/.533/2-3     
(W) UW-Stout (WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.542/1-5
(MA) Salisbury (CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.535/3-6*
(AT) Richard Stockton (NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.544/1-5


* My projections assume that Randolph-Macon will be included in the final South ranking.  The following results vs regionally ranked have been applied:
   - Transylvania: 1-0
   - Hampden-Sydney: 2-1
   - Virginia Wesleyan: 0-2
   - Salisbury: 0-1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 24, 2013, 05:07:06 PM
Won't have to worry about Randolph-Macon as a 'C' candidate currently running away from Va. Wes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 05:11:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 05:02:19 PM

Hard to put them ahead of Stout when Stout has two wins head-to-head. We have seen this before in this conference, if memory serves, and it ended up with both missing out.

Yeah I think in the "all things fair and equal" side of regional rankings, Stout stays above them... but if you're a regional ranker (from that region and presumably friendly with some of the parties involved), do you think "Stout's resume is just too generic at this point to be a viable selection.  Platteville has a unique resume that might turn some heads... let's bump them up? 

I'm just interested in how those conversations go.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 05:13:45 PM
Updated SOS included from KnightSlappy - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

In-region record, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked are all through Saturday 2/23 now.  Sunday losses by Williams, Springfield, Mary Hardin-Baylor, and Virginia Wesleyan now included.


Pool C projection
1. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.585/7-2 
2. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-4 (.833)/.575/7-3   
3. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.566/5-4
4. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.545/2-3
5. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.557/8-5*
6. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) -22-5 (.815)/.557/3-2
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.556/5-4 
8. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 23-5 (.821)/.540/3-3
9. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.555/4-4
10. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6 (.739)/.566/4-4
11. Emory (South, UAA) - 19-6 (.760)/.556/5-4
12. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.512/6-3*
13. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-4 (.810)/.530/5-3
14. Albright (Mid-Atlantic, MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.546/3-1
15. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.559/5-5
16. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.548/4-1* 
17. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.563/4-6
18. Stevens (East, E8) - 20-5 (.800)/.533/3-3 
19. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.500/2-1
----------
Left at the table...
(NE) Brandeis (UAA) - 17-8 (.680)/.569/4-7 
(GL) Thomas More (PrAC) - 22-4 (.846)/.512/1-3 
(AT) Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.548/3-4
(MW) Augustana (CCIW) - 18-8 (.692)/.553/2-8
(W) Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2
(MA) Scranton (LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/3-1
(S) Texas-Dallas (ASC) - 20-7 (.741)/.516/0-4
(E) Oswego St (SUNYAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.518/2-6

Won't get to the table...
(MA) Franklin & Marshall (CC) – 17-6 (.739)/.533/2-3     
(W) UW-Stout (WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.542/1-5
(W) UW-Platteville - 15-9 (.625)/.601/2-8
(MA) Salisbury (CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.535/3-6*
(W) Augsburg - 21-7 (.750)/.514/2-3
(AT) Richard Stockton (NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.544/1-5


* My projections assume that Randolph-Macon (ODAC Pool A) will be included in the final South ranking.  The following results vs regionally ranked have been applied:
   - Transylvania: 1-0
   - Hampden-Sydney: 2-1
   - Virginia Wesleyan: 0-2
   - Salisbury: 0-1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 05:15:08 PM
There are now going to be a number of teams ahead of Emory in the South... we will have to see what Coach Zimmerman has to say about it on Hoopsville tonight ;).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 24, 2013, 05:20:00 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 05:11:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 05:02:19 PM

Hard to put them ahead of Stout when Stout has two wins head-to-head. We have seen this before in this conference, if memory serves, and it ended up with both missing out.

Yeah I think in the "all things fair and equal" side of regional rankings, Stout stays above them... but if you're a regional ranker (from that region and presumably friendly with some of the parties involved), do you think "Stout's resume is just too generic at this point to be a viable selection.  Platteville has a unique resume that might turn some heads... let's bump them up? 

I'm just interested in how those conversations go.

You mean, do they make a mockery of the process?  I can imagine that happens.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 05:24:49 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 24, 2013, 05:20:00 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 05:11:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 05:02:19 PM

Hard to put them ahead of Stout when Stout has two wins head-to-head. We have seen this before in this conference, if memory serves, and it ended up with both missing out.

Yeah I think in the "all things fair and equal" side of regional rankings, Stout stays above them... but if you're a regional ranker (from that region and presumably friendly with some of the parties involved), do you think "Stout's resume is just too generic at this point to be a viable selection.  Platteville has a unique resume that might turn some heads... let's bump them up? 

I'm just interested in how those conversations go.

You mean, do they make a mockery of the process?  I can imagine that happens.

Ha.  I don't know if I'd go that far... I'm just saying are you ranking the best teams or the best resumes?  Those aren't always the same thing.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 05:24:55 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 05:02:19 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 04:57:43 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 04:55:26 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 04:33:26 PM
For those of you that know the West region better than me: is there any way Platteville jumps in ahead of Stout and Buena Vista?

Of that West group after Stevens Point, I have...

1. Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2
2. UW-Stout (WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.542/1-5 (swept Platteville)
3. UW-Platteville - 15-9 (.625)//.601/7-2
4. Augsburg - 21-7 (.750)/.514/2-3

I don't think any will get in.  I have Stevens Point getting in #1 and then Buena Vista sitting on the board for 18 rounds without getting picked.

"If" Platteville hit the board first (big if) do you think they get taken?  Their SOS and wins against regionally ranked would be very very favorable.  Could the regional rankers consider a tweak to the final rankings for this reason?

Hard to put them ahead of Stout when Stout has two wins head-to-head. We have seen this before in this conference, if memory serves, and it ended up with both missing out.

In 2008, IWU beat Wheaton 3 times...but Wheaton had a much better national Pool C resume than IWU, so the Midwest committee ranked Wheaton ahead of IWU.  Wheaton got a Pool C, and IWU did not.  It was the right call by the Midwest committee -- they knew IWU had very little chance to get in.  Their decision got the region another Pool C.

The West should put Platteville as the second highest ranked Pool C - let them sit there on the board with that .601 SOS and 10 games played vs regionally ranked.  It's the best chance the West has at getting a second Pool C in my opinion.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 24, 2013, 05:25:46 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 04:57:43 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 04:55:26 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 04:33:26 PM
For those of you that know the West region better than me: is there any way Platteville jumps in ahead of Stout and Buena Vista?

Of that West group after Stevens Point, I have...

1. Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2
2. UW-Stout (WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.542/1-5 (swept Platteville)
3. UW-Platteville - 15-9 (.625)//.601/7-2
4. Augsburg - 21-7 (.750)/.514/2-3

I don't think any will get in.  I have Stevens Point getting in #1 and then Buena Vista sitting on the board for 18 rounds without getting picked.

"If" Platteville hit the board first (big if) do you think they get taken?  Their SOS and wins against regionally ranked would be very very favorable.  Could the regional rankers consider a tweak to the final rankings for this reason?
Platteville is 2-8 against regionally ranked, not 7-2.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 24, 2013, 05:28:45 PM
Hey all,

What shift do you see in the regional rankings among the Pool C eligible teams? 

Specifically, does the Mid-Atl stay Albright, Wesley, Scranton, DeSales?  I'd say yes, but gosh are Wesley and Scranton close.

Does Northeast stay Williams, Middlebury, MIT, Springfield, Brandeis?  Again, I'd say yes.

In the South, I've got to put the order Hampden.Sydney, MHB, Va. Wesleyan, Emory, Tx-Dallas?  What do you think?

In the West, I still have Stevens Point, Buena Vista for the first two, but then I am unsure about Stout vs. Moorhead.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 05:30:00 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 05:24:49 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 24, 2013, 05:20:00 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 05:11:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 05:02:19 PM

Hard to put them ahead of Stout when Stout has two wins head-to-head. We have seen this before in this conference, if memory serves, and it ended up with both missing out.

Yeah I think in the "all things fair and equal" side of regional rankings, Stout stays above them... but if you're a regional ranker (from that region and presumably friendly with some of the parties involved), do you think "Stout's resume is just too generic at this point to be a viable selection.  Platteville has a unique resume that might turn some heads... let's bump them up? 

I'm just interested in how those conversations go.

You mean, do they make a mockery of the process?  I can imagine that happens.

Ha.  I don't know if I'd go that far... I'm just saying are you ranking the best teams or the best resumes?  Those aren't always the same thing.

Mockery?  It's the regional advisory committee's job to stack the teams up to maximize the region's Pool C chances.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: tigerfan64 on February 24, 2013, 05:31:23 PM
Okay...if my HSC tigers are in the dance (most likely) what is the chance of us getting a home game in the first round possibly?  Do we rank higher than say VA Weslyan or Randolph Macon? or are we the third girl to the dance in that group as far as seeding?  I am just looking for information from better gurus than myself
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 05:36:14 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 05:30:00 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 05:24:49 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 24, 2013, 05:20:00 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 05:11:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 05:02:19 PM

Hard to put them ahead of Stout when Stout has two wins head-to-head. We have seen this before in this conference, if memory serves, and it ended up with both missing out.

Yeah I think in the "all things fair and equal" side of regional rankings, Stout stays above them... but if you're a regional ranker (from that region and presumably friendly with some of the parties involved), do you think "Stout's resume is just too generic at this point to be a viable selection.  Platteville has a unique resume that might turn some heads... let's bump them up? 

I'm just interested in how those conversations go.

You mean, do they make a mockery of the process?  I can imagine that happens.

Ha.  I don't know if I'd go that far... I'm just saying are you ranking the best teams or the best resumes?  Those aren't always the same thing.

Mockery?  It's the regional advisory committee's job to stack the teams up to maximize the region's Pool C chances.

I definitely didn't use that word.  I see it the same as you.  Pick the best looking resumes vs. best "teams".  Head to head is important but some times matchups favor one team over the other on a head to head basis but favor the other against a larger pool of opponents.  (and yes I'm speaking purely in the hypothetical since I haven't seen either Platteville or Stout this year).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2013, 05:43:02 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2013, 12:58:09 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 12:56:09 AM
I am pretty sure the committee isn't considering whether to select a team based on a flight... in fact, the NCAA doesn't start talking about flight until the bracket portion of the proceedings...
Just my paranoia...

And it is not paranoia, if they are out to get you anyway!   ;)
My paranoia is not as heightened now that CTX has taken care of business.

The interesting thing to see is whether CTX gets bracketed someplace where their athleticism causes match-up problems.  CTX coach Stan Bonewitz is the cousin to the former McMurry Assistant to Ron Holmes for the 1999, 2000, and 2001 McMurry teams, Russell Vanlandingham .  Bonewitz loves up-tempo style. Bonewitz' father was the "inventor" of the system that CTX and McMurry used.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 05:45:12 PM
Pool A is set, so it's time to begin projecting in earnest. My kind-of-accurate-but-not-really algorithm gives the following:

Rochester
UW-Stevens Point
Williams
Virginia Wesleyan
Middlebury
Illinois Wesleyan
MIT
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Wooster
Emory
Wesley
Plattsburgh State
Wheaton (Ill.)
Springfield
Stevens
Brandeis
Hampden-Sydney
UW-Platteville
Transylvania
----
Albright
SUNY-Old Westbury
Thomas More
Augustana
Rutgers-Newark

Though there's not much of a difference from UW-Platteville down to Rutgers-Newark
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 05:50:11 PM
Quote from: tigerfan64 on February 24, 2013, 05:31:23 PM
Okay...if my HSC tigers are in the dance (most likely) what is the chance of us getting a home game in the first round possibly?  Do we rank higher than say VA Weslyan or Randolph Macon? or are we the third girl to the dance in that group as far as seeding?  I am just looking for information from better gurus than myself

They look to me to be right on the cusp of hosting/not hosting. It will probably come down to geography and what works best for reducing flights.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 24, 2013, 05:57:34 PM
Both models seem to have Virginia Wesleyan ahead of Emory in final regional rankings for Pool C consideration.  Is it possible that Emory MBB's overtime victory over Virginia Wesleyan earlier this season could switch their order of Pool C selection?  Both teams probably may make it in in tomorrow, though.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 06:10:08 PM
Final 2013 Pool C Projection

(In-region record and results vs regionally ranked through Sunday 2/24.  SOS also through Sunday 2/24 per KnightSlappy - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html)


Teams projected at the table for round 1 of the Pool C process (region alphabetical order)
(AT) SUNY-Old Westbury (Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.500/2-1
(E) Rochester (UAA) - 20-4 (.833)/.575/7-3
(GL) Wooster (NCAC) -22-5 (.815)/.557/3-2
(MA) Wesley (CAC) - 17-4 (.810)/.530/5-3
(MW) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.556/5-4 
(NE) Williams (NESCAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.577/5-4
(S) Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.560/8-5
(W) UW-Stevens Point (WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.585/7-2

Pool C selection projection
1. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.585/7-2 
2. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-4 (.833)/.575/7-3   
3. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.577/5-4
4. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.560/8-5*
5. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.545/2-3
6. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 22-5 (.815)/.557/3-2
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.556/5-4 
8. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 23-5 (.821)/.550/3-3
9. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.555/4-4
10. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6 (.739)/.566/4-4
11. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.512/6-3*
12. Emory (South, UAA) - 19-6 (.760)/.556/5-4
13. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-4 (.810)/.530/5-3
14. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.559/5-5
15. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.548/4-1* 
16. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.575/4-6
17. Stevens (East, E8) - 20-5 (.800)/.533/3-3 
18. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.500/2-1
19. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-8 (.680)/.569/4-7 

Projected left at the table after round 19 (in order of competitiveness)
(MA) Albright (MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.546/3-1
(GL) Thomas More (PrAC) - 22-4 (.846)/.512/1-3 
(AT) Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.548/3-4
(MW) Augustana (CCIW) - 18-8 (.692)/.553/2-8
(W) Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2
(NE) Tufts (NESCAC) - 16-6 (.727)/.535/0-6
(S) Texas-Dallas (ASC) - 20-7 (.741)/.516/0-4
(E) Oswego St (SUNYAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.518/2-6

Top teams that won't get to the table for consideration
(MA) Franklin & Marshall (CC) – 17-6 (.739)/.533/2-3     
(W) UW-Stout (WIAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.542/1-5
(W) UW-Platteville - 15-9 (.625)/.601/2-8
(MA) Scranton (LAND) - 19-7 (.731)/.536/3-1
(MA) Salisbury (CAC) – 16-6 (.727)/.535/3-6*
(AT) Richard Stockton (NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.544/1-5


* My projections assume that Randolph-Macon (ODAC Pool A) will be included in the final South ranking.  The following results vs regionally ranked have been applied:
   - Transylvania: 1-0
   - Hampden-Sydney: 2-1
   - Virginia Wesleyan: 0-2
   - Salisbury: 0-1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 24, 2013, 06:13:00 PM
Mine...FWIW (not much)

Round 1   Stevens Point
Round 2   Illinois Wesleyan
Round 3   Rochester
Round 4   Willaims
Round 5   Wooster
Round 6   Wheaton
Round 7   Middlebury
Round 8   MIT
Round 9   Albright
Round 10   Va. Wesleyan
Round 11   Stevens
Round 12   Hampden.Sydney
Round 13   MHB
Round 14   Emory
Round 15   Wesley
Round 16   Tanslyvania
Round 17   Old Westbury
Round 18   Thomas More
Round 19   Buena Vista
   
On the Table   
Rutgers.Newark   
Plattsburgh St   
Capital   
Scranton   
Augustana   
Springfield   
Texas.Dallas   
Stout   
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2013, 06:16:43 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 05:45:12 PM
Pool A is set, so it's time to begin projecting in earnest. My kind-of-accurate-but-not-really algorithm gives the following:

Rochester                     E1
UW-Stevens Point         W1
Williams                         NE1
Virginia Wesleyan           S1
Middlebury                     NE2
Illinois Wesleyan             MW1
MIT                               NE3     
Mary Hardin-Baylor         S2
Wooster                        GL1
Emory                           S3
Wesley                           MA1
Plattsburgh State            E3
Wheaton (Ill.)                 MW2
Springfield                       NE4
Stevens                          E3
Brandeis                         NE5
Hampden-Sydney           S4
UW-Platteville                  MW3
Albright                           MA2
----
SUNY-Old Westbury          A1
Transylvania                     MW4
Thomas More                   GL2  (Thanks to Knightslappy))
Augustana                        MW6
Rutgers-Newark               A2

Though there's not much of a difference from UW-Platteville down to Rutgers-Newark
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 24, 2013, 06:21:19 PM
Here are my projections (note NOT in order they'll be selected):

Middlebury
Williams
Stevens Point
Rochester
Virginia Wesleyan
Wooster
Illinois Wesleyan
Plattsburgh
Hampden-Sydney
Mary Hardin Baylor
Wheaton (IL)
Wesley
MIT
Stevens
Old Westbury
Transy
Emory
Thomas More
Albright

Last 3 in:
Thomas More, Albright, Old Westbury
First 4 out:
Springfield, Rutgers-Newark, Brandeis, Augustana
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 06:21:56 PM
Ralph, Thomas More is in the GL.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 24, 2013, 06:39:06 PM
I seem to be in the minority on Buena Vista...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 06:44:01 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 24, 2013, 06:39:06 PM
I seem to be in the minority on Buena Vista...

I just don't see them getting in over someone like Plattsburgh (WP/SOS/RvRRO):

Plattsburgh State: .731/.559/5-5
Buena Vista: .720/.564/1-2
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 06:48:38 PM
Had a last minute change of heart and put Brandeis in, at the expense of Albright...

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1499138#msg1499138
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 06:50:55 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 24, 2013, 06:39:06 PM
I seem to be in the minority on Buena Vista...

Buena Vista lost to Carthage, and Augustana beat Carthage twice...so I see Augustana having a better chance than BV.  (But I don't see either getting in.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 24, 2013, 06:55:30 PM
Titan Q,
Do you really see Plattsburgh State getting to the table before Stevens does in the East?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 06:59:39 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 24, 2013, 06:55:30 PM
Titan Q,
Do you really see Plattsburgh State getting to the table before Stevens does in the East?

I do.  In the week 3 ranking it went Stevens (#3), Plattsburgh (#4)...but I think Plattsburgh now has a better resume and will be higher in the final ranking...

Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.559/5-5
Stevens (East, E8) - 20-5 (.800)/.533/3-3 

All a matter of how the numbers are interpreted...who knows!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 24, 2013, 07:02:41 PM
Thanks TQ I hope you're right.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 07:07:35 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 06:48:38 PM
Had a last minute change of heart and put Brandeis in, at the expense of Albright...

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1499138#msg1499138

so we now differ by just one selection - I have Platteville and you have Old Westbury - and I have no confidence that Platteville will really get in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 07:07:35 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 06:48:38 PM
Had a last minute change of heart and put Brandeis in, at the expense of Albright...

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1499138#msg1499138

so we now differ by just one selection - I have Platteville and you have Old Westbury - and I have no confidence that Platteville will really get in.

I didn't notice that - impressive!

I wish we could see the final ranking - I'm intrigued to know who the West puts up as the top C candidate behind Stevens Point.  I'd think seriously about Platteville if they were on the board...I didn't ever have them on the board.

Another thing about Platteville is that they lost head-to-head to Augustana.  And those two would be on the table together. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2013, 07:13:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 07:07:35 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 06:48:38 PM
Had a last minute change of heart and put Brandeis in, at the expense of Albright...

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1499138#msg1499138

so we now differ by just one selection - I have Platteville and you have Old Westbury - and I have no confidence that Platteville will really get in.

I agree -- but when look at it from an "old school" standpoint, I see UWSP going off the board first or second but then do we really go the rest of the night without another West at-large? Problem is that there isn't a great next candidate.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 07:15:11 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2013, 07:13:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 07:07:35 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 06:48:38 PM
Had a last minute change of heart and put Brandeis in, at the expense of Albright...

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1499138#msg1499138

so we now differ by just one selection - I have Platteville and you have Old Westbury - and I have no confidence that Platteville will really get in.

I agree -- but when look at it from an "old school" standpoint, I see UWSP going off the board first or second but then do we really go the rest of the night without another West at-large? Problem is that there isn't a great next candidate.

Oh I agree.  Seems weird to me that we wouldn't have a second West Pool C - the regional committee needs to think very hard about their order.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 07:16:46 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 07:07:35 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 06:48:38 PM
Had a last minute change of heart and put Brandeis in, at the expense of Albright...

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1499138#msg1499138

so we now differ by just one selection - I have Platteville and you have Old Westbury - and I have no confidence that Platteville will really get in.

I didn't notice that - impressive!

I wish we could see the final ranking - I'm intrigued to know who the West puts up as the top C candidate behind Stevens Point.  I'd think seriously about Platteville if they were on the board...I didn't ever have them on the board.

Another thing about Platteville is that they lost head-to-head to Augustana.  And those two would be on the table together.

Ah, missed another. You have Transylvania and I have Albright still.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 07:19:17 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 07:16:46 PM

Ah, missed another. You have Transylvania and I have Albright still.

You know, that extra win vs regionally ranked I'm giving Transy for Randolph-Macon is actually a big factor for me.  4-1 stands out.

It's all a crap shoot!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 24, 2013, 07:23:38 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 06:50:55 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 24, 2013, 06:39:06 PM
I seem to be in the minority on Buena Vista...

Buena Vista lost to Carthage, and Augustana beat Carthage twice...so I see Augustana having a better chance than BV.  (But I don't see either getting in.)

Arg.  Don't remind me.  I thought Carthage could have gotten Augie and reached the CCIW tournament except for the Elmhurst fiasco.

Ok, I'll think more on Buena Vista.  Honestly, that's my last team in, so it's not like I'm overly wedded to it.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 07:25:50 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 07:19:17 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 07:16:46 PM

Ah, missed another. You have Transylvania and I have Albright still.

You know, that extra win vs regionally ranked I'm giving Transy for Randolph-Macon is actually a big factor for me.  4-1 stands out.

It's all a crap shoot!

HA! Yes, I wasn't including any new teams to the rankings, but adding Randolph-Macon to the list is enough to bump Transylvania to my #18 spot (bumping Albright off).

I've updated my previous projection post.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 24, 2013, 07:52:30 PM
Sell me on Transylvania being ranked ahead of Hanover who beat them 3 times.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 08:03:19 PM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2013, 07:52:30 PM
Sell me on Transylvania being ranked ahead of Hanover who beat them 3 times.

Transylvania was #5 in the Midwest and Hanover was unranked. That's a lot of ground for that final head-to-head to make up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 08:15:44 PM
Quote from: sac on February 24, 2013, 07:52:30 PM
Sell me on Transylvania being ranked ahead of Hanover who beat them 3 times.

Transylvania - 19-6 (.760)/.548/4-1 
Hanover - 18-7 (.720)/.524/.3-3

Just a little better numbers.  It's like the 2008 situation I mentioned earlier, when IWU beat Wheaton 3 times, but Wheaton had a better overall resume and was ranked higher.

The Midwest committee wouldn't be giving its region the best chance to maximize Pool C bids if it ranked Hanover higher.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 08:26:56 PM
Changing focus a bit from the bubble...  Who do our experts think are the most likely to be setup with 3 home games (if they keep winning) before Salem?  Obviously things will change as games go on, but the selection committee has to have it in their minds with the original brackets.

Thoughts?  Would be 8 teams right if it all went chalk I think...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 08:36:30 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 08:26:56 PM
Changing focus a bit from the bubble...  Who do our experts think are the most likely to be setup with 3 home games (if they keep winning) before Salem?  Obviously things will change as games go on, but the selection committee has to have it in their minds with the original brackets.

Thoughts?  Would be 8 teams right if it all went chalk I think...

The problem is that the teams I see as the top 8 are not all geographically spread out.  I have not thought about this order, but these are the 8 that come to mind for me...

1. Amherst
2. St. Thomas
3. UW-Whitewater
4. Williams
5. WPI
6. UW-Whitewater
7. Rochester
8. North Central
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2013, 08:37:45 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2013, 08:36:30 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 08:26:56 PM
Changing focus a bit from the bubble...  Who do our experts think are the most likely to be setup with 3 home games (if they keep winning) before Salem?  Obviously things will change as games go on, but the selection committee has to have it in their minds with the original brackets.

Thoughts?  Would be 8 teams right if it all went chalk I think...

The problem is that the teams I see as the top 8 are not all geographically spread out.  I have not thought about this order, but these are the 8 that come to mind for me...

1. Amherst
2. St. Thomas
3. UW-Whitewater <----
4. Williams
5. WPI
6. UW-Whitewater <----- They're just that good! (Guessing this is UWSP)
7. Rochester
8. North Central

for my algorithm it's:

Amherst
St. Thomas
WPI
UW-Whitewater
Rochester
North Central (Ill.)
UW-Stevens Point
Williams

That's not considering geography either. Looks like Titan Q and I are very much on the same page here.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 24, 2013, 09:13:28 PM
For Top 8 for Home Games:

1) Amhurst
2) WPI
3) St. Thomas
4) UW - Whitewater
5) Alveria
6) Wash U
7) UW - SP
8) Rochester

I think Alveria may get it for a little regional balance.  I also think Rochester's late season slide could hurt them, but they will get it over another Midwest area club (North Central).  I could see North Central getting Washington's spot though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Jon on February 24, 2013, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 24, 2013, 09:13:28 PM
For Top 8 for Home Games:

1) Amhurst
2) WPI
3) St. Thomas
4) UW - Whitewater
5) Alveria
6) Wash U
7) UW - SP
8) Rochester

I think Alvernia may get it for a little regional balance.  I also think Rochester's late season slide could hurt them, but they will get it over another Midwest area club (North Central).  I could see North Central getting Washington's spot though.

Thanks for the consideration bopol.  To date the Crusaders have played three home games in NCAA Championships.  Would be great to double that number in one year at the newly-named Jack McCloskey Court.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 09:28:13 PM
I keep hearing that most people are excited about this bracket more than in the past (due to the flexibility with 30 hosts)... I'm worried it'll be the opposite of that.  I think the bracket is going to get very compressed compared to before (teams playing teams they've already played / who they are close to early on).

Here's why:  In years past you could grab 3 teams all 400 miles from one central host and put them in one pod together.  This allowed for some teams who were 600, 700, 800 miles from each other to play in the first or second round.

This year, I think the committee will just scoop up a lot of teams within 500 miles of each other and put them in the same area of the bracket... for flight reasons.  They'll want all possible second round match-ups to be within 500 miles of each other which means 1st round match-ups will be compressed too.

I'm just not seeing the "flexibility".  I think they'll have to plan for the worst and end up with lots of teams close to each other playing each other in the first few rounds.  Can someone help clarify what I'm missing?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 24, 2013, 09:40:10 PM
Btw, with the 30 first round hosts, what effect, if any, will it have for hosting both a men's and women's first round??

I.e. could Amherst women host the first 2 rounds Friday & Saturday since the Amherst men (if they don't get a bye) would only be playing 1 game??
Catholic, Calvin 2 other schools that are probably in line to host a women's pod and a men's first round game.  I could probably come up with a few others, but those are the 3 main ones.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 09:46:28 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 24, 2013, 09:40:10 PM
Btw, with the 30 first round hosts, what effect, if any, will it have for hosting both a men's and women's first round??

I.e. could Amherst women host the first 2 rounds Friday & Saturday since the Amherst men (if they don't get a bye) would only be playing 1 game??
Catholic, Calvin 2 other schools that are probably in line to host a women's pod and a men's first round game.  I could probably come up with a few others, but those are the 3 main ones.

I do think this is one of the big pluses of the format.  Two games on Friday (both women's) and then two on Saturday (one each) should be totally do able and not a problem.  Much better than 6 games (aka two pods).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2013, 09:57:20 PM
I don't want to poo poo on Stevens Point's chances, but I'm not real confident.  Point has been without their pre-season all-american Tyler Tillema since the new year.  They went an impressive 14-2 in conference and 21-5 overall.  But, looking at the last 7 games, I don't think any Pointer fan is real high on their chances in the tourney.  Overall, the individual players have been inconsistent at best.  From D1-transfer Heuer to Ritchay and even DeVon Jackson, there always seems to be a missing piece in a game.  Their last 7 games (4-3) are hardly impressive going into the NCAAs.  I'm not taking anything away from the likes of La Crosse, Platteville or even Stout, but it's been a grind, losing to Platteville twice and La Crosse once, and going into OT with Stout.  I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not sure what to expect from this Pointer team this year in the NCAAs. 

The good news is that it looks like Tyler Tillema will get a medical waiver and come back next year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 24, 2013, 09:59:00 PM
The ONLY good thing about not being in pool c discussion (and that 1 good gets completely outweighed by the negatives don't get me wrong) is that when your team finishes the season 5-21 you don't have to fret whether or not their going to make the tournament, so you can just enjoy the show and not worry whether your going to see __________________(fill in school name here) on the 10 or 15 minute show.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pjunito on February 24, 2013, 10:08:29 PM
7, you are always postive!

I get to watch with nerves, trying to firgure out how far I will have to drive for a first round match-up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 24, 2013, 10:15:24 PM
Quote from: pjunito on February 24, 2013, 10:08:29 PM
7, you are always postive!

I get to watch with nerves, trying to firgure out how far I will have to drive for a first round match-up.

Of course what I forgot to add to my original is its always better to just win the AQ because then you don't have to worry about whether your in or not, but tomorrow I'm just watching for enjoyment (slightly nervous for the womens selections, but since Western fell out of last weeks rankings and went 1-1 this week doubt we see them anyways).  I'll be watching to see, hopefully RIC (men) and USM (women) get good draws to hopefully be playing 2 weekends from now.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pjunito on February 24, 2013, 10:20:29 PM
The single game weekend will make things interesting I think; no longer trying to fit 4 teams at one site. Some teams may face tough first round opponents this year compared to previous years. But, I guess, once in the tournament teams will have to be prepared to face anyone and everyone.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2013, 10:24:35 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 24, 2013, 09:40:10 PM
Btw, with the 30 first round hosts, what effect, if any, will it have for hosting both a men's and women's first round??

I.e. could Amherst women host the first 2 rounds Friday & Saturday since the Amherst men (if they don't get a bye) would only be playing 1 game??
Catholic, Calvin 2 other schools that are probably in line to host a women's pod and a men's first round game.  I could probably come up with a few others, but those are the 3 main ones.

Calvin will almost certainly not host a women's pod.  DePauw, Ohio Northern, and Hope would all be in line before them, and the number of teams available to bus in just wouldn't justify a fourth host in such close proximity.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2013, 10:55:46 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 24, 2013, 09:46:28 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 24, 2013, 09:40:10 PM
Btw, with the 30 first round hosts, what effect, if any, will it have for hosting both a men's and women's first round??

I.e. could Amherst women host the first 2 rounds Friday & Saturday since the Amherst men (if they don't get a bye) would only be playing 1 game??
Catholic, Calvin 2 other schools that are probably in line to host a women's pod and a men's first round game.  I could probably come up with a few others, but those are the 3 main ones.

I do think this is one of the big pluses of the format.  Two games on Friday (both women's) and then two on Saturday (one each) should be totally do able and not a problem.  Much better than 6 games (aka two pods).

Well... there are rules against having two pods... six games at one site... it doesn't happen. Last year Amherst hosted both... they could do it again. As could teams like Catholic, UW-Whitewater, Rochester and I am forgetting some others.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2013, 12:02:43 AM
I really don't think the seeding process will be any different, they will still use 'pods' and try to group teams into 500 mile clusters, they just won't call them pods.

No matter what the committee does they are likely looking at flying 3-5 teams into Salem for the Quarterfinals.  They will be especially conscious of limiting the opportunity for flights in the earlier rounds.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2013, 12:23:48 AM
So I took a stab at bracketing by putting teams into clusters of eight (with the winners of each cluster headed to Salem). Seeding is roughly speaking:

1   Amherst
8   Fitchburg St.
4   Springfield
5   Brandeis
2   Rhode Island College
7   Dickinson
3   Catholic
6   Curry
   
1   St. Thomas
8   Northwestern (Minn.)
4   Wheaton (Ill.)
5   St. Norbert
2   Mary Hardin-Baylor
7   bye
3   Concordia (Texas)
6   Trinity (Texas)

1   WPI
8   Elms
4   Plattsburgh State
5   Stevens
2   Cortland State
7   Albertus Magnus
3   Middlebury
6   SUNY-Purchase
   
1   UW-Whitewater
8   Aurora
4   Rose-Hulman
5   Calvin
2   Washington U
7   Centre
3   Illinois Wesleyan
6   Spalding

1   Rochester
8   Morrisville State
4   Randolph-Macon
5   Albright
2   Whitworth
7   bye
3   Wooster
6   Ithaca
   
1   North Central (Ill.)
8   Penn State-Behrend
4   Transylvania
5   Redlands
2   UW-Stevens Point
7   Dubuque
3   Ohio Wesleyan
6   Marietta

1   Williams
8   Husson
4   Wesley
5   St. Vincent
2   Alvernia
7   Cabrini
3   MIT
6   Hobart
   
1   St. Marys (Md.)
8   Staten Island
4   Ramapo
5   Christopher Newport
2   Virginia Wesleyan
7   Delaware Valley
3   Emory
6   Hampden-Sydney

Could probably get more creative than this, but I did it rather quickly. Let me know if you see a first-round conference matchup that may have slipped by me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 25, 2013, 01:05:32 AM
Quote from: 7express on February 24, 2013, 06:21:19 PM
Here are my projections (note NOT in order they'll be selected):

Middlebury
Williams
Stevens Point
Rochester
Virginia Wesleyan
Wooster
Illinois Wesleyan
Plattsburgh
Hampden-Sydney
Mary Hardin Baylor
Wheaton (IL)
Wesley
MIT
Stevens
Old Westbury
Transy
Emory
Thomas More
Albright

Last 3 in:
Thomas More, Albright, Old Westbury
First 4 out:
Springfield, Rutgers-Newark, Brandeis, Augustana

I'm quoting this for tomorrow so I can't modify it tomorrow  ;D  I'm fairly confident in 17 of my 19 with Thomas More & Old Westbury in and Springfield & Brandeis out the ones I'm not confident in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2013, 04:56:10 AM
Spent way too much time trying to avoid ugly second-round matchups in the midwest. Here's our projected bracket:
http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2013/projected-mens-bracket
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Charles on February 25, 2013, 05:37:47 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2013, 04:56:10 AM
Spent way too much time trying to avoid ugly second-round matchups in the midwest. Here's our projected bracket:
http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2013/projected-mens-bracket

wow, what prep school in New England did you go to?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: algernon on February 25, 2013, 08:22:02 AM
Is this the best link for the 12:30pm Selection Show?  http://www.ncaa.com/sports/basketball-men/d3
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 25, 2013, 08:35:34 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 25, 2013, 08:22:02 AM
Is this the best link for the 12:30pm Selection Show?  http://www.ncaa.com/sports/basketball-men/d3
not if you're a Whitewater fan.....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
Quote from: AO on February 25, 2013, 08:35:34 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 25, 2013, 08:22:02 AM
Is this the best link for the 12:30pm Selection Show?  http://www.ncaa.com/sports/basketball-men/d3
not if you're a Whitewater fan.....

I can't believe they did that.  Wow.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 25, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
Quote from: AO on February 25, 2013, 08:35:34 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 25, 2013, 08:22:02 AM
Is this the best link for the 12:30pm Selection Show?  http://www.ncaa.com/sports/basketball-men/d3
not if you're a Whitewater fan.....

I can't believe they did that.  Wow.
So instead of changing the picture to honor the defending champs, they just changed the year to 2010.  Why not throw in 2004 and 2005?  This should give everyone a lot of confidence in the upcoming pool C selections...... ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 25, 2013, 09:46:05 AM
Quote from: AO on February 25, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
Quote from: AO on February 25, 2013, 08:35:34 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 25, 2013, 08:22:02 AM
Is this the best link for the 12:30pm Selection Show?  http://www.ncaa.com/sports/basketball-men/d3
not if you're a Whitewater fan.....

I can't believe they did that.  Wow.
So instead of changing the picture to honor the defending champs, they just changed the year to 2010.  Why not throw in 2004 and 2005?  This should give everyone a lot of confidence in the upcoming pool C selections...... ::)

At least they were close... they showed a WIAC team that wears purple... it just wasn't the RIGHT WIAC team.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 25, 2013, 09:51:53 AM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 25, 2013, 09:46:05 AM
Quote from: AO on February 25, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
Quote from: AO on February 25, 2013, 08:35:34 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 25, 2013, 08:22:02 AM
Is this the best link for the 12:30pm Selection Show?  http://www.ncaa.com/sports/basketball-men/d3
not if you're a Whitewater fan.....

I can't believe they did that.  Wow.
So instead of changing the picture to honor the defending champs, they just changed the year to 2010.  Why not throw in 2004 and 2005?  This should give everyone a lot of confidence in the upcoming pool C selections...... ::)

At least they were close... they showed a WIAC team that wears purple... it just wasn't the RIGHT WIAC team.

If they were just going to grab a picture from a team from the past.. they couldn't find one of the 1984 or 1989 champs somewhere?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 25, 2013, 10:15:01 AM
When we got to the end, UW-Platteville, Tufts, Augustana, NYU, Texas-Dallas, Thomas More and SUNY-Old Westbury were left on the table.

  You don't have a Mid-Atlantic team in that group; I'll attribute that to the lateness of the hour.l
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: gordonmann on February 25, 2013, 10:28:59 AM
Whichever region has the last at-large selection doesn't have a team left at the table.  When we picked Albright as the last Pool C, the process stops.  There's no need to identify which Mid-Atlantic team would've come to the process next because the process is over.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 10:33:20 AM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 25, 2013, 09:51:53 AM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 25, 2013, 09:46:05 AM
Quote from: AO on February 25, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 09:27:10 AM
Quote from: AO on February 25, 2013, 08:35:34 AM
Quote from: algernon on February 25, 2013, 08:22:02 AM
Is this the best link for the 12:30pm Selection Show?  http://www.ncaa.com/sports/basketball-men/d3
not if you're a Whitewater fan.....

I can't believe they did that.  Wow.
So instead of changing the picture to honor the defending champs, they just changed the year to 2010.  Why not throw in 2004 and 2005?  This should give everyone a lot of confidence in the upcoming pool C selections...... ::)

At least they were close... they showed a WIAC team that wears purple... it just wasn't the RIGHT WIAC team.

If they were just going to grab a picture from a team from the past.. they couldn't find one of the 1984 or 1989 champs somewhere?

You're assuming they have more than one picture of d3 men's basketball.  I'm not so sure that's a safe assumption.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 11:17:41 AM
http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2013/projected-mens-bracket

When down to Albright and Augustana, Albright had a two-and-a-half-game better record and had more wins against regionally ranked teams. Plus, Albright had beaten the No. 1 team in its region, while Augustana had had three shots at the top team in its region (North Central, in our projections) and had lost them all.



Note, I don't think this would be true if UW-Platteville is ranked in the West (which it looks like D3hoops.com projecion has Platteville ranked)...Augustana beat Platteville, so Augie and Albright would both have 3 wins vs RR.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2013, 12:41:41 PM
Bracket: http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2013/bracket-released
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 12:48:44 PM

Rutgers-Newark AND Randolph?

Wow.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: SevenTen on February 25, 2013, 12:54:49 PM
Wow.  WashU, Whitewater, North Central, and Illinois Wesleyan all in the same 8 team grouping... yeesh.  Only the #2, #3, #6 and #12 teams in the nation per Massey's ratings:  http://masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2013&sub=11620

Basically what I was concerned about.  Not having the ability to create "central hosting sites" means compressing the tournament into 8 little geographic tournaments which doesn't spread the top teams across the nation all that well.

Who the heck hosts the second and third round games of that group if the first round is chalk?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 25, 2013, 12:55:57 PM
Quote from: SevenTen on February 25, 2013, 12:54:49 PM
Wow.  WashU, Whitewater, North Central, and Illinois Wesleyan all in the same 8 team grouping... yeesh.  Only the #2, #3, #6 and #12 teams in the nation per Massey's ratings:  http://masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2013&sub=11620

Basically what I was concerned about.  Not having the ability to create "central hosting sites" means compressing the tournament into 8 little geographic tournaments which doesn't spread the top teams across the nation all that well.

Who the heck hosts the second and third round games of that group if the first round is chalk?

Or if the first round is mass anarchy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: deiscanton on February 25, 2013, 01:06:02 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 12:48:44 PM

Rutgers-Newark AND Randolph?

Wow.

My heart sank when I saw Rutgers-Newark announced on the board. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 01:13:30 PM
My first 17 got in.  No surprise with Rutgers-Newark...but Randolph?  I didn't even look at them...I should have had ahead of Texas-Dallas though, no question.  I didn't think that final South team had a prayer though, so I didn't spend any time on it.

I think it's fair to say that the 1-1 added to Randolph's games vs regionally ranked, from Randolph-Macon, made the difference.

Pool C selection projection
1. UW-Stevens Point (West, WIAC) - 21-5 (.808)/.585/7-2 
2. Rochester (East, UAA) - 20-4 (.833)/.575/7-3   
3. Williams (Northeast, NESCAC) - 21-4 (.840)/.577/5-4
4. Virginia Wesleyan (South, ODAC) - 18-6 (.750)/.560/8-5*
5. Middlebury (Northeast, NESCAC) - 19-3 (.864)/.545/2-3
6. Wooster (Great Lakes, NCAC) - 22-5 (.815)/.557/3-2
7. Illinois Wesleyan (Midwest, CCIW) - 18-5 (.783)/.556/5-4 
8. Mary Hardin-Baylor (South, ASC) - 23-5 (.821)/.550/3-3
9. MIT (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-5 (.792)/.555/4-4
10. Wheaton (Midwest, CCIW) - 17-6 (.739)/.566/4-4
11. Hampden-Sydney (South, ODAC) - 19-4 (.826)/.512/6-3*
12. Emory (South, UAA) - 19-6 (.760)/.556/5-4
13. Wesley (Mid-Atlantic, CAC) - 17-4 (.810)/.530/5-3
14. Plattsburgh State (East, SUNYAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.559/5-5
15. Transylvania (Midwest, HCAC) - 19-6 (.760)/.548/4-1* 
16. Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.575/4-6
17. Stevens (East, E8) - 20-5 (.800)/.533/3-3 
18. SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.500/2-1
19. Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-8 (.680)/.569/4-7 

Projected left at the table after round 19 (in order of competitiveness)
(MA) Albright (MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.546/3-1
(GL) Thomas More (PrAC) - 22-4 (.846)/.512/1-3 
(AT) Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.548/3-4
(MW) Augustana (CCIW) - 18-8 (.692)/.553/2-8
(W) Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2
(NE) Tufts (NESCAC) - 16-6 (.727)/.535/0-6
(S) Texas-Dallas (ASC) - 20-7 (.741)/.516/0-4
(E) Oswego St (SUNYAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.518/2-6


(S) Randolph (ODAC) - 15-6 (.714)/.520/4-5 (I have added 1-1 for Randolph-Macon) 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 25, 2013, 01:16:48 PM
Maybe this has been addressed elsewhere, but where will the Morrisville/Ramapo game be played?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 25, 2013, 01:28:56 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 25, 2013, 01:05:32 AM
Quote from: 7express on February 24, 2013, 06:21:19 PM
Here are my projections (note NOT in order they'll be selected):

Middlebury
Williams
Stevens Point
Rochester
Virginia Wesleyan
Wooster
Illinois Wesleyan
Plattsburgh
Hampden-Sydney
Mary Hardin Baylor
Wheaton (IL)
Wesley
MIT
Stevens
Old Westbury
Transy
Emory
Thomas More
Albright

Last 3 in:
Thomas More, Albright, Old Westbury
First 4 out:
Springfield, Rutgers-Newark, Brandeis, Augustana

I'm quoting this for tomorrow so I can't modify it tomorrow  ;D  I'm fairly confident in 17 of my 19 with Thomas More & Old Westbury in and Springfield & Brandeis out the ones I'm not confident in.

Yah I was way off.  I knew this morning I should've swapped either Thomas More/Old Westbury with Springfield, but I went back to bed instead :( 
Not a real surprize Newark made it, they were my second team out.  Randolph, however was so far down the list you needed a magnifying glass to see them.  I don't think anyone saw that coming.
17/19 last year 16/19 this year.  Obviously could be a lot better, but I'll take 33/38 the last 2 years, not overly terrible, especially when 2 of the selections were so far out of left field that no one else had them projected in either (Adolphus last year, Randolph this year).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2013, 01:32:06 PM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on February 25, 2013, 01:16:48 PM
Maybe this has been addressed elsewhere, but where will the Morrisville/Ramapo game be played?

Nyack College in New York state. And Stevens is playing at Lehman College in New York.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 25, 2013, 01:47:37 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2013, 01:32:06 PM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on February 25, 2013, 01:16:48 PM
Maybe this has been addressed elsewhere, but where will the Morrisville/Ramapo game be played?

Nyack College in New York state. And Stevens is playing at Lehman College in New York.

Thanks
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 02:12:32 PM
Does anyone understand what gave Randolph a leg up on teams like Old Westbury, Brandeis, or Albright?  Very surprising pick.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2013, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 02:12:32 PM
Does anyone understand what gave Randolph a leg up on teams like Old Westbury, Brandeis, or Albright?  Very surprising pick.

I imagine secondary criteria was probably in their favor because I don't see much in the primary that would say hands down Randolph was the pick.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 02:19:46 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 02:12:32 PM
Does anyone understand what gave Randolph a leg up on teams like Old Westbury, Brandeis, or Albright?  Very surprising pick.

I have to assume the 4-5 against regionally ranked opponents, but that doesn't explain why they were ahead of Brandeis or Albright.

Brandeis may have had too many losses.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 02:20:24 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 02:12:32 PM
Does anyone understand what gave Randolph a leg up on teams like Old Westbury, Brandeis, or Albright?  Very surprising pick.

So the final round...

(AT) SUNY-Old Westbury (Atlantic, Sky) - 21-3 (.875)/.500/2-1
(E) Oswego St (SUNYAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.518/2-6
(GL) Thomas More (PrAC) - 22-4 (.846)/.512/1-3 
(MA) Albright (MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.546/3-1
(MW) Augustana (CCIW) - 18-8 (.692)/.553/2-8
(NE) Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-8 (.680)/.569/4-7 
(S) Randolph (ODAC) - 15-6 (.714)/.520/4-5
(W) Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2


Just seems to me that Brandeis would have the edge here if you wanted a high wins vs regionally ranked option.

At this part of the process though - literally pick #19, had to be - it's hard to argue that much.  The pick surprises me, but it's not bad.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2013, 02:30:30 PM
Maybe the ODAC 'rep' got them in over Old Westbury or Albright? Are we sure that it was Randolph who was last in? Could Rutgers-Newark have blocked Old Westbury from the board?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2013, 02:34:30 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 02:12:32 PM
Does anyone understand what gave Randolph a leg up on teams like Old Westbury, Brandeis, or Albright?  Very surprising pick.

Maybe the committee members just wanted a chance to see ODAC POY Colton Hunt (24.7ppg) play! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2013, 02:49:11 PM
Brandeis must have lost it on the final weekend to the Violets!

Imagine Judges' road wins over CWRU and NYU!  Four way-tie at the top of the UAA!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 03:00:10 PM
If it were losses, how do you pick Springfield over Randolph then?

Springfield and Brandeis have almost identical resumes:

Springfield (Northeast, NEWMAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.575/4-6
Brandeis (Northeast, UAA) - 17-8 (.680)/.569/4-7 

Maybe they just didn't want to go to the Northeast for 2 of the last 3 picks???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2013, 03:01:43 PM
Of course 19 > 17, as you know. 19-8 looks 'better'.

The lack of a conference tourney may have hurt Brandeis. I think the UAA does it the 'right' way but they lose some data points other conferences have by not having a tourney.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2013, 03:03:12 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2013, 03:01:43 PM
Of course 19 > 17, as you know. 19-8 looks 'better'.

The lack of a conference tourney may have hurt Brandeis. I think the UAA does it the 'right' way but they lose some data points other conferences have by not having a tourney.

They gain plenty of data points by being in 5 different regions. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 03:21:55 PM

I don't think we're even going to begin to understand Randolph until we hear from the committee.

It just makes no sense.  I would have taken Albright then Brandeis before even considering Randolph.


The only thing I can think is that somehow the final loss dropped Brandeis on the rankings and they weren't even on the table to be considered?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 03:23:30 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 03:21:55 PM

I don't think we're even going to begin to understand Randolph until we hear from the committee.

It just makes no sense.  I would have taken Albright then Brandeis before even considering Randolph.


The only thing I can think is that somehow the final loss dropped Brandeis on the rankings and they weren't even on the table to be considered?

Tufts also lost in their tourney, they would have been the next up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 03:24:39 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 25, 2013, 03:01:43 PM
Of course 19 > 17, as you know. 19-8 looks 'better'.

The lack of a conference tourney may have hurt Brandeis. I think the UAA does it the 'right' way but they lose some data points other conferences have by not having a tourney.

Then again, a 9th loss would have certainly eliminated them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 03:23:30 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 03:21:55 PM

I don't think we're even going to begin to understand Randolph until we hear from the committee.

It just makes no sense.  I would have taken Albright then Brandeis before even considering Randolph.


The only thing I can think is that somehow the final loss dropped Brandeis on the rankings and they weren't even on the table to be considered?

Tufts also lost in their tourney, they would have been the next up.

Yeah, but they lost to Amherst, right?  That looks a lot better than the Brandeis loss to NYU, then given the difference in regional record by that point.  It's possible.  There's no love loss between the NE region and the UAA; no one is cutting them any slack.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2013, 03:43:56 PM
Had Randolph Macon not won the ODAC I doubt Randolph gets in the tournament.

This gave Randolph 2 more RRO's(probably)


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2013, 03:48:04 PM
I bet that's it. And wow, that's kind of a back-door way into it, isn't it??
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2013, 04:27:50 PM


                  
   RNK3      TEAM      CONF.   
   1      Ramapo      NJAC   
   2      Old.Westbury      SKY   
   3      Rutgers.Newark  POOL C      NJAC   
   4      RicardStockton      NJAC   
   5      SUNYPurchase      SKY   
                  
                  
   RNK3      TEAM      CONF.   
   1      Rochester  POOL C      UAA   
   2      SUNY.Cortland      SUNYAC   
   3      Stevens   POOL C      E8   
   4      Plattsburgh.State  POOL C      SUNYAC   
   5      Hobart       LL   
   6      Oswego.State      SUNYAC   
                  
         DROPPING OUT         
   NR      Ithaca        E8   
   NR      NYU      UAA   
   NR      SUNY.Geneseo      SUNYAC   
                  
                  
   RNK3      TEAM      CONF.   
   1      Wooster  POOL C      NCAC   
   2      Ohio.Wesleyan       NCAC   
   3      St.Vincent        PrAC   
   4      Thomas.More       PrAC   
   5      Capital      OAC   
   6      Calvin        MIAA   
                  
         DROPPING OUT         
   NR      Marietta      OAC   
                  
                  
   RNK3      TEAM      CONF.   
   1       Alvernia       MACC   
   2       Catholic       LAND   
   3      Albright      MACC   
   4      St.Mary's(Md.)        CAC   
   5      Wesley  POOL C      CAC   
   6      Scranton      LAND   
   7      DeSales      MACF   
   8      Salisbury       CAC   
   9      Frank&Marsh      CC   
                  
         DROPPING OUT         
   NR      Cabrini      CSAC   
   NR       Dickinson       CC   
   NR      Arcadia      MACC   
                  
                  
                  
   RNK3      TEAM      CONF.   
   1      Illinois.Wesleyan    POOL C      CCIW   
   2      WashingtonU.      UAA   
   3      Wheaton  POOL C      CCIW   
   4      North Central.(IL)      CCIW   
   5      Transylvania  POOL C      HCAC   
   6      Rose.Hulman       HCAC   
   7      St.NorbertSt.Norbert      MWC   
   8      Augustana       CCIW   
                  
                  
   RNK3      TEAM      CONF.   
   1      Amherst      NESCAC   
   2      WPI      NEWMAC   
   3      Williams POOL C      NESCAC   
   4      RIC        LEC   
   5      Middlebury POOL C      NESCAC   
   6      MIT  POOL C      NEWMAC   
   7      Springfield  POOL C      NEWMAC   
   8      Brandeis      UAA   
   9      Curry      CCC   
   10      Westfield State      MASCAC   
   11      East.Conn.State      LEC   
   12      Tufts      NESCAC   
                  
         DROPPING OUT         
   NR      Albertus.Magnus      GNAC   
                  
                  
   RNK3      TEAM      CONF.   
   1      Virginia.Wesleyan POOL C      ODAC   
   2      Hampden.Sydney  POOL C      ODAC   
   3      MHB  POOL C      ASC   
   4      Chris.Newport       USAC   
   5      Emory  POOL C      UAA   
   6      Concordia(TX)       ASC   
   7      Texas.Dallas      ASC   
   8      Randolph  POOL C      ODAC   
                  
         DROPPING OUT         
   NR       Lynchburg      ODAC   
   NR      Guilford      ODAC   
                  
                  
   RNK3      TEAM      CONF.   
   1      St.Thomas       MIAC   
   2      Stevens.Point POOL C      WIAC   
   3      Whitewater       WIAC   
   4      Whitworth       NWC   
   5      Buena.Vista       IIAC   
   6      Stout      WIAC   
   7      Con.Moorhead      MIAC   
   8      Augsburg      MIAC   
   9      Whitman      NWC   
                  
         DROPPING OUT         
   NR      Luther      IIAC   
                  
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 05:08:23 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 03:23:30 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 03:21:55 PM

I don't think we're even going to begin to understand Randolph until we hear from the committee.

It just makes no sense.  I would have taken Albright then Brandeis before even considering Randolph.


The only thing I can think is that somehow the final loss dropped Brandeis on the rankings and they weren't even on the table to be considered?

Tufts also lost in their tourney, they would have been the next up.

Yeah, but they lost to Amherst, right?  That looks a lot better than the Brandeis loss to NYU, then given the difference in regional record by that point.  It's possible.  There's no love loss between the NE region and the UAA; no one is cutting them any slack.

Technically both count as losses vs. RRO (once ranked always ranked!).

Or do you think Westfield or East Conn could have jumped them?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 05:50:45 PM
Outstanding interview on Hoopsville right now with national chair Mike DeWitt.  Check it out on the archive later...really candid conversation.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 05:52:03 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 05:08:23 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 03:23:30 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 03:21:55 PM

I don't think we're even going to begin to understand Randolph until we hear from the committee.

It just makes no sense.  I would have taken Albright then Brandeis before even considering Randolph.


The only thing I can think is that somehow the final loss dropped Brandeis on the rankings and they weren't even on the table to be considered?

Tufts also lost in their tourney, they would have been the next up.

Yeah, but they lost to Amherst, right?  That looks a lot better than the Brandeis loss to NYU, then given the difference in regional record by that point.  It's possible.  There's no love loss between the NE region and the UAA; no one is cutting them any slack.

Technically both count as losses vs. RRO (once ranked always ranked!).

Or do you think Westfield or East Conn could have jumped them?

Could be.  I think the committee was giving Brandeis the benefit of the doubt because of their schedule strength, but losing to NYU on the last day of the season is reason enough to give up.  EConn or Tufts could have moved ahead.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 25, 2013, 06:19:51 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 05:52:03 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 05:08:23 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 03:23:30 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 03:21:55 PM

I don't think we're even going to begin to understand Randolph until we hear from the committee.

It just makes no sense.  I would have taken Albright then Brandeis before even considering Randolph.


The only thing I can think is that somehow the final loss dropped Brandeis on the rankings and they weren't even on the table to be considered?

Tufts also lost in their tourney, they would have been the next up.

Yeah, but they lost to Amherst, right?  That looks a lot better than the Brandeis loss to NYU, then given the difference in regional record by that point.  It's possible.  There's no love loss between the NE region and the UAA; no one is cutting them any slack.

Technically both count as losses vs. RRO (once ranked always ranked!).

Or do you think Westfield or East Conn could have jumped them?

Could be.  I think the committee was giving Brandeis the benefit of the doubt because of their schedule strength, but losing to NYU on the last day of the season is reason enough to give up.  EConn or Tufts could have moved ahead.

Can't imagine how the Brandeis seniors feel today.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 06:21:35 PM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on February 25, 2013, 06:19:51 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 05:52:03 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 05:08:23 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 03:23:30 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 03:21:55 PM

I don't think we're even going to begin to understand Randolph until we hear from the committee.

It just makes no sense.  I would have taken Albright then Brandeis before even considering Randolph.


The only thing I can think is that somehow the final loss dropped Brandeis on the rankings and they weren't even on the table to be considered?

Tufts also lost in their tourney, they would have been the next up.

Yeah, but they lost to Amherst, right?  That looks a lot better than the Brandeis loss to NYU, then given the difference in regional record by that point.  It's possible.  There's no love loss between the NE region and the UAA; no one is cutting them any slack.

Technically both count as losses vs. RRO (once ranked always ranked!).

Or do you think Westfield or East Conn could have jumped them?

Could be.  I think the committee was giving Brandeis the benefit of the doubt because of their schedule strength, but losing to NYU on the last day of the season is reason enough to give up.  EConn or Tufts could have moved ahead.

Can't imagine how the Brandeis seniors feel today.

They lost 8 games.  You can't expect to get into the tournament losing 8 games.  You can hope and I'm sure they're disappointed, but I doubt any of them were counting on getting in.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2013, 06:39:45 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 05:50:45 PM
Outstanding interview on Hoopsville right now with national chair Mike DeWitt.  Check it out on the archive later...really candid conversation.
YES!

Great transparency!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on February 25, 2013, 07:03:27 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 06:21:35 PM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on February 25, 2013, 06:19:51 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 05:52:03 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 05:08:23 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 03:23:30 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 03:21:55 PM

I don't think we're even going to begin to understand Randolph until we hear from the committee.

It just makes no sense.  I would have taken Albright then Brandeis before even considering Randolph.


The only thing I can think is that somehow the final loss dropped Brandeis on the rankings and they weren't even on the table to be considered?

Tufts also lost in their tourney, they would have been the next up.

Yeah, but they lost to Amherst, right?  That looks a lot better than the Brandeis loss to NYU, then given the difference in regional record by that point.  It's possible.  There's no love loss between the NE region and the UAA; no one is cutting them any slack.

Technically both count as losses vs. RRO (once ranked always ranked!).

Or do you think Westfield or East Conn could have jumped them?

Could be.  I think the committee was giving Brandeis the benefit of the doubt because of their schedule strength, but losing to NYU on the last day of the season is reason enough to give up.  EConn or Tufts could have moved ahead.

Can't imagine how the Brandeis seniors feel today.

They lost 8 games.  You can't expect to get into the tournament losing 8 games.  You can hope and I'm sure they're disappointed, but I doubt any of them were counting on getting in.

Agreed.  I didn't really think they would based on the games they let get away.   Just saying is gotta be tough knowing you let it get away, especially if losing the NYU game did cost them.  Losing 6 of the last 9 must have felt like quicksand.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 07:48:13 PM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2013, 03:43:56 PM
Had Randolph Macon not won the ODAC I doubt Randolph gets in the tournament.

This gave Randolph 2 more RRO's(probably)

By sometime Sunday, I already had Randolph-Macon getting ranked in the South region whether they won or lost in that ODAC final.  They were going to have 7 wins against regionally ranked and 16 games played...even with a loss to Virginia Wesleyan.  I think they were a safe bet for a South spot, ahead of Texas-Dallas, win or lose.  I had actually already added the extra win vs regionally ranked to Transylvania, and the others well before that ODAC game started. 

But you are absolutely right that the extra 1-1 for Randolph was a difference maker.  It might have also gotten Transylvania in.  As Mike DeWitt said on Hoopsville about this, "It didn't hurt."

I can't stress enough how great that interview was with DeWitt.  People who care about this stuff (which is about all of us?) should take the time to listen off the archive.

http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2012-13/feb25 - starts at 2:13:30
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 09:17:54 PM

Listening to the Hoopsville replay, I'm wondering if "recent results" is still one of the secondary criteria.

It seems like Rutgers-Newark, Randolph, Brandeis, and Albright were the last four and really the only four in consideration for those final two spots.

The committee clearly went to the secondary criteria.  If the "recent results" is still on that list, it all but dooms Brandeis.

Once that's gone, it makes sense that Albright was left out.  Clearly they had a case, but it's easier to see the rationale.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 25, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
 Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 09:48:35 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

Couldn't it mean that the number of wins for Randolph (5) trumps Albright's (3)?

But yes, I don't think there is much doubt that total games played vs regionally ranked is a factor too.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 09:49:09 PM
If you look down the line, it wasn't so much winning percentage against regionally ranked opponents, it was wins against those teams.

The only team with less than 3 rro wins to get in was Middlebury, with a huge .800+ wp.

Five wins says a lot.  I still might have gone with Albright over Randolph, but I can see the case.

The one that made little sense to me was Brandeis, but the recent record thing clears that up.

Albright didn't even play as many rro as Randolph won.  You can argue whether that should matter given they lost as many as they won, but it's a defensible position.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2013, 09:53:25 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

The committee is reading the Handbook.

The criterion says "results" versus regionally ranked opponents and not "winning percentage".
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 09:56:41 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

Also, I clearly remember the criteria being open to interpretation, something like, "results vs. regionally ranked opponents" not winning percentage.  Its essentially the same thing as "signature" wins in D1.  You've shown that you can beat good teams.  If you have split games with the 5 teams ahead of you in the rankings (hypothetically) it shouldnt hurt you that your WP is 0.500 against those teams, it should help show that you are as good as them and capable of beating them.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 10:01:05 PM
The word "results" (vs regionally ranked) is definitely very intentional.  It gives the committee some flexibility in interpreting the data.  And as long as there are good basketball people on the committee, I'm supportive of that flexibility.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2013, 10:17:34 PM
Since sheer number of results seems to be a big factor (quite possibly more so than w%), sac has been on a bit of a crusade that I am very sympathetic to.  A) some regions have far more teams ranked than others, B) some can get large numbers of RROs just from their conference (e.g., Randolph), and C) the UAA spans 5 regions and if at all decent can have a large number of in-conference (thus in-region) RROs.

As sac correctly notes, however good Hope and Calvin may be, the MIAA rarely has more than two ranked teams (this year ONLY Calvin, so far is we know, and Hope becoming ranked now would only have helped Calvin, not Hope).  The GL only has six ranks total.  So unless Hope perfectly predicts who will be ranked (AND can get them all to schedule Hope), it is essentially impossible for them to achieve the RROs that many other teams can hardly avoid given their conference or region.

I like RROs as a rough proxy for 'quality opponents' (SoS doesn't really do this since a whole bunch of 'pretty good' opponents looks the same as mostly so-so but some really good), but the system currently has some serious flaws.  Will the change next season to counting ALL d3 games as long as 70+% are in-region also change ALL RROs to in-region, regardless of region?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Hugenerd on February 25, 2013, 10:19:45 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2013, 10:17:34 PM
Since sheer number of results seems to be a big factor (quite possibly more so than w%), sac has been on a bit of a crusade that I am very sympathetic to.  A) some regions have far more teams ranked than others, B) some can get large numbers of RROs just from their conference (e.g., Randolph), and C) the UAA spans 5 regions and if at all decent can have a large number of in-conference (thus in-region) RROs.

As sac correctly notes, however good Hope and Calvin may be, the MIAA rarely has more than two ranked teams (this year ONLY Calvin, so far is we know, and Hope becoming ranked now would only have helped Calvin, not Hope).  The GL only has six ranks total.  So unless Hope perfectly predicts who will be ranked (AND can get them all to schedule Hope), it is essentially impossible for them to achieve the RROs that many other teams can hardly avoid given their conference or region.

I like RROs as a rough proxy for 'quality opponents' (SoS doesn't really do this since a whole bunch of 'pretty good' opponents looks the same as mostly so-so but some really good), but the system currently has some serious flaws.  Will the change next season to counting ALL d3 games as long as 70+% are in-region also change ALL RROs to in-region, regardless of region?

Correctly calculating weighted SOS may also be a plus.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2013, 10:31:58 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 10:01:05 PM
The word "results" (vs regionally ranked) is definitely very intentional.  It gives the committee some flexibility in interpreting the data.  And as long as there are good basketball people on the committee, I'm supportive of that flexibility.

What does "basketball people" have to do with flexibility of interpreting data? Are they really trying to read into teams' true talent, or just looking at hard numbers?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 10:35:46 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2013, 10:17:34 PM
Since sheer number of results seems to be a big factor (quite possibly more so than w%), sac has been on a bit of a crusade that I am very sympathetic to.  A) some regions have far more teams ranked than others, B) some can get large numbers of RROs just from their conference (e.g., Randolph), and C) the UAA spans 5 regions and if at all decent can have a large number of in-conference (thus in-region) RROs.

As sac correctly notes, however good Hope and Calvin may be, the MIAA rarely has more than two ranked teams (this year ONLY Calvin, so far is we know, and Hope becoming ranked now would only have helped Calvin, not Hope).  The GL only has six ranks total.  So unless Hope perfectly predicts who will be ranked (AND can get them all to schedule Hope), it is essentially impossible for them to achieve the RROs that many other teams can hardly avoid given their conference or region.

I like RROs as a rough proxy for 'quality opponents' (SoS doesn't really do this since a whole bunch of 'pretty good' opponents looks the same as mostly so-so but some really good), but the system currently has some serious flaws.  Will the change next season to counting ALL d3 games as long as 70+% are in-region also change ALL RROs to in-region, regardless of region?

Yes, I believe they mentioned that on Hoopsville tonight - there will be no "in-region" vs "out of region" for anything.

70% for almost everybody is basically your conference schedule, plus a couple more.  It's 18 games in a 25 game schedule.  Completely doable for everyone.

For Hope and Calvin it means getting those games in Chicago counted in-region, which can make a big difference.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2013, 10:41:00 PM
For Hope, most of them did anyway; for Calvin they tended to miss by LESS than ten miles.

But now the Hope/IWU series will count.  That is very quickly becoming a good rivalry (they've played in football for years, but, though usually close, Hope has never won - though come to think of it, they haven't won in basketball either! :o ;D)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 10:41:30 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2013, 10:31:58 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 10:01:05 PM
The word "results" (vs regionally ranked) is definitely very intentional.  It gives the committee some flexibility in interpreting the data.  And as long as there are good basketball people on the committee, I'm supportive of that flexibility.

What does "basketball people" have to do with flexibility of interpreting data? Are they really trying to read into teams' true talent, or just looking at hard numbers?

I'm not sure how you'd get non basketball people on the committee given its make-up - but I was thinking about it from the other way.  If you've got people trying to stick to the data, but the criteria is vague, you run into trouble.  When you've got a committee of people who know basketball, there is an internal sense of which criteria is most important when judging.

He mentioned the scenario with Hanover being 3-0 against Transylvania.  You have to choose how you interpret the data there - and knowing the scene, the type of season Transy put together overall, helps.

I keep harping on it, but you can go to the relative ease of padding an SOS in NE vs, say, the Midwest.  Being able to look at two teams with similar SOS and recognizing that despite the numbers, one schedule was much tougher than another (which might also be helped by a gaudy overall number of rro, even if the rro winning percentage isn't as high).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 10:45:11 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2013, 10:41:00 PM
For Hope, most of them did anyway; for Calvin they tended to miss by LESS than ten miles.

But now the Hope/IWU series will count.  That is very quickly becoming a good rivalry (they've played in football for years, but, though usually close, Hope has never won - though come to think of it, they haven't won in basketball either!

It also prevents other teams from gaming the system by playing over their head out of region.  You gain the experience without risking your post-season chances.  That won't happen anymore.  You're reward for playing tough competition.

Randolph-Macon, it seems like, may have gotten in without winning the ODAC Championship because they valued that kind of scheduling pretty highly this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2013, 10:48:14 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 10:41:30 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2013, 10:31:58 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 10:01:05 PM
The word "results" (vs regionally ranked) is definitely very intentional.  It gives the committee some flexibility in interpreting the data.  And as long as there are good basketball people on the committee, I'm supportive of that flexibility.

What does "basketball people" have to do with flexibility of interpreting data? Are they really trying to read into teams' true talent, or just looking at hard numbers?

I keep harping on it, but you can go to the relative ease of padding an SOS in NE vs, say, the Midwest.  Being able to look at two teams with similar SOS and recognizing that despite the numbers, one schedule was much tougher than another (which might also be helped by a gaudy overall number of rro, even if the rro winning percentage isn't as high).

Can they do this though? It doesn't sound like they're re-evaluating whether or not Team A's .550 SOS is really better than Team B's .530 SOS.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 25, 2013, 11:09:04 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2013, 10:41:00 PM
For Hope, most of them did anyway; for Calvin they tended to miss by LESS than ten miles.

But now the Hope/IWU series will count. That is very quickly becoming a good rivalry (they've played in football for years, but, though usually close, Hope has never won - though come to think of it, they haven't won in basketball either! :o ;D)

Only if we find 3 in-region games Mr Y. ::)


btw does anybody know if the 70% is for just the regular season or does it include the post-season.

For instance:
A 25 game regular season is 17.5 or 18 in-region games
A 28 game season w/post-season is 19.6 or 20 in-region games

Which are you going to be required to have?

(yes I know your conference tournament would likely put you over either threshold anyway)

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2013, 11:21:33 PM
I would think the logical answer would be the regular season since you can't really predict how many post season games you'd play.  And, as you said, the post season would be conference tourney games anyway (aside from the UAA) so those would be in-region anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2013, 11:22:41 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2013, 10:48:14 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2013, 10:41:30 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2013, 10:31:58 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 10:01:05 PM
The word "results" (vs regionally ranked) is definitely very intentional.  It gives the committee some flexibility in interpreting the data.  And as long as there are good basketball people on the committee, I'm supportive of that flexibility.

What does "basketball people" have to do with flexibility of interpreting data? Are they really trying to read into teams' true talent, or just looking at hard numbers?

I keep harping on it, but you can go to the relative ease of padding an SOS in NE vs, say, the Midwest.  Being able to look at two teams with similar SOS and recognizing that despite the numbers, one schedule was much tougher than another (which might also be helped by a gaudy overall number of rro, even if the rro winning percentage isn't as high).

Can they do this though? It doesn't sound like they're re-evaluating whether or not Team A's .550 SOS is really better than Team B's .530 SOS.

I'm not sure. They used to have a lot of leeway in the secondary criteria, but I haven't read the handbook in a couple years.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2013, 11:34:13 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2013, 09:53:25 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

The committee is reading the Handbook.

The criterion says "results" versus regionally ranked opponents and not "winning percentage".

I have been preaching this not for weeks... but all season. The wording is key.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 25, 2013, 11:44:10 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2013, 11:34:13 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2013, 09:53:25 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

The committee is reading the Handbook.

The criterion says "results" versus regionally ranked opponents and not "winning percentage".

I have been preaching this not for weeks... but all season. The wording is key.

I hear you, Dave. I think they should change the handbook wording; they're blowing off the 5 losses; is 5-5 better than 4-0, for example? where's the inflection point?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 12:02:07 AM
How about 10 results versus 5 (or so - can't remember). That is ten games... so they aren't necessarily blowing off the five losses they are considering the total number of results as well. Mike DeWitt said it himself, when you are playing that number of games it says you have a pretty challenging schedule and clearly with five wins there are wins there not losses like a team like Augustana (2-8).

From what Mike DeWitt said and I learned ahead of time... Randolph-Macon was regionally ranked that had an impact.

I can't really fault the decision making when DeWitt was more than forthright in answering along those lines.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2013, 12:08:17 AM
Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2013, 11:44:10 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2013, 11:34:13 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2013, 09:53:25 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

The committee is reading the Handbook.

The criterion says "results" versus regionally ranked opponents and not "winning percentage".

I have been preaching this not for weeks... but all season. The wording is key.

I hear you, Dave. I think they should change the handbook wording; they're blowing off the 5 losses; is 5-5 better than 4-0, for example? where's the inflection point?
Well if the 5-5 team finished 21-6 that means just one loss to a non rro while if the 4-0 team went 21-5 that means all five of the losses were against teams not good enough to be a rro.
As a numbers person I know that unfortunately raw data can be twisted all kinds of way to suit whatever perspective you'd like. Do you really expect the NCAA to give up their leeway to justify picks as they see fit?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 26, 2013, 12:15:14 AM
I'm out.  I'm brining my cheatsheet to class tomorrow so if I get up between 9:20 and 10:50 I'll post a selection from a phone, not much I can do while I'm driving.  Should be home for good about 1 PM tomorrow.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2013, 08:20:34 AM
Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2013, 11:44:10 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2013, 11:34:13 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2013, 09:53:25 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

The committee is reading the Handbook.

The criterion says "results" versus regionally ranked opponents and not "winning percentage".

I have been preaching this not for weeks... but all season. The wording is key.

I hear you, Dave. I think they should change the handbook wording; they're blowing off the 5 losses; is 5-5 better than 4-0, for example? where's the inflection point?

I'm not sure, but 5-5 is clearly better than 3-1 in the eyes of this committee.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2013, 09:14:03 AM
Quote from: 7express on February 26, 2013, 12:15:14 AM
I'm out.  I'm brining my cheatsheet to class tomorrow so if I get up between 9:20 and 10:50 I'll post a selection from a phone, not much I can do while I'm driving.  Should be home for good about 1 PM tomorrow.

Wrong board.  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wally_wabash on February 26, 2013, 10:14:04 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 12:02:07 AM
How about 10 results versus 5 (or so - can't remember). That is ten games... so they aren't necessarily blowing off the five losses they are considering the total number of results as well. Mike DeWitt said it himself, when you are playing that number of games it says you have a pretty challenging schedule and clearly with five wins there are wins there not losses like a team like Augustana (2-8).

From what Mike DeWitt said and I learned ahead of time... Randolph-Macon was regionally ranked that had an impact.

I can't really fault the decision making when DeWitt was more than forthright in answering along those lines.

Really good points all up and down this thread.  Regarding "results vs. RRO"...I remember when the light bulb went off back in the day and we all realized that the results vs. ranked opponents wasn't exclusively talking about wins.  OHHHHH we all said.  I do, however, think that it's irresponsible for the committee to just say that any result vs. a ranked opponent is a good result.  It isn't.  And it really isn't when you start comparing teams from different regions that have different numbers of ranked teams (and not just one or two more or less...lots and lots more or less). 

Yes, it should matter that you played ranked teams.  It should also matter that you beat some of them.  That should matter more than it matters that you showed up to a gym where a ranked team happen to be playing.  You get credit for that in your SOS.  You shouldn't get a ton of extra credit in another criterion, especially if you got hammered by 25 in some of those games. 

In this case...
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2013, 12:08:17 AM
Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2013, 11:44:10 PM

I hear you, Dave. I think they should change the handbook wording; they're blowing off the 5 losses; is 5-5 better than 4-0, for example? where's the inflection point?
Well if the 5-5 team finished 21-6 that means just one loss to a non rro while if the 4-0 team went 21-5 that means all five of the losses were against teams not good enough to be a rro.
As a numbers person I know that unfortunately raw data can be twisted all kinds of way to suit whatever perspective you'd like. Do you really expect the NCAA to give up their leeway to justify picks as they see fit?

...5-5 is probably better than 4-0, because 5 is still greater than 4 and 10 games vs. just 4 games would seem to indicate a tougher schedule, but it isn't that cut and dry.  Did you accumulate ten such games vs. ranked opponents by playing in the UAA or in the northeast where there are a jillion ranked teams?  Did the 4-0 team play in a region or conference with less access to such games like the GL or maybe has a geographic isolation issue?  I think you have to scrub a little bit on how those schedules came to be and whether or not that schedule with 10 RRO games is significantly better than the one with just four.  The SOS is a good barometer...well not really, but in this case you can use it to sort of normalize the inequities inherent in the wildly different numbers of ranked teams across each region. 

At the end of the day, when you get down to the last 3-4 at-large selections, you're dealing exclusively with teams that have proven that they can lose games, probably some games that you wouldn't think they'd lose.  They're all at the tail end of the selection process because they lost bad games.  If my goal is to make the field as good as possible, I want to know who beat good teams.  I already know all of these teams can lose.  I need to know who beat tournament caliber teams.  That's the team that makes my tournament better. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2013, 10:45:22 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 26, 2013, 10:14:04 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 12:02:07 AM
How about 10 results versus 5 (or so - can't remember). That is ten games... so they aren't necessarily blowing off the five losses they are considering the total number of results as well. Mike DeWitt said it himself, when you are playing that number of games it says you have a pretty challenging schedule and clearly with five wins there are wins there not losses like a team like Augustana (2-8).

From what Mike DeWitt said and I learned ahead of time... Randolph-Macon was regionally ranked that had an impact.

I can't really fault the decision making when DeWitt was more than forthright in answering along those lines.

Really good points all up and down this thread.  Regarding "results vs. RRO"...I remember when the light bulb went off back in the day and we all realized that the results vs. ranked opponents wasn't exclusively talking about wins.  OHHHHH we all said.  I do, however, think that it's irresponsible for the committee to just say that any result vs. a ranked opponent is a good result.  It isn't.  And it really isn't when you start comparing teams from different regions that have different numbers of ranked teams (and not just one or two more or less...lots and lots more or less). 

Yes, it should matter that you played ranked teams.  It should also matter that you beat some of them.  That should matter more than it matters that you showed up to a gym where a ranked team happen to be playing.  You get credit for that in your SOS.  You shouldn't get a ton of extra credit in another criterion, especially if you got hammered by 25 in some of those games. 

Which is why Augustana didn't get in.  They played a lot of good teams, but only won twice.  Winning counts, but there is a reasonable limit.  The committee made a choice, a tough one, but they chose.  Certainly we could believe Albright deserved to get in over Randolph, but we'd also have to admit there's merit in deciding the other way.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2013, 10:59:14 AM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2013, 11:09:04 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2013, 10:41:00 PM
For Hope, most of them did anyway; for Calvin they tended to miss by LESS than ten miles.

But now the Hope/IWU series will count. That is very quickly becoming a good rivalry (they've played in football for years, but, though usually close, Hope has never won - though come to think of it, they haven't won in basketball either! :o ;D)

Only if we find 3 in-region games Mr Y. ::)


btw does anybody know if the 70% is for just the regular season or does it include the post-season.

For instance:
A 25 game regular season is 17.5 or 18 in-region games
A 28 game season w/post-season is 19.6 or 20 in-region games

Which are you going to be required to have?

(yes I know your conference tournament would likely put you over either threshold anyway)

I believe it's the games you play before selection time, so that would include conference tournaments.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2013, 11:00:00 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2013, 11:34:13 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2013, 09:53:25 PM
Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2013, 09:44:11 PM
Mike Dewitt said 5-5(Randolph) was better than 3-1(Albright) wtr vrro; I don't know any sports standing that doesn't have a higher %(.750 to .500) come before a lower one; the committee is manufacturing that results played is more important than winning %.

The committee is reading the Handbook.

The criterion says "results" versus regionally ranked opponents and not "winning percentage".

I have been preaching this not for weeks... but all season. The wording is key.

Actually, we've been pushing this point for multiple seasons.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2013, 11:02:18 AM
And sorry for three posts in a row but one more thing about "results" vs. regionally ranked opponents.

It isn't just the wins, or the record, or the number of games, but the games themselves. If Team A beat the No. 1 team in its region, the No. 3 team in its region and the No. 5 team in its region, that can be viewed in comparison to Team B beating the No. 4, 6 and 7 team in its region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 26, 2013, 11:09:14 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2013, 11:02:18 AM
And sorry for three posts in a row but one more thing about "results" vs. regionally ranked opponents.

It isn't just the wins, or the record, or the number of games, but the games themselves. If Team A beat the No. 1 team in its region, the No. 3 team in its region and the No. 5 team in its region, that can be viewed in comparison to Team B beating the No. 4, 6 and 7 team in its region.
Yes, but they should also note the differences between regions.   The #1 (last public rankings) in the South, Virginia Wesleyan is clearly inferior to #3 Stevens Point in the West.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2013, 11:10:39 AM
Which is why I said "can be viewed in comparison to" rather than "is considered better than."
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2013, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2013, 11:02:18 AM
And sorry for three posts in a row but one more thing about "results" vs. regionally ranked opponents.

It isn't just the wins, or the record, or the number of games, but the games themselves. If Team A beat the No. 1 team in its region, the No. 3 team in its region and the No. 5 team in its region, that can be viewed in comparison to Team B beating the No. 4, 6 and 7 team in its region.

So then, even though a team falling out of the rankings gives a "result vs. regionally ranked", they DO look game-by-game and "knock them down" for beating a team that might now be #9 in a region that only ranks six (and give them virtually zero "credit" for it?)?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 26, 2013, 11:27:36 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2013, 11:10:39 AM
Which is why I said "can be viewed in comparison to" rather than "is considered better than."
Are we sure that the committee penalized Randolph for their relatively weak regionally ranked opponents?  I thought they were being awarded?  Ultimately the criteria is just trying to answer the question of whether you're good within your own region.   The best region might have a lot of parity and thus the strength of schedule would be lower for their pool c candidates.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 26, 2013, 02:30:10 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2013, 07:48:13 PM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2013, 03:43:56 PM
Had Randolph Macon not won the ODAC I doubt Randolph gets in the tournament.

This gave Randolph 2 more RRO's(probably)

By sometime Sunday, I already had Randolph-Macon getting ranked in the South region whether they won or lost in that ODAC final.  They were going to have 7 wins against regionally ranked and 16 games played...even with a loss to Virginia Wesleyan.  I think they were a safe bet for a South spot, ahead of Texas-Dallas, win or lose.  I had actually already added the extra win vs regionally ranked to Transylvania, and the others well before that ODAC game started. 

But you are absolutely right that the extra 1-1 for Randolph was a difference maker.  It might have also gotten Transylvania in.  As Mike DeWitt said on Hoopsville about this, "It didn't hurt."

I can't stress enough how great that interview was with DeWitt.  People who care about this stuff (which is about all of us?) should take the time to listen off the archive.

http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2012-13/feb25 - starts at 2:13:30

Randolph-Macon becoming regionally-ranked for the 1st time in the non-disclosed rankings and the effects on others(Randolph, Transylvania, Brandeis, Albright,...) provokes a couple of other questions.
If we are not disclosed the rankings, so that we can tell who's affected and how:
(1) Who else became regionally-ranked for the 1st time in the same ranking period?
(2) What number range qualified them for regional ranking? For example, did R-M have to move into the South 1-8 to become regionally-ranked because we understand the RACs rank more teams for pool C selection than are disclosed in the 3 weeks of public rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 02:39:46 PM
1 - I think only one other team was regionally ranked who hadn't before - Dubuque.
2 - Regional Rankings are the 6.5:1 ratio that we see every week. So Atlantic (5), East (6), Great Lakes (6), Mid-Atlantic (9), Midwest (8), Northeast (12), South (8) and West (9). RMC did in fact move into the final regional rankings slotting 7th. And while the RACs do rank far beyond the number we see those teams being "ranked" does not apply to the RRO - they are just in case the region has all of its ranked teams get in and another team needs to come to the table. It happened a year or two ago on the women's side (? forgetting), but that is about the only time we have ever seen it take place.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 26, 2013, 02:47:21 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 02:39:46 PM
1 - I think only one other team was regionally ranked who hadn't before - Dubuque.
2 - Regional Rankings are the 6.5:1 ratio that we see every week. So Atlantic (5), East (6), Great Lakes (6), Mid-Atlantic (9), Midwest (8), Northeast (12), South (8) and West (9). RMC did in fact move into the final regional rankings slotting 7th. And while the RACs do rank far beyond the number we see those teams being "ranked" does not apply to the RRO - they are just in case the region has all of its ranked teams get in and another team needs to come to the table. It happened a year or two ago on the women's side (? forgetting), but that is about the only time we have ever seen it take place.

Dave,
Please ask the women's chair the same question.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 02:52:11 PM
What question specifically?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 26, 2013, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 02:52:11 PM
What question specifically?

What teams became regionally ranked for the 1st time in the last(undisclosed) ranking?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 02:56:16 PM
I am not sure I will get that answer... my sources on the men's side are far better than on the women's... and I got the final rankings as such.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2013, 03:07:08 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 02:39:46 PM
1 - I think only one other team was regionally ranked who hadn't before - Dubuque.
2 - Regional Rankings are the 6.5:1 ratio that we see every week. So Atlantic (5), East (6), Great Lakes (6), Mid-Atlantic (9), Midwest (8), Northeast (12), South (8) and West (9). RMC did in fact move into the final regional rankings slotting 7th. And while the RACs do rank far beyond the number we see those teams being "ranked" does not apply to the RRO - they are just in case the region has all of its ranked teams get in and another team needs to come to the table. It happened a year or two ago on the women's side (? forgetting), but that is about the only time we have ever seen it take place.

I would be shocked and offended and -- and hurt if Hope wasn't ranked in the GL in these final rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on February 26, 2013, 03:27:01 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 02:56:16 PM
I am not sure I will get that answer... my sources on the men's side are far better than on the women's... and I got the final rankings as such.

I know-I won't be holding my breath, waiting for the answer, but let's give her the opportunity to inform.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 26, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2013, 04:47:20 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Then they did something wrong.

Rank 'em:

Team A .741/.504/1-3
Team B .714/.554/1-4

or was it
Team C .792/.490/1-2?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2013, 06:14:01 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2013, 04:47:20 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Then they did something wrong.

Rank 'em:

Team A .741/.504/1-3
Team B .714/.554/1-4

or was it
Team C .792/.490/1-2?

Who were the respective rro wins over?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 26, 2013, 06:19:51 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2013, 04:47:20 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Then they did something wrong.

Rank 'em:

Team A .741/.504/1-3
Team B .714/.554/1-4

or was it
Team C .792/.490/1-2?

I think it depends on the year doesn't it? ;)


Now rank em'.......I think you'll see what I did there.
Team A .741/.504/1-3
Team B .761/.554/1-4
Team C .792/.490/1-2?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 26, 2013, 06:21:50 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 26, 2013, 06:14:01 PM
Who were the respective rro wins over?

Capital, Calvin, Marietta  in that order probably.

or

Capital, Calvin, St. Vincent.

I'm not sure which Team C slappy is referring to.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2013, 08:40:39 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2013, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2013, 11:02:18 AM
And sorry for three posts in a row but one more thing about "results" vs. regionally ranked opponents.

It isn't just the wins, or the record, or the number of games, but the games themselves. If Team A beat the No. 1 team in its region, the No. 3 team in its region and the No. 5 team in its region, that can be viewed in comparison to Team B beating the No. 4, 6 and 7 team in its region.

So then, even though a team falling out of the rankings gives a "result vs. regionally ranked", they DO look game-by-game and "knock them down" for beating a team that might now be #9 in a region that only ranks six (and give them virtually zero "credit" for it?)?

That seems like a reasonable extension of what I've been told, yes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Nope.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2013, 09:33:24 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Nope.

So Capital remained ranked then with an SOS below .500 and only one game, a loss, to a team actually ranked at the time of the final rankings.

And Hope was not ranked even though they had a .064 SOS advantage and a 1-4 in games versus teams that were all actually ranked in the end. Even giving up the .078 in WP, it seems like the committee had been taking this resume over the other every time this year.

Unless they somehow decided upon Baldwin Wallace? I just don't see how Hope's large SOS (and games versus actually ranked teams) doesn't put them over the top when compared to all three of these OAC schools.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2013, 10:01:22 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2013, 09:33:24 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Nope.

So Capital remained ranked then with an SOS below .500 and only one game, a loss, to a team actually ranked at the time of the final rankings.

And Hope was not ranked even though they had a .064 SOS advantage and a 1-4 in games versus teams that were all actually ranked in the end. Even giving up the .078 in WP, it seems like the committee had been taking this resume over the other every time this year.

Unless they somehow decided upon Baldwin Wallace? I just don't see how Hope's large SOS (and games versus actually ranked teams) doesn't put them over the top when compared to all three of these OAC schools.

Does it really matter when the spot didn't make it to the table anyway?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ziggy on February 27, 2013, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2013, 10:01:22 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2013, 09:33:24 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Nope.

So Capital remained ranked then with an SOS below .500 and only one game, a loss, to a team actually ranked at the time of the final rankings.

And Hope was not ranked even though they had a .064 SOS advantage and a 1-4 in games versus teams that were all actually ranked in the end. Even giving up the .078 in WP, it seems like the committee had been taking this resume over the other every time this year.

Unless they somehow decided upon Baldwin Wallace? I just don't see how Hope's large SOS (and games versus actually ranked teams) doesn't put them over the top when compared to all three of these OAC schools.

Does it really matter when the spot didn't make it to the table anyway?

Absolutely. Randolph's Pool C bid goes to prove how much a new team breaking into the final regional rankings can be. Hope getting ranked at the end would have helped Calvin to the point it may have been the difference between hosting RHIT and traveling to Terre Haute.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 27, 2013, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: ziggy on February 27, 2013, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2013, 10:01:22 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2013, 09:33:24 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Nope.

So Capital remained ranked then with an SOS below .500 and only one game, a loss, to a team actually ranked at the time of the final rankings.

And Hope was not ranked even though they had a .064 SOS advantage and a 1-4 in games versus teams that were all actually ranked in the end. Even giving up the .078 in WP, it seems like the committee had been taking this resume over the other every time this year.

Unless they somehow decided upon Baldwin Wallace? I just don't see how Hope's large SOS (and games versus actually ranked teams) doesn't put them over the top when compared to all three of these OAC schools.

Does it really matter when the spot didn't make it to the table anyway?

Absolutely. Randolph's Pool C bid goes to prove how much a new team breaking into the final regional rankings can be. Hope getting ranked at the end would have helped Calvin to the point it may have been the difference between hosting RHIT and traveling to Terre Haute.

...and there it is.  We all knew two Calvin fans arguing for Hope to be ranked couldn't simply be for Hope's benefit (I kid, I kid) :)  ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2013, 02:25:30 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2013, 09:33:24 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Nope.

So Capital remained ranked then with an SOS below .500 and only one game, a loss, to a team actually ranked at the time of the final rankings.

And Hope was not ranked even though they had a .064 SOS advantage and a 1-4 in games versus teams that were all actually ranked in the end. Even giving up the .078 in WP, it seems like the committee had been taking this resume over the other every time this year.

Unless they somehow decided upon Baldwin Wallace? I just don't see how Hope's large SOS (and games versus actually ranked teams) doesn't put them over the top when compared to all three of these OAC schools.

Maybe going to 9 ranking positions isn't such a good idea, 3 more opportunities to completely screw it up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2013, 02:29:06 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2013, 02:25:30 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2013, 09:33:24 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: sac on February 26, 2013, 04:42:45 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2013, 04:25:02 PM
KnightSlappy... they weren't ranked.

ronk - she has never had a track record of being informative... so why start now LOL.

So then Marietta

Nope.

So Capital remained ranked then with an SOS below .500 and only one game, a loss, to a team actually ranked at the time of the final rankings.

And Hope was not ranked even though they had a .064 SOS advantage and a 1-4 in games versus teams that were all actually ranked in the end. Even giving up the .078 in WP, it seems like the committee had been taking this resume over the other every time this year.

Unless they somehow decided upon Baldwin Wallace? I just don't see how Hope's large SOS (and games versus actually ranked teams) doesn't put them over the top when compared to all three of these OAC schools.

Maybe going to 9 ranking positions isn't such a good idea, 3 more opportunities to completely screw it up.

Yeah, but with 9 slots, it seems likely Hope and Calvin would both be ranked at least once each year.  Even in an off year like this one, Hope would have surely gotten in.  It's also going to be a boon for the HCAC, which is likely to get more teams into the rankings in the GL than they did in the MW.

It certainly adds some depth to the region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2013, 03:05:05 PM
The benefit that the Northeast has is its weaker conferences that contrubute to the # of teams ranked, but rarely have a team strong enough to occupy "their" slot.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2013, 03:11:28 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2013, 03:05:05 PM
The benefit that the Northeast has is its weaker conferences that contrubute to the # of teams ranked, but rarely have a team strong enough to occupy "their" slot.

It's the same advantage for SOS as well.  A Becker or an Anna Maria can have a pretty good record without actually being a competitive game for the top regional teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2013, 03:30:09 PM
Not addressing the 75 school Northeast region is a failure in my opinion.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2013, 03:32:55 PM
sac - I have talked about this with those who knew how they were tackling it and long conversations with Pat... I have come to the conclusion... how in the world would they have done it. Remember the criteria and recommendations they were given.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2013, 03:34:37 PM
There's just no easy way to do it with the map. All of those leagues have teams in both western and eastern New England. It doesn't work to carve one or two out.

I've been saying that for a couple of years. We're pretty much screwed on that.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 27, 2013, 03:41:53 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2013, 03:34:37 PM
There's just no easy way to do it with the map. All of those leagues have teams in both western and eastern New England. It doesn't work to carve one or two out.

I've been saying that for a couple of years. We're pretty much screwed on that.

Let's move one conference to the East, you pick up all the East in-region teams that weren't before and you still keep all the Northeast Region teams because of administrative region.  It's actually a win for the conference that moves East.

The 70% thing really makes moving a Northeast conference less of a deal than moving the Heartland to me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2013, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2013, 03:41:53 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2013, 03:34:37 PM
There's just no easy way to do it with the map. All of those leagues have teams in both western and eastern New England. It doesn't work to carve one or two out.

I've been saying that for a couple of years. We're pretty much screwed on that.

Let's move one conference to the East, you pick up all the East in-region teams that weren't before and you still keep all the Northeast Region teams because of administrative region.  It's actually a win for the conference that moves East.

The 70% thing really makes moving a Northeast conference less of a deal than moving the Heartland to me.

To me, I think not trying to equal the rest of the regions makes less sense to me.  Sure, they eliminated really small regions, but they more or less moved the size around.  The large Mid-Atlantic is now replaced with a pretty large Great Lakes.

If you assume NE is going to be a large outlier, there could have been more of a push to equal out the others.

The CCC (my home conference) was in the Atlantic region for women's play when I was a student and it was very strange to basically never play teams actually from the region.  Back then the tournament was more structured by region with CCC teams always traveling to NJ in the post-season.

It would certainly be easier to move a conference over, but it would mess with the geography and it wouldn't necessarily help with the advantages the NE teams get from the geographic density.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2013, 05:18:45 PM
Average number of "regionally ranked games played" by conference.

UAA      11.1
ODAC     10.2
CCIW     9.1
SUNYAC   8.9
NEWMAC   8.4
WIAC     8.2
CAC      8.1
NESCAC   7.1
MACC     6.9
NJAC     6.6
MIAC     6.4
LEC      6.4
E8       6.1
LAND     6.0
IIAC     5.5
CC       5.4
HCAC     5.2
NCAC     5.1
ASC      5.1
NWC      5.0
OAC      4.9
SKY      4.9
MIAA     4.9
PrAC     4.6
USAC     4.4
MASCAC   4.0
MACF     4.0
LL       3.7
CCC      3.4
CSAC     3.4
GNAC     2.9
MWC      2.7
SCIAC    2.6
GSAC     2.5
NECC     2.0
NEAC     1.7
CUNYAC   1.7
UMAC     1.6
SCAC     1.5
NAC      1.4
NATHC    1.3
IND      1.3
SLIAC    1.0
SAA      0.8
AMCC     0.7
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2013, 10:59:58 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2013, 03:41:53 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2013, 03:34:37 PM
There's just no easy way to do it with the map. All of those leagues have teams in both western and eastern New England. It doesn't work to carve one or two out.

I've been saying that for a couple of years. We're pretty much screwed on that.

Let's move one conference to the East, you pick up all the East in-region teams that weren't before and you still keep all the Northeast Region teams because of administrative region.  It's actually a win for the conference that moves East.

The 70% thing really makes moving a Northeast conference less of a deal than moving the Heartland to me.

They would be in the East on paper, but they wouldn't really be members of the East, you know what I mean? They wouldn't likely play any other East teams in non-conference games. Wouldn't be conducive to a regional ranking, comparing lots of apples with oranges.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2013, 11:55:50 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2013, 10:59:58 PM
Quote from: sac on February 27, 2013, 03:41:53 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2013, 03:34:37 PM
There's just no easy way to do it with the map. All of those leagues have teams in both western and eastern New England. It doesn't work to carve one or two out.

I've been saying that for a couple of years. We're pretty much screwed on that.

Let's move one conference to the East, you pick up all the East in-region teams that weren't before and you still keep all the Northeast Region teams because of administrative region.  It's actually a win for the conference that moves East.

The 70% thing really makes moving a Northeast conference less of a deal than moving the Heartland to me.

They would be in the East on paper, but they wouldn't really be members of the East, you know what I mean? They wouldn't likely play any other East teams in non-conference games. Wouldn't be conducive to a regional ranking, comparing lots of apples with oranges.
Like!, to borrow a facebook term.

New England?  It is what it is! 

UAA? It is what it is!

Those two situations basically manifest the founding principles of D-III:

1)  Regional Nature of the competition
2)  Like minded institutions, regardless of the fact that they may be a three hour plane flight apart.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2013, 04:23:28 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2013, 11:55:50 AMNew England?  It is what it is! 

Ralph, if you ever get bored with medicine, there's a second career waiting for you at the New England Department of Tourism. ;)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2013, 04:55:46 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2013, 04:23:28 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2013, 11:55:50 AMNew England?  It is what it is! 

Ralph, if you ever get bored with medicine, there's a second career waiting for you at the New England Department of Tourism. ;)
Every time I go to New England, I am impressed with how little sunshine there is! :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 05, 2013, 11:09:35 AM
Pool C teams just 7-5 against Pool A teams.


WINNERS
Stevens Point
Wheaton
VWU
Plattsburgh St
Wooster
Rochester
Middlebury


LOSERS
Rutgers-Newark
MIT
Stevens
Hampden-Sydney
Springfield
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2013, 12:50:40 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 05, 2013, 11:09:35 AM
Pool C teams just 7-5 against Pool A teams.


WINNERS
Stevens Point vs. Northwestern (Minn.)
Wheaton vs. St. Norbert
VWU vs. Delaware Valley
Plattsburgh St vs. Husson
Wooster vs. Penn State-Behrend
Rochester vs. Fitchburg State
Middlebury vs. Curry


LOSERS
Rutgers-Newark vs. Christopher Newport
MIT vs. St. Mary's (Md.)
Stevens vs. Randolph-Macon
Hampden-Sydney vs. Cabrini
Springfield vs. Ithaca

Added opponents and bolded teams that had a good shot at Pool C had they lost their conference championship game.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 05, 2013, 12:56:38 PM
Thanks knihtslappy. Not sure if St. Norbert had any shot at a Pool C bid though. Admittedly, I haven't looked at the comparable numbers lately.

I'm also posting from my phone, so my posts are shorter!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: northb on March 05, 2013, 02:09:10 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 05, 2013, 12:56:38 PM

I'm also posting from my phone, so my posts are shorter!

First world problem....
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: NittanyLion95 on March 07, 2013, 10:34:47 AM
Quote
Every time I go to New England, I am impressed with how little sunshine there is! :)

New England likes to save its sun for the summer... ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 07, 2013, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: NittanyLion95 on March 07, 2013, 10:34:47 AM
Quote
Every time I go to New England, I am impressed with how little sunshine there is! :)

New England likes to save its sun for the summer... ;D
I can remember a pleasant July evening in Waterville ME that had almost as much ambient sunlight as the average Deecember midday in Texas.    And about those towns in ME, to get from New Portland to North New Portland, you have to drive northwest and then southeast?  Or East Wilton is actually mostly north of  plain ol' Wilton. :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Knightstalker on March 07, 2013, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 07, 2013, 02:53:45 PM
Quote from: NittanyLion95 on March 07, 2013, 10:34:47 AM
Quote
Every time I go to New England, I am impressed with how little sunshine there is! :)

New England likes to save its sun for the summer... ;D
I can remember a pleasant July evening in Waterville ME that had almost as much ambient sunlight as the average Deecember midday in Texas.    And about those towns in ME, to get from New Portland to North New Portland, you have to drive northwest and then southeast?  Or East Wilton is actually mostly north of  plain ol' Wilton. :)

If you want sun in New England it costs extra.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 13, 2014, 10:18:14 AM
That 75% rule kicks in this year, right?

Also, looking at schedules and Hope's schedule lists games at Whitewater and Point as regional while games against Wheaton and Carthage are not regional. I'm not any good at geography, but...uh?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on January 13, 2014, 12:37:36 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 13, 2014, 10:18:14 AM
That 75% rule kicks in this year, right?

Also, looking at schedules and Hope's schedule lists games at Whitewater and Point as regional while games against Wheaton and Carthage are not regional. I'm not any good at geography, but...uh?

Well that's completely messed up - Wheaton is a regional game for Hope, the others - uh no, at least not this year.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 13, 2014, 01:04:17 PM
I'm sure it's just a mistake. I think in the past with that CCIW/MIAA weekend. Wheaton is regional for Hope and Calvin, but Carthage isn't. Illinois and Michigan are same administrative regions, I believe.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on January 13, 2014, 01:53:36 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 13, 2014, 01:04:17 PM
I'm sure it's just a mistake. I think in the past with that CCIW/MIAA weekend. Wheaton is regional for Hope and Calvin, but Carthage isn't. Illinois and Michigan are same administrative regions, I believe.

Nope - Illinois and Michigan are not in the same admin region - but of course Michigan and Puerto Rico are  ::)   ::)

So all of the games in the CCIW/MIAA weekend are subject to the distance rule.  Only Hope/Wheaton is under 200 miles and is therefore in region.  Calvin/Wheaton and Hope/Carthage are both between 200 and 210 miles so they are NOT in region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 13, 2014, 03:04:35 PM
My initial thought was that they were. I guess I was thinking that since the two states border each other, but I guess that would make too much sense. I suppose it won't matter too much with the new rule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 13, 2014, 03:09:51 PM
States that border each other is not a rule... but something that is apparently being considered.

And it is a 70% rule this year... so technically every game a team plays will count as a regional game for analysis and SOS reasons.. UNLESS a team can not get their allotment of actual regional games over 70% (most if not all conferences actually accomplish this qualifying factor with their schedules).

One last tidbit... the 70% rule does NOT count conference tournament games and is based on the schedule teams submit to the NCAA ahead of the season. Waivers are also accepted but those have to be turned in by May, I believe, though that deadline is for the entire athletic department and I can't remember if there is a different deadline for individual sports (i.e. Nebraska Wesleyan makes a decision for its entire department or each sport in May as to whether they will be considered for NCAA tournaments the following academic year).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on January 13, 2014, 03:13:17 PM
Bordering states is a rule in D-II, and has been considered in D-III, but is not currently the rule.

Regional definitions are becoming less important now since essentially all games vs. D-III opponents now count that same.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 13, 2014, 05:22:57 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 13, 2014, 03:09:51 PM
States that border each other is not a rule... but something that is apparently being considered.

And it is a 70% rule this year... so technically every game a team plays will count as a regional game for analysis and SOS reasons.. UNLESS a team can not get their allotment of actual regional games over 70% (most if not all conferences actually accomplish this qualifying factor with their schedules).

One last tidbit... the 70% rule does NOT count conference tournament games and is based on the schedule teams submit to the NCAA ahead of the season. Waivers are also accepted but those have to be turned in by May, I believe, though that deadline is for the entire athletic department and I can't remember if there is a different deadline for individual sports (i.e. Nebraska Wesleyan makes a decision for its entire department or each sport in May as to whether they will be considered for NCAA tournaments the following academic year).

Is this accurate?  If so I believe it would make Calvin ineligible for at large selection.

http://d3hoops.com/teams/Calvin/men/2013-14/index

only Anderson, Manchester and Finlandia should count as "in-region" and that doesn't get them over 70%.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 13, 2014, 05:26:49 PM
What I was told at the beginning of the season is that the 70% rule applies to the 25 games you schedule... that you can't gamble (in conferences that don't have all teams make the tournaments) on a conference tournament to boost your percentage.

Now, remember that schools can apply for a waiver and I wouldn't be surprised if schools this year and maybe next are granted waivers... but the NCAA and Division III isn't going to pass them out often as they want schools to schedule accordingly.

I will check with a few people to find out which schools may have been granted waivers this season.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on January 13, 2014, 05:48:56 PM
 Shouldn't the NCAA have announced by now(if not, when?) the schools ineligible because they haven't met the 70% criteria. This shouldn't be undefined at this late date and affect regional rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 13, 2014, 05:54:42 PM
But remember... they aren't ineligible... it is just that all of their Division III games won't be counted towards regional rankings as those with over 70% will have all of their Division III games counted. Not sure they have to announce that... each school/team should know that very well especially before the season started. It isn't like this is something randomly new.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 13, 2014, 05:58:45 PM
I think we need clarity on what the 70% rule is.  I've heard two things

70% against in-region allows you to count all D3 games as in-region

70% against in-region allows you to count all D3 games as in region and is required for at-large selection to the national tournament.


Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 13, 2014, 06:01:36 PM
A team must schedule/play 70% of their games in-region by the definitions of regional games as they are known (conference game, actual region, geographic region and 200-mile rule)... if they want ALL of their Division III games to count in primary criteria - regional record. That affects regional rankings, at-large considerations and hosting opportunities.

If a team does not meet the 70% rule... the only games that will count in the primary criteria and thus the regional record will be their actual regional games... and thus all of their Division III (and other) games will only be considered deep in the secondary criteria if the national committee needs to go that far down the list.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 21, 2014, 12:14:50 PM
Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on January 13, 2014, 12:37:36 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 13, 2014, 10:18:14 AM
That 75% rule kicks in this year, right?

Also, looking at schedules and Hope's schedule lists games at Whitewater and Point as regional while games against Wheaton and Carthage are not regional. I'm not any good at geography, but...uh?

Well that's completely messed up - Wheaton is a regional game for Hope, the others - uh no, at least not this year.

I had marked these games as in-region but unfortunately, someone at the school or conference level changed them back.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 21, 2014, 02:53:00 PM
Is there a way to differentiate between a game that qualifies as "in-region" and once that will count because of the 70% rule?

Does that make sense?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 21, 2014, 03:36:14 PM
In the football and soccer handbooks, there was no distinction drawn by the committee. I suspect the number of teams that are flirting with the line is already really small and will be smaller as the years progress (plus waivers could be granted), so I did not ask Presto to create a new classification of games.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 21, 2014, 03:47:17 PM
Per the NCAA handbook for men:

Primary Selection Criteria
The primary criteria emphasize competition leading up to NCAA championships; all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
●● Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents.
●● Division III strength of schedule.
-- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
-- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
●● Division III head-to-head competition.
●● Results versus common Division III opponents.
●● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established at the time of selection.
Note:
●● Conference postseason contests are included.
●● Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary
criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dcahill44 on January 21, 2014, 03:53:04 PM
East Region Predictions for Regional Rankings SOS included

1. Brockport State 11-1 Overall 5-0 Conference SOS 60
2. Plattsburgh State 10-3 Overall 4-2 Conference SOS 40
3. Geneseo State 10-2 Overall 4-1 Conference SOS 173
4. New York University 11-3 Overall 1-2 Conference SOS 195
5. Hobart 10-4 Overall 4-1 Conference SOS 179
6. St John Fisher 10-5 Overall 4-1 Conference SOS 189

In contention, Nazareth, Stevens, Oneonta, Hartwick, Oswego State, Skidmore. in no order
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 21, 2014, 04:06:36 PM
I was actually thinking about doing one for the West for about a week or so, but maybe I'll wait until the beginning of February.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on January 21, 2014, 04:51:23 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 21, 2014, 03:47:17 PM

●● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established at the time of selection.



does this mean we've done away with 'once ranked always ranked'?


Really need to release that final set of rankings to the public.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 21, 2014, 05:03:19 PM
They have done away with that... this may help you: http://youtu.be/tjqnwUNzwOk (http://youtu.be/tjqnwUNzwOk)

And the men's committee would love to release the last rankings... but are not allowed by the NCAA.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 22, 2014, 04:47:32 PM
According to the handbook, it looks like the SOS problem from last year has been fixed (as long as they apply the HAM to the percentage). As far as OWP/OOWP goes, the example clearly shows that the correct way is to calculate the OWP/OOWP as a percentage for each game and then average those percentages for the final OWP/OOWP.

The handbook does not seem mention the 70% in-region rule. It says 50%.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 22, 2014, 04:50:31 PM
Actually... that is a straight copy and paste from last year's handbook... so I am not sure if they have indeed fixed anything. I have asked and am awaiting word.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 22, 2014, 05:47:14 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 22, 2014, 04:47:32 PM
According to the handbook, it looks like the SOS problem from last year has been fixed (as long as they apply the HAM to the percentage).

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsouthweb.org%2Flifewise%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2Fham-sandwich.jpg&hash=4d827c35e19bf22a4afbd216cfcf281132542bdb)

Works for me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 22, 2014, 10:31:37 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 22, 2014, 05:47:14 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 22, 2014, 04:47:32 PM
According to the handbook, it looks like the SOS problem from last year has been fixed (as long as they apply the HAM to the percentage).

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsouthweb.org%2Flifewise%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2Fham-sandwich.jpg&hash=4d827c35e19bf22a4afbd216cfcf281132542bdb)

Works for me.

I usually prefer about 10% more HAM.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 23, 2014, 12:36:58 AM

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3688%2F12097589714_fc6f6ed8a9_m.jpg&hash=2da9b3425216c6b27f8f0c7ee7ea369eb69928a7)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 23, 2014, 10:39:16 AM
Time for some rankings chatter? Sure.

Mostly accurate through Wednesday. Sort is by RPI.

Seems to me that there are more .700's winning percentages than usual, but maybe I'm making that up.

RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   RRO   CONFER   TEAM
NE   01   0.933   0.593   0.678   002   0-0   NESCAC   Amherst
NE   02   0.750   0.579   0.621   012   0-0   NEWMAC   Babson
NE   03   0.750   0.574   0.618   014   0-0   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   04   0.786   0.550   0.609   026   0-0   CCC      Salve Regina
NE   05   0.938   0.489   0.601   031   0-0   NEWMAC   WPI
NE   06   0.800   0.531   0.598   033   0-0   NESCAC   Williams
NE   07   0.933   0.484   0.596   035   0-0   NESCAC   Bowdoin
NE   08   0.688   0.562   0.593   038   0-0   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   09   0.733   0.546   0.593   039   0-0   CCC      Nichols
NE   10   0.688   0.559   0.591   041   0-0   LEC      Rhode Island College
NE   11   1.000   0.445   0.584   052   0-0   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   12   0.688   0.549   0.583   054   0-0   MASCAC   Salem State
NE   13   0.733   0.533   0.583   056   0-0   NEWMAC   Springfield
NE   14   0.538   0.591   0.578   061   0-0   NESCAC   Bates
NE   15   0.571   0.563   0.565   079   0-0   UAA      Brandeis
NE   16   0.923   0.438   0.559   088   0-0   NAC      Husson
NE   17   0.467   0.590   0.559   089   0-0   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
NE   18   0.688   0.515   0.558   092   0-0   NECC     Southern Vermont
NE   19   0.588   0.530   0.545   114   0-0   MASCAC   Bridgewater State
NE   20   0.733   0.469   0.535   130   0-0   NEWMAC   MIT
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   RRO   CONFER   TEAM
EA   01   0.917   0.571   0.657   004   0-0   SUNYAC   Brockport State
EA   02   0.786   0.583   0.633   007   0-0   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
EA   03   0.714   0.579   0.613   023   0-0   LL       Hobart
EA   04   0.833   0.532   0.607   028   0-0   SUNYAC   Geneseo State
EA   05   0.786   0.520   0.587   048   0-0   LL       Vassar
EA   06   0.500   0.600   0.575   065   0-0   SUNYAC   Buffalo State
EA   07   0.643   0.529   0.557   093   0-0   LL       Skidmore
EA   08   0.600   0.542   0.557   095   0-0   E8       Hartwick
EA   09   0.786   0.468   0.547   108   0-0   UAA      New York University
EA   10   0.538   0.545   0.543   115   0-0   UAA      Rochester
EA   11   0.571   0.525   0.537   125   0-0   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
EA   12   0.545   0.532   0.535   129   0-0   LL       Rochester Tech
EA   13   0.643   0.496   0.533   136   0-0   E8       St. John Fisher
EA   14   0.643   0.494   0.531   140   0-0   E8       Stevens
EA   15   0.692   0.454   0.514   169   0-0   E8       Nazareth
EA   16   0.600   0.484   0.513   172   0-0   SUNYAC   Cortland State
EA   17   0.688   0.453   0.512   180   0-0   SUNYAC   Oswego State
EA   18   0.455   0.523   0.506   191   0-0   LL       Clarkson
EA   19   0.636   0.455   0.500   198   0-0   E8       Alfred
EA   20   0.400   0.527   0.495   210   0-0   SUNYAC   New Paltz State
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   RRO   CONFER   TEAM
AT   01   1.000   0.474   0.606   029   0-0   SKY      SUNY-Purchase
AT   02   0.813   0.527   0.598   034   0-0   NJAC     Richard Stockton
AT   03   0.824   0.496   0.578   062   0-0   NJAC     William Paterson
AT   04   0.875   0.471   0.572   072   0-0   CUNYAC   Staten Island
AT   05   0.625   0.549   0.568   077   0-0   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
AT   06   0.571   0.554   0.559   090   0-0   NJAC     Kean
AT   07   0.600   0.530   0.548   106   0-0   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
AT   08   0.733   0.483   0.545   113   0-0   SKY      Mount St. Mary
AT   09   0.706   0.488   0.543   116   0-0   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
AT   10   0.588   0.517   0.535   131   0-0   CUNYAC   Baruch
AT   11   0.412   0.547   0.513   171   0-0   NJAC     Ramapo
AT   12   0.563   0.491   0.509   187   0-0   NJAC     New Jersey City
AT   13   0.438   0.516   0.496   209   0-0   NJAC     TCNJ
AT   14   0.714   0.422   0.495   212   0-0   SKY      Farmingdale State
AT   15   0.500   0.491   0.493   220   0-0   CUNYAC   Lehman
AT   16   0.308   0.539   0.481   245   0-0   NJAC     Montclair State
AT   17   0.333   0.528   0.480   248   0-0   CUNYAC   Brooklyn
AT   18   0.615   0.410   0.461   287   0-0   SKY      Sage
AT   19   0.545   0.427   0.457   293   0-0   IND      St. Josephs (Bklyn.)
AT   20   0.250   0.518   0.451   303   0-0   NJAC     Rowan
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   RRO   CONFER   TEAM
MA   01   0.923   0.590   0.673   003   0-0   CAC      Wesley
MA   02   0.929   0.524   0.625   010   0-0   MACC     Messiah
MA   03   0.813   0.553   0.618   015   0-0   CC       Dickinson
MA   04   0.692   0.588   0.614   019   0-0   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   05   0.867   0.529   0.613   021   0-0   CAC      Mary Washington
MA   06   1.000   0.454   0.590   045   0-0   CSAC     Cabrini
MA   07   0.667   0.558   0.585   049   0-0   MACC     Alvernia
MA   08   0.733   0.534   0.584   053   0-0   LAND     Juniata
MA   09   0.714   0.540   0.583   055   0-0   CAC      Christopher Newport
MA   10   0.750   0.524   0.581   058   0-0   MACC     Stevenson
MA   11   0.733   0.528   0.579   060   0-0   MACC     Hood
MA   12   0.813   0.492   0.572   071   0-0   LAND     Scranton
MA   13   0.800   0.494   0.570   074   0-0   CC       McDaniel
MA   14   0.667   0.536   0.569   075   0-0   CSAC     Neumann
MA   15   0.733   0.513   0.568   076   0-0   LAND     Catholic
MA   16   0.357   0.628   0.561   085   0-0   MACC     Arcadia
MA   17   0.500   0.575   0.556   097   0-0   LAND     Drew
MA   18   0.786   0.479   0.555   098   0-0   CSAC     Gwynedd-Mercy
MA   19   0.563   0.542   0.547   107   0-0   MACC     Albright
MA   20   0.688   0.489   0.539   122   0-0   CC       Franklin and Marshall
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   RRO   CONFER   TEAM
SO   01   0.750   0.585   0.626   009   0-0   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
SO   02   0.929   0.512   0.616   016   0-0   ASC      Texas-Dallas
SO   03   0.714   0.583   0.616   017   0-0   UAA      Emory
SO   04   0.923   0.485   0.594   036   0-0   SAA      Oglethorpe
SO   05   0.733   0.532   0.583   057   0-0   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
SO   06   0.714   0.530   0.576   063   0-0   ASC      Concordia (Texas)
SO   07   0.714   0.527   0.574   068   0-0   ODAC     Lynchburg
SO   08   0.600   0.554   0.566   078   0-0   SCAC     Schreiner
SO   09   0.750   0.501   0.563   082   0-0   ODAC     Guilford
SO   10   0.571   0.555   0.559   087   0-0   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
SO   11   0.583   0.540   0.551   101   0-0   ODAC     Bridgewater (Va.)
SO   12   0.800   0.466   0.550   105   0-0   SAA      Centre
SO   13   0.625   0.519   0.546   111   0-0   ODAC     Hampden-Sydney
SO   14   0.667   0.505   0.546   112   0-0   ASC      Louisiana College
SO   15   0.533   0.536   0.535   126   0-0   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
SO   16   0.692   0.483   0.535   128   0-0   USAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
SO   17   0.533   0.529   0.530   143   0-0   ODAC     Randolph
SO   18   0.500   0.540   0.530   144   0-0   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
SO   19   0.571   0.513   0.527   149   0-0   USAC     LaGrange
SO   20   0.643   0.485   0.525   155   0-0   SLIAC    Spalding
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   RRO   CONFER   TEAM
GL   01   1.000   0.538   0.654   005   0-0   NCAC     Wooster
GL   02   0.813   0.544   0.611   024   0-0   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
GL   03   0.643   0.597   0.608   027   0-0   MIAA     Hope
GL   04   0.733   0.560   0.603   030   0-0   NCAC     DePauw
GL   05   0.733   0.555   0.600   032   0-0   OAC      Marietta
GL   06   0.923   0.480   0.591   042   0-0   PrAC     St. Vincent
GL   07   0.750   0.538   0.591   043   0-0   PrAC     Bethany
GL   08   0.643   0.559   0.580   059   0-0   OAC      Wilmington
GL   09   0.867   0.479   0.576   064   0-0   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
GL   10   0.813   0.495   0.574   067   0-0   NCAC     Wittenberg
GL   11   0.813   0.493   0.573   069   0-0   OAC      Mount Union
GL   12   0.563   0.574   0.571   073   0-0   OAC      Baldwin Wallace
GL   13   0.615   0.547   0.564   080   0-0   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
GL   14   0.688   0.511   0.555   099   0-0   OAC      John Carroll
GL   15   0.643   0.509   0.543   117   0-0   UAA      Case Western Reserve
GL   16   0.583   0.523   0.538   123   0-0   PrAC     Grove City
GL   17   0.500   0.540   0.530   145   0-0   OAC      Ohio Northern
GL   18   0.438   0.557   0.527   150   0-0   OAC      Capital
GL   19   0.750   0.452   0.526   152   0-0   MIAA     Calvin
GL   20   0.500   0.524   0.518   164   0-0   NCAC     Denison
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   RRO   CONFER   TEAM
MW   01   0.882   0.559   0.640   006   0-0   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   02   0.882   0.535   0.622   011   0-0   CCIW     Augustana
MW   03   0.647   0.602   0.613   022   0-0   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   04   0.857   0.527   0.609   025   0-0   UAA      Washington U.
MW   05   0.667   0.569   0.594   037   0-0   CCIW     Carthage
MW   06   0.929   0.470   0.585   050   0-0   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   07   0.750   0.529   0.584   051   0-0   HCAC     Rose-Hulman
MW   08   0.615   0.561   0.574   066   0-0   UAA      Chicago
MW   09   0.667   0.542   0.573   070   0-0   HCAC     Mount St. Joseph
MW   10   0.765   0.495   0.562   083   0-0   NATHC    Marian
MW   11   0.688   0.519   0.561   084   0-0   CCIW     Elmhurst
MW   12   0.643   0.528   0.557   094   0-0   MWC      Ripon
MW   13   0.765   0.487   0.556   096   0-0   NATHC    Milwaukee Engineering
MW   14   0.688   0.504   0.550   104   0-0   HCAC     Hanover
MW   15   0.667   0.507   0.547   109   0-0   NATHC    Aurora
MW   16   0.750   0.478   0.546   110   0-0   NATHC    Lakeland
MW   17   0.786   0.461   0.542   118   0-0   HCAC     Defiance
MW   18   0.429   0.577   0.540   120   0-0   CCIW     North Central (Ill.)
MW   19   0.833   0.436   0.535   127   0-0   SLIAC    MacMurray
MW   20   0.563   0.509   0.522   157   0-0   NATHC    Edgewood
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   RRO   CONFER   TEAM
WE   01   1.000   0.578   0.683   001   0-0   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
WE   02   0.824   0.565   0.630   008   0-0   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
WE   03   0.818   0.554   0.620   013   0-0   SCAC     Colorado College
WE   04   0.813   0.548   0.614   018   0-0   MIAC     St. Thomas
WE   05   0.750   0.569   0.614   020   0-0   MIAC     St. Olaf
WE   06   1.000   0.457   0.593   040   0-0   IIAC     Dubuque
WE   07   0.750   0.537   0.590   044   0-0   NWC      Whitworth
WE   08   0.643   0.572   0.590   046   0-0   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
WE   09   0.625   0.574   0.587   047   0-0   WIAC     UW-Platteville
WE   10   0.688   0.523   0.564   081   0-0   MIAC     Augsburg
WE   11   0.667   0.523   0.559   086   0-0   NWC      Pacific
WE   12   0.667   0.522   0.558   091   0-0   IIAC     Loras
WE   13   0.818   0.467   0.555   100   0-0   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
WE   14   0.800   0.468   0.551   102   0-0   SCIAC    Pomona-Pitzer
WE   15   0.692   0.504   0.551   103   0-0   IIAC     Buena Vista
WE   16   0.667   0.500   0.542   119   0-0   IIAC     Central
WE   17   0.688   0.490   0.540   121   0-0   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
WE   18   0.500   0.546   0.534   132   0-0   IIAC     Wartburg
WE   19   0.889   0.416   0.534   133   0-0   NWC      Lewis and Clark
WE   20   0.429   0.566   0.532   138   0-0   WIAC     UW-Oshkosh
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   RRO   CONFER   TEAM
B    01   0.923   0.485   0.594   036   0-0   SAA      Oglethorpe
B    02   0.571   0.555   0.559   087   0-0   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
B    03   0.800   0.466   0.550   105   0-0   SAA      Centre
B    04   0.400   0.553   0.515   167   0-0   IND      Maine-Presque Isle
B    05   0.667   0.448   0.503   196   0-0   SAA      Rhodes
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2014, 12:43:34 PM
Not sure which board this was being discussed on most recently but here is the list of basketball waivers for this season:

Calvin College – men's basketball.
North Central College – men's basketball.
Olivet College – men's basketball.
Pacific Lutheran University – women's basketball.
Pine Manor College – women's basketball.
Salem College – women's basketball.
St. Joseph's College (Brooklyn) – men's and women's basketball.
Trinity Washington University – women's basketball.
Wesleyan College – women's basketball.  (The one in Georgia)
William Peace University – men's basketball.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2014, 01:14:12 PM
Knightslappy,

Is that posted on your website? Saw eff. ranking for 12/18/13.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 28, 2014, 01:32:30 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2014, 01:14:12 PM
Knightslappy,

Is that posted on your website? Saw eff. ranking for 12/18/13.

The one above it more recent... from just under a week ago (after Wed's games).

I started going through and picking out the highest rated RPI from each conference... but didn't finish.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: ronk on January 28, 2014, 02:39:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2014, 12:43:34 PM
Not sure which board this was being discussed on most recently but here is the list of basketball waivers for this season:

Calvin College – men's basketball.
North Central College – men's basketball.
Olivet College – men's basketball.
Pacific Lutheran University – women's basketball.
Pine Manor College – women's basketball.
Salem College – women's basketball.
St. Joseph's College (Brooklyn) – men's and women's basketball.
Trinity Washington University – women's basketball.
Wesleyan College – women's basketball.  (The one in Georgia)
William Peace University – men's basketball.

For clarity, does the waiver mean that all their games are considered in-region? Separately, do we have a list of those which didn't meet the 70% minimum and don't have a waiver?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 28, 2014, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2014, 01:14:12 PM
Knightslappy,

Is that posted on your website? Saw eff. ranking for 12/18/13.

Updated numbers have not been posted. Hopefully I'll have both efficiency rankings and RPI rankings updated on the site after this upcoming weekend. Maybe I'll post an RPI update after Wednesday.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 28, 2014, 03:04:53 PM
ronk - it means all of their games will be allowed to be counted as regional games. However, I believe this is a one-year thing.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2014, 03:43:46 PM
Sorry, there is more I did not catch the first time through.

Finlandia men and women
TLU men and women
UMPI men and women
NWU men and women
UCSC men and women

Hope men were denied a waiver. Luckily, they don't need one because they found 18 games. But I find this intriguing considering the discussions we've had on this board for years:

"Hope College – In-Region Competition Waiver Request. The committee did not
approve a request from Hope College to waive the in-region competition requirement for
the sport of men's basketball for the 2013-14 season. In its discussion, the committee
noted the apparent access to in-region opponents for the institution, as well as the late
submission of the waiver request."

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/March%2BTeleconference%2Bwith%2BAttachment%2BPOST.pdf
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2014, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 28, 2014, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2014, 01:14:12 PM
Knightslappy,

Is that posted on your website? Saw eff. ranking for 12/18/13.

Updated numbers have not been posted. Hopefully I'll have both efficiency rankings and RPI rankings updated on the site after this upcoming weekend. Maybe I'll post an RPI update after Wednesday.

Quote from: John Gleich on January 28, 2014, 01:32:30 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2014, 01:14:12 PM
Knightslappy,

Is that posted on your website? Saw eff. ranking for 12/18/13.

The one above it more recent... from just under a week ago (after Wed's games).

I started going through and picking out the highest rated RPI from each conference... but didn't finish.

What is John talking about? Maybe something doesn't come up on my phone.  ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on January 28, 2014, 04:54:49 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2014, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 28, 2014, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2014, 01:14:12 PM
Knightslappy,

Is that posted on your website? Saw eff. ranking for 12/18/13.

Updated numbers have not been posted. Hopefully I'll have both efficiency rankings and RPI rankings updated on the site after this upcoming weekend. Maybe I'll post an RPI update after Wednesday.

Quote from: John Gleich on January 28, 2014, 01:32:30 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2014, 01:14:12 PM
Knightslappy,

Is that posted on your website? Saw eff. ranking for 12/18/13.

The one above it more recent... from just under a week ago (after Wed's games).

I started going through and picking out the highest rated RPI from each conference... but didn't finish.

What is John talking about? Maybe something doesn't come up on my phone.  ???

I've posted a few sets of RPI numbers here on the board. This is different from the efficiency calcs.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on January 29, 2014, 01:00:37 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 28, 2014, 04:54:49 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2014, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 28, 2014, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2014, 01:14:12 PM
Knightslappy,

Is that posted on your website? Saw eff. ranking for 12/18/13.

Updated numbers have not been posted. Hopefully I'll have both efficiency rankings and RPI rankings updated on the site after this upcoming weekend. Maybe I'll post an RPI update after Wednesday.

Quote from: John Gleich on January 28, 2014, 01:32:30 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 28, 2014, 01:14:12 PM
Knightslappy,

Is that posted on your website? Saw eff. ranking for 12/18/13.

The one above it more recent... from just under a week ago (after Wed's games).

I started going through and picking out the highest rated RPI from each conference... but didn't finish.

What is John talking about? Maybe something doesn't come up on my phone.  ???

I've posted a few sets of RPI numbers here on the board. This is different from the efficiency calcs.

Chalk that up to poor reading comprehension, perhaps...? Or maybe I just don't understand the difference between the two?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 03, 2014, 09:36:50 AM
I have updated the "regional rankings" data on my site.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

I think we're missing a few scores, but it should be fairly complete. We're one week away from the first set of rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2014, 11:14:16 AM
Bringing this over from the Top 25 board...


Quote from: magicman on January 10, 2014, 03:47:10 AM
Quote from: ronk on January 10, 2014, 01:05:38 AM
When do the 1st regional rankings come out?

Usually the 1st part of February. Last year the 1st set was released on Wed. Feb. 6th, 2nd set on Feb.13th, 3rd set on Feb 20th, and the final set on Feb. 27th was the one we didn't get to see. The NCAA bids were announced on Feb. 28th I believe.

Last year the final day of the  conference tournaments was on Feb. 24th. This year the final day of the season is a week later. The last conference tournament won't be over until March 2nd. If the NCAA follows the same format they have in the past  of 3 published regional rankings and 1 hidden one, then I'm guessing this year it might be February 12th before we see the first set. Then one would follow on the 19th, the 26th, and the hidden one on March 5th. Of course they could give us an extra one this year and make the 1st one on Feb.5th, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Close... but...

There will be a total of four regional rankings with three of them being released to the public and one kept private at the end of the year. The regional rankings come out on Wednesdays involving games and records through the previous Sunday. Regional committees discuss their rankings and then vote on Mondays... the national committee gets together on Tuesdays to discuss and make any changes needed and then the regional rankings are released on Wednesday. However, the last regional ranking we don't get to see is done for the selection and bracket process, so that is all done in a tighter range of just Sunday for all parties.

Timing this year:
First regional rankings - Wednesday, February 12 (followed by the 19 and the 26)
Final regional rankings (not public) - Sunday, March 2
Selection bracket announcement along with hosts for first and second rounds - Monday, March 3

Keep in mind the men's committee for years has not had a problem with releasing the final regional rankings... but the NCAA won't allow them to do so.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2014, 01:03:31 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 03, 2014, 09:36:50 AM
I have updated the "regional rankings" data on my site.

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html

I think we're missing a few scores, but it should be fairly complete. We're one week away from the first set of rankings.

Thanks! +1
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 04, 2014, 09:09:32 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 21, 2014, 03:47:17 PM
Per the NCAA handbook for men:

Primary Selection Criteria
The primary criteria emphasize competition leading up to NCAA championships; all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
●● Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents.
●● Division III strength of schedule.
-- Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
-- Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
●● Division III head-to-head competition.
●● Results versus common Division III opponents.
●● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established at the time of selection.
Note:
●● Conference postseason contests are included.
●● Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary
criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: dcahill44 on February 09, 2014, 03:33:46 PM
With Regional Rankings on its way this week heres how I think the East Regional Rankings will look like
1. Brockport
2. Plattsburgh
3. Geneseo
4. NYU
5. Hobart
6. Stevens
I think Nazareth is 7th and Vassar 8th. Main reason I think Stevens is ahead of Naz is because they beat them twice.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2014, 06:00:24 PM
Here's the data I have through Sunday. Sort is by RPI.

RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
NE   01   0.909   0.612   0.686   001   A      20-2    7-0   NESCAC   Amherst
NE   02   0.762   0.578   0.624   013   A      16-5    4-3   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   03   0.857   0.543   0.621   014   C      18-3    3-2   NESCAC   Williams
NE   04   0.750   0.562   0.609   020   C      15-5    1-3   NEWMAC   Springfield
NE   05   0.762   0.552   0.604   023   C      16-5    2-4   NEWMAC   Babson
NE   06   0.857   0.507   0.595   030   A      18-3    3-1   NEWMAC   WPI
NE   07   0.857   0.507   0.594   031   C      18-3    1-3   NESCAC   Bowdoin
NE   08   0.950   0.474   0.593   034   A      19-1    1-0   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   09   0.762   0.526   0.585   045   A      16-5    0-2   CCC      Nichols
NE   10   0.667   0.552   0.581   048   C      14-7    2-3   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   11   0.667   0.549   0.578   049   C      14-7    0-3   LEC      Rhode Island College
ne   12   0.450   0.592   0.557   081   C      9-11    1-3   NESCAC   Bates
ne   13   0.737   0.490   0.551   094   C      14-5    1-1   GNAC     Johnson and Wales
ne   14   0.900   0.434   0.550   096   A      18-2    1-0   NAC      Husson
ne   15   0.700   0.499   0.549   101   C      14-6    2-2   CCC      Salve Regina
ne   16   0.650   0.515   0.549   102   A      13-7    1-3   MASCAC   Salem State
ne   17   0.600   0.526   0.545   109   C      12-8    1-3   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
ne   18   0.500   0.558   0.544   112   C      9-9     1-4   NESCAC   Colby
ne   19   0.550   0.539   0.542   113   C      11-9    0-7   UAA      Brandeis
ne   20   0.714   0.474   0.534   126   C      15-6    2-3   NEWMAC   MIT
                              
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
EA   01   0.800   0.583   0.637   006   C      16-4    3-3   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
EA   02   0.889   0.549   0.634   007   A      16-2    2-2   SUNYAC   Brockport State
EA   03   0.833   0.557   0.626   011   C      15-3    2-2   SUNYAC   Geneseo State
EA   04   0.773   0.537   0.596   029   A      17-5    2-1   LL       Hobart
EA   05   0.750   0.506   0.567   066   C      15-5    0-2   LL       Vassar
EA   06   0.750   0.498   0.561   076   C      15-5    0-3   UAA      New York University
ea   07   0.421   0.600   0.555   085   C      8-11    3-6   UAA      Rochester
ea   08   0.650   0.515   0.549   103   C      13-7    2-5   LL       Skidmore
ea   09   0.667   0.507   0.547   105   A      14-7    1-2   E8       Stevens
ea   10   0.571   0.529   0.540   116   C      12-9    0-3   E8       Hartwick
ea   11   0.688   0.490   0.539   117   C      11-5    0-0   E8       Alfred
ea   12   0.524   0.544   0.539   119   C      11-10   1-4   SUNYAC   Buffalo State
ea   13   0.706   0.480   0.536   121   C      12-5    0-1   E8       Nazareth
ea   14   0.571   0.525   0.536   122   C      12-9    1-4   SUNYAC   Cortland State
ea   15   0.571   0.516   0.530   138   C      12-9    1-2   E8       St. John Fisher
ea   16   0.632   0.487   0.523   150   C      12-7    1-5   LL       Rochester Tech
ea   17   0.667   0.473   0.521   155   C      14-7    1-3   SUNYAC   Oswego State
ea   18   0.556   0.509   0.521   157   C      10-8    1-2   LL       Clarkson
ea   19   0.500   0.521   0.515   170   C      11-11   0-4   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
ea   20   0.667   0.452   0.506   195   C      12-6    0-2   NEAC     Morrisville State
                              
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
AT   01   0.950   0.507   0.618   018   A      19-1    4-1   SKY      SUNY-Purchase
AT   02   0.810   0.531   0.600   026   C      17-4    3-2   NJAC     Richard Stockton
AT   03   0.909   0.496   0.599   028   A      20-2    0-0   CUNYAC   Staten Island
AT   04   0.773   0.517   0.581   047   C      17-5    2-2   NJAC     William Paterson
AT   05   0.762   0.498   0.564   070   C      16-5    0-4   SKY      Mount St. Mary
AT   06   0.727   0.498   0.555   086   A      16-6    2-2   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
at   07   0.667   0.517   0.554   088   C      14-7    0-4   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
at   08   0.579   0.516   0.532   131   C      11-8    0-4   NJAC     Kean
at   09   0.545   0.524   0.529   141   C      12-10   0-4   CUNYAC   Baruch
at   10   0.600   0.498   0.523   149   C      12-8    0-4   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
at   11   0.476   0.529   0.516   166   C      10-11   2-4   CUNYAC   Brooklyn
at   12   0.368   0.556   0.509   186   C      7-12    2-7   NJAC     Montclair State
at   13   0.476   0.516   0.506   191   C      10-11   1-6   NJAC     New Jersey City
at   14   0.700   0.431   0.498   212   C      14-6    0-4   SKY      Farmingdale State
at   15   0.450   0.502   0.489   226   C      9-11    2-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
at   16   0.409   0.514   0.488   231   C      9-13    1-4   NJAC     Ramapo
at   17   0.579   0.444   0.478   247   C      11-8    0-3   SKY      Sage
at   18   0.333   0.526   0.478   248   C      7-14    0-6   NJAC     TCNJ
at   19   0.421   0.492   0.474   253   C      8-11    0-5   CUNYAC   Lehman
at   20   0.389   0.496   0.469   266   C      7-11    0-4   NJAC     Rowan
                              
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
MA   01   1.000   0.506   0.630   009   A      18-0    3-0   CSAC     Cabrini
MA   02   0.889   0.530   0.620   016   C      16-2    3-0   CAC      Wesley
MA   03   0.850   0.522   0.604   024   A      17-3    2-0   MACC     Messiah
MA   04   0.857   0.506   0.594   032   A      18-3    3-1   LAND     Scranton
MA   05   0.850   0.504   0.591   037   A      17-3    3-1   CAC      Mary Washington
MA   06   0.714   0.550   0.591   038   C      15-6    0-3   MACC     Alvernia
MA   07   0.810   0.516   0.589   041   A      17-4    3-1   CC       Dickinson
MA   08   0.684   0.551   0.584   046   C      13-6    1-4   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   09   0.700   0.538   0.578   050   C      14-6    0-4   LAND     Catholic
ma   10   0.737   0.520   0.574   060   C      14-5    1-2   MACC     Hood
ma   11   0.632   0.551   0.571   061   C      12-7    2-5   CAC      Christopher Newport
ma   12   0.500   0.587   0.565   067   C      9-9     3-5   CAC      Salisbury
ma   13   0.737   0.505   0.563   072   C      14-5    1-2   CSAC     Neumann
ma   14   0.650   0.531   0.561   077   C      13-7    1-1   CC       Muhlenberg
ma   15   0.800   0.476   0.557   080   C      16-4    0-1   CC       McDaniel
ma   16   0.667   0.516   0.554   089   C      14-7    3-2   MACC     Stevenson
ma   17   0.600   0.538   0.553   090   C      12-8    1-3   CC       Johns Hopkins
ma   18   0.778   0.478   0.553   092   C      14-4    0-2   CSAC     Gwynedd-Mercy
ma   19   0.600   0.533   0.550   099   C      12-8    3-3   LAND     Juniata
ma   20   0.524   0.544   0.539   118   C      11-10   1-4   MACC     Albright
                              
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
SO   01   0.810   0.590   0.645   004   A      17-4    7-3   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
SO   02   0.650   0.612   0.621   015   C      13-7    3-5   UAA      Emory
SO   03   0.875   0.516   0.606   022   B      14-2    1-1   SAA      Centre
SO   04   0.905   0.488   0.592   036   A      19-2    0-0   ASC      Texas-Dallas
SO   05   0.600   0.587   0.590   040   C      12-8    2-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
SO   06   0.750   0.520   0.578   051   C      15-5    4-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
SO   07   0.684   0.538   0.575   057   C      13-6    0-4   ODAC     Lynchburg
SO   08   0.762   0.504   0.569   064   C      16-5    1-5   ODAC     Guilford
so   09   0.789   0.486   0.562   074   C      15-4    1-3   SAA      Oglethorpe
so   10   0.636   0.529   0.556   084   A      14-8    3-3   SCAC     Trinity (Texas)
so   11   0.524   0.563   0.553   091   C      11-10   2-0   SCAC     Schreiner
so   12   0.750   0.483   0.549   100   C      15-5    0-1   ASC      Concordia (Texas)
so   13   0.765   0.457   0.534   127   A      13-4    0-2   USAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
so   14   0.700   0.474   0.531   132   C      14-6    1-1   ASC      Hardin-Simmons
so   15   0.550   0.524   0.530   134   C      11-9    0-7   ODAC     Randolph
so   16   0.474   0.549   0.530   136   C      9-10    2-3   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
so   17   0.619   0.488   0.520   159   C      13-8    0-1   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
so   18   0.500   0.521   0.516   167   C      9-9     0-2   ASC      Louisiana College
so   19   0.471   0.529   0.514   174   C      8-9     1-4   ODAC     Bridgewater (Va.)
so   20   0.667   0.464   0.514   175   A      12-6    0-3   SLIAC    Spalding
                              
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
GL   01   0.895   0.545   0.633   008   A      17-2    3-1   NCAC     Wooster
GL   02   0.810   0.550   0.615   019   C      17-4    2-1   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
GL   03   0.737   0.564   0.607   021   A      14-5    2-4   MIAA     Hope
GL   04   0.800   0.525   0.594   033   C      16-4    0-3   OAC      Marietta
GL   05   0.850   0.504   0.591   039   A      17-3    1-1   OAC      Mount Union
GL   06   0.810   0.499   0.577   054   C      17-4    1-1   PrAC     Bethany
GL   07   0.882   0.473   0.575   056   A      15-2    1-0   PrAC     St. Vincent
gl   08   0.810   0.496   0.575   058   C      17-4    2-2   NCAC     Wittenberg
gl   09   0.700   0.523   0.568   065   C      14-6    1-4   NCAC     DePauw
gl   10   0.632   0.531   0.556   083   C      12-7    0-4   OAC      Wilmington
gl   11   0.524   0.562   0.553   093   C      11-10   0-5   OAC      Baldwin Wallace
gl   12   0.810   0.464   0.550   095   C      17-4    1-0   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
gl   13   0.571   0.542   0.550   098   C      12-9    1-3   OAC      Ohio Northern
gl   14   0.667   0.503   0.544   111   C      14-7    0-4   OAC      John Carroll
gl   15   0.765   0.463   0.538   120   C      13-4    1-4   MIAA     Calvin
gl   16   0.476   0.555   0.535   123   C      10-11   0-5   NCAC     Denison
gl   17   0.600   0.513   0.535   124   C      12-8    3-3   UAA      Case Western Reserve
gl   18   0.429   0.568   0.533   128   C      9-12    1-3   OAC      Capital
gl   19   0.474   0.540   0.523   147   C      9-10    1-4   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
gl   20   0.438   0.541   0.515   172   C      7-9     0-4   PrAC     Grove City
                              
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
MW   01   0.900   0.558   0.644   005   A      18-2    6-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.727   0.591   0.625   012   A      16-6    5-4   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   03   0.857   0.538   0.618   017   C      18-3    5-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   04   0.727   0.557   0.600   027   C      16-6    5-3   CCIW     Augustana
MW   05   0.944   0.468   0.587   042   A      17-1    0-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   06   0.650   0.564   0.585   044   C      13-7    4-5   CCIW     Carthage
MW   07   0.579   0.576   0.577   053   C      11-8    2-6   UAA      Chicago
MW   08   0.810   0.496   0.574   059   A      17-4    1-1   HCAC     Rose-Hulman
mw   09   0.818   0.486   0.569   063   C      18-4    0-0   NATHC    Milwaukee Engineering
mw   10   0.789   0.489   0.564   069   C      15-4    0-3   HCAC     Defiance
mw   11   0.650   0.533   0.562   073   C      13-7    2-4   CCIW     Elmhurst
mw   12   0.636   0.531   0.557   079   C      14-8    0-1   NATHC    Aurora
mw   13   0.714   0.504   0.556   082   A      15-6    0-0   NATHC    Marian
mw   14   0.600   0.540   0.555   087   C      12-8    0-2   HCAC     Mount St. Joseph
mw   15   0.667   0.511   0.550   097   C      14-7    1-2   HCAC     Hanover
mw   16   0.474   0.570   0.546   107   C      9-10    2-6   CCIW     North Central (Ill.)
mw   17   0.632   0.517   0.546   108   C      12-7    0-1   MWC      Ripon
mw   18   0.750   0.471   0.541   115   C      15-5    0-0   NATHC    Lakeland
mw   19   0.650   0.494   0.533   129   C      13-7    1-2   MWC      Carroll
mw   20   0.778   0.447   0.530   139   C      14-4    0-1   MWC      Grinnell
                              
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
WE   01   0.952   0.588   0.679   002   A      20-1    5-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
WE   02   0.864   0.573   0.646   003   C      19-3    3-1   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
WE   03   0.810   0.568   0.629   010   C      17-4    0-3   MIAC     St. Olaf
WE   04   0.857   0.518   0.602   025   A      18-3    1-1   MIAC     St. Thomas
WE   05   0.944   0.476   0.593   035   A      17-1    1-0   IIAC     Dubuque
WE   06   0.810   0.512   0.586   043   A      17-4    0-3   NWC      Whitworth
WE   07   0.813   0.499   0.577   052   A      13-3    0-0   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
WE   08   0.632   0.557   0.576   055   C      12-7    1-3   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
we   09   0.706   0.525   0.570   062   C      12-5    2-1   SCAC     Colorado College
we   10   0.647   0.537   0.565   068   C      11-6    0-1   IIAC     Luther
we   11   0.667   0.529   0.564   071   C      14-7    1-4   MIAC     Augsburg
we   12   0.550   0.565   0.562   075   C      11-9    1-6   WIAC     UW-Platteville
we   13   0.800   0.480   0.560   078   C      16-4    2-1   SCIAC    Pomona-Pitzer
we   14   0.765   0.475   0.548   104   C      13-4    0-2   IIAC     Central
we   15   0.611   0.525   0.547   106   C      11-7    1-3   WIAC     UW-Stout
we   16   0.714   0.488   0.545   110   C      15-6    0-4   NWC      Whitman
we   17   0.636   0.510   0.542   114   C      14-8    0-3   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
we   18   0.526   0.538   0.535   125   C      10-9    0-2   IIAC     Wartburg
we   19   0.588   0.514   0.532   130   C      10-7    1-2   NWC      Pacific
we   20   0.611   0.497   0.525   143   C      11-7    0-1   IIAC     Buena Vista
                              
RG   ##   WP      wSOS    wRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
B    01   0.875   0.516   0.606   022   B      14-2    1-1   SAA      Centre
b    02   0.600   0.587   0.590   040   C      12-8    2-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
b    03   0.789   0.486   0.562   074   C      15-4    1-3   SAA      Oglethorpe
b    04   0.333   0.554   0.499   211   C      2-4     0-1   IND      Maine-Presque Isle
b    05   0.619   0.453   0.494   216   C      13-8    1-3   SAA      Rhodes
                              
Regions are sorted by RPI                              
RPI isn't an actual selection criterion                              
Pool A designates AQ conference leader (using RPI as tiebreaker)                              
Results vs. regionally ranked opponents   are estimates based on RPI position
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 10, 2014, 01:29:26 PM
Took a quick look at the results and here is my unprofessional opinion for Wednesday's rankings

Regional records posted (not guaranteed accurate!)

1. Stevens Point - 20-1
2. Whitewater - 19-3
3. St. Thomas - 18-3 -beat St. Olaf
4. St. Olaf - 17-4
5. Dubuque - 17-1
6. Colorado College 12-5 - beat Whitworth twice
7. Whitworth - 17-4
8. CMS - 13-3
9. La Crosse 12-7
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nescac1 on February 10, 2014, 02:20:36 PM
Thanks KnightSlappy.  I think that Eastern Conn will end up down a few notches from what you have them, and Bowdoin and Albertus Magnus up a notch or two, but we will see.  Williams is 19-3 vs. D3, not 18-3 (Ephs have only played D3 opponents this year).  My best guess for New England rankings is Amherst, Williams, WPI, Albertus Magnus, Bowdoin, Eastern Conn, Babson, Springfield. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: madzillagd on February 10, 2014, 03:39:16 PM
I'm guessing St. Josephs (VT) does not count because they played Midd and Midd is down one win as well.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 10, 2014, 03:43:02 PM
Quote from: madzillagd on February 10, 2014, 03:39:16 PM
I'm guessing St. Josephs (VT) does not count because they played Midd and Midd is down one win as well.

St. Joseph's Vermont is USCAA.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2014, 04:00:20 PM
Yeah... that St. Joe's game for Williams is a non-D3 game... if they had played the Maine St. Joe's team, that would be a different conversation :).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: nescac1 on February 10, 2014, 05:07:29 PM
Ahhh, I see, second time today madzillagd has corrected me, nothing can slip by him :)! 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: madzillagd on February 10, 2014, 06:46:49 PM
Quote from: nescac1 on February 10, 2014, 05:07:29 PM
Ahhh, I see, second time today madzillagd has corrected me, nothing can slip by him :)!

I think you've exhausted my D3 knowledge so you're on your own from here on out. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 12, 2014, 01:28:28 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 10, 2014, 01:29:26 PM
Took a quick look at the results and here is my unprofessional opinion for Wednesday's rankings

Regional records posted (not guaranteed accurate!)

1. Stevens Point - 20-1
2. Whitewater - 19-3
3. St. Thomas - 18-3 -beat St. Olaf
4. St. Olaf - 17-4
5. Dubuque - 17-1
6. Colorado College 12-5 - beat Whitworth twice
7. Whitworth - 17-4
8. CMS - 13-3
9. La Crosse 12-7
Colorado College has ugly losses to Schreiner in the SCAC!  I think that they are on the bubble!
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 12, 2014, 04:11:59 PM
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/12/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-1/

Regional rankings are out

Men's rankings
Atlantic Region - NCAA data sheet

1 SUNY-Purchase 19-1 19-1
2 Richard Stockton 17-4 17-4
3 Rutgers-Newark 16-6 16-6
4 William Paterson 17-5 17-5
5 Staten Island 20-2 20-2
6 Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.) 16-5 16-5

East - NCAA data sheet

1 Brockport State 16-2 17-2
2 Geneseo State 15-3 16-3
3 Plattsburgh State 16-4 16-4
4 NYU 15-5 15-5
5 Hobart 17-5 17-5
6 Stevens 14-7 15-7

Great Lakes - NCAA data sheet

1 Wooster 17-2 18-3
2 Ohio Wesleyan 17-4 17-4
3 Mount Union 17-3 17-3
4 Marietta 16-4 17-4
5 Wittenberg 17-4 17-4
6 Hope 14-5 15-6
7 Bethany 17-4 18-4

Mid-Atlantic - NCAA data sheet

1 Cabrini 18-0 18-0
2 Scranton 18-3 18-3
3 Wesley 16-2 18-2
4 Messiah 17-3 17-3
5 Mary Washington 17-3 18-3
6 Dickinson 17-4 17-4
7 Alvernia 15-6 15-6
8 Hood 15-5 15-5
9 McDaniel 16-4 16-5

Midwest - NCAA data sheet

1 Washington U. 18-2 18-2
2 Illinois Wesleyan 18-3 18-3
3 Wheaton (Ill.) 16-6 16-6
4 Augustana 16-6 16-6
5 St. Norbert 17-1 18-1
6 Carthage 13-7 14-8
7 Rose-Hulman 17-4 17-4
8 Milwaukee School of Engineering 18-4 18-4

Northeast - NCAA data sheet

1 Amherst 20-2 20-3
2 Williams 18-3 19-3
3 Bowdoin 18-3 18-3
4 Babson 16-5 16-5
5 Eastern Connecticut 16-5 16-5
6 WPI 18-3 18-3
7 Springfield 15-5 16-5
8 Albertus Magnus 19-1 19-2
9 Rhode Island 14-7 14-7
10 Nichols 16-5 16-5
11 Middlebury 14-7 15-7

South - NCAA data sheet

1 Randolph-Macon 17-4 17-4
2 Texas-Dallas 19-2 19-2
3 Virgina Wesleyan 15-5 16-5
4 Centre 14-2 17-3
5 Guilford 16-5 16-5
6 Emory 13-7 13-7
7 Oglethorpe 15-4 17-4
8 Concordia (Texas) 15-5 16-5

West - NCAA data sheet
1 UW-Stevens Point 20-1 20-1
2 UW-Whitewater 19-3 19-3
3 St. Thomas 18-3 18-3
4 Dubuque 17-1 20-1
5 St. Olaf 17-4 17-4
6 Whitworth 17-4 17-4
7 Pomona-Pitzer 16-4 16-6
8 Colorado College 12-5 14-6
9 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 13-3 15-5
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 16, 2014, 02:08:44 PM
I posted this in the CCIW page, but I thought some here might find it interesting:
_______________
Regional Rankings will be a hoot this week.

Midwest:
* Will Wheaton (#3 MW) get passed by Augie (#4 MW)?  I don't think so, but an argument could be made.  The IWU game is looming large because it'd be a real challenge for Wheaton to get a Pool C with 9 losses.

* Will Carthage (#6 MW) still be ranked?  I think so, but they'll be behind Rose Holman (#7 MW).  Carthage is better than every other potentially ranked team in the MW that could pass them (beside RH).

Great Lakes:

* In other regions, Wittenburg (GL #5)  lost twice this week and now has 6 losses in D3.  They'll probably still be ranked, but the CCIW teams compare better with them than they did a week ago.  Wilmington (GL) isn't ranked, but could be and IWU beat them.

* Calvin (GL) is not ranked, but keeps winning.  Their SOS is pretty awful.  Of course, Carthage and Wheaton played Calvin, so that's a potential RRO game for both.

North East:

* Middlebury (NE #12) is playing Amherst (NE #1) today and a loss would give them an 8th loss.  Would they still be ranked regionally?  If not, that'll take away an RRO game away from the Big 3 in NESCAC.

* Springfield (NE #7) got dropped by Babson (NE#4) giving them a 6th D3 loss. 

South:

* In the South, Virginia Wesleyan (S #3)  took a 6th D3 loss this week and Guilford (S #5) took a 7th D3 loss this week.  I wouldn't be surprised if both get passed by Emory (S #6), who has 7 D3 losses, but has played a killer schedule.  I think Emory will be a likely Pool C candidate if they keep winning.

* Concordia (TX) (S #8) lost twice this week and probably will drop out.

East:

* Genesco (#2 E) lost to Brockport (#1 E) and NYU (#4 E) lost to Wash U (#1 MW), so I doubt that'll cause any ratings shift.  Likely, 2 of the top 3 SUNY AC teams will earn Pool C with the other earning a Pool A.  NYU has three road games left (including Emory (S #6) and has 6 D3 losses.  The Emory game has huge Pool C implications.

Atlantic:

* Nothing of interest happening. 

West:

* St Olaf (#5 W) lost to St Thomas (#3 W).  I think St. Olaf remains a strong Pool C candidate.

* Dubuque (#4 W) lost twice and will likely fall significantly.  This can affect Carthage as Dubuque is an RRO loss for them.

* Pomona (#7 W) lost to Chapman.  I'm having trouble seeing them as a strong Pool C anyway, but it may let UW-LAX slip into the regional rankings, which would help Augie.

Mid-Atlantic:

* Mary Washington (#5 MA) got dropped twice this week by Wesley (#3 MA) and Christopher Newport (MA unranked).  MW has 5 D3 losses now; Chris Newport could end up ranked this week (I'm a little surprised they aren't) but has 7 D3 losses..

* Alvernia (#8 MA) lost and with 7 D3 losses, could drop out.

* Hood (#9 MA) lost and has 6 D3 losses.  They also could drop out.

* McDaniel (#10 MA) lost to Dickenson (#6 MA), but with the other losses being worse, I think they'll stick for now.  They have just 5 D3 losses, but it isn't a very impressive schedule.


General thoughts: There are going to be a lot of 7 and 8 loss teams on the Table in Pool C this year the way this is shaping up.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2014, 03:32:13 PM
Great work! +1

I'm working on the complete weekly schedule today.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2014, 03:33:22 PM
I was told during the week that the committee is already looking down the road and realizes this will be a difficult season for them... especially for at-large bids. Your example is proof-positive this year's tournament is going to be a challenge to put together.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: pjunito on February 16, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Great work Bopol and Greek!

+ 1 each
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2014, 06:41:04 PM
Just trying to clean it up a little to make it legible!

Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2014, 05:03:56 PM

   REG      TEAM-RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
   ATL      1 SUNY-Purchase 19-1 19-1      SKY      WON at SUNY-Old Westbury 85-68, at NYU-Poly postponed,WON vs Yeshiva 80-51   
   ATL      2 Richard Stockton 17-4 17-4      NJAC      WON vs Kean 72-66, WON at Rutgers-Camden 74-60, WON vs Ramapo 70-69   
   ATL      3 Rutgers-Newark 16-6 16-6      NJAC      WON at Ramapo 88-77, WON vs Rowan 81-65   
   ATL      4 William Paterson 17-5 17-5      NJAC      WON vs Kean 65-41, WON vs Rutgers-Camden 78-65   
   ATL      5 Staten Island 20-2 20-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 88-82, WON vs CCNY 97-70   
   ATL      6 Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.) 16-5 16-5      SKY      WON vs NYU-Poly 105-57   
                        
   REG      TEAM-RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
   EAST      1 Brockport State 16-2 17-2      SUNYAC      WON at Geneseo St. 66-62, WON at Buffalo St. 94-74, WON at Fredonia St. 93-61   
   EAST      2 Geneseo State 15-3 16-3      SUNYAC      LOST vs Brockport St. 66-62, WON at Fredonia St. 77-56, WON at Buffalo St. 81-67   
   EAST      3 Plattsburgh State 16-4 16-4      SUNYAC      WON vs Cortland St. 88-71, WON vs Oswego St. 82-72   
   EAST      4 NYU 15-5 15-5      UAA      LOST  vs Chicago 68-63, LOST vs Washington U. 79-75   
   EAST      5 Hobart 17-5 17-5      LL      WON vs Clarkson 69-50, LOST vs St. Lawrence 73-62   
   EAST      6 Stevens 14-7 15-7      E8      WON at Houghton 100-59   
                        
   REG      TEAM-RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
   GL      1 Wooster 17-2 18-3      NCAC      WON at Hiram 76-71, WON vs Wittenberg 60-55   
   GL      2 Ohio Wesleyan 17-4 17-4      NCAC      LOST at Wabash 77-66, WON vs Allegheny 81-76   
   GL      3 Mount Union 17-3 17-3      OAC      WON vs Heidelberg 87-68, WON vs Muskingum 113-77, LOST vs Ohio Northern 90-85   
   GL      4 Marietta 16-4 17-4      OAC      LOST at Capital 75-55, WON at Baldwin-Wallace 91-80   
   GL      5 Wittenberg 17-4 17-4      NCAC      LOST vs DePauw 71-49, LOST at Wooster 60-55   
   GL      6 Hope 14-5 15-6      MIAA      WON at Olivet 108-57, WON vs Alma 70-67   
   GL      7 Bethany 17-4 18-4      PAC      WON at St. Vincent 85-65   
                        
   REG      TEAM-RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
   MATL      1 Cabrini 18-0 18-0      CSAC      WON at Cairn 103-96, WON at Centenary 69-53, LOST at Baptist Bible 106-97   
   MATL      2 Scranton 18-3 18-3      LAND      WON vs Drew 67-63, WON at Catholic 80-71   
   MATL      3 Wesley 16-2 18-2      CAC      WON at Salisbury 67-62, WON at Mary Washington 91-75   
   MATL      4 Messiah 17-3 17-3      MACC      LOST to Stevenson 64-60, WON at Lebanon Valley 82-73   
   MATL      5 Mary Washington 17-3 18-3      CAC      LOST at Christopher Newport 74-61, LOST vs Wesley 91-75   
   MATL      6 Dickinson 17-4 17-4      CC      WON vs McDaniel 83-61, WON at Johns Hopkins 68-63   
   MATL      7 Alvernia 15-6 15-6      MACC      WON vs Arcadia 78-63, LOST at Widener 87-83   
   MATL      8 Hood 15-5 15-5      MACC      LOST vs Lebanon Valley 69-63, LOST at Albright 82-62, WON at Elizabethtown 81-57   
   MATL      9 McDaniel 16-4 16-5      CC      LOST at Dickinson 83-61, WON vs Swarthmore 53-48   
                        
   REG      TEAM-RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
   MW      1 Washington U. 18-2 18-2      UAA      WON at Brandeis 95-82, WON at NYU 79-75   
   MW      2 Illinois Wesleyan 18-3 18-3      CCIW      WON at North Central 80-68, WON vs Carthage 80-66   
   MW      3 Wheaton (Ill.) 16-6 16-6      CCIW      WON at North Park 103-66, LOST at North Central 71-66   
   MW      4 Augustana 16-6 16-6      CCIW      WON at Millikin 76-59, WON vs Elmhurst 80-52   
   MW      5 St. Norbert 17-1 18-1      MWC      WON at Carroll 68-62, WON vs Grinnell 113-88   
   MW      6 Carthage 13-7 14-8      CCIW      WON vs Elmhurst 76-56, LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 80-66   
   MW      7 Rose-Hulman 17-4 17-4      HCAC      WON vs Hanover 61-50, WON at Bluffton 61-55   
   MW      8 MSOE 18-4 18-4      NACC      WON at Concordia (WI) 74-72, WON at Dominican 69-59   
                        
   REG      TEAM-RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
   NE      1 Amherst 20-2 20-3      NESCAC      WON vs Middlebury 84-67   
   NE      2 Williams 18-3 19-3      NESCAC      WON at Connecticut College 98-90, WON at Wesleyan 87-70   
   NE      3 Bowdoin 18-3 18-3      NESCAC      WON at Bates 75-49, LOST at Tufts 66-62   
   NE      4 Babson 16-5 16-5      NEWMAC      WON at Springfield 67-61, WON vs Clark 68-53   
   NE      5 Eastern Connecticut 16-5 16-5      LEC      WON at Keene State 72-69, WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 79-73   
   NE      6 WPI 18-3 18-3      NEWMAC      WON at MIT 64-52, WON vs Coast Guard 56-45   
   NE      7 Springfield 15-5 16-5      NEWMAC      LOST vs Babson 67-61   
   NE      8 Albertus Magnus 19-1 19-2      GNAC      WON vs Lasell 92-61, WON at Norwich 86-71   
   NE      9 Rhode Island 14-7 14-7      LEC      WON vs Western Connecticut 85-74, WON at Southern Maine 60-48   
   NE      10 Nichols 16-5 16-5      CCC      WON vs Endicott 75-60, WON vs Univ. of New England 90-63   
   NE      11 Middlebury 14-7 15-7      NESCAC      WON at Trinity (CT) 53-45, LOST at Amherst 84-67   
                        
   REG      TEAM-RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
   SOUTH      1 Randolph-Macon 17-4 17-4      ODAC      LOST at Eastern Mennonite 73-68, WON vs Emory and Henry 65-39   
   SOUTH      2 Texas-Dallas 19-2 19-2      ASC      WON vs East Texas Baptist 95-70, WON vs LeTourneau 75-52   
   SOUTH      3 Virgina Wesleyan 15-5 16-5      ODAC      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 66-63, LOST at Roanoke 84-79   
   SOUTH      4 Centre 14-2 17-3      SAA      LOST at Birmingham-Southern 53-50   
   SOUTH      5 Guilford 16-5 16-5      ODAC      LOST vs Bridgewater (Va) 71-62   
   SOUTH      6 Emory 13-7 13-7      UAA      WON vs Carnegie Mellon 100-86, WON at Case Western Reserve 84-68   
   SOUTH      7 Oglethorpe 15-4 17-4      SAA      WON vs Hendrix 80-66   
   SOUTH      8 Concordia (Texas) 15-5 16-5      ASC      LOST at Texas-Tyler 80-73, LOST at University of the Ozarks 89-85   
                        
   REG      TEAM-RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
   WEST      1 UW-Stevens Point 20-1 20-1      WIAC      WON vs Platteville 74-59, WON at River Falls 54-50   
   WEST      2 UW-Whitewater 19-3 19-3      WIAC      WON vs La Crosse 63-45, WON vs Oshkosh 75-51   
   WEST      3 St. Thomas 18-3 18-3      MIAC      WON at St. Olaf 55-51, WON at Concordia-Moorhead 81-67   
   WEST       Dubuque 17-1 20-1      IIAC      LOST vs Loras 71-70, LOST vs Central 80-74   
   WEST      5 St. Olaf 17-4 17-4      MIAC      LOST vs St. Thomas 55-51, WON vs Hamline 88-37   
   WEST      6 Whitworth 17-4 17-4      NWC      WON vs Linfield 91-59, WON vs George Fox 105-101 OT   
   WEST      7 Pomona-Pitzer 16-4 16-6      SCIAC      LOST at Chapman 55-49   
   WEST      8 Colorado College 12-5 14-6      SCAC      WON at Austin 69-60, WON at Centenary (La) 77-70   
   WEST      9 C-M-S 13-3 15-5      SCIAC      WON at Caltech 83-52, WON vs La Verne 73-61   
                        
[/size]
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: NYHOOPS8 on February 16, 2014, 07:58:10 PM
Bopol,

In the East, NYU lost twice and now have the same record as Stevens (whom they lost to). NYU may slide all the way down to #6.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2014, 08:36:10 AM

This is what happens when teams take seriously the request to play better competition.  It's a good problem to have, I think.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2014, 09:02:09 AM
Through Sunday, now using the NCAA's incorrect SOS calculation method.

RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
NE   01   0.913   0.586   0.668   003   A      21-2    8-0   NESCAC   Amherst
NE   02   0.870   0.556   0.634   008   C      20-3    4-2   NESCAC   Williams
NE   03   0.783   0.575   0.627   012   C      18-5    3-4   NEWMAC   Babson
NE   04   0.783   0.551   0.609   021   A      18-5    3-3   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
NE   05   0.826   0.534   0.607   024   C      19-4    1-3   NESCAC   Bowdoin
NE   06   0.870   0.519   0.606   025   A      20-3    3-1   NEWMAC   WPI
NE   07   0.714   0.564   0.602   029   C      15-6    1-4   NEWMAC   Springfield
NE   08   0.955   0.468   0.590   039   A      21-1    1-0   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
NE   09   0.696   0.551   0.587   042   C      16-7    0-3   LEC      Rhode Island College
NE   10   0.652   0.559   0.582   047   C      15-8    2-3   NESCAC   Middlebury
NE   11   0.783   0.509   0.578   057   A      18-5    0-2   CCC      Nichols
ne   12   0.545   0.580   0.572   068   C      12-10   0-7   UAA      Brandeis
ne   13   0.762   0.493   0.560   080   C      16-5    1-1   GNAC     Johnson and Wales
ne   14   0.909   0.439   0.557   089   A      20-2    1-0   NAC      Husson
ne   15   0.636   0.524   0.552   096   C      14-8    1-3   MASCAC   Salem State
ne   16   0.682   0.502   0.547   101   C      15-7    2-2   CCC      Salve Regina
ne   17   0.682   0.492   0.540   116   C      15-7    0-4   LEC      Western Connecticut
ne   18   0.696   0.487   0.539   118   C      16-7    2-4   NEWMAC   MIT
ne   19   0.542   0.535   0.537   122   C      13-11   1-5   NESCAC   Tufts
ne   20   0.524   0.541   0.536   123   C      11-10   1-4   NESCAC   Colby
                              
RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
EA   01   0.905   0.547   0.637   006   A      19-2    3-2   SUNYAC   Brockport State
EA   02   0.818   0.556   0.622   013   C      18-4    3-3   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
EA   03   0.810   0.548   0.614   017   C      17-4    2-3   SUNYAC   Geneseo State
EA   04   0.682   0.548   0.582   050   C      15-7    0-4   UAA      New York University
EA   05   0.750   0.515   0.574   062   A      18-6    0-1   LL       Hobart
EA   06   0.652   0.534   0.564   074   C      15-8    2-4   LL       Skidmore
ea   07   0.667   0.523   0.559   083   A      14-7    1-2   E8       Stevens
ea   08   0.684   0.512   0.555   091   C      13-6    0-3   E8       Nazareth
ea   09   0.727   0.494   0.553   095   C      16-6    0-2   LL       Vassar
ea   10   0.609   0.525   0.546   102   C      14-9    2-3   E8       St. John Fisher
ea   11   0.381   0.588   0.536   125   C      8-13    2-5   UAA      Rochester
ea   12   0.478   0.550   0.532   137   C      11-12   1-6   SUNYAC   Buffalo State
ea   13   0.609   0.504   0.530   142   C      14-9    1-4   SUNYAC   Oswego State
ea   14   0.571   0.516   0.530   144   C      12-9    1-3   E8       Hartwick
ea   15   0.550   0.517   0.525   154   C      11-9    1-2   LL       Clarkson
ea   16   0.565   0.506   0.521   168   C      13-10   0-5   SUNYAC   Cortland State
ea   17   0.667   0.462   0.513   187   C      12-6    1-1   E8       Alfred
ea   18   0.522   0.506   0.510   193   C      12-11   0-4   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
ea   19   0.591   0.479   0.507   196   C      13-9    0-4   LL       Rochester Tech
ea   20   0.350   0.535   0.489   231   C      7-13    0-5   LL       RPI
                              
RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
AT   01   0.955   0.525   0.633   009   A      21-1    4-1   SKY      SUNY-Purchase
AT   02   0.833   0.530   0.606   026   A      20-4    3-2   NJAC     Richard Stockton
AT   03   0.917   0.484   0.592   036   A      22-2    0-0   CUNYAC   Staten Island
AT   04   0.792   0.516   0.585   046   C      19-5    2-2   NJAC     William Paterson
AT   05   0.750   0.521   0.578   056   C      18-6    3-2   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
AT   06   0.773   0.481   0.554   092   C      17-5    0-4   SKY      Mount St. Mary
at   07   0.696   0.494   0.544   105   C      16-7    0-4   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
at   08   0.500   0.530   0.522   163   C      11-11   1-7   NJAC     Kean
at   09   0.522   0.521   0.521   166   C      12-11   2-6   NJAC     New Jersey City
at   10   0.727   0.451   0.520   171   C      16-6    0-4   SKY      Farmingdale State
at   11   0.583   0.495   0.517   177   C      14-10   0-4   CUNYAC   Baruch
at   12   0.591   0.489   0.515   182   C      13-9    0-5   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
at   13   0.476   0.526   0.514   184   C      10-11   1-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
at   14   0.381   0.554   0.511   192   C      8-13    2-7   NJAC     Montclair State
at   15   0.478   0.516   0.507   198   C      11-12   2-4   CUNYAC   Brooklyn
at   16   0.375   0.523   0.486   235   C      9-15    1-6   NJAC     Ramapo
at   17   0.400   0.512   0.484   240   C      8-12    0-5   NJAC     Rowan
at   18   0.571   0.451   0.481   248   C      12-9    0-3   SKY      Sage
at   19   0.429   0.488   0.473   267   C      9-12    0-5   CUNYAC   Lehman
at   20   0.429   0.480   0.467   282   C      9-12    0-4   CUNYAC   Hunter
                              
RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
MA   01   0.870   0.549   0.629   010   A      20-3    2-1   LAND     Scranton
MA   02   0.900   0.519   0.614   016   A      18-2    3-0   CAC      Wesley
MA   03   0.952   0.494   0.609   022   A      20-1    2-0   CSAC     Cabrini
MA   04   0.826   0.521   0.597   030   A      19-4    4-1   CC       Dickinson
MA   05   0.818   0.522   0.596   032   A      18-4    3-1   MACC     Messiah
MA   06   0.773   0.534   0.593   035   C      17-5    1-2   CAC      Mary Washington
MA   07   0.700   0.538   0.579   055   C      14-6    1-4   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
MA   08   0.667   0.545   0.576   059   C      14-7    3-4   CAC      Christopher Newport
MA   09   0.696   0.534   0.574   061   C      16-7    1-3   MACC     Alvernia
ma   10   0.696   0.533   0.574   064   C      16-7    5-3   MACC     Stevenson
ma   11   0.682   0.524   0.563   075   C      15-7    2-2   MACC     Hood
ma   12   0.773   0.493   0.563   076   C      17-5    0-3   CC       McDaniel
ma   13   0.636   0.536   0.561   077   C      14-8    0-5   LAND     Catholic
ma   14   0.591   0.546   0.557   088   C      13-9    2-1   LAND     Juniata
ma   15   0.714   0.499   0.553   094   C      15-6    1-2   CSAC     Neumann
ma   16   0.762   0.481   0.551   097   C      16-5    0-2   CSAC     Gwynedd-Mercy
ma   17   0.636   0.513   0.543   108   C      14-8    2-2   CC       Muhlenberg
ma   18   0.500   0.558   0.543   110   C      10-10   1-5   CAC      Salisbury
ma   19   0.545   0.540   0.542   113   C      12-10   1-5   CC       Johns Hopkins
ma   20   0.522   0.544   0.539   119   C      12-11   2-5   MACC     Albright
                              
RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
SO   01   0.783   0.577   0.628   011   A      18-5    3-3   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
SO   02   0.682   0.599   0.620   014   C      15-7    1-4   UAA      Emory
SO   03   0.833   0.511   0.591   037   B      15-3    2-1   SAA      Centre
SO   04   0.913   0.480   0.588   041   A      21-2    1-0   ASC      Texas-Dallas
SO   05   0.727   0.540   0.587   043   C      16-6    2-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
SO   06   0.727   0.540   0.586   045   C      16-6    1-4   ODAC     Guilford
SO   07   0.810   0.502   0.579   054   C      17-4    1-2   SAA      Oglethorpe
SO   08   0.609   0.555   0.569   070   C      14-9    4-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
so   09   0.625   0.545   0.565   073   A      15-9    3-2   SCAC     Trinity (Texas)
so   10   0.700   0.514   0.561   079   C      14-6    0-4   ODAC     Lynchburg
so   11   0.750   0.496   0.559   082   A      15-5    0-3   USAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
so   12   0.565   0.553   0.556   090   C      13-10   2-6   ODAC     Hampden-Sydney
so   13   0.727   0.483   0.544   107   C      16-6    1-2   ASC      Hardin-Simmons
so   14   0.565   0.533   0.541   115   C      13-10   2-2   SCAC     Schreiner
so   15   0.524   0.540   0.536   126   C      11-10   3-2   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
so   16   0.682   0.486   0.535   130   C      15-7    0-1   ASC      Concordia (Texas)
so   17   0.526   0.533   0.531   140   C      10-9    2-3   ODAC     Bridgewater (Va.)
so   18   0.652   0.484   0.526   153   C      15-8    1-2   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
so   19   0.524   0.523   0.523   160   C      11-10   0-6   ODAC     Randolph
so   20   0.591   0.500   0.523   161   C      13-9    1-3   ASC      Texas-Tyler
                              
RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
GL   01   0.905   0.555   0.642   005   A      19-2    5-1   NCAC     Wooster
GL   02   0.762   0.563   0.612   018   A      16-5    2-4   MIAA     Hope
GL   03   0.783   0.533   0.596   033   C      18-5    2-3   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
GL   04   0.773   0.530   0.591   038   C      17-5    0-3   OAC      Marietta
GL   05   0.818   0.503   0.582   048   A      18-4    1-0   PrAC     Bethany
GL   06   0.826   0.496   0.579   053   A      19-4    1-1   OAC      Mount Union
GL   07   0.739   0.524   0.577   058   C      17-6    2-3   NCAC     Wittenberg
gl   08   0.682   0.535   0.572   067   C      15-7    3-4   NCAC     DePauw
gl   09   0.667   0.526   0.561   078   C      14-7    0-4   OAC      Wilmington
gl   10   0.842   0.462   0.557   087   C      16-3    1-1   PrAC     St. Vincent
gl   11   0.609   0.531   0.550   098   C      14-9    2-3   OAC      Ohio Northern
gl   12   0.522   0.559   0.550   099   C      12-11   0-6   OAC      Baldwin Wallace
gl   13   0.826   0.456   0.549   100   A      19-4    1-0   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
gl   14   0.789   0.465   0.546   104   C      15-4    1-4   MIAA     Calvin
gl   15   0.591   0.527   0.543   111   C      13-9    2-4   UAA      Case Western Reserve
gl   16   0.478   0.554   0.535   131   C      11-12   2-4   OAC      Capital
gl   17   0.609   0.506   0.531   139   C      14-9    0-4   OAC      John Carroll
gl   18   0.522   0.532   0.529   145   C      12-11   1-6   NCAC     Denison
gl   19   0.476   0.544   0.527   149   C      10-11   1-4   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
gl   20   0.810   0.433   0.527   150   C      17-4    0-0   AMCC     Hilbert
                              
RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
MW   01   0.909   0.598   0.676   002   A      20-2    6-2   UAA      Washington U.
MW   02   0.870   0.557   0.635   007   A      20-3    5-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
MW   03   0.708   0.584   0.615   015   C      17-7    5-4   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
MW   04   0.750   0.566   0.612   019   C      18-6    4-3   CCIW     Augustana
MW   05   0.950   0.497   0.611   020   A      19-1    0-1   MWC      St. Norbert
MW   06   0.636   0.594   0.605   028   C      14-8    4-6   CCIW     Carthage
MW   07   0.826   0.509   0.588   040   A      19-4    0-1   HCAC     Rose-Hulman
MW   08   0.571   0.586   0.582   049   C      12-9    3-6   UAA      Chicago
mw   09   0.833   0.494   0.579   052   C      20-4    0-0   NATHC    Milwaukee Engineering
mw   10   0.739   0.514   0.570   069   A      17-6    1-1   NATHC    Marian
mw   11   0.810   0.488   0.568   071   C      17-4    0-3   HCAC     Defiance
mw   12   0.476   0.588   0.560   081   C      10-11   3-7   CCIW     North Central (Ill.)
mw   13   0.667   0.522   0.558   084   C      14-7    0-1   MWC      Ripon
mw   14   0.591   0.547   0.558   085   C      13-9    2-6   CCIW     Elmhurst
mw   15   0.680   0.517   0.558   086   C      17-8    0-3   NATHC    Aurora
mw   16   0.652   0.520   0.553   093   C      15-8    1-3   HCAC     Hanover
mw   17   0.696   0.493   0.543   109   C      16-7    1-1   NATHC    Lakeland
mw   18   0.636   0.507   0.540   117   C      14-8    0-2   HCAC     Mount St. Joseph
mw   19   0.737   0.472   0.538   120   C      14-5    0-2   MWC      Grinnell
mw   20   0.636   0.502   0.536   127   C      14-8    1-3   MWC      Carroll
                              
RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
WE   01   0.957   0.584   0.677   001   A      22-1    5-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
WE   02   0.875   0.570   0.646   004   C      21-3    3-1   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
WE   03   0.870   0.521   0.608   023   A      20-3    2-1   MIAC     St. Thomas
WE   04   0.783   0.547   0.606   027   C      18-5    0-4   MIAC     St. Olaf
WE   05   0.826   0.521   0.597   031   A      19-4    0-3   NWC      Whitworth
WE   06   0.850   0.509   0.594   034   C      17-3    1-0   IIAC     Dubuque
WE   07   0.737   0.537   0.587   044   C      14-5    2-1   SCAC     Colorado College
WE   08   0.619   0.567   0.580   051   C      13-8    1-4   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
we   09   0.833   0.488   0.575   060   A      15-3    0-0   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
we   10   0.545   0.583   0.574   063   C      12-10   1-7   WIAC     UW-Platteville
we   11   0.696   0.532   0.573   065   C      16-7    1-4   MIAC     Augsburg
we   12   0.762   0.509   0.572   066   C      16-5    2-1   SCIAC    Pomona-Pitzer
we   13   0.789   0.494   0.568   072   A      15-4    1-2   IIAC     Central
we   14   0.632   0.517   0.546   103   C      12-7    0-1   IIAC     Luther
we   15   0.696   0.494   0.544   106   C      16-7    0-3   NWC      Whitman
we   16   0.667   0.502   0.543   112   C      16-8    0-3   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
we   17   0.550   0.538   0.541   114   C      11-9    1-3   WIAC     UW-Stout
we   18   0.476   0.558   0.538   121   C      10-11   0-6   WIAC     UW-Oshkosh
we   19   0.565   0.521   0.532   136   C      13-10   4-1   IIAC     Loras
we   20   0.591   0.510   0.530   143   C      13-9    1-3   MIAC     St. Johns
                              
RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
B    01   0.833   0.511   0.591   037   B      15-3    2-1   SAA      Centre
b    02   0.609   0.555   0.569   070   C      14-9    4-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
b    03   0.810   0.502   0.579   054   C      17-4    1-2   SAA      Oglethorpe
b    04   1.000   0.285   0.464   294   C      1-0     0-0   IND      Nebraska Wesleyan
b    05   0.609   0.492   0.521   167   C      14-9    0-4   SAA      Rhodes
                              
Regions are sorted by RPI                              
RPI isn't an actual selection criterion                              
Pool A designates AQ conference leader (using RPI as tiebreaker)                              
RRO based on last week's rankings                              
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 17, 2014, 09:43:53 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2014, 09:02:09 AM
                              
RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
B    01   0.833   0.511   0.591   037   B      15-3    2-1   SAA      Centre
b    02   0.609   0.555   0.569   070   C      14-9    4-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
b    03   0.810   0.502   0.579   054   C      17-4    1-2   SAA      Oglethorpe
b    04   1.000   0.285   0.464   294   C      1-0     0-0   IND      Nebraska Wesleyan
b    05   0.609   0.492   0.521   167   C      14-9    0-4   SAA      Rhodes
                              


Its been mentioned a few times that Centre has the Pool B wrapped up, but is that really true if say, Oglethorpe beats them in the SAA tournament?  Their criteria would look awfully similar.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2014, 09:49:45 AM
Quote from: sac on February 17, 2014, 09:43:53 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2014, 09:02:09 AM
                              
RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
B    01   0.833   0.511   0.591   037   B      15-3    2-1   SAA      Centre
b    02   0.609   0.555   0.569   070   C      14-9    4-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
b    03   0.810   0.502   0.579   054   C      17-4    1-2   SAA      Oglethorpe
b    04   1.000   0.285   0.464   294   C      1-0     0-0   IND      Nebraska Wesleyan
b    05   0.609   0.492   0.521   167   C      14-9    0-4   SAA      Rhodes
                              


Its been mentioned a few times that Centre has the Pool B wrapped up, but is that really true if say, Oglethorpe beats them in the SAA tournament?  Their criteria would look awfully similar.

They already beat Oglethorpe twice, so they'd still have the 2-1 head-to-head advantage. I think if Centre can get there (to the SAA tournament) unscathed, they'll get the bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2014, 12:18:18 PM
So do either have a good shot, shot or no shot at a Pool C bid?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 12:23:42 PM
Do I have it right that next year the CCIW and WIAC will be in the same region?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2014, 12:44:12 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2014, 12:18:18 PM
So do either have a good shot, shot or no shot at a Pool C bid?

I have Centre as bubble-in and Oglethorpe as bubble-out currently.

Which is to say, the best way for them to both get is is probably for Oglethorpe (one of the few teams who don't need to lose to gain a Pool C) to win out, but for Centre to still win the Pool B bid.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2014, 12:46:20 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 12:23:42 PM
Do I have it right that next year the CCIW and WIAC will be in the same region?

Yes, my understanding is that they will both be in the newly dubbed "Central" Region, just like on the Women's side.

So yeah, CCIW, WIAC, and Wash U in one region. Good luck everybody else (though the HCAC moves to the GL, so that will clear things out a little).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 17, 2014, 02:27:03 PM
1 Washington U. 18-2 18-2
2 Illinois Wesleyan 18-3 18-3
3 Wheaton (Ill.) 16-6 16-6
4 Augustana 16-6 16-6
5 St. Norbert 17-1 18-1
6 Carthage 13-7 14-8
8 Milwaukee School of Engineering 18-4 18-4

Just have to squeeze these two in there, should be no problem.
1 UW-Stevens Point 20-1 20-1
2 UW-Whitewater 19-3 19-3


Imagine what it will look like in years the WIAC has 3 good teams or if Chicago gets back on the national scene.  We've even had years the MWC has had two good teams.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 02:39:27 PM
Quote from: sac on February 17, 2014, 02:27:03 PM
1 Washington U. 18-2 18-2
2 Illinois Wesleyan 18-3 18-3
3 Wheaton (Ill.) 16-6 16-6
4 Augustana 16-6 16-6
5 St. Norbert 17-1 18-1
6 Carthage 13-7 14-8
8 Milwaukee School of Engineering 18-4 18-4

Just have to squeeze these two in there, should be no problem.
1 UW-Stevens Point 20-1 20-1
2 UW-Whitewater 19-3 19-3


Imagine what it will look like in years the WIAC has 3 good teams or if Chicago gets back on the national scene.  We've even had years the MWC has had two good teams.

And Chicago could be good next year - they have some really good young talent.

I just don't understand why they would do this.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: WUPHF on February 17, 2014, 03:54:31 PM
I am going to start applying for jobs at Whitworth...  :P
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2014, 03:56:27 PM
Remember... Centre and Oglethorpe get a chance at the lone Pool B as KnightSlappy shows... if he thinks Centre is a Pool C bubble-in and Oglethorpe is a Pool C bubble-out... you can pretty much assume Centre is ahead of Oglethorpe in Pool B as well :).

And yes... WIAC moves to the Central which already seems to be fine on the women's side. Makes more sense anyway.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 04:06:31 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2014, 03:56:27 PM

And yes... WIAC moves to the Central which already seems to be fine on the women's side. Makes more sense anyway.

It makes sense to have 2 of the top conferences in the same region?  (In addition to the best program in another top conference - Wash U.)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2014, 04:10:55 PM
Does the West simply lose 9 WIAC teams? Is there a link or something that shows the complete realignment?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2014, 04:17:15 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2014, 04:10:55 PM
Does the West simply lose 9 WIAC teams? Is there a link or something that shows the complete realignment?

http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2013/02/regional-realignment-coming

Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 04:06:31 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2014, 03:56:27 PM

And yes... WIAC moves to the Central which already seems to be fine on the women's side. Makes more sense anyway.

It makes sense to have 2 of the top conferences in the same region?  (In addition to the best program in another top conference - Wash U.)

If you're going to be regional, you have to be regional. It doesn't make sense to group one part of the country by 2014 competitiveness.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2014, 04:28:07 PM
Yeah it makes sense... it also evens out regions by numbers and makes the regions for both men and women identical. There are big shifts on the east coast as well (except the Northeast where - it's impossible). This has been talked about for years and I knew the WIAC was going to move... they finally just made it happen and pulled the trigger a year ago.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 17, 2014, 04:57:36 PM
If they got rid of the regional rankings and changed how the selection process was made, it wouldn't be an issue, but there is a likelihood that deserving Pool C candidates will not even be regionally ranked (hurting even those who are ranked).

I predict this will be messy.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 17, 2014, 04:57:36 PM
If they got rid of the regional rankings and changed how the selection process was made, it wouldn't be an issue, but there is a likelihood that deserving Pool C candidates will not even be regionally ranked (hurting even those who are ranked).

I predict this will be messy.

This is the problem I see.  It seems like there will be Central Region Pool C candidates that would be competitive in the late rounds of the selection process against teams from other regions that will never get considered...because they're not regionally ranked.

And then the issue of impact to RRO - seems pretty significant.

The CCIW and WIAC regularly produce 3 NCAA tournament caliber teams, and often 4.  Throw in Wash U and the top MWC team and that's just a really crowded picture.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2014, 06:07:36 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 17, 2014, 04:57:36 PM
If they got rid of the regional rankings and changed how the selection process was made, it wouldn't be an issue, but there is a likelihood that deserving Pool C candidates will not even be regionally ranked (hurting even those who are ranked).

I predict this will be messy.

This is the problem I see.  It seems like there will be Central Region Pool C candidates that would be competitive in the late rounds of the selection process against teams from other regions that will never get considered...because they're not regionally ranked.


The year the WIAC got four teams in on the women's side, one of them was not regionally ranked, even in the final unpublished ranking, and still got in the field. We know this because there were more at-large Central Region teams chosen than spots in the ranking.

Being regionally ranked is actually not a prerequisite for selection. Remember each committee chair goes into the selection call with a list of several more teams ordered below the regional ranking cutoff in case they are needed on the board.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 17, 2014, 06:08:55 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 17, 2014, 04:57:36 PM
If they got rid of the regional rankings and changed how the selection process was made, it wouldn't be an issue, but there is a likelihood that deserving Pool C candidates will not even be regionally ranked (hurting even those who are ranked).

I predict this will be messy.

This is the problem I see.  It seems like there will be Central Region Pool C candidates that would be competitive in the late rounds of the selection process against teams from other regions that will never get considered...because they're not regionally ranked.

And then the issue of impact to RRO - seems pretty significant.

The CCIW and WIAC regularly produce 3 NCAA tournament caliber teams, and often 4.  Throw in Wash U and the top MWC team and that's just a really crowded picture.
Imagine if a committee member said something silly like you won't get 5 at large teams from the same region. A comment like that would never happen in D3... right football fans? ::)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2014, 07:10:18 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 17, 2014, 04:57:36 PM
If they got rid of the regional rankings and changed how the selection process was made, it wouldn't be an issue, but there is a likelihood that deserving Pool C candidates will not even be regionally ranked (hurting even those who are ranked).

I predict this will be messy.

This is the problem I see.  It seems like there will be Central Region Pool C candidates that would be competitive in the late rounds of the selection process against teams from other regions that will never get considered...because they're not regionally ranked.

And then the issue of impact to RRO - seems pretty significant.

The CCIW and WIAC regularly produce 3 NCAA tournament caliber teams, and often 4.  Throw in Wash U and the top MWC team and that's just a really crowded picture.

This is one of the reasons why I don't like "results versus regionally ranked opponents. Especially when we're talking national selection across regions of different quality and with different number of teams (and ranked teams). It's just not as informative as it appears to be.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
New D3hoops.com Top 25...

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/index

1. UW-Stevens Point
2. UW-Whitewater
3. Washington U.
4. Illinois Wesleyan
5. St. Norbert

That would make for quite a tough Central Region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 17, 2014, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
New D3hoops.com Top 25...

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/index

1. UW-Stevens Point
2. UW-Whitewater
3. Washington U.
4. Illinois Wesleyan
5. St. Norbert

That would make for quite a tough Central Region.

Region of Death?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 17, 2014, 09:41:13 PM
Quote from: sac on February 17, 2014, 02:27:03 PM
1 Washington U. 18-2 18-2
2 Illinois Wesleyan 18-3 18-3
3 Wheaton (Ill.) 16-6 16-6
4 Augustana 16-6 16-6
5 St. Norbert 17-1 18-1
6 Carthage 13-7 14-8
8 Milwaukee School of Engineering 18-4 18-4

Just have to squeeze these two in there, should be no problem.
1 UW-Stevens Point 20-1 20-1
2 UW-Whitewater 19-3 19-3


Imagine what it will look like in years the WIAC has 3 good teams or if Chicago gets back on the national scene.  We've even had years the MWC has had two good teams.

One thing that I find interesting is that there have been some decent rivalries that have developed between WIAC teams and other West region teams (WIAC/NWC challenge, plus games they've played in the past, games like Stevens Point vs. St Thomas).

These games will still "count" as games, insomuch as they're "in-region" (due to the 70% rule, as well as the administrative regions) but they WON'T count for head-to-head and RRO.

I can foresee a shake-up in the scheduling necessitated by the regional shift too, at least to some extent, for the WIAC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 10:24:03 PM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 17, 2014, 09:41:13 PM
One thing that I find interesting is that there have been some decent rivalries that have developed between WIAC teams and other West region teams (WIAC/NWC challenge, plus games they've played in the past, games like Stevens Point vs. St Thomas).

These games will still "count" as games, insomuch as they're "in-region" (due to the 70% rule, as well as the administrative regions) but they WON'T count for head-to-head and RRO.

I can foresee a shake-up in the scheduling necessitated by the regional shift too, at least to some extent, for the WIAC.

A WIAC vs NWC game should count in RRO...right?  Like this year, IWU vs Hope is counted in RRO I believe (with the new rules).  The data sheet says something like "results vs all Division ranked opponents."
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2014, 10:30:41 PM
I'm not sure what John means either...next year?

I would guess WIAC vs NWC games have always counted as RRO simply because they are in our administrative region regardless of that new 70% rule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 10:39:01 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2014, 10:30:41 PM
I'm not sure what John means either...next year?

I would guess WIAC vs NWC games have always counted as RRO simply because they are in our administrative region regardless of that new 70% rule.

He must mean next year, because WIAC vs NWC games have always been "in-region" in the past.  But next year they should still count too...since RRO now spans all regions as far as I know.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 17, 2014, 10:58:54 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 10:39:01 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2014, 10:30:41 PM
I'm not sure what John means either...next year?

I would guess WIAC vs NWC games have always counted as RRO simply because they are in our administrative region regardless of that new 70% rule.

He must mean next year, because WIAC vs NWC games have always been "in-region" in the past.  But next year they should still count too...since RRO now spans all regions as far as I know.

I'm sorry, I did mean next year, not this year.

I thought Dave said that RRO didn't count across regions, but maybe I misread him (I think it was related to the other discussion of the RRO elsewhere - or lack thereof in the first ranking).


I was talking about future scheduling, but to your point, those games could/would be just as important across the board.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 17, 2014, 11:01:17 PM
WIAC vs NWC will remain in-region based on the administrative region rule.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 17, 2014, 11:39:03 PM
Quote from: sac on February 17, 2014, 11:01:17 PM
WIAC vs NWC will remain in-region based on the administrative region rule.

Yes, but I just wasn't sure about the RRO. Still not 100%...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2014, 11:43:39 PM
Those will count, yes.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2014, 11:51:52 PM
You may have seen me confuse myself with last year's and this year's RRO information... though, it is the same. Basically, your RRO is who you played... if everyone on your schedule counts for primary criteria... everyone counts for RRO. The exception is if you don't hit the 70% in-region scheduling criteria and don't get a waiver... then that team will revert back to just their in-region games counting and those their RRO as well. However, that really isn't a big issue for a vast majority of teams... not to mention the 200 miles and administrative region criteria holding water.

Let's also remember one other major thing... the decision to realign the regions was a LONG time in coming and doesn't involve just basketball. The realignment was to even things off across regions (East and Atlantic will be more "even" compared to the Mid-Atlantic for example) and across sports by having teams and conferences in similiar regions. You do realize how many conferences and teams are in different regions right now in basketball? It was worse before the AMCC was pulled into the Great Lakes starting this season.

People may complain about this new set-up, but you read the tea leaves and saw how things didn't add up in basketball and across other sports, this decision was obvious. Furthermore, as Pat pointed out, the Central Region hasn't hurt women's basketball a single bit.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 18, 2014, 11:45:14 AM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 17, 2014, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
New D3hoops.com Top 25...

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/index

1. UW-Stevens Point
2. UW-Whitewater
3. Washington U.
4. Illinois Wesleyan
5. St. Norbert

That would make for quite a tough Central Region.

Region of Death?

At most, only 2 could make to Salem but only if one gets sent East or South.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2014, 12:02:11 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2014, 11:45:14 AM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 17, 2014, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
New D3hoops.com Top 25...

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/index

1. UW-Stevens Point
2. UW-Whitewater
3. Washington U.
4. Illinois Wesleyan
5. St. Norbert

That would make for quite a tough Central Region.

Region of Death?

At most, only 2 could make to Salem but only if one gets sent East or South.

Which region they are designated as being in by the NCAA doesn't have an impact there, though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 18, 2014, 12:04:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2014, 12:02:11 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2014, 11:45:14 AM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 17, 2014, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
New D3hoops.com Top 25...

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/index

1. UW-Stevens Point
2. UW-Whitewater
3. Washington U.
4. Illinois Wesleyan
5. St. Norbert

That would make for quite a tough Central Region.

Region of Death?

At most, only 2 could make to Salem but only if one gets sent East or South.

Which region they are designated as being in by the NCAA doesn't have an impact there, though.

I don't think I said that ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2014, 12:19:02 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2014, 11:45:14 AM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 17, 2014, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
New D3hoops.com Top 25...

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/index

1. UW-Stevens Point
2. UW-Whitewater
3. Washington U.
4. Illinois Wesleyan
5. St. Norbert

That would make for quite a tough Central Region.

Region of Death?

At most, only 2 could make to Salem but only if one gets sent East or South.

I know we didn't really like the one-game early round format last year, but having the Elite Eight all meet in Salem was a positive in terms of balancing the bracket.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2014, 01:35:53 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2014, 12:04:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2014, 12:02:11 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2014, 11:45:14 AM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 17, 2014, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
New D3hoops.com Top 25...

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/index

1. UW-Stevens Point
2. UW-Whitewater
3. Washington U.
4. Illinois Wesleyan
5. St. Norbert

That would make for quite a tough Central Region.

Region of Death?

At most, only 2 could make to Salem but only if one gets sent East or South.

Which region they are designated as being in by the NCAA doesn't have an impact there, though.

I don't think I said that ???

I know you didn't but that was the tenor of the conversation here so figured I'd clarify for others.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 18, 2014, 01:42:28 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2014, 11:45:14 AM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 17, 2014, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 17, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
New D3hoops.com Top 25...

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/index

1. UW-Stevens Point
2. UW-Whitewater
3. Washington U.
4. Illinois Wesleyan
5. St. Norbert

That would make for quite a tough Central Region.

Region of Death?

At most, only 2 could make to Salem but only if one gets sent East or South.

I'm figuring that six teams from the Minnesota/Wisconsin/Illinois/Missouri area could reasonably host 1st/2nd round brackets (St Thomas, St Norbert, UWW, UWSP, IWU and Wash U).  My guess is there are about 14 other teams that could fill the 18 slots needed from the Midwest and drawing from the south and far west where there will be significant travel required no matter where the teams go (see Whitworth).  So, probably one of those teams get screwed out of hosting for regional balance.  But with 5 brackets in the area, they can be split into 2 brackets for the 3rd/4th round games and that'll get interesting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2014, 01:53:28 PM
They will most likely shipped a team or two towards the Great Lakes or even Centre (or a team in that area). Sometimes teams are left on the outside of hosting to help with a more geographic and regionally diverse pod.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2014, 02:04:02 PM
I'm not actually sure St. Norbert has slam-dunk hosting credentials right now. A sub-.500 SOS and only one game vRRO (a loss) isn't going to give them priority.

But yeah at least one of, St. Norbert, Wheaton, or Augustana could end up as another hosting candidate.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 18, 2014, 03:15:35 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2014, 02:04:02 PM
I'm not actually sure St. Norbert has slam-dunk hosting credentials right now. A sub-.500 SOS and only one game vRRO (a loss) isn't going to give them priority.

But yeah at least one of, St. Norbert, Wheaton, or Augustana could end up as another hosting candidate.

Yes, I'd expect St. Norbert to be the loser in this if only 5 Midwest teams end up hosting.  I could fill 14 spots (15 if I am super generous and include Carthage) with MSOE/MarianT, Augie, Wheaton, Rose Holman, Hope, MacMurray/Spaulding, St Norbert, Whitworth, TX-Dallas, Centre, Trinity-TX, CMS, Northwestern (MN) and St Olaf. 

I figure the two Texas clubs, Whitworth and CMS are getting on a plane no matter what, so they might as well come up to Chicago/St. Louis/Minneapolis.

You can make some fun brackets with those 19 (20) clubs.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: John Gleich on February 18, 2014, 03:57:05 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2014, 02:04:02 PM
I'm not actually sure St. Norbert has slam-dunk hosting credentials right now. A sub-.500 SOS and only one game vRRO (a loss) isn't going to give them priority.

That could be interesting... but their SOS *should* go up.


Is there any precedent in the committee not allowing a team with such a high winning percentage to host a game? SNC would be 24-1 if they win out, including their conf tournament (MWC only plays 23 games, +2 in the conf tournament).

They wouldn't have the highest win % in the country (unless all the other 1 loss teams lose) because the other 1 loss teams will have played more than 25 games at that point, but those other teams would just be marginally higher than SNC's .960 winning percentage.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 18, 2014, 04:44:28 PM
I'm not any good at geography, but I really don't see St. Norbert getting a hosting site based on credentials unless they get Dubuque, MSOE and a Pool C team from maybe the CCIW (I think Point or Whitewater as a Pool C team hosts before St. Norbert)...
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 18, 2014, 04:45:25 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2014, 04:42:57 PM
I could see Purchase being skipped for hosting.  Their facility must be under 1,000 in capacity

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.purchasecollegeathletics.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F2%2F5%2Fsmall_GymAF.JPG&hash=1cd89496f1cbabea6be3f6c3914e11247e74695a)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.purchasecollegeathletics.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F10%2F8%2FNewhardwood.JPG&hash=98778a2136a53ede518d793083b6221050c92a50)

That appears to be a temporary wall. If they have more seating on the other side of like the section shown they should be fine.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 18, 2014, 04:47:26 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 18, 2014, 04:45:25 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2014, 04:42:57 PM
I could see Purchase being skipped for hosting.  Their facility must be under 1,000 in capacity

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.purchasecollegeathletics.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F2%2F5%2Fsmall_GymAF.JPG&hash=1cd89496f1cbabea6be3f6c3914e11247e74695a)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.purchasecollegeathletics.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F10%2F8%2FNewhardwood.JPG&hash=98778a2136a53ede518d793083b6221050c92a50)

That appears to be a temporary wall. If they have more seating on the other side of like the section shown they should be fine.

Found a better answer in their media guide, says 1800.  Largest crowd this year is 170.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2014, 04:50:41 PM
Quote from: John Gleich on February 18, 2014, 03:57:05 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2014, 02:04:02 PM
I'm not actually sure St. Norbert has slam-dunk hosting credentials right now. A sub-.500 SOS and only one game vRRO (a loss) isn't going to give them priority.

That could be interesting... but their SOS *should* go up.


Is there any precedent in the committee not allowing a team with such a high winning percentage to host a game? SNC would be 24-1 if they win out, including their conf tournament (MWC only plays 23 games, +2 in the conf tournament).

They wouldn't have the highest win % in the country (unless all the other 1 loss teams lose) because the other 1 loss teams will have played more than 25 games at that point, but those other teams would just be marginally higher than SNC's .960 winning percentage.

Calvin's regional record was 19-1 last year and they went on the road (in a year in which 30 teams got to host first round games).
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2014, 04:54:59 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2014, 04:47:26 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on February 18, 2014, 04:45:25 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2014, 04:42:57 PM
I could see Purchase being skipped for hosting.  Their facility must be under 1,000 in capacity

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.purchasecollegeathletics.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F2%2F5%2Fsmall_GymAF.JPG&hash=1cd89496f1cbabea6be3f6c3914e11247e74695a)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.purchasecollegeathletics.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F10%2F8%2FNewhardwood.JPG&hash=98778a2136a53ede518d793083b6221050c92a50)

That appears to be a temporary wall. If they have more seating on the other side of like the section shown they should be fine.

Found a better answer in their media guide, says 1800.  Largest crowd this year is 170.

I've been there -- that is indeed a temporary wall. It's a very reasonable first-round site.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 18, 2014, 05:06:30 PM
Regional rankings are suggesting UT-Dallas would be inline to host.  UT-D would need to be flown to any other presently logical host site, therefore we assume UT-D hosts.  Other than Trinity/SCAC winner, any other currently likely D3 tournament participant would have to be flown to Dallas.  In which case it makes sense to fly the NWC and SCIAC winners to Dallas.

If that happens I don't see a need for 5 Midwest/West host sites, just not enough schools.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 18, 2014, 06:17:03 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2014, 05:06:30 PM
Regional rankings are suggesting UT-Dallas would be inline to host.  UT-D would need to be flown to any other presently logical host site, therefore we assume UT-D hosts.  Other than Trinity/SCAC winner, any other currently likely D3 tournament participant would have to be flown to Dallas.  In which case it makes sense to fly the NWC and SCIAC winners to Dallas.

If that happens I don't see a need for 5 Midwest/West host sites, just not enough schools.

Direct flights from Spokane to Chicago and Minneapolis FWIW.

Los Angeles - Anywhere is pretty easy though.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 18, 2014, 06:23:37 PM
Quote from: sac on February 18, 2014, 05:06:30 PM
Regional rankings are suggesting UT-Dallas would be inline to host.  UT-D would need to be flown to any other presently logical host site, therefore we assume UT-D hosts.  Other than Trinity/SCAC winner, any other currently likely D3 tournament participant would have to be flown to Dallas.  In which case it makes sense to fly the NWC and SCIAC winners to Dallas.

If that happens I don't see a need for 5 Midwest/West host sites, just not enough schools.

Looking back today too, I was surprised by how high Texas-Dallas was in the rankings.

It's not immediately clear how they got Virginia Wesleyan over Centre (-.125/+.026), but not Centre over Texas-Dallas (-.030/+.030)

2. Texas-Dallas: .905/.483
3. Virginia Wesleyan: .750/.539
4. Centre: .875/.513

No head-to-head or common opponents jumped out at me, but I wasn't particularly meticulous in my looks at their schedules.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 18, 2014, 07:56:10 PM
Even if Centre were to draw a host pod, the two likely Texas representatives  UT-Dallas and Trinity would have to be flown to a 4 team pod.  Neither are with 500 miles of Danville, KY.

Either they use a bye for UT-Dallas or another ASC/SCAC school has to make the field and you fly in one or both of the West Coast reps.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2014, 12:28:18 AM
The chances of the NCAA allowing a first weekend flight to fill out the pod in Texas is probably slim. The NCAA is dealing with tight budgets and basically the message is they will allow as few flights as possible. If Texas as three teams available, they will put the bye down there and have them play it out that weekend with the one remaining team fly the second weekend. And by flying in a NWC or SCIAC team to Texas, you leave another flight for the remaining team (assuming there are no extra bids there, either) to head some place... this starts to add up to more and more flights.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 19, 2014, 12:38:37 AM
D-Mac, I think that the point that's being made here is that there will essentially be three sets of geographic orphans in this scenario: A Pacific Northwest orphan, a southern California orphan, and two Texas orphans (not three) that are within 500 miles of each other. Given that each of the West Coast orphans will have to fly, anyway, it makes sense to pair them up with the two Texas orphans. Two flights are inevitable, no matter what. This scenario fills out a full pod, and leaves the bracketmakers the ability to give the bye to a more deserving team with regard to actual basketball qualifications.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2014, 12:41:30 AM
Well that certainly is an interesting idea, though I know a flight from that pod will be necessarily the second weekend, they could essentially eliminate that as a chance by having the two byes be on the west coast and Texas... then fly those winning teams to their next destination for Saturday and gamble neither wins needing a flight the following weekend.

But, I do like the idea... would open up the byes to teams like UWSP, Amherst and others.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 19, 2014, 01:21:34 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 19, 2014, 12:38:37 AM
D-Mac, I think that the point that's being made here is that there will essentially be three sets of geographic orphans in this scenario: A Pacific Northwest orphan, a southern California orphan, and two Texas orphans (not three) that are within 500 miles of each other. Given that each of the West Coast orphans will have to fly, anyway, it makes sense to pair them up with the two Texas orphans. Two flights are inevitable, no matter what. This scenario fills out a full pod, and leaves the bracketmakers the ability to give the bye to a more deserving team with regard to actual basketball qualifications.

What I was pointing out was UT-Dallas is in good position to host and how difficult it would be to get teams there.  Currently there are no logical opponents for even a 3 team scenario involving UTD and Trinity, no matter what a third and fourth opponent would have to be flown in.  Since the two on the West Coast have to fly, why not send them both to Dallas.

If UTD doesn't host and Trinity makes the tournament you either have to pair them up and fly the winner out on for the 2nd round.  Or fly them both to another location.  If you do that, with the west coast teams that makes 4 flights.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 08:22:00 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2014, 12:41:30 AM
Well that certainly is an interesting idea, though I know a flight from that pod will be necessarily the second weekend, they could essentially eliminate that as a chance by having the two byes be on the west coast and Texas... then fly those winning teams to their next destination for Saturday and gamble neither wins needing a flight the following weekend.

But, I do like the idea... would open up the byes to teams like UWSP, Amherst and others.

It necessitates a flight on the second weekend, but limits the number of first weekend flights to two. So you're not actually adding any flights here. You'd actually be reducing the risk of later flights by doing this because you'd be capping the total number of flights for these four teams at three (2 in on the first weekend and 1 out on the second).

There's just no way around three flights.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2014, 11:35:15 AM
Not the most scientific thing ever, but my take on Pool C at this point...

20 most "bubble proof" current conference leaders
1. UW-Stevens Point (WIAC) - West #1
2. Amherst or Williams (NESCAC) - Northeast #1 and #2
3. Wooster (NCAC) - Great Lakes #1
4. Brockport State (SUNYAC) - East #1
5. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - Midwest #2
6. SUNY-Purchase (SKY) - Atlantic #1
7. Cabrini (CSAC) - Mid-Atlantic #1
8. Scranton (Land) - Mid-Atlantic #2
9. Randolph-Macon (ODAC) - South #1
10. Wesley (CAC) - Mid-Atlantic #3
11. St. Thomas (MIAC) - West #3
----------gets a little dicier here
12. Mount Union (OAC) - Great Lakes #4
13. Staten Island (CUNYAC) - Atlantic #3
14. Texas-Dallas (ASC) - South #2
15. Hope (MIAA) - Great Lakes #6 
16. St. Norbert (MWC) - Midwest #5
17. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - Northeast #5
18. WPI (NEWMAC) - Northeast #6
19. Dickinson (CC) - Mid-Atlantic #6
20. Whitworth (NWC) - West #6

15 strongest current Pool C candidates (teams not leading their conference)
1. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - West #2
2. Amherst or Williams (NESCAC) - Northeast #1 and #2
3. Babson (NEWMAC) - Northeast #4
4. Wheaton (CCIW) - Midwest #3
5. Geneseo State (SUNYAC) - East #2
6. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - East #3
7. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - Great Lakes #2
8. Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC) - South #3
9. Guilford (ODAC) - South #5
10. Emory (UAA) - South #6
11. Augustana (CCIW) - Midwest #4
12. Bowdoin (NESCAC) - Northeast #3
13. Springfield (NEWMAC) - Northeast #7
14. Dubuque (IIAC) - West #4
15. Mary Washington (CAC) - Mid-Atlantic #5


(Regional ranking noted is from Feb 9)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
The new data sheets are live on NCAA.com

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

Looks like vRRO is based on last week's rankings.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2014, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
vRRO

We probably need a new abbreviation, since it's now "Results vs All Division Ranked Opponents."
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2014, 12:29:59 PM
Not sure we need to change the abbreviation, though -- all those teams are regionally ranked opponents. Just not in the same region.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2014, 12:34:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2014, 12:29:59 PM
Not sure we need to change the abbreviation, though -- all those teams are regionally ranked opponents. Just not in the same region.

True.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2014, 12:29:59 PM
Not sure we need to change the abbreviation, though -- all those teams are regionally ranked opponents. Just not in the same region.

And this was always how it was tabulated anyway, right (so long as they counted as in-region games)? There's nothing new about cross-region (geographic) games counting in the vRRO.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2014, 12:48:52 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2014, 12:29:59 PM
Not sure we need to change the abbreviation, though -- all those teams are regionally ranked opponents. Just not in the same region.

And this was always how it was tabulated anyway, right? There's nothing new about cross-region games counting in the vRRO.

Well, only if the game was "in-region."

So last year, IWU vs Hope would not have counted in RRO (would have only been considered in secondary criteria)...but now it does. 

Very significant change.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:50:11 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2014, 12:48:52 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:42:20 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2014, 12:29:59 PM
Not sure we need to change the abbreviation, though -- all those teams are regionally ranked opponents. Just not in the same region.

And this was always how it was tabulated anyway, right? There's nothing new about cross-region games counting in the vRRO.

Well, only if the game was "in-region."

So last year, IWU vs Hope would not have counted in RRO (would have only been considered in secondary criteria)...but now it does.  Very significant change.

Right, but that's the same change that occurred with WP and SOS as well. vRRO isn't different in that regard.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 19, 2014, 03:39:50 PM
Here are the new regional rankings:

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/19/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-2/
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 04:12:14 PM
Rankings I don't quite understand:

Hood over Christopher Newport/St. Mary's (Md.) in the Middle Atlantic.
Centre behind Texas-Dallas in the South.
Hardin-Simmons being ranked in the South.
Pomona-Pitzer in over Claremont-Mudd-Scripps in the West.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 19, 2014, 05:16:42 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 04:12:14 PM
Rankings I don't quite understand:

Pomona-Pitzer in over Claremont-Mudd-Scripps in the West.

That's a weird one.  PP beat CMS 11 days ago, but that should have been taken into account in last weeks rankings.  They've split the season series. 

Pomona-Pitzer   .762/.509/2-1
Claremont-MS    .833/.487/1-1

Is +.021 SOS and 1 more in-region game enough to make-up an .071 difference in WP.

Pomona beat St. Thomas in the very first game of the season.  Pomona beat Johns Hopkins by 1 while CMS lost to them by 2.   I guess this might be why.


On top of that, Pomona just lost a game a Saturday to Chapman that should have been taken into account for this weeks rankings.  Very puzzling.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: David Collinge on February 19, 2014, 06:55:44 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2014, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
vRRO

We probably need a new abbreviation, since it's now "Results vs All Division Ranked Opponents."

How about
Total Games, Heedless of Interregionality, Juxtaposed 'Gainst Specially Talented Opposition
or, that is,
TGHIJGSTO.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2014, 06:58:26 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 19, 2014, 06:55:44 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2014, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
vRRO

We probably need a new abbreviation, since it's now "Results vs All Division Ranked Opponents."

How about
Total Games, Heedless of Interregionality, Juxtaposed 'Gainst Specially Talented Opposition
or, that is,
TGHIJGSTO.

2014 is young, but this will fair well in "post of the year" consideration all the way through 12/31.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 19, 2014, 06:59:48 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 19, 2014, 06:55:44 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2014, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
vRRO

We probably need a new abbreviation, since it's now "Results vs All Division Ranked Opponents."

How about
Total Games, Heedless of Interregionality, Juxtaposed 'Gainst Specially Talented Opposition
or, that is,
TGHIJGSTO.

That is a seriopusly witty suggestion, DC.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: wooscotsfan on February 19, 2014, 07:36:58 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 19, 2014, 06:55:44 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2014, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
vRRO

We probably need a new abbreviation, since it's now "Results vs All Division Ranked Opponents."

How about
Total Games, Heedless of Interregionality, Juxtaposed 'Gainst Specially Talented Opposition
or, that is,
TGHIJGSTO.

David -- Hilarious and Outstanding! ;D   It is the Post of the Year IMO. k+
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2014, 02:37:17 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2014, 02:36:43 AM
GREEN is conference leader/winner/#1 seed




   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
   ATL      1      1      SUNY-Purchase       21-1, 21-1      SKY      WON at NYU-Poly 78-55, WON vs Sage 84-65, at St. Joseph's (L.I.) 2/22   
   ATL      2      2      Richard Stockton       20-4, 20-4      NJAC      WON at Rowan 75-72    
   ATL      3      3      Rutgers-Newark       18-6, 18-6      NJAC      LOST at Kean 77-73, vs Montclaire State in NJAC quarterfinals 2/22   
   ATL      4      4      William Paterson       19-5, 19-5      NJAC      WON vs Ramapo 81-61   
   ATL      5      5      Staten Island       22-2, 22-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Medgar Evers 111-65, vs CCNY in CUNYAC quarterfinals 2/22   
   ATL      6      6      Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       17-5, 17-5      SKY      WON vs SUNY-Old Westbury 75-45, WON at Yeshiva 63-37, vs Farmingdale State 2/22   
                                          
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
   EAST      1      1      Brockport State       19-2, 20-2      SUNYAC      LOST at Oswego State 95-83, vs New Paltz State 2/21, vs Oneonta State 2/22   
   EAST      3      2      Plattsburgh State        18-4, 18-4      SUNYAC      WON at Potsdam State 76-61, vs Fredonia State 2/21, vs Buffalo State 2/22   
   EAST      2      3      Geneseo State       17-4, 18-4      SUNYAC      LOST at Cortland State 65-53, vs Oneonta State 2/21, vs New Paltz State 2/22   
   EAST      5      4      Hobart        18-6, 18-6      LL      WON vs Union 72-61   
   EAST      6      5      Stevens        14-7, 16-7      E8      LOST at Hartwick 78-72, vs Elmira 2/21   
   EAST      4      6      NYU        15-7, 15-7      UAA      at Emory 2-21, at Rochester 2-23   
                                          
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
   GL      1      1      Wooster        19-2, 20-3      NCAC      WON at Allegheny 89-57, vs Oberlin 2/22   
   GL      6      2      Hope        16-5, 17-6      MIAA      WON at Kalamazoo 110-78, at Adrian 2/22   
   GL      2      3      Ohio Wesleyan        18-5, 18-5      NCAC      WON at Oberlin 93-60, vs DePauw 2/22   
   GL      7      4      Bethany        18-4, 19-4      PAC      WON vs Thomas More 80-77, vs Washington and Jefferson 2/22   
   GL      3      5      Mount Union        19-4, 19-4      OAC      WON at Marietta 81-77, at Wilmington 2/22   
   GL      4      6      Marietta        17-5, 18-5      OAC      LOST vs Mount Union 81-77, vs John Carroll 2/22   
   GL      5      7      Wittenberg        17-6, 17-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon 80-71, at Hiram 2/22   
                                          
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
   MATL      2      1      Scranton       20-3, 20-3      LAND      WON vs Moravian 67-61, vs Goucher 2/22   
   MATL      1      2      Cabrini       20-1, 20-1      CSAC      WON at Neumann 84-72, WON vs Keystone 86-73, vs Immaculata 2/20   
   MATL      3      3      Wesley       18-2, 20-2      CAC      WON vs Penn State-Harrisburg 70-40, vs St. Mary's (Md.) 2/22   
   MATL      6      4      Dickinson       19-4, 19-4      CC      WON at Muhlenberg 92-86, vs Franklin and Marshall 2/22   
   MATL      4      5      Messiah       18-4, 18-4      MACC      WON vs Widener 80-69, at Alvernia 2/22   
         n/a      6      Stevenson      16-7, 16-7      MACC      WON vs Elizabethtown 65-51, at Lebanon Valley 2/22   
   MATL      5      7      Mary Washington       17-5, 18-5      CAC      WON at Southern Virginia 103-97, at Penn State-Harrisburgh 2/22   
   MATL      7      8      Alvernia       16-7, 16-7      MACC      WON at Hood 76-72, vs Messiah 2/22   
   MATL      8      9      Hood       16-7, 16-7      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 76-72, at Lycoming 2/22   
                                          
   DROP                                       
   MATL      9            McDaniel             CC         
                                          
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
   MW      1      1      Washington U.       20-2, 20-2      UAA      vs Case Western Reserve 2/21, vs Carnegie Mellon 2/23   
   MW      2      2      Illinois Wesleyan       20-3, 20-3      CCIW      WON vs North Park 107-61, at Wheaton (IL) 2/22   
   MW      3      3      Wheaton (Ill.)       17-7, 17-7      CCIW      vs Illinois Wesleyan 2/22   
   MW      4      4      Augustana       18-6, 18-6      CCIW      at North Park 2/22   
   MW      5      5      St. Norbert       19-1, 20-1      MWC      WON at Ripon 78-62, vs Illinois College 2/22   
   MW      6      6      Carthage       14-8, 15-9      CCIW      vs Millikin 2/22   
   MW      7      7      Rose-Hulman       19-4, 19-4      HCAC      WON at Franklin 71-69, at Mount St. Joseph 2/22   
   MW      8      8      MSOE       20-4, 20-4      NACC      WON vs Wisconsin Lutheran 84-70, vs Edgewood 2/22   
                                          
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
   NE      1      1      Amherst       21-2, 21-3      NESCAC      vs Colby in NESCAC quarterfinals 2/22   
   NE      2      2      Williams       20-3, 21-3      NESCAC      vs Tufts in NESCAC quarterfinals 2/22   
   NE      4      3      Babson       18-5, 18-5      NEWMAC      WON at Coast Guard 72-63, at MIT 2/22   
   NE      5      4      Eastern Connecticut       18-5, 18-5      LEC      WON vs Western Connecticut 74-59, at Southern Maine 2/22   
   NE      6      5      WPI       20-3, 20-3      NEWMAC      WON vs Wheaton (Mass.) 58-46, at Clark 2/22   
   NE      3      6      Bowdoin       19-4, 19-4      NESCAC      vs Trinity (Conn.) in NESCAC quarterfinals 2/22   
   NE      7      7      Springfield       15-6, 16-6      NEWMAC      WON vs Emerson 76-66, WON at Clark 76-64, vs Coast Guard 2/22   
   NE      8      8      Albertus Magnus       21-1, 21-2      GNAC      WON at Johnson and Wales 96-81, vs Emmanuel 2/22   
   NE      9      9      Rhode Island      16-7, 16-7      LEC      LOST at Mass-Dartmouth 85-73, vs Plymouth State 2/22   
   NE      10      10      Nichols       18-5, 18-5      CCC      WON at Eastern Nazarene 88-84, at Wentworth 2/22   
   NE      11      11      Middlebury       15-8, 16-8      NESCAC      vs Hamilton in NESCAC quarterfinals 2/22   
                                          
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
   SOUTH      1      1      Randolph-Macon      18-5, 18-5      ODAC      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 90-67, at Washington and Lee 2/22   
   SOUTH      3      2      Virgina Wesleyan       16-6, 17-6      ODAC      WON vs Shenandoah 93-74, at Guilford 2/22   
   SOUTH      6      3      Emory       15-7, 15-7      UAA      vs NYU 2/21, vs Brandeis 2/23   
   SOUTH      2      4      Texas-Dallas       21-2, 21-2      ASC      at Concordia (TX) 2/20, at Mary Hardin-Baylor 2/22   
   SOUTH      4      5      Centre       15-3, 18-4      SAA      vs Hendrix 2/21, vs Rhodes 2/23   
   SOUTH      5      6      Guilford       16-6, 16-6      ODAC      LOST at Emory and Henry 78-74, WON at Lynchburg 68-66, vs Virginia Wesleyan 2/22   
   SOUTH      7      7      Oglethorpe       17-4, 19-4      SAA      at Birmingham-Southern 2/21, at Millsaps 2/23   
   SOUTH      n/a      8      Hardin-Simmons      16-6, 16-7      ASC      at Mary Hardin-Baylor 2/20, at Concordia (TX) 2/22   
                                          
   DROP                                       
   SOUTH      8      n/a      Concordia (Texas)             ASC         
                                          
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
   WEST      1      1      UW-Stevens Point       22-1, 22-1      WIAC      WON at Oshkosh 70-51, vs Stout 2/22   
   WEST      2      2      UW-Whitewater       21-3, 21-3      WIAC      at Eau Claire 2/22   
   WEST      3      3      St. Thomas       20-3, 20-3      MIAC      WON at Gustavus Adolphus 73-68, vs St. John's 2/22   
   WEST      5      4      St. Olaf       18-5, 18-5      MIAC      WON vs Macalester 78-54, at Bethel 2/22   
   WEST      4      5      Dubuque       17-3, 20-3      IIAC      LOST at Buena Vista 77-75   
   WEST      6      6      Whitworth       19-4, 19-4      NWC      WON vs Whitman 79-76, at Lewis and Clark 2/21   
   WEST      7      7      Pomona-Pitzer       16-5, 16-7      SCIAC      WON at La Verne 65-59, vs Occidental 2/22   
   WEST      8      8      Colorado College       14-5, 16-6      SCAC      vs University of Dallas 2/22   
   WEST      n/a      9      Augsburg      16-7, 16-7      MIAC      WON vs Carleton 75-67, at St. Mary's (MN) 2/22   
                                          
   DROP                                       
   WEST      9      n/a      C-M-S             SCIAC         
                                          
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: 7express on February 20, 2014, 02:41:24 AM
Albertus & Nichols are both 1 seeds for their conference tournaments as well Greek
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2014, 09:10:04 AM
HERE ARE JUST THE POOL C CANDIDATES WITH THE CONFERENCE LEADERS/WINNERS/#1 SEEDS REMOVED



   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON    
   ATL      3      3      Rutgers-Newark       18-6, 18-6      NJAC   
   ATL      4      4      William Paterson       19-5, 19-5      NJAC   
   ATL      6      6      Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       17-5, 17-5      SKY   
                                    
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON    
   EAST      3      2      Plattsburgh State        18-4, 18-4      SUNYAC   
   EAST      2      3      Geneseo State       17-4, 18-4      SUNYAC   
   EAST      4      6      NYU        15-7, 15-7      UAA   
                                    
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON    
   GL      2      3      Ohio Wesleyan        18-5, 18-5      NCAC   
   GL      4      6      Marietta        17-5, 18-5      OAC   
   GL      5      7      Wittenberg        17-6, 17-6      NCAC   
                                    
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON    
         n/a      6      Stevenson      16-7, 16-7      MACC   
   MATL      5      7      Mary Washington       17-5, 18-5      CAC   
   MATL      7      8      Alvernia       16-7, 16-7      MACC   
   MATL      8      9      Hood       16-7, 16-7      MACC   
                                    
   DROP                                 
   MATL      9            McDaniel             CC   
                                    
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON    
   MW      3      3      Wheaton (Ill.)       17-7, 17-7      CCIW   
   MW      4      4      Augustana       18-6, 18-6      CCIW   
   MW      6      6      Carthage       14-8, 15-9      CCIW   
                                    
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON    
   NE      2      2      Williams       20-3, 21-3      NESCAC   
   NE      4      3      Babson       18-5, 18-5      NEWMAC   
   NE      3      6      Bowdoin       19-4, 19-4      NESCAC   
   NE      7      7      Springfield       15-6, 16-6      NEWMAC   
   NE      9      9      Rhode Island      16-7, 16-7      LEC   
   NE      11      11      Middlebury       15-8, 16-8      NESCAC   
                                    
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON    
   SOUTH      3      2      Virgina Wesleyan       16-6, 17-6      ODAC   
   SOUTH      6      3      Emory       15-7, 15-7      UAA   
   SOUTH      5      6      Guilford       16-6, 16-6      ODAC   
   SOUTH      7      7      Oglethorpe       17-4, 19-4      SAA   
   SOUTH      n/a      8      Hardin-Simmons      16-6, 16-7      ASC   
                                    
   DROP                                 
   SOUTH      8      n/a      Concordia (Texas)             ASC   
                                    
   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON    
   WEST      2      2      UW-Whitewater       21-3, 21-3      WIAC   
   WEST      5      4      St. Olaf       18-5, 18-5      MIAC   
   WEST      4      5      Dubuque       17-3, 20-3      IIAC   
   WEST      7      7      Pomona-Pitzer       16-5, 16-7      SCIAC   
   WEST      8      8      Colorado College       14-5, 16-6      SCAC   
   WEST      n/a      9      Augsburg      16-7, 16-7      MIAC   
                                    
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 09:34:11 AM
Hope has wrapped up the #1 seed in the MIAA.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2014, 09:56:45 AM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 09:34:11 AM
Hope has wrapped up the #1 seed in the MIAA.

Thanks, had it green in the other table, just missed it when I was deleting.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 11:19:35 AM
Five ranked teams benefiting the most from the NCAA's SOS calculation method (NCAA/'Correct'):
1.   NYU – (.551/.498) +.051
2.   Guilford – (.541/.499) +.041
3.   Scranton – (.549/.512) +.037
4.   Dubuque – (.509/.481) +.027
5.   Whitworth – (.521/.494) + .027
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2014, 11:33:33 AM
https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

This is the mileage calculation that Just Bill (I think) posted two years ago. Not sure if they still use it. Thought it was relavant.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2014, 11:35:17 AM
That is what is used... that is the official mileage calculator for the NCAA. VERY important when talking about hosting and bracket design.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Just Bill on February 20, 2014, 11:40:28 AM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2014, 11:33:33 AM
https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

This is the mileage calculation that Just Bill (I think) posted two years ago. Not sure if they still use it. Thought it was relavant.

Yep. That's still the official tool.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 20, 2014, 12:07:27 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 11:19:35 AM
Five ranked teams benefiting the most from the NCAA's SOS calculation method (NCAA/'Correct'):
1.   NYU – (.551/.498) +.051
2.   Guilford – (.541/.499) +.041
3.   Scranton – (.549/.512) +.037
4.   Dubuque – (.509/.481) +.027
5.   Whitworth – (.521/.494) + .027

Those are a little alarming.  I need a refresher on what's incorrect about it. 
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2014, 12:08:08 PM
He has a three-page explanation if you want it :)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: carthage guy on February 20, 2014, 12:29:19 PM
For the more casual observer ;D

how are conference tourney losses figured...  Carthage will end up with 1 more loss if they do not win the conference tourney.  Do they have any shot of a pool C with this many losses still... It seems like 6 or 7 was a max in the past
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 20, 2014, 12:33:12 PM
Quote from: carthage guy on February 20, 2014, 12:29:19 PM
For the more casual observer ;D

how are conference tourney losses figured...  Carthage will end up with 1 more loss if they do not win the conference tourney.  Do they have any shot of a pool C with this many losses still... It seems like 6 or 7 was a max in the past

By definition, Pool C teams will all lose one more game.  Their standing within the Pool C pool is affected more by upsets in the AQ ranks.  Root for the top seeds.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 01:48:11 PM
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2014, 12:07:27 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 11:19:35 AM
Five ranked teams benefiting the most from the NCAA's SOS calculation method (NCAA/'Correct'):
1.   NYU – (.551/.498) +.051
2.   Guilford – (.541/.499) +.041
3.   Scranton – (.549/.512) +.037
4.   Dubuque – (.509/.481) +.027
5.   Whitworth – (.521/.494) + .027

Those are a little alarming.  I need a refresher on what's incorrect about it.

Short answer: everything.

Long answer: they seem to be adding the multiplier to the adjusted win and loss totals, and then summing these for all opponents to come up with weighted OWP and OOWP figures. Example:

Neutral vs. Opponent A: 10-2 x 1.0 = 10-2
Neutral vs. Opponent B: 5-5 x 1.0 = 5-5

Sums to a weighted record of 15-7 = 0.682 OWP

(Switch Opponent B to a home game. Should be an 'easier' schedule, right?)

Neutral vs. Opponent A: 10-2 x 1.0 = 10-2
Home vs. Opponent B: 5-5 x 0.75 = 3.75-3.75[/li][/list]

Sums to a weighted record of 13.75-5.75= 0.705 OWP (HARDER SCHEDULE!)

The correct way to do this is to apply the multiplier to the percentages:

Neutral vs. Opponent A: 10-2 = 0.833 x 1.0 = 0.833
Neutral vs. Opponent B: 5-5 = 0.500 x 1.0 = 0.500

Averaging the percentages = 0.667 OWP

(Switch Opponent B to a home game. Should be an 'easier' schedule, right?)

Neutral vs. Opponent A: 10-2 = 0.833 x 1.0 = 0.833
Home vs. Opponent B: 5-5 = 0.500 x 0.75 = 0.375

Averaging the percentages = 0.604 OWP (it is an easier schedule, YAY!)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 01:54:08 PM
Five ranked teams most hurt by the SOS calculation method (NCAA/correct):
1.   Wesley (.519/.552) -0.043
2.   Brockport State (.547/.574) -.027
3.   Amherst (.588/.606) -0.022
4.   Emory (.603/.621) -.018
5.   Middlebury (.562/.579) -0.017

One standard deviation of difference between the NCAA's way and the correct way is 0.0166. So 95% of schools will have an actual SOS within 0.033 or below the reported number. So we can be reasonably confident (95%, basically) that when an SOS shows up on the NCAA's data sheets as 0.500, that it really is between 0.467 and 0.533.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 01:56:05 PM
Quote from: sac on February 20, 2014, 12:33:12 PM
Quote from: carthage guy on February 20, 2014, 12:29:19 PM
For the more casual observer ;D

how are conference tourney losses figured...  Carthage will end up with 1 more loss if they do not win the conference tourney.  Do they have any shot of a pool C with this many losses still... It seems like 6 or 7 was a max in the past

By definition, Pool C teams will all lose one more game.  Their standing within the Pool C pool is affected more by upsets in the AQ ranks.  Root for the top seeds.

Not necessarily. The UAA doesn't have a tournament, and the SAA champion could end up in Pool C. But in general, yes. Figure on a loss for 90%+ of the Pool C candidates.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 20, 2014, 02:37:48 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
The new data sheets are live on NCAA.com

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

Looks like vRRO is based on last week's rankings.

Dumb question, but is anyone else getting the 2013 rankings when they click on the link?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 20, 2014, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 20, 2014, 02:37:48 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
The new data sheets are live on NCAA.com

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

Looks like vRRO is based on last week's rankings.

Dumb question, but is anyone else getting the 2013 rankings when they click on the link?

Not a dumb question bopol, as I was going to ask KnightSlappy the same thing. I'm also getting the 2013 numbers instead of this year's.  Help us out here KS. Where's the link to this year's numbers?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 20, 2014, 03:21:17 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 20, 2014, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 20, 2014, 02:37:48 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
The new data sheets are live on NCAA.com

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

Looks like vRRO is based on last week's rankings.

Dumb question, but is anyone else getting the 2013 rankings when they click on the link?

Not a dumb question bopol, as I was going to ask KnightSlappy the same thing. I'm also getting the 2013 numbers instead of this year's.  Help us out here KS. Where's the link to this year's numbers?

I get the current numbers, and I'm clicking the link quoted above.  Maybe you guys need to clear your browser history (might be loading something cached)?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 20, 2014, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 20, 2014, 02:37:48 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
The new data sheets are live on NCAA.com

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

Looks like vRRO is based on last week's rankings.

Dumb question, but is anyone else getting the 2013 rankings when they click on the link?

Not a dumb question bopol, as I was going to ask KnightSlappy the same thing. I'm also getting the 2013 numbers instead of this year's.  Help us out here KS. Where's the link to this year's numbers?

The rankings show up correctly, but the linked data sheets are from last year.

I'm not sure why, but these last two weeks they've removed the data sheets from the rankings page the next day. I saved copies to my computer yesterday.   8-)
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 20, 2014, 03:35:52 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 20, 2014, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 20, 2014, 02:37:48 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
The new data sheets are live on NCAA.com

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

Looks like vRRO is based on last week's rankings.

Dumb question, but is anyone else getting the 2013 rankings when they click on the link?

Not a dumb question bopol, as I was going to ask KnightSlappy the same thing. I'm also getting the 2013 numbers instead of this year's.  Help us out here KS. Where's the link to this year's numbers?

The rankings show up correctly, but the linked data sheets are from last year.

I'm not sure why, but these last two weeks they've removed the data sheets from the rankings page the next day. I saved copies to my computer yesterday.   8-)

Thanks KS,

That's correct. I'm getting the current regional rankings off the link you posted which I already had in my favorites file. When you mentioned the vRRO I then used the link you provided to look at that. That's when I discovered that the PDF files at the bottom of the rankings that bring up the data sheets are bringing up last year's. So you are also getting the same thing now, but yesterday they had this year's data sheet's that have magically disappeared and turned into last year's. Is that correct? ???
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: AO on February 20, 2014, 04:20:33 PM
Maybe I missed something in this thread, but why wasn't the multiplier calculation fixed?
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 20, 2014, 05:08:03 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 03:22:27 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 20, 2014, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: bopol on February 20, 2014, 02:37:48 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
The new data sheets are live on NCAA.com

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

Looks like vRRO is based on last week's rankings.

Dumb question, but is anyone else getting the 2013 rankings when they click on the link?

Not a dumb question bopol, as I was going to ask KnightSlappy the same thing. I'm also getting the 2013 numbers instead of this year's.  Help us out here KS. Where's the link to this year's numbers?

The rankings show up correctly, but the linked data sheets are from last year.

I'm not sure why, but these last two weeks they've removed the data sheets from the rankings page the next day. I saved copies to my computer yesterday.   8-)

Thanks.   I don't suppose you could post them here (or maybe feed them to D3hoops so they can post them.

Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2014, 05:20:39 PM
I click on the PDF links and come up with current stuff, I think.

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank

"Generated 02/17/2014 11:15 AM"


EDIT:

When I click on the link from my post, it's blank, but if I go to

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

and then click on the PDF links at the bottom it works for me.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2014, 05:31:40 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2014, 02:37:17 AM
GREEN is conference leader/winner/#1 seed




   REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
   MW      1      1      Washington U.       20-2, 20-2      UAA      vs Case Western Reserve 2/21, vs Carnegie Mellon 2/23   
   MW      2      2      Illinois Wesleyan       20-3, 20-3      CCIW      WON vs North Park 107-61, at Wheaton (IL) 2/22   
   MW      3      3      Wheaton (Ill.)       17-7, 17-7      CCIW      vs Illinois Wesleyan 2/22   
   MW      4      4      Augustana       18-6, 18-6      CCIW      at North Park 2/22   
   MW      5      5      St. Norbert       19-1, 20-1      MWC      WON at Ripon 78-62, vs Illinois College 2/22   
   MW      6      6      Carthage       14-8, 15-9      CCIW      vs Millikin 2/22   
   MW      7      7      Rose-Hulman       19-4, 19-4      HCAC      WON at Franklin 71-69, at Mount St. Joseph 2/22   
   MW      8      8      MSOE       20-4, 20-4      NACC      WON vs Wisconsin Lutheran 84-70, vs Edgewood


Marian actually won the NACC. They were 17-3 and 19-6 overall. So MSOE should still be in my Pool C only table.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: magicman on February 20, 2014, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2014, 05:20:39 PM
I click on the PDF links and come up with current stuff, I think.

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank

"Generated 02/17/2014 11:15 AM"


EDIT:

When I click on the link from my post, it's blank, but if I go to

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

and then click on the PDF links at the bottom it works for me.

Well, you now get the correct data sheets because after I posted to KnightSlappy at 3:35, I sent the NCAA website an email telling them about the problem they had and that 2013 was showing instead of 2014. A short while later they corrected the problem. So you're welcome! ;D
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2014, 06:09:29 PM
To answer the question as to why the "math" has not been "fixed"... the men's committee has asked for the change, but the overall championships committee isn't budging. "We" are working at providing hard proof of the problem for the men's committee to make the argument again.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: bopol on February 20, 2014, 06:30:35 PM
Quote from: magicman on February 20, 2014, 05:59:08 PM
Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2014, 05:20:39 PM
I click on the PDF links and come up with current stuff, I think.

http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank

"Generated 02/17/2014 11:15 AM"


EDIT:

When I click on the link from my post, it's blank, but if I go to

http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

and then click on the PDF links at the bottom it works for me.

Well, you now get the correct data sheets because after I posted to KnightSlappy at 3:35, I sent the NCAA website an email telling them about the problem they had and that 2013 was showing instead of 2014. A short while later they corrected the problem. So you're welcome! ;D

Thank you.
Title: Re: Pool C
Post by: sac on February 20, 2014, 07:00:59 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 01:48:11 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 20, 2014, 12:07:27 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2014, 11:19:35 AM
    Five ranked teams benefiting the most from the NCAA's SOS calculation method (NCAA/'Correct'):
    1.   NYU – (.551/.498) +.051
    2.   Guilford – (.541/.499) +.041
    3.   Scranton – (.549/.512) +.037
    4.   Dubuque – (.509/.481) +.027
    5.   Whitworth – (.521/.494) + .027

    Those are a little alarming.  I need a refresher on what's incorrect about it.

    Short answer: everything.

    Long answer: they seem to be adding the multiplier to the adjusted win and loss totals, and then summing these for all opponents to come up with weighted OWP and OOWP figures. Example:

    Neutral vs. Opponent A: 10-2 x 1.0 = 10-2
    Neutral vs. Opponent B: 5-5 x 1.0 = 5-5

    Sums to a weighted record of 15-7 = 0.682 OWP

    (Switch Opponent B to a home game. Should be an 'easier' schedule, right?)

    Neutral vs. Opponent A: 10-2 x 1.0 = 10-2
    Home vs. Opponent B: 5-5 x 0.75 = 3.75-3.75[/li][/list]

    Sums to a weighted record of 13.75-5.75= 0.705 OWP (HARDER SCHEDULE!)

    The correct way to do this is to apply the multiplier to the percentages:

    Neutral vs. Opponent A: 10-2 = 0.833 x 1.0 = 0.833
    Neutral vs. Opponent B: 5-5 = 0.500 x 1.0 = 0.500

    Averaging the percentages = 0.667 OWP

    (Switch Opponent B to a home game. Should be an 'easier' schedule, right?)

    Neutral vs. Opponent A: 10-2 = 0.833 x 1.0 = 0.833
    Home vs. Opponent B: 5-5 = 0.500 x 0.75 = 0.375

    Averaging the percentages = 0.604 OWP (it is an easier schedule, YAY!)

    That math works for a soccer record like 4-4-2 and 6-2-2 in your first example.  I still wouldn't do it that way but if nothing else we can blame soccer and hockey.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 21, 2014, 11:39:49 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2014, 06:09:29 PM
    To answer the question as to why the "math" has not been "fixed"... the men's committee has asked for the change, but the overall championships committee isn't budging. "We" are working at providing hard proof of the problem for the men's committee to make the argument again.
    How did that conversation between the committees go?
    Men's committee: "When we apply the multiplier to teams we often end up with the opposite of the desired effect."
    Championships committee: "....................what?  Call me next year if it's still broken."


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2014, 12:02:03 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 21, 2014, 11:39:49 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2014, 06:09:29 PM
    To answer the question as to why the "math" has not been "fixed"... the men's committee has asked for the change, but the overall championships committee isn't budging. "We" are working at providing hard proof of the problem for the men's committee to make the argument again.
    How did that conversation between the committees go?
    Men's committee: "When we apply the multiplier to teams we often end up with the opposite of the desired effect."
    Championships committee: "....................what?  Call me next year if it's still broken."

    "Did you try turning the power off then back on?"

    Yes.

    "Hmmm. Let me put you on hold for a minute"

    Ok.

    [dial tone]
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 21, 2014, 01:43:18 PM
    Quick Quiz:
    Which team has the better SOS?
    Team A:
    Road vs. 20-0
    Road vs. 10-17
    Road vs  7-20

    Team B:
    Road vs. 17-5
    Home vs. 10-17
    Home vs. 7-20
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 21, 2014, 10:59:15 PM
    Well, I think we now have 4 teams that will have travel problems (500 mile rule) as Emory just knocked off NYU and is looking real good for a Pool C spot.  I also think that NYU is DOA as they drop to 15-8 and 0-5 vs RRO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2014, 11:13:31 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 21, 2014, 10:59:15 PM
    Well, I think we now have 4 teams that will have travel problems (500 mile rule) as Emory just knocked off NYU and is looking real good for a Pool C spot.  I also think that NYU is DOA as they drop to 15-8 and 0-5 vs RRO.

    Emory making the field would just about guarantee that Centre hosts a pod. I think they can get there in 500 miles.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: monsoon on February 21, 2014, 11:32:39 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2014, 11:13:31 PM

    Emory making the field would just about guarantee that Centre hosts a pod. I think they can get there in 500 miles.

    Yes, Emory to Centre is under 500 miles.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 22, 2014, 12:58:43 PM
    Yep, I think you guys are right.  Centre will end up with a bracket with Emory playing in it.  I put together a bracket in the last few days and put in Maryville and Ohio Wesleyan as well. 

    Here were my Pool C picks:

       UW-Whitewater    
       Williams    
       Babson    
       Plattsburgh State     
       Emory    
       Geneseo State    
       Wheaton (Ill.)    
       Augustana    
       Bowdoin    
       St. Olaf    
       Ohio Wesleyan     
       Virginia Wesleyan    
       William Paterson    
       Mary Washington    
       Stevenson 
      Springfield    
       Dubuque    
       Carthage    
       Marietta     
      

    The last few picks were really dicey.  Springfield is just 1-4 vs. RRO.  Dubuque is falling apart (3 straight losses in a weak conference), Carthage has 8 losses, Marietta is just 0-4 vs. RRO.  Stevenson is looking pretty good to me at the moment even though they just entered the regional rankings.

    The thing is the next 5 teams I had all just lost (Guilford, Rutgers-Newark, Oglethorpe, NYU and Rhode Island), so I can't see them getting picked.  The teams that could move up have bigger flaws than the bottom of the Pool C (Middlebury is like Carthage without the big wins, MSOE is already behind Carthage is the MW regional rankings, Wittenburg is behind Marietta in the GL, Alveria has 7 losses without a particularly great schedule). 

    The oddballs are Colorado College and Pomona-Pitzer.  Both have a big win and not a lot of losses in D3, but play in relatively weak conferences. 

    In Colorado College, given the lack of a dominant team in the conference, I can't see how they'll get Pool C, as they really have an easier path to Pool A than most other Pool C candidates (i.e., if Marietta loses to a good Mount Union team, that's a loss to an RRO).  The best they could end up with in D3 is 16-6 with 5 losses to teams outside of the RRO.

    In Pomona-Pitzer, at least CMS is in the same conference and they have the St. Thomas win, but their SSO is pretty weak and they would have 6 D3 losses.

    I'd be interested in thoughts on this.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 23, 2014, 04:22:06 PM
    I looked at 4 of the 8 regions and here are some thoughts FWIW:

    Atlantic:

    Rutgers Newark (#3) lost a game this week and slipped into a second place tie in the NJAC with William Patterson (#4).   I wouldn't be surprised to see a reversal in the rankings this week, but the key here is the semifinal tournament game this Wednesday at William Patterson.  The winner will probably end up ahead of the loser in the final regional rankings and would be in great shape for a Pool C.  The loser would be on the bubble.

    East:

    In the SUNYAC, Brockport (#1) and Geneseo (#3) took loses this week, while Plattsburgh (#2) kept winning, though I don't see anything particularly disrupting the rankings, nor the fact that all three teams should be in the tournament. 

    NYU (#6) lost to Emory and now has 8 D3 losses.  With no RRO wins, I can't see how they are in contention for a Pool C bid and I think they could end up displaced by Skidmore, which would hurt Emory in the South, but I don't see Skidmore as a strong Pool C candidate either.

    Stevens (#5) took a loss and also might get displaced with now 8 D3 losses, but the other E8 teams with 7 losses (Nazareth and Alfred (6 D3 losses)) aren't impressive.  I see the Empire 8 as a one-bid league.

    Great Lakes:

    OWU (#3) lost to DePauw, but they are in otherwise good shape and I don't think it hurts their chances at Pool C (which are quite good).

    Mount Union (#5) beat Marietta (#6) but lost to a good, but unranked Wilmington.  Wittenburg (#7) could move up ahead of Marietta and possibly DePauw could displace them completely.  Wittenburg is certainly looking better for Pool C and I'll be watching this region in anticipation as things are just odd enough that order will matter greatly.

    Middle Atlantic:

    Dickinson (#4) lost a game this week, but I expect the impact to be minimal.

    The action is in the MACC.  Messiah (#5) lost to Alvernia (#7).  Hood (#9) also lost to Alvernia.  Stevenson (#6) kept winning.  So, the end result is that Messiah, Alvernia and Stevenson all finished the regular season 13-5 tied for first.  These teams all have promising Pool C chances, as well as Hood hanging in there as a RRO. 

    Let's tackle one at a time:

    Messiah is 19-5 in D3, split with Hood, Alvernia and dropped both games to Stevenson.  They also have a win at Guilford (#6 in the South), so they are likely either 2-3 or 3-4 against RRO (depending on Hood's status).

    Alvernia is 18-7 in D3, split with Messiah and Stevenson and beat Hood twice.   They also lost to Middlebury and Dickinson, so they are either 2-4 or 4-4 against RRO (depending on Hood's status.

    Stevenson is 18-7 in D3, split with Alveria and Hood and beat Messiah twice.  They also have wins vs. Middlebury (#11 in Northeast) and a loss to Oglethorpe (#7 in South).  So their RRO could be many things, at least 3-1 and possibly 3-2, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 5-2 and 5-3.  This will make a big difference.

    My guess is that Hood drops out of the regional rankings in favor of Christopher Newport (with 8 losses, a poor Pool C candidate) and then the order will remain the same as Alvernia's very good week gets hurt by losing the two Hood RRO wins.
    Alvernia plays Messiah in the semifinals of the MACC on Wednesday, so that's huge.  Stevenson gets the easier path, playing Hood/Albright, but I think has little room for error and must make the MACC finals to keep their Pool C hopes alive.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 23, 2014, 04:52:15 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2014, 04:22:06 PM


    Great Lakes:

    OWU (#3) lost to DePauw, but they are in otherwise good shape and I don't think it hurts their chances at Pool C (which are quite good).

    Mount Union (#5) beat Marietta (#6) but lost to a good, but unranked Wilmington.  Wittenburg (#7) could move up ahead of Marietta and possibly DePauw could displace them completely.  Wittenburg is certainly looking better for Pool C and I'll be watching this region in anticipation as things are just odd enough that order will matter greatly.


    I suspect we'll see DePauw in this weeks rankings over Wittenberg.  DePauw has two convincing head-to-head wins and the one thing Witt had over DePauw going into this last poll was Witt's two wins over OWU.  DePauw now has a win over OWU, 2 over Witt and a win over Wooster.

    It's really close, SOS numbers are last weeks
    DePauw     .708/.535/4-4......including Witt
    Wittenberg   .760/.524/2-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 23, 2014, 06:51:31 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 23, 2014, 04:52:15 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2014, 04:22:06 PM


    Great Lakes:

    OWU (#3) lost to DePauw, but they are in otherwise good shape and I don't think it hurts their chances at Pool C (which are quite good).

    Mount Union (#5) beat Marietta (#6) but lost to a good, but unranked Wilmington.  Wittenburg (#7) could move up ahead of Marietta and possibly DePauw could displace them completely.  Wittenburg is certainly looking better for Pool C and I'll be watching this region in anticipation as things are just odd enough that order will matter greatly.


    I suspect we'll see DePauw in this weeks rankings over Wittenberg.  DePauw has two convincing head-to-head wins and the one thing Witt had over DePauw going into this last poll was Witt's two wins over OWU.  DePauw now has a win over OWU, 2 over Witt and a win over Wooster.

    It's really close, SOS numbers are last weeks
    DePauw     .708/.535/4-4......including Witt
    Wittenberg   .760/.524/2-3

    Yes, another conference heading towards a 2/3 showdown that'll probably determine order in regional rankings and could dictate a Pool C chance.  That'll be a great game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 23, 2014, 07:03:38 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2014, 06:51:31 PM
    Yes, another conference heading towards a 2/3 showdown that'll probably determine order in regional rankings and could dictate a Pool C chance.  That'll be a great game.
    Let's not count these chickens quite yet. OWU, Wittenberg, and (especially) DePauw have very tough quarterfinal games on Tuesday. I will be very surprised if all three advance to the weekend, and those who do not advance will be in grave Pool C danger.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 23, 2014, 07:50:39 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 23, 2014, 07:03:38 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2014, 06:51:31 PM
    Yes, another conference heading towards a 2/3 showdown that'll probably determine order in regional rankings and could dictate a Pool C chance.  That'll be a great game.
    Let's not count these chickens quite yet. OWU, Wittenberg, and (especially) DePauw have very tough quarterfinal games on Tuesday. I will be very surprised if all three advance to the weekend, and those who do not advance will be in grave Pool C danger.

    With the losses OWU, Witt, DePauw have accumulated recently I think we're to the point if you don't make the championship you're probably out.

    OWU might be OK with losing Friday but I don't think Witt or DePauw would be in good shape with a loss on Friday or before.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wooscotsfan on February 23, 2014, 08:09:48 PM
    In the 2012 NCAA Tournament, the NCAC got three teams in with Wooster, Wittenberg and Ohio Wesleyan representing the conference.

    It will be interesting to see if the NCAC can get three teams again this year?  The most likely scenario for this to happen would be if Wooster ends up as a Pool C and one other team from the NCAC also gets a Pool C bid.  As a Wooster fan, I rather not have this scenario occur this year. ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 23, 2014, 08:33:53 PM
    Thoughts on the other 4 regions.

    Midwest:

    Oh, goodness – what a mess.  First off, Wheaton (#3) lost to IWU (#2).  Now, Wheaton is a great team with a 5-5 record vs. RRO, but they now have 8 losses and a ninth loss (even with a great SOS and a very good RRO record) would put them in uncharted territory.  But they should stay ahead of Augustana (#4), who have a really solid Pool C resume based on the 2 wins.  Well, it'll be confusing, but it may get sorted out when they meet in the CCIW tournament semifinals.

    Meanwhile MSOE (#8) lost this week and I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop out in favor of Defiance, but as long as both are behind 8 loss Carthage (#6), I don't see the committee getting to either to consider their Pool C merits as Carthage (at best) would be one of the very last few teams in and even that is unlikely.

    Northeast:

    Bowdoin (#6) exited the NESCAC in the quarterfinals.  I think they'll fall behind Springfield (#7), but should be safe for a Pool C bid. 

    Rhode Island (#9) lost but I think they'll stick to the Regional Rankings, though I can't see them making a good Pool C bid.
    South:

    Emory (#3) scored a big win against NYU (East #6) and I think has put themselves in strong Pool C contention with just one game to go. 

    Texas Dallas (#4) lost, but I don't think it'll have an overall impact as Centre (#5) might go above them, but they are all but guaranteed the Pool B bid, so it doesn't matter. 

    Guilford (#6) lost twice to unranked Emory and Henry and #2 Virginia Wesleyan.  I expect they'll drop but I don't know that they'll drop out.  I don't see them getting a Pool C bid now.

    Oglethorpe (#7) also took a bad loss and I think their chances from the Pool C bid are done as well.

    Hardin-Simmons (#8) also lost to Mary Hardin-Baylor. 

    The short of it is that I only see Virginia Wesleyan and Emory as reasonable Pool C candidates from the South at the moment.

    West:

    Dubuque (#5) took another loss this week, but at least got back on track this weekend.  I think they'll drop behind Whitworth (#6) and Ponoma-Pitzer (#7).

    Colorado College (#8) also lost and may drop out. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 23, 2014, 08:38:52 PM
    Here are my Pool C bids (in order):

    1 UW-Whitewater    
    2 Williams    
    3 Plattsburgh State     
    4 Babson    
    5 Augustana    
    6 Geneseo State    
    7 Virginia Wesleyan    
    8 William Paterson    
    9 Emory    
    10 Bowdoin    
    11 Wheaton (Ill.)    
    12 Springfield    
    13 Mary Washington    
    14 St. Olaf    
    15 Ohio Wesleyan     
    16 Dubuque    
    17 Carthage
    18 Stevenson   
    19 Alvernia    
    20 Rutgers-Newark    

    I also considered Wittenburg, DePauw and Guilford. 

    FWIW.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2014, 09:04:12 PM
    Aren't there just 19 Pool C bids?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 23, 2014, 09:07:57 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2014, 09:04:12 PM
    Aren't there just 19 Pool C bids?

    Pool B dropped a bid, Pool C picked it up.

    AQ=41
    B=1
    C=20
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 23, 2014, 09:12:42 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 23, 2014, 09:07:57 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2014, 09:04:12 PM
    Aren't there just 19 Pool C bids?

    Pool B dropped a bid, Pool C picked it up.

    AQ=41
    B=1
    C=20
    I believe you're missing a pool A in there... there's 41 tournaments champs and the UAA champ.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 23, 2014, 09:19:09 PM
    This is what D-Mac posted in another room on this subject:
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2014, 11:44:45 AM
    I will check to see what you are talking about... but we are at 62 teams this year... I don't think we move to 63 for another year or two.
    followed by
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2014, 11:01:30 AM
    42, 1, 19... total of 62.
    That's 42 Pool A (41 tourney champs plus UAA AQ), 1 Pool B, and 19 Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 23, 2014, 09:28:03 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2014, 09:04:12 PM
    Aren't there just 19 Pool C bids?

    Yep, but I went out to 20.  As TitanQ points out, you won't even get to 19 based on upsets in conference tournaments.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2014, 09:47:52 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2014, 02:36:43 AM
    GREEN is conference leader/winner/#1 seed



       REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       ATL      1      1      SUNY-Purchase       21-1, 21-1      SKY      WON at NYU-Poly 78-55, WON vs Sage 84-65, LOST at St. Joseph's (L.I.) 65-61   
       ATL      2      2      Richard Stockton       20-4, 20-4      NJAC      WON at Rowan 75-72    
       ATL      3      3      Rutgers-Newark       18-6, 18-6      NJAC      LOST at Kean 77-73, WON vs Montclaire State 81-73 in NJAC quarterfinals   
       ATL      4      4      William Paterson       19-5, 19-5      NJAC      WON vs Ramapo 81-61   
       ATL      5      5      Staten Island       22-2, 22-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Medgar Evers 111-65, WON vs CCNY 85-47 in CUNYAC quarterfinals   
       ATL      6      6      Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       17-5, 17-5      SKY      WON vs SUNY-Old Westbury 75-45, WON at Yeshiva 63-37, WON vs Farmingdale State 69-58   
                                           




       REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       EAST      1      1      Brockport State       19-2, 20-2      SUNYAC      LOST at Oswego State 95-83, WON vs New Paltz State 86-66, WON vs Oneonta State 86-71   
       EAST      3      2      Plattsburgh State        18-4, 18-4      SUNYAC      WON at Potsdam State 76-61, WON vs Fredonia State 87-63, WON vs Buffalo State 88-73   
       EAST      2      3      Geneseo State       17-4, 18-4      SUNYAC      LOST at Cortland State 65-53, WON vs Oneonta State 68-63, WON vs New Paltz State 79-68   
       EAST      5      4      Hobart        18-6, 18-6      LL      WON vs Union 72-61   
       EAST      6      5      Stevens        14-7, 16-7      E8      LOST at Hartwick 78-72, WON vs Elmira 74-68   
       EAST      4      6      NYU        15-7, 15-7      UAA      LOST at Emory 86-77, WON at Rochester 81-64   
                                              




       REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       GL      1      1      Wooster        19-2, 20-3      NCAC      WON at Allegheny 89-57, WON vs Oberlin 82-53   
       GL      6      2      Hope        16-5, 17-6      MIAA      WON at Kalamazoo 110-78, WON at Adrian 73-56   
       GL      2      3      Ohio Wesleyan        18-5, 18-5      NCAC      WON at Oberlin 93-60, LOST vs DePauw 64-63   
       GL      7      4      Bethany        18-4, 19-4      PAC      WON vs Thomas More 80-77, WON vs Washington and Jefferson 72-69   
       GL      3      5      Mount Union        19-4, 19-4      OAC      WON at Marietta 81-77, LOST at Wilmington 84-77   
       GL      4      6      Marietta        17-5, 18-5      OAC      LOST vs Mount Union 81-77, WON vs John Carroll 94-87   
       GL      5      7      Wittenberg        17-6, 17-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon 80-71, WON at Hiram 86-60   
                                              




       REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       MATL      2      1      Scranton       20-3, 20-3      LAND      WON vs Moravian 67-61, WON vs Goucher 93-76   
       MATL      1      2      Cabrini       20-1, 20-1      CSAC      WON at Neumann 84-72, WON vs Keystone 86-73, WON vs Immaculata 77-66   
       MATL      3      3      Wesley       18-2, 20-2      CAC      WON vs Penn State-Harrisburg 70-40, WON vs St. Mary's (Md.) 64-62   
       MATL      6      4      Dickinson       19-4, 19-4      CC      WON at Muhlenberg 92-86, LOST vs Franklin and Marshall 72-57   
       MATL      4      5      Messiah       18-4, 18-4      MACC      WON vs Widener 80-69, LOST at Alvernia 69-63   
             n/a      6      Stevenson      16-7, 16-7      MACC      WON vs Elizabethtown 65-51, WON at Lebanon Valley 89-73   
       MATL      5      7      Mary Washington       17-5, 18-5      CAC      WON at Southern Virginia 103-97, WON at Penn State-Harrisburg 82-56   
       MATL      7      8      Alvernia       16-7, 16-7      MACC      WON at Hood 76-72, WON vs Messiah 69-63   
       MATL      8      9      Hood       16-7, 16-7      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 76-72, LOST at Lycoming 72-60   
                                              
       DROP                                       
       MATL      9            McDaniel             CC         
                                              




       REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       MW      1      1      Washington U.       20-2, 20-2      UAA      WON vs Case Western Reserve 87-61, WON vs Carnegie Mellon 83-79   
       MW      2      2      Illinois Wesleyan       20-3, 20-3      CCIW      WON vs North Park 107-61, WON at Wheaton (IL) 97-88   
       MW      3      3      Wheaton (Ill.)       17-7, 17-7      CCIW      LOST vs Illinois Wesleyan 97-88   
       MW      4      4      Augustana       18-6, 18-6      CCIW      WON at North Park 91-61   
       MW      5      5      St. Norbert       19-1, 20-1      MWC      WON at Ripon 78-62, WON vs Illinois College 90-63   
       MW      6      6      Carthage       14-8, 15-9      CCIW      WON vs Millikin 79-64   
       MW      7      7      Rose-Hulman       19-4, 19-4      HCAC      WON at Franklin 71-69, LOST at Mount St. Joseph 69-57   
       MW      8      8      MSOE       20-4, 20-4      NACC      WON vs Wisconsin Lutheran 84-70, LOST vs Edgewood 76-60   
                                              





       REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       NE      1      1      Amherst       21-2, 21-3      NESCAC     WON vs Colby 82-72 in NESCAC quarterfinals   
       NE      2      2      Williams       20-3, 21-3      NESCAC      WON vs Tufts 87-77 in NESCAC quarterfinals
       NE      4      3      Babson       18-5, 18-5      NEWMAC      WON at Coast Guard 72-63, WON at MIT 53-42   
       NE      5      4      Eastern Connecticut       18-5, 18-5      LEC      WON vs Western Connecticut 74-59, WON at Southern Maine 68-58   
       NE      6      5      WPI       20-3, 20-3      NEWMAC      WON vs Wheaton (Mass.) 58-46, WON at Clark 65-50   
       NE      3      6      Bowdoin       19-4, 19-4      NESCAC      LOST vs Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 in NESCAC quarterfinals   
       NE      7      7      Springfield       15-6, 16-6      NEWMAC      WON vs Emerson 76-66, WON at Clark 76-64, WON vs Coast Guard 83-60   
       NE      8      8      Albertus Magnus       21-1, 21-2      GNAC      WON at Johnson and Wales 96-81, WON vs Emmanuel 95-78   
       NE      9      9      Rhode Island      16-7, 16-7      LEC      LOST at Mass-Dartmouth 85-73, WON vs Plymouth State 70-59   
       NE      10      10      Nichols       18-5, 18-5      CCC      WON at Eastern Nazarene 88-84, WON at Wentworth 62-61   
       NE      11      11      Middlebury       15-8, 16-8      NESCAC      WON vs Hamilton 81-77 in NESCAC quarterfinals   
                                              




       REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       SOUTH      1      1      Randolph-Macon      18-5, 18-5      ODAC      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 90-67, WON at Washington and Lee 68-62   
       SOUTH      3      2      Virgina Wesleyan       16-6, 17-6      ODAC      WON vs Shenandoah 93-74, WON at Guilford 75-57   
       SOUTH      6      3      Emory       15-7, 15-7      UAA      WON vs NYU 86-77, WON vs Brandeis 85-80   
       SOUTH      2      4      Texas-Dallas       21-2, 21-2      ASC      at Concordia (TX) 2/20, LOST at Mary Hardin-Baylor 75-71   
       SOUTH      4      5      Centre       15-3, 18-4      SAA      WON vs Hendrix 71-55, WON vs Rhodes 70-52   
       SOUTH      5      6      Guilford       16-6, 16-6      ODAC      LOST at Emory and Henry 78-74, WON at Lynchburg 68-66, LOST vs Virginia Wesleyan 75-57   
       SOUTH      7      7      Oglethorpe       17-4, 19-4      SAA      LOST at Birmingham-Southern 75-59, LOST at Millsaps 75-67   
       SOUTH      n/a      8      Hardin-Simmons      16-6, 16-7      ASC      LOST at Mary Hardin-Baylor 83-76, WON at Concordia (TX) 87-70   
                                              
       DROP                                       
       SOUTH      8      n/a      Concordia (Texas)             ASC         
                                              




       REG      #1      #2      TEAM-RECORD      REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       WEST      1      1      UW-Stevens Point       22-1, 22-1      WIAC      WON at Oshkosh 70-51, WON vs Stout 72-49   
       WEST      2      2      UW-Whitewater       21-3, 21-3      WIAC      WON at Eau Claire 82-57   
       WEST      3      3      St. Thomas       20-3, 20-3      MIAC      WON at Gustavus Adolphus 73-68, LOST vs St. John's 76-69   
       WEST      5      4      St. Olaf       18-5, 18-5      MIAC      WON vs Macalester 78-54, WON at Bethel 62-40   
       WEST      4      5      Dubuque       17-3, 20-3      IIAC      LOST at Buena Vista 77-75, WON at Luther 72-66   
       WEST      6      6      Whitworth       19-4, 19-4      NWC      WON vs Whitman 79-76, LOST at Lewis and Clark 73-70   
       WEST      7      7      Pomona-Pitzer       16-5, 16-7      SCIAC      WON at La Verne 65-59, WON vs Occidental 63-53   
       WEST      8      8      Colorado College       14-5, 16-6      SCAC      LOST vs University of Dallas 67-66   
       WEST      n/a      9      Augsburg      16-7, 16-7      MIAC      WON vs Carleton 75-67, WON at St. Mary's (MN) 91-69   
                                              
       DROP                                       
       WEST      9      n/a      C-M-S             SCIAC         
                                              
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 23, 2014, 10:22:07 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 23, 2014, 09:12:42 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 23, 2014, 09:07:57 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2014, 09:04:12 PM
    Aren't there just 19 Pool C bids?

    Pool B dropped a bid, Pool C picked it up.

    AQ=41
    B=1
    C=20
    I believe you're missing a pool A in there... there's 41 tournaments champs and the UAA champ.

    Sorry, was subtracting the SAA AQ from 42 but thats already been done.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2014, 08:35:22 AM
    RPI Rankings Through Sunday. vRRO based on last week's rankings.

    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    NE   01   0.917   0.580   0.664   003   A      22-2    8-0   NESCAC   Amherst
    NE   02   0.875   0.549   0.631   006   C      21-3    4-2   NESCAC   Williams
    NE   03   0.800   0.563   0.622   011   C      20-5    3-4   NEWMAC   Babson
    NE   04   0.800   0.544   0.608   019   A      20-5    3-3   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
    NE   05   0.880   0.517   0.608   020   A      22-3    3-1   NEWMAC   WPI
    NE   06   0.750   0.556   0.604   025   C      18-6    1-4   NEWMAC   Springfield
    NE   07   0.958   0.476   0.597   029   A      23-1    1-0   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
    NE   08   0.792   0.530   0.595   032   C      19-5    1-3   NESCAC   Bowdoin
    NE   09   0.800   0.516   0.587   042   A      20-5    0-2   CCC      Nichols
    NE   10   0.667   0.555   0.583   049   C      16-8    2-4   NESCAC   Middlebury
    NE   11   0.680   0.548   0.581   053   C      17-8    0-3   LEC      Rhode Island College
    ne   12   0.917   0.446   0.563   074   A      22-2    1-0   NAC      Husson
    ne   13   0.667   0.521   0.557   080   A      16-8    1-3   MASCAC   Salem State
    ne   14   0.500   0.574   0.556   083   C      12-12   0-8   UAA      Brandeis
    ne   15   0.739   0.492   0.554   085   C      17-6    1-2   GNAC     Johnson and Wales
    ne   16   0.680   0.496   0.542   113   C      17-8    2-5   NEWMAC   MIT
    ne   17   0.667   0.497   0.540   122   C      16-8    0-5   LEC      Western Connecticut
    ne   18   0.500   0.552   0.539   125   C      11-11   1-5   NESCAC   Colby
    ne   19   0.545   0.535   0.538   128   C      12-10   1-5   NESCAC   Trinity (Conn.)
    ne   20   0.720   0.474   0.535   133   C      18-7    1-2   NAC      Castleton State
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    EA   01   0.875   0.542   0.625   009   A      21-3    3-2   SUNYAC   Brockport State
    EA   02   0.840   0.534   0.610   017   C      21-4    3-3   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
    EA   03   0.792   0.545   0.606   021   C      19-5    2-3   SUNYAC   Geneseo State
    EA   04   0.667   0.548   0.577   056   C      16-8    0-5   UAA      New York University
    EA   05   0.760   0.512   0.574   061   A      19-6    0-1   LL       Hobart
    EA   06   0.640   0.528   0.556   081   C      16-9    2-4   LL       Skidmore
    ea   07   0.714   0.503   0.556   082   A      15-6    0-3   E8       Nazareth
    ea   08   0.652   0.517   0.551   090   C      15-8    1-2   E8       Stevens
    ea   09   0.640   0.517   0.548   099   C      16-9    2-4   SUNYAC   Oswego State
    ea   10   0.720   0.490   0.548   102   C      18-7    0-2   LL       Vassar
    ea   11   0.609   0.526   0.547   104   C      14-9    2-3   E8       St. John Fisher
    ea   12   0.609   0.516   0.539   124   C      14-9    2-3   E8       Hartwick
    ea   13   0.391   0.584   0.535   132   C      9-14    2-6   UAA      Rochester
    ea   14   0.609   0.507   0.533   140   C      14-9    1-2   LL       Clarkson
    ea   15   0.480   0.547   0.531   147   C      12-13   1-7   SUNYAC   Buffalo State
    ea   16   0.560   0.512   0.524   160   C      14-11   1-5   SUNYAC   Cortland State
    ea   17   0.625   0.485   0.520   167   C      15-9    0-4   LL       Rochester Tech
    ea   18   0.480   0.528   0.516   176   C      12-13   0-6   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
    ea   19   0.650   0.466   0.512   187   C      13-7    1-1   E8       Alfred
    ea   20   0.652   0.446   0.498   213   C      15-8    0-2   NEAC     Morrisville State
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    AT   01   0.920   0.506   0.610   018   A      23-2    4-1   SKY      SUNY-Purchase
    AT   02   0.840   0.528   0.606   022   A      21-4    3-2   NJAC     Richard Stockton
    AT   03   0.923   0.477   0.589   039   A      24-2    0-0   CUNYAC   Staten Island
    AT   04   0.800   0.511   0.583   048   C      20-5    2-2   NJAC     William Paterson
    AT   05   0.731   0.523   0.575   060   C      19-7    3-2   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
    AT   06   0.800   0.485   0.564   073   C      20-5    0-4   SKY      Mount St. Mary
    at   07   0.720   0.490   0.548   100   C      18-7    0-4   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
    at   08   0.542   0.536   0.538   129   C      13-11   2-7   NJAC     Kean
    at   09   0.520   0.511   0.513   183   C      13-12   2-6   NJAC     New Jersey City
    at   10   0.560   0.497   0.512   185   C      14-11   0-6   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
    at   11   0.680   0.456   0.512   189   C      17-8    0-5   SKY      Farmingdale State
    at   12   0.560   0.493   0.510   193   C      14-11   0-4   CUNYAC   Baruch
    at   13   0.391   0.548   0.509   195   C      9-14    2-8   NJAC     Montclair State
    at   14   0.480   0.512   0.504   202   C      12-13   2-4   CUNYAC   Brooklyn
    at   15   0.435   0.522   0.500   209   C      10-13   1-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
    at   16   0.565   0.475   0.497   214   C      13-10   0-4   SKY      Sage
    at   17   0.360   0.527   0.485   240   C      9-16    1-7   NJAC     Ramapo
    at   18   0.381   0.519   0.484   243   C      8-13    0-6   NJAC     Rowan
    at   19   0.478   0.486   0.484   244   C      11-12   0-5   CUNYAC   Lehman
    at   20   0.435   0.489   0.475   269   C      10-13   0-4   CUNYAC   Hunter
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    MA   01   0.880   0.544   0.628   008   A      22-3    2-1   LAND     Scranton
    MA   02   0.958   0.505   0.619   014   A      23-1    2-0   CSAC     Cabrini
    MA   03   0.909   0.520   0.617   015   A      20-2    3-0   CAC      Wesley
    MA   04   0.792   0.527   0.593   033   C      19-5    3-4   MACC     Messiah
    MA   05   0.783   0.529   0.592   035   C      18-5    1-2   CAC      Mary Washington
    MA   06   0.800   0.522   0.592   036   A      20-5    2-1   CC       Dickinson
    MA   07   0.682   0.557   0.588   040   C      15-7    1-5   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
    MA   08   0.720   0.541   0.586   045   A      18-7    4-4   MACC     Alvernia
    MA   09   0.652   0.553   0.578   055   C      15-8    3-4   CAC      Christopher Newport
    ma   10   0.720   0.522   0.572   065   C      18-7    5-3   MACC     Stevenson
    ma   11   0.708   0.504   0.555   084   C      17-7    1-3   CSAC     Neumann
    ma   12   0.783   0.475   0.552   089   C      18-5    0-2   CSAC     Gwynedd-Mercy
    ma   13   0.708   0.498   0.551   091   C      17-7    0-3   CC       McDaniel
    ma   14   0.680   0.507   0.550   093   C      17-8    2-1   CC       Franklin and Marshall
    ma   15   0.625   0.522   0.548   101   C      15-9    2-4   MACC     Hood
    ma   16   0.583   0.535   0.547   103   C      14-10   0-5   CC       Johns Hopkins
    ma   17   0.583   0.535   0.547   105   C      14-10   2-1   LAND     Juniata
    ma   18   0.591   0.528   0.544   110   C      13-9    0-2   LAND     Susquehanna
    ma   19   0.583   0.528   0.542   114   C      14-10   0-5   LAND     Catholic
    ma   20   0.625   0.513   0.541   118   C      15-9    1-2   CC       Muhlenberg
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    SO   01   0.708   0.596   0.624   010   C      17-7    2-4   UAA      Emory
    SO   02   0.800   0.559   0.619   013   A      20-5    3-3   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
    SO   03   0.750   0.545   0.597   030   C      18-6    3-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
    SO   04   0.850   0.510   0.595   031   B      17-3    2-1   SAA      Centre
    SO   05   0.880   0.494   0.591   037   A      22-3    1-1   ASC      Texas-Dallas
    SO   06   0.640   0.555   0.576   059   C      16-9    6-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
    SO   07   0.680   0.535   0.571   066   C      17-8    1-5   ODAC     Guilford
    SO   08   0.640   0.543   0.567   069   A      16-9    3-3   SCAC     Trinity (Texas)
    so   09   0.773   0.492   0.562   076   A      17-5    0-3   USAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
    so   10   0.739   0.502   0.561   078   C      17-6    2-2   SAA      Oglethorpe
    so   11   0.520   0.560   0.550   092   C      13-12   2-7   ODAC     Hampden-Sydney
    so   12   0.708   0.496   0.549   095   C      17-7    1-1   ASC      Hardin-Simmons
    so   13   0.652   0.508   0.544   109   C      15-8    0-5   ODAC     Lynchburg
    so   14   0.680   0.497   0.543   111   C      17-8    2-2   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
    so   15   0.583   0.527   0.541   116   C      14-10   4-0   SCAC     Schreiner
    so   16   0.565   0.531   0.539   123   C      13-10   3-2   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
    so   17   0.696   0.481   0.535   134   A      16-7    0-2   SLIAC    Spalding
    so   18   0.625   0.501   0.532   144   C      15-9    1-3   ASC      Concordia (Texas)
    so   19   0.524   0.534   0.532   146   C      11-10   2-3   ODAC     Bridgewater (Va.)
    so   20   0.583   0.513   0.530   148   C      14-10   0-6   ODAC     Randolph
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    GL   01   0.913   0.534   0.629   007   A      21-2    5-1   NCAC     Wooster
    GL   02   0.783   0.544   0.604   026   A      18-5    2-4   MIAA     Hope
    GL   03   0.750   0.534   0.588   041   C      18-6    0-4   OAC      Marietta
    GL   04   0.833   0.504   0.587   043   A      20-4    1-0   PrAC     Bethany
    GL   05   0.760   0.528   0.586   044   C      19-6    2-3   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
    GL   06   0.800   0.510   0.583   050   A      20-5    2-1   OAC      Mount Union
    GL   07   0.708   0.539   0.581   052   C      17-7    4-4   NCAC     DePauw
    gl   08   0.760   0.511   0.574   062   C      19-6    2-3   NCAC     Wittenberg
    gl   09   0.652   0.533   0.563   075   C      15-8    1-4   OAC      Wilmington
    gl   10   0.640   0.533   0.560   079   C      16-9    2-3   OAC      Ohio Northern
    gl   11   0.840   0.456   0.552   086   A      21-4    1-0   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
    gl   12   0.810   0.464   0.550   094   C      17-4    1-3   MIAA     Calvin
    gl   13   0.762   0.473   0.545   108   C      16-5    1-1   PrAC     St. Vincent
    gl   14   0.542   0.543   0.543   112   C      13-11   2-5   UAA      Case Western Reserve
    gl   15   0.542   0.534   0.536   131   C      13-11   1-4   PrAC     Thomas More
    gl   16   0.520   0.540   0.535   135   C      13-12   0-6   OAC      Baldwin Wallace
    gl   17   0.600   0.507   0.530   150   C      15-10   0-5   OAC      John Carroll
    gl   18   0.480   0.545   0.529   152   C      12-13   2-4   OAC      Capital
    gl   19   0.739   0.455   0.526   156   C      17-6    0-0   AMCC     Hilbert
    gl   20   0.435   0.556   0.526   158   C      10-13   1-5   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    MW   01   0.917   0.589   0.671   002   A      22-2    6-2   UAA      Washington U.
    MW   02   0.880   0.554   0.635   005   A      22-3    6-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
    MW   03   0.955   0.510   0.621   012   A      21-1    0-1   MWC      St. Norbert
    MW   04   0.680   0.592   0.614   016   C      17-8    5-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
    MW   05   0.652   0.590   0.605   023   C      15-8    4-6   CCIW     Carthage
    MW   06   0.760   0.551   0.603   028   C      19-6    4-3   CCIW     Augustana
    MW   07   0.800   0.513   0.585   046   A      20-5    0-1   HCAC     Rose-Hulman
    MW   08   0.609   0.574   0.582   051   C      14-9    3-6   UAA      Chicago
    mw   09   0.760   0.511   0.573   063   A      19-6    1-1   NATHC    Marian
    mw   10   0.826   0.486   0.571   067   C      19-4    0-3   HCAC     Defiance
    mw   11   0.808   0.491   0.571   068   C      21-5    0-0   NATHC    Milwaukee Engineering
    mw   12   0.500   0.589   0.566   071   C      11-11   3-7   CCIW     North Central (Ill.)
    mw   13   0.692   0.518   0.561   077   C      18-8    0-3   NATHC    Aurora
    mw   14   0.720   0.496   0.552   087   C      18-7    1-1   NATHC    Lakeland
    mw   15   0.680   0.509   0.552   088   C      17-8    1-3   HCAC     Hanover
    mw   16   0.667   0.510   0.549   096   C      16-8    1-2   HCAC     Mount St. Joseph
    mw   17   0.583   0.537   0.549   097   C      14-10   2-6   CCIW     Elmhurst
    mw   18   0.652   0.511   0.546   106   C      15-8    0-2   MWC      Ripon
    mw   19   0.762   0.473   0.545   107   C      16-5    0-2   MWC      Grinnell
    mw   20   0.652   0.499   0.538   130   C      15-8    1-3   MWC      Carroll
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    WE   01   0.960   0.579   0.674   001   A      24-1    5-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
    WE   02   0.880   0.563   0.642   004   C      22-3    4-1   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
    WE   03   0.840   0.527   0.605   024   A      21-4    4-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
    WE   04   0.800   0.538   0.604   027   C      20-5    1-5   MIAC     St. Olaf
    WE   05   0.800   0.524   0.593   034   A      20-5    0-3   NWC      Whitworth
    WE   06   0.818   0.513   0.589   038   C      18-4    1-0   IIAC     Dubuque
    WE   07   0.850   0.495   0.584   047   A      17-3    1-1   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
    WE   08   0.636   0.560   0.579   054   C      14-8    1-4   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
    we   09   0.700   0.536   0.577   057   C      14-6    2-1   SCAC     Colorado College
    we   10   0.783   0.508   0.577   058   C      18-5    1-0   SCIAC    Pomona-Pitzer
    we   11   0.583   0.570   0.573   064   C      14-10   1-7   WIAC     UW-Platteville
    we   12   0.720   0.516   0.567   070   C      18-7    1-4   MIAC     Augsburg
    we   13   0.762   0.500   0.565   072   A      16-5    1-2   IIAC     Central
    we   14   0.625   0.523   0.549   098   C      15-9    3-4   MIAC     St. Johns
    we   15   0.500   0.555   0.541   115   C      11-11   1-4   WIAC     UW-Stout
    we   16   0.640   0.508   0.541   117   C      16-9    1-5   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
    we   17   0.478   0.562   0.541   119   C      11-12   0-7   WIAC     UW-Oshkosh
    we   18   0.640   0.507   0.540   121   C      16-9    0-4   NWC      Whitman
    we   19   0.684   0.490   0.538   126   C      13-6    1-1   NWC      Lewis and Clark
    we   20   0.571   0.527   0.538   127   C      12-9    0-2   IIAC     Luther
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    B    01   0.850   0.510   0.595   031   B      17-3    2-1   SAA      Centre
    b    02   0.640   0.555   0.576   059   C      16-9    6-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
    b    03   0.739   0.502   0.561   078   C      17-6    2-2   SAA      Oglethorpe
    b    04   0.560   0.500   0.515   177   C      14-11   0-5   SAA      Rhodes
                                  
    Regions are sorted by RPI                              
    RPI isn't an actual selection criterion                              
    Pool A designates AQ conference leader (using RPI as tiebreaker)                              
    Adjust accordingly for results vs. regionally ranked opponents                              
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2014, 08:58:24 AM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 23, 2014, 08:09:48 PM
    In the 2012 NCAA Tournament, the NCAC got three teams in with Wooster, Wittenberg and Ohio Wesleyan representing the conference.

    It will be interesting to see if the NCAC can get three teams again this year?  The most likely scenario for this to happen would be if Wooster ends up as a Pool C and one other team from the NCAC also gets a Pool C bid.  As a Wooster fan, I rather not have this scenario occur this year. ::)

    I think the only chance for three for the NCAC would be for OWU to beat Wooster in the semis and then lose to Witt/DePauw in the finals.

    Wooster is getting in no matter what, but otherwise only Ohio Wesleyan looks to have even a decent chance for a Pool C (though nothing like a slam dunk). If Wooster wins the NCAC Tournament, there's a very real chance that this turns into a one bid league.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2014, 10:13:27 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2014, 08:38:52 PM
    Here are my Pool C bids (in order):

    1 UW-Whitewater (1)
    2 Williams (2)
    3 Plattsburgh State (6)
    4 Babson (4)
    5 Augustana (11)
    6 Geneseo State (7)
    7 Virginia Wesleyan (12)
    8 William Paterson (21)
    9 Emory (3)
    10 Bowdoin (13)
    11 Wheaton (Ill.) (5)
    12 Springfield (9)
    13 Mary Washington (15)   
    14 St. Olaf (10)
    15 Ohio Wesleyan (19) 
    16 Dubuque (16)
    17 Carthage (8)
    18 Stevenson (Pool A?)
    19 Alvernia (20)
    20 Rutgers-Newark (32)

    I also considered Wittenburg, DePauw and Guilford. 

    FWIW.

    I've gone ahead and filled in RPI rank.

    Others under consideration:

    Messiah (14)
    St. Mary's (Md.) (17)
    Marietta (18)
    Middlebury (22)
    DePauw (24)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2014, 11:13:45 AM
    I had Messiah highlighted as the conference leader going into the week. They lost to Alvernia forcing a 3-way tie with Stevenson getting the #1 seed. They were 3-1 vs Alvernia and Messiah. Alvernia was 2-2  against Messiah and Stevenson and Messiah 1-3, I believe.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 11:33:17 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2014, 08:35:22 AM
    RPI Rankings Through Sunday. vRRO based on last week's rankings.

    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    NE   01   0.917   0.580   0.664   003   A      22-2    8-0   NESCAC   Amherst
    NE   02   0.875   0.549   0.631   006   C      21-3    4-2   NESCAC   Williams
    NE   03   0.800   0.563   0.622   011   C      20-5    3-4   NEWMAC   Babson
    NE   04   0.800   0.544   0.608   019   A      20-5    3-3   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
    NE   05   0.880   0.517   0.608   020   A      22-3    3-1   NEWMAC   WPI
    NE   06   0.750   0.556   0.604   025   C      18-6    1-4   NEWMAC   Springfield
    NE   07   0.958   0.476   0.597   029   A      23-1    1-0   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
    NE   08   0.792   0.530   0.595   032   C      19-5    1-3   NESCAC   Bowdoin
    NE   09   0.800   0.516   0.587   042   A      20-5    0-2   CCC      Nichols
    NE   10   0.667   0.555   0.583   049   C      16-8    2-4   NESCAC   Middlebury
    NE   11   0.680   0.548   0.581   053   C      17-8    0-3   LEC      Rhode Island College
    ne   12   0.917   0.446   0.563   074   A      22-2    1-0   NAC      Husson
    ne   13   0.667   0.521   0.557   080   A      16-8    1-3   MASCAC   Salem State
    ne   14   0.500   0.574   0.556   083   C      12-12   0-8   UAA      Brandeis
    ne   15   0.739   0.492   0.554   085   C      17-6    1-2   GNAC     Johnson and Wales
    ne   16   0.680   0.496   0.542   113   C      17-8    2-5   NEWMAC   MIT
    ne   17   0.667   0.497   0.540   122   C      16-8    0-5   LEC      Western Connecticut
    ne   18   0.500   0.552   0.539   125   C      11-11   1-5   NESCAC   Colby
    ne   19   0.545   0.535   0.538   128   C      12-10   1-5   NESCAC   Trinity (Conn.)
    ne   20   0.720   0.474   0.535   133   C      18-7    1-2   NAC      Castleton State
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    EA   01   0.875   0.542   0.625   009   A      21-3    3-2   SUNYAC   Brockport State
    EA   02   0.840   0.534   0.610   017   C      21-4    3-3   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
    EA   03   0.792   0.545   0.606   021   C      19-5    2-3   SUNYAC   Geneseo State
    EA   04   0.667   0.548   0.577   056   C      16-8    0-5   UAA      New York University
    EA   05   0.760   0.512   0.574   061   A      19-6    0-1   LL       Hobart
    EA   06   0.640   0.528   0.556   081   C      16-9    2-4   LL       Skidmore
    ea   07   0.714   0.503   0.556   082   A      15-6    0-3   E8       Nazareth
    ea   08   0.652   0.517   0.551   090   C      15-8    1-2   E8       Stevens
    ea   09   0.640   0.517   0.548   099   C      16-9    2-4   SUNYAC   Oswego State
    ea   10   0.720   0.490   0.548   102   C      18-7    0-2   LL       Vassar
    ea   11   0.609   0.526   0.547   104   C      14-9    2-3   E8       St. John Fisher
    ea   12   0.609   0.516   0.539   124   C      14-9    2-3   E8       Hartwick
    ea   13   0.391   0.584   0.535   132   C      9-14    2-6   UAA      Rochester
    ea   14   0.609   0.507   0.533   140   C      14-9    1-2   LL       Clarkson
    ea   15   0.480   0.547   0.531   147   C      12-13   1-7   SUNYAC   Buffalo State
    ea   16   0.560   0.512   0.524   160   C      14-11   1-5   SUNYAC   Cortland State
    ea   17   0.625   0.485   0.520   167   C      15-9    0-4   LL       Rochester Tech
    ea   18   0.480   0.528   0.516   176   C      12-13   0-6   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
    ea   19   0.650   0.466   0.512   187   C      13-7    1-1   E8       Alfred
    ea   20   0.652   0.446   0.498   213   C      15-8    0-2   NEAC     Morrisville State
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    AT   01   0.920   0.506   0.610   018   A      23-2    4-1   SKY      SUNY-Purchase
    AT   02   0.840   0.528   0.606   022   A      21-4    3-2   NJAC     Richard Stockton
    AT   03   0.923   0.477   0.589   039   A      24-2    0-0   CUNYAC   Staten Island
    AT   04   0.800   0.511   0.583   048   C      20-5    2-2   NJAC     William Paterson
    AT   05   0.731   0.523   0.575   060   C      19-7    3-2   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
    AT   06   0.800   0.485   0.564   073   C      20-5    0-4   SKY      Mount St. Mary
    at   07   0.720   0.490   0.548   100   C      18-7    0-4   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
    at   08   0.542   0.536   0.538   129   C      13-11   2-7   NJAC     Kean
    at   09   0.520   0.511   0.513   183   C      13-12   2-6   NJAC     New Jersey City
    at   10   0.560   0.497   0.512   185   C      14-11   0-6   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
    at   11   0.680   0.456   0.512   189   C      17-8    0-5   SKY      Farmingdale State
    at   12   0.560   0.493   0.510   193   C      14-11   0-4   CUNYAC   Baruch
    at   13   0.391   0.548   0.509   195   C      9-14    2-8   NJAC     Montclair State
    at   14   0.480   0.512   0.504   202   C      12-13   2-4   CUNYAC   Brooklyn
    at   15   0.435   0.522   0.500   209   C      10-13   1-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
    at   16   0.565   0.475   0.497   214   C      13-10   0-4   SKY      Sage
    at   17   0.360   0.527   0.485   240   C      9-16    1-7   NJAC     Ramapo
    at   18   0.381   0.519   0.484   243   C      8-13    0-6   NJAC     Rowan
    at   19   0.478   0.486   0.484   244   C      11-12   0-5   CUNYAC   Lehman
    at   20   0.435   0.489   0.475   269   C      10-13   0-4   CUNYAC   Hunter
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    MA   01   0.880   0.544   0.628   008   A      22-3    2-1   LAND     Scranton
    MA   02   0.958   0.505   0.619   014   A      23-1    2-0   CSAC     Cabrini
    MA   03   0.909   0.520   0.617   015   A      20-2    3-0   CAC      Wesley
    MA   04   0.792   0.527   0.593   033   C      19-5    3-4   MACC     Messiah
    MA   05   0.783   0.529   0.592   035   C      18-5    1-2   CAC      Mary Washington
    MA   06   0.800   0.522   0.592   036   A      20-5    2-1   CC       Dickinson
    MA   07   0.682   0.557   0.588   040   C      15-7    1-5   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
    MA   08   0.720   0.541   0.586   045   A      18-7    4-4   MACC     Alvernia
    MA   09   0.652   0.553   0.578   055   C      15-8    3-4   CAC      Christopher Newport
    ma   10   0.720   0.522   0.572   065   C      18-7    5-3   MACC     Stevenson
    ma   11   0.708   0.504   0.555   084   C      17-7    1-3   CSAC     Neumann
    ma   12   0.783   0.475   0.552   089   C      18-5    0-2   CSAC     Gwynedd-Mercy
    ma   13   0.708   0.498   0.551   091   C      17-7    0-3   CC       McDaniel
    ma   14   0.680   0.507   0.550   093   C      17-8    2-1   CC       Franklin and Marshall
    ma   15   0.625   0.522   0.548   101   C      15-9    2-4   MACC     Hood
    ma   16   0.583   0.535   0.547   103   C      14-10   0-5   CC       Johns Hopkins
    ma   17   0.583   0.535   0.547   105   C      14-10   2-1   LAND     Juniata
    ma   18   0.591   0.528   0.544   110   C      13-9    0-2   LAND     Susquehanna
    ma   19   0.583   0.528   0.542   114   C      14-10   0-5   LAND     Catholic
    ma   20   0.625   0.513   0.541   118   C      15-9    1-2   CC       Muhlenberg
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    SO   01   0.708   0.596   0.624   010   C      17-7    2-4   UAA      Emory
    SO   02   0.800   0.559   0.619   013   A      20-5    3-3   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
    SO   03   0.750   0.545   0.597   030   C      18-6    3-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
    SO   04   0.850   0.510   0.595   031   B      17-3    2-1   SAA      Centre
    SO   05   0.880   0.494   0.591   037   A      22-3    1-1   ASC      Texas-Dallas
    SO   06   0.640   0.555   0.576   059   C      16-9    6-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
    SO   07   0.680   0.535   0.571   066   C      17-8    1-5   ODAC     Guilford
    SO   08   0.640   0.543   0.567   069   A      16-9    3-3   SCAC     Trinity (Texas)
    so   09   0.773   0.492   0.562   076   A      17-5    0-3   USAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
    so   10   0.739   0.502   0.561   078   C      17-6    2-2   SAA      Oglethorpe
    so   11   0.520   0.560   0.550   092   C      13-12   2-7   ODAC     Hampden-Sydney
    so   12   0.708   0.496   0.549   095   C      17-7    1-1   ASC      Hardin-Simmons
    so   13   0.652   0.508   0.544   109   C      15-8    0-5   ODAC     Lynchburg
    so   14   0.680   0.497   0.543   111   C      17-8    2-2   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
    so   15   0.583   0.527   0.541   116   C      14-10   4-0   SCAC     Schreiner
    so   16   0.565   0.531   0.539   123   C      13-10   3-2   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
    so   17   0.696   0.481   0.535   134   A      16-7    0-2   SLIAC    Spalding
    so   18   0.625   0.501   0.532   144   C      15-9    1-3   ASC      Concordia (Texas)
    so   19   0.524   0.534   0.532   146   C      11-10   2-3   ODAC     Bridgewater (Va.)
    so   20   0.583   0.513   0.530   148   C      14-10   0-6   ODAC     Randolph
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    GL   01   0.913   0.534   0.629   007   A      21-2    5-1   NCAC     Wooster
    GL   02   0.783   0.544   0.604   026   A      18-5    2-4   MIAA     Hope
    GL   03   0.750   0.534   0.588   041   C      18-6    0-4   OAC      Marietta
    GL   04   0.833   0.504   0.587   043   A      20-4    1-0   PrAC     Bethany
    GL   05   0.760   0.528   0.586   044   C      19-6    2-3   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
    GL   06   0.800   0.510   0.583   050   A      20-5    2-1   OAC      Mount Union
    GL   07   0.708   0.539   0.581   052   C      17-7    4-4   NCAC     DePauw
    gl   08   0.760   0.511   0.574   062   C      19-6    2-3   NCAC     Wittenberg
    gl   09   0.652   0.533   0.563   075   C      15-8    1-4   OAC      Wilmington
    gl   10   0.640   0.533   0.560   079   C      16-9    2-3   OAC      Ohio Northern
    gl   11   0.840   0.456   0.552   086   A      21-4    1-0   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
    gl   12   0.810   0.464   0.550   094   C      17-4    1-3   MIAA     Calvin
    gl   13   0.762   0.473   0.545   108   C      16-5    1-1   PrAC     St. Vincent
    gl   14   0.542   0.543   0.543   112   C      13-11   2-5   UAA      Case Western Reserve
    gl   15   0.542   0.534   0.536   131   C      13-11   1-4   PrAC     Thomas More
    gl   16   0.520   0.540   0.535   135   C      13-12   0-6   OAC      Baldwin Wallace
    gl   17   0.600   0.507   0.530   150   C      15-10   0-5   OAC      John Carroll
    gl   18   0.480   0.545   0.529   152   C      12-13   2-4   OAC      Capital
    gl   19   0.739   0.455   0.526   156   C      17-6    0-0   AMCC     Hilbert
    gl   20   0.435   0.556   0.526   158   C      10-13   1-5   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    MW   01   0.917   0.589   0.671   002   A      22-2    6-2   UAA      Washington U.
    MW   02   0.880   0.554   0.635   005   A      22-3    6-2   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
    MW   03   0.955   0.510   0.621   012   A      21-1    0-1   MWC      St. Norbert
    MW   04   0.680   0.592   0.614   016   C      17-8    5-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
    MW   05   0.652   0.590   0.605   023   C      15-8    4-6   CCIW     Carthage
    MW   06   0.760   0.551   0.603   028   C      19-6    4-3   CCIW     Augustana
    MW   07   0.800   0.513   0.585   046   A      20-5    0-1   HCAC     Rose-Hulman
    MW   08   0.609   0.574   0.582   051   C      14-9    3-6   UAA      Chicago
    mw   09   0.760   0.511   0.573   063   A      19-6    1-1   NATHC    Marian
    mw   10   0.826   0.486   0.571   067   C      19-4    0-3   HCAC     Defiance
    mw   11   0.808   0.491   0.571   068   C      21-5    0-0   NATHC    Milwaukee Engineering
    mw   12   0.500   0.589   0.566   071   C      11-11   3-7   CCIW     North Central (Ill.)
    mw   13   0.692   0.518   0.561   077   C      18-8    0-3   NATHC    Aurora
    mw   14   0.720   0.496   0.552   087   C      18-7    1-1   NATHC    Lakeland
    mw   15   0.680   0.509   0.552   088   C      17-8    1-3   HCAC     Hanover
    mw   16   0.667   0.510   0.549   096   C      16-8    1-2   HCAC     Mount St. Joseph
    mw   17   0.583   0.537   0.549   097   C      14-10   2-6   CCIW     Elmhurst
    mw   18   0.652   0.511   0.546   106   C      15-8    0-2   MWC      Ripon
    mw   19   0.762   0.473   0.545   107   C      16-5    0-2   MWC      Grinnell
    mw   20   0.652   0.499   0.538   130   C      15-8    1-3   MWC      Carroll
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    WE   01   0.960   0.579   0.674   001   A      24-1    5-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
    WE   02   0.880   0.563   0.642   004   C      22-3    4-1   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
    WE   03   0.840   0.527   0.605   024   A      21-4    4-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
    WE   04   0.800   0.538   0.604   027   C      20-5    1-5   MIAC     St. Olaf
    WE   05   0.800   0.524   0.593   034   A      20-5    0-3   NWC      Whitworth
    WE   06   0.818   0.513   0.589   038   C      18-4    1-0   IIAC     Dubuque
    WE   07   0.850   0.495   0.584   047   A      17-3    1-1   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
    WE   08   0.636   0.560   0.579   054   C      14-8    1-4   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
    we   09   0.700   0.536   0.577   057   C      14-6    2-1   SCAC     Colorado College
    we   10   0.783   0.508   0.577   058   C      18-5    1-0   SCIAC    Pomona-Pitzer
    we   11   0.583   0.570   0.573   064   C      14-10   1-7   WIAC     UW-Platteville
    we   12   0.720   0.516   0.567   070   C      18-7    1-4   MIAC     Augsburg
    we   13   0.762   0.500   0.565   072   A      16-5    1-2   IIAC     Central
    we   14   0.625   0.523   0.549   098   C      15-9    3-4   MIAC     St. Johns
    we   15   0.500   0.555   0.541   115   C      11-11   1-4   WIAC     UW-Stout
    we   16   0.640   0.508   0.541   117   C      16-9    1-5   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
    we   17   0.478   0.562   0.541   119   C      11-12   0-7   WIAC     UW-Oshkosh
    we   18   0.640   0.507   0.540   121   C      16-9    0-4   NWC      Whitman
    we   19   0.684   0.490   0.538   126   C      13-6    1-1   NWC      Lewis and Clark
    we   20   0.571   0.527   0.538   127   C      12-9    0-2   IIAC     Luther
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    B    01   0.850   0.510   0.595   031   B      17-3    2-1   SAA      Centre
    b    02   0.640   0.555   0.576   059   C      16-9    6-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
    b    03   0.739   0.502   0.561   078   C      17-6    2-2   SAA      Oglethorpe
    b    04   0.560   0.500   0.515   177   C      14-11   0-5   SAA      Rhodes
                                  
    Regions are sorted by RPI                              
    RPI isn't an actual selection criterion                              
    Pool A designates AQ conference leader (using RPI as tiebreaker)                              
    Adjust accordingly for results vs. regionally ranked opponents                              


    Can you explain what this means? What does "NAT" stand for? What criteria is used to determine tourney hosting? What does vRRO and RPI signify? What is most important to the NCAA? Will they choose more Pool A or Pool C teams to host? Or does it not matter?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2014, 01:13:22 PM
    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 11:33:17 AM
    Can you explain what this means?

    It's a loose approximation of the regional rankings using RPI as a guide.

    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 11:33:17 AM
    What does "NAT" stand for?

    National RPI Rank.

    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 11:33:17 AMWhat criteria is used to determine tourney hosting?

    Same criteria as for the regional rankings and selection, but geography plays heavily into the hosting decision (i.e. they try as much as possible to keep teams within 500 miles to save on $$).

    Here is a good FAQ from D3hoops.com:
    http://d3hoops.com/interactive/faq/ncaatournament#seed (just replace versus 'regional competition' with 'all Division III opponents')

    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 11:33:17 AM
    What does vRRO and RPI signify?

    vRRO is shorthand for results "versus regionally ranked opponents". RPI is a standard way for combining winning percentage and strength of schedule, but it isn't actually used by the Division III selection committee.

    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 11:33:17 AM
    What is most important to the NCAA?

    That the status quo is maintained.

    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 11:33:17 AM
    Will they choose more Pool A or Pool C teams to host? Or does it not matter?

    Pool doesn't matter for hosting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 24, 2014, 01:19:08 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 21, 2014, 01:43:18 PM
    Quick Quiz:
    Which team has the better SOS?
    Team A:
    Road vs. 20-0
    Road vs. 10-17
    Road vs  7-20

    Team B:
    Road vs. 17-5
    Home vs. 10-17
    Home vs. 7-20
    Time's Up.

    These two teams have the same OWP according to NCAA calculations.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 01:49:41 PM
    Thank you KnightSlappy! Very informative. So what criteria (since they don't use RPI) does the ncaa use to seed the teams nationally? Is it some calculation similar to RPI? Then..could we assume the teams that will host will likely be the top 16 teams on the national level (with a few outliers due to geography issues)? Does the NAT RPI ranking listed above give a good picture of what teams will host? Or am I assuming too much?

    Oh also how do they deal with distributing the regions when there are a disproportionate number of good teams in one area and few in other regions? I.e. Will they have exactly 2 teams from each region host or could there be 3 hosting from one region and only 1 hosting in another?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2014, 01:56:06 PM
    There is definitely a chance more than two teams in any given region will host. Partially dependent, as you said, on where the "good" teams are but also based on where there are just plain more teams. You need more than two hosts in New England in any given year, for example.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2014, 02:03:09 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2014, 01:13:22 PM


    Pool doesn't matter for hosting.

    That's not entirely true.  It isn't high in their calculations and there's nothing official denoting it, but there are times when they'll give hosting to a Pool A over a Pool C if geography and rankings are close enough to allow for a decision.

    It's rare, but it certainly has come into play from time to time.

    Just as a "for instance" - there are plenty of occasions in which Williams and Amherst are virtually identical as candidates (maybe not this year, but often), when one beats the other in the NESCAC final to even the season series at 1-1.  They'll usually go with the Pool A over the Pool C in that instance.

    But in the grand scheme of things, it's not worth worrying about.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2014, 02:14:19 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2014, 02:03:09 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2014, 01:13:22 PM


    Pool doesn't matter for hosting.

    That's not entirely true.  It isn't high in their calculations and there's nothing official denoting it, but there are times when they'll give hosting to a Pool A over a Pool C if geography and rankings are close enough to allow for a decision.

    It's rare, but it certainly has come into play from time to time.

    Just as a "for instance" - there are plenty of occasions in which Williams and Amherst are virtually identical as candidates (maybe not this year, but often), when one beats the other in the NESCAC final to even the season series at 1-1.  They'll usually go with the Pool A over the Pool C in that instance.

    But in the grand scheme of things, it's not worth worrying about.

    But where did they end up in the final regional rankings (now hidden)? Geography being equal, they're not going to pass over the NE #2 to allow the NE #3 to host just because #3 was a Pool A winner.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 03:24:34 PM
    So if RPI is close to the formula used to determine hosting wouldn't the host teams be pretty close the following:

    Amherst
    Williams
    Babson

    Brockport State

    Scranton
    Cabrini
    Wesley

    Emory
    Randolph-Macon

    Wooster

    Wash U
    Illinois Wesleyan
    St Norbert
    Wheaton (Ill)

    UWSP
    UWW

    Would this 16 make sense? Could there be 3 NE, and 4 MW and 0 Atlantic hosts? Will they really try to get #1-16 in the country by their criteria to host 1st and 2nd rounds?
    For example in the NE, what teams do you think will actually end up hosting?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Just Bill on February 24, 2014, 03:34:46 PM
    You're kind of doing it backwards if you are trying to pick the hosts before you pick all 62 teams. The geographic component is such a big part of it. You could have a fantastic undefeated team, but if no other tournament teams are located within 500 miles, they ain't going to host.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 03:36:00 PM
    Personally I don't understand why Emory's RPI is so high, in fact it's uncertain if they'll even make the tourney. I imagine it would be far more likely that St. Thomas would host. Other than that do you think a clear host team is missing?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2014, 03:39:35 PM
    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 03:36:00 PM
    Personally I don't understand why Emory's RPI is so high, in fact it's uncertain if they'll even make the tourney. I imagine it would be far more likely that St. Thomas would host. Other than that do you think a clear host team is missing?

    Emory has the best strength of schedule in the country.

    They won't host though, because it doesn't look like three other teams could get there in 500 miles. I think Centre will host a pod because Emory could get there by bus.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 03:47:41 PM
    But couldn't Randolph Macon also host Emory? I don't see why the NCAA would have Centre host over Randolph Macon. But I guess other than the Emory issue, I don't foresee a circumstance where a certain team with a remote geographic location getting into the tournament would impact the host locations.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2014, 03:54:01 PM
    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 03:47:41 PM
    But couldn't Randolph Macon also host Emory? I don't see why the NCAA would have Centre host over Randolph Macon. But I guess other than the Emory issue, I don't foresee a circumstance where a certain team with a remote geographic location getting into the tournament would impact the host locations.

    Emory to Randolph-Macon is 546 miles, so that would have to be a flight. Randolph-Macon will probably host a pod anyway though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 04:13:58 PM
    But doesn't Emory fly to most away games anyway? Seems so silly that that would be a deciding factor. But maybe that's really how the NCAA does it. How have they dealt with Emory in years past? What about SoCal and Washington schools?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: realist on February 24, 2014, 04:16:38 PM
    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 04:13:58 PM
    But doesn't Emory fly to most away games anyway? Seems so silly that that would be a deciding factor. But maybe that's really how the NCAA does it. How have they dealt with Emory in years past? What about SoCal and Washington schools?
    The difference is in the tournament the flight is an NCAA expense, and is not the schools expense like UAA travel.  While it might seem silly to you and I the NCAA is very concerned with keeping travel cost down as indicated by the under 500 limit is a road trip.  Regarding some of the schools you mentioned, it isn't that the NCAA won't fly teams it is more they keep the flights to a bare minimum.  Yes that at times may result in some interesting matchups.  Geography definitely plays a part in hosting a pod in some circumstances. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2014, 04:45:52 PM
    Emory isn't going to host because of where they are... there really is only one or two teams that can get to them that will be or has an outside chance of being in the tournament (Centre and Guilford). I expect Centre would host because you can get a lot of teams to Danville, KY especially Emory.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2014, 07:12:58 PM
    My updated take on Pool C as of Monday, 2/24...

    * Records and SOS are per Knightslappy's data (should be current)
    * RRO is only through the last NCAA data sheet (games of Sun 2/16)
    * Regional ranking noted is from the 2/19 rankings

    The most "bubble proof" current conference leaders
    --Tier 1 - would be Pool C locks:
    1. Amherst (NESCAC) - .917/.580/8-0   Northeast #1
    2. UW-Stevens Point (WIAC) - .960/.579/5-1    West #1
    3. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .880/.554/6-2   Midwest #2
    4. Wooster (NCAC) - .913/.534/5-1   Great Lakes #1
    5. Brockport State (SUNYAC) - .875/.542/3-2   East #1
    6. SUNY-Purchase (SKY) - .920/.506/4-1   Atlantic #1
    7. Scranton (Land) - .880/.544/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #1
    8. Cabrini (CSAC) - .958/.505/2-0   Mid-Atlantic #2
    9. Wesley (CAC) - .909/.520/3-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    10. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .840/.527/4-2   West #3
    11. Richard Stockton (NJAC) - .840/.528/3-2   Atlantic #2
    12. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .800/.544/3-3   Northeast #4

    --Tier 2 - would be strong Pool C candidates, but not quite locks:
    13. Randolph-Macon (ODAC) - .708/.596/2-4   South #1
    14. Hope (MIAA) - .783/.544/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    15. WPI (NEWMAC) - .880/.517/3-1  Northeast #5
    16. St. Norbert (MWC) - .955/.510/0-1   Midwest #5

    --Tier 3 - would be no better than the end of the Pool C bubble
    17. Mount Union (OAC) - .880/.510/2-1   Great Lakes #5
    18. Texas-Dallas (ASC) - .880/.494/1-1   South #4
    19. Dickinson (CC) - .800/.522/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    20. Whitworth (NWC) - .800/.524/0-3  West #6
    21. Bethany (PrAC) - .833/.504/1-0   Great Lakes #4
    22. Staten Island (CUNYAC) - .923/.477/0-0   Atlantic #5
    23. Rose-Hulman (HCAC) - .800/.513/0-1   Midwest #7

    Strongest current Pool C candidates (teams not leading their conference)
    --Tier 1- The strongest resumes - virtual locks:
    1. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .880/.563/4-1   West #2
    2. Williams (NESCAC) - .875/.549/4-2   Northeast #2
    3. Babson (NEWMAC) - .800/.563/3-4   Northeast #3
    4. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .840/.534/3-3   East #2
    5. Wheaton (CCIW) - .680/.592/5-5   Midwest #3
    6. Augustana (CCIW) - .760/.551/4-3   Midwest #4
    7. Geneseo State (SUNYAC) - .792/.545/2-3   East #3
    8. Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC) - .750/.545/3-2   South #2
    9. Messiah (MACC) - .792/.527/3-4   Mid-Atlantic #5

    --Tier 2 - very much in the mix, but not locks:
    10. Carthage (CCIW) - .652/.590/4-6   Midwest #6
    11. Emory (UAA) - .708/.596/2-4  South #3
    12. Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - .731/.523/3-2   Atlantic #3
    13. William Paterson (NJAC) - .800/.511/2-2   Atlantic #4
    14. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .760/.528/2-3   Great Lakes #3
    15. Birmingham-Southern - .640/.555/6-3   South, not ranked ?
    16. Middlebury (NESCAC) - .667/.555/2-4   Northeast #11

    --Tier 3 - the very end of the bubble, hoping for almost no upsets:
    17. St. Olaf (MIAC) - .800/.538/1-5   West #4
    18. Bowdoin (NESCAC) - .792/.530/1-3   Northeast #6
    19. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .750/.556/1-4   Northeast #7
    20. Guilford (ODAC) - .680/.535/1-5   South #6
    ----------
    21. Mary Washington (CAC) - .783/.529/1-2   Mid-Atlantic #7
    22. St. Mary's (CAC) - .682/.557/1-5   Mid-Atlantic, not ranked
    23. Dubuque (IIAC) - .818/.513/1-0   West #5
    24. Rhode Island (LEC) - .680/.548/0-3   Northeast #9
    25. Marietta (OAC) - .750/.534/0-4   Great Lakes #6
    26. NYU (UAA) - .667/.548/0-5   East #6
    27. Oglethorpe (SAA) - .739/.502/2-2   South #7
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2014, 07:17:47 PM
    Very nice. I always like this kind of stuff!

    +1
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: warriorcat on February 24, 2014, 08:52:09 PM
    Quote from: realist on February 24, 2014, 04:16:38 PM
    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 04:13:58 PM
    But doesn't Emory fly to most away games anyway? Seems so silly that that would be a deciding factor. But maybe that's really how the NCAA does it. How have they dealt with Emory in years past? What about SoCal and Washington schools?
    The difference is in the tournament the flight is an NCAA expense, and is not the schools expense like UAA travel.  While it might seem silly to you and I the NCAA is very concerned with keeping travel cost down as indicated by the under 500 limit is a road trip.  Regarding some of the schools you mentioned, it isn't that the NCAA won't fly teams it is more they keep the flights to a bare minimum.  Yes that at times may result in some interesting matchups.  Geography definitely plays a part in hosting a pod in some circumstances.

    I was on an NCAA Division 1 Committee in another sport in the late 90's and early 00's, and the directive to the Selection Committee from the National Championship group in Indianapolis was to come up with a bracket that had the fewest number of flights.  Not once in four years did the NCAA Championship group allow us any leeway with this even if it meant having some of the strongest teams playing each other in thr first weekend.  They were extremely conscious of costs.  Flights after the first weekend, i.e. Sweet Sixteen round, were where the money was spent for travel.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2014, 09:30:28 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2014, 07:12:58 PM
    15. Birmingham-Southern - .640/.555/6-3   South, not ranked ?
    17. St. Olaf (MIAC) - .800/.538/1-5   West #4

    You seem to be placing a lot of weight on the vRRO component, but I also recognize that you're better at guessing the rankings/selections than I am. Have we seen them take this extreme of an action based on vRRO in the past?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 25, 2014, 10:50:24 AM
    This was Q's projected list from a year ago.  Randolph was the only Pool C selection not on his board.  I think it was generally assumed their high number of RRO's (all in conference) is what lifted them into the tournament.   

    Projected left at the table after round 19 (in order of competitiveness)
    (MA) Albright (MACC) - 20-6 (.769)/.546/3-1
    (GL) Thomas More (PrAC) - 22-4 (.846)/.512/1-3
    (AT) Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - 19-7 (.731)/.548/3-4
    (MW) Augustana (CCIW) - 18-8 (.692)/.553/2-8
    (W) Buena Vista (IIAC) - 18-7 (.720)/.563/1-2
    (NE) Tufts (NESCAC) - 16-6 (.727)/.535/0-6
    (S) Texas-Dallas (ASC) - 20-7 (.741)/.516/0-4
    (E) Oswego St (SUNYAC) - 19-8 (.704)/.518/2-6


    (S) Randolph (ODAC) - 15-6 (.714)/.520/4-5 (I have added 1-1 for Randolph-Macon) 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 26, 2014, 12:25:13 PM
    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 03:24:34 PM
    So if RPI is close to the formula used to determine hosting wouldn't the host teams be pretty close the following:

    Amherst
    Williams
    Babson

    Brockport State

    Scranton
    Cabrini
    Wesley

    Emory
    Randolph-Macon

    Wooster

    Wash U
    Illinois Wesleyan
    St Norbert
    Wheaton (Ill)

    UWSP
    UWW

    Would this 16 make sense? Could there be 3 NE, and 4 MW and 0 Atlantic hosts? Will they really try to get #1-16 in the country by their criteria to host 1st and 2nd rounds?
    For example in the NE, what teams do you think will actually end up hosting?"
    Seems to me the Hope, the # 2 team in the GL would have an arguement for hosting over Wheaton, the #4 team from the MW, despite having lost to them. Plus, Hope's facilities are nicer.

    Could Stevens Point and Whitewater both get BYEs?


    edit, fixed format
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2014, 12:28:57 PM
    They won't... first because usually the byes are used for geographical challenges like in Texas and the West Coast.

    Second, because usually they spread those around and having two teams from the same region getting byes would be a bit wacky.

    That all being said, it also depends on what teams make the tournament and what brackets the committee is trying to put together. If they were to put UWSP and UWW in opposite sections and can find the right teams to play on Thursday... then it could happen. However, the odds of winning the lottery could be about the same I think this year. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2014, 12:29:59 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on February 26, 2014, 12:25:13 PM
    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 24, 2014, 03:24:34 PM
    So if RPI is close to the formula used to determine hosting wouldn't the host teams be pretty close the following:

    Amherst
    Williams
    Babson

    Brockport State

    Scranton
    Cabrini
    Wesley

    Emory
    Randolph-Macon

    Wooster

    Wash U
    Illinois Wesleyan
    St Norbert
    Wheaton (Ill)

    UWSP
    UWW

    Would this 16 make sense? Could there be 3 NE, and 4 MW and 0 Atlantic hosts? Will they really try to get #1-16 in the country by their criteria to host 1st and 2nd rounds?
    For example in the NE, what teams do you think will actually end up hosting?"
    Seems to me the Hope, the # 2 team in the GL would have an arguement for hosting over Wheaton, the #4 team from the MW, despite having lost to them. Plus, Hope's facilities are nicer.

    Could Stevens Point and Whitewater both get BYEs?

    I don't think ordinal rank really matters when comparing across regions. Like you say, Wheaton beat Hope head-to-head, and that could count for a great deal. And quality of facilities don't really matter (I don't believe) as long as they meet the minimum seating requirement.

    When it comes down to it, though, I think neither Hope nor Wheaton end up hosting.

    UWSP and UWW could indeed both end up with byes, but I think we'll either see UWSP and Amherst get the byes, or one of the byes go to help out with geography.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 26, 2014, 12:48:53 PM
    Without upsets the GL, MW, West regions are looking at about 22 teams in the tournament, that requires 6 hosting pods of either 3 or 4 teams.

    My thoughts haven't changed much on this:

    Locks to host
    Stevens Point
    Illinois Wesleyan
    Washington
    Wooster

    Nearly lock to host
    Centre, both because of geography and merit


    One of these will likely draw the last pod.
    St. Thomas
    Whitewater
    Hope
    St. Norbert
    Mt. Union/Marietta

    Its possible we get a seventh, that requires pulling teams in from NY/PA/VA into Eastern Ohio(Wooster or Mt.Union/Marietta) or enough South Region teams end up at Centre that it doesn't affect the quantity of GL/MW/W schools needing a place to play.

    The Centre Regional could be  Centre/Emory/ ASC winner/SCAC winner.  That wouldn't affect the number of teams needed to host the GL/MW/W regions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2014, 01:00:52 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 26, 2014, 12:48:53 PM
    One of these will likely draw the last pod.
    St. Thomas
    Whitewater
    Hope
    St. Norbert
    Mt. Union/Marietta

    Whitewater
    --
    St. Norbert
    Wheaton
    --
    Hope
    St. Thomas
    --
    OAC Winner
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEHoopsFan99 on February 26, 2014, 01:53:13 PM
    How about the east and northeast?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2014, 03:22:23 PM
    Just to through it out there... we could see both byes help geography this year... Colorado College is the key this year...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2014, 06:10:54 AM
    Teams in GREEN are #1 seeds/reg. season conference winners/Pool A leaders etc.

    Teams in RED are Pool C contenders with their season complete

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2014, 06:10:33 AM


       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       ATL      1      1      1      SUNY-Purchase       23-2, 23-2      SKY      vs SUNY-Old Westbury in semifinal 2/27   
       ATL      2      2      2      Richard Stockton       21-4, 21-4      NJAC      WON vs Kean 64-63; vs William Paterson in Final 3/1   
       ATL      5      5      3      Staten Island       24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; vs York (N.Y.) in Final 2/28   
       ATL      4      4      4      William Paterson       20-5, 20-5      NJAC      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; vs Richard Stockton in Final 3/1   
       ATL      3      3      5      Rutgers-Newark       19-7, 19-7      NJAC      LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal    
       ATL      6      6      6      Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       20-5, 20-5      SKY      vs Farmingdale State in semifinal 2/27   
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       EAST      1      1      1      Brockport State       21-3, 22-3      SUNYAC      vs Oswego in semifinal 2/28   
       EAST      3      2      2      Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      vs Geneseo in semifinal 2/28   
       EAST      2      3      3      Geneseo State       19-5, 19-5      SUNYAC      WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; vs Plattsburgh St. in semifinal 2/28   
       EAST      5      4      4      Hobart        19-6, 19-6      LL      WON vs Clarkson 78-69 OT; vs Vassar in Final 3/1   
       EAST      4      6      5      NYU        16-8, 16-8      UAA      at Brandeis 3/2   
                         6      Skidmore      16-9, 16-9      LL      LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal COMPLETE   
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       EAST      6      5            Stevens              E8          
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       GL      1      1      1      Wooster        21-2, 22-3      NCAC      WON vs. Oberlin 89-56; vs Ohio Wesleyan in semifinal 2/28   
       GL      6      2      2      Hope        18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; vs Calvin in Final 3/1   
       GL      7      4      3      Bethany        20-4, 21-4      PAC      LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals   
       GL      3      5      4      Mount Union        20-5, 20-5      OAC      vs John Carroll in semifinal 2/27   
                         5      DePauw      17-7, 18-7      NCAC      WON vs Wabash 73-59; vs Wittenberg in semifinal 2/28   
       GL      5      7      6      Wittenberg        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Denison 64-49; vs DePauw in semifinal 2/28   
       GL      2      3      7      Ohio Wesleyan        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon i78-67; vs Wooster in semifinal 2/28   
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       GL      4      6            Marietta              OAC          
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       MATL      1      2      1      Cabrini       23-1, 23-1      CSAC      WON vs Rosemont 109-97; vs Neumann in Final 2/28   
       MATL      2      1      2      Scranton       22-3, 22-3      LAND      WON vs Merchant Marine 82-64; vs Susquechanna in Final 3/1   
       MATL      3      3      3      Wesley       20-2, 22-2      CAC      vs Christopher Newport in semifinal 2/27   
       MATL      6      4      4      Dickinson       20-5, 20-5      CC      vs McDaniel in semifinal 2/28   
             n/a      6      5      Stevenson      18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Hood 83-72; vs Alvernia in Final 3/1   
       MATL      4      5      6      Messiah       19-5, 19-5      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal COMPLETE   
       MATL      7      8      7      Alvernia       18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Messiah 81-77; vs Stevenson in Final 3/1   
       MATL      5      7      8      Mary Washington       18-5, 20-5      CAC      vs St. Mary's (Md.) in semifinal 2/27   
                         9      St. Mary's (Md.)      15-7, 18-7      CAC      vs Mary Washington in semifinal 2/27   
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       MATL      8      9            Hood             MACC          
       MATL      9                  McDaniel             CC         
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       MW      1      1      1      Washington U.       22-2, 22-2      UAA      at Chicago 3/1   
       MW      2      2      2      Illinois Wesleyan       22-3, 22-3      CCIW      vs Carthage in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      3      3      3      Wheaton (Ill.)       17-8, 17-8      CCIW      vs Augustana in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      4      4      4      Augustana       19-6, 19-6      CCIW      vs Wheaton (IL) in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      5      5      5      St. Norbert       21-1, 22-1      MWC      vs Carroll in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      6      6      6      Carthage       15-8, 16-9      CCIW      at Illinois Wesleyan in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      7      7      7      Rose-Hulman       20-5, 20-5      HCAC      vs TBD in HCAC semifinal 2/28   
                         8      Chicago      14-9, 15-9      UAA         
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       MW      8      8            MSOE             NACC      SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       NE      1      1      1      Amherst       22-3, 22-3      NESCAC      vs Trinity (CT) in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      2      2      2      Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      vs Middlebury in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      4      3      3      Babson       20-5, 20-5      NEWMAC      vs Springfield in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      5      4      4      Eastern Connecticut       20-5, 20-5      LEC      WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; vs Western Connecticut in semifinal 2/28   
       NE      6      5      5      WPI       22-3, 22-3      NEWMAC      vs MIT in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      7      7      6      Springfield       18-6, 19-6      NEWMAC      vs Babson in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      3      6      7      Bowdoin       19-5, 19-5      NESCAC      LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal COMPLETE   
       NE      8      8      8      Albertus Magnus       23-1, 23-2      GNAC      WON vs Norwich 87-69; vs Lasell in semifinal 2/27   
       NE      10      10      9      Nichols       20-5, 20-5      CCC      WON vs Western New England 73-54; vs Salva Regina in semifinal 2/27   
       NE      9      9      10      Rhode Island College      17-8, 17-8      LEC      WON vs Southern Maine 74-66; vs Mass-Dartmouth in semifinal 2/28   
       NE      11      11      11      Middlebury       16-8, 17-8      NESCAC      vs Williams in semifinal 3/1   
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       SOUTH      1      1      1      Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      vs Hampden-Sydney in quarterfinal 2/28   
       SOUTH      6      3      2      Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      at Rochester 3/1   
       SOUTH      3      2      3      Virgina Wesleyan       18-6, 19-6      ODAC      vs Bridgewater in quarterfinal 2/28   
       SOUTH      2      4      4      Texas-Dallas       22-3, 22-3      ASC      vs East Texas Baptist in quarterfinal 2/28   
       SOUTH      4      5      5      Centre       17-3, 20-4      SAA      vs Berry in quarterfinal 2/28   
                         6      Birmingham-Southern      16-9, 16-9      SAA      vs Hendrix in quarterfinal 2/28   
       SOUTH      5      6      7      Guilford       17-8, 17-8      ODAC      vs Washington and Lee in quarterfinal 2/28   
                         8      Trinity (TX)      16-9, 16-9      SCAC      vs Texas Lutheran in quarterfinal 2/28   
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       SOUTH      7      7            Oglethorpe             SAA         
       SOUTH      n/a      8            Hardin-Simmons            ASC         
       SOUTH      8      n/a            Concordia (Texas)             ASC         
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       WEST      1      1      1      UW-Stevens Point       24-1, 24-1      WIAC      vs Platteville in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      2      2      2      UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      vs La Crosse in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      3      3      3      St. Thomas       21-4, 21-4      MIAC      vs Bethel in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      5      4      4      St. Olaf       20-5, 20-5      MIAC      vs Gustavus Adolphus in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      6      6      5      Whitworth       20-5, 20-5      NWC      vs Lewis and Clark in semifinal 2/27   
       WEST      4      5      6      Dubuque       18-4, 21-4      IIAC      vs Luther in semifinal 2/27   
       WEST      9      n/a      7      C-M-S       17-3, 19-5      SCIAC      vs Cal Lutheran in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      7      7      8      Pomona-Pitzer       18-5, 18-7      SCIAC      vs Chapman in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      n/a      9      9      Augsburg      18-7, 18-7      MIAC      LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal COMPLETE   
                                                    
       DROP                        DROPPING OUT                     
       WEST      8      8            Colorado College             SCAC         
                                                    
                                                    
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 27, 2014, 09:56:38 AM
    Two big games in the CCIW tonight!

    What do wins do for Wheaton, Carthage, and Augustana? Are we going to see 4 CCIW teams in the playoffs?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2014, 10:32:16 AM
    I believe those games are tomorrow.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 27, 2014, 10:38:00 AM
    Haha, you are correct. For whatever reason, I have been thinking it is Friday all morning :(
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2014, 11:08:23 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2014, 03:22:23 PM
    Just to through it out there... we could see both byes help geography this year... Colorado College is the key this year...

    If Colorado College wins the SCAC and Whitworth wins the NWC, we'll have to have four flights in the first round. In that case, the byes can be handed out based on merit and flights can be used to fill in the open spots.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 27, 2014, 11:17:27 AM
    Beating Trinity in S.A. and then beating Centenary or Schreiner? Not saying they can't, just saying it's not probable...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2014, 11:27:48 AM
    Quote from: sethteater on February 27, 2014, 11:17:27 AM
    Beating Trinity in S.A. and then beating Centenary or Schreiner? Not saying they can't, just saying it's not probable...

    About a 16% chance.

    This raises a question I had the other day: what will the SCAC do if Centenary (La.) wins the tournament? Does the Pool A revert to the regular season champion, or do they give it to the Tournament runner-up?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2014, 12:04:44 PM
    Potential bubble-bursting conferences (conference leaders with a good shot at Pool C, but with no other decent Pool C candidate in their league).

    ASC - Texas-Dallas
    CC - Dickinson
    CSAC - Cabrini
    CUNYAC - Staten Island
    GNAC - Albertus Magnus
    LAND - Scranton
    MIAA - Hope
    MWC - St. Norbert
    NWC - Whitworth
    SKY - SUNY-Purchase

    Not necessarily bubble-bursters (conferences that include additional bubble teams), but bubble teams will want these to win their conference:

    CAC - Wesley
    NCAC - Wooster
    LEC - Eastern Connecticut
    NJAC - Richard Stockton
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2014, 01:02:17 PM

    Knightslappy,

    You're saying RIC is a bubble team?  Or am I missing another LEC Pool C contender?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 27, 2014, 01:13:39 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on February 27, 2014, 09:56:38 AM
    Two big games in the CCIW (Friday) tonight!

    What do wins do for Wheaton, Carthage, and Augustana? Are we going to see 4 CCIW teams in the playoffs?
    1) I doubt the 8 Midwest Regional Ranked teams will change in the final rankings other than within their order. 
    2) WashU along with 3 of the 4 CCIW teams (excludes Carthage) got a vRRO boost with the add of UChgo to rankings
    3) WashU plays UChgo on 3/1 the outcome will have little impact as WashU already an AQ and I think UChgo below bubble
    4) Win or Loss each CCIW tournament game is going to add a result to the 4 CCIW teams' primary criteria including vRRO since all are ranked
    5) Two wins by any of the three you named above will make it even harder for Pool C as IWU would move to the top of the Midwest Pool C list and likely be one of the first off the Pool C board
    6) After Friday, the minimum number of vRRO games by any ranked CCIW team will be 8 and potentially as high as 12 for Wheaton or Carthage/  Regardless of vRRO W/L % 8 or more vRRO games is a high hurdle for some Pool C candidates to overcome; and,
    7) Yes you just might see 4 CCIW teams in the playoffs.  I think 3 a very strong current probability.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2014, 01:14:38 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2014, 01:02:17 PM

    Knightslappy,

    You're saying RIC is a bubble team?  Or am I missing another LEC Pool C contender?

    I'm thinking they're bubble-ish, but probably not. Maybe LEC is better in the top group.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2014, 01:38:10 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2014, 11:08:23 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2014, 03:22:23 PM
    Just to through it out there... we could see both byes help geography this year... Colorado College is the key this year...

    If Colorado College wins the SCAC and Whitworth wins the NWC, we'll have to have four flights in the first round. In that case, the byes can be handed out based on merit and flights can be used to fill in the open spots.

    BUT if they play them against each other in play-in games, they reduce the chances of flights in later rounds - of course podding them together will also do this and result in three flights.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 27, 2014, 01:42:30 PM
    Nothing wrong with putting them in the same pod if the relative seeding is equitable.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2014, 01:49:03 PM
    I think it would be a great pod and would be more than willing to be sent there to help with the broadcasting :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2014, 02:12:44 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2014, 01:38:10 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2014, 11:08:23 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2014, 03:22:23 PM
    Just to through it out there... we could see both byes help geography this year... Colorado College is the key this year...

    If Colorado College wins the SCAC and Whitworth wins the NWC, we'll have to have four flights in the first round. In that case, the byes can be handed out based on merit and flights can be used to fill in the open spots.

    BUT if they play them against each other in play-in games, they reduce the chances of flights in later rounds - of course podding them together will also do this and result in three flights.

    In the above scenario there would be no way around four flights.

    #1 -- You could fly Colorado College to Texas-Dallas (1) and then fly the winner to UWSP (2) and fly the SCIAC winner to Whitworth (3) and fly the winner to Amherst (4). So that's four flights used and a chance for (2) more for the second weekend.

    #2 -- Or you could fly them all to Whitworth (or Dallas, or whatever) (3) and fly the winner out for the second weekend (4).

    #3 -- Or you could fly them all out to individual sites as needed (4), but then it's possible that all four have to fly again the next weekend.

    If you think about it probabilistically, numbers 1 and 3 are probably about the same (an expected 4.8-ish flights), but #2 limits the number of flights to 4.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2014, 02:34:49 PM
    My new house in Dallas is 10 minutes from the Texas-Dallas campus.  I want a pod!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2014, 02:50:08 PM
    FYI - that pod alone could force less creative games late in the tournament due to the number of flights the NCAA will be willing to allow.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2014, 04:26:52 PM
    A few thoughts before I go back to doing work:

    1) Is the Great Lakes regional rankings overly volatile or is it me?  The drop of OWU from 5 to 7 and the ordering makes me wonder the Pool C chances of the 3 NCAC teams, period.  DePauw's got some nice things going for them, but they still would be an 8-loss team with a good, but not great SOS (.539 now).  Also, I can't even begin to predict what the final rankings in that region will look like and that'll make it hard to make overall predict the overall picks as well.

    2) Staying with Great Lakes, where does Bethany end up after losing their quarterfinal game and dropping into the Pool C pool?  5 loss team with only 1 win against RRO (Mount Union) and an ok SOS (.509).

    3) The RRO given in the document goes with last week's Regional Rankings, so Birmingham Southern loses 2 wins against Oglethorpe and Hood dropping out affects all the MACC teams as well as U Chicago coming in to help all the UAA and most of the CCIW teams. 

    4) In the MACC and Mid-Atlantic, what impact does Alvernia beating Messiah have?  Does Alvernia jump Messiah, and, if so, what are their chances?  They are 3-4 against current RRO with the championship game against Stevenson (#5 and 4-2 against current RRO).  And where does Messiah stand (19-6, 2-4 against RRO).  Both the MACC and NCAC has so many bubble teams that it's hard to sort out an order.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2014, 04:50:49 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2014, 01:14:38 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2014, 01:02:17 PM

    Knightslappy,

    You're saying RIC is a bubble team?  Or am I missing another LEC Pool C contender?

    I'm thinking they're bubble-ish, but probably not. Maybe LEC is better in the top group.

    Eastern definitely belongs in the top group.  RIC is on the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out fringes.  if we took about 25 pool C teams, RIC would be in the mix.  Nobody else in the LEC is even on the radar.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiltedbryan on February 27, 2014, 05:20:27 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2014, 04:26:52 PM
    A few thoughts before I go back to doing work:

    1) Is the Great Lakes regional rankings overly volatile or is it me?  The drop of OWU from 5 to 7 and the ordering makes me wonder the Pool C chances of the 3 NCAC teams, period.  DePauw's got some nice things going for them, but they still would be an 8-loss team with a good, but not great SOS (.539 now).  Also, I can't even begin to predict what the final rankings in that region will look like and that'll make it hard to make overall predict the overall picks as well.

    2) Staying with Great Lakes, where does Bethany end up after losing their quarterfinal game and dropping into the Pool C pool?  5 loss team with only 1 win against RRO (Mount Union) and an ok SOS (.509).

    I think Bethany falls behind everyone else. It hurts both because it was a loss, and because the other Pool C candidates get 1-2 more games played, with many of those against RRO. If you're, say, DePauw and you lose Saturday in the NCAC final, you still went 2-1 this week and 1-1 in vRRO games vs. Bethany going 0-1 with zero RRO games. Pretty sure Bethany would fall behind a team like that.

    As for the NCAC teams, after beating OWU last Saturday, DePauw is now 3-1 head-to-head against Wittenberg (2-0) and Wesleyan (1-1). The overall resumes of those three teams are very similar, so the head-to-head seems to be giving DePauw the edge for now. Witt and DePauw play Friday in the NCAC semifinals at Wooster.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2014, 05:23:53 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2014, 04:26:52 PM
    A few thoughts before I go back to doing work:

    1) Is the Great Lakes regional rankings overly volatile or is it me?  The drop of OWU from 5 to 7 and the ordering makes me wonder the Pool C chances of the 3 NCAC teams, period.  DePauw's got some nice things going for them, but they still would be an 8-loss team with a good, but not great SOS (.539 now).  Also, I can't even begin to predict what the final rankings in that region will look like and that'll make it hard to make overall predict the overall picks as well.

    Seems volitle... but I think because there are so many teams kind of in the same "area" of the rankings causing a loss to seem bigger.

    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2014, 04:26:52 PM
    2) Staying with Great Lakes, where does Bethany end up after losing their quarterfinal game and dropping into the Pool C pool?  5 loss team with only 1 win against RRO (Mount Union) and an ok SOS (.509).

    They are in a lot of trouble. They needed a few games to help bolster their resume and by losing in the quarters they may have ended their season. We will find out what their coach thinks tomorrow on Hoopsville - show starts at 11am LIVE from the ODAC tournament. Bethany may be around 12:30 (shameless plug over LOL).

    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2014, 04:26:52 PM
    3) The RRO given in the document goes with last week's Regional Rankings, so Birmingham Southern loses 2 wins against Oglethorpe and Hood dropping out affects all the MACC teams as well as U Chicago coming in to help all the UAA and most of the CCIW teams. 

    Correct... and when the final regional rankings are done on Sunday, the national committee will take another look at those regionally ranked, add in any vRRO data needed and make any last decisions and moves based on that data. Remember, that pretty much was the reason Randolph got into the NCAA tournament and others like Transylvania had their resume bolstered because Randolph-Macon jumped into the final rankings in the South last year.

    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2014, 04:26:52 PM
    4) In the MACC and Mid-Atlantic, what impact does Alvernia beating Messiah have?  Does Alvernia jump Messiah, and, if so, what are their chances?  They are 3-4 against current RRO with the championship game against Stevenson (#5 and 4-2 against current RRO).  And where does Messiah stand (19-6, 2-4 against RRO).  Both the MACC and NCAC has so many bubble teams that it's hard to sort out an order.

    I think this kills Messiah's hopes of making the tournament. Alvernia will now move ahead of them thanks to a 2-1 head-to-head record. This will give Alvernia a much better chance of getting into the tournament, but they still have to hope for not a lot of upsets, especially in their own region so a team doesn't block them from getting to the table. The same is true for Mary Washington who will probably go ahead of Messiah as well with a win tonight giving them a CAC title game on their resume. I think the MACC will only get two teams into the tournament and the NCAC may be in the same boat. Both conferences had strong contenders who stumbled in the last few weeks of the season hurting the conference's chances.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2014, 05:27:05 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 27, 2014, 04:50:49 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2014, 01:14:38 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2014, 01:02:17 PM

    Knightslappy,

    You're saying RIC is a bubble team?  Or am I missing another LEC Pool C contender?

    I'm thinking they're bubble-ish, but probably not. Maybe LEC is better in the top group.

    Eastern definitely belongs in the top group.  RIC is on the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out fringes.  if we took about 25 pool C teams, RIC would be in the mix.  Nobody else in the LEC is even on the radar.

    I think the big question in the NE is if Bowdoin can hop Springfield.  I think Springfield is the one left on the table.  Maybe if they lose the championship rather than the semis.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: madzillagd on February 27, 2014, 08:49:31 PM
    Looks like a Pool C spot to be taken by Wesley. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2014, 08:52:53 PM
    Yes, but Mary Washington was a fairly strong Pool C candidate, so if they win the championship in the CAC, then it's probably the 2 teams from the CAC that would have made the tournament anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2014, 09:33:30 PM
    If CNU beat UMW there is still a chance the Eagles could be in the tournament... but they are squarely on the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 27, 2014, 09:39:19 PM
    Luther beat Dubuque, not that the Dubuque end of season train wreck had much of a Pool C chance.

    #6 seed in into the IIAC Final
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 27, 2014, 10:43:16 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2014, 06:10:54 AM
    Teams in GREEN are #1 seeds/reg. season conference winners/Pool A leaders etc.

    Teams in RED are Pool C contenders with their season complete

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2014, 06:10:33 AM


       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       ATL      1      1      1      SUNY-Purchase       23-2, 23-2      SKY      vs SUNY-Old Westbury in semifinal 2/27   
       ATL      2      2      2      Richard Stockton       21-4, 21-4      NJAC      WON vs Kean 64-63; vs William Paterson in Final 3/1   
       ATL      5      5      3      Staten Island       24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; vs York (N.Y.) in Final 2/28   
       ATL      4      4      4      William Paterson       20-5, 20-5      NJAC      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; vs Richard Stockton in Final 3/1   
       ATL      3      3      5      Rutgers-Newark       19-7, 19-7      NJAC      LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal    
       ATL      6      6      6      Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       20-5, 20-5      SKY      vs Farmingdale State in semifinal 2/27   
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       EAST      1      1      1      Brockport State       21-3, 22-3      SUNYAC      vs Oswego in semifinal 2/28   
       EAST      3      2      2      Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      vs Geneseo in semifinal 2/28   
       EAST      2      3      3      Geneseo State       19-5, 19-5      SUNYAC      WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; vs Plattsburgh St. in semifinal 2/28   
       EAST      5      4      4      Hobart        19-6, 19-6      LL      WON vs Clarkson 78-69 OT; vs Vassar in Final 3/1   
       EAST      4      6      5      NYU        16-8, 16-8      UAA      at Brandeis 3/2   
                         6      Skidmore      16-9, 16-9      LL      LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal COMPLETE   
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       EAST      6      5            Stevens              E8          
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       GL      1      1      1      Wooster        21-2, 22-3      NCAC      WON vs. Oberlin 89-56; vs Ohio Wesleyan in semifinal 2/28   
       GL      6      2      2      Hope        18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; vs Calvin in Final 3/1   
       GL      7      4      3      Bethany        20-4, 21-4      PAC      LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals   
       GL      3      5      4      Mount Union        20-5, 20-5      OAC      vs John Carroll in semifinal 2/27   
                         5      DePauw      17-7, 18-7      NCAC      WON vs Wabash 73-59; vs Wittenberg in semifinal 2/28   
       GL      5      7      6      Wittenberg        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Denison 64-49; vs DePauw in semifinal 2/28   
       GL      2      3      7      Ohio Wesleyan        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon i78-67; vs Wooster in semifinal 2/28   
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       GL      4      6            Marietta              OAC          
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       MATL      1      2      1      Cabrini       23-1, 23-1      CSAC      WON vs Rosemont 109-97; vs Neumann in Final 2/28   
       MATL      2      1      2      Scranton       22-3, 22-3      LAND      WON vs Merchant Marine 82-64; vs Susquechanna in Final 3/1   
       MATL      3      3      3      Wesley       20-2, 22-2      CAC      vs Christopher Newport in semifinal 2/27   
       MATL      6      4      4      Dickinson       20-5, 20-5      CC      vs McDaniel in semifinal 2/28   
             n/a      6      5      Stevenson      18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Hood 83-72; vs Alvernia in Final 3/1   
       MATL      4      5      6      Messiah       19-5, 19-5      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal COMPLETE   
       MATL      7      8      7      Alvernia       18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Messiah 81-77; vs Stevenson in Final 3/1   
       MATL      5      7      8      Mary Washington       18-5, 20-5      CAC      vs St. Mary's (Md.) in semifinal 2/27   
                         9      St. Mary's (Md.)      15-7, 18-7      CAC      vs Mary Washington in semifinal 2/27   
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       MATL      8      9            Hood             MACC          
       MATL      9                  McDaniel             CC         
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       MW      1      1      1      Washington U.       22-2, 22-2      UAA      at Chicago 3/1   
       MW      2      2      2      Illinois Wesleyan       22-3, 22-3      CCIW      vs Carthage in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      3      3      3      Wheaton (Ill.)       17-8, 17-8      CCIW      vs Augustana in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      4      4      4      Augustana       19-6, 19-6      CCIW      vs Wheaton (IL) in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      5      5      5      St. Norbert       21-1, 22-1      MWC      vs Carroll in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      6      6      6      Carthage       15-8, 16-9      CCIW      at Illinois Wesleyan in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      7      7      7      Rose-Hulman       20-5, 20-5      HCAC      vs TBD in HCAC semifinal 2/28   
                         8      Chicago      14-9, 15-9      UAA         
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       MW      8      8            MSOE             NACC      SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       NE      1      1      1      Amherst       22-3, 22-3      NESCAC      vs Trinity (CT) in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      2      2      2      Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      vs Middlebury in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      4      3      3      Babson       20-5, 20-5      NEWMAC      vs Springfield in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      5      4      4      Eastern Connecticut       20-5, 20-5      LEC      WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; vs Western Connecticut in semifinal 2/28   
       NE      6      5      5      WPI       22-3, 22-3      NEWMAC      vs MIT in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      7      7      6      Springfield       18-6, 19-6      NEWMAC      vs Babson in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      3      6      7      Bowdoin       19-5, 19-5      NESCAC      LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal COMPLETE   
       NE      8      8      8      Albertus Magnus       23-1, 23-2      GNAC      WON vs Norwich 87-69; vs Lasell in semifinal 2/27   
       NE      10      10      9      Nichols       20-5, 20-5      CCC      WON vs Western New England 73-54; vs Salva Regina in semifinal 2/27   
       NE      9      9      10      Rhode Island College      17-8, 17-8      LEC      WON vs Southern Maine 74-66; vs Mass-Dartmouth in semifinal 2/28   
       NE      11      11      11      Middlebury       16-8, 17-8      NESCAC      vs Williams in semifinal 3/1   
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       SOUTH      1      1      1      Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      vs Hampden-Sydney in quarterfinal 2/28   
       SOUTH      6      3      2      Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      at Rochester 3/1   
       SOUTH      3      2      3      Virgina Wesleyan       18-6, 19-6      ODAC      vs Bridgewater in quarterfinal 2/28   
       SOUTH      2      4      4      Texas-Dallas       22-3, 22-3      ASC      vs East Texas Baptist in quarterfinal 2/28   
       SOUTH      4      5      5      Centre       17-3, 20-4      SAA      vs Berry in quarterfinal 2/28   
                         6      Birmingham-Southern      16-9, 16-9      SAA      vs Hendrix in quarterfinal 2/28   
       SOUTH      5      6      7      Guilford       17-8, 17-8      ODAC      vs Washington and Lee in quarterfinal 2/28   
                         8      Trinity (TX)      16-9, 16-9      SCAC      vs Texas Lutheran in quarterfinal 2/28   
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       SOUTH      7      7            Oglethorpe             SAA         
       SOUTH      n/a      8            Hardin-Simmons            ASC         
       SOUTH      8      n/a            Concordia (Texas)             ASC         
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       WEST      1      1      1      UW-Stevens Point       24-1, 24-1      WIAC      vs Platteville in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      2      2      2      UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      vs La Crosse in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      3      3      3      St. Thomas       21-4, 21-4      MIAC      vs Bethel in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      5      4      4      St. Olaf       20-5, 20-5      MIAC      vs Gustavus Adolphus in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      6      6      5      Whitworth       20-5, 20-5      NWC      vs Lewis and Clark in semifinal 2/27   
       WEST      4      5      6      Dubuque       18-4, 21-4      IIAC      vs Luther in semifinal 2/27   
       WEST      9      n/a      7      C-M-S       17-3, 19-5      SCIAC      vs Cal Lutheran in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      7      7      8      Pomona-Pitzer       18-5, 18-7      SCIAC      vs Chapman in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      n/a      9      9      Augsburg      18-7, 18-7      MIAC      LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal COMPLETE   
                                                    
       DROP                        DROPPING OUT                     
       WEST      8      8            Colorado College             SCAC         
                                                    
                                                    

    Greek,

    Geneseo State finished the regular season at 20-5 not 19-5. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2014, 10:47:08 PM
    Wow, what a flameout in the OAC.  I watched the end of the Mount Union-John Carroll game and Mount Union played strong D in the last couple of minutes and had to make 2 free throws to tie it with 3 second left, but the shooter missed the first. 

    Mount Union (#4 GL) has to be in deep trouble as they will end at 20-6, but with no RRO wins (Marietta dropped out and will stay out now) and a loss to Bethany which will keep them firmly behind that bubble team in the Great Lakes region.  The OAC will be a one-bid league.

    Dubuque (#6 West) lost and I agree with Sac; they are done.  They lost 4 of their last 5.  What happened there; did someone get hurt?  Anyway, their only RRO game was a good OT win at Carthage, but I can't see how the end of the year can't kill their Pool C chances.

    Here's my list of the Pool C candidates (must be knocked out of Pool A consideration):
    * Emory (#2 South)
    * Wesley (#3 MA)
    * Bethany (#3 GL)
    * Mount Union (#4 GL)
    * NYU (#5 East)
    * Rutgers-Newark (#5 MA)
    * Dubuque (#6 West)
    * Birmingham - Southern (#6 South) (unofficial, but does anyone see a path where Centre doesn't get Pool B?)
    * Skidmore (#6 East)
    * Messiah (6 MA)
    * Bowdoin (#7 NE)
    * Chicago (#8 MW)
    * Augsburg (#9 West)

    Of that group, I only see Emory and Wesley as definite Pool C's and Messiah, Bethany, Rutgers-Newark and Bowdoin on the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2014, 10:56:40 PM
    FYI - I know there are a lot of concerns about Emory simply on the fact that they have no quality wins on their resume... great SOS, but what have they really done with that SOS... more to come tomorrow.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2014, 05:59:07 AM
    Teams in GREEN are #1 seeds/reg. season conference winners/Pool A leaders etc.

    Teams in RED are Pool C contenders with their season complete

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2014, 06:10:33 AM



       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       ATL      1      1      1      SUNY-Purchase       23-2, 23-2      SKY      WON vs SUNY-Old Westbury 88-73; vs Mount St. Mary in Final 3/1   
       ATL      2      2      2      Richard Stockton       21-4, 21-4      NJAC      WON vs Kean 64-63; vs William Paterson in Final 3/1   
       ATL      5      5      3      Staten Island       24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; vs York (N.Y.) in Final 2/28   
       ATL      4      4      4      William Paterson       20-5, 20-5      NJAC      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; vs Richard Stockton in Final 3/1   
       ATL      3      3      5      Rutgers-Newark       19-7, 19-7      NJAC      LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal    
       ATL      6      6      6      Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       20-5, 20-5      SKY      WON vs Farmingdale State 95-75; vs SUNY-Purchase in Final 3/1   
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       EAST      1      1      1      Brockport State       21-3, 22-3      SUNYAC      vs Oswego in semifinal 2/28   
       EAST      3      2      2      Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      vs Geneseo in semifinal 2/28   
       EAST      2      3      3      Geneseo State       19-5, 20-5      SUNYAC      WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; vs Plattsburgh St. in semifinal 2/28   
       EAST      5      4      4      Hobart        19-6, 19-6      LL      WON vs Clarkson 78-69 OT; vs Vassar in Final 3/1   
       EAST      4      6      5      NYU        16-8, 16-8      UAA      at Brandeis 3/2   
                         6      Skidmore      16-9, 16-9      LL      LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal COMPLETE   
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       EAST      6      5            Stevens              E8          
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       GL      1      1      1      Wooster        21-2, 22-3      NCAC      WON vs. Oberlin 89-56; vs Ohio Wesleyan in semifinal 2/28   
       GL      6      2      2      Hope        18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; vs Calvin in Final 3/1   
       GL      7      4      3      Bethany        20-4, 21-4      PAC      LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals   
       GL      3      5      4      Mount Union        20-5, 20-5      OAC      LOST vs John Carroll 83-81 in semifinal   
                         5      DePauw      17-7, 18-7      NCAC      WON vs Wabash 73-59; vs Wittenberg in semifinal 2/28   
       GL      5      7      6      Wittenberg        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Denison 64-49; vs DePauw in semifinal 2/28   
       GL      2      3      7      Ohio Wesleyan        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon i78-67; vs Wooster in semifinal 2/28   
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       GL      4      6            Marietta              OAC          
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       MATL      1      2      1      Cabrini       23-1, 23-1      CSAC      WON vs Rosemont 109-97; vs Neumann in Final 2/28   
       MATL      2      1      2      Scranton       22-3, 22-3      LAND      WON vs Merchant Marine 82-64; vs Susquechanna in Final 3/1   
       MATL      3      3      3      Wesley       20-2, 22-2      CAC      LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal   
       MATL      6      4      4      Dickinson       20-5, 20-5      CC      vs McDaniel in semifinal 2/28   
             n/a      6      5      Stevenson      18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Hood 83-72; vs Alvernia in Final 3/1   
       MATL      4      5      6      Messiah       19-5, 19-5      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal   
       MATL      7      8      7      Alvernia       18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Messiah 81-77; vs Stevenson in Final 3/1   
       MATL      5      7      8      Mary Washington       18-5, 20-5      CAC      WON vs St. Mary's (Md.) 70-65; vs Christopher Newport in Final 3/1   
                         9      St. Mary's (Md.)      15-7, 18-7      CAC      LOST vs Mary Washington 70-65 in semifinal   
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       MATL      8      9            Hood             MACC          
       MATL      9                  McDaniel             CC         
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       MW      1      1      1      Washington U.       22-2, 22-2      UAA      at Chicago 3/1   
       MW      2      2      2      Illinois Wesleyan       22-3, 22-3      CCIW      vs Carthage in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      3      3      3      Wheaton (Ill.)       17-8, 17-8      CCIW      vs Augustana in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      4      4      4      Augustana       19-6, 19-6      CCIW      vs Wheaton (IL) in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      5      5      5      St. Norbert       21-1, 22-1      MWC      vs Carroll in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      6      6      6      Carthage       15-8, 16-9      CCIW      at Illinois Wesleyan in semifinal 2/28   
       MW      7      7      7      Rose-Hulman       20-5, 20-5      HCAC      vs Mount St. Joseph in  semifinal 2/28   
                         8      Chicago      14-9, 15-9      UAA         
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       MW      8      8            MSOE             NACC      SEASON COMPLETE   
                                                    

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2014, 06:00:08 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2014, 05:59:33 AM




       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       NE      1      1      1      Amherst       22-3, 22-3      NESCAC      vs Trinity (CT) in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      2      2      2      Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      vs Middlebury in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      4      3      3      Babson       20-5, 20-5      NEWMAC      vs Springfield in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      5      4      4      Eastern Connecticut       20-5, 20-5      LEC      WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; vs Western Connecticut in semifinal 2/28   
       NE      6      5      5      WPI       22-3, 22-3      NEWMAC      vs MIT in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      7      7      6      Springfield       18-6, 19-6      NEWMAC      vs Babson in semifinal 3/1   
       NE      3      6      7      Bowdoin       19-5, 19-5      NESCAC      LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal COMPLETE   
       NE      8      8      8      Albertus Magnus       23-1, 23-2      GNAC      WON vs Norwich 87-69; vs Lasell in semifinal 2/27   
       NE      10      10      9      Nichols       20-5, 20-5      CCC      WON vs Western New England 73-54; WON vs Salva Regina 83-80 OT; vs Gordon in Final 3/1   
       NE      9      9      10      Rhode Island College      17-8, 17-8      LEC      WON vs Southern Maine 74-66; vs Mass-Dartmouth in semifinal 2/28   
       NE      11      11      11      Middlebury       16-8, 17-8      NESCAC      vs Williams in semifinal 3/1   
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       SOUTH      1      1      1      Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      vs Hampden-Sydney in quarterfinal 2/28   
       SOUTH      6      3      2      Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      at Rochester 3/1   
       SOUTH      3      2      3      Virgina Wesleyan       18-6, 19-6      ODAC      vs Bridgewater in quarterfinal 2/28   
       SOUTH      2      4      4      Texas-Dallas       22-3, 22-3      ASC      vs East Texas Baptist in quarterfinal 2/28   
       SOUTH      4      5      5      Centre       17-3, 20-4      SAA      vs Berry in quarterfinal 2/28   
                         6      Birmingham-Southern      16-9, 16-9      SAA      vs Hendrix in quarterfinal 2/28   
       SOUTH      5      6      7      Guilford       17-8, 17-8      ODAC      vs Washington and Lee in quarterfinal 2/28   
                         8      Trinity (TX)      16-9, 16-9      SCAC      vs Texas Lutheran in quarterfinal 2/28   
                                                    
                               DROPPING OUT                     
       SOUTH      7      7            Oglethorpe             SAA         
       SOUTH      n/a      8            Hardin-Simmons            ASC         
       SOUTH      8      n/a            Concordia (Texas)             ASC         
                                                    
       REG      #1      #2      #3      TEAM       REC      CON       SCHEDULE   
       WEST      1      1      1      UW-Stevens Point       24-1, 24-1      WIAC      vs Platteville in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      2      2      2      UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      vs La Crosse in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      3      3      3      St. Thomas       21-4, 21-4      MIAC      vs Bethel in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      5      4      4      St. Olaf       20-5, 20-5      MIAC      vs Gustavus Adolphus in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      6      6      5      Whitworth       20-5, 20-5      NWC      WON vs Lewis and Clark 87-62; vs Puget Sound in Final 3/1   
       WEST      4      5      6      Dubuque       18-4, 21-4      IIAC      LOST vs Luther 87-83 in semifinal    
       WEST      9      n/a      7      C-M-S       17-3, 19-5      SCIAC      vs Cal Lutheran in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      7      7      8      Pomona-Pitzer       18-5, 18-7      SCIAC      vs Chapman in semifinal 2/28   
       WEST      n/a      9      9      Augsburg      18-7, 18-7      MIAC      LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal   
                                                    
       DROP                        DROPPING OUT                     
       WEST      8      8            Colorado College             SCAC         
                                                    
                                                    

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 28, 2014, 07:31:31 AM
    Marrietta probably had to beat Mount Union in the finals for OAC to have a shot at getting two in, but now it seems like that unless Calvin beats Hope tomorrow, the GL region will be represented solely by Wilmington/John Caroll, Hope,  and 3 or 4 teams from the NCAC...

    It will be interesting to see how the weekend pans out for IWU, Wooster, Wheaton, OWU, Carthage, DePauw, Augustana, and Wittenberg. Seems to me that the CCIW should be rooting hard for Wooster to take care of business this weekend and the NCAC will be doing the same with IWU...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2014, 07:39:51 AM
    Quote from: sethteater on February 28, 2014, 07:31:31 AM
    Marrietta probably had to beat Mount Union in the finals for OAC to have a shot at getting two in, but now it seems like that unless Calvin beats Hope tomorrow, the GL region will be represented solely by Wilmington/John Caroll, Hope,  and 3 or 4 teams from the NCAC...

    It will be interesting to see how the weekend pans out for IWU, Wooster, Wheaton, OWU, Carthage, DePauw, Augustana, and Wittenberg. Seems to me that the CCIW should be rooting hard for Wooster to take care of business this weekend and the NCAC will be doing the same with IWU...

    No way do we get 4 in. I'm not even sure we get 2 if Wooster grabs the A. Witt and OWU absolutely need wins tonight to stay alive, and DePauw probably does too.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2014, 08:03:28 AM
    I agree. David just types faster! It doesn't help them that Bethany and Mount Umion lost too. Realistically, the NCAC gets two. I think Ohio Wesleyan has to beat DePauw in the final for the NCAC to get 3 in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2014, 08:28:32 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2014, 10:56:40 PM
    FYI - I know there are a lot of concerns about Emory simply on the fact that they have no quality wins on their resume... great SOS, but what have they really done with that SOS... more to come tomorrow.

    4-5 against regional ranked teams.

    * Beat NYU twice
    * Lost to Wash U twice
    * Split w/Chicago
    * Split w/ Birmingham-Southern
    * Lost to Virginia Wesleyan

    On top of that beat Chris Newport (who might get a regional ranking before this is done).

    If Emory wnis this weekend, they'll be a 7 loss team with a very good SOS and a good RRO record.  Even if they don't get picked among the first ten, they'll be up against the Carthages (9 losses, similar SOS and better 'wins') or 6 loss teams with no quality wins.

    Interested in hearing on the concerns.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2014, 09:04:42 AM
    Quote from: sethteater on February 28, 2014, 07:31:31 AM
    Marrietta probably had to beat Mount Union in the finals for OAC to have a shot at getting two in, but now it seems like that unless Calvin beats Hope tomorrow, the GL region will be represented solely by Wilmington/John Caroll, Hope,  and 3 or 4 teams from the NCAC...

    It will be interesting to see how the weekend pans out for IWU, Wooster, Wheaton, OWU, Carthage, DePauw, Augustana, and Wittenberg. Seems to me that the CCIW should be rooting hard for Wooster to take care of business this weekend and the NCAC will be doing the same with IWU...

    Don't forget our Great Lakes friends from the PrAC and AMCC , one from each conference gets an AQ.

    PrAC
    St. Vincent at Thomas More

    AMCC
    Medaille vs Hilbert
    Pitt-Bradford at PSU-Behrend

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2014, 09:16:31 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2014, 08:28:32 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2014, 10:56:40 PM
    FYI - I know there are a lot of concerns about Emory simply on the fact that they have no quality wins on their resume... great SOS, but what have they really done with that SOS... more to come tomorrow.

    4-5 against regional ranked teams.

    * Beat NYU twice
    * Lost to Wash U twice
    * Split w/Chicago
    * Split w/ Birmingham-Southern
    * Lost to Virginia Wesleyan

    On top of that beat Chris Newport (who might get a regional ranking before this is done).

    If Emory wnis this weekend, they'll be a 7 loss team with a very good SOS and a good RRO record.  Even if they don't get picked among the first ten, they'll be up against the Carthages (9 losses, similar SOS and better 'wins') or 6 loss teams with no quality wins.

    Interested in hearing on the concerns.

    Not a concern but if Chicago doesn't stay in the Midwest rankings (this week #8) Emory loses two RRO's


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 09:21:53 AM
    Current ordinal RPI rank of the current Pool C crop. Some of these teams would still have to lose to stay on this list (and some have already lost).

    C   1   UW-Whitewater
    C   2   Williams
    C   3   Emory
    C   4   Babson
    C   5   Wheaton (Ill.)
    C   6   Wesley
    C   7   Plattsburgh State
    C   8   Geneseo State
    C   9   Carthage
    C   10   St. Olaf
    C   11   Springfield
    C   12   Augustana
    C   13   Bowdoin
    C   14   Virginia Wesleyan
    C   15   Christopher Newport
    C   16   Alvernia
    C   17   St. Marys (Md.)
    C   18   Messiah
    C   19   William Paterson
    --   ---------   ---------
    C   20   Ohio Wesleyan
    C   21   Dubuque
    C   22   Middlebury
    C   23   UW-La Crosse
    C   24   Marietta
    C   25   DePauw
    C   26   Chicago
    C   27   Rhode Island College
    C   28   Colorado College
    C   29   UW-Platteville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 28, 2014, 09:22:06 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2014, 09:04:42 AM
    Don't forget our Great Lakes friends from the PrAC and AMCC , one from each conference gets an AQ.

    PrAC
    St. Vincent at Thomas More

    AMCC
    Medaille vs Hilbert
    Pitt-Bradford at PSU-Behrend

    Very right! I'm sorry. I often forget they are in the GL because PA and KY just don't scream Great Lakes to me. Also, if Thomas More wins the PrAC, they are a school that could travel to Emory without flying.

    (Still, I'm guessing Emory goes to Centre with John Caroll/Wilmington, Thomas More, and/or the NCAC #2)


    [edited for format]
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2014, 09:28:03 AM
    KS, do we have a list of the 18 strongest Pool A's?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2014, 10:37:03 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2014, 09:16:31 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2014, 08:28:32 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2014, 10:56:40 PM
    FYI - I know there are a lot of concerns about Emory simply on the fact that they have no quality wins on their resume... great SOS, but what have they really done with that SOS... more to come tomorrow.

    4-5 against regional ranked teams.

    * Beat NYU twice
    * Lost to Wash U twice
    * Split w/Chicago
    * Split w/ Birmingham-Southern
    * Lost to Virginia Wesleyan

    On top of that beat Chris Newport (who might get a regional ranking before this is done).

    If Emory wnis this weekend, they'll be a 7 loss team with a very good SOS and a good RRO record.  Even if they don't get picked among the first ten, they'll be up against the Carthages (9 losses, similar SOS and better 'wins') or 6 loss teams with no quality wins.

    Interested in hearing on the concerns.

    Not a concern but if Chicago doesn't stay in the Midwest rankings (this week #8) Emory loses two RRO's

    True.  I was surprised by Chicago being in there over Defiance, which is getting no love, or Marian.

    That said, the MW has been remarkably stable so far and Carthage didn't drop when they lost to IWU, so I wonder if they'll shift Chicago out if they lose to Wash U.

    Also, I was surprised by NYU hanging in there in the East, but there really don't seem to be better qualified teams there either.

    Does the selection committee just look at RRO or does it consider the quality of RRO as well?  This would play into Carthage's advantage as the team with wins against regional ranked MW#1 Wash U, MW#2 IWU, MW#3 Wheaton and NE#4 Eastern Connecticut as opposed to wins vs teams barely in the regional rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 10:40:52 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2014, 09:28:03 AM
    KS, do we have a list of the 18 strongest Pool A's?

    Here's the Top 19 sorted by RPI

    UW-Stevens Point
    Washington U.
    Amherst
    Illinois Wesleyan
    Scranton
    Brockport State
    Wooster
    St. Norbert
    Cabrini
    Randolph-Macon
    SUNY-Purchase
    Richard Stockton
    Hope
    WPI
    Eastern Connecticut
    St. Thomas
    Albertus Magnus
    Mary Washington
    Whitworth

    Pool A's also above the dashed line Pool C cutoff:

    Dickinson
    Nichols
    Texas-Dallas
    Staten Island
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: imderekpoe on February 28, 2014, 10:44:24 AM
    Are teams in New Jersey eligible to host this year?  I seem to remember that they weren't last year (or maybe it was the year before) due to sports gambling.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: hopefan on February 28, 2014, 11:13:49 AM
    Atlantic Region - NCAA data sheet
    1 SUNY-Purchase 23-2 23-2
    2 Richard Stockton 21-4 21-4
    3 Staten Island 24-2 24-2
    4 William Paterson 20-5 20-5
    5 Rutgers-Newark 19-7 19-7    ELIMINATED from Conference Tourney
    6 Mount St. Mary 20-5 20-5

    East - NCAA data sheet
    1 Brockport State 21-3 22-3
    2 Plattsburgh State 21-4 21-4
    3 Geneseo State 19-5 20-5
    4 Hobart 19-6 19-6
    5 NYU 16-8 16-8
    6 Skidmore 16-9 16-9  ELIMINATED from Conference Tourney

    Great Lakes - NCAA data sheet
    1 Wooster 21-2 22-3
    2 Hope 18-5 19-6
    3 Bethany 20-4 21-4  ELIMINATED from Conference Tourney
    4 Mount Union 20-5 20-5  ELIMINATED from Conference Tourney
    5 DePauw 17-7 18-7
    6 Wittenberg 19-6 19-6
    7 Ohio Wesleyan 19-6 19-6

    Mid-Atlantic - NCAA data sheet
    1 Cabrini 23-1 23-1
    2 Scranton 22-3 22-3
    3 Wesley 20-2 22-2  ELIMINATED from Conference Tourney
    4 Dickinson 20-5 20-5
    5 Stevenson 18-7 18-7
    6 Messiah 19-5 19-5  ELIMINATED from Conference Tourney
    7 Alvernia 18-7 18-7
    8 Mary Washington 18-5 20-5
    9 St. Mary's (Md.) 15-7 18-7  ELIMINATED from Conference Tourney

    Midwest - NCAA data sheet
    1 Washington U. 22-2 22-2
    2 Illinois Wesleyan 22-3 22-3
    3 Wheaton (Ill.) 17-8 17-8
    4 Augustana 19-6 19-6
    5 St. Norbert 21-1 22-1
    6 Carthage 15-8 16-9
    7 Rose-Hulman 20-5 20-5
    8 Chicago 14-9 15-9

    Northeast - NCAA data sheet
    1 Amherst 22-2 22-3
    2 Williams 21-3 22-3
    3 Babson 20-5 20-5
    4 Eastern Connecticut 20-5 20-5
    5 WPI 22-3 22-3
    6 Springfield 18-6 19-6
    7 Bowdoin 19-5 19-5  ELIMINATED from Conference Tourney
    8 Albertus Magnus 23-1 23-2
    9 Nichols 20-5 20-5
    10 Rhode Island College 17-8 17-8
    11 Middlebury 16-8 17-8

    South - NCAA data sheet
    1 Randolph-Macon 20-5 20-5
    2 Emory 17-7 17-7
    3 Virgina Wesleyan 18-6 19-6
    4 Texas-Dallas 22-3 22-3
    5 Centre 17-3 20-4  Pool B Candidate
    6 Birmingham-Southern 16-9 16-9
    7 Guilford 17-8 17-8
    8 Trinity (Texas) 16-9 16-9

    West - NCAA data sheet
    1 UW-Stevens Point 24-1 24-1
    2 UW-Whitewater 22-3 22-3
    3 St. Thomas 21-4 21-4
    4 St. Olaf 20-5 20-5
    5 Whitworth 20-5 20-5
    6 Dubuque 18-4 21-4  Eliminated from Conference tourney
    7 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 17-3 19-5
    8 Pomona-Pitzer 18-5 18-7
    9 Augsburg 18-7 18-7 Eliminated from Conference tourney
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 28, 2014, 11:24:28 AM
    Quote from: imderekpoe on February 28, 2014, 10:44:24 AM
    Are teams in New Jersey eligible to host this year?  I seem to remember that they weren't last year (or maybe it was the year before) due to sports gambling.

    Yes, I've been told that they're able to host this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2014, 12:02:17 PM
    Hopefan,

    My list not good enough for you?  ???  :'(   ;D  ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pjunito on February 28, 2014, 01:39:37 PM
    Great work Hoops Fan

    +1
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Swish3 on February 28, 2014, 01:49:42 PM
    If CNU were to lose the championship game at MWC, might they be in the conversation for a pool c bid?  They play in a very tough conference and have wins at R-MC, at VWC, against MWC and at Wesley....anyone know what CNU's SOS is?  It's bound to be pretty solid....
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: madzillagd on February 28, 2014, 02:31:50 PM
    Quote from: Swish3 on February 28, 2014, 01:49:42 PM
    If CNU were to lose the championship game at MWC, might they be in the conversation for a pool c bid?  They play in a very tough conference and have wins at R-MC, at VWC, against MWC and at Wesley....anyone know what CNU's SOS is?  It's bound to be pretty solid....

    http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/26/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3/
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: madzillagd on February 28, 2014, 02:45:05 PM
    Add Randolph-Macon to the Pool C side of the house. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 28, 2014, 03:07:24 PM
    Quote from: madzillagd on February 28, 2014, 02:45:05 PM
    Add Randolph-Macon to the Pool C side of the house.

    Does the ODAC get three in if VWU loses in the championship game?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2014, 03:09:17 PM
    ODAC would get at least 2 anyway, probably not terrible for the bubble watchers as long as Va Wesleyan wins the AQ.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2014, 03:38:46 PM
    The ODAC's only hope is VWC losses in the title game if they want three bids. It all depends on how many other teams are upset. VWC and RMC will actually end up with very similar records and opens up a major conversation on who gets in and who should be higher ranked.

    As for the New Jersey schools... they are allowed to host games since a federal court denied New Jersey's appeal last year and New Jersey has not decided to appeal that (I think to the Supreme Court).

    Interestingly enough, the court's decision took place the Friday of the opening weekend of the tournament last year, so if New Jersey schools had advanced to the second weekend and were in position to host... they would have been allowed to host.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: hopefan on February 28, 2014, 06:04:51 PM
    Greektragedy.. sorry, haven't been following closely and didn't notice you had already posted a superb writeup on the regional ratings and those teams' tourney performance... sorry for being redundant... ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2014, 07:52:32 PM
    #22 Wittenberg (GL #6), which had lost two regular season games to DePauw (GL #5) by 26 and 22, defeats the Tigers 63-61. Witt advances to the NCAC Championship game against #8 Wooster (GL #1) or Ohio Wesleyan (GL #7), while DePauw (19-8) moves to the far outer edge of the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2014, 08:00:42 PM
    Augie (#4 Midwest) lost by 11 to Wheaton (#3 Midwest) on a neutral court.  Barring a huge rash of upsets, are they still fairly safe?  Or now very much a bubble team?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 08:09:16 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2014, 08:00:42 PM
    Augie (#4 Midwest) lost by 11 to Wheaton (#3 Midwest) on a neutral court.  Barring a huge rash of upsets, are they still fairly safe?  Or now very much a bubble team?

    Looking fairly safe, probably.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 08:17:24 PM
    Quote from: Swish3 on February 28, 2014, 01:49:42 PM
    If CNU were to lose the championship game at MWC, might they be in the conversation for a pool c bid?  They play in a very tough conference and have wins at R-MC, at VWC, against MWC and at Wesley....anyone know what CNU's SOS is?  It's bound to be pretty solid....

    Their numbers look reasonable for a Pool C, but going 0-2 against St. Mary's (Md.) is probably dragging them below the Seahawks in the rankings. That might make it more difficult if St. Mary's blocks them from getting to the table.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 28, 2014, 08:19:59 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2014, 07:52:32 PM
    #22 Wittenberg (GL #6), which had lost two regular season games to DePauw (GL #5) by 26 and 22, defeats the Tigers 63-61. Witt advances to the NCAC Championship game against #8 Wooster (GL #1) or Ohio Wesleyan (GL #7), while DePauw (19-8) moves to the far outer edge of the bubble.

    Very difficult to beat a good team 3 times in 1 season.  I know I would much rather have Western Connecticut play a team they lost to twice in the regular season in the LEC tournament then a team they beat twice during the season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 08:26:30 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 28, 2014, 08:19:59 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2014, 07:52:32 PM
    #22 Wittenberg (GL #6), which had lost two regular season games to DePauw (GL #5) by 26 and 22, defeats the Tigers 63-61. Witt advances to the NCAC Championship game against #8 Wooster (GL #1) or Ohio Wesleyan (GL #7), while DePauw (19-8) moves to the far outer edge of the bubble.

    Very difficult to beat a good team 3 times in 1 season.  I know I would much rather have Western Connecticut play a team they lost to twice in the regular season in the LEC tournament then a team they beat twice during the season.

    If two teams are evenly matched, then the chances of beating them three times in a season is roughly 12.5%.

    But if you've already beaten them twice, then the chances of beating them the third time is roughly 50%.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2014, 08:42:07 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 08:26:30 PM
    But if you've already beaten them twice, then the chances of beating them the third time is roughly 50%.

    +1. My wife just looked over her shoulder at me to see what I was snickering at.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2014, 08:48:37 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2014, 08:42:07 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 08:26:30 PM
    But if you've already beaten them twice, then the chances of beating them the third time is roughly 50%.

    +1. My wife just looked over her shoulder at me to see what I was snickering at.

    Actually, if you have already beaten the team twice, that is a fair amount of evidence that either 1) you are better than them, or 2) you have specific match-up advantages over them.  I would think the probability is higher than 50%.

    Gregory Sager must not be seeing this thread recently, as he HATES that cliche! ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: monsoon on February 28, 2014, 09:12:52 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2014, 08:48:37 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2014, 08:42:07 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 08:26:30 PM
    But if you've already beaten them twice, then the chances of beating them the third time is roughly 50%.

    +1. My wife just looked over her shoulder at me to see what I was snickering at.

    Actually, if you have already beaten the team twice, that is a fair amount of evidence that either 1) you are better than them, or 2) you have specific match-up advantages over them.  I would think the probability is higher than 50%.

    Gregory Sager must not be seeing this thread recently, as he HATES that cliche! ;)

    That's probably for the best for all of us at the moment.   ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 28, 2014, 09:18:29 PM
    That's true, but still I'd rather play a team that we went 1-1 or 0-2 against then 2-0.  To each his own.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2014, 09:24:32 PM
    Does that count preseason?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2014, 09:36:42 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 28, 2014, 09:18:29 PM
    That's true, but still I'd rather play a team that we went 1-1 or 0-2 against then 2-0.  To each his own.

    Well, then, you really want to be Wittenberg again tomorrow night. They got lucky as the team they beat twice (OWU) fell at Wooster, who have beaten the Tigers five straight times.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: USee on February 28, 2014, 09:53:43 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 08:26:30 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 28, 2014, 08:19:59 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2014, 07:52:32 PM
    #22 Wittenberg (GL #6), which had lost two regular season games to DePauw (GL #5) by 26 and 22, defeats the Tigers 63-61. Witt advances to the NCAC Championship game against #8 Wooster (GL #1) or Ohio Wesleyan (GL #7), while DePauw (19-8) moves to the far outer edge of the bubble.

    Very difficult to beat a good team 3 times in 1 season.  I know I would much rather have Western Connecticut play a team they lost to twice in the regular season in the LEC tournament then a team they beat twice during the season.

    If two teams are evenly matched, then the chances of beating them three times in a season is roughly 12.5%.

    But if you've already beaten them twice, then the chances of beating them the third time is roughly 50%.

    Wheaton just beat Augie for the  3rd time this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 10:06:13 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2014, 08:48:37 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2014, 08:42:07 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 08:26:30 PM
    But if you've already beaten them twice, then the chances of beating them the third time is roughly 50%.

    +1. My wife just looked over her shoulder at me to see what I was snickering at.

    Actually, if you have already beaten the team twice, that is a fair amount of evidence that either 1) you are better than them, or 2) you have specific match-up advantages over them.  I would think the probability is higher than 50%.

    Gregory Sager must not be seeing this thread recently, as he HATES that cliche! ;)

    The scenario I proposed presupposed evenly matched teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2014, 10:19:43 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 10:06:13 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2014, 08:48:37 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2014, 08:42:07 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2014, 08:26:30 PM
    But if you've already beaten them twice, then the chances of beating them the third time is roughly 50%.

    +1. My wife just looked over her shoulder at me to see what I was snickering at.

    Actually, if you have already beaten the team twice, that is a fair amount of evidence that either 1) you are better than them, or 2) you have specific match-up advantages over them.  I would think the probability is higher than 50%.

    Gregory Sager must not be seeing this thread recently, as he HATES that cliche! ;)

    The scenario I proposed presupposed evenly matched teams.

    I realize that, but the evidence is that they are not.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 28, 2014, 11:56:23 PM
    Staten Island loses to York 87-84 in the CUNYAC championship game.  Not good for somebody, of course that somebody could be Staten Island though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2014, 12:40:04 AM
    My Top 12 Pool C teams are:

    * Randolph-Macon
    * UW Whitewater
    * Williams
    * Wesley
    * Babson
    * Wheaton
    * Augustana
    * Plattsburgh St
    * Geneseo St
    * Staten Island
    * William Patterson
    * Emory

    At that point, my guess on who will be on the table is:

    NE - Springfield
    E - NYU
    Atl - Rutgers - Newark
    Mid Atl - Alvernia or Messiah
    South - Birmingham Southern
    MW - Carthage
    West - St Olaf
    Great Lakes - ummm, Wittenburg?

    All those teams have fundamental flaws that makes me wonder where this might go.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 12:44:10 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 12:37:46 AM
    GREEN is Pool A bid/#1 seed/Conference leader

    POOL C contender



       TEAM-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
        SUNY-Purchase      23-2, 23-2      SKY      WON vs SUNY-Old Westbury 88-73; vs Mount St. Mary in Final 3/1   
        Richard Stockton      21-4, 21-4      NJAC      WON vs Kean 64-63; vs William Paterson in Final 3/1   
        Staten Island      24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final    
       William Paterson       20-5, 20-5      NJAC      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; vs Richard Stockton in Final 3/1   
        Rutgers-Newark      19-7, 19-7      NJAC      LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal     
       Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       20-5, 20-5      SKY      WON vs Farmingdale State 95-75; vs SUNY-Purchase in Final 3/1   
                            
       TEAM-EAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Brockport State      21-3, 22-3      SUNYAC      WON vs Oswego 77-56; vs Plattsburgh State in Final 3/1   
       Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      WON vs Geneseo 73-69; vs Brockport State in Final 3/1   
       Geneseo State       19-5, 20-5      SUNYAC      WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; LOST vs Plattsburgh St. 73-69 in semifinal    
       Hobart      19-6, 19-6      LL      WON vs Clarkson 78-69 OT; vs Vassar in Final 3/1   
       NYU        16-8, 16-8      UAA      at Brandeis 3/2   
       Skidmore      16-9, 16-9      LL      LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal COMPLETE   
                            
       TEAM-GREAT-LAKES      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Wooster      21-2, 22-3      NCAC      WON vs. Oberlin 89-56; WONvs Ohio Wesleyan 78-67; vs Wittenberg in Final 3/1   
       Hope      18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; vs Calvin in Final 3/1   
       Bethany      20-4, 21-4      PAC      LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals    
       Mount Union      20-5, 20-5      OAC      LOST John Carroll 83-81 in semifinal    
       DePauw      17-7, 18-7      NCAC      WON vs Wabash 73-59; LOST vs Wittenberg 63-61 in semifinal 2/28   
       Wittenberg        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Denison 64-49; WON vs DePauw 63-61; vs Wooster in Final 3/1   
       Ohio Wesleyan      19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon 78-67; LOST vs Wooster 78-67 in semifinal    
                            
       TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Cabrini      23-1, 23-1      CSAC      WON vs Rosemont 109-97; WON vs Neumann 96-79 in Final   
       Scranton      22-3, 22-3      LAND      WON vs Merchant Marine 82-64; vs Susquechanna in Final 3/1   
       Wesley      20-2, 22-2      CAC      LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal    
       Dickinson      20-5, 20-5      CC      WON vs McDaniel 77-63; vs Johns Hopkins in Final 3/1   
       Stevenson      18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Hood 83-72; vs Alvernia in Final 3/1   
       Messiah      19-5, 19-5      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal    
       Alvernia       18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Messiah 81-77; vs Stevenson in Final 3/1   
       Mary Washington       18-5, 20-5      CAC      WON  St. Mary's (Md.) 70-65; vs Christopher Newport in Final 3/1   
       St. Mary's (Md.)      15-7, 18-7      CAC      LOST vs Mary Washington 70-65 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-MIDWEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Washington U.      22-2, 22-2      UAA      at Chicago 3/1   
       Illinois Wesleyan      22-3, 22-3      CCIW      WON vs Carthage 76-71; vs Wheaton in Final 3/1   
       Wheaton (Ill.)       17-8, 17-8      CCIW      WON vs Augustana 66-55; vs Illinois Wesleyan in Final 3/1   
       Augustana       19-6, 19-6      CCIW      LOST vs Wheaton (IL) 66-55 in semifinal    
       St. Norbert       21-1, 22-1      MWC      WON vs Carroll in semifinal 2/28   
       Carthage       15-8, 16-9      CCIW      LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 76-71 in semifinal    
       Rose-Hulman       20-5, 20-5      HCAC      WON vs Mount St. Joseph 68-54; vs Hanover in Final 3/1   
       Chicago      14-9, 15-9      UAA         
                            
       TEAM-NORTHEAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Amherst       22-3, 22-3      NESCAC      vs Trinity (CT) in semifinal 3/1   
       Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      vs Middlebury in semifinal 3/1   
       Babson       20-5, 20-5      NEWMAC      vs Springfield in semifinal 3/1   
        Eastern Connecticut      20-5, 20-5      LEC      WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; WON vs Western Connecticut 88-75; vs RIC in Final 3/1   
       WPI       22-3, 22-3      NEWMAC      vs MIT in semifinal 3/1   
       Springfield       18-6, 19-6      NEWMAC      vs Babson in semifinal 3/1   
       Bowdoin      19-5, 19-5      NESCAC      LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal     
        Albertus Magnus      23-1, 23-2      GNAC      WON vs Norwich 87-69; WON vs Lasell 91-72; vs St. Joseph's (Me.) in Final 3/1   
        Nichols      20-5, 20-5      CCC      WON vs Western New England 73-54; WON vs Salva Regina 83-80 OT; vs Gordon in Final 3/1   
       Rhode Island College      17-8, 17-8      LEC      WON vs Southern Maine 74-66; WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 82-69; vs Eastern Connecticut in Final 3/1   
       Middlebury       16-8, 17-8      NESCAC      vs Williams in semifinal 3/1   
                            
       TEAM-SOUTH      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal    
       Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      at Rochester 3/1   
       Virgina Wesleyan       18-6, 19-6      ODAC      WON vs Bridgewater 91-70; vs Washington and Lee in semifinal 3/1   
       Texas-Dallas      22-3, 22-3      ASC      WON vs East Texas Baptist 80-65; vs Texas-Tyler in semifinal 3/1   
       Centre      17-3, 20-4      SAA      WON vs Berry 77-60; vs Rhodes in semifinal 3/1   
       Birmingham-Southern      16-9, 16-9      SAA      WON vs Hendrix 77-62; vs Oglethorpe in semfinal 3/1   
       Guilford       17-8, 17-8      ODAC      LOST vs Washington and Lee 77-70 in quarterfinal    
       Trinity (TX)      16-9, 16-9      SCAC      WON vs Texas Lutheran 78-65; vs Colorado College in semifinal 3/1   
                            
       TEAM-WEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       UW-Stevens Point      24-1, 24-1      WIAC      WON vs Platteville 66-47; vs Whitewater in Final 3/2   
       UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      WON vs La Crosse i76-73; at Stevens Point in Final 3/2   
       St. Thomas       21-4, 21-4      MIAC      WON vs Bethel 74-59; vs St. Olaf in Final 3/2   
       St. Olaf       20-5, 20-5      MIAC      WON vs Gustavus Adolphus 66-53; vs St. Thomas in Final 3/2   
       Whitworth       20-5, 20-5      NWC      WON vs Lewis and Clark 87-62; vs Puget Sound in Final 3/1   
        Dubuque      18-4, 21-4      IIAC      LOST vs Luther 87-83 in semifinal    
       C-M-S       17-3, 19-5      SCIAC      LOST vs Cal Lutheran 54-53 in semifinal   
       Pomona-Pitzer       18-5, 18-7      SCIAC      LOST vs Chapman 69-54 in semifinal   
       Augsburg      18-7, 18-7      MIAC      LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal    
                            
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 12:48:41 AM
    Looks like CMS and Pomona Pitzer both lost.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 01:07:27 AM
    Pool C?

    Richard Stockton/William Paterson loser
    Brockport State/Plattsburgh State loser
    Geneseo State
    DePauw
    Wooster/Wittenberg loser
    Wesley
    Stevenson/Alvernia loser
    Illinois Wesleyan/Wheaton loser
    Augustana
    Amherst or Williams (both in semis)
    Two of Babson, WPI and Springfield (all in semis)
    Randolph-Macon
    Emory
    Whitewater/Stevens Point loser
    St. Thomas/St. Olaf loser

    -------

    Rutgers-Newark
    Mt. St. Mary (N.Y)
    NYU
    Carthage


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 08:12:20 AM
    My updated take on Pool C as of Saturday morning...

    * The data I'm using is from this week's regional rankings, games through Sun 2/23.
    * This list accounts for the 64 current regionally ranked teams

    Presumed Pool A/B Teams
    --Would be competitive in Pool C selection process:
    1. Amherst (NESCAC) - .917/.583/8-0   Northeast #1
    2. UW-Stevens Point (WIAC) - .960/.581/5-1    West #1
    3. Washington U.# (UAA) - .917/.595/6-2   Midwest #1
    4. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .880/.556/6-2   Midwest #2
    5. Wooster (NCAC) - .913/.534/5-1   Great Lakes #1
    6. Brockport State (SUNYAC) - .875/.543/3-2   East #1
    7. SUNY-Purchase (SKY) - .920/.508/4-1   Atlantic #1
    8. Cabrini (CSAC) - .958/.504/2-0   Mid-Atlantic #1
    9. Scranton (Land) - .880/.544/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #2
    10. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .840/.527/4-2   West #3
    11. Richard Stockton (NJAC) - .840/.528/3-2   Atlantic #2
    12. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .800/.542/3-3   Northeast #4
    13. Stevenson (MACC) - .720/.521/5-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    14. Hope (MIAA) - .783/.546/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    15. Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC) - .750/.545/3-2   South #3
    16. WPI (NEWMAC) - .880/.516/3-1  Northeast #5
    17. Centre** (SAA) - .850/.507/2-1   South #5
    18. St. Norbert (MWC) - .955/.509/0-1   Midwest #5

    --Most likely would not be competitive in Pool C selection process:
    19. Trinity-Tx (SCAC) - .640/.546/3-3   South #8
    20. Dickinson (CC) - .800/.525/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    21. Albertus Magnus (GNAC) - .958/.475/1-0   Northeast #8
    22. Texas-Dallas (ASC) - .880/.493/1-1   South #4
    23. Whitworth (NWC) - .800/.524/0-3  West #5
    24. Nichols - .800/.518/0-2   Northeast #9
    25. Rose-Hulman (HCAC) - .800/.514/0-1   Midwest #7
    26. Hobart - .760/.512/0-1  East #4


    Pool C candidates
    1. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .880/.565/4-1   West #2
    2. Williams (NESCAC) - .875/.551/4-2   Northeast #2
    3. Babson (NEWMAC) - .800/.564/3-4   Northeast #3
    4. Randolph-Macon* (ODAC) - .800/.560/3-3   South #1
    5. Wesley* (CAC) - .909/.522/3-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    6. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .840/.534/3-3   East #2
    7. Wheaton (CCIW) - .680/.595/5-5   Midwest #3
    8. Augustana* (CCIW) - .760/.553/4-3   Midwest #4
    9. Geneseo State* (SUNYAC) - .792/.544/2-3   East #3
    10. Emory# (UAA) - .708/.603/2-4  South #2
    11. Messiah* (MACC) - .792/.527/3-4   Mid-Atlantic #6
    12. William Paterson (NJAC) - .800/.512/2-2   Atlantic #4
    13. Rutgers-Newark* (NJAC) - .731/.525/3-2   Atlantic #5
    14. Carthage* (CCIW) - .652/.593/4-6   Midwest #6
    15. Birmingham-Southern** (SAA) - .640/.557/6-3   South #6
    16. Alvernia (MACC) - .720/.541/4-4   Mid-Atlantic #7
    17. DePauw* (NCAC) - .708/.539/4-4   Great Lakes #5
    18. Ohio Wesleyan* (NCAC) - .760/.529/2-3   Great Lakes #7
    19. St. Olaf (MIAC) - .800/.539/1-5   West #4
    20. Chicago (UAA) - .609/.579/3-6   Midwest #8
    --------------------
    21. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .750/.556/1-4   Northeast #6
    22. Mount Union* (OAC) - .880/.511/2-1   Great Lakes #4
    23. Bowdoin* (NESCAC) - .792/.530/1-3   Northeast #7
    24. Bethany* (PrAC) - .833/.505/1-0   Great Lakes #3
    25. Staten Island* (CUNYAC) - .923/.477/0-0   Atlantic #3
    26. Rhode Island (LEC) - .680/.550/0-3   Northeast #10
    27. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .760/.512/2-3   Great Lakes #6
    28. Middlebury (NESCAC) - .667/.557/2-4   Northeast #11
    29. Guilford* (ODAC) - .680/.536/1-5   South #7
    30. Mary Washington (CAC) - .783/.531/1-2   Mid-Atlantic #8
    31. St. Mary's* (CAC) - .682/.560/1-5   Mid-Atlantic #9
    32. Augsburg* (MIAC) - .720/.516/1-4   West #926.
    33. Dubuque* (IIAC) - .818/.513/1-0   West #6
    34. NYU (UAA)# - .667/.554/0-5   East #6
    35. Skidmore* (LL) - .640/.529/2-4   East #6
    36. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps* (SCIAC) - .850/.493/1-1  West #7
    37. Pomona-Pitzer* (SCIAC) .783/.508/1-0   West #8
    38. Mount St. Mary (Sky) - .800/.484/0-4   Atlantic #6


    * Teams that have lost in their conference tournament (officially Pool C candidates)

    # UAA teams - Wash U is locked in as the Pool A, Emory and NYU are Pool C candidates

    ** Pool B
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 08:32:45 AM
    A lot on the line on the south side of Chicago today (Wash U @ Chicago, 3:00pm Central).  The Maroons have a chance to make a case for a Pool C bid at the very end of the bubble, and Wash U hopes to stay ahead of IWU in the Midwest.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2014, 09:24:46 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 08:12:20 AM
    15. Marietta (OAC) - .750/.535/0-4   Great Lakes #6
    20. St. Olaf (MIAC) - .800/.539/1-5   West #4

    These two have to be flipped, right? What's the reasoning behind Marietta getting above St Olaf (worse WP, SOS, vRRO)?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 09:30:15 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2014, 09:24:46 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 08:12:20 AM
    15. Marietta (OAC) - .750/.535/0-4   Great Lakes #6
    20. St. Olaf (MIAC) - .800/.539/1-5   West #4

    These two have to be flipped, right? What's the reasoning behind Marietta getting above St Olaf (worse WP, SOS, vRRO)?

    Yes.

    My problem is that I like Ohio Wesleyan's resume more than Marietta's...but Marietta is ranked higher in the Great Lakes.  So it kind of messed me up with Marietta.

    Going to edit above.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2014, 09:36:34 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 09:30:15 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2014, 09:24:46 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 08:12:20 AM
    15. Marietta (OAC) - .750/.535/0-4   Great Lakes #6
    20. St. Olaf (MIAC) - .800/.539/1-5   West #4

    These two have to be flipped, right? What's the reasoning behind Marietta getting above St Olaf (worse WP, SOS, vRRO)?

    Yes.

    My problem is that I like Ohio Wesleyan's resume more than Marietta's...but Marietta is ranked higher in the Great Lakes.  So it kind of messed me up with Marietta.

    Going to edit above.

    Marietta wasn't ranked in the last rankings. I think they're done.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 09:41:03 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2014, 09:36:34 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 09:30:15 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2014, 09:24:46 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 08:12:20 AM
    15. Marietta (OAC) - .750/.535/0-4   Great Lakes #6
    20. St. Olaf (MIAC) - .800/.539/1-5   West #4

    These two have to be flipped, right? What's the reasoning behind Marietta getting above St Olaf (worse WP, SOS, vRRO)?

    Yes.

    My problem is that I like Ohio Wesleyan's resume more than Marietta's...but Marietta is ranked higher in the Great Lakes.  So it kind of messed me up with Marietta.

    Going to edit above.

    Marietta wasn't ranked in the last rankings. I think they're done.

    Good catch. I knew I had one too many ranked teams listed...just couldn't find it.

    Agree - Marietta is done.  I have removed them from my list (since not regionally ranked).

    I made edits above.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 09:52:06 AM
    Centre vs Birmingham-Southern is interesting.  I have B-S in as a Pool C...but I would not have Centre in if they were in the Pool C grouping.  (But Centre is ranked higher in the South.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 01, 2014, 10:16:36 AM
    Quote17. DePauw* (NCAC) - .708/.539/4-4   Great Lakes #5
    18. Ohio Wesleyan* (NCAC) - .760/.529/2-3   Great Lakes #7


    I think we have to assume Wittenberg will finish ranked ahead of these two in the final Great Lakes poll based on this past weeks results even though the head-to-heads don't quite match-up.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 01, 2014, 10:58:03 AM
    Quote7. SUNY-Purchase (SKY) - .920/.508/4-1   Atlantic #1
    8. Cabrini (CSAC) - .958/.504/2-0   Mid-Atlantic #1
    9. Scranton (Land) - .880/.544/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #
    12. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .800/.542/3-3   Northeast #4
    13. Stevenson (MACC) - .720/.521/5-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    14. Hope (MIAA) - .783/.546/2-4   Great Lakes #2
    15. Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC) - .750/.545/3-2   South #3
    16. WPI (NEWMAC) - .880/.516/3-1  Northeast #5
    18. St. Norbert (MWC) - .955/.509/0-1   Midwest #5

    Using Q's list, it seems like these are the bubble bursting teams.  Losses here potentially take up a Pool C spot that otherwise would not go to another conference rival.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: mailsy on March 01, 2014, 11:00:49 AM
    Cabrini won last night and are in. So someone's pool C chances are still alive.  :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 11:04:05 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 01, 2014, 10:58:03 AM
    Quote
    18. St. Norbert (MWC) - .955/.509/0-1   Midwest #5

    Using Q's list, it seems like these are the bubble bursting teams.  Losses here potentially take up a Pool C spot that otherwise would not go to another conference rival.

    It might be at the expense of St. Norbert, but a little part of me would like to see Grinnell in the NCAAs. I think the Green Knights are too good and disciplined to lose at home to Grinnell.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2014, 11:08:37 AM
    Thoughts on TitanQ's Pool C's.  Open to his and everyone's thoughts.

    * You really think Staten Island is on the outside looking in with that record.  I know they have nothing else going for them, but they are 25-3. 

    * I agree with you on principle on Bowdoin, but do they get any sort of bonus point from the NESCAC effect (being a good team from a great conference)?  I think the Tufts and Trinity losses are too much to overcome for serious consideration.

    * Not feeling it for Rutgers-Newark.  8 losses and a 2-3 RRO record (Stevens dropped out).  Solid team, but more at the end of the bubble.

    * I'm not sure what to think of the order of Alvernia and Messiah.  Messiah has 6 losses, a 2-4 RRO record and lost 2 of 3 vs. Alvernia (who would end with 8 losses if they lost today, a 3-5 RRO record).  I'm not sure Messiah doesn't get passed and then they both end up at the end of the bubble.  I'm leaning towards your thinking (Messiah then Alvernia).

    * You've already pointed out Chicago/Wash U, but I'll mention Springfield/Babson, because Springfield has a fair amount going for them except the RRO record (1-4).  A win today could propel them into the Pool C discussions.

    * Birmingham-Southern is only 4-3 against RRO, as Oglethorpe dropped out.  Does that change your view at all?  I'm gagging a bit on the 9 losses.  Similarly for Carthage, but they have wins against IWU and Wash U, which makes it go down a little easier.

    * I'm really having trouble with the Great Lakes/NCAC.  First, how far do Bethany and Mount Union fall?  I don't think either has a good enough resume to get in on their own merits, so they might block an NCAC.  Mount Union has no RRO wins and Bethany beat only Mount Union among the regional ranked.  So, assuming they do get out of the NCAC clubs way, what order do those end up in?  Assuming Witt loses today...

    Wittenburg 21-7 (2-0 vs. OWU, 1-2 vs. DePauw 3-6 vs. RRO)
    DePauw 19-8 (2-1 vs. Witt, 1-1 vs. OWU, 4-5 vs. RRO including win vs. Wooster)
    OWU 20-7 (1-1 vs. DePauw, 0-2 vs. Witt, 2-5 vs. RRO including win vs. Wooster)

    I've got to say, I see it as Wittenburg/DePauw/OWU in that order.

    With that in mind, here are my last 7 picks as of now:
    * Messiah - 13
    * Wittenburg -14
    * Carthage -15
    * DePauw - 16
    * Alvernia - 17
    * OWU - 18
    * Rutgers - Newark -19

    Really close are Springfield and St. Olaf.  I really could go either way on the last two picks and the two I left out.

    Teams I have in that you don't: Staten Island and Wittenburg
    Teams I don't have in that you do: St. Olaf and Birmingham-Southern
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wooscotsfan on March 01, 2014, 11:20:01 AM
    I realize that the Pool C methodology is a blend of several factors but I wonder if the NCAA committee has difficulty selecting a team that has a much lower win % even if their SOS would suggest that the team is deserving of a bid?

    In checking last year's Pool C bids, I didn't find any Pool C teams that had a winning percentage below .700  (please correct me if I am mistaken)

    Current Pool C candidates with Win % below .700:

    Wheaton (CCIW) - .680/.595/5-5   Midwest #3
    Rhode Island (LEC) - .680/.550/0-3   Northeast #10
    Guilford (ODAC) - .680/.536/1-5   South #7
    Middlebury (NESCAC) - .667/.557/2-4   Northeast #11
    Carthage (CCIW) - .652/.593/4-6   Midwest #6
    Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .640/.557/6-3   South #6
    Chicago (UAA) - .609/.579/3-6   Midwest #8

    Of this list above, I would certainly agree that Wheaton is deserving with their high SOS and 5 RRO wins if they don't win the CCIW bid.  For the rest of the teams on this list, it may be a real stretch to get a Pool C bid given their lower win percentages. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2014, 11:32:18 AM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on March 01, 2014, 11:20:01 AM
    I realize that the Pool C methodology is a blend of several factors but I wonder if the NCAA committee has difficulty selecting a team that has a much lower win % even if their SOS would suggest that the team is deserving of a bid?

    In checking last year's Pool C bids, I didn't find any Pool C teams that had a winning percentage below .700  (please correct me if I am mistaken)

    Current Pool C candidates with Win % below .700:

    Wheaton (CCIW) - .680/.595/5-5   Midwest #3
    Rhode Island (LEC) - .680/.550/0-3   Northeast #10
    Guilford (ODAC) - .680/.536/1-5   South #7
    Middlebury (NESCAC) - .667/.557/2-4   Northeast #11
    Carthage (CCIW) - .652/.593/4-6   Midwest #6
    Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .640/.557/6-3   South #6
    Chicago (UAA) - .609/.579/3-6   Midwest #8

    Of this list above, I would certainly agree that Wheaton is deserving with their high SOS and 5 RRO wins if they don't win the CCIW bid.  For the rest of the teams on this list, it may be a real stretch to get a Pool C bid given their lower win percentages.

    Last year, yes, but this is a different beast this year.  The teams getting left on the table don't have big wins at all; often times have way too many losses or a poor SOS. 

    Of course, this can change with a bunch of upsets today and tomorrow.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 01, 2014, 11:41:50 AM
    the 70% rule has changed the landscape for the better I think, consequently more wins/losses are being counted that wouldn't have in years past.

    But most importantly more cross regional match-ups among the top programs.  There was no incentive for Wheaton/Wooster, Hope/Illinois Wesleyan etc etc to play in past seasons.  Those games wouldn't show up in the regional record/SOS calculations in the past.

    Just using Hope as an example using this years schedule

    With 70% rule:  19-5  SOS of .546
    Without 70% rule:   18-2  SOS significantly less

    I'm sure its the same for a number of other programs out there.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 11:54:05 AM
    Far from an expert, I see Alvernia ahead of Messiah. They have a better H2H record and more RRO.

    I also see Wittenberg, DePauw and Ohio Wesleyan in that order.

    Carthage has great numbers but I can't get past the fact they are only 15-9.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 12:03:29 PM
    I've done some more tweaking - I moved Alvernia and Carthage up, put Wittenberg in, and slid Birmingham-Southern down a bit.


    * The data I'm using is from this week's regional rankings, games through Sun 2/23.
    * This list accounts for the 64 current regionally ranked teams

    Presumed Pool A/B Teams
    --Would be competitive in Pool C selection process:
    1. Amherst (NESCAC) - .917/.583/8-0   Northeast #1
    2. UW-Stevens Point (WIAC) - .960/.581/5-1    West #1
    3. Washington U.# (UAA) - .917/.595/6-2   Midwest #1  ---Clinched Pool A---
    4. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .880/.556/6-2   Midwest #2
    5. Wooster (NCAC) - .913/.534/5-1   Great Lakes #1
    6. Brockport State (SUNYAC) - .875/.543/3-2   East #1
    7. SUNY-Purchase (SKY) - .920/.508/4-1   Atlantic #1
    8. Cabrini (CSAC) - .958/.504/2-0   Mid-Atlantic #1  ---Clinched Pool A---
    9. Scranton (Land) - .880/.544/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #2  ---Clinched Pool A---
    10. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .840/.527/4-2   West #3
    11. Richard Stockton (NJAC) - .840/.528/3-2   Atlantic #2
    12. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .800/.542/3-3   Northeast #4
    13. Stevenson (MACC) - .720/.521/5-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    14. Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC) - .750/.545/3-2   South #3
    15. Centre** (SAA) - .850/.507/2-1   South #5
    16. St. Norbert (MWC) - .955/.509/0-1   Midwest #5

    --Most likely would not be competitive in Pool C selection process:
    17. Trinity-Tx (SCAC) - .640/.546/3-3   South #8
    18. Dickinson (CC) - .800/.525/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    19. Albertus Magnus (GNAC) - .958/.475/1-0   Northeast #8
    20. Texas-Dallas (ASC) - .880/.493/1-1   South #4
    21. Whitworth (NWC) - .800/.524/0-3  West #5
    22. Nichols - .800/.518/0-2   Northeast #9
    23. Rose-Hulman (HCAC) - .800/.514/0-1   Midwest #7
    24. Hobart - .760/.512/0-1  East #4


    Pool C candidates
    1. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .880/.565/4-1   West #2
    2. Williams (NESCAC) - .875/.551/4-2   Northeast #2
    3. Babson (NEWMAC) - .800/.564/3-4   Northeast #3
    4. Randolph-Macon* (ODAC) - .800/.560/3-3   South #1
    5. Wesley* (CAC) - .909/.522/3-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    6. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .840/.534/3-3   East #2
    7. Wheaton (CCIW) - .680/.595/5-5   Midwest #3
    8. Augustana* (CCIW) - .760/.553/4-3   Midwest #4
    9. Geneseo State* (SUNYAC) - .792/.544/2-3   East #3
    10. Emory# (UAA) - .708/.603/2-4  South #2
    11. Alvernia (MACC) - .720/.541/4-4   Mid-Atlantic #7
    12. Messiah* (MACC) - .792/.527/3-4   Mid-Atlantic #6
    13. WPI (NEWMAC) - .880/.516/3-1  Northeast #5
    14. Hope (MIAA) - .783/.546/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    15. Carthage* (CCIW) - .652/.593/4-6   Midwest #6
    16. William Paterson (NJAC) - .800/.512/2-2   Atlantic #4
    17. Rutgers-Newark* (NJAC) - .731/.525/3-2   Atlantic #5
    18. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .760/.512/2-3   Great Lakes #6
    19. DePauw* (NCAC) - .708/.539/4-4   Great Lakes #5
    20. St. Olaf (MIAC) - .800/.539/1-5   West #4
    --------------------
    21. Birmingham-Southern** (SAA) - .640/.557/6-3   South #6
    22. Chicago (UAA) - .609/.579/3-6   Midwest #8
    23. Ohio Wesleyan* (NCAC) - .760/.529/2-3   Great Lakes #7
    24. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .750/.556/1-4   Northeast #6
    25. Mount Union* (OAC) - .880/.511/2-1   Great Lakes #4
    26. Bowdoin* (NESCAC) - .792/.530/1-3   Northeast #7
    27. Bethany* (PrAC) - .833/.505/1-0   Great Lakes #3
    28. Staten Island* (CUNYAC) - .923/.477/0-0   Atlantic #3
    29. Rhode Island (LEC) - .680/.550/0-3   Northeast #10
    30. Middlebury (NESCAC) - .667/.557/2-4   Northeast #11
    31. Guilford* (ODAC) - .680/.536/1-5   South #7
    32. Mary Washington (CAC) - .783/.531/1-2   Mid-Atlantic #8
    33. St. Mary's* (CAC) - .682/.560/1-5   Mid-Atlantic #9
    34. Augsburg* (MIAC) - .720/.516/1-4   West #926.
    35. Dubuque* (IIAC) - .818/.513/1-0   West #6
    36. NYU (UAA)# - .667/.554/0-5   East #6
    37. Skidmore* (LL) - .640/.529/2-4   East #6
    38. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps* (SCIAC) - .850/.493/1-1  West #7
    39. Pomona-Pitzer* (SCIAC) .783/.508/1-0   West #8
    40. Mount St. Mary (Sky) - .800/.484/0-4   Atlantic #6


    * Teams that have lost in their conference tournament (officially Pool C candidates)

    # UAA teams - Wash U is locked in as the Pool A, Emory and NYU are Pool C candidates

    ** Pool B
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 12:05:53 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 11:54:05 AM
    Far from an expert, I see Alvernia ahead of Messiah. They have a better H2H record and more RRO.

    I also see Wittenberg, DePauw and Ohio Wesleyan in that order.

    Carthage has great numbers but I can't get past the fact they are only 15-9.

    Agree on Alvernia/Messiah.

    Agree on Witt, DePauw, and OWU.

    I think Carthage is in.  They will hit the board fairly early - after Augie gets in - and will get in with that tremendous SOS and (now) 11 games played vs RRO and 4 wins.  If the committee places strong emphasis on SOS and RRO, then Carthage is in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 12:47:16 PM
    Where do we draw a line though. I think its tough to take a team with 6 more wins than losses. I realize the SOS and RRO.

    I think its kind of like Hope's schedule. They have a great nonconference schedule but they didn't win any of those games (or only one or two).

    I'm not comparing the two teams though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Coach C on March 01, 2014, 12:57:26 PM
    Q -

    Nice work here.

    Talk to me on your thoughts about Dickinson not being competitive in the C process with .800/.525/2-1 vs say, 12. Messiah* (MACC) - .792/.527/3-4   Mid-Atlantic #6

    C
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on March 01, 2014, 01:15:12 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 12:47:16 PM
    Where do we draw a line though. I think its tough to take a team with 6 more wins than losses. I realize the SOS and RRO.

    I think its kind of like Hope's schedule. They have a great nonconference schedule but they didn't win any of those games (or only one or two).

    I'm not comparing the two teams though.
    Initially, I had some problem with more than 6 losses.  But, I think the 70% rule has resulted in some teams having more vRRO games than in the past. For example, with the 4 CCIW teams within the Midwest you lend up with a low vRRO of 8 games, 4-4 .500% (Augustana) to a high vRRO of 12 games with either a 7-5 or 6-6 (Wheaton - with an SOS in the .595 neighborhood).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2014, 01:51:03 PM
    For grins and giggles, here is my bracket

    Bracket 1 (UWW or UWSP as 2nd weekend hosts)

    UWSP (host)
    bye
    De Pauw
    Augustana

    UT - Dallas (host)
    Chapman
    Trinity
    Whitworth

    St Norbert (host)
    Central
    Carthage
    St Thomas

    UWW (host)
    Northwestern (MN)
    OWU
    Wheaton

    Bracket 2 (Wash U or IWU as 2nd weekend hosts)

    Wash U (host)
    bye
    Rose Holman
    Wittenburg

    Wooster (host)
    Penn St Behrand
    St. Vincent
    Messiah

    Emory (host)
    La Grange
    Spalding
    Centre

    IWU (host)
    Marian
    Wilmington
    Hope

    Bracket 3 (intention for Cabrini or Wesley as 2nd weekend host)

    Cabrini (host)
    Lancaster Bible
    Richard Stockton
    Staten Island

    Scranton (host)
    Rutgers-Newark
    Stevenson
    Mary Washington

    Wesley (host)
    York
    Virginia Wesleyan
    Wlliiam Patterson

    Randolph - Macon (host)
    DeSales
    Alvernia
    Dickinson

    Bracket 4 (intention for Amhurst or Brockport St as 2nd weekend hosts)

    Amhurst (host)
    Salem St.
    SUNY - Purchase
    Albertus Magnus

    Plattsburgh St. (host)
    Husson
    Nichols
    Babson

    Williams (host)
    Elms
    WPI
    Geneseo St.

    Brockport St (host)
    Hartwick
    Hobert
    Eastern Conn

    * Issues: I have 2 flights into Dallas the first weekend and that is it.  The second weekend; the winner of the Texas-Dallas pod will head to Wisconsin (one flight) and there is a distinct possibility that the winner of the Emory pod will end up on a plane (2 teams in that pod would require it no matter what and two wouldn't).

    * I'm managed to split up the strong teams in the Wisconsin/Illinois/Minnesota/Missouri region into 2 brackets, but the brackets are still tough.  Bracket #1 has #1, #2, #5 and #11 on the d3hoops.com Top 25, while Bracket #2 has #3, #4 and #8.  There's no way I can see around that.

    * Bracket #3 on the other hand is way too weak at this point though, and I probably could spend some time with maps to mix up Bracket #4 with #3 for balance.

    * I probably am being overly generous giving Plattsburgh St a host instead of Babson or WPI, but I think they are quite good.  I spent less effort on Bracket's #3 and #4, but I wanted to share this anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2014, 02:07:43 PM
    Well, and down goes Emory - more to think about...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 02:29:25 PM
    Quote from: Coach C on March 01, 2014, 12:57:26 PM
    Q -

    Nice work here.

    Talk to me on your thoughts about Dickinson not being competitive in the C process with .800/.525/2-1 vs say, 12. Messiah* (MACC) - .792/.527/3-4   Mid-Atlantic #6

    C

    Thanks C.

    I guess I'd just say there is a really fine line in all of this, and Messiah's numbers land on the right side for me, and Dickinson's on the wrong.  I value the RRO total quite a bit...because it seems like there is history of the national committee doing the same.  Messiah has 3 wins vs RRO, and 7 total games played...whereas Dickinson has just 2 wins and 3 games played.  Whether right or wrong, it seems like that RRO total is used as a secondary measure of strength of schedule to some degree.   

    For me, in this process, there is pretty clear separation in these numbers.

    But hey, we're all just guessing here! :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2014, 04:03:17 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 01, 2014, 01:51:03 PM
    For grins and giggles, here is my bracket

    Bracket 1 (UWW or UWSP as 2nd weekend hosts)

    UWSP (host)
    bye
    De Pauw
    Augustana

    UT - Dallas (host)
    Chapman
    Trinity
    Whitworth

    St Norbert (host)
    Central
    Carthage
    St Thomas

    UWW (host)
    Northwestern (MN)
    OWU
    Wheaton

    Bracket 2 (Wash U or IWU as 2nd weekend hosts)

    Wash U (host)
    bye
    Rose Holman
    Wittenburg

    Wooster (host)
    Penn St Behrand
    St. Vincent
    Messiah

    Emory (host)
    La Grange
    Spalding
    Centre

    IWU (host)
    Marian
    Wilmington
    Hope

    Bracket 3 (intention for Cabrini or Wesley as 2nd weekend host)

    Cabrini (host)
    Lancaster Bible
    Richard Stockton
    Staten Island

    Scranton (host)
    Rutgers-Newark
    Stevenson
    Mary Washington

    Wesley (host)
    York
    Virginia Wesleyan
    Wlliiam Patterson

    Randolph - Macon (host)
    DeSales
    Alvernia
    Dickinson

    Bracket 4 (intention for Amhurst or Brockport St as 2nd weekend hosts)

    Amhurst (host)
    Salem St.
    SUNY - Purchase
    Albertus Magnus

    Plattsburgh St. (host)
    Husson
    Nichols
    Babson

    Williams (host)
    Elms
    WPI
    Geneseo St.

    Brockport St (host)
    Hartwick
    Hobert
    Eastern Conn

    * Issues: I have 2 flights into Dallas the first weekend and that is it.  The second weekend; the winner of the Texas-Dallas pod will head to Wisconsin (one flight) and there is a distinct possibility that the winner of the Emory pod will end up on a plane (2 teams in that pod would require it no matter what and two wouldn't).

    * I'm managed to split up the strong teams in the Wisconsin/Illinois/Minnesota/Missouri region into 2 brackets, but the brackets are still tough.  Bracket #1 has #1, #2, #5 and #11 on the d3hoops.com Top 25, while Bracket #2 has #3, #4 and #8.  There's no way I can see around that.

    * Bracket #3 on the other hand is way too weak at this point though, and I probably could spend some time with maps to mix up Bracket #4 with #3 for balance.

    * I probably am being overly generous giving Plattsburgh St a host instead of Babson or WPI, but I think they are quite good.  I spent less effort on Bracket's #3 and #4, but I wanted to share this anyway.

    Wesley can't host in sectional; gym is too small; MAY not have offered to host in the regional round.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: y_jack_lok on March 01, 2014, 04:09:20 PM
    ^^ Spalding won't be in your Emory pod as they lost to Webster in the SLIAC championship game. Better start rearranging because I'm pretty sure the NCAA won't send Webster to Emory.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 04:23:21 PM
    UPDATED as of 4:23 Eastern Time

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 12:37:46 AM
    GREEN is Pool A bid/#1 seed/Conference leader

    RED POOL C contender



       TEAM-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
        SUNY-Purchase      23-2, 23-2      SKY      WON vs SUNY-Old Westbury 88-73; vs Mount St. Mary in Final 3/1   
        Richard Stockton      21-4, 21-4      NJAC      WON vs Kean 64-63; vs William Paterson in Final 3/1   
        Staten Island      24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final    
       William Paterson       20-5, 20-5      NJAC      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; vs Richard Stockton in Final 3/1   
        Rutgers-Newark      19-7, 19-7      NJAC      LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal     
       Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       20-5, 20-5      SKY      WON vs Farmingdale State 95-75; vs SUNY-Purchase in Final 3/1   
                            
       TEAM-EAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Brockport State      21-3, 22-3      SUNYAC      WON vs Oswego 77-56; vs Plattsburgh State in Final 3/1   
       Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      WON vs Geneseo 73-69; vs Brockport State in Final 3/1   
       Geneseo State       19-5, 20-5      SUNYAC      WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; LOST vs Plattsburgh St. 73-69 in semifinal    
       Hobart      19-6, 19-6      LL      WON vs Clarkson 78-69 OT; vs Vassar in Final 3/1   
       NYU        16-8, 16-8      UAA      at Brandeis 3/2   
       Skidmore      16-9, 16-9      LL      LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal COMPLETE   
                            
       TEAM-GREAT-LAKES      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Wooster      21-2, 22-3      NCAC      WON vs. Oberlin 89-56; WONvs Ohio Wesleyan 78-67; vs Wittenberg in Final 3/1   
       Hope      18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; vs Calvin in Final 3/1   
       Bethany      20-4, 21-4      PAC      LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals    
       Mount Union      20-5, 20-5      OAC      LOST John Carroll 83-81 in semifinal    
       DePauw      17-7, 18-7      NCAC      WON vs Wabash 73-59; LOST vs Wittenberg 63-61 in semifinal 2/28   
       Wittenberg        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Denison 64-49; WON vs DePauw 63-61; vs Wooster in Final 3/1   
       Ohio Wesleyan      19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon 78-67; LOST vs Wooster 78-67 in semifinal    
                            
       TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Cabrini      23-1, 23-1      CSAC      WON vs Rosemont 109-97; WON vs Neumann 96-79 in Final   
       Scranton      22-3, 22-3      LAND      WON vs Merchant Marine 82-64; WON vs Susquechanna 71-56 in Final 3/1   
       Wesley      20-2, 22-2      CAC      LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal    
       Dickinson      20-5, 20-5      CC      WON vs McDaniel 77-63; vs Johns Hopkins in Final 3/1   
       Stevenson      18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Hood 83-72; vs Alvernia in Final 3/1   
       Messiah      19-5, 19-5      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal    
       Alvernia       18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Messiah 81-77; vs Stevenson in Final 3/1   
       Mary Washington       18-5, 20-5      CAC      WON  St. Mary's (Md.) 70-65; WON vs Christopher Newport 65-48 in Final 3/1   
       St. Mary's (Md.)      15-7, 18-7      CAC      LOST vs Mary Washington 70-65 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-MIDWEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Washington U.      22-2, 22-2      UAA      at Chicago 3/1   
       Illinois Wesleyan      22-3, 22-3      CCIW      WON vs Carthage 76-71; vs Wheaton in Final 3/1   
       Wheaton (Ill.)       17-8, 17-8      CCIW      WON vs Augustana 66-55; vs Illinois Wesleyan in Final 3/1   
       Augustana       19-6, 19-6      CCIW      LOST vs Wheaton (IL) 66-55 in semifinal    
       St. Norbert       21-1, 22-1      MWC      WON vs Carroll in semifinal 2/28   
       Carthage       15-8, 16-9      CCIW      LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 76-71 in semifinal    
       Rose-Hulman       20-5, 20-5      HCAC      WON vs Mount St. Joseph 68-54; vs Hanover in Final 3/1   
       Chicago      14-9, 15-9      UAA         
                            
       TEAM-NORTHEAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Amherst       22-3, 22-3      NESCAC      vs Trinity (CT) in semifinal 3/1   
       Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      vs Middlebury in semifinal 3/1   
       Babson       20-5, 20-5      NEWMAC      vs Springfield in semifinal 3/1   
        Eastern Connecticut      20-5, 20-5      LEC      WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; WON vs Western Connecticut 88-75; vs RIC in Final 3/1   
       WPI       22-3, 22-3      NEWMAC      LOST vs MIT 64-46 in semifinal 3/1   
       Springfield       18-6, 19-6      NEWMAC      vs Babson in semifinal 3/1   
       Bowdoin      19-5, 19-5      NESCAC      LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal     
        Albertus Magnus      23-1, 23-2      GNAC      WON vs Norwich 87-69; WON vs Lasell 91-72; WON vs St. Joseph's (Me.) 84-49 in Final 3/1   
        Nichols      20-5, 20-5      CCC      WON vs Western New England 73-54; WON vs Salva Regina 83-80 OT; LOST vs Gordon 69-65 in Final 3/1   
       Rhode Island College      17-8, 17-8      LEC      WON vs Southern Maine 74-66; WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 82-69; vs Eastern Connecticut in Final 3/1   
       Middlebury       16-8, 17-8      NESCAC      vs Williams in semifinal 3/1   
                            
       TEAM-SOUTH      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal    
       Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      at Rochester 3/1   
       Virgina Wesleyan       18-6, 19-6      ODAC      WON vs Bridgewater 91-70; vs Washington and Lee in semifinal 3/1   
       Texas-Dallas      22-3, 22-3      ASC      WON vs East Texas Baptist 80-65; vs Texas-Tyler in semifinal 3/1   
       Centre      17-3, 20-4      SAA      WON vs Berry 77-60; vs Rhodes in semifinal 3/1   
       Birmingham-Southern      16-9, 16-9      SAA      WON vs Hendrix 77-62; vs Oglethorpe in semfinal 3/1   
       Guilford       17-8, 17-8      ODAC      LOST vs Washington and Lee 77-70 in quarterfinal    
       Trinity (TX)      16-9, 16-9      SCAC      WON vs Texas Lutheran 78-65; vs WON Colorado College 64-48;vs TBD in Final 3/2   
                            
       TEAM-WEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       UW-Stevens Point      24-1, 24-1      WIAC      WON vs Platteville 66-47; vs Whitewater in Final 3/2   
       UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      WON vs La Crosse i76-73; at Stevens Point in Final 3/2   
       St. Thomas       21-4, 21-4      MIAC      WON vs Bethel 74-59; vs St. Olaf in Final 3/2   
       St. Olaf       20-5, 20-5      MIAC      WON vs Gustavus Adolphus 66-53; vs St. Thomas in Final 3/2   
       Whitworth       20-5, 20-5      NWC      WON vs Lewis and Clark 87-62; vs Puget Sound in Final 3/1   
        Dubuque      18-4, 21-4      IIAC      LOST vs Luther 87-83 in semifinal    
       C-M-S       17-3, 19-5      SCIAC      LOST vs Cal Lutheran 54-53 in semifinal   
       Pomona-Pitzer       18-5, 18-7      SCIAC      LOST vs Chapman 69-54 in semifinal   
       Augsburg      18-7, 18-7      MIAC      LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal    
                            
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 04:27:39 PM
    Mary Washington beat Christopher Newport in the Final today

    Gordon beat Nichols in their Final today, doesn't look good for Nichols

    Albertus Magnus won their Final

    Scranton won their Final

    WPI lost their semifinal, so their in trouble as a Pool C

    Trinity (Texas) won their semifinal

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2014, 04:30:38 PM
    * The data I'm using is from this week's regional rankings, games through Sun 2/23.
    * This list accounts for the 64 current regionally ranked teams

    Presumed Pool A/B Teams
    --Would be competitive in Pool C selection process:
    1. Amherst (NESCAC) - .917/.583/8-0   Northeast #1
    2. UW-Stevens Point (WIAC) - .960/.581/5-1    West #1
    3. Washington U.# (UAA) - .917/.595/6-2   Midwest #1  ---Clinched Pool A---
    4. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .880/.556/6-2   Midwest #2
    5. Wooster (NCAC) - .913/.534/5-1   Great Lakes #1
    6. Brockport State (SUNYAC) - .875/.543/3-2   East #1
    7. SUNY-Purchase (SKY) - .920/.508/4-1   Atlantic #1
    8. Cabrini (CSAC) - .958/.504/2-0   Mid-Atlantic #1  ---Clinched Pool A---
    9. Scranton (Land) - .880/.544/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #2  ---Clinched Pool A---
    10. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .840/.527/4-2   West #3
    11. Richard Stockton (NJAC) - .840/.528/3-2   Atlantic #2
    12. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .800/.542/3-3   Northeast #4
    13. Stevenson (MACC) - .720/.521/5-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    14. Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC) - .750/.545/3-2   South #3
    15. Centre** (SAA) - .850/.507/2-1   South #5
    16. St. Norbert (MWC) - .955/.509/0-1   Midwest #5   ---Clinched Pool A---

    --Most likely would not be competitive in Pool C selection process:
    17. Trinity-Tx (SCAC) - .640/.546/3-3   South #8
    18. Dickinson (CC) - .800/.525/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    19. Albertus Magnus (GNAC) - .958/.475/1-0   Northeast #8
    20. Texas-Dallas (ASC) - .880/.493/1-1   South #4
    21. Whitworth (NWC) - .800/.524/0-3  West #5
    22. Nichols - .800/.518/0-2   Northeast #9
    23. Rose-Hulman (HCAC) - .800/.514/0-1   Midwest #7
    24. Hobart - .760/.512/0-1  East #4


    Pool C candidates
    1. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .880/.565/4-1   West #2
    2. Williams (NESCAC) - .875/.551/4-2   Northeast #2
    3. Babson (NEWMAC) - .800/.564/3-4   Northeast #3
    4. Randolph-Macon* (ODAC) - .800/.560/3-3   South #1
    5. Wesley* (CAC) - .909/.522/3-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    6. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .840/.534/3-3   East #2
    7. Wheaton (CCIW) - .680/.595/5-5   Midwest #3
    8. Augustana* (CCIW) - .760/.553/4-3   Midwest #4
    9. Geneseo State* (SUNYAC) - .792/.544/2-3   East #3
    10. Emory# (UAA) - .708/.603/2-4  South #2
    11. Alvernia (MACC) - .720/.541/4-4   Mid-Atlantic #7
    12. Messiah* (MACC) - .792/.527/3-4   Mid-Atlantic #6
    13. WPI (NEWMAC) - .880/.516/3-1  Northeast #5
    14. Hope (MIAA) - .783/.546/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    15. Carthage* (CCIW) - .652/.593/4-6   Midwest #6
    16. William Paterson (NJAC) - .800/.512/2-2   Atlantic #4
    17. Rutgers-Newark* (NJAC) - .731/.525/3-2   Atlantic #5
    18. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .760/.512/2-3   Great Lakes #6
    19. DePauw* (NCAC) - .708/.539/4-4   Great Lakes #5
    20. St. Olaf (MIAC) - .800/.539/1-5   West #4
    --------------------
    21. Birmingham-Southern** (SAA) - .640/.557/6-3   South #6
    22. Chicago (UAA) - .609/.579/3-6   Midwest #8
    23. Ohio Wesleyan* (NCAC) - .760/.529/2-3   Great Lakes #7
    24. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .750/.556/1-4   Northeast #6
    25. Mount Union* (OAC) - .880/.511/2-1   Great Lakes #4
    26. Bowdoin* (NESCAC) - .792/.530/1-3   Northeast #7
    27. Bethany* (PrAC) - .833/.505/1-0   Great Lakes #3
    28. Staten Island* (CUNYAC) - .923/.477/0-0   Atlantic #3
    29. Rhode Island (LEC) - .680/.550/0-3   Northeast #10
    30. Middlebury (NESCAC) - .667/.557/2-4   Northeast #11
    31. Guilford* (ODAC) - .680/.536/1-5   South #7
    32. Mary Washington (CAC) - .783/.531/1-2   Mid-Atlantic #8
    33. St. Mary's* (CAC) - .682/.560/1-5   Mid-Atlantic #9
    34. Augsburg* (MIAC) - .720/.516/1-4   West #926.
    35. Dubuque* (IIAC) - .818/.513/1-0   West #6
    36. NYU (UAA)# - .667/.554/0-5   East #6
    37. Skidmore* (LL) - .640/.529/2-4   East #6
    38. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps* (SCIAC) - .850/.493/1-1  West #7
    39. Pomona-Pitzer* (SCIAC) .783/.508/1-0   West #8
    40. Mount St. Mary (Sky) - .800/.484/0-4   Atlantic #6


    * Teams that have lost in their conference tournament (officially Pool C candidates)

    # UAA teams - Wash U is locked in as the Pool A, Emory and NYU are Pool C candidates

    ** Pool B
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: realist on March 01, 2014, 04:49:22 PM
    Hope loses to Calvin 78-53.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2014, 06:19:57 PM

    Williams and Brockport complete big comebacks to avoid Pool C (for another day, in Williams' case).

    It's a shame about Nichols losing.  Ryan Sheehan is a great scorer who's been stuck on bad defensive teams the past three years.  They finally put it together this year and Gordon nips them.  GC has been coming on late in the season, though, so they should represent well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 01, 2014, 06:24:33 PM
    Eastern Connecticut down by 13 with 6:30 to go vs. RIC.  I still think Eastern will get in (#4 in New England), but the LEC is now sending 2 teams which ends someone's season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2014, 06:36:17 PM
    Quote from: 7express on March 01, 2014, 06:24:33 PM
    Eastern Connecticut down by 13 with 6:30 to go vs. RIC.  I still think Eastern will get in (#4 in New England), but the LEC is now sending 2 teams which ends someone's season.

    We've seen a lot of big comebacks in the Northeast today.  Don't write them off just yet.  Gordon finished their game on a 30-9 run to take the CCC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2014, 06:50:26 PM

    After upsets today, four of the five top ranked NE teams (from the last ranking) will all be in Pool C consideration (5 of 6 is Springfield loses tomorrow).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 01, 2014, 07:26:06 PM
    Calvin is now 22-5, 21-4 in D3 and all 4 losses were to regionally ranked opponents... (Claremont Mudd Scripts, Carthage, Hope, Hope)

    Doesn't beating Hope tonight @ Hope put Calvin into the regional rankings?

    And it turn, that would give Hope two more wins against regionally ranked opponents...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2014, 07:29:39 PM
    Quote from: y_jack_lok on March 01, 2014, 04:09:20 PM
    ^^ Spalding won't be in your Emory pod as they lost to Webster in the SLIAC championship game. Better start rearranging because I'm pretty sure the NCAA won't send Webster to Emory.

    Given the Emory loss and Webster win, I'll just move that pod to Centre and that'll solve that problem.

    Calvin in as well as Hope moving to Pool C probably solves some of my problems in the West/Midwest bracket. 

    The losers I have at the moment are OWU and Rutgers-Newark; adding in Springfield (potential Pool A) and Calvin.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: y_jack_lok on March 01, 2014, 07:38:41 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 01, 2014, 07:29:39 PM
    Quote from: y_jack_lok on March 01, 2014, 04:09:20 PM
    ^^ Spalding won't be in your Emory pod as they lost to Webster in the SLIAC championship game. Better start rearranging because I'm pretty sure the NCAA won't send Webster to Emory.
    Given the Emory loss and Webster win, I'll just move that pod to Centre and that'll solve that problem.

    That could happen. Google Maps has the distance door-to-door from Webster to Centre at between 350 and 375 miles. I like that scenario.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 01, 2014, 08:25:48 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 28, 2014, 08:19:59 PM
    Very difficult to beat a good team 3 times in 1 season.
    Wooster just completed that hat trick vs. their archrival (and a very good team) Wittenberg...for the second consecutive season. Wooster gets the Pool A bid, while Wittenberg joins conference mates DePauw and OWU on the bubble (their position is a little less bubbly than the others.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2014, 08:38:37 PM
    Dickinson gets dropped by Johns Hopkins. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: USee on March 01, 2014, 08:48:26 PM
    Wheaton 48
    IWU 27
    Halftime

    Battle for the AQ in Bloomington.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: njf1003 on March 01, 2014, 08:58:42 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 01, 2014, 08:38:37 PM
    Dickinson gets dropped by Johns Hopkins.
    and I think Dickinson is on the wrong side of the bubble after they lost to F&M last week as well, but we'll see!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: mck99 on March 01, 2014, 09:07:07 PM
    Webster is 4.2 miles down Big Bend from Washington U. I expect the Gorloks to be sent to WASHU.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 01, 2014, 09:55:53 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on March 01, 2014, 08:25:48 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 28, 2014, 08:19:59 PM
    Very difficult to beat a good team 3 times in 1 season.
    Wooster just completed that hat trick vs. their archrival (and a very good team) Wittenberg...for the second consecutive season. Wooster gets the Pool A bid, while Wittenberg joins conference mates DePauw and OWU on the bubble (their position is a little less bubbly than the others.)

    Of course on the flip side of that, after 2 wins vs. RIC in the regular season, including a 15 point beatdown on the road, Eastern Connecticut loses by double digits at home in the conference finals.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2014, 10:04:24 PM
    Wheaton in an absolute beat-down of IWU tonight for the CCIW AQ; up 21 at the half, they won by 21.

    IWU will still be one of the first Cs (and Wheaton was already a near-lock for a C, so this doesn't knock any hopefuls out of the tourney).  Augie also looks like a pretty definite pick, so it is up to Carthage whether the CCIW is a 3-bid or 4-bid conference.  IWU will probably still be a first weekend host, but this probably all-but-kills their chances of hosting a sectional (unless geography helps them out).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: y_jack_lok on March 01, 2014, 10:05:02 PM
    Quote from: mck99 on March 01, 2014, 09:07:07 PM
    Webster is 4.2 miles down Big Bend from Washington U. I expect the Gorloks to be sent to WASHU.

    Wash U men hosted the first round last year. The Wash U women are likely in a position to host the first round this year. So hard to know which way the NCAA will go. If the men host the first round, I agree with you. However, people smarter than me about these things don't think the Wash U men will be first round hosts.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Denny McKinney on March 01, 2014, 10:06:43 PM
    Quote from: mck99 on March 01, 2014, 09:07:07 PM
    Webster is 4.2 miles down Big Bend from Washington U. I expect the Gorloks to be sent to WASHU.

    Webster's WBB team, maybe. Wash U women have the right to host this year, first and maybe 2nd weekend!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2014, 10:07:30 PM
    Quote from: y_jack_lok on March 01, 2014, 10:05:02 PM
    Quote from: mck99 on March 01, 2014, 09:07:07 PM
    Webster is 4.2 miles down Big Bend from Washington U. I expect the Gorloks to be sent to WASHU.

    Wash U men hosted the first round last year. The Wash U women are likely in a position to host the first round this year. So hard to know which way the NCAA will go. If the men host the first round, I agree with you. However, people smarter than me about these things don't think the Wash U men will be first round hosts.

    Don't recall for sure which years are which, but isn't this the year that men have priority the first weekend and women the second?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: monsoon on March 01, 2014, 10:07:59 PM
    Quote from: y_jack_lok on March 01, 2014, 10:05:02 PM
    Quote from: mck99 on March 01, 2014, 09:07:07 PM
    Webster is 4.2 miles down Big Bend from Washington U. I expect the Gorloks to be sent to WASHU.

    Wash U men hosted the first round last year. The Wash U women are likely in a position to host the first round this year. So hard to know which way the NCAA will go. If the men host the first round, I agree with you. However, people smarter than me about these things don't think the Wash U men will be first round hosts.

    Men have hosting priority the first weekend this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2014, 10:08:28 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2014, 10:04:24 PM
    Wheaton in an absolute beat-down of IWU tonight for the CCIW AQ; up 21 at the half, they won by 21.

    IWU will still be one of the first Cs (and Wheaton was already a near-lock for a C, so this doesn't knock any hopefuls out of the tourney).  Augie also looks like a pretty definite pick, so it is up to Carthage whether the CCIW is a 3-bid or 4-bid conference.  IWU will probably still be a first weekend host, but this probably all-but-kills their chances of hosting a sectional (unless geography helps them out).

    Geography works to their advantage here as they are close enough to Danville, KY, Wooster, OH and St. Louis MO to keep within the 500 mile range. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Denny McKinney on March 01, 2014, 10:10:58 PM
    Well Sorry about the Wash U thing. We on the SLIAC board had this being the women's year. Surely Someone would of Corrected Me.  ;D ;D ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2014, 10:20:55 PM
    These are the current regional ranked Pool C candidates with their current records against regionally ranked opponents.

    Randolph Macon 4-3
    IWU 8-3
    UW-Whitewater 4-1 (they play UWSP tomorrow for the WIAC championship)
    Williams 4-2 (they play Amherst for the NE Smalls championship tomorrow)
    Emory 4-5
    Plattsburgh St. 4-4
    Hope 2-4
    Babson 3-5
    Wesley 3-0
    Geneseo 2-4
    Staten Island 0-0
    Bethany 1-0
    Eastern Connecticut 3-4
    Augustana 5-4
    St. Olaf 1-5 (they play St. Thomas tomorrow for the MIAC championship)
    Dickinson 2-1
    William Patterson 3-3
    Mount Union 0-1
    WPI 3-1
    NYU 0-6
    DePauw 4-5
    Rutgers-Newark 2-3
    Stevenson 4-3
    Carthage 4-7
    Messiah 2-4
    Dubuque 1-0
    Birmingham Southern 4-3
    Wittenburg 4-5
    Mt St Mary 0-5
    Skidmore 2-4
    Bowdoin 1-3
    Ohio Wesleyan 3-4
    CMS 1-1
    Guilford 1-6
    Chicago 4-7
    Nichols 0-2
    Middlebury 3-6

    I have UWSP, Amherst, St Thomas, Va. Wesleyan, Tx-Dallas, Whitworth, Springfield and Trinity(TX) slated for Pool A.

    And this includes current regional ranked teams without any guesses about who might join or leave the regional rankings (Skidmore, Guilford, etc.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: y_jack_lok on March 01, 2014, 10:35:14 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 01, 2014, 10:20:55 PM
    I have UWSP, Amherst, St Thomas, Va. Wesleyan, Tx-Dallas, Whitworth, Springfield and Trinity(TX) slated for Pool A.

    I seldom make predictions, but I am going to go out on a limb and say Hampden-Sydney beats Virginia Wesleyan tomorrow and further messes up the Pool C picture.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2014, 10:49:25 PM
    My current Pool C Picks

    1. IWU
    2. UW-Whitewater
    3. Williams
    4. Wesley
    5. Randolph Macon
    6. Augustana
    7. Plattsburgh State
    8. Babson
    9. William Paterson
    10. Geneseo State
    11. Hope
    12. Eastern Connecticut
    13. WPI
    14. Emory
    15. Staten Island
    16. Carthage
    17. Wittenburg
    18. DePauw
    19. Stevenson

    * I am fairly convinced that Emory won't be as obvious as they would have been if they won today.

    * I still think Staten Island gets in - but they'll be on the board a while.

    * I think Carthage's wins over IWU, Wheaton, Eastern Conn and Washington U will make a difference in the end.

    * The last 3 picks and leaving Messiah on the table are uncomfortable.  I expect Witt to be ahead of DePauw in the final rankings as well as Stevenson ahead of Messiah.  All 4 clubs are really close together and I expect order to matter.

    * I left Dickinson out.  I wasn't comfortable with that, but I think TitanQ's right, 2-1 against RRO just won't be enough based on what has happened in the last few years.  The teams they did beat were not the top of their regions (Guilford and Alvernia).  It won't be enough unless there is a sea change in thinking.

    Of what little is left...

    * Amherst and Williams get in no matter what and so do UWW and UWSP, so nothing about tomorrow's games matter for selections.

    * St Thomas has less room for error then you might think (4-2 against current RRO, but I'm not convinced that Augsburg (2 wins) will make the final cut), but they should be in if they don't win.  St Olaf is out (only RRO win is against Augsburg), so that game is a big deal for the bottom of the bubble.

    * Virginia Wesleyan is 3-2 against RRO and would likely be in if they lose tomorrow.

    * Whitworth is just 1-3 against RRO (win vs. Trinity TX, losses to Colorado College (2x) and UWSP).  I'm not feeling good about them if they do not win tonight (even if they are ranked).

    * Not sure about Springfield (2-4 against RRO) if they lose tomorrow, but they'd be in better shape than Whitworth.

    * Trinity has no hope if they don't win tomorrow.

    In summary:
    Very likely Pool C if they lose: St Thomas and Va. Wesleyan
    Towards the end of the Pool C bubble if they lose: Whitworth and Springfield
    Won't matter: UWSP, Amherst, Trinity.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2014, 11:40:44 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 01, 2014, 10:49:25 PM
    My current Pool C Picks

    1. IWU
    2. UW-Whitewater
    3. Williams
    4. Wesley
    5. Randolph Macon
    6. Augustana
    7. Plattsburgh State
    8. Babson
    9. William Paterson
    10. Geneseo State
    11. Hope
    12. Eastern Connecticut
    13. WPI
    14. Emory
    15. Staten Island
    16. Carthage
    17. Wittenburg
    18. DePauw
    19. Stevenson

    * I am fairly convinced that Emory won't be as obvious as they would have been if they won today.

    * I still think Staten Island gets in - but they'll be on the board a while.

    * I think Carthage's wins over IWU, Wheaton, Eastern Conn and Washington U will make a difference in the end.

    * The last 3 picks and leaving Messiah on the table are uncomfortable.  I expect Witt to be ahead of DePauw in the final rankings as well as Stevenson ahead of Messiah.  All 4 clubs are really close together and I expect order to matter.

    * I left Dickinson out.  I wasn't comfortable with that, but I think TitanQ's right, 2-1 against RRO just won't be enough based on what has happened in the last few years.  The teams they did beat were not the top of their regions (Guilford and Alvernia).  It won't be enough unless there is a sea change in thinking.

    Of what little is left...

    * Amherst and Williams get in no matter what and so do UWW and UWSP, so nothing about tomorrow's games matter for selections.

    * St Thomas has less room for error then you might think (4-2 against current RRO, but I'm not convinced that Augsburg (2 wins) will make the final cut), but they should be in if they don't win.  St Olaf is out (only RRO win is against Augsburg), so that game is a big deal for the bottom of the bubble.

    * Virginia Wesleyan is 3-2 against RRO and would likely be in if they lose tomorrow.

    * Whitworth is just 1-3 against RRO (win vs. Trinity TX, losses to Colorado College (2x) and UWSP).  I'm not feeling good about them if they do not win tonight (even if they are ranked).

    * Not sure about Springfield (2-4 against RRO) if they lose tomorrow, but they'd be in better shape than Whitworth.

    * Trinity has no hope if they don't win tomorrow.

    In summary:
    Very likely Pool C if they lose: St Thomas and Va. Wesleyan
    Towards the end of the Pool C bubble if they lose: Whitworth and Springfield
    Won't matter: UWSP, Amherst, Trinity.

    - You have William Paterson in ahead of Staten Island who is currently ahead of them in the regional rankings and both lost the title game. I think William Paterson is in trouble only because they could be blocked by Staten Island.
    - Speaking of Staten Island, their resume stinks compared to almost everyone on the board behind them.
    - Great Lakes Region... you are expecting Wittenberg and DePauw to jump to #3 and #4? I know Bethany's loss was bad, but both of those teams were behind Bethany and Mount Union - just something to ponder.
    - Stevenson was already ahead of Messiah in the rankings and nothing this week would change that. In fact, Stevenson could move ahead of Dickinson (who they are behind as well). And I don't think Messiah's resume is helping them right now. When you start looking at the "results" they start falling apart.

    The biggest key for me is the vRRO. It made a BIG difference last year that bolstered some team's resumes and helped Randolph make the NCAA tournament thanks to what happened to Randolph-Macon in the final regional rankings. On a LOT of teams, I had a difference of -3 to +5 in terms of if so-and-so entered or dropped out or both were in or both were out. That is going to have a lot of weight only in terms of how it will change a team's resume and maybe change how they look at the table.

    Also, the Northeast could have a major problem and that is a team blocking the way. I think Bowdoin is in serious trouble because a team like WPI or Springfield could clog up the pipeline. WPI's numbers are not really that good, despite the fact teams behind them looking a bit better. It may be a long night in the Northeast.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2014, 11:41:37 PM
    The current projections suggest to me that UTD will host the travel orphan's pod, NWC, SCIAC, SCAC and ASC Pool A bids.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2014, 12:18:15 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2014, 11:40:44 PM

    - You have William Paterson in ahead of Staten Island who is currently ahead of them in the regional rankings and both lost the title game. I think William Paterson is in trouble only because they could be blocked by Staten Island.
    - Speaking of Staten Island, their resume stinks compared to almost everyone on the board behind them.

    Yes, I wouldn't be surprised to see Staten Island get passed by William Patterson.  I just can't see a 3 loss team getting left out no matter how bad the SOS, but I could very well be wrong. 

    Quote
    - Great Lakes Region... you are expecting Wittenberg and DePauw to jump to #3 and #4? I know Bethany's loss was bad, but both of those teams were behind Bethany and Mount Union - just something to ponder.

    Yes, I expect DePauw and Wittenburg to pass both Bethany and Mount Union.  Mt Union lost their 2 RRO wins when Marietta dropped out and I think they'll fall pretty far.  Bethany only has a RRO win vs. Mt. Union and the Great Lakes region has been rather volatile.  I don't know what to expect.

    Quote
    - Stevenson was already ahead of Messiah in the rankings and nothing this week would change that. In fact, Stevenson could move ahead of Dickinson (who they are behind as well). And I don't think Messiah's resume is helping them right now. When you start looking at the "results" they start falling apart.

    I was feeling good about Messiah, but when I saw their current RRO is just 2-4, it doesn't look all that good.  I think Dickinson will drop behind both Stevenson and Messiah.

    Quote

    The biggest key for me is the vRRO. It made a BIG difference last year that bolstered some team's resumes and helped Randolph make the NCAA tournament thanks to what happened to Randolph-Macon in the final regional rankings. On a LOT of teams, I had a difference of -3 to +5 in terms of if so-and-so entered or dropped out or both were in or both were out. That is going to have a lot of weight only in terms of how it will change a team's resume and maybe change how they look at the table. 

    And this presents a problem to me as I think there is TOO MUCH emphasis on record vs. RRO as opposed to the quality of the RRO played.  There is a huge difference in beating MW#1, MW#2, MW#3, E#4 and beating E#5 twice, MW#8 and S#6, but there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to take that into account. 

    Quote

    Also, the Northeast could have a major problem and that is a team blocking the way. I think Bowdoin is in serious trouble because a team like WPI or Springfield could clog up the pipeline. WPI's numbers are not really that good, despite the fact teams behind them looking a bit better. It may be a long night in the Northeast.

    I think WPI is in good shape, but Springfield is very borderline and Bowdoin just doesn't have much going for it - they aren't all that different than Dubuque.

    It'll be interesting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2014, 12:28:30 AM
    Saturday Night Guess at Brackets (4 teams pods; top team hosts and plays 2nd team; 3rd and 4th teams play each other in the first round)

    Bracket #1 (Gee, it's been a long, cold winter)

    UWSP
    bye
    Calvin
    Augustana

    UT - Dallas
    Chapman
    Trinity
    Whitworth

    St Thomas
    Northwestern (MN)
    Carthage
    St Norbert

    IWU
    Central
    Marian
    Hope

    Bracket #1 comments: Well, since IWU got dropped tonight, they get demoted.  The intention will be to head towards a second weekend hosting at UWSP or IWU.  St Thomas got promoted to hosts as they are #3 in the regional rankings and I couldn't justify St Norbert (#5 MW) being ahead of Wheaton and Augie for hosting.

    Bracket #2: (It's still really cold and wintery)

    Wash U
    bye
    Rose Holman
    Wilmington

    Wooster
    Penn St Behrand
    St. Vincent
    Geneseo St

    Centre
    La Grange
    Wittenberg
    Emory

    UWW
    Webster
    De Pauw
    Wheaton

    Bracket #2 thoughts: Centre gets to host to keep the teams off airplanes.  The intention is heading towards a 2nd weekend in Whitewater as a flight prevention measure, but if it can't be avoided (depending on who comes out of the Wooster or Centre bracket), then you can have it at Wash U, Wheaton or Wooster and all would be nice candidates.

    Bracket #3

    Cabrini
    Lancaster Bible
    York
    Virginia Wesleyan

    Scranton
    Rhode Island College
    Stevenson
    Staten Island

    Randolph - Macon
    Johns Hopkins
    Richard Stockton
    Mary Washington

    SUNY - Purchase
    DeSales
    Alvernia
    Wesley

    Thoughts: Wesley  loses their host rights to get the only regional #1 a chance to host.  Also I think there is a little more balance here, but I am a little concerned about the apparent lack of very elite teams.  I'm thinking the 2nd weekend ends up at Cabrini.

    Bracket #4:

    Amherst
    Bridgewater St.
    Springfield
    Eastern Conn

    Plattsburgh St.
    Gordon
    Husson
    Babson

    Williams
    Mitchell
    WPI
    Wlliam Patterson

    Brockport St
    Hartwick
    Hobert
    Albertus Magnus

    Thoughts: Not many here.  Heading towards hosting 2nd weekend at Brockport or Amherst.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 12:29:45 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 12:18:15 AM
    And this presents a problem to me as I think there is TOO MUCH emphasis on record vs. RRO as opposed to the quality of the RRO played.  There is a huge difference in beating MW#1, MW#2, MW#3, E#4 and beating E#5 twice, MW#8 and S#6, but there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to take that into account. 

    But I think there is - it's "results" vs regionally ranked...not "record."  The committee can interpret that RRO data in a lot of different ways.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 09:07:08 AM
    Sunday morning update...

    * This list accounts for the 64 current regionally ranked teams

    * The data I'm using is from this week's regional rankings, games through Sun 2/23.


    Presumed Pool A/B Teams
    1. Amherst (NESCAC) - .917/.583/8-0   Northeast #1   vs Williams, 12:00pm
    2. UW-Stevens Point (WIAC) - .960/.581/5-1    West #1   vs UW-Whitewater, 3:00pm
    3. Washington U.# (UAA) - .917/.595/6-2   Midwest #1  ---Clinched Pool A---
    4. Wooster (NCAC) - .913/.534/5-1   Great Lakes #1   ---Clinched Pool A---
    5. Brockport State (SUNYAC) - .875/.543/3-2   East #1   ---Clinched Pool A---
    6. Wheaton (CCIW) - .680/.595/5-5   Midwest #3   ---Clinched Pool A---
    7. SUNY-Purchase (SKY) - .920/.508/4-1   Atlantic #1   ---Clinched Pool A---
    8. Cabrini (CSAC) - .958/.504/2-0   Mid-Atlantic #1  ---Clinched Pool A---
    9. Scranton (Land) - .880/.544/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #2  ---Clinched Pool A---
    10. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .840/.527/4-2   West #3   vs St. Olaf, 3:00pm
    11. Alvernia (MACC) - .720/.541/4-4   Mid-Atlantic #7   ---Clinched Pool A---
    12. Richard Stockton (NJAC) - .840/.528/3-2   Atlantic #2   ---Clinched Pool A---
    13. Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC) - .750/.545/3-2   South #3   vs Hampden-Sydney, 3:30pm
    14. Mary Washington (CAC) - .783/.531/1-2   Mid-Atlantic #8   ---Clinched Pool A---
    15. Centre** (SAA) - .850/.507/2-1   South #5   vs Oglethorpe, 1:00pm
    16. St. Norbert (MWC) - .955/.509/0-1   Midwest #5   ---Clinched Pool A---
    17. Trinity-Tx (SCAC) - .640/.546/3-3   South #8   ---Clinched Pool A--- (vs Centenary, 1:00pm)
    18. Albertus Magnus (GNAC) - .958/.475/1-0   Northeast #8   ---Clinched Pool A---
    19. Texas-Dallas (ASC) - .880/.493/1-1   South #4   vs Hardin-Simmons, 3:00pm
    20. Whitworth (NWC) - .800/.524/0-3  West #5   ---Clinched Pool A---
    21. Rose-Hulman (HCAC) - .800/.514/0-1   Midwest #7   ---Clinched Pool A---
    22. Rhode Island (LEC) - .680/.550/0-3   Northeast #10   ---Clinched Pool A---
    23. Hobart (LL) - .760/.512/0-1  East #4   ---Clinched Pool A---


    Pool C candidates
    ---In safely:
    1. Illinois Wesleyan* (CCIW) - .880/.556/6-2   Midwest #2
    2. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .880/.565/4-1   West #2
    3. Williams (NESCAC) - .875/.551/4-2   Northeast #2
    4. Babson (NEWMAC)* - .800/.564/3-4   Northeast #3
    5. Randolph-Macon* (ODAC) - .800/.560/3-3   South #1
    6. Eastern Connecticut* (LEC) - .800/.542/3-3   Northeast #4
    7. Wesley* (CAC) - .909/.522/3-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    8. Plattsburgh State* (SUNYAC) - .840/.534/3-3   East #2
    9. Augustana* (CCIW) - .760/.553/4-3   Midwest #4
    10. Geneseo State* (SUNYAC) - .792/.544/2-3   East #3
    11. Stevenson* (MACC) - .720/.521/5-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    12. Messiah* (MACC) - .792/.527/3-4   Mid-Atlantic #6
    13. WPI* (NEWMAC) - .880/.516/3-1  Northeast #5
    14. Hope* (MIAA) - .783/.546/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    15. Carthage* (CCIW) - .652/.593/4-6   Midwest #6
    16. Emory# (UAA) - .708/.603/2-4  South #2

    ---The Bubble (pick 3):
    17. Wittenberg* (NCAC) - .760/.512/2-3   Great Lakes #6
    18. DePauw* (NCAC) - .708/.539/4-4   Great Lakes #5
    19. St. Olaf (MIAC) - .800/.539/1-5   West #4   vs St. Thomas, 3:00pm
    --------------------
    20. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .750/.556/1-4   Northeast #6   vs MIT, 1:00pm
    21. Dickinson* (CC) - .800/.525/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    22. William Paterson* (NJAC) - .800/.512/2-2   Atlantic #4
    23. Staten Island* (CUNYAC) - .923/.477/0-0   Atlantic #3
    24. Ohio Wesleyan* (NCAC) - .760/.529/2-3   Great Lakes #7
    25. Mount Union* (OAC) - .880/.511/2-1   Great Lakes #4
    26. Rutgers-Newark* (NJAC) - .731/.525/3-2   Atlantic #5

    ---Out:
    27. Birmingham-Southern** (SAA) - .640/.557/6-3   South #6
    28. Chicago# (UAA) - .609/.579/3-6   Midwest #8
    29. Bowdoin* (NESCAC) - .792/.530/1-3   Northeast #7
    30. Bethany* (PrAC) - .833/.505/1-0   Great Lakes #3
    31. Nichols* (CCC) - .800/.518/0-2   Northeast #9
    32. Middlebury* (NESCAC) - .667/.557/2-4   Northeast #11
    33. Guilford* (ODAC) - .680/.536/1-5   South #7
    34. St. Mary's* (CAC) - .682/.560/1-5   Mid-Atlantic #9
    35. Augsburg* (MIAC) - .720/.516/1-4   West #926.
    36. Dubuque* (IIAC) - .818/.513/1-0   West #6
    37. NYU (UAA)# - .667/.554/0-5   East #6
    38. Skidmore* (LL) - .640/.529/2-4   East #6
    39. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps* (SCIAC) - .850/.493/1-1  West #7
    40. Pomona-Pitzer* (SCIAC) .783/.508/1-0   West #8
    41. Mount St. Mary* (Sky) - .800/.484/0-4   Atlantic #6


    * Teams that have lost in their conference tournament (officially Pool C candidates)

    # UAA teams - Wash U is locked in as the Pool A...Emory, NYU, and Chicago are Pool C candidates

    ** Pool B
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 09:17:00 AM
    Knightslappy, are you going to run your data today?  The numbers I am using are old - I'm sure refreshed data would impact my list a bit.

    Much appreciated if you get a chance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 09:46:50 AM
    KnightSlappy do this, KnightSlappy do that...

    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    NE   01   0.920   0.579   0.664   003   A      23-2    8-0   NESCAC   Amherst
    NE   02   0.880   0.555   0.636   006   C      22-3    4-2   NESCAC   Williams
    NE   03   0.769   0.567   0.618   015   C      20-6    3-5   NEWMAC   Babson
    NE   04   0.760   0.564   0.613   019   A      19-6    2-4   NEWMAC   Springfield
    NE   05   0.786   0.546   0.606   026   C      22-6    3-4   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
    NE   06   0.963   0.486   0.605   027   A      26-1    1-0   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
    NE   07   0.846   0.520   0.602   029   C      22-4    3-1   NEWMAC   WPI
    NE   08   0.792   0.529   0.595   036   C      19-5    1-3   NESCAC   Bowdoin
    NE   09   0.714   0.554   0.594   038   A      20-8    1-4   LEC      Rhode Island College
    NE   10   0.786   0.521   0.587   046   C      22-6    0-2   CCC      Nichols
    NE   11   0.640   0.562   0.582   054   C      16-9    3-6   NESCAC   Middlebury
    ne   12   0.926   0.450   0.569   072   A      25-2    1-0   NAC      Husson
    ne   13   0.704   0.512   0.560   086   C      19-8    3-5   NEWMAC   MIT
    ne   14   0.720   0.501   0.556   093   C      18-7    1-2   GNAC     Johnson and Wales
    ne   15   0.500   0.572   0.554   096   C      12-12   1-9   UAA      Brandeis
    ne   16   0.654   0.520   0.553   099   C      17-9    1-3   MASCAC   Salem State
    ne   17   0.643   0.513   0.546   113   C      18-10   1-3   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
    ne   18   0.654   0.510   0.546   114   C      17-9    0-6   LEC      Western Connecticut
    ne   19   0.654   0.504   0.542   124   C      17-9    2-3   CCC      Salve Regina
    ne   20   0.720   0.482   0.542   125   A      18-7    0-2   NECC     Mitchell
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    EA   01   0.885   0.553   0.636   007   A      23-3    4-2   SUNYAC   Brockport State
    EA   02   0.815   0.553   0.619   014   C      22-5    4-4   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
    EA   03   0.769   0.554   0.607   023   C      20-6    2-4   SUNYAC   Geneseo State
    EA   04   0.778   0.523   0.587   047   A      21-6    1-2   LL       Hobart
    EA   05   0.667   0.546   0.576   061   C      16-8    0-6   UAA      New York University
    EA   06   0.696   0.516   0.561   084   C      16-7    0-1   E8       Nazareth
    ea   07   0.630   0.534   0.558   088   C      17-10   2-5   SUNYAC   Oswego State
    ea   08   0.704   0.503   0.553   098   C      19-8    3-3   LL       Vassar
    ea   09   0.615   0.532   0.553   101   C      16-10   2-4   LL       Skidmore
    ea   10   0.640   0.521   0.551   102   A      16-9    0-3   E8       Hartwick
    ea   11   0.625   0.522   0.548   107   C      15-9    1-2   E8       Stevens
    ea   12   0.609   0.526   0.547   110   C      14-9    1-2   E8       St. John Fisher
    ea   13   0.417   0.585   0.543   122   C      10-14   4-7   UAA      Rochester
    ea   14   0.583   0.520   0.536   141   C      14-10   1-5   LL       Clarkson
    ea   15   0.480   0.548   0.531   152   C      12-13   1-7   SUNYAC   Buffalo State
    ea   16   0.625   0.488   0.522   171   C      15-9    2-4   LL       Rochester Tech
    ea   17   0.538   0.515   0.521   175   C      14-12   1-5   SUNYAC   Cortland State
    ea   18   0.462   0.537   0.518   179   C      12-14   0-7   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
    ea   19   0.619   0.476   0.512   193   C      13-8    0-0   E8       Alfred
    ea   20   0.667   0.450   0.504   203   C      16-8    0-2   NEAC     Morrisville State
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    AT   01   0.926   0.522   0.623   013   A      25-2    5-1   SKY      SUNY-Purchase
    AT   02   0.852   0.537   0.615   016   A      23-4    4-2   NJAC     Richard Stockton
    AT   03   0.778   0.528   0.591   042   C      21-6    4-3   NJAC     William Paterson
    AT   04   0.893   0.486   0.588   045   C      25-3    0-0   CUNYAC   Staten Island
    AT   05   0.778   0.506   0.574   065   C      21-6    0-5   SKY      Mount St. Mary
    AT   06   0.704   0.531   0.574   066   C      19-8    2-3   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
    at   07   0.741   0.503   0.562   081   A      20-7    1-4   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
    at   08   0.520   0.546   0.540   128   C      13-12   1-8   NJAC     Kean
    at   09   0.556   0.515   0.525   164   C      15-12   0-7   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
    at   10   0.667   0.467   0.517   181   C      18-9    0-6   SKY      Farmingdale State
    at   11   0.520   0.511   0.513   190   C      13-12   1-6   NJAC     New Jersey City
    at   12   0.560   0.494   0.511   194   C      14-11   0-3   CUNYAC   Baruch
    at   13   0.391   0.549   0.509   196   C      9-14    2-8   NJAC     Montclair State
    at   14   0.480   0.516   0.507   197   C      12-13   2-4   CUNYAC   Brooklyn
    at   15   0.417   0.535   0.506   200   C      10-14   1-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
    at   16   0.542   0.480   0.495   221   C      13-11   0-4   SKY      Sage
    at   17   0.458   0.496   0.486   242   C      11-13   0-4   CUNYAC   Lehman
    at   18   0.360   0.529   0.486   243   C      9-16    1-7   NJAC     Ramapo
    at   19   0.381   0.520   0.485   244   C      8-13    0-6   NJAC     Rowan
    at   20   0.417   0.499   0.479   261   C      10-14   0-5   CUNYAC   Hunter
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    MA   01   0.889   0.545   0.631   011   A      24-3    2-1   LAND     Scranton
    MA   02   0.962   0.513   0.625   012   A      25-1    3-0   CSAC     Cabrini
    MA   03   0.870   0.529   0.614   017   C      20-3    5-0   CAC      Wesley
    MA   04   0.800   0.540   0.605   028   A      20-5    4-2   CAC      Mary Washington
    MA   05   0.741   0.550   0.598   032   A      20-7    4-4   MACC     Alvernia
    MA   06   0.778   0.529   0.592   039   C      21-6    2-1   CC       Dickinson
    MA   07   0.654   0.571   0.592   040   C      17-9    4-7   CAC      Christopher Newport
    MA   08   0.667   0.565   0.590   043   C      16-8    1-6   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
    MA   09   0.760   0.532   0.589   044   C      19-6    2-4   MACC     Messiah
    ma   10   0.704   0.531   0.574   067   C      19-8    4-3   MACC     Stevenson
    ma   11   0.692   0.527   0.568   074   C      18-8    1-4   CSAC     Neumann
    ma   12   0.615   0.550   0.566   076   A      16-10   2-5   CC       Johns Hopkins
    ma   13   0.692   0.510   0.556   092   C      18-8    0-3   CC       McDaniel
    ma   14   0.583   0.543   0.553   100   C      14-10   0-4   LAND     Susquehanna
    ma   15   0.615   0.527   0.549   104   C      16-10   2-5   MACC     Hood
    ma   16   0.750   0.481   0.548   105   C      18-6    0-2   CSAC     Gwynedd-Mercy
    ma   17   0.583   0.535   0.547   109   C      14-10   2-1   LAND     Juniata
    ma   18   0.654   0.511   0.547   111   C      17-9    2-2   CC       Franklin and Marshall
    ma   19   0.600   0.523   0.542   123   C      15-10   1-2   CC       Muhlenberg
    ma   20   0.522   0.543   0.538   134   C      12-11   3-6   CAC      Salisbury
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    SO   01   0.680   0.591   0.613   018   C      17-8    4-5   UAA      Emory
    SO   02   0.769   0.559   0.612   020   C      20-6    4-3   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
    SO   03   0.889   0.499   0.597   033   A      24-3    0-1   ASC      Texas-Dallas
    SO   04   0.864   0.506   0.595   035   B      19-3    1-2   SAA      Centre
    SO   05   0.769   0.537   0.595   037   A      20-6    3-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
    SO   06   0.667   0.544   0.575   064   A      18-9    1-4   SCAC     Trinity (Texas)
    SO   07   0.630   0.553   0.572   069   C      17-10   4-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
    SO   08   0.760   0.505   0.569   071   C      19-6    3-4   SAA      Oglethorpe
    so   09   0.571   0.564   0.566   077   C      16-12   3-7   ODAC     Hampden-Sydney
    so   10   0.731   0.499   0.557   089   C      19-7    1-1   ASC      Hardin-Simmons
    so   11   0.654   0.525   0.557   090   C      17-9    1-6   ODAC     Guilford
    so   12   0.739   0.494   0.555   094   C      17-6    1-2   USAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
    so   13   0.577   0.530   0.542   126   C      15-11   3-2   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
    so   14   0.680   0.491   0.538   132   C      17-8    0-3   SLIAC    Spalding
    so   15   0.625   0.509   0.538   133   C      15-9    0-5   ODAC     Lynchburg
    so   16   0.577   0.524   0.537   135   C      15-11   3-0   SCAC     Schreiner
    so   17   0.654   0.498   0.537   136   C      17-9    2-1   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
    so   18   0.522   0.538   0.534   147   C      12-11   2-4   ODAC     Bridgewater (Va.)
    so   19   0.600   0.504   0.528   159   C      15-10   0-2   ASC      Concordia (Texas)
    so   20   0.577   0.511   0.527   160   C      15-11   0-3   ASC      Texas-Tyler
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    GL   01   0.923   0.543   0.638   005   A      24-2    7-2   NCAC     Wooster
    GL   02   0.760   0.555   0.606   024   C      19-6    2-4   MIAA     Hope
    GL   03   0.741   0.541   0.591   041   C      20-7    3-5   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
    GL   04   0.750   0.530   0.585   048   C      21-7    3-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
    GL   05   0.720   0.538   0.583   051   C      18-7    0-4   OAC      Marietta
    GL   06   0.692   0.545   0.582   052   C      18-8    4-5   NCAC     DePauw
    GL   07   0.692   0.542   0.579   057   A      18-8    1-2   OAC      Wilmington
    gl   08   0.769   0.514   0.578   058   C      20-6    0-1   OAC      Mount Union
    gl   09   0.800   0.501   0.575   062   C      20-5    1-0   PrAC     Bethany
    gl   10   0.826   0.483   0.569   073   A      19-4    2-4   MIAA     Calvin
    gl   11   0.852   0.466   0.563   080   A      23-4    1-0   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
    gl   12   0.792   0.483   0.560   085   A      19-5    1-1   PrAC     St. Vincent
    gl   13   0.615   0.534   0.554   095   C      16-10   1-2   OAC      Ohio Northern
    gl   14   0.621   0.519   0.545   116   C      18-11   1-3   OAC      John Carroll
    gl   15   0.560   0.540   0.545   118   C      14-11   3-6   UAA      Case Western Reserve
    gl   16   0.556   0.534   0.540   129   C      15-12   1-4   PrAC     Thomas More
    gl   17   0.731   0.473   0.537   137   C      19-7    0-0   AMCC     Hilbert
    gl   18   0.519   0.543   0.537   138   C      14-13   0-4   OAC      Baldwin Wallace
    gl   19   0.462   0.543   0.523   168   C      12-14   1-3   OAC      Capital
    gl   20   0.417   0.555   0.520   176   C      10-14   1-8   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    MW   01   0.920   0.589   0.672   002   A      23-2    9-2   UAA      Washington U.
    MW   02   0.852   0.560   0.633   008   C      23-4    8-3   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
    MW   03   0.958   0.523   0.632   009   A      23-1    0-1   MWC      St. Norbert
    MW   04   0.704   0.607   0.631   010   A      19-8    8-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
    MW   05   0.625   0.599   0.606   025   C      15-9    4-7   CCIW     Carthage
    MW   06   0.731   0.555   0.599   031   C      19-7    5-4   CCIW     Augustana
    MW   07   0.815   0.523   0.596   034   A      22-5    2-1   HCAC     Rose-Hulman
    MW   08   0.583   0.582   0.582   053   C      14-10   4-7   UAA      Chicago
    mw   09   0.778   0.516   0.581   055   A      21-6    0-0   NATHC    Marian
    mw   10   0.808   0.491   0.570   070   C      21-5    0-0   NATHC    Milwaukee Engineering
    mw   11   0.792   0.494   0.568   075   C      19-5    0-3   HCAC     Defiance
    mw   12   0.679   0.528   0.566   078   C      19-9    1-4   HCAC     Hanover
    mw   13   0.500   0.587   0.566   079   C      11-11   3-8   CCIW     North Central (Ill.)
    mw   14   0.667   0.527   0.562   082   C      18-9    0-1   NATHC    Aurora
    mw   15   0.739   0.499   0.559   087   C      17-6    0-3   MWC      Grinnell
    mw   16   0.654   0.520   0.554   097   C      17-9    1-4   HCAC     Mount St. Joseph
    mw   17   0.583   0.538   0.550   103   C      14-10   2-6   CCIW     Elmhurst
    mw   18   0.692   0.498   0.546   112   C      18-8    0-0   NATHC    Lakeland
    mw   19   0.625   0.518   0.545   115   C      15-9    0-2   MWC      Ripon
    mw   20   0.625   0.518   0.545   117   C      15-9    1-4   MWC      Carroll
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    WE   01   0.962   0.579   0.675   001   A      25-1    5-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
    WE   02   0.885   0.564   0.645   004   C      23-3    4-1   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
    WE   03   0.808   0.543   0.609   021   C      21-5    1-5   MIAC     St. Olaf
    WE   04   0.846   0.528   0.608   022   A      22-4    4-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
    WE   05   0.815   0.530   0.601   030   A      22-5    1-1   NWC      Whitworth
    WE   06   0.783   0.517   0.584   049   C      18-5    1-0   IIAC     Dubuque
    WE   07   0.625   0.570   0.584   050   C      15-9    1-5   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
    WE   08   0.577   0.582   0.581   056   C      15-11   1-8   WIAC     UW-Platteville
    we   09   0.783   0.509   0.577   059   A      18-5    1-2   IIAC     Central
    we   10   0.818   0.496   0.577   060   C      18-4    1-1   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
    we   11   0.682   0.539   0.575   063   C      15-7    2-4   SCAC     Colorado College
    we   12   0.750   0.514   0.573   068   C      18-6    3-1   SCIAC    Pomona-Pitzer
    we   13   0.692   0.517   0.561   083   C      18-8    1-4   MIAC     Augsburg
    we   14   0.583   0.548   0.557   091   C      14-10   1-2   IIAC     Luther
    we   15   0.630   0.521   0.548   106   C      17-10   1-6   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
    we   16   0.682   0.503   0.548   108   A      15-7    2-3   SCIAC    Chapman
    we   17   0.600   0.525   0.544   120   C      15-10   3-4   MIAC     St. Johns
    we   18   0.650   0.508   0.543   121   C      13-7    1-2   NWC      Lewis and Clark
    we   19   0.583   0.524   0.539   130   C      14-10   1-2   IIAC     Buena Vista
    we   20   0.615   0.510   0.536   140   C      16-10   0-5   NWC      Whitman
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    B    01   0.864   0.506   0.595   035   B      19-3    1-2   SAA      Centre
    b    02   0.630   0.553   0.572   069   C      17-10   4-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
    b    03   0.760   0.505   0.569   071   C      19-6    3-4   SAA      Oglethorpe
    b    04   0.556   0.510   0.522   172   C      15-12   1-5   SAA      Rhodes
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 09:53:07 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 09:46:50 AM
    KnightSlappy do this, KnightSlappy do that...

    Thanks dude...you are a true Pool C hero.  D3 Nation thanks you!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 10:17:38 AM
    TitanQ, There are 19 Pool C bids, correct?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 02, 2014, 10:32:44 AM
    Thanks for all the effort you guys put in! Love following your posts and certainly I speak for many I think when saying we appreciate the data, updates and careful thinking that goes into your posts. What a great time of year!

    Im a Mid-Atlantic follower and was wondering how many Pool C bids you think the MA receives? Obviously Wesley gets one. Does Dickinson or Stevenson get one, do they both?

    Thanks guys!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 11:25:13 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 12:29:45 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 12:18:15 AM
    And this presents a problem to me as I think there is TOO MUCH emphasis on record vs. RRO as opposed to the quality of the RRO played.  There is a huge difference in beating MW#1, MW#2, MW#3, E#4 and beating E#5 twice, MW#8 and S#6, but there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to take that into account. 

    But I think there is - it's "results" vs regionally ranked...not "record."  The committee can interpret that RRO data in a lot of different ways.

    EXACTLY! And I am not saying they are putting a lot of emphasis on the criteria, but a change in the numbers makes a difference. We don't know who will enter or fall out of the last regional rankings as the teams at the bottoms can shift dramatically across the country. Then we don't know how the national committee will take in the new vRRO data the final rankings reveal and adjust again the rankings. It can make a huge difference as a team who played four games against RRO could all of the sudden have ten! We absolutely saw this last season and it is a factor we can't really predict or expect.

    And to Bob's point... it is "results" meaning they are looking at the score of that data, not just a winning percentage. Because Stevenson played a ranked opponent in the championship game (and maybe one in the semis if Hood were to reenter the equation), they have some strong data that Dickinson does not add to their resume this week. Per that, you could make an argument that Messiah could move ahead of Dickinson... BUT losing in the semifinals gives Messiah one more game of data... Dickinson at least has two more games of data... can't see Messiah moving ahead especially since both team's SOSs were identical this past week... two more games for Dickinson will improve their SOS more than Messiah's will (in theory).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 11:51:05 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 10:17:38 AM
    TitanQ, There are 19 Pool C bids, correct?

    Yes, not sure why I was using 20.  Now edited above.

    Way to break hearts in Springfield.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 02, 2014, 12:01:46 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 11:25:13 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 12:29:45 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 12:18:15 AM
    And this presents a problem to me as I think there is TOO MUCH emphasis on record vs. RRO as opposed to the quality of the RRO played.  There is a huge difference in beating MW#1, MW#2, MW#3, E#4 and beating E#5 twice, MW#8 and S#6, but there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to take that into account. 

    But I think there is - it's "results" vs regionally ranked...not "record."  The committee can interpret that RRO data in a lot of different ways.

    EXACTLY! And I am not saying they are putting a lot of emphasis on the criteria, but a change in the numbers makes a difference. We don't know who will enter or fall out of the last regional rankings as the teams at the bottoms can shift dramatically across the country. Then we don't know how the national committee will take in the new vRRO data the final rankings reveal and adjust again the rankings. It can make a huge difference as a team who played four games against RRO could all of the sudden have ten! We absolutely saw this last season and it is a factor we can't really predict or expect.

    And to Bob's point... it is "results" meaning they are looking at the score of that data, not just a winning percentage. Because Stevenson played a ranked opponent in the championship game (and maybe one in the semis if Hood were to reenter the equation), they have some strong data that Dickinson does not add to their resume this week. Per that, you could make an argument that Messiah could move ahead of Dickinson... BUT losing in the semifinals gives Messiah one more game of data... Dickinson at least has two more games of data... can't see Messiah moving ahead especially since both team's SOSs were identical this past week... two more games for Dickinson will improve their SOS more than Messiah's will (in theory).

    Is there a difference matter that Dickinson's loss was to a non-ranked JHU and Messiahs was at a ranked and higher ranked Alvernia?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 12:04:23 PM
    Yes... thus why I indicated you could make an argument to place Messiah ahead of Dickinson, but that argument has to outweigh the fact Messiah was 0-1 this week and Dickinson was 1-1 an in the title game for that matter.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 02, 2014, 12:16:11 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 12:04:23 PM
    Yes... thus why I indicated you could make an argument to place Messiah ahead of Dickinson, but that argument has to outweigh the fact Messiah was 0-1 this week and Dickinson was 1-1 an in the title game for that matter.

    Makes sense, thank you. So is the question Dickinson having no results vs RRO's and being 1-1 vs Messiah being 0-1 but that game vs a RRO? Is that an example of a discussion the committees (regional/NCAA) will have regarding the Dickinson College?

    Really wish I knew more about this, trying to learn so sorry for the elementary questions. Actually I don't even know if these are elementary questions or not. Anyway thanks for the info!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 12:21:15 PM
    It is more of a question of how many games get added to the vRRO category... Messiah gets one game and they are 0-1... Dickinson gets no games. However, Dickinson also played two more games to bolster other data like SOS and they at least won a game this past week where Messiah didn't.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2014, 12:47:10 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 09:46:50 AM
    KnightSlappy do this, KnightSlappy do that...

    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    NE   01   0.920   0.579   0.664   003   A      23-2    8-0   NESCAC   Amherst
    NE   02   0.880   0.555   0.636   006   C      22-3    4-2   NESCAC   Williams
    NE   03   0.769   0.567   0.618   015   C      20-6    3-5   NEWMAC   Babson
    NE   04   0.760   0.564   0.613   019   A      19-6    2-4   NEWMAC   Springfield
    NE   05   0.786   0.546   0.606   026   C      22-6    3-4   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
    NE   06   0.963   0.486   0.605   027   A      26-1    1-0   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
    NE   07   0.846   0.520   0.602   029   C      22-4    3-1   NEWMAC   WPI
    NE   08   0.792   0.529   0.595   036   C      19-5    1-3   NESCAC   Bowdoin
    NE   09   0.714   0.554   0.594   038   A      20-8    1-4   LEC      Rhode Island College
    NE   10   0.786   0.521   0.587   046   C      22-6    0-2   CCC      Nichols
    NE   11   0.640   0.562   0.582   054   C      16-9    3-6   NESCAC   Middlebury
    ne   12   0.926   0.450   0.569   072   A      25-2    1-0   NAC      Husson
    ne   13   0.704   0.512   0.560   086   C      19-8    3-5   NEWMAC   MIT
    ne   14   0.720   0.501   0.556   093   C      18-7    1-2   GNAC     Johnson and Wales
    ne   15   0.500   0.572   0.554   096   C      12-12   1-9   UAA      Brandeis
    ne   16   0.654   0.520   0.553   099   C      17-9    1-3   MASCAC   Salem State
    ne   17   0.643   0.513   0.546   113   C      18-10   1-3   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
    ne   18   0.654   0.510   0.546   114   C      17-9    0-6   LEC      Western Connecticut
    ne   19   0.654   0.504   0.542   124   C      17-9    2-3   CCC      Salve Regina
    ne   20   0.720   0.482   0.542   125   A      18-7    0-2   NECC     Mitchell
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    EA   01   0.885   0.553   0.636   007   A      23-3    4-2   SUNYAC   Brockport State
    EA   02   0.815   0.553   0.619   014   C      22-5    4-4   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
    EA   03   0.769   0.554   0.607   023   C      20-6    2-4   SUNYAC   Geneseo State
    EA   04   0.778   0.523   0.587   047   A      21-6    1-2   LL       Hobart
    EA   05   0.667   0.546   0.576   061   C      16-8    0-6   UAA      New York University
    EA   06   0.696   0.516   0.561   084   C      16-7    0-1   E8       Nazareth
    ea   07   0.630   0.534   0.558   088   C      17-10   2-5   SUNYAC   Oswego State
    ea   08   0.704   0.503   0.553   098   C      19-8    3-3   LL       Vassar
    ea   09   0.615   0.532   0.553   101   C      16-10   2-4   LL       Skidmore
    ea   10   0.640   0.521   0.551   102   A      16-9    0-3   E8       Hartwick
    ea   11   0.625   0.522   0.548   107   C      15-9    1-2   E8       Stevens
    ea   12   0.609   0.526   0.547   110   C      14-9    1-2   E8       St. John Fisher
    ea   13   0.417   0.585   0.543   122   C      10-14   4-7   UAA      Rochester
    ea   14   0.583   0.520   0.536   141   C      14-10   1-5   LL       Clarkson
    ea   15   0.480   0.548   0.531   152   C      12-13   1-7   SUNYAC   Buffalo State
    ea   16   0.625   0.488   0.522   171   C      15-9    2-4   LL       Rochester Tech
    ea   17   0.538   0.515   0.521   175   C      14-12   1-5   SUNYAC   Cortland State
    ea   18   0.462   0.537   0.518   179   C      12-14   0-7   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
    ea   19   0.619   0.476   0.512   193   C      13-8    0-0   E8       Alfred
    ea   20   0.667   0.450   0.504   203   C      16-8    0-2   NEAC     Morrisville State
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    AT   01   0.926   0.522   0.623   013   A      25-2    5-1   SKY      SUNY-Purchase
    AT   02   0.852   0.537   0.615   016   A      23-4    4-2   NJAC     Richard Stockton
    AT   03   0.778   0.528   0.591   042   C      21-6    4-3   NJAC     William Paterson
    AT   04   0.893   0.486   0.588   045   C      25-3    0-0   CUNYAC   Staten Island
    AT   05   0.778   0.506   0.574   065   C      21-6    0-5   SKY      Mount St. Mary
    AT   06   0.704   0.531   0.574   066   C      19-8    2-3   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
    at   07   0.741   0.503   0.562   081   A      20-7    1-4   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
    at   08   0.520   0.546   0.540   128   C      13-12   1-8   NJAC     Kean
    at   09   0.556   0.515   0.525   164   C      15-12   0-7   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
    at   10   0.667   0.467   0.517   181   C      18-9    0-6   SKY      Farmingdale State
    at   11   0.520   0.511   0.513   190   C      13-12   1-6   NJAC     New Jersey City
    at   12   0.560   0.494   0.511   194   C      14-11   0-3   CUNYAC   Baruch
    at   13   0.391   0.549   0.509   196   C      9-14    2-8   NJAC     Montclair State
    at   14   0.480   0.516   0.507   197   C      12-13   2-4   CUNYAC   Brooklyn
    at   15   0.417   0.535   0.506   200   C      10-14   1-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
    at   16   0.542   0.480   0.495   221   C      13-11   0-4   SKY      Sage
    at   17   0.458   0.496   0.486   242   C      11-13   0-4   CUNYAC   Lehman
    at   18   0.360   0.529   0.486   243   C      9-16    1-7   NJAC     Ramapo
    at   19   0.381   0.520   0.485   244   C      8-13    0-6   NJAC     Rowan
    at   20   0.417   0.499   0.479   261   C      10-14   0-5   CUNYAC   Hunter
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    MA   01   0.889   0.545   0.631   011   A      24-3    2-1   LAND     Scranton
    MA   02   0.962   0.513   0.625   012   A      25-1    3-0   CSAC     Cabrini
    MA   03   0.870   0.529   0.614   017   C      20-3    5-0   CAC      Wesley
    MA   04   0.800   0.540   0.605   028   A      20-5    4-2   CAC      Mary Washington
    MA   05   0.741   0.550   0.598   032   A      20-7    4-4   MACC     Alvernia
    MA   06   0.778   0.529   0.592   039   C      21-6    2-1   CC       Dickinson
    MA   07   0.654   0.571   0.592   040   C      17-9    4-7   CAC      Christopher Newport
    MA   08   0.667   0.565   0.590   043   C      16-8    1-6   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
    MA   09   0.760   0.532   0.589   044   C      19-6    2-4   MACC     Messiah
    ma   10   0.704   0.531   0.574   067   C      19-8    4-3   MACC     Stevenson
    ma   11   0.692   0.527   0.568   074   C      18-8    1-4   CSAC     Neumann
    ma   12   0.615   0.550   0.566   076   A      16-10   2-5   CC       Johns Hopkins
    ma   13   0.692   0.510   0.556   092   C      18-8    0-3   CC       McDaniel
    ma   14   0.583   0.543   0.553   100   C      14-10   0-4   LAND     Susquehanna
    ma   15   0.615   0.527   0.549   104   C      16-10   2-5   MACC     Hood
    ma   16   0.750   0.481   0.548   105   C      18-6    0-2   CSAC     Gwynedd-Mercy
    ma   17   0.583   0.535   0.547   109   C      14-10   2-1   LAND     Juniata
    ma   18   0.654   0.511   0.547   111   C      17-9    2-2   CC       Franklin and Marshall
    ma   19   0.600   0.523   0.542   123   C      15-10   1-2   CC       Muhlenberg
    ma   20   0.522   0.543   0.538   134   C      12-11   3-6   CAC      Salisbury
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    SO   01   0.680   0.591   0.613   018   C      17-8    4-5   UAA      Emory
    SO   02   0.769   0.559   0.612   020   C      20-6    4-3   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
    SO   03   0.889   0.499   0.597   033   A      24-3    0-1   ASC      Texas-Dallas
    SO   04   0.864   0.506   0.595   035   B      19-3    1-2   SAA      Centre
    SO   05   0.769   0.537   0.595   037   A      20-6    3-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
    SO   06   0.667   0.544   0.575   064   A      18-9    1-4   SCAC     Trinity (Texas)
    SO   07   0.630   0.553   0.572   069   C      17-10   4-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
    SO   08   0.760   0.505   0.569   071   C      19-6    3-4   SAA      Oglethorpe
    so   09   0.571   0.564   0.566   077   C      16-12   3-7   ODAC     Hampden-Sydney
    so   10   0.731   0.499   0.557   089   C      19-7    1-1   ASC      Hardin-Simmons
    so   11   0.654   0.525   0.557   090   C      17-9    1-6   ODAC     Guilford
    so   12   0.739   0.494   0.555   094   C      17-6    1-2   USAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
    so   13   0.577   0.530   0.542   126   C      15-11   3-2   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
    so   14   0.680   0.491   0.538   132   C      17-8    0-3   SLIAC    Spalding
    so   15   0.625   0.509   0.538   133   C      15-9    0-5   ODAC     Lynchburg
    so   16   0.577   0.524   0.537   135   C      15-11   3-0   SCAC     Schreiner
    so   17   0.654   0.498   0.537   136   C      17-9    2-1   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
    so   18   0.522   0.538   0.534   147   C      12-11   2-4   ODAC     Bridgewater (Va.)
    so   19   0.600   0.504   0.528   159   C      15-10   0-2   ASC      Concordia (Texas)
    so   20   0.577   0.511   0.527   160   C      15-11   0-3   ASC      Texas-Tyler
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    GL   01   0.923   0.543   0.638   005   A      24-2    7-2   NCAC     Wooster
    GL   02   0.760   0.555   0.606   024   C      19-6    2-4   MIAA     Hope
    GL   03   0.741   0.541   0.591   041   C      20-7    3-5   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
    GL   04   0.750   0.530   0.585   048   C      21-7    3-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
    GL   05   0.720   0.538   0.583   051   C      18-7    0-4   OAC      Marietta
    GL   06   0.692   0.545   0.582   052   C      18-8    4-5   NCAC     DePauw
    GL   07   0.692   0.542   0.579   057   A      18-8    1-2   OAC      Wilmington
    gl   08   0.769   0.514   0.578   058   C      20-6    0-1   OAC      Mount Union
    gl   09   0.800   0.501   0.575   062   C      20-5    1-0   PrAC     Bethany
    gl   10   0.826   0.483   0.569   073   A      19-4    2-4   MIAA     Calvin
    gl   11   0.852   0.466   0.563   080   A      23-4    1-0   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
    gl   12   0.792   0.483   0.560   085   A      19-5    1-1   PrAC     St. Vincent
    gl   13   0.615   0.534   0.554   095   C      16-10   1-2   OAC      Ohio Northern
    gl   14   0.621   0.519   0.545   116   C      18-11   1-3   OAC      John Carroll
    gl   15   0.560   0.540   0.545   118   C      14-11   3-6   UAA      Case Western Reserve
    gl   16   0.556   0.534   0.540   129   C      15-12   1-4   PrAC     Thomas More
    gl   17   0.731   0.473   0.537   137   C      19-7    0-0   AMCC     Hilbert
    gl   18   0.519   0.543   0.537   138   C      14-13   0-4   OAC      Baldwin Wallace
    gl   19   0.462   0.543   0.523   168   C      12-14   1-3   OAC      Capital
    gl   20   0.417   0.555   0.520   176   C      10-14   1-8   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    MW   01   0.920   0.589   0.672   002   A      23-2    9-2   UAA      Washington U.
    MW   02   0.852   0.560   0.633   008   C      23-4    8-3   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
    MW   03   0.958   0.523   0.632   009   A      23-1    0-1   MWC      St. Norbert
    MW   04   0.704   0.607   0.631   010   A      19-8    8-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
    MW   05   0.625   0.599   0.606   025   C      15-9    4-7   CCIW     Carthage
    MW   06   0.731   0.555   0.599   031   C      19-7    5-4   CCIW     Augustana
    MW   07   0.815   0.523   0.596   034   A      22-5    2-1   HCAC     Rose-Hulman
    MW   08   0.583   0.582   0.582   053   C      14-10   4-7   UAA      Chicago
    mw   09   0.778   0.516   0.581   055   A      21-6    0-0   NATHC    Marian
    mw   10   0.808   0.491   0.570   070   C      21-5    0-0   NATHC    Milwaukee Engineering
    mw   11   0.792   0.494   0.568   075   C      19-5    0-3   HCAC     Defiance
    mw   12   0.679   0.528   0.566   078   C      19-9    1-4   HCAC     Hanover
    mw   13   0.500   0.587   0.566   079   C      11-11   3-8   CCIW     North Central (Ill.)
    mw   14   0.667   0.527   0.562   082   C      18-9    0-1   NATHC    Aurora
    mw   15   0.739   0.499   0.559   087   C      17-6    0-3   MWC      Grinnell
    mw   16   0.654   0.520   0.554   097   C      17-9    1-4   HCAC     Mount St. Joseph
    mw   17   0.583   0.538   0.550   103   C      14-10   2-6   CCIW     Elmhurst
    mw   18   0.692   0.498   0.546   112   C      18-8    0-0   NATHC    Lakeland
    mw   19   0.625   0.518   0.545   115   C      15-9    0-2   MWC      Ripon
    mw   20   0.625   0.518   0.545   117   C      15-9    1-4   MWC      Carroll
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    WE   01   0.962   0.579   0.675   001   A      25-1    5-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
    WE   02   0.885   0.564   0.645   004   C      23-3    4-1   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
    WE   03   0.808   0.543   0.609   021   C      21-5    1-5   MIAC     St. Olaf
    WE   04   0.846   0.528   0.608   022   A      22-4    4-2   MIAC     St. Thomas
    WE   05   0.815   0.530   0.601   030   A      22-5    1-1   NWC      Whitworth
    WE   06   0.783   0.517   0.584   049   C      18-5    1-0   IIAC     Dubuque
    WE   07   0.625   0.570   0.584   050   C      15-9    1-5   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
    WE   08   0.577   0.582   0.581   056   C      15-11   1-8   WIAC     UW-Platteville
    we   09   0.783   0.509   0.577   059   A      18-5    1-2   IIAC     Central
    we   10   0.818   0.496   0.577   060   C      18-4    1-1   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
    we   11   0.682   0.539   0.575   063   C      15-7    2-4   SCAC     Colorado College
    we   12   0.750   0.514   0.573   068   C      18-6    3-1   SCIAC    Pomona-Pitzer
    we   13   0.692   0.517   0.561   083   C      18-8    1-4   MIAC     Augsburg
    we   14   0.583   0.548   0.557   091   C      14-10   1-2   IIAC     Luther
    we   15   0.630   0.521   0.548   106   C      17-10   1-6   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
    we   16   0.682   0.503   0.548   108   A      15-7    2-3   SCIAC    Chapman
    we   17   0.600   0.525   0.544   120   C      15-10   3-4   MIAC     St. Johns
    we   18   0.650   0.508   0.543   121   C      13-7    1-2   NWC      Lewis and Clark
    we   19   0.583   0.524   0.539   130   C      14-10   1-2   IIAC     Buena Vista
    we   20   0.615   0.510   0.536   140   C      16-10   0-5   NWC      Whitman
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    B    01   0.864   0.506   0.595   035   B      19-3    1-2   SAA      Centre
    b    02   0.630   0.553   0.572   069   C      17-10   4-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
    b    03   0.760   0.505   0.569   071   C      19-6    3-4   SAA      Oglethorpe
    b    04   0.556   0.510   0.522   172   C      15-12   1-5   SAA      Rhodes

    KnightSlappy earn karma. +1! and thanks.  :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 12:47:37 PM
    These 16 look pretty good to me:

    UW-Whitewater   WE   0.885   / 0.564   / 4-1
    Williams   NE   0.880   / 0.555   / 4-2
    Illinois Wesleyan   MW   0.852   / 0.560   / 8-3
    Plattsburgh State   EA   0.815   / 0.553   / 4-4
    Babson   NE   0.769   / 0.567   / 3-5
    Wesley   MA   0.870   / 0.529   / 5-0
    Emory   SO   0.680   / 0.591   / 4-5
    Randolph-Macon   SO   0.769   / 0.559   / 4-3
    St. Olaf   WE   0.808   / 0.543   / 1-5
    Geneseo State   EA   0.769   / 0.554   / 2-4
    Hope   GL   0.760   / 0.555   / 2-4
    Carthage   MW   0.625   / 0.599   / 4-7
    Eastern Connecticut   NE   0.786   / 0.546   / 3-4
    WPI   NE   0.846   / 0.520   / 3-1
    Augustana   MW   0.731   / 0.555   / 5-4
    Bowdoin   NE   0.792   / 0.529   / 1-3

    Bubble (not really in order):

    Dickinson   MA   0.778   / 0.529   / 2-1
    Christopher Newport   MA   0.654   / 0.571   / 4-7
    Ohio Wesleyan   GL   0.741   / 0.541   / 3-5
    William Paterson   AT   0.778   / 0.528   / 4-3
    St. Marys (Md.)   MA   0.667   / 0.565   / 1-6
    Messiah   MA   0.760   / 0.532   / 2-4
    Staten Island   AT   0.893   / 0.486   / 0-0
    Nichols   NE   0.786   / 0.521   / 0-2
    Wittenberg   GL   0.750   / 0.530   / 3-6
    Dubuque   WE   0.783   / 0.517   / 1-0
    DePauw   GL   0.692   / 0.545   / 4-5

    Both Virginia Wesleyan and Springfield would probably be in the top group should they lose today. Texas-Dallas would land on the bubble but would still have a decent shot of getting in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 02, 2014, 12:48:55 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 09:46:50 AM
    KnightSlappy do this, KnightSlappy do that...
    Someday, your prince will come, dude.

    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 09:46:50 AM
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    GL   01   0.923   0.543   0.638   005   A      24-2    7-2   NCAC     Wooster
    GL   02   0.760   0.555   0.606   024   C      19-6    2-4   MIAA     Hope
    GL   03   0.741   0.541   0.591   041   C      20-7    3-5   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
    GL   04   0.750   0.530   0.585   048   C      21-7    3-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
    GL   05   0.720   0.538   0.583   051   C      18-7    0-4   OAC      Marietta
    GL   06   0.692   0.545   0.582   052   C      18-8    4-5   NCAC     DePauw
    GL   07   0.692   0.542   0.579   057   A      18-8    1-2   OAC      Wilmington

    REALLY surprised to see OWU emerge from the weekend as the #3 GL team. Common sense dictates (to me, at least) that it would have been Wittenberg, who has a comparable SOS and record, one more RRO, and two wins over the Bishops. (And had a better weekend.) Also surprised to see Marietta still hanging around with a chance to reach the table. What a season it has been in Ohio.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 12:53:04 PM
    My updated Pool C breakdown, now with numbers through last night - thanks KnightSlappy!

    (Regional ranking noted is the most current - this will change in the final, super secret regional rankings)


    Relevant games today
    * Amherst (NESCAC) - .920/.579/8-0   Northeast #1   vs Williams, 12:00pm
    * UW-Stevens Point (WIAC) - .962/.579/5-1    West #1   vs UW-Whitewater, 3:00pm
    * St. Thomas (MIAC) - .846/.528/4-2   West #3   vs St. Olaf, 3:00pm
    * Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC) - .769/.537/3-2   South #3   vs Hampden-Sydney, 3:30pm
    * Centre** (SAA) - .864/.506/1-2   South #5   vs Oglethorpe, 1:00pm
    * Texas-Dallas (ASC) - .889/.499/0-1   South #4   vs Hardin-Simmons, 3:00pm


    Pool C candidates
    ---In safely:
    1. Illinois Wesleyan* (CCIW) - .852/.560/8-3   Midwest #2
    2. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .885/.564/4-1   West #2   vs UW-Stevens Point, 3:00pm
    3. Williams (NESCAC) - .880/.555/4-2   Northeast #2    vs Amherst, 12:00pm
    4. Wesley* (CAC) - .870/.529/5-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    5. Plattsburgh State* (SUNYAC) - .815/.553/4-4   East #2
    6. Randolph-Macon* (ODAC) - .769/.559/4-3   South #1
    7. Babson (NEWMAC)* - .769/.567/3-5   Northeast #3
    8. Augustana* (CCIW) - .731/.555/5-4   Midwest #4
    9. Eastern Connecticut* (LEC) - .786/.546/3-4   Northeast #4
    10. Geneseo State* (SUNYAC) - .769/.554/2-4   East #3
    11. WPI* (NEWMAC) - .846/.520/3-1  Northeast #5
    12. Hope* (MIAA) - .760/.555/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    13. Carthage* (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
    14. Emory* (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2
    15. DePauw* (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
    16. Wittenberg* (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6   Great Lakes #6

    ---The Bubble (pick 3):
    17. St. Olaf (MIAC) - .808/.543/1-5   West #4   vs St. Thomas, 3:00pm
    18. Ohio Wesleyan* (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    19. William Paterson* (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3   Atlantic #4
    --------------------
    20. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .760/.564/2-4   Northeast #6   vs MIT, 1:00pm
    21. Middlebury* (NESCAC) - .640/.562/3-6   Northeast #11
    22. Dickinson* (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    23. Stevenson* (MACC) - .704/.531/4-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    24. Messiah* (MACC) - .760/.532/2-4   Mid-Atlantic #6

    ---Out:
    25. Birmingham-Southern** (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3   South #6
    26. Rutgers-Newark* (NJAC) - .704/.531/2-3   Atlantic #5
    27. Staten Island* (CUNYAC) - .893/.486/0-0   Atlantic #3
    28. Bowdoin* (NESCAC) - .792/.529/1-3   Northeast #7
    29. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps* (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1  West #7
    30. Pomona-Pitzer* (SCIAC) .750/.514/3-1   West #8
    31. Bethany* (PrAC) - .800/.501/1-0   Great Lakes #3
    32. Nichols* (CCC) - .786/.521/0-2   Northeast #9
    33. Guilford* (ODAC) - .654/.525/1-6   South #7
    34. St. Mary's* (CAC) - .667/.565/1-6   Mid-Atlantic #9
    35. Augsburg* (MIAC) - .692/.517/1-4   West #9
    36. NYU* (UAA) - .667/.546/0-6   East #6
    37. Mount St. Mary* (Sky) - .778/.506/0-5   Atlantic #6
    38. Mount Union* (OAC) - .769/.514/0-1   Great Lakes #4
    39. Augsburg* (MIAC) - .692/.517/1-4   West #926.
    40. Dubuque* (IIAC) - .783/.517/1-0   West #6
    41. Chicago* (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7   Midwest #8
    42. NYU (UAA)# - .667/.546/0-6   East #6
    43. Skidmore* (LL) - .615/.532/2-4   East #6


    * Teams that are done playing and officially Pool C candidates

    ** Pool B
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 12:55:58 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on March 02, 2014, 12:48:55 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 09:46:50 AM
    KnightSlappy do this, KnightSlappy do that...
    Someday, your prince will come, dude.

    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 09:46:50 AM
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    GL   01   0.923   0.543   0.638   005   A      24-2    7-2   NCAC     Wooster
    GL   02   0.760   0.555   0.606   024   C      19-6    2-4   MIAA     Hope
    GL   03   0.741   0.541   0.591   041   C      20-7    3-5   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
    GL   04   0.750   0.530   0.585   048   C      21-7    3-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
    GL   05   0.720   0.538   0.583   051   C      18-7    0-4   OAC      Marietta
    GL   06   0.692   0.545   0.582   052   C      18-8    4-5   NCAC     DePauw
    GL   07   0.692   0.542   0.579   057   A      18-8    1-2   OAC      Wilmington

    REALLY surprised to see OWU emerge from the weekend as the #3 GL team. Common sense dictates (to me, at least) that it would have been Wittenberg, who has a comparable SOS and record, one more RRO, and two wins over the Bishops. (And had a better weekend.) Also surprised to see Marietta still hanging around with a chance to reach the table. What a season it has been in Ohio.

    The order is only based on WP and SOS, so you have to adjust for head-to-head and vRRO. OWU should still stay behind Witt, and Marietta outside the rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2014, 12:56:50 PM
    The random D3 game watcher in me would like St. Olaf to make it, I really think that's a good team.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 02, 2014, 12:57:48 PM
    Ah, thanks, KS. So much about this I don't understand anymore.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2014, 01:05:06 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 12:37:46 AM
    GREEN is Pool A bid/#1 seed/Conference leader

    RED POOL C



       TEAM-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
         SUNY-Purchase      23-2, 23-2      SKY      WON vs SUNY-Old Westbury 88-73; WON vs Mount St. Mary 100-82 in Final   
         Richard Stockton      21-4, 21-4      NJAC      WON vs Kean 64-63; WON vs William Paterson 65-44 in Final
        Staten Island      24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final    
       William Paterson       20-5, 20-5      NJAC      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; LOST vs Richard Stockton 65-44 in Final
        Rutgers-Newark      19-7, 19-7      NJAC      LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal     
       Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       20-5, 20-5      SKY      WON vs Farmingdale State 95-75; LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 100-82 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-EAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Brockport State      21-3, 22-3      SUNYAC      WON vs Oswego 77-56; WON vs Plattsburgh State 57-56 in Final    
       Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      WON vs Geneseo 73-69; LOST vs Brockport State 57-56 in Final   
       Geneseo State       19-5, 20-5      SUNYAC      WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; LOST vs Plattsburgh St. 73-69 in semifinal    
       Hobart      19-6, 19-6      LL      WON vs Clarkson 78-69 OT; WON vs Vassar 75-74 2OT in Final   
       NYU        16-8, 16-8      UAA      at Brandeis 3/2   
       Skidmore      16-9, 16-9      LL      LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-GREAT-LAKES      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Wooster      21-2, 22-3      NCAC      WON vs. Oberlin 89-56; WONvs Ohio Wesleyan 78-67; WON vs Wittenberg in 71-63 Final   
       Hope      18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; LOST vs Calvin 78-53 in Final   
       Bethany      20-4, 21-4      PAC      LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals    
       Mount Union      20-5, 20-5      OAC      LOST John Carroll 83-81 in semifinal    
       DePauw      17-7, 18-7      NCAC      WON vs Wabash 73-59; LOST vs Wittenberg 63-61 in semifinal 2/28   
       Wittenberg        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Denison 64-49; WON vs DePauw 63-61; LOST vs Wooster 71-63 in Final   
       Ohio Wesleyan      19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon 78-67; LOST vs Wooster 78-67 in semifinal    
                            
       TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Cabrini      23-1, 23-1      CSAC      WON vs Rosemont 109-97; WON vs Neumann 96-79 in Final   
       Scranton      22-3, 22-3      LAND      WON vs Merchant Marine 82-64; WON vs Susquechanna 71-56 in Final 3/1   
       Wesley      20-2, 22-2      CAC      LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal    
       Dickinson      20-5, 20-5      CC      WON vs McDaniel 77-63; LOST vs Johns Hopkins 60-55 in Final   
       Stevenson      18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Hood 83-72; LOST vs Alvernia 70-69 in Final   
       Messiah      19-5, 19-5      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal    
       Alvernia       18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Messiah 81-77; WON vs Stevenson 70-69 in Final   
       Mary Washington       18-5, 20-5      CAC      WON  St. Mary's (Md.) 70-65; WON vs Christopher Newport 65-48 in Final 3/1   
       St. Mary's (Md.)      15-7, 18-7      CAC      LOST vs Mary Washington 70-65 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-MIDWEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Washington U.      22-2, 22-2      UAA      WON at Chicago 86-73   
       Illinois Wesleyan      22-3, 22-3      CCIW      WON vs Carthage 76-71; LOST vs Wheaton 87-66 in Final   
       Wheaton (Ill.)       17-8, 17-8      CCIW      WON vs Augustana 66-55; WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 87-66 in Final   
       Augustana       19-6, 19-6      CCIW      LOST vs Wheaton (IL) 66-55 in semifinal    
       St. Norbert       21-1, 22-1      MWC      WON vs Carroll; WONvs Grinnell in Final 99-86
       Carthage       15-8, 16-9      CCIW      LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 76-71 in semifinal    
       Rose-Hulman       20-5, 20-5      HCAC      WON vs Mount St. Joseph 68-54; WON vs Hanover 70-56 in Final   
       Chicago      14-9, 15-9      UAA      LOST vs Washington U. 86-73   
                            
       TEAM-NORTHEAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Amherst       22-3, 22-3      NESCAC      WON vs Trinity (CT) 80-62; vs Williams in Final 3/2   
       Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      WON vs Middlebury 78-75; vs Amherst in Final 3/2   
       Babson       20-5, 20-5      NEWMAC      LOST vs Springfield 85-77 OTin semifinal   
        Eastern Connecticut      20-5, 20-5      LEC      WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; WON vs Western Connecticut 88-75; LOST vs RIC 70-61 in Final   
       WPI       22-3, 22-3      NEWMAC      LOST vs MIT 64-46 in semifinal 3/1   
       Springfield       18-6, 19-6      NEWMAC      WON vs Babson 85-77 OT; vs MIT in Final 3/2   
       Bowdoin      19-5, 19-5      NESCAC      LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal     
        Albertus Magnus      23-1, 23-2      GNAC      WON vs Norwich 87-69; WON vs Lasell 91-72; WON vs St. Joseph's (Me.) 84-49 in Final 3/1   
        Nichols      20-5, 20-5      CCC      WON vs Western New England 73-54; WON vs Salva Regina 83-80 OT; LOST vs Gordon 69-65 in Final 3/1   
       Rhode Island College      17-8, 17-8      LEC      WON vs Southern Maine 74-66; WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 82-69; WON vs Eastern Connecticut 70-61 in Final   
       Middlebury       16-8, 17-8      NESCAC      LOST vs Williams 78-75 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-SOUTH      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal    
       Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      LOST at Rochester 97-83   
       Virgina Wesleyan       18-6, 19-6      ODAC      WON vs Bridgewater 91-70; WON vs Washington and Lee 74-60; vs Hampden-Sydney in Final 3/2   
       Texas-Dallas      22-3, 22-3      ASC      WON vs East Texas Baptist 80-65; WON vs Texas-Tyler 103-83; vs Hardin-Simmons in Final 3/2   
       Centre      17-3, 20-4      SAA      WON vs Berry 77-60; WON vs Rhodes 64-61; vs Olgethorpe in Final 3/2   
       Birmingham-Southern      16-9, 16-9      SAA      WON vs Hendrix 77-62; LOST vs Oglethorpe 72-70   
       Guilford       17-8, 17-8      ODAC      LOST vs Washington and Lee 77-70 in quarterfinal    
       Trinity (TX)      16-9, 16-9      SCAC      WON vs Texas Lutheran 78-65; vs WON Colorado College 64-48;vs Centenary in Final 3/2   
                            
       TEAM-WEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       UW-Stevens Point      24-1, 24-1      WIAC      WON vs Platteville 66-47; vs Whitewater in Final 3/2   
       UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      WON vs La Crosse i76-73; at Stevens Point in Final 3/2   
       St. Thomas       21-4, 21-4      MIAC      WON vs Bethel 74-59; vs St. Olaf in Final 3/2   
       St. Olaf       20-5, 20-5      MIAC      WON vs Gustavus Adolphus 66-53; vs St. Thomas in Final 3/2   
       Whitworth       20-5, 20-5      NWC      WON vs Lewis and Clark 87-62; WON vs Puget Sound 71-68 in Final
        Dubuque      18-4, 21-4      IIAC      LOST vs Luther 87-83 in semifinal    
       C-M-S       17-3, 19-5      SCIAC      LOST vs Cal Lutheran 54-53 in semifinal   
       Pomona-Pitzer       18-5, 18-7      SCIAC      LOST vs Chapman 69-54 in semifinal   
       Augsburg      18-7, 18-7      MIAC      LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal    
                            
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2014, 01:11:06 PM
    JUST POOL C TEAMS and teams that have games today


    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 12:37:46 AM
    GREEN is Pool A bid/#1 seed/Conference leader

    RED POOL C



       TEAM-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
        Staten Island      24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final    
       William Paterson       20-5, 20-5      NJAC      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; LOST vs Richard Stockton 65-44 in Final
        Rutgers-Newark      19-7, 19-7      NJAC      LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal     
       Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       20-5, 20-5      SKY      WON vs Farmingdale State 95-75; LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 100-82 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-EAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      WON vs Geneseo 73-69; LOST vs Brockport State 57-56 in Final   
       Geneseo State       19-5, 20-5      SUNYAC      WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; LOST vs Plattsburgh St. 73-69 in semifinal    
       NYU        16-8, 16-8      UAA      at Brandeis 3/2   
       Skidmore      16-9, 16-9      LL      LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-GREAT-LAKES      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Hope      18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; LOST vs Calvin 78-53 in Final   
       Bethany      20-4, 21-4      PAC      LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals    
       Mount Union      20-5, 20-5      OAC      LOST John Carroll 83-81 in semifinal    
       DePauw      17-7, 18-7      NCAC      WON vs Wabash 73-59; LOST vs Wittenberg 63-61 in semifinal 2/28   
       Wittenberg        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Denison 64-49; WON vs DePauw 63-61; LOST vs Wooster 71-63 in Final   
       Ohio Wesleyan      19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon 78-67; LOST vs Wooster 78-67 in semifinal    
                            
       TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Wesley      20-2, 22-2      CAC      LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal    
       Dickinson      20-5, 20-5      CC      WON vs McDaniel 77-63; LOST vs Johns Hopkins 60-55 in Final   
       Stevenson      18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Hood 83-72; LOST vs Alvernia 70-69 in Final   
       Messiah      19-5, 19-5      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal    
       St. Mary's (Md.)      15-7, 18-7      CAC      LOST vs Mary Washington 70-65 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-MIDWEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Illinois Wesleyan      22-3, 22-3      CCIW      WON vs Carthage 76-71; LOST vs Wheaton 87-66 in Final   
       Augustana       19-6, 19-6      CCIW      LOST vs Wheaton (IL) 66-55 in semifinal    
       Carthage       15-8, 16-9      CCIW      LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 76-71 in semifinal    
       Chicago      14-9, 15-9      UAA      LOST vs Washington U. 86-73   
                            
       TEAM-NORTHEAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Amherst       22-3, 22-3      NESCAC      WON vs Trinity (CT) 80-62; vs Williams in Final 3/2   
       Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      WON vs Middlebury 78-75; vs Amherst in Final 3/2   
       Babson       20-5, 20-5      NEWMAC      LOST vs Springfield 85-77 OTin semifinal   
        Eastern Connecticut      20-5, 20-5      LEC      WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; WON vs Western Connecticut 88-75; LOST vs RIC 70-61 in Final   
       WPI       22-3, 22-3      NEWMAC      LOST vs MIT 64-46 in semifinal 3/1   
       Springfield       18-6, 19-6      NEWMAC      WON vs Babson 85-77 OT; vs MIT in Final 3/2   
       Bowdoin      19-5, 19-5      NESCAC      LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal     
        Nichols      20-5, 20-5      CCC      WON vs Western New England 73-54; WON vs Salva Regina 83-80 OT; LOST vs Gordon 69-65 in Final 3/1   
       Middlebury       16-8, 17-8      NESCAC      LOST vs Williams 78-75 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-SOUTH      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal    
       Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      LOST at Rochester 97-83   
       Virgina Wesleyan       18-6, 19-6      ODAC      WON vs Bridgewater 91-70; WON vs Washington and Lee 74-60; vs Hampden-Sydney in Final 3/2   
       Texas-Dallas      22-3, 22-3      ASC      WON vs East Texas Baptist 80-65; WON vs Texas-Tyler 103-83; vs Hardin-Simmons in Final 3/2   
       Centre      17-3, 20-4      SAA      WON vs Berry 77-60; WON vs Rhodes 64-61; vs Olgethorpe in Final 3/2   
       Birmingham-Southern      16-9, 16-9      SAA      WON vs Hendrix 77-62; LOST vs Oglethorpe 72-70   
       Guilford       17-8, 17-8      ODAC      LOST vs Washington and Lee 77-70 in quarterfinal    
       Trinity (TX)      16-9, 16-9      SCAC      WON vs Texas Lutheran 78-65; vs WON Colorado College 64-48;vs Centenary in Final 3/2   
                            
       TEAM-WEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       UW-Stevens Point      24-1, 24-1      WIAC      WON vs Platteville 66-47; vs Whitewater in Final 3/2   
       UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      WON vs La Crosse i76-73; at Stevens Point in Final 3/2   
       St. Thomas       21-4, 21-4      MIAC      WON vs Bethel 74-59; vs St. Olaf in Final 3/2   
       St. Olaf       20-5, 20-5      MIAC      WON vs Gustavus Adolphus 66-53; vs St. Thomas in Final 3/2   
        Dubuque      18-4, 21-4      IIAC      LOST vs Luther 87-83 in semifinal    
       C-M-S       17-3, 19-5      SCIAC      LOST vs Cal Lutheran 54-53 in semifinal   
       Pomona-Pitzer       18-5, 18-7      SCIAC      LOST vs Chapman 69-54 in semifinal   
       Augsburg      18-7, 18-7      MIAC      LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal    
                            
    [/quote]
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 01:15:08 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 12:53:04 PM
    15. DePauw* (NCAC) (18-8) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
    17. St. Olaf (MIAC) (21-5) - .808/.543/1-5   West #4   vs St. Thomas, 3:00pm

    I still think you're being too harsh on St. Olaf and over-weighting vRRO. This is a perfect comparison because these two have played the same number of D3 games, they have the same SOS and they have the same number of vRRO losses.

    Does the fact that three of DePauw's wins happened to be against RRO outweigh the fact that St. Olaf won three more games (against an evenly ranked schedule)?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: carthage guy on March 02, 2014, 01:20:33 PM
    wow... if carthage does get in D3 has come a long way in picking its tournament team ;D  I played on a 18-7 cciw team and didnt get in.. back in the day ???
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 01:23:19 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 01:15:08 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 12:53:04 PM
    15. DePauw* (NCAC) (18-8) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
    17. St. Olaf (MIAC) (21-5) - .808/.543/1-5   West #4   vs St. Thomas, 3:00pm

    I still think you're being too harsh on St. Olaf and over-weighting vRRO. This is a perfect comparison because these two have played the same number of D3 games, they have the same SOS and they have the same number of vRRO losses.

    Does the fact that three of DePauw's wins happened to be against RRO outweigh the fact that St. Olaf won three more games (against an evenly ranked schedule)?

    That could be true - who knows.  But St. Olaf's 1 win vs RRO is the lowest total of any Pool C candidate that will be on the table in this process.  For me, that number jumps off the page and really hurts St. Olaf.

    Also keep in mind, we're comparing St. Olaf right now vs teams with final resumes.  If St. Olaf losses this afternoon, their WP falls to .778.  I see them right at the end of the bubble, but this certainly is anything but an exact science.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wooscotsfan on March 02, 2014, 01:41:14 PM
    Carthage   MW   0.625   / 0.599   / 4-7

    Still having trouble comprehending this one.  How does a team with a D3 record of 15-9 (10 losses overall) get a Pool C bid.  Doesn't winning games matter? ???  This would be a historically low winning percentage for a team getting into the NCAA tourney.

    Staten Island 25-3 or Carthage 15-9 --- who is more deserving of a Pool C bid?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 01:46:47 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on March 02, 2014, 01:41:14 PM
    Carthage   MW   0.625   / 0.599   / 4-7

    Still having trouble comprehending this one.  How does a team with a D3 record of 15-9 (10 losses overall) get a Pool C bid.  Doesn't winning games matter? ???  This would be a historically low winning percentage for a team getting into the NCAA tourney.

    Staten Island 25-3 or Carthage 15-9 --- who is more deserving of a Pool C bid?

    You are just factoring one criterion - winning percentage.  On the other two biggies, Carthage has a huge advantage over Staten Island.

    - Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   
    - Staten Island (CUNYAC) - .893/.486/0-0   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 01:49:29 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 01:46:47 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on March 02, 2014, 01:41:14 PM
    Carthage   MW   0.625   / 0.599   / 4-7

    Still having trouble comprehending this one.  How does a team with a D3 record of 15-9 (10 losses overall) get a Pool C bid.  Doesn't winning games matter? ???  This would be a historically low winning percentage for a team getting into the NCAA tourney.

    Staten Island 25-3 or Carthage 15-9 --- who is more deserving of a Pool C bid?

    You are just factoring one criterion - winning percentage.  On the other two biggies, Carthage has a huge advantage over Staten Island.

    - Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   
    - Staten Island (CUNYAC) - .893/.486/0-0

    Carthage's SOS is 2nd in the country. Staten Island's is 312th.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wooscotsfan on March 02, 2014, 01:54:22 PM
    I certainly understand that SOS and RRO are weighed as well because I didn't start posting yesterday. :)   In my opinion, when one team has won 10 more games than the other and lost 6 fewer, that should trump the rest of the factors.

    The NCAA selection may not agree with my reasoning and we will find out on Monday how they view it. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiltedbryan on March 02, 2014, 01:55:05 PM
    Staten Island's the only Pool C contender with zero results vRRO - entirely missing any data for one of the five primary criteria. Gotta imagine that will stick out to the committee when it comes to making selections.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wooscotsfan on March 02, 2014, 02:05:02 PM
    Quote from: kiltedbryan on March 02, 2014, 01:55:05 PM
    Staten Island's the only Pool C contender with zero results vRRO - entirely missing any data for one of the five primary criteria. Gotta imagine that will stick out to the committee when it comes to making selections.


    kiltedbryan -- good point about Staten Island having a zero RRO that will hurt their chances.  My main point is more focused on whether Carthage gets in with a 15-9 record and a historically low winning percentage of only 62.5%.  The NCAA selection committee could very well decide that neither Carthage (low win %) nor Staten Island (zero RRO) are deserving and give one of the remaining Pool C bids to another team.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 02:08:32 PM
    I haven't said it in a while, but I'll say it again. The vRRO criterion is just dumb. The fact that you've played good teams is already built into your SOS, and vRRO can be really skewed by conference affiliation. Non-conference vRRO might be interesting to see.

    It's not really your fault if no one else in your conference is any good, and you're already getting penalized with a weak SOS. You can try to schedule tough in the non-conference, but if you don't happen to hit on one of the few teams that gets ranked, you're SOL.

    I can see it being in the secondary criteria, but it's not actually very informative once you already know a school's WP and SOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiltedbryan on March 02, 2014, 02:17:46 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on March 02, 2014, 02:05:02 PM
    Quote from: kiltedbryan on March 02, 2014, 01:55:05 PM
    Staten Island's the only Pool C contender with zero results vRRO - entirely missing any data for one of the five primary criteria. Gotta imagine that will stick out to the committee when it comes to making selections.


    kiltedbryan -- good point about Staten Island having a zero RRO that will hurt their chances.  My main point is more focused on whether Carthage gets in with a 15-9 record and a historically low winning percentage of only 62.5%.  The NCAA selection committee could very well decide that neither Carthage (low win %) nor Staten Island (zero RRO) are deserving and give one of the remaining Pool C bids to another team.

    Yeah, fair enough. Staten Island and Carthage definitely represent nearly exactly opposite resumes to the committee.

    If they're sitting on the same table together in the later rounds of the selection process, you'll have Staten Island with probably the best WP but lowest SOS, and Carthage with the worst WP but highest SOS.

    Based on Titan Q's projection, though, Staten Island may face the challenge of even getting to the table - he has two Atlantic Region teams - William Patterson and Rutgers-Newark - firmly on the bubble, but slotted ahead of Staten Island. A lot could depend on where SI ends up in the final Atlantic region rankings. Can't get selected if you never even make the table.

    Carthage, by comparison, looks like they should be sitting at the table for awhile, once Augustana is cleared out ahead of them. I tend to think that being at the table for awhile can only help you.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 02:23:33 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on March 02, 2014, 02:05:02 PM
    Quote from: kiltedbryan on March 02, 2014, 01:55:05 PM
    Staten Island's the only Pool C contender with zero results vRRO - entirely missing any data for one of the five primary criteria. Gotta imagine that will stick out to the committee when it comes to making selections.


    kiltedbryan -- good point about Staten Island having a zero RRO that will hurt their chances.  My main point is more focused on whether Carthage gets in with a 15-9 record and a historically low winning percentage of only 62.5%.  The NCAA selection committee could very well decide that neither Carthage (low win %) nor Staten Island (zero RRO) are deserving and give one of the remaining Pool C bids to another team.

    I think your point is a fair one. I've been arguing that the NCAA isn't consistent from year-to-year on how they weigh these factors.

    WPI didn't get in in 2012 with a .720 WP and a .585 SOS (3-3 vRRO)
    Keene State didn't get in in 2012 with a .708 WP and a .573 SOS (3-5 vRRO)

    NYU DID get in in 2012 with an .800 WP and a .494 SOS (2-2 vRRO)
    Birmingham-Southern DID get in in 2012 with a .917 WP and a .441 SOS (0-0 vRRO)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 02, 2014, 02:24:55 PM

    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 02:08:32 PM
    I haven't said it in a while, but I'll say it again. The vRRO criterion is just dumb. The fact that you've played good teams is already built into your SOS, and vRRO can be really skewed by conference affiliation. Non-conference vRRO might be interesting to see.

    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 09:46:50 AM
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    GL   01   0.923   0.543   0.638   005   A      24-2    7-2   NCAC     Wooster
    GL   02   0.760   0.555   0.606   024   C      19-6    2-4   MIAA     Hope
    GL   03   0.741   0.541   0.591   041   C      20-7    3-5   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
    GL   04   0.750   0.530   0.585   048   C      21-7    3-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
    GL   05   0.720   0.538   0.583   051   C      18-7    0-4   OAC      Marietta
    GL   06   0.692   0.545   0.582   052   C      18-8    4-5   NCAC     DePauw


    The NCAC has four regionally ranked teams (highlighted, assumes they all stay ranked this week). They play a full double round-robin, and they all advanced to the conference semifinals. The semifinal winners (Wooster, Witt) thus had 8 vRROs among this group, and the losers 7. Back those out, and you are left with
    Wooster 1-0 (Wheaton)
    Ohio Wesleyan 0-0
    Wittenberg 0-1 (Wheaton)
    DePauw 0-1 (WashU.)
    Makes a difference, doesn't it?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2014, 02:29:20 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on March 02, 2014, 02:24:55 PM

    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 02:08:32 PM
    I haven't said it in a while, but I'll say it again. The vRRO criterion is just dumb. The fact that you've played good teams is already built into your SOS, and vRRO can be really skewed by conference affiliation. Non-conference vRRO might be interesting to see.

    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 09:46:50 AM
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    GL   01   0.923   0.543   0.638   005   A      24-2    7-2   NCAC     Wooster
    GL   02   0.760   0.555   0.606   024   C      19-6    2-4   MIAA     Hope
    GL   03   0.741   0.541   0.591   041   C      20-7    3-5   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
    GL   04   0.750   0.530   0.585   048   C      21-7    3-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
    GL   05   0.720   0.538   0.583   051   C      18-7    0-4   OAC      Marietta
    GL   06   0.692   0.545   0.582   052   C      18-8    4-5   NCAC     DePauw


    The NCAC has four regionally ranked teams (highlighted, assumes they all stay ranked this week). They play a full double round-robin, and they all advanced to the conference semifinals. The semifinal winners (Wooster, Witt) thus had 8 vRROs among this group, and the losers 7. Back those out, and you are left with
    Wooster 1-0 (Wheaton)
    Ohio Wesleyan 0-0
    Wittenberg 0-1 (Wheaton)
    DePauw 0-1 (WashU.)
    Makes a difference, doesn't it?

    Hope = 6 before and after

    Yes
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2014, 02:34:08 PM
    I've been trying to figure that one out for awhile. Yes, Carthage's numbers are very good except for their winning percentage.  When does that matter???

    Like I said with Hope. Solid numbers, great nonconference schedule, but they lost all the games.

    Sooner or later winning percentage has to make a difference too.  What if Carthage was 12-12, do they get in with great RRO and SOS? I mean, we talk about that but we also talk about teams that only have one or two losses and say, "Hey, they beat (nearly) everyone they played..." Doesn't that count for anything anymore?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hugenerd on March 02, 2014, 02:34:55 PM
    Someones bubble just popped (could be the team they beat), MIT wins NEWMAC tourney.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2014, 02:38:49 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2014, 02:34:08 PM
    I've been trying to figure that one out for awhile. Yes, Carthage's numbers are very good except for their winning percentage.  When does that matter???

    Like I said with Hope. Solid numbers, great nonconference schedule, but they lost all the games.

    Sooner or later winning percentage has to make a difference too.  What if Carthage was 12-12, do they get in with great RRO and SOS? I mean, we talk about that but we also talk about teams that only have one or two losses and say, "Hey, they beat (nearly) everyone they played..." Doesn't that count for anything anymore?

    This is where I think this conversation starts heading down the road of what does the criteria really identify.  The best teams?  Or the teams with the best criteria?

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 02:39:00 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2014, 02:34:08 PM
    I've been trying to figure that one out for awhile. Yes, Carthage's numbers are very good except for their winning percentage.  When does that matter???

    Like I said with Hope. Solid numbers, great nonconference schedule, but they lost all the games.

    Sooner or later winning percentage has to make a difference too.  What if Carthage was 12-12, do they get in with great RRO and SOS? I mean, we talk about that but we also talk about teams that only have one or two losses and say, "Hey, they beat (nearly) everyone they played..." Doesn't that count for anything anymore?

    If you're .500 and played your 25 games against the D3Hoops Top 25, you're probably, like, the 13th best team in the country.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: seinfeld on March 02, 2014, 02:47:26 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 09:46:50 AM
    KnightSlappy do this, KnightSlappy do that...

    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    GL   01   0.923   0.543   0.638   005   A      24-2    7-2   NCAC     Wooster
    GL   02   0.760   0.555   0.606   024   C      19-6    2-4   MIAA     Hope
    GL   03   0.741   0.541   0.591   041   C      20-7    3-5   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
    GL   04   0.750   0.530   0.585   048   C      21-7    3-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
    GL   05   0.720   0.538   0.583   051   C      18-7    0-4   OAC      Marietta
    GL   06   0.692   0.545   0.582   052   C      18-8    4-5   NCAC     DePauw
    GL   07   0.692   0.542   0.579   057   A      18-8    1-2   OAC      Wilmington
    gl   08   0.769   0.514   0.578   058   C      20-6    0-1   OAC      Mount Union
    gl   09   0.800   0.501   0.575   062   C      20-5    1-0   PrAC     Bethany
    gl   10   0.826   0.483   0.569   073   A      19-4    2-4   MIAA     Calvin
    gl   11   0.852   0.466   0.563   080   A      23-4    1-0   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
    gl   12   0.792   0.483   0.560   085   A      19-5    1-1   PrAC     St. Vincent
    gl   13   0.615   0.534   0.554   095   C      16-10   1-2   OAC      Ohio Northern
    gl   14   0.621   0.519   0.545   116   C      18-11   1-3   OAC      John Carroll
    gl   15   0.560   0.540   0.545   118   C      14-11   3-6   UAA      Case Western Reserve
    gl   16   0.556   0.534   0.540   129   C      15-12   1-4   PrAC     Thomas More
    gl   17   0.731   0.473   0.537   137   C      19-7    0-0   AMCC     Hilbert
    gl   18   0.519   0.543   0.537   138   C      14-13   0-4   OAC      Baldwin Wallace
    gl   19   0.462   0.543   0.523   168   C      12-14   1-3   OAC      Capital
    gl   20   0.417   0.555   0.520   176   C      10-14   1-8   UAA      Carnegie Mellon


    As always, thanks for doing this. I'm late to the party, so maybe this has been addressed already, but are they still doing "once ranked always ranked" or do you have to be in the final rankings to be counted as regionally ranked for the purposes of determining record vs. regionally ranked opponents? I'm just confused by Wooster's RRO. In the last data sheet, they were listed at just 5-1. But using the old formula, they should have been 6-2 at the last rankings, and now 8-2. They beat Wittenberg 3 times, OWU 2 times, DePauw, Marietta and Wheaton once each. That is eight wins. Their two regional losses are to OWU and DePauw.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 02:52:57 PM
    Staten Island is in a world of trouble... Carthage will be at the table and the conversation will be interesting. I wouldn't be shocked if both got in... but I would be shocked if Staten Island were in over Carthage.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 02, 2014, 02:58:09 PM
    Quote from: seinfeld on March 02, 2014, 02:47:26 PM
    As always, thanks for doing this. I'm late to the party, so maybe this has been addressed already, but are they still doing "once ranked always ranked" or do you have to be in the final rankings to be counted as regionally ranked for the purposes of determining record vs. regionally ranked opponents? I'm just confused by Wooster's RRO. In the last data sheet, they were listed at just 5-1. But using the old formula, they should have been 6-2 at the last rankings, and now 8-2. They beat Wittenberg 3 times, OWU 2 times, DePauw, Marietta and Wheaton once each. That is eight wins. Their two regional losses are to OWU and DePauw.
    I should defer to those who know better, but I think the once-ranked-always-ranked rule has gone the way of the dodo. Wooster's "missing" RRO is Marietta.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 02, 2014, 03:03:57 PM
    Yes, one-ranked, always-ranked no longer applies.  This makes it even more aggravating that we don't see the final rankings - can't even know vRRO except by guesswork.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on March 02, 2014, 03:28:03 PM
    Quote from: Hugenerd on March 02, 2014, 02:34:55 PM
    Someones bubble just popped (could be the team they beat), MIT wins NEWMAC tourney.

    Who is this masked man?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
    The more I look at it; the more I'm convinced that the last few picks will come down to ordering, as I think there is the potential for teams to get jammed up behind 8 loss teams that have worse resumes than Carthage and end up on the boards for a while.

    In the Mid-Atlantic, I think Stevenson ends up ahead of Messiah and Dickinson and Stevenson has a worse overall resume than Carthage (easily compared).  Similarly, if DePauw ends up ahead of Wittenburg (and Bethany and Mount Union), then they jam up the boards similarly.

    I think Staten Island gets picked at some point because they'll be on the board quite a while and I don't have a problem with that, but let's be clear that they played a soft, soft schedule.

    Record vs. Top 50, Second 50 and everyone else D3 (Massey)

    Staten Island (0-0, 3-2, 22-1)
    Carthage (4-7, 5-1, 6-1)

    I'd take Carthage given a choice.

    BTW, I think Springfield is very fringe.  I've figuring the last 3 picks are coming down to Springfield, Wittenbuerg, Stevenson, DePauw, Dickinson and Messiah with Carthage and Staten Island in and St. Olaf out.  Order will matter in Mid Atlantic and Great Lakes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on March 02, 2014, 03:53:30 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 02, 2014, 03:03:57 PM
    Yes, one-ranked, always-ranked no longer applies.  This makes it even more aggravating that we don't see the final rankings - can't even know vRRO except by guesswork.
    Correct.  IMO, the 'once-ranked, always-ranked' seemed create some 'gamemanship' by the regional committee(s).  I thought the third round had a little of that this year. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 02, 2014, 03:57:00 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
    The more I look at it; the more I'm convinced that the last few picks will come down to ordering, as I think there is the potential for teams to get jammed up behind 8 loss teams that have worse resumes than Carthage and end up on the boards for a while.

    I agree with this.



    In the Mid-Atlantic, I think Stevenson ends up ahead of Messiah and Dickinson and Stevenson has a worse overall resume than Carthage (easily compared).  Similarly, if DePauw ends up ahead of Wittenburg (and Bethany and Mount Union), then they jam up the boards similarly.

    I think Staten Island gets picked at some point because they'll be on the board quite a while and I don't have a problem with that, but let's be clear that they played a soft, soft schedule.

    Record vs. Top 50, Second 50 and everyone else D3 (Massey)

    Staten Island (0-0, 3-2, 22-1)
    Carthage (4-7, 5-1, 6-1)

    I'd take Carthage given a choice.

    BTW, I think Springfield is very fringe.  I've figuring the last 3 picks are coming down to Springfield, Wittenbuerg, Stevenson, DePauw, Dickinson and Messiah with Carthage and Staten Island in and St. Olaf out.  Order will matter in Mid Atlantic and Great Lakes.

    For the Mid-Atlantic Wesley comes right off the board and then I think Stevenson is at the table next; although Stevenson vs Messiah shows Messiah having better numbers in 2 of 3 here.

    Stevenson* (MACC) - .704/.531/4-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    Messiah* (MACC) - .760/.532/2-4   Mid-Atlantic #6

    I think Stevenson gets to the table after Wesley (again you could argue about Messiah being ahead of them) and get picked late. Messiah gets to the table ahead of Dickinson and probably finishes sitting at the table leaving Dickinson wondering how they are not dancing at 21-6 and making it to the tournament.  Could be wrong but I think it may be like this.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 03:58:14 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
    The more I look at it; the more I'm convinced that the last few picks will come down to ordering, as I think there is the potential for teams to get jammed up behind 8 loss teams that have worse resumes than Carthage and end up on the boards for a while.

    Always does... LOL

    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
    In the Mid-Atlantic, I think Stevenson ends up ahead of Messiah and Dickinson and Stevenson has a worse overall resume than Carthage (easily compared).  Similarly, if DePauw ends up ahead of Wittenburg (and Bethany and Mount Union), then they jam up the boards similarly.

    I Carthage has a gaudy SOS, but their overall record isn't better than Stevenson's. Furthermore, it depends on who is regionally ranked at the end, because when looking at Stevenson's numbers that is where I had a ton of fluxuation. That all being said, Carthage versus Stevenson was one of those where diving further into the numbers gave me pause as to who would go next. Great cross-country look at things.

    Also, between Stevenson, Dickinson and Messiah, who ever is in front with those three gets in. Whoever is second will be chewing on their nails... the third one doesn't get in.

    And I agree with the Great Lakes... that could cause a problem if DePauw remains ahead of Wittenberg.

    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
    I think Staten Island gets picked at some point because they'll be on the board quite a while and I don't have a problem with that, but let's be clear that they played a soft, soft schedule.
    I certainly can't disagree with this logic... their numbers are just so bad. I was imaging the same problem for Purchase had they not won the AQ. In their case, it would have to be for all 19 rounds and that is unreal if it happened!

    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
    Record vs. Top 50, Second 50 and everyone else D3 (Massey)

    Staten Island (0-0, 3-2, 22-1)
    Carthage (4-7, 5-1, 6-1)

    I'd take Carthage given a choice.

    Considering Massey isn't even used in the criteria... I think it is tough to make decisions and arguments based on that data. However, Carthage would get in over Staten Island I am quite sure.

    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
    BTW, I think Springfield is very fringe.  I've figuring the last 3 picks are coming down to Springfield, Wittenbuerg, Stevenson, DePauw, Dickinson and Messiah with Carthage and Staten Island in and St. Olaf out.  Order will matter in Mid Atlantic and Great Lakes.

    Springfield is a blocker for the rest of the Northeast (though, WPI would be the first blocker). Order will matter in this region as much as the Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic.

    And remember eight teams, one from each region, sit at the table at a time. I doubt Stevenson, Dickinson, and Messiah will all see the table unless the third place team gets there in the final round or two.

    And I have St. Olaf in midway through.

    Quote from: iwumichigander on March 02, 2014, 03:53:30 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 02, 2014, 03:03:57 PM
    Yes, one-ranked, always-ranked no longer applies.  This makes it even more aggravating that we don't see the final rankings - can't even know vRRO except by guesswork.
    Correct.  IMO, the 'once-ranked, always-ranked' seemed create some 'gamemanship' by the regional committee(s).  I thought the third round had a little of that this year. 

    The gamesmanship wouldn't have much of an affect. The vRRO is there for the final regional rankings, but then the national committee will get another round of vRRO and readjust accordingly. So Week 3's data is the starting point, but not the finishing point.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 03:59:28 PM
    Quote from: CCHoopster on March 02, 2014, 03:57:00 PM
    For the Mid-Atlantic Wesley comes right off the board and then I think Stevenson is at the table next; although Stevenson vs Messiah shows Messiah having better numbers in 2 of 3 here.

    Stevenson* (MACC) - .704/.531/4-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    Messiah* (MACC) - .760/.532/2-4   Mid-Atlantic #6

    I think Stevenson gets to the table after Wesley (again you could argue about Messiah being ahead of them) and get picked late. Messiah gets to the table ahead of Dickinson and probably finishes sitting at the table leaving Dickinson wondering how they are not dancing at 21-6 and making it to the tournament.  Could be wrong but I think it may be like this.

    Stevenson is 2-0 versus Messiah head-to-head... I highly doubt that is ignored and Messiah jumps Stevenson especially since Messiah lost in the semis and Stevenson by a point in the championship.

    Dickinson's problem is the conference was weak and didn't give them extra vRRO data.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEHoopsFan99 on March 02, 2014, 04:00:11 PM
    What NEWMAC teams do you think will make the Pool C cut? WPI Springfield and Babson all lost and non-ranked MIT won
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:02:33 PM
    Whoever is ranked higher, WPI or Springfield, will get in behind Babson... the other is going to be a very fragile bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2014, 04:04:38 PM
    You also have the least cohesion on the national committee from year to year than we've had for a very long time. Makes it tough to guess how the committee will work this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2014, 04:06:15 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:02:33 PM
    Whoever is ranked higher, WPI or Springfield, will get in behind Babson... the other is going to be a very fragile bubble.

    I think MIT's win means Bowdoin's not going to see the table at all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2014, 04:09:06 PM
    St. Olaf 39 St. Thomas 33

    13 minutes left
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 02, 2014, 04:12:33 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 03:59:28 PM
    Quote from: CCHoopster on March 02, 2014, 03:57:00 PM
    For the Mid-Atlantic Wesley comes right off the board and then I think Stevenson is at the table next; although Stevenson vs Messiah shows Messiah having better numbers in 2 of 3 here.

    Stevenson* (MACC) - .704/.531/4-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    Messiah* (MACC) - .760/.532/2-4   Mid-Atlantic #6

    I think Stevenson gets to the table after Wesley (again you could argue about Messiah being ahead of them) and get picked late. Messiah gets to the table ahead of Dickinson and probably finishes sitting at the table leaving Dickinson wondering how they are not dancing at 21-6 and making it to the tournament.  Could be wrong but I think it may be like this.

    Stevenson is 2-0 versus Messiah head-to-head... I highly doubt that is ignored and Messiah jumps Stevenson especially since Messiah lost in the semis and Stevenson by a point in the championship.

    Dickinson's problem is the conference was weak and didn't give them extra vRRO data.

    I don't see the Centennial as a 2 bid conference and do not see Dickinson being ahead of Messiah. If the NCAA feels the MAC Cwealth is as strong as I think it is they can get 3 teams, especially when teams with very low numbers SOS and WIN% are at the table.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bengalsrule on March 02, 2014, 04:18:04 PM
    I'm just hoping that the SUNYAC gets 2 pool C bids. They derserve it! ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEHoopsFan99 on March 02, 2014, 04:22:25 PM
    You still think Babson will get in before WPI? It's getting so confusing because essentially the entire NE lost their games this weekend. Could that mean only 2 NE teams get Pool C's? Or do you still think there will be 3+ NE pool C teams
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:22:34 PM
    SUNYAC has two... probably three amazingly.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2014, 04:23:52 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 03:58:14 PM

    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
    In the Mid-Atlantic, I think Stevenson ends up ahead of Messiah and Dickinson and Stevenson has a worse overall resume than Carthage (easily compared).  Similarly, if DePauw ends up ahead of Wittenburg (and Bethany and Mount Union), then they jam up the boards similarly.

    I Carthage has a gaudy SOS, but their overall record isn't better than Stevenson's. Furthermore, it depends on who is regionally ranked at the end, because when looking at Stevenson's numbers that is where I had a ton of fluxuation. That all being said, Carthage versus Stevenson was one of those where diving further into the numbers gave me pause as to who would go next. Great cross-country look at things.


    Carthage is 15-9 with an SOS of .598
    Stevenson is 19-8 with an SOS of .531

    That's a pretty big gap in SOS for just one less loss.

    Quote

    Also, between Stevenson, Dickinson and Messiah, who ever is in front with those three gets in. Whoever is second will be chewing on their nails... the third one doesn't get in.

    And I agree with the Great Lakes... that could cause a problem if DePauw remains ahead of Wittenberg.


    I think Stevenson stays ahead of Messiah, but am really unsure where Dickinson will end up.  I'm really unsure in the Great Lakes, but I think that DePauw/Wittenburg end up behind Hope and ahead of Bethany.



    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
    I think Staten Island gets picked at some point because they'll be on the board quite a while and I don't have a problem with that, but let's be clear that they played a soft, soft schedule.
    I certainly can't disagree with this logic... their numbers are just so bad. I was imaging the same problem for Purchase had they not won the AQ. In their case, it would have to be for all 19 rounds and that is unreal if it happened!
    Quote
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
    Record vs. Top 50, Second 50 and everyone else D3 (Massey)

    Staten Island (0-0, 3-2, 22-1)
    Carthage (4-7, 5-1, 6-1)

    I'd take Carthage given a choice.

    Considering Massey isn't even used in the criteria... I think it is tough to make decisions and arguments based on that data. However, Carthage would get in over Staten Island I am quite sure.


    It's just to give a sense of how weak a schedule Staten Island played and how tough of one Carthage did play.  This is where I don't like the dependence on RRO because there isn't common ground between the two teams to make a comparison, so looking at games against second 50 are a point and I'm surprised D3 doesn't have criteria similar to D1 in that regard. 
    Quote
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 03:38:14 PM
    BTW, I think Springfield is very fringe.  I've figuring the last 3 picks are coming down to Springfield, Wittenbuerg, Stevenson, DePauw, Dickinson and Messiah with Carthage and Staten Island in and St. Olaf out.  Order will matter in Mid Atlantic and Great Lakes.

    Springfield is a blocker for the rest of the Northeast (though, WPI would be the first blocker). Order will matter in this region as much as the Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic.

    And remember eight teams, one from each region, sit at the table at a time. I doubt Stevenson, Dickinson, and Messiah will all see the table unless the third place team gets there in the final round or two.

    And I have St. Olaf in midway through.


    I really do think St. Olaf is a fine team, but I can't see them getting in without an RRO win (and I think Augsburg is going off the regional rankings in favor of Lacrosse). 

    ** can't get quotes right, sorry...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 02, 2014, 04:24:40 PM
    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on March 02, 2014, 04:22:25 PM
    You still think Babson will get in before WPI? It's getting so confusing because essentially the entire NE lost their games this weekend. Could that mean only 2 NE teams get Pool C's? Or do you still think there will be 3+ NE pool C teams

    2 bids. I really think the Mid Atlantic gets 3 pool C with Wesley, Stevenson and Messiah or Dickinson. Easily 2 pool C for the MA I think. Could be wrong, just personal guess.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2014, 04:25:15 PM
    Quote from: Bengalsrule on March 02, 2014, 04:18:04 PM
    I'm just hoping that the SUNYAC gets 2 pool C bids. They derserve it! ;)

    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:22:34 PM
    SUNYAC has two... probably three amazingly.

    I suspect you don't really mean four SUNYAC teams will qualify, Dave.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hugenerd on March 02, 2014, 04:26:07 PM
    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on March 02, 2014, 04:00:11 PM
    What NEWMAC teams do you think will make the Pool C cut? WPI Springfield and Babson all lost and non-ranked MIT won

    Speaking of which, do you think MIT can sneak into the final rankings above Middlebury or Nichols?

    Middlebury ended the season 17-9, MIT 20-8, Nichols 22-6.

    Last week SOS was a big differentiator, but I think with MIT's road game vs. WPI and their neutral game vs. Springfield, the gap will close to some extent. My guess is that MIT and Nichols will both be at ~0.52 and Middlebury at ~0.56.

    MIT will be 4-5 vs. RRO, Middlebury 2-5 (I believe), and Nichols 0-2.

    If MIT can jump in, that could help teams like Babson and WPI, maybe even Springfield, as it would add 2-3 results for each of those teams vs. RRO (two wins each for Babson and WPI).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:27:53 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2014, 04:25:15 PM
    Quote from: Bengalsrule on March 02, 2014, 04:18:04 PM
    I'm just hoping that the SUNYAC gets 2 pool C bids. They derserve it! ;)

    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:22:34 PM
    SUNYAC has two... probably three amazingly.

    I suspect you don't really mean four SUNYAC teams will qualify, Dave.

    LOL no... I was thinking total bids with the AQ... sorry :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2014, 04:29:23 PM
    St. Olaf by 6 with 6 to play

    someone's bubble is quivering
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:32:24 PM
    bopol - per Stevenson/Carthage... I am not ignoring the one-loss difference... and you shouldn't ignore the four-win difference. Stevenson's WP is .704... Carthage is .651. That is what I am talking about.

    And I really can't see how Messiah who is 0-2 versus Stevenson, played one more game against a RRO while Stevenson played two this past week, and other data moves them ahead of the Mustangs. You keep saying you don't think Messiah moves ahead... but what data says they do? Stevenson I think has a higher SOS or they are a wash.

    And again, I don't see St. Olaf not making the tournament if they don't win the AQ. They have a .539+ SOS and are going to have seven or so games vRRO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2014, 04:36:57 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:32:24 PM
    bopol - per Stevenson/Carthage... I am not ignoring the one-loss difference... and you shouldn't ignore the four-win difference. Stevenson's WP is .704... Carthage is .651. That is what I am talking about.

    And I really can't see how Messiah who is 0-2 versus Stevenson, played one more game against a RRO while Stevenson played two this past week, and other data moves them ahead of the Mustangs. You keep saying you don't think Messiah moves ahead... but what data says they do? Stevenson I think has a higher SOS or they are a wash.

    And again, I don't see St. Olaf not making the tournament if they don't win the AQ. They have a .539+ SOS and are going to have seven or so games vRRO.

    They're off Q's board right now
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2014, 04:41:41 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:32:24 PM
    bopol - per Stevenson/Carthage... I am not ignoring the one-loss difference... and you shouldn't ignore the four-win difference. Stevenson's WP is .704... Carthage is .651. That is what I am talking about.

    And I really can't see how Messiah who is 0-2 versus Stevenson, played one more game against a RRO while Stevenson played two this past week, and other data moves them ahead of the Mustangs. You keep saying you don't think Messiah moves ahead... but what data says they do? Stevenson I think has a higher SOS or they are a wash.

    And again, I don't see St. Olaf not making the tournament if they don't win the AQ. They have a .539+ SOS and are going to have seven or so games vRRO.

    Maybe, I guess we'll have to wait.

    St. Olaf - doesn't matter; they are about to win...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 02, 2014, 04:42:47 PM
    Doesn't matter regarding the Oles from St. Olaf. They're in, sharpie.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEHoopsFan99 on March 02, 2014, 04:43:43 PM
    Quote from: CCHoopster on March 02, 2014, 04:24:40 PM
    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on March 02, 2014, 04:22:25 PM
    You still think Babson will get in before WPI? It's getting so confusing because essentially the entire NE lost their games this weekend. Could that mean only 2 NE teams get Pool C's? Or do you still think there will be 3+ NE pool C teams

    2 bids. I really think the Mid Atlantic gets 3 pool C with Wesley, Stevenson and Messiah or Dickinson. Easily 2 pool C for the MA I think. Could be wrong, just personal guess.

    So you're saying only one team out of Babson, WPI and EConn will make it in addition to Williams? Seems harsh considering the NE is the largest region by far
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:47:00 PM
    I don't see WPI moving ahead of Babson... so yes, Babson goes in ahead of WPI... then E. Connecticut... and then WPI and Springfield remain and it matters who is at the table first.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hugenerd on March 02, 2014, 04:49:37 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:47:00 PM
    I don't see WPI moving ahead of Babson... so yes, Babson goes in ahead of WPI... then E. Connecticut... and then WPI and Springfield remain and it matters who is at the table first.

    Do you think WPI could move ahead of East Conn?  If, for example, MIT gets in the rankings and gives them a 5-2 v. RRO?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2014, 04:50:36 PM
    Hampden Sydney is within 2 of Va Wes. with under 10 to go
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2014, 04:58:58 PM
    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on March 02, 2014, 04:22:25 PM
    You still think Babson will get in before WPI? It's getting so confusing because essentially the entire NE lost their games this weekend. Could that mean only 2 NE teams get Pool C's? Or do you still think there will be 3+ NE pool C teams

    I think there will be four, but only Williams, Babson, and EConn are locks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 04:59:28 PM
    All three NEWMACs could get Pool C bids.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Jon on March 02, 2014, 05:01:47 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 02, 2014, 03:03:57 PM
    Yes, one-ranked, always-ranked no longer applies.  This makes it even more aggravating that we don't see the final rankings - can't even know vRRO except by guesswork.

    Mr. Ypsi, not sure anyone got back to you on this.  I think vRRO will relate to teams ranked the week before, so you shouldn't have to guess at vRRO.  It would be impossible for committees to rank teams using a ranking criteria from its and other regions that are being done at the same time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hugenerd on March 02, 2014, 05:03:14 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2014, 04:58:58 PM
    Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on March 02, 2014, 04:22:25 PM
    You still think Babson will get in before WPI? It's getting so confusing because essentially the entire NE lost their games this weekend. Could that mean only 2 NE teams get Pool C's? Or do you still think there will be 3+ NE pool C teams

    I think there will be four, but only Williams, Babson, and EConn are locks.

    I havent been paying attention all season, but just looking at numbers now, I think WPI's resume is just as good as EConn's, even better if MIT can break into rankings and give them 5-2 v. RRO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hugenerd on March 02, 2014, 05:03:45 PM
    Quote from: Jon on March 02, 2014, 05:01:47 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 02, 2014, 03:03:57 PM
    Yes, one-ranked, always-ranked no longer applies.  This makes it even more aggravating that we don't see the final rankings - can't even know vRRO except by guesswork.

    Mr. Ypsi, not sure anyone got back to you on this.  I think vRRO will relate to teams ranked the week before, so you shouldn't have to guess at vRRO.  It would be impossible for committees to rank teams using a ranking criteria from its and other regions that are being done at the same time.

    I think that's taken care of when all the regional committees are done and it gets kicked up to the national committee.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 05:05:53 PM
    Quote from: Jon on March 02, 2014, 05:01:47 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 02, 2014, 03:03:57 PM
    Yes, one-ranked, always-ranked no longer applies.  This makes it even more aggravating that we don't see the final rankings - can't even know vRRO except by guesswork.

    Mr. Ypsi, not sure anyone got back to you on this.  I think vRRO will relate to teams ranked the week before, so you shouldn't have to guess at vRRO.  It would be impossible for committees to rank teams using a ranking criteria from its and other regions that are being done at the same time.

    The RACs will look at the vRRO data from Week 3 when putting their final rankings together. THEN the national committee (after any changes) will get new vRRO data and readjust accordingly. That has been what I have been told by committee members for years and how we have seen it work, especially last year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 05:10:27 PM
    Just missing the ODAC final, but it might be a couple hours before I can update again.

    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    NE   01   0.923   0.587   0.671   003   A      24-2    9-0   NESCAC   Amherst
    NE   02   0.846   0.567   0.637   006   C      22-4    4-3   NESCAC   Williams
    NE   03   0.769   0.568   0.618   016   C      20-6    3-5   NEWMAC   Babson
    NE   04   0.731   0.567   0.608   021   C      19-7    2-4   NEWMAC   Springfield
    NE   05   0.786   0.546   0.606   024   C      22-6    3-4   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
    NE   06   0.963   0.486   0.605   027   A      26-1    1-0   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
    NE   07   0.846   0.521   0.602   030   C      22-4    3-1   NEWMAC   WPI
    NE   08   0.714   0.556   0.596   036   A      20-8    1-4   LEC      Rhode Island College
    NE   09   0.792   0.529   0.595   037   C      19-5    1-3   NESCAC   Bowdoin
    NE   10   0.786   0.522   0.588   045   C      22-6    0-2   CCC      Nichols
    NE   11   0.640   0.562   0.582   055   C      16-9    3-6   NESCAC   Middlebury
    ne   12   0.926   0.450   0.569   072   A      25-2    1-0   NAC      Husson
    ne   13   0.714   0.519   0.568   076   A      20-8    4-5   NEWMAC   MIT
    ne   14   0.520   0.574   0.561   087   C      13-12   2-9   UAA      Brandeis
    ne   15   0.720   0.501   0.556   093   C      18-7    1-2   GNAC     Johnson and Wales
    ne   16   0.654   0.520   0.553   098   C      17-9    1-3   MASCAC   Salem State
    ne   17   0.654   0.510   0.546   113   C      17-9    0-6   LEC      Western Connecticut
    ne   18   0.643   0.513   0.546   114   C      18-10   1-3   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
    ne   19   0.654   0.505   0.542   124   C      17-9    2-3   CCC      Salve Regina
    ne   20   0.720   0.482   0.542   125   A      18-7    0-2   NECC     Mitchell
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    EA   01   0.885   0.553   0.636   007   A      23-3    4-2   SUNYAC   Brockport State
    EA   02   0.815   0.553   0.619   014   C      22-5    4-4   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
    EA   03   0.769   0.554   0.608   022   C      20-6    2-4   SUNYAC   Geneseo State
    EA   04   0.778   0.523   0.587   047   A      21-6    1-2   LL       Hobart
    EA   05   0.640   0.546   0.569   071   C      16-9    0-6   UAA      New York University
    EA   06   0.696   0.516   0.561   085   C      16-7    0-1   E8       Nazareth
    ea   07   0.630   0.534   0.558   090   C      17-10   2-5   SUNYAC   Oswego State
    ea   08   0.704   0.503   0.553   099   C      19-8    3-3   LL       Vassar
    ea   09   0.615   0.532   0.553   101   C      16-10   2-4   LL       Skidmore
    ea   10   0.640   0.521   0.551   102   A      16-9    0-3   E8       Hartwick
    ea   11   0.625   0.521   0.547   108   C      15-9    1-2   E8       Stevens
    ea   12   0.609   0.526   0.547   110   C      14-9    1-2   E8       St. John Fisher
    ea   13   0.417   0.585   0.543   122   C      10-14   4-7   UAA      Rochester
    ea   14   0.583   0.519   0.535   143   C      14-10   1-5   LL       Clarkson
    ea   15   0.480   0.548   0.531   152   C      12-13   1-7   SUNYAC   Buffalo State
    ea   16   0.625   0.488   0.522   172   C      15-9    2-4   LL       Rochester Tech
    ea   17   0.538   0.515   0.521   175   C      14-12   1-5   SUNYAC   Cortland State
    ea   18   0.462   0.537   0.518   179   C      12-14   0-7   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
    ea   19   0.680   0.459   0.514   188   A      17-8    0-2   NEAC     Morrisville State
    ea   20   0.619   0.476   0.512   193   C      13-8    0-0   E8       Alfred
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    AT   01   0.926   0.522   0.623   013   A      25-2    5-1   SKY      SUNY-Purchase
    AT   02   0.852   0.537   0.615   017   A      23-4    4-2   NJAC     Richard Stockton
    AT   03   0.778   0.528   0.591   042   C      21-6    4-3   NJAC     William Paterson
    AT   04   0.893   0.486   0.588   046   C      25-3    0-0   CUNYAC   Staten Island
    AT   05   0.778   0.506   0.574   064   C      21-6    0-5   SKY      Mount St. Mary
    AT   06   0.704   0.531   0.574   065   C      19-8    2-3   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
    at   07   0.741   0.502   0.562   083   A      20-7    1-4   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
    at   08   0.520   0.546   0.540   129   C      13-12   1-8   NJAC     Kean
    at   09   0.556   0.515   0.525   163   C      15-12   0-7   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
    at   10   0.667   0.467   0.517   182   C      18-9    0-6   SKY      Farmingdale State
    at   11   0.520   0.511   0.513   190   C      13-12   1-6   NJAC     New Jersey City
    at   12   0.560   0.494   0.511   196   C      14-11   0-3   CUNYAC   Baruch
    at   13   0.391   0.549   0.509   197   C      9-14    2-8   NJAC     Montclair State
    at   14   0.480   0.516   0.507   198   C      12-13   2-4   CUNYAC   Brooklyn
    at   15   0.417   0.534   0.505   203   C      10-14   1-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
    at   16   0.542   0.480   0.495   221   C      13-11   0-4   SKY      Sage
    at   17   0.458   0.496   0.486   242   C      11-13   0-4   CUNYAC   Lehman
    at   18   0.360   0.529   0.486   243   C      9-16    1-7   NJAC     Ramapo
    at   19   0.381   0.520   0.485   244   C      8-13    0-6   NJAC     Rowan
    at   20   0.417   0.499   0.478   263   C      10-14   0-5   CUNYAC   Hunter
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    MA   01   0.889   0.545   0.631   011   A      24-3    2-1   LAND     Scranton
    MA   02   0.962   0.513   0.625   012   A      25-1    3-0   CSAC     Cabrini
    MA   03   0.870   0.529   0.614   018   C      20-3    5-0   CAC      Wesley
    MA   04   0.800   0.540   0.605   028   A      20-5    4-2   CAC      Mary Washington
    MA   05   0.741   0.550   0.598   034   A      20-7    4-4   MACC     Alvernia
    MA   06   0.654   0.571   0.591   040   C      17-9    4-7   CAC      Christopher Newport
    MA   07   0.778   0.529   0.591   041   C      21-6    2-1   CC       Dickinson
    MA   08   0.667   0.565   0.590   043   C      16-8    1-6   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
    MA   09   0.760   0.532   0.589   044   C      19-6    2-4   MACC     Messiah
    ma   10   0.704   0.530   0.574   067   C      19-8    4-3   MACC     Stevenson
    ma   11   0.692   0.527   0.568   075   C      18-8    1-4   CSAC     Neumann
    ma   12   0.615   0.550   0.566   077   A      16-10   2-5   CC       Johns Hopkins
    ma   13   0.692   0.510   0.556   094   C      18-8    0-3   CC       McDaniel
    ma   14   0.583   0.543   0.553   100   C      14-10   0-4   LAND     Susquehanna
    ma   15   0.615   0.527   0.549   105   C      16-10   2-5   MACC     Hood
    ma   16   0.750   0.481   0.548   106   C      18-6    0-2   CSAC     Gwynedd-Mercy
    ma   17   0.583   0.535   0.547   109   C      14-10   2-1   LAND     Juniata
    ma   18   0.654   0.511   0.547   111   C      17-9    2-2   CC       Franklin and Marshall
    ma   19   0.600   0.523   0.542   123   C      15-10   1-2   CC       Muhlenberg
    ma   20   0.522   0.543   0.538   135   C      12-11   3-6   CAC      Salisbury
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    SO   01   0.680   0.590   0.613   019   C      17-8    4-5   UAA      Emory
    SO   02   0.769   0.559   0.612   020   C      20-6    4-3   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
    SO   03   0.870   0.514   0.603   029   B      20-3    1-2   SAA      Centre
    SO   04   0.893   0.505   0.602   032   A      25-3    0-1   ASC      Texas-Dallas
    SO   05   0.769   0.536   0.595   038   A      20-6    3-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
    SO   06   0.679   0.547   0.580   057   A      19-9    1-4   SCAC     Trinity (Texas)
    SO   07   0.630   0.552   0.572   068   C      17-10   4-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
    SO   08   0.731   0.516   0.570   070   C      19-7    3-5   SAA      Oglethorpe
    so   09   0.571   0.563   0.565   080   C      16-12   3-7   ODAC     Hampden-Sydney
    so   10   0.704   0.513   0.561   086   C      19-8    1-2   ASC      Hardin-Simmons
    so   11   0.654   0.525   0.557   091   C      17-9    1-6   ODAC     Guilford
    so   12   0.739   0.494   0.556   095   C      17-6    1-2   USAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
    so   13   0.577   0.530   0.542   126   C      15-11   3-2   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
    so   14   0.680   0.491   0.538   132   C      17-8    0-3   SLIAC    Spalding
    so   15   0.654   0.499   0.538   133   C      17-9    2-1   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
    so   16   0.625   0.509   0.538   134   C      15-9    0-5   ODAC     Lynchburg
    so   17   0.577   0.524   0.537   139   C      15-11   3-0   SCAC     Schreiner
    so   18   0.522   0.538   0.534   148   C      12-11   2-4   ODAC     Bridgewater (Va.)
    so   19   0.577   0.512   0.528   158   C      15-11   0-3   ASC      Texas-Tyler
    so   20   0.600   0.504   0.528   159   C      15-10   0-2   ASC      Concordia (Texas)
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    GL   01   0.923   0.543   0.638   005   A      24-2    7-2   NCAC     Wooster
    GL   02   0.760   0.556   0.607   023   C      19-6    2-4   MIAA     Hope
    GL   03   0.741   0.542   0.592   039   C      20-7    3-5   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
    GL   04   0.750   0.530   0.585   048   C      21-7    3-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
    GL   05   0.720   0.538   0.583   051   C      18-7    0-4   OAC      Marietta
    GL   06   0.692   0.545   0.582   052   C      18-8    4-5   NCAC     DePauw
    GL   07   0.692   0.542   0.579   058   A      18-8    1-2   OAC      Wilmington
    gl   08   0.769   0.514   0.578   059   C      20-6    0-1   OAC      Mount Union
    gl   09   0.800   0.501   0.575   063   C      20-5    1-0   PrAC     Bethany
    gl   10   0.826   0.483   0.569   073   A      19-4    2-4   MIAA     Calvin
    gl   11   0.852   0.466   0.563   081   A      23-4    1-0   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
    gl   12   0.792   0.483   0.560   088   A      19-5    1-1   PrAC     St. Vincent
    gl   13   0.615   0.534   0.554   096   C      16-10   1-2   OAC      Ohio Northern
    gl   14   0.621   0.519   0.545   116   C      18-11   1-3   OAC      John Carroll
    gl   15   0.560   0.539   0.545   117   C      14-11   3-6   UAA      Case Western Reserve
    gl   16   0.556   0.535   0.540   128   C      15-12   1-4   PrAC     Thomas More
    gl   17   0.731   0.473   0.537   136   C      19-7    0-0   AMCC     Hilbert
    gl   18   0.519   0.543   0.537   137   C      14-13   0-4   OAC      Baldwin Wallace
    gl   19   0.462   0.543   0.523   168   C      12-14   1-3   OAC      Capital
    gl   20   0.417   0.554   0.520   176   C      10-14   1-8   UAA      Carnegie Mellon
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    MW   01   0.920   0.588   0.671   002   A      23-2    9-2   UAA      Washington U.
    MW   02   0.852   0.560   0.633   008   C      23-4    8-3   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
    MW   03   0.958   0.523   0.632   009   A      23-1    0-1   MWC      St. Norbert
    MW   04   0.704   0.607   0.631   010   A      19-8    8-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
    MW   05   0.625   0.599   0.606   025   C      15-9    4-7   CCIW     Carthage
    MW   06   0.731   0.555   0.599   033   C      19-7    5-4   CCIW     Augustana
    MW   07   0.815   0.523   0.596   035   A      22-5    2-1   HCAC     Rose-Hulman
    MW   08   0.583   0.582   0.582   053   C      14-10   4-7   UAA      Chicago
    mw   09   0.778   0.516   0.581   056   A      21-6    0-0   NATHC    Marian
    mw   10   0.808   0.491   0.570   069   C      21-5    0-0   NATHC    Milwaukee Engineering
    mw   11   0.792   0.494   0.568   074   C      19-5    0-3   HCAC     Defiance
    mw   12   0.500   0.588   0.566   078   C      11-11   3-8   CCIW     North Central (Ill.)
    mw   13   0.679   0.528   0.566   079   C      19-9    1-4   HCAC     Hanover
    mw   14   0.667   0.527   0.562   082   C      18-9    0-1   NATHC    Aurora
    mw   15   0.739   0.499   0.559   089   C      17-6    0-3   MWC      Grinnell
    mw   16   0.654   0.520   0.554   097   C      17-9    1-4   HCAC     Mount St. Joseph
    mw   17   0.583   0.538   0.550   103   C      14-10   2-6   CCIW     Elmhurst
    mw   18   0.692   0.498   0.546   112   C      18-8    0-0   NATHC    Lakeland
    mw   19   0.625   0.518   0.545   115   C      15-9    0-2   MWC      Ripon
    mw   20   0.625   0.518   0.545   118   C      15-9    1-4   MWC      Carroll
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    WE   01   0.963   0.586   0.680   001   A      26-1    6-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
    WE   02   0.852   0.579   0.647   004   C      23-4    4-2   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
    WE   03   0.815   0.553   0.618   015   A      22-5    2-5   MIAC     St. Olaf
    WE   04   0.815   0.536   0.605   026   C      22-5    4-3   MIAC     St. Thomas
    WE   05   0.815   0.531   0.602   031   A      22-5    1-1   NWC      Whitworth
    WE   06   0.783   0.518   0.584   049   C      18-5    1-0   IIAC     Dubuque
    WE   07   0.625   0.570   0.584   050   C      15-9    1-5   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
    WE   08   0.577   0.583   0.582   054   C      15-11   1-8   WIAC     UW-Platteville
    we   09   0.783   0.509   0.577   060   A      18-5    1-2   IIAC     Central
    we   10   0.818   0.496   0.577   061   C      18-4    1-1   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
    we   11   0.682   0.540   0.576   062   C      15-7    2-4   SCAC     Colorado College
    we   12   0.750   0.515   0.574   066   C      18-6    3-1   SCIAC    Pomona-Pitzer
    we   13   0.692   0.518   0.561   084   C      18-8    1-4   MIAC     Augsburg
    we   14   0.583   0.548   0.557   092   C      14-10   1-2   IIAC     Luther
    we   15   0.630   0.522   0.549   104   C      17-10   1-6   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
    we   16   0.682   0.503   0.548   107   A      15-7    2-3   SCIAC    Chapman
    we   17   0.600   0.526   0.544   119   C      15-10   3-4   MIAC     St. Johns
    we   18   0.650   0.508   0.543   121   C      13-7    1-2   NWC      Lewis and Clark
    we   19   0.583   0.524   0.539   131   C      14-10   1-2   IIAC     Buena Vista
    we   20   0.615   0.511   0.537   138   C      16-10   0-5   NWC      Whitman
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    B    01   0.870   0.514   0.603   029   B      20-3    1-2   SAA      Centre
    b    02   0.630   0.552   0.572   068   C      17-10   4-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
    b    03   0.731   0.516   0.570   070   C      19-7    3-5   SAA      Oglethorpe
    b    04   0.556   0.511   0.522   171   C      15-12   1-5   SAA      Rhodes
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 02, 2014, 05:13:47 PM
    I'm thinking Babson and Eastern get in, as well as whoever's higher between WPI and Springfileld, my guess WPI.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 02, 2014, 05:28:14 PM
    That was a really good game between VWC and HSC. Been a pleasure to watch teams play games I normally wouldn't the past few days.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 05:47:18 PM
    My final Pool C projection...

    (Regional ranking noted is the most current - this will change in the final, super secret regional rankings)

    In Comfortably
    1. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .852/.560/8-3   Midwest #2
    2. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .852/.579/4-2   West #2   
    3. Wesley (CAC) - .870/.529/5-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    4. Williams (NESCAC) - .846/.567/4-3   Northeast #2    
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .815/.553/4-4   East #2
    6. Randolph-Macon (ODAC) - .769/.559/4-3   South #1
    7. Babson (NEWMAC) - .769/.567/3-5   Northeast #3
    8. Augustana (CCIW) - .731/.555/5-4   Midwest #4
    9. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .786/.546/3-4   Northeast #4
    10. Geneseo State (SUNYAC) - .769/.554/2-4   East #3
    11. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .815/.536/4-3   West #3
    12. WPI (NEWMAC) - .846/.520/3-1  Northeast #5
    13. Hope (MIAA) - .760/.555/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    14. Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
    15. Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2

    The Bubble - pick 4
    16. DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
    17. William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3   Atlantic #4
    18. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6   Great Lakes #6
    19. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    --------------------
    20. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    21. Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    22. Middlebury (NESCAC) - .640/.562/3-6   Northeast #11
    23. Stevenson (MACC) - .704/.531/4-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    24. Messiah (MACC) - .760/.532/2-4   Mid-Atlantic #6

    Out
    25. Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3   South #6
    26. Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - .704/.531/2-3   Atlantic #5
    27. Staten Island (CUNYAC) - .893/.486/0-0   Atlantic #3
    28. Bowdoin (NESCAC) - .792/.529/1-3   Northeast #7
    29. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1  West #7
    30. Pomona-Pitzer (SCIAC) .750/.514/3-1   West #8
    31. Bethany (PrAC) - .800/.501/1-0   Great Lakes #3
    32. Nichols (CCC) - .786/.521/0-2   Northeast #9
    33. Guilford (ODAC) - .654/.525/1-6   South #7
    34. St. Mary's (CAC) - .667/.565/1-6   Mid-Atlantic #9
    35. Augsburg (MIAC) - .692/.517/1-4   West #9
    36. Mount St. Mary (Sky) - .778/.506/0-5   Atlantic #6
    37. Mount Union (OAC) - .769/.514/0-1   Great Lakes #4
    38. Augsburg (MIAC) - .692/.517/1-4   West #926.
    39. Dubuque (IIAC) - .783/.517/1-0   West #6
    40. Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7   Midwest #8
    41. NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6   East #6
    42. Skidmore (LL) - .615/.532/2-4   East #6
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 02, 2014, 05:51:54 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 05:47:18 PM
    My final Pool C projection...

    (Regional ranking noted is the most current - this will change in the final, super secret regional rankings)

    In Comfortably
    1. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .852/.560/8-3   Midwest #2
    2. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .852/.579/4-2   West #2   
    3. Wesley (CAC) - .870/.529/5-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    4. Williams (NESCAC) - .846/.567/4-3   Northeast #2    
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .815/.553/4-4   East #2
    6. Randolph-Macon (ODAC) - .769/.559/4-3   South #1
    7. Babson (NEWMAC) - .769/.567/3-5   Northeast #3
    8. Augustana (CCIW) - .731/.555/5-4   Midwest #4
    9. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .786/.546/3-4   Northeast #4
    10. Geneseo State (SUNYAC) - .769/.554/2-4   East #3
    11. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .815/.536/4-3   West #3
    12. WPI (NEWMAC) - .846/.520/3-1  Northeast #5
    13. Hope (MIAA) - .760/.555/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    14. Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
    15. Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2

    The Bubble - pick 4
    16. DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
    17. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6   Great Lakes #6
    18. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    19. William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3   Atlantic #4
    --------------------
    20. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    21. Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    22. Middlebury (NESCAC) - .640/.562/3-6   Northeast #11
    23. Stevenson (MACC) - .704/.531/4-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    24. Messiah (MACC) - .760/.532/2-4   Mid-Atlantic #6

    Out
    25. Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3   South #6
    26. Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - .704/.531/2-3   Atlantic #5
    27. Staten Island (CUNYAC) - .893/.486/0-0   Atlantic #3
    28. Bowdoin (NESCAC) - .792/.529/1-3   Northeast #7
    29. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1  West #7
    30. Pomona-Pitzer (SCIAC) .750/.514/3-1   West #8
    31. Bethany (PrAC) - .800/.501/1-0   Great Lakes #3
    32. Nichols (CCC) - .786/.521/0-2   Northeast #9
    33. Guilford (ODAC) - .654/.525/1-6   South #7
    34. St. Mary's (CAC) - .667/.565/1-6   Mid-Atlantic #9
    35. Augsburg (MIAC) - .692/.517/1-4   West #9
    36. Mount St. Mary (Sky) - .778/.506/0-5   Atlantic #6
    37. Mount Union (OAC) - .769/.514/0-1   Great Lakes #4
    38. Augsburg (MIAC) - .692/.517/1-4   West #926.
    39. Dubuque (IIAC) - .783/.517/1-0   West #6
    40. Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7   Midwest #8
    41. NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6   East #6
    42. Skidmore (LL) - .615/.532/2-4   East #6

    really thought the Mid-Atlantic would get minimum two pool c's maybe three. But one.... guess I was off on my thinking.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2014, 05:55:44 PM
    Four Great Lakes Pool C's would really be unprecedented since we went to this SOS calculation.  We've never received more than 2.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 02, 2014, 05:58:45 PM
    I certainly like the idea of a four-bid NCAC. Maybe I should start extolling the virtues of Kenyon. They've got a ton of RROs!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 06:11:07 PM
    Last 6 rounds...

    Round 14
    (AT) William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3 
    (E) NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6
    (GL) DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   
    (MA) Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1
    (MW) Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7
    (NE) Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4
    (S) Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5
    (W) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1

    Round 15
    (AT) William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3 
    (E) NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6
    (GL) DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   
    (MA) Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1
    (MW) Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7
    (NE) Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4
    (S) Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5
    (W) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1

    Round 16
    (AT) William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3 
    (E) NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6
    (GL) DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   
    (MA) Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1
    (MW) Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7
    (NE) Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4
    (S) Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3
    (W) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1

    Round 17
    (AT) William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3 
    (E) NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6
    (GL) Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6 
    (MA) Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1
    (MW) Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7
    (NE) Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4
    (S) Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3
    (W) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1

    Round 18
    (AT) Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - .704/.531/2-3
    (E) NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6
    (GL) Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6 
    (MA) Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1
    (MW) Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7
    (NE) Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4
    (S) Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3
    (W) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1

    Round 19
    (AT) Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - .704/.531/2-3
    (E) NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6
    (GL) Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5 
    (MA) Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1
    (MW) Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7
    (NE) Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4
    (S) Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3
    (W) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on March 02, 2014, 06:17:28 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 06:11:07 PM
    Last 6 rounds...

    Round 14
    (AT) William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3 
    (E) Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5
    (GL) DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   
    (MA) Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1
    (MW) Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7
    (NE) Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4
    (S) Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3
    (W) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1

    Round 15
    (AT) William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3 
    (E) Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5
    (GL) DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   
    (MA) Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1
    (MW Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7
    (NE) Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4
    (S) Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3
    (W) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1

    Round 16
    (AT) William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3 
    (E) NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6
    (GL) DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   
    (MA) Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1
    (MW Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7
    (NE) Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4
    (S) Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3
    (W) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1

    Round 17
    (AT) William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3 
    (E) NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6
    (GL) Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6 
    (MA) Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1
    (MW Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7
    (NE) Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4
    (S) Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3
    (W) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1

    Round 18
    (AT) Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - .704/.531/2-3
    (E) NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6
    (GL) Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6 
    (MA) Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1
    (MW Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7
    (NE) Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4
    (S) Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3
    (W) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1

    Round 19
    (AT) Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - .704/.531/2-3
    (E) NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6
    (GL) Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5 
    (MA) Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1
    (MW Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7
    (NE) Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4
    (S) Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3
    (W) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1

    Q,
    How did Emory get into the East for rounds 14 and 15? ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2014, 06:18:03 PM
    Is there any precedent to selecting a Pool C like Claremont-MS just to solve a geography problem?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 06:37:57 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 06:18:03 PM
    Is there any precedent to selecting a Pool C like Claremont-MS just to solve a geography problem?

    They do not select according to geography
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2014, 07:18:12 PM
    I think in all my years I've seen one pick that I thought was geographically influenced, when U of Dallas made it in as a 13-12 Pool B years ago. Hopefully I have those facts right in my head.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2014, 08:10:32 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2014, 07:18:12 PM
    I think in all my years I've seen one pick that I thought was geographically influenced, when U of Dallas made it in as a 13-12 Pool B years ago. Hopefully I have those facts right in my head.
    Yes, in 2004, but Pool B was very weak that year, and I thought that UDallas was as good a pick as they could have made.

    UDallas traveled 497 miles to Sul Ross. Sully barely beat them. Sully beat Trinity in San Antonio (in the old 48 bid tourney days.)

    Sully then lost a real heart breaker to Lawrence in OT up at Puget Sound.

    http://www.ascsports.org/custompages/mbball/2003-04/SRSU.HTM


    I just noticed to 2 of Sully's losses were to D-1's (UTEP and UTSA) and they had blowout win over D-2 UT-Permian Basin.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2014, 08:17:44 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 06:37:57 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 06:18:03 PM
    Is there any precedent to selecting a Pool C like Claremont-MS just to solve a geography problem?

    They do not select according to geography

    Of course, if there's two teams extremely close criteria wise, it's got to be in the back of their minds.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 08:26:02 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2014, 08:17:44 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 06:37:57 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 06:18:03 PM
    Is there any precedent to selecting a Pool C like Claremont-MS just to solve a geography problem?

    They do not select according to geography

    Of course, if there's two teams extremely close criteria wise, it's got to be in the back of their minds.

    I don't think the selection committee cares about geography though. The ncaa's accountants are the ones that care.

    None of the committee members want to see that precedent set.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2014, 08:38:32 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 05:47:18 PM
    In Comfortably
    1. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .852/.560/8-3   Midwest #2
    2. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .852/.579/4-2   West #2   
    3. Wesley (CAC) - .870/.529/5-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    4. Williams (NESCAC) - .846/.567/4-3   Northeast #2    
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .815/.553/4-4   East #2
    6. Randolph-Macon (ODAC) - .769/.559/4-3   South #1
    7. Babson (NEWMAC) - .769/.567/3-5   Northeast #3
    8. Augustana (CCIW) - .731/.555/5-4   Midwest #4
    9. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .786/.546/3-4   Northeast #4
    10. Geneseo State (SUNYAC) - .769/.554/2-4   East #3
    11. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .815/.536/4-3   West #3
    12. WPI (NEWMAC) - .846/.520/3-1  Northeast #5
    13. Hope (MIAA) - .760/.555/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    14. Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
    15. Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2

    The Bubble - pick 4
    16. DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
    17. William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3   Atlantic #4
    18. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6   Great Lakes #6
    19. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    --------------------
    20. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    21. Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    22. Middlebury (NESCAC) - .640/.562/3-6   Northeast #11
    23. Stevenson (MACC) - .704/.531/4-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    24. Messiah (MACC) - .760/.532/2-4   Mid-Atlantic #6

    Out
    28. Bowdoin (NESCAC) - .792/.529/1-3   Northeast #7
    34. St. Mary's (CAC) - .667/.565/1-6   Mid-Atlantic #9

    I'd put Springfield up with the comfortable group and add Bowdoin and St. Mary's to the bubble. I'm also not quite sure what to do with Christopher Newport.

    It gets extremely tight for the last three or four spots. The difference in RPI between the bubble teams here is 0.002.

    I lean toward Bowdoin, Dickinson, Springfield, and William Paterson getting in from the bubble group.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 02, 2014, 09:57:10 PM
    I'm obviously NOT Titan or KS, but here are my 19 pool C teams:

    Locks:
    1) Whitewater
    2) Wesley
    3) Plattsburgh
    4) St. Thomas
    5) Illinois Wesleyan
    6) Babson
    7) Randolph-Macon
    8) Williams

    Teams that should be in:
    9) Augustana
    10) Eastern Connecticut
    11) Geneseo
    12) Hope
    13) Emory

    Teams that will probably get in:
    14) WPI
    15) Carthage

    My last 4 in (not necessarily in order):
    16) William Paterson
    17) Ohio Wesleyan
    18) Wittenberg
    19) Springfield

    First 4 out (not necessarily in order)
    20) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
    21) Dickinson
    22) Messiah
    23) Stevenson
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2014, 10:20:15 PM
    I guess this would be old news by now! None-the-less....

    ALL GAMES FINAL



    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2014, 12:37:46 AM
    GREEN is Pool A bid/#1 seed/Conference leader

    RED POOL C



       TEAM-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. SUNY-Purchase      23-2, 23-2      SKY      WON vs SUNY-Old Westbury 88-73; WON vs Mount St. Mary 100-82 in Final   
       2. Richard Stockton      21-4, 21-4      NJAC      WON vs Kean 64-63; WON vs William Paterson 65-44 in Final
       3. Staten Island      24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final    
       4. William Paterson       20-5, 20-5      NJAC      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; LOST vs Richard Stockton 65-44 in Final
       5. Rutgers-Newark      19-7, 19-7      NJAC      LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal     
       6. Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       20-5, 20-5      SKY      WON vs Farmingdale State 95-75; LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 100-82 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-EAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. Brockport State      21-3, 22-3      SUNYAC      WON vs Oswego 77-56; WON vs Plattsburgh State 57-56 in Final    
       2. Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      WON vs Geneseo 73-69; LOST vs Brockport State 57-56 in Final   
       3. Geneseo State       19-5, 20-5      SUNYAC      WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; LOST vs Plattsburgh St. 73-69 in semifinal    
       4. Hobart      19-6, 19-6      LL      WON vs Clarkson 78-69 OT; WON vs Vassar 75-74 2OT in Final   
       5. NYU        16-8, 16-8      UAA      LOST at Brandeis 92-53   
       6. Skidmore      16-9, 16-9      LL      LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-GREAT-LAKES      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. Wooster      21-2, 22-3      NCAC      WON vs. Oberlin 89-56; WONvs Ohio Wesleyan 78-67; WON vs Wittenberg in 71-63 Final   
       2. Hope      18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; LOST vs Calvin 78-53 in Final   
       3.Bethany      20-4, 21-4      PAC      LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals    
       4. Mount Union      20-5, 20-5      OAC      LOST John Carroll 83-81 in semifinal    
       5. DePauw      17-7, 18-7      NCAC      WON vs Wabash 73-59; LOST vs Wittenberg 63-61 in semifinal 2/28   
       6. Wittenberg        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Denison 64-49; WON vs DePauw 63-61; LOST vs Wooster 71-63 in Final   
       7. Ohio Wesleyan      19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon 78-67; LOST vs Wooster 78-67 in semifinal    
                            
       TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. Cabrini      23-1, 23-1      CSAC      WON vs Rosemont 109-97; WON vs Neumann 96-79 in Final   
       2. Scranton      22-3, 22-3      LAND      WON vs Merchant Marine 82-64; WON vs Susquechanna 71-56 in Final 3/1   
       3.Wesley      20-2, 22-2      CAC      LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal    
       4. Dickinson      20-5, 20-5      CC      WON vs McDaniel 77-63; LOST vs Johns Hopkins 60-55 in Final   
       5. Stevenson      18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Hood 83-72; LOST vs Alvernia 70-69 in Final   
       6. Messiah      19-5, 19-5      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal    
       7. Alvernia       18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Messiah 81-77; WON vs Stevenson 70-69 in Final   
       8. Mary Washington       18-5, 20-5      CAC      WON  St. Mary's (Md.) 70-65; WON vs Christopher Newport 65-48 in Final 3/1   
       9. St. Mary's (Md.)      15-7, 18-7      CAC      LOST vs Mary Washington 70-65 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-MIDWEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. Washington U.      22-2, 22-2      UAA      WON at Chicago 86-73   
       2. Illinois Wesleyan      22-3, 22-3      CCIW      WON vs Carthage 76-71; LOST vs Wheaton 87-66 in Final   
       3. Wheaton (Ill.)       17-8, 17-8      CCIW      WON vs Augustana 66-55; WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 87-66 in Final   
       4. Augustana       19-6, 19-6      CCIW      LOST vs Wheaton (IL) 66-55 in semifinal    
       5. St. Norbert       21-1, 22-1      MWC      WON vs Carroll; WONvs Grinnell in Final 99-86
       6. Carthage       15-8, 16-9      CCIW      LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 76-71 in semifinal    
       7. Rose-Hulman       20-5, 20-5      HCAC      WON vs Mount St. Joseph 68-54; WON vs Hanover 70-56 in Final   
       8. Chicago      14-9, 15-9      UAA      LOST vs Washington U. 86-73   
                            
       TEAM-NORTHEAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. Amherst       22-3, 22-3      NESCAC      WON vs Trinity (CT) 80-62; WON vs Williams 93-82 in Final   
       2. Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      WON vs Middlebury 78-75; LOST vs Amherst 93-82 in Final   
       3. Babson       20-5, 20-5      NEWMAC      LOST vs Springfield 85-77 OTin semifinal   
       4. Eastern Connecticut      20-5, 20-5      LEC      WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; WON vs Western Connecticut 88-75; LOST vs RIC 70-61 in Final   
       5. WPI       22-3, 22-3      NEWMAC      LOST vs MIT 64-46 in semifinal 3/1   
       6. Springfield       18-6, 19-6      NEWMAC      WON vs Babson 85-77 OT; LOST vs MIT 67-56 in Final   
       7. Bowdoin      19-5, 19-5      NESCAC      LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal     
       8. Albertus Magnus      23-1, 23-2      GNAC      WON vs Norwich 87-69; WON vs Lasell 91-72; WON vs St. Joseph's (Me.) 84-49 in Final 3/1   
       9. Nichols      20-5, 20-5      CCC      WON vs Western New England 73-54; WON vs Salva Regina 83-80 OT; LOST vs Gordon 69-65 in Final 3/1   
       10. Rhode Island College      17-8, 17-8      LEC      WON vs Southern Maine 74-66; WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 82-69; WON vs Eastern Connecticut 70-61 in Final   
       11. Middlebury       16-8, 17-8      NESCAC      LOST vs Williams 78-75 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-SOUTH      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal    
       2. Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      LOST at Rochester 97-83   
       3. Virgina Wesleyan       18-6, 19-6      ODAC      WON vs Bridgewater 91-70; WON vs Washington and Lee 74-60; WON vs Hampden-Sydney 77-74 in Final   
       4. Texas-Dallas      22-3, 22-3      ASC      WON vs East Texas Baptist 80-65; WON vs Texas-Tyler 103-83; WON vs Hardin-Simmons 78-69 in Final    
       5. Centre      17-3, 20-4      SAA      WON vs Berry 77-60; WON vs Rhodes 64-61; WON vs Olgethorpe 76-75 OT in Final   
       6. Birmingham-Southern      16-9, 16-9      SAA      WON vs Hendrix 77-62; LOST vs Oglethorpe 72-70   
       7. Guilford       17-8, 17-8      ODAC      LOST vs Washington and Lee 77-70 in quarterfinal    
       8. Trinity (TX)      16-9, 16-9      SCAC      WON vs Texas Lutheran 78-65; vs WON Colorado College 64-48; WON vs Centenary 82-70 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-WEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. UW-Stevens Point      24-1, 24-1      WIAC      WON vs Platteville 66-47; WON vs Whitewater 74-57 in Final   
       2. UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      WON vs La Crosse 76-73; LOST at Stevens Point 74-57 in Final   
       3. St. Thomas       21-4, 21-4      MIAC      WON vs Bethel 74-59; LOST vs St. Olaf 63-53 in Final   
       4. St. Olaf       20-5, 20-5      MIAC      WON vs Gustavus Adolphus 66-53; WON vs St. Thomas 63-53 in Final   
       5. Whitworth       20-5, 20-5      NWC      WON vs Lewis and Clark 87-62; WON vs Puget Sound 71-68 in Final
       6. Dubuque      18-4, 21-4      IIAC      LOST vs Luther 87-83 in semifinal    
       7. C-M-S       17-3, 19-5      SCIAC      LOST vs Cal Lutheran 54-53 in semifinal   
       8. Pomona-Pitzer       18-5, 18-7      SCIAC      LOST vs Chapman 69-54 in semifinal   
       9. Augsburg      18-7, 18-7      MIAC      LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal    
                            
    [/quote]
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2014, 10:24:48 PM

    I guess this would be old news by now! None-the-less....

    ALL GAMES FINAL


    JUST POOL C TEAMS LISTED


    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2014, 10:20:15 PM


       TEAM-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       3. Staten Island      24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final    
       4. William Paterson       20-5, 20-5      NJAC      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; LOST vs Richard Stockton 65-44 in Final
       5. Rutgers-Newark      19-7, 19-7      NJAC      LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal     
       6. Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       20-5, 20-5      SKY      WON vs Farmingdale State 95-75; LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 100-82 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-EAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      WON vs Geneseo 73-69; LOST vs Brockport State 57-56 in Final   
       3. Geneseo State       19-5, 20-5      SUNYAC      WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; LOST vs Plattsburgh St. 73-69 in semifinal    
       5. NYU        16-8, 16-8      UAA      LOST at Brandeis 92-53   
       6. Skidmore      16-9, 16-9      LL      LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-GREAT-LAKES      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Hope      18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; LOST vs Calvin 78-53 in Final   
       3.Bethany      20-4, 21-4      PAC      LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals    
       4. Mount Union      20-5, 20-5      OAC      LOST John Carroll 83-81 in semifinal    
       5. DePauw      17-7, 18-7      NCAC      WON vs Wabash 73-59; LOST vs Wittenberg 63-61 in semifinal 2/28   
       6. Wittenberg        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Denison 64-49; WON vs DePauw 63-61; LOST vs Wooster 71-63 in Final   
       7. Ohio Wesleyan      19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon 78-67; LOST vs Wooster 78-67 in semifinal    
                            
       TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       3.Wesley      20-2, 22-2      CAC      LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal    
       4. Dickinson      20-5, 20-5      CC      WON vs McDaniel 77-63; LOST vs Johns Hopkins 60-55 in Final   
       5. Stevenson      18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Hood 83-72; LOST vs Alvernia 70-69 in Final   
       6. Messiah      19-5, 19-5      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal    
       9. St. Mary's (Md.)      15-7, 18-7      CAC      LOST vs Mary Washington 70-65 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-MIDWEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Illinois Wesleyan      22-3, 22-3      CCIW      WON vs Carthage 76-71; LOST vs Wheaton 87-66 in Final   
       4. Augustana       19-6, 19-6      CCIW      LOST vs Wheaton (IL) 66-55 in semifinal    
       6. Carthage       15-8, 16-9      CCIW      LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 76-71 in semifinal    
       8. Chicago      14-9, 15-9      UAA      LOST vs Washington U. 86-73   
                            
       TEAM-NORTHEAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      WON vs Middlebury 78-75; LOST vs Amherst 93-82 in Final   
       3. Babson       20-5, 20-5      NEWMAC      LOST vs Springfield 85-77 OTin semifinal   
       4. Eastern Connecticut      20-5, 20-5      LEC      WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; WON vs Western Connecticut 88-75; LOST vs RIC 70-61 in Final   
       5. WPI       22-3, 22-3      NEWMAC      LOST vs MIT 64-46 in semifinal 3/1   
       6. Springfield       18-6, 19-6      NEWMAC      WON vs Babson 85-77 OT; LOST vs MIT 67-56 in Final   
       7. Bowdoin      19-5, 19-5      NESCAC      LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal     
       9. Nichols      20-5, 20-5      CCC      WON vs Western New England 73-54; WON vs Salva Regina 83-80 OT; LOST vs Gordon 69-65 in Final 3/1   
       11. Middlebury       16-8, 17-8      NESCAC      LOST vs Williams 78-75 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-SOUTH      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal    
       2. Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      LOST at Rochester 97-83   
       6. Birmingham-Southern      16-9, 16-9      SAA      WON vs Hendrix 77-62; LOST vs Oglethorpe 72-70   
       7. Guilford       17-8, 17-8      ODAC      LOST vs Washington and Lee 77-70 in quarterfinal    
                            
       TEAM-WEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      WON vs La Crosse 76-73; LOST at Stevens Point 74-57 in Final   
       3. St. Thomas       21-4, 21-4      MIAC      WON vs Bethel 74-59; LOST vs St. Olaf 63-53 in Final   
       6. Dubuque      18-4, 21-4      IIAC      LOST vs Luther 87-83 in semifinal    
       7. C-M-S       17-3, 19-5      SCIAC      LOST vs Cal Lutheran 54-53 in semifinal   
       8. Pomona-Pitzer       18-5, 18-7      SCIAC      LOST vs Chapman 69-54 in semifinal   
       9. Augsburg      18-7, 18-7      MIAC      LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal    
                            
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2014, 10:39:22 PM
    My guess at the regional rankings:

    ATL
    1. Suny-Purchase (A)
    2. Richard Stockton (A)
    3. William Paterson
    4. Staten Island
    5. Rutgers-Newark
    6. Mt. St Mary

    * only WP and SI switch places.

    East

    1. Brockport St (A)
    2. Plattsburg St
    3. Geneseo St.
    4. Hobart (A)
    5. NYU
    6. Vassar

    * Skidmore drops out; Vassar gets into the Top 6

    Great Lakes
    1. Wooster (A)
    2. Hope
    3. Wittenberg
    4. Ohio Wesleyan
    5. DePauw
    6. Bethany
    7. Mount Union

    This one has massive movement, so it justifies an explaination.  First Bethany and Mount Union don't have much going for either (Bethany beat Mount Union in both team's only game against RRO).  So, dropping out of their respective tournaments early means the drop is justified.  Wittenberg moves ahead of DePauw based on beating them in the semis of the NCAC tournament, taking away the benefit of the DePauw regular season sweep of Wittenberg.  Now, OWU gets ahead of DePauw because I am hard pressed to find enough of a reason to that DePauw can overcome the extra loss.

    Mid Atlantic:

    1. Cabrini (A)
    2. Scranton (A)
    3. Wesley
    4. Alvernia (A)
    5. Mary Washington (A)
    6. Stevenson
    7. Dickinson
    8. Messiah
    9. St Marys

    Ok, this is a biggie.  After looking closely, I think Dickinson end up 1-1 vs. RRO since Guilford is going to drop out, but I think Stevenson is going to end up 4-4 vs. RRO because Oglethorpe will drop in and Messiah will be 1-4 (Guilford).  So, Stevenson, despite the worse record and similar RRO moves ahead of Dickinson and Messiah is in deep deep trouble.  I actually very much want to move Chris Newport in, but they lost twice to St. Marys.

    Midwest:
    1. Wash U (A)
    2. IWU
    3. Wheaton (A)
    4. Augustana
    5. St Norbert (A)
    6. Carthage
    7. Rose Holman (A)
    8. Chicago

    Basically, nothing changes.  I think Chicago sticks at the end of the RR, even though one could make an argument for Marian who is Pool A anyway.

    Northeast:
    1. Amherst (A)
    2. William
    3. Babson
    4. Eastern Conn
    5. WPI
    6. Albertus Magnus (A)
    7. Springfield
    8. Bowdoin
    9. Rhode Island College (A)
    10. Nichols
    11. Middlebury

    Really wasn't much reason to move teams around given that there weren't massive upsets that really made you rethink ordering (WPI and E Conn lost; so why shuffle what was there last week?)

    South:
    1. Randolph Macon
    2. Virginia Wesleyan (A)
    3. Centre (B)
    4. Texas Dallas (A)
    5. Emory
    6. Trinity (A)
    7. Birmingham Southern
    8. Oglethorpe

    I put Oglethorpe back in and took out Guilford, which has some effects in Mid-Atlantic.

    West:
    1. UWSP (A)
    2. UWW
    3. St Thomas
    4. St. Olaf (A)
    5. Whitworth (A)
    6. Central (A)
    7. Dubuque
    8. CMS
    9. Pomona Pitzer

    * The end of this one is a mess, with Dubuque in free fall and CMS and PP getting dumped early in the tournament.  That said, the effects on others is minimal.


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 10:53:24 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 10:39:22 PM
    I put Oglethorpe back in
    This would really help Birmingham-Southern and put them in the mix down at the very end of the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2014, 11:07:45 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 10:39:22 PM


    Great Lakes
    1. Wooster (A)
    2. Hope
    3. Wittenberg
    4. Ohio Wesleyan
    5. DePauw
    6. Bethany
    7. Mount Union

    This one has massive movement, so it justifies an explaination.  First Bethany and Mount Union don't have much going for either (Bethany beat Mount Union in both team's only game against RRO).  So, dropping out of their respective tournaments early means the drop is justified.  Wittenberg moves ahead of DePauw based on beating them in the semis of the NCAC tournament, taking away the benefit of the DePauw regular season sweep of Wittenberg.  Now, OWU gets ahead of DePauw because I am hard pressed to find enough of a reason to that DePauw can overcome the extra loss.



    I actually like Wilmington and Calvin over Bethany.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2014, 11:12:00 PM
    My FINAL Pool C Picks:

    1. IWU
    2. UWW
    3. Williams
    4. Wesley
    5. Plattsburgh St
    6. Randolph Macon
    7. Babson
    8. St. Thomas
    9. Eastern Conn
    10. Augustana
    11. Geneseo St
    12. WPI
    13. Hope
    14. William Paterson
    * Point where this got really hard*
    15. Emory
    16. Carthage
    17. Stevenson
    18. Wittenberg
    19. OWU

    Left on Board: Staten Island (didn't think I'd do that, but I just did), NYU, Dickinson, Chicago, Springfield (man, I wanted to pull the trigger on them starting at 16 or so and then never did), Birmingham Southern and Dubuque.

    I could see any of the last 4 being substituted with Springfield, DePauw and Staten Island.  Messiah doesn't have a chance now, neither does Bowdoin. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2014, 11:12:43 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 02, 2014, 10:53:24 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 10:39:22 PM
    I put Oglethorpe back in
    This would really help Birmingham-Southern and put them in the mix down at the very end of the bubble.

    Yep, but their SOS is such that I never got that close to pulling the trigger.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2014, 11:13:24 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 11:07:45 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 10:39:22 PM


    Great Lakes
    1. Wooster (A)
    2. Hope
    3. Wittenberg
    4. Ohio Wesleyan
    5. DePauw
    6. Bethany
    7. Mount Union

    This one has massive movement, so it justifies an explaination.  First Bethany and Mount Union don't have much going for either (Bethany beat Mount Union in both team's only game against RRO).  So, dropping out of their respective tournaments early means the drop is justified.  Wittenberg moves ahead of DePauw based on beating them in the semis of the NCAC tournament, taking away the benefit of the DePauw regular season sweep of Wittenberg.  Now, OWU gets ahead of DePauw because I am hard pressed to find enough of a reason to that DePauw can overcome the extra loss.



    I actually like Wilmington and Calvin over Bethany.

    Wilmington maybe, but Calvin has such a poor SOS, I can't see that happening.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2014, 11:18:45 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 11:13:24 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 11:07:45 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 10:39:22 PM


    Great Lakes
    1. Wooster (A)
    2. Hope
    3. Wittenberg
    4. Ohio Wesleyan
    5. DePauw
    6. Bethany
    7. Mount Union

    This one has massive movement, so it justifies an explaination.  First Bethany and Mount Union don't have much going for either (Bethany beat Mount Union in both team's only game against RRO).  So, dropping out of their respective tournaments early means the drop is justified.  Wittenberg moves ahead of DePauw based on beating them in the semis of the NCAC tournament, taking away the benefit of the DePauw regular season sweep of Wittenberg.  Now, OWU gets ahead of DePauw because I am hard pressed to find enough of a reason to that DePauw can overcome the extra loss.



    I actually like Wilmington and Calvin over Bethany.

    Wilmington maybe, but Calvin has such a poor SOS, I can't see that happening.

    Calvin is a perfect example of how SOS tells you absolutely nothing about them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2014, 11:24:47 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 11:18:45 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 11:13:24 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 11:07:45 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2014, 10:39:22 PM


    Great Lakes
    1. Wooster (A)
    2. Hope
    3. Wittenberg
    4. Ohio Wesleyan
    5. DePauw
    6. Bethany
    7. Mount Union

    This one has massive movement, so it justifies an explaination.  First Bethany and Mount Union don't have much going for either (Bethany beat Mount Union in both team's only game against RRO).  So, dropping out of their respective tournaments early means the drop is justified.  Wittenberg moves ahead of DePauw based on beating them in the semis of the NCAC tournament, taking away the benefit of the DePauw regular season sweep of Wittenberg.  Now, OWU gets ahead of DePauw because I am hard pressed to find enough of a reason to that DePauw can overcome the extra loss.



    I actually like Wilmington and Calvin over Bethany.

    Wilmington maybe, but Calvin has such a poor SOS, I can't see that happening.

    Calvin is a perfect example of how SOS tells you absolutely nothing about them.

    Don't disagree, but I don't see them being regionally ranked (though I would love it as a Carthage fan).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 03, 2014, 12:06:57 AM
    Final Bracket (first team in 4 team pod hosts and play team right below it, with the other first round game between the bottom 2 teams)

    Bracket I (Wheaton now gets to host at the expense of St Thomas)

    UWSP
    bye
    Carthage
    St Thomas

    Wheaton
    Northwestern (MN)
    Marian
    St Norbert

    UT - Dallas
    Chapman
    Trinity
    Whitworth

    UWW
    Central
    Calvin
    St Olaf

    Bracket 2: (In a way, IWU is the winner here as the 2nd weekend games will probably end up in Bloomington)

    Wash U
    bye
    Rose Holman
    Augustana

    Centre
    La Grange
    Emory
    Wittenberg

    Wooster
    Penn St Behrand
    Wilmington
    Geneseo St

    IWU
    Webster
    OWU
    Hope

    Bracket 3: (2nd weekend in Cabrini or Scranton)

    Cabrini
    Morrisville St
    York
    Richard Stockton

    Randolph - Macon
    Johns Hopkins
    Stevenson
    Mary Washington

    Scranton
    St Vincent
    Rhode Island College
    Virginia Wesleyan

    SUNY - Purchase
    DeSales
    Alvernia
    Wesley

    Bracket IV (heading toward 2nd weekend in Amherst or Brockport)

    Amhurst
    Bridgewater St.
    mit
    Wlliam Patterson

    Plattsburgh St.
    Gordon
    Husson
    Babson

    Williams
    Mitchell
    Albertus Magnus
    WPI

    Brockport St
    Hartwick
    Hobert
    eastern conn

    Ok, that's all.  I need to start doing work again tomorrow.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2014, 05:18:13 AM
    Huh -- are we all alone out here with Christopher Newport?

    Christopher Newport 17-9 .654 .571 5-5

    If we're putting in Carthage, pretty sure we also get CNU in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: algernon on March 03, 2014, 07:25:57 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2014, 05:18:13 AM
    Huh -- are we all alone out here with Christopher Newport?

    Christopher Newport 17-9 .654 .571 5-5

    If we're putting in Carthage, pretty sure we also get CNU in.

    Why do you have CNU ahead of St. Mary's in your final regional ranking?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: northb on March 03, 2014, 08:02:02 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 11:07:45 PM

    I actually like Wilmington and Calvin over Bethany.
    Welcome to the dark side, Sac
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 08:19:35 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2014, 05:18:13 AM
    Huh -- are we all alone out here with Christopher Newport?

    Christopher Newport 17-9 .654 .571 5-5

    If we're putting in Carthage, pretty sure we also get CNU in.

    Yes, on an island.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 08:47:47 AM
    Pool Cs by RPI:

    1   UW-Whitewater
    2   Williams
    3   Illinois Wesleyan
    4   Plattsburgh State
    5   Babson
    6   Wesley
    7   Emory
    8   Randolph-Macon
    9   Geneseo State
    10   Springfield
    11   Hope
    12   Eastern Connecticut
    13   Carthage
    14   St. Thomas
    15   WPI
    16   Augustana
    17   Bowdoin
    18   Christopher Newport
    19   Ohio Wesleyan
    ---------   ---------
    20   Dickinson
    21   William Paterson
    22   St. Marys (Md.)
    23   Messiah
    24   Nichols
    25   Staten Island
    26   Wittenberg
    27   Dubuque
    28   UW-La Crosse
    29   Marietta
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 08:51:36 AM
    My final prediction:

    UW-Whitewater
    Williams
    Illinois Wesleyan
    Plattsburgh State
    Babson
    Wesley
    Emory
    Randolph-Macon
    Geneseo State
    Springfield
    Hope
    Eastern Connecticut
    Carthage
    St. Thomas
    WPI
    Augustana
    Bowdoin
    William Paterson
    Christopher Newport
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 03, 2014, 09:10:43 AM
    Anyone know who gets told the bracket first? Wondering which site to be hitting refresh incessantly :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hugenerd on March 03, 2014, 09:13:46 AM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 09:10:43 AM
    Anyone know who gets told the bracket first? Wondering which site to be hitting refresh incessantly :)

    The first release of the bracket is online via NCAA webcast (which will happen at 12:30).  D3Hoops usually has it posted pretty quickly thereafter.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 03, 2014, 09:16:23 AM
    Quote from: Hugenerd on March 03, 2014, 09:13:46 AM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 09:10:43 AM
    Anyone know who gets told the bracket first? Wondering which site to be hitting refresh incessantly :)

    The first release of the bracket is online via NCAA webcast (which will happen at 12:30).  D3Hoops usually has it posted pretty quickly thereafter.

    And when the NCAA says 12:30, they really mean "sometime before 3pm."
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 03, 2014, 09:59:40 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2014, 05:18:13 AM
    Huh -- are we all alone out here with Christopher Newport?

    Christopher Newport 17-9 .654 .571 5-5

    If we're putting in Carthage, pretty sure we also get CNU in.

    Agree.  I was only looking at regionally ranked teams (from last week).  So I guess I do have to put CN in...sorry Ohio Wesleyan.


    (Regional ranking noted is the most current - this will change in the final, super secret regional rankings)

    In Comfortably
    1. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .852/.560/8-3   Midwest #2
    2. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .852/.579/4-2   West #2   
    3. Wesley (CAC) - .870/.529/5-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    4. Williams (NESCAC) - .846/.567/4-3   Northeast #2    
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .815/.553/4-4   East #2
    6. Randolph-Macon (ODAC) - .769/.559/4-3   South #1
    7. Babson (NEWMAC) - .769/.567/3-5   Northeast #3
    8. Augustana (CCIW) - .731/.555/5-4   Midwest #4
    9. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .786/.546/3-4   Northeast #4
    10. Geneseo State (SUNYAC) - .769/.554/2-4   East #3
    11. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .815/.536/4-3   West #3
    12. WPI (NEWMAC) - .846/.520/3-1  Northeast #5
    13. Hope (MIAA) - .760/.555/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    14. Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
    15. Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2

    The Bubble - pick 4
    16. DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
    17. Christopher Newport - .654/.571/5-5 not ranked in Mid-Atlantic
    18. William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3   Atlantic #4
    19. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6   Great Lakes #6
    --------------------
    20. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    21. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    22. Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    23. Middlebury (NESCAC) - .640/.562/3-6   Northeast #11
    24. Stevenson (MACC) - .704/.531/4-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    25. Messiah (MACC) - .760/.532/2-4   Mid-Atlantic #6

    Out
    26. Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3   South #6
    27. Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) - .704/.531/2-3   Atlantic #5
    28. Staten Island (CUNYAC) - .893/.486/0-0   Atlantic #3
    29. Bowdoin (NESCAC) - .792/.529/1-3   Northeast #7
    30. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1  West #7
    31. Pomona-Pitzer (SCIAC) .750/.514/3-1   West #8
    32. Bethany (PrAC) - .800/.501/1-0   Great Lakes #3
    33. Nichols (CCC) - .786/.521/0-2   Northeast #9
    34. Guilford (ODAC) - .654/.525/1-6   South #7
    35. St. Mary's (CAC) - .667/.565/1-6   Mid-Atlantic #9
    36. Augsburg (MIAC) - .692/.517/1-4   West #9
    37. Mount St. Mary (Sky) - .778/.506/0-5   Atlantic #6
    38. Mount Union (OAC) - .769/.514/0-1   Great Lakes #4
    39. Augsburg (MIAC) - .692/.517/1-4   West #926.
    40. Dubuque (IIAC) - .783/.517/1-0   West #6
    41. Chicago (UAA) - .583/.582/4-7   Midwest #8
    42. NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6   East #6
    43. Skidmore (LL) - .615/.532/2-4   East #6
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2014, 10:01:19 AM
    Is that kind of like my cable company telling me they will be at my house between noon and 4 and then calling me at 3:30 telling me they will be late or completely rescheduling all together?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 03, 2014, 10:11:21 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2014, 05:18:13 AM
    Huh -- are we all alone out here with Christopher Newport?

    Christopher Newport 17-9 .654 .571 5-5

    If we're putting in Carthage, pretty sure we also get CNU in.

    What's your order in the regional rankings of the Mid-Atlantic?

    I didn't mess with it too much and ended up with Stevenson in and Dickinson behind them on the table.  Do you think Chris Newport will end up ranked and ranked ahead of Dickinson or Stevenson?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 03, 2014, 10:15:15 AM
    Quote from: northb on March 03, 2014, 08:02:02 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 02, 2014, 11:07:45 PM

    I actually like Wilmington and Calvin over Bethany.
    Welcome to the dark side, Sac

    like, not like like
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 10:21:57 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 03, 2014, 10:11:21 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2014, 05:18:13 AM
    Huh -- are we all alone out here with Christopher Newport?

    Christopher Newport 17-9 .654 .571 5-5

    If we're putting in Carthage, pretty sure we also get CNU in.

    What's your order in the regional rankings of the Mid-Atlantic?

    I didn't mess with it too much and ended up with Stevenson in and Dickinson behind them on the table.  Do you think Chris Newport will end up ranked and ranked ahead of Dickinson or Stevenson?

    I'm sure a few will disagree but CNU will not even be regionally ranked I bet. If so they will be 9th.

    I am guessing for the M.A

    Scranton
    Cabrini
    Wesley
    Mary Wash
    Dickinson
    Alvernia
    Stevenson
    Messiah
    CNU/St. Mary's

    I could see swapping Dickinson and Alvernia. Zero chance CNU is jumping from not regionally ranked to being ahead of Dickinson and Stevenson. Messiah is not in the convo and the M.A is not getting 4 Pool C bids so CNU could see the table ahead of Messiah but that would mean Wesley, Dickinson and Stevenson were all selected and that's not happening! Not enough value being given to Stevenson. CNU has 17 wins. Dickinson has 21. Stop with this SOS end all be all..... At some point winning means more. Don't schedule it if you can't win it. Carthrage too.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 10:27:10 AM
    Also Bowdoin... Who did they beat? Lost to the tougher of teams on their schedule, right? Not super familiar with them but not sure they should be in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 03, 2014, 10:29:35 AM
    It seems to me like Christopher Newport is the Mid-Atlantic's best chance at getting any of the Pool C teams in after Wesley.  Any other team would seem to just sit on the board forever.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 03, 2014, 10:32:01 AM
    Quote from: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 10:27:10 AM
    Also Bowdoin... Who did they beat? Lost to the tougher of teams on their schedule, right? Not super familiar with them but not sure they should be in.

    I definitely don't have Bowdoin in, or really even on the bubble.

    Can't wait to see how this all shakes out!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 03, 2014, 10:34:39 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 03, 2014, 10:29:35 AM
    It seems to me like Christopher Newport is the Mid-Atlantic's best chance at getting any of the Pool C teams in after Wesley.  Any other team would seem to just sit on the board forever.

    Maybe, but I didn't have the guts to guess that big of an overhaul in the MA rankings. 

    The order in MA and GL will make all the difference for these last few picks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 10:37:51 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 03, 2014, 10:32:01 AM
    Quote from: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 10:27:10 AM
    Also Bowdoin... Who did they beat? Lost to the tougher of teams on their schedule, right? Not super familiar with them but not sure they should be in.

    I definitely don't have Bowdoin in, or really even on the bubble.

    Can't wait to see how this all shakes out!

    They beat Babson, the NE #3.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 03, 2014, 10:46:41 AM
    Quote from: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 10:21:57 AM
    CNU has 17 wins. Dickinson has 21. Stop with this SOS end all be all..... At some point winning means more. Don't schedule it if you can't win it. Carthrage too.

    Not a criteria for selection, but interesting nontheless:

    Record against Top 50, second 50 and all other D3 according to Massey

    Carthage (4-6, 5-2, 6-1)
    Dickinson (1-1, 4-3, 16-2)
    Chris Newport (4-7, 2-1, 13-1)

    Carthage has an advantage over both (IMO) because of the best wins (Wash U(#2) and IWU (#4)) vs. Dickinson (Alvernia (#42)) and Chris Newport (Wesley (#13) and Mary Washington (#19)).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 03, 2014, 10:48:34 AM
    I can't see how Newport would jump from not ranked in the MA last week, to #4 or #5 this week ahead of Stevenson and Dickinson.  That's why to me they're not even on the radar.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 10:53:49 AM
    Quote from: 7express on March 03, 2014, 10:48:34 AM
    I can't see how Newport would jump from not ranked in the MA last week, to #4 or #5 this week ahead of Stevenson and Dickinson.  That's why to me they're not even on the radar.

    They won two more games, added nearly .020 to their SOS, and played 2 RRO, both in the top half of the region (going 1-1).

    Dickinson only hurt themselves, and Stevenson added one win to an unranked opponent and a loss to Alvernia.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 03, 2014, 10:56:30 AM
    I'll bet head coaches from bubble teams like Ohio Wesleyan and Springfield are hoping the Mid-Atlantic put Dickinson or Stevenson ahead of Christopher Newport.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 11:20:30 AM
    Compare Hope and Springfield based on SOS calculation method

    NCAA:
    Hope: 0.760 / 0.556 / 2-4
    Springfield: 0.731 / .566 / 2-4

    Correct:
    Hope: 0.760 / 0.529 / 2-4
    Springfield: 0.731 / .555 / 2-4
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 11:29:28 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 10:53:49 AM
    Quote from: 7express on March 03, 2014, 10:48:34 AM
    I can't see how Newport would jump from not ranked in the MA last week, to #4 or #5 this week ahead of Stevenson and Dickinson.  That's why to me they're not even on the radar.

    They won two more games, added nearly .020 to their SOS, and played 2 RRO, both in the top half of the region (going 1-1).

    Dickinson only hurt themselves, and Stevenson added one win to an unranked opponent and a loss to Alvernia.

    They lost 9 games. Dickinson won their league, hosted CC tournament, made championship game and finished with 2 more wins and have 3 less losses. I'd rather put a Messiah in from the MA than CNU who hasn't even been RR. And Messiah has zero chance.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: y_jack_lok on March 03, 2014, 11:31:02 AM
    Quote from: Hugenerd on March 03, 2014, 09:13:46 AM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 09:10:43 AM
    Anyone know who gets told the bracket first? Wondering which site to be hitting refresh incessantly :)

    The first release of the bracket is online via NCAA webcast (which will happen at 12:30).  D3Hoops usually has it posted pretty quickly thereafter.

    Where does one go to find this webcast? I am on the Men's D3 basketball site at NCAA.com and don't see any reference to it at all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 03, 2014, 11:32:14 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 11:20:30 AM
    Compare Hope and Springfield based on SOS calculation method

    NCAA:
    Hope: 0.760 / 0.556 / 2-4
    Springfield: 0.731 / .566 / 2-4

    Correct:
    Hope: 0.760 / 0.529 / 2-4
    Springfield: 0.731 / .555 / 2-4

    From the GL board... Knightslappy - "Calvin jumps to #17 in the latest Massey Ratings update. Hope slides to #21. Both seem about right."

    Knightslappy, if you believe Calvin at #17 "seems about right", they you probably believe they should be ranked regionally... If so, 2-4 would become 4-5 for Hope...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 11:33:31 AM
    Quote from: y_jack_lok on March 03, 2014, 11:31:02 AM
    Quote from: Hugenerd on March 03, 2014, 09:13:46 AM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 09:10:43 AM
    Anyone know who gets told the bracket first? Wondering which site to be hitting refresh incessantly :)

    The first release of the bracket is online via NCAA webcast (which will happen at 12:30).  D3Hoops usually has it posted pretty quickly thereafter.

    Where does one go to find this webcast? I am on the Men's D3 basketball site at NCAA.com and don't see any reference to it at all.

    D3Hoops.com front page at 12:30 EST
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: almcguirejr on March 03, 2014, 11:34:44 AM
    Quote from: y_jack_lok on March 03, 2014, 11:31:02 AM
    Quote from: Hugenerd on March 03, 2014, 09:13:46 AM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 09:10:43 AM
    Anyone know who gets told the bracket first? Wondering which site to be hitting refresh incessantly :)

    The first release of the bracket is online via NCAA webcast (which will happen at 12:30).  D3Hoops usually has it posted pretty quickly thereafter.

    Where does one go to find this webcast? I am on the Men's D3 basketball site at NCAA.com and don't see any reference to it at all.

    http://www.ncaa.com/liveschedule/2014/03/03
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 11:36:23 AM
    Quote from: almcguirejr on March 03, 2014, 11:34:44 AM
    Quote from: y_jack_lok on March 03, 2014, 11:31:02 AM
    Quote from: Hugenerd on March 03, 2014, 09:13:46 AM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 09:10:43 AM
    Anyone know who gets told the bracket first? Wondering which site to be hitting refresh incessantly :)

    The first release of the bracket is online via NCAA webcast (which will happen at 12:30).  D3Hoops usually has it posted pretty quickly thereafter.

    Thanks, Al M
    Where does one go to find this webcast? I am on the Men's D3 basketball site at NCAA.com and don't see any reference to it at all.

    http://www.ncaa.com/liveschedule/2014/03/03
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: y_jack_lok on March 03, 2014, 11:38:55 AM
    Thanks to everyone for the link.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 03, 2014, 12:02:55 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 11:32:14 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 11:20:30 AM
    Compare Hope and Springfield based on SOS calculation method

    NCAA:
    Hope: 0.760 / 0.556 / 2-4
    Springfield: 0.731 / .566 / 2-4

    Correct:
    Hope: 0.760 / 0.529 / 2-4
    Springfield: 0.731 / .555 / 2-4

    From the GL board... Knightslappy - "Calvin jumps to #17 in the latest Massey Ratings update. Hope slides to #21. Both seem about right."

    Knightslappy, if you believe Calvin at #17 "seems about right", they you probably believe they should be ranked regionally... If so, 2-4 would become 4-5 for Hope...

    and 4-7 becomes 5-7 for Carthage!!!!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 12:03:39 PM
    Calm before the storm.... I am nervous and I have nothing even riding on this!

    My daughters school was closed today due to weather so I "volunteered" to stay home and use a "sick" day. Although I will be sick if the Mid Atlantic gets 1 Pool C and if 2, CNU gets it! lol all in fun
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 12:08:45 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 11:32:14 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 11:20:30 AM
    Compare Hope and Springfield based on SOS calculation method

    NCAA:
    Hope: 0.760 / 0.556 / 2-4
    Springfield: 0.731 / .566 / 2-4

    Correct:
    Hope: 0.760 / 0.529 / 2-4
    Springfield: 0.731 / .555 / 2-4

    From the GL board... Knightslappy - "Calvin jumps to #17 in the latest Massey Ratings update. Hope slides to #21. Both seem about right."

    Knightslappy, if you believe Calvin at #17 "seems about right", they you probably believe they should be ranked regionally... If so, 2-4 would become 4-5 for Hope...

    I think Calvin's only 50-50 for the regional rankings. Completely different criteria here for a Massey rank and an NCAA rank. It's just not the same at all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 03, 2014, 12:12:29 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 03, 2014, 12:02:55 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 11:32:14 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 11:20:30 AM
    Compare Hope and Springfield based on SOS calculation method

    NCAA:
    Hope: 0.760 / 0.556 / 2-4
    Springfield: 0.731 / .566 / 2-4

    Correct:
    Hope: 0.760 / 0.529 / 2-4
    Springfield: 0.731 / .555 / 2-4

    From the GL board... Knightslappy - "Calvin jumps to #17 in the latest Massey Ratings update. Hope slides to #21. Both seem about right."

    Knightslappy, if you believe Calvin at #17 "seems about right", they you probably believe they should be ranked regionally... If so, 2-4 would become 4-5 for Hope...

    and 4-7 becomes 5-7 for Carthage!!!!!

    Carthage was one of the 2... (Centre and Carthage) with the 4 being (UWSP, UWWW, UIW, and Wheaton)

    I'm hoping the committee is looking not only vRRO but the quality of the RROs, as well. Losses to UWSP, UWWW, and UIW are a little different than say Rose-Hulman, Pomona-Pitzer, or NIC, (not a slam on those teams! Those are quality teams... but not elite)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3HoopJunkie on March 03, 2014, 12:14:30 PM
    This thread is unbelievable!!

    KnightSlappy, Bopol, TitanQ, Greek and all the others who contribute on here regularly, thank you for the knowledge. You guys make this so much more fun.

    I'm just starting to learn about the numbers and systems of how it all works and I must say you guys make it that much easier to understand so again, Thanks!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 12:15:48 PM
    Quote from: D3HoopJunkie on March 03, 2014, 12:14:30 PM
    This thread is unbelievable!!

    KnightSlappy, Bopol, TitanQ, Greek and all the others who contribute on here regularly, thank you for the knowledge. You guys make this so much more fun.

    I'm just starting to learn about the numbers and systems of how it all works and I must say you guys make it that much easier to understand so again, Thanks!!

    +1
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 12:19:41 PM
    Anyone think the NCAA Selection Committee will have a completely differing opinion than the regional committees regarding vRRO? I think there is a chance with things being somewhat different this year that the NCAA could make some major changes to RR's.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 03, 2014, 12:20:17 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 12:08:45 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 11:32:14 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 11:20:30 AM
    Compare Hope and Springfield based on SOS calculation method

    NCAA:
    Hope: 0.760 / 0.556 / 2-4
    Springfield: 0.731 / .566 / 2-4

    Correct:
    Hope: 0.760 / 0.529 / 2-4
    Springfield: 0.731 / .555 / 2-4

    From the GL board... Knightslappy - "Calvin jumps to #17 in the latest Massey Ratings update. Hope slides to #21. Both seem about right."

    Knightslappy, if you believe Calvin at #17 "seems about right", they you probably believe they should be ranked regionally... If so, 2-4 would become 4-5 for Hope...

    I think Calvin's only 50-50 for the regional rankings. Completely different criteria here for a Massey rank and an NCAA rank. It's just not the same at all.

    Knightslappy, where do you get your Massay numbers from... The site I normally look at currently shows Hope at 27th with 494 pts. and Calvin at 42nd with 486 pts. I'm guessing yours is more accurate...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 03, 2014, 12:27:55 PM
    masseyratings.com
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 12:33:25 PM
     How does a 17-8 team get a bye? Emory
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 03, 2014, 12:40:20 PM
    Quote from: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 12:33:25 PM
    How does a 17-8 team get a bye? Emory

    Can't even be geography.  Emory really got a bye??
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 03, 2014, 12:41:34 PM
    Carthage is out.

    OWU/Witt/Dickinson in...

    Now, I'm wondering about Stephenson/DePauw/Chris Newport/Springfield.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 03, 2014, 12:43:44 PM
    Hope is hosting!! Yah baby!!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 12:44:38 PM
    Bowdoin? Seriously..... That's laughable like Emory getting a bye.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 12:45:59 PM
    Scranton doesn't host? So one host in the Mid-Atlantic...... That's a slap
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEPAFAN on March 03, 2014, 12:48:15 PM
    Quote from: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 12:45:59 PM
    Scranton doesn't host? So one host in the Mid-Atlantic...... That's a slap

    Thanks NCAA.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 03, 2014, 12:53:58 PM
    Thoughts:

    * 4 hosts in the South...ok, then.

    * Dickinson, Springfield and Bowdoin get in on the final bracket over (I had) William Paterson, Carthage and Stevenson.

    * Springfield could make an argument over both.  Bowdoin, not so much. 

    * I really still think W. Paterson should be in without that much thought.  Oh, well. 

    * So DePauw did end up behind Witt and OWU in the GL and missed.

    * Stevenson ended up behind Dickinson in the MA and that one is a bit of surprise.  Also that they got in with a 1-1 RRO.  With Dickinson and Bowdoin (1-4 RRO) getting in, we were clearly misreading the committee this year, as they seemed to put little emphasis on the RRO compared to last year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 12:54:53 PM
    Take all the data and stick it; the Mid Atlantic constantly gets disrespected. One host, the #1 ranked team in the region has to travel to Brockport and Alvernia has to play Wesley? Avoid in region, right....The Commonwealth only gets 1 team which is an absolute travesty??!! 3 Mid Atlantic teams travel to Va Weslyan.

    If you disagree you either work for the NCAA or have no clue.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 03, 2014, 01:04:10 PM
    Quote from: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 12:54:53 PM
    Take all the data and stick it; the Mid Atlantic constantly gets disrespected. One host, the #1 ranked team in the region has to travel to Brockport and Alvernia has to play Wesley? Avoid in region, right....The Commonwealth only gets 1 team which is an absolute travesty??!! 3 Mid Atlantic teams travel to Va Weslyan.

    If you disagree you either work for the NCAA or have no clue.

    Bowdoin over Stevenson is either the biggest head scratcher or second to Emory getting a BYE. Would have like to be in on that conversation (can't even blame geography since sending them to Centre makes a whole lot more sense than giving them a BYE)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 03, 2014, 01:05:50 PM
    Did Eastern get in??  Going over a group project haven't seen the bracket yet.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lildave678 on March 03, 2014, 01:07:47 PM
    yeah 7 they're playing Husson at Plattsburg St. PS is hosting MIT in that other game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 01:33:29 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 01:04:10 PM
    Quote from: CCHoopster on March 03, 2014, 12:54:53 PM
    Take all the data and stick it; the Mid Atlantic constantly gets disrespected. One host, the #1 ranked team in the region has to travel to Brockport and Alvernia has to play Wesley? Avoid in region, right....The Commonwealth only gets 1 team which is an absolute travesty??!! 3 Mid Atlantic teams travel to Va Weslyan.

    If you disagree you either work for the NCAA or have no clue.

    Bowdoin over Stevenson is either the biggest head scratcher or second to Emory getting a BYE. Would have like to be in on that conversation (can't even blame geography since sending them to Centre makes a whole lot more sense than giving them a BYE)

    I would say the biggest head scratcher is the fact I got my daughter to nap in her bed without my wife's help! Then Emory, then Scranton issues.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bengalsrule on March 03, 2014, 01:36:00 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:27:53 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2014, 04:25:15 PM
    Quote from: Bengalsrule on March 02, 2014, 04:18:04 PM
    I'm just hoping that the SUNYAC gets 2 pool C bids. They derserve it! ;)

    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 04:22:34 PM
    SUNYAC has two... probably three amazingly.

    I suspect you don't really mean four SUNYAC teams will qualify, Dave.

    LOL no... I was thinking total bids with the AQ... sorry :)

    No need to apologize. 3 bids ( 2 pool C plus the AQ with 2 hosting), just like I had hoped!! ;)   It's good to see the 'Yac gets some much deserved respect ! :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 03, 2014, 02:35:28 PM
    If a team got a BYE (Hope's girls), why couldn't both the guys and girls hosts?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 03, 2014, 02:42:48 PM
    Great back and forth on twitter today between Pat and Staten Island supporters (including the official Staten Island account).   The committee certainly got a lot of things wrong but they should send the Dolphins a thank you note for reminding everyone else of something they did right.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lildave678 on March 03, 2014, 02:47:15 PM
    yeah that was crazy...love how the people who attacked Pat/D3Hoops don't realize they don't make the selections!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on March 03, 2014, 02:55:48 PM
    Quote from: lildave678 on March 03, 2014, 02:47:15 PM
    yeah that was crazy...love how the people who attacked Pat/D3Hoops don't realize they don't make the selections!

    I did a little timeline stalking and see that Dave (I think it was him) told one of the CSI people yesterday that their selection was unlikely. And that's exactly what happened. Somehow that makes him (and Pat) a hater...

    I'm sorry but I love how the athletic department's official twitter account shows absolutely no understanding of the selection process.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 03, 2014, 04:19:17 PM
    Presumed last available teams in their respective regions


    Middlebury (NESCAC) - .640/.562/3-6   Northeast #11---not at the final table
    NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6   East #6
    William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3   Atlantic #4
    Stevenson (MACC) - .704/.531/4-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3   South #6
    DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
    Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1  West #7

    Last 3 in?

    Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4

    I think Springfield might have been the last team in.  It looks to me like the last few selections came down to SOS for those with a winning % over .700

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 04:28:32 PM
    If anyone's interested, repeat the selection process using the other (correct) SOS calculation method:

    WARNING: Non-NCAA DATA!

    RG   ##   WP      wSOS     wRPI   NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    NE   01   0.923   0.583   0.668   001   A      24-2    9-0   NESCAC   Amherst
    NE   02   0.846   0.559   0.631   006   C      22-4    4-3   NESCAC   Williams
    NE   03   0.769   0.556   0.609   015   C      20-6    3-5   NEWMAC   Babson
    NE   04   0.786   0.540   0.601   021   C      22-6    3-4   LEC      Eastern Connecticut
    NE   05   0.731   0.555   0.599   023   C      19-7    2-4   NEWMAC   Springfield
    NE   06   0.963   0.469   0.592   026   A      26-1    1-0   GNAC     Albertus Magnus
    NE   07   0.714   0.547   0.589   034   A      20-8    1-4   LEC      Rhode Island College
    NE   08   0.846   0.502   0.588   035   C      22-4    3-1   NEWMAC   WPI
    NE   09   0.640   0.571   0.588   036   C      16-9    3-6   NESCAC   Middlebury
    NE   10   0.786   0.510   0.579   045   C      22-6    0-2   CCC      Nichols
    NE   11   0.792   0.503   0.575   051   C      19-5    1-3   NESCAC   Bowdoin
    ne   12   0.714   0.509   0.560   074   A      20-8    4-5   NEWMAC   MIT
    ne   13   0.500   0.561   0.546   097   C      11-11   1-5   NESCAC   Colby
    ne   14   0.720   0.487   0.546   098   A      18-7    0-2   NECC     Mitchell
    ne   15   0.926   0.419   0.545   099   A      25-2    1-0   NAC      Husson
    ne   16   0.643   0.513   0.545   100   C      18-10   1-3   GNAC     St. Josephs (Maine)
    ne   17   0.720   0.486   0.545   101   C      18-7    1-2   GNAC     Johnson and Wales
    ne   18   0.654   0.507   0.544   103   C      17-9    2-3   CCC      Salve Regina
    ne   19   0.522   0.549   0.542   109   C      12-11   1-6   NESCAC   Trinity (Conn.)
    ne   20   0.654   0.498   0.537   116   C      17-9    1-3   MASCAC   Salem State
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      wSOS     wRPI   NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    EA   01   0.885   0.551   0.635   005   A      23-3    4-2   SUNYAC   Brockport State
    EA   02   0.815   0.554   0.619   010   C      22-5    4-4   SUNYAC   Plattsburgh State
    EA   03   0.769   0.543   0.600   022   C      20-6    2-4   SUNYAC   Geneseo State
    EA   04   0.778   0.505   0.573   052   A      21-6    1-2   LL       Hobart
    EA   05   0.704   0.501   0.551   088   C      19-8    3-3   LL       Vassar
    EA   06   0.696   0.502   0.550   090   C      16-7    0-1   E8       Nazareth
    ea   07   0.615   0.525   0.548   095   C      16-10   2-4   LL       Skidmore
    ea   08   0.640   0.517   0.548   096   C      16-9    0-6   UAA      New York University
    ea   09   0.630   0.514   0.543   108   C      17-10   2-5   SUNYAC   Oswego State
    ea   10   0.640   0.508   0.541   110   A      16-9    0-3   E8       Hartwick
    ea   11   0.583   0.525   0.540   114   C      14-10   1-5   LL       Clarkson
    ne   12   0.609   0.516   0.539   115   C      14-9    1-2   E8       St. John Fisher
    ne   13   0.417   0.572   0.533   128   C      10-14   4-7   UAA      Rochester
    ne   14   0.625   0.502   0.533   130   C      15-9    1-2   E8       Stevens
    ne   15   0.480   0.543   0.527   147   C      12-13   1-7   SUNYAC   Buffalo State
    ne   16   0.538   0.522   0.526   152   C      14-12   1-5   SUNYAC   Cortland State
    ne   17   0.462   0.546   0.525   155   C      12-14   0-7   SUNYAC   Oneonta State
    ne   18   0.619   0.490   0.522   161   C      13-8    0-0   E8       Alfred
    ne   19   0.680   0.467   0.520   165   A      17-8    0-2   NEAC     Morrisville State
    ne   20   0.625   0.484   0.519   168   C      15-9    2-4   LL       Rochester Tech
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      wSOS     wRPI   NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    AT   01   0.926   0.493   0.601   020   A      25-2    5-1   SKY      SUNY-Purchase
    AT   02   0.852   0.512   0.597   025   A      23-4    4-2   NJAC     Richard Stockton
    AT   03   0.778   0.515   0.581   043   C      21-6    4-3   NJAC     William Paterson
    AT   04   0.893   0.472   0.577   048   C      25-3    0-0   CUNYAC   Staten Island
    AT   05   0.778   0.499   0.569   061   C      21-6    0-5   SKY      Mount St. Mary
    AT   06   0.741   0.508   0.566   066   A      20-7    1-4   CUNYAC   York (N.Y.)
    at   07   0.704   0.507   0.556   078   C      19-8    2-3   NJAC     Rutgers-Newark
    at   08   0.520   0.551   0.543   106   C      13-12   1-8   NJAC     Kean
    at   09   0.556   0.530   0.536   119   C      15-12   0-7   SKY      SUNY-Old Westbury
    at   10   0.667   0.458   0.510   188   C      18-9    0-6   SKY      Farmingdale State
    at   11   0.560   0.490   0.508   196   C      14-11   0-3   CUNYAC   Baruch
    at   12   0.520   0.500   0.505   200   C      13-12   1-6   NJAC     New Jersey City
    at   13   0.391   0.539   0.502   204   C      9-14    2-8   NJAC     Montclair State
    at   14   0.417   0.524   0.497   211   C      10-14   1-3   LAND     Merchant Marine
    at   15   0.480   0.499   0.494   217   C      12-13   2-4   CUNYAC   Brooklyn
    at   16   0.542   0.471   0.489   226   C      13-11   0-4   SKY      Sage
    at   17   0.458   0.496   0.486   231   C      11-13   0-4   CUNYAC   Lehman
    at   18   0.360   0.523   0.482   241   C      9-16    1-7   NJAC     Ramapo
    at   19   0.417   0.492   0.474   261   C      10-14   0-5   CUNYAC   Hunter
    at   20   0.381   0.504   0.473   262   C      8-13    0-6   NJAC     Rowan
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      wSOS     wRPI   NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    MA   01   0.870   0.532   0.616   011   C      20-3    5-0   CAC      Wesley
    MA   02   0.962   0.493   0.610   014   A      25-1    3-0   CSAC     Cabrini
    MA   03   0.741   0.558   0.603   019   A      20-7    4-4   MACC     Alvernia
    MA   04   0.654   0.579   0.598   024   C      17-9    4-7   CAC      Christopher Newport
    MA   05   0.667   0.565   0.590   028   C      16-8    1-6   CAC      St. Marys (Md.)
    MA   06   0.760   0.534   0.590   029   C      19-6    2-4   MACC     Messiah
    MA   07   0.889   0.489   0.589   032   A      24-3    2-1   LAND     Scranton
    MA   08   0.800   0.513   0.585   039   A      20-5    4-2   CAC      Mary Washington
    MA   09   0.778   0.519   0.583   041   C      21-6    2-1   CC       Dickinson
    ma   10   0.692   0.539   0.577   047   C      18-8    1-4   CSAC     Neumann
    ma   11   0.704   0.516   0.563   070   C      19-8    4-3   MACC     Stevenson
    ma   12   0.615   0.545   0.563   071   A      16-10   2-5   CC       Johns Hopkins
    ma   13   0.750   0.481   0.548   093   C      18-6    0-2   CSAC     Gwynedd-Mercy
    ma   14   0.692   0.500   0.548   094   C      18-8    0-3   CC       McDaniel
    ma   15   0.600   0.526   0.544   102   C      15-10   1-2   CC       Muhlenberg
    ma   16   0.615   0.518   0.543   107   C      16-10   2-5   MACC     Hood
    ma   17   0.583   0.520   0.536   122   C      14-10   0-4   LAND     Susquehanna
    ma   18   0.560   0.523   0.532   131   C      14-11   0-5   LAND     Catholic
    ma   19   0.583   0.513   0.531   135   C      14-10   2-1   LAND     Juniata
    ma   20   0.522   0.531   0.529   143   C      12-11   3-6   CAC      Salisbury
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      wSOS     wRPI   NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    SO   01   0.680   0.602   0.621   009   C      17-8    4-5   UAA      Emory
    SO   02   0.769   0.554   0.608   017   C      20-6    4-3   ODAC     Randolph-Macon
    SO   03   0.893   0.490   0.591   027   A      25-3    0-1   ASC      Texas-Dallas
    SO   04   0.778   0.526   0.589   031   A      21-6    3-2   ODAC     Virginia Wesleyan
    SO   05   0.870   0.490   0.585   040   B      20-3    1-2   SAA      Centre
    SO   06   0.630   0.552   0.572   057   C      17-10   4-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
    SO   07   0.679   0.534   0.570   059   A      19-9    1-4   SCAC     Trinity (Texas)
    SO   08   0.731   0.511   0.566   065   C      19-7    3-5   SAA      Oglethorpe
    so   09   0.704   0.503   0.553   086   C      19-8    1-2   ASC      Hardin-Simmons
    so   10   0.739   0.487   0.550   091   C      17-6    1-2   USAC     Maryville (Tenn.)
    so   11   0.625   0.516   0.543   105   C      15-9    0-5   ODAC     Lynchburg
    so   12   0.654   0.497   0.536   120   C      17-9    1-6   ODAC     Guilford
    so   13   0.577   0.523   0.536   121   C      15-11   3-2   ODAC     Eastern Mennonite
    so   14   0.577   0.522   0.536   123   C      15-11   3-0   SCAC     Schreiner
    so   15   0.552   0.530   0.535   124   C      16-13   3-8   ODAC     Hampden-Sydney
    so   16   0.522   0.537   0.533   127   C      12-11   2-4   ODAC     Bridgewater (Va.)
    so   17   0.654   0.491   0.532   133   C      17-9    2-1   ASC      Mary Hardin-Baylor
    so   18   0.680   0.482   0.532   134   C      17-8    0-3   SLIAC    Spalding
    so   19   0.600   0.498   0.523   160   C      15-10   0-2   ASC      Concordia (Texas)
    so   20   0.654   0.478   0.522   162   A      17-9    0-3   USAC     LaGrange
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      wSOS     wRPI   NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    GL   01   0.923   0.505   0.609   016   A      24-2    7-2   NCAC     Wooster
    GL   02   0.741   0.537   0.588   037   C      20-7    3-5   NCAC     Ohio Wesleyan
    GL   03   0.760   0.529   0.587   038   C      19-6    2-4   MIAA     Hope
    GL   04   0.720   0.528   0.576   049   C      18-7    0-4   OAC      Marietta
    GL   05   0.750   0.517   0.575   050   C      21-7    3-6   NCAC     Wittenberg
    GL   06   0.692   0.533   0.573   053   A      18-8    1-2   OAC      Wilmington
    GL   07   0.800   0.497   0.573   054   C      20-5    1-0   PrAC     Bethany
    gl   08   0.692   0.533   0.572   055   C      18-8    4-5   NCAC     DePauw
    gl   09   0.769   0.502   0.569   063   C      20-6    0-1   OAC      Mount Union
    gl   10   0.792   0.485   0.562   072   A      19-5    1-1   PrAC     St. Vincent
    gl   11   0.826   0.473   0.561   073   A      19-4    2-4   MIAA     Calvin
    gl   12   0.615   0.536   0.556   079   C      16-10   1-2   OAC      Ohio Northern
    gl   13   0.852   0.457   0.556   080   A      23-4    1-0   AMCC     Penn State-Behrend
    gl   14   0.621   0.528   0.551   089   C      18-11   1-3   OAC      John Carroll
    gl   15   0.519   0.547   0.540   112   C      14-13   0-4   OAC      Baldwin Wallace
    gl   16   0.560   0.529   0.537   118   C      14-11   3-6   UAA      Case Western Reserve
    gl   17   0.731   0.462   0.529   142   C      19-7    0-0   AMCC     Hilbert
    gl   18   0.462   0.550   0.528   145   C      12-14   1-3   OAC      Capital
    gl   19   0.455   0.544   0.521   163   C      10-12   0-3   PrAC     Thiel
    gl   20   0.556   0.499   0.513   184   C      15-12   1-4   PrAC     Thomas More
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      wSOS     wRPI   NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    MW   01   0.920   0.562   0.651   003   A      23-2    9-2   UAA      Washington U.
    MW   02   0.704   0.603   0.629   007   A      19-8    8-5   CCIW     Wheaton (Ill.)
    MW   03   0.958   0.500   0.614   012   A      23-1    0-1   MWC      St. Norbert
    MW   04   0.852   0.535   0.614   013   C      23-4    8-3   CCIW     Illinois Wesleyan
    MW   05   0.731   0.543   0.590   030   C      19-7    5-4   CCIW     Augustana
    MW   06   0.625   0.577   0.589   033   C      15-9    4-7   CCIW     Carthage
    MW   07   0.815   0.506   0.583   042   A      22-5    2-1   HCAC     Rose-Hulman
    MW   08   0.583   0.567   0.571   058   C      14-10   4-7   UAA      Chicago
    mw   09   0.778   0.493   0.564   069   A      21-6    0-0   NATHC    Marian
    mw   10   0.679   0.521   0.560   075   C      19-9    1-4   HCAC     Hanover
    mw   11   0.500   0.576   0.557   076   C      11-11   3-8   CCIW     North Central (Ill.)
    mw   12   0.583   0.548   0.557   077   C      14-10   2-6   CCIW     Elmhurst
    mw   13   0.808   0.471   0.555   081   C      21-5    0-0   NATHC    Milwaukee Engineering
    mw   14   0.739   0.493   0.555   082   C      17-6    0-3   MWC      Grinnell
    mw   15   0.654   0.521   0.555   083   C      17-9    1-4   HCAC     Mount St. Joseph
    mw   16   0.667   0.516   0.554   084   C      18-9    0-1   NATHC    Aurora
    mw   17   0.792   0.473   0.553   087   C      19-5    0-3   HCAC     Defiance
    mw   18   0.625   0.516   0.543   104   C      15-9    0-2   MWC      Ripon
    mw   19   0.625   0.512   0.540   113   C      15-9    1-4   MWC      Carroll
    mw   20   0.464   0.561   0.537   117   C      13-15   0-3   NATHC    Edgewood
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      wSOS     wRPI   NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    WE   01   0.963   0.564   0.664   002   A      26-1    6-1   WIAC     UW-Stevens Point
    WE   02   0.852   0.569   0.639   004   C      23-4    4-2   WIAC     UW-Whitewater
    WE   03   0.815   0.557   0.621   008   A      22-5    2-5   MIAC     St. Olaf
    WE   04   0.815   0.534   0.604   018   C      22-5    4-3   MIAC     St. Thomas
    WE   05   0.625   0.564   0.579   044   C      15-9    1-5   WIAC     UW-La Crosse
    WE   06   0.815   0.499   0.578   046   A      22-5    1-1   NWC      Whitworth
    WE   07   0.783   0.502   0.572   056   A      18-5    1-2   IIAC     Central
    WE   08   0.818   0.487   0.570   060   C      18-4    1-1   SCIAC    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
    we   09   0.682   0.531   0.569   062   C      15-7    2-4   SCAC     Colorado College
    we   10   0.583   0.561   0.567   064   C      14-10   1-2   IIAC     Luther
    we   11   0.783   0.493   0.566   067   C      18-5    1-0   IIAC     Dubuque
    we   12   0.577   0.562   0.565   068   C      15-11   1-8   WIAC     UW-Platteville
    we   13   0.750   0.488   0.553   085   C      18-6    3-1   SCIAC    Pomona-Pitzer
    we   14   0.630   0.522   0.549   092   C      17-10   1-6   MIAC     Gustavus Adolphus
    we   15   0.692   0.490   0.540   111   C      18-8    1-4   MIAC     Augsburg
    we   16   0.650   0.497   0.535   125   C      13-7    1-2   NWC      Lewis and Clark
    we   17   0.583   0.516   0.533   129   C      14-10   1-2   IIAC     Buena Vista
    we   18   0.600   0.508   0.531   136   C      15-10   3-4   MIAC     St. Johns
    we   19   0.478   0.547   0.530   138   C      11-12   1-4   WIAC     UW-Stout
    we   20   0.577   0.513   0.529   139   C      15-11   4-2   IIAC     Loras
                                  
    RG   ##   WP      wSOS     wRPI   NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    B    01   0.870   0.490   0.585   040   B      20-3    1-2   SAA      Centre
    b    02   0.630   0.552   0.572   057   C      17-10   4-3   SAA      Birmingham-Southern
    b    03   0.731   0.511   0.566   065   C      19-7    3-5   SAA      Oglethorpe
    b    04   0.556   0.506   0.519   172   C      15-12   1-5   SAA      Rhodes
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hugenerd on March 03, 2014, 04:30:30 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 03, 2014, 04:19:17 PM
    Presumed last available teams in their respective regions


    Middlebury (NESCAC) - .640/.562/3-6   Northeast #11---not at the final table
    NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6   East #6
    William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3   Atlantic #4
    Stevenson (MACC) - .704/.531/4-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3   South #6
    DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
    Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1  West #7

    Last 3 in?

    Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4

    I think Springfield might have been the last team in.  It looks to me like the last few selections came down to SOS for those with a winning % over .700

    What about Bowdoin?  Springfield won two games last week, including against #3 Babson.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2014, 04:38:17 PM
    JUST POOL C TEAMS LISTED

    GREEN got Pool C bids


    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2014, 10:20:15 PM


       TEAM-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       3. Staten Island      24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final    
       4. William Paterson       20-5, 20-5      NJAC      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; LOST vs Richard Stockton 65-44 in Final
       5. Rutgers-Newark      19-7, 19-7      NJAC      LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal     
       6. Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       20-5, 20-5      SKY      WON vs Farmingdale State 95-75; LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 100-82 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-EAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      WON vs Geneseo 73-69; LOST vs Brockport State 57-56 in Final   
       3. Geneseo State       19-5, 20-5      SUNYAC      WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; LOST vs Plattsburgh St. 73-69 in semifinal    
       5. NYU        16-8, 16-8      UAA      LOST at Brandeis 92-53   
       6. Skidmore      16-9, 16-9      LL      LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-GREAT-LAKES      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Hope      18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; LOST vs Calvin 78-53 in Final   
       3.Bethany      20-4, 21-4      PAC      LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals    
       4. Mount Union      20-5, 20-5      OAC      LOST John Carroll 83-81 in semifinal    
       5. DePauw      17-7, 18-7      NCAC      WON vs Wabash 73-59; LOST vs Wittenberg 63-61 in semifinal 2/28   
       6. Wittenberg        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Denison 64-49; WON vs DePauw 63-61; LOST vs Wooster 71-63 in Final   
       7. Ohio Wesleyan      19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon 78-67; LOST vs Wooster 78-67 in semifinal    
                            
       TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       3.Wesley      20-2, 22-2      CAC      LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal    
       4. Dickinson      20-5, 20-5      CC      WON vs McDaniel 77-63; LOST vs Johns Hopkins 60-55 in Final   
       5. Stevenson      18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Hood 83-72; LOST vs Alvernia 70-69 in Final   
       6. Messiah      19-5, 19-5      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal    
       9. St. Mary's (Md.)      15-7, 18-7      CAC      LOST vs Mary Washington 70-65 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-MIDWEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Illinois Wesleyan      22-3, 22-3      CCIW      WON vs Carthage 76-71; LOST vs Wheaton 87-66 in Final   
       4. Augustana       19-6, 19-6      CCIW      LOST vs Wheaton (IL) 66-55 in semifinal    
       6. Carthage       15-8, 16-9      CCIW      LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 76-71 in semifinal    
       8. Chicago      14-9, 15-9      UAA      LOST vs Washington U. 86-73   
                            
       TEAM-NORTHEAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      WON vs Middlebury 78-75; LOST vs Amherst 93-82 in Final   
       3. Babson       20-5, 20-5      NEWMAC      LOST vs Springfield 85-77 OTin semifinal   
       4. Eastern Connecticut      20-5, 20-5      LEC      WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; WON vs Western Connecticut 88-75; LOST vs RIC 70-61 in Final   
       5. WPI       22-3, 22-3      NEWMAC      LOST vs MIT 64-46 in semifinal 3/1   
       6. Springfield       18-6, 19-6      NEWMAC      WON vs Babson 85-77 OT; LOST vs MIT 67-56 in Final   
       7. Bowdoin      19-5, 19-5      NESCAC      LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal     
       9. Nichols      20-5, 20-5      CCC      WON vs Western New England 73-54; WON vs Salva Regina 83-80 OT; LOST vs Gordon 69-65 in Final 3/1   
       11. Middlebury       16-8, 17-8      NESCAC      LOST vs Williams 78-75 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-SOUTH      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal    
       2. Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      LOST at Rochester 97-83   
       6. Birmingham-Southern      16-9, 16-9      SAA      WON vs Hendrix 77-62; LOST vs Oglethorpe 72-70   
       7. Guilford       17-8, 17-8      ODAC      LOST vs Washington and Lee 77-70 in quarterfinal    
                            
       TEAM-WEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      WON vs La Crosse 76-73; LOST at Stevens Point 74-57 in Final   
       3. St. Thomas       21-4, 21-4      MIAC      WON vs Bethel 74-59; LOST vs St. Olaf 63-53 in Final   
       6. Dubuque      18-4, 21-4      IIAC      LOST vs Luther 87-83 in semifinal    
       7. C-M-S       17-3, 19-5      SCIAC      LOST vs Cal Lutheran 54-53 in semifinal   
       8. Pomona-Pitzer       18-5, 18-7      SCIAC      LOST vs Chapman 69-54 in semifinal   
       9. Augsburg      18-7, 18-7      MIAC      LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal    
                            
    [/quote]
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2014, 04:41:42 PM
    Quote from: Hugenerd on March 03, 2014, 04:30:30 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 03, 2014, 04:19:17 PM
    Presumed last available teams in their respective regions


    Middlebury (NESCAC) - .640/.562/3-6   Northeast #11---not at the final table
    NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6   East #6
    William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3   Atlantic #4
    Stevenson (MACC) - .704/.531/4-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3   South #6
    DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
    Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1  West #7

    Last 3 in?

    Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4

    I think Springfield might have been the last team in.  It looks to me like the last few selections came down to SOS for those with a winning % over .700

    What about Bowdoin?  Springfield won two games last week, including against #3 Babson.

    HOLY CRAP! A HUGENERD APPEARANCE!

    WELCOME (BACK)!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: monsoon on March 03, 2014, 05:11:49 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 03, 2014, 02:35:28 PM
    If a team got a BYE (Hope's girls), why couldn't both the guys and girls hosts?

    The women have a full 64-team bracket; so no byes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hugenerd on March 03, 2014, 05:27:17 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2014, 04:41:42 PM
    Quote from: Hugenerd on March 03, 2014, 04:30:30 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 03, 2014, 04:19:17 PM
    Presumed last available teams in their respective regions


    Middlebury (NESCAC) - .640/.562/3-6   Northeast #11---not at the final table
    NYU (UAA) - .640/.546/0-6   East #6
    William Paterson (NJAC) - .778/.528/4-3   Atlantic #4
    Stevenson (MACC) - .704/.531/4-3   Mid-Atlantic #5
    Birmingham-Southern (SAA) - .630/.553/4-3   South #6
    DePauw (NCAC) - .692/.545/4-5   Great Lakes #5
    Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC) - .818/.496/1-1  West #7

    Last 3 in?

    Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4

    I think Springfield might have been the last team in.  It looks to me like the last few selections came down to SOS for those with a winning % over .700

    What about Bowdoin?  Springfield won two games last week, including against #3 Babson.

    HOLY CRAP! A HUGENERD APPEARANCE!

    WELCOME (BACK)!
    Watched my first game of the season yesterday (guess which one?), during timeouts and after the game I was able to review some data and look into the regional rankings. Learned that once ranked always ranked was gone for this season. Better late than never I guess.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2014, 06:51:44 PM
    You missed the fantasy draft!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hugenerd on March 03, 2014, 06:58:59 PM
    Thats alright, wouldn't know who to pick.  I'm guessing most of the NEWMAC guys will be available for a free agent team anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 03, 2014, 07:03:53 PM
    Ok, some final thoughts on the Pool C picks:

    1) Were the regional rankings out of whack with the committee's process?  After all, Carthage, Chicago, Birmingham-Southern were all appearing in the regional rankings, but they didn't get selected while teams with inferior SOS, few games against RRO and better records were?

    2) I knew the order in the Mid Atlantic would matter and am fairly surprised that Dickinson stayed ahead of Stevenson, given that I had Dickinson losing an RRO if Guilford dropped out.  That was the decider for me, and I wonder if Guilford did make the last regional ranking or it didn't matter and Dickinson was ahead of the Stevenson either way.  I don't have a huge problem with the Dickinson pick as they are a good club, but I thought they'd end up on the wrong side of the bubble.

    3) I guessed the order right in the Great Lakes, which is what makes the Mid-Atlantic confusing as well as the picks in the Northeast.

    4) I don't have a problem with Springfield getting picked.  Basically, Springfield and Dickinson over Stevenson and Carthage makes sense to me in that I can see how a reasonable person comes to that conclusion, even if I might disagree.  If I had gone farther, I think Springfield would have been #20 and Dickinson would have been #23.  But there is one that floors me...

    5) How the blue heck does Bowdoin get picked?  That was a four star screwup.  William Paterson had the same RPI, same record and a better RRO.  They played tough at the end of the year, which is more than I can say for Bowdoin.  Basically, Bowdoin was 6-5 in conference play.

    If Bowdoin hadn't been picked and we ended up with William Paterson, Stevenson, Carthage, DePauw or even Staten Island, I'd say the committee did a good job, but as it is, they get a D+ for the picks this year because they set a bad precedent (play a soft schedule to get picked).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: izzy stradlin on March 03, 2014, 07:18:45 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 03, 2014, 07:03:53 PM
    Ok, some final thoughts on the Pool C picks:

    1) Were the regional rankings out of whack with the committee's process?  After all, Carthage, Chicago, Birmingham-Southern were all appearing in the regional rankings, but they didn't get selected while teams with inferior SOS, few games against RRO and better records were?

    2) I knew the order in the Mid Atlantic would matter and am fairly surprised that Dickinson stayed ahead of Stevenson, given that I had Dickinson losing an RRO if Guilford dropped out.  That was the decider for me, and I wonder if Guilford did make the last regional ranking or it didn't matter and Dickinson was ahead of the Stevenson either way.  I don't have a huge problem with the Dickinson pick as they are a good club, but I thought they'd end up on the wrong side of the bubble.

    3) I guessed the order right in the Great Lakes, which is what makes the Mid-Atlantic confusing as well as the picks in the Northeast.

    4) I don't have a problem with Springfield getting picked.  Basically, Springfield and Dickinson over Stevenson and Carthage makes sense to me in that I can see how a reasonable person comes to that conclusion, even if I might disagree.  If I had gone farther, I think Springfield would have been #20 and Dickinson would have been #23.  But there is one that floors me...

    5) How the blue heck does Bowdoin get picked?  That was a four star screwup.  William Paterson had the same RPI, same record and a better RRO.  They played tough at the end of the year, which is more than I can say for Bowdoin.  Basically, Bowdoin was 6-5 in conference play.

    If Bowdoin hadn't been picked and we ended up with William Paterson, Stevenson, Carthage, DePauw or even Staten Island, I'd say the committee did a good job, but as it is, they get a D+ for the picks this year because they set a bad precedent (play a soft schedule to get picked).

    Selection committee chair Steve Ulrich was on Hoopsville just a bit ago and started bringing up things like "eye-test" and "tournament history" as factors in the selection process.   No use trying to understand this rationally.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 03, 2014, 07:24:29 PM
    When the CHAIR of the Selection Committee doesn't know the criteria, we're in deep doo-doo. :o
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 03, 2014, 07:36:05 PM
    Quote from: izzy stradlin on March 03, 2014, 07:18:45 PM

    Selection committee chair Steve Ulrich was on Hoopsville just a bit ago and started bringing up things like "eye-test" and "tournament history" as factors in the selection process.   No use trying to understand this rationally.

    Well, I can send him a tape of Carthage-Wash U or Carthage-IWU I and you can think that Carthage should host a pod and get a bye.

    If he said that, he should be fired.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 07:41:43 PM
    Just listening to the Steve Ulrich interview now. How many years do we have to go through this before we realize that these committees cannot be trusted to consistently apply criteria?

    It's quite clear that most of the members don't even fully understand the criteria -- "looking into the SOS to what it means", "how many home or road games a team had" -- WE HAVE A HOME/AWAY MULTIPLIER SUPPOSEDLY BUILT INTO THE SOS ALREADY.

    Talk of coaches basically voting however they want -- eye test -- after the discussion is concluded. This cannot happen.

    Sounds like we're all in favor of a one-number system now!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 03, 2014, 07:46:27 PM
    They have been able to vote however they wanted for several years now... ever since the entire NCAA went to private, online voting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 03, 2014, 07:47:53 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 03, 2014, 07:36:05 PM
    Quote from: izzy stradlin on March 03, 2014, 07:18:45 PM

    Selection committee chair Steve Ulrich was on Hoopsville just a bit ago and started bringing up things like "eye-test" and "tournament history" as factors in the selection process.   No use trying to understand this rationally.

    Well, I can send him a tape of Carthage-Wash U or Carthage-IWU I and you can think that Carthage should host a pod and get a bye.

    If he said that, he should be fired.

    Why not send him the Buffalo State and Elmhurst tapes?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2014, 07:48:43 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 03, 2014, 07:46:27 PM
    They have been able to vote however they wanted for several years now... ever since the entire NCAA went to private, online voting.

    Right, but the rouge-ness of the voting is unacceptable. They should be better than that.

    Also, I should say, you did a very good job of asking the very tough questions, especially when you weren't getting direct answers. Very nice job.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 03, 2014, 07:51:12 PM
    Thank you... I had a lot more questions, but not enough time. I know Steve well, so I was maybe more frustrated and disappointed than I normally was... but at least he tried to answer questions unlike Ken Schumann a few years ago who simply ducked questions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 03, 2014, 08:04:36 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 03, 2014, 07:47:53 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 03, 2014, 07:36:05 PM
    Quote from: izzy stradlin on March 03, 2014, 07:18:45 PM

    Selection committee chair Steve Ulrich was on Hoopsville just a bit ago and started bringing up things like "eye-test" and "tournament history" as factors in the selection process.   No use trying to understand this rationally.

    Well, I can send him a tape of Carthage-Wash U or Carthage-IWU I and you can think that Carthage should host a pod and get a bye.

    If he said that, he should be fired.

    Why not send him the Buffalo State and Elmhurst tapes?

    Dog ate them.

    But I've got a nice tape of Wheaton at Carthage that would help the case.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wooscotsfan on March 03, 2014, 11:53:54 PM
    Some thoughts about the Pool C selections:

    Winning does matter if your SOS is reasonably solid.  The lowest Win % to be selected was Emory at .680 with a very high SOS.

    The lowest SOS team to be selected was actually WPI with a .520 and WPI obviously had a high Win % at .846.  Obviously, Staten Island's SOS under .500 was too low in the committee's view regardless of their high Win % (just beating cupcakes is not enough).

    One explanation for Bowdoin getting in was the committee did seem to value Win % and Bowdoin's was reasonable at .792 coupled also with the fact that they played in a strong conference (NESCAC) facing Amherst and Williams.

    The big mystery for me is how William Paterson got left out.  In fact Willy Pat's Win % and SOS are virtually identical to Dickinson who got in...plus Willy Pat had a better RRO record than Dickinson.  If I was a William Paterson fan, I would be very annoyed because the criteria did not seem to matter in their case?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2014, 12:58:08 AM
    Unless Dickinson was selected last, which is certainly possible.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2014, 07:56:55 AM

    I finally finished Hoopsville.  It seems like what's happening is not a de-emphasizing of vRRO, they're just setting a benchmark.  Dickinson proved they were looking for better opponents and the committee didn't want to punish them because they tried.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.

    I still don't like it.  Teams from better conferences deserve credit for being in those conferences (and playing well), but it seems like they wanted to reward teams that did seek out some strong non-conference opponents, and not punish them for a weak conference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 04, 2014, 08:03:41 AM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on March 03, 2014, 11:53:54 PM
    Some thoughts about the Pool C selections:

    Winning does matter if your SOS is reasonably solid.  The lowest Win % to be selected was Emory at .680 with a very high SOS.


    Lowest win % gets a BYE, we don't get to see the super secret, final, regional rankings and we don't get to see the voters process or rational for their decisions... This is an improvement how? Where's the accountability? Who can tell me how William Patterson, Stevenson, Carthage and DePauw are left on the table when Bowdoin gets picked?! Eye test?! Past years preformances?!

    As a Hope fan, I am elated to be hosting.

    As a D3 basketball fan, I am very disappointed. Worst of all, there is no system in place or accountability that would lead me to believe that next year will be any different...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 04, 2014, 11:32:40 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2014, 07:56:55 AM

    I finally finished Hoopsville.  It seems like what's happening is not a de-emphasizing of vRRO, they're just setting a benchmark.  Dickinson proved they were looking for better opponents and the committee didn't want to punish them because they tried.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.

    I still don't like it.  Teams from better conferences deserve credit for being in those conferences (and playing well), but it seems like they wanted to reward teams that did seek out some strong non-conference opponents, and not punish them for a weak conference.

    I reached the conclusion that he really couldn't justify the picks or who was left out except in vague generalities and a single argument made for or against a certain team that wasn't necessarily the consensus.  Yep, I bet someone did say something like "Well, they didn't beat the good teams" when talking on Carthage (except they did, but, hey, why do research when you can get it in a soundbite).  But that is one person's opinion and there clearly wasn't a firm process in place on how to look at teams in a consistent way when making these picks.  The fact that you are saying, well, it sounds like they looked at it this way indicates that it wasn't clearly articulated and the fact that it wasn't clearly articulated indicates that it wasn't thought out.

    You can easily reached the conclusion based on the criteria that Dickinson should be in over Carthage and articulate it, but then you would have had to apply it consistently to all the other picks.

    These guys didn't know what they were doing.  As a group, they should be one and done.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2014, 11:42:05 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 04, 2014, 11:32:40 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2014, 07:56:55 AM

    I finally finished Hoopsville.  It seems like what's happening is not a de-emphasizing of vRRO, they're just setting a benchmark.  Dickinson proved they were looking for better opponents and the committee didn't want to punish them because they tried.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.

    I still don't like it.  Teams from better conferences deserve credit for being in those conferences (and playing well), but it seems like they wanted to reward teams that did seek out some strong non-conference opponents, and not punish them for a weak conference.

    I reached the conclusion that he really couldn't justify the picks or who was left out except in vague generalities and a single argument made for or against a certain team that wasn't necessarily the consensus.  Yep, I bet someone did say something like "Well, they didn't beat the good teams" when talking on Carthage (except they did, but, hey, why do research when you can get it in a soundbite).  But that is one person's opinion and there clearly wasn't a firm process in place on how to look at teams in a consistent way when making these picks.  The fact that you are saying, well, it sounds like they looked at it this way indicates that it wasn't clearly articulated and the fact that it wasn't clearly articulated indicates that it wasn't thought out.

    You can easily reached the conclusion based on the criteria that Dickinson should be in over Carthage and articulate it, but then you would have had to apply it consistently to all the other picks.

    These guys didn't know what they were doing.  As a group, they should be one and done.

    I'll be the one guy who says I never thought Carthage had a chance, nor do I think they deserve to be in the tournament.  They're clearly better now than they were at the beginning of the season, but they lost games they had no business losing and the team of March 3 is paying the price for the team they were two months before.

    I'm fine with that.

    I also didn't think Bowdoin had a shot - and clearly they got in.

    I didn't think Staten Island deserved to get in after the conference tourney loss - that happened.

    I feel like Dickinson should have dropped more after their conference tournament loss.  They should have been behind at least Stevenson.  I'm not sure Stevenson's numbers add up to get in, but they sure pass the eye test for me.  That's a better team, with a lot of potential.  It's unfortunate they missed out.

    But then again, I also thought (and still do think) Chicago was a better team than Emory, so you have that for the quality of my eye test.

    I think you're right that it can be expressed better.  The committee wants you to schedule as many games against good teams as you possible can out of conference.  They don't particularly care how many you play within your conference, so long as you play some out of conference.

    Assuming some consistency for next year (which is a big assumption at this point) that should at least give teams real guidance.

    And for teams in good conferences, schedule one or two decent non-cons, but not too many or else your strong conference will hurt your winning percentage too much to get chosen (that seems to be how Bowdoin got in and Carthage was left out).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 04, 2014, 11:44:52 AM
    Does the committee get any financial compensation from the NCAA for the work they do? Since they're always worried about money, I'm sure they could get a group from the d3board here that's at least as knowledgeable as the current committee is for half their cost and produce twice the quality ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 04, 2014, 11:45:19 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 04, 2014, 11:32:40 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2014, 07:56:55 AM

    I finally finished Hoopsville.  It seems like what's happening is not a de-emphasizing of vRRO, they're just setting a benchmark.  Dickinson proved they were looking for better opponents and the committee didn't want to punish them because they tried.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.

    I still don't like it.  Teams from better conferences deserve credit for being in those conferences (and playing well), but it seems like they wanted to reward teams that did seek out some strong non-conference opponents, and not punish them for a weak conference.

    I reached the conclusion that he really couldn't justify the picks or who was left out except in vague generalities and a single argument made for or against a certain team that wasn't necessarily the consensus.  Yep, I bet someone did say something like "Well, they didn't beat the good teams" when talking on Carthage (except they did, but, hey, why do research when you can get it in a soundbite).  But that is one person's opinion and there clearly wasn't a firm process in place on how to look at teams in a consistent way when making these picks.  The fact that you are saying, well, it sounds like they looked at it this way indicates that it wasn't clearly articulated and the fact that it wasn't clearly articulated indicates that it wasn't thought out.

    You can easily reached the conclusion based on the criteria that Dickinson should be in over Carthage and articulate it, but then you would have had to apply it consistently to all the other picks.

    These guys didn't know what they were doing.  As a group, they should be one and done.
    I still haven't seen if the committee actually considers the relative strength of the regionally ranked wins.  Surely it's obvious to anyone with a brain that Dickinson's regionally ranked wins were against teams below them, while Carthage's wins against Wheaton, Illinois Wesleyan, Wash U and Calvin should give them a large boost beyond simply saying they have 2 more regionally ranked wins.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2014, 12:03:50 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 04, 2014, 11:32:40 AM

    You can easily reached the conclusion based on the criteria that Dickinson should be in over Carthage and articulate it, but then you would have had to apply it consistently to all the other picks.


    This is exactly what I got out of it. You can certainly justify Emory being ranked highly and getting the bye using certain criteria. You can certainly justify Carthage not getting in using certain criteria.

    But I have a harder time accepting both at the same time, if you're applying the criteria consistently across the board.

    It almost seemed like they picked the field they wanted, and THEN went back and justified it using the criteria.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on March 04, 2014, 12:16:51 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2014, 11:42:05 AM
    I'll be the one guy who says I never thought Carthage had a chance, nor do I think they deserve to be in the tournament. 

    I'll be the next to say the same. Might not count for much now but I got the $10 to prove that this was a pre-selection announcement opinion. Thanks KnightSlappy.

    I just never felt Carthage had as many wins as they needed. Great SOS and a lot of games against regionally ranked teams, but that winning percentage would be historically low for a Pool C.

    Look at it this way; there was fuss over Carthage but not North Central, despite North Central having a very similar resume in the SOS and RvRRO columns. No one had a problem leaving North Central well off the bubble because of a poor winning percentage so we all accept there is a line to be drawn somewhere as far as winning percentage is concerned. The committee obviously wasn't willing to move the line to a historical low and I don't see how that can be much of a surprise at all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 04, 2014, 12:27:33 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2014, 07:56:55 AM

    I finally finished Hoopsville.  It seems like what's happening is not a de-emphasizing of vRRO, they're just setting a benchmark.  Dickinson proved they were looking for better opponents and the committee didn't want to punish them because they tried.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.

    I still don't like it.  Teams from better conferences deserve credit for being in those conferences (and playing well), but it seems like they wanted to reward teams that did seek out some strong non-conference opponents, and not punish them for a weak conference.

    See the MAC Commonwealth who gets 1 team in each year which is absurd. 3rd toughest SOS in the nation this year. I guess so long as the NESCAC and ODAC get their teams and host sites the snotty, pencil sharpeners are ok with that.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2014, 12:31:52 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on March 04, 2014, 12:16:51 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2014, 11:42:05 AM
    I'll be the one guy who says I never thought Carthage had a chance, nor do I think they deserve to be in the tournament. 

    I'll be the next to say the same. Might not count for much now but I got the $10 to prove that this was a pre-selection announcement opinion. Thanks KnightSlappy.

    I just never felt Carthage had as many wins as they needed. Great SOS and a lot of games against regionally ranked teams, but that winning percentage would be historically low for a Pool C.

    But the question isn't Carthage in a vacuum. I don't think anyone would argue that their resume necessarily had to be a slam dunk inclusion.

    The question is how does that go with what the regional rankings were saying all along? Carthage was ahead of Rose-Hulman in the final public rankings, even though RHIT was 0.800/.515/2-1 (basically the Dickinson resume).

    And how does that go with Emory being selected as, basically, one of the top 16 teams in the tournament?

    It seems like either (1) Carthage is out and you have no qualms about sending the Emory pod to Centre or (2) Emory hosts the pod and Carthage gets in as a Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2014, 12:34:49 PM
    Quote from: CCHoopster on March 04, 2014, 12:27:33 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2014, 07:56:55 AM

    I finally finished Hoopsville.  It seems like what's happening is not a de-emphasizing of vRRO, they're just setting a benchmark.  Dickinson proved they were looking for better opponents and the committee didn't want to punish them because they tried.  That's the only conclusion I can come to.

    I still don't like it.  Teams from better conferences deserve credit for being in those conferences (and playing well), but it seems like they wanted to reward teams that did seek out some strong non-conference opponents, and not punish them for a weak conference.

    See the MAC Commonwealth who gets 1 team in each year which is absurd. 3rd toughest SOS in the nation this year. I guess so long as the NESCAC and ODAC get their teams and host sites the snotty, pencil sharpeners are ok with that.

    The MACC just didn't have a team with a Pool C resume. I don't think there's a slight here. I thought it was perfectly reasonable for Dickinson to stay ahead of Messiah/Stevenson. I'm really not even sure why there's a question here.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2014, 12:38:36 PM

    It seems like they were trying to treat each region equally as well, when it comes to hosting.

    The Emory thing is bunk, though.  They could have sent them on the road.  Maybe they felt it was inappropriate for the best team in a pod not to host.  Dumb, but at least say it.

    They clearly thought RMC and VWC were the best in the South - they hosted.

    Emory gets it, I think, because the committee believes they're better than Centre and they didn't realize how many people have google maps.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 04, 2014, 01:26:33 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 04, 2014, 12:38:36 PM

    I"Emory gets it, I think, because the committee believes they're better than Centre and they didn't realize how many people have google maps."

    Haha!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: mwunder on March 04, 2014, 01:38:32 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on March 04, 2014, 12:16:51 PM
    Look at it this way; there was fuss over Carthage but not North Central, despite North Central having a very similar resume in the SOS and RvRRO columns. No one had a problem leaving North Central well off the bubble because of a poor winning percentage so we all accept there is a line to be drawn somewhere as far as winning percentage is concerned. The committee obviously wasn't willing to move the line to a historical low and I don't see how that can be much of a surprise at all.

    I'm not surprised that Carthage didn't get in, but comparing them to North Central, who they beat twice this season and who didn't even make the conference tourney is kinda silly isn't it?  North Central has two wins against teams in the tournament.  Carthage has 4.

    To be honest, this isn't even Carthage's worst tournament snub...that came back in 2003 when they tied for the conference championship at 11-3 and were 19-6 overall and got passed over for an Aurora team that got blown out in the first round.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2014, 01:44:52 PM
    Aurora won in the first round in 2003, then lost to an Elite Eight team.
    http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/men/2003/2003-bracket

    Hard to compare these tournaments to the 48-team tournaments, though. Just not the same when you're dealing with seven or so Pool C bids.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 04, 2014, 01:54:39 PM
    I don't see Carthage getting snubbed as one of the major blunders (or even a blunder at all) of this bracket...

    Carthage's resume doesn't screem "should have been in!" to me... It screems, "good enough to make a strong case for but not be too upset if we don't get in"

    That being said, Carthage's snub stings when compared to Bowdoin. Massey puts Carthage 34th between Centre and OWU and Bowdoin 50th between Ohio Northern and Dubuque. But if you gave me the power to remove Bowdoin, I don't know if I replace them with Carthage. Christopher Newport, DePauw,  William Patterson, and Stevenson would be on my "consider" list...

    Still trying to grasp how an 8 loss, non-conference winner gets a BYE...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 04, 2014, 02:23:13 PM
    I had Carthage in.  I always figured the Red Men would get the nod over Emory as low WP/high SOS & RRO options because of Carthage's win over Wash U, while Emory was 0-2 vs Wash U.

    - Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
    - Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2

    I thought that Wash U result was going to be the deciding factor in getting Carthage in.

    But I feel the same about the Carthage men as I do the Illinois Wesleyan women -- the resumes were not strong enough for any type of cry of outrage.  I definitely get why they ended up on the wrong side of the bubble. 

    Like others, I just feel frustrated with the lack of clarity around how the numbers were interpreted by the committee throughout the entire process.  Seems like so much inconsistency.  That Hoopsville interview with national committee chair Steve Ulrich was pretty disheartening.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on March 04, 2014, 02:29:24 PM
    Quote from: mwunder on March 04, 2014, 01:38:32 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on March 04, 2014, 12:16:51 PM
    Look at it this way; there was fuss over Carthage but not North Central, despite North Central having a very similar resume in the SOS and RvRRO columns. No one had a problem leaving North Central well off the bubble because of a poor winning percentage so we all accept there is a line to be drawn somewhere as far as winning percentage is concerned. The committee obviously wasn't willing to move the line to a historical low and I don't see how that can be much of a surprise at all.

    I'm not surprised that Carthage didn't get in, but comparing them to North Central, who they beat twice this season and who didn't even make the conference tourney is kinda silly isn't it?  North Central has two wins against teams in the tournament.  Carthage has 4.

    To be honest, this isn't even Carthage's worst tournament snub...that came back in 2003 when they tied for the conference championship at 11-3 and were 19-6 overall and got passed over for an Aurora team that got blown out in the first round.

    All I was saying is that at some point you just don't have enough wins to get considered even though you have a stellar SOS and a lot of results against regionally ranked opponents. Carthage is certainly better than North Central, but in the last set of numbers that KnightSlappy posted on this board the difference in SOS between the two was not significant and Carthage was 4-7 against regionally ranked opponents while North Central was 3-8.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 04, 2014, 02:34:17 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on March 04, 2014, 02:29:24 PM
    Quote from: mwunder on March 04, 2014, 01:38:32 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on March 04, 2014, 12:16:51 PM
    Look at it this way; there was fuss over Carthage but not North Central, despite North Central having a very similar resume in the SOS and RvRRO columns. No one had a problem leaving North Central well off the bubble because of a poor winning percentage so we all accept there is a line to be drawn somewhere as far as winning percentage is concerned. The committee obviously wasn't willing to move the line to a historical low and I don't see how that can be much of a surprise at all.

    I'm not surprised that Carthage didn't get in, but comparing them to North Central, who they beat twice this season and who didn't even make the conference tourney is kinda silly isn't it?  North Central has two wins against teams in the tournament.  Carthage has 4.

    To be honest, this isn't even Carthage's worst tournament snub...that came back in 2003 when they tied for the conference championship at 11-3 and were 19-6 overall and got passed over for an Aurora team that got blown out in the first round.

    All I was saying is that at some point you just don't have enough wins to get considered even though you have a stellar SOS and a lot of results against regionally ranked opponents. Carthage is certainly better than North Central, but in the last set of numbers that KnightSlappy posted on this board the difference in SOS between the two was not significant and Carthage was 4-7 against regionally ranked opponents while North Central was 3-8.

    The difference in wins was quite significant. Carthage won 4 more games than North Central did. If you use something like RPI, you see they're not close.

    Why should this (bold) be the case though? If you go .500 and your schedule is full of UWSPs Wash Us and Amhersts, you could be a dang good team, one of the best in the country.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 04, 2014, 02:55:49 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 04, 2014, 02:23:13 PM
    But I feel the same about the Carthage men as I do the Illinois Wesleyan women -- the resumes were not strong enough for any type of cry of outrage.  I definitely get why they ended up on the wrong side of the bubble. 
    It sounded like Bosko wasn't outraged, just disappointed after believing the the committee was going to evaluate the criteria somewhat predictably. 

    To me, big wins are a big criteria.  Carthage had better losses and better wins.  It was just preposterous when Ulrich was trying to say Carthage didn't beat enough good teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on March 04, 2014, 03:06:03 PM
    The reason nobody is talking about North Central the way they are about Carthage is that, given the two Carthage wins in H2H games, you *can't* really talk about the Red Birds before you talk about the Red Men.

    I have no issue if the committee emphasizes different criteria from year to year.  If a rep who prioritizes strength of schedule rolls off and is replaced by an individual who believes quality of wins vs RRO (i.e. "results" against RRO) is more important, then the new dude on the block should have the latitude to influence the way the committee weighs and prioritizes the criteria.

    But that's not what happened here.  If the comments from the committee chair accurately capture the process, then the committee made up new criteria out of whole cloth.  And that is really disappointing.  Weigh the stated criteria however you want, but a couple hundred schools went into the season expecting to be judged on 'x', not on a new criteria introduced after everyone has crossed the finish line.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2014, 03:13:30 PM
    Ultimately, though, with 19 Pool C spots - no one who got left out completed the season the way they planned.  Even if you come in with a set schedule and a plan to line up for the stated selection criteria, the teams that got left out - Carthage, Stevenson, William Patterson - none of them executed the plan in the way they wanted to.

    When we had less Pool C spots, there were teams who did everything right and still missed out.  At least we don't have that anymore.  Ten years ago we would all have been ecstatic to be arguing over the minutia of criteria application as opposed to blatant snubs.

    It's a step back from the last few years, but it's not a big step back.  They can get it fixed next year.  I hope they do.

    Maybe, in the end, Mike DeWitt was just ahead of his time.  He's coming out of this thing looking freakin amazing.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on March 04, 2014, 03:16:12 PM
    Quote from: kiko on March 04, 2014, 03:06:03 PM
    The reason nobody is talking about North Central the way they are about Carthage is that, given the two Carthage wins in H2H games, you *can't* really talk about the Red Birds before you talk about the Red Men.

    My point is being missed. I apologize for not presenting it clearly enough.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 04, 2014, 03:22:03 PM
    I kind of wonder if all the great work some of our posters do isn't giving a false impression of where teams actually stand in the process.  I mean, I think we're close most of the time but none of our opinions are really the committee's opinions or interpretations of the criteria.

    Best example is Carthage.  TitanQ, Bopal and Knightslappy all had them in, while I never posted any list I really didn't think Carthage was in the good position everyone else thought they were.  The win% wasn't going to stack up well.

    If we hadn't been reading posts about how Carthage was in for two weeks, would it matter to any of us that Carthage was out on Monday afternoon?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on March 04, 2014, 03:24:18 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 04, 2014, 03:22:03 PM
    I kind of wonder if all the great work some of our posters do isn't giving a false impression of where teams actually stand in the process.  I mean, I think we're close most of the time but none of our opinions are really the committee's opinions or interpretations of the criteria.

    Best example is Carthage.  TitanQ, Bopal and Knightslappy all had them in, while I never posted any list I really didn't think Carthage was in the good position everyone else thought they were.  The win% wasn't going to stack up well.

    If we hadn't been reading posts about how Carthage was in for two weeks, would it matter to any of us that Carthage was out on Monday afternoon?

    I think it would because of the way Carthage was treated during the regional ranking process. I think most of our prognosticators were tuning their predictions in based on the signals that were being sent through observing the regional rankings.

    Perhaps it is time to seriously consider removing WP and SOS as individual criteria in favor of RPI. The committees clearly have a number of factors to consider and starting with RPI turns two numbers into one. At least that way we know WP and SOS is balanced equally between the RACs and the Nat'l committee and no time has to be spent trying to reconcile differences like weak SOS but strong WP and vice versa. Take the RPI and move on to results versus regionally ranked and the secondary criteria to sort it out from there.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 04, 2014, 03:29:13 PM
    I always thought 9 losses might be too much, deapite the SOS and the vRRO. I wasnt surprised they didn't make it and I guess I wouldn't have been completely surprised if they did.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 04, 2014, 03:36:34 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 04, 2014, 03:22:03 PM
    I kind of wonder if all the great work some of our posters do isn't giving a false impression of where teams actually stand in the process.  I mean, I think we're close most of the time but none of our opinions are really the committee's opinions or interpretations of the criteria.

    Best example is Carthage.  TitanQ, Bopal and Knightslappy all had them in, while I never posted any list I really didn't think Carthage was in the good position everyone else thought they were.  The win% wasn't going to stack up well.

    If we hadn't been reading posts about how Carthage was in for two weeks, would it matter to any of us that Carthage was out on Monday afternoon?

    I'll freely admit that I am a Carthage fan, so I was probably biased in my thinking.  But, in the end, I started having a lot of trouble when I made my last four picks (Carthage, OWU, Wittenberg, Stevenson) over a few others (Dickinson, Springfield, Staten Island, DePauw).  Any 4 of those eight would have been acceptable.

    So, I can't complain too much on the actual picks except for Bowdoin having no business being in and William Paterson should have been in.

    My bigger issue is that the committee chair couldn't explain the logic of the picks in a coherent way.  If they had said, well, Carthage had a great SOS, but a .080 difference in SOS doesn't overcome a .170 difference in winning percentage as we generally employed a 2 x difference in SOS need to overcome the different in WP and you can see how we employed that ratio here, here and here as well and by the way, that is in line with the regionally rankings, etc. etc.  If it was within this amount,, then we considered RRO by looking at it this way.

    That is, they had a process.  But they didn't have a process.  If you go by the process used in the regionally rankings, then Carthage should have been in.  Or maybe that was an illusion of a process as well.


    EDIT: should have included DePauw in above.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2014, 04:35:51 PM
    By the way, I think Stevenson should have been ahead of Dickinson for the following reasons: SU's SOS was higher (slightly, but still), they ended up having a 4-4 or 5-5 vRRO (according to what they were told by a RAC member today) compared to Dickinson's 2-1, they had played at least one team regionally ranked in the final week and Dickinson played none.

    I was told today, but not first-hand, that the vRRO was considered like a winning percentage and not as "results" which meant Stevenson's .500 in eight or ten games was looked down at compared to Dickinson's .667 in three games. Dickinson was basically rewarded for playing in a less challenging conference and playing enough teams to boost their SOS but not hurt their vRRO. Stevenson is now questioning how they schedule (as are many teams, I suspect), because the overriding message over the years is play better opponents (see Staten Island, Albertus Magnus, etc.), but when Stevenson does do that compared to Dickinson... they are punished for it. The interview I had with Dickinson's head coach was eye-opening and disturbing... it was the interview right before Steve Ulrich's on Monday.

    I understand why Dickinson probably made the tournament, but I think the Mid-Atlantic Region screwed up... and from what I am gathering it is a mess on the RAC. If the RAC had been smart, they would have put Stevenson or even Christopher Newport ahead of Dickinson... from the stand-point that if Dickinson's resume was good enough to get into the tournament - even late - then the other team's resume (which is arguable better) could have gotten that team in first. Imagine if CNU or Stevenson is on the board and is selected and then Dickinson enters the fray and gets the selection at arguable the same spot late in the process. They didn't give themselves the best opportunity to get multiple teams in because I promise you while the RAC rewarded Dickinson's 2-1 vRRO... the national committee probably got stuck on that criteria and would have looked differently at a 4-4 or whatever Stevenson and CNU brought to the table. They also may have looked at the "results" instead of the winning percentage.

    By the way, we probably saw this in the Atlantic Region as well, because I bet Staten Island was the first team to the table and blocked William Paterson from ever having a chance (arguable who had the better resume - at least WP played regionally ranked teams).

    And by the way, I see that across the board. This is a conversation I plan to dive into even more with some people... because I think some voices are not preaching the right argument and some voices are being quiet because they have no clue - and I think the Mid-Atlantic region and each conference has some soul searching to be done and raise some hard questions with their RAC members.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 04, 2014, 04:46:27 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 04, 2014, 03:22:03 PM
    I kind of wonder if all the great work some of our posters do isn't giving a false impression of where teams actually stand in the process.  I mean, I think we're close most of the time but none of our opinions are really the committee's opinions or interpretations of the criteria.

    Best example is Carthage.  TitanQ, Bopal and Knightslappy all had them in, while I never posted any list I really didn't think Carthage was in the good position everyone else thought they were.  The win% wasn't going to stack up well.

    If we hadn't been reading posts about how Carthage was in for two weeks, would it matter to any of us that Carthage was out on Monday afternoon?

    Regardless of Pool C prognostications from posters, I'm guessing there would be a lot of chatter about any team D3hoops.com projected in that got left out.  (They had Carthage in.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on March 04, 2014, 05:08:42 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2014, 04:35:51 PM


    I was told today, but not first-hand, that the vRRO was considered like a winning percentage and not as "results" which meant Stevenson's .500 in eight or ten games was looked down at compared to Dickinson's .667 in three games. Dickinson was basically rewarded for playing in a less challenging conference and playing enough teams to boost their SOS but not hurt their vRRO. Stevenson is now questioning how they schedule (as are many teams, I suspect), because the overriding message over the years is play better opponents (see Staten Island, Albertus Magnus, etc.), but when Stevenson does do that compared to Dickinson... they are punished for it. The interview I had with Dickinson's head coach was eye-opening and disturbing... it was the interview right before Steve Ulrich's on Monday.


    Wow, placing a greater emphasis on winning percentage as opposed to results when looking at vRRO. That's ridiculous, and I agree--it's rewarding a team for playing a less challenging schedule. And the Dickinson-Stephenson comparison isn't isolated. Take Middlebury and Bowdoin.

    My seven-year-old articulated it perfectly at the dinner table last night: "This doesn't make sense, Dad. Middlebury and Bowdoin had the same conference record (and Middlebury finished ahead of Bowdoin in the conference), Middlebury beat Bowdoin, and Bowdoin lost in the conference quarterfinals while Middlebury advanced to the semi-finals and lost to a ranked team."

    "Right, but Bowdoin lost four fewer games this year than Middlebury did."

    "But, Middlebury played tougher teams--Plattsburgh, Alvernia, Stevenson, St. Mary's. If we switched schedules with Bowdoin, I bet we'd have the better record."

    And there's the rub. If we had switched schedules. I'm not arguing that Middlebury should have gotten a bid this year. With a 17-9 record, the Panthers had plenty of opportunities (Williams twice, Amherst once, games we led at the half) to get that signature win (or two), which could have earned a trip to the tournament. It didn't happen. Ok. But when the difference is the out-of-conference schedule that is played, that sends a message, and I think it's an unfortunate one. I love the jamboree tournaments that Hoopsville and D3hoops puts on. I would much prefer to see Middlebury play a competitive game against Plattsburgh than a snoozer of a win over whomever. But the NCAA is sending a different message, and I think that's unfortunate.

    And as much as I'm happy for the Bowdoin program to experience an NCAA tournament, as much as I like the respect that signals for the NESCAC, I can't honestly say that Bowdoin deserves a selection over Middlebury (or over any of the other teams that might deserve it over the Panthers--Stevenson(!), William Patterson--I just use Midd as a comparison because there is such a strong baseline by which to do so). Maybe one can argue criteria and say, it is what it is. And I can accept that. But this seems to be a case where even the criteria is not applied correctly, and the message that is received through the bids granted (as opposed to the lip service we hear) is that it pays to play it safe. If you're in a tough conference, load up on cupcakes before January.



    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on March 04, 2014, 05:44:04 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 04, 2014, 02:23:13 PM
    I had Carthage in.  I always figured the Red Men would get the nod over Emory as low WP/high SOS & RRO options because of Carthage's win over Wash U, while Emory was 0-2 vs Wash U.

    - Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
    - Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2

    I thought that Wash U result was going to be the deciding factor in getting Carthage in.

    But I feel the same about the Carthage men as I do the Illinois Wesleyan women -- the resumes were not strong enough for any type of cry of outrage.  I definitely get why they ended up on the wrong side of the bubble. 

    Like others, I just feel frustrated with the lack of clarity around how the numbers were interpreted by the committee throughout the entire process.  Seems like so much inconsistency.  That Hoopsville interview with national committee chair Steve Ulrich was pretty disheartening.

    I wonder if "#6 in the Midwest" vs "#2 in the South" factored in at all. I know it wasn't brought up in the least... but one of the things that was mentioned was that the committee tried to get the top two seeds in each region to host.

    That, of course, would necessitate the top two regionally ranked teams in every region to get in.

    I'll modify this for space to just take (up to) the top 3 seeds:

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2014, 04:38:17 PM
    JUST POOL C TEAMS LISTED

    GREEN got Pool C bids


    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2014, 10:20:15 PM








       TEAM-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       3. Staten Island      24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final    
                            
       TEAM-EAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      WON vs Geneseo 73-69; LOST vs Brockport State 57-56 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-GREAT-LAKES      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Hope      18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; LOST vs Calvin 78-53 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       3.Wesley      20-2, 22-2      CAC      LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal    
                            
       TEAM-MIDWEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Illinois Wesleyan      22-3, 22-3      CCIW      WON vs Carthage 76-71; LOST vs Wheaton 87-66 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-NORTHEAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      WON vs Middlebury 78-75; LOST vs Amherst 93-82 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-SOUTH      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal    
       2. Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      LOST at Rochester 97-83   
                            
       TEAM-WEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      WON vs La Crosse 76-73; LOST at Stevens Point 74-57 in Final   

    Every other #1 and #2 was in the tourney, as shown above.

    Had Emory not gotten in, then the #2 seed in the South wouldn't have gotten in the tournament... and they wouldn't have had an opportunity to host.

    And the statement was made that the top two seeds in every region got to host (that's at least what the committee tried to do and thus why Emory got to host).

    This may be a stretch (getting to the level of a conspiracy theory, I'm willing to admit) but I wonder if Emory either just grew on the committee (due to familiarity) or if in the end an additional criterion was introduced (ranked higher in their region) and this got Emory in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 04, 2014, 06:23:45 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on March 04, 2014, 05:44:04 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 04, 2014, 02:23:13 PM
    I had Carthage in.  I always figured the Red Men would get the nod over Emory as low WP/high SOS & RRO options because of Carthage's win over Wash U, while Emory was 0-2 vs Wash U.

    - Carthage (CCIW) - .625/.599/4-7   Midwest #6
    - Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2

    I thought that Wash U result was going to be the deciding factor in getting Carthage in.

    But I feel the same about the Carthage men as I do the Illinois Wesleyan women -- the resumes were not strong enough for any type of cry of outrage.  I definitely get why they ended up on the wrong side of the bubble. 

    Like others, I just feel frustrated with the lack of clarity around how the numbers were interpreted by the committee throughout the entire process.  Seems like so much inconsistency.  That Hoopsville interview with national committee chair Steve Ulrich was pretty disheartening.

    I wonder if "#6 in the Midwest" vs "#2 in the South" factored in at all. I know it wasn't brought up in the least... but one of the things that was mentioned was that the committee tried to get the top two seeds in each region to host.

    That, of course, would necessitate the top two regionally ranked teams in every region to get in.

    I'll modify this for space to just take (up to) the top 3 seeds:

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2014, 04:38:17 PM
    JUST POOL C TEAMS LISTED

    GREEN got Pool C bids


    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2014, 10:20:15 PM








       TEAM-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       3. Staten Island      24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final    
                            
       TEAM-EAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      WON vs Geneseo 73-69; LOST vs Brockport State 57-56 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-GREAT-LAKES      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Hope      18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; LOST vs Calvin 78-53 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       3.Wesley      20-2, 22-2      CAC      LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal    
                            
       TEAM-MIDWEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Illinois Wesleyan      22-3, 22-3      CCIW      WON vs Carthage 76-71; LOST vs Wheaton 87-66 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-NORTHEAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      WON vs Middlebury 78-75; LOST vs Amherst 93-82 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-SOUTH      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal    
       2. Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      LOST at Rochester 97-83   
                            
       TEAM-WEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      WON vs La Crosse 76-73; LOST at Stevens Point 74-57 in Final   

    Every other #1 and #2 was in the tourney, as shown above.

    Had Emory not gotten in, then the #2 seed in the South wouldn't have gotten in the tournament... and they wouldn't have had an opportunity to host.

    And the statement was made that the top two seeds in every region got to host (that's at least what the committee tried to do and thus why Emory got to host).

    This may be a stretch (getting to the level of a conspiracy theory, I'm willing to admit) but I wonder if Emory either just grew on the committee (due to familiarity) or if in the end an additional criterion was introduced (ranked higher in their region) and this got Emory in.

    They didn't try very hard-Scranton in Mid-Atlantic and Richard Stockton in Atlantic are #2s who aren't hosting; South has 3 hosts and some western regional has 3 hosts, also.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2014, 06:25:08 PM
    South actually has four: Emory, UT-Dallas, Randolph-Macon and Virginia Wesleyan.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: mwunder on March 04, 2014, 08:20:34 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2014, 01:44:52 PM
    Aurora won in the first round in 2003, then lost to an Elite Eight team.
    http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/men/2003/2003-bracket

    Hard to compare these tournaments to the 48-team tournaments, though. Just not the same when you're dealing with seven or so Pool C bids.

    Sorry...got blown out in the second round.  My mistake.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 04, 2014, 10:16:15 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on March 04, 2014, 05:08:42 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2014, 04:35:51 PM


    I was told today, but not first-hand, that the vRRO was considered like a winning percentage and not as "results" which meant Stevenson's .500 in eight or ten games was looked down at compared to Dickinson's .667 in three games. Dickinson was basically rewarded for playing in a less challenging conference and playing enough teams to boost their SOS but not hurt their vRRO. Stevenson is now questioning how they schedule (as are many teams, I suspect), because the overriding message over the years is play better opponents (see Staten Island, Albertus Magnus, etc.), but when Stevenson does do that compared to Dickinson... they are punished for it. The interview I had with Dickinson's head coach was eye-opening and disturbing... it was the interview right before Steve Ulrich's on Monday.


    Wow, placing a greater emphasis on winning percentage as opposed to results when looking at vRRO. That's ridiculous, and I agree--it's rewarding a team for playing a less challenging schedule. And the Dickinson-Stephenson comparison isn't isolated. Take Middlebury and Bowdoin.

    My seven-year-old articulated it perfectly at the dinner table last night: "This doesn't make sense, Dad. Middlebury and Bowdoin had the same conference record (and Middlebury finished ahead of Bowdoin in the conference), Middlebury beat Bowdoin, and Bowdoin lost in the conference quarterfinals while Middlebury advanced to the semi-finals and lost to a ranked team."

    "Right, but Bowdoin lost four fewer games this year than Middlebury did."

    "But, Middlebury played tougher teams--Plattsburgh, Alvernia, Stevenson, St. Mary's. If we switched schedules with Bowdoin, I bet we'd have the better record."


    That's a pretty deep conversation to have with a seven-year old.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hugenerd on March 04, 2014, 11:26:40 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on March 04, 2014, 05:08:42 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2014, 04:35:51 PM


    I was told today, but not first-hand, that the vRRO was considered like a winning percentage and not as "results" which meant Stevenson's .500 in eight or ten games was looked down at compared to Dickinson's .667 in three games. Dickinson was basically rewarded for playing in a less challenging conference and playing enough teams to boost their SOS but not hurt their vRRO. Stevenson is now questioning how they schedule (as are many teams, I suspect), because the overriding message over the years is play better opponents (see Staten Island, Albertus Magnus, etc.), but when Stevenson does do that compared to Dickinson... they are punished for it. The interview I had with Dickinson's head coach was eye-opening and disturbing... it was the interview right before Steve Ulrich's on Monday.


    Wow, placing a greater emphasis on winning percentage as opposed to results when looking at vRRO. That's ridiculous, and I agree--it's rewarding a team for playing a less challenging schedule. And the Dickinson-Stephenson comparison isn't isolated. Take Middlebury and Bowdoin.

    My seven-year-old articulated it perfectly at the dinner table last night: "This doesn't make sense, Dad. Middlebury and Bowdoin had the same conference record (and Middlebury finished ahead of Bowdoin in the conference), Middlebury beat Bowdoin, and Bowdoin lost in the conference quarterfinals while Middlebury advanced to the semi-finals and lost to a ranked team."

    "Right, but Bowdoin lost four fewer games this year than Middlebury did."

    "But, Middlebury played tougher teams--Plattsburgh, Alvernia, Stevenson, St. Mary's. If we switched schedules with Bowdoin, I bet we'd have the better record."

    And there's the rub. If we had switched schedules. I'm not arguing that Middlebury should have gotten a bid this year. With a 17-9 record, the Panthers had plenty of opportunities (Williams twice, Amherst once, games we led at the half) to get that signature win (or two), which could have earned a trip to the tournament. It didn't happen. Ok. But when the difference is the out-of-conference schedule that is played, that sends a message, and I think it's an unfortunate one. I love the jamboree tournaments that Hoopsville and D3hoops puts on. I would much prefer to see Middlebury play a competitive game against Plattsburgh than a snoozer of a win over whomever. But the NCAA is sending a different message, and I think that's unfortunate.

    And as much as I'm happy for the Bowdoin program to experience an NCAA tournament, as much as I like the respect that signals for the NESCAC, I can't honestly say that Bowdoin deserves a selection over Middlebury (or over any of the other teams that might deserve it over the Panthers--Stevenson(!), William Patterson--I just use Midd as a comparison because there is such a strong baseline by which to do so). Maybe one can argue criteria and say, it is what it is. And I can accept that. But this seems to be a case where even the criteria is not applied correctly, and the message that is received through the bids granted (as opposed to the lip service we hear) is that it pays to play it safe. If you're in a tough conference, load up on cupcakes before January.

    I think the frustration for a lot of people, which was evident with those on the air yesterday (Pat and Dave), is that not only was potentially the wrong message conveyed, but it was not consistently applied.  For some teams, SOS got them in (Emory, Springfield, etc.), while others were severely penalized for lacking SOS (Staten Island), but for others it didnt really seem to matter (Bowdoin had a 0.503, to Middlebury's 0.571 and Middlebury had the head-to-head, etc.).  It seemed like, in addition to the official criteria, there was a bunch of tertiary criteria that was applied, that are no where in the official selection guidance.  By tertiary criteria I mean criteria that could be rationalized as the 'eye test,' such as: i) 9-10 losses are too many to get an at-large bid (but not 8), ii) an SOS less than 0.500 precludes a team from at-large consideration, iii) vRRO is a completely subjective criteria that can be interpreted in any way desired to rationalize inconsistency from the selection committee (including rationalizing why a low number of RRO results should benefit a team from a less represented conference in the regional rankings - Dickinson - while in other cases vRRO was the deciding tiebreaker).  Note that the Bowdoin selection doesn't make any sense based on all these arguments, because they had a 'low' SOS (especially for the NESCAC that only has 10 required league games) at 0.503 and had 3 of their 4 RRO results (all 3 losses) because of the conference they were in AND there was a team in their conference that beat them head-to-head, had a much higher SOS (0.571 vs. 0.503), had 5 additional RRO results (3-6 vs. 1-3), had a higher RRO win percentage, but had 4 additional losses and 0.15% lower WP mainly due to the fact that they had a more difficult schedule (although, some of those losses were against teams they should have beat).

    After listening to last night's discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the 'eye test' is not in-fact a test adminestered by being intimately familiar with a given team by watching them play (I know many of you have offered to send game tapes) and comparing them subjectively to another team (which is also completely inappropriate), but what was really meant is that overall records and SOS' were eyeballed and that subjective criteria excluded certain teams from at-large consideration.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 04, 2014, 11:29:56 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2014, 04:35:51 PM
    By the way, I think Stevenson should have been ahead of Dickinson for the following reasons: SU's SOS was higher (slightly, but still), they ended up having a 4-4 or 5-5 vRRO (according to what they were told by a RAC member today) compared to Dickinson's 2-1, they had played at least one team regionally ranked in the final week and Dickinson played none.

    I was told today, but not first-hand, that the vRRO was considered like a winning percentage and not as "results" which meant Stevenson's .500 in eight or ten games was looked down at compared to Dickinson's .667 in three games. Dickinson was basically rewarded for playing in a less challenging conference and playing enough teams to boost their SOS but not hurt their vRRO. Stevenson is now questioning how they schedule (as are many teams, I suspect), because the overriding message over the years is play better opponents (see Staten Island, Albertus Magnus, etc.), but when Stevenson does do that compared to Dickinson... they are punished for it. The interview I had with Dickinson's head coach was eye-opening and disturbing... it was the interview right before Steve Ulrich's on Monday.

    I understand why Dickinson probably made the tournament, but I think the Mid-Atlantic Region screwed up... and from what I am gathering it is a mess on the RAC. If the RAC had been smart, they would have put Stevenson or even Christopher Newport ahead of Dickinson... from the stand-point that if Dickinson's resume was good enough to get into the tournament - even late - then the other team's resume (which is arguable better) could have gotten that team in first. Imagine if CNU or Stevenson is on the board and is selected and then Dickinson enters the fray and gets the selection at arguable the same spot late in the process. They didn't give themselves the best opportunity to get multiple teams in because I promise you while the RAC rewarded Dickinson's 2-1 vRRO... the national committee probably got stuck on that criteria and would have looked differently at a 4-4 or whatever Stevenson and CNU brought to the table. They also may have looked at the "results" instead of the winning percentage.

    By the way, we probably saw this in the Atlantic Region as well, because I bet Staten Island was the first team to the table and blocked William Paterson from ever having a chance (arguable who had the better resume - at least WP played regionally ranked teams).

    And by the way, I see that across the board. This is a conversation I plan to dive into even more with some people... because I think some voices are not preaching the right argument and some voices are being quiet because they have no clue - and I think the Mid-Atlantic region and each conference has some soul searching to be done and raise some hard questions with their RAC members.

    Keep on this.  At the very least, it'll get the current committee thinking about the process and transparency and hopefully they'll do a better job in the future.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CardsFan on March 05, 2014, 12:06:29 AM
    So what we learned yesterday is that the entire process is inconsistent. As others have said, SOS mattered in some cases and not in others. Inconsistency leads to suspicion even when none should be there. On the surface, it doesn't look good when a somewhat qualified Dickinson team gets in over a Stevenson or CNU when the head of the committee is the commissioner of the Centennial Conference. I do not believe that anything wrong happened with that, but on the surface it doesn't look great.

    This inconsistency is going to mess with the product if certain teams (Stevenson) really try to alter how they schedule. Coaches won't have any idea how the committee wants them to schedule and that will lead to more mistakes. Stevenson could change their schedule and next year the committee will value different things. It dilutes the product if the message gets out that teams in strong conferences will be penalized for their vRRO being mainly from conference opponents.

    Also, I'd like to see the "eye-test" have some part in the selection process. Selection cannot be all numbers or all eye-test. It would have to be impartial people for each region watching the teams throughout the season. I don't know how it would all work, but I think there needs to be a balance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 05, 2014, 01:25:52 AM
    I gotta stick up for Staten Island against the elitists. IF Eastern Mennonite and Ramapo hadn't slid down to mediocrity, their non-conference would have been fairly decent. And to slam them for their conference isn't fair. It's their conference. Yeah, they shouldn't have lost to a horrific team, but in conference play and tournaments weird stuff happens.

    Plus, why WOULDN'T Staten Island play NJAC teams? Why WOULDN'T they play ST. Joseph. That's makes perfect sense for them.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 05, 2014, 01:59:21 AM
    Quote from: CardsFan on March 05, 2014, 12:06:29 AM
    So what we learned yesterday is that the entire process is inconsistent. As others have said, SOS mattered in some cases and not in others. Inconsistency leads to suspicion even when none should be there. On the surface, it doesn't look good when a somewhat qualified Dickinson team gets in over a Stevenson or CNU when the head of the committee is the commissioner of the Centennial Conference. I do not believe that anything wrong happened with that, but on the surface it doesn't look great.

    This inconsistency is going to mess with the product if certain teams (Stevenson) really try to alter how they schedule. Coaches won't have any idea how the committee wants them to schedule and that will lead to more mistakes. Stevenson could change their schedule and next year the committee will value different things. It dilutes the product if the message gets out that teams in strong conferences will be penalized for their vRRO being mainly from conference opponents.

    Also, I'd like to see the "eye-test" have some part in the selection process. Selection cannot be all numbers or all eye-test. It would have to be impartial people for each region watching the teams throughout the season. I don't know how it would all work, but I think there needs to be a balance.

    I know in the division 1 process, a person has to leave the room when they bring up the team they work for (if their an AD) and I believe the conference they work for (if their a commissioner).  I definitely know ADs have to leave the room when their school comes up in the division 1 selection, not sure about the commissioners however, but I would think it's the same in division 2 and division 3.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CardsFan on March 05, 2014, 02:29:23 AM
    I'm pretty sure the committee member of a school does have to be out of the room when their team is being discussed. It's still puzzling that Dickinson stayed ahead of Stevenson in the final super-secret regional rankings. Criteria needs to be followed the same way for all teams, otherwise it seems like a coin flip as to who gets in on SOS and who gets in on win %.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 08:02:36 AM
    Yes, they do have to be off the call.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 08:30:13 AM
    Quote from: CardsFan on March 05, 2014, 02:29:23 AM
    It's still puzzling that Dickinson stayed ahead of Stevenson in the final super-secret regional rankings.

    Dickinson (21-6): .778 / .529 / 1-1
    Stevenson (19-8): .704 / .530 / 4-4

    Keeping Dickinson ahead of Stevenson is not clearly incorrect. Dickinson won two more games against the same SOS. Sure, you want to bump Stevenson up for the RRO, but it's not immediately clear that it should make up for the difference in winning percentage (remember: SOS already indicates their schedules are equally difficult).

    I'm very sympathetic to the idea that vRRO is a form of double-counting the SOS. I'm fine with using it as a sort of tiebreaker that shouldn't be placed on equal footing with WP and SOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 05, 2014, 08:31:38 AM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 05, 2014, 01:25:52 AM
    I gotta stick up for Staten Island against the elitists. IF Eastern Mennonite and Ramapo hadn't slid down to mediocrity, their non-conference would have been fairly decent. And to slam them for their conference isn't fair. It's their conference. Yeah, they shouldn't have lost to a horrific team, but in conference play and tournaments weird stuff happens.

    Plus, why WOULDN'T Staten Island play NJAC teams? Why WOULDN'T they play ST. Joseph. That's makes perfect sense for them.
    The slamming was mainly coming from the Staten Island fans.  Dave made one comment about the CUNYAC being terrible after being sworn at multiple times.   It doesn't matter how much I like how they chose their opponents, the numbers aren't biased. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 05, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
    I thought Dave had a good interview with the Staten Island head coach.  One of the things he revealed is that he's part time and Staten Island doesn't have a big budget to do a lot of traveling.

    Its always been a concern of mine that the NCAA was putting requirements on schools who might not be able to simply afford what the NCAA wants them to do.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 05, 2014, 08:48:04 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 08:30:13 AM
    Quote from: CardsFan on March 05, 2014, 02:29:23 AM
    It's still puzzling that Dickinson stayed ahead of Stevenson in the final super-secret regional rankings.

    Dickinson (21-6): .778 / .529 / 1-1
    Stevenson (19-8): .704 / .530 / 4-4

    Keeping Dickinson ahead of Stevenson is not clearly incorrect. Dickinson won two more games against the same SOS. Sure, you want to bump Stevenson up for the RRO, but it's not immediately clear that it should make up for the difference in winning percentage (remember: SOS already indicates their schedules are equally difficult).

    I'm very sympathetic to the idea that vRRO is a form of double-counting the SOS. I'm fine with using it as a sort of tiebreaker that shouldn't be placed on equal footing with WP and SOS.

    To me, these teams are virtually identical.  If they don't have a head to head or common opponents, I think I might rely on other factors to make the determination.

    I saw Stevenson play at the beginning of the year (Hoopsville tournament) they were raw and lacked chemistry, but that is a tournament team.  It would be tough not to rely on the eye test given how closely the numbers match up.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
    I thought Dave had a good interview with the Staten Island head coach.  One of the things he revealed is that he's part time and Staten Island doesn't have a big budget to do a lot of traveling.

    Its always been a concern of mine that the NCAA was putting requirements on schools who might not be able to simply afford what the NCAA wants them to do.
    Requirements?  Are you talking about the minimum number of sports or the fees to maintain membership?  Nobody is required to chase after a better tournament resume.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:20:00 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
    I thought Dave had a good interview with the Staten Island head coach.  One of the things he revealed is that he's part time and Staten Island doesn't have a big budget to do a lot of traveling.

    Its always been a concern of mine that the NCAA was putting requirements on schools who might not be able to simply afford what the NCAA wants them to do.
    Requirements?  Are you talking about the minimum number of sports or the fees to maintain membership?  Nobody is required to chase after a better tournament resume.

    In fact there are if you want a realistic chance to participate in the post-season. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:29:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:20:00 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
    I thought Dave had a good interview with the Staten Island head coach.  One of the things he revealed is that he's part time and Staten Island doesn't have a big budget to do a lot of traveling.

    Its always been a concern of mine that the NCAA was putting requirements on schools who might not be able to simply afford what the NCAA wants them to do.
    Requirements?  Are you talking about the minimum number of sports or the fees to maintain membership?  Nobody is required to chase after a better tournament resume.

    In fact there are if you want a realistic chance to participate in the post-season.
    ????  Staten Island is low budget and they made it last year.  It took a large upset to keep them out of the post-season this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on March 05, 2014, 09:46:22 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 04, 2014, 10:16:15 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on March 04, 2014, 05:08:42 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2014, 04:35:51 PM


    I was told today, but not first-hand, that the vRRO was considered like a winning percentage and not as "results" which meant Stevenson's .500 in eight or ten games was looked down at compared to Dickinson's .667 in three games. Dickinson was basically rewarded for playing in a less challenging conference and playing enough teams to boost their SOS but not hurt their vRRO. Stevenson is now questioning how they schedule (as are many teams, I suspect), because the overriding message over the years is play better opponents (see Staten Island, Albertus Magnus, etc.), but when Stevenson does do that compared to Dickinson... they are punished for it. The interview I had with Dickinson's head coach was eye-opening and disturbing... it was the interview right before Steve Ulrich's on Monday.


    Wow, placing a greater emphasis on winning percentage as opposed to results when looking at vRRO. That's ridiculous, and I agree--it's rewarding a team for playing a less challenging schedule. And the Dickinson-Stephenson comparison isn't isolated. Take Middlebury and Bowdoin.

    My seven-year-old articulated it perfectly at the dinner table last night: "This doesn't make sense, Dad. Middlebury and Bowdoin had the same conference record (and Middlebury finished ahead of Bowdoin in the conference), Middlebury beat Bowdoin, and Bowdoin lost in the conference quarterfinals while Middlebury advanced to the semi-finals and lost to a ranked team."

    "Right, but Bowdoin lost four fewer games this year than Middlebury did."

    "But, Middlebury played tougher teams--Plattsburgh, Alvernia, Stevenson, St. Mary's. If we switched schedules with Bowdoin, I bet we'd have the better record."


    That's a pretty deep conversation to have with a seven-year old.

    I honestly didn't exaggerate, though I should mention that there were some "that's not fair"s sprinkled in as well. Only-child syndrome. The kid is already smarter and wiser than I am (Cue the "That's not saying much, Bucket" chorus)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:55:10 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:29:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:20:00 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
    I thought Dave had a good interview with the Staten Island head coach.  One of the things he revealed is that he's part time and Staten Island doesn't have a big budget to do a lot of traveling.

    Its always been a concern of mine that the NCAA was putting requirements on schools who might not be able to simply afford what the NCAA wants them to do.
    Requirements?  Are you talking about the minimum number of sports or the fees to maintain membership?  Nobody is required to chase after a better tournament resume.

    In fact there are if you want a realistic chance to participate in the post-season.
    ????  Staten Island is low budget and they made it last year.  It took a large upset to keep them out of the post-season this year.

    well a bigger budget would have allowed them to travel more and maybe build a stronger SOS, thus if they were upset this year they might have still made the tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 05, 2014, 10:09:57 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:55:10 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:29:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:20:00 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
    I thought Dave had a good interview with the Staten Island head coach.  One of the things he revealed is that he's part time and Staten Island doesn't have a big budget to do a lot of traveling.

    Its always been a concern of mine that the NCAA was putting requirements on schools who might not be able to simply afford what the NCAA wants them to do.
    Requirements?  Are you talking about the minimum number of sports or the fees to maintain membership?  Nobody is required to chase after a better tournament resume.

    In fact there are if you want a realistic chance to participate in the post-season.
    ????  Staten Island is low budget and they made it last year.  It took a large upset to keep them out of the post-season this year.

    well a bigger budget would have allowed them to travel more and maybe build a stronger SOS, thus if they were upset this year they might have still made the tournament.
    And they might have lost a bunch more games along the way.  It's not as if they don't travel, and that there are no high SOS teams within reasonable distance.  Even if they found a couple better road games, it might not have been a big enough boost this year.  This is a big division with a lot of good teams.  It's not as if a lot of their weaker opponents are getting selected for the tourney either.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 05, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 10:09:57 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:55:10 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:29:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:20:00 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
    I thought Dave had a good interview with the Staten Island head coach.  One of the things he revealed is that he's part time and Staten Island doesn't have a big budget to do a lot of traveling.

    Its always been a concern of mine that the NCAA was putting requirements on schools who might not be able to simply afford what the NCAA wants them to do.
    Requirements?  Are you talking about the minimum number of sports or the fees to maintain membership?  Nobody is required to chase after a better tournament resume.

    In fact there are if you want a realistic chance to participate in the post-season.
    ????  Staten Island is low budget and they made it last year.  It took a large upset to keep them out of the post-season this year.

    well a bigger budget would have allowed them to travel more and maybe build a stronger SOS, thus if they were upset this year they might have still made the tournament.
    And they might have lost a bunch more games along the way.  It's not as if they don't travel, and that there are no high SOS teams within reasonable distance.  Even if they found a couple better road games, it might not have been a big enough boost this year.  This is a big division with a lot of good teams.  It's not as if a lot of their weaker opponents are getting selected for the tourney either.

    It's about institutional philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to spend the money required to travel and compete the way other schools will (or can).  It's just the reality of d3.  If they want to improve their national standing, it's going to cost more money.

    You can't really have it both ways.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:07:58 AM
    One thing Staten Island could have done to help itself was play New Jersey City instead of Rivier in its own tournament. That's something that cost zero money and that CSI had all sorts of control over. They could well have played both Randolph and NJCU but instead played a middling team from a poor conference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:09:23 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 05, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
    It's about institutional philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to spend the money required to travel and compete the way other schools will (or can).  It's just the reality of d3.  If they want to improve their national standing, it's going to cost more money.

    You can't really have it both ways.

    It's possible, though, to play Western Connecticut or Wesleyan or Albertus Magnus instead of Kean or FDU-Florham. Those are all similar distance to some of the NJAC schools and get you into some SOS-rich conferences or in the case of Albertus, a team that is apparently begging for games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 05, 2014, 11:17:20 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:09:23 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 05, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
    It's about institutional philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to spend the money required to travel and compete the way other schools will (or can).  It's just the reality of d3.  If they want to improve their national standing, it's going to cost more money.

    You can't really have it both ways.

    It's possible, though, to play Western Connecticut or Wesleyan or Albertus Magnus instead of Kean or FDU-Florham. Those are all similar distance to some of the NJAC schools and get you into some SOS-rich conferences or in the case of Albertus, a team that is apparently begging for games.

    Yep.  I don't know how difficult it is to match up the teams you want to play with open dates.  I suspect it's a little easier down by NY than it is in New England with so many teams trying to fill out slates.

    I wonder how difficult it would be to go in with another NYC program to sponsor a tournament.  If you each put up incentive $$ for one decent team and you set it up so you get to play both coming in, that's got to be at least equal, if not cheaper, than two trips.  I think you could get some NE and PA schools to do that - especially for a weekend in (or near) New York.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 05, 2014, 11:29:39 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:07:58 AM
    One thing Staten Island could have done to help itself was play New Jersey City instead of Rivier in its own tournament. That's something that cost zero money and that CSI had all sorts of control over. They could well have played both Randolph and NJCU but instead played a middling team from a poor conference.

    This one move would have only boosted the SOS by .004, approximately.

    Staten Island really needs something more dramatic like playing a .700 or better team, preferably on the road. 

    If they replace this schedule with two .700 or better teams, even lose both games they might have made the tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 05, 2014, 11:39:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 11:29:39 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:07:58 AM
    One thing Staten Island could have done to help itself was play New Jersey City instead of Rivier in its own tournament. That's something that cost zero money and that CSI had all sorts of control over. They could well have played both Randolph and NJCU but instead played a middling team from a poor conference.

    This one move would have only boosted the SOS by .004, approximately.

    Staten Island really needs something more dramatic like playing a .700 or better team, preferably on the road. 

    If they replace this schedule with two .700 or better teams, even lose both games they might have made the tournament.

    They need to get into New England more.  The top teams in the CCC are almost always over .700 - the only problem is you never know which teams are going to be in the top from year to year.  Makes scheduling tough.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 12:12:02 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:09:23 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 05, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
    It's about institutional philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to spend the money required to travel and compete the way other schools will (or can).  It's just the reality of d3.  If they want to improve their national standing, it's going to cost more money.

    You can't really have it both ways.

    It's possible, though, to play Western Connecticut or Wesleyan or Albertus Magnus instead of Kean or FDU-Florham. Those are all similar distance to some of the NJAC schools and get you into some SOS-rich conferences or in the case of Albertus, a team that is apparently begging for games.

    Teams with NCAA Tournament aspirations should be lining up to play Albertus. They're going to shred their conference and give you good OWP. The fact that coaches don't schedule them indicates an endemic misunderstanding of how opponents affect your criteria, and how the criteria gets you selected.

    As far as tournament resume goes, you don't need to play good teams so much as teams that look good based on the numbers.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pjunito on March 05, 2014, 01:49:24 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 12:12:02 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:09:23 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 05, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
    It's about institutional philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to spend the money required to travel and compete the way other schools will (or can).  It's just the reality of d3.  If they want to improve their national standing, it's going to cost more money.

    You can't really have it both ways.

    It's possible, though, to play Western Connecticut or Wesleyan or Albertus Magnus instead of Kean or FDU-Florham. Those are all similar distance to some of the NJAC schools and get you into some SOS-rich conferences or in the case of Albertus, a team that is apparently begging for games.

    Teams with NCAA Tournament aspirations should be lining up to play Albertus. They're going to shred their conference and give you good OWP. The fact that coaches don't schedule them indicates an endemic misunderstanding of how opponents affect your criteria, and how the criteria gets you selected.

    As far as tournament resume goes, you don't need to play good teams so much as teams that look good based on the numbers.

    I also think teams like Albertus and CSI, have to understand that they play in a one bid league. I think it causes a lot of issues 1. The fear that top tier schools in major conference won't want to schedule these top teams in poor conferences. 2. The fear that scheduling these top tier schools and losing won't help their pool C bid chances anyway. 3. So, how do you judge these teams?

    I don't think there is a great way to identify which teams are tournament worthy without watching them play a lot. So, the coaches have to understand this and make one of two decisions. Schedule different and hope your resume is good enough or win your conference tournament (then when you play in the tournament, make some noise.) 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 05, 2014, 01:49:51 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 05, 2014, 11:39:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 11:29:39 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:07:58 AM
    One thing Staten Island could have done to help itself was play New Jersey City instead of Rivier in its own tournament. That's something that cost zero money and that CSI had all sorts of control over. They could well have played both Randolph and NJCU but instead played a middling team from a poor conference.

    This one move would have only boosted the SOS by .004, approximately.

    Staten Island really needs something more dramatic like playing a .700 or better team, preferably on the road. 

    If they replace this schedule with two .700 or better teams, even lose both games they might have made the tournament.

    They need to get into New England more.  The top teams in the CCC are almost always over .700 - the only problem is you never know which teams are going to be in the top from year to year.  Makes scheduling tough.

    That's probably more travel than they want to do or can afford, though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 05, 2014, 01:50:20 PM
    Quote from: pjunito on March 05, 2014, 01:49:24 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 12:12:02 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:09:23 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 05, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
    It's about institutional philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to spend the money required to travel and compete the way other schools will (or can).  It's just the reality of d3.  If they want to improve their national standing, it's going to cost more money.

    You can't really have it both ways.

    It's possible, though, to play Western Connecticut or Wesleyan or Albertus Magnus instead of Kean or FDU-Florham. Those are all similar distance to some of the NJAC schools and get you into some SOS-rich conferences or in the case of Albertus, a team that is apparently begging for games.

    Teams with NCAA Tournament aspirations should be lining up to play Albertus. They're going to shred their conference and give you good OWP. The fact that coaches don't schedule them indicates an endemic misunderstanding of how opponents affect your criteria, and how the criteria gets you selected.

    As far as tournament resume goes, you don't need to play good teams so much as teams that look good based on the numbers.

    I also think teams like Albertus and CSI, have to understand that they play in a one bid league. I think it causes a lot of issues 1. The fear that top tier schools in major conference won't want to schedule these top teams in poor conferences. 2. The fear that scheduling these top tier schools and losing won't help their pool C bid chances anyway. 3. So, how do you judge these teams?

    I don't think there is a great way to identify which teams are tournament worthy without watching them play a lot. So, the coaches have to understand this and make one of two decisions. Schedule different and hope your resume is good enough or win your conference tournament (then when you play in the tournament, make some noise.)

    But then there's the budget pickle...you can't just make that go away.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 05, 2014, 02:18:54 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 12:12:02 PM
    As far as tournament resume goes, you don't need to play good teams so much as teams that look good based on the numbers.
    This is what I hoped Ulrich was referring to when talking about looking more deeply into the SOS for each team.  Maybe they can identify some intentional or unintentional "closed loop" scheduling schemes that inflate the SOS for poor conferences who only tend to play other poor conferences. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CCHoopster on March 05, 2014, 02:50:04 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 08:30:13 AM
    Quote from: CardsFan on March 05, 2014, 02:29:23 AM
    It's still puzzling that Dickinson stayed ahead of Stevenson in the final super-secret regional rankings.

    Dickinson (21-6): .778 / .529 / 1-1
    Stevenson (19-8): .704 / .530 / 4-4

    Keeping Dickinson ahead of Stevenson is not clearly incorrect. Dickinson won two more games against the same SOS. Sure, you want to bump Stevenson up for the RRO, but it's not immediately clear that it should make up for the difference in winning percentage (remember: SOS already indicates their schedules are equally difficult).

    I'm very sympathetic to the idea that RRO is a form of double-counting the SOS. I'm fine with using it as a sort of tiebreaker that shouldn't be placed on equal footing with WP and SOS.

    Messiah (MACC) - .760/.532/2-4

    Messiah had 2 of 3 criteria better than Stevenson. Is head to head a primary criteria? (see Scranton jumping cabrini) So why wouldn't the discussion be Dickinson vs Messiah?

    Just asking, no argument. I don't really understand and this year has confused me even more. Which of the 3 criteria are most important?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 03:08:44 PM
    Quote from: CCHoopster on March 05, 2014, 02:50:04 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 08:30:13 AM
    Quote from: CardsFan on March 05, 2014, 02:29:23 AM
    It's still puzzling that Dickinson stayed ahead of Stevenson in the final super-secret regional rankings.

    Dickinson (21-6): .778 / .529 / 1-1
    Stevenson (19-8): .704 / .530 / 4-4

    Keeping Dickinson ahead of Stevenson is not clearly incorrect. Dickinson won two more games against the same SOS. Sure, you want to bump Stevenson up for the RRO, but it's not immediately clear that it should make up for the difference in winning percentage (remember: SOS already indicates their schedules are equally difficult).

    I'm very sympathetic to the idea that RRO is a form of double-counting the SOS. I'm fine with using it as a sort of tiebreaker that shouldn't be placed on equal footing with WP and SOS.

    Messiah (MACC) - .760/.532/2-4

    Messiah had 2 of 3 criteria better than Stevenson. Is head to head a primary criteria? (see Scranton jumping cabrini) So why wouldn't the discussion be Dickinson vs Messiah?

    Just asking, no argument. I don't really understand and this year has confused me even more. Which of the 3 criteria are most important?

    Head-to-head is primary, yes. And 2 of 3 criteria being better is only sort of because .530 and .532 are basically the same.

    Primary Criteria are:
    --Winning percentage vs. D3
    --SOS vs. D3
    --Results vs. Regionally Ranked Opponents
    --Heat-to-head results
    --Results vs. common opponents.

    I don't believe the handbook spells out any sort of relative importance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 05, 2014, 03:19:47 PM
    Wittenberg head coach Bill Brown was on hoopsville a few weeks ago and suggested using a 3 year win% of your opponents to calculate strength of schedule. 

    His rationale was it would help identify who you should be playing, and that if you schedule a good program that has a 'down' year you aren't burned by it so much.  Interesting idea I thought.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 03:32:17 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 11:29:39 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:07:58 AM
    One thing Staten Island could have done to help itself was play New Jersey City instead of Rivier in its own tournament. That's something that cost zero money and that CSI had all sorts of control over. They could well have played both Randolph and NJCU but instead played a middling team from a poor conference.

    This one move would have only boosted the SOS by .004, approximately.

    Staten Island really needs something more dramatic like playing a .700 or better team, preferably on the road. 

    If they replace this schedule with two .700 or better teams, even lose both games they might have made the tournament.

    Oh, I get that one game isn't the be-all and end-all but my point was that they didn't even do something that was completely in their control and cost no money.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 05, 2014, 03:49:39 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 03:32:17 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 11:29:39 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:07:58 AM
    One thing Staten Island could have done to help itself was play New Jersey City instead of Rivier in its own tournament. That's something that cost zero money and that CSI had all sorts of control over. They could well have played both Randolph and NJCU but instead played a middling team from a poor conference.

    This one move would have only boosted the SOS by .004, approximately.

    Staten Island really needs something more dramatic like playing a .700 or better team, preferably on the road. 

    If they replace this schedule with two .700 or better teams, even lose both games they might have made the tournament.

    Oh, I get that one game isn't the be-all and end-all but my point was that they didn't even do something that was completely in their control and cost no money.

    Devil's advocate

    Rivier came a long way to play at Staten Island, perhaps the agreement was to give Rivier a good non-conference opponent in Staten Island.

    NJC was 15-13 last year, 2 games worse than the year before, Rivier was 10-16 and 5 games better, perhaps Staten Island was hoping Rivier would have the better season.

    This is part of what makes scheduling so difficult. :-\
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 03:50:58 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 03:32:17 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 11:29:39 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:07:58 AM
    One thing Staten Island could have done to help itself was play New Jersey City instead of Rivier in its own tournament. That's something that cost zero money and that CSI had all sorts of control over. They could well have played both Randolph and NJCU but instead played a middling team from a poor conference.

    This one move would have only boosted the SOS by .004, approximately.

    Staten Island really needs something more dramatic like playing a .700 or better team, preferably on the road. 

    If they replace this schedule with two .700 or better teams, even lose both games they might have made the tournament.

    Oh, I get that one game isn't the be-all and end-all but my point was that they didn't even do something that was completely in their control and cost no money.

    If they had moved ALL road games to home games (leaving the neutrals as neutrals) they could have improved their SOS by 0.002.

    Playing both games against Medgar Evers at home instead of one at home and one on the road would have raised their SOS by 0.005!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 05, 2014, 04:02:58 PM
    Here's a simple solution to the Staten Island controversy...the conference could award the NCAA bid to the regular season championship instead of the tournament championship.

    There were two conferences (SAA and SCAC) that had tournament finals with no particular meaning.  In the SAA, everyone knew Centre would get the Pool B bid no matter what Oglethorpe did.  In the SCAC, Centenary wasn't eligible for the postseason, so no matter what happened in that final, Trinity was going.  The games were still excellent.

    I don't think there is a rule that the autobid has to go to the tournament winner, so you could still have the tournament, but Staten Island doesn't get hurt by their first bad game in three months.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on March 05, 2014, 04:12:33 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 05, 2014, 04:02:58 PM
    Here's a simple solution to the Staten Island controversy...the conference could award the NCAA bid to the regular season championship instead of the tournament championship.

    There were two conferences (SAA and SCAC) that had tournament finals with no particular meaning.  In the SAA, everyone knew Centre would get the Pool B bid no matter what Oglethorpe did.  In the SCAC, Centenary wasn't eligible for the postseason, so no matter what happened in that final, Trinity was going.  The games were still excellent.

    I don't think there is a rule that the autobid has to go to the tournament winner, so you could still have the tournament, but Staten Island doesn't get hurt by their first bad game in three months.

    This.  One thousand times- THIS. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pjunito on March 05, 2014, 04:28:27 PM
    At the Division 1 level, the IVY league regular season champion gets the automatic bid. They don't have a tournament.

    It would make more sense at the division three level to send the regular season champion, since no conference is making tons of money because of having a tournament. However, the argument could be made that for the weaker conferences, teams that have begun to play better in late January and February but finish 4 games out of first and in third place won't have an opportunity to get the to NCAAs.

    I believe that as a coach, you need to understand what the committee is going to be looking for and with 19 at large bids, you can't take any chances.

    The NCAA tournament is a one game playoff tournament. If you win, you advance or if you lose, your season is over. I think that teams in weak conferences need to think of their conference tournament as an extension of the NCAAs. If you win, you advance, if you lose, your season is over.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 05, 2014, 04:44:02 PM
    I've always thought they should just scrap the conference tournaments (at least for d1 - d3 it might be too expensive) and just throw every eligible team into the national tournament.  Seed them straight by RPI or something - maybe the top 64 - and give them byes for a few rounds.  Play the lower teams regionally - you might have a few teams from your own conference in your early bracket, but it's not really different than a conference tournament - just a little more open.

    You could sell those early rounds better than you could conference tournaments for low-tier conferences, but you'd still have upset potential.


    You could do it regionally in d3 without a ton of extra costs (especially with cost savings from no conference tournament).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on March 05, 2014, 04:56:22 PM
    QuoteHere's a simple solution to the Staten Island controversy...the conference could award the NCAA bid to the regular season championship instead of the tournament championship.

    Yes, I advocate for this, too.

    If the conference has decided to give its automatic bid to the conference tournament winner because that's more exciting, more inclusive, etc., then they have to accept that their best overall team may not get to play in the NCAA tournament.  I think more conferences with limited NCAA tournament success should go to this model, though the folks at York (NY) would likely disagree.  But at some point conferences and schools have to decide what they value most. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 05, 2014, 04:58:34 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 05, 2014, 04:12:33 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 05, 2014, 04:02:58 PM
    Here's a simple solution to the Staten Island controversy...the conference could award the NCAA bid to the regular season championship instead of the tournament championship.

    There were two conferences (SAA and SCAC) that had tournament finals with no particular meaning.  In the SAA, everyone knew Centre would get the Pool B bid no matter what Oglethorpe did.  In the SCAC, Centenary wasn't eligible for the postseason, so no matter what happened in that final, Trinity was going.  The games were still excellent.

    I don't think there is a rule that the autobid has to go to the tournament winner, so you could still have the tournament, but Staten Island doesn't get hurt by their first bad game in three months.

    This.  One thousand times- THIS.

    Yes, but the flip side of the coin is, how often does a conference get two in when they otherwise would have only gotten one? (MIAA this year getting in Calvin b/c they beat Hope in the tournament final)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on March 05, 2014, 05:09:30 PM
    It certainly happens, as it did with the MIAA.  But that's part of the choice that a conference makes in awarding its bid to the tournament winner. 

    Whether its intentional or not, they are saying, "We'll take a chance that our top team will be strong enough to get into the tournament, even if it loses in the conference tournament."  Or alternatively, "We hope our strongest team gets in the tournament but, at the end of the day, it's more important to give a better experience to all the teams involved in the tournament than to exclusively reward the one that distinguished itself over the course of the season." 

    That approach isn't wrong.  It's what allows us to have Cinderella stories and makes for exciting basketball in the final week at 300+ schools instead of a fraction of that.  But it has consequences.

    And it's a decision that a lot of conferences can make with knowledge on their side.  Rightly or wrongly, there's a definite pattern to which teams get at-large bids and that makes it easier for conferences to make an educated risk/reward decision.

    For some conferences (the Power Five), it's a very safe bet that they will get at least one at-large team in the tournament every year.  For other conferences, like the CUNYAC which has had 2 at-large bids in 10 years, it's a very safe bet they won't get an at-large bid.  So it's their call on whether the large risk of getting two teams is worth it.

    http://www.d3hoops.com/guidebook/2013-14/2013_Conference_Guidebook_-_Comparison.pdf

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: hickory_cornhusker on March 05, 2014, 06:59:26 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 05, 2014, 04:02:58 PM
    Here's a simple solution to the Staten Island controversy...the conference could award the NCAA bid to the regular season championship instead of the tournament championship.

    There were two conferences (SAA and SCAC) that had tournament finals with no particular meaning.  In the SAA, everyone knew Centre would get the Pool B bid no matter what Oglethorpe did.  In the SCAC, Centenary wasn't eligible for the postseason, so no matter what happened in that final, Trinity was going.  The games were still excellent.

    I don't think there is a rule that the autobid has to go to the tournament winner, so you could still have the tournament, but Staten Island doesn't get hurt by their first bad game in three months.

    While there is no rule that says you have to give your bid to your conference tournament champion, you do have to give the bid to your tournament champion if you want to have the conference tournament games exempt from your 25 total games. So you can do that but teams can only play 22 or 23 games during the year if they want to participate in the conference tournament (Bylaw 17.1.4.5.1.1.b)

    (SAA must have gotten a waiver while they were serving their two years)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2014, 07:11:50 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 05, 2014, 04:02:58 PM
    Here's a simple solution to the Staten Island controversy...the conference could award the NCAA bid to the regular season championship instead of the tournament championship.

    There were two conferences (SAA and SCAC) that had tournament finals with no particular meaning.  In the SAA, everyone knew Centre would get the Pool B bid no matter what Oglethorpe did.  In the SCAC, Centenary wasn't eligible for the postseason, so no matter what happened in that final, Trinity was going.  The games were still excellent.

    I don't think there is a rule that the autobid has to go to the tournament winner, so you could still have the tournament, but Staten Island doesn't get hurt by their first bad game in three months.

    This isn't entirely true. The SCAC's scenario only came up when Centenary played Trinity (TX) for the title game leaving the only scenario that if Trinity won or lost they would get the AQ. If any team had beaten Centenary, the tournament would have decided the AQ. If anyone besides Trinity played Centenary in the title game, Trinity only would have gotten the bid, I believe, if Centenary had won.

    As for the SAA, that all changes next year when they have the AQ... and Centre was in a unique situation where they were pretty well tied up with the Pool B... but you just don't know how that tournament could have changed things.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2014, 07:18:53 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2014, 11:09:23 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 05, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
    It's about institutional philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to spend the money required to travel and compete the way other schools will (or can).  It's just the reality of d3.  If they want to improve their national standing, it's going to cost more money.

    You can't really have it both ways.

    It's possible, though, to play Western Connecticut or Wesleyan or Albertus Magnus instead of Kean or FDU-Florham. Those are all similar distance to some of the NJAC schools and get you into some SOS-rich conferences or in the case of Albertus, a team that is apparently begging for games.
    +1!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 05, 2014, 08:53:58 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 05, 2014, 01:25:52 AM
    I gotta stick up for Staten Island against the elitists. IF Eastern Mennonite and Ramapo hadn't slid down to mediocrity, their non-conference would have been fairly decent.

    Eastern Mennonite actually had a better season this year than it had in 2011-12 or 2012-13. The days when EMU was a serious power seemed to have vanished with the turn of the decade. But, yeah, Ramapo had a shocking and uncharacteristic slide south this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:08:17 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 05, 2014, 08:53:58 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 05, 2014, 01:25:52 AM
    I gotta stick up for Staten Island against the elitists. IF Eastern Mennonite and Ramapo hadn't slid down to mediocrity, their non-conference would have been fairly decent.

    Eastern Mennonite actually had a better season this year than it had in 2011-12 or 2012-13. The days when EMU was a serious power seemed to have vanished with the turn of the decade. But, yeah, Ramapo had a shocking and uncharacteristic slide south this season.
    The dolphins would have played SOS booster Mary Washington if they had beaten EMU.  Staten Island's last game was an upset, their first game probably wasn't.  They could have been 25-2, and have it not be enough when they lose the only remotely difficult games they had.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 05, 2014, 09:09:15 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 05, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 10:09:57 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:55:10 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:29:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:20:00 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
    I thought Dave had a good interview with the Staten Island head coach.  One of the things he revealed is that he's part time and Staten Island doesn't have a big budget to do a lot of traveling.

    Its always been a concern of mine that the NCAA was putting requirements on schools who might not be able to simply afford what the NCAA wants them to do.
    Requirements?  Are you talking about the minimum number of sports or the fees to maintain membership?  Nobody is required to chase after a better tournament resume.

    In fact there are if you want a realistic chance to participate in the post-season.
    ????  Staten Island is low budget and they made it last year.  It took a large upset to keep them out of the post-season this year.

    well a bigger budget would have allowed them to travel more and maybe build a stronger SOS, thus if they were upset this year they might have still made the tournament.
    And they might have lost a bunch more games along the way.  It's not as if they don't travel, and that there are no high SOS teams within reasonable distance.  Even if they found a couple better road games, it might not have been a big enough boost this year.  This is a big division with a lot of good teams.  It's not as if a lot of their weaker opponents are getting selected for the tourney either.

    It's about institutional philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to spend the money required to travel and compete the way other schools will (or can).  It's just the reality of d3.  If they want to improve their national standing, it's going to cost more money.

    You can't really have it both ways.

    Do we all see the irony here? The whole point behind the regionality that's impressed into the way that D3 does things is to prevent travel, so that nobody misses any class time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 09:52:29 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 05, 2014, 09:09:15 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 05, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 10:09:57 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:55:10 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:29:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:20:00 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
    I thought Dave had a good interview with the Staten Island head coach.  One of the things he revealed is that he's part time and Staten Island doesn't have a big budget to do a lot of traveling.

    Its always been a concern of mine that the NCAA was putting requirements on schools who might not be able to simply afford what the NCAA wants them to do.
    Requirements?  Are you talking about the minimum number of sports or the fees to maintain membership?  Nobody is required to chase after a better tournament resume.

    In fact there are if you want a realistic chance to participate in the post-season.
    ????  Staten Island is low budget and they made it last year.  It took a large upset to keep them out of the post-season this year.

    well a bigger budget would have allowed them to travel more and maybe build a stronger SOS, thus if they were upset this year they might have still made the tournament.
    And they might have lost a bunch more games along the way.  It's not as if they don't travel, and that there are no high SOS teams within reasonable distance.  Even if they found a couple better road games, it might not have been a big enough boost this year.  This is a big division with a lot of good teams.  It's not as if a lot of their weaker opponents are getting selected for the tourney either.

    It's about institutional philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to spend the money required to travel and compete the way other schools will (or can).  It's just the reality of d3.  If they want to improve their national standing, it's going to cost more money.

    You can't really have it both ways.

    Do we all see the irony here? The whole point behind the regionality that's impressed into the way that D3 does things is to prevent travel, so that nobody misses any class time.

    Albertus Magnus is 99 miles away.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pjunito on March 05, 2014, 10:18:28 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 09:52:29 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 05, 2014, 09:09:15 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 05, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 10:09:57 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:55:10 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:29:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:20:00 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
    I thought Dave had a good interview with the Staten Island head coach.  One of the things he revealed is that he's part time and Staten Island doesn't have a big budget to do a lot of traveling.

    Its always been a concern of mine that the NCAA was putting requirements on schools who might not be able to simply afford what the NCAA wants them to do.
    Requirements?  Are you talking about the minimum number of sports or the fees to maintain membership?  Nobody is required to chase after a better tournament resume.

    In fact there are if you want a realistic chance to participate in the post-season.
    ????  Staten Island is low budget and they made it last year.  It took a large upset to keep them out of the post-season this year.

    well a bigger budget would have allowed them to travel more and maybe build a stronger SOS, thus if they were upset this year they might have still made the tournament.
    And they might have lost a bunch more games along the way.  It's not as if they don't travel, and that there are no high SOS teams within reasonable distance.  Even if they found a couple better road games, it might not have been a big enough boost this year.  This is a big division with a lot of good teams.  It's not as if a lot of their weaker opponents are getting selected for the tourney either.

    It's about institutional philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to spend the money required to travel and compete the way other schools will (or can).  It's just the reality of d3.  If they want to improve their national standing, it's going to cost more money.

    You can't really have it both ways.

    Do we all see the irony here? The whole point behind the regionality that's impressed into the way that D3 does things is to prevent travel, so that nobody misses any class time.

    Albertus Magnus is 99 miles away.

    Yea, but that could be up to a 4 hour ride; the BQE, Cross Bronx, and CT Turnpike are brutal highways.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 05, 2014, 11:45:40 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 05, 2014, 04:58:34 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 05, 2014, 04:12:33 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 05, 2014, 04:02:58 PM
    Here's a simple solution to the Staten Island controversy...the conference could award the NCAA bid to the regular season championship instead of the tournament championship.

    There were two conferences (SAA and SCAC) that had tournament finals with no particular meaning.  In the SAA, everyone knew Centre would get the Pool B bid no matter what Oglethorpe did.  In the SCAC, Centenary wasn't eligible for the postseason, so no matter what happened in that final, Trinity was going.  The games were still excellent.

    I don't think there is a rule that the autobid has to go to the tournament winner, so you could still have the tournament, but Staten Island doesn't get hurt by their first bad game in three months.

    This.  One thousand times- THIS.

    Yes, but the flip side of the coin is, how often does a conference get two in when they otherwise would have only gotten one? (MIAA this year getting in Calvin b/c they beat Hope in the tournament final)

    23 years of our tournament, 11 instances where the MIAA regular season champion failed to win the tournament.  Regular season champion did not receive a bid on six occasions.  Interesting to note in those years the lone MIAA rep went one and done except Hope in 2002.

    1998  Albion won tournament, Hope received at-large bid and made it to Salem
    1999  Defiance won tournament only bid, Co-Champs Hope/Calvin weren't viable candidates

    Pools Era
    2002  Hope won tournament, Calvin did not receive bid
    2003  Hope won tournament,  Co-Champs Albion/Hope, Albion did not receive bid
    2004  Calvin won tournament, Hope did not receive bid
    2005  Calvin won tournament, Albion received bid
    2006  Hope won tournament, Calvin received bid
    2007  Calvin won tournament, Hope received bid
    2009  Hope won tournament,  Calvin did not receive bid
    2010  Hope won tournament,  Calvin did not receive bid
    2014  Calvin won tournament,  Hope received bid

    1998, 2005, 2007, 2014 probably qualify as years where the MIAA got 2 in the tournament when they otherwise would not have.  2005 Calvin was borderline.  2006 Hope had just 2 losses going into selection Sunday.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 06, 2014, 10:20:37 AM
    Quote from: pjunito on March 05, 2014, 10:18:28 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 09:52:29 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 05, 2014, 09:09:15 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 05, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 10:09:57 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:55:10 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:29:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 09:20:00 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 05, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
    I thought Dave had a good interview with the Staten Island head coach.  One of the things he revealed is that he's part time and Staten Island doesn't have a big budget to do a lot of traveling.

    Its always been a concern of mine that the NCAA was putting requirements on schools who might not be able to simply afford what the NCAA wants them to do.
    Requirements?  Are you talking about the minimum number of sports or the fees to maintain membership?  Nobody is required to chase after a better tournament resume.

    In fact there are if you want a realistic chance to participate in the post-season.
    ????  Staten Island is low budget and they made it last year.  It took a large upset to keep them out of the post-season this year.

    well a bigger budget would have allowed them to travel more and maybe build a stronger SOS, thus if they were upset this year they might have still made the tournament.
    And they might have lost a bunch more games along the way.  It's not as if they don't travel, and that there are no high SOS teams within reasonable distance.  Even if they found a couple better road games, it might not have been a big enough boost this year.  This is a big division with a lot of good teams.  It's not as if a lot of their weaker opponents are getting selected for the tourney either.

    It's about institutional philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to spend the money required to travel and compete the way other schools will (or can).  It's just the reality of d3.  If they want to improve their national standing, it's going to cost more money.

    You can't really have it both ways.

    Do we all see the irony here? The whole point behind the regionality that's impressed into the way that D3 does things is to prevent travel, so that nobody misses any class time.

    Albertus Magnus is 99 miles away.

    Yea, but that could be up to a 4 hour ride; the BQE, Cross Bronx, and CT Turnpike are brutal highways.

    It's three hours on a clear day.  It could be five or six with traffic.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Just Bill on March 06, 2014, 10:34:31 AM
    Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on March 05, 2014, 06:59:26 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 05, 2014, 04:02:58 PM
    Here's a simple solution to the Staten Island controversy...the conference could award the NCAA bid to the regular season championship instead of the tournament championship.

    There were two conferences (SAA and SCAC) that had tournament finals with no particular meaning.  In the SAA, everyone knew Centre would get the Pool B bid no matter what Oglethorpe did.  In the SCAC, Centenary wasn't eligible for the postseason, so no matter what happened in that final, Trinity was going.  The games were still excellent.

    I don't think there is a rule that the autobid has to go to the tournament winner, so you could still have the tournament, but Staten Island doesn't get hurt by their first bad game in three months.

    While there is no rule that says you have to give your bid to your conference tournament champion, you do have to give the bid to your tournament champion if you want to have the conference tournament games exempt from your 25 total games. So you can do that but teams can only play 22 or 23 games during the year if they want to participate in the conference tournament (Bylaw 17.1.4.5.1.1.b)

    (SAA must have gotten a waiver while they were serving their two years)

    Entire conference tournament only counts as one game, so you'd be limited to 24 in the regular season if your conference opted not to give the AQ to the tournament champion.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 06, 2014, 11:15:14 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2014, 11:45:40 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 05, 2014, 04:58:34 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 05, 2014, 04:12:33 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 05, 2014, 04:02:58 PM
    Here's a simple solution to the Staten Island controversy...the conference could award the NCAA bid to the regular season championship instead of the tournament championship.

    There were two conferences (SAA and SCAC) that had tournament finals with no particular meaning.  In the SAA, everyone knew Centre would get the Pool B bid no matter what Oglethorpe did.  In the SCAC, Centenary wasn't eligible for the postseason, so no matter what happened in that final, Trinity was going.  The games were still excellent.

    I don't think there is a rule that the autobid has to go to the tournament winner, so you could still have the tournament, but Staten Island doesn't get hurt by their first bad game in three months.

    This.  One thousand times- THIS.

    Yes, but the flip side of the coin is, how often does a conference get two in when they otherwise would have only gotten one? (MIAA this year getting in Calvin b/c they beat Hope in the tournament final)

    23 years of our tournament, 11 instances where the MIAA regular season champion failed to win the tournament.  Regular season champion did not receive a bid on six occasions.  Interesting to note in those years the lone MIAA rep went one and done except Hope in 2002.

    1998  Albion won tournament, Hope received at-large bid and made it to Salem
    1999  Defiance won tournament only bid, Co-Champs Hope/Calvin weren't viable candidates

    Pools Era
    2002  Hope won tournament, Calvin did not receive bid
    2003  Hope won tournament,  Co-Champs Albion/Hope, Albion did not receive bid
    2004  Calvin won tournament, Hope did not receive bid
    2005  Calvin won tournament, Albion received bid
    2006  Hope won tournament, Calvin received bid
    2007  Calvin won tournament, Hope received bid
    2009  Hope won tournament,  Calvin did not receive bid
    2010  Hope won tournament,  Calvin did not receive bid
    2014  Calvin won tournament,  Hope received bid

    1998, 2005, 2007, 2014 probably qualify as years where the MIAA got 2 in the tournament when they otherwise would not have.  2005 Calvin was borderline.  2006 Hope had just 2 losses going into selection Sunday.

    Can you really count a co-champion not getting a bid when their couterpart did? (2003)

    And since 2005 was borderline, let's give it a .5... that means 4.5 times out of 11, or roughly 40% of the time! That, plus the added value of the tournament games, equals worth the risk to me...

    Also, I really like how the MIAA recently changed their tournament format so that only the top 4 teams make it. 1 v 4 and 2 v 3... 1 and 2 get home games winners play at highest remaining seed in final. Mitigates the risk a little... (This season, #2 Calvin got to play #3 Albion at home... in the past, that game would have been played at the #1 seed, Hope, and would have been arugably the best "home crowd" cheering section Albion had all year...)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 06, 2014, 11:28:04 AM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 06, 2014, 11:15:14 AM
    Also, I really like how the MIAA recently changed their tournament format so that only the top 4 teams make it. 1 v 4 and 2 v 3... 1 and 2 get home games winners play at highest remaining seed in final. Mitigates the risk a little... (This season, #2 Calvin got to play #3 Albion at home... in the past, that game would have been played at the #1 seed, Hope, and would have been arugably the best "home crowd" cheering section Albion had all year...)

    Also Trine may have had a few more fans pulling for them in overtime.  :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Just Bill on March 06, 2014, 11:45:44 AM
    I've always agreed that awarding the auto bid to the tournament champ over the regular season champ doesn't necessarily make sense. However, I have attended conference tournament games with no AQ on the line, and in my experience the excitement and intensity is severely diminished.

    As a coach or administrator I would like the AQ to go to the regular season champ, but as a fan, I don't really care about those games unless stakes higher than a wood plaque and bragging rights are on the line.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 06, 2014, 12:08:29 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 06, 2014, 11:28:04 AM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 06, 2014, 11:15:14 AM
    Also, I really like how the MIAA recently changed their tournament format so that only the top 4 teams make it. 1 v 4 and 2 v 3... 1 and 2 get home games winners play at highest remaining seed in final. Mitigates the risk a little... (This season, #2 Calvin got to play #3 Albion at home... in the past, that game would have been played at the #1 seed, Hope, and would have been arugably the best "home crowd" cheering section Albion had all year...)

    Also Trine may have had a few more fans pulling for them in overtime.  :)

    Absolutely true! Trine travels to Hope with about 30 fans, presumably all of which are the families and girlfriends or the players... I have no doubt that after winning their game against Albion, a significant portion of Calvin fans would have stuck around to watch/root against Hope...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: realist on March 06, 2014, 12:22:36 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 06, 2014, 12:08:29 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 06, 2014, 11:28:04 AM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 06, 2014, 11:15:14 AM
    Also, I really like how the MIAA recently changed their tournament format so that only the top 4 teams make it. 1 v 4 and 2 v 3... 1 and 2 get home games winners play at highest remaining seed in final. Mitigates the risk a little... (This season, #2 Calvin got to play #3 Albion at home... in the past, that game would have been played at the #1 seed, Hope, and would have been arugably the best "home crowd" cheering section Albion had all year...)

    Also Trine may have had a few more fans pulling for them in overtime.  :)

    Absolutely true! Trine travels to Hope with about 30 fans, presumably all of which are the families and girlfriends or the players... I have no doubt that after winning their game against Albion, a significant portion of Calvin fans would have stuck around to watch/root against Hope...
    True unless they decide the tickets are single game, and they clear the gym between games. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2014, 12:51:10 PM
    I was told Stevens Point is clearing the gym this weekend. $8 for the Point game and just $4 if you want to see St. Olaf and Central.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on March 06, 2014, 12:53:58 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2014, 12:51:10 PM
    I was told Stevens Point is clearing the gym this weekend. $8 for the Point game and just $4 if you want to see St. Olaf and Central.

    Does it work that way?  I thought the NCAA makes the ticketing rules for their championships. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toooldtohoop on March 06, 2014, 01:12:35 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 06, 2014, 12:53:58 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2014, 12:51:10 PM
    I was told Stevens Point is clearing the gym this weekend. $8 for the Point game and just $4 if you want to see St. Olaf and Central.

    Does it work that way?  I thought the NCAA makes the ticketing rules for their championships.

    Hope is selling to season ticket holders ahead of the general public.  Ticket is good for both games Friday.

    Saturday same thing- Hope first, then remaining to first come first serve at the completion of game 2 tomorrow night.  Don't know how they intend to "guarantee" the guests, but I'm sure they have it figured out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Just Bill on March 06, 2014, 01:16:33 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 06, 2014, 12:53:58 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2014, 12:51:10 PM
    I was told Stevens Point is clearing the gym this weekend. $8 for the Point game and just $4 if you want to see St. Olaf and Central.

    Does it work that way?  I thought the NCAA makes the ticketing rules for their championships.

    NCAA sets ticket price minimums, but host school can charge whatever they want above that.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2014, 01:18:41 PM
    I'm guessing the hosts have a choice and I know its mandatory to set aside a certain number of tickets for the away teams. Most of the time, some of those tickets are returned and sold at the ticket window.

    Since Point is clearing the gym, I believe its 50/50 for each team, even for Point vs Marian.

    I could be wrong and someone more knowledgeable could confirm this.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 06, 2014, 01:53:40 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2014, 01:18:41 PM
    I'm guessing the hosts have a choice and I know its mandatory to set aside a certain number of tickets for the away teams. Most of the time, some of those tickets are returned and sold at the ticket window.

    Since Point is clearing the gym, I believe its 50/50 for each team, even for Point vs Marian.

    I could be wrong and someone more knowledgeable could confirm this.
    according to the ticket info I could find it's $8 for adults, and $4 for students regardless of which game you want to go to.

    In past years I think the host gets half the seats set aside even if they're not clearing the gym between games.  The 3 other teams then obviously get 17% each.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 06, 2014, 02:23:13 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 06, 2014, 01:53:40 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2014, 01:18:41 PM
    I'm guessing the hosts have a choice and I know its mandatory to set aside a certain number of tickets for the away teams. Most of the time, some of those tickets are returned and sold at the ticket window.

    Since Point is clearing the gym, I believe its 50/50 for each team, even for Point vs Marian.

    I could be wrong and someone more knowledgeable could confirm this.
    according to the ticket info I could find it's $8 for adults, and $4 for students regardless of which game you want to go to.

    In past years I think the host gets half the seats set aside even if they're not clearing the gym between games.  The 3 other teams then obviously get 17% each.

    The opposing teams are offered that many tickets... They can send back the ones they won't use but don't have to. Whatever tickets they don't send back, they are charged for. Tickets for the Hope games were $10 for reserves, $7 for GA bleachers (this mirrors regular season pricing)...

    I have never been to a Hope game that the gym was cleared (MIAA tournament or NCAA playoffs) and am very much looking forward to watching Wheaton and Rose Hulman tomorrow...

    For anyone making the trip, Holland has a small batch, experimental micro brew called Our Brewery two doors down from the better known New Holland Brewery and an irish pub directly across the street. All three are less than a mile from the stadium. Obviously I am directing this to the Ross Hulman fans, since last time I checked alcohol was frowned upon at Wheaton.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toooldtohoop on March 06, 2014, 02:34:33 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 06, 2014, 02:23:13 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 06, 2014, 01:53:40 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 06, 2014, 01:18:41 PM
    I'm guessing the hosts have a choice and I know its mandatory to set aside a certain number of tickets for the away teams. Most of the time, some of those tickets are returned and sold at the ticket window.

    Since Point is clearing the gym, I believe its 50/50 for each team, even for Point vs Marian.

    I could be wrong and someone more knowledgeable could confirm this.
    according to the ticket info I could find it's $8 for adults, and $4 for students regardless of which game you want to go to.

    In past years I think the host gets half the seats set aside even if they're not clearing the gym between games.  The 3 other teams then obviously get 17% each.

    The opposing teams are offered that many tickets... They can send back the ones they won't use but don't have to. Whatever tickets they don't send back, they are charged for. Tickets for the Hope games were $10 for reserves, $7 for GA bleachers (this mirrors regular season pricing)...

    I have never been to a Hope game that the gym was cleared (MIAA tournament or NCAA playoffs) and am very much looking forward to watching Wheaton and Rose Hulman tomorrow...

    For anyone making the trip, Holland has a small batch, experimental micro brew called Our Brewery two doors down from the better known New Holland Brewery and an irish pub directly across the street. All three are less than a mile from the stadium. Obviously I am directing this to the Ross Hulman fans, since last time I checked alcohol was frowned upon at Wheaton.

    Thanks for the info.  And since I don't operate under any covenant, and I hope to get to the game, I fully intend to sample your
    recommendations! ;D

    Hopefully celebrating rather than drowning sorrows.

    Go Thunder!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 06, 2014, 03:05:30 PM
    We used to split sessions for the MIAA Tournament, which reminds me of just how poor attendance for our semi-final has become.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: realist on March 06, 2014, 03:20:31 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 06, 2014, 03:05:30 PM
    We used to split sessions for the MIAA Tournament, which reminds me of just how poor attendance for our semi-final has become.
    Point well made.  I recall being shuffled out the door at the civic, and running the gauntlet of Hope fans. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 06, 2014, 03:26:15 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 06, 2014, 03:05:30 PM
    We used to split sessions for the MIAA Tournament, which reminds me of just how poor attendance for our semi-final has become.

    Negative bi-product of success. Too many fans just assume a Hope win in the semi-final and a 3rd meeting with Calvin in the final. Another contender or two would really help the conference... Will Dixon and Trine, can you help us out with this next year?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 06, 2014, 03:56:40 PM
    We changed to calculating SOS in 2008.  Since then there have been 127 Pool C bids handed out.  With a record 6 this year (tying their 2009 mark) the Northeast Region has now received 32 Pool C bids.  This is 11 more than the next closest South Region's 21.

    The Northeast Region makes up roughly 18.3% of D3 but has received 25.2% of the Pool C bids.

    Total bids
    Northeast      32
    East              15
    Atlantic            6
    Mid-Atlantic     9
    South            21
    Great Lakes  13
    Midwest        17
    West             14

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 06, 2014, 04:01:59 PM
    Since 2008, conferences that have benefited with the most Pool C selections

    NESCAC  12
    ODAC      11
    CCIW      11
    UAA          9
    WIAC       9
    NEWMAC  9
    NCAC       7

    The 68 selections represent 53% of all Pool C bids.


    Teams with most Pool C selections
    Illinois Wesleyan     5
    Va Wesleyan           4
    Wheaton                 4
    WPI                         4
    Amherst                   3
    Brandeis                  3
    Mary Hardin-Bay.     3
    Middlebury               3
    Stevens Point          3
    Whitewater             3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: realist on March 06, 2014, 04:35:02 PM
    Quote from: sethteater on March 06, 2014, 03:26:15 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 06, 2014, 03:05:30 PM
    We used to split sessions for the MIAA Tournament, which reminds me of just how poor attendance for our semi-final has become.

    Negative bi-product of success. Too many fans just assume a Hope win in the semi-final and a 3rd meeting with Calvin in the final. Another contender or two would really help the conference... Will Dixon and Trine, can you help us out with this next year?

    You might want to be careful what you ask for. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 06, 2014, 05:55:12 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 06, 2014, 04:01:59 PM
    Since 2008, conferences that have benefited with the most Pool C selections

    NESCAC  12
    ODAC      11
    CCIW      11
    UAA          9
    WIAC       9
    NEWMAC  9
    NCAC       7

    The 68 selections represent 53% of all Pool C bids.


    Teams with most Pool C selections
    Illinois Wesleyan     5
    Va Wesleyan           4
    Wheaton                 4
    WPI                         4
    Amherst                   3
    Brandeis                  3
    Mary Hardin-Bay.     3
    Middlebury               3
    Stevens Point          3
    Whitewater             3

    We've always suspected the NESCAC of jimmying their schedule to get "C" bids, since they don't double round robin and then they can pick up a lot of games against other conferences top teams which helps their SOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on March 06, 2014, 06:31:03 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 06, 2014, 04:01:59 PM
    Since 2008, conferences that have benefited with the most Pool C selections

    NESCAC  12
    ODAC      11
    CCIW      11
    UAA          9
    WIAC       9
    NEWMAC  9
    NCAC       7

    The 68 selections represent 53% of all Pool C bids.


    Teams with most Pool C selections
    Illinois Wesleyan     5
    Va Wesleyan           4
    Wheaton                 4
    WPI                         4
    Amherst                   3
    Brandeis                  3
    Mary Hardin-Bay.     3
    Middlebury               3
    Stevens Point          3
    Whitewater             3

    So, I looked at this and I asked myself:

    How many National Titles from these?


    I figured it would be more than it ended up being...

    2008 - Wash U (A)
    2009 - Wash U (A)
    2010 - UWSP (A) - 2nd in the WIAC in the regular season
    2011 - St. Thomas (A)
    2012 - UW Whitewater (C) - 1st in the WIAC but upset in the tournament
    2013 - Amherst (A)


    Not from this time frame, but the 2003-04 UWSP team was an A (2nd in the WIAC in the regular season) as was the 2004-05 team (tied for 1st w/ Platteville in the regular season).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: madzillagd on March 07, 2014, 12:30:43 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 06, 2014, 05:55:12 PM
    We've always suspected the NESCAC of jimmying their schedule to get "C" bids, since they don't double round robin and then they can pick up a lot of games against other conferences top teams which helps their SOS.

    Have to say, this is funny because the complaint that NESCAC fans hear more often is that the NESCAC teams don't schedule a tough enough out of conference schedule.  Now you are saying they jimmy their schedule to do just that.  Personally I think the former is more accurate than the latter and Dave did a great job addressing this with Coach Hixon on Hoopsville earlier this year talking about Amhert's schedule and I know Coach Maker of Williams has addressed it as well.  With 2 weeks less practice time than everybody else, the initial games are usually against weaker opponents and typically the top NESCAC teams don't start playing more difficult opponents until well into December after they've been able to catch up with everyone else on practice.  Midd didn't follow that formula this year and they are watching the tournament instead of participating.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 07, 2014, 01:03:31 PM
    The NESCAC pool C bids don't bother me, I think they've gathered more than enough evidence of good play in the tournament to support those selections.

    I do wonder how many Pool C's they might not have received if they played a true double round robin league schedule.

    I also think you might be able to conclude the Northeast is the beneficiary of larger access to regional games and can cherry pick their schedules much better than other parts of the country. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 07, 2014, 01:03:40 PM
    Quote from: pjunito on March 05, 2014, 10:18:28 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 05, 2014, 09:52:29 PM

    Albertus Magnus is 99 miles away.

    Yea, but that could be up to a 4 hour ride; the BQE, Cross Bronx, and CT Turnpike are brutal highways.

    Metro North.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 07, 2014, 01:20:53 PM
    Quote from: madzillagd on March 07, 2014, 12:30:43 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 06, 2014, 05:55:12 PM
    We've always suspected the NESCAC of jimmying their schedule to get "C" bids, since they don't double round robin and then they can pick up a lot of games against other conferences top teams which helps their SOS.

    Have to say, this is funny because the complaint that NESCAC fans hear more often is that the NESCAC teams don't schedule a tough enough out of conference schedule.  Now you are saying they jimmy their schedule to do just that.  Personally I think the former is more accurate than the latter and Dave did a great job addressing this with Coach Hixon on Hoopsville earlier this year talking about Amhert's schedule and I know Coach Maker of Williams has addressed it as well.  With 2 weeks less practice time than everybody else, the initial games are usually against weaker opponents and typically the top NESCAC teams don't start playing more difficult opponents until well into December after they've been able to catch up with everyone else on practice.  Midd didn't follow that formula this year and they are watching the tournament instead of participating.
    The main complaint should be the lack of conference games, not the quality of the non-conference opponent. 

    If the NESCAC beats 75% of their 165 non-conference opponents, they will have an SOS advantage of .05 over the MIAC who beat 91% of their 55 non-conference opponents assuming equal OOWP.   To match the SOS the MIAC got from winning 91% of their non-conference games, the NESCAC only has to win 64% of their non-conference games.

    If the NESCAC was a poor conference they would be hurt by having more non-conference games, but since they are good it is an enormous advantage.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: madzillagd on March 07, 2014, 01:25:40 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 07, 2014, 01:03:31 PM
    The NESCAC pool C bids don't bother me, I think they've gathered more than enough evidence of good play in the tournament to support those selections.

    I do wonder how many Pool C's they might not have received if they played a true double round robin league schedule.

    I also think you might be able to conclude the Northeast is the beneficiary of larger access to regional games and can cherry pick their schedules much better than other parts of the country.

    A round robin would turn the NESCAC's world upside down and not sure if it would be for the good.  NESCAC teams are allowed to have 24 games on the schedule (including scrimmages - which means they don't do scrimmages because it counts against them).  A round robin would be 20 of those 24 games - leaving only 4 non-conference games for each team.  Most of the teams in the NESCAC are small rivalries so they play each other an additional nonconference game (The Little Three: Amh, Wes, Will for example; Col/Bates/Bow another).  That's 2 nonconference games taken up right there.   That leaves 2 non conference games to schedule which would most likely be a holiday travel tournament most teams play.  I have no idea how you would gauge NESCAC teams from year to year against the rest of the country for Regional Rankings etc. when they would only play 2 nonconference games. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: booyakasha on March 07, 2014, 01:32:12 PM
    Madz, your point still holds, but if we played a double round robin in the NESCAC I doubt smaller subset of rivalries would elect to play for a third time during the season, so really back to 4 non conference games. Same issue though...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 07, 2014, 01:47:11 PM
    Quote from: madzillagd on March 07, 2014, 01:25:40 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 07, 2014, 01:03:31 PM
    The NESCAC pool C bids don't bother me, I think they've gathered more than enough evidence of good play in the tournament to support those selections.

    I do wonder how many Pool C's they might not have received if they played a true double round robin league schedule.

    I also think you might be able to conclude the Northeast is the beneficiary of larger access to regional games and can cherry pick their schedules much better than other parts of the country.

    A round robin would turn the NESCAC's world upside down and not sure if it would be for the good.  NESCAC teams are allowed to have 24 games on the schedule (including scrimmages - which means they don't do scrimmages because it counts against them).  A round robin would be 20 of those 24 games - leaving only 4 non-conference games for each team.  Most of the teams in the NESCAC are small rivalries so they play each other an additional nonconference game (The Little Three: Amh, Wes, Will for example; Col/Bates/Bow another).  That's 2 nonconference games taken up right there.   That leaves 2 non conference games to schedule which would most likely be a holiday travel tournament most teams play.  I have no idea how you would gauge NESCAC teams from year to year against the rest of the country for Regional Rankings etc. when they would only play 2 nonconference games.

    A lot of conferences play an 18 game conference schedule.  The ASC has a 22-game conference schedule: 12 teams, full double round robin.  The NESCAC could pull it off.  I think I'd rather see a modified schedule for them, though (maybe 15 conference games).  It helps the region out quite a bit to have so many NESCAC non-cons for other teams to schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 01:57:14 PM
    Yes, I am confident that if NESCAC teams played only four non-conference games, the narrative by some would be, NESCAC teams don't ever prove themselves against strong competition outside of their own conference, they are afraid to play non-NESCAC opponents, we can't know how good they really are! 

    I can 100 percent guarantee, smedindy, that NESCAC teams do not "jimmy" their schedules to get Pool C bids.  I am not sure who this "we" is who purportedly suspects the NESCAC of doing so, but I have a feeling that it is likely the royal "we."  Guess what -- NESCAC didn't play a double round-robin prior to participating in the NCAA tournament, which makes the idea that simply maintaining the same conference schedule that they have played for decades is an attempt to "jimmy" anything flat-out laughable.  If NESCAC's primary concern was getting as many teams into the NCAAs as possible, then, as madzillagd alludes to, they would not start practice two weeks later, putting them at a competitive disadvantage for the first few weeks of the season and likely hurting the chances of teams on the margin to earn a Pool C.  That is by FAR the biggest difference between NESCAC and non-NESCAC schools, and it is a self-imposed competitive disadvantage rather than advantage. 

    Here is the reality: Bowdoin is the first NESCAC team to receive a Pool C bid in the last, I don't know, ten years, maybe longer, that is even remotely questionable.  Colby and Wesleyan each had very strong records in recent years, yet didn't receive Pool C bids.  If there is evidence that NESCAC schools have received Pool C bids that were undeserving (beyond possibly one team this season), I'd like to see it.  The teams who have been receiving Pool C bids are Williams, Amherst, and Midd, which have been among the strongest teams in all of Division III over the past decade, would have earned Pool C (or A) bids playing in any conference in the country, and have proven they belonged in the tourney via deep tourney runs, including national championships.  So if NESCAC is trying to game the system, they are doing a damn poor job of it.

    What is annoying is when justifiable criticisms of the NCAA selection criteria and bracketing methodology (and there are plenty of those) turn into attacks on NESCAC.  NESCAC neither chose the NCAA system, nor cares what that NCAA system is.  NESCAC does what is in the best interest of member institutions, and considering that most member insitutions rarely if ever smell the NCAA basketball tourney, the effect of scheduling policies on SOS plays no role whatsoever on how those policies are determined. 

    As a Williams fan, I am really, really happy that Williams has developed regional rivalries with local schools like MCLA, Springfield, Southern Vermont, RPI, while also playing a full NESCAC slate plus two extra rivalry games vs. Amherst and Wesleyan, while still having a chance each year to take a road trip and test itself against quality out-of-region opponents like Loras, Hampden-Sydney, Randolph Macon, and Stevens.  I'd much rather play Stevens or even another local school than a second game vs. Colby, Tufts, or Conn College.  It makes for a more interesting schedule and a more varied experience for the players and fans alike.  As is, with the NESCAC tourney, Williams played 15 games vs. NESCAC opponents this year.  That is all of one fewer games vs. in-conference opponents than half the CCIW or NEWMAC teams faced.  But you don't see me (or any NESCAC fans) arguing that CCIW or NEWMAC (or any other conference) is somehow less legitimate because they somehow "jimmy" the system by not bringing more schools into the conference, or by not playing a full eight team conference tourney.  The CCIW and NEWMAC are entitled to do what is in the best interests of its member schools, just like NESCAC is. 

    The only thing more predictable than the NCAA making inexplicable bracket choices is the annual whining here about NESCAC scheduling ...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 07, 2014, 02:22:26 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 01:57:14 PM
    What is annoying is when justifiable criticisms of the NCAA selection criteria and bracketing methodology (and there are plenty of those) turn into attacks on NESCAC.  NESCAC neither chose the NCAA system, nor cares what that NCAA system is.  NESCAC does what is in the best interest of member institutions, and considering that most member insitutions rarely if ever smell the NCAA basketball tourney, the effect of scheduling policies on SOS plays no role whatsoever on how those policies are determined. 
    I could care less how those scheduling policies are determined, the fact is they do have a large effect on the SOS and pool C selection.  We need better criteria to focus less on the very flawed SOS statistic and more on a national RPI so we can better judge the big wins each team had. 

    I want the committee to be able tell the difference between a win over Babson and a win over Wash U, Illinois Wesleyan or Wheaton.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 07, 2014, 02:29:23 PM

    I don't think the point was about whether NESCAC teams are good enough to play in the tournament, I think it was more like whether their numbers would reflect that talent in the same way it does now.

    I imagine the CCIW would get more Pool C bids (all of them justifiable) if they played once through rather than twice.

    It is what it is.  I don't think the NESCAC does it on purpose (for bids), but it does help them get bids.  It's just reality.

    I suppose you can imagine why that is frustrating to fans of teams from other conferences.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 02:36:50 PM
    But AO, here is the problem -- everyone from the Midwest just assumes that a win over Wheaton is clearly better than a win over Babson.  I'm not so sure.  I think New England teams are consistently underrated / undervalued here, and there is a midwest-centric viewpoint that is, at least among some posters, overly dismissive of lesser-known teams and conferences from New England, many of which are really good.  Are you really sure that Albertus Magnus isn't as talented as an upper-tier CCIW or OAC or MIAC team?  I have no idea, honestly, and Unlike in Division I, there just aren't enough inter-regional games on a year-to-year basis to have a clear picture of the relative value of the wins you cite as an example. 

    I'm not saying that nothing can be done to improve the current system.  I mean, at the very least, the NCAA could have easily switched two of the brackets this year so that it is not an east vs. west type deal, as many others have suggested.  And if they are going to use the "eye" test as they apparently claimed this year, they could have used it to create more equitable draws for certain teams, not just in regards to who made it into the tourney.

    It's just annoying that somehow, these general complaints (again, among some posters) repeatedly and inevitably are conflated with  attacks on NESCAC, even to the point of claiming that NESCAC illegitimately games the system, which is simply untrue. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 07, 2014, 02:41:53 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 02:36:50 PM
    But AO, here is the problem -- everyone from the Midwest just assumes that a win over Wheaton is clearly better than a win over Babson.  I'm not so sure.  I think New England teams are consistently underrated / undervalued here, and there is a midwest-centric viewpoint that is, at least among some posters, overly dismissive of lesser-known teams and conferences from New England, many of which are really good.  Are you really sure that Albertus Magnus isn't as talented as an upper-tier CCIW or OAC or MIAC team?  I have no idea, honestly, and Unlike in Division I, there just aren't enough inter-regional games on a year-to-year basis to have a clear picture of the relative value of the wins you cite as an example. 

    I'm not saying that nothing can be done to improve the current system.  I mean, at the very least, the NCAA could have easily switched two of the brackets this year so that it is not an east vs. west type deal, as many others have suggested.  And if they are going to use the "eye" test as they apparently claimed this year, they could have used it to create more equitable draws for certain teams, not just in regards to who made it into the tourney.

    It's just annoying that somehow, these general complaints (again, among some posters) repeatedly and inevitably are conflated with  attacks on NESCAC, even to the point of claiming that NESCAC illegitimately games the system, which is simply untrue.

    I don't mean cherry pick to necessarily be an indication of what I think of Northeast basketball.  In the MidWest the CCIW has its choice of SLIAC/NACC and even MWV/IIAC teams that can make a schedule look better than it really is.  I think very highly of CCIW teams in general.   It just has an big affect on what some teams can do vs others.   Cherrypicking isn't just a Northeastern thing but comparatively to the rest of D3 they have quite a few more options for in-region games to begin with.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: blue_jays on March 07, 2014, 03:03:53 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 02:36:50 PM
    But AO, here is the problem -- everyone from the Midwest just assumes that a win over Wheaton is clearly better than a win over Babson.  I'm not so sure.

    Pick your battles, that's a bad comparison. Last 10 years: Wheaton 196-80 (.710) vs. Babson 124-138 (.473). Wheaton also just got done playing one of, if not the toughest schedules in the country this year, which they consistently do most years. Nice try though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 07, 2014, 03:09:45 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 02:36:50 PM
    But AO, here is the problem -- everyone from the Midwest just assumes that a win over Wheaton is clearly better than a win over Babson.  I'm not so sure.  I think New England teams are consistently underrated / undervalued here, and there is a midwest-centric viewpoint that is, at least among some posters, overly dismissive of lesser-known teams and conferences from New England, many of which are really good.  Are you really sure that Albertus Magnus isn't as talented as an upper-tier CCIW or OAC or MIAC team?  I have no idea, honestly, and Unlike in Division I, there just aren't enough inter-regional games on a year-to-year basis to have a clear picture of the relative value of the wins you cite as an example. 

    I'm not saying that nothing can be done to improve the current system.  I mean, at the very least, the NCAA could have easily switched two of the brackets this year so that it is not an east vs. west type deal, as many others have suggested.  And if they are going to use the "eye" test as they apparently claimed this year, they could have used it to create more equitable draws for certain teams, not just in regards to who made it into the tourney.

    It's just annoying that somehow, these general complaints (again, among some posters) repeatedly and inevitably are conflated with  attacks on NESCAC, even to the point of claiming that NESCAC illegitimately games the system, which is simply untrue.
    I'm not talking about using the eye test.  I'm talking about using more of the data such as margin of victory like Massey uses.  We don't have as many inter-regional games as d-1, but that doesn't mean we should disregard the data that we do have.

    I'm not attacking the NESCAC, just using them as an example of how the current selection process is flawed.  I only expect teams and conferences to act in their best self-interest.  It is up to the NCAA to provide the proper incentives to schedule challenging games.  I don't even really dislike how the NESCAC schedules games, it just shouldn't give them the automatic boost that it does.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 07, 2014, 03:13:42 PM
    Quote from: blue_jays on March 07, 2014, 03:03:53 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 02:36:50 PM
    But AO, here is the problem -- everyone from the Midwest just assumes that a win over Wheaton is clearly better than a win over Babson.  I'm not so sure.

    Pick your battles, that's a bad comparison. Last 10 years: Wheaton 196-80 (.710) vs. Babson 124-138 (.473). Wheaton also just got done playing one of, if not the toughest schedules in the country this year, which they consistently do most years. Nice try though.

    Massey agrees that Wheaton had the toughest schedule in the country this year. In contrast, Babson ranked 179th, right after Bethel and before Austin.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 03:45:24 PM
    I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

    And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!). 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 07, 2014, 03:58:59 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 03:45:24 PM
    I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

    And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!).
    Wheaton is #9 this year while Babson is #55.  No need to go back 10 years.
    Massey has Amherst as the best team as of the end of the year, but I can't recall if that was true before the tournament.  Maybe they were underrated prior to the tournament as they hadn't done as much in the regular season.   The NESCAC would probably look better in Massey if they used Ulrich's favorite fake criteria (past tournament history).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AmherstStudent05 on March 07, 2014, 04:24:24 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 07, 2014, 03:58:59 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 03:45:24 PM
    I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

    And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!).
    Wheaton is #9 this year while Babson is #55.  No need to go back 10 years.
    Massey has Amherst as the best team as of the end of the year, but I can't recall if that was true before the tournament.  Maybe they were underrated prior to the tournament as they hadn't done as much in the regular season.   The NESCAC would probably look better in Massey if they used Ulrich's favorite fake criteria (past tournament history).

    I believe Amherst was Massey's 6th ranked team (we may have been 7th) heading into last year's tournament (whatever we had done prior to that point, it was enough to be ranked 2nd in the d3hoops poll).  I believe Middlebury was ranked 40th (!) -- behind seemingly every conceivable team from the WIAC and CCIW.

    I respect that there is a felt need to have a computer provide us the comfort of an "objective" ranking system, but I am genuinely curious: Is there any actual evidence of Massey's wonderful predictive powers?  I say this because I recall a post from Pat at the end of last year's Tournament.  He had created separate brackets for the 2013 bracket challenge: one where predictions were based on Massey rankings and the other where the d3hoops poll dictated.  The d3hoops bracket performed incredibly well.  Massey......not so much.  Obviously only one year and one tournament, but still interesting I think.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 07, 2014, 04:29:44 PM
    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 07, 2014, 04:24:24 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 07, 2014, 03:58:59 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 03:45:24 PM
    I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

    And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!).
    Wheaton is #9 this year while Babson is #55.  No need to go back 10 years.
    Massey has Amherst as the best team as of the end of the year, but I can't recall if that was true before the tournament.  Maybe they were underrated prior to the tournament as they hadn't done as much in the regular season.   The NESCAC would probably look better in Massey if they used Ulrich's favorite fake criteria (past tournament history).

    I believe Amherst was Massey's 6th ranked team (we may have been 7th) heading into last year's tournament (whatever we had done prior to that point, it was enough to be ranked 2nd in the d3hoops poll).  I believe Middlebury was ranked 40th (!) -- behind seemingly every conceivable team from the WIAC and CCIW.

    I respect that there is a felt need to have a computer provide us the comfort of an "objective" ranking system, but I am genuinely curious: Is there any actual evidence of Massey's wonderful predictive powers?  I say this because I recall a post from Pat at the end of last year's Tournament.  He had created separate brackets for the 2013 bracket challenge: one where predictions were based on Massey rankings and the other where the d3hoops poll dictated.  The d3hoops bracket performed incredibly well.  Massey......not so much.  Obviously only one year and one tournament, but still interesting I think.
    I'd definitely support using the d3 hoops poll as a selection criteria.  Easily better than a SOS with a multipler that rewards easy home games and punishes tough away games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 07, 2014, 05:01:32 PM
    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 07, 2014, 04:24:24 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 07, 2014, 03:58:59 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 03:45:24 PM
    I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

    And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!).
    Wheaton is #9 this year while Babson is #55.  No need to go back 10 years.
    Massey has Amherst as the best team as of the end of the year, but I can't recall if that was true before the tournament.  Maybe they were underrated prior to the tournament as they hadn't done as much in the regular season.   The NESCAC would probably look better in Massey if they used Ulrich's favorite fake criteria (past tournament history).

    I believe Amherst was Massey's 6th ranked team (we may have been 7th) heading into last year's tournament (whatever we had done prior to that point, it was enough to be ranked 2nd in the d3hoops poll).  I believe Middlebury was ranked 40th (!) -- behind seemingly every conceivable team from the WIAC and CCIW.

    I respect that there is a felt need to have a computer provide us the comfort of an "objective" ranking system, but I am genuinely curious: Is there any actual evidence of Massey's wonderful predictive powers?  I say this because I recall a post from Pat at the end of last year's Tournament.  He had created separate brackets for the 2013 bracket challenge: one where predictions were based on Massey rankings and the other where the d3hoops poll dictated.  The d3hoops bracket performed incredibly well.  Massey......not so much.  Obviously only one year and one tournament, but still interesting I think.

    It's not predictive per se - it's a metric. And like any prediction it can go awry. And in a one-and-done format, things happen. Upsets happen. That's why there are percentages. And the highest ranked Massey team isn't always the favorite in his prediction analysis on a given day due to home/road swings and other metrics (offense / defense).  If Massey says a team has a 60% chance of winning, that's just three coin flips out of five. You going to tell me those other two coin flips are invalid? It's probability! A 99% chance of something happening means that there's a 1% chance it doesn't.

    I'd rather have objective metric than eye tests or old wives tales. Give me data or go home. I'd rather have a KenPom or something. We've talked about pitching in to do something on a huge scale using possession data and other stuff from the box scores but some D3 programs just don't play nice in getting timely box scores on line.

    We've had this Massey argument before. Teams rise to the top because of results. As of about December 15 there's no more pre-season bias. All teams are connected and it's based on the results at hand. It's just that certain teams perform well because they schedule and beat really good teams regularly.

    And I'd rather have a conference play a double round robin. PERIOD! That's the fairest and truest and most just way to determine a conference champ. As for the NESCAC, they CAN cherry pick more easily because of the number of teams up there, as opposed to the South or West and with only one conference game between each team there's a LOT of teams to schedule or avoid. It's not a real whine, it's just stating the cold truth that they do take advantage of the system. I have another real WHINE about the NESCAC which is on another board here...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: jeffjo on March 07, 2014, 05:09:25 PM
    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 07, 2014, 04:24:24 PMI respect that there is a felt need to have a computer provide us the comfort of an "objective" ranking system, but I am genuinely curious: Is there any actual evidence of Massey's wonderful predictive powers?  I say this because I recall a post from Pat at the end of last year's Tournament.  He had created separate brackets for the 2013 bracket challenge: one where predictions were based on Massey rankings and the other where the d3hoops poll dictated.  The d3hoops bracket performed incredibly well.  Massey......not so much.  Obviously only one year and one tournament, but still interesting I think.
    Admitting that I have no knowledge of this comparison, I have to jump in. Massey predicts all 61 games, including all the nebulous ones between unranked teams. D3T25 predicts about half of them, but most of those are the cherry-picked ones of ranked vs. unranked.

    Did Pat compare just the same set of games? A comparison isn't valid otherwise, and your description (bracket vs. bracket) sounds like he didn't. Regardless, one year isn't a valid sample space. I've done comparisons in the past, with computer programs that weren't as good as Massey, and they do marginally better than polls. But both are based on regular-season results, and the NCAA tourney is a different animal, so I don't like the comparison.

    But let me introduce one completely anecdotal (and completely inadequate for a comparison) piece of evidence:
    Quote from: D3Hoops headlineYork sprints to upset
    Massey power ranking for York: 43 (12th percentile)
    Massey power ranking for Rhode Island College: 108 (25th percentile)

    How is this an upset, except by the expectations in the most populous region?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AmherstStudent05 on March 07, 2014, 05:14:20 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 07, 2014, 05:01:32 PM
    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 07, 2014, 04:24:24 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 07, 2014, 03:58:59 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 03:45:24 PM
    I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

    And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!).
    Wheaton is #9 this year while Babson is #55.  No need to go back 10 years.
    Massey has Amherst as the best team as of the end of the year, but I can't recall if that was true before the tournament.  Maybe they were underrated prior to the tournament as they hadn't done as much in the regular season.   The NESCAC would probably look better in Massey if they used Ulrich's favorite fake criteria (past tournament history).

    I believe Amherst was Massey's 6th ranked team (we may have been 7th) heading into last year's tournament (whatever we had done prior to that point, it was enough to be ranked 2nd in the d3hoops poll).  I believe Middlebury was ranked 40th (!) -- behind seemingly every conceivable team from the WIAC and CCIW.

    I respect that there is a felt need to have a computer provide us the comfort of an "objective" ranking system, but I am genuinely curious: Is there any actual evidence of Massey's wonderful predictive powers?  I say this because I recall a post from Pat at the end of last year's Tournament.  He had created separate brackets for the 2013 bracket challenge: one where predictions were based on Massey rankings and the other where the d3hoops poll dictated.  The d3hoops bracket performed incredibly well.  Massey......not so much.  Obviously only one year and one tournament, but still interesting I think.

    It's not predictive per se - it's a metric. And like any prediction it can go awry. And in a one-and-done format, things happen. Upsets happen. That's why there are percentages. And the highest ranked Massey team isn't always the favorite in his prediction analysis on a given day due to home/road swings and other metrics (offense / defense).

    I'd rather have objective metric than eye tests or old wives tales. Give me data or go home.

    If Massey says a team has a 60% chance of winning, that's just three coin flips out of five. You going to tell me those other two coin flips are invalid?

    We've had this Massey argument before. Teams rise to the top because of results. As of about December 15 there's no more pre-season bias. All teams are connected and it's based on the results at hand. It's just that certain teams perform well because they schedule and beat really good teams regularly.

    And I'd rather have a conference play a double round robin. PERIOD! That's the fairest and truest and most just way to determine a conference champ. They CAN cherry pick more easily because of the number of teams up there, as opposed to the South or West.

    Smedindy, I understand that Massey is "objective," my question is whether it is any good.  I can create an "objective" computer model of my own.  One of the inputs could be a 150% bonus for any team that plays in the NESCAC!  Just because something is spit out of a model, doesn't make it any good.  And I understand that upsets can happen and that we need a larger sample size.  That's why I asked (genuinely) if there were such a sample size to support Massey.  How long has Massey been around.  Do we like Massey because it produces "metrics" that are statistically significant, or do we like it because Jeff Sagarin can't be bothered to create his own d3 rankings?

    Also, I confess that unlike most posters, I know very little about d3hoops outside my own conference.  However, my understanding is that almost all conferences (except for at least the UAA) select a conference champion, not by a round robin format, but rather by a one-and-done playoff.

    As nescac1 has already mentioned, the lack of a round robin actually gives NESCAC schools more flexibility to matchup against the best teams in our region.  Again, I don't follow other regions, but did any team have more wins against regionally ranked teams in their region than Amherst did this year?  We have to be up there.

    Also, while we are at it.  Just as you would like the NESCAC to play a round-robin, I wish all other conferences truncated preseason practice by two weeks. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 07, 2014, 05:26:03 PM
    Massey has been around a long time. In fact, he's one of the original BCS computer models (along with Sagarin). Don't hold the BCS against him - the powers that be totally neutered it by taking margin of victory OUT of it (even though every good metric system has diminishing returns already built into it).  He's usually mentioned along with Sagarin and Ken Pom by D-1 writers as a go to metric. Ken Pom is probably #1 since he really gets into possession data and pace. 

    He's got his quirks, of course, but it's pretty darn solid metric. Some luddites don't like it because if violates their eye test, or there was this one result four years ago that looked weird according to their sensibilities even though if you track the data back it made TOTAL sense.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: augie_superfan on March 07, 2014, 07:06:06 PM
    I don't know Massey's exact predictive stats but 2 years ago when I had the time to run my own "Massey-like" ranking system, it predicted about 73% of the games correctly.  My assumption is that his is within a few percentage points either way of that value.  And that is predicting all games (some 5000 or so).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 07, 2014, 09:19:31 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 03:45:24 PMBut given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.

    You have a pretty liberal definition of "steamrolled" if you consider the Lord Jeffs' win over North Central to have been a steamrolling.

    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 07, 2014, 05:14:20 PM
    Also, while we are at it.  Just as you would like the NESCAC to play a round-robin, I wish all other conferences truncated preseason practice by two weeks. 

    It's a double round-robin that non-NESCACers would like to see your league institute. The NESCAC already plays a single round-robin.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 07, 2014, 09:56:46 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 03:45:24 PM
    I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 


    Wheaton won today; Babson lost.

    Wheaton has a higher RPI.

    Massey...well, anyway.

    I don't think there is any argument that Babson is not a good team.  It's that Bowdoin doesn't belong.  Which they don't.  Amherst and Williams are great teams and then there is a significant dropoff to Middlebury and Bowdoin and I dare say Middlebury was probably better than Bowdoin this year.

    FWIW, the 4 tournament teams that Carthage beat during the regular season (IWU, Wheaton, Eastern Conn and Wash U) are 3-0 so far and IWU is up 15 at halftime.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on March 08, 2014, 08:20:56 AM
    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 07, 2014, 04:24:24 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 07, 2014, 03:58:59 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2014, 03:45:24 PM
    I was talking about Wheaton this year v. Babson this year, not over the past ten years.  The point isn't to pick and choose between one program or another, it's rather that it seems that many Midwest folks are a bit too dismissive of some of the very high quality teams, beyond the NESCAC teams, in the Northeast.  The Northeast is a huge region, numerically, so certainly there will be plenty of bad teams out there, as well. 

    And I also feel a bit leery about overreliance on Massey -- who often seems to rank the same few teams at the top, no matter what.  Did Massey have Amherst as the best team last year heading into the tournament?  I don't think they were in the top few teams, although I could be wrong.  But given how Amherst steamrolled the competition in the tourney, it was pretty clear that they were, by a significant margin, the best D3 squad.  And yet, they lost to several other New England squads (including, I believe, Babson!).
    Wheaton is #9 this year while Babson is #55.  No need to go back 10 years.
    Massey has Amherst as the best team as of the end of the year, but I can't recall if that was true before the tournament.  Maybe they were underrated prior to the tournament as they hadn't done as much in the regular season.   The NESCAC would probably look better in Massey if they used Ulrich's favorite fake criteria (past tournament history).

    I believe Amherst was Massey's 6th ranked team (we may have been 7th) heading into last year's tournament (whatever we had done prior to that point, it was enough to be ranked 2nd in the d3hoops poll).  I believe Middlebury was ranked 40th (!) -- behind seemingly every conceivable team from the WIAC and CCIW.

    I respect that there is a felt need to have a computer provide us the comfort of an "objective" ranking system, but I am genuinely curious: Is there any actual evidence of Massey's wonderful predictive powers?  I say this because I recall a post from Pat at the end of last year's Tournament.  He had created separate brackets for the 2013 bracket challenge: one where predictions were based on Massey rankings and the other where the d3hoops poll dictated.  The d3hoops bracket performed incredibly well.  Massey......not so much.  Obviously only one year and one tournament, but still interesting I think.

    Yeah, this year's d3 national pick 'em league. http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4534.5625
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 08, 2014, 09:06:15 AM
    bopol, I think you saw last night the danger of making larger extrapolations / acting as if you have "won" an argument based on a single data point.  If a foul is not called in the waning seconds to IWU's benefit, or a good look from three goes down at the buzzer vs. Stevens Point, would that have "proven" that those teams / conferences are overrated and didn't belong in the tournament?  Of course not! 

    It seems like even winning ANOTHER national championship for NESCAC, in a year in which three NESCAC teams made the elite eight despite being placed into three difference geographic brackets, hasn't ended the perennial bitching and moaning about NESCAC hoops here.  Whether NESCAC teams play a conference tourney or do not, whether the play a double round robin or do not, whether they beat each other to make the Final Four (as Williams has had to do vs. Amherst, several times) or are split up into different geographic regions (like last year, when three NESCAC teams still managed to make the Elite 8, and Amherst of course won), people here are always going to call NESCAC victories illegitimate, claim that NESCAC "cheats" or "jimmies" the system (while ignoring completely all contrary evidence, such as the late start date for NESCAC teams), etc.  It really doesn't matter what NESCAC does or doesn't do, or how well NESCAC teams actually perform,  it will be the same old tired arguments.  At this point, let's just cut and paste these same arguments back and forth next year, when the haters will emerge once again. 

    And by the way, proof that whatever Massey is doing, it is not doing well is found in how it treated NESCAC as a league this year -- it was ranked (at least last I heard) REALLY low (like outside the top 10 conferences) by Massey's computer calculations, which is just farcical.  If Massey rated the ACC or the Big 10 as the 12th best conference, folks would laugh at that, as well. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 08, 2014, 09:52:48 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 08, 2014, 09:06:15 AM
    bopol, I think you saw last night the danger of making larger extrapolations / acting as if you have "won" an argument based on a single data point.  If a foul is not called in the waning seconds to IWU's benefit, or a good look from three goes down at the buzzer vs. Stevens Point, would that have "proven" that those teams / conferences are overrated and didn't belong in the tournament?  Of course not! 

    It seems like even winning ANOTHER national championship for NESCAC, in a year in which three NESCAC teams made the elite eight despite being placed into three difference geographic brackets, hasn't ended the perennial bitching and moaning about NESCAC hoops here.  Whether NESCAC teams play a conference tourney or do not, whether the play a double round robin or do not, whether they beat each other to make the Final Four (as Williams has had to do vs. Amherst, several times) or are split up into different geographic regions (like last year, when three NESCAC teams still managed to make the Elite 8, and Amherst of course won), people here are always going to call NESCAC victories illegitimate, claim that NESCAC "cheats" or "jimmies" the system (while ignoring completely all contrary evidence, such as the late start date for NESCAC teams), etc.  It really doesn't matter what NESCAC does or doesn't do, or how well NESCAC teams actually perform,  it will be the same old tired arguments.  At this point, let's just cut and paste these same arguments back and forth next year, when the haters will emerge once again. 

    And by the way, proof that whatever Massey is doing, it is not doing well is found in how it treated NESCAC as a league this year -- it was ranked (at least last I heard) REALLY low (like outside the top 10 conferences) by Massey's computer calculations, which is just farcical.  If Massey rated the ACC or the Big 10 as the 12th best conference, folks would laugh at that, as well.

    Massey has the NESCAC #5.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 08, 2014, 10:06:01 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 08, 2014, 09:52:48 AM
    Massey has the NESCAC #5.

    Behind the CCIW, UAA, WIAC, and OAC. I don't know what this purports to measure, but I just don't see the OAC being up with these other conferences this year (or with the 6th ranked NCAC, for that matter.) The OAC is fairly well balanced, and the 7th place team is a threat to beat the first place team, which is not necessarily the case in most conferences, but the top of the conference is pretty weak, especially when compared to the tops of the other top 6 conferences (look what WashU did to Wilma last night.) I think, once reasonable metrics have been defined, that we could argue forever about the NESCAC vs. the CCIW, UAA, and/or WIAC, but I don't see any reason to agree that they are behind the OAC in any sense. And that makes me wonder about these conference rankings overall.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 08, 2014, 10:07:31 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 08, 2014, 09:06:15 AM
    bopol, I think you saw last night the danger of making larger extrapolations / acting as if you have "won" an argument based on a single data point.  If a foul is not called in the waning seconds to IWU's benefit, or a good look from three goes down at the buzzer vs. Stevens Point, would that have "proven" that those teams / conferences are overrated and didn't belong in the tournament?  Of course not! 

    It seems like even winning ANOTHER national championship for NESCAC, in a year in which three NESCAC teams made the elite eight despite being placed into three difference geographic brackets, hasn't ended the perennial bitching and moaning about NESCAC hoops here.  Whether NESCAC teams play a conference tourney or do not, whether the play a double round robin or do not, whether they beat each other to make the Final Four (as Williams has had to do vs. Amherst, several times) or are split up into different geographic regions (like last year, when three NESCAC teams still managed to make the Elite 8, and Amherst of course won), people here are always going to call NESCAC victories illegitimate, claim that NESCAC "cheats" or "jimmies" the system (while ignoring completely all contrary evidence, such as the late start date for NESCAC teams), etc.  It really doesn't matter what NESCAC does or doesn't do, or how well NESCAC teams actually perform,  it will be the same old tired arguments.  At this point, let's just cut and paste these same arguments back and forth next year, when the haters will emerge once again. 

    And by the way, proof that whatever Massey is doing, it is not doing well is found in how it treated NESCAC as a league this year -- it was ranked (at least last I heard) REALLY low (like outside the top 10 conferences) by Massey's computer calculations, which is just farcical.  If Massey rated the ACC or the Big 10 as the 12th best conference, folks would laugh at that, as well.
    I just checked and they're ranked 5th behind CCIW, UAA, WIAC, and OAC

    I don't have a dog in this fight as my conference (HCAC) usually isn't fighting in the same weight class as the NESCAC. From what I can tell (and I could be completely wrong), those who are unhappy with the NESCAC are complaining more that the conference seems to play non-conference games against teams that might have a decent record (thus giving them good SOS numbers) but are still weak teams not really in the same class as the NESCAC. I just think some people are frustrated that the NESCAC doesn't challenge themselves more while others are annoyed at all the success they have.

    I'll admit that in the Posters Poll I've been one of the lowest voters this season for NESCAC teams because based solely on just this season, I haven't seen them challenged by their schedule (except when they play each other). However I also know that come tournament time it'd be foolish to write them off (and on my bracket I have two in the Final Four).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 08, 2014, 10:12:43 AM

    JUST POOL C

    GREEN got Pool C bids

    #2E Plattsburgh won vs MIT
    #3E Geneseo LOST vs #4MA Dickinson (Pool C vs Pool C)

    #2GL Hope LOST vs PS-Behrend
    #6GL Wittenberg LOST vs Calvin
    #7GL Ohio Wesleyan LOST vs St. Norbert

    #3MA Wesley won vs Alvernia
    #4MA Dickinson won vs #3E Geneseo (Pool C vs Pool C)

    #2MW Illinois Wesleyan won vs Webster
    #4MW Augustana won vs #3W St. Thomas (Pool C vs Pool C)

    #2NE Williams won vs Mitchell
    #3NE Babson LOST vs Gordon
    #4NE Eastern Connecticut won vs Husson
    #5NE WPI LOST vs Albertus Magnus
    #6NE Springfield LOST vs Mary Washington
    #7NE Bowdoin LOST vs Richard Stockton

    #1S Randolph-Macon LOST vs DeSales
    #2S Emory vs BYE

    #2W Whitewater won Northwestern
    #3 St. Thomas LOST vs #4MW Augustana (Pool C vs Pool C)

    1st Round record 8-10 (6-8)

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2014, 10:20:15 PM


       TEAM-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       3. Staten Island      24-2, 24-2      CUNYAC      WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final    
       4. William Paterson       20-5, 20-5      NJAC      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; LOST vs Richard Stockton 65-44 in Final
       5. Rutgers-Newark      19-7, 19-7      NJAC      LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal     
       6. Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)       20-5, 20-5      SKY      WON vs Farmingdale State 95-75; LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 100-82 in Final   
                            
       TEAM-EAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Plattsburgh State        21-4, 21-4      SUNYAC      WON vs Geneseo 73-69; LOST vs Brockport State 57-56 in Final   
       3. Geneseo State       19-5, 20-5      SUNYAC      WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; LOST vs Plattsburgh St. 73-69 in semifinal    
       5. NYU        16-8, 16-8      UAA      LOST at Brandeis 92-53   
       6. Skidmore      16-9, 16-9      LL      LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-GREAT-LAKES      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Hope      18-5, 19-6      MIAA      WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; LOST vs Calvin 78-53 in Final   
       3.Bethany      20-4, 21-4      PAC      LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals    
       4. Mount Union      20-5, 20-5      OAC      LOST John Carroll 83-81 in semifinal    
       5. DePauw      17-7, 18-7      NCAC      WON vs Wabash 73-59; LOST vs Wittenberg 63-61 in semifinal 2/28   
       6. Wittenberg        19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Denison 64-49; WON vs DePauw 63-61; LOST vs Wooster 71-63 in Final   
       7. Ohio Wesleyan      19-6, 19-6      NCAC      WON vs Kenyon 78-67; LOST vs Wooster 78-67 in semifinal    
                            
       TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       3.Wesley      20-2, 22-2      CAC      LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal    
       4. Dickinson      20-5, 20-5      CC      WON vs McDaniel 77-63; LOST vs Johns Hopkins 60-55 in Final   
       5. Stevenson      18-7, 18-7      MACC      WON vs Hood 83-72; LOST vs Alvernia 70-69 in Final   
       6. Messiah      19-5, 19-5      MACC      LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal    
       9. St. Mary's (Md.)      15-7, 18-7      CAC      LOST vs Mary Washington 70-65 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-MIDWEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Illinois Wesleyan      22-3, 22-3      CCIW      WON vs Carthage 76-71; LOST vs Wheaton 87-66 in Final   
       4. Augustana       19-6, 19-6      CCIW      LOST vs Wheaton (IL) 66-55 in semifinal    
       6. Carthage       15-8, 16-9      CCIW      LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 76-71 in semifinal    
       8. Chicago      14-9, 15-9      UAA      LOST vs Washington U. 86-73   
                            
       TEAM-NORTHEAST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. Williams       21-3, 22-3      NESCAC      WON vs Middlebury 78-75; LOST vs Amherst 93-82 in Final   
       3. Babson       20-5, 20-5      NEWMAC      LOST vs Springfield 85-77 OTin semifinal   
       4. Eastern Connecticut      20-5, 20-5      LEC      WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; WON vs Western Connecticut 88-75; LOST vs RIC 70-61 in Final   
       5. WPI       22-3, 22-3      NEWMAC      LOST vs MIT 64-46 in semifinal 3/1   
       6. Springfield       18-6, 19-6      NEWMAC      WON vs Babson 85-77 OT; LOST vs MIT 67-56 in Final   
       7. Bowdoin      19-5, 19-5      NESCAC      LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal     
       9. Nichols      20-5, 20-5      CCC      WON vs Western New England 73-54; WON vs Salva Regina 83-80 OT; LOST vs Gordon 69-65 in Final 3/1   
       11. Middlebury       16-8, 17-8      NESCAC      LOST vs Williams 78-75 in semifinal   
                            
       TEAM-SOUTH      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       1. Randolph-Macon      20-5, 20-5      ODAC      LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal    
       2. Emory       17-7, 17-7      UAA      LOST at Rochester 97-83   
       6. Birmingham-Southern      16-9, 16-9      SAA      WON vs Hendrix 77-62; LOST vs Oglethorpe 72-70   
       7. Guilford       17-8, 17-8      ODAC      LOST vs Washington and Lee 77-70 in quarterfinal    
                            
       TEAM-WEST      RECORD      CON       SCHEDULE   
       2. UW-Whitewater       22-3, 22-3      WIAC      WON vs La Crosse 76-73; LOST at Stevens Point 74-57 in Final   
       3. St. Thomas       21-4, 21-4      MIAC      WON vs Bethel 74-59; LOST vs St. Olaf 63-53 in Final   
       6. Dubuque      18-4, 21-4      IIAC      LOST vs Luther 87-83 in semifinal    
       7. C-M-S       17-3, 19-5      SCIAC      LOST vs Cal Lutheran 54-53 in semifinal   
       8. Pomona-Pitzer       18-5, 18-7      SCIAC      LOST vs Chapman 69-54 in semifinal   
       9. Augsburg      18-7, 18-7      MIAC      LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal    
                            
    [/quote]
    [/quote]
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 08, 2014, 10:36:18 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 08, 2014, 09:06:15 AM
    bopol, I think you saw last night the danger of making larger extrapolations / acting as if you have "won" an argument based on a single data point.  If a foul is not called in the waning seconds to IWU's benefit, or a good look from three goes down at the buzzer vs. Stevens Point, would that have "proven" that those teams / conferences are overrated and didn't belong in the tournament?  Of course not! 

    It seems like even winning ANOTHER national championship for NESCAC, in a year in which three NESCAC teams made the elite eight despite being placed into three difference geographic brackets, hasn't ended the perennial bitching and moaning about NESCAC hoops here.  Whether NESCAC teams play a conference tourney or do not, whether the play a double round robin or do not, whether they beat each other to make the Final Four (as Williams has had to do vs. Amherst, several times) or are split up into different geographic regions (like last year, when three NESCAC teams still managed to make the Elite 8, and Amherst of course won), people here are always going to call NESCAC victories illegitimate, claim that NESCAC "cheats" or "jimmies" the system (while ignoring completely all contrary evidence, such as the late start date for NESCAC teams), etc.  It really doesn't matter what NESCAC does or doesn't do, or how well NESCAC teams actually perform,  it will be the same old tired arguments.  At this point, let's just cut and paste these same arguments back and forth next year, when the haters will emerge once again. 

    And by the way, proof that whatever Massey is doing, it is not doing well is found in how it treated NESCAC as a league this year -- it was ranked (at least last I heard) REALLY low (like outside the top 10 conferences) by Massey's computer calculations, which is just farcical.  If Massey rated the ACC or the Big 10 as the 12th best conference, folks would laugh at that, as well.

    Well, I'm piling on a little bit, which isn't very nice of me, but you are extrapolating the performance of a few teams (Amherst and Williams) to cover an entire conference and I mentioned RPI as well, but you didn't comment on that.  So, let me be clear.

    Amherst is great.  Legit Top 5 team and I'd have them #3 right now behind UWSP and Wash U and ahead of IWU and UWW.  Wouldn't surprise me to see them in the Final 4 or win it all.

    Williams is very, very good.  Hard to tell if they are great as they got dropped by Amherst three times and played a soft non-conference schedule, but did handle Hampden Syndey, Springfield, Bowdoin and Middlebury.

    Bowdoin is probably a second 50 team.  They played a very soft nonconference schedule and did beat a good Babson team, but lost every other game they played against a Top 100 team this year.  I don't think they deserved to be in the tournament and I don't think it was that close.

    Middlebury is also probably a second 50 team and played a nonconference schedule I can respect (Alvernia, Stevenson, St. Mary's, Plattsburgh St).

    The rest of the conference were not Top 100 teams. 

    Now, Massey has the Smalls as the 5th ranked conference, so they are respected, but the fact is that the conference does not challenge themselves in nonconference play.  Consider this

    # of games vs. Regional Ranked Teams in Nonconference play
    Amherst - 4 (includes 2nd game against Williams)
    Williams - 2 (includes 2nd game aganist Amherst)
    Bowdoin - 1
    Middlebury - 5 (though I really doubt Skidmore remained regional ranked)
    Trinity - 1
    Tufts - 1
    Hamilton - 1
    Colby - 0
    Wesleyan - 1
    Bates - 1 (Bowdoin)
    Connecticut - 1

    For grins and giggles, let's compare that to the CCIW and their 11 game nonconference schedule
    IWU - 4
    Wheaton - 5
    Augustana - 2
    Carthage - 4
    North Central - 3
    Elmhurst - 0
    Millikin - 2
    North Park - 2

    So, the CCIW played 20 of their possible 88 (23%) games against regionally ranked opponents and the NE Smalls played 18 of their possible 165 games (11%) against regional ranked opponents and 3 of those games were incestuous. 

    The problem is that every bit of data shows the same thing (Massey, RPI, tournament history, play against RRO), the top couple of Smalls teams are very good or even great and then there is a big dropoff and you're choosing to ignore that data. 

    So, let me ask you a plain question: Do you think Bowdoin deserved the Pool C bid?


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toad22 on March 08, 2014, 11:10:41 AM
    I've been watching the disdain for NESCAC teams from the middle of the country for almost 20 years now. At first, I thought it would take winning a national championship to change things, but Williams won in 2003, came .2 seconds from winning in 2004, and nothing changed. Amherst won in 2007, nothing changed, Amherst won in 2013, and nothing has changed. Some posters have a fixed view of the D3 basketball world, that cannot be changed by facts. My observation, with quite a bit of observation to support it, is that there is one great conference in the D3 world:the WIAC. They make everybody else look weak in a majority of years. I just don't think there is much argument by anybody else that will stand up to heavy scrutiny. I do think that there are a lot of great teams, located all over, but there is no dominance, except out of Wisconsin.

    Trying to nitpick how other teams and leagues run their programs really means nothing. D3 is a regional sport with a national championship. If the CCIW were as great as some posters believe, they would dominate in national play, but they don't. Several teams are very good over many years, the rest are ok regionally, but almost never rise to the national scene. That goes for for about 8-10 leagues, including the NESCAC. The standout is the WIAC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AmherstStudent05 on March 08, 2014, 11:22:21 AM
    Thanks for running the numbers, bopol. Interesting stuff.  I will just note though that while I haven't run the numbers myself, I think there may be a few small errors in your post.

    First, as of the last publicly-available regional rankings -- and forgive me if you have access to the latest rankings -- I have Amherst playing 5 regionally ranked teams in non conference play (Williams, Babson, Eastern Connecticut, Nichols, RIC).  We also played a DII team as well.

    Also, Wesleyan plays both Amherst and Williams in non-conference games and Colby plays Bowdoin.  See, when Gregory Sager says the NESCAC already plays a single round robin, that is not quite right.  Yes, for conference play, the NESCAC plays a single round robin, however, for scheduling purposes (which is the conversation we are having here), there are some "mini" conferences within the NESCAC that do play double round robins each year.  For instance, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan comprise the "Little III" which long predates the NESCAC.  Out of conference games do not go towards NESCAC standings, but they are used, along with the regular season NESCAC games, to crown a "Little III Champion" each year.  Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby have a similar arrangement that occurs each year without fail.  As far as I know, these are the only double-round robin games in the NESCAC.

    I think, as is often the case, the waters have become a bit muddied in this "conversation." As for your most recent, direct question to nescac1, I will agree with you.  I was very surprised that Bowdoin received a Pool C bid and while I have a lot of respect for their program I do not think they were even the third best team in the NESCAC this year.  I have been saying as much for a while now on the NESCAC boards.

    My point though, which seems unaddressed is about the interest other conferences take in how the NESCAC conducts its affairs.  I can't speak for other NESCAC posters, but I am pretty sure this interest is not reciprocated. Also, I think for reasons that nescac1 has stated, the idea that the NESCAC has "jimmied" its schedule to improve its odds of making the NCAA Tournament is downright laughable to anyone who knows anything about NESCAC politics.  It was a struggle just to convince the NESCAC presidents to let our teams compete in the NCAA Tournament at all! (and we still don't in football as I am sure many of you know).

    Now, if other conferences feel that the NESCAC's hybrid round robin scheduling, or even a straight single round robin schedule, is most conducive to success in the NCAA Tournament, then I encourage them to consider a change!  As long as it is within NCAA guidelines, have at it.  And, if it is uniformity we are after, as an Amherst fan, I would have my own thoughts on this if I actually cared how other conferences conducted their affairs.  Again, how about starting preseason practices two weeks later?  How about abolishing all JV teams?  How about preventing all (non medical) redshirts (not sure if this actually happens, but when I was a student it was rumored to be a practice among some other DIII schools)?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 08, 2014, 11:37:01 AM
    Quote from: David Collinge on March 08, 2014, 10:06:01 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 08, 2014, 09:52:48 AM
    Massey has the NESCAC #5.

    Behind the CCIW, UAA, WIAC, and OAC. I don't know what this purports to measure, but I just don't see the OAC being up with these other conferences this year (or with the 6th ranked NCAC, for that matter.) The OAC is fairly well balanced, and the 7th place team is a threat to beat the first place team, which is not necessarily the case in most conferences, but the top of the conference is pretty weak, especially when compared to the tops of the other top 6 conferences (look what WashU did to Wilma last night.) I think, once reasonable metrics have been defined, that we could argue forever about the NESCAC vs. the CCIW, UAA, and/or WIAC, but I don't see any reason to agree that they are behind the OAC in any sense. And that makes me wonder about these conference rankings overall.

    The OAC has one result that no one else in D3 had this year, a win over a D1.  Not just a D1 but a mid-level conference D1 in Wilmington's win over Miami-Ohio.  That helped skew the OAC's rating all year. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on March 08, 2014, 12:14:38 PM
    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 08, 2014, 11:22:21 AM
    Now, if other conferences feel that the NESCAC's hybrid round robin scheduling, or even a straight single round robin schedule, is most conducive to success in the NCAA Tournament, then I encourage them to consider a change!  As long as it is within NCAA guidelines, have at it.  And, if it is uniformity we are after, as an Amherst fan, I would have my own thoughts on this if I actually cared how other conferences conducted their affairs.  Again, how about starting preseason practices two weeks later?  How about abolishing all JV teams?  How about preventing all (non medical) redshirts (not sure if this actually happens, but when I was a student it was rumored to be a practice among some other DIII schools)?

    Redshirting was abolished starting with the 2004-05 season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 08, 2014, 01:37:37 PM
    AmherstStudent05,

    Yeah, I don't care how the NESCAC does their business.  With the great history of so many of those schools, I understand the opportunity to do some pretty unique things and they should.  My only complaint is that Bowdoin didn't belong in the tournament.


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: y_jack_lok on March 08, 2014, 01:50:58 PM
    Quote from: toad22 on March 08, 2014, 11:10:41 AM
    I've been watching the disdain for NESCAC teams from the middle of the country for almost 20 years now. At first, I thought it would take winning a national championship to change things, but Williams won in 2003, came .2 seconds from winning in 2004, and nothing changed. Amherst won in 2007, nothing changed, Amherst won in 2013, and nothing has changed. Some posters have a fixed view of the D3 basketball world, that cannot be changed by facts. My observation, with quite a bit of observation to support it, is that there is one great conference in the D3 world:the WIAC. They make everybody else look weak in a majority of years. I just don't think there is much argument by anybody else that will stand up to heavy scrutiny. I do think that there are a lot of great teams, located all over, but there is no dominance, except out of Wisconsin.

    Trying to nitpick how other teams and leagues run their programs really means nothing. D3 is a regional sport with a national championship. If the CCIW were as great as some posters believe, they would dominate in national play, but they don't. Several teams are very good over many years, the rest are ok regionally, but almost never rise to the national scene. That goes for for about 8-10 leagues, including the NESCAC. The standout is the WIAC.

    This is a great and, in my view, very accurate observation about the WIAC. And I think part of what makes that possible is that most WIAC schools have significantly larger enrollments than the majority of D3 schools. You can attract quality athletes to successful programs who get to pay public university tuition. Maybe the SUNYAC is in a similar position but without similar athletic success. I don't know for sure. But it seems that a significant majority of D3 schools are private and have higher tuition than their public university D3 counterparts.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: blue_jays on March 08, 2014, 02:29:28 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 08, 2014, 09:06:15 AM
    bopol, I think you saw last night the danger of making larger extrapolations / acting as if you have "won" an argument based on a single data point.  If a foul is not called in the waning seconds to IWU's benefit, or a good look from three goes down at the buzzer vs. Stevens Point, would that have "proven" that those teams / conferences are overrated and didn't belong in the tournament?  Of course not! 

    It seems like even winning ANOTHER national championship for NESCAC, in a year in which three NESCAC teams made the elite eight despite being placed into three difference geographic brackets, hasn't ended the perennial bitching and moaning about NESCAC hoops here.  Whether NESCAC teams play a conference tourney or do not, whether the play a double round robin or do not, whether they beat each other to make the Final Four (as Williams has had to do vs. Amherst, several times) or are split up into different geographic regions (like last year, when three NESCAC teams still managed to make the Elite 8, and Amherst of course won), people here are always going to call NESCAC victories illegitimate, claim that NESCAC "cheats" or "jimmies" the system (while ignoring completely all contrary evidence, such as the late start date for NESCAC teams), etc.  It really doesn't matter what NESCAC does or doesn't do, or how well NESCAC teams actually perform,  it will be the same old tired arguments.  At this point, let's just cut and paste these same arguments back and forth next year, when the haters will emerge once again. 

    And by the way, proof that whatever Massey is doing, it is not doing well is found in how it treated NESCAC as a league this year -- it was ranked (at least last I heard) REALLY low (like outside the top 10 conferences) by Massey's computer calculations, which is just farcical.  If Massey rated the ACC or the Big 10 as the 12th best conference, folks would laugh at that, as well.

    Ugh, enough with this pointless spitting match, every body. NESCAC supporters will always believe they have the superior league that gets no respect. Midwest supporters will always believe they have the superior leagues and that the NESCAC teams get too easy a road in the postseason. It doesn't matter. No one's opinions are going to change. This "debate" is tired and lame. So let's just acquiesce and apologize to the NESCAC: "You guys are the greatest, we totally respect you as the superiors schools, let's burn your likeness into the surface of the moon for all to admire."
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 08, 2014, 02:58:34 PM
     ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 08, 2014, 07:26:42 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on March 08, 2014, 12:14:38 PM
    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 08, 2014, 11:22:21 AM
    Now, if other conferences feel that the NESCAC's hybrid round robin scheduling, or even a straight single round robin schedule, is most conducive to success in the NCAA Tournament, then I encourage them to consider a change!  As long as it is within NCAA guidelines, have at it.  And, if it is uniformity we are after, as an Amherst fan, I would have my own thoughts on this if I actually cared how other conferences conducted their affairs.  Again, how about starting preseason practices two weeks later?  How about abolishing all JV teams?  How about preventing all (non medical) redshirts (not sure if this actually happens, but when I was a student it was rumored to be a practice among some other DIII schools)?

    Redshirting was abolished starting with the 2004-05 season.

    Helpful to learn what other conferences actually do before you complain about what they do.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AmherstStudent05 on March 08, 2014, 08:03:22 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 08, 2014, 07:26:42 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on March 08, 2014, 12:14:38 PM
    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 08, 2014, 11:22:21 AM
    Now, if other conferences feel that the NESCAC's hybrid round robin scheduling, or even a straight single round robin schedule, is most conducive to success in the NCAA Tournament, then I encourage them to consider a change!  As long as it is within NCAA guidelines, have at it.  And, if it is uniformity we are after, as an Amherst fan, I would have my own thoughts on this if I actually cared how other conferences conducted their affairs.  Again, how about starting preseason practices two weeks later?  How about abolishing all JV teams?  How about preventing all (non medical) redshirts (not sure if this actually happens, but when I was a student it was rumored to be a practice among some other DIII schools)?

    Redshirting was abolished starting with the 2004-05 season.

    Helpful to learn what other conferences actually do before you complain about what they do.

    Pat, I think it is fair to say that your above post is somewhat cryptic, so forgive me if I am not reading it right, but if that post was directed at me then I think it is clear that you have fundamentally misread /misunderstood what I had written previously.  To say it again, I DO NOT CARE how other conferences or other teams arrange their affairs, so long as it is within NCAA regulations.  The CCIW can have a triple round robin or spend millions of dollars flying their team all across the country on a private jet and staying in first class hotels so that they can have their pick of whatever D3 teams they want.  Fine by me.  I am not coming close to "complain[ing]" about any of it.

    My other point, which, frankly, I would have thought you would have understood and been sympathetic to, is that the idea that the NESCAC schools are somehow manipulating their internal rules to maximize their chances of getting as many teams in the NCAA Tournament is downright ridiculous.  As far as I know, the NESCAC has never played a complete double round robin, even in the years when the NESCAC schools were pointedly removing themselves from NCAA Tournament consideration.  I also noted that while conference scheduling may be one difference Amherst has with schools from other regions, historically there are other differences as well and these differences certainly hinder, on a relative basis, Amherst's competitive position relative to its D3 peers, but have nonetheless been taken because Amherst believes them to be in the best interest of our student athletes and our College.  As I noted, we start practice two weeks late and we do not have a JV team.  I also threw out the redshirting while acknowledging that I had no idea whether this practice actually ever existed or not.  Apparently it did up until my senior year.  You can correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, Amherst never granted non-medical redshirts to any of its basketball players (in fact, the only redshirt I am aware of is Ray Corrigan who tore his achilles early in his senior year.)  So maybe we were at something of a competitive disadvantage there for a few years.  Again, I don't care, and I didn't care when I first heard, during my first trip to Salem in 2004, that this was a practice used by some schools.  If it was within the rules, I wish other schools well even if Amherst chose to do something different.  All I am saying is that whatever you think of Amherst, the idea that we -- or our peer NESCAC schools -- are an NCAA Tournament maximizing institution is pretty demonstrably false. I like to think that we enjoy our success when the stars align for us and respect the success of others when it isn't our time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2014, 09:26:28 PM
    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 08, 2014, 11:22:21 AM
    Also, Wesleyan plays both Amherst and Williams in non-conference games and Colby plays Bowdoin.  See, when Gregory Sager says the NESCAC already plays a single round robin, that is not quite right.  Yes, for conference play, the NESCAC plays a single round robin, however, for scheduling purposes (which is the conversation we are having here), there are some "mini" conferences within the NESCAC that do play double round robins each year.  For instance, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan comprise the "Little III" which long predates the NESCAC.  Out of conference games do not go towards NESCAC standings, but they are used, along with the regular season NESCAC games, to crown a "Little III Champion" each year.  Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby have a similar arrangement that occurs each year without fail.  As far as I know, these are the only double-round robin games in the NESCAC.

    It's still a single round-robin, AS05. The extra non-conference games that the AWW triad and the CBB triad play constitute only 11% of a full NESCAC round-robin.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 09, 2014, 01:01:15 AM
    I don't care who or what league it is. Without a double-round robin it's not a real true conference champ. The NCAC, when Wabash and Hiram joined a few years ago, had a weird schedule where Wabash and Earlham would only play Hiram and Allegheny once, and that forced some Ohio teams into single games. It really helped the team that avoided Wooster on a roadie to Wooster, or Witt on a roadie to Witt.

    After a shuffle (no Earlham, add DPU), they came to their senses and double rounded it. When a conference gets bloated, like some, they split into divisions a double round one division and single round the other. That can really affect a race depending on where you play someone.

    As for the other stuff, the NESCAC partisans have lost a lot of credibility stating false facts about redshirting, their Massey rating, and other things. I expected better.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 09, 2014, 08:48:51 AM
    (1) smedindy, you obviously didn't read a word of AmherstStudent05's post.  The only person who has lost credibility here is you, since you were the one who falsely accused NESCAC of "jimmying its schedule" to secure Pool C bids, which was the ridiculous comment that started this whole idiotic and totally one-sided debate.  What you said is false.  We proved to you it was false.  You then completely ignored our comprehensive rebuttals of that statement (most importantly, the fact that (a) NESCAC played the same schedule prior to even participating in the NCAA tournament, which standing alone defeats your claim, and (b) NESCAC puts itself at a competitive disadvantage by limiting practice time early in the season, which belies an all-consuming interest in earning NCAA bids), and try to move the goalposts.  Seriously, dude, just drop it. 

    (And by the way, my comment about Massey was not false.  I stated that NESCAC was ranked somewhere around 10-15 EARLIER in the season, which was the last I heard about Massey rankings, and which is absolutely true.  I hadn't seen the more recent rankings ... which I still think are on the low side). 

    (2) I'd like you to say to the face of any of the Amherst players who busted ass to win this year's NESCAC title that they are not a "real" conference champ.  Winning the NESCAC title is damn, damn tough.  Just about every team in NESCAC could really play this year.  This year's NESCAC title game was one of the best-played games you will see in Division 3.  Heck, Amherst won a national championship in a year they couldn't manage to do it.  That is one of the single dumbest comments ever made on D3hoops.

    (3) Once again, what is the annual obsession with NESCAC with some posters?  When CCIW didn't have a conference tournament, no one from NESCAC questioned the legitimacy of the CCIW.  When the NCAC had some weird schedule that you are talking about, no one in the NESCAC cared.  I would understand the bitterness if NESCAC fans were high-and-mighty and claimed that our conference is somehow superior to all others in D3.  But that is an imagined slight.  No one in NESCAC ever asserted any such thing.  We've never denigrated the caliber of basketball played elsewhere in the country.  Nor have we claimed that their participation in the NCAA tournament was an illegitimate product of gaming the system.   

    Toad (and I certainly agree) opined that WIAC is the best basketball conference.  NESCAC is one of several closely grouped behind them in the next tier, along with CCIW, ODAC, UAA (most years, I think UAA was down a bit this year), and maybe one or two others.  I do believe that NESCAC and CCIW are neck-and-neck for second-best overall, but ODAC and UAA have good arguments there as well.

    As we've pointed out, each conference has its own advantages, and own constraints, that is the general point that folks are missing by nitpicking over one or two comments. This should be a fairly uncontroversial proposition.  NESCAC schools have to win an eleven team league.  That's tougher than winning an eight team league.  NESCAC schools have constraints on travel, recruiting and scheduling that most other schools (outside of UAA and a few others) don't share.  NESCAC schools also have certain advantages that other conferences don't have, like not having to face a double round robin, and the ability to recruit nationally.  It cuts both ways. 

    (4) All we ask is that folks don't constantly, year after year, attack the legitimacy of NESCAC teams participating in the NCAA tournament, or even, as smedindy just did, the legitimacy of the NESCAC championship.  It's not fair to the schools, and it's most certainly not fair to the NESCAC kids.  In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy the annual deep runs by NESCAC teams in the NCAA tournament. 

    If you are annoyed by the NCAA, that is fine, and understandable.  But to conflate that with demonstrably false attacks on the motivations and accomplishments of NESCAC schools and players is just silly. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: y_jack_lok on March 09, 2014, 10:37:28 AM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 09, 2014, 01:01:15 AM
    I don't care who or what league it is. Without a double-round robin it's not a real true conference champ.

    This can present a problem for the ODAC, which has 12 schools. A double round robin means 22 conference games, leaving room for only three non-conference games, thus limiting the chance to play other in region opponents and ultimately affecting regional ranking, SOS, wins versus RROs, and all those other comparative things that get evaluated when it comes time to decide who gets in the NCAA tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 09, 2014, 10:48:59 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 09, 2014, 08:48:51 AM



    (4) All we ask is that folks don't constantly, year after year, attack the legitimacy of NESCAC teams participating in the NCAA tournament, or even, as smedindy just did, the legitimacy of the NESCAC championship.  It's not fair to the schools, and it's most certainly not fair to the NESCAC kids.  In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy the annual deep runs by NESCAC teams in the NCAA tournament. 


    Bowdoin didn't belong in the tournament by the criteria published by the NCAA.  They happen to be a NESCAC team.   

    BTW, the 5 tournament teams that Carthage beat are now a combined 8-2, with 3 teams in the Sweet 16.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 09, 2014, 12:01:11 PM
    Quote from: y_jack_lok on March 09, 2014, 10:37:28 AM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 09, 2014, 01:01:15 AM
    I don't care who or what league it is. Without a double-round robin it's not a real true conference champ.

    This can present a problem for the ODAC, which has 12 schools. A double round robin means 22 conference games, leaving room for only three non-conference games, thus limiting the chance to play other in region opponents and ultimately affecting regional ranking, SOS, wins versus RROs, and all those other comparative things that get evaluated when it comes time to decide who gets in the NCAA tournament.

    The ODAC also has the poster child Pool C selection for why RRO's are dumb when Randolph at 15-6 with 9 RRO's all from conference play was selected last year.

    From watching the South Region rankings over the years the ODAC has no problem at all getting 3 sometimes four teams ranked.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: y_jack_lok on March 09, 2014, 12:15:20 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 09, 2014, 12:01:11 PM
    Quote from: y_jack_lok on March 09, 2014, 10:37:28 AM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 09, 2014, 01:01:15 AM
    I don't care who or what league it is. Without a double-round robin it's not a real true conference champ.

    This can present a problem for the ODAC, which has 12 schools. A double round robin means 22 conference games, leaving room for only three non-conference games, thus limiting the chance to play other in region opponents and ultimately affecting regional ranking, SOS, wins versus RROs, and all those other comparative things that get evaluated when it comes time to decide who gets in the NCAA tournament.

    The ODAC also has the poster child Pool C selection for why RRO's are dumb when Randolph at 15-6 with 9 RRO's all from conference play was selected last year.

    From watching the South Region rankings over the years the ODAC has no problem at all getting 3 sometimes four teams ranked.

    sac, I totally agree with your first sentence. I don't know what the NCAA takes into consideration when doing regional rankings, so I am not about to defend them on that. Perhaps there is some sort of bias that favors the ODAC in the South region. I think a lot of the rankings that get done for D3, including to some extent even the d3hoops top 25, are influenced by the history and reputation of the program. As an example, I felt both Wash U teams this season were benefiting in the rankings because they are historically strong programs while their teams this season were not as good as some of their past teams and therefore likely not as good as teams being ranked below them throughout the season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 09, 2014, 12:40:47 PM
    Quote from: y_jack_lok on March 09, 2014, 12:15:20 PM

    I think a lot of the rankings that get done for D3, including to some extent even the d3hoops top 25, are influenced by the history and reputation of the program. As an example, I felt both Wash U teams this season were benefiting in the rankings because they are historically strong programs while their teams this season were not as good as some of their past teams and therefore likely not as good as teams being ranked below them throughout the season.

    I think Wash U's men did a lot on the floor this year to deserve the high ranking.  In nonconference play, they beat DePauw, Rose Holman and Wheaton while losing to IWU and Carthage.  Right there, a very good start.  In conference play, they went undefeated, which given the grind of the UAA as well as there being a fair number of quite good (Massey had Chicago, Emory, NYU and Case in the Top 100 and Brandeis just outside of it) is very impressive.

    Going into the tournament, Washington was 12-2 against Top 100 teams and 9-2 against regional ranked.  That's a top couple of team in the country performance.  I don't see how you couldn't rank them in the Top 5 behind UWSP and with UWW, IWU and Amherst.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: USee on March 09, 2014, 12:41:13 PM
    I am left wondering does the NESCAC start practices at the same time as everyone else? And have they been playing a single round robin since George Washington left office? Did Carthage make the the tournament instead of Bowdoin? I wish there was one thread I could read to find all these answers.

    It also seems a few do the NESCAC posters wouldn't be so paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get them.  8-)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 09, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
    Maybe I was a bit harsh, but the MOST legitimate conference championship is a double round robin. Period. That's my point. I know conferences that are bloated and it's really hard to do so. But playing certain teams only on a home court or on the road hurts the balance of a conference. I've always been very consistent about this. I hate it in D-1, I hate it in D-3. Double round robins with no conference tournament is the most legitimate conference champ. That's what I meant. That's what I've always said.

    And yes, they DO get to jimmy their schedule. You don't think those teams cherry pick good teams in the NE to gain SOS points? Seriously? We've all said that most teams do this to some extent, it doesn't mean that the NESCAC doesn't do it! And they have MORE chances to gain SOS points because of the single round robin. That's the ENTIRE issue. It's not false. It's TRUE!

    They have played the same conference schedule before getting to the NCAA's. I know that, sure. I also know that you get to pick and choose your non-conference schedule, and if you want to gain SOS points you can be very selective. And just because they've played the same conference schedule for years doesn't make it right or fair, especially if you get to avoid good teams on the road.

    Plus, if you looked at the NESCAC early in Massey, you may have seen it before teams got all connected. Also, a conference is depth and breadth, not just the top teams. The bottom counts just as much as the top.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 05:10:23 PM
    You might want to listen to my interview with Dave Hixon regarding the topic of scheduling... I conducted it a few weeks ago...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 09, 2014, 05:11:44 PM
    Summarize, please. And is it full of coach-speak-ese?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 05:12:24 PM
    Feel free to watch it...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 09, 2014, 05:14:43 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 05:12:24 PM
    Feel free to watch it...

    I can't on this computer. No sound...crappy video.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 09, 2014, 05:28:23 PM
    BTW, the NESCAC's SOS according to Massey was #23 of all conferences, which has to be an effect of the single round robin. That's really hard to do when you're the #5 conference overall. CCIW had the toughest overall SOS.

    The other NE conference rankingsn (out of 47, including independents and some splits in conferences):

    NEWMAC - 23
    LEC - 31
    CCC - 37
    GNAC - 39
    MASCAC - 40
    NECC - 42
    NAC - 47

    Yes, there are dog conferences in other regions (UMAC and SLIAC for two) but you can only fatten up a couple of times on those teams if playing a double round robin. Since NE is a pretty compact region, it's fairly easy to travel (except for snow) and find games nearby and you can definitely avoid the wretched teams.

    Out here in the NW, the D-3 teams have to travel, play in a lot of tournaments or play a lot of NAIA and maybe D-2 teams. They also can get creative and find a team that wants to make a long roadtrip to reward their kids. Others in the South and West are just as isolated.




    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 09, 2014, 06:00:22 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 05:10:23 PM
    You might want to listen to my interview with Dave Hixon regarding the topic of scheduling... I conducted it a few weeks ago...

    I don't think this disproved anything that's been argued on here about what NESCAC schools can do with their scheduling.

    http://d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2013-14/feb16

    it was also just 1 question.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 09, 2014, 06:20:20 PM
    Hey, ya can't fault D-Mac for slipping in a commercial for his show. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 09, 2014, 06:24:42 PM
    Bowdoin's the team that's causing burrs in saddles. I looked at their non-conference schedule.

    Playing Colby and Bates non-conference with a single-round robin definitely helps. Bates was 1-9 in conference play and 11-13 overall. Had they played a double round they may have been 5-19 or 6-18 or worse. Colby was 14-11 but 4-6 in conference. That record may have flipped in a double round. Playing a single round helped Bates' record immensely, which helps the rest of the NESCAC.

    I'm just looking at the OWP version of the SOS since it is the largest factor and easiest to grab quickly.

    Of the non-NESCAC teams, Babson was their best non-conference game (20 wins, Massey 55). Then it falls off the table, big time. W. Connecticut (180), St. Joe's (184) and Bridgewater (186) were the only other ones in the upper half of Massey. Their records (17-9, 18-10, and 16-12) help a lot more in the SOS than their actual SOS.

    Plymouth won 13 games and had a 243 Massey. Maine-Farmington was 13-15, and not an SOS killer, but their Massey was 344. Thomas was 11-15 and Massey was 369. Still, their 11-15 record wasn't an SOS killer compared to a team beating up on Oberlin, Earlham or North Park, even though it could be argued that those three teams were better than Thomas and would beat them 3 or 4 times out of 5.

    The actual NCAA SOS criteria for Bowdoin doesn't come close to demonstrating their true non-conference SOS. They were helped by playing two NESCAC teams out of conference that benefited from the single round robin to get passable records, mediocre teams that piled up good records, and bad teams that piled up mediocre records that didn't kill the SOS much. Heck, even UM-PI didn't eviscerate it (they were 2-4 vs. D-3 which I think counted in these calculations).

    Their only two horrid SOS games were Southern Maine (7-19) and Maine Maritime (2-23).

    This is what I mean. Not playing a double round means you CAN find games against Bridgewater, St. Joe's, and Plymouth that won't kill you and you can win more often than not.

    Had they double rounded it, they may have had a lot fewer games to work with, but their NCAA SOS would probably be more accurate.

    A middle ground would be to create two divisions in the NESCAC, like other conferences. Double round your division and single round the other. While not ideal, it's better.

    My biggest complaint / fear is football conferences that are bloated enough to not have full round robins and you get into a situation where you could have two undefeated teams fighting for an "A" (almost happened this year with St. Norbert and Illinois College but thankfully both teams decided to take care of that themselves the last two weeks of the year). I know you can't double round football (although the conference the University I work for has double rounded for the past few years thanks to its isolation in D2), but an 8 or 10 team conference definitely can in hoops without an issue, and even larger conferences have tried or come close.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 09, 2014, 06:54:08 PM
    Bowdoin is also helped with the modifiers by not playing a round-robin.

    Example
    Played Williams once, on the road

    Williams away  22-4  .846    with modifier  1.058


    If they played Williams twice home and away
    Williams away 22-4  .846   with modifier  1.058
    Williams home 22-4  .846   with modifier   .635
    that washes out to a an SOS factor of .846

    In just this one instance its worth about .016 to their SOS calculation by not having to play Williams at home, to say nothing of the probable loss.  :-\
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 09, 2014, 07:23:43 PM
    I don't think that anyone begrudges the NESCAC the right to schedule however it sees fit. One of the bywords of the NCAA is league-level governance. To use a political term, it's sort of the states' rights view of how to run a national sports organization; the NCAA allows member leagues to have autonomy in any number of areas, from scheduling to post-season play to the administration of medical hardship waivers to restricting off-campus recruiting visits to deciding automatic-qualifier bids. If the NESCAC wants to operate its men's basketball competition on a single round-robin basis rather than a double round-robin (or modified double round-robin, as is the case in a few instances within D3's larger leagues), then that's the NESCAC's prerogative.

    But all of smed's points here are valid:

    Quote from: smedindy on March 09, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
    Maybe I was a bit harsh, but the MOST legitimate conference championship is a double round robin. Period. That's my point. I know conferences that are bloated and it's really hard to do so. But playing certain teams only on a home court or on the road hurts the balance of a conference. I've always been very consistent about this. I hate it in D-1, I hate it in D-3. Double round robins with no conference tournament is the most legitimate conference champ. That's what I meant. That's what I've always said.

    And yes, they DO get to jimmy their schedule. You don't think those teams cherry pick good teams in the NE to gain SOS points? Seriously? We've all said that most teams do this to some extent, it doesn't mean that the NESCAC doesn't do it! And they have MORE chances to gain SOS points because of the single round robin. That's the ENTIRE issue. It's not false. It's TRUE!

    They have played the same conference schedule before getting to the NCAA's. I know that, sure. I also know that you get to pick and choose your non-conference schedule, and if you want to gain SOS points you can be very selective. And just because they've played the same conference schedule for years doesn't make it right or fair, especially if you get to avoid good teams on the road.

    Plus, if you looked at the NESCAC early in Massey, you may have seen it before teams got all connected. Also, a conference is depth and breadth, not just the top teams. The bottom counts just as much as the top.

    It's not as though midwesterners are trying to besmirch the NESCAC because of regional pride, or because of power-conference jockeying. There is, quite simply, no way of getting around the fact that a single round-robin is a less definitive and less balanced way of determining a champion than a double round-robin, and the comparatively light conference schedule played by NESCAC teams as a result of only taking one pass apiece through the rest of the league does lend itself to SOS manipulation by any coach canny enough to try to pull it off. (And, to be honest, every head coach in D3 ought to be thinking of how to schedule with Pool C in mind.)

    Oh, and I also think that what Toad said about the WIAC is spot-on.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 09, 2014, 07:47:16 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 09, 2014, 07:23:43 PM

    It's not as though midwesterners are trying to besmirch the NESCAC because of regional pride, or because of power-conference jockeying. There is, quite simply, no way of getting around the fact that a single round-robin is a less definitive and less balanced way of determining a champion than a double round-robin, and the comparatively light conference schedule played by NESCAC teams as a result of only taking one pass apiece through the rest of the league does lend itself to SOS manipulation by any coach canny enough to try to pull it off. (And, to be honest, every head coach in D3 ought to be thinking of how to schedule with Pool C in mind.)


    A simpler solution would be for the committee to do their job and not award them with a Pool C bid while having the head of the committee on Hoopsville talking about how Carthage didn't win their tough games, even though 5 teams they beat are in the tournament and each won their first round games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 08:08:33 PM
    Of course the NESCAC teams do go out and win their games... right? You want to punish them for winning?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 09, 2014, 08:11:03 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 08:08:33 PM
    Of course the NESCAC teams do go out and win their games... right? You want to punish them for winning?

    You have to give some indication of who's post you're commenting on so that person knows to respond.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 08:51:10 PM
    I immediately replied to your post bopol... didn't think that needed explanation.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on March 09, 2014, 08:52:55 PM
    QuotePlaying Colby and Bates non-conference with a single-round robin definitely helps.

    FYI, Bowdoin plays Colby and Bates twice as part of their CBB rivalry, similar to the Little Three rivalry between Amherst, Williams and Wesleyan. Those teams would probably play each other regardless of their records.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pjunito on March 09, 2014, 09:22:00 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 08:08:33 PM
    Of course the NESCAC teams do go out and win their games... right? You want to punish them for winning?

    Dave, other teams are punished for winning, aren't they? CSI comes to mind.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 09:28:45 PM
    The NESCAC teams actually play teams of note, though. CSI didn't really play anyone of note. NESCAC may not play the teams everyone wants them to play, but they don't avoid tough opponents. CSI needs to find a couple of teams worthy of talking about playing against.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 09, 2014, 09:32:37 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 09:28:45 PM
    The NESCAC teams actually play teams of note, though. CSI didn't really play anyone of note. NESCAC may not play the teams everyone wants them to play, but they don't avoid tough opponents. CSI needs to find a couple of teams worthy of talking about playing against.

    This thread has gone off the rails abit from the original statements that the NE region can in general cherry pick their schedules to reflect higher SOS ratings thus increasing their chances of Pool C selection.  Its not who they play, its the availability of who they play(all NE teams) and in the NESCAC's case how not playing a round-robin affects their ability to present more Pool C worthy numbers than a round-robin schedule might produce.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 09, 2014, 09:49:41 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 08:51:10 PM
    I immediately replied to your post bopol... didn't think that needed explanation.

    Oh, ok.  I already feel like I'm piling on the poor NE Smalls guys, so I am trying to be careful not to participate anymore unless I'm responding directly.

    In conference play, well, 6-5 is pretty mediocre, especially when you get dumped in the quarterfinals of your conference tournament against a lower seed, even if you play in the #5 conference in the country.  To give some comparison, UW-Lacrosse, Marietta, Mount Union, Wilmington, UW-Platteville, DePauw, Middlebury, Springfield, Carthage, William Paterson and Chicago are all teams from very good conferences that all outperformed Bowdoin in conference play and did not get a Pool C bid.  So, since this is so mediocre that it couldn't have pushed Bowdoin over the top for the Pool C bid, so it must have been their nonconference play.

    Now, they were undefeated in nonconference play, but their schedule was awfully soft.  Besides Babson, they didn't play a Top 100 opponent. Now, with 14 nonconference games, I'd say you have plenty of opportunity to test yourself and play the little round robin with Colby and Bates, but Bowdoin chose not to. 

    So, Bowdoin's whole argument comes down to they beat Babson, because there wasn't a single other thing they did that was Pool C worthy  For example, they lost their other 3 games vs. RRO, which gave them a worse winning percentage against RRO at .250 than Carthage (.364), Springfield (.333), William Patterson (.500), DePauw (.444)).  Somehow that hurt the other teams, but not Bowdoin.  Also, they beat a lot of teams outside the Top 100 (17-2), but so did Staten Island and they didn't go in either.

    So, I'm trying to figure out how Bowdoin gets in and a Staten Island doesn't (better record overall, better record against teams outside the Top 100, similar record against RRO) or a Bowdoin gets in and a Carthage doesn't (beat teams everyone agrees are Top 10 teams in IWU and Wash U, beat Eastern Connecticut, beat Wheaton).  And this can be easily extended to include Springfield, William Paterson, DePauw, etc.

    The committee blew this one.  Bowdoin should have been 22-3 to be Pool C worthy given their schedule.  Somehow, they got a pass and the out and out lame arguments I heard on your show on why a Staten Island didn't get in or a Carthage didn't get in (almost like there was no process whatsoever) apply doubly so to Bowdoin. 

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 09:55:00 PM
    Well, comparing Bowdoin to Staten Island is tough... because Bowdoin had something like a .530 SOS and Staten Island was near .470 (off the top of my head)... Bowdoin at least played regionally ranked teams... Staten Island didn't. Bowdoin should be in the tournament ahead of Staten Island... and Carthage (as has been told to me by multiple committee and RAC members) suffered because afterall they were 15-9 in the eyes of the NCAA and eventually enough losses will hurt you.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 09, 2014, 10:06:18 PM
    I think it is a nearly unanimous opinion that Bowdoin was one of the most inexplicable choices for a C ever.  And their losing the first game (even if Stockton did then go on to also beat Cabrini) doesn't look very good compared to, say, Carthage, who not only beat 5 teams who made the tourney, but all five won their first game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AmherstStudent05 on March 09, 2014, 10:16:52 PM
    sac, I agree that this thread has gone off the rails a bit.  It is clear some posters don't like the way the NESCAC handles its business...they just don't seem to be clear on what exactly they don't like.  More on that in a bit.

    Gregory, in point of fact, the NESCAC does not recognize any champion on the basis of a round-robin (single, double, triple, hybrid, or any other kind).  Starting with the 2000-01 season, the NESCAC Championship is awarded to the winner of a one-and-done tournament following the conclusion of the regular season.  My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of D3 conferences (and every D1 conference save for the Ivies) follow a similar mechanism.  If you are saying that the UAA (or any other D3 conference that doesn't award its conference title to the winner of a one-and-done tournament) is the only conference to have a definitive champion, you may have the makings of an argument; however, if you are saying that Amherst is a less definitive conference champion than is Wheaton, than I am very much confused.  Amherst finished first in the NESCAC regular season (ahead of Williams on a tiebreaker) and then validated their status by winning the conference tournament (for the third straight time as the #1 seed).  How is this less "definitive" than Wheaton upsetting Illinois Wesleyan for the CCIW title?

    As for the "cherry picking" argument, here again I am a little confused.  Some posters seem to say this is an advantage because NESCAC teams schedule top teams against other conferences and others have indicated that NESCAC teams fill up their schedule with weak OOC opponents.  Smedindy, God bless him, seems to singlehandedly be on both sides of this issue [compare: his post on March 6th and 5:55pm -- "We've always suspected the NESCAC of jimmying their schedule to get "C" bids, since they don't double round robin and then they can pick up a lot of games against other conferences top teams which helps their SOS"  with his post at 5:28 today noting that the NESCAC has a very weak SOS despite being a highly ranked conference].  So which is it, does the NESCAC schedule "fatten" our SOS or suppress it?

    Look, if you guys are saying only that the NESCAC's scheduling arrangements provide more flexibility to its member institutions, then of course I would agree with you.  This is precisely why I like the NESCAC schedule!  In light of the fact that we have 12 open non-conference dates each year (again, our non-conference games with Williams and Wesleyan are effectively set in stone), Amherst has a lot of flexibility to play a variety of teams in its region.  As I said on Friday, does any team have more wins over regionally ranked opponents in their own region than Amherst does?  If not at the top of the list, we have to be pretty close to it.  Isn't that a good thing?

    Also, just as a reminder, there are at least TWO critical factors in determining how much flexibility a program has to create a non-conference schedule: (1) the number of times you play your conference opponents, AND (2) the number of teams in your conference.  If the NESCAC adopted a full, double round robin, Amherst would then have 20 regular season commitments each year.  CCIW schools would have 14.  Would CCIW scheduling then be illegitimate or overly manipulative? Indeed, as it stands now, there are many teams that play more than 14 conference games in a regular season.  Do CCIW schools owe these teams some sort of apology?  Look, I want to make very clear, I have absolutely nothing against the CCIW or the WIAC (or any other conference).  They all produce great teams and passionate, knowledgable fans who had immensely to the d3hoops culture.  And, as a practical matter, Amherst basically never plays schools from these conferences, so I can wish them nothing but the best without probing too deeply into how they conduct their affairs.  There are just some elements of the constant criticisms of my conference that simply do not make any sense.

    Finally, I must end on a point of personal privilege.  Smedindy, please quote the "false facts about redshirting" I (or any other NESCAC poster) stated.  Good luck.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 09, 2014, 10:18:42 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 09:55:00 PM
    Well, comparing Bowdoin to Staten Island is tough... because Bowdoin had something like a .530 SOS and Staten Island was near .470 (off the top of my head)... Bowdoin at least played regionally ranked teams... Staten Island didn't. Bowdoin should be in the tournament ahead of Staten Island... and Carthage (as has been told to me by multiple committee and RAC members) suffered because afterall they were 15-9 in the eyes of the NCAA and eventually enough losses will hurt you.

    So..vs RRO, vs. everyone else

    Carthage 4-7/11-2
    Bowdoin 1-3/18-2

    And that doesn't take into account that playing a North Central (twice) and a Calvin is probably a little tougher than anything Bowdoin did in their play against non-RRO.

    So, the committee rewarded Bowdoin over Staten Island for playing regional ranked teams and punished Carthage for playing too many of them?  That makes sense. 

    Since you talk to them, let me ask you: Are they collectively as stupid as you make them sound to be when you talk about them?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 09, 2014, 10:55:17 PM
    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 09, 2014, 10:16:52 PMGregory, in point of fact, the NESCAC does not recognize any champion on the basis of a round-robin (single, double, triple, hybrid, or any other kind).  Starting with the 2000-01 season, the NESCAC Championship is awarded to the winner of a one-and-done tournament following the conclusion of the regular season.  My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of D3 conferences (and every D1 conference save for the Ivies) follow a similar mechanism.  If you are saying that the UAA (or any other D3 conference that doesn't award its conference title to the winner of a one-and-done tournament) is the only conference to have a definitive champion, you may have the makings of an argument; however, if you are saying that Amherst is a less definitive conference champion than is Wheaton, than I am very much confused.  Amherst finished first in the NESCAC regular season (ahead of Williams on a tiebreaker) and then validated their status by winning the conference tournament (for the third straight time as the #1 seed).  How is this less "definitive" than Wheaton upsetting Illinois Wesleyan for the CCIW title?

    Wheaton didn't win the CCIW title, AS05. Wheaton isn't the reigning CCIW champion for this season. Wheaton is the reigning CCIW tournament champion. Illinois Wesleyan is the CCIW champion for 2013-14, and the Titans have the trophy to prove it.

    But that's largely an issue of nomenclature. Whether the league of your choice refers to the team with the best record at the end of the regular season as its champion, or to the team that wins its postseason tournament as its champion, the point is the same.

    The point I was making has nothing to do with postseason tournaments. It has to do with the regular season, and the plain and simple fact of the matter is that playing a double round-robin to determine the top team (whether you call it the league champion or merely the #1 postseason tournament seed) is a more definitive and more balanced way to do it than a single round-robin.

    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 09, 2014, 10:16:52 PMAs for the "cherry picking" argument, here again I am a little confused.  Some posters seem to say this is an advantage because NESCAC teams schedule top teams against other conferences and others have indicated that NESCAC teams fill up their schedule with weak OOC opponents.  Smedindy, God bless him, seems to singlehandedly be on both sides of this issue [compare: his post on March 6th and 5:55pm -- "We've always suspected the NESCAC of jimmying their schedule to get "C" bids, since they don't double round robin and then they can pick up a lot of games against other conferences top teams which helps their SOS"  with his post at 5:28 today noting that the NESCAC has a very weak SOS despite being a highly ranked conference].  So which is it, does the NESCAC schedule "fatten" our SOS or suppress it?

    That's his argument. I have not looked in-depth into how the various NESCAC teams schedule. But his point today about the NESCAC having a weaker league SOS than one would suspect is, if I'm reading him correctly, a direct result of the lack of a double round-robin. Because the NESCAC is the region's best league, its members tend to beat up on other New England teams in non-conference play. That gives the league a great overall non-con winning percentage, but it detracts somewhat from the SOS as compared to double round-robin power conferences, because the games that might otherwise be devoted to the second NESCAC round-robin are instead spread out among non-con games that tend to not be as shiny and bright from an SOS point of view. (At least, I think that that's the gist of what smeds was saying. He can chime in here if I missed his point.)

    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 09, 2014, 10:16:52 PMLook, if you guys are saying only that the NESCAC's scheduling arrangements provide more flexibility to its member institutions, then of course I would agree with you.  This is precisely why I like the NESCAC schedule!  In light of the fact that we have 12 open non-conference dates each year (again, our non-conference games with Williams and Wesleyan are effectively set in stone), Amherst has a lot of flexibility to play a variety of teams in its region.  As I said on Friday, does any team have more wins over regionally ranked opponents in their own region than Amherst does?  If not at the top of the list, we have to be pretty close to it.  Isn't that a good thing?

    Yes, it's a good thing, because Amherst's coach is setting up his schedule strategically. As I said earlier this afternoon, that's something that every coach in D3 ought to do when setting up his team's schedule. But the point is that Amherst and its sister schools have the flexibility to do that in a way that nobody else in D3 has, because of the NESCAC's unique single round-robin philosophy of scheduling.

    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 09, 2014, 10:16:52 PMAlso, just as a reminder, there are at least TWO critical factors in determining how much flexibility a program has to create a non-conference schedule: (1) the number of times you play your conference opponents, AND (2) the number of teams in your conference.  If the NESCAC adopted a full, double round robin, Amherst would then have 20 regular season commitments each year.  CCIW schools would have 14.  Would CCIW scheduling then be illegitimate or overly manipulative?

    Of course not. A double round-robin is a double round-robin, regardless of league size. The whole point of a double round-robin isn't to eat up as many games from the limit of 25 as possible; it's to guarantee a fair and equitable distribution of league games by forcing every member to visit the gyms of all of the other teams in the league, as well as to host all of the other teams in the league. Nobody gets the benefit of playing the tougher teams only at home, while saving the road trips for the easier teams.

    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 09, 2014, 10:16:52 PMIndeed, as it stands now, there are many teams that play more than 14 conference games in a regular season.  Do CCIW schools owe these teams some sort of apology?

    That's just plain silly. A league's size is what it is. Again, it's not about the size of the league; it's about the equity and fairness of having everybody share a common league schedule with regard to road and home games. Plus, it's about the number of league games that a team is required to play. The minimum number of teams that a league is required to field by the NCAA in order to have an automatic qualifier for the tournament is seven, so every double round-robin league plays at least 12 league games. But there are no longer any seven-team leagues in D3, IIRC; they're all now eight teams or larger. So the minimum number of games that any D3 league other than the NESCAC is playing right now is 14. The NESCAC plays 10.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: GnacBballFan on March 09, 2014, 11:01:31 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 09, 2014, 10:18:42 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2014, 09:55:00 PM
    Well, comparing Bowdoin to Staten Island is tough... because Bowdoin had something like a .530 SOS and Staten Island was near .470 (off the top of my head)... Bowdoin at least played regionally ranked teams... Staten Island didn't. Bowdoin should be in the tournament ahead of Staten Island... and Carthage (as has been told to me by multiple committee and RAC members) suffered because afterall they were 15-9 in the eyes of the NCAA and eventually enough losses will hurt you.

    So..vs RRO, vs. everyone else

    Carthage 4-7/11-2
    Bowdoin 1-3/18-2

    And that doesn't take into account that playing a North Central (twice) and a Calvin is probably a little tougher than anything Bowdoin did in their play against non-RRO.

    So, the committee rewarded Bowdoin over Staten Island for playing regional ranked teams and punished Carthage for playing too many of them?  That makes sense. 

    Since you talk to them, let me ask you: Are they collectively as stupid as you make them sound to be when you talk about them?

    LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 09, 2014, 11:05:56 PM
    If Staten Island wants to improve their chances next year for a Pool C, they should schedule teams in New England.  Purchase, Amherst, WPI, Rhode Island College & Albertus all NCAA teams this year and 4 of the 5 were in the top 25.  All of those schools check in at 200 miles or under so they'd all be regional games for the Dolphins.  Western Connecticut will be one of the better teams in the LEC next year (and finished 16-10 this year) and Vassar will probably challenge for the Liberty League title next year (lost to Hobart by 1 in double overtime).  Granted, not playing Mary Washington really hurt them and Ramapo & Randolph had pretty bad years which obviously didn't help them, but if they take out the second game @ Montclair state and the game vs. Rivier and replace them with let's say Purchase and Albertus Magnus, even if the Dolphins lost both games, they'd be in a lot better shape then they were.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AmherstStudent05 on March 09, 2014, 11:41:27 PM
    Thanks for the response, as always, Gregory.  I am not sure this "argument" is all about nomenclature, although, again, there are so many different arguments against the NESCAC that its hard to keep track.  This argument started (as far as I can tell) with the claim that the NESCAC's scheduling arrangements put its member institutions in a better position than other D3 schools vis-a-vis NCAA Tournament selection.  So we are talking Pool A and Pool C.  As far as I know, Wheaton was the CCIW's Pool A representative this year.  Amherst got the automatic bid from the NESCAC.  Both have the same level of legitimacy in my eyes.  Now, I don't know why you would care about the "legitimacy" or "definitiveness" of the NESCAC's "regular season champion" (I actually don't know if such a thing is officially recognized anymore, but I certainly recognize it every time Amherst finishes with the best conference record in the regular season).  This "title" is something that would seemingly ONLY have relevance to the member institutions of the NESCAC. 

    I do of course agree that there are some years where the NESCAC regular season champion is not so definitive.  For instance, in 2003, Amherst was the top seed after beating Williams in the NESCAC game (played at Amherst) even though Williams beat Amherst in the non-conference regular season game played at Chandler.  Naturally, heading into the conference tournament, both sides felt like they had claim to being the better team.  (Unfortunately), Williams settled matters by beating Amherst in LeFrak for the NESCAC Championship.  Case closed.  Many years, the regular season champion is pretty definitive.  For instance, I am not sure anyone questioned that Amherst earned the top seed heading into this year's conference tournament, and certainly no one could have questioned it last year (when we went undefeated with road wins at the second and third seeds), but no one cared all that much because it still needed to be validated by the conference tournament.  (As an aside, if it is a "definitive" regular season champion you are after, then you must give more credence to the fact that Amherst DOES NOT just play 10 games against NESCAC schools.  That extra game against Williams, while not part of the NESCAC standings, can be huge in establishing legitimacy as Amherst and Williams are so often the top two teams in the NESCAC -- as they have been the past two seasons. We travel to Williamstown every year in the regular season.).

    Again, smedindy's post, which you explicitly endorsed, stated that "the ENTIRE issue" was that the NESCAC has "MORE chances to gain SOS points because of the single round robin."  My only point, which I still think is a fair one, is that if smedindy (and you) is so up in arms about the number of out of conference games NESCAC teams have relative to other schools, is he also concerned about the disparity between other conferences?  For instance, CCIW teams have more "flexibility' to schedule out of conference games (and "gain SOS points") than SUNYAC teams (in addition to many others).  Is this also an "issue" that the d3hoops community should get worked up about? Or is it only an affront when the NESCAC is involved?

    Also, a league size is no more "what it is" than a conference's round robin policy.  Both can be changed.  In fact, the NESCAC recently changed its composition (welcoming Hamilton for basketball beginning three years ago).  We have not changed on the round robin in quite some time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 09, 2014, 11:54:13 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 07, 2014, 01:03:31 PM
    The NESCAC pool C bids don't bother me, I think they've gathered more than enough evidence of good play in the tournament to support those selections.

    I do wonder how many Pool C's they might not have received if they played a true double round robin league schedule.

    I also think you might be able to conclude the Northeast is the beneficiary of larger access to regional games and can cherry pick their schedules much better than other parts of the country.

    This was my original quote which followed some data I posted previously.   I really intended to raise the 'access to in-region' games angle and how that improves Northeast Region teams chances of landing a 'C bid'.

    For me it is very different what a Northeast, Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic team can do with scheduling vs a more isolated South, West or other scattered conferences that don't have another conference in their back yard.


    I just want to make sure its understood I think in most cases the NESCAC Pool C's have been legit and the scheduling advantages in no way diminishes my perceptions of NESCAC basketball.  Even if I think not playing a double-round robin schedule is chicken crap. :)

    I was merely trying to show and explain how the criteria really puts the Northeast Region in better position than everyone else.  Scheduling is a beauty contest now and if you don't play the game you'll be left behind, its just easier for others to do that.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: madzillagd on March 10, 2014, 12:10:00 AM
    To be clear, the CCIW plays 14 games against conference teams. That leaves them with 11 games to schedule nonconference opponents to make up a 25 game schedule.

    Amh, Will, Wes, Bow, Colby, Bates all play 12 games against conference teams (only 10 of which count toward conference standings).  NESCAC teams are only allowed to play 24 games, which means they get 12 nonconference games to schedule (since 2 are taken up by their mini-conferences).

    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but all of this arguing back and forth is about 1 single nonconference game?   That's the massive advantage the NESCAC has is 1 game more to schedule who they want? 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 10, 2014, 12:21:30 AM
    On a more important topic...

    I really think Richard Stockton should be ranked in the Top 25 in the last poll.

    Tghijgsto!

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 10, 2014, 12:37:38 AM
    Hey, they are probably #1!! ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 10, 2014, 01:37:19 AM
    I want to make clear that I don't have a dog in this fight.

    I think this is the key point that is being overlooked in this argument.
    Quote from: sac on March 09, 2014, 11:54:13 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 07, 2014, 01:03:31 PM
    The NESCAC pool C bids don't bother me, I think they've gathered more than enough evidence of good play in the tournament to support those selections.

    I do wonder how many Pool C's they might not have received if they played a true double round robin league schedule.

    I also think you might be able to conclude the Northeast is the beneficiary of larger access to regional games and can cherry pick their schedules much better than other parts of the country.

    This was my original quote which followed some data I posted previously.   I really intended to raise the 'access to in-region' games angle and how that improves Northeast Region teams chances of landing a 'C bid'.

    For me it is very different what a Northeast, Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic team can do with scheduling vs a more isolated South, West or other scattered conferences that don't have another conference in their back yard.


    I just want to make sure its understood I think in most cases the NESCAC Pool C's have been legit and the scheduling advantages in no way diminishes my perceptions of NESCAC basketball.  Even if I think not playing a double-round robin schedule is chicken crap. :)

    I was merely trying to show and explain how the criteria really puts the Northeast Region in better position than everyone else.  Scheduling is a beauty contest now and if you don't play the game you'll be left behind, its just easier for others to do that.

    To put it simply, I think the complaint goes like this. There's a whole lot of schools in the Northeast, and relative to the rest of D3 they are close together. A coach in the NE has a lot more options within his budget when filling out his schedule than his counterparts to the west. A lot of these schools have basketball teams that aren't very good. Other schools with more mediocre teams feast on these bottom feeders, then schools up the food chain (who, in the NE, tend to be NESCAC teams) feed on them. So School A plays a lot of School Bs and ends up with a record of something like 15-10 which might be more like 10-15 if they were in other regions with less ready access to such plankton. Then School C feasts on the Schools A, giving them not just a nice-looking record but a very strong SOS. If School C is a NESCAC school, it has a lot of open dates to fill with Schools A. That boosts the SOS without making the schedule as difficult as the SOS would suggest to someone from another region.

    Whether that's good, bad, or just the way things are is a matter of perspective.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 10, 2014, 02:00:00 AM
    Quote from: gordonmann on March 09, 2014, 08:52:55 PM
    QuotePlaying Colby and Bates non-conference with a single-round robin definitely helps.

    FYI, Bowdoin plays Colby and Bates twice as part of their CBB rivalry, similar to the Little Three rivalry between Amherst, Williams and Wesleyan. Those teams would probably play each other regardless of their records.

    I know this Gordon. It HELPS, though, it HELPS a great deal if Bates is 11-13 and not 6-18 like they could be with a double round.

    PS - AmherstStudent, you said redshirting was allowed. Pat and others called you out. At least I read it like that.

    PPS - The argument about some NESCAC schools playing each other twice doesn't hold much water. Not every one does it, it's only a few games, not an entire double round, and they still get to feed on the chum that feeds on the plankton.

    Ten games isn't much of a conference test, especially if you miss some of the big dogs on the road. Going back to the NCAC, teams fighting for seeding could have missed Wooster or Wittenberg as a roadie a few years back. That wasn't fair, really to those teams that had to play them on a double round and had their singles with Hiram and Allegheny.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 10, 2014, 02:03:24 AM
    Quote from: AmherstStudent05 on March 09, 2014, 11:41:27 PM
    For instance, CCIW teams have more "flexibility' to schedule out of conference games (and "gain SOS points") than SUNYAC teams (in addition to many others).  Is this also an "issue" that the d3hoops community should get worked up about? Or is it only an affront when the NESCAC is involved?

    You should spend more time reading other boards. The small non-conference schedule in the SUNYAC this year was very heavily discussed, as the ASC schedule regularly as along with its impact on SOS. The MIAC has a small non-conference schedule that is also bemoaned.

    You're spending a lot of time here assuming the NESCAC is being singled out. Perhaps you should get out a little and see what the rest of the board is talking about.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 10, 2014, 08:39:46 AM
    If the CCIW schools are so concerned about all this, the solution is simple: just move your campuses to Massachusetts, so you can feast on all the terrible basketball programs out here like Williams, Amherst, MIT, Babson, Brandeis, Rhode Island College, Middlebury, WPI, Albertus Magnus, and so on.  Problem solved, and everyone is happy! 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 10, 2014, 08:50:51 AM
    Seriously ... Pat, come ON, to suggest that NESCAC doesn't receive, on an annual basis, a special level of criticism / scrutiny here is just laughable.  Every year, around tournament time, we hear the same exact tired arguments about NESCAC.  That doesn't mean that folks aren't critical of other conferences from time to time, but there is not as much hyperbole and belly-aching about all other league policies combined than there has been over the past several years about NESCAC's.  Whether or not there are good reasons for that, it is the reality.

    Agreed 100 percent with madzillagd's post.  Or put another way, all of this griping about ONE Pool C team in the last decade (at least) of tournament play from NESCAC that didn't warrant inclusion in the tourney?  Bowdoin has hardly been the only questionable NCAA pick, ever.  Heck, they weren't the only questionable NCAA pick this YEAR (I mean, Emory, with a worse record from a down-this-year UAA, got a first round bye).  And if you noticed, no one from NESCAC has been defending the Bowdoin pick.  The problem with the Bowdoin selection was NOT that the lack of a double round-robin allowed them to get in.  It's that they should not have gotten in based on the NCAA's own criteria.  Totally different complaint. 

    Every other NESCAC Pool C in recent years, I promise, would have been in the tourney, and been highly seeded to boot, if there was a double round-robin, or if they had played in the CCIW, or with whatever other constraint you want to impose.  Why am I so sure?  Because Midd, Amherst and Williams have all been top-10 caliber teams who dominated the conference over the past five years, and actually, most of their losses over the past few years have come either from non-NESCAC games, or to each other.  And once they make it into the tournament, they almost invariably do very well.  So maybe playing teams like Stevens, Alvernia, Randolph-Macon, Brandeis, Babson, Emerson, St. Mary's and so on in non-league games isn't a guarantee of more victories than facing Bates, Conn College, or Trinity for a second time, after all. 

    So again, this is all much ado about nothing, or next-to-nothing, in terms of ACTUAL IMPACT on the tournament or its seeding.  Remember, the last two borderline Pool C teams from NESCAC, Wesleyan and Colby, both didn't make the cut, when both had credible arguments to get in (both had in the 19-20 win range).  So, the lack of double round robin didn't help them, and simply hasn't had any impact in the real world, other than Bowdoin's inclusion this year.  And again, the issue with that is really something else entirely -- the cryptic and inconsistent application by the NCAA of its own purported criteria. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AmherstStudent05 on March 10, 2014, 09:16:45 AM
    Smedindy, thanks for quoting what I actually wrote regarding redshirting.  Weren't we supposed to come on this board with the cold hard facts?  For the record, here is the entirety of what I wrote about redshirting: "How about preventing all (non medical) redshirts (not sure if this actually happens, but when I was a student it was rumored to be a practice among some other DIII schools)?"

    I never stated the "fact" that redshirting took place.  In fact, I explicitly stated that I didn't know if it happened at all.  A poster helpfully informed me that redshirting (for non medical reasons) has been abolished since 2004-05 (my senior year at Amherst).  So apparently the practice did take place for a while (or was, at the very least, permitted) but has been prohibited for almost a decade now.  As I have said from the beginning, I don't really care as this has never been an issue in the NESCAC for as long as I have followed the conference.

    Speaking of which, Pat, I am sure there are plenty of great things I could be doing if I had more time.  I have tried to be as upfront as possible in explaining that the overwhelming majority of my interest when it comes to d3hoops is limited to Amherst and the NESCAC.  I have tremendous respect for the posters (you, Gregory Sager, nescac1, and I am sure there are many many others) who take a more comprehensive interest in d3hoops -- but that just isn't me.  Indeed, if this whole discussion had occurred on the CCIW board or some other conference board, it is virtually certain that I would have missed it entirely (perhaps to the appreciation of some of you!).  But, come tournament time, I do tend to look at the Pool C and NCAA Tournament threads (at least in years where Amherst is fortunate enough to have earned an invitation to the Big Dance).  When my conference is discussed, there are occasions where I think I might be able to contribute to the discussion.

    Let me be clear, in my recent back-and-forth with smedindy (and then also with Gregory Sager), the NESCAC most certainly HAS been singled out!  I don't need to assume anything.  The NESCAC has been the focus of this recent discussion. (By no means am I under the impression that every conference board spends its time discussing the NESCAC.  If I thought that, I might actually start looking at those other boards!)  When smedindy and Gregory Sager said that the number of non-conference slots available to NESCAC teams each year "lend itself to SOS manipulation" I asked whether these gentlemen would be willing to say the same thing about CCIW schedules relative to other schools that have greater conference commitments.  I thought this was a fair and simple point designed to better identify the "principle" folks are really driving at.  Gregory Sager seemed to find this "silly."  I don't know, maybe I didn't phrase it well enough, or maybe it is silly.  But, I have to say, your latest post only adds to my confusion.  You say that "[t]he MIAC has a small non-conference schedule that is also bemoaned."  So, do I have this right: the NESCAC's non-conference schedule is too big and the MIAC's non-conference schedule is too small?  Is there a number of annual, regular season conference games that is just right? Just a wild guess here, but could that magic number possibly be 14?

    SAC and David, thanks for trying to identify some common ground here.  It is much appreciated.  To be clear, and to repeat myself, I too was surprised by Bowdoin's inclusion in Pool C.  Nothing against the Polar Bears who are fantastic representatives of our conference (and can't of course be blamed from accepting the NCAA's (overly) generous invitation), but I agree that Bowdoin's non-conference schedule simply wasn't impressive enough to justify an at large bid for a team that finished fourth in the conference -- even if that conference is the NESCAC.

    David, you also raise a very interesting point about how the raw number and diversity of teams in the Northeast could affect SOS.  I can't say as I thought about it much, but you could be on to something.  I would definitely concede the (obvious) point that being from New England is a definite advantage come bracketing time as there are enough teams that the NCAA can give the top seeds a true, D1 style progression rather than force us into a group of death right from the outset. (Still also agree with nescac1 though that some posters may still underestimate the depth of the Northeast.  Unfortunately, it can be very hard to tell given that there are not very many cross regional games during the regular season.  Tufts, a fourth place team in the NESCAC last year, did play a very competitive game with Illinois Wesleyan last year, but that is obviously a minuscule sample.  I have lobbied previously for a Big10/ACC style CCIW/NESCAC showdown, but the CCIW probably doesn't have the "flexibility" to pull it off (kidding!).)



    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: USee on March 10, 2014, 09:35:52 AM
    I may be wrong, but isn't the focus on NESCAC because they are the only "power" conference that does not play a double-round robin? And wouldn't it naturally be a conversation that comes up every year around playoffs because that's when they play other national teams? I don't see this as NESCAC discrimination so much as I see it as a legitimate discussion topic, which is much more fun to debate than much of the inane banter that happens on some of the boards. There seems to be a simple fact that the NESCAC plays a single-round robin and has more teams in their conference than the other power conferences. That works to their advantage. I don't disagree with the idea that some of the other leagues may want to copy the format, even if it's impractical! On the flip side you have NESCAC schools bound by their conference to practice 2 weeks less than other power conferences. That is certainly a competitive disadvantage. Not saying those two wash each other out but those are the circumstances as they currently stand and neither of these issues seem to eminate from a strategic decision by a consortium of NESCAC coaches to overthrow the D3 world. But they are unique and deserve to be highlighted and their relative impacts debated. So be it.

    I for one, have been enlightened and entertained by all the conversation. I can understand both sides and, almost like a patron at a good play, am swayed by the various characters and plot lines. The passion is refreshing and the logic mostly sound. I am not sure what the results of the debate will be but it has been well played by all sides so far. Bravo. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 10, 2014, 10:32:43 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 10, 2014, 08:50:51 AM
    Seriously ... Pat, come ON, to suggest that NESCAC doesn't receive, on an annual basis, a special level of criticism / scrutiny here is just laughable.

    I'm not suggesting that. However, it's not an unfair level of scrutiny, is it? To reiterate what USee said, the NESCAC is the only one doing it this way in men's basketball and it does seem to work to their advantage when it comes to getting postseason bids that everyone else across the country is in competition for.

    I get that the NESCAC self-restricts itself to starting practice Nov. 1 and that's why I don't make much note of Amherst starting its season with, say, Brooklyn or Newbury. But that's the conference's choice. Doesn't have a significant affect on how everyone else plays. NESCAC is not alone in restricting games (Midwest Conference) or the start of preseason practice (Centennial).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: madzillagd on March 10, 2014, 10:39:34 AM
    Usee - well if you come back next year you'll get to relive it all again. And the year after that, and the year after that.....
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 10, 2014, 10:48:09 AM
    Pat, but it hasn't historically "worked to their advantage."  Other than Bowdoin this year, can you point to even ONE example of an unworthy NESCAC team receiving a Pool C bid?  And honestly, I don't think the scheduling worked to Bowdoin's advantage this year.  They ended up having a poor SOS because they played a weak schedule.  Had they played a double round robin, they would have had a better SOS.  They didn't beat a lot of regional teams with good records -- they beat regional teams with bad records.  So the issue, again, is not NESCAC scheduling policies, it is whether the NCAA applies its SELECTION criteria consistently.

    It also seems odd to say "that's the conference's choice" to explain away a policy that works to its competitive disadvantage, but then attack something else that is "the conference's choice" and which provides a perceived advantage.  The point is that every conference has their own nuances, their own policies, their own structure, their own quirks, and some might end up benefiting them, and some might end up hurting them.  That doesn't mean those conferences (or NESCAC) are gaming the system.  And in the aggregate, NESCAC's policies end up being at best a wash, or more likely, a slight competitive disadvantage vs. the rest of D3.  So again, I don't really understand why NESCAC is under a uniquely bright microscope, year after year. 

    And I do think NESCAC receives an unfair level of scrutiny.  I mean, in football, folks on these boards have attacked NESCAC for how it chooses to schedule, including its choice (which I don't love, but I don't get a vote) to altogether avoid post-season play, which actually HELPS other NCAA schools by opening up a spot in the tourney that would otherwise go to a NESCAC school each year.  But that has not insulated NESCAC from critique.  And in basketball, again, NESCAC's scheduling has in no way prior to this year had any impact on anyone who felt they deserved an NCAA bid but was left out, yet the criticism is hardly new. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 10, 2014, 10:57:44 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 10, 2014, 10:32:43 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 10, 2014, 08:50:51 AM
    Seriously ... Pat, come ON, to suggest that NESCAC doesn't receive, on an annual basis, a special level of criticism / scrutiny here is just laughable.

    I'm not suggesting that. However, it's not an unfair level of scrutiny, is it? To reiterate what USee said, the NESCAC is the only one doing it this way in men's basketball and it does seem to work to their advantage when it comes to getting postseason bids that everyone else across the country is in competition for.

    I get that the NESCAC self-restricts itself to starting practice Nov. 1 and that's why I don't make much note of Amherst starting its season with, say, Brooklyn or Newbury. But that's the conference's choice. Doesn't have a significant affect on how everyone else plays. NESCAC is not alone in restricting games (Midwest Conference) or the start of preseason practice (Centennial).

    Here's where you lose me. I don't have the Pool C history at my fingertips, but I think nescac1 is correct in his assertion that every NESCAC Pool C bid in recent memory has gone to a fully deserving squad (Amherst, Williams, or Middlebury), with the exception of Bowdoin this year, and that was a result of a breakdown of the selection process as much as anything (that is, on paper, they should have been passed over, even with whatever advantage they gained by the schedule.) If that's not so, I'd appreciate having my memory refreshed.

    I see that nescac1 has beat me to the punch on this one, but I'm posting it anyway so assuage my vanity.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: USee on March 10, 2014, 11:27:01 AM
    Quote from: madzillagd on March 10, 2014, 10:39:34 AM
    Usee - well if you come back next year you'll get to relive it all again. And the year after that, and the year after that.....

    If you want to see the ultimate "groundhog day" in yearly debates, visit the Mt Union or UWW football boards. If NESCAC teams sucked you wouldn't have to worry about any yearly debates because no one would care. You should consider it an honor that other people are taking notice of the conference's success and care enough to engage in a debate of any kind, let alone a repetitive one. As I say to my kids, "Choose Joy".
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toad22 on March 10, 2014, 11:37:48 AM
    It has finally dawned on me why there is so much commotion every year directed at the policies of NESCAC. It really has nothing to do with NESCAC at all. Many midwest posters believe the eastern part of the D3 nation is generally less competitive than their area, and begrudge some of the strong teams back east (Williams, Amherst) a perceived easier path to the final four. I get that, but is there anything to be done about it? There isn't even any way to prove that assertion. D3 is almost entirely a regionally contested sport. Unless that fact changes, the complains that things are somehow unfair will rage on forever.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 10, 2014, 11:50:32 AM
    Ah, memories. That particular complaint, toad22, is an oldie but goodie around here that used to rage much more fiercely than it does nowadays. It dates back to the days of much more regional bracketing, even back to when there were guaranteed slots for each region, and back to when only Kings Point knew anything about "SOS." I'm not sure it's related to this particular bellyache.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 10, 2014, 11:51:41 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 10, 2014, 10:48:09 AM
    Pat, but it hasn't historically "worked to their advantage."  Other than Bowdoin this year, can you point to even ONE example of an unworthy NESCAC team receiving a Pool C bid?  And honestly, I don't think the scheduling worked to Bowdoin's advantage this year.  They ended up having a poor SOS because they played a weak schedule.  Had they played a double round robin, they would have had a better SOS.  They didn't beat a lot of regional teams with good records -- they beat regional teams with bad records.  So the issue, again, is not NESCAC scheduling policies, it is whether the NCAA applies its SELECTION criteria consistently.
    perhaps Knightslappy could run a simulation of a double round robin for the NESCAC, but based on my estimates it would be disastrous for Bowdoin.  You'd lose games against teams near like Maine Farmington, W Connecticut and Bridgewater.  Games against Bates would hurt a lot more as Bates would not be 11-13, they'd be more like 3-21.   Games against the good conference teams like Amherst wouldn't be an additional boost as their record wouldn't change much if at all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 10, 2014, 12:05:36 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 10, 2014, 10:48:09 AM
    Pat, but it hasn't historically "worked to their advantage."  Other than Bowdoin this year, can you point to even ONE example of an unworthy NESCAC team receiving a Pool C bid?  And honestly, I don't think the scheduling worked to Bowdoin's advantage this year.  They ended up having a poor SOS because they played a weak schedule.  Had they played a double round robin, they would have had a better SOS.  They didn't beat a lot of regional teams with good records -- they beat regional teams with bad records.  So the issue, again, is not NESCAC scheduling policies, it is whether the NCAA applies its SELECTION criteria consistently.


    Scheduling did come to Bowdoin's advantage. If it was a double round, or even a modified double round, then Bates wouldn't have 11 wins. Colby wouldn't be near .500. And Bowdoin probably would have more losses than Carthage. Poof goes the bid.

    They also played regional teams with good records - for the region. Those teams, in another region, would have records like North Park or Earlham. Here they had .500 records (or close).

    It's not because its the NESCAC, In fact, because of the NESCAC having such good teams the bile is a bit tampered. If the CCC or Little East did a single round and then played all of the .500 and over in the region to fatten up the SOS then there definitely would be hues and cries.

    A conference like the OAC (I'll choose them at random) has 10 teams. They play a double round. They also tend to claw at each other with hammers every year. I'd bet that without the double round then they'd have had another bid. But their top teams had to play their dregs twice, and then couldn't go play games against some MIAA, NCAC or HCAC mid tiers that would have given them a better SOS than pounding Muskingum a second time.

    (Yes, I'm mentioning the OAC even though they are the sworn enemy of the NCAC...)

    All in all, the process is kind of broken in this regard. I have another thought on the "C" mess as well that I'll post after the reply.


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on March 10, 2014, 12:08:03 PM
    If everyone could please take a minute to vote for one of my great friends for the D3 All Star Game. Brad Ford Nazareth. He has worked so hard throughout the 4 years and he deserves this! here http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2014/03/nabc-all-star-voting is the link
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 10, 2014, 12:12:27 PM
    Here's another one for the hornet's nest.

    Dave said something, which while true, but is also something that needs to be examined and pushed, not parroted. Staten Island didn't play that many RR games. Bowdoin did. Fair enough. Part of the criteria.

    But...Bowdoin gets to play all of those games because of their conference.

    Would it not be more fair to teams in the lesser leagues to measure NON-CONFERENCE RR results a bit higher? Again, this does hurt the bloated conferences that do a double round (or even modified double round) and don't have much room for NC games. Still, though, I think you're penalizing a team just because of who they fit with academically, regionally, and mission?

    I know scheduling is hard - everyone needs games. But I think a little non-conference carrot could be put out there so the teams that fit in with one conference can have a chance and not have  to run the table to get in if a couple of teams go asunder (like Staten Island had this year...)

    I've had arguments with some about D-1 and how a team 'doesn't play anyone' when the majors control the scheduling cards and won't play teams in a home-and-home or even a two-for-one and would rather play horrible teams for $$. So I guess I feel the same about trying to help those in D3 that have conference issues but are very worthy have chance. Alas..
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 10, 2014, 12:25:46 PM
    My estimates for Bowdoin's OWP assuming the NESCAC teams win roughly the same percentage of their non-conference games while playing a double round robin.

    I've got their OWP moving from .522 to .457.  This would make a big difference for every potential NESCAC Pool C and every NESCAC team hoping to host.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 10, 2014, 12:28:07 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 10, 2014, 08:39:46 AM
    If the CCIW schools are so concerned about all this, the solution is simple: just move your campuses to Massachusetts, so you can feast on all the terrible basketball programs out here like Williams, Amherst, MIT, Babson, Brandeis, Rhode Island College, Middlebury, WPI, Albertus Magnus, and so on.  Problem solved, and everyone is happy!

    Or Eastern Connecticut.

    Which Carthage did.  And they beat.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 10, 2014, 12:29:30 PM
    Here are all the Northeast Region Pool C's since 2008, the year we switched to SOS calculations.

    2008
    Amherst
    Mass-Dartmouth
    Brandeis
    WPI
    Bowdoin

    2009
    Rhode Island
    Farmingdale St.
    Amherst
    Salem St.
    WPI
    Brandeis

    2010
    MIddlebury
    MIT
    Brandeis

    2011
    Williams
    WPI
    Becker
    Amherst
    W. Conn

    2012
    Middlebury
    W. Conn
    Rhode Island

    2013
    Williams
    Middlebury
    MIT
    Springfield

    2014
    Williams
    Babson
    E. Conn
    WPI
    Springfield
    Bowdoin


    Once again I just want to point out my original intent was not to bemoan the NESCAC or its scheduling practices.  This was about the increased access to in-region games and the ease of strengthening schedules leading to more Pool C bids for the region.

    NE region is 18% of D3 but has received 25% of Pool C bids since 2008.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 10, 2014, 12:48:59 PM

    Yes, the NESCAC has a geographical advantage.  Their conference has an added advantage in that they prioritize not traveling much (or at all) to play.  They want their athletes home and not missing classes.

    It is what it is.  Once it's pointed out (as it is every year or two), is there really any point continuing to harp on it over and over?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 10, 2014, 01:26:00 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 10, 2014, 12:12:27 PM
    Here's another one for the hornet's nest.

    Dave said something, which while true, but is also something that needs to be examined and pushed, not parroted. Staten Island didn't play that many RR games. Bowdoin did. Fair enough. Part of the criteria.

    But...Bowdoin gets to play all of those games because of their conference.

    Would it not be more fair to teams in the lesser leagues to measure NON-CONFERENCE RR results a bit higher? Again, this does hurt the bloated conferences that do a double round (or even modified double round) and don't have much room for NC games. Still, though, I think you're penalizing a team just because of who they fit with academically, regionally, and mission?

    I know scheduling is hard - everyone needs games. But I think a little non-conference carrot could be put out there so the teams that fit in with one conference can have a chance and not have  to run the table to get in if a couple of teams go asunder (like Staten Island had this year...)

    I've had arguments with some about D-1 and how a team 'doesn't play anyone' when the majors control the scheduling cards and won't play teams in a home-and-home or even a two-for-one and would rather play horrible teams for $$. So I guess I feel the same about trying to help those in D3 that have conference issues but are very worthy have chance. Alas..
    I hear what you're saying, but I can't get behind the proposal that conference games should be weighed relatively less in the strength of schedule calculation.  I'm not suggesting that we should change the SOS calculation to punish the NESCAC or other conferences for not playing enough conference games.  Their SOS is accurate.  In many cases they did play decent non-conference teams instead of playing the worst teams from their conference again.

    What would really help is if we had a criteria that gave a priority to results against top 50 and top 100 RPI teams.  If a team had 5 wins against top 50 RPI but a poor conference strength, it should be easy for the committee to evaluate them against a top conference candidate (Bowdoin) who benefits from the strong strength of schedule but didn't beat any top 50 RPI teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 10, 2014, 01:34:29 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 10, 2014, 01:26:00 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 10, 2014, 12:12:27 PM
    Here's another one for the hornet's nest.

    Dave said something, which while true, but is also something that needs to be examined and pushed, not parroted. Staten Island didn't play that many RR games. Bowdoin did. Fair enough. Part of the criteria.

    But...Bowdoin gets to play all of those games because of their conference.

    Would it not be more fair to teams in the lesser leagues to measure NON-CONFERENCE RR results a bit higher? Again, this does hurt the bloated conferences that do a double round (or even modified double round) and don't have much room for NC games. Still, though, I think you're penalizing a team just because of who they fit with academically, regionally, and mission?

    I know scheduling is hard - everyone needs games. But I think a little non-conference carrot could be put out there so the teams that fit in with one conference can have a chance and not have  to run the table to get in if a couple of teams go asunder (like Staten Island had this year...)

    I've had arguments with some about D-1 and how a team 'doesn't play anyone' when the majors control the scheduling cards and won't play teams in a home-and-home or even a two-for-one and would rather play horrible teams for $$. So I guess I feel the same about trying to help those in D3 that have conference issues but are very worthy have chance. Alas..
    I hear what you're saying, but I can't get behind the proposal that conference games should be weighed relatively less in the strength of schedule calculation as they're out of your scheduling control.  What would really help is if we had a criteria that gave a priority to results against top 50 and top 100 RPI teams.  If a team had 5 wins against top 50 RPI but a poor conference strength, it should be easy for the committee to evaluate them against a top conference candidate (Bowdoin) who benefits from the strong strength of schedule but didn't beat any top 50 RPI teams.

    As I said before, when the brackets came out.  I think the committee expected teams to have some RRO on the schedule, but adjusted for those whose conference didn't provide them with some.  Bowdoin is the only school who got in who really didn't fit that criteria.

    I do think it's important to take into account the difficulty of a team from a weak conference getting as many RRO as a team from a strong conference.  But that's not very hard to do looking at schedule.  Either you tried or you didn't.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 10, 2014, 01:39:12 PM
    KnightSlappy has argued many times that vRRO and SOS reward essentially the same thing and thus is double-counting. I think he has suggested revising vRRO to just non-conference to alleviate some of the "excess reward" teams get just for being members of power conferences.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 10, 2014, 01:47:39 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on March 10, 2014, 01:39:12 PM
    KnightSlappy has argued many times that vRRO and SOS reward essentially the same thing and thus is double-counting. I think he has suggested revising vRRO to just non-conference to alleviate some of the "excess reward" teams get just for being members of power conferences.
    It's not double counting.  It's a measure to give greater importance to the toughest games.  It just does a really poor job of it as we don't really know who is in the final regional rankings and we have no national RPI to compare one regional ranking against another regional ranking. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 10, 2014, 01:47:43 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 10, 2014, 10:48:09 AM
    Pat, but it hasn't historically "worked to their advantage."  Other than Bowdoin this year, can you point to even ONE example of an unworthy NESCAC team receiving a Pool C bid? 

    My thoughts on this. Possible unworthy teams in the expanded (more than 48/50 teams) era:

    Bowdoin men 2014.
    Bowdoin men 2008.
    Williams women 2014.
    Williams women 2011.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 10, 2014, 02:02:05 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on March 10, 2014, 01:39:12 PM
    KnightSlappy has argued many times that vRRO and SOS reward essentially the same thing and thus is double-counting. I think he has suggested revising vRRO to just non-conference to alleviate some of the "excess reward" teams get just for being members of power conferences.

    I'd say this is fair.  It at least gives a more objective measure.  I also like the idea of the blind draw - don't associate the names of the schools with the stats at all - just throw the numbers out there and let them figure it out that way.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 10, 2014, 02:03:51 PM
    In 2014, Williams' women were 20-5.  They were ranked fourth in very a tough region.  They had a number of impressive wins vs. tournament / regionally ranked teams (Amherst, Bowdoin, Plattsburgh St., Castleton) plus some other solid non-conference wins (Eastern Conn, Babson x2, Smith, St. Lawrence).  Although they ended the season with a rough stretch, they were in no way shape or form "unworthy," and they not only played a very tough schedule (three of their five losses prior to the NCAA were to top-notch teams in Amherst, Tufts, and Bowdoin), they won many of those tough games.  They were not a borderline team at all. 

    Bowdoin men, 2014, I agree with.  The other two teams were long enough ago that I have no idea.  But I will also note that the Colby and Wesleyan men's teams which did NOT make it in the tournament in recent years had solid arguments that they belonged.  So it's not like every borderline NESCAC teams gets in.  I'd say more borderline UAA teams get in than NESCAC teams (some of the Brandeis, NYU and Emory men's teams have gotten in with really suspect records, for example).  And yes, they play a double round robin, and it hasn't hurt them it seems.   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toad22 on March 10, 2014, 02:37:25 PM
    Ah, the unfairness of life! If everybody outside the northeast thinks that they aren't getting fair consideration  when it comes to NCAA bids, complain to the NCAA. The leagues and teams in the northeast have little effect on how the NCAA operates. In other words, they are not at fault! The carping this year seems to be the worst ever, and that's hard to imagine. I am under no illusion that the NCAA knows what they are doing. They often seem to get it right only by accident. However, as it stands now, each league and school has wide latitude to operate the way they choose. If you are really that offended, get the NCAA to rein in these renegade groups, so that they act more to your liking. Till that happens, all this endless complaining seems pretty lame.       
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 10, 2014, 02:45:35 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 10, 2014, 02:03:51 PM
    In 2014, Williams' women were 20-5.  They were ranked fourth in very a tough region.  They had a number of impressive wins vs. tournament / regionally ranked teams (Amherst, Bowdoin, Plattsburgh St., Castleton) plus some other solid non-conference wins (Eastern Conn, Babson x2, Smith, St. Lawrence).  Although they ended the season with a rough stretch, they were in no way shape or form "unworthy," and they not only played a very tough schedule (three of their five losses prior to the NCAA were to top-notch teams in Amherst, Tufts, and Bowdoin), they won many of those tough games.  They were not a borderline team at all. 

    Bowdoin men, 2014, I agree with.  The other two teams were long enough ago that I have no idea.  But I will also note that the Colby and Wesleyan men's teams which did NOT make it in the tournament in recent years had solid arguments that they belonged.  So it's not like every borderline NESCAC teams gets in.  I'd say more borderline UAA teams get in than NESCAC teams (some of the Brandeis, NYU and Emory men's teams have gotten in with really suspect records, for example).  And yes, they play a double round robin, and it hasn't hurt them it seems.


    Williams women's Massey was #49 and SOS was #70.

    Babson was 14-13. Smith and St. Lawrence were in the 100's in the Massey rating (good, not great teams). Not having followed the women's side of the ledger much, but seeing this data, it's a borderline case.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 10, 2014, 02:46:47 PM
    Quote from: toad22 on March 10, 2014, 02:37:25 PM
    Ah, the unfairness of life! If everybody outside the northeast thinks that they aren't getting fair consideration  when it comes to NCAA bids, complain to the NCAA. The leagues and teams in the northeast have little effect on how the NCAA operates. In other words, they are not at fault! The carping this year seems to be the worst ever, and that's hard to imagine. I am under no illusion that the NCAA knows what they are doing. They often seem to get it right only by accident. However, as it stands now, each league and school has wide latitude to operate the way they choose. If you are really that offended, get the NCAA to rein in these renegade groups, so that they act more to your liking. Till that happens, all this endless complaining seems pretty lame.     

    So we shouldn't offer data or suggestions at all? Just keep it to ourselves?

    We're trying to improve the entire darn process here! There's got to be a way to discuss and formulate these issues and not just keep it silent so we don't offend a sensibility of a sensitive bunch.

    Bowdoin is the one that puts this in the crosshairs and trying to see how we can make the process more fair and right and just and honest.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 10, 2014, 02:48:16 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 10, 2014, 02:03:51 PM
    In 2014, Williams' women were 20-5.  They were ranked fourth in very a tough region.

    But should they have been?

    Quote from: toad22 on March 10, 2014, 02:37:25 PM
    The carping this year seems to be the worst ever.

    Doesn't seem like it to me, although it does seem like the conversation is lasting longer this year because it won't die. It goes away for a while, then someone new discovers it, throws in some stuff that hasn't been true for a decade or so and it goes back around.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toad22 on March 10, 2014, 03:00:39 PM
    If it is really the Bowdoin bid that is at issue, then I think we can get pretty complete agreement that a mistake was made. Based on my reading of the selection criteria, it doesn't seem like they should have been picked. The conversation has gone very far afield of that.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 10, 2014, 03:01:33 PM
    I'm going to derail the NESCAC talk for a bit here ;)

    Unfortunately there is no D3 NIT tournament where regular season champs get automatic bids if they don't make the NCAA tourney. For a lot of conferences it's just a one bid league and so doesn't matter as much what happens during conference play as long as you get hot for 2 or 3 games.

    What would be an interesting format for conference tournaments would be a staggered bracket. Thursday night have 5 seed vs 8 seed and 6 seed vs 7 seed. Friday night have the 5/8 winner play the 4 seed and the 6/7 winner play the 3 seed. Saturday have the 3/6/7 winner play the 2 seed and the 4/5/8 winner play the 1 seed. Sunday have those winners play for the title.

    5 Seed                   1 Seed     
           | 5/8 Winner                |  1/4/5/8 Winner
    8 Seed |           |  4/5/8 Winner |                 |
              4 Seed   |                                 |
                                                         | Pool A Team
    6 Seed                   2 Seed                      |
           | 6/7 Winner                |  2/3/6/7 Winner |
    7 Seed |           |  3/6/7 Winner |
              3 Seed   |


    In this format it would certainly increase the value of conference play while still keeping the bid open to those who struggled a bit.
    1: Host and 2 games from title
    2: 2 games from title
    3/4: 3 games from title
    5-8: 4 games from title
    >8: eliminated
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 10, 2014, 03:13:35 PM
    The OAC does this. This year both 1 and 2 men's seeds lost in the semifinals after getting that double bye.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 10, 2014, 03:32:16 PM
    Quote from: toad22 on March 10, 2014, 03:00:39 PM
    If it is really the Bowdoin bid that is at issue, then I think we can get pretty complete agreement that a mistake was made. Based on my reading of the selection criteria, it doesn't seem like they should have been picked. The conversation has gone very far afield of that.

    but it's a symptom of the problem...that's not easy to fix but there are nuggets around here that can solve it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiltedbryan on March 10, 2014, 04:00:10 PM
    To me, the "unfair" math of a NESCAC-like schedule stems from teams only playing 10 in-conference games out of 25. The thing about conference games, from an SOS perspective, is that the impact of playing one tends to be around .500, since every conference win for you is a loss for someone else in the conference. It's a closed loop.

    Take this year, for example: 110 conference games were played in the NESCAC, and the conference had a 55-55 record against itself. Same as last year, same as the year before, etc. It's a closed system, zero-sum game - every win equals a loss for someone else, so from a conference-wide perspective, the winning percentage of each game is .500. Now the math won't be perfect due to home/away multipliers or the slightly different records of teams within the conference each year, but it seems obvious that the net impact of conference games on your SOS is that playing a lot of them will tend to regress your SOS closer to .500.

    But a non-conference game is an outside-of-system event. If, say, Amherst beats Anna Maria, the NESCAC gains a 1.000 to its WP while the GNAC gains 0.000. And, I guess, the "unfair" part, to me, is that only playing 10 conference games gives the NESCAC both: 1) many more opportunities to boost the overall winning percentages of its member teams, and 2) *avoids* the conference game penalty whereby each conference matchup would, on average, tend to bring your SOS closer to .500.

    Consider a NESCAC team with a .530 SOS vs. an OAC team with a .530 SOS going into Selection Monday. The NESCAC team generated that SOS with 10 conference games and 15 non-cons, plus (probably) two NESCAC tourney games. The OAC team, by contrast, played 18 conference games, 7 non-cons, plus (probably) 2-3 OAC tournament games. So the OAC team had many fewer games to use to move their SOS into the .530 range as compared to the NESCAC team.

    And what's true for a single team in the conference is true for the league as a whole. Again, the NESCAC played 110 conference games out of 275 total regular season games. Exactly 40% of their schedule were conference games. But the OAC played 180 conference games out of 250 total games - 72% of their schedule.

    That means that, for an OAC team, nearly twice as many of their games come from playing games that net out, in an SOS calculation, to a .500 record (every conference win is also a conference loss, and everybody plays everybody twice). In effect, every OAC team competing for a tournament slot has a 90-90 (OAC record against itself) weighed into their SOS whereas the NESCAC team they're being compared against only has a 55-55 (NESCAC record against itself) weighed in. I think that's a huge advantage coming from conference scheduling practices that isn't captured in the evaluation of the selection criteria.

    It's totally possible I'm wrong, and this analysis is wrong - I wasn't a math or stats major, by any stretch - but this is the way it seems to me. And it seems like there really would be an SOS penalty to playing lots of conference games as opposed to fewer, and that NESCAC teams could get a real benefit from it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 10, 2014, 04:16:46 PM
    Quote from: toad22 on March 10, 2014, 03:00:39 PM
    If it is really the Bowdoin bid that is at issue, then I think we can get pretty complete agreement that a mistake was made. Based on my reading of the selection criteria, it doesn't seem like they should have been picked. The conversation has gone very far afield of that.

    There were some questions about Dickinson early on, I imagine that talk has probably been long forgotten by this point.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 10, 2014, 04:27:06 PM
    kiltedbryan, your basic point is correct, but a slight correction.  6 NESCAC teams each play two games against members of the NESCAC which are non-con games.  CONFERENCE games have to end 55-55, but CONFERENCE SOS is computed including 61-61.

    BTW, I wasn't a math or stat major either, but I did teach stat for over 3 decades at the university level. :P
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on March 10, 2014, 04:34:35 PM
    Quote from: kiltedbryan on March 10, 2014, 04:00:10 PM
    Take this year, for example: 110 conference games were played in the NESCAC, and the conference had a 55-55 record against itself. Same as last year, same as the year before, etc. It's a closed system, zero-sum game - every win equals a loss for someone else...

    Time is indeed a flat circle. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: madzillagd on March 10, 2014, 04:43:58 PM
    When I saw that Bowdoin got in I cynically thought it was for one reason and one reason only: because the NEWMAC got 4 teams in.  The NESCAC is supposed to be the top NE conference and they were looking at having 2 teams in while the NEWMAC, the supposed 2nd best NE conference, was getting in 4.  I think in a very touch-feely, subjective way that may have pushed Bowdoin over the top and gotten them in the tournament.  I could be completely off base but that was my initial thought and I haven't seen anything to date that would lead me to think there is some other type of mathematical explanation as to why they got in.  As everyone has pointed out, the numbers just don't add up for them.

    But then again, I'm just the guy who told the AMC fans that to get ranked higher they needed a better SOS and to build some tournament history - only to be shot down by everyone on the board that tournament history wasn't part of the criteria the committee considered.  Which reminds me, how did that turn out?  ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 10, 2014, 04:55:14 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 10, 2014, 04:34:35 PM
    Time is indeed a flat circle.
    I thought time was more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff  :P
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: amh63 on March 10, 2014, 05:09:34 PM
    GCGrizzG........Like your discription of TIME.  In truth your wording is closer to the latest "truth" than flat circle for time.  The latest being the every changing world of nobel prize winners and quantum physicisits/math nerds.  The leader of the bunch latest bomb shell is that there maybe no such thing as a "black hole".  Sort of where the discussions of SOS in the NESCAC seems to be going :)  But we know better ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 10, 2014, 05:50:01 PM
    We've kvetched a lot about the Pool C process since, well, forever.

    But at least we have a semi-national way to do things and a semi-national tournament.

    In D2, everything is regional to the max. The men got just one entrant into the field because of upsets in two of the three conferences that make up the region. So the CCAA and the Pac West got an extra team in because of those upsets.

    The women got four teams out of the eight in the region, and the conference championship game between Simon Fraser and Western Washington will be a rematch in the first round of the NCAA tourney and even though Western Washington won that game, their still the #6 seed vs. #3 Simon Fraser.

    So, I guess we count our D3 blessings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 10, 2014, 07:39:28 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 10, 2014, 05:50:01 PM
    We've kvetched a lot about the Pool C process since, well, forever.

    But at least we have a semi-national way to do things and a semi-national tournament.

    In D2, everything is regional to the max. The men got just one entrant into the field because of upsets in two of the three conferences that make up the region. So the CCAA and the Pac West got an extra team in because of those upsets.

    The women got four teams out of the eight in the region, and the conference championship game between Simon Fraser and Western Washington will be a rematch in the first round of the NCAA tourney and even though Western Washington won that game, their still the #6 seed vs. #3 Simon Fraser.

    So, I guess we count our D3 blessings.

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FdSY9GgU0fWS8o%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=31a8a2e6badafa722bc4e852d48653216f0b5f15)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toad22 on March 10, 2014, 08:20:42 PM
    One slight correction to the math of the NESCAC is that they play only 24 games, not 25. For some reason, Bowdoin only played 23 this year, but I don't believe that is a Bowdoin rule for their bball teams. I would not want the NESCAC to move to a 20 game league schedule, leaving only 4 out of conference games, so some kind of subgroupings would be required. It all seems kind of convoluted, and certainly unfair inside the league, so I doubt they will ever change. That possibility was looked at a few years ago and rejected.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on March 10, 2014, 10:34:32 PM
    From the way-back-stack,  this debate about the inherent advantages that accrue to the NESCAC for its single round robin was discussed on Hoopsville back in 2006.

    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2006, 02:04:57 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 14, 2006, 10:53:53 PM
    Interesting comments from Coach Andrist of UW-Stout on Hoopsville tonight.  He said the WIAC has actually discussed moving away from the conference tournament since it leads to additional losses for Pool C candidates.  This has been Scott Trost's position on the conference tournament concept.

    Under the present system of in-region winning % and Quality of Wins Index, as I see it, it really does not make sense for "power conferences" to play more games against each other than they have to.  The regular season league slate is damaging enough in terms of in-region losses and hits to the QOWI...why subject your Pool C candidates to more games vs the powerful teams atop the league?

    Amherst coach David Hixon conceded on Hoopsville tonight that the NESCAC benefits from not playing a double round robin.  In other words, they're better off since Amherst, Bates, Tufts, Williams, and the top teams every year do not play each other twice in the conference season - more opportunity to go beat up on the other Northeast Region teams and boost the in-region winning % and QOWI.

    While I do not like the way the NESCAC does things (a double round robin is the only way to go), I think leagues like the CCIW and WIAC should take a page out of the NESCAC's book and keep their teams the heck away from each other when possible.  I still think the conference tournament makes no sense as billed by the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin...

    "Implementing the tournament is a significant step in the history of the CCIW," said Martin. "We hope that showcasing our top teams in the tournament will help us get a second, at-large bid, to the NCAA field each year.

    http://www.cciw.org/winter_bball_m/cciwtournamentapproved.php


    I don't buy it.

    I agree with you, Q. 

    To emulate the other half of the NESCAC success is for the CCIW members to identify as many Midwest Region opponents as possible that should finish the season >.500 and schedule them.

    The NESCAC does have 58 teams in six other conferences vs. 42 teams in 4 other conferences plus WashStL and UChicago in the Midwest from which to pick.

    And a road game is worth an extra point! :)

    (I have tried to make my point clearer by adding the italicized words.  Thanks to my friends who suggested that I clarify that posting. :))
    You gotta get up pretty early in the morning to get ahead of Dave McHugh.  ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 10, 2014, 10:40:10 PM
    Wow! I can't believe that you unearthed those eight-year-old posts, blew the dust off of them, and dropped them right into the middle of a practically identical current discussion, Ralph. Nice sleuthing. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on March 10, 2014, 10:45:48 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 10, 2014, 10:40:10 PM
    Wow! I can't believe that you unearthed those eight-year-old posts, blew the dust off of them, and dropped them right into the middle of a practically identical current discussion, Ralph. Nice sleuthing. ;)
    It's deja vu all over again!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 11, 2014, 12:33:04 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 10, 2014, 04:16:46 PM
    Quote from: toad22 on March 10, 2014, 03:00:39 PM
    If it is really the Bowdoin bid that is at issue, then I think we can get pretty complete agreement that a mistake was made. Based on my reading of the selection criteria, it doesn't seem like they should have been picked. The conversation has gone very far afield of that.

    There were some questions about Dickinson early on, I imagine that talk has probably been long forgotten by this point.

    Dickinson was the 4th of my last 4 out, and, IMHO, acceptable based on the NCAA standard, albeit I think the committee passed up better choices to get to them.  I was surprised they made it because I thought they would get passed by Stevenson in the Mid-Atlantic, but they clearly didn't.  My guess is that Guilford did stick in the Regional Rankings, which would have given Dickinson a good 2-1 vs. RRO and a 19-5 record against those not.

    In that case, they would have trumped Bowdoin and, based on RRO record, you could make reasonable arguments to why they belonged over Stevenson, Carthage and DePauw, though I would have picked any of those teams ahead of them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on March 11, 2014, 11:55:12 AM
    Great work Ralph!

    This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

    I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

    I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 12:40:17 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on March 11, 2014, 11:55:12 AM
    Great work Ralph!

    This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

    I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

    I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

    Extremely interesting.  But here's the rub- I think any committee member even remotely doing that job the way it needs to be done is going to be able to identify teams from the criteria alone.  And if they can't, then are they really paying close enough attention to the teams to be relied upon to competently select teams?  And I think you've got to have access to the teams schools have played.  H2H results and results vs. common opponents is valuable data. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 11, 2014, 12:45:07 PM
    I really can't believe D3 hasn't adopted RPI.  What they are basically doing is trying to figure out how to weigh winning % and SOS while looking at two different numbers when RPI does that and gives you one number.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 11, 2014, 02:22:11 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 12:40:17 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on March 11, 2014, 11:55:12 AM
    Great work Ralph!

    This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

    I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

    I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

    Extremely interesting.  But here's the rub- I think any committee member even remotely doing that job the way it needs to be done is going to be able to identify teams from the criteria alone.  And if they can't, then are they really paying close enough attention to the teams to be relied upon to competently select teams?  And I think you've got to have access to the teams schools have played.  H2H results and results vs. common opponents is valuable data.

    You might be able to guess your own regional schools, but I doubt people would pick out the schools by data alone from other regions.  Either way, you wouldn't be able to use those names in discussion, you'd have to make your case with numbers.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 02:41:41 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 02:22:11 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 12:40:17 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on March 11, 2014, 11:55:12 AM
    Great work Ralph!

    This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

    I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

    I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

    Extremely interesting.  But here's the rub- I think any committee member even remotely doing that job the way it needs to be done is going to be able to identify teams from the criteria alone.  And if they can't, then are they really paying close enough attention to the teams to be relied upon to competently select teams?  And I think you've got to have access to the teams schools have played.  H2H results and results vs. common opponents is valuable data.

    You might be able to guess your own regional schools, but I doubt people would pick out the schools by data alone from other regions.  Either way, you wouldn't be able to use those names in discussion, you'd have to make your case with numbers.

    Really?  It might be best that we never actually know the answer to this because I think we probably shouldn't be comfortable that a national selection committee member hasn't studied enough to be able to identify teams from their criteria alone.  They don't have to study all 400 teams.  By the time we get to the point where regional rankings get published, you're probably only dealing with 40-ish teams in the at-large discussion.  And that list shrinks as we get through those last couple of weeks of the season.  If you can't be thorough with 30-40 teams, national selection committee member probably isn't your thing. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 11, 2014, 05:33:08 PM
    Believe it or not, despite no geographic resource-based constraints, far more inter-regional games during the regular season, a lot more games, period, the use of RPI, and more national television exposure (to put it mildly) for tournment teams, the Division I selection process generates more than its share of controversy on an annual basis, with a sizeable cohort of teams convinced that they were robbed.  I'm guessing that the fans of the teams that are left on the sidelines, in any division, will feel equally aggrieved, no matter what criteria is employed in the inherently subjective endeavor of ascertaining who the best 64 (or 62, or whatever) basketball teams in the country are.

    [I dedicate this post to Frank Uible ... whose spirit I realized, half-way through, I had inadvertently channeled]. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on March 11, 2014, 06:31:12 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 02:41:41 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 02:22:11 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 12:40:17 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on March 11, 2014, 11:55:12 AM
    Great work Ralph!

    This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

    I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

    I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

    Extremely interesting.  But here's the rub- I think any committee member even remotely doing that job the way it needs to be done is going to be able to identify teams from the criteria alone.  And if they can't, then are they really paying close enough attention to the teams to be relied upon to competently select teams?  And I think you've got to have access to the teams schools have played.  H2H results and results vs. common opponents is valuable data.

    You might be able to guess your own regional schools, but I doubt people would pick out the schools by data alone from other regions.  Either way, you wouldn't be able to use those names in discussion, you'd have to make your case with numbers.

    Really?  It might be best that we never actually know the answer to this because I think we probably shouldn't be comfortable that a national selection committee member hasn't studied enough to be able to identify teams from their criteria alone.  They don't have to study all 400 teams.  By the time we get to the point where regional rankings get published, you're probably only dealing with 40-ish teams in the at-large discussion.  And that list shrinks as we get through those last couple of weeks of the season.  If you can't be thorough with 30-40 teams, national selection committee member probably isn't your thing.

    I get that some schools are going to be pretty obvious... take, for instance, Stevens Point and Cabrini when they were both defeated. Further, teams that have a certain record. But I'm thinking that even the H2H results and results against common opponents can be veiled... and these committees have enough work to do that they wouldn't go through the trouble of trying to figure these teams out...

    Now, that doesn't mean that posters here wouldn't try to figure it out. I pretty much guarantee that this would happen.


    And this would all be solved by going to an RPI.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 11, 2014, 06:44:07 PM
    Some food for thought:

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 11, 2014, 07:02:06 PM
    I think the RPI is all FUBARED anyway as the be-all and end-all.  You think some conferences are gaming the system now? See the A-10 this year for super-mega gaming the RPI system. UMass is a good team. They're 49th in the Pomeroy rankings, 34th in Massey, 47th in Sagarin. By those metrics, if they make the A-10 semi finals they'll probably be in the tourney. (That's a fine league this year.)

    They're 16th in RPI. That's kind of a disconnect. The reason is they built their schedule to be very RPI friendly. A decent, deep conference, and a non-conference of good, yet beatable teams (New Mexico, Nebraska, BYU, LSU, Clemson, Ohio, Providence) and avoiding the dogs (the only sub-200 RPI team that is non-conference is Youngstown State). Of course they have to win a lot of those games to get RPI points, and they did. But beating LSU and Clemson and Providence and Nebraska isn't really worthy of a 16th in RPI. Their power rankings on one of those three indicies above probably shows their true value.

    The Mountain West does this too. Nothing wrong with it at all since it's about their only entre into the tourney on a consistent basis. Since the A-10, Mountain West, MVC, and other higher non-BCS conferences can't get big time majors to come to their place, they schedule this way and also play in a lot of tournaments where they get a couple of good games on a neutral court.

    A real Massey / Ken Pom hybrid is probably the way to go.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 11, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on March 11, 2014, 06:31:12 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 02:41:41 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 02:22:11 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 12:40:17 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on March 11, 2014, 11:55:12 AM
    Great work Ralph!

    This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

    I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

    I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

    Extremely interesting.  But here's the rub- I think any committee member even remotely doing that job the way it needs to be done is going to be able to identify teams from the criteria alone.  And if they can't, then are they really paying close enough attention to the teams to be relied upon to competently select teams?  And I think you've got to have access to the teams schools have played.  H2H results and results vs. common opponents is valuable data.

    You might be able to guess your own regional schools, but I doubt people would pick out the schools by data alone from other regions.  Either way, you wouldn't be able to use those names in discussion, you'd have to make your case with numbers.

    Really?  It might be best that we never actually know the answer to this because I think we probably shouldn't be comfortable that a national selection committee member hasn't studied enough to be able to identify teams from their criteria alone.  They don't have to study all 400 teams.  By the time we get to the point where regional rankings get published, you're probably only dealing with 40-ish teams in the at-large discussion.  And that list shrinks as we get through those last couple of weeks of the season.  If you can't be thorough with 30-40 teams, national selection committee member probably isn't your thing.

    I get that some schools are going to be pretty obvious... take, for instance, Stevens Point and Cabrini when they were both defeated. Further, teams that have a certain record. But I'm thinking that even the H2H results and results against common opponents can be veiled... and these committees have enough work to do that they wouldn't go through the trouble of trying to figure these teams out...

    Now, that doesn't mean that posters here wouldn't try to figure it out. I pretty much guarantee that this would happen.


    And this would all be solved by going to an RPI.

    Obviously the best teams are going to be obvious - if they've only got 1, 2, or 3 losses, but those teams are going to be in anyway, for the most part.  Also, I don't think the committee members spend any time outside their phone calls pouring over the records and stats like we do.  Why would they?  They've got better things to do - like coaching their own teams.

    If it comes down to two teams and one is 19-7 with a .562 SOS and a vRRO of 2-3, while the other is 18-9, .573, 4-5 are you really going to be able to pick them out?  I don't think so.  Not that often, especially if we blind the regions as well.  Eight teams on the board with no regional affiliation listed.  Which of these eight, strictly by the numbers, deserves in next?  That's tough to figure out specifically - even more difficult if they're not trying (which they have no reason to do - other than curiosity).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 08:41:13 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
    Obviously the best teams are going to be obvious - if they've only got 1, 2, or 3 losses, but those teams are going to be in anyway, for the most part.  Also, I don't think the committee members spend any time outside their phone calls pouring over the records and stats like we do. Why would they?  They've got better things to do - like coaching their own teams.

    If it comes down to two teams and one is 19-7 with a .562 SOS and a vRRO of 2-3, while the other is 18-9, .573, 4-5 are you really going to be able to pick them out?  I don't think so.  Not that often, especially if we blind the regions as well.  Eight teams on the board with no regional affiliation listed.  Which of these eight, strictly by the numbers, deserves in next?  That's tough to figure out specifically - even more difficult if they're not trying (which they have no reason to do - other than curiosity).

    Why would they?  Because that's kinda what you sign up for when you decide to be part of the selection process.  I think you've got to know those at-large profiles inside and out if you're on that committee.  Anything less and you're doing a disservice to those teams and to the tournament. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 11, 2014, 09:22:27 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 02:41:41 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 02:22:11 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 12:40:17 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on March 11, 2014, 11:55:12 AM
    Great work Ralph!

    This (not playing additional games against top CONFERENCE teams) could/would mean fewer Pool C's for power conferences, ESPECIALLY when a selection committee takes a team like Carthage and penalizes them because their SOS/vRRO is in part (not completely, but in part) due to the quality of their conference.

    I think the #1 thing that everyone needs, from power conferences down to the weaker ones, is CONSISTENCY across the board in terms of selection from year to year, from region to region, and from selected team to selected team.

    I still think that, if they truly want this to be an objective selection instead of subjective, they need to do the selection double blind... Look ONLY at the primary criteria and not have "access" to the name of the school, which conference they're in, even which schools they've played (just compare them against team 5684, with a SOS of x, vRRO of y, and a record of z-6).

    Extremely interesting.  But here's the rub- I think any committee member even remotely doing that job the way it needs to be done is going to be able to identify teams from the criteria alone.  And if they can't, then are they really paying close enough attention to the teams to be relied upon to competently select teams?  And I think you've got to have access to the teams schools have played.  H2H results and results vs. common opponents is valuable data.

    You might be able to guess your own regional schools, but I doubt people would pick out the schools by data alone from other regions.  Either way, you wouldn't be able to use those names in discussion, you'd have to make your case with numbers.

    Really?  It might be best that we never actually know the answer to this because I think we probably shouldn't be comfortable that a national selection committee member hasn't studied enough to be able to identify teams from their criteria alone.  They don't have to study all 400 teams.  By the time we get to the point where regional rankings get published, you're probably only dealing with 40-ish teams in the at-large discussion.  And that list shrinks as we get through those last couple of weeks of the season.  If you can't be thorough with 30-40 teams, national selection committee member probably isn't your thing.

    I dunno. Considering how badly this year's iteration of the national committee bungled the bracketing part of the process, I don't have a tremendous heap of confidence in the committee at the moment.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 11, 2014, 09:26:27 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 08:09:40 PM


    Obviously the best teams are going to be obvious - if they've only got 1, 2, or 3 losses, but those teams are going to be in anyway, for the most part.  Also, I don't think the committee members spend any time outside their phone calls pouring over the records and stats like we do.  Why would they?  They've got better things to do - like coaching their own teams.

    If it comes down to two teams and one is 19-7 with a .562 SOS and a vRRO of 2-3, while the other is 18-9, .573, 4-5 are you really going to be able to pick them out?  I don't think so.  Not that often, especially if we blind the regions as well.  Eight teams on the board with no regional affiliation listed.  Which of these eight, strictly by the numbers, deserves in next?  That's tough to figure out specifically - even more difficult if they're not trying (which they have no reason to do - other than curiosity).

    This is why you need a process.  For example, you could say xxx points (say 100) of winning percentage can be offset by yyy points (say 40) of SOS, as a starting point for ranking and then you can look at the 'results' of the RRO to see if that the rankings should be adjusted for some compelling reason.

    For example, I would say the 19-7 team in the above scenario would have an advantage, but I might consider skipping the other team if the wins vs. RRO were against the very top teams in the regional rankings and the 19-7 club only had wins against the bottom of the RRO.

    The problem wasn't the picks of the committee, but the inability to articulate a process, but rather one off comments about too many losses against good teams or 9 losses or no big wins (or even worse, tournament history and eye test).  Like I said before, you can reasonably come up with explanations for Dickinson over Stevenson or Carthage based on the NCAA guidelines and show that you applied that consistently than one could argue against the weighting, but they couldn't argue that the guidelines weren't followed.

    I haven't heard that articulated though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 12, 2014, 08:44:55 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 11, 2014, 06:44:07 PM
    Some food for thought:


    • An RPI would have less meaning in Division III with the D-III philosophy actively suppressing interregional play.
    • Having an RPI at all contradicts the D-III philosophy.
    • Do we trust the NCAA to calculate one correctly and not allow a sport's committee to f' it up? :)

    They already "f up" the SOS calculation, and we still all talked about that like it was a serious thing.

    All an RPI would be doing at this point is consistently weighting WP against SOS. How is that against D-III philosophy?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 12, 2014, 08:56:36 AM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 11, 2014, 07:02:06 PM
    I think the RPI is all FUBARED anyway as the be-all and end-all.  You think some conferences are gaming the system now? See the A-10 this year for super-mega gaming the RPI system. UMass is a good team. They're 49th in the Pomeroy rankings, 34th in Massey, 47th in Sagarin. By those metrics, if they make the A-10 semi finals they'll probably be in the tourney. (That's a fine league this year.)

    They're 16th in RPI. That's kind of a disconnect. The reason is they built their schedule to be very RPI friendly. A decent, deep conference, and a non-conference of good, yet beatable teams (New Mexico, Nebraska, BYU, LSU, Clemson, Ohio, Providence) and avoiding the dogs (the only sub-200 RPI team that is non-conference is Youngstown State). Of course they have to win a lot of those games to get RPI points, and they did. But beating LSU and Clemson and Providence and Nebraska isn't really worthy of a 16th in RPI. Their power rankings on one of those three indicies above probably shows their true value.

    The Mountain West does this too. Nothing wrong with it at all since it's about their only entre into the tourney on a consistent basis. Since the A-10, Mountain West, MVC, and other higher non-BCS conferences can't get big time majors to come to their place, they schedule this way and also play in a lot of tournaments where they get a couple of good games on a neutral court.

    A real Massey / Ken Pom hybrid is probably the way to go.
    yes, but selections aren't made merely on your RPI rank.  Teams that are 15 spots below you but have 5 better wins and better losses will be selected first.  If it's a struggle to get the D3 to use RPI, it's going to be near impossible for them to make a common sense decision to use a ranking that includes margin of victory.

    People seem to be most pleased with systems like the BCS which use computer rankings which don't use margin of victory alongside predictable human voting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 12, 2014, 11:44:04 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 12, 2014, 08:56:36 AM

    People seem to be most pleased with systems like the BCS which use computer rankings which don't use margin of victory alongside predictable human voting.

    People as in NO ONE...

    Also, the RPI will definitely affect seeding. UMass will probably be seeded higher than they should.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 12, 2014, 12:06:35 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 12, 2014, 11:44:04 AM
    Quote from: AO on March 12, 2014, 08:56:36 AM

    People seem to be most pleased with systems like the BCS which use computer rankings which don't use margin of victory alongside predictable human voting.

    People as in NO ONE...

    Also, the RPI will definitely affect seeding. UMass will probably be seeded higher than they should.
    "People" in this context is the committees in charge of making those decisions.  There was really only 1 BCS championship where the people voted for a 3rd team to be more deserving of the title.  College sports are dominated by a select few, but they all get to vote, so they vote to ignore margin of victory. 

    I can't find too much fault with D1 seeding.  They do such a better job of it than any other major tournament in the country.  The NBA and NHL are going to send sub .500 teams to the playoffs again this year and leave better teams from the West home due to some false assumption that people care about "East vs. West".
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2014, 01:57:47 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 08:41:13 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
    Obviously the best teams are going to be obvious - if they've only got 1, 2, or 3 losses, but those teams are going to be in anyway, for the most part.  Also, I don't think the committee members spend any time outside their phone calls pouring over the records and stats like we do. Why would they?  They've got better things to do - like coaching their own teams.

    If it comes down to two teams and one is 19-7 with a .562 SOS and a vRRO of 2-3, while the other is 18-9, .573, 4-5 are you really going to be able to pick them out?  I don't think so.  Not that often, especially if we blind the regions as well.  Eight teams on the board with no regional affiliation listed.  Which of these eight, strictly by the numbers, deserves in next?  That's tough to figure out specifically - even more difficult if they're not trying (which they have no reason to do - other than curiosity).

    Why would they?  Because that's kinda what you sign up for when you decide to be part of the selection process.  I think you've got to know those at-large profiles inside and out if you're on that committee.  Anything less and you're doing a disservice to those teams and to the tournament.

    I don't know one committee member over the years and including this season who I have talked to who doesn't talk about staying up late to catch-up on scores and watch games from around the country including the west coast so they are as prepared as they can be. I don't know one who doesn't pour over the data and spend countless hours outside of the phone calls to get a better understanding of the teams involved. To assume committee members don't take this job seriously and don't do more than the conference call entails is probably insulting to those on the committee. They don't spend at least four years of their life just twiddling their thumbs.

    Quote from: AO on March 12, 2014, 12:06:35 PM
    "People" in this context is the committees in charge of making those decisions.  There was really only 1 BCS championship where the people voted for a 3rd team to be more deserving of the title.  College sports are dominated by a select few, but they all get to vote, so they vote to ignore margin of victory. 

    I can't find too much fault with D1 seeding.  They do such a better job of it than any other major tournament in the country.  The NBA and NHL are going to send sub .500 teams to the playoffs again this year and leave better teams from the West home due to some false assumption that people care about "East vs. West".

    If this were true... why did they constantly play with the system, year-in and year-out, messing with the settings, adjusting the weight each element received, etc.? Then eventually say... this isn't working... we need to come up with another system.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 12, 2014, 02:38:02 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2014, 01:57:47 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 12, 2014, 12:06:35 PM
    "People" in this context is the committees in charge of making those decisions.  There was really only 1 BCS championship where the people voted for a 3rd team to be more deserving of the title.  College sports are dominated by a select few, but they all get to vote, so they vote to ignore margin of victory. 
    If this were true... why did they constantly play with the system, year-in and year-out, messing with the settings, adjusting the weight each element received, etc.? Then eventually say... this isn't working... we need to come up with another system.
    I suppose I shouldn't have said anyone was ever pleased with the system, just that they were moving away from advanced computer rankings.  A national RPI shouldn't be very scary for D3 to adopt.  If they can vote to allow teams from one region to receive multiple bids while another region gets zero bids, they should be smart enough to realize they need better national criteria to compare regions.  We could get rid of the regionally ranked secrecy and the problem of  "getting to the table".  Staten Island would have a much better idea of where they stand nationally and everyone can get a clear predictable view of how strength of schedule and winning percentage combine.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 13, 2014, 08:59:46 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2014, 01:57:47 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 08:41:13 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
    Obviously the best teams are going to be obvious - if they've only got 1, 2, or 3 losses, but those teams are going to be in anyway, for the most part.  Also, I don't think the committee members spend any time outside their phone calls pouring over the records and stats like we do. Why would they?  They've got better things to do - like coaching their own teams.

    If it comes down to two teams and one is 19-7 with a .562 SOS and a vRRO of 2-3, while the other is 18-9, .573, 4-5 are you really going to be able to pick them out?  I don't think so.  Not that often, especially if we blind the regions as well.  Eight teams on the board with no regional affiliation listed.  Which of these eight, strictly by the numbers, deserves in next?  That's tough to figure out specifically - even more difficult if they're not trying (which they have no reason to do - other than curiosity).

    Why would they?  Because that's kinda what you sign up for when you decide to be part of the selection process.  I think you've got to know those at-large profiles inside and out if you're on that committee.  Anything less and you're doing a disservice to those teams and to the tournament.

    I don't know one committee member over the years and including this season who I have talked to who doesn't talk about staying up late to catch-up on scores and watch games from around the country including the west coast so they are as prepared as they can be. I don't know one who doesn't pour over the data and spend countless hours outside of the phone calls to get a better understanding of the teams involved. To assume committee members don't take this job seriously and don't do more than the conference call entails is probably insulting to those on the committee. They don't spend at least four years of their life just twiddling their thumbs.

    I'm not saying they don't do work outside the call, but if the "data" they're getting is blind - with no team names attached, they're not necessarily going to know what Illinois Wesleyan's SOS is or their vRRO.  I'm saying as much as they know which teams are good and which aren't, they may not be able to recognize them strictly from the numerical criteria used for ranking, especially for those farther down the rankings that end up near the end of Pool C consideration.

    They would have to intentionally be seeking out those identifiers - and I don't think members would do that, if the plan is to rank without team names - that would take extra work beyond the work they already do for their own team and for the committee.

    I'm saying if you went to an intetionally blind ranking, I don't think the members would go outside those parameters to "fill in the blanks" when it came selection time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on March 13, 2014, 10:50:59 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 13, 2014, 08:59:46 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2014, 01:57:47 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 11, 2014, 08:41:13 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2014, 08:09:40 PM
    Obviously the best teams are going to be obvious - if they've only got 1, 2, or 3 losses, but those teams are going to be in anyway, for the most part.  Also, I don't think the committee members spend any time outside their phone calls pouring over the records and stats like we do. Why would they?  They've got better things to do - like coaching their own teams.

    If it comes down to two teams and one is 19-7 with a .562 SOS and a vRRO of 2-3, while the other is 18-9, .573, 4-5 are you really going to be able to pick them out?  I don't think so.  Not that often, especially if we blind the regions as well.  Eight teams on the board with no regional affiliation listed.  Which of these eight, strictly by the numbers, deserves in next?  That's tough to figure out specifically - even more difficult if they're not trying (which they have no reason to do - other than curiosity).

    Why would they?  Because that's kinda what you sign up for when you decide to be part of the selection process.  I think you've got to know those at-large profiles inside and out if you're on that committee.  Anything less and you're doing a disservice to those teams and to the tournament.

    I don't know one committee member over the years and including this season who I have talked to who doesn't talk about staying up late to catch-up on scores and watch games from around the country including the west coast so they are as prepared as they can be. I don't know one who doesn't pour over the data and spend countless hours outside of the phone calls to get a better understanding of the teams involved. To assume committee members don't take this job seriously and don't do more than the conference call entails is probably insulting to those on the committee. They don't spend at least four years of their life just twiddling their thumbs.

    I'm not saying they don't do work outside the call, but if the "data" they're getting is blind - with no team names attached, they're not necessarily going to know what Illinois Wesleyan's SOS is or their vRRO.  I'm saying as much as they know which teams are good and which aren't, they may not be able to recognize them strictly from the numerical criteria used for ranking, especially for those farther down the rankings that end up near the end of Pool C consideration.

    They would have to intentionally be seeking out those identifiers - and I don't think members would do that, if the plan is to rank without team names - that would take extra work beyond the work they already do for their own team and for the committee.

    I'm saying if you went to an intetionally blind ranking, I don't think the members would go outside those parameters to "fill in the blanks" when it came selection time.

    This also would/could eliminate the need for members of the committee to leave when their team is being discussed, simply because it won't be known...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on March 13, 2014, 11:09:23 AM
    Here's a really interesting piece on what it's like to live the life of a selection committee member. (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/champweek2014/story/_/id/10584635/inside-mind-member-ncaa-men-basketball-tournament-selection-committee) 

    Now, I realize that the piece is about D1 and not D3, but I think it gives you an idea of what kind of commitment people on those committees make to knowing the teams, knowing the data, finding their own methodology for weighing the data, etc.  It's all extremely consuming. 

    If our guys in D3 are doing even half of the work that the guy profiled in the ESPN piece do (and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be...Dave's account seems to support that), I don't think we can just redact team names and regions and think that every team is anonymous- or even think that any team is anonymous. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 13, 2014, 11:25:10 AM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on March 13, 2014, 11:09:23 AM
    Here's a really interesting piece on what it's like to live the life of a selection committee member. (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/champweek2014/story/_/id/10584635/inside-mind-member-ncaa-men-basketball-tournament-selection-committee) 

    Now, I realize that the piece is about D1 and not D3, but I think it gives you an idea of what kind of commitment people on those committees make to knowing the teams, knowing the data, finding their own methodology for weighing the data, etc.  It's all extremely consuming. 

    If our guys in D3 are doing even half of the work that the guy profiled in the ESPN piece do (and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be...Dave's account seems to support that), I don't think we can just redact team names and regions and think that every team is anonymous- or even think that any team is anonymous.
    I'm not convinced the D3 committee spends half the time the D1 committee does.  The D3 committee is restrained by the criteria, so the "eye test" and keeping track of injuries isn't really allowed or used.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on May 12, 2014, 12:38:24 PM
    Excuse me if this has been posted and discussed elsewhere (I'm catching up on my message board readings), but the Division III Championships Committee has announced some changes for the 2014-15 seasons.

    http://www.ncaa.org/governance/monthly-update-1

    QuoteMileage radius. NCAA Division III Management Council approved the Championships Committee recommendation to increase the radius used to calculate in-region competition from 200 to 500 miles effective with the 2014-15 academic year.The proposed increase in the mileage requirement for in-region would mirror that used for championship bracketing and pairings.

    Provisional/reclassifying. Year one and two provisional and reclassifying institutions CAN count as an in-region opponent (assuming at least one of the in-region definitions is met).

    Postseason competition. Conference postseason competition is excluded from the in-region calculation.

    Spring break. For NCAA spring championships, competition against out-of-region opponents over one official vacation period (e.g., spring break) may be exempted from the calculation.

    Bolded are the changes for basketball. 500 miles! Yay.

    Pat or Dave (or anyone with ins): does the exclusion of the Conference Tournament games mean they don't count for the 70%, or that they aren't in the selection criteria (WP, SOS. vRRO) at all? And they same question for year 1 and 2 provisionals -- are they counted just as getting you toward 70%, or do they get included in the selection criteria?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on May 12, 2014, 02:45:49 PM
    I believe the exclusion is from the in-region schedule... thus the 70%. That was true last year, so I am a bit surprised that it has been "approved" for the coming year. The calculation last year of what counted towards 70% was that conference tournaments would not count - thus not giving teams the ability to "assume" they would be getting one, two, three, etc. games against in-region opponents.

    Now, if I were to read into this... they may be putting this down in writing a bit more than it was in the past to avoid schools trying to claim waivers because they didn't know the rule. However, I am pretty sure it didn't need to happen since, again, this was in place last year from everything I was told.

    And to just stir the pot... I hope they are not excluding the conference post-season tournaments from the SOS and such... since that is sometimes the only way a school can have it's SOS adjusted with any kind of significance, especially in a large conference, late in the year.

    And yes... I will look into it :).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on October 29, 2014, 10:11:25 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on May 12, 2014, 12:38:24 PM
    Excuse me if this has been posted and discussed elsewhere (I'm catching up on my message board readings), but the Division III Championships Committee has announced some changes for the 2014-15 seasons.

    http://www.ncaa.org/governance/monthly-update-1

    QuoteMileage radius. NCAA Division III Management Council approved the Championships Committee recommendation to increase the radius used to calculate in-region competition from 200 to 500 miles effective with the 2014-15 academic year.The proposed increase in the mileage requirement for in-region would mirror that used for championship bracketing and pairings.

    Provisional/reclassifying. Year one and two provisional and reclassifying institutions CAN count as an in-region opponent (assuming at least one of the in-region definitions is met).

    Postseason competition. Conference postseason competition is excluded from the in-region calculation.

    Spring break. For NCAA spring championships, competition against out-of-region opponents over one official vacation period (e.g., spring break) may be exempted from the calculation.

    Bolded are the changes for basketball. 500 miles! Yay.

    Pat or Dave (or anyone with ins): does the exclusion of the Conference Tournament games mean they don't count for the 70%, or that they aren't in the selection criteria (WP, SOS. vRRO) at all? And they same question for year 1 and 2 provisionals -- are they counted just as getting you toward 70%, or do they get included in the selection criteria?

    Any updates to this?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 31, 2014, 03:52:36 PM
    I believe the simple point is that the conference schedule can not be counted as one of your scheduled games to meet 70%. They have had trouble in the past where schools were assuming the conference schedule as part of that percentage and were short otherwise. Basically, the NCAA has said schedule 70% of your games in-region... but don't try and count your conference post-season as part of that because the teams and the number of games are not part of your original schedule you post in September.

    As for the games counting towards criteria, the 70% rule would not affect conference postseason. The rule would exclude out-of-region games from the general context and thus SOS, vRRO, etc. Since conference games are in-region games, that data would still count - a team with less than 70% of their schedule in-region would not get the benefit of having their out-of-region games count towards the criteria.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 09, 2015, 02:15:53 PM
    For those who like to follow the regional ranking data, I'm now updating numbers on my blog (http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html)

    Dave was able to get me confirmation of how the NCAA is calculating SOS, so I'm now mirroring their process.

    The rank is by RPI, which is not what the NCAA uses, so feel free to adjust to your personal taste. (I'll update periodically, check the update date at the bottom.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 09, 2015, 02:16:37 PM
    Appreciated as always.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 09, 2015, 02:32:20 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 09, 2015, 02:15:53 PM
    For those who like to follow the regional ranking data, I'm now updating numbers on my blog (http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html)

    Dave was able to get me confirmation of how the NCAA is calculating SOS, so I'm now mirroring their process.

    The rank is by RPI, which is not what the NCAA uses, so feel free to adjust to your personal taste. (I'll update periodically, check the update date at the bottom.)

    Richard Stockton #1 in RPI


    ....a ban should be lifted for the entertainment value only. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 09, 2015, 07:01:24 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 09, 2015, 02:15:53 PM
    For those who like to follow the regional ranking data, I'm now updating numbers on my blog (http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/2010-2011-d3-mens-regional-rankings.html)

    Dave was able to get me confirmation of how the NCAA is calculating SOS, so I'm now mirroring their process.

    The rank is by RPI, which is not what the NCAA uses, so feel free to adjust to your personal taste. (I'll update periodically, check the update date at the bottom.)

    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 09, 2015, 02:16:37 PM
    Appreciated as always.

    Ditto. +1 K
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 19, 2015, 11:13:25 AM
    I'm thinking regional rankings come out Feb. 11, 18 and 25 with the 4th secret one on Sunday, March 1.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 19, 2015, 11:58:06 AM
    Looks like the Central Region is stacked and could the CCIW only get two Pool C bids?

    The WIAC is only getting 1 Pool C bid because I don't see anyone beating Point or Whitewater to the conference tourney title. Point plays at Whitewater tonight with the return leg coming later.

    The problem with the CCIW is that there are four good teams there in NCC, Augustana, Elmhurst and IWU. I'm guessing either Elmhurst or NCC will be left out with those two having two conference losses already. NCC probably has the edge if they split the series as they have a nice win at Point.

    For argument's sake, we'll say that the NACC (Aurora), MWC (St. Norb's), and SLIAC (Spalding) are one bid teams in the region. Knightslappy has all those teams so far down the list that they may not get Pool C bids if they are upset in their conference tourneys.

    I'm guessing those other teams' SOS/Massey is too low for them to get a Pool C bid even with their potential gaudy records (St. Norb's/Monmouth, in particular).

    So, the loser of Point/Whitewater, Chicago and Washington U (CWR in 1st in UAA) and 2 of the 4 CCIW teams (not including the AQ) gives the Central Region 5 Pool C teams? Possibly St. Norb's, at least they have a result against John Carroll (a home loss). Right now Knightslappy has Chicago pretty far down, but they have results against WPI (L), IWU (L) and Emory (W) and Washington U (W).

    Anyone want to chime in on other regions?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on January 19, 2015, 12:18:27 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 19, 2015, 11:58:06 AM
    [...] Chicago and Washington U (CWR in 1st in UAA) and 2 of the 4 CCIW teams (not including the AQ) gives the Central Region 5 Pool C teams?

    Chicago is tied for first with Case Western Reserve.  Both teams will play each other twice before the season is over.  If Washington University and Chicago both win out until the final game and Chicago wins...and...ah, just too early.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 19, 2015, 01:20:11 PM
    I have just expanded the region tables from Top 20 to Top 40. Let me know if you think the extra info is better or just causes too much clutter, I can change it back.

    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 19, 2015, 03:42:24 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 19, 2015, 11:13:25 AM
    I'm thinking regional rankings come out Feb. 11, 18 and 25 with the 4th secret one on Sunday, March 1.

    This is correct... starting Feb. 11.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 19, 2015, 05:57:10 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 19, 2015, 01:20:11 PM
    I have just expanded the region tables from Top 20 to Top 40. Let me know if you think the extra info is better or just causes too much clutter, I can change it back.

    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    I liked the 40.  Maybe later when we get closer to rankings you could pair it back down, by then some of those teams are pretty much out of it anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on January 19, 2015, 06:14:34 PM
    Quote from: sac on January 19, 2015, 05:57:10 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 19, 2015, 01:20:11 PM
    I have just expanded the region tables from Top 20 to Top 40. Let me know if you think the extra info is better or just causes too much clutter, I can change it back.

    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    I liked the 40.  Maybe later when we get closer to rankings you could pair it back down, by then some of those teams are pretty much out of it anyway.
    Top 40 does give you a sense of movement.  Realistically, the Top 8 in each region without the automatic bid are going to compete for Pool C.  With the CCIW and WIAC inthe same region, given the strength of the Central, it will be interesting what the committee does with Not only Pool C but the seeding of the pod/bracket.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on January 30, 2015, 01:52:05 PM
    Some good transparency from Jeff Burns yesterday on Hoopsville on how he is using the criteria to differentiate teams.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 30, 2015, 03:08:52 PM
    It was a good interview because Jeff was so good at answering questions. If anyone missed it, go to the Hoopsville show page and below the video window you will find links to each of the interviews yesterday: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2014-15/jan29

    Paraphrasing a bit, but I would be careful to make assumptions based on exact wording he gave. He was using a lot of examples like "wins against teams with 15 wins." 15 wins was a number he used in that occasion, that number could change depending on each individual conversation. I don't think he said 5-5 was clearly better than 2-1, but he did explain how five wins is important and then continued on regarding who are those five wins against (if you racked up against bottom of regional ranking teams versus the top or vis versa, that is significant compared to just the fact you won five games). And his key about not who you lost to but who you beat is indicative to those teams that have gotten into the tournament in years past basically based on games they ended up losing (i.e. SOS boosts, vRRO [old rules], etc.).

    It did give everyone a good insight and while it is the women's side of things, Dave Martin's conversation was also very good to understand things as he talks about the fact it is a case-by-case scenario.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 30, 2015, 03:58:44 PM

    He talked a lot about explaining how they got to where they ended up.  If that proves true, it will be a real revelation for us.  He seems very open to discussing what happens in more detail than we've had in recent years.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 02, 2015, 02:31:08 PM
    Updated look at the Central Region.

    CCIW
    Augie still looks safe at 17-3. Elmhurst is at 16-4. Starting to get dicey for IWU and NCC, both at 15-5. Make or break week for NCC with trips to Augie and IWU. If they go 1-1, they want that win to be against IWU to give them the 2-0 H2H advantage.

    NACC
    At 16-5, it's Aurora or bust. The loss against non-D3 St. Francis "helps", I guess. They don't have much on their Pool C resume aside from a loss to NCC.

    MWC
    One team league with St. Norbert at 17-1 and getting a Pool C if they fall flat on their face in the conference tournament.

    SLIAC
    MacMurray leading this pack.

    UAA
    It's unlikely that this conference gets 5 teams in. But with CWR, Chicago, Washington U,  Emory and NYU spread across 4 regions, I guess it's possible but unlikely. Though Chicago leads the league (with CWR), they are most vulnerable at 13-5 and in the stacked Central Region with Washington U.

    WIAC
    Whitewater is in and Point (16-4) starting to climb the fence. Tough 3 games coming up for the Pointers (River Falls, at Platteville and vs Whitewater). Point's resume is solid but losses to NCC, St. Thomas, St. Olaf and Whitewater don't help when you don't have any wins against quality opponents, unless you call CMS a good win, which can be argued.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 02, 2015, 03:01:01 PM
    West Region

    MIAC
    St. Thomas is safe for a Pool C. St. Olaf sits at 15-3 with a win over Point. Bethel is 12-5, but has two wins over St. Olaf. If you're wondering, St. Thomas' loss was at Gustavus Adolphus.

    UMAC
    Northwestern is the one and done representative.

    IIAC
    Buena Vista leads with Coe but Dubuque has the best overall eecord at 15-4. Its a weak region, so they'll probably be ranked.

    SCIAC
    Tough to figure out with a lot of non-D3 games to figure in. Chapman (16-2), CMS (14-4) Cal. Lutheran (13-4) are all tied for the conference record but Chapman has won 5 non-D3 games, while CMS and Cal. Lutheran each have 3 wins in tjat category. The latter has a win over IWU.

    NWC
    Whitworth is in good shape at 17-2. Whitman is 13-4 with a W and L against non-D3s taken out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 02, 2015, 03:20:26 PM
    I'll do a New England breakdown:

    CCC:
    Nichols leads the conference with an undefeated mark of 11-0 and 14-4 overall, Eastern Naz is 16-2 overall, but only 9-2 in conference.  One or both may show up on the RR's in the bottom half of the rankings, but this looks to be a 1 bid league.  Eastern Naz played a very easy out of conference schedule while Nichols at least played Husson, Eastern Connecticut, Bates, and Springfield, though those games are all 4 of their losses.  Hoopsfan can talk more about these teams since he follows the CCC.

    GNAC:
    I think this year Albertus might actually be on the safe side should they stumble in the conference tournament.  J&W (15-4) may show up on the RR's at the bottom, but both them, Anna Maria (11-7) and maybe St. Joseph's (ME) (8-9 but they are a good 3 point shooting team.  If they got hot from 3....) can all challenge for the GNAC auto bid.  AMC looks to be the only team getting a bid, but if J&W can beat the Falcons in Providence and makes it to the conference final and things break right for them, they could potentially join the Falcons.  PJ, or Junkie can talk more about the Falcons & GNAC

    LEC:
    Eastern Connecticut (16-4, 8-1 conference) leads the conference while Dartmouth (11-8, 7-2), Rhode Island (14-5, 6-3) & Keene (15-4, 6-3) are all within striking distance.  Rhode Island is done with Eastern this year finishing 0-2 while Keene and Dartmouth still have a game remaining vs. the Warriors: Keene @ Eastern and Dartmouth at home.  Of these 4, only Dartmouth I think is safely out, but 3 of these 4 can pick up huge wins against NESCAC teams on Tuesday: RIC plays Amherst, Dartmouth plays Tufts, and Keene plays @ Middlebury.  I think Eastern will show up somewhere around #5, RIC probably around #8 and Keene around #10 or #11.  I think Dartmouth will miss the cut at least for the first week.

    MASCAC:
    Likely a 1 bid league.  All tournament games take place at the higher seed: Westfield State (13-5, 7-0) and Bridgewater State (13-6, 6-1) are the front runners.  Westfield plays @ Bridgewater tomorrow night, they can pretty much put the conference away with a win since they already beat the Bears once.

    NEWMAC:
    Babson (17-2, 7-1), MIT (14-4, 7-1) and WPI (16-3, 6-2) are probably 3 of the top 4 (or potentially all top 3) and aside from a major collapse all should be in the tournament.  Springfield (13-6, 5-3) isn't getting a pool C bid, but could be a darkhorse in the conference tournament picture.

    NECC:
    Southern Vermont (16-3, 10-0) is 16-2 against division 3 schools.  They could be this years Albertus Magnus, I wouldn't want to lose in the conference tournament if I were them!  Them and Regis (11-7, 6-3) are the only 2 schools that have a winning record in that conference.

    NESCAC:
    What a mess!  Likely the conference tournament winner is the only team out of here that gets in.  Trinity (16-5, 6-1) currently leads the conference while Bates (14-4, 4-2) and Tufts (9-9, 4-2) are 1.5 games back with Tufts & Bates having 4 games left while Trinity only has 3 games left.  Trinity beat Bates and lost to Tufts, while Bates beat Tufts.  Amherst (14-5, 4-3) finishes with 4 of 5 on the road (and all 3 conference games) and loses the tiebreaker to Trinity & Tufts since they lost to both in season, but beat Bates, so they'll win the tiebreaker against them.  Amherst is probably out now but they still have @ Rhode Island and @ Middlebury left to help them.  NESCAC1 or one of the other NESCAC posters can talk more about this.

    North Atlantic:
    Husson (15-3, 11-1) leads the way with Colby-Sawyer (12-5, 10-2) nipping at their heels. A 1 bid league, but Husson may sneak in at 11 or 12, but not going to be enough to get them a pool C bid should they lose in the conference tournament.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 02, 2015, 04:32:16 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 02, 2015, 03:20:26 PM
    I'll do a New England breakdown:

    NESCAC:
    What a mess!  Likely the conference tournament winner is the only team out of here that gets in.  Trinity (16-5, 6-1) currently leads the conference while Bates (14-4, 4-2) and Tufts (9-9, 4-2) are 1.5 games back with Tufts & Bates having 4 games left while Trinity only has 3 games left.  Trinity beat Bates and lost to Tufts, while Bates beat Tufts.  Amherst (14-5, 4-3) finishes with 4 of 5 on the road (and all 3 conference games) and loses the tiebreaker to Trinity & Tufts since they lost to both in season, but beat Bates, so they'll win the tiebreaker against them.  Amherst is probably out now but they still have @ Rhode Island and @ Middlebury left to help them.  NESCAC1 or one of the other NESCAC posters can talk more about this.


    knightslappy's regional rankings: http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    At least right now his rankings have 4 NESCAC teams in decent Pool C position (he lists no 'A' rep. from the NESCAC this week).  Obviously some will accumulate losses but so will everyone else on the Pool C side of things.  The NESCAC will still be in good shape to get its customary 3 bids, 2 for sure.

    We might be looking at going pretty deep into the 7 and 8 loss teams barring a lot of upsets for the Pool A bids.

    Top 19 Pool C teams this week
    According to KS' national rankings as 'C' teams

    4.  Bates
    6.  Stevens Point
    7.  William Patterson
    9.  Illinois Wesleyan
    10.  Dickinson
    11.  Bowdoin
    12.  Virginia Wesleyan
    13.  Washington U
    14.  Williams
    23.  Dubuque
    24.  St. John's
    25.  Trinity
    26.  Elmhurst
    27.  Wooster
    28.  Rutgers-Newark
    29.  Emory
    30.  Colby
    31.  Howard Payne
    32.  North Central

    I'd draw a line after Williams and call below that 'bubble'.   There are at least 3 conferences where the best 'C' candidate is not leading the conference and the current 'A' leader wouldn't make this list.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2015, 04:45:23 PM

    I love that he does all these numbers for us, but the rankings leave something to be desired.  I can't see a 7 loss Bowdoin, 8 loss Williams or a 10 loss Colby team sniffing a Pool C bid, no matter how good the SOS looks.

    I think Bates (and maybe Trinity) are the only legitimate Pool C threats from the NESCAC - and that's only if Trinity loses in the final.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2015, 09:43:10 AM
    The season is so weird that I do think an 8-loss team gets in. It may not be Williams, but someone with a 19-8 record or something like that gets in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 03, 2015, 10:40:14 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2015, 09:43:10 AM
    The season is so weird that I do think an 8-loss team gets in. It may not be Williams, but someone with a 19-8 record or something like that gets in.

    There will be so many teams sitting there with 4-5-6 losses.  An 8 loss team will need like a .700 SOS get in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2015, 11:42:45 AM
    Emory was 17-7 last year and we know what happened.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 03, 2015, 12:13:05 PM
    Well... Emory had the best SOS in the entire country (or at least all of the Pool C teams) by far... and that certainly helped them get into the tournament. We are going to have a lot more 7, 8, 9, and more loss teams this year... not all of them are going to have incredible SOS numbers like Emory did last year.

    It is going to be a challenge this year to work through lower than usual WP% with SOS numbers that are probably going to be on par or slightly lower than in years past. The conversation with Jeff Burns the other day on Hoopsville (www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2014-15/jan29 (http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2014-15/jan29) - go below the video player for a link to the specific interview) was telling in terms of how they may work their way through the criteria. Trust me, the committees know they have a very interested in year before them right now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 03, 2015, 12:22:30 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 02, 2015, 03:01:01 PM
    UMAC
    Northwestern is the one and done representative.
    Who knows how many games we would have won if the bracketers hadn't put us in the de facto title game in the first round in 2011, 12 and 14.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 03, 2015, 01:07:01 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 03, 2015, 10:40:14 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2015, 09:43:10 AM
    The season is so weird that I do think an 8-loss team gets in. It may not be Williams, but someone with a 19-8 record or something like that gets in.

    There will be so many teams sitting there with 4-5-6 losses.  An 8 loss team will need like a .700 SOS get in.

    If Williams finishes 19-8, that's a .704 WP. I have their SOS right now at .620, which is tied for 4th in D3. That's absolutely a tournament team, unless their RvRRO ends up looking awful or something.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 03, 2015, 01:16:04 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 03, 2015, 01:07:01 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 03, 2015, 10:40:14 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2015, 09:43:10 AM
    The season is so weird that I do think an 8-loss team gets in. It may not be Williams, but someone with a 19-8 record or something like that gets in.

    There will be so many teams sitting there with 4-5-6 losses.  An 8 loss team will need like a .700 SOS get in.

    If Williams finishes 19-8, that's a .704 WP. I have their SOS right now at .620, which is tied for 4th in D3. That's absolutely a tournament team, unless their RvRRO ends up looking awful or something.

    Well, there you go - certainly valid, then.  I wouldn't have thought the SOS would get up quite that high.  They do have to make the finals, though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 03, 2015, 01:37:31 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 03, 2015, 01:16:04 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 03, 2015, 01:07:01 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 03, 2015, 10:40:14 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 03, 2015, 09:43:10 AM
    The season is so weird that I do think an 8-loss team gets in. It may not be Williams, but someone with a 19-8 record or something like that gets in.

    There will be so many teams sitting there with 4-5-6 losses.  An 8 loss team will need like a .700 SOS get in.

    If Williams finishes 19-8, that's a .704 WP. I have their SOS right now at .620, which is tied for 4th in D3. That's absolutely a tournament team, unless their RvRRO ends up looking awful or something.

    Well, there you go - certainly valid, then.  I wouldn't have thought the SOS would get up quite that high.  They do have to make the finals, though.
    Keep in mind that's their SOS before they get docked .2 for not playing the minimum number of conference games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 03, 2015, 03:28:58 PM
    QuoteWho knows how many games we would have won if the bracketers hadn't put us in the de facto title game in the first round in 2011, 12 and 14.

    Playing UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas in those years certainly wasn't a great draw. But we don't have much evidence that the UMAC would do any better against another conferences' title winner.

    In 2014 the UMAC went 16-49 out of conference, second worse among 43 Division III conferences (http://www.d3hoops.com/guidebook/index), and the eventual title winner went 5-8 out of conference before the NCAA tournament.

    In 2012 , the UMAC went 13-51 and the eventual title winner was 7-6 out of conference before the NCAA tournament.

    In 2011, the UMAC went 17-47 and the eventual title winner was 8-5 out of conference.  If the best team in the conference is hovering around .500 out of conference, then first round exits are likely.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 03, 2015, 03:43:07 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 03, 2015, 03:28:58 PM
    QuoteWho knows how many games we would have won if the bracketers hadn't put us in the de facto title game in the first round in 2011, 12 and 14.

    Playing UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas in those years certainly wasn't a great draw. But we don't have much evidence that the UMAC would do any better against another conferences' title winner.

    In 2014 the UMAC went 16-49 out of conference, second worse among 43 Division III conferences (http://www.d3hoops.com/guidebook/index), and the eventual title winner went 5-8 out of conference before the NCAA tournament.

    In 2012 , the UMAC went 13-51 and the eventual title winner was 7-6 out of conference before the NCAA tournament.

    In 2011, the UMAC went 17-47 and the eventual title winner was 8-5 out of conference.  If the best team in the conference is hovering around .500 out of conference, then first round exits are likely.
    Appreciate the research.  Who is this mystery "eventual title winner"?

    My Formal Rebuttal:
    Agree to disagree!  West is Best!  Also, the Central!   Give the UMAC a typical NE non-con slate and see if they're hovering around .500!  Keep doubting us!  You'll never see us coming!  If we played em 10 times they might win 9!  Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!??!!!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 03, 2015, 04:38:17 PM
    Of course, there is nothing stopping UMAC schools from heading to the Northeast and playing their non-conf schedule there if they want. :)

    As for Williams SOS, that number is most likely going to come down slightly - but certainly that is a worthy number. The problem is, they have to keep winning to maintain their position. Another loss, two, or not making the title game (i.e. another loss) will kill their chances no matter the SOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 03, 2015, 10:16:44 PM
    Ha. Fair enough.

    All eventual champs were Northwestern (Minn.). All Eagles, all the time. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 10:22:35 AM
    CENTRAL REGION

    CCIW
    Only IWU went 2-0 last week to improve to 17-5, and they lead the standings. Everyone else went 1-1. Augustana is 18-4 with Elmhurst (17-5) and NCC (16-6) both on thin ice. IWU's SOS is slightly better than Elmhurst's (18 to 24). I don't see all four getting in.

    NACC
    Its Pool A or bust for Aurora, who is now 17-6 and with a 200+ SOS.

    MWC
    Despite a bad (200) SOS, St. Norbert should be safe for a Pool C at 19-1.

    SLIAC
    MacMurray leads and the conference tournament winner will be the only rep.

    UAA
    Chicago (14-6) leads Washington U. (16-4) and will look for the season sweep on the last day of the regular season. Washington U. has a better SOS, but that head to head will take precedence.

    WIAC
    Whitewater is safe at 19-2. Point is 18-4 and plays Whitewater Wednesday.  Point is close to being a Pool C lock.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 10:34:43 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 10:22:35 AM
    CENTRAL REGION

    CCIW
    Only IWU went 2-0 last week to improve to 17-5, and they lead the standings. Everyone else went 1-1. Augustana is 18-4 with Elmhurst (17-5) and NCC (16-6) both on thin ice. IWU's SOS is slightly better than Elmhurst's (18 to 24). I don't see all four getting in.

    NACC
    Its Pool A or bust for Aurora, who is now 17-6 and with a 200+ SOS.

    MWC
    Despite a bad (200) SOS, St. Norbert should be safe for a Pool C at 19-1.

    SLIAC
    MacMurray leads and the conference tournament winner will be the only rep.

    UAA
    Chicago (14-6) leads Washington U. (16-4) and will look for the season sweep on the last day of the regular season. Washington U. has a better SOS, but that head to head will take precedence.

    WIAC
    Whitewater is safe at 19-2. Point is 18-4 and plays Whitewater Wednesday.  Point is close to being a Pool C lock.

    Using Massey SOS ranks isn't bad for a quick-and-dirty look, but it should be used as probably +/- 50 spots. It's not calculated in the same way, and anyone with D1/D2/NAIA game(s) are going to have that number altered.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 10:45:17 AM
    WEST REGION

    MIAC
    Bethel lost twice last week so their slim Pool C changes vanished, IMO. St. Thomas (19-1) looks like a lock and St. Olaf (17-3) is getting close (SOS 25). Because of the relatively weak region, St. Olaf could be the #2 team in this week's rankings.

    UMAC
    Northwestern leads the one bid league

    IIAC
    Buena Vista leads (15-6) with Dubuque at 17-4, but both have bad SOSs. Another one bid league.

    SCIAC
    Chapman (19-2) but their SOS is near 100, while Cal. Lutheran (15-4) and CMS (14-5) trail with worse SOSs. This could be a one bid league as well.

    NWC
    Whitworth (18-3) leads Whitman (16-5) and they split the season series. Whitman's SOS tops Whitworth's 88-135. Could the West get one Pool C bid?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 10:46:12 AM
    I'm definitely using it as a quick and dirty look. I'm going to have to shower after this.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 11:50:42 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 10:45:17 AM
    IIAC
    Buena Vista leads (15-6) with Dubuque at 17-4, but both have bad SOSs. Another one bid league.

    I have Dubuque's SOS rated highly: .559 (#41). They look good for Pool C contention right now.

    Just looking into their schedule right now and, wow, they didn't play a single D3 non-conference home game. To date they've played 5 home games, 5 neutrals site games, and 10 away games. That's how you take advantage of the SOS multiplier.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 01:19:50 PM
    Massey had them at 143. I just went by that since I like 'em quick and dirty!  ???  ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 09, 2015, 02:24:20 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 11:50:42 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 10:45:17 AM
    IIAC
    Buena Vista leads (15-6) with Dubuque at 17-4, but both have bad SOSs. Another one bid league.

    I have Dubuque's SOS rated highly: .559 (#41). They look good for Pool C contention right now.

    Just looking into their schedule right now and, wow, they didn't play a single D3 non-conference home game. To date they've played 5 home games, 5 neutrals site games, and 10 away games. That's how you take advantage of the SOS multiplier.
    Forgive me if I've not been paying attention, but did they fix the multiplier?  Scheduling so many away games could be terrible for the SOS if the easier games are on the road and the tough ones at home. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 03:01:46 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 09, 2015, 02:24:20 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 11:50:42 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 10:45:17 AM
    IIAC
    Buena Vista leads (15-6) with Dubuque at 17-4, but both have bad SOSs. Another one bid league.

    I have Dubuque's SOS rated highly: .559 (#41). They look good for Pool C contention right now.

    Just looking into their schedule right now and, wow, they didn't play a single D3 non-conference home game. To date they've played 5 home games, 5 neutrals site games, and 10 away games. That's how you take advantage of the SOS multiplier.
    Forgive me if I've not been paying attention, but did they fix the multiplier?  Scheduling so many away games could be terrible for the SOS if the easier games are on the road and the tough ones at home.

    Here's how they're doing the SOS (with OWP as an example):

    vs. Opponent A (9-1) -- Win -- (adjusted record: 9-0) -- mult: 0.75 -- (wins with multiplier: 6.75)
    at Opponent B (11-0) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 10-0) -- mult: 1.25 -- (wins with multiplier: 12.5)
    vs. Opponent C (4-12) -- Win --(adjusted record: 4-11) -- mult: 0.75 -- (wins with multiplier: 3)
    at. Opponent D (7-9) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 6-9) -- mult: 1.25 -- (wins with multiplier: 7.5)

    Total opponents' wins with multiplier: 29.75
    Total opponents' adjusted games played: 49

    OWP = 29.75/49 = .607

    I don't love, love this. But it's not the worst.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 09, 2015, 03:22:06 PM
    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    Using Knightslappy's rankings
    This weeks Top 19  Pool C  (the number next to the school is his national rank)

    1.  Stevens Point 18-4
    2.  Richard Stockton 18-4
    5.  Augustana 18-4
    7.  Bates  17-4
    8.  Williams  13-8*
    11. Bowdoin  15-6
    13.  Dickinson  18-3
    14.  Washington U 16-4
    15.  Dubuque  16-4
    16.  North Central  14-6

    20.  Virginia Wesleyan 17-3
    21.  St. John's  10-8*
    25.  Rhode Island Coll.  15-6
    27.  Springfield  15-6
    28.  Amherst  17-5
    29.  WPI  17-4
    30.  Louisiana College 11-5
    31.  Elmhurst  17-5
    32.  St. Olaf  17-3
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
    33.  Wooster 16-5
    34.  Colby  12-9*
    35.  Rutgers-Newark  15-7
    37.  Scranton 17-4
    39.  Brooklyn  18-5
    40.  Case Western 12-5


    *--I put asterisks by the 8 and 9 loss teams that probably won't get official rankings equal to where slappy has them ranked.  So move Wooster, Rutgers-Newark and Scranton into the top 19 if you want. 

    I'd flip North Central and Va. Wesleyan and call that the bubble line.  There are 6 current Pool A leaders above Va. Wesleyan that would be good for a C selection without worry.

    Anyone who can get through the next two weeks without losses is significantly improving their Pool C position.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 09, 2015, 03:26:31 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 03:01:46 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 09, 2015, 02:24:20 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 11:50:42 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 10:45:17 AM
    IIAC
    Buena Vista leads (15-6) with Dubuque at 17-4, but both have bad SOSs. Another one bid league.

    I have Dubuque's SOS rated highly: .559 (#41). They look good for Pool C contention right now.

    Just looking into their schedule right now and, wow, they didn't play a single D3 non-conference home game. To date they've played 5 home games, 5 neutrals site games, and 10 away games. That's how you take advantage of the SOS multiplier.
    Forgive me if I've not been paying attention, but did they fix the multiplier?  Scheduling so many away games could be terrible for the SOS if the easier games are on the road and the tough ones at home.

    Here's how they're doing the SOS (with OWP as an example):

    vs. Opponent A (9-1) -- Win -- (adjusted record: 9-0) -- mult: 0.75 -- (wins with multiplier: 6.75)
    at Opponent B (11-0) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 10-0) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 12.5)
    vs. Opponent C (4-12) -- Win --(adjusted record: 4-11) -- mult: 0.75 -- (record with multiplier: 3)
    at. Opponent D (7-9) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 6-9) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 7.5)

    Total opponents' wins with multiplier: 29.75
    Total opponents' adjusted games played: 49

    OWP = 29.75/49 = .607

    I don't love, love this. But it's not the worst.
    At least you can say the road games are tougher rather than just more important.
    Is this new calc in the championships manual?  We still have the problem of that 9-0 game being worse for the SOS than playing mediocre teams who play more eligible games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 03:39:31 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 09, 2015, 03:26:31 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 03:01:46 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 09, 2015, 02:24:20 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 11:50:42 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 10:45:17 AM
    IIAC
    Buena Vista leads (15-6) with Dubuque at 17-4, but both have bad SOSs. Another one bid league.

    I have Dubuque's SOS rated highly: .559 (#41). They look good for Pool C contention right now.

    Just looking into their schedule right now and, wow, they didn't play a single D3 non-conference home game. To date they've played 5 home games, 5 neutrals site games, and 10 away games. That's how you take advantage of the SOS multiplier.
    Forgive me if I've not been paying attention, but did they fix the multiplier?  Scheduling so many away games could be terrible for the SOS if the easier games are on the road and the tough ones at home.

    Here's how they're doing the SOS (with OWP as an example):

    vs. Opponent A (9-1) -- Win -- (adjusted record: 9-0) -- mult: 0.75 -- (wins with multiplier: 6.75)
    at Opponent B (11-0) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 10-0) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 12.5)
    vs. Opponent C (4-12) -- Win --(adjusted record: 4-11) -- mult: 0.75 -- (record with multiplier: 3)
    at. Opponent D (7-9) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 6-9) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 7.5)

    Total opponents' wins with multiplier: 29.75
    Total opponents' adjusted games played: 49

    OWP = 29.75/49 = .607

    I don't love, love this. But it's not the worst.
    At least you can say the road games are tougher rather than just more important.
    Is this new calc in the championships manual?  We still have the problem of that 9-0 game being worse for the SOS than playing mediocre teams who play more eligible games.

    This is apparently not new, it was how they've done it the last few years (apparently), but it wasn't communicated very well what they were doing. The handbook doesn't really make it clear how to calculate the number, and the example contains errors.

    I'm looking forward to seeing the data on Wednesday to make sure mine matches up.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 09, 2015, 06:42:16 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 03:39:31 PM

    Here's how they're doing the SOS (with OWP as an example):

    vs. Opponent A (9-1) -- Win -- (adjusted record: 9-0) -- mult: 0.75 -- (wins with multiplier: 6.75)
    at Opponent B (11-0) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 10-0) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 12.5)
    vs. Opponent C (4-12) -- Win --(adjusted record: 4-11) -- mult: 0.75 -- (record with multiplier: 3)
    at. Opponent D (7-9) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 6-9) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 7.5)

    Total opponents' wins with multiplier: 29.75
    Total opponents' adjusted games played: 49

    OWP = 29.75/49 = .607

    I don't love, love this. But it's not the worst.


    Maybe you've covered this before in one of your 'ncaa math is hard' expose's but why isn't the multiplier applied to losses as well?

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 07:04:24 PM
    All four results add up to 29.75
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 07:33:09 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 09, 2015, 06:42:16 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 03:39:31 PM

    Here's how they're doing the SOS (with OWP as an example):

    vs. Opponent A (9-1) -- Win -- (adjusted record: 9-0) -- mult: 0.75 -- (wins with multiplier: 6.75)
    at Opponent B (11-0) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 10-0) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 12.5)
    vs. Opponent C (4-12) -- Win --(adjusted record: 4-11) -- mult: 0.75 -- (record with multiplier: 3)
    at. Opponent D (7-9) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 6-9) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 7.5)

    Total opponents' wins with multiplier: 29.75
    Total opponents' adjusted games played: 49

    OWP = 29.75/49 = .607

    I don't love, love this. But it's not the worst.


    Maybe you've covered this before in one of your 'ncaa math is hard' expose's but why isn't the multiplier applied to losses as well?

    Multiplying by the losses as well is what we thought they were doing last year (turns out they were doing this). What that does is scale the OWP/OOWP by 1.25/0.75 giving more weight to road games, and less weight to home games (rather than making road games more difficult).

    What they're doing is weighting each opponents' components (OWP/OOWP) by the respective number of games played. So, an opponent with 25 D3 games played is going to weigh into the OWP 25% more than an opponent with 20 games played.

    The way RPI is usually calculated, you turn each team's OWP into a percentage (and then apply a HAM) and then average the resulting percentages for each opponent on schedule (doing the same as well for OWP). The NCAA doesn't want to do this because some teams can play a varying number of games. A Nebraska Wesleyan could go 4-0 (or UMPI 0-4) in their D3 games and that 1.000 or 0.0000 OWP component could really skew the SOS. I understand this thinking and it probably works OK, but it's by no means perfect.

    A reason I don't like this is a given opponent won't necessarily input the same proportion of OWP and OOWP into your SOS number.

    Team A: 0-4 OWP, 8-8 OOWP (each of Team A's opponents have played 4 games)
    Team B: 6-0 OWP, 8-10 OOWP (Each of Team B's opponents have played 3 games)

    In the above example, the 0-4 from Team A makes up 40% of your OWP, but the 8-8 makes up 47% of your OOWP. So OOWP isn't "supporting the OWP" like it should because the numbers don't necessarily match up.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 10, 2015, 09:14:12 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 03:39:31 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 09, 2015, 03:26:31 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 03:01:46 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 09, 2015, 02:24:20 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 11:50:42 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 10:45:17 AM
    IIAC
    Buena Vista leads (15-6) with Dubuque at 17-4, but both have bad SOSs. Another one bid league.

    I have Dubuque's SOS rated highly: .559 (#41). They look good for Pool C contention right now.

    Just looking into their schedule right now and, wow, they didn't play a single D3 non-conference home game. To date they've played 5 home games, 5 neutrals site games, and 10 away games. That's how you take advantage of the SOS multiplier.
    Forgive me if I've not been paying attention, but did they fix the multiplier?  Scheduling so many away games could be terrible for the SOS if the easier games are on the road and the tough ones at home.

    Here's how they're doing the SOS (with OWP as an example):

    vs. Opponent A (9-1) -- Win -- (adjusted record: 9-0) -- mult: 0.75 -- (wins with multiplier: 6.75)
    at Opponent B (11-0) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 10-0) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 12.5)
    vs. Opponent C (4-12) -- Win --(adjusted record: 4-11) -- mult: 0.75 -- (record with multiplier: 3)
    at. Opponent D (7-9) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 6-9) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 7.5)

    Total opponents' wins with multiplier: 29.75
    Total opponents' adjusted games played: 49

    OWP = 29.75/49 = .607

    I don't love, love this. But it's not the worst.
    At least you can say the road games are tougher rather than just more important.
    Is this new calc in the championships manual?  We still have the problem of that 9-0 game being worse for the SOS than playing mediocre teams who play more eligible games.

    This is apparently not new, it was how they've done it the last few years (apparently), but it wasn't communicated very well what they were doing. The handbook doesn't really make it clear how to calculate the number, and the example contains errors.

    I'm looking forward to seeing the data on Wednesday to make sure mine matches up.
    I did the math for Nebraska Wesleyan from last year's week 3 regional rankings (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/26/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3/).  They used the multiplier against the losses as well.  .292 wins only and .266 wins and losses. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2015, 09:36:35 AM
    Quote from: AO on February 10, 2015, 09:14:12 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 03:39:31 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 09, 2015, 03:26:31 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 03:01:46 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 09, 2015, 02:24:20 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 09, 2015, 11:50:42 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2015, 10:45:17 AM
    IIAC
    Buena Vista leads (15-6) with Dubuque at 17-4, but both have bad SOSs. Another one bid league.

    I have Dubuque's SOS rated highly: .559 (#41). They look good for Pool C contention right now.

    Just looking into their schedule right now and, wow, they didn't play a single D3 non-conference home game. To date they've played 5 home games, 5 neutrals site games, and 10 away games. That's how you take advantage of the SOS multiplier.
    Forgive me if I've not been paying attention, but did they fix the multiplier?  Scheduling so many away games could be terrible for the SOS if the easier games are on the road and the tough ones at home.

    Here's how they're doing the SOS (with OWP as an example):

    vs. Opponent A (9-1) -- Win -- (adjusted record: 9-0) -- mult: 0.75 -- (wins with multiplier: 6.75)
    at Opponent B (11-0) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 10-0) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 12.5)
    vs. Opponent C (4-12) -- Win --(adjusted record: 4-11) -- mult: 0.75 -- (record with multiplier: 3)
    at. Opponent D (7-9) -- Loss -- (adjusted record: 6-9) -- mult: 1.25 -- (record with multiplier: 7.5)

    Total opponents' wins with multiplier: 29.75
    Total opponents' adjusted games played: 49

    OWP = 29.75/49 = .607

    I don't love, love this. But it's not the worst.
    At least you can say the road games are tougher rather than just more important.
    Is this new calc in the championships manual?  We still have the problem of that 9-0 game being worse for the SOS than playing mediocre teams who play more eligible games.

    This is apparently not new, it was how they've done it the last few years (apparently), but it wasn't communicated very well what they were doing. The handbook doesn't really make it clear how to calculate the number, and the example contains errors.

    I'm looking forward to seeing the data on Wednesday to make sure mine matches up.
    I did the math for Nebraska Wesleyan from last year's week 3 regional rankings (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/26/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3/).  They used the multiplier against the losses as well.  .292 wins only and .266 wins and losses.

    The plot thickens! I'm going to have to dig into this some more. Good call on using Nebraska Wesleyan.

    Did you get exactly 0.266? I'm getting .264.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 10, 2015, 10:36:50 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2015, 09:36:35 AM
    Quote from: AO on February 10, 2015, 09:14:12 AM
    I did the math for Nebraska Wesleyan from last year's week 3 regional rankings (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/26/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3/).  They used the multiplier against the losses as well.  .292 wins only and .266 wins and losses.

    The plot thickens! I'm going to have to dig into this some more. Good call on using Nebraska Wesleyan.

    Did you get exactly 0.266? I'm getting .264.
    exactly  .1 OWP and .599 OOWP

    here's my OOWP

    at Gustavus   15   9   1.25   18.75   11.25
    at Augsburg •   17   7   1.25   21.25   8.75
    at UW-Platteville •   13   10   1.25   16.25   12.5
    vs. Augustana •   18   6   1   18   6
    at Westminster (Mo.) •   11   10   1.25   13.75   12.5
    vs. Grinnell •   15   5   0.75   11.25   3.75
    vs. Loras * •   13   10   0.75   9.75   7.5
    at Coe * •   6   14   1.25   7.5   17.5
    vs. Buena Vista * •   11   9   0.75   8.25   6.75
    vs. Luther * •   11   8   0.75   8.25   6
    at Central * •   13   5   1.25   16.25   6.25
    vs. Wartburg * •   11   10   0.75   8.25   7.5
    at Dubuque * •   16   4   1.25   20   5
    at Luther * •   11   8   1.25   13.75   10
    vs. Central * •   13   5   0.75   9.75   3.75
    vs. Dubuque * •   16   4   0.75   12   3
    at Wartburg * •   11   10   1.25   13.75   12.5
    vs. Coe * •   6   14   0.75   4.5   10.5
    at Loras * •   13   10   1.25   16.25   12.5
    Buena Vista   11   9   1.25   13.75   11.25
                261.25   418
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2015, 01:13:22 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 10, 2015, 10:36:50 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2015, 09:36:35 AM
    Quote from: AO on February 10, 2015, 09:14:12 AM
    I did the math for Nebraska Wesleyan from last year's week 3 regional rankings (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/26/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-3/).  They used the multiplier against the losses as well.  .292 wins only and .266 wins and losses.

    The plot thickens! I'm going to have to dig into this some more. Good call on using Nebraska Wesleyan.

    Did you get exactly 0.266? I'm getting .264.
    exactly  .1 OWP and .599 OOWP

    here's my OOWP

    at Gustavus   15   9   1.25   18.75   11.25
    at Augsburg •   17   7   1.25   21.25   8.75
    at UW-Platteville •   13   10   1.25   16.25   12.5
    vs. Augustana •   18   6   1   18   6
    at Westminster (Mo.) •   11   10   1.25   13.75   12.5
    vs. Grinnell •   15   5   0.75   11.25   3.75
    vs. Loras * •   13   10   0.75   9.75   7.5
    at Coe * •   6   14   1.25   7.5   17.5
    vs. Buena Vista * •   11   9   0.75   8.25   6.75
    vs. Luther * •   11   8   0.75   8.25   6
    at Central * •   13   5   1.25   16.25   6.25
    vs. Wartburg * •   11   10   0.75   8.25   7.5
    at Dubuque * •   16   4   1.25   20   5
    at Luther * •   11   8   1.25   13.75   10
    vs. Central * •   13   5   0.75   9.75   3.75
    vs. Dubuque * •   16   4   0.75   12   3
    at Wartburg * •   11   10   1.25   13.75   12.5
    vs. Coe * •   6   14   0.75   4.5   10.5
    at Loras * •   13   10   1.25   16.25   12.5
    Buena Vista   11   9   1.25   13.75   11.25
                261.25   418

    Oh dang, I was using data through the end of the season, instead of through Feb 23, 2014. I'll update and check.

    OK, I'm getting .267 with Central at 14-5.

    At any rate, they certainly seem to be applying the multiplier to both the wins and the losses, contrary to what I was told in the offseason. Otherwise the OWP should be .125, and the only way you get .266 SOS from a .125 OWP is a .548 OOWP. And I don't see how that's possible given the above.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 10, 2015, 01:43:10 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2015, 01:13:22 PM

    Oh dang, I was using data through the end of the season, instead of through Feb 23, 2014. I'll update and check.

    OK, I'm getting .267 with Central at 14-5.

    At any rate, they certainly seem to be applying the multiplier to both the wins and the losses, contrary to what I was told in the offseason. Otherwise the OWP should be .125, and the only way you get .266 SOS from a .125 OWP is a .548 OOWP. And I don't see how that's possible given the above.
    Went and looked at the handbook and found that it uses our preferred calculation method.
    QuoteThe strength of each opponent's schedule is measured by computing the opponents' winning percentage for each opponent, then averaging the percentages. "
    Maybe we'll luck out and they'll follow the handbook.  If they don't know how they've been applying the multiplier in the past maybe they'll try a different way this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2015, 02:05:16 PM
    I, for one, am shocked that the NCAA would do something with so little transparency.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 10, 2015, 08:41:11 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2015, 02:05:16 PM
    I, for one, am shocked that the NCAA would do something with so little transparency.

    I didn't sense any sarcasm there... ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 02:27:04 PM
    Regional Rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/02/11/first-regional-rankings-released-today/ (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/02/11/first-regional-rankings-released-today/)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2015, 02:36:24 PM
    This should be interesting!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 11, 2015, 02:37:18 PM
    Just on quick looks, it appear the Northeast put a lot of weight on SOS, while the Mid-Atlantic seems to have largely ignored it?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 02:47:19 PM
    No... I get the sense the numbers were considered the same way across the board but that other data came into play as well - like it should have.

    The Mid-Atlantic has almost all of their teams within the same striking distance on the SOS - not a lot of large gaps.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 11, 2015, 02:59:33 PM
    They have Chapman listed at 5-1 vs non-D3 teams... meaning they've included the UC-Irvine game which was before the season started (for D3)? Haven't checked other teams but if they did it there I wouldn't be surprised if they've done it to other teams too. It is only secondary but it's still wrong data.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 11, 2015, 03:08:55 PM
    I was immediately drawn to Amherst at #3 in the Northeast.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 03:13:14 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 11, 2015, 02:59:33 PM
    They have Chapman listed at 5-1 vs non-D3 teams... meaning they've included the UC-Irvine game which was before the season started (for D3)? Haven't checked other teams but if they did it there I wouldn't be surprised if they've done it to other teams too. It is only secondary but it's still wrong data.

    The NCAA has them listed at 13-2 and through Sunday that is a correct D3 number.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 11, 2015, 03:14:04 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 11, 2015, 03:08:55 PM
    I was immediately drawn to Amherst at #3 in the Northeast.

    I thought they'd be #5, but they've got the numbers for 3.  It'll be interesting to see how the end of the NESCAC season changes things in the NE.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 11, 2015, 03:16:15 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 02:47:19 PM
    No... I get the sense the numbers were considered the same way across the board but that other data came into play as well - like it should have.

    The Mid-Atlantic has almost all of their teams within the same striking distance on the SOS - not a lot of large gaps.

    The NE operated pretty strictly on the .03 = 2 games (unofficial) criteria.  I'm not saying they're way off, but I'm surprised Catholic was #2 - one would think .02 might equal 1 win under that scenario.  Overall, though, I think they're very fair by the numbers - as they should be.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 03:21:46 PM
    Don't confused .03 and two games being translated into other numbers. Remember, Jeff Burns specifically said .06 doesn't necessarily mean four games... and I have gotten the impression inside of .03 they don't start messing around with games and such. They don't have a spreadsheet or a slide-ruler that breaks down what each SOS difference equates to games - just that .03 is to two games and work from there.

    The Northeast Region chair is new and is probably still getting used to some things... let's give them the benefit of the doubt to work on those items. We will certainly see a lot more changes as data changes and the like. Week 1 basically means nothing now-a-days and each week the rankings are reset completely and they start from scratch (they don't work from the previous week's rankings and adjust from there).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 11, 2015, 03:24:54 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 03:21:46 PM
    Don't confused .03 and two games being translated into other numbers. Remember, Jeff Burns specifically said .06 doesn't necessarily mean four games... and I have gotten the impression inside of .03 they don't start messing around with games and such. They don't have a spreadsheet or a slide-ruler that breaks down what each SOS difference equates to games - just that .03 is to two games and work from there.

    The Northeast Region chair is new and is probably still getting used to some things... let's give them the benefit of the doubt to work on those items. We will certainly see a lot more changes as data changes and the like. Week 1 basically means nothing now-a-days and each week the rankings are reset completely and they start from scratch (they don't work from the previous week's rankings and adjust from there).


    I think they did a phenomenal job.  When my biggest complaint is that Catholic is one spot too high, I think they're doing a good job.

    Albertus might have gotten a little roughed up, but that SOS gap is just so huge - they really can't complain about it.  Just win the GNAC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 11, 2015, 03:25:03 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 03:13:14 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 11, 2015, 02:59:33 PM
    They have Chapman listed at 5-1 vs non-D3 teams... meaning they've included the UC-Irvine game which was before the season started (for D3)? Haven't checked other teams but if they did it there I wouldn't be surprised if they've done it to other teams too. It is only secondary but it's still wrong data.

    The NCAA has them listed at 13-2 and through Sunday that is a correct D3 number.
    The D3 record is correct but the non-D3 record is incorrect (which was listed on the data sheet as secondary) as well as the overall record. They have them listed at 5-1 vs non-D3 and 18-3 overall when that should be 5-0 and 18-2 (since yesterday's loss wasn't included in this set of rankings).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 03:26:48 PM
    Ah... gotcha. Will check on that.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 11, 2015, 03:38:46 PM
     I used to suggest in the 'once ranked, always ranked' days that the NCAA should publish what they think the regional records are before they do the ranking; frequently, there were errors in their data. Now, with nearly all games being in-region and no once-ranked in effect, their incorrect data has less serious consequences.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 11, 2015, 04:34:37 PM
    I worked the SOS for Nebraska Wesleyan and got .392 using the multiplier against Wins and Losses and .387 using the Wins only method.  Might have to find a different example to illustrate the differences this year as the NCAA got a .394.   

    Check my work here if you'd like.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2EHCVGcGJT2kympuavIWQK0veVxep9TjkezpB0zi6o/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2EHCVGcGJT2kympuavIWQK0veVxep9TjkezpB0zi6o/edit?usp=sharing)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: stag44 on February 11, 2015, 04:37:52 PM
    Looks like Claremont-Mudd-Scripps is also missing a win in the calculations - they only have 18 total games when they should have 19, and be 11-5 in Division and 3-0 outside of division as of Feb 8.

    NCAA looks like they also have captured that on their website as well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 04:45:21 PM
    Chapman's game against UC Irvine has been fixed - though I am not sure it will show up in the data sheets right now.

    I will compile a list of other things (list them here) and send them off at a later time. I don't want to bombard the NCAA with individual-issue emails (they are working on another problem I already sent them).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 12, 2015, 11:56:57 AM
    Quotehttp://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    Using Knightslappy's rankings
    This weeks Top 19  Pool C  (the number next to the school is his national rank)

    1.  Stevens Point 18-4
    2.  Richard Stockton 18-4
    5.  Augustana 18-4
    7.  Bates  17-4
    8.  Williams  13-8*
    11. Bowdoin  15-6
    13.  Dickinson  18-3
    14.  Washington U 16-4
    15.  Dubuque  16-4
    16.  North Central  14-6

    20.  Virginia Wesleyan 17-3
    21.  St. John's  10-8*
    25.  Rhode Island Coll.  15-6
    27.  Springfield  15-6
    28.  Amherst  17-5
    29.  WPI  17-4
    30.  Louisiana College 11-5
    31.  Elmhurst  17-5
    32.  St. Olaf  17-3
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
    33.  Wooster 16-5
    34.  Colby  12-9*
    35.  Rutgers-Newark  15-7
    37.  Scranton 17-4
    39.  Brooklyn  18-5
    40.  Case Western 12-5


    *--I put asterisks by the 8 and 9 loss teams that probably won't get official rankings equal to where slappy has them ranked.  So move Wooster, Rutgers-Newark and Scranton into the top 19 if you want.

    I'd flip North Central and Va. Wesleyan and call that the bubble line.  There are 6 current Pool A leaders above Va. Wesleyan that would be good for a C selection without worry.

    Anyone who can get through the next two weeks without losses is significantly improving their Pool C position.

    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    knightslappy updated his regional rankings using RPI, the number at the left is their current Pool C position.

    Bold = teams from conferences where the current A would get a Pool C
    1.  Bates
    2.  Richard Stockton
    3.  Whitewater
    4.  Amherst
    5.  Washington
    6.  Illinois Wesleyan
    7.  Williams
    8.  Springfield
    9.  North Central
    10.  Wooster
    11.  WPI
    12.  Case Western
    13.  Emory
    -----------------------------------------bubble
    14.  Dickinson
    15.  Elmhurst
    16.  Bowdoin
    17.  Va. Wesleyan
    18.  Louisiana College
    19.  St. Olaf

    20.  Rhode Island College
    21.  Hope
    22.  Whitman
    23.  Dubuque
    24.  Centre
    25.  Colby
    26.  Tufts
    27.  Mt. Union
    28.  Scranton
    29.  Chapman
    30.  Rutgers-Newark


    Current A's that would get C's
    St. Thomas
    St. Norbert
    Augustana
    Stevens Point
    Marietta
    Randolph Macon
    Johns Hopkins
    William Patterson
    Eastern Connecticut
    Babson

    Current A Within Top 19 of Pool C, could get C
    Ohio Wesleyan
    St. John Fisher
    Trinity

    --As always, very fluid

    --the Northeast has about 9 teams in contention but that will sort itself out with tournaments,  not terribly convinced Williams would be that easy of a Pool C pick at #7

    --I didn't match these to regional rankings so there might be a couple outliers.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 12, 2015, 12:08:57 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 11, 2015, 04:34:37 PM
    I worked the SOS for Nebraska Wesleyan and got .392 using the multiplier against Wins and Losses and .387 using the Wins only method.  Might have to find a different example to illustrate the differences this year as the NCAA got a .394.   

    Check my work here if you'd like.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2EHCVGcGJT2kympuavIWQK0veVxep9TjkezpB0zi6o/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2EHCVGcGJT2kympuavIWQK0veVxep9TjkezpB0zi6o/edit?usp=sharing)
    Wait just a minute!!!!  After thinking about this some more, I decided to check to see how the numbers would look if they did change the calculations to average the percentages.  Guess what:  .394!!!!!!      Alleluia!!  The Multiplier works!  The strength of the opponent is correct regardless of the amount of games played!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 12, 2015, 01:09:49 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 12, 2015, 12:08:57 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 11, 2015, 04:34:37 PM
    I worked the SOS for Nebraska Wesleyan and got .392 using the multiplier against Wins and Losses and .387 using the Wins only method.  Might have to find a different example to illustrate the differences this year as the NCAA got a .394.   

    Check my work here if you'd like.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2EHCVGcGJT2kympuavIWQK0veVxep9TjkezpB0zi6o/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2EHCVGcGJT2kympuavIWQK0veVxep9TjkezpB0zi6o/edit?usp=sharing)
    Wait just a minute!!!!  After thinking about this some more, I decided to check to see how the numbers would look if they did change the calculations to average the percentages.  Guess what:  .394!!!!!!      Alleluia!!  The Multiplier works!  The strength of the opponent is correct regardless of the amount of games played!!

    I think this is sort of just a coincidence with Nebraska Wesleyan's schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 12, 2015, 01:16:00 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 12, 2015, 01:09:49 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 12, 2015, 12:08:57 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 11, 2015, 04:34:37 PM
    I worked the SOS for Nebraska Wesleyan and got .392 using the multiplier against Wins and Losses and .387 using the Wins only method.  Might have to find a different example to illustrate the differences this year as the NCAA got a .394.   

    Check my work here if you'd like.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2EHCVGcGJT2kympuavIWQK0veVxep9TjkezpB0zi6o/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X2EHCVGcGJT2kympuavIWQK0veVxep9TjkezpB0zi6o/edit?usp=sharing)
    Wait just a minute!!!!  After thinking about this some more, I decided to check to see how the numbers would look if they did change the calculations to average the percentages.  Guess what:  .394!!!!!!      Alleluia!!  The Multiplier works!  The strength of the opponent is correct regardless of the amount of games played!!

    I think this is sort of just a coincidence with Nebraska Wesleyan's schedule.
    Call me an optimist.  Maybe I'll find another team to check my findings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2015, 04:16:53 PM
    Quote from: stag44 on February 11, 2015, 04:37:52 PM
    Looks like Claremont-Mudd-Scripps is also missing a win in the calculations - they only have 18 total games when they should have 19, and be 11-5 in Division and 3-0 outside of division as of Feb 8.

    NCAA looks like they also have captured that on their website as well.

    OK... I looked into this and found it myself... the game against Illinois Tech doesn't count as an in-region game and thus in the primary criteria. IT is a P1 or P2 school and thus not part of the primary criteria.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2015, 04:17:47 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2015, 04:16:53 PM
    Quote from: stag44 on February 11, 2015, 04:37:52 PM
    Looks like Claremont-Mudd-Scripps is also missing a win in the calculations - they only have 18 total games when they should have 19, and be 11-5 in Division and 3-0 outside of division as of Feb 8.

    NCAA looks like they also have captured that on their website as well.

    OK... I looked into this and found it myself... the game against Illinois Tech doesn't count as an in-region game and thus in the primary criteria. IT is a P1 or P2 school and thus not part of the primary criteria.

    So the committee is going to be clear on this going forward? :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2015, 04:29:22 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2015, 04:17:47 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2015, 04:16:53 PM
    Quote from: stag44 on February 11, 2015, 04:37:52 PM
    Looks like Claremont-Mudd-Scripps is also missing a win in the calculations - they only have 18 total games when they should have 19, and be 11-5 in Division and 3-0 outside of division as of Feb 8.

    NCAA looks like they also have captured that on their website as well.

    OK... I looked into this and found it myself... the game against Illinois Tech doesn't count as an in-region game and thus in the primary criteria. IT is a P1 or P2 school and thus not part of the primary criteria.

    So the committee is going to be clear on this going forward? :)

    Check your email...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2015, 05:16:32 PM
    Likewise.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2015, 05:44:23 PM
    I did indeed LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 13, 2015, 07:31:34 PM
    Pretty sure all 5 games involving NESCAC teams tonight have some kind of Pool C implications down the road.

    Conn Coll. at Williams
    Tufts at Colby
    Wesleyan at Hamilton
    Trinity at Middlebury
    Bates at Bowdoin


    2 Big ones in the UAA and Chicago tries to hold onto the UAA lead

    Case Western at NYU
    Washington at Emory

    Chicago at Rochester
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2015, 02:04:04 AM


       REGION      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       GL #1      *Marietta       OAC      21-0, 21-0      LOST at Mount Union 102-92, @ John Carroll 2/14   
       GL #2      *Ohio Wesleyan       NCAC      17-4, 17-4      WON vs Wabash 81-80, @ Allegheny 2/14   
       GL #3      Wooster       NCAC      16-5, 16-5      WON vs Hiram 79-44, @ Wittenberg 2/14   
       GL #4      CWR       UAA      12-5, 14-6      LOST @ NYU 94-73, @ Brandeis 2/15   
       GL #5      Hope       MIAA      13-6, 14-7      WON vs Olivet 108-72, @ Alma 2/14   
       GL #6      *St. Vincent       PAC      14-6, 15-6      WON at Washington and Jefferson 100-51, @ Grove City 2/14   
       GL #7      Mount Union       OAC      16-5, 16-5      WON vs Marietta 102-92, vs Heidelberg 2/14   
       GL #8      John Carroll       OAC      15-5, 15-5      WON vs Baldwin-Wallace 108-106, vs Marietta 2/14   
       GL #9      *PS-Behrend       AMCC      19-2, 19-2      WON vs Medaille 89-60, @ Mount Aloysius 2/14   
                                  
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       NE #1      Bates       NESCAC      17-4, 17-4      LOST @ Bowdoin 98-70, @ Colby 2/14   
       NE #2      *Babson       NEWMAC      19-2, 19-2      WON vs Springfield 76-57, @ Clark 2/14   
       NE #3      Amherst       NESCAC      17-5, 17-5      WON vs Lasell 69-52   
       NE #4      *Eastern Connecticut       LEC      17-4, 17-4      WON vs Keene St. 82-76, @ Mass-Dartmouth 2/14   
       NE #5      *Trinity (Ct.)       NESCAC      17-4, 18-5      WON @ Middlebury 90-85   
       NE #6      RIC       NEWMAC      15-6, 15-6      LOST @ Western Connecticut 84-76, vs Southern Maine 2/14   
       NE #7      Springfield       NEWMAC      15-6, 15-6      LOST @ Babson 76-57, @ Emerson 2/14   
       NE #8      WPI       NEWMAC      17-4, 17-4      WON vs MIT 69-56, @ Coast Guard 2/14   
       NE #9      Bowdoin       NESCAC      15-6, 15-6      WON vs Bates 98-70, vs Tufts 2/14   
       NE #10      *Albertus Magnus       GNAC      19-1, 19-1      WON vs Mount Ida 95-59, @ Johnson and Wales 2/14   
       NE #11      Williams       NESCAC      13-8, 13-8      WON vs Connecticut College 83-81, vs Wesleyan 2/14   
                                  
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       So #1      *RMC       ODAC      19-2, 19-2      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 79-65, @ Rudolph 2/14   
       So #2      VWU       ODAC      17-3, 17-3      LOST @ Eastern Mennonite 87-75, @ Washington and Lee 2/14   
       So #3      Emory       UAA      15-5, 15-5      WON vs Washington U. 93-87, vs Chicago 2/15   
       So #4      **East Texas Baptist       ASC      17-4, 17-4      WON vs Hardin-Simmons 88-83, vs Texas-Dallas 2/14   
       So #5      Centre       SAA      15-4, 16-4      WON @ Birmingham-Southern 69-42, @ Millsaps 2/15   
       So #6      **Hardin-Simmons       ASC      16-5, 16-5      LOST  @ East Texas Baptist 88-83, @ LeTourneau 2/14   
       So #7      Texas-Dallas       ASC      15-6, 15-6      WON @ LeTourneau 81-50, at East Texas Baptist 2/14   
       So #8      Guilford       ODAC      15-6, 15-6      WON vs Roanoke 103-78, vs Bridgewater 2/14   
                                  
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       W #1      *St. Thomas       MIAC      19-1, 19-1      WON @ Macalaster 68-48, @ Concordia-Moorhead 2/14   
       W #2      St. Olaf       MIAC      17-3, 17-3      WON vs St. Mary's 68-40, WON at Augsburg 67-58, @ Hamline 2/14   
       W #3      Chapman       SCIAC      13-2, 18-3      LOST vs Whittier 79-63   
       W #4      *Buena Vista       IIAC      15-5, 15-6      WON vs Wartburg 94-84, vs Simpson 2/14   
       W #5      Dubuque       IIAC      16-4, 17-4      WON at Simpson 78-65, @ Wartburg 2/14   
       W #6      Whitman       NWC      15-4, 16-5      WON vs Pacific 80-56, vs George Fox 2/14   
       W #7      *Whitworth       NWC      18-3, 18-3      WON vs George Fox 90-76, vs Pacific 2/14   
                                  
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       Atl #1      Richard Stockton      NJAC      18-4, 18-4      LOST to NJCU 70-65, @ Kean 2/14   
       Atl #2      *William Paterson       NJAC      18-3, 18-3      WON @ NJCU 62-59, LOST @ Kean 66-65, @ TCNJ 2/14   
       Atl #3      *Baruch       CUNYAC      16-5, 16-5      WON @ CCNY 68-59, WON vs Staten Island 66-62   
       Atl #4      Brooklyn       CUNYAC      18-5, 18-5      WON vs Medgar Evers 77-63   
       Atl #5      Rutgers-Newark       NJAC      15-7, 15-7      LOST vs Rutgers-Camden 74-69, @ Rowan 2/14   
       Atl #6      Staten Island       CUNYAC      16-6, 16-6       WON @ Medgar Evers 82-54, LOST @ Baruch 66-62   
       Atl #7      *Misericordia       MACF      16-5, 16-5      WON vs Delaware Valley 72-63, @ Kings 2/14   
                                  
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       C #1      Whitewater       WIAC       18-1, 19-2      LOST @ Stevens Point 72-69, vs River Falls 2/14   
       C #2      **Augustana       CCIW      18-4, 18-4      WON @ IWU 82-56, vs Millikin 2/14   
       C #3      *Stevens Point       WIAC      18-4, 18-4      WON vs Whitewater 72-69, vs Stout 2/14   
       C #4      Washington U.       UAA      16-4, 16-4      LOST @ Emory 93-87, at Rochester 2/15   
       C #5      **IWU       CCIW      17-5, 17-5      LOST vs Augustana 82-56, @ North Park 2/14   
       C #6      *St. Norbert      MWC      19-1, 19-1      WON vs Lake Forest 93-80, @ Knox 2/14   
       C #7      Elmhurst       CCIW      17-5, 17-5      WON vs North Park 89-49, vs North Central 2/14   
       C #8      North Central       CCIW      14-6, 14-6      WON vs Carthage 65-61, @ Elmhurst 2/14   
                                  
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       MA #1      *Johns Hopkins       CC       19-2, 19-2      WON vs Gettysburg 66-54, @ Dickinson 2/14   
       MA #2      *Catholic       LAND      19-2, 19-3      WON @ Goucher 100-85   
       MA #3      Dickinson       CC      18-3, 18-3      LOST @ McDaniel 78-73, vs Johns Hopkins 2/14   
       MA #4      Scranton       LAND      17-4, 17-4      LOST vs Susquehanna 74-60, @ Goucher 2/14   
       MA #5      Franklin and Marshall       CC      17-4, 17-4      WON vs Ursinus 91-38, @ Muhlenberg 2/14   
       MA #6      St. Mary's (Md.)       CAC      14-4, 15-4      WON @ York 78-55, WON at Alfred St. 91-58, vs Wesley 2/14   
                                  
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       E #1      *St. John Fisher       E8      18-2, 18-2      WON vs Hougton 97-65, vs Nazareth 2/14   
       E #2      **Hobart       LL      15-5, 15-6      WON @ Bard 75-50, @ Vassar 2/14   
       E #3      Plattsburgh St.       SUNYAC      14-6, 14-6      WON @ Cortland St. 84-63, @ Oswego St. 2/14   
       E #4      **Clarkson       LL      16-4, 17-4      LOST @ Union 75-70, @ RPI 2/14   
       E #5      NYU       UAA      14-6, 14-6      WON vs Case Western Reserve 94-73, vs Carnegie Mellon 2/15   
       E #6      **Skidmore       LL      13-7, 13-7      WON vs RPI 77-58, vs Union 2/14   
                                  
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2015, 11:37:10 PM
    FYI - Regionally rankings will come out on Thursday next week due to the planned stat computer outage (upgrade) at the NCAA headquarters this weekend. Thus all committee calls pushed back a day and as a result rankings will be posted Thursday this week. Game info still through Sunday's games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 15, 2015, 02:56:48 PM
    Thursday update
    QuoteBold = teams from conferences where the current A would get a Pool C
    1.  Bates
    2.  Richard Stockton
    3.  Whitewater
    4.  Amherst
    5.  Washington
    6.  Illinois Wesleyan
    7.  Williams
    8.  Springfield
    9.  North Central
    10.  Wooster
    11.  WPI
    12.  Case Western
    13.  Emory
    -----------------------------------------bubble
    14.  Dickinson
    15.  Elmhurst
    16.  Bowdoin
    17.  Va. Wesleyan
    18.  Louisiana College
    19.  St. Olaf

    20.  Rhode Island College
    21.  Hope
    22.  Whitman
    23.  Dubuque
    24.  Centre
    25.  Colby
    26.  Tufts
    27.  Mt. Union
    28.  Scranton
    29.  Chapman
    30.  Rutgers-Newark


    Current A's that would get C's
    St. Thomas
    St. Norbert
    Augustana
    Stevens Point
    Marietta
    Randolph Macon
    Johns Hopkins
    William Patterson
    Eastern Connecticut
    Babson

    Current A Within Top 19 of Pool C, could get C
    Ohio Wesleyan
    St. John Fisher
    Trinity

    --As always, very fluid

    --the Northeast has about 9 teams in contention but that will sort itself out with tournaments,  not terribly convinced Williams would be that easy of a Pool C pick at #7

    --I didn't match these to regional rankings so there might be a couple outliers.

    Updated this morning
    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    1.  Bates
    2.  Whitewater
    3.  Amherst
    4.  William Patterson
    5.  Washington U
    6.  Springfield
    7.  Emory
    8.  Illinois Wesleyan
    9.  Bowdoin
    -----------------------------------bubble
    10.  Dickinson
    11.  Wooster
    12.  North Central
    13.  Elmhurst
    14.  Va. Wesleyan
    15.  Williams
    16.  WPI
    17.  Louisiana College
    18.  St. Olaf
    19.  Case Reserve


    20.  Dubuque
    21.  Whitman
    22.  Rhode Island College
    23.  Tufts
    24.  Mt. Union
    25.  St. John's
    26.  Chapman
    27.  Rutgers-Newark
    28.  John Carroll
    29.  Colby
    30.  Hope

    Current A's that would get C bids
    Babson
    Eastern Connecticut
    Richard Stockton
    Johns Hopkins
    Randolph Macon
    Marietta
    Augustana
    Stevens Point
    St. Norbert
    St. Thomas

    Current A's within top 19 of Pool C, could get a C bid
    Trinity
    St. John Fisher
    East Texas Baptist
    Centre
    Ohio Wesleyan


    ----fluid

    ----still not convinced Williams is really that solid of a C, or that both North Central and Elmhurst would make it


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 15, 2015, 03:12:00 PM
    Teams that will have 8 losses as C candidates right now

    6.  Illinois Wesleyan
    8.  Springfield
    9.  North Central
    22.  Rhode Island College
    30.  Hope

    IWU/Springfield would be the most likely C candidate with 8 losses right now I think.  IWU has a big head-to-head with Elmhurst next week, putting 9 losses into the equation.  Rhode Island is on the outside right now.  Hope won't make it to the table with expected rankings changes next week.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2015, 04:01:58 PM
    North Central's SOS is slightly better than Elmhurst. But Elmhurst has 2 less losses and beat NCC twice.  They also have a better vRRO than NCC (4-2 vs 3-5).

    Despite Elmhurst being ranked below IWU (17-7 D3 record) and NCC (15-7 D3 record), I would Elmhurst think has the best shot at Pool C. And they are already 1-0 against IWU with two to play. But that's just me, and I'm not an expert on this Pool C stuff, nor have I ever played one on TV.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 15, 2015, 04:07:29 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2015, 04:01:58 PM
    North Central's SOS is slightly better than Elmhurst. But Elmhurst has 2 less losses and beat NCC twice.  They also have a better vRRO than NCC (4-2 vs 3-5).

    Despite Elmhurst being ranked below IWU (17-7 D3 record) and NCC (15-7 D3 record), I would Elmhurst think has the best shot at Pool C. And they are already 1-0 against IWU with two to play. But that's just me, and I'm not an expert on this Pool C stuff, nor have I ever played one on TV.

    The CCIW Pool C picture became very complicated with IWU's loss to North Park.  Its possible they play themselves out of a third slot and even possible 4 get in.    The semi-final loser between IWU/Elmhurst is in some trouble probably.  They all have good resume's except the w% relative to everyone else.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on February 15, 2015, 07:37:59 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 15, 2015, 04:07:29 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2015, 04:01:58 PM
    North Central's SOS is slightly better than Elmhurst. But Elmhurst has 2 less losses and beat NCC twice.  They also have a better vRRO than NCC (4-2 vs 3-5).

    Despite Elmhurst being ranked below IWU (17-7 D3 record) and NCC (15-7 D3 record), I would Elmhurst think has the best shot at Pool C. And they are already 1-0 against IWU with two to play. But that's just me, and I'm not an expert on this Pool C stuff, nor have I ever played one on TV.

    The CCIW Pool C picture became very complicated with IWU's loss to North Park.  Its possible they play themselves out of a third slot and even possible 4 get in.    The semi-final loser between IWU/Elmhurst is in some trouble probably.  They all have good resume's except the w% relative to everyone else.

    Hasn't committee been inconsistent in dealing with the vRRO in the past? Dealt positively with some teams that have a 1-0 vRRO compared to other teams that have many more regionally ranked teams... And then penalizing a team that had roughly the same number of losses as wins (5-5, for example) because they had the 5 losses?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 15, 2015, 08:23:59 PM
    No one wants to be ranked, and no one wants a "C" this year...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2015, 09:36:33 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on February 15, 2015, 07:37:59 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 15, 2015, 04:07:29 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2015, 04:01:58 PM
    North Central's SOS is slightly better than Elmhurst. But Elmhurst has 2 less losses and beat NCC twice.  They also have a better vRRO than NCC (4-2 vs 3-5).

    Despite Elmhurst being ranked below IWU (17-7 D3 record) and NCC (15-7 D3 record), I would Elmhurst think has the best shot at Pool C. And they are already 1-0 against IWU with two to play. But that's just me, and I'm not an expert on this Pool C stuff, nor have I ever played one on TV.

    The CCIW Pool C picture became very complicated with IWU's loss to North Park.  Its possible they play themselves out of a third slot and even possible 4 get in.    The semi-final loser between IWU/Elmhurst is in some trouble probably.  They all have good resume's except the w% relative to everyone else.

    Hasn't committee been inconsistent in dealing with the vRRO in the past? Dealt positively with some teams that have a 1-0 vRRO compared to other teams that have many more regionally ranked teams... And then penalizing a team that had roughly the same number of losses as wins (5-5, for example) because they had the 5 losses?

    We heard from one coach who stated he felt a 2-1 should be considered better than a 5-5 based on the entire resume and as he said looking at the fact most of those results came in a conference who had other teams ranked... it doesn't necessarily jive with what others said in that same region or nationally.

    I think they look at the "results" which means they don't take a number or a winning percentage and automatically decide what that means. They look at who the wins were against, who the losses were against, what those scores where (in the sense where the games close), etc., etc., etc. and use that information as best as possible. There is no absolutes in that criteria which gives them room to better understand the information.

    I can't say whether they have been consistent because it is hard to determine that, but the comments of one person don't necessarily reveal the ideas of all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2015, 05:39:59 AM


       REGION      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      REC      SCHEDULE   
       GL #1      *Marietta       OAC      21-0, 21-0       0-2      LOST at Mount Union 102-92, LOST @ John Carroll 86-71   
       GL #2      *Ohio Wesleyan       NCAC      17-4, 17-4       2-0      WON vs Wabash 81-80, @ WON Allegheny 80-66   
       GL #3      Wooster       NCAC      16-5, 16-5       2-0      WON vs Hiram 79-44, WON @ Wittenberg 63-59   
       GL #4      CWR       UAA      12-5, 14-6       1-0      LOST @ NYU 94-73, @ Brandeis 2/15 2/16   
       GL #5      Hope       MIAA      13-6, 14-7       1-1      WON vs Olivet 108-72, LOST @ Alma 91-84   
       GL #6      *St. Vincent       PAC      14-6, 15-6       2-0      WON at Washington and Jefferson 100-51, WON @ Grove City 58-45   
       GL #7      Mount Union       OAC      16-5, 16-5       2-0      WON vs Marietta 102-92, WON vs Heidelberg 82-71   
       GL #8      John Carroll       OAC      15-5, 15-5       2-0      WON vs Baldwin-Wallace 108-106, WON vs Marietta 86-71   
       GL #9      *PS-Behrend       AMCC      19-2, 19-2       2-0      WON vs Medaille 89-60, WON @ Mount Aloysius 80-57   
                                        
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      REC      SCHEDULE   
       NE #1      Bates       NESCAC      17-4, 17-4       1-1      LOST @ Bowdoin 98-70, WON @ Colby 82-77   
       NE #2      *Babson       NEWMAC      19-2, 19-2       2-0      WON vs Springfield 76-57, WON @ Clark 77-73   
       NE #3      Amherst       NESCAC      17-5, 17-5       1-1      WON vs Lasell 69-52, LOST at Middlebury 82-69   
       NE #4      *Eastern Connecticut       LEC      17-4, 17-4       2-0      WON vs Keene St. 82-76, WON @ Mass-Dartmouth 74-65   
       NE #5      *Trinity (Ct.)       NESCAC      17-4, 18-5       1-0      WON @ Middlebury 90-85   
       NE #6      RIC       NEWMAC      15-6, 15-6       1-1      LOST @ Western Connecticut 84-76, WON vs Southern Maine 65-44   
       NE #7      Springfield       NEWMAC      15-6, 15-6       1-1      LOST @ Babson 76-57, WON @ Emerson 70-57   
       NE #8      WPI       NEWMAC      17-4, 17-4       2-0      WON vs MIT 69-56, WON @ Coast Guard 65-47   
       NE #9      Bowdoin       NESCAC      15-6, 15-6       2-0      WON vs Bates 98-70, WON vs Tufts 57-54   
       NE #10      *Albertus Magnus       GNAC      19-1, 19-1       2-0      WON vs Mount Ida 95-59, WON @ Johnson and Wales 77-75   
       NE #11      Williams       NESCAC      13-8, 13-8       1-1      WON vs Connecticut College 83-81, LOST vs Wesleyan 74-52   
                                        
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      REC      SCHEDULE   
       So #1      *RMC       ODAC      19-2, 19-2       2-0      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 79-65, WON @ Rudolph 74-66   
       So #2      VWU       ODAC      17-3, 17-3       1-1      LOST @ Eastern Mennonite 87-75, WON @ Washington and Lee 71-53   
       So #3      Emory       UAA      15-5, 15-5       2-0      WON vs Washington U. 93-87, WON vs Chicago 85-82   
       So #4      **East Texas Baptist       ASC      17-4, 17-4       2-0      WON vs Hardin-Simmons 88-83, WON vs Texas-Dallas 63-58   
       So #5      Centre       SAA      15-4, 16-4       2-0      WON @ Birmingham-Southern 69-42, WON @ Millsaps 61-59   
       So #6      **Hardin-Simmons       ASC      16-5, 16-5       1-1      LOST  @ East Texas Baptist 88-83, WON @ LeTourneau 84-58   
       So #7      Texas-Dallas       ASC      15-6, 15-6       1-1      WON @ LeTourneau 81-50, LOST at East Texas Baptist 63-58   
       So #8      Guilford       ODAC      15-6, 15-6       2-0      WON vs Roanoke 103-78, WON vs Bridgewater 73-66   
                                        
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      REC      SCHEDULE   
       W #1      *St. Thomas       MIAC      19-1, 19-1       1-1      WON @ Macalaster 68-48, LOST @ Concordia-Moorhead 72-66   
       W #2      St. Olaf       MIAC      17-3, 17-3       3-0      WON vs St. Mary's 68-40, WON at Augsburg 67-58, WON @ Hamline 100-88   
       W #3      Chapman       SCIAC      13-2, 18-3       0-1      LOST vs Whittier 79-63   
       W #4      *Buena Vista       IIAC      15-5, 15-6       2-0      WON vs Wartburg 94-84, WON vs Simpson 102-75   
       W #5      Dubuque       IIAC      16-4, 17-4       2-0      WON at Simpson 78-65, WON @ Wartburg 65-60   
       W #6      Whitman       NWC      15-4, 16-5       2-0      WON vs Pacific 80-56, WON vs George Fox 95-83   
       W #7      *Whitworth       NWC      18-3, 18-3       2-0      WON vs George Fox 90-76, WON vs Pacific 89-50   
                                        
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      REC      SCHEDULE   
       Atl #1      Richard Stockton      NJAC      18-4, 18-4       1-1      LOST to NJCU 70-65, WON @ Kean 64-63   
       Atl #2      *William Paterson       NJAC      18-3, 18-3       1-2      WON @ NJCU 62-59, LOST @ Kean 66-65, LOST @ TCNJ 80-70   
       Atl #3      *Baruch       CUNYAC      16-5, 16-5       2-0      WON @ CCNY 68-59, WON vs Staten Island 66-62   
       Atl #4      Brooklyn       CUNYAC      18-5, 18-5       1-0      WON vs Medgar Evers 77-63   
       Atl #5      Rutgers-Newark       NJAC      15-7, 15-7       1-1      LOST vs Rutgers-Camden 74-69, WON @ Rowan 64-53   
       Atl #6      Staten Island       CUNYAC      16-6, 16-6       1-1       WON @ Medgar Evers 82-54, LOST @ Baruch 66-62   
       Atl #7      *Misericordia       MACF      16-5, 16-5       1-1      WON vs Delaware Valley 72-63, LOST @ Kings 59-58   
                                        
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      REC      SCHEDULE   
       C #1      Whitewater       WIAC       18-1, 19-2       1-1      LOST @ Stevens Point 72-69, WON vs River Falls 85-66   
       C #2      **Augustana       CCIW      18-4, 18-4       2-0      WON @ IWU 82-56, WON vs Millikin 73-65   
       C #3      *Stevens Point       WIAC      18-4, 18-4       2-0      WON vs Whitewater 72-69, WON vs Stout 85-44   
       C #4      Washington U.       UAA      16-4, 16-4       1-1      LOST @ Emory 93-87, WON at Rochester 94-87   
       C #5      **IWU       CCIW      17-5, 17-5       0-2      LOST vs Augustana 82-56, LOST @ North Park 85-83   
       C #6      *St. Norbert      MWC      19-1, 19-1       2-0      WON vs Lake Forest 93-80, WON @ Knox 73-40   
       C #7      Elmhurst       CCIW      17-5, 17-5       2-0      WON vs North Park 89-49, WON vs North Central 84-78   
       C #8      North Central       CCIW      14-6, 14-6       1-1      WON vs Carthage 65-61, LOST @ Elmhurst 84-78   
                                        
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      REC      SCHEDULE   
       MA #1      *Johns Hopkins       CC       19-2, 19-2       1-1      WON vs Gettysburg 66-54, LOST @ Dickinson 59-57   
       MA #2      *Catholic       LAND      19-2, 19-3       1-0      WON @ Goucher 100-85   
       MA #3      Dickinson       CC      18-3, 18-3       1-1      LOST @ McDaniel 78-73, WON vs Johns Hopkins 59-57   
       MA #4      Scranton       LAND      17-4, 17-4       1-1      LOST vs Susquehanna 74-60, WON @ Goucher 82-64   
       MA #5      Franklin and Marshall       CC      17-4, 17-4       2-0      WON vs Ursinus 91-38, WON @ Muhlenberg 65-56   
       MA #6      St. Mary's (Md.)       CAC      14-4, 15-4       3-0      WON @ York 78-55, WON at Alfred St. 91-58, WON vs Wesley 84-67   
                                        
       REG      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      REC      SCHEDULE   
       E #1      *St. John Fisher       E8      18-2, 18-2       2-0       WON vs Hougton 97-65, WON vs Nazareth 71-51   
       E #2      **Hobart       LL      15-5, 15-6       1-1      WON @ Bard 75-50, LOST @ Vassar 65-63   
       E #3      Plattsburgh St.       SUNYAC      14-6, 14-6       2-0      WON @ Cortland St. 84-63, WON @ Oswego St. 66-59   
       E #4      **Clarkson       LL      16-4, 17-4       1-1      LOST @ Union 75-70, WON @ RPI 59-57   
       E #5      NYU       UAA      14-6, 14-6       2-0      WON vs Case Western Reserve 94-73, WON vs Carnegie Mellon 94-82   
       E #6      **Skidmore       LL      13-7, 13-7       2-0      WON vs RPI 77-58, WON vs Union 95-78   
                                        
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 16, 2015, 08:39:05 AM
    Ranked teams went 92-30

    13 of those losses to other ranked teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on February 16, 2015, 10:22:04 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2015, 09:36:33 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on February 15, 2015, 07:37:59 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 15, 2015, 04:07:29 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2015, 04:01:58 PM
    North Central's SOS is slightly better than Elmhurst. But Elmhurst has 2 less losses and beat NCC twice.  They also have a better vRRO than NCC (4-2 vs 3-5).

    Despite Elmhurst being ranked below IWU (17-7 D3 record) and NCC (15-7 D3 record), I would Elmhurst think has the best shot at Pool C. And they are already 1-0 against IWU with two to play. But that's just me, and I'm not an expert on this Pool C stuff, nor have I ever played one on TV.

    The CCIW Pool C picture became very complicated with IWU's loss to North Park.  Its possible they play themselves out of a third slot and even possible 4 get in.    The semi-final loser between IWU/Elmhurst is in some trouble probably.  They all have good resume's except the w% relative to everyone else.

    Hasn't committee been inconsistent in dealing with the vRRO in the past? Dealt positively with some teams that have a 1-0 vRRO compared to other teams that have many more regionally ranked teams... And then penalizing a team that had roughly the same number of losses as wins (5-5, for example) because they had the 5 losses?

    We heard from one coach who stated he felt a 2-1 should be considered better than a 5-5 based on the entire resume and as he said looking at the fact most of those results came in a conference who had other teams ranked... it doesn't necessarily jive with what others said in that same region or nationally.

    I think they look at the "results" which means they don't take a number or a winning percentage and automatically decide what that means. They look at who the wins were against, who the losses were against, what those scores where (in the sense where the games close), etc., etc., etc. and use that information as best as possible. There is no absolutes in that criteria which gives them room to better understand the information.

    I can't say whether they have been consistent because it is hard to determine that, but the comments of one person don't necessarily reveal the ideas of all.

    Under the guise of "results" as Dave noted, it seems to me a "when" component could also be used in looking at this criterion. For instance, maybe a 3-3 looks better if the last three were wins instead of a 3-3 in which the last three games were losses.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2015, 11:00:06 AM
    All part of looking at the results... yes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2015, 11:55:00 AM
    To follow up... the regional rankings will still be released on Thursday this week despite the NCAA stat computers coming back online a day earlier than expected this weekend.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2015, 02:58:31 PM
    Some big games this week involving last week's regional rankings teams with most conferences finishing up their regular season schedules.

    GREAT LAKES
    #4 CWR hosts Emory (South #3) 2/20
    #7 Mount Union travels to #8 John Carroll 2/18

    NORTHEAST
    #9 Bowdoin hosts #11 Williams in a non conference tilt 2/21

    SOUTH
    #2 VWU hosts #8 Guilford 2/21
    #3 Emory travels to CWR (GL #4) 2/20

    WEST
    #1 St. Thomas beat #2 St. Olaf last night
    #4 Buena Vista heads to #5 Dubuque 2/18

    ATLANTIC
    #3 Baruch travels to #4 Brooklyn tonight

    CENTRAL
    #4 Washington U. hosts NYU (#5 East) 2/20
    #5 IWU welcomes #7 Elmhurst 2/21

    MID-ATLANTIC
    #2 Catholic travels to #4 Scranton 2/21
    #3 Dickinson heads to #5 Franklin and Marshall 2/21

    EAST
    #4 Clarkson visits #6 Skidmore 2/22
    #5 NYU TRAVELS TO Washington U. (#4 Central) 2/20
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 17, 2015, 05:27:25 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2015, 02:58:31 PM
    Some big games this week involving last week's regional rankings teams with most conferences finishing up their regular season schedules.

    CENTRAL
    #4 Washington U. hosts NYU (#5 East) 2/20

    EAST
    #5 NYU hosts Washington U. (#4 Central) 2/20
    I know they travel a lot in the UAA but that seems excessive :D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2015, 08:07:51 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 17, 2015, 05:27:25 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2015, 02:58:31 PM
    Some big games this week involving last week's regional rankings teams with most conferences finishing up their regular season schedules.

    CENTRAL
    #4 Washington U. hosts NYU (#5 East) 2/20

    EAST
    #5 NYU hosts Washington U. (#4 Central) 2/20
    I know they travel a lot in the UAA but that seems excessive :D

    It's a split squad.  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 18, 2015, 12:32:46 PM
    Brooklyn topped Burach
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2015, 02:24:58 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2015, 08:07:51 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 17, 2015, 05:27:25 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2015, 02:58:31 PM
    Some big games this week involving last week's regional rankings teams with most conferences finishing up their regular season schedules.

    CENTRAL
    #4 Washington U. hosts NYU (#5 East) 2/20

    EAST
    #5 NYU hosts Washington U. (#4 Central) 2/20
    I know they travel a lot in the UAA but that seems excessive :D

    It's a split squad.  ;D

    ROFL... well done by all parties!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 18, 2015, 03:23:20 PM
    QuoteNORTHEAST
    #9 Bowdoin hosts #11 Williams in a non conference tilt 2/21

    That's the first round of the NESCAC tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 18, 2015, 05:56:40 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 18, 2015, 03:23:20 PM
    QuoteNORTHEAST
    #9 Bowdoin hosts #11 Williams in a non conference tilt 2/21

    That's the first round of the NESCAC tournament.

    Thanks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2015, 10:41:31 AM
    Week 2's regional rankings made an early appearance today: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/?p=2630 (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/?p=2630)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2015, 12:02:22 PM
    I don't understand Rhode Island College in the Northeast rankings ahead of Williams.

    WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    0.696   0.555   0.591   038   C      16-7    0-3   LEC      Rhode Island College (0-1 vs. Amherst, 1-0 vs. Tufts)
    0.609   0.596   0.600   027   C      14-9    3-6   NESCAC   Williams (1-1 vs. Amherst, 1-0 vs. Tufts)

    I know. I know Williams' WP is only .609 (two games worse than RIC), but they have a .041 SOS advantage, and a 3-6 to 0-3 RvRRO advantage (or, at least, not a disadvantage), and a small common opponent advantage (or, at least, not a disadvantage).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2015, 12:07:49 PM
    I will say this... I know they are balancing between WL and SOS... and at some point the SOS is not going to win out. They don't want "false SOS" numbers to be rewarded (i.e. great SOS, but can't win). A .609 WL is not going to garner much love.

    And you see it on the flip side with Albertus Magnus. I am somewhat surprised they are in 9th with just one loss despite a struggling SOS. At some point, I know the WL will trump the SOS as well.

    Personally, I think the Northeast committee (new chair this year) is trying to find themselves and the national committee may be letting them get their legs... I am not sure, though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2015, 12:18:00 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2015, 12:07:49 PM
    I will say this... I know they are balancing between WL and SOS... and at some point the SOS is not going to win out. They don't want "false SOS" numbers to be rewarded (i.e. great SOS, but can't win). A .609 WL is not going to garner much love.

    Not only can Williams win, they've done it more than they've lost!

    And it's not like they're only beating bad teams. They've had something like a .562 SOS in their 14 wins (RIC has a .514 SOS in 16 wins).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2015, 12:19:43 PM

    I don't know why RIC stayed in.  I thought they were out.

    Interesting to see Southern Vermont in, though - the head-to-head with Williams must finally be helping them.  Williams only had to lose 8 more times.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 19, 2015, 01:07:19 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2015, 12:07:49 PM
    I will say this... I know they are balancing between WL and SOS... and at some point the SOS is not going to win out. They don't want "false SOS" numbers to be rewarded (i.e. great SOS, but can't win). A .609 WL is not going to garner much love.

    And you see it on the flip side with Albertus Magnus. I am somewhat surprised they are in 9th with just one loss despite a struggling SOS. At some point, I know the WL will trump the SOS as well.

    Personally, I think the Northeast committee (new chair this year) is trying to find themselves and the national committee may be letting them get their legs... I am not sure, though.
    They must be applying my NESCAC deduction!

    Did we ever get an explanation about the SOS calculations?  I'm willing to accept that my Nebraska Wesleyan test was a coincidence that the averaging the percentages worked.  If you're on the bubble, pray that the bad teams on your schedule are home games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on February 19, 2015, 01:17:21 PM
    Does anyone know if last week's data sheets are available anywhere? I wanted to look at them to make some comparisons... but last week's data sheets have been replaced by this week's (same link location).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2015, 01:19:40 PM
    That is how the data sheets work... same link, just replaced the data.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2015, 06:21:54 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2015, 08:07:51 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 17, 2015, 05:27:25 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2015, 02:58:31 PM
    Some big games this week involving last week's regional rankings teams with most conferences finishing up their regular season schedules.

    CENTRAL
    #4 Washington U. hosts NYU (#5 East) 2/20

    EAST
    #5 NYU hosts Washington U. (#4 Central) 2/20
    I know they travel a lot in the UAA but that seems excessive :D

    It's a split squad.  ;D
    I was gonna give you a "+1" for the response, but I could not disrupt the harmony of current 600 applauds and 300 smites!

    LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2015, 07:08:00 PM


       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       GL #1      GL #1      *Marietta       OAC       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Otterbein 95-69; vs Ohio Northern 2/21   
       GL #2      GL #2      *Ohio Wesleyan       NCAC       19-4, 19-4      WON vs Oberlin 106-76; at DePauw 2/21   
       GL #3      GL #3      Wooster       NCAC       18-5, 18-5      WON vs Allegheny 80-63; at Oberlin 2/21   
       GL #4      GL #7      Mount Union       OAC       18-5, 18-5      LOST at John Carroll 88-81; at Wilmington 2/21   
       GL #5      GL #8      John Carroll       OAC       17-5, 17-5      WON vs Mount Union 88-81, at Muskingum 2/21   
       GL #6      GL #4      CWR       UAA       12-6, 14-7      WON at Brandeis 71-55; vs Emory 2/20; vs Rochester 2/22   
       GL #7      n/a      *Calvin       MIAA       16-5, 17-6      WON at Olivet 87-74; at Albion 2/21   
       GL #8      GL #9      *PS-Behrend       AMCC       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Hilbert 64-62; vs Pitt-Greensburg 2/21   
       GL #9      GL #5      Hope       MIAA       14-7, 15-8      WON vs Kalamazoo 67-55; vs Adrian 2/21   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       NE #1      NE #2      *Babson       NEWMAC       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Coast Guard 66-51; vs MIT 2-21   
       NE #2      NE #1      Bates       NESCAC       18-5, 18-5      WON at St. Joseph's (Maine) 62-57; vs Wesleyan in quarterfinals 2/21   
       NE #3      NE #5      *Trinity (Ct.)       NESCAC       18-4, 19-5      vs Colby in quarterfinals 2/21   
       NE #4      NE #3      Amherst       NESCAC       18-6, 18-6      at Tufts in quarterfinals 2/21   
       NE #5      NE #4      *Eastern Connecticut       LEC       19-4, 19-4      WON at Western Connecticut 70-60; vs Southern Maine 2/21   
       NE #6      NE #8      WPI       NEWMAC       19-4, 19-4      WON at Wheaton (Mass.) 89-43; vs Clark 2/21   
       NE #7      NE #9      Bowdoin       NESCAC       17-6, 17-6      LOST vs Husson 72-61; vs Williams in quarterfinals 2/21   
       NE #8      NE #7      Springfield       NEWMAC       16-7, 16-7      WON vs Clark 65-57; at Coast Guard 2/21   
       NE #9      NE #10      *Albertus Magnus       GNAC       21-1, 21-1      WON vs Emmanuel 99-89; vs Mount Ida 2/19; vs Anna Maria 2/21   
       NE #10      NE #6      RIC       LEC       16-7, 16-7      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64; at Plymouth St. 2/21   
       NE #11      n/a      *Southern Vermont      NECC       19-2, 20-3      at Elms 2/19; at Daniel Webster 2/21   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       So #1      So #1      *RMC       ODAC       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Shenandoah 103-72; at Emory and Henry 2/21   
       So #2      So #3      *Emory       UAA       17-5, 17-5      at CWR 2/20; at Carnegie Mellon 2/22   
       So #3      So #4      *East Texas Baptist       ASC       19-4, 19-4      at Howard Payne 2/19; at Sul Ross State 2/21   
       So #4      So #2      VWU       ODAC       18-4, 19-4      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 68-58; vs Guildford 2/21   
       So #5      So #5      **Centre       SAA       17-4, 18-4      at Berry 2/20; at Oglethorpe 2/22   
       So #6      So #6      *Hardin-Simmons       ASC       17-6, 17-6      vs Concordia (TX) 2/19; vs Mary Hardin-Baylor 2/21   
       So #7      n/a      Louisiana College      ASC       13-5, 13-9      at Univ. of the Ozarks 2/19; at Texas-Tyler 2/21   
       So #8      n/a      Mary Hardin-Baylor      ASC       16-7, 16-7      at Texas-Dallas 2/19; at Hardin-Simmons 2/21   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       W #1      W #1      *St. Thomas       MIAC       20-2, 20-2      WON vs St. Olaf 66-49; LOST vs Bethel 71-65; vs Hamline 2/21   
       W #2      W #2      St. Olaf       MIAC       20-3, 20-3      LOST at St/ Thomas 66-49; WON vs Concordia-Moorhead 65-60   
       W #3      W #4      *Buena Vista       IIAC       17-5, 17-6      WON at Dubuque 94-80; at Coe 2/21   
       W #4      W #5      Dubuque       IIAC       18-4, 19-4      LOST vs Buena Vista 94-80; vs Luther 2/21   
       W #5      W #6      Whitman       NWC       17-4, 18-5      at Puget Sound 2/20; at Pacific Lutheran 2/21   
       W #6      W #7      *Whitworth       NWC       20-3, 20-3      at Pacific Lutheran 2/20; at Puget Sound 2/21   
       W #7      W #3      Chapman       SCIAC       13-3, 18-3      LOST at Redlands 62-59; vs Cal. Lutheran 2-19; vs La Verne 2/21   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       Atl #1      Atl #1      *Richard Stockton      NJAC       19-5, 19-5      WON vs Montclair State 77-56; 1st round bye in tourney   
       Atl #2      Atl #2      William Paterson       NJAC       19-5, 19-5      LOST vs Rowan 62-60; 1st round bye in tourney   
       Atl #3      Atl #3      *Baruch       CUNYAC       18-5, 18-5      LOST at Brooklyn 75-68; vs CCNY in quarterfinals 2/22   
       Atl #4      Atl #4      Brooklyn       CUNYAC       19-5, 19-5      WON vs Baruch 75-68; vs John Jay in quaterfinals 2/22   
       Atl #5      Atl #5      Rutgers-Newark       NJAC       16-8, 16-8      WON vs Ramapo 84-68; vs Rowan in quarterfinals 2/21   
       Atl #6      n/a      *Sage College      SKY       18-4, 19-4      WON at Mount St. Mary 93-91; at Sarah Lawrence 2/19   
       Atl #7      Atl #7      Staten Island       CUNYAC       17-7, 17-7      LOST to Lehman College 81-64; vs York College in quarterfinals 2/22   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       C #1      C #2      Augustana       CCIW       20-4, 20-4      at Wheaton 2/21   
       C #2      C #1      **Whitewater       WIAC       19-2, 20-3      WON vs Oshkosh 69-47; at Stout 2/21   
       C #3      C #3      **Stevens Point       WIAC       20-4, 20-4      at Superior 2/21   
       C #4      C #4      Washington U.       UAA       17-5, 17-5      vs NYU 2/20; vs Brandeis 2/22   
       C #5      C #7      Elmhurst       CCIW       19-5, 19-5      at Illinois Wesleyan 2/21   
       C #6      C #6      *St. Norbert      MWC       21-1, 21-1      vs Cornell 2/21   
       C #7      C #5      IWU       CCIW       17-7, 17-7      vs Elmhurst 2/21   
       C #8      C #8      North Central       CCIW       15-7, 17-7      vs North Park 2/21   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       MA #1      MA #1      *Johns Hopkins       CC        20-3, 20-3      WON at McDaniel 70-56; vs Washington College 2/21   
       MA #2      MA #3      Dickinson       CC       19-4, 19-4      WON vs Muhlenberg 53-43; at Franklin and Marshall 2/21   
       MA #3      MA #2      *Catholic       LAND       20-2, 20-3      WON at Juniata 75-60; at Scranton 2/21   
       MA #4      MA #5      Franklin and Marshall       CC       19-4, 19-4      LOST at Gettysburg 76-62; vs Dickinson 2/21   
       MA #5      MA #4      Scranton       LAND       18-5, 18-5      WON at Merchant Marine 66-60; vs Catholic 2/21   
       MA #6      MA #6      *St. Mary's (Md.)       CAC       16-4, 18-4      WON vs Christopher Newport; at Southern Virginia 2/21   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       E #1      E #1      *St. John Fisher       E8       20-2, 20-2      LOST at Alfred 60-59; at Hartwick 2/20; at Stevens 2/21   
       E #2      E #3      *Plattsburgh St.       SUNYAC       16-6, 16-6      WON at Potsdam St. 71-67; vs Brockport St. 2/20; vs Geneseo St. 2/21   
       E #3      E #5      ***NYU       UAA       16-6, 16-6      at Washington U. 2/20; at Chicago 2/22   
       E #4      E #2      Hobart       LL       16-6, 16-7      WON vs Rochester Tech 53-51; at Union 2/22   
       E #5      E #6      *Skidmore       LL       16-7, 16-7      at St. Lawrence 2/20; vs Clarkson 2/22   
       E #6      E #4      *Clarkson       LL       17-5, 18-5      WON vs St. Lawrence 68-62; at Skidmore 2/22   
                                        
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2015, 07:15:01 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2015, 06:21:54 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2015, 08:07:51 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 17, 2015, 05:27:25 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2015, 02:58:31 PM
    Some big games this week involving last week's regional rankings teams with most conferences finishing up their regular season schedules.

    CENTRAL
    #4 Washington U. hosts NYU (#5 East) 2/20

    EAST
    #5 NYU hosts Washington U. (#4 Central) 2/20
    I know they travel a lot in the UAA but that seems excessive :D

    It's a split squad.  ;D
    I was gonna give you a "+1" for the response, but I could not disrupt the harmony of current 600 applauds and 300 smites!

    LOL

    Very nice! LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 19, 2015, 09:15:53 PM
    Pool C, did it a little different this week trying to mimic how the committee's would do it.  I still selected teams based on their pool C position of KS's list.  Did this morning with data through Tuesday and this weeks rankings.  KS has updated it through last night, so its a bit different but not a lot:  http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    Selected in order, number is KS's Pool C Ranking
    1.  Bates
    2.  Whitewater
    3.  Emory
    4.  Washington
    5.  William Patterson
    6.  Amherst
    10.  Dickenson
    11.  Wooster
    12.  Elmhurst**
    8.  Illinois Wesleyan**
    ----------------------------------------bubble
    13.  North Central**
    14.  Va. Wesleyan
    16.  WPI
    9.  Bowdoin
    7.  Springfield
    18.  St. Olaf
    20.  Dubuque
    21.  Whitman
    22.  Rhode Island
    25.  Mt. Union

    **The three CCIW teams are likely to eliminate one of themselves over the next week so I went ahead and selected the next available on the final table which was Mt. Union.  The bubble would be somewhere in there anyway.

    Teams skipped over in the process.
    15.  Williams---not ranked
    17.  Louisiana Coll. --ranked behind Hardin Simmons
    19.  Case Wester--ranked behind Mt. Union and John Carroll
    23.  unranked team I forgot to write down
    24.  St. John's---not ranked

    Final Table
    Northeast:  #12 ranked team--possible but not likely selected
    East:  NYU
    Atlantic:  Brooklyn
    Mid-Atlantic:  Franklin & Marshall
    South:  Hardin-Simmons
    Great Lakes:  Mt. Union
    Central:  #9 ranked team--unlikely to be selected
    West:  Chapman


    I forgot to pull the A's w/likely C's and A's with maybe C's from the old data sheet.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2015, 07:47:56 AM
    Of the regionally ranked teams in action last night, only South #3 East Texas Baptist lost (81-77 at Howard Payne).

    South #6 Hardin-Simmons 102 Concordia 98
    South #7 LoiLouisiana College 91 Univ. Of Ozarks 68
    South #8 MHB 76 Texas-Dallas 75

    West #7 Chapman 86 Cal. Lutheran 70

    Atlantic #6 Sage 72 Sarah Lawrence 35

    NE #9 Albertus Magnus 97 Mount Ida 68
    NE #11 Southern Vermont 79 Elms 75
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2015, 11:21:38 AM
    Pool C contenders?

    GL8 = Great Lakes #8

    AMCC - 0, tough for GL8 PS-Behrend to get a Pool C
    ASC - 1, ETB is S3, but lost this week. Hardin-Simmons,  Louisiana College and MHB all at the bottom of the South rankings.
    CAC - 0, St. Mary's is MA6
    CC - 2, John's Hopkins MA1, Dickinson MA2 plays Franklin and Marshall MA6 (already lost this week)
    CCC - 0
    CCIW - 2, Augie C1, Elmhurst C5, IWU C7. I don't see NCC C8 getting a Pool C. Tough for both Elmhurst and IWU to get Pool C too, IMO.
    CSAC - 0
    CUNYAC - 1, not sure about Baruch ATL3 who lost to Brooklyn ATL4
    E8 - 1, St. John Fisher is E1.
    GNAC - 0, Don't see Albertus Magnus NE9 getting one.
    HCAC - 0
    IIAC - 1, not sure Buena Vista W3 and Dubuque W4 can get bids.
    LAND - 1, Catholic is MA2, but Scranton down at MA5
    LEC - 1, Eastern Connecticut at NE5
    LL - 0
    MACC - 0
    MACF - 0
    MASCAC - 0
    MIAA - 0, no luck for Calvin GL7 or Hope GL9
    MIAC - 2, St. Thomas W1 and St. Olaf W2 should be fine.
    MWC - 1, St. Norbert C6
    NAC - 0
    NACC - 0
    NCAC - 2, Ohio Wesleyan GL2 and Wooster GL3
    NEAC - 0
    NECC - 0
    NESCAC - 3, Bates NE2, Trinity NE3, Amherst NE4. Unlikely Bowdoin NE7
    NEWMAC - 1, Babson NE1, hard for WPI NE6 and Springfield NE8
    NJAC - 2, Richard Stockton ATL1 but William Paterson ATL2 lost this week.
    NWC - 1, not sure Whitman W5 and Whitworth W6 both get in as Pool C.
    OAC - 2, Marietta GL1, Mount Union GL4 and John Carroll GL5. JCU beat Mt. Union this week.
    ODAC - 2, RMC S1 and VWU S4 look good.
    PAC - 0
    SAA - 1, Centre S5
    SCAC - 0
    SCIAC - 0, Chapman doesn't look good at W7, they lost again this week.
    SKY - 0, probably not Sage ATL6
    SLIAC - 0
    SUNYAC - 1, Plattsburgh St. E2
    UAA - 3, Emory S2, NYU E3, Washington U. C4 and a stretch for CWR GL6
    UMAC - 0
    USAC - 0
    WIAC - 2, Whitewater C2, Stevens Point C3 look safe.
    work in progress...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lildave678 on February 20, 2015, 11:35:10 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2015, 11:21:38 AM
    Pool C contenders?

    GL8 = Great Lakes #8

    AMCC - 0, tough for GL8 PS-Behrend to get a Pool C
    ASC - 1, ETB is S3, but lost this week. Hardin-Simmons,  Louisiana College and MHB all at the bottom of the South rankings.
    CAC - 0, St. Mary's is MA6
    CC - 2, John's Hopkins MA1, Dickinson MA2 plays Franklin and Marshall MA6 (already lost this week)
    CCC - 0
    CCIW - 2, Augie C1, Elmhurst C5, IWU C7. I don't see NCC C8 getting a Pool C. Tough for both Elmhurst and IWU to get Pool C too, IMO.
    CSAC - 0
    CUNYAC - 1, not sirw about Baruch ATL3 who lost to Brooklyn ATL4
    E8 - 1, St. John Fisher is E1.
    GNAC - 0, Don't see Albertus Magnus NE9 getting one.
    HCAC - 0
    IIAC - 1, not sure Buena Vista W3 and Dubuque W4 can get bids.
    LAND - 1, Catholic is MA2, but Scranton down at MA5
    LEC - 1, Eastern Connecticut at NE5
    LL - 0
    MACC - 0
    MACF - 0
    MASCAC - 0
    MIAA - 0, no luck for Calvin GL7 or Hope GL9

    work in progress...

    Yeah I agree about my Albertus. 3 teams ahead of them will get the auto-bids (NEWMAC, NESCAC, and Little East assuming ECSU wins) so that would put them 6th out of what's left currently. The problem obviously is if they lose, it will be to a regionally unranked team which will drop them further. When are the last regional rankings that they use for the tournament?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2015, 11:37:56 AM
    The rankings they use for the tournament are created on Selection Sunday, and are not publicly released.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lildave678 on February 20, 2015, 11:41:47 AM
    Right, I knew they weren't publicly released. Just wasn't sure when exactly. Thanks!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2015, 02:50:41 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2015, 07:08:00 PM


       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       GL #1      GL #1      *Marietta       OAC       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Otterbein 95-69; vs Ohio Northern 2/21   
       GL #2      GL #2      *Ohio Wesleyan       NCAC       19-4, 19-4      WON vs Oberlin 106-76; at DePauw 2/21   
       GL #3      GL #3      Wooster       NCAC       18-5, 18-5      WON vs Allegheny 80-63; at Oberlin 2/21   
       GL #4      GL #7      Mount Union       OAC       18-5, 18-5      LOST at John Carroll 88-81; at Wilmington 2/21   
       GL #5      GL #8      John Carroll       OAC       17-5, 17-5      WON vs Mount Union 88-81, at Muskingum 2/21   
       GL #6      GL #4      CWR       UAA       12-6, 14-7      WON at Brandeis 71-55; vs Emory 2/20; vs Rochester 2/22   
       GL #7      n/a      *Calvin       MIAA       16-5, 17-6      WON at Olivet 87-74; at Albion 2/21   
       GL #8      GL #9      *PS-Behrend       AMCC       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Hilbert 64-62; vs Pitt-Greensburg 2/21   
       GL #9      GL #5      Hope       MIAA       14-7, 15-8      WON vs Kalamazoo 67-55; vs Adrian 2/21   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       NE #1      NE #2      *Babson       NEWMAC       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Coast Guard 66-51; vs MIT 2-21   
       NE #2      NE #1      Bates       NESCAC       18-5, 18-5      WON at St. Joseph's (Maine) 62-57; vs Wesleyan in quarterfinals 2/21   
       NE #3      NE #5      *Trinity (Ct.)       NESCAC       18-4, 19-5      vs Colby in quarterfinals 2/21   
       NE #4      NE #3      Amherst       NESCAC       18-6, 18-6      at Tufts in quarterfinals 2/21   
       NE #5      NE #4      *Eastern Connecticut       LEC       19-4, 19-4      WON at Western Connecticut 70-60; vs Southern Maine 2/21   
       NE #6      NE #8      WPI       NEWMAC       19-4, 19-4      WON at Wheaton (Mass.) 89-43; vs Clark 2/21   
       NE #7      NE #9      Bowdoin       NESCAC       17-6, 17-6      LOST vs Husson 72-61; vs Williams in quarterfinals 2/21   
       NE #8      NE #7      Springfield       NEWMAC       16-7, 16-7      WON vs Clark 65-57; at Coast Guard 2/21   
       NE #9      NE #10      *Albertus Magnus       GNAC       21-1, 21-1      WON vs Emmanuel 99-89; vs Mount Ida 2/19; vs Anna Maria 2/21   
       NE #10      NE #6      RIC       LEC       16-7, 16-7      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64; at Plymouth St. 2/21   
       NE #11      n/a      *Southern Vermont      NECC       19-2, 20-3      at Elms 2/19; at Daniel Webster 2/21   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       So #1      So #1      *RMC       ODAC       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Shenandoah 103-72; at Emory and Henry 2/21   
       So #2      So #3      *Emory       UAA       17-5, 17-5      at CWR 2/20; at Carnegie Mellon 2/22   
       So #3      So #4      *East Texas Baptist       ASC       19-4, 19-4      at Howard Payne 2/19; at Sul Ross State 2/21   
       So #4      So #2      VWU       ODAC       18-4, 19-4      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 68-58; vs Guildford 2/21   
       So #5      So #5      **Centre       SAA       17-4, 18-4      at Berry 2/20; at Oglethorpe 2/22   
       So #6      So #6      *Hardin-Simmons       ASC       17-6, 17-6      vs Concordia (TX) 2/19; vs Mary Hardin-Baylor 2/21   
       So #7      n/a      Louisiana College      ASC       13-5, 13-9      at Univ. of the Ozarks 2/19; at Texas-Tyler 2/21   
       So #8      n/a      Mary Hardin-Baylor      ASC       16-7, 16-7      at Texas-Dallas 2/19; at Hardin-Simmons 2/21   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       W #1      W #1      *St. Thomas       MIAC       20-2, 20-2      WON vs St. Olaf 66-49; LOST vs Bethel 71-65; vs Hamline 2/21   
       W #2      W #2      St. Olaf       MIAC       20-3, 20-3      LOST at St/ Thomas 66-49; WON vs Concordia-Moorhead 65-60   
       W #3      W #4      *Buena Vista       IIAC       17-5, 17-6      WON at Dubuque 94-80; at Coe 2/21   
       W #4      W #5      Dubuque       IIAC       18-4, 19-4      LOST vs Buena Vista 94-80; vs Luther 2/21   
       W #5      W #6      Whitman       NWC       17-4, 18-5      at Puget Sound 2/20; at Pacific Lutheran 2/21   
       W #6      W #7      *Whitworth       NWC       20-3, 20-3      at Pacific Lutheran 2/20; at Puget Sound 2/21   
       W #7      W #3      Chapman       SCIAC       13-3, 18-3      LOST at Redlands 62-59; vs Cal. Lutheran 2-19; vs La Verne 2/21   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       Atl #1      Atl #1      *Richard Stockton      NJAC       19-5, 19-5      WON vs Montclair State 77-56; 1st round bye in tourney   
       Atl #2      Atl #2      William Paterson       NJAC       19-5, 19-5      LOST vs Rowan 62-60; 1st round bye in tourney   
       Atl #3      Atl #3      *Baruch       CUNYAC       18-5, 18-5      LOST at Brooklyn 75-68; vs CCNY in quarterfinals 2/22   
       Atl #4      Atl #4      Brooklyn       CUNYAC       19-5, 19-5      WON vs Baruch 75-68; vs John Jay in quaterfinals 2/22   
       Atl #5      Atl #5      Rutgers-Newark       NJAC       16-8, 16-8      WON vs Ramapo 84-68; vs Rowan in quarterfinals 2/21   
       Atl #6      n/a      *Sage College      SKY       18-4, 19-4      WON at Mount St. Mary 93-91; at Sarah Lawrence 2/19   
       Atl #7      Atl #7      Staten Island       CUNYAC       17-7, 17-7      LOST to Lehman College 81-64; vs York College in quarterfinals 2/22   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       C #1      C #2      Augustana       CCIW       20-4, 20-4      at Wheaton 2/21   
       C #2      C #1      **Whitewater       WIAC       19-2, 20-3      WON vs Oshkosh 69-47; at Stout 2/21   
       C #3      C #3      **Stevens Point       WIAC       20-4, 20-4      at Superior 2/21   
       C #4      C #4      Washington U.       UAA       17-5, 17-5      vs NYU 2/20; vs Brandeis 2/22   
       C #5      C #7      Elmhurst       CCIW       19-5, 19-5      at Illinois Wesleyan 2/21   
       C #6      C #6      *St. Norbert      MWC       21-1, 21-1      vs Cornell 2/21   
       C #7      C #5      IWU       CCIW       17-7, 17-7      vs Elmhurst 2/21   
       C #8      C #8      North Central       CCIW       15-7, 17-7      vs North Park 2/21   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       MA #1      MA #1      *Johns Hopkins       CC        20-3, 20-3      WON at McDaniel 70-56; vs Washington College 2/21   
       MA #2      MA #3      Dickinson       CC       19-4, 19-4      WON vs Muhlenberg 53-43; at Franklin and Marshall 2/21   
       MA #3      MA #2      *Catholic       LAND       20-2, 20-3      WON at Juniata 75-60; at Scranton 2/21   
       MA #4      MA #5      Franklin and Marshall       CC       19-4, 19-4      LOST at Gettysburg 76-62; vs Dickinson 2/21   
       MA #5      MA #4      Scranton       LAND       18-5, 18-5      WON at Merchant Marine 66-60; vs Catholic 2/21   
       MA #6      MA #6      *St. Mary's (Md.)       CAC       16-4, 18-4      WON vs Christopher Newport; at Southern Virginia 2/21   
                                        
       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       E #1      E #1      *St. John Fisher       E8       20-2, 20-2      LOST at Alfred 60-59; at Hartwick 2/20; at Stevens 2/21   
       E #2      E #3      *Plattsburgh St.       SUNYAC       16-6, 16-6      WON at Potsdam St. 71-67; vs Brockport St. 2/20; vs Geneseo St. 2/21   
       E #3      E #5      ***NYU       UAA       16-6, 16-6      at Washington U. 2/20; at Chicago 2/22   
       E #4      E #2      Hobart       LL       16-6, 16-7      WON vs Rochester Tech 53-51; at Union 2/22   
       E #5      E #6      *Skidmore       LL       16-7, 16-7      at St. Lawrence 2/20; vs Clarkson 2/22   
       E #6      E #4      *Clarkson       LL       17-5, 18-5      WON vs St. Lawrence 68-62; at Skidmore 2/22   
                                        
    Okay Greek Tragedy.  +1! (I gotta keep the ratio to 2:1, 602 to 301!  LOL)
    Thanks for the hard work.

    ETBU, Lousiana College and Hardin-Simmons in the basketball regional rankings!

    Lots of turnover in the ASC power structure!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 20, 2015, 10:33:23 PM
    After tonight Emory has a one game lead in the UAA.  If either Emory or WashU wins the Pool A that should open up a Pool C spot.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 20, 2015, 11:21:16 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 20, 2015, 10:33:23 PM
    After tonight Emory has a one game lead in the UAA.  If either Emory or WashU wins the Pool A that should open up a Pool C spot.

    Emory is surely headed for the title with just Carnegie Mellon on the road and Rochester at home, but who knows...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2015, 01:19:07 PM
    Pat,

    Love your "regionally ranked teams" specific scoreboard!

    missed a couple games on Thurs. though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2015, 01:58:30 PM


       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       Atl #1      Atl #1      *Richard Stockton      NJAC       19-5, 19-5      WON vs Montclair State 77-56; 1st round bye in tourney   
       Atl #2      Atl #2      William Paterson       NJAC       19-5, 19-5      LOST vs Rowan 62-60; 1st round bye in tourney   
       Atl #3      Atl #3      *Baruch       CUNYAC       18-5, 18-5      LOST at Brooklyn 75-68; vs CCNY in quarterfinals 2/22   
       Atl #4      Atl #4      Brooklyn       CUNYAC       19-5, 19-5      WON vs Baruch 75-68; vs John Jay in quaterfinals 2/22   
       Atl #5      Atl #5      Rutgers-Newark       NJAC       16-8, 16-8      WON vs Ramapo 84-68; vs Rowan in quarterfinals 2/21   
       Atl #6      n/a      *Sage College      SKY       18-4, 19-4      WON at Mount St. Mary 93-91; WON at Sarah Lawrence 72-35   
       Atl #7      Atl #7      Staten Island       CUNYAC       17-7, 17-7      LOST to Lehman College 81-64; vs York College in quarterfinals 2/22   
                                        

    So far, WP and Baruch already lost this week. Look for Brooklyn and Baruch to swap and WP probably stay at #2? Staten Island is probably out of the Pool C running, if they were ever in it.



       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       C #1      C #2      Augustana       CCIW       20-4, 20-4      at Wheaton 2/21   
       C #2      C #1      **Whitewater       WIAC       19-2, 20-3      WON vs Oshkosh 69-47; at Stout 2/21   
       C #3      C #3      **Stevens Point       WIAC       20-4, 20-4      at Superior 2/21   
       C #4      C #4      Washington U.       UAA       17-5, 17-5      WON vs NYU 97-75; vs Brandeis 2/22   
       C #5      C #7      Elmhurst       CCIW       19-5, 19-5      at Illinois Wesleyan 2/21   
       C #6      C #6      *St. Norbert      MWC       21-1, 21-1      vs Cornell 2/21   
       C #7      C #5      IWU       CCIW       17-7, 17-7      vs Elmhurst 2/21   
       C #8      C #8      North Central       CCIW       15-7, 17-7      vs North Park 2/21   
                                        

    If they haven't already, Washington U. probably wrapped up a Pool C bid. I still think it's dicey for IWU, Elmhurst and NCC. Big "double header" for IWU and Elmhurst with the season finale and the 1st round of the CCIW tourney coming up. I think NCC has to win today and get to the semis to have any shot at a Pool C.




       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       E #1      E #1      *St. John Fisher       E8       20-2, 20-2      LOST at Alfred 60-59; WON at Hartwick 69-68; at Stevens 2/21   
       E #2      E #3      *Plattsburgh St.       SUNYAC       16-6, 16-6      WON at Potsdam St. 71-67; WON vs Brockport St. 60-45; vs Geneseo St. 2/21   
       E #3      E #5      ***NYU       UAA       16-6, 16-6      LOST at Washington U. 97-75; at Chicago 2/22   
       E #4      E #2      Hobart       LL       16-6, 16-7      WON vs Rochester Tech 53-51; at Union 2/22   
       E #5      E #6      *Skidmore       LL       16-7, 16-7      WON at St. Lawrence 72-67 OT; vs Clarkson 2/22   
       E #6      E #4      *Clarkson       LL       17-5, 18-5      WON vs St. Lawrence 68-62; at Skidmore 2/22   
                                        

    I don't think that SJF loss is going to hurt them at all. But, NYU's loss could really put them on the Pool C bubble, leaning the wrong way.




       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       GL #1      GL #1      *Marietta       OAC       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Otterbein 95-69; vs Ohio Northern 2/21   
       GL #2      GL #2      *Ohio Wesleyan       NCAC       19-4, 19-4      WON vs Oberlin 106-76; at DePauw 2/21   
       GL #3      GL #3      Wooster       NCAC       18-5, 18-5      WON vs Allegheny 80-63; at Oberlin 2/21   
       GL #4      GL #7      Mount Union       OAC       18-5, 18-5      LOST at John Carroll 88-81; at Wilmington 2/21   
       GL #5      GL #8      John Carroll       OAC       17-5, 17-5      WON vs Mount Union 88-81, at Muskingum 2/21   
       GL #6      GL #4      CWR       UAA       12-6, 14-7      WON at Brandeis 71-55; vs LOST to Emory 71-65; vs Rochester 2/22   
       GL #7      n/a      *Calvin       MIAA       16-5, 17-6      WON at Olivet 87-74; at Albion 2/21   
       GL #8      GL #9      *PS-Behrend       AMCC       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Hilbert 64-62; vs Pitt-Greensburg 2/21   
       GL #9      GL #5      Hope       MIAA       14-7, 15-8      WON vs Kalamazoo 67-55; vs Adrian 2/21   
                                        

    Mt. Union and JCU could probably swap with both still getting in at this time. CWR is probably doesn't have a Pool C case anymore.




       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       MA #1      MA #1      *Johns Hopkins       CC        20-3, 20-3      WON at McDaniel 70-56; vs Washington College 2/21   
       MA #2      MA #3      Dickinson       CC       19-4, 19-4      WON vs Muhlenberg 53-43; at Franklin and Marshall 2/21   
       MA #3      MA #2      *Catholic       LAND       20-2, 20-3      WON at Juniata 75-60; at Scranton 2/21   
       MA #4      MA #5      Franklin and Marshall       CC       19-4, 19-4      LOST at Gettysburg 76-62; vs Dickinson 2/21   
       MA #5      MA #4      Scranton       LAND       18-5, 18-5      WON at Merchant Marine 66-60; vs Catholic 2/21   
       MA #6      MA #6      *St. Mary's (Md.)       CAC       16-4, 18-4      WON vs Christopher Newport; at Southern Virginia 2/21   
                                        

    Two huge games in this region with F&M hosting Dickinson and Scranton hosting Catholic.




       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       NE #1      NE #2      *Babson       NEWMAC       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Coast Guard 66-51; vs MIT 2-21   
       NE #2      NE #1      Bates       NESCAC       18-5, 18-5      WON at St. Joseph's (Maine) 62-57; vs Wesleyan in quarterfinals 2/21   
       NE #3      NE #5      *Trinity (Ct.)       NESCAC       18-4, 19-5      vs Colby in quarterfinals 2/21   
       NE #4      NE #3      Amherst       NESCAC       18-6, 18-6      at Tufts in quarterfinals 2/21   
       NE #5      NE #4      *Eastern Connecticut       LEC       19-4, 19-4      WON at Western Connecticut 70-60; vs Southern Maine 2/21   
       NE #6      NE #8      WPI       NEWMAC       19-4, 19-4      WON at Wheaton (Mass.) 89-43; vs Clark 2/21   
       NE #7      NE #9      Bowdoin       NESCAC       17-6, 17-6      LOST vs Husson 72-61; vs Williams in quarterfinals 2/21   
       NE #8      NE #7      Springfield       NEWMAC       16-7, 16-7      WON vs Clark 65-57; at Coast Guard 2/21   
       NE #9      NE #10      *Albertus Magnus       GNAC       21-1, 21-1      WON vs Emmanuel 99-89; WON vs Mount Ida 97-68; vs Anna Maria 2/21   
       NE #10      NE #6      RIC       LEC       16-7, 16-7      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64; at Plymouth St. 2/21   
       NE #11      n/a      *Southern Vermont      NECC       19-2, 20-3      WON at Elms 79-75; at Daniel Webster 2/21   
                                        

    Doesn't look good for Bowdoin unless they make a run to the NESCAC Final.




       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       So #1      So #1      *RMC       ODAC       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Shenandoah 103-72; at Emory and Henry 2/21   
       So #2      So #3      *Emory       UAA       17-5, 17-5      WON at CWR 71-65; at Carnegie Mellon 2/22   
       So #3      So #4      *East Texas Baptist       ASC       19-4, 19-4      LOST at Howard Payne 81-77 at Sul Ross State 2/21   
       So #4      So #2      VWU       ODAC       18-4, 19-4      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 68-58; vs Guildford 2/21   
       So #5      So #5      **Centre       SAA       17-4, 18-4      WON at Berry 71-61; at Oglethorpe 2/22   
       So #6      So #6      *Hardin-Simmons       ASC       17-6, 17-6      WON vs Concordia (TX) 102-98; vs Mary Hardin-Baylor 2/21   
       So #7      n/a      Louisiana College      ASC       13-5, 13-9      WON at Univ. of the Ozarks 91-68; at Texas-Tyler 2/21   
       So #8      n/a      Mary Hardin-Baylor      ASC       16-7, 16-7      WON at Texas-Dallas 76-75; at Hardin-Simmons 2/21   
                                        

    Chalk except that ETB loss. Probably swap with VWU.




       WK2      WK1      TEAM      CONFERENCE      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       W #1      W #1      *St. Thomas       MIAC       20-2, 20-2      WON vs St. Olaf 66-49; LOST vs Bethel 71-65; vs Hamline 2/21   
       W #2      W #2      St. Olaf       MIAC       20-3, 20-3      LOST at St. Thomas 66-49; WON vs Concordia-Moorhead 65-60   
       W #3      W #4      *Buena Vista       IIAC       17-5, 17-6      WON at Dubuque 94-80; at Coe 2/21   
       W #4      W #5      Dubuque       IIAC       18-4, 19-4      LOST vs Buena Vista 94-80; vs Luther 2/21   
       W #5      W #6      Whitman       NWC       17-4, 18-5      WON at Puget Sound 85-73; at Pacific Lutheran 2/21   
       W #6      W #7      *Whitworth       NWC       20-3, 20-3      WON at Pacific Lutheran 68-39; at Puget Sound 2/21   
       W #7      W #3      Chapman       SCIAC       13-3, 18-3      LOST at Redlands 62-59; WON vs Cal. Lutheran 86-70; vs La Verne 2/21   
                                        

    Chapman might have had their life support yanked.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 21, 2015, 05:10:51 PM
    QuoteWK2         WK1         TEAM         CONFERENCE         Regional/Overall         SCHEDULE   
       MA #1         MA #1         *Johns Hopkins          CC           20-3, 20-3         WON at McDaniel 70-56; vs Washington College 2/21   
       MA #2         MA #3         Dickinson          CC          19-4, 19-4         WON vs Muhlenberg 53-43; at Franklin and Marshall 2/21   
       MA #3         MA #2         *Catholic          LAND          20-2, 20-3         WON at Juniata 75-60; at Scranton 2/21   
       MA #4         MA #5         Franklin and Marshall          CC          19-4, 19-4         LOST at Gettysburg 76-62; vs Dickinson 2/21   
       MA #5         MA #4         Scranton          LAND          18-5, 18-5         WON at Merchant Marine 66-60; vs Catholic 2/21   
       MA #6         MA #6         *St. Mary's (Md.)          CAC          16-4, 18-4         WON vs Christopher Newport; at Southern Virginia 2/21   
                                                      

    Two huge games in this region with F&M hosting Dickinson and Scranton hosting Catholic.

    F&M beat Dickenson 66-53
    Scranton beat Catholic 83-71

    that muddies up the waters in the Mid-Atlantic.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2015, 06:14:16 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 21, 2015, 05:10:51 PM
    that muddies up the waters in the Mid-Atlantic.

    That's the understatement of the year... this region is just not putting it together when it needs to.

    I have said, I thought Scranton would at least be safer if they won today and lost in the conf finals. I have also said F&M was in trouble with the loss earlier. However, I am just not sure at all after F&M stayed where they were ranked despite their SOS. It is going to be interesting on Wednesday.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 21, 2015, 06:26:49 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2015, 01:58:30 PM
    Chalk except that ETB loss. Probably swap with VWU.

    Tragically unhip poster asks, what is the meaning of "chalk" in this context?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 21, 2015, 06:29:07 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 21, 2015, 06:26:49 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2015, 01:58:30 PM
    Chalk except that ETB loss. Probably swap with VWU.

    Tragically unhip poster asks, what is the meaning of "chalk" in this context?
    Higher seed (or in this case the only seeded team) wins
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2015, 06:49:17 PM
    MAC Commonwealth:

    Monday, February 23:
    #5 Arcadia vs. #4 Alvernia at 7pm

    Wednesday, February 25:
    #3 Hood vs. #2 Stevenson at 8pm (may change)
    #4/#5 winner vs. #1 Lycoming at TBD

    Saturday, February 28:
    Championship Game at highest seed

    MAC Freedom:

    Wednesday, February 25: (http://wednesday,%20february%2025:)
    #4 King's vs. #1 Misericordia at 7pm
    #3 Desales vs. #2 Delaware Valley at 7pm

    Saturday, February 28:
    Championship Game at highest seed

    Centennial Conference:

    Wednesday, February 25
    #5 McDaniel vs. #4 Gettysburg

    Friday, February 26
    #3 Dickinson vs. #2 F&M
    #4/#5 winner vs. #1 Johns Hopkins

    Saturday, February 27
    Championship game
    Semifinals and championship game at #1 Johns Hopkins
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 21, 2015, 06:49:49 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 21, 2015, 06:26:49 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2015, 01:58:30 PM
    Chalk except that ETB loss. Probably swap with VWU.

    Tragically unhip poster asks, what is the meaning of "chalk" in this context?

    It comes from horse racing when the odds were placed an chalk boards.  I don't know how its evolved into the lingo of other sports but generally if you say something goes 'chalk' its the favorites all winning.  That also happens never.

    Its also a racist term in some parts of the country I guess, which is neat. :-[
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 12:26:19 AM
    Looks like we got our first official Pool C candidate as NE #2 Bates falls to Wesleyan in the NESCAC quarterfinals 66-59.

    They should be safe.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 01:06:24 AM


       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       Atl#1      *Richard Stockton (NJAC)       19-5, 19-5      WON vs Montclair State 77-56; 1st round bye in tourney   
       Atl#2      William PatersoN (NJAC)       19-5, 19-5      LOST vs Rowan 62-60; 1st round bye in tourney   
       Atl#3      *Baruch (CUNYAC)       18-5, 18-5      LOST at Brooklyn 75-68; vs CCNY in quarterfinals 2/22   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)       19-5, 19-5      WON vs Baruch 75-68; vs John Jay in quaterfinals 2/22   
       Atl#5      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)       16-8, 16-8      WON vs Ramapo 84-68; vs Rowan in quarterfinals 2/22   
       Atl#6      *Sage College (SKY)       18-4, 19-4      WON at Mount St. Mary 93-91; WON at Sarah Lawrence 72-35   
       Atl#7      Staten Island (CUNYAC)       17-7, 17-7      LOST to Lehman College 81-64; vs York College in quarterfinals 2/22   
                            

    Nothing happened here on Saturday. Big Sunday with Baruch, Brooklyn and Rutgers-Newark trying to avoid losses and being thrown into Pool C land.




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)       20-4, 20-4      WON at Wheaton 89-55   
       C#2      **Whitewater (WIAC)       19-2, 20-3      WON vs Oshkosh 69-47; WON at Stout 86-77   
       C#3      **Stevens Point (WIAC)       20-4, 20-4      WON at Superior 70-60   
       C#4      Washington U. (UAA)       17-5, 17-5      WON vs NYU 97-75; vs Brandeis 2/22   
       C#5      Elmhurst (CCIW)       19-5, 19-5      LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 96-66   
       C#6      *St. Norbert (MWC)       21-1, 21-1      WON vs Cornell 58-48   
       C#7      IWU (CCIW)       17-7, 17-7      WON vs Elmhurst 96-66   
       C#8      North Central (CCIW)       15-7, 17-7      WON vs North Park 82-72   
                            

    Point and Whitewater both won, but the Warhawks get the top seed in the WIAC tourney by virtue of the coin flip. Both IWU and NCC keep their Pool C bids alive with wins while Elmhurst will probably need a win against IWU in the semi-final round of the CCIW tourney to assure a Pool C bid (should they fall in the Final, of course). Same with IWU, if they beat Elmhurst again, they should be in good shape for a Pool C bid since they would've gone 2-1 against them (a sure tie-breaker in the NCAA's eyes).



       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       E#1      *St. John Fisher (E8)       20-2, 20-2      LOST at Alfred 60-59; WON at Hartwick 69-68; LOSTat Stevens 60-54   
       E#2      *Plattsburgh St.  (SUNYAC)       16-6, 16-6      WON at Potsdam St. 71-67; WON vs Brockport St. 60-45; LOST vs Geneseo St. 80-73   
       E#3      ***NYU (UAA)       16-6, 16-6      LOST at Washington U. 97-75; at Chicago 2/22   
       E#4      Hobart   (LL)       16-6, 16-7      WON vs Rochester Tech 53-51; at Union 2/22   
       E#5      *Skidmore (LL)       16-7, 16-7      WON at St. Lawrence 72-67 OT; vs Clarkson 2/22   
       E#6      *Clarkson (LL)       17-5, 18-5      WON vs St. Lawrence 68-62; at Skidmore 2/22   
                            

    Plattsburgh State actually lost at home, so they could drop a spot despite NYU already losing. If NYU loses again on Sunday, then Plattsburgh State should stay at #2.




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       GL#1      *Marietta (OAC)       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Otterbein 95-69; vs Ohio Northern 2/22   
       GL#2      *Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)       19-4, 19-4      WON vs Oberlin 106-76; WON at DePauw 86-77   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)       18-5, 18-5      WON vs Allegheny 80-63; WON at Oberlin 58-45   
       GL#4      Mount Union (OAC)       18-5, 18-5      LOST at John Carroll 88-81; WON at Wilmington 74-71   
       GL#5      John Carroll (OAC)       17-5, 17-5      WON vs Mount Union 88-81, at Muskingum 2/22   
       GL#6      CWR (UAA)       12-6, 14-7      WON at Brandeis 71-55; LOST vs Emory 71-65; vs Rochester 2/22   
       GL#7      *Calvin (MIAA)       16-5, 17-6      WON at Olivet 87-74; WON at Albion 71-54   
       GL#8      *PS-Behrend (AMCC)       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Hilbert 64-62; WON vs Pitt-Greensburg 91-64   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)       14-7, 15-8      WON vs Kalamazoo 67-55; WON vs Adrian 56-41   
                            

    Everyone who played on Saturday, won. Let's see if John Carroll can keep the momentum going after topping Mount Union.




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       MA#1      *Johns Hopkins (CC)       20-3, 20-3      WON at McDaniel 70-56; WON vs Washington College87-58   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)       19-4, 19-4      WON vs Muhlenberg 53-43; LOST at Franklin and Marshall 69-53   
       MA#3      *Catholic (LAND)       20-2, 20-3      WON at Juniata 75-60; LOST at Scranton 83-71   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)       19-4, 19-4      LOST at Gettysburg 76-62; WON vs Dickinson 69-53   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)       18-5, 18-5      WON at Merchant Marine 66-60; WON vs Catholic 83-71   
       MA#6      *St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       16-4, 18-4      WON vs Christopher Newport 88-78; WON at Southern Virginia 83-61   
                            
                         
    As previously mentioned, this region is a mess. Franklin and Marshall and Scranton beat conference foes who were ranked above them in this week's regional rankings. I do think there's a good possibility that no one moves.




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       NE#1      *Babson (NEWMAC)       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Coast Guard 66-51; WON vs MIT 62-51   
       NE#2      Bates (NESCAC       18-5, 18-5      WON at St. Joseph's (Maine) 62-57; LOST vs Wesleyan in quarterfinals 66-59   
       NE#3      *Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)       18-4, 19-5      WON vs Colby in quarterfinals 66-63   
       NE#4      Amherst (NESCAC)       18-6, 18-6      WON at Tufts in quarterfinals 92-66   
       NE#5      *Eastern Connecticut (LEC)       19-4, 19-4      WON at Western Connecticut 70-60; WON vs Southern Maine 67-53   
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)       19-4, 19-4      WON at Wheaton (Mass.) 89-43; WON vs Clark 61-56   
       NE#7      Bowdoin (NESCAC)       17-6, 17-6      LOST vs Husson 72-61; WON vs Williams in quarterfinals 87-74   
       NE#8      Springfield (NEWMAC)       16-7, 16-7      WON vs Clark 65-57; WON at Coast Guard 73-51   
       NE#9      *Albertus Magnus (GNAC)       21-1, 21-1      WON vs Emmanuel 99-89; WON vs Mount Ida 97-68; WON vs Anna Maria 75-68   
       NE#10      RIC (LEC)       16-7, 16-7      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64; WON at Plymouth St. 69-41   
       NE#11      *Southern Vermont (NECC)       19-2, 20-3      WON at Elms 79-75; WON at Daniel Webster 91-78   
                            

    Bates is our first casualty into Pool C limbo. They couldn't get out of their 1st round NESCAC tourney. Everyone else that played also won.




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       So#1      *RMC (ODAC)       21-2, 21-2      WON vs Shenandoah 103-72; WON at Emory and Henry 82-63   
       So#2      *Emory (UAA)       17-5, 17-5      WON at CWR 71-65; at Carnegie Mellon 2/22   
       So#3      *East Texas Baptist (ASC)       19-4, 19-4      LOST at Howard Payne 81-77 WON at Sul Ross State 77-70   
       So#4      VWU (ODAC)       18-4, 19-4      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 68-58; WON vs Guildford 85-64   
       So#5      **Centre (SAA)       17-4, 18-4      WON at Berry 71-61; at Oglethorpe 2/22   
       So#6      *Hardin-Simmons (ASC)       17-6, 17-6      WON vs Concordia (TX) 102-98; WON vs Mary Hardin-Baylor 84-79   
       So#7      Louisiana College (ASC)       13-5, 13-9      WON at Univ. of the Ozarks 91-68; LOST  at Texas-Tyler 77-76   
       So#8      Mary Hardin-Baylor (ASC)       16-7, 16-7      WON at Texas-Dallas 76-75; LOST  at Hardin-Simmons 84-79   
                            

    With losses, Louisiana College and MHB need runs to the Finals of the ASC tourney to have any shot (and a slim one at that) of a Pool C bid.




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      SCHEDULE   
       W#1      *St. Thomas (MIAC)       20-2, 20-2      WON vs St. Olaf 66-49; LOST vs Bethel 71-65; WON vs Hamline 89-62   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)       20-3, 20-3      LOST at St/ Thomas 66-49; WON vs Concordia-Moorhead 65-60   
       W#3      *Buena Vista (IIAC)       17-5, 17-6      WON at Dubuque 94-80; LOST at Coe 69-67   
       W#4      Dubuque (IIAC)       18-4, 19-4      LOST vs Buena Vista 94-80; WON vs Luther 77-63   
       W#5      Whitman (NWC)       17-4, 18-5      WON at Puget Sound 85-73; WON at Pacific Lutheran 88-80 OT   
       W#6      *Whitworth (NWC)       20-3, 20-3      WON at Pacific Lutheran 68-39; WON at Puget Sound 66-63   
       W#7      Chapman (SCIAC)       13-3, 18-3      LOST at Redlands 62-59; WON vs Cal. Lutheran 86-70; WON vs La Verne 81-40   

    Buena Vista will probably stay ahead of Dubuque even after losing to the Kohawks since they beat the Spartans earlier this week. Whitman and Whitworth each avoided catastrophe with close wins.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2015, 01:15:49 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2015, 01:19:07 PM
    Pat,

    Love your "regionally ranked teams" specific scoreboard!

    missed a couple games on Thurs. though.

    Yeah -- just realized today I hadn't updated it with the new ranking.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 22, 2015, 11:21:09 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 12:26:19 AM
    Looks like we got our first official Pool C candidate as NE #2 Bates falls to Wesleyan in the NESCAC quarterfinals 66-59.

    They should be safe.

    If Bates ends up ranked behind WPI in the final ranking from the Northeast they wouldn't be "safe", they'd be dependent on Pool A upsets.  Bates shouldn't be ranked behind WPI but you never know.  Teams that lose in quarterfinals of tournaments usually aren't treated well in the final rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 11:44:39 AM
    Bates' SOS is .619 and 4-4 vRRO. WPI's is .523 and 3-2. That's a pretty big gap in SOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2015, 03:27:42 PM

    Staten Island just lost in their conference quarterfinals - likely drops them out of Pool C contention altogether.  Either Brooklyn or Baruch will be on the board ahead of them (plus at least one, maybe two or three NJAC teams).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2015, 05:56:56 PM
    Potential bubble-bursters -- conferences with only one team who would fare well in the Pool C discussion. If these teams lose, it could mean one less Pool C bid. Not all of these are slam-dunk Pool C locks.

    ASC: East Texas Baptist
    Empire 8: St. John Fisher
    GNAC: Albertus Magnus
    Midwest Conference: St. Norbert
    SAA: Centre

    Potential bubble-bursters: -- conferences with one team who would fare well in Pool C discussion and a second team on the fringe of Pool C discussion:

    IIAC: Dubuque/Buena Vista
    Little East: Eastern Connecticut (Rhode Island College)
    Landmark: Catholic (Scranton)
    OAC: Marietta (Mount Union/John Carroll)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 22, 2015, 06:45:38 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 11:44:39 AM
    Bates' SOS is .619 and 4-4 vRRO. WPI's is .523 and 3-2. That's a pretty big gap in SOS.

    In the last rankings WPI looked out of position to me ahead of Springfield and Bowdoin (both have much stronger SOS numbers).  If they did that again and placed Bates behind WPI it would be trouble for Bates.  WPI isn't a slam dunk to get a C.

    I agree, they shouldn't be behind WPI but the Northeast put Springfield and Bowdoin behind WPI already.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: warriorcat on February 22, 2015, 08:17:52 PM
    In the Bates vs WPI Pool C discussion, remember that Bates is done playing and to be a Pool C candidate WPI would have taken a loss in its conference tournament.  Outside of losing to Babson in the final, that loss could push them down even further in the region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 09:30:18 PM
    When discussing Pool C consideration, it's assumed everyone takes one more loss.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 09:39:20 PM
    Knight,

    You really think Albertus Magnus has a Pool C shot? They are pretty far down the pecking order in that region and their potential loss won't be against a regional ranked opponent and won't help their SOS, unlike someone like Amherst, WPI or Springfield.

    Sac,

    Bates only has one more loss than WPI. Springfield has THREE more losses and Bowdoin has TWO more (now 3 after losing this week). SOS can only go so far when those losses pile up compared to other teams (with three less losses), IMO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 22, 2015, 09:56:52 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 09:39:20 PM
    Knight,

    You really think Albertus Magnus has a Pool C shot? They are pretty far down the pecking order in that region and their potential loss won't be against a regional ranked opponent and won't help their SOS, unlike someone like Amherst, WPI or Springfield.

    Sac,

    Bates only has one more loss than WPI. Springfield has THREE more losses and Bowdoin has TWO more (now 3 after losing this week). SOS can only go so far when those losses pile up compared to other teams (with three less losses), IMO.

    Oh I understand, but when it comes to national selection Springfield and Bowdoin would be chosen quicker than WPI in my estimation.  Strong SOS numbers really stand out when you compare them across 8 different regions.   WPI will be going up against teams with similar records and a lot better SOS numbers for several rounds at the table.

    This was the mock selection I did a couple days ago, because of where WPI is ranked in the Northeast they hit the table before Springfield and Bowdoin.  That's the danger for Bates now, getting caught behind WPI(which we both agree they shouldn't)......
    QuoteSelected in order, number is KS's Pool C Ranking
    1.  Bates
    2.  Whitewater
    3.  Emory
    4.  Washington
    5.  William Patterson
    6.  Amherst
    10.  Dickenson
    11.  Wooster
    12.  Elmhurst**
    8.  Illinois Wesleyan**
    ----------------------------------------bubble
    13.  North Central**
    14.  Va. Wesleyan
    16.  WPI
    9.  Bowdoin
    7.  Springfield

    One of the CCIW's won't be in there, but with enough upsets I think the teams behind WPI aren't a cinch to get selected.  Bowdoin and Springfiled would get picked faster if they ranked ahead of WPI.

    It would be even more severe this week as WPI is now #20 of KS's list.

    If I've learned anything through this process its that teams that lose in the quarterfinals of their conference tournaments are usually not given many breaks when it comes to the final regional rankings.  It would be harsh if  Bates didn't make it.  I think its been awhile since such a highly seeded team from one of the big 5 conferences lost in the quarterfinals.  I'm not sure the RAC's have ever had to deal with that actually.

    Wed's ranking will be interesting since it will include Bates' loss.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2015, 10:14:12 PM
    Remember... Bowdoin lost in the quarterfinals last year and made the NCAA tournament. Their SOS was not nearly as good as Bates this year and many thought they would be out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2015, 10:20:05 PM
    I don't think Albertus Magnus has a great chance, but they do have some chance. Pool C teams would just rather they win.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2015, 10:22:20 PM
    Something to keep in mind that I have heard a lot in the last few weeks... teams who have below .500 SOS and below .667 WP% are most likely not going to make the tournament.

    As I said on Hoopsville on Thursday... let's start there as the benchmark. If at-large teams make the tournament with SOS and WP% below those numbers, fine. However, if we keep those benchmarks in mind, it will probably help us understand who is in and who is out of the tournament to start.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 12:16:46 AM
    Results are final for the week. I added SOS to help us out.

    Green is Conference Leader/Pool A

    Red is Pool C Candidate/regular season complete (lost in conference tourney)



       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      Week      SOS      SCHEDULE   
       Atl#1      Rich. Stock. (NJAC)       19-5, 19-5       1-0      0.579      WON vs Montclair State 77-56; 1st round bye in tourney   
       Atl#2      Will. Pat. (NJAC)       19-5, 19-5       0-1      0.555      LOST vs Rowan 62-60; 1st round bye in tourney   
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)        18-5, 18-5       1-1      0.492      LOST at Brooklyn 75-68; WON vs CCNY in quarterfinals 72-55   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)       19-5, 19-5       2-0      0.490      WON vs Baruch 75-68; WON vs John Jay in quaterfinals 83-68   
       Atl#5      Rutgers-New. (NJAC)       16-8, 16-8       2-0      0.559      WON vs Ramapo 84-68;  WON vs Rowan in quarterfinals 83-58   
       Atl#6      Sage College (SKY)       18-4, 19-4       2-0      0.472      WON at Mount St. Mary 93-91; WON at Sarah Lawrence 72-35   
       Atl#7      Staten Island (CUNYAC)        17-7, 17-7       0-2      0.491      LOST to Lehman College 81-64; LOST vs York College in quarterfinals 70-67   
                                        

    Don't have to worry about Staten Island. Brooklyn should jump Baruch and William Paterson should be safe for now.




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      Week      SOS      SCHEDULE   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)       20-4, 20-4       1-0      0.584      WON at Wheaton 89-55   
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)       19-2, 20-3       2-0      0.561      WON vs Oshkosh 69-47; WON at Stout 86-77   
       C#3      Stevens Point (WIAC)       20-4, 20-4       1-0      0.582      WON at Superior 70-60   
       C#4      Washington U. (UAA)       17-5, 17-5       2-0      0.562      WON vs NYU 97-75; WON vs Brandeis 72-44   
       C#5      Elmhurst (CCIW)       19-5, 19-5       0-1      0.541      LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 96-66   
       C#6      St. Norbert (MWC)        21-1, 21-1       1-0      0.498      WON vs Cornell 58-48   
       C#7      IWU (CCIW)       17-7, 17-7       1-0      0.576      WON vs Elmhurst 96-66   
       C#8      North Central (CCIW)       15-7, 17-7       1-0      0.577      WON vs North Park 82-72   
                                        

    Stevens Point and Washington are safe. Elmhurst may stay above St. Norb's and probably won't jump the Green Knights yet. The question will be if Elmhurst loses in the semis to IWU, will they be safe? NCC probably has to make the Finals of the CCIW tourney.




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      Week      SOS      SCHEDULE   
       E#1      St. John Fisher (E8)        20-2, 20-2       1-2      0.493      LOST at Alfred 60-59; WON at Hartwick 69-68; LOST at Stevens 60-54   
       E#2      Platts. St.  (SUNYAC)        16-6, 16-6       2-1      0.542      WON at Potsdam St. 71-67; WON vs Brockport St. 60-45; LOST vs Geneseo St. 80-73   
       E#3      NYU (UAA)       16-6, 16-6       0-2      0.532      LOST at Washington U. 97-75; LOST at Chicago 77-60   
       E#4      Hobart   (LL)       16-6, 16-7       2-0      0.507      WON vs Rochester Tech 53-51; WON at Union 85-57   
       E#5      Skidmore (LL)        16-7, 16-7       2-0      0.542      WON at St. Lawrence 72-67 OT; WON vs Clarkson 69-53   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)       17-5, 18-5       1-1      0.486      WON vs St. Lawrence 68-62; LOST at Skidmore 69-53   
                                        


    Plattsburgh State may not have enough to jump St. John Fisher yet. Could NYU drop like a rock to 5th?




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      Week      SOS      SCHEDULE   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)        21-2, 21-2       2-0      0.512      WON vs Otterbein 95-69; WON vs Ohio Northern 74-65   
       GL#2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)        19-4, 19-4       2-0      0.528      WON vs Oberlin 106-76; WON at DePauw 86-77   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)       18-5, 18-5       2-0      0.546      WON vs Allegheny 80-63; WON at Oberlin 58-45   
       GL#4      Mount Union (OAC)       18-5, 18-5       1-1      0.523      LOST at John Carroll 88-81; WONat Wilmington 74-71   
       GL#5      John Carroll (OAC)       17-5, 17-5       2-0      0.520      WON vs Mount Union 88-81, WON at Muskingum 101-79   
       GL#6      CWR (UAA)       12-6, 14-7       1-2      0.574      WON at Brandeis 71-55; LOST vs Emory 71-65; LOST vs Rochester 82-78 OT   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)        16-5, 17-6       2-0      0.512      WON at Olivet 87-74; WON at Albion 71-54   
       GL#8      PS-Behrend (AMCC)        21-2, 21-2       2-0      0.446      WON vs Hilbert 64-62; WON vs Pitt-Greensburg 91-64   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)       14-7, 15-8       2-0      0.552      WON vs Kalamazoo 67-55; WON vs Adrian 56-41   
                                        

    John Carroll and Mount Union will probably swap and, amazingly, I wouldn't be surprised if CWR stays ahead of Calvin.




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      Week      SOS      SCHEDULE   
       MA#1      Johns Hopkins (CC)        20-3, 20-3       2-0      0.530      WON at McDaniel 70-56; WON vs Washington College87-58   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)       19-4, 19-4       1-1      0.528      WON vs Muhlenberg 53-43; LOST at Franklin and Marshall 69-53   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)        20-2, 20-3       1-1      0.485      WON at Juniata 75-60; LOST at Scranton 83-71   
       MA#4      Frank. & Marsh. (CC)       19-4, 19-4       1-1      0.497      LOST at Gettysburg 76-62; WON vs Dickinson 69-53   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)       18-5, 18-5       2-0      0.507      WON at Merchant Marine 66-60; WON vs Catholic 83-71   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)        16-4, 18-4       2-0      0.479      WON vs Christopher Newport 88-78; WON at Southern Virginia 83-61   
                                        

    I could see Scranton jumping Franklin and Marshall and that's about it.




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      Week      SOS      SCHEDULE   
       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)        21-2, 21-2       2-0      0.561      WON vs Coast Guard 66-51; WON vs MIT 62-51   
       NE#2      Bates (NESCAC)       18-5, 18-5       1-1      0.619      WON at St. Joseph's (Maine) 62-57; LOST vs Wesleyan in quarterfinals 66-59   
       NE#3      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)        18-4, 19-5       1-0      0.534      WON vs Colby in quarterfinals 66-63   
       NE#4      Amherst (NESCAC)       18-6, 18-6       1-0      0.567      WON at Tufts in quarterfinals 92-66   
       NE#5      E. Connecticut (LEC)        19-4, 19-4       2-0      0.562      WON at Western Connecticut 70-60; WON vs Southern Maine 67-53   
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)       19-4, 19-4       2-0      0.523      WON at Wheaton (Mass.) 89-43; WON vs Clark 61-56   
       NE#7      Bowdoin (NESCAC)       17-6, 17-6       1-1      0.563      LOST vs Husson 72-61; WON vs Williams in quarterfinals 87-74   
       NE#8      Springfield (NEWMAC)       16-7, 16-7       2-0      0.581      WON vs Clark 65-57; WON at Coast Guard 73-51   
       NE#9      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)        21-1, 21-1       3-0      0.475      WON vs Emmanuel 99-89; WON vs Mount Ida 97-68; WON vs Anna Maria 75-68   
       NE#10      RIC (LEC)       16-7, 16-7       2-0      0.555      WON vs Mass-Dartmouth 75-64; WON at Plymouth St. 69-41   
       NE#11      S. Vermont (NECC)        19-2, 20-3       2-0      0.479      WON at Elms 79-75; WON at Daniel Webster 91-78   
                                        

    I could actually see Bates staying at #2. Bowdoin will probably drop behind Springfield.




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      Week      SOS      SCHEDULE   
       So#1      RMC (ODAC)        21-2, 21-2       2-0      0.556      WON vs Shenandoah 103-72; WON at Emory and Henry 82-63   
       So#2      Emory (UAA)        17-5, 17-5       2-0      0.564      WON at CWR 71-65; WON at Carnegie Mellon 75-63   
       So#3      ETBU (ASC)       19-4, 19-4       1-1      0.520      LOST at Howard Payne 81-77 WON at Sul Ross State 77-70   
       So#4      VWU (ODAC)       18-4, 19-4       2-0      0.531      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 68-58; WON vs Guildford 85-64   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)        17-4, 18-4       2-0      0.523      WON at Berry 71-61; WON at Oglethorpe 63-61   
       So#6      Hardin-Simmons (ASC)        17-6, 17-6       2-0      0.513      WON vs Concordia (TX) 102-98; WON vs Mary Hardin-Baylor 84-79   
       So#7      Louisiana Coll. (ASC)       13-5, 13-9       1-1      0.557      WON at Univ. of the Ozarks 91-68; LOST  at Texas-Tyler 77-76   
       So#8      MHB (ASC)       16-7, 16-7       1-1      0.517      WON at Texas-Dallas 76-75; LOST  at Hardin-Simmons 84-79   
                                        

    I don't see Louisiana College or MHB getting Pool C bids.




       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      Week      SOS      SCHEDULE   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)        20-2, 20-2       2-1      0.566      WON vs St. Olaf 66-49; LOST vs Bethel 71-65; WON vs Hamline 89-62   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)       20-3, 20-3       1-1      0.506      LOST at St. Thomas 66-49; WON vs Concordia-Moorhead 65-60   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)        17-5, 17-6       1-1      0.509      WON at Dubuque 94-80; LOST at Coe 69-67   
       W#4      Dubuque (IIAC)       18-4, 19-4       1-1      0.521      LOST vs Buena Vista 94-80; WON vs Luther 77-63   
       W#5      Whitman (NWC)       17-4, 18-5       2-0      0.519      WON at Puget Sound 85-73; WON at Pacific Lutheran 88-80 OT   
       W#6      Whitworth (NWC)        20-3, 20-3       2-0      0.473      WON at Pacific Lutheran 68-39; WON at Puget Sound 66-63   
       W#7      Chapman (SCIAC)       13-3, 18-3       2-1      0.512      LOST at Redlands 62-59; WON vs Cal. Lutheran 86-70; WON vs La Verne 81-40   
                                        

    Lots of losses, but might actually stay status quo.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 23, 2015, 07:09:31 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2015, 10:14:12 PM
    Remember... Bowdoin lost in the quarterfinals last year and made the NCAA tournament. Their SOS was not nearly as good as Bates this year and many thought they would be out.

    If I recall correctly we all thought Bowdoin was one of the last teams in, in a year with very few Pool A upsets that affected Pool C.


    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2015, 10:22:20 PM
    Something to keep in mind that I have heard a lot in the last few weeks... teams who have below .500 SOS and below .667 WP% are most likely not going to make the tournament.

    As I said on Hoopsville on Thursday... let's start there as the benchmark. If at-large teams make the tournament with SOS and WP% below those numbers, fine. However, if we keep those benchmarks in mind, it will probably help us understand who is in and who is out of the tournament to start.

    The only ranked teams at .667 or lower were Hope, who is now 16-7 and can only finish at .667 or better, and Case Western who is now 13-8 and can't finish above .667 and likely won't be ranked this week.

    On the SOS side, the only teams ranked with below .500 SOS are mostly current Pool A teams
    Baruch .492
    Sage  .472
    St. Norbert   .498
    St. John Fisher  .493
    PSU-Behrend .446
    Catholic .485
    St. Mary's .479
    Albertus Magnus .475
    So. Vermont .479
    Whitworth .473

    St. John Fisher and St. Norbert are the only two currently blocking better C candidates that will likely make the final board.  Both are probably pretty good C candidates and may even get their SOS above .500 after conference tournaments.  The rest look pretty sketchy as C candidates to me.

    Brooklyn  .490
    Clarkson .486
    Frank & Marsh .497

    These 3 are all Pool C candidates and at last ranking were not blocking anyone who would make Pool C.  F&M can get its SOS above .500 through their conference tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 08:05:05 AM
    Good work, Sac.

    I also think Scranton will jump F&M this week. Maybe I will put winning % in instead of record this week.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 23, 2015, 08:09:38 AM
    KS's RPI Index updated through Sunday's games:
    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    Current Pool C -  (an approximation, not gospel)
    1.  Bates 19-6  .760/.613/3-4
    2.  Whitewater 21-2  .840/.574/2-4
    3.  Washington 19-5  .792/.562/4-3
    4.  Amherst 19-6  .760/.570/4-2
    5.  Illinois Wesleyan  18-7  .720/.577/4-4*
    6.  Va. Wesleyan  20-4  .833/.537/0-3
    7.  William Patterson 19-6   .760/.557/5-2
    -----------------------------------------------------------bubble
    8.  Wooster 20-5  .800/.543/2-2
    9.  North Central  16-7  .696/.577/3-5*
    10.  Dickinson 20-5   .800/.541/3-2
    11. Bowdoin 18-7  .720/566/1-4
    12.  Springfield 18-7  .720/.565/1-4
    13.  St. Olaf  21-4  .840/.522/1-2
    14.  Elmhurst 19-6  .760/.545/4-3*
    16.  Rutgers-Newark  18-8  .692/.566/1-5
    17.  Whitman  19-4  .826/.514/2-3
    18.  East Texas Baptist  19-5  .792/.524/4-2
    19.  Dubuque 19-5  .792/.524/0-3

    20.  WPI 21-4  .840/.508/2-2
    21.  Rhode Island Coll   18-7  .720/.546/0-3
    22.  Mt. Union  19-6  .760/.530/2-4
    23.  Scranton 20-5   .800/.516/1-1
    24.  John Carroll   .792/.516/3-2
    25.  St. Johns  15-9  .625/.568/0-6
    26.  Wesleyan 17-8  .680/.549/3-4
    27.  Hope 16-7   .696/.543/2-5
    29.  Middlebury 16-6  .727/.532/3-3
    31.  Frank & Marsh 20-5  .800/.505/3-2

    *--the 3 CCIW's, all probably have to win their CCIW semi-final game to continue being a strong C candidate.  Even with a loss they all still have really solid criteria for selection though.

    #15 is Williams, with 10 losses there's no way they get ranked


    Current Pool A's that would get C's   (number on left is KS' national rank)
    1.  Babson  23-2  .920/.560/6-2
    3.  St. Thomas 22-3  .880/.568/5-0
    4.  Augustana  21-4  .840/.579/5-2
    5.  Stevens Point 21-4  .840/.574/2-4
    7.  Randolph 23-2  .920/.537/4-0
    8.  Richard Stockton 20-5  .800/.574/5-1
    9.  E. Conn.  21-4  .840/.555/2-2
    10.  Emory  19-5   .792/.563/5-3
    13.  Johns Hopkins 22-3  .880/.529/3-2
    16.  Ohio Wesleyan 21-4  .840/.534/3-1
    17.  St. Norbert 22-1  .957/.495/0-1
    18.  Marietta 23-2  .920/.506/3-1

    --I wouldn't feel comfortable calling OWU, St. Norbert or Marietta "locks" if they lost in their tournament QF's


    Current Pool A's that aren't in top 19 of Pool C that could get a C bid (number on left is KS's national rank)
    23.  Trinity  19-4  .826/.531/4-0
    30.  Centre 19-4  .826/.518/0-1
    31.  Albertus Magnus 24-1   .960/.473/0-1





    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 23, 2015, 08:12:07 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 08:05:05 AM
    Good work, Sac.

    I also think Scranton will jump F&M this week. Maybe I will put winning % in instead of record this week.

    I don't know, I think F&M might still be ahead of them, their RvRRO's seem pretty large in this comparison.  I'm also not sure if KS updated the RvRRO numbers for this past week so they might have changed.

    23.  Scranton 20-5   .800/.516/1-1
    31.  Frank & Marsh 20-5  .800/.505/3-2
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 23, 2015, 08:31:16 AM
    Question for Dave on your .667/under .500 comment

    Could the committee really ignore a team like North Central, as the 8th ranked Central Region team (unlikely anyone not ranked gets ranked).  If North Central loses to Augustana this week, this would be their criteria

    North Central  16-8       .667/.596/3-6

    The SOS is approximated where it should finish playing at Augustana this week.  I think that would be hard to ignore along with their 9 RvRRO's in the final few rounds.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2015, 09:16:16 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 23, 2015, 08:31:16 AM
    Question for Dave on your .667/under .500 comment

    Could the committee really ignore a team like North Central, as the 8th ranked Central Region team (unlikely anyone not ranked gets ranked).  If North Central loses to Augustana this week, this would be their criteria

    North Central  16-8       .667/.596/3-6

    The SOS is approximated where it should finish playing at Augustana this week.  I think that would be hard to ignore along with their 9 RvRRO's in the final few rounds.

    I mean, .667 isn't below .667.  :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2015, 10:34:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 23, 2015, 08:12:07 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 08:05:05 AM
    Good work, Sac.

    I also think Scranton will jump F&M this week. Maybe I will put winning % in instead of record this week.

    I don't know, I think F&M might still be ahead of them, their RvRRO's seem pretty large in this comparison.  I'm also not sure if KS updated the RvRRO numbers for this past week so they might have changed.

    23.  Scranton 20-5   .800/.516/1-1
    31.  Frank & Marsh 20-5  .800/.505/3-2

    I would agree... I am not sure Scranton's win over Catholic is good enough to jump F&M's win over Dickinson. Call those even and go back to the fact F&M has a better vRRO - which is what I think kept them ahead of Scranton last week when both teams took a bad loss into those rankings.

    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2015, 09:16:16 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 23, 2015, 08:31:16 AM
    Question for Dave on your .667/under .500 comment

    Could the committee really ignore a team like North Central, as the 8th ranked Central Region team (unlikely anyone not ranked gets ranked).  If North Central loses to Augustana this week, this would be their criteria

    North Central  16-8       .667/.596/3-6

    The SOS is approximated where it should finish playing at Augustana this week.  I think that would be hard to ignore along with their 9 RvRRO's in the final few rounds.

    I mean, .667 isn't below .667.  :)

    Yeah... below .667 is the key ... below. I'm not saying a team at .667 is not going to get in... I am just hearing enough stuff to indicate having a 16-9 record (i.e. Carthage last year) isn't going to cut it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 23, 2015, 10:42:15 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 23, 2015, 07:09:31 AM

    If I recall correctly we all thought Bowdoin was one of the last teams in, in a year with very few Pool A upsets that affected Pool C.



    Bowdoin's SOS was mediocre compared to Bates.  Bates has the highest SOS in the land and only 6 losses.  They'll have no trouble getting in.

    If I remember correctly from last year's selection is that the regional committee's took feedback from the national committee and we saw some tweeking the second week of the regional rankings along the lines that the national committee wanted to see.  To me, the Central is the one to watch because you have a lot of teams with ok records and awesome SOS mixed with one team with an awesome record and mediocre SOS (St. Norbert).  If the committee puts IWU ahead of St. Norbert, who are clearly superior to Brooklyn, Barach and Franklin and Marshall, then is this an indication that the Pool C selections will rotate through the Central and Northeast and practically ignore the other regions?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 10:43:28 AM
    Just a few observations.

    Obviously all three CCIW teams can't win their semi-final games as IWU and Elmhurst play each other. It will be interesting if IWU jumps Elmhurst after their win over them. I really think NCC has to make the final to have any shot. Amd despite the superior SOS, I think it's more important for IWU to beat Elmhurst than the other way around.

    Also, the MWC still only has a four-team tourney, as far as I know.

    And not that it matyers, Stevens Point is actually in the Pool C grouping as they lost the all important coin flip to Whitewater.  They are the official #1 seed. :-)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 11:05:55 AM
    Oh yeah. I also don't see St. Norbert being an issue. They are so much better than the other 3 MWC teams in the tourney.  If they do end up losing, IWU (and NCC) should jump them and Elmhurst should stay ahead of them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2015, 11:16:06 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 11:05:55 AM
    Oh yeah. I also don't see St. Norbert being an issue. They are so much better than the other 3 MWC teams in the tourney.  If they do end up losing, IWU (and NCC) should jump them and Elmhurst should stay ahead of them.

    If St. Norbert gets to the MWC final, it looks like their SOS will end up being just above .500. I think that gets them IN, with a .920 WP and 0-1 RvRRO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 23, 2015, 12:23:57 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2015, 10:34:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 23, 2015, 08:12:07 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 08:05:05 AM
    Good work, Sac.

    I also think Scranton will jump F&M this week. Maybe I will put winning % in instead of record this week.

    I don't know, I think F&M might still be ahead of them, their RvRRO's seem pretty large in this comparison.  I'm also not sure if KS updated the RvRRO numbers for this past week so they might have changed.

    23.  Scranton 20-5   .800/.516/1-1
    31.  Frank & Marsh 20-5  .800/.505/3-2

    I would agree... I am not sure Scranton's win over Catholic is good enough to jump F&M's win over Dickinson. Call those even and go back to the fact F&M has a better vRRO - which is what I think kept them ahead of Scranton last week when both teams took a bad loss into those rankings.

    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2015, 09:16:16 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 23, 2015, 08:31:16 AM
    Question for Dave on your .667/under .500 comment

    Could the committee really ignore a team like North Central, as the 8th ranked Central Region team (unlikely anyone not ranked gets ranked).  If North Central loses to Augustana this week, this would be their criteria

    North Central  16-8       .667/.596/3-6

    The SOS is approximated where it should finish playing at Augustana this week.  I think that would be hard to ignore along with their 9 RvRRO's in the final few rounds.

    I mean, .667 isn't below .667.  :)

    Yeah... below .667 is the key ... below. I'm not saying a team at .667 is not going to get in... I am just hearing enough stuff to indicate having a 16-9 record (i.e. Carthage last year) isn't going to cut it.

      F&M had moved ahead of Scranton because of Scranton's loss, but the new rankings should reflect F&M's loss to Gburg since then with Scranton moving ahead of F&M.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2015, 01:05:34 PM
    This is true... however, I think F&M's win over Dickinson may counteract the loss and still give them better criteria (except SOS) than Scranton.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 23, 2015, 01:15:27 PM
     It can't counteract both the loss AND Scranton's win over Catholic. Choose 1 or the other but not both.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on February 23, 2015, 02:06:35 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 09:30:18 PM
    When discussing Pool C consideration, it's assumed everyone takes one more loss.

    That's part of why the UAA has a bit of an advantage (generally) in Pool C. Their Pool C contenders don't have to take the extra loss.

    That point is... muted... this year because of the meat grinder that has been the UAA this season... but...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 23, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 11:05:55 AM
    Oh yeah. I also don't see St. Norbert being an issue. They are so much better than the other 3 MWC teams in the tourney.  If they do end up losing, IWU (and NCC) should jump them and Elmhurst should stay ahead of them.

    Nah, it isn't St. Norbert being an issue - it's just a question of how can we take what's going on in the Central and compare it to other regions.  If St. Norbert iis sandwiched between 5 loss Elmhurst and 7 loss IWU, then what that say when we compare 7 loss IWU (or 7 loss North Central) to Brooklyn/Barach.  I'd say that it means that IWU and NCC are probably ahead of those two, which pretty much Pool C for the Atlantic ends at William Patterson.  Or if you compare St. Norbert with Franklin and Marshall and Scranton, I think you have to figure Norbert's ahead of both and then where does that put IWU and NCC with F&M and Scranton?

    My personal take in the moment is that the Atlantic will get one Pool C, the East none and the Mid-Atlantic none and the West one before every ranked team in the Central will have a Pool C if the current rankings continues to hold true.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 03:59:21 PM
    St. Norbert probably compares with other teams in other regions more equally than IWU or NCC do. I think the masses are saying that they are thinking St. Norbert is a road block for IWU, NCC or Elmhurst. That's what I'm taking that as.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 23, 2015, 04:29:15 PM

    if two of Elmhurst, IWU, NCC lose in the semi-finals they'll probably both be behind St. Norbert.  No matter what happens the third CCIW would be one of the last chosen anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2015, 05:30:47 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 23, 2015, 01:15:27 PM
    It can't counteract both the loss AND Scranton's win over Catholic. Choose 1 or the other but not both.

    You can choose both since Scranton's win only gives them a 1-1 vRRO and F&M has a 3-2 (including a win over a #1 Richard Stockton). Despite the loss, the win over Dickinson allows them to be 3-2 versus 2-3. I understand what you are trying to get at, but Scranton's only vRRO results are against Catholic - no one else.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 23, 2015, 07:48:22 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2015, 05:30:47 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 23, 2015, 01:15:27 PM
    It can't counteract both the loss AND Scranton's win over Catholic. Choose 1 or the other but not both.

    You can choose both since Scranton's win only gives them a 1-1 vRRO and F&M has a 3-2 (including a win over a #1 Richard Stockton). Despite the loss, the win over Dickinson allows them to be 3-2 versus 2-3. I understand what you are trying to get at, but Scranton's only vRRO results are against Catholic - no one else.

    You're leaving out the SOS difference which is in Scranton's favor.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2015, 08:08:12 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 23, 2015, 07:48:22 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2015, 05:30:47 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 23, 2015, 01:15:27 PM
    It can't counteract both the loss AND Scranton's win over Catholic. Choose 1 or the other but not both.

    You can choose both since Scranton's win only gives them a 1-1 vRRO and F&M has a 3-2 (including a win over a #1 Richard Stockton). Despite the loss, the win over Dickinson allows them to be 3-2 versus 2-3. I understand what you are trying to get at, but Scranton's only vRRO results are against Catholic - no one else.

    You're leaving out the SOS difference which is in Scranton's favor.

    A .011 'advantage' is essentially a tie.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2015, 08:14:11 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on February 23, 2015, 02:06:35 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 09:30:18 PM
    When discussing Pool C consideration, it's assumed everyone takes one more loss.

    That's part of why the UAA has a bit of an advantage (generally) in Pool C. Their Pool C contenders don't have to take the extra loss.

    That point is... muted... this year because of the meat grinder that has been the UAA this season... but...

    That, and an even bigger advantage - their teams are in FIVE different regions!  Rarely will a UAA team block another UAA team from even reaching the table.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 23, 2015, 08:35:41 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2015, 08:08:12 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 23, 2015, 07:48:22 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2015, 05:30:47 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 23, 2015, 01:15:27 PM
    It can't counteract both the loss AND Scranton's win over Catholic. Choose 1 or the other but not both.

    You can choose both since Scranton's win only gives them a 1-1 vRRO and F&M has a 3-2 (including a win over a #1 Richard Stockton). Despite the loss, the win over Dickinson allows them to be 3-2 versus 2-3. I understand what you are trying to get at, but Scranton's only vRRO results are against Catholic - no one else.

    You're leaving out the SOS difference which is in Scranton's favor.

    A .011 'advantage' is essentially a tie.

    I disagree; it's more than 1/3 of what's considered a 2-game difference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 23, 2015, 08:39:29 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 11:05:55 AM
    Oh yeah. I also don't see St. Norbert being an issue. They are so much better than the other 3 MWC teams in the tourney.  If they do end up losing, IWU (and NCC) should jump them and Elmhurst should stay ahead of them.

    Nah, it isn't St. Norbert being an issue - it's just a question of how can we take what's going on in the Central and compare it to other regions.  If St. Norbert iis sandwiched between 5 loss Elmhurst and 7 loss IWU, then what that say when we compare 7 loss IWU (or 7 loss North Central) to Brooklyn/Barach.  I'd say that it means that IWU and NCC are probably ahead of those two, which pretty much Pool C for the Atlantic ends at William Patterson.  Or if you compare St. Norbert with Franklin and Marshall and Scranton, I think you have to figure Norbert's ahead of both and then where does that put IWU and NCC with F&M and Scranton?

    My personal take in the moment is that the Atlantic will get one Pool C, the East none and the Mid-Atlantic none and the West one before every ranked team in the Central will have a Pool C if the current rankings continues to hold true.

    Dickinson could be ahead of every Central Pool C candidate save Whitewater.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 08:59:51 PM
    Dickinson's record easily trumps that of IWU, NCC and Elmhurst. But their results against vRRO is inferior to those teams, as is their SOS.

    By that I mean, more results.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 23, 2015, 09:44:59 PM
    Dickinson was  a top 7 Pool C midweek last week.  They also have a head-to-head win over North Central, one of their 3 biggest wins.  (Johns Hopkins, F&M, North Central)

    I would say they would for sure be picked ahead of Elmhurst/North Central and it could probably go either way with IWU.  IWU has some strong wins as well (Augustana, North Central, Elmhurst, Buena Vista).  It really depends on how serious the supposed '.030 SOS equals 2 wins' is taken to heart.


    5.  Illinois Wesleyan  18-7  .720/.577/4-4
    9.  North Central  16-7  .696/.577/3-5
    10.  Dickinson 20-5   .800/.541/3-2
    14.  Elmhurst 19-6  .760/.545/4-4

    Dickinson will probably add to their SOS a little more than IWU due to playing a neutral site semi-final while IWU hosts Elmhurst.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 10:14:21 PM
    IWU and Elmhurst play at Augustana.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 23, 2015, 10:24:29 PM
    My mistake.  Then Dickinson's sos improvement vs Iwu is minimal.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2015, 11:00:38 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 10:14:21 PM
    IWU and Elmhurst play at Augustana.
    Quote from: sac on February 23, 2015, 10:24:29 PM
    My mistake.  Then Dickinson's sos improvement vs Iwu is minimal.

    Since IWU won in Rock Island, but were crushed by Augie in B'town, we've adopted Carver as our new home court.  But we get to count it as 'neutral' - cool! ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 23, 2015, 11:13:35 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on February 23, 2015, 02:06:35 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 09:30:18 PM
    When discussing Pool C consideration, it's assumed everyone takes one more loss.

    That's part of why the UAA has a bit of an advantage (generally) in Pool C. Their Pool C contenders don't have to take the extra loss.

    That point is... muted... this year because of the meat grinder that has been the UAA this season... but...

    Still got to win the games, and non-conference is even more important for them since there's no redemption in a tourney. At least they double-round it!

    I generally don't like conference tournaments, because I think you prove your worth in the regular season instead of a 2-or-3 game turkey shoot.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on February 24, 2015, 07:41:41 AM
    Quote from: smedindy on February 23, 2015, 11:13:35 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on February 23, 2015, 02:06:35 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 09:30:18 PM
    When discussing Pool C consideration, it's assumed everyone takes one more loss.

    That's part of why the UAA has a bit of an advantage (generally) in Pool C. Their Pool C contenders don't have to take the extra loss.

    That point is... muted... this year because of the meat grinder that has been the UAA this season... but...

    Still got to win the games, and non-conference is even more important for them since there's no redemption in a tourney. At least they double-round it!

    I generally don't like conference tournaments, because I think you prove your worth in the regular season instead of a 2-or-3 game turkey shoot.

    There was a lot of healthy discussion about conference tournaments when the CCIW added theirs several years ago. Many made this same argument and is hard to argue with.

    But there is something redemptive about everybody (or whomever makes the conference tournament) getting one final chance to play their way into the dance. Of course, this argument is diminished when only the top X # of seeds make the torment instead of everybody...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2015, 08:03:06 AM

    Also, when you're a small conference only ever sending one team to the tournament, it's nice to know the team you send can win in clutch moments.  Peyton Manning wins the regular season.  Tom Brady wins the playoffs.  It works the same way for teams a lot of the time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 08:49:32 AM
    Quote from: John Gleich on February 24, 2015, 07:41:41 AM
    Quote from: smedindy on February 23, 2015, 11:13:35 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on February 23, 2015, 02:06:35 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2015, 09:30:18 PM
    When discussing Pool C consideration, it's assumed everyone takes one more loss.

    That's part of why the UAA has a bit of an advantage (generally) in Pool C. Their Pool C contenders don't have to take the extra loss.

    That point is... muted... this year because of the meat grinder that has been the UAA this season... but...

    Still got to win the games, and non-conference is even more important for them since there's no redemption in a tourney. At least they double-round it!

    I generally don't like conference tournaments, because I think you prove your worth in the regular season instead of a 2-or-3 game turkey shoot.

    There was a lot of healthy discussion about conference tournaments when the CCIW added theirs several years ago. Many made this same argument and is hard to argue with.

    But there is something redemptive about everybody (or whomever makes the conference tournament) getting one final chance to play their way into the dance. Of course, this argument is diminished when only the top X # of seeds make the torment instead of everybody...

    I think you can make arguments all around. On one hand, if you win from start to finish then yeah, you deserve to make the tournament at the end of the year, but what about teams who challenge themselves, take their lumps, and get better as the season progresses.

    Take a team like Alma in the MIAA. By all measures not a terrific team overall this year. #120 according to Massey which puts them between Wabash and Carthage. Nothing to laugh at, but not tournament quality. But they've had an interesting season. They played a very challenging non-conference schedule comprising WIAC, CCIW, and traditionally strong teams from the Ohio conferences. They lost almost all of these games. Six games into the MIAA season they were sitting at 4-13 (2-4). Then something happened. Maybe it was the schedule flipping to a home-friendly stretch. Maybe it was randomness at work. But they won seven of the last eight games (including wins over the top three in the MIAA: Calvin, Hope, and Trine) to finish 9-5 in the (admittedly second tier) conference and grab the fourth and final spot in the tournament. I think this is part of the fun of college basketball (to be clear, the most fun would be Alma going down hard in defeat on Thursday night).

    I wish the MIAA would go back to doing a full conference tournament rather than taking the top four seeds. I think there's something romantic about the idea that a #8 seed in a conference could go on a run and get into the tournament. Single elimination tournaments like the NCAAs are about crowning a champion, not determining who the best teams are.

    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2015, 08:03:06 AM
    Also, when you're a small conference only ever sending one team to the tournament, it's nice to know the team you send can win in clutch moments.  Peyton Manning wins the regular season.  Tom Brady wins the playoffs.  It works the same way for teams a lot of the time.

    Tom Brady's team has won a higher percentage of regular season games started by him (77%) than Peyton Manning's teams have (70%).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2015, 09:03:57 AM
    I'm torn. I love tourney time that creates those Cinderella teams. On the other hand, I think it's a shame when a team plays their butts off for 25 games and wins their regular season conference title only to have one thing go wrong, lose their conference tournament at some point and sit at home when some "lucky/hot" team gets to dance.

    And I'm not a fan of everyone and their mother making the conference tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 24, 2015, 09:34:36 AM
    Conference tournaments deciding the AQ's wouldn't be such a big deal if D3 had the same access ratio to the tournament as D1. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 24, 2015, 10:08:29 AM
    One advantage of playing a conference tournament is that you get late season tourney experience immediately prior to the national tournament. 

    Everyone who has posted on the subject so far could spend the entire day talking about the advantages and disadvantages of each and every conference in Division III.  I can definitely think of a few UAA programs that would love to have a conference tournament this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 24, 2015, 10:13:51 AM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2015, 08:14:11 PM
    That, and an even bigger advantage - their teams are in FIVE different regions!  Rarely will a UAA team block another UAA team from even reaching the table.

    But, what if I do not care if the other UAA teams make the national tournament?  Please help this novice understand.  It may help the conference, but how does, say Emory or NYU benefit?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Just Bill on February 24, 2015, 10:17:52 AM
    The UAA's bigger advantage is that they are spread out across multiple regions. They could have 3-4 teams "at the table" being considered at once. No one else has that kind of access to Pool C bids.

    I've always thought it D-III having about 50% of your teams make the tournament makes the most sense.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2015, 10:18:54 AM
    Quote from: WUH on February 24, 2015, 10:13:51 AM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2015, 08:14:11 PM
    That, and an even bigger advantage - their teams are in FIVE different regions!  Rarely will a UAA team block another UAA team from even reaching the table.

    But, what if I do not care if the other UAA teams make the national tournament?  Please help this novice understand.  It may help the conference, but how does, say Emory or NYU benefit?

    My point was that it helps the conference.  I suppose it could help Emory that they can't be blocked from the table by WashU, but the primary beneficiary is the conference itself.  They have a better shot at getting a third or fourth team in if they are not blocking each other.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 24, 2015, 10:51:28 AM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2015, 10:18:54 AM
    My point was that it helps the conference.  I suppose it could help Emory that they can't be blocked from the table by WashU, but the primary beneficiary is the conference itself.  They have a better shot at getting a third or fourth team in if they are not blocking each other.

    So the only advantage is bragging rights for the conference?

    I do not see this as an advantage.  Maybe it is because I was raised with the Missouri-Kansas rivalry, watching Big 12 basketball, but having other conference teams make the tourney is cold comfort if my team does not make it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 24, 2015, 11:20:39 AM
    Single elimination tournaments are way too much fun.  It's kind of like complaining about there being too many bowl games.  It's bonus sports.

    I think it's a problem of trophies.  Very few conferences have recognizable trophies.  They should be unique and have a nickname.   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on February 24, 2015, 11:31:36 AM
    Quote from: WUH on February 24, 2015, 10:51:28 AM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2015, 10:18:54 AM
    My point was that it helps the conference.  I suppose it could help Emory that they can't be blocked from the table by WashU, but the primary beneficiary is the conference itself.  They have a better shot at getting a third or fourth team in if they are not blocking each other.

    So the only advantage is bragging rights for the conference?

    I do not see this as an advantage.  Maybe it is because I was raised with the Missouri-Kansas rivalry, watching Big 12 basketball, but having other conference teams make the tourney is cold comfort if my team does not make it.

    I'd say the UAA's advantage is in their ability to rack up games against regionally ranked opponents. Whereas members of the typical conference are fighting with each other to get ranked in one region, UAA teams are spread across multiple regions. Even in a year without the top-end teams we usually see from the UAA, the data sheets show that UAA teams are at or near the top of their respective regions in the number of games played against regionally ranked opponents.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 24, 2015, 11:46:56 AM
    Quote from: ziggy on February 24, 2015, 11:31:36 AM
    I'd say the UAA's advantage is in their ability to rack up games against regionally ranked opponents. Whereas members of the typical conference are fighting with each other to get ranked in one region, UAA teams are spread across multiple regions. Even in a year without the top-end teams we usually see from the UAA, the data sheets show that UAA teams are at or near the top of their respective regions in the number of games played against regionally ranked opponents.

    This is what I was looking for in an answer.  This is interesting and why I was genuinely asking.  I'll take your word for it that over time, this is an advantage. 

    This was not an advantage in 2013-2014.  In 2014-2015, the UAA is certainly not the only conference that had four teams regionally ranked.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on February 24, 2015, 12:01:54 PM
    Quote from: WUH on February 24, 2015, 11:46:56 AM
    Quote from: ziggy on February 24, 2015, 11:31:36 AM
    I'd say the UAA's advantage is in their ability to rack up games against regionally ranked opponents. Whereas members of the typical conference are fighting with each other to get ranked in one region, UAA teams are spread across multiple regions. Even in a year without the top-end teams we usually see from the UAA, the data sheets show that UAA teams are at or near the top of their respective regions in the number of games played against regionally ranked opponents.

    This is what I was looking for in an answer.  This is interesting and why I was genuinely asking.  I'll take your word for it that over time, this is an advantage. 

    This was not an advantage in 2013-2014.  In 2014-2015, the UAA is certainly not the only conference that had four teams regionally ranked.

    How much of an advantage is it really? Who knows. The CCIW has been able to get a number of ranked teams despite being in the same region so I'm not going to go so far as to say the UAA only has a lot of ranked teams because they are spread out. We all know the UAA is a fine league.

    The difference is that the CCIW will never have two teams up for Pool C consideration at the same time because one has to be ranked behind the other, whereas NYU and Wash U could be "on the board" at the same time. Ultimately I'm not sure I'd really call that an advantage because there is always someone to jockey with for position in a region whether it is a team from the same conference or not.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2015, 12:19:18 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 23, 2015, 08:35:41 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2015, 08:08:12 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 23, 2015, 07:48:22 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2015, 05:30:47 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 23, 2015, 01:15:27 PM
    It can't counteract both the loss AND Scranton's win over Catholic. Choose 1 or the other but not both.

    You can choose both since Scranton's win only gives them a 1-1 vRRO and F&M has a 3-2 (including a win over a #1 Richard Stockton). Despite the loss, the win over Dickinson allows them to be 3-2 versus 2-3. I understand what you are trying to get at, but Scranton's only vRRO results are against Catholic - no one else.

    You're leaving out the SOS difference which is in Scranton's favor.

    A .011 'advantage' is essentially a tie.

    I disagree; it's more than 1/3 of what's considered a 2-game difference.

    .030 to two games is what I think you are referencing... while I agree .011 isn't a "tie" ... I don't see it as a huge advantage. Personally, looking over those numbers has me looking to the vRRO as the difference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2015, 12:23:28 PM
    Some big games with a few teams fighting for their NCAA Tourney lives tonight.

    ATLANTIC
    NJCU at William Paterson
    Rutgers-Newark at Richard Stockton

    #2 William Paterson took a hit last week with the loss to Rowan. I think they'll need a win tonight to really give them safe passage into the NCAAs. I think #1 TGHIJGSTO is in even with a loss tonight to Rutgers-Newark.  Speaking of #5 Rutgers-Newark,  they're on really thin ice. 9 losses will be tough to overcome but their SOS is pretty good. In addition,  they'll be 2nd at the table after Richard Stockton/William Paterson go.

    CENTRAL
    Nothing happening until Thursday when the WIAC starts their semifinals that include #3 Point and #2 Whitewater.

    GREAT LAKES
    Oberlin at Ohio Wesleyan
    Denison at Wooster

    Ohio Northern at Mount Union
    Capital at Marietta
    Heidelberg at John Carroll

    Both #2 OWU and #3 Wooster should be safe. Semifinal places would all but guarantee Pool C bids. #1 Marietta should be fine. #4 Mount Union should get a little nervous after losing to Joh Carroll last week. A quarterfinal win is necessary.  #5 John Carroll will likely jump Mount Union this week, but they should win to strengthen their Pool C aspirations.

    MID-ATLANTIC
    Nothing until tomorrow

    NORTHEAST
    Southern Maine at E. Connecticut
    Plymouth State at Rhode Island College

    Suffolk at Albertus Magnus

    #5 E. Connecticut should safe with their solid record and high SOS. #9 Albertus Magnus and #10 RIC need Pool A bids to be dancing, IMO.

    SOUTH
    All quiet on the Southern front

    WEST
    Luther at Dubuque

    Cal. Tech at Chapman

    #4 Dubuque looks to strengthen their Pool C spot with a 1st round win tonight. Chapman hopes to clinch a share of the SCIAC title tonight. I don't think they have a shot at a Pool C bid.


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 24, 2015, 12:35:51 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on February 24, 2015, 12:01:54 PM
    How much of an advantage is it really? Who knows. The CCIW has been able to get a number of ranked teams despite being in the same region so I'm not going to go so far as to say the UAA only has a lot of ranked teams because they are spread out. We all know the UAA is a fine league.

    The difference is that the CCIW will never have two teams up for Pool C consideration at the same time because one has to be ranked behind the other, whereas NYU and Wash U could be "on the board" at the same time. Ultimately I'm not sure I'd really call that an advantage because there is always someone to jockey with for position in a region whether it is a team from the same conference or not.

    +1 Thanks for the feedback.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 12:55:32 PM
    Aside: I really like the 2 games = .030 SOS rule of thumb, but I'd like it a lot better if "2 games" was turned into winning percentage (since winning percentage is the actual criterion). Two games out of a 25-game schedule is .080. This jives fairly well with the traditional RPI calculation.

    .750 WP / .530 SOS = .585 RPI
    .830 WP / .500 SOS = .583 RPI

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on February 24, 2015, 01:37:35 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 08:49:32 AM
    I wish the MIAA would go back to doing a full conference tournament rather than taking the top four seeds. I think there's something romantic about the idea that a #8 seed in a conference could go on a run and get into the tournament. Single elimination tournaments like the NCAAs are about crowning a champion, not determining who the best teams are.

    I'm with you there... I wish the WIAC was still and 8-team tournament instead of the 6-team format they switched to in '08-'09. Heck, it was a 9-team tournament during the first two years in '99 and '00.

    And '01 was the infamous year where #8 Stout beat #1 Whitewater by 41 in Whitewater, #7 Platteville beat #2 Stevens Point on a 30 foot buzzer beater, #6 Oshkosh beat #3 River Falls after RF threw the ball into the air in celebration of their win... but the ball hit the ceiling before the buzzer sounded, which gave Oshkosh the opportunity to hit a 3 to tie the game and send it to OT, where Oshkosh promptly won.

    Perhaps I just like the romantic underdog stories... but we seem to get fewer of these as more and more conferences just allow the front runners to get into the conference tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 24, 2015, 01:46:26 PM
    The UAA has had 9 Pool C bids since 2008.  1.3 per year

    Rochester                    East           UAA   2008
    Wash U                    Mid West    UAA   2008
    Brandeis                    Northeast   UAA   2008
    Carnegie-Mellon   Great Lakes   UAA   2009
    Brandeis                    Northeast   UAA   2009
    NYU                            East           UAA   2012
    Rochester             East           UAA   2013
    Emory                    South           UAA   2013
    Emory                    South           UAA   2014

    2008 was the first year D3 started using SOS after dropping QOWI.  That first year the UAA had 3 Pool C teams from 3 different regions plus their Pool A.  Since then its really difficult to tell without all the old data if the 2nd Pool C in 2009 and 2013 were borderline.  2008 was the only year a conference received 3 Pool C bids until last year when the NEWMAC recieved 3.

    The number of Pool C's from the UAA is not really out of line with the other 4 'power conferences' in the same time frame.

    NESCAC  --12
    CCIW      --11
    ODAC     --11
    WIAC     --9
    UAA        --9


    The 'big advantage' for UAA might be overblown a little, and I say that as someone who has often said the UAA has a big advantage. 


    As Ziggy stated, their advantage seems to be having multiple teams on the table at one time.  In reality that's probably no more than 2 teams in different region in any given year.  I would say in most cases the 2nd or 3rd Pool C from any conference is pretty borderline to begin with.

    For instance if Washington and Brandeis are at the table at the same time it might be that if they were in the same region Washington would be blocking Brandeis.  Then if WashU is selected Brandeis is up next.  Their criteria hasn't changed relative to the other 7 teams that were already at the table.  WashU was already deemed better by their regional committee.  So Brandeis doesn't really lose anything but extra time at the table being passed over.

    You can make an argument about being in different regions helps them get a couple extra RvRRO's, that is a definite advantage.

    I will also toss out there the advantage for UAA not being actually physically geographically in the same region is they don't really compete with each for non-conference games.  Its a little easier for each individual school to put together a great schedule.  That might be their advantage as small as it may be.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2015, 01:57:11 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on February 24, 2015, 01:37:35 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 08:49:32 AM
    I wish the MIAA would go back to doing a full conference tournament rather than taking the top four seeds. I think there's something romantic about the idea that a #8 seed in a conference could go on a run and get into the tournament. Single elimination tournaments like the NCAAs are about crowning a champion, not determining who the best teams are.

    I'm with you there... I wish the WIAC was still and 8-team tournament instead of the 6-team format they switched to in '08-'09. Heck, it was a 9-team tournament during the first two years in '99 and '00.

    And '01 was the infamous year where #8 Stout beat #1 Whitewater by 41 in Whitewater, #7 Platteville beat #2 Stevens Point on a 30 foot buzzer beater, #6 Oshkosh beat #3 River Falls after RF threw the ball into the air in celebration of their win... but the ball hit the ceiling before the buzzer sounded, which gave Oshkosh the opportunity to hit a 3 to tie the game and send it to OT, where Oshkosh promptly won.

    Perhaps I just like the romantic underdog stories... but we seem to get fewer of these as more and more conferences just allow the front runners to get into the conference tournament.

    What an awesome night that was!
    http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2001/02/stout-rout-caps-wacky-wiac
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on February 24, 2015, 02:24:54 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2015, 01:46:26 PM
    The number of Pool C's from the UAA is not really out of line with the other 4 'power conferences' in the same time frame.

    NESCAC  --12
    CCIW      --11
    ODAC     --11
    WIAC     --9
    UAA        --9


    It's good to see the breakdown. Sometimes a Pool C is a projected Pool A that gets upset in the conference tourney but that can't happen in the UAA.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 02:29:25 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2015, 09:34:36 AM
    Conference tournaments deciding the AQ's wouldn't be such a big deal if D3 had the same access ratio to the tournament as D1.

    I've wondered what would happen if the NCAA bumped the conference Pool A requirement from seven teams to ten.

    CUNYAC (9)
    E8 (9)
    LAND (9)
    LL (9)
    MACC (9)
    NECC (9)
    NWC (9)
    SCIAC (9)
    WIAC (9)
    CCIW (8)
    IIAC (8)
    LEC (8)
    MACF (8)
    MIAA (8)
    SAA (8)
    SCAC (8)
    UAA (8)
    MASCAC (7)
    NEWMAC (7)
    UMAC (7)

    We'd lose 20 Pool A bids, gain 16 Pool B bids, and gain 4 Pool C bids. Could be fun.

    If you made the minimum 8, we'd lose 3 Pool A bids, but gain them back in the form of Pool B.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 02:34:36 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on February 24, 2015, 02:24:54 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2015, 01:46:26 PM
    The number of Pool C's from the UAA is not really out of line with the other 4 'power conferences' in the same time frame.

    NESCAC  --12 (1.1)
    CCIW      --11 (1.4)
    ODAC     --11 (0.9)
    WIAC     --9 (1.0)
    UAA        --9 (1.1)


    It's good to see the breakdown. Sometimes a Pool C is a projected Pool A that gets upset in the conference tourney but that can't happen in the UAA.

    UAA is still not out of line with the others once you adjust for number of teams in the conference, but that does point out how much success the CCIW has been having in Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2015, 02:44:48 PM
    With the new Top 25 comes my ballot: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/?p=2636 (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/?p=2636)

    Continues to be a challenging season as a voter.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2015, 02:45:38 PM
    That wacky year may have also been the year that, with 4 games to go, it was mathematically (in terms of who played who) possible for every team to finish 8-8. Point amd Whitewater won the league at just 10-6 while 8th place Stout was 6-10 and last place La Crosse was 5-11. That's a 5 game gap between 1st and 9th. This year it was a 5 game gap between 1st and 3rd. Ouch!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 24, 2015, 02:53:18 PM
    +1 to everyone for the UAA talk.  Very interesting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2015, 02:53:45 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 02:29:25 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2015, 09:34:36 AM
    Conference tournaments deciding the AQ's wouldn't be such a big deal if D3 had the same access ratio to the tournament as D1.

    I've wondered what would happen if the NCAA bumped the conference Pool A requirement from seven teams to ten.

    CUNYAC (9)
    E8 (9)
    LAND (9)
    LL (9)
    MACC (9)
    NECC (9)
    NWC (9)
    SCIAC (9)
    WIAC (9)
    CCIW (8)
    IIAC (8)
    LEC (8)
    MACF (8)
    MIAA (8)
    SAA (8)
    SCAC (8)
    UAA (8)
    MASCAC (7)
    NEWMAC (7)
    UMAC (7)

    We'd lose 20 Pool A bids, gain 16 Pool B bids, and gain 4 Pool C bids. Could be fun.

    If you made the minimum 8, we'd lose 3 Pool A bids, but gain them back in the form of Pool B.

    This list is probably straight out of the handbook, right? There are eight teams in the UMAC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2015, 02:55:55 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2015, 02:53:45 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 02:29:25 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2015, 09:34:36 AM
    Conference tournaments deciding the AQ's wouldn't be such a big deal if D3 had the same access ratio to the tournament as D1.

    I've wondered what would happen if the NCAA bumped the conference Pool A requirement from seven teams to ten.

    CUNYAC (9)
    E8 (9)
    LAND (9)
    LL (9)
    MACC (9)
    NECC (9)
    NWC (9)
    SCIAC (9)
    WIAC (9)
    CCIW (8)
    IIAC (8)
    LEC (8)
    MACF (8)
    MIAA (8)
    SAA (8)
    SCAC (8)
    UAA (8)
    MASCAC (7)
    NEWMAC (7)
    UMAC (7)

    We'd lose 20 Pool A bids, gain 16 Pool B bids, and gain 4 Pool C bids. Could be fun.

    If you made the minimum 8, we'd lose 3 Pool A bids, but gain them back in the form of Pool B.

    This list is probably straight out of the handbook, right? There are eight teams in the UMAC.

    We should up the minimum to 16 - then the committee could pick almost entirely unencumbered.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on February 24, 2015, 02:57:40 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2015, 02:55:55 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2015, 02:53:45 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 02:29:25 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2015, 09:34:36 AM
    Conference tournaments deciding the AQ's wouldn't be such a big deal if D3 had the same access ratio to the tournament as D1.

    I've wondered what would happen if the NCAA bumped the conference Pool A requirement from seven teams to ten.

    CUNYAC (9)
    E8 (9)
    LAND (9)
    LL (9)
    MACC (9)
    NECC (9)
    NWC (9)
    SCIAC (9)
    WIAC (9)
    CCIW (8)
    IIAC (8)
    LEC (8)
    MACF (8)
    MIAA (8)
    SAA (8)
    SCAC (8)
    UAA (8)
    MASCAC (7)
    NEWMAC (7)
    UMAC (7)

    We'd lose 20 Pool A bids, gain 16 Pool B bids, and gain 4 Pool C bids. Could be fun.

    If you made the minimum 8, we'd lose 3 Pool A bids, but gain them back in the form of Pool B.

    This list is probably straight out of the handbook, right? There are eight teams in the UMAC.

    We should up the minimum to 16 - then the committee could pick almost entirely unencumbered.

    MIAA-CCIW merger!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: mailsy on February 24, 2015, 02:59:03 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2015, 02:55:55 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2015, 02:53:45 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 02:29:25 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2015, 09:34:36 AM
    Conference tournaments deciding the AQ's wouldn't be such a big deal if D3 had the same access ratio to the tournament as D1.

    I've wondered what would happen if the NCAA bumped the conference Pool A requirement from seven teams to ten.

    CUNYAC (9)
    E8 (9)
    LAND (9)
    LL (9)
    MACC (9)
    NECC (9)
    NWC (9)
    SCIAC (9)
    WIAC (9)
    CCIW (8)
    IIAC (8)
    LEC (8)
    MACF (8)
    MIAA (8)
    SAA (8)
    SCAC (8)
    UAA (8)
    MASCAC (7)
    NEWMAC (7)
    UMAC (7)

    We'd lose 20 Pool A bids, gain 16 Pool B bids, and gain 4 Pool C bids. Could be fun.

    If you made the minimum 8, we'd lose 3 Pool A bids, but gain them back in the form of Pool B.

    This list is probably straight out of the handbook, right? There are eight teams in the UMAC.

    We should up the minimum to 16 - then the committee could pick almost entirely unencumbered.

    Hey! Don't give them any ideas!  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 24, 2015, 03:11:09 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on February 24, 2015, 02:24:54 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2015, 01:46:26 PM
    The number of Pool C's from the UAA is not really out of line with the other 4 'power conferences' in the same time frame.

    NESCAC  --12
    CCIW      --11
    ODAC     --11
    WIAC     --9
    UAA        --9


    It's good to see the breakdown. Sometimes a Pool C is a projected Pool A that gets upset in the conference tourney but that can't happen in the UAA.

    I actually think that number is over 50%.   I haven't added that kind of breakdown yet to my list.  Easy enough to figure out I guess.


    What I find disheartening is how difficult it is for conferences outside of those 'power 5', they've received 40.9% of the Pool C's yet make up just 12% of D3.  That I think points out the scheduling problem other conferences have making their SOS competitive.

    It also just might point out how much better they are at playing basketball. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 03:42:29 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2015, 02:53:45 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 02:29:25 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2015, 09:34:36 AM
    Conference tournaments deciding the AQ's wouldn't be such a big deal if D3 had the same access ratio to the tournament as D1.

    I've wondered what would happen if the NCAA bumped the conference Pool A requirement from seven teams to ten.

    CUNYAC (9)
    E8 (9)
    LAND (9)
    LL (9)
    MACC (9)
    NECC (9)
    NWC (9)
    SCIAC (9)
    WIAC (9)
    CCIW (8)
    IIAC (8)
    LEC (8)
    MACF (8)
    MIAA (8)
    SAA (8)
    SCAC (8)
    UAA (8)
    MASCAC (7)
    NEWMAC (7)
    UMAC (7)

    We'd lose 20 Pool A bids, gain 16 Pool B bids, and gain 4 Pool C bids. Could be fun.

    If you made the minimum 8, we'd lose 3 Pool A bids, but gain them back in the form of Pool B.

    This list is probably straight out of the handbook, right? There are eight teams in the UMAC.

    Not from the handbook (they actually list Presentation as the 8th team and are missing North Central (Minn.))

    I had Martin Luther mistagged in my spreadsheet.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 24, 2015, 03:59:20 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 03:42:29 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 24, 2015, 02:53:45 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 02:29:25 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2015, 09:34:36 AM
    Conference tournaments deciding the AQ's wouldn't be such a big deal if D3 had the same access ratio to the tournament as D1.

    I've wondered what would happen if the NCAA bumped the conference Pool A requirement from seven teams to ten.

    CUNYAC (9)
    E8 (9)
    LAND (9)
    LL (9)
    MACC (9)
    NECC (9)
    NWC (9)
    SCIAC (9)
    WIAC (9)
    CCIW (8)
    IIAC (8)
    LEC (8)
    MACF (8)
    MIAA (8)
    SAA (8)
    SCAC (8)
    UAA (8)
    MASCAC (7)
    NEWMAC (7)
    UMAC (7)

    We'd lose 20 Pool A bids, gain 16 Pool B bids, and gain 4 Pool C bids. Could be fun.

    If you made the minimum 8, we'd lose 3 Pool A bids, but gain them back in the form of Pool B.

    This list is probably straight out of the handbook, right? There are eight teams in the UMAC.

    Not from the handbook (they actually list Presentation as the 8th team and are missing North Central (Minn.))

    I had Martin Luther mistagged in my spreadsheet.
    Get it Right!!!!!!  We've got a lot of pool C contenders!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 24, 2015, 05:04:14 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on February 24, 2015, 01:37:35 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 08:49:32 AM
    I wish the MIAA would go back to doing a full conference tournament rather than taking the top four seeds. I think there's something romantic about the idea that a #8 seed in a conference could go on a run and get into the tournament. Single elimination tournaments like the NCAAs are about crowning a champion, not determining who the best teams are.

    I'm with you there... I wish the WIAC was still and 8-team tournament instead of the 6-team format they switched to in '08-'09. Heck, it was a 9-team tournament during the first two years in '99 and '00.

    And '01 was the infamous year where #8 Stout beat #1 Whitewater by 41 in Whitewater, #7 Platteville beat #2 Stevens Point on a 30 foot buzzer beater, #6 Oshkosh beat #3 River Falls after RF threw the ball into the air in celebration of their win... but the ball hit the ceiling before the buzzer sounded, which gave Oshkosh the opportunity to hit a 3 to tie the game and send it to OT, where Oshkosh promptly won.

    Perhaps I just like the romantic underdog stories... but we seem to get fewer of these as more and more conferences just allow the front runners to get into the conference tournament.

    The height of the ceiling wasn't covered in their scouting report? they got what they deserved. :o
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2015, 05:31:20 PM
    INflate-gate.

    The ball had way too much air in it. He actually didn't throw the ball in the air after intercepting the pass. He simply dribbled the ball once and it shot up like a rocket and hit the ceiling.

    The ball was quickly replaced allowing Oshkosh to tie the game and send it into overtime.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 24, 2015, 05:41:33 PM
    The worst part of that guy tossing the ball in the rafters is that I thought that happened only a few years ago.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 24, 2015, 07:06:57 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 24, 2015, 05:04:14 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on February 24, 2015, 01:37:35 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 08:49:32 AM
    I wish the MIAA would go back to doing a full conference tournament rather than taking the top four seeds. I think there's something romantic about the idea that a #8 seed in a conference could go on a run and get into the tournament. Single elimination tournaments like the NCAAs are about crowning a champion, not determining who the best teams are.

    I'm with you there... I wish the WIAC was still and 8-team tournament instead of the 6-team format they switched to in '08-'09. Heck, it was a 9-team tournament during the first two years in '99 and '00.

    And '01 was the infamous year where #8 Stout beat #1 Whitewater by 41 in Whitewater, #7 Platteville beat #2 Stevens Point on a 30 foot buzzer beater, #6 Oshkosh beat #3 River Falls after RF threw the ball into the air in celebration of their win... but the ball hit the ceiling before the buzzer sounded, which gave Oshkosh the opportunity to hit a 3 to tie the game and send it to OT, where Oshkosh promptly won.

    Perhaps I just like the romantic underdog stories... but we seem to get fewer of these as more and more conferences just allow the front runners to get into the conference tournament.

    The height of the ceiling wasn't covered in their scouting report? they got what they deserved. :o

    Scouting report? It was their home gym, the scenario should have certainly been practiced before. If nothing else a bunch of players should have stopped at the gym in between classes and measured the height of the ceiling.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 24, 2015, 07:57:47 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2015, 03:11:09 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on February 24, 2015, 02:24:54 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2015, 01:46:26 PM
    The number of Pool C's from the UAA is not really out of line with the other 4 'power conferences' in the same time frame.

    NESCAC  --12
    CCIW      --11
    ODAC     --11
    WIAC     --9
    UAA        --9


    It's good to see the breakdown. Sometimes a Pool C is a projected Pool A that gets upset in the conference tourney but that can't happen in the UAA.

    I actually think that number is over 50%.   I haven't added that kind of breakdown yet to my list.  Easy enough to figure out I guess.



    To follow up on this

    There have 127 Pool C's since 2008.  Excluding conferences that are divided into divisions or decide their championship exclusively with the tournament.
    44 Pool C's came from those kinds of conferences

    Out of the remaining 83 Pool C bids handed out, 43 went to teams that entered their conference tournament as the Pool A.  51.8%
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 24, 2015, 08:20:24 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 12:55:32 PM
    Aside: I really like the 2 games = .030 SOS rule of thumb, but I'd like it a lot better if "2 games" was turned into winning percentage (since winning percentage is the actual criterion). Two games out of a 25-game schedule is .080. This jives fairly well with the traditional RPI calculation.

    .750 WP / .530 SOS = .585 RPI
    .830 WP / .500 SOS = .583 RPI

    My feeling, based on regional ranking is more like 2 games equal .040 SOS or 1 loss for .020 SOS.  I get the winning percentage thing, but most teams play roughly the same number of games, so the difference between 19-7 and 20-7 is minimal.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 24, 2015, 08:22:30 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2015, 10:34:59 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 23, 2015, 08:12:07 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 08:05:05 AM
    Good work, Sac.

    I also think Scranton will jump F&M this week. Maybe I will put winning % in instead of record this week.

    I don't know, I think F&M might still be ahead of them, their RvRRO's seem pretty large in this comparison.  I'm also not sure if KS updated the RvRRO numbers for this past week so they might have changed.

    23.  Scranton 20-5   .800/.516/1-1
    31.  Frank & Marsh 20-5  .800/.505/3-2

    I would agree... I am not sure Scranton's win over Catholic is good enough to jump F&M's win over Dickinson. Call those even and go back to the fact F&M has a better vRRO - which is what I think kept them ahead of Scranton last week when both teams took a bad loss into those rankings.

    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2015, 09:16:16 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 23, 2015, 08:31:16 AM
    Question for Dave on your .667/under .500 comment

    Could the committee really ignore a team like North Central, as the 8th ranked Central Region team (unlikely anyone not ranked gets ranked).  If North Central loses to Augustana this week, this would be their criteria

    North Central  16-8       .667/.596/3-6

    The SOS is approximated where it should finish playing at Augustana this week.  I think that would be hard to ignore along with their 9 RvRRO's in the final few rounds.

    I mean, .667 isn't below .667.  :)

    Yeah... below .667 is the key ... below. I'm not saying a team at .667 is not going to get in... I am just hearing enough stuff to indicate having a 16-9 record (i.e. Carthage last year) isn't going to cut it.

    Well, there's no one like Carthage this year.  Williams is close, but has no really big wins (remember, Carthage had wins against two top 10 teams).  Based on Knightslappy, Carthage did have the second toughest SOS, but was just 1-10 against RRO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 24, 2015, 08:24:04 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 23, 2015, 08:39:29 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2015, 11:05:55 AM
    Oh yeah. I also don't see St. Norbert being an issue. They are so much better than the other 3 MWC teams in the tourney.  If they do end up losing, IWU (and NCC) should jump them and Elmhurst should stay ahead of them.

    Nah, it isn't St. Norbert being an issue - it's just a question of how can we take what's going on in the Central and compare it to other regions.  If St. Norbert iis sandwiched between 5 loss Elmhurst and 7 loss IWU, then what that say when we compare 7 loss IWU (or 7 loss North Central) to Brooklyn/Barach.  I'd say that it means that IWU and NCC are probably ahead of those two, which pretty much Pool C for the Atlantic ends at William Patterson.  Or if you compare St. Norbert with Franklin and Marshall and Scranton, I think you have to figure Norbert's ahead of both and then where does that put IWU and NCC with F&M and Scranton?

    My personal take in the moment is that the Atlantic will get one Pool C, the East none and the Mid-Atlantic none and the West one before every ranked team in the Central will have a Pool C if the current rankings continues to hold true.

    Dickinson could be ahead of every Central Pool C candidate save Whitewater.

    Dickinson was borderline when I looked at the .528 SOS and knew they took a loss, but with their SOS up to .541, I'd say they would get a Pool C before the Central clears the table.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2015, 08:35:03 PM
    Rutgers-Newark was up 27-21 at half over TGHIJGSTO, but the hosts have outscored them by 18 after the break and lead by 12 with under 4 to play. William Paterson up 10 with 5 to play. Both are strong Pool C candidates.

    No bubble bursting from the NJAC
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2015, 09:42:59 PM
    Almost spoke too soon. William Paterson escapes 63-61.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2015, 11:22:47 PM
    This may sound strange, but because I have been asked a lot off these boards and took part in a playoff preview for a conference... I have actually found a couple of scenarios where the Mid-Atlantic could get two at-large... if not three.
    - If F&M beats Dickinson and Hopkins... Centennial could be looking at two at-large bids.
    - If Scranton beats Catholic in the Landmark... there probably will be a second bid there.
    - Outside chance if St. Mary's loses in the championship of the CAC... they get an at-large bid as well.

    Now, I realize that is a long shot... but there is a chance of two to four bids... granted a lot of other factors are at play... but I was a little surprised by that.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2015, 11:38:23 PM
    I'm not at all confident in St Mary's Pool C chances, especially if they get bumped down the list by other favorites losing.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2015, 11:42:12 PM
    Yeah... they are a deep pick. I am not saying they will get it - I think they need to win the CAC to get in - but I could see some scenarios where they are available. It will be interesting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 05:55:27 AM
    I copied this out for John Gleich before the new rankings came out so he can compare! These, of course, are Regional Ranking #2. I'll do the same for today's rankings.

    I added winning % and vRRO and then I also averaged the winning % and SOS.

    Remember, GREEN is Pool A (conference leaders), RED is Pool C (already eliminated from conference tourney)



       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Week      Ave.   
       Atl#1      Richard Stockton (NJAC)       19-5, 19-5      0.792       6-1      0.579       1-0      0.686   
       Atl#2      William Paterson (NJAC)       19-5, 19-5      0.792       5-2      0.555       0-1      0.674   
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)        18-5, 18-5      0.783       3-1      0.501       1-1      0.642   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)       19-5, 19-5      0.792       2-3      0.490       2-0      0.641   
       Atl#5      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)       16-8, 16-8      0.667       1-5      0.559       2-0      0.613   
       Atl#6       Sage College (SKY)       18-4, 19-4      0.818       1-1      0.472       2-0      0.645   
       Atl#7      Staten Island (CUNYAC)        17-7, 17-7      0.708       2-4      0.491       0-2      0.600   
                                                    
       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Week      Ave.   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)       20-4, 20-4      0.833       5-2      0.584       1-0      0.709   
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)       19-2, 20-3      0.905       2-2      0.561       2-0      0.733   
       C#3      Stevens Point (WIAC)       20-4, 20-4      0.833       2-4      0.582       1-0      0.708   
       C#4      Washington U. (UAA)       17-5, 17-5      0.773       3-3      0.562       2-0      0.668   
       C#5      Elmhurst (CCIW)       19-5, 19-5      0.792       4-2      0.541       0-1      0.667   
       C#6      St. Norbert (MWC)        21-1, 21-1      0.955       0-1      0.498       1-0      0.727   
       C#7      IWU (CCIW)       17-7, 17-7      0.708       3-4      0.576       1-0      0.642   
       C#8      North Central (CCIW)       15-7, 17-7      0.682       3-5      0.577       1-0      0.630   
                                                    
       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Week      Ave.   
       E#1      St. John Fisher (E8)        20-2, 20-2      0.909       0-0      0.493       1-2      0.701   
       E#2      Plattsburgh St.  (SUNYAC)        16-6, 16-6      0.727       1-0      0.542       2-1      0.635   
       E#3      NYU (UAA)       16-6, 16-6      0.727       4-2      0.532       0-2      0.630   
       E#4      Hobart   (LL)       16-6, 16-7      0.727       3-1      0.507       2-0      0.617   
       E#5      Skidmore (LL)        16-7, 16-7      0.696       1-5      0.542       2-0      0.619   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)       17-5, 18-5      0.773       1-3      0.486       1-1      0.630   
                                                    
       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Week      Ave.   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)        21-2, 21-2      0.913       4-2       0.512       2-0      0.713   
       GL#2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)        19-4, 19-4      0.826       3-1      0.528       2-0      0.677   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)       18-5, 18-5      0.783       3-2      0.546       2-0      0.665   
       GL#4      Mount Union (OAC)       18-5, 18-5      0.783       2-4      0.523       1-1      0.653   
       GL#5      John Carroll (OAC)       17-5, 17-5      0.773       2-2      0.520       2-0      0.647   
       GL#6      CWR (UAA)       12-6, 14-7      0.667       2-3      0.574       1-2      0.621   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)        16-5, 17-6      0.762       2-1      0.512       2-0      0.637   
       GL#8      PS-Behrend (AMCC)        21-2, 21-2      0.913       1-1      0.446       2-0      0.680   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)       14-7, 15-8      0.667       2-5      0.552       2-0      0.610   
                                                    
       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Week      Ave.   
       MA#1      Johns Hopkins (CC)        20-3, 20-3      0.870       3-2      0.530       2-0      0.700   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)       19-4, 19-4      0.826       3-1      0.528       1-1      0.677   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)        20-2, 20-3      0.909       2-1      0.485       1-1      0.697   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)       19-4, 19-4      0.826       2-2      0.497       1-1      0.662   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)       18-5, 18-5      0.783       0-2      0.507       2-0      0.645   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)        16-4, 18-4      0.800       0-0      0.479       2-0      0.640   
                                                    
       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Week      Ave.   
       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)        21-2, 21-2      0.913       6-2      0.561       2-0      0.737   
       NE#2      Bates (NESCAC)       18-5, 18-5      0.783       4-4      0.619       1-1      0.701   
       NE#3      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)        18-4, 19-5      0.818       5-0      0.534       1-0      0.676   
       NE#4      Amherst (NESCAC)       18-6, 18-6      0.750       5-3      0.567       1-0      0.659   
       NE#5      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)        19-4, 19-4      0.826       2-2      0.562       2-0      0.694   
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)       19-4, 19-4      0.826       3-2      0.523       2-0      0.675   
       NE#7      Bowdoin (NESCAC)       17-6, 17-6      0.739       2-4      0.563       1-1      0.651   
       NE#8      Springfield (NEWMAC)       16-7, 16-7      0.696       2-5      0.581       2-0      0.639   
       NE#9      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)        21-1, 21-1      0.955       0-1      0.475       3-0      0.715   
       NE#10      RIC (LEC)       16-7, 16-7      0.696       0-3      0.555       2-0      0.626   
       NE#11      Southern Vermont (NECC)        19-2, 20-3      0.905       1-1      0.479       2-0      0.692   
                                                    
       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Week      Ave.   
       So#1      RMC (ODAC)        21-2, 21-2      0.913       5-0      0.556       2-0      0.735   
       So#2      Emory (UAA)        17-5, 17-5      0.773       5-3      0.564       2-0      0.669   
       So#3      East Texas Baptist (ASC)       19-4, 19-4      0.826       5-3      0.520       1-1      0.673   
       So#4      VWU (ODAC)       18-4, 19-4      0.818       1-3      0.531       2-0      0.675   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)        17-4, 18-4      0.810       0-1      0.523       2-0      0.667   
       So#6      Hardin-Simmons (ASC)        17-6, 17-6      0.739       3-4      0.513       2-0      0.626   
       So#7      Louisiana College (ASC)       13-5, 13-9      0.722       4-4      0.557       1-1      0.640   
       So#8      Mary Hardin-Baylor (ASC)       16-7, 16-7      0.696       3-4      0.517       1-1      0.607   
                                                    
       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Week      Ave.   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)        20-2, 20-2      0.909       4-0      0.566       2-1      0.738   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)       20-3, 20-3      0.870       1-1      0.506       1-1      0.688   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)        17-5, 17-6      0.773       1-1      0.509       1-1      0.641   
       W#4      Dubuque (IIAC)       18-4, 19-4      0.818       0-2      0.521       1-1      0.670   
       W#5      Whitman (NWC)       17-4, 18-5      0.810       2-3      0.519       2-0      0.665   
       W#6      Whitworth (NWC)        20-3, 20-3      0.870       1-3      0.473       2-0      0.672   
       W#7      Chapman (SCIAC)       13-3, 18-3      0.813       1-0      0.512       2-1      0.663   
                                                    
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 06:18:17 AM
    Sorted by SOS



       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Week      Ave.   
       NE#2      Bates (NESCAC)       18-5, 18-5      0.783       4-4      0.619       1-1      0.701   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)       20-4, 20-4      0.833       5-2      0.584       1-0      0.709   
       C#3      Stevens Point (WIAC)       20-4, 20-4      0.833       2-4      0.582       1-0      0.708   
       NE#8      Springfield (NEWMAC)       16-7, 16-7      0.696       2-5      0.581       2-0      0.639   
       Atl#1      Richard Stockton (NJAC)       19-5, 19-5      0.792       6-1      0.579       1-0      0.686   
       C#8      North Central (CCIW)       15-7, 17-7      0.682       3-5      0.577       1-0      0.630   
       C#7      IWU (CCIW)       17-7, 17-7      0.708       3-4      0.576       1-0      0.642   
       GL#6      CWR (UAA)       12-6, 14-7      0.667       2-3      0.574       1-2      0.621   
       NE#4      Amherst (NESCAC)       18-6, 18-6      0.750       5-3      0.567       1-0      0.659   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)        20-2, 20-2      0.909       4-0      0.566       2-1      0.738   
       So#2      Emory (UAA)        17-5, 17-5      0.773       5-3      0.564       2-0      0.669   
       NE#7      Bowdoin (NESCAC)       17-6, 17-6      0.739       2-4      0.563       1-1      0.651   
       C#4      Washington U. (UAA)       17-5, 17-5      0.773       3-3      0.562       2-0      0.668   
       NE#5      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)        19-4, 19-4      0.826       2-2      0.562       2-0      0.694   
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)       19-2, 20-3      0.905       2-2      0.561       2-0      0.733   
       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)        21-2, 21-2      0.913       6-2      0.561       2-0      0.737   
       Atl#5      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)       16-8, 16-8      0.667       1-5      0.559       2-0      0.613   
       So#7      Louisiana College (ASC)       13-5, 13-9      0.722       4-4      0.557       1-1      0.640   
       So#1      RMC (ODAC)        21-2, 21-2      0.913       5-0      0.556       2-0      0.735   
       Atl#2      William Paterson (NJAC)       19-5, 19-5      0.792       5-2      0.555       0-1      0.674   
       NE#10      RIC (LEC)       16-7, 16-7      0.696       0-3      0.555       2-0      0.626   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)       14-7, 15-8      0.667       2-5      0.552       2-0      0.610   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)       18-5, 18-5      0.783       3-2      0.546       2-0      0.665   
       E#2      Plattsburgh St.  (SUNYAC)        16-6, 16-6      0.727       1-0      0.542       2-1      0.635   
       E#5      Skidmore (LL)        16-7, 16-7      0.696       1-5      0.542       2-0      0.619   
       C#5      Elmhurst (CCIW)       19-5, 19-5      0.792       4-2      0.541       0-1      0.667   
       NE#3      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)        18-4, 19-5      0.818       5-0      0.534       1-0      0.676   
       E#3      NYU (UAA)       16-6, 16-6      0.727       4-2      0.532       0-2      0.630   
       So#4      VWU (ODAC)       18-4, 19-4      0.818       1-3      0.531       2-0      0.675   
       MA#1      Johns Hopkins (CC)        20-3, 20-3      0.870       3-2      0.530       2-0      0.700   
       GL#2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)        19-4, 19-4      0.826       3-1      0.528       2-0      0.677   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)       19-4, 19-4      0.826       3-1      0.528       1-1      0.677   
       GL#4      Mount Union (OAC)       18-5, 18-5      0.783       2-4      0.523       1-1      0.653   
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)       19-4, 19-4      0.826       3-2      0.523       2-0      0.675   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)        17-4, 18-4      0.810       0-1      0.523       2-0      0.667   
       W#4      Dubuque (IIAC)       18-4, 19-4      0.818       0-2      0.521       1-1      0.670   
       GL#5      John Carroll (OAC)       17-5, 17-5      0.773       2-2      0.520       2-0      0.647   
       So#3      East Texas Baptist (ASC)       19-4, 19-4      0.826       5-3      0.520       1-1      0.673   
       W#5      Whitman (NWC)       17-4, 18-5      0.810       2-3      0.519       2-0      0.665   
       So#8      Mary Hardin-Baylor (ASC)       16-7, 16-7      0.696       3-4      0.517       1-1      0.607   
       So#6      Hardin-Simmons (ASC)        17-6, 17-6      0.739       3-4      0.513       2-0      0.626   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)        21-2, 21-2      0.913       4-2       0.512       2-0      0.713   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)        16-5, 17-6      0.762       2-1      0.512       2-0      0.637   
       W#7      Chapman (SCIAC)       13-3, 18-3      0.813       1-0      0.512       2-1      0.663   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)        17-5, 17-6      0.773       1-1      0.509       1-1      0.641   
       E#4      Hobart   (LL)       16-6, 16-7      0.727       3-1      0.507       2-0      0.617   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)       18-5, 18-5      0.783       0-2      0.507       2-0      0.645   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)       20-3, 20-3      0.870       1-1      0.506       1-1      0.688   
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)        18-5, 18-5      0.783       3-1      0.501       1-1      0.642   
       C#6      St. Norbert (MWC)        21-1, 21-1      0.955       0-1      0.498       1-0      0.727   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)       19-4, 19-4      0.826       2-2      0.497       1-1      0.662   
       E#1      St. John Fisher (E8)        20-2, 20-2      0.909       0-0      0.493       1-2      0.701   
       Atl#7      Staten Island (CUNYAC)        17-7, 17-7      0.708       2-4      0.491       0-2      0.600   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)       19-5, 19-5      0.792       2-3      0.490       2-0      0.641   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)       17-5, 18-5      0.773       1-3      0.486       1-1      0.630   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)        20-2, 20-3      0.909       2-1      0.485       1-1      0.697   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)        16-4, 18-4      0.800       0-0      0.479       2-0      0.640   
       NE#11      Southern Vermont (NECC)        19-2, 20-3      0.905       1-1      0.479       2-0      0.692   
       NE#9      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)        21-1, 21-1      0.955       0-1      0.475       3-0      0.715   
       W#6      Whitworth (NWC)        20-3, 20-3      0.870       1-3      0.473       2-0      0.672   
       Atl#6       Sage College (SKY)       18-4, 19-4      0.818       1-1      0.472       2-0      0.645   
       GL#8      PS-Behrend (AMCC)        21-2, 21-2      0.913       1-1      0.446       2-0      0.680   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 06:20:06 AM
    Sorted by the average of the winning % and SOS



       WK2      TEAM      Regional/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Week      Ave.   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)        20-2, 20-2      0.909       4-0      0.566       2-1      0.738   
       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)        21-2, 21-2      0.913       6-2      0.561       2-0      0.737   
       So#1      RMC (ODAC)        21-2, 21-2      0.913       5-0      0.556       2-0      0.735   
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)       19-2, 20-3      0.905       2-2      0.561       2-0      0.733   
       C#6      St. Norbert (MWC)        21-1, 21-1      0.955       0-1      0.498       1-0      0.727   
       NE#9      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)        21-1, 21-1      0.955       0-1      0.475       3-0      0.715   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)        21-2, 21-2      0.913       4-2       0.512       2-0      0.713   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)       20-4, 20-4      0.833       5-2      0.584       1-0      0.709   
       C#3      Stevens Point (WIAC)       20-4, 20-4      0.833       2-4      0.582       1-0      0.708   
       NE#2      Bates (NESCAC)       18-5, 18-5      0.783       4-4      0.619       1-1      0.701   
       E#1      St. John Fisher (E8)        20-2, 20-2      0.909       0-0      0.493       1-2      0.701   
       MA#1      Johns Hopkins (CC)        20-3, 20-3      0.870       3-2      0.530       2-0      0.700   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)        20-2, 20-3      0.909       2-1      0.485       1-1      0.697   
       NE#5      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)        19-4, 19-4      0.826       2-2      0.562       2-0      0.694   
       NE#11      Southern Vermont (NECC)        19-2, 20-3      0.905       1-1      0.479       2-0      0.692   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)       20-3, 20-3      0.870       1-1      0.506       1-1      0.688   
       Atl#1      Richard Stockton (NJAC)       19-5, 19-5      0.792       6-1      0.579       1-0      0.686   
       GL#8      PS-Behrend (AMCC)        21-2, 21-2      0.913       1-1      0.446       2-0      0.680   
       GL#2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)        19-4, 19-4      0.826       3-1      0.528       2-0      0.677   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)       19-4, 19-4      0.826       3-1      0.528       1-1      0.677   
       NE#3      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)        18-4, 19-5      0.818       5-0      0.534       1-0      0.676   
       So#4      VWU (ODAC)       18-4, 19-4      0.818       1-3      0.531       2-0      0.675   
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)       19-4, 19-4      0.826       3-2      0.523       2-0      0.675   
       Atl#2      William Paterson (NJAC)       19-5, 19-5      0.792       5-2      0.555       0-1      0.674   
       So#3      East Texas Baptist (ASC)       19-4, 19-4      0.826       5-3      0.520       1-1      0.673   
       W#6      Whitworth (NWC)        20-3, 20-3      0.870       1-3      0.473       2-0      0.672   
       W#4      Dubuque (IIAC)       18-4, 19-4      0.818       0-2      0.521       1-1      0.670   
       So#2      Emory (UAA)        17-5, 17-5      0.773       5-3      0.564       2-0      0.669   
       C#4      Washington U. (UAA)       17-5, 17-5      0.773       3-3      0.562       2-0      0.668   
       C#5      Elmhurst (CCIW)       19-5, 19-5      0.792       4-2      0.541       0-1      0.667   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)        17-4, 18-4      0.810       0-1      0.523       2-0      0.667   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)       18-5, 18-5      0.783       3-2      0.546       2-0      0.665   
       W#5      Whitman (NWC)       17-4, 18-5      0.810       2-3      0.519       2-0      0.665   
       W#7      Chapman (SCIAC)       13-3, 18-3      0.813       1-0      0.512       2-1      0.663   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)       19-4, 19-4      0.826       2-2      0.497       1-1      0.662   
       NE#4      Amherst (NESCAC)       18-6, 18-6      0.750       5-3      0.567       1-0      0.659   
       GL#4      Mount Union (OAC)       18-5, 18-5      0.783       2-4      0.523       1-1      0.653   
       NE#7      Bowdoin (NESCAC)       17-6, 17-6      0.739       2-4      0.563       1-1      0.651   
       GL#5      John Carroll (OAC)       17-5, 17-5      0.773       2-2      0.520       2-0      0.647   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)       18-5, 18-5      0.783       0-2      0.507       2-0      0.645   
       Atl#6       Sage College (SKY)       18-4, 19-4      0.818       1-1      0.472       2-0      0.645   
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)        18-5, 18-5      0.783       3-1      0.501       1-1      0.642   
       C#7      IWU (CCIW)       17-7, 17-7      0.708       3-4      0.576       1-0      0.642   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)        17-5, 17-6      0.773       1-1      0.509       1-1      0.641   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)       19-5, 19-5      0.792       2-3      0.490       2-0      0.641   
       So#7      Louisiana College (ASC)       13-5, 13-9      0.722       4-4      0.557       1-1      0.640   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)        16-4, 18-4      0.800       0-0      0.479       2-0      0.640   
       NE#8      Springfield (NEWMAC)       16-7, 16-7      0.696       2-5      0.581       2-0      0.639   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)        16-5, 17-6      0.762       2-1      0.512       2-0      0.637   
       E#2      Plattsburgh St.  (SUNYAC)        16-6, 16-6      0.727       1-0      0.542       2-1      0.635   
       C#8      North Central (CCIW)       15-7, 17-7      0.682       3-5      0.577       1-0      0.630   
       E#3      NYU (UAA)       16-6, 16-6      0.727       4-2      0.532       0-2      0.630   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)       17-5, 18-5      0.773       1-3      0.486       1-1      0.630   
       So#6      Hardin-Simmons (ASC)        17-6, 17-6      0.739       3-4      0.513       2-0      0.626   
       NE#10      RIC (LEC)       16-7, 16-7      0.696       0-3      0.555       2-0      0.626   
       GL#6      CWR (UAA)       12-6, 14-7      0.667       2-3      0.574       1-2      0.621   
       E#5      Skidmore (LL)        16-7, 16-7      0.696       1-5      0.542       2-0      0.619   
       E#4      Hobart   (LL)       16-6, 16-7      0.727       3-1      0.507       2-0      0.617   
       Atl#5      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)       16-8, 16-8      0.667       1-5      0.559       2-0      0.613   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)       14-7, 15-8      0.667       2-5      0.552       2-0      0.610   
       So#8      Mary Hardin-Baylor (ASC)       16-7, 16-7      0.696       3-4      0.517       1-1      0.607   
       Atl#7      Staten Island (CUNYAC)        17-7, 17-7      0.708       2-4      0.491       0-2      0.600   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 08:32:32 AM
    Some big games with a few teams fighting for their NCAA Tourney lives tonight last night.

    ATLANTIC
    NJCU 61 at William Paterson 63
    Rutgers-Newark 54 at Richard Stockton 70

    Rutgers-Newark get tossed into Pool C and I don't like their chances.

    CENTRAL
    Nothing happening until Thursday when the WIAC starts their semifinals that include #3 Point and Whitewater.

    GREAT LAKES
    Oberlin 66 at Ohio Wesleyan 83
    Denison 68 at Wooster 108

    Ohio Northern 82 at Mount Union 101
    Capital 55 at Marietta 78
    Heidelberg 66 at John Carroll 75

    No bubbles burst here as everyone won that was expected to win. That's called chalk!  :D

    MID-ATLANTIC
    Nothing until tomorrow tonight

    NORTHEAST
    Southern Maine 39 at E. Connecticut 80
    Plymouth State 62 at Rhode Island College 66

    Suffolk 82 at Albertus Magnus 108

    Nothing drastic happened here.

    SOUTH
    All quiet on the Southern front

    WEST
    Luther 74 at Dubuque 92

    Cal. Tech 64 at Chapman 86

    Dubuque advanced to the semis and Chapman won a share of the SCIAC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 10:35:16 AM
    Light schedule involving regionally ranked teams tonight.

    In the Atlantic...

    York plays #4 Baruch in the CUNYAC semis with #5 Brooklyn hosting Lehman. Even with wins, I don't see either getting Pool C bids with their low SOSs. The CUNYAC will probably be a 1-team league.

    In the East...

    Things are looking ugly in the Liberty League with all three at the bottom of the rankings. #6 Clarkson plays at #4 Hobart and RIT plays at #5 Skidmore in the other semifinal. Skidmore may have the best chance at a Pool C bid considering their good SOS, but they also have the worst record among the 3.

    Finishing up in the Mid-Atlantic...

    The Landmark have their semis with #3 Catholic and #5 Scranton hosting Drew and Susquehanna. Due to their poor SOSs, I think both need wins in the semis to have a shot at Pool C.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 25, 2015, 01:07:59 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 10:35:16 AM
    Light schedule involving regionally ranked teams tonight.

    In the Atlantic...

    York plays #4 Baruch in the CUNYAC semis with #5 Brooklyn hosting Lehman. Even with wins, I don't see either getting Pool C bids with their low SOSs. The CUNYAC will probably be a 1-team league.

    In the East...

    Things are looking ugly in the Liberty League with all three at the bottom of the rankings. #6 Clarkson plays at #4 Hobart and RIT plays at #5 Skidmore in the other semifinal. Skidmore may have the best chance at a Pool C bid considering their good SOS, but they also have the worst record among the 3.

    Finishing up in the Mid-Atlantic...

    The Landmark have their semis with #3 Catholic and #5 Scranton hosting Drew and Susquehanna. Due to their poor SOSs, I think both need wins in the semis to have a shot at Pool C.

    Greek,

    Skidmore will probably jump from the #5 spot over Hobart, NYU, and Plattsburgh into the #2 spot when the new rankings come out later today. This is what the East Regional Rankings will probably look like, which doesn't make me happy because Plattsburgh has beaten Skidmore in head to head play at Skidmore. It means Plattsburgh will probably get into the NCAA tournament only if they win the automatic bid of the SUNYAC tournament. The fact that there were 3 Liberty League teams ranked and no other SUNYAC teams gives Skidmore a 2-4 vRRO while Plattsburgh is only 1-0 vRRO.       


    Probable Regional Rankings  for Week # 3
    1. St. John Fisher 21-4
    2. Skidmore   17-7
    3. Plattsburgh  18-7
    4. Hobart   18-7
    5. NYU   16-8
    6. Clarkson  19-6
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2015, 01:29:13 PM
    Quote from: magicman on February 25, 2015, 01:07:59 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 10:35:16 AM
    Light schedule involving regionally ranked teams tonight.

    In the Atlantic...

    York plays #4 Baruch in the CUNYAC semis with #5 Brooklyn hosting Lehman. Even with wins, I don't see either getting Pool C bids with their low SOSs. The CUNYAC will probably be a 1-team league.

    In the East...

    Things are looking ugly in the Liberty League with all three at the bottom of the rankings. #6 Clarkson plays at #4 Hobart and RIT plays at #5 Skidmore in the other semifinal. Skidmore may have the best chance at a Pool C bid considering their good SOS, but they also have the worst record among the 3.

    Finishing up in the Mid-Atlantic...

    The Landmark have their semis with #3 Catholic and #5 Scranton hosting Drew and Susquehanna. Due to their poor SOSs, I think both need wins in the semis to have a shot at Pool C.

    Greek,

    Skidmore will probably jump from the #5 spot over Hobart, NYU, and Plattsburgh into the #2 spot when the new rankings come out later today. This is what the East Regional Rankings will probably look like, which doesn't make me happy because Plattsburgh has beaten Skidmore in head to head play at Skidmore. It means Plattsburgh will probably get into the NCAA tournament only if they win the automatic bid of the SUNYAC tournament. The fact that there were 3 Liberty League teams ranked and no other SUNYAC teams gives Skidmore a 2-4 vRRO while Plattsburgh is only 1-0 vRRO.       


    Probable Regional Rankings  for Week # 3
    1. St. John Fisher 21-4
    2. Skidmore   17-7
    3. Plattsburgh  18-7
    4. Hobart   18-7
    5. NYU   16-8
    6. Clarkson  19-6

    I'm not really loving the Pool C chances of any of those teams. St. John Fisher and Skidmore would be in the mix, but not a lock by any stretch. Plattsburgh on down look like Pool A or bust.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2015, 01:45:39 PM
    I agree... I am not sure there is a strong argument for an at-large bid coming out of the East this year except if the dominoes all fall the right way.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 01:58:04 PM
    I will go against the grain and say Plattsburgh State stays. They'll have a similar record and SOS as Skidmore and the head to head road win. Skidmore definitely wins out on vRRO, but that H2H may win out. Regardless,  the whole rwgion doesn't look promising.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2015, 02:00:15 PM
    Final public men's basketball regional rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/02/25/final-public-ncaa-regional-rankings-released/ (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/02/25/final-public-ncaa-regional-rankings-released/)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2015, 02:00:49 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 01:58:04 PM
    I will go against the grain and say Plattsburgh State stays. They'll have a similar record and SOS as Skidmore and the head to head road win. Skidmore definitely wins out on vRRO, but that H2H may win out. Regardless,  the whole rwgion doesn't look promising.

    I thought the same except, the SOS wasn't that close... it was a hair away from the .030 significance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2015, 02:01:19 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 01:58:04 PM
    I will go against the grain and say Plattsburgh State stays. They'll have a similar record and SOS as Skidmore and the head to head road win. Skidmore definitely wins out on vRRO, but that H2H may win out. Regardless,  the whole rwgion doesn't look promising.

    Pretty bold statement after the rankings had already been released!  ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 02:01:25 PM
    NCAA had Skidmore at 1-5 vRRO, unless I cpoied it wrong.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2015, 02:12:25 PM
    I see Skidmore on their sheets at a correct 2-4.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 25, 2015, 02:15:21 PM
     As we await the last public regional rankings, I wonder about the mechanics of RAC voting:
       In the Mid-Atlantic, for example, in the vote for #1, suppose the Centennial rep votes for Johns Hopkins and the Landmark rep votes for Catholic, do the other 2 reps decide? Does the chair have a 5th equal vote or does he only break ties among the other 4? Can they tell the national committee that they're deadlocked and need them to break the tie?
      Considering this venue, it's ironic that this is not an academic discussion. It affects Pool C selection and hosting considerations. In this era of professed transparency(it's the other sport committees that don't want final RRs revealed), there may be other similar scenarios that should be brought to light.   
       
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2015, 02:24:15 PM
    First off... the rankings are out ;)

    Secondly... no, each member on the committee votes on their own. It doesn't come down to just those representatives. Everyone has an equal vote. The chair could, if necessary, break a tie. They won't tell the national committee that. However, I will also say, that the vote takes place AFTER the conference call. So the regional chair will see the vote and probably make any changes he needs in the case of a tie (though, I will double check that). Then the national committee can make changes after that if necessary.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 02:36:35 PM
    Wow. Brooklyn beats Baruch last week and stays behind them. Baruch's SOS goes from.492 to .513 and Brooklyn's goes from .490 to .491. Uh?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 25, 2015, 03:02:57 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 01:58:04 PM
    I will go against the grain and say Plattsburgh State stays. They'll have a similar record and SOS as Skidmore and the head to head road win. Skidmore definitely wins out on vRRO, but that H2H may win out. Regardless,  the whole rwgion doesn't look promising.

    That was my argument over on the East Regional Ranking board that Plattsburgh should be #2 because of the h2h road win. I was pretty sure it wouldn't happen though. I love it when I'm wrong  in a situation like this.

    2 years ago Plattsburgh was 2nd in the East Region rankings going into the semifinals of the SUNYAC tournament. They won their semifinal game and lost in the finals and finished with a 19-8 record. They got a Pool C bid and a 1st round home game that year. This year if the same thing happens they will finish with that same 19-8 record. I hope they don't have to sweat out the Monday selection show, because they win both games this weekend, but at least we still may have a chance if we win the first and lose the 2nd game. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: LJ0608 on February 25, 2015, 05:38:25 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2015, 02:44:48 PM
    With the new Top 25 comes my ballot: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/?p=2636 (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/?p=2636)

    Continues to be a challenging season as a voter.


    FYI, the St. Olaf - St. Thomas game last Monday was at St. Thomas.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2015, 08:52:30 PM
    East #6 Clarkson upsets East #3 Hobart 69-59 in the Liberty League semis.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 25, 2015, 11:51:42 PM
    Thoughts on the last rankings:

    Atlantic - I can't see anyone outside of Richard Stockton and William Paterson having a chance at a Pool C.  Barach and Brooklyn are still too far down the list with little chance to improve.

    Central - St. Norbert moving ahead of the other three of the CCIW this week, which makes sense because even though their SOS isn't all that, they only have one loss.  UWSP/UWW and Wash U are in.  I think IWU and Elmhurst also are in really good shape no matter what happens in the CCIW tournament this weekend.  North Central is on the bubble and could really use a win this weekend.

    East - I'm not getting why Plattsburgh is this high, as I think Skidmore and Hobert should be ahead of them (well, until tonight for Hobert anyway).  That said, I don't see anyone getting a Pool C out of this region if St. John Fisher takes care of business.

    Great Lakes - The order makes sense and I see the Mount Union/John Carroll game as a huge one as the team that wins will likely end up in the position to be on the bubble for Pool C and the loser will be waiting for the winner to get out of their way, which probably means no chance for Pool C.

    Mid-Atlantic - Franklin and Marshall ahead of Scranton is a bit of a stretch and could make a difference at the end of the Pool C selections.  Dickinson is in at this point.

    Northeast - Bates was screwed a bit dropping down to 4 behind Trinity and Amherst, but I don't think it'll matter.  I pretty much see Amherst, Bates and WPI as in at this point with things getting interesting at Bowdoin (who need a RRO win) and Springfield.  I don't think Wesleyan having a chance with 9 losses so they'll have to win the NESCAC tournament.

    South - Order makes sense to me; Va. Wesleyan is in as a Pool C. 

    West - I think Whitman should be ahead of Buena Vista, but they did clear Dubuque at this point which was a potential roadblock.

    Using Knightslappy's Pool C, this is how I see things:

    IN:
    UW-Whitewater
    Bates
    Wash U
    Va. Wesleyan
    Wooster
    St. Olaf
    Dickinson
    William Paterson

    Bubble (but on good side):
    IWU
    WPI
    Elmhurst

    Bubble (and pushing their luck):
    Whitman
    North Central
    John Carroll
    Franklin and Marshall

    Bubble (and likely little hope given upsets):
    Bowdoin
    Springfield
    Scranton
    Dubuque
    Mount Union
    Hardin Simmons
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 26, 2015, 12:02:03 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 25, 2015, 11:51:42 PM
    Thoughts on the last rankings:

    Atlantic - I can't see anyone outside of Richard Stockton and William Paterson having a chance at a Pool C.  Barach and Brooklyn are still too far down the list with little chance to improve.

    Central - St. Norbert moving ahead of the other three of the CCIW this week, which makes sense because even though their SOS isn't all that, they only have one loss.  UWSP/UWW and Wash U are in.  I think IWU and Elmhurst also are in really good shape no matter what happens in the CCIW tournament this weekend.  North Central is on the bubble and could really use a win this weekend.

    East - I'm not getting why Plattsburgh is this high, as I think Skidmore and Hobert should be ahead of them (well, until tonight for Hobert anyway).  That said, I don't see anyone getting a Pool C out of this region if St. John Fisher takes care of business.

    Great Lakes - The order makes sense and I see the Mount Union/John Carroll game as a huge one as the team that wins will likely end up in the position to be on the bubble for Pool C and the loser will be waiting for the winner to get out of their way, which probably means no chance for Pool C.

    Mid-Atlantic - Franklin and Marshall ahead of Scranton is a bit of a stretch and could make a difference at the end of the Pool C selections.  Dickinson is in at this point.

    Northeast - Bates was screwed a bit dropping down to 4 behind Trinity and Amherst, but I don't think it'll matter.  I pretty much see Amherst, Bates and WPI as in at this point with things getting interesting at Bowdoin (who need a RRO win) and Springfield.  I don't think Wesleyan having a chance with 9 losses so they'll have to win the NESCAC tournament.

    South - Order makes sense to me; Va. Wesleyan is in as a Pool C. 

    West - I think Whitman should be ahead of Buena Vista, but they did clear Dubuque at this point which was a potential roadblock.

    Using Knightslappy's Pool C, this is how I see things:

    IN:
    UW-Whitewater
    Bates
    Wash U
    Va. Wesleyan
    Wooster
    St. Olaf
    Dickinson
    William Paterson

    Bubble (but on good side):
    IWU
    WPI
    Elmhurst

    Bubble (and pushing their luck):
    Whitman
    North Central
    John Carroll
    Franklin and Marshall

    Bubble (and likely little hope given upsets):
    Bowdoin
    Springfield
    Scranton
    Dubuque
    Mount Union
    Hardin Simmons

      The loser of F&M-Dickinson semi should fall behind the loser of the Catholic-Scranton final in the RRs because the latter will add 1 additional victory and vrro result for the final rankings over the former.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 01:29:34 AM
    I can't see a scenario where Dickinson falls behind Scranton. If F&M losses and Scranton wins, I could see them flipping. I also am not sure Dickinson would fall behind Catholic because a) the SOS is so significantly different and b) the committee(s) have had that chance to make that move in the last few rankings and haven't (following a Dickinson lost).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 06:05:09 AM
    Week 3



       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       Atl#1      Richard Stockton (NJAC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       5-1      0.573      0.687   
       Atl#2      William Paterson (NJAC)      19-6 19-6      0.760       5-2      0.557      0.659   
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)       19-6 19-6      0.760       3-2      0.513      0.637   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      21-5 21-5      0.808       3-3      0.491      0.650   
       Atl#5      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      18-8 18-8      0.692       1-5      0.566      0.629   
       Atl#6       Sage College (SKY)      20-4 21-4      0.833       1-1      0.455      0.644   
       Atl#7      Misericordia  (MACF)       19-6 19-6      0.760       1-3      0.482      0.621   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)      21-4 21-4      0.840       5-2      0.577      0.709   
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)      21-2 22-3      0.913       2-2      0.549      0.731   
       C#3      Stevens Point (WIAC)      21-4 21-4      0.840       2-4      0.575      0.708   
       C#4      Washington U. (UAA)      19-5 19-5      0.792       4-3      0.563      0.678   
       C#5      St. Norbert (MWC)       22-1 22-1      0.957       0-1      0.494      0.726   
       C#6      IWU (CCIW)      18-7 18-7      0.720       4-4      0.576      0.648   
       C#7      Elmhurst (CCIW)      19-6 19-6      0.760       4-3      0.544      0.652   
       C#8      North Central (CCIW)      16-7 18-7      0.696       3-5      0.573      0.635   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       E#1      St. John Fisher (E8)       21-4 21-4      0.840       0-0      0.508      0.674   
       E#2      Plattsburgh St.  (SUNYAC)       18-7 18-7      0.720       1-0      0.527      0.624   
       E#3      Hobart   (LL)      18-6 18-7      0.750       3-1      0.505      0.628   
       E#4      Skidmore (LL)       17-7 17-7      0.708       2-4      0.552      0.630   
       E#5      NYU (UAA)      16-8 16-8      0.667       4-3      0.547      0.607   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)      18-6 19-6      0.750       1-4      0.493      0.622   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)       23-2 23-2      0.920       3-2      0.506      0.713   
       GL#2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)       21-4 21-4      0.840       3-1      0.534      0.687   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       2-2      0.543      0.672   
       GL#4      John Carroll (OAC)      19-5 19-5      0.792       3-2      0.517      0.655   
       GL#5      Mount Union (OAC)      19-6 19-6      0.760       2-4      0.530      0.645   
       GL#6      PS-Behrend (AMCC)       23-2 23-2      0.920       0-1      0.457      0.689   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)       18-5 19-6      0.783       2-1      0.502      0.643   
       GL#8      St. Vincent (PAC)      18-6 19-6      0.750       2-2      0.516      0.633   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)      16-7 17-8      0.696       2-5      0.543      0.620   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       MA#1      Johns Hopkins (CC)       22-3 22-3      0.880       3-2      0.528      0.704   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       3-2      0.539      0.670   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)       21-3 21-4      0.875       1-1      0.495      0.685   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       3-2      0.504      0.652   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)      20-5 20-5      0.800       1-1      0.514      0.657   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       18-4 20-4      0.818       0-0      0.480      0.649   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)       23-2 23-2      0.920       6-2      0.559      0.740   
       NE#2      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)       19-4 20-5      0.826       4-0      0.530      0.678   
       NE#3      Amherst (NESCAC)      19-6 19-6      0.760       4-2      0.568      0.664   
       NE#4      Bates (NESCAC)      19-6 19-6      0.760       3-4      0.611      0.686   
       NE#5      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)       21-4 21-4      0.840       2-2      0.554      0.697   
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)      21-4 21-4      0.840       2-2      0.507      0.674   
       NE#7      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)       24-1 24-1      0.960       0-1      0.473      0.717   
       NE#8      Bowdoin (NESCAC)      18-7 18-7      0.720       1-4      0.565      0.643   
       NE#9      Springfield (NEWMAC)      18-7 18-7      0.720       2-4      0.564      0.642   
       NE#10      Southern Vermont (NECC)       21-2 22-3      0.913       0-1      0.478      0.696   
       NE#11      Wesleyan (NESCAC)      17-8 17-8      0.680       3-4      0.547      0.614   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       So#1      RMC (ODAC)       23-2 23-2      0.920       4-0      0.536      0.728   
       So#2      Emory (UAA)       19-5 19-5      0.792       5-3      0.562      0.677   
       So#3      VWU (ODAC)      20-4 20-4      0.833       0-3      0.538      0.686   
       So#4      East Texas Baptist (ASC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       4-2      0.515      0.658   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)       19-4 20-4      0.826       0-1      0.517      0.672   
       So#6      Hardin-Simmons (ASC)       19-6 19-6      0.760       3-3      0.520      0.640   
       So#7      Rhodes (ASC)      18-5 18-6      0.783       1-2      0.497      0.640   
       So#8      Mary Hardin-Baylor (SAA)      17-8 17-8      0.680       2-5      0.534      0.607   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)       22-3 22-3      0.880       5-0      0.568      0.724   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)      21-4 21-4      0.840       1-2      0.522      0.681   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)       18-6 18-7      0.750       2-1      0.526      0.638   
       W#4      Whitman (NWC)      19-4 20-5      0.826       2-3      0.514      0.670   
       W#5      Whitworth (NWC)       22-3 22-3      0.880       1-3      0.480      0.680   
       W#6      Dubuque (IIAC)      19-5 20-5      0.792       0-3      0.523      0.658   
       W#7      Bethel (MIAC)      17-8 17-8      0.680       3-2      0.539      0.610   
                                              
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 06:08:41 AM
    ranked by SOS



       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       NE#4      Bates (NESCAC)      19-6 19-6      0.760       3-4      0.611      0.686   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)      21-4 21-4      0.840       5-2      0.577      0.709   
       C#6      IWU (CCIW)      18-7 18-7      0.720       4-4      0.576      0.648   
       C#3      Stevens Point (WIAC)      21-4 21-4      0.840       2-4      0.575      0.708   
       Atl#1      Richard Stockton (NJAC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       5-1      0.573      0.687   
       C#8      North Central (CCIW)      16-7 18-7      0.696       3-5      0.573      0.635   
       NE#3      Amherst (NESCAC)      19-6 19-6      0.760       4-2      0.568      0.664   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)       22-3 22-3      0.880       5-0      0.568      0.724   
       Atl#5      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      18-8 18-8      0.692       1-5      0.566      0.629   
       NE#8      Bowdoin (NESCAC)      18-7 18-7      0.720       1-4      0.565      0.643   
       NE#9      Springfield (NEWMAC)      18-7 18-7      0.720       2-4      0.564      0.642   
       C#4      Washington U. (UAA)      19-5 19-5      0.792       4-3      0.563      0.678   
       So#2      Emory (UAA)       19-5 19-5      0.792       5-3      0.562      0.677   
       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)       23-2 23-2      0.920       6-2      0.559      0.740   
       Atl#2      William Paterson (NJAC)      19-6 19-6      0.760       5-2      0.557      0.659   
       NE#5      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)       21-4 21-4      0.840       2-2      0.554      0.697   
       E#4      Skidmore (LL)       17-7 17-7      0.708       2-4      0.552      0.630   
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)      21-2 22-3      0.913       2-2      0.549      0.731   
       E#5      NYU (UAA)      16-8 16-8      0.667       4-3      0.547      0.607   
       NE#11      Wesleyan (NESCAC)      17-8 17-8      0.680       3-4      0.547      0.614   
       C#7      Elmhurst (CCIW)      19-6 19-6      0.760       4-3      0.544      0.652   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       2-2      0.543      0.672   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)      16-7 17-8      0.696       2-5      0.543      0.620   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       3-2      0.539      0.670   
       W#7      Bethel (MIAC)      17-8 17-8      0.680       3-2      0.539      0.610   
       So#3      VWU (ODAC)      20-4 20-4      0.833       0-3      0.538      0.686   
       So#1      RMC (ODAC)       23-2 23-2      0.920       4-0      0.536      0.728   
       GL#2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)       21-4 21-4      0.840       3-1      0.534      0.687   
       So#8      Mary Hardin-Baylor (SAA)      17-8 17-8      0.680       2-5      0.534      0.607   
       GL#5      Mount Union (OAC)      19-6 19-6      0.760       2-4      0.530      0.645   
       NE#2      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)       19-4 20-5      0.826       4-0      0.530      0.678   
       MA#1      Johns Hopkins (CC)       22-3 22-3      0.880       3-2      0.528      0.704   
       E#2      Plattsburgh St.  (SUNYAC)       18-7 18-7      0.720       1-0      0.527      0.624   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)       18-6 18-7      0.750       2-1      0.526      0.638   
       W#6      Dubuque (IIAC)      19-5 20-5      0.792       0-3      0.523      0.658   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)      21-4 21-4      0.840       1-2      0.522      0.681   
       So#6      Hardin-Simmons (ASC)       19-6 19-6      0.760       3-3      0.520      0.640   
       GL#4      John Carroll (OAC)      19-5 19-5      0.792       3-2      0.517      0.655   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)       19-4 20-4      0.826       0-1      0.517      0.672   
       GL#8      St. Vincent (PAC)      18-6 19-6      0.750       2-2      0.516      0.633   
       So#4      East Texas Baptist (ASC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       4-2      0.515      0.658   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)      20-5 20-5      0.800       1-1      0.514      0.657   
       W#4      Whitman (NWC)      19-4 20-5      0.826       2-3      0.514      0.670   
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)       19-6 19-6      0.760       3-2      0.513      0.637   
       E#1      St. John Fisher (E8)       21-4 21-4      0.840       0-0      0.508      0.674   
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)      21-4 21-4      0.840       2-2      0.507      0.674   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)       23-2 23-2      0.920       3-2      0.506      0.713   
       E#3      Hobart   (LL)      18-6 18-7      0.750       3-1      0.505      0.628   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       3-2      0.504      0.652   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)       18-5 19-6      0.783       2-1      0.502      0.643   
       So#7      Rhodes (ASC)      18-5 18-6      0.783       1-2      0.497      0.640   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)       21-3 21-4      0.875       1-1      0.495      0.685   
       C#5      St. Norbert (MWC)       22-1 22-1      0.957       0-1      0.494      0.726   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)      18-6 19-6      0.750       1-4      0.493      0.622   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      21-5 21-5      0.808       3-3      0.491      0.650   
       Atl#7      Misericordia  (MACF)       19-6 19-6      0.760       1-3      0.482      0.621   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       18-4 20-4      0.818       0-0      0.480      0.649   
       W#5      Whitworth (NWC)       22-3 22-3      0.880       1-3      0.480      0.680   
       NE#10      Southern Vermont (NECC)       21-2 22-3      0.913       0-1      0.478      0.696   
       NE#7      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)       24-1 24-1      0.960       0-1      0.473      0.717   
       GL#6      PS-Behrend (AMCC)       23-2 23-2      0.920       0-1      0.457      0.689   
       Atl#6      Sage College (SKY)      20-4 21-4      0.833       1-1      0.455      0.644   
                                              
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 26, 2015, 08:48:21 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 25, 2015, 11:51:42 PM

    Great Lakes - The order makes sense and I see the Mount Union/John Carroll game as a huge one as the team that wins will likely end up in the position to be on the bubble for Pool C and the loser will be waiting for the winner to get out of their way, which probably means no chance for Pool C.

    Looking at the numbers, the loser of tonight's game is done for the season, without question.  I cannot envision a Pool C scenario in which  tonight's loser is given a Pool C bid over tonight's winner.  This is especially true if tonight's winner goes on to win the OAC championship against (I would assume) Marietta.  In that scenario, tonight's loser would need to picked over or in addition to Marietta and the numbers do not support that, either.  The OAC has little chance of getting two teams in and no chance of getting three teams in.  In fact, it is still my opinion that the best way for the OAC to get two teams in would be in the OAC champ/Pool A is NOT Marietta.  If it's Marietta as champ, then tonight's winner will be on the bubble and cheering hard for the favorites the rest of the way.

    In short, Mount and JCU better win their next two if they want to be playing next week.  They would have a chance of getting in "off the bubble" but it is not a chance I would want to take.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 09:46:10 AM
    Thinking way ahead to flights/geography issues, it looks like SCIAC, NWC, ASC, and SCAC will all be one-bid leagues. Maybe East Texas Baptist could get a Pool C bid, but it would not be a guarantee. Maybe I'm also discounting the NWC runner-up too much as well.

    So, we're probably looking at SCIAC and NWC champs flying to Texas to make a pod there with the winner flying out for the sectional round. There's no way around three flights here, but this would ensure that there are no more than three flights from this group before the Final Four, and it wouldn't make for an unfair pod either. It would also mean the two byes could be used to seeding or to balance the bracket rather than for geography (unless I'm missing another geographic outlier).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 26, 2015, 09:47:26 AM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 26, 2015, 08:48:21 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 25, 2015, 11:51:42 PM

    Great Lakes - The order makes sense and I see the Mount Union/John Carroll game as a huge one as the team that wins will likely end up in the position to be on the bubble for Pool C and the loser will be waiting for the winner to get out of their way, which probably means no chance for Pool C.

    Looking at the numbers, the loser of tonight's game is done for the season, without question.  I cannot envision a Pool C scenario in which  tonight's loser is given a Pool C bid over tonight's winner.  This is especially true if tonight's winner goes on to win the OAC championship against (I would assume) Marietta.  In that scenario, tonight's loser would need to picked over or in addition to Marietta and the numbers do not support that, either.  The OAC has little chance of getting two teams in and no chance of getting three teams in.  In fact, it is still my opinion that the best way for the OAC to get two teams in would be in the OAC champ/Pool A is NOT Marietta.  If it's Marietta as champ, then tonight's winner will be on the bubble and cheering hard for the favorites the rest of the way.

    In short, Mount and JCU better win their next two if they want to be playing next week.  They would have a chance of getting in "off the bubble" but it is not a chance I would want to take.


    I wouldn't totally discount John Carroll as a true 'C'.  If they win tonight and lose to Marietta, they present 20-6 with an sos around .530(or better) and 4-4 v RRO's  to the committee with wins over St. Norbert and Marietta.  They must play Marietta Saturday though. 

    That's not slam dunk in, but they would be in the conversation and it would be highly dependent on those Pool A upsets.

    If Wooster loses tonight, that would also open the door for JCU.

    Mt. Union won't have the same strong kind of criteria with a win tonight/loss Saturday.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on February 26, 2015, 09:51:39 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 25, 2015, 11:51:42 PM
    Thoughts on the last rankings:

    Atlantic - I can't see anyone outside of Richard Stockton and William Paterson having a chance at a Pool C.  Barach and Brooklyn are still too far down the list with little chance to improve.

    Central - St. Norbert moving ahead of the other three of the CCIW this week, which makes sense because even though their SOS isn't all that, they only have one loss.  UWSP/UWW and Wash U are in.  I think IWU and Elmhurst also are in really good shape no matter what happens in the CCIW tournament this weekend.  North Central is on the bubble and could really use a win this weekend.

    East - I'm not getting why Plattsburgh is this high, as I think Skidmore and Hobart should be ahead of them (well, until tonight for Hobart anyway).  That said, I don't see anyone getting a Pool C out of this region if St. John Fisher takes care of business.

    Great Lakes - The order makes sense and I see the Mount Union/John Carroll game as a huge one as the team that wins will likely end up in the position to be on the bubble for Pool C and the loser will be waiting for the winner to get out of their way, which probably means no chance for Pool C.

    Mid-Atlantic - Franklin and Marshall ahead of Scranton is a bit of a stretch and could make a difference at the end of the Pool C selections.  Dickinson is in at this point.

    Northeast - Bates was screwed a bit dropping down to 4 behind Trinity and Amherst, but I don't think it'll matter.  I pretty much see Amherst, Bates and WPI as in at this point with things getting interesting at Bowdoin (who need a RRO win) and Springfield.  I don't think Wesleyan having a chance with 9 losses so they'll have to win the NESCAC tournament.

    South - Order makes sense to me; Va. Wesleyan is in as a Pool C. 

    West - I think Whitman should be ahead of Buena Vista, but they did clear Dubuque at this point which was a potential roadblock.

    Using Knightslappy's Pool C, this is how I see things:

    IN:
    UW-Whitewater
    Bates
    Wash U
    Va. Wesleyan
    Wooster
    St. Olaf
    Dickinson
    William Paterson

    Bubble (but on good side):
    IWU
    WPI
    Elmhurst

    Bubble (and pushing their luck):
    Whitman
    North Central
    John Carroll
    Franklin and Marshall

    Bubble (and likely little hope given upsets):
    Bowdoin
    Springfield
    Scranton
    Dubuque
    Mount Union
    Hardin Simmons

    For Plattsburgh being ahead of Skidmore i think the head to head factor may have done it. For Plattsburgh being ahead of Hobart i think that is directly related to Hobart low SOS number. Hobart SOS .505, Plattsburgh SOS .527, Skidmore SOS .552. Also Hobart is 3-1 against regionally ranked teams. (2 wins against Skidmore and win against Clarkson). Plattsburgh 1-0 against regionally ranked opponents. (win vs Skidmore). Skidmore record against regionally ranked opponents is 2-4.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 26, 2015, 09:52:53 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 01:29:34 AM
    I can't see a scenario where Dickinson falls behind Scranton. If F&M losses and Scranton wins, I could see them flipping. I also am not sure Dickinson would fall behind Catholic because a) the SOS is so significantly different and b) the committee(s) have had that chance to make that move in the last few rankings and haven't (following a Dickinson lost).

      There's new data to be considered for the next vote which would favor Catholic if Dickinson loses the semi; that they haven't moved them ahead in previous votes is largely irrelevant if the previous difference is small.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 26, 2015, 10:41:57 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 26, 2015, 09:47:26 AM
    I wouldn't totally discount John Carroll as a true 'C'.  If they win tonight and lose to Marietta, they present 20-6 with an sos around .530(or better) and 4-4 v RRO's  to the committee with wins over St. Norbert and Marietta.  They must play Marietta Saturday though. 

    That's not slam dunk in, but they would be in the conversation and it would be highly dependent on those Pool A upsets.

    If Wooster loses tonight, that would also open the door for JCU.

    Mt. Union won't have the same strong kind of criteria with a win tonight/loss Saturday.

    I don't disagree that JCU might be in the conversation with a loss to Marietta but I still think they would be squarely on the bubble and too dependent on the Pool A upsets to have any level of comfort. If they are able to sneak in, it would be, in my opinion, as one of the last two teams in unless the Pool A upsets are very few.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 26, 2015, 11:04:36 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 09:46:10 AM
    Thinking way ahead to flights/geography issues, it looks like SCIAC, NWC, ASC, and SCAC will all be one-bid leagues. Maybe East Texas Baptist could get a Pool C bid, but it would not be a guarantee. Maybe I'm also discounting the NWC runner-up too much as well.

    So, we're probably looking at SCIAC and NWC champs flying to Texas to make a pod there with the winner flying out for the sectional round. There's no way around three flights here, but this would ensure that there are no more than three flights from this group before the Final Four, and it wouldn't make for an unfair pod either. It would also mean the two byes could be used to seeding or to balance the bracket rather than for geography (unless I'm missing another geographic outlier).

    What are you doing with Emory?

    I don't see anyone other that Centre(again) that can get to Atlanta without a flight.   Emory's #2 ranking suggests they might be in line to host.


    Edit**
    Emory hosts
    ASC
    NWC
    SCIAC

    SCAC champ, (hopefully Centre) goes to Marietta
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 11:13:35 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 26, 2015, 11:04:36 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 09:46:10 AM
    Thinking way ahead to flights/geography issues, it looks like SCIAC, NWC, ASC, and SCAC will all be one-bid leagues. Maybe East Texas Baptist could get a Pool C bid, but it would not be a guarantee. Maybe I'm also discounting the NWC runner-up too much as well.

    So, we're probably looking at SCIAC and NWC champs flying to Texas to make a pod there with the winner flying out for the sectional round. There's no way around three flights here, but this would ensure that there are no more than three flights from this group before the Final Four, and it wouldn't make for an unfair pod either. It would also mean the two byes could be used to seeding or to balance the bracket rather than for geography (unless I'm missing another geographic outlier).

    What are you doing with Emory?

    I don't see anyone other that Centre(again) that can get to Atlanta without a flight.   Emory's #2 ranking suggests they might be in line to host.


    Edit**
    Emory hosts
    ASC
    NWC
    SCIAC

    SCAC champ, (hopefully Centre) goes to Marietta

    Could do:

    Emory
    bye
    Centre/SAA
    Averett/USAC

    Spalding could get there if they win the SLIAC. Otherwise we'd have to (1) use a bye here or (2) send that pod to Centre. And they'll send the pod to Centre long before adding flights.

    And obviously it depends on who actually comes out of the SAA and USAC and if you could get them to each other within 500 miles for the Thursday game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 11:20:43 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 26, 2015, 09:52:53 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 01:29:34 AM
    I can't see a scenario where Dickinson falls behind Scranton. If F&M losses and Scranton wins, I could see them flipping. I also am not sure Dickinson would fall behind Catholic because a) the SOS is so significantly different and b) the committee(s) have had that chance to make that move in the last few rankings and haven't (following a Dickinson lost).

      There's new data to be considered for the next vote which would favor Catholic if Dickinson loses the semi; that they haven't moved them ahead in previous votes is largely irrelevant if the previous difference is small.

    ronk - what new data?

    Dickinson     20-5     .539     3-2 vRRO
    Catholic        21-3     .495     1-1 vRRO

    No matter what, both SOSs climb, but Dickinson's will climb more (playing one or two teams with better records than CUA is playing) - and that is already beyond the significant .030 to two games to make the WL% a wash. If Dickinson gets to the title game, they are guaranteed two additional games to the vRRO... but at least one if they lose on Friday whereas Catholic can't gain more than one game there... furthermore, the vRRO is ONLY against Scranton for Catholic whereas Dickinson has multiple teams they have played (North Central, F&M, and Johns Hopkins)... worse case Dickinson is 3-3 and Catholic is 1-2. Even if North Central were to fall out of the rankings, Dickinson would still be 2-3 with wins over higher ranked teams than Catholic.

    What data could possibly move CUA ahead of Dickinson if both teams lose?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 11:37:23 AM
    Make or break night for some teams.

    ATLANTIC
    #6 Sage hosts SUNY-Old Westbury in the SKY semis. Its Pool A or bust for them.

    CENTRAL
    Oshkosh at #3 Stevens Point
    Eau Claire at #2 Whitewater

    Both WIAC teams are safe for Pool C bids. But, both want to host and, of course, win the WIAC Tourney.

    GREAT LAKES
    Baldwin - Wallace at #1 Marietta
    #5 Mount Union at #4 John Carroll

    Big night in the OAC. I think the winner of Mt. Union/John Carroll is in the Pool C mix with the loser clinging for life. Marietta is safe.

    #9 Hope at Trine
    Alma at #7 Calvin

    Pool A or bust for both semifinal MIAA teams.

    Thomas More at #8 St. Vincent (Ditto for the PAC)

    MID-ATLANTIC
    #6 St. Mary's host Christopher Newport in a CAC semifinal,  but they look dead in the water for a Pool C.

    NORTHEAST
    #7 Albertus Magnus hosts St. Joseph's in a GNAC semifinal.  They jumped 2 spots in the rankings,  but probably need a Pool A spot with at least 3 teams ahead of them.

    SOUTH
    Randolph vs  #1 Randolph-Macon
    Washington and Lee vs #3 Virginia Wesleyan

    Both ODAC quarterfinalist should be safe for Pool C

    Texas-Dallas at #6 Hardin-Simmons
    #8 MHB at Howard Payne
    Univ. of the Ozarks at #4 ETB

    All of the ASC teams need wins with only East Texas Baptist having a realistic shot at Pool C, and they need to make the Final.

    WEST
    Wartburg at #3 Buena Vista
    #6 Dubuque at Coe

    Buena Vista looks prettt safe if they make the IIAC Final. Fellow IIAC member Dubuque doesn't look as fortunate.

    Lewis & Clark at #4 Whitman
    Willamette at #5 Whitworth

    Best case for the NWC is for Whitworth to beat Whitman in the Final, giving Whitman a shot at a Pool C bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 12:54:21 PM
    St. Thomas, Washington U., and Amherst (and possibly Randolph-Macon?) look like would-be hosts who will have to concede the home court to the Women (odd-numbered year and all). Are there any contingencies that might allow them to still host a game (alternate campus site, a Thursday game in a pod with a bye, a Saturday only game as a host with a bye)?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 01:01:55 PM
    I really doubt Randolph-Macon women will be hosting in the first weekend. The women are sitting fourth right now and will probably lose in the conference tournament. Eastern Mennonite will be the only host on that side of things, most likely.

    I don't think Amherst men will be in a position to host, either. Mainly because I know the committee is really going to try and give the top two seeds the hosting opportunities. My point is I don't think Amherst loses the opportunity - they are hitting the road anyway.

    St. Thomas and Wash U are the two I think will lose the chance (IF Wash U beats Chicago this weekend)... and that opens the door to SNC if they can win the AQ.

    As for the bye hosts... don't expect it to happen. There was a lot of those double-host situations in 2013 due to the men's structure and the NCAA doesn't feel it went very well (tough for schools to host essentially two different tournaments while giving both sides the sense it was special, they weren't being overlooked, and giving fair time on the courts for practice... locker rooms, etc.). We saw an example of that when Amherst women were put on the road last year so the men could host just one game at home. The NCAA basically said the discussion of a dual host for that stopped at the liaison level... they just didn't like the idea of the double-host. So... just don't expect it unless it was at a gym/facility that really was big enough (i.e. locker rooms and such) to do it... and honestly, there aren't a lot of them in Division III. (By the alternate campus site could be seen as making one of the genders feel less worthy as the other... something the NCAA doesn't want to have happen.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 01:28:57 PM
    How many other schools have separate gyms like Stevens Point.  The men play at Quandt and the women play, literally down the hall, at Berg Gym. I do believe when the women hosted, they did move the games to Quandt because of the seating capacity.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 01:41:16 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 01:28:57 PM
    How many other schools have separate gyms like Stevens Point.  The men play at Quandt and the women play, literally down the hall, at Berg Gym. I do believe when the women hosted, they did move the games to Quandt because of the seating capacity.

    Not many... Stevenson has two gyms that are about 15 minutes a part... but no one else really comes to mind (my alma mater has two gyms, but the lower gym is not even close to regulation! LOL).

    They did move the women's tournament to Quandt for seating considerations.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Just Bill on February 26, 2015, 02:56:19 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 01:28:57 PM
    How many other schools have separate gyms like Stevens Point.  The men play at Quandt and the women play, literally down the hall, at Berg Gym. I do believe when the women hosted, they did move the games to Quandt because of the seating capacity.

    But even with two gyms, Point wasn't permitted to host men and women at the same time. That was the conflict in 2004 which created this current alternating system. That year the women ended up hosting (and winning) the sectional in Quandt while the men were sent out to Puget Sound to play (and win) a sectional final vs. Lawrence in one of the best games no one saw.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: realist on February 26, 2015, 03:01:12 PM
    Several weeks ago the Calvin men played at 1 p.m., and the women at 3 p.m. in the VNA, and at 3 p.m. the men's jv played in the old fieldhouse which now seats about 1200+.  Included in the complex are the pool seating 500, the VNA seating 4500+. the old fieldhouse as mentioned, and a track tennis facility,
    http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/huizenga-ttc 
    http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/vannoord
    http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/venema-aquatic-center
    oops.   almost forgot to add the climbing wall http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/climbing-center
    If memory serves correct they have locker facilities for something like 8 teams.
    The women's final four will be played at the VNA in a couple weeks.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 03:05:16 PM
    Quote from: realist on February 26, 2015, 03:01:12 PM
    Several weeks ago the Calvin men played at 1 p.m., and the women at 3 p.m. in the VNA, and at 3 p.m. the men's jv played in the old fieldhouse which now seats about 1200+.  Included in the complex are the pool seating 500, the VNA seating 4500+. the old fieldhouse as mentioned, and a track tennis facility,
    http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/huizenga-ttc 
    http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/vannoord
    http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/venema-aquatic-center
    oops.   almost forgot to add the climbing wall http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/climbing-center
    If memory serves correct they have locker facilities for something like 8 teams.
    The women's final four will be played at the VNA in a couple weeks.

    They play JV games in the old Calvin Fieldhouse, but you wouldn't want to host an NCAA Tournament game there. The new brick wall is too close to the end line for regulation play, I would think. And I doubt you could really get 1,200 in there.

    The locker room facilities would make it easy to host men and women simultaneously and there would be plenty of access to practice courts. Not that the men are in position for this, however.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: realist on February 26, 2015, 03:11:57 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 03:05:16 PM
    Quote from: realist on February 26, 2015, 03:01:12 PM
    Several weeks ago the Calvin men played at 1 p.m., and the women at 3 p.m. in the VNA, and at 3 p.m. the men's jv played in the old fieldhouse which now seats about 1200+.  Included in the complex are the pool seating 500, the VNA seating 4500+. the old fieldhouse as mentioned, and a track tennis facility,
    http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/huizenga-ttc 
    http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/vannoord
    http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/venema-aquatic-center
    oops.   almost forgot to add the climbing wall http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/climbing-center
    If memory serves correct they have locker facilities for something like 8 teams.
    The women's final four will be played at the VNA in a couple weeks.

    They play JV games in the old Calvin Fieldhouse, but you wouldn't want to host an NCAA Tournament game there. The new brick wall is too close to the end line for regulation play, I would think. And I doubt you could really get 1,200 in there.

    The locker room facilities would make it easy to host men and women simultaneously and there would be plenty of access to practice courts. Not that the men are in position for this, however.
    Thanks KS the 1200 was a SWAG, and I forgot about the brick wall.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 26, 2015, 03:15:30 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 12:54:21 PM
    St. Thomas, Washington U., and Amherst (and possibly Randolph-Macon?) look like would-be hosts who will have to concede the home court to the Women (odd-numbered year and all). Are there any contingencies that might allow them to still host a game (alternate campus site, a Thursday game in a pod with a bye, a Saturday only game as a host with a bye)?

      And possibly Scranton if it wins the AQ.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 03:16:26 PM
    Quote from: realist on February 26, 2015, 03:11:57 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 03:05:16 PM
    Quote from: realist on February 26, 2015, 03:01:12 PM
    Several weeks ago the Calvin men played at 1 p.m., and the women at 3 p.m. in the VNA, and at 3 p.m. the men's jv played in the old fieldhouse which now seats about 1200+.  Included in the complex are the pool seating 500, the VNA seating 4500+. the old fieldhouse as mentioned, and a track tennis facility,
    http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/huizenga-ttc 
    http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/vannoord
    http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/venema-aquatic-center
    oops.   almost forgot to add the climbing wall http://www.calvinknights.com/facilities/climbing-center
    If memory serves correct they have locker facilities for something like 8 teams.
    The women's final four will be played at the VNA in a couple weeks.

    They play JV games in the old Calvin Fieldhouse, but you wouldn't want to host an NCAA Tournament game there. The new brick wall is too close to the end line for regulation play, I would think. And I doubt you could really get 1,200 in there.

    The locker room facilities would make it easy to host men and women simultaneously and there would be plenty of access to practice courts. Not that the men are in position for this, however.
    Thanks KS the 1200 was a SWAG, and I forgot about the brick wall.

    I think 1200 or 1250 was the capacity in 2008 when the upper sections were closed for construction. But that configuration still had the whole end line bleachers and the "Dutch Royalty" seating area on the concourse end.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 03:23:27 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 01:01:55 PM
    Mainly because I know the committee is really going to try and give the top two seeds the hosting opportunities.

    I mean, do we really need to see the East hosting any pods?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 26, 2015, 03:25:33 PM
    Dave,
       Hosting questions:
        Does the committee award 2 hosts to each region unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise like the assignment to Emory last year for geographical reasons?
        How did they choose to take it from the Mid-Atlantic? were they the least deserving of all the regions' #2 potential hosts?
        What happens if one is precluded from hosting whether because the women will or the school doesn't put in to host? Does it go to the next highest candidate in the same region?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2015, 03:48:09 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 26, 2015, 03:25:33 PM
    Dave,
       Hosting questions:
        Does the committee award 2 hosts to each region unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise like the assignment to Emory last year for geographical reasons?
        How did they choose to take it from the Mid-Atlantic? were they the least deserving of all the regions' #2 potential hosts?
        What happens if one is precluded from hosting whether because the women will or the school doesn't put in to host? Does it go to the next highest candidate in the same region?

    I can't imagine they'll be that strict this year.  There's just no one in the East, really at all - maybe St. John Fisher.  Outside the NJAC champ, there's no one else in the Atlantic either.

    Mid-Atlantic you're not going to have any more than the Centennial and Landmark tourney winners.  Maybe St. Mary's, if they win, but their SOS isn't superb.

    I imagine, with all the losses this year, they're going to be working the geography angle way more than trying to award hosting to deserving teams.

    Babson, St. Thomas, the WIAC champ, Randolph-Macon - those are really the only teams who you'd complain if they didn't host.  There's a second tier that would deserve to host if they win the conference, but it's sure not guaranteed - Hopkins, Augie, WashU, etc.

    Maybe this will give them license to be creative and really mix the brackets up as much as possible?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 05:18:48 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 26, 2015, 03:15:30 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 12:54:21 PM
    St. Thomas, Washington U., and Amherst (and possibly Randolph-Macon?) look like would-be hosts who will have to concede the home court to the Women (odd-numbered year and all). Are there any contingencies that might allow them to still host a game (alternate campus site, a Thursday game in a pod with a bye, a Saturday only game as a host with a bye)?

      And possibly Scranton if it wins the AQ.

    Sorry ronk... but the men are not in a position to host even if they won the AQ... they were going to hit the road no matter what.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 05:36:08 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 26, 2015, 03:48:09 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 26, 2015, 03:25:33 PM
    Dave,
       Hosting questions:
        Does the committee award 2 hosts to each region unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise like the assignment to Emory last year for geographical reasons?
        How did they choose to take it from the Mid-Atlantic? were they the least deserving of all the regions' #2 potential hosts?
        What happens if one is precluded from hosting whether because the women will or the school doesn't put in to host? Does it go to the next highest candidate in the same region?

    I can't imagine they'll be that strict this year.  There's just no one in the East, really at all - maybe St. John Fisher.  Outside the NJAC champ, there's no one else in the Atlantic either.

    Mid-Atlantic you're not going to have any more than the Centennial and Landmark tourney winners.  Maybe St. Mary's, if they win, but their SOS isn't superb.

    I imagine, with all the losses this year, they're going to be working the geography angle way more than trying to award hosting to deserving teams.

    Babson, St. Thomas, the WIAC champ, Randolph-Macon - those are really the only teams who you'd complain if they didn't host.  There's a second tier that would deserve to host if they win the conference, but it's sure not guaranteed - Hopkins, Augie, WashU, etc.

    Maybe this will give them license to be creative and really mix the brackets up as much as possible?

    If anyone listened to my interview with Jeff Burns last month (hint, hint LOL), you would remember he said two things: they will be "seeding" the top 16 teams to try and determine host sites and they want the top two teams in each region to host if they can. However, there are a lot of scenarios that could change those hopes:
    - women have priority in the first weekend
    - geography and money play a role (i.e. Emory)
    - who gets the byes
    - what island teams will be in the tournament to change everything

    I don't think that means they will not reward two East schools hosts. However, they certainly could. Remember the frustration when Scranton and the entire Mid-Atlantic was left out of the hosting  decisions last year? They are aware how that looked and I have been told they wish they had considered that better.

    Quote from: ronk on February 26, 2015, 03:25:33 PM
        How did they choose to take it from the Mid-Atlantic? were they the least deserving of all the regions' #2 potential hosts?

    Not sure I have a good answer here. As I stated, indications are they wish they looked at this differently. I can't remember off the top of my head besides Scranton who probably deserved to host as well... but some region had to lose a host because of the Emory situation. The problem was, Mid-Atlantic lost two because they left a hosting situation in the South (three).

    I do remember Wesley could have been in play, but a loss and the fact they couldn't host on campus (and didn't want to find a nearby facility) removed them from consideration. I am not sure if that made things too easy for the committee to avoid the Mid-Atlantic altogether.

    Quote from: ronk on February 26, 2015, 03:25:33 PM
    Dave,
        What happens if one is precluded from hosting whether because the women will or the school doesn't put in to host? Does it go to the next highest candidate in the same region?

    That isn't an easy answer. Sure... the next school in line in the region has a good shot at it, but geography is going to start playing a role. If they had three teams headed to St. Thomas, but now moving the game elsewhere keeps those three teams from getting there... they need to not only shuffle the three teams, but maybe find another host. They want to reward the higher-ranked teams, but that doesn't mean that is the best decision.

    The problem I had last year was the fact they rewarded Emory a bye and had them host, even though I thought sending a pod of games with Emory to Centre made more geographic sense (and bracketing sense). The answer I kept getting back to me was, that wasn't fair to Emory since Emory was by far the higher ranked team.

    What I got from that was this: in the first weekend, they rather reward the higher-ranked teams then have geography play a role which it always does in the second weekend (remember Middlebury and St. Mary's both headed to Rochester?). I don't necessarily agree with that. I understand and respect the sentiment that a higher-ranked team should get the chance to host, but not while sacrificing what is good for the bracket. There are no easy answers, but in last year's Emory case I felt what made more sense for the bracket was to send the games to Centre as a pod and find the bye somewhere else. Especially considering it took TWO hosting chances away from the Mid-Atlantic.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 26, 2015, 06:28:36 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 05:18:48 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 26, 2015, 03:15:30 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2015, 12:54:21 PM
    St. Thomas, Washington U., and Amherst (and possibly Randolph-Macon?) look like would-be hosts who will have to concede the home court to the Women (odd-numbered year and all). Are there any contingencies that might allow them to still host a game (alternate campus site, a Thursday game in a pod with a bye, a Saturday only game as a host with a bye)?

      And possibly Scranton if it wins the AQ.

    Scranton could finish 2nd in RRs(and deserve the 2nd Mid-Atlantic hosting) with a 22-5 WL vs Dickinson's 20-6 and a narrowed SOS difference with 2 wins(home and away) vs a neutral court loss for Dickinson. At any rate, the question was what will the committee do in such a scenario, whether or not Scranton(2015) is the protagonist? Remember 2 years ago when Montclair women couldn't host because of NJ gambling.

    Sorry ronk... but the men are not in a position to host even if they won the AQ... they were going to hit the road no matter what.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 06:48:29 PM
    Yep.. and two men's teams had to host in New York State because of that... it was 2013... single game weekends on the men's side.

    I just don't think Scranton gains an advantage on Dickinson who will have them beat in the vRRO category because Scranton has a couple of more wins. Dickinson could also be in the title game making them 21-6 narrowing that to nearly a wash... while still controlling the SOS and vRRO conversation.

    If we did it by columns... in your scenario... Scranton gets WL, Dickinson gets SOS and vRRO.
    In my scenior, WL is a wash, and Dickinson still gets SOS and vRRO.

    Of course... if Dickinson wins the AQ... it is even harder... but I know you were referring to whether Dickinson lost.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2015, 07:48:32 PM

    Looks like we survived the ODAC quarters without any upsets.  HSC and Guildford still to play tonight, but neither team will really be up for a C if they lose here.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 07:49:37 PM
    Randolph-Macon AND Virginia Wesleyan had to lose tonight for a bubble to pop. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 08:05:04 PM
    I have the updated table for the schedule and results, but for some reason the site won't let me right click to copy and paste. Weird. I'll try later.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 09:07:46 PM
    St. Mary's lost, as did MHB.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2015, 09:09:37 PM

    St. Mary's is likely out with that loss, I have to think.  SOS isn't great, they were already pretty far down in the rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 09:21:40 PM
    Yeah... I think SMC had to get to the title game to better position themselves. That probably drops them for the second year in a row.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2015, 09:47:53 PM

    Point goes down.  Not a burst bubble unless Oshkosh wins the WIAC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: LJ0608 on February 26, 2015, 09:50:29 PM
    Wartburg knocked off Buena Vista in OT.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 09:51:33 PM
    Buena Vista could pop a bubble... depends on some other scenarios... but they were ahead of the NWC teams, so they were reasonably positioned.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEPAFAN on February 26, 2015, 10:21:27 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 06:48:29 PM
    Yep.. and two men's teams had to host in New York State because of that... it was 2013... single game weekends on the men's side.

    I just don't think Scranton gains an advantage on Dickinson who will have them beat in the vRRO category because Scranton has a couple of more wins. Dickinson could also be in the title game making them 21-6 narrowing that to nearly a wash... while still controlling the SOS and vRRO conversation.

    If we did it by columns... in your scenario... Scranton gets WL, Dickinson gets SOS and vRRO.
    In my scenior, WL is a wash, and Dickinson still gets SOS and vRRO.

    Of course... if Dickinson wins the AQ... it is even harder... but I know you were referring to whether Dickinson lost.

    Still brooding over Scranton being sent on the road last year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: saratoga on February 26, 2015, 10:36:06 PM
    Just got off the phone with Scott Van Pelt.
    He says Joe Lunardi has Scranton leading the pack of the Last Four In even with a loss in Saturday's Landmark Championship.
    He goes on to say that should they (Royal's), win...he would not be the least bit surprised to even see them host.
    What say ye now d-mac?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: saratoga on February 26, 2015, 10:59:31 PM
    By the way, if you're about to say the Scranton Women get first shot at hosting the first round....not so fast, my friend.
    Reliable sources have noted the Scranton AD is already one step ahead of everyone.
    He has made a proposal to the NCAA to have the woman's doubleheader at 8:00am & 10:00am that first weekend.
    This move, according to a recent release "is to promote inclusion into our athletic family for all those that work the 3rd. shift, those with trouble sleeping and those looking for something to do before brunch".
    Could be an action packed weekend of hoops at the Long Center where the "all-synthetic", made in Loyola Science Lab, Royal Dog is still just 1.75.


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2015, 11:04:42 PM
    Quote from: saratoga on February 26, 2015, 10:59:31 PM
    By the way, if you're about to say the Scranton Women get first shot at hosting the first round....not so fast, my friend.
    Reliable sources have noted the Scranton AD is already one step ahead of everyone.
    He has made a proposal to the NCAA to have the woman's doubleheader at 8:00am & 10:00am that first weekend.
    This move, according to a recent release "is to promote inclusion into our athletic family for all those that work the 3rd. shift, those with trouble sleeping and those looking for something to do before brunch".
    Could be an action packed weekend of hoops at the Long Center where the "all-synthetic", made in Loyola Science Lab, Royal Dog is still just 1.75.

    WOW!  The Scranton AD has the greatest BS-spin since Lee Atwater and James Carville! ;D

    (I assume you were making a joke.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 26, 2015, 11:08:03 PM
    Quote from: saratoga on February 26, 2015, 10:36:06 PM
    Just got off the phone with Scott Van Pelt.
    He says Joe Lunardi has Scranton leading the pack of the Last Four In even with a loss in Saturday's Landmark Championship.
    He goes on to say that should they (Royal's), win...he would not be the least bit surprised to even see them host.
    What say ye now d-mac?

    With the expectation of the Lady Royals hosting, if the Royals win the AQ, possibly finishing 2nd in the RRs and earning the 2nd hosting spot, would they then "host"(play the #4 "seed") at the RR #3 site? A problematic scenario, but just planting the idea.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 11:32:12 PM
    Bringing this forward

    Week 3



       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       Atl#1      Richard Stockton (NJAC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       5-1      0.573      0.687   
       Atl#2      William Paterson (NJAC)      19-6 19-6      0.760       5-2      0.557      0.659   
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)       19-6 19-6      0.760       3-2      0.513      0.637   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      21-5 21-5      0.808       3-3      0.491      0.650   
       Atl#5      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      18-8 18-8      0.692       1-5      0.566      0.629   
       Atl#6       Sage College (SKY)      20-4 21-4      0.833       1-1      0.455      0.644   
       Atl#7      Misericordia  (MACF)       19-6 19-6      0.760       1-3      0.482      0.621   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)      21-4 21-4      0.840       5-2      0.577      0.709   
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)      21-2 22-3      0.913       2-2      0.549      0.731   
       C#3      Stevens Point (WIAC)      21-4 21-4      0.840       2-4      0.575      0.708   
       C#4      Washington U. (UAA)      19-5 19-5      0.792       4-3      0.563      0.678   
       C#5      St. Norbert (MWC)       22-1 22-1      0.957       0-1      0.494      0.726   
       C#6      IWU (CCIW)      18-7 18-7      0.720       4-4      0.576      0.648   
       C#7      Elmhurst (CCIW)      19-6 19-6      0.760       4-3      0.544      0.652   
       C#8      North Central (CCIW)      16-7 18-7      0.696       3-5      0.573      0.635   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       E#1      St. John Fisher (E8)       21-4 21-4      0.840       0-0      0.508      0.674   
       E#2      Plattsburgh St.  (SUNYAC)       18-7 18-7      0.720       1-0      0.527      0.624   
       E#3      Hobart   (LL)      18-6 18-7      0.750       3-1      0.505      0.628   
       E#4      Skidmore (LL)       17-7 17-7      0.708       2-4      0.552      0.630   
       E#5      NYU (UAA)      16-8 16-8      0.667       4-3      0.547      0.607   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)      18-6 19-6      0.750       1-4      0.493      0.622   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)       23-2 23-2      0.920       3-2      0.506      0.713   
       GL#2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)       21-4 21-4      0.840       3-1      0.534      0.687   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       2-2      0.543      0.672   
       GL#4      John Carroll (OAC)      19-5 19-5      0.792       3-2      0.517      0.655   
       GL#5      Mount Union (OAC)      19-6 19-6      0.760       2-4      0.530      0.645   
       GL#6      PS-Behrend (AMCC)       23-2 23-2      0.920       0-1      0.457      0.689   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)       18-5 19-6      0.783       2-1      0.502      0.643   
       GL#8      St. Vincent (PAC)      18-6 19-6      0.750       2-2      0.516      0.633   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)      16-7 17-8      0.696       2-5      0.543      0.620   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       MA#1      Johns Hopkins (CC)       22-3 22-3      0.880       3-2      0.528      0.704   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       3-2      0.539      0.670   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)       21-3 21-4      0.875       1-1      0.495      0.685   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       3-2      0.504      0.652   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)      20-5 20-5      0.800       1-1      0.514      0.657   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       18-4 20-4      0.818       0-0      0.480      0.649   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)       23-2 23-2      0.920       6-2      0.559      0.740   
       NE#2      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)       19-4 20-5      0.826       4-0      0.530      0.678   
       NE#3      Amherst (NESCAC)      19-6 19-6      0.760       4-2      0.568      0.664   
       NE#4      Bates (NESCAC)      19-6 19-6      0.760       3-4      0.611      0.686   
       NE#5      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)       21-4 21-4      0.840       2-2      0.554      0.697   
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)      21-4 21-4      0.840       2-2      0.507      0.674   
       NE#7      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)       24-1 24-1      0.960       0-1      0.473      0.717   
       NE#8      Bowdoin (NESCAC)      18-7 18-7      0.720       1-4      0.565      0.643   
       NE#9      Springfield (NEWMAC)      18-7 18-7      0.720       2-4      0.564      0.642   
       NE#10      Southern Vermont (NECC)       21-2 22-3      0.913       0-1      0.478      0.696   
       NE#11      Wesleyan (NESCAC)      17-8 17-8      0.680       3-4      0.547      0.614   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       So#1      RMC (ODAC)       23-2 23-2      0.920       4-0      0.536      0.728   
       So#2      Emory (UAA)       19-5 19-5      0.792       5-3      0.562      0.677   
       So#3      VWU (ODAC)      20-4 20-4      0.833       0-3      0.538      0.686   
       So#4      East Texas Baptist (ASC)      20-5 20-5      0.800       4-2      0.515      0.658   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)       19-4 20-4      0.826       0-1      0.517      0.672   
       So#6      Hardin-Simmons (ASC)       19-6 19-6      0.760       3-3      0.520      0.640   
       So#7      Rhodes (ASC)      18-5 18-6      0.783       1-2      0.497      0.640   
       So#8      Mary Hardin-Baylor (SAA)      17-8 17-8      0.680       2-5      0.534      0.607   
                                              
       WK2      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%      vRRO      SOS      Ave.   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)       22-3 22-3      0.880       5-0      0.568      0.724   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)      21-4 21-4      0.840       1-2      0.522      0.681   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)       18-6 18-7      0.750       2-1      0.526      0.638   
       W#4      Whitman (NWC)      19-4 20-5      0.826       2-3      0.514      0.670   
       W#5      Whitworth (NWC)       22-3 22-3      0.880       1-3      0.480      0.680   
       W#6      Dubuque (IIAC)      19-5 20-5      0.792       0-3      0.523      0.658   
       W#7      Bethel (MIAC)      17-8 17-8      0.680       3-2      0.539      0.610   
                                              
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 11:32:38 PM


       WK2      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       Atl#1      Richard Stockton (NJAC)      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 70-54; vs William Paterson in Final on Fri.   
       Atl#2      William Paterson (NJAC)      WON vs NJCU 63-61; vs Richard Stockton in Final on Fri.   
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)       WON vs CCNY 72-55; vs Brooklyn in Final on Fri.   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      WON vs Lehman 80-70; at Baruch in Final on Fri.   
       Atl#5      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)        LOST at Richard Stockton 70-54 in semis   
       Atl#6      Sage College (SKY)      WON vs SUNY-Old Westbury 92-74; vs St. Joseph's (L.I.) in Final on Sat.   
       Atl#7      Misericordia  (MACF)       WON vs King's 57-52 OT; vs Delaware Valley in Final on Sat.   
                      
       WK2      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)      vs North Central in semis on Fri.   
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)      WON vs Eau Claire 82-60; vs Oshkosh in Final on Sat.   
       C#3      Stevens Point (WIAC)        LOST vs Oshkosh 50-47 in semis   
       C#4      Washington U. (UAA)      vs Chicago on Sat.   
       C#5      St. Norbert (MWC)       vs Ripon in semis on Fri.   
       C#6      IWU (CCIW)      vs Elmhurst in semis on Fri.   
       C#7      Elmhurst (CCIW)      vs IWU in semis on Fri.   
       C#8      North Central (CCIW)      at Augustana in semis on Fri.   
                      
       WK2      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       E#1      St. John Fisher (E8)       vs Ithaca in semis on Fri.   
       E#2      Plattsburgh St.  (SUNYAC)       vs Brockport State in semis on Fri.   
       E#3      Hobart (LL)       LOST to Clarkson 69-59 in semis   
       E#4      Skidmore (LL)       WON vs RIT 72-51; vs Clarkson in Final on Sat.   
       E#5      NYU (UAA)      vs Brandeis on Sat.   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)      WON at Clarkson 69-59 in semis; vs Skidmore in Final on Sat.   
                      
       WK2      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)       WON vs Capital 78-55; WONvs Baldwin Wallace 78-74; vs Mount Union in Final on Sat.   
       GL#2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)       WON vs Oberlin 83-66; vs DePauw in semis Fri.   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)      WON vs Denison 69-60; vs Wabash in semis Fri.   
       GL#4      John Carroll (OAC)       WON vs Heidelberg 75-66; LOST vs Mount Union 89-88 in semis    
       GL#5      Mount Union (OAC)      WON vs Ohio Northern 101-82; WON at John Carroll 89-88; at Marietta in Final on Sat.   
       GL#6      PS-Behrend (AMCC)       vs Hilbert in semis on Fri.   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)       WON vs Alma 73-65; vs Hope in Final on Sat.   
       GL#8      St. Vincent (PAC)      WON vs Westminster 87-79; WON vs Thomas More 86-73; vs Waynesburg in Final on Sat.   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)      WON at Trine 55-44; at Calvin in Final on Sat.   
                      
       WK2      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       MA#1      Johns Hopkins (CC)       vs Gettysburg in semis on Fri.   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)      at Franklin and Marshall in semis on Fri.   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)       WON vs Drew 79-53; vs Scranton in Final on Sat.   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      vs Dickinson in semis on Fri.   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)      WON vs Susquehanna 67-53; at Catholic in Final on Sat.   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       LOST vs Christopher Newport 83-69 in semis    
                      
       WK2      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)       vs MIT in semis on Sat.   
       NE#2      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)       WON vs Colby 66-63; vs Wesleyan in semis on Sat.   
       NE#3      Amherst (NESCAC)      WON at Tufts 92-66; at Bowdoin in semis on Sat.   
       NE#4      Bates (NESCAC)      LOST to Wesleyan 66-59 in quarters   
       NE#5      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)       WON vs Southern Main 80-39; vs Keene St. in semis on Fri.   
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)      vs Springfield in semis on Sat.   
       NE#7      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)       WON vs Suffolk 108-82; WON vs St. Joseph's 81-51; vs Johnson and Wales in Final on Sat.   
       NE#8      Bowdoin (NESCAC)      WON vs Williams 87-74; vs Amherst in semis on Sat.   
       NE#9      Springfield (NEWMAC)      at WPI in semis on Sat.   
       NE#10      Southern Vermont (NECC)       vs Becker in semis on Fri.   
       NE#11      Wesleyan (NESCAC)      WON at Bates 66-59; at Trinity in semis on Sat.   
                      
       WK2      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       So#1      RMC (ODAC)       WON vs Randolph 72-63; vs Eastern Mennonite in semis Sat.   
       So#2      Emory (UAA)       vs Rochester on Sat.   
       So#3      VWU (ODAC)      WON vs Washington and Lee 81-53; vs Guilford in semis on Sat.   
       So#4      East Texas Baptist (ASC)       WON vs University of Ozarks 67-52; vs Howard Payne in semis on Fri.   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)       vs Berry in quarters on Fri.   
       So#6      Hardin-Simmons (ASC)       WON vs Texas-Dallas 77-63; vs Concordia (TX) in semis on Fri.   
       So#7      Rhodes (SAA)      vs Millsaps in quarters on Fri.   
       So#8      Mary Hardin-Baylor (SAA)         LOST at Howard Payne 72-64 in quarters    
                      
       WK2      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)       vs Gustavus Adolphus in semis on Fri.   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)      vs Bethel in semis on Fri.   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)       LOST vs Wartburg 93-88 OT in semis    
       W#4      Whitman (NWC)      vs Lewis and Clark in semis on Thurs.   
       W#5      Whitworth (NWC)       vs Willamette in semis on Thurs.   
       W#6      Dubuque (IIAC)      WON at Coe 71-59; vs Wartburg in Final on Sat.   
       W#7      Bethel (MIAC)      WON vs Concordia-Moorhead 71-53; at St. Olaf in semis on Fri.   
                      
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 11:42:22 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 26, 2015, 11:08:03 PM
    With the expectation of the Lady Royals hosting, if the Royals win the AQ, possibly finishing 2nd in the RRs and earning the 2nd hosting spot, would they then "host"(play the #4 "seed") at the RR #3 site? A problematic scenario, but just planting the idea.

    Not cut and dry... because moving the host site doesn't automatically mean sending it to one of the other three teams in the pod. The committee will look at who else in the region or neighboring regions deserves to host... thus possibly shuffling the four teams in a Scranton pod to other locations. It could open up a lot of changes and not necessarily give Scranton the "lowest" "seed" available in that scenario.

    Quote from: saratoga on February 26, 2015, 10:36:06 PM
    Just got off the phone with Scott Van Pelt.
    He says Joe Lunardi has Scranton leading the pack of the Last Four In even with a loss in Saturday's Landmark Championship.
    He goes on to say that should they (Royal's), win...he would not be the least bit surprised to even see them host.
    What say ye now d-mac?

    Joe who? Does he even know there is anything but Division I? I actually wanted to be a smartass on ESPN's Facebook page when they offered the chance for fans to ask questions to actually ask him... who are the last four in in Division III... figuring it would be ignored... but I was too busy hosting Hoopsville LOL.

    And... I have stated that Scranton could get in despite a loss to Catholic. As for hosting... still think that is a bit of a stretch ;)

    BTW... instead of Van Pelt (who I do like)... you couldn't have picked any of the Division III alums at ESPN including a former Division III basketball All-American?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 11:44:00 PM
    ATLANTIC
    Didn't look like Rutgers-Newark was going to get a Pool C bid anyway, so really no harm, no foul for the rest of the candidates.

    CENTRAL
    Point surprised at home against Oshkosh, but that doesn't effect anyone as both Whitewater and Point were in anyway...of course, it only effects EVERYONE if Oshkosh pulls off another surprise down in Whitewater on Saturday.

    EAST
    Everyone thought that Skidmore had the best chance at a Pool C bid anyway, even if it was a small chance. So, Hobart losing doesn't change much.

    GREAT LAKES
    I thought John Carroll was leading the whole game. Interesting for JCU as they are really on the bubble now. So, does Mount Union have a good shot at Pool C now? They'll be 2nd at the table if Ohio Wesleyan and Wooster make their Final. Is John Carroll outside looking in now?

    MID-ATLANTIC
    No one really discussed St. Mary's as a Pool C candidate anyway.

    NORTHEAST
    It will be interesting to guess how far down Bates drops after losing last week.

    SOUTH
    MHB wasn't on anyone radar.

    WEST
    I don't think the NWC teams will be too happy with Buena Vista tonight. Coe's website has Dubuque winning 71-59.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 11:51:13 PM
    Whitworth hammered Willamette. But it looks like we can take Whitman out of the Pool C equation as they are about to lose to Lewis and Clark.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 26, 2015, 11:57:17 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 11:42:22 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 26, 2015, 11:08:03 PM
    With the expectation of the Lady Royals hosting, if the Royals win the AQ, possibly finishing 2nd in the RRs and earning the 2nd hosting spot, would they then "host"(play the #4 "seed") at the RR #3 site? A problematic scenario, but just planting the idea.

    Not cut and dry... because moving the host site doesn't automatically mean sending it to one of the other three teams in the pod. The committee will look at who else in the region or neighboring regions deserves to host... thus possibly shuffling the four teams in a Scranton pod to other locations. It could open up a lot of changes and not necessarily give Scranton the "lowest" "seed" available in that scenario.

    Quote from: saratoga on February 26, 2015, 10:36:06 PM
    Just got off the phone with Scott Van Pelt.
    He says Joe Lunardi has Scranton leading the pack of the Last Four In even with a loss in Saturday's Landmark Championship.
    He goes on to say that should they (Royal's), win...he would not be the least bit surprised to even see them host.
    What say ye now d-mac?

    Joe who? Does he even know there is anything but Division I? I actually wanted to be a smartass on ESPN's Facebook page when they offered the chance for fans to ask questions to actually ask him... who are the last four in in Division III... figuring it would be ignored... but I was too busy hosting Hoopsville LOL.

    And... I have stated that Scranton could get in despite a loss to Catholic. As for hosting... still think that is a bit of a stretch ;)

    BTW... instead of Van Pelt (who I do like)... you couldn't have picked any of the Division III alums at ESPN including a former Division III basketball All-American?

    Yes, Saratoga could have chosen John A. Walsh, Exec Editor(ESPN) and a fellow classmate of mine @ Scranton who was the radio voice of the Royals for a couple of years(along with Rich Chvotkin-currently Georgetown's radio voice).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 11:58:02 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 11:44:00 PM
    EAST
    Everyone thought that Skidmore had the best chance at a Pool C bid anyway, even if it was a small chance. So, Hobart losing doesn't change much.

    Came up on Hoopsville tonight about NYU... believe it or not, I think they have a good chance. Let's say Skidmore, Plattsburgh, and St. John Fisher win their conferences... that will probably leave NYU to be the first at the table (they have a better SOS than Hobart and with a win vs. Brandeis would have a comparable WL). NYU I think has a reasonable chance to get an at-large bid, believe it or not, as long as they beat Brandeis (if they don't, they fall below the .667 line and are out). With a .547 SOS and a 3-2 vRRO including two wins over Emory and a split of Wash U and Chicago... it could get very interesting to see if NYU gets left at the table the entire 19 rounds (unless they keep Hobart ahead of them).

    Hobart:   18-8   .511   3-3 vRRO
    Emory:    17-8   .547   3-2 vRRO (and better wins)

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 11:44:00 PM
    GREAT LAKES
    I thought John Carroll was leading the whole game. Interesting for JCU as they are really on the bubble now. So, does Mount Union have a good shot at Pool C now? They'll be 2nd at the table if Ohio Wesleyan and Wooster make their Final. Is John Carroll outside looking in now?

    I thought their game was a game for the Pool C (if they needed it) anyway... but I also thought JCU needed that win more than Mount Union. I think MU had better criteria and JCU's SOS was going to hurt them. Now I think MU gets in anyway... and JCU is sitting at the table up against Buena Vista, maybe NYU, and others and gets left there.

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 11:44:00 PM
    MID-ATLANTIC
    No one really discussed St. Mary's as a Pool C candidate anyway.

    Well, I did present a theory that could get SMC a Pool C bid... but they had to get to the championship game. Now they are done because they can't get the SOS up high enough to give them a legit chance.

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 11:44:00 PM
    NORTHEAST
    It will be interesting to guess how far down Bates drops after losing last week.

    Not enough to keep them out of the tournament.

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2015, 11:44:00 PM
    WEST
    I don't think the NWC teams will be too happy with Buena Vista tonight. Coe's website has Dubuque winning 71-59.

    Yeah... that and the fact Whitman just lost to Lewis and Clark... meaning Whitworth probably moves ahead of Whitman... but Buena Vista will keep them from getting to the table quickly.

    Commentator for Whitman... because they were getting four votes in the Top 25... their chances to make the tournament as an at-large are pretty high. How can we inform him they don't have a chance at this point?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2015, 12:02:42 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 26, 2015, 11:57:17 PM
    Yes, Saratoga could have chosen John A. Walsh, Exec Editor(ESPN) and a fellow classmate of mine @ Scranton who was the radio voice of the Royals for a couple of years(along with Rich Chvotkin-currently Georgetown's radio voice).

    Not the one I was thinking about... but very nice reference. I had John Buccigross (Heidelberg), Linda Cohn (Oswego), Steve Levy (Oswego), and Kevin Conners (Ithaca - I thought he was an All-American, he apparently wasn't) on my short list.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 02:42:07 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 11:58:02 PM

    Commentator for Whitman... because they were getting four votes in the Top 25... their chances to make the tournament as an at-large are pretty high. How can we inform him they don't have a chance at this point?

    It's nice to know I wasn't the only one who was dumbfounded when I heard that at the end of the L&C/Whitman game
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 06:13:23 AM
    Maybe if they were ranked 4th.  ???   ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEPAFAN on February 27, 2015, 07:03:58 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 11:42:22 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 26, 2015, 11:08:03 PM
    With the expectation of the Lady Royals hosting, if the Royals win the AQ, possibly finishing 2nd in the RRs and earning the 2nd hosting spot, would they then "host"(play the #4 "seed") at the RR #3 site? A problematic scenario, but just planting the idea.

    Not cut and dry... because moving the host site doesn't automatically mean sending it to one of the other three teams in the pod. The committee will look at who else in the region or neighboring regions deserves to host... thus possibly shuffling the four teams in a Scranton pod to other locations. It could open up a lot of changes and not necessarily give Scranton the "lowest" "seed" available in that scenario.

    Quote from: saratoga on February 26, 2015, 10:36:06 PM
    Just got off the phone with Scott Van Pelt.
    He says Joe Lunardi has Scranton leading the pack of the Last Four In even with a loss in Saturday's Landmark Championship.
    He goes on to say that should they (Royal's), win...he would not be the least bit surprised to even see them host.
    What say ye now d-mac?

    Joe who? Does he even know there is anything but Division I? I actually wanted to be a smartass on ESPN's Facebook page when they offered the chance for fans to ask questions to actually ask him... who are the last four in in Division III... figuring it would be ignored... but I was too busy hosting Hoopsville LOL.

    And... I have stated that Scranton could get in despite a loss to Catholic. As for hosting... still think that is a bit of a stretch ;)

    BTW... instead of Van Pelt (who I do like)... you couldn't have picked any of the Division III alums at ESPN including a former Division III basketball All-American?


    Toga what time is the selection show on ESPN? Heard Bess is guest analyst.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2015, 02:08:35 PM
    Interesting thought experiment, comparing some of the final few teams who might be on the board. Probably enough spots to take four, maybe five teams from this list as it stands now. I don't see Buena Vista or NYU getting in.

    Rhode Island College   NE   0.731   / 0.542   / 0-3            OR    *Middlebury   NE   0.727   / 0.534   / 4-3            OR    MIT   NE   0.720   / 0.536   / 2-4
    New York University   EA   0.667   / 0.548   / 3-2
    *Rutgers-Newark   AT   0.667   / 0.571   / 1-6
    Franklin and Marshall   MA   0.800   / 0.505   / 3-2            OR    Scranton   MA   0.808   / 0.523   / 1-2
    Hardin-Simmons   SO   0.769   / 0.524   / 2-2            OR    Centre   SO   0.826   / 0.519   / 1-2
    *John Carroll   GL   0.769   / 0.524   / 3-3
    Elmhurst   CE   0.760   / 0.545   / 4-3            OR    North Central (Ill.)   CE   0.696   / 0.575   / 3-5
    *Buena Vista   WE   0.720   / 0.528   / 3-1            OR    *Whitman   WE   0.792   / 0.518   / 2-2            OR    Bethel   WE   0.692   / 0.540   / 3-2

    *-have lost and are waiting in Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 27, 2015, 02:58:05 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2015, 11:58:02 PM
    Came up on Hoopsville tonight about NYU... believe it or not, I think they have a good chance. Let's say Skidmore, Plattsburgh, and St. John Fisher win their conferences... that will probably leave NYU to be the first at the table (they have a better SOS than Hobart and with a win vs. Brandeis would have a comparable WL). NYU I think has a reasonable chance to get an at-large bid, believe it or not, as long as they beat Brandeis (if they don't, they fall below the .667 line and are out). With a .547 SOS and a 3-2 vRRO including two wins over Emory and a split of Wash U and Chicago... it could get very interesting to see if NYU gets left at the table the entire 19 rounds (unless they keep Hobart ahead of them).

    Hobart:   18-8   .511   3-3 vRRO
    Emory  NYU:    17-8   .547   3-2 vRRO (and better wins)

    Dave, I fixed it for you. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 03:10:03 PM
    So, if North Central beats Elmhurst in the CCIW championship game how many teams get in from the CCIW??  2, 3 or all 4??
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2015, 03:12:50 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 27, 2015, 03:10:03 PM
    So, if North Central beats Elmhurst in the CCIW championship game how many teams get in from the CCIW??  2, 3 or all 4??

    Under that scenario, I'd say 3.  I think with one more win IWU is a lock, but if they lose to Elmhurst they're very much bubble and probably on the wrong side of it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2015, 03:17:12 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2015, 03:12:50 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 27, 2015, 03:10:03 PM
    So, if North Central beats Elmhurst in the CCIW championship game how many teams get in from the CCIW??  2, 3 or all 4??

    Under that scenario, I'd say 3.  I think with one more win IWU is a lock, but if they lose to Elmhurst they're very much bubble and probably on the wrong side of it.

    I'd still like IWU better than Buena Vista and NYU. IWU is a lock with one more win, and perhaps not worse than 50-50 if they lose tonight.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2015, 03:21:01 PM
    KnightSlappy... in your example of NYU... you have them for a .667 WL%... if they beat Brandeis that would be a better number and that's why I think they are in play with that SOS and vRRO (especially who they have beaten) being a key factor. If they have lost to Brandeis... they have no chance.

    And thanks, magicman! :) +k - late nights are taking their toll. LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2015, 03:33:52 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2015, 03:21:01 PM
    KnightSlappy... in your example of NYU... you have them for a .667 WL%... if they beat Brandeis that would be a better number and that's why I think they are in play with that SOS and vRRO (especially who they have beaten) being a key factor. If they have lost to Brandeis... they have no chance.

    And thanks, magicman! :) +k - late nights are taking their toll. LOL

    So if NYU wins and IWU loses, we're looking at something close to:

    New York University   EA   0.680   / 0.544   / 3-2 (1-1 vs. Wash U)
    Illinois Wesleyan   CE   0.692   / 0.581   / 4-5 (0-1 vs. Wash U)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2015, 03:36:27 PM
    Yeah... that's why I think they are in play. And you are just using the comparable vRRO... NYU will also have a 2-0 v Emory and a 1-1 v Chicago (if they are relevant).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 03:55:22 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2015, 03:12:50 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 27, 2015, 03:10:03 PM
    So, if North Central beats Elmhurst in the CCIW championship game how many teams get in from the CCIW??  2, 3 or all 4??

    Under that scenario, I'd say 3.  I think with one more win IWU is a lock, but if they lose to Elmhurst they're very much bubble and probably on the wrong side of it.

    And if Elmhurst loses tonight they are all but done??
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 27, 2015, 04:04:46 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2015, 03:36:27 PM
    Yeah... that's why I think they are in play. And you are just using the comparable vRRO... NYU will also have a 2-0 v Emory and a 1-1 v Chicago (if they are relevant).

    I really don't see how you are arriving at that group of NYU criteria being better than IWU's.

    IWU has better w% against a more difficult schedule with more RvRRO's and wins over Buena Vista, Augustana, Elmhurst North Central.  Common opponent are WashU (NYU 1-1, IWU  0-1)  Chicago  (NYU 1-1, IWU 1-0)

    They both lost at WashU, IWU didn't get to play them at home.  They both beat Chicago at home, IWU didn't get to play them away.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2015, 04:09:24 PM
    sac - I never claimed NYU gets in over IWU... I am simply saying I think NYU has more of a chance as an at-large than many had previously expected. NYU could still be left out of the tournament, but there is a real chance (baring SJF, Skidmore, or Plattsburgh lose) that NYU is the first East team to the table for an at-large. They have an interesting case. That is all I am saying.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 04:14:11 PM
    I could never figure out SOS and probably too impatient to tey, but what's this .03 = 2 wins thing? Basically what you arw saying is if someone has 2 less wins/2 more losses but their SOS is .03 better, that evens out?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2015, 04:20:31 PM
    As Jeff Burns explained on my Hoopsville interview in January... NCAA stats has found that a difference of .030 in the SOS is significant and thus equal to about two games. I have no idea the explanation, but as a result, if you have the following comparison:

    Team A     16-4     .560
    Team B     18-2     .530

    ...essentially their WL and SOS would be considered a wash... even. If Team A had Team B's SOS their record would probably also be 18-2 and vise versa. It is just a way for the committees to better understand SOS and WL% between teams.

    Burns also pointed out that just because .030 equals two games does NOT mean .060 equals 4 games... it becomes less clear when you get that far a part.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 27, 2015, 05:09:22 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2015, 04:09:24 PM
    sac - I never claimed NYU gets in over IWU... I am simply saying I think NYU has more of a chance as an at-large than many had previously expected. NYU could still be left out of the tournament, but there is a real chance (baring SJF, Skidmore, or Plattsburgh lose) that NYU is the first East team to the table for an at-large. They have an interesting case. That is all I am saying.

    All right I see that now, it sure looked like you guys were comparing IWU to NYU.



    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 27, 2015, 05:19:34 PM
    E. Conn was down 15 early to Keene St., potential bubble buster
    http://d3hoops.com/seasons/men/2014-15/boxscores/20150227_5wgc.xml
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 05:51:55 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 27, 2015, 05:19:34 PM
    E. Conn was down 15 early to Keene St., potential bubble buster
    http://d3hoops.com/seasons/men/2014-15/boxscores/20150227_5wgc.xml

    Keene leads 41-31 at halftime.  In the regular season matchup 2 weeks ago, Keene was up 11 in the first half (I think up 5 or 6 at halftime) before they choked in the second and lost by 6.  I'd look for Eastern to come out strong to begin the second.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2015, 06:04:24 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 27, 2015, 05:09:22 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2015, 04:09:24 PM
    sac - I never claimed NYU gets in over IWU... I am simply saying I think NYU has more of a chance as an at-large than many had previously expected. NYU could still be left out of the tournament, but there is a real chance (baring SJF, Skidmore, or Plattsburgh lose) that NYU is the first East team to the table for an at-large. They have an interesting case. That is all I am saying.

    All right I see that now, it sure looked like you guys were comparing IWU to NYU.

    I think KnightSlappy was just trying to show a comparison of two teams who might be at the table at the same time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 06:27:17 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 27, 2015, 05:19:34 PM
    E. Conn was down 15 early to Keene St., potential bubble buster
    http://d3hoops.com/seasons/men/2014-15/boxscores/20150227_5wgc.xml

    Keene was up as much as 20 in the second half, but now only leads by 9 with 6 minutes to play.  You can watch this on Littleeast.tv
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 06:41:12 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 27, 2015, 06:27:17 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 27, 2015, 05:19:34 PM
    E. Conn was down 15 early to Keene St., potential bubble buster
    http://d3hoops.com/seasons/men/2014-15/boxscores/20150227_5wgc.xml

    Keene was up as much as 20 in the second half, but now only leads by 9 with 6 minutes to play.  You can watch this on Littleeast.tv

    Eastern's gonna lose as Keene is up 15 with 1:30 left.  I think Eastern will still be in the tournament, but now the LEC is going to be a 2 bid league likely, so we'll have to say goodbye to someone now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 07:41:01 PM
    Dickinson secures a Pool C while Franklin and Marshall will sweat it out on the fence.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 07:43:51 PM
    Make or break for PS-Behrend as they are down 2 with 30 seconds to go against Hilbert. They won't survive the Pool C cut.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 27, 2015, 07:59:57 PM
    S #6 Hardin-Simmons falls in the ASC semis to Concordia (TX) 72-66.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2015, 08:01:24 PM
    IWU downs Elmhurst, 80-67.  I'd say IWU is now a lock for a C (but I'd feel even better if they finally won their first conference tourney - they've been to Salem 2 of the last 3 seasons, but have still never won the damned conference tourney!)  Was this definitely the 'kiss of death' for Elmhurst, or does anyone think they have a decent shot at a C?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2015, 08:04:27 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 27, 2015, 07:59:57 PM
    S #6 Hardin-Simmons falls in the ASC semis to Concordia (TX) 72-66.

    I don't think HSU was a serious contender for an at-large bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 08:16:48 PM
    Yeah, the only Pool C contender out of the ASC is ETB and they need to win tonight.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2015, 08:17:54 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 08:16:48 PM
    Yeah, the only Pool C contender out of the ASC is ETB and they need to win tonight.

    If ETBU loses in the title game... we know where one of the byes is going.

    And I bet the NWC and SCIAC winners both get flown to a pod in the first weekend. Using a bye there doesn't save money.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 08:22:55 PM
    Plattsburgh St up 10 just starting the 2nd half. Magicman will feel better if they get to the Final.

    Up 19 with 7 to go.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 27, 2015, 08:51:03 PM
    Stockton U.-- NJAC Champs  ;D

    Willy. P.--  pool C ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 08:55:12 PM
    IWu looks great for a Pool C afyer beating Elmhurst.  They are outside looking in now? Very good vRRO and SOS though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 08:58:34 PM
    Early bubble alert. NCC is tied with Augie woth a minute to go...in the first half.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 27, 2015, 09:05:44 PM
    Richard Stockton beats William Patterson 65-61

    I think that makes Stockton the first team in the tournament.   TGHIJGSTO!!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 09:06:26 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 08:55:12 PM
    IWu looks great for a Pool C afyer beating Elmhurst.  They are outside looking in now? Very good vRRO and SOS though.

    Both Elmhurst & F&M will be sweating bullets between now & Monday.  Both better hope most of the other tournaments go the way of chalk.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 27, 2015, 09:07:44 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 27, 2015, 09:06:26 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 08:55:12 PM
    IWu looks great for a Pool C afyer beating Elmhurst.  They are outside looking in now? Very good vRRO and SOS though.

    Both Elmhurst & F&M will be sweating bullets between now & Monday.  Both better hope most of the other tournaments go the way of chalk.

    I already had F&M out fwiw.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 09:11:09 PM
    F&Ms SOS sure doesn't help, but will go up playing Dickinson.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2015, 09:12:22 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2015, 08:01:24 PM
    IWU downs Elmhurst, 80-67.  I'd say IWU is now a lock for a C (but I'd feel even better if they finally won their first conference tourney - they've been to Salem 2 of the last 3 seasons, but have still never won the damned conference tourney!)  Was this definitely the 'kiss of death' for Elmhurst, or does anyone think they have a decent shot at a C?

    Elmhurst has a very nice overall record, SOS and RRO.  I don't think they are done.  It depends on how many upset come over the weekend and it's interesting how many Pool C bubble teams are getting knocked out by inferior teams in their conference semis. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 09:17:31 PM
    LEC finals will be Keene State vs. RI College.  Neither team would've been receiving a pool C, so this is officially a bubble bursting conference (maybe one of their own in Eastern Connecticut however).  This will be the 9th straight season for RIC in the LEC finals; they hold a 6-2 record through those 8 championship games and 8 straight vs. the Keene Owls (14 of 15 overall in the series).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2015, 09:30:25 PM
    I think we have four Pool C locks at this point: Bates, UW-Stevens Point, Eastern Connecticut, and William Paterson. Elmhurst still looks OK to me, but definitely not a lock.

    I think Rutgers-Newark, Whitman, John Carroll, Franklin and Marshall, and Buena Vista are on the wrong side of the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 27, 2015, 09:39:16 PM
    MIAC chaos...
    St Olaf loses to Bethel 75-67
    St Thomas down 3 with under 30 seconds... hit the first FT, missed the 2nd but got the rebound... down 2 with 11 seconds left and the ball... missed a floater, got the loose ball and hit a long 2 with 1.3 left to tie the game. Headed to OT and the bubble teams can breathe for a few minutes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 09:45:41 PM
    OT for St. Thomas
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2015, 09:49:03 PM
    Augie starting to pull away from NCC; up 8 w/ 6+ to go.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 27, 2015, 09:55:34 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2015, 09:49:03 PM
    Augie starting to pull away from NCC; up 8 w/ 6+ to go.

    Nope. It's only a five-point game with 2 1/2 to go.

    Back up to eight with two minutes to go. Hunter Hill has scored 21 points and pulled down four rebounds over the past eight minutes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 09:56:55 PM
    DePauw leading Ohio Wesleyan by 1 with about 2 minutes to go.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 10:04:02 PM
    St. Thomas survives.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2015, 10:05:24 PM
    Bubble teams got a reprieve - St. Thomas survives Gustavus in OT!  With St. Olaf already losing, the 2-team MIAC would have suddenly become the 3-team MIAC!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 10:11:33 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2015, 10:05:24 PM
    Bubble teams got a reprieve - St. Thomas survives Gustavus in OT!  With St. Olaf already losing, the 2-team MIAC would have suddenly become the 3-team MIAC!

    Still could be if Bethel wins.

    Ohio Wesleyan lost but as long as Wooster wins the NCAC, no harm , no foul.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2015, 10:15:12 PM
    Another reprieve for the bubble (and, yeah, UST still has to win the thing for the reprieve to hold ;)): Augie holds off NCC, 82-76.  The CCIW AQ will go to either Augie or IWU, and they were almost certainly both in anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 10:20:09 PM
    Ohio Wesleyan loses, but since Wooster was likely getting in regardless if they win the AQ no harm done.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 10:23:17 PM
    St. Norbs leads Ripon by only 4 with 5 and a half to go.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 10:32:53 PM
    St. Norbert holding off Ripon.

    The apocalypse will be upon us tomorrow if Grinnell knocks off the Green Knights.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 10:35:33 PM
    In a battle of true bubble teams, Brooklyn leads Baruch by 6 with 2 1/2 to play in the CUNYAC Final.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 27, 2015, 10:39:06 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 08:22:55 PM
    Plattsburgh St up 10 just starting the 2nd half. Magicman will feel better if they get to the Final.

    Up 19 with 7 to go.

    The magicman is feeling a whole lot better as #1 seed Plattsburgh State defeats #3 seed Brockport State 71-50.

    Plattsburgh will meet #3 seed Oswego State, a 72-61 winner over #2 seed Geneseo State at 4:00 PM tomorrow for the SUNYAC Championship.

    I imagine NYU likes that outcome as well. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 10:40:17 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 10:35:33 PM
    In a battle of true bubble teams, Brooklyn leads Baruch by 6 with 2 1/2 to play in the CUNYAC Final.

    I don't see either team getting a Pool C anyways, so it's win and go to the NCAA tourney for the winner, lose and go to the ECAC for the loser.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2015, 10:40:47 PM
    ETBU holds off Howard Payne 75-73. Getting safer for them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2015, 10:42:53 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 27, 2015, 10:23:17 PM
    St. Norbs leads Ripon by only 4 with 5 and a half to go.

    St. Norbs wins by 11; play Grinnell tomorrow night in the MWC final.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 27, 2015, 10:59:31 PM
    Brooklyn and Baruch battling in OT!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 27, 2015, 11:03:41 PM
    Empire 8 Semifinals

    #1 St John Fisher 90 #4 Ithaca 75

    #2 Alfred 79 #3 Hartwick 72


    Empire 8 Championship Saturday Feb 28th 4:00 PM

    #2 Alfred at #1 St. John Fisher
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 27, 2015, 11:04:38 PM
    Quote from: TheOsprey on February 27, 2015, 10:59:31 PM
    Brooklyn and Baruch battling in OT!!

    Make that 2OT!!! :o
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 12:31:00 AM
    I realize... this may just be me... but if there is any chance you can use more contrasting colors than red and green... I would love it. I'm red/green color blind/deficient.

    If it is too much work... please don't change just for me - it isn't like I don't know much of this already LOL.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 28, 2015, 12:46:34 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 12:17:10 AM
    GREEN Pool A winners/conference leaders

    RED is OFFICIAL Pool C teams

    the W%, vRRO, SOS is from this week's publicly release rankings but is NOT updated for this week's results.

    the WK column is what they did this week. If the column is blank, the team is not finished playing.



       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       Atl#1      Richard Stockton (NJAC)      .800/5-1/.573       2-0      WON vs #6 Rutgers-Newark 70-54; WON vs #2 William Paterson 65-61 in Final   
       Atl#2      William Paterson (NJAC)         .760/5-2/.557       1-1      WON vs NJCU 63-61; LOST vs #1 Richard Stockton 65-61 in Final    
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)       .760/3-2/.513       2-0      WON vs CCNY 72-55; WON vs Brooklyn 90-83 in Final   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)        .808/3-3/.491       1-1      WON vs Lehman 80-70; LOST at Baruch 90-83 in Final    
       Atl#5      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)        .692/1-5/.566       0-1      LOST at #1 Richard Stockton 70-54 in semis   
       Atl#6      Sage College (SKY)      .833/1-1/.455            WON vs SUNY-Old Westbury 92-74; vs St. Joseph's (L.I.) in Final on Sat.   
       Atl#7      Misericordia  (MACF)       .760/1-3/.482            WON vs King's 57-52 OT; vs Delaware Valley in Final on Sat.   
                                  

    Looks like it will end with William Paterson. Brooklyn's SOS is horrible. Not sure if Rutgers-Newark can jump them with that SOS and vRRO, but their W% is bad.




       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)      .840/5-2/.577            WON vs #8 North Central 82-76; vs #6 IWU in Final on Sat.   
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)      .913/2-2/.549            WON vs Eau Claire 82-60; vs Oshkosh in Final on Sat.   
       C#3      Stevens Point (WIAC)        .840/2-4/.575       0-1      LOST vs Oshkosh 50-47 in semis   
       C#4      Washington U. (UAA)      .792/4-3/.563            vs Chicago on Sat.   
       C#5      St. Norbert (MWC)       .957/0-1/.494            WON vs Ripon 85-74; vs Grinnell in Final on Sat.   
       C#6      IWU (CCIW)      .720/4-4/.576            WON vs #7 Elmhurst 80-67; vs #1 Augustana in Final on Sat.   
       C#7      Elmhurst (CCIW)        .760/4-3/.544       0-1      LOST vs #6 IWU 80-67 in semis   
       C#8      North Central (CCIW)        .696/3-5/.573       0-1      LOST  at #1 Augustana82-76 in semis   
                                  

    The general conclusion is that IWU will jump St. Norbert if both lose their finals, but Elmhurst and North Central are in trouble especially if St. Norbert blocks them (bad SOS and vRRO).




       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       E#1      St. John Fisher (E8)       .840/0-0/.508            WON vs Ithaca 90-75; vs Alfred in Final on Sat.   
       E#2      Plattsburgh St.  (SUNYAC)       .720/1-0/.527            WONvs Brockport State i71-50; vs Oswego St. in Final on Sat.   
       E#3      Hobart (LL)       .750/3-1/.505       0-1      LOST to #6 Clarkson 69-59 in semis   
       E#4      Skidmore (LL)       .708/2-4/.552            WON vs RIT 72-51; vs #6 Clarkson in Final on Sat.   
       E#5      NYU (UAA)      .667/4-3/.547            vs Brandeis on Sat.   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)      .750/1-4/.493            WON at #3 Hobart 69-59 in semis; vs #4 Skidmore in Final on Sat.   
                                  

    Skidmore should jump Hobart and if they lose, I think they'll get in with 7 games vRRO and a high SOS. There's an argument that NYU could be one of the last in as well, despite their winning %.




       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)       .920/3-2/.506            WON vs Capital 78-55; WONvs Baldwin Wallace 78-74; vs #5 Mount Union in Final on Sat.   
       GL#2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)       .840/3-1/.534       1-1      WON vs Oberlin 83-66; LOST vs DePauw 69-65 in semis   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)      .800/2-2/.543            WON vs Denison 69-60; WON vs Wabash 68-55; vs DePauw in Final on Sat.   
       GL#4      John Carroll (OAC)       .792/3-2/.517       1-1      WON vs Heidelberg 75-66; LOST vs #5 Mount Union 89-88 in semis    
       GL#5      Mount Union (OAC)      .760/2-4/.530            WON vs Ohio Northern 101-82; WON at #4 John Carroll 89-88; at #1 Marietta in Final on Sat.   
       GL#6      PS-Behrend (AMCC)       .920/0-1/.457       0-1      LOST  vs Hilbert 64-59 in semis   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)       .783/2-1/.502            WON vs Alma 73-65; vs #9 Hope in Final on Sat.   
       GL#8      St. Vincent (PAC)      .750/2-2/.516            WON vs Westminster 87-79; WON vs Thomas More 86-73; vs Waynesburg in Final on Sat.   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)      .696/2-5/.543            WON at Trine 55-44; at #7 Calvin in Final on Sat.   
                                  

    It will be interesting if Mount Union jumps John Carroll and gets that Pool C bid. If that happens, JCU will be sweating bullets and would be the last Pool C from this region.



       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       MA#1      Johns Hopkins (CC)       .880/3-2/.528            WON vs Gettysburg 80-67; vs #2 Dickinson in Final on Sat.   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)      .800/3-2/.539            WON at Franklin and Marshall 82-68; vs #1 Johns Hopkins in Final on Sat.   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)       .875/1-1/.495            WON vs Drew 79-53; vs #5 Scranton in Final on Sat.   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)       .800/3-2/.504       0-1      LOST vs #2 Dickinson 82-68 in semis   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)      .800/1-1/.514            WON vs Susquehanna 67-53; at #3 Catholic in Final on Sat.   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       .818/0-0/.480       0-1      LOST vs Christopher Newport 83-69 in semis    
                                  

    It will be a big debate if Scranton jumps Franklin and Marshall get if either get a bid, but definitely not both, or Catholic for that matter.




       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)       .920/6-2/.559            vs MIT in semis on Sat.   
       NE#2      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)       .826/4-0/.530            WON vs Colby 66-63; vs #11 Wesleyan in semis on Sat.   
       NE#3      Amherst (NESCAC)      .760/4-2/.568            WON at Tufts 92-66; at #8 Bowdoin in semis on Sat.   
       NE#4      Bates (NESCAC)      .760/3-4/.611       0-1      LOST to Wesleyan 66-59 in quarters   
       NE#5      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)       .840/2-2/.554       1-1      WON vs Southern Main 80-39; LOST  vs Keene St. 81-63 in semis    
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)      .840/2-2/.507            vs #9 Springfield in semis on Sat.   
       NE#7      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)       .960/0-1/.473            WON vs Suffolk 108-82; WON vs St. Joseph's 81-51; vs Johnson and Wales in Final on Sat.   
       NE#8      Bowdoin (NESCAC)      .720/1-4/.565            WON vs Williams 87-74; vs #3 Amherst in semis on Sat.   
       NE#9      Springfield (NEWMAC)      .720/2-4/.564            at #6 WPI in semis on Sat.   
       NE#10      Southern Vermont (NECC)       .913/0-1/.478            WON vs Becker 71-66; vs Regis in Final on St.   
       NE#11      Wesleyan (NESCAC)      .680/3-4/.547            WON at Bates 66-59; at #2 Trinity in semis on Sat.   
                                  

    I think Bates is a lock and Eastern Connecticut is in, but after that, it gets hairy. Could Bowdoin and Springfield jump Albertus Magnus with superior vRRO and SOS?




       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       So#1      RMC (ODAC)       .920/4-0/.536            WON vs Randolph 72-63; vs Eastern Mennonite in semis Sat.   
       So#2      Emory (UAA)       .792/5-3/.562            vs Rochester on Sat.   
       So#3      VWU (ODAC)      .833/0-3/.538            WON vs Washington and Lee 81-53; vs Guilford in semis on Sat.   
       So#4      East Texas Baptist (ASC)       .800/4-2/.515            WON vs University of Ozarks 67-52; WON vs Howard Payne 75-73; vs Concordia in Final on Sat.   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)       .826/0-1/.517            WONvs Berry 90-74; vs Hendrix in semis on Sat.   
       So#6      Hardin-Simmons (ASC)       .760/3-3/.520       1-1      WON vs Texas-Dallas 77-63; LOST  vs Concordia (TX) 72-66 in semis   
       So#7      Rhodes (SAA)      .783/1-2/.497            WON vs Millsaps 68-46; vs Birmingham-Southern in semis on Sat.   
       So#8      Mary Hardin-Baylor (ASC)         .680/2-5/.534       0-1      LOST at Howard Payne 72-64 in quarters    
                                  

    I don't think anyone is getting in after ETBU and they aren't a guarantee with that SOS.




       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)       .880/5-0/.568            WON vs Gustavus Adolphus 83-79 OT; vs Bethel in Final on Sat.   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)       .840/1-2/.522       0-1      LOST vs #7 Bethel 75-67 in semis   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)       .750/2-1/.526       0-1      LOST vs Wartburg 93-88 OT in semis    
       W#4      Whitman (NWC)       .826/2-3/.514       0-1      LOST vs Lewis and Clark 84-73 in semis   
       W#5      Whitworth (NWC)       .880/1-3/.480            WON vs Willamette 89-64; vs Lewis and Clark in Final on Sat.   
       W#6      Dubuque (IIAC)      .792/0-3/.523            WON at Coe 71-59; vs Wartburg in Final on Sat.   
       W#7      Bethel (MIAC)      .680/3-2/.539            WON vs Concordia-Moorhead 71-53; WON at #2 St. Olaf 75-67; vs #1 St. Thomas in Final on Sat.   
                                  

    Can Whitworth get in as a Pool C with that horrible SOS? Whitman is probably looking in from the outside. What could Bethel's two extra vRRO games do for them? Probably not enough.

      The Landmark loser should be placed above F&M; the winner could be placed above Dickinson, if Dickinson loses in the Centennial final.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 12:49:08 AM
    ronk - he isn't moving them around... those are their rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 12:51:18 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 12:31:00 AM
    I realize... this may just be me... but if there is any chance you can use more contrasting colors than red and green... I would love it. I'm red/green color blind/deficient.

    If it is too much work... please don't change just for me - it isn't like I don't know much of this already LOL.

    What colors would you like?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 28, 2015, 12:53:15 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 12:49:08 AM
    ronk - he isn't moving them around... those are their rankings.

    I wasn't chatting about his rankings, but was forecasting after tomorrow's results.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 28, 2015, 12:53:36 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 12:51:18 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 12:31:00 AM
    I realize... this may just be me... but if there is any chance you can use more contrasting colors than red and green... I would love it. I'm red/green color blind/deficient.

    If it is too much work... please don't change just for me - it isn't like I don't know much of this already LOL.

    What colors would you like?
    My guess is like over on the Top 25 board and use blue and red.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 12:57:37 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 28, 2015, 12:46:34 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 12:17:10 AM



       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       MA#1      Johns Hopkins (CC)       .880/3-2/.528            WON vs Gettysburg 80-67; vs #2 Dickinson in Final on Sat.   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)      .800/3-2/.539            WON at Franklin and Marshall 82-68; vs #1 Johns Hopkins in Final on Sat.   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)       .875/1-1/.495            WON vs Drew 79-53; vs #5 Scranton in Final on Sat.   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)       .800/3-2/.504       0-1      LOST vs #2 Dickinson 82-68 in semis   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)      .800/1-1/.514            WON vs Susquehanna 67-53; at #3 Catholic in Final on Sat.   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       .818/0-0/.480       0-1      LOST vs Christopher Newport 83-69 in semis    
                                  

    It will be a big debate if Scranton jumps Franklin and Marshall get if either get a bid, but definitely not both, or Catholic for that matter.


      The Landmark loser should be placed above F&M; the winner could be placed above Dickinson, if Dickinson loses in the Centennial final.

    It doesn't matter if the Landmark winner is placed above Dickinson, they get the Pool A. If Scranton loses and jumps F&M, I don't think they'll get in anyway. I guess it depends how much their SOS improves. F&M will have 6 vRRO to Scranton's 3.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 28, 2015, 01:04:29 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 12:57:37 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 28, 2015, 12:46:34 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 12:17:10 AM



       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       MA#1      Johns Hopkins (CC)       .880/3-2/.528            WON vs Gettysburg 80-67; vs #2 Dickinson in Final on Sat.   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)      .800/3-2/.539            WON at Franklin and Marshall 82-68; vs #1 Johns Hopkins in Final on Sat.   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)       .875/1-1/.495            WON vs Drew 79-53; vs #5 Scranton in Final on Sat.   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)       .800/3-2/.504       0-1      LOST vs #2 Dickinson 82-68 in semis   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)      .800/1-1/.514            WON vs Susquehanna 67-53; at #3 Catholic in Final on Sat.   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       .818/0-0/.480       0-1      LOST vs Christopher Newport 83-69 in semis    
                                  

    It will be a big debate if Scranton jumps Franklin and Marshall get if either get a bid, but definitely not both, or Catholic for that matter.


      The Landmark loser should be placed above F&M; the winner could be placed above Dickinson, if Dickinson loses in the Centennial final.

    It doesn't matter if the Landmark winner is placed above Dickinson, they get the Pool A. If Scranton loses and jumps F&M, I don't think they'll get in anyway. I guess it depends how much their SOS improves. F&M will have 6 vRRO to Scranton's 3.

      It matters for hosting; #2 should get to host. Scranton will have 4 vvro(Misericordia and Catholic).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2015, 01:18:33 AM
    A bubble burst, perhaps with OWU now a "C". Probably it won't burst fully unless DPU beats Wooster.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 01:23:27 AM
    ronk - Dickinson will have seven... F&M (x3), Johns Hopkins(x3), North Central (x1).

    Assuming Scranton beats Catholic and Dickinson loses to Hopkins:
    Scranton     .523 SOS (current)     2-2 vRRO (projected)
    Dickinson    .548 SOS (current)     4-3 vRRO (projected)

    I know you are trying to make a push for this... but where... where do you see data that puts Scranton ahead of Dickinson?

    Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2015, 01:18:33 AM
    A bubble burst, perhaps with OWU now a "C". Probably it won't burst fully unless DPU beats Wooster.

    Right... it won't burst unless DePauw wins... otherwise those two where getting in anyway. Same in the WIAC currently.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 01:24:16 AM
    IF CHALK HAPPENS, POOL Cs in Maroon?

    ATLANTIC
    Richard Stockton and Baruch wrapped up Pool As

    William Paterson should be a Pool C.

    Brooklyn and Rutgers-Newark are outside looking in.

    Sage and Misericordia have Finals. Win and they're in, lose and they're out.

    CENTRAL
    Augustana and IWU play the CCIW Final with both in regardless. Whitewater is also in whether or not they beat Oshkosh in the WIAC Final.

    Stevens Point is in as a Pool C.

    Washington U and St. Norbert (probably) are in if they lose tomorrow. Obviously, Washington U. can win and still be a Pool C.

    Elmhurst and North Central will be nervous.

    EAST
    St. John Fisher and Plattsburgh St. both have finals and should be in if they lose.

    Skidmore also has a final but is more iffy than the other two NYU is a possibility but needs a win on Saturday to get that winning % up.

    Hobart and Clarkson can schedule tee times.

    GREAT LAKES
    Marietta plays Mount Union in the OAC Final and Marietta should be safe. Mount Union would have an outside chance, assuming they jump John Carroll (whom they beat). Wooster is in the NCAC Final and is safe, as is semi-final loser Ohio Wesleyan.

    John Carroll probably won't make it and PS-Behrend is out.

    Calvin plays Hope and St. Vincent has a Final as well. Win and your in.

    MID-ATLANTIC
    John's Hopkins plays Dickinson for the CC Final and both are in.

    The loser of Catholic/Scranton will be skating on real thin ice, as is Franklin and Marshall.

    St. Mary's is out.

    NEW ENGLAND
    Babson, Trinity and Amherst are all still playing and are in.

    Bates and Eastern Connecticut lost this week but should be selected from Pool C.

    If WPI can get to the final and lose to Babson, they might get in, but after that it's pretty muddy.

    Albertus Magnus, Bowdoin, Springfield, Southern Vermont and Wesleyan probably need to get to their respective finals and win them to dance in March.

    SOUTH
    Emory can win the UAA and get the Pool A. Regardless, they're in along with ODAC foes Randolph-Macon and Virginia Wesleyan.

    You start to get nervous after that if East Texas Baptist doesn't win the ASC.

    Centre and Rhodes have to hope they win the SAA to get in while ASC teams MHB and Hardin-Simmons are out.

    WEST
    St. Thomas, playing for the MIAC title, along with St. Olaf (who is done) are in. Semi-final losers Buena Vista are probably in too.

    Whitman and Dubuque are probably out and Whitworth probably needs the Pool A to keep playing.

    Bethel needs to beat St. Thomas to get in.
    [/quote]
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 28, 2015, 01:37:20 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 01:24:16 AM
    IF CHALK HAPPENS, POOL Cs in Maroon?

    ATLANTIC
    Richard Stockton and Baruch wrapped up Pool As

    William Paterson should be a Pool C.

    Brooklyn and Rutgers-Newark are outside looking in.

    Sage and Misericordia have Finals. Win and they're in, lose and they're out.

    CENTRAL
    Augustana and IWU play the CCIW Final with both in regardless. Whitewater is also in whether or not they beat Oshkosh in the WIAC Final.

    Stevens Point is in as a Pool C.

    Washington U and St. Norbert (probably) are in if they lose tomorrow. Obviously, Washington U. can win and still be a Pool C.

    Elmhurst and North Central will be nervous.

    EAST
    St. John Fisher and Plattsburgh St. both have finals and should be in if they lose.

    Skidmore also has a final but is more iffy than the other two NYU is a possibility but needs a win on Saturday to get that winning % up.

    Hobart and Clarkson can schedule tee times.

    GREAT LAKES
    Marietta plays Mount Union in the OAC Final and Marietta should be safe. Mount Union would have an outside chance, assuming they jump John Carroll (whom they beat). Wooster is in the NCAC Final and is safe, as is semi-final loser Ohio Wesleyan.

    John Carroll probably won't make it and PS-Behrend is out.

    Calvin plays Hope and St. Vincent has a Final as well. Win and your in.

    MID-ATLANTIC
    John's Hopkins plays Dickinson for the CC Final and both are in.

    The loser of Catholic/Scranton will be skating on real thin ice, as is Franklin and Marshall.

    St. Mary's is out.

    NEW ENGLAND
    Babson, Trinity and Amherst are all still playing and are in.

    Bates and Eastern Connecticut lost this week but should be selected from Pool C.

    If WPI can get to the final and lose to Babson, they might get in, but after that it's pretty muddy.

    Albertus Magnus, Bowdoin, Springfield, Southern Vermont and Wesleyan probably need to get to their respective finals and win them to dance in March.

    SOUTH
    Emory can win the UAA and get the Pool A. Regardless, they're in along with ODAC foes Randolph-Macon and Virginia Wesleyan.

    You start to get nervous after that if East Texas Baptist doesn't win the ASC.

    Centre and Rhodes have to hope they win the SAA to get in while ASC teams MHB and Hardin-Simmons are out.

    WEST
    St. Thomas, playing for the MIAC title, along with St. Olaf (who is done) are in. Semi-final losers Buena Vista are probably in too.

    Whitman and Dubuque are probably out and Whitworth probably needs the Pool A to keep playing.

    Bethel needs to beat St. Thomas to get in.
    Maroon is a bit dark I think... hard to differentiate between it and black... I think regular red is best but not sure if there's any color issues with red-blue. Don't think there are.
    Most of the other colors are too bright... best options I could see were orange (a bit bright) and brown (a bit dark)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 01:53:03 AM
    If yoou are curious... maroon and brown so far look black.

    Red and blue work because they are seperate. I.e. someone can be red/green or yellow/blue (or black/whit) color deficient... no other combo options.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 28, 2015, 02:09:45 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 01:23:27 AM
    ronk - Dickinson will have seven... F&M (x3), Johns Hopkins(x3), North Central (x1).

    Assuming Scranton beats Catholic and Dickinson loses to Hopkins:
    Scranton     .523 SOS (current)     2-2 vRRO (projected)
    Dickinson    .548 SOS (current)     4-3 vRRO (projected)

    I know you are trying to make a push for this... but where... where do you see data that puts Scranton ahead of Dickinson?

    Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2015, 01:18:33 AM
    A bubble burst, perhaps with OWU now a "C". Probably it won't burst fully unless DPU beats Wooster.

    Right... it won't burst unless DePauw wins... otherwise those two where getting in anyway. Same in the WIAC currently.

    Scranton would have a better WP and the SOS should narrow with wins by Alvernia, Hanover, Husson, and Miseri. I agree that it would be more likely that Catholic winning the AQ could finish ahead of Dickinson losing.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 02:21:16 AM
    ronk... one win isn't going to make a difference and you are not considering what Dickinson's SOS could do... let alone the fact, the wins by the other teams (far from guaranteed), won't make that large a difference that they a that close. Also, Salisbury and Cabrini could pick up wins to help Dickinson.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 28, 2015, 07:52:37 AM
    Well, Massey is giving Emory an 89 percent chance at a 12 point victory over Rochester.  That may be generous.  Emory will win today and may win big.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEPAFAN on February 28, 2015, 07:59:54 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 28, 2015, 02:09:45 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 01:23:27 AM
    ronk - Dickinson will have seven... F&M (x3), Johns Hopkins(x3), North Central (x1).

    Assuming Scranton beats Catholic and Dickinson loses to Hopkins:
    Scranton     .523 SOS (current)     2-2 vRRO (projected)
    Dickinson    .548 SOS (current)     4-3 vRRO (projected)

    I know you are trying to make a push for this... but where... where do you see data that puts Scranton ahead of Dickinson?

    Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2015, 01:18:33 AM
    A bubble burst, perhaps with OWU now a "C". Probably it won't burst fully unless DPU beats Wooster.

    Right... it won't burst unless DePauw wins... otherwise those two where getting in anyway. Same in the WIAC currently.

    Scranton would have a better WP and the SOS should narrow with wins by Alvernia, Hanover, Husson, and Miseri. I agree that it would be more likely that Catholic winning the AQ could finish ahead of Dickinson losing.

    I don't think Ronk is pushing for anything other than his opinions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 08:29:48 AM
    Quote from: NEPAFAN on February 28, 2015, 07:59:54 AM
    I don't think Ronk is pushing for anything other than his opinions.

    I think what Dave is pushing for is if he wants ronk's opinion, Dave will give it to him.  :P  ;D  ;)  :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 08:30:43 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 02:21:16 AM
    ronk... one win isn't going to make a difference and you are not considering what Dickinson's SOS could do... let alone the fact, the wins by the other teams (far from guaranteed), won't make that large a difference that they a that close. Also, Salisbury and Cabrini could pick up wins to help Dickinson.

    BTW, Cabrini lost last night.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: northb on February 28, 2015, 09:21:35 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 01:53:03 AM
    If yoou are curious... maroon and brown so far look black.

    Red and blue work because they are seperate. I.e. someone can be red/green or yellow/blue (or black/whit) color deficient... no other combo options.

    Yes, but what color is the dress?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 28, 2015, 09:31:57 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 02:21:16 AM
    ronk... one win isn't going to make a difference and you are not considering what Dickinson's SOS could do... let alone the fact, the wins by the other teams (far from guaranteed), won't make that large a difference that they a that close. Also, Salisbury and Cabrini could pick up wins to help Dickinson.

    Scranton would have "benefitted" equally with Dickinson wrt any Cabrini decisions. What if by winning their AQs, Hanover, Husson, and Alvernia all become regionally ranked giving Scranton 3 more vrro results.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 28, 2015, 09:59:50 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2015, 02:24:15 PM
    First off... the rankings are out ;)

    Secondly... no, each member on the committee votes on their own. It doesn't come down to just those representatives. Everyone has an equal vote. The chair could, if necessary, break a tie. They won't tell the national committee that. However, I will also say, that the vote takes place AFTER the conference call. So the regional chair will see the vote and probably make any changes he needs in the case of a tie (though, I will double check that). Then the national committee can make changes after that if necessary.

    Further ? on final weekend voting mechanics: is this the order of events?
      the RAC gets the NCAA data sheet on its teams, then ranks its region.
      does it stop there or does it change the vrro because of this new ranking?
    if the latter, can the new vrro cause the ranking to be changed again?
    if so, when does the cycle end?

    Same ? with the national committee after they get the rankings from the RACs?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 11:55:11 AM
    Quote from: northb on February 28, 2015, 09:21:35 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 01:53:03 AM
    If yoou are curious... maroon and brown so far look black.

    Red and blue work because they are seperate. I.e. someone can be red/green or yellow/blue (or black/whit) color deficient... no other combo options.

    Yes, but what color is the dress?

    It was only a matter of time.  >:(
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2015, 12:12:17 PM
    Dickinson plays Johns Hopkins away (.916 wp w/results vs removed)
    Scranton plays Catholic away (.875 wp w/results vs removed)

    Dickinson's current SOS is .548
    Scranton's current SOS is .528

    They will both receive an SOS boost of similar high quality but Dickinson's will be higher than Scranton's.   Dickinson's SOS is going to remain at least .020 better than Scranton's.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2015, 12:34:48 PM
    Hosting tangent:

    I think we have a problem in the West Region.  If we stick with the top two seeds hosting, it should be St. Thomas plus St.Olaf/Buena Vista.  I'm just not sure there will be enough teams to fill those two locations while still feeding into the expected Whitewater/Augustana hosting combo from the Central.  The West might lose one of its hosting slots.

    The Great Lakes/Central/West needs 6 host schools, but the Great Lakes is leaning heavily East in teams/potential teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 12:52:02 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2015, 12:34:48 PM
    Hosting tangent:

    I think we have a problem in the West Region.  If we stick with the top two seeds hosting, it should be St. Thomas plus St.Olaf/Buena Vista.  I'm just not sure there will be enough teams to fill those two locations while still feeding into the expected Whitewater/Augustana hosting combo from the Central.  The West might lose one of its hosting slots.

    The Great Lakes/Central/West needs 6 host schools, but the Great Lakes is leaning heavily East in teams/potential teams.

    Since St. Thomas can't host due to the women likely hosting, and since St. Olaf and Buena Vista lost, might it make sense for the West not to receive a host bid? They'll all be seeded lower than a bunch of deserving Central region teams, especially if IWU wins the CCIW Pool A bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2015, 12:59:19 PM
    good points, maybe St. Norbert/Stevens Point gets the extra Central spot.  St. Thomas not hosting would make it easier for St. Olaf/Buena Vista/IIAC winner to host I think.  I think you still need one host school up there.

    I was even thinking maybe the Great Lakes gets a third host, but they'd all be in Ohio.  That would be unprecedented.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2015, 01:16:19 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2015, 12:34:48 PM
    Hosting tangent:

    I think we have a problem in the West Region.  If we stick with the top two seeds hosting, it should be St. Thomas plus St.Olaf/Buena Vista.  I'm just not sure there will be enough teams to fill those two locations while still feeding into the expected Whitewater/Augustana hosting combo from the Central.  The West might lose one of its hosting slots.

    The Great Lakes/Central/West needs 6 host schools, but the Great Lakes is leaning heavily East in teams/potential teams.


    I really hope they use this reality that only like 6 or 8 teams have a resume that demands hosting.  They can be really creative to mix things up if they want to do so.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 01:33:27 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2015, 12:59:19 PM
    good points, maybe St. Norbert/Stevens Point gets the extra Central spot.  St. Thomas not hosting would make it easier for St. Olaf/Buena Vista/IIAC winner to host I think.  I think you still need one host school up there.

    I was even thinking maybe the Great Lakes gets a third host, but they'd all be in Ohio.  That would be unprecedented.
    I don't see Point hosting after falling in the WIAC semis.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2015, 01:43:54 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 01:33:27 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2015, 12:59:19 PM
    good points, maybe St. Norbert/Stevens Point gets the extra Central spot.  St. Thomas not hosting would make it easier for St. Olaf/Buena Vista/IIAC winner to host I think.  I think you still need one host school up there.

    I was even thinking maybe the Great Lakes gets a third host, but they'd all be in Ohio.  That would be unprecedented.
    I don't see Point hosting after falling in the WIAC semis.


    Who is going to host, though?  Stockton, Babson, the Centennial winner (and maybe the runner up), Macon, Emory, Wooster (if they win), Augie, Whitewater, St. Thomas.

    That's only nine, maybe ten.  After that, Point has as good a resume as anyone.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 01:45:08 PM
    So here's where we're at with geographical outliers

    SCIAC winner -- will have to fly, probably to Texas
    NWC winner -- will have to fly, probably to Texas

    ASC/SCAC winner will likely host a pod in the Texas area with teams flying in.

    Emory looks like they'll beat Rochester which will put them in position to host. USAC winner will be able to get there within 500 miles.

    SAA winner will be able to get to Emory within 500 miles unless it's Hendrix, but Hendrix might be able to get to a Texas pod, depending on who comes out (can get to ETBU and Centenary (La.) but not Texas Lutheran or Concordia (TX.)).

    Spalding could get to Emory within 500 miles if they beat Fontbonne today.

    I'm guessing the committee wants to pair the flying schools together in the opening rounds as much as possible to reduce the potential number of flights for the second weekend.

    The messiest situation looks like Hendrix, Fontbonne, and Concordia (Tx.) winning Pool A bids.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2015, 01:46:53 PM

    Emory won.  So that officially puts the rest of the UAA into Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 01:47:40 PM
    Hopefully everyone can read this now.  ;D



       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       Atl#1      Richard Stockton (NJAC)      .800/5-1/.573       2-0      WON vs #6 Rutgers-Newark 70-54; WON vs #2 William Paterson 65-61 in Final   
       Atl#2      William Paterson (NJAC)         .760/5-2/.557       1-1      WON vs NJCU 63-61; LOST  vs #1 Richard Stockton 65-61 in Final    
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)       .760/3-2/.513       2-0      WON vs CCNY 72-55; WON vs Brooklyn 90-83 in Final   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)        .808/3-3/.491       1-1      WON vs Lehman 80-70; LOST at Baruch 90-83 in Final    
       Atl#5      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)        .692/1-5/.566       0-1      LOST at #1 Richard Stockton 70-54 in semis   
       Atl#6      Sage College (SKY)      .833/1-1/.455            WON vs SUNY-Old Westbury 92-74; vs St. Joseph's (L.I.) in Final on Sat.   
       Atl#7      Misericordia  (MACF)       .760/1-3/.482            WON vs King's 57-52 OT; vs Delaware Valley in Final on Sat.   
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)      .840/5-2/.577            WON vs #8 North Central 82-76; vs #6 IWU in Final on Sat.   
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)      .913/2-2/.549            WON vs Eau Claire 82-60; vs Oshkosh in Final on Sat.   
       C#3      Stevens Point (WIAC)        .840/2-4/.575       0-1      LOST vs Oshkosh 50-47 in semis   
       C#4      Washington U. (UAA)      .792/4-3/.563            vs Chicago on Sat.   
       C#5      St. Norbert (MWC)       .957/0-1/.494            vs WON Ripon 85-74; vs Grinnell in Final on Sat.   
       C#6      IWU (CCIW)      .720/4-4/.576            WON vs #7 Elmhurst 80-67; vs #1 Augustana in Final on Sat.   
       C#7      Elmhurst (CCIW)        .760/4-3/.544       0-1      LOST vs #6 IWU 80-67 in semis   
       C#8      North Central (CCIW)        .696/3-5/.573       0-1      LOST  at #1 Augustana82-76 in semis   
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       E#1      St. John Fisher (E8)       .840/0-0/.508            WON vs Ithaca 90-75; vs Alfred in Final on Sat.   
       E#2      Plattsburgh St.  (SUNYAC)       .720/1-0/.527            WONvs Brockport State i71-50; vs Oswego St. in Final on Sat.   
       E#3      Hobart (LL)       .750/3-1/.505       0-1      LOST to #6 Clarkson 69-59 in semis   
       E#4      Skidmore (LL)       .708/2-4/.552            WON vs RIT 72-51; vs #6 Clarkson in Final on Sat.   
       E#5      NYU (UAA)       .667/4-3/.547            vs Brandeis on Sat.   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)      .750/1-4/.493            WON at #3 Hobart 69-59 in semis; vs #4 Skidmore in Final on Sat.   
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)       .920/3-2/.506            WON vs Capital 78-55; WONvs Bald. Wa.l 78-74; vs #5 Mt. Union in Final on Sat.   
       GL#2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)       .840/3-1/.534       1-1      WON vs Oberlin 83-66; LOST vs DePauw 69-65 in semis   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)      .800/2-2/.543            WON vs Denison 69-60; WON vs Wabash 68-55; vs DePauw in Final on Sat.   
       GL#4      John Carroll (OAC)       .792/3-2/.517       1-1      WON vs Heidelberg 75-66; LOST vs #5 Mt. Union 89-88 in semis    
       GL#5      Mount Union (OAC)      .760/2-4/.530            WON vs Ohio Northern 101-82; WON at #4 JCU 89-88; at #1 Marietta in Final on Sat.   
       GL#6      PS-Behrend (AMCC)       .920/0-1/.457       0-1      LOST  vs Hilbert 64-59 in semis   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)       .783/2-1/.502            WON vs Alma 73-65; vs #9 Hope in Final on Sat.   
       GL#8      St. Vincent (PAC)      .750/2-2/.516            WON vs Westminster 87-79; WON vs Thomas More 86-73; vs Waynesburg in Final on Sat.   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)      .696/2-5/.543            WON at Trine 55-44; at #7 Calvin in Final on Sat.   
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       MA#1      Johns Hopkins (CC)       .880/3-2/.528            WON vs Gettysburg 80-67; vs #2 Dickinson in Final on Sat.   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)      .800/3-2/.539            WON at Franklin and Marshall 82-68; vs #1 Johns Hopkins in Final on Sat.   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)       .875/1-1/.495            WON vs Drew 79-53; vs #5 Scranton in Final on Sat.   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)       .800/3-2/.504       0-1      LOST vs #2 Dickinson 82-68 in semis   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)      .800/1-1/.514            WON vs Susquehanna 67-53; at #3 Catholic in Final on Sat.   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       .818/0-0/.480       0-1      LOST vs Christopher Newport 83-69 in semis    
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)       .920/6-2/.559            vs MIT in semis on Sat.   
       NE#2      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)       .826/4-0/.530            WON vs Colby 66-63; vs #11 Wesleyan in semis on Sat.   
       NE#3      Amherst (NESCAC)      .760/4-2/.568            WON at Tufts 92-66; at #8 Bowdoin in semis on Sat.   
       NE#4      Bates (NESCAC)      .760/3-4/.611       0-1      LOST to Wesleyan 66-59 in quarters   
       NE#5      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)       .840/2-2/.554       1-1      WON vs Southern Main 80-39; LOST  vs Keene St. 81-63 in semis    
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)      .840/2-2/.507            vs #9 Springfield in semis on Sat.   
       NE#7      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)       .960/0-1/.473            WON vs Suffolk 108-82; WON vs St. Joseph's 81-51; vs J&W in Final on Sat.   
       NE#8      Bowdoin (NESCAC)      .720/1-4/.565            WON vs Williams 87-74; vs #3 Amherst in semis on Sat.   
       NE#9      Springfield (NEWMAC)      .720/2-4/.564            at #6 WPI in semis on Sat.   
       NE#10      Southern Vermont (NECC)       .913/0-1/.478            WON vs Becker 71-66; vs Regis in Final on St.   
       NE#11      Wesleyan (NESCAC)      .680/3-4/.547            WON at Bates 66-59; at #2 Trinity in semis on Sat.   
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       So#1      RMC (ODAC)       .920/4-0/.536            WON vs Randolph 72-63; vs Eastern Mennonite in semis Sat.   
       So#2      Emory (UAA)       .792/5-3/.562            WON vs Rochester 88-69   
       So#3      VWU (ODAC)      .833/0-3/.538            WON vs Washington and Lee 81-53; vs Guilford in semis on Sat.   
       So#4      East Texas Baptist (ASC)       .800/4-2/.515            WON vs Univ. of Ozarks 67-52; WON vs How. Pay. 75-73; vs Concordia in Final on Sat.   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)       .826/0-1/.517            WONvs Berry 90-74; vs Hendrix in semis on Sat.   
       So#6      Hardin-Simmons (ASC)       .760/3-3/.520       1-1      WON vs Texas-Dallas 77-63; LOST  vs Concordia (TX) 72-66 in semis   
       So#7      Rhodes (SAA)      .783/1-2/.497            WON vs Millsaps 68-46; vs Birmingham-Southern in semis on Sat.   
       So#8      MHB (ASC)         .680/2-5/.534       0-1      LOST at Howard Payne 72-64 in quarters    
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)       .880/5-0/.568            WON vs Gustavus Adolphus 83-79 OT; vs Bethel in Final on Sat.   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)       .840/1-2/.522       0-1      LOST vs #7 Bethel 75-67 in semis   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)       .750/2-1/.526       0-1      LOST vs Wartburg 93-88 OT in semis    
       W#4      Whitman (NWC)       .826/2-3/.514       0-1      LOST vs Lewis and Clark 84-73 in semis   
       W#5      Whitworth (NWC)       .880/1-3/.480            WON vs Willamette 89-64; vs Lewis and Clark in Final on Sat.   
       W#6      Dubuque (IIAC)      .792/0-3/.523            WON at Coe 71-59; vs Wartburg in Final on Sat.   
       W#7      Bethel (MIAC)      .680/3-2/.539            WON vs Con.-Moorhead 71-53; WON at #2 St. Olaf 75-67; vs #1 St. Thomas in Final on Sat.   
                                  
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 01:51:11 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2015, 01:43:54 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 01:33:27 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2015, 12:59:19 PM
    good points, maybe St. Norbert/Stevens Point gets the extra Central spot.  St. Thomas not hosting would make it easier for St. Olaf/Buena Vista/IIAC winner to host I think.  I think you still need one host school up there.

    I was even thinking maybe the Great Lakes gets a third host, but they'd all be in Ohio.  That would be unprecedented.
    I don't see Point hosting after falling in the WIAC semis.


    Who is going to host, though?  Stockton, Babson, the Centennial winner (and maybe the runner up), Macon, Emory, Wooster (if they win), Augie, Whitewater, St. Thomas.

    That's only nine, maybe ten.  After that, Point has as good a resume as anyone.

    The committee doesn't care about conference champions/conference finals/conference semifinals. It's just about the criteria, and UWSP is very strong at .808/.575.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 01:56:39 PM
    Here's the updated Pool C teams with all the UAA teams included after Emory won the AQ



       WK3      TEAM      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      SCHEDULE   
       NE#4      Bates (NESCAC)      .760/3-4/.611       0-1      LOST to Wesleyan 66-59 in quarters   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)        .808/3-3/.491       1-1      WON vs Lehman 80-70; LOST at Baruch 90-83 in Final    
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)       .750/2-1/.526       0-1      LOST vs Wartburg 93-88 OT in semis    
       NE#5      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)       .840/2-2/.554       1-1      WON vs Southern Main 80-39; LOST  vs Keene St. 81-63 in semis    
       C#7      Elmhurst (CCIW)        .760/4-3/.544       0-1      LOST vs #6 IWU 80-67 in semis   
       MA#4      Franklin and Marshall (CC)       .800/3-2/.504       0-1      LOST vs #2 Dickinson 82-68 in semis   
       So#6      Hardin-Simmons (ASC)       .760/3-3/.520       1-1      WON vs Texas-Dallas 77-63; LOST  vs Concordia (TX) 72-66 in semis   
       E#3      Hobart (LL)       .750/3-1/.505       0-1      LOST to #6 Clarkson 69-59 in semis   
       GL#4      John Carroll (OAC)       .792/3-2/.517       1-1      WON vs Heidelberg 75-66; LOST vs #5 Mt. Union 89-88 in semis    
       So#8      MHB (ASC)         .680/2-5/.534       0-1      LOST at Howard Payne 72-64 in quarters    
       C#8      North Central (CCIW)        .696/3-5/.573       0-1      LOST  at #1 Augustana82-76 in semis   
       E#5      NYU (UAA)       .667/4-3/.547            vs Brandeis on Sat.   
       GL#2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)       .840/3-1/.534       1-1      WON vs Oberlin 83-66; LOST vs DePauw 69-65 in semis   
       GL#6      PS-Behrend (AMCC)       .920/0-1/.457       0-1      LOST  vs Hilbert 64-59 in semis   
       Atl#5      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)        .692/1-5/.566       0-1      LOST at #1 Richard Stockton 70-54 in semis   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       .818/0-0/.480       0-1      LOST vs Christopher Newport 83-69 in semis    
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)       .840/1-2/.522       0-1      LOST vs #7 Bethel 75-67 in semis   
       C#3      Stevens Point (WIAC)        .840/2-4/.575       0-1      LOST vs Oshkosh 50-47 in semis   
       C#4      Washington U. (UAA)      .792/4-3/.563            vs Chicago on Sat.   
       W#4      Whitman (NWC)       .826/2-3/.514       0-1      LOST vs Lewis and Clark 84-73 in semis   
       Atl#2      William Paterson (NJAC)         .760/5-2/.557       1-1      WON vs NJCU 63-61; LOST  vs #1 Richard Stockton 65-61 in Final    
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2015, 02:14:33 PM
    My Pool C Picks as of this morning:

    1. UWSP
    2. Wash U
    3. Ohio Wesleyan
    4. Amherst
    5. Bates
    6. Eastern Conn
    7. William Paterson
    8. Va. Wesleyan
    9. St Olaf
    10. Dickinson
    11. IWU
    12. WPI
    13. Elmhurst
    14. Franklin and Marshall
    15. Centre (I have Rhodes as Pool A since they are a higher seed in the tournament).
    16. North Central
    17. Mount Union
    18. Bowdoin
    19. Springfield

    Note: I have Hobart as the top Pool C pick in the East which might or might not stick.  If they are, they jam up the board the whole way, blocking NYU, which would compare better at the later rounds.  Similarly, I have Buena Vista as the #2 pool C in the West, and they jam up the board whereas Whitman might all compare better in the later rounds.

    Left on the table:
    AT: Brooklyn
    CE: No one
    EA: Hobart
    GL: John Carroll
    MA: Scranton
    NE: Wesleyan would be coming onto the board
    SO: Hardin-Simmons
    WE: Buena Vista

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 03:03:02 PM
    RMC and Babson both win by 10 to advance to their finals.

    Skidmore wins the Liberty League. I don't Hobart has enough to get in as a Pool C So NYU has to hope for a win and a jump over Hobart.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2015, 03:04:33 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 03:03:02 PM
    RMC and Babson both win by 10 to advance to their finals.

    Skidmore wins the Liberty League. I don't Hobart has enough to get in as a Pool C So NYU has to hope for a win and a jump over Hobart.

    That skidmore game is just at halftime - score posted incorrectly.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 03:14:21 PM
    Albertus Magnus saves themselves the headache or waiting. They win the GNAC AQ.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 03:15:07 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2015, 03:04:33 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 03:03:02 PM
    RMC and Babson both win by 10 to advance to their finals.

    Skidmore wins the Liberty League. I don't Hobart has enough to get in as a Pool C So NYU has to hope for a win and a jump over Hobart.

    That skidmore game is just at halftime - score posted incorrectly.

    I thought that was a low scoring game!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2015, 03:25:09 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 03:15:07 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2015, 03:04:33 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 03:03:02 PM
    RMC and Babson both win by 10 to advance to their finals.

    Skidmore wins the Liberty League. I don't Hobart has enough to get in as a Pool C So NYU has to hope for a win and a jump over Hobart.

    That skidmore game is just at halftime - score posted incorrectly.

    I thought that was a low scoring game!

    That's low even for upstate NY standards.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 03:50:08 PM
    Skidmore officially wins 68-64, unless that's the 2nd intermission score.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 04:06:11 PM
    Keene State beats Rhode Island College to win the LEC Pool A bid. Our first real bubble-popping result. (Bubble was half popped last night when Eastern Connecticut lost).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 04:34:37 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 04:06:11 PM
    Keene State beats Rhode Island College to win the LEC Pool A bid. Our first real bubble-popping result. (Bubble was half popped last night when Eastern Connecticut lost).

    How can that pop a bubble, when RIC was not even ranked?  ANYONE other than E. Conn winning the AQ had already popped the bubble.

    The only for-sure bubble-poppers I see left would be UWW, UST or Babson losing (and with Babson even that might not be a bubble-popper if WPI wins the A).  (Alfred over SJF might qualify, but SJF might itself only be a bubble team.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 04:39:17 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 04:34:37 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 04:06:11 PM
    Keene State beats Rhode Island College to win the LEC Pool A bid. Our first real bubble-popping result. (Bubble was half popped last night when Eastern Connecticut lost).

    How can that pop a bubble, when RIC was not even ranked?  ANYONE other than E. Conn winning the AQ had already popped the bubble.

    The only for-sure bubble-poppers I see left would be UWW, UST or Babson losing (and with Babson even that might not be a bubble-popper if WPI wins the A).  (Alfred over SJF might qualify, but SJF might itself only be a bubble team.)

    Because I wasn't completely willing to rule out a .741/.541 team making the tournament as a Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 04:44:03 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 04:39:17 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 04:34:37 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 04:06:11 PM
    Keene State beats Rhode Island College to win the LEC Pool A bid. Our first real bubble-popping result. (Bubble was half popped last night when Eastern Connecticut lost).

    How can that pop a bubble, when RIC was not even ranked?  ANYONE other than E. Conn winning the AQ had already popped the bubble.

    The only for-sure bubble-poppers I see left would be UWW, UST or Babson losing (and with Babson even that might not be a bubble-popper if WPI wins the A).  (Alfred over SJF might qualify, but SJF might itself only be a bubble team.)

    Because I wasn't completely willing to rule out a .741/.541 team making the tournament as a Pool C.

    But a team that would only themselves BE a bubble team can't be called a bubble buster!  Trinity just lost to Wesleyan - is Trinity merely a bubble team, or did another bubble just burst?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 04:45:30 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 04:44:03 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 04:39:17 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 04:34:37 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 04:06:11 PM
    Keene State beats Rhode Island College to win the LEC Pool A bid. Our first real bubble-popping result. (Bubble was half popped last night when Eastern Connecticut lost).

    How can that pop a bubble, when RIC was not even ranked?  ANYONE other than E. Conn winning the AQ had already popped the bubble.

    The only for-sure bubble-poppers I see left would be UWW, UST or Babson losing (and with Babson even that might not be a bubble-popper if WPI wins the A).  (Alfred over SJF might qualify, but SJF might itself only be a bubble team.)

    Because I wasn't completely willing to rule out a .741/.541 team making the tournament as a Pool C.

    But a team that would only themselves BE a bubble team can't be called a bubble buster!  Trinity just lost to Wesleyan - is Trinity merely a bubble team, or did another bubble just burst?

    It may have been their own bubble that was popped.

    Amherst and Bowdoin both look like solid selections (particularly Amherst), so as long as Wesleyan doesn't win the whole thing, probably not.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 04:51:45 PM
    I'm thinking a bubble buster is someone who takes the Pool A away from a Pool C candidate who was expected to take the Pool A. Oshkosh is a bubble buster if they beat Whitewater because only one of Point/Whitewater was supposed to occupy a Pool C, not both.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 05:02:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 04:51:45 PM
    I'm thinking a bubble buster is someone who takes the Pool A away from a Pool C candidate who was expected to take the Pool A. Oshkosh is a bubble buster if they beat Whitewater because only one of Point/Whitewater was supposex tonto occupy a Pool C, not both.

    That's my definition too - someone who produces an extra bid for a conference.  So Bethel over UST would be a bubble buster.  Someone other than Babson (or probably WPI) would be a bubble buster.  But IMO RIC losing to Keene St was not a bubble buster, because the bubble already popped when anyone but E. Conn was gonna take the AQ - but I'll get off the semantics kick now!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 05:04:58 PM
    Well, Oshkosh is getting smoked by Whitewater by +20 early in the 2nd half...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 05:14:30 PM
    Springfield beat WPI. WPI is a weak Pool C team and Springfield is a bubble buster if they beat Babson in their Final.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2015, 05:36:31 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 04:45:30 PM

    It may have been their own bubble that was popped.

    Amherst and Bowdoin both look like solid selections (particularly Amherst), so as long as Wesleyan doesn't win the whole thing, probably not.

    Sometimes, the bubble you pop may be your own.

    Bowdoin doesn't look all that solid to me.  They'll be an eight loss team with SOS and RRO records behind North Central.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2015, 05:38:43 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 05:14:30 PM
    Springfield beat WPI. WPI is a weak Pool C team and Springfield is a bubble buster if they beat Babson in their Final.

    To add onto the previous post, what order do you all see the Northeast in?  Trinity went down to Wesleyan.  WPI goes down to Springfield and Amherst looks in good shape against Bowdoin. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 05:40:30 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2015, 05:36:31 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2015, 04:45:30 PM

    It may have been their own bubble that was popped.

    Amherst and Bowdoin both look like solid selections (particularly Amherst), so as long as Wesleyan doesn't win the whole thing, probably not.

    Sometimes, the bubble you pop may be your own.

    Bowdoin doesn't look all that solid to me.  They'll be an eight loss team with SOS and RRO records behind North Central.

    Yeah, they'd probably be in about the same boat. Solid was probably the wrong word for Bowdoin. Possible though.

    North Central (Ill.)   CE   0.667   / 0.587   / 3-6
    Bowdoin   NE   0.692   / 0.571   / 1-6           (numbers include a loss to Amherst)

    If they beat Amherst and lose to Wesleyan, they remain above .700 and look better.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2015, 05:54:06 PM
    Wash U closed out with a home win over Chicago.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 07:07:54 PM
    No bubbles were heard bursting in Marshall, Texas: ETBU 85, Concordia TX 68.

    This year may be a near record for least bubbles busted!  The ODAC is safe: title game between Randy Mac and Va Wes.  CCIW is IWU @ Augie - no bubbles threatened there.  The only remaining threats that come to mind would be Wesleyan over Amherst or Bethel over UST.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2015, 07:45:15 PM
    Scranton over Catholic might burst a bubble.  I have to look carefully at Catholic, but I thought they were in better shape than Scranton...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 28, 2015, 08:07:05 PM
    Sucks being at a wedding on championship Saturday :(
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2015, 08:19:48 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2015, 07:45:15 PM
    Scranton over Catholic might burst a bubble.  I have to look carefully at Catholic, but I thought they were in better shape than Scranton...

    It might burst Catholic's bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2015, 08:33:18 PM

    DePauw is bursting a bubble right now - up 11 on Wooster with three minutes to go.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2015, 08:43:52 PM
    The MWC is a be-kind-to-bubbles circuit, as St. Norbert follows up an undefeated conference season with a conference tournament championship by defeating Grinnell.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 08:51:25 PM
    Oh yeah, I forgot about DePauw vs. Wooster.  Another bubble may pop.

    It still seems like it has been a much quieter final weekend than usual.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2015, 08:55:43 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 08:51:25 PM
    Oh yeah, I forgot about DePauw vs. Wooster.  Another bubble may pop.

    It still seems like it has been a much quieter final weekend than usual.

    Did pop.  Nine loss DePauw was not going to get in otherwise.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 08:57:45 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2015, 08:55:43 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 08:51:25 PM
    Oh yeah, I forgot about DePauw vs. Wooster.  Another bubble may pop.

    It still seems like it has been a much quieter final weekend than usual.

    Did pop.  Nine loss DePauw was not going to get in otherwise.

    Yeah, I knew DePauw was AQ or go home.  The fat lady when warming up when I posted, but hasn't yet gone on stage!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2015, 09:03:46 PM
    Marietta down 5 with 8 seconds left...Given Mount Union's fringe status that is probably a bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 09:08:20 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2015, 09:03:46 PM
    Marietta down 5 with 8 seconds left...Given Mount Union's fringe status that is probably a bubble.

    You might be right.  I had UMU on the upper side of the bubble, but, yeah, not a lock.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 09:10:49 PM
    Dicky tops John's Hopkins.  I think both were in anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2015, 09:12:19 PM
    Mount Union wins; really good game; over to watch Calvin/Hope.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 28, 2015, 09:56:00 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2015, 09:12:19 PM
    Mount Union wins; really good game; over to watch Calvin/Hope.
    may not pop a bubble but could put Etta on thin ice
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2015, 09:59:03 PM
    Augie beats Illinois Wesleyan for the CCIW tourney title. The loser was basically guaranteed a Pool C, anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2015, 10:02:39 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 28, 2015, 09:59:50 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2015, 02:24:15 PM
    First off... the rankings are out ;)

    Secondly... no, each member on the committee votes on their own. It doesn't come down to just those representatives. Everyone has an equal vote. The chair could, if necessary, break a tie. They won't tell the national committee that. However, I will also say, that the vote takes place AFTER the conference call. So the regional chair will see the vote and probably make any changes he needs in the case of a tie (though, I will double check that). Then the national committee can make changes after that if necessary.

    Further ? on final weekend voting mechanics: is this the order of events?
      the RAC gets the NCAA data sheet on its teams, then ranks its region.
      does it stop there or does it change the vrro because of this new ranking?
    if the latter, can the new vrro cause the ranking to be changed again?
    if so, when does the cycle end?

    Same ? with the national committee after they get the rankings from the RACs?

    Sorry for the delay on this... had two basketball games to oversee video production and then a lacrosse game... really wish I could have been at home...

    Anyway... here is how it goes:

    - On Sunday morning, the regional committees will chat (as I believe the national committee) and kind of come up with what they will probably do. They will then at some point on Sunday rank per the information they have.
    - These new rankings will create new vRRO numbers, but I believe it will be the national committee that will tackle rearranging the teams accordingly based on this new information (though, I need to double check this - I am pretty sure there is only one regional vote).
    - The vRRO has always caused changes and has caused teams to get in that no one had on their radar that seriously (i.e. Randolph a few years ago).
    - It ends there... one last ranking based on the last vRRO data.

    Now remember, the national committee could also make changes BEFORE they see the final vRRO numbers and then make changes after that!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ohigy on February 28, 2015, 10:03:28 PM
    Quote from: iwumichigander on February 28, 2015, 09:56:00 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2015, 09:12:19 PM
    Mount Union wins; really good game; over to watch Calvin/Hope.
    may not pop a bubble but could put Etta on thin ice

    Marietta is in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 28, 2015, 10:11:55 PM
    St John Fisher wins the Empire 8 Championship by defeating Alfred 77-62.

    Plattsburgh State lost to Oswego in the SUNYAC championship 70-58

    Skidmore defeated Clarkson in the Liberty League Championship 68-64.


    That should leave Plattsburgh who was #2 in the East in the last set of Regional Rankings as the first team from the East sitting at the table when the at large bids are determined.  And we think that our vRRO will jump from 1-0 entering today to a 4-1 record vRRO as Oswego as SUNYAC Champions should make the last set of Regional Rankings that no one will see. Also Keene State defeated Rhode Island today, after beating Eastern Connecticut yesterday and won the automatic bid for the Little East Conference. Keene State with a 20-8 record should make the Northeast Regional Rankings. Plattsburgh beat Keene State on New Year's Eve in Keene. We also defeated Oswego 2 of the 3 times we played them . So with our win over Skidmore  back in November, our 2 wins over Oswego and the win over Keene State we could enter the next rankings with that 4-1 vRRO and 19-8 overall. If a lot of favorites lose that may hurt us but our 4-1 vRRO should be better than a whole lot of other teams on the bubble. We think we may still be alive.  We got in 2 years ago with a 19-8 record and our regional record wasn't as good as a 4-1 may be this year
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 28, 2015, 10:19:48 PM
    Quote from: magicman on February 28, 2015, 10:11:55 PM
    St John Fisher wins the Empire 8 Championship by defeating Alfred 77-62.

    Plattsburgh State lost to Oswego in the SUNYAC championship 70-58

    Skidmore defeated Clarkson in the Liberty League Championship 68-64.


    That should leave Plattsburgh who was #2 in the East in the last set of Regional Rankings as the first team from the East sitting at the table when the at large bids are determined.  And we think that our vRRO will jump from 1-0 entering today to a 4-1 record vRRO as Oswego as SUNYAC Champions should make the last set of Regional Rankings that no one will see. Also Keene State defeated Rhode Island today, after beating Eastern Connecticut yesterday and won the automatic bid for the Little East Conference. Keene State with a 20-8 record should make the Northeast Regional Rankings. Plattsburgh beat Keene State on New Year's Eve in Keene. We also defeated Oswego 2 of the 3 times we played them . So with our win over Skidmore  back in November, our 2 wins over Oswego and the win over Keene State we could enter the next rankings with that 4-1 vRRO and 19-8 overall. If a lot of favorites lose that may hurt us but our 4-1 vRRO should be better than a whole of other teams on the bubble. We think we may still be alive.  We got in 2 years ago with a 19-8 record and our regional record wasn't as good as a 4-1 may be this year

    I'd agree that Plattsburgh's chances are reasonably good.  And I don't think there are 'a lot' of C-locks who could still be in that competition - UWW and probably Amherst would be all I can think of.  What you see as of tonight is probably what you get.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2015, 10:35:43 PM
    Had Skidmore lost, they would have been the only threat to Plattsburgh St and even this week's rankings showed they were ahead of Skidmore even though many thought Plattsburgh St would fall behind them. It's basically clear sailing for the Cardinals as they'll be the 1st at the table and have 19 chances to get a Pool C spot. I always had them in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2015, 10:37:01 PM
    My current Pool C's

    1. UWSP
    2. Washington U
    3. Johns Hopkins
    4. Marietta
    5. Trinity
    6. Bates
    7. Eastern Conn
    8. Ohio Wesleyan
    9. William Paterson
    10. Virginia Wesleyan
    11. St Olaf
    12. Wooster
    13. IWU
    14. Elmhurst
    15. Catholic
    16. John Carroll
    17. Franklin and Marshall
    18. North Central
    19. Springfield

    Thoughts:
    1) In the East, I ran it with NYU as the top Pool C pick.  I don't think it matters.  No one compares well...I don't see a Pool C out of the East.

    2) Order will matter in the Northeast.  I guessed Springfield as the 4th Pool C eligible team based on 2 out of 3 vs. WPI and Bowdoin dropping out.  Since Springfield was my last team in, my guess is that Bowdoin or WPI could also be one of the last few teams in.

    3) After St Olaf, I had Buena Vista as the next Pool C eligible team out of the West because I didn't have a massively compelling reason to change it (even though I think Whitman has a better profile).  They didn't get in.  If Whitman were in it, they might have gotten one of the last few picks.

    4) Centre in the South is a bit weird.  They didn't make it in, but they could. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 12:43:42 AM
    Things are a bit more settled as far as geographic outliers are concerned.

    East Texas Baptist won the ASC Pool A bid, so that makes hosting easy. They'll get a pod for sure.

    The SAA (Hendrix/Rhodes) and SCAC (Centenary (La.)/Texas Lutheran) winners will both be able to bus there within 500 miles. They'll be there for sure. Then either Whitworth or Claremont-Mudd-Scripps will fly there as well.

    The other west coast team will fly to Emory who will host Spalding and LaGrange, who can both bus there within 500 miles.

    I don't really see them bracketing this any other way. It minimizes the possible flights for the second weekend, doesn't create entirely unfair pods, and retains the byes to be used elsewhere if needed. Maybe Emory gets a bye and Spalding stays with the Central region, but that doesn't have to happen if they'd rather use the by somewhere else.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 12:45:28 AM
    Here are the updated results.



       WK3      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       Atl#1      Rich. Stock. (NJAC)      WON vs #6 Rutgers-Newark 70-54; WON vs #2 William Paterson 65-61 in Final   
       Atl#2      Will. Pat. (NJAC)         WON vs NJCU 63-61; LOST  vs #1 Richard Stockton 65-61 in Final    
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)       WON vs CCNY 72-55; WON vs#4  Brooklyn 90-83 in Final   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)        WON vs Lehman 80-70; LOST at #3 Baruch 90-83 in Final    
       Atl#5      Rut.-New. (NJAC)        LOST at #1 Richard Stockton 70-54 in semis   
       Atl#6      Sage Coll. (SKY)      WON vs SUNY-Old Westbury 92-74; WONvs St. Joseph's (L.I.)84-70 in Final   
       Atl#7      Misericordia  (MACF)       WON vs King's 57-52 OT; WON vs Del. Valley 77-66 in Final    
                      

    All results are in.




       WK3      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)      WON vs #8 North Central 82-76; WON vs #6 IWU 78-74 in Final    
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)      WON vs Eau Claire 82-60; WON vs Oshkosh 71-57 in Final    
       C#3      UWSP (WIAC)        LOST vs Oshkosh 50-47 in semis   
       C#4      Wash. U. (UAA)      WON vs Chicago 84-67   
       C#5      St. Norbert (MWC)       WON vs Ripon 85-74; WON vs Grinnell 91-73 in Final    
       C#6      IWU (CCIW)        WON vs #7 Elmhurst 80-67; LOST vs #1 Augustana 78-74 in Final    
       C#7      Elmhurst (CCIW)        LOST vs #6 IWU 80-67 in semis   
       C#8      NCC (CCIW)        LOST  at #1 Augustana82-76 in semis   
                      

    All results are in.



       E#1      SJF (E8)       WON vs Ithaca 90-75; WON vs Alfred 77-62 in Final    
       E#2      Platts. St.  (SUNYAC)       WONvs Brockport State 71-50; LOST  vs Oswego St. 70-58 in Final    
       E#3      Hobart (LL)       LOST to #6 Clarkson 69-59 in semis   
       E#4      Skidmore (LL)       WON vs RIT 72-51; WON vs #6 Clarkson 68-64 in Final    
       E#5      NYU (UAA)       WON vs Brandeis 90-75   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)       WON at #3 Hobart 69-59 in semis; LOST vs #4 Skidmore 68-64 in Final    
                      

    All results are in.




       WK3      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)       WON vs Capital 78-55; WONvs Bald. Wa.l 78-74; LOST  vs #5 Mt. Union 85-81 in Final   
       GL#2      Ohio Wes. (NCAC)       WON vs Oberlin 83-66; LOST vs DePauw 69-65 in semis   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)        WON vs Denison 69-60; WON vs Wabash 68-55; LOST vs DePauw 69-56  in Final    
       GL#4      JCU (OAC)       WON vs Heidelberg 75-66; LOST vs #5 Mt. Union 89-88 in semis    
       GL#5      Mount Union (OAC)       WON vs Ohio Northern 101-82; WON at #4 JCU 89-88; WON at #1 Marietta 85-81 in Final   
       GL#6      PS-Behrend (AMCC)       LOST  vs Hilbert 64-59 in semis   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)       WON vs Alma 73-65; WON vs #9 Hope 70-69 in Final    
       GL#8      St. Vincent (PAC)      WON vs Westminster 87-79; WON vs Thomas More 86-73; WON vs Waynesburg 72-66 in Final   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)         WON at Trine 55-44; LOST  at #7 Calvin 70-69 in Final    
                      

    All results are in.



       WK3      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       MA#1      Johns Hop. (CC)       WON vs Gettysburg 80-67; LOST vs #2 Dickinson 65-62 in Final    
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)       WON at #4 Franklin and Marshall 82-68; WON vs #1 Johns Hopkins 65-62 in Final .   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)       WON vs Drew 79-53; LOST  vs #5 Scranton 76-65 in Final    
       MA#4      Frank. & Marsh. (CC)       LOST vs #2 Dickinson 82-68 in semis   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)       WON vs Susquehanna 67-53; WON at #3 Catholic 76-65 in Final   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       LOST vs Christopher Newport 83-69 in semis    
                      

    All results are in.




       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)       WON vs MIT 57-47; vs #9 Springfield in Final on Sun.   
       NE#2      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)       WON vs Colby 66-63; LOST vs #11 Wesleyan 55-52 in semis    
       NE#3      Amherst (NESCAC)      WON at Tufts 92-66; WON at #8 Bowdoin 76-56; vs Wesleyan in Final on Sun.   
       NE#4      Bates (NESCAC)      LOST to #11  Wesleyan 66-59 in quarters   
       NE#5      E. Conn. (LEC)       WON vs Southern Main 80-39; LOST  vs Keene St. 81-63 in semis    
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)       LOST vs #9 Springfield 51-46 in semis   
       NE#7      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)       WON vs Suffolk 108-82; WON vs St. Joseph's 81-51; WON vs J&W  98-85 in Final    
       NE#8      Bowdoin (NESCAC)       WON vs Williams 87-74; LOST  vs #3 Amherst 76-56 in semis    
       NE#9      Springfield (NEWMAC)      WON at #6 WPI 51-46; vs Babson in Final on Sun.   
       NE#10      S. Vermont (NECC)       WON vs Becker 71-66; LOST vs Regis 74-72 in Final    
       NE#11      Wesleyan (NESCAC)      WON at Bates 66-59; WON at #2 Trinity 55-52; at Amherst in Final on Sun.   
                      
       WK3      TEAM      SCHEDULE   

    Babson hosts Springfield in the NEWMAC Final on Sunday.

    SPRINGFIELD IS A BUBBLE BURSTER-if you think WPI is a Pool C candidate

    Amherst hosts Wesleyan in the NESCAC Final on Sunday.

    WESLEYAN COULD BE A BUBBLE BURSTER!




       So#1      RMC (ODAC)       WON vs Randolph 72-63; WONvs E. Mennonite 67-57; vs Virg. Wes. In Final on Sun.   
       So#2      Emory (UAA)       WON vs Rochester 88-69   
       So#3      VWU (ODAC)      WON vs Washington and Lee 81-53; WON vs Guilford 61-51; vs RMC in Final on Sun.   
       So#4      ETBU (ASC)       WON vs Univ. of Ozarks 67-52; WON vs How. Pay. 75-73; WONvs Concordia 82-71 in Final   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)       WONvs Berry 90-74; LOST vs Hendrix 55-53 in semis    
       So#6      Hard.-Sim. (ASC)       WON vs Texas-Dallas 77-63; LOST vs Concordia (TX) 72-66 in semis   
       So#7      Rhodes (SAA)      WON vs Millsaps 68-46; WONvs Birm.-South. 73-54; vs Hendrix in Final on Sun.   
       So#8      MHB (ASC)         LOST at Howard Payne 72-64 in quarters    
                      

    Randolph-Macon plays Virginia Wesleyan in the ODAC Final on Sunday.

    Rhodes host Hendrix in the SAA Final on Sunday.




       WK3      TEAM      SCHEDULE   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)       WON vs Gustavus Adolphus 83-79 OT; vs Bethel in Final on Sun.   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)       LOST vs #7 Bethel 75-67 in semis   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)       LOST vs Wartburg 93-88 OT in semis    
       W#4      Whitman (NWC)       LOST vs Lewis and Clark 84-73 in semis   
       W#5      Whitworth (NWC)       WON vs Willamette 89-64; WON vs L&C 69-58 in Final    
       W#6      Dubuque (IIAC)       WON at Coe 71-59; WON vs Wartburg 81-73 in Final    
       W#7      Bethel (MIAC)      WON vs Con.-Moorhead 71-53; WON at #2 St. Olaf 75-67; vs #1 St. Thomas in Final on Sun.   

    St. Thomas hosts Bethel in the MIAC Final

    BETHEL IS A BUBBLE BURSTER!!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 12:51:53 AM
    In this table I first list this week's Regional Rankings numbers. Then I listed the team's results for the week and then I updated the D3 record, the winning % and the vRRO depending on if they played any RRO during this week. Obviously I didn't update the SOS, but the other two updates should help.

    If there is a team with no updates, they are not finished (i.e., play Sunday).



       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       Atl#1      Rich. Stock. (NJAC)      20-5 20-5      .800/5-1/.573       2-0      22-5      .815/6-1/.573   
       Atl#2      Will. Pat. (NJAC)         19-6 19-6      .760/5-2/.557       1-1      20-7       .741/5-3/.557   
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)       19-6 19-6      .760/3-2/.513       2-0      21-6      .778/4-2/.513   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)        21-5 21-5      .808/3-3/.491       1-1      22-6      .786/3-4/.491   
       Atl#5      Rut.-New. (NJAC)        18-8 18-8      .692/1-5/.566       0-1      18-9      .667/1-6/.566   
       Atl#6      Sage Coll. (SKY)      20-4 21-4      .833/1-1/.455       2-0      22-4      .846/1-1/.455   
       Atl#7      Misericordia  (MACF)       19-6 19-6      .760/1-3/.482       2-0      21-6      .778/1-3/.482   
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)      21-4 21-4      .840/5-2/.577       2-0      23-4      .852/7-2/.577   
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)      21-2 22-3      .913/2-2/.549       2-0      23-2      .920/2-2/.549   
       C#3      UWSP (WIAC)        21-4 21-4      .840/2-4/.575       0-1      21-5      .808/2-4/.575   
       C#4      Wash. U. (UAA)      19-5 19-5      .792/4-3/.563       1-0      20-5      .800/4-3/.563   
       C#5      St. Norbert (MWC)       22-1 22-1      .957/0-1/.494       2-0      24-1      .960/0-1/.494   
       C#6      IWU (CCIW)        18-7 18-7      .720/4-4/.576       1-1      19-8      .704/5-5/.576   
       C#7      Elmhurst (CCIW)        19-6 19-6      .760/4-3/.544       0-1      19-7      .731/4-4/.544   
       C#8      NCC (CCIW)        16-7 18-7      .696/3-5/.573       0-1      16-8      .667/3-6/.573   
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       E#1      SJF (E8)       21-4 21-4      .840/0-0/.508       2-0      23-4      .852/0-0/.508   
       E#2      Platts. St.  (SUNYAC)       18-7 18-7      .720/1-0/.527       1-1      19-8      .704/1-0/.527   
       E#3      Hobart (LL)       18-6 18-7      .750/3-1/.505       0-1      18-7      .720/3-2/.505   
       E#4      Skidmore (LL)       17-7 17-7      .708/2-4/.552       2-0      19-7      .731/3-4/.552   
       E#5      NYU (UAA)       16-8 16-8      .667/4-3/.547       1-0      17-8      .680/4-3/.547   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)       18-6 19-6      .750/1-4/.493       1-1      19-7      .731/2-5/.493   
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)       23-2 23-2      .920/3-2/.506       2-1      25-3      .893/3-3/.506   
       GL#2      Ohio Wes. (NCAC)       21-4 21-4      .840/3-1/.534       1-1      22-5      .815/3-1/.534   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)        20-5 20-5      .800/2-2/.543       2-1      22-6      .786/2-2/.543   
       GL#4      JCU (OAC)       19-5 19-5      .792/3-2/.517       1-1      20-6      .769/3-3/.517   
       GL#5      Mount Union (OAC)       19-6 19-6      .760/2-4/.530       3-0      22-6      .786/4-4/.530   
       GL#6      PS-Behrend (AMCC)       23-2 23-2      .920/0-1/.457       0-1      23-3      .885/0-1/.457   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)       18-5 19-6      .783/2-1/.502       2-0      20-5      .800/3-1/.502   
       GL#8      St. Vincent (PAC)      18-6 19-6      .750/2-2/.516       3-0      21-6      .778/2-2/.516   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)         16-7 17-8      .696/2-5/.543       1-1      17-8      .680/2-6/.543   
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       MA#1      Johns Hop. (CC)       22-3 22-3      .880/3-2/.528       1-1      23-4      .852/3-3/.528   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)       20-5 20-5      .800/3-2/.539       2-0      22-5      .815/5-2/.539   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)       21-3 21-4      .875/1-1/.495       1-1      22-4      .846/1-2/.495   
       MA#4      Frank. & Marsh. (CC)       20-5 20-5      .800/3-2/.504       0-1      20-6      .769/3-3/.504   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)       20-5 20-5      .800/1-1/.514       2-0      22-5      .815/2-1/.514   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       18-4 20-4      .818/0-0/.480       0-1      18-5      .783/0-0/.480   
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)       23-2 23-2      .920/6-2/.559                     
       NE#2      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)       19-4 20-5      .826/4-0/.530       1-1      20-5      .800/4-1/.530   
       NE#3      Amherst (NESCAC)      19-6 19-6      .760/4-2/.568                     
       NE#4      Bates (NESCAC)      19-6 19-6      .760/3-4/.611       0-1      19-7      .731/3-5/.611   
       NE#5      E. Conn. (LEC)       21-4 21-4      .840/2-2/.554       1-1      22-5      .815/2-2/.554   
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)       21-4 21-4      .840/2-2/.507       0-1      21-5      .808/2-3/.507   
       NE#7      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)       24-1 24-1      .960/0-1/.473       3-0      27-1      .964/0-1/.473   
       NE#8      Bowdoin (NESCAC)       18-7 18-7      .720/1-4/.565       1-1      19-8       .704/1-5/.565   
       NE#9      Springfield (NEWMAC)      18-7 18-7      .720/2-4/.564                     
       NE#10      S. Vermont (NECC)       21-2 22-3      .913/0-1/.478       1-1      22-3      .880/0-1/.478   
       NE#11      Wesleyan (NESCAC)      17-8 17-8      .680/3-4/.547                     
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       So#1      RMC (ODAC)       23-2 23-2      .920/4-0/.536                     
       So#2      Emory (UAA)       19-5 19-5      .792/5-3/.562       1-0      20-5      .800/5-3/.562   
       So#3      VWU (ODAC)      20-4 20-4      .833/0-3/.538                     
       So#4      ETBU (ASC)       20-5 20-5      .800/4-2/.515       3-0      23-5      .821/4-2/.515   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)       19-4 20-4      .826/0-1/.517       1-1      20-5      .800/0-1/.517   
       So#6      Hard.-Sim. (ASC)       19-6 19-6      .760/3-3/.520       1-1      20-7      .741/3-3/.520   
       So#7      Rhodes (SAA)      18-5 18-6      .783/1-2/.497                     
       So#8      MHB (ASC)         17-8 17-8      .680/2-5/.534       0-1      17-9      .654/2-5/.534   
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)       22-3 22-3      .880/5-0/.568                     
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)       21-4 21-4      .840/1-2/.522       0-1      21-5      .808/1-3/.522   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)       18-6 18-7      .750/2-1/.526       0-1      18-7      .720/2-1/.526   
       W#4      Whitman (NWC)       19-4 20-5      .826/2-3/.514       0-1      19-5      .792/2-3/.514   
       W#5      Whitworth (NWC)       22-3 22-3      .880/1-3/.480       2-0      24-3      .889/1-3/.480   
       W#6      Dubuque (IIAC)       19-5 20-5      .792/0-3/.523       2-0      21-5      .808/0-3/.523   
       W#7      Bethel (MIAC)      17-8 17-8      .680/3-2/.539                     
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 12:58:33 AM
    Here is the Pool C list. This list does not include conference leaders Randolph-Macon, Babson or St. Thomas who still have championship games to play.

    Teams that aren't conference leaders that play on Sunday are included: Amherst, Springfield, Wesleyan, Virginia Wesleyan, Rhodes and Bethel.



       WK3      TEAM      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       Atl#2      Will. Pat. (NJAC)          1-1      20-7       .741/5-3/.557   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)         1-1      22-6      .786/3-4/.491   
       Atl#5      Rut.-New. (NJAC)         0-1      18-9      .667/1-6/.566   
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       C#3      UWSP (WIAC)         0-1      21-5      .808/2-4/.575   
       C#4      Wash. U. (UAA)       1-0      20-5      .800/4-3/.563   
       C#6      IWU (CCIW)         1-1      19-8      .704/5-5/.576   
       C#7      Elmhurst (CCIW)         0-1      19-7      .731/4-4/.544   
       C#8      NCC (CCIW)         0-1      16-8      .667/3-6/.573   
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       E#2      Platts. St.  (SUNYAC)        1-1      19-8      .704/1-0/.527   
       E#3      Hobart (LL)        0-1      18-7      .720/3-2/.505   
       E#5      NYU (UAA)        1-0      17-8      .680/4-3/.547   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)        1-1      19-7      .731/2-5/.493   
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)        2-1      25-3      .893/3-3/.506   
       GL#2      Ohio Wes. (NCAC)        1-1      22-5      .815/3-1/.534   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)         2-1      22-6      .786/2-2/.543   
       GL#4      JCU (OAC)        1-1      20-6      .769/3-3/.517   
       GL#6      PS-Behrend (AMCC)        0-1      23-3      .885/0-1/.457   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)          1-1      17-8      .680/2-6/.543   
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       MA#1      Johns Hop. (CC)        1-1      23-4      .852/3-3/.528   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)        1-1      22-4      .846/1-2/.495   
       MA#4      Frank. & Marsh. (CC)        0-1      20-6      .769/3-3/.504   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)        0-1      18-5      .783/0-0/.480   
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       NE#2      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)        1-1      20-5      .800/4-1/.530   
       NE#3      Amherst (NESCAC)                     
       NE#4      Bates (NESCAC)       0-1      19-7      .731/3-5/.611   
       NE#5      E. Conn. (LEC)        1-1      22-5      .815/2-2/.554   
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)        0-1      21-5      .808/2-3/.507   
       NE#8      Bowdoin (NESCAC)        1-1      19-8       .704/1-5/.565   
       NE#9      Springfield (NEWMAC)                     
       NE#10      S. Vermont (NECC)        1-1      22-3      .880/0-1/.478   
       NE#11      Wesleyan (NESCAC)                     
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       So#3      VWU (ODAC)                     
       So#5      Centre (SAA)        1-1      20-5      .800/0-1/.517   
       So#6      Hard.-Sim. (ASC)        1-1      20-7      .741/3-3/.520   
       So#7      Rhodes (SAA)                     
       So#8      MHB (ASC)          0-1      17-9      .654/2-5/.534   
                                  
       WK3      TEAM      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)        0-1      21-5      .808/1-3/.522   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)        0-1      18-7      .720/2-1/.526   
       W#4      Whitman (NWC)        0-1      19-5      .792/2-3/.514   
       W#7      Bethel (MIAC)                     
                                  
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 01:43:22 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 12:51:53 AM
    In this table I first list this week's Regional Rankings numbers. Then I listed the team's results for the week and then I updated the D3 record, the winning % and the vRRO depending on if they played any RRO during this week. Obviously I didn't update the SOS, but the other two updates should help.

    If there is a team with no updates, they are not finished (i.e., play Sunday).



       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       Atl#1      Rich. Stock. (NJAC)      20-5 20-5      .800/5-1/.573       2-0      22-5      .815/6-1/.573   
       Atl#2      Will. Pat. (NJAC)         19-6 19-6      .760/5-2/.557       1-1      20-7       .741/5-3/.557   
       Atl#3      Baruch (CUNYAC)       19-6 19-6      .760/3-2/.513       2-0      21-6      .778/4-2/.513   
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)        21-5 21-5      .808/3-3/.491       1-1      22-6      .786/3-4/.491   
       Atl#5      Rut.-New. (NJAC)        18-8 18-8      .692/1-5/.566       0-1      18-9      .667/1-6/.566   
       Atl#6      Sage Coll. (SKY)      20-4 21-4      .833/1-1/.455       2-0      22-4      .846/1-1/.455   
       Atl#7      Misericordia  (MACF)       19-6 19-6      .760/1-3/.482       2-0      21-6      .778/1-3/.482   
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       C#1      Augustana (CCIW)      21-4 21-4      .840/5-2/.577       2-0      23-4      .852/7-2/.577   
       C#2      Whitewater (WIAC)      21-2 22-3      .913/2-2/.549       2-0      23-2      .920/2-2/.549   
       C#3      UWSP (WIAC)        21-4 21-4      .840/2-4/.575       0-1      21-5      .808/2-4/.575   
       C#4      Wash. U. (UAA)      19-5 19-5      .792/4-3/.563       1-0      20-5      .800/4-3/.563   
       C#5      St. Norbert (MWC)       22-1 22-1      .957/0-1/.494       2-0      24-1      .960/0-1/.494   
       C#6      IWU (CCIW)        18-7 18-7      .720/4-4/.576       1-1      19-8      .704/5-5/.576   
       C#7      Elmhurst (CCIW)        19-6 19-6      .760/4-3/.544       0-1      19-7      .731/4-4/.544   
       C#8      NCC (CCIW)        16-7 18-7      .696/3-5/.573       0-1      16-8      .667/3-6/.573   
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       E#1      SJF (E8)       21-4 21-4      .840/0-0/.508       2-0      23-4      .852/0-0/.508   
       E#2      Platts. St.  (SUNYAC)       18-7 18-7      .720/1-0/.527       1-1      19-8      .704/1-0/.527   
       E#3      Hobart (LL)       18-6 18-7      .750/3-1/.505       0-1      18-7      .720/3-2/.505   
       E#4      Skidmore (LL)       17-7 17-7      .708/2-4/.552       2-0      19-7      .731/3-4/.552   
       E#5      NYU (UAA)       16-8 16-8      .667/4-3/.547       1-0      17-8      .680/4-3/.547   
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)       18-6 19-6      .750/1-4/.493       1-1      19-7      .731/2-5/.493   
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)       23-2 23-2      .920/3-2/.506       2-1      25-3      .893/3-3/.506   
       GL#2      Ohio Wes. (NCAC)       21-4 21-4      .840/3-1/.534       1-1      22-5      .815/3-1/.534   
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)        20-5 20-5      .800/2-2/.543       2-1      22-6      .786/2-2/.543   
       GL#4      JCU (OAC)       19-5 19-5      .792/3-2/.517       1-1      20-6      .769/3-3/.517   
       GL#5      Mount Union (OAC)       19-6 19-6      .760/2-4/.530       3-0      22-6      .786/4-4/.530   
       GL#6      PS-Behrend (AMCC)       23-2 23-2      .920/0-1/.457       0-1      23-3      .885/0-1/.457   
       GL#7      Calvin (MIAA)       18-5 19-6      .783/2-1/.502       2-0      20-5      .800/3-1/.502   
       GL#8      St. Vincent (PAC)      18-6 19-6      .750/2-2/.516       3-0      21-6      .778/2-2/.516   
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)         16-7 17-8      .696/2-5/.543       1-1      17-8      .680/2-6/.543   
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       MA#1      Johns Hop. (CC)       22-3 22-3      .880/3-2/.528       1-1      23-4      .852/3-3/.528   
       MA#2      Dickinson (CC)       20-5 20-5      .800/3-2/.539       2-0      22-5      .815/5-2/.539   
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)       21-3 21-4      .875/1-1/.495       1-1      22-4      .846/1-2/.495   
       MA#4      Frank. & Marsh. (CC)       20-5 20-5      .800/3-2/.504       0-1      20-6      .769/3-3/.504   
       MA#5      Scranton (LAND)       20-5 20-5      .800/1-1/.514       2-0      22-5      .815/2-1/.514   
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)       18-4 20-4      .818/0-0/.480       0-1      18-5      .783/0-0/.480   
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       NE#1      Babson (NEWMAC)       23-2 23-2      .920/6-2/.559                     
       NE#2      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)       19-4 20-5      .826/4-0/.530       1-1      20-5      .800/4-1/.530   
       NE#3      Amherst (NESCAC)      19-6 19-6      .760/4-2/.568                     
       NE#4      Bates (NESCAC)      19-6 19-6      .760/3-4/.611       0-1      19-7      .731/3-5/.611   
       NE#5      E. Conn. (LEC)       21-4 21-4      .840/2-2/.554       1-1      22-5      .815/2-2/.554   
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)       21-4 21-4      .840/2-2/.507       0-1      21-5      .808/2-3/.507   
       NE#7      Albertus Magnus (GNAC)       24-1 24-1      .960/0-1/.473       3-0      27-1      .964/0-1/.473   
       NE#8      Bowdoin (NESCAC)       18-7 18-7      .720/1-4/.565       1-1      19-8       .704/1-5/.565   
       NE#9      Springfield (NEWMAC)      18-7 18-7      .720/2-4/.564                     
       NE#10      S. Vermont (NECC)       21-2 22-3      .913/0-1/.478       1-1      22-3      .880/0-1/.478   
       NE#11      Wesleyan (NESCAC)      17-8 17-8      .680/3-4/.547                     
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       So#1      RMC (ODAC)       23-2 23-2      .920/4-0/.536                     
       So#2      Emory (UAA)       19-5 19-5      .792/5-3/.562       1-0      20-5      .800/5-3/.562   
       So#3      VWU (ODAC)      20-4 20-4      .833/0-3/.538                     
       So#4      ETBU (ASC)       20-5 20-5      .800/4-2/.515       3-0      23-5      .821/4-2/.515   
       So#5      Centre (SAA)       19-4 20-4      .826/0-1/.517       1-1      20-5      .800/0-1/.517   
       So#6      Hard.-Sim. (ASC)       19-6 19-6      .760/3-3/.520       1-1      20-7      .741/3-3/.520   
       So#7      Rhodes (SAA)      18-5 18-6      .783/1-2/.497                     
       So#8      MHB (ASC)         17-8 17-8      .680/2-5/.534       0-1      17-9      .654/2-5/.534   
                                              
       WK3      TEAM      D3/Overall      W%/vRRO/SOS      WEEK      updated rec.      updated W%/vRRO   
       W#1      St. Thomas (MIAC)       22-3 22-3      .880/5-0/.568                     
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)       21-4 21-4      .840/1-2/.522       0-1      21-5      .808/1-3/.522   
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)       18-6 18-7      .750/2-1/.526       0-1      18-7      .720/2-1/.526   
       W#4      Whitman (NWC)       19-4 20-5      .826/2-3/.514       0-1      19-5      .792/2-3/.514   
       W#5      Whitworth (NWC)       22-3 22-3      .880/1-3/.480       2-0      24-3      .889/1-3/.480   
       W#6      Dubuque (IIAC)       19-5 20-5      .792/0-3/.523       2-0      21-5      .808/0-3/.523   
       W#7      Bethel (MIAC)      17-8 17-8      .680/3-2/.539                     

    Catholic and Scranton each pickup a vrro loss from teams newly reranked this past week; Catholic(St. Vincent) should be 1-3 and Scranton(Misericordia) 2-2. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 01:51:46 AM
    Bracket Projection:

    Cheeseland Bracket

    UWSP
    * Bye
    Calvin
    Elmhurst

    Wash U
    De Pauw
    IWU
    Ohio Wesleyan

    Augustana
    Northwestern
    Dubuque
    St Olaf

    St Thomas
    Concordia WI
    Defiance
    St. Norbert

    Grits Bracket

    Randolph Macon
    Neumann
    Franklin and Marshall
    William Paterson

    Johns Hopkins
    Miscordia
    Alvernia
    Richard Stockton

    Dickinson
    Salisbury
    Catholic
    Va. Wesleyan

    Marietta
    SUNY-Oswego
    St. John Fisher
    Scranton

    Cheeseland Bracket #2:

    UWW
    * Bye
    North Central
    John Carroll

    East Texas Baptist
    Texas Lutheran
    Rhodes
    Whitworth

    Emory
    Lagrange
    Spaudling
    Chapman

    Wooster
    Medaille
    St Vincent
    Mount Union

    Maple Syrup Bracket

    Babson
    SUNY-Cobleskill
    Westfield St
    Skidmore

    Trinity
    Keene St
    Sage
    Albertus Magnus

    Amherst
    Colby-Sawyer
    Springfield
    Baruch

    Eastern Conn
    Regis
    Endicott
    Bates

    Bold is for host of pod.  If all goes as planned, the hosts of the Sweet 16 will be Stevens Point, Randolph-Macon , Whitewater and Babson
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 01:59:08 AM
    There are so many holes in that... here are a few:
    - why in the world would #1 regionally ranked Richard Stockton travel to #1 regionally ranked (maybe #2 after their loss) Johns Hopkins?
    - how would UW-Stevens Point get/earn a bye? Not a chance.
    - Wash U isn't going to host - women have priority and will host.
    - St. Thomas won't host... see above.
    - Chapman lost... they aren't going to the tournament.
    - and you have WAY too many of the same region teams in pods together... it happens on occasion... but in nearly every pod like you have it.

    Back to the drawing board.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 02:10:27 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 01, 2015, 01:51:46 AM
    Bracket Projection:

    Cheeseland Bracket

    UWSP
    * Bye
    Calvin
    Elmhurst

    Wash U
    De Pauw
    IWU
    Ohio Wesleyan

    Augustana
    Northwestern
    Dubuque
    St Olaf

    St Thomas
    Concordia WI
    Defiance
    St. Norbert

    Grits Bracket

    Randolph Macon
    Neumann
    Franklin and Marshall
    William Paterson

    Johns Hopkins
    Miscordia
    Alvernia
    Richard Stockton

    Dickinson
    Salisbury
    Catholic
    Va. Wesleyan

    Marietta
    SUNY-Oswego
    St. John Fisher
    Scranton

    Cheeseland Bracket #2:

    UWW
    * Bye
    North Central
    John Carroll

    East Texas Baptist
    Texas Lutheran
    Rhodes
    Whitworth

    Emory
    Lagrange
    Spaudling
    Chapman

    Wooster
    Medaille
    St Vincent
    Mount Union

    Maple Syrup Bracket

    Babson
    SUNY-Cobleskill
    Westfield St
    Skidmore

    Trinity
    Keene St
    Sage
    Albertus Magnus

    Amherst
    Colby-Sawyer
    Springfield
    Baruch

    Eastern Conn
    Regis
    Endicott
    Bates

    Bold is for host of pod.  If all goes as planned, the hosts of the Sweet 16 will be Stevens Point, Randolph-Macon , Whitewater and Babson

      Let's send Misericordia to Marietta instead of Scranton; they're closer to Marietta by a few miles and I'd rather drive a shorter distance to Dickinson or Johns Hopkins to watch the Royals.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 07:43:30 AM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2015, 01:43:22 AM
    Catholic and Scranton each pickup a vrro loss from teams newly reranked this past week; Catholic(St. Vincent) should be 1-3 and Scranton(Misericordia) 2-2.

    Wouldn't that already been added?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEPAFAN on March 01, 2015, 08:01:11 AM
    I thought Hopkins couldn't host. Isn't their gym too small? Thanks for putting in the time to put that together.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 08:03:40 AM
    I find that interesting that the NCAA wouldn't update their vRRO.

    I was basing my updated vRRO on if a team played a RRO this week. I didn't realize they weren't updated with newly ranked teams (and teams that dropped out as well).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 08:18:03 AM
    Just skimming the list...the NCAA has some work to do then.

    Bethel is newly ranked, replacing Chapman.  So St. Thomas' vRRO should be 6-1, not 5-0. Same with St. Olaf, adding Bethel results. Wow.

    Trust me, not going through the work looking at everyone's schedule!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 09:01:19 AM
    Quote from: NEPAFAN on March 01, 2015, 08:01:11 AM
    I thought Hopkins couldn't host. Isn't their gym too small? Thanks for putting in the time to put that together.

    They claim 1100 - and they could do it, although I doubt people would really sit close enough to each other to make that work.  I don't think they should host a sectional, but the first weekend could work alright, I think.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 09:02:21 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 01:59:08 AM
    There are so many holes in that... here are a few:
    - why in the world would #1 regionally ranked Richard Stockton travel to #1 regionally ranked (maybe #2 after their loss) Johns Hopkins?

    I was a bit uncomfortable giving Dickinson and Johns Hopkins both hosting pods.  Maybe I'll split that up and give Richard Stockton a pod instead.

    Quote
    - how would UW-Stevens Point get/earn a bye? Not a chance.

    It solved certain problems to put a bye out that way to get the hosts of the pods where I thought they should be without travel.  That said, if Wash U and St. Thomas can't host, that opens up the possibilities and gives me a chance to fix that.  And in the past, the byes haven't made much sense anyway.

    Quote

    - Wash U isn't going to host - women have priority and will host.
    - St. Thomas won't host... see above.

    Solves problems for this that make it fixable.

    Quote
    - Chapman lost... they aren't going to the tournament.

    Yep, I was working on it before that game was over.  Should have checked again before I posted.  Not a big deal, where you see Chapman, replace with CMS.

    Quote
    - and you have WAY too many of the same region teams in pods together... it happens on occasion... but in nearly every pod like you have it.

    I need to refocus on the Eastern teams and see what I can do.  In the Minnesota/Illinois/Wisconsin area, there isn't much of a choice unless the NCAA pays for travel.  In the east, distances are closer, so it's easier to shift around.

    Quote

    Back to the drawing board.

    Thanks for your input and I'd like to compare mine to see the D3hoops.com's attempt that I am clearly missing.

    EDIT: To fix quotes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on March 01, 2015, 10:09:45 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 01:59:08 AM
    There are so many holes in that... here are a few:

    Back to the drawing board.

    Also, Wisconsin produces almost as much maple syrup as New York and more than New Hampshire, Connecticut and Taxachussets combined.  :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: joelmama on March 01, 2015, 10:24:31 AM
    Quote from: WUH on March 01, 2015, 10:09:45 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 01:59:08 AM
    There are so many holes in that... here are a few:

    Back to the drawing board.

    Also, Wisconsin produces almost as much maple syrup as New York and more than New Hampshire, Connecticut and Taxachussets combined.  :)
    Not sure why I know this but you are wrong about Syrup production at least in 2014  NY produced almost 3X as much as Wisconsin.  Your other statement is correct.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 10:46:42 AM
    Quote from: NEPAFAN on March 01, 2015, 08:01:11 AM
    I thought Hopkins couldn't host. Isn't their gym too small? Thanks for putting in the time to put that together.

    They are somewhere between 1100 and 1200 and have hosted many times in the past. Nothing wrong with having them host.

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 08:03:40 AM
    I find that interesting that the NCAA wouldn't update their vRRO.

    I was basing my updated vRRO on if a team played a RRO this week. I didn't realize they weren't updated with newly ranked teams (and teams that dropped out as well).

    The vRRO sometimes is based on what the team had for data coming into those rankings... not what they had after the rankings were done.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 10:47:56 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 01, 2015, 01:51:46 AM
    Bracket Projection:

    Cheeseland Bracket

    UWSP
    * Bye
    Calvin
    Elmhurst

    Wash U
    De Pauw
    IWU
    Ohio Wesleyan

    Augustana
    Northwestern
    Dubuque
    St Olaf

    St Thomas
    Concordia WI
    Defiance
    St. Norbert

    Grits Bracket

    Randolph Macon
    Neumann
    Franklin and Marshall
    William Paterson

    Johns Hopkins
    Miscordia
    Alvernia
    Richard Stockton

    Dickinson
    Salisbury
    Catholic
    Va. Wesleyan

    Marietta
    SUNY-Oswego
    St. John Fisher
    Scranton

    Cheeseland Bracket #2:

    UWW
    * Bye
    North Central
    John Carroll

    East Texas Baptist
    Texas Lutheran
    Rhodes
    Whitworth

    Emory
    Lagrange
    Spaudling
    Chapman

    Wooster
    Medaille
    St Vincent
    Mount Union

    Maple Syrup Bracket

    Babson
    SUNY-Cobleskill
    Westfield St
    Skidmore

    Trinity
    Keene St
    Sage
    Albertus Magnus

    Amherst
    Colby-Sawyer
    Springfield
    Baruch

    Eastern Conn
    Regis
    Endicott
    Bates

    Bold is for host of pod.  If all goes as planned, the hosts of the Sweet 16 will be Stevens Point, Randolph-Macon , Whitewater and Babson

    NCAA will need compelling reason to override 2 hosts/region; therefore, NE won't get 4 hosts and East/Atlantic none. Nice names for the brackets and a strawman that we can critique to influence the national committee. ::) 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 01, 2015, 10:56:27 AM
    So if I have it right the 2 conferences with bubble bursting opportunities today is the NESCAC (Amherst is safely in, Wesleyan isn't) and the MIAC (St Thomas is a lock, Bethel isn't making the tournament.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 10:58:52 AM
    Quote

    Grits Bracket


    I find it amusing and enjoyable that there are TWO Waffle Houses at every exit south of Indiana.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 11:01:27 AM
    I reworked the Wisconsin Side of the bracket based on comments...

    Bracket can be hosted by St. Thomas or UWSP in Sweet 16.

    UWSP
    DePauw
    Calvin
    Elmhurst

    Emory
    Spaudling
    Lagrange
    CMS

    St Norbert
    Concordia WI
    Defiance
    St Thomas

    Augustana
    Northwestern
    Dubuque
    St Olaf

    Bracket can be hosted by UWW or Wooster in Sweet 16.

    UWW
    *BYE
    North Central
    John Carroll

    East Texas Baptist
    Rhodes
    Texas Lutheran
    Whitworth

    Ohio Wesleyan
    SUNY-Oswego
    Mount Union
    Wash U

    Wooster
    Medaille
    St Vincent
    IWU

    I'm setting up some rules for the East/South side of the bracket.  The trick is trying to prevent 2nd weekend travel if it is hosted in Randolph Macon since that's a haul from New England.  I set up a rule that it could be that Virginia Wesleyan might host, but if I do that, it severely restricts what I can do with breaking up the Northeast region. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 11:02:53 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 10:58:52 AM
    Quote

    Grits Bracket


    I find it amusing and enjoyable that there are TWO Waffle Houses at every exit south of Indiana.

    Ironically-named site of RAC RR conference today. ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 11:04:17 AM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2015, 10:47:56 AM


    NCAA will need compelling reason to override 2 hosts/region; therefore, NE won't get 4 hosts and East/Atlantic none. Nice names for the brackets and a strawman that we can critique to influence the national committee. ::)

    Northeast and Central are loaded.  I wouldn't be surprised to see them host more than their fair share, but I'll keep that in mind as I rework the east...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 11:06:04 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 10:46:42 AM
    Quote from: NEPAFAN on March 01, 2015, 08:01:11 AM
    I thought Hopkins couldn't host. Isn't their gym too small? Thanks for putting in the time to put that together.

    They are somewhere between 1100 and 1200 and have hosted many times in the past. Nothing wrong with having them host.

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 08:03:40 AM
    I find that interesting that the NCAA wouldn't update their vRRO.

    I was basing my updated vRRO on if a team played a RRO this week. I didn't realize they weren't updated with newly ranked teams (and teams that dropped out as well).

    The vRRO sometimes is based on what the team had for data coming into those rankings... not what they had after the rankings were done.

    But the NCAA has that info already. They know St. Thomas was 5-0 vRRO and then they add Bethel to the rankings. They should know they need to add the results against Bethel.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 11:07:18 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 01, 2015, 11:01:27 AM
    I reworked the Wisconsin Side of the bracket based on comments...

    Bracket can be hosted by St. Thomas or UWSP in Sweet 16.

    UWSP
    DePauw
    Calvin
    Elmhurst

    Emory
    Spaudling
    Lagrange
    CMS

    St Norbert
    Concordia WI
    Defiance
    St Thomas

    Augustana
    Northwestern
    Dubuque
    St Olaf

    Bracket can be hosted by UWW or Wooster in Sweet 16.

    UWW
    *BYE
    North Central
    John Carroll

    East Texas Baptist
    Rhodes
    Texas Lutheran
    Whitworth

    Ohio Wesleyan
    SUNY-Oswego
    Mount Union
    Wash U

    Wooster
    Medaille
    St Vincent
    IWU

    I'm setting up some rules for the East/South side of the bracket.  The trick is trying to prevent 2nd weekend travel if it is hosted in Randolph Macon since that's a haul from New England.  I set up a rule that it could be that Virginia Wesleyan might host, but if I do that, it severely restricts what I can do with breaking up the Northeast region.

    Don't stress yourself; the NCAA will pick the more deserving intermediate choice to host, reducing the distance traveled for the extremities.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 11:09:03 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 11:06:04 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 10:46:42 AM
    Quote from: NEPAFAN on March 01, 2015, 08:01:11 AM
    I thought Hopkins couldn't host. Isn't their gym too small? Thanks for putting in the time to put that together.

    They are somewhere between 1100 and 1200 and have hosted many times in the past. Nothing wrong with having them host.

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 08:03:40 AM
    I find that interesting that the NCAA wouldn't update their vRRO.

    I was basing my updated vRRO on if a team played a RRO this week. I didn't realize they weren't updated with newly ranked teams (and teams that dropped out as well).

    The vRRO sometimes is based on what the team had for data coming into those rankings... not what they had after the rankings were done.

    But the NCAA has that info already. They know St. Thomas was 5-0 vRRO and then they add Bethel to the rankings. They should know they need to add the results against Bethel.

    We are seeing the data sheets... not the changed sheets from after the committee posts stuff. Just the data that got them there.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 11:09:44 AM
    bopol - RMC people will tell you... the haul from New England can be inside 500 miles. Check out RMC's travel in 2013... not one flight to WPI or Amherst. It isn't as hard as you think.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 11:30:56 AM
      One would think that the NCAA would have the selection shows tomorrow in the order of gender priority for the 1st weekend; that is, since the women have priority this year, that their show would come first, so that their hosting decisions can allow the men more time to adjust their hosting decisions. There's at least 1 possibility this year that a men's team could get a hosting spot if their women's team gets slighted.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 11:45:14 AM
    Except... the brackets are done well in advance of the shows... so there wouldn't be any time to change things anyway. I have it on good authority both brackets are completed earlier in the morning and not based on when they are being broadcast. Furthermore, the men have been first for a number of years; women second as a result.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 11:59:55 AM
    In a tight game, Amherst and Wesleyan are tied 0-0 to start the first half. Bubble teams are nervous.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 01, 2015, 12:01:32 PM
    Dave, what time are the shows tomorrow??  1 PM men and 3 PM for the women??
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 12:04:43 PM
    12:30 for the men
    2:30 for the women
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 12:05:22 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 11:45:14 AM
    Except... the brackets are done well in advance of the shows... so there wouldn't be any time to change things anyway. I have it on good authority both brackets are completed earlier in the morning and not based on when they are being broadcast. Furthermore, the men have been first for a number of years; women second as a result.

    Doesn't mean that they couldn't(shouldn't) change it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 12:07:52 PM
    Serious question.  Eastern time?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 12:31:59 PM
    Wesleyan leads Amherst at the half, 36-27. The needle is getting close to the bubble.

    Tied with 2 minutes to go.

    Free basketball...OT.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 01, 2015, 01:24:27 PM
    OT in the NESCAC

    Any guess on who the bubble team might be?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 01:33:52 PM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2015, 12:05:22 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 11:45:14 AM
    Except... the brackets are done well in advance of the shows... so there wouldn't be any time to change things anyway. I have it on good authority both brackets are completed earlier in the morning and not based on when they are being broadcast. Furthermore, the men have been first for a number of years; women second as a result.

    Doesn't mean that they couldn't(shouldn't) change it.

    What I am trying to say... it doesn't matter what time the shows air... both brackets are done at the same time earlier in the day. Furthermore, considering how many parts there are to move around if you want to adjust something and how much the production crew needs to work on the show prior... there isn't enough time to adjust if there is some "slight."

    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2015, 12:05:22 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 11:45:14 AM
    Except... the brackets are done well in advance of the shows... so there wouldn't be any time to change things anyway. I have it on good authority both brackets are completed earlier in the morning and not based on when they are being broadcast. Furthermore, the men have been first for a number of years; women second as a result.

    Doesn't mean that they couldn't(shouldn't) change it.

    Eastern... sorry, I usually point that kind of thing out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 01, 2015, 01:35:27 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 01, 2015, 11:01:27 AM
    Wooster
    Medaille
    St Vincent
    IWU

    Wooster will be fortunate just to make it in to the tournament. If they get selected to host (for the umpteenth year in a row), you won't believe the screams of undue influence and collusion that will rise from every corner of Ohio.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 01:43:25 PM

    Wesleyan wins the NESCAC

    Amherst and Bates are virtual locks, with Bowdoin and Trinity putting up competitive Pool C resumes.  I don't think it will happen, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the NESCAC gets five teams in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 01, 2015, 01:49:22 PM
    Wesleyan wins in OT over Amherst as another bubble goes pop!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 01:59:14 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 01, 2015, 01:24:27 PM
    OT in the NESCAC

    Any guess on who the bubble team might be?

    Springfield on mine.  I had Springfield and NCC as the last two...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 02:06:11 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on March 01, 2015, 01:35:27 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 01, 2015, 11:01:27 AM
    Wooster
    Medaille
    St Vincent
    IWU

    Wooster will be fortunate just to make it in to the tournament. If they get selected to host (for the umpteenth year in a row), you won't believe the screams of undue influence and collusion that will rise from every corner of Ohio.

    Wooster solves a lot of logistical problems because they can pull from the west (Illinois) and the east (NY/PA) and still be within the 500 mile limit.  I get where you're coming from and Mount Union might be a better pick for hosting than Wooster at this point.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TrinColl1 on March 01, 2015, 02:09:00 PM
    HoopsFan how can you have Amherst in over Trinity. Both have 20 wins. Trinity beat the daylights out of Amherst AT Amherst. Trinity finishes the regular season league play at 9-1. Amherst 6-4. Regular season way harder to win in any league then the playoffs where a team can just get hot. It would be a total joke if Amherst gets in and Trinity doesn't. It would show all people at D3 care about is the name not about the season at hand.

    Also would anyone happen to know if this is true and Trinity doesn't get in are they the first ever NESCAC team with 20 wins who WON the NESCAC Regular Season to not get in the NCAA's?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 02:12:30 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 01:43:25 PM

    Wesleyan wins the NESCAC

    Amherst and Bates are virtual locks, with Bowdoin and Trinity putting up competitive Pool C resumes.  I don't think it will happen, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the NESCAC gets five teams in.

    Not very convinced on Bowdoin.  Order will matter in the Northeast, but I think Bowdoin doesn't have a good resume to make it at this point.  I'm pretty convinced that Trinity is in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 02:16:09 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 11:09:44 AM
    bopol - RMC people will tell you... the haul from New England can be inside 500 miles. Check out RMC's travel in 2013... not one flight to WPI or Amherst. It isn't as hard as you think.

    Randolph Macon opens up possibilities.  Putting energy into the possibility of having Virginia Wesleyan host isn't worth it though as Virginia Beach is just outside of 500 miles for eastern NY, Connecticut and Mass.  It's likely end up at Dickinson.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 01, 2015, 02:18:31 PM
    The Great Lakes/Central/West for sure needs at least one non #1/#2 ranked team to host with St. Thomas' women probably getting that opportunity over the men.

    I think St. Norbert takes the West's lone hosting because Dubuque, NW Minn, Bethel/St. Thomas winner just won't be seeded high enough.  I suppose its possible Bethel could host though.

    Central
    Augustana/Whitewater look like locks to host.

    Great Lakes can go a couple ways
    Marietta/OWU
    Marietta/Mt. U

    A need for another host in the area would be dependent on pulling teams in from New York/Penn and even Virginia.  In which case another host site in Ohio makes sense and that could be OWU or Mt. Union.

    Illinois Wesleyan would actually be a pretty strong candidate as well.

    Anyone else hosting and you're really breaking seeds.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 02:23:47 PM
    So, who do we have as definite?

    William Patterson
    Stevens Point
    WashU
    Marietta
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Wooster
    Hopkins
    Trinity
    Amherst
    Bates
    E Conn
    ODAC loser
    St. Olaf

    That leaves six spots left.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 02:26:02 PM
    Quote from: TrinColl1 on March 01, 2015, 02:09:00 PM
    HoopsFan how can you have Amherst in over Trinity. Both have 20 wins. Trinity beat the daylights out of Amherst AT Amherst. Trinity finishes the regular season league play at 9-1. Amherst 6-4. Regular season way harder to win in any league then the playoffs where a team can just get hot. It would be a total joke if Amherst gets in and Trinity doesn't. It would show all people at D3 care about is the name not about the season at hand.

    Also would anyone happen to know if this is true and Trinity doesn't get in are they the first ever NESCAC team with 20 wins who WON the NESCAC Regular Season to not get in the NCAA's?


    I took another look at it - Trinity is definitely in.  I do think Amherst is ahead of them in the rankings, though - a slightly better SOS now and a much better vRRO.

    Bowdoin and Springfield have nearly identical resumes.  Bowdoin got the advantage last week; I'm not so sure they will this time.  It'll be hard, though, to take one and not the other.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 02:28:39 PM
    Just looking at some numbers, Bethel is a viable candidate for one of the final Pool C spots, surprisingly.

    I think Illinois Wesleyan is in, and I like Springfield's numbers if they lose (problem is, though, they'll be something like sixth to the table in the NE, but I think the top candidates come off early).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2015, 02:29:15 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 02:23:47 PM
    So, who do we have as definite?

    William Patterson
    Stevens Point
    WashU
    Marietta
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Wooster
    Hopkins
    Trinity
    Amherst
    Bates
    E Conn
    ODAC loser
    St. Olaf

    That leaves six spots left.

    I think IWU will go in before several of those teams.  Can't offhand think of any other 'locks' you omitted.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 02:29:21 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 02:26:02 PM
    Quote from: TrinColl1 on March 01, 2015, 02:09:00 PM
    HoopsFan how can you have Amherst in over Trinity. Both have 20 wins. Trinity beat the daylights out of Amherst AT Amherst. Trinity finishes the regular season league play at 9-1. Amherst 6-4. Regular season way harder to win in any league then the playoffs where a team can just get hot. It would be a total joke if Amherst gets in and Trinity doesn't. It would show all people at D3 care about is the name not about the season at hand.

    Also would anyone happen to know if this is true and Trinity doesn't get in are they the first ever NESCAC team with 20 wins who WON the NESCAC Regular Season to not get in the NCAA's?

    I've got to believe North Central is ahead of Springfield and Bowdoin though.  And North Central is my last pick and I'm probably being overly generous.


    I took another look at it - Trinity is definitely in.  I do think Amherst is ahead of them in the rankings, though - a slightly better SOS now and a much better vRRO.

    Bowdoin and Springfield have nearly identical resumes.  Bowdoin got the advantage last week; I'm not so sure they will this time.  It'll be hard, though, to take one and not the other.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 02:30:43 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 02:23:47 PM
    So, who do we have as definite?

    William Patterson
    Stevens Point
    WashU
    Marietta
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Wooster
    Hopkins
    Trinity
    Amherst
    Bates
    E Conn
    ODAC loser
    St. Olaf

    That leaves six spots left.


    After this, I think we're then looking at a table of:

    Brooklyn
    IWU
    Plattsburgh (NYU's didn't do quite enough to get there)
    John Carroll
    Catholic
    Springfield (virtually identical numbers - Bowdoin was ahead in last week's rankings, but Springfield had a slightly better week)
    Hardin-Simmons (I think they'll get the nod over Centre)
    Bethel (Whitman and Buena Vista will both be right there, too)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TrinColl1 on March 01, 2015, 02:32:15 PM
    Hoops Fan As long as Trinity is in I won't complain where or who is higher or what not but if Amherst is higher I don't care SOS or any of that it would only be because of Amherst name. Trinity buried them on their own home court and went 9-1 in conference while Amherst went 6-4. Head to Head has to mean something especially when the road team wins by double figures. And then finishes 3 games ahead of them in league.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 02:35:04 PM
    Tom's number have Catholic's SOS creeping up over .500.  I think that get's them in (along with their .800+ winning percentage).

    IWU for sure as well.

    Then it's tough because I think North Central has a better case than Elmhurst, but they were in the opposite order last week.  If that doesn't change it could be a block.

    Springfield and Bowdoin likely get in.

    Then you've got Bethel.


    Maybe we add IWU and Catholic to the locks and throw the final four spots into the toss up.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 02:36:15 PM
    Quote from: TrinColl1 on March 01, 2015, 02:32:15 PM
    Hoops Fan As long as Trinity is in I won't complain where or who is higher or what not but if Amherst is higher I don't care SOS or any of that it would only be because of Amherst name. Trinity buried them on their own home court and went 9-1 in conference while Amherst went 6-4. Head to Head has to mean something especially when the road team wins by double figures. And then finishes 3 games ahead of them in league.

    Amherst has way better numbers.  They're not looking at conference records and they only look at head to head if it's really close and, quite frankly, it's not anymore.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 02:37:00 PM
    I think NYU gets in with that vRRO and SOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 01, 2015, 02:39:35 PM
    Quote from: TrinColl1 on March 01, 2015, 02:32:15 PMTrinity buried them on their own home court and went 9-1 in conference while Amherst went 6-4. Head to Head has to mean something especially when the road team wins by double figures. And then finishes 3 games ahead of them in league.
    Head to Head means something; it is one of the primary criteria. League record, in and of itself, however, means nothing; it is not one of the criteria, either primary or secondary.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 02:41:05 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 02:37:00 PM
    I think NYU gets in with that vRRO and SOS.

    I'm not sure they'll get to the table.

    Right now (according to Matt's numbers) Plattsburgh is 19-8 with a .534, while NYU is 17-8 with a .544.  If they're sticking to the "two wins equals .03" then this is the perfect test case for it.  Plattsburgh should stay ahead.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 02:41:18 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on March 01, 2015, 02:39:35 PM
    Quote from: TrinColl1 on March 01, 2015, 02:32:15 PMTrinity buried them on their own home court and went 9-1 in conference while Amherst went 6-4. Head to Head has to mean something especially when the road team wins by double figures. And then finishes 3 games ahead of them in league.
    Head to Head means something; it is one of the primary criteria. League record, in and of itself, however, means nothing; it is not one of the criteria, either primary or secondary.

    In a way though it is, because common opponents is a primary criteria. So it will be taken into account.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 02:43:29 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 02:35:04 PM
    Tom's number have Catholic's SOS creeping up over .500.  I think that get's them in (along with their .800+ winning percentage).

    IWU for sure as well.

    Then it's tough because I think North Central has a better case than Elmhurst, but they were in the opposite order last week.  If that doesn't change it could be a block.

    Springfield and Bowdoin likely get in.

    Then you've got Bethel.


    Maybe we add IWU and Catholic to the locks and throw the final four spots into the toss up.

    I did forget that Springfield is losing right now.  It should help their SOS, but obviously the winning percentage is going down.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 02:43:46 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 02:41:05 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 02:37:00 PM
    I think NYU gets in with that vRRO and SOS.

    I'm not sure they'll get to the table.

    Right now (according to Matt's numbers) Plattsburgh is 19-8 with a .534, while NYU is 17-8 with a .544.  If they're sticking to the "two wins equals .03" then this is the perfect test case for it.  Plattsburgh should stay ahead.

    Here's another interesting comparison:

    New York University   EA   0.680   / 0.544   / 3-2
    Hope                         GL   0.680   / 0.558   / 2-6

    Is .014 SOS worth an extra win vRRO? I'd say yes (after all, these RvRRO are already baked into the WP and SOS), but I'm not sure what the committee says.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 02:44:11 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 02:41:18 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on March 01, 2015, 02:39:35 PM
    Quote from: TrinColl1 on March 01, 2015, 02:32:15 PMTrinity buried them on their own home court and went 9-1 in conference while Amherst went 6-4. Head to Head has to mean something especially when the road team wins by double figures. And then finishes 3 games ahead of them in league.
    Head to Head means something; it is one of the primary criteria. League record, in and of itself, however, means nothing; it is not one of the criteria, either primary or secondary.

    In a way though it is, because common opponents is a primary criteria. So it will be taken into account.

    Sure, but the SOS is such a huge disparity, plus you'll likely have Eastern Connecticut ranked between them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 02:44:40 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 02:43:46 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 02:41:05 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 02:37:00 PM
    I think NYU gets in with that vRRO and SOS.

    I'm not sure they'll get to the table.

    Right now (according to Matt's numbers) Plattsburgh is 19-8 with a .534, while NYU is 17-8 with a .544.  If they're sticking to the "two wins equals .03" then this is the perfect test case for it.  Plattsburgh should stay ahead.

    Do you think Hope will get to the table before John Carroll?

    Here's another interesting comparison:

    New York University   EA   0.680   / 0.544   / 3-2
    Hope                         GL   0.680   / 0.558   / 2-6

    Is .014 SOS worth an extra win vRRO? I'd say yes (after all, these RvRRO are already baked into the WP and SOS), but I'm not sure what the committee says.

    Do you think Hope gets to the table before John Carrol?  What about NYU and Plattsubrgh?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TrinColl1 on March 01, 2015, 02:44:48 PM
    HoopsFan Trinity's vRRO is 4-1 at 80% win total. Amherst is 5-3 at a 62% win total (Ill give you 63% we will round up). Not sure how you are saying Amherst is better there.

    All I am saying is if Trinity doesn't get in and Amherst does its a total joke and only because of Amherst name.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 01, 2015, 02:46:37 PM
    as the guru's have pointed out  "Its results vs RRO's" not percentage, not wins, not losses. Results
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 02:48:53 PM
    Quote from: TrinColl1 on March 01, 2015, 02:44:48 PM
    HoopsFan Trinity's vRRO is 4-1 at 80% win total. Amherst is 5-3 at a 62% win total (Ill give you 63% we will round up). Not sure how you are saying Amherst is better there.

    All I am saying is if Trinity doesn't get in and Amherst does its a total joke and only because of Amherst name.

    I didn't say they were better there, but it's close - remember, those numbers will be different once the new rankings are done.  It's the SOS that's so different right now.

    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    .574 to .534 - it'll change a little with Amherst's game today, but not a ton.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 02:49:47 PM
    I had NYU at 4-3 and Hope 2-6. But I've been wrong before.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TrinColl1 on March 01, 2015, 02:50:27 PM
    I was trying to look a little but wasn't sure if anyone knew my question from earlier. If Trinity does not get in are they the first NESCAC Regular Season Champ with 20 wins to not get in the NCAA Tourney?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 02:55:32 PM

    I'm kind of rethinking Catholic, too.  That SOS is pretty low.  They don't have a much better resume than WPI and I don't think WPI sniffs the table (unless Springfield and Bowdoin get in).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 02:56:20 PM
    Plattsburgh St is the 1st team on the board in the East. It may take awhile, but their in, I think. I think NYU jumps Hobart and they're next in line. I know NYU's W% isn't great, but hard to iignore their vRRO and SOS. Those will probably better than most at the table at that time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 02:58:27 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 02:56:20 PM
    Plattsburgh St is the 1st team on the board in the East. It may take awhile, but their in, I think. I think NYU jumps Hobart and they're next in line. I know NYU's W% isn't great, but hard to iignore their vRRO and SOS. Those will probably better than most at the table at that time.

    I don't see how Plattsburgh gets in.  Their SOS is in the .530s, but the winning percentage isn't great and their vRRO is just 1-0, likely.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: amh63 on March 01, 2015, 02:59:00 PM
    TrinColl1....if I had a bet on the table...and I do not......your Bantams should get a bid.  Worry wrt where they will play :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 03:00:24 PM
    William Patterson
    Stevens Point
    WashU
    Marietta
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Wooster
    Hopkins
    Trinity
    Amherst
    Bates
    E Conn
    VA Wesleyan
    St. Olaf
    IWU

    Those are the only teams I can talk myself into as locks right now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 03:03:23 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 02:49:47 PM
    I had NYU at 4-3 and Hope 2-6. But I've been wrong before.

    I have NYU down for wins against Wash U, Emory, Emory, and losses vs. Sage and Wash U. (1-1 vs. Case Western Reserve, but they fell out of the rankings last week and will not return this week).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 03:04:04 PM
    I think John Carroll and Plattsburgh State will get to the table before Hope and NYU.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 03:04:59 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 03:04:04 PM
    I think John Carroll and Plattsburgh State will get to the table before Hope and NYU.

    Me, too - and I'm not sure either one gets in.

    What about the Elmhurst/NCC problem?  Do you agree NCC has the better chance to get in?  The committee last week thought Elmhurst was better.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 02:55:32 PM

    I'm kind of rethinking Catholic, too.  That SOS is pretty low.  They don't have a much better resume than WPI and I don't think WPI sniffs the table (unless Springfield and Bowdoin get in).

    Catholic will have a seat at the table before WPI gets a chance, if it does.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 03:15:07 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 03:03:23 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 02:49:47 PM
    I had NYU at 4-3 and Hope 2-6. But I've been wrong before.

    I have NYU down for wins against Wash U, Emory, Emory, and losses vs. Sage and Wash U. (1-1 vs. Case Western Reserve, but they fell out of the rankings last week and will not return this week).

    I wrote down what the NCAA had. They probably didn't adjust those vRRO like they didn't adjust St. Thomas'  when Bethel entered the rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 03:15:49 PM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2015, 03:10:12 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 02:55:32 PM

    I'm kind of rethinking Catholic, too.  That SOS is pretty low.  They don't have a much better resume than WPI and I don't think WPI sniffs the table (unless Springfield and Bowdoin get in).

    Catholic will have a seat at the table before WPI gets a chance, if it does.

    Right, they'll be there, which is an advantage, but if WPI doesn't have the numbers to get ahead of Springfield and Bowdoin, I'm not positive Catholic's numbers will get them selected first.  That's all.  The low SOS could be trouble for them.  I think they're in (tough to leave out a team over .800 winning percentage with a .500+ SOS), but it will be near the end.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 03:17:50 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 01:33:52 PM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2015, 12:05:22 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 11:45:14 AM
    Except... the brackets are done well in advance of the shows... so there wouldn't be any time to change things anyway. I have it on good authority both brackets are completed earlier in the morning and not based on when they are being broadcast. Furthermore, the men have been first for a number of years; women second as a result.

    Doesn't mean that they couldn't(shouldn't) change it.

    What I am trying to say... it doesn't matter what time the shows air... both brackets are done at the same time earlier in the day. Furthermore, considering how many parts there are to move around if you want to adjust something and how much the production crew needs to work on the show prior... there isn't enough time to adjust if there is some "slight."

    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2015, 12:05:22 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 11:45:14 AM
    Except... the brackets are done well in advance of the shows... so there wouldn't be any time to change things anyway. I have it on good authority both brackets are completed earlier in the morning and not based on when they are being broadcast. Furthermore, the men have been first for a number of years; women second as a result.

    Doesn't mean that they couldn't(shouldn't) change it.

    Eastern... sorry, I usually point that kind of thing out.

    I thought there was an adjustment last year when the Scranton men lost the opportunity to host because it was given to Emory, allowing the women to give a host to Scranton when it would have been precluded by men's priority, save for the late adjustment.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 03:19:49 PM

    I know it won't be good for the bubble, teams, but I think things might be easier to predict if Bethel beats St. Thomas this afternoon.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 03:21:59 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 03:04:59 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 03:04:04 PM
    I think John Carroll and Plattsburgh State will get to the table before Hope and NYU.

    Me, too - and I'm not sure either one gets in.

    What about the Elmhurst/NCC problem?  Do you agree NCC has the better chance to get in?  The committee last week thought Elmhurst was better.

    Both Elmhurst and NCC lost in the semis. I don't see why they would flip positions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 03:24:52 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 03:15:07 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 03:03:23 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 02:49:47 PM
    I had NYU at 4-3 and Hope 2-6. But I've been wrong before.

    I have NYU down for wins against Wash U, Emory, Emory, and losses vs. Sage and Wash U. (1-1 vs. Case Western Reserve, but they fell out of the rankings last week and will not return this week).

    I wrote down what the NCAA had. They probably didn't adjust those vRRO like they didn't adjust St. Thomas'  when Bethel entered the rankings.

    I think those data sheets are the raw numbers that the committees get before the rankings process starts. They take into account the new numbers as things change, but they don't go back and update the sheets for us. So RvRRO is always one week behind on the sheets.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 03:26:09 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 03:21:59 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 03:04:59 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 03:04:04 PM
    I think John Carroll and Plattsburgh State will get to the table before Hope and NYU.

    Me, too - and I'm not sure either one gets in.

    What about the Elmhurst/NCC problem?  Do you agree NCC has the better chance to get in?  The committee last week thought Elmhurst was better.

    Both Elmhurst and NCC lost in the semis. I don't see why they would flip positions.

    Yeah.  As good as NCC's SOS is, they just don't have enough wins.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on March 01, 2015, 03:38:41 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 03:26:09 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 03:21:59 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 03:04:59 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 03:04:04 PM
    I think John Carroll and Plattsburgh State will get to the table before Hope and NYU.

    Me, too - and I'm not sure either one gets in.

    What about the Elmhurst/NCC problem?  Do you agree NCC has the better chance to get in?  The committee last week thought Elmhurst was better.

    Both Elmhurst and NCC lost in the semis. I don't see why they would flip positions.

    Yeah.  As good as NCC's SOS is, they just don't have enough wins.

    Elmhurst beat North Central twice H2H.  They will stay in the same order in the final rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 03:40:05 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 03:00:24 PM
    William Patterson
    Stevens Point
    WashU
    Marietta
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Wooster
    Hopkins
    Trinity
    Amherst
    Bates
    E Conn
    VA Wesleyan
    St. Olaf
    IWU

    Those are the only teams I can talk myself into as locks right now.

    So then we've got a table with: Brooklyn (.786/.507), Plattsburgh (.704/.534), Catholic (.846/.506), Springfield (.731/.573 - before the loss to Babson today), Elmhurst (.731/.551), John Carroll (.769/.527), Centre (.800/.512), and Whitman (.792/.519)

    Behind them you've got Bethel (.704/.552 - plus a potential loss to St. Thomas today), North Central (.667/.588), Hope (.680/.558), Hardin-Simmons (.741/.531), F&M (.769/.517), Rutgers-Newark (.667/.572), NYU (.680/.544), and Bowdoin (.692/.571)

    Possible stranglers: WPI (.808/.515), PSU-Behrend (.885/.469), Buena Vista (.720/.528)

    Obviously, I don't know the ranking order, so they could get moved around.  I don't see anyone not on this list getting in though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 03:46:59 PM
    Updated Brackets:

    Cheesehead Bracket (target Sweet 16 at St. Thomas or Stevens Points):

    UWSP
    DePauw
    Calvin
    Elmhurst

    Emory
    Spaudling
    Lagrange
    CMS

    St Norbert
    Concordia WI
    Defiance
    St Thomas

    Augustana
    Northwestern
    Dubuque
    St Olaf

    Maple Syrup Bracket (target Sweet 16 at Babson or Richard Stockton):

    Babson
    SUNY-Cobleskill
    Franklin and Marshall
    Bates

    St John Fisher
    Neumann
    Endicott
    Albertus Magnus

    Richard Stockton
    Colby-Sawyer
    Scranton
    Amherst

    Johns Hopkins
    Regis
    Keene State
    Eastern Connecticut


    Hot Dog Bracket (Target Sweet 16 at Whitewater or OWU):

    UWW
    *BYE
    North Central
    John Carroll

    East Texas Baptist
    Rhodes
    Texas Lutheran
    Whitworth

    Ohio Wesleyan
    SUNY-Oswego
    Mount Union
    Wash U

    Wooster
    Medaille
    St Vincent
    IWU




    Grits Bracket (Targeting 2nd weekend at Randolph Macon or Dickinson):

    Randolph-Macon
    *BYE
    Barach
    Trinity

    Dickinson
    Sage
    Westfield State
    Wesleyan

    Marietta
    Misicordia
    William Paterson
    Catholic

    Virginia Wesleyan
    Salisbury
    Alvernia
    Skidmore



    Thoughts:
    1) The Hendrix-Rhodes game hasn't finished yet, so give me a break if Hendrix wins.
    2) I managed to get every region hosting a pod, but the East is really borderline.
    3) I had a hard time breaking down the Northeast and they ended up losing their 2nd pod hosting to St. John Fisher, but I could easily see it the other way around.
    4) The Maple Syrup bracket is heavy in the NE so that I don't have to worry about 500 miles to Randolph Macon for Bates or some other far NE team.
    5) Similarly, the Grits bracket is skewed south as a result that a few teams can't get to Babson in 500 miles and Virginia Beach is quite far south.
    6) Ditto for Cheesehead Bracket with Central/West so that teams can get to Stevens Point or St. Thomas.
    7) My final five teams in are Elmhurst, Catholic, John Carroll, F&M and North Central.  On the table are: Brooklyn, NYU, Springfield, St. Mary's, Springfield, Centre and Buena Vista.  I agree with Knightslappy though that Bethel would make a better case than Buena Vista at this point. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 04:00:16 PM
    Now that Hendrix won - they can go to St. Louis.  You can give Emory the bye and have Spalding go to LaGrange.  Fly CMS and Whitworth to Texas (unless Whitman gets in, for some reason - then you'd be screwed).

    Or, if Centenary beats TX Lutheran, you can do a four team pod at Hendrix - WashU wouldn't like to travel, but that would make the brackets a little more fun (IWU is 509 miles, so just missed being able to send them to Arkansas).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 04:03:56 PM
    Quote from: neverwas725 on March 01, 2015, 04:02:53 PM
    Bohol. Eastern CT and Keene State will not be in the same pod never mind playing each other. They are both from the Little East Conference. Committee will not do that.

    Well, not in New England, anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 04:05:34 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 03:40:05 PM


    So then we've got a table with: Brooklyn (.786/.507), Plattsburgh (.704/.534), Catholic (.846/.506), Springfield (.731/.573 - before the loss to Babson today), Elmhurst (.731/.551), John Carroll (.769/.527), Centre (.800/.512), and Whitman (.792/.519)

    Behind them you've got Bethel (.704/.552 - plus a potential loss to St. Thomas today), North Central (.667/.588), Hope (.680/.558), Hardin-Simmons (.741/.531), F&M (.769/.517), Rutgers-Newark (.667/.572), NYU (.680/.544), and Bowdoin (.692/.571)

    Possible stranglers: WPI (.808/.515), PSU-Behrend (.885/.469), Buena Vista (.720/.528)

    Obviously, I don't know the ranking order, so they could get moved around.  I don't see anyone not on this list getting in though.

    Is there any compelling reason to put Whitman in front of Buena Vista based on them being behind last week and not much changing (both teams getting dropped in their conference semis)?

    Right now, I have the NE as Springfield, Bowdoin, WPI in that order and Springfield being left on the table.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 04:06:02 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 04:00:16 PM
    Now that Hendrix won - they can go to St. Louis.  You can give Emory the bye and have Spalding go to LaGrange.  Fly CMS and Whitworth to Texas (unless Whitman gets in, for some reason - then you'd be screwed).

    Or, if Centenary beats TX Lutheran, you can do a four team pod at Hendrix - WashU wouldn't like to travel, but that would make the brackets a little more fun.

    St. Louis? Wash U men aren't going to be hosting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 04:07:10 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 04:06:02 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 04:00:16 PM
    Now that Hendrix won - they can go to St. Louis.  You can give Emory the bye and have Spalding go to LaGrange.  Fly CMS and Whitworth to Texas (unless Whitman gets in, for some reason - then you'd be screwed).

    Or, if Centenary beats TX Lutheran, you can do a four team pod at Hendrix - WashU wouldn't like to travel, but that would make the brackets a little more fun.

    St. Louis? Wash U men aren't going to be hosting.

    If they ended up with three teams at Emory and three in the NW , they'd make WashU travel.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 04:07:29 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 04:06:02 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 04:00:16 PM
    Now that Hendrix won - they can go to St. Louis.  You can give Emory the bye and have Spalding go to LaGrange.  Fly CMS and Whitworth to Texas (unless Whitman gets in, for some reason - then you'd be screwed).

    Or, if Centenary beats TX Lutheran, you can do a four team pod at Hendrix - WashU wouldn't like to travel, but that would make the brackets a little more fun.

    St. Louis? Wash U men aren't going to be hosting.

    And Hendrix can bus to East Texas Baptist, so they'll probably be there.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 04:08:11 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 04:03:56 PM
    Quote from: neverwas725 on March 01, 2015, 04:02:53 PM
    Bohol. Eastern CT and Keene State will not be in the same pod never mind playing each other. They are both from the Little East Conference. Committee will not do that.

    Well, not in New England, anyway.

    Ah heck, well, I'll fix that later.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 04:09:46 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 04:07:29 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 04:06:02 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 04:00:16 PM
    Now that Hendrix won - they can go to St. Louis.  You can give Emory the bye and have Spalding go to LaGrange.  Fly CMS and Whitworth to Texas (unless Whitman gets in, for some reason - then you'd be screwed).

    Or, if Centenary beats TX Lutheran, you can do a four team pod at Hendrix - WashU wouldn't like to travel, but that would make the brackets a little more fun.

    St. Louis? Wash U men aren't going to be hosting.

    And Hendrix can bus to East Texas Baptist, so they'll probably be there.

    I just meant in the strange event you had two other three team geographic orphans.  I don't expect this to happen.  It's only an issue if Whitman gets in (and TX Lutheran loses), which is a long shot.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2015, 04:14:23 PM
    Quote from: TrinColl1 on March 01, 2015, 02:32:15 PM
    Hoops Fan As long as Trinity is in I won't complain where or who is higher or what not but if Amherst is higher I don't care SOS or any of that it would only be because of Amherst name. Trinity buried them on their own home court and went 9-1 in conference while Amherst went 6-4. Head to Head has to mean something especially when the road team wins by double figures. And then finishes 3 games ahead of them in league.

    It does but when you only play 10 conference games, the vast majority of your schedule is non-conference and those games also do count. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 04:14:59 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 03:00:24 PM
    William Patterson
    Stevens Point
    WashU
    Marietta
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Wooster
    Hopkins
    Trinity
    Amherst
    Bates
    E Conn
    VA Wesleyan
    St. Olaf
    IWU

    Those are the only teams I can talk myself into as locks right now.

    So then we've got a table with: Brooklyn (.786/.507), Plattsburgh (.704/.534), Catholic (.846/.506), Springfield (.704/.584), Elmhurst (.731/.551), John Carroll (.769/.527), Centre (.800/.512), and Whitman (.792/.519)

    Behind them you've got Bethel (.704/.552 - plus a potential loss to St. Thomas today), North Central (.667/.588), Hope (.680/.558), Hardin-Simmons (.741/.531), F&M (.769/.517), Rutgers-Newark (.667/.572), NYU (.680/.544), and Bowdoin (.692/.571)

    Possible stranglers: WPI (.808/.515), PSU-Behrend (.885/.469), Buena Vista (.720/.528)

    Obviously, I don't know the ranking order, so they could get moved around.  I don't see anyone not on this list getting in though.

    By the way, if you're asking me, I think the final five are: Springfield, Elmhurst, Bowdoin, North Central, and Catholic.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2015, 04:15:52 PM
    Good work, bopol.  Fun stuff to read through.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 04:42:24 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 04:07:10 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2015, 04:06:02 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 04:00:16 PM
    Now that Hendrix won - they can go to St. Louis.  You can give Emory the bye and have Spalding go to LaGrange.  Fly CMS and Whitworth to Texas (unless Whitman gets in, for some reason - then you'd be screwed).

    Or, if Centenary beats TX Lutheran, you can do a four team pod at Hendrix - WashU wouldn't like to travel, but that would make the brackets a little more fun.

    St. Louis? Wash U men aren't going to be hosting.

    If they ended up with three teams at Emory and three in the NW , they'd make WashU travel.

    More like the men are not going to host because the women will be hosting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 04:46:32 PM

    Bethel's three to tie at the buzzer rims out, so one bubble is still safe (although Bethel still has a way, way outside shot to get it).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 04:50:27 PM
    Bethel will be on the board first in the West, I think. They're 3-0 vs. St. Olaf H2H this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 04:55:55 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 04:50:27 PM
    Bethel will be on the board first in the West, I think. They're 3-0 vs. St. Olaf H2H this year.

    Did you get the numbers for Bethel updated on your site yet?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 04:57:37 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 04:55:55 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 04:50:27 PM
    Bethel will be on the board first in the West, I think. They're 3-0 vs. St. Olaf H2H this year.

    Did you get the numbers for Bethel updated on your site yet?

    Just now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2015, 04:57:51 PM
    Thanks guys.
    Really happy for ETBU getting a chance to host.

    Flights into ETBU include Shreveport LA and Longview TX airports.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 05:00:34 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 03:00:24 PM
    William Patterson
    Stevens Point
    WashU
    Marietta
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Wooster
    Hopkins
    Trinity
    Amherst
    Bates
    E Conn
    VA Wesleyan
    St. Olaf
    IWU

    Those are the only teams I can talk myself into as locks right now.

    So then we've got a table with: Brooklyn (.786/.507), Plattsburgh (.704/.534), Catholic (.846/.506), Springfield (.704/.584), Elmhurst (.731/.551), John Carroll (.769/.527), Centre (.800/.512), and Bethel (.679/.564)

    Behind them you've got Whitman (.792/.519), North Central (.667/.588), Hope (.680/.558), Hardin-Simmons (.741/.531), F&M (.769/.517), Rutgers-Newark (.667/.572), NYU (.680/.544), and Bowdoin (.692/.571)

    Possible stranglers: WPI (.808/.515), PSU-Behrend (.885/.469), Buena Vista (.720/.528)

    Obviously, I don't know the ranking order, so they could get moved around.  I don't see anyone not on this list getting in though.

    By the way, if you're asking me, I think the final five are: Springfield, Elmhurst, Bowdoin, North Central, and Catholic.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on March 01, 2015, 05:03:08 PM
    KnightSlappy,

    You're showing NYU ahead of Plattsburgh State in the East. They were 2nd last week, NYU was 5th. Plattsburgh's new vRRO could be 4-1 instead of 1-0 with yesterday's results and the next set of secret rankings. I don't see NYU getting to the table before Plattsburgh.  Plattsburgh may sit there through all 19 rounds but I think they'll be at the table and will get the only bid from the East if anyone gets one. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on March 01, 2015, 05:03:50 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 01, 2015, 03:46:59 PM
    Updated Brackets:

    Cheesehead Bracket (target Sweet 16 at St. Thomas or Stevens Points):

    UWSP
    DePauw
    Calvin
    Elmhurst

    Emory
    Spaudling
    Lagrange
    CMS

    St Norbert
    Concordia WI
    Defiance
    St Thomas

    Augustana
    Northwestern
    Dubuque
    St Olaf

    Hot Dog Bracket (Target Sweet 16 at Whitewater or OWU):

    UWW
    *BYE
    North Central
    John Carroll

    Interesting... Why would Whitewater get awarded with a bye in lieu of Augustana? And similarly with UWSP to host Sweet 16 over either UST or Augie?

    Northwestern could easily go to Whitewater instead and award Augie for being tops in the region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 05:04:10 PM
    I did a mock regional ranking post.

    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2015/03/mock-final-regional-rankings.html

    Still missing the one final championship game in my numbers on the site. Let me know what you think with suggestions/corrections. This should give us an idea of who's first to the table in each region. Some of the ordering I didn't spend too much time on, like the exact order of the top NESCAC at-large teams (they're going to get four teams in).

    I'll be helping my cousin with her car for a bit, so I'll be silent for awhile. I'll update the final numbers when I can.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 05:04:49 PM


    I'm most surprised by the Bethel over St. Olaf.  It makes sense, they did beat them three times, but that might jeopardize St. Olaf's chances, no?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 05:05:02 PM
    Quote from: magicman on March 01, 2015, 05:03:08 PM
    KnightSlappy,

    You're showing NYU ahead of Plattsburgh State in the East. They were 2nd last week, NYU was 5th. Plattsburgh's new vRRO could be 4-1 instead of 1-0 with yesterday's results and the next set of secret rankings. I don't see NYU getting to the table before Plattsburgh.  Plattsburgh may sit there through all 19 rounds but I think they'll be at the table and will get the only bid from the East if anyone gets one.

    That's pure RPI, no adjustments made for anything else. See my post above with my "real" thoughts on the rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 05:06:31 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 05:04:49 PM


    I'm most surprised by the Bethel over St. Olaf.  It makes sense, they did beat them three times, but that might jeopardize St. Olaf's chances, no?

    Yeah, and you could argue Whitman on top of those two as well. Or really any ordering of those three. There's certainly a debate there. Bethel's RvRRO sets them apart.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 05:10:11 PM
    Now updated.

    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 03:00:24 PM
    William Patterson
    Stevens Point
    WashU
    Marietta
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Wooster
    Hopkins
    Trinity
    Amherst
    Bates
    E Conn
    VA Wesleyan
    IWU

    Those are the only teams I can talk myself into as locks right now.

    So then we've got a table with: Brooklyn (.786/.507), Plattsburgh (.704/.534), Catholic (.846/.506), Springfield (.704/.584), Elmhurst (.731/.551), John Carroll (.769/.527), Centre (.800/.512), and Bethel (.679/.564)

    Behind them you've got St. Olaf (.808/.527), North Central (.667/.588), Hope (.680/.558), Hardin-Simmons (.741/.531), F&M (.769/.517), Rutgers-Newark (.667/.572), NYU (.680/.544), and Bowdoin (.692/.571)

    Possible stranglers: WPI (.808/.515), PSU-Behrend (.885/.469), Whitman (.792/.519), Buena Vista (.720/.528)

    Obviously, I don't know the ranking order, so they could get moved around.  I don't see anyone not on this list getting in though.

    By the way, if you're asking me, I think the final five are: Springfield, Elmhurst, Bowdoin, North Central, Bethel, and St. Olaf.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 01, 2015, 05:18:10 PM
    When I get home I'll make my predictions, but considering how awful I was the last 3 years, you may want to pick the opposite of what I do.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 05:23:11 PM

    So now they can fly Whitworth to E Texas Baptist (with TX Lutheran and Hendrix) and they can fly CMS to Emory (along with Spalding and LaGrange).  Truly deserving teams can get the byes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2015, 05:38:15 PM
    My best shot...let me know if anything looks out of whack.

    (All data is from KnightSlappy's site - http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.)

    Round 1
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Marietta (.893/.519/4-3)
    MA - Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    NE - Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 2
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    MA - Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    NE - Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 3
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 4
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - Washington U. (.800/.565/4-2)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 5
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 6
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 7
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Amherst (.741/.579/6-3)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 8
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Bates (.760/.609/4-5)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 9
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 10
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 11
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 12
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - Elmhurst (.731/.551/4-4)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 13
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 14
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 15
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Hope (.680/.558/2-6)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 16
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Hope (.680/.558/2-6)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - Bethel (.679/.564/4-3)

    Round 17
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Hope (.680/.558/2-6)
    MA - Franklin & Marshall (.769/.517/3-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - Bethel (.679/.564/4-3)

    Round 18
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Hope (.680/.558/2-6)
    MA - Franklin & Marshall (.769/.517/3-3)
    NE - WPI (.808/.515/2-3)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - Bethel (.679/.564/4-3)

    Round 19
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Hope (.680/.558/2-6)
    MA - Franklin & Marshall (.769/.517/3-3)
    NE - Bowdoin (.692/.571/1-6)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - Bethel (.679/.564/4-3)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2015, 05:43:34 PM
    KS and HF, I think you guys have got it wrong about the West.  True, Bethel went 3-0 against St. Olaf, but St. Olaf didn't lose to Hamline, Carleton, or Concordia-Moorhead!  I suspect the committee will discount somewhat the Bethel/Olaf results as just some sort of a match-up problem, unique to that situation.  With Bethel having FOUR more losses than Olaf, I just can't see them going ahead of them despite the H-to-H (after all, Bethel was already 2-0 against them with the last published rankings, yet Olaf was #2, Bethel #7).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2015, 05:52:13 PM
    Q, looks pretty good to me, though I think NCC's SOS may get them in about round 18 or 19.

    magicman makes a case that the secret final rankings may include both Oswego St. and Keene St., which would raise his Plattsburgh vRRO to 4-1.  If he's right, would that change your picks?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2015, 05:55:57 PM
    So per above, I have:

    1. (GL) Marietta (.893/.519/4-3)
    2. (MA) Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    3. (C) UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4)
    4. (C)  Washington U. (.800/.565/4-2)
    5. (GL) Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    6. (NE) Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    7. (NE) Amherst (.741/.579/6-3)
    8. (NE) Bates (.760/.609/4-5)
    9. (AT) William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    10. (GL) Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    11. (C) Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    12. (C) Elmhurst (.731/.551/4-4)
    13. (S) Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    14. GL John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    15. (W) St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)
    16. (MA) Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)[/b]
    17. (NE) Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    18. (NE) - WPI (.808/.515/2-3)
    19. (W) - Bethel (.679/.564/4-3)

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2015, 05:56:37 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2015, 05:52:13 PM
    Q, looks pretty good to me, though I think NCC's SOS may get them in about round 18 or 19.

    magicman makes a case that the secret final rankings may include both Oswego St. and Keene St., which would raise his Plattsburgh vRRO to 4-1.  If he's right, would that change your picks?

    Yes, if Plattsburgh State has a 4-1 in RRO, I'd have them in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 05:56:53 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2015, 05:43:34 PM
    KS and HF, I think you guys have got it wrong about the West.  True, Bethel went 3-0 against St. Olaf, but St. Olaf didn't lose to Hamline, Carleton, or Concordia-Moorhead!  I suspect the committee will discount somewhat the Bethel/Olaf results as just some sort of a match-up problem, unique to that situation.  With Bethel having FOUR more losses than Olaf, I just can't see them going ahead of them despite the H-to-H (after all, Bethel was already 2-0 against them with the last published rankings, yet Olaf was #2, Bethel #7).

    Yeah, but it's only two wins difference.  Plus the vRRO difference, plus the head to head, plus the SOS difference.  I'm not saying it has to be that way, but it would be very hard for the committee to say St. Olaf is better by the numbers.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 05:59:12 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2015, 05:55:57 PM
    So per above, I have:

    1. (GL) Marietta (.893/.519/4-3)
    2. (MA) Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    3. (C) UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4)
    4. (C)  Washington U. (.800/.565/4-2)
    5. (GL) Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    6. (NE) Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    7. (NE) Amherst (.741/.579/6-3)
    8. (NE) Bates (.760/.609/4-5)
    9. (AT) William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    10. (GL) Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    11. (C) Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    12. (C) Elmhurst (.731/.551/4-4)
    13. (S) Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    14. GL John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    15. (W) St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)
    16. (MA) Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)[/b]
    17. (NE) Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    18. (NE) - WPI (.808/.515/2-3)
    19. (W) - Bethel (.679/.564/4-3)

    I'm not sure you have the regional rankings right.  I don't think Trinity will remain above Amherst.  I have all those teams in, besides WPI and Catholic, so overall, there's not much to quibble with (although I don't think WPI will get to the table before Bowdoin, so that could be problematic).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 05:59:49 PM
    A few years ago (ok, awhile ago), I think La Crosse had beaten Oshkosh 3 times but Oshkosh was ranked ahead of them. The committee couldn't decide which one to take, so neither went.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 06:05:56 PM
    Numbers on my site now fully updated. Great season everybody.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on March 01, 2015, 06:07:27 PM
    I would be surprised if Stockton wasn't hosting the opening round.  They have been ranked as the top Atlantic team every week and they did win both the regular season and conference tournament.  They have strong stats in each criteria and a good recent history (sweet 16).  Stockton can host many teams from several regions from  their geographical home, IMO!!

    Go Ospreys!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2015, 06:09:01 PM
    Quote from: TheOsprey on March 01, 2015, 06:07:27 PM
    I would be surprised if Stockton wasn't hosting the opening round.  They have been ranked as the top Atlantic team every week and they did win both the regular season and conference tournament.  They have strong stats in each criteria and a good recent history (sweet 16).  Stockton can host many teams from several regions from  their geographical home, IMO!!

    Go Ospreys!!

    They'll absolutely host.  I don't think the committee is going to cut out an entire region from hosting again (maybe the East).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 06:11:45 PM
    My guess at regional ranking changes:

    MA
    Alvernia in
    St. Mary's MD out

    NE
    Keene St in
    Southern Vermont out

    SO
    Texas Lutheran in
    Concordia (Texas) in
    Mary Hardin Baylor out
    Rhodes out
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2015, 06:14:50 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2015, 06:05:56 PM
    Numbers on my site now fully updated. Great season everybody.

    Tremendous work, KnightSlappy!!  All of my data came from your site...what a great resource.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 06:36:57 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2015, 05:38:15 PM
    My best shot...let me know if anything looks out of whack.

    Round 1
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Marietta (.893/.519/4-3)
    MA - Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    NE - Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 2
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    MA - Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    NE - Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 3
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 4
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - Washington U. (.800/.565/4-2)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 5
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 6
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 7
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Amherst (.741/.579/6-3)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 8
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Bates (.760/.609/4-5)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 9
    AT - William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 10
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 11
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 12
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - Elmhurst (.731/.551/4-4)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 13
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 14
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 15
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Hope (.680/.558/2-6)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)

    Round 16
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Hope (.680/.558/2-6)
    MA - Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - Bethel (.679/.564/4-3)

    Round 17
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Hope (.680/.558/2-6)
    MA - Franklin & Marshall (.769/.517/3-3)
    NE - Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - Bethel (.679/.564/4-3)

    Round 18
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Hope (.680/.558/2-6)
    MA - Franklin & Marshall (.769/.517/3-3)
    NE - WPI (.808/.515/2-3)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - Bethel (.679/.564/4-3)

    Round 19
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Hope (.680/.558/2-6)
    MA - Franklin & Marshall (.769/.517/3-3)
    NE - Bowdoin (.692/.571/1-6)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - Bethel (.679/.564/4-3)

    good effort, Titan - the national committee can get a good night's sleep, now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 07:04:14 PM
     Mid-Atlantic & Atlantic pod forecast:

    Dickinson-Misericordia,Va. Wesleyan, Wooster(return the favor from last year)
    Johns Hopkins-Scranton,Neuman,St. Vincent
    Richard Stockton-Catholic,Alvernia,Trinity
    William Paterson-E. Conn,SUNY-Cobleskill,Salisbury

    Each pod has at least 3 regions represented.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on March 01, 2015, 08:30:42 PM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2015, 07:04:14 PM
    Mid-Atlantic & Atlantic pod forecast:

    Dickinson-Misericordia,Va. Wesleyan, Wooster(return the favor from last year)
    Johns Hopkins-Scranton,Neuman,Wooster
    Richard Stockton-Catholic,Alvernia,Trinity
    William Paterson-E. Conn,SUNY-Cobleskill,Salisbury

    Each pod has at least 3 regions represented.

    ronk,

    Did you mean to have Wooster in there twice?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 01, 2015, 08:31:36 PM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2015, 07:04:14 PM
    Mid-Atlantic & Atlantic pod forecast:

    Dickinson-Misericordia,Va. Wesleyan, Wooster(return the favor from last year)
    Johns Hopkins-Scranton,Neuman,Wooster
    Richard Stockton-Catholic,Alvernia,Trinity
    William Paterson-E. Conn,SUNY-Cobleskill,Salisbury

    Each pod has at least 3 regions represented.
    I love spring training, especially split squad games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 08:38:23 PM
    Titan - I pretty much have the same as you through 17 picks.  My last two picks are Franklin and Marshall and North Central, but I did that yesterday before I realized how much Springfield would benefit from beating WPI and I think I would have to pick Springfield over NCC at this point, but...

    What do you think the order in the NE will be?  I think Springfield's got to be ahead of WPI at this point given the advantage in SOS and taking 2 of 3 games.  I'm going to rethink the last few picks I made, but I have really doubts about WPI getting to the board at this point.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 01, 2015, 08:40:55 PM
    Here's my best tally on the 19 pool C's, not necessarily in the order they'll be selected however:

    Locks (you have a better chance at winning the lottery then these teams have at missing the tournament):
    Amherst
    Hopkins
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Virginia Wesleyan
    Marietta
    Wash U
    Stevens Point

    Probably in (not quite locks in my eyes but all of these teams should be in the field by the 17th round):
    Wooster
    William Paterson
    St. Olaf
    Eastern Connecticut
    Illinois Wesleyan
    Bates
    Trinity (CT)

    Should get in:
    Elmhurst

    That should leave me with 15 teams that are either locks (red), probably in (orange) and should be in (blue).

    Squarely on the bubble (these teams will be sweating it out for the next 16 hours or so):
    catholic
    Plattsburgh
    WPI
    Franklin & Marshall
    ---------------------
    John Carroll
    Bowdoin
    Springfield
    Centre
    Bethel
    NYU
    North Central (IL)
    Buena Vista
    Whitman
    That line is my cut off point.  I think the 4 teams above the line get in (the last 4 teams in the field).

    Likely not in the field (though I have seen stranger things happen on selection Monday):
    Baruch
    Brooklyn
    Hobart
    PS-Behrend
    St. Mary's (MD)
    Southern Vermont
    Hardin-Simmons
    Hope
    MHB
    Rhodes

    As people have said here order will definitely matter in the East (between Plattsburgh & NYU), MA (between F&M & Catholic) and in the West (between Bethel/Whitman/Buena Vista), and maybe to a lesser extent the Northeast (only if there are any spots left between WPI/Springfield/Bowdoin).
    Plattsburgh was #2 last week and even with a loss I doubt NYU can jump them (was 5 last week), and if Plattsburgh gets selected it's likely very late in the process so even though NYU will have comparable numbers to lets say a Catholic, WPI, F&M, Buena Vista there won't be many, if any, rounds left for NYU
    In the MA I think F&M will jump Catholic, but I have both teams in the field anyways.
    In the West, if Bethel is able to get to the table I'd say they are definitely in, the problem with them is I don't think they are getting there.  They were #7 and are 3 wins against St. Olaf AND trip to the conference finals (while BV & Whitman both lost in the semifinals) enough to have Bethel jump 2 teams AND 3 or 4 spots??  I don't think so.  I think they pass Whitworth but BV ends up blocking them.

    So to recap my 19 Pool C teams:

    1) Amherst
    2) Hopkins
    3) Ohio Wesleyan
    4) Virginia Wesleyan
    5) Marietta
    6) Wash U
    7) Stevens Point
    8) Wooster
    9) William Paterson
    10) St. Olaf
    11) Eastern Connecticut
    12) Illinois Wesleyan
    13) Bates
    14) Trinity
    15) Elmhurst
    16) Catholic
    17) Plattsburgh
    18) WPI
    19) Franklin & Marshall

    Last 4 in: Catholic, Plattsburgh, WPI, F&M
    First 4 out: Buena Vista, NYU, Bethel, John Carroll
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 09:12:44 PM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2015, 07:04:14 PM
    Mid-Atlantic & Atlantic pod forecast:

    Dickinson-Misericordia,Va. Wesleyan, Wooster(return the favor from last year)
    Johns Hopkins-Scranton,Neuman,St. Vincent
    Richard Stockton-Catholic,Alvernia,Trinity
    William Paterson-E. Conn,SUNY-Cobleskill,Salisbury

    Each pod has at least 3 regions represented.

    now modified
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 10:01:47 PM
    So...12:30 Eastern or Central for the men?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 01, 2015, 10:30:37 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2015, 10:01:47 PM
    So...12:30 Eastern or Central for the men?

    I'm pretty sure it's Eastern.  The offices are in Indianapolis after all  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 10:41:45 PM
    Final Bracket:

    Cheese Bracket (note every team in this bracket except for the Emory pod is within 500 miles of St. Thomas or Stevens Point, which slightly limited the diversity in Augustana pod):

    UWSP
    DePauw
    Calvin
    Elmhurst

    Emory
    Spaudling
    Lagrange
    CMS

    St Norbert
    Concordia WI
    Defiance
    St Thomas

    Augustana
    * Bye
    Dubuque
    St Olaf


    Maple Syrup Bracket (All the teams in this pod are within 500 miles of Babson Park, MA, but some are further than 500 miles from Ashland, VA (Randolph Macon)):

    Babson
    SUNY-Cobleskill
    Franklin and Marshall
    Bates

    St John Fisher
    Neumann
    Endicott
    Albertus Magnus

    Richard Stockton
    Colby-Sawyer
    Scranton
    Amherst

    Johns Hopkins
    Regis
    Keene State
    Skidmore

    Hot Dog Bracket (I figure this bracket would end up in Whitewater the 2nd weekend, which every team (except for Oswego St, Medaille and the ETSU pod) can get to on a bus.  As a result, there is a lack of diversity in the Wooster pod.  If there are upsets, then I guess they could go to OWU and Delaware, OH) :

    UWW
    Northwestern
    Mount Union
    North Central

    East Texas Baptist
    Rhodes
    Texas Lutheran
    Whitworth

    Ohio Wesleyan
    SUNY-Oswego
    John Carroll
    Wash U

    Wooster
    Medaille
    St Vincent
    IWU

    Grits Bracket (Everyone in this bracket can reach Ashland, VA on a bus):

    Randolph-Macon
    *BYE
    Barach
    Trinity

    Dickinson
    Sage
    Westfield State
    Wesleyan

    Marietta
    Misicordia
    William Paterson
    Catholic

    Virginia Wesleyan
    Salisbury
    Alvernia
    Eastern Connecticut

    I'll post thoughts in the next post...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on March 01, 2015, 11:01:34 PM
    Could someone answer these questions for me?

    1. It used to be once ranked, always ranked, but I thought that was changed, so that if you drop out of the rankings it will affect other teams vRRO.

    2. I was told today that the National committee doesn't update the vRRO after last week's published record. In other words if a team makes the next set of rankings that wasn't previously regionally ranked it won't alter another team's vRRO.

    Example: KnightSlappy says Keene State will replace Southern Vermont in the NE Regional Rankings. Keene State hasn't been ranked at all this year. Plattsburgh currently has a 1-0 record vRRO. They own a win against Keene State. When they are at the table will the committee see that they are now 2-0 vRRO because Keene State is now ranked or will they be looking at last week's 1-0 record.  I was told they would be looking at last week's record, which doesn't make sense to me.     
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2015, 11:03:25 PM
    Thoughts on my bracket:

    1) I uncomfortably stuck with my Pool C picks, including my final four of Catholic, John Carroll, Franklin and Marshall and North Central.  There is a logic to this that I will try to explain, but I could see it going many different ways and could easily see none of those 4 getting in.

    a. Catholic is a four loss team with a SOS above .500.  That's really good, no matter what else is going on.
    b. The committee gags itself on eight losses.  We've seen it in the past.  I figure that gives John Carroll and F&M an advantage as six loss teams with pretty good SOS against 8 loss teams with excellent SOS.
    c. For what it's worth, I have Springfield ahead of WPI based on winning two of three.  So WPI doesn't get off the board.  Similarly (but less convincingly), I'm not sure Bethel will get ahead of Buena Vista based on losing head to head.  So, I'm not sure Bethel or WPI are in play in the last pick. 
    d. I can't pull the trigger on Centre.  Their best win in Rhodes.
    e. Plattsburgh State or NYU don't deserve a bid over an 8 loss North Central or Springfield.  One loss does not make up for .050 SOS.
    f. I chose North Central because of wins over Stevens Point and Augustana, which I think everyone can agree are Top 10 teams.  Springfield doesn't have a win of that quality.
    g. I applied this logic to Carthage last year and was wrong, so I'm probably wrong this year (though North Central isn't so far outside of the committee's wheel house as Carthage was last year).

    2) Knightslappy is right, we're going to get the west coast teams traveling to Emory and ETBU to only have two flights this weekend. 
    3) I moved the bye to Augustana based on the comment on Augustana being #1 in their region and there is no reason that'll change.
    4) I am pretty sure that there are no possible conflicts with women's tourney sites.
    5) There is the occasional lack of regional diversity.  There are two causes for this:

    a. I tried to build brackets where the 2nd weekend will be played with hosts that have earned that right as opposed to geographic centers.  In my opinion, Augustana, St Thomas, and Stevens Point are deserving, but that creates travel problems from even the midwest (like western NY is too far away).  I tried to work around that.  Similarly, Randolph Macon is too far for about 6 of the New England teams.  Babson Park is too far for a few of the Southern teams.  There will be two flights the second weekend from the winners of the Emory and ETBU pods and that pretty much is unavoidable.
    b. The Emory and ETBU pods require a lack of diversity or will require more flights.

    6) I think I don't have any dumb conflicts (thank you for pointing out the Keene St/Eastern Conn problem).  If I do, well, oops.
    7) I have four teams from the CCIW and NESCAC and tried to split them up enough.

    Anyway, that was fun.  Now, I'll wait back to see what the real committee does.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2015, 11:12:11 PM
    The Emory and ETBU brackets don't have the diversity, but they are close enough for the families, friends and students to travel to the games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 11:27:49 PM
    Quote from: magicman on March 01, 2015, 11:01:34 PM
    Could someone answer these questions for me?

    1. It used to be once ranked, always ranked, but I thought that was changed, so that if you drop out of the rankings it will affect other teams vRRO.

    2. I was told today that the National committee doesn't update the vRRO after last week's published record. In other words if a team makes the next set of rankings that wasn't previously regionally ranked it won't alter another team's vRRO.

    Example: KnightSlappy says Keene State will replace Southern Vermont in the NE Regional Rankings. Keene State hasn't been ranked at all this year. Plattsburgh currently has a 1-0 record vRRO. They own a win against Keene State. When they are at the table will the committee see that they are now 2-0 vRRO because Keene State is now ranked or will they be looking at last week's 1-0 record.  I was told they would be looking at last week's record, which doesn't make sense to me.   

    1. once ranked, always ranked is no longer;if u drop out it does affect their opponents' vrro, as would newly-ranked opponents.
    2. the vrros are updated with previous ranking to come up with the data for the new rankings to be decided.
      for example, for the next Mid-Atlantic rankings, both Scranton and Catholic will add an additional vrro because Misericordia and St. Vincent became regionally ranked since the previous ranking. However, most importantly, I don't see that Keene St is regionally ranked.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on March 01, 2015, 11:44:13 PM
    Thanks ronk,

    Plus K.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 02, 2015, 12:03:41 AM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2015, 11:27:49 PM
    Quote from: magicman on March 01, 2015, 11:01:34 PM
    Could someone answer these questions for me?

    1. It used to be once ranked, always ranked, but I thought that was changed, so that if you drop out of the rankings it will affect other teams vRRO.

    2. I was told today that the National committee doesn't update the vRRO after last week's published record. In other words if a team makes the next set of rankings that wasn't previously regionally ranked it won't alter another team's vRRO.

    Example: KnightSlappy says Keene State will replace Southern Vermont in the NE Regional Rankings. Keene State hasn't been ranked at all this year. Plattsburgh currently has a 1-0 record vRRO. They own a win against Keene State. When they are at the table will the committee see that they are now 2-0 vRRO because Keene State is now ranked or will they be looking at last week's 1-0 record.  I was told they would be looking at last week's record, which doesn't make sense to me.   

    1. once ranked, always ranked is no longer;if u drop out it does affect their opponents' vrro, as would newly-ranked opponents.
    2. the vrros are updated with previous ranking to come up with the data for the new rankings to be decided.
      for example, for the next Mid-Atlantic rankings, both Scranton and Catholic will add an additional vrro because Misericordia and St. Vincent became regionally ranked since the previous ranking. However, most importantly, I don't see that Keene St is regionally ranked.

      I think Pat and Dave said tonight on Hoopsville that they were PROJECTING that Keene St would become regionally ranked; if that's the case, then Plattsburgh would get the additional vrro for the Pool C deliberation.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2015, 12:30:16 AM
    I made selections and tried to pod teams together. I never envy the bracket makers when I try to do this.

    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2015/03/mock-selection-and-bracket.html
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2015, 01:07:10 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2015, 12:30:16 AM
    I made selections and tried to pod teams together. I never envy the bracket makers when I try to do this.

    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2015/03/mock-selection-and-bracket.html

    Just a thought about the West...the regional rankings really haven't made sense throughout.  I don't think you are going to see Bethel move from 7 to 2 just because it would require a totally new thinking that would go against typical groupthink.  It'll be St Olaf out of the West and maybe Bethel, but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up stuck behind Buena Vista.

    In the Northeast, I think the order will be Springfield/WPI/Bowdoin.  The thing is WPI might look better in the last few picks, but if Springfield blocks them, I don't think they get the same consideration.  I agree with you that Springfield is a worthy candidate, but I think they and North Central won't get picked until the very end if at all.  So WPI could end up never quite getting to the table.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2015, 01:15:54 AM
    Of the four that posted projections of the field, we all agree on

    Virginia Wesleyan
    UW-Stevens Point
    Washington U.
    Johns Hopkins
    Amherst
    Marietta
    Illinois Wesleyan
    William Paterson
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Wooster
    Trinity (Conn.)
    Bates
    Eastern Connecticut
    Elmhurst
    Catholic (!)

    Then for the last few picks, we have the following breakdown:

    St Olaf   3   (7, titan, bopol)
    John Carroll   3   (titan, bopol, Knight)
    WPI   2   (7, titan)
    Franklin & Marshall   2   (7, bopol)
    Bethel   2   (titan, knight)
    North Central   2   (bopol, knight)
    Springfield   1   (Knight)
    Plattsburgh   1   (7)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2015, 01:49:31 AM

    We've been told Bethel is behind Buena Vista.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on March 02, 2015, 02:04:44 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 01:49:31 AM

    We've been told Bethel is behind Buena Vista.

    If that's the case I'm fairly confident in my "no Bethel in the tournament" prediction.  I don't see how Buena Vista clears and gives way to Bethel.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 04:05:02 AM
    This has been out for a bit, but glad you guys are able to get some sleep:
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/projected-mens-bracket
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2015, 07:33:45 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 01:49:31 AM

    We've been told Bethel is behind Buena Vista.

    If that is the case, I'd go with North Central in my #19 spot. I like NCC's wins over Augustana, UW-Stevens Point, and IWU...in addition to an SOS that jumps off the page in that final round.

    I like Bethel's resume better than Buena Vista's. 


    1. (GL) Marietta (.893/.519/4-3)
    2. (MA) Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    3. (C) UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4)
    4. (C)  Washington U. (.800/.565/4-2)
    5. (GL) Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    6. (NE) Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    7. (NE) Amherst (.741/.579/6-3)
    8. (NE) Bates (.760/.609/4-5)
    9. (AT) William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    10. (GL) Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    11. (C) Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    12. (C) Elmhurst (.731/.551/4-4)
    13. (S) Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    14. (GL) John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    15. (W) St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)
    16. (MA) Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)[/b]
    17. (NE) Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    18. (NE) WPI (.808/.515/2-3)
    19. (C) North Central (.667/.587/3-6)

    My Round 19 (assuming BV over Bethel in West)
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    GL - Hope (.680/.558/2-6)
    MA - Franklin & Marshall (.769/.517/3-3)
    NE - Bowdoin (.692/.571/1-6)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - Buena Vista (.720/.527/3-1)

    For me, that #19 pick comes down to two groups.

    The .550+ SOS Group
    C - North Central (.667/.587/3-6)
    GL - Hope (.680/.558/2-6)
    NE - Bowdoin (.692/.571/1-6)

    (I like Bethel as the .550+ SOS pick if there are there - .679/.564/4-3.)

    The .700+ Winning % Group
    AT - Brooklyn (.786/.507/2-3)
    E - Plattsburgh State (.704/.534/1-0)
    MA - Franklin & Marshall (.769/.517/3-3)
    S - Centre (.800/.513/1-2)
    W - Buena Vista (.720/.527/3-1)

    I end up with North Central vs Franklin & Marshall, and I pick North Central due to SOS and RRO (specifically, the wins over Augustana, UW-Stevens Point, and IWU).  I considered the fact that NCC lost to Dickinson in a non-conference game, while F&M has a win over Dickinson...but F&M also has two losses to Dickinson, so I don't think the common opponent win really helps F&M at the end of the day.

    We will all know in about 5 hours.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:55:15 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 04:05:02 AM
    This has been out for a bit, but glad you guys are able to get some sleep:
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/projected-mens-bracket

    A few pods only have 2 regions represented and the Randolph Macon bracket is going to require at least one flight.

    Back to the drawing board.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 02, 2015, 08:18:19 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:55:15 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 04:05:02 AM
    This has been out for a bit, but glad you guys are able to get some sleep:
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/projected-mens-bracket

    A few pods only have 2 regions represented and the Randolph Macon bracket is going to require at least one flight.

    Back to the drawing board.
    Westfield is the furthest of the pod at 467 miles so no flight there. If you're referring to the entire quadrant then perhaps but it's hard to set up a bracket without a bit of flying on the 2nd weekend
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 02, 2015, 08:29:00 AM
    Quote from: 7express on March 02, 2015, 02:04:44 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 01:49:31 AM

    We've been told Bethel is behind Buena Vista.

    If that's the case I'm fairly confident in my "no Bethel in the tournament" prediction.  I don't see how Buena Vista clears and gives way to Bethel.
    So Head to Head is the most important criteria now?  If it is wouldn't they put Bethel in front of St. Olaf?

    Bethel (19-9 .679/.564/4-3)  RR Wins over #1 St. Thomas and 3 wins over St. Olaf (likely ranked higher than Buena Vista)
    Buena Vista (18-7 .720/.527/3-1) RR Wins over Dubuque and Bethel

    WP should be considered the same as Bethel played more RR.  Bethel has a clear SOS advantage and a clear RR wins advantage.  The Bethel vs. Buena game was played before Bridge joined the team.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2015, 08:31:23 AM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 02, 2015, 08:18:19 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:55:15 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 04:05:02 AM
    This has been out for a bit, but glad you guys are able to get some sleep:
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/projected-mens-bracket

    A few pods only have 2 regions represented and the Randolph Macon bracket is going to require at least one flight.

    Back to the drawing board.
    Westfield is the furthest of the pod at 467 miles so no flight there. If you're referring to the entire quadrant then perhaps but it's hard to set up a bracket without a bit of flying on the 2nd weekend

    For the 2nd weekend, the Emory and ETBU pods are lost causes, but you can certainly set up a bracket that avoids it otherwise because I did.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2015, 08:44:48 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:55:15 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 04:05:02 AM
    This has been out for a bit, but glad you guys are able to get some sleep:
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/projected-mens-bracket

    A few pods only have 2 regions represented and the Randolph Macon bracket is going to require at least one flight.

    Back to the drawing board.

    They're separated in pairs on that page mostly for ease of reading, Pat and I didn't take the time to separate them into sectional pods (he had to get on to the women's bracket and I had to go to bed).

    I did take a look at possible match-ups to better separate the teams:

    Augie/Emory paired with St Thomas/Point; Whitewater/ETBU paired with Marietta/St. John Fisher; Mt. Union/Dickinson paired with Macon/Amherst; and Babson/William Patterson paired with Hopkins/Stockton.

    The Whitewater sectional might potential require an extra flight, but doesn't necessary have to do so.  I think two first round and, at most, three second round isn't too bad - especially with the diversity we were able to find.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2015, 08:55:52 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 08:44:48 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:55:15 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 04:05:02 AM
    This has been out for a bit, but glad you guys are able to get some sleep:
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/projected-mens-bracket

    A few pods only have 2 regions represented and the Randolph Macon bracket is going to require at least one flight.

    Back to the drawing board.

    They're separated in pairs on that page mostly for ease of reading, Pat and I didn't take the time to separate them into sectional pods (he had to get on to the women's bracket and I had to go to bed).

    I did take a look at possible match-ups to better separate the teams:

    Augie/Emory paired with St Thomas/Point; Whitewater/ETBU paired with Marietta/St. John Fisher; Mt. Union/Dickinson paired with Macon/Amherst; and Babson/William Patterson paired with Hopkins/Stockton.

    The Whitewater sectional might potential require an extra flight, but doesn't necessary have to do so.  I think two first round and, at most, three second round isn't too bad - especially with the diversity we were able to find.

    Ah, I see, the job wasn't finished. 

    I wonder how much effort is put into avoiding second weekend flights.  When I put a priority on it, it can be done, but it does affect the regional diversity of the 1st weekend pods.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2015, 09:03:21 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 08:55:52 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 08:44:48 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:55:15 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 04:05:02 AM
    This has been out for a bit, but glad you guys are able to get some sleep:
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/projected-mens-bracket

    A few pods only have 2 regions represented and the Randolph Macon bracket is going to require at least one flight.

    Back to the drawing board.

    They're separated in pairs on that page mostly for ease of reading, Pat and I didn't take the time to separate them into sectional pods (he had to get on to the women's bracket and I had to go to bed).

    I did take a look at possible match-ups to better separate the teams:

    Augie/Emory paired with St Thomas/Point; Whitewater/ETBU paired with Marietta/St. John Fisher; Mt. Union/Dickinson paired with Macon/Amherst; and Babson/William Patterson paired with Hopkins/Stockton.

    The Whitewater sectional might potential require an extra flight, but doesn't necessary have to do so.  I think two first round and, at most, three second round isn't too bad - especially with the diversity we were able to find.

    Ah, I see, the job wasn't finished. 

    I wonder how much effort is put into avoiding second weekend flights.  When I put a priority on it, it can be done, but it does affect the regional diversity of the 1st weekend pods.

    I started to stay up and fix things, then I realized, "It's 1:45am and this whole thing will be useless and forgotten in ten hours."  So there you have it.  It's probably my fault - I fought hard to send Calvin to St. John Fisher.  Then we thought it was humorous to send Calvin into a pod with three Catholic schools [insert Reformation jokes here].

    Again, it's only a potential of one extra flight, so I don't think that's outrageous.  Saving flights from the first round could certainly earn the committee that much.  A max potential of five total flights before Salem is pretty darn good, especially when the minimum is three (and that's only if Spalding wins their pod).

    It might even be less flights - If Hendrix, Spalding and WashU all win the first weeked, WashU could host with no flights at all - well, I guess St. Thomas would get to fly, but still.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2015, 10:38:19 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 09:03:21 AM


    I started to stay up and fix things, then I realized, "It's 1:45am and this whole thing will be useless and forgotten in ten hours."  So there you have it.  It's probably my fault - I fought hard to send Calvin to St. John Fisher.  Then we thought it was humorous to send Calvin into a pod with three Catholic schools [insert Reformation jokes here].

    Again, it's only a potential of one extra flight, so I don't think that's outrageous.  Saving flights from the first round could certainly earn the committee that much.  A max potential of five total flights before Salem is pretty darn good, especially when the minimum is three (and that's only if Spalding wins their pod).

    It might even be less flights - If Hendrix, Spalding and WashU all win the first weeked, WashU could host with no flights at all - well, I guess St. Thomas would get to fly, but still.

    Yeah, I went through the same thing on Saturday night.  I was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection.  I didn't have to share it, it was mostly for my own fun, but I thought it would spark some conversation and it did.  Didn't quite see where someone on the staff of D3hoops.com needed to dump on me, but I've had that problem here in the past as well. 

    Anyhow, it is a fun little problem to work through.  I should try the women's bracket, but I don't have the time for it now and probably will forget later.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 10:39:33 AM
    Bopol -- thanks for your input. Definitely the NCAA is more cognizant of second-weekend flights than it used to be but they're the ones with the purse strings. We're the ones with the imagination. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 10:42:07 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 10:38:19 AMI was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

    Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

    And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days.  :-\
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2015, 11:02:01 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 09:03:21 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 08:55:52 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 08:44:48 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:55:15 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 04:05:02 AM
    This has been out for a bit, but glad you guys are able to get some sleep:
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/projected-mens-bracket

    A few pods only have 2 regions represented and the Randolph Macon bracket is going to require at least one flight.

    Back to the drawing board.

    They're separated in pairs on that page mostly for ease of reading, Pat and I didn't take the time to separate them into sectional pods (he had to get on to the women's bracket and I had to go to bed).

    I did take a look at possible match-ups to better separate the teams:

    Augie/Emory paired with St Thomas/Point; Whitewater/ETBU paired with Marietta/St. John Fisher; Mt. Union/Dickinson paired with Macon/Amherst; and Babson/William Patterson paired with Hopkins/Stockton.

    The Whitewater sectional might potential require an extra flight, but doesn't necessary have to do so.  I think two first round and, at most, three second round isn't too bad - especially with the diversity we were able to find.

    Ah, I see, the job wasn't finished. 

    I wonder how much effort is put into avoiding second weekend flights.  When I put a priority on it, it can be done, but it does affect the regional diversity of the 1st weekend pods.

    I started to stay up and fix things, then I realized, "It's 1:45am and this whole thing will be useless and forgotten in ten hours."  So there you have it.  It's probably my fault - I fought hard to send Calvin to St. John Fisher.  Then we thought it was humorous to send Calvin into a pod with three Catholic schools [insert Reformation jokes here].

    Again, it's only a potential of one extra flight, so I don't think that's outrageous.  Saving flights from the first round could certainly earn the committee that much.  A max potential of five total flights before Salem is pretty darn good, especially when the minimum is three (and that's only if Spalding wins their pod).

    It might even be less flights - If Hendrix, Spalding and WashU all win the first weeked, WashU could host with no flights at all - well, I guess St. Thomas would get to fly, but still.

    I was surprised the other week when I saw that the NCAA's software counts Calvin-St. John Fisher as within 500 miles since that requires a trip through Canada. Wouldn't players all need a passport to make that work?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 11:07:09 AM
    I always told myself if I ever won a big time lottery, I would buy the site and pay you guys more than what your real jobs pay.  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEPAFAN on March 02, 2015, 11:11:28 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 10:42:07 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 10:38:19 AMI was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

    Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

    And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days.  :-\

    That doesn't explain why Dave had to give attitude to a poster who took the time to go through the analysis on his own. We should be encouraging each other, not constantly poking holes in each others projections.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 11:20:58 AM
    Poking holes is fine, but it's how it's said. Saying, "I don't think that would work because..." is better than, "why in the world would you do that..." I'm just saying... ???  ;D  :-X
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 11:44:55 AM
    Ahh, I see, so bopol threw a "back to the drawing board" on me for something a different person said to him. No wonder I didn't get it!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2015, 11:53:02 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2015, 11:02:01 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 09:03:21 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 08:55:52 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 08:44:48 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:55:15 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 04:05:02 AM
    This has been out for a bit, but glad you guys are able to get some sleep:
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/projected-mens-bracket

    A few pods only have 2 regions represented and the Randolph Macon bracket is going to require at least one flight.

    Back to the drawing board.

    They're separated in pairs on that page mostly for ease of reading, Pat and I didn't take the time to separate them into sectional pods (he had to get on to the women's bracket and I had to go to bed).

    I did take a look at possible match-ups to better separate the teams:

    Augie/Emory paired with St Thomas/Point; Whitewater/ETBU paired with Marietta/St. John Fisher; Mt. Union/Dickinson paired with Macon/Amherst; and Babson/William Patterson paired with Hopkins/Stockton.

    The Whitewater sectional might potential require an extra flight, but doesn't necessary have to do so.  I think two first round and, at most, three second round isn't too bad - especially with the diversity we were able to find.

    Ah, I see, the job wasn't finished. 

    I wonder how much effort is put into avoiding second weekend flights.  When I put a priority on it, it can be done, but it does affect the regional diversity of the 1st weekend pods.

    I started to stay up and fix things, then I realized, "It's 1:45am and this whole thing will be useless and forgotten in ten hours."  So there you have it.  It's probably my fault - I fought hard to send Calvin to St. John Fisher.  Then we thought it was humorous to send Calvin into a pod with three Catholic schools [insert Reformation jokes here].

    Again, it's only a potential of one extra flight, so I don't think that's outrageous.  Saving flights from the first round could certainly earn the committee that much.  A max potential of five total flights before Salem is pretty darn good, especially when the minimum is three (and that's only if Spalding wins their pod).

    It might even be less flights - If Hendrix, Spalding and WashU all win the first weeked, WashU could host with no flights at all - well, I guess St. Thomas would get to fly, but still.

    I was surprised the other week when I saw that the NCAA's software counts Calvin-St. John Fisher as within 500 miles since that requires a trip through Canada. Wouldn't players all need a passport to make that work?

    Do you need a passport to drive now?  I thought it was just for flights.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2015, 12:07:19 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 11:53:02 AM
    Do you need a passport to drive now?  I thought it was just for flights.

    Rigorous academic research (five minutes on Wikipedia) tells me that passports are not required (merely recommended), but it looks like the alternative is state ID plus birth certificate (perhaps difficult for students to obtain within three days?).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on March 02, 2015, 12:11:00 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2015, 12:07:19 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 11:53:02 AM
    Do you need a passport to drive now?  I thought it was just for flights.

    Rigorous academic research (five minutes on Wikipedia) tells me that passports are not required (merely recommended), but it looks like the alternative is state ID plus birth certificate (perhaps difficult for students to obtain within three days?).

    One does need a passport to enter Canada these days, whether by car, boat, or plane.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on March 02, 2015, 12:14:16 PM
    With brackets coming out in about 14 minutes I still cannot decide Plattsburgh or NYU from the East. NYU numbers are just better but I feel like the committee is going to have Plattsburgh in the field. Guess we will see!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 02, 2015, 12:17:03 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on March 02, 2015, 12:11:00 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2015, 12:07:19 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 11:53:02 AM
    Do you need a passport to drive now?  I thought it was just for flights.

    Rigorous academic research (five minutes on Wikipedia) tells me that passports are not required (merely recommended), but it looks like the alternative is state ID plus birth certificate (perhaps difficult for students to obtain within three days?).

    One does need a passport to enter Canada these days, whether by car, boat, or plane.

    Or an 'enhanced' driver's license for those states (e.g., Michigan) that offer them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: spwood on March 02, 2015, 12:21:48 PM
    Quote from: dcahill44 on March 02, 2015, 12:14:16 PM
    With brackets coming out in about 14 minutes I still cannot decide Plattsburgh or NYU from the East. NYU numbers are just better but I feel like the committee is going to have Plattsburgh in the field. Guess we will see!

    I believe they mentioned on last night's projection that they knew  Plattsburgh was #2 and NYU was #4.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2015, 12:28:49 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 02, 2015, 12:17:03 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on March 02, 2015, 12:11:00 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2015, 12:07:19 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 11:53:02 AM
    Do you need a passport to drive now?  I thought it was just for flights.

    Rigorous academic research (five minutes on Wikipedia) tells me that passports are not required (merely recommended), but it looks like the alternative is state ID plus birth certificate (perhaps difficult for students to obtain within three days?).

    One does need a passport to enter Canada these days, whether by car, boat, or plane.

    Or an 'enhanced' driver's license for those states (e.g., Michigan) that offer them.

    We have them in Delaware!  I think they're mandated nationwide now - so next time you get a renewal, you'll have one too.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2015, 12:46:38 PM

    Catholic and WPI are in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on March 02, 2015, 12:58:18 PM
    No at large bids for the East region. St John Fisher has a great pool of teams. WPI, Sage, and Amherst. One of the most interesting pods in the bracket. Going to be a great tournament!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 01:01:20 PM
    19-for-19. Doesn't happen very often, so I just have to toot our horn, and thanks to Bob and HoopsFan for their contributions to the discussion on Hoopsville last night that helped get us here.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on March 02, 2015, 01:05:04 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 01:01:20 PM
    19-for-19. Doesn't happen very often, so I just have to toot our horn, and thanks to Bob and HoopsFan for their contributions to the discussion on Hoopsville last night that helped get us here.

    Well done guys!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: mailsy on March 02, 2015, 01:05:39 PM
    Impressive! Great job!!  :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: donho on March 02, 2015, 01:06:37 PM
       Great job, d3 Hoops!!!!  Well done.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on March 02, 2015, 01:08:18 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 11:20:58 AM
    Poking holes is fine, but it's how it's said. Saying, "I don't think that would work because..." is better than, "why in the world would you do that..." I'm just saying... ???  ;D  :-X

    This.  It really comes across as dismissive and like he is talking down to us little people.  Wouldn't you want to encourage some chatter and mock brackets on these boards?

    And this isn't the only instance of that attitude permeating his comments.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Matt Letourneau on March 02, 2015, 01:20:30 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 01:01:20 PM
    19-for-19. Doesn't happen very often, so I just have to toot our horn, and thanks to Bob and HoopsFan for their contributions to the discussion on Hoopsville last night that helped get us here.

    I think you have to give credit to Dave...you didn't want to take Catholic!  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 01:21:00 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 01:01:20 PM
    19-for-19. Doesn't happen very often, so I just have to toot our horn, and thanks to Bob and HoopsFan for their contributions to the discussion on Hoopsville last night that helped get us here.

    Very nice and well deserved tooting of the horn!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 01:29:17 PM
    Quote from: kiko on March 02, 2015, 01:08:18 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 11:20:58 AM
    Poking holes is fine, but it's how it's said. Saying, "I don't think that would work because..." is better than, "why in the world would you do that..." I'm just saying... ???  ;D  :-X

    This.  It really comes across as dismissive and like he is talking down to us little people.  Wouldn't you want to encourage some chatter and mock brackets on these boards?

    And this isn't the only instance of that attitude permeating his comments.

    You may want to take those things up specifically with Dave. On a day like today, he may not be patrolling this board.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on March 02, 2015, 02:19:59 PM
    Lay off Dave. . . this is his busy time.  You don't expect great customer service at Toys R Us on Christmas Eve and you should not expect it from Dave on conference championship/selection show weekend. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2015, 02:21:49 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 10:42:07 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 10:38:19 AMI was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

    Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

    And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days.  :-\
    ]

    Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 02:26:52 PM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on March 02, 2015, 02:19:59 PM
    Lay off Dave. . . this is his busy time.  You don't expect great customer service at Toys R Us on Christmas Eve and you should not expect it from Dave on conference championship/selection show weekend.

    Actually I do, that's their job. To be fair, it's not Dave's job to be nice all the time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 03:53:48 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 02:21:49 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 10:42:07 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 10:38:19 AMI was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

    Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

    And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days.  :-\

    Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.

    I actually think I'm pretty level-headed on this. Have I said anything here that is think skinned? I didn't think so. I understand our limitations and accept that we can't do playoff projections ahead of selection Sunday the way we used to.

    But you are taking out on me something Dave did to you, and I'm not sure that's the best use of your time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: oldknight on March 02, 2015, 04:15:29 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 02:21:49 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 10:42:07 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 10:38:19 AMI was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

    Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

    And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days.  :-\
    ]

    Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.
    The folks at D3 hoops provide us with a great website resource that allows us to participate, and unbelievable amounts of time trying to get things right. I'm personally grateful for their dedication and attention to detail--all done at no cost to us and for basically no pay. Don't waste their time and mine accusing them of being thin skinned. Even if Pat or Dave come off that way from time to time--and I don't think they do--so what?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEPAFAN on March 02, 2015, 04:23:09 PM
    Quote from: oldknight on March 02, 2015, 04:15:29 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 02:21:49 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 10:42:07 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 10:38:19 AMI was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

    Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

    And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days.  :-\
    ]

    Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.
    The folks at D3 hoops provide us with a great website resource that allows us to participate, and unbelievable amounts of time trying to get things right. I'm personally grateful for their dedication and attention to detail--all done at no cost to us and for basically no pay. Don't waste their time and mine accusing them of being thin skinned. Even if Pat or Dave come off that way from time to time--and I don't think they do--so what?

    Did you see the post in question?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 02, 2015, 04:56:45 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 03:53:48 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 02:21:49 PM
    Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.
    But you are taking out on me something Dave did to you, and I'm not sure that's the best use of your time.

    I think describing Dave as a member of Pat's "staff" fundamentally mischaracterizes this operation, FWIW. Dave is his own man. He can be a little gruff at times, something I think most of us are used to, especially in his posts, but he contributes a great deal to the D3 hoops community. I think maybe it's time to move on from this.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:29:50 PM
    Quote from: oldknight on March 02, 2015, 04:15:29 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 02:21:49 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 10:42:07 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 10:38:19 AMI was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

    Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

    And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days.  :-\
    ]

    Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.
    The folks at D3 hoops provide us with a great website resource that allows us to participate, and unbelievable amounts of time trying to get things right. I'm personally grateful for their dedication and attention to detail--all done at no cost to us and for basically no pay. Don't waste their time and mine accusing them of being thin skinned. Even if Pat or Dave come off that way from time to time--and I don't think they do--so what?

    Dave dished a little out a little, I dished a little back and then Pat whined a little and I pointed out I did nothing different than what Dave did.  All good fun - that's all. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 07:32:24 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:29:50 PM
    Quote from: oldknight on March 02, 2015, 04:15:29 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 02:21:49 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 10:42:07 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 10:38:19 AMI was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

    Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

    And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days.  :-\
    ]

    Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.
    The folks at D3 hoops provide us with a great website resource that allows us to participate, and unbelievable amounts of time trying to get things right. I'm personally grateful for their dedication and attention to detail--all done at no cost to us and for basically no pay. Don't waste their time and mine accusing them of being thin skinned. Even if Pat or Dave come off that way from time to time--and I don't think they do--so what?

    Dave dished a little out a little, I dished a little back and then Pat whined a little and I pointed out I did nothing different than what Dave did.  All good fun - that's all. 

    Now I get it. You took my explanation as whining, and so you chose to strike back for something I didn't even say ... kinda confusing. No wonder I didn't follow.

    I think you mis-read my post.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:35:33 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 07:32:24 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:29:50 PM
    Quote from: oldknight on March 02, 2015, 04:15:29 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 02:21:49 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2015, 10:42:07 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 10:38:19 AMI was just giving you a little stuff since Dave McHugh was obnoxious with me after I posted an initial bracket Saturday night at 1 in the morning, despite no attempt coming from the professionals that run the site to create their own projection. 

    Creating a professional projection we want to put our name behind takes hours and hours of work -- we don't just slap stuff together and post it on a message board.

    And unlike you, we don't have the luxury of doing just one. If we do one for men's, we have to do one for women's basketball. It just isn't feasible. We each have a lot of other responsibilities on the site as well. I'd love to be able to do more projections but it just really isn't in the cards for us these days.  :-\
    ]

    Gee Pat, why are you being so thin skinned on this?  After all, I didn't do anything different than what your staff did to me.  Maybe you should toughen up a little.
    The folks at D3 hoops provide us with a great website resource that allows us to participate, and unbelievable amounts of time trying to get things right. I'm personally grateful for their dedication and attention to detail--all done at no cost to us and for basically no pay. Don't waste their time and mine accusing them of being thin skinned. Even if Pat or Dave come off that way from time to time--and I don't think they do--so what?

    Dave dished a little out a little, I dished a little back and then Pat whined a little and I pointed out I did nothing different than what Dave did.  All good fun - that's all. 

    Now I get it. You took my explanation as whining, and so you chose to strike back for something I didn't even say ... kinda confusing. No wonder I didn't follow.

    I think you mis-read my post.

    You're right, you really didn't whine, you just didn't understand I was picking on you a bit after Dave got obnoxious with me after I posted a bracket for discussion when there wasn't another one out there to discuss.  Like I said, all good fun. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:43:01 PM
    So back to basketball.

    I have to say after the frustration of last year, I have to give the committee credit for doing a good job.

    The Pool C picks are completely reasonable.  I didn't quite have it that way, but I certainly thought about it going Springfield and WPI with my last two picks instead of Franklin and Marshall and North Central, but the differences were minimal.  I think we can safely say that results against RRO does not mean that beating top teams counts more as Carthage and North Central haven't been helped by knocking out two Top 10 teams when on the table at the end.

    The hosts are good picks.  I like Mount Union over Wooster and OWU as they did win their tournament, but I had it the other way.  The last couple Pool C coming from the Northeast makes the shift in hosts that way make sense.  The only other host I missed was Virginia Wesleyan (who I think deserved it) vs. Trinity (who I get why they got it).  The field seems fairly well balanced as much as geographically possible.  Kudos for a good job to the committee.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2015, 08:25:59 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:43:01 PM
    I think we can safely say that results against RRO does not mean that beating top teams counts more as Carthage and North Central haven't been helped by knocking out two Top 10 teams when on the table at the end.

    I think it's much more that winning percentage matters when you get down to the end.  Catholic and WPI had wins, lots of wins.  It trumped SOS.  Carthage and NCC were both .667.  The committee seemed to send the message loud and clear: 2/3rds doesn't cut it, no matter how good your schedule.  You have to win more.  Dave's .667 red line might have become .668.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 09:16:46 PM
    Bopol,

    Not a big fan of getting to host because they went on a 3-game streak to win the conference tourney over a team that wins an 18-game regular season schedule.  It may have morw to do witht he fact that Mt. Union won 2 games against  RRO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2015, 09:34:13 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 09:16:46 PM
    Bopol,

    Not a big fan of getting to host because they went on a 3-game streak to win the conference tourney over a team that wins an 18-game regular season schedule.  It may have morw to do witht he fact that Mt. Union won 2 games against  RRO.

    Mount actually won 3 RvRRO games in the last 6.  Marietta, John Carroll and Marietta.  With one loss to John Carroll.   In other words they picked up 4 RvRRO's in about 15 days.  Mount Union for sure moved into one of the top 2 Great Lakes spots.  OWU lost its semi-final on its home floor to an unranked DePauw.


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2015, 09:39:02 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 08:25:59 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 02, 2015, 07:43:01 PM
    I think we can safely say that results against RRO does not mean that beating top teams counts more as Carthage and North Central haven't been helped by knocking out two Top 10 teams when on the table at the end.

    I think it's much more that winning percentage matters when you get down to the end.  Catholic and WPI had wins, lots of wins.  It trumped SOS.  Carthage and NCC were both .667.  The committee seemed to send the message loud and clear: 2/3rds doesn't cut it, no matter how good your schedule.  You have to win more.  Dave's .667 red line might have become .668.

    Maybe.  That also seems reasonable.  In general though, I see no distinctions over really good wins against #1 and #3 in the Central region and pretty good wins against #2 and #7 or #8 in the Northeast and think we can safely stick to records against RRO as opposed to nitpicking 'results vs. RRO'.  I picked North Central in my last pick because they had the wins against Augustana and UWSP over Springfield which had a slightly better winning percentage and slightly worse SOS because they didn't have the wins of that quality, getting dropped 3x by Babson.  I was wrong though. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 02, 2015, 09:52:47 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 09:16:46 PM
    Bopol,

    Not a big fan of getting to host because they went on a 3-game streak to win the conference tourney over a team that wins an 18-game regular season schedule.  It may have morw to do witht he fact that Mt. Union won 2 games against  RRO.

    I see where you're coming from and I had OWU hosting over Mount, but I watch the two Mount OAC playoff games (JC & Marietta) and Mount looked really good.  They were 13-2 in their final 15 games with a 4-2 vs. RRO.  I don't know to what extent the committee said that Mount is hot and has been hot since mid-season vs. OWU has a better overall resume. 

    Like I said, after last year's bracket of bubble cartoons over my head with "???" or "#!*&", the committee did a much, much better job this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 10:15:27 PM
    How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

    I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location.  ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2015, 10:38:18 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 10:15:27 PM
    How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

    I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location.  ;)

    Dave said on the show he got word they finished #1 in the GL.  They pretty much gave every regional #1 a chance to host, if they could.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2015, 10:49:50 PM

    I'm more and more impressed with this bracket, as I look at it.  I went through and just added seed numbers in the traditional pattern to each region.  They work out entirely fair with just a few exceptions:

    Hendrix and LaGrange are in the wrong spots, but that's entirely geographical.
    Neumann and Defiance are in the wrong spots, but again, geography plays a factor there.
    The Hopkins pod and the Trinity pod should have been switched.

    In the grand scheme of things, those are all pretty understandable.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2015, 10:53:11 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 10:49:50 PM

    I'm more and more impressed with this bracket, as I look at it.  I went through and just added seed numbers in the traditional pattern to each region.  They work out entirely fair with just a few exceptions:

    Hendrix and LaGrange are in the wrong spots, but that's entirely geographical.
    Neumann and Defiance are in the wrong spots, but again, geography plays a factor there.
    The Hopkins pod and the Trinity pod should have been switched.

    In the grand scheme of things, those are all pretty understandable.

    I think Calvin and Ohio Wesleyan are in the wrong spots as well, but I'm not going to complain.  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 11:50:55 PM
    Pool C teams selected in BLUE. These were the last public regional rankings



       WK3      TEAM   
       Atl#2      Will. Pat. (NJAC)      
       Atl#4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)     
       Atl#5      Rut.-New. (NJAC)     
                
       WK3      TEAM   
       C#3      UWSP (WIAC)     
       C#4      Wash. U. (UAA)   
       C#6      IWU (CCIW)     
       C#7      Elmhurst (CCIW)     
       C#8      NCC (CCIW)     
                
       WK3      TEAM   
       E#2      Platts. St.  (SUNYAC)    
       E#3      Hobart (LL)    
       E#5      NYU (UAA)    
       E#6      Clarkson (LL)    
                
       WK3      TEAM   
       GL#1      Marietta (OAC)    
       GL#2      Ohio Wes. (NCAC)    
       GL#3      Wooster (NCAC)     
       GL#4      JCU (OAC)    
       GL#6      PS-Behrend (AMCC)    
       GL#9      Hope (MIAA)      
                
       WK3      TEAM   
       MA#1      Johns Hop. (CC)    
       MA#3      Catholic (LAND)    
       MA#4      Frank. & Marsh. (CC)    
       MA#6      St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)    
                
       WK3      TEAM   
       NE#2      Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)    
       NE#3      Amherst (NESCAC)     
       NE#4      Bates (NESCAC)   
       NE#5      E. Conn. (LEC)    
       NE#6      WPI (NEWMAC)    
       NE#8      Bowdoin (NESCAC)    
       NE#9      Springfield (NEWMAC)     
       NE#10      S. Vermont (NECC)    
                
       WK3      TEAM   
       So#3      VWU(ODAC)    
       So#5      Centre (SAA)    
       So#6      Hard.-Sim. (ASC)    
       So#8      MHB (ASC)      
                
       WK3      TEAM   
       W#2      St. Olaf (MIAC)    
       W#3      Buena Vista (IIAC)    
       W#4      Whitman (NWC)    
       W#7      Bethel (MIAC)    
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2015, 11:59:28 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 02, 2015, 10:53:11 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 10:49:50 PM

    I'm more and more impressed with this bracket, as I look at it.  I went through and just added seed numbers in the traditional pattern to each region.  They work out entirely fair with just a few exceptions:

    Hendrix and LaGrange are in the wrong spots, but that's entirely geographical.
    Neumann and Defiance are in the wrong spots, but again, geography plays a factor there.
    The Hopkins pod and the Trinity pod should have been switched.

    In the grand scheme of things, those are all pretty understandable.

    I think Calvin and Ohio Wesleyan are in the wrong spots as well, but I'm not going to complain.  ;D

    That's a 5 vs a 7?  Hardly something to get worked up about.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2015, 07:19:27 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 10:38:18 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 10:15:27 PM
    How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

    I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location.  ;)

    Dave said on the show he got word they finished #1 in the GL.  They pretty much gave every regional #1 a chance to host, if they could.

    That's a pretty big jump.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 03, 2015, 08:40:06 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 10:15:27 PM
    How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

    I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location.  ;)

    You're right, of course, I can't make up criteria.  Just looking at the GL region off of KnightSlappy's site, I think Marietta is still a pretty clear #1 and that OWU, Mount Union and Wooster are quite close together.  If you go by the standard criteria of head to head, you've got OWU beating Wooster twice and Wooster beating Mount Union - so by the logic that seems to be applied to the regional rankings, it should have been OWU #2 then Wooster and Mount Union.  I'd say that OWU deserved to host then.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 03, 2015, 08:43:43 AM
    My speculation on the air about this was that Wooster's loss in the conference tournament must have pushed them far enough away from Mount Union that the head-to-head was no longer enough to keep them above Mount.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2015, 08:46:12 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 03, 2015, 08:40:06 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 10:15:27 PM
    How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

    I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location.  ;)

    You're right, of course, I can't make up criteria.  Just looking at the GL region off of KnightSlappy's site, I think Marietta is still a pretty clear #1 and that OWU, Mount Union and Wooster are quite close together.  If you go by the standard criteria of head to head, you've got OWU beating Wooster twice and Wooster beating Mount Union - so by the logic that seems to be applied to the regional rankings, it should have been OWU #2 then Wooster and Mount Union.  I'd say that OWU deserved to host then.

    Mount Union beat Marietta 2-out-of-3 though. You can go round and round on the head-to-head.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 03, 2015, 08:49:48 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 03, 2015, 07:19:27 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 02, 2015, 10:38:18 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 10:15:27 PM
    How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

    I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location.  ;)

    Dave said on the show he got word they finished #1 in the GL.  They pretty much gave every regional #1 a chance to host, if they could.

    Beating Marietta on the road in the conference finals gives them a 2-1 advantage - likely settled the head-to-head for the committee.

    That's a pretty big jump.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 03, 2015, 11:02:29 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 03, 2015, 08:46:12 AM
    Quote from: bopol on March 03, 2015, 08:40:06 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2015, 10:15:27 PM
    How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

    I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location.  ;)

    You're right, of course, I can't make up criteria.  Just looking at the GL region off of KnightSlappy's site, I think Marietta is still a pretty clear #1 and that OWU, Mount Union and Wooster are quite close together.  If you go by the standard criteria of head to head, you've got OWU beating Wooster twice and Wooster beating Mount Union - so by the logic that seems to be applied to the regional rankings, it should have been OWU #2 then Wooster and Mount Union.  I'd say that OWU deserved to host then.

    Mount Union beat Marietta 2-out-of-3 though. You can go round and round on the head-to-head.

    Yes, but I think Marietta was clearly ahead of Mount otherwise (3 losses vs. 6 probably doesn't overcome an SOS difference of 0.36, even winning two of three head to head).  That said, it may have been the path the committee went down.  I don't think the regional committee went down a horrible path (like say the West), but I think having Marietta/OWU makes more sense than Mount Union/Marietta.

    One advantage I noted of OWU vs. the other possible Ohio team hosts is that Wash U can get there in less than 500 miles.  I thought that might play in because it does solve bracket issues.

    That said, I don't consider this to be a terrible error or anything.  You can make reasonable arguments both ways, just one might be slightly better than the other.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on August 17, 2015, 09:43:44 AM
    Dave or Pat -- have either of you heard if we're going to see the 63rd bid this next year (a 20th Pool C bid)? I have 413 full members on my spreadsheet which should be more than enough. I know there were NCAA budgetary concerns which may prevent tournament expansion.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 17, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
    Not this year... it is on hold per what I was told last year due to budgetary reasons and a little known rule they usually like to follow: add bids in even numbers.

    Let me start with the budget: because things got so tight, adding bids whenever they became eligible started to cause problems. We actually were able to have a 63rd team eligible last season, if memory serves and thus why I was looking into last year. Each new team obvious brings in more per diem, travel, and other expenses. Only a couple of sports added bids, but not in single numbers (four for women's lacrosse if my memory serves right now).

    As for the little known rule: there has always been an understanding or rule that the NCAA will add teams in even numbers. However, that was kind of pushed aside when a) there was such rapid growth in sports and b) the budgetary issues weren't a problem. However, when the budget became a problem, clearly the NCAA (i.e. Division III) needed a good enough reason to hold pat - thus the rule you only add in even numbers. (As an aside, I completely understand why you only add in even numbers - helps keep the brackets more balanced then adding one bid one year, another bid another year, etc.)

    I don't believe we will be getting a 63rd bid until there are enough teams to just make it an even 64. Again, that is based on a countless conversations I had with several people throughout last season. I of course will follow up, but nothing I have seen or been told indicates an extra team this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on August 17, 2015, 01:07:02 PM
    Well, if we're currently at 413 participating programs, and if fourth-year provies Houghton, Southern Virginia, and Valley Forge Christian all complete the process and become full members for 2016-17, that would mean that we would reach the 416-participants threshold necessary to get a 64-team bracket for the 2017 D3 tourney, budget willing.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 17, 2015, 01:46:31 PM
    From what I have been told and from what I have seen with other sports... they will allow the growth to 64 without concern for the budget because at that point everything else will be moot. They are basically using the "add in even numbers" as a tactic to keep from going crazy with growth - which we all can probably admit was happening in the division for a few years. Once all standards are met, the two extra bids will be added. The only catch to that is if the division looks to lower the tournaments to smaller participation numbers... but that isn't on the radar that I am aware of and thus wouldn't even be up for a vote for at least 18 months (not that it would probably pass in the first place barring a major budgetary problem which isn't on the horizon either).

    I will double-check much of this in the coming days/weeks just to be sure.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on August 17, 2015, 04:04:09 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 17, 2015, 01:07:02 PM
    Well, if we're currently at 413 participating programs, and if fourth-year provies Houghton, Southern Virginia, and Valley Forge Christian all complete the process and become full members for 2016-17, that would mean that we would reach the 416-participants threshold necessary to get a 64-team bracket for the 2017 D3 tourney, budget willing.

    We might be getting McMurry back around that time as well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on August 17, 2015, 05:00:39 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 17, 2015, 04:04:09 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 17, 2015, 01:07:02 PM
    Well, if we're currently at 413 participating programs, and if fourth-year provies Houghton, Southern Virginia, and Valley Forge Christian all complete the process and become full members for 2016-17, that would mean that we would reach the 416-participants threshold necessary to get a 64-team bracket for the 2017 D3 tourney, budget willing.

    We might be getting McMurry back around that time as well.

    I have them as being eligible for full membership in 2018-19, do you think they'll be sped up through the pipeline? That would be nice.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on August 17, 2015, 05:38:45 PM
    It would certainly make Ralph happy, if nothing else.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on August 17, 2015, 08:30:17 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on August 17, 2015, 05:00:39 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 17, 2015, 04:04:09 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 17, 2015, 01:07:02 PM
    Well, if we're currently at 413 participating programs, and if fourth-year provies Houghton, Southern Virginia, and Valley Forge Christian all complete the process and become full members for 2016-17, that would mean that we would reach the 416-participants threshold necessary to get a 64-team bracket for the 2017 D3 tourney, budget willing.

    We might be getting McMurry back around that time as well.

    I have them as being eligible for full membership in 2018-19, do you think they'll be sped up through the pipeline? That would be nice.

    They thought so, but they don't have anything official on that as of yet.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 18, 2015, 12:04:19 PM
    From what I've gathered... no one at the NCAA is inclined to speed up anything for McMurry after this back and forth they have done. I didn't get any sense they were going to get any breaks with this.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on August 19, 2015, 11:07:28 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 18, 2015, 12:04:19 PM
    From what I've gathered... no one at the NCAA is inclined to speed up anything for McMurry after this back and forth they have done. I didn't get any sense they were going to get any breaks with this.

    Well, it seems kind of capricious to hold up their re-entry with student-athletes' postseason eligibility in the balance, but hey, whatever Indianapolis wants to do.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 19, 2015, 03:10:23 PM
    There is nothing in the by-laws that says speed things up because a school is jumping back and forth between divisions. This is the school's bed they made... they are clearly the ones, from everything I have gathered, who have not been thinking about the student-athletes first... or even second.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on August 19, 2015, 03:21:38 PM
    How are they not thinking of the student athlete when they are honoring all scholarships?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 19, 2015, 04:04:19 PM
    sac - I was referencing the post-season topic... and I believe they are obligated to honor the scholarships since they are a contract, right?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on August 19, 2015, 04:14:31 PM
    McMurry also faced cutting sports but chose to keep them and drop back to D3, that seems like directly thinking of the student athletes. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 19, 2015, 04:24:35 PM
    Many in that region would tell you their goals and plan to move up a division was also ill-conceived and they put themselves in this situation based on some bad leadership - not necessarily from those with leader in their titles.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on August 19, 2015, 04:55:59 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 19, 2015, 04:04:19 PM
    sac - I was referencing the post-season topic... and I believe they are obligated to honor the scholarships since they are a contract, right?
    Are NAIA schools even allowed to offer multi-year agreements?  I assumed they were one year scholarships that need to be renewed every year like NCAA D1 and D2 uses.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on August 19, 2015, 07:06:38 PM
    McMurry was going to move to NCAA D2, not to the NAIA.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on August 19, 2015, 08:20:46 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 19, 2015, 07:06:38 PM
    McMurry was going to move to NCAA D2, not to the NAIA.
    well then, they were definitely not giving out any multi-year scholarships.  Coaches can choose to not renew the scholarship for any reason, but if they don't want to hurt their recruiting reputation the reason better be good.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on August 20, 2015, 12:10:00 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 19, 2015, 03:10:23 PM
    There is nothing in the by-laws that says speed things up because a school is jumping back and forth between divisions. This is the school's bed they made... they are clearly the ones, from everything I have gathered, who have not been thinking about the student-athletes first... or even second.

    It's clear what side you're on here. :) There's nothing in the bylaws about a situation like this whatsoever, right? I'm sure that McMurry would be allowed the same opportunity as anyone else to have a year of their transition waived, regardless of some people's apparent emotions about it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 21, 2015, 11:19:31 AM
    Don't put words in my mouth... I am on no side of the issue(s). What I have been hearing from different angles is that McMurray hasn't exactly garnered any favors from anyone and no one is exactly in the mood to grant them any. Does that mean they won't skip a year and that request would be denied? No. It certainly could happen. I am just indicating nothing from what I have gathered indicates the back and forth jumping around by McMurray has been well received and thus I would argue they have made the process more difficult for themselves than help themselves.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on August 21, 2015, 06:08:04 PM
    Gotcha. I'll keep that in mind, although it's hard to tell when you're posting scuttlebutt (not on the record facts) only on one side of the McMurry question.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on August 21, 2015, 06:31:06 PM
    Knowing I may not get back to this topic for several days because we are putting Kickoff out the door, here's my full take on this:

    First of all, there has already been plenty of punishment along these lines already. A couple of people at a couple of conferences got ticked off that McMurry had a little success in its last season in Division III, and got a rule passed that made schools that had announced they were leaving for another division ineligible for the postseason from that moment on. This didn't affect McMurry, but it does affect the ASC, because "The McMurry Rule" was applied to Mississippi College in 2013-14, meaning that the ASC doesn't have an automatic bid in football this season. By all common sense, the ASC should have one year left on its grace period, because Mississippi College fully participated in the 2013 ASC football season and the conference had seven members at that time.

    Secondly, McMurry's administration recognized relatively early on that it had made a mistake and took the right steps to reverse it. Of course, Dave does point out that there's nothing in the bylaws that says to speed up re-entry, but of course, there is nothing in the bylaws one way or the other covering transitioning in a school that never finished transitioning out. If the NCAA holds up McMurry a full four (or five) years in becoming eligible, all it's doing is hurting student-athletes. Let's find a way to let them fix their mistakes and remain contented members of Division III -- as contented as any Texas school can be with an organization that screws over Texas (and others) every time it wants to save a buck.

    Lastly, "many in the region would tell you" is just plain weak sauce. We all could find "many" (whatever that means) people who would say things. That doesn't mean they are decision-makers or that all of them are even well-informed. Plenty of people have opinions. I happen to agree that the plan was ill-conceived and said that from the get-go, but to couch it as that kind of hearsay is just poor debate.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on October 26, 2015, 09:24:51 AM
    I their September meeting, the NCAA Championships Committee once again reaffirmed that the final regional rankings will go unpublished.

    Good on the Men's Basketball Committee for continually recommending transparency in this regard; hopefully other sports are jumping / will jump on board as well to eventually get those published publicly.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 26, 2015, 04:12:18 PM
    This is disappointing on two fronts, by the way: the fact they still will not be published and the idea I heard was gaining traction to allow each committee to make its own decision was also shot down.

    I need to get back on the grinding machine with this. It is a real joke.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 12, 2015, 01:56:56 PM
    "The off-season is over. The basketball season has arrived, but it can't start without Hoopsville hitting the air! Tune in tonight as Dave talks to the two preseason number one teams, touches base with a major coaching change, checks in with the men's basketball National Committee chair, and previews the Northeast Region.

    Show starts at 7PM ET! www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/nov12 (http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/nov12)

    Guests include:
    - Grey Giovanine, head coach for #1 Augustana men
    - Jeff Hans, head coach for #1 Thomas More women
    - Brian Van Haaften, men's basketball committee chair and head coach for Buena Vista
    - Trevor Woodruff, head coach for Scranton women
    - Matt Noonan, Northeast Regional Reporter"

    You can also catch up on the Hoopsville New Rules Special we did and published yesterday. We chatted with:
    - Bill Raleigh, Southwestern Assistant Athletic Director and former men's basketball coach along with being on the men's rules committee
    - Brad Duckworth, Alverno Athletic Director and women's head coach along with being the current chair of the women's rules committee
    - Tim Fitzpatrick, Coast Guard Athletic Director

    You can watch or listen to that show here: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/rules-special (http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/rules-special)

    AND BIG NEWS... Hoopsville has added Sunday shows to this year's November and December schedule. That means the show will air Thursdays and Sundays from the beginning of the season until the end. Each show will air at 7pm ET (unless noted) with a few shows in November and December being canceled due to holidays or other responsibilities (i.e. Gagliari Trophy and Stagg Bowl Week).

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com (http://www.d3hoopsville.com)
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville)
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville (http://www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville)
    SoundCloud (podcast): www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville (http://www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 02, 2016, 07:44:08 PM

    Kind of sad Nebraska Wesleyan didn't play a d3 schedule this year - this team looks really good, but they're graduating most of their talent.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 03, 2016, 01:17:45 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 02, 2016, 07:44:08 PM

    Kind of sad Nebraska Wesleyan didn't play a d3 schedule this year - this team looks really good, but they're graduating most of their talent.

    Well they are eligible for the NCAA tournament and they are always granted an exemption to the schedule challenges making them eligible for an at-large. Granted, the chances are slim, but they have a chance. Of course, they are only playing four Division III opponents this season, so I doubt the exemptions will help that much. LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 03, 2016, 04:57:14 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 03, 2016, 01:17:45 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 02, 2016, 07:44:08 PM

    Kind of sad Nebraska Wesleyan didn't play a d3 schedule this year - this team looks really good, but they're graduating most of their talent.

    Well they are eligible for the NCAA tournament and they are always granted an exemption to the schedule challenges making them eligible for an at-large. Granted, the chances are slim, but they have a chance. Of course, they are only playing four Division III opponents this season, so I doubt the exemptions will help that much. LOL

    Exactly.  Without a real d3 schedule I have a hard time believing they'll be seriously considered.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 03, 2016, 05:05:59 PM
    They have been in the conversation with less than half of their schedule being D3... just not sure four games will allow it. Will have to chat with the chair about it sometime soon.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 03, 2016, 07:24:04 PM
    Neb. Wesleyan is listed as being eligible for NAIA post-season play on the NAIA website.  I don't know if that constitutes declaring for the NAIA post-season or not in the NCAA's eyes but at least to the NAIA they can compete there.  It would match what NWU has done in most sports for several years now.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 03, 2016, 07:41:06 PM
    According to the NCAA Pre-Championship Handbook, they have declared themselves eligible for the basketball tournament. That is a decision they usually have to make in May or June, so I would be surprised if that changes or is wrong.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 03, 2016, 07:57:08 PM
    That's where I don't know whether NAIA is more flexible with Neb. Wesleyan in allowing them to "jump to the NCAA" tournament.  Neb. Wesleyan was ranked in the their conference rankings back in early December.

    I'm not sure NAIA says one or the other for them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on January 04, 2016, 07:30:40 PM
    Quote from: sac on January 03, 2016, 07:57:08 PM
    That's where I don't know whether NAIA is more flexible with Neb. Wesleyan in allowing them to "jump to the NCAA" tournament.  Neb. Wesleyan was ranked in the their conference rankings back in early December.

    I'm not sure NAIA says one or the other for them.

    My understanding is that the NAIA changed its rules in order to disallow schools from postseason eligibility that  announce that they will be moving to the NCAA in the future (or, in NebWes's case, that announce that the school's long-standing bigamy will end as NWU will keep the NCAA affiliation and drop the NAIA affiliation starting in 2016-17). This rule was put in place to help stem the bleeding that was going on for quite a while as NAIA schools jumped ship to join NCAA D2 or D3. It was sort of a "if you plan on walking out the door on us tomorrow, you can't go dancing with us tonight" rule.

    Perhaps that rule has since been rescinded. Or perhaps the NAIA website listing of NebWes as an NAIA-tourney-eligible school to which sac referred is an error. As we all know, it wouldn't be the first time that one of the national organizations bollixed this sort of thing online.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 11, 2016, 01:37:42 PM
    New Pre-Championship Handbook is out: http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball. They still haven't updated the OWP/OOWP explanation page so it still doesn't make sense.

    I've updated my regional ranking data through Sunday night. Hosting it at a new site: http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ so update your bookmarks accordingly (and page through some of the hot internet #content while you're at it  :)).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on January 11, 2016, 01:55:41 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 11, 2016, 01:37:42 PM
    New Pre-Championship Handbook is out: http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball. They still haven't updated the OWP/OOWP explanation page so it still doesn't make sense.

    I've updated my regional ranking data through Sunday night. Hosting it at a new site: http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ so update your bookmarks accordingly (and page through some of the hot internet #content while you're at it  :)).

      Men with host priority in regional round for those with both(men/women) teams in the tourneys; women have priority in sectional round. No pool B for men - only Pools A and C this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on January 11, 2016, 04:47:38 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 11, 2016, 01:37:42 PM
    New Pre-Championship Handbook is out: http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball. They still haven't updated the OWP/OOWP explanation page so it still doesn't make sense.

    I've updated my regional ranking data through Sunday night. Hosting it at a new site: http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ so update your bookmarks accordingly (and page through some of the hot internet #content while you're at it  :)).
    It is hard to write something that makes sense when you use crayons.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on January 11, 2016, 05:09:41 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 11, 2016, 01:37:42 PM
    New Pre-Championship Handbook is out: http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball. They still haven't updated the OWP/OOWP explanation page so it still doesn't make sense.

    I've updated my regional ranking data through Sunday night. Hosting it at a new site: http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ so update your bookmarks accordingly (and page through some of the hot internet #content while you're at it  :)).
    Thanks for the link.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 11, 2016, 06:13:44 PM
    I plan to chat with the liaison somewhat soon. She is usually terrific and getting any issues taken care of quickly. I will read through it as well to double-check, but if there are items you see, let me know.

    KnightSlappy - what do you mean they aren't describing the SOS correctly? Is it that they are going with the generic version versus the more detailed version? If that is the case, I don't think they will change that as I remember a discussion last year of not wanting to get into the details for reading reasons more than anything. But let me know what you are seeing and I will try and relay that information (remember, they are getting this description from the stats department).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 11, 2016, 08:57:35 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 11, 2016, 06:13:44 PM
    I plan to chat with the liaison somewhat soon. She is usually terrific and getting any issues taken care of quickly. I will read through it as well to double-check, but if there are items you see, let me know.

    KnightSlappy - what do you mean they aren't describing the SOS correctly? Is it that they are going with the generic version versus the more detailed version? If that is the case, I don't think they will change that as I remember a discussion last year of not wanting to get into the details for reading reasons more than anything. But let me know what you are seeing and I will try and relay that information (remember, they are getting this description from the stats department).

    http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015-16_DIIIMBB_PreChamps_20151102.pdf

    Bottom of page 18. They show a revised record that adds up to 72.25-52.25 (.5515) (with some funky math because it doesn't show home/road so how are they using multipliers to get decimals!?) and then show another column that says .5585 (OWP).

    It then states below that the team's OWP is .5585.

    That makes it seem like they're computing OWP as the average of the percentages but that's not what we found out a year or so ago when you sent them that clarification email. They clearly told us they're adding the multiplier to the revised record (wins and losses) and summing the W/L values to come up with an overall OWP.

    It's the same chart/explanation as last year's manual, straight copy/paste, but it doesn't at all show how the numbers are being computed.

    If they need me to come down to Indianapolis to set them straight I can do that :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 11, 2016, 09:07:09 PM
    I got ya... I highly doubt they are going to change that because it is so detailed... but I will be happy to double-check how they are computing it.

    IF you want to show how it should read - being concise like they have to be in the manual - I would be happy to send it to them for them to maybe include instead of their current version.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 11, 2016, 09:25:44 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 11, 2016, 09:07:09 PM
    I got ya... I highly doubt they are going to change that because it is so detailed... but I will be happy to double-check how they are computing it.

    IF you want to show how it should read - being concise like they have to be in the manual - I would be happy to send it to them for them to maybe include instead of their current version.

    I still have the example from the NCAA that you forwarded to me back in March. It definitely shows how they calculated OWP last year, but one would never figure it out reading the manual.

    But even if the explanation made sense it would still be explaining a crap method. As I've shown numerous times, it's possible -- using the NCAA's method -- that flipping a game from road to home could result in a higher SOS number (and vice versa).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 11, 2016, 09:35:31 PM
    Yeah... but the problem with that is until someone shows them that... it won't change. But to be honest it also makes sense based on the fact your OPPONENTS are now getting the 1.25 boost and you are no longer getting it - I think.

    Anyway... I will be seeing people this week in Texas. I will try and see if I can get a meeting set-up or something. Who knows when that would happen if it would happen in the first place... but it's worth a try.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 11, 2016, 09:45:49 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 11, 2016, 09:35:31 PM
    Yeah... but the problem with that is until someone shows them that... it won't change. But to be honest it also makes sense based on the fact your OPPONENTS are now getting the 1.25 boost and you are no longer getting it - I think.

    Anyway... I will be seeing people this week in Texas. I will try and see if I can get a meeting set-up or something. Who knows when that would happen if it would happen in the first place... but it's worth a try.

    Sent you an email.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 11, 2016, 09:47:00 PM
    Just saw... will read through it shortly. Scrambling to figure out Hoopsville tonight. LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 15, 2016, 02:46:40 PM
    Well, the Regional Rankings don't come out for a month, but who cares, right?

    Trying to figure out the Central Region. Others can chime in on this region or others.

    1. Benedictine 15-0: I didn't want to putthem 1st for some reason, but they beat Elmhurst and also have wins over possible regionally ranked opponents Aurora and NCC.

    2. Elmhurst 14-1: The win over Augustana is key. They also have wins over Alma and NCC.

    3. Augustana 14-1: Wins over Whitewater, Wash U., and a good Oshkosh team.

    4. Chicago 10-2: Loss at Mount Union and North Park, but did beat Washington U. and NCC.

    5. North Central 10-5: All of their losses are to potentiallyregionally ranked opponents-Chicago, Aurora, Alma, Benedictine and Augustana. A win over Mount Union as well.

    6. Aurora 12-3: A win over NCC and a loss vs Benedictine.

    7. Whitewater 11-3: Lost to Augustana.

    8. St. Norbert 11-2: Lost to Alma.

    *I'm not an expert and I've never played one on TV.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 15, 2016, 06:08:01 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 15, 2016, 02:46:40 PM
    Well, the Regional Rankings don't come out for a month, but who cares, right?

    Trying to figure out the Central Region. Others can chime in on this region or others.

    1. Benedictine 15-0: I didn't want to putthem 1st for some reason, but they beat Elmhurst and also have wins over possible regionally ranked opponents Aurora and NCC.

    2. Elmhurst 14-1: The win over Augustana is key. They also have wins over Alma and NCC.

    3. Augustana 14-1: Wins over Whitewater, Wash U., and a good Oshkosh team.

    4. Chicago 10-2: Loss at Mount Union and North Park, but did beat Washington U. and NCC.

    5. North Central 10-5: All of their losses are to potentiallyregionally ranked opponents-Chicago, Aurora, Alma, Benedictine and Augustana. A win over Mount Union as well.

    6. Aurora 12-3: A win over NCC and a loss vs Benedictine.

    7. Whitewater 11-3: Lost to Augustana.

    8. St. Norbert 11-2: Lost to Alma.

    *I'm not an expert and I've never played one on TV.

    I ran a quick update to the RPI numbers if you want to look at SOS as well.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Benedictine is probably #1 due to the common opponent result vs. Elmhurst, but Augustana is right on their heels with a better SOS number.

    Augustana and Elmhurst currently have a .070 gap in SOS. Is the H2H result enough to overcome that for the Bluejays?

    I'd knock North Central down a few spots. The RACs just have not liked to rank teams with winning percentages in the .600s very highly. The Aurora H2H loss would at least flip those two, I think.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 15, 2016, 06:14:46 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 15, 2016, 06:08:01 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 15, 2016, 02:46:40 PM
    Well, the Regional Rankings don't come out for a month, but who cares, right?

    Trying to figure out the Central Region. Others can chime in on this region or others.

    1. Benedictine 15-0: I didn't want to putthem 1st for some reason, but they beat Elmhurst and also have wins over possible regionally ranked opponents Aurora and NCC.

    2. Elmhurst 14-1: The win over Augustana is key. They also have wins over Alma and NCC.

    3. Augustana 14-1: Wins over Whitewater, Wash U., and a good Oshkosh team.

    4. Chicago 10-2: Loss at Mount Union and North Park, but did beat Washington U. and NCC.

    5. North Central 10-5: All of their losses are to potentiallyregionally ranked opponents-Chicago, Aurora, Alma, Benedictine and Augustana. A win over Mount Union as well.

    6. Aurora 12-3: A win over NCC and a loss vs Benedictine.

    7. Whitewater 11-3: Lost to Augustana.

    8. St. Norbert 11-2: Lost to Alma.

    *I'm not an expert and I've never played one on TV.

    I ran a quick update to the RPI numbers if you want to look at SOS as well.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Benedictine is probably #1 due to the common opponent result vs. Elmhurst, but Augustana is right on their heels with a better SOS number.

    Augustana and Elmhurst currently have a .070 gap in SOS. Is the H2H result enough to overcome that for the Bluejays?

    I'd knock North Central down a few spots. The RACs just have not liked to rank teams with winning percentages in the .600s very highly. The Aurora H2H loss would at least flip those two, I think.

    Remember... the .030 to 2 wins/losses comparison. If Augustana is .070 better than Elmhurst, they are going to adjust the records accordingly. Not to mention the fact the loss would have already been removed/factored in based on the fact they played head-to-head. We have seen it in the past and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw it in February (first rankings will be the 10th) that Augustana would be ranked ahead of Elmhurst based on all the data despite a head-to-head win for Elmhurst. Just something to think about - not sure I am right about that... but we have seen similiar situations play out before.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 15, 2016, 06:25:41 PM
    The Augie/Elmhurst re-match is on 1-27, so that will certainly affect the rankings once they come out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 15, 2016, 07:40:11 PM
    I considered flip-flopping Aurora and NCC, based on H2H, but NCC's schedule strength seems to be a lot better than Aurora's. In this case, I took SOS over H2H.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 15, 2016, 07:42:30 PM

    If we're really going with the .3/2 ratio, Augie will be #1.  They've got .3 on Benedictine and only a one loss difference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 16, 2016, 09:56:33 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 15, 2016, 07:42:30 PM

    If we're really going with the .3/2 ratio, Augie will be #1.  They've got .3 on Benedictine and only a one loss difference.

    I'm not sure how the committees deal with undefeated teams, but it would make sense to give them a little extra boost. Whereas Augustana's ability been observed to be .933 against a .572 schedule, Benedictine's is 1.000 against a schedule of at least .544.

    They are very very close right now, and it's probably not worth splitting the hairs. I'm just guessing the RAC will figure ties go to the runner, where undefeated teams are concerned.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 17, 2016, 01:52:44 PM
    The committee will certainly honor an undefeated team if they have other numbers that are decent. It's when they have poor numbers (Albertus Magnus in the past) is when they will get hurt. In this case, I can't imagine Benedictine not getting some benefit of any doubt.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 17, 2016, 05:22:21 PM
    New SOS update through Sunday night's games if you want to see how the weekend affected any of the data.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2016, 09:27:16 AM
    New data through Monday, Jan 25. I think I'm finally caught up after all the postponements.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    When was the last time the WIAC failed to rank even one team?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on January 26, 2016, 09:34:03 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2016, 09:27:16 AM
    New data through Monday, Jan 25. I think I'm finally caught up after all the postponements.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    When was the last time the WIAC failed to rank even one team?

    Hasn't happened. Ever. Well, except for last week too.

    Stevens Point alone has been ranked in every poll but a handful.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2016, 10:49:28 AM
    PSA: I'm now providing links back to the d3hoops.com team pages on my regional ranking data page for quick and easy reference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 27, 2016, 01:02:46 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 27, 2016, 10:49:28 AM
    PSA: I'm now providing links back to the d3hoops.com team pages on my regional ranking data page for quick and easy reference.
    +1
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 31, 2016, 08:12:19 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2016, 09:27:16 AM
    New data through Monday, Jan 25. I think I'm finally caught up after all the postponements.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    When was the last time the WIAC failed to rank even one team?

    Just looking at the page - the SUNYAC numbers seem to have only conference games instead of a full d3 record.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2016, 09:29:27 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 31, 2016, 08:12:19 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2016, 09:27:16 AM
    New data through Monday, Jan 25. I think I'm finally caught up after all the postponements.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    When was the last time the WIAC failed to rank even one team?

    Just looking at the page - the SUNYAC numbers seem to have only conference games instead of a full d3 record.

    We changed the names we use to reference a handful of SUNYAC schools in order to conform to their wishes. Might affect whatever you're using to collect info?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 31, 2016, 09:33:36 PM
    So the 10th is the 1st regional rankings?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on January 31, 2016, 09:40:27 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2016, 09:29:27 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 31, 2016, 08:12:19 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2016, 09:27:16 AM
    New data through Monday, Jan 25. I think I'm finally caught up after all the postponements.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    When was the last time the WIAC failed to rank even one team?

    Just looking at the page - the SUNYAC numbers seem to have only conference games instead of a full d3 record.

    We changed the names we use to reference a handful of SUNYAC schools in order to conform to their wishes. Might affect whatever you're using to collect info?

    Is this the SUNY Brockport vs. Brockport State thing?

    I always liked saying Brockport State better myself but (at that time, I am unsure of what they are desiring with their current administration,) I think we were told to say SUNY Brockport.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2016, 09:49:12 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 31, 2016, 09:33:36 PM
    So the 10th is the 1st regional rankings?

    Correct... Feb. 10 is the first regional rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 01, 2016, 09:08:35 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2016, 09:29:27 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 31, 2016, 08:12:19 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2016, 09:27:16 AM
    New data through Monday, Jan 25. I think I'm finally caught up after all the postponements.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    When was the last time the WIAC failed to rank even one team?

    Just looking at the page - the SUNYAC numbers seem to have only conference games instead of a full d3 record.

    We changed the names we use to reference a handful of SUNYAC schools in order to conform to their wishes. Might affect whatever you're using to collect info?

    Yep, this would affect how the numbers pull in. I think I have it fixed now for these SUNYAC teams.

    Feel free to check my work everybody. Team names on my rankings page should match the d3hoops names exactly (with the exception that I remove apostrophes).

    Any other name changes you can think of?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2016, 07:21:08 PM
    Quote from: pg04 on January 31, 2016, 09:40:27 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2016, 09:29:27 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 31, 2016, 08:12:19 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2016, 09:27:16 AM
    New data through Monday, Jan 25. I think I'm finally caught up after all the postponements.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    When was the last time the WIAC failed to rank even one team?

    Just looking at the page - the SUNYAC numbers seem to have only conference games instead of a full d3 record.

    We changed the names we use to reference a handful of SUNYAC schools in order to conform to their wishes. Might affect whatever you're using to collect info?

    Is this the SUNY Brockport vs. Brockport State thing?

    I always liked saying Brockport State better myself but (at that time, I am unsure of what they are desiring with their current administration,) I think we were told to say SUNY Brockport.

    I admit that I've been gone from the Empire State for a long time now, but I've never heard anyone from upstate New York refer to one of the SUNY schools by using the "SUNY" prefix. Sure, people use the acronym "SUNY" (pronounced "soony", not "sunny", or at least it's pronounced that way in central NY) when referring to New York's state university system as a whole, but it's always been "Brockport State" or "Buff State" or "Potsdam State" or "Cortland State", or just the name of the town, as in "Geneseo" or "Fredonia" or "Morrisville". "Soony Brockport" or "Soony Oswego" just sounds plain goofy to my ears.

    Again, though, I've been gone a long time, and perhaps the drumbeat of officialdom that pg04 indicated has changed things.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 01, 2016, 08:04:18 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 01, 2016, 09:08:35 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2016, 09:29:27 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 31, 2016, 08:12:19 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 26, 2016, 09:27:16 AM
    New data through Monday, Jan 25. I think I'm finally caught up after all the postponements.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    When was the last time the WIAC failed to rank even one team?

    Just looking at the page - the SUNYAC numbers seem to have only conference games instead of a full d3 record.

    We changed the names we use to reference a handful of SUNYAC schools in order to conform to their wishes. Might affect whatever you're using to collect info?

    Yep, this would affect how the numbers pull in. I think I have it fixed now for these SUNYAC teams.

    Feel free to check my work everybody. Team names on my rankings page should match the d3hoops names exactly (with the exception that I remove apostrophes).

    Any other name changes you can think of?

    I am given to understand that Baptist Bible has become Summit.

    slinks away sniggering
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2016, 08:20:57 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2016, 07:21:08 PM
    I admit that I've been gone from the Empire State for a long time now, but I've never heard anyone from upstate New York refer to one of the SUNY schools by using the "SUNY" prefix. Sure, people use the acronym "SUNY" (pronounced "soony", not "sunny", or at least it's pronounced that way in central NY) when referring to New York's state university system as a whole, but it's always been "Brockport State" or "Buff State" or "Potsdam State" or "Cortland State", or just the name of the town, as in "Geneseo" or "Fredonia" or "Morrisville". "Soony Brockport" or "Soony Oswego" just sounds plain goofy to my ears.

    Again, though, I've been gone a long time, and perhaps the drumbeat of officialdom that pg04 indicated has changed things.

    It's SOONY - needs an extra N for SUNNY. :)

    As for what it always has been... the presidents at these institutions have been changing the way they have been called over the recent years. Buffalo State is actually one of the rare ones who likes having "state" in their name. The rest rather have it be SUNY (location) or just (location). They rather not have "state" mentioned at all. They want the pride in "SUNY" to be part of it. It has honestly caused more confusion than it needs to be... but that is neither here or nor there when it comes to presidents as we all know.

    Interestingly, Maryland has gone through something similar. Basically everyone got rid of "state" (i.e. Towson State, Salisbury State, etc.) except some of the state schools that aren't state schools (Bowie, Coppin, Morgan, etc.) and Frostburg State. I am convinced Frostburg won't change their name because they go from FSU to FU. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2016, 09:32:26 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2016, 08:20:57 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2016, 07:21:08 PM
    I admit that I've been gone from the Empire State for a long time now, but I've never heard anyone from upstate New York refer to one of the SUNY schools by using the "SUNY" prefix. Sure, people use the acronym "SUNY" (pronounced "soony", not "sunny", or at least it's pronounced that way in central NY) when referring to New York's state university system as a whole, but it's always been "Brockport State" or "Buff State" or "Potsdam State" or "Cortland State", or just the name of the town, as in "Geneseo" or "Fredonia" or "Morrisville". "Soony Brockport" or "Soony Oswego" just sounds plain goofy to my ears.

    Again, though, I've been gone a long time, and perhaps the drumbeat of officialdom that pg04 indicated has changed things.

    It's SOONY - needs an extra N for SUNNY. :)

    Exactly. Saying "sunny" is an inevitable prompt for an upstater to reply, "You're not from around here, are you?"

    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2016, 08:20:57 PMAs for what it always has been... the presidents at these institutions have been changing the way they have been called over the recent years. Buffalo State is actually one of the rare ones who likes having "state" in their name.

    I doubt that it's because the school's administrators "like" it. I suspect that it's more because one of the three flagship campuses of the SUNY system, the University at Buffalo (known to everyone in western New York as "UB"), shares that city with Buff State (which used to be the local "normal school", a college that trained teachers). People who don't live in the Niagara Frontier are generally confused about the fact that Buffalo has not one but two large state schools, and specifically calling the smaller one "Buffalo State" is a good way to create a separate identity for it in the public's mind.

    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2016, 08:20:57 PMThe rest rather have it be SUNY (location) or just (location). They rather not have "state" mentioned at all. They want the pride in "SUNY" to be part of it.

    While that's undoubtedly the official line that you've been fed by administrators, D-Mac, I think that it's more a matter of school officials trying to avoid the stigma attached to the word "State" as part of a school's name. That's not to say that there aren't publicly-owned colleges and universities in America that have good academic reputations. But the modifier "State" seems to be associated in the general American mindset with land-grant universities in particular that don't have the good academic rep of the state's flagship public university. (Think Michigan State University, as opposed to the University of Michigan; Iowa State University, as opposed to the University of Iowa; the Cal State schools as opposed to Berkeley or UCLA; Kansas State University, as opposed to the University of Kansas; there's lots of other examples.)

    The word "State" in a school's name is almost treated as though it's a wart or a polyp -- an unsightly growth that is best removed. (Trine University, I'm looking in your direction. ;))
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 01, 2016, 09:34:00 PM
    I can see Buffalo state not budging at all, because then you'd have SUNY Buffalo and... SUNY Buffalo ??? ???

    But like I said previously I (and our manager) liked using the "Brockport State" version even with the push back way back then.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 01, 2016, 09:37:13 PM
    Adding to what I said and what GS said, they don't even say UB anymore really, if you look at the stadium field and uniform it's The State University of New York at Buffalo. Somehow they fit that all on the jersey.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2016, 09:44:54 PM
    School administrators. ::)

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2F1nW3fu4YBzKve%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=910a70636234e926f44b61a108176b6cce012952)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 01, 2016, 09:49:49 PM
    Sager - you may think I am getting the "party line," but usually the ones I am talking to will tell me what the "party line" is and then what the real reason is after all. Right now, it's a combination of the state issue as you and I have both described along with trying to be universal throughout the entire system. They really are trying to rally around the SUNY for whatever reason. I personally don't care enough to get more involved... I just want to make sure I am respecting them enough to call them by their right names. Certainly don't want people thinking I, like broadcasters on the NCAA selection shows, don't respect them enough to call them by their right name.

    I know the New York State region well. Half of my extended family is from the Mohawk Valley and surrounding areas including going to a few schools in the region. And I thought my grandfather had something to do with the SUNY system as a state judge, but I have to get deep into my records to find that one apparently.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 02, 2016, 08:34:01 AM
    I have to agree with Greg on this whole SUNY issue. Here in Plattsburgh we don't mind being called Plattsburgh State.  ;D

    I also know a number of people at my alma mater that are employed at Potsdam State. I haven't heard one of them, yet, refer to the school as SUNY Potsdam.

    Of the 10 teams in the SUNYAC conference there are 3 of them, Plattsburgh State, Oswego State and Buffalo State that have not gone in the SUNY direction.

    Brockport is not SUNY Brockport but "The College at Brockport"

    Cortland refers to themselves as SUNY Cortland, in articles I've seen on their website but I see that D3hoops doesn't call them SUNY Cortland on their D3hoops page.

    The same with Fredonia. The school website refers to their name as SUNY Fredonia, yet their uniforms say Fredonia State on them.  D3 hoops just calls them Fredonia. Most of their write ups on the sports teams simply refer to them as Fredonia.

    So we basically have 6 teams that use the SUNY prefix... SUNY Cortland, SUNY Fredonia, SUNY Geneseo,   SUNY New Paltz, SUNY Oneonta, and SUNY Potsdam. Although sometimes they drop the SUNY.

    Then we have 3 schools that use the State designation...Buffalo State, Oswego State, and Plattsburgh State. They don't mind being called State schools.

    Finally we have the College at Brockport that stands alone, using neither of the above monikers.


    Of course there is also affiliate Morrisville State, that is a member of the SUNYAC Hockey conference. They don't appear to mind the State handle either.

    And I'm not even going to get into the 2 year schools that are now 4 year schools, like SUNY-Canton and
    SUNY-Cobleskill, that need to add that all important hyphen to their name. Not to mention SUNYIT in Utica, that the last time I looked, was no longer SUNYIT, but called the SUNY Polytechnic Institute (Please note D3hoops) . All their sports write-ups refer to them as SUNY Poly (capitals on the SUNY and no hyphen)

    Don't forget Alfred State another former 2 year school, that is now a 4 year school, and is a provisional member of D3, but not a member of any conference..yet.

    We could also mention all those other SUNY schools that are now in Division I, like Binghamton University, Stony Brook University, The University at Albany and The University at Buffalo, some of whom were also referred to as "State" schools at one time or another.

    You can call me SUNY or you can call me SUNNY or you can call me Potsdam College, or you can call me, The College at Potsdam or you can call me the State University at Potsdam, but you doesn't has to call me Potsdam State. ::)     

    Hard to keep up with the SUNY schools but I'm calling all the ones in the SUNYAC hoops conference what I've always called them and that's Potsdam State, Plattsburgh State, Geneseo State...well you get the picture.



         
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 02, 2016, 12:59:44 PM
    Cortland and Fredonia was how they wanted to be listed, yeah. I preferred it all being uniform the way AP style was, but oh well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 03, 2016, 08:16:46 PM
    At least it's not the University of the South / Sewanee issue.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2016, 08:56:55 PM
    Data updated through Sunday 2/7. We'll see the first regional rankings using this data on Wednesday.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on February 07, 2016, 10:14:30 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2016, 08:56:55 PM
    Data updated through Sunday 2/7. We'll see the first regional rankings using this data on Wednesday.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    As always, thanks for doing this. It's incredibly useful and something I look at all the time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 09, 2016, 12:38:40 PM
    Looking for clarification on priority for 1st and 2nd round this year, women or men?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 09, 2016, 12:39:30 PM
    Women this year.

    Women in even years; Men in odd years for the first weekend.

    Men in even years; Women in odd years for the second weekend.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 09, 2016, 02:48:23 PM
    KS's RPI Index updated through Sunday's games:
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Current Pool A's in position to get C's   (number on left is KS' national rank)
    1.  Benedictine  22-0    1.000/.536/0-0
    2.  St. Thomas  19-1      .950/.552/0-0
    3.  Augustana   21-1     .935/.548/0-0
    4.  Susquehanna  16-2    .889/.569/0-0
    5.  Christopher Newport  20-1   .952/.543/0-0
    8.  St. Norbert  18-2    .900/546/0-0
    9.  Ohio Wesleyan  19-5     .905/.545/0-0
    10.  Emory  14-5     .737/.600/0-0
    13.  Whitworth  19-1   .950/.516/0-0
    14.  John Carroll  21-0        1.000/.498/0-0
    16.  Plattsburgh State   17-3    .850/.541/0-0
    17.  Alma  16-5    .762/.568/0-0
    (Hope is technically the MIAA's A at the moment but I'll let it slide)


    Current Pool C position

    1.  Marietta  19-2   .905/.553/0-0
    2.  Amherst   18-4   .818/.577/0-0
    3.  North Central 15-6    .714/.598/0-0
    4.  Hope  17-1   .944/.510/0-0
    5.  Salisbury  16-5   .762/.566/0-0
    6.  Tufts  17-5   .773/.559/0-0
    7.  Wooster 15-5    .750/.566/0-0
    ----------------------------------------------------Bubble if all 12 A's above became C's,  Four conferences have 2 teams in the top 19 Pool C slots
    8.  Rochester  14-5   .737/.568/0-0
    9.  Lynchburg  15-5   .750/.553/0-0
    10.   Aurora   16-4     .751/.537/0-0
    11.  Elmhurst  19-3    .846/.514/0-0
    12.  Geneseo St.  14-4   .778/.539/0-0
    13.  Catholic  16-5   .762/.544/0-0
    14.  Chicago  13-6     .684/.569/0-0
    15.  Texas Lutheran  17-5  .773/.535/0-0
    16.  Brockport St.  12-7   .632/.580/0-0
    17.  Whitman  17-3      .850/.507/0-0
    18.  Oswego St.  14-6   .700/.556/0-0
    19.  Oneonta St.  13-7    .650/.572/0-0

    8-19 would need all the current A's to get A's

    20.  LaGrange  12-5     .706/.552/0-0
    21.  Carroll  15-4   .789/.523/0-0
    22.  Wesleyan  18-4   .818/.510/0-0
    23.  DeSales  15-5   .750/.532/0-0
    24.   Williams  13-8  .619/.575/0-0
    25.  Concordia-Moorhead  14-6   .700/547/0-0
    26.   St. John Fisher  15-5      .750/.527/0-0
    27.   UW River Falls  11-8     .579/.584/0-0
    28.  Bethel  14-6    .700/.543/0-0
    30.   Scranton  15-5    .750/.524/0-0
    31.   WPI  16-5    .762/.519/0-0
    32.  Mt. Union 14-5    .737/.525/0-0
    34.   NYU  17-3   .850/.482/0-0

    Alot of SUNY teams in the top 19, I imagine they play each other quite a bit in the next two weeks so that will sort itself out



    Current Pool A's that aren't in top 19 of Pool C that could get a C bid (number on left is KS's national rank)
    22.  Trinity  15-6        .714/.574/0-0
    23.  Stockton St.  17-4   .810/.538/0-0
    30.  Babson  15-5    .750/.546/0-0
    31.  Va. Wesleyan  15-6    .714/.556/0-0
    33.  Frank & Marshall  18-3   .857/.507/0-0

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2016, 03:59:02 PM
    Why is River Falls crossed out? Just curious.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 09, 2016, 07:44:12 PM
    They most likely are not going to be in a position to earn a Pool C bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 10, 2016, 01:27:47 PM
    regional rankings are out
    http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional-rankings-0
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2016, 01:52:19 PM
    Or better yet: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/02/10/first-2016-regional-rankings-released-today/
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2016, 02:02:58 PM
    I'm travelling today, but if any of you happen to notice any large discrepancies between my numbers and the ncaa's data sheets post them and I'll investigate tonight. Thanks!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2016, 02:28:31 PM
    I will try and look... trying to pour through the data as we speak while being pulled in several different directions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 10, 2016, 03:33:44 PM
     Why are there a different # of rankings for the Mid-Atlantic(6 men vs 8 women) - 1 for Bryn Mawr and 1 for the women in general?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2016, 03:40:17 PM
    The two committees use different things to determine how many should be ranked. MBB and WBB haven't agreed on this for a long time, unfortunately.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2016, 03:42:01 PM
    KnightSlappy... I posted it elsewhere for some reason, but going through your Great Lakes Region numbers you either had the exact same number or were off by .001.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2016, 05:07:10 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2016, 03:42:01 PM
    KnightSlappy... I posted it elsewhere for some reason, but going through your Great Lakes Region numbers you either had the exact same number or were off by .001.

    Good to hear. I'll try to look through some of the other regions as well to make sure they're counting all the same teams I am (Chatham, Wilson, etc), but it's good to know they appear to be calculating the SOS the same way as last year (even though I don't agree with the methodology).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2016, 05:57:49 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2016, 05:07:10 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2016, 03:42:01 PM
    KnightSlappy... I posted it elsewhere for some reason, but going through your Great Lakes Region numbers you either had the exact same number or were off by .001.

    Good to hear. I'll try to look through some of the other regions as well to make sure they're counting all the same teams I am (Chatham, Wilson, etc), but it's good to know they appear to be calculating the SOS the same way as last year (even though I don't agree with the methodology).

    Nice to know we have some numbers we can count on.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2016, 09:07:52 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 10, 2016, 05:07:10 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2016, 03:42:01 PM
    KnightSlappy... I posted it elsewhere for some reason, but going through your Great Lakes Region numbers you either had the exact same number or were off by .001.

    Good to hear. I'll try to look through some of the other regions as well to make sure they're counting all the same teams I am (Chatham, Wilson, etc), but it's good to know they appear to be calculating the SOS the same way as last year (even though I don't agree with the methodology).

    OK, so they do not list Chatham in the Great Lakes data sheet, but it appears they are counted in the record. Chatham is also excluded from the NCAA's Pre-Championship Manual. Might be something messed up with their system there.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 10, 2016, 10:51:22 PM
    I will again try to keep track of all the regionally ranked teams and their results for the week. If I have time, I'll try to update the results prior to the weekend and again after the weekend games. This may also help us in guessing who'll be ranked next week.  ???
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 10:58:58 AM
    It is baffling to me that a team in the East like Lancaster Bible doesn't get in over a team that has 6-7 losses. I mean if a team that is undefeated cant get into the rankings that tells me the NCAA has to go back to the drawing board and find different criteria. Another example Penn St Behrend a team who was 19-1 going into the rankings in the Great Lakes cant get into the top 9 in there region!! I just think its a bit ridiculous that NCAA is rewarding teams that have a bunch of losses over teams that win the games on there schedule.

    I get the SOS factor but reward teams that win there games. Its not like these teams can just go join the NESCAC or UAA OR SUNYAC.

    Lancaster and Behrend also ranked top 15 and top 25 in the D3hoops poll.

    rant over.

    would love to here what people think
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: spwood on February 11, 2016, 11:08:32 AM
    Quote from: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 10:58:58 AM
    It is baffling to me that a team in the East like Lancaster Bible doesn't get in over a team that has 6-7 losses. I mean if a team that is undefeated cant get into the rankings that tells me the NCAA has to go back to the drawing board and find different criteria. Another example Penn St Behrend a team who was 19-1 going into the rankings in the Great Lakes cant get into the top 9 in there region!! I just think its a bit ridiculous that NCAA is rewarding teams that have a bunch of losses over teams that win the games on there schedule.

    I get the SOS factor but reward teams that win there games. Its not like these teams can just go join the NESCAC or UAA OR SUNYAC.

    Lancaster and Behrend also ranked top 15 and top 25 in the D3hoops poll.

    rant over.

    would love to here what people think

    SOS has to be a factor.  In the case of Lancaster, their SOS is so weak that it does overcome their record.  I think it's widely believed that the teams ranked above them would probably have the same record if they played Lancaster's schedule.  Hey, if they win their league, they'll get their shot to prove everyone wrong...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 11:44:56 AM
    its a great debate.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 11:52:03 AM
    Quote from: spwood on February 11, 2016, 11:08:32 AM
    Quote from: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 10:58:58 AM
    It is baffling to me that a team in the East like Lancaster Bible doesn't get in over a team that has 6-7 losses. I mean if a team that is undefeated cant get into the rankings that tells me the NCAA has to go back to the drawing board and find different criteria. Another example Penn St Behrend a team who was 19-1 going into the rankings in the Great Lakes cant get into the top 9 in there region!! I just think its a bit ridiculous that NCAA is rewarding teams that have a bunch of losses over teams that win the games on there schedule.

    I get the SOS factor but reward teams that win there games. Its not like these teams can just go join the NESCAC or UAA OR SUNYAC.

    Lancaster and Behrend also ranked top 15 and top 25 in the D3hoops poll.

    rant over.

    would love to here what people think

    SOS has to be a factor.  In the case of Lancaster, their SOS is so weak that it does overcome their record.  I think it's widely believed that the teams ranked above them would probably have the same record if they played Lancaster's schedule.  Hey, if they win their league, they'll get their shot to prove everyone wrong...

    From what I was told... it absolutely has to do with the SOS. It is. 421 and I have been told by several committee sources that they can't justify it especially when using the .03 SOS = 2 games system.

    Now, there are some factors that will come into play later like vRRO that will change the equation. Remember, LBC's game against F&M isn't really being evaluated right now. It might be when it comes to common opponents, but that's it. When it comes to East Region discussions, not a lot - if any - of the East has played F&M. So, that game will pop up and maybe give LBC a boost.

    All of that is also the same with Behrend.

    No, dcahill, I would caution you comparing to the D3hoops.com Top 25. It isn't a criteria. We enter dangerous waters when we say, "but they are ranked xx, why aren't they being considered." The coaches and administrators on these committees are fully aware of the Top 25 and who are the best teams, but they have to ignore that stuff when it comes to the NCAA criteria. Plain and simple.

    I have said it publicly and some committee members know I am concerned about LBC being left out of the tournament. If, worse case scenario, they lose their first game in the conference final, it seems clear they may be left out of the NCAA Tournament. If that were to happen, I think we set a precedent that SOS is indeed more important that WL% even if they try and argue it away by using the .03=2 element. The problem is that 1 loss is 1 loss. Last year we saw the women's committee, who understands and uses the same ratio but doesn't rely on it clearly as much as the men, put McDaniel in the tournament when they picked up their second loss of the season in the conference title game. Their reasoning: at some point the fact is they only lost two games out of 26 or 27. That has to mean something.

    I don't think this plays for Behrend, though. We have already seen three and four loss teams left out of the tournament. But this committee, in recent years, has never allowed a team with a below .500 SOS into the tournament. I am not saying that happens this year because I think a number of at-large teams will be sitting there with below .500 SOS numbers. But if they stick to that plan, then we are saying the SOS is more important than WL% and I think that is getting a little dangerous.

    The irony is WL% does play a role when a team with a very strong SOS is left home because they lost too many games (North Central might get put in this situation if they are an at-large team). I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that the optics of leaving a 1-loss team at home with a bad SOS (basically because of their conference) is a precedent I don't like.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 11:52:37 AM
    BTW dcahill - you didn't even have Lancaster Bible in your mock regional rankings from the East a few days ago. And you are asking the question? LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 12:12:37 PM
    You are right Dave but I was going with what I thought the NCAA would do not my gut. but way to call me out LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 12:14:51 PM
    Thank you for clarifying everything. I know not to use the d3hoops rankings but if the coaches and administrators trust they are that good than why shouldn't the NCAA ?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 11, 2016, 12:22:18 PM
    Quote from: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 10:58:58 AM
    It is baffling to me that a team in the East like Lancaster Bible doesn't get in over a team that has 6-7 losses.
    Lancaster and Behrend also ranked top 15 and top 25 in the D3hoops poll.
    In Behrend's case, history is not on their side. The AMCC has had a hard time getting out of the first weekend of the NCAA tournament. Lake Erie, before leaving D3, was often highly ranked in the region only to get bounced early. More recently, the AMCC has...

    2015 NCAA (1st round) - Medaille 81 - Marietta 120
    2014 NCAA (1st round) - Behrend beat Hope in OT (I don't want to talk about it)
    2014 NCAA (2nd round) - Behrend 40 - Wheaton 68
    2013 NCAA (1st round) - Behrend 44 - Wooster 62...

    As for Lancaser, who's better? Lancaster Bible or SUNY-Oneonta? No one really knows...

    Lancaster Bible has played only 1 remotely good oppenent; a very impressive win against Franklin and Marshall but way back in November!

    SUNY-Oneonta has 7 losses, but according to Massey, every one of those losses was to a better team than Lancaster Bible's second best win (Eastern Univ. also back in November!) Oneonta's wins against Brockport St, Geneseo St, Oswego St, Central Iowa, St. John Fisher, Williams, and Hartwick are all "better wins" than every one of Lancaster Bible's other than Franklin and Marshall. You could easily make the argument that an average team with Lancaster Bible's schedule should be at worst 18-1.





    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 12:56:15 PM
    Quote from: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 12:14:51 PM
    Thank you for clarifying everything. I know not to use the d3hoops rankings but if the coaches and administrators trust they are that good than why shouldn't the NCAA ?

    Because almost NO selection criteria in the entire NCAA - any division - uses the Top 25 (20, 15, 10) polls as criteria. There are too many items that can cause problems with coach's and media polls and they aren't going to have polls be part of the system. The only one I know it was a factor in was the BCS, but that isn't run by the NCAA. I think there might be another group that has it, but I think it is used as a tie-breaker, that's why I say almost no one uses a poll - it could be that it isn't a criteria for any poll. That includes, by the way, the Division I men's and women's basketball tournaments.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 11, 2016, 01:31:23 PM
    I watched Lancaster Bible online once in December, I think they're quite good, they're opponents not so much.  Lancaster Bible has three distinct problems.

    1)  They play in a large conference
    2)  They play in a large conference that is very bad
    3)  They play in a small region where only 6 teams get ranked, so RRO's are nearly impossible to get from conference play, esp. being in a bad one.

    I'll even throw a 4th in here, they play in what appears to be the weaker(admittedly minimal) of the two divisions of the NEAC, meaning they playing 1 more game each against weaker teams than they would if they played in the other division.  (NEAC plays double round robin against your division opponents, single against the other)

    In the unrealistic world of playing all unbeaten teams in the non-conference on the road and every league team goes unbeaten in the non-conference the maximum OWP Lancaster Bible could hope for is .850, while a team in an 8 team conference can hope for an OWP of .988    That's a potential difference of 16%, so Lancaster (and all large conference schools) are at a distinct disadvantage to begin with.  I haven't extended that math to OOWP and calculated it out for SOS but I'm sure that difference is similar, lets be conservative and say 10%.  That disadvantage is compounded by the fact the NEAC just wasn't very good in the non-conference this year.  They were 15-66 overall excluding Lancaster Bible.  Lancaster Bible has no control over how bad its conference is, this compounds the difference in maximum OWP they could have by another 20%.

    The very maximum OWP Lancaster Bible could have had this year was .611 and that's only if they'd managed to schedule 7 road games against unbeaten teams.

    Being 30% or more behind the 8-ball just because of your conference is just really hard to make-up, one of the many things about this system we use that doesn't add up for me.


    Now it should be said Lancaster didn't help themselves by scheduling a pretty weak non-conference slate to begin with.  6 teams are currently below .500 and F&M who are 18-3 right now.  I will say they at least tried a little by only playing 1 home game, 5 away games and 1 neutral.  So they tried to take advantage of the 1.25 multiplier.  That might just point out how astonishingly bad their conference is.

    But they are primarily being punished for playing in a really bad conference, something they really can do almost nothing about and that would also apply to PSU-Behrend as well.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 11, 2016, 01:53:33 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 11:52:03 AM
    Quote from: spwood on February 11, 2016, 11:08:32 AM
    Quote from: dcahill44 on February 11, 2016, 10:58:58 AM
    It is baffling to me that a team in the East like Lancaster Bible doesn't get in over a team that has 6-7 losses. I mean if a team that is undefeated cant get into the rankings that tells me the NCAA has to go back to the drawing board and find different criteria. Another example Penn St Behrend a team who was 19-1 going into the rankings in the Great Lakes cant get into the top 9 in there region!! I just think its a bit ridiculous that NCAA is rewarding teams that have a bunch of losses over teams that win the games on there schedule.

    I get the SOS factor but reward teams that win there games. Its not like these teams can just go join the NESCAC or UAA OR SUNYAC.

    Lancaster and Behrend also ranked top 15 and top 25 in the D3hoops poll.

    rant over.

    would love to here what people think

    SOS has to be a factor.  In the case of Lancaster, their SOS is so weak that it does overcome their record.  I think it's widely believed that the teams ranked above them would probably have the same record if they played Lancaster's schedule.  Hey, if they win their league, they'll get their shot to prove everyone wrong...

    From what I was told... it absolutely has to do with the SOS. It is. 421 and I have been told by several committee sources that they can't justify it especially when using the .03 SOS = 2 games system.

    Now, there are some factors that will come into play later like vRRO that will change the equation. Remember, LBC's game against F&M isn't really being evaluated right now. It might be when it comes to common opponents, but that's it. When it comes to East Region discussions, not a lot - if any - of the East has played F&M. So, that game will pop up and maybe give LBC a boost.

    All of that is also the same with Behrend.

    No, dcahill, I would caution you comparing to the D3hoops.com Top 25. It isn't a criteria. We enter dangerous waters when we say, "but they are ranked xx, why aren't they being considered." The coaches and administrators on these committees are fully aware of the Top 25 and who are the best teams, but they have to ignore that stuff when it comes to the NCAA criteria. Plain and simple.

    I have said it publicly and some committee members know I am concerned about LBC being left out of the tournament. If, worse case scenario, they lose their first game in the conference final, it seems clear they may be left out of the NCAA Tournament. If that were to happen, I think we set a precedent that SOS is indeed more important that WL% even if they try and argue it away by using the .03=2 element. The problem is that 1 loss is 1 loss. Last year we saw the women's committee, who understands and uses the same ratio but doesn't rely on it clearly as much as the men, put McDaniel in the tournament when they picked up their second loss of the season in the conference title game. Their reasoning: at some point the fact is they only lost two games out of 26 or 27. That has to mean something.

    I don't think this plays for Behrend, though. We have already seen three and four loss teams left out of the tournament. But this committee, in recent years, has never allowed a team with a below .500 SOS into the tournament. I am not saying that happens this year because I think a number of at-large teams will be sitting there with below .500 SOS numbers. But if they stick to that plan, then we are saying the SOS is more important than WL% and I think that is getting a little dangerous.

    The irony is WL% does play a role when a team with a very strong SOS is left home because they lost too many games (North Central might get put in this situation if they are an at-large team). I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that the optics of leaving a 1-loss team at home with a bad SOS (basically because of their conference) is a precedent I don't like.

    Is this right? I feel that isn't enough SOS shift for two games, that means a 25-0 Lancaster Bible with a .421 would be considered roughly equal to a 0-25 team with a .500 SOS. Is it maybe supposed to be .3 SOS=2 games?

    Math edit: it's actually worse than that because under your numbers the difference between .421 SOS and .500 SOS is a 52 game swing.


    I retract this whole thing, I messed up a decimal point. This is why I was into writing and not math.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 11, 2016, 01:55:09 PM
    I think Dave described it as .030 = 2 games, but .060 doesn't necessarily equal 4. ergo .090 doesn't necessarily = 6 and so on
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 11, 2016, 01:57:18 PM
    I just noticed on the East Region data sheet that Lancaster Bible is being credited with only a 17-0 record.  Through Sunday they were 19-0 and I don't see the two D3 games that shouldn't be counting for them.    http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=10&division=3

    Is there a conference team that is going through the provisional process
    ????
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 01:58:05 PM
    Yeah... but this year's committee has hinted (on air and some people off air) that they may be pushing to .060 equals 4 despite clearly the words from the committee last year saying as it pushes out they lose a little faith that it as even. The NCAA Stats people have apparently poured over the numbers with them the last few years per the equation .030 SOS = 2 games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 02:00:10 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 11, 2016, 01:57:18 PM
    I just noticed on the East Region data sheet that Lancaster Bible is being credited with only a 17-0 record.  Through Sunday they were 19-0 and I don't see the two D3 games that shouldn't be counting for them.    http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=10&division=3

    Is there a conference team that is going through the provisional process
    ????

    Yes... Wilson is provisional.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 11, 2016, 02:14:58 PM
    Also, if this Lancaster Bible team is as good as we suspect they are, there is almost literally (outside of some mass disease) no way for them to lose in their conference.  The NEAC is far and away the worst conference in the country.  This isn't like Albertus Magnus of recent years where we were worried about one decent team clipping them and them missing out.  If Lancaster Bible loses in their conference tournament this year, I won't feel bad about it.

    In some sense it is unfair.  The only thing they can control is who they play non-con.  That F&M game is likely the best they could do (and I doubt G-Rob schedules them outside a tourney like that).  No one wants to play them because the chance of losing overwhelms the benefit.

    I'd be interested to see the numbers on how a conference impacts an SOS.  The NEAC's out of conference winning percentage is .256.  That's awful, but it would be interesting to know what their OOP is and how that impacts things overall.  Dave and I had a little back and forth the other day about what effect a bad conference has on overall SOS.  I was trying to argue that the NEAC is so bad, it's actually going to bring down LBC's SOS (even though typically conference play moves the SOS number towards .500).

    I just don't know for sure, because I didn't run the number.  I don't know if there's an easy way for Matt or somebody else to run those numbers and get an overall conference SOS for each conference, just to see how that impacts things.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 11, 2016, 02:24:01 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 01:58:05 PM
    Yeah... but this year's committee has hinted (on air and some people off air) that they may be pushing to .060 equals 4 despite clearly the words from the committee last year saying as it pushes out they lose a little faith that it as even. The NCAA Stats people have apparently poured over the numbers with them the last few years per the equation .030 SOS = 2 games.
    Did the stats people study the broken multiplier?  I noticed they still haven't changed the championships manual to reflect the way they actually calculate SoS.  Do we think that most committee members are aware of how the multiplier is currently used to give more weight to road games rather than make them appear in the SoS as tougher? 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 11, 2016, 02:30:47 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 11, 2016, 02:14:58 PM
    Also, if this Lancaster Bible team is as good as we suspect they are, there is almost literally (outside of some mass disease) no way for them to lose in their conference.  The NEAC is far and away the worst conference in the country.  This isn't like Albertus Magnus of recent years where we were worried about one decent team clipping them and them missing out.  If Lancaster Bible loses in their conference tournament this year, I won't feel bad about it.

    In some sense it is unfair.  The only thing they can control is who they play non-con.  That F&M game is likely the best they could do (and I doubt G-Rob schedules them outside a tourney like that).  No one wants to play them because the chance of losing overwhelms the benefit.

    I'd be interested to see the numbers on how a conference impacts an SOS.  The NEAC's out of conference winning percentage is .256.  That's awful, but it would be interesting to know what their OOP is and how that impacts things overall.  Dave and I had a little back and forth the other day about what effect a bad conference has on overall SOS.  I was trying to argue that the NEAC is so bad, it's actually going to bring down LBC's SOS (even though typically conference play moves the SOS number towards .500).

    I just don't know for sure, because I didn't run the number.  I don't know if there's an easy way for Matt or somebody else to run those numbers and get an overall conference SOS for each conference, just to see how that impacts things.


    For double-round robin leagues the conference play pulls SOS to .500 but the NEAC is unbalanced.  They play double-round robin against your division, single game against the other.

    If one division has a win-loss advantage over the other, which is always likely, the difference in records now creates an imbalance so the theory that league play equates to pulling SOS towards .500 does not apply to leagues with divisions and non-full round-robins. 

    The multiplier for home and road games also throws in an imbalance.   Lancaster gets the 1.25 multiplier vs Morrisville St, but only the .75 multiplier vs SUNYIT.  But someone else in their own division might get the opposite.   Its almost easier to think of those other division games as non-conference games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 11, 2016, 02:32:32 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 11, 2016, 02:30:47 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 11, 2016, 02:14:58 PM
    Also, if this Lancaster Bible team is as good as we suspect they are, there is almost literally (outside of some mass disease) no way for them to lose in their conference.  The NEAC is far and away the worst conference in the country.  This isn't like Albertus Magnus of recent years where we were worried about one decent team clipping them and them missing out.  If Lancaster Bible loses in their conference tournament this year, I won't feel bad about it.

    In some sense it is unfair.  The only thing they can control is who they play non-con.  That F&M game is likely the best they could do (and I doubt G-Rob schedules them outside a tourney like that).  No one wants to play them because the chance of losing overwhelms the benefit.

    I'd be interested to see the numbers on how a conference impacts an SOS.  The NEAC's out of conference winning percentage is .256.  That's awful, but it would be interesting to know what their OOP is and how that impacts things overall.  Dave and I had a little back and forth the other day about what effect a bad conference has on overall SOS.  I was trying to argue that the NEAC is so bad, it's actually going to bring down LBC's SOS (even though typically conference play moves the SOS number towards .500).

    I just don't know for sure, because I didn't run the number.  I don't know if there's an easy way for Matt or somebody else to run those numbers and get an overall conference SOS for each conference, just to see how that impacts things.


    For double-round robin leagues the conference play pulls SOS to .500 but the NEAC is unbalanced.  They play double-round robin against your division, single game against the other.

    If one division has a win-loss advantage over the other, which is always likely, the difference in records now creates an imbalance so the theory that league play equates to pulling SOS towards .500 does apply to leagues with divisions and non-full round-robins. 

    The multiplier for home and road games also throws in an imbalance.   Lancaster gets the 1.25 multiplier vs Morrisville St, but only the .75 multiplier vs SUNYIT.   Its almost easier to think of those other division games as non-conference games.

    I was wondering if a conference could be so bad, that even the movement towards .500 wouldn't happen or be significantly weakened.  There are so many 3-18 teams that got that way playing other 6-15 teams, that it seems difficult to think it's really going to improve their SOS at all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 11, 2016, 02:34:14 PM
    QuoteI just noticed on the East Region data sheet that Lancaster Bible is being credited with only a 17-0 record.  Through Sunday they were 19-0 and I don't see the two D3 games that shouldn't be counting for them.    http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=10&division=3

    Is there a conference team that is going through the provisional process
    ????

    Yes... Wilson is provisional.

    I think it's Bryn Athyn that's provisional. They are a second year provisional member of NCAA Division III.

    Wilson is a new program too, but they are full members of the NCAA. They've had women's sports for years so the men's programs are automatically full members too, even as new programs.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 11, 2016, 02:37:44 PM
    QuoteThe NEAC's out of conference winning percentage is .256. 

    In that case it's a little better than last year  (http://static.psbin.com/p/a/4n0fkwg06iibex/Division_III_Non-Conference_Records.pdf)when it was .234. The UMAC posted a .147 winning percentage last year but its champion went to the Sweet 16.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 11, 2016, 02:58:24 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 11, 2016, 02:37:44 PM
    QuoteThe NEAC's out of conference winning percentage is .256. 

    In that case it's a little better than last year  (http://static.psbin.com/p/a/4n0fkwg06iibex/Division_III_Non-Conference_Records.pdf)when it was .234. The UMAC posted a .147 winning percentage last year but its champion went to the Sweet 16.
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1133.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm587%2Frzagame%2Fanythingispossibleeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.gif&hash=462f0b40ca7bf58500cefb0d620a44a38d8c2ea3)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: coachrcal on February 11, 2016, 03:26:54 PM
    AS a coach of a NEAC team I can say the league is not as bad as people think.  The top 3 teams are all good D3 teams. Morrisville State has been in a sweet 16 and elite 8 in the past 5 years and LBC has a chance to make a deep run this year.  Also Gallaudet is a good team after getting one of there best players back for the second semester.  LBC, Morrisville and Gallaudet can play with anyone in the region.  The problem is the size and the teams at the bottom of the league.  The size wont get any better with a Saint Elizabeth adding MBB next year.  So now each team will have 20 NEAC games. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 11, 2016, 03:46:43 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 11, 2016, 02:37:44 PM
    QuoteThe NEAC's out of conference winning percentage is .256. 

    In that case it's a little better than last year  (http://static.psbin.com/p/a/4n0fkwg06iibex/Division_III_Non-Conference_Records.pdf)when it was .234. The UMAC posted a .147 winning percentage last year but its champion went to the Sweet 16.

    Along the same vein as Gordon's mention of the UMAC and Northwestern's run last year,are these facts about the NEAC that folks may have forgotten.

    In 2012-13 Morrisville State, from the same conference as Lancaster Bible, won the NEAC's automatic bid. They defeated Ramapo in the first round and then Rhode Island College to advance to the Sweet 16 where they ultimately lost to St. Mary's (Md).

    In 2013-14 Morrisville again went dancing and beat Brockport State, at Brockport, in triple overtime, after being down by 20 points early in the 2nd half. Then they beat Hobart to advance to the Sweet 16 for the 2nd year in a row. They got to play another NJAC team, Richard Stockton, (before they dropped the Richard) and won that game to go to the Elite Eight. They had to play Amherst in Amherst and the Lord Jeffs I mean the "no names" beat them by an 84-74 final score, but the NESCAC Champs knew they were in a game.

    Previously in 2009-10 the NEAC conference had SUNYIT advance to the Sweet 16.The year before that SUNYIT won a 1st round game.

    So in 3 of the past 6 years, a team from the "weak" NEAC conference has advanced to the Sweet 16. I'm willing to bet there are probably at least 25 conferences (and maybe more) that haven't had that level of success. ;D  You just never know.

      Edit: It looks like coachrcal had the same idea while I was typing my post.   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 11, 2016, 03:52:10 PM

    Yeah, I made the statement strictly for this year.  I believe the NEAC is pretty down this year, even at the top.  Galludet is playing better, but Morrisville isn't.  I don't like to make conference generalizations outside of year-to-year play - it just doesn't always hold up (cough, cough, ODAC).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 11, 2016, 03:56:38 PM
    As Dave mentioned, I very much hope if Lancaster Bible wins all but the conference title game that they'd get in with only one loss. If not then it's probably gone too far to the numbers game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 04:40:14 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 11, 2016, 02:24:01 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 01:58:05 PM
    Yeah... but this year's committee has hinted (on air and some people off air) that they may be pushing to .060 equals 4 despite clearly the words from the committee last year saying as it pushes out they lose a little faith that it as even. The NCAA Stats people have apparently poured over the numbers with them the last few years per the equation .030 SOS = 2 games.
    Did the stats people study the broken multiplier?  I noticed they still haven't changed the championships manual to reflect the way they actually calculate SoS.  Do we think that most committee members are aware of how the multiplier is currently used to give more weight to road games rather than make them appear in the SoS as tougher?

    Yes, the committee is fully aware of the weighted SOS. They are the ones who approve it and it is always a topic of conversation. There are only a handful of committees who have a weighted SOS, basketball is one of them, and they know how that works. The weighted measure was put in to get teams like F&M out of their gyms and not reward them for racking up wins at home.

    The stat people do study it, but KnightSlappy has had an argument that when they changed the math from each individual game/team getting the multiplier to it being given to the overall record for all away games and all home games it changed in a way he isn't pleased about. We have presented that to the NCAA, but so far the stats people have been deaf to the point.

    Quote from: gordonmann on February 11, 2016, 02:34:14 PM
    QuoteI just noticed on the East Region data sheet that Lancaster Bible is being credited with only a 17-0 record.  Through Sunday they were 19-0 and I don't see the two D3 games that shouldn't be counting for them.    http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank?doWhat=publicrankings&sportCode=MBB&region=10&division=3

    Is there a conference team that is going through the provisional process
    ????

    Yes... Wilson is provisional.

    I think it's Bryn Athyn that's provisional. They are a second year provisional member of NCAA Division III.

    Wilson is a new program too, but they are full members of the NCAA. They've had women's sports for years so the men's programs are automatically full members too, even as new programs.


    First off, when I posted about Wilson, I incorrectly was looking at the 2015 book. Looking at this year's book and the following teams are provisional: Bryn Athyn, Penn College, and Wilson. Now there is a rule that a team in it's third and fourth year of provisional status does have their games count towards criteria for everyone else. Team in their first and second year does not count at all.

    Quote from: coachrcal on February 11, 2016, 03:26:54 PM
    AS a coach of a NEAC team I can say the league is not as bad as people think.  The top 3 teams are all good D3 teams. Morrisville State has been in a sweet 16 and elite 8 in the past 5 years and LBC has a chance to make a deep run this year.  Also Gallaudet is a good team after getting one of there best players back for the second semester.  LBC, Morrisville and Gallaudet can play with anyone in the region.  The problem is the size and the teams at the bottom of the league.  The size wont get any better with a Saint Elizabeth adding MBB next year.  So now each team will have 20 NEAC games. 

    Coach, I hear a lot of coaches say their conferences are better than people think and while I agree the top three are least respectful (or in LBC's case, darn good), the rest of the conference isn't. That is clear in the out-of-conference schedule, that is clear in the bottom team's records and stats, etc. It is also clear in the SOS numbers. No NEAC team is going to get an at-large when the bottom of the conference keeps putting up poor records against poor schedules. Remember, LBC has missed out on the tournament the last few years when they had pretty decent teams because they lost in the conference title game (otherwise, Morrisville State would NEVER have gotten it's chance at a Sweet 16 run).

    The truth is, the NEAC and the way it is made up hurts the top teams from having any buffer. When you play that many league games and are not a strong league... at-large chances are pretty much zilch.

    I understand the "run in the NCAA tournament" theory - but that is one team. The only team to advance from the conference. We are talking the ENTIRE conference because the ENTIRE conference is what is hurting LBC's chances right now.

    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 11, 2016, 03:52:10 PM
    Yeah, I made the statement strictly for this year.  I believe the NEAC is pretty down this year, even at the top.  Galludet is playing better, but Morrisville isn't.  I don't like to make conference generalizations outside of year-to-year play - it just doesn't always hold up (cough, cough, ODAC).

    If you are going to go there, you better start including the WIAC, too. The ODAC has been a Top 5 conference for a number of years now. Just because this year is a bit down doesn't mean that title doesn't still apply to the ODAC. We certainly wouldn't say the WIAC isn't a Top 5 conference because the top is down this year, would we?

    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 11, 2016, 02:14:58 PM
    Also, if this Lancaster Bible team is as good as we suspect they are, there is almost literally (outside of some mass disease) no way for them to lose in their conference.  The NEAC is far and away the worst conference in the country.  This isn't like Albertus Magnus of recent years where we were worried about one decent team clipping them and them missing out.  If Lancaster Bible loses in their conference tournament this year, I won't feel bad about it.

    The difference being that Albertus Magnus has a loss against the best team on it's record most years... thus entering the conference tournament with one or two losses already on it's resume. The simple fact that Lancaster Bible isn't carrying a loss... with a chance their only loss comes in the conference title game (good chance the third time they are facing the opponent)... I would feel sorry for them.

    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 11, 2016, 02:14:58 PM
    In some sense it is unfair.  The only thing they can control is who they play non-con.  That F&M game is likely the best they could do (and I doubt G-Rob schedules them outside a tourney like that).  No one wants to play them because the chance of losing overwhelms the benefit.

    The sense I get is that the Lancaster Bible/F&M series will stay. Both teams seem to understand that it is a great inter-Lancaster battle that the community appreciates. This isn't St. Mary's or some other regional team that Glenn can easily duck if he wants to. This is an inter-town game and I think that changes the equation. I feel I have been told, or at least given a significant hint, that this will remaining on everyone's schedules.

    Quote from: pg04 on February 11, 2016, 03:56:38 PM
    As Dave mentioned, I very much hope if Lancaster Bible wins all but the conference title game that they'd get in with only one loss. If not then it's probably gone too far to the numbers game.

    The long and the short of it is this... win the conference and all of this talk (and a future OpEd) will be a moot point. They are dominating this conference winning by pretty sizeable margins every night. They need to keep that up and not lose focus. Win out... and we can not worry about it. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2016, 04:42:44 PM
    Here is the average SOS (total and non-conference) for each conference thru last Sunday's games (sorted by total):

    D3SOS NCSOS CONF
    0.559   0.537   CCIW
    0.534   0.521   MIAC
    0.544   0.535   SUNYAC
    0.556   0.549   WIAC
    0.548   0.502   NESCAC
    0.536   0.527   USAC
    0.552   0.493   UAA
    0.533   0.559   MIAA
    0.532   0.529   OAC
    0.521   0.536   NATHC
    0.513   0.562   LL
    0.526   0.519   CAC
    0.534   0.528   LEC
    0.531   0.511   ODAC
    0.524   0.487   LAND
    0.496   0.525   IIAC
    0.530   0.473   NWC
    0.513   0.514   NJAC
    0.508   0.515   CC
    0.512   0.495   MACF
    0.505   0.533   MASCAC
    0.515   0.450   NCAC
    0.516   0.498   MACC
    0.516   0.483   NEWMAC
    0.501   0.514   E8
    0.493   0.496   CUNYAC
    0.487   0.504   CCC
    0.468   0.535   NECC
    0.468   0.492   IND
    0.465   0.533   SKY
    0.494   0.474   MWC
    0.473   0.506   SAA
    0.473   0.481   GNAC
    0.493   0.434   SCAC
    0.474   0.439   SCIAC
    0.461   0.500   NAC
    0.452   0.502   PrAC
    0.464   0.478   AMCC
    0.457   0.487   CSAC
    0.456   0.498   NEAC
    0.457   0.468   HCAC
    0.442   0.484   SLIAC
    0.509   0.430   ASC
    0.430   0.419   UMAC

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 11, 2016, 04:46:37 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2016, 03:40:17 PM
    The two committees use different things to determine how many should be ranked. MBB and WBB haven't agreed on this for a long time, unfortunately.

    Seems like something that shouldn't be allowed-that the men's team at a school has a different chance at being regionally ranked than the women's team at the same school in the same region. This(vrro) could be a positive or a negative for a team; it just shouldn't differ by gender.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 04:48:26 PM
    I believe the NCAA's stance is that as long as the minimum number of teams are ranked by either the 6.5:1 ratio or a specific minimum number (6?), a committee can choose to rank more or not. As long as they are consistent WITHIN the gender with that application, I am sure it isn't that big a deal.

    However, I will check on it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 11, 2016, 04:51:18 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 04:40:14 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 11, 2016, 02:24:01 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 01:58:05 PM
    Yeah... but this year's committee has hinted (on air and some people off air) that they may be pushing to .060 equals 4 despite clearly the words from the committee last year saying as it pushes out they lose a little faith that it as even. The NCAA Stats people have apparently poured over the numbers with them the last few years per the equation .030 SOS = 2 games.
    Did the stats people study the broken multiplier?  I noticed they still haven't changed the championships manual to reflect the way they actually calculate SoS.  Do we think that most committee members are aware of how the multiplier is currently used to give more weight to road games rather than make them appear in the SoS as tougher?

    Yes, the committee is fully aware of the weighted SOS. They are the ones who approve it and it is always a topic of conversation. There are only a handful of committees who have a weighted SOS, basketball is one of them, and they know how that works. The weighted measure was put in to get teams like F&M out of their gyms and not reward them for racking up wins at home.

    The stat people do study it, but KnightSlappy has had an argument that when they changed the math from each individual game/team getting the multiplier to it being given to the overall record for all away games and all home games it changed in a way he isn't pleased about. We have presented that to the NCAA, but so far the stats people have been deaf to the point.
    I know we are making this an annual argument, but I still can't believe this hasn't been changed yet.

    Under the current calculation F&M is motivated to stay in their gym and play poor teams they can beat.  Much better to play terrible teams at home where the games don't mean as much than on the road against a .500 team that could beat you.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 04:56:50 PM
    I don't necessarily agree. F&M is actually an example of a team that has actually changed its scheduling over the years to improve it AND get out of their gym. Now, they normally have four games at home based on two tournaments (one of those tournaments wasn't held this season). Outside of that, they get out of town more often and play.

    Also, playing poor teams, whether the record is weighted or not, is still playing poor OWP and OOWP numbers. Sure, the home games are not as dinged, but the ding is still there and F&M, despite improvements, still doesn't have the most stellar SOS in the world (.506 this season).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2016, 06:45:30 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 04:56:50 PM
    I don't necessarily agree. F&M is actually an example of a team that has actually changed its scheduling over the years to improve it AND get out of their gym. Now, they normally have four games at home based on two tournaments (one of those tournaments wasn't held this season). Outside of that, they get out of town more often and play.

    The way the SOS is being calculated, any team that will hurt one's SOS will hurt less when played at home than on the road.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 11, 2016, 07:26:53 PM

    KS,

    If I'm reading those numbers correctly, if a conference has a lower D3SOS than NCSOS, then their conference is actually lowering the overall SOS of the teams in it?  I know these numbers are with uncompleted conference schedules, so they can't be taken as absolute.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 08:00:52 PM
    Another thing to remember about the SOS, is not only is it a fluid number based on a team still having to play games... but it is a fluid number because all of their opponents... and their opponents are still playing games. We aren't used to the SOS making dramatic changes, but we have to remember it is constantly adjusting when ever a game is played in the country.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 08:19:51 PM
    Regional rankings are finally out and with them comes plenty of upheaval around the country. What do the rankings really mean? What teams should everyone be watching this week? Who is jockeying to lock up their conference's regular season title?

    On Thursday night's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh hopes to get a lot of these questions answered. McHugh will talk to coaches from around the country who have their teams poised to capture conference crowns or at while also positioning themselves the best they can in the regional rankings.

    Hoopsville is on the air NOW, but you can also watch it On Demand or listen to the podcasts (when the show is done) here: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/feb11

    Guests include (in order of appearance):
    - Janice Luck, No. 12 Albright women's coach
    - Jon VanderWal, No. 8 Marietta men's coach
    - Lance Loya, Mount Aloysius men's coach - NABC Coach's Corner
    - Tom Glynn, Nichols' men's coach

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

    And a reminder the Hoopsville Fundraising Project has begun yet again. Please consider helping us cover Division III basketball the way it deserves to be covered: http://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser/x/6029509

    Also, if you know any advertisers interested in promoting their company or products on the show, send them our way: hoopsville@d3hoops.com

    Thanks!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2016, 08:44:30 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 11, 2016, 07:26:53 PM

    KS,

    If I'm reading those numbers correctly, if a conference has a lower D3SOS than NCSOS, then their conference is actually lowering the overall SOS of the teams in it?  I know these numbers are with uncompleted conference schedules, so they can't be taken as absolute.

    Yes, that is correct. It will be interesting to see final numbers, but adding in the conference slate doesn't simply pull everyone toward .500. Conference play does have more .500 weight built in, but good conferences that beat up on non-con competition still raise the SOS of their member teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2016, 08:55:47 PM
    Quote from: pg04 on February 11, 2016, 03:56:38 PM
    As Dave mentioned, I very much hope if Lancaster Bible wins all but the conference title game that they'd get in with only one loss. If not then it's probably gone too far to the numbers game.

    An interesting though experiment: what record would Illinois Wesleyan (11-11) have if they played Lancaster Bible's schedule? Would it be a stretch to say they could be 18-1?

    The 'worst' team Illinois Wesleyan has lost to Loras (Massey Rank #1143). Lancaster Bible's two best wins are Franklin & Marshall (Massey #692) and Eastern (Massey #1337). Maybe we say IWU loses to F&M, but they'd be the favorite (big favorite?) in every other game on Lancaster Bible's schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 11, 2016, 09:23:14 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2016, 08:55:47 PM
    Quote from: pg04 on February 11, 2016, 03:56:38 PM
    As Dave mentioned, I very much hope if Lancaster Bible wins all but the conference title game that they'd get in with only one loss. If not then it's probably gone too far to the numbers game.

    An interesting though experiment: what record would Illinois Wesleyan (11-11) have if they played Lancaster Bible's schedule? Would it be a stretch to say they could be 18-1?

    The 'worst' team Illinois Wesleyan has lost to Loras (Massey Rank #1143). Lancaster Bible's two best wins are Franklin & Marshall (Massey #692) and Eastern (Massey #1337). Maybe we say IWU loses to F&M, but they'd be the favorite (big favorite?) in every other game on Lancaster Bible's schedule.

    IWU has had a boatload of injuries to key players this year, so 'maybe' only 17-2! ;D  But point noted.

    Benedictine is another case of a dominant team in a very weak conference (the NACC ONCE did get a second team into the tourney - the result was that they went 0-2 instead of their usual 0-1), but I assume they would be a lock for a Pool C even if they somehow suffered a loss?  Benedictine has beaten the only team seemingly a real threat (Aurora) by 28 and 23 points.  I strongly suspect that LBC and Benedictine will both enter the tourney undefeated; Benedictine is a strong candidate to reach Salem (esp. if the committee separates them from Augie), LBC will not reach the second week.

    On the other hand, Benedictine DID beat 11-11 IWU by only two points! 8-)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 11, 2016, 10:18:04 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2016, 08:44:30 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 11, 2016, 07:26:53 PM

    KS,

    If I'm reading those numbers correctly, if a conference has a lower D3SOS than NCSOS, then their conference is actually lowering the overall SOS of the teams in it?  I know these numbers are with uncompleted conference schedules, so they can't be taken as absolute.

    Yes, that is correct. It will be interesting to see final numbers, but adding in the conference slate doesn't simply pull everyone toward .500. Conference play does have more .500 weight built in, but good conferences that beat up on non-con competition still raise the SOS of their member teams.

    I need to clarify, when I talk about SOS being pulled to .500 I'm only talking about the conference slate itself, not even the non-conference games of your conference opponents.

    Of course as you add teams to your resume through the season you're adding the overall record of your opponent and that changes your SOS at the time.  But for the most part all that really affects your SOS is your non-conference slate and your opponents overall schedule.  ie, whether Kalamazoo beats Olivet or Olivet beats Kalamazoo is of no consequence to my teams SOS, that washes out at .500.  I would only care about the result if I played one of those two in a post-season game such a conference tournament.


    A good way to do it is make a list of all the games that affects your teams total SOS.  Now block off all the games between teams on your schedule.  That block of games has a net .500 affect on SOS so long as you have 1 home and 1 road.  The larger your conference, the larger that block is, and the higher percentage of total games that draws your SOS to .500.

    Because conferences are different sizes and have different tournament formats, the "block" of games is very different for everyone.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 10:28:22 PM
    Yeah, I make this argument all of the time. The CONFERENCE SOS i basically .500.. but I even understand there is some range there depending on exact conference schedules and the like. I usually start at .500 and for the lower conferences I mentally think of it between .480 and .500 and for the tougher, better conferences .500 and .520. I don't ever assume the numbers are dead right, but I know that the part of the SOS that a team can truly change is the out-of-conference schedule... I use the .500 as a gauge of how they did that in comparison.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Stoppable on February 11, 2016, 11:46:45 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 11, 2016, 09:23:14 PM
    Benedictine is another case of a dominant team in a very weak conference (the NACC ONCE did get a second team into the tourney - the result was that they went 0-2 instead of their usual 0-1), but I assume they would be a lock for a Pool C even if they somehow suffered a loss?
    About that: would Aurora have a shot at getting in via Pool C? If they win out and then take a third loss to Benedictine in the conference tournament, they'd be 22-5 overall, although most of that is at the expense of the very weak evenly matched, exciting and unpredictable NACC. :D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2016, 08:38:54 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Stoppable on February 11, 2016, 11:46:45 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 11, 2016, 09:23:14 PM
    Benedictine is another case of a dominant team in a very weak conference (the NACC ONCE did get a second team into the tourney - the result was that they went 0-2 instead of their usual 0-1), but I assume they would be a lock for a Pool C even if they somehow suffered a loss?
    About that: would Aurora have a shot at getting in via Pool C? If they win out and then take a third loss to Benedictine in the conference tournament, they'd be 22-5 overall, although most of that is at the expense of the very weak evenly matched, exciting and unpredictable NACC. :D

    I think they've got a pretty good shot, assuming they win until the conference championship game.  It'll depend on upsets, of course, but they'v got a decent SOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 12, 2016, 08:51:38 AM
    Maybe not a Pool C question but could Whitworth's chance to get a bye (assuming they win out) depend on if Colorado College wins the SCAC (currently half a game up on Texas Lutheran for 1st)?
    If CC gets in, then would the NCAA set up a pod of Whitworth, Whitman, SCIAC team, and Colorado College? Whereas if say TLU takes the SCAC then we end up with a SCIAC/Whitman game with the winner playing Whitworth?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2016, 09:06:23 AM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 12, 2016, 08:51:38 AM
    Maybe not a Pool C question but could Whitworth's chance to get a bye (assuming they win out) depend on if Colorado College wins the SCAC (currently half a game up on Texas Lutheran for 1st)?
    If CC gets in, then would the NCAA set up a pod of Whitworth, Whitman, SCIAC team, and Colorado College? Whereas if say TLU takes the SCAC then we end up with a SCIAC/Whitman game with the winner playing Whitworth?

    You have to figure in the ASC winner as well.  Whitman's certainly on the bubble, too.  Is CC wins the SCAC, you could see three teams flying to Whitworth for a weekend pod (SLIAC, SCAC, and ASC).

    I don't have the ASC driving distances memorized, but sometimes they can drive places, other times not.  If there are two teams from Texas, you're going to see some kind of pod there (probably with the west coast teams flown in).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2016, 10:48:41 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 12, 2016, 09:06:23 AM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 12, 2016, 08:51:38 AM
    Maybe not a Pool C question but could Whitworth's chance to get a bye (assuming they win out) depend on if Colorado College wins the SCAC (currently half a game up on Texas Lutheran for 1st)?
    If CC gets in, then would the NCAA set up a pod of Whitworth, Whitman, SCIAC team, and Colorado College? Whereas if say TLU takes the SCAC then we end up with a SCIAC/Whitman game with the winner playing Whitworth?

    You have to figure in the ASC winner as well.  Whitman's certainly on the bubble, too.  Is CC wins the SCAC, you could see three teams flying to Whitworth for a weekend pod (SLIAC, SCAC, and ASC).

    I don't have the ASC driving distances memorized, but sometimes they can drive places, other times not.  If there are two teams from Texas, you're going to see some kind of pod there (probably with the west coast teams flown in).

    Honestly, if Colorado College wins the SCAC, the committee could do whatever they want with them. They don't have to ship them to Whitworth. They have a chance to ship them wherever since a flight is mandatory. Colorado is not 500 miles from any Division III institution (the closest I believe is Nebraska Wesleyan at 553), so they are flying to whomever.

    So yes, Whitworth could get a first round bye, but only IF they bring in a second NWC school (SCIAC isn't getting a second). Whitman would have to make a strong enough case to be an at-large team... OR win the conference title and Whitworth still received a first-round, geographic-only, bye (or outside chance Whitman, but I doubt it).

    As for Texas, should Colorado College win, that will probably only leave one other team in Texas coming out of the ASC. That will basically force two flights (really three, considering the SCIAC) and to be honest, that opens up a HUGE door for the committee. They can ship all three of those teams (SCIAC, ASC, SCAC) where ever the heck they want to, but maybe at the detrement for Whitworth and Whitman who won't be shipped anywhere (too many flights already). They will either make a pod of four or three with Whitworth and send the remaining one or two teams elsewhere also opening up the bye to go somewhere else.

    Should Colorado College lose, then we have two Texas teams (and right now, I can't imagine a third at all no matter the outcomes) who will play the Thursday game and get shipped to whomever the committee wants to give the bye to. OR ship BOTH Texas teams to a pod (though, I can't imagine the NCAA paying for two flights here). Should they both play each other, they would have the brutal experience of basically traveling the next day by air some place, barely getting time to practice, before playing their opponent on Saturday night.

    Yes, there is a chance with two-teams from Texas to create a three-team pod by flying in the SCIAC team. Then you have to still fly in a team to the Northwest to play Whitman leaving the rest of the country with no bye what-so-ever. (No, Whitman would not be flown to Texas to break up the NWC, because that would still require a flight from the SCIAC to the Northwest and another flight into the Northwest to fill out the pod - one extra flight that isn't needed).

    So Colorado College presents a world of options to the committee... and a two-Texas pod either creates an interesting bye, or takes a bye away from a top team somewhere else in the country.

    Does that all make sense? LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 12, 2016, 12:04:27 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2016, 06:45:30 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 04:56:50 PM
    I don't necessarily agree. F&M is actually an example of a team that has actually changed its scheduling over the years to improve it AND get out of their gym. Now, they normally have four games at home based on two tournaments (one of those tournaments wasn't held this season). Outside of that, they get out of town more often and play.

    The way the SOS is being calculated, any team that will hurt one's SOS will hurt less when played at home than on the road.
    I was just using F&M because you called them out.  I'm sure there's plenty of confusion out there so most coaches probably don't realize that they're better off scheduling the under .500 teams at home rather than on the road.  This year F&M would have a higher SoS if they played Albright at home rather than on the road.

    Just doing a quick look around, Amherst is using the faulty multiplier to it's advantage by only playing Johnson State at home the last couple years.  If Amherst went on the road to Johnson State and other bad teams that might negate the advantage they have from playing in the single round robin NESCAC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2016, 12:11:51 PM
    Yeah... I also don't think coaches think it that far through, to be honest. Most of them don't understand the math. And Albright is coming on strong here... which could make that example moot.

    The other thing, considering you don't really know how a team will do from one year to the next (you can guess based on historical stuff)... trying to add in the gamble of home or away make it even harder for coaches who are trying to schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: augie_superfan on February 12, 2016, 08:15:49 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2016, 01:58:05 PM
    Yeah... but this year's committee has hinted (on air and some people off air) that they may be pushing to .060 equals 4 despite clearly the words from the committee last year saying as it pushes out they lose a little faith that it as even. The NCAA Stats people have apparently poured over the numbers with them the last few years per the equation .030 SOS = 2 games.

    And these are the same stats people that have decided to calculate the SOS in such an "interesting" way.  The end result of the teams picked each year seems to be pretty good as of late but it is crazy to trust these statisticians with an equivalence equation when they can't even figure out the SOS issues.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2016, 01:56:13 PM
    Well let's be honest... the committee isn't going on only that statistical numbers. Yes, it is used... but it is amazing how deep the committee will go into the rest of the criteria to pick a team.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 14, 2016, 11:42:13 AM
    Resumes of the Pool C selections from 2014 and 2015...

    2014 Pool C selections (just my guess at order from Pool C conversations at the time)
    1. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .852/.560/8-3   Midwest #2
    2. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .852/.579/4-2   West #2  *national champion*
    3. Wesley (CAC) - .870/.529/5-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    4. Williams (NESCAC) - .846/.567/4-3   Northeast #2    
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .815/.553/4-4   East #2
    6. Randolph-Macon (ODAC) - .769/.559/4-3   South #1
    7. Babson (NEWMAC) - .769/.567/3-5   Northeast #3
    8. Augustana (CCIW) - .731/.555/5-4   Midwest #4
    9. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .786/.546/3-4   Northeast #4
    10. Geneseo State (SUNYAC) - .769/.554/2-4   East #3
    11. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .815/.536/4-3   West #3
    12. WPI (NEWMAC) - .846/.520/3-1  Northeast #5
    13. Hope (MIAA) - .760/.555/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    14. Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2
    15. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6   Great Lakes #6
    16. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    17. Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    18. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    19. Bowdoin (NESCAC) - .792/.529/1-3   Northeast #7

    2015 Pool C selections (just my guess at order from Pool C conversations at the time)
    1. (GL) Marietta (.893/.519/4-3)
    2. (MA) Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    3. (C) UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4) *national champion*
    4. (C)  Washington U. (.800/.565/4-2)
    5. (GL) Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    6. (NE) Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    7. (NE) Amherst (.741/.579/6-3)
    8. (NE) Bates (.760/.609/4-5)
    9. (AT) William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    10. (GL) Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    11. (C) Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    12. (C) Elmhurst (.731/.551/4-4)
    13. (S) Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    14. (GL) John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    15. (W) St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)
    16. (MA) Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    17. (NE) Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    18. (NE) WPI (.808/.515/2-3)
    19. (NE) Springfield (.704/.584/3-5)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2016, 05:37:43 PM
    It might be a holiday for those romantically inclined, but it is also getting down to the end of the Division III basketball season. Just two weeks remain between now and the end of the regular season and nothing has been determined.

    On Sunday night's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh will talk to some teams who have emerged from no where to be in a position to surprise when their conference tournaments begin. McHugh also talks to a few teams who can't seem to be knocked off their conference pedestal, but still feel they have something to prove. And the hectic schedule of conference travel can take it's toll.

    Sunday's show start at 7:00 pm ET and promises to go well into overtime. You can watch the show here: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/feb14

    Guests included (in order of appearance):
    - Tara Macciocco, Marywood women's coach
    - Dr. George Barber, Greenville men's coach
    - Ruth Sinn, No. 8 St. Thomas women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Rusty Eggen, Northeast Region Report, WPI Sports Information Director
    - Angela Santa Fe, Regis (Mass.) women's coach
    - Andy Partee, Colorado College men's coach

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

    And a reminder the Hoopsville Fundraising Project is halfway to the deadline but we are not that close to the goal. Please consider helping us cover Division III basketball the way it deserves to be covered: http://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser/x/6029509.

    Thanks!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 14, 2016, 08:59:36 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 14, 2016, 11:42:13 AM
    Resumes of the Pool C selections from 2014 and 2015...

    2014 Pool C selections (just my guess at order from Pool C conversations at the time)
    1. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .852/.560/8-3   Midwest #2
    2. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .852/.579/4-2   West #2  *national champion*
    3. Wesley (CAC) - .870/.529/5-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    4. Williams (NESCAC) - .846/.567/4-3   Northeast #2    
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .815/.553/4-4   East #2
    6. Randolph-Macon (ODAC) - .769/.559/4-3   South #1
    7. Babson (NEWMAC) - .769/.567/3-5   Northeast #3
    8. Augustana (CCIW) - .731/.555/5-4   Midwest #4
    9. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .786/.546/3-4   Northeast #4
    10. Geneseo State (SUNYAC) - .769/.554/2-4   East #3
    11. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .815/.536/4-3   West #3
    12. WPI (NEWMAC) - .846/.520/3-1  Northeast #5
    13. Hope (MIAA) - .760/.555/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    14. Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2
    15. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6   Great Lakes #6
    16. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    17. Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    18. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    19. Bowdoin (NESCAC) - .792/.529/1-3   Northeast #7

    2015 Pool C selections (just my guess at order from Pool C conversations at the time)
    1. (GL) Marietta (.893/.519/4-3)
    2. (MA) Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    3. (C) UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4) *national champion*
    4. (C)  Washington U. (.800/.565/4-2)
    5. (GL) Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    6. (NE) Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    7. (NE) Amherst (.741/.579/6-3)
    8. (NE) Bates (.760/.609/4-5)
    9. (AT) William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    10. (GL) Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    11. (C) Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    12. (C) Elmhurst (.731/.551/4-4)
    13. (S) Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    14. (GL) John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    15. (W) St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)
    16. (MA) Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    17. (NE) Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    18. (NE) WPI (.808/.515/2-3)
    19. (NE) Springfield (.704/.584/3-5)

    Without checking every year and every final poll, I would imagine that 2014 had to have been the high-water mark for Pool C.  In addition to UWW winning it all, Williams and IWU were also FF teams, and finished 1,2,3 in the final poll.  (Amherst had beaten Williams three times by double digits already that season, but was absolutely run out of Salem in the semis, so they held on to 4th in the poll.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2016, 06:09:05 AM
    My apologies for just posting the records of the past week and not the actual results, which matter more. I had a busy week and weekend, so I wasn't able to keep up. I should have more time this week to post the actual results.  :'(  :-[ :-X



       RNK      Region      Team      Con.      Record      Schedule   
       #1      ATL      Stockton      NJAC       17-4, 17-5      1-1   
       #2      ATL      Staten Island      CUNYAC       17-4, 17-5      1-1   
       #3      ATL      Brooklyn      CUNYAC       17-5, 17-5      1-1   
       #4      ATL      New Jersey City      NJAC       14-7, 14-7      3-0   
       #5      ATL      DeSales      MACF       15-5, 15-6      2-0   
       #6      ATL      Rutgers-Newark      NJAC       16-6, 16-6      2-0   
       #7      ATL      Delaware Valley      MACF       14-5, 16-5      1-1   
                                        
       RNK      Region      Team      Con.      Record      Schedule   
       #1      Cent      Benedictine      NACC       22-0, 22-0      2-0   
       #2      Cent      Augustana      CCIW       21-1, 21-1      2-0   
       #3      Cent      St.Norbert      MWC       18-2, 18-2      2-0   
       #4      Cent      North Central (IL)      CCIW       15-6, 16-6      2-0   
       #5      Cent      Elmhurst       CCIW       19-3, 19-3      1-1   
       #6      Cent      Aurora      NACC       16-4, 17-4      1-1   
       #7      Cent      Chicago      UAA       13-6, 14-6      2-0   
       #8      Cent      Carroll      MWC       15-4, 15-4      2-0   
                                        
       RNK      Region      Team      Con.      Record      Schedule   
       #1      EAST      Plattsburgh St.      SUNYAC       17-3, 17-3      1-1   
       #2      EAST      Rochester      UAA       14-5, 14-6      2-0   
       #3      EAST      SUNY Geneseo      SUNYAC       14-4, 14-5      2-1   
       #4      EAST      Oswego St.      SUNYAC       14-6, 14-6      3-0   
       #5      EAST      SUNY Oneonta      SUNYAC       13-7, 13-7      0-3   
       #6      EAST      St. John Fisher      E8       15-5, 15-5      3-0   
                                        
       RNK      Region      Team      Con.      Record      Schedule   
       #1      GL      John Carroll      OAC       21-0, 21-0      0-2   
       #2      GL      Marietta       OAC       19-2, 19-2      2-0   
       #3      GL      Ohio Wesleyan      NCAC       19-2, 19-2      1-1   
       #4      GL      Hope      MIAA       17-1, 19-2      2-0   
       #5      GL      Alma      MIAA       16-5, 16-5      2-0   
       #6      GL      Wooster      NCAC       15-5, 16-5      1-1   
       #7      GL      Mount Union      OAC       14-5, 15-5      0-2   
       #8      GL      Hiram      NCAC       15-5, 15-6      2-0   
       #9      GL      Trine      MIAA       14-6, 15-6      0-2   
                                        
       RNK      Region      Team      Con.      Record      Schedule   
       #1      MA      Christopher Newport      CAC       20-1, 20-1      2-0   
       #2      MA      Susquehanna      LAND       16-2, 18-2      1-1   
       #3      MA      Salisbury      CAC       16-5, 16-5      2-0   
       #4      MA      Catholic      LAND       16-5, 16-5      1-0   
       #5      MA      Franklin and Marshall      CC         18-3, 18-3      0-1   
       #6      MA      Scranton      LAND       15-5, 16-5      2-0   
                                        
       RNK      Region      Team      Con.      Record      Schedule   
       #1      NE      Amherst      NESCAC       18-4, 18-4      2-0   
       #2      NE      Trinity (Conn.)      NESCAC       15-6, 16-6      2-0   
       #3      NE      Tufts      NESCAC       17-5, 17-5      2-0   
       #4      NE      Babson      NEWMAC       15-5, 15-5      2-0   
       #5      NE      Wesleyan      NESCAC       18-4, 18-4      0-2   
       #6      NE      WPI      NEWMAC       16-5, 16-5      2-0   
       #7      NE      Eastern Connecticut      LEC       14-7, 14-7      2-0   
       #8      NE      MIT      NEWMAC       16-4, 16-4      2-1   
       #9      NE      Johnson & Wales      GNAC       19-1, 20-1      1-1   
       #10      NE      Southern Vermont      NECC       18-3, 18-3      2-0   
       #11      NE      Nichols      CCC       18-3, 18-3      2-0   
                                        
       RNK      Region      Team      Con.      Record      Schedule   
       #1      South      Emory      UAA       14-5, 15-5      1-1   
       #2      South      Texas Lutheran      SCAC       17-5, 17-5      2-0   
       #3      South      Virginia Wesleyan      ODAC       15-6, 15-6      2-0   
       #4      South      Lynchburg      ODAC       16-5, 16-5      1-1   
       #5      South      LaGrange      USAC       12-5, 15-6      1-1   
       #6      South      East Texas Baptist      ASC       16-4, 18-4      1-1   
       #7      South      Roanoke      ODAC       16-4, 17-4      2-0   
       #8      South      N.C. Wesleyan      USAC       11-4, 15-6      2-0   
                                        
       RNK      Region      Team      Con.      Record      Schedule   
       #1      West      St. Thomas      MIAC       19-1, 19-1      2-1   
       #2      West      Whitworth      NWC       19-1, 20-1      2-0   
       #3      West      Whitman      NWC       17-3, 18-3      2-0   
       #4      West      Concordia-Moorhead      MIAC       14-6, 14-7      1-2   
       #5      West      Bethel      MIAC       14-6, 14-6      1-2   
       #6      West      St. John's      MIAC       15-5, 16-5      1-1   
       #7      West      Dubuque      IIAC       12-6, 15-6      2-0   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: mailsy on February 15, 2016, 09:42:41 AM
    A lot carnage in the Regional Rankings. 27 of the 62 teams lost.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 15, 2016, 11:11:12 AM
    Quote from: mailsy on February 15, 2016, 09:42:41 AM
    A lot carnage in the Regional Rankings. 27 of the 62 teams lost.

    How many to other ranked teams?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2016, 01:18:02 PM
    New Regional Rankings are out.


    http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/02/17/second-ncaa-regional-ranking/
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 17, 2016, 09:11:46 PM
    It's early, but I took Matt Snyder's numbers (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)) from his Monday update, with today's regional rankings, and the principle of .030 SOS is equivalent to 2 wins (or more simply, 2 losses) and took a shot at what things might look like, if this had been Selection Monday.

    Pool C safe teams
    1) Amherst, NESCAC (.833, .567, 4-2) NE #1
    2) North Central, CCIW (.739, .598, 3-6) CE #4
    3) John Carroll, OAC (.913, .524, 2-1) GL #2
    4) Hope, MIAA (.950, .517, 3-1) GL #5
    5) Rochester, UAA (.762, .564, 2-2) EA #2
    6) Salisbury, CAC (.783, .559, 4-2) MA #3
    7) Tufts, NESCAC (.792, .556, 3-4) NE #3
    8) Elmhurst, CCIW (.833, .523, 3-4) CE #5

    Pool C bubble-in teams
    (Note that some of these spots will disappear by conference tourney upsets dropping safe teams into Pool C.)
    9) Wooster, NCAC (.727, .576, 2-4) GL #6
    10) Chicago, UAA (.714, .562, 1-5) CE #6
    11) Catholic, LAND (.773, .539, 2-2) MA #4
    12) Stockton, NJAC (.783, .537, 2-3) AT #2
    13) SUNY-Geneseo, SUNYAC (.762, .534, 2-2) EA #3
    14) Brockport, SUNYAC (.682, .561, 5-5) EA #4
    15) Scranton, LAND (.773, .531, 2-2) MA #5
    16) WPI, NEWMAC (.783, .529, 5-2) NE #5
    17) Whitman, NWC (.864, .499, 1-2) WE #3
    18) Aurora, NATHC (.773, .526, 1-2) CE #7
    19) Carroll, MWC (.810, .511, 0-2) CE #8

    Pool C left at table (bubble-out)
    AT #4 - Staten Island, CUNYAC (.783, .492, 2-2)
    CE (none)
    EA #5 - Oswego St, SUNYAC (.739, .528, 3-3)
    GL #7 - Hiram, NCAC (.773, .494, 2-2)
    MA (none)
    NE #7 - Wesleyan, NESCAC (.750, .516, 2-2)
    SO #4 - Lynchburg, ODAC (.739, .529, 1-2)
    WE #4 - St John's, MIAC (.727, .524, 2-4)

    Other decent Pool C resumes that never reached the table
    EA #6 - NYU, UAA (.818, .505, 2-3) EA #6
    GL #8 - Mt Union, OAC (.667, .545, 1-4) GL #8
    SO #5 - LaGrange, USAC (.684, .550, 2-2) SO #5
    SO #7 - Roanoke, ODAC (.818, .489, 1-1) SO #7


    Also, breaking down the conference leaders...

    Conference leaders safe if in Pool C
    - Marietta, OAC (.913, .561, 5-1) GL #1
    - St Thomas, MIAC (.913, .557, 8-0) WE #1
    - Benedictine, NATHC (1.000, .525, 4-0) CE #1
    - Augustana, CCIW (.958, .545, 3-1) CE #2
    - Christopher Newport, CAC (.957, .534, 4-1) MA #1
    - Susquehanna, LAND (.850, .568, 3-2) MA #2
    - St Norbert, MWC (.909, .536, 2-1) CE #3
    - Ohio Wesleyan, NCAC (.870, .532, 4-2) GL #3
    - Alma, MIAA (.783, .567, 5-4) GL #4
    - Whitworth, NWC (.955, .498, 1-1) WE #2
    - Plattsburgh St., SUNYAC (.818, .542, 5-1) EA #1
    - Trinity, NESCAC (.739, .563, 3-4) NE #2

    Conference leaders on bubble if in Pool C
    - Babson, NEWMAC (.773, .536, 2-3) NE #4
    - Texas Lutheran, SCAC (.792, .532, 3-0) SO #1
    - Virginia Wesleyan, ODAC (.739, .559, 4-3) SO #2
    - Emory, UAA (.714, .600, 3-3) SO #3
    - Eastern Connecticut, LEC (.696, .567, 1-4) NE #6
    - Franklin & Marshall, CC (.818, .505, 2-0) MA #6
    - East Texas Baptist, ASC (.773, .519, 0-2) SO #6
    - New Jersey City, NJAC (.708, .536, 4-2) AT #1
    - DeSales, MACF (.773, .530, 1-3) AT #3
    - NC Wesleyan, USAC (.765, .521, 1-1) SO #8

    Leaders unlikely if in Pool C
    - St John Fisher, E8 (.783, .506, 1-1) EA #unr
    - Johnson & Wales, GNAC (.909, .477, 1-0) NE #unr
    - Chapman, SCIAC (.800, .478, 0-0) WE #unr
    - UW-Lacrosse, WIAC (.636, .548, 0-3) CE #unr
    - Nichols, CCC (.870, .463, 0-0) NE #unr
    - Southern Vermont, NECC (.870, .463, 0-2) NE #unr
    - Birmingham Southern, SAA (.714, .507, 0-3) SO #unr
    - Lancaster Bible, NEAC (1.000, .414, 1-0) EA #unr
    - Alvernia, MACC (.591, .541, 1-2) MA #unr
    - Dubuque, IIAC (.700, .493, 0-1) WE #unr
    - Gwyendd-Mercy, CSAC (.773, .475, 0-1) AT #unr
    - Skidmore, LL (.636, .517, 2-0) EA #unr
    - St Vincent, PrAC (.739, .455, 1-1) GL #9
    - Penn State-Behrend, AMCC (.905, .419, 0-0) GL #unr
    - Green Mountain, NAC (.818, .444, 0-0) NE #unr
    - Lehman, CUNYAC (.696, .481, 1-2) AT #unr
    - Mt. St. Joseph, HCAC (.682, .476, 0-1) GL #unr
    - SUNY-Old Westbury, SKY (.682, .463, 0-1) AT #unr
    - Northwestern (MN), UMAC (.870, .402, 1-1) WE #unr
    - Salem State, MASCAC (.625, .491, 1-2) NE #unr
    - MacMurray, SLIAC (.600, .463, 0-2) CE #unr
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2016, 04:49:26 PM
    There isn't that much time left in the regular season as teams continue to fight to get into conference tournaments and position themselves for hopefully NCAA tournament bids. Second round of Regional Rankings are also out with plenty of answers... and questions. Plus, some teams are putting on some shows recently including a lot of buzzer beaters!

    On Thursday night's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh rolls up his sleeves and takes a look at what is happening as we head into the last ten days of the regular season. McHugh will also get some insight on Wednesday's insane men's basketball game between Lynchburg and No. 21 Roanoke. Plus, get a preview of the NESCAC men's and women's tournaments along with talking to ranked teams on both the men's and women's side.

    Hoopsville hits the air at 7:00 pm ET and promises to go at least 2 1/2 hours. You can watch the show here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/feb18

    Guests scheduled (in order of appearance):
    - Alex Graves, Lynchburg senior forward
    - Howard Herman, Berkshire Eagle, NESCAC tournaments preview
    - Brian Morehouse, No. 3 Hope women's coach
    - Bill Broderick, No. 16 Christopher Newport women's coach
    - Tom Curle, No. 23 Plattsburgh State men's coach
    - Eric Bridgeland, No. 9 Whitman men's coach

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

    And a reminder the Hoopsville Fundraising Project is halfway to the deadline but we are not that close to the goal. Please consider helping us cover Division III basketball the way it deserves to be covered: http://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser/x/6029509.

    Thanks!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2016, 10:28:35 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 18, 2016, 06:33:35 AM
    Teams in BOLD are conferences winners/leaders. An * means there's a tie.


       ATL                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #4      New Jersey City (NJAC)      17-7 17-7      WON at Rutgers-Camden 76-53   
       #2      #1      Stockton (NJAC)      18-5 18-6      WON at Montclair State 83-80   
       #3      #5      DeSales (MACF)      17-5 17-6      WON at Manhattanville 77-75; at Eastern 2/20   
       #4      #2      Staten Island (CUNYAC)      18-5 18-6      LOST at Lehman 99-88   
       #5      #3      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      18-6 18-6      WON at Baruch 73-58; vs TBD 2/20   
       #6      #6      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      18-6 18-6      WON at Ramapo 95-94   
       #7      #7      Delaware Valley (MACF)      15-6 17-6      LOST at King's 74-67; vs FDU-Florham 2/20   
       CENT                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #1      Benedictine (NACC)      24-0 24-0      at Lakeland 2/20   
       #2      #2      Augustana (CCIW)      23-1 23-1      at Wheaton (IL) 2/20   
       #3      #3      St.Norbert (MWC)      20-2 20-2      at Cornell 2/20   
       #4      #4      North Central (IL) (CCIW)      17-6 18-6      at North Park 2/20   
       #5      #5      Elmhurst (CCIW)      20-4 20-4      at Illinois Wesleyan 2/20   
       #6      #7      Chicago (UAA)      15-6 16-6      at NYU 2/19; at Brandeis 2/21   
       #7      #6      Aurora (NACC)      17-5 18-5      WON vs Rockford 112-92; at Edgewood 2/20   
       #8      #8      Carroll (MWC)      17-4 17-4      WON at Lawrence 70-51; at Lake Forest 2/20   
       EAST                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #1      Plattsburgh St. (SUNYAC)      18-4 18-4      WON vs SUNY Potsdam 93-62; at Brockport 2/19; at SUNY Geneseo 2/20   
       #2      #2      *Rochester (UAA)      16-5 16-6      at CWR 2/19; at Carnegie Mellon 2/21   
       #3      #3      SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC)      16-5 16-6      LOST at Oswego St. 75-67; vs SUNY Potsdam 2/19; vs Plattsburgh  St. 2/20   
       #4            Brockport (SUNYAC)      15-7 15-7      LOST at Cortland 73-72; vs Plattsburgh St. 2/19; vs SUNY Potsdam 2/20   
       #5      #4      Oswego St. (SUNYAC)      17-6 17-6      WON vs SUNY Geneseo 75-67; at Cortland 2/19   
       #6            NYU (UAA)      18-4 18-4      vs Chicago 2/19; vs Washington U. 2/21   
                                  
                   DROPPING OUT               
             #5      SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC)       13-7, 13-7         
             #6      St. John Fisher (E8)       15-5, 15-5         
       GL                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #2      Marietta (OAC)      21-2 21-2      WON at Otterbein 80-56; at Ohio Northern 2/20   
       #2      #1      John Carroll (OAC)      21-2 21-2      LOST at Mount Union 100-94; vs Muskingum 2/20   
       #3      #3      *Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)      20-3 20-3      WON at Oberlin 93-75; vs DePauw 2/20   
       #4      #5      Alma (MIAA)      18-5 18-5      LOST at Albion 71-66;    at Olivet 2/20
       #5      #4      Hope (MIAA)      19-1 21-2      WON at Kalamazoo 90-79; at Calvin 2/20   
       #6      #6      *Wooster (NCAC)      16-6 17-6      WON at Allegheny 92-74; vs Oberlin 2/20   
       #7      #8      Hiram (NCAC)      17-5 17-6      LOST at Denison 86-77; vs Wittenberg 2/20   
       #8      #7      Mount Union (OAC)      14-7 15-7      LOST at Muskingum 83-80; WON vs John Carroll 100-94; vs Willingham 2/20   
       #9            St. Vincent (PAC)      17-6 17-6      WON at Theil 82-76; at Thomas More 2/20   
                                  
                   DROPPING OUT               
             #9      Trine (MIAA)       14-6, 15-6         
       MA                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #1      Christopher Newport(CAC)      22-1 22-1      WON vs St. Mary's (Md) 69-53; vs Marymount 2/20   
       #2      #2      Susquehanna (LAND)      17-3 19-3      WON at Goucher 67-53; vs Elizabethtown 2/18; at Elizabethtown 2/20   
       #3      #3      Salisbury (CAC)      18-5 18-5      WON at Marymount 73-59; vs Frostburg St. 2/20   
       #4      #4      Catholic (LAND)      17-5 17-5      WON vs Juniata 83-60; vs Scranton 2/20; vs Merchant Marine 2/21   
       #5      #6      Scranton (LAND)      17-5 18-5      WON at Cabrini 94-73; at Catholic 2/20   
       #6      #5      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      18-4 18-4      WON at Ursinus 84-61; WON vs Gettysburg 71-60; vs Dickinson 2/20     
                                  
       NE                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #1      Amherst (NECAC)      20-4 20-4      vs Bowdoin in QFs 2/20   
       #2      #2      Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC)      17-6 18-6      vs Colby in QFs 2/20   
       #3      #3      Tufts (NESCAC)      19-5 19-5      vs Williams in QFs 2/20   
       #4      #4      Babson (NEWMAC)      17-5 17-5      WON at Coast Guard 80-73; at MIT 2/20   
       #5      #6      WPI (NEWMAC)      18-5 18-5      WON at Wheaton (Mass.) 70-55; at Clark 2/20
       #6      #7      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)      16-7 16-7      LOST at Keene St. 75-49; at Mass-Boston 2^20    
       #7      #5      Wesleyan (NESCAC)      18-6 18-6      at Middlebury in QFs 2/20   
       #8      #9      Johnson & Wales (GNAC)      20-2 21-2      WON at Norwich 74-41; vs Mount Ida 2/20   
       #9      #8      MIT (NEWMAC)      18-5 18-5      WON at Emerson 67-49; vs Babson 2/20    
       #10      #10      Southern Vermont (NECC)      20-3 20-3      WON vs Elms 93-84; vs Daniel Wesbster 2/20   
       #11      #11      Nichols (CCC)      20-3 20-3      WON at Gordon 95-91; vs Eastern Nazarene 2/20    
       SOUTH                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #2      Texas Lutheran (SCAC)      19-5 19-5      at Southwestern 2/19   
       #2      #3      Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC)      17-6 17-6      LOST vs Guilford 71-60; at Lynchburg 2/20     
       #3      #1      *Emory (UAA)      15-6 16-6      at Carnegie Mellon 2/19; at CWR 2/21   
       #4      #4      Lynchburg (ODAC)      17-6 17-6     WON vs Roanoke 160-156; vs Virginia Wesleyan 2/20   
       #5      #5      LaGrange (USAC)      13-6 16-7      WON at Huntingdon 97-87; at Piedmont 2/20   
       #6      #6      East Texas Baptist (ASC)      17-5 19-5      WON vs Belhaven 78-66   
       #7      #7      Roanoke (ODAC)      18-4 19-4      LOST at Lynchburg 160-156; at Randolph-Macon 2/20   
       #8      #8      N.C. Wesleyan (USAC)      13-4 17-6      WON at Averett 85-82; at Methodist 2/20   
       WEST                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #1      St. Thomas (MIAC)      21-2 21-2      WON at St. Olaf 78-72; vs St. Mary's (Minn.) 2/20   
       #2      #2      Whitworth (NWC)      21-1 22-1      at Puget Sound 2/19; at Pacific Lutheran 2/20   
       #3      #3      Whitman (NWC)      19-3 20-3      at Pacific Lutheran 2/19; at Puget Sound 2/20   
       #4      #6      St. John's (MIAC)      16-6 17-6      LOST at Gustavus Adolphus 63-62; at Augsburg 2/20    
       #5            St.Olaf (MIAC)      16-8 16-8      LOST to St. Thomas 78-72   
       #6      #4      Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC)      15-8 15-9      vs Macalester 2/20   
       #7            Augsburg (MIAC)      15-8 15-8      LOST at Macalester 71-60; vs St. John's 2/20   
                                  
                   DROPPING OUT               
             #5      Bethel (MIAC)       14-6, 14-6         
             #7      Dubuque (IIAC)       12-6, 15-6         
                                  
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2016, 02:47:39 PM
    Maybe 10 Sunday games or so still in progress, but here's a partial update. I'll run again tonight, but this should have most of the data as we head into conference tournaments.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 21, 2016, 03:10:54 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 17, 2016, 09:11:46 PM
    It's early, but I took Matt Snyder's numbers (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)) from his Monday update, with today's regional rankings, and the principle of .030 SOS is equivalent to 2 wins (or more simply, 2 losses) and took a shot at what things might look like, if this had been Selection Monday.


    This was really well done, fantastic50. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 21, 2016, 05:21:06 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 21, 2016, 03:10:54 PM

    This was really well done, fantastic50.

    Thank you. I always appreciate your breakdowns of the national picture, as well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2016, 06:55:39 PM
    The entire regular season has basically come down to this week: Championship Week.

    Almost all conferences will determine their automatic bids to the NCAA tournament via their own tournaments. Those that haven't started already, will begin soon. And in a matter of a week, 87 teams on the men's and women's sides will know they are headed to the NCAA tournament.

    Sunday night on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh talks to some of the teams who hope home court will be their ticket to the NCAA post-season play. Each of the teams featured tonight won their regular season conference titles and need to win their conference tournaments to get into the NCAA tournament.

    Hoopsville hits the air at 7pm ET. Tune in here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/feb21

    Guests include (in order of appearance):
    - Stacey Brunner-Jones, Concordia-Wisconsin women's coach
    - Mike Ricks, Birmingham-Southern women's coach
    - Bernard Tomlin, SUNY Old Westbury men's coach
    - Mike McDevitt, St. Joseph's (Maine) women's coach
    - Ryan Scott, Mid-Atlantic Region Report

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

    And a reminder the Hoopsville Fundraising Project is halfway to the deadline but we are not that close to the goal. Please consider helping us cover Division III basketball the way it deserves to be covered: http://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser/x/6029509.

    Thanks!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2016, 10:42:03 PM
    Updated through the weekend scores. Lots of carnage


    Teams in BOLD are conferences winners/leaders. An * means there's a tie. Pool A (Automatic qualifiers) will be Green once their conference tournaments are complete. Teams losing will be RED and will be considered Pool C.


       ATL                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #4      New Jersey City (NJAC)      17-7 17-7      WON at Rutgers-Camden 76-53   
       #2      #1      Stockton (NJAC)      18-5 18-6      WON at Montclair State 83-80   
       #3      #5      DeSales (MACF)      17-5 17-6      WON at Manhattanville 77-75; WON at Eastern 96-86   
       #4      #2      Staten Island (CUNYAC)      18-5 18-6      LOST at Lehman 99-88   
       #5      #3      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      18-6 18-6      WON at Baruch 73-58; WON vs York (NY) 72-62 in QFs   
       #6      #6      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      18-6 18-6      WON at Ramapo 95-94; WON vs William Paterson 78-52 in QFs   
       #7      #7      Delaware Valley (MACF)      15-6 17-6      LOST at King's 74-67; WON vs FDU-Florham 79-62   
       CENT                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #1      Benedictine (NACC)      24-0 24-0      WON at Lakeland 100-76   
       #2      #2      Augustana (CCIW)      23-1 23-1      WON at Wheaton (IL) 103-101   
       #3      #3      St.Norbert (MWC)      20-2 20-2      WON at Cornell 72-62   
       #4      #4      North Central (IL) (CCIW)      17-6 18-6      WON at North Park 84-74   
       #5      #5      Elmhurst (CCIW)      20-4 20-4      LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 77-67   
       #6      #7      Chicago (UAA)      15-6 16-6      LOSTat NYU 72-59; WON at Brandeis 62-52   
       #7      #6      Aurora (NACC)      17-5 18-5      WON vs Rockford 112-92; WON at Edgewood 96-82   
       #8      #8      Carroll (MWC)      17-4 17-4      WON at Lawrence 70-51; WON at Lake Forest 61-48   
       EAST                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #1      Plattsburgh St. (SUNYAC)      18-4 18-4      WON vs SUNY Potsdam 93-62; WON at Brockport 76-72; WON at SUNY Geneseo 76-72   
       #2      #2      *Rochester (UAA)      16-5 16-6      WON at CWR 99-92; LOST at Carnegie Mellon 102-97   
       #3      #3      SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC)      16-5 16-6      LOST at Oswego St. 75-67; WON vs SUNY Potsdam 85-77; LOST to Plattsburgh St. 76-72   
       #4            Brockport (SUNYAC)      15-7 15-7      LOST at Cortland 73-72; LOST vs Plattsburgh St. 76-72; WON vs SUNY Potsdam 92-76   
       #5      #4      Oswego St. (SUNYAC)      17-6 17-6      WON vs SUNY Geneseo 75-67; LOST at Cortland 72-61    
       #6            NYU (UAA)      18-4 18-4      WON vs Chicago 72-59; LOST vs Washington U. 71-70   
                                  
                   DROPPING OUT               
             #5      SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC)       13-7, 13-7         
             #6      St. John Fisher (E8)       15-5, 15-5         
       GL                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #2      Marietta (OAC)      21-2 21-2      WON at Otterbein 80-56; WON at Ohio Northern 97-73   
       #2      #1      John Carroll (OAC)      21-2 21-2      LOST at Mount Union 100-94; WON vs Muskingum 99-76   
       #3      #3      *Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)      20-3 20-3      WON at Oberlin 93-75; WON vs DePauw 81-57   
       #4      #5      Alma (MIAA)      18-5 18-5      LOST at Albion 71-66;    WON at Olivet 97-85
       #5      #4      Hope (MIAA)      19-1 21-2      WON at Kalamazoo 90-79; WON at Calvin 65-61   
       #6      #6      *Wooster (NCAC)      16-6 17-6      WON at Allegheny 92-74; WON vs Oberlin 97-56   
       #7      #8      Hiram (NCAC)      17-5 17-6      LOST at Denison 86-77; WON vs Wittenberg 64-60   
       #8      #7      Mount Union (OAC)      14-7 15-7      LOST at Muskingum 83-80; WON vs John Carroll 100-94; WON vs Willingham 105-86   
       #9            St. Vincent (PAC)      17-6 17-6      WON at Theil 82-76; WON at Thomas More 63-62   
                                  
                   DROPPING OUT               
             #9      Trine (MIAA)       14-6, 15-6         
       MA                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #1      Christopher Newport(CAC)      22-1 22-1      WON vs St. Mary's (Md) 69-53; WON vs Marymount 89-59   
       #2      #2      *Susquehanna (LAND)      17-3 19-3      WON at Goucher 67-53; WON vs Elizabethtown 86-70; WON at Elizabethtown 83-69    
       #3      #3      Salisbury (CAC)      18-5 18-5      WON at Marymount 73-59; WON vs Frostburg St. 84-61   
       #4      #4      *Catholic (LAND)      17-5 17-5      WON vs Juniata 83-60; WON vs Scranton 79-74; WON vs Merchant Marine 80-61   
       #5      #6      Scranton (LAND)      17-5 18-5      WON at Cabrini 94-73; LOST at Catholic 79-74   
       #6      #5      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      18-4 18-4      WON at Ursinus 84-61; WON vs Gettysburg 71-60; LOST vs Dickinson 88-86    
                                  
       NE                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #1      Amherst (NECAC)      20-4 20-4      WON vs Bowdoin 83-76 in QFs    
       #2      #2      Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC)      17-6 18-6      WON vs Colby 71-60 in QFs   
       #3      #3      Tufts (NESCAC)      19-5 19-5      WON vs Williams 77-71 in QFs
       #4      #4      Babson (NEWMAC)      17-5 17-5      WON at Coast Guard 80-73; WON at MIT 94-80
       #5      #6      WPI (NEWMAC)      18-5 18-5      WON at Wheaton (Mass.) 70-55; WON at Clark 88-60
       #6      #7      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)      16-7 16-7      LOST at Keene St. 75-49; WON at Mass-Boston 69-64    
       #7      #5      Wesleyan (NESCAC)      18-6 18-6      LOST at Middlebury 86-74 in QFs    
       #8      #9      Johnson & Wales (GNAC)      20-2 21-2      WON at Norwich 74-41; WON vs Mount Ida 89-69
       #9      #8      MIT (NEWMAC)      18-5 18-5      WON at Emerson 67-49; LOST vs Babson 94-80     
       #10      #10      Southern Vermont (NECC)      20-3 20-3      WON vs Elms 93-84; WON vs Daniel Wesbster 110-57   
       #11      #11      Nichols (CCC)      20-3 20-3      WON at Gordon 95-91; WON vs Eastern Nazarene 87-70    
       SOUTH                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #2      Texas Lutheran (SCAC)      19-5 19-5      LOST at Southwestern 83-81   
       #2      #3      *Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC)      17-6 17-6      LOST vs Guilford 71-60; LOST at Lynchburg 80-75     
       #3      #1      *Emory (UAA)      15-6 16-6      WON at Carnegie Mellon 83-68; LOST at CWR 88-78
       #4      #4      Lynchburg (ODAC)      17-6 17-6     WON vs Roanoke 160-156; WON vs Virginia Wesleyan 80-75   
       #5      #5      LaGrange (USAC)      13-6 16-7      WON at Huntingdon 97-87; WON at Piedmont 96-90   
       #6      #6      East Texas Baptist (ASC)      17-5 19-5      WON vs Belhaven 78-66   
       #7      #7      Roanoke (ODAC)      18-4 19-4      LOST at Lynchburg 160-156; LOST at Randolph-Macon 89-73
       #8      #8      N.C. Wesleyan (USAC)      13-4 17-6      WON at Averett 85-82; WON at Methodist 91-84   
       WEST                           
       WK2      WK1      Team      Record      Schedule   
       #1      #1      St. Thomas (MIAC)      21-2 21-2      WON at St. Olaf 78-72; WON vs St. Mary's (Minn.) 77-48   
       #2      #2      Whitworth (NWC)      21-1 22-1      WON at Puget Sound 67-65; WON at Pacific Lutheran 73-71   
       #3      #3      Whitman (NWC)      19-3 20-3      WON at Pacific Lutheran 82-72; WON at Puget Sound 83-57   
       #4      #6      St. John's (MIAC)      16-6 17-6      LOST at Gustavus Adolphus 63-62; WON at Augsburg 77-66    
       #5            St.Olaf (MIAC)      16-8 16-8      LOST to St. Thomas 78-72   
       #6      #4      Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC)      15-8 15-9      WON vs Macalester 81-58   
       #7            Augsburg (MIAC)      15-8 15-8      LOST at Macalester 71-60; LOST vs St. John's 77-66
                                  
                   DROPPING OUT               
             #5      Bethel (MIAC)       14-6, 14-6         
             #7      Dubuque (IIAC)       12-6, 15-6         
                                  
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2016, 09:50:11 AM
    Congrats to Wesleyan, as they are our first entrant into the Pool C wasteland. Wesleyan lost at Middlebury in the NESCAC quarterfinals.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2016, 12:44:13 PM
    Assuming all conference winners/leaders get the Pool A spot...which never happens.

    Pool C outlook (not a Pool C expert, never played one on TV)

    Atlantic
    #2 Stockton should be safe.
    #5 Brooklyn may jump #4 Staten Island after they lost to Lehman. They play each other in the CUNYAC semis. The winner of Tuesday's semifinal will probably be next at the table after Stockton. Very slim chance either gets a bid if Lehman takes the AQ.

    Central
    #4 North Central should be in, even if they lose to #5 Elmhurst in the CCIW semis.
    #5 Elmhurst really hurt their chances of getting a Pool C bid after losing at IWU. I think they'll need a semifinal win to secure a Pool C spot.
    #6 Chicago lost, but it was at least against a ranked opponent, NYU. They are on the fence and need a win against Washington U. in the UAA season finale.
    #7 Aurora needs to get to the NACC final to get in.

    East
    Whether it's Emory (#3 South) or Rochester, both are in from the UAA. After that, it's a mess. #3 Geneseo and #4 Brockport both lost twice. #5 Oswego and #6 NYU both lost as well.

    Great Lakes
    #2 John Carroll is in even after losing.
    #3 Ohio Wesleyan/#6 Wooster (they would feel better getting to the NCAC final)
    #4 Alma's loss at Albion could drop them behind #5 Hope and #6 Wooster.

    Mid-Atlantic
    #2 Susquehanna is in and Landmark co-leader, #4 Catholic, is making a strong case with 3 wins last week, including a win over regionally ranked opponent Scranton.
    #3 Salisbury should also be in.

    Northeast
    #1 Amherst, #3 Tufts and #5 WPI are in.

    South
    As previously stated #3 Emory/#2 East Rochester are in. Rochester hosts Emory on the last day.
    #2 Virginia Wesleyan lost twice and will probably be jumped by ODAC co-leader #4 Lynchburg. So we'll put Lynchburg in.

    West
    #3 Whitman is in.

    So maybe?
    Stockton
    Brooklyn /Staten Island
    North Central
    Elmhurst
    Chicago
    Aurora
    Emory/Rochester
    John Carroll
    Ohio Wesleyan /Wooster
    Susquehanna/Catholic
    Salisbury
    Amherst
    Tufts
    WPI
    Lynchburg/Virginia Wesleyan
    Whitman

    And I still have to dig up 3 more...

    Maybe Carroll if they get to the MWC Final and lose to St. Norbert for a 3rd time?
    Brockport St.? They'll have 10 losses. Maybe Geneseo? Obviously not both.
    Possibly a MIAC team. Whitman will be off the board fairly quick.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2016, 12:53:34 PM
    Best guesses at regional rankings heading into conference tournament week...

    All underlying data is coming from Matt Snyder.
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)

    Atlantic
    1) New Jersey City (NJAC) 0.720/0.522/4-2, LW#1
    2) Stockton (NJAC) 0.792/0.533/2-3, LW#2
    3) DeSales (MACF) 0.792/0.523/1-2, LW#3
    4) Brooklyn (CUNYAC) 0.769/0.497/2-1, LW#5
    5) Rutgers-Newark (NJAC) 0.769/0.504/0-4, LW#6
    6) Staten Island (CUNYAC) 0.750/0.499/2-2, LW#4
    7) Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC) 0.792/0.479/0-1, new
    Dropping out: Delaware Valley (MACF) 0.696/0.503/1-2, LW#7

    Central
    1) Benedictine (NATHC) 1.000/0.523/4-0, LW#1
    2) Augustana (CCIW) 0.960/0.529/3-1, LW#2
    3) St. Norbert (MWC) 0.913/0.527/2-1, LW#3
    4) North Central (Ill.) (CCIW) 0.750/0.594/3-6, LW#4
    5) Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.800/0.519/2-4, LW#5
    6) Chicago (UAA) 0.696/0.559/2-6, LW#6
    7) Carroll (MWC) 0.826/0.509/0-2, LW#8
    8) Aurora (NATHC) 0.792/0.508/1-2, LW#7

    East
    1) Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.840/0.545/5-2, LW#1
    2) Rochester (UAA) 0.739/0.561/4-3, LW#2
    3) Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.720/0.533/4-3, LW#5
    4) SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC) 0.708/0.536/2-4, LW#3
    5) Brockport (SUNYAC) 0.640/0.559/3-5, LW#4
    6) New York University (UAA) 0.792/0.513/3-3, LW#6

    Great Lakes
    1) Marietta (OAC) 0.920/0.545/5-2, LW#1
    2) Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.880/0.521/3-2, LW#3
    3) Hope (MIAA) 0.955/0.500/1-1, LW#5
    4) John Carroll (OAC) 0.880/0.521/3-2, LW#2
    5) Alma (MIAA) 0.760/0.551/3-4, LW#4
    6) Wooster (NCAC) 0.750/0.555/2-4, LW#6
    7) Mount Union (OAC) 0.667/0.531/2-4, LW#8
    8) Hiram (NCAC) 0.750/0.499/2-2, LW#7
    9) St. Vincent (PrAC) 0.760/0.472/1-1, LW#9

    Mid-Atlantic
    1) Christopher Newport (CAC) 0.960/0.531/4-1, LW#1
    2) Susquehanna (LAND) 0.870/0.536/3-2, LW#2
    3) Salisbury (CAC) 0.800/0.547/4-2, LW#3
    4) Catholic (LAND) 0.800/0.546/4-2, LW#4
    5) Scranton (LAND) 0.750/0.542/2-3, LW#5
    6) Franklin and Marshall (CC) 0.800/0.509/1-0, LW#6

    Northeast
    1) Amherst (NESCAC) 0.840/0.557/4-2, LW#1
    2) Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC) 0.750/0.565/3-4, LW#2
    3) Tufts (NESCAC) 0.800/0.554/3-4, LW#3
    4) Babson (NEWMAC) 0.792/0.538/3-3, LW#4
    5) WPI (NEWMAC) 0.800/0.514/5-2, LW#5
    6) Johnson and Wales (GNAC) 0.917/0.472/1-0, LW#8
    7) Eastern Connecticut (LEC) 0.680/0.553/1-4, LW#6
    8) Wesleyan (NESCAC) 0.720/0.511/2-2, LW#7
    9) Southern Vermont (NECC) 0.880/0.469/0-2, LW#10
    10) Nichols (CCC) 0.880/0.469/0-0, LW#11
    11) MIT (NEWMAC) 0.760/0.497/2-3, LW#9

    South
    1) Emory (UAA) 0.696/0.584/4-4, LW#3
    2) Texas Lutheran (SCAC) 0.760/0.531/3-0, LW#1
    3) Lynchburg (ODAC) 0.760/0.535/3-2, LW#4
    4) Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC) 0.680/0.564/4-4, LW#2
    5) LaGrange (USAC) 0.714/0.537/2-2, LW#5
    6) East Texas Baptist (ASC) 0.773/0.512/0-2, LW#6
    7) North Carolina Wesleyan (USAC) 0.789/0.521/1-1, LW#8
    8) Roanoke (ODAC) 0.750/0.500/1-2, LW#7

    West
    1) St. Thomas (MIAC) 0.920/0.555/9-1, LW#1
    2) Whitworth (NWC) 0.958/0.506/1-1, LW#2
    3) Whitman (NWC) 0.875/0.506/1-2, LW#3
    4) St. Johns (MIAC) 0.708/0.525/5-3, LW#4
    5) St. Olaf (MIAC) 0.640/0.539/3-5, LW#5
    6) Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC) 0.667/0.526/4-4, LW#6
    7) Bethel (MIAC) 0.680/0.528/3-7, new
    Dropping out: Augsburg (MIAC) 0.600/0.508/1-7, LW#7
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2016, 12:56:59 PM
    Best guesses on Pool C status as of today.
    (Teams listed as Pool A are top seeds in conference tournaments, but none have yet clinched a Pool A berth.)

    Again, data is from D3 numbers guru Matt Snyder.
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)

    Locks (19)
    St. Thomas (MIAC, Pool A) 0.920/0.555/9-1, proj WE#1
    Benedictine (NACC, Pool A) 1.000/0.523/4-0, proj CE#1
    Marietta (OAC, Pool A) 0.920/0.545/5-2, proj GL#1
    Christopher Newport (CAC, Pool A) 0.960/0.531/4-1, proj MA#1
    Augustana (CCIW, Pool A) 0.960/0.529/3-1, proj CE#2
    North Central (Ill.) (CCIW, Pool C) 0.750/0.594/3-6, proj CE#4
    Amherst (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.840/0.557/4-2, proj NE#1
    St. Norbert (MWC, Pool A) 0.913/0.527/2-1, proj CE#3
    Susquehanna (LAND, Pool C) 0.870/0.536/3-2, proj MA#2
    Whitworth (NWC, Pool A) 0.958/0.506/1-1, proj WE#2
    Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC, Pool A) 0.840/0.545/5-2, proj EA#1
    Tufts (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.554/3-4, proj NE#3
    Hope (MIAA, Pool A) 0.955/0.500/1-1, proj GL#3
    Emory (UAA, Pool A) 0.696/0.584/4-4, proj SO#1
    Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC, Pool A) 0.750/0.565/3-4, proj NE#2
    Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC, Pool A) 0.880/0.521/3-2, proj GL#2
    John Carroll (OAC, Pool C) 0.880/0.521/3-2, proj GL#4
    Salisbury (CAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.547/4-2, proj MA#3
    Catholic (LAND, Pool A) 0.800/0.546/4-2, proj MA#4

    Likely in (5)
    Rochester (UAA, Pool C) 0.739/0.561/4-3, proj EA#2
    Alma (MIAA, Pool C) 0.760/0.551/3-4, proj GL#5
    Wooster (NCAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.555/2-4, proj GL#6
    Babson (NEWMAC, Pool A) 0.792/0.538/3-3, proj NE#4
    Whitman (NWC, Pool C) 0.875/0.506/1-2, proj WE#3

    Bubble teams (21)
    Stockton (NJAC, Pool C) 0.792/0.533/2-3, proj AT#2
    Scranton (LAND, Pool C) 0.750/0.542/2-3, proj MA#5
    Chicago (UAA, Pool C) 0.696/0.559/2-6, proj CE#6
    Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.564/4-4, proj SO#4
    Lynchburg (ODAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.535/3-2, proj SO#3
    DeSales (MACF, Pool A) 0.792/0.523/1-2, proj AT#3
    Elmhurst (CCIW, Pool C) 0.800/0.519/2-4, proj CE#5
    Carroll (MWC, Pool C) 0.826/0.509/0-2, proj CE#7
    Texas Lutheran (SCAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.531/3-0, proj SO#2
    St. John Fisher (E8, Pool A) 0.800/0.516/1-1, proj EA#
    WPI (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.514/5-2, proj NE#5
    Eastern Connecticut (LEC, Pool A) 0.680/0.553/1-4, proj NE#7
    Johnson and Wales (GNAC, Pool A) 0.917/0.472/1-0, proj NE#6
    New York University (UAA, Pool C) 0.792/0.513/3-3, proj EA#6
    Franklin and Marshall (CC, Pool A) 0.800/0.509/1-0, proj MA#6
    LaGrange (USAC, Pool C) 0.714/0.537/2-2, proj SO#5
    Oswego State (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.533/4-3, proj EA#3
    Aurora (NACC, Pool C) 0.792/0.508/1-2, proj CE#8
    Brockport (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.640/0.559/3-5, proj EA#5
    SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.708/0.536/2-4, proj EA#4
    New Jersey City (NJAC, Pool A) 0.720/0.522/4-2, proj AT#1

    Longshots (14)
    North Carolina Wesleyan (USAC, Pool A) 0.789/0.521/1-1, proj SO#7
    East Texas Baptist (ASC, Pool A) 0.773/0.512/0-2, proj SO#6
    St. Johns (MIAC, Pool C) 0.708/0.525/5-3, proj WE#4
    Rutgers-Newark (NJAC, Pool C) 0.769/0.504/0-4, proj AT#5
    Bethel (MIAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.528/3-7, proj WE#7
    Brooklyn (CUNYAC, Pool C) 0.769/0.497/2-1, proj AT#4
    Mount Union (OAC, Pool C) 0.667/0.531/2-4, proj GL#7
    St. Olaf (MIAC, Pool C) 0.640/0.539/3-5, proj WE#5
    Wesleyan (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.511/2-2, proj NE#8
    MIT (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.497/2-3, proj NE#11
    Roanoke (ODAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.500/1-2, proj SO#8
    Hiram (NCAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.499/2-2, proj GL#8
    Staten Island (CUNYAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.499/2-2, proj AT#6
    Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC, Pool C) 0.667/0.526/4-4, proj WE#6
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2016, 01:00:44 PM
    "Bubble-burster" info

    My guesses, based on data from Matt Snyder
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)


    Potential multi-bid leagues (25, with 59 contending teams)

    ASC: East Texas Baptist (longshot)

    CAC: Christopher Newport (lock), Salisbury (lock)

    CC: Franklin & Marshall (bubble)

    CCIW: Augustana (lock), North Central (lock), Elmhurst (bubble)

    CUNYAC: Brooklyn (longshot), Staten Island (longshot)

    E8: St John Fisher (bubble)

    GNAC: Johnson & Wales (bubble)

    LAND: Catholic (lock), Susquehanna (lock), Scranton (bubble)

    LEC: Eastern Connecticut (bubble)

    MACF: DeSales (bubble)

    MIAA: Hope (lock), Alma (likely)

    MIAC: St Thomas (lock), St. John's (longshot), St. Olaf (longshot), Concordia-Moorhead (longshot), Bethel (longshot)

    MWC: St. Norbert (lock), Carroll (bubble)

    NACC: Benedictine (lock), Aurora (bubble)

    NCAC: Ohio Wesleyan (lock), Wooster (likely), Hiram (longshot)

    NESCAC: Trinity (lock), Amherst (lock), Tufts (lock), Wesleyan (longshot)

    NEWMAC: Babson (likely), WPI (bubble), MIT (longshot)

    NJAC: New Jersey City (bubble), Stockton (bubble), Rutgers-Newark (longshot)

    NWC: Whitworth (lock), Whitman (likely)

    OAC: Marietta (lock), John Carroll (lock), Mt. Union (longshot)

    ODAC: Lynchburg (bubble), Virginia Wesleyan (bubble), Roanoke (longshot)

    SCAC: Texas Lutheran (bubble)

    SUNYAC: Plattsburgh State (lock), Oswego State (bubble), SUNY Geneseo (bubble), Brockport (bubble)

    UAA: Emory (lock), Rochester (likely), Chicago (bubble), NYU (bubble)
    (Note: Emory and Rochester play for the Pool A berth on Saturday, in the regular-season finale.)

    USAC: LaGrange (bubble), NC Wesleyan (longshot)


    Unexpected winners of the above leagues will burst bubbles for other Pool C teams


    Breakdown of the 62 berths
    - 25 Pool A berths will go to (tournament, except UAA) champs of the above leagues
    - 19 Pool C berths (presumably) will go to other teams from the above leagues
    - 18 Pool A berths will go to the winners of other (clearly one-bid) leagues, listed below


    Top seeds in one-bid leagues
    AMCC: Hilbert 0.833/0.429/0-0
    CCC: Nichols 0.880/0.469/0-0
    CSAC: Gwynedd Mercy 0.792/0.479/0-1
    HCAC: Defiance 0.600/0.456/0-0
    IIAC: Dubuque 0.682/0.495/0-1
    LL: Skidmore 0.667/0.511/2-0
    MACC: Alvernia 0.583/0.532/1-2
    MASCAC: Fitchburg State 0.667/0.480/1-1
    NAC: Green Mountain 0.833/0.445/0-0
    NEAC: Lancaster Bible 1.000/0.421/1-0
    NECC: Southern Vermont 0.880/0.469/0-2
    PrAC: St. Vincent 0.760/0.472/1-1
    SAA: Birmingham-Southern 0.739/0.498/0-3
    SCIAC: Chapman 0.824/0.476/0-0
    SKY: SUNY-Old Westbury 0.680/0.475/0-1
    SLIAC: MacMurray 0.591/0.455/0-1
    UMAC: St. Scholastica 0.739/0.442/0-1
    WIAC: UW-La Crosse 0.625/0.546/0-2
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2016, 01:30:07 PM
    Nice work, Fantastic50 +1k

    I may as well stop posting!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: warriorcat on February 22, 2016, 02:05:22 PM
    Thanks for putting all of this together, Fantastic 50

    Let the games begin
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 22, 2016, 02:24:26 PM
    Really nice work, Fantastic50.

    One correction -- You have the CUNYAC listed twice.  If you drop them from the multi-bid or one-bid leagues, that'll get you to 43 AQs.

    I posted our conference tournament tracker earlier today:
    http://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/men/2015-16/conference-tournaments/index
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2016, 02:49:36 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 22, 2016, 02:24:26 PM
    One correction -- You have the CUNYAC listed twice.  If you drop them from the multi-bid or one-bid leagues, that'll get you to 43 AQs.

    Thanks, fixed now ... I removed the CUNYAC from the definite one-bid leagues list.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2016, 06:07:12 PM
    Bubble watch games - Tuesday, February 23
    (Status in parenthesis is for a Pool C berth; any team still playing can get in by winning a conference tournament)

    CUNYAC semis: #3 Brooklyn (longshot) vs #2 Staten Island (longshot)

    GNAC quarters: #8 St Joseph, Maine (out) at #1 Johnson & Wales (bubble)

    LEC quarters: #8 Mass-Boston (out) at #1 Eastern Connecticut (bubble)

    NCAC quarters: #8 Wabash (out) at #1 Ohio Wesleyan (lock)
    NCAC quarters: #7 Oberlin (out) at #2 Wooster (likely)
    NCAC quarters: #6 Kenyon (out) at #3 Hiram (unlikely)

    OAC quarters: #8 Wilmington (out) at #1 Marietta (lock)
    OAC quarters: #7 Capital (out) at #2 John Carroll (lock)
    OAC quarters: #6 Heidelberg (out) at #3 Mount Union (longshot)

    SUNYAC quarters: #5 SUNY Geneseo (bubble) at #4 Oswego State (bubble)
    SUNYAC quarters: #6 Buffalo St (out) at #3 Brockport (bubble)


    Bubble watch games - Wednesday, February 24

    Landmark semis: #4 Juniata (out) at #1 Catholic (lock)
    Landmark semis: #3 Scranton (bubble) at #2 Susquehanna (lock)

    MAFC semis: #4 Wilkes (out) at #1 DeSales (bubble)

    MIAC quarters: #5 Bethel (longshot) at #4 Concordia-Moorhead (longshot)

    NJAC semis: #4 TCNJ (out) at #1 New Jersey City (bubble)
    NJAC semis: #3 Rutgers-Newark (longshot) at #2 Stockton (bubble)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 23, 2016, 12:31:09 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2016, 12:44:13 PM
    Assuming all conference winners/leaders get the Pool A spot...which never happens.

    Pool C outlook (not a Pool C expert, never played one on TV)


    But you did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night Greek  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 23, 2016, 12:35:58 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 22, 2016, 01:00:44 PM
    "Bubble-burster" info

    My guesses, based on data from Matt Snyder
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)


    Potential multi-bid leagues (25, with 59 contending teams)

    ASC: East Texas Baptist (longshot)

    CAC: Christopher Newport (lock), Salisbury (lock)

    CC: Franklin & Marshall (bubble)

    CCIW: Augustana (lock), North Central (lock), Elmhurst (bubble)

    CUNYAC: Brooklyn (longshot), Staten Island (longshot)

    E8: St John Fisher (bubble)

    GNAC: Johnson & Wales (bubble)

    LAND: Catholic (lock), Susquehanna (lock), Scranton (bubble)

    LEC: Eastern Connecticut (bubble)

    MACF: DeSales (bubble)

    MIAA: Hope (lock), Alma (likely)

    MIAC: St Thomas (lock), St. John's (longshot), St. Olaf (longshot), Concordia-Moorhead (longshot), Bethel (longshot)

    MWC: St. Norbert (lock), Carroll (bubble)

    NACC: Benedictine (lock), Aurora (bubble)

    NCAC: Ohio Wesleyan (lock), Wooster (likely), Hiram (longshot)

    NESCAC: Trinity (lock), Amherst (lock), Tufts (lock), Wesleyan (longshot)

    NEWMAC: Babson (likely), WPI (bubble), MIT (longshot)

    NJAC: New Jersey City (bubble), Stockton (bubble), Rutgers-Newark (longshot)

    NWC: Whitworth (lock), Whitman (likely)

    OAC: Marietta (lock), John Carroll (lock), Mt. Union (longshot)

    ODAC: Lynchburg (bubble), Virginia Wesleyan (bubble), Roanoke (longshot)

    SCAC: Texas Lutheran (bubble)

    SUNYAC: Plattsburgh State (lock), Oswego State (bubble), SUNY Geneseo (bubble), Brockport (bubble)

    UAA: Emory (lock), Rochester (likely), Chicago (bubble), NYU (bubble)
    (Note: Emory and Rochester play for the Pool A berth on Saturday, in the regular-season finale.)

    USAC: LaGrange (bubble), NC Wesleyan (longshot)


    Unexpected winners of the above leagues will burst bubbles for other Pool C teams


    Breakdown of the 62 berths
    - 25 Pool A berths will go to (tournament, except UAA) champs of the above leagues
    - 19 Pool C berths (presumably) will go to other teams from the above leagues
    - 18 Pool A berths will go to the winners of other (clearly one-bid) leagues, listed below


    Top seeds in one-bid leagues
    AMCC: Hilbert 0.833/0.429/0-0
    CCC: Nichols 0.880/0.469/0-0
    CSAC: Gwynedd Mercy 0.792/0.479/0-1
    HCAC: Defiance 0.600/0.456/0-0
    IIAC: Dubuque 0.682/0.495/0-1
    LL: Skidmore 0.667/0.511/2-0
    MACC: Alvernia 0.583/0.532/1-2
    MASCAC: Fitchburg State 0.667/0.480/1-1
    NAC: Green Mountain 0.833/0.445/0-0
    NEAC: Lancaster Bible 1.000/0.421/1-0
    NECC: Southern Vermont 0.880/0.469/0-2
    PrAC: St. Vincent 0.760/0.472/1-1
    SAA: Birmingham-Southern 0.739/0.498/0-3
    SCIAC: Chapman 0.824/0.476/0-0
    SKY: SUNY-Old Westbury 0.680/0.475/0-1
    SLIAC: MacMurray 0.591/0.455/0-1
    UMAC: St. Scholastica 0.739/0.442/0-1
    WIAC: UW-La Crosse 0.625/0.546/0-2

    The LEC is a 1 bid league.  Eastern Connecticut isn't getting into the tournament without winning the LEC tournament and nobody else in the conference is even a small blip on the radar.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 23, 2016, 12:25:04 PM
    Quick Thoughts on the NCAA Tournament:

    1) As many here have pointed out, the bottom of the Pool C is a bit of a mess.  Of course, that'll clear out when there are some upsets in the conference tournaments.

    2) I think we're looking at two three-team pods based on minimization of travel.  First, Birmingham-Southern (492 miles) and Texas Lutheran going to East Texas Baptist (no planes).  Second, Chapman (plane) going up to Washington to play Whitman at Whitworth.  I'm pretty sure the rest of the first weekend won't need planes.

    3) On first pass, I don't see any way to avoid Benedictine and Augustana happening on the 2nd weekend without a lot of plane travel.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2016, 02:54:12 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2016, 12:25:04 PM
    Quick Thoughts on the NCAA Tournament:

    1) As many here have pointed out, the bottom of the Pool C is a bit of a mess.  Of course, that'll clear out when there are some upsets in the conference tournaments.

    2) I think we're looking at two three-team pods based on minimization of travel.  First, Birmingham-Southern (492 miles) and Texas Lutheran going to East Texas Baptist (no planes).  Second, Chapman (plane) going up to Washington to play Whitman at Whitworth.  I'm pretty sure the rest of the first weekend won't need planes.

    3) On first pass, I don't see any way to avoid Benedictine and Augustana happening on the 2nd weekend without a lot of plane travel.

    The only question with #2 is does that put Emory on an island? They'd be within 500 miles of the USAC champ, and would be within 500 miles of Birmingham-Southern. I think they can get to Lynchburg (or vice versa) within 500 miles, but not Virginia Wesleyan. Looks like Mount St. Joseph could get to Emory within 500 miles as well. I'm not sure if anyone else can. Maybe they'd have to move that pod.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2016, 03:50:26 PM

    Not to mention, if Whitman loses against PacLu, they're very much on the bubble.  That SOS is pretty bad.


    If there are three west coast teams, you might just see them fly TxLutheran to Whitworth and have Birmingham Southern host a pod with ETBU and Emory (if Greenville wins the SLIAC, they can get there driving, too).

    I'm not going to get too caught up in eventualities, though, until we have actual teams qualified.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2016, 04:02:28 PM
    Keep something in mind that we learned from 2014... the first weekend they don't like to put pods together with a host that deserves it only for geographical reasons. Remember how much some of us liked Centre hosting with Emory there because it made a great geographic pod? The committee basically said the only way they make geographical pods is because of Texas, Northwest, etc. They gave Emory a bye and sent a team to them instead which had major ramifications around the country with the rest of the bracket.

    Furthermore, as much as TLU is highly ranked now... I am a little worried if they don't win the tournament. Their latest loss hasn't been reflected in the rankings as of yet (will on Wednesday) and another loss will have them fall even further. TLU could easily be out of the NCAA tournament in a loss-filled South Region where their SOS probably won't stack up. You could easily be left with just one team in Texas should Colorado College win the AQ over TLU (certainly possible).

    Honestly, I wait until the third regional rankings are in before I start looking at this too seriously because so many factors are changing, especially this year with so many more losses on the board than usual.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2016, 09:34:41 PM
    At intermission, Brooklyn leads Staten Island by a point.  All the other bubble-relevant games today were won by the higher seeds.

    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 22, 2016, 06:07:12 PM
    Bubble watch games - Tuesday, February 23
    (Status in parenthesis is for a Pool C berth; any team still playing can get in by winning a conference tournament)

    CUNYAC semis: #3 Brooklyn (longshot) vs #2 Staten Island (longshot)

    GNAC quarters: #8 St Joseph, Maine (out) at #1 Johnson & Wales (bubble)

    LEC quarters: #8 Mass-Boston (out) at #1 Eastern Connecticut (bubble)

    NCAC quarters: #8 Wabash (out) at #1 Ohio Wesleyan (lock)
    NCAC quarters: #7 Oberlin (out) at #2 Wooster (likely)
    NCAC quarters: #6 Kenyon (out) at #3 Hiram (unlikely)

    OAC quarters: #8 Wilmington (out) at #1 Marietta (lock)
    OAC quarters: #7 Capital (out) at #2 John Carroll (lock)
    OAC quarters: #6 Heidelberg (out) at #3 Mount Union (longshot)

    SUNYAC quarters: #5 SUNY Geneseo (bubble) at #4 Oswego State (bubble)
    SUNYAC quarters: #6 Buffalo St (out) at #3 Brockport (bubble)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2016, 12:43:52 AM

    I don't think there were any bubbles burst tonight.  The CUNYAC lost both top seeds, but I'm not sure either one is real C material.  Maybe, maybe Staten Island, but they're basically even with Brooklyn anyway, so no real loss to Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 12:59:15 AM
    CUNYAC for a chance at a Pool C needed the favorites to make the title game... that's done with now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 06:22:06 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 12:59:15 AM
    CUNYAC for a chance at a Pool C needed the favorites to make the title game... that's done with now.

    We'll see how the rankings look today, but with Staten Island's loss last week, I think that Brooklyn may jump them anyway, actually giving Brooklyn a better Pool C shot than S.I. if they got to the title game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2016, 08:56:33 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 12:59:15 AM
    CUNYAC for a chance at a Pool C needed the favorites to make the title game... that's done with now.

    Yep, and as Fantastic50 pointed out, Lehman and Staten Island were going to be longshot candidates anyway. Bunch of .700s winning percentages with SOS of right around .500. Not going to get it done.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 24, 2016, 10:15:52 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2016, 12:25:04 PM
    ...On first pass, I don't see any way to avoid Benedictine and Augustana happening on the 2nd weekend without a lot of plane travel...

    Of course, the most obvious way to avoid it would be one of them losing in the first weekend.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 10:53:02 AM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 24, 2016, 10:15:52 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2016, 12:25:04 PM
    ...On first pass, I don't see any way to avoid Benedictine and Augustana happening on the 2nd weekend without a lot of plane travel...

    Of course, the most obvious way to avoid it would be one of them losing in the first weekend.

    If they have to meet to see who goes to the Final Four, I don't think that's the worse scenario in the world.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2016, 11:03:39 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 10:53:02 AM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 24, 2016, 10:15:52 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2016, 12:25:04 PM
    ...On first pass, I don't see any way to avoid Benedictine and Augustana happening on the 2nd weekend without a lot of plane travel...

    Of course, the most obvious way to avoid it would be one of them losing in the first weekend.

    If they have to meet to see who goes to the Final Four, I don't think that's the worse scenario in the world.

    Yeah, with the realities and constraints of the way D3 is bracketed, getting a Sectional Final matchup between two of the top 4-5 teams isn't terrible.

    Throw St. Thomas in the mix as well though. It's probably going to take some creativity to split that trio up as much as possible.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 11:32:12 AM
    Yeah - as long as there isn't a first weekend matchup, I consider it a win. Would it be better for quarterfinals? Sure, but depends on what the committee has to work with for the bracket before I would decide if a Sweet 16 matchup is bad.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 24, 2016, 11:50:57 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2016, 11:03:39 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 10:53:02 AM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 24, 2016, 10:15:52 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 23, 2016, 12:25:04 PM
    ...On first pass, I don't see any way to avoid Benedictine and Augustana happening on the 2nd weekend without a lot of plane travel...

    Of course, the most obvious way to avoid it would be one of them losing in the first weekend.

    If they have to meet to see who goes to the Final Four, I don't think that's the worse scenario in the world.

    Yeah, with the realities and constraints of the way D3 is bracketed, getting a Sectional Final matchup between two of the top 4-5 teams isn't terrible.

    Throw St. Thomas in the mix as well though. It's probably going to take some creativity to split that trio up as much as possible.
    Is this the result of too many west/central region teams in the tourney or too few?  If they can put Augustana and Stevens Point on the opposite side of the bracket last year, I don't know why they couldn't do the same for Augustana and Benedictine.

    On the other hand, If the champion is going to come from the West or Central again, the "true" championship game might as well take place in the Midwest with the biggest possible crowd.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 11:54:23 AM
    The easy answer for that... Benedictine has good numbers, but I don't think their overall resume was on the same level as USWP and Augustana last year to deserve being on the other side of the bracket.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 24, 2016, 12:09:12 PM
    At this time last year Stevens Point

    21-4      .840/.575/2-4


    Benedictine this year

    25-0     1.000/.523/4-0


    You could certainly argue Benedictine has better criteria this year I think. 


    Last years bracket also wasn't about keeping Augustana and Stevens Point apart, it was keeping Augustana and St. Thomas apart and to a larger degree, trying to divide up the Central/West and Great Lakes better than they had in past tournaments.
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/bracket

    Augustana is clearly the #1 seed in their quarter of the bracket, its less clear who the #1 in Stevens Points quarter was but it looks like St. Thomas.  Point was a high seed, but not likely the #1
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 24, 2016, 12:19:16 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 12:09:12 PM
    At this time last year Stevens Point

    21-4      .840/.575/2-4


    Benedictine this year

    25-0     1.000/.523/4-0


    You could certainly argue Benedictine has better criteria this year I think. 


    Last years bracket also wasn't about keeping Augustana and Stevens Point apart, it was keeping Augustana and St. Thomas apart and to a larger degree, trying to divide up the Central/West and Great Lakes better than they had in past tournaments.
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/bracket

    Augustana is clearly the #1 seed in their quarter of the bracket, its less clear who the #1 in Stevens Points quarter was but it looks like St. Thomas.  Point was a high seed, but not likely the #1
    What would you guess was my squad's seed when we knocked off the Tommies?   We might not have been a true #16 if they made all the sections equal but it still might be the biggest upset in tourney history.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 12:21:17 PM
    Eh - I think with a .575 compared to a .523 there is a significant difference. In fact that is knocking on the door of .060 to equal four games - yes making it equal.

    But I also don't look at the 2-4 and 4-0 and say that is just six and four. I know who UWSP played in those games and while Benedictine has a nice 4-0 v the CCIW... there isn't much diversity to their schedule with only NACC and CCIW teams. UWSP had a lot more diversity to give more information.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 24, 2016, 12:25:01 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 24, 2016, 12:19:16 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 12:09:12 PM
    At this time last year Stevens Point

    21-4      .840/.575/2-4


    Benedictine this year

    25-0     1.000/.523/4-0


    You could certainly argue Benedictine has better criteria this year I think. 


    Last years bracket also wasn't about keeping Augustana and Stevens Point apart, it was keeping Augustana and St. Thomas apart and to a larger degree, trying to divide up the Central/West and Great Lakes better than they had in past tournaments.
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/bracket

    Augustana is clearly the #1 seed in their quarter of the bracket, its less clear who the #1 in Stevens Points quarter was but it looks like St. Thomas.  Point was a high seed, but not likely the #1
    What would you guess was my squad's seed when we knocked off the Tommies?   We might not have been a true #16 if they made all the sections equal but it still might be the biggest upset in tourney history.

    That bracket had 12-16 Hendrix, 17-11 LaGrange.  Northwestern at 19-9 was probably anywhere from a 14 to a 12 'true' seed.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 24, 2016, 12:28:04 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 24, 2016, 11:50:57 AM

    If they can put Augustana and Stevens Point on the opposite side of the bracket last year, I don't know why they couldn't do the same for Augustana and Benedictine.

    Are Augustana and Benedictine really that much better than the next tier of teams that you worry about separating out just them?

    Massey's top 20 includes 12 teams from Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, or Minnesota. And 2 of the top 5 schools will most likely be on the road the first weekend with their women hosting.

    1. Benedictine
    2. Auggie
    3. Hope (won't host first weekend if women's team does)
    4. St. Thomas (won't host first weekend if women's team does)
    5. North Central
    8. Marietta
    9. Elmhurst
    10. OWU
    12. St. Norbert
    13. Alma
    14. John Carroll
    17. Wooster

    A pod in Ohio and/or Illinois is going to be inevitably stacked compared to those in the NE. But this is nothing new...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 24, 2016, 12:39:51 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 12:21:17 PM
    Eh - I think with a .575 compared to a .523 there is a significant difference. In fact that is knocking on the door of .060 to equal four games - yes making it equal.

    But I also don't look at the 2-4 and 4-0 and say that is just six and four. I know who UWSP played in those games and while Benedictine has a nice 4-0 v the CCIW... there isn't much diversity to their schedule with only NACC and CCIW teams. UWSP had a lot more diversity to give more information.

    That SOS gap is .052    You've been quoted on this site many times saying .030 =2, but .060 doesn't necessarily = 4    That suggests a difference of 3 games, that seems to favor Benedictine.

    Is that not the guideline?

    -----------------------------
    Stevens Point lost one of those RRO games to St. Thomas, clearly St. Thomas was a higher seed in that half of the bracket, ergo they were keeping Augustana and St. Thomas apart.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2016, 12:43:28 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 12:25:01 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 24, 2016, 12:19:16 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 12:09:12 PM
    At this time last year Stevens Point

    21-4      .840/.575/2-4


    Benedictine this year

    25-0     1.000/.523/4-0


    You could certainly argue Benedictine has better criteria this year I think. 


    Last years bracket also wasn't about keeping Augustana and Stevens Point apart, it was keeping Augustana and St. Thomas apart and to a larger degree, trying to divide up the Central/West and Great Lakes better than they had in past tournaments.
    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/bracket

    Augustana is clearly the #1 seed in their quarter of the bracket, its less clear who the #1 in Stevens Points quarter was but it looks like St. Thomas.  Point was a high seed, but not likely the #1
    What would you guess was my squad's seed when we knocked off the Tommies?   We might not have been a true #16 if they made all the sections equal but it still might be the biggest upset in tourney history.

    That bracket had 12-16 Hendrix, 17-11 LaGrange.  Northwestern at 19-9 was probably anywhere from a 14 to a 12 'true' seed.

    I had Northwestern As the No. 61 RPI (out of 62) entering last year's tournament. St. Thomas was No. 2, so that would have been a true 1 vs. 16 if going by RPI.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2016, 01:06:40 PM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 24, 2016, 12:28:04 PM
    And 2 of the top 5 schools will most likely be on the road the first weekend with their women hosting.

    1. Benedictine
    2. Auggie
    3. Hope (won't host first weekend if women's team does)
    4. St. Thomas (won't host first weekend if women's team does)
    5. North Central

    I thought that the men had priority for hosting in even-numbered years?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 24, 2016, 01:16:03 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 24, 2016, 01:06:40 PM
    I thought that the men had priority for hosting in even-numbered years?

    Looks like I have been ill informed all year...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 01:19:52 PM
    MEN have priority the first weekend. I know I have stated otherwise as of a week ago, but corrected myself recently. MEN have priority the first weekend, women the second weekend this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 01:21:22 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 12:39:51 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 12:21:17 PM
    Eh - I think with a .575 compared to a .523 there is a significant difference. In fact that is knocking on the door of .060 to equal four games - yes making it equal.

    But I also don't look at the 2-4 and 4-0 and say that is just six and four. I know who UWSP played in those games and while Benedictine has a nice 4-0 v the CCIW... there isn't much diversity to their schedule with only NACC and CCIW teams. UWSP had a lot more diversity to give more information.

    That SOS gap is .052    You've been quoted on this site many times saying .030 =2, but .060 doesn't necessarily = 4    That suggests a difference of 3 games, that seems to favor Benedictine.

    Is that not the guideline?

    -----------------------------
    Stevens Point lost one of those RRO games to St. Thomas, clearly St. Thomas was a higher seed in that half of the bracket, ergo they were keeping Augustana and St. Thomas apart.

    The committee feels differently from what I can tell this season. .060=4 games this season. I am hoping to get a clarification.

    Furthermore, .060 is the next milestone per a .030 measure... the question really becomes if that is 4 games, or is it 3.5 or better yet 4.5. I am saying it is knocking on the door and that makes some things a wash. I also looked at the rest of the criteria, not just those two.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 01:28:04 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 24, 2016, 01:06:40 PM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 24, 2016, 12:28:04 PM
    And 2 of the top 5 schools will most likely be on the road the first weekend with their women hosting.

    1. Benedictine
    2. Auggie
    3. Hope (won't host first weekend if women's team does)
    4. St. Thomas (won't host first weekend if women's team does)
    5. North Central

    I thought that the men had priority for hosting in even-numbered years?

    Yeah, that didn't sound right because I knew the Tommies were on the road simply because the women hosted. It set up perfectly for St. Norbert, finally hosting a pod, but losing to Elmhurst in the 1st round. I really railed on them for blowing that opportunity.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 01:34:18 PM
    That scenario was the reminder. I poured over the handbooks and even the NCAA rules book and couldn't find it. I then just got it backwards for a period of time. But that scenario last year (along with Amherst) was the reminder that men have priority in the first weekend this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2016, 01:41:34 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 01:34:18 PM
    That scenario was the reminder. I poured over the handbooks and even the NCAA rules book and couldn't find it. I then just got it backwards for a period of time. But that scenario last year (along with Amherst) was the reminder that men have priority in the first weekend this year.

    Confirmed, page 18 here...
    http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015-16_DIIIMBB_HostOps_20160120.pdf (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015-16_DIIIMBB_HostOps_20160120.pdf)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 01:46:00 PM
    SMH Never thought to look through that damn manual. Looked through it a few weeks ago for something else.

    Thanks! +k
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2016, 01:51:46 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 01:46:00 PM
    SMH Never thought to look through that damn manual. Looked through it a few weeks ago for something else.

    Thanks! +k


    I looked through the whole thing and still missed it - so at least you didn't waste all that time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 02:05:44 PM
    http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

    http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/02/24/third-ncaa-regional-ranking/   ;D

    New rankings are out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 02:13:06 PM
    Better source: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/02/24/third-ncaa-regional-ranking/ LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 02:22:57 PM
    It wasn't there yet...and last week I did change the link once it was up on your blog.  ;D  :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2016, 02:30:36 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2016, 01:51:46 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 01:46:00 PM
    SMH Never thought to look through that damn manual. Looked through it a few weeks ago for something else.

    Thanks! +k

    I looked through the whole thing and still missed it - so at least you didn't waste all that time.

    Not being sure of which document it was in, I searched a couple of them for "even year" and it popped up.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 02:32:41 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 02:22:57 PM
    It wasn't there yet...and last week I did change the link once it was up on your blog.  ;D  :)

    If you wait pretty much a minute or two, we have it. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2016, 02:46:37 PM

    Brooklyn was already up to #4 before the win this week.  That's interesting, but it'll be moot if they win the AQ anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 03:00:15 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2016, 02:46:37 PM

    Brooklyn was already up to #4 before the win this week.  That's interesting, but it'll be moot if they win the AQ anyway.

    They also get a boost with Lehman jumping into the rankings, adding two more vRRO.Of course, Lehman crashed and burned in the semis...in addition to this week's win over Staten Island.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 06:27:55 PM
    I'll be updating results throughout the week.

    Teams in BOLD are conferences winners/leaders. An * means there's a tie. Pool A (Automatic qualifiers) will be BLUE once their conference tournaments are complete. Teams losing will be RED and will be considered Pool C.


       ATL                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #4      New Jersey City (NJAC)      1-0      LOST to TCNJ 92-82 in semis   
       #2      #2      #1      Stockton (NJAC)      1-0      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 95-75 in semis; vs TCNJ Final   
       #3      #3      #5      DeSales (MACF)      2-0      LOST to Wilkes 72-62 in semis    
       #4      #5      #3      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      2-0      WON vs Staten Island 78-69 in semis; vs Baruch in Final 2/26   
       #5                  Lehman (CUNYAC)      1-0      LOST to Baruch 80-64 in semis      
       #6      #4      #2      Staten Island (CUNYAC)      0-1      LOST to Brooklyn 78-69 in semis   
       #7      #6      #6      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      2-0      WON vs William Paterson 78-52 in QFs; LOST at Stockton 95-75 in semis   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
             #7      #7      Delaware Valley (MACF)               
       CENT                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      Benedictine (NACC)      1-0      vs TBD 2/26   
       #2      #2      #2      Augustana (CCIW)      1-0      vs Illinois Wesleyan in semis 2/26   
       #3      #3      #3      St.Norbert (MWC)      1-0      vs Lake Forest in semis 2/26   
       #4      #4      #4      North Central (IL) (CCIW)      1-0      vs Elmhurst in semis 2/26   
       #5      #5      #5      Elmhurst (CCIW)      0-1      vs North Central in semis 2/26   
       #6      #6      #7      Chicago (UAA)      1-1      vs Washington U. 2/27   
       #7      #7      #6      Aurora (NACC)      2-0      vs TBD in semis 2/26    
       #8      #8      #8      Carroll (MWC)      2-0      vs Ripon in semis 2/26   
       EAST                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team            Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      Plattsburgh St. (SUNYAC)      3-0      vs Oswego St in semis 2/26   
       #2      #2      #2      *Rochester (UAA)      1-1      vs Emory 2/27   
       #3      #6            NYU (UAA)      1-1      at Brandeis 2/27   
       #4            #6      St. John Fisher (E8)      2-0      vs Stevens in semis 2/26   
       #5      #5      #4      Oswego St. (SUNYAC)      1-1      WON vs SUNY Geneseo 75-59 in QFs; vs Plattsburgh St. in semis 2/26   
       #6      #3      #3      SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC)      1-2      LOST to Oswego St. 75-59 in QFs   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
                   #5      SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC)               
             #4            Brockport (SUNYAC)               
                                        
       GL                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #2      Marietta (OAC)      2-0      WON vs Wilmington 93-78; vs Baldwin Wallace in semis 2/25   
       #2      #3      #3      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)      2-0      WON vs Wabash 100-80; vs   Denison in semis 2/26   
       #3      #2      #1      John Carroll (OAC)      1-1      WON vs Capital 83-70; vs Mount Union in semis 2/26   
       #4      #5      #4      Hope (MIAA)      2-0      vs Trine in semis 2/26   
       #5      #4      #5      Alma (MIAA)      1-1      vs Albion in semis 2/26   
       #6      #6      #6      Wooster (NCAC)      2-0      WON vs Oberlin 78-63; vs Hiram in semis 2/26   
       #7      #8      #7      Mount Union (OAC)      2-1      WON vs Heidelberg 102-96; at John Carroll in semis 2/26   
       #8      #7      #8      Hiram (NCAC)      1-1      WON vs Kenyon 95-87; at Wooster in semis 2/26   
       #9      #9            St. Vincent (PAC)      2-0      WON vs Chatham 80-65; vs Westminster in semis 2/25   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
                   #9      Trine (MIAA)               
       MA                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      Christopher Newport(CAC)      2-0      vs St. Mary's in semis 2/25   
       #2      #2      #2      *Susquehanna (LAND)      3-0      WON vs Scranton 77-72 in semis; vs Catholic in Final 2/27
       #3      #3      #3      Salisbury (CAC)      2-0      vs Mary Washington in semis 2/25   
       #4      #4      #4      *Catholic (LAND)      3-0      WON vs Juniata 79-66; vs Susquehanna in Final 2/27   
       #5      #5      #6      Scranton (LAND)      1-1      LOST to Susquehanna 77-72 in semis   
       #6      #6      #5      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      2-1      vs Gettysburg in semis 2/26   
                                        
       NE                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      Amherst (NECAC)      1-0      vs Tufts in semis 2/27   
       #2      #2      #2      Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC)      1-0      vs Middlebury in semis 2/27   
       #3      #3      #3      Tufts (NESCAC)      1-0      at Amherst in semis 2/27   
       #4      #4      #4      Babson (NEWMAC)      2-0      vs Emerson in semis 2/27   
       #5      #5      #6      WPI (NEWMAC)      2-0      vs MIT in semis 2/27   
       #6      #8      #9      Johnson & Wales (GNAC)      2-0      WON vs St. Joseph's 73-36; vs Emmanuel in semis 2/25   
       #7      #6      #7      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)      1-1      WON vs Mass-Boston 93-65; vs Mass-Dartmouth in semis 2/27   
       #8      #9      #8      MIT (NEWMAC)               
       #9                  Middlebury (NESCAC)      1-0      at Trinity in semis 2/27   
       #10      #10      #10      Southern Vermont(NECC)      2-0      vs Regis in semis 2/26   
       #11      #11      #11      Nichols (CCC)      2-0      WON vs W. New England 10768; vs Endicott in semis 2/25   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
             #7      #5      Wesleyan (NESCAC)               
                                        
       SOUTH                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #2      Texas Lutheran (SCAC)      0-1      vs TBD in semis 2/27   
       #2      #4      #4      *Lynchburg (ODAC)      2-0      vs Hampden-Sydney in QFs 2/26   
       #3      #3      #1      *Emory (UAA)      1-1      at Rochester 2/27   
       #4      #2      #3      *Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC)      0-2      vs Randolph-Macon in QFs 2/26   
       #5      #8      #8      N.C. Wesleyan (USAC)      2-0      vs Averett in QFs 2/25   
       #6      #5      #5      LaGrange (USAC)      2-0      vs Ferrum in QFs 2/25   
       #7      #6      #6      East Texas Baptist (ASC)      1-0      vs Mary Harin-Baylor in QFs 2/25   
       #8      #7      #7      Roanoke (ODAC)      0-2      vs Randolph in QFs 2/26   
                                        
       WEST                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      St. Thomas (MIAC)      2-0      vs Bethel in semis 2/26   
       #2      #2      #2      Whitworth (NWC)      2-0      vs Puget Sound in semis 2/25   
       #3      #3      #3      Whitman (NWC)      2-0      vs Pacific Lutheran in semis 2/25   
       #4      #4      #6      St. John's (MIAC)      1-1    WON vs Augsburg 99-86; at St. Olaf in semis 2/26   
       #5      #5            St.Olaf (MIAC)      0-1      vs St. John's in semis 2/26   
       #6      #6      #4      Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC)      1-0      LOST to Bethel 67-62 in QFs   
       #7            #5      Bethel (MIAC)      2-0      WON at Concordia-Moorhead 67-62; at St. Thomas in semis 2/26   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
                   #7      Dubuque (IIAC)               
             #7            Augsburg (MIAC)               
                                        
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Rafi on February 24, 2016, 06:36:12 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 02:13:06 PM
    Better source: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/02/24/third-ncaa-regional-ranking/ LOL

    It looks like to me that Aurora is close to moving ahead of Chicago, but if I'm remembering correctly from last week that Aurora lost a win vs. RRO and Chicago gained one.

    And, it looks to me that NCC has to be close to moving past St. Norbert.  I'm wondering if there are any scenarios where that would happen.....is it possible for NCC to overtake St. Norbert if both win out?

    Dave, or anyone else, what are your thoughts?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2016, 06:36:32 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 22, 2016, 12:56:59 PM
    Best guesses on Pool C status as of today.
    (Teams listed as Pool A are top seeds in conference tournaments, but none have yet clinched a Pool A berth.)

    Again, data is from D3 numbers guru Matt Snyder.
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)

    Locks (19)
    St. Thomas (MIAC, Pool A) 0.920/0.555/9-1, proj WE#1
    Benedictine (NACC, Pool A) 1.000/0.523/4-0, proj CE#1
    Marietta (OAC, Pool A) 0.920/0.545/5-2, proj GL#1
    Christopher Newport (CAC, Pool A) 0.960/0.531/4-1, proj MA#1
    Augustana (CCIW, Pool A) 0.960/0.529/3-1, proj CE#2
    North Central (Ill.) (CCIW, Pool C) 0.750/0.594/3-6, proj CE#4
    Amherst (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.840/0.557/4-2, proj NE#1
    St. Norbert (MWC, Pool A) 0.913/0.527/2-1, proj CE#3
    Susquehanna (LAND, Pool C) 0.870/0.536/3-2, proj MA#2
    Whitworth (NWC, Pool A) 0.958/0.506/1-1, proj WE#2
    Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC, Pool A) 0.840/0.545/5-2, proj EA#1
    Tufts (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.554/3-4, proj NE#3
    Hope (MIAA, Pool A) 0.955/0.500/1-1, proj GL#3
    Emory (UAA, Pool A) 0.696/0.584/4-4, proj SO#1
    Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC, Pool A) 0.750/0.565/3-4, proj NE#2
    Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC, Pool A) 0.880/0.521/3-2, proj GL#2
    John Carroll (OAC, Pool C) 0.880/0.521/3-2, proj GL#4
    Salisbury (CAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.547/4-2, proj MA#3
    Catholic (LAND, Pool A) 0.800/0.546/4-2, proj MA#4

    Likely in (5)
    Rochester (UAA, Pool C) 0.739/0.561/4-3, proj EA#2
    Alma (MIAA, Pool C) 0.760/0.551/3-4, proj GL#5
    Wooster (NCAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.555/2-4, proj GL#6
    Babson (NEWMAC, Pool A) 0.792/0.538/3-3, proj NE#4
    Whitman (NWC, Pool C) 0.875/0.506/1-2, proj WE#3

    Bubble teams (21)
    Stockton (NJAC, Pool C) 0.792/0.533/2-3, proj AT#2
    Scranton (LAND, Pool C) 0.750/0.542/2-3, proj MA#5
    Chicago (UAA, Pool C) 0.696/0.559/2-6, proj CE#6
    Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.564/4-4, proj SO#4
    Lynchburg (ODAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.535/3-2, proj SO#3
    DeSales (MACF, Pool A) 0.792/0.523/1-2, proj AT#3
    Elmhurst (CCIW, Pool C) 0.800/0.519/2-4, proj CE#5
    Carroll (MWC, Pool C) 0.826/0.509/0-2, proj CE#7
    Texas Lutheran (SCAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.531/3-0, proj SO#2
    St. John Fisher (E8, Pool A) 0.800/0.516/1-1, proj EA#
    WPI (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.514/5-2, proj NE#5
    Eastern Connecticut (LEC, Pool A) 0.680/0.553/1-4, proj NE#7
    Johnson and Wales (GNAC, Pool A) 0.917/0.472/1-0, proj NE#6
    New York University (UAA, Pool C) 0.792/0.513/3-3, proj EA#6
    Franklin and Marshall (CC, Pool A) 0.800/0.509/1-0, proj MA#6
    LaGrange (USAC, Pool C) 0.714/0.537/2-2, proj SO#5
    Oswego State (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.533/4-3, proj EA#3
    Aurora (NACC, Pool C) 0.792/0.508/1-2, proj CE#8
    Brockport (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.640/0.559/3-5, proj EA#5
    SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.708/0.536/2-4, proj EA#4
    New Jersey City (NJAC, Pool A) 0.720/0.522/4-2, proj AT#1

    Longshots (14)
    North Carolina Wesleyan (USAC, Pool A) 0.789/0.521/1-1, proj SO#7
    East Texas Baptist (ASC, Pool A) 0.773/0.512/0-2, proj SO#6
    St. Johns (MIAC, Pool C) 0.708/0.525/5-3, proj WE#4
    Rutgers-Newark (NJAC, Pool C) 0.769/0.504/0-4, proj AT#5
    Bethel (MIAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.528/3-7, proj WE#7
    Brooklyn (CUNYAC, Pool C) 0.769/0.497/2-1, proj AT#4
    Mount Union (OAC, Pool C) 0.667/0.531/2-4, proj GL#7
    St. Olaf (MIAC, Pool C) 0.640/0.539/3-5, proj WE#5
    Wesleyan (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.511/2-2, proj NE#8
    MIT (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.497/2-3, proj NE#11
    Roanoke (ODAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.500/1-2, proj SO#8
    Hiram (NCAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.499/2-2, proj GL#8
    Staten Island (CUNYAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.499/2-2, proj AT#6
    Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC, Pool C) 0.667/0.526/4-4, proj WE#6

    Based on seeing the new regional rankings, and the few relevant results so far, I am shifting a few teams...


    This leaves 18 locks, 6 likely teams, 20 bubble teams, and 13 longshots (for a total of 57 teams) in some level of Pool C contention.  After 18 Pool A berths go to the champions of leagues that clearly will get only one bid, there are currently 44 available berths for those 57, leaving enough for all of the bubble teams, for now.  However, it is expected that several of those 44 will go to surprise conference champs (teams off my radar here, that have no chance in Pool C) in average-or-better conferences, each popping a bubble by reducing the number available.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 24, 2016, 07:37:12 PM
    For laughs, I went through the Pool C selections to see how it might look (based on today's regional ratings and disregarding those who are favorites for Pool A (by conference record).

    Round 1 - Amherst
    Round 2 - John Carroll
    Round 3- North Central
    Round 4 - Tufts
    Round 5 - Salisbury
    Round 6 - Catholic
    Round 7 - Rochester
    Round 8 - Richard Stockton
    Round 9 - Whitman
    Round 10 - Alma
    Round 11 - Wooster
    Round 12 - Scranton
    Round 13 - WPI
    Round 14 - NYU (starting to feel icky)
    Round 15 - Elmhurst
    Round 16 - Virginia Wesleyan (really feel like things are stretched here)
    Round 17 - St. Johns
    Round 18 - Chicago
    Round 19 - Aurora

    Left on the table: MIT, Oswego St., Lehman, Lagrange, Mt. Union, St. Olaf

    I wouldn't want to be below Wooster in this group.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 24, 2016, 07:41:25 PM
    Greek, might it be possible for you to substitute some other color (perhaps blue) into the formula Green=Pool A, Red=Pool C? There are those of us who have trouble distinguishing red from green.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2016, 09:07:24 PM

    New Jersey City lost tonight.  They head into Pool C, but they're a very marginal team at 18-8 with a .523 or so.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 24, 2016, 09:13:27 PM
    I believe NJCU is out.  Hopefully, Stockton gets the AQ with a final win over TCNJ.😉

    Go Ospreys!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2016, 09:51:11 PM

    Well, we've now made it through Wednesday without any bubbles burst.  The Atlantic region has run into hard times - they may not get any Pool C entrants once again.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 09:52:08 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2016, 09:07:24 PM

    New Jersey City lost tonight.  They head into Pool C, but they're a very marginal team at 18-8 with a .523 or so.

    I thought we thought Stockton was in, so how can the #1 team in the region be out now?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2016, 09:57:23 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 09:52:08 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2016, 09:07:24 PM

    New Jersey City lost tonight.  They head into Pool C, but they're a very marginal team at 18-8 with a .523 or so.

    I thought we thought Stockton was in, so how can the #1 team in the region be out now?

    I never thought anyone from the Atlantic was in.  Stockton had (has) the best chance, but they're likely going to win the NJAC AQ now.  I don't see an 18-8 team with a .520 getting in; that's a stretch - possible, but unlikely.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2016, 09:58:25 PM
    It appears that DeSales will go down in the MAFC, which likely makes it a one-bid league, although DeSales can't be ruled out for Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 24, 2016, 10:04:12 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2016, 09:51:11 PM

    Well, we've now made it through Wednesday without any bubbles burst.  The Atlantic region has run into hard times - they may not get any Pool C entrants once again.

    I have 2014 as the only year the Atlantic didn't get a Pool C team since 2009, the East Region had no Pool C last year.

    2009  Baruch
    2010  Rutgers-Newark, Stockton St.
    2011  Ramapo
    2012  St. Joseph's
    2013  Rutgers-Newark
    2014  none
    2015  William Patterson
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 10:08:04 PM
    DeSales on the verge of going down.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2016, 10:20:53 PM

    Not that it matters for this year, but it should be noted that both Whitewater and Stevens Point ended their seasons tonight.  This is the first time since 2000-2001 that neither of those teams have played past the WIAC semifinals.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 24, 2016, 10:35:09 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 24, 2016, 10:04:12 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2016, 09:51:11 PM

    Well, we've now made it through Wednesday without any bubbles burst.  The Atlantic region has run into hard times - they may not get any Pool C entrants once again.

    I have 2014 as the only year the Atlantic didn't get a Pool C team since 2009, the East Region had no Pool C last year.

    2009  Baruch
    2010  Rutgers-Newark, Stockton St.
    2011  Ramapo
    2012  St. Joseph's
    2013  Rutgers-Newark
    2014  none
    2015  William Patterson

    That is correct, sac. Plattsburgh State with a 19-8 record, and wins over 3 other teams that won their conferences did not get a Pool C bid last year. However in the 2012-13 season Plattsburgh State did get a Pool C bid with a 19-8 record. I'll be surprised if an 18-8 New Jersey City team gets a bid this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2016, 10:40:28 PM
    I'll do nightly updates on the ranking data now that the public data is behind us.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Quick straw poll: I had been holding out on updates between Sundays and Wednesdays until the rankings come out. Is that something you all like, or would you rather have seen nightly updates these last couple weeks?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 24, 2016, 11:00:43 PM
    I like lots of updates but you're the one doing the work, so I'll take what you give me. ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 24, 2016, 11:05:57 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2016, 10:40:28 PM
    I'll do nightly updates on the ranking data now that the public data is behind us.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Quick straw poll: I had been holding out on updates between Sundays and Wednesdays until the rankings come out. Is that something you all like, or would you rather have seen nightly updates these last couple weeks?

    Maybe just this week when important games are every day. Plus publishing will eliminate the non-transparency of the NCAA committee.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 12:14:29 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2016, 10:40:28 PM
    I'll do nightly updates on the ranking data now that the public data is behind us.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Quick straw poll: I had been holding out on updates between Sundays and Wednesdays until the rankings come out. Is that something you all like, or would you rather have seen nightly updates these last couple weeks?

    Honestly, I use your numbers to gauge what the committee is thinking... so if you were to update them on Sunday and then on Tuesday before rankings come out and I go to look on Tuesday to see what might happen, I might get numbers all jacked up. In the final week after the final rankings are done I think it is okay to update them a few times, but I think prior to the last rankings I rather see what the committee is actually looking at if that makes any sense.

    Another thought to the final week, you might not want to update them too often or arguments on these pages and elsewhere might start to get confusing. I would pick maybe every other day with the weekend being the exception. Or just Wednesday and then the weekend. Again, cuts down on confusion.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 12:27:15 AM
    Quote from: Rafi on February 24, 2016, 06:36:12 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 02:13:06 PM
    Better source: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/02/24/third-ncaa-regional-ranking/ LOL

    It looks like to me that Aurora is close to moving ahead of Chicago, but if I'm remembering correctly from last week that Aurora lost a win vs. RRO and Chicago gained one.

    And, it looks to me that NCC has to be close to moving past St. Norbert.  I'm wondering if there are any scenarios where that would happen.....is it possible for NCC to overtake St. Norbert if both win out?

    Dave, or anyone else, what are your thoughts?

    From what I have been able to learn on the national level at the very least... they like SNC head of NCC for varying reasons. I don't think they would suddenly change their mind this week unless the equation changed in some manner.

    Quote from: TheOsprey on February 24, 2016, 09:13:27 PM
    I believe NJCU is out.  Hopefully, Stockton gets the AQ with a final win over TCNJ.😉

    Go Ospreys!!

    This is going to sound strange, but NJCU has some secondary criteria and other data that is helping them out from what I can learn from around the committees. While it seems strange, their numbers against those with an above .600 winning percentage along with their vRRO helped get them into first. I am not sure Stockton would actually move ahead of them should they still be an at-large team. And I think NJCU will make for an interesting argument at the table. Remember, there are going to be a LOT of 5, 6, 7, and even 8 (of not more) loss teams who enter the conversation this year - it is just that kind of year.

    Is NJCU out? I don't think I can say that for sure. I will say they did themselves no favors and if they are out it is because they didn't get the title game.

    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 24, 2016, 09:58:25 PM
    It appears that DeSales will go down in the MAFC, which likely makes it a one-bid league, although DeSales can't be ruled out for Pool C.

    The fact the committees (regional and national) couldn't get the better winning percentage of DeSales (with a similiar SOS) ahead of Stockton and NJCU tells you DeSales is in trouble. The Atlantic lost too many games this season to secure a lot of bids and by not getting at least an extra win under their belt, DeSales probably just screwed themselves. The other major problem for DeSales: their LONE win in the regional rankings is now no longer there. Delaware Valley fell out of the regional rankings. Not sure they get back in to help DeSales. They played a better schedule this season, but they didn't take advantage of opportunities that would have helped themselves.

    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2016, 10:20:53 PM

    Not that it matters for this year, but it should be noted that both Whitewater and Stevens Point ended their seasons tonight.  This is the first time since 2000-2001 that neither of those teams have played past the WIAC semifinals.

    That certainly is interesting... along with the fact that the WIAC won't get any extra bids this season. Even the ODAC is in trouble of that along with the UAA - but those conferences still have a chance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 25, 2016, 12:50:39 AM
     Question about a RAC and regional rankings:
        In the MA currently Scranton is #5 and F&M 6th; let's suppose F&M loses in the semis(like Scranton did) and Danzig and Robinson are their conference's RAC representatives. Are we to believe that each coach or any other RAC rep will not be lobbying for their own team's best regional ranking position? They'll probably take the high road but is the oversee by the national RAC the only check against personal bias? Come Pool C selection time, the national committee coach whose team is at the table, is excused from the discussion.  Just wondering? ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 01:24:09 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2016, 12:50:39 AM
    Question about a RAC and regional rankings:
        In the MA currently Scranton is #5 and F&M 6th; let's suppose F&M loses in the semis(like Scranton did) and Danzig and Robinson are their conference's RAC representatives. Are we to believe that each coach or any other RAC rep will not be lobbying for their own team's best regional ranking position? They'll probably take the high road but is the oversee by the national RAC the only check against personal bias? Come Pool C selection time, the national committee coach whose team is at the table, is excused from the discussion.  Just wondering? ::)

    They have to come off the call, ronk. Danzig and Robinson would not be allowed to participate in any conversations regarding their teams. It simply isn't allowed. When it comes to selections on the national level, if a coach's team comes to the table... they get off the call. Donohue from Catholic sat on hold/mute/off for a very long time a few years ago.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2016, 07:59:07 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 12:14:29 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2016, 10:40:28 PM
    I'll do nightly updates on the ranking data now that the public data is behind us.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Quick straw poll: I had been holding out on updates between Sundays and Wednesdays until the rankings come out. Is that something you all like, or would you rather have seen nightly updates these last couple weeks?

    Honestly, I use your numbers to gauge what the committee is thinking... so if you were to update them on Sunday and then on Tuesday before rankings come out and I go to look on Tuesday to see what might happen, I might get numbers all jacked up. In the final week after the final rankings are done I think it is okay to update them a few times, but I think prior to the last rankings I rather see what the committee is actually looking at if that makes any sense.

    Another thought to the final week, you might not want to update them too often or arguments on these pages and elsewhere might start to get confusing. I would pick maybe every other day with the weekend being the exception. Or just Wednesday and then the weekend. Again, cuts down on confusion.

    I agree - wait on the nightly updates until after the last RR come out.  It makes it easier for reference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2016, 08:02:07 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2016, 12:50:39 AM
    Question about a RAC and regional rankings:
        In the MA currently Scranton is #5 and F&M 6th; let's suppose F&M loses in the semis(like Scranton did) and Danzig and Robinson are their conference's RAC representatives. Are we to believe that each coach or any other RAC rep will not be lobbying for their own team's best regional ranking position? They'll probably take the high road but is the oversee by the national RAC the only check against personal bias? Come Pool C selection time, the national committee coach whose team is at the table, is excused from the discussion.  Just wondering? ::)

    F&M is not close enough to Scranton to pass them.  F&M is only in the rankings because there are literally no other viable candidates in the region.  The plus side for your boys, though, I think they're ahead of NJCU in terms of criteria (similar record, better SOS) - they're probably the best team who's definitely in Pool C as of this moment.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2016, 08:05:18 AM

    Thursday's games I see only four definite bubble watches (Whitworth, Marietta, JCU, and CNU) and really the Marietta/JCU is only a bubble if both of them fail to get the AQ.

    Salisbury losing tonight is a possible bubble burst, as is a Whitman loss.  I'm not sure if J&W would see the table if they lost tonight, but it's certainly one to watch.  East Texas Baptist is in a similar spot - not sure either is a bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2016, 08:30:18 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 25, 2016, 07:59:07 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 12:14:29 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2016, 10:40:28 PM
    I'll do nightly updates on the ranking data now that the public data is behind us.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Quick straw poll: I had been holding out on updates between Sundays and Wednesdays until the rankings come out. Is that something you all like, or would you rather have seen nightly updates these last couple weeks?

    Honestly, I use your numbers to gauge what the committee is thinking... so if you were to update them on Sunday and then on Tuesday before rankings come out and I go to look on Tuesday to see what might happen, I might get numbers all jacked up. In the final week after the final rankings are done I think it is okay to update them a few times, but I think prior to the last rankings I rather see what the committee is actually looking at if that makes any sense.

    Another thought to the final week, you might not want to update them too often or arguments on these pages and elsewhere might start to get confusing. I would pick maybe every other day with the weekend being the exception. Or just Wednesday and then the weekend. Again, cuts down on confusion.

    I agree - wait on the nightly updates until after the last RR come out.  It makes it easier for reference.

    OK thanks. That was my thinking in holding off on updates between Sunday and Wednesday.

    I think I'll update them nightly from here on out (because that's only 4 more days!). Let's just be aware that the numbers will change based on that day's games. Also note there's a date/time stamp on the top right corner showing when the last update was run.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 25, 2016, 09:34:18 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2016, 08:30:18 AM
    I think I'll update them nightly from here on out (because that's only 4 more days!). Let's just be aware that the numbers will change based on that day's games. Also note there's a date/time stamp on the top right corner showing when the last update was run.
    KnightSlappy, your ranking data is probably my favorite thing anyone does on this board. Thank you for doing it and I am happy you'll be doing it daily for the conference tournaments.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2016, 09:59:24 AM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 25, 2016, 09:34:18 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2016, 08:30:18 AM
    I think I'll update them nightly from here on out (because that's only 4 more days!). Let's just be aware that the numbers will change based on that day's games. Also note there's a date/time stamp on the top right corner showing when the last update was run.
    KnightSlappy, your ranking data is probably my favorite thing anyone does on this board. Thank you for do it and am happy you'll be doing it daily for the conference tournaments.

    Thanks! Glad you like it.

    I have bigger plans for next season which will include KenPom-like efficiency ratings in addition to this Regional Ranking data. Hopefully I don't run into any big obstacles there (trying to learn some Python coding to make this happen).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 25, 2016, 10:12:34 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 01:24:09 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2016, 12:50:39 AM
    Question about a RAC and regional rankings:
        In the MA currently Scranton is #5 and F&M 6th; let's suppose F&M loses in the semis(like Scranton did) and Danzig and Robinson are their conference's RAC representatives. Are we to believe that each coach or any other RAC rep will not be lobbying for their own team's best regional ranking position? They'll probably take the high road but is the oversee by the national RAC the only check against personal bias? Come Pool C selection time, the national committee coach whose team is at the table, is excused from the discussion.  Just wondering? ::)

    They have to come off the call, ronk. Danzig and Robinson would not be allowed to participate in any conversations regarding their teams. It simply isn't allowed. When it comes to selections on the national level, if a coach's team comes to the table... they get off the call. Donohue from Catholic sat on hold/mute/off for a very long time a few years ago.

    Thanks, Dave. I never heard this considered at the regional level, only the national.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2016, 10:45:33 AM
    Updated through last night's games.

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2016, 06:27:55 PM
    I'll be updating results throughout the week.

    Teams in BOLD are conferences winners/leaders. An * means there's a tie. Pool A (Automatic qualifiers) will be BLUE once their conference tournaments are complete. Teams losing will be RED and will be considered Pool C.


       ATL                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #4      New Jersey City (NJAC)      1-0      LOST to TCNJ 92-82 in semis   
       #2      #2      #1      Stockton (NJAC)      1-0      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 95-75 in semis; vs TCNJ Final   
       #3      #3      #5      DeSales (MACF)      2-0      LOST to Wilkes 72-62 in semis    
       #4      #5      #3      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      2-0      WON vs Staten Island 78-69 in semis; vs Baruch in Final 2/26   
       #5                  Lehman (CUNYAC)      1-0      LOST to Baruch 80-64 in semis      
       #6      #4      #2      Staten Island (CUNYAC)      0-1      LOST to Brooklyn 78-69 in semis   
       #7      #6      #6      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      2-0      WON vs William Paterson 78-52 in QFs; LOST at Stockton 95-75 in semis   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
             #7      #7      Delaware Valley (MACF)               
       CENT                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      Benedictine (NACC)      1-0      vs TBD 2/26   
       #2      #2      #2      Augustana (CCIW)      1-0      vs Illinois Wesleyan in semis 2/26   
       #3      #3      #3      St.Norbert (MWC)      1-0      vs Lake Forest in semis 2/26   
       #4      #4      #4      North Central (IL) (CCIW)      1-0      vs Elmhurst in semis 2/26   
       #5      #5      #5      Elmhurst (CCIW)      0-1      vs North Central in semis 2/26   
       #6      #6      #7      Chicago (UAA)      1-1      vs Washington U. 2/27   
       #7      #7      #6      Aurora (NACC)      2-0      vs TBD in semis 2/26    
       #8      #8      #8      Carroll (MWC)      2-0      vs Ripon in semis 2/26   
       EAST                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team            Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      Plattsburgh St. (SUNYAC)      3-0      vs Oswego St in semis 2/26   
       #2      #2      #2      *Rochester (UAA)      1-1      vs Emory 2/27   
       #3      #6            NYU (UAA)      1-1      at Brandeis 2/27   
       #4            #6      St. John Fisher (E8)      2-0      vs Stevens in semis 2/26   
       #5      #5      #4      Oswego St. (SUNYAC)      1-1      WON vs SUNY Geneseo 75-59 in QFs; vs Plattsburgh St. in semis 2/26   
       #6      #3      #3      SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC)      1-2      LOST to Oswego St. 75-59 in QFs   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
                   #5      SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC)               
             #4            Brockport (SUNYAC)               
                                        
       GL                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #2      Marietta (OAC)      2-0      WON vs Wilmington 93-78; vs Baldwin Wallace in semis 2/25   
       #2      #3      #3      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)      2-0      WON vs Wabash 100-80; vs   Denison in semis 2/26   
       #3      #2      #1      John Carroll (OAC)      1-1      WON vs Capital 83-70; vs Mount Union in semis 2/26   
       #4      #5      #4      Hope (MIAA)      2-0      vs Trine in semis 2/26   
       #5      #4      #5      Alma (MIAA)      1-1      vs Albion in semis 2/26   
       #6      #6      #6      Wooster (NCAC)      2-0      WON vs Oberlin 78-63; vs Hiram in semis 2/26   
       #7      #8      #7      Mount Union (OAC)      2-1      WON vs Heidelberg 102-96; at John Carroll in semis 2/26   
       #8      #7      #8      Hiram (NCAC)      1-1      WON vs Kenyon 95-87; at Wooster in semis 2/26   
       #9      #9            St. Vincent (PAC)      2-0      WON vs Chatham 80-65; vs Westminster in semis 2/25   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
                   #9      Trine (MIAA)               
       MA                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      Christopher Newport(CAC)      2-0      vs St. Mary's in semis 2/25   
       #2      #2      #2      *Susquehanna (LAND)      3-0      WON vs Scranton 77-72 in semis; vs Catholic in Final 2/27
       #3      #3      #3      Salisbury (CAC)      2-0      vs Mary Washington in semis 2/25   
       #4      #4      #4      *Catholic (LAND)      3-0      WON vs Juniata 79-66; vs Susquehanna in Final 2/27   
       #5      #5      #6      Scranton (LAND)      1-1      LOST to Susquehanna 77-72 in semis   
       #6      #6      #5      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      2-1      vs Gettysburg in semis 2/26   
                                        
       NE                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      Amherst (NECAC)      1-0      vs Tufts in semis 2/27   
       #2      #2      #2      Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC)      1-0      vs Middlebury in semis 2/27   
       #3      #3      #3      Tufts (NESCAC)      1-0      at Amherst in semis 2/27   
       #4      #4      #4      Babson (NEWMAC)      2-0      vs Emerson in semis 2/27   
       #5      #5      #6      WPI (NEWMAC)      2-0      vs MIT in semis 2/27   
       #6      #8      #9      Johnson & Wales (GNAC)      2-0      WON vs St. Joseph's 73-36; vs Emmanuel in semis 2/25   
       #7      #6      #7      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)      1-1      WON vs Mass-Boston 93-65; vs Mass-Dartmouth in semis 2/27   
       #8      #9      #8      MIT (NEWMAC)               
       #9                  Middlebury (NESCAC)      1-0      at Trinity in semis 2/27   
       #10      #10      #10      Southern Vermont(NECC)      2-0      vs Regis in semis 2/26   
       #11      #11      #11      Nichols (CCC)      2-0      WON vs W. New England 10768; vs Endicott in semis 2/25   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
             #7      #5      Wesleyan (NESCAC)               
                                        
       SOUTH                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #2      Texas Lutheran (SCAC)      0-1      vs TBD in semis 2/27   
       #2      #4      #4      *Lynchburg (ODAC)      2-0      vs Hampden-Sydney in QFs 2/26   
       #3      #3      #1      *Emory (UAA)      1-1      at Rochester 2/27   
       #4      #2      #3      *Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC)      0-2      vs Randolph-Macon in QFs 2/26   
       #5      #8      #8      N.C. Wesleyan (USAC)      2-0      vs Averett in QFs 2/25   
       #6      #5      #5      LaGrange (USAC)      2-0      vs Ferrum in QFs 2/25   
       #7      #6      #6      East Texas Baptist (ASC)      1-0      vs Mary Harin-Baylor in QFs 2/25   
       #8      #7      #7      Roanoke (ODAC)      0-2      vs Randolph in QFs 2/26   
                                        
       WEST                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team      LW      Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      St. Thomas (MIAC)      2-0      vs Bethel in semis 2/26   
       #2      #2      #2      Whitworth (NWC)      2-0      vs Puget Sound in semis 2/25   
       #3      #3      #3      Whitman (NWC)      2-0      vs Pacific Lutheran in semis 2/25   
       #4      #4      #6      St. John's (MIAC)      1-1    WON vs Augsburg 99-86; at St. Olaf in semis 2/26   
       #5      #5            St.Olaf (MIAC)      0-1      vs St. John's in semis 2/26   
       #6      #6      #4      Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC)      1-0      LOST to Bethel 67-62 in QFs   
       #7            #5      Bethel (MIAC)      2-0      WON at Concordia-Moorhead 67-62; at St. Thomas in semis 2/26   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
                   #7      Dubuque (IIAC)               
             #7            Augsburg (MIAC)               
                                        
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 10:47:12 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2016, 10:12:34 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 01:24:09 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2016, 12:50:39 AM
    Question about a RAC and regional rankings:
        In the MA currently Scranton is #5 and F&M 6th; let's suppose F&M loses in the semis(like Scranton did) and Danzig and Robinson are their conference's RAC representatives. Are we to believe that each coach or any other RAC rep will not be lobbying for their own team's best regional ranking position? They'll probably take the high road but is the oversee by the national RAC the only check against personal bias? Come Pool C selection time, the national committee coach whose team is at the table, is excused from the discussion.  Just wondering? ::)

    They have to come off the call, ronk. Danzig and Robinson would not be allowed to participate in any conversations regarding their teams. It simply isn't allowed. When it comes to selections on the national level, if a coach's team comes to the table... they get off the call. Donohue from Catholic sat on hold/mute/off for a very long time a few years ago.

    Thanks, Dave. I never heard this considered at the regional level, only the national.

    It is mandatory at all levels. There is no way they will allow campaigning for a team if you are that team's coach. That hearkens back to the "good ol' days" and the furthest we can be from that dark period the better.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2016, 11:17:54 AM
    My very unprofessional opinion. I've come to realize, this year, we really need to lower our expectations of what it takes to get a Pool C spot. There are so many teams with so many losses this year. I mean, Middlebury has 10 losses and they are regionally ranked.

    Atlantic
    I think Brooklyn jumps DeSales and has a real shot if they lose the CUNYAC Final. They've added 3 results v RRO with Lehman in and a win vs Staten Island this week. But, Stockton has to win the NJAC, leaving just NJCU ahead of them.

    Central
    Things are looking better and better for Chicago, Aurora and Carroll. The Maroons definitely need to win at home and Aurora and Carroll need to get to their conference finals where they will both add another result against a RRO, assuming it be Benedictine and St. Norbert.

    East
    The loser of Rochester and Emory is in. I think NYU sneaks in with a win at Brandeis.

    Great Lakes
    Mount Union could give themselves an opportunity to grab a Ppol C slot by knocking off JCU in the semis. That's a tall order, and then lose to another RRO in the Final.

    Mid-Atlantic
    I think both Susquehanna and Catholic are in, as is Salisbury. I don't think Scranton has enough. I think had Scranton beaten Susquehanna in the semis, the LAND could've gotten 3 teams in.

    Northeast
    WPI might be the cutoff and would secure that Pool C bid with a win over MIT.

    South
    Virginia Wesleyan is on the verge of being out of the NCAAs, so getting to the ODAC semis is a must, if not the Final. A loss  in the QFs will really make things interesting.

    West
    The winner of the St. John's/St. Olaf semifinal will be on the Pool C fence, and that's being very optimistic.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2016, 11:34:03 AM

    WPI has had the lowest SOS for a pool C team the last two years (and that's with 20 wins both times) at about .520.  We might be able to go a little lower this year, but that's what we're looking at.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2016, 11:44:43 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2016, 11:17:54 AM
    My very unprofessional opinion. I've come to realize, this year, we really need to lower our expectations of what it takes to get a Pool C spot. There are so many teams with so many losses this year. I mean, Middlebury has 10 losses and they are regionally ranked.

    Right now, it's looking like this fact will make it easier to project Pool C bids. Instead of trying to pick between an .820 team with questionable SOS and a .690 team with a good SOS, we're mostly going to be looking at teams in the .750 / .530 range. From there it's easier to make a 0.030 =  2 games (though I cringe every time we mix rate stats and counting stats on that equivalency, I would prefer .030 SOS = .080 WP).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 25, 2016, 11:46:43 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2016, 11:17:54 AM
    ...Great Lakes
    Mount Union could give themselves an opportunity to grab a Ppol C slot by knocking off JCU in the semis. That's a tall order, and then lose to another RRO in the Final....

    They beat them a week ago as part of JCUs 3 game losing streak. Don't really understand how JCU is still ahead of both OWU and Hope after that. I would think a lot of fans from OWU will be rooting for the Raiders and I can tell you us Dutch will be rooting for both Mount Union and Denison or Wooster/Hiram.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 12:43:12 PM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 25, 2016, 11:46:43 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2016, 11:17:54 AM
    ...Great Lakes
    Mount Union could give themselves an opportunity to grab a Ppol C slot by knocking off JCU in the semis. That's a tall order, and then lose to another RRO in the Final....

    They beat them a week ago as part of JCUs 3 game losing streak. Don't really understand how JCU is still ahead of both OWU and Hope after that. I would think a lot of fans from OWU will be rooting for the Raiders and I can tell you us Dutch will be rooting for both Mount Union and Denison or Wooster/Hiram.

    Don't think like D1 who has a "what have you done the last ten games?" scenario. You still have to look at the overall resume of the season.

    Case in point, NYU women are still very highly ranked despite the fact they have lost six straight games. Why? Because they have an SOS of .615 and they have a winning vRRO. Their six losses have come to four regionally ranked opponents, three of which they had already beaten earlier in the season. Their lone sweep is the team ranked ahead of them in the East Region. It doesn't matter what NYU is doing now when a game in November counts as much as a game in February.

    It doesn't matter that JCU lost three straight when they had created a lot of buffer room to begin with.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2016, 12:48:15 PM
    Disclaimer: The following represents just one math geek's best guesses!
    55 teams in Pool C contention
    44 43 bids currently available to this group (after DeSales' loss in the LEC semis Wed. night)
    Within each category, teams are listed from (perceived) strongest Pool C contenders to weakest.
    All data is from the NCAA & Matt Snyder
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)


    Locks (18)
    St. Thomas 23-2, 23-2 (MIAC, Pool A) 0.920/0.554/10-0, WE#1
    Benedictine 25-0, 25-0 (NATHC, Pool A) 1.000/0.523/4-0, CE#1
    Augustana 24-1, 24-1 (CCIW, Pool A) 0.960/0.530/3-1, CE#2
    Christopher Newport 24-1, 24-1 (CAC, Pool A) 0.960/0.530/4-1, MA#1
    Marietta 24-2, 24-2 (OAC, Pool A) 0.923/0.544/5-2, GL#1
    North Central (Ill.) 19-6, 18-6 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.750/0.594/3-6, CE#4
    Amherst 21-4, 21-4 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.840/0.559/4-1, NE#1
    Susquehanna 23-3, 21-3 (LAND, Pool A) 0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
    St. Norbert 21-2, 21-2 (MWC, Pool A) 0.913/0.526/2-1, CE#3
    Whitworth 24-1, 23-1 (NWC, Pool A) 0.958/0.505/1-1, WE#2
    Plattsburgh State 21-4, 21-4 (SUNYAC, Pool A) 0.840/0.546/4-2, EA#1
    Hope 23-2, 21-1 (MIAA, Pool A) 0.955/0.499/1-1, GL#4
    Tufts 20-5, 20-5 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
    John Carroll 23-3, 23-3 (OAC, Pool C) 0.885/0.522/2-2, GL#3
    Ohio Wesleyan 23-3, 23-3 (NCAC, Pool A) 0.885/0.521/3-2, GL#2
    Catholic 21-5, 21-5 (LAND, Pool C) 0.808/0.548/4-2, MA#4
    Trinity (Conn.) 19-6, 18-6 (NESCAC, Pool A) 0.750/0.563/2-4, NE#2
    Salisbury 20-5, 20-5 (CAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.545/4-2, MA#3

    Likely (6)
    Emory 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool A) 0.696/0.583/4-4, SO#3
    Rochester 17-7, 17-6 (UAA, Pool C) 0.739/0.562/3-3, EA#2
    Wooster 20-6, 19-6 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.555/2-4, GL#6
    Babson 19-5, 19-5 (NEWMAC, Pool A) 0.792/0.538/3-3, NE#4
    Alma 19-6, 19-6 (MIAA, Pool C) 0.760/0.550/3-4, GL#5
    Whitman 22-3, 21-3 (NWC, Pool C) 0.875/0.505/1-2, WE#3

    Bubble (19)
    Stockton 20-6, 20-5 (NJAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.540/3-3, AT#2
    North Carolina Wesleyan 19-6, 15-4 (USAC, Pool A) 0.789/0.521/1-1, SO#5
    Chicago 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool C) 0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6
    Scranton 19-7, 18-7 (LAND, Pool C) 0.720/0.555/2-4, MA#5
    Carroll 19-4, 19-4 (MWC, Pool C) 0.826/0.509/0-2, CE#8
    LaGrange 18-7, 15-6 (USAC, Pool C) 0.714/0.538/2-2, SO#6
    Elmhurst 20-5, 20-5 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.800/0.520/2-4, CE#5
    Lynchburg 19-6, 19-6 (ODAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.534/3-2, SO#2
    Johnson and Wales 24-2, 23-2 (GNAC, Pool A) 0.920/0.472/1-0, NE#6
    Virginia Wesleyan 17-8, 17-8 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.562/4-4, SO#4
    St. John Fisher 20-5, 20-5 (E8, Pool A) 0.800/0.516/1-0, EA#4
    Texas Lutheran 19-6, 19-6 (SCAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.531/3-0, SO#1
    New York University 19-5, 19-5 (UAA, Pool C) 0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3
    WPI 20-5, 20-5 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
    Aurora 20-5, 19-5 (NATHC, Pool C) 0.792/0.509/1-2, CE#7
    DeSales 19-7, 19-6 (MACF, Pool A) 0.760/0.523/0-2, AT#3
    Oswego State 19-7, 19-7 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5
    Franklin and Marshall 20-5, 20-5 (CC, Pool A) 0.800/0.507/1-0, MA#6
    Eastern Connecticut 18-8, 18-8 (LEC, Pool A) 0.692/0.547/1-4, NE#7

    Longshots (12)
    East Texas Baptist 20-5, 17-5 (ASC, Pool A) 0.773/0.512/0-2, SO#7
    Brockport 17-9, 17-9 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.561/4-5, EA#
    St. Johns 19-7, 18-7 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.529/4-4, WE#4
    SUNY Geneseo 17-9, 17-8 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.541/1-4, ea#6
    Brooklyn 21-6, 21-6 (CUNYAC, Pool A) 0.778/0.506/4-2, AT#4
    Bethel 18-8, 18-8 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.533/4-5, WE#7
    Mount Union 18-8, 17-8 (OAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.533/2-4, GL#7
    Hiram 19-7, 19-6 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.501/2-2, GL#8
    Roanoke 19-6, 18-6 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.499/1-2, SO#8
    MIT 19-6, 19-6 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.497/2-3, ne#8
    New Jersey City 18-8, 18-8 (NJAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.524/4-2, AT#1
    St. Olaf 16-9, 16-9 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.640/0.538/2-6, WE#5


    Conference tournaments with possible bubble-bursters
    (Pool C contenders noted)

    Thursday
    ASC: East Texas Baptist (longshot) in quarters Thurs., but probably a one-bid league
    CAC: Christopher Newport (lock), Salisbury (lock) in semis Thurs.
    GNAC: Johnson & Wales (bubble) in semis Thurs.
    NWC: Whitworth (lock), Whitman (likely) in semis Thurs.
    OAC: Marietta (lock); Mt Union (longshot) at John Carroll (lock) in semis Thurs.

    Friday
    Centennial: Franklin & Marshall (bubble) in semis Fri.
    CUNYAC: Brooklyn (longshot) in final Fri., but probably a one-bid league
    CCIW: Augustana (lock); North Central (lock) vs Elmhurst (bubble) in semis Fri.
    Empire 8: St John Fisher (bubble) in semis Fri.
    MIAA: Hope (lock), Alma (likely) in semis Fri.
    MIAC: Bethel (unlikely) at St thomas (lock); St John's (longshot) vs Bethel (longshot) in semis Fri.
    Midwest: St Norbert (lock), Carroll (bubble) in semis Fri.
    NATHC: Benedictine (lock), Aurora (bubble) in semis Fri.
    NCAC: Ohio Wesleyan (lock); Wooster (likely) vs Hiram (longshot) in semis Fri.
    ODAC: Lynchburg (bubble), Virginia Wesleyan (bubble), Roanoke (longshot) in quarters Fri.
    SUNYAC: Oswego St (bubble) at Plattsburgh St (lock); Brockport in semis Fri.
    USAC: NC Wesleyan (bubble), LaGrange (bubble) in quarters Fri.

    Saturday
    LEC: E. Connecticut (bubble) in semis Sat., but probably a one-bid league
    NESCAC: Trinity (lock); Amherst (lock) vs Tufts (lock) in semis Sat.
    NEWMAC: Babson (likely); wPI (bubble) vs MIT (longshot) in semis Sat.
    NJAC: Stockton (bubble) in final Sat.; NJ City (longshot) eliminated
    SCAC: Texas Lutheran (bubble) in semis Sat.
    UAA: Emory (likely) at Rochester (likely) for AQ Sat.; Chicago (bubble), NYU (bubble) also contending

    Safe conferences, with no bubble-bursters remaining
    Landmark: Susquehanna (lock) at Catholic (lock) in finals; also Scranton (bubble)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: hopefan on February 25, 2016, 01:00:28 PM
    I'm embarrassed not to understand much of what is on these pages, being a huge D3 fan...  I think I'll make it my off season goal to learn about all of this so I can at least comment or question intelligently next year... highest props to all of you experts.. (no, I won't call you Geeks ;D)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2016, 01:20:04 PM
    Quote from: hopefan on February 25, 2016, 01:00:28 PM
    I'm embarrassed not to understand much of what is on these pages, being a huge D3 fan...  I think I'll make it my off season goal to learn about all of this so I can at least comment or question intelligently next year... highest props to all of you experts.. (no, I won't call you Geeks ;D)

    My social ineptitude puts me squarely in the "nerd" category.

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.robertlpeters.com%2Fnews2013%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FNerd_Dork_Geek_Dweeb.png&hash=4cade9b14c898eda5c22eb6fc201fffd1609a5b7)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 25, 2016, 02:30:18 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 12:43:12 PM
    It doesn't matter that JCU lost three straight when they had created a lot of buffer room to begin with.
    I don't really see where the "buffer room" is. 2 good wins against Marietta and Mt. Union and wins against Birmingham Southern and Brockport St.? Very good. Yes. Enough to "buffer" a 3 game skid? I guess I'll agree to disagree...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2016, 02:58:23 PM
    Obviously not much of a buffer since OWU is above JCU now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 03:02:11 PM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 25, 2016, 02:30:18 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 12:43:12 PM
    It doesn't matter that JCU lost three straight when they had created a lot of buffer room to begin with.
    I don't really see where the "buffer room" is. 2 good wins against Marietta and Mt. Union and wins against Birmingham Southern and Brockport St.? Very good. Yes. Enough to "buffer" a 3 game skid? I guess I'll agree to disagree...

    Well... their win over Marietta set-up at worse a 1-1 in comparison with Marietta... that is creating some buffer. They also already had a win over Mount Union which allows them to absorb the loss to a point. Beat Mount tonight and it's back to an advantage (assuming Mount even stays ranked).

    Brockport has a pretty good resume if you look at it. BSC is at least another WIN against a regionally ranked opponent.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 25, 2016, 03:07:17 PM
    There are 2 games that really sting for Brockport in terms of the overall season just for me. They especially shouldn't have lost to Fredonia. Right now, I'm hoping upon hope for a tourney upset!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2016, 06:21:29 PM
    The final days of the regular season are here. Results of games across the country are affecting other teams not even playing. How will it all shake out and how does one result affect another?

    Thursday night on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh gives you the insight you need to know how the NCAA Tournament brackets are already taking shape. Dave will talk to many coaches around the country who are looking to lock up automatic bids, securing at-large opportunities, or knowingly playing for the postseason lives. Dave will even make sure you better understand the selection criteria and how something like the Strength of Schedule helps or hurts teams.

    Hoopsville hits the air at 7pm ET. You can tune in below.

    Guests include (in order of appearance)
    - Michele Durand, No. 10 Ohio Northern women's coach
    - Fred Richter, DeSales women's coach
    - Warren Caruso, Husson men's coach
    - Zach Frilen, No. 15 Lancaster Bible men's coach
    - Todd Raridon, No. 11 North Central (Ill.) men's coach
    - Marcus Kahn (Mary Washington) or Andy Sachs (Salisbury), CAC men's semifinal winner
    - Matt Snyder, Strength of Schedule/Numbers guru

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

    And the Hoopsville Fundraising project is in it's closing days as well, but we have not met the goal. Please consider helping us cover Division III basketball the way it deserves to be covered: http://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser/x/6029509.

    Thanks!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2016, 06:41:50 PM
    Awesome stuff, fantastic50!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 25, 2016, 06:42:30 PM
    Thanks for giving me the blues, Greek.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2016, 07:14:48 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2016, 06:41:50 PM
    Awesome stuff, fantastic50!

    Thank you. I hope to see your insight here over the next few days, too, as we will each have slightly different interpretations of the same data.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: EttaFan1 on February 25, 2016, 09:51:20 PM
    Marietta and John Carroll advance to the oac title game on Saturday, so the bubble teams can breathe a bit easier.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2016, 10:09:41 PM
    Quote from: EttaFan1 on February 25, 2016, 09:51:20 PM
    Marietta and John Carroll advance to the oac title game on Saturday, so the bubble teams can breathe a bit easier.

    Salisbury and Christopher Newport both survived tough tests to get through to the CAC final.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 25, 2016, 10:15:42 PM
    CNU almost lost in bizarre fashion.  Up two shooting ft's with 9 seconds left, a teammate steps into the circle after the ball had been handed to the ref which wipes out ft #1.  They miss ft #2 and Mary Washington's 30 foot heave at the buzzer glances off the front of the rim.


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2016, 10:58:38 PM
    Quote from: EttaFan1 on February 25, 2016, 09:51:20 PM
    Marietta and John Carroll advance to the oac title game on Saturday, so the bubble teams can breathe a bit easier.

    Unless you're Mount Union. Doesn't look good for them now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 26, 2016, 12:01:20 AM
    Pacific Lutheran 81  Whitman 68

    Whitman looks square on the back-end of the bubble to me now.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2016, 12:14:04 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 26, 2016, 12:01:20 AM
    Pacific Lutheran 81  Whitman 68

    Whitman looks square on the back-end of the bubble to me now.

    Eh... that was the last thing Whitman needed to do. Ouch. I agree... they had to get to the conference title game to secure things for themselves. SMH... may very well have squandered away another opportunity to make their first NCAA tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2016, 06:30:09 AM
    I'm not defending Whitman, but before we completely disregard them, is there someone better? Is their semifinal loss bad enough for St. John's to jump them? Will that loss put Whitman from "likely" to "longshot" and move the Johnnies from "longshot" to "likely"? St. John's SOS and vRRO is far superior than Whitman's, but they will still have 4 more losses.

    Like I have said previously, we'll really going to have to temper our expectations this year as to who we think gets in and who doesn't. We could see 8-9 loss teams get Pool C bids.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2016, 08:05:54 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2016, 06:30:09 AM
    I'm not defending Whitman, but before we completely disregard them, is there someone better? Is their semifinal loss bad enough for St. John's to jump them? Will that loss put Whitman from "likely" to "longshot" and move the Johnnies from "longshot" to "likely"? St. John's SOS and vRRO is far superior than Whitman's, but they will still have 4 more losses.

    Like I have said previously, we'll really going to have to temper our expectations this year as to who we think gets in and who doesn't. We could see 8-9 loss teams get Pool C bids.

    Yeah, but the Whitman SOS is right at .500. Historically, the committee has not put those teams in, unless they had stellar records.  Is 21-4 good enough with that SOS?  20 wins wasn't enough for F&M last year.  Although, looking back, Whitman's resume will be almost identical to Catholic's from last year, so you never know.  They're definitely on the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 08:58:57 AM
    I still like Whitman. They should be on the board right away in the West and their .840 WP should be the best (or maybe 2nd) of the Pool C candidates. 0.509 SOS isn't great but won't eliminate them from contention. Same with 1-2 vRRO but geography limits their opportunities.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 09:01:35 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2016, 11:44:43 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2016, 11:17:54 AM
    My very unprofessional opinion. I've come to realize, this year, we really need to lower our expectations of what it takes to get a Pool C spot. There are so many teams with so many losses this year. I mean, Middlebury has 10 losses and they are regionally ranked.

    Right now, it's looking like this fact will make it easier to project Pool C bids. Instead of trying to pick between an .820 team with questionable SOS and a .690 team with a good SOS, we're mostly going to be looking at teams in the .750 / .530 range. From there it's easier to make a 0.030 =  2 games (though I cringe every time we mix rate stats and counting stats on that equivalency, I would prefer .030 SOS = .080 WP).

    One thing I didn't articulate on Hoopsville last night .080 WP is 2 games on a 25-game schedule. That's where I came up with that.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2016, 09:39:16 AM
    Updated through Thursday's games

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2016, 10:45:33 AM

    Teams in BOLD are conferences winners/leaders. An * means there's a tie. Pool A (Automatic qualifiers) will be BLUE once their conference tournaments are complete. Teams losing will be RED and will be considered Pool C.


       ATL                              
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team         Schedule   
       #1      #1      #4      New Jersey City (NJAC)      LOST to TCNJ 92-82 in semis   
       #2      #2      #1      Stockton (NJAC)      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 95-75 in semis; vs TCNJ Final on Saturday   
       #3      #3      #5      DeSales (MACF)      LOST to Wilkes 72-62 in semis    
       #4      #5      #3      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      WON vs Staten Island 78-69 in semis; WON vs Baruch 76-67 in Final   
       #5                  Lehman (CUNYAC)      LOST to Baruch 80-64 in semis      
       #6      #4      #2      Staten Island (CUNYAC)      LOST to Brooklyn 78-69 in semis   
       #7      #6      #6      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      WON vs William Paterson 78-52 in QFs; LOST at Stockton 95-75 in semis   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT            
             #7      #7      Delaware Valley (MACF)            
       CENT                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team         Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      Benedictine (NACC)         WON vs Marian 91-82; vs MSOE in Final on Sunday   
       #2      #2      #2      Augustana (CCIW)         WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 83-74; vs Elmhurst in Final on Saturday   
       #3      #3      #3      St.Norbert (MWC)         WON vs Lake Forest 63-48; vs Carroll in Final on Saturday   
       #4      #4      #4      NCC (CCIW)         LOST to Elmhurst 60-58 in semis   
       #5      #5      #5      Elmhurst (CCIW)         WON vs North Central 60-58; at Augustana in Final on Saturday   
       #6      #6      #7      Chicago (UAA)         vs Washington U. 2/27   
       #7      #7      #6      Aurora (NACC)         LOST to MSOE in semis 100-96    
       #8      #8      #8      Carroll (MWC)         WON vs Ripon 58-55; at St. Norbert in Final on Saturday   
       EAST                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team            Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      Platts. St. (SUNYAC)         LOST to Oswego St 81-74 in semis   
       #2      #2      #2      *Rochester (UAA)         vs Emory 2/27   
       #3      #6            NYU (UAA)         at Brandeis 2/27   
       #4            #6      St. John Fisher (E8)         WON vs Stevens 85-62; vs Hartwick in Final Saturday   
       #5      #5      #4      Oswego St. (SUNYAC)         WON vs SUNY Geneseo 75-59; WON at Platts. St. 81-74; at Cortland in Final on Saturday   
       #6      #3      #3      SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC)         LOST to Oswego St. 75-59 in QFs   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
                   #5      SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC)               
             #4            Brockport (SUNYAC)               
                                        
       GL                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team         Schedule   
       #1      #1      #2      Marietta (OAC)         WON vs Wilmington 93-78; Won vs Baldwin Wallace 91-66; vs John Carroll in Final Saturday    
       #2      #3      #3      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)         WON vs Wabash 100-80; LOST to Denison 95-85 in semis    
       #3      #2      #1      John Carroll (OAC)         WON vs Capital 83-70; WON vs Mount Union 93-74; at Marietta in Final on Saturday    
       #4      #5      #4      Hope (MIAA)         LOST to Trine 82-77 in semis    
       #5      #4      #5      Alma (MIAA)         WON vs Albion 77-64; vs Trine in Final on Saturday   
       #6      #6      #6      Wooster (NCAC)         WON vs Oberlin 78-63; WON vs Hiram 92-79; vs Denison in Final on Saturday   
       #7      #8      #7       Mount Union (OAC)         WON vs Heidelberg 102-96; LOST at John Carroll 93-74 in semis    
       #8      #7      #8      Hiram (NCAC)         WON vs Kenyon 95-87; LOST at Wooster 92-79 in semis   
       #9      #9            St. Vincent (PAC)         WON vs Chatham 80-65; WON vs Westminster 70-65; vs Thomas More in Final on Saturday    
                                         
                         DROPPING OUT                
                   #9      Trine (MIAA)                
       MA                                  
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team          Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      CNU (CAC)          WON vs St. Mary's 57-56; vs Salisbury in Final on Saturday    
       #2      #2      #2      *Susquehanna (LAND)          WON vs Scranton 77-72 in semis; vs Catholic in Final on Saturday
       #3      #3      #3      Salisbury (CAC)          WON vs Mary Washington    83-78; at Christopher Newport in Final on Saturday
       #4      #4      #4      *Catholic (LAND)          WON vs Juniata 79-66; vs Susquehanna in Final on Saturday   
       #5      #5      #6      Scranton (LAND)          LOST to Susquehanna 77-72 in semis   
       #6      #6      #5      Frank & Marshall (CC)          WON vs Gettysburg 74-63; vs Swarthmore in Final on Saturday   



                                         
       NE                                  
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team         Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      Amherst (NECAC)         vs Tufts in semis 2/27   
       #2      #2      #2      Trinity (NESCAC)         vs Middlebury in semis 2/27   
       #3      #3      #3      Tufts (NESCAC)         at Amherst in semis 2/27   
       #4      #4      #4      Babson (NEWMAC)         vs Emerson in semis 2/27   
       #5      #5      #6      WPI (NEWMAC)         vs MIT in semis 2/27   
       #6      #8      #9      J & W (GNAC)         WON vs St. Joseph's 73-36; WON vs Emmanuel 97-79; vs Albertus Magnus in Final on Saturday    
       #7      #6      #7      E. Conn. (LEC)         WON vs Mass-Boston 93-65; vs Mass-Dartmouth in semis 2/27   
       #8      #9      #8      MIT (NEWMAC)         at WPI in semis 2/27   
       #9                  Middlebury (NESCAC)         at Trinity in semis 2/27   
       #10      #10      #10      S. Verm. (NECC)         WON vs Regis 73-68; vs Becker in Final on Saturday   
       #11      #11      #11      Nichols (CCC)         WON vs W. New England 10768; LOST to Endicott 82-80 in semis   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
             #7      #5      Wesleyan (NESCAC)               
                                        
       SOUTH                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team         Schedule   
       #1      #1      #2      Texas Lutheran (SCAC)         vs TBD in semis 2/27   
       #2      #4      #4      *Lynchburg (ODAC)         WON vs Hampden-Sydney 90-67; vs Emory and Henry in semis on Saturday   
       #3      #3      #1      *Emory (UAA)         at Rochester 2/27   
       #4      #2      #3      *Virg. Wes. (ODAC)         WON vs Randolph-Macon 78-52; vs Randolph in semis on Saturday   
       #5      #8      #8      N.C. Wesleyan (USAC)         WON vs Averett 81-66; LOST to LaGrange 99-87 in semis   
       #6      #5      #5      LaGrange (USAC)         WON vs Ferrum 77-73; WON at N.C. Wesleyan 99-87; at Covenant in Final on Saturday   
       #7      #6      #6      ETBU (ASC)         WON vs Mary Harin-Baylor 70-64; LOST to Louisiana College 56-44 in semis    
       #8      #7      #7      Roanoke (ODAC)         LOST to Randolph 74-62 in QFs    
                                        
       WEST                                 
       WK3      WK2      WK1      Team         Schedule   
       #1      #1      #1      St. Thomas (MIAC)         WON vs Bethel 63-46; vs St. Olaf in Final on Sunday
       #2      #2      #2      Whitworth (NWC)         WON vs Puget Sound 75-58; vs Pacific Lutheran in Final on Saturday    
       #3      #3      #3       Whitman (NWC)         LOST to Pacific Lutheran 82-68 in semis   
       #4      #4      #6      St. John's (MIAC)         WON vs Augsburg 99-86; LOST at St. Olaf 91-80 in semis   
       #5      #5            St.Olaf (MIAC)         WON vs St. John's 91-80; at St. Thomas in Final on Sunday   
       #6      #6      #4      Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC)         LOST to Bethel 67-62 in QFs   
       #7            #5      Bethel (MIAC)         WON at Concordia-Moorhead 67-62; lost at St. Thomas 63-46 in semis   
                                        
                         DROPPING OUT               
                   #7      Dubuque (IIAC)               
             #7            Augsburg (MIAC)               
                                        
    [/quote]
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 26, 2016, 09:53:16 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 08:58:57 AM
    I still like Whitman. They should be on the board right away in the West and their .840 WP should be the best (or maybe 2nd) of the Pool C candidates. 0.509 SOS isn't great but won't eliminate them from contention. Same with 1-2 vRRO but geography limits their opportunities.
    I don't remember hearing any committee chair talk about forgiving a team's RRO due to geography.  We have heard from a previous chair that he devalued a good SoS because they felt the majority of the SoS advantage was derived from the conference schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2016, 10:03:27 AM
    Well, one Pool A slot will be determined tonight as Baruch takes on Brooklyn at CCNY for the CUNYAC title. If Brooklyn loses, they'll be on the Pool C fence. I feel they're in regardless, but others may have a different opinion. Everyone, except Baruch, will be cheering for the Bulldogs.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 10:04:00 AM
    Quote from: AO on February 26, 2016, 09:53:16 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 08:58:57 AM
    I still like Whitman. They should be on the board right away in the West and their .840 WP should be the best (or maybe 2nd) of the Pool C candidates. 0.509 SOS isn't great but won't eliminate them from contention. Same with 1-2 vRRO but geography limits their opportunities.
    I don't remember hearing any committee chair talk about forgiving a team's RRO due to geography.  We have heard from a previous chair that he devalued a good SoS because they felt the majority of the SoS advantage was derived from the conference schedule.

    I don't mean the low RRO totals would be forgiven, but if the committee talks about realities it wasn't like Whitman was ducking anyone nearby. They even got a matchup with Tufts in a California tournament (though they lost). They'll certainly be rooting for the Jumbos to do well in the NESCAC and boost that SOS.

    Compare them to St. John's (4-4 vRRO) who didn't play a single RRO in the non-conference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 10:10:54 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2016, 10:03:27 AM
    Well, one Pool A slot will be determined tonight as Baruch takes on Brooklyn at CCNY for the CUNYAC title. If Brooklyn loses, they'll be on the Pool C fence. I feel they're in regardless, but others may have a different opinion. Everyone, except Baruch, will be cheering for the Bulldogs.

    I don't really love Brooklyn's Pool C chances. If they lose tonight they'll be:

    0.750/ 0.510/ 4-2

    I certainly think they fall below Whitman:

    0.840/ 0.509/ 1-2

    Brooklyn probably also loses a few RROs when Lehman and/or Staten Island drop out of the final rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2016, 10:12:41 AM
    Well, St. John's did play two NWC teams, just the wrong ones. We also have to remember they play 20 conference games, leaving just 5 nonconference games to play around with. It's not like they have 11-15 NC games to schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2016, 10:16:51 AM
    Or maybe both Staten Island and Lehman stay in. Remember, basically everyone is taking a loss before the end of the weekend.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 10:42:29 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2016, 10:16:51 AM
    Or maybe both Staten Island and Lehman stay in. Remember, basically everyone is taking a loss before the end of the weekend.

    Not necessarily so. Delaware Valley (0.708/0.506) could win the MACF. Old Westbury (.692/.483) would threaten to jump back in if they win the Skyline. Also the CSAC winner could jump in as well (Gwynedd Mercy (.800/.484) / Neumann(0.731/.470)).

    Lehman is sitting .680/.491, so the only thing keeping them there is the weakness of the region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 10:50:45 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2016, 11:44:43 AM
    From there it's easier to make a 0.030 =  2 games (though I cringe every time we mix rate stats and counting stats on that equivalency, I would prefer .030 SOS = .080 WP).

    This equivalency struck me a few days ago, and it says that a given amount of SOS variation matters roughly two-and-a-half times as much as the same amount of WP variation.  In RPI, SOS variation is three times more heavily weighted, since RPI = 1/4 * WP + 3/4 * SOS.  This says to me that RPI is still a good estimate of team strength, but that WP is slightly more valued (and SOS slightly less so) than what RPI would indicate.

    A while back, I graphed WP vs SOS for the Pool C teams and near-misses (the first 20-25 teams out) over the last three seasons, to see what trends are visible there.  Aside from the inclusion of Bowdoin in 2014, the thing that struck me is that the committee appears to prefer teams that have a solid WP & solid SOS, over those that are elite in one and mediocre in the other (great record, weak schedule or mediocre record, brutal schedule).  It's very tough to get in as a Pool C with a WP below .700 or SOS below .500.  Emory (.696/.583) and Johnson & Wales (.923/.473) may be exceptions if they don't grab Pool A berths.

    For example, if .030 SOS = .080 WP, then the following are all equivalent (with examples of 2015 teams roughly in this vicinity)...
    A) 1.000/.430 (Lancaster Bible - unranked)
    B) .840/.490 (Nichols - ranked but out)
    C) .800/.505 (St John Fisher, NYU, F&M - all bubble)
    D) .760/.520 (DeSales - bubble)
    E) .720/.535 (LaGrange, Oswego St - both bubble)
    F) .680/.550 (Brockport - longshot)
    G) .640/.565 (UW-Eau Claire, Middlebury - both unranked)

    There is a clear preference toward the combinations in the middle, as opposed to those at either end of the spectrum. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2016, 11:20:39 AM

    I don't think we've ever had a Pool C selection below .667 winning percentage or a .500 SOS.  Those, historically, are the drop dead lines.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 11:39:42 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 26, 2016, 11:20:39 AM

    I don't think we've ever had a Pool C selection below .667 winning percentage or a .500 SOS.  Those, historically, are the drop dead lines.

    I don't think we've had one the last couple of years, but we've certainly had Pool C selections below .500 SOS.

    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 05, 2016, 04:33:25 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 05, 2016, 04:13:18 PM
    Reminder, which Brian Van Haaften stated on Hoopsville yesterday (and has been stated several times in the past), in the SOS era NO team has received an at-large bid with a sub .500 SOS.

    Now, I see a few scenarios this year that could call that tendency and philosophy into question and I hope you heard those on Hoopsville yesterday (don't worry, I am sure they will be repeated if the tendencies continue)... but keep that in mind. NO team with a sub-.500 SOS has ever received an at-large bid on the men's side.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    I have 2012 Birmingham-Southern as having a .917 WP and .441 SOS (and, I think, 0-0 vRRO!).

    Also I think St. Joseph's (L.I.) had a .470 SOS that same year with an .870 WP and 1-0 vRRO.

    2010:
    Anderson at .477
    MIT at .498 (calc discrepancies could put them over)

    2011:
    Concordia (Wis.) at .497 (see MIT above)
    Penn State-Behrend at .481
    Oswego St. at .482
    Amherst at .463
    Texas-Dallas at .488

    I don't see any in 2013-2015.

    I'm not sure when we first noticed the NCAA's odd SOS calculation method, so my numbers could be off some in these earlier years, but I'm certain at least one of these ended the year sub-.500 on the SOS. I have no idea if there's a way to confirm these historical numbers.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2016, 11:47:10 AM
    Quote from: AO on February 26, 2016, 09:53:16 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 08:58:57 AM
    I still like Whitman. They should be on the board right away in the West and their .840 WP should be the best (or maybe 2nd) of the Pool C candidates. 0.509 SOS isn't great but won't eliminate them from contention. Same with 1-2 vRRO but geography limits their opportunities.
    I don't remember hearing any committee chair talk about forgiving a team's RRO due to geography.  We have heard from a previous chair that he devalued a good SoS because they felt the majority of the SoS advantage was derived from the conference schedule.

    Many committee chairs have not said they "forgive" a team's vRRO due to geography, but they do look further into it. Just as with the Northeast they try not to read too much into a ton of vRROs for some teams. At the same time, they aren't going to reward a west coast team for not playing anyone either. They will treat them as fairly as they can.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 26, 2016, 12:18:45 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 10:04:00 AM
    I don't mean the low RRO totals would be forgiven, but if the committee talks about realities it wasn't like Whitman was ducking anyone nearby. They even got a matchup with Tufts in a California tournament (though they lost). They'll certainly be rooting for the Jumbos to do well in the NESCAC and boost that SOS.

    Compare them to St. John's (4-4 vRRO) who didn't play a single RRO in the non-conference.
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2016, 10:12:41 AM
    Well, St. John's did play two NWC teams, just the wrong ones. We also have to remember they play 20 conference games, leaving just 5 nonconference games to play around with. It's not like they have 11-15 NC games to schedule.
    Greek has it right.  It's absolutely ridiculous to punish teams for playing in good conferences.  A game is a game, whether played in conference or out.  Compare the common opponents and RRO, don't try to figure out who made a good faith effort to schedule tough.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2016, 12:27:15 PM
    But the committee will consider what they want out of all of that. While I understand the argument that it isn't fair to eliminate the conference vRRO, sometimes the committee does that just to get another look at the team from a different perspective.

    But I also remember a conversation with a RAC member in 2014 who tried to argue that it wasn't fair that his team only had two or three vRROs considering his conference was "down" that season and his out-of-conference opponents ended up being good, but good enough to be ranked - down from his expectations... in comparison to several teams in another conference who had lots of vRROs because the conference was strong and several members where being ranked accordingly. It seemed to fall on deaf ears when I argued, "well, you guys ranked the other team; don't punish them because you ranked them and reward yourself because you didn't rank other conference teams!"

    It is a double-edged sword. I think the committee is more than willing to reward or at least acknowledge a number of vRROs even if they come in conference match-ups that inflate that number (remember the ODAC in 2013 when there was the "once ranked, always ranked?"). However, they also want to get a little more insight into a team who may have a lot of vRROs as a result and not try and be blinded by the "bling" as it where of numbers that are inflated by conference games.

    The sames holds true with teams in the Northeast, the committee(s) try and at least grade on a bell curve (maybe?) teams that have far higher vRROs because there are far more teams ranked (yes, more teams to play and you still have to schedule right, but you know my point).

    At the same time, the committee isn't dumb. They understand the MIAC is playing 20 games and leaving very little out of conference flexibility and many a committee chair has said they try and understand those situations along with items like geography to better read the data and learn from it. It is truly why they like the term "results" versus regionally ranked opponents because it gives them a ton of flexibility outside of just a WL%.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 12:41:28 PM
    Disclaimer: The following represents just one math geek's best guesses!
    55 teams in Pool C contention
    43 bids currently available to this group
    Within each category, teams are listed from (perceived) strongest Pool C contenders to weakest.
    All data is from the NCAA & Matt Snyder
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/


    Locks (18)
    St. Thomas 23-2, 23-2 (MIAC, Pool A) 0.920/0.556/10-0, WE#1
    Benedictine 25-0, 25-0 (NATHC, Pool A) 1.000/0.523/4-0, CE#1
    Marietta 25-2, 25-2 (OAC, Pool A) 0.926/0.546/5-2, GL#1
    Christopher Newport 25-1, 25-1 (CAC, Pool A) 0.962/0.531/4-1, MA#1
    Augustana 24-1, 24-1 (CCIW, Pool A) 0.960/0.527/3-1, CE#2
    North Central (Ill.) 19-6, 18-6 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.750/0.593/3-6, CE#4
    Amherst 21-4, 21-4 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1
    Susquehanna 23-3, 21-3 (LAND, Pool C) 0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
    St. Norbert 21-2, 21-2 (MWC, Pool A) 0.913/0.526/2-1, CE#3
    Whitworth 25-1, 24-1 (NWC, Pool A) 0.960/0.507/1-1, WE#2
    Plattsburgh State 21-4, 21-4 (SUNYAC, Pool A) 0.840/0.546/4-2, EA#1
    John Carroll 24-3, 24-3 (OAC, Pool C) 0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3
    Hope 23-2, 21-1 (MIAA, Pool A) 0.955/0.499/1-1, GL#4
    Tufts 20-5, 20-5 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
    Ohio Wesleyan 23-3, 23-3 (NCAC, Pool A) 0.885/0.521/3-2, GL#2
    Catholic 21-5, 21-5 (LAND, Pool A) 0.808/0.549/4-2, MA#4
    Salisbury 21-5, 21-5 (CAC, Pool C) 0.808/0.548/4-2, MA#3
    Trinity (Conn.) 19-6, 18-6 (NESCAC, Pool A) 0.750/0.563/2-4, NE#2

    Likely (6, including Stockton moving up)
    Emory 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool A) 0.696/0.583/4-4, SO#3
    Wooster 20-6, 19-6 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.556/2-4, GL#6
    Stockton 20-6, 20-5 (NJAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.540/3-3, AT#2
    Rochester 17-7, 17-6 (UAA, Pool C) 0.739/0.562/3-3, EA#2
    Alma 19-6, 19-6 (MIAA, Pool C) 0.760/0.550/3-4, GL#5
    Babson 19-5, 19-5 (NEWMAC, Pool A) 0.792/0.537/3-3, NE#4

    Bubble (19, including Whitman moving down)
    Scranton 19-7, 18-7 (LAND, Pool C) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    Whitman 22-4, 21-4 (NWC, Pool C) 0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    Texas Lutheran 19-6, 19-6 (SCAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.531/3-0, SO#1
    Chicago 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool C) 0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6
    Johnson and Wales 25-2, 24-2 (GNAC, Pool A) 0.923/0.473/1-0, NE#6
    Elmhurst 20-5, 20-5 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.800/0.518/2-4, CE#5
    Carroll 19-4, 19-4 (MWC, Pool C) 0.826/0.509/0-2, CE#8
    Lynchburg 19-6, 19-6 (ODAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.533/3-2, SO#2
    Virginia Wesleyan 17-8, 17-8 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.562/4-4, SO#4
    North Carolina Wesleyan 20-6, 16-4 (USAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.523/1-1, SO#5
    St. John Fisher 20-5, 20-5 (E8, Pool A) 0.800/0.516/1-0, EA#4
    WPI 20-5, 20-5 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
    New York University 19-5, 19-5 (UAA, Pool C) 0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3
    Oswego State 19-7, 19-7 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5
    LaGrange 19-7, 16-6 (USAC, Pool C) 0.727/0.537/2-2, SO#6
    DeSales 19-7, 19-6 (MACF, Pool C) 0.760/0.524/0-2, AT#3
    Eastern Connecticut 18-8, 18-8 (LEC, Pool A) 0.692/0.548/1-4, NE#7
    Franklin and Marshall 20-5, 20-5 (CC, Pool A) 0.800/0.507/1-0, MA#6
    Aurora 20-5, 19-5 (NATHC, Pool C) 0.792/0.509/1-2, CE#7

    Longshots (12)
    Brockport 17-9, 17-9 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.561/4-5, EA#x
    East Texas Baptist 21-5, 18-5 (ASC, Pool A) 0.783/0.509/0-2, SO#7
    Brooklyn 21-6, 21-6 (CUNYAC, Pool A) 0.778/0.508/4-2, AT#4
    St. Johns 19-7, 18-7 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.529/4-4, WE#4
    SUNY Geneseo 17-9, 17-8 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.541/1-4, ea#6
    Bethel 18-8, 18-8 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.534/4-5, WE#7
    Hiram 19-7, 19-6 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.501/2-2, GL#8
    New Jersey City 18-8, 18-8 (NJAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.524/4-2, AT#1
    MIT 19-6, 19-6 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.497/2-3, NE#8
    Roanoke 19-6, 18-6 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.499/1-2, SO#8
    St. Olaf 16-9, 16-9 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.640/0.539/2-6, WE#5
    Mount Union 18-9, 17-9 (OAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.545/2-5, GL#7


    So far this week, the bubble looks pillowy soft.  For that reason, I can't yet bring myself to drop some teams off the board, even with numbers that would make their chances completely nil.

    Conference tournaments with possible bubble-bursters
    (Pool C contenders noted)

    Friday
    ASC: East Texas Baptist (longshot) in semis Fri., but probably a one-bid league
    Centennial: Franklin & Marshall (bubble) in semis Fri.
    CUNYAC: Brooklyn (longshot) in final Fri. vs Baruch (out), but probably a one-bid league
    CCIW: Augustana (lock); North Central (lock) vs Elmhurst (bubble) in semis Fri.
    Empire 8: St John Fisher (bubble) in semis Fri.
    MIAA: Hope (lock), Alma (likely) in semis Fri.
    MIAC: Bethel (unlikely) at St thomas (lock); St John's (longshot) vs Bethel (longshot) in semis Fri.
    Midwest: St Norbert (lock), Carroll (bubble) in semis Fri.
    NATHC: Benedictine (lock), Aurora (bubble) in semis Fri.
    NCAC: Ohio Wesleyan (lock); Wooster (likely) vs Hiram (longshot) in semis Fri.
    ODAC: Lynchburg (bubble), Virginia Wesleyan (bubble), Roanoke (longshot) in quarters Fri.
    SUNYAC: Oswego St (bubble) at Plattsburgh St (lock); Brockport in semis Fri., also Geneseo (longshot)
    USAC: NC Wesleyan (bubble), LaGrange (bubble) in quarters Fri.

    Saturday
    GNAC: Johnson & Wales (bubble) in final Sat. vs. Albertus Magnus
    LEC: E. Connecticut (bubble) in semis Sat., but probably a one-bid league
    NESCAC: Trinity (lock); Amherst (lock) vs Tufts (lock) in semis Sat.
    NEWMAC: Babson (likely); wPI (bubble) vs MIT (longshot) in semis Sat.
    NJAC: Stockton (likely) in final Sat.; NJ City (longshot) eliminated
    NWC: Whitworth (lock) in final Sat. vs Pacific Lutheran (out); also Whitman (bubble)
    SCAC: Texas Lutheran (bubble) in semis Sat.
    UAA: Emory (likely) at Rochester (likely) for AQ Sat.; Chicago (bubble), NYU (bubble) also contending

    Conferences with no bubble-bursters remaining
    CAC: Salisbury (lock) at Christopher Newport (lock) in finals
    Landmark: Susquehanna (lock) at Catholic (lock) in finals; also Scranton (bubble)
    OAC: John Carroll (lock) at Marietta (lock) in finals; also Mt Union (longshot)

    I suspect a lot will change in the next 12 hours!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 26, 2016, 12:48:23 PM
    On Whitman and Pool C in general, right now, things look weaker at the bottom than I remember in the last few years.  Now, there will be upsets, but when I went through my self-picking, I found I was taking teams in the last 4-6 picks that I don't think get picked in the last few years. 

    Whitman isn't going to get compared to the teams eligible in 2015, they'll get compared to teams this year and I think they may hold up favorably still.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2016, 01:24:29 PM
    I don't really care if Brooklyn makes it or not, but that seems to be a disagreement here. Maybe I over value vRRO and SOS, though admittedly, I still don't completely understand SOS and it's relation to wins/losses formula. But Brooklyn is .035 better in SOS vs Johnson & Wales and has a 4-2 to 1-0 advantage in results vRRO. I understand that J&W winning % is far superior than Brooklyn's. But I'm probably leaning towards a team with a better SOS and results vRRO over a high winning %.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2016, 01:33:30 PM
    Leveraging Matthew Snyder's data and the great work by fantastic50 here, my Pool C's heading into Friday's games...

    1. Susquehanna  0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
    2. Amherst  0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1
    3. John Carroll  0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3
    4. North Central  0.750/0.593/3-6, CE #4
    5. Salisbury  0.808/0.548/4-2, MA#3
    6. Tufts  0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
    7. Rochester  0.739/0.562/3-3, EA#2
    8. Alma  0.760/0.550/3-4, GL#5
    9. Wooster  0.760/0.556/2-4, GL#6
    10. Scranton  0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    11. Oswego State  0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5
    12. WPI  0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
    13. Elmhurst  0.800/0.518/2-4, CE#5
    14. Whitman  0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    15. Chicago  0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6
    16. Virginia Wesleyan  0.680/0.562/4-4, SO#4
    17. St. Johns  0.720/0.529/4-4, WE#4
    18. New York University  0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3
    19. New Jersey City  0.692/.524/4-2, AT #1
    ----------
    20. LaGrange  0.727/0.537/2-2, SO#6
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 01:51:28 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2016, 01:33:30 PM
    Leveraging Matthew Snyder's data and the great work by fantastic50 here, my Pool C's heading into Friday's games...

    1. Susquehanna  0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
    2. Amherst  0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1
    3. John Carroll  0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3
    4. North Central  0.750/0.593/3-6, CE #4
    5. Salisbury  0.808/0.548/4-2, MA#3
    6. Trinity (CT)  0.750/0.563/2-4, NE#2
    7. Tufts  0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
    8. Rochester  0.739/0.562/3-3, EA#2
    9. Alma  0.760/0.550/3-4, GL#5
    10. Wooster  0.760/0.556/2-4, GL#6
    11. Scranton  0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    12. Oswego State  0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5
    13. WPI  0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
    14. Elmhurst  0.800/0.518/2-4, CE#5
    15. Whitman  0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    16. Chicago  0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6
    17. Virginia Wesleyan  0.680/0.562/4-4, SO#4
    18. St. Johns  0.720/0.529/4-4, WE#4
    19. New York University  0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3
    ----------
    20. LaGrange  0.727/0.537/2-2, SO#6

    Seems like we're all in general agreement of a safe line being right around #9 Wooster right now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 02:04:15 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 01:51:28 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2016, 01:33:30 PM
    Leveraging Matthew Snyder's data and the great work by fantastic50 here, my Pool C's heading into Friday's games...

    1. Susquehanna  0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
    2. Amherst  0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1
    3. John Carroll  0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3
    4. North Central  0.750/0.593/3-6, CE #4
    5. Salisbury  0.808/0.548/4-2, MA#3
    6. Trinity (CT)  0.750/0.563/2-4, NE#2
    7. Tufts  0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
    8. Rochester  0.739/0.562/3-3, EA#2
    9. Alma  0.760/0.550/3-4, GL#5
    10. Wooster  0.760/0.556/2-4, GL#6
    11. Scranton  0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    12. Oswego State  0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5
    13. WPI  0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
    14. Elmhurst  0.800/0.518/2-4, CE#5
    15. Whitman  0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    16. Chicago  0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6
    17. Virginia Wesleyan  0.680/0.562/4-4, SO#4
    18. St. Johns  0.720/0.529/4-4, WE#4
    19. New York University  0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3
    ----------
    20. LaGrange  0.727/0.537/2-2, SO#6

    Seems like we're all in general agreement of a safe line being right around #9 Wooster right now.

    After another day where most key games went according to form, I almost upgraded several teams from "likely" to "lock" this morning.  Maybe I'm hesitant only because my team is in that group, but decided that I want to see one more day without undue chaos (and/or semifinal wins by some of them) before doing so.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: hopefan on February 26, 2016, 02:11:56 PM
    You guys are fantastic... but one thing for sure, I couldn't do what I try to do for the SLIAC, and do the research and numbers crunching you guys do too... it'd be a 24 hour a day job.... ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2016, 02:52:13 PM
    Just realized I had too many NESCAC teams in.  I took Trinity (CT) out - assumed Pool A - and added New Jersey City as my #19.

    (Corrected above)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on February 26, 2016, 03:10:59 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 10:04:00 AM
    Quote from: AO on February 26, 2016, 09:53:16 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 08:58:57 AM
    I still like Whitman. They should be on the board right away in the West and their .840 WP should be the best (or maybe 2nd) of the Pool C candidates. 0.509 SOS isn't great but won't eliminate them from contention. Same with 1-2 vRRO but geography limits their opportunities.
    I don't remember hearing any committee chair talk about forgiving a team's RRO due to geography.  We have heard from a previous chair that he devalued a good SoS because they felt the majority of the SoS advantage was derived from the conference schedule.

    I don't mean the low RRO totals would be forgiven, but if the committee talks about realities it wasn't like Whitman was ducking anyone nearby. They even got a matchup with Tufts in a California tournament (though they lost). They'll certainly be rooting for the Jumbos to do well in the NESCAC and boost that SOS.

    Compare them to St. John's (4-4 vRRO) who didn't play a single RRO in the non-conference.

    I recall hearing a national chair on Hoopsville discuss the non-conference vs conference RRO a few years ago... and gave more weight to the non-con (which sort of seems right... you have more "control" over your opponents in the non-con, you're stuck with your conference).

    While I do understand that to an extent, you still have to play top programs if they're in your conference (and likely twice, if not three times).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2016, 03:22:06 PM
    Quote from: hopefan on February 26, 2016, 02:11:56 PM
    You guys are fantastic... but one thing for sure, I couldn't do what I try to do for the SLIAC, and do the research and numbers crunching you guys do too... it'd be a 24 hour a day job.... ;D

    But the pay is second to none!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 26, 2016, 03:50:12 PM
    QuoteJust realized I had too many NESCAC teams in

    No such thing! ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2016, 04:05:07 PM

    Carroll just won its semifinal against Ripon.  Three seconds left, down by three Ripon set up one of the best inbounds plays I've ever seen.  They had, I think, three decoys running off screens, which left a shooter wide open behind the three point line, just to the left of center.  Easy pass, open look.  They missed it, but that was one well-constructed play. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 26, 2016, 04:06:32 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 12:41:28 PM
    Disclaimer: The following represents just one math geek's best guesses!
    55 teams in Pool C contention
    43 bids currently available to this group
    Within each category, teams are listed from (perceived) strongest Pool C contenders to weakest.
    All data is from the NCAA & Matt Snyder
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/


    Locks (18)
    St. Thomas 23-2, 23-2 (MIAC, Pool A) 0.920/0.556/10-0, WE#1
    Benedictine 25-0, 25-0 (NATHC, Pool A) 1.000/0.523/4-0, CE#1
    Marietta 25-2, 25-2 (OAC, Pool A) 0.926/0.546/5-2, GL#1
    Christopher Newport 25-1, 25-1 (CAC, Pool A) 0.962/0.531/4-1, MA#1
    Augustana 24-1, 24-1 (CCIW, Pool A) 0.960/0.527/3-1, CE#2
    North Central (Ill.) 19-6, 18-6 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.750/0.593/3-6, CE#4
    Amherst 21-4, 21-4 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1
    Susquehanna 23-3, 21-3 (LAND, Pool C) 0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
    St. Norbert 21-2, 21-2 (MWC, Pool A) 0.913/0.526/2-1, CE#3
    Whitworth 25-1, 24-1 (NWC, Pool A) 0.960/0.507/1-1, WE#2
    Plattsburgh State 21-4, 21-4 (SUNYAC, Pool A) 0.840/0.546/4-2, EA#1
    John Carroll 24-3, 24-3 (OAC, Pool C) 0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3
    Hope 23-2, 21-1 (MIAA, Pool A) 0.955/0.499/1-1, GL#4
    Tufts 20-5, 20-5 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
    Ohio Wesleyan 23-3, 23-3 (NCAC, Pool A) 0.885/0.521/3-2, GL#2
    Catholic 21-5, 21-5 (LAND, Pool A) 0.808/0.549/4-2, MA#4
    Salisbury 21-5, 21-5 (CAC, Pool C) 0.808/0.548/4-2, MA#3
    Trinity (Conn.) 19-6, 18-6 (NESCAC, Pool A) 0.750/0.563/2-4, NE#2

    Likely (6, including Stockton moving up)
    Emory 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool A) 0.696/0.583/4-4, SO#3
    Wooster 20-6, 19-6 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.556/2-4, GL#6
    Stockton 20-6, 20-5 (NJAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.540/3-3, AT#2
    Rochester 17-7, 17-6 (UAA, Pool C) 0.739/0.562/3-3, EA#2
    Alma 19-6, 19-6 (MIAA, Pool C) 0.760/0.550/3-4, GL#5
    Babson 19-5, 19-5 (NEWMAC, Pool A) 0.792/0.537/3-3, NE#4

    Bubble (19, including Whitman moving down)
    Scranton 19-7, 18-7 (LAND, Pool C) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    Whitman 22-4, 21-4 (NWC, Pool C) 0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    Texas Lutheran 19-6, 19-6 (SCAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.531/3-0, SO#1
    Chicago 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool C) 0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6
    Johnson and Wales 25-2, 24-2 (GNAC, Pool A) 0.923/0.473/1-0, NE#6
    Elmhurst 20-5, 20-5 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.800/0.518/2-4, CE#5
    Carroll 19-4, 19-4 (MWC, Pool C) 0.826/0.509/0-2, CE#8
    Lynchburg 19-6, 19-6 (ODAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.533/3-2, SO#2
    Virginia Wesleyan 17-8, 17-8 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.562/4-4, SO#4
    North Carolina Wesleyan 20-6, 16-4 (USAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.523/1-1, SO#5
    St. John Fisher 20-5, 20-5 (E8, Pool A) 0.800/0.516/1-0, EA#4
    WPI 20-5, 20-5 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
    New York University 19-5, 19-5 (UAA, Pool C) 0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3
    Oswego State 19-7, 19-7 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5
    LaGrange 19-7, 16-6 (USAC, Pool C) 0.727/0.537/2-2, SO#6
    DeSales 19-7, 19-6 (MACF, Pool C) 0.760/0.524/0-2, AT#3
    Eastern Connecticut 18-8, 18-8 (LEC, Pool A) 0.692/0.548/1-4, NE#7
    Franklin and Marshall 20-5, 20-5 (CC, Pool A) 0.800/0.507/1-0, MA#6
    Aurora 20-5, 19-5 (NATHC, Pool C) 0.792/0.509/1-2, CE#7

    Longshots (12)
    Brockport 17-9, 17-9 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.561/4-5, EA#x
    East Texas Baptist 21-5, 18-5 (ASC, Pool A) 0.783/0.509/0-2, SO#7
    Brooklyn 21-6, 21-6 (CUNYAC, Pool A) 0.778/0.508/4-2, AT#4
    St. Johns 19-7, 18-7 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.529/4-4, WE#4
    SUNY Geneseo 17-9, 17-8 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.541/1-4, ea#6
    Bethel 18-8, 18-8 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.534/4-5, WE#7
    Hiram 19-7, 19-6 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.501/2-2, GL#8
    New Jersey City 18-8, 18-8 (NJAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.524/4-2, AT#1
    MIT 19-6, 19-6 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.497/2-3, NE#8
    Roanoke 19-6, 18-6 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.499/1-2, SO#8
    St. Olaf 16-9, 16-9 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.640/0.539/2-6, WE#5
    Mount Union 18-9, 17-9 (OAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.545/2-5, GL#7


    So far this week, the bubble looks pillowy soft.  For that reason, I can't yet bring myself to drop some teams off the board, even with numbers that would make their chances completely nil.

    Conference tournaments with possible bubble-bursters
    (Pool C contenders noted)

    Friday
    ASC: East Texas Baptist (longshot) in semis Fri., but probably a one-bid league
    Centennial: Franklin & Marshall (bubble) in semis Fri.
    CUNYAC: Brooklyn (longshot) in final Fri. vs Baruch (out), but probably a one-bid league
    CCIW: Augustana (lock); North Central (lock) vs Elmhurst (bubble) in semis Fri.
    Empire 8: St John Fisher (bubble) in semis Fri.
    MIAA: Hope (lock), Alma (likely) in semis Fri.
    MIAC: Bethel (unlikely) at St thomas (lock); St John's (longshot) vs Bethel (longshot) in semis Fri.
    Midwest: St Norbert (lock), Carroll (bubble) in semis Fri.
    NATHC: Benedictine (lock), Aurora (bubble) in semis Fri.
    NCAC: Ohio Wesleyan (lock); Wooster (likely) vs Hiram (longshot) in semis Fri.
    ODAC: Lynchburg (bubble), Virginia Wesleyan (bubble), Roanoke (longshot) in quarters Fri.
    SUNYAC: Oswego St (bubble) at Plattsburgh St (lock); Brockport in semis Fri., also Geneseo (longshot)
    USAC: NC Wesleyan (bubble), LaGrange (bubble) in quarters Fri.

    Saturday
    GNAC: Johnson & Wales (bubble) in final Sat. vs. Albertus Magnus
    LEC: E. Connecticut (bubble) in semis Sat., but probably a one-bid league
    NESCAC: Trinity (lock); Amherst (lock) vs Tufts (lock) in semis Sat.
    NEWMAC: Babson (likely); wPI (bubble) vs MIT (longshot) in semis Sat.
    NJAC: Stockton (likely) in final Sat.; NJ City (longshot) eliminated
    NWC: Whitworth (lock) in final Sat. vs Pacific Lutheran (out); also Whitman (bubble)
    SCAC: Texas Lutheran (bubble) in semis Sat.
    UAA: Emory (likely) at Rochester (likely) for AQ Sat.; Chicago (bubble), NYU (bubble) also contending

    Conferences with no bubble-bursters remaining
    CAC: Salisbury (lock) at Christopher Newport (lock) in finals
    Landmark: Susquehanna (lock) at Catholic (lock) in finals; also Scranton (bubble)
    OAC: John Carroll (lock) at Marietta (lock) in finals; also Mt Union (longshot)

    I suspect a lot will change in the next 12 hours!

    Does this mean that our pollsters don't weigh this criteria in making Elmhurst #13 in the top 25?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 04:11:54 PM
    "For those keeping score at home," here's the slate of bubble-relevant games today...

    1:00 ODAC quarters - Lynchburg (bubble) 90-67 over Hampden-Syndney (out)
    2:30 MWC semis - Carroll (bubble) 58-55 over Ripon (out)
    3:00 MIAA semis - Alma (likely) vs Albion (out)
    5:30 NCAC semis - Wooster (likely) vs Hiram (longshot)
    5:30 SUNYAC semis - Brockport (longshot) vs Cortland (out)
    6:00 ASC semis - East Texas Baptist (longshot) vs Louisiana College (out)
    6:00 CCIW semis - North Central (lock) vs Elmhurst (bubble)
    6:00 E8 semis - St John Fisher (bubble) hosting Stevens (out)
    6:00 ODAC quarters - Virginia Wesleyan (bubble) vs Randolph-Macon (out)
    7:00 MWC semis - St Norbery (lock) hosting Lake Forest (out)
    7:00 USA semis - NC Wesleyan (bubble) vs LaGrange (bubble)
    7:30 MIAA semis - Hope (lock) hosting Trine (out)
    7:30 SUNYAC semis - Plattsburgh State (lock) hosting Oswego State (bubble)
    8:00 Centennial semis - Franklin & Marshall (bubble) hosting Gettysburg (out)
    8:00 CCIW semis - Augustana (lock) hosting Illinois Wesleyan (out)
    8:00 MIAC semis - St Thomas (lock) hosting Bethel (longshot)
    8:00 MIAC semis - St Olaf (longshot) hosting St Johns (longshot)
    8:00 NACC semis - Benedictine (lock) hosting Marian (out)
    8:00 NACC semis - Aurora (bubble) hosting Milwaukee Engineering (out)
    8:00 ODAC quarters - Roanoke (longshot) vs Randolph (out)
    8:30 NCAC semis - Ohio Wesleyan (lock) vs Denison (out)
    8:30 CUNYAC final - Brooklyn (longshot) vs Baruch (out)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2016, 04:41:05 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 26, 2016, 03:50:12 PM
    QuoteJust realized I had too many NESCAC teams in

    No such thing! ;)

    East coast bias!  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 26, 2016, 04:59:52 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 12:41:28 PM
    Disclaimer: The following represents just one math geek's best guesses!
    55 teams in Pool C contention
    43 bids currently available to this group
    Within each category, teams are listed from (perceived) strongest Pool C contenders to weakest.
    All data is from the NCAA & Matt Snyder
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/


    Locks (18)
    St. Thomas 23-2, 23-2 (MIAC, Pool A) 0.920/0.556/10-0, WE#1
    Benedictine 25-0, 25-0 (NATHC, Pool A) 1.000/0.523/4-0, CE#1
    Marietta 25-2, 25-2 (OAC, Pool A) 0.926/0.546/5-2, GL#1
    Christopher Newport 25-1, 25-1 (CAC, Pool A) 0.962/0.531/4-1, MA#1
    Augustana 24-1, 24-1 (CCIW, Pool A) 0.960/0.527/3-1, CE#2
    North Central (Ill.) 19-6, 18-6 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.750/0.593/3-6, CE#4
    Amherst 21-4, 21-4 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1
    Susquehanna 23-3, 21-3 (LAND, Pool C) 0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
    St. Norbert 21-2, 21-2 (MWC, Pool A) 0.913/0.526/2-1, CE#3
    Whitworth 25-1, 24-1 (NWC, Pool A) 0.960/0.507/1-1, WE#2
    Plattsburgh State 21-4, 21-4 (SUNYAC, Pool A) 0.840/0.546/4-2, EA#1
    John Carroll 24-3, 24-3 (OAC, Pool C) 0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3
    Hope 23-2, 21-1 (MIAA, Pool A) 0.955/0.499/1-1, GL#4
    Tufts 20-5, 20-5 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
    Ohio Wesleyan 23-3, 23-3 (NCAC, Pool A) 0.885/0.521/3-2, GL#2
    Catholic 21-5, 21-5 (LAND, Pool A) 0.808/0.549/4-2, MA#4
    Salisbury 21-5, 21-5 (CAC, Pool C) 0.808/0.548/4-2, MA#3
    Trinity (Conn.) 19-6, 18-6 (NESCAC, Pool A) 0.750/0.563/2-4, NE#2

    Likely (6, including Stockton moving up)
    Emory 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool A) 0.696/0.583/4-4, SO#3
    Wooster 20-6, 19-6 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.556/2-4, GL#6
    Stockton 20-6, 20-5 (NJAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.540/3-3, AT#2
    Rochester 17-7, 17-6 (UAA, Pool C) 0.739/0.562/3-3, EA#2
    Alma 19-6, 19-6 (MIAA, Pool C) 0.760/0.550/3-4, GL#5
    Babson 19-5, 19-5 (NEWMAC, Pool A) 0.792/0.537/3-3, NE#4

    Bubble (19, including Whitman moving down)
    Scranton 19-7, 18-7 (LAND, Pool C) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    Whitman 22-4, 21-4 (NWC, Pool C) 0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    Texas Lutheran 19-6, 19-6 (SCAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.531/3-0, SO#1
    Chicago 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool C) 0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6
    Johnson and Wales 25-2, 24-2 (GNAC, Pool A) 0.923/0.473/1-0, NE#6
    Elmhurst 20-5, 20-5 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.800/0.518/2-4, CE#5
    Carroll 19-4, 19-4 (MWC, Pool C) 0.826/0.509/0-2, CE#8
    Lynchburg 19-6, 19-6 (ODAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.533/3-2, SO#2
    Virginia Wesleyan 17-8, 17-8 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.562/4-4, SO#4
    North Carolina Wesleyan 20-6, 16-4 (USAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.523/1-1, SO#5
    St. John Fisher 20-5, 20-5 (E8, Pool A) 0.800/0.516/1-0, EA#4
    WPI 20-5, 20-5 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
    New York University 19-5, 19-5 (UAA, Pool C) 0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3
    Oswego State 19-7, 19-7 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5
    LaGrange 19-7, 16-6 (USAC, Pool C) 0.727/0.537/2-2, SO#6
    DeSales 19-7, 19-6 (MACF, Pool C) 0.760/0.524/0-2, AT#3
    Eastern Connecticut 18-8, 18-8 (LEC, Pool A) 0.692/0.548/1-4, NE#7
    Franklin and Marshall 20-5, 20-5 (CC, Pool A) 0.800/0.507/1-0, MA#6
    Aurora 20-5, 19-5 (NATHC, Pool C) 0.792/0.509/1-2, CE#7

    Longshots (12)
    Brockport 17-9, 17-9 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.561/4-5, EA#x
    East Texas Baptist 21-5, 18-5 (ASC, Pool A) 0.783/0.509/0-2, SO#7
    Brooklyn 21-6, 21-6 (CUNYAC, Pool A) 0.778/0.508/4-2, AT#4
    St. Johns 19-7, 18-7 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.529/4-4, WE#4
    SUNY Geneseo 17-9, 17-8 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.541/1-4, ea#6
    Bethel 18-8, 18-8 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.534/4-5, WE#7
    Hiram 19-7, 19-6 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.501/2-2, GL#8
    New Jersey City 18-8, 18-8 (NJAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.524/4-2, AT#1
    MIT 19-6, 19-6 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.497/2-3, NE#8
    Roanoke 19-6, 18-6 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.499/1-2, SO#8
    St. Olaf 16-9, 16-9 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.640/0.539/2-6, WE#5
    Mount Union 18-9, 17-9 (OAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.545/2-5, GL#7


    So far this week, the bubble looks pillowy soft.  For that reason, I can't yet bring myself to drop some teams off the board, even with numbers that would make their chances completely nil.

    Conference tournaments with possible bubble-bursters
    (Pool C contenders noted)

    Friday
    ASC: East Texas Baptist (longshot) in semis Fri., but probably a one-bid league
    Centennial: Franklin & Marshall (bubble) in semis Fri.
    CUNYAC: Brooklyn (longshot) in final Fri. vs Baruch (out), but probably a one-bid league
    CCIW: Augustana (lock); North Central (lock) vs Elmhurst (bubble) in semis Fri.
    Empire 8: St John Fisher (bubble) in semis Fri.
    MIAA: Hope (lock), Alma (likely) in semis Fri.
    MIAC: Bethel (unlikely) at St thomas (lock); St John's (longshot) vs Bethel (longshot) in semis Fri.
    Midwest: St Norbert (lock), Carroll (bubble) in semis Fri.
    NATHC: Benedictine (lock), Aurora (bubble) in semis Fri.
    NCAC: Ohio Wesleyan (lock); Wooster (likely) vs Hiram (longshot) in semis Fri.
    ODAC: Lynchburg (bubble), Virginia Wesleyan (bubble), Roanoke (longshot) in quarters Fri.
    SUNYAC: Oswego St (bubble) at Plattsburgh St (lock); Brockport in semis Fri., also Geneseo (longshot)
    USAC: NC Wesleyan (bubble), LaGrange (bubble) in quarters Fri.

    Saturday
    GNAC: Johnson & Wales (bubble) in final Sat. vs. Albertus Magnus
    LEC: E. Connecticut (bubble) in semis Sat., but probably a one-bid league
    NESCAC: Trinity (lock); Amherst (lock) vs Tufts (lock) in semis Sat.
    NEWMAC: Babson (likely); wPI (bubble) vs MIT (longshot) in semis Sat.
    NJAC: Stockton (likely) in final Sat.; NJ City (longshot) eliminated
    NWC: Whitworth (lock) in final Sat. vs Pacific Lutheran (out); also Whitman (bubble)
    SCAC: Texas Lutheran (bubble) in semis Sat.
    UAA: Emory (likely) at Rochester (likely) for AQ Sat.; Chicago (bubble), NYU (bubble) also contending

    Conferences with no bubble-bursters remaining
    CAC: Salisbury (lock) at Christopher Newport (lock) in finals
    Landmark: Susquehanna (lock) at Catholic (lock) in finals; also Scranton (bubble)
    OAC: John Carroll (lock) at Marietta (lock) in finals; also Mt Union (longshot)

    I suspect a lot will change in the next 12 hours!

    Thanks for this effort and Knight Slappy's, also. Any chance that 1 similar run could be done for the women's side?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 26, 2016, 05:03:13 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 04:11:54 PM
    "For those keeping score at home," here's the slate of bubble-relevant games today...

    1:00 ODAC quarters - Lynchburg (bubble) 90-67 over Hampden-Syndney (out)
    2:30 MWC semis - Carroll (bubble) 58-55 over Ripon (out)
    3:00 MIAA semis - Alma (likely) vs Albion (out)
    5:30 NCAC semis - Wooster (likely) vs Hiram (longshot)
    5:30 SUNYAC semis - Brockport (longshot) vs Cortland (out)
    6:00 ASC semis - East Texas Baptist (longshot) vs Louisiana College (out)
    6:00 CCIW semis - North Central (lock) vs Elmhurst (bubble)
    6:00 E8 semis - St John Fisher (bubble) hosting Stevens (out)
    6:00 ODAC quarters - Virginia Wesleyan (bubble) vs Randolph-Macon (out)
    7:00 MWC semis - St Norbery (lock) hosting Lake Forest (out)
    7:00 USA semis - NC Wesleyan (bubble) vs LaGrange (bubble)
    7:30 MIAA semis - Hope (lock) hosting Trine (out)
    7:30 SUNYAC semis - Plattsburgh State (lock) hosting Oswego State (bubble)
    8:00 Centennial semis - Franklin & Marshall (bubble) hosting Gettysburg (out)
    8:00 CCIW semis - Augustana (lock) hosting Illinois Wesleyan (out)
    8:00 MIAC semis - St Thomas (lock) hosting Bethel (longshot)
    8:00 MIAC semis - St Olaf (longshot) hosting St Johns (longshot)
    8:00 NACC semis - Benedictine (lock) hosting Marian (out)
    8:00 NACC semis - Aurora (bubble) hosting Milwaukee Engineering (out)
    8:00 ODAC quarters - Roanoke (longshot) vs Randolph (out)
    8:30 NCAC semis - Ohio Wesleyan (lock) vs Denison (out)
    8:30 CUNYAC final - Brooklyn (longshot) vs Baruch (out)

    Alma 77 Albion 64 - no bubble pops
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 06:37:12 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 26, 2016, 04:59:52 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 12:41:28 PM
    Disclaimer: The following represents just one math geek's best guesses!
    55 teams in Pool C contention
    43 bids currently available to this group
    Within each category, teams are listed from (perceived) strongest Pool C contenders to weakest.
    All data is from the NCAA & Matt Snyder
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/


    Locks (18)
    St. Thomas 23-2, 23-2 (MIAC, Pool A) 0.920/0.556/10-0, WE#1
    Benedictine 25-0, 25-0 (NATHC, Pool A) 1.000/0.523/4-0, CE#1
    Marietta 25-2, 25-2 (OAC, Pool A) 0.926/0.546/5-2, GL#1
    Christopher Newport 25-1, 25-1 (CAC, Pool A) 0.962/0.531/4-1, MA#1
    Augustana 24-1, 24-1 (CCIW, Pool A) 0.960/0.527/3-1, CE#2
    North Central (Ill.) 19-6, 18-6 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.750/0.593/3-6, CE#4
    Amherst 21-4, 21-4 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1
    Susquehanna 23-3, 21-3 (LAND, Pool C) 0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
    St. Norbert 21-2, 21-2 (MWC, Pool A) 0.913/0.526/2-1, CE#3
    Whitworth 25-1, 24-1 (NWC, Pool A) 0.960/0.507/1-1, WE#2
    Plattsburgh State 21-4, 21-4 (SUNYAC, Pool A) 0.840/0.546/4-2, EA#1
    John Carroll 24-3, 24-3 (OAC, Pool C) 0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3
    Hope 23-2, 21-1 (MIAA, Pool A) 0.955/0.499/1-1, GL#4
    Tufts 20-5, 20-5 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
    Ohio Wesleyan 23-3, 23-3 (NCAC, Pool A) 0.885/0.521/3-2, GL#2
    Catholic 21-5, 21-5 (LAND, Pool A) 0.808/0.549/4-2, MA#4
    Salisbury 21-5, 21-5 (CAC, Pool C) 0.808/0.548/4-2, MA#3
    Trinity (Conn.) 19-6, 18-6 (NESCAC, Pool A) 0.750/0.563/2-4, NE#2

    Likely (6, including Stockton moving up)
    Emory 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool A) 0.696/0.583/4-4, SO#3
    Wooster 20-6, 19-6 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.556/2-4, GL#6
    Stockton 20-6, 20-5 (NJAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.540/3-3, AT#2
    Rochester 17-7, 17-6 (UAA, Pool C) 0.739/0.562/3-3, EA#2
    Alma 19-6, 19-6 (MIAA, Pool C) 0.760/0.550/3-4, GL#5
    Babson 19-5, 19-5 (NEWMAC, Pool A) 0.792/0.537/3-3, NE#4

    Bubble (19, including Whitman moving down)
    Scranton 19-7, 18-7 (LAND, Pool C) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    Whitman 22-4, 21-4 (NWC, Pool C) 0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    Texas Lutheran 19-6, 19-6 (SCAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.531/3-0, SO#1
    Chicago 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool C) 0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6
    Johnson and Wales 25-2, 24-2 (GNAC, Pool A) 0.923/0.473/1-0, NE#6
    Elmhurst 20-5, 20-5 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.800/0.518/2-4, CE#5
    Carroll 19-4, 19-4 (MWC, Pool C) 0.826/0.509/0-2, CE#8
    Lynchburg 19-6, 19-6 (ODAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.533/3-2, SO#2
    Virginia Wesleyan 17-8, 17-8 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.562/4-4, SO#4
    North Carolina Wesleyan 20-6, 16-4 (USAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.523/1-1, SO#5
    St. John Fisher 20-5, 20-5 (E8, Pool A) 0.800/0.516/1-0, EA#4
    WPI 20-5, 20-5 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
    New York University 19-5, 19-5 (UAA, Pool C) 0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3
    Oswego State 19-7, 19-7 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5
    LaGrange 19-7, 16-6 (USAC, Pool C) 0.727/0.537/2-2, SO#6
    DeSales 19-7, 19-6 (MACF, Pool C) 0.760/0.524/0-2, AT#3
    Eastern Connecticut 18-8, 18-8 (LEC, Pool A) 0.692/0.548/1-4, NE#7
    Franklin and Marshall 20-5, 20-5 (CC, Pool A) 0.800/0.507/1-0, MA#6
    Aurora 20-5, 19-5 (NATHC, Pool C) 0.792/0.509/1-2, CE#7

    Longshots (12)
    Brockport 17-9, 17-9 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.561/4-5, EA#x
    East Texas Baptist 21-5, 18-5 (ASC, Pool A) 0.783/0.509/0-2, SO#7
    Brooklyn 21-6, 21-6 (CUNYAC, Pool A) 0.778/0.508/4-2, AT#4
    St. Johns 19-7, 18-7 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.529/4-4, WE#4
    SUNY Geneseo 17-9, 17-8 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.541/1-4, ea#6
    Bethel 18-8, 18-8 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.534/4-5, WE#7
    Hiram 19-7, 19-6 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.501/2-2, GL#8
    New Jersey City 18-8, 18-8 (NJAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.524/4-2, AT#1
    MIT 19-6, 19-6 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.497/2-3, NE#8
    Roanoke 19-6, 18-6 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.499/1-2, SO#8
    St. Olaf 16-9, 16-9 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.640/0.539/2-6, WE#5
    Mount Union 18-9, 17-9 (OAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.545/2-5, GL#7


    So far this week, the bubble looks pillowy soft.  For that reason, I can't yet bring myself to drop some teams off the board, even with numbers that would make their chances completely nil.

    Conference tournaments with possible bubble-bursters
    (Pool C contenders noted)

    Friday
    ASC: East Texas Baptist (longshot) in semis Fri., but probably a one-bid league
    Centennial: Franklin & Marshall (bubble) in semis Fri.
    CUNYAC: Brooklyn (longshot) in final Fri. vs Baruch (out), but probably a one-bid league
    CCIW: Augustana (lock); North Central (lock) vs Elmhurst (bubble) in semis Fri.
    Empire 8: St John Fisher (bubble) in semis Fri.
    MIAA: Hope (lock), Alma (likely) in semis Fri.
    MIAC: Bethel (unlikely) at St thomas (lock); St John's (longshot) vs Bethel (longshot) in semis Fri.
    Midwest: St Norbert (lock), Carroll (bubble) in semis Fri.
    NATHC: Benedictine (lock), Aurora (bubble) in semis Fri.
    NCAC: Ohio Wesleyan (lock); Wooster (likely) vs Hiram (longshot) in semis Fri.
    ODAC: Lynchburg (bubble), Virginia Wesleyan (bubble), Roanoke (longshot) in quarters Fri.
    SUNYAC: Oswego St (bubble) at Plattsburgh St (lock); Brockport in semis Fri., also Geneseo (longshot)
    USAC: NC Wesleyan (bubble), LaGrange (bubble) in quarters Fri.

    Saturday
    GNAC: Johnson & Wales (bubble) in final Sat. vs. Albertus Magnus
    LEC: E. Connecticut (bubble) in semis Sat., but probably a one-bid league
    NESCAC: Trinity (lock); Amherst (lock) vs Tufts (lock) in semis Sat.
    NEWMAC: Babson (likely); wPI (bubble) vs MIT (longshot) in semis Sat.
    NJAC: Stockton (likely) in final Sat.; NJ City (longshot) eliminated
    NWC: Whitworth (lock) in final Sat. vs Pacific Lutheran (out); also Whitman (bubble)
    SCAC: Texas Lutheran (bubble) in semis Sat.
    UAA: Emory (likely) at Rochester (likely) for AQ Sat.; Chicago (bubble), NYU (bubble) also contending

    Conferences with no bubble-bursters remaining
    CAC: Salisbury (lock) at Christopher Newport (lock) in finals
    Landmark: Susquehanna (lock) at Catholic (lock) in finals; also Scranton (bubble)
    OAC: John Carroll (lock) at Marietta (lock) in finals; also Mt Union (longshot)

    I suspect a lot will change in the next 12 hours!

    Thanks for this effort and Knight Slappy's, also. Any chance that 1 similar run could be done for the women's side?

    If Matt can assemble the numbers, then I can break down the Pool C tiers and conferences, but I don't have the technical expertise to easily collect the data.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2016, 06:51:46 PM
    The numbers are already assembled on the D3hoops.com site - since there isn't a multiplier, it is far easier: http://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/women/2015-16/schedule?tmpl=sos-template
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 07:26:36 PM
    Longshot Brockport goes down in the SUNYAC semifinals, while Wooster likely punches their ticket by reaching the NCAC final.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 07:33:34 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2016, 06:51:46 PM
    The numbers are already assembled on the D3hoops.com site - since there isn't a multiplier, it is far easier: http://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/women/2015-16/schedule?tmpl=sos-template

    Okay, will work on it.  A couple of quick questions:
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 26, 2016, 07:37:25 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 07:33:34 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2016, 06:51:46 PM
    The numbers are already assembled on the D3hoops.com site - since there isn't a multiplier, it is far easier: http://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/women/2015-16/schedule?tmpl=sos-template

    Okay, will work on it.  A couple of quick questions:

    • Do the women have any kind of wins vs. SOS principle, like the 2 wins = 0.030 SOS on the men's side?
    • Do I understand correctly that it's 43 conference tournament winners, plus the UAA champ and 20 Pool C berths?
    [/b]
    [/list]

    Yes for the 2nd question; don't know the 1st.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2016, 07:44:15 PM
    44 conferences and 20 at-large bids = 64 teams.

    Don't forget the GSAC exists on the women's side in a very jury rigged way. It does not exist on the men's side.

    As for the .030=2 ratio... they understand it and they understand it, but they don't lean on it as much as the men and they do not make a direct line to .060=4 like the men have started doing this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2016, 07:44:59 PM
    North Central losses to Elmhurst... doesn't burst a bubble, but Elmhurst may have helped themselves.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2016, 07:53:59 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2016, 07:44:59 PM
    North Central losses to Elmhurst... doesn't burst a bubble, but Elmhurst may have helped themselves.

    Elmhurst in good shape now.  In the CCIW, Augustana, North Central, and Elmhurst all look to be in.

    This result hurt Chicago some.  Had Elmhurst lost and Chicago taken care of business vs Wash U tomorrow, I believe Chicago would have moved ahead of Elmhurst in the Central.  The Maroons may still get in, but they're in that nervous territory -- hoping for very few upsets.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ben Stein Fan on February 26, 2016, 09:24:47 PM
    LaGrange College was down to NC Wesleyan by 15 at half 54-39.  The game was at NC Wesleyan.  Final Score 99-87 LaGrange wins and goes on to face Covenant. 

    LaGrange split with NC Wesleyan (So #5) Lost to Lynchburg (So #2) on a neutral court by 3 and put down a beatdown on Emory on a neutral court.  Emory also lost to Maryville which didn't even make the USA South Tournament.  Yet, somehow they seem to be in really good shape for the tournament and LaGrange is on the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 26, 2016, 09:27:57 PM
    Plattsburgh loses to Oswego 81-74 so a bubble will burst in lieu of Cortland or Oswego winning the SUNYAC
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: realist on February 26, 2016, 09:36:23 PM
    Hope loses to Trine in the MIAA semi so there goes a C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2016, 09:38:18 PM
    Quote from: realist on February 26, 2016, 09:36:23 PM
    Hope loses to Trine in the MIAA semi so there goes a C.

    Wasn't Alma pretty likely to get in?  It'll only really be a bubble burst if Trine wins the AQ.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 09:40:27 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 26, 2016, 09:38:18 PM
    Quote from: realist on February 26, 2016, 09:36:23 PM
    Hope loses to Trine in the MIAA semi so there goes a C.

    Wasn't Alma pretty likely to get in?  It'll only really be a bubble burst if Trine wins the AQ.

    Correct. No bubble burst if Alma wins tomorrow.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2016, 09:46:40 PM

    The great Austin Steuck scored 42 tonight as MSOE secured its second upset of the week over Aurora.  They'll be playing Benedictine for the chance to burst someone's bubble.  That's a great player on a good team; don't put it past them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 26, 2016, 10:13:45 PM
    Denison topples OWU 95-85. Much like the MIAA, with Wooster waiting in the title game, nobody's bubble burst, yet. OWU is in as a Pool C lock, but DU is in win-or-go-home mode tomorrow.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2016, 10:14:04 PM
    Ohio Wesleyan goes down.  Wooster is still in the final, so not necessarily a bubble burst there.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 11:09:24 PM
    Full update tomorrow, with new numbers from Matt Snyder, but quick thoughts...

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 11:10:48 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 11:09:24 PM
    Full update tomorrow, with new numbers from Matt Snyder, but quick thoughts...


    • Moving Alma and Wooster up from likely to locks with semifinal wins
    • Oswego may move up from bubble to likely, after road upset of Plattsburgh
    • Aurora drops from bubble to longshot, after a bad semifinal loss to 6th seed Milwaukee Engineering
    • NC Wesleyan might also drop, after falling to fellow bubble team LaGrange
    • ETBU, Roanoke, Hiram go off the board entirely, perhaps also Brockport

    I was wondering if NC Wesleyan's loss un-popped a bubble. LaGrange always seemed to have better Pool C credentials.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 11:14:35 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2016, 11:10:48 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 11:09:24 PM
    Full update tomorrow, with new numbers from Matt Snyder, but quick thoughts...


    • Moving Alma and Wooster up from likely to locks with semifinal wins
    • Oswego may move up from bubble to likely, after road upset of Plattsburgh
    • Aurora drops from bubble to longshot, after a bad semifinal loss to 6th seed Milwaukee Engineering
    • NC Wesleyan might also drop, after falling to fellow bubble team LaGrange
    • ETBU, Roanoke, Hiram go off the board entirely, perhaps also Brockport

    I was wondering if NC Wesleyan's loss un-popped a bubble. LaGrange always seemed to have better Pool C credentials.

    I tend to agree, but I think the two extra losses is what put LaGrange behind Wesleyan last week in the regional rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2016, 05:32:11 AM
    Updated through Friday's games  


    Quote
    Teams in BOLD are conferences winners/leaders. An * means there's a tie. Pool A (Automatic qualifiers) will be BLUE once their conference tournaments are complete. Teams losing will be RED and will be considered Pool C.


       ATL               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      New Jersey City (NJAC)      LOST to TCNJ 92-82 in semis   
       #2      Stockton (NJAC)      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 95-75 in semis; WON vs TCNJ 60-53 in Final   
       #3      DeSales (MACF)      LOST to Wilkes 72-62 in semis   
       #4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      WON vs Staten Island 78-69 in semis; WON vs Baruch 76-67 in Final   
       #5      Lehman (CUNYAC)      LOST to Baruch 80-64 in semis   
       #6      Staten Island (CUNYAC)      LOST to Brooklyn 78-69 in semis   
       #7      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      WON vs William Paterson 78-52 in QFs; LOST at Stockton 95-75 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Delaware Valley (MACF)         
       CENT               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Benedictine (NACC)      WON vs Marian 91-82; vs MSOE in Final on Sunday   
       #2       Augustana (CCIW)      WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 83-74; WON vs Elmhurst 69-53 in Final   
       #3      St.Norbert (MWC)      WON vs Lake Forest 63-48; WON vs Carroll 71-69 in Final    
       #4      NCC (CCIW)      LOST to Elmhurst 60-58 in semis   
       #5      Elmhurst      LOST to Augustana 69-53 in Final   
       #6      Chicago (UAA)      LOST to Washington U. 67-54   
       #7      Aurora (NACC)      LOST to MSOE in semis 100-96   
       #8      Carroll (MWC)      LOST to St. Norbert 71-69 in Final   
       EAST               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Platts. St. (SUNYAC)      LOST to Oswego St 81-74 in semis   
       #2       Rochester (UAA)        LOST to Emory 84-75   
       #3        NYU (UAA)        WON at Brandeis 71-50   
       #4       St. John Fisher (E8)        WON vs Stevens 85-62; LOST to Hartwick 93-91 in Final   
       #5      Oswego St. (SUNYAC)      WON vs SUNY Geneseo 75-59; WON at Platts. St. 81-74;LOST  at Cortland 77-74 in Final   
       #6      SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC)      LOST to Oswego St. 75-59 in QFs   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC)         
             Brockport (SUNYAC)         
                      
       GL               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Marietta (OAC)      WON vs Wilmington 93-78; Won vs Baldwin Wallace 91-66; LOST vs John Carroll 97-95 in Final    
       #2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)      WON vs Wabash 100-80; LOST to Denison 95-85 in semis   
       #3      John Carroll (OAC)      WON vs Capital 83-70; WON vs Mount Union 93-74; WON at Marietta 87-85 in Final   
       #4      Hope (MIAA)      LOST to Trine 82-77 in semis   
       #5      Alma (MIAA)      WON vs Albion 77-64; WON vs Trine 62-54 in Final   
       #6      Wooster (NCAC)      WON vs Oberlin 78-63; WON vs Hiram 92-79; LOST to Denison 92-81 in Final   
       #7      Mount Union (OAC)      WON vs Heidelberg 102-96; LOST at John Carroll 93-74 in semis   
       #8      Hiram (NCAC)      WON vs Kenyon 95-87; LOST at Wooster 92-79 in semis   
       #9      St. Vincent (PAC)      WON vs Chatham 80-65; WON vs Westminster 70-65; WON vs Thomas More 65-62 in Final   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Trine (MIAA)         
       MA               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Christopher Newport(CAC)      WON vs St. Mary's 57-56; WON vs Salisbury in 68-67 OT in Final   
       #2      Susquehanna (LAND)      WON vs Scranton 77-72 in semis; LOST to Catholic 83-81 in Final   
       #3      Salisbury (CAC)      WON vs Mary Washington 83-78; LOST at Christopher Newport 68-68 OT in Final
       #4      Catholic (LAND)      WON vs Juniata 79-66; WON vs Susquehanna 83-81 in Final   
       #5      Scranton (LAND)      LOST to Susquehanna 77-72 in semis   
       #6      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      WON vs Gettysburg 74-63; WON vs Swarthmore 75-64 in Final   
                      
       NE               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Amherst (NECAC)      WON vs Tufts 86-83 in semis; vs Middlebury in Final today   
       #2      Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC)      LOST to Middlebury 70-58 in semis   
       #3      Tufts (NESCAC)      LOST at Amherst 86-83 in semis   
       #4      Babson (NEWMAC)      WON vs Emerson 74-69; vs MIT in Final today   
       #5      WPI (NEWMAC)   [color]   LOST to MIT 96-80 in semis   
       #6      Johnson & Wales (GNAC)      WON vs St. Joseph's 73-36; WON vs Emmanuel 97-79; WON vs Albertus Magnus 86-74 in Final    
       #7      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)      WON vs Mass-Boston 93-65; LOST to Mass-Dartmouth 60-55 in semis   
       #8      MIT (NEWMAC)      WON at WPI 96-80; at Babson in Final today   
       #9      Middlebury (NESCAC)      WON at Trinity 70-58; at Amherst in Final today   
       #10      Southern Vermont(NECC)      WON vs Regis 73-68; WON vs Becker 74-72 in Final   
       #11      Nichols (CCC)      WON vs W. New England 10768; LOST to Endicott 82-80 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Wesleyan (NESCAC)         
                      
       SOUTH               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Texas Lutheran (SCAC)      WON vs Centenary 80-70; vs Colorado College in Final today   
       #2      Lynchburg (ODAC)      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 90-67; WON vs Emory and Henry 94-64; vs Randolph in Final today   
       #3       Emory (UAA)      WON at Rochester 84-74   
       #4      Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC)      WON vs Randolph-Macon 78-52; LOST to Randolph 69-61 in semis   
       #5      N.C. Wesleyan (USAC)      WON vs Averett 81-66; LOST to LaGrange 99-87 in semis   
       #6      LaGrange (USAC)      WON vs Ferrum 77-73; WON at N.C. Wesleyan 99-87; LOST at Covenant 101-92 OT in Final
       #7      ETBU (ASC)      WON vs Mary Harin-Baylor 70-64; LOST to Louisiana College 56-44 in semis   
       #8      Roanoke (ODAC)      LOST to Randolph 74-62 in QFs   
                      
       WEST               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      St. Thomas (MIAC)      WON vs Bethel 63-46; vs St. Olaf in Final on Sunday   
       #2      Whitworth (NWC)      WON vs Puget Sound 75-58; WON vs Pacific Lutheran 75-62 in Final   
       #3      Whitman (NWC)      LOST to Pacific Lutheran 82-68 in semis   
       #4      St. John's (MIAC)      WON vs Augsburg 99-86; LOST at St. Olaf 91-80 in semis   
       #5      St.Olaf (MIAC)      WON vs St. John's 91-80; at St. Thomas in Final on Sunday   
       #6      Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC)      LOST to Bethel 67-62 in QFs   
       #7      Bethel (MIAC)      WON at Concordia-Moorhead 67-62; lost at St. Thomas 63-46 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Dubuque (IIAC)         
             Augsburg (MIAC)         
                      
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
    Leveraging Matthew Snyder's data and the great work by fantastic50 and Greek Tragedy here, my Pool C's as of Saturday morning...

    1. Susquehanna  0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2  LAND final vs Catholic (Catholic interchangeable here)
    2. Amherst  0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1  NESCAC semis vs Tufts (Tufts also projected in)
    3. John Carroll  0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3  OAC final at Marietta (Marietta interchangeable here)
    4. Plattsburgh State  .808/.551/4-3, E #1  lost to Oswego State in SUYAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    5. Salisbury  0.808/0.549/4-2, MA#3  CAC final at Christoper Newport (CNU interchangeable here)
    6. Ohio Wesleyan  .852/.525/3-2, GL #2  lost to Denison in NCAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    7. North Central  0.720/0.600/3-7, CE #4  lost to Elmhurst in CCIW semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    8. Tufts  0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3  NESCAC semis at Amherst (Amherst also projected in)
    9. Oswego State  0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5  SUNYAC final at Cortland
    10. Scranton  0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5  lost to Susquehanna in LAND semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    11. Elmhurst  0.808/0.526/3-4, CE#5  CCIW final at Augustana (Augie interchangeable here)
    12. WPI  0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5  vs MIT in NEWMAC semis
    13. Emory  .696/.584/4-4, SO #3  at Rochester in final UAA regular season game (Rochester interchangeable here)
    14. Hope  .913/.504/1-1, GL #4  lost in MIAA semis to Trine (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    15. Virginia Wesleyan  0.680/0.562/4-5, SO#4 ODAC semis vs Randolph
    16. Chicago  0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6  vs Washington U in final UAA regular season game (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    17. Whitman  0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3  lost to Pacific Lutheran in NWC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    18. LaGrange  0.739/0.546/3-2, SO#6  USAC final at Covenant
    19. St. Johns  0.692/0.535/4-4, WE#4  lost at St. Olaf in MIAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    ----------
    20. New York University  0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3  at Brandeis in final UAA regular season game (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    21. New Jersey City  0.692/.525/4-2, AT #1  lost to TCNJ in NJAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    22. NC Wesleyan .762/529/1-2, SO #5  lost to LaGrange in USAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)


    Bubble Relief
    * Oswego State winning the SUNYAC over Cortland (Oswego currently included above)

    Bubble Bursters (roughly in order of significance)
    1. St. Olaf winning the MIAC (St. Thomas is a Pool C lock)
    2. MSOE winning the NACC (Benedictine is a Pool C lock)
    3. Pacific Lutheran winning the NWC (Whitworth is a Pool C lock)
    4. Carroll winning the MWC (St. Norbert is a Pool C lock)
    5. Trine winning the MIAA (Alma is a Pool C lock)
    6. Denison winning the NCAC (Wooster a Pool C lock)
    7. Middlebury winning the NESCAC (Amherst, Tufts, Trinity seem to be Pool C locks)
    8. TCNJ winning the NJAC (Stockton a Pool lock)
    9. MIT or Emerson winning the NEWMAC (Babson and WPI Pool C locks)
    10. Emory & Henry or Randolph winning the ODAC (Lynchburg a Pool C lock)
    11. Centenary, Colorado College, or Austin winning the SCAC (Texas Lutheran is very competitive in Pool C)


    Let me know if I am missing anything.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2016, 11:13:48 AM
    TitanQ - where do you see NC Wesleyan?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 11:22:42 AM
    49 teams in Pool C contention
    43 bids currently available to this group, so at least 6 will not be selected (more if upsets today pop bubbles)
    Within each category, teams are listed from (perceived) strongest Pool C contenders to weakest.
    All data is from the NCAA & Matt Snyder
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Already qualified (Pool A, as conference champ)
    Brooklyn 22-6, 22-6 (CUNYAC, Pool A) 0.786/0.509/4-2, AT#4

    Locks (22)
    St. Thomas 24-2, 24-2 (MIAC, Pool A) 0.923/0.560/11-0, WE#1
    Benedictine 26-0, 26-0 (NATHC, Pool A) 1.000/0.525/4-0, CE#1
    Marietta 25-2, 25-2 (OAC, Pool A) 0.926/0.547/5-2, GL#1
    Christopher Newport 25-1, 25-1 (CAC, Pool A) 0.962/0.532/4-1, MA#1
    Augustana 25-1, 25-1 (CCIW, Pool A) 0.962/0.530/3-1, CE#2
    St. Norbert 22-2, 22-2 (MWC, Pool A) 0.917/0.529/2-1, CE#3
    Susquehanna 23-3, 21-3 (LAND, Pool C) 0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2
    Amherst 21-4, 21-4 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.840/0.556/4-1, NE#1
    North Central (Ill.) 19-7, 18-7 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    Whitworth 25-1, 24-1 (NWC, Pool A) 0.960/0.507/1-1, WE#2
    John Carroll 24-3, 24-3 (OAC, Pool C) 0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3
    Tufts 20-5, 20-5 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
    Plattsburgh State 21-5, 21-5 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.808/0.551/4-3, EA#1
    Salisbury 21-5, 21-5 (CAC, Pool C) 0.808/0.549/4-2, MA#3
    Catholic 21-5, 21-5 (LAND, Pool A) 0.808/0.549/4-2, MA#4
    Wooster 21-6, 20-6 (NCAC, Pool A) 0.769/0.561/3-4, GL#6
    Hope 23-3, 21-2 (MIAA, Pool C) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4
    Ohio Wesleyan 23-4, 23-4 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    Trinity (Conn.) 19-6, 18-6 (NESCAC, Pool A) 0.750/0.562/2-4, NE#2
    Alma 20-6, 20-6 (MIAA, Pool A) 0.769/0.552/3-4, GL#5
    Stockton 20-6, 20-5 (NJAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.540/3-3, AT#2
    Rochester 17-7, 17-6 (UAA, Pool C) 0.739/0.560/3-3, EA#2

    Likely (4)
    Emory 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool A) 0.696/0.584/4-4, SO#3 - the possibility of being "blocked" by a weaker team concerns me
    Babson 19-5, 19-5 (NEWMAC, Pool A) 0.792/0.538/3-3, NE#4
    Elmhurst 21-5, 21-5 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.808/0.526/3-4, CE#5
    Oswego State 20-7, 20-7 (SUNYAC, Pool A) 0.741/0.548/6-2, EA#5

    Bubble (16, most of these will get in)
    Lynchburg 20-6, 20-6 (ODAC, Pool A) 0.769/0.540/3-2, SO#2
    Scranton 19-7, 18-7 (LAND, Pool C) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    Whitman 22-4, 21-4 (NWC, Pool C) 0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    Texas Lutheran 19-6, 19-6 (SCAC, Pool A) 0.760/0.530/3-0, SO#1
    WPI 20-5, 20-5 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5
    Virginia Wesleyan 18-8, 18-8 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.560/4-4, SO#4
    Johnson and Wales 25-2, 24-2 (GNAC, Pool A) 0.923/0.473/1-0, NE#6
    Chicago 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool C) 0.696/0.558/2-6, CE#6
    St. John Fisher 21-5, 21-5 (E8, Pool A) 0.808/0.515/1-0, EA#4
    Franklin and Marshall 21-5, 21-5 (CC, Pool A) 0.808/0.512/1-0, MA#6
    Carroll 20-4, 20-4 (MWC, Pool C) 0.833/0.514/0-2, CE#8
    North Carolina Wesleyan 20-7, 16-5 (USAC, Pool C) 0.762/0.529/1-2, SO#5
    LaGrange 20-7, 17-6 (USAC, Pool A) 0.739/0.546/3-2, SO#6
    DeSales 19-7, 19-6 (MAFC, Pool A) 0.760/0.524/0-2, AT#3
    New York University 19-5, 19-5 (UAA, Pool C) 0.792/0.512/3-3, EA#3
    Eastern Connecticut 18-8, 18-8 (LEC, Pool A) 0.692/0.549/1-4, NE#7

    Longshots (6)
    Bethel 18-9, 18-9 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.667/0.547/4-6, WE#7
    SUNY Geneseo 17-9, 17-8 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.542/1-4, ea#6
    Aurora 20-6, 19-6 (NATHC, Pool C) 0.760/0.511/1-2, ce#7
    St. Johns 19-8, 18-8 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.535/4-5, WE#4
    New Jersey City 18-8, 18-8 (NJAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.525/4-2, AT#1
    MIT 19-6, 19-6 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.497/2-3, ne#8

    Coming off the board recently were ETBU, Roanoke, Hiram, Brockport, and St. Olaf.
    (If the Oles lose today, they would have a .630 WP, and I just can't see them getting selected.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2016, 11:26:31 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2016, 11:13:48 AM
    TitanQ - where do you see NC Wesleyan?

    I added them above.  I have NC Wesleyan behind LaGrange - I think the final (secret) South ranking will have them flipped (currently NC Wesleyan #5, LaGrange #6).  The head-to-head win by LaGrange yesterday was big.

    I don't see any way both get in, so I consider LaGrange to have a shot at the very end of the bubble and NC Wesleyan to be out.

    The final regional ranking will be very big -- the higher ranked team will have a shot if there aren't many bubble burster upsets.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 11:51:48 AM
    Today's bubble-relevant schedule

    Clear bubble-bursters
    3:00 NAthC final - Benedictine (lock) hosting Milwaukee Engineering (out) (Sunday game ... thanks, Ronk!)
    4:00 SUNYAC final - Oswego State (likely) vs Cortland (out)
    5:00 NCAC final - Wooster (lock) vs Denison (out)
    7:00 NJAC final - Stockton (lock) hosting TCNJ (out)
    8:00 MIAC final - St Thomas (lock) hosting St Olaf (out)
    8:00 MIAA final - Alma (lock) hosting Trine (out)
    10:00 NWC final - Whitworth (lock) hosting Pacific Lutheran (out)

    Possible bubble-bursters
    1:00 GNAC final - Johnson & Wales (bubble) hosting Albertus Magnus (out)
    2:00 SCAC semis - Texas Lutheran (bubble) hosting Centenary (out)
    2:00 USA South final - LaGrange (bubble) vs Covenant (out)
    4:00 Empire 8 final - St John Fisher (bubble) hosting Hartwick (out)
    4:00 Midwest final - St Norbert (lock) hosting Carroll (bubble)
    5:00 Little East final - E. Connecticut (bubble) hosting Mass-Dartmouth (out)
    7:00 Centennial final - Franklin & Marshall (bubble) hosting Swarthmore (out)

    Might have some impact
    12:00 NEWMAC semis - Babson (likely) hosting Emerson (out)
    12:00 UAA regular season - Emory (likely) at Rochester (lock), for a Pool A berth
    2:00 NESCAC semis - Trinity (lock) vs Middlebury (out), matters only if MC wins tomorrow, too
    2:30 NEWMAC semis - WPI (bubble) vs MIT (longshot), matters mostly only if Babson loses
    6:00 ODAC semis - Lynchburg (bubble) vs Emory & Henry (out)
    7:00 CCIW final - Augustana (lock) hosting Elmhurst (likely)
    8:00 ODAC semis - Virginia Wesleyan (bubble) vs Randolph (out), matters more if Lynchburg lost
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 27, 2016, 12:02:10 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 11:51:48 AM
    Today's bubble-relevant schedule

    Clear bubble-bursters
    3:00 NAthC final - Benedictine (lock) hosting Milwaukee Engineering (out)
    4:00 SUNYAC final - Oswego State (likely) vs Cortland (out)
    5:00 NCAC final - Wooster (lock) vs Denison (out)
    7:00 NJAC final - Stockton (lock) hosting TCNJ (out)
    8:00 MIAC final - St Thomas (lock) hosting St Olaf (out)
    8:00 MIAA final - Alma (lock) hosting Trine (out)
    10:00 NWC final - Whitworth (lock) hosting Pacific Lutheran (out)

    Possible bubble-bursters
    1:00 GNAC final - Johnson & Wales (bubble) hosting Albertus Magnus (out)
    2:00 SCAC semis - Texas Lutheran (bubble) hosting Centenary (out)
    2:00 USA South final - LaGrange (bubble) vs Covenant (out)
    4:00 Empire 8 final - St John Fisher (bubble) hosting Hartwick (out)
    4:00 Midwest final - St Norbert (lock) hosting Carroll (bubble)
    5:00 Little East final - E. Connecticut (bubble) hosting Mass-Dartmouth (out)
    7:00 Centennial final - Franklin & Marshall (bubble) hosting Swarthmore (out)

    Might have some impact
    12:00 NEWMAC semis - Babson (likely) hosting Emerson (out)
    12:00 UAA regular season - Emory (likely) at Rochester (lock), for a Pool A berth
    2:00 NESCAC semis - Trinity (lock) vs Middlebury (out), matters only if MC wins tomorrow, too
    2:30 NEWMAC semis - WPI (bubble) vs MIT (longshot), matters mostly only if Babson loses
    6:00 ODAC semis - Lynchburg (bubble) vs Emory & Henry (out)
    7:00 CCIW final - Augustana (lock) hosting Elmhurst (likely)
    8:00 ODAC semis - Virginia Wesleyan (bubble) vs Randolph (out), matters more if Lynchburg lost

    Tomorrow, not today
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 12:25:12 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
    Leveraging Matthew Snyder's data and the great work by fantastic50 and Greek Tragedy here, my Pool C's as of Saturday morning...

    1. Susquehanna  0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2  LAND final vs Catholic (Catholic interchangeable here)
    2. Amherst  0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1  NESCAC semis vs Tufts (Tufts also projected in)
    3. John Carroll  0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3  OAC final at Marietta (Marietta interchangeable here)
    4. Plattsburgh State  .808/.551/4-3, E #1  lost to Oswego State in SUYAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    5. Salisbury  0.808/0.549/4-2, MA#3  CAC final at Christoper Newport (CNU interchangeable here)
    6. Ohio Wesleyan  .852/.525/3-2, GL #2  lost to Denison in NCAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    7. North Central  0.720/0.600/3-7, CE #4  lost to Elmhurst in CCIW semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    8. Tufts  0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3  NESCAC semis at Amherst (Amherst also projected in)
    9. Oswego State  0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5  SUNYAC final at Cortland
    10. Scranton  0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5  lost to Susquehanna in LAND semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    11. Elmhurst  0.808/0.526/3-4, CE#5  CCIW final at Augustana (Augie interchangeable here)
    12. WPI  0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5  vs MIT in NEWMAC semis
    13. Emory  .696/.584/4-4, SO #3  at Rochester in final UAA regular season game (Rochester interchangeable here)
    14. Hope  .913/.504/1-1, GL #4  lost in MIAA semis to Trine (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    15. Virginia Wesleyan  0.680/0.562/4-5, SO#4 ODAC semis vs Randolph
    16. Chicago  0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6  vs Washington U in final UAA regular season game (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    17. Whitman  0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3  lost to Pacific Lutheran in NWC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    18. LaGrange  0.739/0.546/3-2, SO#6  USAC final at Covenant
    19. St. Johns  0.692/0.535/4-4, WE#4  lost at St. Olaf in MIAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    ----------
    20. New York University  0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3  at Brandeis in final UAA regular season game (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    21. New Jersey City  0.692/.525/4-2, AT #1  lost to TCNJ in NJAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    22. NC Wesleyan .762/529/1-2, SO #5  lost to LaGrange in USAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)


    Bubble Relief
    * Oswego State winning the SUNYAC over Cortland (Oswego currently included above)

    Bubble Bursters (roughly in order of significance)
    1. St. Olaf winning the MIAC (St. Thomas is a Pool C lock)
    2. MSOE winning the NACC (Benedictine is a Pool C lock)
    3. Pacific Lutheran winning the NWC (Whitworth is a Pool C lock)
    4. Carroll winning the MWC (St. Norbert is a Pool C lock)
    5. Trine winning the MIAA (Alma is a Pool C lock)
    6. Denison winning the NCAC (Wooster a Pool C lock)
    7. Middlebury winning the NESCAC (Amherst, Tufts, Trinity seem to be Pool C locks)
    8. TCNJ winning the NJAC (Stockton a Pool lock)
    9. MIT or Emerson winning the NEWMAC (Babson and WPI Pool C locks)
    10. Emory & Henry or Randolph winning the ODAC (Lynchburg a Pool C lock)
    11. Centenary, Colorado College, or Austin winning the SCAC (Texas Lutheran is very competitive in Pool C)

    Let me know if I am missing anything.

    While TitanQ is our resident Pool C expert, I made my own list before carefully reading his, to see how they compare...

    1) Susquehanna 23-3, 21-3 (LAND, Pool C) 0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2 (or Catholic)
    2) Amherst 21-4, 21-4 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.840/0.556/4-1, NE#1
    3) North Central (Ill.) 19-7, 18-7 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    4) John Carroll 24-3, 24-3 (OAC, Pool C) 0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3 (or Marietta)
    5) Tufts 20-5, 20-5 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3
    6) Plattsburgh State 21-5, 21-5 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.808/0.551/4-3, EA#1
    7) Salisbury 21-5, 21-5 (CAC, Pool C) 0.808/0.549/4-2, MA#3 (or Christopher Newport)
    8) Ohio Wesleyan 23-4, 23-4 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    9) Hope 23-3, 21-2 (MIAA, Pool C) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4
    10) Rochester 17-7, 17-6 (UAA, Pool C) 0.739/0.560/3-3, EA#2 (or Emory, if not blocked)
    11) Elmhurst 21-5, 21-5 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.808/0.526/3-4, CE#5 (or Augustana)
    --- Safe teams above, bubble teams below ---
    12) Scranton 19-7, 18-7 (LAND, Pool C) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    13) Whitman 22-4, 21-4 (NWC, Pool C) 0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    14) Virginia Wesleyan 18-8, 18-8 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.560/4-4, SO#4 (or Lynchburg)
    15) Chicago 17-7, 16-7 (UAA, Pool C) 0.696/0.558/2-6, CE#6
    16) WPI 20-5, 20-5 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5

    I am estimating three bubble-bursting upsets, so this would be it.

    Left standing when the music stops (Rankings are from the NCAA earlier this week)...
    Atlantic - New Jersey City 18-8, 18-8 (NJAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.525/4-2, AT#1
    Central - Carroll 20-4, 20-4 (MWC, Pool C) 0.833/0.514/0-2, CE#8
    East - New York University 19-5, 19-5 (UAA, Pool C) 0.792/0.512/3-3, EA#3
    Great Lakes - Mount Union 18-9, 17-9 (OAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.545/2-5, GL#7
    Mid-Atlantic - none
    Northeast - MIT 19-6, 19-6 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.497/2-3, NE#8
    South - North Carolina Wesleyan 20-7, 16-5 (USAC, Pool C) 0.762/0.529/1-2, SO#5
    West - St. John's 19-8, 18-8 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.535/4-5, WE#4
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 12:33:19 PM
    TitanQ and I have almost all of the same teams, just in a different order.  He has Oswego and LaGrange getting Pool C berths, while I have them in Pool A (at this point, being favored to win their conferences).

    The only difference is that he has St John's as the last team in, while I am guessing that slot gets taken by a surprise AQ winner.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2016, 02:45:42 PM
    Emory takes the AQ as Rochester is officially Pool C bound.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on February 27, 2016, 03:07:55 PM
    Is Rochester a lock for a pool C now? Also what does everyone think of St John Fisher and Oswego State chances for a pool C? Will Oswego host if they lose today?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2016, 03:09:44 PM
    Rochester should be in, IMO.

    MIT making WPI nervous, leading by 11 at the half.

    Middlebury trying to get four NESCAC teams in, leading Trinity by 10 with 7 min to go.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 03:25:57 PM
    Quote from: dcahill44 on February 27, 2016, 03:07:55 PM
    Is Rochester a lock for a pool C now? Also what does everyone think of St John Fisher and Oswego State chances for a pool C? Will Oswego host if they lose today?

    I think Oswego is in either way. Probably not hosting if they lose, maybe hosting if they win.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 03:35:00 PM

    Rooting for Spalding right now, down 2 with a minute to play against Westminster.  Spalding in the tournament provides a lot more bracketing flexibility.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 03:41:40 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 03:35:00 PM

    Rooting for Spalding right now, down 2 with a minute to play against Westminster.  Spalding in the tournament provides a lot more bracketing flexibility.

    Westminster wins.  Stink.  Good for them, though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 03:44:19 PM

    CNU and Salisbury going to OT.

    If Salisbury wins and Susquehanna loses, could both CNU and Salisbury host?  It would put SU and CUA virtually even.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 03:46:41 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 03:44:19 PM

    CNU and Salisbury going to OT.

    If Salisbury wins and Susquehanna loses, could both CNU and Salisbury host?  It would put SU and CUA virtually even.

    I think Catholic might take a hosting spot then.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2016, 03:48:37 PM
    Looks like NC Wesleyan and LaGrange might sit home. LaGrange losing at Covenant, down 7 with 2 to play.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: warriorcat on February 27, 2016, 03:49:19 PM
    It's final.  Middlebury beats Trinity in Hartford.  They are one win away from bubble busting and sending probably 4 NESCAC teams to the tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2016, 03:52:31 PM
    Quote from: warriorcat on February 27, 2016, 03:49:19 PM
    It's final.  Middlebury beats Trinity in Hartford.  They are one win away from bubble busting and sending probably 4 NESCAC teams to the tournament.

    No way, Middlebury has 10 losses.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 03:53:39 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2016, 03:52:31 PM
    Quote from: warriorcat on February 27, 2016, 03:49:19 PM
    It's final.  Middlebury beats Trinity in Hartford.  They are one win away from bubble busting and sending probably 4 NESCAC teams to the tournament.

    No way, Middlebury has 10 losses.

    If they win the championship game, they're in, and someone's bubble is burst.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 03:54:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2016, 03:48:37 PM
    Looks like NC Wesleyan and LaGrange might sit home. LaGrange losing at Covenant, down 7 with 2 to play.

    Down to a four point game.  40 seconds left.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: warriorcat on February 27, 2016, 03:56:53 PM
    Not if they take the AQ.

    I agree with you on the Pool C, however.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2016, 03:58:05 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 03:53:39 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2016, 03:52:31 PM
    Quote from: warriorcat on February 27, 2016, 03:49:19 PM
    It's final.  Middlebury beats Trinity in Hartford.  They are one win away from bubble busting and sending probably 4 NESCAC teams to the tournament.

    No way, Middlebury has 10 losses.

    If they win the championship game, they're in, and someone's bubble is burst.

    Yep, I misread that.  Not a lot of upsets so far though...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2016, 04:03:42 PM
    LaGrange and Covenant going OT.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 04:04:55 PM
    CNU hits a FT with .4 to go in OT to win the CAC.  Salisbury into Pool C, likely a lock.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 04:35:57 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2016, 04:03:42 PM
    LaGrange and Covenant going OT.
    Covenant pulls away in OT.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 04:40:04 PM

    So, assuming Lynchburg makes it, we could see a nicely organized - Lynchburg, Covenant, SAA winner at Emory pod.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2016, 04:44:44 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 04:40:04 PM

    So, assuming Lynchburg makes it, we could see a nicely organized - Lynchburg, Covenant, SAA winner at Emory pod.

    What are you planning on doing with the ASC winner?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 04:49:40 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2016, 04:44:44 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 04:40:04 PM

    So, assuming Lynchburg makes it, we could see a nicely organized - Lynchburg, Covenant, SAA winner at Emory pod.

    What are you planning on doing with the ASC winner?

    They'll play at TX Lutheran (hopefully).  If Louisiana College wins and say Colorado College wins, an ODAC team might end up hosting, but Louisiana College can't drive to Emory anyway, so there could potentially be a geographic host at the SAA winner, maybe.  That's a rough one.  We'll see how it pans out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2016, 04:53:27 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 04:49:40 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2016, 04:44:44 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 04:40:04 PM

    So, assuming Lynchburg makes it, we could see a nicely organized - Lynchburg, Covenant, SAA winner at Emory pod.

    What are you planning on doing with the ASC winner?

    They'll play at TX Lutheran (hopefully).  If Louisiana College wins and say Colorado College wins, an ODAC team might end up hosting, but Louisiana College can't drive to Emory anyway, so there could potentially be a geographic host at the SAA winner, maybe.  That's a rough one.  We'll see how it pans out.

    You figure a Wednesday game and then the winner traveling to Chicago or something.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 04:59:19 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2016, 04:53:27 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 04:49:40 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2016, 04:44:44 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 04:40:04 PM

    So, assuming Lynchburg makes it, we could see a nicely organized - Lynchburg, Covenant, SAA winner at Emory pod.

    What are you planning on doing with the ASC winner?

    They'll play at TX Lutheran (hopefully).  If Louisiana College wins and say Colorado College wins, an ODAC team might end up hosting, but Louisiana College can't drive to Emory anyway, so there could potentially be a geographic host at the SAA winner, maybe.  That's a rough one.  We'll see how it pans out.

    You figure a Wednesday game and then the winner traveling to Chicago or something.

    If there's just two teams in the TX area isolated, then year - it's usually Thursday then Saturday - unless there's only two teams from the West Coast, then they might fly both to TX for a four team pod.

    We could end up with a geographic pod at the SAA winner, with the SCAC champ going to Whitworth for a four team pod there.  It'll all depend on how much money they need to save.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 05:27:13 PM
    Cortland defeats Oswego 77-74 and wins the SUNYAC. Will be interesting to see if Oswego gets in or not to give the conference 3....
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2016, 05:38:06 PM
    Chicago's losing.  This may make the Central rankings really interesting...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2016, 05:40:15 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2016, 04:53:27 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 04:49:40 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2016, 04:44:44 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 04:40:04 PM

    So, assuming Lynchburg makes it, we could see a nicely organized - Lynchburg, Covenant, SAA winner at Emory pod.

    What are you planning on doing with the ASC winner?

    They'll play at TX Lutheran (hopefully).  If Louisiana College wins and say Colorado College wins, an ODAC team might end up hosting, but Louisiana College can't drive to Emory anyway, so there could potentially be a geographic host at the SAA winner, maybe.  That's a rough one.  We'll see how it pans out.

    You figure a Wednesday game and then the winner traveling to Chicago or something.

    They typically do Thursday and then travel to the team that has a bye and plays Saturday. Right?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 27, 2016, 05:58:28 PM
    Chicago goes down.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2016, 06:04:55 PM
    I'm wondering if anyone is getting out the Central after North Central and Elmhurst now.

    Chicago, Aurora and Carroll did nothing to help themselves this week.

    EDIT: well, Carroll didn't hurt themselves.  That said, no wins against RRO...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2016, 06:29:38 PM
    Wooster's in trouble...

    UPDATE: OT...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 27, 2016, 06:47:58 PM
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxqintIJ.jpg&hash=f527bf2eb318f2fb3ae41e6195ce2a660e007846)
    Denison going to their first-ever NCAA tournament! They got there by beating Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan, and Wooster in the NCAC tournament -- not a bad week's work.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2016, 06:48:16 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 27, 2016, 06:29:38 PM
    Wooster's in trouble...

    UPDATE: OT...

    Wooster down7 with less than a minute to go..POP!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 06:50:58 PM
    The afternoon has not been kind to the Bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: devossed on February 27, 2016, 06:55:10 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 27, 2016, 06:47:58 PM
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxqintIJ.jpg&hash=f527bf2eb318f2fb3ae41e6195ce2a660e007846)
    Denison going to their first-ever NCAA tournament! They got there by beating Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan, and Wooster in the NCAC tournament -- not a bad week's work.

    Technically "third" trip ever, but nonetheless impressive.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2016, 07:09:33 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
    Leveraging Matthew Snyder's data and the great work by fantastic50 and Greek Tragedy here, my Pool C's as of Saturday morning...

    1. Susquehanna  0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2  LAND final vs Catholic (Catholic interchangeable here)
    2. Amherst  0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1  NESCAC semis vs Tufts (Tufts also projected in)
    3. John Carroll  0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3  OAC final at Marietta (Marietta interchangeable here)
    4. Plattsburgh State  .808/.551/4-3, E #1  lost to Oswego State in SUYAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    5. Salisbury  0.808/0.549/4-2, MA#3  CAC final at Christoper Newport (CNU interchangeable here)
    6. Ohio Wesleyan  .852/.525/3-2, GL #2  lost to Denison in NCAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    7. North Central  0.720/0.600/3-7, CE #4  lost to Elmhurst in CCIW semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    8. Tufts  0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3  NESCAC semis at Amherst (Amherst also projected in)
    9. Oswego State  0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5  SUNYAC final at Cortland
    10. Scranton  0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5  lost to Susquehanna in LAND semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    11. Elmhurst  0.808/0.526/3-4, CE#5  CCIW final at Augustana (Augie interchangeable here)
    12. WPI  0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5  vs MIT in NEWMAC semis
    13. Emory  .696/.584/4-4, SO #3  at Rochester in final UAA regular season game (Rochester interchangeable here)
    14. Hope  .913/.504/1-1, GL #4  lost in MIAA semis to Trine (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    15. Virginia Wesleyan  0.680/0.562/4-5, SO#4 ODAC semis vs Randolph
    16. Chicago  0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6  vs Washington U in final UAA regular season game (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    17. Whitman  0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3  lost to Pacific Lutheran in NWC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    18. LaGrange  0.739/0.546/3-2, SO#6  USAC final at Covenant
    19. St. Johns  0.692/0.535/4-4, WE#4  lost at St. Olaf in MIAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    ----------
    20. New York University  0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3  at Brandeis in final UAA regular season game (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    21. New Jersey City  0.692/.525/4-2, AT #1  lost to TCNJ in NJAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    22. NC Wesleyan .762/529/1-2, SO #5  lost to LaGrange in USAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)


    Bubble Relief
    * Oswego State winning the SUNYAC over Cortland (Oswego currently included above)

    Bubble Bursters (roughly in order of significance)
    1. St. Olaf winning the MIAC (St. Thomas is a Pool C lock)
    2. MSOE winning the NACC (Benedictine is a Pool C lock)
    3. Pacific Lutheran winning the NWC (Whitworth is a Pool C lock)
    4. Carroll winning the MWC (St. Norbert is a Pool C lock)
    5. Trine winning the MIAA (Alma is a Pool C lock)
    6. Denison winning the NCAC (Wooster a Pool C lock)
    7. Middlebury winning the NESCAC (Amherst, Tufts, Trinity seem to be Pool C locks)
    8. TCNJ winning the NJAC (Stockton a Pool lock)
    9. MIT or Emerson winning the NEWMAC (Babson and WPI Pool C locks)
    10. Emory & Henry or Randolph winning the ODAC (Lynchburg a Pool C lock)
    11. Centenary, Colorado College, or Austin winning the SCAC (Texas Lutheran is very competitive in Pool C)


    Let me know if I am missing anything.

    I don't think this afternoon has been as bad on the bubble as it seems.  From what I posted this morning...

    * Wooster joins Pool C with a loss to Denison (bubble pop)

    * Chicago leaves Pool C consideration with a loss to Wash U (bubble relief)

    * Rochester joins Pool C/Emory leaves Pool C  (bubble neutral)

    * Middlebury doesn't pop anything unless it wins the NESCAC tomorrow over Amherst (no impact yet)

    * MIT doesn't pop anything unless it wins the NEWMAC over Babson (no impact yet)


    If you are one those teams I have above in spots, say, 12-19, you are still basically where you were this morning.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 07:17:24 PM
    Hardened Sinners (HSU   ;) ) won the ASC.  It is ~630 miles from Abilene to Colorado Springs, but driving distance to Seguin, TX (Texas Lutheran).

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2016, 07:18:14 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 12:25:12 PM
    While TitanQ is our resident Pool C expert, I made my own list before carefully reading his, to see how they compare...

    I am just following your lead, 50!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 07:33:18 PM
    Updates in progress...

    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2016, 07:09:33 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
    Leveraging Matthew Snyder's data and the great work by fantastic50 and Greek Tragedy here, my Pool C's as of Saturday morning...

    1. Susquehanna  0.875/0.543/4-2, MA#2  LAND final vs Catholic (Catholic interchangeable here)
    2. Amherst  0.840/0.558/4-1, NE#1  NESCAC semis vs Tufts (Tufts also projected in)
    3. John Carroll  0.889/0.526/3-2, GL#3  OAC final at Marietta (Marietta interchangeable here)
    4. Plattsburgh State  .808/.551/4-3, E #1  lost to Oswego State in SUYAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    5. Salisbury  0.808/0.549/4-2, MA#3  CAC final at Christoper Newport (CNU interchangeable here)
    6. Ohio Wesleyan  .852/.525/3-2, GL #2  lost to Denison in NCAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    7. North Central  0.720/0.600/3-7, CE #4  lost to Elmhurst in CCIW semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    8. Tufts  0.800/0.555/3-4, NE#3  NESCAC semis at Amherst (Amherst also projected in)
    9. Oswego State  0.731/0.538/5-2, EA#5  Lost in SUNYAC final to Cortland
    10. Scranton  0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5  lost to Susquehanna in LAND semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    11. Elmhurst  0.808/0.526/3-4, CE#5  CCIW final at Augustana (Augie interchangeable here)
    12. WPI  0.800/0.513/5-2, NE#5  vs MIT in NEWMAC semis
    13. Emory  .696/.584/4-4, SO #3  won Rochester in final UAA regular season game (Rochester interchangeable here)
    14. Hope  .913/.504/1-1, GL #4  lost in MIAA semis to Trine (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    15. Virginia Wesleyan  0.680/0.562/4-5, SO#4 ODAC semis vs Randolph
    16. Chicago  0.696/0.560/2-6, CE#6  lost to Washington U in final UAA regular season game (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    17. Whitman  0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3  lost to Pacific Lutheran in NWC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    18. LaGrange  0.739/0.546/3-2, SO#6  USAC final at Covenant and lost
    19. St. Johns  0.692/0.535/4-4, WE#4  lost at St. Olaf in MIAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    ----------
    20. New York University  0.792/0.513/3-3, EA#3  at Brandeis in final UAA regular season game (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    21. New Jersey City  0.692/.525/4-2, AT #1  lost to TCNJ in NJAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)
    22. NC Wesleyan .762/529/1-2, SO #5  lost to LaGrange in USAC semis (confirmed Pool C candidate)


    Bubble Relief
    * Oswego State winning the SUNYAC over Cortland (Oswego currently included above)

    Bubble Bursters (roughly in order of significance)
    1. St. Olaf winning the MIAC (St. Thomas is a Pool C lock)
    2. MSOE winning the NACC (Benedictine is a Pool C lock)
    3. Pacific Lutheran winning the NWC (Whitworth is a Pool C lock)
    4. Carroll winning the MWC (St. Norbert is a Pool C lock)
    5. Trine winning the MIAA (Alma is a Pool C lock)
    6. Denison winning the NCAC (Wooster a Pool C lock)
    7. Middlebury winning the NESCAC (Amherst, Tufts, Trinity seem to be Pool C locks)
    8. TCNJ winning the NJAC (Stockton a Pool lock)
    9. MIT or Emerson winning the NEWMAC (Babson and WPI Pool C locks)
    10. Emory & Henry or Randolph winning the ODAC (Lynchburg a Pool C lock)
    11. Centenary, Colorado College, or Austin winning the SCAC (Texas Lutheran is very competitive in Pool C)


    Let me know if I am missing anything.

    I don't think this afternoon has been as bad on the bubble as it seems.  From what I posted this morning...

    * Wooster joins Pool C with a loss to Denison (bubble pop)

    * Chicago leaves Pool C consideration with a loss to Wash U (bubble relief)

    * Rochester joins Pool C/Emory leaves Pool C  (bubble neutral)

    * Middlebury doesn't pop anything unless it wins the NESCAC tomorrow over Amherst (no impact yet)

    * MIT doesn't pop anything unless it wins the NEWMAC over Babson (no impact yet)


    If you are one those teams I have above in spots, say, 12-19, you are still basically where you were this morning.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 27, 2016, 07:36:42 PM
    Quote from: devossed on February 27, 2016, 06:55:10 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 27, 2016, 06:47:58 PM
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxqintIJ.jpg&hash=f527bf2eb318f2fb3ae41e6195ce2a660e007846)
    Denison going to their first-ever NCAA tournament! They got there by beating Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan, and Wooster in the NCAC tournament -- not a bad week's work.

    Technically "third" trip ever, but nonetheless impressive.
    Well, I may have been misinformed, but if so, I was misinformed repeatedly on the radio broadcast. Whatever, it is at least their first-ever NCAC tournament Championship, which is still quite an accomplishment.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 27, 2016, 07:45:11 PM
    This will be Denison's second appearance in the D3 men's basketball tournament. In 1997 the Big Red lost to Hope in the first round, 69-66. That's the only other time Denison's gone dancing, D3 style.

    http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_champs_records/2015/d3/D3.pdf
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 08:29:28 PM
    Franklin and Marshall were up by 25! at one point (22 at halftime), and now only up by 2 with 4 minutes left. Not only is this possible Bubble trouble but adversely affects my Futures Team  :P

    Edit: Looks like F&M will hold on for the victory.

    Susquehanna losing to Catholic but that game doesn't seem to effect the field of Pool C since they are interchangeable.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 09:00:48 PM

    I just noticed - not a single member of the East Region Rankings won their conference AQ.  Ouch.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 09:04:44 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 09:00:48 PM

    I just noticed - not a single member of the East Region Rankings won their conference AQ.  Ouch.

    Yeah, as Magicman pointed out on the SUNYAC board, it makes it much more difficult for Oswego to even get to the board unless they are able to jump teams (such as NYU and Rochester) in the last ranking. Really unfortunate for Oswego who looked pretty safe before the east calamity.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 27, 2016, 09:05:55 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 09:00:48 PM

    I just noticed - not a single member of the East Region Rankings won their conference AQ.  Ouch.

    They can have their own ECAC tourney to resolve it. ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
    The OAC Commissioner just announced on the webcast that both OAC teams will be playing in the NCAA's.

    :o
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 09:25:04 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
    The OAC Commissioner just announced on the webcast that both OAC teams will be playing in the NCAA's.

    :o

    As in, they both get automatic entry? Because it's a near (I don't even need the word near but for formality sake) certainty that the statement is true.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on February 27, 2016, 09:35:19 PM
    Quote from: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 09:25:04 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
    The OAC Commissioner just announced on the webcast that both OAC teams will be playing in the NCAA's.

    :o

    As in, they both get automatic entry? Because it's a near (I don't even need the word near but for formality sake) certainty that the statement is true.

    Something very strange would have to happen for Marietta not to get a Pool C slot...like their piece of paper slipping off the table and being lost and forgotten about during the selection process.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 09:38:53 PM
    Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 27, 2016, 09:35:19 PM
    Quote from: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 09:25:04 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
    The OAC Commissioner just announced on the webcast that both OAC teams will be playing in the NCAA's.

    :o

    As in, they both get automatic entry? Because it's a near (I don't even need the word near but for formality sake) certainty that the statement is true.

    Something very strange would have to happen for Marietta not to get a Pool C slot...like their piece of paper slipping off the table and being lost and forgotten about during the selection process.

    Not only are they both in, they'll probably both be hosting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 09:42:37 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 09:38:53 PM
    Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 27, 2016, 09:35:19 PM
    Quote from: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 09:25:04 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
    The OAC Commissioner just announced on the webcast that both OAC teams will be playing in the NCAA's.

    :o

    As in, they both get automatic entry? Because it's a near (I don't even need the word near but for formality sake) certainty that the statement is true.

    Something very strange would have to happen for Marietta not to get a Pool C slot...like their piece of paper slipping off the table and being lost and forgotten about during the selection process.

    Not only are they both in, they'll probably both be hosting.

    Ok, go over these with me, Matt.  We think Plattsburgh and Rochester still host for the East?  What about the South?  If TX Luther and and Lynchburg each win, we assume both host, right?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 09:43:07 PM
    Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 27, 2016, 09:35:19 PM
    Quote from: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 09:25:04 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
    The OAC Commissioner just announced on the webcast that both OAC teams will be playing in the NCAA's.

    :o

    As in, they both get automatic entry? Because it's a near (I don't even need the word near but for formality sake) certainty that the statement is true.

    Something very strange would have to happen for Marietta not to get a Pool C slot...like their piece of paper slipping off the table and being lost and forgotten about during the selection process.

    Haha, well it IS the NCAA...  ;) ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 09:45:55 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 09:42:37 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 09:38:53 PM
    Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 27, 2016, 09:35:19 PM
    Quote from: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 09:25:04 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
    The OAC Commissioner just announced on the webcast that both OAC teams will be playing in the NCAA's.

    :o

    As in, they both get automatic entry? Because it's a near (I don't even need the word near but for formality sake) certainty that the statement is true.

    Something very strange would have to happen for Marietta not to get a Pool C slot...like their piece of paper slipping off the table and being lost and forgotten about during the selection process.

    Not only are they both in, they'll probably both be hosting.

    Ok, go over these with me, Matt.  We think Plattsburgh and Rochester still host for the East?  What about the South?  If TX Luther and and Lynchburg each win, we assume both host, right?

    I guess unless Birmingham Southern gets in, then Emory will have to host.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 27, 2016, 09:58:42 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 09:38:53 PM
    Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 27, 2016, 09:35:19 PM
    Quote from: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 09:25:04 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
    The OAC Commissioner just announced on the webcast that both OAC teams will be playing in the NCAA's.

    :o

    As in, they both get automatic entry? Because it's a near (I don't even need the word near but for formality sake) certainty that the statement is true.

    Something very strange would have to happen for Marietta not to get a Pool C slot...like their piece of paper slipping off the table and being lost and forgotten about during the selection process.

    Not only are they both in, they'll probably both be hosting.

    I agree. In fact I find it hard to believe it will work out any other way.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 10:00:22 PM

    VA Wesleyan is going down in the semis right now.  They're going to be sitting right on the mendoza line at .667 winning percentage.  Not sure that'll get them in or not.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:03:29 PM
    If Texas Lutheran wins, they'll host Hardin-Simmons in a Thursday game then fly somewhere to play one of the bye teams.

    If Colorado College wins, the NCAA has three island teams in Hardin-Simmons, Colorado College, and SCIAC champ. Those three will have to fly to fill pods / balance brackets (probably two to the Northwest, unless Whitman doesn't get in, in which case Whitworth is also an island team).

    I think Emory certainly hosts a pod. Emory, Covenant, ODAC, SAA is probably what it will be.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 10:10:32 PM
    Is there a numbers update coming this evening, KnightSlappy, or not until tomorrow?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 10:12:09 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:03:29 PM
    If Texas Lutheran wins, they'll host Hardin-Simmons in a Thursday game then fly somewhere to play one of the bye teams.

    If Colorado College wins, the NCAA has three island teams in Hardin-Simmons, Colorado College, and SCIAC champ. Those three will have to fly to fill pods / balance brackets (probably two to the Northwest, unless Whitman doesn't get in, in which case Whitworth is also an island team).

    I think Emory certainly hosts a pod. Emory, Covenant, ODAC, SAA is probably what it will be.

    BSC is the only SAA team that can't get to Lynchburg - Lynchburg is ahead of Emory in the RR right now - if there's no geographic reasons for it (and Lynchburg wins the ODAC) wouldn't they be in line for it?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:14:28 PM
    I think Plattsburgh gets to host in the East. I don't really love anyone for a second hosting spot, but assuming everyone gets two then, yeah maybe Rochester or Oswego. Will depend on who gets ranked in the final secret rankings and how the RROs look. Maybe even Lancaster Bible will be ranked this time!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:16:33 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 10:12:09 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:03:29 PM
    If Texas Lutheran wins, they'll host Hardin-Simmons in a Thursday game then fly somewhere to play one of the bye teams.

    If Colorado College wins, the NCAA has three island teams in Hardin-Simmons, Colorado College, and SCIAC champ. Those three will have to fly to fill pods / balance brackets (probably two to the Northwest, unless Whitman doesn't get in, in which case Whitworth is also an island team).

    I think Emory certainly hosts a pod. Emory, Covenant, ODAC, SAA is probably what it will be.

    BSC is the only SAA team that can't get to Lynchburg - Lynchburg is ahead of Emory in the RR right now - if there's no geographic reasons for it (and Lynchburg wins the ODAC) wouldn't they be in line for it?

    Sure maybe, but I could see Emory jumping Lynchburg even if they win the ODAC. Emory got the extra win over RRO Rochester.

    Maybe they Emory and Lynchburg both host and we find another team that can get to Atlanta.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 10:18:42 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:14:28 PM
    I think Plattsburgh gets to host in the East. I don't really love anyone for a second hosting spot, but assuming everyone gets two then, yeah maybe Rochester or Oswego. Will depend on who gets ranked in the final secret rankings and how the RROs look. Maybe even Lancaster Bible will be ranked this time!

    Right now I'm thinking: Amherst and Babson? (if they win), Plattsburgh and Rochester, Brooklyn and Stockton, CNU and Catholic, Lynchburg/Emory and either TXLu or an extra GL; JCU and Marietta (and possible OWU); Augie and Benedictine; St Thomas and Whitworth.

    Best case scenario is they send SCIAC, SCAC, and ASC to Whitworth and get all the flights out of the way early - then GL get's an extra host and opens up a lot of other scenarios.  It's looking less likely that Whitman will get in now anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 10:21:55 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:16:33 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 10:12:09 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:03:29 PM
    If Texas Lutheran wins, they'll host Hardin-Simmons in a Thursday game then fly somewhere to play one of the bye teams.

    If Colorado College wins, the NCAA has three island teams in Hardin-Simmons, Colorado College, and SCIAC champ. Those three will have to fly to fill pods / balance brackets (probably two to the Northwest, unless Whitman doesn't get in, in which case Whitworth is also an island team).

    I think Emory certainly hosts a pod. Emory, Covenant, ODAC, SAA is probably what it will be.

    BSC is the only SAA team that can't get to Lynchburg - Lynchburg is ahead of Emory in the RR right now - if there's no geographic reasons for it (and Lynchburg wins the ODAC) wouldn't they be in line for it?

    Sure maybe, but I could see Emory jumping Lynchburg even if they win the ODAC. Emory got the extra win over RRO Rochester.

    Maybe they Emory and Lynchburg both host and we find another team that can get to Atlanta.

    Mt. St. Joseph can get to Emory; RHIT can't (517).  But that's another option.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 10:24:45 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 11:51:48 AM
    Today's bubble-relevant schedule

    Clear bubble-bursters
    3:00 NAthC final - Benedictine (lock) hosting Milwaukee Engineering (out) (Sunday game ... thanks, Ronk!)
    4:00 SUNYAC final - Oswego State (likely) vs Cortland (out)
    5:00 NCAC final - Wooster (lock) vs Denison (out)
    7:00 NJAC final - Stockton (lock) hosting TCNJ (out)
    8:00 MIAC final - St Thomas (lock) hosting St Olaf (out) (Also Sunday, 3:00)
    8:00 MIAA final - Alma (lock) hosting Trine (out)
    10:00 NWC final - Whitworth (lock) hosting Pacific Lutheran (out)

    Possible bubble-bursters
    1:00 GNAC final - Johnson & Wales (bubble) hosting Albertus Magnus (out)
    2:00 SCAC semis - Texas Lutheran (bubble) hosting Centenary (out)
    2:00 USA South final - LaGrange (bubble) vs Covenant (out)
    4:00 Empire 8 final - St John Fisher (bubble) hosting Hartwick (out)
    4:00 Midwest final - St Norbert (lock) hosting Carroll (bubble)
    5:00 Little East final - E. Connecticut (bubble) hosting Mass-Dartmouth (out)
    7:00 Centennial final - Franklin & Marshall (bubble) hosting Swarthmore (out)

    Might have some impact
    12:00 NEWMAC semis - Babson (likely) hosting Emerson (out)
    12:00 UAA regular season - Emory (likely) at Rochester (lock), for a Pool A berth
    2:00 NESCAC semis - Trinity (lock) vs Middlebury (out), matters only if MC wins tomorrow, too
    2:30 NEWMAC semis - WPI (bubble) vs MIT (longshot), matters mostly only if Babson loses
    6:00 ODAC semis - Lynchburg (bubble) vs Emory & Henry (out)
    7:00 CCIW final - Augustana (lock) hosting Elmhurst (likely)
    8:00 ODAC semis - Virginia Wesleyan (bubble) vs Randolph (out), matters more if Lynchburg lost
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:26:16 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 10:21:55 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:16:33 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 10:12:09 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:03:29 PM
    If Texas Lutheran wins, they'll host Hardin-Simmons in a Thursday game then fly somewhere to play one of the bye teams.

    If Colorado College wins, the NCAA has three island teams in Hardin-Simmons, Colorado College, and SCIAC champ. Those three will have to fly to fill pods / balance brackets (probably two to the Northwest, unless Whitman doesn't get in, in which case Whitworth is also an island team).

    I think Emory certainly hosts a pod. Emory, Covenant, ODAC, SAA is probably what it will be.

    BSC is the only SAA team that can't get to Lynchburg - Lynchburg is ahead of Emory in the RR right now - if there's no geographic reasons for it (and Lynchburg wins the ODAC) wouldn't they be in line for it?

    Sure maybe, but I could see Emory jumping Lynchburg even if they win the ODAC. Emory got the extra win over RRO Rochester.

    Maybe they Emory and Lynchburg both host and we find another team that can get to Atlanta.

    Mt. St. Joseph can get to Emory; RHIT can't (517).  But that's another option.

    Right, yes, my only qualm would be that Emory, MSJ, Birmingham-Southern, Covenant (or LaGrange, if they get in) is a pretty soft pod. Lynchburg would help balance that out, but you're right that they might be in line to host in the south rankings. We might be forced into a soft pod by geography.


    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 10:18:42 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:14:28 PM
    I think Plattsburgh gets to host in the East. I don't really love anyone for a second hosting spot, but assuming everyone gets two then, yeah maybe Rochester or Oswego. Will depend on who gets ranked in the final secret rankings and how the RROs look. Maybe even Lancaster Bible will be ranked this time!

    Right now I'm thinking: Amherst and Babson? (if they win), Plattsburgh and Rochester, Brooklyn and Stockton, CNU and Catholic, Lynchburg/Emory and either TXLu or an extra GL; JCU and Marietta (and possible OWU); Augie and Benedictine; St Thomas and Whitworth.

    Best case scenario is they send SCIAC, SCAC, and ASC to Whitworth and get all the flights out of the way early - then GL get's an extra host and opens up a lot of other scenarios.  It's looking less likely that Whitman will get in now anyway.

    I think this is all very reasonable. I don't immediately see any holes to poke.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:29:19 PM
    Three games still pending tonight, but I've updated the numbers.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 10:29:56 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 10:24:45 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 11:51:48 AM
    Today's bubble-relevant schedule

    Clear bubble-bursters
    3:00 NAthC final - Benedictine (lock) hosting Milwaukee Engineering (out) (Sunday game ... thanks, Ronk!)
    4:00 SUNYAC final - Oswego State (likely) vs Cortland (out)
    5:00 NCAC final - Wooster (lock) vs Denison (out)
    7:00 NJAC final - Stockton (lock) hosting TCNJ (out)
    8:00 MIAC final - St Thomas (lock) hosting St Olaf (out) (Also Sunday, 3:00)
    8:00 MIAA final - Alma (lock) hosting Trine (out)
    10:00 NWC final - Whitworth (lock) hosting Pacific Lutheran (out)

    Possible bubble-bursters
    1:00 GNAC final - Johnson & Wales (bubble) hosting Albertus Magnus (out)
    2:00 SCAC semis - Texas Lutheran (bubble) hosting Centenary (out)
    2:00 USA South final - LaGrange (bubble) vs Covenant (out)
    4:00 Empire 8 final - St John Fisher (bubble) hosting Hartwick (out)
    4:00 Midwest final - St Norbert (lock) hosting Carroll (bubble)
    5:00 Little East final - E. Connecticut (bubble) hosting Mass-Dartmouth (out)
    7:00 Centennial final - Franklin & Marshall (bubble) hosting Swarthmore (out)

    Might have some impact
    12:00 NEWMAC semis - Babson (likely) hosting Emerson (out)
    12:00 UAA regular season - Emory (likely) at Rochester (lock), for a Pool A berth
    2:00 NESCAC semis - Trinity (lock) vs Middlebury (out), matters only if MC wins tomorrow, too
    2:30 NEWMAC semis - WPI (bubble) vs MIT (longshot), matters mostly only if Babson loses
    6:00 ODAC semis - Lynchburg (bubble) vs Emory & Henry (out)
    7:00 CCIW final - Augustana (lock) hosting Elmhurst (likely)
    8:00 ODAC semis - Virginia Wesleyan (bubble) vs Randolph (out), matters more if Lynchburg lost

    That LEC game (UMass Dartmouth winning) was just a semifinal.  They play Keene State tomorrow.  It's still a bubble burst (although I think its ECSU's bubble), but just wanted to clarify.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 10:34:26 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:29:19 PM
    Three games still pending tonight, but I've updated the numbers.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Thanks!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 27, 2016, 10:42:17 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
    The OAC Commissioner just announced on the webcast that both OAC teams will be playing in the NCAA's.

    :o

    I get what you're saying, RT, and I'm with you even if nobody else is. By contrast, on the Wooster radio broadcast (just radio guys, not a conference commissioner!), when it became apparent that Wooster would lose they kept saying things like "things will get very interesting for the Scots" and "a lot of things have to break right." Of course, they maybe were just clueless.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on February 27, 2016, 10:45:17 PM
    I like Plattsburgh, Oswego and Rochester for at larges in the east. Pool C candidates are weaker than usual and all have cases for it. SUNYAC one of the top conferences who deserves a 3rd team and UAA deserves a 2nd team in NCAAs. All these teams can make runs including Hartwick who won the E8 and also why can't Cortland host with a 20-7 record and winning SUNYAC
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 11:03:10 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 27, 2016, 10:42:17 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 09:22:22 PM
    The OAC Commissioner just announced on the webcast that both OAC teams will be playing in the NCAA's.

    :o

    I get what you're saying, RT, and I'm with you even if nobody else is. By contrast, on the Wooster radio broadcast (just radio guys, not a conference commissioner!), when it became apparent that Wooster would lose they kept saying things like "things will get very interesting for the Scots" and "a lot of things have to break right." Of course, they maybe were just clueless.
    Thanks DC.
    I thought it interesting that the OAC Commish would make the comment rather than saying the tourney selections would be announced on Monday.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 11:06:04 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 10:18:42 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:14:28 PM
    I think Plattsburgh gets to host in the East. I don't really love anyone for a second hosting spot, but assuming everyone gets two then, yeah maybe Rochester or Oswego. Will depend on who gets ranked in the final secret rankings and how the RROs look. Maybe even Lancaster Bible will be ranked this time!

    Right now I'm thinking: Amherst and Babson? (if they win), Plattsburgh and Rochester, Brooklyn and Stockton, CNU and Catholic, Lynchburg/Emory and either TXLu or an extra GL; JCU and Marietta (and possible OWU); Augie and Benedictine; St Thomas and Whitworth.

    Best case scenario is they send SCIAC, SCAC, and ASC to Whitworth and get all the flights out of the way early - then GL get's an extra host and opens up a lot of other scenarios.  It's looking less likely that Whitman will get in now anyway.
    Sigh... life on an island.  Colorado College winning the SCAC? Yes.

    TLU winning the SCAC, being #1 in the Region, and not hosting a game?  How does that fly in the Central, Great Lakes or Northeast Regions?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 11:13:17 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 11:06:04 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 10:18:42 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:14:28 PM
    I think Plattsburgh gets to host in the East. I don't really love anyone for a second hosting spot, but assuming everyone gets two then, yeah maybe Rochester or Oswego. Will depend on who gets ranked in the final secret rankings and how the RROs look. Maybe even Lancaster Bible will be ranked this time!

    Right now I'm thinking: Amherst and Babson? (if they win), Plattsburgh and Rochester, Brooklyn and Stockton, CNU and Catholic, Lynchburg/Emory and either TXLu or an extra GL; JCU and Marietta (and possible OWU); Augie and Benedictine; St Thomas and Whitworth.

    Best case scenario is they send SCIAC, SCAC, and ASC to Whitworth and get all the flights out of the way early - then GL get's an extra host and opens up a lot of other scenarios.  It's looking less likely that Whitman will get in now anyway.
    Sigh... life on an island.  Colorado College winning the SCAC? Yes.

    TLU winning the SCAC, being #1 in the Region, and not hosting a game?  How does that fly in the Central, Great Lakes or Northeast Regions?

    If Whitman doesn't get in, they'll probably fly Whitworth and the SCIAC champ to TX.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 11:25:00 PM
    My latest thoughts, based on new numbers from knightslappy...

    Pool C selections
    1) Marietta 25-3, 25-3 (OAC, Pool C) 0.893/0.555/5-3, GL#1
    2) North Central (Ill.) 19-7, 18-7 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    3) Susquehanna 23-4, 21-4 (LAND, Pool C) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    4) Plattsburgh State 21-5, 21-5 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.808/0.551/4-3, EA#1
    5) Salisbury 21-6, 21-6 (CAC, Pool C) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    6) Tufts 20-6, 20-6 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.769/0.562/3-5, NE#3
    7) Ohio Wesleyan 23-4, 23-4 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    8) Trinity (Conn.) 19-7, 18-7 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.562/2-5, NE#2
    9) Elmhurst 21-6, 21-6 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.778/0.542/3-5, CE#5
    10) Rochester 17-8, 17-7 (UAA, Pool C) 0.708/0.561/3-4, EA#2
    11) Scranton 19-7, 18-7 (LAND, Pool C) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    12) Hope 23-3, 21-2 (MIAA, Pool C) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4
    13) Wooster 21-7, 20-7 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    14) Whitman 22-4, 21-4 (NWC, Pool C) 0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    ---bubble---
    15) Oswego State 20-8, 20-8 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    16) Carroll 20-5, 20-5 (MWC, Pool C) 0.800/0.529/0-3, CE#8
    17) WPI 20-6, 20-6 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
    18) LaGrange 20-8, 17-7 (USAC, Pool C) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6
    and #19 goes by way of a bubble-burster tomorrow

    Left on the board
    Atlantic: New Jersey City 18-8, 18-8 (NJAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.525/4-2, AT#1
    Central: Aurora 20-6, 19-6 (NATHC, Pool C) 0.760/0.510/1-2, ce#7
    East: New York University 20-5, 20-5 (UAA, Pool C) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3
    Great Lakes: Mount Union 18-9, 17-9 (OAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.546/2-5, GL#7
    Mid-Atlantic: none
    Northeast: Eastern Connecticut 18-9, 18-9 (LEC, Pool C) 0.667/0.551/1-4, NE#7
    South: North Carolina Wesleyan 20-7, 16-5 (USAC, Pool C) 0.762/0.527/1-2, SO#5
    West: Bethel 18-9, 18-9 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.667/0.548/4-6, WE#7

    Tomorrow's potential bubble-bursters
    12:00 NESCAC final - Amherst (lock) hosting Middlebury (out)
    12:00 NEWMAC final - Babson (likely) hosting MIT (longshot)
    3:00 MIAC final - St Thomas (lock) hosting St Olaf (out)
    3:00 NAthC final - Benedictine (lock) hosting Milwaukee Engineering (out)
    3:30 ODAC final - Lynchburg (bubble) vs Randolph (out)
    ???  SCAC final - Texas Lutheran (bubble) hosting Colorado College (out)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 11:25:31 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 11:13:17 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 11:06:04 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 10:18:42 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:14:28 PM
    I think Plattsburgh gets to host in the East. I don't really love anyone for a second hosting spot, but assuming everyone gets two then, yeah maybe Rochester or Oswego. Will depend on who gets ranked in the final secret rankings and how the RROs look. Maybe even Lancaster Bible will be ranked this time!

    Right now I'm thinking: Amherst and Babson? (if they win), Plattsburgh and Rochester, Brooklyn and Stockton, CNU and Catholic, Lynchburg/Emory and either TXLu or an extra GL; JCU and Marietta (and possible OWU); Augie and Benedictine; St Thomas and Whitworth.

    Best case scenario is they send SCIAC, SCAC, and ASC to Whitworth and get all the flights out of the way early - then GL get's an extra host and opens up a lot of other scenarios.  It's looking less likely that Whitman will get in now anyway.
    Sigh... life on an island.  Colorado College winning the SCAC? Yes.

    TLU winning the SCAC, being #1 in the Region, and not hosting a game?  How does that fly in the Central, Great Lakes or Northeast Regions?

    If Whitman doesn't get in, they'll probably fly Whitworth and the SLIAC champ to TX.
    Respectfully, SLIAC or SCIAC? 
    Thanks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 11:30:32 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 11:25:31 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 11:13:17 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2016, 11:06:04 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 10:18:42 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:14:28 PM
    I think Plattsburgh gets to host in the East. I don't really love anyone for a second hosting spot, but assuming everyone gets two then, yeah maybe Rochester or Oswego. Will depend on who gets ranked in the final secret rankings and how the RROs look. Maybe even Lancaster Bible will be ranked this time!

    Right now I'm thinking: Amherst and Babson? (if they win), Plattsburgh and Rochester, Brooklyn and Stockton, CNU and Catholic, Lynchburg/Emory and either TXLu or an extra GL; JCU and Marietta (and possible OWU); Augie and Benedictine; St Thomas and Whitworth.

    Best case scenario is they send SCIAC, SCAC, and ASC to Whitworth and get all the flights out of the way early - then GL get's an extra host and opens up a lot of other scenarios.  It's looking less likely that Whitman will get in now anyway.
    Sigh... life on an island.  Colorado College winning the SCAC? Yes.

    TLU winning the SCAC, being #1 in the Region, and not hosting a game?  How does that fly in the Central, Great Lakes or Northeast Regions?

    If Whitman doesn't get in, they'll probably fly Whitworth and the SLIAC champ to TX.
    Respectfully, SLIAC or SCIAC? 
    Thanks.

    SCIAC, of course.  They love to fly out there.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 27, 2016, 11:31:42 PM
    My hack on the Pool C's

    1. Marietta
    2. Susquehanna
    3. Plattsburgh St
    4. Salisbury
    5. Ohio Wesleyan
    6. North Central
    7. Hope
    8. Wooster
    9. Elmhurst
    10. Whitman
    11. Trinity
    12. Tufts
    13. Scranton
    14. Rochester
    15. LaGrange
    16. WPI
    17. NYU
    18. Carroll
    19. St. John Fisher

    Left on table: MIT, New Jersey City, Virginia Wesleyan, Mount Union, Chicago, St. Johns.

    Thoughts: 
    * The NE teams came off the table slower than I expected.  I bumped up MIT based on their performance in the NEWMAC tournament, but they still didn't make the cut.  I expected WPI to be a nobrainer, but it waited until the 15th pick.

    * Order will matter a great deal in the East.  Since everyone got dumped, I didn't feel a compelling reason to change the order, but then I ended up with NYU as the 17th pick and St. John Fisher at 19 without Oswego St even getting to the table.  I think the last few picks may come from the East and any tweeks in order got really make a huge difference.

    * Nothing came from the Atlantic.  I kept New Jersey City as the top pick.  Not sure if dropping them below DeSales would matter.

    * In the south, I move up Lagrange because they had a better resume and they ended up getting in.  This is another region where order will matter a great deal.

    * In the Central, I moved up Carroll and they ended up getting in with one of the last picks. I think some of the moving up may become self-fulfilling prophecy as I think they look better, so I move them up and then I choose by the same criteria.

    * In the West, I think Whitman is still in, but nothing after that.

    I would guess that most will agree with the first 14 and WPI, but the last 4 are going to be a complete crapshoot.  It'll be very dependent on the whims of the regional committee IMO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 11:35:47 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 11:25:00 PM
    My latest thoughts, based on new numbers from knightslappy...

    Pool C selections
    1) Marietta 25-3, 25-3 (OAC, Pool C) 0.893/0.555/5-3, GL#1
    2) North Central (Ill.) 19-7, 18-7 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    3) Susquehanna 23-4, 21-4 (LAND, Pool C) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    4) Plattsburgh State 21-5, 21-5 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.808/0.551/4-3, EA#1
    5) Salisbury 21-6, 21-6 (CAC, Pool C) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    6) Tufts 20-6, 20-6 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.769/0.562/3-5, NE#3
    7) Ohio Wesleyan 23-4, 23-4 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    8) Trinity (Conn.) 19-7, 18-7 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.562/2-5, NE#2
    9) Elmhurst 21-6, 21-6 (CCIW, Pool C) 0.778/0.542/3-5, CE#5
    10) Rochester 17-8, 17-7 (UAA, Pool C) 0.708/0.561/3-4, EA#2
    11) Scranton 19-7, 18-7 (LAND, Pool C) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    12) Hope 23-3, 21-2 (MIAA, Pool C) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4
    13) Wooster 21-7, 20-7 (NCAC, Pool C) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    14) Whitman 22-4, 21-4 (NWC, Pool C) 0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    ---bubble---
    15) Oswego State 20-8, 20-8 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    16) Carroll 20-5, 20-5 (MWC, Pool C) 0.800/0.529/0-3, CE#8
    17) WPI 20-6, 20-6 (NEWMAC, Pool C) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
    18) LaGrange 20-8, 17-7 (USAC, Pool C) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6
    and #19 goes by way of a bubble-burster tomorrow

    Left on the board
    Atlantic: New Jersey City 18-8, 18-8 (NJAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.525/4-2, AT#1
    Central: Aurora 20-6, 19-6 (NATHC, Pool C) 0.760/0.510/1-2, ce#7
    East: New York University 20-5, 20-5 (UAA, Pool C) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3
    Great Lakes: Mount Union 18-9, 17-9 (OAC, Pool C) 0.654/0.546/2-5, GL#7
    Mid-Atlantic: none
    Northeast: Eastern Connecticut 18-9, 18-9 (LEC, Pool C) 0.667/0.551/1-4, NE#7
    South: North Carolina Wesleyan 20-7, 16-5 (USAC, Pool C) 0.762/0.527/1-2, SO#5
    West: Bethel 18-9, 18-9 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.667/0.548/4-6, WE#7

    Tomorrow's potential bubble-bursters
    12:00 NESCAC final - Amherst (lock) hosting Middlebury (out)
    12:00 NEWMAC final - Babson (likely) hosting MIT (longshot)
    3:00 MIAC final - St Thomas (lock) hosting St Olaf (out)
    3:00 NAthC final - Benedictine (lock) hosting Milwaukee Engineering (out)
    3:30 ODAC final - Lynchburg (bubble) vs Randolph (out)
    ???  SCAC final - Texas Lutheran (bubble) hosting Colorado College (out)

    I don't think these USAC teams have done enough to move ahead of VA Wesleyan on the RR.  If they're stuck behind the Marlins, I think they're stuck.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 11:39:17 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 11:35:47 PM
    I don't think these USAC teams have done enough to move ahead of VA Wesleyan on the RR.  If they're stuck behind the Marlins, I think they're stuck.

    I think that those three (VWU, LaGrange, NC Wesleyan) could be ranked in any order, but with VWU at 18-9 (WP .667), that might override their great schedule.  It's tough sledding when your WP gets below .700.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2016, 11:45:23 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 11:39:17 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 11:35:47 PM
    I don't think these USAC teams have done enough to move ahead of VA Wesleyan on the RR.  If they're stuck behind the Marlins, I think they're stuck.

    I think that those three (VWU, LaGrange, NC Wesleyan) could be ranked in any order, but with VWU at 18-9 (WP .667), that might override their great schedule.  It's tough sledding when your WP gets below .700.

    That's when you look at last week - what did these teams do this week?  LaGrange maybe, they went 2-1, but VWC and NCW both went 1-1, VWC has a .35 SOS advantage, two more wins overall and a better looking vRRO.  You can make the argument for LaGrange, but I don't think the NCW one has merit.  Honestly, I think VWC stays ahead of both.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 27, 2016, 11:46:49 PM
     Another bubble buster dissolves with Whitworth winning its AQ 75-62.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 27, 2016, 11:58:02 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 10:29:56 PM
    That LEC game (UMass Dartmouth winning) was just a semifinal.  They play Keene State tomorrow.  It's still a bubble burst (although I think its ECSU's bubble), but just wanted to clarify.

    I think Eastern is done.  Even with a loss to Babson MIT may get bumped ahead of Eastern in the rankings, but even if they didn't I don't think WPI (the first bubble [non CAC] team) comes off the board until around rounds 12-15, so by that point not many spots left.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 12:13:08 AM

    Half the teams are now in.  We'll learn 12 more tomorrow and the final 19 on Monday.  Fun times.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 12:48:27 AM
    Worked out half a bracket.  Will look at again tomorrow to work out the other half and clean up mistakes.  This is more west, central, great lakes.  The top team hosts the bracket.  The Pool C's are based on my picks above.

    Bracket of 16 (target 2nd weekend at Augustana or St. Thomas)
    Augustana
    Westimister
    Hope
    Ohio Wesleyan

    Emory
    Covenent
    LaGrange
    Birmingham Southern

    Whitworth
    bye
    Chapman
    Whitman

    St Thomas
    Northwestern
    Elmhurst
    UW-Oshkosh

    Bracket of 16 (target 2nd weekend at Benedictine or John Carroll)

    Benedictine
    bye
    Texas Lutheran
    Hardin-Simmons

    Marietta
    Mt St. Joseph
    Rochester
    Wooster

    John Carroll
    Denison
    Carroll
    Scanton

    St. Norbert
    Central
    North Central
    Alma
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Matt Letourneau on February 28, 2016, 01:28:45 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:29:19 PM
    Three games still pending tonight, but I've updated the numbers.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Not a Pool C question, but wouldn't Catholic pass Susquehanna?  Catholic finished 2-1 against them (including a win tonight), and the rest of the numbers are a virtual dead heat.  (Catholic has the slimmest of advantages on SOS, and a game advantage on vRRO), SUS with a very small RPI advantage and a game better in overall win/loss.  But given the fact that everything else is even, doesn't the fact that Catholic beat them twice, including the two most recent games (road and championship) push them in front?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2016, 01:41:52 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 12:48:27 AM
    Worked out half a bracket.  Will look at again tomorrow to work out the other half and clean up mistakes.  This is more west, central, great lakes.  The top team hosts the bracket.  The Pool C's are based on my picks above.

    Bracket of 16 (target 2nd weekend at Augustana or St. Thomas)
    Augustana
    Westimister
    Hope
    Ohio Wesleyan

    Emory
    Covenent
    LaGrange
    Birmingham Southern

    Whitworth
    bye
    Chapman
    Whitman

    St Thomas
    Northwestern
    Elmhurst
    UW-Oshkosh

    Bracket of 16 (target 2nd weekend at Benedictine or John Carroll)

    Benedictine
    bye
    Texas Lutheran
    Hardin-Simmons

    Marietta
    Mt St. Joseph
    Rochester
    Wooster

    John Carroll
    Denison
    Carroll
    Scanton

    St. Norbert
    Central
    North Central
    Alma

    Your last pod contains two rematches, the NCAA tries their best to avoid that.  Alma played both St. Norbert and North Central.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 07:40:19 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2016, 01:41:52 AM

    Your last pod contains two rematches, the NCAA tries their best to avoid that.  Alma played both St. Norbert and North Central.

    Thanks.  I'll try to fix.  St. Norbert hosting presents a lot of problems because too many of the Ohio teams are just out of range.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 08:00:04 AM
    Updated through Saturday's games

    Quote
    Pool A (Automatic qualifiers) will be BLUE once their conference tournaments are complete. Teams losing will be RED and will be considered Pool C.


       ATL               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      New Jersey City (NJAC)      LOST to TCNJ 92-82 in semis   
       #2      Stockton (NJAC)      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 95-75 in semis; WON vs TCNJ 60-53 in Final   
       #3      DeSales (MACF)      LOST to Wilkes 72-62 in semis   
       #4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      WON vs Staten Island 78-69 in semis; WON vs Baruch 76-67 in Final   
       #5      Lehman (CUNYAC)      LOST to Baruch 80-64 in semis   
       #6      Staten Island (CUNYAC)      LOST to Brooklyn 78-69 in semis   
       #7      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      WON vs William Paterson 78-52 in QFs; LOST at Stockton 95-75 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Delaware Valley (MACF)         
       CENT               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Benedictine (NACC)      WON vs Marian 91-82; vs MSOE in Final on Sunday   
       #2       Augustana (CCIW)      WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 83-74; WON vs Elmhurst 69-53 in Final   
       #3      St.Norbert (MWC)      WON vs Lake Forest 63-48; WON vs Carroll 71-69 in Final    
       #4      NCC (CCIW)      LOST to Elmhurst 60-58 in semis   
       #5      Elmhurst      LOST to Augustana 69-53 in Final   
       #6      Chicago (UAA)      LOST to Washington U. 67-54   
       #7      Aurora (NACC)      LOST to MSOE in semis 100-96   
       #8      Carroll (MWC)      LOST to St. Norbert 71-69 in Final   
       EAST               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Platts. St. (SUNYAC)      LOST to Oswego St 81-74 in semis   
       #2       Rochester (UAA)        LOST to Emory 84-75   
       #3        NYU (UAA)        WON at Brandeis 71-50   
       #4       St. John Fisher (E8)        WON vs Stevens 85-62; LOST to Hartwick 93-91 in Final   
       #5      Oswego St. (SUNYAC)      WON vs SUNY Geneseo 75-59; WON at Platts. St. 81-74;LOST  at Cortland 77-74 in Final   
       #6      SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC)      LOST to Oswego St. 75-59 in QFs   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC)         
             Brockport (SUNYAC)         
                      
       GL               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Marietta (OAC)      WON vs Wilmington 93-78; Won vs Baldwin Wallace 91-66; LOST vs John Carroll 97-95 in Final    
       #2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)      WON vs Wabash 100-80; LOST to Denison 95-85 in semis   
       #3      John Carroll (OAC)      WON vs Capital 83-70; WON vs Mount Union 93-74; WON at Marietta 87-85 in Final   
       #4      Hope (MIAA)      LOST to Trine 82-77 in semis   
       #5      Alma (MIAA)      WON vs Albion 77-64; WON vs Trine 62-54 in Final   
       #6      Wooster (NCAC)      WON vs Oberlin 78-63; WON vs Hiram 92-79; LOST to Denison 92-81 in Final   
       #7      Mount Union (OAC)      WON vs Heidelberg 102-96; LOST at John Carroll 93-74 in semis   
       #8      Hiram (NCAC)      WON vs Kenyon 95-87; LOST at Wooster 92-79 in semis   
       #9      St. Vincent (PAC)      WON vs Chatham 80-65; WON vs Westminster 70-65; WON vs Thomas More 65-62 in Final   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Trine (MIAA)         
       MA               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Christopher Newport(CAC)      WON vs St. Mary's 57-56; WON vs Salisbury in 68-67 OT in Final   
       #2      Susquehanna (LAND)      WON vs Scranton 77-72 in semis; LOST to Catholic 83-81 in Final   
       #3      Salisbury (CAC)      WON vs Mary Washington 83-78; LOST at Christopher Newport 68-68 OT in Final
       #4      Catholic (LAND)      WON vs Juniata 79-66; WON vs Susquehanna 83-81 in Final   
       #5      Scranton (LAND)      LOST to Susquehanna 77-72 in semis   
       #6      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      WON vs Gettysburg 74-63; WON vs Swarthmore 75-64 in Final   
                      
       NE               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Amherst (NECAC)      WON vs Tufts 86-83 in semis; vs Middlebury in Final today   
       #2      Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC)      LOST to Middlebury 70-58 in semis   
       #3      Tufts (NESCAC)      LOST at Amherst 86-83 in semis   
       #4      Babson (NEWMAC)      WON vs Emerson 74-69; vs MIT in Final today   
       #5      WPI (NEWMAC)   [color]   LOST to MIT 96-80 in semis   
       #6      Johnson & Wales (GNAC)      WON vs St. Joseph's 73-36; WON vs Emmanuel 97-79; WON vs Albertus Magnus 86-74 in Final    
       #7      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)      WON vs Mass-Boston 93-65; LOST to Mass-Dartmouth 60-55 in semis   
       #8      MIT (NEWMAC)      WON at WPI 96-80; at Babson in Final today   
       #9      Middlebury (NESCAC)      WON at Trinity 70-58; at Amherst in Final today   
       #10      Southern Vermont(NECC)      WON vs Regis 73-68; WON vs Becker 74-72 in Final   
       #11      Nichols (CCC)      WON vs W. New England 10768; LOST to Endicott 82-80 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Wesleyan (NESCAC)         
                      
       SOUTH               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Texas Lutheran (SCAC)      WON vs Centenary 80-70; vs Colorado College in Final today   
       #2      Lynchburg (ODAC)      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 90-67; WON vs Emory and Henry 94-64; vs Randolph in Final today   
       #3       Emory (UAA)      WON at Rochester 84-74   
       #4      Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC)      WON vs Randolph-Macon 78-52; LOST to Randolph 69-61 in semis   
       #5      N.C. Wesleyan (USAC)      WON vs Averett 81-66; LOST to LaGrange 99-87 in semis   
       #6      LaGrange (USAC)      WON vs Ferrum 77-73; WON at N.C. Wesleyan 99-87; LOST at Covenant 101-92 OT in Final
       #7      ETBU (ASC)      WON vs Mary Harin-Baylor 70-64; LOST to Louisiana College 56-44 in semis   
       #8      Roanoke (ODAC)      LOST to Randolph 74-62 in QFs   
                      
       WEST               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      St. Thomas (MIAC)      WON vs Bethel 63-46; vs St. Olaf in Final on Sunday   
       #2      Whitworth (NWC)      WON vs Puget Sound 75-58; WON vs Pacific Lutheran 75-62 in Final   
       #3      Whitman (NWC)      LOST to Pacific Lutheran 82-68 in semis   
       #4      St. John's (MIAC)      WON vs Augsburg 99-86; LOST at St. Olaf 91-80 in semis   
       #5      St.Olaf (MIAC)      WON vs St. John's 91-80; at St. Thomas in Final on Sunday   
       #6      Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC)      LOST to Bethel 67-62 in QFs   
       #7      Bethel (MIAC)      WON at Concordia-Moorhead 67-62; lost at St. Thomas 63-46 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Dubuque (IIAC)         
             Augsburg (MIAC)         
                      
    [/quote]
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on February 28, 2016, 08:28:37 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 12:48:27 AM
    Worked out half a bracket.  Will look at again tomorrow to work out the other half and clean up mistakes.  This is more west, central, great lakes.  The top team hosts the bracket.  The Pool C's are based on my picks above.

    Bracket of 16 (target 2nd weekend at Augustana or St. Thomas)
    Augustana
    Westimister
    Hope
    Ohio Wesleyan

    Emory
    Covenent
    LaGrange
    Birmingham Southern

    Whitworth
    bye
    Chapman
    Whitman

    St Thomas
    Northwestern
    Elmhurst
    UW-Oshkosh

    Bracket of 16 (target 2nd weekend at Benedictine or John Carroll)

    Benedictine
    bye
    Texas Lutheran
    Hardin-Simmons

    Marietta
    Mt St. Joseph
    Rochester
    Wooster

    John Carroll
    Denison
    Carroll
    Scanton

    St. Norbert
    Central
    North Central
    Alma

    Not piling on but just an FYI...the Marietta pod has a couple rematches as well. Marietta played both Mt. St. Joseph and Wooster at Wooster's holiday tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 09:27:08 AM
    My look as of Sunday morning.  I am tracking very closely with fantastic50 - just a little different order, and different final team.

    Pool C Projection
    Locks:
    1. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.555/5-3, GL#1
    2. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    3. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.551/4-3, EA#1
    4. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    5. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    6. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    7. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.562/3-5, NE#3
    8. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.542/3-5, CE#5
    9. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    10. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    11. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.562/2-5, NE#2
    12. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    13. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4   
    14. Rochester (UAA) 0.708/0.561/3-4, EA#2
    15. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5

    Bubble:
    16. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6
    17. New Jersey City (NJAC) 0.692/0.525/4-2, AT#1
    18. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3
    19. Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    ----------
    20. Carroll (MWC) 0.800/0.529/0-3, CE#8
    21. North Carolina Wesleyan (USAC) 0.762/0.527/1-2, SO#5
    22. Bethel (MIAC) 0.667/0.548/4-6, WE#7

    Sunday Bubble Burster Games (in order of significance)
    1. St. Olaf winning the MIAC (St. Thomas would be Pool C #1)  3:00pm
    2. MSOE winning the NACC (Benedictine would be in Pool C top 3)  3:00pm
    3. Middlebury winning the NESCAC (Amherst would be in Pool C top 3)  12:00pm
    4. MIT winning the NEWMAC (Babson would be in the Pool C #5-6 range) 12:00pm
    5. Randolph winning the ODAC (Lynchburg would be in the Pool C #12-13 range) 3:30pm
    6. Colorado College winning the SCAC (Texas Lutheran would be in the Pool C #16-17 range)  1:00pm
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 09:49:54 AM
    Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 28, 2016, 08:28:37 AM


    Not piling on but just an FYI...the Marietta pod has a couple rematches as well. Marietta played both Mt. St. Joseph and Wooster at Wooster's holiday tournament.

    Thanks.  I'll fix that.  It wasn't in good enough shape to post it, but I was too tired to play with it anymore last night, and it's always fun for a little disucssion.  The St. Norbert pod creates problems for me.  I think if I move the Texas teams to Augie and then play around take advantage of Benedictine being closer to Chicago I can make it work.  Or I'll have to move St. Norbert to Hope, which I don't want to do because I think St. Norbert deserves it for winning their league, whereas Hope didn't.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 28, 2016, 09:51:51 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2016, 01:41:52 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 12:48:27 AM
    Worked out half a bracket.  Will look at again tomorrow to work out the other half and clean up mistakes.  This is more west, central, great lakes.  The top team hosts the bracket.  The Pool C's are based on my picks above.

    Bracket of 16 (target 2nd weekend at Augustana or St. Thomas)
    Augustana
    Westimister
    Hope
    Ohio Wesleyan

    Emory
    Covenent
    LaGrange
    Birmingham Southern

    Whitworth
    bye
    Chapman
    Whitman

    St Thomas
    Northwestern
    Elmhurst
    UW-Oshkosh

    Bracket of 16 (target 2nd weekend at Benedictine or John Carroll)

    Benedictine
    bye
    Texas Lutheran
    Hardin-Simmons

    Marietta
    Mt St. Joseph
    Rochester
    Wooster

    John Carroll
    Denison
    Carroll
    Scanton

    St. Norbert
    Central
    North Central
    Alma

    Your last pod contains two rematches, the NCAA tries their best to avoid that.  Alma played both St. Norbert and North Central.

    Just in the 1st round; Alma could play Central in that scenario.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 09:53:07 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 09:49:54 AM
    Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 28, 2016, 08:28:37 AM


    Not piling on but just an FYI...the Marietta pod has a couple rematches as well. Marietta played both Mt. St. Joseph and Wooster at Wooster's holiday tournament.

    Thanks.  I'll fix that.  It wasn't in good enough shape to post it, but I was too tired to play with it anymore last night, and it's always fun for a little disucssion.  The St. Norbert pod creates problems for me.  I think if I move the Texas teams to Augie and then play around take advantage of Benedictine being closer to Chicago I can make it work.  Or I'll have to move St. Norbert to Hope, which I don't want to do because I think St. Norbert deserves it for winning their league, whereas Hope didn't.

    I have St. Norbert as a top-8 seed...it wouldn't be right for them to go to a mid-Pool C team.

    1. St. Thomas  .923/.562/11-0
    2. Benedictine  1.000/.525/4-0
    3. Christopher Newport  .963/.540/5-1
    4. Augustana  .963/.537/4-1
    -----
    5. Marietta  .893/.555/5-3
    6. Amherst .846/.561/5-1
    7. St. Norbert  .920/.539/3-1
    8. John Carroll  .893/.541/4-2


    This bracket is going to be really hard to construct.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2016, 10:02:01 AM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 09:49:54 AM
    Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 28, 2016, 08:28:37 AM


    Not piling on but just an FYI...the Marietta pod has a couple rematches as well. Marietta played both Mt. St. Joseph and Wooster at Wooster's holiday tournament.

    Thanks.  I'll fix that.  It wasn't in good enough shape to post it, but I was too tired to play with it anymore last night, and it's always fun for a little disucssion.  The St. Norbert pod creates problems for me.  I think if I move the Texas teams to Augie and then play around take advantage of Benedictine being closer to Chicago I can make it work.  Or I'll have to move St. Norbert to Hope, which I don't want to do because I think St. Norbert deserves it for winning their league, whereas Hope didn't.

    Hope actually did win its league, just not the tournament. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 10:39:16 AM
    Which begs the question...what's more relevant when it comes to who gets to host. Does it look better to win the regular season or the AQ through the tourney?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 10:41:22 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 10:39:16 AM
    Which begs the question...what's more relevant when it comes to who gets to host. Does it look better to win the regular season or the AQ through the tourney?

    Neither is a factor at all.  It just comes down to the numbers.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2016, 11:07:59 AM
    Alma would probably be asked to host before Hope if there was a reason to slide down the rankings for hosting.  The last few years hosting has gone to each regions #1 and #2 with exceptions for being unable to host.  Alma will most definitely be ranked ahead of Hope.

    Depending on how the committee wants to build its bridge to the East (direction not region) its very possible the Great Lakes gets 3 hosting sites in Ohio.   JCU and Marietta are able to pull quite a few teams in from the East without flights so that becomes a very attractive way to fill brackets.  (I'd actually prefer it go the other way for competitive balance but that's really tricky this year)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 28, 2016, 11:27:52 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 10:39:16 AM
    Which begs the question...what's more relevant when it comes to who gets to host. Does it look better to win the regular season or the AQ through the tourney?

    Neither does, but winning the regular season should count more than what you do over a 3 game stretch in a week in the end of February.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 12:26:02 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2016, 01:41:52 AM
    Your last pod contains two rematches, the NCAA tries their best to avoid that.  Alma played both St. Norbert and North Central.

    I don't think there is any regard for non-conference rematches.  I think they just try to avoid having teams from the same conference face each other in the first 2 rounds.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 12:52:45 PM
    Quote from: Matt Letourneau on February 28, 2016, 01:28:45 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2016, 10:29:19 PM
    Three games still pending tonight, but I've updated the numbers.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Not a Pool C question, but wouldn't Catholic pass Susquehanna?  Catholic finished 2-1 against them (including a win tonight), and the rest of the numbers are a virtual dead heat.  (Catholic has the slimmest of advantages on SOS, and a game advantage on vRRO), SUS with a very small RPI advantage and a game better in overall win/loss.  But given the fact that everything else is even, doesn't the fact that Catholic beat them twice, including the two most recent games (road and championship) push them in front?

    Probably, yes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 12:53:32 PM
    In recent years they've tried to have two teams from each region host (unless geography dictates otherwise).  I doubt they'll get too far away from that this year. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 01:24:22 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 11:45:23 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2016, 11:39:17 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2016, 11:35:47 PM
    I don't think these USAC teams have done enough to move ahead of VA Wesleyan on the RR.  If they're stuck behind the Marlins, I think they're stuck.

    I think that those three (VWU, LaGrange, NC Wesleyan) could be ranked in any order, but with VWU at 18-9 (WP .667), that might override their great schedule.  It's tough sledding when your WP gets below .700.

    That's when you look at last week - what did these teams do this week?  LaGrange maybe, they went 2-1, but VWC and NCW both went 1-1, VWC has a .35 SOS advantage, two more wins overall and a better looking vRRO.  You can make the argument for LaGrange, but I don't think the NCW one has merit.  Honestly, I think VWC stays ahead of both.

    NC Wesleyan, I think, will be behind both. The LaGrange v. VA Wesleyan question gets interesting.

    LaGrange          0.708   / 0.551   / 3-2
    Virginia Wesleyan 0.667   / 0.562   / 4-4

    Both have beaten Emory. LaGrange was 0-1 vs. Lynchburg, VA Wesleyan was 1-1. Virginia Wesleyan was also 1-1 vs. Roanoke which could come out of the RRO in the end. I'd give the slight edge to LaGrange and their WP.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 01:35:03 PM
    NEWMAC final:

    Babson 81
    MIT 69



    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2016, 01:36:41 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 01:35:03 PM
    NEWMAC final:

    Babson 81
    MIT 69





    Is......is that good?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 01:37:16 PM
    NESCAC final:

    Middlebury 81
    Amherst 79

    #Pop
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: hopefan on February 28, 2016, 01:37:46 PM
    Middlebury win... pop goes a bubble
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 01:43:40 PM

    MIT won't jump WPI, I don't think, but they'll be close and it might mean MIT gets to the table.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 01:44:03 PM
    Update through NEWMAC and NESCAC finals...

    Pool C Projection
    Locks:
    1. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.555/5-3, GL#1
    2. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    3. Amherst (NESCAC) .815/.561 (not updated)/5-2
    4. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.551/4-3, EA#1
    5. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    6. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    7. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    8. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.562/3-5, NE#3
    9. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.542/3-5, CE#5
    10. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    11. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    12. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.562/2-5, NE#2
    13. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    14. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4   
    15. Rochester (UAA) 0.708/0.561/3-4, EA#2
    16. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5

    Bubble:
    17. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6
    18. New Jersey City (NJAC) 0.692/0.525/4-2, AT#1
    19. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3
    -----
    20. Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    21. Carroll (MWC) 0.800/0.529/0-3, CE#8
    22. North Carolina Wesleyan (USAC) 0.762/0.527/1-2, SO#5
    23. Bethel (MIAC) 0.667/0.548/4-6, WE#7

    Bubble Burster Games Remaining (in order of significance)
    1. St. Olaf winning the MIAC (St. Thomas would be Pool C #1)  3:00pm
    2. MSOE winning the NACC (Benedictine would be in Pool C top 3)  3:00pm
    3. Randolph winning the ODAC (Lynchburg would be in the Pool C #12-13 range) 3:30pm
    4. Colorado College winning the SCAC (Texas Lutheran would be in the Pool C #16-17 range)  1:00pm
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NCF on February 28, 2016, 01:45:26 PM
    Quote from: hopefan on February 28, 2016, 01:37:46 PM
    Middlebury win... pop goes a bubble

    Middlebury won!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 02:53:13 PM

    So, if TXLu wins, plus its looking like Whitman isn't going to get in - it's a no brainer to do a four team pod at TxLutheran with Whitworth and Chapman flying in (and Hardin-Simmons driving), right?  I think everyone else in the country can drive somewhere.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 02:58:18 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 02:53:13 PM

    So, if TXLu wins, plus its looking like Whitman isn't going to get in - it's a no brainer to do a four team pod at TxLutheran with Whitworth and Chapman flying in (and Hardin-Simmons driving), right?  I think everyone else in the country can drive somewhere.

    Tx Lutheran doesn't deserve to host a full pod based on their ranking. I'd love it if they could spend even one more flight to make a better bracket (but we don't know they can).

    Whitman certainly isn't out of the discussion though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 03:00:36 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 02:58:18 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 02:53:13 PM

    So, if TXLu wins, plus its looking like Whitman isn't going to get in - it's a no brainer to do a four team pod at TxLutheran with Whitworth and Chapman flying in (and Hardin-Simmons driving), right?  I think everyone else in the country can drive somewhere.

    Tx Lutheran doesn't deserve to host a full pod based on their ranking. I'd love it if they could spend even one more flight to make a better bracket (but we don't know they can).

    Whitman certainly isn't out of the discussion though.

    They're going to be #1 in their region.  That's what the committee typically looks at for hosting.  If there's two orphans, it only makes sense to fly there.  If Whitman gets in, then I think they use a bye up there and fly the TX winner to the other.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 03:03:35 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 03:00:36 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 02:58:18 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 02:53:13 PM

    So, if TXLu wins, plus its looking like Whitman isn't going to get in - it's a no brainer to do a four team pod at TxLutheran with Whitworth and Chapman flying in (and Hardin-Simmons driving), right?  I think everyone else in the country can drive somewhere.

    Tx Lutheran doesn't deserve to host a full pod based on their ranking. I'd love it if they could spend even one more flight to make a better bracket (but we don't know they can).

    Whitman certainly isn't out of the discussion though.

    They're going to be #1 in their region.  That's what the committee typically looks at for hosting.  If there's two orphans, it only makes sense to fly there.  If Whitman gets in, then I think they use a bye up there and fly the TX winner to the other.

    I'm not convinced of that yet. I could see Lynchburg and/or Emory jumping them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 03:11:48 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 03:00:36 PM
    They're going to be #1 in their region.  That's what the committee typically looks at for hosting. 

    Are you sure about this? 

    Doesn't it just simply come down to the numbers?  A #3 from one region can be "seeded" higher than a #1 from another region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 03:17:15 PM
    My guess is that Hardin-Simmons plays at Texas Lutheran on Thursday and the winner flies to Augustana, who gets a first round bye.

    Chapman plays Whitworth with the winner getting Whitman (who also has a bye).

    Emory gets a pod and takes Lagrange, Covenant and Birmingham-Southern.

    Everyone else will drive.  Two flights for the first round.

    From a 'making brackets' standpoint, the Middlebury-Amherst thing makes picking sites in the Northeast even worse.  You've already got questionable teams in the East and Atlantic and more deserving teams and Mid-Atlantic and South, so it's a bit chaotic trying to figure out who deserves to even host in the northeast part of the country.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 03:20:32 PM
    I think St. Thomas is getting a bye. I think they'll be something like the top seeded team in the tournament and I don't think we'll need 2 geographical byes. Other deserving teams would be Christopher Newport and Benedictine.

    Could fly the Texas winner to St. Thomas. I think the seeding there would be close to right.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 03:20:51 PM
    Why does Whitman get a bye and not Whitworth?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 03:21:40 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 03:11:48 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 03:00:36 PM
    They're going to be #1 in their region.  That's what the committee typically looks at for hosting. 

    Are you sure about this? 

    Doesn't it just simply come down to the numbers?  A #3 from one region can be "seeded" higher than a #1 from another region.

    At least in recent times, they've worked hard to have two hosts from each region, unless geography changes things.

    I don't think they're going to entirely stiff one region.  I mean, if Whitworth has to travel (because Whitman doesn't get it), they're not going to replace them with another West host, because there isn't a good candidate, but usually they try to have two from each.

    Things will be a little easier this time, geography-wise, because you can have a full south pod at either lynchburg or emory.  This will be the year to know, because the East and Atlantic sure don't deserve more than one host a piece.

    I also don't think they'll deny a #1 team in any region the chance to host.  If TXLutheran is #1 AND there are only two west coast teams, I think they'll host a four-teamer.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 03:24:02 PM

    If LaGrange gets in, that does complicate things.  It puts an extra team down there and messes up that nice neat pod at Emory/Lynchburg.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 03:29:56 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 03:20:51 PM
    Why does Whitman get a bye and not Whitworth?

    Mostly because I always switch them in my head. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 03:30:30 PM
    Here's what I'm looking at in the South right now, sort is RPI as per usual.

    RG   ##   WP      bSOS    bRPI    NAT   Pool   D3      RRO   CONFER   TEAM
    SO   01   0.708   0.587   0.617   014   A      17-7    5-4   UAA      Emory
    SO   02   0.778   0.541   0.600   026   A      21-6    3-2   ODAC     Lynchburg
    SO   03   0.778   0.535   0.596   030   A      21-6    3-0   SCAC     Texas Lutheran

    Texas Lutheran is 3-0 vRRO, but those are ETBU, who will be 7th or worse in the region, and Alma who will be no higher than 4th in the GL.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 03:32:08 PM
    Looks like MSJ is going to lose to Rose-Hulman. There goes a team who could get to Emory.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 28, 2016, 03:40:43 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 03:32:08 PM
    Looks like MSJ is going to lose to Rose-Hulman. There goes a team who could get to Emory.

    You jinxed them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 03:46:37 PM
    Quote from: pg04 on February 28, 2016, 03:40:43 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 03:32:08 PM
    Looks like MSJ is going to lose to Rose-Hulman. There goes a team who could get to Emory.

    You jinxed them.

    WELP spoke too soon.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 03:56:31 PM
    I'm sure there are still mistakes, but I'll share this.  Still going off of my last Pool C projection, except I dropped St. John Fisher for Middlebury.

    Bracket of 16 (top team is home team for pod) - intention for St. Thomas or Augustana to host second weekend.

    St Thomas
    bye
    Texas Lutheran (home vs. Hardin-Simmons on Thursday and then winner to St. Thomas)
    Hardin-Simmons

    Emory
    Covenent
    LaGrange
    Birmingham Southern

    Augustana
    Northwestern
    Hope
    Carroll

    Whitworth
    bye
    Chapman
    Whitman

    Bracket of 16 (plan for Benedictine or John Carroll to host second weekend):

    Benedictine
    Westimister
    Wooster
    Ohio Wesleyan

    John Carroll
    Pitt-Greenburg
    North Central
    Denison

    Marietta
    Lycoming
    Gwynedd Mercy
    Elmhurst

    St. Norbert
    Central
    UW-Oshkosh
    Alma

    Bracket of 16 (eye to Newport hosting second weekend)

    Newport
    Delaware Valley
    Scranton
    Franklin and Marshall

    Catholic
    Mt St. Joseph
    Rochester
    Middlebury

    Lynchberg
    St Vincent
    NYU
    Brooklyn

    Susquenhanna
    SUNY-Old Westbury
    WPI
    Trinity

    Bracket of 16 (with eye to Amherst hosting 2nd weekend)

    Amherst
    Endicott
    Lancaster Bible
    Southern Vermont

    Babson
    Keene St.
    Tufts
    Skidmore

    Plattsburgh St
    Husson
    Johnson and Wales
    Hartwick

    Stockton
    Fitchsburg St
    Salisbury
    Cortland
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 04:00:46 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 03:56:31 PM
    I'm sure there are still mistakes, but I'll share this.  Still going off of my last Pool C projection, except I dropped St. John Fisher for Middlebury.

    Bracket of 16 (top team is home team for pod) - intention for St. Thomas or Augustana to host second weekend.

    St Thomas
    bye
    Texas Lutheran (home vs. Hardin-Simmons on Thursday and then winner to St. Thomas)
    Hardin-Simmons

    Emory
    Covenent
    LaGrange
    Birmingham Southern

    Augustana
    Northwestern
    Hope
    Carroll

    Whitworth
    bye
    Chapman
    Whitman

    Bracket of 16 (plan for Benedictine or John Carroll to host second weekend):

    Benedictine
    Westimister
    Wooster
    Ohio Wesleyan

    John Carroll
    Pitt-Greenburg
    North Central
    Denison

    Marietta
    Lycoming
    Gwynedd Mercy
    Elmhurst

    St. Norbert
    Central
    UW-Oshkosh
    Alma

    Bracket of 16 (eye to Newport hosting second weekend)

    Newport
    Delaware Valley
    Scranton
    Franklin and Marshall

    Catholic
    Mt St. Joseph
    Rochester
    Middlebury

    Lynchberg
    St Vincent
    NYU
    Brooklyn

    Susquenhanna
    SUNY-Old Westbury
    WPI
    Trinity

    Bracket of 16 (with eye to Amherst hosting 2nd weekend)

    Amherst
    Endicott
    Lancaster Bible
    Southern Vermont

    Babson
    Keene St.
    Tufts
    Skidmore

    Plattsburgh St
    Husson
    Johnson and Wales
    Hartwick

    Stockton
    Fitchsburg St
    Salisbury
    Cortland


    Mt. St. Joseph can't get to Catholic.  More than 500 miles.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 04:02:31 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 04:00:46 PM

    Mt. St. Joseph can't get to Catholic.  More than 500 miles.

    What does the NCAA use (link, if you have it) because I got 499 miles.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 04:03:18 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 03:21:40 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 03:11:48 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 03:00:36 PM
    They're going to be #1 in their region.  That's what the committee typically looks at for hosting. 

    Are you sure about this? 

    Doesn't it just simply come down to the numbers?  A #3 from one region can be "seeded" higher than a #1 from another region.

    At least in recent times, they've worked hard to have two hosts from each region, unless geography changes things.

    I don't think they're going to entirely stiff one region.  I mean, if Whitworth has to travel (because Whitman doesn't get it), they're not going to replace them with another West host, because there isn't a good candidate, but usually they try to have two from each.

    Things will be a little easier this time, geography-wise, because you can have a full south pod at either lynchburg or emory.  This will be the year to know, because the East and Atlantic sure don't deserve more than one host a piece.

    I also don't think they'll deny a #1 team in any region the chance to host.  If TXLutheran is #1 AND there are only two west coast teams, I think they'll host a four-teamer.

    I did double check - the priority is getting two hosts from each region, if they can swing it.  Geography often plays a part, but they don't award hosts nationally; they try to keep it regional.  You won't see three MA hosts like the mock bopol did.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 04:03:33 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 04:02:31 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 04:00:46 PM

    Mt. St. Joseph can't get to Catholic.  More than 500 miles.

    What does the NCAA use (link, if you have it) because I got 499 miles.

    https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 04:13:16 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 04:03:18 PM


    I did double check - the priority is getting two hosts from each region, if they can swing it.  Geography often plays a part, but they don't award hosts nationally; they try to keep it regional.  You won't see three MA hosts like the mock bopol did.

    There are going to be some weak hosts this year then. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 04:17:32 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 04:13:16 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 04:03:18 PM


    I did double check - the priority is getting two hosts from each region, if they can swing it.  Geography often plays a part, but they don't award hosts nationally; they try to keep it regional.  You won't see three MA hosts like the mock bopol did.

    There are going to be some weak hosts this year then.

    Rochester will probably host, which isn't a super strong team, but they're not terrible.  Brooklyn might get one.

    I'd love to see a pod that's like, Brooklyn, Salisbury, St. Vincent, and Keene State.  That might be fun.

    By the way, this is often why the east side of the bracket is easier and why we encourage them to cross the Appalachians with the pods to mix things up.


    But everything's really going to hinge on whether Whitman and/or Lagrange is in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 28, 2016, 04:21:44 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 03:17:15 PM
    From a 'making brackets' standpoint, the Middlebury-Amherst thing makes picking sites in the Northeast even worse.  You've already got questionable teams in the East and Atlantic and more deserving teams and Mid-Atlantic and South, so it's a bit chaotic trying to figure out who deserves to even host in the northeast part of the country.

    Many times the NCAA sends teams from the Northeast Region over to Plattsburgh. Two years ago Plattsburgh hosted a first round pod and the NCAA sent Eastern Connecticut, Husson and MIT into Northern New York State. Almost everybody in New England and maybe all of the Northeast Region can drive to Plattsburgh. Plattsburgh is the #1 team in the East and stands a good chance to host. Cortland State could also host and is accessible for many Northeast Region teams as well. Middlebury may end up there.

    Edit: You were posting as I was typing. I see you brought some Northeast teams to Plattsburgh.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 04:24:11 PM
    Quote from: magicman on February 28, 2016, 04:21:44 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 03:17:15 PM
    From a 'making brackets' standpoint, the Middlebury-Amherst thing makes picking sites in the Northeast even worse.  You've already got questionable teams in the East and Atlantic and more deserving teams and Mid-Atlantic and South, so it's a bit chaotic trying to figure out who deserves to even host in the northeast part of the country.

    Many times the NCAA sends teams from the Northeast Region over to Plattsburgh. Two years ago Plattsburgh hosted a first round pod and the NCAA sent Eastern Connecticut, Husson and MIT into Northern New York State. Almost everybody in New England and maybe all of the Northeast Region can drive to Plattsburgh. Plattsburgh is the #1 team in the East and stands a good chance to host. Cortland State could also host and is accessible for many Northeast Region teams as well. Middlebury may end up there.

    I think the other one is more likely to be Rochester, but yeah, the East often gets the NE overflow.  I try to put a team from four different regions into pods in the E, A, and MA regions when I do my mocks - just to try and mix things up a bit.  It all depends on how many are stuck in NE, though.  We have less teams from ME this year, so that should help.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2016, 04:27:09 PM
    St. Olaf is beating St. Thomas about to go under 5 to play
    http://tommiesports.com/broadcast/w7vf6i
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 28, 2016, 04:37:34 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 04:24:11 PM
    I think the other one is more likely to be Rochester, but yeah, the East often gets the NE overflow.  I try to put a team from four different regions into pods in the E, A, and MA regions when I do my mocks - just to try and mix things up a bit.  It all depends on how many are stuck in NE, though.  We have less teams from ME this year, so that should help.

    I'm still not convinced that Rochester gets a bid.


    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 03:56:31 PM
    Bracket of 16 (with eye to Amherst hosting 2nd weekend)

    Amherst
    Endicott
    Lancaster Bible
    Southern Vermont

    Babson
    Keene St.
    Tufts
    Skidmore

    Plattsburgh St
    Husson
    Johnson and Wales
    Hartwick

    Stockton
    Fitchsburg St
    Salisbury
    Cortland

    Having Amherst host the 2nd weekend may conflict with the Amherst women. Don't they have priority for the 2nd weekend?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2016, 04:38:17 PM
    No way Wooster and Ohio Wesleyan are in the same pod.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 04:40:39 PM
    Quote from: magicman on February 28, 2016, 04:37:34 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 04:24:11 PM
    I think the other one is more likely to be Rochester, but yeah, the East often gets the NE overflow.  I try to put a team from four different regions into pods in the E, A, and MA regions when I do my mocks - just to try and mix things up a bit.  It all depends on how many are stuck in NE, though.  We have less teams from ME this year, so that should help.

    I'm still not convinced that Rochester gets a bid.

    They may not - especially with St. Olaf leading in the MIAC.  I'd think that hosting spot will either be taken by St. Norbert or Ohio Wesleyan, unless they need it for geography.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 04:44:36 PM
    Updated through St. Thomas loss in MIAC final...

    Pool C Projection
    Locks:
    1. St. Thomas (MIAC) .889/.562 (not updated)/11-1, W#1
    2. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.555/5-3, GL#1
    3. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    4. Amherst (NESCAC) .815/.561 (not updated)/5-2
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.551/4-3, EA#1
    6. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    7. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    8. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    9. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.562/3-5, NE#3
    10. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.542/3-5, CE#5
    11. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4   
    12. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    13. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    14. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.562/2-5, NE#2
    15. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5

    Last 4 In:
    16. Rochester (UAA) 0.708/0.561/3-4, EA#2
    17. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
    18. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6
    19. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3
    ----------
    20. New Jersey City (NJAC) 0.692/0.525/4-2, AT#1
    21. Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, WE#3
    22. Carroll (MWC) 0.800/0.529/0-3, CE#8
    23. North Carolina Wesleyan (USAC) 0.762/0.527/1-2, SO#5
    24. Bethel (MIAC) 0.667/0.548/4-6, WE#7


    Bubble Burster Games Remaining
    * Randolph winning the ODAC (Lynchburg would be in the Pool C #12-13 range) 3:30pm
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 04:45:58 PM
    I feel good about my spots 1-18...I am struggling with #19.  Very tough call.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2016, 04:49:32 PM
    St. Thomas becomes the lockiest lock of all-time locks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 04:50:31 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 04:45:58 PM
    I feel good about my spots 1-18...I am struggling with #19.  Very tough call.

    Since the Olafees just dumped the Tommies, I have exactly the same Pool C as you now.  NYU is my last pick.  Honestly, I'm not feeling great about LaGrange (just because we're both assuming that the re-order in the South will happen the way we expect) or WPI (just not that strong of a resume) along with NYU.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 04:57:08 PM
    Oh, I take that back.  I don't have Oswego in because I don't think that there will be a reorder and they'll get stuck behind St. John Fisher.  I do have Whitman (or Whitworth, whichever one didn't win their tournament) in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 05:00:50 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 04:50:31 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 04:45:58 PM
    I feel good about my spots 1-18...I am struggling with #19.  Very tough call.

    Since the Olafees just dumped the Tommies, I have exactly the same Pool C as you now.  NYU is my last pick.  Honestly, I'm not feeling great about LaGrange (just because we're both assuming that the re-order in the South will happen the way we expect) or WPI (just not that strong of a resume) along with NYU.

    I tell you what, it'll be way better for bracketing purposes if Whitman and Lagrange stay home.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 05:06:06 PM
    The NCAA would never admit it, but do you think they would actually leave someone home based partially on geographics? (We'd save a flight if we picked " team A" instead of "team B"...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 05:08:21 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 05:06:06 PM
    The NCAA would never admit it, but do you think they would actually leave someone home based partially on geographics? (We'd save a flight if we picked " team A" instead of "team B"...

    I think the NCAA might, but I don't think the committee would.  I know the NCAA has influence on bracketing, but I think the committee gets carte blanche to get the right teams in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 05:08:42 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 05:06:06 PM
    The NCAA would never admit it, but do you think they would actually leave someone home based partially on geographics? (We'd save a flight if we picked " team A" instead of "team B"...

    I kind of doubt it.  First, you haven't thought about putting together brackets yet, so you don't know that it can save a flight.  Second, it would get out and it would be basically telling the Texas and west coast teams to dump the NCAA and go NAIA because you won't be treated fairly.  So, I'm going to say no.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 05:10:34 PM
    Selection committee is coaches and ADs so they give zero effs about saving flights.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 05:19:33 PM

    Lynchburg might be going down, too.  Down one, with 1 FT to go.  15 seconds.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 05:21:35 PM

    ODAC final going to OT.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 28, 2016, 05:27:51 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 04:57:08 PM
    Oh, I take that back.  I don't have Oswego in because I don't think that there will be a reorder and they'll get stuck behind St. John Fisher.  I do have Whitman (or Whitworth, whichever one didn't win their tournament) in.

    Oswego beating #1 in the East Plattsburgh State for a 2nd time in Plattsburgh should do something to mix up the rankings. Oswego also owns a win over Rochester in Rochester. I think the Lakers get a bid. They are a very good team with great guards, a host of 3 point shooters and size. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 05:29:59 PM
    Quote from: magicman on February 28, 2016, 05:27:51 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 04:57:08 PM
    Oh, I take that back.  I don't have Oswego in because I don't think that there will be a reorder and they'll get stuck behind St. John Fisher.  I do have Whitman (or Whitworth, whichever one didn't win their tournament) in.

    Oswego beating #1 in the East Plattsburgh State for a 2nd time in Plattsburgh should do something to mix up the rankings. Oswego also owns a win over Rochester in Rochester. I think the Lakers get a bid. They are a very good team with great guards, a host of 3 point shooters and size.

    You're right.  Guys - doesn't Oswego have a better resume than Rochester now?  They should be #2 in the region.  Maybe they're hosting?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 28, 2016, 05:36:28 PM
    Lynchburg relieves the bubble a bit. Wins in OT.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 28, 2016, 05:41:16 PM
    Quote from: pg04 on February 28, 2016, 05:36:28 PM
    Lynchburg relieves the bubble a bit. Wins in OT.
    Was happy to see that. Randolph had multiple chance to go ahead in the final 2 minutes and after Lynchburg only made 1 of 2 from the line to go up by 2 with 9 seconds left, Randolph had 2 wide open looks at a three pointer to win the game. Lynchburg got lucky and somebody on the bubble did as well. :D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 05:47:30 PM

    It's all in the books now.  Just waiting for Matt to update the numbers then we can argue over regional rankings and who gets in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 06:00:42 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 05:47:30 PM

    It's all in the books now.  Just waiting for Matt to update the numbers then we can argue over regional rankings and who gets in.

    Haven't we/you guys been doing that all week?  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2016, 06:08:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 05:06:06 PM
    The NCAA would never admit it, but do you think they would actually leave someone home based partially on geographics? (We'd save a flight if we picked " team A" instead of "team B"...
    +1!  (From an island fan.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 06:10:51 PM
    I wonder how Augie fans feel. They're located on an island too.  ???  ;D  :o
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2016, 06:13:30 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 03:17:15 PM
    My guess is that Hardin-Simmons plays at Texas Lutheran on Thursday and the winner flies to Augustana, who gets a first round bye.


    This makes sense to me because it is a "#8/#9" winner going to #1 which got a bye.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2016, 06:15:09 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2016, 06:13:30 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2016, 03:17:15 PM
    My guess is that Hardin-Simmons plays at Texas Lutheran on Thursday and the winner flies to Augustana, who gets a first round bye.


    This makes sense to me because it is a "#8/#9" winner going to #1 which got a bye.

    I think Benedictine is more likely to get the bye than Augustana - it would've been St. Thomas, but they lost today.  I'm still betting on Texas Lutheran hosting Hardin-Simmons, Whitworth, and Chapman, but we'll see.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 06:15:44 PM
    Final numbers are live:

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 06:19:49 PM
    Final projection...

    Pool C Projection
    1. St. Thomas (MIAC) .889/.564 (not updated)/11-1, W#1
    2. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.556/5-3, GL#1
    3. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    4. Amherst (NESCAC) .815/.564/5-2, NE#1
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.552/4-3, EA#1
    6. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    7. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    8. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    9. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.561/3-5, NE#3
    10. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.543/3-5, CE#5
    11. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    12. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    13. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.563/2-5, NE#2
    14. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    15. Rochester (UAA) 0.708/0.561/3-4, EA#2
    16. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
    17. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4   
    18. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3
    19. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6

    Left at Table
    *Atlantic - New Jersey City (NJAC) 0.692/0.525/4-2, AT#1   
    *Central - Carroll (MWC) 0.800/0.530/0-3, CE#8
    *East - St. John Fisher (E8) .778/.519/1-0, E#4 
    *Great Lakes - Mount Union (OAC)  .654/.546/2-5, GL #7
    *Mid-Atlantic - Swarthmore (CC)  .741/.498/0-3, not ranked
    *Northeast - Eastern Connecticut (LEC) .667/.550/1-4, NE#7
    *South - n/a
    *West - Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, W#3  Pool C #20
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 06:30:00 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2016, 06:15:44 PM
    Final numbers are live:

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    As always, thank you very much for doing this!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 28, 2016, 07:02:08 PM
    I'll really be surprised if the East Region gets 4 Pool C bids. Last year we got 0. I believe 3 is the most the East Region ends up with.  I think Rochester or NYU  is out.   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2016, 07:56:17 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 06:19:49 PM
    Final projection...

    Pool C Projection
    1. St. Thomas (MIAC) .889/.564 (not updated)/11-1, W#1
    2. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.556/5-3, GL#1
    3. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    4. Amherst (NESCAC) .815/.564/5-2, NE#1
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.552/4-3, EA#1
    6. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    7. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    8. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    9. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.561/3-5, NE#3
    10. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.543/3-5, CE#5
    11. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4   
    12. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    13. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    14. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.563/2-5, NE#2
    15. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    16. Rochester (UAA) 0.708/0.561/3-4, EA#2
    17. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
    18. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3
    19. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6

    Left at Table
    *Atlantic - New Jersey City (NJAC) 0.692/0.525/4-2, AT#1   
    *Central - Carroll (MWC) 0.800/0.530/0-3, CE#8
    *East - St. John Fisher (E8) .778/.519/1-0, E#4 
    *Great Lakes - Mount Union (OAC)  .654/.546/2-5, GL #7
    *Mid-Atlantic - Swarthmore (CC)  .741/.498/0-3, not ranked
    *Northeast - Eastern Connecticut (LEC) .667/.550/1-4, NE#7
    *South - n/a
    *West - Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, W#3  Pool C #20

    NESCAC -- 4 bids (including Pool A, as with all that follow)
    LAND -- 3 bids
    SUNYAC -- 3 bids
    NCAC -- 3 bids
    CCIW -- 3 bids
    UAA -- 3 bids
    2 bids each for MIAC, OAC, CAC, MIAA, NEWMAC, USAC
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 08:06:40 PM
    For better or worse, here is my bracket...

    Bracket of 16:
    St Thomas
    Northwestern
    UW-Oshkosh
    North Central

    St. Norbert
    Central
    St. Olaf
    Alma

    Augustana
    bye
    Texas Lutheran
    Hardin-Simmons

    Emory
    Covenent
    LaGrange
    Birmingham Southern

    Bracket of 16:

    Benedictine
    Westimister
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Hope

    John Carroll
    Pitt-Greenburg
    Mt St. Joseph
    Elmhurst

    Marietta
    Lycoming
    Gwynedd Mercy
    Wooster

    Whitworth
    bye
    Chapman
    Whitman

    Bracket of 16:

    Newport
    Delaware Valley
    Franklin and Marshall
    Scranton

    Catholic
    Denison
    Middlebury
    Rochester

    Lynchberg
    St Vincent
    NYU
    Brooklyn

    Susquenhanna
    SUNY-Old Westbury
    WPI
    Trinity

    Bracket of 16:

    Amherst
    Endicott
    Lancaster Bible
    Southern Vermont

    Babson
    Keene St.
    Tufts
    Skidmore

    Plattsburgh St
    Husson
    Johnson and Wales
    Hartwick

    Stockton
    Fitchsburg St
    Salisbury
    Cortland

    Thoughts:

    * After looking, I decided that Oswego isn't in all that great of shape, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them on the table and may be one of the last picks.  I think Oswego will get hurt when Geneseo drops from the regional rankings and their RRO goes to 3-1, which is still really good.  I wouldn't be surprised to be wrong.  In the end, Whitman gets in, because I think there are legit reasons they play the schedule they do.  I really still don't like the last few picks (WPI & Lagrange). 
    * Because of the St. Thomas loss, Augustana became the de facto #1.  It could have been Benedictine, but I needed their location to make things work.
    * I think Emory will move up to South #1, which didn't make me feel as bad about leaving Texas Lutheran without a pod (they'll get a home game though).  Lynchberg also gets a pod.
    * Too many pods in the Mid-Atlantic?  Well, I was kind of stuck on whether the committee would make Rochester take a pod when they'll be one of the last teams off the table or for that matter, I don't know what you do in the Atlantic.  I do think that Central will get three pods (for geographical reasons) and Mid-Atlantic (for better team reasons).  We'll see tomorrow.
    * The Ohio Wesleyan-Hope game is a ridiculous 1st round matchup, but I couldn't figure out a way to fix it.
    * For the second weekend, there are lots of good options, so I know women get priority.

    Thanks for everyone's constructive input and good discussion.  Thanks for http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ for all the great data.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2016, 08:14:59 PM
    You could swap OWU and Wooster, solving the OWU/Hope problem and avoiding a potential 2nd round rematch between Wooster and Marietta.

    Is your table in 1-4-3-2 or 1-4-2-3 order?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on February 28, 2016, 08:22:07 PM
    Im really interested to see what happens in the east region I feel like there is a number of things that could happen.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2016, 09:28:29 PM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2016, 08:14:59 PM
    You could swap OWU and Wooster, solving the OWU/Hope problem and avoiding a potential 2nd round rematch between Wooster and Marietta.

    Is your table in 1-4-3-2 or 1-4-2-3 order?

    Still kind of a tough first rounder (Wooster and OWU), but I think it may be better

    1-4-3-2 and 1-4-2-3...It's actually both in different parts.  I wasn't consistent.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 10:26:57 PM

    Updated through Sunday's games

    Quote
    Pool A (Automatic qualifiers) will be BLUE once their conference tournaments are complete. Teams losing will be RED and will be considered Pool C.


       ATL               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      New Jersey City (NJAC)      LOST to TCNJ 92-82 in semis   
       #2      Stockton (NJAC)      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 95-75 in semis; WON vs TCNJ 60-53 in Final   
       #3      DeSales (MACF)      LOST to Wilkes 72-62 in semis   
       #4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      WON vs Staten Island 78-69 in semis; WON vs Baruch 76-67 in Final   
       #5      Lehman (CUNYAC)      LOST to Baruch 80-64 in semis   
       #6      Staten Island (CUNYAC)      LOST to Brooklyn 78-69 in semis   
       #7      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      WON vs William Paterson 78-52 in QFs; LOST at Stockton 95-75 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Delaware Valley (MACF)         
       CENT               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Benedictine (NACC)      WON vs Marian 91-82; WON vs MSOE 83-57 in Final   
       #2       Augustana (CCIW)      WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 83-74; WON vs Elmhurst 69-53 in Final   
       #3      St.Norbert (MWC)      WON vs Lake Forest 63-48; WON vs Carroll 71-69 in Final    
       #4      NCC (CCIW)      LOST to Elmhurst 60-58 in semis   
       #5      Elmhurst      LOST to Augustana 69-53 in Final   
       #6      Chicago (UAA)      LOST to Washington U. 67-54   
       #7      Aurora (NACC)      LOST to MSOE in semis 100-96   
       #8      Carroll (MWC)      LOST to St. Norbert 71-69 in Final   
       EAST               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Platts. St. (SUNYAC)      LOST to Oswego St 81-74 in semis   
       #2       Rochester (UAA)        LOST to Emory 84-75   
       #3        NYU (UAA)        WON at Brandeis 71-50   
       #4       St. John Fisher (E8)        WON vs Stevens 85-62; LOST to Hartwick 93-91 in Final   
       #5      Oswego St. (SUNYAC)      WON vs SUNY Geneseo 75-59; WON at Platts. St. 81-74;LOST  at Cortland 77-74 in Final   
       #6      SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC)      LOST to Oswego St. 75-59 in QFs   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC)         
             Brockport (SUNYAC)         
                      
       GL               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Marietta (OAC)      WON vs Wilmington 93-78; Won vs Baldwin Wallace 91-66; LOST vs John Carroll 97-95 in Final    
       #2      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)      WON vs Wabash 100-80; LOST to Denison 95-85 in semis   
       #3      John Carroll (OAC)      WON vs Capital 83-70; WON vs Mount Union 93-74; WON at Marietta 87-85 in Final   
       #4      Hope (MIAA)      LOST to Trine 82-77 in semis   
       #5      Alma (MIAA)      WON vs Albion 77-64; WON vs Trine 62-54 in Final   
       #6      Wooster (NCAC)      WON vs Oberlin 78-63; WON vs Hiram 92-79; LOST to Denison 92-81 in Final   
       #7      Mount Union (OAC)      WON vs Heidelberg 102-96; LOST at John Carroll 93-74 in semis   
       #8      Hiram (NCAC)      WON vs Kenyon 95-87; LOST at Wooster 92-79 in semis   
       #9      St. Vincent (PAC)      WON vs Chatham 80-65; WON vs Westminster 70-65; WON vs Thomas More 65-62 in Final   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Trine (MIAA)         
       MA               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Christopher Newport(CAC)      WON vs St. Mary's 57-56; WON vs Salisbury in 68-67 OT in Final   
       #2      Susquehanna (LAND)      WON vs Scranton 77-72 in semis; LOST to Catholic 83-81 in Final   
       #3      Salisbury (CAC)      WON vs Mary Washington 83-78; LOST at Christopher Newport 68-68 OT in Final
       #4      Catholic (LAND)      WON vs Juniata 79-66; WON vs Susquehanna 83-81 in Final   
       #5      Scranton (LAND)      LOST to Susquehanna 77-72 in semis   
       #6      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      WON vs Gettysburg 74-63; WON vs Swarthmore 75-64 in Final   
                      
       NE               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Amherst (NECAC)      WON vs Tufts 86-83 in semis; LOST to Middlebury 81-79 in Final   
       #2      Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC)      LOST to Middlebury 70-58 in semis   
       #3      Tufts (NESCAC)      LOST at Amherst 86-83 in semis   
       #4      Babson (NEWMAC)      WON vs Emerson 74-69; WON vs MIT 81-69 in Final    
       #5      WPI (NEWMAC)   [color]   LOST to MIT 96-80 in semis   
       #6      Johnson & Wales (GNAC)      WON vs St. Joseph's 73-36; WON vs Emmanuel 97-79; WON vs Albertus Magnus 86-74 in Final    
       #7      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)      WON vs Mass-Boston 93-65; LOST to Mass-Dartmouth 60-55 in semis   
       #8      MIT (NEWMAC)      WON at WPI 96-80; LOST at Babson 81-69 in Final   
       #9      Middlebury (NESCAC)      WON at Trinity 70-58; WON at Amherst 81-79 in Final   
       #10      Southern Vermont(NECC)      WON vs Regis 73-68; WON vs Becker 74-72 in Final   
       #11      Nichols (CCC)      WON vs W. New England 10768; LOST to Endicott 82-80 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Wesleyan (NESCAC)         
                      
       SOUTH               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Texas Lutheran (SCAC)      WON vs Centenary 80-70; WON vs Colorado College 80-77 in Final   
       #2      Lynchburg (ODAC)      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 90-67; WON vs Emory and Henry 94-64; WON vs Randolph 62-60 in Final today   
       #3       Emory (UAA)      WON at Rochester 84-74   
       #4      Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC)      WON vs Randolph-Macon 78-52; LOST to Randolph 69-61 in semis   
       #5      N.C. Wesleyan (USAC)      WON vs Averett 81-66; LOST to LaGrange 99-87 in semis   
       #6      LaGrange (USAC)      WON vs Ferrum 77-73; WON at N.C. Wesleyan 99-87; LOST at Covenant 101-92 OT in Final
       #7      ETBU (ASC)      WON vs Mary Harin-Baylor 70-64; LOST to Louisiana College 56-44 in semis   
       #8      Roanoke (ODAC)      LOST to Randolph 74-62 in QFs   
                      
       WEST               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      St. Thomas (MIAC)      WON vs Bethel 63-46; LOST to St. Olaf 72-66 in Final on Sunday   
       #2      Whitworth (NWC)      WON vs Puget Sound 75-58; WON vs Pacific Lutheran 75-62 in Final   
       #3      Whitman (NWC)      LOST to Pacific Lutheran 82-68 in semis   
       #4      St. John's (MIAC)      WON vs Augsburg 99-86; LOST at St. Olaf 91-80 in semis   
       #5      St.Olaf (MIAC)      WON vs St. John's 91-80; WON at St. Thomas 72-66 in Final   
       #6      Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC)      LOST to Bethel 67-62 in QFs   
       #7      Bethel (MIAC)      WON at Concordia-Moorhead 67-62; lost at St. Thomas 63-46 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Dubuque (IIAC)         
             Augsburg (MIAC)         
                      
    [/quote]
    [/quote]
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2016, 11:49:26 PM
    How can the committee make tournament selections when we still don't know the outcome of the Rust-Fisk game? :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on February 29, 2016, 12:08:37 AM
    Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2016, 11:49:26 PM
    How can the committee make tournament selections when we still don't know the outcome of the Rust-Fisk game? :)

    That's funny - When I saw that on the other board, I actually looked for that game and I just couldn't believe that the result couldn't be find in any place. Barely any mention of the game regardless of the result!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2016, 12:58:26 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2016, 05:08:21 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2016, 05:06:06 PM
    The NCAA would never admit it, but do you think they would actually leave someone home based partially on geographics? (We'd save a flight if we picked " team A" instead of "team B"...

    I think the NCAA might, but I don't think the committee would.  I know the NCAA has influence on bracketing, but I think the committee gets carte blanche to get the right teams in.

    I have been told by many a committee member both off air and on air (Jeff Burns talked about it last season) ... under no certain terms are they restricted to their selections of teams especially by geographics. If they fit the criteria, they are in. They will figure out the logistics second.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2016, 07:42:09 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 06:19:49 PM
    Final projection...

    Pool C Projection
    1. St. Thomas (MIAC) .889/.564 (not updated)/11-1, W#1
    2. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.556/5-3, GL#1
    3. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    4. Amherst (NESCAC) .815/.564/5-2, NE#1
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.552/4-3, EA#1
    6. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    7. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    8. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    9. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.561/3-5, NE#3
    10. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.543/3-5, CE#5
    11. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    12. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    13. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.563/2-5, NE#2
    14. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    15. Rochester (UAA) 0.708/0.561/3-4, EA#2
    16. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
    17. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4   
    18. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3
    19. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6

    Left at Table
    *Atlantic - New Jersey City (NJAC) 0.692/0.525/4-2, AT#1   
    *Central - Carroll (MWC) 0.800/0.530/0-3, CE#8
    *East - St. John Fisher (E8) .778/.519/1-0, E#4 
    *Great Lakes - Mount Union (OAC)  .654/.546/2-5, GL #7
    *Mid-Atlantic - Swarthmore (CC)  .741/.498/0-3, not ranked
    *Northeast - Eastern Connecticut (LEC) .667/.550/1-4, NE#7
    *South - n/a
    *West - Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, W#3  Pool C #20

    Pat Coleman and Dave McHugh's Pool C's are:

    1. St. Thomas
    2. Marietta
    3. Amherst
    4. Plattsburgh State
    5. Ohio Wesleyan
    6. Susquehanna
    7. Tufts
    8. North Central
    9. Salisbury
    10. Elmhurst
    11. Wooster
    12. Oswego State
    13. WPI
    14. Scranton
    15. Trinity (CT)
    16. Hope
    17. Whitman
    18. NYU
    19. New Jersey City

    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2016/projected-mens-bracket

    Pat & Dave have Whitman and New Jersey City in; I have Rochester and LaGrange.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 29, 2016, 07:52:29 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 29, 2016, 07:42:09 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 06:19:49 PM
    Final projection...

    Pool C Projection
    1. St. Thomas (MIAC) .889/.564 (not updated)/11-1, W#1
    2. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.556/5-3, GL#1
    3. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    4. Amherst (NESCAC) .815/.564/5-2, NE#1
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.552/4-3, EA#1
    6. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    7. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    8. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    9. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.561/3-5, NE#3
    10. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.543/3-5, CE#5
    11. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    12. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    13. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.563/2-5, NE#2
    14. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    15. Rochester (UAA) 0.708/0.561/3-4, EA#2
    16. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
    17. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4   
    18. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3
    19. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6

    Left at Table
    *Atlantic - New Jersey City (NJAC) 0.692/0.525/4-2, AT#1   
    *Central - Carroll (MWC) 0.800/0.530/0-3, CE#8
    *East - St. John Fisher (E8) .778/.519/1-0, E#4 
    *Great Lakes - Mount Union (OAC)  .654/.546/2-5, GL #7
    *Mid-Atlantic - Swarthmore (CC)  .741/.498/0-3, not ranked
    *Northeast - Eastern Connecticut (LEC) .667/.550/1-4, NE#7
    *South - n/a
    *West - Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, W#3  Pool C #20

    Pat Coleman and Dave McHugh's Pool C's are:

    1. St. Thomas
    2. Marietta
    3. Amherst
    4. Plattsburgh State
    5. Ohio Wesleyan
    6. Susquehanna
    7. Tufts
    8. North Central
    9. Salisbury
    10. Elmhurst
    11. Wooster
    12. Oswego State
    13. WPI
    14. Scranton
    15. Trinity (CT)
    16. Hope
    17. Whitman
    18. NYU
    19. New Jersey City

    http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2016/projected-mens-bracket

    Pat & Dave have Whitman and New Jersey City in; I have Rochester and LaGrange.

    I think I agree with you, Q, on who should be in - although I'm not sure the committee will agree with us.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 29, 2016, 11:13:22 AM
    Last-minute, but here's my take:
    1 St Thomas
    2 Marietta
    3 Amherst
    4 Susquehanna
    5 N. Central
    6 Plattsburgh
    7 Salisbury
    8 Ohio Wesleyan
    9 Tufts
    10 Wooster
    11 Elmhurst
    ---bubble (pick 8 of 13)---
    12 Hope
    13 Oswego St
    14 WPI
    15 Trinity (CT)
    16 Scranton
    17 Whitman
    18 Rochester (might get blocked by NYU)
    19 LaGrange

    Realistic candidates out: NYU, NJ City, MIT, Carroll, Virginia Wesleyan
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on February 29, 2016, 11:34:12 AM
    Heres how I think it will play out.

    1. St Thomas
    2. Amherst
    3. Marietta
    4. Plattsburgh
    5. Susquehanna
    6. North Central
    7. Salisbury
    8. Tufts
    9. Ohio Wesleyan
    10. Wooster
    11. Elmhurst
    12. Oswego state
    13. Hope
    14. Trinity CT
    15. WPI
    16. Scranton
    17. Whitman
    18. NYU
    19. New Jersey City

    last 4 out Rochester , LaGrange, MIT, St John Fisher


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 29, 2016, 11:39:27 AM
    If Rochester is out, they may be thinking about four of  those close losses for a long time.

    54-55 loss to Oswego State
    (79-77 loss to Division II Roberts Wesleyan)
    72-69 OT loss to Union College
    78-75 loss to Emory
    102-97 2OT loss to Carnegie Mellon

    Other losses
    84-75 loss to Emory
    77-67 to to NYU
    87-70 loss to Hobart College
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on February 29, 2016, 11:54:22 AM
    If they would have beat Union and Oswego they are in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 29, 2016, 12:49:25 PM
    Bracket is out... here's your Pool C teams
    Amherst
    Elmhurst
    Hope
    LaGrange
    Marietta
    N Central (IL)
    NYU
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Oswego St
    Plattsburgh St
    Salisbury
    Scranton
    St Thomas
    Susquehanna
    Trinity (CT)
    Tufts
    Whitman
    Wooster
    WPI
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2016, 01:09:19 PM

    Updated through Sunday's games

    Pool A (Automatic qualifiers) will be BLUE once their conference tournaments are complete. Teams losing will be RED and will be considered Pool C.


       ATL               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      New Jersey City (NJAC)      LOST to TCNJ 92-82 in semis   
       #2      Stockton (NJAC)      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 95-75 in semis; WON vs TCNJ 60-53 in Final   
       #3      DeSales (MACF)      LOST to Wilkes 72-62 in semis   
       #4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      WON vs Staten Island 78-69 in semis; WON vs Baruch 76-67 in Final   
       #5      Lehman (CUNYAC)      LOST to Baruch 80-64 in semis   
       #6      Staten Island (CUNYAC)      LOST to Brooklyn 78-69 in semis   
       #7      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      WON vs William Paterson 78-52 in QFs; LOST at Stockton 95-75 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Delaware Valley (MACF)         
       CENT               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Benedictine (NACC)      WON vs Marian 91-82; WON vs MSOE 83-57 in Final   
       #2       Augustana (CCIW)      WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 83-74; WON vs Elmhurst 69-53 in Final   
       #3      St.Norbert (MWC)      WON vs Lake Forest 63-48; WON vs Carroll 71-69 in Final    
       POOL C      NCC (CCIW)      LOST to Elmhurst 60-58 in semis   
       POOL C      Elmhurst      LOST to Augustana 69-53 in Final   
       #6      Chicago (UAA)      LOST to Washington U. 67-54   
       #7      Aurora (NACC)      LOST to MSOE in semis 100-96   
       #8      Carroll (MWC)      LOST to St. Norbert 71-69 in Final   
       EAST               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       POOL C      Platts. St. (SUNYAC)      LOST to Oswego St 81-74 in semis   
       #2       Rochester (UAA)        LOST to Emory 84-75   
       POOL C        NYU (UAA)        WON at Brandeis 71-50   
       #4       St. John Fisher (E8)        WON vs Stevens 85-62; LOST to Hartwick 93-91 in Final   
      POOL C      Oswego St. (SUNYAC)      WON vs SUNY Geneseo 75-59; WON at Platts. St. 81-74;LOST  at Cortland 77-74 in Final   
       #6      SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC)      LOST to Oswego St. 75-59 in QFs   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC)         
             Brockport (SUNYAC)         
                      
       GL               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       POOL C      Marietta (OAC)      WON vs Wilmington 93-78; Won vs Baldwin Wallace 91-66; LOST vs John Carroll 97-95 in Final    
       POOL C      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)      WON vs Wabash 100-80; LOST to Denison 95-85 in semis   
       #3      John Carroll (OAC)      WON vs Capital 83-70; WON vs Mount Union 93-74; WON at Marietta 87-85 in Final   
       POOL C      Hope (MIAA)      LOST to Trine 82-77 in semis   
       #5      Alma (MIAA)      WON vs Albion 77-64; WON vs Trine 62-54 in Final   
       POOL C      Wooster (NCAC)      WON vs Oberlin 78-63; WON vs Hiram 92-79; LOST to Denison 92-81 in Final   
       #7      Mount Union (OAC)      WON vs Heidelberg 102-96; LOST at John Carroll 93-74 in semis   
       #8      Hiram (NCAC)      WON vs Kenyon 95-87; LOST at Wooster 92-79 in semis   
       #9      St. Vincent (PAC)      WON vs Chatham 80-65; WON vs Westminster 70-65; WON vs Thomas More 65-62 in Final   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Trine (MIAA)         
       MA               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Christopher Newport(CAC)      WON vs St. Mary's 57-56; WON vs Salisbury in 68-67 OT in Final   
       POOL C      Susquehanna (LAND)      WON vs Scranton 77-72 in semis; LOST to Catholic 83-81 in Final   
       POOL C      Salisbury (CAC)      WON vs Mary Washington 83-78; LOST at Christopher Newport 68-68 OT in Final
       #4      Catholic (LAND)      WON vs Juniata 79-66; WON vs Susquehanna 83-81 in Final   
       POOL C      Scranton (LAND)      LOST to Susquehanna 77-72 in semis   
       #6      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      WON vs Gettysburg 74-63; WON vs Swarthmore 75-64 in Final   
                      
       NE               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       POOL C      Amherst (NECAC)      WON vs Tufts 86-83 in semis; LOST to Middlebury 81-79 in Final   
       POOL C      Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC)      LOST to Middlebury 70-58 in semis   
       POOL C      Tufts (NESCAC)      LOST at Amherst 86-83 in semis   
       #4      Babson (NEWMAC)      WON vs Emerson 74-69; WON vs MIT 81-69 in Final    
       POOL C      WPI (NEWMAC)   [color]   LOST to MIT 96-80 in semis   
       #6      Johnson & Wales (GNAC)      WON vs St. Joseph's 73-36; WON vs Emmanuel 97-79; WON vs Albertus Magnus 86-74 in Final    
       #7      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)      WON vs Mass-Boston 93-65; LOST to Mass-Dartmouth 60-55 in semis   
       #8      MIT (NEWMAC)      WON at WPI 96-80; LOST at Babson 81-69 in Final   
       #9      Middlebury (NESCAC)      WON at Trinity 70-58; WON at Amherst 81-79 in Final   
       #10      Southern Vermont(NECC)      WON vs Regis 73-68; WON vs Becker 74-72 in Final   
       #11      Nichols (CCC)      WON vs W. New England 10768; LOST to Endicott 82-80 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Wesleyan (NESCAC)         
                      
       SOUTH               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Texas Lutheran (SCAC)      WON vs Centenary 80-70; WON vs Colorado College 80-77 in Final   
       #2      Lynchburg (ODAC)      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 90-67; WON vs Emory and Henry 94-64; WON vs Randolph 62-60 in Final today   
       #3       Emory (UAA)      WON at Rochester 84-74   
       #4      Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC)      WON vs Randolph-Macon 78-52; LOST to Randolph 69-61 in semis   
       #5      N.C. Wesleyan (USAC)      WON vs Averett 81-66; LOST to LaGrange 99-87 in semis   
       POOL C      LaGrange (USAC)      WON vs Ferrum 77-73; WON at N.C. Wesleyan 99-87; LOST at Covenant 101-92 OT in Final
       #7      ETBU (ASC)      WON vs Mary Harin-Baylor 70-64; LOST to Louisiana College 56-44 in semis   
       #8      Roanoke (ODAC)      LOST to Randolph 74-62 in QFs   
                      
       WEST               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       POOL C      St. Thomas (MIAC)      WON vs Bethel 63-46; LOST to St. Olaf 72-66 in Final on Sunday   
       #2      Whitworth (NWC)      WON vs Puget Sound 75-58; WON vs Pacific Lutheran 75-62 in Final   
       POOL C      Whitman (NWC)      LOST to Pacific Lutheran 82-68 in semis   
       #4      St. John's (MIAC)      WON vs Augsburg 99-86; LOST at St. Olaf 91-80 in semis   
       #5      St.Olaf (MIAC)      WON vs St. John's 91-80; WON at St. Thomas 72-66 in Final   
       #6      Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC)      LOST to Bethel 67-62 in QFs   
       #7      Bethel (MIAC)      WON at Concordia-Moorhead 67-62; lost at St. Thomas 63-46 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Dubuque (IIAC)         
             Augsburg (MIAC)         
                      
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 01:12:24 PM
    I have "blued out" the Tourney AQ's in the Regional Rankings from Greek's list. (Corrections are appreciated.)

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2016, 01:09:19 PM

    Updated through Sunday's games

    Pool A (Automatic qualifiers) will be BLUE once their conference tournaments are complete. Teams losing will be RED and will be considered Pool C.




       ATL               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      New Jersey City (NJAC)      LOST to TCNJ 92-82 in semis   
       #2      Stockton (NJAC)      WON vs Rutgers-Newark 95-75 in semis; WON vs TCNJ 60-53 in Final   
       #3      DeSales (MACF)      LOST to Wilkes 72-62 in semis   
       #4      Brooklyn (CUNYAC)      WON vs Staten Island 78-69 in semis; WON vs Baruch 76-67 in Final   
       #5      Lehman (CUNYAC)      LOST to Baruch 80-64 in semis   
       #6      Staten Island (CUNYAC)      LOST to Brooklyn 78-69 in semis   
       #7      Rutgers-Newark (NJAC)      WON vs William Paterson 78-52 in QFs; LOST at Stockton 95-75 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Delaware Valley (MACF)         
                      
             UNRANKED         
             Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC)         
             Old Westbury (Skyline)         
                      
       CENT               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Benedictine (NACC)      WON vs Marian 91-82; WON vs MSOE 83-57 in Final   
       #2       Augustana (CCIW)      WON vs Illinois Wesleyan 83-74; WON vs Elmhurst 69-53 in Final   
       #3      St.Norbert (MWC)      WON vs Lake Forest 63-48; WON vs Carroll 71-69 in Final    
       POOL C      NCC (CCIW)      LOST to Elmhurst 60-58 in semis   
       POOL C      Elmhurst      LOST to Augustana 69-53 in Final   
       #6      Chicago (UAA)      LOST to Washington U. 67-54   
       #7      Aurora (NACC)      LOST to MSOE in semis 100-96   
       #8      Carroll (MWC)      LOST to St. Norbert 71-69 in Final   
                      
             UNRANKED         
             Westminster (SLIAC)         
             UW-Oshkosh (WIAC)         
                      
       EAST               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       POOL C      Platts. St. (SUNYAC)      LOST to Oswego St 81-74 in semis   
       #2       Rochester (UAA)        LOST to Emory 84-75   
       POOL C        NYU (UAA)        WON at Brandeis 71-50   
       #4       St. John Fisher (E8)        WON vs Stevens 85-62; LOST to Hartwick 93-91 in Final   
      POOL C      Oswego St. (SUNYAC)      WON vs SUNY Geneseo 75-59; WON at Platts. St. 81-74;LOST  at Cortland 77-74 in Final   
       #6      SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC)      LOST to Oswego St. 75-59 in QFs   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC)         
             Brockport (SUNYAC)         
                      
             UNRANKED         
             Lancaster Bible (NEAC)         
             Skidmore (LL)         
                      
                      
       GL               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       POOL C      Marietta (OAC)      WON vs Wilmington 93-78; Won vs Baldwin Wallace 91-66; LOST vs John Carroll 97-95 in Final    
       POOL C      Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC)      WON vs Wabash 100-80; LOST to Denison 95-85 in semis   
       #3      John Carroll (OAC)      WON vs Capital 83-70; WON vs Mount Union 93-74; WON at Marietta 87-85 in Final   
       POOL C      Hope (MIAA)      LOST to Trine 82-77 in semis   
       #5      Alma (MIAA)      WON vs Albion 77-64; WON vs Trine 62-54 in Final   
       POOL C      Wooster (NCAC)      WON vs Oberlin 78-63; WON vs Hiram 92-79; LOST to Denison 92-81 in Final   
       #7      Mount Union (OAC)      WON vs Heidelberg 102-96; LOST at John Carroll 93-74 in semis   
       #8      Hiram (NCAC)      WON vs Kenyon 95-87; LOST at Wooster 92-79 in semis   
       #9      St. Vincent (PAC)      WON vs Chatham 80-65; WON vs Westminster 70-65; WON vs Thomas More 65-62 in Final   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Trine (MIAA)         
             UNRANKED         
             Mount St Joseph (HCAC)         
             Pitt-Greensburg (AMCC)         
                      
       MA               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Christopher Newport(CAC)      WON vs St. Mary's 57-56; WON vs Salisbury in 68-67 OT in Final   
       POOL C      Susquehanna (LAND)      WON vs Scranton 77-72 in semis; LOST to Catholic 83-81 in Final   
       POOL C      Salisbury (CAC)      WON vs Mary Washington 83-78; LOST at Christopher Newport 68-68 OT in Final
       #4      Catholic (LAND)      WON vs Juniata 79-66; WON vs Susquehanna 83-81 in Final   
       POOL C      Scranton (LAND)      LOST to Susquehanna 77-72 in semis   
       #6      Franklin and Marshall (CC)      WON vs Gettysburg 74-63; WON vs Swarthmore 75-64 in Final   
             UNRANKED         
             Lycoming (MACC)          
                      
                      
       NE               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       POOL C      Amherst (NECAC)      WON vs Tufts 86-83 in semis; LOST to Middlebury 81-79 in Final   
       POOL C      Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC)      LOST to Middlebury 70-58 in semis   
       POOL C      Tufts (NESCAC)      LOST at Amherst 86-83 in semis   
       #4      Babson (NEWMAC)      WON vs Emerson 74-69; WON vs MIT 81-69 in Final    
       POOL C      WPI (NEWMAC)   [color]   LOST to MIT 96-80 in semis   
       #6      Johnson & Wales (GNAC)      WON vs St. Joseph's 73-36; WON vs Emmanuel 97-79; WON vs Albertus Magnus 86-74 in Final    
       #7      Eastern Connecticut (LEC)      WON vs Mass-Boston 93-65; LOST to Mass-Dartmouth 60-55 in semis   
       #8      MIT (NEWMAC)      WON at WPI 96-80; LOST at Babson 81-69 in Final   
       #9      Middlebury (NESCAC)      WON at Trinity 70-58; WON at Amherst 81-79 in Final   
       #10      Southern Vermont(NECC)      WON vs Regis 73-68; WON vs Becker 74-72 in Final   
       #11      Nichols (CCC)      WON vs W. New England 10768; LOST to Endicott 82-80 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Wesleyan (NESCAC)         
                      
             UNRANKED         
             Fitchburg St (MASCAC)         
             Husson (NAC)         
             Johnson & Wales (GNAC)         
             Keene State (LEC)         
                      
       SOUTH               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       #1      Texas Lutheran (SCAC)      WON vs Centenary 80-70; WON vs Colorado College 80-77 in Final   
       #2      Lynchburg (ODAC)      WON vs Hampden-Sydney 90-67; WON vs Emory and Henry 94-64; WON vs Randolph 62-60 in Final today   
       #3      Emory (UAA)      WON at Rochester 84-74   
       #4      Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC)      WON vs Randolph-Macon 78-52; LOST to Randolph 69-61 in semis   
       #5      N.C. Wesleyan (USAC)      WON vs Averett 81-66; LOST to LaGrange 99-87 in semis   
       POOL C      LaGrange (USAC)      WON vs Ferrum 77-73; WON at N.C. Wesleyan 99-87; LOST at Covenant 101-92 OT in Final
       #7      ETBU (ASC)      WON vs Mary Harin-Baylor 70-64; LOST to Louisiana College 56-44 in semis   
       #8      Roanoke (ODAC)      LOST to Randolph 74-62 in QFs   
                      
             UNRANKED         
             Birmingham-Southern (SAA)         
             Hardin-Simmons (ASC)         
                      
       WEST               
       WK3      Team      Schedule   
       POOL C      St. Thomas (MIAC)      WON vs Bethel 63-46; LOST to St. Olaf 72-66 in Final on Sunday   
       #2      Whitworth (NWC)      WON vs Puget Sound 75-58; WON vs Pacific Lutheran 75-62 in Final   
       POOL C      Whitman (NWC)      LOST to Pacific Lutheran 82-68 in semis   
       #4      St. John's (MIAC)      WON vs Augsburg 99-86; LOST at St. Olaf 91-80 in semis   
       #5      St.Olaf (MIAC)      WON vs St. John's 91-80; WON at St. Thomas 72-66 in Final   
       #6      Concordia-Moorhead (MIAC)      LOST to Bethel 67-62 in QFs   
       #7      Bethel (MIAC)      WON at Concordia-Moorhead 67-62; lost at St. Thomas 63-46 in semis   
                      
             DROPPING OUT         
             Dubuque (IIAC)         
             Augsburg (MIAC)         
                      
             UNRANKED         
             Central (IIAC)          
             Northwestern (UMAC)          
                      
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2016, 01:12:36 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2016, 06:19:49 PM
    Final projection...

    Pool C Projection
    1. St. Thomas (MIAC) .889/.564 (not updated)/11-1, W#1
    2. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.556/5-3, GL#1
    3. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    4. Amherst (NESCAC) .815/.564/5-2, NE#1
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.552/4-3, EA#1
    6. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    7. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    8. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    9. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.561/3-5, NE#3
    10. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.543/3-5, CE#5
    11. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    12. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    13. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.563/2-5, NE#2
    14. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    15. Rochester (UAA) 0.708/0.561/3-4, EA#2
    16. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
    17. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4   
    18. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3
    19. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6

    Left at Table
    *Atlantic - New Jersey City (NJAC) 0.692/0.525/4-2, AT#1   
    *Central - Carroll (MWC) 0.800/0.530/0-3, CE#8
    *East - St. John Fisher (E8) .778/.519/1-0, E#4 
    *Great Lakes - Mount Union (OAC)  .654/.546/2-5, GL #7
    *Mid-Atlantic - Swarthmore (CC)  .741/.498/0-3, not ranked
    *Northeast - Eastern Connecticut (LEC) .667/.550/1-4, NE#7
    *South - n/a
    *West - Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, W#3  Pool C #20

    18 again.  One of these years...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 29, 2016, 01:16:12 PM
    18 here, too. (Rochester/NYU)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2016, 01:17:00 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 29, 2016, 01:16:12 PM
    18 here, too. (Rochester/NYU)

    Nicely done!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 29, 2016, 01:22:28 PM
    Thanks everyone for the bracketology...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dcahill44 on February 29, 2016, 01:30:31 PM
    I got 18/19 as well put New Jersey City in over LaGrange and by the sounds of things it was between those two teams for final spot
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 29, 2016, 01:31:49 PM
    So, Q - we were both sort of right on hosting.  They split the middle.  The East, Atlantic and South lost their second host.  South is the one that tends towards your idea that they just picked the most worthy teams overall.  It appears maybe they gave the #1 in each region a host and then split it up after that.

    We'll definitely take that into account for next year.  When we were bracketing last night, we started with two in each region, but even we had to add one in the GL just to make the geography work (especially for Hope).  A very strange year with lots of options.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 01:41:58 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 29, 2016, 01:31:49 PM
    So, Q - we were both sort of right on hosting.  They split the middle.  The East, Atlantic and South lost their second host.  South is the one that tends towards your idea that they just picked the most worthy teams overall.  It appears maybe they gave the #1 in each region a host and then split it up after that.

    We'll definitely take that into account for next year.  When we were bracketing last night, we started with two in each region, but even we had to add one in the GL just to make the geography work (especially for Hope).  A very strange year with lots of options.
    I actually think that the geographic proximity helped TLU this time. The South is actually 2 divisions now, West and East. There is very little crossover.

    Emory looked like the strongest team in the South but TLU had the numbers by week #3.  IMHO, Randolph knocked VWC out. There must have been some very long discussions to put LaGrange on the table ahead of VWC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 29, 2016, 01:50:54 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 01:41:58 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 29, 2016, 01:31:49 PM
    So, Q - we were both sort of right on hosting.  They split the middle.  The East, Atlantic and South lost their second host.  South is the one that tends towards your idea that they just picked the most worthy teams overall.  It appears maybe they gave the #1 in each region a host and then split it up after that.

    We'll definitely take that into account for next year.  When we were bracketing last night, we started with two in each region, but even we had to add one in the GL just to make the geography work (especially for Hope).  A very strange year with lots of options.
    I actually think that the geographic proximity helped TLU this time. The South is actually 2 divisions now, West and East. There is very little crossover.

    Emory looked like the strongest team in the South but TLU had the numbers by week #3.  IMHO, Randolph knocked VWC out. There must have been some very long discussions to put LaGrange on the table ahead of VWC.

    That winning percentage doomed them.  The SOS wasn't that different and LaGrange was a much better candidate.  I feel bad Lynchburg didn't get the host.  Geographically they're right in the sweet spot bridging GL and MA teams - you could really do some fun things with the pods for sectionals if you have them in there.  Oh well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2016, 02:27:37 PM
    VWC had a winning percentage of .667 - squarely on the Mendoza Line in Division III.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 02:31:14 PM
    What type of (UAA) internecine battles occurred with NYU jumping Rochester?

    I wish I could have heard that Regional Ranking Committee discussion.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 29, 2016, 02:38:44 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 02:31:14 PM
    What type of (UAA) internecine battles occurred with NYU jumping Rochester?

    I wish I could have heard that Regional Ranking Committee discussion.
    Not only that, but Oswego St had to have jumped them as well.
    The only other team that got in while someone ahead on the 3rd rankings were left out was LaGrange who jumped Virginia Wesleyan and NC Wesleyan in the South.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on February 29, 2016, 03:03:58 PM
    This may be a string that nobody (else) wants to talk about the day the field is announced...

    But my team's been out since before the new year... so....

    Quote from: John Gleich on February 29, 2016, 02:54:30 PM
    7 of UWSP's 11 Non-con opponents made the field (3-4: Augie (L), Hope (L), Keene St. (W), North Central (L), St. Olaf (W), St. Norbert (W), St. Thomas (L)).

    Adding Oshkosh (1-1), UWSP went 4-5 vs. the field.

    And of Point's 8 NCAA opponents, 3 of them are hosting (St. Norbert, Augustana, and St. Thomas) the first weekend.

    Not bad for a 14-12 team.

    Any other non-field teams have as many opponents or as "good" a record?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 03:40:22 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on February 29, 2016, 03:03:58 PM
    This may be a string that nobody (else) wants to talk about the day the field is announced...

    But my team's been out since before the new year... so....

    Quote from: John Gleich on February 29, 2016, 02:54:30 PM
    7 of UWSP's 11 Non-con opponents made the field (3-4: Augie (L), Hope (L), Keene St. (W), North Central (L), St. Olaf (W), St. Norbert (W), St. Thomas (L)).

    Adding Oshkosh (1-1), UWSP went 4-5 vs. the field.

    And of Point's 8 NCAA opponents, 3 of them are hosting (St. Norbert, Augustana, and St. Thomas) the first weekend.

    Not bad for a 14-12 team.

    Any other non-field teams have as many opponents or as "good" a record?
    Congrats on the great season. I guess that the 10-7 record against teams not in the field has to have the Pointer faithful wondering what if.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2016, 04:27:58 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 03:40:22 PM
    Congrats on the great season. I guess that the 10-7 record against teams not in the field has to have the Pointer faithful wondering what if.

    I have no doubt they are looking themselves in the mirror last year's National Championship plaque and wondering where it all went wrong.  :-[  ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 04:37:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2016, 04:27:58 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 03:40:22 PM
    Congrats on the great season. I guess that the 10-7 record against teams not in the field has to have the Pointer faithful wondering what if.

    I have no doubt they are looking themselves in the mirror last year's National Championship plaque and wondering where it all went wrong.  :-[  ;)
    If the Pointers win the home games against UWW, UWRF and UWO, they are co-champs, and we may be talking a different scenario.

    That makes them 13-4 against the non-field, 17-9 overall, but below the Mendoza line with the first round conference tourney loss to UWO.

    What if unranked UW-Oshkosh goes deep?

    Was the WIAC truly that "down" this season or is it that balanced?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 29, 2016, 04:55:10 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 04:37:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2016, 04:27:58 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 03:40:22 PM
    Congrats on the great season. I guess that the 10-7 record against teams not in the field has to have the Pointer faithful wondering what if.

    I have no doubt they are looking themselves in the mirror last year's National Championship plaque and wondering where it all went wrong.  :-[  ;)
    If the Pointers win the home games against UWW, UWRF and UWO, they are co-champs, and we may be talking a different scenario.

    That makes them 13-4 against the non-field, 17-9 overall, but below the Mendoza line with the first round conference tourney loss to UWO.

    What if unranked UW-Oshkosh goes deep?

    Was the WIAC truly that "down" this season or is it that balanced?
    I'm going to go with little of column A, little of B.  If Stout with an 0-14 conference record can beat the IIAC champ Dubuque on the road and plays every top team in the conference close I think you might have some parity.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2016, 05:10:09 PM
    Definitely down this year. No doubt in my mind.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 29, 2016, 05:28:01 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 04:37:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2016, 04:27:58 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 03:40:22 PM
    Congrats on the great season. I guess that the 10-7 record against teams not in the field has to have the Pointer faithful wondering what if.

    I have no doubt they are looking themselves in the mirror last year's National Championship plaque and wondering where it all went wrong.  :-[  ;)
    If the Pointers win the home games against UWW, UWRF and UWO, they are co-champs, and we may be talking a different scenario.

    That makes them 13-4 against the non-field, 17-9 overall, but below the Mendoza line with the first round conference tourney loss to UWO.

    What if unranked UW-Oshkosh goes deep?

    Was the WIAC truly that "down" this season or is it that balanced?
    I think it has something to do with UW-Superior leaving. Clearly the WIAC couldn't handle their departure ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 05:30:50 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 29, 2016, 05:28:01 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 04:37:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2016, 04:27:58 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 03:40:22 PM
    Congrats on the great season. I guess that the 10-7 record against teams not in the field has to have the Pointer faithful wondering what if.

    I have no doubt they are looking themselves in the mirror last year's National Championship plaque and wondering where it all went wrong.  :-[  ;)
    If the Pointers win the home games against UWW, UWRF and UWO, they are co-champs, and we may be talking a different scenario.

    That makes them 13-4 against the non-field, 17-9 overall, but below the Mendoza line with the first round conference tourney loss to UWO.

    What if unranked UW-Oshkosh goes deep?

    Was the WIAC truly that "down" this season or is it that balanced?
    I think it has something to do with UW-Superior leaving. Clearly the WIAC couldn't handle their departure ;D
    LOL!  +1!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on February 29, 2016, 06:04:16 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 29, 2016, 05:28:01 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 04:37:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2016, 04:27:58 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 03:40:22 PM
    Congrats on the great season. I guess that the 10-7 record against teams not in the field has to have the Pointer faithful wondering what if.

    I have no doubt they are looking themselves in the mirror last year's National Championship plaque and wondering where it all went wrong.  :-[  ;)
    If the Pointers win the home games against UWW, UWRF and UWO, they are co-champs, and we may be talking a different scenario.

    That makes them 13-4 against the non-field, 17-9 overall, but below the Mendoza line with the first round conference tourney loss to UWO.

    What if unranked UW-Oshkosh goes deep?

    Was the WIAC truly that "down" this season or is it that balanced?
    I think it has something to do with UW-Superior leaving. Clearly the WIAC couldn't handle their departure ;D
    What can you expect from a collection of relative UW-Inferiors?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2016, 07:42:00 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 29, 2016, 05:28:01 PM
    I think it has something to do with UW-Superior leaving. Clearly the WIAC couldn't handle their departure ;D

    ;D ;D ;D

    +1k

    I actually joked about the WIAC missing UW-Superior or a comment in a similar capacity. I don't remember when or what I said exactly though...in the WIAC board, of course.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 29, 2016, 08:29:00 PM
    Some final thoughts:

    * I got 18 of the 19 Pool C's.  I missed Oswego and had Rochester in.   The East was a bit of a mess with all the RROs missing Pool A, but I just didn't think the regional committee would move Oswego from #5 to #2, though it makes sense.  OTOH, I really don't get how NYU passes Rochester.  The UAA teams do present a dilemma because without a season-ended tournament, do you treat Rochester as a 8 loss team then?   

    * I like the NCAA bracket better than mine because it isn't as wicked in the Central/Great Lakes.  Moving Marietta into a bracket with a lot of southern teams works well and they used John Carroll and Marietta to mix in a lot of the eastern teams to bring better balance.   That said, they have opened up a possibility of some pretty heavy second weekend travel if there are upsets.  Scranton can't get to Benedictine on a bus, neither can St. Norbert get to John Carroll.  As a fan, I don't care and I like what they did to create a little more balance.

    * I had 14 of the 16 regional hosts right.  The first miss was taking Babson as a host over Tufts.  Personally, that doesn't make sense given the last week's games as Babson took care of business and Tufts, not so much.  The other miss was taking Lynchberg over OWU.  I think Lynchberg might have kept it if they had won their championship game, but I didn't think that they would knock things out of balance that much (only 1 host from South, Atlantic and East and 3 from the Central, Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic.  That said, it did create a better balanced tournament and I'm a fan of that, so I'm cool with it.

    Personally, I think the committee did a great job this year.  I do wonder about the regional committee that took care of the East though and the weirdness around NYU and Rochester.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2016, 11:12:53 PM
    Pool C selections, last 3 years...

    2014 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
    1. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .852/.560/8-3   Midwest #2
    2. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .852/.579/4-2   West #2  *national champion*
    3. Wesley (CAC) - .870/.529/5-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    4. Williams (NESCAC) - .846/.567/4-3   Northeast #2    
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .815/.553/4-4   East #2
    6. Randolph-Macon (ODAC) - .769/.559/4-3   South #1
    7. Babson (NEWMAC) - .769/.567/3-5   Northeast #3
    8. Augustana (CCIW) - .731/.555/5-4   Midwest #4
    9. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .786/.546/3-4   Northeast #4
    10. Geneseo State (SUNYAC) - .769/.554/2-4   East #3
    11. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .815/.536/4-3   West #3
    12. WPI (NEWMAC) - .846/.520/3-1  Northeast #5
    13. Hope (MIAA) - .760/.555/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    14. Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2
    15. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6   Great Lakes #6
    16. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    17. Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    18. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    19. Bowdoin (NESCAC) - .792/.529/1-3   Northeast #7

    2015 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
    1. (GL) Marietta (.893/.519/4-3)
    2. (MA) Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    3. (C) UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4) *national champion*
    4. (C)  Washington U. (.800/.565/4-2)
    5. (GL) Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    6. (NE) Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    7. (NE) Amherst (.741/.579/6-3)
    8. (NE) Bates (.760/.609/4-5)
    9. (AT) William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    10. (GL) Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    11. (C) Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    12. (C) Elmhurst (.731/.551/4-4)
    13. (S) Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    14. (GL) John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    15. (W) St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)
    16. (MA) Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    17. (NE) Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    18. (NE) WPI (.808/.515/2-3)
    19. (NE) Springfield (.704/.584/3-5)

    2016 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
    1. St. Thomas (MIAC) .889/.564 (not updated)/11-1, W#1
    2. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.556/5-3, GL#1
    3. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    4. Amherst (NESCAC) .815/.564/5-2, NE#1
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.552/4-3, EA#1
    6. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    7. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    8. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    9. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.561/3-5, NE#3
    10. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.543/3-5, CE#5
    11. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    12. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    13. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.563/2-5, NE#2
    14. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
    15. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4   
    16. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6
    17. Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, W#3
    18. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    19. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3


    Out of 57 selections...

    * Only one team with a sub-.700 WP has been selected - Emory in 2014.

    * Only four teams with SOS lower than .510 have been selected - Hope in 2016 (.504), Catholic in 2015 (.506), Whitman in 2016 (.509), and NYU in 2016 (.509).

    * Only two teams have been selected with zero wins vs RRO - Virginia Wesleyan and Eastern Connecticut in 2015.

    * No team has been selected with fewer than two total games played vs RRO.

    * Only four teams have been selected with fewer than four total games played vs RRO - Hope in 2016 (2), Eastern Connecticut in 2015 (2), Whitman in 2016 (3), Dickinson in 2014 (3).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2016, 11:34:50 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 29, 2016, 08:29:00 PM
    * I like the NCAA bracket better than mine because it isn't as wicked in the Central/Great Lakes.  Moving Marietta into a bracket with a lot of southern teams works well and they used John Carroll and Marietta to mix in a lot of the eastern teams to bring better balance.   That said, they have opened up a possibility of some pretty heavy second weekend travel if there are upsets.  Scranton can't get to Benedictine on a bus, neither can St. Norbert get to John Carroll.  As a fan, I don't care and I like what they did to create a little more balance.

    * I had 14 of the 16 regional hosts right.  The first miss was taking Babson as a host over Tufts.  Personally, that doesn't make sense given the last week's games as Babson took care of business and Tufts, not so much.  The other miss was taking Lynchberg over OWU.  I think Lynchberg might have kept it if they had won their championship game, but I didn't think that they would knock things out of balance that much (only 1 host from South, Atlantic and East and 3 from the Central, Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic.  That said, it did create a better balanced tournament and I'm a fan of that, so I'm cool with it.

    Personally, I think the committee did a great job this year.  I do wonder about the regional committee that took care of the East though and the weirdness around NYU and Rochester.

    I liked the NCAA's bracket this year as well for the most part. I told someone I gave it an A-.

    Couple of things that were interesting to hear from Brian Van Haaften on Hoopsville today (archive available)...

    - the committee he says is sliding away form the two top seeds in the regions all hosting and making sure one of them hosts and then the top teams remaining host. This was something that hadn't registered with me in the past, but struck a chord with me this year. We have been hearing for a year or two now how they are "seeding" the top 16 teams around the country so they can bracket better. That shows in the bracketing and now it becomes more obvious in the hosting. That will be something I will hold on to moving forward.

    - I am not sure Lynchburg would have hosted. We know there weren't going to be a lot of team they could get to Lynchburg of the teams who were left without causing some headaches. I have also sensed the committee is sliding back to being okay with geographical hosts of four-team pods instead of top-seeded hosts. You might remember this was a significant hurdle in my interview with Steve Ulrich two years ago when Steve made it sound like the committee did NOT like geographical hosts in the first weekend - but wanted to reward the top seeds. I feel the committee has moved from that point of view for varying reasons.

    - per the travel equation in the second weekend... I think the NCAA is trusting the men's committee more and allowing them some latitude. Yes, upsets can cause problems, but the men have been very good with mileage and travel for a number of years. I think the NCAA is giving them some movement as long as it isn't too extreme or too often. The women actually got in a similar situation a few years ago when CNU upset Ferrum and instead of the next weekend going to Thomas More with at least one bus, no one could get to anyone with 500 miles - they all headed to George Fox as a result. It seems the NCAA will allow some flexibility as long as the committee isn't taking advantage of it. Trust me, the NCAA looks things through and has always forced other decisions based on the potential of flights even to this day.

    - That all being said... no one said there can't be a middle ground with these brackets. We have seen the #1 RR St. Mary's and #1 RR Middlebury be too far from each other so it ended up in much-lower-ranked Rochester instead. But certainly, if Scranton wins we have an interesting situation on our hands. LOL

    - Per the East Region. I have actually seen a lot of the national committee making changes in that regional throughout the ranking "season." I can tell you, it finished: Plattsburgh, Oswego, NYU, Rochester, SJF (forgetting final team). I can't remember if the national committee made a change BEFORE the final vRRO numbers were run, but I think they adjusted after that happened. The part for Rochester that hurt, they lost early season games and NYU didn't. When comparing the Rochester wins to NYU's wins - both out of conference - they are about equal.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2016, 12:17:24 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2016, 11:34:50 PM

    - I am not sure Lynchburg would have hosted. We know there weren't going to be a lot of team they could get to Lynchburg of the teams who were left without causing some headaches. I have also sensed the committee is sliding back to being okay with geographical hosts of four-team pods instead of top-seeded hosts. You might remember this was a significant hurdle in my interview with Steve Ulrich two years ago when Steve made it sound like the committee did NOT like geographical hosts in the first weekend - but wanted to reward the top seeds. I feel the committee has moved from that point of view for varying reasons.

    I agree with your point on geographical hosts, but Lynchburg is actually not a difficult place geographically.  We included them in the mock and pretty much every team in the Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic and most of the Great Lakes can get there under 500.  They really didn't choose hosts for geographic reasons this year (other than Emory and Whitworth).  Susquehanna, St. Norbert, and Ohio Wesleyan got to host because they earned it.

    I like the compromise - trying to guarantee one host in each region and then moving as necessary.  The East and Atlantic didn't deserve two hosts and it's good for the committee to not try and shoehorn those in.

    I'd like to see them be a little more creative crossing regions (although I do recognize there are probably second weekend considerations there) and I think a Lynchburg pod could've helped with that, but I agree: solid A-.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2016, 12:46:57 AM
    I know Lynchburg CAN host... I am saying considering what they had in the south for teams, I don't think the Lynchburg host worked for the committee. Personally, having done my fair share of bracketing.. I think sometimes we go for "pipe dreams" over reality too often.

    I would agree I wouldn't mind seeing a little more cross region play, but I also know that is their goal... I think sometimes they just get stuck with too many teams and not ways to shift people around. Pat and I said on the show today, the second weekend scenarios which are SO hard for us to hash out on little sleep are usually the biggest restrictive scenarios. I know the NCAA has stopped bracketing plans for the "what ifs." They clearly will allow the risks here and there, but for everyone we see allowed I am sure there are dozens not allowed.

    I had less to complain about on this bracket then I can remember in some time. Honestly, the last few years have been great.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on March 01, 2016, 02:10:55 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 29, 2016, 11:34:50 PM

    - Per the East Region. I have actually seen a lot of the national committee making changes in that regional throughout the ranking "season." I can tell you, it finished: Plattsburgh, Oswego, NYU, Rochester, SJF  (forgetting final team). I can't remember if the national committee made a change BEFORE the final vRRO numbers were run, but I think they adjusted after that happened. The part for Rochester that hurt, they lost early season games and NYU didn't. When comparing the Rochester wins to NYU's wins - both out of conference - they are about equal.

    Cortland State, the SUNYAC champs.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2016, 08:27:30 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2016, 12:46:57 AM
    I know Lynchburg CAN host... I am saying considering what they had in the south for teams, I don't think the Lynchburg host worked for the committee. Personally, having done my fair share of bracketing.. I think sometimes we go for "pipe dreams" over reality too often.

    I would agree I wouldn't mind seeing a little more cross region play, but I also know that is their goal... I think sometimes they just get stuck with too many teams and not ways to shift people around. Pat and I said on the show today, the second weekend scenarios which are SO hard for us to hash out on little sleep are usually the biggest restrictive scenarios. I know the NCAA has stopped bracketing plans for the "what ifs." They clearly will allow the risks here and there, but for everyone we see allowed I am sure there are dozens not allowed.

    I had less to complain about on this bracket then I can remember in some time. Honestly, the last few years have been great.

    Yeah.  It's usually the second round consideration that makes it difficult.  We tend to bracket with a mind towards just the top one or two teams from each pod getting out; I think they go farther than that.  Our projected bracket this year worked geographically for the hosts in each quadrant, but could've been difficult if there were some upsets.  They're being practical, which is sort of what they're forced to do.

    The best move would've been to put the OWU pod in the top right, Marietta in the top left and fly the whitworth winner to the east coast.  But, it was all thrown off because Marietta is exactly 500.0 miles from Benedictine and thus about 150 yards too far to drive.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2016, 09:12:04 AM
    Good stuff, Bob. +1k

    It'll be interesting if Pool C can make it 3 years in a row and bring home the Walnut and Bronze.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 01, 2016, 09:18:42 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 08:27:30 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2016, 12:46:57 AM
    I know Lynchburg CAN host... I am saying considering what they had in the south for teams, I don't think the Lynchburg host worked for the committee. Personally, having done my fair share of bracketing.. I think sometimes we go for "pipe dreams" over reality too often.

    I would agree I wouldn't mind seeing a little more cross region play, but I also know that is their goal... I think sometimes they just get stuck with too many teams and not ways to shift people around. Pat and I said on the show today, the second weekend scenarios which are SO hard for us to hash out on little sleep are usually the biggest restrictive scenarios. I know the NCAA has stopped bracketing plans for the "what ifs." They clearly will allow the risks here and there, but for everyone we see allowed I am sure there are dozens not allowed.

    I had less to complain about on this bracket then I can remember in some time. Honestly, the last few years have been great.

    Yeah.  It's usually the second round consideration that makes it difficult.  We tend to bracket with a mind towards just the top one or two teams from each pod getting out; I think they go farther than that.  Our projected bracket this year worked geographically for the hosts in each quadrant, but could've been difficult if there were some upsets.  They're being practical, which is sort of what they're forced to do.

    The best move would've been to put the OWU pod in the top right, Marietta in the top left and fly the whitworth winner to the east coast. But, it was all thrown off because Marietta is exactly 500.0 miles from Benedictine and thus about 150 yards too far to drive.
    I see it at 502 miles which is about 3500 yards too far
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2016, 10:36:33 AM
    Moving to 64 teams next year (and eliminating byes) will, in all likelihood, necessitate more flights in the first round.

    Do we think that will make the bracketing process more restrictive (must prevent 2nd weekend flights at all costs) or more flexible (can use those flights to mix teams around)?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2016, 11:15:06 AM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 01, 2016, 09:18:42 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 08:27:30 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2016, 12:46:57 AM
    I know Lynchburg CAN host... I am saying considering what they had in the south for teams, I don't think the Lynchburg host worked for the committee. Personally, having done my fair share of bracketing.. I think sometimes we go for "pipe dreams" over reality too often.

    I would agree I wouldn't mind seeing a little more cross region play, but I also know that is their goal... I think sometimes they just get stuck with too many teams and not ways to shift people around. Pat and I said on the show today, the second weekend scenarios which are SO hard for us to hash out on little sleep are usually the biggest restrictive scenarios. I know the NCAA has stopped bracketing plans for the "what ifs." They clearly will allow the risks here and there, but for everyone we see allowed I am sure there are dozens not allowed.

    I had less to complain about on this bracket then I can remember in some time. Honestly, the last few years have been great.

    Yeah.  It's usually the second round consideration that makes it difficult.  We tend to bracket with a mind towards just the top one or two teams from each pod getting out; I think they go farther than that.  Our projected bracket this year worked geographically for the hosts in each quadrant, but could've been difficult if there were some upsets.  They're being practical, which is sort of what they're forced to do.

    The best move would've been to put the OWU pod in the top right, Marietta in the top left and fly the whitworth winner to the east coast. But, it was all thrown off because Marietta is exactly 500.0 miles from Benedictine and thus about 150 yards too far to drive.
    I see it at 502 miles which is about 3500 yards too far

    THe official calculation.  https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2016, 11:20:30 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2016, 10:36:33 AM
    Moving to 64 teams next year (and eliminating byes) will, in all likelihood, necessitate more flights in the first round.

    Do we think that will make the bracketing process more restrictive (must prevent 2nd weekend flights at all costs) or more flexible (can use those flights to mix teams around)?

    They're pretty restrictive already.  I mean if CNU, Wooster, Keene, and Oswego made the Sweet Sixteen they'd have to fly CNU somewhere, but that's pretty darn unlikely.  You might have to fly Scranton somewhere if they get through, but for the most part it would be tough to get to a point where you'd have an extra flight in this bracket.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2016, 11:22:56 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 11:15:06 AM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 01, 2016, 09:18:42 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 08:27:30 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2016, 12:46:57 AM
    I know Lynchburg CAN host... I am saying considering what they had in the south for teams, I don't think the Lynchburg host worked for the committee. Personally, having done my fair share of bracketing.. I think sometimes we go for "pipe dreams" over reality too often.

    I would agree I wouldn't mind seeing a little more cross region play, but I also know that is their goal... I think sometimes they just get stuck with too many teams and not ways to shift people around. Pat and I said on the show today, the second weekend scenarios which are SO hard for us to hash out on little sleep are usually the biggest restrictive scenarios. I know the NCAA has stopped bracketing plans for the "what ifs." They clearly will allow the risks here and there, but for everyone we see allowed I am sure there are dozens not allowed.

    I had less to complain about on this bracket then I can remember in some time. Honestly, the last few years have been great.

    Yeah.  It's usually the second round consideration that makes it difficult.  We tend to bracket with a mind towards just the top one or two teams from each pod getting out; I think they go farther than that.  Our projected bracket this year worked geographically for the hosts in each quadrant, but could've been difficult if there were some upsets.  They're being practical, which is sort of what they're forced to do.

    The best move would've been to put the OWU pod in the top right, Marietta in the top left and fly the whitworth winner to the east coast. But, it was all thrown off because Marietta is exactly 500.0 miles from Benedictine and thus about 150 yards too far to drive.
    I see it at 502 miles which is about 3500 yards too far

    THe official calculation.  https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

    It lists 500 miles in one direction and 502 in the other.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2016, 11:26:55 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2016, 11:22:56 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 11:15:06 AM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 01, 2016, 09:18:42 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 08:27:30 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2016, 12:46:57 AM
    I know Lynchburg CAN host... I am saying considering what they had in the south for teams, I don't think the Lynchburg host worked for the committee. Personally, having done my fair share of bracketing.. I think sometimes we go for "pipe dreams" over reality too often.

    I would agree I wouldn't mind seeing a little more cross region play, but I also know that is their goal... I think sometimes they just get stuck with too many teams and not ways to shift people around. Pat and I said on the show today, the second weekend scenarios which are SO hard for us to hash out on little sleep are usually the biggest restrictive scenarios. I know the NCAA has stopped bracketing plans for the "what ifs." They clearly will allow the risks here and there, but for everyone we see allowed I am sure there are dozens not allowed.

    I had less to complain about on this bracket then I can remember in some time. Honestly, the last few years have been great.

    Yeah.  It's usually the second round consideration that makes it difficult.  We tend to bracket with a mind towards just the top one or two teams from each pod getting out; I think they go farther than that.  Our projected bracket this year worked geographically for the hosts in each quadrant, but could've been difficult if there were some upsets.  They're being practical, which is sort of what they're forced to do.

    The best move would've been to put the OWU pod in the top right, Marietta in the top left and fly the whitworth winner to the east coast. But, it was all thrown off because Marietta is exactly 500.0 miles from Benedictine and thus about 150 yards too far to drive.
    I see it at 502 miles which is about 3500 yards too far

    THe official calculation.  https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

    It lists 500 miles in one direction and 502 in the other.

    Wow.  Thanks for bringing that up.  I thought it was a standard measure.  I'll have to be more careful about the way I use that tool in the future.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2016, 12:24:13 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2016, 11:22:56 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 11:15:06 AM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 01, 2016, 09:18:42 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 08:27:30 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2016, 12:46:57 AM
    I know Lynchburg CAN host... I am saying considering what they had in the south for teams, I don't think the Lynchburg host worked for the committee. Personally, having done my fair share of bracketing.. I think sometimes we go for "pipe dreams" over reality too often.

    I would agree I wouldn't mind seeing a little more cross region play, but I also know that is their goal... I think sometimes they just get stuck with too many teams and not ways to shift people around. Pat and I said on the show today, the second weekend scenarios which are SO hard for us to hash out on little sleep are usually the biggest restrictive scenarios. I know the NCAA has stopped bracketing plans for the "what ifs." They clearly will allow the risks here and there, but for everyone we see allowed I am sure there are dozens not allowed.

    I had less to complain about on this bracket then I can remember in some time. Honestly, the last few years have been great.

    Yeah.  It's usually the second round consideration that makes it difficult.  We tend to bracket with a mind towards just the top one or two teams from each pod getting out; I think they go farther than that.  Our projected bracket this year worked geographically for the hosts in each quadrant, but could've been difficult if there were some upsets.  They're being practical, which is sort of what they're forced to do.

    The best move would've been to put the OWU pod in the top right, Marietta in the top left and fly the whitworth winner to the east coast. But, it was all thrown off because Marietta is exactly 500.0 miles from Benedictine and thus about 150 yards too far to drive.
    I see it at 502 miles which is about 3500 yards too far

    THe official calculation.  https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

    It lists 500 miles in one direction and 502 in the other.

    It's actually the same distance, but because the earth is moving about its axis, the length dilation in one direction causes it to be shorter than it really is.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2016, 12:47:42 PM
    Quote from: bopol on March 01, 2016, 12:24:13 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2016, 11:22:56 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 11:15:06 AM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 01, 2016, 09:18:42 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 08:27:30 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2016, 12:46:57 AM
    I know Lynchburg CAN host... I am saying considering what they had in the south for teams, I don't think the Lynchburg host worked for the committee. Personally, having done my fair share of bracketing.. I think sometimes we go for "pipe dreams" over reality too often.

    I would agree I wouldn't mind seeing a little more cross region play, but I also know that is their goal... I think sometimes they just get stuck with too many teams and not ways to shift people around. Pat and I said on the show today, the second weekend scenarios which are SO hard for us to hash out on little sleep are usually the biggest restrictive scenarios. I know the NCAA has stopped bracketing plans for the "what ifs." They clearly will allow the risks here and there, but for everyone we see allowed I am sure there are dozens not allowed.

    I had less to complain about on this bracket then I can remember in some time. Honestly, the last few years have been great.

    Yeah.  It's usually the second round consideration that makes it difficult.  We tend to bracket with a mind towards just the top one or two teams from each pod getting out; I think they go farther than that.  Our projected bracket this year worked geographically for the hosts in each quadrant, but could've been difficult if there were some upsets.  They're being practical, which is sort of what they're forced to do.

    The best move would've been to put the OWU pod in the top right, Marietta in the top left and fly the whitworth winner to the east coast. But, it was all thrown off because Marietta is exactly 500.0 miles from Benedictine and thus about 150 yards too far to drive.
    I see it at 502 miles which is about 3500 yards too far

    THe official calculation.  https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

    It lists 500 miles in one direction and 502 in the other.

    It's actually the same distance, but because the earth is moving about its axis, the length dilation in one direction causes it to be shorter than it really is.

    Yeah, crazy how that works.  Mt. St. Joseph can't drive to St. Norbert, but St. Norbert could drive the other direction.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2016, 12:49:47 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 08:27:30 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2016, 12:46:57 AM
    I know Lynchburg CAN host... I am saying considering what they had in the south for teams, I don't think the Lynchburg host worked for the committee. Personally, having done my fair share of bracketing.. I think sometimes we go for "pipe dreams" over reality too often.

    I would agree I wouldn't mind seeing a little more cross region play, but I also know that is their goal... I think sometimes they just get stuck with too many teams and not ways to shift people around. Pat and I said on the show today, the second weekend scenarios which are SO hard for us to hash out on little sleep are usually the biggest restrictive scenarios. I know the NCAA has stopped bracketing plans for the "what ifs." They clearly will allow the risks here and there, but for everyone we see allowed I am sure there are dozens not allowed.

    I had less to complain about on this bracket then I can remember in some time. Honestly, the last few years have been great.

    Yeah.  It's usually the second round consideration that makes it difficult.  We tend to bracket with a mind towards just the top one or two teams from each pod getting out; I think they go farther than that.  Our projected bracket this year worked geographically for the hosts in each quadrant, but could've been difficult if there were some upsets.  They're being practical, which is sort of what they're forced to do.

    The best move would've been to put the OWU pod in the top right, Marietta in the top left and fly the whitworth winner to the east coast.  But, it was all thrown off because Marietta is exactly 500.0 miles from Benedictine and thus about 150 yards too far to drive.

    They absolutely look at far more options than just the top two teams. Seen and heard that on many occasions.

    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 11:26:55 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2016, 11:22:56 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2016, 11:15:06 AM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 01, 2016, 09:18:42 AM
    I see it at 502 miles which is about 3500 yards too far

    THe official calculation.  https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

    It lists 500 miles in one direction and 502 in the other.

    Wow.  Thanks for bringing that up.  I thought it was a standard measure.  I'll have to be more careful about the way I use that tool in the future.

    Yeah - this happens often, actually. You have to make sure to go from which school you think is traveling to the one that hosts. It actually caused a major problem in women's basketball a few years ago. I think Marymount and Muhlenberg or Albright were playing each other and because the game was in PA it was two miles over the 200-mile threshold that considered it a regional game (tighter restrictions on regional games at the time - 70% rule wasn't in affect). If the game had been played at Marymount, it would have been fine. Sometimes the trips in one direction or another can alter the mileage slightly.

    Quote from: KnightSlappy on March 01, 2016, 10:36:33 AM
    Moving to 64 teams next year (and eliminating byes) will, in all likelihood, necessitate more flights in the first round.

    Do we think that will make the bracketing process more restrictive (must prevent 2nd weekend flights at all costs) or more flexible (can use those flights to mix teams around)?

    Watching the women over the last few years can give us hints. There are times they are restrictive (i.e. this year making sure Maryville hosted because it made geographical sense) and other years where they have had some flexibility (NCAA approved a bracket where a CNU upset forced three teams to fly to whatever team was going to host - George Fox that year) where they might not have approved it another year.

    I think it will open up other hosts and flexibility with geographical hosting in the first round. I know the committee this year was hoping ETBU would make the tournament because then they could get BSC to ETBU and TLU to ETBU and fly in Emory to round out the pod (despite the fact TLU clearly was regionally ranked better than ETBU).

    If Whitworth keeps winning, the committee is either going to be forced to fly two teams to Whitworth, or Whitworth may lose the chance to host opening weekends if there isn't another NWC team in the mix (fly Whitworth and a Cali team out or fly three teams in - easy decision in the eyes of the NCAA). However, I think it will open up the chances of Whitworth hosting the second weeekend because the committee may find themselves with no choice (i.e. the women's example). Not a ton more chances, but a better chance.

    So, I think it will be a mixed bag. More creative bracketing with geographical hosts on pods with teams bussed in; Whitworth maybe losing first weekend hosts, but picking up second weekend hosts; each year may be different.

    Another factor, Division III has taken extra steps to try and shore up the budget and increase funding. That will help at least keep the bracket from being locked down to the fullest possible way, but they are still looking to free up money (like moving selection announcements back to Sundays to free up more time to book travel for teams). This is a fluid situation that will continue to change, I suspect.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 01, 2016, 01:16:48 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 29, 2016, 11:12:53 PM
    Pool C selections, last 3 years...

    2014 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
    1. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .852/.560/8-3   Midwest #2
    2. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .852/.579/4-2   West #2  *national champion*
    3. Wesley (CAC) - .870/.529/5-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    4. Williams (NESCAC) - .846/.567/4-3   Northeast #2    
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .815/.553/4-4   East #2
    6. Randolph-Macon (ODAC) - .769/.559/4-3   South #1
    7. Babson (NEWMAC) - .769/.567/3-5   Northeast #3
    8. Augustana (CCIW) - .731/.555/5-4   Midwest #4
    9. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .786/.546/3-4   Northeast #4
    10. Geneseo State (SUNYAC) - .769/.554/2-4   East #3
    11. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .815/.536/4-3   West #3
    12. WPI (NEWMAC) - .846/.520/3-1  Northeast #5
    13. Hope (MIAA) - .760/.555/2-4   Great Lakes #2  [/i]
    14. Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2
    15. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6   Great Lakes #6
    16. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    17. Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    18. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    19. Bowdoin (NESCAC) - .792/.529/1-3   Northeast #7

    2015 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
    1. (GL) Marietta (.893/.519/4-3)
    2. (MA) Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    3. (C) UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4) *national champion*  (tied with WW, not sure who had #1 WIAC seed going into WIAC tournament)
    4. (C)  Washington U. (.800/.565/4-2)
    5. (GL) Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    6. (NE) Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    7. (NE) Amherst (.741/.579/6-3)
    8. (NE) Bates (.760/.609/4-5)
    9. (AT) William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    10. (GL) Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    11. (C) Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    12. (C) Elmhurst (.731/.551/4-4)
    13. (S) Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    14. (GL) John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    15. (W) St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)
    16. (MA) Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    17. (NE) Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    18. (NE) WPI (.808/.515/2-3)
    19. (NE) Springfield (.704/.584/3-5)

    2016 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
    1. St. Thomas (MIAC) .889/.564 (not updated)/11-1, W#1
    2. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.556/5-3, GL#1
    3. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    4. Amherst (NESCAC) .815/.564/5-2, NE#1
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.552/4-3, EA#1
    6. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    7. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    8. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    9. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.561/3-5, NE#3
    10. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.543/3-5, CE#5
    11. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    12. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    13. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.563/2-5, NE#2
    14. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
    15. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4   
    16. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6
    17. Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, W#3
    18. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    19. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3


    Out of 57 selections...

    * Only one team with a sub-.700 WP has been selected - Emory in 2014.

    * Only four teams with SOS lower than .510 have been selected - Hope in 2016 (.504), Catholic in 2015 (.506), Whitman in 2016 (.509), and NYU in 2016 (.509).

    * Only two teams have been selected with zero wins vs RRO - Virginia Wesleyan and Eastern Connecticut in 2015.

    * No team has been selected with fewer than two total games played vs RRO.

    * Only four teams have been selected with fewer than four total games played vs RRO - Hope in 2016 (2), Eastern Connecticut in 2015 (2), Whitman in 2016 (3), Dickinson in 2014 (3).


    Bold teams are regular season conference Champions who lost their tournament and needed a Pool C bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2016, 01:27:22 PM
    Last year, Whitewater was the #1 seed in the WIAC tourney and Point was #2 as both finished 15-1. Whitewater won the coin flip.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on March 02, 2016, 09:25:55 AM
    Did a quick comparison of the Top 25 versus the Pool C picks because I was simply curious to see how they are alike and different.  I understand they are two completely different methods of evaluating teams, but it is still interesting (at least to me).


    Pool C Order     School   Top 25   Votes      Massey
    1     St. Thomas   8   417      5
    2     Marietta   6   475      7
    3     Susquehanna   19   164      19
    4     Amherst   15   271      25
    5     Plattsburgh State   23   87      22
    6     Salisbury   24   67      18
    7     Ohio Wesleyan   10   385      13
    8     North Central   17   244      6
    9     Tufts   20   139      32
    10     Elmhurst   18   242      9
    11     Wooster   ORV   3      21
    12     Oswego State   -   0      52
    13     Trinity   ORV   11      53
    14     WPI   ORV   13      83
    15     Hope   9   412      8
    16     LaGrange   -   0      57
    17     Whitman   11   337      15
    18     Scranton   ORV   6      41
    19     New York University   ORV   22      24

    EDIT - added Massey as well
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on March 03, 2016, 04:33:13 PM
    As in most sports polls, voters in the D3 Top 25 value winning percentage much more than strength of schedule.  This is also true in the D1 basketball & football polls, at least when considering teams within "power" conferences.  By comparison, Pool C selections seem to value both WP & SOS significantly. 

    The Pool C teams that were selected earlier than would be expected based on their poll ranking had strong schedules but more losses (average WP .809 and SOS .556 among this group)
    Susquehanna (.840/.554)
    Plattsburgh St (.808/.552)
    Salisbury (.778/.562)
    Wooster (.741/.563)
    Oswego St (.714/.552)

    The Pool C teams selected later than expected based on ranking had rather weak schedules (WP .851, SOS .507)
    Hope (.913/.504)
    Whitman (.840/.509)
    NYU (.800/.509)

    This is true even more among ranked teams who would have been on the bubble (or out) had they not won their conference tournaments (WP .914, SOS .479)
    Franklin & Marshall (.815/.519)
    Johnson & Wales (.926/.479)
    Lancaster Bible (1.000/.439)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 16, 2016, 11:48:17 AM
    Pool C teams

    1st Round
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Scranton
    North Central (IL)
    Amherst
    WPI
    Susquehanna
    Plattsburgh St.
    Trinity
    Tufts
    Hope
    La Grange
    St. Thomas
    Elmhurst
    Whitman
    NYU
    Salisbury
    Marietta
    Oswego St.
    Wooster
    Record 10-9

    No Pool C teams played each other

    2nd Round
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Amherst
    Susquehanna
    Tufts
    Hope
    *St. Thomas
    *Elmhurst
    Whitman
    Oswego St.
    Wooster
    Record 7-3

    St. Thomas beat Elmhurst (both Pool C)

    3rd Round
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Amherst
    Tufts
    *St. Thomas
    *Whitman
    *Oswego St.
    *Wooster
    Record 4-3

    St. Thomas beat Whitman (both Pool C)
    Wooster beat Oswego St (both Pool C)

    4th Round
    *Amherst
    *Tufts
    St. Thomas
    Wooster
    Record 2-2

    Amhesrt beat Tufts (both Pool C)

    23-17

    Semis
    Benedictine  (Pool A) vs Amherst (Pool C)
    CNU ( Pool A) vs St. Thomas (Pool C)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on March 16, 2016, 05:40:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 16, 2016, 11:48:17 AM



    23-17   (.575)

    Outcome versus non-Pool C 19-13 (.594)

    Semis
    Benedictine  (Pool A) vs Amherst (Pool C)
    CNU ( Pool A) vs St. Thomas (Pool C)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: David Collinge on March 16, 2016, 07:26:56 PM
    Maybe I'm just stupid, but what do the asterisks signify?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: pg04 on March 16, 2016, 07:36:19 PM
    I think it signifies Pool C teams that played each other during that round (below each round it shows the game(s))
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 20, 2016, 05:49:00 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 16, 2016, 11:48:17 AM
    Pool C teams

    1st Round
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Scranton
    North Central (IL)
    Amherst
    WPI
    Susquehanna
    Plattsburgh St.
    Trinity
    Tufts
    Hope
    La Grange
    St. Thomas
    Elmhurst
    Whitman
    NYU
    Salisbury
    Marietta
    Oswego St.
    Wooster
    Record 10-9

    No Pool C teams played each other

    2nd Round
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Amherst
    Susquehanna
    Tufts
    Hope
    *St. Thomas
    *Elmhurst
    Whitman
    Oswego St.
    Wooster
    Record 7-3

    St. Thomas beat Elmhurst (both Pool C)

    3rd Round
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Amherst
    Tufts
    *St. Thomas
    *Whitman
    *Oswego St.
    *Wooster
    Record 4-3

    St. Thomas beat Whitman (both Pool C)
    Wooster beat Oswego St (both Pool C)

    4th Round
    *Amherst
    *Tufts
    St. Thomas
    Wooster
    Record 2-2

    Amhesrt beat Tufts (both Pool C)

    23-17

    Semis
    Benedictine  (Pool A) vs Amherst (Pool C)
    CNU ( Pool A) vs St. Thomas (Pool C)

    Pool C goes 2-1 at the Final Four and claims the Walnut and Bronze
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 20, 2016, 07:14:45 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 20, 2016, 05:49:00 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 16, 2016, 11:48:17 AM
    Pool C teams

    1st Round
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Scranton
    North Central (IL)
    Amherst
    WPI
    Susquehanna
    Plattsburgh St.
    Trinity
    Tufts
    Hope
    La Grange
    St. Thomas
    Elmhurst
    Whitman
    NYU
    Salisbury
    Marietta
    Oswego St.
    Wooster
    Record 10-9

    No Pool C teams played each other

    2nd Round
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Amherst
    Susquehanna
    Tufts
    Hope
    *St. Thomas
    *Elmhurst
    Whitman
    Oswego St.
    Wooster
    Record 7-3

    St. Thomas beat Elmhurst (both Pool C)

    3rd Round
    Ohio Wesleyan
    Amherst
    Tufts
    *St. Thomas
    *Whitman
    *Oswego St.
    *Wooster
    Record 4-3

    St. Thomas beat Whitman (both Pool C)
    Wooster beat Oswego St (both Pool C)

    4th Round
    *Amherst
    *Tufts
    St. Thomas
    Wooster
    Record 2-2

    Amhesrt beat Tufts (both Pool C)

    23-17

    Semis
    Benedictine  (Pool A) vs Amherst (Pool C)
    CNU ( Pool A) vs St. Thomas (Pool C)

    Pool C goes 2-1 at the Final Four and claims the Walnut and Bronze

    This was the barely-est Pool C of all time, I think.  They went from #1 overall seed to #1 Pool C selection with one game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 20, 2016, 07:19:39 PM
    The last 3 national champions have come from Pool C (my personal projection of the Pool C order as of Selection Sunday each year)...

    2014 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
    1. Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) - .852/.560/8-3   Midwest #2
    2. UW-Whitewater (WIAC) - .852/.579/4-2   West #2  *national champion*
    3. Wesley (CAC) - .870/.529/5-0   Mid-Atlantic #3
    4. Williams (NESCAC) - .846/.567/4-3   Northeast #2    
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) - .815/.553/4-4   East #2
    6. Randolph-Macon (ODAC) - .769/.559/4-3   South #1
    7. Babson (NEWMAC) - .769/.567/3-5   Northeast #3
    8. Augustana (CCIW) - .731/.555/5-4   Midwest #4
    9. Eastern Connecticut (LEC) - .786/.546/3-4   Northeast #4
    10. Geneseo State (SUNYAC) - .769/.554/2-4   East #3
    11. St. Thomas (MIAC) - .815/.536/4-3   West #3
    12. WPI (NEWMAC) - .846/.520/3-1  Northeast #5
    13. Hope (MIAA) - .760/.555/2-4   Great Lakes #2 
    14. Emory (UAA) - .680/.591/4-5  South #2
    15. Wittenberg (NCAC) - .750/.530/3-6   Great Lakes #6
    16. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) - .741/.541/3-5   Great Lakes #7
    17. Dickinson (CC) - .778/.529/2-1   Mid-Atlantic #4
    18. Springfield (NEWMAC) - .731/.567/2-4   Northeast #6   
    19. Bowdoin (NESCAC) - .792/.529/1-3   Northeast #7

    2015 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
    1. (GL) Marietta (.893/.519/4-3)
    2. (MA) Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    3. (C) UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4) *national champion*
    4. (C)  Washington U. (.800/.565/4-2)
    5. (GL) Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    6. (NE) Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    7. (NE) Amherst (.741/.579/6-3)
    8. (NE) Bates (.760/.609/4-5)
    9. (AT) William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    10. (GL) Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    11. (C) Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    12. (C) Elmhurst (.731/.551/4-4)
    13. (S) Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    14. (GL) John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    15. (W) St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)
    16. (MA) Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    17. (NE) Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    18. (NE) WPI (.808/.515/2-3)
    19. (NE) Springfield (.704/.584/3-5)

    2016 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
    1. St. Thomas (MIAC) .889/.564 (not updated)/11-1, W#1 *national champion*
    2. Marietta (OAC) 0.893/0.556/5-3, GL#1
    3. Susquehanna (LAND) 0.840/0.554/4-3, MA#2
    4. Amherst (NESCAC) .815/.564/5-2, NE#1
    5. Plattsburgh State (SUNYAC) 0.808/0.552/4-3, EA#1
    6. Salisbury (CAC) 0.778/0.562/4-3, MA#3
    7. Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC) 0.852/0.525/3-2, GL#2
    8. North Central (CCIW) 0.720/0.600/3-7, CE#4
    9. Tufts (NESCAC) 0.769/0.561/3-5, NE#3
    10. Elmhurst (CCIW) 0.778/0.543/3-5, CE#5
    11. Wooster (NCAC) 0.741/0.563/3-4, GL#6
    12. Oswego State (SUNYAC) 0.714/0.552/6-2, EA#5
    13. Trinity (NESCAC) 0.720/0.563/2-5, NE#2
    14. WPI (NEWMAC) 0.769/0.521/5-3, NE#5
    15. Hope (MIAA) 0.913/0.504/1-1, GL#4   
    16. LaGrange (USAC) 0.708/0.551/3-2, SO#6
    17. Whitman (NWC) 0.840/0.509/1-2, W#3
    18. Scranton (LAND) 0.720/0.556/2-4, MA#5
    19. New York University (UAA) 0.800/0.509/3-3, EA#3


    Out of 57 selections...

    * Only one team with a sub-.700 WP has been selected - Emory in 2014.

    * Only four teams with SOS lower than .510 have been selected - Hope in 2016 (.504), Catholic in 2015 (.506), Whitman in 2016 (.509), and NYU in 2016 (.509).

    * Only two teams have been selected with zero wins vs RRO - Virginia Wesleyan and Eastern Connecticut in 2015.

    * No team has been selected with fewer than two total games played vs RRO.

    * Only four teams have been selected with fewer than four total games played vs RRO - Hope in 2016 (2), Eastern Connecticut in 2015 (2), Whitman in 2016 (3), Dickinson in 2014 (3).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on March 20, 2016, 07:48:59 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 16, 2016, 05:40:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 16, 2016, 11:48:17 AM



    23-17   (.575)

    Outcome versus non-Pool C 19-13 (.594)

    Semis
    Benedictine  (Pool A) vs Amherst (Pool C)
    CNU ( Pool A) vs St. Thomas (Pool C)

    Finals

    Benedictine  (Pool A) vs St. Thomas (Pool C)
    Outcome versus non-Pool C teams 21-14 (.600)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on June 21, 2016, 10:42:05 AM
    Perhaps we will get to see the final (currently secret) regional rankings in future years...

    "After gathering feedback from Division III sport committees, the Championships Committee recommended a trio of changes related to the championships selections and rankings. The committee recommended that results against ranked opponents from the year's third published ranking and the final published ranking be considered in championships selections; that the final rankings be published at the time of championships selections; and that nonconference strength of schedule be included among secondary selection criteria. The Division III Management Council will review these recommendations at its July meeting."

    https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-contest-exemptions-discussed?sf28268459=1 (https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-contest-exemptions-discussed?sf28268459=1)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on June 21, 2016, 12:46:25 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on June 21, 2016, 10:42:05 AM
    Perhaps we will get to see the final (currently secret) regional rankings in future years...

    "After gathering feedback from Division III sport committees, the Championships Committee recommended a trio of changes related to the championships selections and rankings. ; that the final rankings be published at the time of championships selections; and that nonconference strength of schedule be included among secondary selection criteria. The Division III Management Council will review these recommendations at its July meeting."

    https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-contest-exemptions-discussed?sf28268459=1 (https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-contest-exemptions-discussed?sf28268459=1)

    The non-conference SOS part would be the most significant change. 



    "The committee recommended that results against ranked opponents from the year's third published ranking and the final published ranking be considered in championships selections"

    This might actually create more confusion as the rankings change from week 2 to 3 by adding a criteria that wasn't taken into account the week before.  :-\
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on June 21, 2016, 04:17:27 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on June 21, 2016, 10:42:05 AM
    Perhaps we will get to see the final (currently secret) regional rankings in future years...

    "After gathering feedback from Division III sport committees, the Championships Committee recommended a trio of changes related to the championships selections and rankings. The committee recommended that results against ranked opponents from the year's third published ranking and the final published ranking be considered in championships selections; that the final rankings be published at the time of championships selections; and that nonconference strength of schedule be included among secondary selection criteria. The Division III Management Council will review these recommendations at its July meeting."

    https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-contest-exemptions-discussed?sf28268459=1 (https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-contest-exemptions-discussed?sf28268459=1)

    I just do not understand the desire to include these results as separate criteria. Why should we pay particular care to what a team did in a specific subset of games against unranked opponents?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on June 21, 2016, 04:24:37 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on June 21, 2016, 10:42:05 AM
    Perhaps we will get to see the final (currently secret) regional rankings in future years...

    (https://media1.giphy.com/media/WIg8P0VNpgH8Q/200_s.gif)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on June 22, 2016, 02:57:43 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on June 21, 2016, 10:42:05 AM
    Perhaps we will get to see the final (currently secret) regional rankings in future years...

    Knowing the NCAA that'll probably be around the same time that Hell freezes over.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 22, 2016, 08:33:54 AM

    That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 22, 2016, 11:35:17 AM
    Per final regional rankings be released... that might be a good thing if it is now in the hands of the Management Council. There are members on that council who I believe are absolutely for releasing this data. If the Management Council votes that the data and rankings are to be released, then it is no longer up to the individual sport committees. Those committees have been voting each year and the majority do not want the info released. Despite arguments by men's basketball, football, and possibly others, the majority (and last year it was the vast majority) were against it and thus no rankings were released. If the Management Council says they are to be released, those committees have absolutely no choice. That would be a significant step.

    By the way, there isn't anyone in the governorship - eh, except maybe one - or elsewhere that I talk to that doesn't agree that transparency means that information should be released. But because they allow the individual committees to vote on the issue, those who have delicate egos or want to keep from being questioned get to determine things for the entire division. This might be a sign that pressure from outside the NCAA including coaches and administrators has finally pushed this issue past those who are clearly ignorant to what is best for the division and their sport and to a place where this moves forward. I am thrilled to see the Management Council has this in front of them. If this does not pass from their point of view (which includes student-athletes on the committee who I bet would vote for this), then I will be beyond disappointed.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 22, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 22, 2016, 08:33:54 AM

    That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

    This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

    I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 23, 2016, 09:57:05 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 22, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 22, 2016, 08:33:54 AM

    That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

    This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

    I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

    Isn't this what I said to you at Salem?  Now that the first few rankings don't matter for selection, there's no reason not to add that week back again.  I agree it's a great idea.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on June 23, 2016, 01:19:21 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 22, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 22, 2016, 08:33:54 AM

    That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

    This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

    I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

    But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

    We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

    If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on June 23, 2016, 01:20:29 PM
    Results vs. regionally ranked always felt too arbitrary and not as useful as whoever came up with the idea intended. Why not change it to results vs. above .500 (or .600 or whatever winning percentage benchmark is deemed best)?

    Seems to me it accomplishes the same thing in a more tangible way without needing a discussion about once ranked, always ranked or any variation there of.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on June 23, 2016, 02:15:32 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on June 23, 2016, 01:20:29 PM
    Results vs. regionally ranked always felt too arbitrary and not as useful as whoever came up with the idea intended. Why not change it to results vs. above .500 (or .600 or whatever winning percentage benchmark is deemed best)?

    Seems to me it accomplishes the same thing in a more tangible way without needing a discussion about once ranked, always ranked or any variation there of.

    Or just get rid of it entirely since the SOS calculation already gives value to the strength of schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 23, 2016, 04:33:25 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on June 23, 2016, 01:20:29 PM
    Results vs. regionally ranked always felt too arbitrary and not as useful as whoever came up with the idea intended. Why not change it to results vs. above .500 (or .600 or whatever winning percentage benchmark is deemed best)?

    Seems to me it accomplishes the same thing in a more tangible way without needing a discussion about once ranked, always ranked or any variation there of.

    Because people will once again jury rig their schedules like we have seen with older systems that have been done away with to beat teams with significant winning percentages who don't really play significant schedules.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 23, 2016, 04:34:35 PM
    Quote from: HOPEful on June 23, 2016, 02:15:32 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on June 23, 2016, 01:20:29 PM
    Results vs. regionally ranked always felt too arbitrary and not as useful as whoever came up with the idea intended. Why not change it to results vs. above .500 (or .600 or whatever winning percentage benchmark is deemed best)?

    Seems to me it accomplishes the same thing in a more tangible way without needing a discussion about once ranked, always ranked or any variation there of.

    Or just get rid of it entirely since the SOS calculation already gives value to the strength of schedule.

    Not necessarily. Not every SOS is equal just like not every region is equal. You get a better sense of things when looking at more data across regions. If we went straight SOS and didn't understand the bigger picture, we would be screaming until the cows came home about teams who didn't or did get into the tournament who should or shouldn't.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 23, 2016, 04:39:39 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on June 23, 2016, 01:19:21 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 22, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 22, 2016, 08:33:54 AM

    That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

    This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

    I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

    But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

    We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

    If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

    I think looking at who is ranked in the final two weeks is okay. The once-ranked, always-ranked was flawed because teams were rewarded by playing teams ranked early on who should not have been. But there has always been a feeling that having only those on the final rankings doesn't always give an accurate picture either - especially in smaller regions where the team just off the rankings could be just as good as 2/3s of those on the rankings.

    Also remember, the committee NEVER looks at it as a hard data set. They don't look at 2-3 vRRO and compare to 4-1 and say the 4-1 is clearly better. They look at the results, they look at the opponent(s), they look at everything inside of that number(s). This actually allows them to potentially look at a couple more results (if there is that much change) and make a more detailed decision. Furthermore, they also look at where teams are ranked, so suddenly a team being on or off the rankings isn't going to make a big difference except they can continue to consider some games they would have had to ignore in the past.

    Also remember one major thing: this isn't just about basketball. This is all sports across the board. Outside of the weighted-measure on the SOS, all of the criteria is the same for all sports (for the most part - there are some small exceptions per sport). This will have some affect in basketball, but it could have a much bigger affect on other sports where they may not have a 12 or 13-team region like Northeast basketball and both lacrosse regions (don't get me started with that topic). Many, many, many of these decisions are not being made based on a small microscope of basketball - but on the entire NCAA Division III landscape.

    I don't have a problem with a couple of extra results being considered in the grand scheme of things. It might not mean anything in the long run, but at least the committee has more data to go by especially if other sports need that extra data to make better decisions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on June 23, 2016, 10:25:05 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 23, 2016, 04:33:25 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on June 23, 2016, 01:20:29 PM
    Results vs. regionally ranked always felt too arbitrary and not as useful as whoever came up with the idea intended. Why not change it to results vs. above .500 (or .600 or whatever winning percentage benchmark is deemed best)?

    Seems to me it accomplishes the same thing in a more tangible way without needing a discussion about once ranked, always ranked or any variation there of.

    Because people will once again jury rig their schedules like we have seen with older systems that have been done away with to beat teams with significant winning percentages who don't really play significant schedules.

    Doesn't keeping the "results vs." standard allay those concerns?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 24, 2016, 01:50:48 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on June 23, 2016, 10:25:05 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 23, 2016, 04:33:25 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on June 23, 2016, 01:20:29 PM
    Results vs. regionally ranked always felt too arbitrary and not as useful as whoever came up with the idea intended. Why not change it to results vs. above .500 (or .600 or whatever winning percentage benchmark is deemed best)?

    Seems to me it accomplishes the same thing in a more tangible way without needing a discussion about once ranked, always ranked or any variation there of.

    Because people will once again jury rig their schedules like we have seen with older systems that have been done away with to beat teams with significant winning percentages who don't really play significant schedules.

    Doesn't keeping the "results vs." standard allay those concerns?

    Yes... thus my comment somewhere else about these working in conjunction with one another and that having one system over the other doesn't work.

    I should say, and should have said it earlier but my brain wasn't fully working, that the men's committee has been rather open about doing something to the effect of how are teams against certain record levels as you describe. They have talked about looking at what a team's record is against above .500, above .667, etc. It is not in the official criteria, but the men's committee has pushed the boundaries, some may say too much, of the word "results" to give themselves as much information to make as best a decision as possible. I think that by pushing those boundaries they have done a better and better job with the process. I just don't think we should write them in as official criteria because it starts to get more and more complicated. This allows the committee at least some flexibility which they have demonstrated they seem to use wisely.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 24, 2016, 11:07:14 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on June 23, 2016, 01:19:21 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 22, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 22, 2016, 08:33:54 AM

    That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

    This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

    I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

    But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

    We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

    If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

    I think it's more like, when it actually gets down to this criteria, a team shouldn't be punished because a good team they beat during the season got knocked out of its conference tourney early.  Nichols should suffer from their own ineptitude, but their opponents shouldn't necessarily have to suffer from it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on June 25, 2016, 01:25:12 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 24, 2016, 11:07:14 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on June 23, 2016, 01:19:21 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 22, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 22, 2016, 08:33:54 AM

    That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

    This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

    I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

    But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

    We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

    If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

    I think it's more like, when it actually gets down to this criteria, a team shouldn't be punished because a good team they beat during the season got knocked out of its conference tourney early.  Nichols should suffer from their own ineptitude, but their opponents shouldn't necessarily have to suffer from it.

    They're not suffering, they still get credit in the WP and SOS, it's just not a game that needs to be dissected individually. They shouldn't get extra credit for winning that game, necessarily. Just like teams who beat Trine or Chapman or other solid-but-not-great teams who didn't quite crack the rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 27, 2016, 10:12:27 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on June 25, 2016, 01:25:12 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 24, 2016, 11:07:14 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on June 23, 2016, 01:19:21 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 22, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 22, 2016, 08:33:54 AM

    That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

    This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

    I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

    But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

    We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

    If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

    I think it's more like, when it actually gets down to this criteria, a team shouldn't be punished because a good team they beat during the season got knocked out of its conference tourney early.  Nichols should suffer from their own ineptitude, but their opponents shouldn't necessarily have to suffer from it.

    They're not suffering, they still get credit in the WP and SOS, it's just not a game that needs to be dissected individually. They shouldn't get extra credit for winning that game, necessarily. Just like teams who beat Trine or Chapman or other solid-but-not-great teams who didn't quite crack the rankings.

    But the WP and SOS do go down because of that tournament loss.  I'm not defending this position (although I'm sympathetic towards it, I guess), the argument is simply that a conference tournament loss should count less for a team's opponents than it does for the team itself.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on June 27, 2016, 08:46:03 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 27, 2016, 10:12:27 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on June 25, 2016, 01:25:12 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 24, 2016, 11:07:14 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on June 23, 2016, 01:19:21 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 22, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 22, 2016, 08:33:54 AM

    That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

    This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

    I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

    But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

    We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

    If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

    I think it's more like, when it actually gets down to this criteria, a team shouldn't be punished because a good team they beat during the season got knocked out of its conference tourney early.  Nichols should suffer from their own ineptitude, but their opponents shouldn't necessarily have to suffer from it.

    They're not suffering, they still get credit in the WP and SOS, it's just not a game that needs to be dissected individually. They shouldn't get extra credit for winning that game, necessarily. Just like teams who beat Trine or Chapman or other solid-but-not-great teams who didn't quite crack the rankings.

    But the WP and SOS do go down because of that tournament loss.  I'm not defending this position (although I'm sympathetic towards it, I guess), the argument is simply that a conference tournament loss should count less for a team's opponents than it does for the team itself.
    I suppose that would help negate the NESCAC single round robin SOS advantage.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 28, 2016, 01:44:36 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 27, 2016, 10:12:27 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on June 25, 2016, 01:25:12 PM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 24, 2016, 11:07:14 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on June 23, 2016, 01:19:21 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 22, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
    Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 22, 2016, 08:33:54 AM

    That change looks to just include regular season rankings, right?  They want to include teams ranked before conference tournaments and those after.  I'm ok with this, I think.

    This is a hybrid option to "once ranked, always ranked" and the current model of only the recent rankings. I had suggested to those of influence a twice-ranked, always-ranked model, so this would fall into that idea while not allowing an early ranking that might be a little off to have too much influence.

    I wouldn't mind seeing one more set of rankings just so people can see the landscape. We don't get a real chance to understand the situation at hand for some teams until really late in the season. One more week would give both teams and fans a better idea of how things may play out and that isn't a bad thing. Gives me more to talk about on Hoopsville as well! LOL

    But what do we gain by adding more games vs. teams in the 8th-14th positions in their regions (but outside of the actual rankings) into the criteria besides making the whole process even more convoluted?

    We already know that it's "results" and not wins-losses or percentage that they look at and that they're (purportedly) qualifying this portion of the criteria on a game-by-game bases.

    If we had two teams exactly equal (or very close) in WP and SOS and both were, say, 1-0 vs. RRO (similar quality wins), but Team A had a win against Nichols who was 12th in the Northeast in the last public set of rankings but fell out for the final hidden set. Is that game particularly revelatory? For all we know Nichols fell from 12th to 14th. Team B might have had a win against Wesleyan, or whoever, would could have been 13th in both sets of rankings.

    I think it's more like, when it actually gets down to this criteria, a team shouldn't be punished because a good team they beat during the season got knocked out of its conference tourney early.  Nichols should suffer from their own ineptitude, but their opponents shouldn't necessarily have to suffer from it.

    They're not suffering, they still get credit in the WP and SOS, it's just not a game that needs to be dissected individually. They shouldn't get extra credit for winning that game, necessarily. Just like teams who beat Trine or Chapman or other solid-but-not-great teams who didn't quite crack the rankings.

    But the WP and SOS do go down because of that tournament loss.  I'm not defending this position (although I'm sympathetic towards it, I guess), the argument is simply that a conference tournament loss should count less for a team's opponents than it does for the team itself.

    Yes, the WL technically goes down (slightly), but the SOS does not necessarily go down. First off, there is a multiplier. Secondly, they might play a team that has a good WL. Thirdly, every single team they play also plays and thus their SOS may increase if a number of them win and keep winning.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on September 29, 2016, 02:25:37 PM
    So Dave mentioned in the UAA board..."with the addition of 2 Pool C bids..."

    Forgive me, I tend to forget everything that was discussed last season, but is the tourney going to 64 teams this upcoming season?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 29, 2016, 03:01:44 PM
    Yes- tourney will be 64-teams this season. No byes starting this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Just Bill on September 29, 2016, 04:15:34 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 29, 2016, 03:01:44 PM
    Yes- tourney will be 64-teams this season. No byes starting this season.

    Has Pool B completely disappeared, or is there still one spot reserved?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 29, 2016, 05:10:20 PM
    I believe there is no bids coming out Pool B at this time. They need at least nine institutions that are either independent or don't have a conference AQ to get the bid back... and they don't have that right now. It is always there, but they have to hit a certain threshold.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on September 29, 2016, 07:24:15 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 29, 2016, 05:10:20 PM
    I believe there is no bids coming out Pool B at this time. They need at least nine institutions that are either independent or don't have a conference AQ to get the bid back... and they don't have that right now. It is always there, but they have to hit a certain threshold.

    Just out of curiosity I went back and looked at last year's championship handbook - at the very end they have all the eligible teams by region.  They've got Colorado College in the West Region and Spalding in the South.  I thought the last round of re-alignments were supposed to match up each conference (save the UAA) with one region.  Is this a mistake on their part or are there still two outliers?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on September 30, 2016, 09:48:31 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on September 29, 2016, 07:24:15 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 29, 2016, 05:10:20 PM
    I believe there is no bids coming out Pool B at this time. They need at least nine institutions that are either independent or don't have a conference AQ to get the bid back... and they don't have that right now. It is always there, but they have to hit a certain threshold.

    Just out of curiosity I went back and looked at last year's championship handbook - at the very end they have all the eligible teams by region.  They've got Colorado College in the West Region and Spalding in the South.  I thought the last round of re-alignments were supposed to match up each conference (save the UAA) with one region.  Is this a mistake on their part or are there still two outliers?

    I'm guessing it's a mistake. Colorado College is listed in both the South and the West.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on September 30, 2016, 09:59:02 AM
    Quote from: Just Bill on September 29, 2016, 04:15:34 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 29, 2016, 03:01:44 PM
    Yes- tourney will be 64-teams this season. No byes starting this season.

    Has Pool B completely disappeared, or is there still one spot reserved?

    The access ratio last year was 1:9.3 (1 Pool A bid awarded for every 9.3 teams in Pool A conferences). Pool B would need to get above that ratio, so 10 teams, to get a bid. We had 8 Pool B teams last year -- all independents, and I think we'll get a 9th this year with New Rochelle adding Men's hoops -- but we could get up to two more in two years when Alfred State and Illinois Tech become full members (unless both join leagues). So maybe Pool B returns in 2018-19.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on September 30, 2016, 12:29:24 PM
    Knight, I failed to record the Pool B's during the 2015-16 season.

    Which teams were Pool B last year?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on September 30, 2016, 01:22:27 PM
    I didn't think there were any.  ???

    19 Pool C

    43 AQs with 42 coming from conference tournament winners and then the UAA.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on September 30, 2016, 02:44:46 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on September 30, 2016, 01:22:27 PM
    I didn't think there were any.  ???

    19 Pool C

    43 AQs with 42 coming from conference tournament winners and then the UAA.
    I believe there were teams, e.g, Rust, UC Banana Slug, etc.

    I did not compile a list.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on September 30, 2016, 06:22:05 PM
    I think all the Pool B teams are now independent, so you can get their individual records here (http://d3hoops.com/conf/IND/men/2015-16/standings).

    I think the eligible Pool B teams were Pine Manor, Maine-Presque Isle, Maranatha Baptist (not sure on that one), UC Santa Cruz, Finlandia and Rust.

    SUNY-Canton, Nebraska Wesleyan, Alfred State, Illinois Tech and Valley Forge weren't eligible for the tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on September 30, 2016, 09:12:01 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on September 30, 2016, 06:22:05 PM
    I think all the Pool B teams are now independent, so you can get their individual records here (http://d3hoops.com/conf/IND/men/2015-16/standings).

    I think the eligible Pool B teams were Pine Manor, Maine-Presque Isle, Maranatha Baptist (not sure on that one), UC Santa Cruz, Finlandia and Rust.

    SUNY-Canton, Nebraska Wesleyan, Alfred State, Illinois Tech and Valley Forge weren't eligible for the tournament.

    According to the Pre-Championship Manual SUNY-Canton and Nebraska Wesleyan were eligible, though Nebraska Wesleyan only played 3 or 4 Division 3 games. That's where I came up with eight.

    But Nebraska Wesleyan is joining a league so they'll be moving to Pool A.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on October 01, 2016, 07:46:19 AM
    My apologies, I misunderstood. I thought he meant Pool B teams regarding the tournament. There weren't any Pool B slots for the tournament...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sunny on October 01, 2016, 11:49:13 AM
    Important to remember here that Pool B teams still have access - via Pool C. People tend to forget, since Pool B teams are historically, relatively weak, but Pool C has always been open for also-rans from Pool A conferences and for also-rans from Pool B selection. The thought process behind the three pools is that every team has two paths into the tournament ... either Pool A, then C or Pool B, then C. Obviously, that goes away if the number of eligible Pool B teams is too small -- but they still have a path (though an unlikely one) via Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on October 01, 2016, 01:22:47 PM
    Quote from: sunny on October 01, 2016, 11:49:13 AM
    Important to remember here that Pool B teams still have access - via Pool C. People tend to forget, since Pool B teams are historically, relatively weak, but Pool C has always been open for also-rans from Pool A conferences and for also-rans from Pool B selection. The thought process behind the three pools is that every team has two paths into the tournament ... either Pool A, then C or Pool B, then C. Obviously, that goes away if the number of eligible Pool B teams is too small -- but they still have a path (though an unlikely one) via Pool C.

    Indeed, and the tradition is there in baseball, especially, where there have regularly been Pool B teams getting at-large bids. Football had one recently as well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 03, 2016, 10:57:27 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on September 30, 2016, 09:12:01 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on September 30, 2016, 06:22:05 PM
    I think all the Pool B teams are now independent, so you can get their individual records here (http://d3hoops.com/conf/IND/men/2015-16/standings).

    I think the eligible Pool B teams were Pine Manor, Maine-Presque Isle, Maranatha Baptist (not sure on that one), UC Santa Cruz, Finlandia and Rust.

    SUNY-Canton, Nebraska Wesleyan, Alfred State, Illinois Tech and Valley Forge weren't eligible for the tournament.

    According to the Pre-Championship Manual SUNY-Canton and Nebraska Wesleyan were eligible, though Nebraska Wesleyan only played 3 or 4 Division 3 games. That's where I came up with eight.

    But Nebraska Wesleyan is joining a league so they'll be moving to Pool A.

    Not sure the details, but I am pretty sure Neb. Wesleyan told the NCAA they were not going to participate in last year's tournament even if they might have qualified. They have to make that decision the May prior (for most of their sports) and if my memory serves, they once again said no last year - which they have done for a number of years recently. That... or some how I mistook their position last year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 13, 2016, 04:40:21 PM
    Believe it not, the 2016-17 basketball season is just days away. But the season can't start without Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) hitting the air!

    Tune in tonight starting at 7pm as Dave talks to the two preseason numbers one teams, finds out how the offseason went for the two defending national championships, and touches bases with the men's and women's basketball committee chairs.

    Guests include:
    - Kevin Vande Streek, men's basketball committee chair and head coach for Calvin
    - Bobbi Morgan, women's basketball committee chair and head coach for Haverford
    - John Tauer, head coach for No. 10 St. Thomas men
    - Dave Hixon, head coach for No. 1 Amherst men
    - Jeff Hans, head coach for No. 4 Thomas More women
    - Carla Berube, head coach for No. 1 Tufts women

    You can watch the show here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/nov13

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on December 01, 2016, 02:16:56 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 13, 2016, 04:40:21 PM
    Believe it not, the 2016-17 basketball season is just days away. But the season can't start without Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) hitting the air!

    Tune in tonight starting at 7pm as Dave talks to the two preseason numbers one teams, finds out how the offseason went for the two defending national championships, and touches bases with the men's and women's basketball committee chairs.

    Guests include:
    - Kevin Vande Streek, men's basketball committee chair and head coach for Calvin

    On Hoopsville KVS mentioned that they have a method they're hoping to implement to correct the way the HAM is applied to the SOS. Do you have any idea what this is? Is the NCAA actually changing the way the multiplier is applied?

    (I wish someone was around to tell us the multiplier was being applied incorrectly three or four years ago ;)).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 02, 2016, 02:19:05 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 01, 2016, 02:16:56 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 13, 2016, 04:40:21 PM
    Believe it not, the 2016-17 basketball season is just days away. But the season can't start without Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) hitting the air!

    Tune in tonight starting at 7pm as Dave talks to the two preseason numbers one teams, finds out how the offseason went for the two defending national championships, and touches bases with the men's and women's basketball committee chairs.

    Guests include:
    - Kevin Vande Streek, men's basketball committee chair and head coach for Calvin

    On Hoopsville KVS mentioned that they have a method they're hoping to implement to correct the way the HAM is applied to the SOS. Do you have any idea what this is? Is the NCAA actually changing the way the multiplier is applied?

    (I wish someone was around to tell us the multiplier was being applied incorrectly three or four years ago ;)).

    Not changing it... but trying to make sure the math is correct. Your argument, my friend. Your argument is what is spurring this. The idea that when they went to using the multiplier on just the overall record for your away games and your home games, that the multiplier was basically negated. They want the NCAA to make sure that isn't the case. And if it is the case, I believe they will try and have them go back to the way it was - using the multiplier for each individual record for each individual game - not a grand total of records.

    I meant to contact you on whether my efforts had gotten you a chance to talk to NCAA stats. If not, I will try again ... because clearly the national committee has been listening to people (you, me, others).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on December 13, 2016, 03:17:33 PM
    I just leafed through the new  Pre-Championship Manual (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017DIIIMBB_PreChamp_DIII_M_Basketball_20161024.pdf) for the first time this season. It looks like they did finally update the OWP/OOWP/SOS section (page 18-19) to reflect what they're actually doing with summing the opponents' wins and losses to come up with an overall OWP (and OOWP). They still don't fully explain it with the multiplier, however.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on December 29, 2016, 03:10:54 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 02, 2016, 02:19:05 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 01, 2016, 02:16:56 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 13, 2016, 04:40:21 PM
    Believe it not, the 2016-17 basketball season is just days away. But the season can't start without Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) hitting the air!

    Tune in tonight starting at 7pm as Dave talks to the two preseason numbers one teams, finds out how the offseason went for the two defending national championships, and touches bases with the men's and women's basketball committee chairs.

    Guests include:
    - Kevin Vande Streek, men's basketball committee chair and head coach for Calvin

    On Hoopsville KVS mentioned that they have a method they're hoping to implement to correct the way the HAM is applied to the SOS. Do you have any idea what this is? Is the NCAA actually changing the way the multiplier is applied?

    (I wish someone was around to tell us the multiplier was being applied incorrectly three or four years ago ;)).

    Not changing it... but trying to make sure the math is correct. Your argument, my friend. Your argument is what is spurring this. The idea that when they went to using the multiplier on just the overall record for your away games and your home games, that the multiplier was basically negated. They want the NCAA to make sure that isn't the case. And if it is the case, I believe they will try and have them go back to the way it was - using the multiplier for each individual record for each individual game - not a grand total of records.

    I meant to contact you on whether my efforts had gotten you a chance to talk to NCAA stats. If not, I will try again ... because clearly the national committee has been listening to people (you, me, others).
    I'm thoroughly confused by your explanation Dave.  They were using the multiplier on each individual game, but they weren't getting their intended effect.  They were making road games more important to SOS, not tougher. 

    If they want to fix the multiplier they have to apply it to the opponents W/L pct, not their total Wins and Losses.  They can then apply a weight to this adjusted W/L pct to give less credit to games against teams without a full D3 schedule.

    Here is what that would look like:
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9rwGg6B.png&hash=32b7a3ebf25d8a49c4307615766d3cac0e56dbd0)
    Under the 2016 calc, the multiplier did nothing as OWP remained at .599 despite the team playing 4 of the 6 games on the road and one neutral court game.   When we apply the multiplier to the W/L pct, the OWP moves up to .655 which we believe would be the most accurate SOS.  If the NCAA wants to continue to give less weight to opponents without a full D3 schedule they can then apply the weighting to each game and give less credit for those games against teams E and F who had only 14 and 15 D3 games.  The OWP then drops to .628 to reflect the fact that we have less confidence in the results against E and F.
    Check my work here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zjkFVe3RUtYl851XJeYqe3l7AcEz1dloB0Fwp73Lzmk/edit?usp=sharing).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 29, 2016, 03:55:09 PM
    I don't have time to read through everything (at the D3hoops.com Classic calling games and running the production), but I thought I would try and clarify what I was saying.

    The intended plan with the multiplier is to apply it to each individual team's winning percentage on who they play. Play Team A on the road, multiply by 1.25. Play Team B at home, multiply by 0.75, etc. HOWEVER, the NCAA stats guys adjusted that (despite what was written in the manual) and started taking every team a program played on the road, adding up and getting a total winning percentage and multiplying that number by 1.25. Then adding up all the home opponents, getting an overall winning percentage and multiplying by 0.75. As KnightSlappy has shown to me on many occasions (of these boards), it has a tendency to kill or negate the multipliers for a lot of teams (especially if they have a relatively balanced schedule of home and away as I figure).

    The committee is making sure the NCAA stats guys understand this "quirk" with the math and prove the correct numbers and multiplication is being done so the multipliers have an impact like they were designed... not a watered down version that seems less likely to have a multipliers at all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on December 29, 2016, 04:56:05 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 29, 2016, 03:55:09 PM
    I don't have time to read through everything (at the D3hoops.com Classic calling games and running the production), but I thought I would try and clarify what I was saying.

    The intended plan with the multiplier is to apply it to each individual team's winning percentage on who they play. Play Team A on the road, multiply by 1.25. Play Team B at home, multiply by 0.75, etc. HOWEVER, the NCAA stats guys adjusted that (despite what was written in the manual) and started taking every team a program played on the road, adding up and getting a total winning percentage and multiplying that number by 1.25. Then adding up all the home opponents, getting an overall winning percentage and multiplying by 0.75. As KnightSlappy has shown to me on many occasions (of these boards), it has a tendency to kill or negate the multipliers for a lot of teams (especially if they have a relatively balanced schedule of home and away as I figure).

    The committee is making sure the NCAA stats guys understand this "quirk" with the math and prove the correct numbers and multiplication is being done so the multipliers have an impact like they were designed... not a watered down version that seems less likely to have a multipliers at all.
    Certainly no rush to reply.  Are you saying that the "stats guys method" is the current plan for 2016-17?  They didn't use that in 2015-2016 from what I can tell.  I assume if they do use this new method they would then weight the home, road and neutral percentages by the number of opponent games involved in each of those 3 categories? 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 30, 2016, 12:54:25 AM
    Quote from: AO on December 29, 2016, 04:56:05 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 29, 2016, 03:55:09 PM
    I don't have time to read through everything (at the D3hoops.com Classic calling games and running the production), but I thought I would try and clarify what I was saying.

    The intended plan with the multiplier is to apply it to each individual team's winning percentage on who they play. Play Team A on the road, multiply by 1.25. Play Team B at home, multiply by 0.75, etc. HOWEVER, the NCAA stats guys adjusted that (despite what was written in the manual) and started taking every team a program played on the road, adding up and getting a total winning percentage and multiplying that number by 1.25. Then adding up all the home opponents, getting an overall winning percentage and multiplying by 0.75. As KnightSlappy has shown to me on many occasions (of these boards), it has a tendency to kill or negate the multipliers for a lot of teams (especially if they have a relatively balanced schedule of home and away as I figure).

    The committee is making sure the NCAA stats guys understand this "quirk" with the math and prove the correct numbers and multiplication is being done so the multipliers have an impact like they were designed... not a watered down version that seems less likely to have a multipliers at all.
    Certainly no rush to reply.  Are you saying that the "stats guys method" is the current plan for 2016-17?  They didn't use that in 2015-2016 from what I can tell.  I assume if they do use this new method they would then weight the home, road and neutral percentages by the number of opponent games involved in each of those 3 categories?

    As I understand it... when the multiplier was added in the first place, it was used for individual games/records... and stayed that way for a number of years. At some point, the NCAA stats guys felt, thought, whatever that the better way to do the math was the other way and made the switch. I really don't know when that was, but it was three or four seasons ago. KnightSlappy discovered it first and our attempts to get to the bottom of it were very confusing as the men's committee wasn't really sure how it all happened - they were just informed of the change and didn't think much of it since Stats was saying it would all work out. KnightSlappy discovered at the end of that season that it wasn't exactly working as it should (since his math was working the same as theirs). He and I worked to get this to the NCAA and it has taken some time, but now the committee has asked the Stats group to prove why their "new" math is better than the intended math. The basic argument is that the "new" math makes the multiplier basically pointless - which I agree. The men's committee has been told by many coaches that the multiplier is worth keeping in the system, so they want to make sure the math isn't making it pointless.

    As for your question, they don't weigh it by the number of opponents... the current method is to take all of the teams you play at home and take that total record/winning percentage and multiply it by .75 - same with away games (for get neutral since that is 1.0 which makes no difference). What the committee rather have, wants to prove, or whatever is that EACH opponent have their record multiplied INDIVIDUALLY. That way the weight of the multiplier is put DIRECTLY on each opponent's WL percentage - not an average of all the opponents.

    Think of it this way, if a team played ten games on the road and ten games at home, the multiplier is killed off. Ten games at 1.25 and ten games at 0.75 basically will equal 1.0. You have to have an uneven balance to get any weight in either direction. Now, if you go and put the multiplier on each opponent it doesn't matter how many you play on the road at home because the math is influenced by the direct opponent's record, not the sum total.

    I hope that makes sense - my brain is a bit fried from basketball here in Vegas! LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on December 30, 2016, 08:50:01 AM
    The problem isn't that they're applying the multiplier to a group of games rather than the individual games (the associate property tells us it's the same thing) it's that they're applying the multiplier to the opponents' win value and total games played (the numerator and denominator). This has a scaling effect rather than a multiplicative effect (a home game with the 0.75 multiplier becomes less important in the total SOS, not 'easier').

    This is because the stats group, based on our communication with them (through Dave), wanted to account for the fact that some opponents play a different number of D3 games (UMPI might play only 12) and didn't want them to carry the same weight in a team's SOS (I don't love this idea but it's not awful).

    What AO is suggesting, I believe, is to apply the multiplier to the numerator only (i.e. the opponents' win totals) and leave the games played denominator alone. This would achieve the multiplicative effect of the HAM while maintaining differences in opponents' games played (if they wanted to keep that). They could then sum the adjusted win totals and raw games played totals to come up with the overall SOS.

    The other simple solution is to generate a percentage for each game, apply the SOS, then average the percentages (the way the handbook used to spell it out).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ElRetornodelEspencio on December 30, 2016, 11:26:09 AM
    Should just use Massey ratings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 30, 2016, 07:46:11 PM
    KnightSlappy - I see your point... though, it still sometimes goes over my head. As much as I loved math growing up in school... I got out of it in that depth and never got back into it.

    Personally, how they were doing it before the "slight" change seemed to make the most sense to me. How they are doing it now seems to not get the desired affect. Go back to the previous math and we might be able to be happy with the numbers.

    I would say, putting the multiplier on the WL% makes the most sense, though I totally understand why the NCAA would want to avoid having a team like UMPI who plays 12 D3 games having a different WL influence... but it is still a percentage in the grand scheme of things. It should work just fine.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on January 01, 2017, 09:55:32 PM
    Is the NCAA afraid the UMPI could sneak into "C" consideration based on their 12-game schedule (much like Nebraska Wesleyan could have in the past if they chose to), or that the teams that play UMPI get a benefit if they don't adjust?

    To me, if UMPI is 6-6 or 12-12 against D3 competition, it's the same thing.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on January 01, 2017, 11:35:28 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on January 01, 2017, 09:55:32 PM
    Is the NCAA afraid the UMPI could sneak into "C" consideration based on their 12-game schedule (much like Nebraska Wesleyan could have in the past if they chose to), or that the teams that play UMPI get a benefit if they don't adjust?

    To me, if UMPI is 6-6 or 12-12 against D3 competition, it's the same thing.
    In 2004 University of Dallas went 13-12 and earned a Pool B bid. We just don't have enough Pool B's this year for there to be a bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on January 01, 2017, 11:58:46 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 01, 2017, 11:35:28 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on January 01, 2017, 09:55:32 PM
    Is the NCAA afraid the UMPI could sneak into "C" consideration based on their 12-game schedule (much like Nebraska Wesleyan could have in the past if they chose to), or that the teams that play UMPI get a benefit if they don't adjust?

    To me, if UMPI is 6-6 or 12-12 against D3 competition, it's the same thing.
    In 2004 University of Dallas went 13-12 and earned a Pool B bid.

    Gave Sul Ross State a fight in the opening round, too, losing only by 71-67.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 02, 2017, 12:02:38 AM
    Quote from: smedindy on January 01, 2017, 09:55:32 PM
    Is the NCAA afraid the UMPI could sneak into "C" consideration based on their 12-game schedule (much like Nebraska Wesleyan could have in the past if they chose to), or that the teams that play UMPI get a benefit if they don't adjust?

    To me, if UMPI is 6-6 or 12-12 against D3 competition, it's the same thing.

    I agree with you. NCAA doesn't seem to want to count it the same in an opponents' SOS. I think more because 0-12 doesn't feel the same as 0-24. Or, to get more extreme, a 4-0 (or something) from a previous Nebraska Wesleyan squad counting as 24-0 (or whatever).

    I don't think it's about them getting into consideration (or not) themselves.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 02, 2017, 06:11:07 PM
    To follow up and just make sure it didn't sneak past anyone... while there are two more bids in the NCAA tournament this year (for a full 64-team field)... there are still NO Pool B bids available (not enough teams eligible). Remember, all Pool B teams are in Pool C, but no way any team near .500 will get in as a Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 16, 2017, 03:30:26 PM
    Based on knightslappy's numbers (link below), and without any versus-regionally-ranked-opponents numbers, I'll take a way-too-early stab at what we might be looking at if the regular season ended today.  These are based solely on D3 winning percentage and SOS.
    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)

    The format is Team (conference & region) W-L, SOS

    43 Pool A Bids (current conference leaders)
    UW-River Falls (WIAC CE) 12-1, 0.614
    Babson (NEWMAC NE) 14-1, 0.608
    Washington U. (UAA CE) 11-3, 0.639
    Whitman (NWC WE) 15-0, 0.542
    Tufts (NESCAC NE) 13-2, 0.572
    Marietta (OAC GL) 11-4, 0.615
    Augustana (CCIW CE) 12-3, 0.575
    Swarthmore (CC MA) 12-3, 0.574
    Catholic (LAND MA) 12-3, 0.573
    Lycoming (MACC MA) 14-2, 0.531
    Neumann (CSAC AT) 14-1, 0.507
    Salisbury (CAC MA) 12-3, 0.549
    Mount St. Joseph (HCAC GL) 12-2, 0.522
    Hope (MIAA GL) 10-3, 0.551
    Eastern Connecticut (LEC NE) 11-5, 0.577
    --- my cut line if these teams were in Pool C instead ---
    Ramapo (NJAC AT) 14-1, 0.498
    St. Lawrence (LL EA) 12-2, 0.510
    DeSales (MACF AT) 11-4, 0.554
    Hardin-Simmons (ASC SO) 12-4, 0.546
    St. John Fisher (E8 EA) 8-4, 0.575
    Benedictine (NATHC ce) 11-3, 0.516
    Endicott (CCC ne) 12-3, 0.508
    Buena Vista (IIAC WE) 9-6, 0.583
    Denison (NCAC GL) 14-1, 0.456
    Castleton (NAC ne) 11-3, 0.510
    Brockport (SUNYAC EA) 12-3, 0.503
    St. Norbert (MWC ce) 11-2, 0.480
    Guilford (ODAC SO) 13-2, 0.467
    Salem State (MASCAC ne) 10-6, 0.556
    La Roche (AMCC gl) 12-3, 0.490
    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC we) 8-0, 0.413
    Becker (NECC ne) 8-4, 0.522
    Staten Island (CUNYAC at) 10-5, 0.521
    Lasell (GNAC ne) 10-5, 0.517
    St. Vincent (PrAC gl) 10-4, 0.493
    Bethel (MIAC we) 10-2, 0.443
    Gallaudet (NEAC ea) 11-3, 0.451
    Northwestern (Minn.) (UMAC we) 11-4, 0.457
    Greensboro (USAC so) 7-4, 0.484
    Farmingdale State (SKY at) 9-5, 0.478
    Westminster (Mo.) (SLIAC ce) 9-4, 0.449
    Colorado College (SCAC we) 6-6, 0.521
    Centre (SAA so) 8-6, 0.470

    21 Pool C guesses, if season ended today
    1) Middlebury (NESCAC NE) 12-2, 0.639
    2) Rochester (UAA EA) 13-1, 0.561
    3) Susquehanna (LAND MA) 12-2, 0.558
    4) North Park (CCIW CE) 12-2, 0.554
    5) Whitworth (NWC WE) 13-2, 0.550
    6) Carthage (CCIW CE) 10-4, 0.604
    7) UW-Eau Claire (WIAC CE) 11-3, 0.574
    8) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW CE) 12-4, 0.582
    9) Christopher Newport (CAC MA) 13-2, 0.538
    10) UW-Stout (WIAC CE) 9-3, 0.578
    11) MIT (NEWMAC NE) 12-3, 0.555
    12) UW-Whitewater (WIAC ce) 11-3, 0.556
    13) Wesleyan (NESCAC NE) 13-3, 0.545
    14) UW-Oshkosh (WIAC ce) 10-5, 0.599
    15) Amherst (NESCAC NE) 10-4, 0.581
    16) Loras (IIAC WE) 11-4, 0.572
    17) Bates (NESCAC NE) 12-4, 0.564
    18) Hanover (HCAC GL) 10-2, 0.526
    19) Williams (NESCAC NE) 12-4, 0.557
    20) Cabrini (CSAC AT) 10-3, 0.544
    21) LeTourneau (ASC SO) 13-3, 0.526

    Wrong side of the bubble
    John Carroll (OAC GL) 9-5, 0.598
    UW-Stevens Point (WIAC ce) 8-6, 0.615
    Keene State (LEC NE) 10-5, 0.573
    Wartburg (IIAC WE) 9-5, 0.579
    Central (IIAC WE) 9-6, 0.594
    Emory (UAA SO) 10-4, 0.550
    Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC SO) 11-4, 0.541
    St. Thomas (MIAC WE) 10-4, 0.547
    Mass-Dartmouth (LEC NE) 10-5, 0.564
    WPI (NEWMAC ne) 10-5, 0.561
    Mass-Boston (LEC ne) 9-5, 0.568
    Texas Lutheran (SCAC SO) 9-6, 0.584
    St. Olaf (MIAC WE) 6-7, 0.634
    Capital (OAC GL) 9-6, 0.582
    Skidmore (LL EA) 11-5, 0.546
    Rowan (NJAC AT) 10-6, 0.568
    Chicago (UAA ce) 8-6, 0.587
    Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC AT) 12-3, 0.500
    Oswego State (SUNYAC EA) 11-4, 0.525
    Hood (MACC MA) 12-4, 0.518
    Randolph-Macon (ODAC SO) 10-5, 0.548
    TCNJ (NJAC AT) 11-5, 0.539
    Mount Union (OAC GL) 10-5, 0.545
    Pomona-Pitzer (SCIAC we) 6-2, 0.513
    SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC EA) 10-5, 0.542
    Ripon (MWC ce) 11-2, 0.473
    Wooster (NCAC GL) 9-6, 0.565
    Scranton (LAND MA) 11-4, 0.515
    Hamline (MIAC we) 9-4, 0.530
    Connecticut College (NESCAC ne) 9-5, 0.548
    Howard Payne (ASC SO) 8-3, 0.514
    Maryville (Tenn.) (USAC so) 11-3, 0.489
    New Jersey City (NJAC AT) 13-3, 0.477
    Nebraska Wesleyan (IIAC we) 10-3, 0.492
    La Verne (SCIAC we) 10-4, 0.512
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 16, 2017, 03:37:05 PM
    These are always fun.

    Interesting.......
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 16, 2017, 03:30:26 PM

    21 Pool C guesses, if season ended today

    7) UW-Eau Claire (WIAC CE) 11-3, 0.574
    10) UW-Stout (WIAC CE) 9-3, 0.578
    12) UW-Whitewater (WIAC ce) 11-3, 0.556
    14) UW-Oshkosh (WIAC ce) 10-5, 0.599


    I doubt 4 WIAC teams survive with criteria good enough to be legit Pool C candidates.  In conference head-to-heads will eliminate two for sure.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 16, 2017, 03:54:14 PM
    Quote from: sac on January 16, 2017, 03:37:05 PM
    These are always fun.

    Interesting.......
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 16, 2017, 03:30:26 PM

    21 Pool C guesses, if season ended today

    7) UW-Eau Claire (WIAC CE) 11-3, 0.574
    10) UW-Stout (WIAC CE) 9-3, 0.578
    12) UW-Whitewater (WIAC ce) 11-3, 0.556
    14) UW-Oshkosh (WIAC ce) 10-5, 0.599


    I doubt 4 WIAC teams survive with criteria good enough to be legit Pool C candidates.  In conference head-to-heads will eliminate two for sure.

    Agreed.  As the six NESCAC and five WIAC teams beat up on each other, some will fall below the unofficial Mendoza line of .667 WP, and drop out of consideration despite great SOS numbers.  The Pool C berths are bunched up in the Central and Northeast regions (7 and 6, respectively), but probably won't stay that way.  However, I think that the CCIW will get four teams in (including the Pool A), and the NESCAC and WIAC might also get four.   

    On the flip side, neither the ODAC nor the NCAC has a strong Pool C candidate at the moment, as conference leaders Guilford (13-2, .467) and Denison (14-1, .456) both have awful SOS numbers.  Recall that Hope was among the last Pool C teams to get in last season at 21-2, .504, and it seems that anything much below .500 SOS would be a deal-breaker.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on January 16, 2017, 04:03:14 PM
    It makes me so happy to be talking Pool C again...it's almost that time of year again friends.  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 16, 2017, 04:17:06 PM
    Quote from: sac on January 16, 2017, 03:37:05 PM
    These are always fun.

    Interesting.......
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 16, 2017, 03:30:26 PM

    21 Pool C guesses, if season ended today

    7) UW-Eau Claire (WIAC CE) 11-3, 0.574
    10) UW-Stout (WIAC CE) 9-3, 0.578
    12) UW-Whitewater (WIAC ce) 11-3, 0.556
    14) UW-Oshkosh (WIAC ce) 10-5, 0.599


    I doubt 4 WIAC teams survive with criteria good enough to be legit Pool C candidates.  In conference head-to-heads will eliminate two for sure.

    The same can be said for the CCIW as well...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on January 16, 2017, 05:27:51 PM
    Quote from: sac on January 16, 2017, 03:37:05 PM
    These are always fun.

    Interesting.......
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 16, 2017, 03:30:26 PM

    21 Pool C guesses, if season ended today

    7) UW-Eau Claire (WIAC CE) 11-3, 0.574
    10) UW-Stout (WIAC CE) 9-3, 0.578
    12) UW-Whitewater (WIAC ce) 11-3, 0.556
    14) UW-Oshkosh (WIAC ce) 10-5, 0.599


    I doubt 4 WIAC teams survive with criteria good enough to be legit Pool C candidates.  In conference head-to-heads will eliminate two for sure.

    And keep in mind that ineligible UWSP is good enough to beat any of those teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 17, 2017, 11:43:47 AM
    Also remember a number of those SOSs that are below .500 will probably get above .500 making a team like Ramapo eligible. I actually could see two teams from the NJAC getting in this season... if all holds.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 17, 2017, 11:52:16 AM
    Also the committee may be doing 'something' to correct or account for the NCAA's SOS flaw.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 17, 2017, 11:53:14 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 17, 2017, 11:52:16 AM
    Also the committee may be doing 'something' to correct or account for the NCAA's SOS flaw.

    I've checked into this... still waiting to hear back as to the "solution." Hopefully by the Hoopsville Marathon at the latest I will have learned more.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 22, 2017, 05:26:55 PM
    On almost any night you can expect there is something to talk about in Division III basketball. From upsets to dominating results, when thousands of games are being played there never is a moment that goes by that shouldn't be discussed.

    That's what we hope to do on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) every show.

    Sunday night is no different. There are plenty of upsets to discuss along with figuring out just exactly who are the best teams in the country. Sometimes that discussion means talking to those who won, those who lost, and those who are helping determine conference races.

    On Sunday's show, Dave talks to several teams who are in the conversation around the country. From a men's team who ended a 72-game conference winnings streak to another men's squad whose undefeated conference run ended. Also, a women's squad who is already having the best season in four years and another being led by a man who has overcome more than most do and trying to lead by examble by staying focused despite his battled with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

    Dave will also update a few items voted on this week at the NCAA Convention that will affect basketball starting next season.

    You can watch Hoopsville live or watch it on Facebook Live (simulcast):  http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/jan22. If you missed the show live, you can watch the video On Demand in the same manner or listen to or download the podcast (available when the show concludes).

    Don't forget to contribute to the new "Hoopsville Mailbag" segment. Email questions you may have to hoopsville@d3hoops.com. Dave will answer them on air tonight or on a future show.

    Guests scheduled to appear (in order of appearance):
    - Michael Coppolino, Mount St. Mary women's head coach
    - Paul Culpo, Castleton men's coach
    - Derek James, MacMurray women's coach - WBCA Center Court
    - Ryan Kane, Ripon men's coach
    - Tom Palombo, Guilford men's coach

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 23, 2017, 04:52:12 PM
    IN THE CENTRAL REGION...

    Halfway through the double round-robin and the CCIW is killing themselves. Could they just be a two-bid league???

    Augustana   7-1   14-3
    North Park   6-2   13-4
    Carroll   5-3   10-7
    Carthage   4-4   11-6
    Illinois Wesleyan   4-4   12-5


    8 more games to play in the WIAC double round-robin as well.

    UW-River Falls   6-0   16-1
    UW-Oshkosh   3-3   10-7
    UW-Eau Claire   3-3   13-4
    UW-Stout   3-3   12-5
    UW-Whitewater   3-3   14-3

    I don't think either team's SOS is gonna get the MWC a Pool C bid.

    St. Norbert   9-1   12-3
    Ripon   8-2   12-3

    The NACC and the SLIAC are 1-bid leagues, unless Benedictine loses in the conference tourney.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 23, 2017, 08:39:47 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 23, 2017, 04:52:12 PM
    IN THE CENTRAL REGION...

    Halfway through the double round-robin and the CCIW is killing themselves. Could they just be a two-bid league???

    Augustana   7-1   14-3
    North Park   6-2   13-4
    Carroll   5-3   10-7
    Carthage   4-4   11-6
    Illinois Wesleyan   4-4   12-5


    8 more games to play in the WIAC double round-robin as well.

    UW-River Falls   6-0   16-1
    UW-Oshkosh   3-3   10-7
    UW-Eau Claire   3-3   13-4
    UW-Stout   3-3   12-5
    UW-Whitewater   3-3   14-3

    I don't think either team's SOS is gonna get the MWC a Pool C bid.

    St. Norbert   9-1   12-3
    Ripon   8-2   12-3

    The NACC and the SLIAC are 1-bid leagues, unless Benedictine loses in the conference tourney.

    I was actually looking at the CCIW earlier today and thinking the same thing.  IF IWU duplicates their second half round-robin the same as the first they'll be out of range for a Pool C bid.  They likely have to go 6-2 with their 8th loss coming in the CCIW tournament.  No guarantee of that.

    But I can also see a weird scenario where 4 teams starts to look like a possibility.

    2011 was the last time the CCIW didn't get 3 in the tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on January 23, 2017, 09:19:12 PM
    It's important to look at overall context, too, as the Central Region doesn't exist within a vacuum. First of all, there are more Pool C bids available than there were last year, thanks to the expansion of the bracket to 64 teams. Second, at least one traditionally strong region (the Great Lakes) is really down overall this year in terms of teams that are hitting their Pool C marks with regard to wins and losses at this moment. There may be other regions that are in the same boat; I know that D-Mac is always moaning about how parity is making it impossible for him to fashion a coherent Top 25 ballot, so perhaps there are other regions besides the Great Lakes that have become parity-prone. I just haven't looked into that enough yet on a region-by-region basis.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 23, 2017, 09:27:10 PM
    That is true, Greg. There are also regions that are traditionally weak and may still be weak...sometimes not even getting one Pool C bid. So, there's a long way to go, but I've always had an over/under of 8 losses as a bench mark of where teams with strong SOSs should start worrying. I realize that's a pretty broad statement, but that's where I start worrying.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on January 23, 2017, 09:35:02 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 23, 2017, 04:52:12 PM
    IN THE CENTRAL REGION...

    Halfway through the double round-robin and the CCIW is killing themselves. Could they just be a two-bid league???

    Augustana   7-1   14-3
    North Park   6-2   13-4
    Carroll   5-3   10-7
    Carthage   4-4   10-6
    Illinois Wesleyan   4-4   12-5


    8 more games to play in the WIAC double round-robin as well.

    UW-River Falls   6-0   14-1
    UW-Oshkosh   3-3   10-7
    UW-Eau Claire   3-3   12-4
    UW-Stout   3-3   9-5
    UW-Whitewater   3-3   13-3

    I don't think either team's SOS is gonna get the MWC a Pool C bid.

    St. Norbert   9-1   12-3
    Ripon   8-2   12-3

    The NACC and the SLIAC are 1-bid leagues, unless Benedictine loses in the conference tourney.

    You left out the UAA duo, Tom:

    Wash U    5-0   13-3
    Chicago   2-3   10-6

    If the first regional ranking were to come out tomorrow, Wash U would be #2 behind UWRF, with Augie third.

    Also, you've posted the overall records of these Central Region teams, and that's not what either the regional or national committees will examine. They're looking at records (actually, winning percentage) against D3 teams only as a primary criterion, so I've amended the W-L records in bold to take out the wins achieved against non-D3 competition.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 23, 2017, 10:58:03 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 23, 2017, 09:19:12 PM
    It's important to look at overall context, too, as the Central Region doesn't exist within a vacuum. First of all, there are more Pool C bids available than there were last year, thanks to the expansion of the bracket to 64 teams. Second, at least one traditionally strong region (the Great Lakes) is really down overall this year in terms of teams that are hitting their Pool C marks with regard to wins and losses at this moment. There may be other regions that are in the same boat; I know that D-Mac is always moaning about how parity is making it impossible for him to fashion a coherent Top 25 ballot, so perhaps there are other regions besides the Great Lakes that have become parity-prone. I just haven't looked into that enough yet on a region-by-region basis.

    Moaning? Just commenting.

    Parity-prone regions: Great Lakes, Central, South (mainly ODAC), East... with the NJAC possible as well and the Northeast showing signs, but not sure if fully in parity-ville. Mid-Atlantic has been there, but not this year after all (thought it would be).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AndOne on January 24, 2017, 01:39:31 AM
    Quote from: sac on January 23, 2017, 08:39:47 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 23, 2017, 04:52:12 PM
    IN THE CENTRAL REGION...

    Halfway through the double round-robin and the CCIW is killing themselves. Could they just be a two-bid league???

    Augustana   7-1   14-3
    North Park   6-2   13-4
    Carroll   5-3   10-7
    Carthage   4-4   11-6
    Illinois Wesleyan   4-4   12-5


    8 more games to play in the WIAC double round-robin as well.

    UW-River Falls   6-0   16-1
    UW-Oshkosh   3-3   10-7
    UW-Eau Claire   3-3   13-4
    UW-Stout   3-3   12-5
    UW-Whitewater   3-3   14-3

    I don't think either team's SOS is gonna get the MWC a Pool C bid.

    St. Norbert   9-1   12-3
    Ripon   8-2   12-3

    The NACC and the SLIAC are 1-bid leagues, unless Benedictine loses in the conference tourney.o

    I was actually looking at the CCIW earlier today and thinking the same thing.  IF IWU duplicates their second half round-robin the same as the first they'll be out of range for a Pool C bid.  They likely have to go 6-2 with their 8th loss coming in the CCIW tournament.  No guarantee of that.

    But I can also see a weird scenario where 4 teams starts to look like a possibility.

    2011 was the last time the CCIW didn't get 3 in the tournament.

    One advantage that will fall to IWU in the 2nd round that they did not enjoy in the first half of the conference schedule is that they will apparently get to face a Connor Raridon less NCC team at home.
    Among the current top 5 teams, Carthage was the only other team that had to face a full strength Cardinal squad in the first half. Although the Bosko Boys didn't need any help that night.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 24, 2017, 11:47:22 AM
    Greg,

    To be fair, it was just a quick glance. I honestly didn't look too in depth yet as it's still early. I did realize I didn't include Wash U or Chicago, though they were in the back of my mind and I have a good feeling where they stand. Thanks for the amendments.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on January 24, 2017, 12:59:56 PM
    No problem, Tom. I considered the fact that other posters might use your work as an ongoing template in this room, so I figured that it should be amended for that reason.

    I'll try to construct a more comprehensive Central Region chart later this afternoon.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 24, 2017, 01:26:30 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 24, 2017, 12:59:56 PM
    No problem, Tom. I considered the fact that other posters might use your work as an ongoing template in this room, so I figured that it should be amended for that reason.

    I'll try to construct a more comprehensive Central Region chart later this afternoon.

    I would strongly advise against that!  ??? ;D :o

    But I understand your point. I'll try to be more thorough with that in mind!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 24, 2017, 01:52:57 PM
    Through Sunday, Jan. 22, based on knightslappy's numbers posted at http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)

    43 Pool A berths (current conference leaders)
    UW-River Falls (WIAC CE) 14-1, 0.606
    Babson (NEWMAC NE) 16-1, 0.593
    Washington U. (UAA CE) 13-3, 0.620
    Whitman (NWC WE) 17-0, 0.541
    Tufts (NESCAC NE) 15-2, 0.567
    Marietta (OAC GL) 13-4, 0.608
    Susquehanna (LAND MA) 14-2, 0.552
    Lycoming (MACC MA) 15-2, 0.544
    Ramapo (NJAC AT) 16-1, 0.504
    Salisbury (CAC MA) 14-3, 0.546
    Neumann (CSAC AT) 16-1, 0.499
    Hanover (HCAC GL) 12-2, 0.530
    Eastern Connecticut (LEC NE) 13-5, 0.578
    St. Lawrence (LL EA) 14-2, 0.517
    Augustana (CCIW CE) 14-3, 0.529
    Hope (MIAA GL) 12-3, 0.536
    St. John Fisher (E8 EA) 11-4, 0.557
    Hardin-Simmons (ASC SO) 13-4, 0.544
    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC WE) 11-0, 0.447
    Benedictine (NATHC ce) 12-3, 0.514
    Brockport (SUNYAC EA) 14-3, 0.503
    --- approximate cut line if teams were in Pool C ---
    Endicott (CCC ne) 13-4, 0.521
    Denison (NCAC GL) 16-1, 0.445
    Buena Vista (IIAC WE) 11-6, 0.554
    Randolph-Macon (ODAC SO) 12-5, 0.530
    St. Johns (MIAC we) 12-3, 0.493
    St. Norbert (MWC ce) 12-3, 0.482
    St. Vincent (PrAC gl) 12-4, 0.495
    Eastern (MACF AT) 10-7, 0.553
    Becker (NECC ne) 10-4, 0.504
    Franklin and Marshall (CC ma) 12-5, 0.505
    Staten Island (CUNYAC at) 13-5, 0.495
    Salem State (MASCAC ne) 11-7, 0.531
    Albertus Magnus (GNAC ne) 13-3, 0.455
    Gallaudet (NEAC ea) 13-3, 0.450
    Husson (NAC ne) 10-5, 0.486
    Greensboro (USAC so) 9-5, 0.491
    Farmingdale State (SKY at) 11-5, 0.471
    Northwestern (Minn.) (UMAC we) 12-5, 0.458
    Medaille (AMCC gl) 12-4, 0.439
    Westminster (Mo.) (SLIAC ce) 11-4, 0.441
    Colorado College (SCAC we) 7-7, 0.514
    Birmingham-Southern (SAA so) 9-9, 0.462

    21 Pool C guesses (must have WP>=.667 and SOS>=.500)
    1) Middlebury (NESCAC NE) 13-3, 0.628
    2) Rochester (UAA EA) 15-1, 0.552
    3) Whitworth (NWC WE) 15-2, 0.545
    4) UW-Whitewater (WIAC CE) 13-3, 0.567
    5) Swarthmore (CC MA) 14-3, 0.556
    6) Loras (IIAC WE) 14-4, 0.570
    7) UW-Eau Claire (WIAC CE) 12-4, 0.574
    8) Christopher Newport (CAC MA) 15-2, 0.524
    9) Amherst (NESCAC NE) 12-4, 0.567
    10) Wesleyan (NESCAC NE) 15-4, 0.551
    11) Catholic (LAND MA) 13-4, 0.558
    12) Williams (NESCAC NE) 13-5, 0.571
    13) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW CE) 12-5, 0.573
    14) Emory (UAA SO) 12-4, 0.552
    15) Keene State (LEC NE) 12-5, 0.566
    16) MIT (NEWMAC NE) 13-4, 0.542
    17) WPI (NEWMAC NE) 12-5, 0.559
    18) LeTourneau (ASC SO) 13-3, 0.517
    19) Cabrini (CSAC AT) 12-3, 0.519
    20) St. Thomas (MIAC WE) 12-4, 0.533
    21) Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC SO) 13-4, 0.525

    Leagues with the most teams in: NESCAC 5, WIAC 3, NEWMAC 3, many (including CCIW) with 2.
    Pool C berths by region: Northeast 7, Central 3, West 3, Mid-Atlantic 3, South 3, East 1, Atlantic 1, Great Lakes 0

    Moving In: Emory (C), Keene State (C), WPI (C), St. Thomas (C), Virginia Wesleyan (C), Randolph-Macon (ODAC), St. Johns (MIAC), Eastern (MACF), Franklin and Marshall (CC), Albertus Magnus (GNAC), Husson (NAC), Medaille (AMCC), Birmingham-Southern (SAA)

    Moving Out: UW-Stout (C), UW-Oshkosh (C), Mount St. Joseph (HCAC), North Park (C), Bates (C), Carthage (C), Guilford (ODAC), DeSales (MACF), Castleton (NAC), La Roche (AMCC), Bethel (MIAC), Lasell (GNAC), Centre (SAA)

    Wrong side of the bubble
    John Carroll (OAC GL) 10-6, 0.595
    UW-Stout (WIAC CE) 9-5, 0.588
    Mass-Dartmouth (LEC NE) 11-6, 0.573
    Chicago (UAA ce) 10-6, 0.581
    UW-Stevens Point (WIAC CE) 9-7, 0.604
    UW-Oshkosh (WIAC ce) 10-7, 0.594
    Mount St. Joseph (HCAC GL) 13-3, 0.506
    North Park (CCIW ce) 13-4, 0.524
    Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC AT) 14-3, 0.501
    Connecticut College (NESCAC ne) 11-6, 0.567
    Bates (NESCAC ne) 12-6, 0.559
    Carthage (CCIW ce) 10-6, 0.574
    Rowan (NJAC AT) 11-7, 0.572
    Hamilton (NESCAC ne) 12-4, 0.519
    Ripon (MWC ce) 12-3, 0.500
    Oswego State (SUNYAC EA) 13-4, 0.513
    Skidmore (LL EA) 13-5, 0.527
    Guilford (ODAC SO) 14-3, 0.488
    Wooster (NCAC GL) 11-6, 0.554
    Nebraska Wesleyan (IIAC we) 11-4, 0.519
    DeSales (MACF AT) 11-6, 0.551
    Mount Union (OAC GL) 11-6, 0.551
    Central (IIAC WE) 9-7, 0.581
    Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC ne) 12-6, 0.540
    Scranton (LAND MA) 12-5, 0.525
    Capital (OAC GL) 10-7, 0.569
    Pomona-Pitzer (SCIAC we) 8-2, 0.488
    Wartburg (IIAC we) 10-6, 0.553
    St. Olaf (MIAC WE) 7-8, 0.612
    Castleton (NAC ne) 12-4, 0.504
    Buffalo State (SUNYAC EA) 10-5, 0.534
    Maryville (Tenn.) (USAC SO) 12-3, 0.484
    Texas Lutheran (SCAC SO) 11-7, 0.554
    New Jersey City (NJAC AT) 15-3, 0.469
    SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC ea) 11-6, 0.536
    Moravian (LAND MA) 10-5, 0.528
    Union (LL EA) 8-6, 0.562
    Howard Payne (ASC so) 9-4, 0.516
    TCNJ (NJAC at) 13-5, 0.504
    SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC ea) 10-7, 0.554
    Concordia (Texas) (ASC so) 10-5, 0.524
    Hood (MACC ma) 13-5, 0.503
    Ohio Northern (OAC gl) 10-7, 0.551
    Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC gl) 11-6, 0.527
    Hamline (MIAC we) 10-6, 0.534
    Western Connecticut (LEC ne) 10-5, 0.518
    Misericordia (MACF at) 12-5, 0.503
    Johns Hopkins (CC ma) 11-6, 0.525
    Delaware Valley (MACF at) 10-7, 0.547
    York (Pa.) (CAC ma) 11-6, 0.524
    UW-Platteville (WIAC ce) 7-9, 0.602
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 24, 2017, 03:19:45 PM
    +1 fantastic, now I don't have to do it!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on January 25, 2017, 02:25:49 PM
    Maybe some of the results of this will trickle down to D3?

    http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/what-experts-who-met-with-ncaa-say-about-changes-to-tourney-selection-process/ (http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/what-experts-who-met-with-ncaa-say-about-changes-to-tourney-selection-process/)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 26, 2017, 03:30:19 PM
    http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball

    So according to the pre-championship manual (pg. 12), the 1st regional rankings come out in less than 2 weeks, Wednesday, February 8. It also states on Monday, February 27, the day the bracket is announced, the 4th and final regional rankings are released...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on January 26, 2017, 03:46:16 PM
    We got the final rankings for the fall sports -- indeed, those are a thing again.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 26, 2017, 05:24:22 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 26, 2017, 03:30:19 PM
    http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball

    So according to the pre-championship manual (pg. 12), the 1st regional rankings come out in less than 2 weeks, Wednesday, February 8. It also states on Monday, February 27, the day the bracket is announced, the 4th and final regional rankings are released...

    Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 26, 2017, 03:46:16 PM
    We got the final rankings for the fall sports -- indeed, those are a thing again.

    Yep... NCAA or Championship Committee (or both) mandated them this year. Enough pressure about being transparent worked.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 26, 2017, 05:24:33 PM
    All of the sudden the month of January is coming to a close! It wasn't that long ago we were watching how teams would perform during holiday tournaments and after long breaks. Now, we are wondering how most teams will weather the second half of conference play.

    Thursday night on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave tries to take the temperature of Division III basketball. Just how good are the teams nationally ranked and near the top of some conference? Are there teams lurking who are about to emerge and disrupt things?

    Of course the focus on this show will primarily be the East, Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, and West Regions, but there is still plenty to talk about nationwide including the common theme: upsets and parity.

    Guests will include a coach who won his 400th on Wednesday, three nationally ranked teams, and seven total losses.

    Dave also discusses the recently launch Hoopsville Fundraising efforts and the upcoming annual marathon show. For more information on the fundraiser, click here: https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017

    Tune in starting at 7:00 PM LIVE via this link: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/jan26 (or the Facebook Live simulcast). If you can't make it live, watch the show On Demand to listen (download) the podcast to the right (available after the show concludes).

    Don't forget to contribute to the new "Hoopsville Mailbag" segment. Email questions you may have to hoopsville@d3hoops.com. Dave will answer them tonight or on a future show.

    Guests scheduled to appear (in order of appearance):
    - Frank Marcinek, No. 11 Susquehanna men's coach
    - Luke Flockerzi, No. 7 Rochester men's coach
    - Don Mulhern, UW-Superior women's coach
    - Michele Durand, No. 8 Ohio Northern women's coach

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Fundraiser: https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3Dkepf0%2Fnauvv4e6dlawogt6.jpg&hash=85a48d080a455858e70625e1f7ab43b4abccf840)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2017, 05:21:03 PM
    Believe it or not... there is just one more month remaining in Division III basketball's regular season. In other words, time is running out for teams looking to play in March. One month from today, most conference champions will be crowned and the conversation will be who may be in and will be out of the NCAA championship tournament.

    So as the season head's for the home stretch, what programs will we be talking about in a month? Who may emerge from some tight conferences races to prove they are the best?

    Sunday night on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave hopes to turn the spotlight on a few programs others may not be paying attention to as much. Tufts' men's program is seperating themselves from the rest of the NESCAC, Elmhurst women are making the CCIW race more interesting than expected, LeTourneau men have turned their program around and now lead their ASC division, and Montclair State women have a battle on their hands in the NJAC.

    Also on Sunday night, we head to the WBCA Center Court and talk to one of the up and coming women's basketball coaches. Already honored for his success at a young age, what has Alex Richay done to turn the Oglethorpe program around?

    Dave will also preview the upcoming annual Hoopsville Marathon and give an update to this season's fundraising efforts.

    Tune in starting at 7:00 PM ET to watch the show live here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/jan29 (or via Facebook Live). If you miss any of it, you can watch the show On Demand or listen (download) the podcast.

    Don't forget to contribute to the new "Hoopsville Mailbag" segment. Email questions you may have to hoopsville@d3hoops.com. Dave will answer them tonight or on a future show.

    Guests schedule (in order of appearance):
    - Bob Sheldon, No. 4 Tufts men's coach
    - Tethanie Carriollo, Elmhurst women's coach
    - Alex Richay, Oglethorpe women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Dan Miller, LeTourneau men's coach
    - Karin Harvey, No. 18 Montclair State women's coach

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Fundraiser: https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3Dkk0fp%2Fg85ouv94hm35yfei.jpg&hash=11a11145be8748fcb682bb041a834ffe8f0fbf3a)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2017, 11:10:46 PM
    Big week for teams as this week's results will be the last before the 1st regional rankings come out the following week!

    As for the Central...assuming teams win all their games this week. VERY LOOSE summaries!

    Despite losing in OT over the weekend, Augustana (15-4) should be in the Top 4.

    North Park (15-4) could be up there was well, maybe ahead of Augustana based on h2h.

    IWU (12-6) have lost 3 of 4 with Seibring not 100%, so it's not looking good for them.

    Carthage (12-6) has split with Augustana but lost to IWU.

    In the WIAC, River Falls (16-1) keeps rolling and could be a favorite for the #1 ranking in the region.

    Whitewater (15-3) has won 5 conference games in a row after starting out 0-3 and should be up there in the rankings as well.

    Eau Claire (13-5) is just 4-4 in conference and their high ranking looks in doubt now. They've gotten swept by Oshkosh.

    I don't think Oshkosh (12-7) will have enough to get in despite sweeping Eau Claire.

    Big game in the MWC this week with SNC (14-3) taking on Ripon (14-3) with Ripon already taking the first one in Ripon.

    Benedictine (15-3) keeps cruising in the NACC and may be top 5.

    Over in the UAA, Washington U (15-3) should be #2 in the region.

    Chicago (11-7) looks like a long shot to have too much of an impact in the 1st regional rankings.


    River Falls
    Washington U.
    Augustana
    North Park
    Eau Claire
    Benedictine
    SNC
    IWU
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 30, 2017, 11:00:47 AM
    Through Sunday, Jan. 29, based on knightslappy's numbers posted at http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)

    43 Pool A berths (current conference leaders)
    UW-River Falls (WIAC CE) 16-1, 0.604
    Babson (NEWMAC NE) 18-1, 0.581
    Whitman (NWC WE) 19-0, 0.553
    Washington U. (UAA CE) 15-3, 0.596
    Marietta (OAC GL) 15-4, 0.601
    Susquehanna (LAND MA) 15-3, 0.560
    Christopher Newport (CAC MA) 17-2, 0.529
    Tufts (NESCAC NE) 16-3, 0.545
    Neumann (CSAC AT) 18-1, 0.501
    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC WE) 13-0, 0.479
    St. Lawrence (LL EA) 16-3, 0.533
    Hope (MIAA GL) 14-3, 0.529
    Hardin-Simmons (ASC SO) 14-5, 0.559
    Eastern Connecticut (LEC NE) 14-6, 0.572
    Lycoming (MACC MA) 15-4, 0.537
    Ramapo (NJAC AT) 19-1, 0.474
    Hanover (HCAC GL) 13-3, 0.525
    St. John Fisher (E8 EA) 13-5, 0.559
    St. Thomas (MIAC WE) 14-4, 0.537
    Oswego State (SUNYAC EA) 15-4, 0.531
    ---approximate cut line if teams were in Pool C---
    Benedictine (NATHC ce) 15-3, 0.504
    Randolph-Macon (ODAC SO) 14-5, 0.538
    North Park (CCIW ce) 15-4, 0.516
    St. Norbert (MWC ce) 14-3, 0.487
    Endicott (CCC ne) 15-4, 0.495
    Denison (NCAC GL) 17-2, 0.448
    Staten Island (CUNYAC at) 15-5, 0.501
    Buena Vista (IIAC we) 12-7, 0.543
    Becker (NECC ne) 12-4, 0.494
    Eastern (MACF at) 11-8, 0.554
    Franklin and Marshall (CC ma) 14-5, 0.492
    Schreiner (SCAC so) 10-9, 0.565
    St. Vincent (PrAC gl) 14-4, 0.469
    La Roche (AMCC gl) 14-5, 0.483
    Husson (NAC ne) 12-5, 0.493
    Salem State (MASCAC ne) 12-8, 0.528
    Farmingdale State (SKY at) 14-5, 0.475
    Albertus Magnus (GNAC ne) 14-4, 0.456
    Gallaudet (NEAC ea) 15-4, 0.438
    Northwestern (Minn.) (UMAC we) 13-5, 0.455
    Greensboro (USAC so) 10-6, 0.483
    Westminster (Mo.) (SLIAC ce) 11-6, 0.454
    Centre (SAA so) 11-7, 0.447

    21 Pool C berths (must have WP>=.667 and SOS>=.500)
    1) Middlebury (NESCAC NE) 15-3, 0.618
    2) Rochester (UAA EA) 17-1, 0.542
    3) UW-Whitewater (WIAC CE) 15-3, 0.563
    4) Amherst (NESCAC NE) 14-4, 0.571
    5) Whitworth (NWC WE) 16-3, 0.546
    6) Wesleyan (NESCAC NE) 16-4, 0.555
    7) Salisbury (CAC MA) 15-4, 0.558
    8) Keene State (LEC NE) 14-5, 0.572
    9) John Carroll (OAC GL) 12-6, 0.593
    10) Cabrini (CSAC AT) 15-3, 0.529
    11) Loras (IIAC WE) 14-5, 0.565
    12) Bates (NESCAC NE) 14-6, 0.578
    13) UW-Eau Claire (WIAC CE) 13-5, 0.569
    14) Emory (UAA SO) 14-4, 0.538
    15) Swarthmore (CC MA) 15-4, 0.533
    16) Williams (NESCAC NE) 13-6, 0.572
    17) Carthage (CCIW CE) 12-6, 0.578
    18) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW CE) 12-6, 0.578
    19) LeTourneau (ASC SO) 15-3, 0.514
    20) Augustana (CCIW ce) 15-4, 0.528
    21) Mount St. Joseph (HCAC GL) 15-3, 0.508

    Leagues with the most teams in: NESCAC 6, CCIW 4, UAA 3, WIAC 3
    Pool C berths by region: Northeast 6, Central 5, West 2, Mid-Atlantic 2, Great Lakes 2, South 2, East 1, Atlantic 1

    Moving In: John Carroll (C), Bates (C), Carthage (C), Mount St. Joseph (C), Oswego State (SUNYAC), North Park (CCIW), Schreiner (SCAC), La Roche (AMCC), Centre (SAA)

    Moving Out: Catholic (C), MIT (C), Virginia Wesleyan (C), WPI (C), Brockport (SUNYAC), St. Johns (MIAC), Medaille (AMCC), Colorado College (SCAC), Birmingham-Southern (SAA)

    Wrong side of the bubble
    UW-Stout (WIAC CE) 10-6, 0.592
    UW-Oshkosh (WIAC CE) 12-7, 0.588
    Catholic (LAND MA) 13-6, 0.560
    Skidmore (LL EA) 14-5, 0.538
    Guilford (ODAC SO) 16-3, 0.498
    MIT (NEWMAC NE) 14-5, 0.535
    Hamilton (NESCAC NE) 13-5, 0.537
    Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC SO) 13-6, 0.548
    Wooster (NCAC GL) 13-6, 0.545
    DeSales (MACF AT) 13-6, 0.545
    WPI (NEWMAC ne) 13-6, 0.545
    UW-Stevens Point (WIAC ce) 9-9, 0.614
    Brockport (SUNYAC EA) 15-5, 0.519
    Connecticut College (NESCAC ne) 11-7, 0.570
    Mass-Dartmouth (LEC ne) 12-7, 0.562
    Ripon (MWC ce) 14-3, 0.488
    Concordia (Texas) (ASC SO) 12-5, 0.532
    TCNJ (NJAC AT) 15-5, 0.515
    Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC AT) 15-4, 0.499
    Moravian (LAND MA) 12-5, 0.530
    Nebraska Wesleyan (IIAC WE) 13-4, 0.506
    Chicago (UAA ce) 11-7, 0.562
    Johns Hopkins (CC MA) 13-6, 0.532
    Scranton (LAND ma) 14-5, 0.512
    Rowan (NJAC AT) 12-8, 0.563
    New Jersey City (NJAC AT) 16-4, 0.487
    Central (IIAC WE) 11-8, 0.568
    St. Olaf (MIAC WE) 8-9, 0.607
    Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC ne) 13-7, 0.539
    Ohio Northern (OAC GL) 12-7, 0.545
    Pomona-Pitzer (SCIAC we) 9-3, 0.500
    Wartburg (IIAC we) 11-7, 0.552
    St. Johns (MIAC we) 12-4, 0.498
    SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC EA) 12-8, 0.554
    Maryville (Tenn.) (USAC SO) 14-4, 0.485
    Buffalo State (SUNYAC EA) 11-6, 0.534
    Cortland (SUNYAC ea) 13-6, 0.520
    Nazareth (E8 ea) 12-6, 0.524
    Alvernia (MACC ma) 12-7, 0.537
    Grinnell (MWC ce) 10-6, 0.538
    Misericordia (MACF at) 14-5, 0.496
    Lasell (GNAC ne) 12-7, 0.533
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on January 30, 2017, 11:48:20 AM
    Appreciate the work put in on this as always...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 30, 2017, 12:30:38 PM
    We usually need about 8 or 9 Pool C's for current A's that lose their conference tournaments, so the real bubble is somewhere in the middle of the current C's

    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 30, 2017, 11:00:47 AM
    Through Sunday, Jan. 29, based on knightslappy's numbers posted at http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ (http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/)

    43 Pool A berths (current conference leaders)
    UW-River Falls (WIAC CE) 16-1, 0.604
    Babson (NEWMAC NE) 18-1, 0.581
    Whitman (NWC WE) 19-0, 0.553
    Washington U. (UAA CE) 15-3, 0.596
    Marietta (OAC GL) 15-4, 0.601
    Susquehanna (LAND MA) 15-3, 0.560
    Christopher Newport (CAC MA) 17-2, 0.529
    Tufts (NESCAC NE) 16-3, 0.545
    Neumann (CSAC AT) 18-1, 0.501
    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC WE) 13-0, 0.479
    St. Lawrence (LL EA) 16-3, 0.533
    Hope (MIAA GL) 14-3, 0.529
    Hardin-Simmons (ASC SO) 14-5, 0.559
    Eastern Connecticut (LEC NE) 14-6, 0.572
    Lycoming (MACC MA) 15-4, 0.537
    Ramapo (NJAC AT) 19-1, 0.474
    Hanover (HCAC GL) 13-3, 0.525
    St. John Fisher (E8 EA) 13-5, 0.559
    St. Thomas (MIAC WE) 14-4, 0.537
    Oswego State (SUNYAC EA) 15-4, 0.531
    ---approximate cut line if teams were in Pool C---
    Benedictine (NATHC ce) 15-3, 0.504
    Randolph-Macon (ODAC SO) 14-5, 0.538
    North Park (CCIW ce) 15-4, 0.516
    St. Norbert (MWC ce) 14-3, 0.487
    Endicott (CCC ne) 15-4, 0.495
    Denison (NCAC GL) 17-2, 0.448
    Staten Island (CUNYAC at) 15-5, 0.501
    Buena Vista (IIAC we) 12-7, 0.543
    Becker (NECC ne) 12-4, 0.494
    Eastern (MACF at) 11-8, 0.554
    Franklin and Marshall (CC ma) 14-5, 0.492
    Schreiner (SCAC so) 10-9, 0.565
    St. Vincent (PrAC gl) 14-4, 0.469
    La Roche (AMCC gl) 14-5, 0.483
    Husson (NAC ne) 12-5, 0.493
    Salem State (MASCAC ne) 12-8, 0.528
    Farmingdale State (SKY at) 14-5, 0.475
    Albertus Magnus (GNAC ne) 14-4, 0.456
    Gallaudet (NEAC ea) 15-4, 0.438
    Northwestern (Minn.) (UMAC we) 13-5, 0.455
    Greensboro (USAC so) 10-6, 0.483
    Westminster (Mo.) (SLIAC ce) 11-6, 0.454
    Centre (SAA so) 11-7, 0.447

    21 Pool C berths (must have WP>=.667 and SOS>=.500)
    1) Middlebury (NESCAC NE) 15-3, 0.618
    2) Rochester (UAA EA) 17-1, 0.542
    3) UW-Whitewater (WIAC CE) 15-3, 0.563
    4) Amherst (NESCAC NE) 14-4, 0.571
    5) Whitworth (NWC WE) 16-3, 0.546
    6) Wesleyan (NESCAC NE) 16-4, 0.555
    7) Salisbury (CAC MA) 15-4, 0.558
    8) Keene State (LEC NE) 14-5, 0.572
    9) John Carroll (OAC GL) 12-6, 0.593
    10) Cabrini (CSAC AT) 15-3, 0.529
    11) Loras (IIAC WE) 14-5, 0.565
    12) Bates (NESCAC NE) 14-6, 0.578
    13) UW-Eau Claire (WIAC CE) 13-5, 0.569
    -------------------------------------------------------------Bubble line??
    14) Emory (UAA SO) 14-4, 0.538
    15) Swarthmore (CC MA) 15-4, 0.533
    16) Williams (NESCAC NE) 13-6, 0.572
    17) Carthage (CCIW CE) 12-6, 0.578
    18) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW CE) 12-6, 0.578
    19) LeTourneau (ASC SO) 15-3, 0.514
    20) Augustana (CCIW ce) 15-4, 0.528
    21) Mount St. Joseph (HCAC GL) 15-3, 0.508

    You can also strike one CCIW and at least one NESCAC since I think its very unlikely they get 4 and 6 teams in the tournament.


    Quote
    Wrong side of the bubble
    UW-Stout (WIAC CE) 10-6, 0.592
    UW-Oshkosh (WIAC CE) 12-7, 0.588
    Catholic (LAND MA) 13-6, 0.560
    Skidmore (LL EA) 14-5, 0.538
    Guilford (ODAC SO) 16-3, 0.498
    MIT (NEWMAC NE) 14-5, 0.535
    Hamilton (NESCAC NE) 13-5, 0.537
    Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC SO) 13-6, 0.548
    Wooster (NCAC GL) 13-6, 0.545
    DeSales (MACF AT) 13-6, 0.545
    WPI (NEWMAC ne) 13-6, 0.545

    The definition of Pool C means at least one more loss between now and the end of season (unless you're UAA) so strike current 8 and 9 loss teams.  Seven loss teams are on pretty thin ice as well.

    Quote
    UW-Stevens Point (WIAC ce) 9-9, 0.614
    Brockport (SUNYAC EA) 15-5, 0.519
    Connecticut College (NESCAC ne) 11-7, 0.570
    Mass-Dartmouth (LEC ne) 12-7, 0.562
    Ripon (MWC ce) 14-3, 0.488
    Concordia (Texas) (ASC SO) 12-5, 0.532
    TCNJ (NJAC AT) 15-5, 0.515
    Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC AT) 15-4, 0.499
    Moravian (LAND MA) 12-5, 0.530
    Nebraska Wesleyan (IIAC WE) 13-4, 0.506
    Chicago (UAA ce) 11-7, 0.562
    Johns Hopkins (CC MA) 13-6, 0.532
    Scranton (LAND ma) 14-5, 0.512
    Rowan (NJAC AT) 12-8, 0.563
    New Jersey City (NJAC AT) 16-4, 0.487
    Central (IIAC WE) 11-8, 0.568
    St. Olaf (MIAC WE) 8-9, 0.607
    Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC ne) 13-7, 0.539
    Ohio Northern (OAC GL) 12-7, 0.545
    Pomona-Pitzer (SCIAC we) 9-3, 0.500
    Wartburg (IIAC we) 11-7, 0.552
    St. Johns (MIAC we) 12-4, 0.498
    SUNY Geneseo (SUNYAC EA) 12-8, 0.554
    Maryville (Tenn.) (USAC SO) 14-4, 0.485
    Buffalo State (SUNYAC EA) 11-6, 0.534
    Cortland (SUNYAC ea) 13-6, 0.520
    Nazareth (E8 ea) 12-6, 0.524
    Alvernia (MACC ma) 12-7, 0.537
    Grinnell (MWC ce) 10-6, 0.538
    Misericordia (MACF at) 14-5, 0.496
    Lasell (GNAC ne) 12-7, 0.533
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 30, 2017, 02:00:25 PM
    No argument with any of that.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 30, 2017, 02:17:12 PM
    I have a feeling we're going to see a few more 7-loss and 8-loss teams than what we are accustomed to and/or teams closer to that .500 SoS than we're used to.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 30, 2017, 02:44:02 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 30, 2017, 02:17:12 PM
    I have a feeling we're going to see a few more 7-loss and 8-loss teams than what we are accustomed to and/or teams closer to that .500 SoS than we're used to.

    For multiple reasons, yes. We saw it last year... and with two extra picks and even more parity, we are likely to see it this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 30, 2017, 02:50:19 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 30, 2017, 02:44:02 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 30, 2017, 02:17:12 PM
    I have a feeling we're going to see a few more 7-loss and 8-loss teams than what we are accustomed to and/or teams closer to that .500 SoS than we're used to.

    For multiple reasons, yes. We saw it last year... and with two extra picks and even more parity, we are likely to see it this year.

    It's maybe not out of the question that a team that got their 9th loss in the tournament final of a tough conference could get in at 18-9 (.667) or 19-9 with a very high SOS.  This seems possible in the WIAC or CCIW.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 30, 2017, 05:04:30 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 30, 2017, 02:50:19 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 30, 2017, 02:44:02 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 30, 2017, 02:17:12 PM
    I have a feeling we're going to see a few more 7-loss and 8-loss teams than what we are accustomed to and/or teams closer to that .500 SoS than we're used to.

    For multiple reasons, yes. We saw it last year... and with two extra picks and even more parity, we are likely to see it this year.

    It's maybe not out of the question that a team that got their 9th loss in the tournament final of a tough conference could get in at 18-9 (.667) or 19-9 with a very high SOS.  This seems possible in the WIAC or CCIW.

    Keep in mind that Rochester was 17-8 (.680) with one of the higher SOS's in the country last year... and they did NOT get in. If you are on the .667 number or just above it... consider yourself on the wrong side of the bubble. Yes, with two more bids there is a better chance a team like Rochester can get in, but I don't think we will see a .667 team get in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 30, 2017, 08:25:11 PM

    Someone will have to look back, I feel like one of the WIAC schools got in right at .667 with 8 losses one year.  I know a .667 has gotten in at least twice, but it's usually with some conference tourney wins.  Anything under .700, though, and you're on thin ice.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 30, 2017, 10:10:54 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 30, 2017, 08:25:11 PM

    Someone will have to look back, I feel like one of the WIAC schools got in right at .667 with 8 losses one year.  I know a .667 has gotten in at least twice, but it's usually with some conference tourney wins.  Anything under .700, though, and you're on thin ice.

    From what the committee has stated several times to me (and maybe they are incorrect), but no team with a .667 or lower has gotten in as a Pool C team during this SOS era. I think someone mentioned last year that this isn't necessarily accurate, but I don't remember who the team was that was pointed out.

    Even if it isn't accurate, I know the committee thinks about that as a "Mendoza Line." I think that is fair. If we really think about it, if a team can't win more than 2/3s of their games, should they be in the national tournament which is trying to select the best teams for at-large selections? Sure, a team might have a really good SOS, but I've always said teams still have to prove they can win. Not sure winning just 2/3s of a schedule is good enough. Maybe that is harsh, but I feel if we are looking for the best, 2/3s isn't that standard.

    So, I think it is fair to use that as a mark of beware. Ryan's .700 might be a bit of a harder line, BUT considering what Rochester had for a resume last year, it might be a fair line to use as a "if below, you are in trouble" and the .667 is the "forget it" line.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 30, 2017, 11:32:44 PM

    You might be right - I feel like it was Oshkosh for some reason and I'm pretty sure they had 8 losses, but even 17-8 is .680.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 30, 2017, 11:56:31 PM
    I think you're thinking of Springfield in 2015?

    Quote2015 Pool C Selections (best guess at order)
    1. (GL) Marietta (.893/.519/4-3)
    2. (MA) Johns Hopkins (.852/.539/3-3)
    3. (C) UW-Stevens Point (.808/.575/2-4) *national champion*  (tied with WW, not sure who had #1 WIAC seed going into WIAC tournament)
    4. (C)  Washington U. (.800/.565/4-2)
    5. (GL) Ohio Wesleyan (.815/.537/3-1)
    6. (NE) Trinity-Conn. (.792/.535/5-1)
    7. (NE) Amherst (.741/.579/6-3)
    8. (NE) Bates (.760/.609/4-5)
    9. (AT) William Patterson (.741/.565/4-3)
    10. (GL) Wooster (.786/.551/3-2)
    11. (C) Illinois Wesleyan (.704/.591/5-5)
    12. (C) Elmhurst (.731/.551/4-4)
    13. (S) Virginia Wesleyan (.815/.554/0-4)
    14. (GL) John Carroll (.769/.527/3-3)
    15. (W) St. Olaf (.808/.527/1-5)
    16. (MA) Catholic (.846/.506/1-3)
    17. (NE) Eastern Conn. (.815/.550/0-2)
    18. (NE) WPI (.808/.515/2-3)
    19. (NE) Springfield (.704/.584/3-5)

    Last team in 19-8 record.  No WIAC that made the tournament as a C fits your description.


    I think this is what you're thinking of Ryan

    Illinois Wesleyan in 2011 also 19-8 but 18-8 in-region  .692/.543/2-2
    ...from reading post from that year, IWU making the field was a surprise
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 31, 2017, 01:56:46 AM
    I see people referencing 8 and 9 loss teams having a shot because of the expanded Pool C.  But past history is showing a lot of 5-6-7 loss teams still on the table at the end of the process.  I'm not sure its going to work out quite the way some might think.  I seems fairly rare to have a team under .700 even at the final table., like maybe one or two per year.

    I guess I see 8 losses with high SOS as just having a better chance since they'll probably have more rounds available for selection, but its not necessarily an assured thing.  Make sense?

    Long way to go and maybe it becomes more obvious later, but not sure right now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 31, 2017, 07:07:37 AM

    Maybe there was an 8 loss WIAC team that missed, but maybe shouldn't have.  All these years run together now and there are so many numbers.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2017, 08:37:19 AM
    Question for the group as we prepare our hearts and minds for the first set of rankings next week:

    would you rather I (1) update the data every day or (2) update through Sunday and then hold the data until we see the regional rankings on Wednesday afternoon?

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 31, 2017, 09:04:28 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 30, 2017, 10:10:54 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 30, 2017, 08:25:11 PM

    Someone will have to look back, I feel like one of the WIAC schools got in right at .667 with 8 losses one year.  I know a .667 has gotten in at least twice, but it's usually with some conference tourney wins.  Anything under .700, though, and you're on thin ice.

    From what the committee has stated several times to me (and maybe they are incorrect), but no team with a .667 or lower has gotten in as a Pool C team during this SOS era. I think someone mentioned last year that this isn't necessarily accurate, but I don't remember who the team was that was pointed out.

    Even if it isn't accurate, I know the committee thinks about that as a "Mendoza Line." I think that is fair. If we really think about it, if a team can't win more than 2/3s of their games, should they be in the national tournament which is trying to select the best teams for at-large selections? Sure, a team might have a really good SOS, but I've always said teams still have to prove they can win. Not sure winning just 2/3s of a schedule is good enough. Maybe that is harsh, but I feel if we are looking for the best, 2/3s isn't that standard.

    So, I think it is fair to use that as a mark of beware. Ryan's .700 might be a bit of a harder line, BUT considering what Rochester had for a resume last year, it might be a fair line to use as a "if below, you are in trouble" and the .667 is the "forget it" line.

    I vaguely recall hearing that Virginia Wesleyan (18-9, .561, 3-3) was on the table and in serious discussion at the end of the process last year, but no one has received a Pool C at .667 or below for at least the last four seasons.

    In 2015, the lowest WP for a Pool C selection was .704 for Springfield (19-8, .584, 3-5).  John Carroll (20-6, .527, 3-3) got in, while North Central (16-8, .587, 3-6) did not.

    In 2014, Emory (17-8, .602, 4-5) was the lowest Pool C WP at .680.  Bowdoin (19-5, .503, 1-3) and Wittenberg (21-7, .517, 3-6) were selected, while St Mary's (16-8, .565, 1-6) and Messiah (19-6, .534, 2-4) were not.

    In 2013, Springfield (19-8, .575, 4-6) was in at .704, as was Randolph (15-6, .520, 4-5).  On the flip side, Buena Vista (18-7, .563, 1-2), Thomas More (22-4, .512, 1-3), Albright (20-6, .546, 3-1), and Brandeis (17-8, .569, 4-7) were out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2017, 11:43:11 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2017, 08:37:19 AM
    Question for the group as we prepare our hearts and minds for the first set of rankings next week:

    would you rather I (1) update the data every day or (2) update through Sunday and then hold the data until we see the regional rankings on Wednesday afternoon?

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    I think you should update every day until Sunday... and then hold until we see the regional rankings. People will make arguments or assume incorrectly things if we are looking at data that is being updated and not what the committee is discussing. I think then on, say, Thursday you can start re-updating until Sunday.

    I realize the second part of that could still cause some confusion, but for me personally... it helps me have an idea on Thursday night how things may have changed (I just have to remember to maybe print your rankings out prior to you changing them).

    But updating them daily when the committee's numbers aren't changing is only going to cause confusion and we will all be having to explain why the numbers are different.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2017, 12:05:36 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2017, 08:37:19 AM
    Question for the group as we prepare our hearts and minds for the first set of rankings next week:

    would you rather I (1) update the data every day or (2) update through Sunday and then hold the data until we see the regional rankings on Wednesday afternoon?

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    I'd suggest you update every day but also create an archived copy of the data through each Sunday.

    BTW, I went through most of the games yesterday afternoon and made a bunch of corrections to in-region designations. I'd guess probably 50 men's games and 40 women's games were affected. Not quite complete, but I feel pretty good about the data as of right now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2017, 12:15:12 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2017, 12:05:36 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2017, 08:37:19 AM
    Question for the group as we prepare our hearts and minds for the first set of rankings next week:

    would you rather I (1) update the data every day or (2) update through Sunday and then hold the data until we see the regional rankings on Wednesday afternoon?

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    I'd suggest you update every day but also create an archived copy of the data through each Sunday.

    BTW, I went through most of the games yesterday afternoon and made a bunch of corrections to in-region designations. I'd guess probably 50 men's games and 40 women's games were affected. Not quite complete, but I feel pretty good about the data as of right now.

    That's a pretty good compromise. I think it is important to have a record of Sunday's numbers, so having them available somehow so we can see them as we wait for Wednesday's rankings I think is important. I also think it is important to see how those numbers are changing on a daily basis, especially for those who don't quite understand how the SOS works or how it relates to the rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 31, 2017, 02:35:01 PM
    So, option #3 then?  ??? ;D

    I will explore the option of creating an archive.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2017, 03:03:45 PM
    This circles back to several weeks ago pertaining to UWSP and whether their post-season ban would affect if they are considered by the committee for regional rankings... and furthermore how they affect other teams.

    I need double-check and as I expected, UWSP will be considered when it comes to regional rankings and thus they will have an affect on other teams. So they could be ranked, if worthy, and their games, WL%, SOS, and other items will be considered for themselves and for their opponents.

    This will mean that IF UWSP were to "get to the table" at at-large selection time, they would simply be skipped over and the next team behind them will take their place. Big if, but I know people would wonder how that is handled.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 31, 2017, 03:27:50 PM
    Thanks, Dave. They are only 9-9 right now, but good to know IF that would happen.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2017, 04:11:15 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 31, 2017, 03:27:50 PM
    Thanks, Dave. They are only 9-9 right now, but good to know IF that would happen.

    Yeah, certainly not saying it will happen... but if they went on a run and with more teams being ranked in regions (though to be honest, the Central might be the only region that didn't gain [or lose] a regional number this year)... you know if I didn't look into it... it would happen and no one would know if they are being considered. LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 31, 2017, 06:11:09 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2017, 04:11:15 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 31, 2017, 03:27:50 PM
    Thanks, Dave. They are only 9-9 right now, but good to know IF that would happen.

    Yeah, certainly not saying it will happen... but if they went on a run and with more teams being ranked in regions (though to be honest, the Central might be the only region that didn't gain [or lose] a regional number this year)... you know if I didn't look into it... it would happen and no one would know if they are being considered. LOL

    Because the addition of 2 NCAA tourney spots, regions get additional spots in the regional rankings? Interesting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 31, 2017, 07:16:08 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 31, 2017, 06:11:09 PM]
    Because the addition of 2 NCAA tourney spots, regions get additional spots in the regional rankings? Interesting.

    For the record, it's 11 this year for the Northeast, 9 in the Great Lakes, and 8 in each of the other regions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2017, 09:09:46 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 31, 2017, 06:11:09 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2017, 04:11:15 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 31, 2017, 03:27:50 PM
    Thanks, Dave. They are only 9-9 right now, but good to know IF that would happen.

    Yeah, certainly not saying it will happen... but if they went on a run and with more teams being ranked in regions (though to be honest, the Central might be the only region that didn't gain [or lose] a regional number this year)... you know if I didn't look into it... it would happen and no one would know if they are being considered. LOL

    Because the addition of 2 NCAA tourney spots, regions get additional spots in the regional rankings? Interesting.

    Has nothing to do with the 2 extra NCAA spots...

    When determining how many teams are to be ranked in each region, there is a percentage range. I can't remember the exact range this moment, but say 12-17% just to give you an idea of what it would be. The men's committee in the off season decided there were some regions that could use a few more teams ranked and others that maybe had too many ranked. The Northeast has had 13 in the past, so the committee went to the lowest it could with 11. The rest, they shifted to as even a number as they could find: 8. I believe Great Lakes is just big enough they couldn't get it down to 8.

    There are a number of reasons for this. The women made a similar move a few years ago. But it has nothing to do with adding two more slots to the tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 01, 2017, 11:58:23 AM

    Page 16 of the pre-championship manual - http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017DIIIMBB_PreChamp_DIII_M_Basketball_20161024.pdf

    That manual also tells you pretty much everything you'll ever want to know about selection.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: mailsy on February 01, 2017, 05:39:27 PM
    Thanks Ryan. Always good to have that on hand. +1.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AllStar on February 01, 2017, 05:49:43 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 01, 2017, 11:58:23 AM

    Page 16 of the pre-championship manual - http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017DIIIMBB_PreChamp_DIII_M_Basketball_20161024.pdf

    That manual also tells you pretty much everything you'll ever want to know about selection.

    This is useful.  Thank you!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 01, 2017, 07:54:44 PM
    Just moving this forward

    http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 06, 2017, 10:03:33 AM
    Through Sunday, Feb. 5, based on knightslappy's numbers posted at http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    43 Pool A berths (current conference leaders)
    UW-River Falls (WIAC CE) 17-2, 0.605
    Babson (NEWMAC NE) 20-1, 0.581
    Whitman (NWC WE) 21-0, 0.549
    Washington U. (UAA CE) 17-3, 0.586
    Marietta (OAC GL) 17-4, 0.591
    Christopher Newport (CAC MA) 19-2, 0.534
    Susquehanna (LAND MA) 17-3, 0.554
    Neumann (CSAC AT) 20-1, 0.512
    Tufts (NESCAC NE) 17-5, 0.562
    Hope (MIAA GL) 16-3, 0.531
    Lycoming (MACC MA) 17-4, 0.537
    St. Lawrence (LL EA) 17-4, 0.535
    Hanover (HCAC GL) 15-3, 0.524
    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (SCIAC WE) 15-0, 0.459
    Swarthmore (CC MA) 17-4, 0.529
    Benedictine (NATHC CE) 18-3, 0.511
    St. Thomas (MIAC WE) 16-4, 0.532
    ---below would be bubble teams in Pool C, due to "bid thieves" winning conference tournaments---
    Ramapo (NJAC AT) 20-2, 0.485
    Augustana (CCIW ce) 17-4, 0.518
    Oswego State (SUNYAC EA) 17-4, 0.518
    St. John Fisher (E8 EA) 15-5, 0.539
    Guilford (ODAC SO) 18-3, 0.497
    ---below would likely be on the wrong side of the bubble in Pool C---
    Eastern Connecticut (LEC NE) 14-7, 0.562
    Wooster (NCAC GL) 15-6, 0.541
    Concordia (Texas) (ASC SO) 13-5, 0.536
    St. Norbert (MWC ce) 16-3, 0.488
    Endicott (CCC ne) 17-4, 0.498
    Buena Vista (IIAC WE) 14-8, 0.547
    Eastern (MACF AT) 13-8, 0.550
    Staten Island (CUNYAC at) 17-5, 0.492
    Becker (NECC ne) 15-4, 0.482
    Albertus Magnus (GNAC ne) 16-4, 0.469
    St. Vincent (PrAC gl) 16-4, 0.467
    Farmingdale State (SKY at) 16-5, 0.477
    Schreiner (SCAC so) 11-10, 0.564
    Medaille (AMCC gl) 15-5, 0.469
    Salem State (MASCAC ne) 14-8, 0.511
    Gallaudet (NEAC ea) 18-4, 0.441
    Husson (NAC ne) 14-6, 0.483
    Northwestern (Minn.) (UMAC we) 14-6, 0.455
    Methodist (USAC so) 13-7, 0.472
    Westminster (Mo.) (SLIAC ce) 13-6, 0.438
    Centre (SAA so) 13-7, 0.440

    21 Pool C berths (must have WP>=.667 and SOS>=.500)
    (A handful of these likely would end up out, due to bid thieves in conference tournaments)
    1) Middlebury (NESCAC NE) 18-3, 0.606
    2) Amherst (NESCAC NE) 16-4, 0.582
    3) Rochester (UAA EA) 19-1, 0.521
    4) UW-Whitewater (WIAC CE) 17-3, 0.556
    5) Whitworth (NWC WE) 18-3, 0.540
    6) Salisbury (CAC MA) 17-4, 0.550
    7) Williams (NESCAC NE) 16-6, 0.577
    8) Wesleyan (NESCAC NE) 16-5, 0.560
    9) John Carroll (OAC GL) 14-6, 0.579
    10) UW-Eau Claire (WIAC CE) 14-6, 0.573
    11) Mount St. Joseph (HCAC GL) 17-3, 0.515
    12) Hardin-Simmons (ASC SO) 15-6, 0.561
    13) Loras (IIAC WE) 15-6, 0.560
    14) Keene State (LEC NE) 14-7, 0.574
    15) Cabrini (CSAC AT) 16-4, 0.524
    16) Catholic (LAND MA) 15-6, 0.552
    17) Carthage (CCIW CE) 13-6, 0.562
    18) Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW ce) 14-6, 0.556
    19) Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC SO) 15-6, 0.548
    20) MIT (NEWMAC NE) 16-5, 0.529
    21) Mass-Dartmouth (LEC NE) 14-7, 0.563

    Leagues with the most teams in: NESCAC 6, WIAC 3, Little East 3, CCIW 3
    (The NESCAC may well get five bids, but these other leagues seem unlikely to hold three)

    Pool C berths by region: Northeast 7, Central 4, West 2, Mid-Atlantic 2, Great Lakes 2, South 2, East 1, Atlantic 1

    Moving In: Catholic (C), Virginia Wesleyan (C), MIT (C), Mass-Dartmouth (C), Guilford (ODAC), Wooster (NCAC), Concordia (Texas) (ASC), Medaille (AMCC), Methodist (USAC)

    Moving Out: Bates (C), LeTourneau (C), Emory (C), North Park (CCIW), Randolph-Macon (ODAC), Denison (NCAC), Franklin and Marshall (CC), La Roche (AMCC), Greensboro (USAC)

    Notes: Hardin-Simmons moves from ASC leader to Pool C; Swarthmore moves from Pool C to CC leader; Augustana moves from Pool C to CCIW leader

    Wrong side of the bubble
    Note: Only teams with the potential to get to .667 WP (e.g. 18-9) or better are listed
    UW-Oshkosh (WIAC CE) 13-8, 0.596
    Bates (NESCAC NE) 15-8, 0.580
    Rowan (NJAC AT) 14-8, 0.572
    Scranton (LAND MA) 16-5, 0.524
    Brockport (SUNYAC EA) 16-5, 0.521
    LeTourneau (ASC SO) 16-4, 0.504
    North Park (CCIW ce) 15-5, 0.521
    Nebraska Wesleyan (IIAC WE) 15-5, 0.520
    TCNJ (NJAC AT) 16-6, 0.528
    Hamilton (NESCAC ne) 15-6, 0.529
    Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC AT) 17-4, 0.493
    DeSales (MACF AT) 15-6, 0.527
    St. Johns (MIAC WE) 14-5, 0.518
    Connecticut College (NESCAC ne) 12-8, 0.568
    Emory (UAA SO) 14-6, 0.530
    Ohio Northern (OAC GL) 14-7, 0.539
    WPI (NEWMAC ne) 14-7, 0.538
    Trinity (Conn.) (NESCAC ne) 14-8, 0.547
    Randolph-Macon (ODAC SO) 15-6, 0.517
    Wartburg (IIAC we) 12-8, 0.559
    Ripon (MWC ce) 14-5, 0.505
    Moravian (LAND MA) 13-6, 0.524
    Cortland (SUNYAC EA) 15-6, 0.512
    North Central (Ill.) (CCIW ce) 13-7, 0.534
    Johns Hopkins (CC ma) 14-7, 0.526
    Chicago (UAA ce) 12-8, 0.551
    Alvernia (MACC ma) 13-8, 0.543
    New Jersey City (NJAC at) 17-5, 0.484
    Denison (NCAC gl) 17-4, 0.469
    Delaware Valley (MACF at) 13-8, 0.540
    Stevens (E8 ea) 16-4, 0.471
    Skidmore (LL ea) 15-6, 0.503
    Franklin and Marshall (CC ma) 15-6, 0.502
    Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC gl) 15-6, 0.502
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 06, 2017, 12:27:11 PM
     Landmark current conference leader is Scranton, not Susquehanna, by virtue of its win in head-to-head.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2017, 02:23:00 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 06, 2017, 12:27:11 PM
    Landmark current conference leader is Scranton, not Susquehanna, by virtue of its win in head-to-head.

    As always, that list is compiled in the manner it says at the top: "based on knightslappy's numbers."
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2017, 03:07:53 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2017, 02:23:00 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 06, 2017, 12:27:11 PM
    Landmark current conference leader is Scranton, not Susquehanna, by virtue of its win in head-to-head.

    As always, that list is compiled in the manner it says at the top: "based on knightslappy's numbers."

    And since every conference (save the UAA) hands out its Pool A berth via a conference tournament, I'm not worried about actual league tiebreakers. I use RPI to break the tie and quickly move along. I'll lock teams in if/when they clinch a berth.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 06, 2017, 11:46:22 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2017, 03:07:53 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 06, 2017, 02:23:00 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 06, 2017, 12:27:11 PM
    Landmark current conference leader is Scranton, not Susquehanna, by virtue of its win in head-to-head.

    As always, that list is compiled in the manner it says at the top: "based on knightslappy's numbers."

    And since every conference (save the UAA) hands out its Pool A berth via a conference tournament, I'm not worried about actual league tiebreakers. I use RPI to break the tie and quickly move along. I'll lock teams in if/when they clinch a berth.

    I understand and you even point out that your ranking doesn't include head-to-head considerations; just didn't want anyone to think that Scranton was one of those "bid thieves", at least at this point. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: mailsy on February 08, 2017, 10:18:23 AM
    So. About what time will the regional rankings appear today? I'm curious how CSAC teams will fair.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2017, 11:06:34 AM
    I would guess mid-afternoon.

    http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    Knightslappy has Neumann and Cabrini 1 and 2 in the Atlantic. That region, SoS-wise is really bad though. I'm thinking 1 Pool C bid comes out of there at this moment.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 08, 2017, 01:33:25 PM
    Regional Rankings should be posted very soon. Just waiting for Turner to do their job.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2017, 01:38:58 PM
    http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional-rankings-0

    http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2017/02/men-regional-rankings-first
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 08, 2017, 01:56:01 PM
    Could Ramapo even get ranked in the Central Region?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2017, 02:37:35 PM
    Let me know if you notice any SOS errors in my numbers of more than, say, .003 or so.

    So far the one's I've checked are all in line.

    Archived SOS values are here if you're interested in looking: http://detroitjockcity.com/2017/02/06/college-basketball-division-iii-regional-ranking-data-strength-schedule-week-1/
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2017, 02:41:32 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 08, 2017, 01:56:01 PM
    Could Ramapo even get ranked in the Central Region?

    Of course. The Central shows you can get ranked with a high winning % and a weak SoS

    4. Augustana .810 w%/.518 SoS
    6. Benedictine .857/.511
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 08, 2017, 02:50:16 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2017, 02:41:32 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 08, 2017, 01:56:01 PM
    Could Ramapo even get ranked in the Central Region?

    Of course. The Central shows you can get ranked with a high winning % and a weak SoS

    4. Augustana .810 w%/.518 SoS
    6. Benedictine .857/.511

    Don't think so, maybe 8th

    Ramapo  20-2   .909/.486   #2 in Atlantic Region
    St. Norbert  16-3   .842/.488   not ranked in Central
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2017, 02:55:28 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 08, 2017, 02:50:16 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2017, 02:41:32 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 08, 2017, 01:56:01 PM
    Could Ramapo even get ranked in the Central Region?

    Of course. The Central shows you can get ranked with a high winning % and a weak SoS

    4. Augustana .810 w%/.518 SoS
    6. Benedictine .857/.511

    Don't think so, maybe 8th

    Ramapo  20-2   .909/.486   #2 in Atlantic Region
    St. Norbert  16-3   .842/.488   not ranked in Central

    By RPI they beat North Park and tie Augustana (but are behind Carthage). Maybe they'd be in the mix for the last spot or two.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2017, 04:06:37 PM
    I found one potential error in the data (so far). They list Dubuque as 8-10 in the West region. I have them as 7-11.

    It looks like the NCAA and d3hoops.com disagree on the result of the 12/29 game vs. St. Scholastica.

    http://d3hoops.com/teams/Dubuque/men/2016-17/index
    http://stats.ncaa.org/team/192/12480

    Looks like Dubuque indeed won the game. Somehow the d3hoops.com box score got flipped.

    http://www.csssaints.com/schedule.aspx?path=mbball
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 08, 2017, 05:08:12 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 08, 2017, 04:06:37 PM
    I found one potential error in the data (so far). They list Dubuque as 8-10 in the West region. I have them as 7-11.

    It looks like the NCAA and d3hoops.com disagree on the result of the 12/29 game vs. St. Scholastica.

    http://d3hoops.com/teams/Dubuque/men/2016-17/index
    http://stats.ncaa.org/team/192/12480

    Looks like Dubuque indeed won the game. Somehow the d3hoops.com box score got flipped.

    http://www.csssaints.com/schedule.aspx?path=mbball

    We are definitely reliant on schools confirming the score when they upload a box score! Thanks for the catch and we've flipped home/away to make the score line up.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 08, 2017, 11:09:47 PM
    The Claremont-Mudd-Scripps loss to Pamona-Pitzer is an interesting one for Pool C. CMS has a great WP but their SOS was a brutal .468 before this game... does this hurt their chance at a Pool C birth should they not get the SCIAC AQ, or is their WP high enough to overcome the SOS? I ask because I have seen people not too impressed with them so far, especially Dave who had them ranked 25 in his latest poll (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2017/02/07/daves-top-25-ballot-16-17-week-10/).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 08, 2017, 11:24:44 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 08, 2017, 11:09:47 PM
    The Claremont-Mudd-Scripps loss to Pamona-Pitzer is an interesting one for Pool C. CMS has a great WP but their SOS was a brutal .468 before this game... does this hurt their chance at a Pool C birth should they not get the SCIAC AQ, or is their WP high enough to overcome the SOS? I ask because I have seen people not too impressed with them so far, especially Dave who had them ranked 25 in his latest poll (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2017/02/07/daves-top-25-ballot-16-17-week-10/).

    An SOS below .500 is basically not going to make it as a Pool C. It hasn't happened and while the committee is willing to maybe consider it more now than in the past, .468 is no where close to being a serious consideration. That's why CMS is parked so low in the rankings this week in the first place.

    So yeah... it hurst their chances. The SCIAC is a one-bid league.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 11, 2017, 11:39:49 AM
    I have been experimenting with simulating all future games (including conference tournaments) and automated mock selections.  This is still in a very early version, but here is my current listing of teams based on where they might fall if in Pool C.  Raw data is from Ken Massey's site, so the school names are in his formats, for now.

    Near-locks (99%+ if in Pool C, 12 teams)
    Washington_MO (18-3, 0.588, UAA 10-0) 100% (97% AQ, or 100% if in Pool C)
    Babson (21-1, 0.583, NEWMAC 11-0) 100% (78% AQ, or 100% if in Pool C)
    Chris_Newport (20-2, 0.536, CAC 14-1) 100% (66% AQ, or 100% if in Pool C)
    Middlebury (19-3, 0.612, NESCAC 7-2) 100% (33% AQ, or 100% if in Pool C)
    Susquehanna (18-3, 0.559, LAND 9-2) 100% (52% AQ, or 100% if in Pool C)
    WI_River_Falls (18-2, 0.603, WIAC 10-1) 100% (50% AQ, or 100% if in Pool C)
    Whitman (21-0, 0.549, NWC 12-0) 100% (75% AQ, or 99% if in Pool C)
    Marietta (18-4, 0.589, OAC 13-2) 99% (40% AQ, or 99% if in Pool C)
    Salisbury_St (18-4, 0.550, CAC 13-2) 99% (28% AQ, or 99% if in Pool C)
    Tufts (19-5, 0.569, NESCAC 8-2) 99% (27% AQ, or 99% if in Pool C)
    Wesleyan_CT (18-5, 0.567, NESCAC 5-4) 99% (15% AQ, or 99% if in Pool C)
    Whitworth (19-3, 0.538, NWC 10-3) 99% (22% AQ, or 99% if in Pool C)

    Solid position (80-98% if in Pool C, 6 teams)
    Neumann (20-2, 0.512, CSAC 14-1) 99% (54% AQ, or 98% if in Pool C)
    WI_Whitewater (18-3, 0.559, WIAC 8-3) 99% (35% AQ, or 98% if in Pool C)
    Hope (17-3, 0.533, MIAA 11-0) 99% (74% AQ, or 97% if in Pool C)
    Rochester_NY (19-2, 0.526, UAA 8-2) 94% (3% AQ, or 94% if in Pool C)
    Hanover (16-3, 0.521, HCAC 13-2) 92% (40% AQ, or 87% if in Pool C)
    Amherst (16-6, 0.603, NESCAC 6-3) 87% (10% AQ, or 86% if in Pool C)

    Bubble (20-79% if in Pool C, 27 teams)
    Benedictine_IL (19-3, 0.499, NACC 17-1) 91% (63% AQ, or 76% if in Pool C)
    MIT (17-5, 0.541, NEWMAC 9-2) 79% (17% AQ, or 75% if in Pool C)
    Cabrini (17-4, 0.520, CSAC 13-2) 80% (26% AQ, or 73% if in Pool C)
    Swarthmore (18-4, 0.531, CC 12-3) 84% (44% AQ, or 72% if in Pool C)
    St_Thomas_MN (17-4, 0.529, MIAC 13-3) 87% (54% AQ, or 71% if in Pool C)
    Loras (16-6, 0.565, IIAC 9-4) 81% (36% AQ, or 71% if in Pool C)
    Mt_St_Joseph (16-4, 0.517, HCAC 12-3) 79% (35% AQ, or 68% if in Pool C)
    John_Carroll (15-6, 0.569, OAC 12-3) 77% (27% AQ, or 68% if in Pool C)
    St_Lawrence (17-4, 0.523, LL 11-2) 82% (47% AQ, or 66% if in Pool C)
    Augustana_IL (18-4, 0.523, CCIW 11-2) 82% (53% AQ, or 61% if in Pool C)
    Ramapo (21-2, 0.480, NJAC 14-2) 79% (45% AQ, or 61% if in Pool C)
    St_John_Fisher (16-5, 0.540, E8 11-1) 76% (47% AQ, or 55% if in Pool C)
    Concordia_TX (15-5, 0.539, ASC 6-1) 73% (41% AQ, or 55% if in Pool C)
    Claremont_M.S. (16-1, 0.471, SCIAC 11-1) 81% (61% AQ, or 52% if in Pool C)
    Hardin-Simmons (16-6, 0.557, ASC 5-2) 61% (27% AQ, or 47% if in Pool C)
    Le_Tourneau (17-4, 0.498, ASC 8-1) 60% (25% AQ, or 46% if in Pool C)
    Carthage (14-6, 0.567, CCIW 8-4) 58% (22% AQ, or 46% if in Pool C)
    Scranton (17-5, 0.526, LAND 9-2) 61% (32% AQ, or 43% if in Pool C)
    Guilford (18-4, 0.505, ODAC 11-2) 60% (30% AQ, or 43% if in Pool C)
    St_Norbert (17-3, 0.492, MWC 14-1) 77% (63% AQ, or 39% if in Pool C)
    Endicott (17-5, 0.511, CCC 12-3) 53% (25% AQ, or 38% if in Pool C)
    College_of_NJ (17-6, 0.521, NJAC 13-3) 54% (30% AQ, or 35% if in Pool C)
    Williams (16-7, 0.585, NESCAC 4-5) 36% (5% AQ, or 32% if in Pool C)
    Ripon (15-5, 0.508, MWC 11-4) 40% (16% AQ, or 29% if in Pool C)
    Pomona_Pitzer (11-5, 0.540, SCIAC 8-4) 39% (14% AQ, or 29% if in Pool C)
    Wooster (16-6, 0.535, NCAC 13-2) 53% (35% AQ, or 28% if in Pool C)
    MA_Dartmouth (15-7, 0.565, LEC 8-3) 47% (30% AQ, or 24% if in Pool C)

    Longshots (2-19% if in Pool C, 29 teams)
    DeSales (16-6, 0.524, MACF 8-3) 47% (35% AQ, or 18% if in Pool C)
    Keene_St (15-7, 0.576, LEC 8-3) 37% (23% AQ, or 18% if in Pool C)
    NE_Wesleyan (16-5, 0.517, IIAC 10-4) 39% (26% AQ, or 17% if in Pool C)
    IL_Wesleyan (15-6, 0.554, CCIW 7-5) 25% (10% AQ, or 16% if in Pool C)
    VA_Wesleyan (15-7, 0.546, ODAC 8-5) 23% (10% AQ, or 15% if in Pool C)
    St_John's_MN (14-6, 0.518, MIAC 10-6) 21% (8% AQ, or 14% if in Pool C)
    WI_Eau_Claire (15-6, 0.561, WIAC 6-5) 18% (5% AQ, or 14% if in Pool C)
    Albertus_Magnus (17-4, 0.478, GNAC 13-2) 63% (57% AQ, or 13% if in Pool C)
    Gwynedd-Mercy (17-5, 0.491, CSAC 11-4) 25% (14% AQ, or 13% if in Pool C)
    Brockport_St (17-5, 0.505, SUNYAC 12-3) 37% (28% AQ, or 12% if in Pool C)
    Staten_Island (19-5, 0.490, CUNYAC 16-0) 68% (64% AQ, or 11% if in Pool C)
    E_Connecticut (15-7, 0.563, LEC 9-2) 42% (35% AQ, or 11% if in Pool C)
    Randolph_Macon (16-6, 0.517, ODAC 12-1) 40% (33% AQ, or 10% if in Pool C)
    Oswego_St (16-5, 0.510, SUNYAC 13-2) 36% (30% AQ, or 9% if in Pool C)
    North_Park (15-6, 0.528, CCIW 8-4) 16% (10% AQ, or 7% if in Pool C)
    Denison (18-4, 0.465, NCAC 12-3) 21% (16% AQ, or 6% if in Pool C)
    NJ_City (18-5, 0.483, NJAC 12-4) 19% (14% AQ, or 6% if in Pool C)
    Emory (14-7, 0.545, UAA 5-5) 6% (0% AQ, or 6% if in Pool C)
    Moravian (14-6, 0.516, LAND 8-3) 15% (11% AQ, or 5% if in Pool C)
    Catholic (15-7, 0.558, LAND 7-4) 10% (6% AQ, or 5% if in Pool C)
    Thomas_More (14-6, 0.508, PAC 12-3) 33% (31% AQ, or 4% if in Pool C)
    Anderson_IN (15-6, 0.496, HCAC 12-3) 19% (15% AQ, or 4% if in Pool C)
    Medaille (16-5, 0.477, AMCC 13-2) 53% (52% AQ, or 3% if in Pool C)
    Skidmore (16-6, 0.508, LL 11-2) 38% (36% AQ, or 3% if in Pool C)
    Roger_Williams (18-4, 0.462, CCC 12-3) 31% (29% AQ, or 3% if in Pool C)
    Ohio_Northern (15-7, 0.538, OAC 13-2) 29% (26% AQ, or 3% if in Pool C)
    Nichols (17-5, 0.472, CCC 12-3) 36% (34% AQ, or 2% if in Pool C)
    Bethel_MN (15-6, 0.495, MIAC 12-5) 18% (16% AQ, or 2% if in Pool C)
    Hamilton (15-7, 0.536, NESCAC 4-5) 4% (2% AQ, or 2% if in Pool C)

    Regarding C-M-S, etc., I have a progressive penalty for low SOS (starting at .520), but it may not be strong enough.  However, some teams' SOS can rise substantially by making the final of their conference tournaments (for example, Denison could get their SOS up to nearly .500)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2017, 11:50:26 AM
    Looks like Claremont-Mudd-Scripps could get their SOS above .500 through the conference tournament. It won't be super high, though, so they'll have to probably win until the SCIAC final if they want a decent shot at Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2017, 01:18:50 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2017, 11:50:26 AM
    Looks like Claremont-Mudd-Scripps could get their SOS above .500 through the conference tournament. It won't be super high, though, so they'll have to probably win until the SCIAC final if they want a decent shot at Pool C.

    Could they? Their first and maybe second games will be to below .500 teams, right?

    And I think even hovering around .500 is dangerous for a team... though, it MIGHT give them a chance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 11, 2017, 01:35:46 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2017, 01:18:50 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2017, 11:50:26 AM
    Looks like Claremont-Mudd-Scripps could get their SOS above .500 through the conference tournament. It won't be super high, though, so they'll have to probably win until the SCIAC final if they want a decent shot at Pool C.

    Could they? Their first and maybe second games will be to below .500 teams, right?

    And I think even hovering around .500 is dangerous for a team... though, it MIGHT give them a chance.

    I am showing a median SOS (after the conference tournament) of .487 for C-M-S, and as high as .502 in rare cases.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2017, 02:19:59 PM
    The focus of Division III basketball now turns towards the second Regional Rankings. At the same time, conference regular seasons are wrapping up and the pressure of conference tournaments is increasing.

    Teams are still trying to jockey themselves for the chance to keep playing in March, but sometimes focusing on March causes teams to lose focus of the next game. Upsets and trip-ups seem to happen often once Regional Rankings start coming out.

    On Sunday night's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave chats with teams who are hoping to remain on top of their conference standings and thus eventually punch their ticket automatically to the NCAA tournament. But what about the distractions? What about the pressures? Or has it become somewhat routine for some teams?

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio starting at 7:00 PM ET LIVE. You can watch the show on the official show page here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/feb12 ... or you can watch the live simulcast on Facebook Live (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville). If you miss the show, you can catch-up on Demand or listen to the podcasts (which will be uploaded at the conclusion of the show).

    A reminder the Sunday edition of Hoopsville primarily covers the Northeast, Atlantic, South, and Central regions, but we will answer any questions about all of Division III throughout the show. You can also send your questions to the show and have them featured on the Hoopsville Mailbag segment. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com.

    And please consider helping Hoopsville stay on the air like you might help your public television station. The annual fundraising campaign has less than three weeks remaining, but we are no where close to reaching our goal. Click here for more information: Hoopsville Fundraising Page (https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017/x/6029509)

    Guests include (in order of appearance):
    - Mark Edwards, No. 5 Washington Univ. men's coach
    - Mitch Oliver, Albertus Magnus men's coach
    - Judy Blinstrub, Babson women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Darrin Travillian, Maryville (Tenn.) women's coach
    - Eric McNelley, Eastern men's coach

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Fundraiser: https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3Dl9zpu%2F86525gi5c71shxxe.jpg&hash=f2b361aa447fa404a5c44d8e9ee6bc08c9b4a73d)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 12, 2017, 05:16:31 PM
    For fun I put together a Pool C list through games of Saturday, Feb. 11.  A few notes...

    * All data is from KnightSlappy's (Matt Snyder) tremendous work - http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

    * I did this quickly and did not do any checking of which teams are currently Pool A candidates vs C...I just used Matt's designations.  Please let me know if I am missing teams that are currently Pool C candidates, or including teams that should be in Pool A right now. 

    * I ignored Matthew's RPI and ranked the teams in my typical "subjective" fashion, balancing the 3 data points as best as possible.

    Top Pool C candidates through 2/11 play
    1. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC), .870/.610/8-2
    2. UW-Whitewater (CE/WIAC), .857/.585/7-2
    3. Amherst (NE/NESCAC), .739/.596/6-4
    4. Rochester (E/UAA), .905/.522/2-1
    5. Whitworth (W/NWC), .870/.535/1-2
    6. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC), .792/.560/5-3
    7. Salisbury (MA/CAC), .826/.537/3-3

    Safely in through 2/11 play
    8. UW-Eau Claire (CE/WIAC), .727/.557/3-1
    9. John Carroll (GL/OAC), .727/.572/2-5
    10. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW), .727/.557/3-4
    11. St. Thomas (W/MIAA), .773/.533/2-1
    12. Hardin-Simmons (S/ASC), .727/.554/2-1
    13. Scranton (MA/LAND), .739/.526/3-2

    The Bubble through 2/11 play
    14. Williams (NE/NESCAC), .696/.580/5-4
    15. Mount St. Joseph (GL/HCAC), .818/.514/2-0
    16. MIT (NE/NEWMAC), .783/.535/0-3

    Bottom 5 spots always reserved for major upsets, sending presumed Pool As to Cs above (these 5 teams assumed out)
    17. Mass-Dartmouth (NE/LEC), .696/.561/4-2
    18. Catholic (MA/LAND), .696/.557/2-5
    19. Brockport (E/SUNYAC), .783/.512/3-2
    20. Carthage (CE/CCIW), .667/.569/3-4
    21. Wooster (GL/NCAC), .696/.544/3-5


    Just a quick exercise to get some context on where things are right now.  Note, teams can and will move up and down this list (and in and out) in the final weeks of the season.  This is just a snapshot as of today.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: warriorcat on February 12, 2017, 05:43:17 PM
    You can switch Tufts from pool C to pool A.  Middlebury is not the NESCAC pool A. Tufts has the # 1 seed going into their tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 12, 2017, 05:55:28 PM
    Quote from: warriorcat on February 12, 2017, 05:43:17 PM
    You can switch Tufts from pool C to pool A.  Middlebury is not the NESCAC pool A. Tufts has the # 1 seed going into their tournament.

    Done.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 12, 2017, 09:54:08 PM
    To go along with Titan Q's picks for Pool C, here are mine, also through Sunday's games.  These picks are based on simulations of the rest of the regular season and conference tournaments, using scores & schedules from Ken Massey's site.  In each conference, I am picking the most likely AQ team (not necessarily the current leader) as the Pool A qualifier.  The teams listed below are those that are most likely to get a Pool C berth assuming that they do not win their conference. 

    Team (W-L, conf., SOS, vRRO, rank) Berth prob (AQ prob, Pool C prob if not AQ), prob. if losing only conference final, losing out

    Very solid
    1) Middlebury (20-3, 8-2 NESCAC, 0.611, 8-2 vRRO, NE#2) 100% (36% AQ or 100% C), 100% if CF, 100% if lose out
    2) Amherst (17-6, 7-3 NESCAC, 0.601, 6-4 vRRO, NE#3) 99% (11% AQ or 99% C), 100% if CF, 100% if lose out
    3) Rochester_NY (19-2, 8-2 UAA, 0.526, 2-1 vRRO, EA#1) 99% (7% AQ or 99% C), 100% if CF, 94% if lose out
    4) Wesleyan_CT (19-5, 6-4 NESCAC, 0.561, 5-3 vRRO, NE#5) 99% (17% AQ or 99% C), 100% if CF, 98% if lose out
    5) Whitworth (20-3, 11-3 NWC, 0.535, 1-2 vRRO, WE#2) 99% (23% AQ or 99% C), 100% if CF, 84% if lose out
    6) WI_Whitewater (18-4, 8-4 WIAC, 0.566, 1-3 vRRO, CE#3) 99% (25% AQ or 99% C), 100% if CF, 88% if lose out
    7) Salisbury_St (19-4, 14-2 CAC, 0.540, 3-3 vRRO, MA#3) 99% (25% AQ or 98% C), 100% if CF, 61% if lose out

    Looking good for now
    8) John_Carroll (16-6, 13-3 OAC, 0.570, 2-5 vRRO, GL#5) 92% (35% AQ or 88% C), 100% if CF
    9) MIT (18-5, 10-2 NEWMAC, 0.539, 0-3 vRRO, NE#9) 86% (18% AQ or 82% C), 98% if CF, 4% if lose out
    10) Williams (16-7, 4-5 NESCAC, 0.582, 5-4 vRRO, NE#6) 72% (6% AQ or 70% C), 100% if CF
    11) Endicott (18-5, 13-3 CCC, 0.516, 1-1 vRRO, NE) 77% (34% AQ or 65% C), 85% if CF

    Bubble-in for now, hoping not too many upsets in conference tournaments
    12) Mt_St_Joseph (17-4, 13-3 HCAC, 0.512, 2-0 vRRO, GL#3) 72% (32% AQ or 59% C), 92% if CF, 1% if lose out
    13) MA_Dartmouth (16-7, 9-3 LEC, 0.565, 4-2 vRRO, NE#8) 69% (38% AQ or 50% C), 87% if CF
    14) Hardin-Simmons (17-6, 6-2 ASC, 0.553, 2-1 vRRO, SO#3) 61% (25% AQ or 48% C), 95% if CF, 4% if lose out
    15) Cabrini (17-4, 13-2 CSAC, 0.519, 1-2 vRRO, AT#3) 58% (28% AQ or 42% C), 88% if CF
    16) IL_Wesleyan (16-6, 8-5 CCIW, 0.558, 3-4 vRRO, CE#8) 55% (23% AQ or 41% C), 100% if CF
    17) Le_Tourneau (18-4, 9-1 ASC, 0.491, 1-1 vRRO, SO#5) 50% (25% AQ or 34% C), 63% if CF, 3% if lose out

    Bubble-out for now, after bid thieves in conference tournaments
    18) Pomona_Pitzer (12-5, 9-4 SCIAC, 0.533, 1-1 vRRO, WE) 39% (15% AQ or 28% C), 85% if CF
    19) Brockport_St (18-5, 13-3 SUNYAC, 0.512, 3-2 vRRO, EA#5) 52% (35% AQ or 26% C), 54% if CF
    20) Scranton (17-6, 9-3 LAND, 0.531, 3-2 vRRO, MA#6) 42% (23% AQ or 25% C), 74% if CF
    21) Wooster (16-7, 13-3 NCAC, 0.543, 3-5 vRRO, GL#6) 41% (24% AQ or 22% C), 68% if CF
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 10:26:10 PM

    I was looking at it today and I suspect if Trinity were to beat Williams in the NESCAC final, we'd end up with 6 teams from one conference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 12, 2017, 10:45:13 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 10:26:10 PM

    I was looking at it today and I suspect if Trinity were to beat Williams in the NESCAC final, we'd end up with 6 teams from one conference.

    I'm pretty sure the national committee would not let that happen.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 11:30:14 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 12, 2017, 10:45:13 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 10:26:10 PM

    I was looking at it today and I suspect if Trinity were to beat Williams in the NESCAC final, we'd end up with 6 teams from one conference.

    I'm pretty sure the national committee would not let that happen.

    They got five one year, right?  If the numbers back it up, who knows?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 13, 2017, 01:35:37 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 10:26:10 PM

    I was looking at it today and I suspect if Trinity were to beat Williams in the NESCAC final, we'd end up with 6 teams from one conference.

    It would be interesting to see what the committee did in that situation.  In simulations, I'm getting exactly five most of the time, but sometimes only four (especially if Williams loses in the first round) and occasionally six with a surprise winner and Williams making the final or at least semis.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 13, 2017, 01:42:37 PM
    I am truly fascinated by the bracketology conversations...

    Thanks everyone for your hard work.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 13, 2017, 04:00:45 PM
    While I'm thinking of it, here's the list of potential multi-bid leagues.  (The 13 not listed will almost certainly have only their tournament champions in the field of 64.)

    Expected number of bids, through 2/12
    NESCAC 4.98
    WIAC 2.39
    UAA 2.14
    OAC 2.12
    CAC 2.05
    NWC 2.01
    LAND 1.98
    HCAC 1.98
    ASC 1.96
    CSAC 1.75
    CCIW 1.74
    LEC 1.70
    NJAC 1.67
    SUNYAC 1.64
    MIAC 1.51
    NEWMAC 1.49
    CCC 1.46
    ODAC 1.46
    LL 1.41
    CC 1.40
    IIAC 1.36
    NCAC 1.30
    SCIAC 1.29
    MWC 1.28
    MIAA 1.28
    E8 1.26
    MACC 1.23
    NACC 1.08
    MACF 1.06
    PAC 1.01
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 04:48:27 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 11:30:14 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 12, 2017, 10:45:13 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 10:26:10 PM

    I was looking at it today and I suspect if Trinity were to beat Williams in the NESCAC final, we'd end up with 6 teams from one conference.

    I'm pretty sure the national committee would not let that happen.

    They got five one year, right?  If the numbers back it up, who knows?

    Yes, five happened when the committee wasn't as in turn with "false SOS" numbers as they like to call them. They are FAR more aware of how the NESCAC (and others) SOS can be a little inflated based on the lack of double-round-robin play and other factors. As a result, they are LESS likely to reward top SOS numbers in the NESCAC.

    I HIGHLY doubt we will see 6 teams from the NESCAC. I think 5 is a pipe dream. That said, I think four is a distinct possiblility. The NESCAC is far better and far deeper than it has been in a long time, but teams like Amherst I think are putting themselves in danger of playing out of the tournament. I know that sounds crazy, but I wouldn't be surprised if Amherst is 5th in the regional rankings this week... if not lower meaning they have to do more than lose in the first round of the conference tournament. If they lose to Williams (which Ryan's scenario would present), I think the committee would try and ignore their SOS a bit considering they would be 19-7 and dealing with a lot of losses against other teams in the regional rankings - their vRRO might actually be their Achilles heal in this case.

    Yes... I am aware their SOS is knocking on .600... but that is my point about a "false SOS" ... if the committee does what they have been saying, Amherst could be in trouble. Even Tufts and Wesleyan are not locks (despite Wesleyan's two wins over Amherst, so far) because their SOS numbers are lower than Amherst. There is a chance Amherst gets in but Tufts and even Wesleyan are in trouble (though, Wesleyan not getting in compared to Amherst in this situation seems odd; I think they are safer than Amherst).

    It is a really interesting situation in the Northeast and the NESCAC. This week's rankings will tell us a ton, but six teams in the tournament from the NESCAC? I don't see it happening.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 05:23:17 PM
    I actually didn't think about the easier answer... Trinity isn't getting in unless it has an AQ... and based on the last rankings, Williams is the first one in trouble of being bounced and I am not sure they have done anything as of yet to improve that. Yes, getting to the finals makes an impact, but beating Amherst may not boost their resume (since Amherst is going in the wrong direction).. there is a real chance that the loser of Trinity-Williams is left out of the tournament... or sends another NESCAC team home for good.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 13, 2017, 05:28:52 PM
    Note: if Amherst loses to Williams, they would finish out the season 17-7, not 19-7.  I wonder if that cancelled RIC game could come back to burn them in that situation.  Williams, it seems, really needs to beat Amherst to get in, unless everything else breaks right.  But if Williams, hypothetically, beats Amherst and then loses in the NESCAC semis, could Amherst really get in over them (the Ephs would then be 18-8, Amherst 17-7)?  That would strike me as pretty darn unfair.   

    In that scenario, Amherst's best wins would be Babson, Tufts, Williams x2, St. Lawrence, Trinity, Bates.  Amherst though would have played 16 home games and only 8 road games in that scenario.
    Williams' best wins would be, in that scenario, Middlebury, Hope, Wesleyan, Amherst, Eastern Conn, SUNY Oneonta, Bates.  Pretty much dead even there, but Williams would have one more win overall, and (again in that hypothetical scenario) the Ephs would have played only 11 home games, with 13 road games, and two neutral court games.  Seems like Williams would have the stronger resume should that occur.

    I would bet Wesleyan, Midd and Tufts are in.  Amherst is probably in with one more win, on the bubble with one more loss.  Williams I think is likely in -- but far from a lock -- with one more win (in for sure with two), and probably out barring a miracle if they lose to Amherst.  So it's do-or-die for Williams and maybe do-or-die for Amherst on Saturday ...

    It seems like right now the regional rankings are prob something like Babson, Midd, Tufts, Wesleyan, Amherst, Williams, Mass Dartmouth, MIT.  MIT has a good record but an extremely weak schedule -- not a single win over a regionally ranked team.   If Williams wins at Amherst on Saturday, wouldn't they sneak above Amherst in the final regional rankings?   And doesn't it seem likely that the top five from New England will all get in?

    In the end, assuming that Trinity/Bates/Hamilton don't win the tourney (I think that's a likely bet a this point), I think NESCAC probably gets four in -- Midd, Tufts, Wesleyan, and the winner of Williams/Amherst.  If everything breaks right, maybe the loser of Amherst/Williams (much more likely if it's Amherst) squeezes in, but four seems like a pretty safe bet at this point.   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 13, 2017, 05:37:20 PM
    One more thing on NESCAC: I would like to think that if the committee was looking beyond numbers, they would also look collectively at how well the NESCAC has fared vs. strong non-NESCAC opponents, including strong out-of-region opponents.  Wesleyan beat Marietta.  Wiliams beat Hope.  Midd beat IWU.  Amherst gave Babson its only loss of the season.  It's not like NESCAC has just feasted on teams from weaker New England leagues -- NESCAC has beaten top teams from other leagues, and done it consistently.  It seems only fair -- if the committee is otherwise inclined to discount NESCAC's SOS numbers -- that would matter. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 13, 2017, 05:49:14 PM
    Thanks, Dave, for the analysis on the NESCAC situation.

    I have an unrelated question. What happens if all of the ranked teams from a region are chosen before Pool C selections end? Is that it for the region, or do they get another (unranked) team on the table? This scenario seems within the realm of possibility in the Central region this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 13, 2017, 05:57:24 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2017, 05:49:14 PM
    Thanks, Dave, for the analysis on the NESCAC situation.

    I have an unrelated question. What happens if all of the ranked teams from a region are chosen before Pool C selections end? Is that it for the region, or do they get another (unranked) team on the table? This scenario seems within the realm of possibility in the Central region this year.

    I'm pretty sure I recall reading that the regional committees actually rank several more teams beyond those that appear on the public lists.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 06:03:30 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 13, 2017, 05:37:20 PM
    One more thing on NESCAC: I would like to think that if the committee was looking beyond numbers, they would also look collectively at how well the NESCAC has fared vs. strong non-NESCAC opponents, including strong out-of-region opponents.  Wesleyan beat Marietta.  Wiliams beat Hope.  Midd beat IWU.  Amherst gave Babson its only loss of the season.  It's not like NESCAC has just feasted on teams from weaker New England leagues -- NESCAC has beaten top teams from other leagues, and done it consistently.  It seems only fair -- if the committee is otherwise inclined to discount NESCAC's SOS numbers -- that would matter.

    Oh they absolutely will look at everything they can. "Results" versus regionally ranked opponents means exactly what it says. Not just a WL% or wins and loses or total games... but the actual results. However, that doesn't mean they will look at it the same way we all do. They will also look at results versus common opponents and other criteria.

    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2017, 05:49:14 PM
    Thanks, Dave, for the analysis on the NESCAC situation.

    I have an unrelated question. What happens if all of the ranked teams from a region are chosen before Pool C selections end? Is that it for the region, or do they get another (unranked) team on the table? This scenario seems within the realm of possibility in the Central region this year.

    Yes, there are more teams "ranked" then who appears on the rankings. They have to do this. It isn't that long ago the women actually selected someone off the rankings and I feel like in the last couple of years we have discussed who might be ranked outside of the rankings because we were running out of teams. That said, I don't think the Central goes off the board. I think the bottom couple of teams in the Central are in trouble to not make the tournament this year. Case in point, I suspect St. Norbert was just outside the rankings last week and they have no chance as an at-alrge team. I also don't think the final two teams in last week's rankings would make the tournament as of right now.

    Just an FYI... teams off the rankings will not suddenly count as vRRO teams. None of the criteria will change or be altered because suddenly they are at the table.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 13, 2017, 06:35:13 PM
    I know it is not likely... But if RIC and Amherst are trying to reschedule the game, when is the last date a regular season game could be played? Is it Saturday?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2017, 07:35:17 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 04:48:27 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 11:30:14 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 12, 2017, 10:45:13 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 10:26:10 PM

    I was looking at it today and I suspect if Trinity were to beat Williams in the NESCAC final, we'd end up with 6 teams from one conference.

    I'm pretty sure the national committee would not let that happen.

    They got five one year, right?  If the numbers back it up, who knows?

    Yes, five happened when the committee wasn't as in turn with "false SOS" numbers as they like to call them. They are FAR more aware of how the NESCAC (and others) SOS can be a little inflated based on the lack of double-round-robin play and other factors.

    With regard to your "(and others)" parenthetical reference, D-Mac, I don't think it's fair to lump together with the NESCAC the leagues that play a truncated double round-robin. Leagues such as the ODAC, ASC, and (prior to this season, in which the league was pared down to ten teams) MWC that will feature two games between most opponents and one game between a couple of opponents per team each season still have very generously-sized league schedules (as they should, since the whole reason why they truncate the second round-robin at all is because the leagues are oversized to begin with). The ODAC plays a 16-game league schedule; the ASC plays a 15-game league schedule. The MWC played an 18-game league schedule in recent years with two opponents per team being only one-game affairs; this season it's still an 18-game league schedule, but with Carroll gone it's now a full double round-robin.

    That's a lot of league competition any way you look at it, full double round-robin or not. They're not in the same boat at all as the NESCAC and its single round-robin, ten-game league slate.

    It's immaterial whether the people in charge of the NESCAC have their own arcane sense of propriety or they truly are trying to game the system. Their scheduling is totally unlike anybody else's in D3, and it gives their teams a huge advantage on Selection Monday.

    Nevertheless, I'm ambivalent about the committee taking steps to curb the NESCAC from garnering a bushelful of Pool C berths. Yeah, it's good to know that the people in charge of assigning Pool C berths are well aware of how the NESCAC colors outside the lines, so to speak. But, on the other hand, if the committee blockades a NESCAC team from garnering a Pool C bid that, by the numbers, it clearly deserves, then it calls into question the integrity of the process as being guided by objective, numbers-based criteria.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 09:23:13 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2017, 07:35:17 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 04:48:27 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 11:30:14 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 12, 2017, 10:45:13 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 10:26:10 PM

    I was looking at it today and I suspect if Trinity were to beat Williams in the NESCAC final, we'd end up with 6 teams from one conference.

    I'm pretty sure the national committee would not let that happen.

    They got five one year, right?  If the numbers back it up, who knows?

    Yes, five happened when the committee wasn't as in turn with "false SOS" numbers as they like to call them. They are FAR more aware of how the NESCAC (and others) SOS can be a little inflated based on the lack of double-round-robin play and other factors.

    With regard to your "(and others)" parenthetical reference, D-Mac, I don't think it's fair to lump together with the NESCAC the leagues that play a truncated double round-robin. Leagues such as the ODAC, ASC, and (prior to this season, in which the league was pared down to ten teams) MWC that will feature two games between most opponents and one game between a couple of opponents per team each season still have very generously-sized league schedules (as they should, since the whole reason why they truncate the second round-robin at all is because the leagues are oversized to begin with). The ODAC plays a 16-game league schedule; the ASC plays a 15-game league schedule. The MWC played an 18-game league schedule in recent years with two opponents per team being only one-game affairs; this season it's still an 18-game league schedule, but with Carroll gone it's now a full double round-robin.

    That's a lot of league competition any way you look at it, full double round-robin or not. They're not in the same boat at all as the NESCAC and its single round-robin, ten-game league slate.

    I am not grouping the NESCAC in with any of those conferences. I just didn't want to assume the NESCAC was the only one while writing off the top of my head. NESCAC is the only one in the country I am aware of that can have an out-of-conference schedule where they can play a lot of teams from the top of other conferences and it boosts their SOS numbers. Again, I wasn't putting them in any group, I was just making sure I didn't forget something. (I was writing it while kids were running around me, dinner was wrapping up, and I had ten things I was still trying to finish.


    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2017, 07:35:17 PM
    It's immaterial whether the people in charge of the NESCAC have their own arcane sense of propriety or they truly are trying to game the system. Their scheduling is totally unlike anybody else's in D3, and it gives their teams a huge advantage on Selection Monday.

    Nevertheless, I'm ambivalent about the committee taking steps to curb the NESCAC from garnering a bushelful of Pool C berths. Yeah, it's good to know that the people in charge of assigning Pool C berths are well aware of how the NESCAC colors outside the lines, so to speak. But, on the other hand, if the committee blockades a NESCAC team from garnering a Pool C bid that, by the numbers, it clearly deserves, then it calls into question the integrity of the process as being guided by objective, numbers-based criteria.

    I don't think the committee would blockade them at all... I believe they have been pretty clear that they look into the numbers to understand them better. If a NESCAC school has a ridiculously high SOS, which isn't that hard to see on paper, they dive into the numbers and games to better understand exactly what it means. If when they have dived into the numbers and come out the other end feeling they should be in the tournament, that will be the choice. However, if they dive into the numbers and see something that doesn't add up or compare equally or as high as someone they are comparing to... they may choose to leave that team out.

    My point is, just because a team especially in the NESCAC has a gaudy SOS doesn't mean they are a shoe-in for the tournament. The committee will look at as much information as they can to see what those SOS numbers mean and even the WL%. They have been pretty up-front about that. I think it is just dangerous to assume because someone has an incredible SOS means they are getting into the tournament. I have mentioned this prior, but look at Emory last year. A WL% of .681 with one of the best SOS numbers in the country... left out.

    What I am saying per the NESCAC is that their is more in the resume than gaudy SOS numbers. Amherst's resume is starting to get sketchy especially in the vRRO category. Trinity can't make the tournament unless they win the AQ (their WL% if they lose in the NESCAC final will be .667, I believe). Williams is in trouble because they keep taking losses they can't afford. Their SOS is nice, but not in the Northeast or even the NESCAC this year. In no way do I think the committee will block the NESCAC from getting bids or a lot of them, but they will look at more than the SOS when making that decision - and a LOT of people on these boards get stuck looking at SOS and WL% with maybe vRRO. Can't blame anyone because it is so hard to truly dive into the numbers, but the committee has pointed out they dive further into the numbers than just about any other committee (that I know of).

    The football committee chair a few years ago stated that "x" amount of teams from a region wasn't going to happen. People took that as if they wouldn't allow it to happen. In reality, he meant that it just wouldn't work out that way. I am saying the same. I just don't think when the committee dives into the numbers five or six NESCAC teams are tournament bound this year. This isn't lacrosse LOL.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2017, 10:13:21 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 09:23:13 PMI am not grouping the NESCAC in with any of those conferences. I just didn't want to assume the NESCAC was the only one while writing off the top of my head. NESCAC is the only one in the country I am aware of that can have an out-of-conference schedule where they can play a lot of teams from the top of other conferences and it boosts their SOS numbers. Again, I wasn't putting them in any group, I was just making sure I didn't forget something.

    OK, then, for the record -- you didn't forget something. The NESCAC is the only single round-robin league in D3, and it's thus the only league in D3 that plays 60% of its regular-season games out of conference.

    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 09:23:13 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2017, 07:35:17 PM
    It's immaterial whether the people in charge of the NESCAC have their own arcane sense of propriety or they truly are trying to game the system. Their scheduling is totally unlike anybody else's in D3, and it gives their teams a huge advantage on Selection Monday.

    Nevertheless, I'm ambivalent about the committee taking steps to curb the NESCAC from garnering a bushelful of Pool C berths. Yeah, it's good to know that the people in charge of assigning Pool C berths are well aware of how the NESCAC colors outside the lines, so to speak. But, on the other hand, if the committee blockades a NESCAC team from garnering a Pool C bid that, by the numbers, it clearly deserves, then it calls into question the integrity of the process as being guided by objective, numbers-based criteria.

    I don't think the committee would blockade them at all... I believe they have been pretty clear that they look into the numbers to understand them better. If a NESCAC school has a ridiculously high SOS, which isn't that hard to see on paper, they dive into the numbers and games to better understand exactly what it means. If when they have dived into the numbers and come out the other end feeling they should be in the tournament, that will be the choice. However, if they dive into the numbers and see something that doesn't add up or compare equally or as high as someone they are comparing to... they may choose to leave that team out.

    My point is, just because a team especially in the NESCAC has a gaudy SOS doesn't mean they are a shoe-in for the tournament. The committee will look at as much information as they can to see what those SOS numbers mean and even the WL%. They have been pretty up-front about that. I think it is just dangerous to assume because someone has an incredible SOS means they are getting into the tournament. I have mentioned this prior, but look at Emory last year. A WL% of .681 with one of the best SOS numbers in the country... left out.

    What I am saying per the NESCAC is that their is more in the resume than gaudy SOS numbers. Amherst's resume is starting to get sketchy especially in the vRRO category. Trinity can't make the tournament unless they win the AQ (their WL% if they lose in the NESCAC final will be .667, I believe). Williams is in trouble because they keep taking losses they can't afford. Their SOS is nice, but not in the Northeast or even the NESCAC this year. In no way do I think the committee will block the NESCAC from getting bids or a lot of them, but they will look at more than the SOS when making that decision - and a LOT of people on these boards get stuck looking at SOS and WL% with maybe vRRO. Can't blame anyone because it is so hard to truly dive into the numbers, but the committee has pointed out they dive further into the numbers than just about any other committee (that I know of).

    The football committee chair a few years ago stated that "x" amount of teams from a region wasn't going to happen. People took that as if they wouldn't allow it to happen. In reality, he meant that it just wouldn't work out that way. I am saying the same. I just don't think when the committee dives into the numbers five or six NESCAC teams are tournament bound this year. This isn't lacrosse LOL.

    Well, that's more or less a roundabout way of saying that the committee is going to do its job the way that it's supposed to do its job.

    The problem is that it didn't read that way in your previous post:

    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 04:48:27 PMYes, five happened when the committee wasn't as in turn with "false SOS" numbers as they like to call them. They are FAR more aware of how the NESCAC (and others) SOS can be a little inflated based on the lack of double-round-robin play and other factors. As a result, they are LESS likely to reward top SOS numbers in the NESCAC.

    The confusing thing here is your use of the term "fake SOS". While statistical data doesn't always provide context -- one 19-8 opponent is not necessarily identical to another 19-8 opponent in anything besides wins and losses -- the committee is not charged with delving into that context (SOS quality beyond what the outlines of that particular criterion provide) in their deliberations. In other words, the committee isn't authorized to sift through details regarding the opponents of the opponents of the opponents. It only goes back one generation of opponents' opponents, and even that once-removed generation is only worth one-half (one-third of the total) of the opponents themselves in making SOS calculations. So I'm trying to figure out just what you mean by "fake SOS", since the word "fake" when applied to something as objective as a statistical datum implies either the committee going beyond its designated purview in terms of analyzing the data or else a subjective approach to objective numbers.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2017, 06:34:32 AM
    Here are last week's results for the regionally ranked teams



       RNK      REG   SCHOOL      IN-REG      OVER      CON      RESULTS   
       1      ATL   Neumann       20-1       20-1      CSAC      L at Rosemont, W vs Cairn   
       2      ATL   Ramapo       20-2       20-2      NJAC      W vs Rutgers-Camden, W vs NJCU   
       3      ATL   Cabrini       16-4       16-5      CSAC      W vs Cairn, W at Clarks Summit   
       4      ATL   TCNJ       16-6       16-5      NJAC      W at William Paterson, L at Montclair St   
       5      ATL   NJCU       17-5       17-5      NJAC      W vs Montclair St, L at Ramapo   
       6      ATL   DeSales       15-6       15-6      MACF      W at Wilkes, W at King's   
       7      ATL   Rowan       14-8       14-8      NJAC      W at Kean, W at Rutgers-Newark   
       8      ATL   Staten Island       17-5       17-6      CUNYAC      W at Brooklyn, W vs Lehman   
       1      CENT   River Falls       17-2       19-2      WIAC      W at Stout, W vs Whitewater   
       2      CENT   Wash U       17-3       17-3      UAA      W vs Emory, L vs Rochester   
       3      CENT   Whitewater       17-3       18-3      WIAC      W at Stevens Point, L at River Falls   
       4      CENT   Augustana       17-4       17-4      CCIW      W vs NCC, L at Carroll   
       5      CENT   Eau Claire       14-6       15-6      WIAC      W vs Platteville, W vs La Crosse   
       6      CENT   Benedictine       18-3       18-4      NACC      W at Con-Chi, W at Edgewood   
       7      CENT   NPU       15-5       15-5      CCIW      L at Carthage, L at Wheaton IL   
       8      CENT   IWU       14-6       14-6      CCIW      W vs Elmhurst, W at Carthage   
       1      EAST   Rochester       19-1       19-1      UAA      L at Chicago, W at Washington U   
       2      EAST   St. Lawrence       17-4       17-4      LL      W vs Vassar, W vs Bard   
       3      EAST   Oswego       17-4       17-4      SUNYAC      L at Fredonia, W at Buffalo St   
       3      EAST   SJF       15-5       15-5      E8      W vs Alfred, W vs Nazareth   
       5      EAST   Brockport       16-5       16-5      SUNYAC      W at New Paltz, W at Oneonta   
       6      EAST   Cortland       15-6       15-6      SUNYAC      L at Buffalo St, W at Fredonia   
       7      EAST   Oneonta       13-8       13-8      SUNYAC      W vs Geneseo, L vs Brockport   
       8      EAST   Skidmore       15-6       15-6      LL      W vs Hobart, W at Union   
       1      GL   Marietta      17-4      17-4      OAC      W vs Capital, W at Wilmington   
       2      GL   Hope      16-3      17-4      MIAA      W vs Trine, W at Adrian   
       3      GL   Mt St Joseph      17-3      17-4      HCAC      L at Transylvania, W vs Franklin   
       4      GL   Hanover      15-3      17-3      HCAC      W vs Franklin, W vs Earlham   
       5      GL   John Carroll      14-6      14-6      OAC      W at Baldwin Wallace, W vs Ohio Northern   
       6      GL   Wooster      15-6      15-6      NCAC      W vs Allegheny, L at OWU   
       7      GL   ONU      14-7      14-7      OAC      W vs Heidelberg, L at JCU   
       8      GL   Ohio Wesleyan      15-6      15-6      NCAC      W vs Hiram, W vs Wooster   
       9      GL   Denison      17-4      17-4      NCAC      W at DePauw, W at Allegheny   
       1      MA   CNU      19-2      19-2      CAC      W vs Marymount, W vs Wesley   
       2      MA   Susquehanna      17-3      18-3      LAND      W vs Catholic, W vs Drew   
       3      MA   Salisbury      17-4      17-4      CAC      W vs PS-Harrisburg, W vs S. Virg   
       4      MA   Lycoming      17-4      18-4      MACC      W vs Albright   
       5      MA   Swarthmore      17-4      17-4      CC       W vs Ursinus, W vs JHU   
       6      MA   Scranton      16-5      16-5      LAND      W vs Drew, L at Catholic   
       7      MA   Catholic      15-6      15-6      LAND      L at Susquehanna, W vs Scranton   
       8      MA   F&M      15-6      15-6      CC       L vs Johns Hopkins, W at Wash C   
       1      NE   Babson      20-1      20-1      NEWMAC      W vs Springfield, W at Clark   
       2      NE   Middlebury      18-3      18-3      NESCAC      W vs Amherst, W vs Trinity (CT)   
       3      NE   Amherst      16-4      16-4      NESCAC      L at Wesleyan, L at Middlebury, W @ Hamilton   
       4      NE   Tufts      17-5      17-5      NESCAC      W vs Pine Manor, W vs Williams   
       5      NE   Wesleyan      16-5      16-5      NESCAC      W at Amherst, W vs Bowdoin, W vs Colby   
       6      NE   Williams      16-6      16-6      NESCAC      L at Tufts, W at Bates   
       7      NE   E Conn      14-7      14-7      LEC      W vs W. Conn, L at Mass-Dartmouth   
       8      NE   Mass-Dartmouth      14-7      14-7      LEC      W at RIC, W vs E. Conn   
       9      NE   MIT      16-5      16-5      NEWMAC      W at WPI, W vs Wheaton (Mass.)   
       10      NE   Keene St      14-7      14-7      LEC      W vs Plymouth St, W vs W. Conn   
       11      NE   Bates      15-8      15-8      NESCAC      L vs Williams   
       1      SOUTH   Guilford      18-3      18-3      ODAC      L at Roanoke, W vs Randolph-Macon   
       2      SOUTH   Con Tex      13-5      15-6      ASC      W vs HPU, W vs SRS   
       3      SOUTH   HSU      15-6      16-6      ASC      W at McMurry   
       4      SOUTH   VWC      15-6      15-6      ODAC      L at Hampden-Sydney, L at Lynchburg   
       5      SOUTH   LeTourneau      16-4      17-5      ASC      W vs Belhaven   
       6      SOUTH   Emory      14-6      14-6      UAA      L at Washington U, W at Chicago   
       7      SOUTH   Randolph-Macon      15-6      15-6      ODAC      W vs Shenandoah, L at Guilford   
       8      SOUTH   Maryville      16-5      16-5      USAC      W vs Piedmont, W vs Ferrum   
       1      WEST   Whitman      21-0      21-0      NWC      W at Puget Sound, W at Pacific Lutheran   
       2      WEST   Whitworth      18-3      18-3      NWC      W at Pacific Lutheran, W at Puget Sound   
       3      WEST   St Thomas      16-4      16-4      MIAC      W at Hamline, L vs Carleton   
       4      WEST   Loras      15-6      15-6      IIAC      W vs Central, W at Luther   
       5      WEST   CMS      15-0      17-1      SCIAC      L vs Ponoma-Pitzer, W vs Whittier, L at La Verne   
       6      WEST   Neb Wes      15-5      15-6      IIAC      W vs Coe, L at Dubuque   
       7      WEST   St Johns      14-5      14-6      MIAC      L vs Augsburg, W vs GAC   
       8      WEST   BVU      14-8      14-8      IIAC      L vs Coe   

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 14, 2017, 09:16:25 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2017, 07:35:17 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 04:48:27 PM

    Yes, five happened when the committee wasn't as in turn with "false SOS" numbers as they like to call them. They are FAR more aware of how the NESCAC (and others) SOS can be a little inflated based on the lack of double-round-robin play and other factors.

    With regard to your "(and others)" parenthetical reference, D-Mac, I don't think it's fair to lump together with the NESCAC the leagues that play a truncated double round-robin. Leagues such as the ODAC, ASC, and (prior to this season, in which the league was pared down to ten teams) MWC that will feature two games between most opponents and one game between a couple of opponents per team each season still have very generously-sized league schedules (as they should, since the whole reason why they truncate the second round-robin at all is because the leagues are oversized to begin with). The ODAC plays a 16-game league schedule; the ASC plays a 15-game league schedule. The MWC played an 18-game league schedule in recent years with two opponents per team being only one-game affairs; this season it's still an 18-game league schedule, but with Carroll gone it's now a full double round-robin.

    That's a lot of league competition any way you look at it, full double round-robin or not. They're not in the same boat at all as the NESCAC and its single round-robin, ten-game league slate.

    It's immaterial whether the people in charge of the NESCAC have their own arcane sense of propriety or they truly are trying to game the system. Their scheduling is totally unlike anybody else's in D3, and it gives their teams a huge advantage on Selection Monday.

    The fact that the NESCAC chooses to play only 8 football games, declining both non-conference games and playoff opportunities, speaks to their commitment to keeping intercollegiate athletics in perspective, as is part of the D3 philosophy.  I think that the same is true of the league's hesitance to schedule midweek athletic contests.

    I'm not convinced that the NESCAC's lack of a double-round-robin (or something close to it) is quite that big a deal.  Consider that about half the league plays two extra rivalry games against NESCAC opponents (Amherst/Wililams/Wesleyan and Bates/Bowdoin/Colby), and that their tournament has a quarterfinal round.  This means that if Amherst or Williams makes the semifinals, they would have played 14 games against other NESCAC teams.  That's the same number as a UAA team, and only one less than a WIAC team with a first-round bye.

    Certainly, there should be benefits to how much SOS can benefit a team, in terms of tournament selection.  However, if a team with a very strong schedule (whether due primarily to in-conference or non-conference games) wins about 70% of their games, it seems hard to deny them a Pool C berth.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2017, 10:56:59 AM
    Looking at the numbers, the south region is going to have a really hard time earning legitimate hosting sites. Guilford will probably deserving if they can run through the ODAC tournament gauntlet, but other than that the region is quite bleak from a numbers standpoint.

    Maybe the ASC winner gets one as well to try to limit flights, but they look like a stretch unless either Concordia TX or Hardin-Simmons can run the table.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 14, 2017, 11:20:57 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2017, 10:56:59 AM
    Looking at the numbers, the south region is going to have a really hard time earning legitimate hosting sites. Guilford will probably deserving if they can run through the ODAC tournament gauntlet, but other than that the region is quite bleak from a numbers standpoint.

    Maybe the ASC winner gets one as well to try to limit flights, but they look like a stretch unless either Concordia TX or Hardin-Simmons can run the table.

    If a Texas team wins the SCAC, and the ASC gets two in, then I think the ASC champ will host, rather than flying multiple teams out of Texas.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2017, 12:47:39 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 14, 2017, 11:20:57 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2017, 10:56:59 AM
    Looking at the numbers, the south region is going to have a really hard time earning legitimate hosting sites. Guilford will probably deserving if they can run through the ODAC tournament gauntlet, but other than that the region is quite bleak from a numbers standpoint.

    Maybe the ASC winner gets one as well to try to limit flights, but they look like a stretch unless either Concordia TX or Hardin-Simmons can run the table.

    If a Texas team wins the SCAC, and the ASC gets two in, then I think the ASC champ will host, rather than flying multiple teams out of Texas.

    ... plus, if Rhodes or Hendrix wins the SAA tourney (a realistic prospect, since Rhodes is currently first and Hendrix currently third in that thoroughly-mediocre league), then you can add the Lynx or the Warriors to the mix of two ASC teams and one SCAC team and hold a self-contained, Texas-based pod that doesn't require any flights, if -- and this is a big if -- the pod is held on LeTourneau's campus in Longview.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 01:09:24 PM
    The idea of a fake SOS comes down to this... Vande Streek has said that the straight line from .030 to 2 games gets slightly curved at .060 to 4 games and gets downright blurry at .090 to 6 games... so if a team has this enormously high SOS, it basically gets pushed aside and they start diving into the other criteria. They don't want a ridiculously high SOS determine what is going to happen as it did a few years ago much to everyone's disappointment. I think there was a point that the SOS was assumed to be the holy grail and as the NESCAC (and others, yes others) have figured out how to get the best SOS... we went too far in just going on SOS numbers. I again point to Emory... great SOS last year and a WL% above .667... didn't get in. The committee is going to base their information on more criteria and data... and they feel that some very high SOS numbers are more a result of benefits other teams can't enjoy. In other words, it is a way of evening the playing field a bit so that NESCAC schools (or the like, and I think we can find some that can adjust their SOS numbers despite conference scheduling) don't have a huge, and arguably unfair, advantage of schools with conference schedules that limit them greatly. Conferences have shown willingness to adjust schedules to start making up for the gap and I think the committee wants to be sure that just because a team has a scheduling advantage... they don't get in just because of it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 14, 2017, 01:22:55 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 01:09:24 PM
    I again point to Emory... great SOS last year and a WL% above .667... didn't get in. The committee is going to base their information on more criteria and data... and they feel that some very high SOS numbers are more a result of benefits other teams can't enjoy.

    Emory was the UAA champ last year, and won the regional they hosted.  Are you thinking of Rochester (17-7, .561 SOS, 3-4 vRRO)?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2017, 02:31:08 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 14, 2017, 09:16:25 AMThe fact that the NESCAC chooses to play only 8 football games, declining both non-conference games and playoff opportunities, speaks to their commitment to keeping intercollegiate athletics in perspective, as is part of the D3 philosophy.  I think that the same is true of the league's hesitance to schedule midweek athletic contests.

    That's all well and good, but it doesn't predispose the league to play a mere single round-robin in basketball.

    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 14, 2017, 09:16:25 AMI'm not convinced that the NESCAC's lack of a double-round-robin (or something close to it) is quite that big a deal.  Consider that about half the league plays two extra rivalry games against NESCAC opponents (Amherst/Wililams/Wesleyan and Bates/Bowdoin/Colby), and that their tournament has a quarterfinal round.  This means that if Amherst or Williams makes the semifinals, they would have played 14 games against other NESCAC teams.  That's the same number as a UAA team, and only one less than a WIAC team with a first-round bye.

    I disagree completely. First, the scheduling effects of the extracurricular triads of Amherst/Williams/Wesleyan and Bates/Bowdoin/Colby get overstated by NESCAC advocates. Those extracurricular triads only affect six of the league's eleven teams; they are not within the purview of the league (i.e., they don't affect the league's standings and they're elective, like all non-con games, even if they are traditional and thus unlikely to be eliminated); and they're only two games apiece out of the whopping fifteen regular-season non-con games (i.e., only 13%) each NESCAC outfit enjoys. Put another way, even if one concedes the idea that the extracurricular-triad games are binding and not subject to change, that still only improves the regular-season assignment of games against league opponents from 40% to 48% for those six NESCAC teams, while the standard-sized league slates of double round-robin leagues of eight, nine, or ten members apiece make up 56% (fourteen-game league sked), 64% (sixteen-game league sked), or 72% (eighteen-game league sked) of the total allotment of regular-season games. Those are still very big discrepancies.

    Amherst and Williams are traditionally the two big powers in NESCAC basketball, and the two western Mass purple powers tend to get the lion's share of poster support on d3boards.com, and those two things seem to be the reason why so much emphasis is put upon the extracurricular triads when defending NESCAC scheduling. But you can't get around the fact that they only augment the schedule of barely half of the league's members, and that legitimately solid NESCAC programs such as Tufts and Middlebury (the latter of which has been nationally competitive for some time now), as well as two NESCAC programs that have been Final Four participants in the past (Trinity CT and Conn College), can't fall back upon the extracurricular-triad defense at all.

    Second, while the NESCAC does ameliorate the scheduling imbalance a bit by having a third layer to its postseason tournament, that, too, is an overstated factor. A triad team that plays three league tourney games -- in other words, a NESCAC team that maxes out its possible number of games played against fellow NESCAC members prior to Selection Monday -- will still have played only 54% of its 28 games against league opponents. At the other end of the spectrum, a non-triad team that gets eliminated in the NESCAC quarterfinals will have played only 42% of its games against NESCAC opponents, and a non-triad team that makes it to the semifinals will have played only 44% of its games against NESCAC opponents. Meanwhile, all of the teams from the other leagues that started off having played 56%, 64%, or 72% of their games against league rivals will have upped their ante as well by playing tourney games in their respective leagues.

    And, to speak directly to your point, a UAA Pool C aspirant (i.e., two out of the trio of Wash U, Rochester, and Emory) will have played 56% of its games against UAA opponents, while Amherst or Williams, should one or the other lose in the NESCAC semis, will have played 52% within the NESCAC -- so it's not an equal number at all. And a WIAC team with a first-round bye that gets knocked out in the semis will have played 58% within the WIAC. So, even when you're cherry-picking the best-case scenarios for Amherst and Williams in particular, you're still lagging well behind even the teams from the smallest qualifying leagues, including the league that doesn't even play extra games.

    Sorry, fantastic50, but it is a big deal.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2017, 02:34:05 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 01:09:24 PM
    The idea of a fake SOS comes down to this... Vande Streek has said that the straight line from .030 to 2 games gets slightly curved at .060 to 4 games and gets downright blurry at .090 to 6 games... so if a team has this enormously high SOS, it basically gets pushed aside and they start diving into the other criteria. They don't want a ridiculously high SOS determine what is going to happen as it did a few years ago much to everyone's disappointment. I think there was a point that the SOS was assumed to be the holy grail and as the NESCAC (and others, yes others) have figured out how to get the best SOS... we went too far in just going on SOS numbers. I again point to Emory... great SOS last year and a WL% above .667... didn't get in. The committee is going to base their information on more criteria and data... and they feel that some very high SOS numbers are more a result of benefits other teams can't enjoy. In other words, it is a way of evening the playing field a bit so that NESCAC schools (or the like, and I think we can find some that can adjust their SOS numbers despite conference scheduling) don't have a huge, and arguably unfair, advantage of schools with conference schedules that limit them greatly. Conferences have shown willingness to adjust schedules to start making up for the gap and I think the committee wants to be sure that just because a team has a scheduling advantage... they don't get in just because of it.

    OK, this makes sense and it's a good way to describe the committee's corrective methodology. I just have a problem with the word "fake" and what it implies, that's all. But the semantics of the matter really aren't that big of a deal.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2017, 02:36:22 PM
    I'd agree with Greg on the terminology, especially in the current climate as it relates to that word. If I were the mouthpiece for the concept, I'd really choose a better title for it and try to define it more succinctly.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Stoppable on February 14, 2017, 02:48:22 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 14, 2017, 09:16:25 AM
    I'm not convinced that the NESCAC's lack of a double-round-robin (or something close to it) is quite that big a deal.  Consider that about half the league plays two extra rivalry games against NESCAC opponents (Amherst/Wililams/Wesleyan and Bates/Bowdoin/Colby), and that their tournament has a quarterfinal round.  This means that if Amherst or Williams makes the semifinals, they would have played 14 games against other NESCAC teams.  That's the same number as a UAA team, and only one less than a WIAC team with a first-round bye.

    Meanwhile, a team from another 11 team conference like Benedictine will have only played 5 non-conference games instead of 13/15, giving them far less of a chance to build up a gaudy SOS in what is historically a weak conference to begin with.

    To me, that is quite a difference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 03:00:46 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 14, 2017, 01:22:55 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 01:09:24 PM
    I again point to Emory... great SOS last year and a WL% above .667... didn't get in. The committee is going to base their information on more criteria and data... and they feel that some very high SOS numbers are more a result of benefits other teams can't enjoy.

    Emory was the UAA champ last year, and won the regional they hosted.  Are you thinking of Rochester (17-7, .561 SOS, 3-4 vRRO)?

    Yes... sorry... thinking Rochester... not sure at what point I twisted that into Emory, but I certainly did. SMH
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 03:02:25 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2017, 02:36:22 PM
    I'd agree with Greg on the terminology, especially in the current climate as it relates to that word. If I were the mouthpiece for the concept, I'd really choose a better title for it and try to define it more succinctly.

    It is the word they have used for two or more years... not one I created.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 03:11:15 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Stoppable on February 14, 2017, 02:48:22 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 14, 2017, 09:16:25 AM
    I'm not convinced that the NESCAC's lack of a double-round-robin (or something close to it) is quite that big a deal.  Consider that about half the league plays two extra rivalry games against NESCAC opponents (Amherst/Wililams/Wesleyan and Bates/Bowdoin/Colby), and that their tournament has a quarterfinal round.  This means that if Amherst or Williams makes the semifinals, they would have played 14 games against other NESCAC teams.  That's the same number as a UAA team, and only one less than a WIAC team with a first-round bye.

    Meanwhile, a team from another 11 team conference like Benedictine will have only played 5 non-conference games instead of 13/15, giving them far less of a chance to build up a gaudy SOS in what is historically a weak conference to begin with.

    To me, that is quite a difference.

    Yeah, but sometimes the conference doesn't help either. You can find some conferences with a lot of games, but the conference does well from top to even bottom and the SOS doesn't hurt. Conferences like Benedictine unfortunately have a lot of teams at the bottom who aren't good, don't schedule well on top of that, and drag the SOS down whether Benedictine tries to make a differente or not.

    Lancaster Bible was a testiment of both last year... horrible conference numbers coupled with lousy out-of-conference scheduling. If LBC had done a little better in out-of-conference they may not have been in a "undefeated or stay home" situation while the conference could have helped as well. Not surprisingly, next year they change the conference structure and schedule.

    And fantastic50... Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan, Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin play a second round of games against each other while the other half of the conference doesn't... while yes, there is some double-round-robin built in, it doesn't come close to comparing to even ODAC who plays an off-set conference schedule. And your example of using the conference tournament to build up the NESCAC schedule ignores the fact that a vast majority of conferences have teams playing games 17, 18, 19, 20, etc. in conference by that same point. The UAA is another place we see high SOS numbers, but for slightly different reasons and why the "Rochester" (not Emory, I again apologize) is such a good one to keep in mind. And per your WIAC point, that is recent since they lost a conference mate (Superior). Not something we can point to historically as of yet.

    But again... six teams of the five have those NESCAC numbers you are trying to to make even. 12-conference opponents (10 conference games) is half of those six schedules. That is FAR more out-of conference games they can schedule during the regular season. More than the UAA teams. And if you look at the other five, they have less than half of their schedule in conference. That makes a BIG difference when your SOS isn't influenced closer to .500 from playing a double-round-robin. You have to get into the second round or the championship of the conference tournament to equal what most conferences do BEFORE their conference tournaments. There are 43 conferences in Division III and you found two that half the NESCAC comes close to? Seems to make the argument in the other direction than where you tried to make it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2017, 03:39:38 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 03:02:25 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2017, 02:36:22 PM
    I'd agree with Greg on the terminology, especially in the current climate as it relates to that word. If I were the mouthpiece for the concept, I'd really choose a better title for it and try to define it more succinctly.

    It is the word they have used for two or more years... not one I created.

    I understand that. But you're the conduit for the committee's voice and terminology to be heard -- feel free to speak in terms that benefit the audience, aka, the fans. You don't have to call it something just because they do. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 03:48:58 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2017, 03:39:38 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 03:02:25 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2017, 02:36:22 PM
    I'd agree with Greg on the terminology, especially in the current climate as it relates to that word. If I were the mouthpiece for the concept, I'd really choose a better title for it and try to define it more succinctly.

    It is the word they have used for two or more years... not one I created.

    I understand that. But you're the conduit for the committee's voice and terminology to be heard -- feel free to speak in terms that benefit the audience, aka, the fans. You don't have to call it something just because they do. :)

    ... though, at the same time I don't want to change a term they are using around and either add to confusion with different terms OR screw up their intent. I would be happy to chat with them about the term, but not sure I want to change it when they may say it another way. And we have been saying it for two-plus seasons.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2017, 03:58:49 PM
    I'm with Pat on this one, Dave. As a journalist, your primary responsibility in terms of effectively communicating an already-arcane set of statistical variables is to your audience and not to your sources.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 14, 2017, 04:15:19 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 03:11:15 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Stoppable on February 14, 2017, 02:48:22 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 14, 2017, 09:16:25 AM
    I'm not convinced that the NESCAC's lack of a double-round-robin (or something close to it) is quite that big a deal.  Consider that about half the league plays two extra rivalry games against NESCAC opponents (Amherst/Wililams/Wesleyan and Bates/Bowdoin/Colby), and that their tournament has a quarterfinal round.  This means that if Amherst or Williams makes the semifinals, they would have played 14 games against other NESCAC teams.  That's the same number as a UAA team, and only one less than a WIAC team with a first-round bye.

    Meanwhile, a team from another 11 team conference like Benedictine will have only played 5 non-conference games instead of 13/15, giving them far less of a chance to build up a gaudy SOS in what is historically a weak conference to begin with.

    To me, that is quite a difference.

    There are 43 conferences in Division III and you found two that half the NESCAC comes close to? Seems to make the argument in the other direction than where you tried to make it.

    With no connections to the NESCAC or the northeast, I have no dog in this fight, but being a numbers guy, I don't think that the numbers lie to the degree that is being suggested.  I picked the WIAC and UAA for comparison both because they have 8 teams (and conference size is a big part of the scheduling format issue), but also because they are powerhouse leagues, both this year and perennially.  This discussion is only relevant for very strong conferences that routinely contend for multiple bids; no one really cares about the format of a large conference who is only sending their tournament champ.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 14, 2017, 06:26:13 PM
    Oh gosh, lets take Williams for example.  If the NESCAC played a double-round robin and Williams lost the same games to the same opponents  in a double-round robin they'd potentially have as many as 11 losses, way out of Pool C or ranking contention.

    The single round robin makes a huge difference.


    With the 11 teams, 10 more conference games for each spreads 55 more losses across the conference.  That's a huge amount of losses they can schedule around with their current format.


    Compare the 8th place NESCAC team with 8 total losses 6 in conference to the MIAC's 8th place team with 13 total losses with 10 in conference.  Big, big difference in perception.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toad22 on February 14, 2017, 07:12:45 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 14, 2017, 06:26:13 PM
    Oh gosh, lets take Williams for example.  If the NESCAC played a double-round robin and Williams lost the same games to the same opponents  in a double-round robin they'd potentially have as many as 11 losses, way out of Pool C or ranking contention.

    The single round robin makes a huge difference.


    With the 11 teams, 10 more conference games for each spreads 55 more losses across the conference.  That's a huge amount of losses they can schedule around with their current format.


    Compare the 8th place NESCAC team with 8 total losses 6 in conference to the MIAC's 8th place team with 13 total losses with 10 in conference.  Big, big difference in perception.

    The NESCAC is the dominant team in the region. Most of the best teams in the region really are in the NESCAC. If 20 of 24 games in the regular season are played against each other, plus 1-3 league championship games, sure, there will be more losses spread around the league. Going to that system would be stupid, in my opinion. I would be very happy to go to some modified system where teams play say 14-16 league games. The Presidents don't want extra travel and time away from class. It certainly would be possible, but I don't think the powers that be view this as important.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2017, 08:23:53 PM
    There are ways around that, though. If the NESCAC presidents are adamantly opposed to long-distance league games during weeknights, and the schedule has to accommodate three teams in Maine and a team in New York's Mohawk Valley, then pair up the teams into travel partners and play a Saturday/Sunday league schedule.

    Even the modified system you suggest would be a vast improvement. Create two divisions, with intradivisional double round-robins and interdivisional single round-robins, with a six-team division thus playing 15 NESCAC games apiece and a five-team division playing 14 games apiece. You could put the Maine triad in the five-team division with Tufts and Middlebury, which would cut down on the travel for the Mainers. Problem solved.

    I suspect, though, that nobody from the NESCAC really views it as being a problem at all. They're either indifferent to the ramifications of the single round-robin polity (the NESCAC presidents) or they're aware of those ramifications and see them as a competitive advantage that shouldn't be surrendered simply as a gesture of goodwill towards the rest of D3. That's why I'm not holding my breath on the NESCAC abandoning the single round-robin, as maddening as it is for the rest of us who follow D3 basketball.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 14, 2017, 11:03:33 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 03:48:58 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2017, 03:39:38 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2017, 03:02:25 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2017, 02:36:22 PM
    I'd agree with Greg on the terminology, especially in the current climate as it relates to that word. If I were the mouthpiece for the concept, I'd really choose a better title for it and try to define it more succinctly.

    It is the word they have used for two or more years... not one I created.

    I understand that. But you're the conduit for the committee's voice and terminology to be heard -- feel free to speak in terms that benefit the audience, aka, the fans. You don't have to call it something just because they do. :)

    ... though, at the same time I don't want to change a term they are using around and either add to confusion with different terms OR screw up their intent. I would be happy to chat with them about the term, but not sure I want to change it when they may say it another way. And we have been saying it for two-plus seasons.

    Dave, take a cue from Kellyanne Conway - the NESCAC uses "alternative SOS". :o ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 15, 2017, 10:11:10 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2017, 08:23:53 PM
    There are ways around that, though. If the NESCAC presidents are adamantly opposed to long-distance league games during weeknights, and the schedule has to accommodate three teams in Maine and a team in New York's Mohawk Valley, then pair up the teams into travel partners and play a Saturday/Sunday league schedule.

    Even the modified system you suggest would be a vast improvement. Create two divisions, with intradivisional double round-robins and interdivisional single round-robins, with a six-team division thus playing 15 NESCAC games apiece and a five-team division playing 14 games apiece. You could put the Maine triad in the five-team division with Tufts and Middlebury, which would cut down on the travel for the Mainers. Problem solved.

    I suspect, though, that nobody from the NESCAC really views it as being a problem at all. They're either indifferent to the ramifications of the single round-robin polity (the NESCAC presidents) or they're aware of those ramifications and see them as a competitive advantage that shouldn't be surrendered simply as a gesture of goodwill towards the rest of D3. That's why I'm not holding my breath on the NESCAC abandoning the single round-robin, as maddening as it is for the rest of us who follow D3 basketball.

    I don't think most NESCAC coaches would be opposed to 15 league games.  From what I gather, they'd like more than 10, but not 20.  I also get the impression the coaches aren't driving that ship.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 15, 2017, 12:33:52 PM
    Warning: long, nerdy post!

    I analyzed the data regarding Pool C selections over the last four seasons (2013-2016).  This graph shows WP & SOS of teams that were candidates for Pool C, and whether or not they were selected.  Moving up or to the right indicates a stronger resume.

    The top left represents teams with good records but soft schedules, and the bottom right includes teams with so-so records versus tough schedules.  We could find lots more mediocre teams that didn't make the field to fill out the bottom and left portions (except for the extreme top-left), but I included only about 40 per season. 

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FliftTYk.jpg&hash=74bbdb0bab98c14f058e4ab41bb9d3fc7de97394)
    If the image doesn't display above, it's located here: http://imgur.com/a/5UxNp (http://imgur.com/a/5UxNp)

    The solid line is the generic bubble mark (50% shot at getting a Pool C berth), and the dashed lines above and below represent 90% and 10% chances, respectively (without considering the number of qualified bubble teams that year)  The moderately-sloped portions toward the center of the 50% and 90% lines represent the "2 wins [or .080 WP] equals .030 SOS" principle.  Moving toward the edges, the slopes change in ways that represent that the committee values a balanced resume more than one with either a weak SOS (and a great record) or a weak WP (against a tough schedule). 

    For any engineers, etc. interested in the gory details, the formula is as follows:
    P = SOS - 3/8*(1-WP) - 1.2*max(.720-WP,0) - 1.5*max(.510-SOS,0)
    The first two terms are .030 SOS = .080 WP, the next term penalizes WP<.720 and the last penalizes SOS<.510. 
    Fitting a single-variable logistic regression model to the outcomes (bid or no bid) yields the probabilities.

    The outliers of teams that would appear less qualified but got in were as follows:
    Randolph '13 (.714, .520, 4-5), which the model gives only a 5% chance
    Bowdoin '14 (.792, .503, 1-3) 10%
    Wittenberg '14 (.750, .517, 3-6) 21%

    On the flip side, the teams that appear deserving but didn't get in were:
    Albright '13 (.769, .546, 3-1) 88%
    Buena Vista '13 (.720, .563, 1-2) 87%
    Carroll '16 (.800, .530, 0-3) 83%
    Thomas More '13 (.846, .512, 1-3) 82%

    Overall, it's interesting that there were very few outliers in the last couple of years, perhaps indicating a shift to a more quantitative approach by the national committee.  This model does reasonably well despite not including results versus regionally ranked opponents (and Carroll's lack of a vRRO win last year helps explain why they got left out), although my current one does consider that.

    Edited to fix image embed -- you almost had it, but you need to have the actual filename in there, not the page it lives on. Click the image to enlarge./pc
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 15, 2017, 12:55:29 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 15, 2017, 12:33:52 PM
    Warning: long, nerdy post!

    I analyzed the data regarding Pool C selections over the last four seasons (2013-2016).  This graph shows WP & SOS of teams that were candidates for Pool C, and whether or not they were selected.  Moving up or to the right indicates a stronger resume.

    The top left represents teams with good records but soft schedules, and the bottom right includes teams with so-so records versus tough schedules.  We could find lots more mediocre teams that didn't make the field to fill out the bottom and left portions (except for the extreme top-left), but I included only about 40 per season. 

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2F5UxNp&hash=defc43bab1e9adcec3d2f124224e259a10af5909)
    If the image doesn't display above, it's located here: http://imgur.com/a/5UxNp (http://imgur.com/a/5UxNp)

    The solid line is the generic bubble mark (50% shot at getting a Pool C berth), and the dashed lines above and below represent 90% and 10% chances, respectively (without considering the number of qualified bubble teams that year)  The moderately-sloped portions toward the center of the 50% and 90% lines represent the "2 wins [or .080 WP] equals .030 SOS" principle.  Moving toward the edges, the slopes change in ways that represent that the committee values a balanced resume more than one with either a weak SOS (and a great record) or a weak WP (against a tough schedule). 

    For any engineers, etc. interested in the gory details, the formula is as follows:
    P = SOS - 3/8*(1-WP) - 1.2*max(.720-WP,0) - 1.5*max(.510-SOS,0)
    The first two terms are .030 SOS = .080 WP, the next term penalizes WP<.720 and the last penalizes SOS<.510. 
    Fitting a single-variable logistic regression model to the outcomes (bid or no bid) yields the probabilities.

    The outliers of teams that would appear less qualified but got in were as follows:
    Randolph '13 (.714, .520, 4-5), which the model gives only a 5% chance
    Bowdoin '14 (.792, .503, 1-3) 10%
    Wittenberg '14 (.750, .517, 3-6) 21%

    On the flip side, the teams that appear deserving but didn't get in were:
    Albright '13 (.769, .546, 3-1) 88%
    Buena Vista '13 (.720, .563, 1-2) 87%
    Carroll '16 (.800, .530, 0-3) 83%
    Thomas More '13 (.846, .512, 1-3) 82%

    Overall, it's interesting that there were very few outliers in the last couple of years, perhaps indicating a shift to a more quantitative approach by the national committee.  This model does reasonably well despite not including results versus regionally ranked opponents (and Carroll's lack of a vRRO win last year helps explain why they got left out), although my current one does consider that.

    Long?  Not so bad

    Nerdy? Yup

    Loved it all +k
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 15, 2017, 02:13:29 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 15, 2017, 12:33:52 PM
    Warning: long, nerdy post!

    I analyzed the data regarding Pool C selections over the last four seasons (2013-2016).  This graph shows WP & SOS of teams that were candidates for Pool C, and whether or not they were selected.  Moving up or to the right indicates a stronger resume.

    The top left represents teams with good records but soft schedules, and the bottom right includes teams with so-so records versus tough schedules.  We could find lots more mediocre teams that didn't make the field to fill out the bottom and left portions (except for the extreme top-left), but I included only about 40 per season. 

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2F5UxNp&hash=defc43bab1e9adcec3d2f124224e259a10af5909)
    If the image doesn't display above, it's located here: http://imgur.com/a/5UxNp (http://imgur.com/a/5UxNp)

    The solid line is the generic bubble mark (50% shot at getting a Pool C berth), and the dashed lines above and below represent 90% and 10% chances, respectively (without considering the number of qualified bubble teams that year)  The moderately-sloped portions toward the center of the 50% and 90% lines represent the "2 wins [or .080 WP] equals .030 SOS" principle.  Moving toward the edges, the slopes change in ways that represent that the committee values a balanced resume more than one with either a weak SOS (and a great record) or a weak WP (against a tough schedule). 

    For any engineers, etc. interested in the gory details, the formula is as follows:
    P = SOS - 3/8*(1-WP) - 1.2*max(.720-WP,0) - 1.5*max(.510-SOS,0)
    The first two terms are .030 SOS = .080 WP, the next term penalizes WP<.720 and the last penalizes SOS<.510. 
    Fitting a single-variable logistic regression model to the outcomes (bid or no bid) yields the probabilities.

    The outliers of teams that would appear less qualified but got in were as follows:
    Randolph '13 (.714, .520, 4-5), which the model gives only a 5% chance
    Bowdoin '14 (.792, .503, 1-3) 10%
    Wittenberg '14 (.750, .517, 3-6) 21%

    On the flip side, the teams that appear deserving but didn't get in were:
    Albright '13 (.769, .546, 3-1) 88%
    Buena Vista '13 (.720, .563, 1-2) 87%
    Carroll '16 (.800, .530, 0-3) 83%
    Thomas More '13 (.846, .512, 1-3) 82%

    Overall, it's interesting that there were very few outliers in the last couple of years, perhaps indicating a shift to a more quantitative approach by the national committee.  This model does reasonably well despite not including results versus regionally ranked opponents (and Carroll's lack of a vRRO win last year helps explain why they got left out), although my current one does consider that.

    I wasn't following D3 as close during the '13 season but I would be interested to know what the committees reasons were for leaving Albright out and putting Randolph in. Any of you guys know?

    Oohh and Fantastic... as a math major I thoroughly enjoyed this post and graph. Well done!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on February 15, 2017, 02:27:01 PM
    [quote author=Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) link=topic=4232.msg1791109#msg1791109 date=1487171470

    I don't think most NESCAC coaches would be opposed to 15 league games.  From what I gather, they'd like more than 10, but not 20.  I also get the impression the coaches aren't driving that ship.
    [/quote]

    Correct and correct.

    Someone once floated the idea of an east and west division, with teams playing double round robin within their division and single outside of it. It would create half a dozen more league games, wouldn't necessitate that much more travel, etc. But that was just message board fodder.

    There's certainly appeal to the idea, though I also shudder at a western gauntlet of Williams, Middlebury, and Amherst all being in the same division.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2017, 02:33:29 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 15, 2017, 02:13:29 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 15, 2017, 12:33:52 PM
    Warning: long, nerdy post!

    I analyzed the data regarding Pool C selections over the last four seasons (2013-2016).  This graph shows WP & SOS of teams that were candidates for Pool C, and whether or not they were selected.  Moving up or to the right indicates a stronger resume.

    The top left represents teams with good records but soft schedules, and the bottom right includes teams with so-so records versus tough schedules.  We could find lots more mediocre teams that didn't make the field to fill out the bottom and left portions (except for the extreme top-left), but I included only about 40 per season. 

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2F5UxNp&hash=defc43bab1e9adcec3d2f124224e259a10af5909)
    If the image doesn't display above, it's located here: http://imgur.com/a/5UxNp (http://imgur.com/a/5UxNp)

    The solid line is the generic bubble mark (50% shot at getting a Pool C berth), and the dashed lines above and below represent 90% and 10% chances, respectively (without considering the number of qualified bubble teams that year)  The moderately-sloped portions toward the center of the 50% and 90% lines represent the "2 wins [or .080 WP] equals .030 SOS" principle.  Moving toward the edges, the slopes change in ways that represent that the committee values a balanced resume more than one with either a weak SOS (and a great record) or a weak WP (against a tough schedule). 

    For any engineers, etc. interested in the gory details, the formula is as follows:
    P = SOS - 3/8*(1-WP) - 1.2*max(.720-WP,0) - 1.5*max(.510-SOS,0)
    The first two terms are .030 SOS = .080 WP, the next term penalizes WP<.720 and the last penalizes SOS<.510. 
    Fitting a single-variable logistic regression model to the outcomes (bid or no bid) yields the probabilities.

    The outliers of teams that would appear less qualified but got in were as follows:
    Randolph '13 (.714, .520, 4-5), which the model gives only a 5% chance
    Bowdoin '14 (.792, .503, 1-3) 10%
    Wittenberg '14 (.750, .517, 3-6) 21%

    On the flip side, the teams that appear deserving but didn't get in were:
    Albright '13 (.769, .546, 3-1) 88%
    Buena Vista '13 (.720, .563, 1-2) 87%
    Carroll '16 (.800, .530, 0-3) 83%
    Thomas More '13 (.846, .512, 1-3) 82%

    Overall, it's interesting that there were very few outliers in the last couple of years, perhaps indicating a shift to a more quantitative approach by the national committee.  This model does reasonably well despite not including results versus regionally ranked opponents (and Carroll's lack of a vRRO win last year helps explain why they got left out), although my current one does consider that.

    I wasn't following D3 as close during the '13 season but I would be interested to know what the committees reasons were for leaving Albright out and putting Randolph in. Any of you guys know?

    Oohh and Fantastic... as a math major I thoroughly enjoyed this post and graph. Well done!

    Randolph got in thanks to the "once ranked, always ranked" criteria. It doesn't show it in the work produced, but Randolph ended up with like 18 games or more of their schedule against ranked opponents. RMC that year had like 22. It was basically the death-nail to "once ranked, always ranked." The committee knew that Randolph was basically getting in via the backdoor, but with the criteria in front of them they didn't feel they had another other choice. I think the same was thought when NESCAC got a fifth team in a few years ago. That's why the committee every year looks at how they are dealing with the data and the Championships Committee as a whole looks at how their committees are dealing with the data and criteria and tweeks are made on an almost yearly basis.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 15, 2017, 02:50:08 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 15, 2017, 10:11:10 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2017, 08:23:53 PM
    There are ways around that, though. If the NESCAC presidents are adamantly opposed to long-distance league games during weeknights, and the schedule has to accommodate three teams in Maine and a team in New York's Mohawk Valley, then pair up the teams into travel partners and play a Saturday/Sunday league schedule.

    Even the modified system you suggest would be a vast improvement. Create two divisions, with intradivisional double round-robins and interdivisional single round-robins, with a six-team division thus playing 15 NESCAC games apiece and a five-team division playing 14 games apiece. You could put the Maine triad in the five-team division with Tufts and Middlebury, which would cut down on the travel for the Mainers. Problem solved.

    I suspect, though, that nobody from the NESCAC really views it as being a problem at all. They're either indifferent to the ramifications of the single round-robin polity (the NESCAC presidents) or they're aware of those ramifications and see them as a competitive advantage that shouldn't be surrendered simply as a gesture of goodwill towards the rest of D3. That's why I'm not holding my breath on the NESCAC abandoning the single round-robin, as maddening as it is for the rest of us who follow D3 basketball.

    I don't think most NESCAC coaches would be opposed to 15 league games.  From what I gather, they'd like more than 10, but not 20.  I also get the impression the coaches aren't driving that ship.
    in a conference with a 46 year history, the coaches are not driving the ship.  The makeup of conference committees includes both a member of athletics and administrators (usually ADs). 
    As one who lived in New England, change comes slowly.  As long as the NESAC has success in the NCAA as it has had historically, why should it change? 
    A true demographic example, attending my first school budget twin meeting for which a modest increase was being proposed before a packed gym and overflow crowns in cafeteria and classrooms, the town moderator called upon a geriatric resident for who the moderator noted was a fifth generation town resident.  To parapahse the gentleman - 'We have done this (proposal) this way for over two hundred years.  The way we do it is not broken.   So why should we change now because some new people moved into town.  If you new people do not like the way we do things --- Just deal with it or Move Out!  Either works for my family and friends.'
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2017, 04:04:07 PM
    Regional rankings: http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2017/02/men-regional-rankings-second
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 15, 2017, 04:49:17 PM

    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 15, 2017, 12:33:52 PM
    Warning: long, nerdy post!

    I analyzed the data regarding Pool C selections over the last four seasons (2013-2016).  This graph shows WP & SOS of teams that were candidates for Pool C, and whether or not they were selected.  Moving up or to the right indicates a stronger resume.

    The top left represents teams with good records but soft schedules, and the bottom right includes teams with so-so records versus tough schedules.  We could find lots more mediocre teams that didn't make the field to fill out the bottom and left portions (except for the extreme top-left), but I included only about 40 per season. 

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2F5UxNp&hash=defc43bab1e9adcec3d2f124224e259a10af5909)
    If the image doesn't display above, it's located here: http://imgur.com/a/5UxNp (http://imgur.com/a/5UxNp)

    The solid line is the generic bubble mark (50% shot at getting a Pool C berth), and the dashed lines above and below represent 90% and 10% chances, respectively (without considering the number of qualified bubble teams that year)  The moderately-sloped portions toward the center of the 50% and 90% lines represent the "2 wins [or .080 WP] equals .030 SOS" principle.  Moving toward the edges, the slopes change in ways that represent that the committee values a balanced resume more than one with either a weak SOS (and a great record) or a weak WP (against a tough schedule). 

    For any engineers, etc. interested in the gory details, the formula is as follows:
    P = SOS - 3/8*(1-WP) - 1.2*max(.720-WP,0) - 1.5*max(.510-SOS,0)
    The first two terms are .030 SOS = .080 WP, the next term penalizes WP<.720 and the last penalizes SOS<.510. 
    Fitting a single-variable logistic regression model to the outcomes (bid or no bid) yields the probabilities.

    The outliers of teams that would appear less qualified but got in were as follows:
    Randolph '13 (.714, .520, 4-5), which the model gives only a 5% chance
    Bowdoin '14 (.792, .503, 1-3) 10%
    Wittenberg '14 (.750, .517, 3-6) 21%

    On the flip side, the teams that appear deserving but didn't get in were:
    Albright '13 (.769, .546, 3-1) 88%
    Buena Vista '13 (.720, .563, 1-2) 87%
    Carroll '16 (.800, .530, 0-3) 83%
    Thomas More '13 (.846, .512, 1-3) 82%

    Overall, it's interesting that there were very few outliers in the last couple of years, perhaps indicating a shift to a more quantitative approach by the national committee.  This model does reasonably well despite not including results versus regionally ranked opponents (and Carroll's lack of a vRRO win last year helps explain why they got left out), although my current one does consider that.


    and all 9 of those RRO's came from ODAC opponents.  They were chosen over teams that had made the attempt to play other RRO's out of conference.  RRO's were way overemphasized those first couple of years.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 15, 2017, 05:11:20 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 15, 2017, 02:27:01 PM
    [quote author=Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) link=topic=4232.msg1791109#msg1791109 date=1487171470

    I don't think most NESCAC coaches would be opposed to 15 league games.  From what I gather, they'd like more than 10, but not 20.  I also get the impression the coaches aren't driving that ship.

    Correct and correct.

    Someone once floated the idea of an east and west division, with teams playing double round robin within their division and single outside of it. It would create half a dozen more league games, wouldn't necessitate that much more travel, etc. But that was just message board fodder.

    There's certainly appeal to the idea, though I also shudder at a western gauntlet of Williams, Middlebury, and Amherst all being in the same division.
    [/quote]

    They'd really need equal numbers for the divisions, though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2017, 05:48:49 PM
    Not necessarily. There are a couple of conferences that have either an odd number of teams or uneven divisions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2017, 08:07:42 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2017, 05:48:49 PM
    Not necessarily. There are a couple of conferences that have either an odd number of teams or uneven divisions.

    Right, but that kind of messiness is not something I can imagine the NESCAC tolerating.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 16, 2017, 09:09:01 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2017, 04:48:27 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 11:30:14 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 12, 2017, 10:45:13 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2017, 10:26:10 PM

    I was looking at it today and I suspect if Trinity were to beat Williams in the NESCAC final, we'd end up with 6 teams from one conference.

    I'm pretty sure the national committee would not let that happen.

    They got five one year, right?  If the numbers back it up, who knows?

    I HIGHLY doubt we will see 6 teams from the NESCAC. I think 5 is a pipe dream. That said, I think four is a distinct possiblility. The NESCAC is far better and far deeper than it has been in a long time, but teams like Amherst I think are putting themselves in danger of playing out of the tournament. I know that sounds crazy, but I wouldn't be surprised if Amherst is 5th in the regional rankings this week... if not lower meaning they have to do more than lose in the first round of the conference tournament. If they lose to Williams (which Ryan's scenario would present), I think the committee would try and ignore their SOS a bit considering they would be 19-7 and dealing with a lot of losses against other teams in the regional rankings - their vRRO might actually be their Achilles heal in this case.

    Yes... I am aware their SOS is knocking on .600... but that is my point about a "false SOS" ... if the committee does what they have been saying, Amherst could be in trouble. Even Tufts and Wesleyan are not locks (despite Wesleyan's two wins over Amherst, so far) because their SOS numbers are lower than Amherst. There is a chance Amherst gets in but Tufts and even Wesleyan are in trouble (though, Wesleyan not getting in compared to Amherst in this situation seems odd; I think they are safer than Amherst).

    It is a really interesting situation in the Northeast and the NESCAC. This week's rankings will tell us a ton, but six teams in the tournament from the NESCAC? I don't see it happening.

    My hat's off to Dave for calling this one.  Clearly, high SOS numbers run up by NESCAC teams are being discounted a bit by the RRAC.  Amherst is indeed 5th (and fourth-best among NESCAC teams) and Williams is 7th, below Mass-Dartmouth. 

    I still think that Middlebury, Tufts, and Wesleyan are safe, but that the NESCAC gets "only" four if Amherst beats Williams in the first round.  If Williams reaches the final, they would seem to be a good bet for a Pool C and Amherst probably still sneaks in, but upset-ridden conference tournaments elsewhere could lead to both being on the bubble in that scenario.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2017, 09:12:14 AM
    I don't consider a 5-team division and a 6-team division all that messy. They could always just play a 16-18 game unbalanced schedule, keeping the 2 traditional 3-team trios together.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 16, 2017, 01:03:50 PM
    Here's my latest forecast, based on simulations of the remainder of the regular season and conference tournaments.  Automated mock selections are made using a modified RPI, with penalties for WP<.720 and SOS<.510, adjusments for wins vRRO, adjustments based on current regional rankings, and with a small degree of randomness to account for uncertainty regarding committee selections among similarly-qualified teams.  Raw score/schedule data is from Ken Massey's site & d3hoops.com

    Listings are as follows:
    Conference (if projected to win AQ) or Pool C ranking
    Record & conference record
    SOS & record vs regionally ranked opponents
    Current regional ranking (or just region, if unranked)
    Current tournament bid probability, unless already a lock or near lock
    Probability of getting conference's AQ and of a Pool C berth if no AQ
    Probability of getting a Pool C berth if won all remaining games except conference final ("if CF")
    Probability of getting a Pool C berth if lost all remaining games ("if lose out")

    Locks & near-locks (99%+ for Pool C if they lose all remaining games)
    WIAC) UW-River Falls (19-3, 11-2 WIAC, 0.608, 6-2 vRRO, CE#1) lock, 48% AQ
    NEWMAC) Babson (23-1, 13-0 NEWMAC, 0.572, 3-1 vRRO, NE#1) lock, 75% AQ
    NESCAC) Middlebury (21-3, 8-2 NESCAC, 0.604, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) lock, 38% AQ
    NWC) Whitman (23-0, 14-0 NWC, 0.541, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) lock, 76% AQ
    OAC) Marietta (20-4, 15-2 OAC, 0.577, 3-4 vRRO, GL#1) lock, 42% AQ
    CAC) Chris Newport (22-2, 16-1 CAC, 0.519, 2-2 vRRO, MA#1) lock, 73% AQ
    C#1) Susquehanna (19-4, 10-3 LAND, 0.563, 3-2 vRRO, MA#2) lock, 33% AQ
    C#2) Tufts (19-5, 8-2 NESCAC, 0.567, 4-3 vRRO, NE#3) lock, 24% AQ
    NJAC) Ramapo (23-2, 16-2 NJAC, 0.492, 5-2 vRRO, AT#1) lock, 63% AQ
    CSAC) Neumann (22-2, 16-1 CSAC, 0.512, 5-0 vRRO, AT#2) lock, 58% AQ
    UAA) Washington U. (18-4, 10-1 UAA, 0.597, 7-3 vRRO, CE#2) lock, 94% AQ
    C#3) Rochester (20-2, 9-2 UAA, 0.536, 4-1 vRRO, EA#1) near-lock, 6% AQ
    HCAC) Hanover (18-3, 15-2 HCAC, 0.523, 2-2 vRRO, GL#4) near-lock, 55% AQ

    Very strong position (90%+ if no AQ), but need at least one more win to be a lock
    C#4) Wesleyan (CT) (19-5, 6-4 NESCAC, 0.561, 4-3 vRRO, NE#4) 99% (16% AQ or 99% C), 100% if CF, 98% if lose out
    C#5) Whitworth (20-3, 11-3 NWC, 0.533, 1-2 vRRO, WE#2) 99% (23% AQ or 99% C), 100% if CF, 79% if lose out
    C#6) Salisbury (19-5, 14-3 CAC, 0.539, 3-3 vRRO, MA#3) 99% (19% AQ or 99% C), 100% if CF, 81% if lose out
    MIAA) Hope (19-3, 13-0 MIAA, 0.521, 2-1 vRRO, GL#2) 99% (73% AQ or 98% C), 100% if CF, 91% if lose out
    C#7) UW-Whitewater (18-5, 8-5 WIAC, 0.567, 1-3 vRRO, CE#3) 98% (16% AQ or 97% C), 100% if CF, 88% if lose out
    C#8) Amherst (17-6, 7-3 NESCAC, 0.602, 5-4 vRRO, NE#5) 96% (10% AQ or 96% C), 100% if CF, 90% if lose out
    C#9) Mt St Joseph (17-5, 13-4 HCAC, 0.522, 2-1 vRRO, GL#3) 95% (20% AQ or 94% C), 99% if CF, 17% if lose out

    Strong position (80%+ if no AQ)
    LAND) Scranton (18-6, 10-3 LAND, 0.540, 5-3 vRRO, MA#7) 92% (39% AQ or 87% C), 96% if CF, 7% if lose out
    LL) St Lawrence (19-4, 13-2 LL, 0.516, 2-4 vRRO, EA#2) 93% (46% AQ or 86% C), 99% if CF, 59% if lose out
    CC) Swarthmore (20-4, 14-3 CC, 0.516, 2-2 vRRO, MA#4) 91% (52% AQ or 82% C), 94% if CF, 66% if lose out
    C#10) John Carroll (17-6, 14-3 OAC, 0.565, 2-5 vRRO, GL#5) 88% (36% AQ or 82% C), 97% if CF

    Bubble teams (20-79% if no AQ)
    C#11) Guilford (19-5, 12-3 ODAC, 0.509, 2-2 vRRO, SO#1) 84% (26% AQ or 79% C), 91% if CF, 27% if lose out
    MACC) Lycoming (19-4, 12-3 MACC, 0.539, 0-1 vRRO, MA#5) 91% (58% AQ or 78% C), 79% if CF, 35% if lose out
    ASC) Concordia (TX) (16-5, 7-1 ASC, 0.540, 1-1 vRRO, SO#2) 81% (42% AQ or 68% C), 100% if CF
    CCIW) Augustana (18-5, 11-3 CCIW, 0.521, 2-2 vRRO, CE#5) 79% (43% AQ or 63% C), 99% if CF, 1% if lose out
    C#12) UW-Eau Claire (17-6, 8-5 WIAC, 0.566, 3-1 vRRO, CE#4) 64% (12% AQ or 59% C), 100% if CF, 11% if lose out
    IIAC) Loras (18-6, 11-4 IIAC, 0.541, 1-1 vRRO, WE#4) 79% (53% AQ or 56% C), 86% if CF
    SUNYAC) Oswego State (17-5, 14-2 SUNYAC, 0.513, 3-1 vRRO, EA#3) 72% (37% AQ or 55% C), 98% if CF
    SCIAC) C-M-S (16-2, 11-2 SCIAC, 0.479, 2-2 vRRO, WE#5) 77% (49% AQ or 55% C), 87% if CF, 1% if lose out
    C#13) Endicott (19-5, 14-3 CCC, 0.513, 1-1 vRRO, NE#10) 69% (32% AQ or 54% C), 67% if CF, 8% if lose out
    C#14) New Jersey City (19-6, 13-5 NJAC, 0.503, 4-3 vRRO, AT#4) 57% (11% AQ or 52% C), 86% if CF, 29% if lose out
    C#15) Cabrini (18-5, 14-3 CSAC, 0.517, 1-4 vRRO, AT#3) 57% (19% AQ or 47% C), 72% if CF, 8% if lose out
    NACC) Benedictine (IL) (20-3, 18-1 NACC, 0.492, 0-0 vRRO, CE#7) 82% (68% AQ or 45% C), 57% if CF, 7% if lose out
    C#16) MIT (19-5, 11-2 NEWMAC, 0.531, 0-3 vRRO, NE#9) 49% (19% AQ or 37% C), 96% if CF, 15% if lose out
    C#17) Brockport (18-5, 13-3 SUNYAC, 0.514, 1-3 vRRO, EA#4) 58% (34% AQ or 36% C), 84% if CF
    E8) St John Fisher (18-5, 13-1 E8, 0.536, 1-3 vRRO, EA#5) 75% (61% AQ or 34% C), 61% if CF
    C#18) Hardin-Simmons (17-6, 6-2 ASC, 0.553, 2-1 vRRO, SO#3) 49% (25% AQ or 32% C), 86% if CF
    C#19) Skidmore (17-6, 12-2 LL, 0.510, 5-1 vRRO, EA#6) 56% (38% AQ or 30% C), 89% if CF
    MWC) St Norbert (18-4, 15-2 MWC, 0.504, 1-1 vRRO, CE) 68% (56% AQ or 27% C), 37% if CF
    C#20) Carthage (15-7, 9-5 CCIW, 0.570, 2-4 vRRO, CE#8) 44% (25% AQ or 25% C), 70% if CF
    C#21) Wooster (17-7, 14-3 NCAC, 0.531, 4-5 vRRO, GL#6) 39% (21% AQ or 23% C), 78% if CF
    C#22) LeTourneau (18-4, 9-1 ASC, 0.490, 1-1 vRRO, SO#5) 42% (25% AQ or 23% C), 54% if CF
    C#23) Ripon (17-5, 13-4 MWC, 0.498, 1-1 vRRO, CE) 39% (21% AQ or 23% C), 36% if CF

    Longshots (5-20% if no AQ)
    C#24) Williams (17-7, 5-5 NESCAC, 0.585, 4-4 vRRO, NE#7) 22% (6% AQ or 17% C), 94% if CF, 2% if lose out
    MIAC) St Thomas (MN) (18-6, 14-5 MIAC, 0.525, 0-1 vRRO, WE#3) 45% (34% AQ or 16% C), 30% if CF
    C#25) Emory (15-7, 6-5 UAA, 0.549, 2-3 vRRO, SO#4) 16% (0% AQ or 16% C), 94% if CF
    C#26) La Verne (15-7, 9-4 SCIAC, 0.528, 3-4 vRRO, WE#7) 32% (21% AQ or 15% C), 70% if CF
    C#27) Illinois Wesleyan (16-7, 8-6 CCIW, 0.555, 5-2 vRRO, CE#6) 24% (12% AQ or 13% C), 81% if CF
    NCAC) Ohio Wesleyan (18-6, 15-2 NCAC, 0.514, 3-4 vRRO, GL#9) 56% (50% AQ or 12% C), 15% if CF
    C#28) Catholic (17-7, 9-4 LAND, 0.547, 2-5 vRRO, MA#6) 20% (10% AQ or 11% C), 82% if CF
    C#29) Mass-Dartmouth (16-8, 9-4 LEC, 0.560, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 30% (23% AQ or 10% C), 27% if CF
    C#30) Pomona-Pitzer (12-5, 9-4 SCIAC, 0.531, 1-3 vRRO, WE#8) 25% (17% AQ or 10% C), 50% if CF
    C#31) Denison (20-4, 14-3 NCAC, 0.463, 3-2 vRRO, GL#7) 24% (17% AQ or 9% C), 15% if CF
    C#32) Thomas More (16-6, 14-3 PAC, 0.499, 1-0 vRRO, GL) 43% (38% AQ or 8% C), 13% if CF
    C#33) TCNJ (18-7, 14-4 NJAC, 0.514, 3-4 vRRO, AT#5) 23% (18% AQ or 7% C), 12% if CF
    C#34) Roger Williams (19-5, 13-4 CCC, 0.471, 2-1 vRRO, NE) 23% (18% AQ or 7% C), 28% if CF

    Real longshots (less than 5% if no AQ, but could get to 5% by reaching conference final)
    Keene State (16-8, 9-4 LEC, 0.579, 2-3 vRRO, NE#8) 23% (19% AQ or 4% C), 17% if CF
    North Park (16-7, 9-5 CCIW, 0.525, 3-2 vRRO, CE) 16% (13% AQ or 4% C), 28% if CF
    Moravian (16-6, 10-3 LAND, 0.511, 3-4 vRRO, MA) 22% (18% AQ or 4% C), 23% if CF
    CCC) Nichols (19-5, 14-3 CCC, 0.475, 1-1 vRRO, NE) 45% (42% AQ or 4% C), 6% if CF
    Cortland (16-7, 11-5 SUNYAC, 0.521, 2-3 vRRO, EA#7) 13% (11% AQ or 3% C), 48% if CF
    Gwynedd Mercy (19-5, 13-4 CSAC, 0.475, 0-4 vRRO, AT) 18% (16% AQ or 3% C), 10% if CF
    LEC) E Connecticut (16-8, 10-3 LEC, 0.566, 3-4 vRRO, NE#11) 45% (43% AQ or 2% C), 7% if CF
    USAC) Maryville (TN) (18-5, 9-4 USAC, 0.483, 1-1 vRRO, SO#7) 35% (34% AQ or 2% C), 5% if CF
    Emory & Henry (16-7, 11-4 ODAC, 0.528, 1-4 vRRO, SO#8) 17% (16% AQ or 2% C), 6% if CF
    Nebraska Wesleyan (16-6, 10-5 IIAC, 0.512, 0-1 vRRO, WE#6) 20% (19% AQ or 1% C), 19% if CF
    ODAC) Randolph-Macon (17-7, 13-2 ODAC, 0.520, 1-3 vRRO, SO#6) 33% (32% AQ or 1% C), 8% if CF
    Ohio Northern (16-8, 14-3 OAC, 0.537, 2-3 vRRO, GL#8) 18% (17% AQ or 1% C), 12% if CF
    Misericordia (17-7, 8-5 MACF, 0.511, 3-2 vRRO, AT) 19% (19% AQ or 1% C), 5% if CF
    Carleton (15-7, 13-6 MIAC, 0.538, 1-2 vRRO, WE) 32% (31% AQ or 1% C), 5% if CF
    Cal Lutheran (15-6, 9-4 SCIAC, 0.482, 1-3 vRRO, WE) 14% (14% AQ), 7% if CF

    Other projected pool A berths
    GNAC) Albertus Magnus (19-4, 15-2 GNAC, 0.476, 0-2 vRRO, NE) 57% (56% AQ or 1% C), 2% if CF
    SLIAC) Greenville (IL) (18-5, 13-4 SLIAC, 0.459, 0-0 vRRO, CE) 49% (49% AQ), 0% if CF
    PAC) St Vincent (17-6, 14-3 PAC, 0.485, 1-0 vRRO, GL) 41% (40% AQ), 0% if CF
    CUNYAC) Staten Island (19-5, 16-0 CUNYAC, 0.489, 0-4 vRRO, AT#8) 63% (63% AQ), 1% if CF
    NAC) Husson (17-6, 14-2 NAC, 0.490, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 58% (58% AQ), 0% if CF
    AMCC) Medaille (18-5, 15-2 AMCC, 0.463, 0-0 vRRO, GL) 54% (54% AQ), 0% if CF
    NEAC) SUNYIT (17-6, 9-1 NEAC, 0.473, 0-1 vRRO, EA) 54% (54% AQ), 0% if CF
    SKY) Farmingdale State (18-6, 14-1 SKY, 0.476, 0-2 vRRO, AT) 49% (49% AQ), 0% if CF
    NECC) Becker (16-6, 12-1 NECC, 0.481, 0-2 vRRO, NE) 50% (50% AQ), 0% if CF
    MACF) Eastern (15-9, 10-3 MACF, 0.539, 1-6 vRRO, AT) 36% (36% AQ), 0% if CF
    UMAC) Northwestern (MN) (16-6, 12-2 UMAC, 0.450, 0-0 vRRO, WE) 41% (41% AQ), 0% if CF
    SCAC) Schreiner (13-10, 10-2 SCAC, 0.552, 0-5 vRRO, SO) 46% (46% AQ), 0% if CF
    MASCAC) Fitchburg State (14-10, 9-2 MASCAC, 0.491, 0-3 vRRO, NE) 53% (53% AQ), 0% if CF
    SAA) Rhodes (13-10, 10-3 SAA, 0.447, 0-1 vRRO, SO) 44% (44% AQ), 0% if CF
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2017, 01:07:46 PM
    So I need to clarify something that has apparently been misinterpreted either on my end or some how in the communication of the information. I really don't know who, how, when, or whatnot on this, but it does need to be cleared up.

    Of the course of last season and this, I (we) have been under the impression that the national committee was looking at the last two weeks of regional rankings for vRRO data when it came to the final rankings of the year. This came up at some point last year because "once ranked, always ranked" had been kicked to the curb and the "only ranked the previous ranking" had seemed to extreme. It turns out, the committee has been working under the previous rankings not only last year, but this year as well. There has NOT been a system in place where they look at the final two rankings of the year when doing the final rankings (and final rankings only; it was never told to me as being in place for any other ranking).

    I have no idea how we got to the current model. I would love to pour through the last six or more interviews to see if it is mentioned, but I simply don't have the time these days. I also can't go back to hundreds of conversations I have had with varying committee chairs, committee members, liaisons, and who knows who else from the NCAA HQ that I would have discussed this with. I do know that it wasn't a single conversation and my habit is to ask multiple questions to clarify such a change in a system, so there is no way a passing comment or a single answer to a question got me (us) off in a different direction than what the committee has/had been doing.

    I apologize for the confusion this may have caused. Ironically despite working under the wrong description last year, we (Hoopsville selection crew) still managed to only miss two selections (one for men, one for women). And no, I am not sure if we had different data we would have suddenly been perfect.

    Here is where it gets interesting, though. NEXT SEASON there WILL be a change to the final rankings where the national committee will be able to look at the final two rankings to add up the vRRO category. Let me start with explaining that this will ONLY before the final selections ranking. Previous regional rankings will NOT have two weeks worth of vRRO. They will only be based on the previous week. To explain that better - Rankings week and vRRO data used:

    Week 1 vRRO = None
    Week 2 vRRO = Week 1 only
    Week 3 vRRO = Week 2 only
    Week 4 vRRO = Week 3 only
    Final vRRO = Week 4 and Final

    Because I know this will raise questions... Week 1, 2, 3 are the rankings we normally see. Week 4 is the final rankings the RACs do on the final Sunday of the season (which we have not seen in the past). The National Committee always takes the Week 4 rankings, makes adjustments, and then has the vRRO data recalculated and reranks the regions themselves if necessary. Call that the Final rankings or selection rankings. Those final rankings are the ones we will see this year (and we have "gleaned" or flat out been given in seasons prior).

    This has always been the procedure, however starting NEXT season the national committee will have vRRO numbers from Week 4's rankings based on Week 3's. Then when they rerank with updated vRRO numbers, that data will be based not just on Week 4's rankings, but also Week 3's. The premise is a reranking by the national committe based on the new data could move teams in or out of rankings which could have a major affect on teams in the rankings. By allowing two weeks of data, that influence is not as great and thus not as much of a punishment or a reward.

    Remember, these are decisions being made across the board in Division III, not just basketball or men's basketball in particular.

    There is a chance that this decision was made last year and knowing the NCAA they were going to wait two years (for whatever reason), but when that was passed on to me (us) it was made to sound like it started immediately. There is also a chance this idea was being floated around the NCAA and again was passed on to us as being something they were actually using. There are lots of variables and usually I know which are thoughts, which are rules for the future, and which are in place now... but this one some how got screwed up.

    So this year... vRRO only based on the previous rankings which means the final, reranked rankings we will see will only be based on the RACs Week 4 numbers. I hope that makes sense and I once again apologize.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2017, 06:43:53 PM
    The Division III season has officially entered "Crunch Time." Regular season schedules are wrapping up, conference tournaments are about to begin, teams are jockeying for conference position or trying to win home-court advantage. And it is all happening the uncertainty of whether NCAA tournament berths are available for a lot of teams.

    On Thursday night's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh not only takes another look at this week's Regional Rankings, but also tries to read the tea leaves. He also chats with four teams that all still have something to play for. Whether it is to better position themselves in the eyes of the NCAA committees or just to turn more heads in their conference tournament, these teams are still pushing to continue their seasons.


    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio starting at 7:00 PM ET LIVE. You can watch the show on the official show page here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/feb16 ... or you can watch the live simulcast on Facebook Live (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville). If you miss the show, you can catch-up on Demand or listen to the podcasts (which will be uploaded at the conclusion of the show).

    A reminder the Thursday edition of Hoopsville primarily covers the East, Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, and West regions, but we will answer any questions about all of Division III throughout the show. You can also send your questions to the show and have them featured on the Hoopsville Mailbag segment. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com.

    And please consider helping Hoopsville stay on the air like you might help your public television station. The annual fundraising campaign has less than three weeks remaining, but we are no where close to reaching our goal. Click here for more information: Hoopsville Fundraising Page (https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017/x/6029509)

    Guests include (in order of appearance):
    - Michael Meek, No. 24 George Fox women's coach
    - Katherine Bixby, Dickinson women's coach
    - Greg Mitchell, No. 16 Hope men's coach
    - Rob Kornaker, St. John Fisher men's coach

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Fundraiser: https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3Dlhl4x%2F4z02xle8ples8o79.jpg&hash=713fd03ae5aa5b62527b16c7f48ebea9d8407d06)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2017, 01:29:14 PM
    Here's my very quick stab-in-the-dark attempt on the Pool C bids using the 2nd regional rankings.

    Crossed out teams are conference leaders, assumed Pool A. Bold are the 21 Pool C teams.

    ATLANTIC
    Ramapo - NJAC
    Neumann - CSAC
    Cabrini - CSAC
    NJCU - NJAC

    CENTRAL
    River Falls - WIAC
    Wash U - UAA
    Whitewater - WIAC
    Eau Claire - WIAC
    Augustana - CCIW
    IWU - CCIW
    Benedictine - NACC
    Carthage - CCIW

    EAST
    Rochester - UAA
    St. Lawrence - LL
    Oswego - SUNYAC
    Brockport - SUNYAC
    SJF - E8
    Skidmore - LL
    Cortland - SUNYAC

    GREAT LAKES
    Marietta - OAC
    Hope - MIAA
    Mt. St. Joseph - HCAC
    Hanover - HCAC
    John Carroll - OAC
    Wooster - NCAC
    Denison - NCAC

    MID ATLANTIC
    CNU - CAC
    Susquehanna - LAND
    Salisbury - CAC
    Swarthmore - CC
    Lycoming - MACC
    Catholic - LAND
    Scranton - LAND

    NORTHEAST
    Babson - NEWMAC
    Middlebury - NESCAC
    Tufts - NESCAC
    Wesleyan - NESCAC
    Amherst - NESCAC
    UMass - Dartmouth - LEC

    SOUTH
    Guilford - ODAC
    Concordia - Texas - ASC
    Hardin-Simmons - ASC
    Emory - UAA
    LeTourneau - ASC
    Randolph - Macon - ODAC

    WEST
    Whitman - NWC
    Whitworth - NWC
    St. Thomas - MIAC
    Loras - IIAC
    Claremon-Mudd-Scripps - SCIAC
    Nebraska Wesleyan - IIAC

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 17, 2017, 02:13:04 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2017, 01:29:14 PM
    Here's my very quick stab-in-the-dark attempt on the Pool C bids using the 2nd regional rankings.

    Crossed out teams are conference leaders, assumed Pool A. Bold are the 21 Pool C teams.

    ATLANTIC
    Ramapo - NJAC
    Neumann - CSAC
    Cabrini - CSAC
    NJCU - NJAC

    CENTRAL
    River Falls - WIAC
    Wash U - UAA
    Whitewater - WIAC
    Eau Claire - WIAC
    Augustana - CCIW
    IWU - CCIW
    Benedictine - NACC
    Carthage - CCIW

    EAST
    Rochester - UAA
    St. Lawrence - LL
    Oswego - SUNYAC
    Brockport - SUNYAC
    SJF - E8
    Skidmore - LL
    Cortland - SUNYAC

    GREAT LAKES
    Marietta - OAC
    Hope - MIAA
    Mt. St. Joseph - HCAC
    Hanover - HCAC
    John Carroll - OAC
    Wooster - NCAC
    Denison - NCAC

    MID ATLANTIC
    CNU - CAC
    Susquehanna - LAND
    Salisbury - CAC
    Swarthmore - CC
    Lycoming - MACC
    Catholic - LAND
    Scranton - LAND

    NORTHEAST
    Babson - NEWMAC
    Middlebury - NESCAC
    Tufts - NESCAC
    Wesleyan - NESCAC
    Amherst - NESCAC
    UMass - Dartmouth - LEC

    SOUTH
    Guilford - ODAC
    Concordia - Texas - ASC
    Hardin-Simmons - ASC
    Emory - UAA
    LeTourneau - ASC
    Randolph - Macon - ODAC

    WEST
    Whitman - NWC
    Whitworth - NWC
    St. Thomas - MIAC
    Loras - IIAC
    Claremon-Mudd-Scripps - SCIAC
    Nebraska Wesleyan - IIAC

    Care to share the order in which your Pool C teams came off your "board"?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 17, 2017, 02:25:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2017, 01:29:14 PM
    Here's my very quick stab-in-the-dark attempt on the Pool C bids using the 2nd regional rankings.

    Crossed out teams are conference leaders, assumed Pool A. Bold are the 21 Pool C teams.


    SOUTH
    Guilford - ODAC
    Concordia - Texas - ASC
    Hardin-Simmons - ASC
    Emory - UAA
    LeTourneau - ASC
    Randolph - Macon - ODAC


    Hardin-Simmons beat Concordia last night, that might change the South rankings a little.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2017, 02:31:09 PM
    Not really. I really didn't have a method. Just a stab in the dark. I had a hard time choosing after about 15.

    JCU's winning % isn't great, but they have a lot of results against RRO and their SoS is really good.

    My bottom teams were Cabrini, Skidmore, Wooster, Catholic and St. Thomas. I nearly put in Carthage.

    Mind you, I don't go into the numbers nearly as much as the experts on these boards do.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2017, 02:33:42 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 17, 2017, 02:25:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2017, 01:29:14 PM
    Here's my very quick stab-in-the-dark attempt on the Pool C bids using the 2nd regional rankings.

    Crossed out teams are conference leaders, assumed Pool A. Bold are the 21 Pool C teams.


    SOUTH
    Guilford - ODAC
    Concordia - Texas - ASC
    Hardin-Simmons - ASC
    Emory - UAA
    LeTourneau - ASC
    Randolph - Macon - ODAC


    Hardin-Simmons beat Concordia last night, that might change the South rankings a little.

    I know, hence my statement that my Pool C picks were based on the 2nd Regional Rankings!  ???  ;D  :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 17, 2017, 03:06:09 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2017, 02:31:09 PM
    Not really. I really didn't have a method. Just a stab in the dark. I had a hard time choosing after about 15.

    JCU's winning % isn't great, but they have a lot of results against RRO and their SoS is really good.

    My bottom teams were Cabrini, Skidmore, Wooster, Catholic and St. Thomas. I nearly put in Carthage.

    Mind you, I don't go into the numbers nearly as much as the experts on these boards do.

    With a different approach, I have all but 4 of the same teams as yours, although I think yours are more believable.  In my last bubble evaluation above, I didn't have IWU, Catholic, Emory, or St. Thomas, but instead had Endicott, NJCU, MIT, and Carthage (a couple of whom aren't in regional position to even get on the board right now and need to reach conference finals to contend in Pool C.) 

    Of course, there are likely to be several Pool C bids stolen when mediocre teams win conference tournaments, which is partially why my last 7 all have Pool C chances below 50/50 at the moment.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 17, 2017, 08:40:06 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2017, 01:07:46 PM
    So I need to clarify something that has apparently been misinterpreted either on my end or some how in the communication of the information. I really don't know who, how, when, or whatnot on this, but it does need to be cleared up.

    Of the course of last season and this, I (we) have been under the impression that the national committee was looking at the last two weeks of regional rankings for vRRO data when it came to the final rankings of the year. This came up at some point last year because "once ranked, always ranked" had been kicked to the curb and the "only ranked the previous ranking" had seemed to extreme. It turns out, the committee has been working under the previous rankings not only last year, but this year as well. There has NOT been a system in place where they look at the final two rankings of the year when doing the final rankings (and final rankings only; it was never told to me as being in place for any other ranking).

    I have no idea how we got to the current model. I would love to pour through the last six or more interviews to see if it is mentioned, but I simply don't have the time these days. I also can't go back to hundreds of conversations I have had with varying committee chairs, committee members, liaisons, and who knows who else from the NCAA HQ that I would have discussed this with. I do know that it wasn't a single conversation and my habit is to ask multiple questions to clarify such a change in a system, so there is no way a passing comment or a single answer to a question got me (us) off in a different direction than what the committee has/had been doing.

    I apologize for the confusion this may have caused. Ironically despite working under the wrong description last year, we (Hoopsville selection crew) still managed to only miss two selections (one for men, one for women). And no, I am not sure if we had different data we would have suddenly been perfect.

    Here is where it gets interesting, though. NEXT SEASON there WILL be a change to the final rankings where the national committee will be able to look at the final two rankings to add up the vRRO category. Let me start with explaining that this will ONLY before the final selections ranking. Previous regional rankings will NOT have two weeks worth of vRRO. They will only be based on the previous week. To explain that better - Rankings week and vRRO data used:

    Week 1 vRRO = None
    Week 2 vRRO = Week 1 only
    Week 3 vRRO = Week 2 only
    Week 4 vRRO = Week 3 only
    Final vRRO = Week 4 and Final

    Because I know this will raise questions... Week 1, 2, 3 are the rankings we normally see. Week 4 is the final rankings the RACs do on the final Sunday of the season (which we have not seen in the past). The National Committee always takes the Week 4 rankings, makes adjustments, and then has the vRRO data recalculated and reranks the regions themselves if necessary. Call that the Final rankings or selection rankings. Those final rankings are the ones we will see this year (and we have "gleaned" or flat out been given in seasons prior).

    This has always been the procedure, however starting NEXT season the national committee will have vRRO numbers from Week 4's rankings based on Week 3's. Then when they rerank with updated vRRO numbers, that data will be based not just on Week 4's rankings, but also Week 3's. The premise is a reranking by the national committe based on the new data could move teams in or out of rankings which could have a major affect on teams in the rankings. By allowing two weeks of data, that influence is not as great and thus not as much of a punishment or a reward.

    Remember, these are decisions being made across the board in Division III, not just basketball or men's basketball in particular.

    There is a chance that this decision was made last year and knowing the NCAA they were going to wait two years (for whatever reason), but when that was passed on to me (us) it was made to sound like it started immediately. There is also a chance this idea was being floated around the NCAA and again was passed on to us as being something they were actually using. There are lots of variables and usually I know which are thoughts, which are rules for the future, and which are in place now... but this one some how got screwed up.

    So this year... vRRO only based on the previous rankings which means the final, reranked rankings we will see will only be based on the RACs Week 4 numbers. I hope that makes sense and I once again apologize.
    My head hurts from brain freeze - what is the short version for this season only pleeeeeze
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2017, 08:41:37 PM
    Quote from: iwumichigander on February 17, 2017, 08:40:06 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2017, 01:07:46 PM
    So I need to clarify something that has apparently been misinterpreted either on my end or some how in the communication of the information. I really don't know who, how, when, or whatnot on this, but it does need to be cleared up.

    Of the course of last season and this, I (we) have been under the impression that the national committee was looking at the last two weeks of regional rankings for vRRO data when it came to the final rankings of the year. This came up at some point last year because "once ranked, always ranked" had been kicked to the curb and the "only ranked the previous ranking" had seemed to extreme. It turns out, the committee has been working under the previous rankings not only last year, but this year as well. There has NOT been a system in place where they look at the final two rankings of the year when doing the final rankings (and final rankings only; it was never told to me as being in place for any other ranking).

    I have no idea how we got to the current model. I would love to pour through the last six or more interviews to see if it is mentioned, but I simply don't have the time these days. I also can't go back to hundreds of conversations I have had with varying committee chairs, committee members, liaisons, and who knows who else from the NCAA HQ that I would have discussed this with. I do know that it wasn't a single conversation and my habit is to ask multiple questions to clarify such a change in a system, so there is no way a passing comment or a single answer to a question got me (us) off in a different direction than what the committee has/had been doing.

    I apologize for the confusion this may have caused. Ironically despite working under the wrong description last year, we (Hoopsville selection crew) still managed to only miss two selections (one for men, one for women). And no, I am not sure if we had different data we would have suddenly been perfect.

    Here is where it gets interesting, though. NEXT SEASON there WILL be a change to the final rankings where the national committee will be able to look at the final two rankings to add up the vRRO category. Let me start with explaining that this will ONLY before the final selections ranking. Previous regional rankings will NOT have two weeks worth of vRRO. They will only be based on the previous week. To explain that better - Rankings week and vRRO data used:

    Week 1 vRRO = None
    Week 2 vRRO = Week 1 only
    Week 3 vRRO = Week 2 only
    Week 4 vRRO = Week 3 only
    Final vRRO = Week 4 and Final

    Because I know this will raise questions... Week 1, 2, 3 are the rankings we normally see. Week 4 is the final rankings the RACs do on the final Sunday of the season (which we have not seen in the past). The National Committee always takes the Week 4 rankings, makes adjustments, and then has the vRRO data recalculated and reranks the regions themselves if necessary. Call that the Final rankings or selection rankings. Those final rankings are the ones we will see this year (and we have "gleaned" or flat out been given in seasons prior).

    This has always been the procedure, however starting NEXT season the national committee will have vRRO numbers from Week 4's rankings based on Week 3's. Then when they rerank with updated vRRO numbers, that data will be based not just on Week 4's rankings, but also Week 3's. The premise is a reranking by the national committe based on the new data could move teams in or out of rankings which could have a major affect on teams in the rankings. By allowing two weeks of data, that influence is not as great and thus not as much of a punishment or a reward.

    Remember, these are decisions being made across the board in Division III, not just basketball or men's basketball in particular.

    There is a chance that this decision was made last year and knowing the NCAA they were going to wait two years (for whatever reason), but when that was passed on to me (us) it was made to sound like it started immediately. There is also a chance this idea was being floated around the NCAA and again was passed on to us as being something they were actually using. There are lots of variables and usually I know which are thoughts, which are rules for the future, and which are in place now... but this one some how got screwed up.

    So this year... vRRO only based on the previous rankings which means the final, reranked rankings we will see will only be based on the RACs Week 4 numbers. I hope that makes sense and I once again apologize.
    My head hurts from brain freeze - what is the short version for this season only pleeeeeze

    My takeaway was that the final two week vRRO thing is going into effect next season, not this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 17, 2017, 09:15:32 PM
    Thanks KS!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2017, 12:07:39 PM
    My Saturday morning take on Pool C...

    (All data courtesy of Matt Snyder, aka KnighSlappy - http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/.)

    Comfortably In
    1. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC), .875/.603/8-2
    2. Rochester (E/UAA), .913/.532/3-1
    3. Tufts (NE/NESCAC), .792/.561/4-4
    4. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC), .792/.559/5-3
    5. Amherst (NE/NESCAC), .739/.595/6-4
    6. UW-Whitewater (C/WIAC), .783/.565/1-3
    7. Whitworth (W/NWC), .875/.530/1-2
    8. UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC), .739/.566/4-1
    9. Salisbury (MA/CAC), .792/.537/3-3
    10. Scranton (MA/LAND), .750/.535/4-2
    11. St. Lawrence (E/LL), .800/.523/1-4
    12. Mount St. Joseph (GL/HCAC), .783/.523/2-1
    13. John Carroll (GL/OAC), .739/.567/2-5

    The Bubble - Pick 3; 5 of these teams projected out due to expected Pool A upsets
    14. Williams (NE/NESCAC), .708/.583/6-4
    15. St. Thomas (W/MIAC), .750/.524/2-1
    16. Illinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW), .696/.555/3-4
    ----------
    17. Catholic (MA/LAND), .708/.543/2-5
    18. Brockport (E/SUNYAC), .750/.515/3-3
    19. Guilford (S/ODAC), .792/.505/2-1
    20. Concordia TX (S/ASC), .714/.546/1-3
    21. Wooster (GL/NCAC), .708/.533/3-5

    Out at this point
    22. Cortland (E/SUNYAC), .708/.530/3-4
    23. Emory (S/UAA), .696/.540/2-3
    24. MIT (NE/NEWMAC), .792/.526/0-3
    25. Cabrini (AT/CSAC), .783/.517/1-3
    26. Carthage (C/CCIW), .682/.569/3-4
    27. Pomona-Pitzer (W/SCIAC), .722/.526/1-1
    28. North Park (C/CCIW, .696/.525/3-0
    29. Keene State (NE/LEC), .667/.576/3-3


    Please let me know if I any glaring mistakes stick out (missing C candidates, teams that should be As not Cs, etc.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2017, 12:12:18 PM
    Most of the teams can move up one notch, since one of the five NESCAC teams will almost certainly be the AQ (though it is not clear which one).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 18, 2017, 04:01:28 PM
    John Carroll loses its regular season finale. Likely need an OAC championship game appearance to be safe again. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 18, 2017, 04:19:00 PM

    Amherst is our first team officially in the Pool C mix; they dropped a first round game to Williams today.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 18, 2017, 04:29:14 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2017, 12:12:18 PM
    Most of the teams can move up one notch, since one of the five NESCAC teams will almost certainly be the AQ (though it is not clear which one).

    Won't they move down? Williams wasn't getting a Pool C, so if they win, won't one of the others steal a spot?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2017, 05:12:21 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 18, 2017, 04:29:14 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2017, 12:12:18 PM
    Most of the teams can move up one notch, since one of the five NESCAC teams will almost certainly be the AQ (though it is not clear which one).

    Won't they move down? Williams wasn't getting a Pool C, so if they win, won't one of the others steal a spot?

    I had 5 NESCAC teams in my Pool C list as of this morning (Middlebury, Tufts, Wesleyan, Amherst, Williams).  Chuck's point is that 1 of the 5 is likely to get the Pool A. After today's play, the NESCAC semifinals are now Tufts/Williams and Middlebury/Trinity.  So if, say, Middlebury wins the Pool A, they come out of Pool C...and my whole list can shift up.

    I had Williams on the right side of the Pool C bubble as of this morning, and in better position after the win today.  Seems to me like Amherst and Wesleyan are both safe in Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 18, 2017, 05:27:51 PM
    I have to think Williams with a win at Tufts locks down a Pool C.  I realize I'm biased but I can't see why Amherst is worthy of a Pool C bid over Williams after today.  Williams played a much tougher schedule (Amherst loaded up on home games), will have at least one more win, and has more big wins than the Jeffs.  Plus Williams has peaked late in the year including a big road playoff win vs Amherst, while Amherst has stumbled.  I would think that Williams would sneak past Amherst in the Nee England rankings after today.  If so, wouldn't they likely be ahead of them for Pool C consideration?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2017, 05:45:16 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 18, 2017, 05:27:51 PM
    I have to think Williams with a win at Tufts locks down a Pool C.  I realize I'm biased but I can't see why Amherst is worthy of a Pool C bid over Williams after today.  Williams played a much tougher schedule (Amherst loaded up on home games), will have at least one more win, and has more big wins than the Jeffs.  Plus Williams has peaked late in the year including a big road playoff win vs Amherst, while Amherst has stumbled.  I would think that Williams would sneak past Amherst in the Nee England rankings after today.  If so, wouldn't they likely be ahead of them for Pool C consideration?

    Yes, if Williams ends up regionally ranked ahead of Amherst they will be considered before Amherst in the Pool C process.

    In the second regional rankings, Amherst was 5th in the NE and Williams 7th - http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2017/02/men-regional-rankings-second. The numbers were:
      * Amherst: .739/.595/6-4 (2-0 vs Williams)
      * Williams: .708/.583/6-4 (0-2 vs Amherst)

    Easy call to have Amherst ranked ahead of Williams in ranking #2.

    After today Amherst falls to .708 while Williams improves to .720 - and Williams picks up a win on Amherst. Ranking #3 could have a flip...probably 50/50. Amherst being 2-1 vs Williams could keep things where they are.

    But from here in terms of Pool C, Williams can finish either .692 (with a loss in NESCAC semi) or .704 (with 1-1).  And again, Amherst is finished at .708.  As Pool C candidates, I see Amherst ending up ranked higher in the NE region and thus, being considered in the process first.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on February 18, 2017, 05:53:03 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 18, 2017, 05:27:51 PM
    I have to think Williams with a win at Tufts locks down a Pool C.  I realize I'm biased but I can't see why Amherst is worthy of a Pool C bid over Williams after today.  Williams played a much tougher schedule (Amherst loaded up on home games), will have at least one more win, and has more big wins than the Jeffs.  Plus Williams has peaked late in the year including a big road playoff win vs Amherst, while Amherst has stumbled.  I would think that Williams would sneak past Amherst in the Nee England rankings after today.  If so, wouldn't they likely be ahead of them for Pool C consideration?

    I would think that Williams will jump over Amherst in the regional rankings this week, but by how much? Let's say they're one spot ahead of Amherst and then lose next weekend. Do they then slip below the idle formerly known as Lord Jeffs? Who are idle because they lost to Williams!!?? I'd hate to see that, but I do think it's within the realm of possibility.

    For what it's worth, I think Williams deserves to be in ahead of Amherst, so I'm hoping they get ranked ahead of them and stay there. And, as I've said before, I think the 5 NESCAC teams are deserving of tournament play. But if it is to be four, it should be Williams over Amherst.

    Now, if Trinity were to win the tournament, then a team falls, I think. I don't see the NESCAC getting 6. So that would be the lowest-ranked NESCAC team regionally, which should be Amherst, but that's not a given.

    And to your initial point: I think Williams would move into lock status with a win over Tufts.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2017, 05:56:24 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2017, 05:53:03 PM
    And to your initial point: I thunk Williams would move into lock status with a win over Tufts.

    I don't think any .704 team can be considered a lock heading into the Pool C process.  I think Williams would have a very good chance in that scenario...but lock is too strong.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on February 18, 2017, 06:02:15 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2017, 05:56:24 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2017, 05:53:03 PM
    And to your initial point: I thunk Williams would move into lock status with a win over Tufts.

    I don't think any .704 team can be considered a lock heading into the Pool C process.  I think Williams would have a very good chance in that scenario...but lock is too strong.

    Agreed. Your terminology of "comfortably in" would be better based on a win over Tufts for the Ephs, but probably toward the bottom of that list.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2017, 06:03:58 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2017, 06:02:15 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2017, 05:56:24 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2017, 05:53:03 PM
    And to your initial point: I thunk Williams would move into lock status with a win over Tufts.

    I don't think any .704 team can be considered a lock heading into the Pool C process.  I think Williams would have a very good chance in that scenario...but lock is too strong.

    Agreed. Your terminology of "comfortably in" would be better based on a win over Tufts for the Ephs, but probably toward the bottom of that list.

    I'd have to look at things before the actual Pool C process, but seems to me like .704 would always be in the bubble group...even if at the very top of that bubble list.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 18, 2017, 06:04:16 PM
    It seems crazy to me that a loss on the road to a top-three team in the region in what is an extra game, while Amherst is sitting at home, might cause the Ephs to slip behind Amherst, who Williams had just beaten.  Yes Amherst would have a higher win percentage (barely) but also while playing two fewer games, which is significant too.  In all events hope the Ephs moot the issue by winning out!!!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2017, 06:07:01 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 18, 2017, 06:04:16 PM
    It seems crazy to me that a loss on the road to a top-three team in the region in what is an extra game, while Amherst is sitting at home, might cause the Ephs to slip behind Amherst, who Williams had just beaten.  Yes Amherst would have a higher win percentage (barely) but also while playing two fewer games, which is significant too.  In all events hope the Ephs moot the issue by winning out!!!!

    It just all comes down to final resumes.  You play until you are eliminated and then they stack up your final numbers (WP, SOS, RRO, and a few other factors like head-to-head, etc).

    Seems to me like Amherst will have better Pool C numbers than Williams (if Williams ends up a Pool C candidate).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on February 18, 2017, 06:10:50 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2017, 06:03:58 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2017, 06:02:15 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2017, 05:56:24 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2017, 05:53:03 PM
    And to your initial point: I thunk Williams would move into lock status with a win over Tufts.

    I don't think any .704 team can be considered a lock heading into the Pool C process.  I think Williams would have a very good chance in that scenario...but lock is too strong.

    Agreed. Your terminology of "comfortably in" would be better based on a win over Tufts for the Ephs, but probably toward the bottom of that list.

    I'd have to look at things before the actual Pool C process, but seems to me like .704 would always be in the bubble group...even if at the very top of that bubble list.

    Gotcha. Well, at least my Panthers are safe. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 4samuy on February 18, 2017, 09:12:32 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 18, 2017, 04:19:00 PM

    Amherst is our first team officially in the Pool C mix; they dropped a first round game to Williams today.

    And of course Amherst has earned a tournament bid.  Give me a break
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2017, 09:47:51 PM
    Quote from: 4samuy on February 18, 2017, 09:12:32 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 18, 2017, 04:19:00 PM

    Amherst is our first team officially in the Pool C mix; they dropped a first round game to Williams today.

    And of course Amherst has earned a tournament bid.  Give me a break

    Don't think you're going to get one here. Going to be a week on the bubble for Amherst.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 4samuy on February 18, 2017, 09:55:34 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2017, 09:47:51 PM
    Quote from: 4samuy on February 18, 2017, 09:12:32 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 18, 2017, 04:19:00 PM

    Amherst is our first team officially in the Pool C mix; they dropped a first round game to Williams today.

    And of course Amherst has earned a tournament bid.  Give me a break

    Don't think you're going to get one here. Going to be a week on the bubble for Amherst.

    I've been hard on Amherst all year. Yeah they beat Babson, but I've watched a good amount of their games and IMO they have not earned a bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 18, 2017, 10:55:56 PM
    Quote from: 4samuy on February 18, 2017, 09:55:34 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2017, 09:47:51 PM
    Quote from: 4samuy on February 18, 2017, 09:12:32 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 18, 2017, 04:19:00 PM

    Amherst is our first team officially in the Pool C mix; they dropped a first round game to Williams today.

    And of course Amherst has earned a tournament bid.  Give me a break

    Don't think you're going to get one here. Going to be a week on the bubble for Amherst.

    I've been hard on Amherst all year. Yeah they beat Babson, but I've watched a good amount of their games and IMO they have not earned a bid.

    The eye test doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is:

    * Amherst: .739/.595/6-4
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 18, 2017, 11:45:08 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 18, 2017, 10:55:56 PM
    Quote from: 4samuy on February 18, 2017, 09:55:34 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2017, 09:47:51 PM
    Quote from: 4samuy on February 18, 2017, 09:12:32 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 18, 2017, 04:19:00 PM

    Amherst is our first team officially in the Pool C mix; they dropped a first round game to Williams today.

    And of course Amherst has earned a tournament bid.  Give me a break

    Don't think you're going to get one here. Going to be a week on the bubble for Amherst.

    I've been hard on Amherst all year. Yeah they beat Babson, but I've watched a good amount of their games and IMO they have not earned a bid.

    The eye test doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is:

    * Amherst: .739/.595/6-4

    Normally, most would be right about Amherst not getting a bid. But, this year the parity is crazy and I think we'll even see a 9-loss team as a Pool C. Huge SoS, 10 results against RRO. The winning % is down, but I think they'll sneak in. Everyone else is getting another loss too.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2017, 11:47:06 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 18, 2017, 11:45:08 PM
    Normally, most would be right about Amherst not getting a bid. But, this year the parity is crazy and I think we'll even see a 9-loss team as a Pool C. Huge SoS, 10 results against RRO. The winning % is down, but I think they'll sneak in. Everyone else is getting another loss too.

    Those are not really sneak-in numbers in my opinion.  Amherst has a very strong Pool C resume due to SOS (second only to Middlebury) and RRO (most wins vs RRO on the board; tied for most games vs RRO) - those numbers are going to jump off the page at some point in the process.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on February 19, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
    Might Amherst get dinged for lack of road games? I believe they only played 6 games that would be considered road games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: middhoops on February 19, 2017, 11:42:02 AM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 19, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
    Might Amherst get dinged for lack of road games? I believe they only played 6 games that would be considered road games.
    In the RPI numbers it states that road games get a 1.25 value where home games are .75, so isn't it already baked in the stats?
    Amherst played 11 games before NESCAC and Little 3 seasons began.  They beat Anna Maria (5-20), lost to Springfield and Eastern Conn on the road.  The 8 home games were wins, including Babson.
    Amherst then cancelled their game with RIC on the road due to weather, rather than reschedule it.  Apparently their travel budget is limited.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2017, 11:42:21 AM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 19, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
    Might Amherst get dinged for lack of road games? I believe they only played 6 games that would be considered road games.

    That is not anywhere in the criteria, so unless they go off script for some reason I'd say that is not a factor.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2017, 12:55:28 PM
    Quote from: middhoops on February 19, 2017, 11:42:02 AM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 19, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
    Might Amherst get dinged for lack of road games? I believe they only played 6 games that would be considered road games.
    In the RPI numbers it states that road games get a 1.25 value where home games are .75, so isn't it already baked in the stats?
    Amherst played 11 games before NESCAC and Little 3 seasons began.  They beat Anna Maria (5-20), lost to Springfield and Eastern Conn on the road.  The 8 home games were wins, including Babson.
    Amherst then cancelled their game with RIC on the road due to weather, rather than reschedule it.  Apparently their travel budget is limited.

    Well to be honest, it wasn't like there was a lot of room near the end of the season to get their game in against RIC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2017, 12:57:39 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2017, 12:55:28 PM
    Quote from: middhoops on February 19, 2017, 11:42:02 AM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 19, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
    Might Amherst get dinged for lack of road games? I believe they only played 6 games that would be considered road games.
    In the RPI numbers it states that road games get a 1.25 value where home games are .75, so isn't it already baked in the stats?
    Amherst played 11 games before NESCAC and Little 3 seasons began.  They beat Anna Maria (5-20), lost to Springfield and Eastern Conn on the road.  The 8 home games were wins, including Babson.
    Amherst then cancelled their game with RIC on the road due to weather, rather than reschedule it.  Apparently their travel budget is limited.

    Well to be honest, it wasn't like there was a lot of room near the end of the season to get their game in against RIC.

    If RIC goes out early in the LEC, there's nothing to keep them from doing it now, is there?  As long as its done before Sunday?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 19, 2017, 01:39:38 PM
    Quote from: middhoops on February 19, 2017, 11:42:02 AM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 19, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
    Might Amherst get dinged for lack of road games? I believe they only played 6 games that would be considered road games.
    In the RPI numbers it states that road games get a 1.25 value where home games are .75, so isn't it already baked in the stats?
    Amherst played 11 games before NESCAC and Little 3 seasons began.  They beat Anna Maria (5-20), lost to Springfield and Eastern Conn on the road.  The 8 home games were wins, including Babson.
    Amherst then cancelled their game with RIC on the road due to weather, rather than reschedule it.  Apparently their travel budget is limited.
    I don't think they've fixed the multiplier yet?  As of last year, road games did not help SOS, they were merely more important.  So if you played a poor team at home it wouldn't hurt your SOS as much as if you played them on the road.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2017, 02:00:20 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 19, 2017, 01:39:38 PM
    Quote from: middhoops on February 19, 2017, 11:42:02 AM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 19, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
    Might Amherst get dinged for lack of road games? I believe they only played 6 games that would be considered road games.
    In the RPI numbers it states that road games get a 1.25 value where home games are .75, so isn't it already baked in the stats?
    Amherst played 11 games before NESCAC and Little 3 seasons began.  They beat Anna Maria (5-20), lost to Springfield and Eastern Conn on the road.  The 8 home games were wins, including Babson.
    Amherst then cancelled their game with RIC on the road due to weather, rather than reschedule it.  Apparently their travel budget is limited.
    I don't think they've fixed the multiplier yet?  As of last year, road games did not help SOS, they were merely more important.  So if you played a poor team at home it wouldn't hurt your SOS as much as if you played them on the road.

    That isn't the "problem" with the multiplier. The multiplier is still there.. it is how they add it in that can be wonky. With Amherst, it will have an affect since their schedule is unbalanced and more games are are home - as best as I know how the multiplier is working right now.

    Next year, they will tweak the math again. I wish I could go into it, but I need to have a long call with KnightSlappy to make sure I have it right in my head first.

    But no matter what... your opponent's record is multiplied by 0.75 for home games and 1.25 for away games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2017, 02:14:45 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 19, 2017, 01:39:38 PM
    Quote from: middhoops on February 19, 2017, 11:42:02 AM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 19, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
    Might Amherst get dinged for lack of road games? I believe they only played 6 games that would be considered road games.
    In the RPI numbers it states that road games get a 1.25 value where home games are .75, so isn't it already baked in the stats?
    Amherst played 11 games before NESCAC and Little 3 seasons began.  They beat Anna Maria (5-20), lost to Springfield and Eastern Conn on the road.  The 8 home games were wins, including Babson.
    Amherst then cancelled their game with RIC on the road due to weather, rather than reschedule it.  Apparently their travel budget is limited.
    I don't think they've fixed the multiplier yet?  As of last year, road games did not help SOS, they were merely more important.  So if you played a poor team at home it wouldn't hurt your SOS as much as if you played them on the road.

    This is correct.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 19, 2017, 07:58:03 PM
    Weird question - how does the vacation of games for Daniel Webster affect anyone in "C"? What do they do in those cases?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2017, 08:15:26 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on February 19, 2017, 07:58:03 PM
    Weird question - how does the vacation of games for Daniel Webster affect anyone in "C"? What do they do in those cases?

    Not sure off the top of my head, though they don't go down as suddenly wins if they had been losses. I will reach out for an answer, though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2017, 08:21:44 PM
    Ran out of time today to get this out before the show started, but taking care if it now while I have the opportunity (during the show).

    The time is now. Teams who want or think they should be playing in March need to get the job done now. This week all conferences, except the UAA, will dive into conference tournaments to determine who will win an automatic bid to the NCAA Championship Tournament. For those who can't win the AQ, then they have to make sure to present the best resume possible to the national committees and that means taking care of business the best they can.

    Who is in and who is out? We will figure that out over the course of next week and on next week's Hoopsville Special. In the meantime on tonight's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh talks to a few teams who are looking to position themselves to be in the conversation. We also preview many of the conference races and look at who may already be in trouble when it comes to playing basketball in March.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio starting LIVE at 7:00 PM ET. You can watch the show in the video player above or via the simulcast on Facebook Live. If you missed the show, you can catch up On Demand in the video player or listen to the podcasts located to the right (available after the show is off the air).

    A reminder the Sunday edition of Hoopsville primarily covers the Northeast, Atlantic, South, and Central regions, but we will answer any questions about all of Division III throughout the show. You can also send your questions to the show and have them featured on the Hoopsville Mailbag segment. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com.

    And please consider helping Hoopsville stay on the air like you might help your public television station. The annual fundraising campaign has less than three weeks remaining, but we are no where close to reaching our goal. Click here for more information:  Hoopsville Fundraising Page (https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017/x/6029509)

    Guests scheduled (in order of appearance):
    - Mia Smith, Illinois Wesleyan women's coach
    - Stan Bonewitz, Concordia (Texas) men's coach
    - Matt Ducharme, Mass-Dartmouth women's coach
    - Andrea Kendall, Randolph women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Tim McDonald, Cabrini men's coach

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Fundraiser: https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3Dln4m3%2Fi1j4ezki4963qtmg.jpg&hash=e73df38ca84148ed8b0d8152604441c2ab195c8b)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 19, 2017, 08:38:11 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2017, 11:42:21 AM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 19, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
    Might Amherst get dinged for lack of road games? I believe they only played 6 games that would be considered road games.

    That is not anywhere in the criteria, so unless they go off script for some reason I'd say that is not a factor.
    Agree -the criteria is what the criteria is.  I think if the committee goes "off script" it will be geographically driven (not really off script"$ or selections 63 and 64 due to both expanded tournament and a "reward" to a team that might not normally a make itin prior years. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2017, 09:52:40 PM
    Quote from: iwumichigander on February 19, 2017, 08:38:11 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2017, 11:42:21 AM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 19, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
    Might Amherst get dinged for lack of road games? I believe they only played 6 games that would be considered road games.

    That is not anywhere in the criteria, so unless they go off script for some reason I'd say that is not a factor.
    Agree -the criteria is what the criteria is.  I think if the committee goes "off script" it will be geographically driven (not really off script"$ or selections 63 and 64 due to both expanded tournament and a "reward" to a team that might not normally a make itin prior years.

    The committees have said numerous times... they never select teams just to make the bracket "easier" and thus "geographically." They will select who they select and they will deal with how to bracket them after the fact. I wouldn't worry about those kinds of selections.

    Just my thought about why I think Amherst has as challenge... 17-7 is their record. That is going to fall a few short in terms of wins in comparison to others especially when the .030=2 games possibilities. I am just not as confident about Amherst and Wesleyan as others.

    However, I want to see this week's rankings - I always rather look at what ifs more off Week 3 than the previous rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 20, 2017, 01:34:31 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2017, 02:00:20 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 19, 2017, 01:39:38 PM
    Quote from: middhoops on February 19, 2017, 11:42:02 AM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 19, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
    Might Amherst get dinged for lack of road games? I believe they only played 6 games that would be considered road games.
    In the RPI numbers it states that road games get a 1.25 value where home games are .75, so isn't it already baked in the stats?
    Amherst played 11 games before NESCAC and Little 3 seasons began.  They beat Anna Maria (5-20), lost to Springfield and Eastern Conn on the road.  The 8 home games were wins, including Babson.
    Amherst then cancelled their game with RIC on the road due to weather, rather than reschedule it.  Apparently their travel budget is limited.
    I don't think they've fixed the multiplier yet?  As of last year, road games did not help SOS, they were merely more important.  So if you played a poor team at home it wouldn't hurt your SOS as much as if you played them on the road.

    That isn't the "problem" with the multiplier. The multiplier is still there.. it is how they add it in that can be wonky. With Amherst, it will have an affect since their schedule is unbalanced and more games are are home - as best as I know how the multiplier is working right now.

    Next year, they will tweak the math again. I wish I could go into it, but I need to have a long call with KnightSlappy to make sure I have it right in my head first.

    But no matter what... your opponent's record is multiplied by 0.75 for home games and 1.25 for away games.
    The current multiplier will have all sorts of unintended effects for every team regardless of whether or not their schedule is balanced with equal numbers of home and away games.

    The only scenario where the multiplier "works" is when it is applied to a good opponent over .500.  Your SOS will go up more by playing them on the road instead of at home.  When you play teams that are .500 and below you'd rather play them at home since the 1.25 road multiplier makes those games more important to your SOS and decreases your SOS more than it otherwise would have at home.

    So Amherst benefits from playing many of the worst teams on their schedule at home.  If they had played many of those same opponents on the road it would be devastating to their SOS and would knock them off the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 20, 2017, 09:52:51 AM
    Here's what I have, through Sunday's games...

    Locks or near-locks (14)
    A) Washington U. (20-4, 0.576, 7-3 vRRO, CE#2) won UAA AQ
    A) UW-River Falls (20-3, 0.594, 6-2 vRRO, CE#1) lock, 53% WIAC AQ
    A) Babson (24-1, 0.576, 4-1 vRRO, NE#1) lock, 80% NEWMAC AQ
    A) Middlebury (22-3, 0.608, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) lock, 40% NESCAC AQ
    A) Whitman (25-0, 0.536, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) lock, 76% NWC AQ
    C#1) Rochester (21-3, 0.531, 4-1 vRRO, EA#1) lock, 0% UAA AQ
    A) Marietta (21-4, 0.577, 4-4 vRRO, GL#1) lock, 56% OAC AQ
    A) Chris Newport (23-2, 0.525, 2-2 vRRO, MA#1) lock, 80% CAC AQ
    C#2) Tufts (20-5, 0.567, 4-3 vRRO, NE#3) lock, 29% NESCAC AQ
    C#3) UW-Whitewater (19-5, 0.567, 2-3 vRRO, CE#3) near-lock, 19% WIAC AQ
    A) Ramapo (23-2, 0.492, 5-2 vRRO, AT#1) near-lock, 62% NJAC AQ
    C#4) Susquehanna (20-4, 0.550, 3-2 vRRO, MA#2) near-lock, 29% LAND AQ
    A) Neumann (23-2, 0.502, 5-0 vRRO, AT#2) near-lock, 58% CSAC AQ
    C#5) Whitworth (22-3, 0.528, 1-2 vRRO, WE#2) near-lock, 22% NWC AQ

    Strong position (9) (80%+ for Pool C, if no AQ)
    A) Hanover (19-3, 0.521, 2-2 vRRO, GL#4) 99% (57% HCAC or 99% C), 100% if CF, 98% if lose out
    C#6) Wesleyan (CT) (19-6, 0.561, 4-3 vRRO, NE#4) 97% (0% NESCAC or 97% C), 100% if CF, 97% if lose out
    A) Hope (19-4, 0.521, 2-1 vRRO, GL#2) 98% (61% MIAA or 95% C), 96% if CF, 93% if lose out
    A) Skidmore (19-6, 0.522, 6-1 vRRO, EA#6) 98% (55% LL or 95% C), 100% if CF, 91% if lose out
    A) Hardin-Simmons (19-6, 0.556, 3-1 vRRO, SO#3) 95% (49% ASC or 91% C), 91% if CF, 85% if lose out
    C#7) Williams (18-7, 0.586, 5-4 vRRO, NE#7) 91% (17% NESCAC or 89% C), 100% if CF, 87% if lose out
    C#8) Salisbury (19-6, 0.527, 3-3 vRRO, MA#3) 87% (13% CAC or 85% C), 94% if CF, 78% if lose out
    A) Swarthmore (20-5, 0.521, 2-2 vRRO, MA#4) 91% (47% CC or 83% C), 90% if CF, 70% if lose out
    C#9) St Lawrence (19-5, 0.519, 2-5 vRRO, EA#2) 86% (29% LL or 81% C), 88% if CF, 66% if lose out

    Bubble teams if no AQ (21) (20-79% for Pool C if no AQ)
    A) Scranton (19-6, 0.530, 5-3 vRRO, MA#7) 88% (40% LAND or 79% C), 95% if CF, 70% if lose out
    C#10) Mt St Joseph (18-5, 0.508, 2-1 vRRO, GL#3) 80% (21% HCAC or 75% C), 84% if CF, 61% if lose out
    A) St John Fisher (20-5, 0.546, 1-3 vRRO, EA#5) 93% (72% E8 or 73% C), 83% if CF, 73% if lose out
    A) Oswego State (18-6, 0.522, 3-2 vRRO, EA#3) 83% (39% SUNYAC or 72% C), 86% if CF, 61% if lose out
    A) Guilford (20-5, 0.504, 2-2 vRRO, SO#1) 81% (36% ODAC or 70% C), 77% if CF, 50% if lose out
    C#11) Cabrini (19-5, 0.523, 1-4 vRRO, AT#3) 77% (26% CSAC or 69% C), 84% if CF, 51% if lose out
    C#12) UW-Eau Claire (17-7, 0.572, 3-2 vRRO, CE#4) 68% (8% WIAC or 65% C), 99% if CF, 18% if lose out
    A) Lycoming (20-4, 0.528, 0-1 vRRO, MA#5) 84% (57% MACC or 62% C), 73% if CF, 46% if lose out
    C#13) Concordia (TX) (17-6, 0.543, 1-2 vRRO, SO#2) 70% (21% ASC or 62% C), 98% if CF, 44% if lose out
    C#14) MIT (19-6, 0.544, 0-4 vRRO, NE#9) 61% (15% NEWMAC or 55% C), 66% if CF, 44% if lose out
    C#15) New Jersey City (19-6, 0.506, 4-3 vRRO, AT#4) 59% (11% NJAC or 53% C), 88% if CF, 35% if lose out
    C#16) Endicott (20-5, 0.511, 1-1 vRRO, NE#10) 70% (35% CCC or 53% C), 60% if CF, 27% if lose out
    A) C-M-S (17-3, 0.486, 2-2 vRRO, WE#5) 71% (39% SCIAC or 53% C), 82% if CF, 12% if lose out
    A) Augustana (18-6, 0.528, 2-2 vRRO, CE#5) 67% (34% CCIW or 51% C), 99% if CF, 2% if lose out
    ---current projected bubble line (with about 5 pool C bids lost via conference tournament "bid thieves")---
    C#17) Wooster (18-7, 0.535, 4-5 vRRO, GL#6) 58% (24% NCAC or 45% C), 84% if CF, 4% if lose out
    A) Benedictine (IL) (21-3, 0.490, 0-0 vRRO, CE#7) 80% (66% NACC or 40% C), 50% if CF, 27% if lose out
    C#18) Brockport (19-6, 0.518, 2-4 vRRO, EA#4) 58% (32% SUNYAC or 38% C), 37% if CF, 26% if lose out
    C#19) Emory (17-7, 0.545, 2-3 vRRO, SO#4) 38% (0% UAA or 38% C), 98% if CF
    C#20) Amherst (17-7, 0.601, 5-5 vRRO, NE#5) 33% (0% NESCAC or 33% C), 33% if CF, 33% if lose out
    C#21) John Carroll (17-7, 0.562, 2-5 vRRO, GL#5) 49% (26% OAC or 31% C), 65% if CF
    A) St Norbert (19-4, 0.500, 1-1 vRRO, CE) 66% (56% MWC or 21% C), 33% if CF, 15% if lose out

    Longshots for Pool C (7) (10%-19% if no AQ)
    A) St Thomas (MN) (19-6, 0.523, 0-1 vRRO, WE#3) 51% (40% MIAC or 19% C), 24% if CF, 7% if lose out
    C#22) Cal Lutheran (17-6, 0.500, 3-3 vRRO, WE) 47% (35% SCIAC or 19% C), 39% if CF
    C#23) North Park (17-7, 0.532, 4-2 vRRO, CE) 33% (19% CCIW or 17% C), 48% if CF
    C#24) LeTourneau (20-4, 0.480, 1-1 vRRO, SO#5) 36% (27% ASC or 13% C), 26% if CF, 3% if lose out
    C#25) Nebraska Wesleyan (17-6, 0.521, 1-1 vRRO, WE#6) 45% (38% IIAC or 12% C), 30% if CF, 3% if lose out
    C#26) Carthage (16-7, 0.553, 2-4 vRRO, CE#8) 41% (33% CCIW or 11% C), 24% if CF
    C#27) Denison (21-4, 0.464, 3-2 vRRO, GL#7) 25% (16% NCAC or 10% C), 25% if CF, 1% if lose out

    Real Longshots for Pool C (would be 10%+ if lost conference final)
    C) Moravian (17-6, 0.512, 4-4 vRRO, MA) 29% (22% LAND or 9% C), 25% if CF
    A) Ohio Wesleyan (19-6, 0.506, 3-4 vRRO, GL#9) 55% (51% NCAC or 9% C), 16% if CF, 2% if lose out
    C) Ripon (18-5, 0.484, 1-1 vRRO, CE) 26% (21% MWC or 7% C), 15% if CF, 1% if lose out
    C) TCNJ (18-7, 0.515, 3-4 vRRO, AT#5) 24% (18% NJAC or 7% C), 16% if CF
    A) E Connecticut (17-8, 0.566, 3-4 vRRO, NE#11) 53% (50% LEC or 4% C), 10% if CF
    C) Keene State (17-8, 0.575, 2-3 vRRO, NE#8) 24% (22% LEC or 3% C), 12% if CF
    C) Roger Williams (19-6, 0.470, 2-1 vRRO, NE) 14% (11% CCC or 3% C), 20% if CF
    C) Emory & Henry (17-7, 0.526, 1-4 vRRO, SO#8) 17% (16% ODAC or 1% C), 10% if CF
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2017, 10:30:29 AM
    Quote from: AO on February 20, 2017, 01:34:31 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2017, 02:00:20 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 19, 2017, 01:39:38 PM
    Quote from: middhoops on February 19, 2017, 11:42:02 AM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 19, 2017, 11:21:59 AM
    Might Amherst get dinged for lack of road games? I believe they only played 6 games that would be considered road games.
    In the RPI numbers it states that road games get a 1.25 value where home games are .75, so isn't it already baked in the stats?
    Amherst played 11 games before NESCAC and Little 3 seasons began.  They beat Anna Maria (5-20), lost to Springfield and Eastern Conn on the road.  The 8 home games were wins, including Babson.
    Amherst then cancelled their game with RIC on the road due to weather, rather than reschedule it.  Apparently their travel budget is limited.
    I don't think they've fixed the multiplier yet?  As of last year, road games did not help SOS, they were merely more important.  So if you played a poor team at home it wouldn't hurt your SOS as much as if you played them on the road.

    That isn't the "problem" with the multiplier. The multiplier is still there.. it is how they add it in that can be wonky. With Amherst, it will have an affect since their schedule is unbalanced and more games are are home - as best as I know how the multiplier is working right now.

    Next year, they will tweak the math again. I wish I could go into it, but I need to have a long call with KnightSlappy to make sure I have it right in my head first.

    But no matter what... your opponent's record is multiplied by 0.75 for home games and 1.25 for away games.
    The current multiplier will have all sorts of unintended effects for every team regardless of whether or not their schedule is balanced with equal numbers of home and away games.

    The only scenario where the multiplier "works" is when it is applied to a good opponent over .500.  Your SOS will go up more by playing them on the road instead of at home.  When you play teams that are .500 and below you'd rather play them at home since the 1.25 road multiplier makes those games more important to your SOS and decreases your SOS more than it otherwise would have at home.

    So Amherst benefits from playing many of the worst teams on their schedule at home.  If they had played many of those same opponents on the road it would be devastating to their SOS and would knock them off the bubble.

    I have Amherst's SOS at .596 the way the NCAA calculates it. It would be .545 if the HAM was applied to each game's percentage and the resulting percentages were averaged. That +.052 is the largest SOS difference of any Pool C contender. LeTourneau is next at +.041.

    Amherst's RPI would drop from #3 in the region to #10. (#7 or #8 among teams with selectable winning percentages, depending on how you feel about Keene St.'s .680 WP).

    Concordia (Texas) and Brockport are Pool C contenders being hurt the most by the SOS calc. They're losing .023 and .021 respectively.

    Not great that the actual SOS number can vary by up to ~.080 between two teams vs. what they're trying to measure. (That's, what, maybe five or six games based on .030 = 2 wins?)

    Rust is getting dinged .073 by the SOS calc! (Is it true they played only one true home game against D3 competition?)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 20, 2017, 11:55:30 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2017, 08:15:26 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on February 19, 2017, 07:58:03 PM
    Weird question - how does the vacation of games for Daniel Webster affect anyone in "C"? What do they do in those cases?

    Not sure off the top of my head, though they don't go down as suddenly wins if they had been losses. I will reach out for an answer, though.

    They were all NECC conference games, so no, it won't have an impact on Pool C.  From what I can tell the NECC just removed the wins, but did not make them losses - DWC is just showing up with five fewer games played.  I don't think there are any Pool C candidates on their schedule to have an SOS impact.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 20, 2017, 12:04:28 PM
    Best guesses at new regional rankings...

    Atlantic
    1) Ramapo (23-2, 0.492, 5-2) LW #1 - NJAC favorite, near-lock
    2) Neumann (23-2, 0.502, 5-0) LW #2 - CSAC favorite, near-lock
    3) Cabrini (19-5, 0.523, 1-4) LW #3 - bubble if CSAC semi loss
    4) New Jersey City (19-6, 0.506, 4-3) LW #4 - need to win NJAC semi
    5) TCNJ (18-7, 0.515, 3-4) LW #5 - probably needs NJAC AQ
    6) Misericordia (18-7, 0.507, 3-2) - must have AQ
    7) Staten Island (19-5, 0.490, 0-4) LW #8
    8) Gwynedd Mercy (19-6, 0.484, 0-5)
    X) DeSales (17-8, 0.514, 0-1) LW #6
    X) Rowan (16-9, 0.553, 3-5) LW #7

    Central
    1) UW-River Falls (20-3, 0.594, 6-2) LW #1 - WIAC favorite, lock
    2) Washington U. (20-4, 0.576, 7-3) LW #2 - already in (UAA champ)
    3) UW-Whitewater (19-5, 0.567, 2-3) LW #3 - near-lock
    4) UW-Eau Claire (17-7, 0.572, 3-2) LW #4 - needs to win WIAC quarterfinal
    5) Augustana (18-6, 0.528, 2-2) LW #5 - needs to win Tues & CCIW semi
    6) Benedictine (IL) (21-3, 0.490, 0-0) LW #7 - NACC favorite, bubble if no AQ
    7) North Park (17-7, 0.532, 4-2) - must win Tues & CCIW semi to reach bubble
    8) Carthage (16-7, 0.553, 2-4) LW #8 - likely needs CCIW AQ
    X) Illinois Wesleyan (16-8, 0.555, 5-2) LW #6

    East
    1) Rochester (21-3, 0.531, 4-1) LW #1 - lock
    2) Skidmore (19-6, 0.522, 6-1) LW #6 - LL favorite, likely already in
    3) St John Fisher (20-5, 0.546, 1-3) LW #5 - E8 favorite, probably in
    4) St Lawrence (19-5, 0.519, 2-5) LW #2 - bubble-in with LL semi loss
    5) Oswego State (18-6, 0.522, 3-2) LW #3 - needs to reach SUNYAC final, else bubble
    6) Brockport (19-6, 0.518, 2-4) LW #4 - bubble if SUNYAC final, but may need AQ
    7) Cortland (17-8, 0.533, 3-3) LW #7 - must have AQ
    8) SUNYIT (19-6, 0.477, 0-1)
    X) Hobart (14-10, 0.553, 3-7) LW #8

    Great Lakes
    1) Marietta (21-4, 0.577, 4-4) LW #1 - OAC favorite, lock
    2) Hanover (19-3, 0.521, 2-2) LW #4 - HCAC favorite, near-lock
    3) Hope (19-4, 0.521, 2-1) LW #2 - MIAA favorite, likely already in
    4) Mt St Joseph (18-5, 0.508, 2-1) LW #3 - bubble if HCAC semi loss
    5) Wooster (18-7, 0.535, 4-5) LW #6 - needs to reach NCAC final
    6) John Carroll (17-7, 0.562, 2-5) LW #5 - bubble if OAC final
    7) Ohio Wesleyan (19-6, 0.506, 3-4) LW #9 - likely needs NCAC AQ
    8) Denison (21-4, 0.464, 3-2) LW #7 - bubble-out if NCAC final, likely needs AQ
    9) Ohio Northern (16-9, 0.549, 2-4) LW #8 - must have AQ

    Mid-Atlantic
    1) Chris Newport (23-2, 0.525, 2-2) LW #1 - CAC favorite, lock
    2) Susquehanna (20-4, 0.550, 3-2) LW #2 - near-lock
    3) Swarthmore (20-5, 0.521, 2-2) LW #4 - CC favorite, bubble-in if semi loss
    4) Salisbury (19-6, 0.527, 3-3) LW #3 - bubble-in if CAC semi loss
    5) Scranton (19-6, 0.530, 5-3) LW #7 - Landmark favorite, bubble if semi loss
    6) Lycoming (20-4, 0.528, 0-1) LW #5 - MACC favorite, otherwise bubble
    7) Moravian (17-6, 0.512, 4-4) - bubble-out if Landmark final, likely needs AQ
    8) Franklin & Marshall (17-7, 0.509, 2-2) - must have AQ
    X) Catholic (17-8, 0.550, 2-5) LW #6
    X) Johns Hopkins (16-9, 0.530, 3-2) LW #8

    Northeast
    1) Babson (24-1, 0.576, 4-1) LW #1 - NEWMAC favorite, lock
    2) Middlebury (22-3, 0.608, 7-3) LW #2 - NESCAC favorite, lock
    3) Tufts (20-5, 0.567, 4-3) LW #3 - lock
    4) Wesleyan (CT) (19-6, 0.561, 4-3) LW #4 - lost NESCAC quarter, very likely in
    5) Williams (18-7, 0.586, 5-4) LW #7 - likely in now, certain if NESCAC final
    6) Amherst (17-7, 0.601, 5-5) LW #5 - lost NESCAC quarter, on bubble
    7) MIT (19-6, 0.544, 0-4) LW #9 - bubble if no NEWMAC AQ
    8) Endicott (20-5, 0.511, 1-1) LW #10 - bubble if CCC final
    9) E Connecticut (17-8, 0.566, 3-4) LW #11 - LEC favorite, likely needs AQ
    10) Keene State (17-8, 0.575, 2-3) LW #8 - likely needs LEC AQ
    11) Nichols (20-5, 0.472, 1-1) - needs CCC AQ
    X) Mass-Dartmouth (16-9, 0.549, 4-2) LW #6

    South
    1) Hardin-Simmons (19-6, 0.556, 3-1) LW #3 - ASC favorite, likely already in
    2) Concordia (TX) (17-6, 0.543, 1-2) LW #2 - may need to reach ASC final, else bubble
    3) Guilford (20-5, 0.504, 2-2) LW #1 - ODAC favorite, bubble if quarterfinal loss
    4) Emory (17-7, 0.545, 2-3) LW #4 - likely needs to beat Rochester (no UAA tourney)
    5) LeTourneau (20-4, 0.480, 1-1) LW #5 - bubble-out if ASC final, likely needs AQ
    6) Emory & Henry (17-7, 0.526, 1-4) LW #8 - likely needs ODAC AQ
    7) Maryville (TN) (18-6, 0.482, 1-1) LW #7 - must have AQ
    8) Randolph-Macon (17-8, 0.525, 1-3) LW #6 - must have AQ

    West
    1) Whitman (25-0, 0.536, 4-0) LW #1 - NWC favorite, lock
    2) Whitworth (22-3, 0.528, 1-2) LW #2 - near-lock
    3) C-M-S (17-3, 0.486, 2-2) LW #5 - SCIAC favorite, bubble if no AQ
    4) Loras (18-7, 0.545, 1-2) LW #4 - IIAC favorite, likely needs AQ
    5) Nebraska Wesleyan (17-6, 0.521, 1-1) LW #6 - bubble-out if IIAC final
    6) St Thomas (MN) (19-6, 0.523, 0-1) LW #3 - MIAC favorite, bubble-out if final
    7) Cal Lutheran (17-6, 0.500, 3-3) - bubble-out if SCIAC final
    8) Carleton (16-7, 0.524, 1-2) - must have AQ
    X) La Verne (16-8, 0.524, 3-4) LW #7
    X) Pomona-Pitzer (13-6, 0.515, 1-3) LW #8
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2017, 02:35:41 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 20, 2017, 11:55:30 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2017, 08:15:26 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on February 19, 2017, 07:58:03 PM
    Weird question - how does the vacation of games for Daniel Webster affect anyone in "C"? What do they do in those cases?

    Not sure off the top of my head, though they don't go down as suddenly wins if they had been losses. I will reach out for an answer, though.

    They were all NECC conference games, so no, it won't have an impact on Pool C.  From what I can tell the NECC just removed the wins, but did not make them losses - DWC is just showing up with five fewer games played.  I don't think there are any Pool C candidates on their schedule to have an SOS impact.

    They marked those games as non-conference games, to be clear. Doesn't affect the outcome.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 20, 2017, 04:05:36 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2017, 12:04:28 PM
    Best guesses at new regional rankings...


    Central
    1) UW-River Falls (20-3, 0.594, 6-2) LW #1 - WIAC favorite, lock
    2) Washington U. (20-4, 0.576, 7-3) LW #2 - already in (UAA champ)
    3) UW-Whitewater (19-5, 0.567, 2-3) LW #3 - near-lock
    4) UW-Eau Claire (17-7, 0.572, 3-2) LW #4 - needs to win WIAC quarterfinal
    5) Augustana (18-6, 0.528, 2-2) LW #5 - needs to win Tues & CCIW semi
    6) Benedictine (IL) (21-3, 0.490, 0-0) LW #7 - NACC favorite, bubble if no AQ
    7) North Park (17-7, 0.532, 4-2) - must win Tues & CCIW semi to reach bubble
    8) Carthage (16-7, 0.553, 2-4) LW #8 - likely needs CCIW AQ
    X) Illinois Wesleyan (16-8, 0.555, 5-2) LW #6


    North Park lost twice to Carthage.  I think that Carthage will be in front of North Park as a result.  I think that'll make Carthage 3-2 against RROs. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2017, 04:36:34 PM
    Agreed, because with Illinois Wesleyan dropping out, NPU's vRRO drops from 4-2 to 2-2.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 20, 2017, 05:00:47 PM
    I thought that the previous week's vRRO numbers are used in determining the new regional rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2017, 05:08:07 PM
    In that case, forget what I just said. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2017, 05:13:35 PM
    Not sure, but my understanding is that the first week's RRs have no vRRO (since no one is yet ranked); for weeks 2 and 3 the previous week's rankings are used; but for the final rankings, the national committee uses the final rankings to recalculate (if necessary) each region's vRROs.

    D-mac?  Pat?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2017, 05:13:35 PM
    Not sure, but my understanding is that the first week's RRs have no vRRO (since no one is yet ranked); for weeks 2 and 3 the previous week's rankings are used; but for the final rankings, the national committee uses the final rankings to recalculate (if necessary) each region's vRROs.

    D-mac?  Pat?
    Correct.

    Last week's Regional Rankings will be the basis of this week's vRRO data. The vRRO this week is NOT based on who is ranked this week.

    In the final rankings, the RACs will base their Week 4 decisions on vRRO based on Week 3 rankings. The national committee will make any changes necessary. Then they will recalculate the vRRO and rerank accordingly to finalize the rankings they will select teams based on. That is the ONLY time the vRRO is recalulated in the entire process to be based on the current week's rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 20, 2017, 08:28:20 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2017, 05:13:35 PM
    Not sure, but my understanding is that the first week's RRs have no vRRO (since no one is yet ranked); for weeks 2 and 3 the previous week's rankings are used; but for the final rankings, the national committee uses the final rankings to recalculate (if necessary) each region's vRROs.

    D-mac?  Pat?
    Correct.

    Last week's Regional Rankings will be the basis of this week's vRRO data. The vRRO this week is NOT based on who is ranked this week.

    In the final rankings, the RACs will base their Week 4 decisions on vRRO based on Week 3 rankings. The national committee will make any changes necessary. Then they will recalculate the vRRO and rerank accordingly to finalize the rankings they will select teams based on. That is the ONLY time the vRRO is recalulated in the entire process to be based on the current week's rankings.
    so in KnightSlappy We Trust?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 20, 2017, 09:17:11 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2017, 05:00:47 PM
    I thought that the previous week's vRRO numbers are used in determining the new regional rankings.

    Kind of silly, but still Carthage beat North Park twice.  Even with the vRRO difference, Carthage has the two wins and better SOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2017, 09:32:39 PM
    Remember, though, that NPU has the better winning percentage because one of Carthage's wins doesn't count as primary criteria. I don't know if the Red Men played Robert Morris-Peoria because of a late cancellation or because Bosko wanted to do the RMUP coach a favor or else didn't prioritize filling that spot with a D3 opponent, but right now it's the difference between a .696 WP and a .708 WP.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 20, 2017, 11:48:45 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2017, 09:32:39 PM
    Remember, though, that NPU has the better winning percentage because one of Carthage's wins doesn't count as primary criteria. I don't know if the Red Men played Robert Morris-Peoria because of a late cancellation or because Bosko wanted to do the RMUP coach a favor or else didn't prioritize filling that spot with a D3 opponent, but right now it's the difference between a .696 WP and a .708 WP.

    Still, 2-0 in head to head and much better SOS with roughly the same WP.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 21, 2017, 12:44:32 AM
    The 5 primary criteria are:

    Win%
    SOS
    RRO
    Head-to-head
    results vs common D3 opponents

    I believe North Park has the advantage in 3 of those  Win%, RRO, common D3 opponents. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2017, 08:21:51 AM
    I would imagine 2-0 is a sizeable advantage,  certainly much more than 1-0 or 2-1.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2017, 11:24:43 AM
    Quote from: iwumichigander on February 20, 2017, 08:28:20 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2017, 05:13:35 PM
    Not sure, but my understanding is that the first week's RRs have no vRRO (since no one is yet ranked); for weeks 2 and 3 the previous week's rankings are used; but for the final rankings, the national committee uses the final rankings to recalculate (if necessary) each region's vRROs.

    D-mac?  Pat?
    Correct.

    Last week's Regional Rankings will be the basis of this week's vRRO data. The vRRO this week is NOT based on who is ranked this week.

    In the final rankings, the RACs will base their Week 4 decisions on vRRO based on Week 3 rankings. The national committee will make any changes necessary. Then they will recalculate the vRRO and rerank accordingly to finalize the rankings they will select teams based on. That is the ONLY time the vRRO is recalulated in the entire process to be based on the current week's rankings.
    so in KnightSlappy We Trust?

    In what way? I certainly trust him to get the right SOS numbers to help me make selections Sunday night. Matt's work is terrific.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 21, 2017, 03:02:03 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2017, 02:35:41 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 20, 2017, 11:55:30 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2017, 08:15:26 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on February 19, 2017, 07:58:03 PM
    Weird question - how does the vacation of games for Daniel Webster affect anyone in "C"? What do they do in those cases?

    Not sure off the top of my head, though they don't go down as suddenly wins if they had been losses. I will reach out for an answer, though.

    They were all NECC conference games, so no, it won't have an impact on Pool C.  From what I can tell the NECC just removed the wins, but did not make them losses - DWC is just showing up with five fewer games played.  I don't think there are any Pool C candidates on their schedule to have an SOS impact.

    They marked those games as non-conference games, to be clear. Doesn't affect the outcome.

    Thanks.

    When I see 'vacated', I usually think that they turn into losses. Must have been a conference ineligibility and not an NCAA ineligibility.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 21, 2017, 04:45:28 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 20, 2017, 04:05:36 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2017, 12:04:28 PM
    Best guesses at new regional rankings...


    Central
    1) UW-River Falls (20-3, 0.594, 6-2) LW #1 - WIAC favorite, lock
    2) Washington U. (20-4, 0.576, 7-3) LW #2 - already in (UAA champ)
    3) UW-Whitewater (19-5, 0.567, 2-3) LW #3 - near-lock
    4) UW-Eau Claire (17-7, 0.572, 3-2) LW #4 - needs to win WIAC quarterfinal
    5) Augustana (18-6, 0.528, 2-2) LW #5 - needs to win Tues & CCIW semi
    6) Benedictine (IL) (21-3, 0.490, 0-0) LW #7 - NACC favorite, bubble if no AQ
    7) North Park (17-7, 0.532, 4-2) - must win Tues & CCIW semi to reach bubble
    8) Carthage (16-7, 0.553, 2-4) LW #8 - likely needs CCIW AQ
    X) Illinois Wesleyan (16-8, 0.555, 5-2) LW #6


    North Park lost twice to Carthage.  I think that Carthage will be in front of North Park as a result.

    I agree with you.  In the simulation model, I am using only WP, SOS, and vRRO, not (yet) head-to-head or common opponents, though I do use those in conference-seeding tiebreakers.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2017, 06:03:08 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on February 21, 2017, 03:02:03 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2017, 02:35:41 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 20, 2017, 11:55:30 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2017, 08:15:26 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on February 19, 2017, 07:58:03 PM
    Weird question - how does the vacation of games for Daniel Webster affect anyone in "C"? What do they do in those cases?

    Not sure off the top of my head, though they don't go down as suddenly wins if they had been losses. I will reach out for an answer, though.

    They were all NECC conference games, so no, it won't have an impact on Pool C.  From what I can tell the NECC just removed the wins, but did not make them losses - DWC is just showing up with five fewer games played.  I don't think there are any Pool C candidates on their schedule to have an SOS impact.

    They marked those games as non-conference games, to be clear. Doesn't affect the outcome.

    Thanks.

    When I see 'vacated', I usually think that they turn into losses. Must have been a conference ineligibility and not an NCAA ineligibility.

    Probably also an NCAA ineligibility but in the interest of time, the conference generally has the power to do whatever it wants with its conference standings. And with DWC not being an NCAA member next season, probably a moot point on the NCAA side.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 21, 2017, 06:24:26 PM
    In addition to must-win games for bubble or bubble-wannabee teams tonight (Wooster, John Carroll, Cal Lutheran, North Park, TCNJ, Carthage, IWU), we also have our first potential bid thief (or bubble-burster) game, with Ramapo (which looks safely in) hosting Rowan.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 21, 2017, 06:28:03 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2017, 11:24:43 AM
    Quote from: iwumichigander on February 20, 2017, 08:28:20 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2017, 05:13:35 PM
    Not sure, but my understanding is that the first week's RRs have no vRRO (since no one is yet ranked); for weeks 2 and 3 the previous week's rankings are used; but for the final rankings, the national committee uses the final rankings to recalculate (if necessary) each region's vRROs.

    D-mac?  Pat?
    Correct.

    Last week's Regional Rankings will be the basis of this week's vRRO data. The vRRO this week is NOT based on who is ranked this week.

    In the final rankings, the RACs will base their Week 4 decisions on vRRO based on Week 3 rankings. The national committee will make any changes necessary. Then they will recalculate the vRRO and rerank accordingly to finalize the rankings they will select teams based on. That is the ONLY time the vRRO is recalulated in the entire process to be based on the current week's rankings.
    so in KnightSlappy We Trust?

    In what way? I certainly trust him to get the right SOS numbers to help me make selections Sunday night. Matt's work is terrific.
    Oh just tongue in cheek.  I trust Matt his work is terrific, accurate and updated quickly. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 21, 2017, 10:37:45 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2017, 09:52:51 AM
    Here's what I have, through Sunday's games...

    Locks or near-locks (14)
    A) Washington U. (20-4, 0.576, 7-3 vRRO, CE#2) won UAA AQ
    A) UW-River Falls (20-3, 0.594, 6-2 vRRO, CE#1) lock, 53% WIAC AQ
    A) Babson (24-1, 0.576, 4-1 vRRO, NE#1) lock, 80% NEWMAC AQ
    A) Middlebury (22-3, 0.608, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) lock, 40% NESCAC AQ
    A) Whitman (25-0, 0.536, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) lock, 76% NWC AQ
    C#1) Rochester (21-3, 0.531, 4-1 vRRO, EA#1) lock, 0% UAA AQ
    A) Marietta (21-4, 0.577, 4-4 vRRO, GL#1) lock, 56% OAC AQ
    A) Chris Newport (23-2, 0.525, 2-2 vRRO, MA#1) lock, 80% CAC AQ
    C#2) Tufts (20-5, 0.567, 4-3 vRRO, NE#3) lock, 29% NESCAC AQ
    C#3) UW-Whitewater (19-5, 0.567, 2-3 vRRO, CE#3) near-lock, 19% WIAC AQ
    A) Ramapo (23-2, 0.492, 5-2 vRRO, AT#1) near-lock, 62% NJAC AQ
    C#4) Susquehanna (20-4, 0.550, 3-2 vRRO, MA#2) near-lock, 29% LAND AQ
    A) Neumann (23-2, 0.502, 5-0 vRRO, AT#2) near-lock, 58% CSAC AQ
    C#5) Whitworth (22-3, 0.528, 1-2 vRRO, WE#2) near-lock, 22% NWC AQ

    Strong position (9) (80%+ for Pool C, if no AQ)
    A) Hanover (19-3, 0.521, 2-2 vRRO, GL#4) 99% (57% HCAC or 99% C), 100% if CF, 98% if lose out
    C#6) Wesleyan (CT) (19-6, 0.561, 4-3 vRRO, NE#4) 97% (0% NESCAC or 97% C), 100% if CF, 97% if lose out
    A) Hope (19-4, 0.521, 2-1 vRRO, GL#2) 98% (61% MIAA or 95% C), 96% if CF, 93% if lose out
    A) Skidmore (19-6, 0.522, 6-1 vRRO, EA#6) 98% (55% LL or 95% C), 100% if CF, 91% if lose out
    A) Hardin-Simmons (19-6, 0.556, 3-1 vRRO, SO#3) 95% (49% ASC or 91% C), 91% if CF, 85% if lose out
    C#7) Williams (18-7, 0.586, 5-4 vRRO, NE#7) 91% (17% NESCAC or 89% C), 100% if CF, 87% if lose out
    C#8) Salisbury (19-6, 0.527, 3-3 vRRO, MA#3) 87% (13% CAC or 85% C), 94% if CF, 78% if lose out
    A) Swarthmore (20-5, 0.521, 2-2 vRRO, MA#4) 91% (47% CC or 83% C), 90% if CF, 70% if lose out
    C#9) St Lawrence (19-5, 0.519, 2-5 vRRO, EA#2) 86% (29% LL or 81% C), 88% if CF, 66% if lose out

    Bubble teams if no AQ (21) (20-79% for Pool C if no AQ)
    A) Scranton (19-6, 0.530, 5-3 vRRO, MA#7) 88% (40% LAND or 79% C), 95% if CF, 70% if lose out
    C#10) Mt St Joseph (18-5, 0.508, 2-1 vRRO, GL#3) 80% (21% HCAC or 75% C), 84% if CF, 61% if lose out
    A) St John Fisher (20-5, 0.546, 1-3 vRRO, EA#5) 93% (72% E8 or 73% C), 83% if CF, 73% if lose out
    A) Oswego State (18-6, 0.522, 3-2 vRRO, EA#3) 83% (39% SUNYAC or 72% C), 86% if CF, 61% if lose out
    A) Guilford (20-5, 0.504, 2-2 vRRO, SO#1) 81% (36% ODAC or 70% C), 77% if CF, 50% if lose out
    C#11) Cabrini (19-5, 0.523, 1-4 vRRO, AT#3) 77% (26% CSAC or 69% C), 84% if CF, 51% if lose out
    C#12) UW-Eau Claire (17-7, 0.572, 3-2 vRRO, CE#4) 68% (8% WIAC or 65% C), 99% if CF, 18% if lose out
    A) Lycoming (20-4, 0.528, 0-1 vRRO, MA#5) 84% (57% MACC or 62% C), 73% if CF, 46% if lose out
    C#13) Concordia (TX) (17-6, 0.543, 1-2 vRRO, SO#2) 70% (21% ASC or 62% C), 98% if CF, 44% if lose out
    C#14) MIT (19-6, 0.544, 0-4 vRRO, NE#9) 61% (15% NEWMAC or 55% C), 66% if CF, 44% if lose out
    C#15) New Jersey City (19-6, 0.506, 4-3 vRRO, AT#4) 59% (11% NJAC or 53% C), 88% if CF, 35% if lose out
    C#16) Endicott (20-5, 0.511, 1-1 vRRO, NE#10) 70% (35% CCC or 53% C), 60% if CF, 27% if lose out
    A) C-M-S (17-3, 0.486, 2-2 vRRO, WE#5) 71% (39% SCIAC or 53% C), 82% if CF, 12% if lose out
    A) Augustana (18-6, 0.528, 2-2 vRRO, CE#5) 67% (34% CCIW or 51% C), 99% if CF, 2% if lose out
    ---current projected bubble line (with about 5 pool C bids lost via conference tournament "bid thieves")---
    C#17) Wooster (18-7, 0.535, 4-5 vRRO, GL#6) 58% (24% NCAC or 45% C), 84% if CF, 4% if lose out
    A) Benedictine (IL) (21-3, 0.490, 0-0 vRRO, CE#7) 80% (66% NACC or 40% C), 50% if CF, 27% if lose out
    C#18) Brockport (19-6, 0.518, 2-4 vRRO, EA#4) 58% (32% SUNYAC or 38% C), 37% if CF, 26% if lose out
    C#19) Emory (17-7, 0.545, 2-3 vRRO, SO#4) 38% (0% UAA or 38% C), 98% if CF
    C#20) Amherst (17-7, 0.601, 5-5 vRRO, NE#5) 33% (0% NESCAC or 33% C), 33% if CF, 33% if lose out
    C#21) John Carroll (17-7, 0.562, 2-5 vRRO, GL#5) 49% (26% OAC or 31% C), 65% if CF
    A) St Norbert (19-4, 0.500, 1-1 vRRO, CE) 66% (56% MWC or 21% C), 33% if CF, 15% if lose out

    Longshots for Pool C (7) (10%-19% if no AQ)
    A) St Thomas (MN) (19-6, 0.523, 0-1 vRRO, WE#3) 51% (40% MIAC or 19% C), 24% if CF, 7% if lose out
    C#22) Cal Lutheran (17-6, 0.500, 3-3 vRRO, WE) 47% (35% SCIAC or 19% C), 39% if CF
    C#23) North Park (17-7, 0.532, 4-2 vRRO, CE) 33% (19% CCIW or 17% C), 48% if CF
    C#24) LeTourneau (20-4, 0.480, 1-1 vRRO, SO#5) 36% (27% ASC or 13% C), 26% if CF, 3% if lose out
    C#25) Nebraska Wesleyan (17-6, 0.521, 1-1 vRRO, WE#6) 45% (38% IIAC or 12% C), 30% if CF, 3% if lose out
    C#26) Carthage (16-7, 0.553, 2-4 vRRO, CE#8) 41% (33% CCIW or 11% C), 24% if CF
    C#27) Denison (21-4, 0.464, 3-2 vRRO, GL#7) 25% (16% NCAC or 10% C), 25% if CF, 1% if lose out

    Real Longshots for Pool C (would be 10%+ if lost conference final)
    C) Moravian (17-6, 0.512, 4-4 vRRO, MA) 29% (22% LAND or 9% C), 25% if CF
    A) Ohio Wesleyan (19-6, 0.506, 3-4 vRRO, GL#9) 55% (51% NCAC or 9% C), 16% if CF, 2% if lose out
    C) Ripon (18-5, 0.484, 1-1 vRRO, CE) 26% (21% MWC or 7% C), 15% if CF, 1% if lose out
    C) TCNJ (18-7, 0.515, 3-4 vRRO, AT#5) 24% (18% NJAC or 7% C), 16% if CF
    A) E Connecticut (17-8, 0.566, 3-4 vRRO, NE#11) 53% (50% LEC or 4% C), 10% if CF
    C) Keene State (17-8, 0.575, 2-3 vRRO, NE#8) 24% (22% LEC or 3% C), 12% if CF
    C) Roger Williams (19-6, 0.470, 2-1 vRRO, NE) 14% (11% CCC or 3% C), 20% if CF
    C) Emory & Henry (17-7, 0.526, 1-4 vRRO, SO#8) 17% (16% ODAC or 1% C), 10% if CF

    I think Augustana, Eau Claire and John Carroll are the only three teams on this list that lost tonight.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 22, 2017, 12:18:22 AM
    TCNJ lost too, but you have to go waaaaaaay down the list to get to them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2017, 07:43:13 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2017, 06:24:26 PM
    In addition to must-win games for bubble or bubble-wannabee teams tonight (Wooster, John Carroll, Cal Lutheran, North Park, TCNJ, Carthage, IWU), we also have our first potential bid thief (or bubble-burster) game, with Ramapo (which looks safely in) hosting Rowan.

    IWU won, but still didn't get a CCIW tourney bid. I think they're out of the Pool C running.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2017, 10:45:07 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2017, 07:43:13 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2017, 06:24:26 PM
    In addition to must-win games for bubble or bubble-wannabee teams tonight (Wooster, John Carroll, Cal Lutheran, North Park, TCNJ, Carthage, IWU), we also have our first potential bid thief (or bubble-burster) game, with Ramapo (which looks safely in) hosting Rowan.

    IWU won, but still didn't get a CCIW tourney bid. I think they're out of the Pool C running.

    Despite the lack of a conference tourney bid and a sub-.700 WP (plus likely staying outside of the regional rankings, later today), I'm still not ready to completely write off IWU.  If the regional rankings go the way I anticipate, then the Titans would have 6 wins vRRO, together with a .558 SOS.  If we have a soft bubble (which appears to be the case, thus far), and some lower-ranked Central region teams struggle this week, it's not out of the question that IWU could go from unranked to a very late Pool C selection.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3ball1845 on February 22, 2017, 10:46:44 AM
    Roger Williams also lost last night in the first round, although they were categorized in the "real long shot" for an at-large bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 22, 2017, 10:47:40 AM
    We had a year in baseball, I believe, where a team did not make the four-team NESCAC tournament but still made the NCAA playoffs.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 22, 2017, 11:59:38 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 22, 2017, 10:45:07 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2017, 07:43:13 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2017, 06:24:26 PM
    In addition to must-win games for bubble or bubble-wannabee teams tonight (Wooster, John Carroll, Cal Lutheran, North Park, TCNJ, Carthage, IWU), we also have our first potential bid thief (or bubble-burster) game, with Ramapo (which looks safely in) hosting Rowan.

    IWU won, but still didn't get a CCIW tourney bid. I think they're out of the Pool C running.

    Despite the lack of a conference tourney bid and a sub-.700 WP (plus likely staying outside of the regional rankings, later today), I'm still not ready to completely write off IWU.  If the regional rankings go the way I anticipate, then the Titans would have 6 wins vRRO, together with a .558 SOS.  If we have a soft bubble (which appears to be the case, thus far), and some lower-ranked Central region teams struggle this week, it's not out of the question that IWU could go from unranked to a very late Pool C selection.
    IMHO, my Titans need a little help from others on the form of the ball bouncing the wrong way to be on a soft  bubble.  The "turnovers" need to come from at least two places. 
    First, one or two tumbles with the Central which could move them up into the final rankings - say 7/6.  Also means,  central teams would have to come off Pool C quickly to move IWU up into early discussion.
    Second, a couple of whoops regions that do not involve potential AQs, in other words, Pool C bubbles that burst whose replacements criteria just do not quite measure up.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 22, 2017, 12:02:08 PM
    QuoteWe had a year in baseball, I believe, where a team did not make the four-team NESCAC tournament but still made the NCAA playoffs.

    And that team was Trinity! Go Clucks!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2017, 12:03:44 PM
    Found a coding issue that is double-counting some conference tournament games.  Will re-post once this is fixed.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2017, 02:06:25 PM
    http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2017/02/men-regional-rankings-third
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2017, 03:40:32 PM
    I re-ran and edited my above posts after the regional rankings came out.  Those rankings had the effect of knocking out some fringe teams (IWU, for example, which was ranked behind a nine-loss UW-Oshkosh team)

    Tonight's only bubble-related games involve two teams that are currently in good shape, and one that needs an upset to have any bubble chance.
    Gwynedd Mercy (20-6, 0.486, 0-5) at Cabrini (19-5, 0.523, 2-3 vRRO, AT#4) 90%/73%
    Union (NY) (14-9, 0.526, 0-6) at St Lawrence (19-5, 0.519, 3-4 vRRO, EA#4) 97%/81%
    Susquehanna (20-4, 0.551, 4-3 vRRO, MA#2) (already safe) at Moravian (17-6, 0.511, 4-4 vRRO, MA#8) 13%/0%

    Bubble teams also want to see strong teams Lycoming, Neumann, and Skidmore win tonight, to avoid any of those conference favorites taking up Pool C berths.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2017, 03:49:24 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 22, 2017, 03:40:32 PM
    I re-ran and edited my above posts after the regional rankings came out.  Those rankings had the effect of knocking out some fringe teams (IWU, for example, which was ranked behind a nine-loss UW-Oshkosh team)

    Remember, that data was through Sunday.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2017, 03:52:25 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2017, 03:49:24 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 22, 2017, 03:40:32 PM
    I re-ran and edited my above posts after the regional rankings came out.  Those rankings had the effect of knocking out some fringe teams (IWU, for example, which was ranked behind a nine-loss UW-Oshkosh team)

    Remember, that data was through Sunday.

    Right, but if the committee put IWU, St. Norbert, etc. behind a team with a .640 WP (even with a high WP & 4 wins vRRO), then I think that makes a statement.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 22, 2017, 04:57:48 PM
    This is the data used for this weeks Central Region poll

    Oshkosh  .640/.588/4-5
    NP     .708/.532/4-2  (presumed NP is ahead of IWU but maybe not)
    IWU   .667/.555/5-2

    IWU has certainly closed whatever gaps there were here,  IWU now presents .680/.555/6-2   (SOS might go up or down a few pts).  Between IWU/Oshkosh there is no head-to-head, in common opponents there is only Augustana.  Oshkosh lost to Augie, IWU went 1-1 but has a really convincing 30 point win as the most recent result.

    All that matters for IWU is getting to the table, they at least gave themselves a chance, even if it isn't a very good one.  Oshkosh actually doesn't matter a whole lot to them, if Oshkosh wins out they get the AQ and thus irrelevant to IWU, IF Oshkosh loses Fri you'd think IWU would move in front of them, it gets more tricky to do that if Oshkosh makes the WIAC championship game.

    Very important to IWU is that the 3 CCIW's presumably ahead of them Augustana, Carthage, North Park all have to log at least 2 losses between them with 1 possibly getting the AQ and being irrelevant to IWU's C chances.  An extra bonus is that all 3 could lose.  Whatever the case the last few ranking spots of the Central Region are really tight.

    Its also a real sticking point that IWU has two losses to North Park, would be hard to place IWU ahead of them


    IMO  .680/.555/6-2 is last team into the field kind of numbers, and right now I just don't think Pool C is going to go that deep even with the 2 extra slots this year.  There are going to be 2 or 3 other teams with slightly better criteria at 8 losses than IWU, and they might not get in either.


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2017, 06:01:58 PM
    I think it's wishful thinking that IWU gets in. I mean, I've been saying all along that Eau Claire is probably in and Dave disagrees with me there and the Blugolds have been ahead of IWU in all 3 rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2017, 07:35:40 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 22, 2017, 04:57:48 PM
    Its also a real sticking point that IWU has two losses to North Park, would be hard to place IWU ahead of them

    Worth noting that IWU was ranked ahead of North Park in Week 2 when NPU already had a sweep over IWU.  IWU was 6th in the Central and NPU was not ranked.

    http://web1.ncaa.org/champsel_new/exec/pdf/staticpdfrank

    The data was:
    * IWU: .667/.555/5-2
    * North Park: .708/.532/4-2

    Per Matt Snyder's updated data - http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/ - the current numbers are:

    * IWU: .680/.557/6-2
    * North Park: .720/.524/4-2

    In week 2 NPU had a better WP by .041; currently the difference is .040. IWU has a bigger SOS lead now vs Week 2, and a little better RRO.  So if IWU was ranked higher in week 2, should they be ranked higher now? Who knows.

    To be clear, I believe IWU is a real longshot in this process due to winning % -- but just simply pointing out that head-to-head isn't always a difference maker.  Consider the situation in the CCIW where, for example, Carthage swept North Park, North Park swept IWU, and IWU swept Carthage.  Hard to resolve all of that.

    Several years ago (2007-08 I believe), IWU was 3-0 vs Wheaton, but Wheaton ended up regionally ranked higher in the final poll because their overall resume was better (they clearly had the better Pool C case). Wheaton got in, IWU did not.

    Head-to-head is definitely very important but it is just one data point.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2017, 07:45:28 PM
    Matt's RPI formula has IWU as Pool C #18 right now.  This seems about right to me in that #18 is at the far end of the bubble and most likely out due to expected upsets.  But yet, not 100% out of the conversation.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2017, 07:56:10 PM
    OK, let's try this again (through Tuesday's games)...

    Officially clinched berth (1)
    A) Washington U. (20-4, 0.577, 7-2 vRRO, CE#2) won UAA AQ

    Locks or near-locks (14)
    A) Chris Newport (23-2, 0.526, 3-2 vRRO, MA#1) lock, 81% CAC AQ
    A) Babson (24-1, 0.577, 4-1 vRRO, NE#1) lock, 80% NEWMAC AQ
    A) Marietta (22-4, 0.576, 4-4 vRRO, GL#1) lock, 77% OAC AQ
    A) Whitman (25-0, 0.537, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) lock, 76% NWC AQ
    A) Ramapo (24-2, 0.497, 6-2 vRRO, AT#2) lock, 72% NJAC AQ
    A) Neumann (23-2, 0.504, 6-0 vRRO, AT#1) lock, 56% CSAC AQ
    A) UW-River Falls (20-3, 0.593, 7-3 vRRO, CE#1) lock, 52% WIAC AQ
    A) Middlebury (22-3, 0.609, 6-3 vRRO, NE#2) lock, 44% NESCAC AQ
    C#1) Tufts (20-5, 0.567, 4-3 vRRO, NE#3) lock, 30% NESCAC AQ
    C#2) Rochester (21-3, 0.531, 4-1 vRRO, EA#1) near-lock, no AQ
    C#3) UW-Whitewater (19-5, 0.566, 3-4 vRRO, CE#3) near-lock, 20% WIAC AQ
    C#4) Susquehanna (20-4, 0.551, 4-3 vRRO, MA#2) near-lock, 29% LAND AQ
    C#5) Wesleyan (CT) (19-6, 0.559, 4-3 vRRO, NE#4) near-lock, no AQ
    A) Hanover (19-3, 0.520, 2-2 vRRO, GL#2) near-lock, 57% HCAC AQ

    Strong position (12) (80%+ for Pool C, if no AQ)
    A) Lycoming (20-4, 0.528, 1-1 vRRO, MA#3) 99% (56% MACC or 98% C), 98% if CF, 91% if lose out
    C#6) New Jersey City (21-6, 0.517, 5-3 vRRO, AT#3) 98% (28% NJAC or 97% C)
    C#7) Whitworth (22-3, 0.525, 0-2 vRRO, WE#2) 97% (22% NWC or 96% C), 96% if CF, 89% if lose out
    A) Hardin-Simmons (19-6, 0.555, 3-1 vRRO, SO#1) 97% (34% ASC or 96% C), 100% if CF, 87% if lose out
    C#8) Amherst (17-7, 0.601, 5-5 vRRO, NE#5) 94% C
    C#9) St Lawrence (19-5, 0.519, 3-4 vRRO, EA#4) 95% (28% LL or 93% C), 96% if CF, 84% if lose out
    A) Hope (19-4, 0.520, 2-1 vRRO, GL#3) 97% (60% MIAA or 93% C), 95% if CF, 83% if lose out
    A) Skidmore (19-6, 0.522, 6-1 vRRO, EA#3) 97% (56% LL or 92% C), 96% if CF, 87% if lose out
    C#10) Cabrini (19-5, 0.523, 2-3 vRRO, AT#4) 89% (25% CSAC or 86% C), 87% if CF, 74% if lose out
    A) Scranton (19-6, 0.529, 6-3 vRRO, MA#5) 90% (39% LAND or 83% C), 94% if CF, 75% if lose out
    C#11) Salisbury (19-6, 0.528, 3-3 vRRO, MA#6) 83% (12% CAC or 80% C), 87% if CF, 59% if lose out

    Bubble teams if no AQ (17) (20-79% for Pool C if no AQ)
    A) Oswego State (18-6, 0.522, 3-2 vRRO, EA#5) 85% (40% SUNYAC or 75% C), 90% if CF, 69% if lose out
    C#12) Mt St Joseph (18-5, 0.508, 2-1 vRRO, GL#4) 80% (22% HCAC or 74% C), 87% if CF, 60% if lose out
    A) Guilford (20-5, 0.503, 3-2 vRRO, SO#3) 82% (34% ODAC or 73% C), 82% if CF, 50% if lose out
    A) St Thomas (MN) (19-6, 0.523, 1-2 vRRO, WE#3) 81% (37% MIAC or 70% C), 74% if CF, 61% if lose out
    C#13) Williams (18-7, 0.586, 6-4 vRRO, NE#6) 72% (15% NESCAC or 66% C), 97% if CF, 53% if lose out
    A) Benedictine (IL) (21-3, 0.489, 1-0 vRRO, CE#7) 88% (66% NACC or 65% C), 64% if CF, 60% if lose out
    A) Swarthmore (20-5, 0.521, 1-1 vRRO, MA#4) 80% (47% CC or 62% C), 65% if CF, 49% if lose out
    C#14) MIT (19-6, 0.546, 0-4 vRRO, NE#7) 65% (14% NEWMAC or 60% C), 73% if CF, 32% if lose out
    C#15) Concordia (TX) (17-6, 0.543, 1-3 vRRO, SO#4) 67% (24% ASC or 57% C), 84% if CF, 7% if lose out
    C#16) UW-Eau Claire (17-7, 0.571, 3-4 vRRO, CE#4) 60% (8% WIAC or 56% C), 97% if CF, 7% if lose out
    A) St John Fisher (20-5, 0.545, 0-3 vRRO, EA#2) 87% (73% E8 or 52% C)
    projected cut line (after some Pool C berths disappear when strong teams don't win Pool A berths)
    C#17) Brockport (19-6, 0.519, 2-3 vRRO, EA#6) 64% (31% SUNYAC or 48% C), 59% if CF, 42% if lose out
    C#18) Wooster (19-7, 0.535, 3-5 vRRO, GL#5) 58% (23% NCAC or 45% C), 84% if CF, 20% if lose out
    C#19) Emory (17-7, 0.546, 1-3 vRRO, SO#2) 37% C, 97% if CF
    C#20) Endicott (21-5, 0.509, 1-1 vRRO, NE#10) 60% (42% CCC or 31% C), 38% if CF, 13% if lose out
    C#21) Denison (22-4, 0.466, 3-2 vRRO, GL#7) 41% (16% NCAC or 29% C), 55% if CF, 21% if lose out
    C#22) Augustana (18-7, 0.534, 2-2 vRRO, CE#5) 44% (21% CCIW or 28% C), 49% if CF, 7% if lose out

    Longshots for Pool C (6) (10%-19% if no AQ)
    A) Carthage (17-7, 0.549, 2-2 vRRO, CE#6) 52% (43% CCIW or 15% C), 20% if CF, 3% if lose out
    C#23) Keene State (18-8, 0.570, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 33% (23% LEC or 14% C), 29% if CF, 1% if lose out
    C#24) LeTourneau (20-4, 0.480, 1-1 vRRO, SO#5) 37% (28% ASC or 13% C), 40% if CF, 1% if lose out
    A) Ohio Wesleyan (20-6, 0.502, 2-3 vRRO, GL#8) 55% (50% NCAC or 10% C)
    A) E Connecticut (18-8, 0.564, 3-4 vRRO, NE#8) 58% (53% LEC or 10% C), 13% if CF, 4% if lose out
    A) Nebraska Wesleyan (17-6, 0.521, 1-1 vRRO, WE#5) 46% (40% IIAC or 10% C), 22% if CF, 2% if lose out

    Real Longshots for Pool C (would be 10%+ if lost conference final)
    A) C-M-S (18-3, 0.485, 1-1 vRRO, WE#6) 52% (48% SCIAC or 7% C), 10% if CF, 4% if lose out
    C) Moravian (17-6, 0.511, 4-4 vRRO, MA#8) 29% (23% LAND or 7% C), 17% if CF, 1% if lose out

    Other conference favorites (not realistic Pool C candidates)
    A) St Norbert (19-4, 0.501, 1-2 vRRO, CE) 57% (55% MWC or 3% C), 5% if CF, 2% if lose out
    A) St Vincent (19-6, 0.488, 1-0 vRRO, GL) 52% (51% PAC or 1% C), 1% if CF
    A) So Vermont (16-8, 0.496, 0-2 vRRO, NE) 65% (65% NECC or 0% C)
    A) Husson (19-6, 0.489, 0-0 vRRO, NE) 65% (65% NAC or 0% C)
    A) Staten Island (19-5, 0.491, 0-4 vRRO, AT#7) 62% (62% CUNYAC or 0% C)
    A) Albertus Magnus (21-4, 0.480, 0-2 vRRO, NE) 60% (60% GNAC or 0% C)
    A) Fitchburg State (15-10, 0.487, 0-3 vRRO, NE) 55% (55% MASCAC or 0% C)
    A) Rhodes (14-10, 0.449, 0-1 vRRO, SO) 53% (53% SAA or 0% C)
    A) Medaille (19-5, 0.459, 0-0 vRRO, GL) 53% (53% AMCC or 0% C)
    A) Greenville (IL) (19-5, 0.461, 0-0 vRRO, CE) 49% (49% SLIAC or 0% C)
    A) Morrisville State (20-5, 0.464, 0-0 vRRO, EA) 47% (47% NEAC or 0% C)
    A) Nichols (21-5, 0.471, 1-1 vRRO, NE) 46% (46% CCC or 0% C)
    A) Schreiner (14-11, 0.549, 0-5 vRRO, SO) 44% (44% SCAC or 0% C)
    A) Delaware Valley (16-9, 0.537, 0-4 vRRO, AT#8) 43% (43% MACF or 0% C)
    A) Farmingdale State (18-7, 0.475, 0-2 vRRO, AT) 43% (43% SKY or 0% C)
    A) Bethany Lutheran (16-7, 0.461, 0-1 vRRO, WE) 37% (37% UMAC or 0% C)
    A) Averett (11-13, 0.525, 1-3 vRRO, SO) 21% (21% USAC or 0% C)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2017, 08:45:58 PM
    Susquehanna stealing a Pool C losing to Moravian, losing by 8 with 2 to play.

    Cabrini, already on the bubble, also down late. was 4th in the Atlantic and they lost tonight. It doesn't look good for them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: stlawus on February 22, 2017, 09:20:42 PM
    SLU loses at the buzzer to Union in double OT.  Man that was brutal.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I assume they're in good shape for an at large bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 22, 2017, 09:26:08 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 22, 2017, 04:57:48 PM
    This is the data used for this weeks Central Region poll

    Oshkosh  .640/.588/4-5
    NP     .708/.532/4-2  (presumed NP is ahead of IWU but maybe not)
    IWU   .667/.555/5-2

    IWU has certainly closed whatever gaps there were here,  IWU now presents .680/.555/6-2   (SOS might go up or down a few pts).  Between IWU/Oshkosh there is no head-to-head, in common opponents there is only Augustana.  Oshkosh lost to Augie, IWU went 1-1 but has a really convincing 30 point win as the most recent result.

    Yes, but of course the AC @ IWU final margin doesn't enter into it. And you missed that IWU and UWO have another common opponent: Carthage. IWU has a 3-1 to 0-2 common-opponent advantage over UWO (the Titans from south of the Cheddar Curtain split with Augie and swept Carthage, while the Titans from north of the Cheddar Curtain lost to both Augie and Carthage).

    NPU also enjoys a common-opponent advantage over UWO. The Vikings swept Augie and were swept in turn by Carthage, but, again, UWO went 0-2 against the CCIW's two Lutheran schools, while NPU went 2-2.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: warriorcat on February 22, 2017, 09:28:04 PM
    What a night for upsets.

    Susquehanna should be safe, but Cabrini and St Lawrence will have to sweat it out until Monday.  They both have low SOS's. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2017, 09:29:36 PM
    There will be no bubble busted by Susquehanna losing, as long as Scranton wins the AQ over Moravian, since both Susquehanna and Scranton were expected to make the tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2017, 09:48:46 PM
    Here is what I have as of Wednesday night at 8:45pm Central.  Please let me know if I have any mistakes with the data.

    (As always, all data is courtesy Matt Snyder - http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/.)

    Tier 1 - In Great Shape
    1. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .800/.563/4-3
    2. UW-Whitewater (C/WIAC): .800/.564/2-3
    3. Rochester (E/UAA): .875/.526/4-1
    4. Susquehanna (MA/LAND): .800/.547/3-2  *Winning % updated through Wednesday loss*
    5. Whitworth (W/NWC): .880/.525/1-2
    6. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .760/.558/4-3
    7. Salisbury (MA/CAC): .760/.526/3-3
    8. St. Lawrence (E/LL): .800/.522/2-5
    9. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .708/.596/5-5
    10. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .720/.585/5-4

    Tier 2 - Projected In
    11. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .731/.536/4-5
    12. Skidmore (E/LL): .731/.524/6-1   *Winning % updated through Wednesday loss*
    13. Augustana (C/CCIW): .720/.535/2-3
    14. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .778/.517/5-3
    15. Emory (S/UAA): .708/.541/2-3

    Tier 3 - End of the Bubble; Pick 1; Other 5 projected out due to expected upsets
    16. UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC): .680/.570/3-2
    17. Keene State (NE/LEC): .692/.568/2-3
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW): .680/.557/6-2
    19. Concordia TX (S/ASC): .727/.540/1-2
    20. MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .760/.542/0-4
    21. North Park (C/CCIW): .720/.524/4-2

    Projected Out
    22. John Carroll (GL/OAC): .680/.562/2-5
    23. Loras (W/IIAC): .720/.544/1-2
    24. Mount St. Joseph (GL/HCAC): .792/.510/2-1
    25. Cabrini (AT/CSAC): .760/.522/1-4    *Winning % updated through Wednesday loss*
    26. Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .760/.520/2-4
    27. Catholic (MA/LAND): .680/.547/2-5
    28. Emory & Henry (S/ODAC): .708/.524/1-4
    29. Carleton (W/MIAC): .708/.524/1-2
    30. UW-Oshkosh (C/WIAC): .640/.586/4-5
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: warriorcat on February 22, 2017, 10:22:06 PM
    You will have to add Skidmore to Pool C candidates as they go down to Hobart in the Liberty League semis.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 22, 2017, 10:36:24 PM
    Did the Liberty League just become a three bid league??
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2017, 11:37:11 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 22, 2017, 10:36:24 PM
    Did the Liberty League just become a three bid league??

    With all the upsets, I'm not sure Skidmore's SOS will be good enough to get in.  6-1 RRO is nice, though.  We'll see.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2017, 12:01:51 AM
    Here is NCAA's Regional Rankings, updated through Sunday, using their numbers



       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS      RESULTS   
       1      ATL      Neumann 23-2      CSAC      0.920      5-0      0.503   
       2      ATL      Ramapo 23-2      NJAC      0.920      5-2      0.491   
       3      ATL      NJCU 20-6      NJAC      0.769      4-3      0.507   
       4      ATL      Cabrini 19-5      CSAC      0.792      1-4      0.522   
       5      ATL      TCNJ 18-7      NJAC      0.720      3-4      0.515   
       6      ATL      Rowan 17-9      NJAC      0.654      3-5      0.552   
       7      ATL      Staten Is 19-5      CUNYAC      0.792      0-4      0.491   
       8      ATL      Delaware V 16-9      MACF      0.640      1-4      0.538   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      CENT      River Falls 20-3      WIAC      0.870      6-2      0.594   
       2      CENT      Wash U 20-4      UAA      0.833      7-3      0.574   
       3      CENT      Whitewater 19-5      WIAC      0.792      2-3      0.565   
       4      CENT      Eau Claire 17-7      WIAC      0.708      3-2      0.570   
       5      CENT      Augustana 18-6      CCIW      0.750      2-2      0.528   
       6      CENT      Carthage 16-7      CCIW      0.696      2-4      0.554   
       7      CENT      Benedictine 21-3      NACC      0.875      0-0      0.490   
       8      CENT      Oshkosh 16-9      WIAC      0.640      4-5      0.588   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      EAST      Rochester 21-3      UAA      0.875      4-1      0.526   
       2      EAST      SJF 20-5      E8      0.800      1-3      0.543   
       3      EAST      Skidmore 19-6      LL      0.760      6-1      0.524   
       4      EAST      St Lawrence 20-5      LL      0.800      2-5      0.521   
       5      EAST      Oswego St 19-6      SUNYAC      0.760      3-2      0.522   
       6      EAST      Brockport 19-6      SUNYAC      0.760      2-4      0.518   
       7      EAST      Cortland 17-8      SUNYAC      0.680      3-3      0.532   
       8      EAST      Union 14-9      LL      0.609      2-6      0.528   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      GL      Marietta 21-4      OAC      0.840      4-4      0.578   
       2      GL      Hanover 19-3      HCAC      0.864      2-2      0.523   
       3      GL      Hope 19-4      MIAA      0.826      2-1      0.519   
       4      GL      Mt St Joseph 19-5      HCAC      0.792      2-1      0.510   
       5      GL      Wooster 18-7      NCAC      0.720      4-5      0.537   
       6      GL      JCU 17-7      OAC      0.708      2-5      0.563   
       7      GL      Denison 21-4      NCAC      0.840      3-2      0.466   
       8      GL      Ohio Wes 19-6      NCAC      0.760      3-4      0.508   
       9      GL      Ohio North 16-9      OAC      0.640      2-4      0.550   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      M-ATL      CNU 23-2      CAC      0.920      2-2      0.522   
       2      M-ATL      Susquehanna 20-4      LAND      0.833      3-2      0.546   
       3      M-ATL      Lycoming 20-4      MACC      0.833      0-1      0.525   
       4      M-ATL      Swarthmore 20-5      CC       0.800      2-2      0.523   
       5      M-ATL      Scranton 19-6      LAND      0.760      5-3      0.524   
       6      M-ATL      Salisbury 19-6      CAC      0.760      3-3      0.524   
       7      M-ATL      Catholic 17-8      LAND      0.680      2-5      0.546   
       8      M-ATL      Moravian 17-6      LAND      0.739      4-4      0.510   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      NE      Babson 24-1      NEWMAC      0.960      4-1      0.572   
       2      NE      Middlebury 22-3      NESCAC      0.880      7-3      0.605   
       3      NE      Tufts 20-5      NESCAC      0.800      4-3      0.562   
       4      NE      Wesleyan 19-6      NESCAC      0.760      4-3      0.560   
       5      NE      Amherst 17-7      NESCAC      0.708      5-5      0.595   
       6      NE      Williams 18-7      NESCAC      0.720      5-4      0.584   
       7      NE      MIT 19-6      NEWMAC      0.760      0-4      0.540   
       8      NE      E Conn 17-8      LEC      0.680      3-4      0.563   
       9      NE      Keene St 17-8      LEC      0.680      2-3      0.572   
       10      NE      Endicott 20-5      CCC      0.800      1-1      0.510   
       11      NE      Mass-Dart 16-9      LEC      0.640      4-2      0.545   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      SOUTH      Hardin-Simmons 18-6      ASC      0.750      3-1      0.556   
       2      SOUTH      Emory 17-7      UAA      0.708      2-3      0.541   
       3      SOUTH      Guilford 20-5      ODAC      0.800      2-2      0.500   
       4      SOUTH      Con Tex 16-6      ASC      0.727      1-2      0.539   
       5      SOUTH      LeTourneau 18-4      ASC      0.818      1-1      0.486   
       6      SOUTH      RMC 17-8      ODAC      0.680      1-3      0.523   
       7      SOUTH      Emory & Henry 17-7      ODAC      0.708      1-4      0.527   
       8      SOUTH      VWC 17-8      ODAC      0.680      1-6      0.531   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      WEST      Whitman 25-0      NWC      1.000      4-0      0.535   
       2      WEST      Whitworth 22-3      NWC      0.880      1-2      0.527   
       3      WEST      St Thomas 19-6      MIAC      0.760      0-1      0.522   
       4      WEST      Loras 18-7      IIAC      0.720      1-2      0.544   
       5      WEST      Neb Wes 17-6      IIAC      0.739      1-1      0.521   
       6      WEST      CMS 17-3      SCIAC      0.850      2-2      0.486   
       7      WEST      Carleton  16-7      MIAC      0.696      1-2      0.523   
       8      WEST      Cal Lutheran 17-6      SCIAC      0.739      3-3      0.502   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2017, 09:21:54 AM
    Through Wednesday's games

    Officially clinched berth (1)
    A) Washington U. (20-4, 0.577, 7-2 vRRO, CE#2) won UAA AQ

    Locks or near-locks (14)
    A) Babson (24-1, 0.576, 4-1 vRRO, NE#1) lock, 82% NEWMAC AQ
    A) Chris Newport (23-2, 0.526, 3-2 vRRO, MA#1) lock, 81% CAC AQ
    A) Marietta (22-4, 0.576, 4-4 vRRO, GL#1) lock, 76% OAC AQ
    A) Whitman (25-0, 0.537, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) lock, 76% NWC AQ
    A) Neumann (24-2, 0.508, 6-0 vRRO, AT#1) lock, 74% CSAC AQ
    A) UW-River Falls (20-3, 0.593, 7-3 vRRO, CE#1) lock, 52% WIAC AQ
    A) Middlebury (22-3, 0.609, 6-3 vRRO, NE#2) lock, 43% NESCAC AQ
    C#1) Tufts (20-5, 0.567, 4-3 vRRO, NE#3) lock, 30% NESCAC AQ
    C#2) UW-Whitewater (19-5, 0.566, 3-4 vRRO, CE#3) near-lock, 19% WIAC AQ
    C#3) Rochester (21-3, 0.532, 4-1 vRRO, EA#1) near-lock, no AQ
    A) Ramapo (24-2, 0.497, 6-2 vRRO, AT#2) near-lock, 73% NJAC AQ
    C#4) Susquehanna (20-5, 0.558, 4-4 vRRO, MA#2) near-lock, no AQ
    C#5) Wesleyan (CT) (19-6, 0.559, 4-3 vRRO, NE#4) near-lock, no AQ
    A) Lycoming (21-4, 0.531, 1-1 vRRO, MA#3) near-lock, 82% MACC AQ

    Strong position (9) (80%+ for Pool C, if no AQ)
    A) Hanover (19-3, 0.520, 2-2 vRRO, GL#2) 99% (57% HCAC or 99% C), 99% if CF, 98% if lose out
    C#6) New Jersey City (21-6, 0.518, 5-3 vRRO, AT#3) 97% (27% NJAC or 96% C), 96% if CF
    C#7) Whitworth (22-3, 0.525, 0-2 vRRO, WE#2) 96% (22% NWC or 95% C), 97% if CF, 84% if lose out
    A) Hardin-Simmons (19-6, 0.555, 3-1 vRRO, SO#1) 96% (34% ASC or 94% C), 98% if CF, 93% if lose out
    A) Hope (19-4, 0.520, 2-1 vRRO, GL#3) 97% (61% MIAA or 91% C), 94% if CF, 88% if lose out
    C#8) Amherst (17-7, 0.599, 5-5 vRRO, NE#5) 91% C
    A) Scranton (20-6, 0.535, 7-3 vRRO, MA#5) 96% (59% LAND or 89% C), 89% if CF
    C#9) Skidmore (19-7, 0.525, 6-1 vRRO, EA#3) 87% C
    C#10) St Lawrence (19-6, 0.523, 3-5 vRRO, EA#4) 83% C

    Bubble teams if no AQ (17) (20-79% for Pool C if no AQ)
    C#11) Salisbury (19-6, 0.528, 3-3 vRRO, MA#6) 79% (12% CAC or 76% C), 87% if CF, 59% if lose out
    A) Oswego State (18-6, 0.522, 3-2 vRRO, EA#5) 82% (39% SUNYAC or 71% C), 83% if CF, 62% if lose out
    C#12) Mt St Joseph (18-5, 0.508, 2-1 vRRO, GL#4) 77% (20% HCAC or 71% C), 82% if CF, 59% if lose out
    C#13) Cabrini (19-6, 0.531, 2-3 vRRO, AT#4) 71% C
    A) Guilford (20-5, 0.503, 3-2 vRRO, SO#3) 80% (34% ODAC or 69% C), 84% if CF, 50% if lose out
    C#14) St Thomas (MN) (19-6, 0.524, 1-2 vRRO, WE#3) 78% (36% MIAC or 66% C), 71% if CF, 59% if lose out
    C#15) Williams (18-7, 0.586, 6-4 vRRO, NE#6) 68% (15% NESCAC or 62% C), 96% if CF, 50% if lose out
    A) Benedictine (IL) (21-3, 0.490, 1-0 vRRO, CE#7) 86% (64% NACC or 60% C), 69% if CF, 51% if lose out
    A) Swarthmore (20-5, 0.521, 1-1 vRRO, MA#4) 79% (51% CC or 57% C), 64% if CF, 48% if lose out
    C#16) MIT (19-6, 0.546, 0-4 vRRO, NE#7) 61% (14% NEWMAC or 55% C), 67% if CF, 33% if lose out
    C#17) Concordia (TX) (17-6, 0.543, 1-3 vRRO, SO#4) 65% (24% ASC or 54% C), 85% if CF, 52% if lose out
    C#18) UW-Eau Claire (17-7, 0.571, 3-4 vRRO, CE#4) 56% (8% WIAC or 52% C), 97% if CF, 13% if lose out
    projected cut line (after more Pool C berths disappear when strong teams don't win Pool A berths)
    A) St John Fisher (20-5, 0.545, 0-3 vRRO, EA#2) 86% (73% E8 or 49% C), 56% if CF, 41% if lose out
    C#19) Brockport (19-6, 0.519, 2-3 vRRO, EA#6) 61% (31% SUNYAC or 44% C), 54% if CF, 33% if lose out
    C#20) Wooster (19-7, 0.536, 3-5 vRRO, GL#5) 57% (24% NCAC or 43% C), 79% if CF, 16% if lose out
    C#21) Emory (17-7, 0.546, 1-3 vRRO, SO#2) 36% C, 98% if win out, 1% if lose out
    C#22) Endicott (21-5, 0.509, 1-1 vRRO, NE#10) 57% (42% CCC or 27% C), 32% if CF, 13% if lose out
    C#23) Augustana (18-7, 0.534, 2-2 vRRO, CE#5) 41% (21% CCIW or 26% C), 50% if CF, 11% if lose out
    C#24) Denison (22-4, 0.466, 3-2 vRRO, GL#7) 39% (17% NCAC or 26% C), 52% if CF, 14% if lose out

    Longshots for Pool C (5) (10%-19% if no AQ)
    C#25) Moravian (18-6, 0.520, 5-4 vRRO, MA#8) 53% (41% LAND or 19% C), 19% if CF
    A) Carthage (17-7, 0.549, 2-2 vRRO, CE#6) 53% (44% CCIW or 16% C), 30% if CF, 5% if lose out
    C#26) Keene State (18-8, 0.570, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 35% (23% LEC or 15% C), 30% if CF, 4% if lose out
    A) E Connecticut (18-8, 0.564, 3-4 vRRO, NE#8) 58% (52% LEC or 12% C), 17% if CF, 5% if lose out
    C#27) LeTourneau (20-4, 0.480, 1-1 vRRO, SO#5) 36% (28% ASC or 10% C), 28% if CF, 4% if lose out

    Real Longshots for Pool C (would be 10%+ if lost conference final)
    A) Nebraska Wesleyan (17-6, 0.522, 1-1 vRRO, WE#5) 45% (40% IIAC or 9% C), 17% if CF, 1% if lose out
    A) Ohio Wesleyan (20-6, 0.503, 2-3 vRRO, GL#8) 53% (49% NCAC or 8% C), 11% if CF, 4% if lose out
    C) UW-Oshkosh (16-9, 0.587, 4-5 vRRO, CE#8) 23% (19% WIAC or 5% C), 11% if CF, 1% if lose out

    Other conference favorites (not realistic Pool C candidates)
    A) C-M-S (18-3, 0.485, 1-1 vRRO, WE#6) 51% (48% SCIAC or 5% C), 7% if CF, 2% if lose out
    A) St Norbert (19-4, 0.501, 1-2 vRRO, CE) 56% (55% MWC or 3% C), 4% if CF, 1% if lose out
    A) Staten Island (20-5, 0.498, 0-4 vRRO, AT#7) 74% (73% CUNYAC or 1% C), 1% if CF
    A) St Vincent (19-6, 0.488, 1-0 vRRO, GL) 52% (51% PAC or 1% C), 1% if CF
    A) Carleton (17-7, 0.524, 1-2 vRRO, WE#7) 36% (36% MIAC or 1% C), 4% if CF
    A) So Vermont (16-8, 0.496, 0-2 vRRO, NE) 67% (67% NECC or 0% C)
    A) Husson (19-6, 0.489, 0-0 vRRO, NE) 65% (65% NAC or 0% C)
    A) Albertus Magnus (21-4, 0.480, 0-2 vRRO, NE) 60% (60% GNAC or 0% C)
    A) Union (NY) (15-9, 0.535, 1-6 vRRO, EA#8) 58% (58% LL or 0% C)
    A) Fitchburg State (15-10, 0.487, 0-3 vRRO, NE) 55% (55% MASCAC or 0% C)
    A) Rhodes (14-10, 0.449, 0-1 vRRO, SO) 54% (54% SAA or 0% C)
    A) Medaille (19-5, 0.460, 0-0 vRRO, GL) 53% (53% AMCC or 0% C)
    A) Northwestern (MN) (18-7, 0.454, 0-0 vRRO, WE) 52% (52% UMAC or 0% C)
    A) Greenville (IL) (19-5, 0.461, 0-0 vRRO, CE) 49% (49% SLIAC or 0% C)
    A) Morrisville State (20-5, 0.464, 0-0 vRRO, EA) 47% (47% NEAC or 0% C)
    A) Misericordia (19-7, 0.512, 1-4 vRRO, AT) 46% (46% MACF or 0% C)
    A) Nichols (21-5, 0.471, 1-1 vRRO, NE) 46% (46% CCC or 0% C)
    A) Schreiner (14-11, 0.549, 0-5 vRRO, SO) 44% (44% SCAC or 0% C)
    A) Farmingdale State (18-7, 0.475, 0-2 vRRO, AT) 43% (43% SKY or 0% C)
    A) Averett (11-13, 0.525, 1-3 vRRO, SO) 21% (21% USAC or 0% C)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2017, 09:25:41 AM
    Today's bubble games (percentages are Pool C probability with win/loss)
    York (PA) (17-9, 0.516, 1-4) at Salisbury (19-6, 0.528, 3-3 vRRO, MA#6) 87%/59%
    E Nazarene (13-13, 0.514, 1-2) at Endicott (21-5, 0.509, 1-1 vRRO, NE#10) 32%/13%
    Linfield (12-10, 0.522, 0-5) at Whitworth (22-3, 0.525, 0-2 vRRO, WE#2) 97%/84%
    UW-Whitewater (19-5, 0.566, 3-4 vRRO, CE#3) (Pool C lock) at UW-Oshkosh (16-9, 0.587, 4-5 vRRO, CE#8) 14%/1%

    Also of bubble interest, the OAC would have a "bid thief" if Marietta (safely in) were to lose to Mount Union.  So bubble teams want to see Marietta win today, along with Christopher Newport & Concordia (TX).

    Potential multi-bid leagues (average # of bids)
    NESCAC 4.71
    WIAC 2.81
    LL 2.70
    LAND 2.48
    UAA 2.36
    ASC 2.11
    HCAC 1.99
    NJAC 1.98
    NWC 1.98
    CSAC 1.97
    CAC 1.86
    SUNYAC 1.73
    NEWMAC 1.65
    NCAC 1.59
    ODAC 1.46
    MIAC 1.44
    MIAA 1.36
    CCIW 1.32
    CC 1.28
    OAC 1.24
    NACC 1.21
    LEC 1.19
    MACC 1.18
    CCC 1.16
    E8 1.14
    IIAC 1.07
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: warriorcat on February 23, 2017, 09:34:48 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2017, 09:25:41 AM
    Today's bubble games (percentages are Pool C probability with win/loss)
    UW-LaCrosse (12-12, 0.554, 3-8) at UW-Eau Claire (17-7, 0.571, 3-4 vRRO, CE#4) 66%/13%
    York (PA) (17-9, 0.516, 1-4) at Salisbury (19-6, 0.528, 3-3 vRRO, MA#6) 87%/59%
    E Nazarene (13-13, 0.514, 1-2) at Endicott (21-5, 0.509, 1-1 vRRO, NE#10) 32%/13%
    Linfield (12-10, 0.522, 0-5) at Whitworth (22-3, 0.525, 0-2 vRRO, WE#2) 97%/84%

    Also of bubble interest, the OAC would have a "bid thief" if Marietta (safely in) were to lose to Mount Union.  So bubble teams want to see Marietta win today, along with Christopher Newport & Concordia (TX).

    Potential multi-bid leagues (average # of bids)
    NESCAC 4.71
    WIAC 2.81
    LL 2.70
    LAND 2.48
    UAA 2.36
    ASC 2.11
    HCAC 1.99
    NJAC 1.98
    NWC 1.98
    CSAC 1.97
    CAC 1.86
    SUNYAC 1.73
    NEWMAC 1.65
    NCAC 1.59
    ODAC 1.46
    MIAC 1.44
    MIAA 1.36
    CCIW 1.32
    CC 1.28
    OAC 1.24
    NACC 1.21
    LEC 1.19
    MACC 1.18
    CCC 1.16
    E8 1.14
    IIAC 1.07

    UW-Eau Claire has already been knocked out of the WIAC Tournament  UW- LaCrosse is playing UW-RiverFalls
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2017, 11:53:27 AM
    Quote from: warriorcat on February 23, 2017, 09:34:48 AM
    UW-Eau Claire has already been knocked out of the WIAC Tournament  UW- LaCrosse is playing UW-RiverFalls

    Fixed, thanks!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2017, 01:11:17 PM
    I tried to be cool like Titan Q, knightslappy and fantastic50. NEVER AGAIN!

    Anyway, I am strictly using this week's regional rankings with results through Sunday.

    I struggled after round 6 with 4 teams at the table with 7 losses. I favored a high SoS, lots of vRRO over winning%, unless it was just that much higher.

    Just a reminder, I'm not an expert like these other guys, so take it easy on me!  ???  ;D  :)

    After taking out conference winners/#1 seeds as assumed Pool A/AQs, here's what I started with.

    ATL #3 NJCU 20-6 .769/4-3/.507
    CENT #3 Whitewater 19-5 .792/2-3/.565
    EAST #1 Rochester 21-3 .875/4-1/.526
    GL #4 Mt St Joseph 19-5 .792/2-1/.510
    MA #2 Susquehanna 20-4 .833/3-2/.546
    NE #2 Middlebury 22-3 .880/7-3/.605
    SOUTH #2 Emory 17-7 .708/2-3/.541
    WEST #2 Whitworth 22-3 .880/1-2/.527

    1. NE #2 Middlebury 22-3 .880/7-3/.605
    2. EAST #1 Rochester 21-3 .875/4-1/.526
    3. WEST #2 Whitworth 22-3 .880/1-2/.527
    4. MA #2 Susquehanna 20-4 .833/3-2/.546
    5. CENT #3 Whitewater 195 .792/2-3/.565
    6. NE #4 Wesleyan 19-6 .760/4-3/.569
    7. MA #3 Lycoming 20-4 .833/0-1/.525
    8. NE #5 Amherst 17-7 .708/5-5/.595
    9. NE #6 Williams 18-7 .720/5-4/.584
    10. CENT #4 Eau Claire 17-7 .708/3-2/.570
    11. NE #7 MIT 19-6 .760/0-4/.540
    12. EAST #4 St. Lawrence 20-5 .800/2-5/.521
    13. GL #4 Mt St Joseph 19-5 .792/2-1/.510
    14. MA #6 Salisbury 19-6 .760/3-3/.524
    15. CENT #5 Augustana 18-6 .750/2-2/.528
    16. GL #5 Wooster 18-7 .720/4-5/.537
    17. WEST #4 Loras 18-7 .720/1-2/.544
    18. GL #6 JCU 17-7 .708/2-5/.563
    19. EAST #6 Brockport 19-6 .760/2-4/.518
    20. SOUTH #2 Emory 17-7 .708/2-3/.541
    21. ATL #3 NJCU 20-6 .769/4-3/.507

    LEFT AT THE TABLE WHEN NJCU WAS TAKEN

    ATL #3 NJCU
    CENT #8: Oshkosh 16-9 .640/4-5/.588
    EAST #7: Cortland 17-8 .680/3-3/.532
    GL #7: Denison 21-4 .840/3-2/.466
    MA #7: Catholic 17-8 .680/2-5/.546
    NE #9Keene St 17-8 .680/2-3/.572
    SOUTH #3 Con Tex 16-6 .727/1-2/.539
    WEST #7 Carleton 16-7 .696/1-2/.523

    Obviously a lot has happened since Sunday, like Augustana losing again, Eau Claire sent packing and JCU going down, just to name a few. And, a lot more will happen before the weekend is done. This was probably just a big waste of time!

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 23, 2017, 03:54:56 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2017, 01:11:17 PM
    I tried to be cool like Titan Q, knightslappy and fantastic50. NEVER AGAIN!

    Anyway, I am strictly using this week's regional rankings with results through Sunday.

    I struggled after round 6 with 4 teams at the table with 7 losses. I favored a high SoS, lots of vRRO over winning%, unless it was just that much higher.

    Just a reminder, I'm not an expert like these other guys, so take it easy on me!  ???  ;D  :)

    After taking out conference winners/#1 seeds as assumed Pool A/AQs, here's what I started with.

    ATL #3 NJCU 20-6 .769/4-3/.507
    CENT #3 Whitewater 19-5 .792/2-3/.565
    EAST #1 Rochester 21-3 .875/4-1/.526
    GL #4 Mt St Joseph 19-5 .792/2-1/.510
    MA #2 Susquehanna 20-4 .833/3-2/.546
    NE #2 Middlebury 22-3 .880/7-3/.605
    SOUTH #2 Emory 17-7 .708/2-3/.541
    WEST #2 Whitworth 22-3 .880/1-2/.527

    1. NE #2 Middlebury 22-3 .880/7-3/.605
    2. EAST #1 Rochester 21-3 .875/4-1/.526
    3. WEST #2 Whitworth 22-3 .880/1-2/.527
    4. MA #2 Susquehanna 20-4 .833/3-2/.546
    5. CENT #3 Whitewater 195 .792/2-3/.565
    6. NE #4 Wesleyan 19-6 .760/4-3/.569
    7. MA #3 Lycoming 20-4 .833/0-1/.525
    8. NE #5 Amherst 17-7 .708/5-5/.595
    9. NE #6 Williams 18-7 .720/5-4/.584
    10. CENT #4 Eau Claire 17-7 .708/3-2/.570
    11. NE #7 MIT 19-6 .760/0-4/.540
    12. EAST #4 St. Lawrence 20-5 .800/2-5/.521
    13. GL #4 Mt St Joseph 19-5 .792/2-1/.510
    14. MA #6 Salisbury 19-6 .760/3-3/.524
    15. CENT #5 Augustana 18-6 .750/2-2/.528
    16. GL #5 Wooster 18-7 .720/4-5/.537
    17. WEST #4 Loras 18-7 .720/1-2/.544
    18. GL #6 JCU 17-7 .708/2-5/.563
    19. EAST #6 Brockport 19-6 .760/2-4/.518
    20. SOUTH #2 Emory 17-7 .708/2-3/.541
    21. ATL #3 NJCU 20-6 .769/4-3/.507

    LEFT AT THE TABLE WHEN NJCU WAS TAKEN

    ATL #3 NJCU
    CENT #8: Oshkosh 16-9 .640/4-5/.588
    EAST #7: Cortland 17-8 .680/3-3/.532
    GL #7: Denison 21-4 .840/3-2/.466
    MA #7: Catholic 17-8 .680/2-5/.546
    NE #9Keene St 17-8 .680/2-3/.572
    SOUTH #3 Con Tex 16-6 .727/1-2/.539
    WEST #7 Carleton 16-7 .696/1-2/.523

    Obviously a lot has happened since Sunday, like Augustana losing again, Eau Claire sent packing and JCU going down, just to name a few. And, a lot more will happen before the weekend is done. This was probably just a big waste of time!

    Good effort, Greek; it keeps u out of trouble.
    I'd have Moravian ahead of Catholic at the Mid-Atlantic slot and a contender for the last 5 or 6 berths.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on February 23, 2017, 04:23:38 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2017, 01:11:17 PM
    I tried to be cool like Titan Q, knightslappy and fantastic50. NEVER AGAIN!

    Anyway, I am strictly using this week's regional rankings with results through Sunday.

    I struggled after round 6 with 4 teams at the table with 7 losses. I favored a high SoS, lots of vRRO over winning%, unless it was just that much higher.

    Just a reminder, I'm not an expert like these other guys, so take it easy on me!  ???  ;D  :)

    After taking out conference winners/#1 seeds as assumed Pool A/AQs, here's what I started with.

    ATL #3 NJCU 20-6 .769/4-3/.507
    CENT #3 Whitewater 19-5 .792/2-3/.565
    EAST #1 Rochester 21-3 .875/4-1/.526
    GL #4 Mt St Joseph 19-5 .792/2-1/.510
    MA #2 Susquehanna 20-4 .833/3-2/.546
    NE #2 Middlebury 22-3 .880/7-3/.605
    SOUTH #2 Emory 17-7 .708/2-3/.541
    WEST #2 Whitworth 22-3 .880/1-2/.527

    1. NE #2 Middlebury 22-3 .880/7-3/.605
    2. EAST #1 Rochester 21-3 .875/4-1/.526
    3. WEST #2 Whitworth 22-3 .880/1-2/.527
    4. MA #2 Susquehanna 20-4 .833/3-2/.546
    5. CENT #3 Whitewater 195 .792/2-3/.565
    6. NE #4 Wesleyan 19-6 .760/4-3/.569
    7. MA #3 Lycoming 20-4 .833/0-1/.525
    8. NE #5 Amherst 17-7 .708/5-5/.595
    9. NE #6 Williams 18-7 .720/5-4/.584
    10. CENT #4 Eau Claire 17-7 .708/3-2/.570
    11. NE #7 MIT 19-6 .760/0-4/.540
    12. EAST #4 St. Lawrence 20-5 .800/2-5/.521
    13. GL #4 Mt St Joseph 19-5 .792/2-1/.510
    14. MA #6 Salisbury 19-6 .760/3-3/.524
    15. CENT #5 Augustana 18-6 .750/2-2/.528
    16. GL #5 Wooster 18-7 .720/4-5/.537
    17. WEST #4 Loras 18-7 .720/1-2/.544
    18. GL #6 JCU 17-7 .708/2-5/.563
    19. EAST #6 Brockport 19-6 .760/2-4/.518
    20. SOUTH #2 Emory 17-7 .708/2-3/.541
    21. ATL #3 NJCU 20-6 .769/4-3/.507

    LEFT AT THE TABLE WHEN NJCU WAS TAKEN

    ATL #3 NJCU
    CENT #8: Oshkosh 16-9 .640/4-5/.588
    EAST #7: Cortland 17-8 .680/3-3/.532
    GL #7: Denison 21-4 .840/3-2/.466
    MA #7: Catholic 17-8 .680/2-5/.546
    NE #9Keene St 17-8 .680/2-3/.572
    SOUTH #3 Con Tex 16-6 .727/1-2/.539
    WEST #7 Carleton 16-7 .696/1-2/.523

    Obviously a lot has happened since Sunday, like Augustana losing again, Eau Claire sent packing and JCU going down, just to name a few. And, a lot more will happen before the weekend is done. This was probably just a big waste of time!

    Greek,
    Just wondering why you have Lycoming as a Pool C team from The MACC when they are the top seed, and still alive. Who do you have as the AQ from that conference?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2017, 04:58:36 PM
    I must have marked that wrong on my notes. Hey, good news, opens up a Pool C spot!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2017, 05:56:32 PM
    We are midway through what is always the craziest week of the entire season. Teams are already hitting the at-large bubble and that is already popping some other team's hopes of making the NCAA tournament. Upsets are everywhere and it promises to continue.

    Tonight on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave not only recaps the crazy week, but looks ahead at what might happen this weekend. Plus, Dave and others will look at the last regular season Regional Rankings and try and start reading the tea leaves. Just who may be safe and who already is in trouble on plans to be playing in March.

    Dave will also talk to a few teams making waves. The Union men's program is in their first conference finals in 11 years and helping turn the East Region on its head. Plus the winner of tonight's York (Pa.) at No. 20 Salisbury men's game will join us live to talk about the game. And a few reports from varying areas along with questions from fans.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show live starting at 7:00 PM ET in the video player above or on our Facebook Live simulcast. If you missed any of the show, you can watch it On Demand or listen to the podcasts located to the right (available after the show is off the air).

    We will answer any questions about all of Division III throughout the show. You can also send your questions to the show and have them featured on the Hoopsville Mailbag segment or simply answer immediately on air. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com. You can also tweet them to us.

    And please consider helping Hoopsville stay on the air like you might help your public television station. The annual fundraising campaign has less than three weeks remaining, but we are no where close to reaching our goal. Click here for more information:  Hoopsville Fundraising Page (https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017)

    Guests scheduled (in order of appearance):
    - Chris Murphy, Union men's coach
    - James Wagner, Atlantic Region Report
    - Salisbury or York (Pa.) winning coach

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Fundraiser: https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3Dlumdn%2F1fcxz1zynec58nrz.jpg&hash=6ba504f5598b6c7fc0b161d81c5ea05b8c98bf8b)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2017, 10:28:37 PM
    St Thomas falls to St John tonight, and will be on the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AppletonRocks on February 23, 2017, 10:56:25 PM
    Oshkosh declawed the Whitewater Warhawks tonight in WIAC semifinal.  The men in purple did not look good tonight.  But I know only the numbers matter.  Pat Coleman has now trained me to shut up,  sit in the corner and pound on my calculator to determine who is the best team.   8-)

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 24, 2017, 08:55:45 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2017, 12:01:51 AM
    Here is NCAA's Regional Rankings, updated through Sunday, using their numbers



       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS      RESULTS   
       1      ATL      Neumann 23-2      CSAC      0.920      5-0      0.503   
       2      ATL      Ramapo 23-2      NJAC      0.920      5-2      0.491   
       3      ATL      NJCU 20-6      NJAC      0.769      4-3      0.507   
       4      ATL      Cabrini 19-5      CSAC      0.792      1-4      0.522   
       5      ATL      TCNJ 18-7      NJAC      0.720      3-4      0.515   
       6      ATL      Rowan 17-9      NJAC      0.654      3-5      0.552   
       7      ATL      Staten Is 19-5      CUNYAC      0.792      0-4      0.491   
       8      ATL      Delaware V 16-9      MACF      0.640      1-4      0.538   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      CENT      River Falls 20-3      WIAC      0.870      6-2      0.594   
       2      CENT      Wash U 20-4      UAA      0.833      7-3      0.574   
       3      CENT      Whitewater 19-5      WIAC      0.792      2-3      0.565   
       4      CENT      Eau Claire 17-7      WIAC      0.708      3-2      0.570   
       5      CENT      Augustana 18-6      CCIW      0.750      2-2      0.528   
       6      CENT      Carthage 16-7      CCIW      0.696      2-4      0.554   
       7      CENT      Benedictine 21-3      NACC      0.875      0-0      0.490   
       8      CENT      Oshkosh 16-9      WIAC      0.640      4-5      0.588   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      EAST      Rochester 21-3      UAA      0.875      4-1      0.526   
       2      EAST      SJF 20-5      E8      0.800      1-3      0.543   
       3      EAST      Skidmore 19-6      LL      0.760      6-1      0.524   
       4      EAST      St Lawrence 20-5      LL      0.800      2-5      0.521   
       5      EAST      Oswego St 19-6      SUNYAC      0.760      3-2      0.522   
       6      EAST      Brockport 19-6      SUNYAC      0.760      2-4      0.518   
       7      EAST      Cortland 17-8      SUNYAC      0.680      3-3      0.532   
       8      EAST      Union 14-9      LL      0.609      2-6      0.528   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      GL      Marietta 21-4      OAC      0.840      4-4      0.578   
       2      GL      Hanover 19-3      HCAC      0.864      2-2      0.523   
       3      GL      Hope 19-4      MIAA      0.826      2-1      0.519   
       4      GL      Mt St Joseph 19-5      HCAC      0.792      2-1      0.510   
       5      GL      Wooster 18-7      NCAC      0.720      4-5      0.537   
       6      GL      JCU 17-7      OAC      0.708      2-5      0.563   
       7      GL      Denison 21-4      NCAC      0.840      3-2      0.466   
       8      GL      Ohio Wes 19-6      NCAC      0.760      3-4      0.508   
       9      GL      Ohio North 16-9      OAC      0.640      2-4      0.550   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      M-ATL      CNU 23-2      CAC      0.920      2-2      0.522   
       2      M-ATL      Susquehanna 20-4      LAND      0.833      3-2      0.546   
       3      M-ATL      Lycoming 20-4      MACC      0.833      0-1      0.525   
       4      M-ATL      Swarthmore 20-5      CC       0.800      2-2      0.523   
       5      M-ATL      Scranton 19-6      LAND      0.760      5-3      0.524   
       6      M-ATL      Salisbury 19-6      CAC      0.760      3-3      0.524   
       7      M-ATL      Catholic 17-8      LAND      0.680      2-5      0.546   
       8      M-ATL      Moravian 17-6      LAND      0.739      4-4      0.510   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      NE      Babson 24-1      NEWMAC      0.960      4-1      0.572   
       2      NE      Middlebury 22-3      NESCAC      0.880      7-3      0.605   
       3      NE      Tufts 20-5      NESCAC      0.800      4-3      0.562   
       4      NE      Wesleyan 19-6      NESCAC      0.760      4-3      0.560   
       5      NE      Amherst 17-7      NESCAC      0.708      5-5      0.595   
       6      NE      Williams 18-7      NESCAC      0.720      5-4      0.584   
       7      NE      MIT 19-6      NEWMAC      0.760      0-4      0.540   
       8      NE      E Conn 17-8      LEC      0.680      3-4      0.563   
       9      NE      Keene St 17-8      LEC      0.680      2-3      0.572   
       10      NE      Endicott 20-5      CCC      0.800      1-1      0.510   
       11      NE      Mass-Dart 16-9      LEC      0.640      4-2      0.545   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      SOUTH      Hardin-Simmons 18-6      ASC      0.750      3-1      0.556   
       2      SOUTH      Emory 17-7      UAA      0.708      2-3      0.541   
       3      SOUTH      Guilford 20-5      ODAC      0.800      2-2      0.500   
       4      SOUTH      Con Tex 16-6      ASC      0.727      1-2      0.539   
       5      SOUTH      LeTourneau 18-4      ASC      0.818      1-1      0.486   
       6      SOUTH      RMC 17-8      ODAC      0.680      1-3      0.523   
       7      SOUTH      Emory & Henry 17-7      ODAC      0.708      1-4      0.527   
       8      SOUTH      VWC 17-8      ODAC      0.680      1-6      0.531   
       RK      Reg      School      Con      Win%      vRRO      SoS   
       1      WEST      Whitman 25-0      NWC      1.000      4-0      0.535   
       2      WEST      Whitworth 22-3      NWC      0.880      1-2      0.527   
       3      WEST      St Thomas 19-6      MIAC      0.760      0-1      0.522   
       4      WEST      Loras 18-7      IIAC      0.720      1-2      0.544   
       5      WEST      Neb Wes 17-6      IIAC      0.739      1-1      0.521   
       6      WEST      CMS 17-3      SCIAC      0.850      2-2      0.486   
       7      WEST      Carleton  16-7      MIAC      0.696      1-2      0.523   
       8      WEST      Cal Lutheran 17-6      SCIAC      0.739      3-3      0.502   

    Looking at this, I am hardpressed to find any useful information on how the committee may weigh things for the last few picks.  The only thing I noticed conclusively is that you will be punished for bad SOS as the teams with SOS less than .500 seem to be lower than they would be otherwise.

    Does anyone undertstand why Catholic is ahead of Moravian?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 24, 2017, 09:52:29 AM
    Seems like the teams that the Pool C bubble teams need to be rooting hard for to win their conference tourneys are: Babson, River Falls, Benedictine, Hope, Marietta, SJF, Neumann, Lycoming and Hanover.  Oshkosh would definitely steal a bid while River Falls is a lock.  The rest of those are one-bid leagues, most likely, that become probable two-bid leagues with an upset.  If more than a few of those teams fall, it starts gettting really crowded in the Pool C picture ...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 24, 2017, 11:12:30 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 24, 2017, 09:52:29 AM
    Seems like the teams that the Pool C bubble teams need to be rooting hard for to win their conference tourneys are: Babson, River Falls, Benedictine, Hope, Marietta, SJF, Neumann, Lycoming and Hanover.  Oshkosh would definitely steal a bid while River Falls is a lock.  The rest of those are one-bid leagues, most likely, that become probable two-bid leagues with an upset.  If more than a few of those teams fall, it starts gettting really crowded in the Pool C picture ...

    Mount Saint Joseph beating Hanover probably doesn't burst anyone's bubble.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2017, 11:18:24 AM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 24, 2017, 11:12:30 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 24, 2017, 09:52:29 AM
    Seems like the teams that the Pool C bubble teams need to be rooting hard for to win their conference tourneys are: Babson, River Falls, Benedictine, Hope, Marietta, SJF, Neumann, Lycoming and Hanover.  Oshkosh would definitely steal a bid while River Falls is a lock.  The rest of those are one-bid leagues, most likely, that become probable two-bid leagues with an upset.  If more than a few of those teams fall, it starts gettting really crowded in the Pool C picture ...

    Mount Saint Joseph beating Hanover probably doesn't burst anyone's bubble.

    I think it does. Hanover has a good shot at a Pool C. I don't think MSJ gets in without the AQ.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2017, 12:04:55 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2017, 11:18:24 AM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 24, 2017, 11:12:30 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 24, 2017, 09:52:29 AM
    Seems like the teams that the Pool C bubble teams need to be rooting hard for to win their conference tourneys are: Babson, River Falls, Benedictine, Hope, Marietta, SJF, Neumann, Lycoming and Hanover.  Oshkosh would definitely steal a bid while River Falls is a lock.  The rest of those are one-bid leagues, most likely, that become probable two-bid leagues with an upset.  If more than a few of those teams fall, it starts gettting really crowded in the Pool C picture ...

    Mount Saint Joseph beating Hanover probably doesn't burst anyone's bubble.

    I think it does. Hanover has a good shot at a Pool C. I don't think MSJ gets in without the AQ.

    I think that MSJ would be very competitive for a Pool C with if they lose the final to Hanover, and have a shot even if they lose the semi.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 24, 2017, 12:06:46 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2017, 11:18:24 AM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 24, 2017, 11:12:30 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 24, 2017, 09:52:29 AM
    Seems like the teams that the Pool C bubble teams need to be rooting hard for to win their conference tourneys are: Babson, River Falls, Benedictine, Hope, Marietta, SJF, Neumann, Lycoming and Hanover.  Oshkosh would definitely steal a bid while River Falls is a lock.  The rest of those are one-bid leagues, most likely, that become probable two-bid leagues with an upset.  If more than a few of those teams fall, it starts gettting really crowded in the Pool C picture ...
    Mount Saint Joseph beating Hanover probably doesn't burst anyone's bubble.
    I think it does. Hanover has a good shot at a Pool C. I don't think MSJ gets in without the AQ.
    I think a lot could depend on if Wooster beats Denison tonight. If MSJ gets leaped by Wooster, I would agree.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2017, 12:09:28 PM
    Big night for the CCIW. They could be a 1-bid league. The highest ranked CCIW team, Augustana, already lost this week. The good news for them is that Eau Claire lost in their 1st round WIAC game, so there's hope that Augie or even Carthage could leapfrog the Blugolds. Carthage could go 2-1 this week. Not sure Augi's potential 1-2 could jump Eau Claire's 0-1 week.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2017, 12:11:14 PM
    Through Thursday's games...  (modified after finding another coding issue)

    Officially clinched berth (1)
    A) Washington U. (20-4, 0.577, 7-2 vRRO, CE#2) won UAA AQ

    Locks or near-locks (15)
    A) Chris Newport (24-2, 0.528, 3-2, MA#1) (#7/#7) lock, 85% CAC AQ
    A) Marietta (23-4, 0.578, 4-4, GL#1) (#5/#6) lock, 83% OAC AQ
    A) Babson (24-1, 0.578, 4-1, NE#1) (#2/#2) lock, 82% NEWMAC AQ
    A) Whitman (26-0, 0.538, 4-0, WE#1) (#4/#4) lock, 76% NWC AQ
    A) Neumann (24-2, 0.508, 6-0, AT#1) (#15/#8) lock, 75% CSAC AQ
    A) UW-River Falls (21-3, 0.591, 7-3, CE#1) (#3/#3) lock, 70% WIAC AQ
    A) Middlebury (22-3, 0.610, 6-3, NE#2) (#1/#1) lock, 45% NESCAC AQ
    C#1) Tufts (20-5, 0.565, 4-3, NE#3) (#8/#10) lock, 30% NESCAC AQ
    C#2) Susquehanna (20-5, 0.559, 4-4, MA#2) (#12/#13) lock, no AQ
    C#3) Rochester (21-3, 0.532, 4-1, EA#1) (#10/#9) near-lock, no AQ
    C#4) Amherst (17-7, 0.599, 5-5, NE#5) (#9/#11) near-lock, no AQ
    A) Ramapo (24-2, 0.498, 6-2, AT#2) (#20/#17) near-lock, 72% NJAC AQ
    A) Hardin-Simmons (20-6, 0.557, 3-1, SO#1) (#16/#15) near-lock, 39% ASC AQ
    C#5) UW-Whitewater (20-6, 0.570, 3-5, CE#3) (#13/#14) near-lock, no AQ
    C#6) Wesleyan (CT) (19-6, 0.560, 4-3, NE#4) (#18/#16) near-lock, no AQ

    Strong position (9) (80%+ for Pool C, if no AQ)
    A) Hanover (19-3, 0.520, 2-2, GL#2) (#21/#19) 99% (57% HCAC or 98% C), 99% if CF, 96% if lose out
    C#7) Whitworth (23-3, 0.528, 0-2, WE#2) (#11/#22) 97% (24% NWC or 96% C), 96% if CF
    C#8) New Jersey City (21-6, 0.519, 5-3, AT#3) (#41/#24) 96% (28% NJAC or 95% C), 95% if CF
    A) Scranton (20-6, 0.536, 7-3, MA#5) (#29/#18) 97% (59% LAND or 93% C), 93% if CF
    C#9) Williams (18-7, 0.585, 6-4, NE#6) (#14/#12) 94% (13% NESCAC or 93% C), 100% if CF, 90% if lose out
    A) Lycoming (21-4, 0.530, 1-1, MA#3) (#17/#20) 98% (81% MACC or 91% C), 91% if CF
    C#10) Salisbury (20-6, 0.533, 3-3, MA#6) (#30/#23) 93% (15% CAC or 91% C), 91% if CF
    A) Hope (19-4, 0.520, 2-1, GL#3) (#24/#21) 96% (63% MIAA or 90% C), 93% if CF, 84% if lose out
    A) Swarthmore (20-5, 0.521, 1-1, MA#4) (#31/#28) 93% (51% CC or 85% C), 90% if CF, 79% if lose out

    Bubble teams if no AQ (21) (20-79% for Pool C if no AQ)
    A) St John Fisher (20-5, 0.545, 0-3, EA#2) (#19/#32) 93% (72% E8 or 75% C), 81% if CF, 67% if lose out
    C#11) Skidmore (19-7, 0.525, 6-1, EA#3) (#59/#25) 72% C
    C#12) Wooster (19-7, 0.537, 3-5, GL#5) (#39/#37) 74% (25% NCAC or 66% C), 86% if CF, 52% if lose out
    C#13) Mt St Joseph (18-5, 0.509, 2-1, GL#4) (#55/#40) 72% (22% HCAC or 65% C), 78% if CF, 52% if lose out
    C#14) Cabrini (19-6, 0.531, 2-3, AT#4) (#34/#30) 60% C
    C#15) St Lawrence (19-6, 0.522, 3-5, EA#4) (#44/#39) 52% C
    A) Oswego State (18-6, 0.522, 3-2, EA#5) (#52/#35) 70% (39% SUNYAC or 51% C), 61% if CF, 44% if lose out
    projected cut line (after more Pool C berths disappear when strong teams don't win Pool A berths)
    C#16) UW-Eau Claire (17-8, 0.571, 3-4, CE#4) (#26/#42) 46% C
    A) Guilford (21-5, 0.503, 3-2, SO#3) (#46/#41) 67% (41% ODAC or 44% C), 65% if CF, 30% if lose out
    C#17) Illinois Wesleyan (17-8, 0.557, 6-2, CE) (#38/#36) 38% C
    C#18) St Thomas (MN) (19-7, 0.530, 1-2, WE#3) (#50/#47) 38% C
    C#19) Emory (17-7, 0.545, 1-3, SO#2) (#42/#44) 37% C
    C#20) Brockport (19-6, 0.518, 2-3, EA#6) (#53/#43) 58% (34% SUNYAC or 36% C), 46% if CF, 26% if lose out
    C#21) Concordia (TX) (18-6, 0.544, 1-3, SO#4) (#27/#31) 51% (23% ASC or 36% C), 72% if CF, 23% if lose out
    C#22) MIT (19-6, 0.545, 0-4, NE#7) (#25/#48) 45% (14% NEWMAC or 36% C), 48% if CF, 16% if lose out
    A) Benedictine (IL) (21-3, 0.491, 1-0, CE#7) (#32/#52) 75% (63% NACC or 32% C), 48% if CF, 15% if lose out
    A) E Connecticut (18-8, 0.565, 3-4, NE#8) (#28/#29) 68% (53% LEC or 32% C), 44% if CF, 14% if lose out
    A) Carthage (17-7, 0.550, 2-2, CE#6) (#35/#27) 62% (45% CCIW or 31% C), 57% if CF, 10% if lose out
    C#23) Augustana (18-7, 0.535, 2-2, CE#5) (#48/#38) 45% (21% CCIW or 31% C), 54% if CF, 17% if lose out
    C#24) UW-Oshkosh (17-9, 0.592, 5-5, CE#8) (#22/#51) 50% (30% WIAC or 29% C), 29% if CF
    C#25) Keene State (18-8, 0.571, 2-3, NE#9) (#23/#26) 44% (24% LEC or 26% C), 55% if CF, 7% if lose out

    Longshots for Pool C (5) (10%-19% if no AQ)
    C#26) Denison (22-4, 0.466, 3-2, GL#7) (#74/#80) 30% (18% NCAC or 15% C), 37% if CF, 5% if lose out
    C#27) Endicott (22-5, 0.511, 1-1, NE#10) (#33/#34) 49% (42% CCC or 12% C), 12% if CF
    C#28) LeTourneau (21-4, 0.482, 1-1, SO#5) (#62/#67) 41% (33% ASC or 12% C), 31% if CF, 1% if lose out
    C#29) St John's (MN) (19-7, 0.510, 2-3, WE) (#73/#56) 41% (34% MIAC or 10% C), 10% if CF
    C#30) Nebraska Wesleyan (17-7, 0.525, 1-1, WE#5) (#67/#53) 10% C

    Real Longshots for Pool C
    C#31) Loras (18-8, 0.548, 1-1, WE#4) (#43/#49) 7% C
    A) St Norbert (19-4, 0.501, 1-2, CE) (#40/#50) 58% (55% MWC or 5% C), 8% if CF, 1% if lose out
    A) C-M-S (18-3, 0.485, 1-1, WE#6) (#45/#62) 50% (48% SCIAC or 5% C), 8% if CF, 1% if lose out
    C#32) John Carroll (17-8, 0.559, 2-5, GL#6) (#37/#55) 5% C
    C#33) Moravian (18-6, 0.521, 5-4, MA#8) (#56/#33) 43% (41% LAND or 4% C), 4% if CF
    C#34) North Park (18-7, 0.525, 2-2, CE) (#63/#46) 24% (21% CCIW or 3% C), 9% if CF

    Other conference favorites (not realistic Pool C candidates)
    A) Staten Island (20-5, 0.499, 0-4, AT#7) (#57/#71) 73% CUNYAC
    A) Albertus Magnus (22-4, 0.485, 0-2, NE) (#54/#75) 72% GNAC
    A) So Vermont (17-8, 0.496, 0-2, NE) (#123/#101) 71% NECC
    A) Farmingdale State (19-7, 0.479, 0-2, AT) (#117/#99) 67% SKY
    A) Bethel (MN) (19-6, 0.495, 2-3, WE) (#78/#65) 66% MIAC
    A) Misericordia (19-7, 0.513, 1-4, AT) (#71/#59) 66% MACF
    A) Husson (19-6, 0.488, 0-0, NE) (#94/#82) 64% NAC
    A) Salem State (16-10, 0.517, 1-4, NE) (#129/#128) 63% MASCAC
    A) Central (IA) (16-11, 0.556, 2-6, WE) (#85/#126) 61% IIAC
    A) Union (NY) (15-9, 0.534, 1-6, EA#8) (#97/#114) 59% LL
    A) Nichols (22-5, 0.476, 1-1, NE) (#77/#79) 58% CCC
    A) St Vincent (20-6, 0.490, 1-0, GL) (#84/#73) 57% PAC
    A) Medaille (19-5, 0.460, 0-0, GL) (#113/#112) 54% AMCC
    A) Northwestern (MN) (18-7, 0.455, 0-0, WE) (#166/#132) 53% UMAC
    A) Rhodes (14-10, 0.449, 0-1, SO) (#260/#219) 53% SAA
    A) Greenville (IL) (19-5, 0.461, 0-0, CE) (#109/#110) 50% SLIAC
    A) Ohio Wesleyan (20-6, 0.503, 2-3, GL#8) (#66/#57) 49% NCAC
    A) Morrisville State (20-5, 0.464, 0-0, EA) (#101/#104) 48% NEAC
    A) Schreiner (14-11, 0.551, 0-5, SO) (#106/#156) 43% SCAC
    A) Averett (12-13, 0.523, 1-3, SO) (#201/#209) 32% USAC
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2017, 12:15:05 PM
    It seems that semifinal Friday is the big day for bubble teams, some of whom could greatly improve their Pool C chances by reaching a conference final against a regionally-ranked opponent.
    (Note: The "at" here doesn't necessarily indicate a true road game; I need to go back and fix that.)

    Concordia (TX) (18-6, 0.544, 1-3, SO#4) 72%/23% at LeTourneau (21-4, 0.482, 1-1, SO#5) 31%/1%
    Wooster (19-7, 0.537, 3-5, GL#5) 86%/52% at Denison (22-4, 0.466, 3-2, GL#7) 37%/5%
    Keene State (18-8, 0.571, 2-3, NE#9) 55%/7% at Mass-Dartmouth (17-9, 0.548, 4-2)
    N Central (IL) (15-9, 0.548, 1-4) at Carthage (17-7, 0.550, 2-2, CE#6) 57%/10%
    Augustana (18-7, 0.535, 2-2, CE#5) 54%/17% at North Park (18-7, 0.525, 2-2)
    Wisconsin Lutheran (16-10, 0.475, 0-2) at Benedictine (IL) (21-3, 0.491, 1-0, CE#7) 48%/15%
    Mass-Boston (13-12, 0.533, 2-6) at E Connecticut (18-8, 0.565, 3-4, NE#8) 44%/14%
    Brockport (19-6, 0.518, 2-3, EA#6) 46%/26% at SUNY Oneonta (16-10, 0.530, 3-6)
    Buffalo State (15-8, 0.522, 3-5) at Oswego State (18-6, 0.522, 3-2, EA#5) 61%/44%
    Nazareth (15-10, 0.524, 2-3) at St John Fisher (20-5, 0.545, 0-3, EA#2) 81%/67%
    Ursinus (15-11, 0.508, 0-2) at Swarthmore (20-5, 0.521, 1-1, MA#4) 90%/79%

    Bubble-dwellers want to see Hope win in the MIAA tonight, as well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2017, 03:46:50 PM
    Quote from: AppletonRocks on February 23, 2017, 10:56:25 PM
    Oshkosh declawed the Whitewater Warhawks tonight in WIAC semifinal.  The men in purple did not look good tonight.  But I know only the numbers matter.  Pat Coleman has now trained me to shut up,  sit in the corner and pound on my calculator to determine who is the best team.   8-)

    I'll bite. How else do you determine who is the best team in Division III? Don't tell me the eye test. No one has seen all 400+ teams this year, much less multiple times. Committee members have gone on Hoopsville and talked about how they have to trust the numbers because, although they do watch a lot of action around the country, they simply can't see everyone in meaningful sample sizes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AppletonRocks on February 24, 2017, 04:43:04 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2017, 03:46:50 PM
    Quote from: AppletonRocks on February 23, 2017, 10:56:25 PM
    Oshkosh declawed the Whitewater Warhawks tonight in WIAC semifinal.  The men in purple did not look good tonight.  But I know only the numbers matter.  Pat Coleman has now trained me to shut up,  sit in the corner and pound on my calculator to determine who is the best team.   8-)

    I'll bite. How else do you determine who is the best team in Division III? Don't tell me the eye test. No one has seen all 400+ teams this year, much less multiple times. Committee members have gone on Hoopsville and talked about how they have to trust the numbers because, although they do watch a lot of action around the country, they simply can't see everyone in meaningful sample sizes.

    I respect that.  But the numbers could tell who was playing well NOW vs. later.  Winning later, especially in a tough conference, should be worth more than a perfect pre-season record but a modestly successful league season.  A November game and a Febraury game have the same value.   But as I said, I don't have the solution, but trend could easily be considered like it is in the D1 committee selections.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2017, 05:09:54 PM
    Central Region Pool C thoughts - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4592.msg1793238#msg1793238.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2017, 05:32:02 PM
    So, I found another coding issue  :-[, this one related to how poor SOS gets penalized.  I have also come to the conclusion, looking at regional rankings, that .700 WP might be the new .720 WP, and that even something in the high .600s might be okay this year, given parity and two more Pool C berths.  Making those two fixes (shown above) explained some of the regional rankings questions that I had, and changed some teams positions substantially (putting IWU back into play, for one).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2017, 06:01:16 PM
    Quote from: AppletonRocks on February 24, 2017, 04:43:04 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2017, 03:46:50 PM
    Quote from: AppletonRocks on February 23, 2017, 10:56:25 PM
    Oshkosh declawed the Whitewater Warhawks tonight in WIAC semifinal.  The men in purple did not look good tonight.  But I know only the numbers matter.  Pat Coleman has now trained me to shut up,  sit in the corner and pound on my calculator to determine who is the best team.   8-)

    I'll bite. How else do you determine who is the best team in Division III? Don't tell me the eye test. No one has seen all 400+ teams this year, much less multiple times. Committee members have gone on Hoopsville and talked about how they have to trust the numbers because, although they do watch a lot of action around the country, they simply can't see everyone in meaningful sample sizes.

    I respect that.  But the numbers could tell who was playing well NOW vs. later.  Winning later, especially in a tough conference, should be worth more than a perfect pre-season record but a modestly successful league season.  A November game and a Febraury game have the same value.   But as I said, I don't have the solution, but trend could easily be considered like it is in the D1 committee selections.

    Yes... a November and February game have the same value. That is true in all sports. Late August football game is equal to mid-November. February lacrosse or baseball equal to late April games. That is how all NCAA selections in all divisions, best I know, work EXCEPT Division I basketball. To change that, you need to change the position of all sports across the board. That isn't going to happen. There is a strong feeling that rewarding a team for how they finished the last ten games as if the first ten didn't matter (not pre-season games, by the way; can we please stop calling non-conference games pre-season games? What do you call them if they are played after conference games start?) is not fair nor does it represent what a team has done over a season.

    Sure, I can see a lot of examples of where that isn't "fair." Amherst is 8-6 since the start of 2017. They may make the tournament because they had such a strong finish. It happens.

    But you have to understand, this isn't a basketball-only decision when it comes to criteria. You can read criteria from countless handbooks and the same structure and base criteria is the same for all of them.

    I will also say, because of how conference schedules constantly change and move in terms of when you play certain teams... talking about how a team finishes compared to another is a dynamic that is grossly unfair. Some team can go with just two losses in the final ten because they ran the last part against the bottom of the conference where as another team suffered four losses because they played nothing but the top of the conference. It isn't a fair comparison. Leave it Division I where it doesn't even belong. Too many teams get "rewarded" because they finished a season strong despite stinking the entire time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2017, 08:14:57 PM
    Only one significant result from the early games ... Brockport's bubble gets thin after a SUNYAC semifinal loss to Oneonta, leaving them at 19-7, .522 SOS, 2-3 vRRO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Knightstalker on February 24, 2017, 10:01:37 PM
    Ramapo wins the NJAC putting NJCU into the Pool C mix at 21-7.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AppletonRocks on February 24, 2017, 10:04:36 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2017, 06:01:16 PM
    Quote from: AppletonRocks on February 24, 2017, 04:43:04 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2017, 03:46:50 PM
    Quote from: AppletonRocks on February 23, 2017, 10:56:25 PM
    Oshkosh declawed the Whitewater Warhawks tonight in WIAC semifinal.  The men in purple did not look good tonight.  But I know only the numbers matter.  Pat Coleman has now trained me to shut up,  sit in the corner and pound on my calculator to determine who is the best team.   8-)

    I'll bite. How else do you determine who is the best team in Division III? Don't tell me the eye test. No one has seen all 400+ teams this year, much less multiple times. Committee members have gone on Hoopsville and talked about how they have to trust the numbers because, although they do watch a lot of action around the country, they simply can't see everyone in meaningful sample sizes.

    I respect that.  But the numbers could tell who was playing well NOW vs. later.  Winning later, especially in a tough conference, should be worth more than a perfect pre-season record but a modestly successful league season.  A November game and a Febraury game have the same value.   But as I said, I don't have the solution, but trend could easily be considered like it is in the D1 committee selections.

    Yes... a November and February game have the same value. That is true in all sports. Late August football game is equal to mid-November. February lacrosse or baseball equal to late April games. That is how all NCAA selections in all divisions, best I know, work EXCEPT Division I basketball. To change that, you need to change the position of all sports across the board. That isn't going to happen. There is a strong feeling that rewarding a team for how they finished the last ten games as if the first ten didn't matter (not pre-season games, by the way; can we please stop calling non-conference games pre-season games? What do you call them if they are played after conference games start?) is not fair nor does it represent what a team has done over a season.

    Sure, I can see a lot of examples of where that isn't "fair." Amherst is 8-6 since the start of 2017. They may make the tournament because they had such a strong finish. It happens.

    But you have to understand, this isn't a basketball-only decision when it comes to criteria. You can read criteria from countless handbooks and the same structure and base criteria is the same for all of them.

    I will also say, because of how conference schedules constantly change and move in terms of when you play certain teams... talking about how a team finishes compared to another is a dynamic that is grossly unfair. Some team can go with just two losses in the final ten because they ran the last part against the bottom of the conference where as another team suffered four losses because they played nothing but the top of the conference. It isn't a fair comparison. Leave it Division I where it doesn't even belong. Too many teams get "rewarded" because they finished a season strong despite stinking the entire time.

    I hear Dave Mason singing  ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 24, 2017, 10:17:45 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2017, 03:46:50 PM
    Quote from: AppletonRocks on February 23, 2017, 10:56:25 PM
    Oshkosh declawed the Whitewater Warhawks tonight in WIAC semifinal.  The men in purple did not look good tonight.  But I know only the numbers matter.  Pat Coleman has now trained me to shut up,  sit in the corner and pound on my calculator to determine who is the best team.   8-)

    I'll bite. How else do you determine who is the best team in Division III? Don't tell me the eye test. No one has seen all 400+ teams this year, much less multiple times. Committee members have gone on Hoopsville and talked about how they have to trust the numbers because, although they do watch a lot of action around the country, they simply can't see everyone in meaningful sample sizes.

    Why are you feeding the trolls?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2017, 11:07:38 PM
    So far tonight, St John Fisher and Wooster both move up from the bubble to strong Pool C positions with semifinal wins.  Oswego, Benedictine, Keene St, Augustana, and Eastern Connecticut improved their positions in the bubble group, and LeTourneau moves up to the bubble.  On the flip side, the Pool C chances of Concordia(TX), Carthage drop with losses, and Denison is probably out of contention.

    For now, my last few in are Keene St, MSJ, St Lawrence, and UW-Eau Claire, with St Thomas, IWU, and MIT out.  Emory's fate likely rests in their own hands tomorrow, in a non-tournament game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 24, 2017, 11:32:46 PM
    Bubble team Mount St Joseph took a hit tonight without playing. With Manchester upsetting Anderson in the 1st round of the HCAC tourney, the Lions will go from playing a team that would have been 18-8 had they won to a team that is only 10-16. Considering MSJ has a SoS that's not much above .500 that could be big.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2017, 07:24:10 AM
    In my mock Pool C selections, I had Emory the only team coming out of the South. It will be interesting if Emory loses today to Rochester. Guilford won their QF game and plays a hot VWC team. I wonder if their 1-1 record will be enough to jump Emory's 0-1 record if Guilford loses today. LeTourneau will go 2-1 if they lose and they are sure to jump Concordia Texas.

    In the Central, it will be interesting if Augustana jumps Eau Claire  (0-1 this week) if they lose to NCC in the CCIW final. Either way, they don't have a great SoS.

    In the Northeast, will Williams' win over Amherst knock the Lord Jeffs out of the NCAAs.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 09:54:55 AM
    Pool C projection through play of Friday 2/24.  Note, this is a snapshot as of today - teams will continue to move up and down with each result.

    (Data courtesy of Matt Snyder - http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/.)

    Tier 1 - Projected In Easily/No Drama
    1. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .880/.610/6-3  vs Trinity, NESCAC semis
    2. UW-Whitewater (C/WIAC): .769/.568/3-5   done
    3. Susquehanna (MA/LAND): .800/.556/4-4   done
    4. Rochester (E/UAA): .875/.527/4-1   at Emory
    5. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .708/.597/5-5   done
    6. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .720/.586/6-4   at Tufts, NESCAC semis
    7. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .741/.546/4-5   at Ohio Wesleyan, NCAC final
    8. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .760/.560/4-3   done
    9. Salisbury (MA/CAC): .769/.532/3-3   at Christopher Newport, CAC final
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .750/.532/5-4   done

    Tier 2 - Projected In
    11. St. Lawrence (E/LL): .769/.525/3-5   done
    12. Cabrini (AT/CSAC): .760/.531/2-3   done
    13. Skidmore (E/LL): .731/.526/6-1   done
    14. Keene State (NE/LEC): .704/.572/3-3   at Eastern Conn, LEC final
    15. Whitworth (W/NWC): .885/.526/0-2   at Whitman, NWC final

    Tier 3 - The Bubble/At the mercy of upsets
    16. UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC): .680/.570/3-4   done
    17. llinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW): .680/.556/6-2   done
    18. Brockport (E/SUYAC): .731/.523/2-3   done
    19. St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .731/.529/1-2   done
    20. Guilford (S/ODAC): .808/.501/3-2   vs Virginia Wesleyan, ODAC semis
    21. Mount St. Joseph (GL/HCAC): .792/.511/2-1   vs Manchester, HCAC semis

    Projected Out
    22. MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .760/.539/0-4  at WPI, NEWMAC semis
    23. John Carroll (GL/OAC): .680/.560/2-5   done
    24. Carthage (C/CCIW): .680/.552/2-2   done
    25. Concordia TX (S/ASC): .708/.550/1-4   done
    26. Emory (S/UAA): .708/.539/1-3   vs Rochester
    27. UW-Oshkosh (C/WIAC): .654/.592/5-5   at UW-River Falls, WIAC final
    28. North Park (C/CCIW: .692/.532/2-3   done
    29. Loras (W/IIAC): .692/.547/1-1  done
    30. St. Norbert (C/MWC): .792/.504/1-2   done
    31. LeTourneau (S/ASC): .833/.496/2-1   vs Hardin-Simmons, ASC final
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 25, 2017, 10:39:10 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 09:54:55 AM

    7. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .741/.546/4-5   at Ohio Wesleyan, NCAC final
    18. John Carroll (GL/OAC): .680/.560/2-5   done
    24. Mount St. Joseph (GL/HCAC): .792/.511/2-1   vs Manchester, HCAC semis

    These are your Great Lakes teams.  Mt. St. Joseph has been ranked ahead of JCU and Wooster in all 3 polls.  MSJ holds a very key head-to-head win over JCU.  JCU has head-to-head losses to MSJ, Hanover and Hope  (3 teams all ranked ahead of them) plus 1-1 vs #1 ranked Marietta .  It seems to me pretty close to impossible for JCU to be ranked ahead of MSJ.  Remember JCU exited the OAC tournament in the quarterfinal.

    I see where you're going with Wooster's criteria, but definition of Pool C is another loss for Wooster, if MSJ makes the HCAC title game, I don't see Wooster moving ahead of MSJ either.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 10:44:01 AM
    Here's what I have through Friday's games...

    Probabilities are based on 5,000 simulations of remaining games and auto mock selection process.  Rankings are pseudo-RPI (via 2 wins = .030 SOS) followed by a ranking adjusted for WP<.700 & SOS<.510, number of wins vRRO, and based on regional rankings order.

    Officially clinched berth (3)
    A) Washington U. (20-4, 0.578, 7-2, CE#2) (#6/#5) won UAA AQ
    A) Ramapo (25-2, 0.506, 7-2, AT#2) (#16/#12) won NJAC AQ
    A) Staten Island (21-5, 0.506, 0-4, AT#7) (#44/#64) won CUNYAC AQ

    Locks or near-locks (15)
    A) Chris Newport (24-2, 0.529, 3-2, MA#1) (#7/#7) lock, 86% CAC AQ
    A) Marietta (23-4, 0.578, 4-4, GL#1) (#5/#6) lock, 83% OAC AQ
    A) Babson (24-1, 0.578, 4-1, NE#1) (#2/#2) lock, 81% NEWMAC AQ
    A) Whitman (26-0, 0.539, 4-0, WE#1) (#4/#4) lock, 76% NWC AQ
    A) Neumann (24-2, 0.508, 6-0, AT#1) (#15/#8) lock, 74% CSAC AQ
    A) UW-River Falls (21-3, 0.590, 7-3, CE#1) (#3/#3) lock, 71% WIAC AQ
    A) Middlebury (22-3, 0.612, 6-3, NE#2) (#1/#1) lock, 45% NESCAC AQ
    C#1) Susquehanna (20-5, 0.560, 4-4, MA#2) (#11/#14) lock, no AQ
    C#2) Tufts (20-5, 0.564, 4-3, NE#3) (#9/#11) near-lock, 31% NESCAC AQ
    C#3) Hardin-Simmons (21-6, 0.556, 3-1, SO#1) (#18/#15) near-lock, 47% ASC AQ
    C#4) Rochester (21-3, 0.532, 4-1, EA#1) (#10/#9) near-lock, no AQ
    C#5) Wesleyan (CT) (19-6, 0.560, 4-3, NE#4) (#19/#17) near-lock, no AQ
    C#6) Amherst (17-7, 0.600, 5-5, NE#5) (#8/#10) near-lock, no AQ
    C#7) UW-Whitewater (20-6, 0.570, 3-5, CE#3) (#13/#16) near-lock, no AQ
    A) Lycoming (21-4, 0.530, 1-1, MA#3) (#20/#21) near-lock, 83% MACC AQ

    Strong position (10) (80%+ for Pool C, if no AQ)
    A) Hanover (19-3, 0.519, 2-2, GL#2) (#21/#19) 99% (61% HCAC or 98% C), 99% if CF, 98% if lose out
    C#8) Whitworth (23-3, 0.527, 0-2, WE#2) (#12/#23) 98% (24% NWC or 97% C)
    C#9) New Jersey City (21-7, 0.533, 5-4, AT#3) (#38/#27) 97% C
    A) Scranton (20-6, 0.536, 7-3, MA#5) (#30/#18) 98% (59% LAND or 95% C)
    C#10) Williams (18-7, 0.586, 6-4, NE#6) (#14/#13) 95% (13% NESCAC or 95% C), 100% if CF, 92% if lose out
    C#11) Salisbury (20-6, 0.535, 3-3, MA#6) (#33/#25) 94% (14% CAC or 93% C)
    A) Hope (20-4, 0.521, 2-1, GL#3) (#24/#22) 98% (73% MIAA or 92% C)
    A) Swarthmore (21-5, 0.524, 1-1, MA#4) (#27/#29) 97% (72% CC or 89% C)
    C#12) Wooster (20-7, 0.546, 4-5, GL#5) (#32/#26) 93% (37% NCAC or 89% C)
    A) St John Fisher (21-5, 0.549, 0-3, EA#2) (#17/#30) 98% (81% E8 or 88% C)

    Bubble teams if no AQ (19) (20-79% for Pool C if no AQ)
    C#13) Skidmore (19-7, 0.524, 6-1, EA#3) (#62/#28) 74% C
    C#14) Cabrini (19-6, 0.532, 2-3, AT#4) (#34/#32) 64% C
    A) Oswego State (19-6, 0.526, 3-2, EA#5) (#42/#31) 88% (70% SUNYAC or 61% C)
    A) Augustana (19-7, 0.540, 2-2, CE#5) (#40/#33) 83% (58% CCIW or 60% C)
    C#15) Keene State (19-8, 0.574, 3-3, NE#9) (#22/#20) 74% (36% LEC or 59% C)
    C#16) Mt St Joseph (18-5, 0.509, 2-1, GL#4) (#54/#39) 68% (26% HCAC or 56% C), 69% if CF, 30% if lose out
    C#17) St Lawrence (19-6, 0.523, 3-5, EA#4) (#47/#38) 55% C
    A) E Connecticut (19-8, 0.565, 3-4, NE#8) (#26/#24) 83% (64% LEC or 52% C)
    projected cut line (after more Pool C berths disappear when strong teams don't win Pool A berths)
    A) Guilford (21-5, 0.504, 3-2, SO#3) (#49/#40) 70% (41% ODAC or 49% C), 70% if CF, 33% if lose out
    A) Benedictine (IL) (22-3, 0.496, 1-0, CE#7) (#28/#41) 88% (76% NACC or 48% C)
    C#18) UW-Eau Claire (17-8, 0.571, 3-4, CE#4) (#29/#42) 48% C
    C#19) St Thomas (MN) (19-7, 0.530, 1-2, WE#3) (#52/#45) 43% C
    C#20) Illinois Wesleyan (17-8, 0.557, 6-2, CE) (#41/#36) 41% C
    C#21) Emory (17-7, 0.544, 1-3, SO#2) (#43/#43) 38% C, 92% if win today, 4% if loss
    C#22) MIT (19-6, 0.544, 0-4, NE#7) (#25/#48) 46% (14% NEWMAC or 37% C), 48% if CF, 17% if lose out
    A) LeTourneau (22-4, 0.490, 2-1, SO#5) (#48/#55) 70% (53% ASC or 36% C)
    C#23) UW-Oshkosh (17-9, 0.592, 5-5, CE#8) (#23/#50) 51% (29% WIAC or 30% C)
    C#24) Brockport (19-7, 0.522, 2-3, EA#6) (#63/#47) 28% C
    C#25) Concordia (TX) (18-7, 0.554, 1-4, SO#4) (#31/#37) 27% C

    Longshots for Pool C (9) (5-19% if no AQ)
    C#26) Endicott (22-5, 0.511, 1-1, NE#10) (#35/#35) 51% (42% CCC or 14% C)
    C#27) Nebraska Wesleyan (17-7, 0.526, 1-1, WE#5) (#67/#52) 13% C
    C#28) St John's (MN) (19-7, 0.510, 2-3, WE) (#76/#56) 42% (34% MIAC or 12% C)
    C#29) Carthage (17-8, 0.553, 2-2, CE#6) (#46/#53) 12% C
    A) C-M-S (19-3, 0.491, 1-1, WE#6) (#37/#58) 62% (58% SCIAC or 10% C)
    C#30) Loras (18-8, 0.548, 1-1, WE#4) (#45/#49) 10% C
    C#31) Moravian (18-6, 0.520, 5-4, MA#8) (#57/#34) 44% (41% LAND or 5% C)
    C#32) John Carroll (17-8, 0.559, 2-5, GL#6) (#39/#54) 5% C
    C#33) Denison (22-5, 0.475, 3-3, GL#7) (#79/#77) 5% C

    Other conference favorites (not realistic Pool C candidates)
    A) Husson (20-6, 0.490, 0-0, NE) (#87/#80) 80% NAC
    A) Albertus Magnus (22-4, 0.485, 0-2, NE) (#56/#75) 73% GNAC
    A) Greenville (IL) (20-5, 0.465, 0-0, CE) (#100/#104) 71% SLIAC
    A) So Vermont (17-8, 0.496, 0-2, NE) (#124/#99) 70% NECC
    A) Ripon (19-5, 0.488, 1-1, CE) (#75/#72) 69% MWC
    A) Farmingdale State (19-7, 0.479, 0-2, AT) (#119/#100) 67% SKY
    A) Bethel (MN) (19-6, 0.495, 2-3, WE) (#80/#67) 66% MIAC
    A) Misericordia (19-7, 0.512, 1-4, AT) (#74/#61) 64% MACF
    A) Salem State (16-10, 0.517, 1-4, NE) (#130/#128) 63% MASCAC
    A) Ohio Wesleyan (21-6, 0.508, 2-3, GL#8) (#58/#46) 63% NCAC
    A) Central (IA) (16-11, 0.557, 2-6, WE) (#83/#122) 60% IIAC
    A) Methodist (16-9, 0.488, 1-1, SO) (#161/#136) 60% USAC
    A) Nichols (22-5, 0.476, 1-1, NE) (#78/#79) 58% CCC
    A) Union (NY) (15-9, 0.534, 1-6, EA#8) (#98/#113) 58% LL
    A) St Vincent (20-6, 0.490, 1-0, GL) (#88/#73) 57% PAC
    A) Medaille (19-5, 0.459, 0-0, GL) (#115/#117) 56% AMCC
    A) Rhodes (15-10, 0.444, 0-1, SO) (#260/#210) 54% SAA
    A) Northwestern (MN) (18-7, 0.455, 0-0, WE) (#170/#133) 53% UMAC
    A) Morrisville State (20-5, 0.463, 0-0, EA) (#102/#106) 46% NEAC
    A) Schreiner (14-11, 0.552, 0-5, SO) (#103/#155) 41% SCAC
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2017, 10:44:34 AM
    Wooster also gained an RRO and SOS boost over Denison. MSJ added nothing like that.

    I'd  lock in Wooster over MSJ in the next rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 10:52:44 AM
    Today's bubble games
    Percentages are Pool-C-bid-if-needed probabilities with win/loss today
    12:00 Rochester (21-3, 0.532, 4-1, EA#1, lock) at Emory (17-7, 0.544, 1-3, SO#2) 92%/4%
    1:00 VA Wesleyan (19-8, 0.528, 1-6) vs Guilford (21-5, 0.504, 3-2, SO#3) 70%/33%
    7:00 Mt St Joseph (18-5, 0.509, 2-1, GL#4) 69%/30% vs Manchester (10-15, 0.504, 0-4)
    7:30 MIT (19-6, 0.544, 0-4, NE#7) 48%/17% vs WPI (17-8, 0.536, 2-5)

    Potential "bid thief" games
    If these go the "wrong way", highly-ranked teams will drop into Pool C.  Bubble teams want the bold-ed teams to win these.
    2:00 Gwynedd Mercy (21-6, 0.496, 1-5, AT) at Neumann (24-2, 0.508, 6-0, AT#1)
    3:00 Wheaton (MA) (11-15, 0.512, 0-4, NE) at Babson (24-1, 0.578, 4-1, NE#1)
    4:00 Moravian (18-6, 0.520, 5-4, MA#8) at Scranton (20-6, 0.536, 7-3, MA#5)
    4:00 Stevens (18-7, 0.487, 1-2, EA) at St John Fisher (21-5, 0.549, 0-3, EA#2)
    4:00 Wooster (20-7, 0.546, 4-5, GL#5) at Ohio Wesleyan (21-6, 0.508, 2-3, GL#8)
    4:00 SUNY Oneonta (17-10, 0.536, 4-6, EA) at Oswego State (19-6, 0.526, 3-2, EA#5)
    4:00 Trinity (CT) (16-9, 0.564, 2-8, NE) at Middlebury (22-3, 0.612, 6-3, NE#2)
    5:00 Albright (13-13, 0.552, 1-4, MA) at Lycoming (21-4, 0.530, 1-1, MA#3)
    5:00 Transylvania (16-9, 0.506, 3-2, GL) at Hanover (19-3, 0.519, 2-2, GL#2)
    7:00 Dickinson (16-10, 0.522, 0-4, MA) at Swarthmore (21-5, 0.524, 1-1, MA#4)
    7:00 Hardin-Simmons (21-6, 0.556, 3-1, SO#1) at LeTourneau (22-4, 0.490, 2-1, SO#5)
    7:30 Calvin (15-8, 0.504, 2-3, GL) at Hope (20-4, 0.521, 2-1, GL#3)
    7:30 Baldwin-Wallace (15-12, 0.527, 2-6, GL) at Marietta (23-4, 0.578, 4-4, GL#1)
    8:00 N Central (IL) (16-9, 0.552, 2-4, CE) at Augustana (19-7, 0.540, 2-2, CE#5)
    8:00 UW-Oshkosh (17-9, 0.592, 5-5, CE#8) at UW-River Falls (21-3, 0.590, 7-3, CE#1)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 11:00:47 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 09:54:55 AM
    Pool C projection through play of Friday 2/24...

    (Data courtesy of Matt Snyder - http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/.)

    Tier 1 - Projected In Easily/No Drama
    1. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .880/.610/6-3  vs Trinity, NESCAC semis
    2. UW-Whitewater (C/WIAC): .769/.568/3-5   done
    3. Susquehana (MA/LAND): .800/.556/4-4   done
    4. Rochester (E/UAA): .875/.527/4-1   at Emory
    5. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .708/.597/5-5   done
    6. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .720/.586/6-4   at Tufts, NESCAC semis
    7. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .741/.546/4-5   at Ohio Wesleyan, NCAC final
    8. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .760/.560/4-3   done
    9. Salisbury (MA/CAC): .769/.532/3-3   at Christopher Newport, CAC final
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .750/.532/5-4   done

    Tier 2 - Projected In
    11. St. Lawrence (E/LL): .769/.525/3-5   done
    12. Cabrini (AT/CSAC): .760/.531/2-3   done
    13. Skidmore (E/LL): .731/.526/6-1   done
    14. Keene State (NE/LEC): .704/.572/3-3   at Eastern Conn, LEC final
    15. Whitworth (W/NWC): .885/.526/0-2   at Whitman, NWC final

    Tier 3 - The Bubble/At the mercy of upsets
    16. UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC): .680/.570/3-4   done
    17. llinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW): .680/.556/6-2   done
    18. John Carroll (GL/OAC): .680/.560/2-5   done
    19. Carthage (C/CCIW): .680/.552/2-2   done
    20. Brockport (E/SUYAC): .731/.523/2-3   done
    21. Guilford (S/ODAC): .808/.501/3-2   vs Virginia Wesleyan, ODAC semis

    Projected Out
    22. Concordia TX (S/ASC): .708/.550/1-4   done
    23. MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .760/.539/0-4  at WPI, NEWMAC semis
    24. Mount St. Joseph (GL/HCAC): .792/.511/2-1   vs Manchester, HCAC semis
    25. St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .731/.529/1-2   done
    26. Emory (S/UAA): .708/.539/1-3   vs Rochester
    27. UW-Oshkosh (C/WIAC): .654/.592/5-5   at UW-River Falls, WIAC final
    28. North Park (C/CCIW: .692/.532/2-3   done
    29. Loras (W/IIAC): .692/.547/1-1  done
    30. St. Norbert (C/MWC): .792/.504/1-2   done
    31. LeTourneau (S/ASC): .833/.496/2-1   vs Hardin-Simmons, ASC final

    It will be interesting to see what the committee does with the WP<.700 teams.  I have MIT, MSJ, St Thomas competing for those last Pool C berths, instead of JCU, Carthage, etc.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2017, 11:01:13 AM
    Relevant Pool C games

    ASC Championship
    HSU v LeTourneau - #1S HSU near lock, #5 LeTourneau not look good, should jump #4 Con Tex

    CAC Championship
    Salisbury v CNU - #1MA CNU lock, #6 Salisbury not looking good

    CC Championship
    Dickinson v Swarthmore - #4MA Swarthmore on the fence

    CCIW Championship
    NCC v Augustana - #5C Augustana on the fence

    CSAC Championship
    Gwynedd Mercy v Neumann - #1A Neumann near lock

    CCC Championship
    Endicott v Nichols - #10NE Endicott not looking good

    MACC Championship
    Albright v Lycoming - #3MA Lycoming near lock

    Empire 8 Championship
    Stevens v SJF - #2E SJF looking good

    HCAC semis
    Transylvania v Hanover - #3GL Hanover good shape
    Manchester v Mt St Joseph #5GL MSJ on the fence

    Landmark Championship
    Scranton v Moravian - #5MA Scranton on the fence, #8MA Moravian not looking good

    Liberty Championship
    Hobart v Union - #8E Union not looking good

    LEC Championship
    Keene St v E. Connecticut - #8NE and #9NE not looking good

    MIAA Championship
    Calvin v Hope - #3GL Hope looking good

    NESCAC semis
    Williams v Tufts - #6NE Williams good shape, #3NE Tufts near lock
    Trinity v Middlebury - #2NE Middlebury solid lock

    NEWMAC semis
    Springfield v Babson - #1NE Babson is a lock
    MIT v WPI - #7NE MIT on the fence

    NCAC Championship
    Wooster v Ohio Wesleyan #5GL Wooster on the fence, #8GL OWU not looking good

    NACC Championship
    Concordia (WI) v Benedictine - #7C Benedictine not looking good

    NWC Championship
    Whitworth v Whitman - #2W and #1W should be locks

    OAC Championship
    Baldwin Wallace v Marietta - #1GL Marietta a lock

    ODAC semis
    VWC v Guilford - #8S VWC not looking good, #3S Guilford on the fence
    Washington and Lee v Emory and Henry - #7S Emory and Henry not looking good

    SCIAC Championship
    Cal Lutheran v CMS - #8W and #6W not looking good

    SUNYAC Championship
    Oneonta v Oswego St - #5E Oswego on the fence

    WIAC Championship
    Oshkosh v River Falls - #8C Oshkosh not looking good, #1 River Falls is a lock

    UAA regular season
    Rochester v Emory - #1E Rochester is a lock, #2S Emory is on the fence
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 25, 2017, 11:16:10 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2017, 10:44:34 AM
    Wooster also gained an RRO and SOS boost over Denison. MSJ added nothing like that.

    I'd  lock in Wooster over MSJ in the next rankings.

    If they both lost in their respective finals their w% would be  MSJ  .769  Wooster .714

    Its close, not sure I'd call it a lock.  I'd need sold on that one.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 11:25:49 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 25, 2017, 10:39:10 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 09:54:55 AM

    7. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .741/.546/4-5   at Ohio Wesleyan, NCAC final
    18. John Carroll (GL/OAC): .680/.560/2-5   done
    24. Mount St. Joseph (GL/HCAC): .792/.511/2-1   vs Manchester, HCAC semis

    These are your Great Lakes teams.  Mt. St. Joseph has been ranked ahead of JCU and Wooster in all 3 polls.  MSJ holds a very key head-to-head win over JCU.  JCU has head-to-head losses to MSJ, Hanover and Hope  (3 teams all ranked ahead of them) plus 1-1 vs #1 ranked Marietta .  It seems to me pretty close to impossible for JCU to be ranked ahead of MSJ.  Remember JCU exited the OAC tournament in the quarterfinal.

    I see where you're going with Wooster's criteria, but definition of Pool C is another loss for Wooster, if MSJ makes the HCAC title game, I don't see Wooster moving ahead of MSJ either.

    Good point about Mt. St. Joseph and JCU - I flipped them and put MSJ in spot #21 and JCU as one of the first out.  I think it's fair to say one has a chance to get in and the other probably does not.  http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1793386#msg1793386

    I feel pretty good about where I have Wooster as of the data right now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2017, 11:26:39 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 25, 2017, 11:16:10 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2017, 10:44:34 AM
    Wooster also gained an RRO and SOS boost over Denison. MSJ added nothing like that.

    I'd  lock in Wooster over MSJ in the next rankings.

    If they both lost in their respective finals their w% would be  MSJ  .769  Wooster .714

    Its close, not sure I'd call it a lock.  I'd need sold on that one.

    the .030 SOS = two wins thing usually works out to about .080 in the WP. Wooster has the full .030 advantage right now and a pretty sizable lead in RRO (though could Denison slip out of the final ranks?).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 11:31:52 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 11:00:47 AM
    It will be interesting to see what the committee does with the WP<.700 teams.  I have MIT, MSJ, St Thomas competing for those last Pool C berths, instead of JCU, Carthage, etc.

    I looked at mine again and I agree with you - I moved St. Thomas and MSJ in and Carthage and JCU out.  And moved MIT up to #22.

    http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1793386#msg1793386
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 25, 2017, 11:35:21 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2017, 11:26:39 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 25, 2017, 11:16:10 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2017, 10:44:34 AM
    Wooster also gained an RRO and SOS boost over Denison. MSJ added nothing like that.

    I'd  lock in Wooster over MSJ in the next rankings.

    If they both lost in their respective finals their w% would be  MSJ  .769  Wooster .714

    Its close, not sure I'd call it a lock.  I'd need sold on that one.

    the .030 SOS = two wins thing usually works out to about .080 in the WP. Wooster has the full .030 advantage right now and a pretty sizable lead in RRO (though could Denison slip out of the final ranks?).

    In favor of who though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 11:48:38 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 25, 2017, 11:35:21 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2017, 11:26:39 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 25, 2017, 11:16:10 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2017, 10:44:34 AM
    Wooster also gained an RRO and SOS boost over Denison. MSJ added nothing like that.

    I'd  lock in Wooster over MSJ in the next rankings.

    If they both lost in their respective finals their w% would be  MSJ  .769  Wooster .714

    Its close, not sure I'd call it a lock.  I'd need sold on that one.

    the .030 SOS = two wins thing usually works out to about .080 in the WP. Wooster has the full .030 advantage right now and a pretty sizable lead in RRO (though could Denison slip out of the final ranks?).

    In favor of who though.

    Yes, this is the issue. There are really only eight teams (including Denison) worth ranking in the GL, and nine slots. Ohio Northern was ranked 9th at 16-9, and picked up their 10th loss in the first round of the OAC tournament. Only other options would be Anderson, St Vincent, Medaille, etc. I can't imagine that any of those will leap over Denison, but if they did, it would certainly hurt Wooster's Pool C chances.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: goscots on February 25, 2017, 11:57:54 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 10:52:44 AM
    Today's bubble games
    Percentages are Pool-C-bid-if-needed probabilities with win/loss today
    12:00 Rochester (21-3, 0.532, 4-1, EA#1, lock) at Emory (17-7, 0.544, 1-3, SO#2) 92%/4%
    1:00 VA Wesleyan (19-8, 0.528, 1-6) vs Guilford (21-5, 0.504, 3-2, SO#3) 70%/33%
    7:00 Mt St Joseph (18-5, 0.509, 2-1, GL#4) 69%/30% vs Manchester (10-15, 0.504, 0-4)
    7:30 MIT (19-6, 0.544, 0-4, NE#7) 48%/17% vs WPI (17-8, 0.536, 2-5)

    Potential "bid thief" games
    If these go the "wrong way", highly-ranked teams will drop into Pool C.  Bubble teams want the bold-ed teams to win these.
    2:00 Gwynedd Mercy (21-6, 0.496, 1-5, AT) at Neumann (24-2, 0.508, 6-0, AT#1)
    3:00 Wheaton (MA) (11-15, 0.512, 0-4, NE) at Babson (24-1, 0.578, 4-1, NE#1)
    4:00 Moravian (18-6, 0.520, 5-4, MA#8) at Scranton (20-6, 0.536, 7-3, MA#5)
    4:00 Stevens (18-7, 0.487, 1-2, EA) at St John Fisher (21-5, 0.549, 0-3, EA#2)
    4:00 Wooster (20-7, 0.546, 4-5, GL#5) at Ohio Wesleyan (21-6, 0.508, 2-3, GL#8)
    4:00 SUNY Oneonta (17-10, 0.536, 4-6, EA) at Oswego State (19-6, 0.526, 3-2, EA#5)
    4:00 Trinity (CT) (16-9, 0.564, 2-8, NE) at Middlebury (22-3, 0.612, 6-3, NE#2)
    5:00 Albright (13-13, 0.552, 1-4, MA) at Lycoming (21-4, 0.530, 1-1, MA#3)
    5:00 Transylvania (16-9, 0.506, 3-2, GL) at Hanover (19-3, 0.519, 2-2, GL#2)
    7:00 Dickinson (16-10, 0.522, 0-4, MA) at Swarthmore (21-5, 0.524, 1-1, MA#4)
    7:00 Hardin-Simmons (21-6, 0.556, 3-1, SO#1) at LeTourneau (22-4, 0.490, 2-1, SO#5)
    7:30 Calvin (15-8, 0.504, 2-3, GL) at Hope (20-4, 0.521, 2-1, GL#3)
    7:30 Baldwin-Wallace (15-12, 0.527, 2-6, GL) at Marietta (23-4, 0.578, 4-4, GL#1)
    8:00 N Central (IL) (16-9, 0.552, 2-4, CE) at Augustana (19-7, 0.540, 2-2, CE#5)
    8:00 UW-Oshkosh (17-9, 0.592, 5-5, CE#8) at UW-River Falls (21-3, 0.590, 7-3, CE#1)

    You guys are a great source of information and I very much appreciate the time and effort you put into posting these lists. The above list confirms my thought of how unusual it is the bubble teams would want a conference leader to lose to save a spot.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 12:18:52 PM
    Yes, it's an odd situation that OWU is the top seed & host, but Wooster is the only Pool C candidate. With those two and Denison all about equal in NCAC play, it comes down to non-conference schedule. Wooster played a tough slate, with wins over St John Fisher and Hobart, and "good losses" at Whitman and Marietta, and home vs Wash. U. Had OWU not struggled early, they would likely be a solid Pool C candidate. With a very weak nonconference schedule, Denison needed a lot of wins.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 25, 2017, 01:54:51 PM
    Emory gets the win over Rochester, 62-62.

    Is the UAA a three bid league now?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2017, 02:01:19 PM
    Quote from: WUH on February 25, 2017, 01:54:51 PM
    Emory gets the win over Rochester, 62-62.

    Is the UAA a three bid league now?

    Ties go to the home team?  ???  ;D  :P

    63-62 Emory.

    I think Emory gets in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 25, 2017, 02:06:06 PM
    Yikes!  If there is any league that would offer a tie, it would probably be the UAA.  63-62 Emory.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 02:20:06 PM
    Yes, three for the UAA, so one less for some other league.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 03:09:44 PM
    Agree that Emory is in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 03:55:52 PM
    And Williams upset of Tufts likely gets five NESCAC teams in, as Amherst seems fairly safe to me.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2017, 04:13:28 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 03:55:52 PM
    And Williams upset of Tufts likely gets five NESCAC teams in, as Amherst seems fairly safe to me.

    I don't know how close Amherst and Williams were going into this week, but I would imagine that Williams would leapfrog Amherst after their win over them. I think Williams was in based on that and not their win today.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 25, 2017, 04:20:05 PM
    Williams almost certainly jumped over Amherst today.  I wonder if they jumped over Wesleyan and Tufts as well.  They certainly will with a  win tomorrow, but I think the Ephs are probably at worst fourth (after Babson, Midd, and maybe Tufts) in New England even with a loss.  Quite a late-season turnaround for the Ephs.  The Ephs' now have a pretty impressive array of wins they can point to: at Tufts, at Amherst, Wesleyan, Midd, Hope on a neutral court, at Bates, SUNY Oneonta (about to play in its conference final), at Union (also about to play in its conference tourney final), Eastern Conn on a neutral court.  I'd say when all is said and done they will now have seven wins vs. regionally-ranked opponents (assuming Oneonta moves into regional the rankings, which appears likely), with, likely, a chance for an eighth no matter who they play tomorrow. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2017, 04:47:00 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 03:09:44 PM
    Agree that Emory is in.

    Not only is Emory likely in, they have a very good shot to host. They'll probably remain in one of the top two slots in the South and they're the only host-like location LaGrange can get to within 500 miles (I could be missing something).

    Emory, LaGrange, Hanover, SAA Champ would be a reasonable pod. Might kinda suck for Hanover though. They could deserve a pod of their own.

    A non-Hanover (and non-Manchester) HCAC champ could get to Emory as well. So could Thomas More if they win the PAC. But you'd really need Hanover there to keep that pod from being too light.

    EDIT: I forgot the ODAC! Either Guilford or Emory & Henry could get to Emory, so maybe not a need for Hanover.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 06:18:33 PM
    Packed house at Ohio Wesleyan's Branch Rickey arena, about two-thirds from Wooster. Vocal OWU students chanted the name of Wooster senior Dan Fanelly early in the game, trying to get into his head. Wooster built a 20-point lead in the second half, but OWU roared back to within one point, and had a potential game-winning three-point attempt in the closing seconds. Fanelly was named tournament MVP. With that shot not dropping, Wooster won, saving a Pool C berth. It was coach Steve Moore's 800th win, 2nd all-time in D3, and means Wooster's NCAA tournament steak will reach 15 consecutive years.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: woolax on February 25, 2017, 06:30:06 PM
    Does OWU get an at large bid?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 06:50:07 PM
    Quote from: woolax on February 25, 2017, 06:30:06 PM
    Does OWU get an at large bid?

    OWU's numbers look something like this - .750/.509/2-4

    Here is my bubble list from earlier...
    -----
    Tier 3 - The Bubble/At the mercy of upsets
    16. UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC): .680/.570/3-4   done
    17. llinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW): .680/.556/6-2   done
    18. Brockport (E/SUYAC): .731/.523/2-3   done
    19. St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .731/.529/1-2   done
    20. Guilford (S/ODAC): .808/.501/3-2   vs Virginia Wesleyan, ODAC semis
    21. Mount St. Joseph (GL/HCAC): .792/.511/2-1   vs Manchester, HCAC semis

    Projected Out
    22. MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .760/.539/0-4  at WPI, NEWMAC semis
    23. John Carroll (GL/OAC): .680/.560/2-5   done
    24. Carthage (C/CCIW): .680/.552/2-2   done
    25. Concordia TX (S/ASC): .708/.550/1-4   done
    26. Emory (S/UAA): .708/.539/1-3   vs Rochester
    27. UW-Oshkosh (C/WIAC): .654/.592/5-5   at UW-River Falls, WIAC final
    28. North Park (C/CCIW: .692/.532/2-3   done
    29. Loras (W/IIAC): .692/.547/1-1  done
    30. St. Norbert (C/MWC): .792/.504/1-2   done
    31. LeTourneau (S/ASC): .833/.496/2-1   vs Hardin-Simmons, ASC final
    -----


    I don't see any way Ohio Wesleyan gets a Pool C.  First, they will be behind two other Great Lakes teams who are right on the end up the bubble (MSJ and JCU) - it's not likely OWU will even get to the table.  Second, if they do get to the table and Illinois Wesleyan is there, IWU won at OWU.

    I think OWU is out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 06:57:26 PM
    The Wooster win at Ohio Wesleyan in the NCAC final was the rare reverse bubble burster.  Wooster would have been a Pool C lock and now they come off the board...and OWU probably doesn't have a chance.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: realist on February 25, 2017, 09:33:17 PM
    MIAA final  Calvin 86  Hope 83
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 09:46:06 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 10:52:44 AM
    Today's bubble games
    Percentages are Pool-C-bid-if-needed probabilities with win/loss today
    12:00 Rochester (21-3, 0.532, 4-1, EA#1, lock) at Emory (17-7, 0.544, 1-3, SO#2) 92%/4%
    1:00 VA Wesleyan (19-8, 0.528, 1-6) vs Guilford (21-5, 0.504, 3-2, SO#3) 70%/33%
    7:00 Mt St Joseph (18-5, 0.509, 2-1, GL#4) 69%/30% vs Manchester (10-15, 0.504, 0-4)
    7:30 MIT (19-6, 0.544, 0-4, NE#7) 48%/17% vs WPI (17-8, 0.536, 2-5)

    Potential "bid thief" games
    If these go the "wrong way", highly-ranked teams will drop into Pool C.  Bubble teams want the bold-ed teams to win these.
    2:00 Gwynedd Mercy (21-6, 0.496, 1-5, AT) at Neumann (24-2, 0.508, 6-0, AT#1)
    3:00 Wheaton (MA) (11-15, 0.512, 0-4, NE) at Babson (24-1, 0.578, 4-1, NE#1)
    4:00 Moravian (18-6, 0.520, 5-4, MA#8) at Scranton (20-6, 0.536, 7-3, MA#5)
    4:00 Stevens (18-7, 0.487, 1-2, EA) at St John Fisher (21-5, 0.549, 0-3, EA#2)
    4:00 Wooster (20-7, 0.546, 4-5, GL#5) at Ohio Wesleyan (21-6, 0.508, 2-3, GL#8)
    4:00 SUNY Oneonta (17-10, 0.536, 4-6, EA) at Oswego State (19-6, 0.526, 3-2, EA#5)
    4:00 Trinity (CT) (16-9, 0.564, 2-8, NE) at Middlebury (22-3, 0.612, 6-3, NE#2)
    5:00 Albright (13-13, 0.552, 1-4, MA) at Lycoming (21-4, 0.530, 1-1, MA#3)
    5:00 Transylvania (16-9, 0.506, 3-2, GL) at Hanover (19-3, 0.519, 2-2, GL#2)
    7:00 Dickinson (16-10, 0.522, 0-4, MA) at Swarthmore (21-5, 0.524, 1-1, MA#4)
    7:00 Hardin-Simmons (21-6, 0.556, 3-1, SO#1) at LeTourneau (22-4, 0.490, 2-1, SO#5)
    7:30 Calvin (15-8, 0.504, 2-3, GL) at Hope (20-4, 0.521, 2-1, GL#3)
    7:30 Baldwin-Wallace (15-12, 0.527, 2-6, GL) at Marietta (23-4, 0.578, 4-4, GL#1)
    8:00 N Central (IL) (16-9, 0.552, 2-4, CE) at Augustana (19-7, 0.540, 2-2, CE#5)
    8:00 UW-Oshkosh (17-9, 0.592, 5-5, CE#8) at UW-River Falls (21-3, 0.590, 7-3, CE#1)

    Out of these 15 potential bubble-bursting games, only Hope and Augustana lost (with UW-River Falls tied late). 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2017, 09:46:38 PM
    Quote from: realist on February 25, 2017, 09:33:17 PM
    MIAA final  Calvin 86  Hope 83

    Pop!

    Wonder if Augie's 1-2 record will be enough to jump Eau Claire's 0-1 this week.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 25, 2017, 09:50:24 PM
    North Central beats Augustana 69-64 in the CCIW final.

    A question for the CCIW Pool C hopefuls is whether the Cardinals are regionally ranked at year-end.  I have no idea how close they might be since they were clearly in win-or-done mode this past week and had zero Pool C hopes.  But if they sneak into the bottom tier of the Central Region rankings with recent wins over Illinois Wesleyan, Carthage, and Augustana, it may affect their conference mates' RRO creds.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 25, 2017, 09:53:05 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2017, 09:46:38 PM
    Quote from: realist on February 25, 2017, 09:33:17 PM
    MIAA final  Calvin 86  Hope 83

    Pop!

    Wonder if Augie's 1-2 record will be enough to jump Eau Claire's 0-1.
    With North Central defeating Augustana the question maybe if Augustana, IWU and Carthage get ranked ?  That jumbles up the vRRO numbers for CCIW teams.  Add in Calvin over Hope and likely a couple other surprises
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 25, 2017, 09:55:51 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 25, 2017, 09:50:24 PM
    North Central beats Augustana 69-64 in the CCIW final.

    A question for the CCIW Pool C hopefuls is whether the Cardinals are regionally ranked at year-end.  I have no idea how close they might be since they were clearly in win-or-done mode this past week and had zero Pool C hopes.  But if they sneak into the bottom tier of the Central Region rankings with recent wins over Illinois Wesleyan, Carthage, and Augustana, it may affect their conference mates' RRO creds.
    north central #s well below the other three.  The only way the Cardinals were going to get in was to win the AQ; and, they knew that,
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 25, 2017, 10:07:16 PM
    Quote from: iwumichigander on February 25, 2017, 09:55:51 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 25, 2017, 09:50:24 PM
    North Central beats Augustana 69-64 in the CCIW final.

    A question for the CCIW Pool C hopefuls is whether the Cardinals are regionally ranked at year-end.  I have no idea how close they might be since they were clearly in win-or-done mode this past week and had zero Pool C hopes.  But if they sneak into the bottom tier of the Central Region rankings with recent wins over Illinois Wesleyan, Carthage, and Augustana, it may affect their conference mates' RRO creds.
    north central #s well below the other three.  The only way the Cardinals were going to get in was to win the AQ; and, they knew that,

    Read it again.  The point I'm making isn't that they had any prayer of being a Pool C selection.  It's whether they are Regionally Ranked come Sunday.  I have no idea if they will be or not, and don't particularly care since they are in the tournament.  But  Illinois Wesleyan fans should hope they aren't as it will give the Titans two additional vRRO losses.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 10:14:35 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 25, 2017, 10:07:16 PM
    Read it again.  The point I'm making isn't that they had any prayer of being a Pool C selection.  It's whether they are Regionally Ranked come Sunday.  I have no idea if they will be or not, and don't particularly care since they are in the tournament.  But  Illinois Wesleyan fans should hope they aren't as it will give the Titans two additional vRRO losses.

    Yes, very good point.  IWU could not afford for Carthage to drop out of the regional rankings in favor of NCC.  That'd be losing 2-0 and picking up 0-2.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 25, 2017, 10:20:08 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 10:14:35 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 25, 2017, 10:07:16 PM
    Read it again.  The point I'm making isn't that they had any prayer of being a Pool C selection.  It's whether they are Regionally Ranked come Sunday.  I have no idea if they will be or not, and don't particularly care since they are in the tournament.  But  Illinois Wesleyan fans should hope they aren't as it will give the Titans two additional vRRO losses.

    Yes, very good point.  IWU could not afford for Carthage to drop out of the regional rankings in favor of NCC.  That'd be losing 2-0 and picking up 0-2.
    Kiko - I saw your point.  My point is without being in the Pool C conversation, I do not see North Central getting ranked regardless of tonight's outcome
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2017, 10:29:23 PM
    With the only relevant remaining games tonight being the NWC and SCIAC finals, here's what I've got

    Officially clinched berth (31)
    A) UW-River Falls (22-3, 0.592, 8-3, CE#1) (#3/#3) won WIAC AQ
    A) Washington U. (20-5, 0.577, 7-2, CE#2) (#7/#6) won UAA AQ
    A) Marietta (24-4, 0.580, 4-4, GL#1) (#5/#5) won OAC AQ
    A) Chris Newport (25-2, 0.534, 4-2, MA#1) (#6/#7) won CAC AQ
    A) Neumann (25-2, 0.516, 6-0, AT#1) (#10/#8) won CSAC AQ
    A) Hardin-Simmons (22-6, 0.567, 4-1, SO#1) (#11/#11) won ASC AQ
    A) Lycoming (22-4, 0.531, 1-1, MA#3) (#20/#20) won MACC AQ
    A) Ramapo (25-2, 0.506, 7-2, AT#2) (#18/#12) won NJAC AQ
    A) Swarthmore (22-5, 0.528, 1-1, MA#4) (#26/#25) won CC AQ
    A) St John Fisher (22-5, 0.553, 0-3, EA#2) (#14/#27) won E8 AQ
    A) Scranton (21-6, 0.541, 8-3, MA#5) (#27/#16) won LAND AQ
    A) Oswego State (20-6, 0.530, 3-2, EA#5) (#35/#30) won SUNYAC AQ
    A) Wooster (21-7, 0.554, 5-5, GL#5) (#25/#21) won NCAC AQ
    A) E Connecticut (20-8, 0.568, 4-4, NE#8) (#24/#22) won LEC AQ
    A) Ripon (20-5, 0.491, 1-1, CE) (#71/#70) won MWC AQ
    A) Misericordia (20-7, 0.518, 1-4, AT) (#65/#55) won MACF AQ
    A) Staten Island (21-5, 0.505, 0-4, AT#7) (#49/#64) won CUNYAC AQ
    A) Bethel (MN) (20-6, 0.501, 2-3, WE) (#74/#60) won MIAC AQ
    A) Husson (21-6, 0.493, 0-0, NE) (#79/#77) won NAC AQ
    A) Albertus Magnus (23-4, 0.493, 0-2, NE) (#43/#68) won GNAC AQ
    A) Nichols (23-5, 0.484, 2-1, NE) (#67/#66) won CCC AQ
    A) Thomas More (20-6, 0.504, 1-0, GL) (#68/#58) won PAC AQ
    A) Farmingdale State (20-7, 0.483, 0-2, AT) (#109/#97) won SKY AQ
    A) Wartburg (17-9, 0.559, 5-2, WE) (#53/#65) won IIAC AQ
    A) N Central (IL) (17-9, 0.557, 3-4, CE) (#59/#73) won CCIW AQ
    A) Becker (19-8, 0.500, 0-2, NE) (#105/#84) won NECC AQ
    A) Calvin (16-8, 0.516, 3-3, GL) (#104/#82) won MIAA AQ
    A) Union (NY) (16-9, 0.538, 1-6, EA#8) (#88/#99) won LL AQ
    A) Salem State (17-10, 0.516, 1-4, NE) (#126/#117) won MASCAC AQ
    A) Westminster (MO) (18-8, 0.484, 0-1, CE) (#137/#108) won SLIAC AQ
    A) LaGrange (16-9, 0.513, 1-2, SO) (#124/#105) won USAC AQ

    Locks or near-locks (11)
    A) Babson (25-1, 0.580, 4-1, NE#1) (#2/#2) lock, 81% NEWMAC AQ
    A) Whitman (26-0, 0.541, 4-0, WE#1) (#4/#4) lock, 76% NWC AQ
    A) Middlebury (23-3, 0.612, 6-3, NE#2) (#1/#1) lock, 72% NESCAC AQ
    C#1) Williams (19-7, 0.593, 7-4, NE#6) (#9/#9) lock, 28% NESCAC AQ
    C#2) Rochester (21-4, 0.539, 4-2, EA#1) (#17/#13) lock, no AQ
    C#3) Susquehanna (20-5, 0.559, 4-4, MA#2) (#13/#14) lock, no AQ
    C#4) Tufts (20-6, 0.570, 4-4, NE#3) (#15/#15) near-lock, no AQ
    C#5) UW-Whitewater (20-6, 0.568, 3-5, CE#3) (#16/#18) near-lock, no AQ
    C#6) Wesleyan (CT) (19-6, 0.561, 4-3, NE#4) (#21/#17) near-lock, no AQ
    C#7) Amherst (17-7, 0.603, 5-5, NE#5) (#8/#10) near-lock, no AQ
    A) Hanover (20-3, 0.524, 2-2, GL#2) (#19/#19) near-lock, 71% HCAC AQ

    Strong position (5) (80%+ for Pool C, if no AQ)
    C#8) Whitworth (23-3, 0.528, 0-2, WE#2) (#12/#23) 98% (24% NWC or 98% C)
    C#9) New Jersey City (21-7, 0.533, 5-4, AT#3) (#41/#29) 98% C
    C#10) Emory (18-7, 0.551, 2-3, SO#2) (#34/#32) 98% C
    C#11) Hope (20-5, 0.526, 2-1, GL#3) (#32/#24) 97% C
    C#12) Salisbury (20-7, 0.548, 3-4, MA#6) (#31/#28) 95% C

    Bubble teams if no AQ (16) (20-79% for Pool C if no AQ)
    C#13) Skidmore (19-7, 0.525, 6-1, EA#3) (#62/#31) 79% C
    A) Guilford (22-5, 0.511, 4-2, SO#3) (#38/#26) 91% (60% ODAC or 77% C)
    C#14) Mt St Joseph (19-5, 0.509, 2-1, GL#4) (#51/#37) 84% (29% HCAC or 77% C)
    C#15) Cabrini (19-6, 0.532, 2-3, AT#4) (#37/#33) 68% C
    C#16) Augustana (19-8, 0.543, 2-2, CE#5) (#50/#38) 65% C
    C#17) Keene State (19-9, 0.578, 3-4, NE#9) (#28/#40) 64% C
    C#18) St Lawrence (19-6, 0.524, 3-5, EA#4) (#45/#41) 63% C
    C#19) MIT (20-6, 0.549, 0-4, NE#7) (#23/#43) 63% (19% NEWMAC or 55% C)
    A) Benedictine (IL) (22-3, 0.497, 1-0, CE#7) (#29/#42) 89% (76% NACC or 53% C)
    C#20) UW-Eau Claire (17-8, 0.571, 3-4, CE#4) (#30/#44) 51% C
    projected cut line
    C#21) St Thomas (MN) (19-7, 0.530, 1-2, WE#3) (#54/#46) 48% C
    C#22) Illinois Wesleyan (17-8, 0.557, 6-2, CE) (#44/#35) 44% C
    C#23) LeTourneau (22-5, 0.499, 2-2, SO#5) (#55/#50) 43% C
    C#24) UW-Oshkosh (17-10, 0.602, 5-6, CE#8) (#22/#67) 34% C
    C#25) Brockport (19-7, 0.522, 2-3, EA#6) (#64/#47) 30% C
    C#26) Concordia (TX) (18-7, 0.553, 1-4, SO#4) (#33/#36) 29% C

    Longshots for Pool C (9) (5-19% if no AQ)
    C#27) Endicott (22-6, 0.523, 1-1, NE#10) (#36/#34) 18% C
    C#28) Carthage (17-8, 0.554, 2-2, CE#6) (#47/#52) 16% C
    C#29) St John's (MN) (19-8, 0.518, 2-3, WE) (#80/#57) 14% C
    C#30) Nebraska Wesleyan (17-7, 0.525, 1-1, WE#5) (#72/#53) 14% C
    C#31) Loras (18-8, 0.549, 1-1, WE#4) (#46/#48) 12% C
    A) C-M-S (19-3, 0.490, 1-1, WE#6) (#42/#59) 63% (59% SCIAC or 10% C)
    C#32) John Carroll (17-8, 0.560, 2-5, GL#6) (#40/#54) 7% C
    C#33) Moravian (18-7, 0.530, 5-5, MA#8) (#61/#39) 5% C
    C#34) Denison (22-5, 0.476, 3-3, GL#7) (#81/#79) 5% C

    Other conference favorites (not realistic Pool C candidates)
    A) Morrisville State (21-5, 0.475, 0-0, EA) (#87/#92) 78% NEAC
    A) Rhodes (16-10, 0.447, 0-1, SO) (#249/#195) 72% SAA
    A) Medaille (20-5, 0.464, 0-0, GL) (#106/#104) 69% AMCC
    A) Schreiner (15-11, 0.553, 0-5, SO) (#99/#146) 57% SCAC
    A) Northwestern (MN) (18-7, 0.454, 0-0, WE) (#171/#134) 53% UMAC
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2017, 10:30:30 PM
    No offense, but I'm mildly amused of all this talk about IWU somehow getting a Pool C bid (or getting ranked for that matter). Yeah, they beat Augie earlier this week and Eau Claire went 0-1, but IWU wasn't even ranked. They have to somehow jump Augie, who was 1-2, Carthage and even Oshkosh, who went 2-1 this week with 2 of those games against regionally ranked Whitewater and River Falls. I'll be happy to eat crow if they get a bid and none of the other 3 teams above them, Eau Claire, Augustana and Carthage don't.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 10:37:54 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2017, 10:30:30 PM
    No offense, but I'm mildly amused of all this talk about IWU somehow getting a Pool C bid (or getting ranked for that matter). Yeah, they beat Augie earlier this week and Eau Claire went 0-1, but IWU wasn't even ranked. They have to somehow jump Augie, who was 1-2, Carthage and even Oshkosh, who went 2-1 this week with 2 of those games against regionally ranked Whitewater and River Falls. I'll be happy to eat crow if they get a bid and none of the other 3 teams above them, Eau Claire, Augustana and Carthage don't.

    You are making too much of the Week 3 ranking, Greek.  That is a snapshot using data through Sunday.  There have been many games across the country since Sunday and the data changes quite a bit daily...even though new official rankings don't come out daily.  But to project Pool C you have to, in effect, create new regional rankings.

    IWU's numbers are competitive down at the end of the bubble, and IWU clearly has a better case than Oshkosh and Carthage.  Again, Oshkosh has a .630 WP - that is just not competitive in the process.

    The problem now is that Augustana is probably going to be ranked ahead of IWU (they lost in the CCIW title), and Augie will sit on the board a long time - heck UW-Eau Claire will be on the board a long time, and Augie will be after them. Had Augie won, IWU would have been on the board for a long time...now maybe 2-3 rounds tops (if Augie gets picked at all). Augie losing tonight, and being Pool C, really hurt IWU's longshot chances.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 25, 2017, 10:41:57 PM
    Quote from: iwumichigander on February 25, 2017, 10:20:08 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 10:14:35 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 25, 2017, 10:07:16 PM
    Read it again.  The point I'm making isn't that they had any prayer of being a Pool C selection.  It's whether they are Regionally Ranked come Sunday.  I have no idea if they will be or not, and don't particularly care since they are in the tournament.  But  Illinois Wesleyan fans should hope they aren't as it will give the Titans two additional vRRO losses.

    Yes, very good point.  IWU could not afford for Carthage to drop out of the regional rankings in favor of NCC.  That'd be losing 2-0 and picking up 0-2.
    Kiko - I saw your point.  My point is without being in the Pool C conversation, I do not see North Central getting ranked regardless of tonight's outcome

    Their credentials aren't all that different from Illinois Wesleyan's, and they have two H2H wins if a conversation comes down to the two of them.  The Central committee could choose to deprioritize the Sons of Warden given they have nothing to gain from a RR, but I think the conversation about them is not as slam-dunk as you are suggesting.

    From above, with the caveat that the vRRO in this will be shift depending on whom in the CCIW is and is not ranked:
    N Central (IL) (17-9, 0.557, 3-4, CE) (#59/#73) won CCIW AQ
    Illinois Wesleyan (17-8, 0.557, 6-2, CE) (#44/#35) 44% C
    Carthage (17-8, 0.554, 2-2, CE#6) (#47/#52) 16% C

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 10:46:04 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2017, 10:30:30 PM
    I'll be happy to eat crow if they get a bid and none of the other 3 teams above them, Eau Claire, Augustana and Carthage don't.

    UW-Eau Claire and Augustana will be ranked ahead of IWU.  Carthage will not.  If Augie gets selected (and I think they will), IWU will hit the board very late for the last couple picks or so.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2017, 10:52:54 PM
    Everybody needs to stop typing and watch the UMAC championship game. It's now heading into quadruple overtime.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2017, 11:15:19 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 10:46:04 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2017, 10:30:30 PM
    I'll be happy to eat crow if they get a bid and none of the other 3 teams above them, Eau Claire, Augustana and Carthage don't.

    UW-Eau Claire and Augustana will be ranked ahead of IWU.  Carthage will not.  If Augie gets selected (and I think they will), IWU will hit the board very late for the last couple picks or so.

    Do we know Augustana will be ahead of IWU?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 11:16:34 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2017, 11:15:19 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 10:46:04 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2017, 10:30:30 PM
    I'll be happy to eat crow if they get a bid and none of the other 3 teams above them, Eau Claire, Augustana and Carthage don't.

    UW-Eau Claire and Augustana will be ranked ahead of IWU.  Carthage will not.  If Augie gets selected (and I think they will), IWU will hit the board very late for the last couple picks or so.

    Do we know Augustana will be ahead of IWU?

    No.  It'd be very easy to argue that IWU's resume is better.  (But that depends on final regional rankings and RRO too.)

    * Illinois Wesleyan: .680/.556/6-2
    * Carthage: .680/.553/2-2
    * Augustana: .704/.542/2-2
    * North Park: .692/.531/2-3

    IWU also has the win at Wash U, while Augie lost at home to Wash U...stuff like that comes into play potentially.

    Augie vs IWU in that final Central Region ranking is tight.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 12:00:56 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 11:16:34 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2017, 11:15:19 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2017, 10:46:04 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2017, 10:30:30 PM
    I'll be happy to eat crow if they get a bid and none of the other 3 teams above them, Eau Claire, Augustana and Carthage don't.

    UW-Eau Claire and Augustana will be ranked ahead of IWU.  Carthage will not.  If Augie gets selected (and I think they will), IWU will hit the board very late for the last couple picks or so.

    Do we know Augustana will be ahead of IWU?

    No.  It'd be very easy to argue that IWU's resume is better.  (But that depends on final regional rankings and RRO too.)

    * Illinois Wesleyan: .680/.556/6-2
    * Carthage: .680/.553/2-2
    * Augustana: .704/.542/2-2
    * North Park: .692/.531/2-3

    IWU also has the win at Wash U, while Augie lost at home to Wash U...stuff like that comes into play potentially.

    Augie vs IWU in that final Central Region ranking is tight.

    Record vs. common opponents: AC 13-7 (.650), IWU 11-7 (.611)

    (Augie went 11-5 in conference play, IWU went 9-7. Add 1-1 to Augie's common-opponents mark via conference tourney play, so that's 12-6. Each team played MacMurray and Wash U in non-conference play; AC went 1-1 against the Highlanders and Bears, while IWU went 2-0. Ergo, Augie ends up 13-7 and IWU ends up 11-7.)

    The two teams split their two games, so head-to-head is a wash. But Augie wins the common-opponents criterion.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2017, 12:50:39 AM
    Now this isn't calculator based I will warn you right now, this is full on pure Smitty thoughts I have had throughout this week and weekend. They may not be totally correct when determining the Pool C teams but I think these thoughts have to come into the heads of the committee.

    1. How can a team that doesn't make a conference tourney be "rewarded" in Pool C criteria by not gaining that extra loss. I do not think that IWU should get a nod. I understand they don't get the vRRO outcomes but they already have a lot...

    2. How can a team with 10 (double digit!!!) loses even be considered for an at-large. Too many solid teams out there with 5-8 losses that won't make that I don't think that Oshkosh should even get to the table, no matter what the other criteria look like.

    3. Lastly, CCIW fans, welcome to the world of the MIAC (and probably a lot of other conferences out there)... where good to great teams beat each other up too much in long conference seasons, eventually taking away Pool C births away from each other and handing them to the NESCAC.

    I have body armor on so let me have it if you disagree with any of my takes!  I understand that this is the way it is for this year, but I just wanted to lay down some of my thoughts ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 26, 2017, 01:38:55 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2017, 10:52:54 PM
    Everybody needs to stop typing and watch the UMAC championship game. It's now heading into quadruple overtime.
    I may have had to call for a substitute PA Announcer if we went to a 5th OT.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: jaybird44 on February 26, 2017, 01:52:32 AM
    I would like to add that I am a big believer in subliminal psychology, and I would bet that comes into play during the NCAA Tournament selection process...at each level, not just D3.

    Committee members can cite chapter and verse about their selections being based solely on the narrowly-defined set of criteria, but they are human.  How many times have we seen the post-mortem on the D-1 selection shows, when NCAA selection committee officials mention that a team's strong or weak finish had a bearing on whether or not that team got into the tournament?  Is that part of the D-1 selection criteria?  I don't know the answer to that question, but it seems to have somewhat of an impact on why or why didn't a bubble team get a ticket to the dance.

    The lengthy set of primary and secondary criteria in the D3 process does a very good job of keeping subjective subliminal views from running roughshod over the selection process.  But I think we are kidding ourselves if we firmly believe that the criteria keeps ALL subliminal views from trying to affect choices...especially in situations where a team like IWU doesn't make its conference tournament, yet still has criteria on its side as the selection committee goes to work.

    If I have read correctly, the regional ranking committees first start the selection process by crafting one last set of rankings, then presents the results to the selection committee.  The criteria should still provide the sole fulcrum for the selection committee's choices, but in unique situations like IWU's, it will be interesting to see how it fares in the process...and whether subjective views are able to filter into that process.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AppletonRocks on February 26, 2017, 02:26:49 AM
    If Eau Claire and Whitewater get in, then Oshkosh should be in.  They kicked them both twice and finished ahead of them in their league.  I can crawl under my rock now.   :o :o :o :o
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 09:19:17 AM
    My Sunday morning look at Pool C....

    (All data courtesy of Matt Snyder - http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/.)

    Tier 1- Projected In/No Drama
    1. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .731/.592/7-4   vs Middlebury, NESCAC final, 12:00pm ET
    2. Susquehanna (MA/LAND): .800/.556/4-4
    3. UW-Whitewater (C/WIAC): .769/.567/3-5
    4. Rochester (E/UAA): .840/.534/4-2
    5. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .708/.598/5-5
    6. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .769/.566/4-4
    7. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .760/.560/4-3
    8. Whitworth (W/NWC): .852/.544/0-3
    9. Salisbury (MA/CAC): .741/.546/3-4

    Tier 2- Projected In
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .750/.533/5-4
    11. UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC): .680/.570/3-4
    12. Hope (GL/MIAA): .800/.525/2-1
    13. St. Lawrence (E/LL): .769/.526/3-5
    14. Cabrini (AT/CSAC): .760/.531/2-3
    15. Emory (S/UAA): .720/.547/2-3
    16. Skidmore (E/LL): .731/.527/6-1

    Tier 3- Right Side of the Bubble/Last 5 In
    17. Augustana (C/CCIW): .704/.542/2-2
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW): .680/.556/6-2
    19. Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/3-4
    20. MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .769/.545/0-4   at Babson, NEWMAC final, 2:00pm ET
    21. Mount St. Joseph (GL/HCAC): .800/.510/2-1   at Hanover, HCAC final, 2:00pm ET

    Tier 4 - Wrong Side of the Bubble/Left at the Table
    LeTourneau (S/ASC): .800/.506/2-2
    John Carroll: (GL/OAC): .680/.562/2-5
    Carthage (C/CCIW): .680/.553/2-2
    Endicott (NE/CCC): .786/.532/1-1
    St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .731/.530/1-2
    Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .731/.522/2-3
    Catholic (MA/LAND): .654/.557/3-7
    Rowan (AT/NJAC): .630/.5643-6

    Tier 5/Never at the table
    UW-Oshkosh: (C/CCIW): .630/.601/5-6
    Concordia TX (S/ASC): .708/.549/1-4
    Emory & Henry (S/ODAC): .731/.528/2-3   vs Guilford, ODAC final, 1:00pm ET
    Ohio Wesleyan (GL/NCAC): .750/.514/2-4
    Loras (W/IIAC): .692/.548/1-1
    St. Norbert (C/MWC): .792/.504/1-2
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 09:28:22 AM
    Quote from: AO on February 26, 2017, 01:38:55 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2017, 10:52:54 PM
    Everybody needs to stop typing and watch the UMAC championship game. It's now heading into quadruple overtime.
    I may have had to call for a substitute PA Announcer if we went to a 5th OT.

    I watched the last two overtimes. That was one heckuva game.

    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2017, 12:50:39 AM
    3. Lastly, CCIW fans, welcome to the world of the MIAC (and probably a lot of other conferences out there)... where good to great teams beat each other up too much in long conference seasons, eventually taking away Pool C births away from each other and handing them to the NESCAC.

    Smitty, the CCIW is used to good-to-great teams beating each other up. That happens every season; this isn't the MIAA, where historically only two programs have dominated the circuit. The difference is that this year the CCIW was rather indifferent (by its own lofty standards) in non-conference play. That, plus the fact that the parity at the top really extended down to almost the entire league -- seven teams finished within three games of first place -- is why the CCIW is going to have so much trouble claiming a Pool C berth this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 10:03:53 AM
    Quote from: jaybird44 on February 26, 2017, 01:52:32 AM
    I would like to add that I am a big believer in subliminal psychology, and I would bet that comes into play during the NCAA Tournament selection process...at each level, not just D3.

    Committee members can cite chapter and verse about their selections being based solely on the narrowly-defined set of criteria, but they are human.  How many times have we seen the post-mortem on the D-1 selection shows, when NCAA selection committee officials mention that a team's strong or weak finish had a bearing on whether or not that team got into the tournament?  Is that part of the D-1 selection criteria?  I don't know the answer to that question, but it seems to have somewhat of an impact on why or why didn't a bubble team get a ticket to the dance.

    The lengthy set of primary and secondary criteria in the D3 process does a very good job of keeping subjective subliminal views from running roughshod over the selection process.  But I think we are kidding ourselves if we firmly believe that the criteria keeps ALL subliminal views from trying to affect choices...especially in situations where a team like IWU doesn't make its conference tournament, yet still has criteria on its side as the selection committee goes to work.

    If I have read correctly, the regional ranking committees first start the selection process by crafting one last set of rankings, then presents the results to the selection committee.  The criteria should still provide the sole fulcrum for the selection committee's choices, but in unique situations like IWU's, it will be interesting to see how it fares in the process...and whether subjective views are able to filter into that process.

    As I posted on the CCIW board in response to AndOne...
    ---
    At least consider the other side too.  How should IWU coaches and players feel if the Central Region committee brings in factors that are not part of the established and communicated criteria in making the final ranking? The way the process works is extremely clear to everyone - http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017DIIIMBB_PreChamp_DIII_M_Basketball_20161024.pdf - which is probably the best thing about the way things work nowadays.  It eliminates bias and favoritism like the old days -- and let's be clear, there is bias in play in some of these conversations surrounding why IWU should not be considered (for reasons outside the criteria).

    The criteria is the criteria and the numbers are the numbers.
    ---
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: augiefan on February 26, 2017, 10:22:20 AM
    Exactly what time today are the brackets announced? I hope Titan Q is right about Augie and IWU getting in, but why isn't NPU in the mix?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 10:23:56 AM
    Quote from: augiefan on February 26, 2017, 10:22:20 AM
    Exactly what time today are the brackets announced? I hope Titan Q is right about Augie and IWU getting in, but why isn't NPU in the mix?

    About 11:30 am EST 12:30 pm EST
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 26, 2017, 10:31:16 AM
    Quote from: augiefan on February 26, 2017, 10:22:20 AM
    Exactly what time today are the brackets announced? I hope Titan Q is right about Augie and IWU getting in, but why isn't NPU in the mix?

    Low SOS, I would guess.

    The Central is a mess.  I can't quite figure out the order of the teams and wouldn't be surprised if Oshkosh passes Carthage and Augie in the final rankings and then ends up blocking everyone.  There really are very small distinctions between the 4 CCIW teams that ended up with 8 losses.  I generally think that NPU would be last of the four because of the low SOS, but I am hard pressed to figure out the order of the other 3.  I could see the argument that IWU could end up ahead of both, but I still think finishing outside of the CCIW tournament will hurt them.

    My guess is that the order of the three will be Augustana, Carthage and then IWU.  Now, how many of these are regionally ranked is also TBD.  I think there are at most two spots.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: y_jack_lok on February 26, 2017, 10:54:46 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 10:23:56 AM
    Quote from: augiefan on February 26, 2017, 10:22:20 AM
    Exactly what time today are the brackets announced? I hope Titan Q is right about Augie and IWU getting in, but why isn't NPU in the mix?

    About 11:30 am EST

    Aren't the brackets announced tomorrow? At least can't be 11:30 today. Still some conference tourney finals to play.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 11:22:17 AM
    Quote from: y_jack_lok on February 26, 2017, 10:54:46 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 10:23:56 AM
    Quote from: augiefan on February 26, 2017, 10:22:20 AM
    Exactly what time today are the brackets announced? I hope Titan Q is right about Augie and IWU getting in, but why isn't NPU in the mix?

    About 11:30 am EST

    Aren't the brackets announced tomorrow? At least can't be 11:30 today. Still some conference tourney finals to play.

    Yeah. TOMORROW. 12:30 pm EST. 11:30 central time (I'm in the central, thats why I always get that mixed up). I completely missed the "today" part. Sorry!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 12:02:34 PM
    Some updates to my projection...

    (All data courtesy of Matt Snyder - http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/.)

    Tier 1- Projected In/No Drama
    1. Babson (NE/NEWMAC): .926/.574/4-1
    2. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .731/.592/7-4   
    3. Susquehanna (MA/LAND): .800/.556/4-4
    4. UW-Whitewater (C/WIAC): .769/.567/3-5
    5. Rochester (E/UAA): .840/.534/4-2
    6. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .708/.598/5-5
    7. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .769/.566/4-4
    8. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .760/.560/4-3
    9. Whitworth (W/NWC): .852/.544/0-3
    10. Salisbury (MA/CAC): .741/.546/3-4

    Tier 2- Projected In
    11. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .750/.533/5-4
    12. Hope (GL/MIAA): .800/.525/2-1
    13. Cabrini (AT/CSAC): .760/.531/2-3
    14. Emory (S/UAA): .720/.547/2-3
    15. Skidmore (E/LL): .731/.527/6-1
    16. St. Lawrence (E/LL): .769/.526/3-5

    Tier 3- Right Side of the Bubble/Last 5 In
    17. Augustana (C/CCIW): .704/.542/2-2
    18. Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/3-4
    19. UW-Oshkosh: (C/WIAC): .630/.601/5-6
    20. Illinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW): .680/.556/6-2
    21. LeTourneau (S/ASC): .800/.506/2-2

    Tier 4 - Wrong Side of the Bubble/Left at the Table
    UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC): .680/.570/3-4
    Emory & Henry (S/ODAC): .731/.528/2-3   
    Endicott (NE/CCC): .786/.532/1-1
    Mount St. Joseph (GL/HCAC): .769/.510/2-1   
    St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .731/.530/1-2
    Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .731/.522/2-3
    Catholic (MA/LAND): .654/.557/3-7
    Rowan (AT/NJAC): .630/.5643-6

    Tier 5/Never at the table
    Ohio Wesleyan (GL/NCAC): .750/.514/2-4
    John Carroll: (GL/OAC): .680/.562/2-5
    Carthage (C/CCIW): .680/.553/2-2
    Virginia Wesleyan (S/ODAC): .679/..533/1-7
    Loras (W/IIAC): .692/.548/1-1
    St. Norbert (C/MWC): .792/.504/1-2
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 12:21:11 PM
    If I have that Central order right, it will be interesting to see if .630 UW-Oshkosh is considered.  I don't think we've ever seen anything under .667 selected but who knows.  Their SOS and RRO numbers are certainly outstanding.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2017, 01:15:36 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 09:28:22 AM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2017, 12:50:39 AM
    3. Lastly, CCIW fans, welcome to the world of the MIAC (and probably a lot of other conferences out there)... where good to great teams beat each other up too much in long conference seasons, eventually taking away Pool C births away from each other and handing them to the NESCAC.

    Smitty, the CCIW is used to good-to-great teams beating each other up. That happens every season; this isn't the MIAA, where historically only two programs have dominated the circuit. The difference is that this year the CCIW was rather indifferent (by its own lofty standards) in non-conference play. That, plus the fact that the parity at the top really extended down to almost the entire league -- seven teams finished within three games of first place -- is why the CCIW is going to have so much trouble claiming a Pool C berth this season.

    Exactly what I said, good-to-great teams beating up on each other. You used my standpoint in your rebuttal. MIAC usually has St. Thomas and then 5-6 other teams that are pretty solid squads, but things happen in 20 conference games, where you know the other teams almost as well as yourself, and you happen to lose a handful of games coupled with SOS creeping towards .500 and eventually getting knocked out of Pool C contention.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: jaybird44 on February 26, 2017, 01:30:46 PM
    I would like to see IWU get into the tournament.  I have no animus toward the program.  Quite the contrary.  The Titans are in a unique situation between the criteria and the sentiment that it shouldn't get in the NCAA Tourney because it was out of the running for a spot in the CCIW Tourney.  It will be very interesting how the endgame unfolds.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 01:31:40 PM
    Quote from: jaybird44 on February 26, 2017, 01:30:46 PM
    I would like to see IWU get into the tournament.  I have no animus toward the program.  Quite the contrary.  The Titans are in a unique situation between the criteria and the sentiment that it shouldn't get in the NCAA Tourney because it was out of the running for a spot in the CCIW Tourney.  It will be very interesting how the endgame unfolds.

    It sounds like the sentiment won out with the Central Region committee.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: jaybird44 on February 26, 2017, 01:37:08 PM
    If that's the case, it will be doubly interesting to see how the sentiment is backed (or not) by the criteria.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 26, 2017, 01:37:39 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 12:21:11 PM
    If I have that Central order right, it will be interesting to see if .630 UW-Oshkosh is considered.  I don't think we've ever seen anything under .667 selected but who knows.  Their SOS and RRO numbers are certainly outstanding.

    Oshkosh ahead of Carthage is interesting due to the head to head.

    Historically, the only case I can remember with sketchy WP but excellent SOS and RRO was Carthage about 3 years ago and they didn't get in.  It seems like the committee prefers teams with solid SOS (.54 or so) with 7 or 8 losses over teams with great records and sketchy SOS and teams with great SOS and so-so WP.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2017, 03:05:13 PM
    After coming up with my own projected final regional rankings, then reusing them to get new vRRO wins/losses, here's my current bubble analysis...

    Safe
    C#1) Susquehanna (20-5, 0.559, 5-5, MA#3) (#13/#12) lock, no AQ
    C#2) Tufts (20-6, 0.569, 4-3, NE#3) (#15/#13) lock, no AQ
    C#3) Rochester (21-4, 0.538, 4-2, EA#1) (#17/#14) lock, no AQ
    C#4) Williams (19-8, 0.602, 7-5, NE#4) (#9/#9) lock, no AQ
    C#5) Amherst (17-7, 0.602, 5-5, NE#5) (#8/#10) lock, no AQ
    C#6) Wesleyan (CT) (19-6, 0.561, 4-3, NE#6) (#21/#17) near-lock, no AQ
    C#7) Whitworth (23-4, 0.546, 1-3, WE#2) (#10/#18) lock, no AQ
    C#8) UW-Whitewater (20-6, 0.568, 1-3, CE#3) (#16/#20) near-lock, no AQ
    C#9) New Jersey City (21-7, 0.534, 6-3, AT#3) (#42/#24) near-lock, no AQ
    C#10) Emory (18-7, 0.551, 2-3, SO#2) (#35/#32) near-lock, no AQ
    C#11) Hope (20-5, 0.525, 2-1, GL#4) (#32/#25) 97% C
    C#12) Salisbury (20-7, 0.548, 3-4, MA#6) (#31/#27) 95% C

    I think these next six get in...
    C#13) Cabrini (19-6, 0.532, 4-4, AT#4) (#38/#30) 82% C
    C#14) Mt St Joseph (19-5, 0.509, 2-2, GL#5) (#51/#41) 80% (27% HCAC or 72% C)
    C#15) St Thomas (MN) (19-7, 0.530, 2-2, WE#4) (#56/#40) 71% C
    C#16) Skidmore (19-7, 0.525, 5-1, EA#4) (#62/#33) 70% C
    C#17) St Lawrence (19-6, 0.524, 3-5, EA#5) (#46/#37) 64% C
    C#18) Augustana (19-8, 0.543, 2-3, CE#4) (#50/#42) 58% C

    On the table, with 3 berths left
    AT#5) TCNJ (18-8, 0.519, 2-4) (#85/#64) 1% C
    CE#6) UW-Eau Claire (17-8, 0.571, 3-3) (#30/#39) 61% C
    EA#6) Brockport (19-7, 0.522, 2-3) (#64/#47) 32% C
    GL#6) John Carroll (17-8, 0.560, 1-4) (#41/#58) 2% C
    MA#7) Moravian (18-7, 0.530, 4-5) (#61/#44) 3% C
    NE#8) Keene State (19-9, 0.578, 1-3) (#27/#45) 34% C
    SO#4) LeTourneau (22-5, 0.499, 3-2) (#54/#48) 57% C
    WE#6) Loras (18-8, 0.549, 2-4) (#49/#46) 14% C

    Other possibilities who can get to the table
    Concordia (TX) (18-7, 0.553, 1-4, SO#5) (#34/#36) 31% C
    MIT (20-6, 0.549, 0-3, NE#9) (#23/#38) 70% (21% NEWMAC or 62% C)
    Endicott (22-6, 0.523, 1-1, NE#10) (#36/#34) 22% C
    Illinois Wesleyan (17-8, 0.557, 6-2, CE#7) (#44/#35) 47% C
    UW-Oshkosh (17-10, 0.602, 5-7, CE) (#22/#72) 30% C
    Nebraska Wesleyan (17-7, 0.524, 2-2, WE#7) (#73/#49) 28% C
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 26, 2017, 03:59:35 PM
    MIT is currently leading Babson by 15 at halftime.  That's a fairly important game for the end of Pool C hopefuls.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 04:01:31 PM
    Mount St. Joseph lost to Hanover in the HCAC...maybe on the wrong side of the bubble now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2017, 04:06:35 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 04:01:31 PM
    Mount St. Joseph lost to Hanover in the HCAC...maybe on the wrong side of the bubble now.

    I've been thinking they'd be off too, but they should have one of the best WPs on the board for a while in the second half or final third of the selections. 2-2 RRO won't disqualify them either.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 04:27:06 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2017, 01:15:36 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 09:28:22 AM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2017, 12:50:39 AM
    3. Lastly, CCIW fans, welcome to the world of the MIAC (and probably a lot of other conferences out there)... where good to great teams beat each other up too much in long conference seasons, eventually taking away Pool C births away from each other and handing them to the NESCAC.

    Smitty, the CCIW is used to good-to-great teams beating each other up. That happens every season; this isn't the MIAA, where historically only two programs have dominated the circuit. The difference is that this year the CCIW was rather indifferent (by its own lofty standards) in non-conference play. That, plus the fact that the parity at the top really extended down to almost the entire league -- seven teams finished within three games of first place -- is why the CCIW is going to have so much trouble claiming a Pool C berth this season.

    Exactly what I said, good-to-great teams beating up on each other. You used my standpoint in your rebuttal.

    You said, "welcome to the world of the MIAC (and probably a lot of other conferences out there)... where good to great teams beat each other up too much in long conference seasons," implying that the CCIW wasn't used to good teams beating each other up. My reply is that it happens all the time.

    Also, I used it after the word "plus", because my rebuttal is mostly based upon the fact that the CCIW was down this season in terms of non-conference play. That's what's dragging down the league's Pool C chances even more than the parity. Each of the three CCIW co-champions lost non-con games it would later come to regret; North Park lost to Manchester and Illinois Tech; Augie lost to UW-LaCrosse; and Carthage lost at home to a Calvin team that was a real mess before the holidays, after which it turned around. (Carthage also hurt itself by playing a non-D3 team, RMU-Peoria, although I'm not certain if that was intentional or forced upon the Red Men by a late cancellation by another D3 opponent.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 04:47:43 PM
    Bubble alert, Babson down 1 with 12 seconds to go.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 04:51:25 PM
    My final projection...

    (All data courtesy of Matt Snyder - http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/.)

    Tier 1- Projected In/No Drama
    1. Babson (NE/NEWMAC): .926/.574/4-1
    2. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .731/.592/7-4   
    3. Susquehanna (MA/LAND): .800/.556/4-4
    4. UW-Whitewater (C/WIAC): .769/.567/3-5
    5. Rochester (E/UAA): .840/.534/4-2
    6. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .708/.598/5-5
    7. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .769/.566/4-4
    8. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .760/.560/4-3
    9. Whitworth (W/NWC): .852/.544/0-3
    10. Salisbury (MA/CAC): .741/.546/3-4

    Tier 2- Projected In
    11. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .750/.533/5-4
    12. Hope (GL/MIAA): .800/.525/2-1
    13. Cabrini (AT/CSAC): .760/.531/2-3
    14. Emory (S/UAA): .720/.547/2-3
    15. Skidmore (E/LL): .731/.527/6-1
    16. St. Lawrence (E/LL): .769/.526/3-5

    Tier 3- Right Side of the Bubble/Last 5 In
    17. Augustana (C/CCIW): .704/.542/2-2
    18. Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/3-4
    19. UW-Oshkosh: (C/WIAC): .630/.601/5-6
    20. Illinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW): .680/.556/4-2
    21. LeTourneau (S/ASC): .800/.506/2-2

    Tier 4 - Wrong Side of the Bubble/Left at the Table
    UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC): .680/.570/3-4
    Emory & Henry (S/ODAC): .704/.528/2-3   
    Endicott (NE/CCC): .786/.532/1-1
    Mount St. Joseph (GL/HCAC): .769/.510/2-1   
    St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .731/.530/1-2
    Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .731/.522/2-3
    Catholic (MA/LAND): .654/.557/3-7
    Rowan (AT/NJAC): .630/.5643-6

    Tier 5/Never at the table
    Ohio Wesleyan (GL/NCAC): .750/.514/2-4
    John Carroll: (GL/OAC): .680/.562/2-5
    Carthage (C/CCIW): .680/.553/2-2
    Virginia Wesleyan (S/ODAC): .679/..533/1-7
    Loras (W/IIAC): .692/.548/1-1
    St. Norbert (C/MWC): .792/.504/1-2
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 04:52:27 PM
    I will be joining on the Hoopsville special to talk Pool C in a bit.

    http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/feb26
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AppletonRocks on February 26, 2017, 05:17:37 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 12:21:11 PM
    If I have that Central order right, it will be interesting to see if .630 UW-Oshkosh is considered.  I don't think we've ever seen anything under .667 selected but who knows.  Their SOS and RRO numbers are certainly outstanding.

    And when the calculators get put away, they are a Top 10 team in the country.  After all, they beat Whitewater twice, not to mention Eau Claire twice as well.  And Shinetime has already taken up temporary residence in Salem. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 05:43:24 PM
    Hoopsville Selection Sunday Special - Pool C Projections (in progress)
    Dave McHugh, Bob Quillman, Ryan Scott

    refresh for updates

    1st 8 on the board
    AT - New Jersey City
    C - UW-Whitewater
    E - Rochester
    GL - Hope
    S - Emory
    MA - Susquehanna
    NE - Babson
    W - Whitworth

    Hoopsville Projections (in order)
    1. Babson (NE)
    2. Susquehanna (MA)
    3. UWW (C)
    4. Rochester (E)
    5. Tufts (NE)
    6. Williams (NE)
    7. Whitworth (W)
    8. Wesleyan (NE)
    9. New Jersey City (AT)
    10. Salisbury (MA)
    11. Amherst (NE)

    (break)

    12. Emory (S)
    13. Hope (GL)
    14. Skidmore (E)
    15. St. Lawrence (E)
    16. Cabrini (AT)
    17. Augustana (C)

    AT - TCNJ: .692/.521/3-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh: .630/.602/5-6
    E - Brockport: .731/.523/2-3
    GL - Mount St. Joseph: .769/.523/2-2
    MA - Moravian: .720/.527/5-5
    NE - Keene State: .679/.576/3-4
    S - LeTourneau: .800/.506/2-2
    W - St. Thomas: .731/.530/1-2

    18. Keene State (NE)

    AT - TCNJ: .692/.521/3-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh: .630/.602/5-6
    E - Brockport: .731/.523/2-3
    GL - Mount St. Joseph: .769/.523/2-2
    MA - Moravian: .720/.527/5-5
    NE - Endicott: .786/.522/3-4
    S - LeTourneau: .800/.506/2-2
    W - St. Thomas: .731/.530/1-2

    19. Endicott (NE)

    AT - TCNJ: .692/.521/3-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh: .630/.602/5-6
    E - Brockport: .731/.523/2-3
    GL - Mount St. Joseph: .769/.523/2-2
    MA - Moravian: .720/.527/5-5
    NE - Mass-Dartmouth: .630/.549/4-3
    S - LeTourneau: .800/.506/2-2
    W - St. Thomas: .731/.530/1-2

    20. Mount St. Joseph (GL)

    AT - TCNJ: .692/.521/3-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh: .630/.602/5-6
    E - Brockport: .731/.523/2-3
    GL - Ohio Wesleyan: .750/.514/2-4
    MA - Moravian: .720/.527/5-5
    NE - Mass-Dartmouth: .630/.549/4-3
    S - LeTourneau: .800/.506/2-2
    W - St. Thomas: .731/.530/1-2

    21. Ohio Wesleyan (GL)

    Left at Table
    AT - TCNJ: .692/.521/3-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh: .630/.602/5-6
    E - Brockport: .731/.523/2-3
    GL -
    MA - Moravian: .720/.527/5-5
    NE - Mass-Dartmouth: .630/.549/4-3
    S - LeTourneau: .800/.506/2-2
    W - St. Thomas: .731/.530/1-2
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 26, 2017, 06:51:08 PM
    FWIW, here's my Pool C:

    1   Babson
    2   Whitworth
    3   Rochester
    4   Susquehanna
    5   UW-Whitewater
    6   Tufts
    7   Wesleyan
    8   Amherst
    9   Hope
    10   Williaams
    11   Salisbury
    12   Emory
    13   Mt.St.Joseph
    14   Kenne State
    15   UW-Eau Claire
    16   New Jersey City
    17   Cabrini
    18   Skidmore
    19   St. Lawrance
    20   Endicott
    21   Augustana

    The last few picks were really tough. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 07:26:18 PM
    I find it amusing that they are TRYING to find someone else beside Oshkosh. I know that winning % kills them though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 07:27:45 PM
    How far down is Eau Claire? Oshkosh jumped and Augustana jumped them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 26, 2017, 07:29:11 PM
    10 losses for a team that didn't win the AQ is a lot.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 26, 2017, 07:30:57 PM
    IMO winning percentage is big for bids?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 07:33:59 PM
    I'm obviously not a Titan fan, but I am a WIAC fan, and I know the winning % kills them. But their vRRO and their SoS is far superior than anyone else. And their wins against RRO are Whitewater, River Falls, among others. If they get in, that's great, if they don't, I'm not going to be heart-broken. I don't have a dog in this race.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 07:40:59 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 07:26:18 PM
    I find it amusing that they are TRYING to find someone else beside Oshkosh. I know that winning % kills them though.

    It's unprecedentedly low. As D-Mac keeps repeating, .667 is the Mendoza Line for Pool C. There has never been a Pool C pick that failed to win two-thirds of its games. UWO is not only below the Mendoza Line, it's a whopping .037 below the Mendoza Line.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 26, 2017, 07:46:03 PM
    Except three of those teams are Williams, Wesleyan and Amherst who do play each other twice during the regular season (and once in the postseason for Amherst/William).

    That said, I think it's reasonable to stick those teams in a pod with Middlebury or Tufts.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 07:40:59 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 07:26:18 PM
    I find it amusing that they are TRYING to find someone else beside Oshkosh. I know that winning % kills them though.

    It's unprecedentedly low. As D-Mac keeps repeating, .667 is the Mendoza Line for Pool C. There has never been a Pool C pick that failed to win two-thirds of its games. UWO is not only below the Mendoza Line, it's a whopping .037 below the Mendoza Line.

    Yeah, IF the Hoopsville guys are right that Oshkosh goes to the table before IWU, we are dead meat. ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 26, 2017, 07:56:53 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 07:40:59 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 07:26:18 PM
    I find it amusing that they are TRYING to find someone else beside Oshkosh. I know that winning % kills them though.

    It's unprecedentedly low. As D-Mac keeps repeating, .667 is the Mendoza Line for Pool C. There has never been a Pool C pick that failed to win two-thirds of its games. UWO is not only below the Mendoza Line, it's a whopping .037 below the Mendoza Line.

    Yeah, IF the Hoopsville guys are right that Oshkosh goes to the table before IWU, we are dead meat. ::)
    S
    Yeah, if the Central did this it would be like eating cheese curds for a week and not a laxative in the world would uncork that  ;D :o
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 08:10:38 PM
    I understand where they are coming from. I don't expect a 10-loss team to get a Pool C. I just thought it was funny that they were actively trying to NOT pick Oshkosh, instead of actually making an argument for someone else.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 08:11:18 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 07:40:59 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 07:26:18 PM
    I find it amusing that they are TRYING to find someone else beside Oshkosh. I know that winning % kills them though.

    It's unprecedentedly low. As D-Mac keeps repeating, .667 is the Mendoza Line for Pool C. There has never been a Pool C pick that failed to win two-thirds of its games. UWO is not only below the Mendoza Line, it's a whopping .037 below the Mendoza Line.

    Yeah, IF the Hoopsville guys are right that Oshkosh goes to the table before IWU, we are dead meat. ::)

    D-Mac was hinting that they have some insider info on how the regional committees have shaped their final rankings -- and how the national committee may have then tweaked those rankings in turn.

    In other words, it sounded as though the three mock selectors have some behind-the-scenes insight into UWO being placed sixth in the Central, behind UWRF, Wash U, UWW, Benedictine, and Augustana.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEPAFAN on February 26, 2017, 08:12:15 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 08:11:18 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 07:40:59 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 07:26:18 PM
    I find it amusing that they are TRYING to find someone else beside Oshkosh. I know that winning % kills them though.

    It's unprecedentedly low. As D-Mac keeps repeating, .667 is the Mendoza Line for Pool C. There has never been a Pool C pick that failed to win two-thirds of its games. UWO is not only below the Mendoza Line, it's a whopping .037 below the Mendoza Line.

    Yeah, IF the Hoopsville guys are right that Oshkosh goes to the table before IWU, we are dead meat. ::)

    D-Mac was hinting that they have some insider info on how the regional committees have shaped their final rankings -- and how the national committee may have then tweaked those rankings in turn.

    In other words, it sounded as though the three mock selectors have some behind-the-scenes insight into UWO being placed sixth in the Central, behind UWRF, Wash U, UWW, Benedictine, and Augustana.

    Can we get some insight into those ratings now? ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 08:14:56 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 08:10:38 PM
    I understand where they are coming from. I don't expect a 10-loss team to get a Pool C. I just thought it was funny that they were actively trying to NOT pick Oshkosh, instead of actually making an argument for someone else.

    Well, Bob and Ryan seemed pretty close to pulling the trigger on UWO.

    Dave was the one who held them back ... and he's the one with the most experience at picking the brains of committee members over the years, so they deferred to him.

    If the committee goes the other way tomorrow morning and opts to set a precedent by selecting UWO, D-Mac's the first one who gets to sit on the seat in the proverbial dunk tank. ;)

    Quote from: NEPAFAN on February 26, 2017, 08:12:15 PM
    Can we get some insight into those ratings now? ;)

    That would be a good, challenging question for D-Mac while he's still on the air, so I'd suggest that you e-mail or tweet it to him.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2017, 08:15:32 PM
    First pass at guessing hosting sites. Need one more, probably in the central region (a de facto Wash U. pod at a non-legitimate hosting site like Benedictine or Hope). Hardin-Simmons deserves a host but probably only gets one if they have 4+ flights approved instead of the minimum 3.

    Middlebury
    Babson
    Tufts

    UW-River Falls
    UW-Whitewater

    Whitman

    Marietta
    Hanover

    Christopher Newport
    Susquehanna / Scranton

    Neumann
    Ramapo

    St. John Fisher
    Rochester

    Emory
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 26, 2017, 08:18:26 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 08:10:38 PM
    I understand where they are coming from. I don't expect a 10-loss team to get a Pool C. I just thought it was funny that they were actively trying to NOT pick Oshkosh, instead of actually making an argument for someone else.

    I agree that the committee will not go down that road with double digit losses, however, I believe they are a pool C team.  I concur there will be no precedent this time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 26, 2017, 08:22:02 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 08:11:18 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 07:40:59 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 07:26:18 PM
    I find it amusing that they are TRYING to find someone else beside Oshkosh. I know that winning % kills them though.

    It's unprecedentedly low. As D-Mac keeps repeating, .667 is the Mendoza Line for Pool C. There has never been a Pool C pick that failed to win two-thirds of its games. UWO is not only below the Mendoza Line, it's a whopping .037 below the Mendoza Line.

    Yeah, IF the Hoopsville guys are right that Oshkosh goes to the table before IWU, we are dead meat. ::)

    D-Mac was hinting that they have some insider info on how the regional committees have shaped their final rankings -- and how the national committee may have then tweaked those rankings in turn.

    In other words, it sounded as though the three mock selectors have some behind-the-scenes insight into UWO being placed sixth in the Central, behind UWRF, Wash U, UWW, Benedictine, and Augustana.

    Since the regional committee would have been getting some feedback from the national committee, moving Oshkosh up that high would indicate that the national committee thinks they are a viable Pool C.  But history just tells me that they won't be willing to pull that trigger.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 26, 2017, 09:07:29 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 26, 2017, 08:22:02 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 08:11:18 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2017, 07:40:59 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 07:26:18 PM
    I find it amusing that they are TRYING to find someone else beside Oshkosh. I know that winning % kills them though.

    It's unprecedentedly low. As D-Mac keeps repeating, .667 is the Mendoza Line for Pool C. There has never been a Pool C pick that failed to win two-thirds of its games. UWO is not only below the Mendoza Line, it's a whopping .037 below the Mendoza Line.

    Yeah, IF the Hoopsville guys are right that Oshkosh goes to the table before IWU, we are dead meat. ::)

    D-Mac was hinting that they have some insider info on how the regional committees have shaped their final rankings -- and how the national committee may have then tweaked those rankings in turn.

    In other words, it sounded as though the three mock selectors have some behind-the-scenes insight into UWO being placed sixth in the Central, behind UWRF, Wash U, UWW, Benedictine, and Augustana.

    Since the regional committee would have been getting some feedback from the national committee, moving Oshkosh up that high would indicate that the national committee thinks they are a viable Pool C.  But history just tells me that they won't be willing to pull that trigger.
    My thinking a little different and I think I have got this about right - Oshkosh was ranked 4th in the 3rd regional ranking through games of 2/19 with a 5-6 vRRO based upon the 2nd week rankings.  I think it was more about pushing Oshkosh further down and below Augustana.  By doing that, and in some order, you have Eau Claire, IWU and Carthage all at 17-8 with .680 WP% very close SOS with the differentiator being vRRO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2017, 09:50:35 PM
    My final Pool C picks...

    1) Babson (0.926, 0.585, 5-2, NE)
    2) Susquehanna (0.800, 0.559, 5-5, MA)
    3) Tufts (0.769, 0.570, 4-3, NE)
    4) Rochester (0.840, 0.538, 4-2, EA)
    5) Whitworth (0.852, 0.546, 1-3, WE)
    6) Williams (0.704, 0.602, 7-5, NE)
    7) Amherst (0.708, 0.602, 5-5, NE)
    8) Wesleyan (CT) (0.760, 0.561, 4-3, NE)
    9) New Jersey City (.750, 0.533, 6-3, AT)
    10) UW-Whitewater (0.769, 0.568, 1-3, CE)
    11) Emory (0.720, 0.551, 2-3, SO)
    12) Hope (0.800, 0.525, 2-1, GL)
    13) Salisbury (0.741, 0.548, 3-4, MA)
    14) Cabrini (0.760, 0.532, 4-4, AT)
    15) Mt St Joseph (0.760, 0.522, 2-3, GL)
    16) Skidmore (0.731, 0.525, 5-1, EA)
    17) St Lawrence (0.760, 0.524, 3-5, EA)
    18) St Thomas (MN) (0.731, 0.530, 2-2, WE)
    19) Augustana (.704, 0.543, 2-3, CE)
    20) UW-Eau Claire (0.680, 0.572, 3-3, CE)
    21) Keene State (0.679, 0.578, 1-3, NE)

    Left at the table
    AT) TCNJ (0.692, 0.519, 2-4)
    CE) Illinois Wesleyan (0.680, 0.557, 6-2)
    EA) Brockport (0.731, 0.522, 2-3)
    GL) John Carroll (0.680, 0.560, 1-4)
    MA) Moravian (0.720, 0.530, 4-5)
    SO) LeTourneau (0.815, 0.499, 3-2)
    WE) Nebraska Wesleyan (0.708, 0.524, 2-2)

    It's been fun!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: goscots on February 26, 2017, 09:56:18 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2017, 08:15:32 PM
    First pass at guessing hosting sites. Need one more, probably in the central region (a de facto Wash U. pod at a non-legitimate hosting site like Benedictine or Hope). Hardin-Simmons deserves a host but probably only gets one if they have 4+ flights approved instead of the minimum 3.

    Middlebury
    Babson
    Tufts

    UW-River Falls
    UW-Whitewater

    Whitman

    Marietta
    Hanover

    Christopher Newport
    Susquehanna / Scranton

    Neumann
    Ramapo

    St. John Fisher
    Rochester

    Emory

    Begin primarily knowledgeable wit the Greta Lakes I agree with Hanover and Marietta being the locations. I then think Hope, Wooster and a CCIW team get sent there.  My guess for Marietta is Calvin, Thomas More, and an a team from the east -- Ramapo?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2017, 10:15:00 PM
    The Whitman women also won the AQ, and women have the first weekend priority in odd-numbered years.  Anyone have info on whether the Whitman men will be able to host?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 26, 2017, 10:18:05 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2017, 08:15:32 PM
    First pass at guessing hosting sites. Need one more, probably in the central region (a de facto Wash U. pod at a non-legitimate hosting site like Benedictine or Hope). Hardin-Simmons deserves a host but probably only gets one if they have 4+ flights approved instead of the minimum 3.

    Middlebury
    Babson
    Tufts

    UW-River Falls
    UW-Whitewater

    Whitman

    Marietta
    Hanover

    Christopher Newport
    Susquehanna / Scranton

    Neumann
    Ramapo

    St. John Fisher
    Rochester

    Emory

    Scranton women presumably hosting so the men won't and CNU women have a possibility to host also which would eliminate the CNU men from doing so.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on February 26, 2017, 10:19:57 PM
    Quote from: goscots on February 26, 2017, 09:56:18 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2017, 08:15:32 PM
    First pass at guessing hosting sites. Need one more, probably in the central region (a de facto Wash U. pod at a non-legitimate hosting site like Benedictine or Hope). Hardin-Simmons deserves a host but probably only gets one if they have 4+ flights approved instead of the minimum 3.

    Middlebury
    Babson
    Tufts

    UW-River Falls
    UW-Whitewater

    Whitman

    Marietta
    Hanover

    Christopher Newport
    Susquehanna / Scranton

    Neumann
    Ramapo

    St. John Fisher
    Rochester

    Emory

    Begin primarily knowledgeable wit the Greta Lakes I agree with Hanover and Marietta being the locations. I then think Hope, Wooster and a CCIW team get sent there.  My guess for Marietta is Calvin, Thomas More, and an a team from the east -- Ramapo.

    Ramapo will likely host...if Thomas More doesn't go to Marietta, I could see Medaille coming down from Buffalo again and Thomas More goes to Hanover. I agree that Calvin seems to fit at Marietta, especially if Hope hosts or goes to the Central Region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2017, 10:44:49 PM
    Whitman women have no chance to host... so Whitman men are fine to host.

    CNU women I don't think are high enough to host, but that is certainly a possibility that would kick men to the road... I just don't see it happening.

    Scranton men aren't in any position to host, so not relavent.

    As for the rankings, from the digging we did, we are confident in the order we had them but we have never posted those in the past publicly. Those rankings will come out tomorrow and we can see if we were right.

    Per the Oshkosh decision... if they end up being selected because of where they were ranked, so be it. That means there was a significant shift in the thinking of the committee that my conversations didn't see coming. I will be the first to tell you that and would do it on the NCAA selections show. However, I just don't see the justification of taking a 10-loss, .630 WL% team no matter the SOS. The point is driven home to me often: a team still has to prove they can win against their schedule. I don't think losing more than a third of your games makes that case.

    Yes, it appears the national committee may have moved Oshkosh into that position IF our information is accurate. But that doesn't necessarily mean they want to pick them. They just feel they had a better argument to be there ahead of other teams. I don't think the committee ever thinks, "we need to move this team so we can select them." They make the determination based on the criteria compared to others.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2017, 11:46:54 PM
    Didn't the NCAA say a few years back that New Jersey schools couldn't host because of gambling laws? Is that a thing still or did it get rescinded (or am I just remembering the past wrong?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 11:48:55 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2017, 11:46:54 PM
    Didn't the NCAA say a few years back that New Jersey schools couldn't host because of gambling laws? Is that a thing still or did it get rescinded (or am I just remembering the past wrong?

    On Hoopsville, they interviewed the Ramapo coach and he brought that up and basically said things may have been different that year had they hosted. I don't know what happened to that law, but it sounded like he's hoping they host.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 27, 2017, 12:01:03 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2017, 11:48:55 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2017, 11:46:54 PM
    Didn't the NCAA say a few years back that New Jersey schools couldn't host because of gambling laws? Is that a thing still or did it get rescinded (or am I just remembering the past wrong?

    On Hoopsville, they interviewed the Ramapo coach and he brought that up and basically said things may have been different that year had they hosted. I don't know what happened to that law, but it sounded like he's hoping they host.

    http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9023840/ncaa-lifts-ban-tournaments-new-jersey

    2013, oy we're all old
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEPAFAN on February 27, 2017, 07:24:02 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2017, 10:44:49 PM
    Whitman women have no chance to host... so Whitman men are fine to host.

    CNU women I don't think are high enough to host, but that is certainly a possibility that would kick men to the road... I just don't see it happening.

    Scranton men aren't in any position to host, so not relavent.

    As for the rankings, from the digging we did, we are confident in the order we had them but we have never posted those in the past publicly. Those rankings will come out tomorrow and we can see if we were right.

    Per the Oshkosh decision... if they end up being selected because of where they were ranked, so be it. That means there was a significant shift in the thinking of the committee that my conversations didn't see coming. I will be the first to tell you that and would do it on the NCAA selections show. However, I just don't see the justification of taking a 10-loss, .630 WL% team no matter the SOS. The point is driven home to me often: a team still has to prove they can win against their schedule. I don't think losing more than a third of your games makes that case.

    Yes, it appears the national committee may have moved Oshkosh into that position IF our information is accurate. But that doesn't necessarily mean they want to pick them. They just feel they had a better argument to be there ahead of other teams. I don't think the committee ever thinks, "we need to move this team so we can select them." They make the determination based on the criteria compared to others.

    And Susquehanna is in a place to Host?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2017, 08:08:34 AM
    Quote from: NEPAFAN on February 27, 2017, 07:24:02 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2017, 10:44:49 PM
    Whitman women have no chance to host... so Whitman men are fine to host.

    CNU women I don't think are high enough to host, but that is certainly a possibility that would kick men to the road... I just don't see it happening.

    Scranton men aren't in any position to host, so not relavent.

    As for the rankings, from the digging we did, we are confident in the order we had them but we have never posted those in the past publicly. Those rankings will come out tomorrow and we can see if we were right.

    Per the Oshkosh decision... if they end up being selected because of where they were ranked, so be it. That means there was a significant shift in the thinking of the committee that my conversations didn't see coming. I will be the first to tell you that and would do it on the NCAA selections show. However, I just don't see the justification of taking a 10-loss, .630 WL% team no matter the SOS. The point is driven home to me often: a team still has to prove they can win against their schedule. I don't think losing more than a third of your games makes that case.

    Yes, it appears the national committee may have moved Oshkosh into that position IF our information is accurate. But that doesn't necessarily mean they want to pick them. They just feel they had a better argument to be there ahead of other teams. I don't think the committee ever thinks, "we need to move this team so we can select them." They make the determination based on the criteria compared to others.

    And Susquehanna is in a place to Host?

    According to the rankings we "gleaned," Scranton moved ahead of Susquehanna into 2nd in the MA.  Even though they can't host, in the past, if someone has earned in, they've not skipped them, but kept them top seed in a pod hosted by the "3rd" seed.  That's why I have Scranton the top seed at a pod at NJCU.

    At that point, though, you can't really "predict" anything - just make a bracket that makes sense and fits the criteria.  They very well could be hosting. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 27, 2017, 08:53:17 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2017, 08:08:34 AM
    Quote from: NEPAFAN on February 27, 2017, 07:24:02 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2017, 10:44:49 PM
    Whitman women have no chance to host... so Whitman men are fine to host.

    CNU women I don't think are high enough to host, but that is certainly a possibility that would kick men to the road... I just don't see it happening.

    Scranton men aren't in any position to host, so not relavent.

    As for the rankings, from the digging we did, we are confident in the order we had them but we have never posted those in the past publicly. Those rankings will come out tomorrow and we can see if we were right.

    Per the Oshkosh decision... if they end up being selected because of where they were ranked, so be it. That means there was a significant shift in the thinking of the committee that my conversations didn't see coming. I will be the first to tell you that and would do it on the NCAA selections show. However, I just don't see the justification of taking a 10-loss, .630 WL% team no matter the SOS. The point is driven home to me often: a team still has to prove they can win against their schedule. I don't think losing more than a third of your games makes that case.

    Yes, it appears the national committee may have moved Oshkosh into that position IF our information is accurate. But that doesn't necessarily mean they want to pick them. They just feel they had a better argument to be there ahead of other teams. I don't think the committee ever thinks, "we need to move this team so we can select them." They make the determination based on the criteria compared to others.

    And Susquehanna is in a place to Host?

    According to the rankings we "gleaned," Scranton moved ahead of Susquehanna into 2nd in the MA.  Even though they can't host, in the past, if someone has earned in, they've not skipped them, but kept them top seed in a pod hosted by the "3rd" seed. That's why I have Scranton the top seed at a pod at NJCU.

    At that point, though, you can't really "predict" anything - just make a bracket that makes sense and fits the criteria.  They very well could be hosting.

    Is the reasoning to have the 1st seed play the 4th seed on a neutral court rather than having the 4th seed host and making it an away game for the 1st seed?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEPAFAN on February 27, 2017, 09:44:16 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2017, 08:08:34 AM
    Quote from: NEPAFAN on February 27, 2017, 07:24:02 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2017, 10:44:49 PM
    Whitman women have no chance to host... so Whitman men are fine to host.

    CNU women I don't think are high enough to host, but that is certainly a possibility that would kick men to the road... I just don't see it happening.

    Scranton men aren't in any position to host, so not relavent.

    As for the rankings, from the digging we did, we are confident in the order we had them but we have never posted those in the past publicly. Those rankings will come out tomorrow and we can see if we were right.

    Per the Oshkosh decision... if they end up being selected because of where they were ranked, so be it. That means there was a significant shift in the thinking of the committee that my conversations didn't see coming. I will be the first to tell you that and would do it on the NCAA selections show. However, I just don't see the justification of taking a 10-loss, .630 WL% team no matter the SOS. The point is driven home to me often: a team still has to prove they can win against their schedule. I don't think losing more than a third of your games makes that case.

    Yes, it appears the national committee may have moved Oshkosh into that position IF our information is accurate. But that doesn't necessarily mean they want to pick them. They just feel they had a better argument to be there ahead of other teams. I don't think the committee ever thinks, "we need to move this team so we can select them." They make the determination based on the criteria compared to others.

    And Susquehanna is in a place to Host?

    According to the rankings we "gleaned," Scranton moved ahead of Susquehanna into 2nd in the MA.  Even though they can't host, in the past, if someone has earned in, they've not skipped them, but kept them top seed in a pod hosted by the "3rd" seed.  That's why I have Scranton the top seed at a pod at NJCU.

    At that point, though, you can't really "predict" anything - just make a bracket that makes sense and fits the criteria.  They very well could be hosting.

    Thanks for the insight Ryan.


    I'll put my agreement on why Scranton should be ahead of Susquehanna back in my pocket. Was going to ask about your thoughts on updated MA regional ranking, but figured you were a bit busy last night.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2017, 10:59:52 AM
    Visualization of Pool C teams by only WP & SOS... http://imgur.com/a/Rpszi (http://imgur.com/a/Rpszi)

    Two things stand out:
    - Only 16 teams are above the 50/50 chance line from the last four years, so it's a very soft bubble, even before expansion of the field.
    - UW-Oshkosh's WP is so far below what has been considered in recent years that for them to even be seriously considered for Pool C represents quite a shift in the evaluation.  It would seem to move us closer toward the D1 at-large model where SOS is king, which benefits power conferences, and (at the D3 level) would have a disparate impact by region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 27, 2017, 11:42:27 AM
    Thanks, Drew. That visualization is very helpful. I'm debating whether or not to print it out to show it to the NPU coach to illustrate how close the Vikings came. He may not be ready for that yet, though. :(
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: stag44 on February 27, 2017, 11:59:34 AM
    is there any chance / outcome that CMS goes anywhere besides up to Whitman?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2017, 12:02:04 PM
    Yes ... if they beat Whitman & Whitworth!  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2017, 12:03:14 PM
    Quote from: stag44 on February 27, 2017, 11:59:34 AM
    is there any chance / outcome that CMS goes anywhere besides up to Whitman?

    The only chance is if the NCAA broke from the norm and somehow approved spending more money extra flights. That usually doesn't happen.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2017, 01:03:01 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2017, 05:43:24 PM
    Hoopsville Selection Sunday Special - Pool C Projections (in progress)
    Dave McHugh, Bob Quillman, Ryan Scott

    refresh for updates

    1st 8 on the board
    AT - New Jersey City
    C - UW-Whitewater
    E - Rochester
    GL - Hope
    S - Emory
    MA - Susquehanna
    NE - Babson
    W - Whitworth

    Hoopsville Projections (in order)
    1. Babson (NE)
    2. Susquehanna (MA)
    3. UWW (C)
    4. Rochester (E)
    5. Tufts (NE)
    6. Williams (NE)
    7. Whitworth (W)
    8. Wesleyan (NE)
    9. New Jersey City (AT)
    10. Salisbury (MA)
    11. Amherst (NE)

    (break)

    12. Emory (S)
    13. Hope (GL)
    14. Skidmore (E)
    15. St. Lawrence (E)
    16. Cabrini (AT)
    17. Augustana (C)

    AT - TCNJ: .692/.521/3-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh: .630/.602/5-6
    E - Brockport: .731/.523/2-3
    GL - Mount St. Joseph: .769/.523/2-2
    MA - Moravian: .720/.527/5-5
    NE - Keene State: .679/.576/3-4
    S - LeTourneau: .800/.506/2-2
    W - St. Thomas: .731/.530/1-2

    18. Keene State (NE)

    AT - TCNJ: .692/.521/3-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh: .630/.602/5-6
    E - Brockport: .731/.523/2-3
    GL - Mount St. Joseph: .769/.523/2-2
    MA - Moravian: .720/.527/5-5
    NE - Endicott: .786/.522/3-4
    S - LeTourneau: .800/.506/2-2
    W - St. Thomas: .731/.530/1-2

    19. Endicott (NE)

    AT - TCNJ: .692/.521/3-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh: .630/.602/5-6
    E - Brockport: .731/.523/2-3
    GL - Mount St. Joseph: .769/.523/2-2
    MA - Moravian: .720/.527/5-5
    NE - Mass-Dartmouth: .630/.549/4-3
    S - LeTourneau: .800/.506/2-2
    W - St. Thomas: .731/.530/1-2

    20. Mount St. Joseph (GL)

    AT - TCNJ: .692/.521/3-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh: .630/.602/5-6
    E - Brockport: .731/.523/2-3
    GL - Ohio Wesleyan: .750/.514/2-4
    MA - Moravian: .720/.527/5-5
    NE - Mass-Dartmouth: .630/.549/4-3
    S - LeTourneau: .800/.506/2-2
    W - St. Thomas: .731/.530/1-2

    21. Ohio Wesleyan (GL)

    Left at Table
    AT - TCNJ: .692/.521/3-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh: .630/.602/5-6
    E - Brockport: .731/.523/2-3
    GL -
    MA - Moravian: .720/.527/5-5
    NE - Mass-Dartmouth: .630/.549/4-3
    S - LeTourneau: .800/.506/2-2
    W - St. Thomas: .731/.530/1-2

    Looks like 19 of 21.  In our #20 and 21 spots we had Mount St. Joseph and Ohio Wesleyan...committee picked UW-Oshkosh and St. Thomas.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2017, 01:20:52 PM
    19 each for Bob, for bopol, for the d3h panel, and for me.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 27, 2017, 03:00:46 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2017, 10:59:52 AM
    Visualization of Pool C teams by only WP & SOS... http://imgur.com/a/Rpszi (http://imgur.com/a/Rpszi)

    Two things stand out:
    - Only 16 teams are above the 50/50 chance line from the last four years, so it's a very soft bubble, even before expansion of the field.
    - UW-Oshkosh's WP is so far below what has been considered in recent years that for them to even be seriously considered for Pool C represents quite a shift in the evaluation.  It would seem to move us closer toward the D1 at-large model where SOS is king, which benefits power conferences, and (at the D3 level) would have a disparate impact by region.

    Do you have this for all Pool C selections for the last few years.  Just to see how far outside the norm UWO would be.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 27, 2017, 03:14:05 PM
    Seems like there were fewer-than-usual conference upsets featuring Pool C locks this year, and hence the committee went far deeper into the Pool C candidate group than usual.  Is that right?

    The only bid-thiefs (teams that would not have made it but for winning a league title while knocking off a Pool C candidate in the process) among conference tourny champs that I count are:

    Nichols
    Union
    Calvin
    Bethel


    I think that's it.  Four has to be on the very low end for bid thiefs, right? 

    With so few bid thiefs, and so much parity this year in particular, I think we will see a very competitive first two rounds.  There will be some blowouts, but also some real surprises.  And picking the Final Four looks really, really tough -- each quarter has at least 3-4 candidates who are hard to separate from one another.  Middlebury probably has the clearest path but there are plenty of potential roadblocks even for the Panthers.  Whitman/Marietta also look well-positioned in their bracket, especially Whitman. 

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 27, 2017, 03:18:30 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 27, 2017, 03:14:05 PM
    Seems like there were fewer-than-usual conference upsets featuring Pool C locks this year, and hence the committee went far deeper into the Pool C candidate group than usual.  Is that right?

    The only bid-thiefs (teams that would not have made it but for winning a league title while knocking off a Pool C candidate in the process) among conference tourny champs that I count are:

    Nichols
    Union
    Calvin
    Bethel


    I think that's it.  Four has to be on the very low end for bid thiefs, right? 

    With so few bid thiefs, and so much parity this year in particular, I think we will see a very competitive first two rounds.  There will be some blowouts, but also some real surprises.  And picking the Final Four looks really, really tough -- each quarter has at least 3-4 candidates who are hard to separate from one another.  Middlebury probably has the clearest path but there are plenty of potential roadblocks even for the Panthers.  Whitman/Marietta also look well-positioned in their bracket, especially Whitman.

    You'd have to consider North Central a bid thief as well...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2017, 03:25:01 PM
    And add MIT over Babson to that list.  VERY doubtful that MIT would have gotten an at large.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 27, 2017, 03:28:25 PM
    I don't know Mr. Ypsi -- Keene State and Endicott, both of whom were (I believe) ranked behind MIT in New England, both made it ... the Committee took 10 ranked New England teams total, and even with a loss to Babson, MIT was certainly in the top ten in the region. 

    North Central, yeah, I forgot about them ...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3ball1845 on February 27, 2017, 03:37:02 PM
    Additionally, wouldn't Salem State be considered a bid thief as well? I didn't see them anywhere in the Pool C discussion...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 27, 2017, 03:40:58 PM
    Salem State is not because no one from MASCAC received, or ever could have received, a Pool C bid -- so it if wasn't Salem State, it would be another lone representive from MASCAC.  Either way, that doesn't take a bid from anyone else ... bid thiefs have to be teams that would never have received a Pool C bid, but knock off a team that was a legit Pool C contender and conference-title favorite.  Union is the perfect example, since winning the conference tournament made its league a three-bid league, rather than a two-bid league. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3ball1845 on February 27, 2017, 03:48:50 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 27, 2017, 03:40:58 PM
    Salem State is not because no one from MASCAC received, or ever could have received, a Pool C bid -- so it if wasn't Salem State, it would be another lone representive from MASCAC.  Either way, that doesn't take a bid from anyone else ... bid thiefs have to be teams that would never have received a Pool C bid, but knock off a team that was a legit Pool C contender and conference-title favorite.  Union is the perfect example, since winning the conference tournament made its league a three-bid league, rather than a two-bid league. 

    Ahhhhhh that makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. I think I was confused, because in my eyes, Nichols had a shot at Pool C contention if they ended up losing the CCC final to Endicott. But, we'll never know if it would have happened and I have been made aware that the CCC has typically been a one bid conference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2017, 04:29:19 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 27, 2017, 03:00:46 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2017, 10:59:52 AM
    Visualization of Pool C teams by only WP & SOS... http://imgur.com/a/Rpszi (http://imgur.com/a/Rpszi)

    Two things stand out:
    - Only 16 teams are above the 50/50 chance line from the last four years, so it's a very soft bubble, even before expansion of the field.
    - UW-Oshkosh's WP is so far below what has been considered in recent years that for them to even be seriously considered for Pool C represents quite a shift in the evaluation.  It would seem to move us closer toward the D1 at-large model where SOS is king, which benefits power conferences, and (at the D3 level) would have a disparate impact by region.

    Do you have this for all Pool C selections for the last few years.  Just to see how far outside the norm UWO would be.

    Yes, that plot & the original analysis is a few pages back... http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.6915 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.6915)

    It will take multiple years to tell this, but if WP & SOS remain the key factors and the selection of UWO indicates a shift in how low-WP, high-SOS teams are looked at, then this new model might work.  Among other teams, Concordia(TX) had a poor record (1-4) vs RRO, but UW-Eau Claire (3-3) might have a case today. 
    http://imgur.com/a/G6fAH (http://imgur.com/a/G6fAH)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2017, 05:01:34 PM
    I presume you mean Oshkosh?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 27, 2017, 05:36:28 PM
    Yes, in one spot. Fixed!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2017, 07:05:03 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2017, 03:25:01 PM
    And add MIT over Babson to that list.  VERY doubtful that MIT would have gotten an at large.

    No, I believe MIT would have gotten in... if you look at who got in and the regional rankings... you will notice MIT was ahead of Endicott. Not sure that is a theft at all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2017, 08:36:27 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2017, 04:29:19 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 27, 2017, 03:00:46 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 27, 2017, 10:59:52 AM
    Visualization of Pool C teams by only WP & SOS... http://imgur.com/a/Rpszi (http://imgur.com/a/Rpszi)

    Two things stand out:
    - Only 16 teams are above the 50/50 chance line from the last four years, so it's a very soft bubble, even before expansion of the field.
    - UW-Oshkosh's WP is so far below what has been considered in recent years that for them to even be seriously considered for Pool C represents quite a shift in the evaluation.  It would seem to move us closer toward the D1 at-large model where SOS is king, which benefits power conferences, and (at the D3 level) would have a disparate impact by region.

    Do you have this for all Pool C selections for the last few years.  Just to see how far outside the norm UWO would be.

    Yes, that plot & the original analysis is a few pages back... http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.6915 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.6915)

    It will take multiple years to tell this, but if WP & SOS remain the key factors and the selection of UWO indicates a shift in how low-WP, high-SOS teams are looked at, then this new model might work.  Among other teams, Concordia(TX) had a poor record (1-4) vs RRO, but UW-Eau Claire (3-3) might have a case today. 
    http://imgur.com/a/G6fAH (http://imgur.com/a/G6fAH)

    So, UWO in is actually the committee sticking closer to the criteria than they have in the past.  Creating the arbitrary .667 line, while certainly justifiable, is more subjective than objective.  When we were mocking this out, using the 2 wins = .03 SOS comparison, Oshkosh came out ahead of Keene.  By the numbers, you really can't argue it - the question comes when we ask how many losses are too many.  The committee has pretty firmly said this year than wins matter and losses don't (so long as you have wins).  We can argue about whether that's good or not, but we can argue about every single metric we use.  It is what it is.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2017, 10:18:53 PM
    Crossed out teams are conference winners and bolded teams are Pool C

    ATLANTIC   Team   In-region   Overall
    1   Neumann   25-2   25-2
    2   Ramapo   25-2   25-2
    3   New Jersey City   21-7   21-7
    4   Cabrini   19-6   19-7
    5   Staten Island   21-5   21-6
    6   TCNJ   18-8   18-8
    7   Misericordia   20-7   20-7
    8   Rowan   17-10   17-10
       NCAA rankings data       
    CENTRAL        
    1   UW-River Falls   22-3   24-3
    2   Washington U.   20-5   20-5
    3   UW-Whitewater   20-6   21-6
    4   Augustana    19-8   19-8
    5   Benedictine   23-3   23-4
    6   UW-Oshkosh   17-10   17-10
    7   Illinois Wesleyan   17-8   17-8
    8   UW-Eau Claire   17-8   18-8
       NCAA rankings data
       
    EAST        
    1   Rochester   21-4   21-4
    2   St. John Fisher   22-5   22-5
    3   Oswego State   21-6   21-6
    4   Skidmore   19-7   19-7
    5   St. Lawrence   20-6   20-6
    6   Brockport   19-7   19-7
    7   Cortland   17-9   17-9
    8   Union   16-9   16-10
       NCAA rankings data
       
    GREAT LAKES        
    1   Marietta   24-4   24-4
    2   Hanover   21-3   23-3
    3   Wooster   21-7   21-7
    4   Hope   20-5   21-6
    5   Mount St. Joseph   20-6   20-7
    6   Ohio Wesleyan   21-7   21-7
    7   John Carroll   17-8   17-8
    8   Denison   22-5   22-5
    9   Thomas More   21-6   22-6
       NCAA rankings data
       
    MIDDLE ATLANTIC        
    1   Christopher Newport   25-2   25-2
    2   Scranton   21-6   21-6
    3   Susquehanna   20-5   21-5
    4   Swarthmore   22-5   22-5
    5   Lycoming   22-4   23-4
    6   Salisbury   20-7   20-7
    7   Moravian   18-7   19-8
    8   Catholic   17-9   17-9
       NCAA rankings data
       
    NORTHEAST        
    1   Middlebury   24-3   24-3
    2   Babson   25-2   25-2
    3   Tufts   20-6   20-6
    4   Williams   19-8   19-8
    5   Eastern Connecticut   20-8   20-8
    6   Wesleyan   19-6   19-6
    7   Amherst   17-7   17-7
    8   MIT   21-6   21-6
    9   Keene State   19-9   19-9
    10   Endicott   22-6   22-6
    11   Mass-Dartmouth   17-10   17-10
       NCAA rankings data
       
    SOUTH        
    1   Hardin-Simmons   21-6   22-6
    2   Guilford   23-5   23-5
    3   Emory   18-7   18-7
    4   LeTourneau   20-5   22-6
    5   Emory & Henry   19-8   20-8
    6   Virginia Wesleyan   19-9   19-9
    7   Concordia (Texas)   17-7   19-8
    8   Texas Lutheran   19-9   19-9
       NCAA rankings data
       
    WEST           
    1   Whitman   27-0   27-0
    2   Whitworth   23-4   23-4
    3   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   20-3   22-4
    4   Wartburg   17-9   19-9
    5   St. Thomas   19-7   19-7
    6   Bethel   20-6   21-6
    7   Loras   18-8   18-8
    8   Cal Lutheran   19-7   20-7
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 27, 2017, 11:35:27 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2017, 07:05:03 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2017, 03:25:01 PM
    And add MIT over Babson to that list.  VERY doubtful that MIT would have gotten an at large.

    No, I believe MIT would have gotten in... if you look at who got in and the regional rankings... you will notice MIT was ahead of Endicott. Not sure that is a theft at all.

    Is that because they had one extra win, which is against a RRO who happened to be one of the best in the country though? If we are giving them the title of "bid thief" we are assuming they go into Pool C, where they lose the NEWMAC championship game against Babson. You know more than I do, Dave, but not winning that game could have dropped them behind Keene and possibly Endicott... Or am I off?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2017, 11:41:02 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 27, 2017, 11:35:27 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2017, 07:05:03 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2017, 03:25:01 PM
    And add MIT over Babson to that list.  VERY doubtful that MIT would have gotten an at large.

    No, I believe MIT would have gotten in... if you look at who got in and the regional rankings... you will notice MIT was ahead of Endicott. Not sure that is a theft at all.

    Is that because they had one extra win, which is against a RRO who happened to be one of the best in the country though? If we are giving them the title of "bid thief" we are assuming they go into Pool C, where they lose the NEWMAC championship game against Babson. You know more than I do, Dave, but not winning that game could have dropped them behind Keene and possibly Endicott... Or am I off?

    I am not sure... but they were in front of Endicott in the final regional rankings. You could certainly argue they would have been behind Endicott had they lost... except, those rankings were basically put together before MIT completed the win. I think the RAC and the national committee expected MIT to lose and ranked accordingly. This is very common on Sundays for those wondering. RACs meet in the morning and national committee starts in the early afternoon. They have to do work despite the games ongoing.

    Anyway... MIT was 10th prior to their game tipping of. Doubt they would have dropped behind Endicott with a loss... it was expected for good reason.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2017, 12:00:14 AM
    My two misses were UW-Oshkosh and St. Thomas and I had UW-Eau Claire and Mt. St. Joseph in.

    Personally, I think Mt. St. Joseph has a beef.  They had a really good 20-6 D3 record (with a loss to an average D1 Evansville team) and a decent SOS.  They should have been ahead of St. Thomas which had another D3 loss and not much of an SOS advantage.

    I don't have a problem with Oshkosh getting a pick, but I just didn't think the committee would go there.  I remember when Carthage had a similar WP and SOS and didn't get in because they 'didn't beat' anyone (they had beaten Top 3 Wash U that year).  I honestly just didn't think the committee would put Oshkosh ahead of Eau Claire, so I assumed a different order in the Central when I made my picks.  With full knowledge, I think it is the right choice.

    I'd give the committee an A- for their Pool C picks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2017, 12:19:34 AM
    Just FYI... Mt St Joe's loss to Evansville isn't really considered. They are 20-5 in the eyes of the committee unless they are splitting hairs so badly and one of the teams they are comparing also played Evansville. I realize that may help the argument... but just pointing that out.

    Also people forget Eau Claire lost twice to Oshkosh... there was some justifications in the end to put Oshkosh ahead of Eau Claire especially since the SOS difference made their mutual records even.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AppletonRocks on February 28, 2017, 08:25:52 AM
    How competitive is the bottom half of the NESCAC? 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2017, 08:49:06 AM
    Quote from: AppletonRocks on February 28, 2017, 08:25:52 AM
    How competitive is the bottom half of the NESCAC?

    Normally, there's two or three teams in real rebuilding mode, but this year there was just one - Colby wasn't great - but even then it was a very competitive league top to bottom. That's why their SOS was so high - even Colby was 9-4 out of conference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on February 28, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2017, 08:49:06 AM
    Quote from: AppletonRocks on February 28, 2017, 08:25:52 AM
    How competitive is the bottom half of the NESCAC?

    Normally, there's two or three teams in real rebuilding mode, but this year there was just one - Colby wasn't great - but even then it was a very competitive league top to bottom. That's why their SOS was so high - even Colby was 9-4 out of conference.

    Colby is the only NESCAC school outside the Massey top 150. I think that is pretty remarkable.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 28, 2017, 09:10:34 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2017, 09:50:35 PM
    My final Pool C picks...

    1) Babson (0.926, 0.585, 5-2, NE)
    2) Susquehanna (0.800, 0.559, 5-5, MA)
    3) Tufts (0.769, 0.570, 4-3, NE)
    4) Rochester (0.840, 0.538, 4-2, EA)
    5) Whitworth (0.852, 0.546, 1-3, WE)
    6) Williams (0.704, 0.602, 7-5, NE)
    7) Amherst (0.708, 0.602, 5-5, NE)
    8) Wesleyan (CT) (0.760, 0.561, 4-3, NE)
    9) New Jersey City (.750, 0.533, 6-3, AT)
    10) UW-Whitewater (0.769, 0.568, 1-3, CE)
    11) Emory (0.720, 0.551, 2-3, SO)
    12) Hope (0.800, 0.525, 2-1, GL) 97%
    13) Salisbury (0.741, 0.548, 3-4, MA) 96%
    14) Cabrini (0.760, 0.532, 4-4, AT) 83%
    15) Mt St Joseph (0.760, 0.522, 2-3, GL) 74%
    16) Skidmore (0.731, 0.525, 5-1, EA) 70%
    17) St Lawrence (0.760, 0.524, 3-5, EA) 64%
    18) St Thomas (MN) (0.731, 0.530, 2-2, WE) 73%
    19) Augustana (.704, 0.543, 2-3, CE)[/b] 62%
    20) UW-Eau Claire (0.680, 0.572, 3-3, CE) 62%
    21) Keene State (0.679, 0.578, 1-3, NE) 37%

    Left at the table
    AT) TCNJ (0.692, 0.519, 2-4) 1%
    CE) Illinois Wesleyan (0.680, 0.557, 6-2) 45%
    EA) Brockport (0.731, 0.522, 2-3) 34%
    GL) John Carroll (0.680, 0.560, 1-4) 3%
    MA) Moravian (0.720, 0.530, 4-5) 3%
    SO) LeTourneau (0.815, 0.499, 3-2) 57%
    WE) Nebraska Wesleyan (0.708, 0.524, 2-2) 45%


    I also got 19 of 21 correct, with St Thomas right, but had MSJ & UWEC in, instead of Endicott and UWO.  I didn't have a great sense of how the Central rankings would shake down, which greatly affected the UWO/IWU/UWEC situation.  Above, I have added in my probabilities, which weren't part of the original post.

    Besides those listed above as on the table at the end of the process, others I thought had a chance were UWO (29%, despite my model heavily penalizing the low WP), Concordia-TX (33%), Nebraska Wesleyan (25%), Endicott (16%), and Loras (14%).

    It was interesting to hear committee chair Kevin Vande Streek say on Hoopsville that the last two teams chosen were St Lawrence and Cabrini; among those of us who did mock selections, there was a consensus that Cabrini seemed fairly safe.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 28, 2017, 10:07:27 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 28, 2017, 09:10:34 AM
    It was interesting to hear committee chair Kevin Vande Streek say on Hoopsville that the last two teams chosen were St Lawrence and Cabrini; among those of us who did mock selections, there was a consensus that Cabrini seemed fairly safe.

    These teams are quite happy about the expanded 64 team field!  ;D Also interesting to note that UWO would have made it with last years 62 team field.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AppletonRocks on February 28, 2017, 10:49:23 AM
    Oshkosh and Eau Claire played each other 2x this year, may have influenced the committee.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 28, 2017, 12:09:59 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2017, 12:00:14 AM
    My two misses were UW-Oshkosh and St. Thomas and I had UW-Eau Claire and Mt. St. Joseph in.

    Personally, I think Mt. St. Joseph has a beef.  They had a really good 20-6 D3 record (with a loss to an average D1 Evansville team) and a decent SOS.  They should have been ahead of St. Thomas which had another D3 loss and not much of an SOS advantage.

    I don't have a problem with Oshkosh getting a pick, but I just didn't think the committee would go there.  I remember when Carthage had a similar WP and SOS and didn't get in because they 'didn't beat' anyone (they had beaten Top 3 Wash U that year).  I honestly just didn't think the committee would put Oshkosh ahead of Eau Claire, so I assumed a different order in the Central when I made my picks.  With full knowledge, I think it is the right choice.

    I'd give the committee an A- for their Pool C picks.
    #1 thing I got from Dave's interview with the Vande Streek is they didn't stop counting quality wins at the end of the regional rankings list.  So while St. Thomas might have only gone 2-1 against the top 10 in the region, they won a bunch more games against quality teams like Carleton, St. John's and Stevens Point.  That seems to be pushing the bounds of the criteria, but it's definitely a more accurate way to count quality wins.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 28, 2017, 12:27:37 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 28, 2017, 12:09:59 PM

    #1 thing I got from Dave's interview with the Vande Streek is they didn't stop counting quality wins at the end of the regional rankings list.  So while St. Thomas might have only gone 2-1 against the top 10 in the region, they won a bunch more games against quality teams like Carleton, St. John's and Stevens Point.  That seems to be pushing the bounds of the criteria, but it's definitely a more accurate way to count quality wins.

    I should say that I don't think St. Thomas is a bad pick.  They were likely my 22nd pick.  It's more that Mt. St. Joseph seems to be ahead on the stated criteria.

    It's interesting that they are looking at quality wins outside of the RRO.  An interesting aspect of the Central was the CCIW craziness where you can reasonably argue that Carthage and North Park would have been the top 2 teams outside of the final regional rankings.  They was way too much dependence on ending up the last team in the regional rankings for the RRO.  Including one or both would have drastically changed the RRO of Augie, IWU and UW-Oshkosh.  I would be happy to look at the quality of teams more holistically (say, defeating #1 in the region is much, much better than defeating #9 in the region and even that is not that much better than defeating a team that is just outside the regional rankings. 

    And, again, I think the committee did a very good job this year for the Pool C picks.  It isn't like years past where we are all scratching our collective heads wondering what the heck was going on in the committee.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2017, 12:33:15 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 28, 2017, 12:09:59 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2017, 12:00:14 AM
    My two misses were UW-Oshkosh and St. Thomas and I had UW-Eau Claire and Mt. St. Joseph in.

    Personally, I think Mt. St. Joseph has a beef.  They had a really good 20-6 D3 record (with a loss to an average D1 Evansville team) and a decent SOS.  They should have been ahead of St. Thomas which had another D3 loss and not much of an SOS advantage.

    I don't have a problem with Oshkosh getting a pick, but I just didn't think the committee would go there.  I remember when Carthage had a similar WP and SOS and didn't get in because they 'didn't beat' anyone (they had beaten Top 3 Wash U that year).  I honestly just didn't think the committee would put Oshkosh ahead of Eau Claire, so I assumed a different order in the Central when I made my picks.  With full knowledge, I think it is the right choice.

    I'd give the committee an A- for their Pool C picks.
    #1 thing I got from Dave's interview with the Vande Streek is they didn't stop counting quality wins at the end of the regional rankings list.  So while St. Thomas might have only gone 2-1 against the top 10 in the region, they won a bunch more games against quality teams like Carleton, St. John's and Stevens Point.  That seems to be pushing the bounds of the criteria, but it's definitely a more accurate way to count quality wins.

    They've talked about wins vs. teams above .500 and wins vs. teams above .600 before -- I took that to be what he was referencing.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: RedHotFalcon on February 28, 2017, 01:45:31 PM
    Happy that 3 WIAC teams got in. But certainly surprised. I would always like to get 3 in. It is a tough league. However, Dave, your argument is right on. You have 8 quality wins, but lose 10 games. How do you ignore the losses. Many of them were not quality losses. Slippery slope the NCAA committee took here and I can understand why there would be questions. Of course, there are always teams on the bubble that are left out. It's like reffing be consistent.  I would hate to sit in a room at the table saying, well I feel they are a better team.  You could argue well maybe that feeling was from the game against UWO and Calvin earlier in the year. I'm sure that wasn't the case, but picks like this make a guy wonder. I just hope that in the future the team I route for gets looked at and put in the tournament with 10 losses. Good luck to all the teams that made it. Have fun! Enjoy, play your hearts out!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2017, 02:19:22 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2017, 12:33:15 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 28, 2017, 12:09:59 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 28, 2017, 12:00:14 AM
    My two misses were UW-Oshkosh and St. Thomas and I had UW-Eau Claire and Mt. St. Joseph in.

    Personally, I think Mt. St. Joseph has a beef.  They had a really good 20-6 D3 record (with a loss to an average D1 Evansville team) and a decent SOS.  They should have been ahead of St. Thomas which had another D3 loss and not much of an SOS advantage.

    I don't have a problem with Oshkosh getting a pick, but I just didn't think the committee would go there.  I remember when Carthage had a similar WP and SOS and didn't get in because they 'didn't beat' anyone (they had beaten Top 3 Wash U that year).  I honestly just didn't think the committee would put Oshkosh ahead of Eau Claire, so I assumed a different order in the Central when I made my picks.  With full knowledge, I think it is the right choice.

    I'd give the committee an A- for their Pool C picks.
    #1 thing I got from Dave's interview with the Vande Streek is they didn't stop counting quality wins at the end of the regional rankings list.  So while St. Thomas might have only gone 2-1 against the top 10 in the region, they won a bunch more games against quality teams like Carleton, St. John's and Stevens Point.  That seems to be pushing the bounds of the criteria, but it's definitely a more accurate way to count quality wins.

    They've talked about wins vs. teams above .500 and wins vs. teams above .600 before -- I took that to be what he was referencing.

    Yeah, but those aren't technically part of the criteria.  I know we've had private conversations about this, but the question remains whether they should be using data that's not part of the criteria if the whole purpose of the criteria was to mandate a certain amount of objectivity?  I'm not sure there's a correct answer to that question, but it's worth discussing.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 28, 2017, 02:23:41 PM
    Quote from: RedHotFalcon on February 28, 2017, 01:45:31 PM
    Happy that 3 WIAC teams got in. But certainly surprised. I would always like to get 3 in. It is a tough league. However, Dave, your argument is right on. You have 8 quality wins, but lose 10 games. How do you ignore the losses. Many of them were not quality losses.
    The only game on Oshkosh's schedule resembling a "bad loss" was Stout.  Stout would be one of the better teams on an average D3 schedule.  On Mt. St. Joe's schedule I'd only put Hanover and John Carroll above Stout.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2017, 02:30:06 PM
    Since Drew's chart is referenced in Pat's d3hoops.com story on UW-Oshkosh making the tourney as a Pool C surprise, I thought I'd go back and look at the actual performance of his statistical outliers (which I've bolded):

    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 15, 2017, 12:33:52 PM
    Warning: long, nerdy post!

    I analyzed the data regarding Pool C selections over the last four seasons (2013-2016).  This graph shows WP & SOS of teams that were candidates for Pool C, and whether or not they were selected.  Moving up or to the right indicates a stronger resume.

    The top left represents teams with good records but soft schedules, and the bottom right includes teams with so-so records versus tough schedules.  We could find lots more mediocre teams that didn't make the field to fill out the bottom and left portions (except for the extreme top-left), but I included only about 40 per season. 

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FliftTYk.jpg&hash=74bbdb0bab98c14f058e4ab41bb9d3fc7de97394)
    If the image doesn't display above, it's located here: http://imgur.com/a/5UxNp (http://imgur.com/a/5UxNp)

    The solid line is the generic bubble mark (50% shot at getting a Pool C berth), and the dashed lines above and below represent 90% and 10% chances, respectively (without considering the number of qualified bubble teams that year)  The moderately-sloped portions toward the center of the 50% and 90% lines represent the "2 wins [or .080 WP] equals .030 SOS" principle.  Moving toward the edges, the slopes change in ways that represent that the committee values a balanced resume more than one with either a weak SOS (and a great record) or a weak WP (against a tough schedule). 

    For any engineers, etc. interested in the gory details, the formula is as follows:
    P = SOS - 3/8*(1-WP) - 1.2*max(.720-WP,0) - 1.5*max(.510-SOS,0)
    The first two terms are .030 SOS = .080 WP, the next term penalizes WP<.720 and the last penalizes SOS<.510. 
    Fitting a single-variable logistic regression model to the outcomes (bid or no bid) yields the probabilities.

    The outliers of teams that would appear less qualified but got in were as follows:
    Randolph '13 (.714, .520, 4-5), which the model gives only a 5% chance
    Bowdoin '14 (.792, .503, 1-3) 10%
    Wittenberg '14 (.750, .517, 3-6) 21%

    On the flip side, the teams that appear deserving but didn't get in were:
    Albright '13 (.769, .546, 3-1) 88%
    Buena Vista '13 (.720, .563, 1-2) 87%
    Carroll '16 (.800, .530, 0-3) 83%
    Thomas More '13 (.846, .512, 1-3) 82%

    Overall, it's interesting that there were very few outliers in the last couple of years, perhaps indicating a shift to a more quantitative approach by the national committee.  This model does reasonably well despite not including results versus regionally ranked opponents (and Carroll's lack of a vRRO win last year helps explain why they got left out), although my current one does consider that.

    Edited to fix image embed -- you almost had it, but you need to have the actual filename in there, not the page it lives on. Click the image to enlarge./pc

    Here's how they did in the dance:

    2013: Emory 77, Randolph 56
    2014: Stockton 72, Bowdoin 66
    2014: Calvin 66, Wittenberg 51

    Three outliers, three first-round exits ... and only one of them was competitive.

    UW-Oshkosh does not have a high bar to hurdle.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 28, 2017, 06:57:08 PM
    Did the committees allow Moravian to take the selection table home - between the men and women, they were there for ~ 20 selections for Pool C?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AppletonRocks on February 28, 2017, 08:07:26 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 28, 2017, 02:23:41 PM
    Quote from: RedHotFalcon on February 28, 2017, 01:45:31 PM
    Happy that 3 WIAC teams got in. But certainly surprised. I would always like to get 3 in. It is a tough league. However, Dave, your argument is right on. You have 8 quality wins, but lose 10 games. How do you ignore the losses. Many of them were not quality losses.
    The only game on Oshkosh's schedule resembling a "bad loss" was Stout.  Stout would be one of the better teams on an average D3 schedule.  On Mt. St. Joe's schedule I'd only put Hanover and John Carroll above Stout.

    Stout beat Whitewater soon thereafter. Stout didn't finish they way they started.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2017, 09:45:24 PM
    Quote from: AppletonRocks on February 28, 2017, 08:07:26 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 28, 2017, 02:23:41 PM
    Quote from: RedHotFalcon on February 28, 2017, 01:45:31 PM
    Happy that 3 WIAC teams got in. But certainly surprised. I would always like to get 3 in. It is a tough league. However, Dave, your argument is right on. You have 8 quality wins, but lose 10 games. How do you ignore the losses. Many of them were not quality losses.
    The only game on Oshkosh's schedule resembling a "bad loss" was Stout.  Stout would be one of the better teams on an average D3 schedule.  On Mt. St. Joe's schedule I'd only put Hanover and John Carroll above Stout.

    Stout beat Whitewater soon thereafter. Stout didn't finish they way they started.

    In what year?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: RedHotFalcon on February 28, 2017, 10:29:31 PM
    Would we say then 8 quality wins, 9 quality losses? It's ok. As I said, I hope this trend continues. Not remembering last year as much, did we have a Wiac team that could have been considered? I remember thinking we were a 1 team at bid because of l's.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2017, 12:25:19 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 28, 2017, 06:57:08 PM
    Did the committees allow Moravian to take the selection table home - between the men and women, they were there for ~ 20 selections for Pool C?

    Women absolutely hit the table. There was no way any other team behind them jumped ahead of them and I think the rankings prove that (don't have them in front of me).

    And I am pretty sure the men hit the table as well, they did in our mock rankings. Women had stronger criteria and chance then the men did, but neither really stood out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AppletonRocks on March 01, 2017, 09:12:28 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2017, 09:45:24 PM
    Quote from: AppletonRocks on February 28, 2017, 08:07:26 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 28, 2017, 02:23:41 PM
    Quote from: RedHotFalcon on February 28, 2017, 01:45:31 PM
    Happy that 3 WIAC teams got in. But certainly surprised. I would always like to get 3 in. It is a tough league. However, Dave, your argument is right on. You have 8 quality wins, but lose 10 games. How do you ignore the losses. Many of them were not quality losses.
    The only game on Oshkosh's schedule resembling a "bad loss" was Stout.  Stout would be one of the better teams on an average D3 schedule.  On Mt. St. Joe's schedule I'd only put Hanover and John Carroll above Stout.

    Stout beat Whitewater soon thereafter. Stout didn't finish they way they started.

    In what year?

    You're right, it was LaCrosse.  Sorry.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2017, 06:54:47 PM
    It is nearly time to tip up the ball on the NCAA Division III Basketball Tournaments. Who will end up in Grand Rapids and Salem with a chance at a national title?

    On Thursday's nights Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh gives his preview of the two tournaments and who may be the surprises, who can pull off an upset, who are the favorites to make a run, and who just might walk away with the walnut and bronze.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs LIVE starting at 7:00 PM ET from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/mar2 --- or via the simulcast on Facebook Live (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville). If you miss the show live, you can watch it On Demand or listen to the podcasts.

    The show is jammed packed with guests, but Dave will also have time for your questions. Make sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com. You can also tweet them to us.

    And please consider helping Hoopsville stay on the air like you might help your public television station. The annual fundraising campaign was extended a few days because we had only raised 52% of our goal. Click the following link for more information and to make a donation: Hoopsville Fundraising Page (https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017)

    Guests scheduled (in order of appearance):
    - Carl Danzig, Scranton men's coach
    - Abby Pyzik Smith, Lynchburg women's coach
    - Brad Fischer, No. 13 UW-Oshkosh women's coach
    - Michael Blaine, Medialle men's coach
    - Jeff Brown, No. 6 Middlbury men's coach
    - Cameron Hill, No. 7 Trinity (Texas) women's coach

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Fundraiser: https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3Dm7hyu%2F67im4wp2kqxj36iu.jpg&hash=3709a0096397bb9a1cdf10b99328b2589a46785f)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bbfan44 on March 05, 2017, 07:59:49 AM
    A bit difficult for me to navigate on my smart phone.  I'm curious to know how many Pool C teams made the Sweet Sixteen.  Anyone have that handy?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 05, 2017, 08:45:17 AM
    I believe Rochester, Keene, Tufts, Babson, Augustana, Hope, Endicott, Williams, Susquehanna were all Pool C.  So 9/16!  Glad New England justified all those pool C bids with five out of seven advancing past the first weekend. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 05, 2017, 12:47:40 PM
    First Round

    NJ City  eliminated by Pool C Skidmore
    Amherst eliminated by Pool C Keene St.
    Salisbury eliminated by Pool C Endicott
    St. Thomas eliminated by Pool C Augustana
    Oshkosh eliminated by Pool C Hope

    Wesleyan eliminated by Pool A Union
    Cabrini eliminated by Pool A Lycoming
    St. Lawrence eliminated by Pool A St. John Fisher
    Whitworth elimininated by Pool A Claremont MS


    2nd Round
    Skidmore eliminated by Pool C Babson
    Whitewater eliminated by Pool C Augustana

    Emory eliminated by Pool A Hardin-Simmons

    7 of the 12 Pool C's eliminated were eliminated by other Pool C's.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 05, 2017, 01:20:20 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2017, 12:47:40 PM
    First Round
    Amherst eliminated by Pool C Amherst

    Man, I've heard the saying, "Don't beat yourselves," but I thought that was figurative, not literal. LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:05:26 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 05, 2017, 01:20:20 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2017, 12:47:40 PM
    First Round
    Amherst eliminated by Pool C Amherst

    Man, I've heard the saying, "Don't beat yourselves," but I thought that was figurative, not literal. LOL

    The NESCAC proved to be very tough this season... even capable of beating themselves. Pretty impressive to say the least. But how does this affect one's SOS? LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bbfan44 on March 06, 2017, 10:09:52 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 05, 2017, 08:45:17 AM
    I believe Rochester, Keene, Tufts, Babson, Augustana, Hope, Endicott, Williams, Susquehanna were all Pool C.  So 9/16!  Glad New England justified all those pool C bids with five out of seven advancing past the first weekend.

    Thanks for digging that out.  Good statement for Pool C.  Good statement for New England.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 06, 2017, 11:42:04 AM
    Quote from: bbfan44 on March 06, 2017, 10:09:52 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 05, 2017, 08:45:17 AM
    I believe Rochester, Keene, Tufts, Babson, Augustana, Hope, Endicott, Williams, Susquehanna were all Pool C.  So 9/16!  Glad New England justified all those pool C bids with five out of seven advancing past the first weekend.

    Thanks for digging that out.  Good statement for Pool C.  Good statement for New England.
    No one doubts that the NESCAC is the best conference on the East Coast.  I don't see how winning a couple games against other Eastern teams justifies their bids.  Illinois Wesleyan, Carleton, St. John's and UW-Eau Claire would have been favorites over many of the teams that the NESCAC beat. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bbfan44 on March 06, 2017, 12:24:40 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 06, 2017, 11:42:04 AM
    Quote from: bbfan44 on March 06, 2017, 10:09:52 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 05, 2017, 08:45:17 AM
    I believe Rochester, Keene, Tufts, Babson, Augustana, Hope, Endicott, Williams, Susquehanna were all Pool C.  So 9/16!  Glad New England justified all those pool C bids with five out of seven advancing past the first weekend.

    Thanks for digging that out.  Good statement for Pool C.  Good statement for New England.
    No one doubts that the NESCAC is the best conference on the East Coast.  I don't see how winning a couple games against other Eastern teams justifies their bids.  Illinois Wesleyan, Carleton, St. John's and UW-Eau Claire would have been favorites over many of the teams that the NESCAC beat.
    There is no doubt that, depending on match ups, Illinois Wesleyan as well as North Park could have won a game or two.  I think that's why there is always grumbling when the selections are made.  Many people said the CCIW had a down year because the non conference record wasn't as good as usual. But they were one basket away (NCC) from having 2 teams in the Sweet 16.  I think a good reason the non conference record wasn't as good was because several of the teams were rebuilding, had injuries, and were working on finding a rotation that would serve them when Conference play started.  With scheduling taking place a couple of years ahead of time in many cases, it seems to be a crap shoot as to whether scheduling easy teams or good teams actually pans out thus affecting strength of schedule and the W/L record.  Luck can be a good thing.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 06, 2017, 12:56:21 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 06, 2017, 11:42:04 AM
    Quote from: bbfan44 on March 06, 2017, 10:09:52 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 05, 2017, 08:45:17 AM
    I believe Rochester, Keene, Tufts, Babson, Augustana, Hope, Endicott, Williams, Susquehanna were all Pool C.  So 9/16!  Glad New England justified all those pool C bids with five out of seven advancing past the first weekend.

    Thanks for digging that out.  Good statement for Pool C.  Good statement for New England.
    No one doubts that the NESCAC is the best conference on the East Coast.  I don't see how winning a couple games against other Eastern teams justifies their bids.  Illinois Wesleyan, Carleton, St. John's and UW-Eau Claire would have been favorites over many of the teams that the NESCAC beat.

    It goes in waves, really.  I think the NESCAC was tremendous this season, but they're graduating a ton of talent.  The CCIW and the WIAC graduate much less and should both be better next year than they were this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 01:18:09 PM
    I think that you hit the nail on the head, Ryan.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 01:28:52 PM
    I think NESCAC in general, and New England more generally, was flukishly deep in senior talent this year.  Babson, Keene, and Endicott are likely headed for huge dropoffs next season. Midd loses two elite guys and a role player, as does Tufts.  Amherst loses a ton.  Wesleyan loses its PG and C.  Eastern Conn loses its top three big guys. Williams arguably brings back the most but still graduates its star.  MIT and Nichols should both be better next year but they are exceptions; New England is definitely loaded to a ridiculous degree this year.  Telling stat: two regionals have three New England teams each.  The other two are hosted by teams that lost the only time they faced a New England team. 

    And to think, Duncan Robinson and Hunter Sabety could have been seniors this year as well ....
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 06, 2017, 01:39:09 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 06, 2017, 12:56:21 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 06, 2017, 11:42:04 AM
    Quote from: bbfan44 on March 06, 2017, 10:09:52 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 05, 2017, 08:45:17 AM
    I believe Rochester, Keene, Tufts, Babson, Augustana, Hope, Endicott, Williams, Susquehanna were all Pool C.  So 9/16!  Glad New England justified all those pool C bids with five out of seven advancing past the first weekend.

    Thanks for digging that out.  Good statement for Pool C.  Good statement for New England.
    No one doubts that the NESCAC is the best conference on the East Coast.  I don't see how winning a couple games against other Eastern teams justifies their bids.  Illinois Wesleyan, Carleton, St. John's and UW-Eau Claire would have been favorites over many of the teams that the NESCAC beat.

    It goes in waves, really.  I think the NESCAC was tremendous this season, but they're graduating a ton of talent.  The CCIW and the WIAC graduate much less and should both be better next year than they were this season.
    I'm not necessarily trying to compare the conferences, just pointing out that winning a couple games in the tourney is not going to justify that 5 teams from the NESCAC all clearly deserved to get in over any other team.  They deserved to get in by the current limited criteria.  They can't prove they would be in by any other set of criteria by beating the relatively weak Eastern teams in the tournament. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 01:54:36 PM
    You start in my view with a false premise: that the eastern teams are relatively weak this year.  The Midwest hasn't exactly featured a slew of really scary teams this season. WIAC is clearly way down.  I've seen Marietta and Hope lose to NESCAC teams, neither of which was in the top two in the conference.  I don't think it's fair to assume that NESCAC would have done any worse if placed in a Midwest-heavy bracket.  It is equally likely that this year in paticular, they would have fared better.  As an Eph fan, Midd and Tufts at full strength are the two most talented teams I've seen this season. 

    I think Amherst is the only NESCAC team for which there was a remotely reasonable case to exclude them -- but the Jeffs' numeric credentials were off the charts and I think the win vs. Babson, plus two vs. Williams, was huge for them.  And they were ranked above two OTHER New England teams that got Pool C bids -- Endicott and Keene, both of whom had clearly weaker resumes.  And yet, both of them are now in the Sweet 16 including for Keene beating the top seed in the regional on the road. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 02:34:00 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 01:54:36 PM
    You start in my view with a false premise: that the eastern teams are relatively weak this year.  The Midwest hasn't exactly featured a slew of really scary teams this season. WIAC is clearly way down.

    That's not true at all. The WIAC went 68-19 (.782) in non-conference play during the regular season. The difference between this season and most is that it lacked the colossus team or two that it usually has had. Instead, it had four or five really good teams, with the balance of the league consisting of better-than-most teams, rather than the one or two great teams, with everybody else better-than-most, that it has tended to have.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 01:54:36 PMI've seen Marietta and Hope lose to NESCAC teams, neither of which was in the top two in the conference.  I don't think it's fair to assume that NESCAC would have done any worse if placed in a Midwest-heavy bracket.  It is equally likely that this year in paticular, they would have fared better.

    That's a reach. The NESCAC may very well have done as well in a midwest-oriented quadrant as it has done in the two northeastern-oriented quadrants, given the strength of the league's reps this season, but it certainly would not have done better.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 02:56:12 PM
    "Certainly not"?  Thanks for clearing that up! 

    I think it's clear that Amherst or Wesleyan COULD very well have beaten any of the teams in the Midwest quadrant, none of whom seem like powrhouses right now.  Both certainly had better years than say Wartburg.   But of course it's entirely speculative either way. 

    New England, and the Northeast more generally, can not and will not ever get respect here.  Even if New England puts six in the Sweet 16, or two in the Final Four,  it always comes with an asterisk.  It's telling that it's just assumed that the Midwest is always the toughest regional.  In many years that is true.  But not this year.  E.g., midwest posters tend to discount the talent on a team like Endicott because they don't know the name.  But they are very much for real.   As long as New England teams keep winning, it's all good. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 06, 2017, 03:44:04 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 01:54:36 PM
    You start in my view with a false premise: that the eastern teams are relatively weak this year.  The Midwest hasn't exactly featured a slew of really scary teams this season. WIAC is clearly way down.  I've seen Marietta and Hope lose to NESCAC teams, neither of which was in the top two in the conference.  I don't think it's fair to assume that NESCAC would have done any worse if placed in a Midwest-heavy bracket.  It is equally likely that this year in paticular, they would have fared better.  As an Eph fan, Midd and Tufts at full strength are the two most talented teams I've seen this season. 

    I think Amherst is the only NESCAC team for which there was a remotely reasonable case to exclude them -- but the Jeffs' numeric credentials were off the charts and I think the win vs. Babson, plus two vs. Williams, was huge for them.  And they were ranked above two OTHER New England teams that got Pool C bids -- Endicott and Keene, both of whom had clearly weaker resumes.  And yet, both of them are now in the Sweet 16 including for Keene beating the top seed in the regional on the road. 
    Again, I'm not arguing they shouldn't have been in under the current criteria.  Amherst had a giant SOS and many regionally ranked wins.  If they fixed the home/away multiplier like Knightslappy and I want them to it would drop their SOS from .596 to .545.  Every team that tends to schedule some of their easiest opponents for home games will benefit from the broken multiplier as those games get devalued by the multiplier compared to the tougher NESCAC road games.  Amherst got a special benefit from that this year.  We know the committee is aware of how the single round robin NESCAC helps Amherst's SOS, so they might view .545 very skeptically. 

    It doesn't matter to me if Amherst won the whole tournament, they still got in under flawed criteria that favored them.  That's not a matter of disrespect towards them or anybody in the NE.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 06, 2017, 03:45:17 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 02:56:12 PM
    "Certainly not"?  Thanks for clearing that up! 

    I think it's clear that Amherst or Wesleyan COULD very well have beaten any of the teams in the Midwest quadrant, none of whom seem like powrhouses right now.  Both certainly had better years than say Wartburg.   But of course it's entirely speculative either way. 

    New England, and the Northeast more generally, can not and will not ever get respect here.  Even if New England puts six in the Sweet 16, or two in the Final Four,  it always comes with an asterisk.  It's telling that it's just assumed that the Midwest is always the toughest regional.  In many years that is true.  But not this year.  E.g., midwest posters tend to discount the talent on a team like Endicott because they don't know the name.  But they are very much for real.   As long as New England teams keep winning, it's all good.

    This Great Lakes poster made this comment in a different thread before the start of the tournament.

    Quote from: HOPEful on March 01, 2017, 03:33:21 PM
    If I were to vote on a "bracket of death", I'd go upper right corner. Middlebury, Lycoming, Neumann, Nichols, Salisbury, Cabrini, Endicott... Neumann has to be a little bummed that their 25-2 record landed them one of the best guard tandems in the country in the first round (Echevarria and Bruton)... Lycoming can't love getting Tyheim Monroe in the first round either.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 03:46:59 PM
    AO

    Middlebury beat Illinois Wesleyan in Heroes Classic 12-28.  Great game but it was Middlebury's first game without Zach Baines who transferred to Occidental.  Middlebury changed offenses after the first of the year without Zach and got much better.

    Illinois Wesleyan relied heavily on their center who as a giant is a mismatch and played post and kick offense off of his mismatch. Illinois Wesleyan could not make their conference tournament.  They remain at the table crying over spilled milk for a reason.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 04:01:27 PM
    The proof is in the pudding, nescac1. The Final Four is where the best teams from the various parts of the country have the opportunity to meet, and after 29 of the 42 Final Fours held thus far by D3, it's been a midwestern team that's cut down the nets -- in spite of the fact that midwestern teams are significantly outnumbered in D3 by teams from the northeast. More recently, midwestern teams have walked away with the Walnut & Bronze after 15 of the last 20 tourneys; in fact, in six of those 20 tourneys, there were two midwestern teams vying for that trophy in the national championship game (including each of the last two tourneys, UWSP vs. Augustana in '15 and St. Thomas vs. Benedictine last March).

    By contrast, the only New England teams that have ever won national championships are Amherst and Williams; heck, the last time that a New England team other than Amherst or Williams even reached the national championship game was all the way back in '87, when Clark lost to North Park. New York State, which is chockablock with D3 schools, hasn't done much better; since Potsdam State went into decline in the late '80s, the only teams from the Empire State that have reached the national championship game have been Rochester (won it in '90, lost it in '92 and '05) and NYU (lost it in '94).

    Even the Final Four consolation games indicated midwestern dominance before they were discontinued seven years ago. In six of the last eight consolation games, a midwestern team beat a team from another part of the country, and they did so by an average of 11 ppg. Midwestern teams are 21-7 against non-midwestern opponents in national championship games, and they were 18-4 in consolation games against non-midwestern opponents. All told, midwestern teams have gone 70-30 (.700) against non-midwestern teams in Final Four play.

    If it's assumed that the midwestern-oriented quadrants are the tougher quadrants, it's because history has borne that out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AppletonRocks on March 06, 2017, 04:02:57 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 01:28:52 PM
    I think NESCAC in general, and New England more generally, was flukishly deep in senior talent this year.  Babson, Keene, and Endicott are likely headed for huge dropoffs next season. Midd loses two elite guys and a role player, as does Tufts.  Amherst loses a ton.  Wesleyan loses its PG and C.  Eastern Conn loses its top three big guys. Williams arguably brings back the most but still graduates its star.  MIT and Nichols should both be better next year but they are exceptions; New England is definitely loaded to a ridiculous degree this year.  Telling stat: two regionals have three New England teams each.  The other two are hosted by teams that lost the only time they faced a New England team. 

    And to think, Duncan Robinson and Hunter Sabety could have been seniors this year as well ....

    Sounds like you should cancel next NESCAC season and save the eligibility for 2018/19.   ::) ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 06, 2017, 04:07:47 PM
    It's not really about regions so much as matchups.  Amherst and Wesleyan would've lost to Wartburg or Endicott because they played two insane games in a row.  Keene would've beaten a lot of teams because they've been injury riddled all year and are just now at their strongest.

    It's just not a great year to make comparisons.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 04:30:25 PM
    Saw the Middlebury vs Illinois Wesleyan in person 12/29/16 at College of Staten Island.

    Game notes:

    Middlebury imposed its' physical will on Illinois Wesleyan even though its offensive efficiency was low due to personnel changes.  Baines averaged 13.8 ppg before transferring, this was Game 1 without him.

    Here's your coach's quote, Ron Rose, on game from Pantagraph..."It was a really physical game, and we didn't play tough enough during that stretch," Rose said. "They were the aggressors, and we were battling from behind the entire second half."

    That stretch that Ron Rose refers to would be the 17-3 Middlebury run to start the second half with adjustments at halftime from NESCAC Coach of the Year Jeff Brown.  Double team the moose, and switch out quickly...more ball pressure on guards to deny entry pass angles. Seibring got frustrated and got a technical to foul out late. Middlebury doubled him, banged him, had guards dive in to swipe at ball.  IWU 3 starting guards each had 5 turnovers.  21 total for team.   We didn't play tough enough Coach Rose??  You got out-coached!!!  Call it for what it was.

    So as usual..we hear these lame arguments about the Midwest teams but when pitted against Northeast, the physicality of Northeast basketball style wears on the Midwesterners who lose their cool or get out-coached or both......

    Middlebury, Williams, & Tufts...the top teams in NESCAC play suffocating man to man defense. They block and alter shots and get deflections on passes which all lead to turnovers. They push pace at all times. They fast break after your makes..surgically carving up the defense causing mismatches and foul trouble along with delivering high efficiency offense. They close out on 3's, they box out for rebounds, the ball pressure of guards makes post entry difficult.  All 3 teams have primary and secondary stars who you would want to have the ball needing a basket to tie or win. Options!!! Tufts when healthy every bit as good as Middlebury or Williams.

    I was at both Middlebury vs. Tufts game..tied with 1 minute to go...and Williams Middlebury NESCAC final which again at halftime adjustments, Coach Brown got it done, this time a 16-0 run to start second half with flawless pick & roll defense, every shot contested and star St. Amour who got 3 in first half...somehow got more room in second half which was a 17 point offensive efficiency clinic for his 20 total.  Maybe a new screen system was employed at halftime???  No looks in 1st....wide open looks all 2nd half...Interesting

    I NEVER HEAR ONE THING IN THESE CHAT BOARDS ABOUT COACHES---TIME TO WAKE UP.  COACH & PLAYERS = TEAM

    Marietta at home versus Rochester... regional battle. I'm very interested...

    Lets see how the winner of the Hope sectional fares against Middlebury or Williams...   Wartburg will have to shoot 60% to win
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
    Way to move the goalposts, Greg.  We are talking about THIS year.  And as I've argued over and over, since it became eligible the NESCAC has the best record in the Final Four of any league save WIAC -- three titles and four second place finishes, two of which came on the last possession of the game so hardly indicative of any talent differential.   Any league is gonna suffer in comparison to WIAC, but only NESCAC comes remotely close over the past 15 years.  NESCAC teams have proven again and again that when they get there, they belong there.  And have the best record of getting to final fours of any league, to boot.  It's funny, when we compared CCIW to NESCAC recently, national titles were suddenly meaningless and all that matters in final four appearances. If titles are all that matters then CCIW is vastly overrated.  What is the CCIW record in the final four over the past twenty years?  Not good at all.  For the record I don't think it is overrated just because they haven't won a titlle! As usual the metrics shift in any discussion to cast NESCAC and New England in the worst possible light.  New England has had a remarkable year THIS year in out of region play (both in regular season and the tourney) regardless of whether one of the remaining six teams -- all of whom have EARNED their place in the final 16 by beating quality opponents from a number of different regions -- take home the walnut and bronze, which doesn't always go to the best team in any given year (though often it does) .  It just gets old when every New England / NESCAC success always has to come with a caveat or asterisk.  I've said before that Midwest often had the toughest regional. I do not think that is remotely the case this year, even if a Midwest team wins the title. 

    And also it's silly to use four decades worth of data when for twenty years the best New England league could not even compete in the tourney.   It WIAC was excluded for the last twenty years suddenly the data changes dramatically.  But again I'm not making historic claims in any event.  I'm saying there is no basis to assume this year that the Midwest regional is tougher. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 05:17:42 PM
    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 04:30:25 PM
    Saw the Middlebury vs Illinois Wesleyan in person 12/29/16 at College of Staten Island. [commence rant]

    That was one of the silliest posts I've read this season, and that's really saying something. One game, which was played on the East Coast between the NESCAC co-champ and a team that tied for fourth in the CCIW (and which didn't even make the CCIW tourney), a game that was decided on a buzzer-beater, gives rise to this slice of pure genius:

    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 04:30:25 PMSo as usual..we hear these lame arguments about the Midwest teams but when pitted against Northeast, the physicality of Northeast basketball style wears on the Midwesterners who lose their cool or get out-coached or both......

    Or how about this gem?

    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 04:30:25 PMWe didn't play tough enough Coach Rose??  You got out-coached!!!  Call it for what it was.

    I personally love this one:

    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 04:30:25 PMMiddlebury, Williams, & Tufts...the top teams in NESCAC play suffocating man to man defense. They block and alter shots and get deflections on passes which all lead to turnovers. They push pace at all times. They fast break after your makes..surgically carving up the defense causing mismatches and foul trouble along with delivering high efficiency offense. They close out on 3's, they box out for rebounds, the ball pressure of guards makes post entry difficult.  All 3 teams have primary and secondary stars who you would want to have the ball needing a basket to tie or win. Options!!!

    Right! Because nobody west of the Allegheny River has ever thought about doing this stuff! Boxing out for rebounds? C'mon, man, we've gotta try that sometime! Fast break after the other team's makes? That sounds so cool! How do you do that? Suffocating man-to-man defense? How come none of us yokels out here in the tall corn have ever come up with something that innovative?

    Yeah, this whole thing about 42 years' worth of midwestern dominance ... that's obviously an optical illusion. The last two years of midwest vs. midwest national championship games? Never happened. Fifteen national titles over the past twenty years? That's gotta be a typo, right? I mean, midwestern players aren't well-coached enough or quick enough or physical enough or smart enough or, well, everything enough to contend with the mighty beasts of the East.

    Right?

    * * *

    I watched the Middlebury vs. Illlinois Wesleyan game. It was played at a level that indicated no separation whatsoever between the two teams, which is exactly what you'd expect from a game that was settled by a buzzer-beater. The Panthers were quicker, the Titans were better shooters. The Titans outshot the Panthers in all three categories; the Panthers had fewer turnovers and more offensive rebounds, and, thus, more FG attempts. Overall rebounds were dead even.

    But, hey, since Jack Daly hit a 13' jumper with 1.6 seconds remaining, that erases four decades' worth of data, right? ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 05:43:46 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
    Way to move the goalposts, Greg.

    Nobody's moved anything. The historical record -- which includes both the dusty past and the past two Marches -- is what it is, and there's no evading it.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:15:46 PM
      We are talking about THIS year.

    We are? Exclusively? Here are your own words:

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 02:56:12 PMNew England, and the Northeast more generally, can not and will not ever get respect here.  Even if New England puts six in the Sweet 16, or two in the Final Four,  it always comes with an asterisk.  It's telling that it's just assumed that the Midwest is always the toughest regional.

    In other words, you yourself supplied the historical context here.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:15:46 PMAnd as I've argued over and over, since it became eligible the NESCAC has the best record in the Final Four of any league save WIAC -- three titles and four second place finishes, two of which came on the last possession of the game so hardly indicative of any talent differential.   Any league is gonna suffer in comparison to WIAC, but only NESCAC comes remotely close over the past 15 years.  NESCAC teams have proven again and again that when they get there, they belong there.  And have the best record of getting to final fours of any league, to boot.

    The last line is the telling one: Getting to Final Fours. What you've left out is that the NESCAC has had the privilege and the pleasure of walking the Yellow Brick Road to Salem as often as not, while by contrast there's been a whole lot of Marches in which those of us west of the Allegheny have grumbled about a Bracket of Death.

    Look, every year you and your NESCAC cohorts play the No Respect card here, and every year the Rodney Dangerfield act does not wash. Everybody respects the NESCAC ... including midwesterners. You will not find one single poster in the CCIW room or the WIAC room or the MIAC room or the MIAA room or the OAC room or the NCAC room who fails to put the NESCAC on the short list of D3's top leagues. Furthermore, all of the midwesterners who follow the national trends universally agree that the NESCAC is unusually strong this season. What outcry there has been about the NESCAC getting so many teams into the field has centered around whether they deserved five or only four. Think about that for a moment. Only four. That's hardly an insult.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:15:46 PMIt's funny, when we compare CCIW to NESCAC, national titles are suddenly meaningless and all that matters in final four appearances.

    Who said that? I certainly didn't. My school owns five Big Doorstops, so I'm the last guy on d3boards.com to downplay the importance of a national title. ;)

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:15:46 PMIf titles are all that matters then CCIW is vastly overrated.

    ??? Six of 'em (seven, if you count Wheaton's College Division title) is hardly something to sneeze at.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:15:46 PMFor the record I don't think it is!  As usual the metrics shift in any discussion to cast NESCAC and New England in the worst possible light.

    I don't see how they've shifted. I acknowledged in my previous post that Amherst and Williams are conspicuous exceptions:

    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 04:01:27 PMBy contrast, the only New England teams that have ever won national championships are Amherst and Williams; heck, the last time that a New England team other than Amherst or Williams even reached the national championship game was all the way back in '87, when Clark lost to North Park.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:15:46 PMNew England has had a remarkable year THIS year in out of region play (both in regular season and the tourney) regardless of whether one of the remaining six teams -- all of whom have EARNED their place in the final 16 by beating quality opponents from a number of different regions -- take home the walnut and bronze.  It just gets old when every New England / NESCAC succeed always has to come with a caveat or asterisk.

    What gets old, from my point of view, are the NESCAC guys complaining about a lack of respect for their teams that doesn't exist. But the Northeast and East regions in general? That's another matter. Aside from the recent MIT and Babson runs, the New England teams that aren't part of the NESCAC have not distinguished themselves at all on the national scene in decades. And, as I said, the East Region has not exactly covered itself in glory, either. And, since these are the teams that tend to form most of the competition for the NESCAC to get to the Final Four, you're just going to have to get used to our complaining about the comparative difficulty of the roads to Salem.

    Now, having said all that, I will add that D3 as a whole really doesn't seem to have any standout team or teams that look like a sure thing to get to the title game ... and that really changes the equation for this season. Whether that will bear out as a long-term trend, though, remains to be seen. All that we can go on for now is what's already happened.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 06, 2017, 05:50:34 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 04:01:27 PM
    The proof is in the pudding, nescac1.

    Oh, Gregory! I would never have taken you for someone to misstate this trope! The proof of the pudding is in the eating!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PM
    If the argument is "performance in the Final Four is indicative of the strength of the regional," New England Final Four performances over the past 15 years demonstrate conclusively that New England teams that reached the Final Four in the aggregate undoubtedly belonged there.

    2003: Williams wins national title
    2004: Amherst loses tight game to Williams, Williams loses in title game on last-second shot (Amherst lost in consolation game but they were totally demoralized from losing to their rival at Salem)
    2006: Amherst loses by total of 7 points in two games at Salem
    2007: Amherst wins national title
    2008: Amherst dominates semifinal, gets dominated in title game
    2010: Williams wins semifinal, loses tightly-contested title game
    2011: Williams and Midd both lose in games that went down to the final possession (and Williams' best player was playing with a broken hand)
    2012: MIT loses in semifinal
    2013: Amherst wins the national title
    2014: Williams dominates Amherst and then loses on last-second shot in title game.
    2015: Babson loses badly in semifinal
    2016: Amherst loses in semifinal that went down to the last possession

    If New England teams were only getting to Salem, as you claim, because they were emerging through weak regionals, you would expect that they would be consistently losing, and losing badly, in semifinal games.  Instead, they generally perform to roughly the statistical average, and when they DO lose, it's generally in a title game or in an extremely close semifinal game.  My point is that I think the strength of other New England teams is generally underrated by many of the posters here who are unfamiliar with them.  In particular THIS YEAR.  The reason no one ever sees them in Salem is that they have the difficult task of beating NESCAC teams to get there -- just like lots of midwest teams have the misfortunate of going through WIAC teams.  But there HAVE in my view been a good number of New England teams that could have performed well in Salem had they not been blocked by Williams/Amherst juggernauts. 

    And more generally, you are extremely frustrating to argue you with because you ignore the ENTIRE CONTEXT of this argument, which started with my rebuttal to the following pointed "observation" by AO:

    "They can't prove they would be in by any other set of criteria by beating the relatively weak Eastern teams in the tournament."

    That is claim entirely specific to THIS YEAR and is what started this whole discussion.  That has NOTHING TO DO WITH what titles CCIW teams may have won in 1982.  I myself said that this year was an atypically strong year for New England as a region, and I stand by that.  So by definition, my very point is that this year is an outlier in terms of New England's exceptional, unusual strength, thanks to a spectacular group of seniors in the reason.  As such, what may have happened decades ago is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.  I took umbrage to AO's initial comment, and you seem to, again, be ignoring the entire context of the argument.  Then you exacerbated things by claiming with no basis (because it's an impossible claim to test) that NESCAC THIS YEAR would have performed worse in the midwest regional, or at least, without any doubt would not have performed better.  Come on, dude, that is a silly statement dripping with disrespect.  Your biases are so ingrained that you can't even recognize it, I guess, and suddenly started bringing in decades of irrelevant data in.  Sorry but the North Park teams from the 1980s have exactly zero to do with the strength of midwest and northeastern teams in 2017.  Zero.  And this year, New England teams beat the two Midwest teams now hosting regionals, which is a pretty good data point. 

    As for the CCIW, no national title in TWO DECADES.  By your own logic, that means the CCIW teams who make it to Salem are likely just skating into final fours and when they get there, can't get the job done, right?  Again, I don't think that is remotely the case.  Results in any one game are of course a bit arbitrary and more CCIW teams could easily have won titles, just as three Williams teams were in coin-toss title games, only one of which went our way.  CCIW deserves respect for the final fours and title games it has made over the past few decades, just as NESCAC does, even when those teams don't win. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 06:08:19 PM
    Last thing I'll say: when I bring up historical complaints / disrespect, it's because it seems like we ONLY have these conversations, over and over again, about New England and NESCAC.  No one else is generally denigrating the caliber of play in an entire region (as happened on this thread) or gone on ad infinitum about double-round robins or purported schedule manipulation or the unfairness of so many New England teams at Salem.  It's always New England, and in particular NESCAC, that is the target of perpetual whining and complaints.  So yeah, I do think folks respect the strength of NESCAC generally, but you can't seriously deny that by an overwhelming margin complaints at these boards are focused on a particular region, and a particular league within that region.  I'm not making this up out of thin air or something!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 06:12:07 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 06, 2017, 05:50:34 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 04:01:27 PM
    The proof is in the pudding, nescac1.

    Oh, Gregory! I would never have taken you for someone to misstate this trope! The proof of the pudding is in the eating!

    Guilty as charged, Patrick. I read Big Mike's post and got too greedy to pay attention to what I know full well is a misquote.

    For penance, I will whack myself on the forehead with the office copy of Bartlett's. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 06:27:33 PM
    Just remember since you parsed my post..you conveniently left out the part of it was Middlebury's Game 1 without their second leading scorer who transferred a day later.

    Therefore your outshot point is moot based on new Middlebury offense installed after tournament, oh yeah that finished 7th in nation averaging 90 points a game against 31st SoS.... that is current team.

    You caught Middlebury at their weakest both in terms of strategy, game play (first after break), and mental preparation as no one knew the final situation of their teammate Zach Baines, just that he was not there, zero communication

    And yes Jack Daly patiently backed your defender down and faked two jab steps and on third jab step got seperation and drained a 10 footer which proved the difference. St. Amour decoy.  See my point of primary and secondary stars to get a hoop in clutch, Middlebury has 3, including Jake Brown
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on March 06, 2017, 06:33:12 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PM
    If the argument is "performance in the Final Four is indicative of the strength of the regional," New England Final Four performances over the past 15 years demonstrate conclusively that New England teams that reached the Final Four in the aggregate undoubtedly belonged there.

    2013: Amherst wins the national title      Yeah, they beat a team from ... Texas.   ::)    :o  OVERRATED!     LOL!


    Nuff said!   ;)

    (Boy, was the field ever so weak that year!   It must have been the drawn out playoff schedule that moved the Finals to the Final Four.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 07:19:47 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PM
    If the argument is "performance in the Final Four is indicative of the strength of the regional,"

    That's not the argument, though. It hasn't been the argument for a long, long time now where the two purple-clad western Mass teams are concerned.

    The strength of Amherst and Williams has been a given over the past decade. Prior to the Williams title in '03, the argument was put forth that the NESCAC was left unprepared for Salem by the weak competition it faced prior to getting there, as all five NESCAC Final Four teams had lost by double digits in the semifinals. Then the Ephs team with Crotty and Coffin changed all that by beating two really good midwestern teams, Wooster and Gustavus Adolphus, in the Final Four in '03 to win the first title ever claimed by a team based in New England.

    Since then, NESCAC teams have always gotten the benefit of the doubt in terms of pre-FF strength assessment. That's been reinforced further with the spread of webcasting that has allowed fans to check out teams from other parts of the country during the regular season. But it doesn't change the fact that the NESCAC teams have still had comparatively easier roads to Salem than have WIAC, CCIW, MIAC, etc., teams.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PMNew England Final Four performances over the past 15 years demonstrate conclusively that New England teams that reached the Final Four in the aggregate undoubtedly belonged there.

    2003: Williams wins national title
    2004: Amherst loses tight game to Williams, Williams loses in title game on last-second shot (Amherst lost in consolation game but they were totally demoralized from losing to their rival at Salem)
    2006: Amherst loses by total of 7 points in two games at Salem
    2007: Amherst wins national title
    2008: Amherst dominates semifinal, gets dominated in title game
    2010: Williams wins semifinal, loses tightly-contested title game
    2011: Williams and Midd both lose in games that went down to the final possession (and Williams' best player was playing with a broken hand)
    2012: MIT loses in semifinal
    2013: Amherst wins the national title
    2014: Williams dominates Amherst and then loses on last-second shot in title game.
    2015: Babson loses badly in semifinal
    2016: Amherst loses in semifinal that went down to the last possession

    Look at that list again. It's all Williams, Amherst, Williams, Amherst, Williams, Amherst -- in others, just more iterations of the two programs that have been excepted since '03. Middlebury, MIT, and Babson pop in there once apiece, and none of them got past the semi. The Panthers, as you noted, went down to the wire with the Tommies in '11 (the Middlebury program enjoys a healthy amount of national respect, too), but UWW ran away down the stretch from MIT and beat the Engineers by 15 in '12, and the Beavers had the same thing happen to them two years ago when Augie beat them by 20.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PM
    If New England teams were only getting to Salem, as you claim, because they were emerging through weak regionals,

    ... except that I never claimed such a thing with respect to Amherst and Williams, whom I've been maintaining since '03 have merited their Salem hotel reservations.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PMyou would expect that they would be consistently losing, and losing badly, in semifinal games.  Instead, they generally perform to roughly the statistical average, and when they DO lose, it's generally in a title game or in an extremely close semifinal game.

    Again, we're just covering the same ground here ... Amherst and Williams, Williams and Amherst, the two programs that nobody thinks have been competitively hampered by the weak path to Salem ever since '03. Fewer chances to be upset along the way? Yes. Unworthy of Salem, though? Certainly not.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PMMy point is that I think the strength of other New England teams is generally underrated by many of the posters here who are unfamiliar with them.  In particular THIS YEAR.  The reason no one ever sees them in Salem is that they have the difficult task of beating NESCAC teams to get there -- just like lots of midwest teams have the misfortunate of going through WIAC teams.  But there HAVE in my view been a good number of New England teams that could have performed well in Salem had they not been blocked by Williams/Amherst juggernauts. 

    That's a counterfactual, and thus impervious to proof one way or the other. All we can go by are d3hoops.com Top 25 rankings from those years, and they do not tend to favor your argument.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PM
    And more generally, you are extremely frustrating to argue you with because you ignore the ENTIRE CONTEXT of this argument, which started with my rebuttal to the following pointed "observation" by AO:

    "They can't prove they would be in by any other set of criteria by beating the relatively weak Eastern teams in the tournament."

    That's because his argument is not my argument. I, for one, thought that Amherst belonged in this year's tournament.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PMThat is what started this whole discussion.  That has NOTHING TO DO WITH what titles CCIW teams may have won in 1982.  I myself said that this year was an atypically strong year for New England as a region, and I stand by that.  So by definition, my very point is that this year is an outlier in terms of New England's exception strength.  As such, what may have happened decades ago is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.  I took umbrage to AO's initial comment, and you seem to, again, be ignoring the entire context of the argument.

    Again, I'm ignoring it because it's not my argument. It's AO's argument. He thinks that the ex-Jeffs didn't belong in the field because their region is weak. I thought that the ex-Jeffs belonged in the field, in large part because: a) the NESCAC was unusually strong this season; and b) they beat Babson, a team that I've seen in person and mightily impressed me.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PMThen you exacerbated things by claiming with no basis (because it's an impossible claim to test) that NESCAC THIS YEAR would have performed worse in the midwest regional, or at least, without any doubt would not have performed better.  Come on, dude, that is a silly statement dripping with disrespect.

    Actually, it's a pushback to a mirror assertion that you had made:

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 01:54:36 PMI don't think it's fair to assume that NESCAC would have done any worse if placed in a Midwest-heavy bracket.  It is equally likely that this year in paticular, they would have fared better.  As an Eph fan, Midd and Tufts at full strength are the two most talented teams I've seen this season.

    Dripping is as dripping does. ;)

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PMYour biases are so ingrained that you can't even recognize it, I guess, and suddenly started bringing in decades of irrelevant data in.

    My biases? Pot, meet kettle.

    The "irrelevant" data establishes background. And, contrary to your assertion about NPU teams of the mid-80's, I put the accent on recent performance -- the same time period, in fact, that you used in your chart up at the top of this post. In fact, the two years that I've mentioned the most are the last two: 2015 (Augie beats Babson in one semi, UWSP beats Virginia Wesleyan in the other) and 2016 (Benedictine beats Amherst in one semi, St. Thomas beats Christopher Newport in the other).

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PM
      Sorry but the North Park teams from the 1980s have exactly zero to do with the strength of midwest and northeastern teams in 2017.  Zero. 

    As for the CCIW, no national title in TWO DECADES.  By your own logic, that means the CCIW teams who make it to Salem are likely just skating into final fours

    That's not my own logic at all.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PMand when they get there, can't get the job done, right?

    True. The CCIW has inarguably fallen short of the mark the last seven times it's been to the Final Four.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 06:08:19 PM
    Last thing I'll say: when I bring up historical complaints / disrespect, it's because it seems like we ONLY have these conversations, over and over again, about New England and NESCAC.  No one else is generally denigrating the caliber of play in an entire region (as happened on this thread) or gone on ad infinitum about double-round robins or purported schedule manipulation or the unfairness of so many New England teams at Salem.  It's always New England, and in particular NESCAC, that is the target of perpetual whining and complaints.

    Well, come on. Look at the facts. How many leagues in D3 play a single round-robin? One. Which region in D3 has the densest population of both leagues and schools? The region that contains the only league that has the single round-robin. We can all go round and round (and we do!) on how much these two facts color the winning % and SOS of the NESCAC schools -- and this is a discussion that has been bandied about on Hoopsville, too -- but nobody's arguing it in order to reinforce your or anybody else's persecution complex. The argument gets raised because it's a genuinely legitimate topic of discussion in D3 men's basketball.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PMSo yeah, I do think folks respect the strength of NESCAC generally, but you can't seriously deny that by an overwhelming margin complaints at these boards are focused on a particular region, and a particular league within that region.  I'm not making this up out of thin air or something!

    Oh, on this we most certainly agree. Where we obviously disagree is on the legitimacy of those complaints.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 07:48:43 PM
    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 06:27:33 PM
    Just remember since you parsed my post..you conveniently left out the part of it was Middlebury's Game 1 without their second leading scorer who transferred a day later.

    I left it out because it was irrelevant. He wasn't on the team.

    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 06:27:33 PMTherefore your outshot point is moot based on new Middlebury offense installed after tournament, oh yeah that finished 7th in nation averaging 90 points a game against 31st SoS.... that is current team.

    Again, irrelevant. What Middlebury's been running since Baines decamped to sunnier climes -- and how well or how poorly they've been running it -- has nothing to do with the game played on December 29 on Staten Island.

    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 06:27:33 PMYou caught Middlebury at their weakest both in terms of strategy, game play (first after break), and mental preparation as no one knew the final situation of their teammate Zach Baines, just that he was not there, zero communication

    First things first. See that logo in the icon box under my name? That's the North Park athletics logo. Was North Park the team that Middlebury played on December 29? No, it was Illinois Wesleyan. Not. My. Team. It will never, ever, ever be my team.

    (https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder758/34796758.jpg)

    Second, if you want to start playing the excuses game, I can call in the Titans guys, and I'm sure that they can match you excuse for excuse. F'rinstance, Brady Rose, IWU's leading scorer this season (and an All-CCIW first-teamer), had the flu. In fact, he sat out the game against Bridgewater the next day. Any more excuses will have to be contributed by the Titans guys, because I feel a bit soiled doing their dirty work for them. ;)

    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 06:27:33 PMAnd yes Jack Daly patiently backed your defender

    Please see the above. Not. My. Team.

    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 06:27:33 PM
    down and faked two jab steps and on third jab step got seperation and drained a 10 footer which proved the difference.

    Yes, he most certainly did (except it was deeper than a ten-footer), and I duly praised Daly after the game. I like his moxie. But that one shot, somehow, you've managed to extrapolate into some gigantic theory of how the entire midwestern cadre of D3 men's basketball is inferior in terms of coaching, physicality, toughness, etc., which puts us right back to where we started with me calling your post one of the silliest that I've read this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 08:01:27 PM
    BigMike33, from the moment you made your post I knew you would come to regret implying that IWU was Gregory's team! :o ;D

    I AM a Titan guy - we don't make excuses.  (Though it IS true that our leading scorer missed the next game entirely, and was almost certainly way less than 100% against Midd.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 4samuy on March 06, 2017, 08:19:05 PM
    WOW.  That stream of posts was not only thoughtful, but entertaining.  Thanks for all involved! As it relates to THIS YEAR, I've been a critic as to the legitimacy of Amherst as a tournament team based on their non conference schedule and riding on the shoulders of an OT win at home vs Babson and quite frankly their previous reputation.  I've seen Amherst play a number of times this year and nothing against the NESCAC, but Amherst, IMHO didn't earn their way into the tournament and it played out that way.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on March 06, 2017, 08:31:56 PM
    Quote from: 4samuy on March 06, 2017, 08:19:05 PM
    WOW.  That stream of posts was not only thoughtful, but entertaining.  Thanks for all involved! As it relates to THIS YEAR, I've been a critic as to the legitimacy of Amherst as a tournament team based on their non conference schedule and riding on the shoulders of an OT win at home vs Babson and quite frankly their previous reputation.  Nothing against the NESCAC, but Amherst, IMHO didn't earn their way into the tournament and it played out that way.

    I watched the end of that Babson vs. Amherst game and that was probably the best game of the regular season/year. With that being said they were definitely backing into the tourney and not playing their best ball in Feb/March. I know it has never been part of the criteria but I wonder how much subconscious plays into the committees mind when picking Pool C teams, like this year it seemed that last of the Pool C teams were from the power conferences (St. Thomas MIAC, Auggie CCIW, Amherst NESCAC, Oshkosh WIAC). I know some of those teams were sitting pretty good selection Monday, but these teams were all still sweating out a bid.

    As it refers to THIS YEAR, the Northeast has to have 2 of the 3 teams with the best chance to win it all in Babson and Middlebury (Whitman would be my third). Midwest seemed to be down in general this year with no top tier elite teams and numerous good teams that never separated themselves, with maybe the exception of River Falls.

    I enjoy banter and all, but it is better when we are talking results of games, this weekend can't come soon enough!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 08:44:49 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PM
    If the argument is "performance in the Final Four is indicative of the strength of the regional," New England Final Four performances over the past 15 years demonstrate conclusively that New England teams that reached the Final Four in the aggregate undoubtedly belonged there.

    2003: Williams wins national title
    2004: Amherst loses tight game to Williams, Williams loses in title game on last-second shot (Amherst lost in consolation game but they were totally demoralized from losing to their rival at Salem)
    2006: Amherst loses by total of 7 points in two games at Salem
    2007: Amherst wins national title
    2008: Amherst dominates semifinal, gets dominated in title game
    2010: Williams wins semifinal, loses tightly-contested title game
    2011: Williams and Midd both lose in games that went down to the final possession (and Williams' best player was playing with a broken hand)
    2012: MIT loses in semifinal
    2013: Amherst wins the national title
    2014: Williams dominates Amherst and then loses on last-second shot in title game.
    2015: Babson loses badly in semifinal
    2016: Amherst loses in semifinal that went down to the last possession

    If New England teams were only getting to Salem, as you claim, because they were emerging through weak regionals, you would expect that they would be consistently losing, and losing badly, in semifinal games.  Instead, they generally perform to roughly the statistical average, and when they DO lose, it's generally in a title game or in an extremely close semifinal game.  My point is that I think the strength of other New England teams is generally underrated by many of the posters here who are unfamiliar with them.  In particular THIS YEAR.  The reason no one ever sees them in Salem is that they have the difficult task of beating NESCAC teams to get there -- just like lots of midwest teams have the misfortunate of going through WIAC teams.  But there HAVE in my view been a good number of New England teams that could have performed well in Salem had they not been blocked by Williams/Amherst juggernauts. 

    And more generally, you are extremely frustrating to argue you with because you ignore the ENTIRE CONTEXT of this argument, which started with my rebuttal to the following pointed "observation" by AO:

    "They can't prove they would be in by any other set of criteria by beating the relatively weak Eastern teams in the tournament."

    That is claim entirely specific to THIS YEAR and is what started this whole discussion.  That has NOTHING TO DO WITH what titles CCIW teams may have won in 1982.  I myself said that this year was an atypically strong year for New England as a region, and I stand by that.  So by definition, my very point is that this year is an outlier in terms of New England's exceptional, unusual strength, thanks to a spectacular group of seniors in the reason.  As such, what may have happened decades ago is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.  I took umbrage to AO's initial comment, and you seem to, again, be ignoring the entire context of the argument.  Then you exacerbated things by claiming with no basis (because it's an impossible claim to test) that NESCAC THIS YEAR would have performed worse in the midwest regional, or at least, without any doubt would not have performed better.  Come on, dude, that is a silly statement dripping with disrespect.  Your biases are so ingrained that you can't even recognize it, I guess, and suddenly started bringing in decades of irrelevant data in.  Sorry but the North Park teams from the 1980s have exactly zero to do with the strength of midwest and northeastern teams in 2017.  Zero.  And this year, New England teams beat the two Midwest teams now hosting regionals, which is a pretty good data point. 

    As for the CCIW, no national title in TWO DECADES.  By your own logic, that means the CCIW teams who make it to Salem are likely just skating into final fours and when they get there, can't get the job done, right?  Again, I don't think that is remotely the case.  Results in any one game are of course a bit arbitrary and more CCIW teams could easily have won titles, just as three Williams teams were in coin-toss title games, only one of which went our way.  CCIW deserves respect for the final fours and title games it has made over the past few decades, just as NESCAC does, even when those teams don't win.

    IWU's coach (Dennie Bridges, now the AD) hated the third place game (A Dunk Only Counts Two Points) since it was such a let-down from the REAL goal.  But I took great pride that IWU NEVER lost a third place game.  Suck it up and play for pride! :o

    BTW, you may or may not be right about TWO DECADES - IWU won in 1997, but I've not yet found whether it was 20 years or just shy of that ago. ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 08:55:26 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 08:01:27 PM
    BigMike33, from the moment you made your post I knew you would come to regret implying that IWU was Gregory's team! :o ;D

    I knew you'd enjoy that post, Chuck. ;)

    Quote from: 4samuy on March 06, 2017, 08:19:05 PM
    WOW.  That stream of posts was not only thoughtful, but entertaining.  Thanks for all involved!

    To be honest, it seems to me that nescac1 and I do this every spring. It's turned into something of an annual ritual. We could probably just cut and paste last year's argument every year, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he enjoys arguing as much as I do. ;)

    Quote from: 4samuy on March 06, 2017, 08:19:05 PMAs it relates to THIS YEAR, I've been a critic as to the legitimacy of Amherst as a tournament team based on their non conference schedule and riding on the shoulders of an OT win at home vs Babson and quite frankly their previous reputation.  I've seen Amherst play a number of times this year and nothing against the NESCAC, but Amherst, IMHO didn't earn their way into the tournament and it played out that way.

    The ex-Jeffs lost by three to a Keene State team that, while I haven't seen it, everybody else seems really excited about. So we'll see.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on March 06, 2017, 09:01:40 PM
    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 06:27:33 PM
    Just remember since you parsed my post..you conveniently left out the part of it was Middlebury's Game 1 without their second leading scorer who transferred a day later.

    Therefore your outshot point is moot based on new Middlebury offense installed after tournament, oh yeah that finished 7th in nation averaging 90 points a game against 31st SoS.... that is current team.

    You caught Middlebury at their weakest both in terms of strategy, game play (first after break), and mental preparation as no one knew the final situation of their teammate Zach Baines, just that he was not there, zero communication

    And yes Jack Daly patiently backed your defender down and faked two jab steps and on third jab step got seperation and drained a 10 footer which proved the difference. St. Amour decoy.  See my point of primary and secondary stars to get a hoop in clutch, Middlebury has 3, including Jake Brown

    Mike, please give it a rest. Let's just enjoy this run without pointlessly poking sticks in people's eyes. Thx.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 09:11:01 PM
    Everyone wants to argue past years tournament performance as a future predictor..every team, game and season is different.

    So I argued facts from this year...Middlebury beat Illinois Wesleyan at their lowest moment of season. They would DESTROY IW today. Their offensive efficiency and passing is special since the offensive change to a high/low post 4 big rotation offense. Sorry you can't wrap your head around that one

    Since you are arguing for the Midwest as an aggregate,,,guess what, IW defacto became your team...your argument, your line of reasoning, your inclusion of IW.   

    I saw IW so rather than reading the box score and regurgitating stats like you......1.3 seconds..you can read Play by Play...nice...
    I know Daly had the ball with 10 secs left, how many jab steps Daly took and exactly where he was......Jack Daly was two steps inside foul line..that is a 10 footer and when I congratulated him Saturday night after the Middlebury Regional win...we laughed about the big goon Seibert from IW and how according to his coach to the press....he would never say anything to get a technical... yet Daly baited him then said bye bye as the technical was his fifth personal foul with a few minutes to go in game.

    IW still at the table...wah wah wah....  Middlebury practicing hard and game planning for 2 revenge games. Endicott will be in for a surprise as they faced the December version of Middlebury.

    and since you seem to miss this as well..Teams improve as season goes on..the better teams get better.  Ask any Williams fan on January 20th after Hamilton game if they would play for NESCAC title or make Sweet 16...not likely..then it clicked

    Amherst was a shaky selection...They called for 5 cabs after every Amherst game...not a team that played together
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 09:13:44 PM
    Bucket..do your thing..I'll do mine

    I am enjoying the run and the witty banter about the relative merits of Regions which is a farce.  Teams, match-ups, coaches, injuries are determinants.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FanOfNescac on March 06, 2017, 09:15:50 PM
    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 09:11:01 PM
    Everyone wants to argue past years tournament performance as a future predictor..every team, game and season is different.

    So I argued facts from this year...Middlebury beat Illinois Wesleyan at their lowest moment of season. They would DESTROY IW today. Their offensive efficiency and passing is special since the offensive change to a high/low post 4 big rotation offense. Sorry you can't wrap your head around that one

    Since you are arguing for the Midwest as an aggregate,,,guess what, IW defacto became your team...your argument, your line of reasoning, your inclusion of IW.   

    I saw IW so rather than reading the box score and regurgitating stats like you......1.3 seconds..you can read Play by Play...nice...
    I know Daly had the ball with 10 secs left, how many jab steps Daly took and exactly where he was......Jack Daly was two steps inside foul line..that is a 10 footer and when I congratulated him Saturday night after the Middlebury Regional win...we laughed about the big goon Seibert from IW and how according to his coach to the press....he would never say anything to get a technical... yet Daly baited him then said bye bye as the technical was his fifth personal foul with a few minutes to go in game.

    IW still at the table...wah wah wah....  Middlebury practicing hard and game planning for 2 revenge games. Endicott will be in for a surprise as they faced the December version of Middlebury.

    and since you seem to miss this as well..Teams improve as season goes on..the better teams get better.  Ask any Williams fan on January 20th after Hamilton game if they would play for NESCAC title or make Sweet 16...not likely..then it clicked

    Amherst was a shaky selection...They called for 5 cabs after every Amherst game...not a team that played together

    Only three years to go
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on March 06, 2017, 09:20:39 PM
    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 09:11:01 PM

    Since you are arguing for the Midwest as an aggregate,,,guess what, IW defacto became your team...your argument, your line of reasoning, your inclusion of IW.   


    If you're gonna argue this angle, can we please make Wheaton his team?  ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 09:49:11 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 08:44:49 PM
    IWU's coach (Dennie Bridges, now the AD)

    Bridges retired two years ago, Chuck. Mike Wagner took over as IWU's athletic director on August 1, 2015. (http://www.iwusports.com/staff.aspx?staff=31) Oh, and Bridges had been the AD since '81, when Jack Horenberger retired. First, you're unaware of the fact that IWU dropped its graduate programs many years ago, now this. Does your wife intercept the IWU alumni magazine and throw it in the trash before you ever see it? It's a little embarrassing that I don't much care for your alma mater and you're devoted to it, and yet I know all of this basic stuff about it and you don't. :D

    Quote from: FanOfNescac on March 06, 2017, 09:15:50 PM
    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 09:11:01 PM
    Everyone wants to argue past years tournament performance as a future predictor..every team, game and season is different.

    So I argued facts from this year...Middlebury beat Illinois Wesleyan at their lowest moment of season. They would DESTROY IW today. Their offensive efficiency and passing is special since the offensive change to a high/low post 4 big rotation offense. Sorry you can't wrap your head around that one

    Since you are arguing for the Midwest as an aggregate,,,guess what, IW defacto became your team...your argument, your line of reasoning, your inclusion of IW.   

    I saw IW so rather than reading the box score and regurgitating stats like you......1.3 seconds..you can read Play by Play...nice...
    I know Daly had the ball with 10 secs left, how many jab steps Daly took and exactly where he was......Jack Daly was two steps inside foul line..that is a 10 footer and when I congratulated him Saturday night after the Middlebury Regional win...we laughed about the big goon Seibert from IW and how according to his coach to the press....he would never say anything to get a technical... yet Daly baited him then said bye bye as the technical was his fifth personal foul with a few minutes to go in game.

    IW still at the table...wah wah wah....  Middlebury practicing hard and game planning for 2 revenge games. Endicott will be in for a surprise as they faced the December version of Middlebury.

    and since you seem to miss this as well..Teams improve as season goes on..the better teams get better.  Ask any Williams fan on January 20th after Hamilton game if they would play for NESCAC title or make Sweet 16...not likely..then it clicked

    Amherst was a shaky selection...They called for 5 cabs after every Amherst game...not a team that played together

    Only three years to go

    LOL!

    Quote from: kiko on March 06, 2017, 09:20:39 PM
    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 09:11:01 PM

    Since you are arguing for the Midwest as an aggregate,,,guess what, IW defacto became your team...your argument, your line of reasoning, your inclusion of IW.   


    If you're gonna argue this angle, can we please make Wheaton his team?  ::)

    Another LOL!

    (I'll spare the NESCAC folks the agony of having me prolong this farce. Be warned, though, that it may lead to his migrating back to the NESCAC room. ;))
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 06, 2017, 11:28:07 PM
    Dang, and you made an IWU alumni magazine reference before I could!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 11:59:02 PM
    So who reads alumni magazines? ;D

    Since Denny Bridges must be at least mid 70s by now (maybe 80), not surprised to hear of his retirement, but no I missed that. :-[

    Big Mike, switching Gregory from IWU to Wheaton - you don't even want to know what sort of trouble you're in now! :o

    And, BM (seems an appropriate set of initials ::)), I guess it never occurred to you that IWU might also have been in a down period.  I would love a rematch, but alas ....  I don't know how it would turn out, but I'd bet big money against a Midd blowout.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 07, 2017, 01:00:55 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 06, 2017, 11:28:07 PM
    Dang, and you made an IWU alumni magazine reference before I could!

    I'm glad to see we've moved on to more important issues.  My wife's uncle teaches in the poli-sci department; I think he published a book last year.  I wonder if he made the magazine.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 07, 2017, 01:10:16 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 07, 2017, 01:00:55 AM
    I'm glad to see we've moved on to more important issues.  My wife's uncle teaches in the poli-sci department; I think he published a book last year.  I wonder if he made the magazine.

    I dunno. Hey, let's ask Mr. Ypsi! He's on top of everything IWU-related!

    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 11:59:02 PM
    So who reads alumni magazines? ;D

    Since Denny Bridges must be at least mid 70s by now (maybe 80), not surprised to hear of his retirement, but no I missed that. :-[

    It was in all the papers!

    Seriously, Bob made a big post about it, and several other Titans fans chimed in  -- Lanny, Larry, your boy Mark Sheldon ... the usual suspects. I'm astonished that you seem to have missed it, given your quotidian perusal of CCIW Chat. Same with the announcement by Bob that Mike Wagner had been hired as the new AD, although less ballyhoo was made about that than about Bridges retiring (although I'm sure that Mark S. then used it as an excuse to go on endlessly about something IWU-related, probably having to do with the Titans women's track team or searching for the next Yao Ming over in Hong Kong and filling him up with green kool-ade).

    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 11:59:02 PM
    Big Mike, switching Gregory from IWU to Wheaton - you don't even want to know what sort of trouble you're in now! :o

    Do we really want to keep track of what he doesn't know? ;)

    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 11:59:02 PMAnd, BM (seems an appropriate set of initials ::))

    Now, that is funny! :D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 07, 2017, 01:15:15 AM

    Don't feel bad, Chuck, I had forgotten Dennie Bridges continued to work there after he stopped coaching basketball until this thread today.  I mean, I did know he was AD, but I had forgotten that I knew that.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 07, 2017, 07:04:43 AM
    Greg just a few points to wrap this up from my end:

    First, if you are not defending the statements I found objectionable in the first place and which inspired this whole discussion, and not disagreeing with my assertion that THIS year it is unfair to denigrate beating northeast competition in the tourney as less impressive than any other path a team might take, I'm not even sure what we are arguing about.  I've said from the outset and continue to say that New England is aberrantly deep in quality this year (although perhaps like the rest of D3, no single New England team appears to be a juggernaut prohibitively favorited to win the tourney.  Midd sure has been on a major roll though). 

    How about we agree on this much: this year, the New England teams in the tourney are demonstrably worthy as a group, and going through them to get to the Final Four is a very difficult path.  Whether that is accurate more generally or in past years, we can leave to another day.  And I think we can also agree that New England and NESCAC in particular receive far more scrutiny than any other region/conference here.  Whether that is always fair, sometimes fair, or never fair (my view is "sometimes"), again, I'll leave for another day. 

    Second, I have to point out that these are certainly not "mirror statements":

    I said that NESCAC may have done better OR worse had the brackets been organized differently.  You've said NESCAC may have done the same or worse but could not possibly have done better.   That you view these statements as equivalent is telling.   

    Third, regarding your Williams/Amherst point, if you eliminate from consideration the best two programs from any region (and recall the WIAC teams until very recently were in the West) how many regions have produced more than three final four teams from OTHER programs outside those the top two in the past 15 years?  It's not really fair to say, "well, the region hasn't done that well at getting teams to Salem outside of the top two programs in said region."  I would guess the majority of regions produced fewer (not the midwest, I realize, but I guess all or at least most of the rest).  And I'm betting that this year, at least one maybe two other non-Williams/Amherst teams make it to Salem in all events.  And if they do, I like their chances to prove they belong (especially Midd and if healthy Babson or Tufts). 

    For example, you could say, the Great Lakes isn't a deep region because outside of Hope and Wooster, only Wittenburg or Calvin have made the Final Four in the past 15 years.  The reality is that we see some of the same programs in championship games again and again: of 26 title game slots over the past 14 years, Whitewater, Stevens Point, Amherst, Williams, Wash U., St. Thomas, Virginia Wesleyan have combined for 18 of them!  And that group has won ALL of the past 14 titles.  As much as I'd love it to be otherwise, that streak very likely comes to an end in this weird year in which Stevens Point, Amherst, St. Thomas, and VWU are all down by their usual standards, Wash U. fell victim to Stuive's insane game, Whitewater never played to its talent level, and Williams has finally put things together, but only very late in the season and has to (likely) get through the Middlebury buzzsaw on the road should they manage to survive a tough Susquehanah squad.  But lots of teams, from lots of different regions, have been blocked by that group of repeat finalists, which kind of take turns having dominant runs in the tourney.  What makes this year so interesting and so fun is that the champion seemingly can come from ANYONE left (just about) and it's hard to pick out one or two favorites.  Williams, for example, has faced some combination of Wooster (twice in Salem), Virginia Wesleyan (at least twice in regionals), Amherst (twice in regionals, twice in Salem) and the top two WIAC teams (three times in title games) on each of its deep tourney runs, plus St. Thomas once in a regional, and it each case it was fairly predictable that they would.  That sort of predictability seems to have gone by the wayside this year with more and more parity in D3. 

    But yes, I'll fully concede in all events that typically having to beat Williams and/or Amherst, certainly two of the top 6-8 programs in all of D3 (St. Thomas, VWU, Wash U, Stevens Point, Whitewater, Wooster would be my others, although I'm sure there are 5-6 other legit candidates, like Hope or IWU, that could stake a strong claim there) over the past 15 years, to make it to Salem poses a big hurdle for other New England squads. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on March 07, 2017, 10:03:09 AM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 11:59:02 PM
    So who reads alumni magazines? ;D


    Fighting words!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: warriorcat on March 07, 2017, 11:03:44 AM
    Quote from: Bucket on March 07, 2017, 10:03:09 AM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 11:59:02 PM
    So who reads alumni magazines? ;D


    Fighting words!

    I agree.  I have done so for 40+ years.  In many ways I know more now about what is going on in general at my alma mater than I did when I was a student there.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 07, 2017, 11:06:52 AM
    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 04:30:25 PM
    So as usual..we hear these lame arguments about the Midwest teams but when pitted against Northeast, the physicality of Northeast basketball style wears on the Midwesterners who lose their cool or get out-coached or both......
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2017, 07:04:43 AM
    How about we agree on this much: this year, the New England teams in the tourney are demonstrably worthy as a group, and going through them to get to the Final Four is a very difficult path.  Whether that is accurate more generally or in past years, we can leave to another day.
    If only someone had done some work and checked to see which brackets were objectively tougher this year.

    Quote from: BigMike33 on February 28, 2017, 08:23:47 PM
    Bracket Analysis :  Scored by adding rankings of 16 in pod.  Low score equals tougher bracket.

    Whitman Pod: 1025 
    Babson Pod:  1141
    Wisc. River Falls Pod : 563
    Middlebury Pod: 1108



    Also, Mike are you still pretending to not be the father of a Middlebury player?  Was fun to look through the NESCAC board last night, but I feel like I might have missed some fun deleted posts in there.  We haven't had a family member pretending to be a neutral observer on the West boards for a year or two.

    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 07:19:47 PM
    Again, I'm ignoring it because it's not my argument. It's AO's argument. He thinks that the ex-Jeffs didn't belong in the field because their region is weak. I thought that the ex-Jeffs belonged in the field, in large part because: a) the NESCAC was unusually strong this season; and b) they beat Babson, a team that I've seen in person and mightily impressed me.
    I think any team should be able to get an at-large bid regardless of how weak their region is.  It should matter more how you performed against your schedule (margin of victory included) rather than merely who is on your schedule.    Maybe Amherst would still get in under a better set of criteria, but they wouldn't have been the easy pick they were under the current criteria.  But mostly, having the NE region's pool C teams win a couple games in the tournament can hardly justify Amherst's pick over any other team that didn't make the tournament and doesn't get the chance to prove their ability.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: amh63 on March 07, 2017, 11:18:46 AM
    Strange for me to read all this talk of Alumni Mags here :)
    Having said that, I do read my Alum Mag....for another sad reason.  It brings me up to date on old friends that have passed away in classes other than mine. 
    On the other hand....today's social media and online school websites provides the latest and greatest info on a school....filtered info of course.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 07, 2017, 01:11:33 PM
    nescac1 - who are you talking to? You said "Dave" which I have found more times than not refers to me.. but I haven't even come close to wading into this discussion. I don't have the time or energy (let alone patience) this year to do it... but if it was referring to someone else, then someone is named Dave I don't realize. LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 07, 2017, 01:30:53 PM
    Woops, my bad, meant Greg, sorry Dave!! Edited! 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NCF on March 07, 2017, 03:23:47 PM
    This, along with the Sweet Sixteen Fantasy draft, have become the most entertaining threads the past two days. Made me want to warm up the left over popcorn from the movies and put my feet up to enjoy the show. However, in the future, you guys should try this. I would pay to watch.....

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPIj1g2C_sU

    I hope the link works as I'm sending it from school and YouTube is a blocked site, so I can't check it.  8-) 8-) ;D ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on March 07, 2017, 11:37:23 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 08:44:49 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 05:54:58 PM
    If the argument is "performance in the Final Four is indicative of the strength of the regional," New England Final Four performances over the past 15 years demonstrate conclusively that New England teams that reached the Final Four in the aggregate undoubtedly belonged there.

    2003: Williams wins national title
    2004: Amherst loses tight game to Williams, Williams loses in title game on last-second shot (Amherst lost in consolation game but they were totally demoralized from losing to their rival at Salem)
    2006: Amherst loses by total of 7 points in two games at Salem
    2007: Amherst wins national title
    2008: Amherst dominates semifinal, gets dominated in title game
    2010: Williams wins semifinal, loses tightly-contested title game
    2011: Williams and Midd both lose in games that went down to the final possession (and Williams' best player was playing with a broken hand)
    2012: MIT loses in semifinal
    2013: Amherst wins the national title
    2014: Williams dominates Amherst and then loses on last-second shot in title game.
    2015: Babson loses badly in semifinal
    2016: Amherst loses in semifinal that went down to the last possession

    If New England teams were only getting to Salem, as you claim, because they were emerging through weak regionals, you would expect that they would be consistently losing, and losing badly, in semifinal games.  Instead, they generally perform to roughly the statistical average, and when they DO lose, it's generally in a title game or in an extremely close semifinal game.  My point is that I think the strength of other New England teams is generally underrated by many of the posters here who are unfamiliar with them.  In particular THIS YEAR.  The reason no one ever sees them in Salem is that they have the difficult task of beating NESCAC teams to get there -- just like lots of midwest teams have the misfortunate of going through WIAC teams.  But there HAVE in my view been a good number of New England teams that could have performed well in Salem had they not been blocked by Williams/Amherst juggernauts. 

    And more generally, you are extremely frustrating to argue you with because you ignore the ENTIRE CONTEXT of this argument, which started with my rebuttal to the following pointed "observation" by AO:

    "They can't prove they would be in by any other set of criteria by beating the relatively weak Eastern teams in the tournament."

    That is claim entirely specific to THIS YEAR and is what started this whole discussion.  That has NOTHING TO DO WITH what titles CCIW teams may have won in 1982.  I myself said that this year was an atypically strong year for New England as a region, and I stand by that.  So by definition, my very point is that this year is an outlier in terms of New England's exceptional, unusual strength, thanks to a spectacular group of seniors in the reason.  As such, what may have happened decades ago is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.  I took umbrage to AO's initial comment, and you seem to, again, be ignoring the entire context of the argument.  Then you exacerbated things by claiming with no basis (because it's an impossible claim to test) that NESCAC THIS YEAR would have performed worse in the midwest regional, or at least, without any doubt would not have performed better.  Come on, dude, that is a silly statement dripping with disrespect.  Your biases are so ingrained that you can't even recognize it, I guess, and suddenly started bringing in decades of irrelevant data in.  Sorry but the North Park teams from the 1980s have exactly zero to do with the strength of midwest and northeastern teams in 2017.  Zero.  And this year, New England teams beat the two Midwest teams now hosting regionals, which is a pretty good data point. 

    As for the CCIW, no national title in TWO DECADES.  By your own logic, that means the CCIW teams who make it to Salem are likely just skating into final fours and when they get there, can't get the job done, right?  Again, I don't think that is remotely the case.  Results in any one game are of course a bit arbitrary and more CCIW teams could easily have won titles, just as three Williams teams were in coin-toss title games, only one of which went our way.  CCIW deserves respect for the final fours and title games it has made over the past few decades, just as NESCAC does, even when those teams don't win.

    IWU's coach (Dennie Bridges, now the AD) hated the third place game (A Dunk Only Counts Two Points) since it was such a let-down from the REAL goal.  But I took great pride that IWU NEVER lost a third place game.  Suck it up and play for pride! :o

    BTW, you may or may not be right about TWO DECADES - IWU won in 1997, but I've not yet found whether it was 20 years or just shy of that ago. ;D
    Oh please, I was there in 2004.  Amherst players were whining in pre-game and it had relatively nothing with losing to Williams.  The players made it clear they did not want to be there playing for 3rd.  By the late 1st half, Amherst coach was pulling players off the floor for lack of effort, the few fans and parents left were pouty and, IMO, the lack of sportsmanship displayed pathetic.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 07, 2017, 11:49:43 PM
    I wonder what Amherst and Williams tournament history would look like if they had to go through a bracket of WIAC schools every year for 20 years just to get to Salem.   :-X
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on March 07, 2017, 11:53:55 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 07, 2017, 01:15:15 AM

    Don't feel bad, Chuck, I had forgotten Dennie Bridges continued to work there after he stopped coaching basketball until this thread today.  I mean, I did know he was AD, but I had forgotten that I knew that.
    And he is still there with Emeritus status, an office on campus and holding 'court' at morning coffee. 
    Yes, we publish accomplishment of our faculty
    Ypsi, you may not have read the articles but how did you miss Bridges with the walnut and bronze trophies on the front cover of the Alumni Magazine?

    And Greg, a little misleading - on the occasion IWU is in the tournament representing the CCIW, you do support and become a "fan" albeit no longer than absolutely possible :D :( 8-) :D

    And Middlebury, the December 29th game when Rose had the flu, two other players were recovering from flu systems and Seibring took the shot in the back, landed on his tailbone, gripped through the rest of that game and impacted his ability to play for most of the remaining season?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 07, 2017, 11:55:47 PM
    Quote from: iwumichigander on March 07, 2017, 11:53:55 PM
    And Greg, a little misleading - on the occasion IWU is in the tournament representing the CCIW, you do support and become a "fan" albeit no longer than absolutely possible

    How long is necessary to satisfy you?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2017, 01:16:02 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2017, 07:04:43 AM
    Greg just a few points to wrap this up from my end:

    First, if you are not defending the statements I found objectionable in the first place and which inspired this whole discussion, and not disagreeing with my assertion that THIS year it is unfair to denigrate beating northeast competition in the tourney as less impressive than any other path a team might take, I'm not even sure what we are arguing about.  I've said from the outset and continue to say that New England is aberrantly deep in quality this year (although perhaps like the rest of D3, no single New England team appears to be a juggernaut prohibitively favorited to win the tourney.  Midd sure has been on a major roll though). 

    I dunno. Isn't this argument one of the annual rites of March on d3boards? ;)

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2017, 07:04:43 AMHow about we agree on this much: this year, the New England teams in the tourney are demonstrably worthy as a group, and going through them to get to the Final Four is a very difficult path.  Whether that is accurate more generally or in past years, we can leave to another day.  And I think we can also agree that New England and NESCAC in particular receive far more scrutiny than any other region/conference here.  Whether that is always fair, sometimes fair, or never fair (my view is "sometimes"), again, I'll leave for another day.

    I can agree with both of those statements. My contention is that this season may simply prove to be aberrational -- a contention with which you seem to concur to some degree -- and thus doesn't erase the larger trend of midwestern dominance and the tougher path faced in the midwestern-oriented quadrants. Perhaps in another couple of years this is a discussion that can be revisited if this year's situation comes with a reprise, and then another.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2017, 07:04:43 AMSecond, I have to point out that these are certainly not "mirror statements":

    I said that NESCAC may have done better OR worse had the brackets been organized differently.  You've said NESCAC may have done the same or worse but could not possibly have done better.   That you view these statements as equivalent is telling. 

    Mirror statements aren't equivalent. They're opposite. Everything's reversed in a mirror. That's what I meant by that. I apologize if my meaning wasn't plain there.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2017, 07:04:43 AMThird, regarding your Williams/Amherst point, if you eliminate from consideration the best two programs from any region (and recall the WIAC teams until very recently were in the West) how many regions have produced more than three final four teams from OTHER programs outside those the top two in the past 15 years?  It's not really fair to say, "well, the region hasn't done that well at getting teams to Salem outside of the top two programs in said region."  I would guess the majority of regions produced fewer (not the midwest, I realize, but I guess all or at least most of the rest).  And I'm betting that this year, at least one maybe two other non-Williams/Amherst teams make it to Salem in all events.  And if they do, I like their chances to prove they belong (especially Midd and if healthy Babson or Tufts).

    We're getting into the weeds on this one, but, even though I admit to using "region" language in past posts, in reality the tournament bracket isn't really set up by regions -- and it wasn't even before the NCAA got more relaxed with the wallet and started springing for more flights and the means to spread out bracketing possibilities better. Even when the WIAC was in the West Region, it was still always conjoined with the CCIW, the western UAA duo, the MWC, etc., in terms of bracketing. The committee never said, "Well, the WIAC and the MIAC and the IIAC are in the West Region, so we have to find a way to put them together with the NWC and the SCIAC." They always constructed brackets around geography rather than region -- which meant that the paths that the WIAC, CCIW, MIAC, and Wash U/Chicago have had to follow have always intersected in the tourney's first two weekends. That's been true since the early days of the tourney.

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2017, 07:04:43 AMFor example, you could say, the Great Lakes isn't a deep region because outside of Hope and Wooster, only Wittenburg or Calvin have made the Final Four in the past 15 years.  The reality is that we see some of the same programs in championship games again and again: of 26 title game slots over the past 14 years, Whitewater, Stevens Point, Amherst, Williams, Wash U., St. Thomas, Virginia Wesleyan have combined for 18 of them!  And that group has won ALL of the past 14 titles.  As much as I'd love it to be otherwise, that streak very likely comes to an end in this weird year in which Stevens Point, Amherst, St. Thomas, and VWU are all down by their usual standards, Wash U. fell victim to Stuive's insane game, Whitewater never played to its talent level, and Williams has finally put things together, but only very late in the season and has to (likely) get through the Middlebury buzzsaw on the road should they manage to survive a tough Susquehanah squad.  But lots of teams, from lots of different regions, have been blocked by that group of repeat finalists, which kind of take turns having dominant runs in the tourney.  What makes this year so interesting and so fun is that the champion seemingly can come from ANYONE left (just about) and it's hard to pick out one or two favorites.  Williams, for example, has faced some combination of Wooster (twice in Salem), Virginia Wesleyan (at least twice in regionals), Amherst (twice in regionals, twice in Salem) and the top two WIAC teams (three times in title games) on each of its deep tourney runs, plus St. Thomas once in a regional, and it each case it was fairly predictable that they would.  That sort of predictability seems to have gone by the wayside this year with more and more parity in D3.

    Agreed, and, quite frankly, I think that it's making this tournament more fun to watch than has been the case in recent years. Still, I can't help noticing that four of the seven schools you named as the monopolizers are midwestern schools. ;) 

    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2017, 07:04:43 AMBut yes, I'll fully concede in all events that typically having to beat Williams and/or Amherst, certainly two of the top 6-8 programs in all of D3 (St. Thomas, VWU, Wash U, Stevens Point, Whitewater, Wooster would be my others, although I'm sure there are 5-6 other legit candidates, like Hope or IWU, that could stake a strong claim there) over the past 15 years, to make it to Salem poses a big hurdle for other New England squads.

    ... and the more big-name monopolizers you have in your quadrant from year to year, the more hurdles you annually have on the road to Salem. That's more or less all I'm saying -- although, again, that really isn't the case this March at all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on March 08, 2017, 01:36:29 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2017, 01:16:02 AM


    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2017, 07:04:43 AMSecond, I have to point out that these are certainly not "mirror statements":

    I said that NESCAC may have done better OR worse had the brackets been organized differently.  You've said NESCAC may have done the same or worse but could not possibly have done better.   That you view these statements as equivalent is telling. 

    Mirror statements aren't equivalent. They're opposite. Everything's reversed in a mirror. That's what I meant by that. I apologize if my meaning wasn't plain there.


    Well, at least they aren't blanket statements.  I'd be really concerned about those given that the Lord Jeffs are involved.

    (I'll see myself out now...)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2017, 01:38:05 AM
    (https://i.stack.imgur.com/y7Z0L.jpg)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2017, 02:07:32 AM
    Quote from: iwumichigander on March 07, 2017, 11:53:55 PM
    And Greg, a little misleading - on the occasion IWU is in the tournament representing the CCIW, you do support and become a "fan" albeit no longer than absolutely possible :D :( 8-) :D

    The words "support" and "fan" in that context are definitely an overstatement.

    This raises an interesting point, because this very same discussion is currently boiling over in the MIAA room, where the two fan bases of the Rivalry schools are having internal debates over whether it is right and proper for a Hope/Calvin fan to root for Calvin/Hope in the D3 tournament. I think that if you called one of the Calvin posters who is willing to put MIAA pride ahead of Rivalry loyalty for the duration of Hope's 2017 tourney run a "Hope fan", that Calvin poster would smite-button you faster than you can say "Aaron Winkle". ;)

    I may not be that extreme, but I definitely approach the tourney with ambivalence as far as other CCIW teams are concerned. Part of me wants to see the league succeed on the national stage, part of me dreads the thought of somebody else from NPU's league hauling home the Big Doorstop. It's happened once, twenty years ago, and I'm not altogether sure that I want to see it happen again. And, of course, to be perfectly honest I don't have the same feelings about each rival team in the league. They're all mixed by the people I know from those schools, the tenor of those schools' respective fan bases, NPU's histories with those particular teams, the particular sport involved, etc. F'rinstance, last season it was easier to make peace with the thought of John Baines having a deep run in the tourney than it was with the thought of Grey Giovanine having a deep run. And everybody knows that, like the vast majority of North Park folks, Wheaton is the school that draws out the most ire in me. Yet I have an easier time rooting for a Wheaton win when it's necessary for NPU, or supporting (however mildly) a Wheaton team in the tournament, when it's the Wheaton men's basketball team that's involved rather than the Wheaton men's soccer team. That's because of the friendship and respect I have for Mike Schauer, as opposed to the added animosity I feel towards Wheaton soccer as a result of the fact that WC had North Park investigated by the NCAA for eligibility violations, because their coach thought that the Swedes that NPU's coach kept bringing over were so good that they couldn't possibly be amateur status -- a hostile gesture (without merit, I should add) that was universally met with scorn at NPU as being: a) sour grapes; b) unchristian behavior; and c) an attempt to quash a threat to WC's age-old CCIW hegemony on the soccer pitch without admitting as much.

    To sum up, when I told BM that Illinois Wesleyan is not my team, I sincerely meant every word of it. Even if there's a part of me that wants to see the Titans win in a particular situation, they are still clearly not my team. They are, at best, an expedient device to garner more respect for North Park's league.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 08, 2017, 08:50:58 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2017, 02:07:32 AM
    To sum up, when I told BM that Illinois Wesleyan is not my team, I sincerely meant every word of it. Even if there's a part of me that wants to see the Titans win in a particular situation, they are still clearly not my team. They are, at best, an expedient device to garner more respect for North Park's league.

    I love this. If I referred to calvin as "an expedient device to garner more respect for Hope's league" in the MIAA thread, I would swiftly be smitten 10 times over.

    I just hit 150 last night. I'm tempted to steal this and see if I can get to 200 by Saturday! :)

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bbfan44 on March 08, 2017, 11:03:23 AM
    Quote from: HOPEful on March 08, 2017, 08:50:58 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2017, 02:07:32 AM
    To sum up, when I told BM that Illinois Wesleyan is not my team, I sincerely meant every word of it. Even if there's a part of me that wants to see the Titans win in a particular situation, they are still clearly not my team. They are, at best, an expedient device to garner more respect for North Park's league.

    I love this. If I referred to calvin as "an expedient device to garner more respect for Hope's league" in the MIAA thread, I would swiftly be smitten 10 times over.

    I just hit 150 last night. I'm tempted to steal this and see if I can get to 200 by Saturday! :)

    Would you buy "the league North Park is in" and "the league Hope is in" ?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toad22 on March 08, 2017, 11:14:39 AM
    Quote from: HOPEful on March 08, 2017, 08:50:58 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2017, 02:07:32 AM
    To sum up, when I told BM that Illinois Wesleyan is not my team, I sincerely meant every word of it. Even if there's a part of me that wants to see the Titans win in a particular situation, they are still clearly not my team. They are, at best, an expedient device to garner more respect for North Park's league.

    I love this. If I referred to calvin as "an expedient device to garner more respect for Hope's league" in the MIAA thread, I would swiftly be smitten 10 times over.

    I just hit 150 last night. I'm tempted to steal this and see if I can get to 200 by Saturday! :)

    As an Eph fan, this conversation has given me a great way to describe my feeling toward ever, ever wishing anything but defeat and humiliation on Amherst. "Expedient device" - words to live by!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Just Bill on March 08, 2017, 11:18:40 AM
    Quote from: kiko on March 08, 2017, 01:36:29 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2017, 01:16:02 AM


    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2017, 07:04:43 AMSecond, I have to point out that these are certainly not "mirror statements":

    I said that NESCAC may have done better OR worse had the brackets been organized differently.  You've said NESCAC may have done the same or worse but could not possibly have done better.   That you view these statements as equivalent is telling. 

    Mirror statements aren't equivalent. They're opposite. Everything's reversed in a mirror. That's what I meant by that. I apologize if my meaning wasn't plain there.


    Well, at least they aren't blanket statements.  I'd be really concerned about those given that the Lord Jeffs are involved.

    (I'll see myself out now...)

    You just don't get this kind of deep, historical humor over on D1Boards.com.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 08, 2017, 12:06:02 PM
    Quote from: Just Bill on March 08, 2017, 11:18:40 AM
    Quote from: kiko on March 08, 2017, 01:36:29 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2017, 01:16:02 AM


    Quote from: nescac1 on March 07, 2017, 07:04:43 AMSecond, I have to point out that these are certainly not "mirror statements":

    I said that NESCAC may have done better OR worse had the brackets been organized differently.  You've said NESCAC may have done the same or worse but could not possibly have done better.   That you view these statements as equivalent is telling. 

    Mirror statements aren't equivalent. They're opposite. Everything's reversed in a mirror. That's what I meant by that. I apologize if my meaning wasn't plain there.


    Well, at least they aren't blanket statements.  I'd be really concerned about those given that the Lord Jeffs are involved.

    (I'll see myself out now...)

    You just don't get this kind of deep, historical humor over on D1Boards.com.

    This is where being Division III proves itself... we are all smart enough to get this one. This is actually outstanding! Well done, kiko! Well done, indeed.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on March 08, 2017, 01:57:30 PM
    Greg, I understood your meaning.  The statements are not of equivalent character, and are not opposites.  Saying that NESCAC could not have done better is false.   Saying that NESCAC MAY have done better is true.  Had I said, NESCAC could not have done worse, but only could havr done better, then your statement would have mirrored mine.  But I did not.   That's what I'm getting at.

    More importantly, nicely done Kiko, nicely done!  And while they are no longer the Lord Jeffs, they are still Amherst, so the statement still applies!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on March 08, 2017, 02:04:34 PM
    I placed a call to Vegas to see if they would make book on who would have the last word...Greg or nescac1.

    They informed me that Greg was the morning line favorite at 2-1, but the late money has been pouring in on nescac1 and he's now 8-5. Post time is midnight tonight. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 08, 2017, 02:09:45 PM
    Quote from: magicman on March 08, 2017, 02:04:34 PM
    I placed a call to Vegas to see if they would make book on who would have the last word...Greg or nescac1.

    They informed me that Greg was the morning line favorite at 2-1, but the late money has been pouring in on nescac1 and he's now 8-5. Post time is midnight tonight.
    magicman, how did you bet? I'll place my bet to mirror yours!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2017, 02:20:58 PM
    Quote from: HOPEful on March 08, 2017, 08:50:58 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2017, 02:07:32 AM
    To sum up, when I told BM that Illinois Wesleyan is not my team, I sincerely meant every word of it. Even if there's a part of me that wants to see the Titans win in a particular situation, they are still clearly not my team. They are, at best, an expedient device to garner more respect for North Park's league.

    I love this. If I referred to calvin as "an expedient device to garner more respect for Hope's league" in the MIAA thread, I would swiftly be smitten 10 times over.

    I just hit 150 last night. I'm tempted to steal this and see if I can get to 200 by Saturday! :)

    You're certainly right about that. When things get hot in the MIAA room, all you have to do is sneeze and everybody who supports the other Rivalry school smites you. That's the downside to having the college basketball equivalent of Spy vs. Spy in your league.

    Quote from: toad22 on March 08, 2017, 11:14:39 AM
    As an Eph fan, this conversation has given me a great way to describe my feeling toward ever, ever wishing anything but defeat and humiliation on Amherst. "Expedient device" - words to live by!

    I'm happy to help up the ante for all of D3's top rivalries.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2017, 03:00:29 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 08, 2017, 01:57:30 PM
    Greg, I understood your meaning.  The statements are not of equivalent character, and are not opposites.  Saying that NESCAC could not have done better is false.   Saying that NESCAC MAY have done better is true.  Had I said, NESCAC could not have done worse, but only could havr done better, then your statement would have mirrored mine.  But I did not.   That's what I'm getting at.

    The mirror aspect reflects the second clause, not the entire thing. It's a language argument. Note the original posts:

    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 02:34:00 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on March 06, 2017, 01:54:36 PMI've seen Marietta and Hope lose to NESCAC teams, neither of which was in the top two in the conference.  I don't think it's fair to assume that NESCAC would have done any worse if placed in a Midwest-heavy bracket.  It is equally likely that this year in paticular, they would have fared better.

    That's a reach. The NESCAC may very well have done as well in a midwest-oriented quadrant as it has done in the two northeastern-oriented quadrants, given the strength of the league's reps this season, but it certainly would not have done better.

    Granted, it's not an exact mirror -- I changed the pronoun (because "NESCAC" is a singular and not a plural), I intensified the response by adding the adverb "certainly", and I used the verb "done" rather than "fared" (mea culpa) -- but the second clause was meant to gainsay your original statement by using basically the same wording as yours for rhetorical effect. That's why I used the phrase "mirror statement" in the first place.

    Quote from: HOPEful on March 08, 2017, 02:09:45 PM
    Quote from: magicman on March 08, 2017, 02:04:34 PM
    I placed a call to Vegas to see if they would make book on who would have the last word...Greg or nescac1.

    They informed me that Greg was the morning line favorite at 2-1, but the late money has been pouring in on nescac1 and he's now 8-5. Post time is midnight tonight.
    magicman, how did you bet? I'll place my bet to mirror yours!

    :D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: blue_jays on March 08, 2017, 03:46:03 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2017, 09:49:11 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 08:44:49 PM
    IWU's coach (Dennie Bridges, now the AD)

    Bridges retired two years ago, Chuck. Mike Wagner took over as IWU's athletic director on August 1, 2015. (http://www.iwusports.com/staff.aspx?staff=31) Oh, and Bridges had been the AD since '81, when Jack Horenberger retired. First, you're unaware of the fact that IWU dropped its graduate programs many years ago, now this. Does your wife intercept the IWU alumni magazine and throw it in the trash before you ever see it? It's a little embarrassing that I don't much care for your alma mater and you're devoted to it, and yet I know all of this basic stuff about it and you don't. :D

    Quote from: FanOfNescac on March 06, 2017, 09:15:50 PM
    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 09:11:01 PM
    Everyone wants to argue past years tournament performance as a future predictor..every team, game and season is different.

    So I argued facts from this year...Middlebury beat Illinois Wesleyan at their lowest moment of season. They would DESTROY IW today. Their offensive efficiency and passing is special since the offensive change to a high/low post 4 big rotation offense. Sorry you can't wrap your head around that one

    Since you are arguing for the Midwest as an aggregate,,,guess what, IW defacto became your team...your argument, your line of reasoning, your inclusion of IW.   

    I saw IW so rather than reading the box score and regurgitating stats like you......1.3 seconds..you can read Play by Play...nice...
    I know Daly had the ball with 10 secs left, how many jab steps Daly took and exactly where he was......Jack Daly was two steps inside foul line..that is a 10 footer and when I congratulated him Saturday night after the Middlebury Regional win...we laughed about the big goon Seibert from IW and how according to his coach to the press....he would never say anything to get a technical... yet Daly baited him then said bye bye as the technical was his fifth personal foul with a few minutes to go in game.

    IW still at the table...wah wah wah....  Middlebury practicing hard and game planning for 2 revenge games. Endicott will be in for a surprise as they faced the December version of Middlebury.

    and since you seem to miss this as well..Teams improve as season goes on..the better teams get better.  Ask any Williams fan on January 20th after Hamilton game if they would play for NESCAC title or make Sweet 16...not likely..then it clicked

    Amherst was a shaky selection...They called for 5 cabs after every Amherst game...not a team that played together

    Only three years to go

    LOL!

    Quote from: kiko on March 06, 2017, 09:20:39 PM
    Quote from: BigMike33 on March 06, 2017, 09:11:01 PM

    Since you are arguing for the Midwest as an aggregate,,,guess what, IW defacto became your team...your argument, your line of reasoning, your inclusion of IW.   


    If you're gonna argue this angle, can we please make Wheaton his team?  ::)

    Another LOL!

    (I'll spare the NESCAC folks the agony of having me prolong this farce. Be warned, though, that it may lead to his migrating back to the NESCAC room. ;))

    Gotta say, I always look forward to Sager vs. the NESCAC on the boards every March. The sideshow involved was particularly amusing this time around. But don't take my support for his views as an endorsement of North Park...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on March 08, 2017, 07:18:45 PM
    Quote from: HOPEful on March 08, 2017, 02:09:45 PM
    Quote from: magicman on March 08, 2017, 02:04:34 PM
    I placed a call to Vegas to see if they would make book on who would have the last word...Greg or nescac1.

    They informed me that Greg was the morning line favorite at 2-1, but the late money has been pouring in on nescac1 and he's now 8-5. Post time is midnight tonight.
    magicman, how did you bet? I'll place my bet to mirror yours!

    My money's on Greg. It's always on Greg!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 08, 2017, 09:30:54 PM
    You Don't Mess With the Zohan Sager!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2017, 06:43:27 PM
    The Division III NCAA tournaments have already seen their fair share of twists and turns. Both defending champions eliminated on the opening night, several home teams beaten, off-the-radar squads tearing Top 10 teams apart, and much more.

    It has been an exciting start. What's next?

    Can the home teams parlay a perceived advantage into a Championship Weekend appearence? What Cinderalla team will hear the chimes of midnight? What program will continue to make history? How will the battle of Top 25 teams shake out? And will a storied career end this weekend or in Salem?

    There is plenty to talk about ahead of the Sectional Weekend and Dave McHugh has a super-sized list of guests on Thursday night's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com).

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show LIVE staring at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/mar9 --- or via the Facebook Live (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville) simulcast. If you missed any part of the show, you can watch it On Demand or listen to the podcast.

    Despite the large list of guests, Dave will find time to answer questions as well. Make sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or tweet them and Dave will answer them on air.

    Guests scheduled (in order of appearance):
    - Brian Morehouse, No. 18 Hope women's coach
    - Trevor Woodruff, No. 17 Scranton women's coach
    - Craig Carse, Hardin-Simmons men's coach
    - Ruth Sinn, No. 2 St. Thomas women's coach
    - Michelle Ferenz, No. 16 Whitman women's coach
    - Kevin App, Williams men's coach
    - Grey Giovanine, Augustana men's coach

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3Dmkbzw%2Fjt7zn7grjzpwzjzp.jpg&hash=414d7f84435fe6b5e2fae50fd683c7781d50601a)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 11, 2017, 11:36:37 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2017, 12:47:40 PM
    First Round

    NJ City  eliminated by Pool C Skidmore
    Amherst eliminated by Pool C Keene St.
    Salisbury eliminated by Pool C Endicott
    St. Thomas eliminated by Pool C Augustana
    Oshkosh eliminated by Pool C Hope

    Wesleyan eliminated by Pool A Union
    Cabrini eliminated by Pool A Lycoming
    St. Lawrence eliminated by Pool A St. John Fisher
    Whitworth elimininated by Pool A Claremont MS


    2nd Round
    Skidmore eliminated by Pool C Babson
    Whitewater eliminated by Pool C Augustana

    Emory eliminated by Pool A Hardin-Simmons

    7 of the 12 Pool C's eliminated were eliminated by other Pool C's.


    Susquehanna eliminated by Pool C Williams
    Tufts eliminated by Pool C Babson
    Hope eliminated by Pool A Hanover
    Endicott eliminated by Pool A Middlebury


    5 Pool C's remain
    Keene St., Williams, Augustana, Babson, Rochester

    Keene St vs Babson is only Pool C vs Pool C tonight.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 12, 2017, 12:07:48 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 11, 2017, 11:36:37 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 05, 2017, 12:47:40 PM
    First Round

    NJ City  eliminated by Pool C Skidmore
    Amherst eliminated by Pool C Keene St.
    Salisbury eliminated by Pool C Endicott
    St. Thomas eliminated by Pool C Augustana
    Oshkosh eliminated by Pool C Hope

    Wesleyan eliminated by Pool A Union
    Cabrini eliminated by Pool A Lycoming
    St. Lawrence eliminated by Pool A St. John Fisher
    Whitworth elimininated by Pool A Claremont MS


    2nd Round
    Skidmore eliminated by Pool C Babson
    Whitewater eliminated by Pool C Augustana

    Emory eliminated by Pool A Hardin-Simmons

    7 of the 12 Pool C's eliminated were eliminated by other Pool C's.


    Susquehanna eliminated by Pool C Williams
    Tufts eliminated by Pool C Babson
    Hope eliminated by Pool A Hanover
    Endicott eliminated by Pool A Middlebury


    5 Pool C's remain
    Keene St., Williams, Augustana, Babson, Rochester

    Keene St vs Babson is only Pool C vs Pool C tonight.

    Keene St eliminated by Pool C Babson


    3 Pool C's head to Salem
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 16, 2017, 05:20:40 PM
    The Division III basketball season has begun and tonight Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) will hit the air for its 15th season!

    In tonight's season premiere, Dave McHugh chats with the two preseason No. 1 teams, both national committee chairs, and gets an update on a new tournament featuring several Top 25 teams. Dave will also try and get everyone up to speed on the new season and take a look at what has already happened in early season games.

    One thing fans may notice is no video for this season's debut. This is not a change in the production of the show, just a temporary decision. There has been a lot going on leading up to the premiere and not everything got up to speed in time. We hope to have actual video broadcasts return in short order. We appreciate everyone's patience.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show LIVE staring at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2017-18/nov16 --- or via the Facebook Live (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville) simulcast. If you missed any part of the show, you can watch it On Demand or listen to the podcast.

    You can also send your questions to the show and have them featured on the Hoopsville Mailbag segment. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com.

    Guests include (in order of appearance):
    - Bobbi Morgan, Haverford women's coach and DIII National Basketball Committee Chair
    - Tim Pitzpatrick, U.S. Coast Guard Academy Athletics Director and DIII National Basketball Committee Chair
    - Eric Bridgeland, No. 1 Whitman men's coach
    - Carla Berube, No. 1 Tufts women's coach
    - Ryan Whitnabe, Great Lakes podcaster and Great Lakes Invitational creator

    You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on January 09, 2018, 05:01:11 AM
    As of January 9, we are still waiting for the NCAA to release its 2017-18 edition of the Men's Basketball Pre-Championship Manual.

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

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

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

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

    All DIII games (excluding 1st and 2nd year provisional/reclassifying teams) count in the primary criteria for evaluation purposes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on January 09, 2018, 10:56:53 AM
    Quote from: deiscanton on January 09, 2018, 05:01:11 AM
    As of January 9, we are still waiting for the NCAA to release its 2017-18 edition of the Men's Basketball Pre-Championship Manual.

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

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

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

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

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

    I don't know if it popped up or not after you posted this, but said manual actually is available (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2018DIIIMBB_Pre-Champs_Manual_20180108.pdf).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on January 09, 2018, 12:58:15 PM
    Quote from: lmitzel on January 09, 2018, 10:56:53 AM
    Quote from: deiscanton on January 09, 2018, 05:01:11 AM
    As of January 9, we are still waiting for the NCAA to release its 2017-18 edition of the Men's Basketball Pre-Championship Manual.

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

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

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

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

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

    I don't know if it popped up or not after you posted this, but said manual actually is available (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2018DIIIMBB_Pre-Champs_Manual_20180108.pdf).

    Thanks for providing the link.

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

    Of note:

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

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

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

    First published ranking is on Wed. Feb. 7, while results against teams in the rankings on Feb. 21 and Feb. 26 will count as results vs ranked teams for selection purposes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 09, 2018, 01:12:19 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on January 09, 2018, 12:58:15 PM
    Quote from: lmitzel on January 09, 2018, 10:56:53 AM
    Quote from: deiscanton on January 09, 2018, 05:01:11 AM
    As of January 9, we are still waiting for the NCAA to release its 2017-18 edition of the Men's Basketball Pre-Championship Manual.

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

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

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

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

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

    I don't know if it popped up or not after you posted this, but said manual actually is available (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2018DIIIMBB_Pre-Champs_Manual_20180108.pdf).

    Thanks for providing the link.

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

    Of note:

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

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

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

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

    I hate results versus regionally ranked opponents being a primary criteria, but I really really hate also counting games against teams that may have fallen out of the final rankings. This is a big big benefit to the power conferences who might have several teams jockeying for position in the regional rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on January 09, 2018, 01:41:32 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 09, 2018, 01:12:19 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on January 09, 2018, 12:58:15 PM
    Quote from: lmitzel on January 09, 2018, 10:56:53 AM
    Quote from: deiscanton on January 09, 2018, 05:01:11 AM
    As of January 9, we are still waiting for the NCAA to release its 2017-18 edition of the Men's Basketball Pre-Championship Manual.

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

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

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

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

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

    I don't know if it popped up or not after you posted this, but said manual actually is available (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2018DIIIMBB_Pre-Champs_Manual_20180108.pdf).

    Thanks for providing the link.

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

    Of note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Championships Committee does not currently support adopting the RPI for DIII, even though the basketball committees have asked the Championships Committee to consider it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 09, 2018, 04:07:26 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on January 09, 2018, 01:41:32 PM
    The rationale for the change in the definition of regionally ranked teams is explained in the June, 2016 report of the DIII Championships Committee.  This change was initially proposed by the DIII Men's and Women's Soccer Committees, in order to stabilize a team's standing heading into selections.  Various input was heard from all of the sport committees, and I believe that this change is in keeping with the notion that a team's entire season should be taken into account at the selection, not just performance in the final week, which is usually conf tournament week.  Barring adoption of the RPI, I believe that this is an acceptable compromise between the "once ranked, always ranked" camp, and the "rankings at the time of selection" position.  Keep in mind that this definition applies to all d3 team sports.

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

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

    But the question I have is what value are we adding by giving a team a RvRRO for playing an opponent that is now ranked 10th in a region that ranks the top 8? The selection committee is going to drill down into that data and see that said team is not in a ranked position and discount that result greatly. Sure, it could be used as a tiebreaker of sorts, but what about the 9th ranked team in that same region? Perhaps their position never changed. Games against them count less than games against the team below them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 09, 2018, 05:00:14 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 09, 2018, 04:07:26 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on January 09, 2018, 01:41:32 PM
    The rationale for the change in the definition of regionally ranked teams is explained in the June, 2016 report of the DIII Championships Committee.  This change was initially proposed by the DIII Men's and Women's Soccer Committees, in order to stabilize a team's standing heading into selections.  Various input was heard from all of the sport committees, and I believe that this change is in keeping with the notion that a team's entire season should be taken into account at the selection, not just performance in the final week, which is usually conf tournament week.  Barring adoption of the RPI, I believe that this is an acceptable compromise between the "once ranked, always ranked" camp, and the "rankings at the time of selection" position.  Keep in mind that this definition applies to all d3 team sports.

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

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

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

    I agree - it made slightly more sense when they did more rankings to do once ranked always ranked, because a team could actually have been good the last week of January and fallen off a cliff.  You'd want to reward results against teams playing well at the time.  Now, though, with the short turnaround and only using one extra week, there's really no case to be made.  Maybe a team that loses in its conference tournament to a better team, but even in that case, if the team isn't already good enough to stay in the rankings, they probably aren't good enough to continue to be counted as "ranked."

    If Whitewater loses to Oshkosh in the WIAC final and drops from 4 to 9 or something, maybe they weren't good.  If they were it might've been a drop from 4 to 6 and they'd still be ranked.

    They should just use the final rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on January 09, 2018, 05:29:42 PM
    I appreciate them using the last public ranking since we don't get to see the final set until after the bracket selections are made.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on January 10, 2018, 03:53:47 AM
    Quote from: gordonmann on January 09, 2018, 05:29:42 PM
    I appreciate them using the last public ranking since we don't get to see the final set until after the bracket selections are made.

    I agree with Gordon Mann on this one.  The ranking immediately preceding the final ranking is the last public ranking before selections are made.  When the RACs are working on their regional rankings after the conference tournaments are complete (or after the UAA concludes match day 14-- no conf tourney in UAA), a particular RAC when doing their final regional ranking is not going to know how the other 7 RACs are ranking their respective teams.  The national committee has the final say in the regional rankings, and it is easier for fans to follow the selection process with this definition of regional rankings for all d3 team sports, IMO.

    The women's basketball committee seemed to be working with this current definition of regionally ranked opponent when placing Calvin ahead of Carnegie Mellon in the final Great Lakes rankings last year despite neither team playing each other or having a common d3 opponent.  As Dave McHugh commented to me back in November, 2017, nobody really had an objection then.  I chose not to object to the decision last season, either. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 21, 2018, 02:19:01 PM
    With conference tournaments just four weeks away, I got the simulations up and running.  This is still a work in progress, but I hope to build out more content (and fix any errors that may be present) as time allows.  Of course, if the NCAA changes the SOS calculation to what seemed to be originally intended, that would cause a substantial shake-up.

    Just four teams already seem to be near-locks for a Pool C berth, should they fail to win the AQ from their conferences: Hamilton, Wittenberg, York, and Whitman. 

    I will be updating the info here... http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html (http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html)


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: me on January 21, 2018, 03:17:09 PM
    Is this based on what teams have been selected in the past?

    If so, did you make any adjustment to account for Oshkosh's inclusion last year that was clearly a precedent-breaking selection?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 21, 2018, 04:16:23 PM
    NCAA did not change the calculation for the SOS, but keep in mind that secondary criteria now includes a non-conference SOS number.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 22, 2018, 09:23:03 AM
    Quote from: me on January 21, 2018, 03:17:09 PM
    Is this based on what teams have been selected in the past?

    If so, did you make any adjustment to account for Oshkosh's inclusion last year that was clearly a precedent-breaking selection?

    I use only WP, SOS, and wins vRRO in these calculations, and that worked well the last two years (19/21 and 18/19 on picking Pool C teams).  The UW-O selection into Pool C did change the formula a bit.

    I am operating under the assumption the non-conference SOS inclusion in secondary criteria (which I support) will be make an impact only in extreme cases among bubble teams.  For example, if a 26-2 team from a weak league had a .600 NCSOS but .503 SOS overall, they might get serious consideration for Pool C; I don't see any teams trending that way this year (Transylvania might be the closest, but 23-5 won't be enough against their overall slate).  On the flip side, if a NESCAC or CCIW team has a mediocre record (say, 18-8) and solid SOS overall but a very weak NCSOS, that might be held against them; I don't see any such examples this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 22, 2018, 12:41:14 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 22, 2018, 09:23:03 AM
    Quote from: me on January 21, 2018, 03:17:09 PM
    Is this based on what teams have been selected in the past?

    If so, did you make any adjustment to account for Oshkosh's inclusion last year that was clearly a precedent-breaking selection?

    I use only WP, SOS, and wins vRRO in these calculations, and that worked well the last two years (19/21 and 18/19 on picking Pool C teams).  The UW-O selection into Pool C did change the formula a bit.

    I am operating under the assumption the non-conference SOS inclusion in secondary criteria (which I support) will be make an impact only in extreme cases among bubble teams.  For example, if a 26-2 team from a weak league had a .600 NCSOS but .503 SOS overall, they might get serious consideration for Pool C; I don't see any teams trending that way this year (Transylvania might be the closest, but 23-5 won't be enough against their overall slate).  On the flip side, if a NESCAC or CCIW team has a mediocre record (say, 18-8) and solid SOS overall but a very weak NCSOS, that might be held against them; I don't see any such examples this year.

    Not an assumption... non-conference SOS is secondary criteria.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 22, 2018, 01:59:36 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 22, 2018, 12:41:14 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 22, 2018, 09:23:03 AM
    Quote from: me on January 21, 2018, 03:17:09 PM
    Is this based on what teams have been selected in the past?

    If so, did you make any adjustment to account for Oshkosh's inclusion last year that was clearly a precedent-breaking selection?

    I use only WP, SOS, and wins vRRO in these calculations, and that worked well the last two years (19/21 and 18/19 on picking Pool C teams).  The UW-O selection into Pool C did change the formula a bit.

    I am operating under the assumption the non-conference SOS inclusion in secondary criteria (which I support) will be make an impact only in extreme cases among bubble teams.  For example, if a 26-2 team from a weak league had a .600 NCSOS but .503 SOS overall, they might get serious consideration for Pool C; I don't see any teams trending that way this year (Transylvania might be the closest, but 23-5 won't be enough against their overall slate).  On the flip side, if a NESCAC or CCIW team has a mediocre record (say, 18-8) and solid SOS overall but a very weak NCSOS, that might be held against them; I don't see any such examples this year.

    Not an assumption... non-conference SOS is secondary criteria.

    Got it ... my assumption, knowing that this is a secondary criterion, is that it will be only applied in extreme cases, or in all-other-things-equal bubble decisions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 22, 2018, 02:00:29 PM
    I bet it will be used more than that... when we look at teams from about pick ten onward (on average), secondary criteria starts making an appearance. I think it will be a significant conversation marker.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 22, 2018, 03:20:06 PM
    Considering Stevens Point played Augustana, Whitman and Wartburg, I vote for non-conference SOS to be primary criteria, if it helps the Pointers out.  ;D :P :o
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 22, 2018, 03:21:37 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on January 22, 2018, 03:20:06 PM
    Considering Stevens Point played Augustana, Whitman and Wartburg, I vote for non-conference SOS to be primary criteria, if it helps the Pointers out.  ;D :P :o

    LOL I am sure you would, but sadly... it will not be primary criteria.

    Well played, though. +k
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 22, 2018, 04:41:20 PM
    It's interesting that half of the toughest non-conference schedules (by this metric) are in the Great Lakes, with Hope, Alma, Calvin, Wooster, Transylvania, Capital, and Marietta all having an ncSOS of .629 or higher.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on January 22, 2018, 05:00:16 PM
    Regarding non-conference SOS:

    As explained in the report of the June 1-2, 2016 meeting of the DIII Championships Committee, the Championships Committee initially proposed back in 2013 that non-conference SOS be included in the primary criteria.  However, the DIII Management Council objected to this idea, stating that if that were to be the policy, then schools and conferences would suffer a negative budgetary impact as schools would seek to reduce the number of conference games played in the attempt to build a stronger non-conference schedule.  As a result, it was decided to put non-conference SOS in the secondary criteria rather than the primary criteria.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on January 22, 2018, 06:45:28 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on January 22, 2018, 05:00:16 PM
    Regarding non-conference SOS:

    As explained in the report of the June 1-2, 2016 meeting of the DIII Championships Committee, the Championships Committee initially proposed back in 2013 that non-conference SOS be included in the primary criteria.  However, the DIII Management Council objected to this idea, stating that if that were to be the policy, then schools and conferences would suffer a negative budgetary impact as schools would seek to reduce the number of conference games played in the attempt to build a stronger non-conference schedule.  As a result, it was decided to put non-conference SOS in the secondary criteria rather than the primary criteria.

    Did they offer any evidence that either(reduce # of conference games or negative budgetary impact) would happen? I don't see the majority of coaches trying to upgrade their current non-conference schedule let alone dropping conference games to do it and wrt negative budgetary impact, many schools could reduce their travel expenses(hotel,bus) by playing more local non-conference than conference foes. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Knightstalker on January 22, 2018, 06:58:17 PM
    Quote from: ronk on January 22, 2018, 06:45:28 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on January 22, 2018, 05:00:16 PM
    Regarding non-conference SOS:

    As explained in the report of the June 1-2, 2016 meeting of the DIII Championships Committee, the Championships Committee initially proposed back in 2013 that non-conference SOS be included in the primary criteria.  However, the DIII Management Council objected to this idea, stating that if that were to be the policy, then schools and conferences would suffer a negative budgetary impact as schools would seek to reduce the number of conference games played in the attempt to build a stronger non-conference schedule.  As a result, it was decided to put non-conference SOS in the secondary criteria rather than the primary criteria.

    Did they offer any evidence that either(reduce # of conference games or negative budgetary impact) would happen? I don't see the majority of coaches trying to upgrade their current non-conference schedule let alone dropping conference games to do it and wrt negative budgetary impact, many schools could reduce their travel expenses(hotel,bus) by playing more local non-conference than conference foes.

    The NJAC did this several years ago.  They split the conference into north and south divisions with five teams each.  The teams played their other divisional opponents twice and the teams in the other division once.  This was done to allow the teams to expand their out of conference schedules and possibly give them a better chance at a pool C bid.  It was abandoned after just a few seasons.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on January 22, 2018, 11:26:41 PM
    The smaller tuition-dependent schools and smaller D3 state schools don't have big travel budgets. You see it in football too.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 28, 2018, 09:06:06 PM
    With "Selection Monday" four weeks away, here are my current projections.  There are 21 Pool C berths available, but several will be taken by strong teams who lose to conference tournament games to "bubble thieves".  More info is posted daily at http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html (http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html)

    Near-locks
    (NCAC) Wittenberg (18-0, SOS 0.516)

    Strong contenders
    (UAA) Washington U. (16-2, SOS 0.559)
    (NWC) Whitman (18-0, SOS 0.510)
    (NESCAC) Middlebury (15-3, SOS 0.583)
    (C#1) Hamilton (17-2, SOS 0.559)
    (CC) Swarthmore (17-2, SOS 0.525)
    (MIAC) St. John's (15-1, SOS 0.522)
    (CAC) York (Pa.) (17-2, SOS 0.532)
    (C#2) New Jersey City (16-4, SOS 0.584)
    (OAC) Marietta (15-4, SOS 0.575)
    (C#3) Wooster (15-4, SOS 0.578)
    (LEC) Eastern Connecticut (16-2, SOS 0.534)
    (C#4) Augustana (15-4, SOS 0.587)
    (C#5) Wesleyan (16-4, SOS 0.558)
    (WIAC) UW-Platteville (14-3, SOS 0.570)
    (C#6) Williams (14-4, SOS 0.571)
    (C#7) Emory (15-3, SOS 0.540)
    (ODAC) Emory and Henry (18-1, SOS 0.503)

    Bubble-in
    (NEWMAC) MIT (17-2, SOS 0.531)
    (C#8) Cabrini (16-3, SOS 0.524)
    (CSAC) Gwynedd Mercy (16-2, SOS 0.489)
    (LL) Hobart (15-3, SOS 0.540)
    (USAC) Maryville (Tenn.) (13-3, SOS 0.559)
    (C#9) Keene State (14-5, SOS 0.570)
    (C#10) John Carroll (15-4, SOS 0.543)
    (CCIW) Illinois Wesleyan (16-3, SOS 0.536)
    (C#11) Christopher Newport (15-4, SOS 0.533)
    (C#12) UW-Oshkosh (15-4, SOS 0.549)
    (C#13) Johns Hopkins (15-4, SOS 0.536)
    (C#14) Franklin and Marshall (16-3, SOS 0.493)
    (C#15) Whitworth (17-2, SOS 0.521)

    Bubble-out
    (SUNYAC) Plattsburgh State (14-4, SOS 0.533)
    (out) Randolph-Macon (14-5, SOS 0.570)
    (out) Cortland (15-4, SOS 0.530)
    (out) Ohio Wesleyan (14-5, SOS 0.543)
    (out) Baldwin Wallace (14-5, SOS 0.552)
    (out) UW-Stevens Point (13-6, SOS 0.615)
    (NJAC) Ramapo (15-5, SOS 0.541)
    (out) Montclair State (15-5, SOS 0.534)
    (out) Tufts (14-6, SOS 0.571)
    (out) UW-River Falls (13-5, SOS 0.581)
    (MACC) Lycoming (17-2, SOS 0.511)
    (ASC) Sul Ross State (15-3, SOS 0.515)
    (out) UW-Whitewater (14-4, SOS 0.529)
    (out) Amherst (12-5, SOS 0.552)
    (out) Rochester (13-5, SOS 0.562)

    Fringe contenders
    (out) Lebanon Valley (14-6, SOS 0.555)
    (out) Brockport (14-5, SOS 0.539)
    (out) Albright (14-5, SOS 0.544)
    (out) East Texas Baptist (16-3, SOS 0.516)
    (out) Springfield (13-6, SOS 0.552)
    (out) Methodist (14-2, SOS 0.536)
    (CCC) Nichols (16-3, SOS 0.523)
    (out) TCNJ (16-4, SOS 0.504)
    (out) Loras (15-5, SOS 0.524)
    (out) North Central (Ill.) (13-5, SOS 0.540)
    (out) Augsburg (14-5, SOS 0.519)
    (out) Ohio Northern (13-6, SOS 0.550)
    (MASCAC) Salem State (17-3, SOS 0.517)
    (out) Wheaton (Ill.) (13-6, SOS 0.560)
    (out) Trinity (Conn.) (13-6, SOS 0.547)
    (out) LeTourneau (16-3, SOS 0.493)
    (out) Wartburg (10-6, SOS 0.588)
    (E8) Stevens (15-4, SOS 0.512)
    (out) Neumann (15-4, SOS 0.490)
    (out) St. Olaf (13-5, SOS 0.522)

    Other projected Pool A teams
    (IIAC) Nebraska Wesleyan (16-3, SOS 0.489)
    (MWC) St. Norbert (15-4, SOS 0.518)
    (HCAC) Hanover (13-4, SOS 0.489)
    (GNAC) Albertus Magnus (14-4, SOS 0.519)
    (AMCC) La Roche (14-5, SOS 0.469)
    (CUNYAC) Lehman (16-4, SOS 0.431)
    (LAND) Juniata (15-3, SOS 0.472)
    (MACF) DeSales (14-4, SOS 0.491)
    (MIAA) Hope (9-7, SOS 0.569)
    (NEAC) Lancaster Bible (15-4, SOS 0.466)
    (NECC) Southern Vermont (12-4, SOS 0.478)
    (PAC) Thomas More (14-4, SOS 0.458)
    (SAA) Centre (11-7, SOS 0.444)
    (SCAC) Schreiner (10-9, SOS 0.508)
    (SCIAC) Occidental (11-1, SOS 0.426)
    (SKY) Farmingdale State (11-6, SOS 0.527)
    (SLIAC) Greenville (12-7, SOS 0.489)
    (NAC) Husson (15-4, SOS 0.443)
    (NACC) Benedictine (12-7, SOS 0.490)
    (UMAC) Bethany Lutheran (13-7, SOS 0.459)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on January 29, 2018, 12:38:46 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 28, 2018, 09:06:06 PM
    (C#2) New Jersey City (16-4, SOS 0.584)
    (OAC) Marietta (15-4, SOS 0.575)
    (C#3) Wooster (15-4, SOS 0.578)
    (LL) Hobart (15-3, SOS 0.540)
    (USAC) Maryville (Tenn.) (13-3, SOS 0.559)
    (C#9) Keene State (14-5, SOS 0.570)
    (C#12) UW-Oshkosh (15-4, SOS 0.549)
    (C#13) Johns Hopkins (15-4, SOS 0.536)
    (out) Randolph-Macon (14-5, SOS 0.570)
    (out) UW-Stevens Point (13-6, SOS 0.615)
    (out) Lebanon Valley (14-6, SOS 0.555)
    (out) Springfield (13-6, SOS 0.552)
    (out) Wartburg (10-6, SOS 0.588)

    All teams that I thought stood out to me in terms of SOS. Didn't know these teams had such strong schedules. Taking into account their top 25 ranking, conference and of course my own d3 knowledge, as I dont follow the East coast as closely as West/Central. I knew UWSP had a strong schedule but they had quite the SOS advantege on the field I had to POINT ( ;)) it out. Wooster is sitting in a much better position than I had originally thought, and I even kind of liked them as an under the radar team. Hobart's SOS in a down LL is pretty strong in my eyes, another team that maybe in the top 25 conversation that is not talked about much (should be noted I haven't listened to the top 25 Pick and Roll/3Ds/Double take yet today so I may be redundant here). I know it was mentioned in the LL thread on the boards here. I need to watch a Maryville game soon, seem like a fun and talented squad they out in Tennessee!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2018, 09:37:11 AM
    It will be real interesting to watch Stevens Point and how things shape up for them. They are a real surprise leading the WIAC halfway through the schedule. They are just 13-6 overall, so there's a long way to go.

    I looked up last year's Pool C shocker when Oshkosh got in at 17-10. Their SOS was .601 and 5-6 vRRO. Not to say every team with 10 losses will get in, but Point could get in with 9 losses. Their SOS is better right now, and I'm guessing it could go up with Whitewater, Oshkosh, River Falls and Platteville still to play. There's a lot of parity this year, probably more than last year, so that could also help the Pointers. We have a great and exciting month ahead of us.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 29, 2018, 09:56:18 AM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on January 29, 2018, 12:38:46 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 28, 2018, 09:06:06 PM
    (C#2) New Jersey City (16-4, SOS 0.584)
    (OAC) Marietta (15-4, SOS 0.575)
    (C#3) Wooster (15-4, SOS 0.578)
    (LL) Hobart (15-3, SOS 0.540)
    (USAC) Maryville (Tenn.) (13-3, SOS 0.559)
    (C#9) Keene State (14-5, SOS 0.570)
    (C#12) UW-Oshkosh (15-4, SOS 0.549)
    (C#13) Johns Hopkins (15-4, SOS 0.536)
    (out) Randolph-Macon (14-5, SOS 0.570)
    (out) UW-Stevens Point (13-6, SOS 0.615)
    (out) Lebanon Valley (14-6, SOS 0.555)
    (out) Springfield (13-6, SOS 0.552)
    (out) Wartburg (10-6, SOS 0.588)

    All teams that I thought stood out to me in terms of SOS. Didn't know these teams had such strong schedules. Taking into account their top 25 ranking, conference and of course my own d3 knowledge, as I dont follow the East coast as closely as West/Central. I knew UWSP had a strong schedule but they had quite the SOS advantege on the field I had to POINT ( ;)) it out. Wooster is sitting in a much better position than I had originally thought, and I even kind of liked them as an under the radar team. Hobart's SOS in a down LL is pretty strong in my eyes, another team that maybe in the top 25 conversation that is not talked about much (should be noted I haven't listened to the top 25 Pick and Roll/3Ds/Double take yet today so I may be redundant here). I know it was mentioned in the LL thread on the boards here. I need to watch a Maryville game soon, seem like a fun and talented squad they out in Tennessee!

    The WIAC is really interesting this year, as there are five very good teams (all in my top 25), plus UW-Lacrosse is solid, too.  However, the double-round-robin format (which I like) means that the league will cannabilize some of its own.  I think that this will lead to having a couple of WIAC teams with a sub-.700 WP but very strong SOS and three or more wins over regionally-ranked opponents, which will lead to tough calls for the national selection committee.  At the moment, I am projecting UW-SP to end up 17-10 (.630), .605 SOS, 4-7 vRRO, a very similar resume to that of UW-O last year.  My sense is that the bubble may not be soft enough for them to get in with those numbers, but it's certainly not out of the question.

    Wooster (my team) had a very rough start, getting drilled by 33 at St John Fisher and losing to mid-level conference foes Wabash (at home) and Denison, but with a win over then-#4 Hanover in between.  With a 3-3 record in early December, it looked like the 15-year NCAA tournament streak could already be in jeopardy.  However, the Scots have won 12 of 13 since then, including a big comeback late to beat Emory & Henry (now 18-1), with only a home defeat to Wittenberg.  That being said, many of these wins have been in doubt late, and the slim margins are helping keep Wooster out of my top 25.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 29, 2018, 03:12:08 PM
    Not to nitpick because it's fun to discuss difference in opinions.

    But, I'm probably taking a team with a winning% of 72.2 and an SOS of .581 over a team that has a winning % of 84.2 and an SOS of .493. Yeah, 72% isn't great at all, but it's above the .700 threshold and that SOS is really good. And, although 84% is very good, the second team is below the .500 threshold, by a considerable amount.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 01, 2018, 05:25:32 AM
    Hoopsville Marathon is on today, starting at 10 AM Eastern.

    Tim Fitzpatrick, the Men's Basketball National Committee Chair, is scheduled to be on the show at 6:40 PM Eastern.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 01, 2018, 08:12:37 AM
    http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball

    1st Regional Rankings come out next Wednesday with games counting through this weekend. It's February, time to start getting serious!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 01, 2018, 09:05:10 AM
    Mid-week update...

    Top Pool-C-if-needed teams

    Near-locks
    (NESCAC) Middlebury (16-3, SOS 0.584)
    (NCAC) Wittenberg (19-0, SOS 0.511)
    (NWC) Whitman (18-0, SOS 0.506)

    Strong contenders
    (UAA) Washington U. (16-2, SOS 0.558)
    (LEC) Eastern Connecticut (17-2, SOS 0.540)
    (C#1) New Jersey City (17-4, SOS 0.567)
    (C#2) York (Pa.) (18-2, SOS 0.530)
    (OAC) Marietta (16-4, SOS 0.571)
    (C#3) Wooster (16-4, SOS 0.572)
    (CCIW) Augustana (16-4, SOS 0.586)
    (WIAC) UW-Platteville (15-3, SOS 0.581)
    (MIAC) St. John's (17-1, SOS 0.514)
    (C#4) Hamilton (17-2, SOS 0.559)
    (C#5) Cabrini (17-3, SOS 0.532)
    (C#6) Williams (15-4, SOS 0.571)
    (C#7) Wesleyan (16-4, SOS 0.563)
    (C#8) Swarthmore (17-3, SOS 0.521)
    (CAC) Christopher Newport (16-4, SOS 0.542)
    (C#9) Emory (15-3, SOS 0.538)

    Bubble-in
    (LL) Hobart (16-3, SOS 0.545)
    (ODAC) Emory and Henry (18-2, SOS 0.508)
    (C#10) John Carroll (16-4, SOS 0.524)
    (C#11) Randolph-Macon (15-5, SOS 0.562)
    (CC) Johns Hopkins (16-4, SOS 0.525)
    (C#12) Whitworth (17-2, SOS 0.520)
    (C#13) Illinois Wesleyan (16-4, SOS 0.548)
    (C#14) UW-Stevens Point (14-6, SOS 0.613)
    (NEWMAC) MIT (17-3, SOS 0.529)
    (SUNYAC) Plattsburgh State (15-4, SOS 0.524)
    (C#15) Keene State (14-6, SOS 0.579)
    (C#16) Franklin and Marshall (17-3, SOS 0.495)

    Bubble-out
    (CSAC) Gwynedd Mercy (16-3, SOS 0.502)
    (out by bid thief) UW-Oshkosh (15-5, SOS 0.554)
    (out by bid thief) Cortland (15-4, SOS 0.528)
    (NJAC) Ramapo (16-5, SOS 0.536)
    (USAC) Maryville (Tenn.) (13-4, SOS 0.552)
    (out by bid thief) UW-River Falls (14-5, SOS 0.576)
    (out by bid thief) Montclair State (16-5, SOS 0.532)
    (out by bid thief) Tufts (15-6, SOS 0.570)
    (MACC) Lycoming (18-2, SOS 0.512)
    (ASC) Sul Ross State (15-3, SOS 0.515)
    (out) Amherst (13-5, SOS 0.540)
    (out) Baldwin Wallace (14-6, SOS 0.554)
    (out) Brockport (15-5, SOS 0.526)
    (out) Rochester (13-5, SOS 0.564)
    (out) Albright (15-5, SOS 0.540)
    (out) Loras (16-5, SOS 0.520)

    Fringe contenders
    (out) North Central (Ill.) (14-5, SOS 0.543)
    (out) Springfield (14-6, SOS 0.548)
    (out) East Texas Baptist (16-3, SOS 0.515)
    (CCC) Nichols (17-3, SOS 0.516)
    (out) Methodist (14-2, SOS 0.534)
    (out) Ohio Wesleyan (14-6, SOS 0.540)
    (out) Augsburg (15-5, SOS 0.517)
    (out) St. Olaf (15-5, SOS 0.529)
    (out) Ohio Northern (14-6, SOS 0.555)
    (MASCAC) Salem State (18-3, SOS 0.513)
    (out) UW-Whitewater (14-5, SOS 0.535)
    (out) LeTourneau (16-3, SOS 0.494)
    (MWC) Ripon (13-5, SOS 0.524)
    (out) Wheaton (Ill.) (13-6, SOS 0.558)
    (out) Neumann (16-4, SOS 0.498)
    (out) Bowdoin (14-5, SOS 0.518)

    Other projected Pool A teams
    (IIAC) Nebraska Wesleyan (17-3, SOS 0.486)
    (E8) Stevens (15-4, SOS 0.508)
    (GNAC) Albertus Magnus (14-4, SOS 0.516)
    (HCAC) Hanover (13-5, SOS 0.493)
    (SKY) Farmingdale State (12-6, SOS 0.524)
    (AMCC) Penn State-Behrend (17-3, SOS 0.452)
    (CUNYAC) Lehman (17-4, SOS 0.442)
    (SCAC) Schreiner (10-9, SOS 0.508)
    (LAND) Juniata (16-3, SOS 0.470)
    (MACF) DeSales (15-4, SOS 0.490)
    (MIAA) Olivet (11-6, SOS 0.499)
    (NAC) Husson (15-4, SOS 0.446)
    (NEAC) Lancaster Bible (16-4, SOS 0.456)
    (NECC) Southern Vermont (13-4, SOS 0.466)
    (PAC) Thomas More (15-4, SOS 0.461)
    (SAA) Centre (11-7, SOS 0.442)
    (SCIAC) Occidental (11-1, SOS 0.423)
    (SLIAC) Greenville (12-8, SOS 0.481)
    (UMAC) St. Scholastica (13-6, SOS 0.435)
    (NACC) Benedictine (13-7, SOS 0.488)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 04, 2018, 06:18:20 PM
    Through Sunday's games, based on many simulations of remaining games, conference tournaments, and Pool C selections...

    Locks (could lose all remaining games  & still be safely in)
    (NESCAC) Middlebury (18-3, SOS 0.585)

    Near-locks
    (LEC) Eastern Connecticut (18-2, SOS 0.543)
    (C#1) Hamilton (19-2, SOS 0.558)
    (C#2) Williams (17-4, SOS 0.568)
    (NCAC) Wittenberg (20-0, SOS 0.508)
    (UAA) Washington U. (18-2, SOS 0.569)
    (NWC) Whitman (20-0, SOS 0.497)

    Strong contenders
    (CAC) York (Pa.) (19-2, SOS 0.529)
    (C#3) Wooster (17-4, SOS 0.566)
    (WIAC) UW-Platteville (16-3, SOS 0.578)
    (CSAC) Cabrini (18-3, SOS 0.532)
    (C#4) Swarthmore (18-3, SOS 0.516)
    (C#5) Augustana (16-5, SOS 0.581)
    (C#6) Emory (16-4, SOS 0.549)
    (C#7) New Jersey City (17-5, SOS 0.566)
    (SUNYAC) Plattsburgh State (17-4, SOS 0.533)
    (MIAC) St. John's (17-2, SOS 0.524)
    (C#8) Marietta (16-5, SOS 0.567)
    (C#9) Wesleyan (16-5, SOS 0.570)

    Bubble-in
    (OAC) John Carroll (17-4, SOS 0.523)
    (ODAC) Randolph-Macon (16-5, SOS 0.564)
    (LL) Hobart (18-3, SOS 0.535)
    (C#10) Whitworth (19-2, SOS 0.511)
    (NJAC) Ramapo (17-5, SOS 0.545)
    (CC) Johns Hopkins (17-4, SOS 0.527)
    (C#11) UW-Stevens Point (15-6, SOS 0.609)
    (C#12) Keene State (15-6, SOS 0.579)
    (C#13) Franklin and Marshall (18-3, SOS 0.497)
    (NEWMAC) MIT (18-3, SOS 0.533)
    (C#14) Christopher Newport (16-5, SOS 0.533)
    (CCIW) Illinois Wesleyan (16-4, SOS 0.543)
    (C#15) Emory and Henry (18-3, SOS 0.507)

    Bubble-out
    (USAC) Maryville (Tenn.) (14-4, SOS 0.536)
    (ASC) Sul Ross State (16-3, SOS 0.514)
    (out via "bid thief") UW-Oshkosh (16-5, SOS 0.544)
    (out via "bid thief") St. Olaf (16-5, SOS 0.537)
    (out via "bid thief") Gwynedd Mercy (16-4, SOS 0.518)
    (out via "bid thief") Albright (16-5, SOS 0.542)
    (out via "bid thief") UW-River Falls (14-6, SOS 0.585)
    (out via "bid thief") Loras (16-5, SOS 0.523)
    (CCC) Nichols (18-3, SOS 0.516)
    (out) Baldwin Wallace (15-6, SOS 0.541)
    (out) Montclair State (16-6, SOS 0.537)
    (out) Ohio Northern (15-6, SOS 0.551)
    (out) Augsburg (16-5, SOS 0.511)
    (out) North Central (Ill.) (15-5, SOS 0.537)
    (out) Springfield (15-6, SOS 0.544)

    Fringe contenders
    (out) Ohio Wesleyan (15-6, SOS 0.536)
    (out) Tufts (16-7, SOS 0.574)
    (out) Amherst (14-6, SOS 0.544)
    (out) East Texas Baptist (17-4, SOS 0.510)
    (MASCAC) Salem State (19-3, SOS 0.508)
    (out) UW-Whitewater (15-5, SOS 0.528)
    (out) Brockport (15-6, SOS 0.531)
    (out) LeTourneau (18-3, SOS 0.492)
    (out) Wheaton (Ill.) (14-6, SOS 0.559)
    (MACC) Lycoming (18-3, SOS 0.509)
    (IIAC) Nebraska Wesleyan (18-3, SOS 0.497)
    (out) Cortland (15-6, SOS 0.529)
    (out) Rochester (13-7, SOS 0.568)
    (out) Methodist (14-3, SOS 0.535)

    Other projected Pool A teams
    (GNAC) Albertus Magnus (16-4, SOS 0.516)
    (MWC) Ripon (13-6, SOS 0.534)
    (HCAC) Hanover (14-5, SOS 0.495)
    (E8) Stevens (16-5, SOS 0.514)
    (SKY) Farmingdale State (14-6, SOS 0.509)
    (LAND) Juniata (17-3, SOS 0.478)
    (MIAA) Hope (11-7, SOS 0.552)
    (AMCC) La Roche (16-5, SOS 0.464)
    (MACF) DeSales (16-4, SOS 0.472)
    (NAC) Husson (16-5, SOS 0.460)
    (NACC) Benedictine (14-7, SOS 0.494)
    (NEAC) Lancaster Bible (18-4, SOS 0.448)
    (PAC) Thomas More (16-4, SOS 0.466)
    (SAA) Centre (13-7, SOS 0.440)
    (SCAC) Schreiner (12-9, SOS 0.504)
    (SCIAC) Occidental (11-2, SOS 0.438)
    (UMAC) Bethany Lutheran (14-8, SOS 0.472)
    (CUNYAC) Lehman (18-4, SOS 0.447)
    (NECC) Southern Vermont (14-4, SOS 0.469)
    (SLIAC) Greenville (13-8, SOS 0.486)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 07, 2018, 11:53:10 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 01, 2018, 08:12:37 AM
    http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball

    1st Regional Rankings come out next Wednesday with games counting through this weekend. It's February, time to start getting serious!

    When are those usually released? Early afternoon?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 07, 2018, 12:04:12 PM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 07, 2018, 11:53:10 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 01, 2018, 08:12:37 AM
    http://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball

    1st Regional Rankings come out next Wednesday with games counting through this weekend. It's February, time to start getting serious!

    When are those usually released? Early afternoon?

    Sometime this afternoon.  No uniform time-- sometimes, the NCAA has released them late, but I would expect them sometime between 3 PM and 5 PM Eastern.

    The national committees are meeting this morning to look over the RAC recommendations before releasing the first week's regional rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2018, 12:37:54 PM
    While 3-5 PM ET has been something we are used to, it should be noted that the last two years the rankings came out somewhere between 1-2:30. The first rankings have tended to be later, but not the case the last two years.

    The trick is when does the national committee finish, when does the liaison get it all compiled and sorted, when does the liaison then send it to Turner (who runs NCAA.com), and the big one... when does Turner get them posted on the site. The last one is always the biggest unknown.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 07, 2018, 12:41:07 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2018, 12:37:54 PM
    While 3-5 PM ET has been something we are used to, it should be noted that the last two years the rankings came out somewhere between 1-2:30. The first rankings have tended to be later, but not the case the last two years.

    The trick is when does the national committee finish, when does the liaison get it all compiled and sorted, when does the liaison then send it to Turner (who runs NCAA.com), and the big one... when does Turner get them posted on the site. The last one is always the biggest unknown.

    LOL

    Official disclaimer. 

    Not my side of the family.  LOL!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2018, 12:43:10 PM
    LOL Agreed. Turner Sports to be clear. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2018, 12:52:00 PM
    The rankings will be here (currently showing last year's final public rankings), but I'd recommend using the D3hoops link once that becomes available.  :)

    https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2018, 01:02:04 PM
    If you recommend our link... why show their's? LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 07, 2018, 01:26:52 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2018, 12:52:00 PM
    The rankings will be here (currently showing last year's final public rankings), but I'd recommend using the D3hoops link once that becomes available.  :)

    https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3

    http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2017/02/men-regional-rankings-final
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2018, 01:40:39 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2018, 01:02:04 PM
    If you recommend our link... why show their's? LOL

    Because I can't find a direct link to where the post will be.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 07, 2018, 01:42:28 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2018, 01:40:39 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2018, 01:02:04 PM
    If you recommend our link... why show their's? LOL

    Because I can't find a direct link to where the post will be.

    Memorialized as KnightSlappy's 4000th post!   ;)   ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 07, 2018, 01:47:38 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2018, 01:40:39 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2018, 01:02:04 PM
    If you recommend our link... why show their's? LOL

    Because I can't find a direct link to where the post will be.

    That's why I just posted last year's link.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 07, 2018, 03:20:37 PM
    So I'm not an expert or anything, but the Central may look something like this?


    Wash U
    Platteville
    IWU
    Augie
    Stevens Point
    Oshkosh
    NCC
    River Falls
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on February 07, 2018, 03:28:48 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 07, 2018, 03:20:37 PM
    So I'm not an expert or anything, but the Central may look something like this?


    Wash U
    Platteville
    IWU
    Augie
    Stevens Point
    Oshkosh
    NCC
    River Falls

    Based on Matt Snyder's rankings (http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html), I think this would turn into a pretty fair first set.

    If it were me, I'd probably flip Augie and IWU based on SOS, but the way you have it is fair. If anything, Stevens Point might either break them up or leapfrog them both. NCC in 7th is probably a best case scenario, but I'd be okay moving them down a spot. Of course, this is all based on a quick look at numbers (he's got Carthage 8th based on RPI, but they're 12-8; they aren't getting ranked).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 07, 2018, 03:49:03 PM
    Point's SOS is obviously high, but they do have 6 losses and Augie has a win over them. I guess that's why I have Point behind both of them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 07, 2018, 03:58:53 PM
    And here it is.

    http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-first
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 07, 2018, 04:21:30 PM
    One important note for the moment...

    For now we are showing the records as they are printed on the NCAA's release.

    When the NCAA releases its rankings, the first record is generally in-region record and the second record is the overall record. In this case it appears that in-region records shown in the release itself are incorrect but the underlying information in the data sheets are correct. The in-region records shown here omit results that would be considered regional under the NCAA's 70 percent criterion.

    So, for example, Keene State is listed as 14-5 in region when the Owls in-region record is really 15-6. The release is wrong but, if you click on the Northeast data sheet, the record is listed correctly.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 08, 2018, 09:16:15 AM
    Through Wednesday's games...

    Locks
    (NESCAC) Middlebury (19-3, SOS 0.569, 4-3 vRRO)

    Near-locks
    (C#1) Hamilton (19-2, SOS 0.557, 2-0 vRRO)
    (C#2) Williams (17-4, SOS 0.572, 4-3 vRRO)
    (C#3) New Jersey City (18-5, SOS 0.569, 5-4 vRRO)
    (CC) Swarthmore (19-3, SOS 0.525, 2-2 vRRO)
    (CAC) York (Pa.) (19-2, SOS 0.529, 3-0 vRRO)
    (NCAC) Wittenberg (21-0, SOS 0.508, 3-0 vRRO)
    (C#4) Wooster (18-4, SOS 0.553, 4-1 vRRO)
    (CCIW) Augustana (17-5, SOS 0.583, 5-2 vRRO)
    (WIAC) UW-Platteville (17-3, SOS 0.581, 3-2 vRRO)
    (UAA) Washington U. (18-2, SOS 0.566, 7-1 vRRO)
    (NWC) Whitman (21-0, SOS 0.517, 4-0 vRRO)

    Strong contenders
    (LEC) Eastern Connecticut (18-2, SOS 0.540, 2-1 vRRO)
    (C#5) Wesleyan (17-5, SOS 0.574, 5-3 vRRO)
    (CSAC) Cabrini (18-3, SOS 0.532, 3-2 vRRO)
    (C#6) Marietta (17-5, SOS 0.569, 3-4 vRRO)
    (OAC) John Carroll (18-4, SOS 0.529, 4-1 vRRO)
    (MIAC) St. John's (19-2, SOS 0.507, 2-1 vRRO)
    (C#7) Emory (16-4, SOS 0.549, 3-2 vRRO)
    (C#8) Johns Hopkins (18-4, SOS 0.536, 3-3 vRRO)
    (SUNYAC) Plattsburgh State (17-4, SOS 0.532, 3-3 vRRO)

    Bubble-in
    (C#9) St. Olaf (17-5, SOS 0.541, 3-3 vRRO)
    (LL) Hobart (18-3, SOS 0.536, 1-2 vRRO)
    (NEWMAC) MIT (18-3, SOS 0.533, 2-2 vRRO)
    (C#10) Christopher Newport (17-5, SOS 0.529, 2-1 vRRO)
    (C#11) UW-Oshkosh (17-5, SOS 0.549, 4-2 vRRO)
    (C#12) Keene State (15-6, SOS 0.582, 2-4 vRRO)
    (NJAC) Ramapo (17-5, SOS 0.539, 4-4 vRRO)
    (C#13) Whitworth (19-3, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO)
    (ODAC) Randolph-Macon (16-6, SOS 0.561, 2-3 vRRO)
    (C#14) UW-Stevens Point (15-7, SOS 0.614, 4-5 vRRO)
    (C#15) Franklin and Marshall (18-4, SOS 0.510, 2-2 vRRO)
    (C#16) Gwynedd Mercy (16-4, SOS 0.517, 2-2 vRRO)

    Bubble-out
    (ASC) Sul Ross State (16-3, SOS 0.514, 3-0 vRRO)
    (USAC) Maryville (Tenn.) (14-4, SOS 0.533, 1-2 vRRO)
    (out via "bid thief") Albright (16-5, SOS 0.542, 2-1 vRRO)
    (out via "bid thief") Illinois Wesleyan (16-5, SOS 0.546, 2-3 vRRO)
    (out via "bid thief") Emory and Henry (18-4, SOS 0.509, 2-1 vRRO)
    (out via "bid thief") Wheaton (Ill.) (15-6, SOS 0.565, 4-3 vRRO)
    (out via "bid thief") Ohio Northern (16-6, SOS 0.541, 3-3 vRRO)
    (CCC) Nichols (18-3, SOS 0.520, 0-1 vRRO)
    (MASCAC) Salem State (20-3, SOS 0.515, 1-2 vRRO)
    (out) Springfield (15-6, SOS 0.543, 3-1 vRRO)

    Fringe contenders
    (out) Tufts (16-7, SOS 0.574, 1-6 vRRO)
    (out) Baldwin Wallace (15-7, SOS 0.552, 3-4 vRRO)
    (out) LeTourneau (18-3, SOS 0.493, 0-3 vRRO)
    (out) Loras (16-6, SOS 0.532, 2-2 vRRO)
    (out) Brockport (15-6, SOS 0.531, 2-3 vRRO)
    (out) East Texas Baptist (17-4, SOS 0.509, 1-2 vRRO)
    (out) Augsburg (17-6, SOS 0.521, 2-2 vRRO)
    (out) Rochester (13-7, SOS 0.569, 1-4 vRRO)
    (MACC) Lycoming (18-3, SOS 0.507, 1-0 vRRO)
    (out) Cortland (15-6, SOS 0.527, 1-2 vRRO)
    (out) UW-Whitewater (15-6, SOS 0.538, 1-5 vRRO)
    (out) Amherst (14-7, SOS 0.555, 2-5 vRRO)
    (out) Montclair State (16-7, SOS 0.542, 2-4 vRRO)
    (out) Ohio Wesleyan (15-7, SOS 0.536, 1-4 vRRO)
    (out) UW-River Falls (14-7, SOS 0.569, 2-5 vRRO)
    (GNAC) Albertus Magnus (17-4, SOS 0.517, 0-4 vRRO)
    (out) Trinity (Conn.) (15-7, SOS 0.543, 3-5 vRRO)
    (out) Mary Washington (16-5, SOS 0.503, 2-2 vRRO)
    (out) North Central (Ill.) (15-6, SOS 0.539, 0-4 vRRO)
    (IIAC) Nebraska Wesleyan (19-3, SOS 0.500, 2-2 vRRO)

    Other projected Pool A teams
    (MWC) Ripon (14-6, SOS 0.531, 1-2 vRRO)
    (E8) Stevens (16-5, SOS 0.513, 0-4 vRRO)
    (HCAC) Hanover (15-5, SOS 0.486, 1-4 vRRO)
    (MIAA) Hope (12-7, SOS 0.554, 1-4 vRRO)
    (SCAC) Schreiner (12-9, SOS 0.504, 0-3 vRRO)
    (SKY) Farmingdale State (15-7, SOS 0.508, 0-3 vRRO)
    (CUNYAC) Lehman (18-4, SOS 0.448, 1-1 vRRO)
    (LAND) Juniata (17-3, SOS 0.477, 2-0 vRRO)
    (MACF) DeSales (16-4, SOS 0.471, 0-0 vRRO)
    (NACC) Benedictine (15-7, SOS 0.498, 0-2 vRRO)
    (NEAC) Lancaster Bible (18-4, SOS 0.450, 0-1 vRRO)
    (NECC) Southern Vermont (14-4, SOS 0.464, 1-1 vRRO)
    (PAC) Thomas More (17-4, SOS 0.478, 0-0 vRRO)
    (SAA) Centre (13-7, SOS 0.440, 1-0 vRRO)
    (SCIAC) Occidental (12-2, SOS 0.433, 0-1 vRRO)
    (SLIAC) Greenville (14-8, SOS 0.486, 0-2 vRRO)
    (UMAC) Bethany Lutheran (15-8, SOS 0.477, 0-3 vRRO)
    (NAC) Husson (16-5, SOS 0.463, 0-0 vRRO)
    (AMCC) La Roche (17-5, SOS 0.482, 0-2 vRRO)

    More details at http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html (http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 08, 2018, 12:00:16 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2018, 11:04:56 AM
    Conference leaders in bold

    Atlantic
    NJCU - NJAC
    Cabrini - CSAC tied with Gwynedd Mercy
    Ramapo - NJAC
    Montclair St - NJAC
    Gwynedd Mercy - CSAC tied with Cabrini
    TCNJ - NJAC
    Neumann - CSAC
    Farmingdale St - SKY tied with Mount St. Vincent

    Central
    Wash U - UAA
    Platteville - WIAC tied with Stevens Point
    Augustana - CCIW
    Stevens Point - WIAC tied with Platteville
    Illinois Wesleyan - CCIW
    Oshkosh - WIAC
    River Falls - WIAC
    North Central (IL)

    East
    Hobart - LL
    Plattsburgh St - SUNYAC
    Rochester - UAA
    Cortland - SUNYAC
    Brockport - SUNYAC
    Nazareth - E8
    Stevens - E8
    Lancaster Bible - NEAC

    Great Lakes
    Wittenberg - NCAC
    Wooster - NCAC
    John Carroll - OAC
    Marietta - OAC
    Ohio Northern -OAC
    Baldwin Wallace - OAC
    Rose-Hulman - HCAC  tied with Mount St. Joseph and Hanover
    Hanover - HCAC tied with Mount St. Joseph and Rose-Hulman

    Mid-Atlantic
    York (PA) - CAC
    Lycoming - MACC
    Swarthmore - CC
    John's Hopkins - CC
    Christopher Newport - CAC
    Albright - MACC
    Franklin and Marshall - CC
    Juniata - LAND

    Northeast
    Middlebury - NESCAC
    Hamilton - NESCAC
    Eastern Connecticut - LEC
    Williams - NESCAC
    Wesleyan - NESCAC
    Keene St - LEC
    Springfield - NEWMAC
    MIT - NEWMAC
    Nichols - CCC
    Salem St - MASCAC
    Tufts - NESCAC

    South
    Randolph Macon - ODAC tied with Emory and Henry
    Emory - UAA
    Emory and Henry - ODAC tied with Randolph Macon
    Methodist - USAC
    Sul Ross State - ASC
    Maryville TN - USAC
    East Texas Baptist - ASC
    LeTourneau - ASC

    UR Centre - SAA
    UR Schreiner - SCAC

    West
    Whitman - NWC
    Whitworth - NWC
    St. John's - MIAC
    St. Olaf - MIAC
    Augsburg - MIAC
    Loras - IIAC
    Nebraska Wesleyan - IIAC
    Buena Vista - IIAC

    UR C-M-S - SCIAC
    I am just checking in during my break at work. Do you have the time to list the non-ranked Pool A conference leaders in each region?  Thanks.

    Schreiner (SCAC in the South); C-M-S in the SCIAC -- West Region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2018, 12:21:45 PM
    I'm "working" too. Maybe when I get home...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 08, 2018, 01:35:55 PM
    Since I'm already auto-generating content, I can readily format the info that way.  I am noting my most likely automatic qualifier from each league, rather than the current leader or co-leaders.

    Northeast region
    1) Middlebury (19-3, 7-1 NESCAC, 0.569 SOS, 4-3 vRRO) NESCAC favorite
    2) Hamilton (19-2, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.557 SOS, 2-0 vRRO) Near-locks
    3) Eastern Connecticut (18-2, 10-0 LEC, 0.540 SOS, 2-1 vRRO) LEC favorite
    4) Williams (17-4, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.572 SOS, 4-3 vRRO) Near-locks
    5) Wesleyan (17-5, 5-3 NESCAC, 0.574 SOS, 5-3 vRRO) Strong contenders
    6) Keene State (15-6, 9-1 LEC, 0.582 SOS, 2-4 vRRO) Bubble-in
    7) Springfield (15-6, 9-1 NEWMAC, 0.543 SOS, 3-1 vRRO) Bubble-out
    8) MIT (18-3, 8-2 NEWMAC, 0.533 SOS, 2-2 vRRO) NEWMAC favorite
    9) Nichols (18-3, 12-2 CCC, 0.520 SOS, 0-1 vRRO) CCC favorite
    10) Salem State (20-3, 10-0 MASCAC, 0.515 SOS, 1-2 vRRO) MASCAC favorite
    11) Tufts (16-7, 5-4 NESCAC, 0.574 SOS, 1-6 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    NR) Albertus Magnus (17-4, 14-0 GNAC, 0.517 SOS, 0-4 vRRO) GNAC favorite
    NR) Husson (16-5, 12-2 NAC, 0.463 SOS, 0-0 vRRO) NAC favorite
    NR) Southern Vermont (14-4, 9-1 NECC, 0.464 SOS, 1-1 vRRO) NECC favorite

    East region
    1) Hobart (18-3, 13-1 LL, 0.536 SOS, 1-2 vRRO) LL favorite
    2) Plattsburgh State (17-4, 14-1 SUNYAC, 0.532 SOS, 3-3 vRRO) SUNYAC favorite
    3) Rochester (13-7, 4-5 UAA, 0.569 SOS, 1-4 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    4) Cortland (15-6, 10-4 SUNYAC, 0.527 SOS, 1-2 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    5) Brockport (15-6, 10-4 SUNYAC, 0.531 SOS, 2-3 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    6) Nazareth (16-6, 11-2 E8, 0.497 SOS, 2-1 vRRO) No Pool C
    7) Stevens (16-5, 10-2 E8, 0.513 SOS, 0-4 vRRO) E8 favorite
    8) Lancaster Bible (18-4, 13-0 NEAC, 0.450 SOS, 0-1 vRRO) NEAC favorite

    Atlantic region
    1) New Jersey City (18-5, 12-4 NJAC, 0.569 SOS, 5-4 vRRO) Near-locks
    2) Cabrini (18-3, 11-2 CSAC, 0.532 SOS, 3-2 vRRO) CSAC favorite
    3) Ramapo (17-5, 13-2 NJAC, 0.539 SOS, 4-4 vRRO) NJAC favorite
    4) Montclair State (16-7, 10-6 NJAC, 0.542 SOS, 2-4 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    5) Gwynedd Mercy (16-4, 11-2 CSAC, 0.517 SOS, 2-2 vRRO) Bubble-in
    6) TCNJ (17-6, 12-4 NJAC, 0.511 SOS, 3-3 vRRO) Longshots
    7) Neumann (17-5, 12-3 CSAC, 0.508 SOS, 1-2 vRRO) Longshots
    8) Farmingdale State (15-7, 13-4 SKY, 0.508 SOS, 0-3 vRRO) SKY favorite
    NR) DeSales (16-4, 8-2 MACF, 0.471 SOS, 0-0 vRRO) MACF favorite
    NR) Lehman (18-4, 12-1 CUNYAC, 0.448 SOS, 1-1 vRRO) CUNYAC favorite

    Mid-Atlantic region
    1) York (Pa.) (19-2, 12-2 CAC, 0.529 SOS, 3-0 vRRO) CAC favorite
    2) Lycoming (18-3, 10-3 MACC, 0.507 SOS, 1-0 vRRO) MACC favorite
    3) Swarthmore (19-3, 13-2 CC, 0.525 SOS, 2-2 vRRO) CC favorite
    4) Johns Hopkins (18-4, 12-3 CC, 0.536 SOS, 3-3 vRRO) Strong contenders
    5) Christopher Newport (17-5, 11-4 CAC, 0.529 SOS, 2-1 vRRO) Bubble-in
    6) Albright (16-5, 9-4 MACC, 0.542 SOS, 2-1 vRRO) Bubble-out
    7) Franklin and Marshall (18-4, 12-3 CC, 0.510 SOS, 2-2 vRRO) Bubble-in
    8) Juniata (17-3, 7-3 LAND, 0.477 SOS, 2-0 vRRO) LAND favorite

    South region
    1) Randolph-Macon (16-6, 10-3 ODAC, 0.561 SOS, 2-3 vRRO) ODAC favorite
    2) Emory (16-4, 7-2 UAA, 0.549 SOS, 3-2 vRRO) Strong contenders
    3) Emory and Henry (18-4, 10-3 ODAC, 0.509 SOS, 2-1 vRRO) Bubble-out
    4) Methodist (14-4, 10-3 USAC, 0.536 SOS, 0-1 vRRO) Longshots
    5) Sul Ross State (16-3, 11-2 ASC, 0.514 SOS, 3-0 vRRO) ASC favorite
    6) Maryville (Tenn.) (14-4, 11-1 USAC, 0.533 SOS, 1-2 vRRO) USAC favorite
    7) East Texas Baptist (17-4, 11-3 ASC, 0.509 SOS, 1-2 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    8) LeTourneau (18-3, 12-2 ASC, 0.493 SOS, 0-3 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    NR) Centre (13-7, 9-2 SAA, 0.440 SOS, 1-0 vRRO) SAA favorite
    NR) Schreiner (12-9, 9-1 SCAC, 0.504 SOS, 0-3 vRRO) SCAC favorite

    Great Lakes region
    1) Wittenberg (21-0, 15-0 NCAC, 0.508 SOS, 3-0 vRRO) NCAC favorite
    2) Wooster (18-4, 12-3 NCAC, 0.553 SOS, 4-1 vRRO) Near-locks
    3) John Carroll (18-4, 12-3 OAC, 0.529 SOS, 4-1 vRRO) OAC favorite
    4) Marietta (17-5, 11-4 OAC, 0.569 SOS, 3-4 vRRO) Strong contenders
    5) Ohio Northern (16-6, 11-4 OAC, 0.541 SOS, 3-3 vRRO) Bubble-out
    6) Baldwin Wallace (15-7, 9-6 OAC, 0.552 SOS, 3-4 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    7) Ohio Wesleyan (15-7, 10-5 NCAC, 0.536 SOS, 1-4 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    8) Rose-Hulman (13-8, 12-3 HCAC, 0.491 SOS, 2-0 vRRO) No Pool C
    9) Hanover (15-5, 12-3 HCAC, 0.486 SOS, 1-4 vRRO) HCAC favorite
    NR) Hope (12-7, 8-3 MIAA, 0.554 SOS, 1-4 vRRO) MIAA favorite
    NR) La Roche (17-5, 14-1 AMCC, 0.482 SOS, 0-2 vRRO) AMCC favorite
    NR) Thomas More (17-4, 14-1 PAC, 0.478 SOS, 0-0 vRRO) PAC favorite

    Central region
    1) Washington U. (18-2, 9-0 UAA, 0.566 SOS, 7-1 vRRO) UAA favorite
    2) UW-Platteville (17-3, 9-2 WIAC, 0.581 SOS, 3-2 vRRO) WIAC favorite
    3) Augustana (17-5, 9-4 CCIW, 0.583 SOS, 5-2 vRRO) CCIW favorite
    4) UW-Stevens Point (15-7, 9-2 WIAC, 0.614 SOS, 4-5 vRRO) Bubble-in
    5) Illinois Wesleyan (16-5, 9-3 CCIW, 0.546 SOS, 2-3 vRRO) Bubble-out
    6) UW-Oshkosh (17-5, 7-4 WIAC, 0.549 SOS, 4-2 vRRO) Bubble-in
    7) UW-River Falls (14-7, 5-6 WIAC, 0.569 SOS, 2-5 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    8) North Central (Ill.) (15-6, 9-4 CCIW, 0.539 SOS, 0-4 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    NR) Benedictine (15-7, 14-3 NACC, 0.498 SOS, 0-2 vRRO) NACC favorite
    NR) Greenville (14-8, 11-4 SLIAC, 0.486 SOS, 0-2 vRRO) SLIAC favorite
    NR) Ripon (14-6, 11-4 MWC, 0.531 SOS, 1-2 vRRO) MWC favorite

    West region
    1) Whitman (21-0, 12-0 NWC, 0.517 SOS, 4-0 vRRO) NWC favorite
    2) Whitworth (19-3, 11-1 NWC, 0.525 SOS, 1-2 vRRO) Bubble-in
    3) St. John's (19-2, 16-1 MIAC, 0.507 SOS, 2-1 vRRO) MIAC favorite
    4) St. Olaf (17-5, 13-4 MIAC, 0.541 SOS, 3-3 vRRO) Bubble-in
    5) Augsburg (17-6, 12-6 MIAC, 0.521 SOS, 2-2 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    6) Loras (16-6, 9-4 IIAC, 0.532 SOS, 2-2 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    7) Nebraska Wesleyan (19-3, 11-3 IIAC, 0.500 SOS, 2-2 vRRO) IIAC favorite
    8) Buena Vista (16-7, 9-5 IIAC, 0.519 SOS, 1-3 vRRO) No Pool C
    NR) Bethany Lutheran (15-8, 12-3 UMAC, 0.477 SOS, 0-3 vRRO) UMAC favorite
    NR) Occidental (12-2, 10-1 SCIAC, 0.433 SOS, 0-1 vRRO) SCIAC favorite
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2018, 01:55:04 PM
    Conference leaders in bold

    Atlantic
    NJCU - NJAC
    Cabrini - CSAC tied with Gwynedd Mercy
    Ramapo - NJAC
    Montclair St - NJAC
    Gwynedd Mercy - CSAC tied with Cabrini
    TCNJ - NJAC
    Neumann - CSAC
    Farmingdale St - SKY tied with Mount St. Vincent

    UR DeSales and Wilkes - MACF
    UR Lehman - CUNYAC

    Central
    Wash U - UAA
    Platteville - WIAC tied with Stevens Point
    Augustana - CCIW
    Stevens Point - WIAC tied with Platteville
    Illinois Wesleyan - CCIW
    Oshkosh - WIAC
    River Falls - WIAC
    North Central (IL) - CCIW

    UR Benedictine - NACC
    UR Monmouth - MWC
    UR Greenville - SLIAC

    East
    Hobart - LL
    Plattsburgh St - SUNYAC
    Rochester - UAA
    Cortland - SUNYAC
    Brockport - SUNYAC
    Nazareth - E8
    Stevens - E8
    Lancaster Bible - NEAC

    Great Lakes
    Wittenberg - NCAC
    Wooster - NCAC
    John Carroll - OAC
    Marietta - OAC
    Ohio Northern -OAC
    Baldwin Wallace - OAC
    Rose-Hulman - HCAC  tied with Mount St. Joseph and Hanover
    Hanover - HCAC tied with Mount St. Joseph and Rose-Hulman

    UR LaRoche - AMCC
    UR Hope and Oliver - MIAA
    UR Thomas More - PAC

    Mid-Atlantic
    York (PA) - CAC
    Lycoming - MACC
    Swarthmore - CC
    John's Hopkins - CC
    Christopher Newport - CAC
    Albright - MACC
    Franklin and Marshall - CC
    Juniata - LAND

    Northeast
    Middlebury - NESCAC
    Hamilton - NESCAC
    Eastern Connecticut - LEC
    Williams - NESCAC
    Wesleyan - NESCAC
    Keene St - LEC
    Springfield - NEWMAC
    MIT - NEWMAC
    Nichols - CCC
    Salem St - MASCAC
    Tufts - NESCAC

    UR Albertus Magnus - GNAC
    UR Southern Vermont - NECC
    UR Husson - NAC

    South
    Randolph Macon - ODAC tied with Emory and Henry
    Emory - UAA
    Emory and Henry - ODAC tied with Randolph Macon
    Methodist - USAC
    Sul Ross State - ASC
    Maryville TN - USAC
    East Texas Baptist - ASC
    LeTourneau - ASC

    UR Centre - SAA
    UR Schreiner - SCAC

    West
    Whitman - NWC
    Whitworth - NWC
    St. John's - MIAC
    St. Olaf - MIAC
    Augsburg - MIAC
    Loras - IIAC
    Nebraska Wesleyan - IIAC
    Buena Vista - IIAC

    UR CMS - SCIAC
    UR Bethany Lutheran - UMAC

    I did not include the ACAA
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 08, 2018, 02:46:18 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2018, 12:21:45 PM
    I'm "working" too. Maybe when I get home...

    Ha.  I usually shut it down this time of year and spend exorbitant amounts of time worrying about numbers and scenarios over which I have no control whatsoever.  If I were smarter, I would simply watch the games and log in for the selection show on February 26
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 08, 2018, 03:39:20 PM
    The first regional rankings are out which in itself brings on a lot of conversation, but the jockeying and positioning contines in conferences around the country for teams trying to keep their seasons going into March.

    On Thursday's edition of Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave talks to a number of high-ranking squads about the pressure to stay atop their respective conference races while also positioning themselves well in the regional rankings.

    Dave also welcomes a coach who has played in DIII, coached in both DII and DIII, and coached both men and women. He talks about the road, possibly, less traveled in the "WBCA Center Court" segment.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show LIVE starting at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2EROVeC

    If you have questions, be sure to interact with the show on social media (see below) or email us your questions (hoopsville@d3hoops.com).

    Guests include (in order of appearance):
    - Ryan Gould, No. 7 Trine women's coach
    - Michelle Ferenz, No. 5 Whitman women's coach
    - Charlie Just, Spalding women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Landry Kosmalski, No. 11 Swarthmore men's coach
    - Tom Curle, Plattsburgh State men's coach

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts instead, you can get access to them or subscribe one of the three following ways (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D3ukj5%2Fwtlpxm038e0ui89c.jpg&hash=afc48efa8c411216054ef388e0b22151387eb8f1)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: middhoops on February 08, 2018, 08:17:41 PM
    You stat monsters are my new heroes.
    Thanks for all your great stuff.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 09, 2018, 01:15:22 AM
    Ryan Scott takes you inside the committee process that builds the NCAA Tournament bracket in this week's Around the Nation column:

    http://d3hoops.com/columns/around-the-nation/2017-18/ncaa-tournament-committees
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 09, 2018, 02:39:38 AM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 09, 2018, 01:15:22 AM
    Ryan Scott takes you inside the committee process that builds the NCAA Tournament bracket in this week's Around the Nation column:

    http://d3hoops.com/columns/around-the-nation/2017-18/ncaa-tournament-committees
    Great article.  If your Pool C team is still on the table (or off the table) by the 21st round, you can look at your season and see the game that  you should not have lost!

    The general statement is that the Committees do an excellent job getting the job done right.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 09, 2018, 01:16:27 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 09, 2018, 02:39:38 AM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 09, 2018, 01:15:22 AM
    Ryan Scott takes you inside the committee process that builds the NCAA Tournament bracket in this week's Around the Nation column:

    http://d3hoops.com/columns/around-the-nation/2017-18/ncaa-tournament-committees
    Great article.  If your Pool C team is still on the table (or off the table) by the 21st round, you can look at your season and see the game that  you should not have lost!

    The general statement is that the Committees do an excellent job getting the job done right.

    Let me get that out of the way right now  - Muskingum and Mount Union.  If we win those two (very) winnable games, we are thinking about hosting one weekend if not two with the right bracket.  Now, we have to worry about even making it and taking a road trip to the East if we do not win out and take the OAC title.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 09, 2018, 04:11:56 PM
    A road trip to the East might be a boon for JCU rather than a penalty.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 11, 2018, 08:30:59 AM
    Here's what I have, though Saturday's games. Four NESCAC teams appear to be locked in, but (thanks to the five-way tie), the top seed is not one of them.

    Locks
    (C#1) Hamilton (20-3, SOS 0.572, 3-1 vRRO)
    (C#2) Middlebury (19-5, SOS 0.578, 4-4 vRRO)
    (C#3) Wesleyan (19-5, SOS 0.573, 5-3 vRRO)
    (NESCAC) Williams (18-5, SOS 0.585, 5-3 vRRO)
    (C#4) New Jersey City (19-5, SOS 0.571, 6-4 vRRO)
    (WIAC) UW-Platteville (18-3, SOS 0.576, 3-2 vRRO)

    Near-locks
    (CSAC) Cabrini (20-3, SOS 0.535, 3-2 vRRO)
    (CAC) York (Pa.) (20-3, SOS 0.522, 3-0 vRRO)
    (OAC) John Carroll (19-4, SOS 0.536, 5-1 vRRO)
    (NCAC) Wittenberg (21-1, SOS 0.513, 3-0 vRRO)
    (C#5) Wooster (19-4, SOS 0.556, 5-1 vRRO)
    (CCIW) Augustana (18-5, SOS 0.580, 5-2 vRRO)
    (UAA) Washington U. (19-2, SOS 0.554, 7-1 vRRO)
    (MIAC) St. John's (20-2, SOS 0.515, 3-1 vRRO)
    (NWC) Whitman (22-0, SOS 0.505, 4-0 vRRO)

    Strong contenders
    (LEC) Eastern Connecticut (19-3, SOS 0.542, 3-1 vRRO)
    (CC) Johns Hopkins (19-4, SOS 0.544, 4-3 vRRO)
    (C#6) Marietta (18-5, SOS 0.562, 3-4 vRRO)
    (C#7) Swarthmore (19-4, SOS 0.530, 2-3 vRRO)
    (C#8) Emory (17-4, SOS 0.535, 3-2 vRRO)
    (C#9) St. Olaf (18-5, SOS 0.541, 3-3 vRRO)
    (SUNYAC) Plattsburgh State (18-4, SOS 0.526, 3-3 vRRO)
    (LL) Hobart (20-3, SOS 0.527, 1-2 vRRO)

    Bubble-in
    (C#10) Christopher Newport (18-5, SOS 0.522, 2-1 vRRO)
    (ODAC) Randolph-Macon (17-6, SOS 0.565, 3-3 vRRO)
    (C#11) UW-Oshkosh (18-5, SOS 0.549, 4-2 vRRO)
    (MACC) Albright (18-5, SOS 0.542, 2-1 vRRO)
    (C#12) Whitworth (20-3, SOS 0.513, 1-2 vRRO)
    (C#13) Keene State (16-7, SOS 0.584, 2-5 vRRO)
    (ASC) Sul Ross State (18-3, SOS 0.503, 3-0 vRRO)
    (C#14) Franklin and Marshall (19-4, SOS 0.506, 2-2 vRRO)
    (C#15) UW-Stevens Point (16-7, SOS 0.606, 4-5 vRRO)
    (NJAC) Ramapo (18-6, SOS 0.536, 4-5 vRRO)

    Bubble-out
    (out via "bid thief") Illinois Wesleyan (17-5, SOS 0.546, 2-3 vRRO)
    (USAC) Maryville (Tenn.) (15-4, SOS 0.527, 1-2 vRRO)
    (out via "bid thief") Wheaton (Ill.) (16-6, SOS 0.552, 4-3 vRRO)
    (out via "bid thief") Amherst (16-7, SOS 0.566, 4-5 vRRO)
    (out via "bid thief") Baldwin Wallace (16-7, SOS 0.554, 3-4 vRRO)
    (out via "bid thief") Tufts (16-7, SOS 0.572, 1-6 vRRO)
    (out via "bid thief") Rochester (14-7, SOS 0.574, 1-4 vRRO)

    Fringe contenders
    (CCC) Nichols (20-3, SOS 0.511, 0-1 vRRO)
    (out) Brockport (17-6, SOS 0.524, 2-3 vRRO)
    (NEWMAC) Springfield (16-7, SOS 0.556, 4-1 vRRO)
    (out) Emory and Henry (18-5, SOS 0.519, 2-2 vRRO)
    (MASCAC) Salem State (21-3, SOS 0.511, 1-2 vRRO)
    (out) Loras (17-6, SOS 0.535, 3-2 vRRO)
    (out) East Texas Baptist (19-4, SOS 0.493, 1-2 vRRO)
    (out) LeTourneau (20-3, SOS 0.476, 0-3 vRRO)
    (out) MIT (18-5, SOS 0.536, 2-3 vRRO)
    (out) Cortland (17-6, SOS 0.519, 1-2 vRRO)
    (out) Ohio Northern (16-7, SOS 0.544, 3-4 vRRO)
    (out) UW-River Falls (15-7, SOS 0.570, 2-5 vRRO)
    (out) Gwynedd Mercy (17-5, SOS 0.508, 2-2 vRRO)
    (out) North Central (Ill.) (15-6, SOS 0.538, 0-4 vRRO)
    (MWC) Ripon (15-6, SOS 0.529, 1-2 vRRO)
    (IIAC) Nebraska Wesleyan (20-3, SOS 0.503, 2-2 vRRO)

    Other projected Pool A teams
    (GNAC) Albertus Magnus (18-4, SOS 0.516, 0-4 vRRO)
    (E8) Stevens (18-5, SOS 0.513, 0-4 vRRO)
    (HCAC) Hanover (16-5, SOS 0.481, 1-4 vRRO)
    (MIAA) Hope (13-7, SOS 0.548, 1-4 vRRO)
    (PAC) Thomas More (18-4, SOS 0.477, 0-0 vRRO)
    (AMCC) La Roche (17-6, SOS 0.488, 0-2 vRRO)
    (LAND) Juniata (18-4, SOS 0.480, 2-0 vRRO)
    (MACF) Wilkes (15-6, SOS 0.483, 0-1 vRRO)
    (NAC) Husson (18-5, SOS 0.451, 0-0 vRRO)
    (NACC) Benedictine (16-7, SOS 0.491, 0-2 vRRO)
    (NEAC) Lancaster Bible (19-4, SOS 0.453, 0-1 vRRO)
    (SAA) Centre (14-7, SOS 0.440, 1-0 vRRO)
    (SCAC) Schreiner (12-10, SOS 0.502, 0-3 vRRO)
    (SCIAC) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (12-7, SOS 0.476, 0-2 vRRO)
    (SKY) Farmingdale State (16-7, SOS 0.506, 0-3 vRRO)
    (SLIAC) Eureka (14-5, SOS 0.478, 0-0 vRRO)
    (UMAC) Bethany Lutheran (16-8, SOS 0.472, 0-3 vRRO)
    (CUNYAC) Lehman (20-4, SOS 0.447, 1-1 vRRO)
    (NECC) Southern Vermont (16-4, SOS 0.472, 1-1 vRRO)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 11, 2018, 09:36:04 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 09, 2018, 04:11:56 PM
    A road trip to the East might be a boon for JCU rather than a penalty.

    That could be the case from a win-loss perspective and it has certainly benefited our football team in the past.  In fact our only final four run was earned on the road at Wittenberg and at Wooster. I was looking at it strictly from a miles traveled standpoint and, selfishly as to the miles I'd have to travel to see them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 11, 2018, 09:40:06 AM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 11, 2018, 09:36:04 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 09, 2018, 04:11:56 PM
    A road trip to the East might be a boon for JCU rather than a penalty.

    That could be the case from a win-loss perspective and it has certainly benefited our football team in the past.  In fact our only final four run in basketball was earned on the road at Wittenberg and at Wooster and one of our two football final fours went through the east. I was looking at it strictly from a miles traveled standpoint and, selfishly as to the miles I'd have to travel to see them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 11, 2018, 09:56:10 AM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 11, 2018, 09:36:04 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 09, 2018, 04:11:56 PM
    A road trip to the East might be a boon for JCU rather than a penalty.

    That could be the case from a win-loss perspective and it has certainly benefited our football team in the past.  In fact our only final four run was earned on the road at Wittenberg and at Wooster. I was looking at it strictly from a miles traveled standpoint and, selfishly as to the miles I'd have to travel to see them.

    For the postseason, it's all about us.  ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 11, 2018, 10:35:25 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 11, 2018, 09:56:10 AM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 11, 2018, 09:36:04 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 09, 2018, 04:11:56 PM
    A road trip to the East might be a boon for JCU rather than a penalty.

    That could be the case from a win-loss perspective and it has certainly benefited our football team in the past.  In fact our only final four run was earned on the road at Wittenberg and at Wooster. I was looking at it strictly from a miles traveled standpoint and, selfishly as to the miles I'd have to travel to see them.

    For the postseason, it's all about us.  ;)

    Ha. Exactly.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2018, 11:48:48 AM
    Wait... what?! Who won? Hold on, who lost?!

    How did... but they... so... wow... okay.

    Another crazy week(end) of Division III basketball leaves us more questions to answer, heads to scratch, and what-ifs to contemplate.

    Sunday night's episode of Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) promises to ... hmm, maybe we shouldn't promise too much if this season is a lesson in anything. Nothing is guaranteed.

    Tune in LIVE starting at 7pm ET as Dave is joined by a few guests from around the country, but more importantly takes the time to look at some of the more interesting conference races and upcoming tournaments. There is plenty to dissect just two weeks away from the close of the regular season.

    There will be plenty of questions from fans, so don't forget to interact with the show (more information is n the right) and be sure to email your questions and comments to hoopsville@d3hoops.com to have them answerer or featured show.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show LIVE starting at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2EiXbmB. Guests appear on the Hoopsville Hotline presented by the City of Salem.

    Guests include (in order of appearance):
    - Lauren Johnson, Ripon women's coach
    - Kelly Thompson, Roger Williams women's coach
    - Clif Carroll, Sul Ross State men's coach
    - Ryan Scott, "Top 25 Double-take"

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts instead, you can get access to them or subscribe one of the three following ways (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D3zur5%2Ffvkfymyayxz341xu.jpg&hash=730a2c4712754c6ee12ed54fc941127064806fb0)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 12, 2018, 06:05:21 PM
    As of today, expected Pool C berths, by region...

    New England 5.10 (at least 3 for the NESCAC)
    Mid-Atlantic 3.25
    Central 2.95
    Great Lakes 2.73
    South 2.38
    West 2.06
    Atlantic 1.68
    East 0.86
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 12, 2018, 07:26:36 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 12, 2018, 06:05:21 PM
    As of today, expected Pool C berths, by region...

    New England 5.10 (at least 3 for the NESCAC)
    Mid-Atlantic 3.25
    Central 2.95
    Great Lakes 2.73
    South 2.38
    West 2.06
    Atlantic 1.68
    East 0.86

    Sounds low for the Central with 7 teams in the running from just the WIAC and CCIW.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2018, 08:39:30 PM
    Mid-Atlantic seems high considering the SOS numbers in this region plus a lot of losses.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 12, 2018, 08:52:12 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 12, 2018, 07:26:36 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 12, 2018, 06:05:21 PM
    As of today, expected Pool C berths, by region...

    New England 5.10 (at least 3 for the NESCAC)
    Mid-Atlantic 3.25
    Central 2.95
    Great Lakes 2.73
    South 2.38
    West 2.06
    Atlantic 1.68
    East 0.86

    Sounds low for the Central with 7 teams in the running from just the WIAC and CCIW.

    That surprised me, too, as I view the Central and NE as the two strongest regions.  I think that the problem is that both the WIAC and CCIW are so strong that they are cannibalizing their own leagues, in terms of Pool C resumes (and no other conference in the Central has a legitimate Pool C candidate).

    In the WIAC, Platteville is in (99% Pool C, if needed), Oshkosh looks decent (75%), and Stevens Point is on the bubble (58%).
    Whitewater needs to win everything except the WIAC final to become a bubble team, and River Falls needs a win over Platteville (whether this week or in the WIAC semis) to have a decent shot.  The league is just over 50/50 to get 3 bids total.

    On the CCIW side, Augustana is in (99%), while IWU (46%) and Wheaton (37%) are on the wrong side of the bubble at the moment.  North Central would get to the bubble only by beating both the other bubble teams and then winning a semifinal, heavily damaging other teams' chances in doing so.  I think that someone will emerge as a Pool C team, but a 3rd team from this league is looking less likely. 

    Overall, my guess is that the WIAC and CCIW only get five bids (including Pool A) between them, even though they have a combined 9 in my top 30 rankings.

    Here's the current breakdown of potential multi-bid conferences.  While I am sold on four from the NESCAC, I am skeptical of them getting a 5th bid, particularly if their bubble teams (Amherst and Tufts) get knocked out in the quarterfinals.
    NESCAC 4.98 (Williams 29%)
    CC 2.70 (Johns Hopkins 40%)
    WIAC 2.61 (UW-Platteville 62%)
    OAC 2.55 (John Carroll 50%)
    CCIW 2.30 (Augustana 40%)
    NCAC 2.18 (Wittenberg 59%)
    CAC 2.16 (York (Pa.) 36%)
    MIAC 2.13 (St. John's 62%)
    NJAC 2.12 (Ramapo 43%)
    UAA 1.96 (Washington U. 99%)
    NWC 1.79 (Whitman 75%)
    LEC 1.79 (Eastern Connecticut 62%)
    SUNYAC 1.64 (Plattsburgh State 56%)
    ODAC 1.60 (Randolph-Macon 38%)
    ASC 1.57 (Sul Ross State 37%)
    CSAC 1.56 (Cabrini 50%)
    MACC 1.39 (Albright 44%)
    USAC 1.25 (Maryville (Tenn.) 47%)
    LL 1.21 (Hobart 73%)
    NEWMAC 1.20 (MIT 33%)
    IIAC 1.13 (Nebraska Wesleyan 58%)
    CCC 1.08 (Nichols 52%)
    MASCAC 1.05 (Salem State 72%)
    MWC 1.04 (Ripon 33%)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2018, 08:55:02 PM
    The only way I see the CAC getting two bids is if York loses in the title game. Centennial, maybe two bids, but SOS numbers in that conference are pretty low. It might help now if F&M is not part of the equation.

    Something to consider... the regional rankings will take on a very different look this week. That could change your numbers dramatically.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 12, 2018, 09:05:58 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2018, 08:39:30 PM
    Mid-Atlantic seems high considering the SOS numbers in this region plus a lot of losses.

    I had the same reaction, again thinking that the New England and Central regions would have a wide margin on everyone else.

    I would be shocked if the Centennial failed to get two bids, and they might get all three contenders in, with each having 20+ victories and multiple wins vRRO before the conference tournament begins.  F&M looks the most iffy, but I'm projecting them at 20-6 (.769) / .532 SOS / 3-4 vRRO, which might be enough.

    I think that CNU is more likely than not to slip in from the CAC, along with York, even if York wins the AQ.  I'm showing 20-7 (.741) / .544 / 4-2 for the Captains, assuming they don't win the tournament.

    These two leagues have only one team in my top 30 (Hopkins, at #14), but given the current selection process, the lack of quality depth leading to better records may mean that the CAC & CC get just as many berths as the much stronger WIAC/CCIW pair.

    The vRRO can certainly change from week to week, but I am accounting for that in my projections.  Of course, each year's committee can value different things.  I make some attempt to include that uncertainty in the model, but it's no guarantee.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2018, 11:00:09 PM
    Centennial won't get three. I think that is extreme.

    Remember, two of the contenders play this week to wrap up the regular season (Swarthmore and F&M). That adds another loss to one of those resumes. Add in another loss for one of them (they both can't win the title) and maybe both of them.

    I just can't see with SOS numbers barely about .500 them getting into the convo. We shall wait and see, though.

    CNU is interesting... could sneak in. Not positive.

    As for the vRRO... what I am trying to say is since it isn't even a factor in last week's rankings... it will shake up rankings this week a lot (along with all the losses). I think trying to use Week 1 to start making projections is risky.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 09:07:07 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2018, 11:00:09 PM
    Centennial won't get three. I think that is extreme.

    Remember, two of the contenders play this week to wrap up the regular season (Swarthmore and F&M). That adds another loss to one of those resumes. Add in another loss for one of them (they both can't win the title) and maybe both of them.

    I just can't see with SOS numbers barely about .500 them getting into the convo. We shall wait and see, though.

    The Centennial might not get three (F&M is questionable) but I think it's premature to say they won't.  This time last year, some us predicted that the NESCAC would get five and you thought we were way off base.

    The combo of the finishing schedule (with the Swarthmore / F&M game) and tournament format (the top three start in the semifinals, instead of against weak quarterfinal opponents) will drive up the SOS of all three contenders into the 530s.  F&M has the weakest resume, but if they win Saturday & in the semis, then I think all three teams get in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 09:07:07 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2018, 11:00:09 PM
    Centennial won't get three. I think that is extreme.

    Remember, two of the contenders play this week to wrap up the regular season (Swarthmore and F&M). That adds another loss to one of those resumes. Add in another loss for one of them (they both can't win the title) and maybe both of them.

    I just can't see with SOS numbers barely about .500 them getting into the convo. We shall wait and see, though.

    The Centennial might not get three (F&M is questionable) but I think it's premature to say they won't.  This time last year, some us predicted that the NESCAC would get five and you thought we were way off base.

    The combo of the finishing schedule (with the Swarthmore / F&M game) and tournament format (the top three start in the semifinals, instead of against weak quarterfinal opponents) will drive up the SOS of all three contenders into the 530s.  F&M has the weakest resume, but if they win Saturday & in the semis, then I think all three teams get in.

    NESCAC and Centennial chances are apples and oranges. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dunkin3117 on February 13, 2018, 01:40:25 PM
    NESCAC getting 3+ bids while a conference like the IIAC gets 1 every year is ludicrous in my opinion.  A league that plays each other once and those top teams can rack up W's against the bottom half of the league, where a league like the IIAC is playing everyone twice and beating up on each other.  Roast me on that if you want, but I truly believe that the IIAC is better than a 1 bid league.  The 6 seed Wartburg proved that last year (or so I thought).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 02:34:33 PM
    Quote from: dunkin3117 on February 13, 2018, 01:40:25 PM
    NESCAC getting 3+ bids while a conference like the IIAC gets 1 every year is ludicrous in my opinion.  A league that plays each other once and those top teams can rack up W's against the bottom half of the league, where a league like the IIAC is playing everyone twice and beating up on each other.  Roast me on that if you want, but I truly believe that the IIAC is better than a 1 bid league.  The 6 seed Wartburg proved that last year (or so I thought).

    The NESCAC's scheduling is a different issue, but I agree that the IIAC is a deep league, far better top to bottom than the Centennial, for example.  I have Nebraska Wesleyan #7, and six IIAC teams are in my top 100. 

    The quality of the conference suggests that they ought to get two bids, but no team has the right combination of wins & non-conference scheduling to be a solid Pool C candidate.  If Loras wins out except for losing to NWU in the final, they would be a bubble team at roughly .741/.559/2-3.  Otherwise, it's probably a one-bid league, unfortunately.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 02:35:07 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 09:07:07 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2018, 11:00:09 PM
    Centennial won't get three. I think that is extreme.

    Remember, two of the contenders play this week to wrap up the regular season (Swarthmore and F&M). That adds another loss to one of those resumes. Add in another loss for one of them (they both can't win the title) and maybe both of them.

    I just can't see with SOS numbers barely about .500 them getting into the convo. We shall wait and see, though.

    The Centennial might not get three (F&M is questionable) but I think it's premature to say they won't.  This time last year, some us predicted that the NESCAC would get five and you thought we were way off base.

    The combo of the finishing schedule (with the Swarthmore / F&M game) and tournament format (the top three start in the semifinals, instead of against weak quarterfinal opponents) will drive up the SOS of all three contenders into the 530s.  F&M has the weakest resume, but if they win Saturday & in the semis, then I think all three teams get in.

    NESCAC and Centennial chances are apples and oranges. ;)

    You're right.  That's a poor comparison on my part.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 13, 2018, 02:57:05 PM
    Regarding NESCAC, year after year, the NESCAC teams prove they belong in the tourney.   Now, I have no doubt that some leagues get the shaft and deserve more squads than they place in the NCAA tourney (e.g., WIAC in certain years).  But if the goal is to put the best 40 teams represented in the tourney (plus, say, 24, who win weaker leagues), certainly, in many years NESCAC will have between 3-4, maybe 5, of those 40 teams.  As would CCIW and WIAC.  A small number of other leagues like OAC, ODAC, MIAC would often have 2-3.   Last year, recall, two NESCAC teams made it to the Elite 8, one more into the Sweet 16 before losing in a close game to the future National Champ.  Over the past eight years, eight NESCAC teams have played in the Final Four, including three title game appearances and one championship.  In two of those years, two different NESCAC teams made it to the Final Four.  If NESCAC teams got selected, then consistently underperformed in the tourney, it would be totally fair to say NESCAC is overrepresented.  But this year, I think NESCAC pretty clearly has 4 teams that are solid top 25 squads, and two others that aren't far behind them.  I'd say that the D3 selection criteria often hurts teams from power conferences OTHER than NESCAC, but gets it exactly right regarding NESCAC participation in the tourney.  That may be unfair to those other leagues, but I think it's also unfair to argue that NESCAC is disproportionately represented when the NESCAC teams who get into the tournament generally prove they belong there based on talent and results. 

    Now it is certainly possible that NESCAC's schedule helps it in terms of earning NCAA berths.  But if NESCAC played a different schedule, and fewer NESCAC teams were selected for the tourney, then the tourney would be weaker overall.  It's pretty rare that the third and fourth best NESCAC teams are not better than the second-best teams in the vast majority of the leagues, nationwide  Just like if there were 4-5 WIAC teams in the tourney every year, the tourney would be stronger overall, because it's pretty rare that the third and fourth best WIAC teams are not likewise better than the second-best teams from the vast majority of leagues.  If the best IIAC team was consistently making it to the Elite 8 or Final 4, there would be more of a case for arguing that IIAC was getting the shaft.  But I can't recall many IIAC teams making deep tourney runs ...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2018, 03:14:39 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 13, 2018, 02:57:05 PM
    Regarding NESCAC, year after year, the NESCAC teams prove they belong in the tourney.   Now, I have no doubt that some leagues get the shaft and deserve more squads than they place in the NCAA tourney (e.g., WIAC in certain years).  But if the goal is to put the best 40 teams represented in the tourney (plus, say, 24, who win weaker leagues), certainly, in many years NESCAC will have between 3-4, maybe 5, of those 40 teams.  As would CCIW and WIAC.  A small number of other leagues like OAC, ODAC, MIAC would often have 2-3.   Last year, recall, two NESCAC teams made it to the Elite 8, one more into the Sweet 16 before losing in a close game to the future National Champ.  Over the past eight years, eight NESCAC teams have played in the Final Four, including three title game appearances and one championship.  In two of those years, two different NESCAC teams made it to the Final Four.  If NESCAC teams got selected, then consistently underperformed in the tourney, it would be totally fair to say NESCAC is overrepresented.  But this year, I think NESCAC pretty clearly has 4 teams that are solid top 25 squads, and two others that aren't far behind them.  I'd say that the D3 selection criteria often hurts teams from power conferences OTHER than NESCAC, but gets it exactly right regarding NESCAC participation in the tourney.  That may be unfair to those other leagues, but I think it's also unfair to argue that NESCAC is disproportionately represented when the NESCAC teams who get into the tournament generally prove they belong there based on talent and results. 

    Now it is certainly possible that NESCAC's schedule helps it in terms of earning NCAA berths.  But if NESCAC played a different schedule, and fewer NESCAC teams were selected for the tourney, then the tourney would be weaker overall.  It's pretty rare that the third and fourth best NESCAC teams are not better than the second-best teams in the vast majority of the leagues, nationwide  Just like if there were 4-5 WIAC teams in the tourney every year, the tourney would be stronger overall, because it's pretty rare that the third and fourth best WIAC teams are not likewise better than the second-best teams from the vast majority of leagues.  If the best IIAC team was consistently making it to the Elite 8 or Final 4, there would be more of a case for arguing that IIAC was getting the shaft.  But I can't recall many IIAC teams making deep tourney runs ...

    "Certainly possible"?

    The ultimate apples-and-oranges argument is to compare the NESCAC to the other power conferences (i.e., WIAC and CCIW), because those two leagues play double round-robins and thus cannibalize themselves, while the single round-robin NESCAC doesn't.

    Is it time yet for our annual argument, nescac1, or should we just cut-and-paste last year's? ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2018, 03:15:20 PM
    Better idea... let's just skip over it and "pretend" it happened.

    Thank you.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 13, 2018, 03:26:18 PM
    Yup, let's pretend our annual argument in which folks target NESCAC (but never any other league) for unfair criticism despite NESCAC teams proving themselves worthy in the tourney never happened.  Except, as usual, NESCAC is already being attacked, and I'm the only person who ever comes to the league's defense.  Folks were bitching about NESCAC last year, and then NESCAC put two teams in the Elite 8 with a third narrowly missing.  Folks will bitch about NESCAC this year, and next year, and the year after, without ever paying attention to how NESCAC teams actually perform once selected for the tourney, which I would like to think should be of some relevance.  I fail to see how it is "ludicrous" for NESCAC to receive three or more bids when NESCAC has 3-4 of the top 25 teams in the country.  I'd call that "fair."  It may be ludicious, on the other hand, that more leagues don't get 3-4 bids annually ...

    But let me make it crystal clear -- while it's entirely speculative what would happen if NESCAC played more conference games (I still say a double round robin in an 11 team league is sort of ridiculous, since then there would be far too few chances to play other interesting opponents), I grant that this would most likely result in fewer NESCAC teams in the tournament.  That is entirely besides the point of my argument, which is, that would be a bad thing were it to occur.  My argument, and I've never seen a good counter, is that the number of NESCAC teams in the tournament accurately reflects their ability levels relative to the rest of Division 3.  If it didn't, they would generally lose far earlier in the tournament.  If fewer NESCAC teams were represented, the selection process and criteria would just hurt NESCAC unfairly, as it currently hurts some other leagues unfairly.  I think there should be MORE CCIW and WIAC teams, that they shouldn't be punished by playing more league games, and it would be great if there was some way to make that happen via tweaks to the methodology.   But I do think that to demonstrate that some other league is being unfairly harmed by the selection process, the very first question to ask is, how do the teams from that league perform that DO get in?  For example, the fact that WIAC teams seem to win a national title just about every second or third year, and the fact that the league is often very balanced, suggests to me that WIAC is underrepresented in the tourney.  CCIW likewise performs very well on an annual basis.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2018, 03:38:30 PM
    nescac1, I usually would side with your points... or at the very least acknowlege that the NESCAC does what it wants which it is entitled to do... and that teams usually prove themselves... except two things:

    - First off, it is also well considered that NESCAC schools tend have an easier bracket than many of the other top teams meaning they have a better chance to get further. I am not taking anything from the results. The NESCAC has gotten to the final four and made it clear they are good there.
    - But can we chill on the "tournament won't be better or any good if the NESCAC has less teams" gambit? That is not a fair representation what-so-ever. You have no idea who the teams that would have been in instead of one or two NESCACs and how they would or would not have been considering they could have come from any location in the country. Furthermore, usually the teams that make deep runs in the NCAA from the NESCAC tend to be the top teams, not the third, fourth, or fifth team selected from the conference. If those teams were making runs to the final four then so be it. Amherst and Wesleyan both lost in the first game last year. Did that make the tournament better having them in it? Pretty sure a lot of teams could have lost the first game as well.

    Just don't ad the hyperbole. It just makes your argument seem arrogant and snobbish. You are better than that.

    The NESCAC does have an advantage in getting teams in the NCAA tournament with the way their conference schedule is structured. That is a fact. You can argue that the NESCAC deserves to have more teams in because they are good, but it is going to ring hallow against the CCIW, WIAC, even NCAC, OAC, and others like the ODAC (in the past) because they beat each other up and lose some of their ability to position themselves like the NESCAC. I don't think making an argument that because the NESCAC deserves more bids it should not play a double-round robin. I guess we should do the same in the other conferences and when the NESCAC loses bids, what would you say then?

    BTW - I am certainly not a fan of a full double-round-robin of games in the NESCAC. I would be more a fan of the ODAC (MIAC women) style. The only one that has argued against the idea to me (publicly) is Hamilton who doesn't love the idea of the travel. I understand that point, but also shake my head considering the travel schedules of the ASC, SCAC, and others... but I digress.

    Just treat the argument not as something that the "NESCAC is best and we should all bow down" and what not.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 13, 2018, 03:52:12 PM
    I'm not trying to be snobbish.  I'm not saying NESCAC is uniquely the best and more deserving than any other conference.  In fact, I purposefully and pointedly did NOT say that.  I think you read that into my arguments, honestly, because that is what you and other folks think and expect of NESCAC posters.  Please instead read what I'm actually writing.  I think NESCAC is one of a small handful of conferences that routinely have 3-4 top 25 teams, sometimes even more, among their membership.  CCIW and WIAC are included in that group as well.  Maybe OAC in some years, UAA in some years, and previously, but not lately, ODAC.  Is that "snobbish" to say?  By your own top 25 poll, you have four NESCAC teams in the top 25.  Shouldn't a 64 team tournament aim to have the best 25 teams in the country represented, or at least the vast majority of those teams, every year?  If you agree that it should, then you agree that (at least this year) NESCAC should get four teams in.  Or do you not believe in your own Top 25 votes?  I honestly don't understand how you can equate my argument to a "bow down to NESCAC" mentality.  It's really an unfair and untrue critique for you to make, and YOU should do better. 

    I also think it's unfair to NESCAC student-athletes to keep telling them they some of them don't belong in the tournament because of the lack of a double round robin (something entirely out of their control, and which has never existed in the league, even before NESCAC schools were even NCAA tournament eligible by the way).  Nor is it fair to, year in and year out, denigrate / minimize their accomplishments when they DO succeed in the tournament (and by the way, I think last year New England proved that it isn't just NESCAC, is that fair to say at least??).  And that is what I see every ... single ... year, without fail, coming from certain posters on this site.  There is simply no way for NESCAC teams to prove themselves, apparently, because even when they (a) get to the Final Four and (b) play very well there, they will be seen as not having fully "earned" it.  That is just egregiously unfair.  I don't ask for NESCAC to be held above any league.  I just ask for NESCAC not to always be targeted with particularized vitriol as, unique among all conferences, being undeserving of the bids it receives.  If that makes me some sort of NESCAC snob, apologies. 

    Finally, you keep saying that my argument about NESCAC rings hollow against CCIW, WIAC, and some other leagues as if you haven't read anything I've posted.  I've said it before, I've said it again, I think those leagues deserve as many teams in the tourney as NESCAC in a typical year.  But I believe that should be accomplished not by having fewer NESCAC teams in the tournament, but by having MORE WIAC, CCIW, etc. teams.  I don't care one whit about a double round robin.  I do however believe the best teams in the country should be in the tourney, and sometimes, due to an overreliance on numeric criteria -- which I grant helps the NESCAC (but not unfairly) and hurts some other leagues (unfairly) -- that simply doesn't happen.  So I'm not really understanding, at all, what point you are trying to make by invoking these other leagues.  I'm in no way, shape, or form denigrating them relative to NESCAC.  I just think NESCAC is one of several true power conferences in Division 3, as reflected by the poll that you yourself participate in, and that all of the power leagues deserve to get a good handful of bids to a 64 team tourney. 

    Let me frame this another way.  Over the past ten years, how many NESCAC teams do YOU believe did not belong in the D3 tourney?  Putting selection criteria, which we all agree is imperfect, aside ... do you really think there are any, or more than 1-2 teams in the aggregatel, NESCAC teams that didn't belong among the top 60-64 teams nationally, based on their actual QUALITY, in the tourney?  If you don't, what are we even arguing about????  Why is it left to me to say, no, it's not "ludicrous" that NESCAC has 4 teams represented?  It's not disrespectful to other teams to say that a team in the D3hoops top 25 deserves to be in the tourney more than teams that aren't receiving any votes at all, for example.  Or here is another question -- if NESCAC played a double-round robin, and as a result Williams, Wesleyan or Hamilton -- teams you have ranked in your top 20 -- failed to make the tourney, would that be better than the current system? 

    And again, to be clear, I'm not saying that the double round robin has no impact on which teams get in.  I assume it probably does.  My point is that it shouldn't matter.  If playing a double round robin ends up hurting, say, CCIW teams, numerically, the selection criteria should be adjusted so that CCIW teams aren't punished for that.  Teams should be judged on their relative quality, as they are in Division 1.  I think folks on this site have managed to identify, in a fairly reliable way, who the best teams are in the country.  And that often does not correspond with the SOS rankings, which unfairly hurt certain conferences. 

    Let me boil this all down and I hope we can drop it, not just this year, but EVERY year.  I understand that the current tourney selection system may be flawed in ways that are of benefit to NESCAC teams relative to teams from some other worthy conferences.  However, under a perfect system designed to select the best 64 teams, all available evidence suggests that NESCAC (among a few other leagues) would still deservedly receive multiple Pool C bids to the tourney nearly every year.  Accordingly, when arguing that conference x, y, or z is worthy of more bids (which may or may not prove to be true), can folks please not frame it as, "it's absurd that NESCAC gets so many bids," but instead simply as conference x, y, or z should earn more?  Thanks! 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2018, 03:58:14 PM
    I wonder if this is something that would be easy to simulate by our friend Fantastic50? What would the NESCAC Pool C situation look like if they played a double round robin schedule? I might be able to toy with some numbers but I'm not able to simulate like he is.

    My gut tells me that we make too much of the single round robin. It's an advantage for the top teams, but I'm not convinced how big it is.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2018, 04:36:11 PM
    I'll try and be simple... I think the SOS has done a very nice job of creating a way of making sure the best teams who are still available make the tournament. It certainly is better than the "old boy's network" and the QOWI, but maybe the bar is too low. LOL

    The SOS does do a good job, but at the same time more and more NESCAC schools have found how they can influence that SOS that no other school can do. It has resulted in numbers that are hard to deal with. Very high SOS numbers despite what all the other data is saying and because of the huge SOS advantage, teams are selected anyway.

    I argued last year that Amherst should not be in the NCAA tournament. Their SOS helped get them in. I wasn't a huge fan of Wesleyan being in either, but it wasn't as grotesque. There have been a handful of NESCAC teams in the past few years that I have said I don't think should be in because their SOS numbers were so high it wasn't accurately presenting them as what kind of team they really where. To some degree, I had the same argument with Oshkosh last year.

    The SOS simply says: here is the schedule we played. I think, for some reason, people (and maybe I have been guilty of this at times) use it as a strength of the team itself. That feels like a mistake. Thus why I have argued that the SOS and WL% at some point have to no longer be compared.

    When Lancaster Bible was in jeopardy of not making the tournament if they suffered their only loss in the conference championship (or tournament). Not even in jeopardy. We knew they wouldn't make the tournament. Their SOS was abysmally low. I didn't think leaning on the SOS that hard in their situation was fair considering how much their conference hurts that number (though, their out-of-conference didn't help either). I argued that the SOS compared to WL% had to be more of a bell curve and not a linear comparison. The committee has shifted in how linear it makes the comparison when discussing it, but I haven't seen that in actuality. At some point, I think the SOS being too high or too low needs to be considered. At some point, it comes down to how teams actually play and not only the strength of their schedule.

    Amherst last year was 10-8 after the Babson gam... overall they were 17-8. Yes, they beat Williams, Tufts, and Babson, but that was it. Their SOS was built against teams three-quarters of the division should beat. If we lessened the impact of the SOS which was one of the highest in the country (if memory serves), they wouldn't have even been in the conversation. Same is true with Oshkosh. This isn't a NESCAC-only argument for me.

    Adjustments have been made over the years when things in the criteria don't work right. We had "once ranked; always ranked" for a little bit of time. Then suddenly the ODAC got a ton of teams in the tournament including Randolph who made it based on the fact they played SO many of their games against regionally ranked opponents. They wouldn't have made the tournament if the current vRRO model was used.

    I don't see a reason why we can't look at all numbers and at some point say, okay... that's too high/low, we aren't going to get any good information from that. We need to lessen it's impact here. A bell-curve of some kind (like a graph showing where the SOS sits compared to everyone else in the division) may make some sense.

    I am spit-balling a bit... not sure any of that makes sense. I am sure people will find some flaws. I am just trying to say, sometimes the criteria is taken too literally and the true story of those numbers are not considered. I have an issue when a team's SOS is used to basically ignore the WL%... and thus, it seems we are somehow saying the SOS shows us the strength of the team and not what it is really telling us.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 13, 2018, 04:51:17 PM
    I don't have any issue with anything that you are saying other than one comment: "more and more NESCAC schools have found how they can influence that SOS that no other school can do."  There is no evidence for that, and I'd say it's flat-out untrue based on what I know about NESCAC.  It suggests a degree of manipulation by NESCAC schools that simply does not exist.  The single round robin has nothing to do with SOS.  As I noted, NESCAC teams have played a single round robin for as long as I can remember.  It is not implemented in order to game the system, it is how the league has always operated, for reasons wholly unrelated to D3 tourney criteria. 

    And at least for Williams, SOS is not what is driving scheduling decisions for non-league opponents.  They want to play in tourneys in December where their players' families can see them.  So this year, they play in a Cal Lutheran tourney which doesn't help SOS at all.  They want to play regional rivals every year (and minimize travel time for student-athletes) so the schedule typically includes schools from within a 90 minute radius regardless of how that will impact SOS (if Williams cared about SOS, for example, it certainly would NOT play MCLA every year, a game that almost always hurts Williams' schedule rating severely).  And that pretty much covers almost the entire Williams schedule.  A cursory look at other NESCAC schools shows similar schedules, which are packed full of regional rivalry games regardless of tourney implications.  Look at the Maine schools, which play a Maine-heavy schedule.  Or Middlebury, which plays lots of schools from Vermont/New Hampshire typically.  To the extent the SOS helps NESCAC, and it seems that it certainly does, that is entirely coincidental, not a purposeful gaming of the system.

    So, your argument should be with overreliance on SOS, not a suggestion that NESCAC teams are doing something untoward.  I wholeheartedly agree with you that SOS is a useful tool but is relied upon far too much right now. 

    I thought Amherst (but not Wesleyan) was certainly a very borderline choice last year.  I would not have picked them based on how they finished the season.  On the other hand, they DID beat eventual national champ Babson when Babson was still at full strength, so it's not like that selection was indefensible.  But that's one of the very, very few truly questionable NESCAC choices in my mind.  And we are talking about the fifth NESCAC team to make it in, making last year a true outlier.  This year, I think NESCAC will get four, maybe five if there is an upset in the league tourney, and all will be more clearly deserving. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 04:52:06 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2018, 03:58:14 PM
    I wonder if this is something that would be easy to simulate by our friend Fantastic50? What would the NESCAC Pool C situation look like if they played a double round robin schedule? I might be able to toy with some numbers but I'm not able to simulate like he is.

    My gut tells me that we make too much of the single round robin. It's an advantage for the top teams, but I'm not convinced how big it is.

    Yes, I could simulate it, but it would take some time to set it up; it might be something to look at after the season. 

    I don't hear anyone arguing that an 11-team conference should be playing a full double-round; the only reasonably strong conference that plays more than 18 conference games is the MIAC.  However, it wouldn't be hard to play 14-15 conference games via divisional play (perhaps with the three Maine schools plus Tufts & Middlebury in one division, and Hamilton joining the five remaining CT/MA schools in the other).  Because of the trios that already play home-and-home, over half the league plays 12 games against conference opponents now. 

    Going to 14-15 games wouldn't have a huge impact, but the presumed extra losses would hurt some bubble teams; the NESCAC would still get four teams in this year, but wouldn't be in the running for a 5th.  Because their SOS is already "maxed out", as alluded to, a full 20-game double round would crush WP numbers with little benefit except even higher vRRO totals; my guess is that the league would be down to 2-3 bids, like the WIAC & CCIW.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 13, 2018, 05:00:05 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 04:52:06 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2018, 03:58:14 PM
    I wonder if this is something that would be easy to simulate by our friend Fantastic50? What would the NESCAC Pool C situation look like if they played a double round robin schedule? I might be able to toy with some numbers but I'm not able to simulate like he is.

    My gut tells me that we make too much of the single round robin. It's an advantage for the top teams, but I'm not convinced how big it is.

    Yes, I could simulate it, but it would take some time to set it up; it might be something to look at after the season. 

    I don't hear anyone arguing that an 11-team conference should be playing a full double-round; the only reasonably strong conference that plays more than 18 conference games is the MIAC.  However, it wouldn't be hard to play 14-15 conference games via divisional play (perhaps with the three Maine schools plus Tufts & Middlebury in one division, and Hamilton joining the five remaining CT/MA schools in the other).  Because of the trios that already play home-and-home, over half the league plays 12 games against conference opponents now. 

    Going to 14-15 games wouldn't have a huge impact, but the presumed extra losses would hurt some bubble teams; the NESCAC would still get four teams in this year, but wouldn't be in the running for a 5th.  Because their SOS is already "maxed out", as alluded to, a full 20-game double round would crush WP numbers with little benefit except even higher vRRO totals; my guess is that the league would be down to 2-3 bids, like the WIAC & CCIW.
    If we find the NESCAC would get about a .050 reduction in SOS with a double round robin,  maybe we could just gently point that out to the committee chair and see what happens.   :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 05:01:34 PM
    Slightly off-topic, but perhaps interesting ... here are the records for each conference vs non-conference regionally ranked opponents:

    NCAC 7-7 (0.500)
    NWC 3-3 (0.500)
    CAC 6-7 (0.462)
    WIAC 5-6 (0.455)
    NESCAC 10-13 (0.435)
    UAA 7-10 (0.412)
    CC 4-6 (0.400)
    NEWMAC 5-9 (0.357)
    NJAC 6-13 (0.316)
    CCIW 5-11 (0.313)
    ODAC 6-14 (0.300)
    MIAC 4-10 (0.286)
    OAC 4-10 (0.286)
    LL 5-15 (0.250)
    MACC 3-9 (0.250)
    HCAC 2-6 (0.250)
    LEC 4-13 (0.235)
    SCAC 4-15 (0.211)
    CUNYAC 2-8 (0.200)
    IIAC 2-8 (0.200)
    MWC 2-8 (0.200)
    CSAC 1-4 (0.200)
    E8 2-9 (0.182)
    CCC 1-6 (0.143)
    SUNYAC 2-13 (0.133)
    SKY 1-7 (0.125)
    LAND 2-15 (0.118)
    NACC 1-8 (0.111)
    NECC 1-8 (0.111)
    MACF 2-18 (0.100)
    AMCC 1-9 (0.100)
    USAC 1-9 (0.100)
    MIAA 2-20 (0.091)
    MASCAC 1-12 (0.077)
    SAA 1-15 (0.063)
    ASC 0-1 (0.000)
    NAC 0-3 (0.000)
    PAC 0-8 (0.000)
    ACAA 0-10 (0.000)
    SLIAC 0-11 (0.000)
    SCIAC 0-12 (0.000)
    NEAC 0-14 (0.000)
    UMAC 0-14 (0.000)
    GNAC 0-15 (0.000)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 13, 2018, 05:10:15 PM
    Regarding NESCAC divisional play, I like it in theory, and I've thought about it. I think it would be VERY tricky to accomplish in a way that doesn't really anger some schools.  Personally, I love that Williams plays Amherst and Wesleyan twice, and I'd love to see us play Midd twice as well.  Everyone else, that would be a lot less interesting most years. 

    The problem is that there is no really easy way to divide the league.  First issue is that there would be one 5 team division and another 6 team division, not sure how that would work exactly but it would be a mess for sure.  Second, you want to keep CBB together and Little 3 together.  I imagine you could do a north-south kind of deal with CBB, Hamilton and Midd all together, and then a Mass/CT division, that would probably make the most sense.  But that would make for absolutely BRUTAL travel for those northern division schools (it's a looooonnngg drive from Hamilton to the Maine schools, Hamilton to Colby is seven hours without even accounting for winter storms making it often far longer).   No way in heck that Hamilton and the Maine schools sign off on that. 

    You could also do East-West (CBB, Tufts, Conn College), better on travel, but that would be ridiculously competitively unbalanced pretty much every year in NESCAC's history :). 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 05:19:29 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2018, 04:36:11 PM
    I don't see a reason why we can't look at all numbers and at some point say, okay... that's too high/low, we aren't going to get any good information from that. We need to lessen it's impact here. A bell-curve of some kind (like a graph showing where the SOS sits compared to everyone else in the division) may make some sense..

    This is most interesting thing said in the thread today. We could easily have an SOS rank, instead of a decimal SOS value. My recollection is that the D1 selection committee uses SOS in that form.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2018, 08:46:58 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 05:01:34 PM
    Slightly off-topic, but perhaps interesting ... here are the records for each conference vs non-conference regionally ranked opponents:

    NCAC 7-7 (0.500)
    NWC 3-3 (0.500)
    CAC 6-7 (0.462)
    WIAC 5-6 (0.455)
    NESCAC 10-13 (0.435)
    UAA 7-10 (0.412)
    CC 4-6 (0.400)
    NEWMAC 5-9 (0.357)
    NJAC 6-13 (0.316)
    CCIW 5-11 (0.313)
    ODAC 6-14 (0.300)
    MIAC 4-10 (0.286)
    OAC 4-10 (0.286)
    LL 5-15 (0.250)
    MACC 3-9 (0.250)
    HCAC 2-6 (0.250)
    LEC 4-13 (0.235)
    SCAC 4-15 (0.211)
    CUNYAC 2-8 (0.200)
    IIAC 2-8 (0.200)
    MWC 2-8 (0.200)
    CSAC 1-4 (0.200)
    E8 2-9 (0.182)
    CCC 1-6 (0.143)
    SUNYAC 2-13 (0.133)
    SKY 1-7 (0.125)
    LAND 2-15 (0.118)
    NACC 1-8 (0.111)
    NECC 1-8 (0.111)
    MACF 2-18 (0.100)
    AMCC 1-9 (0.100)
    USAC 1-9 (0.100)
    MIAA 2-20 (0.091)
    MASCAC 1-12 (0.077)
    SAA 1-15 (0.063)
    ASC 0-1 (0.000)
    NAC 0-3 (0.000)
    PAC 0-8 (0.000)
    ACAA 0-10 (0.000)
    SLIAC 0-11 (0.000)
    SCIAC 0-12 (0.000)
    NEAC 0-14 (0.000)
    UMAC 0-14 (0.000)
    GNAC 0-15 (0.000)
    Only one game, geographic isolation combined with an 18 game conference schedule.

    LeTourneau lost to Johns Hopkins 93-84 at Rhodes on Nov 18th
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2018, 08:47:55 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2018, 08:46:58 PM
    Only one game, geographic isolation combined with an 18 game conference schedule.

    Hard to schedule regionally ranked teams when it's not even a priority to play D-III opponents.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toad22 on February 13, 2018, 10:47:42 PM

    [/quote]
    If we find the NESCAC would get about a .050 reduction in SOS with a double round robin,  maybe we could just gently point that out to the committee chair and see what happens.   :)
    [/quote]

    That is about the worst idea I have ever read. Don't try to prevent good teams from getting in, try to make sure that all the really good teams get in! Maybe we need more than 64 teams. D1 has play in games. The answer cannot be to prevent teams from the really good conferences from getting in. I sincerely believe that the WIAC is, year in and year out, the best league in the country. Figure out how to get one or two more teams from the WIAC in every year. If you can do that the problem is pretty close to solved.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2018, 11:31:44 PM

    If we find the NESCAC would get about a .050 reduction in SOS with a double round robin,  maybe we could just gently point that out to the committee chair and see what happens.   :)
    [/quote]

    That is about the worst idea I have ever read. Don't try to prevent good teams from getting in, try to make sure that all the really good teams get in! Maybe we need more than 64 teams. D1 has play in games. The answer cannot be to prevent teams from the really good conferences from getting in. I sincerely believe that the WIAC is, year in and year out, the best league in the country. Figure out how to get one or two more teams from the WIAC in every year. If you can do that the problem is pretty close to solved.
    [/quote]

    Might as well stop the idea of more than 64 teams now... one, when would you play those games?

    The bigger point is, 64 is the max, period. Let's not start comparing to D1. That tournament brings in most of the money DIII's entire operating budget is based on. They can basically do what they want as a result. If they had the same rules as DIII, they'd have something like a 56-58 team tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 13, 2018, 11:32:38 PM
    Lord, we don't need to coddle the power conferences.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 14, 2018, 12:55:03 AM
    I am just spit balling, and I admittedly skimmed some of this page and have only been around for two years of this NESCAC and round robin talk so if this has been brought up before, forgive me.

    I acknowledge that the NESCAC is a very impressive conference with great teams every year. This can be taken as fact, we all agree here.

    It is also fact that the single round robin helps the NESCAC teams in terms of pool C bids.

    Hope you all stay with me here, as I haven't said anything outlandish yet...

    So the NESCAC gets a bunch of teams in each year, while the MIAC cannibalize itself and makes it much harder to not only find resume boosting non-conference games but keep that SOS high enough for pool C consideration, resulting in maybe one team a year getting an at large bid out of the MIAC. So if the NESCAC gets 5 horses in the race and the MIAC only gets 2 horses, of course I am going to put my money down that the NESCAC will have some better results compared to the MIAC. I honestly think that should some of these above average conferences like the MIAC/IIAC/OAC would get more teams into the tourney they would prove that they fit right in.

    Perfect example to solidify my point:

    - Hamline was able to beat Williams this year. Sure it was soon after the Scadlock injury, but Hamline is a squad that isn't close to making the playoffs in the MIAC (6 of 11 teams make it) and Williams tied for the NESCAC regular season lead this year. I would put my money on Williams winning a rematch, but nonetheless, the MIAC and other conferences are just as talented and deep as the NESCAC is, they just dont get the chance to showcase it on the national stage due to their round-robin set up of conference games.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 14, 2018, 03:54:10 AM
    Come on, man, trying to make extrapolations about likely annual NCAA prospects of entire leagues based on a single two-point upset in a single non-league game in December is beyond silly.  I could list a dozen such outlier losses suffered early in the season by better squads than this year's Eph team nearly every year.  Let's leep it real.  Indeed Smitty perhaps consider your own words just a few hours ago from a neighboring thread:
    QuoteFor a team who looked as good as Witt has this year to want to move them "WAY" down doesn't seem fair. I know you will bring up the lopsided score of 20ish points, but it is a single blemish to a decent team in a solid conference on the road on senior night. Teams lose, opposing teams hit shots and the ball may not bounce your way one day. I have been thinking this all season, a loss to solid/average team for all of these top tier teams are not the end of the world. Especially when you think about everybody getting their best shot. If it becomes a trend like it has for E&H or OWU I totally get it but just one loss for Witt did not make me significantly change their ranking in the poster poll.

    And maybe just ONE IIAC team could make ONE Final Four before we start suggesting the league is underrepresented?  The argument about NESCAC makes sense only if just one or two Nescac teams made it to Salem in an eight year period.  When eight do, however, you can't really say that having more entrants is the only thing accounting for the league's success.

    If just the top two Nescac teams made it in each year, the odds are at least 6-7 Nescac teams would stiil have made the Final Four, because typically it's the best one or two Nescac teams (often from Pool A) who end up advancing, not the arguably borderline selections ... in 2010, 2011 (2), 2013, and  2014 (2), those Nescac FF squads would all have been tourney selections under any imaginable system or schedule.   Maybe not last year's Eph team, but then again all they did was steal Midd's Salem spot in the end ... the only way to compare fairly is on a percentage basis.  What percent of a league's entrants win the title and what percent make Final Fours?   Nescac does well enough under both criteria to prove these selections are worthy. But no matter how teams actually perform once selected, which should at least be a relevant criteria to consider, folks will always complain, predictably, on an annual basis. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 14, 2018, 04:08:43 AM
    On another note, really interesting data Fantastic50, thanks. Surprised to see NCAC at the top of the list ... although Wooster and Wittenberg both look like legit contenders and perhaps accounted for lion's share of the wins? 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 14, 2018, 08:33:16 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 14, 2018, 03:54:10 AM
    Come on, man, trying to make extrapolations about likely annual NCAA prospects of entire leagues based on a single two-point upset in a single non-league game in December is beyond silly.  I could list a dozen such outlier losses suffered early in the season by better squads than this year's Eph team nearly every year.  Let's leep it real.  Indeed Smitty perhaps consider your own words just a few hours ago from a neighboring thread:
    QuoteFor a team who looked as good as Witt has this year to want to move them "WAY" down doesn't seem fair. I know you will bring up the lopsided score of 20ish points, but it is a single blemish to a decent team in a solid conference on the road on senior night. Teams lose, opposing teams hit shots and the ball may not bounce your way one day. I have been thinking this all season, a loss to solid/average team for all of these top tier teams are not the end of the world. Especially when you think about everybody getting their best shot. If it becomes a trend like it has for E&H or OWU I totally get it but just one loss for Witt did not make me significantly change their ranking in the poster poll.

    And maybe just ONE IIAC team could make ONE Final Four before we start suggesting the league is underrepresented?  The argument about NESCAC makes sense only if just one or two Nescac teams made it to Salem in an eight year period.  When eight do, however, you can't really say that having more entrants is the only thing accounting for the league's success.

    If just the top two Nescac teams made it in each year, the odds are at least 6-7 Nescac teams would stiil have made the Final Four, because typically it's the best one or two Nescac teams (often from Pool A) who end up advancing, not the arguably borderline selections ... in 2010, 2011 (2), 2013, and  2014 (2), those Nescac FF squads would all have been tourney selections under any imaginable system or schedule.   Maybe not last year's Eph team, but then again all they did was steal Midd's Salem spot in the end ... the only way to compare fairly is on a percentage basis.  What percent of a league's entrants win the title and what percent make Final Fours?   Nescac does well enough under both criteria to prove these selections are worthy. But no matter how teams actually perform once selected, which should at least be a relevant criteria to consider, folks will always complain, predictably, on an annual basis.

    I said in my original post that I know Williams is a better team, and I definitely agree it was an upset. But the take home point is that Hamline (not the class of the MIAC) is a decent squad that has the talent to win some big games. Much like Hidelberg out of the OAC, as they have some big wins this year as well. These middle to lower tier teams are still solid teams and I think they help show the depth and strength of these other conferences that only get 1-2 teams in a year.

    This is absolutely nothing against the NESCAC and I am not complaining, because I get the how the process works and the NESCAC teams are absolutely deserving of receiving the pool C bids based on the criteria the NCAA puts out there (Hell I wish the MIAC go adopt the ODAC model as a chance to increase the pool c resume, but its hard to schedule more non-conference games in our D3 location of the US). I just think that the difference between the level of basketball played in the NESCAC and some of the other conferences isn't as large as the discrepancy of NCAA births for a conference (MIAC/WIAC/CCIW/IIAC) would show.


    **PS: In my quote you posted from the top 25 room, what I was trying to get across was the fact that we should not hurt people for losses as much as we do (me included). I still think Williams is very deserving of their top 25 rank, even given their loss to Hamline. It says more about Hamline in the win than it does Williams in the loss. I hope I am conveying my thought process clearly here.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 14, 2018, 08:53:10 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 05:01:34 PM
    Slightly off-topic, but perhaps interesting ... here are the records for each conference vs non-conference regionally ranked opponents:

    NCAC 7-7 (0.500)
    NWC 3-3 (0.500)
    CAC 6-7 (0.462)
    WIAC 5-6 (0.455)
    NESCAC 10-13 (0.435)
    UAA 7-10 (0.412)
    CC 4-6 (0.400)
    NEWMAC 5-9 (0.357)
    NJAC 6-13 (0.316)
    CCIW 5-11 (0.313)
    ODAC 6-14 (0.300)
    MIAC 4-10 (0.286)
    OAC 4-10 (0.286)
    LL 5-15 (0.250)
    MACC 3-9 (0.250)
    HCAC 2-6 (0.250)
    LEC 4-13 (0.235)
    SCAC 4-15 (0.211)
    CUNYAC 2-8 (0.200)
    IIAC 2-8 (0.200)
    MWC 2-8 (0.200)
    CSAC 1-4 (0.200)
    E8 2-9 (0.182)
    CCC 1-6 (0.143)
    SUNYAC 2-13 (0.133)
    SKY 1-7 (0.125)
    LAND 2-15 (0.118)
    NACC 1-8 (0.111)
    NECC 1-8 (0.111)
    MACF 2-18 (0.100)
    AMCC 1-9 (0.100)
    USAC 1-9 (0.100)
    MIAA 2-20 (0.091)
    MASCAC 1-12 (0.077)
    SAA 1-15 (0.063)
    ASC 0-1 (0.000)
    NAC 0-3 (0.000)
    PAC 0-8 (0.000)
    ACAA 0-10 (0.000)
    SLIAC 0-11 (0.000)
    SCIAC 0-12 (0.000)
    NEAC 0-14 (0.000)
    UMAC 0-14 (0.000)
    GNAC 0-15 (0.000)

    I am no math savant so perhaps there is a mathematical explanation for this that I am missing, but I am blown away that not one conference has a winning records against non-conference regionally ranked opponents.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toad22 on February 14, 2018, 08:58:42 AM
    I am aware that the NCAA has no interest in expanding the size of the D3 tournament. It was a long bloody slog just to get up to 64. However, my point was that the way to construct the best national championship is to figure out ways to get the best teams in, even if that means taking more teams from the top leagues. That is where more of the really good teams live.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 14, 2018, 09:21:18 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 14, 2018, 04:08:43 AM
    On another note, really interesting data Fantastic50, thanks. Surprised to see NCAC at the top of the list ... although Wooster and Wittenberg both look like legit contenders and perhaps accounted for lion's share of the wins? 

    The NCAC has developed some quality depth in recent years, getting three NCAA bids more often than not (with 5 different teams appearing in the last 4 years).  Next week will be the first time since 2014 that a team other than Ohio Wesleyan will be the top seed in the conference tournament. 

    This year has shown quality depth beyond Witt (15-1) & Wooster (13-3), as well. 
    * Ohio Wesleyan (10-6) beat Ramapo by 29, and lost nail-biters to Whitman and at Hanover.
    * Hiram (10-6) played a soft non-conference schedule, but hammered Wittenberg, and nearly split with Wooster for the 3rd year in a row (losing in OT at home)
    * Denison (8-8) blew out Cabrini and almost swept Wooster, winning easily at home and barely losing on the road. 
    * Wabash (8-8) won at Wooster by 13 points.
    * DePauw (6-10) beat Rose-Hulman and took UW-River Falls to overtime. 
    * Oberlin (4-12) nearly won at Wooster in the season opener.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 14, 2018, 09:23:48 AM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 14, 2018, 08:53:10 AM
    I am no math savant so perhaps there is a mathematical explanation for this that I am missing, but I am blown away that not one conference has a winning records against non-conference regionally ranked opponents.

    When I first ran those numbers, I thought that I had a mistake.  However, regionally ranked teams get there because they win most of their games, so we should expect few conferences have a winning record against strong non-conference teams.  That being said, I thought that at least one power conference would have pulled it off.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2018, 09:36:24 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 14, 2018, 09:23:48 AM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 14, 2018, 08:53:10 AM
    I am no math savant so perhaps there is a mathematical explanation for this that I am missing, but I am blown away that not one conference has a winning records against non-conference regionally ranked opponents.

    When I first ran those numbers, I thought that I had a mistake.  However, regionally ranked teams get there because they win most of their games, so we should expect few conferences have a winning record against strong non-conference teams.  That being said, I thought that at least one power conference would have pulled it off.

    Right. And since most teams are not regionally ranked, most of these games are unranked teams vs. ranked teams. In which case our expectation is that the ranked team probably wins.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 14, 2018, 09:38:21 AM
    Smitty, the comment of yours I am focused on most specifically is: "Teams lose, opposing teams hit shots and the ball may not bounce your way one day. I have been thinking this all season, a loss to solid/average team for all of these top tier teams are not the end of the world."  I agree with that comment 100 percent.  I saw the Williams-Hamline game, and that is exactly what happened.  The Ephs didn't play their best, and Hamline simply could not miss anything at all down the stretch, they played a tremendous game - one they likely aren't capable of replicating 3-4 times in a row.  Heck, the 2014 Williams team that came within four seconds of a title in an absolutely loaded season at the top of Division 3 lost to Southern Vermont early in the year ... no one would argue that more than one team from Southern Vermont's league should EVER be in the NCAA tourney, however, despite that flukey result. 

    Just as folks shouldn't blow a single surprising result out of proportion in top 25 rankings, you shouldn't make broad, overarching claims about what teams belong in the NCAA tourney based on a single result.  On any given day, sure, a middle tier team from any decent conference can beat a top 5 or top 10 team when everything goes right for them.  But that fact doesn't mean that the middle tier conference necessarily has been robbed of NCAA bids, or that its second or third place teams would likely go very far in the NCAA tournament if selected.  The NCAA selections are based on aggregated performance, not outlier games.  And the reality is that, most years, the fourth-best team from NESCAC (or WIAC, or CCIW) is far more likely to perform better in the NCAA tourney than the second-best team from most other leagues.  And we've seen that proven again and again, since runner-up teams in the WIAC, CCIW and NESCAC make boatloads of Final Fours (even when only 2-3 teams from those leagues are selected) while many leagues have never seen even their very best teams get close.  That's not to say those other leagues don't deserve a shot at the dance -- that is the point of Pool A!   

    I'd say the best way to make selections is a mix of numerical criteria and human rankings, much like Division 1 employs.  If the method changed, though, there would still be multiple NESCAC teams getting selected in the average year (maybe five was excessive last year, but the league would very likely have gotten four in).  Just look at this year, when there are four NESCAC teams comfortably within the top 25 ranking.  The difference would not be MORE second and third place teams from mid-tier conferneces getting selected, but likely more one-bid conferences as the CCIW, WIAC, and UAA, in particular, and the OAC, MIAC, ODAC and NCAC, to a lesser extent, would earn almost all the other Pool C bids.   My point continues to be that while the NESCAC is a beneficiary of the current system, it would still get many teams in under nearly any fair alternative, including those that, say, weigh conference wins more heavily.  Other power leagues would just be (appropriately, in my view) in exactly the same position, whereas now they are not. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 14, 2018, 09:46:15 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 14, 2018, 09:36:24 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 14, 2018, 09:23:48 AM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 14, 2018, 08:53:10 AM
    I am no math savant so perhaps there is a mathematical explanation for this that I am missing, but I am blown away that not one conference has a winning records against non-conference regionally ranked opponents.

    When I first ran those numbers, I thought that I had a mistake.  However, regionally ranked teams get there because they win most of their games, so we should expect few conferences have a winning record against strong non-conference teams.  That being said, I thought that at least one power conference would have pulled it off.

    Right. And since most teams are not regionally ranked, most of these games are unranked teams vs. ranked teams. In which case our expectation is that the ranked team probably wins.

    Great points.  Thank you.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 14, 2018, 10:08:59 AM
    What if instead of just one game being used to compare conferences, every game was considered?

    (https://i.imgur.com/IZk7qLL.png)

    Quote from: nescac1 on February 14, 2018, 09:38:21 AM
    The NCAA selections are based on aggregated performance, not outlier games. 
    If only that was true.   Performance goes way beyond winning and losing to me.  The SoS the NCAA uses does a poor job of comparing teams from different regions.  The home and away multiplier is still broken as far as I know.  You still get a major benefit from playing poor teams at home rather than on the road.

    From reading back some of the conversation last year I think the committee is aware of the limitations of the data they currently get, but I don't see any good way to correct their selections without fixing the underlying data.  They should continue to pick according to the data provided so at least they're predictable and everyone can understand why they were or were not picked.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 14, 2018, 10:17:33 AM
    Some data sets (like SOS) are biased in favor of NESCAC or other leagues.  Others (like the one you are employing) is in my view a bit biased in favor of Midwest teams and seems to unfairly punish NESCAC and other leagues from the entire eastern third of the country.  No data set is ever going to be perfect.  SOS is, I'd agree, much worse than some alternatives, and could easily be tweaked for better results.  But in the end, I think data can only take you part of the way.  Rather, having human beings (like, say, the human beings who vote on the D3 top 25 poll) play some role in evaluating teams, beyond just numbers, would be beneficial.  But it seems unlikely that this will ever happen. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 14, 2018, 10:50:37 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 05:01:34 PM
    Slightly off-topic, but perhaps interesting ... here are the records for each conference vs non-conference regionally ranked opponents:

    NCAC 7-7 (0.500)
    NWC 3-3 (0.500)
    CAC 6-7 (0.462)
    WIAC 5-6 (0.455)
    NESCAC 10-13 (0.435)
    UAA 7-10 (0.412)
    CC 4-6 (0.400)
    NEWMAC 5-9 (0.357)
    NJAC 6-13 (0.316)
    CCIW 5-11 (0.313)
    ODAC 6-14 (0.300)
    MIAC 4-10 (0.286)
    OAC 4-10 (0.286)
    LL 5-15 (0.250)
    MACC 3-9 (0.250)
    HCAC 2-6 (0.250)
    LEC 4-13 (0.235)
    SCAC 4-15 (0.211)
    CUNYAC 2-8 (0.200)
    IIAC 2-8 (0.200)
    MWC 2-8 (0.200)
    CSAC 1-4 (0.200)
    E8 2-9 (0.182)
    CCC 1-6 (0.143)
    SUNYAC 2-13 (0.133)
    SKY 1-7 (0.125)
    LAND 2-15 (0.118)
    NACC 1-8 (0.111)
    NECC 1-8 (0.111)
    MACF 2-18 (0.100)
    AMCC 1-9 (0.100)
    USAC 1-9 (0.100)
    MIAA 2-20 (0.091)
    MASCAC 1-12 (0.077)
    SAA 1-15 (0.063)
    ASC 0-1 (0.000)
    NAC 0-3 (0.000)
    PAC 0-8 (0.000)
    ACAA 0-10 (0.000)
    SLIAC 0-11 (0.000)
    SCIAC 0-12 (0.000)
    NEAC 0-14 (0.000)
    UMAC 0-14 (0.000)
    GNAC 0-15 (0.000)

    Ranked vs ranked would be much better.  I'm not sure its very useful to know how near "bottom of conference team X" faired against a ranked opponent.  That would be an expected loss in almost every instance.


    OTOH I find it fascinating the MIAA has 22 games against ranked opponents, second only to the NESCAC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 14, 2018, 11:17:57 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 14, 2018, 10:50:37 AM
    Ranked vs ranked would be much better.  I'm not sure its very useful to know how near "bottom of conference team X" faired against a ranked opponent.  That would be an expected loss in almost every instance.

    OTOH I find it fascinating the MIAA has 22 games against ranked opponents, second only to the NESCAC.

    Ranked-vs-ranked may slightly penalize conferences that squeeze in an extra team near the bottom of a region's rankings, but here are the ranked-vs-nonconf-ranked records...

    CAC 4-0 (1.000)
    NWC 3-0 (1.000)
    LAND 2-0 (1.000)
    MACC 2-0 (1.000)
    UAA 6-2 (0.750)
    NCAC 5-2 (0.714)
    NEWMAC 4-2 (0.667)
    MIAC 2-1 (0.667)
    OAC 3-2 (0.600)
    NESCAC 7-6 (0.538)
    CC 3-3 (0.500)
    ODAC 3-3 (0.500)
    CSAC 1-1 (0.500)
    NJAC 4-5 (0.444)
    LEC 3-4 (0.429)
    WIAC 3-4 (0.429)
    CCIW 2-4 (0.333)
    HCAC 1-2 (0.333)
    LL 1-2 (0.333)
    MASCAC 1-2 (0.333)
    SUNYAC 1-3 (0.250)
    ASC 0-1 (0.000)
    CCC 0-1 (0.000)
    NEAC 0-1 (0.000)
    IIAC 0-2 (0.000)
    USAC 0-2 (0.000)
    E8 0-3 (0.000)
    SKY 0-3 (0.000)

    The ACAA, AMCC, CUNYAC, GNAC, MACF, MIAA, MWC, NAC ,NACC, NECC, PAC, SAA, SCAC, SCIAC, SLIAC, and UMAC are all 0-0, either because of having no regionally-ranked teams (last week) or those teams playing no such nonconference games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 14, 2018, 11:49:34 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2018, 04:52:06 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2018, 03:58:14 PM
    I wonder if this is something that would be easy to simulate by our friend Fantastic50? What would the NESCAC Pool C situation look like if they played a double round robin schedule? I might be able to toy with some numbers but I'm not able to simulate like he is.

    My gut tells me that we make too much of the single round robin. It's an advantage for the top teams, but I'm not convinced how big it is.

    Yes, I could simulate it, but it would take some time to set it up; it might be something to look at after the season. 

    I don't hear anyone arguing that an 11-team conference should be playing a full double-round; the only reasonably strong conference that plays more than 18 conference games is the MIAC.  However, it wouldn't be hard to play 14-15 conference games via divisional play (perhaps with the three Maine schools plus Tufts & Middlebury in one division, and Hamilton joining the five remaining CT/MA schools in the other).  Because of the trios that already play home-and-home, over half the league plays 12 games against conference opponents now. 

    Going to 14-15 games wouldn't have a huge impact, but the presumed extra losses would hurt some bubble teams; the NESCAC would still get four teams in this year, but wouldn't be in the running for a 5th.  Because their SOS is already "maxed out", as alluded to, a full 20-game double round would crush WP numbers with little benefit except even higher vRRO totals; my guess is that the league would be down to 2-3 bids, like the WIAC & CCIW.
    I like the idea of running the NESCAC's numbers with more in-conference games.

    My suggestion is to run the numbers off the 2017-18 schedule.

    Arbitrarily divide the NESCAC into 2 divisions and have single round robin inter-division and double round robin intra-division.  This format is commonly used by larger conferences, including the 13-member ASC which ends up with 17 games for the ASC West and 18 games for the ASC East. 

    In the arbitrarily assigned NESCAC games, declare the winner as the team with the higher conference or higher overall season record.

    Substitute the in-conference replacement games for the later non-conference games in the season, when most conferences are in full mode.  This seems to be the least "punitive/cherry picking" in eliminating non-conference games.

    I would love to see the impact that it has on the NESCAC SOS, too.  +1! in advance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2018, 01:57:43 PM
    These things are here:
    http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-second
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 14, 2018, 04:14:17 PM
    Most wins vs new RRO (corrected)
    Wash. U (7-1)
    Whitman (6-0)
    Wooster (6-1)
    Williams (6-4)
    John Carroll (5-2)
    NJCU (5-4)
    ECSU (4-1)
    Wittenberg (4-1)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 14, 2018, 05:48:24 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 14, 2018, 04:14:17 PM
    Most wins vs (new) RRO:
    Wash. U (7-1)
    NJCU (6-4)
    John Carroll (5-1)
    Wooster (5-1)
    Augustana (5-2)
    Wesleyan (5-3)
    Williams (5-3)

    Honorable mention: Whitman (4-0), Springfield (4-1), York (3-0), Sul Ross (3-0), Wittenberg (3-0)

    Isn't JCU 5-2?

    Wins: Etta (2), ONU (2), BW
    Losses: BW, Hope
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 14, 2018, 06:48:47 PM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 14, 2018, 05:48:24 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 14, 2018, 04:14:17 PM
    Most wins vs (new) RRO:
    Wash. U (7-1)
    NJCU (6-4)
    John Carroll (5-1)
    Wooster (5-1)
    Augustana (5-2)
    Wesleyan (5-3)
    Williams (5-3)

    Honorable mention: Whitman (4-0), Springfield (4-1), York (3-0), Sul Ross (3-0), Wittenberg (3-0)

    Isn't JCU 5-2?

    Wins: Etta (2), ONU (2), BW
    Losses: BW, Hope

    Yes, thank you!  I fouled up and ran the numbers using last week's RR teams, even though I had the new ones coded up.  It's now fixed above.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3ball1845 on February 14, 2018, 07:14:40 PM
    I was completely surprised to see that MIT was only moved down one spot in the NE regional rankings after losing two games this week, including a loss to a subpar Coast Guard team. I understand that they lost one of their best players but you can't ignore the results. I'm baffled how they are still in the regional rankings yet a team like Nichols, that won two games this week is moved out of the regional rankings in the NE. What did they do wrong to be moved out? Another thing that doesn't make sense is the fact that Salem State, who just cracked the Top 25 this week, is ranked behind four teams in the regional rankings who are unranked nationally. Something is not adding up. I honestly don't think Salem State is a Top 25 team in the country, but currently at No. 25 how are they 10th in the NE regional ranking?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 14, 2018, 08:54:58 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 13, 2018, 08:47:55 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2018, 08:46:58 PM
    Only one game, geographic isolation combined with an 18 game conference schedule.

    Hard to schedule regionally ranked teams when it's not even a priority to play D-III opponents.
    Respectfully, I acknowledge that the ASC does not always fill its schedule to the max with D3 schools in many sports.

    I have run the schedules for 2017-18 for the men's teams. 

    In the 7-team ASC East, 6 schools played a complete D-3 schedule.

    Provisional Belhaven (located in Jackson MS) played a mid-week, mid-season game against Pensacola Christian on Tuesday Jan 30th.

    In the 6-team ASC West, 3 schools played a complete D-3 schedule.

    Sul Ross State played at (NAIA-1) U of the Southwest in Hobbs NM (188 miles away) and at (D-2) Lubbock Christian (212 miles away) in November. The nearest D-3 teams are more than 300 miles away.

    Concordia Texas played D-2 Dallas Baptist in a tournament cross-town at St Edwards on Fri 11/24 and then future D-3 St Thomas of Houston TX on 11/28.  CTX did travel opening weekend to play Guilford (11/17), H-SC (11/18) in Greensboro and then at Averett on Sun 11/19.

    McMurry (re-classifying) played at D-2 Angelo State on 12/28 and then NCCAA schools, Arlington Baptist and Ecclesia. McMurry has competed in the NCCAA during the reclassification process. (Texas State was an exhibition.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 15, 2018, 09:27:19 AM
    Here's my latest after last night's shake-up, with current Pool A teams in blue.

    Locks and near-locks
    100% Hamilton (21-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.566, 3-2 vRRO, NE#1) 16% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.575 / 4-3
    100% Middlebury (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.575, 4-5 vRRO, NE#4) 8% A, proj. 0.741 / 0.589 / 5-6
    100% Wesleyan (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.578, 5-3 vRRO, NE#2) 13% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.590 / 7-4
    100% Williams (18-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.585, 6-4 vRRO, NE#3) 29% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.593 / 6-4
    100% UW-Platteville (19-3, 11-2 WIAC, SOS 0.575, 4-2 vRRO, CE#2) 64% A, proj. 0.833 / 0.580 / 4-2
    99% Cabrini (21-3, 14-2 CSAC, SOS 0.536, 3-2 vRRO, AT#2) 47% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.536 / 3-3
    99% New Jersey City (19-6, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.570, 5-4 vRRO, AT#1) 15% A, proj. 0.750 / 0.576 / 7-5
    99% Johns Hopkins (20-4, 14-3 CC, SOS 0.534, 3-3 vRRO, MA#2) 35% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.537 / 4-4
    99% York (Pa.) (21-3, 14-3 CAC, SOS 0.514, 3-0 vRRO, MA#1) 32% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.532 / 4-2
    99% John Carroll (20-4, 14-3 OAC, SOS 0.536, 5-2 vRRO, GL#3) 54% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.540 / 5-2
    99% Marietta (19-5, 13-4 OAC, SOS 0.552, 3-4 vRRO, GL#4) 24% A, proj. 0.750 / 0.564 / 2-5
    99% Wittenberg (21-2, 15-2 NCAC, SOS 0.517, 4-2 vRRO, GL#1) 54% A, proj. 0.885 / 0.529 / 4-2
    99% Wooster (20-4, 14-3 NCAC, SOS 0.549, 6-1 vRRO, GL#2) 25% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.563 / 4-3
    99% Augustana (18-5, 10-4 CCIW, SOS 0.576, 4-3 vRRO, CE#3) 41% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.572 / 4-3
    99% Washington U. (20-2, 11-0 UAA, SOS 0.550, 7-1 vRRO, CE#1) 99% A, proj. 0.800 / 0.538 / 4-1
    99% St. John's (21-2, 18-1 MIAC, SOS 0.513, 3-1 vRRO, WE#2) 61% A, proj. 0.880 / 0.525 / 3-2
    99% Whitman (22-0, 14-0 NWC, SOS 0.503, 6-0 vRRO, WE#1) 74% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.521 / 5-1

    Strong contenders
    98% Eastern Connecticut (20-3, 12-1 LEC, SOS 0.540, 4-1 vRRO, NE#5) 66% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.532 / 3-1
    98% Swarthmore (20-4, 14-3 CC, SOS 0.525, 2-3 vRRO, MA#4) 34% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.539 / 4-4
    95% Emory (18-4, 9-2 UAA, SOS 0.534, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.531 / 3-2
    92% Christopher Newport (19-5, 13-4 CAC, SOS 0.531, 2-1 vRRO, MA#5) 48% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.544 / 4-2
    85% UW-Stevens Point (17-7, 11-2 WIAC, SOS 0.608, 5-5 vRRO, CE#5) 19% A, proj. 0.692 / 0.606 / 3-6
    82% Plattsburgh State (18-4, 15-1 SUNYAC, SOS 0.524, 3-3 vRRO, EA#2) 56% A, proj. 0.800 / 0.525 / 3-3
    82% Randolph-Macon (18-6, 12-3 ODAC, SOS 0.551, 4-3 vRRO, SO#2) 41% A, proj. 0.731 / 0.554 / 3-3
    82% St. Olaf (18-6, 14-5 MIAC, SOS 0.544, 3-3 vRRO, WE#3) 15% A, proj. 0.731 / 0.543 / 4-3

    Bubble-in
    79% Hobart (20-3, 15-1 LL, SOS 0.528, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 74% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.528 / 1-2
    78% Franklin and Marshall (20-4, 14-3 CC, SOS 0.510, 2-2 vRRO, MA#6) 25% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.533 / 3-4
    76% Ramapo (19-6, 15-3 NJAC, SOS 0.537, 3-5 vRRO, AT#3) 48% A, proj. 0.731 / 0.543 / 4-5
    70% Albright (18-5, 11-4 MACC, SOS 0.540, 2-1 vRRO, MA#3) 47% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.547 / 3-2
    67% UW-Oshkosh (18-6, 8-5 WIAC, SOS 0.555, 4-3 vRRO, CE#4) 10% A, proj. 0.741 / 0.553 / 3-4
    63% Maryville (Tenn.) (16-4, 13-1 USAC, SOS 0.528, 1-2 vRRO, SO#5) 52% A, proj. 0.792 / 0.526 / 2-2
    51% Sul Ross State (18-3, 13-2 ASC, SOS 0.502, 2-0 vRRO, SO#3) 35% A, proj. 0.833 / 0.520 / 3-1
    51% Illinois Wesleyan (18-5, 11-3 CCIW, SOS 0.543, 2-4 vRRO, CE#6) 28% A, proj. 0.731 / 0.551 / 2-5
    51% Whitworth (20-3, 12-2 NWC, SOS 0.507, 2-3 vRRO, WE#5) 18% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.533 / 1-4

    Bubble-out
    45% Amherst (16-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.564, 4-5 vRRO, NE#8) 28% A, proj. 0.692 / 0.572 / 4-5
    43% Wheaton (Ill.) (17-6, 10-4 CCIW, SOS 0.547, 4-2 vRRO, CE#7) 18% A, proj. 0.692 / 0.554 / 4-3
    32% Tufts (17-7, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.573, 2-6 vRRO, NE#11) 4% A, proj. 0.654 / 0.591 / 2-8
    31% Springfield (17-7, 11-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.555, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 36% A, proj. 0.692 / 0.562 / 3-2
    25% Loras (18-6, 11-4 IIAC, SOS 0.536, 1-2 vRRO, WE#7) 23% A, proj. 0.731 / 0.548 / 2-3
    24% Gwynedd Mercy (19-5, 14-3 CSAC, SOS 0.516, 3-3 vRRO, AT#5) 36% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.522 / 3-3
    20% Salem State (22-3, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.510, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 72% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.511 / 1-2
    20% Brockport (17-6, 12-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.525, 2-3 vRRO, EA#4) 16% A, proj. 0.704 / 0.537 / 3-5

    Fringe contenders
    19% MIT (19-5, 9-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.524, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 34% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.532 / 2-2
    16% LeTourneau (21-3, 15-2 ASC, SOS 0.488, 1-3 vRRO, SO) 28% A, proj. 0.821 / 0.509 / 1-4
    13% UW-River Falls (16-7, 7-6 WIAC, SOS 0.567, 2-5 vRRO, CE#8) 4% A, proj. 0.654 / 0.585 / 2-6
    12% Keene State (16-8, 10-3 LEC, SOS 0.572, 2-5 vRRO, NE#7) 22% A, proj. 0.667 / 0.566 / 3-5
    10% Cortland (17-6, 12-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.516, 1-2 vRRO, EA#3) 15% A, proj. 0.704 / 0.532 / 2-3
    9% Ripon (16-6, 13-4 MWC, SOS 0.530, 1-2 vRRO, CE) 32% A, proj. 0.708 / 0.536 / 3-3
    8% Nichols (21-3, 15-2 CCC, SOS 0.507, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 57% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.512 / 0-1
    6% Nebraska Wesleyan (21-3, 13-3 IIAC, SOS 0.502, 1-1 vRRO, WE#4) 61% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.509 / 1-2
    5% TCNJ (19-6, 14-4 NJAC, SOS 0.512, 4-3 vRRO, AT#4) 24% A, proj. 0.731 / 0.521 / 4-4
    5% Ohio Northern (17-7, 12-5 OAC, SOS 0.526, 3-4 vRRO, GL#5) 14% A, proj. 0.679 / 0.539 / 2-5

    Other projected Pool A teams
    (MWC) Monmouth (17-7, SOS 0.530, 0-1 vRRO)
    (E8) Stevens (18-5, SOS 0.512, 0-4 vRRO)
    (GNAC) Albertus Magnus (19-4, SOS 0.508, 0-4 vRRO)
    (HCAC) Mount St. Joseph (17-7, SOS 0.511, 1-1 vRRO)
    (AMCC) La Roche (18-6, SOS 0.485, 1-2 vRRO)
    (LAND) Juniata (19-4, SOS 0.467, 2-0 vRRO)
    (MACF) Wilkes (16-6, SOS 0.478, 0-2 vRRO)
    (MIAA) Olivet (15-6, SOS 0.497, 1-3 vRRO)
    (NEAC) Lancaster Bible (19-5, SOS 0.453, 0-1 vRRO)
    (PAC) Thomas More (18-5, SOS 0.486, 0-0 vRRO)
    (SAA) Centre (15-7, SOS 0.444, 1-0 vRRO)
    (SCAC) Schreiner (12-11, SOS 0.502, 0-2 vRRO)
    (SCIAC) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (14-7, SOS 0.492, 0-3 vRRO)
    (SKY) Farmingdale State (17-7, SOS 0.507, 1-3 vRRO)
    (SLIAC) Greenville (16-8, SOS 0.477, 0-1 vRRO)
    (UMAC) Bethany Lutheran (17-8, SOS 0.464, 0-2 vRRO)
    (CUNYAC) Lehman (21-4, SOS 0.449, 1-0 vRRO)
    (NAC) Husson (18-6, SOS 0.451, 0-0 vRRO)
    (NACC) Benedictine (16-8, SOS 0.486, 0-1 vRRO)
    (NECC) Southern Vermont (16-5, SOS 0.458, 1-2 vRRO)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 15, 2018, 09:55:13 AM
    Fantastic50, thanks for so much detailed data, I don't know how you do it, but great stuff!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: GoPerry on February 15, 2018, 11:35:11 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 15, 2018, 09:55:13 AM
    Fantastic50, thanks for so much detailed data, I don't know how you do it, but great stuff!

    Ditto.  Really terrific and appreciated (despite your Wheaton projection).  Thank you!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2018, 11:48:19 AM
    I concur...about your work, not about Wheaton.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2018, 11:51:14 AM
    Nicely done, Drew!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 15, 2018, 12:05:28 PM
    He's the best.  You cannot go to an Ohio high school football game in October and not hear the words "Drew Pasteur" muttered at least a dozen times as people try to project their playoff hopes.  He is reaching legendary status.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2018, 01:57:30 PM
    Math profs being lionized at football games.

    It's a brave new world in which we live. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 15, 2018, 02:30:46 PM
    Thanks for the kind words, folks.  In small-college basketball, as with high school football, I enjoy bringing my professional background to a sport that I enjoy.

    This semester, I am teaching an upper-level course in data-driven mathematical modeling, and forecasting the Pool C berths (based on data I collected from the last five seasons, as well as current info) is one of several mini-projects that the students will complete.  It will be interesting to see their consensus, when Selection Monday comes around.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2018, 02:52:12 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 15, 2018, 02:30:46 PMThis semester, I am teaching an upper-level course in data-driven mathematical modeling, and forecasting the Pool C berths (based on data I collected from the last five seasons, as well as current info) is one of several mini-projects that the students will complete.  It will be interesting to see their consensus, when Selection Monday comes around.

    This sounds like a great subject for Ryan Scott to write about in Around the Nation.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 15, 2018, 09:03:45 PM
    fantasic50's karma is too low
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2018, 09:11:27 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 15, 2018, 09:03:45 PM
    fantasic50's karma is too low
    I have been working on that, his and Darryl Nester's.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2018, 09:15:20 PM
    Factoid to remember come Bracketing Time (Considering the 2nd Regional Rankings).

    Sul Ross State is South #3 and leading the ASC West. The only likely teams to make the playoff within 500 miles of Alpine TX are Schreiner, the SCAC conference leader, SCAC #2 UDallas and SCAC #3 Trinity.  I will guess that SRSU gets sent to another orphan island as the #2 team in the first round bracket, possibly to the Northwest Conference (Whitman), especially if Emory and R-MC do not falter.



    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2018, 10:56:42 PM
    As the regular season draws ever closer to the end, the intensity of conference races increases. There are very few teams in both the men's and women's side of Division III basketball that seem comfortable at the top. With conference tournaments starting, being at the top is important, but it also comes with a big target.

    This Thursday's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is a special podcast edition - not live.

    On the show, Dave talks to several coaches who teams seem like they have wrapped up their conferences races and one who may not be able to take the top spot, but is in great position to win it all their first time in the league.

    We also talk to a coach who has more time than it seems anyone else. How she is using that time to help her school's SAAC in many ways and how that help is allowing the student-athletes at Southern Maine to give back to the school, the community, and many more.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can listen to this week's podcast here: http://bit.ly/2EtvKH0

    If you have questions, be sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or interact with the show via the social media avenues.

    A reminder, Hoopsville will return to live shows on Sunday, February 18, starting at 7:00 p.m. ET.

    Guests include (in order of appearance):
    - Pete Moran, No. 18 John Carroll men's coach
    - Allison Coleman, Sage women's coach
    - Samantha Allen, Southern Maine women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Trevor Woodruff, No. 13 Scranton women's coach

    To get access to all the podcasts during the season, there are three ways (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.psbin.com%2Fi%2F5%2Fvz58th1jnqkn9i%2FHoopsville-2-15-18.jpg&hash=064980f1454ccae422d001087d4a4d5a40b23fe3)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2018, 10:57:14 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2018, 09:15:20 PM
    Factoid to remember come Bracketing Time (Considering the 2nd Regional Rankings).

    Sul Ross State is South #3 and leading the ASC West. The only likely teams to make the playoff within 500 miles of Alpine TX are Schreiner, the SCAC conference leader, SCAC #2 UDallas and SCAC #3 Trinity.  I will guess that SRSU gets sent to another orphan island as the #2 team in the first round bracket, possibly to the Northwest Conference (Whitman), especially if Emory and R-MC do not falter.

    FYI - It will probably go to Whitworth, unless the Whitman women fall a part and aren't good enough to host.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2018, 08:16:29 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 15, 2018, 02:30:46 PM
    Thanks for the kind words, folks.  In small-college basketball, as with high school football, I enjoy bringing my professional background to a sport that I enjoy.

    This semester, I am teaching an upper-level course in data-driven mathematical modeling, and forecasting the Pool C berths (based on data I collected from the last five seasons, as well as current info) is one of several mini-projects that the students will complete.  It will be interesting to see their consensus, when Selection Monday comes around.

    My collegiate math course work never included something as intriguing as this... sounds like a great project! Thanks for the all the great work, really appreciate it!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 16, 2018, 08:40:16 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 15, 2018, 02:30:46 PM
    Thanks for the kind words, folks.  In small-college basketball, as with high school football, I enjoy bringing my professional background to a sport that I enjoy.

    This semester, I am teaching an upper-level course in data-driven mathematical modeling, and forecasting the Pool C berths (based on data I collected from the last five seasons, as well as current info) is one of several mini-projects that the students will complete.  It will be interesting to see their consensus, when Selection Monday comes around.

    You also might consider the next phase of the tourney as an experiment - after the field is selected, what should the bracketing and hosting be, given the constraints of  gender priority in a given year when both genders will be in the tourney, the 500-mile limit, 2 hosts in each region, if possible, the national aspect, etc? This is what provokes the most arguments annually, not who gets left out of the 22nd pool C berth.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on February 16, 2018, 09:07:19 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 16, 2018, 08:40:16 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 15, 2018, 02:30:46 PM
    Thanks for the kind words, folks.  In small-college basketball, as with high school football, I enjoy bringing my professional background to a sport that I enjoy.

    This semester, I am teaching an upper-level course in data-driven mathematical modeling, and forecasting the Pool C berths (based on data I collected from the last five seasons, as well as current info) is one of several mini-projects that the students will complete.  It will be interesting to see their consensus when Selection Monday comes around.

    You also might consider the next phase of the tourney as an experiment - after the field is selected, what should the bracketing and hosting be, given the constraints of  gender priority in a given year when both genders will be in the tourney, the 500-mile limit, 2 hosts in each region, if possible, the national aspect, etc? This is what provokes the most arguments annually, not who gets left out of the 22nd pool C berth.

    The bracketing really becomes an Operations Research project - which reminds me of an organization at UWSP that uses Op Research to schedule for conferences:

    Center for Athletic Scheduling (https://www.uwsp.edu/cols-ap/cas/Pages/default.aspx)

    This wasn't around when I was at UWSP but I had Dr. Felt and was really intrigued by the possible applications of operations research.

    I don't know if high school football/small school basketball playoff modeling could be monetized like the athletic scheduling has been (though their fees are so relatively low that they're likely just covering their costs).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2018, 12:46:18 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2018, 10:57:14 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2018, 09:15:20 PM
    Factoid to remember come Bracketing Time (Considering the 2nd Regional Rankings).

    Sul Ross State is South #3 and leading the ASC West. The only likely teams to make the playoff within 500 miles of Alpine TX are Schreiner, the SCAC conference leader, SCAC #2 UDallas and SCAC #3 Trinity.  I will guess that SRSU gets sent to another orphan island as the #2 team in the first round bracket, possibly to the Northwest Conference (Whitman), especially if Emory and R-MC do not falter.

    FYI - It will probably go to Whitworth, unless the Whitman women fall a part and aren't good enough to host.
    Thanks for the heads-up.   :)

    Well that is a first round bummer for an undefeated Whitman's men's team, but I think I would rather have second round home court advantage, kinda like deferring the choice of the football coin toss to the 2nd half...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 16, 2018, 01:31:34 PM
    Quote from: John Gleich on February 16, 2018, 09:07:19 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 16, 2018, 08:40:16 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 15, 2018, 02:30:46 PM
    Thanks for the kind words, folks.  In small-college basketball, as with high school football, I enjoy bringing my professional background to a sport that I enjoy.

    This semester, I am teaching an upper-level course in data-driven mathematical modeling, and forecasting the Pool C berths (based on data I collected from the last five seasons, as well as current info) is one of several mini-projects that the students will complete.  It will be interesting to see their consensus when Selection Monday comes around.

    You also might consider the next phase of the tourney as an experiment - after the field is selected, what should the bracketing and hosting be, given the constraints of  gender priority in a given year when both genders will be in the tourney, the 500-mile limit, 2 hosts in each region, if possible, the national aspect, etc? This is what provokes the most arguments annually, not who gets left out of the 22nd pool C berth.

    The bracketing really becomes an Operations Research project - which reminds me of an organization at UWSP that uses Op Research to schedule for conferences:

    Center for Athletic Scheduling (https://www.uwsp.edu/cols-ap/cas/Pages/default.aspx)

    This wasn't around when I was at UWSP but I had Dr. Felt and was really intrigued by the possible applications of operations research.

    I don't know if high school football/small school basketball playoff modeling could be monetized like the athletic scheduling has been (though their fees are so relatively low that they're likely just covering their costs).

    Ohio HS football has a large following, so there have been possibilities of commercializing my website, but it seemed like more hassle than it was worth.  It's simpler and probably more enjoyable to focus just on producing quality content and allow media, etc. to reproduce it on their own sites as they wish.

    Until I co-advised a related student summer project a few years back, I had no idea how challenging scheduling problems could be.
    https://www.wooster.edu/academics/apex/experiential/amre/projects/2013/ncac/ (https://www.wooster.edu/academics/apex/experiential/amre/projects/2013/ncac/)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2018, 02:05:05 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2018, 12:46:18 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2018, 10:57:14 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2018, 09:15:20 PM
    Factoid to remember come Bracketing Time (Considering the 2nd Regional Rankings).

    Sul Ross State is South #3 and leading the ASC West. The only likely teams to make the playoff within 500 miles of Alpine TX are Schreiner, the SCAC conference leader, SCAC #2 UDallas and SCAC #3 Trinity.  I will guess that SRSU gets sent to another orphan island as the #2 team in the first round bracket, possibly to the Northwest Conference (Whitman), especially if Emory and R-MC do not falter.

    FYI - It will probably go to Whitworth, unless the Whitman women fall a part and aren't good enough to host.
    Thanks for the heads-up.   :)

    Well that is a first round bummer for an undefeated Whitman's men's team, but I think I would rather have second round home court advantage, kinda like deferring the choice of the football coin toss to the 2nd half...

    We discovered today that Dave got the years mixed up.  It's men's hosting priority this year.  Whitman will be all good.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 17, 2018, 06:00:15 PM
    The bubble may have softened slightly today, with losses by three teams that were on my "last few in" list.

    Randolph-Macon loses at W&L
    Franklin and Marshall loses at Swarthmore
    Ramapo is idle
    Albright defeats Lycoming in OT
    UW-Oshkosh defeats UW-Stout
    Maryville (Tenn.) is upset by Huntingdon in OT
    Whitworth hosts Williamette (9:00 EST)
    Illinois Wesleyan is at Carthage (8:00 EST)
    Wheaton (Ill.) hosts North Central (8:00 EST)
    Amherst barely survives #8 seed Bowdoin (NESCAC quarters)
    Gwynedd Mercy defeats Centenary
    Sul Ross State hosts Concordia (5:00 EST)
    Tufts loses at Hamilton
    Brockport defeats Cortland
    LeTourneau is idle
    Springfield defeats Babson
    Loras is at Dubuque (5:00 EST)
    Keene State defeats Mass-Dartmouth
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: irapthor on February 17, 2018, 06:36:05 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 17, 2018, 06:00:15 PM
    The bubble may have softened slightly today, with losses by three teams that were on my "last few in" list.

    Randolph-Macon loses at W&L
    Franklin and Marshall loses at Swarthmore
    Ramapo is idle
    Albright defeats Lycoming in OT
    UW-Oshkosh defeats UW-Stout
    Maryville (Tenn.) is upset by Huntingdon in OT
    Whitworth hosts Williamette (9:00 EST)
    Illinois Wesleyan is at Carthage (8:00 EST)
    Wheaton (Ill.) hosts North Central (8:00 EST)
    Amherst barely survives #8 seed Bowdoin (NESCAC quarters)
    Gwynedd Mercy defeats Centenary
    Sul Ross State hosts Concordia (5:00 EST)
    Tufts loses at Hamilton
    Brockport defeats Cortland
    LeTourneau is idle
    Springfield defeats Babson
    Loras is at Dubuque (5:00 EST)
    Keene State defeats Mass-Dartmouth

    What happens to us at NJCU after getting upset for the second time this week, this time in the NJAC Quarters...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 17, 2018, 08:14:18 PM
    No worries for NJCU on getting into the tournament, but it might cost them the chance to host.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on February 17, 2018, 09:09:25 PM
    Stevens Point hurts their Pool C chances, losing at Eau Claire 56-55.

    Point took the lead with 18 seconds left after trailing by 9 at the half but let EC get an uncontested layup with FOUR fouls to give under 10 seconds.

    Platteville secures at least a share of the conference title before they even tip off... Oh, and they lead 38-17 at the half.

    The Pios are GOOD.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: irapthor on February 17, 2018, 10:17:47 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 17, 2018, 08:14:18 PM
    No worries for NJCU on getting into the tournament, but it might cost them the chance to host.

    RE Hosting. I hope not! I spent 5+ hours this week putting together our bid package  ;D ;D :'( :'(
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2018, 12:03:27 AM
    Quote from: irapthor on February 17, 2018, 10:17:47 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 17, 2018, 08:14:18 PM
    No worries for NJCU on getting into the tournament, but it might cost them the chance to host.

    RE Hosting. I hope not! I spent 5+ hours this week putting together our bid package  ;D ;D :'( :'(

    Waste of time...



















    ... for those who don't know... I just like to give Ira a hard time. I am not making any predictions as of right now. My hard work starts soon.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 18, 2018, 08:47:29 AM
    Confirmed Pool A teams
    Washington U. (21-2, 12-0 UAA, SOS 0.546, 7-1 vRRO, CE#1)

    Locks & Near-locks
    100% Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-2 vRRO, NE#1) 21% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 5-3
    100% Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 4-6 vRRO, NE#4) 0% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.583 / 4-6
    100% Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 6-3 vRRO, NE#2) 17% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.590 / 7-4
    100% Williams (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.587, 6-4 vRRO, NE#3) 30% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.596 / 6-4
    100% Cabrini (22-3, 16-2 CSAC, SOS 0.528, 3-2 vRRO, AT#2) 53% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.536 / 3-2
    100% Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.525, 3-3 vRRO, MA#2) 35% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.536 / 4-4
    100% Swarthmore (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.528, 3-3 vRRO, MA#4) 42% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.538 / 4-4
    100% Marietta (20-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.558, 4-4 vRRO, GL#4) 34% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.564 / 4-5
    100% Wittenberg (22-2, 16-2 NCAC, SOS 0.524, 5-2 vRRO, GL#1) 60% A, proj. 0.889 / 0.530 / 4-1
    100% Wooster (20-5, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.561, 6-2 vRRO, GL#2) 19% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.565 / 4-3
    100% Augustana (19-5, 11-4 CCIW, SOS 0.566, 4-3 vRRO, CE#3) 38% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.570 / 3-3
    100% UW-Platteville (20-3, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.574, 5-2 vRRO, CE#2) 69% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.579 / 4-2
    100% St. John's (22-2, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.518, 3-1 vRRO, WE#2) 63% A, proj. 0.885 / 0.527 / 3-2
    100% Whitman (24-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.511, 6-0 vRRO, WE#1) 76% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.524 / 5-1
    99% Eastern Connecticut (21-3, 13-1 LEC, SOS 0.534, 4-1 vRRO, NE#5) 66% A, fin 99% C, semi 99% C, qtr 99% C
    99% New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 5-4 vRRO, AT#1) qtr 99% C
    99% Christopher Newport (20-5, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.536, 3-1 vRRO, MA#5) 54% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C
    99% York (Pa.) (21-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.524, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 26% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C
    99% John Carroll (20-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.534, 5-2 vRRO, GL#3) 46% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C, qtr 99% C

    Strong contenders
    97% Emory (19-4, 10-2 UAA, SOS 0.530, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.529 / 3-2
    92% Albright (19-5, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.542, 3-1 vRRO, MA#3) 52% A, fin 99% C, semi 87% C
    91% Plattsburgh State (20-4, 17-1 SUNYAC, SOS 0.518, 3-3 vRRO, EA#2) 59% A, fin 99% C, semi 81% C
    91% St. Olaf (19-6, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.534, 3-3 vRRO, WE#3) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 85% C

    Bubble-in
    78% Ramapo (19-6, 15-3 NJAC, SOS 0.536, 3-5 vRRO, AT#3) 50% A, fin 98% C, semi 61% C
    78% Whitworth (22-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.514, 2-3 vRRO, WE#5) 18% A, fin 72% C, semi 93% C
    73% UW-Oshkosh (19-6, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.548, 4-3 vRRO, CE#4) 10% A, fin 97% C, semi 77% C, qtr 39% C
    68% Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.522, 2-3 vRRO, MA#6) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 58% C
    65% Illinois Wesleyan (19-5, 12-3 CCIW, SOS 0.543, 2-4 vRRO, CE#6) 34% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.552 / 2-4
    64% Springfield (18-7, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.557, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 42% A, fin 84% C, semi 41% C
    62% Brockport (19-6, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, EA#4) 23% A, fin 93% C, semi 34% C
    60% Hobart (21-4, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 68% A, fin 65% C, semi 52% C
    58% Randolph-Macon (18-7, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.552, 4-3 vRRO, SO#2) 35% A, fin 92% C, semi 61% C, qtr 19% C
    57% Loras (19-6, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.541, 1-2 vRRO, WE#7) 26% A, fin 73% C, semi 28% C
    51% UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.604, 5-5 vRRO, CE#5) 15% A, fin 74% C, semi 27% C

    Bubble-out
    42% Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-5 vRRO, NE#8) 32% A, fin 81% C, semi 20% C
    41% Gwynedd Mercy (20-5, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.510, 3-3 vRRO, AT#5) 28% A, fin 68% C, semi 6% C
    31% LeTourneau (22-3, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.499, 1-3 vRRO, SO) 35% A, fin 58% C, semi 14% C, qtr 2% C
    27% Sul Ross State (19-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.510, 2-0 vRRO, SO#3) 31% A, fin 61% C, semi 18% C, qtr 8% C
    26% MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.526, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 36% A, fin 43% C, semi 9% C

    Fringe contenders
    18% Keene State (17-8, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.570, 2-5 vRRO, NE#7) 23% A, fin 31% C, semi 3% C
    17% Salem State (22-3, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.510, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 73% A, fin 23% C, semi 10% C
    15% Maryville (Tenn.) (16-5, 13-2 USAC, SOS 0.521, 1-2 vRRO, SO#5) 46% A, proj. 0.750 / 0.524 / 2-2
    15% Ripon (17-6, 14-4 MWC, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, CE) 30% A, fin 30% C, semi 9% C
    15% Wheaton (Ill.) (17-7, 10-5 CCIW, SOS 0.549, 4-2 vRRO, CE#7) 10% A, proj. 0.667 / 0.556 / 4-3
    14% Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.580, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A, proj. 0.680 / 0.579 / 2-7
    12% Nichols (22-3, 16-2 CCC, SOS 0.510, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 53% A, fin 21% C, semi 6% C, qtr 5% C
    4% Augsburg (18-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.524, 2-3 vRRO, WE#6) 7% A, proj. 0.704 / 0.538 / 3-4
    3% TCNJ (19-6, 14-4 NJAC, SOS 0.513, 4-3 vRRO, AT#4) 27% A, proj. 0.741 / 0.522 / 4-4
    3% Emory and Henry (19-6, 11-5 ODAC, SOS 0.513, 3-3 vRRO, SO#4) 11% A, fin 20% C, semi 1% C
    3% Nebraska Wesleyan (21-3, 13-3 IIAC, SOS 0.500, 1-1 vRRO, WE#4) 59% A, fin 3% C, semi 3% C
    2% Baldwin Wallace (17-8, 11-7 OAC, SOS 0.546, 4-5 vRRO, GL#6) 6% A, proj. 0.667 / 0.554 / 3-4
    2% UW-River Falls (16-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.576, 2-6 vRRO, CE#8) 4% A, proj. 0.654 / 0.585 / 2-6

    Other projected Pool A teams
    (MWC) Monmouth (18-7, SOS 0.527, 0-1 vRRO)
    (GNAC) Albertus Magnus (19-5, SOS 0.506, 0-4 vRRO)
    (SCAC) Schreiner (13-12, SOS 0.507, 0-2 vRRO)
    (CUNYAC) Lehman (21-4, SOS 0.452, 1-0 vRRO)
    (HCAC) Hanover (17-6, SOS 0.480, 1-2 vRRO)
    (LAND) Juniata (20-4, SOS 0.469, 2-0 vRRO)
    (MACF) Wilkes (16-7, SOS 0.480, 0-2 vRRO)
    (MIAA) Olivet (15-7, SOS 0.493, 1-3 vRRO)
    (NAC) Husson (19-6, SOS 0.457, 0-0 vRRO)
    (NACC) Aurora (17-8, SOS 0.461, 0-0 vRRO)
    (NEAC) Lancaster Bible (20-5, SOS 0.451, 0-1 vRRO)
    (NECC) Southern Vermont (17-5, SOS 0.452, 1-2 vRRO)
    (SCIAC) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (15-7, SOS 0.497, 0-3 vRRO)
    (SKY) Farmingdale State (18-7, SOS 0.508, 1-3 vRRO)
    (SLIAC) Greenville (17-8, SOS 0.479, 0-1 vRRO)
    (UMAC) Bethany Lutheran (17-8, SOS 0.464, 0-2 vRRO)
    (AMCC) La Roche (19-6, SOS 0.481, 1-2 vRRO)
    (E8) Nazareth (18-7, SOS 0.505, 2-1 vRRO)
    (PAC) Thomas More (19-5, SOS 0.477, 0-0 vRRO)
    (SAA) Centre (16-7, SOS 0.446, 1-0 vRRO)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2018, 08:52:20 AM
    Thanks, fantastic50! Great stuff.

    How does your A percentage work?  Wondering why, at this point, Augustana has a better A chance (38%) than IWU (34%).  What goes into that?

    Standings Through Feb 18
    Illinois Wesleyan 12-3  (vs North Central)
    Augustana 11-4  (vs Elmhurst)
    North Central 10-5  (at Illinois Wesleyan)
    Wheaton 10-5  (at Carroll)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2018, 09:17:26 AM
    So just taking fantastic50's work and removing the projected Pool A's...

    Safely In
    1. Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-2 vRRO, NE#1) 21% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 5-3
    2. Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 4-6 vRRO, NE#4) 0% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.583 / 4-6
    3. Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 6-3 vRRO, NE#2) 17% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.590 / 7-4
    4. Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.525, 3-3 vRRO, MA#2) 35% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.536 / 4-4
    5. Marietta (20-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.558, 4-4 vRRO, GL#4) 34% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.564 / 4-5
    6. Wooster (20-5, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.561, 6-2 vRRO, GL#2) 19% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.565 / 4-3
    7. Augustana (19-5, 11-4 CCIW, SOS 0.566, 4-3 vRRO, CE#3) 38% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.570 / 3-3
    8. New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 5-4 vRRO, AT#1) qtr 99% C
    9. York (Pa.) (21-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.524, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 26% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C
    10. Emory (19-4, 10-2 UAA, SOS 0.530, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.529 / 3-2
    11. St. Olaf (19-6, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.534, 3-3 vRRO, WE#3) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 85% C
    12. Whitworth (22-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.514, 2-3 vRRO, WE#5) 18% A, fin 72% C, semi 93% C
    13. UW-Oshkosh (19-6, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.548, 4-3 vRRO, CE#4) 10% A, fin 97% C, semi 77% C, qtr 39% C
    14. Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.522, 2-3 vRRO, MA#6) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 58% C

    At the Mercy of Bubble Burster Results (I usually set aside 7)
    15. Brockport (19-6, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, EA#4) 23% A, fin 93% C, semi 34% C
    16. Loras (19-6, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.541, 1-2 vRRO, WE#7) 26% A, fin 73% C, semi 28% C
    17. UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.604, 5-5 vRRO, CE#5) 15% A, fin 74% C, semi 27% C
    18. Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-5 vRRO, NE#8) 32% A, fin 81% C, semi 20% C
    19. Gwynedd Mercy (20-5, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.510, 3-3 vRRO, AT#5) 28% A, fin 68% C, semi 6% C
    20. Sul Ross State (19-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.510, 2-0 vRRO, SO#3) 31% A, fin 61% C, semi 18% C, qtr 8% C
    21. MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.526, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 36% A, fin 43% C, semi 9% C
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 18, 2018, 10:44:13 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2018, 09:17:26 AM
    So just taking fantastic50's work and removing the projected Pool A's...

    Safely In
    1. Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-2 vRRO, NE#1) 21% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 5-3
    2. Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 4-6 vRRO, NE#4) 0% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.583 / 4-6
    3. Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 6-3 vRRO, NE#2) 17% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.590 / 7-4
    4. Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.525, 3-3 vRRO, MA#2) 35% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.536 / 4-4
    5. Marietta (20-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.558, 4-4 vRRO, GL#4) 34% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.564 / 4-5
    6. Wooster (20-5, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.561, 6-2 vRRO, GL#2) 19% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.565 / 4-3
    7. Augustana (19-5, 11-4 CCIW, SOS 0.566, 4-3 vRRO, CE#3) 38% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.570 / 3-3
    8. New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 5-4 vRRO, AT#1) qtr 99% C
    9. York (Pa.) (21-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.524, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 26% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C
    10. Emory (19-4, 10-2 UAA, SOS 0.530, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.529 / 3-2
    11. St. Olaf (19-6, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.534, 3-3 vRRO, WE#3) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 85% C
    12. Whitworth (22-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.514, 2-3 vRRO, WE#5) 18% A, fin 72% C, semi 93% C
    13. UW-Oshkosh (19-6, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.548, 4-3 vRRO, CE#4) 10% A, fin 97% C, semi 77% C, qtr 39% C
    14. Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.522, 2-3 vRRO, MA#6) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 58% C

    At the Mercy of Bubble Burster Results (I usually set aside 7)
    15. Brockport (19-6, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, EA#4) 23% A, fin 93% C, semi 34% C
    16. Loras (19-6, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.541, 1-2 vRRO, WE#7) 26% A, fin 73% C, semi 28% C
    17. UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.604, 5-5 vRRO, CE#5) 15% A, fin 74% C, semi 27% C
    18. Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-5 vRRO, NE#8) 32% A, fin 81% C, semi 20% C
    19. Gwynedd Mercy (20-5, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.510, 3-3 vRRO, AT#5) 28% A, fin 68% C, semi 6% C
    20. Sul Ross State (19-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.510, 2-0 vRRO, SO#3) 31% A, fin 61% C, semi 18% C, qtr 8% C
    21. MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.526, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 36% A, fin 43% C, semi 9% C

    Hey guys, hate to show my ignorance, but can you explain the "%A, fin % C, semi % C"?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 18, 2018, 11:07:37 AM
    Quote from: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 18, 2018, 10:44:13 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2018, 09:17:26 AM
    So just taking fantastic50's work and removing the projected Pool A's...

    Safely In
    1. Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-2 vRRO, NE#1) 21% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 5-3
    2. Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 4-6 vRRO, NE#4) 0% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.583 / 4-6
    3. Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 6-3 vRRO, NE#2) 17% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.590 / 7-4
    4. Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.525, 3-3 vRRO, MA#2) 35% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.536 / 4-4
    5. Marietta (20-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.558, 4-4 vRRO, GL#4) 34% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.564 / 4-5
    6. Wooster (20-5, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.561, 6-2 vRRO, GL#2) 19% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.565 / 4-3
    7. Augustana (19-5, 11-4 CCIW, SOS 0.566, 4-3 vRRO, CE#3) 38% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.570 / 3-3
    8. New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 5-4 vRRO, AT#1) qtr 99% C
    9. York (Pa.) (21-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.524, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 26% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C
    10. Emory (19-4, 10-2 UAA, SOS 0.530, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.529 / 3-2
    11. St. Olaf (19-6, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.534, 3-3 vRRO, WE#3) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 85% C
    12. Whitworth (22-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.514, 2-3 vRRO, WE#5) 18% A, fin 72% C, semi 93% C
    13. UW-Oshkosh (19-6, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.548, 4-3 vRRO, CE#4) 10% A, fin 97% C, semi 77% C, qtr 39% C
    14. Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.522, 2-3 vRRO, MA#6) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 58% C

    At the Mercy of Bubble Burster Results (I usually set aside 7)
    15. Brockport (19-6, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, EA#4) 23% A, fin 93% C, semi 34% C
    16. Loras (19-6, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.541, 1-2 vRRO, WE#7) 26% A, fin 73% C, semi 28% C
    17. UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.604, 5-5 vRRO, CE#5) 15% A, fin 74% C, semi 27% C
    18. Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-5 vRRO, NE#8) 32% A, fin 81% C, semi 20% C
    19. Gwynedd Mercy (20-5, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.510, 3-3 vRRO, AT#5) 28% A, fin 68% C, semi 6% C
    20. Sul Ross State (19-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.510, 2-0 vRRO, SO#3) 31% A, fin 61% C, semi 18% C, qtr 8% C
    21. MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.526, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 36% A, fin 43% C, semi 9% C

    Hey guys, hate to show my ignorance, but can you explain the "%A, fin % C, semi % C"?

    Pool A means you qualified for the tournament through the conferences automatic qualifying (AQ) bid (winning the post season tournament in all cases besides UAA, which has the regular sesaon champion recieve the AQ).

    All teams that are in a conference and they did not win their conference AQ get placed in Pool C. These teams will be hoping their resume is good enough for an "At Large" selection

    There are some teams in a Pool B, but since the pool is not large enough this year (has to be at least 10?) these teams do not receive a bid on the mens side. Womens hoops has a pool B bid this year, and it is actually an exciting race in a unique way
    http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=2916.0

    So regarding the percentages, it is the percent chance fan50 gives for a team to make the tournament given each scenario.

    So %A is the percent chance they win their conference tournament, and gains entrance to the NCAA tourney that way.

    fin %C is assumes that the team gets all the way to the finals of the conference tournament but lose, putting them into 'pool C.' The percent than refers to the chance they will receive one of the 21 at large bids, given what their resume would look like if this scenario would happen.

    Semi %C assumes that the team loses in the semi-final of the conference tourney, putting them into pool C. The percent is gong to be less than "fin %C" primarily because you will have one less win. Secondarily, if you make it to the conference final, you are playing a really good team usually which will increase your SOS and possibly be a result versus a ranked opponent, both of which will also help your resume.

    Hope that helps!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 18, 2018, 12:07:01 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 18, 2018, 11:07:37 AM
    Quote from: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 18, 2018, 10:44:13 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2018, 09:17:26 AM
    So just taking fantastic50's work and removing the projected Pool A's...

    Safely In
    1. Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-2 vRRO, NE#1) 21% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 5-3
    2. Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 4-6 vRRO, NE#4) 0% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.583 / 4-6
    3. Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 6-3 vRRO, NE#2) 17% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.590 / 7-4
    4. Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.525, 3-3 vRRO, MA#2) 35% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.536 / 4-4
    5. Marietta (20-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.558, 4-4 vRRO, GL#4) 34% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.564 / 4-5
    6. Wooster (20-5, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.561, 6-2 vRRO, GL#2) 19% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.565 / 4-3
    7. Augustana (19-5, 11-4 CCIW, SOS 0.566, 4-3 vRRO, CE#3) 38% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.570 / 3-3
    8. New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 5-4 vRRO, AT#1) qtr 99% C
    9. York (Pa.) (21-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.524, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 26% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C
    10. Emory (19-4, 10-2 UAA, SOS 0.530, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.529 / 3-2
    11. St. Olaf (19-6, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.534, 3-3 vRRO, WE#3) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 85% C
    12. Whitworth (22-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.514, 2-3 vRRO, WE#5) 18% A, fin 72% C, semi 93% C
    13. UW-Oshkosh (19-6, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.548, 4-3 vRRO, CE#4) 10% A, fin 97% C, semi 77% C, qtr 39% C
    14. Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.522, 2-3 vRRO, MA#6) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 58% C

    At the Mercy of Bubble Burster Results (I usually set aside 7)
    15. Brockport (19-6, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, EA#4) 23% A, fin 93% C, semi 34% C
    16. Loras (19-6, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.541, 1-2 vRRO, WE#7) 26% A, fin 73% C, semi 28% C
    17. UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.604, 5-5 vRRO, CE#5) 15% A, fin 74% C, semi 27% C
    18. Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-5 vRRO, NE#8) 32% A, fin 81% C, semi 20% C
    19. Gwynedd Mercy (20-5, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.510, 3-3 vRRO, AT#5) 28% A, fin 68% C, semi 6% C
    20. Sul Ross State (19-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.510, 2-0 vRRO, SO#3) 31% A, fin 61% C, semi 18% C, qtr 8% C
    21. MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.526, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 36% A, fin 43% C, semi 9% C

    Hey guys, hate to show my ignorance, but can you explain the "%A, fin % C, semi % C"?

    Pool A means you qualified for the tournament through the conferences automatic qualifying (AQ) bid (winning the post season tournament in all cases besides UAA, which has the regular sesaon champion recieve the AQ).

    All teams that are in a conference and they did not win their conference AQ get placed in Pool C. These teams will be hoping their resume is good enough for an "At Large" selection

    There are some teams in a Pool B, but since the pool is not large enough this year (has to be at least 10?) these teams do not receive a bid on the mens side. Womens hoops has a pool B bid this year, and it is actually an exciting race in a unique way
    http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=2916.0

    So regarding the percentages, it is the percent chance fan50 gives for a team to make the tournament given each scenario.

    So %A is the percent chance they win their conference tournament, and gains entrance to the NCAA tourney that way.

    fin %C is assumes that the team gets all the way to the finals of the conference tournament but lose, putting them into 'pool C.' The percent than refers to the chance they will receive one of the 21 at large bids, given what their resume would look like if this scenario would happen.

    Semi %C assumes that the team loses in the semi-final of the conference tourney, putting them into pool C. The percent is gong to be less than "fin %C" primarily because you will have one less win. Secondarily, if you make it to the conference final, you are playing a really good team usually which will increase your SOS and possibly be a result versus a ranked opponent, both of which will also help your resume.

    Hope that helps!

    Really interesting and incredibly helpful, thank you so much for taking the time to explain!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 18, 2018, 12:52:15 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2018, 09:17:26 AM
    So just taking fantastic50's work and removing the projected Pool A's...

    Safely In
    1. Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-2 vRRO, NE#1) 21% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 5-3
    2. Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 4-6 vRRO, NE#4) 0% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.583 / 4-6
    3. Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 6-3 vRRO, NE#2) 17% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.590 / 7-4
    4. Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.525, 3-3 vRRO, MA#2) 35% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.536 / 4-4
    5. Marietta (20-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.558, 4-4 vRRO, GL#4) 34% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.564 / 4-5
    6. Wooster (20-5, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.561, 6-2 vRRO, GL#2) 19% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.565 / 4-3
    7. Augustana (19-5, 11-4 CCIW, SOS 0.566, 4-3 vRRO, CE#3) 38% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.570 / 3-3
    8. New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 5-4 vRRO, AT#1) qtr 99% C
    9. York (Pa.) (21-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.524, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 26% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C
    10. Emory (19-4, 10-2 UAA, SOS 0.530, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.529 / 3-2
    11. St. Olaf (19-6, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.534, 3-3 vRRO, WE#3) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 85% C
    12. Whitworth (22-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.514, 2-3 vRRO, WE#5) 18% A, fin 72% C, semi 93% C
    13. UW-Oshkosh (19-6, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.548, 4-3 vRRO, CE#4) 10% A, fin 97% C, semi 77% C, qtr 39% C
    14. Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.522, 2-3 vRRO, MA#6) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 58% C

    At the Mercy of Bubble Burster Results (I usually set aside 7)
    15. Brockport (19-6, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, EA#4) 23% A, fin 93% C, semi 34% C
    16. Loras (19-6, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.541, 1-2 vRRO, WE#7) 26% A, fin 73% C, semi 28% C
    17. UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.604, 5-5 vRRO, CE#5) 15% A, fin 74% C, semi 27% C
    18. Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-5 vRRO, NE#8) 32% A, fin 81% C, semi 20% C
    19. Gwynedd Mercy (20-5, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.510, 3-3 vRRO, AT#5) 28% A, fin 68% C, semi 6% C
    20. Sul Ross State (19-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.510, 2-0 vRRO, SO#3) 31% A, fin 61% C, semi 18% C, qtr 8% C
    21. MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.526, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 36% A, fin 43% C, semi 9% C

    Thanks!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: (509)Rat on February 18, 2018, 01:51:29 PM
    Seems like Whitworths fin % C and semi % C got entered in backwards
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2018, 02:44:01 PM
    I have taken a little closer look at this and here is where I see things...

    (There are 21 Pool C bids available this year.)

    Safely In
    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .880 (22-3)/.567/4-2
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .800 (20-5)/.583/6-3
    3. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .792 (19-5)/.587/6-4
    4. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .800 (20-5)/.561/6-2
    5. Marietta (GL/OAC): .800 (20-5)/.558/4-4
    6. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).583/4-6
    7. Augustana (CE/CCIW): .792 (19-5)/.566/4-3
    8. Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .840 (21-4)/.525/3-3
    9. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.568/5-4
    10. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC: .760 (19-6)/.548/4-3
    11. UW-Stevens Point (CE/WIAC): .680 (17-8)/.604/5-5
    12. York, Pa (MA/CAC): .840 (21-4)/.524/3-1
    13. Emory (SO/UAA): .826 (19-4)/.530/3-2
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .760 (19-6)/.534/3-3

    At the Mercy of Bubble Burster Results (I'd say we average 5 per year...I use 7 to be safe)
    15. Wheaton (CE/CCIW: .708 (17-7)/.549/4-2
    16. Baldwin Wallace (GL/OAC): .680 (17-8)/.546/4-5
    17. Brockport (EA/SUNYAC): .760 (19-6)/.530/3-3
    18. MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .800 (20-5)/.526/2-3
    19. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .800 (20-5)/.522/2-3
    20. Whitworth (WE/NWC): .800 (22-3)/.514/2-3
    21. Sul Ross State (SO/ASC): .826 (19-4)/.510/2-0

    In the Conversation for Spot #21/Generally In Trouble
    22. TCNJ (AT/NJAC): .760 (19-6)/.513/4-3
    23. Gwynedd Mercy (AT/CSAC): .800 (20-5)/.510/3-3
    24. Loras (WE/IIAC): .760 (19-6)/.541/1-2
    25. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.580/2-7
    26. Keene State (NE/LEC): .680 (17-8)/.570/2-5
    27. UW-River Falls (WE/WIAC): .667 (16-8)/.576/2-6

    Out
    28. Emory & Henry (SO/ODAC): .760 (19-6)/.513/3-3
    29. Maryville, TN (SO/USAC): .762 (16-5)/.521/1-2
    30. Ripon (CE/MWC): .739 (17-6)/.525/1-2
    31. Augsburg (WE/MIAC): .720 (18-7)/.524/2-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 18, 2018, 03:18:49 PM
    anybody want to attempt to show how the "non-conference" SOS might change anything?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 18, 2018, 03:21:17 PM
    Quote from: (509)Rat on February 18, 2018, 01:51:29 PM
    Seems like Whitworths fin % C and semi % C got entered in backwards

    The content is auto-generated, and there are no other cases like this, so I had to dig deeply to figure out what would cause such a strange result.  Here are Whitworth's projected lines...
    Lose semifinal: .846  WP /  .521 SOS  / 2.11-3.22 vRRO (93% Pool C)
    Lose final: .852 WP / .538 SOS / 1.65-3.25 vRRO (72% Pool C)

    I think what this means is that a Whitworth semifinal win over Puget Sound would knock out the Loggers out of the regional rankings, whereas a Whitworth loss in that round would keep Puget Sound ranked, giving Whitworth another win vs RRO, and that appears to matter more than the SOS & WP bump that go with reaching the final.  However, because any team regionally ranked in week 3 (through today's games, rankings to be released Wednesday) stays considered regionally ranked for vRRO purposes at the selections, Puget Sound falling out wouldn't cost Whitworth a win vRRO in reality.

    End result -- this is an error, but a complicated one to fix.  It will get resolved at least by the time that the NCAA releases the 3rd RRs on Wednesday.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2018, 03:21:35 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 18, 2018, 03:18:49 PM
    anybody want to attempt to show how the "non-conference" SOS might change anything?

    I think that gets tough. These predictions don't include the other primary stuff - which everyone admits. We would have to have conversations on that information first before you could start talking about the non-conference SOS. Ryan has seen signs where the non-conf SOS seems to be making a play. I have seen signs where I don't think it has gotten to that criteria.

    Secondary criteria is really tough to start hashing out when we don't really know if it would be used.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 18, 2018, 03:25:10 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2018, 08:52:20 AM
    Thanks, fantastic50! Great stuff.

    How does your A percentage work?  Wondering why, at this point, Augustana has a better A chance (38%) than IWU (34%).  What goes into that?

    Standings Through Feb 18
    Illinois Wesleyan 12-3  (vs North Central)
    Augustana 11-4  (vs Elmhurst)
    North Central 10-5  (at Illinois Wesleyan)
    Wheaton 10-5  (at Carroll)

    Pool A probability is based on simulations of any remaining regular season games, plus the conference tournament.  I have IWU a roughly 2-to-1 favorite to get the top seed, but my predictive ratings have Augustana about two points stronger (and ranked #9 vs #13 for the Titans).  That combination is enough to make Augie a slight favorite to win the CCIW tournament, for now, but I think it will flip if the Titans lock up the #1 seed.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2018, 03:30:52 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 18, 2018, 03:25:10 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2018, 08:52:20 AM
    Thanks, fantastic50! Great stuff.

    How does your A percentage work?  Wondering why, at this point, Augustana has a better A chance (38%) than IWU (34%).  What goes into that?

    Standings Through Feb 18
    Illinois Wesleyan 12-3  (vs North Central)
    Augustana 11-4  (vs Elmhurst)
    North Central 10-5  (at Illinois Wesleyan)
    Wheaton 10-5  (at Carroll)

    Pool A probability is based on simulations of any remaining regular season games, plus the conference tournament.  I have IWU a roughly 2-to-1 favorite to get the top seed, but my predictive ratings have Augustana about two points stronger (and ranked #9 vs #13 for the Titans).  That combination is enough to make Augie a slight favorite to win the CCIW tournament, for now, but I think it will flip if the Titans lock up the #1 seed.

    Makes sense.

    Honestly it's a coin flip either way.  IWU and Augustana are basically dead even teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 18, 2018, 03:33:36 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2018, 03:21:35 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 18, 2018, 03:18:49 PM
    anybody want to attempt to show how the "non-conference" SOS might change anything?

    I think that gets tough. These predictions don't include the other primary stuff - which everyone admits. We would have to have conversations on that information first before you could start talking about the non-conference SOS. Ryan has seen signs where the non-conf SOS seems to be making a play. I have seen signs where I don't think it has gotten to that criteria.

    Secondary criteria is really tough to start hashing out when we don't really know if it would be used.

    Because it's just a number, it's easier to factor in ncSOS than it is to include head-to-head, etc.  I am hedging a bit on whether/how it might be considered by feeding into the selection model, but weighting it anywhere from not at all up to 20% as important as overall SOS, with that weight randomly chosen in each of simulations.

    I could imagine it might help Keene State (SOS .570, ncSOS .640).  On the other hand, it might hurt UW-Oshkosh (SOS .548, ncSOS .474) and Amherst (SOS .567, ncSOS .478), and outright sink Nebraska Wesleyan (SOS .500, ncSOS .399).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2018, 05:36:27 PM
    The final week of the 2017-18 season is upon us. In a week's time, the topic will be who has punched their tickets to the NCAA tournaments and who is hoping to get selected. This week... we don't know many of the answers and some questions have yet to be considered.

    url=http://www.d3hoopsville.com]Hoopsville[/url] returns to the air LIVE this Sunday night with a jam-packed, and super-sized, edition. Dave welcomes guests from around the country and looks at a lot of the conference tournaments which are getting underway. Can some of the top teams take advantage of home-court advantage? Who may surprise? Who do some NOT want to see lose if they hope to make the tournament themselves?

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show LIVE starting at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2EyN7G9

    If you have questions, be sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or interact with the show via the social media avenues located to the right.

    Guests include (in order of appearance):
    - Tom Glynn, Nichols men's coach
    - Anne Crutchfield, Emory & Henry women's coach
    - Kevin Broderick, Nazareth men's coach
    - Zach Otto-Fisher, UW-Superior interim women's coach
    - Jon Prevo, No. 24 Rose-Hulman women's coach
    - Brendan Gulick, Baldwin Wallace broadcaster (Great Lakes recap)
    - Ryan Scott, "Top 25 Double-take"

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts instead, you can get access to them or subscribe one of the three following ways (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D4d99w%2Fxi30otvz7gow1bon.jpg&hash=e9669b02c4d9e5d090b49c897acada4a3f2fd336)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 08:42:03 AM
    Do we know whether non-conference games against conference opponents will count toward a team's non-conference strength-of-schedule?  For example, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan each play one another home-and-home, but only three of those six games count toward the NESCAC standings.  My working assumption is that such games would not be considered for ncSOS, but that's just a guess.  Dave or Pat, any word from the committee on this?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 20, 2018, 09:02:08 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 08:42:03 AM
    Do we know whether non-conference games against conference opponents will count toward a team's non-conference strength-of-schedule?  For example, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan each play one another home-and-home, but only three of those six games count toward the NESCAC standings.  My working assumption is that such games would not be considered for ncSOS, but that's just a guess.  Dave or Pat, any word from the committee on this?

    Aha, you've found the real advantage that the NESCAC schools have over the rest of us in tourney selection.  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 09:31:17 AM
    If those games count as non-conference, I would think they count in the ncSOS. A few years ago (could be 10 or more), Stevens Point played a rare non-conference game against Oshkosh and then played them twice in conference and then again in the WIAC tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Oline89 on February 20, 2018, 10:04:08 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 08:42:03 AM
    Do we know whether non-conference games against conference opponents will count toward a team's non-conference strength-of-schedule?  For example, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan each play one another home-and-home, but only three of those six games count toward the NESCAC standings.  My working assumption is that such games would not be considered for ncSOS, but that's just a guess.  Dave or Pat, any word from the committee on this?

    How exactly does a conference opponent qualify as a non-conference game?  Sorry for my ignorance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2018, 10:27:02 AM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:04:08 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 08:42:03 AM
    Do we know whether non-conference games against conference opponents will count toward a team's non-conference strength-of-schedule?  For example, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan each play one another home-and-home, but only three of those six games count toward the NESCAC standings.  My working assumption is that such games would not be considered for ncSOS, but that's just a guess.  Dave or Pat, any word from the committee on this?

    How exactly does a conference opponent qualify as a non-conference game?  Sorry for my ignorance.
    I assume by mutual consent of the 2 teams with notification of/approval by/acknowledgment from the conference office depending upon conference bylaws. It happens not infrequently in the "island" areas of D3 (ASC, NWC and maybe the SCIAC) and occasionally in the WIAC for football.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Oline89 on February 20, 2018, 10:36:52 AM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2018, 10:27:02 AM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:04:08 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 08:42:03 AM
    Do we know whether non-conference games against conference opponents will count toward a team's non-conference strength-of-schedule?  For example, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan each play one another home-and-home, but only three of those six games count toward the NESCAC standings.  My working assumption is that such games would not be considered for ncSOS, but that's just a guess.  Dave or Pat, any word from the committee on this?

    How exactly does a conference opponent qualify as a non-conference game?  Sorry for my ignorance.
    I assume by mutual consent of the 2 teams with notification of/approval by/acknowledgment from the conference office depending upon conference bylaws. It happens not infrequently in the "island" areas of D3 (ASC, NWC and maybe the SCIAC) and occasionally in the WIAC for football.

    This sounds like a scrimmage, hopefully these kind of games have no effect on rankings.  Really screwy, since I believe part of the RPI ranking takes into account home vs away wins.  Winning on the road is "worth" more, I believe.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2018, 10:43:09 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 09:31:17 AM
    If those games count as non-conference, I would think they count in the ncSOS. A few years ago (could be 10 or more), Stevens Point played a rare non-conference game against Oshkosh and then played them twice in conference and then again in the WIAC tournament.

    In 2007 Calvin and Hope played each other in a non-conference tournament, then twice in the regular season, then once in the MIAA tournament, then once in the NCAA Tournament. That was... not great.

    I believe I am correct in remembering that they played 9 times between the 2006 and 2007 seasons.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on February 20, 2018, 10:51:21 AM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:36:52 AM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2018, 10:27:02 AM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:04:08 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 08:42:03 AM
    Do we know whether non-conference games against conference opponents will count toward a team's non-conference strength-of-schedule?  For example, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan each play one another home-and-home, but only three of those six games count toward the NESCAC standings.  My working assumption is that such games would not be considered for ncSOS, but that's just a guess.  Dave or Pat, any word from the committee on this?

    How exactly does a conference opponent qualify as a non-conference game?  Sorry for my ignorance.
    I assume by mutual consent of the 2 teams with notification of/approval by/acknowledgment from the conference office depending upon conference bylaws. It happens not infrequently in the "island" areas of D3 (ASC, NWC and maybe the SCIAC) and occasionally in the WIAC for football.

    This sounds like a scrimmage, hopefully these kind of games have no effect on rankings.  Really screwy, since I believe part of the RPI ranking takes into account home vs away wins. Winning on the road is "worth" more, I believe.

    RPI has no bearing on NCAA Tournament selection or regional rankings. The home/road difference does get weighted in SOS, but not based on results.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 20, 2018, 11:14:27 AM
    Quote from: lmitzel on February 20, 2018, 10:51:21 AM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:36:52 AM
    This sounds like a scrimmage, hopefully these kind of games have no effect on rankings.  Really screwy, since I believe part of the RPI ranking takes into account home vs away wins. Winning on the road is "worth" more, I believe.

    RPI has no bearing on NCAA Tournament selection or regional rankings. The home/road difference does get weighted in SOS, but not based on results.
    The broken home/road multiplier can really give the NESCAC a boost when their Pool C contenders play Connecticut College at home.  The little 3 would get a double boost when they play a road non-conference game against one another.  Triple boost if those games are included in the non-conference SOS criteria.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2018, 12:33:09 PM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:36:52 AM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2018, 10:27:02 AM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:04:08 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 08:42:03 AM
    Do we know whether non-conference games against conference opponents will count toward a team's non-conference strength-of-schedule?  For example, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan each play one another home-and-home, but only three of those six games count toward the NESCAC standings.  My working assumption is that such games would not be considered for ncSOS, but that's just a guess.  Dave or Pat, any word from the committee on this?

    How exactly does a conference opponent qualify as a non-conference game?  Sorry for my ignorance.
    I assume by mutual consent of the 2 teams with notification of/approval by/acknowledgment from the conference office depending upon conference bylaws. It happens not infrequently in the "island" areas of D3 (ASC, NWC and maybe the SCIAC) and occasionally in the WIAC for football.

    This sounds like a scrimmage, hopefully these kind of games have no effect on rankings.  Really screwy, since I believe part of the RPI ranking takes into account home vs away wins.  Winning on the road is "worth" more, I believe.
    Respectfully, I went to the WIAC football site and randomly clicked on a team's schedule for the season and found this. UWEC played UWRF twice in 2011. The first game was "non-conference".

    http://www.d3football.com/teams/UW-Eau_Claire/2011/index
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 01:14:33 PM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:36:52 AM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2018, 10:27:02 AM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:04:08 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 08:42:03 AM
    Do we know whether non-conference games against conference opponents will count toward a team's non-conference strength-of-schedule?  For example, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan each play one another home-and-home, but only three of those six games count toward the NESCAC standings.  My working assumption is that such games would not be considered for ncSOS, but that's just a guess.  Dave or Pat, any word from the committee on this?

    How exactly does a conference opponent qualify as a non-conference game?  Sorry for my ignorance.
    I assume by mutual consent of the 2 teams with notification of/approval by/acknowledgment from the conference office depending upon conference bylaws. It happens not infrequently in the "island" areas of D3 (ASC, NWC and maybe the SCIAC) and occasionally in the WIAC for football.

    This sounds like a scrimmage, hopefully these kind of games have no effect on rankings.  Really screwy, since I believe part of the RPI ranking takes into account home vs away wins.  Winning on the road is "worth" more, I believe.

    I don't understand why you think that sounds like a scrimmage. Especially in football, it's hard to schedule games. And, not to sound arrogant, WIAC teams find it difficult to find opponents, so they have no choice but to schedule a conference opponent as a non-conference game. It's not ideal, but it's better than playing a non D3 team or not playing at all. The conference schedule is the conference schedule, I'm not even sure schools would need permission from the conference to schedule a conference opponent as a non-conference game. Back in my non-basketball playing days, we actually scheduled a conference opponent as a non-conference game and there was confusion on which game counted as a conference game. This was important because we won one and tied one and it effected who won the conference title.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2018, 01:45:58 PM
    While the NESCAC teams mentioned are conference opponents, the conference schedule has them only play once. Thus as I am to believe, their second games against fellow conference mates are considered non-conference games and should be considered part of the non-conf SOS. For those curious, this would apply to the Amherst, Wesleyan, Williams group and the Bates, Bowdoin, Colby group.

    I can certainly check, but I do not see why non-conference games against conference opponents should be excluded from that measurement. They choose to play those teams a second time in non-conference play.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on February 20, 2018, 02:00:25 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2018, 12:33:09 PM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:36:52 AM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2018, 10:27:02 AM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:04:08 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 08:42:03 AM
    Do we know whether non-conference games against conference opponents will count toward a team's non-conference strength-of-schedule?  For example, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan each play one another home-and-home, but only three of those six games count toward the NESCAC standings.  My working assumption is that such games would not be considered for ncSOS, but that's just a guess.  Dave or Pat, any word from the committee on this?

    How exactly does a conference opponent qualify as a non-conference game?  Sorry for my ignorance.
    I assume by mutual consent of the 2 teams with notification of/approval by/acknowledgment from the conference office depending upon conference bylaws. It happens not infrequently in the "island" areas of D3 (ASC, NWC and maybe the SCIAC) and occasionally in the WIAC for football.

    This sounds like a scrimmage, hopefully these kind of games have no effect on rankings.  Really screwy, since I believe part of the RPI ranking takes into account home vs away wins.  Winning on the road is "worth" more, I believe.
    Respectfully, I went to the WIAC football site and randomly clicked on a team's schedule for the season and found this. UWEC played UWRF twice in 2011. The first game was "non-conference".

    http://www.d3football.com/teams/UW-Eau_Claire/2011/index

    The WIAC did that for cost reasons... because scheduling was so difficult, they were having to travel really far.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 03:45:45 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2018, 01:45:58 PM
    While the NESCAC teams mentioned are conference opponents, the conference schedule has them only play once. Thus as I am to believe, their second games against fellow conference mates are considered non-conference games and should be considered part of the non-conf SOS. For those curious, this would apply to the Amherst, Wesleyan, Williams group and the Bates, Bowdoin, Colby group.

    I can certainly check, but I do not see why non-conference games against conference opponents should be excluded from that measurement. They choose to play those teams a second time in non-conference play.

    Just curious. Does it have to be the 2nd game as the non-conference game? Would there be any kind of advantage if Amherst and Williams played their non-conference game 1st? I haven't looked at the schedule closely, but if the conference game is a home game for Amherst, would the non-conference game automatically be an away game for them?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 20, 2018, 03:52:51 PM
    Amherst, Wesleyan, and Williams always play one home and one away game, with one being a league game, one being a non-league game.  Same for Bowdoin, Colby and Bates.

    Wesleyan and Williams always (I believe, at least in recent memory) play one non-league game in the first semester, and that game regardless of who hosts will always be the non-league game.  Whenever a CBB game is played in the first semester, that game, likewise, will be considered the non-league game.

    I do not believe that for Williams-Amherst or Wesleyan-Amherst, however, the order is always the same.  For example this year, the second Williams-Amherst game counted in the league standings, but the first Wesleyan-Amherst game counted in the league standings.  There may be some pattern (e.g., the game that "counts" alternates between host schools from year-to-year) to all of this, but none that I can recall offhand.  I am pretty sure that the league and the schools would want to make it fair so that each Little Three and CBB school, over a period of years, gets an equal number of home and away games that "count" against each opponent.  There is no way for example that Amherst would always be playing at home vs. Williams in the conference game. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: John Gleich on February 20, 2018, 04:53:41 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 09:31:17 AM
    If those games count as non-conference, I would think they count in the ncSOS. A few years ago (could be 10 or more), Stevens Point played a rare non-conference game against Oshkosh and then played them twice in conference and then again in the WIAC tournament.

    2003-04

    https://static.wiacsports.com/custompages/mbasket/Results/200304MenBasketballStandingResult.htm

    Mon
    12/22/03
    UW-Stevens Point 63, UW-Oshkosh 55 (non-conf)
    Las Vegas, NV

    Wed
    1/21/04
    UW-Stevens Point 68, UW-Oshkosh 53 (conf)
    Stevens Point

    Tue
    2/17/04
    UW-Stevens Point 63, UW-Oshkosh 61 (conf)
    Oshkosh

    Thur
    2/24/04
    UW-Stevens Point 70, UW-Oshkosh 59 (conf tournament)
    Stevens Point

    The conference tournament game was game 2 in a 9-game winning streak that won the first National Title.


    Ironically, we lost to Superior (the 7 seed) at home during the final conference game of the year which broke a string of 4 straight WIAC titles (Rich Melzer-led River Falls won the title and broke a 50+ year conference title drought). And Stevens Point just lost to Eau Claire (the 7 seed) during the final conference game of the year...  ;) ;) ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2018, 05:17:35 PM
    Hope and Calvin used to play each other in the local Grand Rapids tournament all the time. In fact, in 2007 the two rivals played each other five times: once in the Grand Rapids tournament, twice in regular-season play, once in the MIAA tourney, and then again in the D3 tourney.

    I think that the year before they had played each other four times, which meant that they had faced each other nine times in the space of two seasons.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2018, 08:45:59 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2018, 05:17:35 PM
    Hope and Calvin used to play each other in the local Grand Rapids tournament all the time. In fact, in 2007 the two rivals played each other five times: once in the Grand Rapids tournament, twice in regular-season play, once in the MIAA tourney, and then again in the D3 tourney.

    I think that the year before they had played each other four times, which meant that they had faced each other nine times in the space of two seasons.
    Calvin's 2007 schedule:

    11/25   vs. Hope •   Final   L, 76-54 (Pre-conference)
    1/13   vs. Hope * •   Final   L, 65-62
    2/7   at Hope * •   Final   W, 77-71
    2/24   at Hope •   Final   W, 78-76  MIAA Tourney
    3/3   at Hope   Final   L, 80-64  NCAA
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 09:59:20 PM
    Not a whole lot of bubble games tonight. Keene State and Nichols both get through must-win games. Illinois Wesleyan loses their regular-season finale to North Central, and looks a lot less safe now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 10:32:51 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 09:59:20 PM
    Not a whole lot of bubble games tonight. Keene State and Nichols both get through must-win games. Illinois Wesleyan loses their regular-season finale to North Central, and looks a lot less safe now.

    IWU and NCC battle again on Friday in the conference semis. If IWU loses, they're out. If NCC wins again, they may jump in at the end of the Regional Rankings next week.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 20, 2018, 10:39:25 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 10:32:51 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 09:59:20 PM
    Not a whole lot of bubble games tonight. Keene State and Nichols both get through must-win games. Illinois Wesleyan loses their regular-season finale to North Central, and looks a lot less safe now.

    IWU and NCC battle again on Friday in the conference semis. If IWU loses, they're out. If NCC wins again, they may jump in at the end of the Regional Rankings next week.

    There is no next week, Greek.  Just tomorrow's regional ranking, and then Selection Sunday.

    I believe North Central will jump into the Central rankings tomorrow.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 20, 2018, 10:40:16 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2018, 05:17:35 PM
    Hope and Calvin used to play each other in the local Grand Rapids tournament all the time. In fact, in 2007 the two rivals played each other five times: once in the Grand Rapids tournament, twice in regular-season play, once in the MIAA tourney, and then again in the D3 tourney.

    I think that the year before they had played each other four times, which meant that they had faced each other nine times in the space of two seasons.

    If that was hockey, there'd be some shenanigans. Misconducts abounding and all....
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toad22 on February 20, 2018, 10:51:33 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on February 20, 2018, 10:40:16 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2018, 05:17:35 PM
    Hope and Calvin used to play each other in the local Grand Rapids tournament all the time. In fact, in 2007 the two rivals played each other five times: once in the Grand Rapids tournament, twice in regular-season play, once in the MIAA tourney, and then again in the D3 tourney.

    I think that the year before they had played each other four times, which meant that they had faced each other nine times in the space of two seasons.

    If that was hockey, there'd be some shenanigans. Misconducts abounding and all....

    Williams and Amherst have never played each other 5 times in a season. 5 times is crazy by any measure. They have, however, played each other 4 times at least 4 times, the fourth time in the season being in the NCAA tournament semifinals twice. That is crazy enough.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 21, 2018, 12:44:54 AM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:36:52 AM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 20, 2018, 10:27:02 AM
    Quote from: Oline79 on February 20, 2018, 10:04:08 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 08:42:03 AM
    Do we know whether non-conference games against conference opponents will count toward a team's non-conference strength-of-schedule?  For example, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan each play one another home-and-home, but only three of those six games count toward the NESCAC standings.  My working assumption is that such games would not be considered for ncSOS, but that's just a guess.  Dave or Pat, any word from the committee on this?

    How exactly does a conference opponent qualify as a non-conference game?  Sorry for my ignorance.
    I assume by mutual consent of the 2 teams with notification of/approval by/acknowledgment from the conference office depending upon conference bylaws. It happens not infrequently in the "island" areas of D3 (ASC, NWC and maybe the SCIAC) and occasionally in the WIAC for football.

    This sounds like a scrimmage, hopefully these kind of games have no effect on rankings.  Really screwy, since I believe part of the RPI ranking takes into account home vs away wins.  Winning on the road is "worth" more, I believe.

    I am pretty certain that even if Amherst and Williams scrimmaged, it would not really be a scrimmage.

    I work with someone who played on the Amherst woman's team a couple of moons ago.  She mentioned to me a few weeks ago that the Amherst women had just beat Williams, so she was pretty jazzed.  I looked up how Amherst was doing this year, as I don't especially follow the woman's game, and discovered they were undefeated and ranked #1.  But that wasn't the headline, and in fact didn't merit a mention.  The headline was "we beat Williams".  And that more or less said everything that needs to be said about the rivalry.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 21, 2018, 10:03:43 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2018, 10:43:09 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 09:31:17 AM
    If those games count as non-conference, I would think they count in the ncSOS. A few years ago (could be 10 or more), Stevens Point played a rare non-conference game against Oshkosh and then played them twice in conference and then again in the WIAC tournament.

    In 2007 Calvin and Hope played each other in a non-conference tournament, then twice in the regular season, then once in the MIAA tournament, then once in the NCAA Tournament. That was... not great.

    I believe I am correct in remembering that they played 9 times between the 2006 and 2007 seasons.

    Oh, but we got to file into Aurora's Thorton Gymnasium for the season's 5th rivalry game. A smaller, not quite as nice, much further away gym than say... Caledonia High School :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 10:17:33 AM
    Just 5 days until selections!  Just a few teams whose Pool C status is in doubt are in action tonight.

    Locks & near-locks
    100% (A) UW-Platteville (20-3, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.574, 5-2 vRRO, CE#2) 68% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.579 / 6-3
    100% (C#1) Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 4-2 vRRO, NE#1) 22% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 6-3
    100% (A) Whitman (24-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.509, 6-0 vRRO, WE#1) 76% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.524 / 6-1
    100% (A) Williams (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.587, 6-4 vRRO, NE#3) 31% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.596 / 6-5
    100% (C#2) Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 6-3 vRRO, NE#2) 17% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.590 / 8-4
    100% (C#3) Wooster (21-5, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.559, 6-2 vRRO, GL#2) 16% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.565 / 7-3
    100% (A) Wittenberg (23-2, 16-2 NCAC, SOS 0.524, 5-2 vRRO, GL#1) 65% A, proj. 0.889 / 0.532 / 5-3
    100% (C#4) Marietta (21-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.557, 4-4 vRRO, GL#4) 36% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.568 / 6-5
    100% (A) Augustana (20-5, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.566, 4-3 vRRO, CE#3) 49% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.571 / 6-4
    100% (C#5) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.585, 4-6 vRRO, NE#4) 0% A
    100% (A) Eastern Connecticut (22-3, 13-1 LEC, SOS 0.530, 4-1 vRRO, NE#5) 71% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.536 / 4-2
    100% (A) Cabrini (22-3, 16-2 CSAC, SOS 0.530, 3-2 vRRO, AT#2) 53% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.538 / 3-3
    100% (C#6) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 5-4 vRRO, AT#1) 0% A
    100% (A) John Carroll (21-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.534, 5-2 vRRO, GL#3) 48% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.544 / 7-3
    100% (A) Swarthmore (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.528, 3-3 vRRO, MA#4) 42% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.538 / 4-4
    100% (C#7) Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.525, 3-3 vRRO, MA#2) 37% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.536 / 4-4
    99% (A) St. John's (22-2, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.518, 3-1 vRRO, WE#2) 62% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C
    99% (C#8) York (Pa.) (21-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.523, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 24% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C
    99% (A) Christopher Newport (20-5, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.534, 3-1 vRRO, MA#5) 52% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C
    99% (C#9) Whitworth (22-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.514, 2-3 vRRO, WE#5) 18% A, fin 100% C, semi 95% C

    Strong contenders
    98% (C#10) Emory (20-4, 11-2 UAA, SOS 0.523, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A
    92% (C#11) UW-Oshkosh (19-6, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.548, 4-3 vRRO, CE#4) 11% A, fin 100% C, semi 97% C, qtr 69% C
    91% (A) Albright (19-5, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.542, 3-1 vRRO, MA#3) 54% A, fin 99% C, semi 84% C
    89% (C#12) St. Olaf (19-6, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.535, 3-3 vRRO, WE#3) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 81% C
    82% (A) Plattsburgh State (20-4, 17-1 SUNYAC, SOS 0.520, 3-3 vRRO, EA#2) 61% A, fin 98% C, semi 64% C

    Bubble-in
    79% (A) Hobart (21-4, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 69% A, fin 85% C, semi 70% C
    65% (C#13) UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.604, 5-5 vRRO, CE#5) 14% A, fin 84% C, semi 46% C
    65% (A) Ramapo (19-6, 15-3 NJAC, SOS 0.538, 3-5 vRRO, AT#3) 50% A, fin 99% C, semi 36% C
    62% (C#14) Illinois Wesleyan (19-6, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.547, 2-4 vRRO, CE#6) 18% A, fin 91% C, semi 48% C
    61% (A) Springfield (18-7, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.556, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 44% A, fin 84% C, semi 37% C
    59% (A) Randolph-Macon (18-7, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.549, 4-3 vRRO, SO#2) 39% A, fin 89% C, semi 58% C, qtr 11% C
    57% (C#15) Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.523, 2-3 vRRO, MA#6) 16% A, fin 99% C, semi 44% C

    Bubble-out
    47% (C#16) Gwynedd Mercy (20-5, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.512, 3-3 vRRO, AT#5) 25% A, fin 89% C, semi 3% C
    42% (C#17) Loras (19-6, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.542, 1-2 vRRO, WE#7) 29% A, fin 55% C, semi 5% C
    41% (A) Salem State (22-3, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.509, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 73% A, fin 53% C, semi 27% C
    41% (C#18) Brockport (19-6, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, EA#4) 27% A, fin 61% C, semi 5% C
    40% (C#19) MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.528, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 34% A, fin 69% C, semi 13% C
    34% (C#20) Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.565, 4-5 vRRO, NE#8) 30% A, fin 71% C, semi 11% C
    34% (A) LeTourneau (22-3, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.498, 1-3 vRRO, SO) 33% A, fin 69% C, semi 17% C, qtr 1% C
    32% (C#21) Sul Ross State (19-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.510, 2-0 vRRO, SO#3) 31% A, fin 82% C, semi 16% C, qtr 4% C
    29% (A) Maryville (Tenn.) (18-5, 14-2 USAC, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, SO#5) 51% A, fin 58% C, semi 19% C, qtr 7% C
    22% (C#22) Keene State (18-8, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.563, 2-5 vRRO, NE#7) 20% A, fin 34% C, semi 3% C

    Fringe contenders
    18% (C#23) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.581, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A
    15% (A) Nichols (23-3, 16-2 CCC, SOS 0.509, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 59% A, fin 24% C, semi 7% C
    8% (C#24) Ripon (17-6, 14-4 MWC, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, CE) 31% A, fin 18% C, semi 3% C
    6% (C#25) North Central (Ill.) (17-7, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.545, 3-4 vRRO, CE) 25% A, fin 15% C

    Longshots
    4% (C#26) Baldwin Wallace (18-8, 11-7 OAC, SOS 0.545, 4-5 vRRO, GL#6) 7% A, fin 22% C
    3% (C#27) Methodist (17-5, 12-4 USAC, SOS 0.515, 1-1 vRRO, SO#7) 19% A, fin 6% C
    3% (C#28) Augsburg (18-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.526, 2-3 vRRO, WE#6) 7% A, fin 20% C
    2% (A) Nebraska Wesleyan (21-3, 13-3 IIAC, SOS 0.500, 1-1 vRRO, WE#4) 59% A, fin 2% C, semi 2% C
    1% (C#29) UW-River Falls (16-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.576, 2-6 vRRO, CE#8) 4% A, fin 15% C
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2018, 10:38:39 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 20, 2018, 10:39:25 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 10:32:51 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 09:59:20 PM
    Not a whole lot of bubble games tonight. Keene State and Nichols both get through must-win games. Illinois Wesleyan loses their regular-season finale to North Central, and looks a lot less safe now.

    IWU and NCC battle again on Friday in the conference semis. If IWU loses, they're out. If NCC wins again, they may jump in at the end of the Regional Rankings next week.

    There is no next week, Greek.  Just tomorrow's regional ranking, and then Selection Sunday.

    I believe North Central will jump into the Central rankings tomorrow.

    Technically, there is another one though, just released after the brackets are announced? Also, are they moving the selection process back to Sunday or is it still Monday?

    I suppose NCC did beat Wheaton, who was regionally ranked, so they could get in, but they also lost last week as well. River Falls also went 1-1, losing to regionally ranked Platteville. I'm not sure any of those three, Wheaton, NCC and River Falls are good enough to get a Pool C bid no matter what happens this week.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2018, 11:09:36 AM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 21, 2018, 10:03:43 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2018, 10:43:09 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 09:31:17 AM
    If those games count as non-conference, I would think they count in the ncSOS. A few years ago (could be 10 or more), Stevens Point played a rare non-conference game against Oshkosh and then played them twice in conference and then again in the WIAC tournament.

    In 2007 Calvin and Hope played each other in a non-conference tournament, then twice in the regular season, then once in the MIAA tournament, then once in the NCAA Tournament. That was... not great.

    I believe I am correct in remembering that they played 9 times between the 2006 and 2007 seasons.

    Oh, but we got to file into Aurora's Thorton Gymnasium for the season's 5th rivalry game. A smaller, not quite as nice, much further away gym than say... Caledonia High School :)

    Hey, I had fun at that game. A bunch of us CCIW fans got together and claimed the seating section in Thornton in between the Hope and Calvin sections. We called ourselves "Switzerland". At the time we figured that it was the best chance most of us would ever have to witness a Rivalry game, although the best game of the weekend by far ended up being Calvin's 69-68 squeaker over the host Spartans.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2018, 11:54:46 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2018, 10:38:39 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 20, 2018, 10:39:25 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 10:32:51 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 20, 2018, 09:59:20 PM
    Not a whole lot of bubble games tonight. Keene State and Nichols both get through must-win games. Illinois Wesleyan loses their regular-season finale to North Central, and looks a lot less safe now.

    IWU and NCC battle again on Friday in the conference semis. If IWU loses, they're out. If NCC wins again, they may jump in at the end of the Regional Rankings next week.

    There is no next week, Greek.  Just tomorrow's regional ranking, and then Selection Sunday.

    I believe North Central will jump into the Central rankings tomorrow.

    Technically, there is another one though, just released after the brackets are announced? Also, are they moving the selection process back to Sunday or is it still Monday?

    The selection process has always been carried out on Sunday, but the announcement of the bracket has been on Mondays for quite some time now. That has not been moved. The thought of shifting it back to Sunday seems to have died down a bit probably because we no longer have Thursday games (costs of getting teams to their destination in enough time; less time more costs).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 21, 2018, 12:16:40 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2018, 11:09:36 AM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 21, 2018, 10:03:43 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2018, 10:43:09 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 09:31:17 AM
    If those games count as non-conference, I would think they count in the ncSOS. A few years ago (could be 10 or more), Stevens Point played a rare non-conference game against Oshkosh and then played them twice in conference and then again in the WIAC tournament.

    In 2007 Calvin and Hope played each other in a non-conference tournament, then twice in the regular season, then once in the MIAA tournament, then once in the NCAA Tournament. That was... not great.

    I believe I am correct in remembering that they played 9 times between the 2006 and 2007 seasons.

    Oh, but we got to file into Aurora's Thorton Gymnasium for the season's 5th rivalry game. A smaller, not quite as nice, much further away gym than say... Caledonia High School :)

    Hey, I had fun at that game. A bunch of us CCIW fans got together and claimed the seating section in Thornton in between the Hope and Calvin sections. We called ourselves "Switzerland". At the time we figured that it was the best chance most of us would ever have to witness a Rivalry game, although the best game of the weekend by far ended up being Calvin's 69-68 squeaker over the host Spartans.

    Over a 46 game stretch Hope played Calvin 9 times or 1 out of every 5 games.  For Calvin it was almost 1 out of every 4 games.

    It was too much.  That also came in the middle of a stretch of 11 years where Hope/Calvin also met in the MIAA tournament.  So 3 games per yer for 11 years, plus  two NCAA games and a holiday tournament game.

    Funny thing was the Holiday Tournament match-up had the possibility of happening something like 7 times in 11 years and never did.  Then it happened and everyone was like, "nah".

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 21, 2018, 12:53:53 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2018, 11:09:36 AM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 21, 2018, 10:03:43 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2018, 10:43:09 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2018, 09:31:17 AM
    If those games count as non-conference, I would think they count in the ncSOS. A few years ago (could be 10 or more), Stevens Point played a rare non-conference game against Oshkosh and then played them twice in conference and then again in the WIAC tournament.
    In 2007 Calvin and Hope played each other in a non-conference tournament, then twice in the regular season, then once in the MIAA tournament, then once in the NCAA Tournament. That was... not great.
    I believe I am correct in remembering that they played 9 times between the 2006 and 2007 seasons.
    Oh, but we got to file into Aurora's Thorton Gymnasium for the season's 5th rivalry game. A smaller, not quite as nice, much further away gym than say... Caledonia High School :)
    Hey, I had fun at that game. A bunch of us CCIW fans got together and claimed the seating section in Thornton in between the Hope and Calvin sections. We called ourselves "Switzerland". At the time we figured that it was the best chance most of us would ever have to witness a Rivalry game, although the best game of the weekend by far ended up being Calvin's 69-68 squeaker over the host Spartans.
    I was there for all three games. Us in the Dew Crew were really hoping Chad Trudo's desperation 3 would have fallen to pull off the come from behind win. And I remember talking a few "citizens" of Switzerland at half time of that game :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 21, 2018, 01:04:13 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2018, 11:09:36 AM
    Hey, I had fun at that game. A bunch of us CCIW fans got together and claimed the seating section in Thornton in between the Hope and Calvin sections. We called ourselves "Switzerland". At the time we figured that it was the best chance most of us would ever have to witness a Rivalry game, although the best game of the weekend by far ended up being Calvin's 69-68 squeaker over the host Spartans.

    This is where I post my annual appeal for you to write the book on the history of Division III basketball.  Maybe someday...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2018, 01:11:27 PM
    I don't really have too many memories of that Regional, but I made it down there for Friday's double-header. Point didn't play until Saturday, so I had a night available.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 21, 2018, 01:35:30 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2018, 01:11:27 PM
    I don't really have too many memories of that Regional, but I made it down there for Friday's double-header. Point didn't play until Saturday, so I had a night available.
    The following weekend I was at Point. Hope lost to Wash U, sadly, in what otherwise was a very good game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 21, 2018, 02:04:29 PM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 21, 2018, 01:35:30 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2018, 01:11:27 PM
    I don't really have too many memories of that Regional, but I made it down there for Friday's double-header. Point didn't play until Saturday, so I had a night available.
    The following weekend I was at Point. Hope lost to Wash U, sadly, in what otherwise was a very very good frustrating game.

    fixed it for you
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 21, 2018, 02:35:54 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 21, 2018, 02:04:29 PM
    Quote from: HOPEful on February 21, 2018, 01:35:30 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2018, 01:11:27 PM
    I don't really have too many memories of that Regional, but I made it down there for Friday's double-header. Point didn't play until Saturday, so I had a night available.
    The following weekend I was at Point. Hope lost to Wash U, sadly, in what otherwise was a very very good frustrating game.

    fixed it for you
    Thank you. Your version is indeed accurate. I can't decide if it was Van Solkema's 3 for 13 shooting, Vanderheide's 6 turnovers, or the whole team's inability to guard Sean Wallis that made the game so very very good
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2018, 02:37:47 PM
    The NCAA men's basketball regional advisory committees released their third set of rankings, and as expected, the Atlantic Region was among those getting shuffled. Here's the full list: http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-third

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D600%2Fmh%3D600%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D4ima3%2Fdinflo07zg1qa2ww.jpg&hash=686d8e036c15a7019bc8f4723e2af35008adc158)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2018, 02:51:28 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 21, 2018, 01:04:13 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2018, 11:09:36 AM
    Hey, I had fun at that game. A bunch of us CCIW fans got together and claimed the seating section in Thornton in between the Hope and Calvin sections. We called ourselves "Switzerland". At the time we figured that it was the best chance most of us would ever have to witness a Rivalry game, although the best game of the weekend by far ended up being Calvin's 69-68 squeaker over the host Spartans.

    This is where I post my annual appeal for you to write the book on the history of Division III basketball.  Maybe someday...

    The Calvin vs. Aurora nailbiter featured one of my all-time favorite players, Larry Welton of the Spartans. Not only was he a pretty amazing player -- he scored over 2,000 points, was a three-time d3hoops.com All-American, and is AU's second-leading scorer all-time -- but he was a pretty amazing guy as well. He was a cancer survivor who'd hardly ever received playing time for his high school team, and I think that AU's James Lancaster was probably the only coach in the Chicagoland area who'd given him the time of day. The first time I saw Welton play was two years before the Rivalry came to Thornton; I saw him in a game against the University of Chicago, when he was a freshman, and I was pretty impressed by him. I next saw him play in the Lee Pfund tournament, Wheaton's annual season-opening tourney, at the start of his sophomore season (November, 2005). Welton had a 30 and 11 performance in an Aurora win over McMurry on Friday night, and then, in the championship game on Saturday, he had 12 and 8 as Aurora edged host Wheaton by a point.

    It's pretty pro forma in the Pfund, as it is in most tourneys, to award the MVP of the tourney to the most outstanding player on the tourney's championship team. Before they gave the award to Welton, the Wheaton P.A. guy announced that the Pfund MVP award would hereafter be known as the Will Landry Memorial Award, named after a recent Wheaton player who had passed away two months earlier, and who had been known for how well he used to perform in the Pfund. When they announced Welton's name as the recipient of the award, he took it from Mr. and Mrs. Landry, who were on hand to present it, and carried it back to campus with him.

    As the Around the Nation article about the incident continued:

    When Welton got back to campus, he was puzzled by something. He didn't understand why he had been awarded the MVP when it was clear that he had been outplayed by Wheaton's Tony Bollier (who scored 56 points in the tournament's two games). Welton was told that the trophy always goes to a player from the winning team. Welton still felt strongly that Bollier was more worthy, and after learning that Bollier had played with Landry, Welton decided to do what he viewed as the right thing. He sent the trophy back to Wheaton, with a note saying that it truly belonged to Bollier this year.

    It was one of the best acts of sportsmanship I've heard about in D3.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-04-01/sports/0504010210_1_comeback-award-cancer-research-lymph-system
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2018, 02:55:56 PM
    That is awesome sportsmanship. Wow.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 03:01:50 PM
    Looking at the new regional rankings, my first impression is that the CCIW caught a big break, with all four tournament teams staying regionally-ranked.  This should help IWU (and perhaps North Central) on the bubble, because they will now have more wins vRRO to count in the final rankings, even if Wheaton falls out of the top 8.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 03:29:27 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 03:01:50 PM
    Looking at the new regional rankings, my first impression is that the CCIW caught a big break, with all four tournament teams staying regionally-ranked.  This should help IWU (and perhaps North Central) on the bubble, because they will now have more wins vRRO to count in the final rankings, even if Wheaton falls out of the top 8.

    Also, UW-O and UW-SP get hit hard by the WIAC losing their 4th regionally-ranked team.  However, Wartburg's inclusion in the West region top eight turns Nebraska Wesleyan (now 3-1 vRRO) into a potential Pool C candidate, despite an awful non-conference schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 03:30:50 PM
    Locks & near-locks
    100% (C#1) Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 6-2 vRRO, NE#1) 22% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 7-3
    100% (A) UW-Platteville (20-3, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.574, 4-1 vRRO, CE#2) 68% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.578 / 5-2
    100% (C#2) Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) 18% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.590 / 8-4
    100% (C#3) Williams (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.587, 6-4 vRRO, NE#4) 29% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.596 / 6-5
    100% (A) Whitman (24-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.509, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) 76% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.524 / 6-1
    100% (A) Augustana (20-5, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.566, 6-3 vRRO, CE#3) 49% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.571 / 7-4
    100% (A) Wittenberg (23-2, 16-2 NCAC, SOS 0.524, 5-1 vRRO, GL#1) 62% A, proj. 0.889 / 0.532 / 5-2
    100% (C#4) Wooster (21-5, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.559, 4-2 vRRO, GL#2) 19% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.566 / 5-3
    100% (C#5) Marietta (21-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.557, 4-4 vRRO, GL#4) 35% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.568 / 6-5
    100% (C#6) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.585, 4-6 vRRO, NE#5) 0% A
    100% (C#7) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 6-4 vRRO, AT#2) 0% A
    100% (A) Cabrini (22-3, 16-2 CSAC, SOS 0.530, 2-1 vRRO, AT#1) 53% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.538 / 3-3
    100% (A) John Carroll (21-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.534, 5-2 vRRO, GL#3) 49% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.544 / 7-3
    100% (C#8) Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.525, 4-3 vRRO, MA#4) 36% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.536 / 4-4
    100% (A) Swarthmore (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.528, 3-3 vRRO, MA#5) 42% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.538 / 4-4
    100% (A) Christopher Newport (20-5, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.534, 3-1 vRRO, MA#2) 52% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.543 / 5-2
    99% (A) Eastern Connecticut (22-3, 13-1 LEC, SOS 0.530, 4-1 vRRO, NE#3) 71% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.536 / 4-2
    99% (A) St. John's (22-2, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.518, 3-1 vRRO, WE#2) 62% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C
    99% (C#9) York (Pa.) (21-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.523, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 26% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C

    Strong contenders
    98% (C#10) Emory (20-4, 11-2 UAA, SOS 0.523, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A
    98% (C#11) Whitworth (22-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.514, 1-3 vRRO, WE#3) 18% A, fin 99% C, semi 95% C
    90% (A) Albright (19-5, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.542, 3-1 vRRO, MA#3) 53% A, fin 99% C, semi 82% C
    88% (C#12) St. Olaf (19-6, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.535, 3-2 vRRO, WE#4) 15% A, fin 99% C, semi 80% C
    80% (A) Plattsburgh State (20-4, 17-1 SUNYAC, SOS 0.520, 3-3 vRRO, EA#2) 60% A, fin 98% C, semi 60% C

    Bubble-in
    77% (C#13) Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.523, 3-3 vRRO, MA#6) 16% A, fin 100% C, semi 70% C
    76% (A) Hobart (21-4, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 69% A, fin 83% C, semi 66% C
    69% (C#14) Illinois Wesleyan (19-6, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.547, 3-5 vRRO, CE#6) 19% A, fin 100% C, semi 54% C
    67% (C#15) UW-Oshkosh (19-6, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.548, 2-3 vRRO, CE#4) 11% A, fin 100% C, semi 68% C, qtr 24% C
    62% (A) Ramapo (19-6, 15-3 NJAC, SOS 0.538, 4-5 vRRO, AT#3) 51% A, fin 99% C, semi 32% C
    62% (C#16) Loras (19-6, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.542, 2-3 vRRO, WE#7) 30% A, fin 79% C, semi 13% C
    60% (A) Springfield (18-7, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.556, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 43% A, fin 83% C, semi 35% C
    51% (C#17) UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.604, 3-6 vRRO, CE#5) 14% A, fin 75% C, semi 27% C
    51% (A) LeTourneau (22-3, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.498, 2-2 vRRO, SO#4) 33% A, fin 88% C, semi 41% C, qtr 4% C
    50% (A) Randolph-Macon (18-7, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.549, 3-3 vRRO, SO#2) 38% A, fin 85% C, semi 41% C, qtr 7% C

    Bubble-out
    47% (C#18) Gwynedd Mercy (20-5, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.512, 2-3 vRRO, AT#4) 25% A, fin 84% C, semi 6% C
    39% (A) Salem State (22-3, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.509, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 72% A, fin 53% C, semi 24% C
    39% (C#19) MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.528, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 34% A, fin 67% C, semi 13% C
    39% (C#20) Brockport (19-6, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, EA#3) 28% A, fin 57% C, semi 5% C
    33% (A) Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.565, 4-5 vRRO, NE#7) 31% A, fin 70% C, semi 11% C
    29% (A) Maryville (Tenn.) (18-5, 14-2 USAC, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, SO#6) 51% A, fin 64% C, semi 17% C, qtr 5% C
    23% (A) Nebraska Wesleyan (21-3, 13-3 IIAC, SOS 0.500, 3-1 vRRO, WE#5) 57% A, fin 46% C, semi 4% C
    23% (C#21) Sul Ross State (19-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.510, 1-1 vRRO, SO#3) 32% A, fin 64% C, semi 8% C, qtr 2% C
    21% (C#22) Keene State (18-8, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.563, 2-5 vRRO, NE#8) 21% A, fin 33% C, semi 2% C

    Fringe contenders
    19% (C#23) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.581, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A
    14% (A) Nichols (23-3, 16-2 CCC, SOS 0.509, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 61% A, fin 20% C, semi 8% C
    7% (C#24) Ripon (17-6, 14-4 MWC, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, CE) 30% A, fin 19% C, semi 2% C
    6% (C#25) Augsburg (18-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.526, 3-3 vRRO, WE#6) 7% A, fin 47% C
    5% (C#26) North Central (Ill.) (17-7, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.545, 3-4 vRRO, CE#7) 25% A, fin 13% C

    Longshots
    2% (C#27) Baldwin Wallace (18-8, 11-7 OAC, SOS 0.545, 3-5 vRRO, GL#6) 6% A, fin 10% C
    1% (C#28) UW-River Falls (16-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.576, 2-6 vRRO, CE) 4% A, fin 12% C
    1% (C#29) Methodist (17-5, 12-4 USAC, SOS 0.515, 0-1 vRRO, SO#8) 18% A, fin 3% C
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 06:39:38 PM
    Tonight's bubble games
    7:00 Ramapo vs Montclair St - Ramapo is in with a win, iffy with a loss (Won 80-76 in OT)
    8:00 UW-Oshkosh vs UW-LaCrosse - UW-O probably needs a win (Won 76-74)
    8:00 Albright vs Arcadia - Albright is in with a win (Won 58-45)
    8:00 Gwynedd Mercy vs Neumann - Must-win (and likely enough) for Mercy (Lost 102-85)
    8:00 Augsburg at St Thomas - Augsburg must win tonight & Friday to reach the bubble (Won 67-55)
    8:00 UW-River Falls vs UW-Whitewater - UW-RF likely needs the Pool A, but certainly must win tonight & Friday (Won 79-68)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2018, 09:57:23 PM
    Oshkosh and River Falls both won. Oshkosh heads to Point on Friday and River Falls heads to Platteville. I believe the winner of the Oshkosh/Point game will get a Pool C bid. River Falls needs the AQ.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 21, 2018, 10:57:56 PM
    Through Wednesday night's games...

    Confirmed Pool A teams
    Washington U. (22-2, 13-0 UAA, SOS 0.540, 7-2 vRRO, CE#1)

    Locks & near-locks
    100% (C#1) Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.568, 6-2 vRRO, NE#1) 22% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 7-3
    100% (A) UW-Platteville (20-3, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.573, 4-1 vRRO, CE#2) 68% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.579 / 5-2
    100% (C#2) Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.583, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) 18% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.590 / 8-4
    100% (C#3) Williams (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.587, 6-4 vRRO, NE#4) 30% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.596 / 6-5
    100% (A) Whitman (24-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.509, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) 76% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.524 / 4-1
    100% (A) Augustana (20-5, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.566, 6-3 vRRO, CE#3) 50% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.571 / 7-4
    100% (A) Wittenberg (23-2, 16-2 NCAC, SOS 0.524, 5-1 vRRO, GL#1) 64% A, proj. 0.889 / 0.532 / 5-2
    100% (C#4) Wooster (21-5, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.559, 4-2 vRRO, GL#2) 17% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.566 / 5-3
    100% (C#5) Marietta (21-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.557, 4-4 vRRO, GL#4) 38% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.567 / 6-5
    100% (A) Eastern Connecticut (22-3, 13-1 LEC, SOS 0.531, 4-1 vRRO, NE#3) 71% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.537 / 4-2
    100% (C#6) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.585, 4-6 vRRO, NE#5) 0% A
    100% (A) Cabrini (23-3, 16-2 CSAC, SOS 0.534, 2-1 vRRO, AT#1) 72% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.539 / 3-3
    100% (C#7) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 6-4 vRRO, AT#2) 0% A
    100% (A) St. John's (22-2, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.517, 3-1 vRRO, WE#2) 60% A, proj. 0.880 / 0.525 / 5-2
    100% (A) John Carroll (21-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.534, 5-2 vRRO, GL#3) 46% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.544 / 7-3
    100% (C#8) Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.525, 4-3 vRRO, MA#4) 35% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.536 / 4-4
    100% (A) Swarthmore (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.528, 3-3 vRRO, MA#5) 43% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.539 / 4-4
    100% (A) Christopher Newport (20-5, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.533, 3-1 vRRO, MA#2) 52% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.543 / 5-2
    99% (C#9) York (Pa.) (21-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.523, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 25% A, fin 100% C, semi 99% C

    Strong contenders
    98% (C#10) Whitworth (22-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.513, 1-3 vRRO, WE#3) 18% A, fin 99% C, semi 94% C
    97% (C#11) Emory (20-4, 11-2 UAA, SOS 0.523, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A
    96% (A) Ramapo (20-6, 16-3 NJAC, SOS 0.542, 5-5 vRRO, AT#3) 75% A, fin 96% C
    95% (A) Albright (20-5, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.541, 3-1 vRRO, MA#3) 71% A, fin 95% C
    94% (C#12) St. Olaf (19-6, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.536, 3-2 vRRO, WE#4) 14% A, fin 99% C, semi 90% C
    90% (C#13) Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.525, 3-3 vRRO, MA#6) 17% A, fin 100% C, semi 87% C
    84% (C#14) UW-Oshkosh (20-6, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.548, 2-3 vRRO, CE#4) 13% A, fin 100% C, semi 74% C
    82% (A) Plattsburgh State (20-4, 17-1 SUNYAC, SOS 0.520, 3-3 vRRO, EA#2) 60% A, fin 98% C, semi 62% C
    80% (A) Hobart (21-4, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 67% A, fin 85% C, semi 71% C

    Bubble-in
    72% (C#15) Illinois Wesleyan (19-6, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.547, 3-5 vRRO, CE#6) 18% A, fin 99% C, semi 58% C
    65% (C#16) Loras (19-6, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.543, 2-3 vRRO, WE#7) 30% A, fin 81% C, semi 22% C
    61% (A) Springfield (18-7, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.556, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 43% A, fin 85% C, semi 32% C
    54% (A) Randolph-Macon (18-7, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.551, 3-3 vRRO, SO#2) 39% A, fin 89% C, semi 49% C, qtr 11% C
    53% (C#17) UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.603, 3-6 vRRO, CE#5) 14% A, fin 79% C, semi 30% C
    53% (A) LeTourneau (22-3, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.498, 2-2 vRRO, SO#4) 35% A, fin 88% C, semi 43% C, qtr 4% C

    Bubble-out
    45% (C#18) Brockport (19-6, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.532, 3-3 vRRO, EA#3) 27% A, fin 65% C, semi 9% C
    44% (A) Salem State (22-3, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.510, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 73% A, fin 56% C, semi 31% C
    41% (C#19) MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.528, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 35% A, fin 65% C, semi 18% C
    39% (A) Maryville (Tenn.) (18-5, 14-2 USAC, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, SO#6) 53% A, fin 64% C, semi 21% C
    34% (A) Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.565, 4-5 vRRO, NE#7) 31% A, fin 72% C, semi 11% C
    32% (A) Nebraska Wesleyan (21-3, 13-3 IIAC, SOS 0.501, 3-1 vRRO, WE#5) 57% A, fin 58% C, semi 9% C
    25% (C#20) Sul Ross State (19-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.510, 1-1 vRRO, SO#3) 32% A, fin 68% C, semi 11% C, qtr 3% C
    22% (C#21) Keene State (18-8, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.563, 2-5 vRRO, NE#8) 21% A, fin 35% C, semi 3% C
    20% (C#22) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.582, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A

    Fringe contenders
    16% (A) Nichols (23-3, 16-2 CCC, SOS 0.509, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 60% A, fin 25% C, semi 8% C
    9% (C#23) Ripon (17-6, 14-4 MWC, SOS 0.526, 1-2 vRRO, CE) 31% A, fin 22% C, semi 3% C
    7% (C#24) Augsburg (19-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.527, 3-3 vRRO, WE#6) 10% A, fin 51% C, semi 1% C
    6% (C#25) North Central (Ill.) (17-7, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.545, 3-4 vRRO, CE#7) 24% A, fin 15% C
    6% (C#26) Gwynedd Mercy (20-6, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.518, 2-3 vRRO, AT#4) 0% A

    Longshots
    3% (C#27) Baldwin Wallace (18-8, 11-7 OAC, SOS 0.545, 3-5 vRRO, GL#6) 7% A, fin 14% C
    2% (C#28) UW-River Falls (17-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.578, 2-6 vRRO, CE) 6% A, fin 16% C
    1% (C#29) Methodist (17-5, 12-4 USAC, SOS 0.515, 0-1 vRRO, SO#8) 17% A, fin 2% C
    <1% (C#30) Emory and Henry (19-6, 11-5 ODAC, SOS 0.514, 2-2 vRRO, SO#5) 14% A, fin 2% C
    <1% (C#31) Texas-Dallas (18-6, 14-4 ASC, SOS 0.504, 1-2 vRRO, SO#7) 12% A, fin 2% C


    Thursday's key bubble games
    3:30 LeTourneau (must win) vs Howard Payne
    7:00 Nichols (needs win & help, or Pool A berth) vs Roger Williams
    7:00 Salem State (onto the bubble with a win) vs Fitchburg State
    7:30 Baldwin Wallace (must win and have help, or Pool A berth) at John Carroll
    8:00 Loras (almost must-win) vs Central
    8:00 Nebraska Wesleyan (almost must-win) vs Wartburg
    8:30 Sul Ross State (must win Thurs & Fri to reach the bubble) vs Texas-Tyler
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2018, 04:42:37 PM
    It is down to the final week of the regular season. It is now or never. Win the conference tournament, earn the automatic qualifier, and a team will be playing in March. Don't win it and either hold out hope for an at-large selection or the season is over.

    The season continues or ends on the bounce of a ball from here on out.

    So who may be in jeopardy and who is sitting pretty? On Thursday's edition of Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), we start to read the tea leaves while also chatting with teams who are hoping to punch their ticket for the Road to Salem or Rochester themselves. Plus, we get a preview of what could be a fascinating weekend of NESCAC tournament action at Amherst.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show LIVE starting at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2BIbiUe

    If you have questions, be sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or interact with the show via the social media avenues located to the right.

    Guests include (in order of appearance):
    - Steve Schulman, Lehman men's coach
    - Matt Ducharme, UMass-Dartmouth women's coach
    - Jamie Purdy, Piedmont women's coach
    - Grey Giovanine, No. 9 Augustana men's coach
    - Michele Durand, No. 24 Ohio Northern women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Howard Herman, Berkshire Eagle writer (NESCAC tournaments preview)

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts instead, you can get access to them or subscribe one of the three following ways (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D4kldv%2Fvwjyuttsqre06ce4.jpg&hash=8ecd83f889b8772896b1a7599820481753b9df0b)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2018, 10:46:05 PM
    My take through Wednesday night.  This does not account for any Thursday results...

    (There are 21 Pool C bids available this year.)

    Safely In
    1. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .800 (20-5)/.583/7-3
    2. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .880 (22-3)/.568/6-2
    3. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .792 (19-5)/.587/6-4
    4. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .808 (21-5)/.559/4-2
    5. Marietta (GL/OAC): .808 (21-5)/.557/4-4
    6. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).585/4-6
    7. Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .840 (21-4)/.525/4-3
    8. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.568/6-4
    9. York, Pa (MA/CAC): .840 (21-4)/.528/3-3
    10. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .769 (20-6)/.548/2-3
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .833 (20-4)/.523/3-2
    12. UW-Stevens Point (CE/WIAC): .680 (17-8)/.603/3-6
    13. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .760 (19-6)/.547/3-5
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .760 (19-6)/.536/3-2

    At the Mercy of Bubble Burster Results
    15. Loras (WE/IIAC): .760 (19-6)/.543/2-3
    16. Brockport (EA/SUNYAC): .760 (19-6)/.532/3-3
    17. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .800 (20-5)/.525/3-3
    18. MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .800 (20-5)/.528/2-3
    19. Whitworth (WE/NWC): .800 (22-3)/.513/1-3
    20. North Central (CE/CCIW): .708 (17-7)/.545/3-4
    21. Keene State (NE/NESCAC): .692 (18-8)/.563/2-5
    --------
    22. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.580/2-7
    23. Sul Ross State (SO/ASC): .826 (19-4)/.510/1-1
    24. Baldwin Wallace (GL/OAC): .692 (18-8)/.545/3-5
    25. Augsburg (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.527/3-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 10:43:49 AM
    Confirmed Pool A teams
    Washington U. (22-2, 13-0 UAA, SOS 0.541, 7-2 vRRO, CE#1)

    Locks & near-locks
    100% (C#1) Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.568, 6-2 vRRO, NE#1) 23% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 7-3
    100% (A) UW-Platteville (20-3, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.573, 4-1 vRRO, CE#2) 68% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.579 / 5-2
    100% (C#2) Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.584, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) 17% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.591 / 8-4
    100% (C#3) Williams (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.587, 6-4 vRRO, NE#4) 30% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.596 / 6-5
    100% (A) Whitman (25-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.515, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) 82% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.526 / 4-1
    100% (A) Augustana (20-5, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.567, 6-3 vRRO, CE#3) 48% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.572 / 7-4
    100% (C#4) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.588, 4-6 vRRO, NE#5) 0% A
    100% (A) Wittenberg (23-2, 16-2 NCAC, SOS 0.523, 5-1 vRRO, GL#1) 63% A, proj. 0.889 / 0.531 / 5-2
    100% (C#5) Wooster (21-5, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.559, 4-2 vRRO, GL#2) 18% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.566 / 5-3
    100% (C#6) Marietta (21-6, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.562, 4-5 vRRO, GL#4) 0% A
    100% (A) Cabrini (23-3, 16-2 CSAC, SOS 0.534, 2-1 vRRO, AT#1) 72% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.539 / 3-3
    100% (C#7) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.567, 6-4 vRRO, AT#2) 0% A
    100% (A) John Carroll (22-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.539, 6-2 vRRO, GL#3) 72% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.544 / 7-3
    100% (A) St. John's (22-2, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.517, 3-1 vRRO, WE#2) 60% A, proj. 0.880 / 0.525 / 5-2
    100% (A) Swarthmore (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, MA#5) 43% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.540 / 4-4
    100% (C#8) Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.526, 4-3 vRRO, MA#4) 36% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.537 / 4-4
    100% (C#9) York (Pa.) (22-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.528, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 31% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.538 / 4-3
    100% (A) Christopher Newport (21-5, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.539, 3-1 vRRO, MA#2) 69% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.547 / 6-2
    99% (A) Eastern Connecticut (22-3, 13-1 LEC, SOS 0.531, 4-1 vRRO, NE#3) 70% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.537 / 4-2
    99% (A) Ramapo (20-6, 16-3 NJAC, SOS 0.543, 5-5 vRRO, AT#3) 76% A, fin 99% C
    99% (C#10) Whitworth (23-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.521, 1-3 vRRO, WE#3) 18% A, fin 99% C
    99% (C#11) St. Olaf (19-6, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.536, 3-2 vRRO, WE#4) 15% A, fin 99% C, semi 98% C

    Strong contenders
    98% (C#12) Emory (20-4, 11-2 UAA, SOS 0.523, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A
    95% (A) Albright (20-5, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.541, 3-1 vRRO, MA#3) 71% A, fin 95% C
    93% (C#13) Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.525, 3-3 vRRO, MA#6) 15% A, fin 100% C, semi 91% C
    90% (A) Plattsburgh State (20-4, 17-1 SUNYAC, SOS 0.521, 3-3 vRRO, EA#2) 61% A, fin 99% C, semi 79% C
    83% (C#14) UW-Oshkosh (20-6, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.548, 2-3 vRRO, CE#4) 13% A, fin 100% C, semi 73% C
    81% (A) Hobart (21-4, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 68% A, fin 85% C, semi 74% C

    Bubble-in
    79% (C#15) LeTourneau (23-3, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.501, 2-2 vRRO, SO#4) 36% A, fin 98% C, semi 57% C
    72% (C#16) Illinois Wesleyan (19-6, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.547, 3-5 vRRO, CE#6) 19% A, fin 100% C, semi 60% C
    62% (A) Springfield (18-7, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.556, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 42% A, fin 84% C, semi 37% C
    54% (A) Randolph-Macon (18-7, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.551, 3-3 vRRO, SO#2) 40% A, fin 89% C, semi 48% C, qtr 8% C
    52% (C#17) UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.603, 3-6 vRRO, CE#5) 14% A, fin 79% C, semi 27% C

    Bubble-out
    49% (A) Sul Ross State (20-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.514, 1-1 vRRO, SO#3) 38% A, fin 90% C, semi 16% C
    45% (C#18) Brockport (19-6, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.532, 3-3 vRRO, EA#3) 27% A, fin 67% C, semi 7% C
    45% (A) Nichols (24-3, 16-2 CCC, SOS 0.515, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 75% A, fin 45% C
    41% (C#19) MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.528, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 36% A, fin 70% C, semi 15% C
    39% (A) Maryville (Tenn.) (18-5, 14-2 USAC, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, SO#6) 54% A, fin 66% C, semi 19% C
    35% (A) Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.564, 4-5 vRRO, NE#7) 31% A, fin 73% C, semi 13% C
    29% (C#20) Salem State (22-4, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.510, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 0% A
    24% (C#21) Keene State (18-8, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.564, 2-5 vRRO, NE#8) 21% A, fin 38% C, semi 3% C
    23% (A) Nebraska Wesleyan (22-3, 13-3 IIAC, SOS 0.506, 4-1 vRRO, WE#5) 88% A, fin 23% C

    Fringe contenders
    18% (C#22) Loras (19-7, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.542, 2-3 vRRO, WE#7) 0% A
    18% (C#23) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.580, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A
    7% (C#24) Augsburg (19-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.527, 3-3 vRRO, WE#6) 9% A, fin 51% C
    6% (C#25) North Central (Ill.) (17-7, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.546, 3-4 vRRO, CE#7) 26% A, fin 15% C
    5% (A) Ripon (17-6, 14-4 MWC, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, CE) 32% A, fin 15% C, semi 1% C

    Longshots
    4% (C#26) Gwynedd Mercy (20-6, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.518, 2-3 vRRO, AT#4) 0% A
    2% (C#27) UW-River Falls (17-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.578, 2-6 vRRO, CE) 6% A, fin 18% C, semi 1% C
    1% (C#28) East Texas Baptist (20-6, 12-4 ASC, SOS 0.517, 1-5 vRRO, SO) 10% A, fin 2% C
    1% (C#29) Texas-Dallas (19-6, 13-4 ASC, SOS 0.510, 1-2 vRRO, SO#7) 16% A, fin 2% C


    Today's bubble games
    1:00 - ODAC: #1 Randolph-Macon (18-7, 12-4, needs to win to stay bubble or better) vs #9 Eastern Mennonite (10-14, 5-11)
    5:30 - SUNYAC: #6 SUNY Oneonta (13-13, 8-10) vs #2 Brockport (19-6, 14-4, needs a win to stay on bubble)
    6:00 - ASC: #E1 LeTourneau (23-3, 16-2, in with a win, bubble if not) vs #E3 East Texas Baptist (20-6, 12-4)
    6:00 - CC: #2 Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3, safe) vs #3 Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4, probably already in)
    6:00 - CCIW: #3 North Central (17-7, 11-5, thin Pool C hopes with a win) vs #2 Illinois Wesleyan (19-6, 12-4, lock with a win, bubble if not)
    6:00 - MWC: #3 St. Norbert (19-6, 14-4) vs #2 Ripon (17-6, 14-4, thin Pool C hopes with a win)
    7:00 - USAC: #E2 Methodist (17-5, 12-4) at #W1 Maryville (Tenn.) (18-5, 14-2, strong bubble team with a win)
    7:30 - LEC: #3 Mass-Boston (15-10, 9-5) vs #2 Keene State (18-8, 11-3, needs a win & help, or the Pool A bid)
    7:30 - SUNYAC: Oswego State (14-12, 10-8) at Plattsburgh State (20-4, 17-1, already in decent shape, but a lock with a win)
    8:00 - MIAC: #4 Augsburg (19-7, 13-7, must win to reach the bubble) at #1 St. John's (22-2, 19-1, safe)
    8:00 - WIAC: #3 UW-Oshkosh (20-6, 9-5) at #2 UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3, decent shape with a win, some hope with a loss)
    8:30 - ASC: #E2 Texas-Dallas (19-6, 13-4) at #W1 Sul Ross State (20-4, 14-3, almost a play-in for SRSU tonight)

    Known potential bid thief games
    (A bid thief is a team with little/no Pool C chance that wins the automatic bid of a conference that has at least one likely Pool C team)
    Sat - MACC final: #2 Lebanon Valley (17-9, 10-6) at #1 Albright (20-5, 12-4)
    Sat - CSAC final:#3 Neumann (20-7, 13-5) at #1 Cabrini (23-3, 16-2)
    Sat - LL semis: #5 Skidmore (15-10, 10-8) at #1 Hobart (21-4, 16-2)
    Sat - NJAC final: #6 William Paterson (16-11, 9-9) t #1 Ramapo (20-6, 16-3)
    Sat - OAC final: #3 Ohio Northern (19-8, 12-6) at #1 John Carroll (22-5, 14-4)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 11:27:00 AM
    Glad to see TitanQ continuing to post his analysis here.  The consensus of multiple independent perspectives is usually a better predictor than any one of them alone!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 23, 2018, 11:32:27 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 11:27:00 AM
    Glad to see TitanQ continuing to post his analysis here.  The consensus of multiple independent perspectives is usually a better predictor than any one of them alone!

    Agreed!!! Kudos and thank you to you both!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: mailsy on February 23, 2018, 11:49:44 AM
    I appreciate all the work you guys do on this.+1's. It really keeps me engaged in the process. Sorry to see Gwynedd falling further in their chances to get into the tourney.(It's their own fault) It was great having 2 CSAC teams in last year. Only way 2 are getting in this year is Cabrini losing to Neumann. And I REALLY don't want to see that happening.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 23, 2018, 12:57:09 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 10:43:49 AM
    Confirmed Pool A teams
    Washington U. (22-2, 13-0 UAA, SOS 0.541, 7-2 vRRO, CE#1)

    Locks & near-locks
    100% (C#1) Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.568, 6-2 vRRO, NE#1) 23% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 7-3
    100% (A) UW-Platteville (20-3, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.573, 4-1 vRRO, CE#2) 68% A, proj. 0.840 / 0.579 / 5-2
    100% (C#2) Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.584, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) 17% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.591 / 8-4
    100% (C#3) Williams (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.587, 6-4 vRRO, NE#4) 30% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.596 / 6-5
    100% (A) Whitman (25-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.515, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) 82% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.526 / 4-1
    100% (A) Augustana (20-5, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.567, 6-3 vRRO, CE#3) 48% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.572 / 7-4
    100% (C#4) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.588, 4-6 vRRO, NE#5) 0% A
    100% (A) Wittenberg (23-2, 16-2 NCAC, SOS 0.523, 5-1 vRRO, GL#1) 63% A, proj. 0.889 / 0.531 / 5-2
    100% (C#5) Wooster (21-5, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.559, 4-2 vRRO, GL#2) 18% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.566 / 5-3
    100% (C#6) Marietta (21-6, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.562, 4-5 vRRO, GL#4) 0% A
    100% (A) Cabrini (23-3, 16-2 CSAC, SOS 0.534, 2-1 vRRO, AT#1) 72% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.539 / 3-3
    100% (C#7) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.567, 6-4 vRRO, AT#2) 0% A
    100% (A) John Carroll (22-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.539, 6-2 vRRO, GL#3) 72% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.544 / 7-3
    100% (A) St. John's (22-2, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.517, 3-1 vRRO, WE#2) 60% A, proj. 0.880 / 0.525 / 5-2
    100% (A) Swarthmore (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, MA#5) 43% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.540 / 4-4
    100% (C#8) Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.526, 4-3 vRRO, MA#4) 36% A, proj. 0.808 / 0.537 / 4-4
    100% (C#9) York (Pa.) (22-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.528, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 31% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.538 / 4-3
    100% (A) Christopher Newport (21-5, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.539, 3-1 vRRO, MA#2) 69% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.547 / 6-2
    99% (A) Eastern Connecticut (22-3, 13-1 LEC, SOS 0.531, 4-1 vRRO, NE#3) 70% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.537 / 4-2
    99% (A) Ramapo (20-6, 16-3 NJAC, SOS 0.543, 5-5 vRRO, AT#3) 76% A, fin 99% C
    99% (C#10) Whitworth (23-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.521, 1-3 vRRO, WE#3) 18% A, fin 99% C
    99% (C#11) St. Olaf (19-6, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.536, 3-2 vRRO, WE#4) 15% A, fin 99% C, semi 98% C

    Strong contenders
    98% (C#12) Emory (20-4, 11-2 UAA, SOS 0.523, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A
    95% (A) Albright (20-5, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.541, 3-1 vRRO, MA#3) 71% A, fin 95% C
    93% (C#13) Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.525, 3-3 vRRO, MA#6) 15% A, fin 100% C, semi 91% C
    90% (A) Plattsburgh State (20-4, 17-1 SUNYAC, SOS 0.521, 3-3 vRRO, EA#2) 61% A, fin 99% C, semi 79% C
    83% (C#14) UW-Oshkosh (20-6, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.548, 2-3 vRRO, CE#4) 13% A, fin 100% C, semi 73% C
    81% (A) Hobart (21-4, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 68% A, fin 85% C, semi 74% C

    Bubble-in
    79% (C#15) LeTourneau (23-3, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.501, 2-2 vRRO, SO#4) 36% A, fin 98% C, semi 57% C
    72% (C#16) Illinois Wesleyan (19-6, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.547, 3-5 vRRO, CE#6) 19% A, fin 100% C, semi 60% C
    62% (A) Springfield (18-7, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.556, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 42% A, fin 84% C, semi 37% C
    54% (A) Randolph-Macon (18-7, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.551, 3-3 vRRO, SO#2) 40% A, fin 89% C, semi 48% C, qtr 8% C
    52% (C#17) UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.603, 3-6 vRRO, CE#5) 14% A, fin 79% C, semi 27% C

    Bubble-out
    49% (A) Sul Ross State (20-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.514, 1-1 vRRO, SO#3) 38% A, fin 90% C, semi 16% C
    45% (C#18) Brockport (19-6, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.532, 3-3 vRRO, EA#3) 27% A, fin 67% C, semi 7% C
    45% (A) Nichols (24-3, 16-2 CCC, SOS 0.515, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 75% A, fin 45% C
    41% (C#19) MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.528, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 36% A, fin 70% C, semi 15% C
    39% (A) Maryville (Tenn.) (18-5, 14-2 USAC, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, SO#6) 54% A, fin 66% C, semi 19% C
    35% (A) Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.564, 4-5 vRRO, NE#7) 31% A, fin 73% C, semi 13% C
    29% (C#20) Salem State (22-4, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.510, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 0% A
    24% (C#21) Keene State (18-8, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.564, 2-5 vRRO, NE#8) 21% A, fin 38% C, semi 3% C
    23% (A) Nebraska Wesleyan (22-3, 13-3 IIAC, SOS 0.506, 4-1 vRRO, WE#5) 88% A, fin 23% C

    Fringe contenders
    18% (C#22) Loras (19-7, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.542, 2-3 vRRO, WE#7) 0% A
    18% (C#23) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.580, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A
    7% (C#24) Augsburg (19-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.527, 3-3 vRRO, WE#6) 9% A, fin 51% C
    6% (C#25) North Central (Ill.) (17-7, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.546, 3-4 vRRO, CE#7) 26% A, fin 15% C
    5% (A) Ripon (17-6, 14-4 MWC, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, CE) 32% A, fin 15% C, semi 1% C

    Longshots
    4% (C#26) Gwynedd Mercy (20-6, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.518, 2-3 vRRO, AT#4) 0% A
    2% (C#27) UW-River Falls (17-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.578, 2-6 vRRO, CE) 6% A, fin 18% C, semi 1% C
    1% (C#28) East Texas Baptist (20-6, 12-4 ASC, SOS 0.517, 1-5 vRRO, SO) 10% A, fin 2% C
    1% (C#29) Texas-Dallas (19-6, 13-4 ASC, SOS 0.510, 1-2 vRRO, SO#7) 16% A, fin 2% C


    Today's bubble games
    1:00 - ODAC: #1 Randolph-Macon (18-7, 12-4, needs to win to stay bubble or better) vs #9 Eastern Mennonite (10-14, 5-11)
    5:30 - SUNYAC: #6 SUNY Oneonta (13-13, 8-10) vs #2 Brockport (19-6, 14-4, needs a win to stay on bubble)
    6:00 - ASC: #E1 LeTourneau (23-3, 16-2, in with a win, bubble if not) vs #E3 East Texas Baptist (20-6, 12-4)
    6:00 - CC: #2 Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3, safe) vs #3 Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4, probably already in)
    6:00 - CCIW: #3 North Central (17-7, 11-5, thin Pool C hopes with a win) vs #2 Illinois Wesleyan (19-6, 12-4, lock with a win, bubble if not)
    6:00 - MWC: #3 St. Norbert (19-6, 14-4) vs #2 Ripon (17-6, 14-4, thin Pool C hopes with a win)
    7:00 - USAC: #E2 Methodist (17-5, 12-4) at #W1 Maryville (Tenn.) (18-5, 14-2, strong bubble team with a win)
    7:30 - LEC: #3 Mass-Boston (15-10, 9-5) vs #2 Keene State (18-8, 11-3, needs a win & help, or the Pool A bid)
    7:30 - SUNYAC: Oswego State (14-12, 10-8) at Plattsburgh State (20-4, 17-1, already in decent shape, but a lock with a win)
    8:00 - MIAC: #4 Augsburg (19-7, 13-7, must win to reach the bubble) at #1 St. John's (22-2, 19-1, safe)
    8:00 - WIAC: #3 UW-Oshkosh (20-6, 9-5) at #2 UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3, decent shape with a win, some hope with a loss)
    8:30 - ASC: #E2 Texas-Dallas (19-6, 13-4) at #W1 Sul Ross State (20-4, 14-3, almost a play-in for SRSU tonight)

    Known potential bid thief games
    (A bid thief is a team with little/no Pool C chance that wins the automatic bid of a conference that has at least one likely Pool C team)
    Sat - MACC final: #2 Lebanon Valley (17-9, 10-6) at #1 Albright (20-5, 12-4)
    Sat - CSAC final:#3 Neumann (20-7, 13-5) at #1 Cabrini (23-3, 16-2)
    Sat - LL semis: #5 Skidmore (15-10, 10-8) at #1 Hobart (21-4, 16-2)
    Sat - NJAC final: #6 William Paterson (16-11, 9-9) t #1 Ramapo (20-6, 16-3)
    Sat - OAC final: #3 Ohio Northern (19-8, 12-6) at #1 John Carroll (22-5, 14-4)

    Would think that Juniata(20-4, 10-4 LAND, SOS .468, 2-0 vrro, M/A #7) should be in the bubble-out category, at least.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2018, 12:59:09 PM
    If NCC beat IWU tonight, they would've beaten them TWICE this week. I could see NCC jumping IWU if they win, giving them a better chance at the Pool C if they fail to win tomorrow.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 01:02:37 PM
    Both of them would be road wins, too.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 01:16:59 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2018, 12:59:09 PM
    If NCC beat IWU tonight, they would've beaten them TWICE this week. I could see NCC jumping IWU if they win, giving them a better chance at the Pool C if they fail to win tomorrow.

    It would be:

    * Illinois Wesleyan: .731 (19-7), .547 ish, 2-4  (assuming Wheaton drops out)

    * North Central: .692 (18-8), .546 ish, 2-5 (assuming Wheaton drops out)


    I think IWU stays ahead there...that is a significant difference in winning %, with the other numbers being close.  If you are the Central committee, and you are stacking teams up based on who has the best Pool C shot (which is ultimately what they do), I think IWU has to have the edge in this scenario.  If you put NCC higher in this scenario, you hurt the region's Pool C chances because of the difference in winning % (again, other numbers being really close). 

    For context, here is what the numbers look like (and remember, above I am already tacking losses onto IWU and NCC...all of the teams that end up as Pool C candidates will lose another game too)...

    Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2018, 10:46:05 PM
    My take through Wednesday night.  This does not account for any Thursday results...

    (There are 21 Pool C bids available this year.)

    Safely In
    1. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .800 (20-5)/.583/7-3
    2. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .880 (22-3)/.568/6-2
    3. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .792 (19-5)/.587/6-4
    4. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .808 (21-5)/.559/4-2
    5. Marietta (GL/OAC): .808 (21-5)/.557/4-4
    6. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).585/4-6
    7. Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .840 (21-4)/.525/4-3
    8. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.568/6-4
    9. York, Pa (MA/CAC): .840 (21-4)/.528/3-3
    10. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .769 (20-6)/.548/2-3
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .833 (20-4)/.523/3-2
    12. UW-Stevens Point (CE/WIAC): .680 (17-8)/.603/3-6
    13. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .760 (19-6)/.547/3-5
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .760 (19-6)/.536/3-2

    At the Mercy of Bubble Burster Results
    15. Loras (WE/IIAC): .760 (19-6)/.543/2-3
    16. Brockport (EA/SUNYAC): .760 (19-6)/.532/3-3
    17. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .800 (20-5)/.525/3-3
    18. MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .800 (20-5)/.528/2-3
    19. Whitworth (WE/NWC): .800 (22-3)/.513/1-3
    20. North Central (CE/CCIW): .708 (17-7)/.545/3-4
    21. Keene State (NE/NESCAC): .692 (18-8)/.563/2-5
    --------
    22. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.580/2-7
    23. Sul Ross State (SO/ASC): .826 (19-4)/.510/1-1
    24. Baldwin Wallace (GL/OAC): .692 (18-8)/.545/3-5
    25. Augsburg (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.527/3-3

    IWU would be very much on the bubble with a loss tonight...but I think pretty clearly higher than NCC in the pecking order based on the overall numbers.

    Wheaton staying ranked vs falling out is big for NCC since the Cards sweep the Thunder.  If Wheaton loses to Augie tonight, I think Wheaton falls out for sure.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: augie77 on February 23, 2018, 01:17:46 PM
    IWU versus North Central tonight will be a neutral site game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 01:21:37 PM
    Where the committee slots UW-Stevens Point in the final Central ranking is big too.  As you can see, I have the Pointers in at #12...but you never really know from year to year how the committee feels about a sub-.700 winning percentage number.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 01:21:47 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 23, 2018, 12:57:09 PM
    Would think that Juniata(20-4, 10-4 LAND, SOS .468, 2-0 vrro, M/A #7) should be in the bubble-out category, at least.

    Over the last five years, the lowest SOS for a Pool C team was 2014 WPI (22-4, .502 SOS, 3-1 vRRO). Juniata's resume reminds me of last year's Denison team (22-5, .476, 2-3), which was far enough out of contention that they weren't even on my chart. (See http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2017/uw-oshkosh-off-charts). 

    The lowest-SOS team with a decent chance this year is Nebraska Wesleyan (22-3, 0.506, 4-1, West #5) which I show having only a 23% chance if they fall to Central in the IIAC final.  With an SOS of .468, I think that Juniata would have needed to be 24-0 or 23-1 going into the conference tournament, in order to be in the Pool C discussion.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 23, 2018, 01:36:45 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 01:21:47 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 23, 2018, 12:57:09 PM
    Would think that Juniata(20-4, 10-4 LAND, SOS .468, 2-0 vrro, M/A #7) should be in the bubble-out category, at least.

    Over the last five years, the lowest SOS for a Pool C team was 2014 WPI (22-4, .502 SOS, 3-1 vRRO). Juniata's resume reminds me of last year's Denison team (22-5, .476, 2-3), which was far enough out of contention that they weren't even on my chart. (See http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2017/uw-oshkosh-off-charts). 

    The lowest-SOS team with a decent chance this year is Nebraska Wesleyan (22-3, 0.506, 4-1, West #5) which I show having only a 23% chance if they fall to Central in the IIAC final.  With an SOS of .468, I think that Juniata would have needed to be 24-0 or 23-1 going into the conference tournament, in order to be in the Pool C discussion.

    They will have played additional games against 15-9 and 17-7 since the .468 was compiled; only gets them to .482, approximately.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 23, 2018, 01:41:03 PM
    QuoteI think IWU probably stays ahead there...that is a significant difference in winning %, with the other numbers being close.  If you are the Central committee, and you are stacking teams up based on who has the best Pool C shot, I think IWU has to have the edge in this scenario.  If you put NCC higher in this scenario, you hurt the region's Pool C chances because of the difference in winning % (again, other numbers being really close). 

    Q, that's a good point. Do we know if the Committees think in these terms? Do they explicitly or implicitly try to order teams to give the region as a whole the best chance to get at-large bids?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 01:53:38 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 23, 2018, 01:41:03 PM
    QuoteI think IWU probably stays ahead there...that is a significant difference in winning %, with the other numbers being close.  If you are the Central committee, and you are stacking teams up based on who has the best Pool C shot, I think IWU has to have the edge in this scenario.  If you put NCC higher in this scenario, you hurt the region's Pool C chances because of the difference in winning % (again, other numbers being really close). 

    Q, that's a good point. Do we know if the Committees think in these terms? Do they explicitly or implicitly try to order teams to give the region as a whole the best chance to get at-large bids?

    Every committee member I have talked to says that is what they do.  With the Pool C candidates, they line them up in order of how they expect them to "compete" in the national Pool C process.

    Several years ago IWU beat Wheaton 3 times...but Wheaton had better overall numbers than IWU and end up ranked higher regionally.  That was the first time it was explained to me that the committee's job is to give the region that best chances for Pool C bids.  So they use head-to-head results to "break a tie"...but the ranking is still driven by WP/SOS/RRO.

    IWU vs NCC (as I posted above) is the perfect example.  IWU would have a better resume than NCC in that scenario and would almost certainly be ranked higher...even though NCC would be 2-1 vs IWU.

    Of course, we have all seen some cases where the regional order was messed up and Team A blocks Team B from ever getting to the table...where Team B actually had the better Pool C resume.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2018, 01:54:02 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 23, 2018, 01:41:03 PM
    QuoteI think IWU probably stays ahead there...that is a significant difference in winning %, with the other numbers being close.  If you are the Central committee, and you are stacking teams up based on who has the best Pool C shot, I think IWU has to have the edge in this scenario.  If you put NCC higher in this scenario, you hurt the region's Pool C chances because of the difference in winning % (again, other numbers being really close). 

    Q, that's a good point. Do we know if the Committees think in these terms? Do they explicitly or implicitly try to order teams to give the region as a whole the best chance to get at-large bids?

    The RACs may try and we have heard conversations in the past that the RAC is doing their best to position teams accordingly to get bids - can't blame them, but the national committee can always change that positioning if they want. The RACs can only do so much. If the national committee disagrees, it is in their prerogative to change it. The RACs only act as advisers, basically.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 23, 2018, 02:12:29 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 01:16:59 PM
    Wheaton staying ranked vs falling out is big for NCC since the Cards sweep the Thunder.  If Wheaton loses to Augie tonight, I think Wheaton falls out for sure.

    I could be understanding this wrong so please correct me if thats the case, but I think it doesn't it not matter if Wheaton falls out of the ranks since they take into account the last two regional rankings when selecting teams for Pool C?

    Not quite once ranked always ranked, but it is the case for the third and fourth regional rankings, I think.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 02:17:39 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 23, 2018, 02:12:29 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 01:16:59 PM
    Wheaton staying ranked vs falling out is big for NCC since the Cards sweep the Thunder.  If Wheaton loses to Augie tonight, I think Wheaton falls out for sure.

    I could be understanding this wrong so please correct me if thats the case, but I think it doesn't it not matter if Wheaton falls out of the ranks since they take into account the last two regional rankings when selecting teams for Pool C?

    Not quite once ranked always ranked, but it is the case for the third and fourth regional rankings, I think.

    I can't remember the latest...you could be exactly right.   Anyone know? 

    If Wheaton is locked in...

    * Illinois Wesleyan: .731 (19-7), .547 ish, 3-6

    * North Central: .692 (18-8), .546 ish, 4-5

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 02:27:31 PM
    http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2018DIIIMBB_Pre-Champs_Manual_20180124.pdf

    The primary criteria emphasize competition leading up to NCAA championships; all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed
    in priority order).

    ● Win-loss percentage against Division III opponents.
    ● Division III strength of schedule.
    - Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
    - Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).
    [See below for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.]
    ● Division III head-to-head competition.
    ● Results versus common Division III opponents.
    ● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceding the final ranking.
    Post-season contests are included.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 02:28:59 PM
    That's my understanding as well. I'm pretty sure that Dave has mentioned it a number of times.

    By using this week's regional ranking and the final regional ranking, North Central would go into the selection process with a 4-5 RRO with a win tonight and a loss tomorrow (wins vs. WC, WC again, IWU, and IWU again; losses to Whitworth, AC, IWU, AC again, and the AC/WC winner in the CCIW tourney 'chip) while Illinois Wesleyan would end up with a 3-6 RRO (wins vs. WC, NCC, and AC; losses to Wash U, Emory, AC, WC, NCC, and NCC again).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 02:30:17 PM
    So now I see what the Central committee did with the 3rd regional ranking (I was traveling for work earlier this week and didn't get to look at the rankings much)...

    http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-third

    They threw all 4 of the CCIW teams in there to lock them in as "ranked", knowing the final week would sort things out and 1-2 would fall out of the final ranking....but knowing the teams standing would benefit from those RROs.  Then they can slide whatever teams they want in that final/unpublished ranking based on the final resumes.

    Crafty.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2018, 02:42:03 PM
    Week 2's rankings will not matter once the RACs are done with that data on Sunday. Week 3's will be in place throughout the process. Week 3 and final rankings will be used to retabulate the vRRO for the final selection process (and any tweaking the national committee wants to complete on the Week 4 rankings).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 02:43:25 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 10:43:49 AM
    Today's bubble games
    1:00 - ODAC: #1 Randolph-Macon (18-7, 12-4, needs to win to stay bubble or better) vs #9 Eastern Mennonite (10-14, 5-11)
    5:30 - SUNYAC: #6 SUNY Oneonta (13-13, 8-10) vs #2 Brockport (19-6, 14-4, needs a win to stay on bubble)
    6:00 - ASC: #E1 LeTourneau (23-3, 16-2, in with a win, bubble if not) vs #E3 East Texas Baptist (20-6, 12-4)
    6:00 - CC: #2 Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3, safe) vs #3 Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4, probably already in)
    6:00 - CCIW: #3 North Central (17-7, 11-5, thin Pool C hopes with a win) vs #2 Illinois Wesleyan (19-6, 12-4, lock with a win, bubble if not)
    6:00 - MWC: #3 St. Norbert (19-6, 14-4) vs #2 Ripon (17-6, 14-4, thin Pool C hopes with a win)
    7:00 - USAC: #E2 Methodist (17-5, 12-4) at #W1 Maryville (Tenn.) (18-5, 14-2, strong bubble team with a win)
    7:30 - LEC: #3 Mass-Boston (15-10, 9-5) vs #2 Keene State (18-8, 11-3, needs a win & help, or the Pool A bid)
    7:30 - SUNYAC: Oswego State (14-12, 10-8) at Plattsburgh State (20-4, 17-1, already in decent shape, but a lock with a win)
    8:00 - MIAC: #4 Augsburg (19-7, 13-7, must win to reach the bubble) at #1 St. John's (22-2, 19-1, safe)
    8:00 - WIAC: #3 UW-Oshkosh (20-6, 9-5) at #2 UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3, decent shape with a win, some hope with a loss)
    8:30 - ASC: #E2 Texas-Dallas (19-6, 13-4) at #W1 Sul Ross State (20-4, 14-3, almost a play-in for SRSU tonight)

    At the Salem Civic Center, top seed Randolph-Macon falls (56-54) to 9th-seeded Eastern Mennonite, and the ODAC is probably now a one-bid league.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2018, 03:31:10 PM
    Ouch. Seemed like they always got 2 or 3 bids...or is that just me? LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2018, 03:55:34 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2018, 03:31:10 PM
    Ouch. Seemed like they always got 2 or 3 bids...or is that just me? LOL

    Not in the last few years... top of the conference has fallen back a bit. We may see a resurgence in the next season or two... but one bid has become more the norm the last few seasons - or at least expecting one bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 07:05:52 PM
    Among bubble teams...
    Brockport loses, 82-77
    North Central beats IWU, 67-62
    Franklin & Marshall loses, 50-49
    Ripon wins, 82-60
    LeTourneau loses, 108-101
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 09:53:16 PM
    Augsburg 80
    St. John's 68

    That's a major bubble burster -- the Johnnies are a Pool C lock.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 23, 2018, 09:59:12 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 09:53:16 PM
    Augsburg 80
    St. John's 68

    That's a major bubble burster -- the Johnnies are a Pool C lock.

    What are the most obvious implications, if you don't mind me asking?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:02:04 PM
    UW-Platteville goes down to UW-River Falls and becomes another Pool C bid thief.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 10:03:53 PM
    With St Olaf and St John's both falling tonight, the MIAC's automatic berth will go to a team that was on the outside looking in.  However, Augsburg's win puts the Auggies onto the bubble even with a loss tomorrow, so if Bethel wins the auto bid, then it's possible the MIAC could get four bids, instead of the expected two.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:05:21 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:02:04 PM
    UW-Platteville goes down to UW-River Falls and becomes another Pool C bid thief.

    Not necessarily that significant unless UWRF beats Oshkosh tomorrow -- the WIAC was already projected to be a 3-bid league.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:09:07 PM
    Quote from: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 23, 2018, 09:59:12 PM
    What are the most obvious implications, if you don't mind me asking?

    Well basically, if the Pool C picture heading into the night looked something like what I have below, you'd now have to add St. John's to the Pool C list somewhere high and shift everyone else down...and bump #21 out.

    Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2018, 10:46:05 PM
    My take through Wednesday night.  This does not account for any Thursday results...

    (There are 21 Pool C bids available this year.)

    Safely In
    1. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .800 (20-5)/.583/7-3
    2. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .880 (22-3)/.568/6-2
    3. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .792 (19-5)/.587/6-4
    4. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .808 (21-5)/.559/4-2
    5. Marietta (GL/OAC): .808 (21-5)/.557/4-4
    6. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).585/4-6
    7. Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .840 (21-4)/.525/4-3
    8. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.568/6-4
    9. York, Pa (MA/CAC): .840 (21-4)/.528/3-3
    10. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .769 (20-6)/.548/2-3
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .833 (20-4)/.523/3-2
    12. UW-Stevens Point (CE/WIAC): .680 (17-8)/.603/3-6
    13. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .760 (19-6)/.547/3-5
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .760 (19-6)/.536/3-2

    At the Mercy of Bubble Burster Results
    15. Loras (WE/IIAC): .760 (19-6)/.543/2-3
    16. Brockport (EA/SUNYAC): .760 (19-6)/.532/3-3
    17. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .800 (20-5)/.525/3-3
    18. MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .800 (20-5)/.528/2-3
    19. Whitworth (WE/NWC): .800 (22-3)/.513/1-3
    20. North Central (CE/CCIW): .708 (17-7)/.545/3-4
    21. Keene State (NE/NESCAC): .692 (18-8)/.563/2-5
    --------
    22. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.580/2-7
    23. Sul Ross State (SO/ASC): .826 (19-4)/.510/1-1
    24. Baldwin Wallace (GL/OAC): .692 (18-8)/.545/3-5
    25. Augsburg (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.527/3-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: frodotwo on February 23, 2018, 10:10:00 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:05:21 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:02:04 PM
    UW-Platteville goes down to UW-River Falls and becomes another Pool C bid thief.

    Not necessarily that significant unless UWRF beats Oshkosh tomorrow -- the WIAC was already projected to be a 3-bid league.

    Stevens Point beat Oshkosh and will host River Falls on Sunday. So with Point an "almost in" River Falls would certainly bump somone with a win.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:12:18 PM
    Quote from: frodotwo on February 23, 2018, 10:10:00 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:05:21 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:02:04 PM
    UW-Platteville goes down to UW-River Falls and becomes another Pool C bid thief.

    Not necessarily that significant unless UWRF beats Oshkosh tomorrow -- the WIAC was already projected to be a 3-bid league.

    Stevens Point beat Oshkosh and will host River Falls on Sunday.

    Sorry, yes, meant UWSP vs UWRF.

    I think it was a given the WIAC was getting 2 Pool Cs.  If UWSP wins tomorrow it's just shuffling the names (swap out UWSP for Platteville).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 10:13:16 PM
    Update on today's bubble games (winners in green, losers in red)

    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 10:43:49 AM
    Today's bubble games
    1:00 - ODAC: #1 Randolph-Macon (18-7, 12-4, needs to win to stay bubble or better) vs #9 Eastern Mennonite (10-14, 5-11)
    5:30 - SUNYAC: #6 SUNY Oneonta (13-13, 8-10) vs #2 Brockport (19-6, 14-4, needs a win to stay on bubble)
    6:00 - ASC: #E1 LeTourneau (23-3, 16-2, in with a win, bubble if not) vs #E3 East Texas Baptist (20-6, 12-4)
    6:00 - CC: #2 Johns Hopkins (21-4, 15-3, safe) vs #3 Franklin and Marshall (20-5, 14-4, probably already in)
    6:00 - CCIW: #3 North Central (17-7, 11-5, thin Pool C hopes with a win) vs #2 Illinois Wesleyan (19-6, 12-4, lock with a win, bubble if not)
    6:00 - MWC: #3 St. Norbert (19-6, 14-4) vs #2 Ripon (17-6, 14-4, thin Pool C hopes with a win)
    7:00 - USAC: #E2 Methodist (17-5, 12-4) at #W1 Maryville (Tenn.) (18-5, 14-2, strong bubble team with a win)
    7:30 - LEC: #3 Mass-Boston (15-10, 9-5) vs #2 Keene State (18-8, 11-3, needs a win & help, or the Pool A bid)
    7:30 - SUNYAC: Oswego State (14-12, 10-8) at Plattsburgh State (20-4, 17-1, already in decent shape, but a lock with a win)
    8:00 - MIAC: #4 Augsburg (19-7, 13-7, must win to reach the bubble) at #1 St. John's (22-2, 19-1, safe)
    8:00 - WIAC: #3 UW-Oshkosh (20-6, 9-5) at #2 UW-Stevens Point (17-8, 11-3, decent shape with a win, some hope with a loss)
    8:30 - ASC: #E2 Texas-Dallas (19-6, 13-4) at #W1 Sul Ross State (20-4, 14-3, almost a play-in for SRSU tonight) (tied at halftime)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:13:56 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:05:21 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:02:04 PM
    UW-Platteville goes down to UW-River Falls and becomes another Pool C bid thief.

    Not necessarily that significant unless UWRF beats Oshkosh tomorrow -- the WIAC was already projected to be a 3-bid league.

    Drew had the WIAC with one lock (UWP), one strong contender (UWO), and one bubble-in (UWSP) coming into tonight. Doesn't look like he was projecting any such thing to me, just that it looked like a good possibility.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:17:00 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:13:56 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:05:21 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:02:04 PM
    UW-Platteville goes down to UW-River Falls and becomes another Pool C bid thief.

    Not necessarily that significant unless UWRF beats Oshkosh tomorrow -- the WIAC was already projected to be a 3-bid league.

    Drew had the WIAC with one lock (UWP), one strong contender (UWO), and one bubble-in (UWSP) coming into tonight. Doesn't look like he was projecting any such thing to me, just that it looked like a good possibility.

    I was told yesterday by a committee member the WIAC is a lock for 2 Pool Cs.  That is what I am going by.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:20:31 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 10:03:53 PM
    With St Olaf and St John's both falling tonight, the MIAC's automatic berth will go to a team that was on the outside looking in.  However, Augsburg's win puts the Auggies onto the bubble even with a loss tomorrow, so if Bethel wins the auto bid, then it's possible the MIAC could get four bids, instead of the expected two.

    I don't see St. Olaf as a lock.  They have the same numbers as IWU (both lost tonight) and certainly IWU is not a lock.

    * Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .760 (19-6)/.547/3-5
    * St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .760 (19-6)/.536/3-2

    St. Olaf is on the bubble as I see it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 10:21:14 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:13:56 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:05:21 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:02:04 PM
    UW-Platteville goes down to UW-River Falls and becomes another Pool C bid thief.

    Not necessarily that significant unless UWRF beats Oshkosh tomorrow -- the WIAC was already projected to be a 3-bid league.

    Drew had the WIAC with one lock (UWP), one strong contender (UWO), and one bubble-in (UWSP) coming into tonight. Doesn't look like he was projecting any such thing to me, just that it looked like a good possibility.

    I had the WIAC at 2.52 bids entering today, so let's call it half a bubble busted.  However, if River Falls wins tomorrow, then UWSP probably gets in anyway, giving the WIAC four bids.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:22:33 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 10:21:14 PM
    I had the WIAC at 2.52 bids entering today, so let's call it half a bubble busted.  However, if River Falls wins tomorrow, then UWSP probably gets in anyway, giving the WIAC four bids.
    Agree.  The real significance would be UWRF winning the WIAC's Pool A...because then the WIAC gets 3 Pool Cs (instead of 2).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:29:28 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:20:31 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 10:03:53 PM
    With St Olaf and St John's both falling tonight, the MIAC's automatic berth will go to a team that was on the outside looking in.  However, Augsburg's win puts the Auggies onto the bubble even with a loss tomorrow, so if Bethel wins the auto bid, then it's possible the MIAC could get four bids, instead of the expected two.

    I don't see St. Olaf as a lock.  They have the same numbers as IWU (both lost tonight) and certainly IWU is not a lock.

    * Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .760 (19-6)/.547/3-5
    * St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .760 (19-6)/.536/3-2

    St. Olaf is on the bubble as I see it.

    ... except that Bethel looks like a likely bet to make the final West Region ranking, and St. Olaf went 2-1 against the Royals this season. That puts the Oles at 5-3 vRRO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 10:30:02 PM
    With nearly all scores in, I am re-running numbers at the moment...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2018, 10:34:44 PM
    Not that it matters much, except the waiting part, the WIAC Final is on SUNDAY.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:37:10 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:29:28 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2018, 10:20:31 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 10:03:53 PM
    With St Olaf and St John's both falling tonight, the MIAC's automatic berth will go to a team that was on the outside looking in.  However, Augsburg's win puts the Auggies onto the bubble even with a loss tomorrow, so if Bethel wins the auto bid, then it's possible the MIAC could get four bids, instead of the expected two.

    I don't see St. Olaf as a lock.  They have the same numbers as IWU (both lost tonight) and certainly IWU is not a lock.

    * Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .760 (19-6)/.547/3-5
    * St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .760 (19-6)/.536/3-2

    St. Olaf is on the bubble as I see it.

    ... except that Bethel looks like a likely bet to make the final West Region ranking, and St. Olaf went 2-1 against the Royals this season. That puts the Oles at 5-3 vRRO.

    I think my point still stands - St. Olaf is not a lock.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2018, 10:41:11 PM
    I'm not taking a position on that. I'm just correcting the vRRO of the Oles.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 11:07:37 PM
    I agree with both of you.  The only real difference between IWU and St. Olaf is the projected vRRO records, but that's enough to have a huge impact here.  St Olaf (19-7, .544, 5-4) is at 97%, while the IWU (19-7, .550, 3-6) is at 33%.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 11:10:20 PM
    As of 10pm EST Friday night...

    Confirmed Pool A teams
    Washington U. (22-2, 13-0 UAA, SOS 0.540, 7-2 vRRO, CE#1)

    Locks & near-locks
    100% (C#1) Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 6-2 vRRO, NE#1) 22% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 7-3
    100% (C#2) Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.584, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) 18% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.591 / 8-4
    100% (A) Augustana (21-5, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.570, 7-3 vRRO, CE#3) 63% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.574 / 7-4
    100% (A) Williams (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.587, 6-4 vRRO, NE#4) 30% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.596 / 6-5
    100% (A) Whitman (25-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.516, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) 81% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.527 / 4-1
    100% (C#3) UW-Platteville (20-4, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.577, 4-1 vRRO, CE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    100% (A) Wittenberg (24-2, 16-2 NCAC, SOS 0.527, 5-1 vRRO, GL#1) 76% A, proj. 0.889 / 0.531 / 5-2
    100% (C#4) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.589, 4-6 vRRO, NE#5) 0% A, proj. 5-6 vRRO
    100% (A) Eastern Connecticut (23-3, 13-1 LEC, SOS 0.533, 4-1 vRRO, NE#3) 75% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.538 / 4-2
    100% (C#5) Wooster (21-6, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.564, 4-3 vRRO, GL#2) 0% A, proj. 4-3 vRRO
    100% (C#6) Marietta (21-6, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.563, 4-5 vRRO, GL#4) 0% A, proj. 5-5 vRRO
    100% (A) Cabrini (23-3, 16-2 CSAC, SOS 0.534, 2-1 vRRO, AT#1) 71% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.539 / 3-3
    100% (C#7) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 6-4 vRRO, AT#2) 0% A, proj. 7-4 vRRO
    100% (A) John Carroll (22-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.540, 6-2 vRRO, GL#3) 73% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.545 / 7-3
    100% (C#8) Johns Hopkins (22-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.533, 5-3 vRRO, MA#4) 47% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.544 / 5-4
    100% (A) Swarthmore (22-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.534, 3-3 vRRO, MA#5) 53% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.541 / 4-4
    100% (C#9) York (Pa.) (22-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.529, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 33% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.539 / 4-3
    100% (A) Christopher Newport (21-5, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.539, 3-1 vRRO, MA#2) 67% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.545 / 6-2
    99% (C#10) St. John's (22-3, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.524, 3-2 vRRO, WE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-2 vRRO
    99% (C#11) Emory (20-4, 11-2 UAA, SOS 0.525, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 4-2 vRRO
    99% (C#12) Whitworth (23-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.521, 1-3 vRRO, WE#3) 20% A, fin 99% C

    Strong contenders
    97% (A) Ramapo (20-6, 16-3 NJAC, SOS 0.543, 5-5 vRRO, AT#3) 76% A, fin 97% C
    97% (C#13) St. Olaf (19-7, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.544, 3-2 vRRO, WE#4) 0% A, proj. 5-4 vRRO
    94% (A) Plattsburgh State (21-4, 17-1 SUNYAC, SOS 0.524, 3-3 vRRO, EA#2) 86% A, fin 94% C
    91% (A) Albright (20-5, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.541, 3-1 vRRO, MA#3) 73% A, fin 91% C

    Bubble-in
    79% (C#14) Franklin and Marshall (20-6, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.534, 3-4 vRRO, MA#6) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    79% (C#15) UW-Oshkosh (20-7, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.554, 2-4 vRRO, CE#4) 0% A, proj. 4-5 vRRO
    78% (A) UW-Stevens Point (18-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.605, 4-6 vRRO, CE#5) 62% A, fin 78% C
    78% (A) Maryville (Tenn.) (19-5, 14-2 USAC, SOS 0.531, 2-2 vRRO, SO#6) 62% A, fin 100% C, semi 70% C
    61% (C#16) LeTourneau (23-4, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.510, 2-2 vRRO, SO#4) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    58% (A) Hobart (21-4, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.523, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 69% A, fin 64% C, semi 50% C
    57% (A) Springfield (18-7, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.557, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 44% A, fin 82% C, semi 29% C
    55% (C#17) Augsburg (20-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.539, 4-3 vRRO, WE#6) 38% A, fin 55% C

    Bubble-out
    46% (A) Sul Ross State (20-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.517, 1-1 vRRO, SO#3) 45% A, fin 99% C, semi 17% C
    39% (A) Nichols (24-3, 16-2 CCC, SOS 0.515, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 76% A, fin 39% C
    37% (C#18) Keene State (19-8, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.567, 2-5 vRRO, NE#8) 25% A, fin 37% C
    33% (C#19) Illinois Wesleyan (19-7, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.550, 3-6 vRRO, CE#6) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    31% (C#20) Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.565, 4-5 vRRO, NE#7) 30% A, fin 69% C, semi 8% C
    29% (C#21) MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.528, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 35% A, fin 56% C, semi 5% C
    20% (C#22) North Central (Ill.) (18-7, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.555, 4-4 vRRO, CE#7) 37% A, fin 20% C

    Fringe contenders
    19% (C#23) Salem State (22-4, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.510, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 0% A, proj. 1-2 vRRO
    15% (C#24) UW-River Falls (18-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.587, 3-6 vRRO, CE) 38% A, fin 15% C
    15% (A) Nebraska Wesleyan (22-3, 13-3 IIAC, SOS 0.506, 4-1 vRRO, WE#5) 88% A, fin 15% C
    11% (C#25) Loras (19-7, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.542, 2-3 vRRO, WE#7) 0% A, proj. 3-3 vRRO
    11% (C#26) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.579, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A, proj. 2-7 vRRO
    5% (C#27) Randolph-Macon (18-8, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.546, 3-3 vRRO, SO#2) 0% A, proj. 4-4 vRRO
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2018, 11:25:15 PM
    So I'm guessing River Falls, NCC, OWU, ONU and Neumann could all bust bubbles if they win their conference championship games vs Stevens Point, Augustana, Wittenberg, JCU and Cabrini...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: mailsy on February 23, 2018, 11:26:22 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 11:10:20 PM
    As of 10pm EST Friday night...

    Confirmed Pool A teams
    Washington U. (22-2, 13-0 UAA, SOS 0.540, 7-2 vRRO, CE#1)

    Locks & near-locks
    100% (C#1) Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 6-2 vRRO, NE#1) 22% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 7-3
    100% (C#2) Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.584, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) 18% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.591 / 8-4
    100% (A) Augustana (21-5, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.570, 7-3 vRRO, CE#3) 63% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.574 / 7-4
    100% (A) Williams (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.587, 6-4 vRRO, NE#4) 30% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.596 / 6-5
    100% (A) Whitman (25-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.516, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) 81% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.527 / 4-1
    100% (C#3) UW-Platteville (20-4, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.577, 4-1 vRRO, CE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    100% (A) Wittenberg (24-2, 16-2 NCAC, SOS 0.527, 5-1 vRRO, GL#1) 76% A, proj. 0.889 / 0.531 / 5-2
    100% (C#4) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.589, 4-6 vRRO, NE#5) 0% A, proj. 5-6 vRRO
    100% (A) Eastern Connecticut (23-3, 13-1 LEC, SOS 0.533, 4-1 vRRO, NE#3) 75% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.538 / 4-2
    100% (C#5) Wooster (21-6, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.564, 4-3 vRRO, GL#2) 0% A, proj. 4-3 vRRO
    100% (C#6) Marietta (21-6, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.563, 4-5 vRRO, GL#4) 0% A, proj. 5-5 vRRO
    100% (A) Cabrini (23-3, 16-2 CSAC, SOS 0.534, 2-1 vRRO, AT#1) 71% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.539 / 3-3
    100% (C#7) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 6-4 vRRO, AT#2) 0% A, proj. 7-4 vRRO
    100% (A) John Carroll (22-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.540, 6-2 vRRO, GL#3) 73% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.545 / 7-3
    100% (C#8) Johns Hopkins (22-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.533, 5-3 vRRO, MA#4) 47% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.544 / 5-4
    100% (A) Swarthmore (22-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.534, 3-3 vRRO, MA#5) 53% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.541 / 4-4
    100% (C#9) York (Pa.) (22-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.529, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 33% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.539 / 4-3
    100% (A) Christopher Newport (21-5, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.539, 3-1 vRRO, MA#2) 67% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.545 / 6-2
    99% (C#10) St. John's (22-3, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.524, 3-2 vRRO, WE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-2 vRRO
    99% (C#11) Emory (20-4, 11-2 UAA, SOS 0.525, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 4-2 vRRO
    99% (C#12) Whitworth (23-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.521, 1-3 vRRO, WE#3) 20% A, fin 99% C

    Strong contenders
    97% (A) Ramapo (20-6, 16-3 NJAC, SOS 0.543, 5-5 vRRO, AT#3) 76% A, fin 97% C
    97% (C#13) St. Olaf (19-7, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.544, 3-2 vRRO, WE#4) 0% A, proj. 5-4 vRRO
    94% (A) Plattsburgh State (21-4, 17-1 SUNYAC, SOS 0.524, 3-3 vRRO, EA#2) 86% A, fin 94% C
    91% (A) Albright (20-5, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.541, 3-1 vRRO, MA#3) 73% A, fin 91% C

    Bubble-in
    79% (C#14) Franklin and Marshall (20-6, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.534, 3-4 vRRO, MA#6) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    79% (C#15) UW-Oshkosh (20-7, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.554, 2-4 vRRO, CE#4) 0% A, proj. 4-5 vRRO
    78% (A) UW-Stevens Point (18-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.605, 4-6 vRRO, CE#5) 62% A, fin 78% C
    78% (A) Maryville (Tenn.) (19-5, 14-2 USAC, SOS 0.531, 2-2 vRRO, SO#6) 62% A, fin 100% C, semi 70% C
    61% (C#16) LeTourneau (23-4, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.510, 2-2 vRRO, SO#4) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    58% (A) Hobart (21-4, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.523, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 69% A, fin 64% C, semi 50% C
    57% (A) Springfield (18-7, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.557, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 44% A, fin 82% C, semi 29% C
    55% (C#17) Augsburg (20-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.539, 4-3 vRRO, WE#6) 38% A, fin 55% C

    Bubble-out
    46% (A) Sul Ross State (20-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.517, 1-1 vRRO, SO#3) 45% A, fin 99% C, semi 17% C
    39% (A) Nichols (24-3, 16-2 CCC, SOS 0.515, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 76% A, fin 39% C
    37% (C#18) Keene State (19-8, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.567, 2-5 vRRO, NE#8) 25% A, fin 37% C
    33% (C#19) Illinois Wesleyan (19-7, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.550, 3-6 vRRO, CE#6) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    31% (C#20) Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.565, 4-5 vRRO, NE#7) 30% A, fin 69% C, semi 8% C
    29% (C#21) MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.528, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 35% A, fin 56% C, semi 5% C
    20% (C#22) North Central (Ill.) (18-7, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.555, 4-4 vRRO, CE#7) 37% A, fin 20% C

    Fringe contenders
    19% (C#23) Salem State (22-4, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.510, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 0% A, proj. 1-2 vRRO
    15% (C#24) UW-River Falls (18-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.587, 3-6 vRRO, CE) 38% A, fin 15% C
    15% (A) Nebraska Wesleyan (22-3, 13-3 IIAC, SOS 0.506, 4-1 vRRO, WE#5) 88% A, fin 15% C
    11% (C#25) Loras (19-7, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.542, 2-3 vRRO, WE#7) 0% A, proj. 3-3 vRRO
    11% (C#26) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.579, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A, proj. 2-7 vRRO
    5% (C#27) Randolph-Macon (18-8, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.546, 3-3 vRRO, SO#2) 0% A, proj. 4-4 vRRO

    I'm not sure if you're including all Pool A teams, but Staten Island won the CUNYAC tonight.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 11:33:47 PM
    Quote from: mailsy on February 23, 2018, 11:26:22 PM
    I'm not sure if you're including all Pool A teams, but Staten Island won the CUNYAC tonight.

    Thank you.  I don't think that score was in yet when I started pulling data, over an hour ago.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 12:26:02 AM
    Here is how I see things through Saturday.  This is just a snapshot as of right now - teams that are still alive can move pretty significantly up and down with every result.

    Safely In
    1. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .800 (20-5)/.584/7-3   @ Amherst, Sat
    2. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .880 (22-3)/.567/8-4  @ Williams, Sat
    3. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .792 (19-5)/.587/6-4   vs Hamilton, Sat
    4. UW-Platteville (WE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   done
    5. Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .846 (22-4)/.533/5-3   @ Swarthmore, Sat
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2  done
    7. York, Pa (MA/CAC): .846 (22-4)/.529/3-1   @ Christopher Newport, Sat
    8. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).589/4-6   done
    9. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-3  done
    10. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.563/4-5   done
    11. Whitworth (WE/NWC): .884 (23-3)/.521/1-3   @ Whitman, Sat
    12. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.568/6-4   done
    13. Emory (SO/UAA): .833 (20-4)/.525/3-2  @ Rochester, Sat
    14. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   done
    15. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   done

    At the Mercy of Bubble Burster Results
    16. North Central (CE/CCIW): .720 (18-7)/.555/4-4   @ Augustana, Sat
    17. Augsburg (WE/MIAC): .741 (20-7)/.539/4-3   @ Bethel, Sat
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6   done
    19. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.534/3-4   done
    20. UW-River Falls (WE/WIAC): .692 (18-8)/.587/3-6   @ UW-Stevens Point, Sun
    21. MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .800 (20-5)/.528/2-3  @ Babson, Sat

    Out
    22. Salem State (NE/MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.510/1-2   done
    23. LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.510/0-1   done
    24. Loras (WE/IIAC): .730 (19-7)/.542/2-3  done
    25. Keene State (NE/LEC): .703 (19-8)/.567/2-5  @ Eastern Connecticut, Sat
    26. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.579/2-7   done
    27. Randolph-Macon (SO/ODAC): .692 (18-8)/.546/3-3   done
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 24, 2018, 01:27:05 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2018, 11:25:15 PM
    So I'm guessing River Falls, NCC, OWU, ONU and Neumann could all bust bubbles if they win their conference championship games vs Stevens Point, Augustana, Wittenberg, JCU and Cabrini...

    I would maybe add Keene State in that list. They have a chance with a loss, but Eastern CT definitely has a better chance at a Pool C bid.

    Also if Bethel beats Augsburg that would not be great for teams on the bubble, as Augsburg now has a chance to receive a Pool C bid after their big win at SJU Friday.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2018, 07:03:59 AM
    Oneonta over Plattsburgh St as well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 08:56:23 AM
    Here are the games that Pool C bubble teams need to go the right way (listed in order of significance).  The bold teams are the bubble fan's friend this weekend...

    Bubble Bursters (projected Pool A teams that could steal a Pool C)
    * Augustana over NCC in the CCIW final, Saturday 8pm ET

    * Wittenberg over Ohio Wesleyan in the NCAC final, Saturday 4pm ET

    * Eastern Connecticut over Keene State in the LEC final, Saturday 5pm ET

    * Cabrini over Neumann in the CSAC final, Saturday 7pm ET

    * John Carroll over Ohio Northern in the OAC final, Saturday 7:30pm ET

    * Ramapo over William Paterson in the NJAC final, Saturday 3:00pm ET

    * Plattsburgh State over SUNY Oneonta in the SUNYAC final, Saturday 4:00pm ET

    * Albright over Lebanon Valley in the Commonwealth final, Saturday 4:00pm ET

    * UW-Stevens Point over UW-River Falls, Sunday 3:00pm ET

    * Sul Ross State over East Texas Baptist in the ASC final, Saturday 7:00pm ET


    Reverse Bubble Burster (projected Pool C teams leaving Pool C)
    * Williams, Wesleyan, or Hamilton winning the NESCAC over Amherst, semifinals Saturday 5:30pm & 7:30pm ET

    * Augsburg over Bethel in the MIAC final, Sunday 3pm ET

    * Babson over MIT in the NEWMAC semis, Saturday 3:30pm ET
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2018, 09:19:41 AM
    Fwiw, I believe whomever loses the WIAC final will be 18-9, .667. In Point's case, if they lose, River Falls will surely jump back into the rankings, adding a 2-1 vRRO for Point.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 09:34:22 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2018, 09:19:41 AM
    Fwiw, I believe whomever loses the WIAC final will be 18-9, .667. In Point's case, if they lose, River Falls will surely jump back into the rankings, adding a 2-1 vRRO for Point.

    Sorry, yes you're right - .667.  I added the WIAC game above.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 24, 2018, 09:45:52 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 23, 2018, 11:10:20 PM
    As of 10pm EST Friday night...

    Confirmed Pool A teams
    Washington U. (22-2, 13-0 UAA, SOS 0.540, 7-2 vRRO, CE#1)

    Locks & near-locks
    100% (C#1) Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 6-2 vRRO, NE#1) 22% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 7-3
    100% (C#2) Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.584, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) 18% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.591 / 8-4
    100% (A) Augustana (21-5, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.570, 7-3 vRRO, CE#3) 63% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.574 / 7-4
    100% (A) Williams (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.587, 6-4 vRRO, NE#4) 30% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.596 / 6-5
    100% (A) Whitman (25-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.516, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) 81% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.527 / 4-1
    100% (C#3) UW-Platteville (20-4, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.577, 4-1 vRRO, CE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    100% (A) Wittenberg (24-2, 16-2 NCAC, SOS 0.527, 5-1 vRRO, GL#1) 76% A, proj. 0.889 / 0.531 / 5-2
    100% (C#4) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.589, 4-6 vRRO, NE#5) 0% A, proj. 5-6 vRRO
    100% (A) Eastern Connecticut (23-3, 13-1 LEC, SOS 0.533, 4-1 vRRO, NE#3) 75% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.538 / 4-2
    100% (C#5) Wooster (21-6, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.564, 4-3 vRRO, GL#2) 0% A, proj. 4-3 vRRO
    100% (C#6) Marietta (21-6, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.563, 4-5 vRRO, GL#4) 0% A, proj. 5-5 vRRO
    100% (A) Cabrini (23-3, 16-2 CSAC, SOS 0.534, 2-1 vRRO, AT#1) 71% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.539 / 3-3
    100% (C#7) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 6-4 vRRO, AT#2) 0% A, proj. 7-4 vRRO
    100% (A) John Carroll (22-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.540, 6-2 vRRO, GL#3) 73% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.545 / 7-3
    100% (C#8) Johns Hopkins (22-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.533, 5-3 vRRO, MA#4) 47% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.544 / 5-4
    100% (A) Swarthmore (22-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.534, 3-3 vRRO, MA#5) 53% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.541 / 4-4
    100% (C#9) York (Pa.) (22-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.529, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 33% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.539 / 4-3
    100% (A) Christopher Newport (21-5, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.539, 3-1 vRRO, MA#2) 67% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.545 / 6-2
    99% (C#10) St. John's (22-3, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.524, 3-2 vRRO, WE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-2 vRRO
    99% (C#11) Emory (20-4, 11-2 UAA, SOS 0.525, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 4-2 vRRO
    99% (C#12) Whitworth (23-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.521, 1-3 vRRO, WE#3) 20% A, fin 99% C

    Strong contenders
    97% (A) Ramapo (20-6, 16-3 NJAC, SOS 0.543, 5-5 vRRO, AT#3) 76% A, fin 97% C
    97% (C#13) St. Olaf (19-7, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.544, 3-2 vRRO, WE#4) 0% A, proj. 5-4 vRRO
    94% (A) Plattsburgh State (21-4, 17-1 SUNYAC, SOS 0.524, 3-3 vRRO, EA#2) 86% A, fin 94% C
    91% (A) Albright (20-5, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.541, 3-1 vRRO, MA#3) 73% A, fin 91% C

    Bubble-in
    79% (C#14) Franklin and Marshall (20-6, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.534, 3-4 vRRO, MA#6) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    79% (C#15) UW-Oshkosh (20-7, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.554, 2-4 vRRO, CE#4) 0% A, proj. 4-5 vRRO
    78% (A) UW-Stevens Point (18-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.605, 4-6 vRRO, CE#5) 62% A, fin 78% C
    78% (A) Maryville (Tenn.) (19-5, 14-2 USAC, SOS 0.531, 2-2 vRRO, SO#6) 62% A, fin 100% C, semi 70% C
    61% (C#16) LeTourneau (23-4, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.510, 2-2 vRRO, SO#4) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    58% (A) Hobart (21-4, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.523, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 69% A, fin 64% C, semi 50% C
    57% (A) Springfield (18-7, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.557, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 44% A, fin 82% C, semi 29% C
    55% (C#17) Augsburg (20-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.539, 4-3 vRRO, WE#6) 38% A, fin 55% C

    Bubble-out
    46% (A) Sul Ross State (20-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.517, 1-1 vRRO, SO#3) 45% A, fin 99% C, semi 17% C
    39% (A) Nichols (24-3, 16-2 CCC, SOS 0.515, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 76% A, fin 39% C
    37% (C#18) Keene State (19-8, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.567, 2-5 vRRO, NE#8) 25% A, fin 37% C
    33% (C#19) Illinois Wesleyan (19-7, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.550, 3-6 vRRO, CE#6) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    31% (C#20) Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.565, 4-5 vRRO, NE#7) 30% A, fin 69% C, semi 8% C
    29% (C#21) MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.528, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 35% A, fin 56% C, semi 5% C
    20% (C#22) North Central (Ill.) (18-7, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.555, 4-4 vRRO, CE#7) 37% A, fin 20% C

    Fringe contenders
    19% (C#23) Salem State (22-4, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.510, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 0% A, proj. 1-2 vRRO
    15% (C#24) UW-River Falls (18-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.587, 3-6 vRRO, CE) 38% A, fin 15% C
    15% (A) Nebraska Wesleyan (22-3, 13-3 IIAC, SOS 0.506, 4-1 vRRO, WE#5) 88% A, fin 15% C
    11% (C#25) Loras (19-7, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.542, 2-3 vRRO, WE#7) 0% A, proj. 3-3 vRRO
    11% (C#26) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.579, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A, proj. 2-7 vRRO
    5% (C#27) Randolph-Macon (18-8, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.546, 3-3 vRRO, SO#2) 0% A, proj. 4-4 vRRO

    Fantastic50,
      Would you please do this same stat run for the women, if it's not too much to ask? I'd appreciate it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 24, 2018, 11:12:13 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 08:56:23 AM
    Here are the games that Pool C bubble teams need to go the right way (listed in order of significance).  The bold teams are the bubble fan's friend this weekend...

    Bubble Bursters (projected Pool A teams that could steal a Pool C)
    * Augustana over NCC in the CCIW final, Saturday 8pm ET

    * Wittenberg over Ohio Wesleyan in the NCAC final, Saturday 4pm ET

    * Eastern Connecticut over Keene State in the LEC final, Saturday 5pm ET

    * Cabrini over Neumann in the CSAC final, Saturday 7pm ET

    * John Carroll over Ohio Northern in the OAC final, Saturday 7:30pm ET

    * Ramapo over William Paterson in the NJAC final, Saturday 3:00pm ET

    * Plattsburgh State over SUNY Oneonta in the SUNYAC final, Saturday 4:00pm ET

    * Albright over Lebanon Valley in the Commonwealth final, Saturday 4:00pm ET

    * UW-Stevens Point over UW-River Falls, Sunday 3:00pm ET

    * Maryville (TN) over Covenant in the USAC final, Saturday 6:00pm ET

    * Hobart over Skidmore in the Liberty semis, Saturday 2:00pm ET


    Reverse Bubble Burster (projected Pool C teams leaving Pool C)
    * Williams, Wesleyan, or Hamilton winning the NESCAC over Amherst, semifinals Saturday 5:30pm & 7:30pm ET

    * Augsburg over Bethel in the MIAC final, Sunday 3pm ET

    * Babson over MIT in the NEWMAC semis, Saturday 3:30pm ET

    I will add Sul Ross State to the list, as Drew has them at 99% if pool C now, and I dont think any other ASC team is in consideration.

    Also, is Babson wouldnt be a Reverse Pool C team would they, MIT might be though. However they could also be out of it with a loss so I dont know how that one should go.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 11:23:23 AM
    Here's my latest.  I think that the bid-thief list lines up with what TitanQ posted earlier.

    Confirmed Pool A teams
    Staten Island (17-10, 12-4 CUNYAC, SOS 0.498, 1-5 vRRO, AT)
    Washington U. (22-2, 13-0 UAA, SOS 0.540, 7-2 vRRO, CE#1)

    Locks & near-locks
    100% (C#1) Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.567, 6-2 vRRO, NE#1) 22% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.573 / 7-3
    100% (C#2) Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.584, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) 17% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.591 / 8-4
    100% (A) Augustana (21-5, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.570, 7-3 vRRO, CE#3) 62% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.574 / 7-4
    100% (C#3) Williams (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.587, 6-4 vRRO, NE#4) 30% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.596 / 6-5
    100% (A) Whitman (25-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.516, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) 82% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.526 / 4-1
    100% (C#4) UW-Platteville (20-4, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.577, 4-1 vRRO, CE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    100% (A) Wittenberg (24-2, 16-2 NCAC, SOS 0.527, 5-1 vRRO, GL#1) 76% A, proj. 0.889 / 0.531 / 5-2
    100% (C#5) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.589, 4-6 vRRO, NE#5) 0% A, proj. 5-6 vRRO
    100% (A) Eastern Connecticut (23-3, 13-1 LEC, SOS 0.533, 4-1 vRRO, NE#3) 75% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.538 / 4-2
    100% (C#6) Wooster (21-6, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.564, 4-3 vRRO, GL#2) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    100% (C#7) Marietta (21-6, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.563, 4-5 vRRO, GL#4) 0% A, proj. 5-5 vRRO
    100% (A) Cabrini (23-3, 16-2 CSAC, SOS 0.534, 2-1 vRRO, AT#1) 71% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.539 / 3-3
    100% (C#8) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.568, 6-4 vRRO, AT#2) 0% A, proj. 7-4 vRRO
    100% (A) John Carroll (22-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.540, 6-2 vRRO, GL#3) 73% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.545 / 7-3
    100% (C#9) Johns Hopkins (22-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.533, 5-3 vRRO, MA#4) 48% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.544 / 5-4
    100% (A) Swarthmore (22-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.534, 3-3 vRRO, MA#5) 52% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.541 / 4-4
    100% (C#10) York (Pa.) (22-4, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.529, 3-1 vRRO, MA#1) 32% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.539 / 4-3
    100% (A) Christopher Newport (21-5, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.539, 3-1 vRRO, MA#2) 68% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.545 / 6-2
    99% (C#11) St. John's (22-3, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.524, 3-2 vRRO, WE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-2 vRRO
    99% (C#12) Emory (20-4, 11-2 UAA, SOS 0.525, 3-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 4-2 vRRO
    99% (C#13) Whitworth (23-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.521, 1-3 vRRO, WE#3) 18% A, fin 99% C
    99% (A) Sul Ross State (21-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.522, 2-1 vRRO, SO#3) 71% A, fin 99% C

    Strong contenders
    98% (A) Ramapo (20-6, 16-3 NJAC, SOS 0.543, 5-5 vRRO, AT#3) 75% A, fin 98% C
    97% (C#14) St. Olaf (19-7, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.544, 3-2 vRRO, WE#4) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    96% (A) Plattsburgh State (21-4, 17-1 SUNYAC, SOS 0.523, 3-3 vRRO, EA#2) 87% A, fin 96% C
    91% (A) Albright (20-5, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.541, 3-1 vRRO, MA#3) 71% A, fin 91% C
    81% (A) UW-Stevens Point (18-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.605, 4-6 vRRO, CE#5) 63% A, fin 81% C

    Bubble-in
    79% (C#15) UW-Oshkosh (20-7, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.555, 2-4 vRRO, CE#4) 0% A, proj. 4-5 vRRO
    77% (C#16) Franklin and Marshall (20-6, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.535, 3-4 vRRO, MA#6) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    69% (A) Maryville (Tenn.) (19-5, 14-2 USAC, SOS 0.531, 2-2 vRRO, SO#6) 71% A, fin 69% C
    60% (A) Springfield (18-7, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.557, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 44% A, fin 83% C, semi 32% C
    59% (A) Hobart (21-4, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.523, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 67% A, fin 67% C, semi 46% C
    59% (C#17) LeTourneau (23-4, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.510, 2-2 vRRO, SO#4) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    57% (C#18) Augsburg (20-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.539, 4-3 vRRO, WE#6) 38% A, fin 57% C

    Bubble-out
    37% (C#19) Keene State (19-8, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.567, 2-5 vRRO, NE#8) 25% A, fin 37% C
    35% (A) Nichols (24-3, 16-2 CCC, SOS 0.515, 0-1 vRRO, NE) 76% A, fin 35% C
    34% (C#20) Illinois Wesleyan (19-7, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.550, 3-6 vRRO, CE#6) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    31% (A) Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.565, 4-5 vRRO, NE#7) 31% A, fin 69% C, semi 7% C
    31% (C#21) MIT (20-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.528, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 35% A, fin 58% C, semi 7% C
    20% (C#22) Salem State (22-4, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.510, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 0% A, proj. 1-2 vRRO

    Fringe contenders
    16% (C#23) North Central (Ill.) (18-7, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.555, 4-4 vRRO, CE#7) 38% A, fin 16% C
    15% (A) Nebraska Wesleyan (22-3, 13-3 IIAC, SOS 0.506, 4-1 vRRO, WE#5) 88% A, fin 15% C
    14% (C#24) UW-River Falls (18-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.587, 3-6 vRRO, CE) 37% A, fin 14% C
    13% (C#25) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.581, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A, proj. 2-7 vRRO
    12% (C#26) Loras (19-7, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.542, 2-3 vRRO, WE#7) 0% A, proj. 3-3 vRRO
    6% (C#27) Randolph-Macon (18-8, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.546, 3-3 vRRO, SO#2) 0% A, proj. 4-4 vRRO

    Longshots
    2% (C#28) East Texas Baptist (21-6, 12-4 ASC, SOS 0.529, 2-5 vRRO, SO) 29% A, fin 2% C

    Upcoming potential bid thief games (2.48 expected bubbles burst)
    CSAC: #1 Cabrini (100% C) vs #3 Neumann (0% C)
    NCAC: #1 Wittenberg (100% C) vs #3 Ohio Wesleyan (0% C)
    OAC: #1 John Carroll (100% C) vs #3 Ohio Northern (0% C)
    NJAC: #1 Ramapo (98% C) vs #6 William Paterson (0% C)
    ASC: #1 Sul Ross State (99% C) vs #6 East Texas Baptist (2% C)
    SUNYAC: #1 Plattsburgh State (96% C) vs #6 SUNY Oneonta (0% C)
    MACC: #1 Albright (91% C) vs #2 Lebanon Valley (0% C)
    CCIW: #1 Augustana (100% C) vs #3 North Central (Ill.) (16% C)
    WIAC: #2 UW-Stevens Point (81% C) vs #4 UW-River Falls (14% C)
    LEC: #1 Eastern Connecticut (100% C) vs #2 Keene State (37% C)
    NEWMAC: #1 Springfield (60% C) vs #4 WPI (0% C)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 11:26:22 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 24, 2018, 09:45:52 AM
    Fantastic50,
      Would you please do this same stat run for the women, if it's not too much to ask? I'd appreciate it.

    I would like to do that, but first need to build a good model for what the women's committee finds important, based on the last several years of Pool C selections.  That may well be different than on the men's side, even though the written criteria are the same.  Maybe next year...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 11:29:59 AM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 24, 2018, 11:12:13 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 08:56:23 AM
    Here are the games that Pool C bubble teams need to go the right way (listed in order of significance).  The bold teams are the bubble fan's friend this weekend...

    Bubble Bursters (projected Pool A teams that could steal a Pool C)
    * Augustana over NCC in the CCIW final, Saturday 8pm ET

    * Wittenberg over Ohio Wesleyan in the NCAC final, Saturday 4pm ET

    * Eastern Connecticut over Keene State in the LEC final, Saturday 5pm ET

    * Cabrini over Neumann in the CSAC final, Saturday 7pm ET

    * John Carroll over Ohio Northern in the OAC final, Saturday 7:30pm ET

    * Ramapo over William Paterson in the NJAC final, Saturday 3:00pm ET

    * Plattsburgh State over SUNY Oneonta in the SUNYAC final, Saturday 4:00pm ET

    * Albright over Lebanon Valley in the Commonwealth final, Saturday 4:00pm ET

    * UW-Stevens Point over UW-River Falls, Sunday 3:00pm ET

    * Maryville (TN) over Covenant in the USAC final, Saturday 6:00pm ET

    * Hobart over Skidmore in the Liberty semis, Saturday 2:00pm ET


    Reverse Bubble Burster (projected Pool C teams leaving Pool C)
    * Williams, Wesleyan, or Hamilton winning the NESCAC over Amherst, semifinals Saturday 5:30pm & 7:30pm ET

    * Augsburg over Bethel in the MIAC final, Sunday 3pm ET

    * Babson over MIT in the NEWMAC semis, Saturday 3:30pm ET

    I will add Sul Ross State to the list, as Drew has them at 99% if pool C now, and I dont think any other ASC team is in consideration.

    Also, is Babson wouldnt be a Reverse Pool C team would they, MIT might be though. However they could also be out of it with a loss so I dont know how that one should go.

    Agree I should add Sul Ross State.

    With Babson/MIT, what I mean is that with a loss in the NEWMAC semis, I have MIT out of the Pool C top 21.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 11:33:52 AM
    Here are the latest projected numbers of total bids by conference. Those not listed will get only one bid.

    NESCAC 4.65 (Amherst 31%)
    MIAC 3.32 (Bethel 62%)
    WIAC 3.17 (UW-Stevens Point 63%)
    CC 2.77 (Swarthmore 52%)
    OAC 2.27 (John Carroll 73%)
    NJAC 2.24 (Ramapo 75%)
    NCAC 2.24 (Wittenberg 76%)
    CAC 2.00 (Christopher Newport 68%)
    NWC 2.00 (Whitman 82%)
    UAA 2.00 (Washington U. 100%)
    ASC 1.89 (Sul Ross State 71%)
    CCIW 1.82 (Augustana 62%)
    NEWMAC 1.54 (Springfield 44%)
    LEC 1.52 (Eastern Connecticut 75%)
    CSAC 1.30 (Cabrini 71%)
    MACC 1.26 (Albright 71%)
    MASCAC 1.20 (Bridgewater State 63%)
    USAC 1.20 (Maryville (Tenn.) 71%)
    LL 1.19 (Hobart 67%)
    IIAC 1.14 (Nebraska Wesleyan 88%)
    SUNYAC 1.14 (Plattsburgh State 87%)
    CCC 1.08 (Nichols 76%)
    ODAC 1.06 (Roanoke 52%)

    Expected Pool C berths, by region
    Northeast 4.99
    East 0.33
    Atlantic 1.54
    Mid-Atlantic 3.03
    South 2.15
    Great Lakes 2.51
    Central 2.99
    West 3.46
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 12:19:56 PM
    Here is where I am heading into today's games.

    Projected In...

    Safely In
    1. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .800 (20-5)/.584/7-3   @ Amherst, Sat
    2. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .880 (22-3)/.567/8-4  @ Williams, Sat
    3. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .792 (19-5)/.587/6-4   vs Hamilton, Sat
    4. UW-Platteville (WE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   done
    5. Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .846 (22-4)/.533/5-3   @ Swarthmore, Sat
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2  done
    7. York, Pa (MA/CAC): .846 (22-4)/.529/3-1   @ Christopher Newport, Sat
    8. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).589/4-6   done
    9. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-3  done
    10. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.563/4-5   done
    11. Whitworth (WE/NWC): .884 (23-3)/.521/1-3   @ Whitman, Sat
    12. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.568/6-4   done
    13. Emory (SO/UAA): .833 (20-4)/.525/3-2  @ Rochester, Sat
    14. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   done

    At the Mercy of Bubble Burster Results
    15. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   done
    16. North Central (CE/CCIW): .720 (18-7)/.555/4-4   @ Augustana, Sat
    17. Augsburg (WE/MIAC): .741 (20-7)/.539/4-3   @ Bethel, Sat
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6   done
    19. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.534/3-4   done
    20. UW-River Falls (WE/WIAC): .692 (18-8)/.587/3-6   @ UW-Stevens Point, Sun
    21. MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .800 (20-5)/.528/2-3  @ Babson, Sat

    In the Conversation but Out...

    22. Salem State (NE/MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.510/1-2   done
    23. LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.510/0-1   done
    24. Loras (WE/IIAC): .730 (19-7)/.542/2-3  done
    25. Keene State (NE/LEC): .703 (19-8)/.567/2-5  @ Eastern Connecticut, Sat
    26. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.579/2-7   done
    27. Randolph-Macon (SO/ODAC): .692 (18-8)/.546/3-3   done
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bubble Burster Games (projected Pool A teams that could steal a Pool C)...

    * Augustana vs NCC in the CCIW final, Saturday 8:00pm ET
    * Wittenberg vs Ohio Wesleyan in the NCAC final, Saturday 4:00pm ET
    * Eastern Connecticut vs Keene State in the LEC final, Saturday 5:00pm ET
    * Cabrini vs Neumann in the CSAC final, Saturday 7:00pm ET
    * John Carroll vs Ohio Northern in the OAC final, Saturday 7:30pm ET
    * Ramapo vs William Paterson in the NJAC final, Saturday 3:00pm ET
    * Plattsburgh State vs SUNY Oneonta in the SUNYAC final, Saturday 4:00pm ET
    * Albright vs Lebanon Valley in the Commonwealth final, Saturday 4:00pm ET
    * UW-Stevens Point vs UW-River Falls, Sunday 3:00pm ET
    * Sul Ross State vs East Texas Baptist in the ASC final, Saturday 7:00pm ET
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reverse Bubble Burster Games (projected Pool C teams that could leave Pool C)...

    * Williams, Wesleyan, or Hamilton winning the NESCAC over Amherst, semifinals Saturday 5:30pm & 7:30pm ET
    * Augsburg at Bethel in the MIAC final, Sunday 3:00pm ET  (Augsburg Pool A with a win; Bethel not in the Pool C top 21)
    * MIT vs Babson in the NEWMAC semis, Saturday 3:30pm ET  (MIT out with a loss in the semis)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 02:53:27 PM
    NEWMAC semis final...

    WPI 84
    Springfield 80

    I did not have this as a bubble burster.  I think Springfield just bursted its own bubble.

    * Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.557/4-2

    Very competitive at the end of the bubble, but I think too many other overall resumes that are better.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 03:10:48 PM
    Here's the updated list of today's bubble-relevant games...

    Today's potential bubble-bursters
    1:00 - NEWMAC semis: #1 Springfield (60% C) vs #4 WPI (0% C) (Springfield falls, 84-80)
    3:00 - NJAC final: #1 Ramapo (98% C) vs #6 William Paterson (0% C) (Ramapo wins the AQ, 67-59)
    4:00 - NCAC final: #1 Wittenberg (100% C) vs #3 Ohio Wesleyan (0% C) (Witt wins, 82-70)
    4:00 - SUNYAC final: #1 Plattsburgh State (96% C) vs #6 SUNY Oneonta (0% C)
    4:00 - MACC final: #1 Albright (91% C) vs #2 Lebanon Valley (0% C)
    5:00 - LEC final: #1 Eastern Connecticut (100% C) vs #2 Keene State (37% C)
    7:00 - ASC final: #1 Sul Ross State (99% C) vs #6 East Texas Baptist (2% C)
    7:00 - CSAC final: #1 Cabrini (100% C) vs #3 Neumann (0% C)
    7:30 - OAC final: #1 John Carroll (100% C) vs #3 Ohio Northern (0% C)
    8:00 - CCIW final: #1 Augustana (100% C) vs #3 North Central (Ill.) (16% C)

    Today's games involving bubble teams
    1:00 - CCC final - #3 Endicott (19-8, 12-6) at #1 Nichols (24-3, 16-2, bubble-out) (Nichols wins the Pool A berth, 98-89)
    2:00 - LL semis: #5 Skidmore (15-10, 10-8) at #1 Hobart (21-4, 16-2, on the bubble) (Hobart loses, 63-60, and will stay on the bubble)
    3:30 - NEWMAC semis: #3 MIT (20-5, 10-4, almost must-win) vs #2 Babson (15-10, 10-4) (MIT wins 70-61 to move up to the bubble)
    5:00 - LEC final: #2 Keene State (19-8, 11-3, bubble-out) at #1 Eastern Connecticut (23-3, 13-1, safe)
    5:30 - NESCAC semis: #4 Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3, safe) at #1 Amherst (17-7, 7-3, almost must-win)
    6:00 - USAC final: #W3 Covenant (15-9, 10-6) at #W1 Maryville (Tenn.) (19-5, 14-2, bubble-in with a loss)
    8:00 - IIAC final: #6 Central (11-15, 7-9) at #1 Nebraska Wesleyan (22-3, 13-3, likely needs a win)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 24, 2018, 03:52:18 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 11:29:59 AM
    With Babson/MIT, what I mean is that with a loss in the NEWMAC semis, I have MIT out of the Pool C top 21.

    Yup I get it now. I didn't think about leaving pool C in terms of not having a good enough resume, only in terms of winning the AQ. Makes sense and I agree.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 03:54:08 PM
    I did not have Hobart/Skidmore as a bubble burster game - I considered it but felt like Hobart would burst their own bubble with a loss.

    *Hobart (East/LL): .808 (21-5)/.523/1-2

    I just don't think enough good stuff with the SOS and RRO there.  I think Hobart is out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 03:59:30 PM
    CAC championship final...

    York (Pa) 82
    Christopher Newport 73

    Just a Pool A/C swap here.  York (considered a Pool C lock) leaves Pool C, Christopher Newport enters (as a lock).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 04:40:56 PM
    Ramapo defeated Willie Pat, 67-59, to take the NJAC tourney title.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 04:49:28 PM
    This next hour could burst multiple bubbles...
    Plattsburgh St 42, SUNY-Oneonta 39 (half)
    Albright 30, Lebanon Valley 30 (early 2nd)
    Wittenberg 35, Ohio Wesleyan 35 (half)
    MIT 65, Babson 61 (late 2nd)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 04:57:21 PM
    MIT defeats Babson, 70-61, and keeps its Pool C hopes intact as it heads into tomorrow's NEWMAC title game against WPI. On the other side of that result, Babson's reign as D3 champion is now unofficially doomed.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 05:20:54 PM
    The NCAC goes chalk, as Wittenberg takes the Pool A berth with an 82-70 win over Ohio Wesleyan.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 05:22:51 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 04:57:21 PM
    MIT defeats Babson, 70-61, and keeps its Pool C hopes intact as it heads into tomorrow's NEWMAC title game against WPI. On the other side of that result, Babson's reign as D3 champion is now unofficially doomed.

    MIT getting the Pool A bid would be big for the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2018, 05:29:00 PM
    Hobart, the #1 team in the East went down to Skidmore.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 05:30:29 PM
    Lebanon Valley 70
    Albright 68

    That is a bubble burster.

    *Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.541/3-2

    Albright probably slots in about #16 or so.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 05:30:57 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2018, 05:29:00 PM
    Hobart, the #1 team in the East went down to Skidmore.

    Per above, probably not a Pool C factor.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 05:33:43 PM
    Re-posting list of bubble-relevant games forward to this page, just as Albright falls to Lebanon Valley, bursting a bubble.

    Today's potential bubble-bursters
    1:00 - NEWMAC semis: #1 Springfield (60% C) vs #4 WPI (0% C) (Springfield falls, 84-80)
    3:00 - NJAC final: #1 Ramapo (98% C) vs #6 William Paterson (0% C) (Ramapo wins the AQ, 67-59)
    4:00 - NCAC final: #1 Wittenberg (100% C) vs #3 Ohio Wesleyan (0% C) (Witt wins, 82-70)
    4:00 - SUNYAC final: #1 Plattsburgh State (96% C) vs #6 SUNY Oneonta (0% C)
    4:00 - MACC final: #1 Albright (91% C) vs #2 Lebanon Valley (0% C) (LV wins 70-68 on a late three.)
    5:00 - LEC final: #1 Eastern Connecticut (100% C) vs #2 Keene State (37% C)
    7:00 - ASC final: #1 Sul Ross State (99% C) vs #6 East Texas Baptist (2% C)
    7:00 - CSAC final: #1 Cabrini (100% C) vs #3 Neumann (0% C)
    7:30 - OAC final: #1 John Carroll (100% C) vs #3 Ohio Northern (0% C)
    8:00 - CCIW final: #1 Augustana (100% C) vs #3 North Central (Ill.) (16% C)

    Today's games involving bubble teams
    1:00 - CCC final - #3 Endicott (19-8, 12-6) at #1 Nichols (24-3, 16-2, bubble-out) (Nichols wins the Pool A berth, 98-89)
    2:00 - LL semis: #5 Skidmore (15-10, 10-8) at #1 Hobart (21-4, 16-2, on the bubble) (Hobart loses, 63-60, and will stay on the bubble)
    3:30 - NEWMAC semis: #3 MIT (20-5, 10-4, almost must-win) vs #2 Babson (15-10, 10-4) (MIT wins 70-61 to move up to the bubble)
    5:30 - NESCAC semis: #4 Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3, safe) at #1 Amherst (17-7, 7-3, almost must-win)
    6:00 - USAC final: #W3 Covenant (15-9, 10-6) at #W1 Maryville (Tenn.) (19-5, 14-2, bubble-in with a loss)
    8:00 - IIAC final: #6 Central (11-15, 7-9) at #1 Nebraska Wesleyan (22-3, 13-3, likely needs a win)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 05:37:08 PM
    SUNY Plattsburgh pulls away late in the North Country and wins the SUNYAC title at home over SUNY Oneonta.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2018, 05:37:16 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 05:30:57 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2018, 05:29:00 PM
    Hobart, the #1 team in the East went down to Skidmore.

    Per above, probably not a Pool C factor.

    Ok, missed that/forgot about that post. So, obviously no Pool C teams from the East then.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 05:38:44 PM
    Plattsburgh State 93
    SUNY Oneonta 80

    Good bubble result.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 06:23:26 PM
    Here are the new numbers hot off the presses...er CPU.  I'm expecting all but 9 of the teams below to get in, via Pools A or C.

    Locks & near-locks
    100% (C#1) Hamilton (22-3, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.568, 6-2 vRRO, NE#1) 22% A, proj. 0.846 / 0.575 / 7-3
    100% (C#2) Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.584, 7-3 vRRO, NE#2) 18% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.591 / 8-4
    100% (A) Augustana (21-5, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.569, 7-3 vRRO, CE#3) 63% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.573 / 7-4
    100% (C#3) Williams (19-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.586, 6-4 vRRO, NE#4) 29% A, proj. 0.760 / 0.595 / 6-5
    100% (A) Whitman (25-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.515, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) 81% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.526 / 4-1
    100% (C#4) UW-Platteville (20-4, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.576, 4-1 vRRO, CE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    100% (C#5) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.590, 4-6 vRRO, NE#5) 0% A, proj. 4-6 vRRO
    100% (A) Eastern Connecticut (23-3, 13-1 LEC, SOS 0.535, 4-1 vRRO, NE#3) 75% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.540 / 4-2
    100% (C#6) Marietta (21-6, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.565, 4-5 vRRO, GL#4) 0% A, proj. 6-5 vRRO
    100% (C#7) Wooster (21-6, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.565, 4-3 vRRO, GL#2) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    100% (A) Cabrini (23-3, 16-2 CSAC, SOS 0.534, 2-1 vRRO, AT#1) 71% A, proj. 0.852 / 0.539 / 3-3
    100% (A) John Carroll (22-5, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.541, 6-2 vRRO, GL#3) 73% A, proj. 0.786 / 0.545 / 7-3
    100% (C#8) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.566, 6-4 vRRO, AT#2) 0% A, proj. 6-4 vRRO
    100% (C#9) Johns Hopkins (22-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.532, 5-3 vRRO, MA#4) 47% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.543 / 5-4
    100% (A) Swarthmore (22-4, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.535, 3-3 vRRO, MA#5) 53% A, proj. 0.815 / 0.542 / 3-4
    100% (C#10) Christopher Newport (21-6, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.545, 3-2 vRRO, MA#2) 0% A, proj. 3-2 vRRO
    99% (C#11) St. John's (22-3, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.524, 3-2 vRRO, WE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-2 vRRO
    99% (C#12) Emory (21-4, 12-2 UAA, SOS 0.531, 4-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 4-2 vRRO
    99% (C#13) Whitworth (23-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.521, 1-3 vRRO, WE#3) 19% A, fin 99% C
    99% (A) Sul Ross State (21-4, 14-3 ASC, SOS 0.522, 2-1 vRRO, SO#3) 70% A, fin 99% C

    Strong contenders
    97% (C#14) St. Olaf (19-7, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.544, 3-2 vRRO, WE#4) 0% A, proj. 5-4 vRRO
    94% (C#15) Albright (20-6, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.544, 3-2 vRRO, MA#3) 0% A, proj. 3-2 vRRO
    84% (C#16) Franklin and Marshall (20-6, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.535, 3-4 vRRO, MA#6) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO

    Bubble-in
    78% (A) UW-Stevens Point (18-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.605, 4-6 vRRO, CE#5) 61% A, fin 78% C
    75% (C#17) UW-Oshkosh (20-7, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.554, 2-4 vRRO, CE#4) 0% A, proj. 4-5 vRRO
    72% (A) Maryville (Tenn.) (19-5, 14-2 USAC, SOS 0.532, 2-2 vRRO, SO#6) 73% A, fin 72% C
    67% (C#18) LeTourneau (23-4, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.511, 2-2 vRRO, SO#4) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    56% (C#19) Augsburg (20-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.539, 4-3 vRRO, WE#6) 38% A, fin 56% C

    Bubble-out
    44% (C#20) Illinois Wesleyan (19-7, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.551, 3-6 vRRO, CE#6) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    30% (C#21) Keene State (19-8, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.566, 2-5 vRRO, NE#8) 25% A, fin 30% C
    28% (A) Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.564, 4-5 vRRO, NE#7) 31% A, fin 68% C, semi 5% C
    26% (C#22) Salem State (22-4, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.511, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 0% A, proj. 1-2 vRRO
    25% (C#23) Springfield (18-8, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.558, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 0% A, proj. 4-2 vRRO
    24% (A) MIT (21-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.531, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 77% A, fin 24% C

    Fringe contenders
    18% (A) Hobart (21-5, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.526, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 64% A, fin 21% C, semi 14% C
    16% (C#24) North Central (Ill.) (18-7, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.555, 4-4 vRRO, CE#7) 37% A, fin 16% C
    16% (C#25) Loras (19-7, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.542, 2-3 vRRO, WE#7) 0% A, proj. 3-3 vRRO
    15% (A) Nebraska Wesleyan (22-3, 13-3 IIAC, SOS 0.506, 4-1 vRRO, WE#5) 88% A, fin 15% C
    14% (C#26) UW-River Falls (18-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.587, 3-6 vRRO, CE) 39% A, fin 14% C
    14% (C#27) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.581, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A, proj. 2-7 vRRO

    Longshots
    3% (C#28) Randolph-Macon (18-8, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.546, 3-3 vRRO, SO#2) 0% A, proj. 4-3 vRRO
    2% (C#29) East Texas Baptist (21-6, 12-4 ASC, SOS 0.529, 2-5 vRRO, SO) 30% A, fin 2% C

    Potential bid thief games today (1.48 expected additional bubbles burst)
    LEC: #1 Eastern Connecticut (100% C) vs #2 Keene State (30% C)
    CSAC: #1 Cabrini (100% C) vs #3 Neumann (0% C)
    OAC: #1 John Carroll (100% C) vs #3 Ohio Northern (0% C)
    ASC: #1 Sul Ross State (99% C) vs #6 East Texas Baptist (2% C)
    CCIW: #1 Augustana (100% C) vs #3 North Central (Ill.) (16% C)

    Other bubble games today
    Wesleyan (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC) at Amherst (17-7, 7-3 NESCAC)
    Covenant (15-9, 10-6 USAC) at Maryville (Tenn.) (19-5, 14-2 USAC)
    Central (11-15, 7-9 IIAC) at Nebraska Wesleyan (22-3, 13-3 IIAC)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 06:43:03 PM
    The Little East chip goes to the favored Warriors of Eastern Connecticut, who defeated Keene State, 79-62.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 07:06:29 PM
    Wesleyan 65
    Amherst 63

    Reverse bubble burster...huge for the bubble.

    This was a tremendous game...wow.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 07:06:53 PM
    Wesleyan ends the season of Amherst in an absolutely crazy finish, 65-63.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 07:09:11 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 07:06:53 PM
    Wesleyan ends the season of Amherst in an absolutely crazy finish, 65-63.
    Were you watching that? Unbelievable.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 07:17:56 PM
    I can't even imagine what would've happened to LeFrak Gym if that final heave by the Mammoths had gone in rather than drawing rim.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 07:20:30 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 07:17:56 PM
    I can't even imagine what would've happened to LeFrak Gym if that final heave by the Mammoths had gone in rather than drawing rim.

    Missed by about 2 inches.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 07:37:36 PM
    Here is where I am as of 7:30pm ET/6:30pm CT...

    Projected In...

    Safely In
    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .880 (22-3)/.567/8-4  @ Williams, Sat
    2. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .792 (19-5)/.587/6-4   vs Hamilton, Sat
    3. UW-Platteville (WE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   done
    4. Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .846 (22-4)/.533/5-3   @ Swarthmore, Sat
    5. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2  done
    6. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).589/4-6   done
    7. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-3  done
    8. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.563/4-5   done
    9. Whitworth (WE/NWC): .884 (23-3)/.521/1-3   @ Whitman, Sat
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.568/6-4   done
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.525/3-2  done
    12. Christopher Newport (SO/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.545/3-2   done
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   done
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   done
    15. North Central (CE/CCIW): .720 (18-7)/.555/4-4   @ Augustana, Sat
    16. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.541/3-2   done

    At the Mercy of Bubble Burster Results
    17. Augsburg (WE/MIAC): .741 (20-7)/.539/4-3   @ Bethel, Sun
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6   done
    19. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.534/3-4   done
    20. UW-River Falls (WE/WIAC): .692 (18-8)/.587/3-6   @ UW-Stevens Point, Sun
    21. MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .808 (21-5)/.528/2-3  vs WPI, Sat

    In the Conversation but Out...

    22. Hobart (East/LL): .808 (21-5)/.523/1-2
    23. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.557/4-2
    24. Salem State (NE/MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.510/1-2   done
    24. LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.510/0-1   done
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bubble Burster Games (projected Pool A teams that could steal a Pool C)...

    * Augustana vs NCC in the CCIW final, Saturday 8:00pm ET
    * Cabrini vs Neumann in the CSAC final, Saturday 7:00pm ET
    * John Carroll vs Ohio Northern in the OAC final, Saturday 7:30pm ET
    * UW-Stevens Point vs UW-River Falls, Sunday 3:00pm ET
    * Sul Ross State vs East Texas Baptist in the ASC final, Saturday 7:00pm ET
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reverse Bubble Burster Games (projected Pool C teams that could leave Pool C)...

    * Augsburg at Bethel in the MIAC final, Sunday 3:00pm ET  (Augsburg Pool A with a win; Bethel not in the Pool C top 21)
    * MIT vs WPI in the NEWMAC title, Sunday 1:00pm (MIT win puts them Pool A)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dunkin3117 on February 24, 2018, 07:59:59 PM
    Thoughts on the IIAC sneaking 2 in? With a Central W would Nebraska Wesleyan get the 2nd bid? Or should NWU take care of business, any chance a team like Loras finds there way in? My guess is unlikely, but curious as to everyone's thoughts.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2018, 08:26:24 PM
    Quote from: dunkin3117 on February 24, 2018, 07:59:59 PM
    Thoughts on the IIAC sneaking 2 in? With a Central W would Nebraska Wesleyan get the 2nd bid? Or should NWU take care of business, any chance a team like Loras finds there way in? My guess is unlikely, but curious as to everyone's thoughts.

    My opinion, which basically doesn't mean anything, is they are on the wrong side of the Pool C fence. It didn't help that both MIAC teams ahead of them already lost. There's no way Loras gets in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 08:26:38 PM
    Quote from: dunkin3117 on February 24, 2018, 07:59:59 PM
    Thoughts on the IIAC sneaking 2 in? With a Central W would Nebraska Wesleyan get the 2nd bid? Or should NWU take care of business, any chance a team like Loras finds there way in? My guess is unlikely, but curious as to everyone's thoughts.

    Look at fantastic50's chart from a couple of hours ago, dunkin. He had Loras with a 16% chance at getting a Pool C berth and NWU with a 15% chance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 08:44:14 PM
    Cabrini wins the CSAC title game over Neumann, 88-77.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dunkin3117 on February 24, 2018, 08:44:42 PM
    I had seen the numbers, didn't know how accurate they were. I'm new to these boards. In the past, how accurate have these projections been to actual Pool C bids?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 08:45:10 PM
    Two big wins for bubble teams...

    Sul Ross State and Cabrini locked up Pool A bids.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 08:51:57 PM
    Quote from: dunkin3117 on February 24, 2018, 08:44:42 PM
    I had seen the numbers, didn't know how accurate they were. I'm new to these boards. In the past, how accurate have these projections been to actual Pool C bids?

    If I remember correctly, fantastic50 was only off by one bid last season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 09:24:01 PM
    John Carroll wins the OAC title with a 94-77 win over Ohio Northern.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 09:38:18 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 08:51:57 PM
    Quote from: dunkin3117 on February 24, 2018, 08:44:42 PM
    I had seen the numbers, didn't know how accurate they were. I'm new to these boards. In the past, how accurate have these projections been to actual Pool C bids?

    If I remember correctly, fantastic50 was only off by one bid last season.

    I missed two last year, and one the year before that.  There are several folks here who are just as good or better with calling those berths on this last weekend.  The tools that I have available are most beneficial a week or two ahead of the selections, because I can predict final SOS, etc. with decent accuracy.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 24, 2018, 09:40:57 PM
    Augie beats NCC, Central has NWU on the ropes in the final minutes in IIAC action.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 24, 2018, 09:47:07 PM
    Quote from: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 24, 2018, 09:40:57 PM
    Augie beats NCC, Central has NWU on the ropes in the final minutes in IIAC action.

    Nebraska Wesleyan comes back from 16 down to beat Central and earn the IIAC's Pool A bid
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 10:07:43 PM
    Saturday 9:00pm CT look...

    Projected In...

    1. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .800 (20-5)/.595/7-4   vs Wesleyan, Sun
    2. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3  done
    3. UW-Platteville (WE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   done
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1 done
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   done
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2  done
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   done
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3  done
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   done
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   done
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2  done
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   done
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   done
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   done
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   done
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4   done
    17. LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2   done
    18. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   done
    19. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6   done
    20. Augsburg (WE/MIAC): .741 (20-7)/.539/4-3   @ Bethel, Sun - with a win today, moves to Pool A
    21. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2  done


    In the Mix for Spot #21...
    22. Salem State (NE/MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.512/1-2   done
    23. UW-River Falls (WE/WIAC): .692 (18-8)/.586/3-6   @ UW-Stevens Point, Sun
    24. Hobart (East/LL): .808 (21-5)/.526/1-2  done
    25. Loras (WE/IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.542/2-3   done
    26. Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/2-6  done

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bubble Burster Games (projected Pool A teams that could steal a Pool C)...

    * UW-Stevens Point vs UW-River Falls, Sunday 3:00pm ET; UWSP: .692 (18-8)/.605/4-6 - spot #17 candidate
    * MIT vs WPI in the NEWMAC title, Sunday 1:00pm;  MIT: .808 (21-5)/.531/2-3 - spot #21 candidate
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reverse Bubble Burster Games (projected Pool C teams that could leave Pool C)...

    * Augsburg at Bethel in the MIAC final, Sunday 3:00pm ET  (Augsburg Pool A with a win; Bethel not in the Pool C top 21)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 10:12:05 PM
    I've got IWU ahead of North Central because the numbers seem to suggest that.  Drew, do you also have IWU's numbers better than NCC's?

    There is some drama that has to play out in terms of which team gets ranked higher in the final Central ranking.  But I do have both in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 10:23:34 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 10:12:05 PM
    I've got IWU ahead of North Central because the numbers seem to suggest that.  Drew, do you also have IWU's numbers better than NCC's?

    There is some drama that has to play out in terms of which team gets ranked higher in the final Central ranking.  But I do have both in.

    I have IWU with marginally better numbers, but NCC's 2-1 head-to-head advantage could be enough to flip it, and both teams are on the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 10:28:26 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 10:23:34 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 10:12:05 PM
    I've got IWU ahead of North Central because the numbers seem to suggest that.  Drew, do you also have IWU's numbers better than NCC's?

    There is some drama that has to play out in terms of which team gets ranked higher in the final Central ranking.  But I do have both in.

    I have IWU with marginally better numbers, but NCC's 2-1 head-to-head advantage could be enough to flip it, and both teams are on the bubble.

    It definitely makes a difference which way it goes.  If NCC is ranked ahead of IWU in the Central, they will get picked lower in the process than IWU would. (Which is why I struggle to put NCC ahead of IWU.) But I still think NCC would get picked, and then IWU would get selected as soon as the Titans hit the table.

    I flipped mine to have NCC ahead of IWU.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 10:34:23 PM
    Tonight, I found a small coding issue that made my model slightly overconfident. Fixing it pulls a few teams toward the bubble, from both ends.  These numbers are as of 10 pm Saturday.

    Locks & near-locks
    100% (C#1) Wesleyan (21-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.590, 8-3 vRRO, NE#2) 37% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.598 / 9-4
    100% (A) Williams (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.595, 7-4 vRRO, NE#4) 63% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.599 / 7-5
    100% (C#2) Hamilton (22-4, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.573, 6-3 vRRO, NE#1) 0% A, proj. 7-3 vRRO
    100% (A) Whitman (25-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.515, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) 81% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.526 / 4-1
    100% (C#3) UW-Platteville (20-4, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.577, 4-1 vRRO, CE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    100% (C#4) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.590, 4-6 vRRO, NE#5) 0% A, proj. 5-6 vRRO
    100% (C#5) Marietta (21-6, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.564, 4-5 vRRO, GL#4) 0% A, proj. 5-5 vRRO
    100% (C#6) Wooster (21-6, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.565, 4-3 vRRO, GL#2) 0% A, proj. 4-3 vRRO
    100% (C#7) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.567, 6-4 vRRO, AT#2) 0% A, proj. 7-4 vRRO
    99% (C#8) St. John's (22-3, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.524, 3-2 vRRO, WE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-2 vRRO
    99% (C#9) Swarthmore (22-5, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.542, 3-4 vRRO, MA#5) 0% A, proj. 4-4 vRRO
    99% (C#10) Emory (21-4, 12-2 UAA, SOS 0.530, 4-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 4-2 vRRO
    98% (C#11) Christopher Newport (21-6, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.546, 3-2 vRRO, MA#2) 0% A, proj. 3-2 vRRO

    Strong contenders
    96% (C#12) Whitworth (23-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.520, 1-3 vRRO, WE#3) 19% A, fin 96% C
    87% (C#13) St. Olaf (19-7, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.544, 3-2 vRRO, WE#4) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    83% (A) UW-Stevens Point (18-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.605, 4-6 vRRO, CE#5) 62% A, fin 83% C
    83% (C#14) Albright (20-6, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.544, 3-2 vRRO, MA#3) 0% A, proj. 3-2 vRRO

    Bubble-in
    77% (C#15) UW-Oshkosh (20-7, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.554, 2-4 vRRO, CE#4) 0% A, proj. 4-5 vRRO
    75% (C#16) Franklin and Marshall (20-6, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.536, 3-4 vRRO, MA#6) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    66% (C#17) LeTourneau (23-4, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.511, 2-2 vRRO, SO#4) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    60% (C#18) Augsburg (20-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.539, 4-3 vRRO, WE#6) 38% A, fin 60% C
    56% (C#19) Illinois Wesleyan (19-7, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.550, 3-6 vRRO, CE#6) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    51% (A) MIT (21-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.531, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 76% A, fin 51% C
    49% (C#20) Salem State (22-4, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.512, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 0% A, proj. 1-2 vRRO

    Bubble-out
    40% (C#21) Keene State (19-9, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.575, 2-6 vRRO, NE#8) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    40% (C#22) Loras (19-7, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.542, 2-3 vRRO, WE#7) 0% A, proj. 3-3 vRRO
    37% (C#23) Springfield (18-8, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.558, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 0% A, proj. 4-2 vRRO
    36% (A) Hobart (21-5, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.526, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 62% A, fin 41% C, semi 28% C
    32% (C#24) North Central (Ill.) (18-8, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.563, 4-5 vRRO, CE#7) 0% A, proj. 4-5 vRRO
    24% (C#25) East Texas Baptist (21-7, 12-4 ASC, SOS 0.538, 2-6 vRRO, SO) 0% A, proj. 2-6 vRRO
    23% (C#26) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.581, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A, proj. 2-7 vRRO
    21% (C#27) Ripon (18-7, 14-4 MWC, SOS 0.541, 1-2 vRRO, CE) 0% A, proj. 2-4 vRRO
    20% (C#28) UW-River Falls (18-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.586, 3-6 vRRO, CE) 38% A, fin 20% C
    20% (C#29) Gwynedd Mercy (20-6, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.519, 2-3 vRRO, AT#4) 0% A, proj. 4-4 vRRO

    Fringe contenders
    18% (C#30) Brockport (19-7, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, EA#3) 0% A, proj. 3-3 vRRO
    18% (C#31) Randolph-Macon (18-8, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.546, 3-3 vRRO, SO#2) 0% A, proj. 4-3 vRRO
    17% (C#32) Amherst (17-8, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.570, 4-6 vRRO, NE#7) 0% A, proj. 4-6 vRRO
    9% (C#33) Ohio Wesleyan (19-9, 12-6 NCAC, SOS 0.564, 3-5 vRRO, GL#7) 0% A, proj. 3-5 vRRO

    Longshots
    2% (C#34) Baldwin Wallace (18-9, 11-7 OAC, SOS 0.556, 3-6 vRRO, GL#6) 0% A, proj. 4-6 vRRO

    Upcoming potential bid thief games
    WIAC: #2 UW-Stevens Point (83% C) vs #4 UW-River Falls (20% C)
    NEWMAC: #3 MIT (51% C) vs #4 WPI (0% C)
    MIAC: Augsburg (60% C) at Bethel (0% C)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2018, 10:46:31 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 08:45:10 PM
    Two big wins for bubble teams...

    Sul Ross State and Cabrini locked up Pool A bids.
    Sully led by 17-10 over ETBU at the 11 minute mark of the first half. Then ETBU went on a 10-1 run. The score was tied at the half. Otherwise it was 6 point margin or less for the entire game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 24, 2018, 11:22:52 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 10:34:23 PM
    Tonight, I found a small coding issue that made my model slightly overconfident. Fixing it pulls a few teams toward the bubble, from both ends.  These numbers are as of 10 pm Saturday.

    Locks & near-locks
    100% (C#1) Wesleyan (21-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.590, 8-3 vRRO, NE#2) 37% A, proj. 0.778 / 0.598 / 9-4
    100% (A) Williams (20-5, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.595, 7-4 vRRO, NE#4) 63% A, proj. 0.769 / 0.599 / 7-5
    100% (C#2) Hamilton (22-4, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.573, 6-3 vRRO, NE#1) 0% A, proj. 7-3 vRRO
    100% (A) Whitman (25-0, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.515, 4-0 vRRO, WE#1) 81% A, proj. 0.962 / 0.526 / 4-1
    100% (C#3) UW-Platteville (20-4, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.577, 4-1 vRRO, CE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    100% (C#4) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.590, 4-6 vRRO, NE#5) 0% A, proj. 5-6 vRRO
    100% (C#5) Marietta (21-6, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.564, 4-5 vRRO, GL#4) 0% A, proj. 5-5 vRRO
    100% (C#6) Wooster (21-6, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.565, 4-3 vRRO, GL#2) 0% A, proj. 4-3 vRRO
    100% (C#7) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.567, 6-4 vRRO, AT#2) 0% A, proj. 7-4 vRRO
    99% (C#8) St. John's (22-3, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.524, 3-2 vRRO, WE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-2 vRRO
    99% (C#9) Swarthmore (22-5, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.542, 3-4 vRRO, MA#5) 0% A, proj. 4-4 vRRO
    99% (C#10) Emory (21-4, 12-2 UAA, SOS 0.530, 4-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 4-2 vRRO
    98% (C#11) Christopher Newport (21-6, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.546, 3-2 vRRO, MA#2) 0% A, proj. 3-2 vRRO

    Strong contenders
    96% (C#12) Whitworth (23-3, 14-2 NWC, SOS 0.520, 1-3 vRRO, WE#3) 19% A, fin 96% C
    87% (C#13) St. Olaf (19-7, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.544, 3-2 vRRO, WE#4) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    83% (A) UW-Stevens Point (18-8, 11-3 WIAC, SOS 0.605, 4-6 vRRO, CE#5) 62% A, fin 83% C
    83% (C#14) Albright (20-6, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.544, 3-2 vRRO, MA#3) 0% A, proj. 3-2 vRRO

    Bubble-in
    77% (C#15) UW-Oshkosh (20-7, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.554, 2-4 vRRO, CE#4) 0% A, proj. 4-5 vRRO
    75% (C#16) Franklin and Marshall (20-6, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.536, 3-4 vRRO, MA#6) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    66% (C#17) LeTourneau (23-4, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.511, 2-2 vRRO, SO#4) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    60% (C#18) Augsburg (20-7, 13-7 MIAC, SOS 0.539, 4-3 vRRO, WE#6) 38% A, fin 60% C
    56% (C#19) Illinois Wesleyan (19-7, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.550, 3-6 vRRO, CE#6) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    51% (A) MIT (21-5, 10-4 NEWMAC, SOS 0.531, 2-3 vRRO, NE#9) 76% A, fin 51% C
    49% (C#20) Salem State (22-4, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.512, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 0% A, proj. 1-2 vRRO

    Bubble-out
    40% (C#21) Keene State (19-9, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.575, 2-6 vRRO, NE#8) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    40% (C#22) Loras (19-7, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.542, 2-3 vRRO, WE#7) 0% A, proj. 3-3 vRRO
    37% (C#23) Springfield (18-8, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.558, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 0% A, proj. 4-2 vRRO
    36% (A) Hobart (21-5, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.526, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 62% A, fin 41% C, semi 28% C
    32% (C#24) North Central (Ill.) (18-8, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.563, 4-5 vRRO, CE#7) 0% A, proj. 4-5 vRRO
    24% (C#25) East Texas Baptist (21-7, 12-4 ASC, SOS 0.538, 2-6 vRRO, SO) 0% A, proj. 2-6 vRRO
    23% (C#26) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.581, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A, proj. 2-7 vRRO
    21% (C#27) Ripon (18-7, 14-4 MWC, SOS 0.541, 1-2 vRRO, CE) 0% A, proj. 2-4 vRRO
    20% (C#28) UW-River Falls (18-8, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.586, 3-6 vRRO, CE) 38% A, fin 20% C
    20% (C#29) Gwynedd Mercy (20-6, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.519, 2-3 vRRO, AT#4) 0% A, proj. 4-4 vRRO

    Fringe contenders
    18% (C#30) Brockport (19-7, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, EA#3) 0% A, proj. 3-3 vRRO
    18% (C#31) Randolph-Macon (18-8, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.546, 3-3 vRRO, SO#2) 0% A, proj. 4-3 vRRO
    17% (C#32) Amherst (17-8, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.570, 4-6 vRRO, NE#7) 0% A, proj. 4-6 vRRO
    9% (C#33) Ohio Wesleyan (19-9, 12-6 NCAC, SOS 0.564, 3-5 vRRO, GL#7) 0% A, proj. 3-5 vRRO

    Longshots
    2% (C#34) Baldwin Wallace (18-9, 11-7 OAC, SOS 0.556, 3-6 vRRO, GL#6) 0% A, proj. 4-6 vRRO

    Upcoming potential bid thief games
    WIAC: #2 UW-Stevens Point (83% C) vs #4 UW-River Falls (20% C)
    NEWMAC: #3 MIT (51% C) vs #4 WPI (0% C)
    MIAC: Augsburg (60% C) at Bethel (0% C)

    Interesting to see such a big jump for Loras. What do you attribute that to? And Bob - doesn't your model have them out of contention?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 11:27:42 PM
    Quote from: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 24, 2018, 11:22:52 PM

    Interesting to see such a big jump for Loras. What do you attribute that to? And Bob - doesn't your model have them out of contention?

    I think that is attributed to teams losing today and falling back to the pack of teams that had already lost.

    I have Loras in a similar spot -- competitive but on the wrong side of the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 24, 2018, 11:28:59 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 11:27:42 PM
    Quote from: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 24, 2018, 11:22:52 PM

    Interesting to see such a big jump for Loras. What do you attribute that to? And Bob - doesn't your model have them out of contention?

    I think that is attributed to teams losing today and falling back to the pack of teams that had already lost.

    I have Loras in a similar spot -- competitive but on the wrong side of the bubble.

    40% chance compared to what, 11% this morning? Interesting to see such a jump. So in your opinion, is there anything that could happen tomorrow that could push them over the hump?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 11:30:46 PM
    Drew and I only disagree on one team -- he has Keene State and I have North Central.  We have 20 picks the same.

    http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1859685#msg1859685

    http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1859696#msg1859696

    * North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    * Keene State (NE/LEC): .679 (19-9)/.575/2-6 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 11:31:52 PM
    Quote from: Hoosiersfan2323 on February 24, 2018, 11:28:59 PM

    40% chance compared to what, 11% this morning? Interesting to see such a jump. So in your opinion, is there anything that could happen tomorrow that could push them over the hump?

    No.  I think they're stuck on the wrong side.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2018, 11:56:04 PM
    Man, that was a long 2 seconds for Roach to nail that 3 at the buzzer.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2018, 11:58:45 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2018, 11:30:46 PM
    Drew and I only disagree on one team -- he has Keene State and I have North Central.  We have 20 picks the same.

    http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1859685#msg1859685

    http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1859696#msg1859696

    * North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    * Keene State (NE/LEC): .679 (19-9)/.575/2-6
    ;)

    Stirring the pot...  (LOL)

    CCIW bias!

    ;D

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: (509)Rat on February 24, 2018, 11:59:22 PM
    Whitman is now a pool C team, not that it changes anything with Whitworth getting the pool A out of the NWC
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 12:02:12 AM
    Quote from: (509)Rat on February 24, 2018, 11:59:22 PM
    Whitman is now a pool C team, not that it changes anything with Whitworth getting the pool A out of the NWC
    Already adjusted...

    http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1859685#msg1859685
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: augie77 on February 25, 2018, 12:36:27 AM
    Not sure where else to put this...

    In the Southern Athletic Conference (SAC), an eight team league, tomorrow's tournament championship features the 7 and 8 seeds, having knocked off all the teams above them.  Berry (10-17) will play Hendrix (7-20).  One of these teams is going to the dance!  Go figure.

    As for the loser, they just might be on the wrong side of the bubble. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2018, 01:06:41 AM
    Quote from: augie77 on February 25, 2018, 12:36:27 AM
    Not sure where else to put this...

    In the Southern Athletic Conference (SAC), an eight team league, tomorrow's tournament championship features the 7 and 8 seeds, having knocked off all the teams above them.  Berry (10-17) will play Hendrix (7-20).  One of these teams is going to the dance!  Go figure.

    As for the loser, they just might be on the wrong side of the bubble.

    They won't even be able to find the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 25, 2018, 01:07:40 AM
    Quote from: augie77 on February 25, 2018, 12:36:27 AM
    Not sure where else to put this...

    In the Southern Athletic Conference (SAC), an eight team league, tomorrow's tournament championship features the 7 and 8 seeds, having knocked off all the teams above them.  Berry (10-17) will play Hendrix (7-20).  One of these teams is going to the dance!  Go figure.

    As for the loser, they just might be on the wrong side of the bubble.

    SPORTS!!!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 25, 2018, 01:44:19 AM
    If Augsbrug gets knocked off tomorrow that would almost certainly launch Bethel into the regional rankings. This would mean that Augsburg would be 5-5 vRRO. I don't know if that would change where you guys have them, but that is a lot of results. Is 4-3 even better than 5-5?

    Wins: (at SJU (MIAC Semi-Final), vs. Wartburg (Las Vegas), at Bethel, vs. Loras, at St. Olaf)
    Loses: (at SJU, vs. SJU, vs. Bethel (MIAC Championship), vs Bethel (Regular Season), vs St Olaf)

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2018, 01:55:26 AM
    I think 5-5 is better, but I don't know anything.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 06:44:01 AM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 25, 2018, 01:44:19 AM
    If Augsbrug gets knocked off tomorrow that would almost certainly launch Bethel into the regional rankings. This would mean that Augsburg would be 5-5 vRRO. I don't know if that would change where you guys have them, but that is a lot of results. Is 4-3 even better than 5-5?

    Wins: (at SJU (MIAC Semi-Final), vs. Wartburg (Las Vegas), at Bethel, vs. Loras, at St. Olaf)
    Loses: (at SJU, vs. SJU, vs. Bethel (MIAC Championship), vs Bethel (Regular Season), vs St Olaf)

    My numbers suggest that 5-5 is better.  Looking at past years' results, losses vRRO don't seem to hurt much, perhaps because they bolster perception of a tough schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 08:02:48 AM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 25, 2018, 01:44:19 AM
    If Augsbrug gets knocked off tomorrow that would almost certainly launch Bethel into the regional rankings. This would mean that Augsburg would be 5-5 vRRO. I don't know if that would change where you guys have them, but that is a lot of results. Is 4-3 even better than 5-5?

    Wins: (at SJU (MIAC Semi-Final), vs. Wartburg (Las Vegas), at Bethel, vs. Loras, at St. Olaf)
    Loses: (at SJU, vs. SJU, vs. Bethel (MIAC Championship), vs Bethel (Regular Season), vs St Olaf)

    With a loss, Augsburg would be...

    * Augsburg (WE/MIAC): .714 (20-8)/.539 ish/5-5

    I think they'd be in at #20 or #21.  For now, I bumped Augsburg down to #20 (had them a few spots higher) because that's where they'd be if the WP drops from .741 to .714. 

    http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1859685#msg1859685
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 09:01:00 AM
    My Sunday morning view.  I moved Amherst into spot #21.


    Projected In...
    1. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .800 (20-5)/.595/7-4   vs Wesleyan, Sun
    2. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 
    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Augsburg (WE/MIAC): .741 (20-7)/.539/4-3   @ Bethel, Sun - with a win today, moves to Pool A
    20. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6 
    21. LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2

    Left at the table...
    * Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    * Loras (WE/IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.542/2-3   done
    * Ohio Wesleyan (GL/NCAC): .679 (19-9)/.564/3-5 
    * Gwynedd Mercy (AT/CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.519/2-3
    * UW-River Falls (CE/WIAC): .692 (18-8)/.586/3-6   @ UW-Stevens Point, Sun; as a Pool C candidate will have another loss
    * Hobart (East/LL): .808 (21-5)/.526/1-2 
    * Juniata (MA/LAND)
    * Texas-Dallas (SO/ASC) 

    Never gets to the table...
    * Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/2-6 
    * Salem State (NE/MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.512/1-2   
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bubble Burster Games (projected Pool A teams that could steal a Pool C)...

    * UW-Stevens Point vs UW-River Falls, Sunday 3:00pm ET; UWSP: .692 (18-8)/.605/4-6 - spot #17 candidate
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reverse Bubble Burster Games (projected Pool C teams that could leave Pool C)...

    * Augsburg at Bethel in the MIAC final, Sunday 3:00pm ET  (Augsburg Pool A with a win; Bethel not in the Pool C top 21)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 09:43:50 AM
    In terms of implications today...

    I see the MIT situation only impacting the NE teams in that spot #21.  The big question is which NE team is regionally ranked highest after Middlebury.  The candidates are:

    * Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    * Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    * Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/2-6 
    * MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .808 (21-5)/.531/2-3
    * Salem State (NE/MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.512/1-2   

    Springfield was ranked ahead of Amherst in the 3rd ranking...but Amherst could easily be ranked higher.  Amherst beat Springfield.

    The only way the MIT result matters, as I see it, is if MIT is regionally ranked 2nd on that list above.  Because otherwise, MIT would never even get to the table as a Pool C.  I think MIT is either Pool A or out.

    I think whoever is ranked higher between Amherst and Springfield gets in at #21.
    -------------

    The UW-Stevens Point vs UW-River Falls WIAC title game is much more significant.  I think UWRF is either Pool A or out.  But UWSP would be a strong Pool C candidate due to SOS and RRO:

    * UW-Stevens Point: .667 (18-9)/.605/4-7 (assumes a loss today)

    I think UWSP would get in at spot #18, pushing NCC and IWU down to #19 and #20...and then leaving spot #21 to Augsburg (if Pool C) or the top NE team (I have Springfield).

    Bubble teams want UWSP to win.
    -------------

    I think Augsburg would be a strong candidate for spot #21 if they lose today at Bethel.  Bethel is Pool A or not.

    Bubble teams want Augsburg to win.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 10:07:51 AM
    I've moved Amherst into spot #21 over Springfield.

    I reserve the right to keep messing with spot #21 as the day goes on.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BBJones on February 25, 2018, 10:48:42 AM
    Thanks for the thorough analysis.  If River Falls defeats Stevens Point, that likely means WIAC has 4 teams in.  As tight as the Platteville/Point/Oshkosh battles have been this year, that seems rational.  I predict Point wins.  MJ Delmore seems unwillng to be denied. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 12:03:58 PM
    In the order I have above, the Pool Cs by region are:

    -Central 4
    -Northeast 4
    -West 4
    -Mid Atlantic 4
    -Great Lakes 2
    -South 2
    -Atlantic 1
    -East 0
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Hoopsfan21 on February 25, 2018, 12:20:58 PM
    Titan Q - Nice Analysis.

    Few Adjustments I would make is:

    1. LeTourneau not making the at large Pool C Bid - Too low of a SOS (.511)
    2. Springfield gets at large Bid - Will be ahead of Amherst in regional rankings.
    3. I think Northeast has 5 teams with the last being Keene State - solid win percentage with an excellent SOS (.575)
    4. I would make the case if Augsburg loses that Ohio Wesleyan gets in over Augsburg (Higher SOS)


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 12:30:52 PM
    Quote from: Hoopsfan21 on February 25, 2018, 12:20:58 PM
    Titan Q - Nice Analysis.

    Few Adjustments I would make is:

    1. LeTourneau not making the at large Pool C Bid - Too low of a SOS (.511)
    2. Springfield gets at large Bid - Will be ahead of Amherst in regional rankings.
    3. I think Northeast has 5 teams with the last being Keene State - solid win percentage with an excellent SOS (.575)
    4. I would make the case if Augsburg loses that Ohio Wesleyan gets in over Augsburg (Higher SOS)

    All fair points. 

    I have been struggling with LeTourneau - they have the lowest SOS on the board.  But that WP is really high, combined with decent RRO.  I have moved them down to spot #21...but I still have them in.

    Springfield and Amherst have similar numbers...and Amherst beat Springfield.  That's why I have Amherst regionally ranked higher.  I think whichever team ends up ranked higher gets in and the other is out.

    I have Keene State not hitting the table - blocked by Springfield/Amherst (whichever of the two is lower).

    Ohio Wesleyan will hit the board very early (maybe after about round 10) -- after Marietta gets in.  They have a shot for sure.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2018, 02:01:46 PM
    LeTourneau (23-4) is sitting on the edge of its seat.

    They go 16-2 in conference and 1-1 in the post-season tourney.

    For their 7 non-conference games (in which they were 6-1), they play five non-conference games against the SCAC.  The geographic isolation destroys the SOS!

    They play Austin College home-and-home (relatively nearby at 150 miles) and Texas Lutheran.

    They beat Centenary LA and Schreiner,  who are in the finals for the SCAC today.

    In November in Memphis, they beat Vassar (no biggie) but lose to JHU 93-84, with whom they were tied at 78,  until JHU starts an 8-0 run at 2:43 left in the game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 02:16:05 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2018, 02:01:46 PM
    LeTourneau (23-4) is sitting on the edge of its seat.

    They go 16-2 in conference and 1-1 in the post-season tourney.

    For their 7 non-conference games (in which they were 6-1), they play five non-conference games against the SCAC.  The geographic isolation destroys the SOS!

    They play Austin College home-and-home (relatively nearby at 150 miles) and Texas Lutheran.

    They beat Centenary LA and Schreiner,  who are in the finals for the SCAC today.

    In November in Memphis, they beat Vassar (no biggie) but lose to JHU 93-84, with whom they were tied at 78,  until JHU starts an 8-0 run at 2:43 left in the game.

    Is it possible East Texas Baptist will be ranked higher than LeTourneau in the final South ranking?

    *LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2
    *East Texas Baptist U. (SO/ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6  2-1 vs LeTourneau

    Seems to me ETBU should be ranked higher.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 03:05:02 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 09:43:50 AM
    In terms of implications today...

    I see the MIT situation only impacting the NE teams in that spot #21.  The big question is which NE team is regionally ranked highest after Middlebury.  The candidates are:

    * Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    * Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    * Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/2-6 
    * MIT (NE/NEWMAC): .808 (21-5)/.531/2-3
    * Salem State (NE/MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.512/1-2   

    Springfield was ranked ahead of Amherst in the 3rd ranking...but Amherst could easily be ranked higher.  Amherst beat Springfield.

    The only way the MIT result matters, as I see it, is if MIT is regionally ranked 2nd on that list above.  Because otherwise, MIT would never even get to the table as a Pool C.  I think MIT is either Pool A or out.

    I think whoever is ranked higher between Amherst and Springfield gets in at #21.

    I was going to take MIT as the #6 team in the Northeast, and thus the first NE team to get a Pool C berth after the three obvious ones from the NESCAC.  However, it's now irrelevant, as the Engineers win the AQ from the NEWMAC, defeating WPI 63-57.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2018, 03:49:58 PM
    The regular season is over. Conference titles have been crowned and most teams are either getting ready for the NCAA tournament or packing up their locker rooms.

    However, there are quite a few programs who are now sitting and waiting ... waiting to hear whether they have been selected to compete for a national title as well.

    Who may be in and who may be left out of the NCAA selections? On Sunday's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) Special, Dave McHugh is joined by those who know Division III inside and out to try and figure out who will make up the two 64-team brackets.

    The Hoospville Special: Selection Sunday gave us plenty of time to not only make our mock selections, but also talk to programs who have either earned NCAA berths or are waiting to find out if they will make it.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch it the show LIVE here: http://bit.ly/2GI6LA6

    If you have questions, be sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or interact with the show via our social media avenues.

    Guests scheduled (in order of appearance and subject to change):
    - Josh Loeffler, No. 16 Johns Hopkins men's coach
    - Kerry Jenkins, Oberlin women's coach
    - Todd Skrivseth, Monmouth men's coach
    - Brad McAlester, Lebanon Valley men's coach
    - ODAC men's winning coach (TBD)
    - Tim McDonald, Cabrini men's coach (to air during mock selections)
    - Dale Wellerman, Nebraska Wesleyan men's coach (to air during mock selections)
    - Carey Harveycutter, Dir. of Tourism, City of Salem, Division III men's basketball Tournament Director
    - Megan Haughtey, Stevens women's coach (to air during mock selections)
    - Ruth Sinn, No. 8 St. Thomas women's coach (to air during mock selections)
    - Alex Lang, Brooklyn women's coach (to air during mock selections)

    Men's mock selections experts for the show:
    - Dave McHugh, Hoopsville Host
    - Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com columnist
    - Bob Quillman, D3 basketball aficionado

    Women's mock selections experts for the show:
    - Dave McHugh, Hoopsville Host
    - Gordon Mann, D3hoops.com Editor-in-Chief
    - James Wagner, CSAC Assistant Commissioner
    - BJ Spigelmyer, DeSales Sports Information Director

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts instead, you can get access to them or subscribe one of the three following ways (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D4o2h3%2F5qe4yd77benqfa7a.jpg&hash=d7fca5b5a92ac4ea026dbe5e37a63c72b9ba5dc3)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 04:55:44 PM
    Looking forward to joining Dave and Ryan on Hoopsville in a bit for the mock selection process -- we'll see how the process plays out.  My personal final Pool C projection is...

    Projected In...
    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 
    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6 
    20. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    21. Loras (WE/IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.542/2-3   

    Top teams left at the table...
    * Ohio Wesleyan (GL/NCAC): .679 (19-9)/.564/3-5 
    * LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2
    * Hobart (East/LL): .808 (21-5)/.526/1-2
    * Gwynedd Mercy (AT/CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.519/2-3
    * Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/2-6
    * UW-River Falls (CE/WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.586/3-7   

    Never gets to the table...
    * Salem State (NE/MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.512/1-2   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: frodotwo on February 25, 2018, 04:57:01 PM
    Stevens Point preserves a bubble for someon 59-44 over River Falls
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 25, 2018, 04:59:16 PM
    Who do folks things the projected (de facto) top seeds are?  My guess would be an all-W quartet of Whitman, Wash U, Williams, and Wittenberg, which gives pretty good regional diversity.  Maybe St. John's, Augustana, or Emory also have an argument?  This does seem to be a year though when there are no guarantees even for whoever the top seeds may end up being ...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 05:01:37 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 25, 2018, 04:59:16 PM
    Who do folks things the projected (de facto) top seeds are?  My guess would be an all-W quartet of Whitman, Wash U, Williams, and Wittenberg, which gives pretty good regional diversity.  Maybe St. John's, Augustana, or Emory also have an argument?  This does seem to be a year though when there are no guarantees even for whoever the top seeds may end up being ...

    Williams, Augustana, Wittenberg, Whitman.

    Augustana has almost certainly moved ahead of Wash U.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 25, 2018, 05:07:32 PM
    Thanks Titan.  I guess that loss to Chicago was costly!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 05:12:00 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 25, 2018, 05:07:32 PM
    Thanks Titan.  I guess that loss to Chicago was costly!

    Very!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 25, 2018, 05:16:32 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 25, 2018, 05:07:32 PM
    Thanks Titan.  I guess that loss to Chicago was costly!

    and losing to Augustana 72-57 in December, at home.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 05:22:23 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 25, 2018, 05:16:32 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 25, 2018, 05:07:32 PM
    Thanks Titan.  I guess that loss to Chicago was costly!

    and losing to Augustana 72-57 in December, at home.

    Yes, that is the real key.  The overall numbers are now real close...but the head-to-head is now the difference maker.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 25, 2018, 05:28:18 PM
    It surely didn't look that way a month ago, but if your prediction holds then three of the top four in preseason (all returning FF teams) would be top seeds.  And that despite some significant injury issues for two, and a few key players not playing all year (not sure why) for the third.   Wild.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 06:18:14 PM
    My final picks...

    100% (C#1) Wesleyan (21-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.597, 8-3 vRRO, NE#2) 0% A, proj. 9-3 vRRO
    100% (C#2) Hamilton (22-4, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.574, 6-3 vRRO, NE#1) 0% A, proj. 7-3 vRRO
    100% (C#3) UW-Platteville (20-4, 12-2 WIAC, SOS 0.576, 4-1 vRRO, CE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-1 vRRO
    100% (C#4) Whitman (25-1, 16-0 NWC, SOS 0.526, 4-1 vRRO, WE#1) 0% A, proj. 4-1 vRRO
    100% (C#5) Middlebury (19-6, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.589, 4-6 vRRO, NE#5) 0% A, proj. 5-6 vRRO
    100% (C#6) Marietta (21-6, 14-4 OAC, SOS 0.565, 4-5 vRRO, GL#4) 0% A, proj. 5-5 vRRO
    100% (C#7) Wooster (21-6, 14-4 NCAC, SOS 0.565, 4-3 vRRO, GL#2) 0% A, proj. 4-3 vRRO
    100% (C#8) New Jersey City (19-7, 13-5 NJAC, SOS 0.567, 6-4 vRRO, AT#2) 0% A, proj. 7-4 vRRO
    99% (C#9) St. John's (22-3, 19-1 MIAC, SOS 0.525, 3-2 vRRO, WE#2) 0% A, proj. 5-2 vRRO
    99% (C#10) Swarthmore (22-5, 15-3 CC, SOS 0.542, 3-4 vRRO, MA#5) 0% A, proj. 4-4 vRRO
    99% (C#11) Emory (21-4, 12-2 UAA, SOS 0.530, 4-2 vRRO, SO#1) 0% A, proj. 4-2 vRRO
    99% (C#12) Christopher Newport (21-6, 14-4 CAC, SOS 0.546, 3-2 vRRO, MA#2) 0% A, proj. 3-2 vRRO
    84% (C#13) Albright (20-6, 12-4 MACC, SOS 0.544, 3-2 vRRO, MA#3) 0% A, proj. 3-2 vRRO
    84% (C#14) St. Olaf (19-7, 15-5 MIAC, SOS 0.544, 3-2 vRRO, WE#4) 0% A, proj. 5-3 vRRO
    78% (C#15) Franklin and Marshall (20-6, 14-4 CC, SOS 0.536, 3-4 vRRO, MA#6) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    73% (C#16) UW-Oshkosh (20-7, 9-5 WIAC, SOS 0.555, 2-4 vRRO, CE#4) 0% A, proj. 2-5 vRRO
    67% (C#17) LeTourneau (23-4, 16-2 ASC, SOS 0.511, 2-2 vRRO, SO#4) 0% A, proj. 3-4 vRRO
    59% (C#18) Illinois Wesleyan (19-7, 12-4 CCIW, SOS 0.550, 3-6 vRRO, CE#6) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    55% (C#19) Hobart (21-5, 16-2 LL, SOS 0.525, 1-2 vRRO, EA#1) 0% A, proj. 1-2 vRRO
    54% (C#20) Salem State (22-4, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.513, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 0% A, proj. 1-2 vRRO
    47% (C#21) Loras (19-7, 12-4 IIAC, SOS 0.543, 2-3 vRRO, WE#7) 0% A, proj. 3-3 vRRO
    41% (C#22) Springfield (18-8, 12-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.558, 4-2 vRRO, NE#6) 0% A, proj. 4-2 vRRO

    Because of prior NCAA regional rankings, I am going against my model, picking Springfield over Salem State.

    Others in contention that I don't think get in...
    54% (C#20) Salem State (22-4, 12-0 MASCAC, SOS 0.513, 1-2 vRRO, NE#10) 0% A, proj. 1-2 vRRO
    41% (C#23) Keene State (19-9, 11-3 LEC, SOS 0.576, 2-6 vRRO, NE#8) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    38% (C#24) North Central (Ill.) (18-8, 11-5 CCIW, SOS 0.564, 4-5 vRRO, CE#7) 0% A, proj. 4-5 vRRO
    25% (C#25) Tufts (17-8, 6-4 NESCAC, SOS 0.581, 2-7 vRRO, NE#11) 0% A, proj. 2-7 vRRO
    24% (C#26) East Texas Baptist (21-7, 12-4 ASC, SOS 0.538, 2-6 vRRO, SO) 0% A, proj. 2-6 vRRO
    24% (C#27) Ripon (18-7, 14-4 MWC, SOS 0.541, 1-2 vRRO, CE) 0% A, proj. 2-4 vRRO
    23% (C#28) UW-River Falls (18-9, 7-7 WIAC, SOS 0.590, 3-6 vRRO, CE) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    22% (C#29) Gwynedd Mercy (20-6, 15-3 CSAC, SOS 0.518, 2-3 vRRO, AT#4) 0% A, proj. 4-4 vRRO
    18% (C#30) Randolph-Macon (18-8, 12-4 ODAC, SOS 0.546, 3-3 vRRO, SO#2) 0% A, proj. 4-3 vRRO
    17% (C#31) Brockport (19-7, 14-4 SUNYAC, SOS 0.530, 3-3 vRRO, EA#3) 0% A, proj. 3-3 vRRO
    17% (C#32) Amherst (17-8, 7-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.570, 4-6 vRRO, NE#7) 0% A, proj. 4-6 vRRO
    7% (C#33) Ohio Wesleyan (19-9, 12-6 NCAC, SOS 0.564, 3-5 vRRO, GL#7) 0% A, proj. 3-5 vRRO
    2% (C#34) Baldwin Wallace (18-9, 11-7 OAC, SOS 0.555, 3-6 vRRO, GL#6) 0% A, proj. 3-6 vRRO
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 06:58:21 PM
    Hoopsville Selection Special - Mock Pool C Selection Process
    (Dave McHugh, Ryan Scott, Bob Quillman)

    * Watch us live here - http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2017-18/feb25
    * Refresh this page often for selection updates

    11 Top Selections...

    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.574/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.596/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.576/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.526/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).587/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 

    Round-by-Round Selections, Spots #12-21...

    Round 12
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Christopher Newport (CAC): .778 (21-6)/.546/3-2
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 13
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 14
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2 
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 15
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) --  Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2 
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3   

    Round 16
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) --  Franklin and Marshall (CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4     
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3   

    Round 17
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 18
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 19
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 20
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-River Falls (WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.589/3-7
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 21
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- Ripon (MWC): .720 (18-7)/.541/1-2
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Pool C Table Order (regional ranking projection)...

    Atlantic
    * New Jersey City (NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4 
    * Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3

    Central
    * UW-Platteville (WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.576/4-1 
    * UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4 
    * North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    * Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    * UW-River Falls (WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.589/3-7

    East
    * Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    * Brockport (SUNYAC): .731 (19-7)/.529/3-3

    Great Lakes
    * Wooster (NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3 
    * Marietta (OAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-5 
    * Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC): .679 (19-9)/.564/3-5

    Middle Atlantic
    * Swarthmore (CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4 
    * Christopher Newport (CAC): .778 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    * Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    * Franklin and Marshall (CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4   

    Northeast
    * Hamilton (NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.574/6-3 
    * Wesleyan (NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.596/8-4
    * Middlebury (NESCAC): .760 (19-6).587/4-6   
    * Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    * Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    * Keene State (LEC): .679 (19-9)/.576/2-6
    * Salem State (MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.513/1-2

    South
    * Emory (UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2
    * East Texas Baptist (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    * LeTourneau (ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2

    West
    * Whitman (NWC): .962 (25-1)/.526/4-1
    * St. John's (MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.525/3-2 
    * St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    * Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dunkin3117 on February 25, 2018, 08:39:53 PM
    Just throwing this out there....Loras would pick up a 3rd RRO W with win over Ripon
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 25, 2018, 08:46:10 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 06:58:21 PM
    Hoopsville Selection Special - Mock Pool C Selection Process
    (Dave McHugh, Ryan Scott, Bob Quillman)

    * Watch us live here - http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2017-18/feb25
    * Refresh this page often for selection updates

    11 Top Selections...

    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.574/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.596/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.576/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.526/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).587/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 

    Round-by-Round Selections, Spots #12-21...

    Round 12
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Christopher Newport (CAC): .778 (21-6)/.546/3-2
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 13
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 14
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2 
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 15
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) --  Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2 
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3   

    Round 16
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) --  Franklin and Marshall (CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4     
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3   

    Round 17
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 18
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 19
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 20
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-River Falls (WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.589/3-7
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 21
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- Ripon (MWC): .720 (18-7)/.541/1-2
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Pool C Table Order (regional ranking projection)...

    Atlantic
    * New Jersey City (NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4 
    * Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3

    Central
    * UW-Platteville (WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.576/4-1 
    * UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4 
    * North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    * Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    * UW-River Falls (WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.589/3-7

    East
    * Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    * Brockport (SUNYAC): .731 (19-7)/.529/3-3

    Great Lakes
    * Wooster (NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3 
    * Marietta (OAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-5 
    * Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC): .679 (19-9)/.564/3-5

    Middle Atlantic
    * Swarthmore (CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4 
    * Christopher Newport (CAC): .778 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    * Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    * Franklin and Marshall (CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4   

    Northeast
    * Hamilton (NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.574/6-3 
    * Wesleyan (NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.596/8-4
    * Middlebury (NESCAC): .760 (19-6).587/4-6   
    * Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    * Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    * Keene State (LEC): .679 (19-9)/.576/2-6
    * Salem State (MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.513/1-2

    South
    * Emory (UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2
    * East Texas Baptist (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    * LeTourneau (ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2

    West
    * Whitman (NWC): .962 (25-1)/.526/4-1
    * St. John's (MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.525/3-2 
    * St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    * Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Juniata was ahead of Lycoming in the most recent regional rankings, yet u have Lycoming ahead in coming to the table? Since the ranking, Lycoming was 0-1, Juniata 1-1.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 08:51:20 PM
    When it comes down to the last few picks, the Hoopsville guys pick three power conference teams with tough schedules but sub-.700 winning percentages (Amherst, North Central, UW-RF). On the other hand, I took three teams with weaker schedules but better records (LeTorneau, Loras, and Springfield).

    I could see the committee going either way, or some combination. Last year's UW-O pick was along the lines of where Dave, etc. went, while in some other years, any team whose WP started with a 6 needed to be very strong in other criteria.

    As always, Selection Monday will be fun!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 25, 2018, 09:06:17 PM
    Nice job as always to Ryan, Bob and Dave.  If you listened to the show the last 5 or so picks really outlined how difficult and close the last few picks will be this year.

    I was a little surprised that secondary criteria seemed to be glossed over somewhat, surely that might have swayed a couple picks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2018, 09:08:17 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 08:51:20 PM
    When it comes down to the last few picks, the Hoopsville guys pick three power conference teams with tough schedules but sub-.700 winning percentages (Amherst, North Central, UW-RF). On the other hand, I took three teams with weaker schedules but better records (LeTorneau, Loras, and Springfield).

    I could see the committee going either way, or some combination. Last year's UW-O pick was along the lines of where Dave, etc. went, while in some other years, any team whose WP started with a 6 needed to be very strong in other criteria.

    As always, Selection Monday will be fun!
    In the off-season, I would like for you to look at the distribution of the SOS's by teams in the conferences, teams in the regions.

    George Brett batted .390 in 1980 which was more multiples of the median of qualifying batting averages in the league than Ted Williams' .406 in 1941.

    In the geographically isolated areas such as Texas, the SOS gets pulled to .500 because it is hard to schedule teams that will allow a coach to boost his SOS.   Other factors can include the number of non-conference games (e.g., NESCAC) and absolute number of teams that are reflected in the Opponents' Opponents number.

    Look at what happened to LeTourneau who scheduled (SCAC) teams in Texas that also needed D3 games. My bias is that conferences in certain parts of the country have higher SOS's and that a team's SOS relative to its conference median and the region median is a statistic that should be considered.

    Thanks
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 25, 2018, 09:22:10 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2018, 09:08:17 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 08:51:20 PM
    When it comes down to the last few picks, the Hoopsville guys pick three power conference teams with tough schedules but sub-.700 winning percentages (Amherst, North Central, UW-RF). On the other hand, I took three teams with weaker schedules but better records (LeTorneau, Loras, and Springfield).

    I could see the committee going either way, or some combination. Last year's UW-O pick was along the lines of where Dave, etc. went, while in some other years, any team whose WP started with a 6 needed to be very strong in other criteria.

    As always, Selection Monday will be fun!
    In the off-season, I would like for you to look at the distribution of the SOS's by teams in the conferences, teams in the regions.

    George Brett batted .390 in 1980 which was more multiples of the median of qualifying batting averages in the league than Ted Williams' .406 in 1941.

    In the geographically isolated areas such as Texas, the SOS gets pulled to .500 because it is hard to schedule teams that will allow a coach to boost his SOS.   Other factors can include the number of non-conference games (e.g., NESCAC) and absolute number of teams that are reflected in the Opponents' Opponents number.

    Look at what happened to LeTourneau who scheduled (SCAC) teams in Texas that also needed D3 games. My bias is that conferences in certain parts of the country have higher SOS's and that a team's SOS relative to its conference median and the region median is a statistic that should be considered.

    Thanks

    I agree with this, though I don't know what a good, practical solution looks like.  You mentioned the NESCAC -- the flip of this situation is a team like Amherst.  (Cue NESCAC1 and Gregory's annual tussle, though I think they checked that box early this year.)  The Lord Jeffs Mammoths are expected to be one of the teams in the mix for the final few spots, but their SOS is inflated by what the NESCAC's single round-robin enables them to do with their schedule.  I personally don't view this metric as an apples-to-apples comparison when you look at the 'who is on the table' comparisons from the mock selection.*

    * - I am not suggesting that other NESCAC teams don't deserve their bids or early selections amongst Pool C hopefuls.  And I am also not suggesting that Amherst can't potentially do well in the tournament depending on how the draw shakes out.  This is also true for some of the teams that are left on the table.  I AM suggesting that their SOS has a thumb on the scale because of their conference's scheduling philosophy.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 10:27:22 PM
    Comparing Pool C picks, the Hoopsville selections, TitanQ, and I all agree on 17 teams (listed here in consensus order)...
    1) Hamilton
    2) Wesleyan
    3) UW-Platteville
    4) Whitman
    5) Swarthmore
    6) St John's
    7) Middlebury
    8) Wooster
    9) Marietta
    10)New Jersey City
    11) Emory
    12) Christopher Newport
    13) St Olaf
    14) UW-Oshkosh
    15) Albright
    16) Franklin & Marshall
    17) Illinois Wesleyan

    We're all over the place for the last four...
    North Central (Hoopsville & TitanQ)
    Amherst (Hoopsville & TitanQ)
    Hobart (Hoopsville & me)
    Loras (TitanQ & me)
    Springfield (TitanQ & me)
    LeTorneau (me)
    UW-River Falls (Hoopsville)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 10:29:30 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 10:27:22 PM
    Comparing Pool C picks, the Hoopsville selections, TitanQ, and I all agree on 17 teams (listed here in consensus order)...
    1) Hamilton
    2) Wesleyan
    3) UW-Platteville
    4) Whitman
    5) Swarthmore
    6) St John's
    7) Middlebury
    8) Wooster
    9) Marietta
    10)New Jersey City
    11) Emory
    12) Christopher Newport
    13) St Olaf
    14) UW-Oshkosh
    15) Albright
    16) Franklin & Marshall
    17) Illinois Wesleyan

    We're all over the place for the last four...
    North Central (Hoopsville & TitanQ)
    Amherst (Hoopsville & TitanQ)
    Hobart (Hoopsville & me)
    Loras (TitanQ & me)
    Springfield (TitanQ & me)
    LeTorneau (me)
    UW-River Falls (Hoopsville)

    On North Central/IWU, remember, it's almost certain IWU can't get in unless NCC does.  So if you don't have NCC in, you realistically don't have IWU in either.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2018, 10:42:57 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2018, 08:46:10 PM

    Juniata was ahead of Lycoming in the most recent regional rankings, yet u have Lycoming ahead in coming to the table? Since the ranking, Lycoming was 0-1, Juniata 1-1.

    We talked about Juniata, Lyco, and Mary Washington as viable options, but none of them were realistic options for a Pool C bid anyway, so we didn't spend too much time on it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 11:06:54 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2018, 10:42:57 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2018, 08:46:10 PM

    Juniata was ahead of Lycoming in the most recent regional rankings, yet u have Lycoming ahead in coming to the table? Since the ranking, Lycoming was 0-1, Juniata 1-1.

    We talked about Juniata, Lyco, and Mary Washington as viable options, but none of them were realistic options for a Pool C bid anyway, so we didn't spend too much time on it.

    Juniata: .808/.481/1-0
    Lycoming: .720/.517/1-4

    Neither have any chance, but we felt Lycoming was the best option to put on the board.  .481 SOS isn't competitive.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AndOne on February 26, 2018, 12:06:56 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 08:51:20 PM
    When it comes down to the last few picks, the Hoopsville guys pick three power conference teams with tough schedules but sub-.700 winning percentages (Amherst, North Central, UW-RF). On the other hand, I took three teams with weaker schedules but better records (LeTorneau, Loras, and Springfield).

    I could see the committee going either way, or some combination. Last year's UW-O pick was along the lines of where Dave, etc. went, while in some other years, any team whose WP started with a 6 needed to be very strong in other criteria.

    As always, Selection Monday will be fun!

    Based on this approach, you would likely have taken St. Norbert last year. A non AQ team which, despite a lofty record, was never really considered because the overwhelming majority of their high win total was posted against extremely weak fellow conference teams. Teams like this would often finish in the middle of the pack in power conferences.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2018, 05:47:03 AM
    Quote from: AndOne on February 26, 2018, 12:06:56 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 08:51:20 PM
    When it comes down to the last few picks, the Hoopsville guys pick three power conference teams with tough schedules but sub-.700 winning percentages (Amherst, North Central, UW-RF). On the other hand, I took three teams with weaker schedules but better records (LeTorneau, Loras, and Springfield).

    I could see the committee going either way, or some combination. Last year's UW-O pick was along the lines of where Dave, etc. went, while in some other years, any team whose WP started with a 6 needed to be very strong in other criteria.

    As always, Selection Monday will be fun!

    Based on this approach, you would likely have taken St. Norbert last year. A non AQ team which, despite a lofty record, was never really considered because the overwhelming majority of their high win total was posted against extremely weak fellow conference teams. Teams like this would often finish in the middle of the pack in power conferences.

    And that's exactly where River Falls (4th) and, if you think about it, Amherst, finished. Amherst finished in a 5-way tie for 1st and they could've been the 5th seed. NCC, as you know, finished 3rd.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2018, 07:18:44 AM
    Using my final projection, it seems there are 16 very safe teams...

    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 

    And then the bubble starts here...

    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6 
    20. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    21. Loras (WE/IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.542/2-3   

    Top teams left at the table...
    * Ohio Wesleyan (GL/NCAC): .679 (19-9)/.564/3-5 
    * LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2
    * Hobart (East/LL): .808 (21-5)/.526/1-2
    * Gwynedd Mercy (AT/CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.519/2-3
    * Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/2-6
    * UW-River Falls (CE/WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.586/3-7   

    We'll know soon enough!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2018, 08:13:34 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2018, 07:18:44 AM
    Using my final projection, it seems there are 16 very safe teams...

    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 

    And then the bubble starts here...

    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6 
    20. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    21. Loras (WE/IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.542/2-3   

    Top teams left at the table...
    * Ohio Wesleyan (GL/NCAC): .679 (19-9)/.564/3-5 
    * LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2
    * Hobart (East/LL): .808 (21-5)/.526/1-2
    * Gwynedd Mercy (AT/CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.519/2-3
    * Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/2-6
    * UW-River Falls (CE/WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.586/3-7   

    We'll know soon enough!

    I really like these picks, except give me LeTourneau and Hobart instead of Springfield and Loras.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 26, 2018, 08:20:59 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 06:58:21 PM
    Hoopsville Selection Special - Mock Pool C Selection Process
    (Dave McHugh, Ryan Scott, Bob Quillman)

    * Watch us live here - http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2017-18/feb25
    * Refresh this page often for selection updates

    11 Top Selections...

    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.574/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.596/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.576/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.526/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).587/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 

    Round-by-Round Selections, Spots #12-21...

    Round 12
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Christopher Newport (CAC): .778 (21-6)/.546/3-2
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 13
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 14
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2 
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 15
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) --  Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2 
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3   

    Round 16
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) --  Franklin and Marshall (CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4     
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3   

    Round 17
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 18
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 19
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 20
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-River Falls (WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.589/3-7
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 21
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- Ripon (MWC): .720 (18-7)/.541/1-2
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Pool C Table Order (regional ranking projection)...

    Atlantic
    * New Jersey City (NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4 
    * Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3

    Central
    * UW-Platteville (WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.576/4-1 
    * UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4 
    * North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    * Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    * UW-River Falls (WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.589/3-7

    East
    * Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    * Brockport (SUNYAC): .731 (19-7)/.529/3-3

    Great Lakes
    * Wooster (NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3 
    * Marietta (OAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-5 
    * Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC): .679 (19-9)/.564/3-5

    Middle Atlantic
    * Swarthmore (CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4 
    * Christopher Newport (CAC): .778 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    * Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    * Franklin and Marshall (CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4   

    Northeast
    * Hamilton (NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.574/6-3 
    * Wesleyan (NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.596/8-4
    * Middlebury (NESCAC): .760 (19-6).587/4-6   
    * Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    * Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    * Keene State (LEC): .679 (19-9)/.576/2-6
    * Salem State (MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.513/1-2

    South
    * Emory (UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2
    * East Texas Baptist (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    * LeTourneau (ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2

    West
    * Whitman (NWC): .962 (25-1)/.526/4-1
    * St. John's (MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.525/3-2 
    * St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    * Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    The regional ranking projections show Ohio Wesleyan behind Wooster and Etta.  However, the pick-by-pick selection process shows ONU at the table.  Which is correct or am I reading this wrong?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on February 26, 2018, 08:29:53 AM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 26, 2018, 08:20:59 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 06:58:21 PM
    Hoopsville Selection Special - Mock Pool C Selection Process
    (Dave McHugh, Ryan Scott, Bob Quillman)

    * Watch us live here - http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2017-18/feb25
    * Refresh this page often for selection updates

    11 Top Selections...

    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.574/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.596/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.576/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.526/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).587/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 

    Round-by-Round Selections, Spots #12-21...

    Round 12
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Christopher Newport (CAC): .778 (21-6)/.546/3-2
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 13
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 14
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2 
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 15
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) --  Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2 
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3   

    Round 16
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) --  Franklin and Marshall (CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4     
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3   

    Round 17
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 18
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 19
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 20
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-River Falls (WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.589/3-7
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 21
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- Ripon (MWC): .720 (18-7)/.541/1-2
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Pool C Table Order (regional ranking projection)...

    Atlantic
    * New Jersey City (NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4 
    * Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3

    Central
    * UW-Platteville (WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.576/4-1 
    * UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4 
    * North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    * Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    * UW-River Falls (WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.589/3-7

    East
    * Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    * Brockport (SUNYAC): .731 (19-7)/.529/3-3

    Great Lakes
    * Wooster (NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3 
    * Marietta (OAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-5 
    * Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC): .679 (19-9)/.564/3-5

    Middle Atlantic
    * Swarthmore (CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4 
    * Christopher Newport (CAC): .778 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    * Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    * Franklin and Marshall (CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4   

    Northeast
    * Hamilton (NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.574/6-3 
    * Wesleyan (NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.596/8-4
    * Middlebury (NESCAC): .760 (19-6).587/4-6   
    * Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    * Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    * Keene State (LEC): .679 (19-9)/.576/2-6
    * Salem State (MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.513/1-2

    South
    * Emory (UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2
    * East Texas Baptist (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    * LeTourneau (ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2

    West
    * Whitman (NWC): .962 (25-1)/.526/4-1
    * St. John's (MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.525/3-2 
    * St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    * Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    The regional ranking projections show Ohio Wesleyan behind Wooster and Etta.  However, the pick-by-pick selection process shows ONU at the table.  Which is correct or am I reading this wrong?

    I believe they started with the assumption that Ohio Wesleyan would get to the table after Marietta/Wooster...however information gleaned during the program led them to believe Ohio Northern finished ranked ahead of OWU in the final ranking.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 26, 2018, 08:54:55 AM
    Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 26, 2018, 08:29:53 AM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 26, 2018, 08:20:59 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 06:58:21 PM
    Hoopsville Selection Special - Mock Pool C Selection Process
    (Dave McHugh, Ryan Scott, Bob Quillman)

    * Watch us live here - http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2017-18/feb25
    * Refresh this page often for selection updates

    11 Top Selections...

    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.574/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.596/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.576/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.526/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).587/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 

    Round-by-Round Selections, Spots #12-21...

    Round 12
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Christopher Newport (CAC): .778 (21-6)/.546/3-2
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 13
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 14
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2 
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2

    Round 15
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) --  Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2 
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3   

    Round 16
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) --  Franklin and Marshall (CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4     
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3   

    Round 17
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 18
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-8)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 19
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 20
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- UW-River Falls (WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.589/3-7
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    Round 21
    (Atlantic) -- Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3
    (Central) -- Ripon (MWC): .720 (18-7)/.541/1-2
    (East) -- Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    (Great Lakes) -- Ohio Northern .679 (19-9)/.549/4-6
    (Mid Atlantic) -- Lycoming (MACC): .720 (18-7)/.517/1-4
    (Northeast) -- Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    (South)   East Texas Baptist U. (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    (West) -- Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Pool C Table Order (regional ranking projection)...

    Atlantic
    * New Jersey City (NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4 
    * Gwynedd Mercy (CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.518/2-3

    Central
    * UW-Platteville (WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.576/4-1 
    * UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.555/2-4 
    * North Central (CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.564/4-5 
    * Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    * UW-River Falls (WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.589/3-7

    East
    * Hobart (LL): .808 (21-5)/.524/1-2
    * Brockport (SUNYAC): .731 (19-7)/.529/3-3

    Great Lakes
    * Wooster (NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3 
    * Marietta (OAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-5 
    * Ohio Wesleyan (NCAC): .679 (19-9)/.564/3-5

    Middle Atlantic
    * Swarthmore (CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4 
    * Christopher Newport (CAC): .778 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    * Albright (Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    * Franklin and Marshall (CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4   

    Northeast
    * Hamilton (NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.574/6-3 
    * Wesleyan (NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.596/8-4
    * Middlebury (NESCAC): .760 (19-6).587/4-6   
    * Amherst (NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6
    * Springfield (NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2
    * Keene State (LEC): .679 (19-9)/.576/2-6
    * Salem State (MASCAC): .846 (22-4)/.513/1-2

    South
    * Emory (UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2
    * East Texas Baptist (ASC): .750 (21-7)/.538/2-6
    * LeTourneau (ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2

    West
    * Whitman (NWC): .962 (25-1)/.526/4-1
    * St. John's (MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.525/3-2 
    * St. Olaf (MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    * Loras (IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.543/2-3

    The regional ranking projections show Ohio Wesleyan behind Wooster and Etta.  However, the pick-by-pick selection process shows ONU at the table.  Which is correct or am I reading this wrong?

    I believe they started with the assumption that Ohio Wesleyan would get to the table after Marietta/Wooster...however information gleaned during the program led them to believe Ohio Northern finished ranked ahead of OWU in the final ranking.

    Thank you.  I did not listen to the show last night (I always save the Sunday show replay for work on Monday).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: spwood on February 26, 2018, 09:21:48 AM
    So as someone who is trying to learn the selection process (I am well versed on how D-III hockey does it and I follow D-III hoops, but this is my first real time following the complete process), I am intrigued by Hobart.  People seem split on them getting in.  They have a very high WIN%, but their SOS would be the weakest of the Pool Cs (and weaker than many teams left out) and would be the only Pool C team with only one win against ranked teams (again less than many teams being left out).  Can WIN% be enough to get a team in?  On the hockey side I would predict that their SOS and RNK would sink them, but here people seem split 50/50.

    Thanks, I'll hang up and listen! ;D

    Steve Wood
    Plattsburgh State '99
    Penn State '95
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 09:38:33 AM
    Quote from: AndOne on February 26, 2018, 12:06:56 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 08:51:20 PM
    When it comes down to the last few picks, the Hoopsville guys pick three power conference teams with tough schedules but sub-.700 winning percentages (Amherst, North Central, UW-RF). On the other hand, I took three teams with weaker schedules but better records (LeTorneau, Loras, and Springfield).

    I could see the committee going either way, or some combination. Last year's UW-O pick was along the lines of where Dave, etc. went, while in some other years, any team whose WP started with a 6 needed to be very strong in other criteria.

    As always, Selection Monday will be fun!

    Based on this approach, you would likely have taken St. Norbert last year. A non AQ team which, despite a lofty record, was never really considered because the overwhelming majority of their high win total was posted against extremely weak fellow conference teams. Teams like this would often finish in the middle of the pack in power conferences.

    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2017, 09:50:35 PM
    My final Pool C picks...

    1) Babson (0.926, 0.585, 5-2, NE)
    2) Susquehanna (0.800, 0.559, 5-5, MA)
    3) Tufts (0.769, 0.570, 4-3, NE)
    4) Rochester (0.840, 0.538, 4-2, EA)
    5) Whitworth (0.852, 0.546, 1-3, WE)
    6) Williams (0.704, 0.602, 7-5, NE)
    7) Amherst (0.708, 0.602, 5-5, NE)
    8) Wesleyan (CT) (0.760, 0.561, 4-3, NE)
    9) New Jersey City (.750, 0.533, 6-3, AT)
    10) UW-Whitewater (0.769, 0.568, 1-3, CE)
    11) Emory (0.720, 0.551, 2-3, SO)
    12) Hope (0.800, 0.525, 2-1, GL)
    13) Salisbury (0.741, 0.548, 3-4, MA)
    14) Cabrini (0.760, 0.532, 4-4, AT)
    15) Mt St Joseph (0.760, 0.522, 2-3, GL)
    16) Skidmore (0.731, 0.525, 5-1, EA)
    17) St Lawrence (0.760, 0.524, 3-5, EA)
    18) St Thomas (MN) (0.731, 0.530, 2-2, WE)
    19) Augustana (.704, 0.543, 2-3, CE)
    20) UW-Eau Claire (0.680, 0.572, 3-3, CE)
    21) Keene State (0.679, 0.578, 1-3, NE)

    I had to go back & look, but my missed picks last year were not in the high WP / low SOS category.  Both LeTourneau (.852 / .511 / 2-2 and proj. 3-4) and Loras (.731 / .543 / 2-3 and proj. 3-3) look a lot better than last year's St Norbert team (.792 / .506 / 1-1), but there are also a lot more competitive bubble teams this year, so I won't be surprised if both get left out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on February 26, 2018, 09:39:58 AM
    Quote from: spwood on February 26, 2018, 09:21:48 AM
    So as someone who is trying to learn the selection process (I am well versed on how D-III hockey does it and I follow D-III hoops, but this is my first real time following the complete process), I am intrigued by Hobart.  People seem split on them getting in.  They have a very high WIN%, but their SOS would be the weakest of the Pool Cs (and weaker than many teams left out) and would be the only Pool C team with only one win against ranked teams (again less than many teams being left out).  Can WIN% be enough to get a team in?  On the hockey side I would predict that their SOS and RNK would sink them, but here people seem split 50/50.

    Thanks, I'll hang up and listen! ;D

    Steve Wood
    Plattsburgh State '99
    Penn State '95

    In an attempt to answer that question, Steve...

    I've been slowly figuring out the process in the last couple years, but a lot of it centers on what the selection committee decides to prioritize. For reference, here's a couple charst D3Hoops published last year (source article here (http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2017/uw-oshkosh-off-charts) because you might be able to see them better):
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.d3hoops.com%2Fimages%2F2017%2Fpool-c-2013-2016.jpg%3Fmax_height%3D420%26amp%3Bmax_width%3D560&hash=4db1c490c97dc0037d1146a8db8f059eebd7a48b)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.d3hoops.com%2Fimages%2F2017%2Fpool-c-2017.jpg%3Fmax_height%3D420%26amp%3Bmax_width%3D560&hash=ef3810e36f32a0609b74232752a4a34381fb9808)

    Hobart looks to slot in on both charts in between the 50 percent and 90 percent, but closer to the 50 than the 90. Part of that may be a result of, at least according to the mock, them sitting at the table for the entire selection process. I'm sure that .524 mark and the only three RRO games were a big reason why they sat there. But again, you look at the chart, teams with worse win percentages and SOS's have made it. Last year the big deal was Oshkosh making it despite a .630 win percentage only because they had an absurd SOS. It's not out of the question that the committee opts to go to the other extreme, but I feel like SOS is more of a key.

    Of course, people like Q, fantastic50, Dave, or Ryan could answer this far better than I could since they understand the process better and deeper than I do.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 09:55:24 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2018, 05:47:03 AM
    Quote from: AndOne on February 26, 2018, 12:06:56 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 08:51:20 PM
    When it comes down to the last few picks, the Hoopsville guys pick three power conference teams with tough schedules but sub-.700 winning percentages (Amherst, North Central, UW-RF). On the other hand, I took three teams with weaker schedules but better records (LeTorneau, Loras, and Springfield).

    I could see the committee going either way, or some combination. Last year's UW-O pick was along the lines of where Dave, etc. went, while in some other years, any team whose WP started with a 6 needed to be very strong in other criteria.

    As always, Selection Monday will be fun!

    Based on this approach, you would likely have taken St. Norbert last year. A non AQ team which, despite a lofty record, was never really considered because the overwhelming majority of their high win total was posted against extremely weak fellow conference teams. Teams like this would often finish in the middle of the pack in power conferences.

    And that's exactly where River Falls (4th) and, if you think about it, Amherst, finished. Amherst finished in a 5-way tie for 1st and they could've been the 5th seed. NCC, as you know, finished 3rd.

    Here's a thought experiment.  If I picked the best 21 teams from Pool C, as in those who be most likely to advance deep into the tournament based on the way they are playing right now (think of the Alabama vs Ohio State argument in December), here is what my predictive model would pick:
    1) UW-P
    2) Whitman
    3) St John's
    4) Marietta
    5) Bethel
    6) North Central
    7) UW-O
    8) Wesleyan
    9) UW-RF
    10) Ohio Northern
    11) Ripon
    12) LeTourneau
    13) IWU
    14) Hamilton
    15) Emory
    16) CNU
    17) Ohio Wesleyan
    18) St Olaf
    19) Swarthmore
    20) Amherst
    21) Loras
    ---
    22) Wooster
    23) Middlebury
    30) Albright
    31) Hobart
    33) F&M
    43) Springfield
    63) NJCU
    64) Keene St
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 10:03:37 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2018, 10:29:30 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2018, 10:27:22 PM
    Comparing Pool C picks, the Hoopsville selections, TitanQ, and I all agree on 17 teams (listed here in consensus order)...
    1) Hamilton
    2) Wesleyan
    3) UW-Platteville
    4) Whitman
    5) Swarthmore
    6) St John's
    7) Middlebury
    8) Wooster
    9) Marietta
    10)New Jersey City
    11) Emory
    12) Christopher Newport
    13) St Olaf
    14) UW-Oshkosh
    15) Albright
    16) Franklin & Marshall
    17) Illinois Wesleyan

    We're all over the place for the last four...
    North Central (Hoopsville & TitanQ)
    Amherst (Hoopsville & TitanQ)
    Hobart (Hoopsville & me)
    Loras (TitanQ & me)
    Springfield (TitanQ & me)
    LeTorneau (me)
    UW-River Falls (Hoopsville)

    On North Central/IWU, remember, it's almost certain IWU can't get in unless NCC does.  So if you don't have NCC in, you realistically don't have IWU in either.

    I was projecting IWU ahead of North Central in the final regional rankings.  Are you thinking that NCC gets to the table first because of the 2-1 head-to-head (which is not in my model), or did Dave have inside info from the committee that this is, in fact, the case?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2018, 10:09:32 AM
    In the CCIW board a post shows NCC ahead in 3 of 4 categories: SOS, vRRO and H2H.  I would put NCC ahead of IWU too, but I'm not a math professor or a Hall of Famer.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 26, 2018, 10:09:59 AM
    Again, very interesting stuff fantastic50!  Once brackets are out I'd be really curious to see how your predictive model sees things shaking out ...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 10:22:05 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 26, 2018, 10:09:59 AM
    Again, very interesting stuff fantastic50!  Once brackets are out I'd be really curious to see how your predictive model sees things shaking out ...

    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 24, 2018, 09:38:18 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2018, 08:51:57 PM
    Quote from: dunkin3117 on February 24, 2018, 08:44:42 PM
    I had seen the numbers, didn't know how accurate they were. I'm new to these boards. In the past, how accurate have these projections been to actual Pool C bids?

    If I remember correctly, fantastic50 was only off by one bid last season.

    I missed two last year, and one the year before that.  There are several folks here who are just as good or better with calling those berths on this last weekend.  The tools that I have available are most beneficial a week or two ahead of the selections, because I can predict final SOS, etc. with decent accuracy.

    Looking at the consensus, I expect to be outpicked this year by Dave, Bob, etc.  I think that the value of my simulations comes in earlier, as I have predicted since late January that the Centennial would likely get three bids (Swarthmore, Hopkins, F&M), even though the Diplomats had a .493 SOS at the time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 26, 2018, 10:27:03 AM
    I should have been more clear, I mean I'd be curious to see how your model sees teams advancing through the brackets once match-ups are posted ... if it does that sort of thing. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 10:27:46 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2018, 10:09:32 AM
    In the CCIW board a post shows NCC ahead in 3 of 4 categories: SOS, vRRO and H2H.  I would put NCC ahead of IWU too, but I'm not a math professor or a Hall of Famer.

    LOL, well said; I'm converted!  The Titans' sole advantage is one extra win, so they stay ahead only if the committee cringes at the "6" in NCC's .692 WP, which has happened in some years, but seems unlikely after last year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 10:34:38 AM
    For what's worth, the consensus of my mathematical modeling class (building predictive models as a graded mini-project) was as follows.  This was purely driven by past & current data on WP, SOS, vRRO, and RR, as very few of them follow the D3 game beyond our campus, if at all.

    1) Hamilton
    2) Wesleyan
    3) UW-Platteville
    4) Middlebury
    5) Wooster
    6) Marietta
    7) Whitman
    8) Emory
    9) St. John's
    10) Swarthmore
    11) NJCU
    12) Christopher Newport
    13) LeTourneau
    14) UW-O
    15) Hobart
    16) Albright
    17) Salem St.
    18) F&M
    19) IWU
    20) St. Olaf
    21) UW-RF
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 26, 2018, 10:42:53 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 09:55:24 AM
    Based on this approach, you would likely have taken St. Norbert last year. A non AQ team which, despite a lofty record, was never really considered because the overwhelming majority of their high win total was posted against extremely weak fellow conference teams. Teams like this would often finish in the middle of the pack in power conferences.

    That is incredible interesting.

    Thanks for sharing.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2018, 10:46:48 AM
    Does someone have Oshkosh's final numbers from last year? I would like to see a comparative with River Falls this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 11:03:32 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2018, 10:46:48 AM
    Does someone have Oshkosh's final numbers from last year? I would like to see a comparative with River Falls this year.

    UW-O was .630 / .602 / 5-7
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2018, 11:10:14 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 11:03:32 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2018, 10:46:48 AM
    Does someone have Oshkosh's final numbers from last year? I would like to see a comparative with River Falls this year.

    UW-O was .630 / .602 / 5-7

    Thanks. River Falls is behind in two of those three categories. I think they are something like .586 and 3-7.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 11:45:46 AM
    Quote from: lmitzel on February 26, 2018, 09:39:58 AM
    Quote from: spwood on February 26, 2018, 09:21:48 AM
    So as someone who is trying to learn the selection process (I am well versed on how D-III hockey does it and I follow D-III hoops, but this is my first real time following the complete process), I am intrigued by Hobart.  People seem split on them getting in.  They have a very high WIN%, but their SOS would be the weakest of the Pool Cs (and weaker than many teams left out) and would be the only Pool C team with only one win against ranked teams (again less than many teams being left out).  Can WIN% be enough to get a team in?  On the hockey side I would predict that their SOS and RNK would sink them, but here people seem split 50/50.

    Thanks, I'll hang up and listen! ;D

    Steve Wood
    Plattsburgh State '99
    Penn State '95

    In an attempt to answer that question, Steve...

    I've been slowly figuring out the process in the last couple years, but a lot of it centers on what the selection committee decides to prioritize. For reference, here's a couple charst D3Hoops published last year (source article here (http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2017/uw-oshkosh-off-charts) because you might be able to see them better):
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.d3hoops.com%2Fimages%2F2017%2Fpool-c-2013-2016.jpg%3Fmax_height%3D420%26amp%3Bmax_width%3D560&hash=4db1c490c97dc0037d1146a8db8f059eebd7a48b)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.d3hoops.com%2Fimages%2F2017%2Fpool-c-2017.jpg%3Fmax_height%3D420%26amp%3Bmax_width%3D560&hash=ef3810e36f32a0609b74232752a4a34381fb9808)

    Hobart looks to slot in on both charts in between the 50 percent and 90 percent, but closer to the 50 than the 90. Part of that may be a result of, at least according to the mock, them sitting at the table for the entire selection process. I'm sure that .524 mark and the only three RRO games were a big reason why they sat there. But again, you look at the chart, teams with worse win percentages and SOS's have made it. Last year the big deal was Oshkosh making it despite a .630 win percentage only because they had an absurd SOS. It's not out of the question that the committee opts to go to the other extreme, but I feel like SOS is more of a key.

    Of course, people like Q, fantastic50, Dave, or Ryan could answer this far better than I could since they understand the process better and deeper than I do.

    Here's a chart (admittedly a bit "busier") with 2013-17 teams (small o's if in, small x's if out).  The stars are for the 2018 candidates (with Whitman off the top of the chart).  The lines are the 50/50 bubble for teams with the given number of wins vs RRO.  Hobart is the red "x" at .808 WP and .525 SOS.  They're above the 50/50 line, but not far enough above to be anything close to a "lock."
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 26, 2018, 11:48:53 AM
    Oshkosh beat Whitewater (an eventual host site and high seed) twice right at the end of the season last year and ended up tied for 2nd in the WIAC, the fact they made the WIAC final bolstered their case probably.  It probably didn't hurt that the national committee chair had also played them. ;)

    Seeing them in person at Hope they were very much an NCAA quality team, but I'm still not sure that was a great Pool C pick.

    http://d3hoops.com/teams/UW-Oshkosh/Men/2016-17/index
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 12:19:41 PM
    Men's selection show has been delayed 1/2 hour.

    It will now be at 1 PM Eastern on NCAA.com
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: spwood on February 26, 2018, 12:22:01 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 12:19:41 PM
    Men's selection show has been delayed 1/2 hour.

    It will now be at 1 PM Eastern on NCAA.com

    Production issues or committee changing their minds at the last minute? ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 26, 2018, 12:27:24 PM
    Quote from: spwood on February 26, 2018, 12:22:01 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 12:19:41 PM
    Men's selection show has been delayed 1/2 hour.

    It will now be at 1 PM Eastern on NCAA.com

    Production issues or committee changing their minds at the last minute? ;D

    Either way it is complete and utter disregard for my lunch time - guess I'll have to postpone a meeting cause I'm not missing the selection show. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 12:31:26 PM
    Quote from: spwood on February 26, 2018, 12:22:01 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 12:19:41 PM
    Men's selection show has been delayed 1/2 hour.

    It will now be at 1 PM Eastern on NCAA.com

    Production issues or committee changing their minds at the last minute? ;D

    Production issues, according to d-mac.  Someone made an announcing mistake on the first take, and now they have to record the show again to get it just right.

    OK, NCAA men's selection show-- take two!  See you at 1 PM Eastern.

    BTW, when it comes on-- no spoilers please.  The show may be releasing as an on-demand video that can be fast forwarded.  Please let us watch it as though it is live.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BBJones on February 26, 2018, 12:44:13 PM
    ESPN is watching closely as they all know the D-1 cow is running out of clean milk. 

    Can you imagine the infrastructure changes that will be needed at ESPN to broadcast the Marian vs. Finlandia game in 2019?    ;D ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2018, 01:12:20 PM
    So... Brockport??

    ??? ??? ???

    I think thats good news for Hobart, but baaaad news for other bubble teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: (509)Rat on February 26, 2018, 01:15:16 PM
    and Letourneau
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2018, 01:17:06 PM
    Quote from: (509)Rat on February 26, 2018, 01:15:16 PM
    and Letourneau

    Yup... not good news for the Central/Northeast squads.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: (509)Rat on February 26, 2018, 01:22:14 PM
    North Central is in tho
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2018, 01:25:59 PM
    Quote from: (509)Rat on February 26, 2018, 01:22:14 PM
    North Central is in tho

    Ahh, I was watching the selection show and didn't realize the whole bracket was posted.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bartman on February 26, 2018, 01:29:19 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2018, 01:12:20 PM
    So... Brockport??

    ??? ??? ???

    I think thats good news for Hobart, but baaaad news for other bubble teams.
    Brockport and Springfield in. Hobart out. Paid brutally for two worst shooting games of the season in the last 2 games , despite close scores in each game. Great team all year, heart breaking. Watching Hockey the rest of the way.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 01:35:52 PM
    Looks like the last few were perhaps North Central, IWU, LeTourneau, Springfield, and Brockport.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 26, 2018, 01:39:30 PM
    3 the D3hoops panel missed on    Amherst, Hobart, River Falls

    They really struggled with the last 5 or 6 picks.  Hobart they really never did reach consensus on.  It didn't sound like any of them were super comfortable with Amherst even though they picked them earlier.  River Falls seems like the one they were sure about that didn't make it.

    There was no discussion of Brockport St, who obviously finished ranked ahead of Hobart in their region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 26, 2018, 01:39:31 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 12:31:26 PM
    Someone made an announcing mistake on the first take, and now they have to record the show again to get it just right.

    (https://media.giphy.com/media/l41lVSySRf15JgBkA/giphy.gif)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2018, 01:39:59 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2018, 07:23:48 AM
    Using my final projection, it seems there are 16 very safe teams...

    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 

    And then the bubble starts here...

    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6 
    20. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    21. Loras (WE/IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.542/2-3   

    Top teams left at the table...
    * Ohio Wesleyan (GL/NCAC): .679 (19-9)/.564/3-5 
    * LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2
    * Hobart (East/LL): .808 (21-5)/.526/1-2
    * Gwynedd Mercy (AT/CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.519/2-3
    * Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/2-6
    * UW-River Falls (CE/WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.586/3-7   


    I believe NCC and IWU are going to get in...and hope I'm right.  But if they don't get in, this isn't a situation where anyone should do a bunch of complaining about it.  Neither team did what it needed to get in comfortable Pool C position.

    Good luck, NCC and IWU fans...gonna be a long morning.

    I can't confirm the order of selection obviously, but the 21 Pool Cs are...

    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 
    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    20. LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2
    21. Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .731/.529/3-3


    I had:
    * Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6 
    * Loras (WE/IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.542/2-3   

    They had:
    * LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2
    * Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .731/.529/3-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on February 26, 2018, 01:41:39 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2018, 01:39:59 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2018, 07:23:48 AM
    Using my final projection, it seems there are 16 very safe teams...

    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 

    And then the bubble starts here...

    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6 
    20. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    21. Loras (WE/IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.542/2-3   

    Top teams left at the table...
    * Ohio Wesleyan (GL/NCAC): .679 (19-9)/.564/3-5 
    * LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2
    * Hobart (East/LL): .808 (21-5)/.526/1-2
    * Gwynedd Mercy (AT/CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.519/2-3
    * Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/2-6
    * UW-River Falls (CE/WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.586/3-7   


    I believe NCC and IWU are going to get in...and hope I'm right.  But if they don't get in, this isn't a situation where anyone should do a bunch of complaining about it.  Neither team did what it needed to get in comfortable Pool C position.

    Good luck, NCC and IWU fans...gonna be a long morning.

    I can't confirm the order of selection obviously, but the 21 Pool Cs are...

    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 
    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    20. LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2
    21. Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .731/.529/303


    I had:
    * Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6 
    * Loras (WE/IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.542/2-3   

    They had:
    * LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2
    * Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .731/.529/3-3

    For a year where you guys admitted it was really tough and were talking about missing a bunch, to get 19 out of 21 is really good. I watched the mock this morning before the selection show and really appreciate the amount of time and energy you all put into it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2018, 01:43:27 PM
    My goal in life is to get all 21 some year.

    Just gotta keep grinding.

    #D3Bracketology
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 01:48:54 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2018, 01:43:27 PM
    My goal in life is to get all 21 some year.

    Just gotta keep grinding.

    #D3Bracketology

    Love it!

    19 for me also, 19 for Matt Snyder, 18 for my students' consensus (some of them got 19, including Brockport, but missed NCC and Springfield)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2018, 01:58:24 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 26, 2018, 01:39:31 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 12:31:26 PM
    Someone made an announcing mistake on the first take, and now they have to record the show again to get it just right.

    (https://media.giphy.com/media/l41lVSySRf15JgBkA/giphy.gif)

    Um... where did you get that info? Because that isn't even close to the reason.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2018, 02:09:50 PM
    Yes thanks for everyones hard work they put into it. Obviously you guys lvoe it but just know there is a lot of us that really enjoy the fruits of your labor!

    Titan Q, great job on Hoopsville with Dave and Ryan! Really enjoyed you on there.

    Dave, great job with the selection show as well. A lot of good info was shared!

    The fun is only beginning!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 02:10:53 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2018, 01:58:24 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 26, 2018, 01:39:31 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 12:31:26 PM
    Someone made an announcing mistake on the first take, and now they have to record the show again to get it just right.



    (https://media.giphy.com/media/l41lVSySRf15JgBkA/giphy.gif)

    Um... where did you get that info? Because that isn't even close to the reason.

    Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your tweet, d-mac.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2018, 02:20:49 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 01:48:54 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2018, 01:43:27 PM
    My goal in life is to get all 21 some year.

    Just gotta keep grinding.

    #D3Bracketology

    Love it!

    19 for me also, 19 for Matt Snyder, 18 for my students' consensus (some of them got 19, including Brockport, but missed NCC and Springfield)

    If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.

    I didn't do much projecting this year besides looking at the picks made by you and TitanQ and making minor tweaks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 02:34:07 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2018, 02:20:49 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 01:48:54 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2018, 01:43:27 PM
    My goal in life is to get all 21 some year.

    Just gotta keep grinding.

    #D3Bracketology

    Love it!

    19 for me also, 19 for Matt Snyder, 18 for my students' consensus (some of them got 19, including Brockport, but missed NCC and Springfield)

    If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.

    I didn't do much projecting this year besides looking at the picks made by you and TitanQ and making minor tweaks.

    Better to work smart than to work hard...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 02:43:56 PM
    Following up on some of the eventual bubble teams, it's notable that Springfield was 4-2 vRRO, Brockport was 3-3, and LeTourneau perhaps picked up a 3rd win vRRO in the final (yet-unpublished) rankings, but Hobart was 1-2.  Also, Amherst's non-conference SOS was .485, substantially below that of the NESCAC teams that got a Pool C berth.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 02:10:53 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2018, 01:58:24 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 26, 2018, 01:39:31 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 12:31:26 PM
    Someone made an announcing mistake on the first take, and now they have to record the show again to get it just right.



    (https://media.giphy.com/media/l41lVSySRf15JgBkA/giphy.gif)

    Um... where did you get that info? Because that isn't even close to the reason.

    Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your tweet, d-mac.

    All I said was there was an error... there are a lot of ways to fix errors in this day in age. We didn't need to re-tape the entire thing, but while it might be easy to fix it still takes time.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2018, 03:01:41 PM
    LeTourneau and their .511 SOS. Ouch to those with significantly higher SOSs but worse records.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 03:08:51 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2018, 02:52:53 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 02:10:53 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2018, 01:58:24 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 26, 2018, 01:39:31 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 26, 2018, 12:31:26 PM
    Someone made an announcing mistake on the first take, and now they have to record the show again to get it just right.



    (https://media.giphy.com/media/l41lVSySRf15JgBkA/giphy.gif)

    Um... where did you get that info? Because that isn't even close to the reason.

    Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your tweet, d-mac.

    All I said was there was an error... there are a lot of ways to fix errors in this day in age. We didn't need to re-tape the entire thing, but while it might be easy to fix it still takes time.

    And time that is well spent to fix it, considering that the selection show will remain up on NCAA.com for a least a few years in an on-demand setting. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: warriorcat on February 26, 2018, 03:48:20 PM
    With the final regional rankings released, it would appear that the last teams on the table were:

    TCNJ
    River Falls
    Hobart
    Ohio Northern
    No Mid Atlantic team
    Keene St
    ETBU
    Loras

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dunkin3117 on February 26, 2018, 03:50:18 PM
    Loras, again, left scratching their heads....
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2018, 04:53:38 PM
    As with last year, here's a WP vs SOS graph of the Pool C teams selected (and a few contenders that didn't get in).  In the background are teams selected/not in 2013-17.  Of course, this simple look doesn't include wins vs RRO, head-to-head, etc.  Whitman is off the top of the chart, and Juniata is off of the left side.  The solid line indicates the historical bubble (50% chance) mark, and the dashed lines 90% and 10% chances.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 26, 2018, 05:03:17 PM
    Quote from: dunkin3117 on February 26, 2018, 03:50:18 PM
    Loras, again, left scratching their heads....

    As I've said in football, there's only one way to guarantee not being left behind - and that's win your league (tournament (sigh)).

    Loras' losses to Concordia (WI), Coe, and their first round tournament loss were probably the big issues. Losing at home to a 9-16 team won't win you any favors when your name is on the table and neither will a home first round loss to a team you handled twice during the year.

    It was such a cluster this year I'm surprised people got 19 of 21 right.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
    Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

    The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

    Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

    It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 27, 2018, 02:06:52 PM
    I believe so. It's more noticeable in football where you have conferences with only one out of conference game.

    In football, the 2-6 in SOS were WIAC Schools. (Whitewater, Platteville, Stout, Eau Claire, Oshkosh). That's even with Eau Claire being 1-9.

    Wittenberg had a high SOS because their one non-conference was Westminster, who went 7-3 in a PAC and played all of the tough teams in the PAC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 27, 2018, 03:07:24 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
    Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

    The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

    Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

    It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?
    I think the easiest way to say it is "the more conference games you play, the closer you'll be to .500"  Since the NESCAC only has 10 games, they've got more opportunities to improve their SOS.  If the NESCAC was terrible they might play bad teams and get beat and have the worst SOS in the nation.  But since they're all pretty good they can beat winning teams from relatively poor conferences and inflate their SOS.

    The committee knows the NESCAC numbers are inflated and might have taken that into consideration when they put Amherst 10th in the regional rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2018, 03:20:17 PM
    We forgot to post this yesterday... or more realistically, didn't have time...

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D4rx4o%2Fst0zrjaanjidvo5o.jpg&hash=ed02c34abc0f003fecf525fd9a62e18641c4e00a)

    The NCAA Division III tournaments are set. We know which 128 teams will be playing for the national championship. But there were some surprises, maybe some controversy, and certainly a lot of questions.

    On a special edition of Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh was joined by Ryan Scott as they answered questions, tried to understand some of the decisions made, and pointed to some of the more interesting games to watch.

    Dave also had a chance to talk more in depth about one of the big stories in the men's bracket, Yeshiva. Men's coach Elliot Steinmetz discussed the team's first ever conference title, NCAA tournament berth, and some of the scheduling changes that will take place to accommodate the school's religious background.

    Dave will also talked to the men's committee chairs, Tim Fitzpatrick (Coast Guard Athletics Director), later in the show.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Monday's show here: http://bit.ly/2GFVq3M

    Also, all podcasts from Sunday's and Monday's shows are available through their respective show pages... or the info below (where you can also subscribe to the podcast; (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2018, 07:29:32 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 27, 2018, 03:07:24 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
    Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

    The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

    Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

    It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?
    I think the easiest way to say it is "the more conference games you play, the closer you'll be to .500"  Since the NESCAC only has 10 games, they've got more opportunities to improve their SOS.  If the NESCAC was terrible they might play bad teams and get beat and have the worst SOS in the nation.  But since they're all pretty good they can beat winning teams from relatively poor conferences and inflate their SOS.

    The committee knows the NESCAC numbers are inflated and might have taken that into consideration when they put Amherst 10th in the regional rankings.

    But that's what I'm saying, I'm wondering if that "more conference games you play, the better your SOS" is actually true for really good conferences.  I mean, at some point, if you play enough conferences games, it would eventually get to .500, but what if that number is 50?  I think it's conceivable you could play even 18 or 20 conference games and still have a decent SOS if the entire conference did really well against good teams in those 5-7 non-con.

    I was just hoping someone better at math could explain it a little better.  I can sort of get the general concept in my head, but I don't have the terminology to explain it in detail.

    For example, if your nine team conference entered conference play with everyone having between 7-2 and 9-0 records with an SOS between .550 and .600.  I feel like you'd get pretty far into a 16 game regular season before the SOS started regressing to the mean.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I was hoping one of our resident mathematicians would weigh in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2018, 08:06:39 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2018, 07:29:32 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 27, 2018, 03:07:24 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
    Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

    The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

    Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

    It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?
    I think the easiest way to say it is "the more conference games you play, the closer you'll be to .500"  Since the NESCAC only has 10 games, they've got more opportunities to improve their SOS.  If the NESCAC was terrible they might play bad teams and get beat and have the worst SOS in the nation.  But since they're all pretty good they can beat winning teams from relatively poor conferences and inflate their SOS.

    The committee knows the NESCAC numbers are inflated and might have taken that into consideration when they put Amherst 10th in the regional rankings.

    But that's what I'm saying, I'm wondering if that "more conference games you play, the better your SOS" is actually true for really good conferences.  I mean, at some point, if you play enough conferences games, it would eventually get to .500, but what if that number is 50?  I think it's conceivable you could play even 18 or 20 conference games and still have a decent SOS if the entire conference did really well against good teams in those 5-7 non-con.

    I was just hoping someone better at math could explain it a little better.  I can sort of get the general concept in my head, but I don't have the terminology to explain it in detail.

    For example, if your nine team conference entered conference play with everyone having between 7-2 and 9-0 records with an SOS between .550 and .600.  I feel like you'd get pretty far into a 16 game regular season before the SOS started regressing to the mean.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I was hoping one of our resident mathematicians would weigh in.
    I am glad that we are addressing this again.

    I also hope that the statisticians will investigate:

    1)  the impact of the number of teams comprising the Opp. Opp. per conference.  I would contrast the ASC with 1-3 conferences in the Northeast.  The SUNYAC and Liberty League have degrees of isolation that we face in Texas.

    2) the progression to .500 with the number of conference games in a 25 game schedule. Is there an optimal number of conference games to maximize the SOS.

    3) the "cherry picking" effect. Were I a coach in the Northeast, I would play as many upper echelon teams from as many conferences as I could schedule. Can you "cherry-pick" your non-conference games from past performance to project the highest SOS?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 27, 2018, 08:29:55 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2018, 08:06:39 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2018, 07:29:32 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 27, 2018, 03:07:24 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
    Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

    The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

    Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

    It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?
    I think the easiest way to say it is "the more conference games you play, the closer you'll be to .500"  Since the NESCAC only has 10 games, they've got more opportunities to improve their SOS.  If the NESCAC was terrible they might play bad teams and get beat and have the worst SOS in the nation.  But since they're all pretty good they can beat winning teams from relatively poor conferences and inflate their SOS.

    The committee knows the NESCAC numbers are inflated and might have taken that into consideration when they put Amherst 10th in the regional rankings.

    But that's what I'm saying, I'm wondering if that "more conference games you play, the better your SOS" is actually true for really good conferences.  I mean, at some point, if you play enough conferences games, it would eventually get to .500, but what if that number is 50?  I think it's conceivable you could play even 18 or 20 conference games and still have a decent SOS if the entire conference did really well against good teams in those 5-7 non-con.

    I was just hoping someone better at math could explain it a little better.  I can sort of get the general concept in my head, but I don't have the terminology to explain it in detail.

    For example, if your nine team conference entered conference play with everyone having between 7-2 and 9-0 records with an SOS between .550 and .600.  I feel like you'd get pretty far into a 16 game regular season before the SOS started regressing to the mean.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I was hoping one of our resident mathematicians would weigh in.
    I am glad that we are addressing this again.

    I also hope that the statisticians will investigate:

    1)  the impact of the number of teams comprising the Opp. Opp. per conference.  I would contrast the ASC with 1-3 conferences in the Northeast.  The SUNYAC and Liberty League have degrees of isolation that we face in Texas.

    2) the progression to .500 with the number of conference games in a 25 game schedule. Is there an optimal number of conference games to maximize the SOS.

    3) the "cherry picking" effect. Were I a coach in the Northeast, I would play as many upper echelon teams from as many conferences as I could schedule. Can you "cherry-pick" your non-conference games from past performance to project the highest SOS?
    Not a numbers cruncher - I leave that to posters like Knightslappy, TitanQ or .....  One of the reasons, but not the only reason,  the CCIW went to a conference tournament was to improve chances of getting more than one CCIW team in.  Why? Because in most seasons, the top CCIW teams have high SOS# and three or more get ranked.  So the SOS and vRRO improve even though the CCIW teams beat the c#%p out of each other as you play high SOS and ranked teams in the CCIW tournament.
    It is a little more difficult to get three CCIW teams in with the creation of the Central region which merged the CCIW and WIAC in one region (along with WashU and UChgo which were previously in our old region ).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 27, 2018, 10:11:38 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2018, 07:29:32 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 27, 2018, 03:07:24 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
    Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

    The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

    Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

    It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?
    I think the easiest way to say it is "the more conference games you play, the closer you'll be to .500"  Since the NESCAC only has 10 games, they've got more opportunities to improve their SOS.  If the NESCAC was terrible they might play bad teams and get beat and have the worst SOS in the nation.  But since they're all pretty good they can beat winning teams from relatively poor conferences and inflate their SOS.

    The committee knows the NESCAC numbers are inflated and might have taken that into consideration when they put Amherst 10th in the regional rankings.

    But that's what I'm saying, I'm wondering if that "more conference games you play, the better your SOS" is actually true for really good conferences.  I mean, at some point, if you play enough conferences games, it would eventually get to .500, but what if that number is 50?  I think it's conceivable you could play even 18 or 20 conference games and still have a decent SOS if the entire conference did really well against good teams in those 5-7 non-con.

    I was just hoping someone better at math could explain it a little better.  I can sort of get the general concept in my head, but I don't have the terminology to explain it in detail.

    For example, if your nine team conference entered conference play with everyone having between 7-2 and 9-0 records with an SOS between .550 and .600.  I feel like you'd get pretty far into a 16 game regular season before the SOS started regressing to the mean.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I was hoping one of our resident mathematicians would weigh in.
    Yes you can still have a "good" SoS with a 20 game conference schedule but it will require your conference to win a greater share of their 5 non-conference games since you have more losses built into your SoS.  A NESCAC team like Middlebury can replace one of their sub .500 conference foes like Colby with a 19-8 Morrisville State.  Colby will also have the opportunity to not hurt the NESCAC SoS as much since they can rack up more wins against non-conference foes. The maximum possible SoS is lower when you have more conference games. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Libertatem Foederis on February 27, 2018, 11:19:08 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 27, 2018, 10:11:38 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2018, 07:29:32 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 27, 2018, 03:07:24 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
    Maybe one of your math guys can explain it for me, but we often talk about how the conference schedule pulls an SOS closer to .500 - and I get the rationale for that, since every conference game ends up being a wash (.500) in SOS terms.  However, I'm wondering if a power conference has, say, an average SOS of .580 going into conference play and all or almost all the teams have winning records, wouldn't the pull be less, or even actually help the SOS in some cases, since it's both OWP and OOWP?

    The NESCAC's the best example - they get a boost in conference play for their SOS, right?  Because they play so many non-con games and their records and SOS numbers are so high to begin with.

    Does that translate to other conferences, like the UAA or the WIAC where often all the teams are pretty good?

    It would also work in reverse for really bad conferences, right?
    I think the easiest way to say it is "the more conference games you play, the closer you'll be to .500"  Since the NESCAC only has 10 games, they've got more opportunities to improve their SOS.  If the NESCAC was terrible they might play bad teams and get beat and have the worst SOS in the nation.  But since they're all pretty good they can beat winning teams from relatively poor conferences and inflate their SOS.

    The committee knows the NESCAC numbers are inflated and might have taken that into consideration when they put Amherst 10th in the regional rankings.

    But that's what I'm saying, I'm wondering if that "more conference games you play, the better your SOS" is actually true for really good conferences.  I mean, at some point, if you play enough conferences games, it would eventually get to .500, but what if that number is 50?  I think it's conceivable you could play even 18 or 20 conference games and still have a decent SOS if the entire conference did really well against good teams in those 5-7 non-con.

    I was just hoping someone better at math could explain it a little better.  I can sort of get the general concept in my head, but I don't have the terminology to explain it in detail.

    For example, if your nine team conference entered conference play with everyone having between 7-2 and 9-0 records with an SOS between .550 and .600.  I feel like you'd get pretty far into a 16 game regular season before the SOS started regressing to the mean.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I was hoping one of our resident mathematicians would weigh in.
    Yes you can still have a "good" SoS with a 20 game schedule but it will require your conference to win a greater share of their 5 non-conference games since you have more losses built into your SoS.  A NESCAC team like Middlebury can replace one of their sub .500 conference foes like Colby with a 19-8 Morrisville State.  Colby will also have the opportunity to not hurt the NESCAC SoS as much since they can rack up more wins against non-conference foes. The maximum possible SoS is lower when you have more conference games.




    To your point regarding the NESCAC, rumor has it the league is considering doing "home & home" in conference in coming seasons (probably not next b/c of contracts already signed but 19'-20').  Going from 10 to 20 conference games and limiting their non-conference games to 4 (I believe NESCAC decided to play 24 , they might change if this happens).  Again to your point I hear coaches within the league are not excited about the possibility.


    LF
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2018, 01:06:56 PM
    We have heard that rumor for years and every time I talk to a basketball coach it ends up being a short conversation. Until we actually see the NESCAC announce something like that or I get a coach who actually confirms it (never have), I am not buying it. Kind of like recruits playing for a team... until I see them on the floor actually playing in a game, it isn't worth considering.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2018, 01:43:49 PM
    What I'm wondering is if the NESCAC could be affected by potential NCAA legislation designed to force the ACAA to play regular-season games rather than just a tournament to determine the potential AQ. If the ACAA has to play regular-season games, then the question becomes, "How many regular-season games should the rule require?" That could be back-doored into an edict that would affect the NESCAC if, say, the legislation settled upon an amount equal to a double round-robin for a minimum-sized league (seven teams), which would be twelve regular-season games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2018, 01:46:43 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2018, 01:43:49 PM
    What I'm wondering is if the NESCAC could be affected by potential NCAA legislation designed to force the ACAA to play regular-season games rather than just a tournament to determine the potential AQ. If the ACAA has to play regular-season games, then the question becomes, "How many regular-season games should the rule require?" That could be back-doored into an edict that would affect the NESCAC if, say, the legislation settled upon an amount equal to a double round-robin for a minimum-sized league (seven teams), which would be twelve regular-season games.

    I doubt it... that kind of stuff always has grandfather clauses... like the "only one division" rule (JHU lacrosse, Hobart soccer, name an ice hockey school, etc., etc., etc.) and the MAC having two sides (not divisions as they have always had Freedom and Commonwealth), but two AQs - as long as they act like two different conferences which they didn't necessarily do "back in the day." I suspect the NESCAC would get a grandfather on this.

    But furthermore, I don't think the division would institute a "double-round-robin" or the like. I think a very good idea is mandate teams play at least once through a conference. That would make sure you are playing conference opponents and being "a conference." NESCAC does that. Thus, probably not even something they need to be grandfathered into.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2018, 01:58:27 PM
    Yeah, I've pretty much figured the same thing. But a guy can dream. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2018, 01:59:31 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 28, 2018, 01:58:27 PM
    Yeah, I've pretty much figured the same thing. But a guy can dream. ;)

    Ha. Yeah.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2018, 02:36:36 PM

    I don't think the NESCAC (at least the coaches) are against adding a few conference games - the big issue is how to do it, because I don't think there's consensus for a full double round robin.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2018, 02:42:22 PM
    I've mentioned this before but I swear that in my days being part of a conference office in the 90s, I saw a form that the conference had to file with the NCAA that suggested that in basketball, you had to play 60% of your then-24 games as conference games in order to meet a standard for an automatic bid.

    Obviously, this was pre-pool system, and not every conference received an AQ, but I feel like once upon a time there was a standard.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 28, 2018, 02:51:41 PM
    I decided to do a simple OWP for the NESCAC double round-robin, using Middlebury's schedule.  I took each schools conference and non-conference win pct. and applied it to 20 conference games and 4 non-conference games.  I didn't bother throwing in the broken home/away multiplier.  Middlebury's OWP dropped from .609 to .550. 
    (https://i.imgur.com/5TldzK2.png)

    Instead of forcing the NESCAC to play more conference games, how about we just choose a better SoS calculation method?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2018, 02:57:51 PM
    Na, let's just force them to play more conference games.  ;D :P.It doesn't have to be a full round robin, but 16 isn't out of the question.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toad22 on February 28, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
    My plan for the NESCAC would be to play 15 league games. You play everybody one time per year, and then 5 more against a rotating group of teams. The Big10 does something like this, the MAAC as well. I'm sick of hearing all the complaining about the current schedule. The best teams in the league will still get in to the NCAAs.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 28, 2018, 04:14:42 PM
    Quote from: toad22 on February 28, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
    My plan for the NESCAC would be to play 15 league games. You play everybody one time per year, and then 5 more against a rotating group of teams. The Big10 does something like this, the MAAC as well. I'm sick of hearing all the complaining about the current schedule. The best teams in the league will still get in to the NCAAs.

    But the bottom NESCAC team in the tourney may have shoved out another team worthy of inclusion.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2018, 04:24:22 PM
    Quote from: toad22 on February 28, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
    My plan for the NESCAC would be to play 15 league games. You play everybody one time per year, and then 5 more against a rotating group of teams. The Big10 does something like this, the MAAC as well. I'm sick of hearing all the complaining about the current schedule. The best teams in the league will still get in to the NCAAs.

    The Big Ten's schedule is dreadfully awful and lopsided.

    This is the conference standings 1 thru 5,
    Michigan State   16-2
    Ohio State          15-3
    Purdue                15-3
    Nebraska            13-5
    Michigan              13-5

    MSU played 1 game against each of these opponents.  Purdue played Ohio State, MSU and Nebraska once. Nebraska played MSU, OSU and Purdue once.  Ohio State played Michigan twice.  Michigan played OSU and Purdue twice.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2018, 04:32:55 PM
    In a league like that, where the schedule is not balanced, you can counteract the effect by letting everyone in the conference tournament. That's what the ODAC does. (And although I haven't watched much D-I bball in the past 6-8 years, I believe the B1G does this as well.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on February 28, 2018, 04:34:56 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2018, 04:32:55 PM
    In a league like that, where the schedule is not balanced, you can counteract the effect by letting everyone in the conference tournament. That's what the ODAC does. (And although I haven't watched much D-I bball in the past 6-8 years, I believe the B1G does this as well.)

    As does the ACC...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2018, 04:38:58 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2018, 04:32:55 PM
    In a league like that, where the schedule is not balanced, you can counteract the effect by letting everyone in the conference tournament. That's what the ODAC does. (And although I haven't watched much D-I bball in the past 6-8 years, I believe the B1G does this as well.)

    They do, but the top 4 are rewarded with double-byes, also like the ACC.  Another huge advantage for essentially playing a non-competitive schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 28, 2018, 04:47:32 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2018, 04:32:55 PM
    In a league like that, where the schedule is not balanced, you can counteract the effect by letting everyone in the conference tournament. That's what the ODAC does. (And although I haven't watched much D-I bball in the past 6-8 years, I believe the B1G does this as well.)
    How have you escaped the hype surrounding tonight's #11 Gophers vs #14 Rutgers Big Ten Tourney matchup at the Garden?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 28, 2018, 05:34:31 PM
    Quote from: toad22 on February 28, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
    My plan for the NESCAC would be to play 15 league games. You play everybody one time per year, and then 5 more against a rotating group of teams. The Big10 does something like this, the MAAC as well. I'm sick of hearing all the complaining about the current schedule. The best teams in the league will still get in to the NCAAs.

    You'd have to go down to 14 conference games or up to 16 conference games. You need an even number of results (a win and a loss for each game). 15 games x 11 teams gives you 165 results.

    (Or you could do what Midwest Conference did for a few years and have a game between St. Norbert and Lawrence count as a conference game for St. Norbert but as a non-conference game for Lawrence to ensure all 11 teams played 9 conference games.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: toad22 on February 28, 2018, 06:36:17 PM
    Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 28, 2018, 05:34:31 PM
    Quote from: toad22 on February 28, 2018, 03:22:08 PM
    My plan for the NESCAC would be to play 15 league games. You play everybody one time per year, and then 5 more against a rotating group of teams. The Big10 does something like this, the MAAC as well. I'm sick of hearing all the complaining about the current schedule. The best teams in the league will still get in to the NCAAs.

    You'd have to go down to 14 conference games or up to 16 conference games. You need an even number of results (a win and a loss for each game). 15 games x 11 teams gives you 165 results.

    (Or you could do what Midwest Conference did for a few years and have a game between St. Norbert and Lawrence count as a conference game for St. Norbert but as a non-conference game for Lawrence to ensure all 11 teams played 9 conference games.)

    14 or 16 games would be fine with me. Anything more than that is tough. The NESCAC only plays 24 games. For me, 16 is the maximum number of league games that I think is appropriate. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: njf1003 on March 01, 2018, 10:32:32 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2018, 04:38:58 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2018, 04:32:55 PM
    In a league like that, where the schedule is not balanced, you can counteract the effect by letting everyone in the conference tournament. That's what the ODAC does. (And although I haven't watched much D-I bball in the past 6-8 years, I believe the B1G does this as well.)

    They do, but the top 4 are rewarded with double-byes, also like the ACC.  Another huge advantage for essentially playing a non-competitive schedule.
    SEC does the same thing with double buys, letting everyone in, and playing unbalanced scheduled.
    Three home and homes are the same every year ie. Vanderbilt always plays Kentucky, Florida, and Tennessee twice while the remaining 2 rotate for twice to make 18 league games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on March 01, 2018, 12:37:05 PM
    The big difference is that the decent teams in the SEC and B1G will always get bids, so the tourney is just for $$ and maybe a seed line.

    If a B1G team loses to Rutgers in the tourney, they don't deserve to go anywhere but home.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on March 01, 2018, 12:43:47 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 01, 2018, 12:37:05 PM
    If a B1G team loses to Rutgers in the tourney, they don't deserve to go anywhere but home.

    http://www.gophersports.com/sports/m-baskbl/recaps/022818aaa.html (http://www.gophersports.com/sports/m-baskbl/recaps/022818aaa.html)

    >:( :'( :(
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2018, 02:04:19 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 01, 2018, 12:37:05 PM
    The big difference is that the decent teams in the SEC and B1G will always get bids, so the tourney is just for $$ and maybe a seed line.

    If a B1G team loses to Rutgers in the tourney, they don't deserve to go anywhere but home.

    The difference is also auto bids.  If d3 had as many Pool C slots as the D1 tournament, you'd see large numbers of teams from the power conferences in every year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2018, 02:15:02 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2018, 02:04:19 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 01, 2018, 12:37:05 PM
    The big difference is that the decent teams in the SEC and B1G will always get bids, so the tourney is just for $$ and maybe a seed line.

    If a B1G team loses to Rutgers in the tourney, they don't deserve to go anywhere but home.

    The difference is also auto bids.  If d3 had as many Pool C slots as the D1 tournament, you'd see large numbers of teams from the power conferences in every year.

    Division III has 11 more conferences (thus AQs) and 90+ more teams than D1. That is one of the biggest reasons those who try and make an argument in DIII using the DI model don't get it. There is an idea out there I need to suss out with it's source that I like that could get better teams in... but it won't solve the question we always get: why didn't my team who was most deserving get it? LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Oline89 on March 01, 2018, 03:00:03 PM
    I feel that the fact that there are 11 more conferences and 90 more teams is exactly the reason why so many question the current system.  With more conferences to choose from, it seems that the odds of one conference placing 4 teams in the pool of 64 should be less.  Unless, of course, those 4 teams are truly among the best 64 in the country.  Defining the best is the problem.  Best record? Margin of victory? Current system (as long as conferences are not manipulating the SOS)? 


    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2018, 02:15:02 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2018, 02:04:19 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on March 01, 2018, 12:37:05 PM
    The big difference is that the decent teams in the SEC and B1G will always get bids, so the tourney is just for $$ and maybe a seed line.

    If a B1G team loses to Rutgers in the tourney, they don't deserve to go anywhere but home.

    The difference is also auto bids.  If d3 had as many Pool C slots as the D1 tournament, you'd see large numbers of teams from the power conferences in every year.

    Division III has 11 more conferences (thus AQs) and 90+ more teams than D1. That is one of the biggest reasons those who try and make an argument in DIII using the DI model don't get it. There is an idea out there I need to suss out with it's source that I like that could get better teams in... but it won't solve the question we always get: why didn't my team who was most deserving get it? LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2018, 03:04:57 PM
    Quote from: Oline79 on March 01, 2018, 03:00:03 PM
    I feel that the fact that there are 11 more conferences and 90 more teams is exactly the reason why so many question the current system.  With more conferences to choose from, it seems that the odds of one conference placing 4 teams in the pool of 64 should be less.  Unless, of course, those 4 teams are truly among the best 64 in the country.  Defining the best is the problem.  Best record? Margin of victory? Current system (as long as conferences are not manipulating the SOS)? 


    That ends being more an issue of regionality.  It's just easier to help your SOS when there are more teams to choose from.  You can pick out the best matchups to help yourself.  If you notice, teams like St. Thomas that travel often, end up with better SOS numbers than others in their conference.  Proximity is a big advantage - when you're not funded by TV money like the d1 schools, it's harder to put together the kind of schedule that gets you noticed.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
    Also, let's not pretend the national tournament in any NCAA sport in any division is designed to get the best teams in the tournament. It isn't the best 64... it can't be when you use AQs for bids. It never was designed as such, it won't change. This isn't the pros... and even they don't get the best X amount of teams in their tournaments either.

    You can question the system all you want. The system is always being tweaked to make it the best possible system to be used. It has come a long way and we are far removed from the old days when it was the old boys network at best. There are multiple ways to get into the tournament... the landscape is very transparent. It isn't like we get that many surprises each year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: spwood on March 01, 2018, 09:28:48 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
    Also, let's not pretend the national tournament in any NCAA sport in any division is designed to get the best teams in the tournament. It isn't the best 64... it can't be when you use AQs for bids. It never was designed as such, it won't change. This isn't the pros... and even they don't get the best X amount of teams in their tournaments either.

    You can question the system all you want. The system is always being tweaked to make it the best possible system to be used. It has come a long way and we are far removed from the old days when it was the old boys network at best. There are multiple ways to get into the tournament... the landscape is very transparent. It isn't like we get that many surprises each year.

    Funny how Matt Webb has to annually make that same statement on d3hockey.com too!  Feels like some people don't want to understand the process - just complain about it!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: middhoops on March 02, 2018, 08:52:30 AM
    Middlebury coach Jeff Brown stated publicly (on Dave's show) that he'd welcome a double round robin.  Getting out of conference teams in the region to play has gotten to be too difficult.  Five teams dropped Middlebury from their schedule this year alone.  Three D3 teams in the tiny state of Vermont dropped Middlebury.
    I agree with Toad; 16 league games makes a lot of sense.  Especially with a rotating schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2018, 09:40:21 AM
    The MIAC, SKY and NACC all play 20 conference games. I realize the NESCAC only plays 24 regular season games, but maybe that can change. The MWC changed. I understand 20 conference games is a lot, but at least you'll never get the complaint, "But they only played them once and it was at home, we had to play them on the road. That's not fair!" Everyone plays everyone twice, home and away. Plus, you only have to schedule 4-5 games a year!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 02, 2018, 09:40:47 AM
    The NESCAC finally added a 9th game in football this past season so they now play a full round robin (10 teams)... they still do football in their own little bubble with no non-conference or postseason games but maybe that's a sign they'd consider adding a bit more conference games in basketball too.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on March 02, 2018, 01:33:05 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
    There are multiple ways to get into the tournament... the landscape is very transparent. It isn't like we get that many surprises each year.
    I'd say that once the SoS number is known the selections are transparent.  What's far less known is how they arrive at that number in the first place.  How many coaches know that if they schedule a home and home with team likely to be under .500, that their SoS will be higher in the year they play that team at home?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on March 02, 2018, 05:12:47 PM
    Quote from: AO on March 02, 2018, 01:33:05 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2018, 03:08:54 PM
    There are multiple ways to get into the tournament... the landscape is very transparent. It isn't like we get that many surprises each year.
    I'd say that once the SoS number is known the selections are transparent.  What's far less known is how they arrive at that number in the first place.  How many coaches know that if they schedule a home and home with team likely to be under .500, that their SoS will be higher in the year they play that team at home?
    Any coach, or assistant for that matter, that has any NCAA tournament aspirations knows how the SOS works.  It is also a matter of geography, budget and level of competition.  Ask any of the perrinial top four teams from power conferences about how difficult it is to get a quality non-conference team to play you. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2018, 07:18:36 PM
    Pool C LeTU 85, Hanover 77.  Glad to see a competitive match and a justification of the committee's bid to LeTU even though the SOS  numbers did not look good.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 02, 2018, 12:17:00 PM
    Starting this up here, because I don't think there is a better thread to talk about national committee "things."

    This upcoming off-season, we knew already that Tim Fitzpatrick (chair, AD at Coast Guard) and George Barber (Greenville HC) were rotating off the committee as their four-year terms had concluded. However, there is a third leaving. Ken Tyler (AD at Mary Washington) will no longer be the Eagle's AD (http://www.fredericksburg.com/sports/college/mary_washington/umw-parting-ways-with-athletic-director-tyler/article_578d329e-03e1-5d13-9a22-aa0b86f4022e.html).

    So... three slots open for the men's committee. One person will serve a one-year term out of the Mid-Atlantic to complete Tyler's term (that individual is then eligible to serve a full four-year term to follow if interested and approved). The other two will represent the Northeast and the Central regions.

    Two administrators are rotating off the committee. Last year's committee technically had seven administrators, but some had dual roles. Minimum, last season's committee had five of the eight members as admins (rules state there must be at least four). In theory, the nominating committee could put three coaches on the committee and things will be fine (though, I am not sure if an individual's "title" association can be adjusted each year or not for the make-up of the committee; I assume it can be).

    Could be interesting this off-season to see who is appointed to the national committee... also, who might be chair. Tyler and Jarred Samples (Dallas HC, Asst. AD) where the rising four-year guys who seemed to be "in-line" for the job. That said, I am not sure Tyler was going to get the opportunity for a few reasons, most I can't share right now. Samples may be interested, but it is a time-swamp and he may not be interested in losing more time from his team (something, I could certainly respect). That means it could go to someone further down the totem pole, which would be a first for the committee since ... I'm not even sure the last time a fourth-year person wasn't the chair.

    Just thought I'd share... and by sharing, it means I'm keeping track of things. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on April 11, 2018, 05:51:10 PM
    11 years of Pool C data, 207 total Pool C picks

    Pool C picks by region  --(by region at time of selection)
    Northeast         --53
    Central/MidWest  30
    South                 26
    Great Lakes        24
    West                  22
    East                   22
    Mid. Atlantic       20
    Atlantic               10




    Pool C picks by team, min. 4
    Ill. Wesleyan     7
    Amherst           6
    WPI                 6
    Va. Wesleyan    5
    Whitewater       5
    Wooster           5

    Emory             4
    Middlebury       4
    Ohio Wesleyan 4
    Springfield       4
    St. Thomas      4
    Stevens Point   4
    Wheaton         4
    Williams          4




    Pool C picks by Conference
    NESCAC    25
    CCIW       18
    NEWMAC  14
    UAA         14
    WIAC        14
    NCAC       12
    ODAC       12
    SUNYAC     9
    LEC           8
    CAC          7
    MIAC         7
    NEWMAC   7
    OAC          7
    ASC          6
    CC            6
    Empire 8   4
    HCAC        4
    Landmark   4
    Liberty      4
    NWC         4
    MIAA        3
    SCAC        3
    CSAC        2
    MACC       2
    Skyline     2
    AMCC       1
    CCC         1
    CUNYAC   1
    IIAC         1
    MASCAC   1
    NACC       1
    NECC       1
    SCIAC      1
    USAC       1







    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: hopefan on April 14, 2018, 11:54:57 AM
    Quote from: sac on April 11, 2018, 05:51:10 PM
    11 years of Pool C data, 207 total Pool C picks

    Pool C picks by region  --(by region at time of selection)
    Northeast         --53
    Central/MidWest  30
    South                 26
    Great Lakes        24
    West                  22
    East                   22
    Mid. Atlantic       20
    Atlantic               10




    Pool C picks by team, min. 4
    Ill. Wesleyan     7
    Amherst           6
    WPI                 6
    Va. Wesleyan    5
    Whitewater       5
    Wooster           5

    Emory             4
    Middlebury       4
    Ohio Wesleyan 4
    Springfield       4
    St. Thomas      4
    Stevens Point   4
    Wheaton         4
    Williams          4




    Pool C picks by Conference
    NESCAC    25
    CCIW       18
    NEWMAC  14
    UAA         14
    WIAC        14
    NCAC       12
    ODAC       12
    SUNYAC     9
    LEC           8
    CAC          7
    MIAC         7
    NEWMAC   7
    OAC          7
    ASC          6
    CC            6
    Empire 8   4
    HCAC        4
    Landmark   4
    Liberty      4
    NWC         4
    MIAA        3
    SCAC        3
    CSAC        2
    MACC       2
    Skyline     2
    AMCC       1
    CCC         1
    CUNYAC   1
    IIAC         1
    MASCAC   1
    NACC       1
    NECC       1
    SCIAC      1
    USAC       1

    SLIAC     0     ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Knightstalker on April 18, 2018, 08:52:14 PM
    Quote from: sac on April 11, 2018, 05:51:10 PM
    11 years of Pool C data, 207 total Pool C picks

    Pool C picks by region  --(by region at time of selection)
    Northeast         --53
    Central/MidWest  30
    South                 26
    Great Lakes        24
    West                  22
    East                   22
    Mid. Atlantic       20
    Atlantic               10




    Pool C picks by team, min. 4
    Ill. Wesleyan     7
    Amherst           6
    WPI                 6
    Va. Wesleyan    5
    Whitewater       5
    Wooster           5

    Emory             4
    Middlebury       4
    Ohio Wesleyan 4
    Springfield       4
    St. Thomas      4
    Stevens Point   4
    Wheaton         4
    Williams          4




    Pool C picks by Conference
    NESCAC    25
    CCIW       18
    NEWMAC  14
    UAA         14
    WIAC        14
    NCAC       12
    ODAC       12
    SUNYAC     9
    LEC           8
    CAC          7
    MIAC         7
    NEWMAC   7
    OAC          7
    ASC          6
    CC            6
    Empire 8   4
    HCAC        4
    Landmark   4
    Liberty      4
    NWC         4
    MIAA        3
    SCAC        3
    CSAC        2
    MACC       2
    Skyline     2
    AMCC       1
    CCC         1
    CUNYAC   1
    IIAC         1
    MASCAC   1
    NACC       1
    NECC       1
    SCIAC      1
    USAC       1

    In the last two seasons the NJAC has had a Pool C team in the tournament both years.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on May 26, 2018, 05:25:43 AM
    Quote from: Knightstalker on April 18, 2018, 08:52:14 PM
    Quote from: sac on April 11, 2018, 05:51:10 PM
    11 years of Pool C data, 207 total Pool C picks

    Pool C picks by region  --(by region at time of selection)
    Northeast         --53
    Central/MidWest  30
    South                 26
    Great Lakes        24
    West                  22
    East                   22
    Mid. Atlantic       20
    Atlantic               10




    Pool C picks by team, min. 4
    Ill. Wesleyan     7
    Amherst           6
    WPI                 6
    Va. Wesleyan    5
    Whitewater       5
    Wooster           5

    Emory             4
    Middlebury       4
    Ohio Wesleyan 4
    Springfield       4
    St. Thomas      4
    Stevens Point   4
    Wheaton         4
    Williams          4




    Pool C picks by Conference
    NESCAC    25
    CCIW       18
    NEWMAC  14
    UAA         14
    WIAC        14
    NCAC       12
    ODAC       12
    SUNYAC     9
    LEC           8
    CAC          7
    MIAC         7
    NEWMAC   7
    OAC          7
    ASC          6
    CC            6
    Empire 8   4
    HCAC        4
    Landmark   4
    Liberty      4
    NWC         4
    MIAA        3
    SCAC        3
    CSAC        2
    MACC       2
    Skyline     2
    AMCC       1
    CCC         1
    CUNYAC   1
    IIAC         1
    MASCAC   1
    NACC       1
    NECC       1
    SCIAC      1
    USAC       1

    In the last two seasons the NJAC has had a Pool C team in the tournament both years.

    sac is showing the NEWMAC twice...in the 3rd spot with 14 selections and tied for 10th with 7 selections. I think that 10th place spot is supposed to be the NJAC conference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 23, 2018, 07:13:55 PM
    Too busy right now getting ready for an AFL game (tune into CBS Sports Network at 7:30 PM ET [Albany v Baltimore] and you can hear me in the background as PA Announcer)... but wanted to share this quickly: https://www.gallaudetathletics.com/news/2017-18/atkinson-ncaambchair

    Sam Atkinson has been elected as next year's men's basketball committee chair. He is headed into only his third year on the committee. Jarrod would have been a terrific pick as well, but committee went a different direction. Sam has done great for the committee in his first two years. Looking forward to working with him and Jarrod this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 08, 2019, 02:22:45 PM
    It's admittedly very early, with Selection Monday still seven weeks away.  However, I just updated the rankings/predictions machine, and here are my mock regional rankings at the moment...

    Northeast region
    1) Williams (13-0, 2-0 NESCAC, 1.000 WP, 0.574 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Wesleyan (9-4, 1-1 NESCAC, 0.692 WP, 0.663 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Hamilton (13-0, 1-0 NESCAC, 1.000 WP, 0.526 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) MIT (12-1, 2-0 NEWMAC, 0.923 WP, 0.547 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) Eastern_Connecticut (9-3, 3-1 LEC, 0.750 WP, 0.592 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) Nichols (11-2, 3-1 CCC, 0.846 WP, 0.552 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Gordon (13-1, 5-0 CCC, 0.929 WP, 0.500 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) Middlebury (9-4, 1-1 NESCAC, 0.692 WP, 0.565 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    9) Endicott (9-4, 2-2 CCC, 0.692 WP, 0.561 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) Albertus_Magnus (7-3, 0-0 GNAC, 0.700 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) WPI (9-4, 0-2 NEWMAC, 0.692 WP, 0.548 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    12) Babson (9-4, 2-0 NEWMAC, 0.692 WP, 0.539 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    13) Mass-Dartmouth (9-4, 3-1 LEC, 0.692 WP, 0.514 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    14) Brandeis (8-4, 1-0 UAA, 0.667 WP, 0.549 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    East region
    1) Rochester (11-1, 1-0 UAA, 0.917 WP, 0.552 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Plattsburgh_State (9-2, 3-1 SUNYAC, 0.818 WP, 0.565 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Skidmore (7-3, 5-0 LL, 0.700 WP, 0.547 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) Nazareth (7-3, 2-0 E8, 0.700 WP, 0.514 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) Brockport (7-4, 3-1 SUNYAC, 0.636 WP, 0.610 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) St._John_Fisher (7-3, 2-0 E8, 0.700 WP, 0.508 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Oswego_State (9-2, 4-0 SUNYAC, 0.818 WP, 0.487 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) Stevens (10-2, 3-0 E8, 0.833 WP, 0.475 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    9) St._Lawrence (7-5, 4-1 LL, 0.583 WP, 0.572 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) Alfred (5-2, 0-0 E8, 0.714 WP, 0.461 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) Hobart (6-5, 3-1 LL, 0.545 WP, 0.592 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    Atlantic region
    1) Ramapo (10-4, 4-3 NJAC, 0.714 WP, 0.595 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) New_Jersey_City (10-4, 5-2 NJAC, 0.714 WP, 0.586 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Montclair_State (10-4, 5-2 NJAC, 0.714 WP, 0.586 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) Rowan (9-4, 4-3 NJAC, 0.692 WP, 0.590 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) William_Paterson (10-4, 5-2 NJAC, 0.714 WP, 0.553 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) Mount_St._Mary (8-3, 5-2 SKY, 0.727 WP, 0.503 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) TCNJ (9-5, 5-2 NJAC, 0.643 WP, 0.582 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) DeSales (9-3, 2-0 MACF, 0.750 WP, 0.481 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    9) Farmingdale_State (8-5, 6-2 SKY, 0.615 WP, 0.543 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) Yeshiva (9-5, 7-2 SKY, 0.643 WP, 0.504 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) Baruch (11-3, 5-0 CUNYAC, 0.786 WP, 0.455 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    Mid-Atlantic region
    1) Swarthmore (10-2, 3-2 CC, 0.833 WP, 0.603 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Salisbury (12-1, 2-0 CAC, 0.923 WP, 0.570 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Arcadia (11-2, 5-0 MACC, 0.846 WP, 0.566 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) Christopher_Newport (11-2, 1-1 CAC, 0.846 WP, 0.566 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) Scranton (12-1, 1-1 LAND, 0.923 WP, 0.504 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) Mary_Washington (9-4, 1-1 CAC, 0.692 WP, 0.572 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Johns_Hopkins (8-4, 5-0 CC, 0.667 WP, 0.594 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) Drew (10-3, 2-0 LAND, 0.769 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    9) Franklin_and_Marshall (9-3, 3-2 CC, 0.750 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) Penn_State-Harrisburg (9-4, 1-1 CAC, 0.692 WP, 0.520 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) Susquehanna (9-4, 2-0 LAND, 0.692 WP, 0.491 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    South region
    1) Randolph-Macon (13-2, 5-1 ODAC, 0.867 WP, 0.542 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Centre (10-2, 3-0 SAA, 0.833 WP, 0.540 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Washington_and_Lee (10-4, 3-2 ODAC, 0.714 WP, 0.584 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) Lynchburg (13-1, 4-1 ODAC, 0.929 WP, 0.507 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) Emory (9-3, 0-1 UAA, 0.750 WP, 0.567 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) Louisiana_College (11-2, 5-1 ASC, 0.846 WP, 0.505 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Mary_Hardin-Baylor (12-3, 3-3 ASC, 0.800 WP, 0.518 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) Guilford (10-4, 4-1 ODAC, 0.714 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    9) North_Carolina_Wesleyan (8-2, 5-1 USAC, 0.800 WP, 0.503 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) Emory_and_Henry (9-5, 2-3 ODAC, 0.643 WP, 0.571 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) Sewanee (9-1, 2-1 SAA, 0.900 WP, 0.469 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    Great Lakes region
    1) Marietta (12-1, 6-0 OAC, 0.923 WP, 0.558 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Capital (11-2, 6-0 OAC, 0.846 WP, 0.563 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Wabash (10-1, 6-0 NCAC, 0.909 WP, 0.542 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) La_Roche (12-2, 7-0 AMCC, 0.857 WP, 0.528 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) Wittenberg (10-2, 5-1 NCAC, 0.833 WP, 0.524 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) Wooster (10-3, 5-1 NCAC, 0.769 WP, 0.539 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Baldwin_Wallace (9-4, 3-3 OAC, 0.692 WP, 0.541 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) Mount_Union (11-2, 5-1 OAC, 0.846 WP, 0.496 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    9) Albion (9-3, 2-0 MIAA, 0.750 WP, 0.494 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    10) Rose-Hulman (8-4, 5-1 HCAC, 0.667 WP, 0.513 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) Transylvania (8-5, 5-1 HCAC, 0.615 WP, 0.581 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    12) Penn_State-Behrend (12-1, 6-1 AMCC, 0.923 WP, 0.453 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    Central region
    1) UW-Stevens_Point (10-2, 2-0 WIAC, 0.833 WP, 0.605 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Augustana (13-1, 5-0 CCIW, 0.929 WP, 0.541 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) UW-Whitewater (11-2, 0-2 WIAC, 0.846 WP, 0.571 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) Wheaton_(Ill.) (10-4, 3-2 CCIW, 0.714 WP, 0.567 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) North_Central_(Ill.) (12-3, 4-2 CCIW, 0.800 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) UW-La_Crosse (9-4, 2-0 WIAC, 0.692 WP, 0.561 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Chicago (8-4, 1-0 UAA, 0.667 WP, 0.571 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) UW-Oshkosh (12-1, 2-0 WIAC, 0.923 WP, 0.482 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    9) Elmhurst (9-5, 4-1 CCIW, 0.643 WP, 0.585 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) Illinois_Wesleyan (9-5, 2-3 CCIW, 0.643 WP, 0.569 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) UW-Eau_Claire (9-4, 2-0 WIAC, 0.692 WP, 0.480 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    West region
    1) Nebraska_Wesleyan (13-0, 4-0 ARC, 1.000 WP, 0.603 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Loras (11-3, 3-2 ARC, 0.786 WP, 0.623 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Whitman (11-1, 3-0 NWC, 0.917 WP, 0.545 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) St._John's (11-1, 7-0 MIAC, 0.917 WP, 0.532 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) St._Thomas (11-1, 7-0 MIAC, 0.917 WP, 0.521 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) Augsburg (8-3, 5-2 MIAC, 0.727 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Whitworth (11-1, 3-0 NWC, 0.917 WP, 0.476 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) Simpson (8-4, 3-2 ARC, 0.667 WP, 0.550 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    9) Dubuque (9-4, 3-2 ARC, 0.692 WP, 0.514 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) George_Fox (10-2, 4-0 NWC, 0.833 WP, 0.482 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) Linfield (9-2, 4-0 NWC, 0.818 WP, 0.479 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 08, 2019, 05:44:45 PM
    Surprised Stevens Point is ahead of Augustana. Augie has a win over them and a better winning percentage. I suppose when the v RRO is included, that should jump Augie over the Dawgs.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 09, 2019, 06:52:06 AM

    I get why you'd want to break the rankings up by region and I'm thankful that you do it and share it.  I'm not sure they should be called "mock regional rankings" though, when it's just what the computer spits out.  It's not like a Top 25, where the objective is just to pick the 25 best teams and thus a computer is on equal footing with everyone else.  The regional rankings are compiled for the purpose of selecting the field, by a specific criteria.  If you're not using that same criteria to rank the team, it doesn't make sense to call it a mock, right?

    Unless you did actually go back and adjust what the computer gave you for the tendencies and requirements of the NCAA committees.  If that's the case, I just don't agree that a 4-loss Wesleyan team will be ranked ahead of an undefeated Hamilton no matter the SOS difference.  There's a lot of those where other considerations might matter - like the fact that Rowan beat two of the three teams ahead of them already this year (with very similar SOS numbers).

    I want you to keep doing this, but you might want to come up with a different name for it, since it's pretty clearly not a prediction of the regional rankings, just a strength of teams divided by region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 09, 2019, 09:24:28 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 09, 2019, 06:52:06 AM

    I get why you'd want to break the rankings up by region and I'm thankful that you do it and share it.  I'm not sure they should be called "mock regional rankings" though, when it's just what the computer spits out.  It's not like a Top 25, where the objective is just to pick the 25 best teams and thus a computer is on equal footing with everyone else.  The regional rankings are compiled for the purpose of selecting the field, by a specific criteria.  If you're not using that same criteria to rank the team, it doesn't make sense to call it a mock, right?

    Unless you did actually go back and adjust what the computer gave you for the tendencies and requirements of the NCAA committees.

    Thanks for the feedback, Ryan.  There are (at least) three different ways in which we could design rankings:

    I am explicitly attempting to do the last of these.  I have a separate list of the (top 25) best teams, but this list is intended to model Pool C selection behavior, and the rankings that lead to those selections.  At season's end, it has performed well for that purpose, but there are some mid-season hiccups; for example, a regional committee may rank a team with a WP just over .500, whereas (based on Pool C selection history), my model would heavily penalize that WP.

    QuoteIf that's the case, I just don't agree that a 4-loss Wesleyan team will be ranked ahead of an undefeated Hamilton no matter the SOS difference.  There's a lot of those where other considerations might matter - like the fact that Rowan beat two of the three teams ahead of them already this year (with very similar SOS numbers).

    The Wesleyan/Hamilton situation is an odd one, because Wesleyan's SOS is impossibly high.  At selection time, the highest SOS we ever see is about .610, so it's tough to discern how the committee would treat a resume with an off-the-charts .663 SOS.  I think that SOS difference does supersede a difference in wins at some point (remember that an undefeated 2016 Lancaster Bible team was unranked, due to a horrible SOS).  That being said, I agree that Hamilton would likely be #2 (and MIT #3), ahead of Hamilton.  Similarly, Amherst (11-1, .434 SOS) might still get ranked by a regional committee, despite an awful SOS.  By season's end, or even by the first rankings next month, the SOS differences will decrease, and the issue should resolve itself.

    Regarding Rowan, head-to-head is something that I don't include in my model, because my study of it indicates that regional committees vary widely in how much they value it.  Sometimes, it is considered heavily, and other times clearly ignored.

    QuoteI want you to keep doing this, but you might want to come up with a different name for it, since it's pretty clearly not a prediction of the regional rankings, just a strength of teams divided by region.

    I respectfully disagree on the last point.  If I were listing the best teams by region, I would have Amherst (11-1 against an awful schedule, but thrashing weak teams) ahead of Wesleyan (the ultra-high SOS isn't indicative, as they have only two quality wins and four lopsided defeats).

    Let's see how these look in a couple of weeks.  Maybe we need "predict the regional rankings" to be a new fantasy contest! ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on January 09, 2019, 10:23:42 AM
    Based on a combo of results, talent level, and the eye test, I'd put the northeast rankings at something like this:

    Williams, Hamilton, MIT (although if Jurko and Forsythe are both done for the year, which seems possible, and if Korb continues to be out as well, they will very likely drop) are a clear top three, and after that it's a total morass of teams with gaudy records vs. weak schedules and so-so records vs. strong schedules.  I'll go with Eastern Conn, Amherst, Wesleyan, Gordon, Nichols, Middlebury, Babson, but it's defensible to group those teams in just about any order.  I may be a little low on Nichols after the very strong start to the season and big wins over Wesleyan and Eastern Conn, but the last four games they have been underwhelming. 

    Amherst really is the hardest to evaluate in light of all the blowouts against bad teams.  But Amherst's upcoming four-game stretch at Williams, Eastern Conn and Hamilton, and home vs. Wesleyan, will determine if Amherst is too low (if they go 3-1 or better), about right (2-2) or too high (1-3 or worse).  It will certainly bring Amherst's abysmal SOS rating up to a more respectable level. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 09, 2019, 07:41:15 PM

    The other thing to consider - and Dave only hinted at it in his interview with Men's Committee chair, Sam Atkinson, earlier this year, is that they've been directed not to make such a definitive use of the 2 wins to .03 SOS comparison.  It should be a guide, but not a determinant factor.  The last few years it's been used to rank teams, but there will be more nuance this year.  Obviously, it's early and a 25 game schedule will look a lot different than what we have now - the four losses vs zero thing will probably resolve itself.

    That being said, things like head-to-head and common opponent may be a little more influential this year - at least from what we're hearing.  Maybe you've got the data to prove me wrong, but I do think head to head is a pretty common factor when the other numbers are so close (like the NJAC right now) - I agree it's often ignored, but not usually in deciding between two very similar (or identical) resumes.

    Also, I think 3/8ths of the committee is new this year, so that'll make things even less predictable.  Fun times.  I'm glad you're doing this.  It'll be good to have multiple models to look at.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 09, 2019, 08:56:33 PM
    Good to hear the update, Ryan.  I don't catch the podcast too often, so it's interesting to know what might be evolving.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 10, 2019, 12:18:37 AM
    3/8s of the committee is technically new, but I believe (if memory serves) that one of them is a repeat committee member.

    Also ... SOS numbers this time of year are so out of wack they are hard to gauge against anything. It is the biggest reason the rankings don't start getting spit out until late January or early February.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2019, 11:43:07 AM
    When it comes to head-to-head results, I think the committee might look at it like this:

    3-0 extremely meaningful, will almost certainly jump (or drop) a team even if they're otherwise separated
    2-0 very meaningful, will almost certainly jump a team if they're otherwise close
    1-0 somewhat meaningful, will break ties but might not jump a team even if they're otherwise close.
    2-1 only slightly meaningful, will only break the narrowest of ties.
    1-1 obviously not meaningful, will not break a tie
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2019, 05:18:25 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 08, 2019, 02:22:45 PM
    Fantastic 50's Fabulous Mock Regional Rankings


    Northeast region
    1) Williams (13-0, 2-0 NESCAC, 1.000 WP, 0.574 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Wesleyan (9-4, 1-1 NESCAC, 0.692 WP, 0.663 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Hamilton (13-0, 1-0 NESCAC, 1.000 WP, 0.526 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) MIT (12-1, 2-0 NEWMAC, 0.923 WP, 0.547 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) Eastern_Connecticut (9-3, 3-1 LEC, 0.750 WP, 0.592 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) Nichols (11-2, 3-1 CCC, 0.846 WP, 0.552 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Gordon (13-1, 5-0 CCC, 0.929 WP, 0.500 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) Middlebury (9-4, 1-1 NESCAC, 0.692 WP, 0.565 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    9) Endicott (9-4, 2-2 CCC, 0.692 WP, 0.561 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) Albertus_Magnus (7-3, 0-0 GNAC, 0.700 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) WPI (9-4, 0-2 NEWMAC, 0.692 WP, 0.548 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    12) Babson (9-4, 2-0 NEWMAC, 0.692 WP, 0.539 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    13) Mass-Dartmouth (9-4, 3-1 LEC, 0.692 WP, 0.514 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    14) Brandeis (8-4, 1-0 UAA, 0.667 WP, 0.549 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    East region
    1) Rochester (11-1, 1-0 UAA, 0.917 WP, 0.552 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Plattsburgh_State (9-2, 3-1 SUNYAC, 0.818 WP, 0.565 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Skidmore (7-3, 5-0 LL, 0.700 WP, 0.547 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) Nazareth (7-3, 2-0 E8, 0.700 WP, 0.514 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) Brockport (7-4, 3-1 SUNYAC, 0.636 WP, 0.610 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) St._John_Fisher (7-3, 2-0 E8, 0.700 WP, 0.508 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Oswego_State (9-2, 4-0 SUNYAC, 0.818 WP, 0.487 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) Stevens (10-2, 3-0 E8, 0.833 WP, 0.475 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    9) St._Lawrence (7-5, 4-1 LL, 0.583 WP, 0.572 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) Alfred (5-2, 0-0 E8, 0.714 WP, 0.461 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) Hobart (6-5, 3-1 LL, 0.545 WP, 0.592 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    Atlantic region
    1) Ramapo (10-4, 4-3 NJAC, 0.714 WP, 0.595 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) New_Jersey_City (10-4, 5-2 NJAC, 0.714 WP, 0.586 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Montclair_State (10-4, 5-2 NJAC, 0.714 WP, 0.586 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) Rowan (9-4, 4-3 NJAC, 0.692 WP, 0.590 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) William_Paterson (10-4, 5-2 NJAC, 0.714 WP, 0.553 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) Mount_St._Mary (8-3, 5-2 SKY, 0.727 WP, 0.503 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) TCNJ (9-5, 5-2 NJAC, 0.643 WP, 0.582 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) DeSales (9-3, 2-0 MACF, 0.750 WP, 0.481 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    9) Farmingdale_State (8-5, 6-2 SKY, 0.615 WP, 0.543 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) Yeshiva (9-5, 7-2 SKY, 0.643 WP, 0.504 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) Baruch (11-3, 5-0 CUNYAC, 0.786 WP, 0.455 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    Mid-Atlantic region
    1) Swarthmore (10-2, 3-2 CC, 0.833 WP, 0.603 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Salisbury (12-1, 2-0 CAC, 0.923 WP, 0.570 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Arcadia (11-2, 5-0 MACC, 0.846 WP, 0.566 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) Christopher_Newport (11-2, 1-1 CAC, 0.846 WP, 0.566 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) Scranton (12-1, 1-1 LAND, 0.923 WP, 0.504 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) Mary_Washington (9-4, 1-1 CAC, 0.692 WP, 0.572 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Johns_Hopkins (8-4, 5-0 CC, 0.667 WP, 0.594 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) Drew (10-3, 2-0 LAND, 0.769 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    9) Franklin_and_Marshall (9-3, 3-2 CC, 0.750 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) Penn_State-Harrisburg (9-4, 1-1 CAC, 0.692 WP, 0.520 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) Susquehanna (9-4, 2-0 LAND, 0.692 WP, 0.491 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    South region
    1) Randolph-Macon (13-2, 5-1 ODAC, 0.867 WP, 0.542 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Centre (10-2, 3-0 SAA, 0.833 WP, 0.540 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Washington_and_Lee (10-4, 3-2 ODAC, 0.714 WP, 0.584 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) Lynchburg (13-1, 4-1 ODAC, 0.929 WP, 0.507 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) Emory (9-3, 0-1 UAA, 0.750 WP, 0.567 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) Louisiana_College (11-2, 5-1 ASC, 0.846 WP, 0.505 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Mary_Hardin-Baylor (12-3, 3-3 ASC, 0.800 WP, 0.518 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) Guilford (10-4, 4-1 ODAC, 0.714 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    9) North_Carolina_Wesleyan (8-2, 5-1 USAC, 0.800 WP, 0.503 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) Emory_and_Henry (9-5, 2-3 ODAC, 0.643 WP, 0.571 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) Sewanee (9-1, 2-1 SAA, 0.900 WP, 0.469 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    Great Lakes region
    1) Marietta (12-1, 6-0 OAC, 0.923 WP, 0.558 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Capital (11-2, 6-0 OAC, 0.846 WP, 0.563 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Wabash (10-1, 6-0 NCAC, 0.909 WP, 0.542 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) La_Roche (12-2, 7-0 AMCC, 0.857 WP, 0.528 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) Wittenberg (10-2, 5-1 NCAC, 0.833 WP, 0.524 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) Wooster (10-3, 5-1 NCAC, 0.769 WP, 0.539 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Baldwin_Wallace (9-4, 3-3 OAC, 0.692 WP, 0.541 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) Mount_Union (11-2, 5-1 OAC, 0.846 WP, 0.496 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    9) Albion (9-3, 2-0 MIAA, 0.750 WP, 0.494 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    10) Rose-Hulman (8-4, 5-1 HCAC, 0.667 WP, 0.513 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) Transylvania (8-5, 5-1 HCAC, 0.615 WP, 0.581 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    12) Penn_State-Behrend (12-1, 6-1 AMCC, 0.923 WP, 0.453 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    Central region
    1) UW-Stevens_Point (10-2, 2-0 WIAC, 0.833 WP, 0.605 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Augustana (13-1, 5-0 CCIW, 0.929 WP, 0.541 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) UW-Whitewater (11-2, 0-2 WIAC, 0.846 WP, 0.571 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) Wheaton_(Ill.) (10-4, 3-2 CCIW, 0.714 WP, 0.567 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) North_Central_(Ill.) (12-3, 4-2 CCIW, 0.800 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) UW-La_Crosse (9-4, 2-0 WIAC, 0.692 WP, 0.561 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Chicago (8-4, 1-0 UAA, 0.667 WP, 0.571 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) UW-Oshkosh (12-1, 2-0 WIAC, 0.923 WP, 0.482 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    9) Elmhurst (9-5, 4-1 CCIW, 0.643 WP, 0.585 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) Illinois_Wesleyan (9-5, 2-3 CCIW, 0.643 WP, 0.569 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) UW-Eau_Claire (9-4, 2-0 WIAC, 0.692 WP, 0.480 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    West region
    1) Nebraska_Wesleyan (13-0, 4-0 ARC, 1.000 WP, 0.603 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    2) Loras (11-3, 3-2 ARC, 0.786 WP, 0.623 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    3) Whitman (11-1, 3-0 NWC, 0.917 WP, 0.545 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    4) St._John's (11-1, 7-0 MIAC, 0.917 WP, 0.532 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    5) St._Thomas (11-1, 7-0 MIAC, 0.917 WP, 0.521 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    6) Augsburg (8-3, 5-2 MIAC, 0.727 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    7) Whitworth (11-1, 3-0 NWC, 0.917 WP, 0.476 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    8) Simpson (8-4, 3-2 ARC, 0.667 WP, 0.550 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    ----------
    9) Dubuque (9-4, 3-2 ARC, 0.692 WP, 0.514 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    10) George_Fox (10-2, 4-0 NWC, 0.833 WP, 0.482 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)
    11) Linfield (9-2, 4-0 NWC, 0.818 WP, 0.479 SOS, 0-0 vRRO)

    Appropriate disclaimer... to be added with each publication...

    ...evaluation and comparisons...

    I like it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 10, 2019, 06:15:42 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=l4zv4/rac44cfsabpyqn6a.jpg)

    The grind of conference play is in full gear. Nothing beats a team up or reveals how good one is like the grind of conference play.

    Thursday night on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) we take a look at the grind and how teams are surviving, surprising, and even impressing as the holidays and the break quickly become a distant memory in the rear view mirror.

    The first of the season's "WBCA Center Court" segments also debuts with the dedication of one coach off the court and with her family. UW-Platteville women's coach Megan Wilson talks about her daughter's battle with cancer and the decision to step away from coaching to help her daughter fight.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Thursday's show, LIVE, starting at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2D0Qd7t

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or use any of the social media options below.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Pat McKenzie, No. 11 St. John's men's coach
    - Ben Stachowski, No. 20 Wabash men's senior guard
    - Alyssa Polosky, No. 14 SUNY Geneseo women's head coach
    - Megan Willson, UW-Platteville women's head coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Trevor Woodruff, No. 3 Scranton women's head coach

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 11, 2019, 10:09:11 AM
    Great way of looking at this ... thanks!

    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2019, 11:43:07 AM
    When it comes to head-to-head results, I think the committee might look at it like this:

    3-0 extremely meaningful, will almost certainly jump (or drop) a team even if they're otherwise separated
    2-0 very meaningful, will almost certainly jump a team if they're otherwise close
    1-0 somewhat meaningful, will break ties but might not jump a team even if they're otherwise close.
    2-1 only slightly meaningful, will only break the narrowest of ties.
    1-1 obviously not meaningful, will not break a tie
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on January 11, 2019, 10:53:48 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 10, 2019, 11:43:07 AM
    When it comes to head-to-head results, I think the committee might look at it like this:

    3-0 extremely meaningful, will almost certainly jump (or drop) a team even if they're otherwise separated
    2-0 very meaningful, will almost certainly jump a team if they're otherwise close
    1-0 somewhat meaningful, will break ties but might not jump a team even if they're otherwise close.
    2-1 only slightly meaningful, will only break the narrowest of ties.
    1-1 obviously not meaningful, will not break a tie
    2-2 Calvin and Hope are having another one of those incestuous seasons

    FTFY ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 15, 2019, 07:06:53 PM
    Instead of looking at hypothetical regional rankings this week, here is a projection of how many future regular-season losses it would take to put a given team squarely onto the bubble, assuming that they don't win an automatic berth via conference tournament. 

    Where a range is listed (e.g. 3-4), the team currently appears on the right side of the bubble with the smaller number of additional losses (3), and on the wrong side with the bigger number.  Except in the UAA, which has no conference tournament, these numbers assume an additional loss for each team in failing to win the conference title.

    Four teams (Williams, Augie, NWU, & Whitman) look strong enough that my sims can't give a good scenario for them ending up on the bubble.  While they can't lose all of their remaining games and still get in, they seem unlikely to lose enough to be in that situation.

    Northeast region
    Williams (15-0, 4-0 NESCAC, 1.000 WP, 0.559 SOS) likely in
    Hamilton (14-1, 2-1 NESCAC, 0.933 WP, 0.538 SOS) 4
    MIT (13-2, 3-1 NEWMAC, 0.867 WP, 0.553 SOS) 4
    Nichols (14-2, 6-1 CCC, 0.875 WP, 0.522 SOS) 3-4
    Amherst (12-2, 2-1 NESCAC, 0.857 WP, 0.469 SOS) 3
    Babson (11-4, 4-0 NEWMAC, 0.733 WP, 0.547 SOS) 3
    Eastern_Connecticut (12-3, 6-1 LEC, 0.800 WP, 0.553 SOS) 2-3
    Wesleyan (11-4, 3-1 NESCAC, 0.733 WP, 0.669 SOS) 2-3
    Colby (11-4, 1-2 NESCAC, 0.733 WP, 0.491 SOS) 2
    Gordon (15-1, 7-0 CCC, 0.938 WP, 0.503 SOS) 1-2
    Middlebury (11-5, 2-2 NESCAC, 0.688 WP, 0.553 SOS) 1-2
    WPI (11-4, 2-2 NEWMAC, 0.733 WP, 0.565 SOS) 1-2
    Endicott (11-5, 4-3 CCC, 0.688 WP, 0.561 SOS) 1

    East region
    Oswego_State (11-2, 6-0 SUNYAC, 0.846 WP, 0.505 SOS) 4
    Plattsburgh_State (12-2, 6-1 SUNYAC, 0.857 WP, 0.538 SOS) 4
    Rochester (11-3, 1-2 UAA, 0.786 WP, 0.546 SOS) 3-4
    Brockport (10-4, 6-1 SUNYAC, 0.714 WP, 0.597 SOS) 3
    Cortland (10-2, 4-2 SUNYAC, 0.833 WP, 0.462 SOS) 2

    Atlantic region
    New_Jersey_City (12-4, 7-2 NJAC, 0.750 WP, 0.554 SOS) 3
    Ramapo (11-5, 5-4 NJAC, 0.688 WP, 0.598 SOS) 2-3
    Rowan (11-4, 6-3 NJAC, 0.733 WP, 0.553 SOS) 2-3
    Montclair_State (11-5, 6-3 NJAC, 0.688 WP, 0.547 SOS) 2
    William_Paterson (10-6, 5-4 NJAC, 0.625 WP, 0.560 SOS) 1

    Mid-Atlantic region
    Salisbury (13-2, 3-1 CAC, 0.867 WP, 0.553 SOS) 5
    Christopher_Newport (13-2, 3-1 CAC, 0.867 WP, 0.548 SOS) 4
    Swarthmore (13-2, 6-2 CC, 0.867 WP, 0.558 SOS) 3-4
    Arcadia (13-2, 7-0 MACC, 0.867 WP, 0.549 SOS) 3
    Mary_Washington (11-4, 3-1 CAC, 0.733 WP, 0.580 SOS) 3
    Scranton (13-2, 2-2 LAND, 0.867 WP, 0.518 SOS) 2-3
    Drew (12-3, 4-0 LAND, 0.800 WP, 0.517 SOS) 2
    Johns_Hopkins (10-5, 7-1 CC, 0.667 WP, 0.573 SOS) 2
    York_(Pa.) (10-5, 3-1 CAC, 0.667 WP, 0.546 SOS) 2
    Moravian (10-5, 3-1 LAND, 0.667 WP, 0.531 SOS) 1

    South region
    Randolph-Macon (14-2, 6-1 ODAC, 0.875 WP, 0.540 SOS) 3-4
    Emory (10-4, 1-2 UAA, 0.714 WP, 0.579 SOS) 3
    Lynchburg (15-1, 6-1 ODAC, 0.938 WP, 0.513 SOS) 3
    Washington_and_Lee (12-4, 5-2 ODAC, 0.750 WP, 0.559 SOS) 2-3
    Centre (11-3, 4-1 SAA, 0.786 WP, 0.541 SOS) 1-2
    Guilford (11-5, 5-2 ODAC, 0.688 WP, 0.540 SOS) 1
    Louisiana_College (13-2, 6-1 ASC, 0.867 WP, 0.497 SOS) 1
    Roanoke (12-4, 5-2 ODAC, 0.750 WP, 0.484 SOS) 1
    Mary_Hardin-Baylor (13-4, 4-4 ASC, 0.765 WP, 0.514 SOS) 0
    Texas-Dallas (11-3, 6-2 ASC, 0.786 WP, 0.491 SOS) 0

    Great Lakes region
    Marietta (13-2, 7-1 OAC, 0.867 WP, 0.542 SOS) 5
    Capital (13-2, 8-0 OAC, 0.867 WP, 0.570 SOS) 4
    Wooster (12-3, 7-1 NCAC, 0.800 WP, 0.566 SOS) 4
    Wabash (12-1, 8-0 NCAC, 0.923 WP, 0.507 SOS) 3-4
    Mount_Union (13-2, 7-1 OAC, 0.867 WP, 0.488 SOS) 2
    Wittenberg (10-4, 5-3 NCAC, 0.714 WP, 0.545 SOS) 2
    La_Roche (14-2, 9-0 AMCC, 0.875 WP, 0.513 SOS) 0

    Central region
    Augustana (15-1, 7-0 CCIW, 0.938 WP, 0.532 SOS) likely in
    UW-Oshkosh (14-1, 4-0 WIAC, 0.933 WP, 0.512 SOS) 5
    UW-Stevens_Point (11-3, 3-1 WIAC, 0.786 WP, 0.602 SOS) 4
    Chicago (10-4, 3-0 UAA, 0.714 WP, 0.588 SOS) 3-4
    UW-La_Crosse (11-4, 4-0 WIAC, 0.733 WP, 0.572 SOS) 3-4
    Wheaton_(Ill.) (12-4, 5-2 CCIW, 0.750 WP, 0.577 SOS) 3
    North_Central_(Ill.) (13-3, 5-2 CCIW, 0.813 WP, 0.529 SOS) 2
    Illinois_Wesleyan (10-6, 3-4 CCIW, 0.625 WP, 0.579 SOS) 1

    West region
    Nebraska_Wesleyan (15-0, 6-0 ARC, 1.000 WP, 0.600 SOS) likely in
    Whitman (14-1, 6-0 NWC, 0.933 WP, 0.590 SOS) likely in
    St._Thomas (12-1, 8-0 MIAC, 0.923 WP, 0.533 SOS) 5
    St._John's (13-1, 9-0 MIAC, 0.929 WP, 0.532 SOS) 4
    Whitworth (13-2, 5-1 NWC, 0.867 WP, 0.528 SOS) 3
    Augsburg (9-4, 6-3 MIAC, 0.692 WP, 0.548 SOS) 1
    Linfield (9-4, 4-2 NWC, 0.692 WP, 0.510 SOS) 1
    Pomona-Pitzer (12-1, 7-0 SCIAC, 0.923 WP, 0.483 SOS) 1
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 17, 2019, 04:18:54 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=lhts8/h2j8lpjymkzinibe.jpg)

    Hope you didn't decide to take a night off or two from games? You would have missed some important results. While Wednesdays and Saturdays tend to be the big "nights" of any week in Division III, games on any night could have major ramifications.

    The algebra this time of year is both simple and complicated. Conference schedules, for the most part, have moved into the second half and teams seeing teams a second time sometimes have an advantage. Rivals, of course, have an advantage. There are also distractions as some teams have been sitting on mostly empty campuses for several weeks and may be bored. Or second semester classes are beginning and changes to schedules can be an abrupt adjustment. There are also long road trips that can take a team's focus. Plus, the weather. Yeah, Mother Nature loves changing things around.

    All of it can lead to upsets or strange outcomes. From blowouts to close battles. On any night, you are bound to see something you will be chatting about the next day.

    Thursday's show includes guests from a couple of the hottest teams in men's basketball: Capital and Swarthmore. We also hear from an island squad and find out if the Whitman women's upset of George Fox should have been a surprise. And Springfield's Naomi Graves chats about how the U.S. Marine Corps has helped her coach and preach diversity.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Thursday's show starting LIVE at 7:00 p.m. ET. in the video player above. If you miss any of the show, you can always watch it On Demand or listen to the audio-only podcast to the right (available shortly after the show goes off air).

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or use any of the social media options.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Damon Goodwin, No. 20 Capital men's coach
    - Michelle Frentz, No. 24 Whitman women's coach
    - Naomi Graves, Springfield women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Landry Kosmalski, No. 10 Swarthmore men's coach

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 17, 2019, 04:27:06 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 15, 2019, 07:06:53 PM
    Instead of looking at hypothetical regional rankings this week, here is a projection of how many future regular-season losses it would take to put a given team squarely onto the bubble, assuming that they don't win an automatic berth via conference tournament. 

    Where a range is listed (e.g. 3-4), the team currently appears on the right side of the bubble with the smaller number of additional losses (3), and on the wrong side with the bigger number.  Except in the UAA, which has no conference tournament, these numbers assume an additional loss for each team in failing to win the conference title.

    Four teams (Williams, Augie, NWU, & Whitman) look strong enough that my sims can't give a good scenario for them ending up on the bubble.  While they can't lose all of their remaining games and still get in, they seem unlikely to lose enough to be in that situation.

    Northeast region
    Williams (15-0, 4-0 NESCAC, 1.000 WP, 0.559 SOS) likely in
    Hamilton (14-1, 2-1 NESCAC, 0.933 WP, 0.538 SOS) 4
    MIT (13-2, 3-1 NEWMAC, 0.867 WP, 0.553 SOS) 4
    Nichols (14-2, 6-1 CCC, 0.875 WP, 0.522 SOS) 3-4
    Amherst (12-2, 2-1 NESCAC, 0.857 WP, 0.469 SOS) 3
    Babson (11-4, 4-0 NEWMAC, 0.733 WP, 0.547 SOS) 3
    Eastern_Connecticut (12-3, 6-1 LEC, 0.800 WP, 0.553 SOS) 2-3
    Wesleyan (11-4, 3-1 NESCAC, 0.733 WP, 0.669 SOS) 2-3
    Colby (11-4, 1-2 NESCAC, 0.733 WP, 0.491 SOS) 2
    Gordon (15-1, 7-0 CCC, 0.938 WP, 0.503 SOS) 1-2
    Middlebury (11-5, 2-2 NESCAC, 0.688 WP, 0.553 SOS) 1-2
    WPI (11-4, 2-2 NEWMAC, 0.733 WP, 0.565 SOS) 1-2
    Endicott (11-5, 4-3 CCC, 0.688 WP, 0.561 SOS) 1

    East region
    Oswego_State (11-2, 6-0 SUNYAC, 0.846 WP, 0.505 SOS) 4
    Plattsburgh_State (12-2, 6-1 SUNYAC, 0.857 WP, 0.538 SOS) 4
    Rochester (11-3, 1-2 UAA, 0.786 WP, 0.546 SOS) 3-4
    Brockport (10-4, 6-1 SUNYAC, 0.714 WP, 0.597 SOS) 3
    Cortland (10-2, 4-2 SUNYAC, 0.833 WP, 0.462 SOS) 2

    Atlantic region
    New_Jersey_City (12-4, 7-2 NJAC, 0.750 WP, 0.554 SOS) 3
    Ramapo (11-5, 5-4 NJAC, 0.688 WP, 0.598 SOS) 2-3
    Rowan (11-4, 6-3 NJAC, 0.733 WP, 0.553 SOS) 2-3
    Montclair_State (11-5, 6-3 NJAC, 0.688 WP, 0.547 SOS) 2
    William_Paterson (10-6, 5-4 NJAC, 0.625 WP, 0.560 SOS) 1

    Mid-Atlantic region
    Salisbury (13-2, 3-1 CAC, 0.867 WP, 0.553 SOS) 5
    Christopher_Newport (13-2, 3-1 CAC, 0.867 WP, 0.548 SOS) 4
    Swarthmore (13-2, 6-2 CC, 0.867 WP, 0.558 SOS) 3-4
    Arcadia (13-2, 7-0 MACC, 0.867 WP, 0.549 SOS) 3
    Mary_Washington (11-4, 3-1 CAC, 0.733 WP, 0.580 SOS) 3
    Scranton (13-2, 2-2 LAND, 0.867 WP, 0.518 SOS) 2-3
    Drew (12-3, 4-0 LAND, 0.800 WP, 0.517 SOS) 2
    Johns_Hopkins (10-5, 7-1 CC, 0.667 WP, 0.573 SOS) 2
    York_(Pa.) (10-5, 3-1 CAC, 0.667 WP, 0.546 SOS) 2
    Moravian (10-5, 3-1 LAND, 0.667 WP, 0.531 SOS) 1

    South region
    Randolph-Macon (14-2, 6-1 ODAC, 0.875 WP, 0.540 SOS) 3-4
    Emory (10-4, 1-2 UAA, 0.714 WP, 0.579 SOS) 3
    Lynchburg (15-1, 6-1 ODAC, 0.938 WP, 0.513 SOS) 3
    Washington_and_Lee (12-4, 5-2 ODAC, 0.750 WP, 0.559 SOS) 2-3
    Centre (11-3, 4-1 SAA, 0.786 WP, 0.541 SOS) 1-2
    Guilford (11-5, 5-2 ODAC, 0.688 WP, 0.540 SOS) 1
    Louisiana_College (13-2, 6-1 ASC, 0.867 WP, 0.497 SOS) 1
    Roanoke (12-4, 5-2 ODAC, 0.750 WP, 0.484 SOS) 1
    Mary_Hardin-Baylor (13-4, 4-4 ASC, 0.765 WP, 0.514 SOS) 0
    Texas-Dallas (11-3, 6-2 ASC, 0.786 WP, 0.491 SOS) 0

    Great Lakes region
    Marietta (13-2, 7-1 OAC, 0.867 WP, 0.542 SOS) 5
    Capital (13-2, 8-0 OAC, 0.867 WP, 0.570 SOS) 4
    Wooster (12-3, 7-1 NCAC, 0.800 WP, 0.566 SOS) 4
    Wabash (12-1, 8-0 NCAC, 0.923 WP, 0.507 SOS) 3-4
    Mount_Union (13-2, 7-1 OAC, 0.867 WP, 0.488 SOS) 2
    Wittenberg (10-4, 5-3 NCAC, 0.714 WP, 0.545 SOS) 2
    La_Roche (14-2, 9-0 AMCC, 0.875 WP, 0.513 SOS) 0

    Central region
    Augustana (15-1, 7-0 CCIW, 0.938 WP, 0.532 SOS) likely in
    UW-Oshkosh (14-1, 4-0 WIAC, 0.933 WP, 0.512 SOS) 5
    UW-Stevens_Point (11-3, 3-1 WIAC, 0.786 WP, 0.602 SOS) 4
    Chicago (10-4, 3-0 UAA, 0.714 WP, 0.588 SOS) 3-4
    UW-La_Crosse (11-4, 4-0 WIAC, 0.733 WP, 0.572 SOS) 3-4
    Wheaton_(Ill.) (12-4, 5-2 CCIW, 0.750 WP, 0.577 SOS) 3
    North_Central_(Ill.) (13-3, 5-2 CCIW, 0.813 WP, 0.529 SOS) 2
    Illinois_Wesleyan (10-6, 3-4 CCIW, 0.625 WP, 0.579 SOS) 1

    West region
    Nebraska_Wesleyan (15-0, 6-0 ARC, 1.000 WP, 0.600 SOS) likely in
    Whitman (14-1, 6-0 NWC, 0.933 WP, 0.590 SOS) likely in
    St._Thomas (12-1, 8-0 MIAC, 0.923 WP, 0.533 SOS) 5
    St._John's (13-1, 9-0 MIAC, 0.929 WP, 0.532 SOS) 4
    Whitworth (13-2, 5-1 NWC, 0.867 WP, 0.528 SOS) 3
    Augsburg (9-4, 6-3 MIAC, 0.692 WP, 0.548 SOS) 1
    Linfield (9-4, 4-2 NWC, 0.692 WP, 0.510 SOS) 1
    Pomona-Pitzer (12-1, 7-0 SCIAC, 0.923 WP, 0.483 SOS) 1

    Great stuff as always!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 17, 2019, 08:10:28 PM
    fantastic50, love the analysis.  But one thing I found quite jarring: the top of the Great Lakes.  Marietta and Capital have identical W-L records, Capital has a fairly significant advantage in SOS (AND the h-to-h win), yet you have Marietta on top and in better shape of staying above the bubble.  Could you elaborate?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 17, 2019, 08:46:47 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 17, 2019, 08:10:28 PM
    fantastic50, love the analysis.  But one thing I found quite jarring: the top of the Great Lakes.  Marietta and Capital have identical W-L records, Capital has a fairly significant advantage in SOS (AND the h-to-h win), yet you have Marietta on top and in better shape of staying above the bubble.  Could you elaborate?

    Great question.  My numbers show Marietta likely ending up with a better SOS (.553 vs .541) by season's end than Capital.  Perhaps this has to do with which teams each has played (or played twice) in conference games so far?

    Capital was upset by a very weak Otterbein last night, so if Marietta wasn't already in better shape than Capital, they will be now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on January 17, 2019, 09:10:44 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 17, 2019, 08:46:47 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 17, 2019, 08:10:28 PM
    fantastic50, love the analysis.  But one thing I found quite jarring: the top of the Great Lakes.  Marietta and Capital have identical W-L records, Capital has a fairly significant advantage in SOS (AND the h-to-h win), yet you have Marietta on top and in better shape of staying above the bubble.  Could you elaborate?

    Great question.  My numbers show Marietta likely ending up with a better SOS (.553 vs .541) by season's end than Capital.  Perhaps this has to do with which teams each has played (or played twice) in conference games so far?

    Capital was upset by a very weak Otterbein last night, so if Marietta wasn't already in better shape than Capital, they will be now.

    Capital lost to Heidelberg last night, which is a bit better than Otterbein and a very tricky game when you're at Tiffin (Marietta escaped there with a 2 point victory).

    Looking at the two now, I see them on fairly equal standing...Capital has the extra loss but the head to head win. Lots of basketball to be played however and all of these numbers will look different by the time we flip the calendar over to February. Great work as always Fantastic.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 20, 2019, 05:42:06 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=lnhpb/vpgllqah88sl12kh.jpg)

    Milestones, upsets, underdogs, under the radar, and giving back ... that's what's on tap for Sunday's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com).

    While in the conference grind, there are always results people don't expect. Whether an upset or a team flying under the radar finally pops up on everyone's radar, there are games and teams worth paying attention to outside the usual suspects. But even the top teams in the country have a story to tell.

    On Sunday's episode, we will learn what it's like to be on the top team in the country, how a team can still fly under the radar with big results in on a difficult conference, how another team has emerged that no one was expecting on top of another competitive conference, how one of the top conferences in the county ticks and how the races there may turn out, and the importance of giving back to the community especially in honor of one of the country's greatest leaders.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Sunday's show will air live starting at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2HoPIZf (and simulcast on Facebook Live and Periscope).

    Oh ... and the show is definitely going to see some "overtime" tonight.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Hillary Scott, No. 17 Lynchburg men's coach
    - Joe Crispin, Rowan men's coach
    - Tim McDonald, Cabrini men's coach (NABC Coach's Corner)
    - Chris Martin, CCIW Commissioner
    - Abby Kelly, No. 1 Bowdoin senior guard
    - Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com lead columnist (Top 25 Double-Take)

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 24, 2019, 12:37:35 PM
    The NCAA votes on a new Board of Governors composition this evening. All three divisions have to approve plan. This gives Division III an opportunity (w/Division II) to leverage for something better.

    I have a couple of ideas, if it's not too late: bit.ly/2Huo4tV
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 24, 2019, 05:10:50 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=lusa4/54y1rrzkhahuuavu.jpg)

    Suddenly the end of January is upon us! Where has the season gone? We are past the halfway point, conference action is now in it's second go-around (for most), and the matter of regional rankings and conference tournaments is becoming more real.

    Teams who have had unbelievable starts, but have not faltered, are now in the spotlight. The question is no longer "can they keep this up?" But rather, the question has become, "how did they get this good?" Tonight, we ask versions of that last question.

    Thursday on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), We will hear from St. Thomas who hasn't been the MIAC dominator the last few years, but is back on top in a far more competitive conference. Oswego men have already knocked the SUNYAC boss, Plattsburgh off the pedestal. And Southern Virginia women have startled the entire conference. We find out how a first-year coach with no Division III experience has shocked everyone.

    Plus, we chat with Oberlin's women's coach who has not only preached diversity, but created an environment for his program and the conference that reiterates open and safe environments. It has also thrust the team high into the NCAC race.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Thursday's edition will air live starting at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2FXlhXN (or via Facebook Live and Periscope simulcasts).

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or use any of the social media below.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - John Tauer, No. 7 St. Thomas men's coach
    - Jason Leone, Oswego State men's coach
    - Kerry Jenkins, Oberlin women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Matt Wardenburg, Southern Virginia women's coach
    - James Wagner, CSAC Assistant Commissioner (NCAA Convention report)

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 25, 2019, 11:57:25 AM
    Here's how I see the Pool C race, one month from Selection Monday...

    Already in, barring a monumental collapse
    (A) Nebraska_Wesleyan (18-0, 9-0 ARC, SOS 0.588) proj. 0.926 / 0.576 / 4-1
    (A) Whitman (16-1, 8-0 NWC, SOS 0.579) proj. 0.889 / 0.564 / 4-2
    (A) Williams (16-2, 4-1 NESCAC, SOS 0.577) proj. 0.808 / 0.594 / 5-4
    (A) Augustana (18-1, 10-0 CCIW, SOS 0.542) proj. 0.889 / 0.541 / 5-2
    (A) UW-Oshkosh (17-1, 7-0 WIAC, SOS 0.537) proj. 0.852 / 0.554 / 5-3

    In solid position
    (A) Marietta (16-2, 10-1 OAC, SOS 0.548) proj. 0.821 / 0.551 / 4-3
    (A) St._Thomas (16-1, 12-0 MIAC, SOS 0.541) proj. 0.885 / 0.535 / 2-2
    (A) Christopher_Newport (16-2, 6-1 CAC, SOS 0.542) proj. 0.846 / 0.547 / 3-3
    (A) Randolph-Macon (17-2, 9-1 ODAC, SOS 0.531) proj. 0.852 / 0.531 / 4-3
    (C#1) Wesleyan (14-4, 4-1 NESCAC, SOS 0.618) proj. 0.731 / 0.601 / 4-6
    (A) MIT (16-2, 6-1 NEWMAC, SOS 0.544) proj. 0.815 / 0.549 / 2-2
    (C#2) Amherst (14-2, 2-1 NESCAC, SOS 0.507) proj. 0.800 / 0.555 / 4-4
    (C#3) Loras (15-4, 7-3 ARC, SOS 0.595) proj. 0.741 / 0.582 / 2-4
    (A) Nichols (17-2, 9-1 CCC, SOS 0.523) proj. 0.852 / 0.520 / 3-3
    (C#4) Wooster (15-3, 10-1 NCAC, SOS 0.544) proj. 0.786 / 0.544 / 3-4
    (A) Wabash (15-1, 11-0 NCAC, SOS 0.505) proj. 0.846 / 0.529 / 3-2
    (C#5) Hamilton (15-1, 2-1 NESCAC, SOS 0.533) proj. 0.840 / 0.547 / 2-3
    (A) Swarthmore (14-3, 7-3 CC, SOS 0.559) proj. 0.808 / 0.536 / 3-2

    Bubble-in
    (A) Oswego_State (14-2, 9-0 SUNYAC, SOS 0.521) proj. 0.808 / 0.532 / 5-3
    (A) Rowan (14-4, 9-3 NJAC, SOS 0.549) proj. 0.731 / 0.548 / 5-4
    (C#6) St._John's (14-3, 10-2 MIAC, SOS 0.533) proj. 0.808 / 0.540 / 2-3
    (C#7) Lynchburg (17-2, 8-2 ODAC, SOS 0.532) proj. 0.846 / 0.519 / 4-3
    (C#8) Whitworth (15-2, 7-1 NWC, SOS 0.520) proj. 0.815 / 0.539 / 2-4
    (C#9) Capital (15-3, 10-1 OAC, SOS 0.530) proj. 0.778 / 0.540 / 3-3
    (C#10) UW-Whitewater (14-4, 3-4 WIAC, SOS 0.574) proj. 0.704 / 0.571 / 3-5
    (C#11) Emory (12-4, 3-2 UAA, SOS 0.581) proj. 0.720 / 0.562 / 3-4
    (C#12) Ramapo (14-5, 8-4 NJAC, SOS 0.587) proj. 0.704 / 0.564 / 4-6
    (A) Eastern_Connecticut (14-4, 8-1 LEC, SOS 0.571) proj. 0.750 / 0.542 / 2-3
    (C#13) Mary_Washington (14-4, 6-1 CAC, SOS 0.555) proj. 0.714 / 0.558 / 3-4
    (C#14) Wheaton_(Ill.) (14-5, 7-3 CCIW, SOS 0.576) proj. 0.692 / 0.581 / 3-5
    (A) Pomona-Pitzer (14-1, 9-0 SCIAC, SOS 0.499) proj. 0.870 / 0.509 / 1-0
    (C#15) Middlebury (13-5, 3-2 NESCAC, SOS 0.575) proj. 0.667 / 0.594 / 4-5

    Bubble out (several Pool C berths will evaporate during conference tournaments)
    (C#16) New_Jersey_City (14-5, 9-3 NJAC, SOS 0.554) proj. 0.704 / 0.551 / 4-5
    (C#17) UW-La_Crosse (13-5, 6-1 WIAC, SOS 0.582) proj. 0.667 / 0.578 / 3-5
    (A) Arcadia (15-3, 9-0 MACC, SOS 0.520) proj. 0.778 / 0.524 / 2-2
    (C#18) UW-Stevens_Point (12-5, 4-3 WIAC, SOS 0.588) proj. 0.654 / 0.591 / 2-7
    (C#19) North_Central_(Ill.) (16-3, 8-2 CCIW, SOS 0.521) proj. 0.769 / 0.533 / 2-3
    (C#20) Rochester (13-3, 3-2 UAA, SOS 0.538) proj. 0.720 / 0.533 / 3-3
    (C#21) Washington_and_Lee (13-5, 6-3 ODAC, SOS 0.554) proj. 0.704 / 0.542 / 3-5
    (C#22) Gordon (17-2, 9-1 CCC, SOS 0.502) proj. 0.821 / 0.508 / 2-3
    (C#23) Plattsburgh_State (12-4, 6-3 SUNYAC, SOS 0.560) proj. 0.704 / 0.538 / 3-5
    (C#24) Johns_Hopkins (12-5, 9-1 CC, SOS 0.557) proj. 0.692 / 0.550 / 3-3
    (A) Centre (13-3, 6-1 SAA, SOS 0.540) proj. 0.769 / 0.528 / 1-2
    (C#25) Scranton (15-3, 4-3 LAND, SOS 0.520) proj. 0.769 / 0.522 / 3-2
    (C#26) Salisbury (13-5, 3-4 CAC, SOS 0.570) proj. 0.654 / 0.564 / 3-5
    (C#27) Wartburg (11-5, 7-3 ARC, SOS 0.582) proj. 0.667 / 0.570 / 1-4
    (C#28) Guilford (14-5, 8-2 ODAC, SOS 0.532) proj. 0.704 / 0.532 / 4-2
    (C#29) WPI (14-4, 5-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.549) proj. 0.704 / 0.549 / 1-3

    Lots of work to do
    (A) La_Roche (16-2, 11-0 AMCC, SOS 0.500) proj. 0.815 / 0.510 / 0-1
    (C#30) Brockport (10-5, 6-2 SUNYAC, SOS 0.575) proj. 0.643 / 0.548 / 4-5
    (C#31) Linfield (11-4, 6-2 NWC, SOS 0.519) proj. 0.708 / 0.544 / 1-6
    (C#32) Wittenberg (12-5, 7-4 NCAC, SOS 0.551) proj. 0.680 / 0.542 / 2-5
    (A) Drew (14-4, 6-1 LAND, SOS 0.525) proj. 0.731 / 0.526 / 2-3
    (A) Nazareth (12-3, 6-0 E8, SOS 0.525) proj. 0.704 / 0.519 / 2-4
    (C#33) York_(Pa.) (12-6, 5-2 CAC, SOS 0.566) proj. 0.643 / 0.557 / 3-6
    (C#34) Mary_Hardin-Baylor (14-4, 5-4 ASC, SOS 0.532) proj. 0.741 / 0.521 / 1-1
    (A) Chicago (11-5, 4-1 UAA, SOS 0.565) proj. 0.640 / 0.558 / 4-2
    (C#35) Babson (12-6, 5-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.564) proj. 0.630 / 0.559 / 2-4
    (C#36) Washington_U. (10-6, 3-2 UAA, SOS 0.570) proj. 0.640 / 0.561 / 3-4
    (C#37) Endicott (12-6, 5-4 CCC, SOS 0.559) proj. 0.667 / 0.534 / 2-5
    (C#38) Montclair_State (12-6, 7-4 NJAC, SOS 0.557) proj. 0.630 / 0.546 / 4-7
    (C#39) Augsburg (12-4, 9-3 MIAC, SOS 0.537) proj. 0.692 / 0.533 / 0-5
    (A) Texas-Dallas (13-3, 7-2 ASC, SOS 0.486) proj. 0.769 / 0.508 / 2-2
    (C#40) Cortland (12-3, 6-3 SUNYAC, SOS 0.481) proj. 0.704 / 0.514 / 2-4
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on January 25, 2019, 01:47:20 PM
    Thanks for this, Drew!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AndOne on January 25, 2019, 03:41:34 PM
    Wheaton is 14-5, North Central is 16-3 and has beaten Wheaton. Yet Wheaton is bubble-in, and NC is bubble-out. Interesting.  ???
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on January 25, 2019, 03:56:24 PM
    There's obviously a pretty hefty gap between Wheaton's SOS and North Central's SOS that he believes will keep WC ahead of NCC when the regional rankings start to come out, if everything goes chalk in terms of how the two teams perform between now and then.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on January 25, 2019, 04:17:24 PM
    Quote from: AndOne on January 25, 2019, 03:41:34 PM
    Wheaton is 14-5, North Central is 16-3 and has beaten Wheaton. Yet Wheaton is bubble-in, and NC is bubble-out. Interesting.  ???
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 25, 2019, 03:56:24 PM
    There's obviously a pretty hefty gap between Wheaton's SOS and North Central's SOS that he believes will keep WC ahead of NCC when the regional rankings start to come out, if everything goes chalk in terms of how the two teams perform between now and then.

    I'm trying to run through the numbers, and honestly there's something that doesn't make sense. I'm running this scenario on the assumption that North Central would finish 20-6 (since that matches the win percentage given), 2nd in the CCIW, which would earn them the bye, but they lose their semifinal game, presumably to Wheaton. But in this scenario, it's impossible for Wheaton to finish the season with a .692 win percentage. I don't know if I'm missing something with how those numbers get calculated or not.

    Only thing I can think of that would make this happen would be to have North Central lose to Augie a second time, beat Wheaton at home, drop one other game somewhere along the way, then lose in Rock Island to the Thunder (this would fulfill their win percentage and 2-3 RRO record). Wheaton would probably have to knock off Augie in Rock Island on the 6th to give the Vikings their second RRO loss and would have to lose another game or two in addition to in Naperville to get to that (seemingly off) win percentage.

    In a vacuum, a 48 point difference in strength of schedule combined with a few more RRO results is probably enough, especially in a hypothetical where Wheaton knocks off the Cardinals in the CCIW semis.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 25, 2019, 04:36:09 PM
    There is a reason the rankings don't come out sooner ... SOS is still a bit out of wack this time of the season. More conference games, as most conferences turn into the second half of their schedule, will start to close a lot of gaps. I am not sure if he is considering that fact, but that is one of the reasons several committees have told me that expanding out the rankings another week would end up not being very helpful. Teams would get ranked when later in the season those numbers wouldn't even look remotely the same.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on January 25, 2019, 05:05:47 PM
    That does make sense...

    They have three opponents in common between the five games left (excluding rematch).

    North Central: North Park, Augustana, Illinois Wesleyan, Carthage, Elmhurst
    Wheaton: Carthage, Carroll, Elmhurst, Augustana, Millikin.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 25, 2019, 06:43:42 PM
    Generally speaking CCIW schools will experience less "sink" in their SOS numbers than other conferences.  They'll sort of migrate their way up the Pool chart.  I wouldn't freak out about being on the outside looking in right now.

    But, it should be highlighted North Central's Non-conference SOS is a pretty bad .445.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 25, 2019, 08:48:29 PM
    SOS changes from future games (including conference tournament games) are factored into those projected numbers, but the impact of head-to-head results are not.

    To Dave's point about regional rankings and selections, Amherst is a great example.  They had a weak early schedule, with an SOS well below our Mendoza line of .500 for quite a while, but the strength of the NESCAC will pull up the SOS to a decent number by season's end.  A week or two ago, I would have had them unranked (for that time, not projecting the future) in the region, even though I had them as the best team in the NESCAC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 27, 2019, 03:56:14 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=m0130/8stsvt4e4lm36cnr.jpg)

    Well, things certainly escalated quickly! Upsets a plenty. Conference races tightening. At the same time, some more clarity? Maybe not.

    There will be plenty to talk about on Sunday's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com).

    Join us as Dave and his guests work to figure out what has happened in just the last few days, plus get a sense of what's to come. We will talk to teams who are near the top of their conferences races in the Northeast, Atlantic, South, and Central regions. Plus, we hear from a coach who continues to give back to the NABC and trying to improve how Division III is perceived within the coaching ranks.

    Oh, and how will the Top 25s shake out on Monday?

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Sunday's show starting at 7:00 p.m. ET right here: http://bit.ly/2FQFb7v (or via Facebook Live and Periscope simulcasts).

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or use any of the social media options below.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Randy Tuggle, Greensboro women's coach
    - Nicole Sarcone, Staten Island women's coach
    - Gary Stewart, Stevenson men's coach (NABC Coach's Corner)
    - Tod Murphy, Gordon men's coach
    - Mike McGrath, UChicago men's coach
    - Bob Quillman, IWUHoops.com (Top 25 Double-Take)

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 27, 2019, 09:22:08 PM
    https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/basketball/d3/men/2018-19DIIIMBB_PreChampManual.pdf

    First regional rankings are Wednesday, Feb. 6
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 27, 2019, 10:22:21 PM
    Which is why the Hoopsville Marathon is this coming Thursday. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 30, 2019, 01:44:30 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=m5lxl/o3h5z2xs7txn530n.jpg)

    The Hoopsville Marathon Show ... is tomorrow!

    Tune in starting at 12:00 p.m. ET as we talk to guests from around the country about nothing but #d3hoops.

    It is all about celebrating the season, student-athletes, coaches, and an exciting season.

    For more information, click here: http://bit.ly/2HGx0N3

    We will share more about the show a little later.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on January 30, 2019, 04:55:14 PM
    Looking ahead to the first NCAA regional rankings next week, here are eight key questions, one for each region.

    Northeast: What about the little guys? As usual, the regional rankings will have strong representation from the NESCAC (4 for sure, maybe Amherst and/or Colby) and NEWMAC (MIT & WPI), but where do ECSU, Nichols, and Gordon rank?

    East: Who is #3?  The SUNYAC will take the top two spots in Oswego and Plattsburgh. Will the next in line be Nazareth (9-0 in the Empire8) or Rochester (who beat Naz)?

    Atlantic: How will the NJAC teams be ordered?  The only realistic Pool C candidates are 3-4 teams from the same conference (Rowan, Ramapo, NJCU, maybe Montclair St).  Which does the committee see as the best?

    Mid-Atlantic: Which bubble hopeful does the committee smile upon?  After Swarthmore, CNU, and perhaps Arcadia, it's a jumbled mess.  Which teams are in the best position to play their way in?

    South: What about Centre?  In a ranking filled with ODAC teams and Emory of the UAA, where does the committee rank Centre (15-3, 8-1 SAA, .540 SOS), whose biggest win is at W&L?

    Great Lakes: Where does La Roche fit?  While the top four will consist of a pair each from the OAC & NCAC, will the committee place La Roche (17-2, 12-0 AMCC, .494 SOS) next, even though their only quality win is over PSU-Behrend?

    Central: Which bubble teams rise to the top?  After elites Augie and UWO, there is a group of five bubble teams from the same two conferences (UW-Lax, UWSP, UWW, NCC, Wheaton).  How does the committee rank them?

    West: Where will Whitworth & Pomona be ranked?  Despite looking great at times, the Pirates are short on quality wins.  The Sagehens have a win over Whitman, but also a sub-.500 SOS.  A spot in the top six would be a good sign for either.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on January 30, 2019, 05:57:48 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 30, 2019, 04:55:14 PM
    Looking ahead to the first NCAA regional rankings next week, here are eight key questions, one for each region.

    Northeast: What about the little guys? As usual, the regional rankings will have strong representation from the NESCAC (4 for sure, maybe Amherst and/or Colby) and NEWMAC (MIT & WPI), but where do ECSU, Nichols, and Gordon rank?

    East: Who is #3?  The SUNYAC will take the top two spots in Oswego and Plattsburgh. Will the next in line be Nazareth (9-0 in the Empire8) or Rochester (who beat Naz)?

    Atlantic: How will the NJAC teams be ordered?  The only realistic Pool C candidates are 3-4 teams from the same conference (Rowan, Ramapo, NJCU, maybe Montclair St).  Which does the committee see as the best?

    Mid-Atlantic: Which bubble hopeful does the committee smile upon?  After Swarthmore, CNU, and perhaps Arcadia, it's a jumbled mess.  Which teams are in the best position to play their way in?

    South: What about Centre?  In a ranking filled with ODAC teams and Emory of the UAA, where does the committee rank Centre (15-3, 8-1 SAA, .540 SOS), whose biggest win is at W&L?

    Great Lakes: Where does La Roche fit?  While the top four will consist of a pair each from the OAC & NCAC, will the committee place La Roche (17-2, 12-0 AMCC, .494 SOS) next, even though their only quality win is over PSU-Behrend?

    Central: Which bubble teams rise to the top?  After elites Augie and UWO, there is a group of five bubble teams from the same two conferences (UW-Lax, UWSP, UWW, NCC, Wheaton).  How does the committee rank them?

    West: Where will Whitworth & Pomona be ranked?  Despite looking great at times, the Pirates are short on quality wins.  The Sagehens have a win over Whitman, but also a sub-.500 SOS.  A spot in the top six would be a good sign for either.

    Really enjoyed this post, thanks Fantastic50.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 30, 2019, 06:37:41 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 30, 2019, 04:55:14 PM
    Looking ahead to the first NCAA regional rankings next week, here are eight key questions, one for each region.

    Northeast: What about the little guys? As usual, the regional rankings will have strong representation from the NESCAC (4 for sure, maybe Amherst and/or Colby) and NEWMAC (MIT & WPI), but where do ECSU, Nichols, and Gordon rank?

    East: Who is #3?  The SUNYAC will take the top two spots in Oswego and Plattsburgh. Will the next in line be Nazareth (9-0 in the Empire8) or Rochester (who beat Naz)?

    Atlantic: How will the NJAC teams be ordered?  The only realistic Pool C candidates are 3-4 teams from the same conference (Rowan, Ramapo, NJCU, maybe Montclair St).  Which does the committee see as the best?

    Mid-Atlantic: Which bubble hopeful does the committee smile upon?  After Swarthmore, CNU, and perhaps Arcadia, it's a jumbled mess.  Which teams are in the best position to play their way in?

    South: What about Centre?  In a ranking filled with ODAC teams and Emory of the UAA, where does the committee rank Centre (15-3, 8-1 SAA, .540 SOS), whose biggest win is at W&L?

    Great Lakes: Where does La Roche fit?  While the top four will consist of a pair each from the OAC & NCAC, will the committee place La Roche (17-2, 12-0 AMCC, .494 SOS) next, even though their only quality win is over PSU-Behrend?

    Central: Which bubble teams rise to the top?  After elites Augie and UWO, there is a group of five bubble teams from the same two conferences (UW-Lax, UWSP, UWW, NCC, Wheaton).  How does the committee rank them?

    West: Where will Whitworth & Pomona be ranked?  Despite looking great at times, the Pirates are short on quality wins.  The Sagehens have a win over Whitman, but also a sub-.500 SOS.  A spot in the top six would be a good sign for either.

    Great stuff.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 30, 2019, 10:30:34 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on January 30, 2019, 04:55:14 PM
    Looking ahead to the first NCAA regional rankings next week, here are eight key questions, one for each region.

    Northeast: What about the little guys? As usual, the regional rankings will have strong representation from the NESCAC (4 for sure, maybe Amherst and/or Colby) and NEWMAC (MIT & WPI), but where do ECSU, Nichols, and Gordon rank?

    East: Who is #3?  The SUNYAC will take the top two spots in Oswego and Plattsburgh. Will the next in line be Nazareth (9-0 in the Empire8) or Rochester (who beat Naz)?

    Atlantic: How will the NJAC teams be ordered?  The only realistic Pool C candidates are 3-4 teams from the same conference (Rowan, Ramapo, NJCU, maybe Montclair St).  Which does the committee see as the best?

    Mid-Atlantic: Which bubble hopeful does the committee smile upon?  After Swarthmore, CNU, and perhaps Arcadia, it's a jumbled mess.  Which teams are in the best position to play their way in?

    South: What about Centre?  In a ranking filled with ODAC teams and Emory of the UAA, where does the committee rank Centre (15-3, 8-1 SAA, .540 SOS), whose biggest win is at W&L?

    Great Lakes: Where does La Roche fit?  While the top four will consist of a pair each from the OAC & NCAC, will the committee place La Roche (17-2, 12-0 AMCC, .494 SOS) next, even though their only quality win is over PSU-Behrend?

    Central: Which bubble teams rise to the top?  After elites Augie and UWO, there is a group of five bubble teams from the same two conferences (UW-Lax, UWSP, UWW, NCC, Wheaton).  How does the committee rank them?

    West: Where will Whitworth & Pomona be ranked?  Despite looking great at times, the Pirates are short on quality wins.  The Sagehens have a win over Whitman, but also a sub-.500 SOS.  A spot in the top six would be a good sign for either.

    Great questions! I'm guessing the bubble teams, in order, could be La Crosse (swept WW, 1-0 v Point, though they play tomorrow), NCC, Stevens Point (1-0 v WW), Wheaton (beat Oshkosh) and Whitewater. That's just a guess not looking at SOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 31, 2019, 01:43:10 AM
    Just doing my due diligence... remember the first week's rankings will ultimately mean nothing. We will get a sense of maybe how committees are evaluating things, but they are also working without the vRRO for the first week (that data becomes available for Week 2). And since the last two rankings (the third and the "fourth") will only count for vRRO in the end .. Week 1 is a nice "toe in the water," but not much more than that.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 01, 2019, 09:46:40 AM
    My latest projections on teams' tournament status

    Already in, barring a collapse
    (A) Nebraska_Wesleyan (19-1, 10-1 ARC, SOS 0.585) proj. 0.923 / 0.575 / 3-2
    (A) Whitman (19-1, 11-0 NWC, SOS 0.574) proj. 0.923 / 0.563 / 4-2
    (A) Williams (18-2, 5-1 NESCAC, SOS 0.572) proj. 0.840 / 0.589 / 6-4
    (A) Augustana (19-2, 11-1 CCIW, SOS 0.551) proj. 0.885 / 0.541 / 5-3
    (C#1) Marietta (17-3, 11-2 OAC, SOS 0.562) proj. 0.815 / 0.556 / 4-3
    (A) UW-Oshkosh (18-1, 8-0 WIAC, SOS 0.532) proj. 0.885 / 0.552 / 5-3
    (A) Randolph-Macon (19-2, 11-1 ODAC, SOS 0.535) proj. 0.885 / 0.528 / 4-3
    (A) MIT (18-2, 8-1 NEWMAC, SOS 0.557) proj. 0.852 / 0.555 / 2-1

    In solid position
    (A) Wooster (17-3, 12-1 NCAC, SOS 0.536) proj. 0.821 / 0.544 / 4-3
    (A) St._Thomas (18-1, 14-0 MIAC, SOS 0.520) proj. 0.889 / 0.532 / 2-1
    (A) Swarthmore (17-3, 10-3 CC, SOS 0.554) proj. 0.815 / 0.538 / 4-2
    (A) Capital (17-3, 12-1 OAC, SOS 0.535) proj. 0.815 / 0.544 / 4-3
    (A) Christopher_Newport (17-3, 7-2 CAC, SOS 0.539) proj. 0.815 / 0.545 / 3-3
    (C#2) Loras (16-5, 8-4 ARC, SOS 0.598) proj. 0.741 / 0.582 / 3-3
    (A) Nichols (19-2, 11-1 CCC, SOS 0.515) proj. 0.857 / 0.521 / 3-3
    (A) Oswego_State (17-2, 12-0 SUNYAC, SOS 0.512) proj. 0.815 / 0.535 / 5-3
    (C#3) Wesleyan (15-5, 5-2 NESCAC, SOS 0.602) proj. 0.704 / 0.607 / 5-6
    (C#4) Wabash (15-2, 11-1 NCAC, SOS 0.526) proj. 0.840 / 0.530 / 3-3
    (C#5) Hamilton (17-2, 3-2 NESCAC, SOS 0.524) proj. 0.808 / 0.551 / 2-4

    Bubble-in
    (C#6) UW-La_Crosse (15-5, 8-1 WIAC, SOS 0.591) proj. 0.731 / 0.578 / 4-4
    (C#7) Emory (14-4, 4-2 UAA, SOS 0.574) proj. 0.760 / 0.561 / 3-4
    (C#8) Amherst (15-3, 3-2 NESCAC, SOS 0.509) proj. 0.760 / 0.551 / 4-4
    (A) New_Jersey_City (16-5, 11-3 NJAC, SOS 0.551) proj. 0.731 / 0.548 / 4-5
    (C#9) North_Central_(Ill.) (18-3, 10-2 CCIW, SOS 0.517) proj. 0.808 / 0.533 / 3-2
    (C#10) Rowan (15-5, 10-4 NJAC, SOS 0.552) proj. 0.720 / 0.549 / 5-4
    (A) Eastern_Connecticut (16-4, 10-1 LEC, SOS 0.563) proj. 0.778 / 0.540 / 2-3
    (C#11) Middlebury (14-5, 4-2 NESCAC, SOS 0.589) proj. 0.680 / 0.602 / 4-6
    (A) Arcadia (17-3, 11-0 MACC, SOS 0.531) proj. 0.808 / 0.530 / 2-2
    (A) Pomona-Pitzer (16-1, 11-0 SCIAC, SOS 0.493) proj. 0.875 / 0.507 / 1-1
    (C#12) St._John's (15-4, 11-3 MIAC, SOS 0.534) proj. 0.778 / 0.540 / 2-3
    (C#13) Gordon (18-2, 10-1 CCC, SOS 0.504) proj. 0.821 / 0.515 / 3-3
    (C#14) Plattsburgh_State (15-4, 9-3 SUNYAC, SOS 0.559) proj. 0.741 / 0.540 / 4-5
    (C#15) Ramapo (15-6, 9-5 NJAC, SOS 0.570) proj. 0.692 / 0.561 / 5-5
    (C#16) Salisbury (15-5, 5-4 CAC, SOS 0.568) proj. 0.692 / 0.565 / 4-5

    Bubble-out
    (C#17) Whitworth (16-4, 8-3 NWC, SOS 0.533) proj. 0.778 / 0.537 / 1-3
    (C#18) UW-Whitewater (14-5, 3-5 WIAC, SOS 0.564) proj. 0.692 / 0.564 / 2-6
    (C#19) Rochester (14-4, 4-3 UAA, SOS 0.540) proj. 0.720 / 0.538 / 4-3
    (A) Centre (15-3, 8-1 SAA, SOS 0.539) proj. 0.800 / 0.527 / 1-2
    (C#20) Colby (15-5, 3-3 NESCAC, SOS 0.542) proj. 0.680 / 0.557 / 3-4
    (C#21) Wheaton_(Ill.) (15-6, 8-4 CCIW, SOS 0.556) proj. 0.667 / 0.574 / 2-5
    (C#22) Guilford (15-5, 9-2 ODAC, SOS 0.526) proj. 0.731 / 0.531 / 3-2
    (C#23) WPI (16-4, 7-2 NEWMAC, SOS 0.544) proj. 0.731 / 0.552 / 1-2
    (C#24) York_(Pa.) (14-6, 7-2 CAC, SOS 0.568) proj. 0.692 / 0.554 / 3-5
    (C#25) UW-Stevens_Point (13-6, 5-4 WIAC, SOS 0.588) proj. 0.654 / 0.588 / 1-7
    (C#26) Lynchburg (17-4, 8-4 ODAC, SOS 0.537) proj. 0.808 / 0.511 / 3-3

    Lots of work ahead
    (A) La_Roche (18-2, 13-0 AMCC, SOS 0.514) proj. 0.852 / 0.506 / 0-1
    (C#27) Wittenberg (14-5, 9-4 NCAC, SOS 0.533) proj. 0.692 / 0.543 / 2-5
    (C#28) Johns_Hopkins (14-6, 11-2 CC, SOS 0.547) proj. 0.654 / 0.557 / 3-4
    (C#29) Scranton (16-4, 5-4 LAND, SOS 0.516) proj. 0.741 / 0.520 / 3-2
    (C#30) Endicott (14-6, 7-4 CCC, SOS 0.537) proj. 0.704 / 0.539 / 2-5
    (C#31) Wartburg (12-6, 8-4 ARC, SOS 0.586) proj. 0.652 / 0.577 / 1-5
    (A) Nazareth (15-3, 9-0 E8, SOS 0.511) proj. 0.769 / 0.515 / 1-3
    (C#32) Mary_Washington (14-6, 6-3 CAC, SOS 0.556) proj. 0.667 / 0.555 / 4-4
    (C#33) Keene_State (14-7, 9-3 LEC, SOS 0.576) proj. 0.654 / 0.562 / 1-5
    (A) Washington_U. (12-6, 5-2 UAA, SOS 0.566) proj. 0.640 / 0.563 / 3-4
    (C#34) Emory_and_Henry (14-6, 7-4 ODAC, SOS 0.549) proj. 0.679 / 0.545 / 1-5
    (C#35) Drew (15-5, 7-2 LAND, SOS 0.528) proj. 0.731 / 0.528 / 1-4
    (C#36) Chicago (12-6, 5-2 UAA, SOS 0.567) proj. 0.640 / 0.564 / 4-2
    (A) Moravian (14-6, 7-2 LAND, SOS 0.528) proj. 0.667 / 0.537 / 3-5
    (C#37) Mount_Union (16-4, 10-3 OAC, SOS 0.497) proj. 0.731 / 0.517 / 2-4
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dunkin3117 on February 03, 2019, 09:12:54 PM
    Do regional rankings come out this week? If so, when?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on February 03, 2019, 09:44:21 PM
    Quote from: dunkin3117 on February 03, 2019, 09:12:54 PM
    Do regional rankings come out this week? If so, when?

    Wednesday afternoon.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2019, 05:02:18 PM
    What a weekend!

    It was one of those sets of days we have seen often in Division III where at every turn there was something to watch, a result to ponder, and upset to breakdown. The hardwoods across the country had games worth watching all with just three weeks left in the regular season.

    It started with Dave and Pat's trip to Holland, Michigan to witness the 200th meeting of Calvin and Hope. The game at DeVos Fieldhouse lived up to expectations. From the crowd to the battle on the court, every moment was a thrill ride.

    And the Super Weekend didn't stop there. A number of teams in both Top 25s took losses that not only will shake up the polls, but also shakes up conferences races and adds plenty of intrigue for the first Regional Rankings to be released this week. Oh, and a 200-point explosion from a high-powered offense!

    On this special, Monday, edition of Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave and guests have plenty to try and breakdown. Dave will share his reactions from "The Rivalry" and you will hear one of the crazier stories on how a mom names a son. Plus, hear about the Greenville-Fontbonne game which saw 346 points put on the board. And coaches from Hamilton men and East Texas Baptist women along with one of the top players for WashU women give us insight on how their teams are doing.

    Ryan Scott also joins Dave as they give their initial reactions to the latest Top 25 polls and more.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Monday's show can be see LIVE here: http://bit.ly/2UGhZw2 (and simulcast on Facebook Live and Periscope).

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - George Barber, Greenville men's head coach
    - Adam Stockwell, No. 8 Hamilton
    - Becca Clark-Callender, WashU. women's senior guard
    - "What Is In a Name?," Dina Hackert, Hope '91
    - Rusty Rainbolt, No. 15 East Texas Baptist women's coach
    - Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com senior writer (Top 25 Double-Take)

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 06, 2019, 09:56:01 AM
    While I think that the regional rankings will be tougher to predict this year, here's what I've got.  (Records are through Sunday's games, vs D3 opponents only.)

    Northeast region
    1) MIT (19-2, 9-1 NEWMAC, 0.905 WP, 0.559 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS)
    2) Williams (19-3, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.864 WP, 0.578 SOS, 0.531 ncSOS)
    3) Nichols (19-2, 11-1 CCC, 0.905 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS)
    4) Middlebury (16-5, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.762 WP, 0.589 SOS, 0.573 ncSOS)
    5) Gordon (19-2, 11-1 CCC, 0.905 WP, 0.505 SOS, 0.523 ncSOS)
    6) Hamilton (19-2, 5-2 NESCAC, 0.905 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0.490 ncSOS)
    7) Wesleyan (15-6, 5-3 NESCAC, 0.714 WP, 0.596 SOS, 0.570 ncSOS)
    8) Eastern_Connecticut (16-5, 10-2 LEC, 0.762 WP, 0.560 SOS, 0.562 ncSOS)
    9) Amherst (17-3, 5-2 NESCAC, 0.850 WP, 0.501 SOS, 0.444 ncSOS)
    10) Endicott (15-6, 8-4 CCC, 0.714 WP, 0.535 SOS, 0.594 ncSOS)
    11) WPI (16-5, 7-3 NEWMAC, 0.762 WP, 0.545 SOS, 0.526 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Colby (15-7, 3-5 NESCAC, 0.682 WP, 0.561 SOS, 0.497 ncSOS)
    Keene_State (15-7, 10-3 LEC, 0.682 WP, 0.560 SOS, 0.639 ncSOS)
    Mass-Dartmouth (14-6, 8-3 LEC, 0.700 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0.511 ncSOS)

    East region
    1) Oswego_State (17-3, 12-1 SUNYAC, 0.850 WP, 0.518 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS)
    2) Plattsburgh_State (17-4, 11-3 SUNYAC, 0.810 WP, 0.523 SOS, 0.543 ncSOS)
    3) Rochester (16-4, 6-3 UAA, 0.800 WP, 0.533 SOS, 0.501 ncSOS)
    4) Cortland (15-4, 9-4 SUNYAC, 0.789 WP, 0.494 SOS, 0.460 ncSOS)
    5) St._Lawrence (14-6, 11-2 LL, 0.700 WP, 0.546 SOS, 0.613 ncSOS)
    6) Nazareth (16-4, 10-1 E8, 0.800 WP, 0.516 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS)
    7) Skidmore (13-6, 11-3 LL, 0.684 WP, 0.532 SOS, 0.597 ncSOS)
    8) St._John_Fisher (13-6, 8-2 E8, 0.684 WP, 0.499 SOS, 0.495 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Morrisville_State (15-4, 10-1 NEAC, 0.789 WP, 0.488 SOS, 0.497 ncSOS)
    Alfred (12-4, 7-2 E8, 0.750 WP, 0.452 SOS, 0.448 ncSOS)
    Hobart (13-8, 10-4 LL, 0.619 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.587 ncSOS)

    Atlantic region
    1) Rowan (16-5, 11-4 NJAC, 0.762 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.561 ncSOS)
    2) New_Jersey_City (17-5, 12-3 NJAC, 0.773 WP, 0.547 SOS, 0.559 ncSOS)
    3) Ramapo (15-7, 9-6 NJAC, 0.682 WP, 0.571 SOS, 0.610 ncSOS)
    4) Yeshiva (14-5, 12-2 SKY, 0.737 WP, 0.470 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS)
    5) Montclair_State (14-8, 9-6 NJAC, 0.636 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.537 ncSOS)
    6) DeSales (15-5, 8-2 MACF, 0.750 WP, 0.497 SOS, 0.518 ncSOS)
    7) TCNJ (13-9, 9-6 NJAC, 0.591 WP, 0.564 SOS, 0.619 ncSOS)
    8) Baruch (17-4, 11-1 CUNYAC, 0.810 WP, 0.442 SOS, 0.456 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Farmingdale_State (14-7, 12-4 SKY, 0.667 WP, 0.495 SOS, 0.585 ncSOS)
    Gwynedd_Mercy (15-7, 7-2 AEC, 0.682 WP, 0.486 SOS, 0.484 ncSOS)
    Staten_Island (14-8, 10-3 CUNYAC, 0.636 WP, 0.473 SOS, 0.526 ncSOS)

    Mid-Atlantic region
    1) Swarthmore (18-3, 11-3 CC, 0.857 WP, 0.549 SOS, 0.606 ncSOS)
    2) Christopher_Newport (18-3, 8-2 CAC, 0.857 WP, 0.543 SOS, 0.513 ncSOS)
    3) Salisbury (16-5, 6-4 CAC, 0.762 WP, 0.569 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS)
    4) Arcadia (18-3, 12-0 MACC, 0.857 WP, 0.527 SOS, 0.573 ncSOS)
    5) Scranton (17-4, 6-4 LAND, 0.810 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.500 ncSOS)
    6) York_(Pa.) (15-6, 8-2 CAC, 0.714 WP, 0.550 SOS, 0.518 ncSOS)
    7) Moravian (15-6, 8-2 LAND, 0.714 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0.520 ncSOS)
    8) Drew (16-5, 8-2 LAND, 0.762 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.508 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Mary_Washington (14-7, 6-4 CAC, 0.667 WP, 0.565 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS)
    Johns_Hopkins (14-7, 11-3 CC, 0.667 WP, 0.545 SOS, 0.646 ncSOS)
    Hood (14-6, 8-4 MACC, 0.700 WP, 0.498 SOS, 0.507 ncSOS)

    South region
    1) Randolph-Macon (20-2, 12-1 ODAC, 0.909 WP, 0.541 SOS, 0.550 ncSOS)
    2) Emory (16-4, 6-2 UAA, 0.800 WP, 0.567 SOS, 0.548 ncSOS)
    3) Centre (17-3, 10-1 SAA, 0.850 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0.551 ncSOS)
    4) Guilford (16-5, 10-2 ODAC, 0.762 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.509 ncSOS)
    5) Lynchburg (17-5, 8-5 ODAC, 0.773 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.452 ncSOS)
    6) Mary_Hardin-Baylor (17-5, 8-5 ASC, 0.773 WP, 0.516 SOS, 0.506 ncSOS)
    7) Emory_and_Henry (15-6, 8-4 ODAC, 0.714 WP, 0.546 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS)
    8) N.C._Wesleyan (13-3, 11-2 USAC, 0.813 WP, 0.492 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Texas-Dallas (16-4, 10-3 ASC, 0.800 WP, 0.493 SOS, 0.471 ncSOS)
    Texas_Lutheran (14-5, 9-1 SCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.498 SOS, 0.561 ncSOS)
    Louisiana_College (15-5, 8-4 ASC, 0.750 WP, 0.506 SOS, 0.469 ncSOS)

    Great Lakes region
    1) Capital (17-4, 12-2 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.530 SOS, 0.534 ncSOS)
    2) Wooster (18-3, 13-1 NCAC, 0.857 WP, 0.536 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS)
    3) Marietta (18-3, 12-2 OAC, 0.857 WP, 0.548 SOS, 0.578 ncSOS)
    4) Wabash (16-3, 12-2 NCAC, 0.842 WP, 0.520 SOS, 0.492 ncSOS)
    5) Wittenberg (15-5, 10-4 NCAC, 0.750 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS)
    6) La_Roche (19-2, 14-0 AMCC, 0.905 WP, 0.505 SOS, 0.551 ncSOS)
    7) Mount_Union (17-4, 11-3 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.492 SOS, 0.412 ncSOS)
    8) Wilmington (14-6, 10-4 OAC, 0.700 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS)
    9) Hanover (14-5, 11-3 HCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.500 SOS, 0.511 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Albion (14-5, 7-2 MIAA, 0.737 WP, 0.487 SOS, 0.510 ncSOS)
    St._Vincent (16-3, 11-1 PAC, 0.842 WP, 0.458 SOS, 0.471 ncSOS)
    Penn_State-Behrend (18-3, 11-3 AMCC, 0.857 WP, 0.467 SOS, 0.389 ncSOS)

    Central region
    1) Augustana (20-2, 12-1 CCIW, 0.909 WP, 0.548 SOS, 0.510 ncSOS)
    2) UW-Oshkosh (19-1, 9-0 WIAC, 0.950 WP, 0.523 SOS, 0.466 ncSOS)
    3) UW-La_Crosse (15-6, 8-2 WIAC, 0.714 WP, 0.590 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS)
    4) North_Central_(Ill.) (18-3, 10-2 CCIW, 0.857 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.442 ncSOS)
    5) UW-Whitewater (14-6, 3-6 WIAC, 0.700 WP, 0.562 SOS, 0.515 ncSOS)
    6) UW-Stevens_Point (14-6, 6-4 WIAC, 0.700 WP, 0.583 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS)
    7) Wheaton_(Ill.) (16-6, 9-4 CCIW, 0.727 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.594 ncSOS)
    8) Washington_U. (14-6, 7-2 UAA, 0.700 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.543 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Chicago (13-7, 6-3 UAA, 0.650 WP, 0.558 SOS, 0.559 ncSOS)
    St._Norbert (15-6, 12-1 MWC, 0.714 WP, 0.508 SOS, 0.600 ncSOS)
    Webster (15-4, 11-2 SLIAC, 0.789 WP, 0.470 SOS, 0.528 ncSOS)

    West region
    1) Nebraska_Wesleyan (20-1, 11-1 ARC, 0.952 WP, 0.581 SOS, 0.564 ncSOS)
    2) Whitman (20-1, 12-0 NWC, 0.952 WP, 0.566 SOS, 0.572 ncSOS)
    3) St._Thomas (19-1, 15-0 MIAC, 0.950 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.556 ncSOS)
    4) Loras (17-5, 9-4 ARC, 0.773 WP, 0.598 SOS, 0.575 ncSOS)
    5) Pomona-Pitzer (17-1, 12-0 SCIAC, 0.944 WP, 0.490 SOS, 0.533 ncSOS)
    6) St._John's (16-4, 12-3 MIAC, 0.800 WP, 0.523 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS)
    7) Whitworth (17-4, 9-3 NWC, 0.810 WP, 0.531 SOS, 0.493 ncSOS)
    8) Wartburg (12-6, 8-4 ARC, 0.667 WP, 0.584 SOS, 0.545 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Augsburg (14-5, 11-4 MIAC, 0.737 WP, 0.508 SOS, 0.536 ncSOS)
    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (11-5, 8-2 SCIAC, 0.688 WP, 0.519 SOS, 0.519 ncSOS)
    Bethany_Lutheran (16-6, 11-2 UMAC, 0.727 WP, 0.465 SOS, 0.480 ncSOS)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on February 06, 2019, 10:40:01 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 06, 2019, 09:56:01 AM
    While I think that the regional rankings will be tougher to predict this year, here's what I've got.  (Records are through Sunday's games, vs D3 opponents only.)

    Northeast region
    1) MIT (19-2, 9-1 NEWMAC, 0.905 WP, 0.559 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS)
    2) Williams (19-3, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.864 WP, 0.578 SOS, 0.531 ncSOS)
    3) Nichols (19-2, 11-1 CCC, 0.905 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS)
    4) Middlebury (16-5, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.762 WP, 0.589 SOS, 0.573 ncSOS)
    5) Gordon (19-2, 11-1 CCC, 0.905 WP, 0.505 SOS, 0.523 ncSOS)
    6) Hamilton (19-2, 5-2 NESCAC, 0.905 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0.490 ncSOS)
    7) Wesleyan (15-6, 5-3 NESCAC, 0.714 WP, 0.596 SOS, 0.570 ncSOS)
    8) Eastern_Connecticut (16-5, 10-2 LEC, 0.762 WP, 0.560 SOS, 0.562 ncSOS)
    9) Amherst (17-3, 5-2 NESCAC, 0.850 WP, 0.501 SOS, 0.444 ncSOS)
    10) Endicott (15-6, 8-4 CCC, 0.714 WP, 0.535 SOS, 0.594 ncSOS)
    11) WPI (16-5, 7-3 NEWMAC, 0.762 WP, 0.545 SOS, 0.526 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Colby (15-7, 3-5 NESCAC, 0.682 WP, 0.561 SOS, 0.497 ncSOS)
    Keene_State (15-7, 10-3 LEC, 0.682 WP, 0.560 SOS, 0.639 ncSOS)
    Mass-Dartmouth (14-6, 8-3 LEC, 0.700 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0.511 ncSOS)

    East region
    1) Oswego_State (17-3, 12-1 SUNYAC, 0.850 WP, 0.518 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS)
    2) Plattsburgh_State (17-4, 11-3 SUNYAC, 0.810 WP, 0.523 SOS, 0.543 ncSOS)
    3) Rochester (16-4, 6-3 UAA, 0.800 WP, 0.533 SOS, 0.501 ncSOS)
    4) Cortland (15-4, 9-4 SUNYAC, 0.789 WP, 0.494 SOS, 0.460 ncSOS)
    5) St._Lawrence (14-6, 11-2 LL, 0.700 WP, 0.546 SOS, 0.613 ncSOS)
    6) Nazareth (16-4, 10-1 E8, 0.800 WP, 0.516 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS)
    7) Skidmore (13-6, 11-3 LL, 0.684 WP, 0.532 SOS, 0.597 ncSOS)
    8) St._John_Fisher (13-6, 8-2 E8, 0.684 WP, 0.499 SOS, 0.495 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Morrisville_State (15-4, 10-1 NEAC, 0.789 WP, 0.488 SOS, 0.497 ncSOS)
    Alfred (12-4, 7-2 E8, 0.750 WP, 0.452 SOS, 0.448 ncSOS)
    Hobart (13-8, 10-4 LL, 0.619 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.587 ncSOS)

    Atlantic region
    1) Rowan (16-5, 11-4 NJAC, 0.762 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.561 ncSOS)
    2) New_Jersey_City (17-5, 12-3 NJAC, 0.773 WP, 0.547 SOS, 0.559 ncSOS)
    3) Ramapo (15-7, 9-6 NJAC, 0.682 WP, 0.571 SOS, 0.610 ncSOS)
    4) Yeshiva (14-5, 12-2 SKY, 0.737 WP, 0.470 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS)
    5) Montclair_State (14-8, 9-6 NJAC, 0.636 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.537 ncSOS)
    6) DeSales (15-5, 8-2 MACF, 0.750 WP, 0.497 SOS, 0.518 ncSOS)
    7) TCNJ (13-9, 9-6 NJAC, 0.591 WP, 0.564 SOS, 0.619 ncSOS)
    8) Baruch (17-4, 11-1 CUNYAC, 0.810 WP, 0.442 SOS, 0.456 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Farmingdale_State (14-7, 12-4 SKY, 0.667 WP, 0.495 SOS, 0.585 ncSOS)
    Gwynedd_Mercy (15-7, 7-2 AEC, 0.682 WP, 0.486 SOS, 0.484 ncSOS)
    Staten_Island (14-8, 10-3 CUNYAC, 0.636 WP, 0.473 SOS, 0.526 ncSOS)

    Mid-Atlantic region
    1) Swarthmore (18-3, 11-3 CC, 0.857 WP, 0.549 SOS, 0.606 ncSOS)
    2) Christopher_Newport (18-3, 8-2 CAC, 0.857 WP, 0.543 SOS, 0.513 ncSOS)
    3) Salisbury (16-5, 6-4 CAC, 0.762 WP, 0.569 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS)
    4) Arcadia (18-3, 12-0 MACC, 0.857 WP, 0.527 SOS, 0.573 ncSOS)
    5) Scranton (17-4, 6-4 LAND, 0.810 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.500 ncSOS)
    6) York_(Pa.) (15-6, 8-2 CAC, 0.714 WP, 0.550 SOS, 0.518 ncSOS)
    7) Moravian (15-6, 8-2 LAND, 0.714 WP, 0.522 SOS, 0.520 ncSOS)
    8) Drew (16-5, 8-2 LAND, 0.762 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.508 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Mary_Washington (14-7, 6-4 CAC, 0.667 WP, 0.565 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS)
    Johns_Hopkins (14-7, 11-3 CC, 0.667 WP, 0.545 SOS, 0.646 ncSOS)
    Hood (14-6, 8-4 MACC, 0.700 WP, 0.498 SOS, 0.507 ncSOS)

    South region
    1) Randolph-Macon (20-2, 12-1 ODAC, 0.909 WP, 0.541 SOS, 0.550 ncSOS)
    2) Emory (16-4, 6-2 UAA, 0.800 WP, 0.567 SOS, 0.548 ncSOS)
    3) Centre (17-3, 10-1 SAA, 0.850 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0.551 ncSOS)
    4) Guilford (16-5, 10-2 ODAC, 0.762 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.509 ncSOS)
    5) Lynchburg (17-5, 8-5 ODAC, 0.773 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.452 ncSOS)
    6) Mary_Hardin-Baylor (17-5, 8-5 ASC, 0.773 WP, 0.516 SOS, 0.506 ncSOS)
    7) Emory_and_Henry (15-6, 8-4 ODAC, 0.714 WP, 0.546 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS)
    8) N.C._Wesleyan (13-3, 11-2 USAC, 0.813 WP, 0.492 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Texas-Dallas (16-4, 10-3 ASC, 0.800 WP, 0.493 SOS, 0.471 ncSOS)
    Texas_Lutheran (14-5, 9-1 SCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.498 SOS, 0.561 ncSOS)
    Louisiana_College (15-5, 8-4 ASC, 0.750 WP, 0.506 SOS, 0.469 ncSOS)

    Great Lakes region
    1) Capital (17-4, 12-2 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.530 SOS, 0.534 ncSOS)
    2) Wooster (18-3, 13-1 NCAC, 0.857 WP, 0.536 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS)
    3) Marietta (18-3, 12-2 OAC, 0.857 WP, 0.548 SOS, 0.578 ncSOS)
    4) Wabash (16-3, 12-2 NCAC, 0.842 WP, 0.520 SOS, 0.492 ncSOS)
    5) Wittenberg (15-5, 10-4 NCAC, 0.750 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS)
    6) La_Roche (19-2, 14-0 AMCC, 0.905 WP, 0.505 SOS, 0.551 ncSOS)
    7) Mount_Union (17-4, 11-3 OAC, 0.810 WP, 0.492 SOS, 0.412 ncSOS)
    8) Wilmington (14-6, 10-4 OAC, 0.700 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS)
    9) Hanover (14-5, 11-3 HCAC, 0.737 WP, 0.500 SOS, 0.511 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Albion (14-5, 7-2 MIAA, 0.737 WP, 0.487 SOS, 0.510 ncSOS)
    St._Vincent (16-3, 11-1 PAC, 0.842 WP, 0.458 SOS, 0.471 ncSOS)
    Penn_State-Behrend (18-3, 11-3 AMCC, 0.857 WP, 0.467 SOS, 0.389 ncSOS)

    Central region
    1) Augustana (20-2, 12-1 CCIW, 0.909 WP, 0.548 SOS, 0.510 ncSOS)
    2) UW-Oshkosh (19-1, 9-0 WIAC, 0.950 WP, 0.523 SOS, 0.466 ncSOS)
    3) UW-La_Crosse (15-6, 8-2 WIAC, 0.714 WP, 0.590 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS)
    4) North_Central_(Ill.) (18-3, 10-2 CCIW, 0.857 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.442 ncSOS)
    5) UW-Whitewater (14-6, 3-6 WIAC, 0.700 WP, 0.562 SOS, 0.515 ncSOS)
    6) UW-Stevens_Point (14-6, 6-4 WIAC, 0.700 WP, 0.583 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS)
    7) Wheaton_(Ill.) (16-6, 9-4 CCIW, 0.727 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.594 ncSOS)
    8) Washington_U. (14-6, 7-2 UAA, 0.700 WP, 0.556 SOS, 0.543 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Chicago (13-7, 6-3 UAA, 0.650 WP, 0.558 SOS, 0.559 ncSOS)
    St._Norbert (15-6, 12-1 MWC, 0.714 WP, 0.508 SOS, 0.600 ncSOS)
    Webster (15-4, 11-2 SLIAC, 0.789 WP, 0.470 SOS, 0.528 ncSOS)

    West region
    1) Nebraska_Wesleyan (20-1, 11-1 ARC, 0.952 WP, 0.581 SOS, 0.564 ncSOS)
    2) Whitman (20-1, 12-0 NWC, 0.952 WP, 0.566 SOS, 0.572 ncSOS)
    3) St._Thomas (19-1, 15-0 MIAC, 0.950 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.556 ncSOS)
    4) Loras (17-5, 9-4 ARC, 0.773 WP, 0.598 SOS, 0.575 ncSOS)
    5) Pomona-Pitzer (17-1, 12-0 SCIAC, 0.944 WP, 0.490 SOS, 0.533 ncSOS)
    6) St._John's (16-4, 12-3 MIAC, 0.800 WP, 0.523 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS)
    7) Whitworth (17-4, 9-3 NWC, 0.810 WP, 0.531 SOS, 0.493 ncSOS)
    8) Wartburg (12-6, 8-4 ARC, 0.667 WP, 0.584 SOS, 0.545 ncSOS)
    ----------
    Augsburg (14-5, 11-4 MIAC, 0.737 WP, 0.508 SOS, 0.536 ncSOS)
    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (11-5, 8-2 SCIAC, 0.688 WP, 0.519 SOS, 0.519 ncSOS)
    Bethany_Lutheran (16-6, 11-2 UMAC, 0.727 WP, 0.465 SOS, 0.480 ncSOS)

    Just playing with the Great Lakes numbers...I would flip Wooster ahead of Capital and La Roche ahead of Wittenberg.

    1. Wooster (better record, better SOS, better ncSOS)
    2. Capital
    3. Etta
    4. Wabash
    5. La Roche (I think the better WP and effort they put in to the ncSOS will give them enough to leap frog Witt for Week 1)
    6. Witt

    Should be interesting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 06, 2019, 11:25:56 AM
    I have a problem with using NCSOS (without NC WP).

    Here's La Roche's non-conference games with opponent's adjusted D3 record.

    at Marietta (17-3) -- L
    vs. Wesley (9-9) -- W
    vs. Carnegie Mellon (9-10) -- W
    at Hiram (9-10) -- W
    at Hope (8-8) -- L
    vs. Calvin (at Hope) (7-9) -- W
    vs. John Carroll (9-10) -- W

    I mean, that's maybe fine? A .714 WP (5-2) against a .558 NCSOS. None of the opponents were particularly impressive except Marietta, and that was a loss. They were 1-2 on the road and 3-0 at home. Does that really boost their standard resume of .905/.507? (I know RPI is not a thing, but that's a .597 NC RPI and a .607 total RPI)

    Aside: that's a schedule that looks really really good when you first make it and then it just so happens that Hope, Calvin, and John Carroll are all in a down cycle, which does stink.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 06, 2019, 11:43:29 AM
    Great post.  I think this highlights one of the issues with the OWP/OOWP measure of SOS.  It treats a pair of games against 13-13 teams the same as playing a 25-1 team and a 1-25 team, assuming that all opponents have equally difficult slates.  From the perspective a bubble team, those two schedules are vastly different.  Something like CFB's "strength of record" captures this, but SOS does not. 

    I agree that in La Roche's case, the actual SOS is far lower than what would have been anticipated when the schedule was made.  Clearly, they wanted to challenge themselves against some of the best in the region, but (aside from Marietta, where they lost by four on opening night), it didn't turn out that way.  I don't think that the criteria give the committee any room to consider "scheduling intent" in such situations, nor would it necessarily be fair to do so, but that does stink for the Redhawks.

    Arcadia and Centre are in similar situations, with a solid non-conference SOS, but possibly no resulting wins over regionally-ranked opponents.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 06, 2019, 01:05:29 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 06, 2019, 11:43:29 AM
    Great post.  I think this highlights one of the issues with the OWP/OOWP measure of SOS.  It treats a pair of games against 13-13 teams the same as playing a 25-1 team and a 1-25 team, assuming that all opponents have equally difficult slates.  From the perspective a bubble team, those two schedules are vastly different.  Something like CFB's "strength of record" captures this, but SOS does not. 

    I agree that in La Roche's case, the actual SOS is far lower than what would have been anticipated when the schedule was made.  Clearly, they wanted to challenge themselves against some of the best in the region, but (aside from Marietta, where they lost by four on opening night), it didn't turn out that way.  I don't think that the criteria give the committee any room to consider "scheduling intent" in such situations, nor would it necessarily be fair to do so, but that does stink for the Redhawks.

    Arcadia and Centre are in similar situations, with a solid non-conference SOS, but possibly no resulting wins over regionally-ranked opponents.

    I think this speaks to the need to schedule the best you can, especially if you're in a weak conference. Replace Carnegie Mellon and Hiram with...I dunno, Mount Union and St. Vincent, and this looks a lot different.

    But I'm interested in your point about how two very different schedules can have the same SOS. SOS is effectively an average, right? So the way to combat this would be to have a weighted SOS, but weighted on what? I think D1 has traditionally tried to combat this with RPI buckets for top 25, 26-50, 50-100, 100-200 and 200+, or something like that. To do that we'd have to agree on what a good neutral ranking, or ensemble of, is. Basically you end up only considering games outside the top 100 if they're losses, because you expect a tournament caliber team to beat teams outside the top 100.

    The idea of regional ranking as a criteria when your Pool C is national has never made any sense, especially when you have a different number of teams in each region. Of course the northeastern schools are going to have more regionally ranked games...they regionally rank more teams, whether the region strength actually warrants it or not.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2019, 01:20:10 PM
    Couple of questions: How do you mean by "weighted SOS?" I ask because the men's SOS is weighted based on whether games were on the road or at home (the women do not use that weighted SOS; I think a small percentage of DIII sports use the weighted SOS). If that isn't what you are referring to, are you indicating that the weight is based on how highly ranked a team is by chance?

    As for the Pool C conversation and vRRO, I am not one to buy into the fact that the Northeastern schools just automatically play more regionally ranked teams because they have more slots. Each slot in each region is based on the same ratio (1:9 something? I always forget which ratio is which). So there are more NE slots because there are so many more schools. I will grant that the NESCAC schools DO have more vRRO data usually, but that's in part because of their "unique" situation in my opinion. First off, the NESCAC has teams that seem to be better in general and thus they are ranked more often creating more conference-based vRRO data. And because they play less games in-conference and have to play more out-of-conference opponents, their vRRO has the opportunity to be at a higher number, though not always.

    If you looked at other Northeast teams in "normal" scheduled conferences, I don't think their vRRO numbers are any higher than anywhere else in the country. I think the NESCAC situation is because of the opportunity to play more teams no matter where they are located rather than just that the Northeast has more teams in it. When the ratio is the same, it doesn't mean more vRRO teams for schools. Not all those who are ranked are able to play all the schools who want to play them.

    I remember a few years ago when the MAC Commonwealth was featuring teams with 8-12 games against ranked opponents. The Mid-Atlantic hasn't always had a large number of slots, but because the Commonwealth had a number of good teams coupled with smart scheduling from those teams, there was more vRRO opportunities.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 06, 2019, 01:53:43 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2019, 01:20:10 PM
    Couple of questions: How do you mean by "weighted SOS?" I ask because the men's SOS is weighted based on whether games were on the road or at home (the women do not use that weighted SOS; I think a small percentage of DIII sports use the weighted SOS). If that isn't what you are referring to, are you indicating that the weight is based on how highly ranked a team is by chance?

    As for the Pool C conversation and vRRO, I am not one to buy into the fact that the Northeastern schools just automatically play more regionally ranked teams because they have more slots. Each slot in each region is based on the same ratio (1:9 something? I always forget which ratio is which). So there are more NE slots because there are so many more schools. I will grant that the NESCAC schools DO have more vRRO data usually, but that's in part because of their "unique" situation in my opinion. First off, the NESCAC has teams that seem to be better in general and thus they are ranked more often creating more conference-based vRRO data. And because they play less games in-conference and have to play more out-of-conference opponents, their vRRO has the opportunity to be at a higher number, though not always.

    If you looked at other Northeast teams in "normal" scheduled conferences, I don't think their vRRO numbers are any higher than anywhere else in the country. I think the NESCAC situation is because of the opportunity to play more teams no matter where they are located rather than just that the Northeast has more teams in it. When the ratio is the same, it doesn't mean more vRRO teams for schools. Not all those who are ranked are able to play all the schools who want to play them.

    I remember a few years ago when the MAC Commonwealth was featuring teams with 8-12 games against ranked opponents. The Mid-Atlantic hasn't always had a large number of slots, but because the Commonwealth had a number of good teams coupled with smart scheduling from those teams, there was more vRRO opportunities.

    So wait, are you talking to everyone or responding to me? Rhetorical.

    11 > 8. That's pretty simple. No one thinks the Northeast is 38% better than any of the other regions. So by definition, if you have more teams ranked in your region, there's a better chance that you played a regionally ranked team. One could counteract this by just looking at the top 8 in the regional rankings, but then that causes another problem -- all the regions aren't equal in talent either. I feel pretty sure that you could take the odd team out in some regions and kick the tail of some regionally ranked teams.

    Weighted would be giving more...well...weight, to better teams and less weight to having scheduled a lot of average or slightly above average teams. Like I said, in D1 basically any wins outside the top 100 are basically a neutral result.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2019, 02:29:30 PM
    When the committee looks at who a team plays in their vRRO data, they do give it a thought as to where the teams are ranked and how they are perceived in the criteria. So if a team has a bunch of "bottom" ranked teams on a ranking, they won't get as much "credit" as a team who has played, say, all their games against the top half of those ranked in any region. It gets more complex than that, like wins and losses and such, but the committee isn't just giving the vRRO data and playing a ranked team as being flat equal.

    I don't remember where I gave the example, but if a team is 2-2 but played the bottom half of regionally ranked teams and a team that is 3-5 and played a majority of those against opponents in the upper half of the rankings, over history the 3-5 team is going to probably win that conversation.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on February 06, 2019, 02:41:46 PM
    Have NE teams taken a disproprtionate number of at-large bids historically?  That feels like a quick and dirty way to figure out if the additional ranked teams from that region are siphoning bids away from regions and teams that have fewer opportunities for RRO games in their vicinity. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2019, 02:44:16 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on February 06, 2019, 02:41:46 PM
    Have NE teams taken a disproprtionate number of at-large bids historically?  That feels like a quick and dirty way to figure out if the additional ranked teams from that region are siphoning bids away from regions and teams that have fewer opportunities for RRO games in their vicinity.

    NESCAC teams have arguably taken an extra bid or two. That certainly has been an argument. However, with the change to the SOS/WL% tool (removal), I am not sure how that will play out this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on February 06, 2019, 02:59:48 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2019, 02:44:16 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on February 06, 2019, 02:41:46 PM
    Have NE teams taken a disproprtionate number of at-large bids historically?  That feels like a quick and dirty way to figure out if the additional ranked teams from that region are siphoning bids away from regions and teams that have fewer opportunities for RRO games in their vicinity.

    NESCAC teams have arguably taken an extra bid or two. That certainly has been an argument. However, with the change to the SOS/WL% tool (removal), I am not sure how that will play out this year.

    But that's more to do with the NESCAC's unique league schedule than their geography, yes? 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2019, 03:01:03 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on February 06, 2019, 02:59:48 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2019, 02:44:16 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on February 06, 2019, 02:41:46 PM
    Have NE teams taken a disproprtionate number of at-large bids historically?  That feels like a quick and dirty way to figure out if the additional ranked teams from that region are siphoning bids away from regions and teams that have fewer opportunities for RRO games in their vicinity.

    NESCAC teams have arguably taken an extra bid or two. That certainly has been an argument. However, with the change to the SOS/WL% tool (removal), I am not sure how that will play out this year.

    That has been my argument. We haven't really seen any extra bids elsewhere out of the northeast that have seemed odd or attributed to their vRRO data and thus their region.

    But that's more to do with the NESCAC's unique league schedule than their geography, yes?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 06, 2019, 03:18:42 PM
    New England has the most schools of any region, right?  I have no idea whether the region receives a disproportionate number of bids, but part of the reason there are so many bids from New England is that there are so many New England D3 leagues and programs.  And in any given year, typically 3-4 NESCAC (sometimes more, only rarely fewer) teams will be among the top teams in the region.  And New England (certainly since 2003) has represented itself well as a region once in the tournament, it's not like New England teams (as opposed to some other regions) are flaming out as soon as they face other quality teams (four national champs and four more second place finishes, plus a bunch more Final Four appearances, from the region in the past 15 years).  Honestly, to the extent New England has an advantage, it's that the other east coast leagues (who they play in the regionals, typically) other than NESCAC, ODAC and NEWMAC haven't been very strong in postseason play over the past decade or so ... NJAC in particular, which is still solid but used to be a true powerhouse, and some of the Mid-Atlantic programs, some of which used to be a bit stronger I believe. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2019, 04:14:12 PM
    Here are the first rankings for the men this season: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-first
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 06, 2019, 04:33:08 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 06, 2019, 03:18:42 PM
    New England has the most schools of any region, right? I have no idea whether the region receives a disproportionate number of bids, but part of the reason there are so many bids from New England is that there are so many New England D3 leagues and programs.  And in any given year, typically 3-4 NESCAC (sometimes more, only rarely fewer) teams will be among the top teams in the region.  And New England (certainly since 2003) has represented itself well as a region once in the tournament, it's not like New England teams (as opposed to some other regions) are flaming out as soon as they face other quality teams (four national champs and four more second place finishes, plus a bunch more Final Four appearances, from the region in the past 15 years).  Honestly, to the extent New England has an advantage, it's that the other east coast leagues (who they play in the regionals, typically) other than NESCAC, ODAC and NEWMAC haven't been very strong in postseason play over the past decade or so ... NJAC in particular, which is still solid but used to be a true powerhouse, and some of the Mid-Atlantic programs, some of which used to be a bit stronger I believe.

    I posted something about it a year on page 518 of this thread.  The Northeast has received  25% of the Pool C bids being something like 18% of D3.  Not wildly disproportionate, but a little disproportionate over an 11 year span for sure.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 06, 2019, 04:35:34 PM
    Per the hosting discussion earlier and today's rankings.

    Oshkosh  men and women are in ranking position to host, so Oshkosh men are in danger of having to play on the road as a top seed.  St. Thomas men sit #3 while their women are in position to host at this point.  Whitman women came in at #5, a long way from a hosting position.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 06, 2019, 07:06:27 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 06, 2019, 04:35:34 PM
    Per the hosting discussion earlier and today's rankings.

    Oshkosh  men and women are in ranking position to host, so Oshkosh men are in danger of having to play on the road as a top seed.  St. Thomas men sit #3 while their women are in position to host at this point.  Whitman women came in at #5, a long way from a hosting position.

    Yep, pretty much everything we said. Guess it wasn't too early.

    I'm an analyst, predicting things is kinda what I do. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 06, 2019, 07:18:38 PM
    After the first regional rankings, I did a thing to get an idea for what the bubble looks like.

    Disclaimer: I own a phone. It has a calendar. You don't need to tell me how much time is left in the season or how many regional rankings are left. If it helps you to think of this as "if the season ended today", then do that. Otherwise, feel free to say nothing, because I don't really care if you think it's too early.

    Step 1: Skip past all the top ranked teams in a conference.

    Step B: Call the top ranked Pool C in each region "IN"

    Rowan
    N Central
    Plattsburgh
    Capital
    Salisbury
    Middlebury
    Guilford (eeeeehhhh)
    Loras

    Step 3: ???

    Step not really a step: list out other teams that stand to be bubble-in now, or the last few out (I think most of these are top 50 in Massey except maybe Rochester and Ramapo).

    Ramapo, Wheaton, UW-everyone, Rochester, Wabash, Gordon, Hamilton, Pomona-Pitzer, St. John's

    So that's 11 teams. Only 8 (maybe 9 if Guilford is not actually in) can get in. That's before upsets are accounted for.

    So if you want to be on the good side of the bubble when it bursts, and you're not on this list, you pretty much have to do something to play yourself first into this list, and then near the top of it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 06, 2019, 07:21:41 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 06, 2019, 04:33:08 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 06, 2019, 03:18:42 PM
    New England has the most schools of any region, right? I have no idea whether the region receives a disproportionate number of bids, but part of the reason there are so many bids from New England is that there are so many New England D3 leagues and programs.  And in any given year, typically 3-4 NESCAC (sometimes more, only rarely fewer) teams will be among the top teams in the region.  And New England (certainly since 2003) has represented itself well as a region once in the tournament, it's not like New England teams (as opposed to some other regions) are flaming out as soon as they face other quality teams (four national champs and four more second place finishes, plus a bunch more Final Four appearances, from the region in the past 15 years).  Honestly, to the extent New England has an advantage, it's that the other east coast leagues (who they play in the regionals, typically) other than NESCAC, ODAC and NEWMAC haven't been very strong in postseason play over the past decade or so ... NJAC in particular, which is still solid but used to be a true powerhouse, and some of the Mid-Atlantic programs, some of which used to be a bit stronger I believe.

    I posted something about it a year on page 518 of this thread.  The Northeast has received  25% of the Pool C bids being something like 18% of D3.  Not wildly disproportionate, but a little disproportionate over an 11 year span for sure.

    I didn't see that, but...

    That's a LOT disproportionate! That's like a 39% point overindex (if you got 18% as 18% of the schools, that would be 100).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 06, 2019, 08:51:51 PM
    Maybe the most interesting thing from today's first set of NCAA rankings is La Roche (19-2, 14-0 AMCC, .505 SOS, .551 ncSOS) being ranked 3rd in the Great Lakes, ahead of OAC leader Capital (17-4, 12-2 OAC, .530 SOS, beat Marietta twice) and Wabash.  La Roche is a good team in my opinion, but hasn't beaten anyone except AMCC rival Penn State-Behrend (18-3, .467 SOS).

    When I ran my numbers on this region, I got (in order) the top six that the NCAA ended up with (Marietta, Wooster, La Roche, Capital, Wabash, Wittenberg) but thought there's no way that the committee will put LRC 3rd without any quality wins.  Upon looking at head-to-head numbers, I ended up with Capital #1 and LRC #6, but it's as if the head-to-head didn't matter at all (yet).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 06, 2019, 08:58:51 PM
    Here are the numbers (including non-conference SOS and record vs regionally-ranked opponents) for the NCAA-ranked teams and other conference leaders.  All records are through Tuesday's games, so these are more current than what was used by the committees to determine the regional rankings.  At the end is my brief Pool C status for each team.

    Northeast region
    1) MIT (19-2, 9-1 NEWMAC, 0.562 SOS, 0.548 ncSOS, 2-0 vRRO) NEWMAC favorite
    2) Williams (19-3, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.581 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS, 4-2 vRRO) NESCAC favorite
    3) Nichols (20-2, 12-1 CCC, 0.517 SOS, 0.556 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO) CCC favorite
    4) Middlebury (16-5, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.591 SOS, 0.574 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO) Strong contenders
    5) Gordon (20-2, 12-1 CCC, 0.489 SOS, 0.522 ncSOS, 1-1 vRRO) Bubble-out
    6) Hamilton (19-2, 5-2 NESCAC, 0.520 SOS, 0.488 ncSOS, 1-1 vRRO) Strong contenders
    7) Eastern_Connecticut (16-5, 10-2 LEC, 0.561 SOS, 0.564 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO) LEC favorite
    8) Wesleyan (15-7, 5-3 NESCAC, 0.607 SOS, 0.571 ncSOS, 5-5 vRRO) Bubble-out
    9) WPI (16-5, 7-3 NEWMAC, 0.546 SOS, 0.527 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    10) Keene_State (15-7, 10-3 LEC, 0.562 SOS, 0.642 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO) Bubble-out
    11) Amherst (18-3, 5-2 NESCAC, 0.511 SOS, 0.449 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO) Bubble-out
    NR) Maine-Farmington (13-7, 10-1 NAC, 0.461 SOS, 0.539 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) NAC favorite
    NR) New_England_College (17-3, 12-1 NECC, 0.433 SOS, 0.416 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) NECC favorite
    NR) Salem_State (14-8, 8-1 MASCAC, 0.540 SOS, 0.607 ncSOS, 0-5 vRRO) MASCAC favorite
    NR) Suffolk (15-6, 6-1 GNAC, 0.456 SOS, 0.451 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) GNAC favorite

    East region
    1) Oswego_State (17-3, 12-1 SUNYAC, 0.515 SOS, 0.531 ncSOS, 5-2 vRRO) SUNYAC favorite
    2) Plattsburgh_State (17-4, 11-3 SUNYAC, 0.521 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS, 3-4 vRRO) Bubble-out
    3) Rochester (16-4, 6-3 UAA, 0.530 SOS, 0.496 ncSOS, 5-1 vRRO) Bubble-out
    4) Nazareth (16-4, 10-1 E8, 0.514 SOS, 0.536 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) E8 favorite
    5) St._Lawrence (15-6, 12-2 LL, 0.533 SOS, 0.611 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) LL favorite
    6) Brockport (13-8, 9-5 SUNYAC, 0.551 SOS, 0.579 ncSOS, 2-4 vRRO) Longshots
    7) Cortland (15-4, 9-4 SUNYAC, 0.491 SOS, 0.456 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    8) Hobart (13-8, 10-4 LL, 0.533 SOS, 0.584 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO) Longshots
    NR) Morrisville_State (16-4, 11-1 NEAC, 0.478 SOS, 0.495 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) NEAC favorite

    Atlantic region
    1) New_Jersey_City (17-5, 12-3 NJAC, 0.547 SOS, 0.557 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) NJAC favorite
    2) Rowan (16-5, 11-4 NJAC, 0.556 SOS, 0.561 ncSOS, 6-2 vRRO) Strong contenders
    3) Ramapo (15-7, 9-6 NJAC, 0.570 SOS, 0.607 ncSOS, 5-3 vRRO) Bubble-out
    4) Montclair_State (14-8, 9-6 NJAC, 0.556 SOS, 0.539 ncSOS, 2-6 vRRO) Longshots
    5) DeSales (15-5, 8-2 MACF, 0.496 SOS, 0.517 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) MACF favorite
    6) Yeshiva (15-5, 13-2 SKY, 0.477 SOS, 0.531 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO) SKY favorite
    7) Baruch (17-5, 11-2 CUNYAC, 0.447 SOS, 0.455 ncSOS, 1-0 vRRO) CUNYAC favorite
    8) Farmingdale_State (14-7, 12-4 SKY, 0.495 SOS, 0.584 ncSOS, 0-4 vRRO) Longshots
    NR) Cairn (16-6, 9-0 CSAC, 0.386 SOS, 0.398 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) CSAC favorite
    NR) Gwynedd_Mercy (15-7, 7-2 AEC, 0.488 SOS, 0.487 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) Pool B favorite

    Mid-Atlantic region
    1) Swarthmore (18-3, 11-3 CC, 0.549 SOS, 0.607 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO) CC favorite
    2) Christopher_Newport (18-3, 8-2 CAC, 0.542 SOS, 0.513 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) CAC favorite
    3) Salisbury (16-5, 6-4 CAC, 0.568 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS, 4-4 vRRO) Bubble-out
    4) Arcadia (18-3, 12-0 MACC, 0.527 SOS, 0.571 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO) MACC favorite
    5) York_(Pa.) (15-6, 8-2 CAC, 0.550 SOS, 0.519 ncSOS, 3-4 vRRO) Bubble-out
    6) Mary_Washington (14-7, 6-4 CAC, 0.563 SOS, 0.527 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    7) Johns_Hopkins (14-7, 11-3 CC, 0.544 SOS, 0.643 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    8) Scranton (17-4, 6-4 LAND, 0.516 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS, 2-0 vRRO) Bubble-out
    NR) Moravian (15-6, 8-2 LAND, 0.523 SOS, 0.523 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) LAND favorite

    South region
    1) Randolph-Macon (20-2, 12-1 ODAC, 0.541 SOS, 0.550 ncSOS, 3-2 vRRO) ODAC favorite
    2) Centre (17-3, 10-1 SAA, 0.524 SOS, 0.549 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) SAA favorite
    3) Emory (16-4, 7-2 UAA, 0.567 SOS, 0.547 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO) UAA favorite
    4) Guilford (16-5, 10-2 ODAC, 0.514 SOS, 0.507 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO) Bubble-out
    5) Mary_Hardin-Baylor (17-5, 8-5 ASC, 0.517 SOS, 0.509 ncSOS, 1-0 vRRO) Bubble-out
    6) Lynchburg (17-5, 8-5 ODAC, 0.533 SOS, 0.452 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    7) Emory_and_Henry (15-6, 8-4 ODAC, 0.547 SOS, 0.530 ncSOS, 0-4 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    8) Texas-Dallas (16-4, 10-3 ASC, 0.492 SOS, 0.470 ncSOS, 1-1 vRRO) ASC favorite
    NR) Covenant (12-7, 13-0 USAC, 0.526 SOS, 0.604 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) USAC favorite
    NR) Texas_Lutheran (14-5, 9-1 SCAC, 0.500 SOS, 0.562 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) SCAC favorite

    Great Lakes region
    1) Marietta (18-3, 12-2 OAC, 0.548 SOS, 0.582 ncSOS, 6-2 vRRO) OAC favorite
    2) Wooster (18-3, 13-1 NCAC, 0.535 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS, 3-2 vRRO) NCAC favorite
    3) La_Roche (19-2, 14-0 AMCC, 0.505 SOS, 0.552 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) AMCC favorite
    4) Capital (17-4, 12-2 OAC, 0.528 SOS, 0.532 ncSOS, 5-1 vRRO) Strong contenders
    5) Wabash (16-3, 12-2 NCAC, 0.521 SOS, 0.496 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO) Bubble-out
    6) Wittenberg (15-5, 10-4 NCAC, 0.517 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) Bubble-out
    7) Mount_Union (17-4, 11-3 OAC, 0.490 SOS, 0.412 ncSOS, 3-2 vRRO) Longshots
    8) Wilmington (14-6, 10-4 OAC, 0.534 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS, 3-5 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    9) Baldwin_Wallace (14-7, 8-6 OAC, 0.524 SOS, 0.486 ncSOS, 0-7 vRRO) Longshots
    NR) Albion (15-5, 8-2 MIAA, 0.480 SOS, 0.513 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO) MIAA favorite
    NR) Hanover (14-5, 11-3 HCAC, 0.499 SOS, 0.507 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) HCAC favorite
    NR) St._Vincent (16-3, 11-1 PAC, 0.456 SOS, 0.471 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) PAC favorite

    Central region
    1) Augustana (20-2, 12-1 CCIW, 0.547 SOS, 0.509 ncSOS, 4-2 vRRO) CCIW favorite
    2) UW-Oshkosh (20-1, 10-0 WIAC, 0.530 SOS, 0.467 ncSOS, 4-1 vRRO) WIAC favorite
    3) North_Central_(Ill.) (18-3, 10-2 CCIW, 0.517 SOS, 0.443 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO) Bubble-out
    4) Wheaton_(Ill.) (16-6, 9-4 CCIW, 0.557 SOS, 0.594 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO) Bubble-out
    5) UW-La_Crosse (15-6, 8-2 WIAC, 0.589 SOS, 0.538 ncSOS, 5-2 vRRO) Bubble-out
    6) UW-Stevens_Point (14-6, 6-4 WIAC, 0.585 SOS, 0.563 ncSOS, 1-5 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    7) UW-Whitewater (14-7, 3-7 WIAC, 0.576 SOS, 0.517 ncSOS, 2-5 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    8) Chicago (13-7, 6-3 UAA, 0.558 SOS, 0.559 ncSOS, 3-0 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    NR) Greenville (14-6, 11-2 SLIAC, 0.443 SOS, 0.490 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) SLIAC favorite
    NR) MSOE (19-2, 14-2 NACC, 0.451 SOS, 0.361 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) NACC favorite
    NR) St._Norbert (16-6, 14-1 MWC, 0.500 SOS, 0.605 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) MWC favorite

    West region
    1) Nebraska_Wesleyan (20-1, 11-1 ARC, 0.582 SOS, 0.567 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO) ARC favorite
    2) Whitman (20-1, 12-0 NWC, 0.563 SOS, 0.569 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO) NWC favorite
    3) St._Thomas (20-1, 16-0 MIAC, 0.518 SOS, 0.560 ncSOS, 2-0 vRRO) MIAC favorite
    4) Loras (17-5, 9-4 ARC, 0.598 SOS, 0.576 ncSOS, 3-3 vRRO) Strong contenders
    5) Pomona-Pitzer (17-1, 12-0 SCIAC, 0.489 SOS, 0.526 ncSOS, 1-0 vRRO) SCIAC favorite
    6) St._John's (17-4, 13-3 MIAC, 0.528 SOS, 0.553 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO) Bubble-out
    7) Whitworth (17-4, 9-3 NWC, 0.528 SOS, 0.490 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) Bubble-out
    8) Wartburg (12-6, 8-4 ARC, 0.583 SOS, 0.543 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    NR) Northwestern_(Minn.) (15-6, 11-1 UMAC, 0.454 SOS, 0.458 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) UMAC favorite
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 06, 2019, 09:32:56 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 06, 2019, 08:51:51 PM
    Maybe the most interesting thing from today's first set of NCAA rankings is La Roche (19-2, 14-0 AMCC, .505 SOS, .551 ncSOS) being ranked 3rd in the Great Lakes, ahead of OAC leader Capital (17-4, 12-2 OAC, .530 SOS, beat Marietta twice) and Wabash.  La Roche is a good team in my opinion, but hasn't beaten anyone except AMCC rival Penn State-Behrend (18-3, .467 SOS).

    When I ran my numbers on this region, I got (in order) the top six that the NCAA ended up with (Marietta, Wooster, La Roche, Capital, Wabash, Wittenberg) but thought there's no way that the committee will put LRC 3rd without any quality wins.  Upon looking at head-to-head numbers, I ended up with Capital #1 and LRC #6, but it's as if the head-to-head didn't matter at all (yet).

    I noticed that the regional rankings have a similarity to Massey, which I'm guessing uses a somewhat similar methodology to your numbers?

    But Marietta just lost at Mount Union, so they could well be 4th now. I feel like the top few in this region were pretty tightly packed. And Mount Union could be above Wabash and Wittenberg.

    West just looks better and better.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2019, 01:17:51 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 06, 2019, 07:21:41 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 06, 2019, 04:33:08 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 06, 2019, 03:18:42 PM
    New England has the most schools of any region, right? I have no idea whether the region receives a disproportionate number of bids, but part of the reason there are so many bids from New England is that there are so many New England D3 leagues and programs.  And in any given year, typically 3-4 NESCAC (sometimes more, only rarely fewer) teams will be among the top teams in the region.  And New England (certainly since 2003) has represented itself well as a region once in the tournament, it's not like New England teams (as opposed to some other regions) are flaming out as soon as they face other quality teams (four national champs and four more second place finishes, plus a bunch more Final Four appearances, from the region in the past 15 years).  Honestly, to the extent New England has an advantage, it's that the other east coast leagues (who they play in the regionals, typically) other than NESCAC, ODAC and NEWMAC haven't been very strong in postseason play over the past decade or so ... NJAC in particular, which is still solid but used to be a true powerhouse, and some of the Mid-Atlantic programs, some of which used to be a bit stronger I believe.

    I posted something about it a year on page 518 of this thread.  The Northeast has received  25% of the Pool C bids being something like 18% of D3.  Not wildly disproportionate, but a little disproportionate over an 11 year span for sure.

    I didn't see that, but...

    That's a LOT disproportionate! That's like a 39% point overindex (if you got 18% as 18% of the schools, that would be 100).

    But they come from one conference, mainly. The NESCAC. The rest of the region doesn't exactly get extra bids. The NEWMAC is about the only other one that - one year - seemed to get an extra bid. Remove the NESCAC altogether and the Northeast is just like any other region. Actually, it's probably in a worst position because numbers in the Northeast outside of the NESCAC are average at best.

    The NESCAC skews things and thus throws numbers off.

    Where as in the Central, a lot of their extra selections come thanks to the WIAC and CCIW.

    The Northeast has two "power" conferences and one tends to get extra selections.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 07, 2019, 01:41:25 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 06, 2019, 09:32:56 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 06, 2019, 08:51:51 PM
    Maybe the most interesting thing from today's first set of NCAA rankings is La Roche (19-2, 14-0 AMCC, .505 SOS, .551 ncSOS) being ranked 3rd in the Great Lakes, ahead of OAC leader Capital (17-4, 12-2 OAC, .530 SOS, beat Marietta twice) and Wabash.  La Roche is a good team in my opinion, but hasn't beaten anyone except AMCC rival Penn State-Behrend (18-3, .467 SOS).

    When I ran my numbers on this region, I got (in order) the top six that the NCAA ended up with (Marietta, Wooster, La Roche, Capital, Wabash, Wittenberg) but thought there's no way that the committee will put LRC 3rd without any quality wins.  Upon looking at head-to-head numbers, I ended up with Capital #1 and LRC #6, but it's as if the head-to-head didn't matter at all (yet).

    I noticed that the regional rankings have a similarity to Massey, which I'm guessing uses a somewhat similar methodology to your numbers?

    But Marietta just lost at Mount Union, so they could well be 4th now. I feel like the top few in this region were pretty tightly packed. And Mount Union could be above Wabash and Wittenberg.

    West just looks better and better.

    Yes, the Massey ratings and my power rankings have some similarity in methodology, and both are designed to highlight the best teams (in future games), not the most accomplished resumes.  However, my mock regional rankings are an attempt to forecast the committee picks, based on their criteria.

    Mount could be closing on Witt after last night, but Wabash should still be ahead of Mount, based on SOS.  Mount could get to the bubble by winning out except for the OAC final.  The sub-.500 SOS won't help UMU, and their .412 non-conf. SOS is awful.

    If Witt won out except the NCAC final, they would almost certainly get in, as they still yet play Wooster & Wabash again, then potentially both a 3rd time in the NCAC tourney.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 07, 2019, 01:42:20 PM
    I come up with Northeast Region without the NESCAC as 15% of D3, they've received 13.8% of Pool C's.  Slightly under, but none of the remaining are a "power conference", so probably normal or expected distribution.



    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 07, 2019, 03:33:26 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=mkm2d/olxm2z8cvr2ss6t7.jpg)

    Thursday night's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) will be an extended version of the show to cover both the conclusion of the UW Stevens Point men's basketball investigation and our normal programming this time of the season.

    The show will begin with continuing coverage of the UW Stevens Point case that finally wrapped up after more than three-and-a-half years. Athletics Director Brad Duckworth will join us for an exclusive, in-depth, interview about the case, the findings, the punishments, and what it all means for UWSP and the basketball program.

    We will then shift into what would be a normal Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) episode talking to teams that are making headlines in the final month of the season. Not only are teams surging, but with Regional Rankings now out the focus on who may be in or may be out of the NCAA Tournament starts to come into focus.

    In the WBCA Center Court segment, Dave will also talk with a women's assistant coach who is turning heads not only in the program, but also in the conference and around the country.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com (https://www.d3hoops.com) and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Thursday's extended show starting at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2SyWv6X (or video Facebook Live and Periscope simulcasts).

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options below.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Brad Duckworth, UW Stevens Point Athletics Director
    - Lauren Hayden, Lynchburg women's assistant coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Juli Fulks, No. 21 Transylvania women's coach
    - John Krikorian, No. 16 Christopher Newport men's coach
    - Chris Downs, St. Lawrence men's coach
    - Bob Amsberry, No. 15 Wartburg women's coach

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 07, 2019, 07:51:06 PM
    Here's a blog post on at-large bids based on some Excel spreadsheet nerd fun I did last night.

    http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2019/02/07/ncaa-regional-rankings-the-dry-run-that-isnt/

    If anyone wants the spreadsheet, let me know. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 07, 2019, 09:09:49 PM
    Nicely done, Gordon. Thanks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 07, 2019, 09:31:01 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 07, 2019, 09:09:49 PM
    Nicely done, Gordon. Thanks.
    Yes and +1!

    We on the island of Texas are grateful that the committee recognized the strength of LeTourneau last year who beat Hanover, 85-77 in the first round and lost at host Emory 83-82 in round 2.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 07, 2019, 10:01:05 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 07, 2019, 07:51:06 PM
    Here's a blog post on at-large bids based on some Excel spreadsheet nerd fun I did last night.

    http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2019/02/07/ncaa-regional-rankings-the-dry-run-that-isnt/

    If anyone wants the spreadsheet, let me know. :)

    +1 Good stuff!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: monsoon on February 07, 2019, 10:22:02 PM
    Thanks, Gordon!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 07, 2019, 11:19:42 PM
     Well done, Gordon.
      I'll call it the Columbo effect - instead of just finding something(average position in a region to get a Pool C) that shouldn't have been at the scene of the crime, you went 180 degrees and also found something that should have been there but wasn't(the high probability that unranked in week 1 leads to nonselection for Pool C).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: middhoops on February 08, 2019, 09:43:54 AM
    "The Columbo Effect".  LOVE it.
    Well described.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 09, 2019, 11:54:55 AM
    Just found & fixed an issue with my post from Wednesday evening, in that (here and on the website) teams that with a "bubble-in" status were listed as "bubble-out".  Here's the updated version, through Friday's games.  Teams are listed in order of current NCAA regional rankings.

    Northeast region
    1) MIT (20-2, 10-1 NEWMAC, 0.563 SOS, 0.550 ncSOS, 2-0 vRRO) NEWMAC favorite
    2) Williams (19-4, 6-3 NESCAC, 0.585 SOS, 0.536 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) Locks & near-locks
    3) Nichols (20-2, 12-1 CCC, 0.517 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO) CCC favorite
    4) Middlebury (17-5, 7-2 NESCAC, 0.598 SOS, 0.577 ncSOS, 2-4 vRRO) Locks & near-locks
    5) Gordon (20-2, 12-1 CCC, 0.490 SOS, 0.522 ncSOS, 1-1 vRRO) Strong contenders
    6) Hamilton (19-3, 5-3 NESCAC, 0.529 SOS, 0.486 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO) Strong contenders
    7) Eastern_Connecticut (17-5, 11-2 LEC, 0.547 SOS, 0.563 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO) LEC favorite
    8) Wesleyan (15-8, 5-4 NESCAC, 0.609 SOS, 0.577 ncSOS, 5-5 vRRO) Bubble-out
    9) WPI (17-5, 8-3 NEWMAC, 0.546 SOS, 0.530 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) Bubble-out
    10) Keene_State (16-7, 11-3 LEC, 0.565 SOS, 0.642 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO) Bubble-out
    11) Amherst (19-3, 6-2 NESCAC, 0.531 SOS, 0.457 ncSOS, 4-1 vRRO) NESCAC favorite
    NR) Maine-Farmington (14-7, 11-1 NAC, 0.463 SOS, 0.537 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) NAC favorite
    NR) New_England_College (18-3, 13-1 NECC, 0.440 SOS, 0.419 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) NECC favorite
    NR) Salem_State (15-8, 9-1 MASCAC, 0.537 SOS, 0.608 ncSOS, 0-5 vRRO) MASCAC favorite
    NR) Suffolk (15-6, 6-1 GNAC, 0.455 SOS, 0.450 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) GNAC favorite

    East region
    1) Oswego_State (18-3, 13-1 SUNYAC, 0.515 SOS, 0.525 ncSOS, 5-2 vRRO) SUNYAC favorite
    2) Plattsburgh_State (18-4, 12-3 SUNYAC, 0.521 SOS, 0.534 ncSOS, 4-4 vRRO) Bubble-in
    3) Rochester (17-4, 7-3 UAA, 0.533 SOS, 0.495 ncSOS, 6-1 vRRO) Bubble-in
    4) Nazareth (16-5, 10-2 E8, 0.518 SOS, 0.538 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) Longshots
    5) St._Lawrence (15-7, 12-3 LL, 0.527 SOS, 0.609 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) not a Pool C candidate
    6) Brockport (13-8, 9-5 SUNYAC, 0.550 SOS, 0.579 ncSOS, 2-4 vRRO) Longshots
    7) Cortland (15-5, 9-5 SUNYAC, 0.507 SOS, 0.460 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) Longshots
    8) Hobart (13-9, 10-5 LL, 0.536 SOS, 0.587 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO) not a Pool C candidate
    NR) Alfred (14-4, 9-2 E8, 0.463 SOS, 0.444 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) E8 favorite
    NR) Morrisville_State (16-4, 11-1 NEAC, 0.479 SOS, 0.499 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) NEAC favorite
    NR) Skidmore (14-6, 12-3 LL, 0.540 SOS, 0.608 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) LL favorite

    Atlantic region
    1) New_Jersey_City (18-5, 13-3 NJAC, 0.546 SOS, 0.553 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) NJAC favorite
    2) Rowan (16-6, 11-5 NJAC, 0.556 SOS, 0.569 ncSOS, 6-2 vRRO) Bubble-in
    3) Ramapo (16-7, 10-6 NJAC, 0.550 SOS, 0.605 ncSOS, 5-3 vRRO) Bubble-out
    4) Montclair_State (14-9, 9-7 NJAC, 0.556 SOS, 0.542 ncSOS, 2-6 vRRO) not a Pool C candidate
    5) DeSales (16-5, 9-2 MACF, 0.496 SOS, 0.519 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) MACF favorite
    6) Yeshiva (16-5, 14-2 SKY, 0.474 SOS, 0.525 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO) SKY favorite
    7) Baruch (18-5, 12-2 CUNYAC, 0.448 SOS, 0.464 ncSOS, 1-0 vRRO) CUNYAC favorite
    8) Farmingdale_State (15-7, 13-4 SKY, 0.491 SOS, 0.581 ncSOS, 0-4 vRRO) not a Pool C candidate
    NR) Cairn (16-6, 9-0 CSAC, 0.388 SOS, 0.400 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) CSAC favorite
    NR) Gwynedd_Mercy (16-7, 8-2 AEC, 0.488 SOS, 0.488 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) AEC favorite

    Mid-Atlantic region
    1) Swarthmore (19-3, 12-3 CC, 0.553 SOS, 0.605 ncSOS, 4-1 vRRO) CC favorite
    2) Christopher_Newport (19-3, 9-2 CAC, 0.534 SOS, 0.512 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) CAC favorite
    3) Salisbury (16-6, 6-5 CAC, 0.573 SOS, 0.561 ncSOS, 4-5 vRRO) Bubble-in
    4) Arcadia (19-3, 13-0 MACC, 0.524 SOS, 0.569 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO) MACC favorite
    5) York_(Pa.) (16-6, 9-2 CAC, 0.558 SOS, 0.522 ncSOS, 4-4 vRRO) Bubble-in
    6) Mary_Washington (15-7, 7-4 CAC, 0.557 SOS, 0.527 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    7) Johns_Hopkins (14-8, 11-4 CC, 0.556 SOS, 0.640 ncSOS, 2-4 vRRO) Longshots
    8) Scranton (18-4, 7-4 LAND, 0.519 SOS, 0.499 ncSOS, 2-0 vRRO) Bubble-in
    NR) Drew (17-5, 9-2 LAND, 0.518 SOS, 0.506 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) LAND favorite

    South region
    1) Randolph-Macon (21-2, 13-1 ODAC, 0.536 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS, 3-2 vRRO) ODAC favorite
    2) Centre (18-3, 11-1 SAA, 0.523 SOS, 0.545 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) SAA favorite
    3) Emory (17-4, 8-2 UAA, 0.575 SOS, 0.553 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO) UAA favorite
    4) Guilford (16-6, 10-3 ODAC, 0.519 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    5) Mary_Hardin-Baylor (17-5, 8-5 ASC, 0.517 SOS, 0.511 ncSOS, 1-0 vRRO) Bubble-out
    6) Lynchburg (18-5, 9-5 ODAC, 0.518 SOS, 0.450 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO) Longshots
    7) Emory_and_Henry (15-7, 8-5 ODAC, 0.546 SOS, 0.534 ncSOS, 0-4 vRRO) Longshots
    8) Texas-Dallas (17-4, 11-3 ASC, 0.486 SOS, 0.471 ncSOS, 1-1 vRRO) ASC favorite
    NR) Covenant (12-7, 14-0 USAC, 0.525 SOS, 0.600 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) USAC favorite
    NR) Texas_Lutheran (15-5, 10-1 SCAC, 0.496 SOS, 0.564 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) SCAC favorite

    Great Lakes region
    1) Marietta (18-4, 12-3 OAC, 0.556 SOS, 0.580 ncSOS, 6-3 vRRO) Locks & near-locks
    2) Wooster (19-3, 14-1 NCAC, 0.525 SOS, 0.547 ncSOS, 3-2 vRRO) NCAC favorite
    3) La_Roche (20-2, 15-0 AMCC, 0.505 SOS, 0.550 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) AMCC favorite
    4) Capital (18-4, 13-2 OAC, 0.521 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS, 5-1 vRRO) OAC favorite
    5) Wabash (16-4, 12-3 NCAC, 0.525 SOS, 0.496 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO) Bubble-in
    6) Wittenberg (16-5, 11-4 NCAC, 0.513 SOS, 0.532 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) Bubble-out
    7) Mount_Union (18-4, 12-3 OAC, 0.496 SOS, 0.410 ncSOS, 4-2 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    8) Wilmington (15-6, 11-4 OAC, 0.526 SOS, 0.501 ncSOS, 3-5 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    9) Baldwin_Wallace (15-7, 9-6 OAC, 0.524 SOS, 0.492 ncSOS, 0-7 vRRO) not a Pool C candidate
    NR) Albion (16-5, 9-2 MIAA, 0.469 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO) MIAA favorite
    NR) Hanover (15-5, 12-3 HCAC, 0.497 SOS, 0.508 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) HCAC favorite
    NR) St._Vincent (16-4, 11-2 PAC, 0.441 SOS, 0.469 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) PAC favorite
    NR) Thomas_More (10-7, 0-0 IND, 0.490 SOS, 0.488 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO) IND favorite

    Central region
    1) Augustana (21-2, 13-1 CCIW, 0.554 SOS, 0.516 ncSOS, 5-2 vRRO) CCIW favorite
    2) UW-Oshkosh (21-1, 11-0 WIAC, 0.533 SOS, 0.467 ncSOS, 4-1 vRRO) WIAC favorite
    3) North_Central_(Ill.) (18-4, 10-3 CCIW, 0.522 SOS, 0.448 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO) Bubble-out
    4) Wheaton_(Ill.) (16-7, 9-5 CCIW, 0.570 SOS, 0.595 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO) Bubble-out
    5) UW-La_Crosse (15-7, 8-3 WIAC, 0.584 SOS, 0.538 ncSOS, 5-2 vRRO) Bubble-out
    6) UW-Stevens_Point (15-6, 7-4 WIAC, 0.590 SOS, 0.567 ncSOS, 2-5 vRRO) Bubble-out
    7) UW-Whitewater (14-8, 3-8 WIAC, 0.578 SOS, 0.518 ncSOS, 2-6 vRRO) not a Pool C candidate
    8) Chicago (13-8, 6-4 UAA, 0.564 SOS, 0.556 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO) Longshots
    NR) Greenville (15-6, 12-2 SLIAC, 0.444 SOS, 0.479 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO) SLIAC favorite
    NR) MSOE (19-3, 14-3 NACC, 0.459 SOS, 0.361 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) NACC favorite
    NR) St._Norbert (16-6, 14-1 MWC, 0.502 SOS, 0.610 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO) MWC favorite

    West region
    1) Nebraska_Wesleyan (21-1, 12-1 ARC, 0.576 SOS, 0.558 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO) ARC favorite
    2) Whitman (21-1, 13-0 NWC, 0.565 SOS, 0.571 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO) NWC favorite
    3) St._Thomas (21-1, 17-0 MIAC, 0.520 SOS, 0.570 ncSOS, 2-0 vRRO) MIAC favorite
    4) Loras (17-5, 9-4 ARC, 0.594 SOS, 0.573 ncSOS, 3-3 vRRO) Strong contenders
    5) Pomona-Pitzer (17-1, 12-0 SCIAC, 0.489 SOS, 0.530 ncSOS, 1-0 vRRO) SCIAC favorite
    6) St._John's (18-4, 14-3 MIAC, 0.518 SOS, 0.537 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO) Bubble-in
    7) Whitworth (18-4, 10-3 NWC, 0.531 SOS, 0.487 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO) Bubble-out
    8) Wartburg (13-6, 9-4 ARC, 0.569 SOS, 0.537 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO) Fringe contenders
    NR) Northwestern_(Minn.) (16-6, 12-1 UMAC, 0.454 SOS, 0.463 ncSOS, 0-0 vRRO) UMAC favorite
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 09, 2019, 12:25:33 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 07, 2019, 07:51:06 PM
    Here's a blog post on at-large bids based on some Excel spreadsheet nerd fun I did last night.

    http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2019/02/07/ncaa-regional-rankings-the-dry-run-that-isnt/

    If anyone wants the spreadsheet, let me know. :)

    I read this quite a bit differently from some others.

    It does completely bust the Dave-splain myth that this is a dry run and doesn't matter, don't get too excited over it, etc. Of course it matters. It matters on its own merit, and it also matters in that it sets psychological parameters.

    But...I actually read this as two things:
    1. Validates my idea that for the most part if you're the top ranked Pool C team in your region, you're in good shape (unless your region just isn't very deep), and if you're not, you better get to work. I think the average rankings for the most part show that.

    2. Being lower in the RRs is worse than being higher, but if you're in it, you're still well in it. And the trend is toward being more willing to change, not less. Most of the lowest bid recipients are from 2017 or 2018. I would be interested to know how many total Pool C bids went to teams ranked 5th or below (7th or below might be another informative bucket) in the first RRs by region. I think that might well be more instructive than just "were you in or were you not".

    Not related to the above:
    27 at-large bids for the Northeast in 5 years is just ridiculous. It's not even the best region, let alone the best by almost double.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 09, 2019, 12:34:32 PM
    To fantastic50 (just don't want to quote the whole rankings post),

    Thanks for the update. I was confused but figured I just didn't understand what was going on, which happens often enough haha.

    I'm not sure Hamilton is really such a strong contender anymore. I think they really need a win, and Williams will really want one to stay in top 2 position which I'm not sure they will but I think they're likely to fall out if they lose.

    It will be very interesting to see what the committee does with cases like Amherst and Mount Union, teams with poor schedules but they do have some regionally ranked games and the results have been good, and they got good wins already this week.

    OTOH, I think the GL will be interesting too bc it looks to me like Marietta is a classic team whose numbers look better than they actually are. 6-3 vRRO is really misleading when you dig into those results. Lost 2 to Cap, beat LaRoche at home, split with Mount, beat Wilmington (and I think they'll get a dogfight today against them), beat BW twice who have 0 wins vRRO. Even if they win today I think they're a paper tiger, and if they lose today they may well have work to do to be a Pool C selection (given that Pool C means they took a conference tourney loss). I think they're more in the category with Williams as sort of "good but not that good and not so good that they should be a lock".

    Speaking of Williams:
    Wins vs. Yeshiva, Montclair, and 2 vs. Wesleyan who probably won't be in the next regional ranking. Not that impressive, y'all.
    Ls vs. Amherst, Amherst, Middlebury.

    Hamilton's 1 vRRO win is Keene State. Also nothing special at all, and they'll actually benefit from Wesleyan falling out bc they lost to them. If they were from any other league you'd laugh at the idea of them being a Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 09, 2019, 12:48:31 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 09, 2019, 12:25:33 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 07, 2019, 07:51:06 PM
    Here's a blog post on at-large bids based on some Excel spreadsheet nerd fun I did last night.

    http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2019/02/07/ncaa-regional-rankings-the-dry-run-that-isnt/

    If anyone wants the spreadsheet, let me know. :)
    Not related to the above:
    27 at-large bids for the Northeast in 5 years is just ridiculous. It's not even the best region, let alone the best by almost double.

    Not really commenting on much here, but it raises the question, why not move a conference from the overcrowded NE to the empty East? They seem geographically close enough that this wouldn't be too much of move. The NE has the most at large bids because they have the most teams, and I understand the percentage of teams the NE has and the percentage of at-large bids the NE does not lineup... but would this help things at all?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2019, 01:11:01 PM
    So based on the statement I've been seeing, "they've removed the SOS/.700 WP% comparison" does this mean the .700 WP% trumps the SOS every time? I guess I don't really understand that statement that they are removing that comparison.  ??? ??? ???
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 09, 2019, 03:12:01 PM
    Before, if Team A had a record two games better than Team B (e.g. 24-3 vs 22-5) but Team B had the higher SOS by .03 (e.g. .512 for A and .542 for B), then these two teams would be considered about the same, if all other things were equal.  That "2 wins = .030 SOS" guideline is no longer in place.  However, based on last week's rankings, I think that it still provides a decent estimate of the relative value of WP versus SOS.

    The .700 WP issue is a different matter, and only unofficial.  In general, it was tough to get a Pool C berth with a WP < .700 (and nearly impossible with WP < .667), regardless of how tough the schedule was.  Similarly, it was hard to get a Pool C with an SOS < .510 (and very difficult with SOS < .500).  The exception was UW-O in 2017, with a 17-10 record (.630 WP) and an a crazy SOS of over .600, because of playing a brutal WIAC schedule plus good non-conference opponents.

    The early numbers this year make me think that the committee is less attached to arbitrary cutoff values such as a .700 WP or a .510 SOS, but those were never official standards to begin with.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 09, 2019, 04:38:03 PM
    Amherst wins again.

    How close to the worst mistake in regional rankings history must that be?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 09, 2019, 04:58:29 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 09, 2019, 12:34:32 PM
    (snip)
    It will be very interesting to see what the committee does with cases like Amherst and Mount Union, teams with poor schedules but they do have some regionally ranked games and the results have been good, and they got good wins already this week.

    OTOH, I think the GL will be interesting too bc it looks to me like Marietta is a classic team whose numbers look better than they actually are.
    (snip)
    I think they're more in the category with Williams as sort of "good but not that good and not so good that they should be a lock".

    This is me quoting me because this is just how ****ing brilliant I am.

    If you recall I was on Williams being overrated weeks ago and caught a lot of heat for it.

    On. Point (not the cheating kind).

    I welcome your neg karmas.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 09, 2019, 06:13:40 PM
    Sigh...the nation's longest winning streak comes to an end with Augsburg beating St. Thomas.

    Deserved, on balance, and to be honest Augsburg deserves to be regionally ranked and in Pool C consideration. Lot of talent in that lineup.

    Going to be a long conversation among the committee about the bottom half of the West rankings, I suspect.

    Serious question, does a team have to be regionally ranked to get a Pool C bid? Seems clear to me that St. John's, Whitworth and Augsburg deserve to be ranked until proven otherwise, and if the score in Wartburg holds up, they do as well. But no one deserves to fall out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 09, 2019, 08:12:55 PM
     My understanding is that there are multiple teams ranked in each region over and above those that are publicly released such that they are available for the pool C selection process, if warranted.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2019, 01:00:47 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 09, 2019, 12:25:33 PM
    It does completely bust the Dave-splain myth that this is a dry run and doesn't matter, don't get too excited over it, etc. Of course it matters. It matters on its own merit, and it also matters in that it sets psychological parameters.

    LOL at Dave-splain. But in this case, this isn't something that Dave promulgates in a vacuum -- the committee feels the same way.

    Here's the thing -- regardless of whether RROs are included in the first ranking, the general idea is sound. If you're not good enough to make the top 8, 9, 11, whatever in your region at the end of January, you aren't likely to be one of the top two or three at-large candidates in your region come selection time. (And, even then, it's not impossible.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2019, 04:25:50 PM
    My point about the first week's don't mean much is a comment about it at the end ... considering the data is no longer used after Week 2 (i.e. "once ranked always ranked; the Week is too far removed for the vRRO data at the end), then the week doesn't mean much for this season.

    I didn't say it doesn't mean a damn bit in regards of if you are or are not ranked. I think what Gordon has found in the last three years (just three as of now) fascinating. You certainly want to be ranked. However, you are confusing my comments about vRRO data and how Week 1 impacts that data and the rest of the rankings to what Gordon has found. I find those things separate and different.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2019, 04:25:57 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=mq8fp/w04a4ehynkbwuptp.jpg)

    The 2018-19 season has entered it's final weeks. For some teams, their final games are this week. For others, they are fighting to hopefully still be playing next week and maybe beyond. While others hope their season stretches into March, as long as they take care of business this week and next.

    The season can really all boil down to a couple of games. While November is just as important, February games seem to have a different feel to them. Regional Rankings coming out gives everyone a new sense of where they stand if they have postseason plans. Conference tournaments getting ready to start also gives gives teams more incentive to lock up seedings or berths.

    As a result: A lot of craziness and games to watch on any given night.

    On Sunday's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave and guests try and take the temperature of these final few weeks. Who has turned heads, who seems to be stumbling down the stretch, and who should we be talking about while we've been distracted by the usual suspects.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Sunday's show starts at 7:00 p.m. ET right here: http://bit.ly/2GkK7C6 (or video Facebook Live and Periscope simulcasts).

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options below.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Ashlee Rogers, Marymount women's coach
    - Kristina Baugh, Mass-Boston women's coach
    - Jarred Samples, UDallas men's coach and national committee member (NABC Coach's Corner)
    - John Thompson, North Carolina Wesleyan men's coach
    - Bob Quillman, IWUHoops.com (Central Region)
    - Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com Senior Writer (Top 25 Double-Take with Quillman)

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2019, 04:33:53 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 09, 2019, 12:48:31 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 09, 2019, 12:25:33 PM
    Quote from: gordonmann on February 07, 2019, 07:51:06 PM
    Here's a blog post on at-large bids based on some Excel spreadsheet nerd fun I did last night.

    http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2019/02/07/ncaa-regional-rankings-the-dry-run-that-isnt/

    If anyone wants the spreadsheet, let me know. :)
    Not related to the above:
    27 at-large bids for the Northeast in 5 years is just ridiculous. It's not even the best region, let alone the best by almost double.

    Not really commenting on much here, but it raises the question, why not move a conference from the overcrowded NE to the empty East? They seem geographically close enough that this wouldn't be too much of move. The NE has the most at large bids because they have the most teams, and I understand the percentage of teams the NE has and the percentage of at-large bids the NE does not lineup... but would this help things at all?

    This was tried when the regions were realligned a number of years ago ... and it proved to be impossible. If you look at how the conferences are made up geographically, you will see they have strong roots in the Northeast. You would have to removed a conference to the East or Atlantic that still has teams located in Boston and deeper into New England. It just doesn't really work.

    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2019, 01:11:01 PM
    So based on the statement I've been seeing, "they've removed the SOS/.700 WP% comparison" does this mean the .700 WP% trumps the SOS every time? I guess I don't really understand that statement that they are removing that comparison.  ??? ??? ???

    Not sure where the .700% got into this mix when describing the metric used by the committee over the years regarding SOS and WL%.

    The NCAA told the MBB national committee to remove the SOS to WL% tool they were using several years. The tool that would adjust for every .030 different in the SOS the WL numbers by two games (Ws or Ls depending on the situation). That sometimes went further to .060 and four games.

    That has nothing to do with .700%. That number has originated for quite some time as what the national committee has hinted at as being somewhat of a Mendoza Line when it comes to at-large teams. If a team was below .700%, the thinking was they weren't going to get an at-large bid no matter what the other criteria said. UW-Oshkosh was an exception a number of years ago, controversially, because their SOS was so ridiculously high despite a 17-10 (.629%) record. Using that tool described above, UW-Oshkosh got their WL numbers to come back to a far more "normal" level and got selected to the tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 10, 2019, 06:30:01 PM
    We have two great mathematical looks at Pool C...

    * Drew Pasteur (aka Fantastic50) - http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_top.html

    * Matt Snyder (aka KnightSlappy) - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    Pool Cs they agree on (15)
    Williams
    Marietta
    Loras
    Middlebury
    Hamilton
    Plattsburgh State
    Rowan
    Wheaton
    Rochester
    St. John's
    Salisbury
    York (Pa.)
    Keene State
    Whitworth
    Wesleyan

    Drew Has (5)
    Gordon (9)
    Wittenberg (13)
    Wabash (15)
    Scranton (17)
    Mary Hardin-Baylor (18)

    Matt Has (5)
    UW-Stevens Point (6)
    UW-La Crosse (14)
    Illinois Wesleyan (16)
    Colby (19)
    Wartburg (20)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: augie77 on February 10, 2019, 07:12:47 PM
    I'll say this, so our Titan friends won't invoke the ridicule of Mr. Sager.  If a respected analyst like Matt Snyder sees Illinois Wesleyan as a Pool C, they can officially maintain a glimmer of hope that IWU will be selected to the tournament.  Personally I think it's unlikely, but those CCIW fans wearing green can legitimately dream.  As an Augustana fan I wouldn't be happy facing the Titans for a third (or fourth?) time this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 10, 2019, 07:32:38 PM
    Quote from: augie77 on February 10, 2019, 07:12:47 PM
    I'll say this, so our Titan friends won't invoke the ridicule of Mr. Sager.  If a respected analyst like Matt Snyder sees Illinois Wesleyan as a Pool C, they can officially maintain a glimmer of hope that IWU will be selected to the tournament.  Personally I think it's unlikely, but those CCIW fans wearing green can legitimately dream.  As an Augustana fan I wouldn't be happy facing the Titans for a third (or fourth?) time this season.

    Thanks augie77!

    Despite the vote of confidence from Matt Snyder (KnightSlappy), I would still be very surprised it if happened.  But with BOTH analysts now having Wheaton safely in, I have figured out how the CCIW can get three teams in:  the winner of Elmhurst/IWU (which I obviously hope is IWU ;D) upsets Augie on their home court in the semis, then downs Wheaton in the final.

    I'm not sure whether Wheaton would still be in with a semi-final loss, but reaching the final should solidify their position.  Augie would obviously still make it with a loss in the semis, though some poor 'bubble' team would be quite unhappy.

    Another factor to remember: both analysts have current conference leaders removed as Pool A, but conference tourneys NEVER go 100% by the book - SOME of these predicted Cs are gonna get bounced; it's just a matter of how many.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 10, 2019, 07:50:58 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 10, 2019, 07:32:38 PM
    Another factor to remember: both analysts have current conference leaders removed as Pool A, but conference tourneys NEVER go 100% by the book - SOME of these predicted Cs are gonna get bounced; it's just a matter of how many.

    I am predicting five "bid thieves" (or "bubble busters") at the moment, which is why my cut line is after the 15th Pool C berth. This would leave Wabash, Scranton, UMHB, Whitworth, & Wesleyan out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 10, 2019, 08:20:21 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 10, 2019, 07:50:58 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 10, 2019, 07:32:38 PM
    Another factor to remember: both analysts have current conference leaders removed as Pool A, but conference tourneys NEVER go 100% by the book - SOME of these predicted Cs are gonna get bounced; it's just a matter of how many.

    I am predicting five "bid thieves" (or "bubble busters") at the moment, which is why my cut line is after the 15th Pool C berth. This would leave Wabash, Scranton, UMHB, Whitworth, & Wesleyan out.

    Hopefully, Scranton will be 1 of those bubble busters, instead.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 10, 2019, 10:06:45 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 10, 2019, 07:50:58 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 10, 2019, 07:32:38 PM
    Another factor to remember: both analysts have current conference leaders removed as Pool A, but conference tourneys NEVER go 100% by the book - SOME of these predicted Cs are gonna get bounced; it's just a matter of how many.

    I am predicting five "bid thieves" (or "bubble busters") at the moment, which is why my cut line is after the 15th Pool C berth. This would leave Wabash, Scranton, UMHB, Whitworth, & Wesleyan out.

    Agree.  5 is always my assumed "bubble bursters" aka "bid thieves" number.

    So whatever the right order is currently, 1-20, of Pool Cs...if you are 16-20 you are in huge trouble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 10, 2019, 10:07:54 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2019, 01:00:47 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 09, 2019, 12:25:33 PM
    It does completely bust the Dave-splain myth that this is a dry run and doesn't matter, don't get too excited over it, etc. Of course it matters. It matters on its own merit, and it also matters in that it sets psychological parameters.

    LOL at Dave-splain. But in this case, this isn't something that Dave promulgates in a vacuum -- the committee feels the same way.

    Here's the thing -- regardless of whether RROs are included in the first ranking, the general idea is sound. If you're not good enough to make the top 8, 9, 11, whatever in your region at the end of January, you aren't likely to be one of the top two or three at-large candidates in your region come selection time. (And, even then, it's not impossible.)

    Promulgates? Please, I'm a numbers guy. Promulgates sounds like something you might do when prom night didn't go as you planned.

    Basically, and if Gordon wanted to expand on this I would welcome it, my thinking is top 4 in the first RRs (with probably more meaning by ranking, 1 is more meaningful than 2, etc to 4) is pretty meaningful, and anything below that barely is. I think that would be somewhat modified by the strength of the region (4th in the Atlantic is not as meaningful as 4th in the Central).

    Dry run is basically Gordon quoting Dave, and if it was true would mean that these were sort of just practice. Which they clearly aren't, and if the committee ever suggested that, they were probably wrong about their own process, which happens. I do think Dave has given the impression that the first set of RRs aren't worth analyzing and I think clearly Gordon has shown that they are.

    And of course it makes sense that they would have value, I think that's part of the point of what Gordon did.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 10, 2019, 10:17:07 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 10, 2019, 10:07:54 PMPromulgates? Please, I'm a numbers guy. Promulgates sounds like something you might do when prom night didn't go as you planned.

    I like the word "promulgates", but this is pretty funny.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 10, 2019, 10:29:14 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 10, 2019, 07:32:38 PM
    Quote from: augie77 on February 10, 2019, 07:12:47 PM
    I'll say this, so our Titan friends won't invoke the ridicule of Mr. Sager.  If a respected analyst like Matt Snyder sees Illinois Wesleyan as a Pool C, they can officially maintain a glimmer of hope that IWU will be selected to the tournament.  Personally I think it's unlikely, but those CCIW fans wearing green can legitimately dream.  As an Augustana fan I wouldn't be happy facing the Titans for a third (or fourth?) time this season.

    Thanks augie77!

    Despite the vote of confidence from Matt Snyder (KnightSlappy), I would still be very surprised it if happened.  But with BOTH analysts now having Wheaton safely in, I have figured out how the CCIW can get three teams in:  the winner of Elmhurst/IWU (which I obviously hope is IWU ;D) upsets Augie on their home court in the semis, then downs Wheaton in the final.

    I'm not sure whether Wheaton would still be in with a semi-final loss, but reaching the final should solidify their position.  Augie would obviously still make it with a loss in the semis, though some poor 'bubble' team would be quite unhappy.

    Another factor to remember: both analysts have current conference leaders removed as Pool A, but conference tourneys NEVER go 100% by the book - SOME of these predicted Cs are gonna get bounced; it's just a matter of how many.

    I find it *interesting* that one of them has IWU in, and neither have North Central in. I know NC lost twice. But NC still has a better conference record, and I see the difference in the SOS and that, but when you look at *wins*, I don't see it. Yeah IWU played Whitman and Stevens Point, but they didn't win. In a predictive model, losing to Whitman by two certainly matters. But in NCAA selection criteria, it doesn't.

    Obviously, right now NC has a better record against common opponents because they're ahead in a conference with balanced scheduling.

    IWU
    W: Chicago (edit: may still be ranked after today, didn't see that result), NC
    L: Wheaton 2x, Augustana 2x, Whitman, Cheater Point, NC

    NC
    W: Wheaton, Augustana, IWU
    L: Wheaton, Augustana, IWU

    If the committee really looks at everything, and not just a distilled number that's an average...they can't have NC much if at all behind IWU.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2019, 11:08:27 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 10, 2019, 10:07:54 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2019, 01:00:47 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 09, 2019, 12:25:33 PM
    It does completely bust the Dave-splain myth that this is a dry run and doesn't matter, don't get too excited over it, etc. Of course it matters. It matters on its own merit, and it also matters in that it sets psychological parameters.

    LOL at Dave-splain. But in this case, this isn't something that Dave promulgates in a vacuum -- the committee feels the same way.

    Here's the thing -- regardless of whether RROs are included in the first ranking, the general idea is sound. If you're not good enough to make the top 8, 9, 11, whatever in your region at the end of January, you aren't likely to be one of the top two or three at-large candidates in your region come selection time. (And, even then, it's not impossible.)

    Promulgates? Please, I'm a numbers guy. Promulgates sounds like something you might do when prom night didn't go as you planned.

    Basically, and if Gordon wanted to expand on this I would welcome it, my thinking is top 4 in the first RRs (with probably more meaning by ranking, 1 is more meaningful than 2, etc to 4) is pretty meaningful, and anything below that barely is. I think that would be somewhat modified by the strength of the region (4th in the Atlantic is not as meaningful as 4th in the Central).

    Dry run is basically Gordon quoting Dave, and if it was true would mean that these were sort of just practice. Which they clearly aren't, and if the committee ever suggested that, they were probably wrong about their own process, which happens. I do think Dave has given the impression that the first set of RRs aren't worth analyzing and I think clearly Gordon has shown that they are.

    And of course it makes sense that they would have value, I think that's part of the point of what Gordon did.

    You are misquoting or misinterpreting what I have been saying ... despite me already explaining it.

    I'm not sure what Gordon meant by "dry run" because I have not asked them. There are mock rankings done the previous week none of us will ever see, so this is the second go at ranking for the RACs and national committee in the Week 1 rankings.

    My point about the Week 1 rankings not meaning anything is about the vRRO data. That is always what I am talking about when it comes down to this. We have had many scenarios in the past that Week 1 has had more of an impact, including the "once ranked, always ranked" day(s). That impact has changed. However, we still get questions (probably based on confusion) as to why either the vRRO data isn't available, wasn't used (ignored), or other confusion. We point out that the first week's rankings doesn't have that data. And with the advent a few years ago of "the last two weeks" and a misunderstanding of how the "final rankings" work out, I've gotten to saying that the first week's rankings vRRO data won't end up meaning much in the end.

    That is all I am talking about. Week 1 doesn't matter when it comes to vRRO once we get past Week 2 (or there abouts). I do not ever say Week 1's rankings don't mean anything at all. I have always maintained that it gives us a barometer and an understanding of how the committee is ranking teams that will be useful moving forward. It gives us a chance to possibly understand how the criteria is being used/balanced, but again it is tough to lean on Week 1 when it doesn't use vRRO which is why I put more stock in reading the tea leaves in Week 2's rankings.

    What Gordon has found is actually a great talking point. I have always thought for a long time that if a team is not at least ranked in Week 1, the chances of them being an at-large selection are pretty slim. There are very few and far between instances where a team has come out of the weeds to be a serious at-large contender. Week 1 at least informs people of who is at least in play. Gordon was able to show that at least in three years of data.

    What Gordon has found and what I have stated about Week 1 are not the same thing nor the same argument.

    I will say that I think this year is going to be a change of course and what we end up with selections based on rankings and such may be different. We aren't going to really know until the dust settles on February 25, but not being ranked in Week 1 could be an interesting observation now - I am just not sure how it plays out this season. Also, we have had situations where teams not officially ranked on regional rankings have either been selected as at-large teams (women, not men I believe) or at least gotten to the table. I do wonder how that plays into the Week 1 rankings per being an at-large team scenario. I also would love to see what the trend has been further back than three years, but Gordon doesn't have an endless amount of time to pour into these things. I'm blown away he did three years!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 10, 2019, 11:33:32 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2019, 11:08:27 PM

    You are misquoting or misinterpreting what I have been saying ... despite me already explaining it.


    I feel pretty confident that you have said things that are if not exactly then similar to the idea that the first rankings shouldn't be reacted to, should be taken as meaning very little, that people shouldn't get worked up about them. If that is not what you think, then IMO you bear some responsibility for that as the person with the podcast where you've said things...pretty similar to that.

    At any rate, I think Gordon has shown them to not just have predictive value, but quite a bit. Interesting work, I just feel like there's probably a point to be found within the ranking order where it significantly decreases in value.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2019, 11:39:48 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 10, 2019, 11:33:32 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2019, 11:08:27 PM

    You are misquoting or misinterpreting what I have been saying ... despite me already explaining it.


    I feel pretty confident that you have said things that are if not exactly then similar to the idea that the first rankings shouldn't be reacted to, should be taken as meaning very little, that people shouldn't get worked up about them. If that is not what you think, then IMO you bear some responsibility for that as the person with the podcast where you've said things...pretty similar to that.

    At any rate, I think Gordon has shown them to not just have predictive value, but quite a bit. Interesting work, I just feel like there's probably a point to be found within the ranking order where it significantly decreases in value.

    I'm sorry ... since when do you decide what I mean by what I say?

    I have told you what I have said and what I mean. If you want to keep grinding away on your axe, go for it ... but it is getting a bit old. You are simply looking for something to argue with me or you are trying to find ways to either discredit me or push alternate realities.

    I have told you what I have said, what I mean, and how I have used my words. You are the only one, it appears, who doesn't understand it. I promise you, if I said something that was inaccurate, I would be hearing about the mistake from people who mean a lot more in this whole thing than you do. I talk to them constantly. They listen to the show constantly. If they seem to grasp what I'm saying with no issues ... what makes you the high-and-mighty arbitrator of these things?

    You know what ... don't answer that last one. Consider it rhetorical. I am not interested in your thoughts on the matter.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 11, 2019, 12:11:24 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2019, 11:39:48 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 10, 2019, 11:33:32 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2019, 11:08:27 PM

    You are misquoting or misinterpreting what I have been saying ... despite me already explaining it.


    I feel pretty confident that you have said things that are if not exactly then similar to the idea that the first rankings shouldn't be reacted to, should be taken as meaning very little, that people shouldn't get worked up about them. If that is not what you think, then IMO you bear some responsibility for that as the person with the podcast where you've said things...pretty similar to that.

    At any rate, I think Gordon has shown them to not just have predictive value, but quite a bit. Interesting work, I just feel like there's probably a point to be found within the ranking order where it significantly decreases in value.

    I'm sorry ... since when do you decide what I mean by what I say?


    Clearly I don't, but I certainly should be able to! That's the point of communicating, so that the person you're talking to knows what you mean, by what you say!

    Wow that you ask that question really just says everything. I'm glad I already had a headache earlier that I've remedied, or I'd surely have been given one now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 11, 2019, 01:44:03 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2019, 11:39:48 PM
    I have told you what I have said, what I mean, and how I have used my words. You are the only one, it appears, who doesn't understand it.

    Actually, no, he's not.  Because what you have said on this topic and what you are saying you meant are not exactly the same thing.  That's fine -- every one of us has moments when we are unintentionally vague in what we say or write.  But when there is a disconnect, that is on you, not on the reader/listener.

    And, man, you have a really thin skin.  It's actually okay if someone has an opinion that differs from yours.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: NEPAFAN on February 11, 2019, 09:54:05 AM
    Yes, sometimes I think Dave would be better off letting some of these comments go. You can't respond to every comment on the internet.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 11, 2019, 11:57:53 AM
    On the sub-.700 WP issue, here is the recent history.

    Teams that got a Pool C berth despite a WP of less than .700...
    '18 Springfield (18-8) .692 WP/.558 SOS/4-2 vRRO
    '18 North Central (18-8) .692/.554/4-5
    '17 Keene St (19-9) .679/.578/1-3
    '17 UW-Oshkosh (17-10) .630/.602/5-7
    '14 Emory (17-8) .680/.602/4-5

    Candidate teams that did not get in...
    '18 RMC (18-8) .692 WP/.546 SOS/3-3 vRRO
    '18 Amherst (17-8) .680/.570/4-6
    '17 UW-EC (17-8) .680/.572/3-3
    '17 Bowdoin (18-8) .692/.571/1-6
    '15 NCC (16-8) .667/.587/3-6
    '15 Rutgers-Newark '15 (18-9) .667/.572/1-6

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2019, 12:22:07 PM
    For what it's worth, I never thought .700 was the floor, but .667.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 11, 2019, 12:44:52 PM
    Agreed, yellow light below .700, and red light below .667
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 11, 2019, 01:17:45 PM
    Amherst
    Christopher Newport
    Hamilton
    LaRoche
    Loras
    Marietta
    Oswego State
    Plattsburgh St
    Randolph-Macon
    Rochester
    Rowan
    St. John's
    St. Thomas
    Scranton
    Wabash
    Whitworth
    Williams
    Wittenberg
    Wooster
    York(PA)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 11, 2019, 02:54:35 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 11, 2019, 01:17:45 PM
    Amherst
    Christopher Newport
    Hamilton
    LaRoche
    Loras
    Marietta
    Oswego State
    Plattsburgh St
    Randolph-Macon
    Rochester
    Rowan
    St. John's
    St. Thomas
    Scranton
    Wabash
    Whitworth
    Williams
    Wittenberg
    Wooster
    York(PA)

    Wrong board, ronk.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: GoPerry on February 12, 2019, 07:11:09 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 11, 2019, 12:44:52 PM
    Agreed, yellow light below .700, and red light below .667

    Yeah, Wheaton is dangerously hovering around that .70%.  So they have to win their last reg season game tomorrow vs Millikin.

    If they do, I've been also thinking that perhaps it's advantageous that Wheaton, as #3 seed in the CCIW tourney, gets to play a quarterfinal game at home against the #6(provided they win it).  It gives them an opportunity for an additional W before playing NCC the #2 seed on a neutral court.  If they lose that semi final game then they've gone 1-1, as opposed to 0-1 under last year's format, which doesn't hurt the win % as much. Plus they have a chance to go 2-1.  I'm not sure it's that big a deal or not.  But since another loss is presumed, I think this helps them stay above the .700, as long as they beat Millikin tomorrow (not a given) and win that quarterfinal game of course.

    NCC as #2 seed on the other hand gets the bye and will either go 0-1 or 1-1 or get the AQ.  But then again their problem is with SOS, not Win% I guess.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2019, 07:42:02 AM

    Oshkosh is the only team to get in below .667 - and they've pretty much said that won't happen in the future.  For those sub .700 teams, you really have to have a power-conference SOS, like .550 or above.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 12, 2019, 12:10:34 PM
    So the snow has given me some free time today (as long as no one tells my boss haha)...

    I thought it would be interesting to take this list of Matt and Drew's work that Titan Q put together, and build out some of the results behind it, even beyond the record vRRO. The reason is because I think for some teams, the record is a little or a lot misleading. And I think, based on what Sam said on the marathon (which as much as Dave and I have squabbled, that was a great interview), the committee will be digging well beyond the top line numbers.

    I didn't want the quote box around everything, but I don't want to pretend like the lists themselves are my work. I'm just making the assumption that this is the Pool C ... pool, and bubble list, based on *their* work, not mine.

    My other assumption is that these are most of the games that matter in the season for selection. Other losses might matter, in the negative.
    ------
    () - team that IMO is likely to leave the regional rankings this week
    (*) - team that IMO is likely to join the regional rankings this week
    Open to suggestions, my knowledge is definitely not unlimited here.

    Willing to edit as warranted.
    EDIT -- edit was warranted. :)


    Pool Cs they agree on (15)
    Williams (19-5) - W: Yeshiva, (Wesleyan 2x), Montclair
                   L: Amherst 2x, Middlebury, Hamilton
    Marietta (18-5) - W: LaRoche, Wittenberg, (BW 2x), Wilmington, Mount Union
                  L: Capital 2x, Mount Union, Wilmington
    Loras (18-5) - W: Augustana, (Wartburg), (Augsburg*), Neb Wes,
                         L: (Whitewater), (Wartburg)
    Middlebury (18-6) - W: Williams, Hamilton
                                 L: Keene, Plattsburgh, Swarthmore, (Wesleyan), Amherst
    Hamilton (20-3) - W: Keene, Williams
                             L: (Wesleyan), Middlebury
    Plattsburgh St (19-4) - W: St. Lawrence, Middlebury, Brockport, Cortland,
                                         Oswego
                                     L: Brockport, (Wesleyan), Oswego, Cortland
    Rowan (18-6) - W: Ramapo, Salisbury, Keene, Montclair 2x, NJCU
                           L: NJCU, Ramapo
    Wheaton (17-7) - W: Oshkosh, (IWU* 2x), N Cent
                              L: Chicago, N Cent, Augustana 2x
    Rochester (18-4) - W: (BW), Montclair, Nazareth, Emory, Chicago
                               L: Chicago
    St. John's (19-4) - W: (Whitewater), LaCrosse, (Augsburg* 2x)
                               L: St. Thomas
    Salisbury (17-6) - W: Arcadia, Hopkins, Nichols, Mary W
                               L: Rowan, Mary W, York 2x, CNU
    York (Pa.) (17-6) - W: Hopkins, Salisbury 2x, CNU
                                L: Swarthmore, CNU, Mary W, Scranton
    Keene State (17-7) - W: Middlebury
                                  L: MIT, Rowan, Hamilton, ECSU
    Whitworth (19-4) - W: Hopkins, Em&Henry
                                L: UT-Dallas, Whitman 2x
    Wesleyan (16-8) - W: Farm.St., Middlebury, Hamilton, Amherst
                               L: Nichols, ECSU, Williams 2x, Amherst

    Drew Has (5)
    Gordon (21-2) - W: Nichols
                            L: Ramapo
    Wittenberg (18-5) - W: Capital, Wilmington, Wooster
                                 L: Marietta, Wabash, Wooster
    Wabash (19-4) - W: Wooster, Wittenberg
                            L: Wilmington, Wooster
    Scranton (19-4) - W: St. Lawrence, York
                              L: none(?)
    Mary Hardin-Baylor (18-5) - W: UT-Dallas
                                             L: none?

    Matt Has (5)
    UW-Stevens Point (15-7) - W: (IWU*), (Whitewater)
                                          L: Augustana, St. Thomas, Oshkosh 2x, LaCrosse 2x,
                                             (Whitewater)   
    UW-La Crosse (15-8) - W: (Wartburg), (Whitewater 2x), Point 2x,
                                     L: St. John's, Oshkosh
    Ill. Wesleyan (15-8) - W: Chicago, N Central
                                    L: Wheaton 2x, Augustana 2x, Whitman, Point, N Cent,
    Colby (17-7) - W: Amherst, Hamilton, (Wesleyan)
                          L: Gordon, Williams, Middlebury
    Wartburg (15-8) - W: Loras
                               L: Loras, LaCrosse, Neb Wes 2x

    There's clearly a lot to glean here, but one thing stands out to me: Ryan's call of Wittenberg as a team to watch is a very good one. Wins over possibly the top 2 teams in the GL.

    Other thought question in my mind that affects several of the "agreed upon" Pool Cs is whether several wins over middling regionally ranked teams matters more than 1 or 2 big wins over a team ranked in the top 2 (or something) in the region. Looking at you, Williams, Marietta, Hamilton.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: duckfan41 on February 12, 2019, 12:27:01 PM
    SaintPaulite

    There's a lot of info in there nicely done! I'm a Wheaton guy, and I noticed that you had Wheaton beating and losing to IWU, but Wheaton swept the regular season series with them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2019, 01:03:07 PM
    The .700 number has always been conveyed to me by the committee as this: if you are below it, you are in trouble. The further you are below it, the more trouble you are in. It isn't to say you won't get in as we know some have with strong numbers, but the only one that was well off that mark was UW-Oshkosh a few years ago. I agree, below .667 is probably dead man's zone - UWO was there and saved, but again ... outlier.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 12, 2019, 01:11:13 PM
    Quote from: duckfan41 on February 12, 2019, 12:27:01 PM
    SaintPaulite

    There's a lot of info in there nicely done! I'm a Wheaton guy, and I noticed that you had Wheaton beating and losing to IWU, but Wheaton swept the regular season series with them.

    There definitely is. it didn't take too long, but accuracy can be one of the costs of that, so thanks for the correction and I have edited the document.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 12, 2019, 01:57:58 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 12, 2019, 01:11:13 PM
    Quote from: duckfan41 on February 12, 2019, 12:27:01 PM
    SaintPaulite

    There's a lot of info in there nicely done! I'm a Wheaton guy, and I noticed that you had Wheaton beating and losing to IWU, but Wheaton swept the regular season series with them.

    There definitely is. it didn't take too long, but accuracy can be one of the costs of that, so thanks for the correction and I have edited the document.

    If this is helpful, I have similar info in my "regional details" pages.  Here's the Great Lakes page, for example.
    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_reg_great-lakes.html (http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_reg_great-lakes.html)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 12, 2019, 03:07:58 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 12, 2019, 01:57:58 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 12, 2019, 01:11:13 PM
    Quote from: duckfan41 on February 12, 2019, 12:27:01 PM
    SaintPaulite

    There's a lot of info in there nicely done! I'm a Wheaton guy, and I noticed that you had Wheaton beating and losing to IWU, but Wheaton swept the regular season series with them.

    There definitely is. it didn't take too long, but accuracy can be one of the costs of that, so thanks for the correction and I have edited the document.

    If this is helpful, I have similar info in my "regional details" pages.  Here's the Great Lakes page, for example.
    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_reg_great-lakes.html (http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_reg_great-lakes.html)

    Also good. Part of my thought was to take out all of the other numbers and just look at the results vRRO, not the record or the SOS that could come to a number by 1000 different paths.

    I think the other games are kind of nonfactors unless you lose them (which is the only reason overall record is on there).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 13, 2019, 08:38:36 AM
    One note: "my" rankings are really meant to be more of a simple presentation of the data. It's not meant to be a real projection of what I think committees will do, but I chose rank by RPI because it happens to get us close without me having to make any active decisions or come up with a fancy system like Drew's.

    RPI always likes the teams with lower WP and elite SOS numbers more than the actual committees do.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 13, 2019, 10:35:27 AM
    For what it's worth, here are my guesses at today's regional rankings.  I have made a few adjustments for head-to-head, against my better judgment.  Resumes are through Sunday's games.

    Northeast region
    1) MIT (20-3, 10-2 NEWMAC, 0.870 WP, 0.555 SOS, 0.546 ncSOS, 2-0 vRRO)
    2) Amherst (20-3, 7-2 NESCAC, 0.870 WP, 0.545 SOS, 0.466 ncSOS, 5-1 vRRO)
    3) Williams (19-5, 6-4 NESCAC, 0.792 WP, 0.592 SOS, 0.541 ncSOS, 4-4 vRRO)
    4) Nichols (21-2, 13-1 CCC, 0.913 WP, 0.510 SOS, 0.559 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO)
    5) Hamilton (20-3, 6-3 NESCAC, 0.870 WP, 0.546 SOS, 0.494 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO)
    6) Middlebury (17-6, 7-3 NESCAC, 0.739 WP, 0.603 SOS, 0.581 ncSOS, 2-5 vRRO)
    7) Eastern_Connecticut (18-5, 12-2 LEC, 0.783 WP, 0.551 SOS, 0.570 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO)
    8) Gordon (21-2, 13-1 CCC, 0.913 WP, 0.487 SOS, 0.518 ncSOS, 1-1 vRRO)
    9) Keene_State (17-7, 12-3 LEC, 0.708 WP, 0.563 SOS, 0.637 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO)
    10) Wesleyan (16-8, 6-4 NESCAC, 0.667 WP, 0.610 SOS, 0.581 ncSOS, 5-5 vRRO)
    11) Colby (17-7, 5-5 NESCAC, 0.708 WP, 0.557 SOS, 0.498 ncSOS, 3-3 vRRO)
    ----------
    Mass-Dartmouth (17-6, 11-3 LEC, 0.739 WP, 0.531 SOS, 0.513 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO)
    Endicott (16-7, 9-5 CCC, 0.696 WP, 0.528 SOS, 0.593 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO)
    WPI (17-6, 8-4 NEWMAC, 0.739 WP, 0.544 SOS, 0.524 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO)

    East region
    1) Rochester (18-4, 8-3 UAA, 0.818 WP, 0.538 SOS, 0.497 ncSOS, 6-1 vRRO)
    2) Plattsburgh_State (19-4, 13-3 SUNYAC, 0.826 WP, 0.528 SOS, 0.539 ncSOS, 5-4 vRRO)
    3) Oswego_State (18-4, 13-2 SUNYAC, 0.818 WP, 0.529 SOS, 0.526 ncSOS, 5-3 vRRO)
    4) Skidmore (15-6, 13-3 LL, 0.714 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0.599 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO)
    5) St._Lawrence (16-7, 13-3 LL, 0.696 WP, 0.526 SOS, 0.605 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO)
    6) Cortland (16-5, 10-5 SUNYAC, 0.762 WP, 0.508 SOS, 0.463 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO)
    7) Nazareth (17-5, 11-2 E8, 0.773 WP, 0.518 SOS, 0.533 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO)
    8) St._John_Fisher (15-7, 10-3 E8, 0.682 WP, 0.517 SOS, 0.501 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO)
    ----------
    Morrisville_State (18-4, 13-1 NEAC, 0.818 WP, 0.467 SOS, 0.503 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO)
    Alfred (15-4, 10-2 E8, 0.789 WP, 0.465 SOS, 0.453 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO)
    Hobart (14-9, 11-5 LL, 0.609 WP, 0.540 SOS, 0.595 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO)

    Atlantic region
    1) Rowan (17-6, 12-5 NJAC, 0.739 WP, 0.557 SOS, 0.579 ncSOS, 6-2 vRRO)
    2) New_Jersey_City (19-5, 14-3 NJAC, 0.792 WP, 0.538 SOS, 0.555 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO)
    3) Ramapo (16-8, 10-7 NJAC, 0.667 WP, 0.554 SOS, 0.610 ncSOS, 5-3 vRRO)
    4) DeSales (17-5, 10-2 MACF, 0.773 WP, 0.497 SOS, 0.517 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO)
    5) Yeshiva (17-5, 15-2 SKY, 0.773 WP, 0.471 SOS, 0.527 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO)
    6) William_Paterson (15-9, 10-7 NJAC, 0.625 WP, 0.547 SOS, 0.565 ncSOS, 5-6 vRRO)
    7) Baruch (18-5, 12-2 CUNYAC, 0.783 WP, 0.450 SOS, 0.465 ncSOS, 1-0 vRRO)
    8) Montclair_State (15-9, 10-7 NJAC, 0.625 WP, 0.552 SOS, 0.551 ncSOS, 2-6 vRRO)
    ----------
    Farmingdale_State (16-7, 14-4 SKY, 0.696 WP, 0.487 SOS, 0.578 ncSOS, 0-4 vRRO)
    Wilkes (14-7, 8-4 MACF, 0.667 WP, 0.486 SOS, 0.461 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO)
    Staten_Island (16-8, 12-3 CUNYAC, 0.667 WP, 0.466 SOS, 0.527 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO)

    Mid-Atlantic region
    1) Swarthmore (20-3, 13-3 CC, 0.870 WP, 0.545 SOS, 0.597 ncSOS, 4-1 vRRO)
    2) Christopher_Newport (20-3, 10-2 CAC, 0.870 WP, 0.534 SOS, 0.514 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO)
    3) Salisbury (17-6, 7-5 CAC, 0.739 WP, 0.567 SOS, 0.567 ncSOS, 4-5 vRRO)
    4) Arcadia (20-3, 14-0 MACC, 0.870 WP, 0.516 SOS, 0.568 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO)
    5) York_(Pa.) (17-6, 10-2 CAC, 0.739 WP, 0.549 SOS, 0.520 ncSOS, 4-4 vRRO)
    6) Mary_Washington (16-7, 8-4 CAC, 0.696 WP, 0.558 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO)
    7) Scranton (19-4, 8-4 LAND, 0.826 WP, 0.514 SOS, 0.497 ncSOS, 2-0 vRRO)
    8) Johns_Hopkins (15-8, 12-4 CC, 0.652 WP, 0.557 SOS, 0.643 ncSOS, 2-4 vRRO)
    ----------
    Moravian (16-7, 9-3 LAND, 0.696 WP, 0.530 SOS, 0.529 ncSOS, 2-4 vRRO)
    Drew (18-5, 10-2 LAND, 0.783 WP, 0.515 SOS, 0.502 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO)
    Susquehanna (15-8, 8-4 LAND, 0.652 WP, 0.516 SOS, 0.484 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO)

    South region
    1) Randolph-Macon (22-2, 14-1 ODAC, 0.917 WP, 0.529 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS, 3-2 vRRO)
    2) Emory (17-5, 8-3 UAA, 0.773 WP, 0.571 SOS, 0.546 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO)
    3) Centre (19-3, 12-1 SAA, 0.864 WP, 0.528 SOS, 0.548 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO)
    4) Guilford (17-6, 11-3 ODAC, 0.739 WP, 0.519 SOS, 0.504 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO)
    5) Lynchburg (19-5, 10-5 ODAC, 0.792 WP, 0.513 SOS, 0.452 ncSOS, 4-3 vRRO)
    6) Washington_and_Lee (16-7, 9-5 ODAC, 0.696 WP, 0.535 SOS, 0.537 ncSOS, 4-4 vRRO)
    7) Mary_Hardin-Baylor (18-5, 9-5 ASC, 0.783 WP, 0.520 SOS, 0.514 ncSOS, 1-0 vRRO)
    8) Texas-Dallas (18-4, 11-3 ASC, 0.818 WP, 0.485 SOS, 0.477 ncSOS, 1-1 vRRO)
    ----------
    LeTourneau (16-7, 10-4 ASC, 0.696 WP, 0.526 SOS, 0.569 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO)
    Louisiana_College (17-6, 10-5 ASC, 0.739 WP, 0.508 SOS, 0.477 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO)
    Berry (14-6, 10-3 SAA, 0.700 WP, 0.520 SOS, 0.508 ncSOS, 1-3 vRRO)

    Great Lakes region
    1) Marietta (18-5, 12-4 OAC, 0.783 WP, 0.561 SOS, 0.580 ncSOS, 6-4 vRRO)
    2) Capital (19-4, 14-2 OAC, 0.826 WP, 0.524 SOS, 0.535 ncSOS, 6-1 vRRO)
    3) Wooster (19-4, 14-2 NCAC, 0.826 WP, 0.530 SOS, 0.544 ncSOS, 3-3 vRRO)
    4) La_Roche (21-2, 16-0 AMCC, 0.913 WP, 0.505 SOS, 0.548 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO)
    5) Wittenberg (17-5, 12-4 NCAC, 0.773 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0.526 ncSOS, 3-3 vRRO)
    6) Wabash (17-4, 13-3 NCAC, 0.810 WP, 0.512 SOS, 0.498 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO)
    7) Mount_Union (19-4, 13-3 OAC, 0.826 WP, 0.493 SOS, 0.414 ncSOS, 4-2 vRRO)
    8) Wilmington (16-6, 12-4 OAC, 0.727 WP, 0.529 SOS, 0.497 ncSOS, 4-5 vRRO)
    9) Hanover (16-5, 13-3 HCAC, 0.762 WP, 0.496 SOS, 0.507 ncSOS, 0-1 vRRO)
    ----------
    Transylvania (15-8, 12-4 HCAC, 0.652 WP, 0.526 SOS, 0.654 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO)
    Albion (16-6, 9-3 MIAA, 0.727 WP, 0.475 SOS, 0.498 ncSOS, 2-1 vRRO)
    Penn_State-Behrend (20-3, 13-3 AMCC, 0.870 WP, 0.468 SOS, 0.394 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO)

    Central region
    1) Augustana (22-2, 14-1 CCIW, 0.917 WP, 0.549 SOS, 0.512 ncSOS, 5-2 vRRO)
    2) UW-Oshkosh (22-1, 12-0 WIAC, 0.957 WP, 0.540 SOS, 0.471 ncSOS, 5-1 vRRO)
    3) Wheaton_(Ill.) (17-7, 10-5 CCIW, 0.708 WP, 0.575 SOS, 0.591 ncSOS, 2-4 vRRO)
    4) UW-Stevens_Point (15-7, 7-5 WIAC, 0.682 WP, 0.599 SOS, 0.566 ncSOS, 2-6 vRRO)
    5) North_Central_(Ill.) (18-5, 10-4 CCIW, 0.783 WP, 0.526 SOS, 0.447 ncSOS, 2-2 vRRO)
    6) UW-La_Crosse (15-8, 8-4 WIAC, 0.652 WP, 0.582 SOS, 0.537 ncSOS, 5-2 vRRO)
    7) Illinois_Wesleyan (15-8, 8-6 CCIW, 0.652 WP, 0.579 SOS, 0.570 ncSOS, 2-7 vRRO)
    8) Chicago (14-8, 7-4 UAA, 0.636 WP, 0.577 SOS, 0.561 ncSOS, 4-1 vRRO)
    ----------
    St._Norbert (17-6, 15-1 MWC, 0.739 WP, 0.507 SOS, 0.610 ncSOS, 0-2 vRRO)
    UW-Whitewater (15-8, 4-8 WIAC, 0.652 WP, 0.567 SOS, 0.520 ncSOS, 2-6 vRRO)
    Washington_U. (14-8, 7-4 UAA, 0.636 WP, 0.572 SOS, 0.548 ncSOS, 2-5 vRRO)

    West region
    1) Nebraska_Wesleyan (22-1, 13-1 ARC, 0.957 WP, 0.576 SOS, 0.553 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO)
    2) Whitman (22-1, 14-0 NWC, 0.957 WP, 0.565 SOS, 0.569 ncSOS, 3-1 vRRO)
    3) Loras (18-5, 10-4 ARC, 0.783 WP, 0.594 SOS, 0.575 ncSOS, 3-3 vRRO)
    4) St._Thomas (21-2, 17-1 MIAC, 0.913 WP, 0.521 SOS, 0.559 ncSOS, 2-0 vRRO)
    5) Pomona-Pitzer (18-1, 13-0 SCIAC, 0.947 WP, 0.485 SOS, 0.531 ncSOS, 1-0 vRRO)
    6) Whitworth (19-4, 11-3 NWC, 0.826 WP, 0.531 SOS, 0.486 ncSOS, 2-3 vRRO)
    7) St._John's (19-4, 15-3 MIAC, 0.826 WP, 0.520 SOS, 0.539 ncSOS, 1-2 vRRO)
    8) Augsburg (16-6, 13-5 MIAC, 0.727 WP, 0.533 SOS, 0.538 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO)
    ----------
    Bethel (16-7, 13-5 MIAC, 0.696 WP, 0.525 SOS, 0.534 ncSOS, 2-4 vRRO)
    Wartburg (13-7, 9-5 ARC, 0.650 WP, 0.576 SOS, 0.536 ncSOS, 1-4 vRRO)
    Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (12-6, 9-3 SCIAC, 0.667 WP, 0.513 SOS, 0.532 ncSOS, 0-4 vRRO)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 11:24:35 AM
    Once again the numbers make it absolutely plain that the four top teams in the country are the two atop the Central Region rankings (Augustana and UW-Oshkosh) and the two atop the West Region rankings (Nebraska Wesleyan and Whitman). Of the four other teams in the country that have a WP over .900 (Nichols, Randolph-Macon, La Roche, and Pomona-Pitzer), none of them are anywhere near the vicinity of a .540 SOS, which all four of the top teams in the Central and West have. The one team that's really within shouting distance of the Big Four is Randy-Mac (.529 SOS), and the Yellow Jackets trail the Big Four in vRRO, at least as a counting stat:


    UW-Oshkosh  5-1
    Augustana  5-2
    Nebraska Wesleyan  3-1
    Whitman  3-1
    Randolph-Macon  3-2
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 13, 2019, 11:28:55 AM
    If you look at my top ten (best teams, not NCAA resumes), there is a big gap in ratings after those first four.

    1) Whitman (22-1, 14-0 NWC, SOS 0.565, 3-1 vRRO) 120.9
    2) UW-Oshkosh (22-1, 12-0 WIAC, SOS 0.540, 5-1 vRRO) 120.6
    3) Nebraska_Wesleyan (22-1, 13-1 ARC, SOS 0.576, 3-1 vRRO) 120.5
    4) Augustana (22-2, 14-1 CCIW, SOS 0.549, 5-2 vRRO) 119.5
    5) Randolph-Macon (22-2, 14-1 ODAC, SOS 0.529, 3-2 vRRO) 117.1
    6) St._Thomas (21-2, 17-1 MIAC, SOS 0.521, 2-0 vRRO) 117.1
    7) St._John's (19-4, 15-3 MIAC, SOS 0.520, 1-2 vRRO) 116.0
    8) Amherst (20-3, 7-2 NESCAC, SOS 0.545, 5-1 vRRO) 115.7
    9) Swarthmore (20-3, 13-3 CC, SOS 0.545, 4-1 vRRO) 114.4
    10) UW-Stevens_Point (15-7, 7-5 WIAC, SOS 0.599, 2-6 vRRO) 114.2
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 13, 2019, 02:26:20 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 11:24:35 AM
    Once again the numbers make it absolutely plain that the four top teams in the country are the two atop the Central Region rankings (Augustana and UW-Oshkosh) and the two atop the West Region rankings (Nebraska Wesleyan and Whitman). Of the four other teams in the country that have a WP over .900 (Nichols, Randolph-Macon, La Roche, and Pomona-Pitzer), none of them are anywhere near the vicinity of a .540 SOS, which all four of the top teams in the Central and West have. The one team that's really within shouting distance of the Big Four is Randy-Mac (.529 SOS), and the Yellow Jackets trail the Big Four in vRRO, at least as a counting stat:


    UW-Oshkosh  5-1
    Augustana  5-2
    Nebraska Wesleyan  3-1
    Whitman  3-1
    Randolph-Macon  3-2

    So Whitman and Randy Mac bracketed together, and the other 3 getting their own brackets (even if it's possible they might not host bc of who makes it through)? Is that possible?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2019, 03:00:23 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 13, 2019, 02:26:20 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 11:24:35 AM
    Once again the numbers make it absolutely plain that the four top teams in the country are the two atop the Central Region rankings (Augustana and UW-Oshkosh) and the two atop the West Region rankings (Nebraska Wesleyan and Whitman). Of the four other teams in the country that have a WP over .900 (Nichols, Randolph-Macon, La Roche, and Pomona-Pitzer), none of them are anywhere near the vicinity of a .540 SOS, which all four of the top teams in the Central and West have. The one team that's really within shouting distance of the Big Four is Randy-Mac (.529 SOS), and the Yellow Jackets trail the Big Four in vRRO, at least as a counting stat:


    UW-Oshkosh  5-1
    Augustana  5-2
    Nebraska Wesleyan  3-1
    Whitman  3-1
    Randolph-Macon  3-2

    So Whitman and Randy Mac bracketed together, and the other 3 getting their own brackets (even if it's possible they might not host bc of who makes it through)? Is that possible?

    It is certainly possible... maybe being debated... but who knows what the money will dictate either. But Whitman was paired with Marietta for the second weekend a few years ago.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on February 13, 2019, 03:11:09 PM
    So the NCAA didn't update the date range of games, but based on the records and the fact that things shifted... Week 2 regional rankings are out (https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional-rankings-0).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 03:13:54 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 13, 2019, 02:26:20 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 11:24:35 AM
    Once again the numbers make it absolutely plain that the four top teams in the country are the two atop the Central Region rankings (Augustana and UW-Oshkosh) and the two atop the West Region rankings (Nebraska Wesleyan and Whitman). Of the four other teams in the country that have a WP over .900 (Nichols, Randolph-Macon, La Roche, and Pomona-Pitzer), none of them are anywhere near the vicinity of a .540 SOS, which all four of the top teams in the Central and West have. The one team that's really within shouting distance of the Big Four is Randy-Mac (.529 SOS), and the Yellow Jackets trail the Big Four in vRRO, at least as a counting stat:


    UW-Oshkosh  5-1
    Augustana  5-2
    Nebraska Wesleyan  3-1
    Whitman  3-1
    Randolph-Macon  3-2

    So Whitman and Randy Mac bracketed together, and the other 3 getting their own brackets (even if it's possible they might not host bc of who makes it through)? Is that possible?

    I'm not sure. You'd have to move Augustana as far east as possible -- Augie's campus address is 495 miles from Wooster's on Google Maps, so it comes down to the software that the NCAA uses, and Columbus (Capital) appears to be about 485 miles away from Rock Island if I-74 and I-70 are used -- with that Great Lakes pod host then oriented towards the northeastern corner of the bracket in a sectional with, say, MIT, Amherst, and Rochester as the other pod hosts. It's much, much easier to do that with Wooster than with Capital, because you can bring any team listed in this week's East Region ranking into Wooster except for Skidmore, St. Lawrence, and Plattsburgh State. But, again, it's all contingent upon Augie being within 500-mile range of Wooster.

    It might actually be more feasible to fly NebWes or UW-Oshkosh east than Whitman, because NWU isn't much less of an island school than is Whitman. You can construct a fly-in pod around Whitman, even if you have to send the Blues to Texas in order to do so. But NWU is a headache, because the only schools likely or semi-likely to be in the D3 tourney that can get to Lincoln without a flight are Augustana (which, of course, isn't going to be put in the same pod as NebWes), Loras (which isn't likely to share a pod with its fellow ARC team, either), the UMAC rep, the SLIAC rep, the MIAC team(s), UW-LaCrosse, North Central, and maybe Wheaton (which is 499 miles from Lincoln, according to Google Maps). It can't share a pod with either of the likely teams to come out of the NACC, since they're both from greater Milwaukee, which is out of range of Lincoln. There's a tremendous amount of overlap there with the teams from which the Oshkosh pod would be culled, and the number of schools that can reach UWO is pretty limited, too. And if you go with what you have available within 500 miles of Lincoln when constructing the bracket, you might find yourself stuck with sending both the UMAC rep and the SLIAC rep to the NebWes pod -- and that would skew the competitive balance across the entire bracket pretty greatly.

    If NebWes stays #1 West and UWO stays #2 Central, and you can construct a coherent and competitive pod in Lincoln (with, let's say, St. John's, North Central, the SLIAC champ, and host NWU), you could see UWO fly eastward in order to reward NWU for having the #1 spot in its region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2019, 03:20:56 PM
    The second week Regional Rankings have been released: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-second
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 13, 2019, 03:21:32 PM
    The NCAA uses this: https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

    Wooster and Augustana are exactly 500 miles from each other.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 03:31:42 PM
    Funny, I got 501 from that software. Did a geological fault just open up somewhere in the midwest? :D

    Either way, it answers the question regarding sending Augie to Wooster. It's a no-go. That means sending Augie to Capital, which reduces the committee's options somewhat, because although you can send Cortland State to Wooster, you can't send the Red Dragons to Capital. Surprisingly, though, Oswego State is still in play for a Capital pod -- and all of the Rochester-area schools are well within range, too.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2019, 03:34:05 PM
    Depends on the direction you go in ... Wooster to Augustana is 500; Augustana to Wooster is 501. We've seen this quirk elsewhere.

    FYI - basically 500 is the line of demarcation. 499.9 is a bus. 500 is considered a "flight." That's what we have been told by the committees in years past. We will work to confirm that again as I am sure the committee is looking at those kinds of options.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 13, 2019, 03:35:37 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 13, 2019, 03:21:32 PM
    The NCAA uses this: https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

    Wooster and Augustana are exactly 500 miles from each other.

    Wooster was sent to Augustana not that long ago.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 03:36:33 PM
    Wheaton, includentally, can't get to Lincoln, according to the NCAA software. But North Central comes in as being 499 miles away.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 13, 2019, 03:42:56 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 03:31:42 PM
    Funny, I got 501 from that software. Did a geological fault just open up somewhere in the midwest? :D

    Or, Illinois closed a road. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 03:47:06 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 13, 2019, 03:35:37 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 13, 2019, 03:21:32 PM
    The NCAA uses this: https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

    Wooster and Augustana are exactly 500 miles from each other.

    Wooster was sent to Augustana not that long ago.

    I can't find that in any recent brackets. Of course, Wooster would have gone to Augie last season, but the Scots lost to John Carroll in the second round. So it was JCU that moved on to the Rock Island sectional. JCU is 503 miles from Augie according to the software, and was therefore entitled to a flight, but as I recall JCU declined the offer and bused instead.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2019, 04:05:26 PM
    Dickinson did that in the second weekend a few years back ... they were a flight, but decided to bus instead.

    A women's program did the same not too long ago.

    However (just as an FYI for those interested), when bracketing, the committee cannot consider whether a team will be willing to bus or fly. The mileage dictates the decision, not a call back from the school with the question asked. If we opened that door, it would be impossible to put a bracket together in a timely manner.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 13, 2019, 04:18:59 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 03:47:06 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 13, 2019, 03:35:37 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 13, 2019, 03:21:32 PM
    The NCAA uses this: https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

    Wooster and Augustana are exactly 500 miles from each other.

    Wooster was sent to Augustana not that long ago.

    I can't find that in any recent brackets. Of course, Wooster would have gone to Augie last season, but the Scots lost to John Carroll in the second round. So it was JCU that moved on to the Rock Island sectional. JCU is 503 miles from Augie according to the software, and was therefore entitled to a flight, but as I recall JCU declined the offer and bused instead.

    In 2008, Wooster was sent to Augustana, where they fell 79-74 to eventual national champ Wash. U.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2019, 04:21:57 PM
    That is a pretty long time ago ... and there were far less flights in those days. They very likely looked at it differently then. Furthermore, the mileage could have been slightly different (construction and such changes those things; I know the system has evolved since 2008).

    That was the year St. Mary's upset Guilford in the first round and ended up getting flown to WashU in the second weekend - something no one saw coming.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on February 13, 2019, 04:23:35 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2019, 04:21:57 PM
    That was the year St. Mary's upset Guilford in the first round and ended up getting flown to WashU in the second weekend - something no one saw coming.

    That's why they call it Madness, Dave!   :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2019, 04:25:36 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on February 13, 2019, 04:23:35 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2019, 04:21:57 PM
    That was the year St. Mary's upset Guilford in the first round and ended up getting flown to WashU in the second weekend - something no one saw coming.

    That's why they call it Madness, Dave!   :)

    This is so very, very true. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 06:17:16 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2019, 04:18:59 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 03:47:06 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 13, 2019, 03:35:37 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 13, 2019, 03:21:32 PM
    The NCAA uses this: https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

    Wooster and Augustana are exactly 500 miles from each other.

    Wooster was sent to Augustana not that long ago.

    I can't find that in any recent brackets. Of course, Wooster would have gone to Augie last season, but the Scots lost to John Carroll in the second round. So it was JCU that moved on to the Rock Island sectional. JCU is 503 miles from Augie according to the software, and was therefore entitled to a flight, but as I recall JCU declined the offer and bused instead.

    In 2008, Wooster was sent to Augustana, where they fell 79-74 to eventual national champ Wash. U.

    OK. I didn't go back that far. "Recent" and "not that long ago" are relative terms, after all. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 14, 2019, 01:35:46 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 06:17:16 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2019, 04:18:59 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 03:47:06 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 13, 2019, 03:35:37 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 13, 2019, 03:21:32 PM
    The NCAA uses this: https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

    Wooster and Augustana are exactly 500 miles from each other.

    Wooster was sent to Augustana not that long ago.

    I can't find that in any recent brackets. Of course, Wooster would have gone to Augie last season, but the Scots lost to John Carroll in the second round. So it was JCU that moved on to the Rock Island sectional. JCU is 503 miles from Augie according to the software, and was therefore entitled to a flight, but as I recall JCU declined the offer and bused instead.

    In 2008, Wooster was sent to Augustana, where they fell 79-74 to eventual national champ Wash. U.

    OK. I didn't go back that far. "Recent" and "not that long ago" are relative terms, after all. ;)

    Yeesh, amen.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2019, 06:43:48 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 14, 2019, 01:35:46 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 06:17:16 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 13, 2019, 04:18:59 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 03:47:06 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 13, 2019, 03:35:37 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 13, 2019, 03:21:32 PM
    The NCAA uses this: https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

    Wooster and Augustana are exactly 500 miles from each other.

    Wooster was sent to Augustana not that long ago.

    I can't find that in any recent brackets. Of course, Wooster would have gone to Augie last season, but the Scots lost to John Carroll in the second round. So it was JCU that moved on to the Rock Island sectional. JCU is 503 miles from Augie according to the software, and was therefore entitled to a flight, but as I recall JCU declined the offer and bused instead.

    In 2008, Wooster was sent to Augustana, where they fell 79-74 to eventual national champ Wash. U.

    OK. I didn't go back that far. "Recent" and "not that long ago" are relative terms, after all. ;)

    Yeesh, amen.

    So, not to throw a wrench into things.  I've been told the distance has to be less that 500 miles - in other words 499.9.  Now, I'm not sure they were using the same software in 2008, so it might've been different - or maybe they were interpreting things differently back then.  It's also interesting to note that while it's 500 miles from Wooster to Augustana, it's 503 miles from Augustana to Wooster - damn those divided highways!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2019, 11:11:48 AM
    So if they take the Wooster to Augustana route, but drive backwards Augustana can get to Wooster?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2019, 12:02:44 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2019, 11:11:48 AM
    So if they take the Wooster to Augustana route, but drive backwards Augustana can get to Wooster?

    I was told last year that 500.0 is too far.  It has to be 499.9 or else the NCAA is liable for a flight.  A team might not take it, but, at least last year, 499.9 was the limit.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 14, 2019, 12:13:23 PM
    OK, that does explain it.

    500 miles from Augustana to Wooster.

    501 miles from Wooster to Augustana.

    If I remember correctly, the Quad Cities have a lot of one-way streets.

    Is it Quad Cities have or has?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2019, 12:20:51 PM

    There was one of those last year when we were doing the mock bracket.  One way was under 500 and the other way was over.  The driveable direction was not the right one for the seedings.  Very frustrating.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2019, 12:50:37 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2019, 11:11:48 AM
    So if they take the Wooster to Augustana route, but drive backwards Augustana can get to Wooster?

    (https://media.giphy.com/media/KlvYmJIlHPT0I/giphy.gif)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 14, 2019, 02:34:58 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2019, 04:21:57 PM
    That is a pretty long time ago ... and there were far less flights in those days. They very likely looked at it differently then. Furthermore, the mileage could have been slightly different (construction and such changes those things; I know the system has evolved since 2008).

    That was the year St. Mary's upset Guilford in the first round and ended up getting flown to WashU in the second weekend - something no one saw coming.

    No we used 500 miles then, there was a brief discussion on distances in the NCAC board.
    http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4200.7635
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 14, 2019, 03:36:58 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2019, 12:50:37 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2019, 11:11:48 AM
    So if they take the Wooster to Augustana route, but drive backwards Augustana can get to Wooster?

    (https://media.giphy.com/media/KlvYmJIlHPT0I/giphy.gif)

    Great!  That looks like the national committee.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2019, 03:53:00 PM
    Well, that's probably how overcaffeinated they are on Selection Day. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 14, 2019, 11:58:35 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2019, 12:20:51 PM

    There was one of those last year when we were doing the mock bracket.  One way was under 500 and the other way was over.  The driveable direction was not the right one for the seedings.  Very frustrating.

    A few things.

    1. Google has like 493 between Wooster and Augustana. I refuse to believe Google is off by 7 miles. I doubt it's off by .7 miles.
    2. If teams that are over 500 miles are like "nah, we'll just drive", then to me that means that 500 mile limit is too low. The limit should be at a number where no one would prefer to drive. So maybe this is the real problem we have, the 500 miles doesn't accurately reflect the point at which it would be a clear impediment to ask a team to drive. Maybe it's 600, or 750. 
    3. Does it matter that Fort Wayne is going to be in driving distance for more teams than Salem was? Very good chance of saving at least a flight if not two there.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 12:13:02 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 03:13:54 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 13, 2019, 02:26:20 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 11:24:35 AM
    Once again the numbers make it absolutely plain that the four top teams in the country are the two atop the Central Region rankings (Augustana and UW-Oshkosh) and the two atop the West Region rankings (Nebraska Wesleyan and Whitman). Of the four other teams in the country that have a WP over .900 (Nichols, Randolph-Macon, La Roche, and Pomona-Pitzer), none of them are anywhere near the vicinity of a .540 SOS, which all four of the top teams in the Central and West have. The one team that's really within shouting distance of the Big Four is Randy-Mac (.529 SOS), and the Yellow Jackets trail the Big Four in vRRO, at least as a counting stat:


    UW-Oshkosh  5-1
    Augustana  5-2
    Nebraska Wesleyan  3-1
    Whitman  3-1
    Randolph-Macon  3-2

    So Whitman and Randy Mac bracketed together, and the other 3 getting their own brackets (even if it's possible they might not host bc of who makes it through)? Is that possible?

    I'm not sure. You'd have to move Augustana as far east as possible -- Augie's campus address is 495 miles from Wooster's on Google Maps, so it comes down to the software that the NCAA uses, and Columbus (Capital) appears to be about 485 miles away from Rock Island if I-74 and I-70 are used -- with that Great Lakes pod host then oriented towards the northeastern corner of the bracket in a sectional with, say, MIT, Amherst, and Rochester as the other pod hosts. It's much, much easier to do that with Wooster than with Capital, because you can bring any team listed in this week's East Region ranking into Wooster except for Skidmore, St. Lawrence, and Plattsburgh State. But, again, it's all contingent upon Augie being within 500-mile range of Wooster.

    It might actually be more feasible to fly NebWes or UW-Oshkosh east than Whitman, because NWU isn't much less of an island school than is Whitman. You can construct a fly-in pod around Whitman, even if you have to send the Blues to Texas in order to do so. But NWU is a headache, because the only schools likely or semi-likely to be in the D3 tourney that can get to Lincoln without a flight are Augustana (which, of course, isn't going to be put in the same pod as NebWes), Loras (which isn't likely to share a pod with its fellow ARC team, either), the UMAC rep, the SLIAC rep, the MIAC team(s), UW-LaCrosse, North Central, and maybe Wheaton (which is 499 miles from Lincoln, according to Google Maps). It can't share a pod with either of the likely teams to come out of the NACC, since they're both from greater Milwaukee, which is out of range of Lincoln. There's a tremendous amount of overlap there with the teams from which the Oshkosh pod would be culled, and the number of schools that can reach UWO is pretty limited, too. And if you go with what you have available within 500 miles of Lincoln when constructing the bracket, you might find yourself stuck with sending both the UMAC rep and the SLIAC rep to the NebWes pod -- and that would skew the competitive balance across the entire bracket pretty greatly.

    If NebWes stays #1 West and UWO stays #2 Central, and you can construct a coherent and competitive pod in Lincoln (with, let's say, St. John's, North Central, the SLIAC champ, and host NWU), you could see UWO fly eastward in order to reward NWU for having the #1 spot in its region.

    There's not going to be an Oshkosh pod, more than likely.

    There are enough teams that can get to Nebraska for a pod. I don't think that's a big problem. For the second weekend, it might be.

    I can't see how flying Oshkosh for no reason helps anyone. The winner of Whitman's pod flies bc they have no choice, so you might as well fly them east.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AndOne on February 15, 2019, 12:30:19 AM
    Saint,

    Gotta pretty strongly disagree on the 500 mile figure being too low. In a bus, that's like a 8 hour drive. It just seems inherently unfair to force a team to ride for 8 hours and then be able to perform at peak efficiency the next day. Just because one team may be crazy enough to want to ride that far in a bus doesn't mean all teams do. I have always felt anything over 400 should merit a plane ride. And yes, I realize that probably isn't realistic, because everything comes down to money and the NCAA isn't about to spend more than a relative pittance on anything other than D1. JMHO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 01:06:58 AM
    Quote from: AndOne on February 15, 2019, 12:30:19 AM
    Saint,

    Gotta pretty strongly disagree on the 500 mile figure being too low. In a bus, that's like a 8 hour drive. It just seems inherently unfair to force a team to ride for 8 hours and then be able to perform at peak efficiency the next day. Just because one team may be crazy enough to want to ride that far in a bus doesn't mean all teams do. I have always felt anything over 400 should merit a plane ride. And yes, I realize that probably isn't realistic, because everything comes down to money and the NCAA isn't about to spend more than a relative pittance on anything other than D1. JMHO.

    Apparently the teams disagree bc they choose to bus even when they could fly. And it's not just one.

    Not everyone is 20 minutes from O'Hare either, or 15 min if that from MSP like St. Thomas. If it takes you 2 hours just to get to an airport, and then you have to check in 90 min prior or whatever it would take to be sure you get a team and all your equipment on the plane, probably might as well bus it unless it would be an overnight bus trip.

    Seems the way it is now you're giving advantage to teams close to large airports bc 500 miles is clearly easier for them flying, whereas a rural team 500 might not make sense to fly. It should be a number for any team it would be better to fly than bus.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 01:29:29 AM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 12:13:02 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 03:13:54 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 13, 2019, 02:26:20 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 11:24:35 AM
    Once again the numbers make it absolutely plain that the four top teams in the country are the two atop the Central Region rankings (Augustana and UW-Oshkosh) and the two atop the West Region rankings (Nebraska Wesleyan and Whitman). Of the four other teams in the country that have a WP over .900 (Nichols, Randolph-Macon, La Roche, and Pomona-Pitzer), none of them are anywhere near the vicinity of a .540 SOS, which all four of the top teams in the Central and West have. The one team that's really within shouting distance of the Big Four is Randy-Mac (.529 SOS), and the Yellow Jackets trail the Big Four in vRRO, at least as a counting stat:


    UW-Oshkosh  5-1
    Augustana  5-2
    Nebraska Wesleyan  3-1
    Whitman  3-1
    Randolph-Macon  3-2

    So Whitman and Randy Mac bracketed together, and the other 3 getting their own brackets (even if it's possible they might not host bc of who makes it through)? Is that possible?

    I'm not sure. You'd have to move Augustana as far east as possible -- Augie's campus address is 495 miles from Wooster's on Google Maps, so it comes down to the software that the NCAA uses, and Columbus (Capital) appears to be about 485 miles away from Rock Island if I-74 and I-70 are used -- with that Great Lakes pod host then oriented towards the northeastern corner of the bracket in a sectional with, say, MIT, Amherst, and Rochester as the other pod hosts. It's much, much easier to do that with Wooster than with Capital, because you can bring any team listed in this week's East Region ranking into Wooster except for Skidmore, St. Lawrence, and Plattsburgh State. But, again, it's all contingent upon Augie being within 500-mile range of Wooster.

    It might actually be more feasible to fly NebWes or UW-Oshkosh east than Whitman, because NWU isn't much less of an island school than is Whitman. You can construct a fly-in pod around Whitman, even if you have to send the Blues to Texas in order to do so. But NWU is a headache, because the only schools likely or semi-likely to be in the D3 tourney that can get to Lincoln without a flight are Augustana (which, of course, isn't going to be put in the same pod as NebWes), Loras (which isn't likely to share a pod with its fellow ARC team, either), the UMAC rep, the SLIAC rep, the MIAC team(s), UW-LaCrosse, North Central, and maybe Wheaton (which is 499 miles from Lincoln, according to Google Maps). It can't share a pod with either of the likely teams to come out of the NACC, since they're both from greater Milwaukee, which is out of range of Lincoln. There's a tremendous amount of overlap there with the teams from which the Oshkosh pod would be culled, and the number of schools that can reach UWO is pretty limited, too. And if you go with what you have available within 500 miles of Lincoln when constructing the bracket, you might find yourself stuck with sending both the UMAC rep and the SLIAC rep to the NebWes pod -- and that would skew the competitive balance across the entire bracket pretty greatly.

    If NebWes stays #1 West and UWO stays #2 Central, and you can construct a coherent and competitive pod in Lincoln (with, let's say, St. John's, North Central, the SLIAC champ, and host NWU), you could see UWO fly eastward in order to reward NWU for having the #1 spot in its region.

    There's not going to be an Oshkosh pod, more than likely.

    There are enough teams that can get to Nebraska for a pod. I don't think that's a big problem. For the second weekend, it might be.

    I can't see how flying Oshkosh for no reason helps anyone. The winner of Whitman's pod flies bc they have no choice, so you might as well fly them east.

    If the committee is taking seeding seriously, it has to break up the trio of Nebraska Wesleyan, Augustana, and UW-Oshkosh should the status quo remains intact over the next eight days. As others besides me have pointed out, there's a huge gap in terms of criteria credentials between the top four teams in the nation (NebWes, Augie, UWO, and Whitman) and everybody else.

    Of course, the status quo might not remain intact. UWO, f'rinstance, lost on Wednesday to UW-LaCrosse. The Titans could stumble again prematurely and come back to the pack enough to warrant assigning them as a #2 seed in a section within the bracket that features NWU, Augie, Whitman, or an as-yet-unidentified fourth team as the section's #1. But, for now, sticking UWO into a section with Augie or with NebWes creates what we midwestern D3 veterans refer to as a "Bracket of Death". It's happened before, and the committee should do everything necessary within the range of feasibility to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 01:42:54 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 01:29:29 AM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 12:13:02 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 03:13:54 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 13, 2019, 02:26:20 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 13, 2019, 11:24:35 AM
    Once again the numbers make it absolutely plain that the four top teams in the country are the two atop the Central Region rankings (Augustana and UW-Oshkosh) and the two atop the West Region rankings (Nebraska Wesleyan and Whitman). Of the four other teams in the country that have a WP over .900 (Nichols, Randolph-Macon, La Roche, and Pomona-Pitzer), none of them are anywhere near the vicinity of a .540 SOS, which all four of the top teams in the Central and West have. The one team that's really within shouting distance of the Big Four is Randy-Mac (.529 SOS), and the Yellow Jackets trail the Big Four in vRRO, at least as a counting stat:


    UW-Oshkosh  5-1
    Augustana  5-2
    Nebraska Wesleyan  3-1
    Whitman  3-1
    Randolph-Macon  3-2

    So Whitman and Randy Mac bracketed together, and the other 3 getting their own brackets (even if it's possible they might not host bc of who makes it through)? Is that possible?

    I'm not sure. You'd have to move Augustana as far east as possible -- Augie's campus address is 495 miles from Wooster's on Google Maps, so it comes down to the software that the NCAA uses, and Columbus (Capital) appears to be about 485 miles away from Rock Island if I-74 and I-70 are used -- with that Great Lakes pod host then oriented towards the northeastern corner of the bracket in a sectional with, say, MIT, Amherst, and Rochester as the other pod hosts. It's much, much easier to do that with Wooster than with Capital, because you can bring any team listed in this week's East Region ranking into Wooster except for Skidmore, St. Lawrence, and Plattsburgh State. But, again, it's all contingent upon Augie being within 500-mile range of Wooster.

    It might actually be more feasible to fly NebWes or UW-Oshkosh east than Whitman, because NWU isn't much less of an island school than is Whitman. You can construct a fly-in pod around Whitman, even if you have to send the Blues to Texas in order to do so. But NWU is a headache, because the only schools likely or semi-likely to be in the D3 tourney that can get to Lincoln without a flight are Augustana (which, of course, isn't going to be put in the same pod as NebWes), Loras (which isn't likely to share a pod with its fellow ARC team, either), the UMAC rep, the SLIAC rep, the MIAC team(s), UW-LaCrosse, North Central, and maybe Wheaton (which is 499 miles from Lincoln, according to Google Maps). It can't share a pod with either of the likely teams to come out of the NACC, since they're both from greater Milwaukee, which is out of range of Lincoln. There's a tremendous amount of overlap there with the teams from which the Oshkosh pod would be culled, and the number of schools that can reach UWO is pretty limited, too. And if you go with what you have available within 500 miles of Lincoln when constructing the bracket, you might find yourself stuck with sending both the UMAC rep and the SLIAC rep to the NebWes pod -- and that would skew the competitive balance across the entire bracket pretty greatly.

    If NebWes stays #1 West and UWO stays #2 Central, and you can construct a coherent and competitive pod in Lincoln (with, let's say, St. John's, North Central, the SLIAC champ, and host NWU), you could see UWO fly eastward in order to reward NWU for having the #1 spot in its region.

    There's not going to be an Oshkosh pod, more than likely.

    There are enough teams that can get to Nebraska for a pod. I don't think that's a big problem. For the second weekend, it might be.

    I can't see how flying Oshkosh for no reason helps anyone. The winner of Whitman's pod flies bc they have no choice, so you might as well fly them east.

    If the committee is taking seeding seriously, it has to break up the trio of Nebraska Wesleyan, Augustana, and UW-Oshkosh should the status quo remains intact over the next eight days. As others besides me have pointed out, there's a huge gap in terms of criteria credentials between the top four teams in the nation (NebWes, Augie, UWO, and Whitman) and everybody else.

    Of course, the status quo might not remain intact. UWO, f'rinstance, lost on Wednesday to UW-LaCrosse. The Titans could stumble again prematurely and come back to the pack enough to warrant assigning them as a #2 seed in a section within the bracket that features NWU, Augie, Whitman, or an as-yet-unidentified fourth team as the section's #1. But, for now, sticking UWO into a section with Augie or with NebWes creates what we midwestern D3 veterans refer to as a "Bracket of Death". It's happened before, and the committee should do everything necessary within the range of feasibility to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

    I can't imagine it happening. That's the point of sending Whitman east. But the only way you can have pods progged for UWO, Augustana and Neb Wesleyan is to be prepared to fly a significant number of teams into them. Flying UWO for a first-weekend pod just doesn't seem like a committee move.

    It's going to be loaded out here regardless. It always is. Don't expect anything different.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 01:59:33 AM
    We have no way of knowing how many island teams there will be. There will be a minimum of four (Whitman, Pomona-Pitzer, ASC rep, SAA rep) that would make for a nice portable pod that could be shipped anywhere after the first weekend (which would either be spent in Texas or, if the committee has saved on flights, in Walla Walla) -- or there could be as many as seven island teams, which would gum up everything. All of which is to say that there's no guarantee that Whitman can be shipped to the northeastern corner of the country to balance out the top four teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 02:28:57 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 01:59:33 AM
    We have no way of knowing how many island teams there will be. There will be a minimum of four (Whitman, Pomona-Pitzer, ASC rep, SAA rep) that would make for a nice portable pod that could be shipped anywhere after the first weekend (which would either be spent in Texas or, if the committee has saved on flights, in Walla Walla) -- or there could be as many as seven island teams, which would gum up everything. All of which is to say that there's no guarantee that Whitman can be shipped to the northeastern corner of the country to balance out the top four teams.

    Um...yes there is. Like you said, there's a minimum of 4. a pod has 4 teams, all of which are going to have to fly for the second weekend anyway, wherever they go. Where they go, doesn't matter. Put the pod in the Randolph-Macon or Amherst or MIT or whoever side of the bracket and there you go.

    Same as like someone else said about them going to Marietta in the past.

    And I don't think it's possible to have 7 island teams, as long as Centre is a viable pod location. They can pretty much clean up the south, and possibly bring in a Wooster or Marietta as well if needed to strengthen it up.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 15, 2019, 02:48:04 AM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 14, 2019, 11:58:35 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2019, 12:20:51 PM

    There was one of those last year when we were doing the mock bracket.  One way was under 500 and the other way was over.  The driveable direction was not the right one for the seedings.  Very frustrating.

    A few things.

    1. Google has like 493 between Wooster and Augustana. I refuse to believe Google is off by 7 miles. I doubt it's off by .7 miles.
    2. If teams that are over 500 miles are like "nah, we'll just drive", then to me that means that 500 mile limit is too low. The limit should be at a number where no one would prefer to drive. So maybe this is the real problem we have, the 500 miles doesn't accurately reflect the point at which it would be a clear impediment to ask a team to drive. Maybe it's 600, or 750. 
    3. Does it matter that Fort Wayne is going to be in driving distance for more teams than Salem was? Very good chance of saving at least a flight if not two there.

    I think 500 is a perfectly fine set point.  That's about an 8.5 to 9 hour bus ride.  The reason a lot of these teams choose to bus instead is because either:
    A) they aren't close to any airports so it's just easier to drive to the destination
    B) The airports they are close to are only regionals, so they'd have to take a connecting flight or flights, in which case it is just easier to bus.

    Take Maine-Presque Isle for example: Let's say for hypothetical case they made the tournament and got sent to a pod at Western Connecticut.  The NCAA milage chart shows the schools at being 541 miles away from each other which means Presque Isle would be entitled to a flight.  But there's a pretty good chance Presque Isle wouldn't take it, and would just bus the 10 hours or so down to Danbury, Connecticut.  Why??  Because the airport in Presque Isle only has flights to Boston I believe, and than from Boston you'd have to connect to either New York's JFK or LaGuardia airport, so with the connecting flights, and than the inevitable traffic not only on the airport grounds, but once you get onto the New York roads it would just be easier for them to bus down from Maine. 
    Or take the other end of the spectrum: St. Mary's of Maryland in a pod at Plattsburgh State.  St. Mary's is about as far south in Maryland as you can go without ending up in the Chesapeake Bay, and Plattsburgh is about as far north in New York you can get without ending up in Canada.  Even though that's over the 500 mile distance, and St. Mary's would be entitled to a flight they'd probably bus as well because there is no major or even regional airport close to either of those 2 cities, so it would be probably just be faster for them to drive.  That's why a lot of these schools end up bussing instead, even at 550 or 560 or 600 miles.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 15, 2019, 08:42:32 AM

    I think there's a pretty good chance Emory gets into the tournament, which often gives a driveable locale for the SAA (although not always) - plus, there's a good chance Centre will be in this year, also creating some better distances for some teams.  Things change so quickly, though, there's no real reason to speculate on geography this far out.  Last year, for example, we didn't include Letourneau in our mock; the NCAA did.  That changed everything in terms of bracketing and it was, essentially, a last minute decision.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WW on February 15, 2019, 09:03:54 AM
    Quote from: 7express on February 15, 2019, 02:48:04 AM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 14, 2019, 11:58:35 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2019, 12:20:51 PM

    There was one of those last year when we were doing the mock bracket.  One way was under 500 and the other way was over.  The driveable direction was not the right one for the seedings.  Very frustrating.

    A few things.

    1. Google has like 493 between Wooster and Augustana. I refuse to believe Google is off by 7 miles. I doubt it's off by .7 miles.
    2. If teams that are over 500 miles are like "nah, we'll just drive", then to me that means that 500 mile limit is too low. The limit should be at a number where no one would prefer to drive. So maybe this is the real problem we have, the 500 miles doesn't accurately reflect the point at which it would be a clear impediment to ask a team to drive. Maybe it's 600, or 750. 
    3. Does it matter that Fort Wayne is going to be in driving distance for more teams than Salem was? Very good chance of saving at least a flight if not two there.

    I think 500 is a perfectly fine set point.  That's about an 8.5 to 9 hour bus ride.  The reason a lot of these teams choose to bus instead is because either:
    A) they aren't close to any airports so it's just easier to drive to the destination
    B) The airports they are close to are only regionals, so they'd have to take a connecting flight or flights, in which case it is just easier to bus.

    Take Maine-Presque Isle for example: Let's say for hypothetical case they made the tournament and got sent to a pod at Western Connecticut.  The NCAA milage chart shows the schools at being 541 miles away from each other which means Presque Isle would be entitled to a flight.  But there's a pretty good chance Presque Isle wouldn't take it, and would just bus the 10 hours or so down to Danbury, Connecticut.  Why??  Because the airport in Presque Isle only has flights to Boston I believe, and than from Boston you'd have to connect to either New York's JFK or LaGuardia airport, so with the connecting flights, and than the inevitable traffic not only on the airport grounds, but once you get onto the New York roads it would just be easier for them to bus down from Maine. 
    Or take the other end of the spectrum: St. Mary's of Maryland in a pod at Plattsburgh State.  St. Mary's is about as far south in Maryland as you can go without ending up in the Chesapeake Bay, and Plattsburgh is about as far north in New York you can get without ending up in Canada.  Even though that's over the 500 mile distance, and St. Mary's would be entitled to a flight they'd probably bus as well because there is no major or even regional airport close to either of those 2 cities, so it would be probably just be faster for them to drive.  That's why a lot of these schools end up bussing instead, even at 550 or 560 or 600 miles.

    Wooster to Augustana would likely result in a longer trip by air than bus when you consider you'll have to board and unboard a bus to get to CLE, connect at ORD, then fly to MLI, the board another bus to reach your destination. Throw in delay potential and it's a no-brainer to bus a lot of these +500-mile trips. Say you're sending Wooster to St. John's, for example, with a nonstop to MSP, and a flight makes more sense. Gotta view these on a case-specific basis, not arbitrarily
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on February 15, 2019, 09:58:25 AM
    Quote from: WW on February 15, 2019, 09:03:54 AM
    Quote from: 7express on February 15, 2019, 02:48:04 AM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 14, 2019, 11:58:35 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2019, 12:20:51 PM

    There was one of those last year when we were doing the mock bracket.  One way was under 500 and the other way was over.  The driveable direction was not the right one for the seedings.  Very frustrating.

    A few things.

    1. Google has like 493 between Wooster and Augustana. I refuse to believe Google is off by 7 miles. I doubt it's off by .7 miles.
    2. If teams that are over 500 miles are like "nah, we'll just drive", then to me that means that 500 mile limit is too low. The limit should be at a number where no one would prefer to drive. So maybe this is the real problem we have, the 500 miles doesn't accurately reflect the point at which it would be a clear impediment to ask a team to drive. Maybe it's 600, or 750. 
    3. Does it matter that Fort Wayne is going to be in driving distance for more teams than Salem was? Very good chance of saving at least a flight if not two there.

    I think 500 is a perfectly fine set point.  That's about an 8.5 to 9 hour bus ride.  The reason a lot of these teams choose to bus instead is because either:
    A) they aren't close to any airports so it's just easier to drive to the destination
    B) The airports they are close to are only regionals, so they'd have to take a connecting flight or flights, in which case it is just easier to bus.

    Take Maine-Presque Isle for example: Let's say for hypothetical case they made the tournament and got sent to a pod at Western Connecticut.  The NCAA milage chart shows the schools at being 541 miles away from each other which means Presque Isle would be entitled to a flight.  But there's a pretty good chance Presque Isle wouldn't take it, and would just bus the 10 hours or so down to Danbury, Connecticut.  Why??  Because the airport in Presque Isle only has flights to Boston I believe, and than from Boston you'd have to connect to either New York's JFK or LaGuardia airport, so with the connecting flights, and than the inevitable traffic not only on the airport grounds, but once you get onto the New York roads it would just be easier for them to bus down from Maine. 
    Or take the other end of the spectrum: St. Mary's of Maryland in a pod at Plattsburgh State.  St. Mary's is about as far south in Maryland as you can go without ending up in the Chesapeake Bay, and Plattsburgh is about as far north in New York you can get without ending up in Canada.  Even though that's over the 500 mile distance, and St. Mary's would be entitled to a flight they'd probably bus as well because there is no major or even regional airport close to either of those 2 cities, so it would be probably just be faster for them to drive.  That's why a lot of these schools end up bussing instead, even at 550 or 560 or 600 miles.

    Wooster to Augustana would likely result in a longer trip by air than bus when you consider you'll have to board and unboard a bus to get to CLE, connect at ORD, then fly to MLI, the board another bus to reach your destination. Throw in delay potential and it's a no-brainer to bus a lot of these +500-mile trips. Say you're sending Wooster to St. John's, for example, with a nonstop to MSP, and a flight makes more sense. Gotta view these on a case-specific basis, not arbitrarily

    Definitely not an expert on how NCAA tournament travel works - but do they all fly commercial?  Or would they be chartered and be able to skip the hypothetical connection in Chicago? 

    Also not saying that in some cases taking a bus 503 miles is easier than flying, but it may be that some of this headache isn't actually in play. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BobbyO on February 15, 2019, 10:20:29 AM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on February 15, 2019, 09:58:25 AM
    Quote from: WW on February 15, 2019, 09:03:54 AM
    Quote from: 7express on February 15, 2019, 02:48:04 AM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 14, 2019, 11:58:35 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2019, 12:20:51 PM

    There was one of those last year when we were doing the mock bracket.  One way was under 500 and the other way was over.  The driveable direction was not the right one for the seedings.  Very frustrating.

    A few things.

    1. Google has like 493 between Wooster and Augustana. I refuse to believe Google is off by 7 miles. I doubt it's off by .7 miles.
    2. If teams that are over 500 miles are like "nah, we'll just drive", then to me that means that 500 mile limit is too low. The limit should be at a number where no one would prefer to drive. So maybe this is the real problem we have, the 500 miles doesn't accurately reflect the point at which it would be a clear impediment to ask a team to drive. Maybe it's 600, or 750. 
    3. Does it matter that Fort Wayne is going to be in driving distance for more teams than Salem was? Very good chance of saving at least a flight if not two there.

    I think 500 is a perfectly fine set point.  That's about an 8.5 to 9 hour bus ride.  The reason a lot of these teams choose to bus instead is because either:
    A) they aren't close to any airports so it's just easier to drive to the destination
    B) The airports they are close to are only regionals, so they'd have to take a connecting flight or flights, in which case it is just easier to bus.

    Take Maine-Presque Isle for example: Let's say for hypothetical case they made the tournament and got sent to a pod at Western Connecticut.  The NCAA milage chart shows the schools at being 541 miles away from each other which means Presque Isle would be entitled to a flight.  But there's a pretty good chance Presque Isle wouldn't take it, and would just bus the 10 hours or so down to Danbury, Connecticut.  Why??  Because the airport in Presque Isle only has flights to Boston I believe, and than from Boston you'd have to connect to either New York's JFK or LaGuardia airport, so with the connecting flights, and than the inevitable traffic not only on the airport grounds, but once you get onto the New York roads it would just be easier for them to bus down from Maine. 
    Or take the other end of the spectrum: St. Mary's of Maryland in a pod at Plattsburgh State.  St. Mary's is about as far south in Maryland as you can go without ending up in the Chesapeake Bay, and Plattsburgh is about as far north in New York you can get without ending up in Canada.  Even though that's over the 500 mile distance, and St. Mary's would be entitled to a flight they'd probably bus as well because there is no major or even regional airport close to either of those 2 cities, so it would be probably just be faster for them to drive.  That's why a lot of these schools end up bussing instead, even at 550 or 560 or 600 miles.

    Wooster to Augustana would likely result in a longer trip by air than bus when you consider you'll have to board and unboard a bus to get to CLE, connect at ORD, then fly to MLI, the board another bus to reach your destination. Throw in delay potential and it's a no-brainer to bus a lot of these +500-mile trips. Say you're sending Wooster to St. John's, for example, with a nonstop to MSP, and a flight makes more sense. Gotta view these on a case-specific basis, not arbitrarily

    Definitely not an expert on how NCAA tournament travel works - but do they all fly commercial?  Or would they be chartered and be able to skip the hypothetical connection in Chicago? 

    Also not saying that in some cases taking a bus 503 miles is easier than flying, but it may be that some of this headache isn't actually in play.

    In 2017 Augie took a bus to Salem.  Coach G thought it would be better for them.  He was able to get the old SID from my time at Augie, wish I could remember his name, set up a practice at Butler to break up the trip.  Thought it was a good break for them.  Perhaps others teams could take this in mind when deciding bus versus plane.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: augie77 on February 15, 2019, 10:25:29 AM
    Jim McGrath was the previous SID at Augustana.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2019, 10:45:49 AM
    For basketball teams fly commercial. For sports with larger rosters, they fly commercial for short distances (last I heard, that radius was 900 miles) and charter for longer distances. But, also, commercial air travel has changed so much in the last few years that it's hard to book 60 seats commercially for football. Even in basketball, sometimes the ~20-person traveling party is split between a couple of flights.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 12:21:27 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 02:28:57 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 01:59:33 AM
    We have no way of knowing how many island teams there will be. There will be a minimum of four (Whitman, Pomona-Pitzer, ASC rep, SAA rep) that would make for a nice portable pod that could be shipped anywhere after the first weekend (which would either be spent in Texas or, if the committee has saved on flights, in Walla Walla) -- or there could be as many as seven island teams, which would gum up everything. All of which is to say that there's no guarantee that Whitman can be shipped to the northeastern corner of the country to balance out the top four teams.

    Um...yes there is. Like you said, there's a minimum of 4. a pod has 4 teams, all of which are going to have to fly for the second weekend anyway, wherever they go. Where they go, doesn't matter. Put the pod in the Randolph-Macon or Amherst or MIT or whoever side of the bracket and there you go.

    ... and then you're possibly stuck with as many as six excess island teams, none of which will have earned a #1 or #2 seed in the South or West regions. Ryan points out that Emory and Centre are possible pod sites, but there aren't any teams near the top of the ASC and SCAC standings that are within 500 miles of either Atlanta or Danville.

    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 02:28:57 AM
    Same as like someone else said about them going to Marietta in the past.

    Yes, of course the NWC rep has been shipped out on opening weekend before. But the point is that, if Whitman remains deserving of a #1 sectional seed -- and it will be very hard to dislodge the Blues from that perch, according to the numbers -- the case becomes compelling to reward the Blues by giving them a Walla Walla pod made up of other island teams. This becomes even more compelling if there's a second NWC team in the field and there's five or more island teams, because it would allow the committee to follow the split-them-up-whenever-possible rule by shipping that second NWC team somewhere else.

    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 02:28:57 AM
    And I don't think it's possible to have 7 island teams, as long as Centre is a viable pod location.

    Um ... yes it is. You could get two NWC reps (Whitman and somebody else, presumably Whitworth), two SCIAC reps (Pomona-Pitzer is edging closer to the point where it'll get a Pool C berth if it loses the SCIAC tourney title game), two ASC reps (Mary Hardin-Baylor could continue ascending the South Region ranking ladder and then lose the ASC tourney title game, giving the Cru a Pool C berth), and the SCAC rep. That's seven island teams -- not a one of which can reach Danville, KY without a flight.

    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 02:28:57 AM
    They can pretty much clean up the south, and possibly bring in a Wooster or Marietta as well if needed to strengthen it up.

    No, they can't. Centre's Alumni Gym is a handy place to hold a pod in terms of bridging leagues such as the ODAC and the USA South with the teams in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and even UW-Whitewater (an unlikely candidate for a tourney appearance this season). But it doesn't do you a bit of good as far as the two Texas-based leagues are concerned. According to the NCAA's mileage calculator, the closest ASC or SCAC team to Centre is Belhaven ... and the calculator says that it's 603 miles from Jackson, MS to Danville, KY.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 15, 2019, 12:21:59 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 15, 2019, 10:45:49 AM
    For basketball teams fly commercial. For sports with larger rosters, they fly commercial for short distances (last I heard, that radius was 900 miles) and charter for longer distances. But, also, commercial air travel has changed so much in the last few years that it's hard to book 60 seats commercially for football. Even in basketball, sometimes the ~20-person traveling party is split between a couple of flights.

    I was told it's 1000 for basketball to go commercial, but I imagine the price difference also factors in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 12:28:52 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 15, 2019, 02:48:04 AM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 14, 2019, 11:58:35 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2019, 12:20:51 PM

    There was one of those last year when we were doing the mock bracket.  One way was under 500 and the other way was over.  The driveable direction was not the right one for the seedings.  Very frustrating.

    A few things.

    1. Google has like 493 between Wooster and Augustana. I refuse to believe Google is off by 7 miles. I doubt it's off by .7 miles.
    2. If teams that are over 500 miles are like "nah, we'll just drive", then to me that means that 500 mile limit is too low. The limit should be at a number where no one would prefer to drive. So maybe this is the real problem we have, the 500 miles doesn't accurately reflect the point at which it would be a clear impediment to ask a team to drive. Maybe it's 600, or 750. 
    3. Does it matter that Fort Wayne is going to be in driving distance for more teams than Salem was? Very good chance of saving at least a flight if not two there.

    I think 500 is a perfectly fine set point.  That's about an 8.5 to 9 hour bus ride.  The reason a lot of these teams choose to bus instead is because either:
    A) they aren't close to any airports so it's just easier to drive to the destination
    B) The airports they are close to are only regionals, so they'd have to take a connecting flight or flights, in which case it is just easier to bus.

    Take Maine-Presque Isle for example: Let's say for hypothetical case they made the tournament and got sent to a pod at Western Connecticut.  The NCAA milage chart shows the schools at being 541 miles away from each other which means Presque Isle would be entitled to a flight.  But there's a pretty good chance Presque Isle wouldn't take it, and would just bus the 10 hours or so down to Danbury, Connecticut.  Why??  Because the airport in Presque Isle only has flights to Boston I believe, and than from Boston you'd have to connect to either New York's JFK or LaGuardia airport, so with the connecting flights, and than the inevitable traffic not only on the airport grounds, but once you get onto the New York roads it would just be easier for them to bus down from Maine. 
    Or take the other end of the spectrum: St. Mary's of Maryland in a pod at Plattsburgh State.  St. Mary's is about as far south in Maryland as you can go without ending up in the Chesapeake Bay, and Plattsburgh is about as far north in New York you can get without ending up in Canada.  Even though that's over the 500 mile distance, and St. Mary's would be entitled to a flight they'd probably bus as well because there is no major or even regional airport close to either of those 2 cities, so it would be probably just be faster for them to drive.  That's why a lot of these schools end up bussing instead, even at 550 or 560 or 600 miles.

    Can I just say that I love any hypothetical that involves UMPI getting a bid to the tourney?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 01:55:42 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 15, 2019, 08:42:32 AM

    I think there's a pretty good chance Emory gets into the tournament, which often gives a driveable locale for the SAA (although not always) - plus, there's a good chance Centre will be in this year, also creating some better distances for some teams.  Things change so quickly, though, there's no real reason to speculate on geography this far out.  Last year, for example, we didn't include Letourneau in our mock; the NCAA did.  That changed everything in terms of bracketing and it was, essentially, a last minute decision.

    Yeah, I imagine knowing what teams are in the tournament is a real advantage in bracketing. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 02:50:13 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 12:21:27 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 02:28:57 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 01:59:33 AM
    We have no way of knowing how many island teams there will be. There will be a minimum of four (Whitman, Pomona-Pitzer, ASC rep, SAA rep) that would make for a nice portable pod that could be shipped anywhere after the first weekend (which would either be spent in Texas or, if the committee has saved on flights, in Walla Walla) -- or there could be as many as seven island teams, which would gum up everything. All of which is to say that there's no guarantee that Whitman can be shipped to the northeastern corner of the country to balance out the top four teams.

    Um...yes there is. Like you said, there's a minimum of 4. a pod has 4 teams, all of which are going to have to fly for the second weekend anyway, wherever they go. Where they go, doesn't matter. Put the pod in the Randolph-Macon or Amherst or MIT or whoever side of the bracket and there you go.

    ... and then you're possibly stuck with as many as six excess island teams, none of which will have earned a #1 or #2 seed in the South or West regions. Ryan points out that Emory and Centre are possible pod sites, but there aren't any teams near the top of the ASC and SCAC standings that are within 500 miles of either Atlanta or Danville.

    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 02:28:57 AM
    Same as like someone else said about them going to Marietta in the past.

    Yes, of course the NWC rep has been shipped out on opening weekend before. But the point is that, if Whitman remains deserving of a #1 sectional seed -- and it will be very hard to dislodge the Blues from that perch, according to the numbers -- the case becomes compelling to reward the Blues by giving them a Walla Walla pod made up of other island teams. This becomes even more compelling if there's a second NWC team in the field and there's five or more island teams, because it would allow the committee to follow the split-them-up-whenever-possible rule by shipping that second NWC team somewhere else.

    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 02:28:57 AM
    And I don't think it's possible to have 7 island teams, as long as Centre is a viable pod location.

    Um ... yes it is. You could get two NWC reps (Whitman and somebody else, presumably Whitworth), two SCIAC reps (Pomona-Pitzer is edging closer to the point where it'll get a Pool C berth if it loses the SCIAC tourney title game), two ASC reps (Mary Hardin-Baylor could continue ascending the South Region ranking ladder and then lose the ASC tourney title game, giving the Cru a Pool C berth), and the SCAC rep. That's seven island teams -- not a one of which can reach Danville, KY without a flight.

    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 15, 2019, 02:28:57 AM
    They can pretty much clean up the south, and possibly bring in a Wooster or Marietta as well if needed to strengthen it up.

    No, they can't. Centre's Alumni Gym is a handy place to hold a pod in terms of bridging leagues such as the ODAC and the USA South with the teams in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and even UW-Whitewater (an unlikely candidate for a tourney appearance this season). But it doesn't do you a bit of good as far as the two Texas-based leagues are concerned. According to the NCAA's mileage calculator, the closest ASC or SCAC team to Centre is Belhaven ... and the calculator says that it's 603 miles from Jackson, MS to Danville, KY.

    OK I guess maybe we're not referring to the same thing by island team. But really I don't care. Ain't nobody got time for that.

    If you want to be a pedant, no Centre doesn't cover the entire south, but the cover the part of the south that is likely to need covering.

    The Texas-ish schools (I know not all of the SCAC or ASC are in TX) are going west, in all likelihood, unless there's actually a regional in TX (which would almost certainly be TXish, TXish, SCIAC and Whitman). So it doesn't matter how far away from Centre they are.

    But I've decided none of this makes sense.
    USAS bid is going to be within 500 miles of Atlanta. I thought NC Wesleyan wouldn't be but apparently it is.
    Very good chance the SAA bid is within 500 miles of Atlanta. The top 5 teams in the conference are all a drive.
    Very good chance Emory gets a bid.

    Very good chance there's a pod in the non-Virginia south.

    Yes, other possibilities exist.

    I await the debate on whether Kentucky is the south.  ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 15, 2019, 03:24:39 PM
    Curious if they would actually ship a possible #1 seed in Whitman to "Texas-ish" to save a flight. Stranger things have happened, I guess.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 03:51:39 PM
    My attempts at trying to read between the lines whenever Dave has a national committee member on Hoopsville lead me to believe that they value the criteria and the regional rankings right up to the last dollar available to them ... but no further. They value them enough, in fact, to try to reward an obvious #1 seed such as Whitman whenever possible, so that if there's a couple of flights available within the budget they wouldn't hesitate to fly two Texas teams to Walla Walla. At the same time, though, there's no guarantees that bracketing requirements won't use up whatever extra flights are available, so if there aren't any extra flights the Blues will be on a plane to the Lone Star State even though they deserve better.

    Is that a fair reading of what I keep hearing on Hoopsville, Dave?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 15, 2019, 04:19:38 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 03:51:39 PM
    My attempts at trying to read between the lines whenever Dave has a national committee member on Hoopsville lead me to believe that they value the criteria and the regional rankings right up to the last dollar available to them ... but no further. They value them enough, in fact, to try to reward an obvious #1 seed such as Whitman whenever possible, so that if there's a couple of flights available within the budget they wouldn't hesitate to fly two Texas teams to Walla Walla. At the same time, though, there's no guarantees that bracketing requirements won't use up whatever extra flights are available, so if there aren't any extra flights the Blues will be on a plane to the Lone Star State even though they deserve better.

    Is that a fair reading of what I keep hearing on Hoopsville, Dave?

    Last year we discovered none of the Texas teams bid to host, so that changed the landscape quite a bit.  Right now, it's not a lock that Whitworth will get into the tournament.  If there are two Texas teams within driving distance of one another and one bids to host, it's very conceivable Whitman would end up there.  Of course a lot will depend on how many other flights might be needed.

    The one thing I hope they're willing to do this time around is to put Whitman's pod into one of the eastern brackets.  With Whitman, Oshkosh, Augustana, and NWU the likely top seeds, it's going to be tough (and darn near impossible) to get them all in separate brackets without a flight.  I'll do my best to do it in the mock, but geography often trumps those attempts.  Getting Whitman to Virginia or even Massachusetts would be a wonderful way to diversify the tournament with a team that's going to have to fly the second weekend regardless.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2019, 04:39:16 PM
    Early in the season, an ASC coach said that ASC teams would file to host this year.

    I have not spoken with him since then, so... who knows?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BobbyO on February 15, 2019, 08:06:38 PM
    Quote from: augie77 on February 15, 2019, 10:25:29 AM
    Jim McGrath was the previous SID at Augustana.

    Yep that's who it was
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 15, 2019, 08:41:00 PM
    Three thoughts:

    1. I expect as many island teams to be paired together as possible.  (I.E. -- Whitman, Pomona-Pitzer, ASC and SCAC winners as a pod.)  The simple reason for this, as opposed to flying Whitman to an Eastern pod, is that it helps to minimize the number of potential flights for the second weekend.  Lumping them into a single pod guarantees that you have one and only one flight on the second weekend for whatever island teams are grouped together, unless they are a second weekend host.

    2. The idea of moving Whitman (or whomever wins an island pod) to an Eastern quadrant of the bracket in the second weekend is a way to better balance the draw since you would know that someone is flying somewhere that weekend.  The real question to me is whether they would be seeded in a way they could be selected as a second weekend host as that would mean three flights to them instead of one flight in the other direction.  The bracket may instead have them as a #2 seed (yes, I know there aren't actually seeds) behind a more centrally located #1 seed in their quarter of the draw.

    3.  Regarding the location of a hypothetical Whitman-Pomona-ASC-SCAC pod... Keep in mind that the committee may want to reward Whitman by flying everyone to the Pac Northwest (read as: two Texas teams both fly).  But the bracket has to go to the NCAA for approval, and it is easy to envision a scenario where they send it back and say 'I see a way to eliminate an unnecessary flight -- switch the site to Dallas'.  In other words, the committee may not get what it wants if it results in our D1 sugardaddies having to pony up additional funds.  As was noted above, the NCAA's priorities change quickly once a proposed bracket results in incurring incremental costs.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2019, 11:27:55 AM
    Should we start a GoFundMe page to cover the extra costs so we can have a balanced bracket?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 16, 2019, 11:33:54 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2019, 11:27:55 AM
    Should we start a GoFundMe page to cover the extra costs so we can have a balanced bracket?

    Honestly, the NCAA might be surprised how easy it would be to raise whatever funds are necessary to build the D3 bracket the right way.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 16, 2019, 12:57:58 PM
    My plan to fund the bracket...

    1. Determine the additional amount of money needed to build the bracket the right way (like the D1 bracket).

    2. Split that cost among the UAA schools in proportion to each school's endowment.

    3. Add one additional Pool C, and guarantee that Pool C to a UAA team each year. 


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2019, 02:31:24 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 16, 2019, 12:57:58 PM
    My plan to fund the bracket...

    1. Determine the additional amount of money needed to build the bracket the right way (like the D1 bracket).

    2. Split that cost among the UAA schools in proportion to each school's endowment.

    3. Add one additional Pool C, and guarantee that Pool C to a UAA team each year.

    You could just include any school with a billion+ endowment - call it Pool D and leave it open for the rich schools who aren't otherwise chosen.  You wouldn't want to leave Amherst, Pomona, Grinnell, Middlebury, Vassar, Berea, Hopkins, MIT, Bowdoin, Trinity (Tx), Williams, Caltech, Tufts, W&L, and Swarthmore out.

    It would also give everyone a chance to feel sorry for Brandeis and their measly $976m.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 02:48:49 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2019, 02:31:24 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 16, 2019, 12:57:58 PM
    My plan to fund the bracket...

    1. Determine the additional amount of money needed to build the bracket the right way (like the D1 bracket).

    2. Split that cost among the UAA schools in proportion to each school's endowment.

    3. Add one additional Pool C, and guarantee that Pool C to a UAA team each year.

    You could just include any school with a billion+ endowment - call it Pool D and leave it open for the rich schools who aren't otherwise chosen.  You wouldn't want to leave Amherst, Pomona, Grinnell, Middlebury, Vassar, Berea, Hopkins, MIT, Bowdoin, Trinity (Tx), Williams, Caltech, Tufts, W&L, and Swarthmore out.

    It would also give everyone a chance to feel sorry for Brandeis and their measly $976m.

    Beyond shocked Grinnell has a $1.8 billion endowment. Love learning tidbits like that about d3 schools.

    How about CMS? The three schools combine for well over $1 billion endowment.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 16, 2019, 03:54:41 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2019, 02:31:24 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 16, 2019, 12:57:58 PM
    My plan to fund the bracket...

    1. Determine the additional amount of money needed to build the bracket the right way (like the D1 bracket).

    2. Split that cost among the UAA schools in proportion to each school's endowment.

    3. Add one additional Pool C, and guarantee that Pool C to a UAA team each year.

    You could just include any school with a billion+ endowment - call it Pool D and leave it open for the rich schools who aren't otherwise chosen.  You wouldn't want to leave Amherst, Pomona, Grinnell, Middlebury, Vassar, Berea, Hopkins, MIT, Bowdoin, Trinity (Tx), Williams, Caltech, Tufts, W&L, and Swarthmore out.

    ... but if it's Berea, the players have to earn their per diem by doing odd jobs or holding a bake sale. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 16, 2019, 03:56:38 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 02:48:49 PMBeyond shocked Grinnell has a $1.8 billion endowment.

    Oh, absolutely. It's a big-money school, and it is destined to become even more so. Warren Buffett is a huge supporter of Grinnell.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 05:00:25 PM
    3 bubbles may have burst already today just in one conference tournament.
    Wesleyan, Colby and Middlebury all go down, and Williams could have before the refs bailed them out with some really weak calls to foul guys out and give them points without the clock running.

    Wesleyan and Colby were probably longshots that needed to pull upsets today and then do more to get in.

    One wonders now if Williams has to win the tournament, since they won't get a quality win without doing so.

    EDIT: Even more extraordinary, the #5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 team in the RR's in that region all lost today. 5 and 8 lost to unranked teams. #11 beat #7 and 9 and 10 lost to top 3 teams.

    Does this mean Keene State vaults well into the Pool C conversation, somewhat by default?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 06:30:24 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 05:00:25 PM
    3 bubbles may have burst already today just in one conference tournament.
    Wesleyan, Colby and Middlebury all go down, and Williams could have before the refs bailed them out with some really weak calls to foul guys out and give them points without the clock running.

    Wesleyan and Colby were probably longshots that needed to pull upsets today and then do more to get in.

    One wonders now if Williams has to win the tournament, since they won't get a quality win without doing so.

    Fantastic50 still has Williams and Middlebury as locks and near locks, so I think they are sitting just fine at this point.

    In terms of other bad Pool C losses so far today:

    :: Centre loses to Sewanee - Falls from strong contenders, an early loss in the SAA might be devastating for them
    :: Wilmington loses to JCU - Wilmington now more than likely needs to win the OAC tourney
    :: Mary Washington loses to Yorkpa (who really strengthens their resume in the process)
    :: Gordon loses to Endicott - Falls to one of the last few projected teams in, losing before the CCC final may knock them on the wrong side of the bubble.

    Any others?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 06:42:39 PM
    My thinking is that this committee isn't going to look just as the SOS number or just record vs. regionally ranked. If they were of that inclination they wouldn't have put Hamilton and Nichols ahead of Middlebury and Williams this week. Middlebury is now going to have to sit and watch everyone else get chances to get quality wins while they don't. And Williams will get another win that won't help them, and then either win the final or be Pool C with another loss and no more quality wins than they have now.

    Not sure why Wilmington is any more damaging than Middlebury. Both were middling in their regions, Middlebury lost to a legitimately not good team, Wilmington lost to a below average team (still middle of the pack in their conference).

    Is this just east coast bias/padded number of regionally ranked games bias?

    If Wilmington were to get to the finals and having beaten BW and Capital along the way, I don't see why they would be in worse position than Middlebury or Williams (if they don't get Pool A).

    Centre and Gordon losing are definite problems for those teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 06:55:23 PM
    Williams plays Amherst... if they win that semi-final game that will for sure be a quality win?

    Also, just because there is talk that the committee will not lean as heavily on SOS and the .03 SOS = 2 wins equation, that doesn't mean they won't use SOS and vRRO at all. They are still part of the primary criteria. Midd will end up with a SOS around .600 and a WP of .720. Plus all the regionally ranked results and they look to be in a much better position than Wilmington.

    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 06:42:39 PM
    Middlebury is now going to have to sit and watch everyone else get chances to get quality wins while they don't.

    While this is very true, every team they will be competing against will also for sure take a loss. Granted, most of those loses will be to better teams than this years Jumbo squads.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 16, 2019, 07:45:09 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2019, 02:31:24 PM
    You could just include any school with a billion+ endowment - call it Pool D and leave it open for the rich schools who aren't otherwise chosen.  You wouldn't want to leave Amherst, Pomona, Grinnell, Middlebury, Vassar, Berea, Hopkins, MIT, Bowdoin, Trinity (Tx), Williams, Caltech, Tufts, W&L, and Swarthmore out.

    It would also give everyone a chance to feel sorry for Brandeis and their measly $976m.

    Pool F: for Division III schools that open a flight school and provide their services at cost.

    I am looking at you Rose-Hulman...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 09:52:31 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 06:55:23 PM
    Williams plays Amherst... if they win that semi-final game that will for sure be a quality win?

    You sure about this? I thought Middlebury was the 1 seed...

    It's not that they won't lean as heavily on that equation, they're not allowed ot use it at all. So basically all criteria are independent of each other.

    I'm also guessing some of those results vRRO will go away. Wesleyan and Colby are done. Regionally ranked below 8 to me shouldn't matter anyway. They're just getting ranked on volume and not merit at that point.

    Middlebury has lost to Tufts twice now. And their only wins vRRO are likely to be Williams and Hamilton, vs. losses to Amherst, Swarthmore, Plattsburgh and, perhaps most crucially, Keene.

    If Wesleyan falls out of the RR, Williams has even less to point to. Montclair is about it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 16, 2019, 10:01:19 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 09:52:31 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 06:55:23 PM
    Williams plays Amherst... if they win that semi-final game that will for sure be a quality win?

    You sure about this? I thought Middlebury was the 1 seed...

    It's not that they won't lean as heavily on that equation, they're not allowed ot use it at all. So basically all criteria are independent of each other.

    I'm also guessing some of those results vRRO will go away. Wesleyan and Colby are done. Regionally ranked below 8 to me shouldn't matter anyway. They're just getting ranked on volume and not merit at that point.
    NESCAC reseeds after the first round. So #2 Hamilton as the highest remaining seed will host the semis and final and will play Tufts while #3 Amherst and #4 Williams will play in the other semi.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 10:05:53 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 16, 2019, 10:01:19 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 09:52:31 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 06:55:23 PM
    Williams plays Amherst... if they win that semi-final game that will for sure be a quality win?

    You sure about this? I thought Middlebury was the 1 seed...

    It's not that they won't lean as heavily on that equation, they're not allowed ot use it at all. So basically all criteria are independent of each other.

    I'm also guessing some of those results vRRO will go away. Wesleyan and Colby are done. Regionally ranked below 8 to me shouldn't matter anyway. They're just getting ranked on volume and not merit at that point.
    NESCAC reseeds after the first round. So #2 Hamilton as the highest remaining seed will host the semis and final and will play Tufts while #3 Amherst and #4 Williams will play in the other semi.

    Boy they game every system they can, don't they? Maybe if they played a real conference schedule they wouldn't have to fiddle with the tournament as it goes.

    So Williams pretty much has to beat Amherst or they have nothing for a resume.

    I wonder if Amherst will lay down for them to get another NESCAC team in...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 11:13:07 PM
    Carnage among the questionable Pool C candidates out west.

    Pomona-Pitzer, Whitworth and Augsburg all lose.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2019, 11:21:16 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 10:05:53 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 16, 2019, 10:01:19 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 09:52:31 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 06:55:23 PM
    Williams plays Amherst... if they win that semi-final game that will for sure be a quality win?

    You sure about this? I thought Middlebury was the 1 seed...

    It's not that they won't lean as heavily on that equation, they're not allowed ot use it at all. So basically all criteria are independent of each other.

    I'm also guessing some of those results vRRO will go away. Wesleyan and Colby are done. Regionally ranked below 8 to me shouldn't matter anyway. They're just getting ranked on volume and not merit at that point.
    NESCAC reseeds after the first round. So #2 Hamilton as the highest remaining seed will host the semis and final and will play Tufts while #3 Amherst and #4 Williams will play in the other semi.

    Boy they game every system they can, don't they? Maybe if they played a real conference schedule they wouldn't have to fiddle with the tournament as it goes.

    So Williams pretty much has to beat Amherst or they have nothing for a resume.

    I wonder if Amherst will lay down for them to get another NESCAC team in...

    A lot of teams re-seed for the second round.  I didn't realize how common it was until I was updating the tourney tracker yesterday.  Short of the four conferences that haven't finished yet, all the info is in and set, so it should be going live soon!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 11:51:06 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2019, 11:21:16 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 10:05:53 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 16, 2019, 10:01:19 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 09:52:31 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 06:55:23 PM
    Williams plays Amherst... if they win that semi-final game that will for sure be a quality win?

    You sure about this? I thought Middlebury was the 1 seed...

    It's not that they won't lean as heavily on that equation, they're not allowed ot use it at all. So basically all criteria are independent of each other.

    I'm also guessing some of those results vRRO will go away. Wesleyan and Colby are done. Regionally ranked below 8 to me shouldn't matter anyway. They're just getting ranked on volume and not merit at that point.
    NESCAC reseeds after the first round. So #2 Hamilton as the highest remaining seed will host the semis and final and will play Tufts while #3 Amherst and #4 Williams will play in the other semi.

    Boy they game every system they can, don't they? Maybe if they played a real conference schedule they wouldn't have to fiddle with the tournament as it goes.

    So Williams pretty much has to beat Amherst or they have nothing for a resume.

    I wonder if Amherst will lay down for them to get another NESCAC team in...

    A lot of teams re-seed for the second round.  I didn't realize how common it was until I was updating the tourney tracker yesterday.  Short of the four conferences that haven't finished yet, all the info is in and set, so it should be going live soon!!

    You shouldn't be able to just change the tournament.

    The MIAC has the worst seed playing the #1 seed, but it's *the* #1 seed. It's not 'well if this team loses, then that'. And they actually play a meaningful regular season and about half the league doesn't make the tournament.

    Basically everything the NESCAC does is ridiculous and clearly designed to game the system. I'm surprised their tournament isn't a series of best of 3 rounds lol.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 7express on February 17, 2019, 12:59:15 AM
    Are you kidding with Amherst "throwing the game"' Williams to get another conference team in??  Maybe if that was a Colby or Bowdoin or Bates I could buy that theory but against Williams??  No freaking way!  Amherst will likely come out even MORE motivated knowing a win could potentially keep their arch rivals out of the tournament!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 17, 2019, 01:00:49 AM
    The Stanley Cup reseeds, its fine.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 17, 2019, 01:16:02 AM
    The NHL is obviously trying to game the system in order to get the leg up on ... uh, somebody.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 17, 2019, 01:51:44 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 17, 2019, 01:00:49 AM
    The Stanley Cup reseeds, its fine.

    So does the NFL coming out of the wild card weekend.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2019, 12:57:39 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 11:51:06 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2019, 11:21:16 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 10:05:53 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 16, 2019, 10:01:19 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 09:52:31 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 06:55:23 PM
    Williams plays Amherst... if they win that semi-final game that will for sure be a quality win?

    You sure about this? I thought Middlebury was the 1 seed...

    It's not that they won't lean as heavily on that equation, they're not allowed ot use it at all. So basically all criteria are independent of each other.

    I'm also guessing some of those results vRRO will go away. Wesleyan and Colby are done. Regionally ranked below 8 to me shouldn't matter anyway. They're just getting ranked on volume and not merit at that point.
    NESCAC reseeds after the first round. So #2 Hamilton as the highest remaining seed will host the semis and final and will play Tufts while #3 Amherst and #4 Williams will play in the other semi.

    Boy they game every system they can, don't they? Maybe if they played a real conference schedule they wouldn't have to fiddle with the tournament as it goes.

    So Williams pretty much has to beat Amherst or they have nothing for a resume.

    I wonder if Amherst will lay down for them to get another NESCAC team in...

    A lot of teams re-seed for the second round.  I didn't realize how common it was until I was updating the tourney tracker yesterday.  Short of the four conferences that haven't finished yet, all the info is in and set, so it should be going live soon!!

    You shouldn't be able to just change the tournament.

    The MIAC has the worst seed playing the #1 seed, but it's *the* #1 seed. It's not 'well if this team loses, then that'. And they actually play a meaningful regular season and about half the league doesn't make the tournament.

    Basically everything the NESCAC does is ridiculous and clearly designed to game the system. I'm surprised their tournament isn't a series of best of 3 rounds lol.

    What's funny is that the most apt critique of the NESCAC is that they don't care about the system enough.  Whether it's true or not, there's a pretty valid critique that the NESCAC believes it's above all this NCAA hoopla.  I mean, they didn't even compete in the NCAA Tournament for the first half of its existence.  I just don't believe what the NCAA thinks really factors into their decision-making at all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 17, 2019, 01:03:08 PM
    Quote from: 7express on February 17, 2019, 12:59:15 AM
    Are you kidding with Amherst "throwing the game"' Williams to get another conference team in??  Maybe if that was a Colby or Bowdoin or Bates I could buy that theory but against Williams??  No freaking way!  Amherst will likely come out even MORE motivated knowing a win could potentially keep their arch rivals out of the tournament!

    I used to work with someone who played on the Amherst women's team back in the day, and can confirm this.  Amherst would never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, ever go out of its way to do something to help Williams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 01:14:16 PM
    Ryan Scott is 100 percent correct.  Note that not one aspect of Nescac scheduling changed upon finally deciding to become tourney-eligible, other than eventually (years later) instituting a Nescac championship. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2019, 01:18:46 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 01:14:16 PM
    Ryan Scott is 100 percent correct.  Note that not one aspect of Nescac scheduling changed upon finally deciding to become tourney-eligible, other than eventually (years later) instituting a Nescac championship.

    The "we're too good for you" NESCAC stereotype is unkind and over-simplified, but it's not entirely baseless (neither in its existence nor in its veracity).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 02:06:01 PM
    It's nothing to do with "too good for you."   Certainly no Nescac fans, players or coaches act in such a fashion, so far as I've ever seen.  But certain elements in some Nescac institutions take a dim view of athletics, in general, which is unfortunate.  Of course the idea that these institutions, which are waging internal struggles against such forces with some regularity, would purposefully game anything to increase NCAA participation - which itself remains a source of controversy - is laughable. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 17, 2019, 01:51:44 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 17, 2019, 01:00:49 AM
    The Stanley Cup reseeds, its fine.

    So does the NFL coming out of the wild card weekend.

    That's not reseeding. That's just saying the #1 seed plays the lowest seed. How it probably should be done is that the #1 seed should get the choice of who they play, bc maybe the lowest seed is the one playing better than the higher one and you're really giving the #1 seed a tougher matchup. But whatever, it's not reseeding, regardless.

    It's not "you get rewarded because someone lost even thought you didn't really earn it". Hamilton didn't earn the #1 seed so they shouldn't get benefit as if they did, basically.

    It's whatever because it's a sham playoff after a sham season from a sham conference and in the end the NCAA will fall for it like they always do and they'll get exposed when they play a midwest/north team, like they almost always do.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:21:45 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2019, 12:57:39 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 11:51:06 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2019, 11:21:16 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 10:05:53 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 16, 2019, 10:01:19 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 09:52:31 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 06:55:23 PM
    Williams plays Amherst... if they win that semi-final game that will for sure be a quality win?

    You sure about this? I thought Middlebury was the 1 seed...

    It's not that they won't lean as heavily on that equation, they're not allowed ot use it at all. So basically all criteria are independent of each other.

    I'm also guessing some of those results vRRO will go away. Wesleyan and Colby are done. Regionally ranked below 8 to me shouldn't matter anyway. They're just getting ranked on volume and not merit at that point.
    NESCAC reseeds after the first round. So #2 Hamilton as the highest remaining seed will host the semis and final and will play Tufts while #3 Amherst and #4 Williams will play in the other semi.

    Boy they game every system they can, don't they? Maybe if they played a real conference schedule they wouldn't have to fiddle with the tournament as it goes.

    So Williams pretty much has to beat Amherst or they have nothing for a resume.

    I wonder if Amherst will lay down for them to get another NESCAC team in...

    A lot of teams re-seed for the second round.  I didn't realize how common it was until I was updating the tourney tracker yesterday.  Short of the four conferences that haven't finished yet, all the info is in and set, so it should be going live soon!!

    You shouldn't be able to just change the tournament.

    The MIAC has the worst seed playing the #1 seed, but it's *the* #1 seed. It's not 'well if this team loses, then that'. And they actually play a meaningful regular season and about half the league doesn't make the tournament.

    Basically everything the NESCAC does is ridiculous and clearly designed to game the system. I'm surprised their tournament isn't a series of best of 3 rounds lol.

    What's funny is that the most apt critique of the NESCAC is that they don't care about the system enough.  Whether it's true or not, there's a pretty valid critique that the NESCAC believes it's above all this NCAA hoopla.  I mean, they didn't even compete in the NCAA Tournament for the first half of its existence.  I just don't believe what the NCAA thinks really factors into their decision-making at all.

    I think every shred of actual evidence proves that wrong. They do everything possible to pad their ability to look good by the NCAA's flawed reckoning of what "good" is.

    If they didn't care, then they'd play everyone twice and not play any other games, have a true regular season conference champion and that's it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:24:28 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 02:06:01 PM
    It's nothing to do with "too good for you."   Certainly no Nescac fans, players or coaches act in such a fashion, so far as I've ever seen.  But certain elements in some Nescac institutions take a dim view of athletics, in general, which is unfortunate.  Of course the idea that these institutions, which are waging internal struggles against such forces with some regularity, would purposefully game anything to increase NCAA participation - which itself remains a source of controversy - is laughable.

    I don't think the professor of philosophy or whatever that is anti-college sports is making many decisions about college sports. So this really is irrelevant.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 02:32:24 PM
    Nescac since 2003: three national titles. Five second place finishes. Nearly every game against a Midwest or North team in the Final Four has been either a Nescac win, or a loss that went down to the last possession or two.  No one has gotten "exposed" because Nescac more than pulls its weight in the tourney nearly every year and when it plays the very best teams from other regions, wins its fair share.   Lots of very good leagues (heck even the CCIW) haven't won a single national title during the same time frame.  Heck I don't think the NWC has won a single final four game.  You are obviously totally uneducated about D3 basketball.  Kind of like the time you claimed that Nescac always got clocked by MIAC teams, without apparently knowing that a Nescac team had beaten a MIAC team in a national TITLE game.  But I realize that takes all of 30 seconds to figure out, time I realize you'd rather spend spewing ignorance. 


    And Saint Paulite you seek to lack any understanding of what "evidence" means.  Here is my evidence - Nescac didn't play each other twice when they weren't in the NCAA tourney.  That alone disproves your specious claim that Nescac has changed its philosophy in any way to try to "game" anything.  And I guarantee your myopic hatred of the league is such that if they DID play a double round robin you'd just switch to, Nescac sucks because they don't play more than four games vs non-league opponents, or anything else to support your inexplicable level of bile. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:35:20 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 02:32:24 PM
    Nescac since 2003: three national titles. Five second place finishes. Nearly every game against a Midwest or North team in the Final Four has been either a Nescac win, or a loss that went down to the last possession or two. 

    LOL mostly the latter, especially in the memory spans of just about any current college player.

    A lot of games come down to "a possession or two". The better team usually wins.

    A lot of those second place finishes came when the first time you played someone from out here was in the final. Which is sort of my point. Get preferential treatment in getting into the tournament in the first place, then get babied through the bracket and el foldo when you finally face some competition.

    Meanwhile out here you have to beat a final four-caliber team just to get out of the first weekend a lot of times.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 02:41:40 PM
    Your false claim that Nescac faculty have no influence over Nescac athletic policies only against exposes your total lack of knowledge about the conference. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 17, 2019, 02:43:41 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    That's not reseeding. That's just saying the #1 seed plays the lowest seed.

    ... Which is exactly what the NESCAC is doing here.  Highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.


    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    they'll get exposed when they play a midwest/north team, like they almost always do.

    There's a whole lot of walnut and bronze mixed in with the fall colors in New England that suggests otherwise.

    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    it's a sham playoff after a sham season from a sham conference

    I do not think that word means what you think it means...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 02:50:50 PM
    Ryan, to your earlier point, it's never Nescac posters who are arrogant or dismissive.  A claim that any tourney win - even in the Final Four - vs any team outside of the Midwest is fundamentally illegitimate / worthless, on the other hand, is beyond insulting to the other 80 percent of D3 hoops programs.  And apparently even when Nescac teams DO win vs the exalted Midwest (Gustavus, North Central, Wooster x2), those wins don't matter either. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 03:02:44 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 02:32:24 PM
    Kind of like the time you claimed that Nescac always got clocked by MIAC teams, without apparently knowing that a Nescac team had beaten a MIAC team in a national TITLE game.  But I realize that takes all of 30 seconds to figure out, time I realize you'd rather spend spewing ignorance. 

    El. Oh. El.
    I don't think you want me to go through the recent history.

    The time you're talking about, the kids playing now were playing biddy ball. That says it all about what's happened since.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 17, 2019, 02:43:41 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    That's not reseeding. That's just saying the #1 seed plays the lowest seed.

    ... Which is exactly what the NESCAC is doing here.  Highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    No, it's not.

    There is no "highest remaining seed" It's *the* #1 seed. There's no ambiguity. It will always be the #1 seed and there will only ever be one #1 seed.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 03:17:01 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 02:50:50 PM
    Ryan, to your earlier point, it's never Nescac posters who are arrogant or dismissive. 

    Why would you be? You get the rub of the green at every turn and then usually flame out when faced with a team from a team from outside the east, and lately often even before then.

    The only reason I care is because your gaming of the system deprives teams elsewhere of opportunities through no fault of their own. Like Bethel several times recently, highly ranked in Massey but don't get a Pool C because their conference actually plays a full schedule.

    I'm sure there are others as well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 03:54:05 PM
    Ok, you win.  On behalf of Nescac, I apologize that our sham league's desparate prioritization* of participation in the NCAA D3 basketball tourney, above all other institutional values, has cost Bethel (surely) two or three national titles.  Can we move on?

    *I'm not sure how starting practice two weeks later than the rest of D3 figures into the grand plan to game the system and get into the tourney at all costs, but I'm sure you could educate me, given your demonstrated expertise on all things Nescac. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Conts Fan on February 17, 2019, 04:05:15 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 17, 2019, 02:43:41 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    That's not reseeding. That's just saying the #1 seed plays the lowest seed.

    ... Which is exactly what the NESCAC is doing here.  Highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    No, it's not.

    There is no "highest remaining seed" It's *the* #1 seed. There's no ambiguity. It will always be the #1 seed and there will only ever be one #1 seed.

    I don't understand what you are saying
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 17, 2019, 04:25:05 PM
    Quote from: Conts Fan on February 17, 2019, 04:05:15 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 17, 2019, 02:43:41 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    That's not reseeding. That's just saying the #1 seed plays the lowest seed.

    ... Which is exactly what the NESCAC is doing here.  Highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    No, it's not.

    There is no "highest remaining seed" It's *the* #1 seed. There's no ambiguity. It will always be the #1 seed and there will only ever be one #1 seed.

    I don't understand what you are saying

    What SaintPaulite is saying is that he doesn't know the meaning of the phrase, "Quit while you're behind."  ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 04:31:12 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 17, 2019, 04:25:05 PM
    Quote from: Conts Fan on February 17, 2019, 04:05:15 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 17, 2019, 02:43:41 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    That's not reseeding. That's just saying the #1 seed plays the lowest seed.

    ... Which is exactly what the NESCAC is doing here.  Highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    No, it's not.

    There is no "highest remaining seed" It's *the* #1 seed. There's no ambiguity. It will always be the #1 seed and there will only ever be one #1 seed.

    I don't understand what you are saying

    What SaintPaulite is saying is that he doesn't know the meaning of the phrase, "Quit while you're behind."  ;)

    Says the guy that threw a ****ing fit over an exclamation point earlier this year.

    Rest assured that when we're talking about power programs out here, no one is talking about you all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 04:38:13 PM
    I mean, I know it's just St. Paul and not Minneapolis, but why you gotta give one of the twin towns such a bad name?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 04:38:51 PM
    Quote from: Conts Fan on February 17, 2019, 04:05:15 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 17, 2019, 02:43:41 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    That's not reseeding. That's just saying the #1 seed plays the lowest seed.

    ... Which is exactly what the NESCAC is doing here.  Highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    No, it's not.

    There is no "highest remaining seed" It's *the* #1 seed. There's no ambiguity. It will always be the #1 seed and there will only ever be one #1 seed.

    I don't understand what you are saying

    What the NFL does (and the MIAC for that matter) is rewards the #1 seed for being better than the #2 seed. They both get byes, but the 1 seed gets the added reward of playing the presumably lesser team (though they may not actually be, because it's a long season, but the assumption is that it is).

    None of this is contingent on other results, because there are no other results that affect them. There is never a reseeding.

    Reseeding is "ok the 1 seed lost, so the 2 seed is the new 1 seed" (hence the term reseeding).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 04:44:00 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 04:38:13 PM
    I mean, I know it's just St. Paul and not Minneapolis, but why you gotta give one of the twin towns such a bad name?

    I've lived in both, and you have no idea how little referring to Saint Paul as "just" Saint Paul bothers me. Even if I do move back to Minneapolis or god forbid a damn suburb, Saint Paul will always be the place that gets me, and I get it. Not everyone does (on either account) and that's fine with me, and I think fine with us as well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 04:49:07 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 04:44:00 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 04:38:13 PM
    I mean, I know it's just St. Paul and not Minneapolis, but why you gotta give one of the twin towns such a bad name?

    I've lived in both, and you have no idea how little referring to Saint Paul as "just" Saint Paul bothers me. Even if I do move back to Minneapolis or god forbid a damn suburb, Saint Paul will always be the place that gets me, and I get it. Not everyone does (on either account) and that's fine with me, and I think fine with us as well.

    No worries. I've spent enough time in the area to know to only associate you with rude behavior and not the entire city.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Conts Fan on February 17, 2019, 04:57:03 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 04:38:51 PM
    Quote from: Conts Fan on February 17, 2019, 04:05:15 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 17, 2019, 02:43:41 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    That's not reseeding. That's just saying the #1 seed plays the lowest seed.

    ... Which is exactly what the NESCAC is doing here.  Highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    No, it's not.

    There is no "highest remaining seed" It's *the* #1 seed. There's no ambiguity. It will always be the #1 seed and there will only ever be one #1 seed.

    I don't understand what you are saying

    What the NFL does (and the MIAC for that matter) is rewards the #1 seed for being better than the #2 seed. They both get byes, but the 1 seed gets the added reward of playing the presumably lesser team (though they may not actually be, because it's a long season, but the assumption is that it is).

    None of this is contingent on other results, because there are no other results that affect them. There is never a reseeding.

    Reseeding is "ok the 1 seed lost, so the 2 seed is the new 1 seed" (hence the term reseeding).

    Yes - I know all of that. So rewarding the 1 seed for being better than the 2 seed is okay, but rewarding the 2 seed for being better than the 3 seed is not?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 04:58:18 PM
    He's just drawing the line between reseeding and rebracketing as terms, although most people understand what is done in the NESCAC and the NFL and the like to be reseeding.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: augie77 on February 17, 2019, 05:02:53 PM
    I have a wild and crazy idea.  We should create a board to discuss likely Pool C teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2019, 05:04:01 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=n39hj/y3zd18adjie55k0v.jpg)

    It is now or never.

    The last week of the Division III basketball regular season is here. Conferences will decide who will earn automatic bids to the NCAA Tournaments and teams try and position themselves for at-large bids, hosting opportunities, and bracketing considerations.

    For teams who have been faltering, this is the last chance to right the ship. For programs which have underachieved, this is the last opportunity to live up to expectations. And of course for those with Cinderella dreams, this is the chance to try on the glass slipper.

    Sunday's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) will cover it all in a special, extended, episode which for the first time (outside of Marathon programming) will feature a guest from each of the eight regions. We will also discuss which teams may be on the bubble, who has most likely secured at-large bid, and which teams need to win the AQs. Plus, we talk about how regions as we know it now could very well change in the future.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Sunday's show will hit the air at 6:00 p.m. ET. It can be watched live right here: http://bit.ly/2EeG5ZE (and simulcast on Facebook Live and Periscope).

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options below.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Katherine Bixby, Johns Hopkins women's coach
    - Jonathan Crosthwaite, Occidental men's senior
    - Marc Brown, NJCU men's coach
    - Justin LeBlanc, Millsaps women's coach
    - Jamie Seward, SUNY New Paltz women's coach
    - Marcos Echevarria, No. 17 Nichols men's senior
    - Herman Carmichael, La Roches men's coach
    - Klay Knueppel, Wisconsin Luthern women's coach
    - Brad Bankston, ODAC Commissioner
    - Pat Coleman & Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com (Bubble Talk)

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 05:40:38 PM
    Quote from: Conts Fan on February 17, 2019, 04:57:03 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 04:38:51 PM
    Quote from: Conts Fan on February 17, 2019, 04:05:15 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 17, 2019, 02:43:41 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    That's not reseeding. That's just saying the #1 seed plays the lowest seed.

    ... Which is exactly what the NESCAC is doing here.  Highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    No, it's not.

    There is no "highest remaining seed" It's *the* #1 seed. There's no ambiguity. It will always be the #1 seed and there will only ever be one #1 seed.

    I don't understand what you are saying

    What the NFL does (and the MIAC for that matter) is rewards the #1 seed for being better than the #2 seed. They both get byes, but the 1 seed gets the added reward of playing the presumably lesser team (though they may not actually be, because it's a long season, but the assumption is that it is).

    None of this is contingent on other results, because there are no other results that affect them. There is never a reseeding.

    Reseeding is "ok the 1 seed lost, so the 2 seed is the new 1 seed" (hence the term reseeding).

    Yes - I know all of that. So rewarding the 1 seed for being better than the 2 seed is okay, but rewarding the 2 seed for being better than the 3 seed is not?

    I thought you said you didn't understand? Seems like you understood just fine! :)

    It's the conditional reward part of it that I think is "gaming". If you think being a 2 seed is reward-worthy then whatever. But if it's only under certain conditions, then I don't think that's right.

    I recognize that reasonable people can differ on this.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: GoPerry on February 17, 2019, 05:48:24 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 02:41:40 PM
    Your false claim that Nescac faculty have no influence over Nescac athletic policies only against exposes your total lack of knowledge about the conference.

    Faculty from the NESCAC schools have a great deal of influence over just about everything – believe me.

    I have a child student-athlete who attended a NESCAC school.  Their team (spring sport) made the national tournament (first time in years) held in a southern state which happened to be during finals week.  One of their better players was not able to make the trip because one professor would not let them take the final at the competition site (which many other team mates did and for which the NCAA provides a hotel conference room for this purpose).  Pleading by coaches, parents etc had no effect and the President and AD made clear they were not going to get in the way.  None of us liked it.  But the player missed it.

    The NESCAC schools make academics a priority over pretty much everything else and they make no apology for it.  Whether this benefits or disadvantages them in NCAA D3 Basketball, I don't think the school Presidents care either way.  It's really just a different philosophy overall.  Football an example.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 05:52:23 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 04:49:07 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 04:44:00 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 04:38:13 PM
    I mean, I know it's just St. Paul and not Minneapolis, but why you gotta give one of the twin towns such a bad name?

    I've lived in both, and you have no idea how little referring to Saint Paul as "just" Saint Paul bothers me. Even if I do move back to Minneapolis or god forbid a damn suburb, Saint Paul will always be the place that gets me, and I get it. Not everyone does (on either account) and that's fine with me, and I think fine with us as well.

    No worries. I've spent enough time in the area to know to only associate you with rude behavior and not the entire city.

    Well that's not a very Minnesota nice thing to say, is it?

    Hopefully Amy K teaches the difference between Minnesota nice and "tough but fair" to the whole country soon. I think both are core values of the region. But I think both this and the invitation to comparison of the Twin Cities is off topic for most.

    I think I'm both, and I think that's all I've ever been here. But whether or not people + or - me, I know people are reading, and the right people are reading.

    Maybe someday we'll have a connected, coherent bracket with travel restrictions based on something other than an arbitrary mileage number. Maybe we'll have a way of evaluating for Pool C and for bracketing that reflects the data-rich age in which we live now rather than the very rough numbers we illogically rely on now. Maybe I can say I helped start that at-the-beginning-unpopular discussion.

    I think (no, I know for a fact) there are more people that agree with me on many things here than feel at liberty to say so. And I'll leave you to ponder why that might be and what it means for you.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 05:54:16 PM
    Quote from: augie77 on February 17, 2019, 05:02:53 PM
    I have a wild and crazy idea.  We should create a board to discuss likely Pool C teams.

    I tried. yesterday. No one seemed too interested.

    Today we're choosing sides of the Mississippi (or 280), apparently.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 06:03:08 PM
    Quote from: GoPerry on February 17, 2019, 05:48:24 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 17, 2019, 02:41:40 PM
    Your false claim that Nescac faculty have no influence over Nescac athletic policies only against exposes your total lack of knowledge about the conference.

    Faculty from the NESCAC schools have a great deal of influence over just about everything – believe me.

    I have a child student-athlete who attended a NESCAC school.  Their team (spring sport) made the national tournament (first time in years) held in a southern state which happened to be during finals week.  One of their better players was not able to make the trip because one professor would not let them take the final at the competition site (which many other team mates did and for which the NCAA provides a hotel conference room for this purpose).  Pleading by coaches, parents etc had no effect and the President and AD made clear they were not going to get in the way.  None of us liked it.  But the player missed it.

    NESCAC isn't unique on that in D3.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 06:06:58 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 04:58:18 PM
    He's just drawing the line between reseeding and rebracketing as terms, although most people understand what is done in the NESCAC and the NFL and the like to be reseeding.

    But it's not, and it's not either of those.

    There is never a bracket for the 1 or 2 seeds until after the wild-card/play-in/first round is done.

    I would liken it more to the FA Cup (only it's not a total blind draw, obviously) but it's not expected knowledge for a D3 basketball board.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 17, 2019, 07:09:17 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 06:06:58 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 04:58:18 PM
    He's just drawing the line between reseeding and rebracketing as terms, although most people understand what is done in the NESCAC and the NFL and the like to be reseeding.

    But it's not, and it's not either of those.

    There is never a bracket for the 1 or 2 seeds until after the wild-card/play-in/first round is done.

    I would liken it more to the FA Cup (only it's not a total blind draw, obviously) but it's not expected knowledge for a D3 basketball board.

    So the NFL has a system in which, after the first round, the highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    And the NESCAC has a system in which, after the first round, the highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    But one of these is good and one of these is the devil incarnate and creates a sham system.  Got it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 07:17:17 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 17, 2019, 07:09:17 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 06:06:58 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 04:58:18 PM
    He's just drawing the line between reseeding and rebracketing as terms, although most people understand what is done in the NESCAC and the NFL and the like to be reseeding.

    But it's not, and it's not either of those.

    There is never a bracket for the 1 or 2 seeds until after the wild-card/play-in/first round is done.

    I would liken it more to the FA Cup (only it's not a total blind draw, obviously) but it's not expected knowledge for a D3 basketball board.

    So the NFL has a system in which, after the first round, the highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    And the NESCAC has a system in which, after the first round, the highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    But one of these is good and one of these is the devil incarnate and creates a sham system.  Got it.

    Nope. You don't got it.

    I'm not sure why people think "the highest remaining seed", which could be any number of possible seeds, is the same as the #1 seed -- always and forever.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on February 17, 2019, 07:43:14 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 09:52:31 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 06:55:23 PM
    Williams plays Amherst... if they win that semi-final game that will for sure be a quality win?

    You sure about this? I thought Middlebury was the 1 seed...

    It's not that they won't lean as heavily on that equation, they're not allowed ot use it at all. So basically all criteria are independent of each other.

    I'm also guessing some of those results vRRO will go away. Wesleyan and Colby are done. Regionally ranked below 8 to me shouldn't matter anyway. They're just getting ranked on volume and not merit at that point.

    Middlebury has lost to Tufts twice now. And their only wins vRRO are likely to be Williams and Hamilton, vs. losses to Amherst, Swarthmore, Plattsburgh and, perhaps most crucially, Keene.

    If Wesleyan falls out of the RR, Williams has even less to point to. Montclair is about it.

    Though Endicott may now sneak into the regional rankings, which would be a win pickup for Middlebury.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 08:03:40 PM
    Quote from: Bucket on February 17, 2019, 07:43:14 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 16, 2019, 09:52:31 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 16, 2019, 06:55:23 PM
    Williams plays Amherst... if they win that semi-final game that will for sure be a quality win?

    You sure about this? I thought Middlebury was the 1 seed...

    It's not that they won't lean as heavily on that equation, they're not allowed ot use it at all. So basically all criteria are independent of each other.

    I'm also guessing some of those results vRRO will go away. Wesleyan and Colby are done. Regionally ranked below 8 to me shouldn't matter anyway. They're just getting ranked on volume and not merit at that point.

    Middlebury has lost to Tufts twice now. And their only wins vRRO are likely to be Williams and Hamilton, vs. losses to Amherst, Swarthmore, Plattsburgh and, perhaps most crucially, Keene.

    If Wesleyan falls out of the RR, Williams has even less to point to. Montclair is about it.

    Though Endicott may now sneak into the regional rankings, which would be a win pickup for Middlebury.

    This is my point about these extra spots, and looking at "record vs. regionally ranked" in general. If they get in mostly by default because almost everyone else in the bottom of the regional rankings lost, does that really mean a lot?

    I honestly have no idea who might sneak into the regional rankings there. I think it's pretty clear whoever does isn't going to be a real Pool C candidate.

    This is why separate wins into tiers on a nationwide basis using something like Massey or a similar methodology makes more sense. We know all regions aren't made equal. Would Yeshiva or Montclair be regionally ranked in any of several other regions?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 08:17:05 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 08:03:40 PM
    This is my point about these extra spots, and looking at "record vs. regionally ranked" in general. If they get in mostly by default because almost everyone else in the bottom of the regional rankings lost, does that really mean a lot?

    The committee takes this into account already. A win vs. someone ranked 11th in a regional ranking is not as meaningful as a win against someone ranked, say, third, and that level of detail is already something the committee considers.

    It's not "record vs. regionally ranked" -- rather, it's "results vs. regionally ranked" which is the criterion.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: cacfan11 on February 17, 2019, 09:24:39 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 04:38:51 PM
    Quote from: Conts Fan on February 17, 2019, 04:05:15 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 17, 2019, 02:43:41 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    That's not reseeding. That's just saying the #1 seed plays the lowest seed.

    ... Which is exactly what the NESCAC is doing here.  Highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    Where should the nescac tournament be held then? Middlebury, the number one seed, is out. Wouldnt it be natural for the next highest seed to host the tournament and play the lowest team remaining?
    No, it's not.

    There is no "highest remaining seed" It's *the* #1 seed. There's no ambiguity. It will always be the #1 seed and there will only ever be one #1 seed.

    I don't understand what you are saying

    What the NFL does (and the MIAC for that matter) is rewards the #1 seed for being better than the #2 seed. They both get byes, but the 1 seed gets the added reward of playing the presumably lesser team (though they may not actually be, because it's a long season, but the assumption is that it is).

    None of this is contingent on other results, because there are no other results that affect them. There is never a reseeding.

    Reseeding is "ok the 1 seed lost, so the 2 seed is the new 1 seed" (hence the term reseeding).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 09:44:46 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 08:17:05 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 08:03:40 PM
    This is my point about these extra spots, and looking at "record vs. regionally ranked" in general. If they get in mostly by default because almost everyone else in the bottom of the regional rankings lost, does that really mean a lot?

    The committee takes this into account already. A win vs. someone ranked 11th in a regional ranking is not as meaningful as a win against someone ranked, say, third, and that level of detail is already something the committee considers.

    It's not "record vs. regionally ranked" -- rather, it's "results vs. regionally ranked" which is the criterion.

    I agree and I hope that is actually how it happens. But even at that, 4th in one region might be completely different from 4th in another. I feel like there's a more data-sound approach than what they're using. They wouldn't have had a team go from 11 to 1 in one week if they were using a sound approach, tbh.

    EDIT: The D1 methodology is on the NCAAs website. I find it to be pretty solid, even if the process itself is usually corrupt and biased toward the major conferences. We'll see how it goes this year with the NET, I guess.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2019, 10:58:49 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 09:44:46 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 08:17:05 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 08:03:40 PM
    This is my point about these extra spots, and looking at "record vs. regionally ranked" in general. If they get in mostly by default because almost everyone else in the bottom of the regional rankings lost, does that really mean a lot?

    The committee takes this into account already. A win vs. someone ranked 11th in a regional ranking is not as meaningful as a win against someone ranked, say, third, and that level of detail is already something the committee considers.

    It's not "record vs. regionally ranked" -- rather, it's "results vs. regionally ranked" which is the criterion.

    I agree and I hope that is actually how it happens. But even at that, 4th in one region might be completely different from 4th in another. I feel like there's a more data-sound approach than what they're using. They wouldn't have had a team go from 11 to 1 in one week if they were using a sound approach, tbh.

    EDIT: The D1 methodology is on the NCAAs website. I find it to be pretty solid, even if the process itself is usually corrupt and biased toward the major conferences. We'll see how it goes this year with the NET, I guess.

    They understand a 4 in one region is different than a 4 in another. They do take all of this into considerations and the committee members on the RACs are pretty frank about their regions. It isn't a 1-4 is A, 5-7 is B, 8-whatever is C. They do consider each set-up as they should.

    And it is how it actually happens. Committees have been frank about this over the years and we have seen plenty of examples of it working this way.

    The challenge on D1, by the way, is that the numbers allow it to have a more method approach (if I am saying that right). Because of the large number of teams able to travel around and play teams from all over the country, things in D1 like RPI and the like work better than they can in DIII (or even DII).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: jamtod on February 18, 2019, 12:17:58 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2019, 04:38:13 PM
    I mean, I know it's just St. Paul and not Minneapolis, but why you gotta give one of the twin towns such a bad name?

    As a St Paul resident and possibly a fan of the same D3 team, +k
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 18, 2019, 12:54:45 AM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 04:31:12 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 17, 2019, 04:25:05 PM
    Quote from: Conts Fan on February 17, 2019, 04:05:15 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 17, 2019, 02:43:41 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 17, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
    That's not reseeding. That's just saying the #1 seed plays the lowest seed.

    ... Which is exactly what the NESCAC is doing here.  Highest remaining seed plays the lowest remaining seed.

    No, it's not.

    There is no "highest remaining seed" It's *the* #1 seed. There's no ambiguity. It will always be the #1 seed and there will only ever be one #1 seed.

    I don't understand what you are saying

    What SaintPaulite is saying is that he doesn't know the meaning of the phrase, "Quit while you're behind."  ;)

    Says the guy that threw a ****ing fit over an exclamation point earlier this year.

    Rest assured that when we're talking about power programs out here, no one is talking about you all.

    I'm not the one who insists that he knows all about the administration and athletic philosophy of a league in a different part of the country, thus giving him carte blanche to badmouth it, in the face of numerous people with firsthand knowledge of that league who are telling him otherwise. Then again, I'm not passing myself off as being both Minnesota nice and tough-but-fair, so what do I know?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 18, 2019, 12:57:40 AM
    Oh, and nescac1? You owe me one. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 18, 2019, 09:44:58 AM
    So, I actually did something relating to Pool C and tourney brackets yesterday.

    I used Fantastic50's work (hat tip) and for Pool C selections I subbed in Wabash, North Central and Mount Union for ECSU, Salisbury and Gordon. I don't think those teams can sustain another loss, whereas the others have chances for quality wins without winning their tournament (so does Salisbury, but they have so many losses already).

    I wanted to see if it's possible to head each pod with a top 16 team, even if that team is not the host, and maintain seed integrity (the top 16 teams as the best in their pods, 17-32 as second best, etc). And the answer is no, but you can come pretty close, probably closer than a lot of folks are thinking.

    (EDIT to fix Amherst and MIT being in the same pod. Just dumb on my part. Also to fix the name of Pomona-Pitzer, because apparently that's the most important thing here. And some ordering and house cleaning.)

    The only first weekend flights on here (unless I've screwed up) are Pomona-Pitzer and Whitman (assuming a Texas school hosts that pod). That plus the finals being in Fort Wayne should more than mitigate second-weekend flights.

    Bottom line: if the committee wants to do it, it can likely be done. Worst case, St. John's wouldn't host, but the spirit of the bracket stays intact.

       1   2   3   4
    1   Neb Wesleyan   LaCrosse   Northwestern   Webster
    2   Whitman   Pomona-Pitzer   UT-Dallas*   Tx Lu
    3   Oshkosh   North Central*   Hanover   
    4   Augustana   Wabash   St. Norbert   
    5   Randolph-Macon   Nichols   York   Baruch
    6   St. John's   Wheaton   MSOE   
    7   St. Thomas   Loras*   Trine   
    8   CNU   La Roche   NJ City   
    9   Amherst   Keene*   Oswego   UM-Farmington
    10   Swarthmore   Middlebury   Scranton   Salem State
    11   MIT   Williams   Rowan   Albertus Magnus
    12   Wooster   Capital   Alfred   Gwynedd Mercy
    13   Hamilton   Plattsburgh   N Eng Col   Yeshiva
    14   Emory   Centre*   Maryville TN   St. Vincent
    15   Marietta   Rochester   Arcadia   Morrisville St
    16   Wittenberg   Mount Union   Skidmore   DeSales

    Theoretical (even more theoretical) second weekends
    at Swarthmore -- Whitman   CNU   Swarthmore   MIT
    at NWU -- Neb Wesleyan   St. Thomas   Amherst   Emory
    at Oshkosh -- Oshkosh   St. John's   Wooster   Wittenberg
    at Randolph-Macon -- Augustana   Randolph-Macon   Hamilton   Marietta
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 18, 2019, 12:04:45 PM
    Each Pool C year is a little different, but if you are wondering what general kind of numbers get you in...below are the Pool C selections for the last two seasons. (Note, there are 20 Pool Cs this year...not 21.)

    (I can't confirm the order of these selection...just my best guess at the time.)

    2017-18 Season
    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 
    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    20. Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .731/.529/3-3
    21. LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2


    2016-17 Season
    1. Babson (NE/NEWMAC): .926/.574/4-1
    2. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .731/.592/7-4   
    3. Susquehanna (MA/LAND): .800/.556/4-4
    4. UW-Whitewater (C/WIAC): .769/.567/3-5
    5. Rochester (E/UAA): .840/.534/4-2
    6. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .708/.598/5-5
    7. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .769/.566/4-4
    8. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .760/.560/4-3
    9. Whitworth (W/NWC): .852/.544/0-3
    10. Salisbury (MA/CAC): .741/.546/3-4
    11. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .750/.533/5-4
    12. Hope (GL/MIAA): .800/.525/2-1
    13. Cabrini (AT/CSAC): .760/.531/2-3
    14. Emory (S/UAA): .720/.547/2-3
    15. Skidmore (E/LL): .731/.527/6-1
    16. St. Lawrence (E/LL): .769/.526/3-5
    17. Augustana (C/CCIW): .704/.542/2-2
    18. Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/3-4
    19. Endicott (NE/CCC): .786/.532/1-1
    20. St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .731/.530/1-2
    21. UW-Oshkosh: (C/WIAC): .630/.601/5-6


    Current 2018-19 Numbers
    * https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    * http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gray Fox on February 18, 2019, 12:07:06 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 18, 2019, 09:44:58 AM

       1   2   3   4
    2   Pitzer   Pomona-Pitzer
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 18, 2019, 02:47:01 PM
    Quote from: Gray Fox on February 18, 2019, 12:07:06 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 18, 2019, 09:44:58 AM

       1   2   3   4
    2   Pitzer   Pomona-Pitzer

    (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DujnP-2X4AABnsh.jpg:large)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on February 18, 2019, 04:11:57 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 18, 2019, 09:44:58 AM
    So, I actually did something relating to Pool C and tourney brackets yesterday.

    I used Fantastic50's work (hat tip) and for Pool C selections I subbed in Wabash, North Central and Mount Union for ECSU, Salisbury and Gordon. I don't think those teams can sustain another loss, whereas the others have chances for quality wins without winning their tournament (so does Salisbury, but they have so many losses already).

    I wanted to see if it's possible to head each pod with a top 16 team, even if that team is not the host, and maintain seed integrity (the top 16 teams as the best in their pods, 17-32 as second best, etc). And the answer is no, but you can come pretty close, probably closer than a lot of folks are thinking.

    (EDIT to fix Amherst and MIT being in the same pod. Just dumb on my part. Also to fix the name of Pomona-Pitzer, because apparently that's the most important thing here. And some ordering and house cleaning.)

    The only first weekend flights on here (unless I've screwed up) are Pomona-Pitzer and Whitman (assuming a Texas school hosts that pod). That plus the finals being in Fort Wayne should more than mitigate second-weekend flights.

    Bottom line: if the committee wants to do it, it can likely be done. Worst case, St. John's wouldn't host, but the spirit of the bracket stays intact.

       1   2   3   4
    1   Neb Wesleyan   LaCrosse   Northwestern   Webster
    2   Whitman   Pomona-Pitzer   UT-Dallas*   Tx Lu
    3   Oshkosh   North Central*   Hanover   
    4   Augustana   Wabash   St. Norbert   
    5   Randolph-Macon   Nichols   York   Baruch
    6   St. John's   Wheaton   MSOE   
    7   St. Thomas   Loras*   Trine   
    8   CNU   La Roche   NJ City   
    9   Amherst   Keene*   Oswego   UM-Farmington
    10   Swarthmore   Middlebury   Scranton   Salem State
    11   MIT   Williams   Rowan   Albertus Magnus
    12   Wooster   Capital   Alfred   Gwynedd Mercy
    13   Hamilton   Plattsburgh   N Eng Col   Yeshiva
    14   Emory   Centre*   Maryville TN   St. Vincent
    15   Marietta   Rochester   Arcadia   Morrisville St
    16   Wittenberg   Mount Union   Skidmore   DeSales

    Theoretical (even more theoretical) second weekends
    at Swarthmore -- Whitman   CNU   Swarthmore   MIT
    at NWU -- Neb Wesleyan   St. Thomas   Amherst   Emory
    at Oshkosh -- Oshkosh   St. John's   Wooster   Wittenberg
    at Randolph-Macon -- Augustana   Randolph-Macon   Hamilton   Marietta

    I guess I do have a question here (quoted with the most recent edit as of time of my post): is this a work in progress? I just ask since there are a handful of pods that only have three teams instead of four.

    Also, as a word of advice to help clean it up (I'm not trying to be snarky): "Insert table" is your friend. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dunkin3117 on February 18, 2019, 04:35:00 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 18, 2019, 09:44:58 AM
    So, I actually did something relating to Pool C and tourney brackets yesterday.

    I used Fantastic50's work (hat tip) and for Pool C selections I subbed in Wabash, North Central and Mount Union for ECSU, Salisbury and Gordon. I don't think those teams can sustain another loss, whereas the others have chances for quality wins without winning their tournament (so does Salisbury, but they have so many losses already).

    I wanted to see if it's possible to head each pod with a top 16 team, even if that team is not the host, and maintain seed integrity (the top 16 teams as the best in their pods, 17-32 as second best, etc). And the answer is no, but you can come pretty close, probably closer than a lot of folks are thinking.

    (EDIT to fix Amherst and MIT being in the same pod. Just dumb on my part. Also to fix the name of Pomona-Pitzer, because apparently that's the most important thing here. And some ordering and house cleaning.)

    The only first weekend flights on here (unless I've screwed up) are Pomona-Pitzer and Whitman (assuming a Texas school hosts that pod). That plus the finals being in Fort Wayne should more than mitigate second-weekend flights.

    Bottom line: if the committee wants to do it, it can likely be done. Worst case, St. John's wouldn't host, but the spirit of the bracket stays intact.

       1   2   3   4
    1   Neb Wesleyan   LaCrosse   Northwestern   Webster
    2   Whitman   Pomona-Pitzer   UT-Dallas*   Tx Lu
    3   Oshkosh   North Central*   Hanover   
    4   Augustana   Wabash   St. Norbert   
    5   Randolph-Macon   Nichols   York   Baruch
    6   St. John's   Wheaton   MSOE   
    7   St. Thomas   Loras*   Trine   
    8   CNU   La Roche   NJ City   
    9   Amherst   Keene*   Oswego   UM-Farmington
    10   Swarthmore   Middlebury   Scranton   Salem State
    11   MIT   Williams   Rowan   Albertus Magnus
    12   Wooster   Capital   Alfred   Gwynedd Mercy
    13   Hamilton   Plattsburgh   N Eng Col   Yeshiva
    14   Emory   Centre*   Maryville TN   St. Vincent
    15   Marietta   Rochester   Arcadia   Morrisville St
    16   Wittenberg   Mount Union   Skidmore   DeSales

    Theoretical (even more theoretical) second weekends
    at Swarthmore -- Whitman   CNU   Swarthmore   MIT
    at NWU -- Neb Wesleyan   St. Thomas   Amherst   Emory
    at Oshkosh -- Oshkosh   St. John's   Wooster   Wittenberg
    at Randolph-Macon -- Augustana   Randolph-Macon   Hamilton   Marietta

    St. Thomas, Amherst and potentally Oshkosh, will host the first weekend on the womens side, barring something crazy.  Meaning that the men could not host.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2019, 04:53:44 PM
    Not necessarily locked in ... as UST, UWO, and Amherst could lose again ... but certainly those are the front runners for that circumstance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2019, 04:55:00 PM
    Sager - you asked a question a bunch of pages ago and now I can't find it (I have not mastered the search function like many). Something you wanted me to confirm or explain maybe?

    Being sick last week and doing my best to recover quickly, I disconnected for a few days - wrong time of year to do that. Anyway, saw the message, but forgot to circle back.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 18, 2019, 05:06:14 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 18, 2019, 12:04:45 PM
    Each Pool C year is a little different, but if you are wondering what general kind of numbers get you in...below are the Pool C selections for the last two seasons. (Note, there are 20 Pool Cs this year...not 21.)

    (I can't confirm the order of these selection...just my best guess at the time.)

    2017-18 Season
    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 
    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    20. Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .731/.529/3-3
    21. LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2


    2016-17 Season
    1. Babson (NE/NEWMAC): .926/.574/4-1
    2. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .731/.592/7-4   
    3. Susquehanna (MA/LAND): .800/.556/4-4
    4. UW-Whitewater (C/WIAC): .769/.567/3-5
    5. Rochester (E/UAA): .840/.534/4-2
    6. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .708/.598/5-5
    7. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .769/.566/4-4
    8. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .760/.560/4-3
    9. Whitworth (W/NWC): .852/.544/0-3
    10. Salisbury (MA/CAC): .741/.546/3-4
    11. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .750/.533/5-4
    12. Hope (GL/MIAA): .800/.525/2-1
    13. Cabrini (AT/CSAC): .760/.531/2-3
    14. Emory (S/UAA): .720/.547/2-3
    15. Skidmore (E/LL): .731/.527/6-1
    16. St. Lawrence (E/LL): .769/.526/3-5
    17. Augustana (C/CCIW): .704/.542/2-2
    18. Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/3-4
    19. Endicott (NE/CCC): .786/.532/1-1
    20. St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .731/.530/1-2
    21. UW-Oshkosh: (C/WIAC): .630/.601/5-6


    Current 2018-19 Numbers
    * https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    * http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    That Oshkosh pick really stands out doesn't it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 18, 2019, 05:34:35 PM
    In so many ways, it was like that pick was for a D-I tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 18, 2019, 06:26:53 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2019, 04:55:00 PM
    Sager - you asked a question a bunch of pages ago and now I can't find it (I have not mastered the search function like many). Something you wanted me to confirm or explain maybe?

    Being sick last week and doing my best to recover quickly, I disconnected for a few days - wrong time of year to do that. Anyway, saw the message, but forgot to circle back.

    Here it is:

    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 03:51:39 PM
    My attempts at trying to read between the lines whenever Dave has a national committee member on Hoopsville lead me to believe that they value the criteria and the regional rankings right up to the last dollar available to them ... but no further. They value them enough, in fact, to try to reward an obvious #1 seed such as Whitman whenever possible, so that if there's a couple of flights available within the budget they wouldn't hesitate to fly two Texas teams to Walla Walla. At the same time, though, there's no guarantees that bracketing requirements won't use up whatever extra flights are available, so if there aren't any extra flights the Blues will be on a plane to the Lone Star State even though they deserve better.

    Is that a fair reading of what I keep hearing on Hoopsville, Dave?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 18, 2019, 07:00:09 PM

    I don't believe Oshkosh was the last pick in that year.  I suspect they went in at #18, right after Augustana.  They had a better resume, by the number (as then used) than Keene State, hands down.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 18, 2019, 07:28:59 PM
    Quote from: lmitzel on February 18, 2019, 04:11:57 PM
    I guess I do have a question here (quoted with the most recent edit as of time of my post): is this a work in progress? I just ask since there are a handful of pods that only have three teams instead of four.

    Also, as a word of advice to help clean it up (I'm not trying to be snarky): "Insert table" is your friend. :)

    I mean it's a work in progress all week on my laptop, probably.

    The 5 extra spots are working from the Drew-sumption that there will be 5 bid thieves. And then I just hope they're in decent places, which I think it's fairly likely if there are 5 they will be -- because a lot of the locks are in the west and there are really only what 12 or 13 leagues where you can have a bid thief?

    Example. Say John Carroll wins the OAC. That should still be fine bc they can go to North Central, then you shuffle one of the 3 line teams down to 4 which I don't love but it happens in the midwest. If Elmhurst wins the CCIW, then they're probably going to Loras. Etc. If Oshkosh and St. Norbert end up together, St. Norb can host as a placeholder for an Oshkosh hosting.

    If things really go haywire, then maybe St. John's can't host, which I think would be unfortunate.

    I tried the table button and it...did not appear to change anything at all.  ???
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 18, 2019, 07:32:04 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 18, 2019, 07:00:09 PM

    I don't believe Oshkosh was the last pick in that year.  I suspect they went in at #18, right after Augustana.  They had a better resume, by the number (as then used) than Keene State, hands down.

    I'm apparently the only one other than UWO fans, but I thought that pick was fine. They had beaten good teams IIRC. Calling it a D1 pick seems more like a compliment than a slap, bc D1 clearly has a better system than D3. Absolutely no doubt about that. And it's even better now, their team sheets this year are awesome.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 18, 2019, 07:35:22 PM
    Quote from: dunkin3117 on February 18, 2019, 04:35:00 PM
    St. Thomas, Amherst and potentally Oshkosh, will host the first weekend on the womens side, barring something crazy.  Meaning that the men could not host.

    Right, that's what the asterisks are about, along with Whitman and Emory not hosting despite being "1 seeds" in their pods.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 18, 2019, 09:56:03 PM
    Not that it seems like too many folks care (or maybe they're just resting up, hydrating, etc. for the week ahead), but I found IMO a better way to do the second weekend prog.

    Basically when I had MIT messed up earlier, I forgot to change them in the 2nd weekend as well. But it led to some other things...

    Whitman   CNU   at Swarthmore   Marietta
    at Neb Wesleyan   St. Thomas   Amherst   Emory
    at Oshkosh   St. John's   MIT   Wittenberg
    Augustana   at Randolph-Macon   Wooster   Hamilton

    Amherst can actually bus to Randy Mac, but I put Wooster there because *anyone* in the Wooster pod can bus there, and if Randy Mac didn't make it, they could bus a lot of other places as well.

    If you don't care about seed integrity so much, you could just go back to the way I had it before, but that would be rough on Whitman (and MIT).

    I don't think any of this would be anywhere near as bad as some we've had in the past where you had 3 potential national champions in the same first-weekend pod.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 18, 2019, 10:58:21 PM
    Oshkosh ended up paired with Hope that year.  As a team they were very much worthy of an NCAA bid, but you could say that about a half dozen or more Great Lakes, Central, West programs every year who are left home, and probably other regions.  Oshkosh was such an outlier in criteria to previous years I didn't then and still don't like the pick as a Pool C.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiltedbryan on February 19, 2019, 09:10:05 PM
    Wooster juuuuuuuuust escapes a major upset bid by Allegheny. Scots senior Reese Dupler netted the decisive bucket with 3 seconds remaining to win 91-89. That avoids a "bid thief" as the Scots were a probable lock even with a loss.

    With all top seeds advancing, (Wooster, Wittenberg, Wabash, DePauw), only true "bid thief" game left in NCAC tourney would be if DePauw (not in Pool C contention) tops Wooster (a lock) on Friday. Wittenberg should be in good shape for Pool C now regardless of results, and Wabash could sneak themselves onto the right side of the bubble with a win over Witt on Friday.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wooscotsfan on February 19, 2019, 10:02:33 PM
    Final:  John Carroll 82  Marietta 79

    Blue Streaks pull the road upset and the Pioneers will now be looking for a Pool C bid.
    .
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 19, 2019, 10:30:04 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 19, 2019, 10:02:33 PM
    Final:  John Carroll 82  Marietta 79

    Blue Streaks pull the road upset and the Pioneers will now be looking for a Pool C bid.
    .

    This upset impacts Pool C only if Capital fails to win the OAC title, as both the Pioneers and Blue Streaks are in good shape for Pool C berths.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 19, 2019, 10:32:39 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 19, 2019, 10:30:04 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 19, 2019, 10:02:33 PM
    Final:  John Carroll 82  Marietta 79

    Blue Streaks pull the road upset and the Pioneers will now be looking for a Pool C bid.
    .

    This upset impacts Pool C only if Capital fails to win the OAC title, as both the Pioneers and Crusaders are in good shape for Pool C berths.
    To quote Greg on The BeltTM thread, FTFY
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 19, 2019, 11:23:20 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 18, 2019, 06:26:53 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2019, 04:55:00 PM
    Sager - you asked a question a bunch of pages ago and now I can't find it (I have not mastered the search function like many). Something you wanted me to confirm or explain maybe?

    Being sick last week and doing my best to recover quickly, I disconnected for a few days - wrong time of year to do that. Anyway, saw the message, but forgot to circle back.

    Here it is:

    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 03:51:39 PM
    My attempts at trying to read between the lines whenever Dave has a national committee member on Hoopsville lead me to believe that they value the criteria and the regional rankings right up to the last dollar available to them ... but no further. They value them enough, in fact, to try to reward an obvious #1 seed such as Whitman whenever possible, so that if there's a couple of flights available within the budget they wouldn't hesitate to fly two Texas teams to Walla Walla. At the same time, though, there's no guarantees that bracketing requirements won't use up whatever extra flights are available, so if there aren't any extra flights the Blues will be on a plane to the Lone Star State even though they deserve better.

    Is that a fair reading of what I keep hearing on Hoopsville, Dave?
    Ypsi'd by Dave  :D :o
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 19, 2019, 11:36:09 PM
    Everybody is Ypsi'ing me this week. Some joker must've taped a "Make Me Do Research" sign to my back.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 19, 2019, 11:49:18 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 19, 2019, 11:36:09 PM
    Everybody is Ypsi'ing me this week. Some joker must've taped a "Make Me Do Research" sign to my back.

    I didn't do it!  (And you'd have to do research to try to prove I did. 8-))
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 19, 2019, 11:59:45 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 19, 2019, 11:36:09 PM
    Everybody is Ypsi'ing me this week. Some joker must've taped a "Make Me Do Research" sign to my back.

    This was the rare longitudinal Ypsi.  You don't see those every week...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 12:15:07 AM
    Quote from: kiko on February 19, 2019, 11:59:45 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 19, 2019, 11:36:09 PM
    Everybody is Ypsi'ing me this week. Some joker must've taped a "Make Me Do Research" sign to my back.

    This was the rare longitudinal Ypsi.  You don't see those every week...

    I've been working on that sort of projection. 8-)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 20, 2019, 08:01:13 AM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 19, 2019, 10:32:39 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 19, 2019, 10:30:04 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 19, 2019, 10:02:33 PM
    Final:  John Carroll 82  Marietta 79

    Blue Streaks pull the road upset and the Pioneers will now be looking for a Pool C bid.
    .

    This upset impacts Pool C only if Capital fails to win the OAC title, as both the Pioneers and Crusaders are in good shape for Pool C berths.
    To quote Greg on The BeltTM thread, FTFY

    Being right in between JCU & Capital, I should know better!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 11:55:17 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 03:51:39 PM
    My attempts at trying to read between the lines whenever Dave has a national committee member on Hoopsville lead me to believe that they value the criteria and the regional rankings right up to the last dollar available to them ... but no further. They value them enough, in fact, to try to reward an obvious #1 seed such as Whitman whenever possible, so that if there's a couple of flights available within the budget they wouldn't hesitate to fly two Texas teams to Walla Walla. At the same time, though, there's no guarantees that bracketing requirements won't use up whatever extra flights are available, so if there aren't any extra flights the Blues will be on a plane to the Lone Star State even though they deserve better.

    Is that a fair reading of what I keep hearing on Hoopsville, Dave?

    Correct way of understanding it. I feel from what I've been told on and off the air that they are going to do their best to create as balanced a bracket as they can and use the flights they are afforded to the best of their ability. However, they had the same plan last year before Texas schools threw a curve ball on them and forced them in a different direction.

    They are going try and reward Whitman, but I would also say they are going to try and be creative. I wouldn't be surprised if maybe we see something different in the first round - maybe send Whitman on the road - to create other options later.

    The biggest key to remember is the NCAA liaison will look at the potential flights in the second weekend as well - even if they may be a bit far fetched - and ask for things to be adjusted. So, the committee can't completely come up with crazy scenarios and then hold their breathe.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 20, 2019, 12:29:04 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 11:55:17 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 03:51:39 PM
    My attempts at trying to read between the lines whenever Dave has a national committee member on Hoopsville lead me to believe that they value the criteria and the regional rankings right up to the last dollar available to them ... but no further. They value them enough, in fact, to try to reward an obvious #1 seed such as Whitman whenever possible, so that if there's a couple of flights available within the budget they wouldn't hesitate to fly two Texas teams to Walla Walla. At the same time, though, there's no guarantees that bracketing requirements won't use up whatever extra flights are available, so if there aren't any extra flights the Blues will be on a plane to the Lone Star State even though they deserve better.

    Is that a fair reading of what I keep hearing on Hoopsville, Dave?

    Correct way of understanding it. I feel from what I've been told on and off the air that they are going to do their best to create as balanced a bracket as they can and use the flights they are afforded to the best of their ability. However, they had the same plan last year before Texas schools threw a curve ball on them and forced them in a different direction.

    They are going try and reward Whitman, but I would also say they are going to try and be creative. I wouldn't be surprised if maybe we see something different in the first round - maybe send Whitman on the road - to create other options later.

    The biggest key to remember is the NCAA liaison will look at the potential flights in the second weekend as well - even if they may be a bit far fetched - and ask for things to be adjusted. So, the committee can't completely come up with crazy scenarios and then hold their breathe.

    The plan should have included which schools did apply to host; it shouldn't have been a surprise.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 12:34:05 PM
    They did get a list of what schools were to host ... but that doesn't mean the committee isn't thinking about how they are going to bracket before the final Sunday of the season. The men have been forward thinking for a number of years and thought they may be able to be creative with their bracket and solve the Whitman/Whitworth problem - since they had it the previous season. When they were told that none of the Texas teams were able to host, they had to go and rearrange a lot of what they were thinking.

    They are told who is available to host when it is time to be told that - after selections and when they start to bracket officially.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 20, 2019, 12:41:53 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 12:34:05 PM
    They did get a list of what schools were to host ... but that doesn't mean the committee isn't thinking about how they are going to bracket before the final Sunday of the season. The men have been forward thinking for a number of years and thought they may be able to be creative with their bracket and solve the Whitman/Whitworth problem - since they had it the previous season. When they were told that none of the Texas teams were able to host, they had to go and rearrange a lot of what they were thinking.

    They are told who is available to host when it is time to be told that - after selections and when they start to bracket officially.

    That would be the choice of the NCAA, probably so the pool C selections aren't influenced by that knowledge; I agree with that; just saying the NCAA already has that knowledge.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 12:43:56 PM
    Yes - the deadline for hosting opportunities is already come and gone as I understand it ... so the NCAA liaison has that information. However, they will not - as you noted - inform the committee of those things as it could impact selections.

    There was a team in Texas on the table at the end that was a good debate to get in (ETBU, if I remember correctly) who HAD put in to host. Had they selected ETBU, the problem would have been solved. They didn't ... but they also didn't know the "problem" they faced.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 01:18:42 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 11:55:17 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2019, 03:51:39 PM
    My attempts at trying to read between the lines whenever Dave has a national committee member on Hoopsville lead me to believe that they value the criteria and the regional rankings right up to the last dollar available to them ... but no further. They value them enough, in fact, to try to reward an obvious #1 seed such as Whitman whenever possible, so that if there's a couple of flights available within the budget they wouldn't hesitate to fly two Texas teams to Walla Walla. At the same time, though, there's no guarantees that bracketing requirements won't use up whatever extra flights are available, so if there aren't any extra flights the Blues will be on a plane to the Lone Star State even though they deserve better.

    Is that a fair reading of what I keep hearing on Hoopsville, Dave?

    Correct way of understanding it. I feel from what I've been told on and off the air that they are going to do their best to create as balanced a bracket as they can and use the flights they are afforded to the best of their ability. However, they had the same plan last year before Texas schools threw a curve ball on them and forced them in a different direction.

    They are going try and reward Whitman, but I would also say they are going to try and be creative. I wouldn't be surprised if maybe we see something different in the first round - maybe send Whitman on the road - to create other options later.

    The biggest key to remember is the NCAA liaison will look at the potential flights in the second weekend as well - even if they may be a bit far fetched - and ask for things to be adjusted. So, the committee can't completely come up with crazy scenarios and then hold their breathe.

    Will the NCAA liaison look at the potential flights on the third weekend compared to the Salem years, and factor that into their tolerance for first and second weekend flights?

    They could avoid things like having Whitman (high 1 seed), Pomona-Pitzer (low 1) and UT-Dallas (mid 2) in the same bracket, but it will take some added tolerance for flights.

    By the snake bracket, UT-Dallas would be more like a 2 in Whitman's bracket than a 3, and Pomona-Pitzer shouldn't even be considered as a possible 2 in that bracket. I'm using Drew's national top 100 here for who should be considered what.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 01:58:54 PM
    Championship weekend is usually not considered in any season. Flight potential is understood and usually does not impact the rest of the bracket. I have never been told that a concern about who might or might not have to fly to Salem limited flights earlier in the event.

    That said, I think it is an interesting question to raise about Fort Wayne ... though teams form the east coast are more likely to fly (though, some teams still had to fly to Salem). If they feel less flights may be needed, would that open up the bracket earlier ... I'll ask. I suspect they will say it doesn't affect anything, but I'll ask.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 02:05:04 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 01:58:54 PM
    Championship weekend is usually not considered in any season.

    Confirming for folks that we were told this for football as well. Whether the Texas Stagg would have potentially required one flight or two, it wasn't counted against the total flights projected for the bracket.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 02:07:11 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 01:58:54 PM
    Championship weekend is usually not considered in any season. Flight potential is understood and usually does not impact the rest of the bracket. I have never been told that a concern about who might or might not have to fly to Salem limited flights earlier in the event.

    That said, I think it is an interesting question to raise about Fort Wayne ... though teams form the east coast are more likely to fly (though, some teams still had to fly to Salem). If they feel less flights may be needed, would that open up the bracket earlier ... I'll ask. I suspect they will say it doesn't affect anything, but I'll ask.

    If they set up the bracket close to fairly, there probably won't be as many east coast teams in it, at least this year. But New England teams were more than 500 miles from Salem anyway. Basically unless you were in NJ, VA, OH or PA (or Emory, dunno if they ever made it, not really the point anyway), you were more than 500 miles from Salem.

    It's highly likely that there will be more closer trips to Fort Wayne than Salem, and that should be considered.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 02:07:52 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 02:05:04 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 01:58:54 PM
    Championship weekend is usually not considered in any season.

    Confirming for folks that we were told this for football as well. Whether the Texas Stagg would have potentially required one flight or two, it wasn't counted against the total flights projected for the bracket.

    Good to have that confirmation as well.

    Championship weekends are usually not used to hurt the rest of the bracket financially. Yes, it could "open" some things up (like in football with the assumption of UMHB), but I've always been told the NCAA doesn't feel hamstringing committees due to location is the best policy. It could also affect who would want to host in the future and who committees would choose if they know the flight allotment/spending would be affected.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 02:11:33 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 02:05:04 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 01:58:54 PM
    Championship weekend is usually not considered in any season.

    Confirming for folks that we were told this for football as well. Whether the Texas Stagg would have potentially required one flight or two, it wasn't counted against the total flights projected for the bracket.

    Doesn't it seem like that's wrong, though? In Salem, you usually had 1 team within 500 miles (Mount Union) and 1 not. Is flying an additional team suddenly free because it's later in the tournament? A damn world of difference between traveling a football team and a basketball team too. You could probably fly half the tournament for what it costs to travel a football team.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2019, 02:18:28 PM
    My suggestion for fully funding a D3 basketball bracket is to end D3 football (the sport, not the dot com). It's not real anyway (because if it was real, Calvin would have it).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 02:23:51 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 02:11:33 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 02:05:04 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 01:58:54 PM
    Championship weekend is usually not considered in any season.

    Confirming for folks that we were told this for football as well. Whether the Texas Stagg would have potentially required one flight or two, it wasn't counted against the total flights projected for the bracket.

    Doesn't it seem like that's wrong, though? In Salem, you usually had 1 team within 500 miles (Mount Union) and 1 not. Is flying an additional team suddenly free because it's later in the tournament? A damn world of difference between traveling a football team and a basketball team too. You could probably fly half the tournament for what it costs to travel a football team.

    Look at it as two different budgets. There is a budget for the tournament. There is a budget for the final four. They don't impact each other.

    Usually football is the costliest tournament each year to run ... men's and women's basketball the next costliest.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 02:24:49 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2019, 02:18:28 PM
    My suggestion for fully funding a D3 basketball bracket is to end D3 football (the sport, not the dot com). It's not real anyway (because if it was real, Calvin would have it).

    Or just advance the top seeds in each bracket to the semifinals and start there. So basically like D1 only without the pointless post-season exhibitions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 02:25:46 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 02:23:51 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 02:11:33 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 02:05:04 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 01:58:54 PM
    Championship weekend is usually not considered in any season.

    Confirming for folks that we were told this for football as well. Whether the Texas Stagg would have potentially required one flight or two, it wasn't counted against the total flights projected for the bracket.

    Doesn't it seem like that's wrong, though? In Salem, you usually had 1 team within 500 miles (Mount Union) and 1 not. Is flying an additional team suddenly free because it's later in the tournament? A damn world of difference between traveling a football team and a basketball team too. You could probably fly half the tournament for what it costs to travel a football team.

    Look at it as two different budgets. There is a budget for the tournament. There is a budget for the final four. They don't impact each other.

    Usually football is the costliest tournament each year to run ... men's and women's basketball the next costliest.

    That's extremely stupid though, because the final four is part of the tournament.

    If you spend less for the final four, logically you should have more to spend on the rest of the tournament. Anything else is military-level budget inefficiency.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 03:16:29 PM
    In a related story to all of this, as a result of Tuesday's results, it's even more difficult to put together a seed-true bracket, because Loras is now in the top 16, so rather than using them as a 2 seed host, they're actually positioned such that they should be a host unless geography prevents it. Pomona-Pitzer is also top 16 (they were before as well), which is why if the committee was willing to pair them and Emory rather than Whitman, it would really help the competitive balance in the bracket.

    Even at this, without having a couple of extra 2 seed hosts for geography reasons, it gets very difficult to see how you slot in the 3 and 4 seeds in a pod.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 03:19:03 PM
    They are in someone's mock top 16 ... not necessarily the national committee's Top 16.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 03:22:50 PM
    It's really better to have 3-seed hosts than 2-seed hosts, which is unfortunate because Loras is ideally located to help the committee. A 2-seed host could be close enough to the best team in a pod that the home court pushes them over, where that's less likely with a 3-seed host.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 03:28:44 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 03:19:03 PM
    They are in someone's mock top 16 ... not necessarily the national committee's Top 16.

    Drew's, to be specific.

    It's not hard to reckon why they are with the wins they have. And everyone down in that range have taken a few losses.

    But it doesn't really help much if you say that Emory or someone is in the top 16 instead. Basically Marietta fell out which is a pretty easily reachable location, and they're likely replaced by someone less central.

    EDIT TO ADD: Loras up to 3rd in the West regional rankings, btw. So apparently Drew isn't the only one that (likely) has them top 16 nationally. But hey, what would we do without pointless snark?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 03:35:34 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 03:22:50 PM
    It's really better to have 3-seed hosts than 2-seed hosts, which is unfortunate because Loras is ideally located to help the committee. A 2-seed host could be close enough to the best team in a pod that the home court pushes them over, where that's less likely with a 3-seed host.

    Doesn't seem like that's how it's actually been done, though, at least in the last few brackets.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 03:36:28 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 02:23:51 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 02:11:33 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 02:05:04 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 01:58:54 PM
    Championship weekend is usually not considered in any season.

    Confirming for folks that we were told this for football as well. Whether the Texas Stagg would have potentially required one flight or two, it wasn't counted against the total flights projected for the bracket.

    Doesn't it seem like that's wrong, though? In Salem, you usually had 1 team within 500 miles (Mount Union) and 1 not. Is flying an additional team suddenly free because it's later in the tournament? A damn world of difference between traveling a football team and a basketball team too. You could probably fly half the tournament for what it costs to travel a football team.

    Look at it as two different budgets. There is a budget for the tournament. There is a budget for the final four. They don't impact each other.

    Usually football is the costliest tournament each year to run ... men's and women's basketball the next costliest.

    I wonder how this will change now that baseball has gone to super regional format.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 03:36:37 PM
    The third public NCAA Division III regional rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-third
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 03:57:25 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 03:36:37 PM
    The third public NCAA Division III regional rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-third

    How far do we reckon Marietta fell? Surely behind Wooster and Capital at least now, if not Wittenberg also.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 04:00:04 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 03:35:34 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 03:22:50 PM
    It's really better to have 3-seed hosts than 2-seed hosts, which is unfortunate because Loras is ideally located to help the committee. A 2-seed host could be close enough to the best team in a pod that the home court pushes them over, where that's less likely with a 3-seed host.

    Doesn't seem like that's how it's actually been done, though, at least in the last few brackets.

    I haven't made a study of it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 04:08:19 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 03:36:28 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 02:23:51 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 02:11:33 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 02:05:04 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 01:58:54 PM
    Championship weekend is usually not considered in any season.

    Confirming for folks that we were told this for football as well. Whether the Texas Stagg would have potentially required one flight or two, it wasn't counted against the total flights projected for the bracket.

    Doesn't it seem like that's wrong, though? In Salem, you usually had 1 team within 500 miles (Mount Union) and 1 not. Is flying an additional team suddenly free because it's later in the tournament? A damn world of difference between traveling a football team and a basketball team too. You could probably fly half the tournament for what it costs to travel a football team.

    Look at it as two different budgets. There is a budget for the tournament. There is a budget for the final four. They don't impact each other.

    Usually football is the costliest tournament each year to run ... men's and women's basketball the next costliest.

    I wonder how this will change now that baseball has gone to super regional format.

    The softball people said they actually saved a small amount of money this way. When you think of it, in the regionals, at most eight teams were hosting and playing at home and everyone else was incurring hotel nights, sometimes four of them. In the new format, 25% of the first-weekend teams and 50% of the second-weekend teams will be hosting, and they will be hosting shorter tournaments. And doing so on-campus. Obviously, some of that is offset by the fact that, essentially, eight teams will travel twice before the finals weekend.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 04:13:06 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 04:08:19 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 03:36:28 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 02:23:51 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 02:11:33 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 02:05:04 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 01:58:54 PM
    Championship weekend is usually not considered in any season.

    Confirming for folks that we were told this for football as well. Whether the Texas Stagg would have potentially required one flight or two, it wasn't counted against the total flights projected for the bracket.

    Doesn't it seem like that's wrong, though? In Salem, you usually had 1 team within 500 miles (Mount Union) and 1 not. Is flying an additional team suddenly free because it's later in the tournament? A damn world of difference between traveling a football team and a basketball team too. You could probably fly half the tournament for what it costs to travel a football team.

    Look at it as two different budgets. There is a budget for the tournament. There is a budget for the final four. They don't impact each other.

    Usually football is the costliest tournament each year to run ... men's and women's basketball the next costliest.

    I wonder how this will change now that baseball has gone to super regional format.

    The softball people said they actually saved a small amount of money this way. When you think of it, in the regionals, at most eight teams were hosting and playing at home and everyone else was incurring hotel nights, sometimes four of them. In the new format, 25% of the first-weekend teams and 50% of the second-weekend teams will be hosting, and they will be hosting shorter tournaments. And doing so on-campus. Obviously, some of that is offset by the fact that, essentially, eight teams will travel twice before the finals weekend.

    Good points. Having postseason baseball in St. Paul would be pretty cool, I would rather see it at CHS rather than on campus, though that won't happen this year with the Saints schedule. Might be interesting to see postseason baseball with the cavernous outfield at UST, though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 04:44:27 PM
    The regional rankings in New England continue to be biased toward the NESCAC. Lot of people on that committee with either current or former NESCAC ties. No real reason for Wesleyan or Colby to be in it other than to pump up the NESCAC resumes. 

    Mass-Dartmouth should be in a position where if they beat ECSU they should be ahead of them, but they probably aren't in that position.

    Wondering if the national committee will do some reworking of that.

    Elsewhere, IWU blocked by Stevens Point who probably has to win the WIAC to get in. Wabash looks like they need to beat Wittenberg or they're out.

    Loras up to 3rd in the West puts them in very solid position to host, especially since the #4 (UST) likely can't.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 04:54:04 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 04:44:27 PM
    The regional rankings in New England continue to be biased toward the NESCAC. Lot of people on that committee with either current or former NESCAC ties. No real reason for Wesleyan or Colby to be in it other than to pump up the NESCAC resumes. 

    Mass-Dartmouth should be in a position where if they beat ECSU they should be ahead of them, but they probably aren't in that position.

    Wondering if the national committee will do some reworking of that.

    Elsewhere, IWU blocked by Stevens Point who probably has to win the WIAC to get in. Wabash looks like they need to beat Wittenberg or they're out.

    NOT. HOW. IT. WORKS. I can't tell you how many people tell me how coaches, admins, etc. check their allegiances and ties at the door and talk about these things on merit. If they didn't, they would either be called out on it by their colleagues or the NCAA liaison.

    The NESCAC has strong numbers, but if the bias was there and we were working in the former days, Wesleyan would be a LOT higher. Wesleyan has a very, very strong SOS and that will keep them in play. In past years, they would be in the Top 5.

    National Committee looks at the regional rankings each and every week and I can tell you for sure they are making sure the regions are using the data accordingly ... and making changes when needed. If something is off to them, they change it before we see it posted.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 05:19:44 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 04:54:04 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 04:44:27 PM
    The regional rankings in New England continue to be biased toward the NESCAC. Lot of people on that committee with either current or former NESCAC ties. No real reason for Wesleyan or Colby to be in it other than to pump up the NESCAC resumes. 

    Mass-Dartmouth should be in a position where if they beat ECSU they should be ahead of them, but they probably aren't in that position.

    Wondering if the national committee will do some reworking of that.

    Elsewhere, IWU blocked by Stevens Point who probably has to win the WIAC to get in. Wabash looks like they need to beat Wittenberg or they're out.

    NOT. HOW. IT. WORKS. I can't tell you how many people tell me how coaches, admins, etc. check their allegiances and ties at the door and talk about these things on merit. If they didn't, they would either be called out on it by their colleagues or the NCAA liaison.

    The NESCAC has strong numbers, but if the bias was there and we were working in the former days, Wesleyan would be a LOT higher. Wesleyan has a very, very strong SOS and that will keep them in play. In past years, they would be in the Top 5.

    National Committee looks at the regional rankings each and every week and I can tell you for sure they are making sure the regions are using the data accordingly ... and making changes when needed. If something is off to them, they change it before we see it posted.

    So the national committee or the NCAA has never redone regional rankings before? I'm pretty sure you yourself have said otherwise.

    NESCAC SOS's are crap. They're inflated and we know that. Look at who they've actually played and beaten. Mostly they get credit for beating other NESCAC teams. This is why they need to be forced to play a longer conference season, because they can be mediocre against each other and it's like but they only played 10 conference games, only had one game against whoever, etc. And then people look at the inflated SOS. Whereas being .500 or a game over .500 in any other conference is a strike against you, one way or another.

    We need a committee with the guts to say no we're not falling for it anymore. Sam sounded like this might be the committee, but the regional rankings don't reflect it so far. LOL 6 of the 8 teams are ranked from the Massey #4 conference. The WIAC, ARC and CCIW should just all get Pool C's by default in that case.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 05:24:29 PM
    Where are you reading "never redone regional rankings?"

    I wrote: "... making changes when needed. If something is off to them, they change it before we see it posted."

    Sorry you hate the NESCAC... which is clear. It isn't changing the situation. And no conference is ever "forced" to do anything. It has been debated and soundly shot down in DIII. That isn't how it works. Just because you don't like it, spence, doesn't mean membership is going to jump up and down to change it.

    And from my experience covering this sport ... I'll take NESCAC teams over a lot of the rest of the country more times than not. They have proven that pretty well over the years. They aren't going to beat everyone, but I don't understand how you can't see they have proven themselves over the years.

    And the last part ... not part of the criteria. Stick to the criteria. A game (or how many) over .500 in any conference isn't a factor at all.

    Oh ... remember, teams like Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan, Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin all play a second game against their local rivals. It isn't as cut and dry as you would like to make it. How many times do you have to keep repeating yourself?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 05:42:42 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 05:24:29 PM

    And from my experience covering this sport ... I'll take NESCAC teams over a lot of the rest of the country more times than not. They have proven that pretty well over the years. They aren't going to beat everyone, but I don't understand how you can't see they have proven themselves over the years.

    And the last part ... not part of the criteria. Stick to the criteria. A game (or how many) over .500 in any conference isn't a factor at all.


    It's not part of the criteria, but you're fooling yourself if you think it doesn't matter for other leagues. It's exactly the reason you all criticize the Oshkosh Pool C when that was actually justified bc they were a good team with a great schedule that had been in the annually toughest league in the country. It's why you say (probably correctly) that Stevens Point has no chance, that Platteville has no chance, that Whitewater has no chance. But if those records were 6-4 or 4-6 rather than having a few more losses and padding the non-conference, then they'd have every chance. And I know you aren't gonna go and say Wesleyan played a tougher schedule than Stevens Point.

    Maybe I hate them, maybe I just hate the bias toward them. But I definitely hate that they get so much preferential treatment they haven't earned at the cost of better teams.

    Again, what's it been 15 years since any of them got past a WIAC, CCIW or MIAC team in the tournament? Maybe I'm forgetting one out of a bunch, but I know it's not many.

    But you think they've proven themselves because sometimes they get out of the east (not even done that as much lately), which really just shows how deep the eastern bias goes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Inkblot on February 20, 2019, 05:51:48 PM
    Here's what the Northeast regional ranking would look like if determined by Massey:
    Only one of the NESCAC teams is higher in the actual regional rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 05:57:33 PM
    Whatever, I can't win.

    I try to do something unique and get no credit for it. But when I dare look at our lords and saviors rather than averting my eyes, I get -k - bombed. I don't really care, just pointing out the fact.

    All I know is that there are a lot of people that agree with me, on this board and off. I'm not going to say who because I don't want to see them vilified like I have been here. But I'm done trying, I've said what I have to say and it's obvious that no one is willing to consider anything different than their opinion even in the face of more than a decade of evidence.

    This year the country is more imbalanced than ever. There's hardly an eastern team in the top 10 in the country in either the F50 or Massey. The ARC is getting the respect they've deserved for a long time bc of NWU's success, to go with the annual quality in the other power leagues.

    I'll put money on for whoever wants to go against it that the first time a NESCAC team faces a CCIW, WIAC, MIAC or ARC team, they'll lose. I doubt they even make it that far, much like the last couple of years.

    If you're game, message me. Otherwise, I'm out. I don't need this abuse from people that claim themselves to be uber-worthy of respect and adoration in D3.

    Enjoy the tournament everyone. I hope the committee sets it up so the best teams have a chance to advance to play each other, or be denied the opportunity on the court in a fair bracket, rather than having to battle just to get out of the first weekend. I hope, I don't expect.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gray Fox on February 20, 2019, 05:58:22 PM
    Quote from: Inkblot on February 20, 2019, 05:51:48 PM
    Here's what the Northeast regional ranking would look like if determined by Massey:

    • Amherst
    • Hamilton
    • MIT
    • Williams
    • Nichols
    • Middlebury
    • Wesleyan
    • Eastern Connecticut
    • Colby
    • Keene State
    • New England College
    Only one of the NESCAC teams is higher in the actual regional rankings.

    Thank you for your first post.  +k

    Now you need to apply your Inkplot test to St. Paulite.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 06:00:22 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 05:57:33 PM
    Whatever, I can't win.

    You managed to win long enough to make about 100 posts before we figured out who you were, though. Welcome back and welcome back to banned.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 20, 2019, 06:00:36 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 05:57:33 PM
    The ARC is getting the respect they've deserved for a long time bc of NWU's success, to go with the annual quality in the other power leagues.

    Nah, the American Rivers is getting respect due to Nebraska Wesleyan, Loras, Warburg and Simpson.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 20, 2019, 06:02:54 PM
    Quote from: Inkblot on February 20, 2019, 05:51:48 PM
    Here's what the Northeast regional ranking would look like if determined by Massey:

    • Amherst
    • Hamilton
    • MIT
    • Williams
    • Nichols
    • Middlebury
    • Wesleyan
    • Eastern Connecticut
    • Colby
    • Keene State
    • New England College
    Only one of the NESCAC teams is higher in the actual regional rankings.

    Massey gets it, go Pilgrims!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 06:03:31 PM
    Loras especially when talking about 2018-19. Wartburg struck a big blow for the conference's rep with its run a couple of years ago. And yes, NWU. Having a big doorstop (did Greg Sager TM that?) makes a big difference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 06:06:34 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 06:03:31 PM
    Loras especially when talking about 2018-19. Wartburg struck a big blow for the conference's rep with its run a couple of years ago. And yes, NWU. Having a big doorstop (did Greg Sager TM that?) makes a big difference.

    I hope Greg didn't - I've stolen that term also! ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 06:20:00 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 06:00:22 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 05:57:33 PM
    Whatever, I can't win.

    You managed to win long enough to make about 100 posts before we figured out who you were, though. Welcome back and welcome back to banned.

    I thought the tone of those posts sounded very familiar, but figured there was bound to be someone out there as obnoxious as Spence! :o

    Good detective work, whoever it was that caught him!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Inkblot on February 20, 2019, 06:53:58 PM
    Here's what all the regional rankings would look like if based on Massey:
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2019, 07:30:16 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 06:06:34 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 06:03:31 PM
    Loras especially when talking about 2018-19. Wartburg struck a big blow for the conference's rep with its run a couple of years ago. And yes, NWU. Having a big doorstop (did Greg Sager TM that?) makes a big difference.

    I hope Greg didn't - I've stolen that term also! ;)

    I'm having trouble capturing enough weasels to file the legal paperwork. Darned things keep gnawing through the burlap sack.

    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 06:00:22 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 05:57:33 PM
    Whatever, I can't win.

    You managed to win long enough to make about 100 posts before we figured out who you were, though. Welcome back and welcome back to banned.

    Wasn't Spence a Marietta guy the last time that he spent a couple of weeks pestering everybody on the Pool C board? If so, he did a nice job of holding back on posting about the Pioneers this time around.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 09:15:02 PM
    Never mentioning Marietta threw me off too.  In this incarnation he seemed to try to come off as a Tommie.  But the pugnacity, the sarcasm, and the wordings certainly seemed familiar.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on February 20, 2019, 09:28:19 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 05:57:33 PM
    Whatever, I can't win.

    I try to do something unique and get no credit for it. But when I dare look at our lords and saviors rather than averting my eyes, I get -k - bombed. I don't really care, just pointing out the fact.

    All I know is that there are a lot of people that agree with me, on this board and off. I'm not going to say who because I don't want to see them vilified like I have been here. But I'm done trying, I've said what I have to say and it's obvious that no one is willing to consider anything different than their opinion even in the face of more than a decade of evidence.

    This year the country is more imbalanced than ever. There's hardly an eastern team in the top 10 in the country in either the F50 or Massey. The ARC is getting the respect they've deserved for a long time bc of NWU's success, to go with the annual quality in the other power leagues.

    I'll put money on for whoever wants to go against it that the first time a NESCAC team faces a CCIW, WIAC, MIAC or ARC team, they'll lose. I doubt they even make it that far, much like the last couple of years.

    If you're game, message me. Otherwise, I'm out. I don't need this abuse from people that claim themselves to be uber-worthy of respect and adoration in D3.

    Enjoy the tournament everyone. I hope the committee sets it up so the best teams have a chance to advance to play each other, or be denied the opportunity on the court in a fair bracket, rather than having to battle just to get out of the first weekend. I hope, I don't expect.

    I don't think anyone here would argue you bring good debates or conversation points to the table. It's the fact that they are loaded with insults, condescending statements, and "holier than thou" negativity that makes it so cumbersome and awful to deal with. It's always the same in every reincarnation of your profile. You point the finger at everyone else, but we all seem to get along just fine here with healthy good hearted debates without all the unnecessary negativity.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2019, 10:05:29 PM
    Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on February 20, 2019, 09:28:19 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 05:57:33 PM
    Whatever, I can't win.

    I try to do something unique and get no credit for it. But when I dare look at our lords and saviors rather than averting my eyes, I get -k - bombed. I don't really care, just pointing out the fact.

    All I know is that there are a lot of people that agree with me, on this board and off. I'm not going to say who because I don't want to see them vilified like I have been here. But I'm done trying, I've said what I have to say and it's obvious that no one is willing to consider anything different than their opinion even in the face of more than a decade of evidence.

    This year the country is more imbalanced than ever. There's hardly an eastern team in the top 10 in the country in either the F50 or Massey. The ARC is getting the respect they've deserved for a long time bc of NWU's success, to go with the annual quality in the other power leagues.

    I'll put money on for whoever wants to go against it that the first time a NESCAC team faces a CCIW, WIAC, MIAC or ARC team, they'll lose. I doubt they even make it that far, much like the last couple of years.

    If you're game, message me. Otherwise, I'm out. I don't need this abuse from people that claim themselves to be uber-worthy of respect and adoration in D3.

    Enjoy the tournament everyone. I hope the committee sets it up so the best teams have a chance to advance to play each other, or be denied the opportunity on the court in a fair bracket, rather than having to battle just to get out of the first weekend. I hope, I don't expect.

    I don't think anyone here would argue you bring good debates or conversation points to the table. It's the fact that they are loaded with insults, condescending statements, and "holier than thou" negativity that makes it so cumbersome and awful to deal with. It's always the same in every reincarnation of your profile. You point the finger at everyone else, but we all seem to get along just fine here with healthy good hearted debates without all the unnecessary negativity.

    He does put in his homework when he's so inclined, such as when he tried his hand at (very premature) bracket construction two days ago, I'll give him that. Of course, he's also prone to spout off about things he knows nothing about and refuses to acknowledge more informed sources, such as when he attacks the administrators of the NESCAC. And, in the end, who wants to engage in dialogue with someone who's loaded with that much bad attitude?

    I'm eager to see what handle he uses and what team he purports to follow when he shows up next year to spread his own unique brand of sunshine on the Pool C board.

    You have to admire his persistence. He's like a Whac-a-Mole with fangs.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2019, 10:40:57 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 09:15:02 PM
    Never mentioning Marietta threw me off too.  In this incarnation he seemed to try to come off as a Tommie.  But the pugnacity, the sarcasm, and the wordings certainly seemed familiar.

    What's wrong with being a Tommy?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Rofrog on February 20, 2019, 10:49:54 PM
    Seriously does the NCAA use 'massey' when determining teams for the NCAA  d3 Mens or Womens Tournament?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 11:05:24 PM
    Quote from: Rofrog on February 20, 2019, 10:49:54 PM
    Seriously does the NCAA use 'massey' when determining teams for the NCAA  d3 Mens or Womens Tournament?

    Hell no ...

    Has anyone noticed Massey's work has also been at least a week behind of late? Last few weeks, the data has been at least a week old, if not older, when i have checked in.

    Anyway ... no. No they do not.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 11:07:18 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2019, 10:40:57 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 09:15:02 PM
    Never mentioning Marietta threw me off too.  In this incarnation he seemed to try to come off as a Tommie.  But the pugnacity, the sarcasm, and the wordings certainly seemed familiar.

    What's wrong with being a Tommy?

    Nothing (unless you're a Johnny ;)).  That just seemed to be his fake persona this go round.

    Quote from: Rofrog on February 20, 2019, 10:49:54 PM
    Seriously does the NCAA use 'massey' when determining teams for the NCAA  d3 Mens or Womens Tournament?

    No, not officially, but undoubtedly it creeps in to a degree.  The selection committee IS composed of humans, after all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 20, 2019, 11:18:42 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 11:07:18 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2019, 10:40:57 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 09:15:02 PM
    Never mentioning Marietta threw me off too.  In this incarnation he seemed to try to come off as a Tommie.  But the pugnacity, the sarcasm, and the wordings certainly seemed familiar.

    What's wrong with being a Tommy?

    Nothing (unless you're a Johnny ;)).  That just seemed to be his fake persona this go round.

    I have not been in these streets too long, but I do remember a Marietta fan who had very similar posts as SaintPaulite two years ago... I agree, while the condescending tones of the posts were similar, he seemed to know too much about MN to not have lived here at one point. He was active on the MIAC thread last night when the quarterfinal games were being played, he got into it with Pat about being from St. Paul rather than Minneapolis (he even referenced highway 280 that is a rough line of demarcation between the Twin Cities) and lastly he mentioned he would prefer baseball games to be played at CHS Field, where the St Paul Saints, an Indepedent League team (and Hamline pipers), play their home games. Very cool stadium in downtown St. Paul.

    None of that info is really all that hard to fake, so I get that. Part of me really hopes he did a lot of research for his new persona as a Tommie Fan.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 11:25:14 PM
    He may have just moved to the TC, then learned enough to sound like a local.  Or, for that matter, he may be a Marietta grad who has been in the TC ever since graduation.

    At any rate, he's a jerk, and I salute Pat for renewing his ban.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 11:28:47 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 11:07:18 PM
    Quote from: Rofrog on February 20, 2019, 10:49:54 PM
    Seriously does the NCAA use 'massey' when determining teams for the NCAA  d3 Mens or Womens Tournament?

    No, not officially, but undoubtedly it creeps in to a degree.  The selection committee IS composed of humans, after all.

    Can we not spread something like this. It isn't true. When they are doing their work, they have computers in front of them giving them all the criteria information they need. They aren't looking at Massey numbers. We don't need to try and indicate somehow other things come into play.

    I talk to a lot of coaches and committee members. Massey usually comes up in general at all times of the season. Not one coach I talk to ever references Massey as either something considered for rankings or selections or that they take too seriously. They find the information interesting, but they don't put as much stock in it as those on these boards do.

    My main point is this ... when we try and say things like "undoubtedly it creeps in to a degree," it not only misinforms those who aren't as familiar with things ... but it also makes it seem like committee members are gaming things. We ask pointed questions when we talk to those individuals. They can answer them (and have). I don't think this kind of stuff helps.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 11:38:29 PM
    Sorry, d-mac, but you are wrong  unless all of psychology is wrong.  I'm not saying they consciously use Massey (or the d3hoops.com poll) in their deliberations, but it is absolutely inevitable that some tinge of those rankings remain.  It is the same obvious truism as noting the 'anchoring bias' in polls, where early rankings continue to affect later rankings.  The human mind just can't avoid those apparently hard-wired evolutionary biases.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 11:47:54 PM
    Not to keep talking about Spence, but yes, he does live (or has lived, at least) in the TC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: jamtod on February 20, 2019, 11:53:24 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 11:47:54 PM
    Not to keep talking about Spence, but yes, he does live (or has lived, at least) in the TC.

    Sure sure BUT is he a TRUE (TM) Tommie?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 11:54:16 PM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 20, 2019, 11:38:29 PM
    Sorry, d-mac, but you are wrong  unless all of psychology is wrong.  I'm not saying they consciously use Massey (or the d3hoops.com poll) in their deliberations, but it is absolutely inevitable that some tinge of those rankings remain.  It is the same obvious truism as noting the 'anchoring bias' in polls, where early rankings continue to affect later rankings.  The human mind just can't avoid those apparently hard-wired evolutionary biases.

    But you are assuming they are looking at the numbers at the national level. You are assuming they know how Massey has them ranked in the first place.

    I mentioned I have talked to coaches and committee members and Massey is brought up from time to time ... but not once in those conversations, especially with committee members, have I ever gathered they know where teams actually rank at this time of the season.

    And curious ... what the hell is with the "you are wrong" BS. It is wording I don't use when having a discussion. You can't prove it one way or the other.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Inkblot on February 20, 2019, 11:59:00 PM
    Didn't mean to start anything by posting the Massey numbers. I posted them just to show how the regional rankings compare to computer rankings. In most cases they're very similar, though there are some startling differences e.g. with UT Dallas.

    I believe that the Massey ratings are up to date most of the time, though they've been a day behind at least once recently.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2019, 12:02:04 AM
    Quote from: Inkblot on February 20, 2019, 11:59:00 PM
    Didn't mean to start anything by posting the Massey numbers. I posted them just to show how the regional rankings compare to computer rankings. In most cases they're very similar, though there are some startling differences e.g. with UT Dallas.

    I believe that the Massey ratings are up to date most of the time, though they've been a day behind at least once recently.

    Massey numbers are fine to post. I look at them from time to time to see if I am missing someone I should be paying attention to (which is how I discovered the last few weeks that the data in Massey hasn't been updated very well recently).

    I just don't think the idea of saying committee members have Massey numbers slipping into their minds in selections is worth stirring the pot about. From everything I am told and learn ... I just don't think it is a fair assessment or assumption (no matter what psychology minds think).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Inkblot on February 21, 2019, 12:12:11 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2019, 12:02:04 AM
    I just don't think the idea of saying committee members have Massey numbers slipping into their minds in selections is worth stirring the pot about. From everything I am told and learn ... I just don't think it is a fair assessment or assumption (no matter what psychology minds think).

    Right. It's like how in Division I, the committee can use the KenPom/BPI/etc. numbers, but there's no reason to think they do to any meaningful extent.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 21, 2019, 12:23:02 AM
    So this board is readable again?

    Thank you
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 21, 2019, 12:36:23 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 06:00:22 PM
    Quote from: SaintPaulite on February 20, 2019, 05:57:33 PM
    Whatever, I can't win.

    You managed to win long enough to make about 100 posts before we figured out who you were, though. Welcome back and welcome back to banned.
    Surprised it took you guys this long  :(. But, GOOD JOB and thank you!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 21, 2019, 02:07:40 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2019, 12:02:04 AM
    Quote from: Inkblot on February 20, 2019, 11:59:00 PM
    Didn't mean to start anything by posting the Massey numbers. I posted them just to show how the regional rankings compare to computer rankings. In most cases they're very similar, though there are some startling differences e.g. with UT Dallas.

    I believe that the Massey ratings are up to date most of the time, though they've been a day behind at least once recently.

    Massey numbers are fine to post. I look at them from time to time to see if I am missing someone I should be paying attention to (which is how I discovered the last few weeks that the data in Massey hasn't been updated very well recently).

    I just don't think the idea of saying committee members have Massey numbers slipping into their minds in selections is worth stirring the pot about. From everything I am told and learn ... I just don't think it is a fair assessment or assumption (no matter what psychology minds think).

    This is literally the definition of "it creeps in to a degree".

    I don't think Ypsi is suggesting the committee is doing anything untoward.  But to suggest that individual committee members are not subject to any subconscious biases or predispositions beyond the officially published selection criteria, whether from seeing Massey data or from some other origin, is to suggest these folks are not human.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Oline89 on February 21, 2019, 01:41:14 PM
    This may be the most basic of questions, and possibly listed somewhere on D3Hoops, but what exactly is the formula that D3 uses for SOS?  Is the same formula used in D3 football?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2019, 01:48:10 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=nag43/okqvyloab8xsjr9h.jpg)

    There are just days left in the regular season and conference tournaments are in full throat. And those vying to get into the NCAA Tournament are already sitting on the proverbial "bubble."

    There are two ways to keep dancing in March, either win the conference automatic qualifier (i.e. tournament in most cases) or hope one's resume is good enough to be selected. However, with upsets in conference tournaments come some nervous times for those needing the at-large avenue.

    Some teams are already on the bubble, but are they in trouble?

    On Thursday's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave brings in guests who either have already lost or may need to win. We also enjoy the thrill of victory. And hear from a coach in charge of off-season workouts and practices at her institution. What goes into such a job as most teams start to make the transition to next season.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Thursday's show can be seen LIVE starting at 7:00 p.m. ET right here: http://bit.ly/2NhkfYn (or via Facebook Live and Periscope simulcasts).

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Cameron Hill, Trinity (Texas) women's coach
    - Kristin Karat, Cedar Crest women's coach & Assistant Director for Athletic Performance (WBCA Center Court)
    - Jeff Brown, Middlebury men's coach

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 21, 2019, 01:50:20 PM
    Quote from: Oline89 on February 21, 2019, 01:41:29 PM
    This may be the most basic of questions, and possibly listed somewhere on D3Hoops, but what exactly is the formula that D3 uses for SOS?  Is the same formula used in D3 football?

    From our FAQ section: https://www.d3hoops.com/interactive/faq/ncaatournament

    Quote"The men's committee factors whether a game is played at home, away or on a neutral court. A multiplier of 1.25 is added to the OWP and OOWP for those games played away from home. A multiplier of 1.0 (no positive or negative effect) is included in the OWP and OOWP for all neutral games. A multiplier of 0.75 is included in the OWP and OOWP for all home games.

    The women's committee does not use that multiplier."
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 21, 2019, 03:05:15 PM
    Dave,
      Does the national committee exclusively do the next regional rankings? I assume there's no time after Sunday's games for the RACs to have a conference call and/or input for those rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2019, 03:14:07 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 21, 2019, 03:05:15 PM
    Dave,
      Does the national committee exclusively do the next regional rankings? I assume there's no time after Sunday's games for the RACs to have a conference call and/or input for those rankings.

    RACs meeting in the morning, as far as I know, so they are working with some unknowns, but they're just advisory anyway.  Technically, the national committee does every ranking.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wooscotsfan on February 21, 2019, 08:46:38 PM
    MIT and Capital both lost tonight and will be looking for Pool C bids.

    Update: UW-Oshkosh down by 18 points with less than 3 minutes remaining so they will also be looking for a Pool C bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2019, 10:01:09 PM
    #2 seed La Crosse lost too. They were #5 in the Central region. Their slim Pool C bid is probably nil now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2019, 10:20:36 PM
    St. Thomas is getting hammered by Augsburg.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wooscotsfan on February 21, 2019, 10:38:03 PM
    St. Thomas came all the way back to tie the game at 81....but then Augsburg hit a three pointer with less than 20 seconds left and won the game.

    St. Thomas is now looking for a Pool C bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2019, 10:44:51 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 21, 2019, 10:38:03 PM
    St. Thomas came all the way back to tie the game at 81....but then Augsburg hit a three pointer with less than 20 seconds left and won the game.

    St. Thomas is now looking for a Pool C bid.

    They were down 18 with 8 to play. Because of fantasy leagues, I'm familiar with Augsburg's Booker Coplin. The guy is a stud and possibly MIAC player of the year. I would love to see him in the tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wooscotsfan on February 21, 2019, 10:48:26 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2019, 10:44:51 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 21, 2019, 10:38:03 PM
    St. Thomas came all the way back to tie the game at 81....but then Augsburg hit a three pointer with less than 20 seconds left and won the game.

    St. Thomas is now looking for a Pool C bid.

    They were down 18 with 8 to play. Because of fantasy leagues, I'm familiar with Augsburg's Booker Coplin. The guy is a stud and possibly MIAC player of the year. I would love to see him in the tournament.

    Yes, very impressed with Booker Coplin as I watched the video stream.  He had 32 points on 13 of 20 from the floor!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2019, 10:54:37 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2019, 10:44:51 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 21, 2019, 10:38:03 PM
    St. Thomas came all the way back to tie the game at 81....but then Augsburg hit a three pointer with less than 20 seconds left and won the game.

    St. Thomas is now looking for a Pool C bid.

    They were down 18 with 8 to play. Because of fantasy leagues, I'm familiar with Augsburg's Booker Coplin. The guy is a stud and possibly MIAC player of the year. I would love to see him in the tournament.

    I think that you can remove the word "possibly" from that sentence, Tom. Coplin leads the MIAC in scoring with 27.3 ppg (nobody else in the league is above 20), in rebounding with 9.4 rpg, and he's fifth in assists.

    Anybody who selects someone other than Coplin for MIAC Player of the Year should have his voting privileges removed.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Drake Palmer on February 21, 2019, 11:09:39 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2019, 10:54:37 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2019, 10:44:51 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 21, 2019, 10:38:03 PM
    St. Thomas came all the way back to tie the game at 81....but then Augsburg hit a three pointer with less than 20 seconds left and won the game.

    St. Thomas is now looking for a Pool C bid.

    They were down 18 with 8 to play. Because of fantasy leagues, I'm familiar with Augsburg's Booker Coplin. The guy is a stud and possibly MIAC player of the year. I would love to see him in the tournament.

    I think that you can remove the word "possibly" from that sentence, Tom. Coplin leads the MIAC in scoring with 27.3 ppg (nobody else in the league is above 20), in rebounding with 9.4 rpg, and he's fifth in assists.

    Anybody who selects someone other than Coplin for MIAC Player of the Year should have his voting privileges removed.

    What he said.  :)

    I'm hoping Augsburg beats St. Johns in the MIAC championship and the NCAA pairs Augsburg against Wheaton in the first round.


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 21, 2019, 11:52:07 PM
    Quote from: Drake Palmer on February 21, 2019, 11:09:39 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2019, 10:54:37 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2019, 10:44:51 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 21, 2019, 10:38:03 PM
    St. Thomas came all the way back to tie the game at 81....but then Augsburg hit a three pointer with less than 20 seconds left and won the game.

    St. Thomas is now looking for a Pool C bid.

    They were down 18 with 8 to play. Because of fantasy leagues, I'm familiar with Augsburg's Booker Coplin. The guy is a stud and possibly MIAC player of the year. I would love to see him in the tournament.

    I think that you can remove the word "possibly" from that sentence, Tom. Coplin leads the MIAC in scoring with 27.3 ppg (nobody else in the league is above 20), in rebounding with 9.4 rpg, and he's fifth in assists.

    Anybody who selects someone other than Coplin for MIAC Player of the Year should have his voting privileges removed.

    What he said.  :)

    I'm hoping Augsburg beats St. Johns in the MIAC championship and the NCAA pairs Augsburg against Wheaton in the first round.

    As mentioned in the MIAC thread by Drake, could very well be a pod. NWU hosts UMAC of SLIAC winner, Wheaton vs Auggie in the other first round game. Geographically and competitively conceivable. Wheaton's Francis and Auggies Coplin followed by a NWU Greenville game....??

    Booker Coplin is hands down the best MIAC player I have seen since watching then playing then watching again. Dude is incredibly efficient. 50/40/90 guy with his volume is insane.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 22, 2019, 12:35:12 AM
    Quote from: Drake Palmer on February 21, 2019, 11:09:39 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2019, 10:54:37 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2019, 10:44:51 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 21, 2019, 10:38:03 PM
    St. Thomas came all the way back to tie the game at 81....but then Augsburg hit a three pointer with less than 20 seconds left and won the game.

    St. Thomas is now looking for a Pool C bid.

    They were down 18 with 8 to play. Because of fantasy leagues, I'm familiar with Augsburg's Booker Coplin. The guy is a stud and possibly MIAC player of the year. I would love to see him in the tournament.

    I think that you can remove the word "possibly" from that sentence, Tom. Coplin leads the MIAC in scoring with 27.3 ppg (nobody else in the league is above 20), in rebounding with 9.4 rpg, and he's fifth in assists.

    Anybody who selects someone other than Coplin for MIAC Player of the Year should have his voting privileges removed.

    What he said.  :)

    I'm hoping Augsburg beats St. Johns in the MIAC championship and the NCAA pairs Augsburg against Wheaton in the first round.

    Unless you have a rooting interest in a game taking place simultaneously with Wheaton vs. Augsburg, make yourself a big tub of popcorn, put the game on full screen, and watch a duel you won't soon forget between two of the best small-college players in the country.

    It's huge fun just to watch one of Francis or Coplin. Watching both at the same time ... and playing against each other? That's a recipe for great basketball.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2019, 07:15:54 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2019, 10:54:37 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2019, 10:44:51 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 21, 2019, 10:38:03 PM
    St. Thomas came all the way back to tie the game at 81....but then Augsburg hit a three pointer with less than 20 seconds left and won the game.

    St. Thomas is now looking for a Pool C bid.

    They were down 18 with 8 to play. Because of fantasy leagues, I'm familiar with Augsburg's Booker Coplin. The guy is a stud and possibly MIAC player of the year. I would love to see him in the tournament.

    I think that you can remove the word "possibly" from that sentence, Tom. Coplin leads the MIAC in scoring with 27.3 ppg (nobody else in the league is above 20), in rebounding with 9.4 rpg, and he's fifth in assists.

    Anybody who selects someone other than Coplin for MIAC Player of the Year should have his voting privileges removed.

    Kind of like Baltimore not getting 1st team All-CCIW.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 22, 2019, 08:22:28 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2019, 07:15:54 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 21, 2019, 10:54:37 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2019, 10:44:51 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 21, 2019, 10:38:03 PM
    St. Thomas came all the way back to tie the game at 81....but then Augsburg hit a three pointer with less than 20 seconds left and won the game.

    St. Thomas is now looking for a Pool C bid.

    They were down 18 with 8 to play. Because of fantasy leagues, I'm familiar with Augsburg's Booker Coplin. The guy is a stud and possibly MIAC player of the year. I would love to see him in the tournament.

    I think that you can remove the word "possibly" from that sentence, Tom. Coplin leads the MIAC in scoring with 27.3 ppg (nobody else in the league is above 20), in rebounding with 9.4 rpg, and he's fifth in assists.

    Anybody who selects someone other than Coplin for MIAC Player of the Year should have his voting privileges removed.

    Kind of like Baltimore not getting 1st team All-CCIW.

    Or Beckman not getting 1st team All-MIAA
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2019, 09:42:21 AM
    @d3bubble has 11 "locks and near locks."  These look right to me.

    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    1. Williams: .800/.592/6-4
    2. Amherst: .840/.558/6-3
    3. UW-Oshkosh: .885/.544/3-3
    4. St. Thomas: .846/.532/4-1
    5. Loras: .760/.575/2-1
    6. Rowan: .760/.551/8-3
    7. MIT: .846/.554/1-0
    8. Marietta: .769/.548/6-4
    9. York (Pa): .778/.548/6-4
    10. Rochester: .883/.529/5-1
    11. Middlebury: .708/.599/4-5

    I am going to add Capital and Plattsburgh State...

    12. Capital: .741/.543/6-4
    13. Plattsburgh State: .792/.530/6-5

    So I feel like the tough decisions start at #14...


    Round 14
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .731/.567/4-4
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wittenberg: .800/.525/4-3
    (MA) Salisbury: .704/.574/4-7
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 15
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) North Central: .800/.519/3-3
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wittenberg: .800/.525/4-3
    (MA) Salisbury: .704/.574/4-7
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 16
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) North Central: .800/.519/3-3
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wittenberg: .800/.525/4-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-

    Round 17
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) North Central: .800/.519/3-3
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wabash: .792/.524/2-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 18
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) Illinois Wesleyan: .692/.560/2-7
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wabash: .792/.524/2-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 19
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) Illinois Wesleyan: .692/.560/2-7
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wabash: .792/.524/2-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .760/.543/2-4
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 20
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) Illinois Wesleyan: .692/.560/2-7
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wabash: .792/.524/2-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .760/.543/2-4
    (S) Guilford: .731/.531/3-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 22, 2019, 09:56:00 AM
    For what it's worth, I am anticipating 2-3 more "bid thieves" over the final three days, so the cut line would be around the current #17 or #18.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2019, 09:58:08 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 22, 2019, 09:56:00 AM
    For what it's worth, I am anticipating 2-3 more "bid thieves" over the final three days, so the cut line would be around the current #17 or #18.

    Agree.  I expect the final 3 teams above to be out.  So basically I have North Central as the very end of the bubble right now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2019, 10:09:17 AM

    Bob,

    Would it be possible to add the d3 records for each of the teams to your list (especially for Sunday)?  I feel, in the past, the number of wins overall has had some bearing (even if the winning percentages might be similar).  Without the rigid use of the .3 to 2 ration, I think that might come into play again.

    Also, thanks for doing all the hard work to compile those; it makes my life much easier.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2019, 10:10:55 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2019, 10:09:17 AM

    Bob,

    Would it be possible to add the d3 records for each of the teams to your list (especially for Sunday)?  I feel, in the past, the number of wins overall has had some bearing (even if the winning percentages might be similar).  Without the rigid use of the .3 to 2 ration, I think that might come into play again.

    Also, thanks for doing all the hard work to compile those; it makes my life much easier.

    Our friend @d3bubble has the records here, Ryan...

    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    I have always heard it is strictly WP, and not # of wins/losses...but I can't confirm that.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 01:51:19 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2019, 03:14:07 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 21, 2019, 03:05:15 PM
    Dave,
      Does the national committee exclusively do the next regional rankings? I assume there's no time after Sunday's games for the RACs to have a conference call and/or input for those rankings.

    RACs meeting in the morning, as far as I know, so they are working with some unknowns, but they're just advisory anyway.  Technically, the national committee does every ranking.

    Ryan touches on it ...

    The RACs meet Sunday morning and produce their rankings ... knowing there could be some games still to be played that day. They will then come up with their final "what ifs" as well and hand those to the national committee. The national committee will make any changes they need to make, especially considering the outcome of games on Sunday (which the national committee continues to harp they hate - Sunday title games, especially late in the day) and then come up with the Week 4 rankings.

    Once the Week 4 rankings are complete, the national committee will have the vRRO data run another time and will then readjust their rankings to come up with their ultimate finale rankings. The vRRO data, for these rankings only, takes into account Week 3 and "Week 4" so that there is nothing left off the table. These finale rankings are the ones they use for at-large, bracketing, and hosting conversations.

    And as Ryan has said and we repeat often (including to you in an email) - let's remember the RACs are only advisory. The national committee is actually tasked with creating these rankings themselves. The system has been set-up to have RACs help them with this work, but the RAC's work can be actually thrown out if the national committee wants and they can do it all themselves by themselves if they want. The RACs are helpful, but their decisions basically don't hold any standing in the long run.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 22, 2019, 02:04:30 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 01:51:19 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2019, 03:14:07 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 21, 2019, 03:05:15 PM
    Dave,
      Does the national committee exclusively do the next regional rankings? I assume there's no time after Sunday's games for the RACs to have a conference call and/or input for those rankings.

    RACs meeting in the morning, as far as I know, so they are working with some unknowns, but they're just advisory anyway.  Technically, the national committee does every ranking.

    Ryan touches on it ...

    The RACs meet Sunday morning and produce their rankings ... knowing there could be some games still to be played that day. They will then come up with their final "what ifs" as well and hand those to the national committee. The national committee will make any changes they need to make, especially considering the outcome of games on Sunday (which the national committee continues to harp they hate - Sunday title games, especially late in the day) and then come up with the Week 4 rankings.

    Once the Week 4 rankings are complete, the national committee will have the vRRO data run another time and will then readjust their rankings to come up with their ultimate finale rankings. The vRRO data, for these rankings only, takes into account Week 3 and "Week 4" so that there is nothing left off the table. These finale rankings are the ones they use for at-large, bracketing, and hosting conversations.

    And as Ryan has said and we repeat often (including to you in an email) - let's remember the RACs are only advisory. The national committee is actually tasked with creating these rankings themselves. The system has been set-up to have RACs help them with this work, but the RAC's work can be actually thrown out if the national committee wants and they can do it all themselves by themselves if they want. The RACs are helpful, but their decisions basically don't hold any standing in the long run.
    What happens if they bring a new team into the "finale" regional rankings after the last vRRO data run?  Maybe it's an unofficial rule that they can only shuffle teams within the rankings and not bring in any new teams?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 22, 2019, 02:04:30 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 01:51:19 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2019, 03:14:07 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 21, 2019, 03:05:15 PM
    Dave,
      Does the national committee exclusively do the next regional rankings? I assume there's no time after Sunday's games for the RACs to have a conference call and/or input for those rankings.

    RACs meeting in the morning, as far as I know, so they are working with some unknowns, but they're just advisory anyway.  Technically, the national committee does every ranking.

    Ryan touches on it ...

    The RACs meet Sunday morning and produce their rankings ... knowing there could be some games still to be played that day. They will then come up with their final "what ifs" as well and hand those to the national committee. The national committee will make any changes they need to make, especially considering the outcome of games on Sunday (which the national committee continues to harp they hate - Sunday title games, especially late in the day) and then come up with the Week 4 rankings.

    Once the Week 4 rankings are complete, the national committee will have the vRRO data run another time and will then readjust their rankings to come up with their ultimate finale rankings. The vRRO data, for these rankings only, takes into account Week 3 and "Week 4" so that there is nothing left off the table. These finale rankings are the ones they use for at-large, bracketing, and hosting conversations.

    And as Ryan has said and we repeat often (including to you in an email) - let's remember the RACs are only advisory. The national committee is actually tasked with creating these rankings themselves. The system has been set-up to have RACs help them with this work, but the RAC's work can be actually thrown out if the national committee wants and they can do it all themselves by themselves if they want. The RACs are helpful, but their decisions basically don't hold any standing in the long run.
    What happens if they bring a new team into the "finale" regional rankings after the last vRRO data run?  Maybe it's an unofficial rule that they can only shuffle teams within the rankings and not bring in any new teams?

    They've got a really good computer program through the NCAA that adjusts those numbers in real time.  If they bring in a new team on Sunday, the vRRO will change.  However, if you're bringing a new team in, they're likely in last place, and results vs that team are only going to matter in the very few instances where teams are near identical in the resume - unless, of course, that last team in a common opponent for two teams on the table.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2019, 02:07:49 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 01:51:19 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 21, 2019, 03:14:07 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 21, 2019, 03:05:15 PM
    Dave,
      Does the national committee exclusively do the next regional rankings? I assume there's no time after Sunday's games for the RACs to have a conference call and/or input for those rankings.

    RACs meeting in the morning, as far as I know, so they are working with some unknowns, but they're just advisory anyway.  Technically, the national committee does every ranking.

    Ryan touches on it ...

    The RACs meet Sunday morning and produce their rankings ... knowing there could be some games still to be played that day. They will then come up with their final "what ifs" as well and hand those to the national committee. The national committee will make any changes they need to make, especially considering the outcome of games on Sunday (which the national committee continues to harp they hate - Sunday title games, especially late in the day) and then come up with the Week 4 rankings.

    Once the Week 4 rankings are complete, the national committee will have the vRRO data run another time and will then readjust their rankings to come up with their ultimate finale rankings. The vRRO data, for these rankings only, takes into account Week 3 and "Week 4" so that there is nothing left off the table. These finale rankings are the ones they use for at-large, bracketing, and hosting conversations.

    And as Ryan has said and we repeat often (including to you in an email) - let's remember the RACs are only advisory. The national committee is actually tasked with creating these rankings themselves. The system has been set-up to have RACs help them with this work, but the RAC's work can be actually thrown out if the national committee wants and they can do it all themselves by themselves if they want. The RACs are helpful, but their decisions basically don't hold any standing in the long run.

    You can think about it as the National Committee making the decisions, with the rep from each region responsible for bringing an initial ranking for their region.  They use the RAC as the means of composing that initial ranking to present to the committee.  It gives a broader perspective so when someone on the national committee says, "Why is CNU over Swat?" The members can say, "we talked about it and the consensus was ________."
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 02:14:07 PM
    You have to stop the vRRO run at some point. If they kept updating it, and then changing rankings, it won't stop.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2019, 02:19:02 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2019, 10:10:55 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2019, 10:09:17 AM

    Bob,

    Would it be possible to add the d3 records for each of the teams to your list (especially for Sunday)?  I feel, in the past, the number of wins overall has had some bearing (even if the winning percentages might be similar).  Without the rigid use of the .3 to 2 ration, I think that might come into play again.

    Also, thanks for doing all the hard work to compile those; it makes my life much easier.

    Our friend @d3bubble has the records here, Ryan...

    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    I have always heard it is strictly WP, and not # of wins/losses...but I can't confirm that.

    I remember hearing, especially back when there were lots of non-region games in the mix, that total qualifying games sometimes played a factor.  It's always nice to see, for me, anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 22, 2019, 02:20:09 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 02:14:07 PM
    You have to stop the vRRO run at some point. If they kept updating it, and then changing rankings, it won't stop.
    It wouldn't be accurate if you stopped it.  If you bring in a new team, everything has to be run again.  It's just a flawed system.  You're still giving more credit for wins against teams that dropped out of the rankings from 10th to 12th than wins against teams that jumped from 13th to 11th.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2019, 02:24:56 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 22, 2019, 02:20:09 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 02:14:07 PM
    You have to stop the vRRO run at some point. If they kept updating it, and then changing rankings, it won't stop.
    It wouldn't be accurate if you stopped it.  If you bring in a new team, everything has to be run again.  It's just a flawed system.  You're still giving more credit for wins against teams that dropped out of the rankings from 10th to 12th than wins against teams that jumped from 13th to 11th.

    When it comes to using vRRO, it's much more about who you played than the record itself.  As I said, moving teams on or off near the bottom rarely has a real impact of selections.  If it's down to one win over a #8 team, they're probably going to secondary criteria anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 02:25:25 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 22, 2019, 02:20:09 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 02:14:07 PM
    You have to stop the vRRO run at some point. If they kept updating it, and then changing rankings, it won't stop.
    It wouldn't be accurate if you stopped it.  If you bring in a new team, everything has to be run again.  It's just a flawed system.  You're still giving more credit for wins against teams that dropped out of the rankings from 10th to 12th than wins against teams that jumped from 13th to 11th.

    So when do you stop the runs, AO? I mean ... the committees have to get to work to pick teams, bracket, and host, at some point ... right? So where is your arbitrary run stop?

    Teams are also ranked that don't show up on the public polls ... if they have to get to those teams (which has happened), their vRRO data doesn't change things, either.

    Let's be realistic. There was a point in time when they would drop the Week 3 vRRO data altogether and also a time when they didn't update the info. They at least have a system in place that does it best to create the best data they can. Furthermore, each week doesn't take into account the current rankings for the vRRO, just the previous. That keep this in place to the smallest degree possible.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 22, 2019, 02:34:58 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 02:25:25 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 22, 2019, 02:20:09 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 02:14:07 PM
    You have to stop the vRRO run at some point. If they kept updating it, and then changing rankings, it won't stop.
    It wouldn't be accurate if you stopped it.  If you bring in a new team, everything has to be run again.  It's just a flawed system.  You're still giving more credit for wins against teams that dropped out of the rankings from 10th to 12th than wins against teams that jumped from 13th to 11th.

    So when do you stop the runs, AO? I mean ... the committees have to get to work to pick teams, bracket, and host, at some point ... right? So where is your arbitrary run stop?

    Teams are also ranked that don't show up on the public polls ... if they have to get to those teams (which has happened), their vRRO data doesn't change things, either.

    Let's be realistic. There was a point in time when they would drop the Week 3 vRRO data altogether and also a time when they didn't update the info. They at least have a system in place that does it best to create the best data they can. Furthermore, each week doesn't take into account the current rankings for the vRRO, just the previous. That keep this in place to the smallest degree possible.
    I'm not debating when you should stop running the vRRO data, Ryan has already confirmed it does not stop.  They just have to decide when to stop bringing in new teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 02:46:54 PM
    But those go hand in hand ... if you redo the vRRO data, you want to consider when to revaluate those ranked based on that data. When you change the rankings, you then want to re-run the vRRO data to be sure you have the most updated information (which, again, is only done at the very end.

    Basically the committee has decided it this way: they do the Week 4 rankings that the RACs help with and come up with a rankings, they re-run the vRRO data to be up to date and then make sure that nothing crazy has changed or needs to be adjusted. That dictates another tweak and adjustment and then the rankings are locked.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 22, 2019, 02:56:20 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 02:46:54 PM
    But those go hand in hand ... if you redo the vRRO data, you want to consider when to revaluate those ranked based on that data. When you change the rankings, you then want to re-run the vRRO data to be sure you have the most updated information (which, again, is only done at the very end.

    Basically the committee has decided it this way: they do the Week 4 rankings that the RACs help with and come up with a rankings, they re-run the vRRO data to be up to date and then make sure that nothing crazy has changed or needs to be adjusted. That dictates another tweak and adjustment and then the rankings are locked.
    But if they add another team during that last tweak, the vRRO will change automatically (according to Ryan).  The committee might choose to ignore those changes but changes have been made. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2019, 02:59:32 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 22, 2019, 02:56:20 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 02:46:54 PM
    But those go hand in hand ... if you redo the vRRO data, you want to consider when to revaluate those ranked based on that data. When you change the rankings, you then want to re-run the vRRO data to be sure you have the most updated information (which, again, is only done at the very end.

    Basically the committee has decided it this way: they do the Week 4 rankings that the RACs help with and come up with a rankings, they re-run the vRRO data to be up to date and then make sure that nothing crazy has changed or needs to be adjusted. That dictates another tweak and adjustment and then the rankings are locked.
    But if they add another team during that last tweak, the vRRO will change automatically (according to Ryan).  The committee might choose to ignore those changes but changes have been made.

    The issue is when you stop moving teams, more than when you change the vRRO info.  You could end up in a loop if you change the vRRO, then change the teams, then change vRRO, etc.  You have to stop at some point - that's what I was referring to when saying those changes lower down in the rankings aren't going to affect things as much because they're low-ranked teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on February 22, 2019, 03:02:52 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2019, 02:24:56 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 22, 2019, 02:20:09 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 02:14:07 PM
    You have to stop the vRRO run at some point. If they kept updating it, and then changing rankings, it won't stop.
    It wouldn't be accurate if you stopped it.  If you bring in a new team, everything has to be run again.  It's just a flawed system.  You're still giving more credit for wins against teams that dropped out of the rankings from 10th to 12th than wins against teams that jumped from 13th to 11th.

    When it comes to using vRRO, it's much more about who you played than the record itself.  As I said, moving teams on or off near the bottom rarely has a real impact of selections.  If it's down to one win over a #8 team, they're probably going to secondary criteria anyway.

    Secondary Criteria was the name of my band in college. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2019, 03:24:12 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on February 22, 2019, 03:02:52 PM
    Secondary Criteria was the name of my band in college.

    I do think D3 tournament time brings about some good band names.

    * Secondary Criteria
    * The Bid Thieves
    * RAC
    * Island Pod

    Many more.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 22, 2019, 03:28:26 PM
    Bracket of Death would be a great name for a metal band.

    In fact, if we get stuck with one of those this season, I may even up the ante on it, metal-wise, by spelling it with an umlaut:

    Bräcket of Death
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gray Fox on February 22, 2019, 03:33:45 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 22, 2019, 03:28:26 PM
    Bracket of Death would be a great name for a metal band.

    In fact, if we get stuck with one of those this season, I may even up the ante on it, metal-wise, by spelling it with an umlaut:

    Bräcket of Death
    My band would not be good.  I'd call it Bracket of Dearth.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2019, 04:41:27 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2019, 03:24:12 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on February 22, 2019, 03:02:52 PM
    Secondary Criteria was the name of my band in college.

    I do think D3 tournament time brings about some good band names.

    * Secondary Criteria
    * The Bid Thieves
    * RAC
    * Island Pod

    Many more.

    To paraphrase Justin Timberlake:

    No "the" just Bid Thieves.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: tomt4525 on February 22, 2019, 05:13:09 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2019, 09:42:21 AM
    @d3bubble has 11 "locks and near locks."  These look right to me.

    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    1. Williams: .800/.592/6-4
    2. Amherst: .840/.558/6-3
    3. UW-Oshkosh: .885/.544/3-3
    4. St. Thomas: .846/.532/4-1
    5. Loras: .760/.575/2-1
    6. Rowan: .760/.551/8-3
    7. MIT: .846/.554/1-0
    8. Marietta: .769/.548/6-4
    9. York (Pa): .778/.548/6-4
    10. Rochester: .883/.529/5-1
    11. Middlebury: .708/.599/4-5

    I am going to add Capital and Plattsburgh State...

    12. Capital: .741/.543/6-4
    13. Plattsburgh State: .792/.530/6-5

    So I feel like the tough decisions start at #14...


    Round 14
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .731/.567/4-4
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wittenberg: .800/.525/4-3
    (MA) Salisbury: .704/.574/4-7
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 15
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) North Central: .800/.519/3-3
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wittenberg: .800/.525/4-3
    (MA) Salisbury: .704/.574/4-7
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 16
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) North Central: .800/.519/3-3
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wittenberg: .800/.525/4-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-

    Round 17
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) North Central: .800/.519/3-3
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wabash: .792/.524/2-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 18
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) Illinois Wesleyan: .692/.560/2-7
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wabash: .792/.524/2-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 19
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) Illinois Wesleyan: .692/.560/2-7
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wabash: .792/.524/2-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .760/.543/2-4
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 20
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) Illinois Wesleyan: .692/.560/2-7
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wabash: .792/.524/2-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .760/.543/2-4
    (S) Guilford: .731/.531/3-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Are these your projections??  I'm just curious as you have Illinois Wesleyan getting to the table before UWSP in the Central, when the last rankings had UWSP ahead of IWU.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 22, 2019, 05:43:59 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2019, 09:42:21 AM
    @d3bubble has 11 "locks and near locks."  These look right to me.

    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    1. Williams: .800/.592/6-4
    2. Amherst: .840/.558/6-3
    3. UW-Oshkosh: .885/.544/3-3
    4. St. Thomas: .846/.532/4-1
    5. Loras: .760/.575/2-1
    6. Rowan: .760/.551/8-3
    7. MIT: .846/.554/1-0
    8. Marietta: .769/.548/6-4
    9. York (Pa): .778/.548/6-4
    10. Rochester: .883/.529/5-1
    11. Middlebury: .708/.599/4-5

    I am going to add Capital and Plattsburgh State...

    12. Capital: .741/.543/6-4
    13. Plattsburgh State: .792/.530/6-5

    So I feel like the tough decisions start at #14...


    Round 14
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .731/.567/4-4
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wittenberg: .800/.525/4-3
    (MA) Salisbury: .704/.574/4-7
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 15
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) North Central: .800/.519/3-3
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wittenberg: .800/.525/4-3
    (MA) Salisbury: .704/.574/4-7
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 16
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) North Central: .800/.519/3-3
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wittenberg: .800/.525/4-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-

    Round 17
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) North Central: .800/.519/3-3
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wabash: .792/.524/2-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 18
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) Illinois Wesleyan: .692/.560/2-7
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wabash: .792/.524/2-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Gordon: .852/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 19
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) Illinois Wesleyan: .692/.560/2-7
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wabash: .792/.524/2-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .760/.543/2-4
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Round 20
    (AT) Ramapo: .667/.569/8-5
    (C) Illinois Wesleyan: .692/.560/2-7
    (E) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (GL) Wabash: .792/.524/2-3
    (MA) (no competitive Pool C candidate)
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .760/.543/2-4
    (S) Guilford: .731/.531/3-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808/.528/1-2

    Disagree with saying MA has no competitive Pool C candidate after Salisbury; I offer Scranton .769/.515estimate/2-2; most of the Pool C candidates have another loss to detract from their W/L %
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: gordonmann on February 22, 2019, 06:15:29 PM
    I vote to have the Hoopsville segment with Bob Quillman renamed Bob and the Bid Thieves.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2019, 08:28:28 PM
    Plattsburgh St takes a Pool C bid after their loss tonight.

    MHB knocks themselves out of the tourney with a loss. They were #8 in the South region.

    Grinnell held to 23 second half points vs LFC. Irrelevant to Pool C, but interesting nonetheless.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 09:41:43 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 22, 2019, 05:43:59 PM

    Disagree with saying MA has no competitive Pool C candidate after Salisbury; I offer Scranton .769/.515estimate/2-2; most of the Pool C candidates have another loss to detract from their W/L %

    No chance. Scranton wasn't even ranked in the last regional rankings behind Drew ... and they just lost to Drew. That SOS is not going to do them any good, ronk. It is average best and their 2-2 isn't going to remain that way. Their non-conference SOS is currently about a .529, meaning the committee will see Scranton didn't try to change their resume with competitive out-of-conference scheduling.

    Scranton is not a competitive Pool C candidate. I don't see how they get ahead of Mary Washington, Johns Hopkins, Arcadia, and Drew (in the rankings; at least half of those will probably still be there) after Salisbury.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 22, 2019, 10:58:20 PM
     Expecting Arcadia and Drew to be excluded from pool C; Hopkins and UMW will have much worse W/L %; Scranton's vrro will be 2-2; it won't change any more.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Rofrog on February 22, 2019, 11:02:42 PM
    They did crush York a team that is 3rd in region and someone said they are not good this year!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 11:17:20 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 22, 2019, 10:58:20 PM
    Expecting Arcadia and Drew to be excluded from pool C; Hopkins and UMW will have much worse W/L %; Scranton's vrro will be 2-2; it won't change any more.

    I think it could change. There are two more rankings to be done. One team drops out by chance and it changes the data.

    Quote from: Rofrog on February 22, 2019, 11:02:42 PM
    They did crush York a team that is 3rd in region and someone said they are not good this year!

    That is already factored into the rankings currently. If it didn't get them ranked last week and had them at the bottom of the rankings previously, why do you think it will suddenly become an item that vaults them into the national tournament?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2019, 11:47:26 PM
    Quote from: tomt4525 on February 22, 2019, 05:13:09 PM
    Are these your projections??  I'm just curious as you have Illinois Wesleyan getting to the table before UWSP in the Central, when the last rankings had UWSP ahead of IWU.

    I have UW-Stevens Point as the Pool A team...not needing the Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 23, 2019, 12:27:34 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2019, 11:17:20 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 22, 2019, 10:58:20 PM
    Expecting Arcadia and Drew to be excluded from pool C; Hopkins and UMW will have much worse W/L %; Scranton's vrro will be 2-2; it won't change any more.

    I think it could change. There are two more rankings to be done. One team drops out by chance and it changes the data.

    Quote from: Rofrog on February 22, 2019, 11:02:42 PM
    They did crush York a team that is 3rd in region and someone said they are not good this year!

    That is already factored into the rankings currently. If it didn't get them ranked last week and had them at the bottom of the rankings previously, why do you think it will suddenly become an item that vaults them into the national tournament?

    It definitely won't change for the next ranking and is unlikely to change for the last ranking.
    Another primary criteria(common opponents), which never seems to be mentioned in these rankings, has Scranton 1-0 vs UMW(1-2) and even with York(2-0) and JHU(3-1).

    WRT the York result, it(head-to-head win) could return to prominence when 2 or 3 teams are compared for a certain ranking as the other primary criteria are changed by the conference playoff games results.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2019, 12:40:48 AM
    ronk - comparable opponents is when it comes to other teams others have played. Again, Scranton with all the primary and secondary criteria examined is not even regionally ranked. I haven't seen a reason they should suddenly vault forward with yet another loss to Drew. BTW - if Drew were to stay ranked, that means a third loss in the vRRO category.

    Again, when you talk about the York win ... it has been considered in Week 2 and Week 3's rankings already. When comparing and contrasting to other teams in the Mid-Atlantic Region, the win over York has resulted in Scranton being ranked seventh (out of eight) last in Week 2 and out of the rankings in Week 3. The conference games will only help solidify York's position in the rankings right now. I am not sure I see how it is going to, again, move Scranton up the rankings by five slots, suddenly.

    Scranton's rankings to this point: 7 (without vRRO), 8, and N/A. I think you guys don't understand ... Scranton is in a really tough spot. The only thing that has worked in their advantage is that their SOS appears to have moved from a .508 to a .525 since Sunday (and will continue to adjust). That might allow them to get back into the rankings, but I just can't see them vaulting into a Pool C considered slot.

    Granted more games have to be played, but the rankings leading up to this point have been pretty clear where Scranton sits in the Mid-Atlantic pecking order.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 23, 2019, 01:03:06 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2019, 12:40:48 AM
    ronk - comparable opponents is when it comes to other teams others have played. Again, Scranton with all the primary and secondary criteria examined is not even regionally ranked. I haven't seen a reason they should suddenly vault forward with yet another loss to Drew. BTW - if Drew were to stay ranked, that means a third loss in the vRRO category.

    Again, when you talk about the York win ... it has been considered in Week 2 and Week 3's rankings already. When comparing and contrasting to other teams in the Mid-Atlantic Region, the win over York has resulted in Scranton being ranked seventh (out of eight) last in Week 2 and out of the rankings in Week 3. The conference games will only help solidify York's position in the rankings right now. I am not sure I see how it is going to, again, move Scranton up the rankings by five slots, suddenly.

    Scranton's rankings to this point: 7 (without vRRO), 8, and N/A. I think you guys don't understand ... Scranton is in a really tough spot. The only thing that has worked in their advantage is that their SOS appears to have moved from a .508 to a .525 since Sunday (and will continue to adjust). That might allow them to get back into the rankings, but I just can't see them vaulting into a Pool C considered slot.

    Granted more games have to be played, but the rankings leading up to this point have been pretty clear where Scranton sits in the Mid-Atlantic pecking order.

    I've already had the Drew results(1-2) in the vrro; that's why it won't change from 2-2(adding York 1-0 to Drew makes 2-2).

    .525 is even more than I had hoped for.

        I realize that I'm working harder at this than the Royals did for the 1st 30 mins of their game with Drew last night.  ::) If they had won that, reaching the final, then I wouldn't have to be advocating so much.
       
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2019, 01:17:36 AM
    Just keep in mind, while you had the Drew vRRO tabulated, the NCAA hasn't as of yet. So, I was referring to the data that still needs to change. But it could still change. Drew may fall out of the rankings (for all we know).

    And that isn't helping the cause in my opinion. The committee looks at the vRRO and sees two teams. One team out of conference. That hurts Scranton's resume.

    .525 is what Matt Snyder has calculated. I don't know what the NCAA has. I don't know what it will be come Sunday.

    I've had Scranton as a "win the AQ or season done" team for a few weeks now. When the RAC kept putting them below the CAC blockade, it was a sign.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2019, 07:48:00 AM
    Here is what I have as of Saturday morning...filed from Quad City International Airport.

    Data Sources
    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    Locks
    1. Williams: .800, 20-5/.592/6-4
    2. Amherst: .840, 21-4/.559/6-3
    3. UW-Oshkosh: .885, 23-3/.543/3-3
    4. St. Thomas: .846, 22-4/.532/4-1
    5. Loras: .808, 21-5/.574/2-1
    6. Marietta: .769, 20-6/.549/6-4
    7. York (Pa): .778, 21-6/.549/6-3
    8. Rochester: .883, 20-4/.529/5-1
    9. MIT: .846, 22-4/.554/1-0
    10. New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.552/6-6
    11. Capital: .741, 20-7/.545/6-4
    12. Wittenberg: .808, 21-5/.533/5-3
    13. Plattsburgh State: .792/.530/6-5
    14. Middlebury: .708, 17-7/.599/4-5

    Round 15
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) North Central: .808, 21-5/.528/4-3
    (E) Brockport: .630, 17-10/.551/5-4
    (GL) Wabash: .792, 19-5/.524/2-3
    (MA) Salisbury: .704/.575/4-7
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .769, 20-6/.549/2-4
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731, 19-7/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808, 21-5/.529/1-2

    Round 16
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.572/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .630, 17-10/.551/5-4
    (GL) Wabash: .792, 19-5/.524/2-3
    (MA) Salisbury: .704/.575/4-7
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .769, 20-6/.549/2-4
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731, 19-7/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808, 21-5/.529/1-2

    Round 17
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.572/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .630, 17-10/.551/5-4
    (GL) Wabash: .792, 19-5/.524/2-3
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .680, 17-8/.560/2-4
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .769, 20-6/.549/2-4
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731, 19-7/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808, 21-5/.529/1-2

    Round 18
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) Illinois Wesleyan: .667, 18-9/.569/2-8
    (E) Brockport: .630, 17-10/.551/5-4
    (GL) Wabash: .792, 19-5/.524/2-3
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .680, 17-8/.560/2-4
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .769, 20-6/.549/2-4
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731, 19-7/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808, 21-5/.529/1-2

    Round 19
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) Illinois Wesleyan: .667, 18-9/.569/2-8
    (E) Brockport: .630, 17-10/.551/5-4
    (GL) Wabash: .792, 19-5/.524/2-3
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .680, 17-8/.560/2-4
    (NE) Gordon: .852, 23-4/.506/2-2
    (S) Washington & Lee: .731, 19-7/.534/5-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808, 21-5/.529/1-2

    Round 20
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) Illinois Wesleyan: .667, 18-9/.569/2-8
    (E) Brockport: .630, 17-10/.551/5-4
    (GL) Wabash: .792, 19-5/.524/2-3
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .680, 17-8/.560/2-4
    (NE) Gordon: .852, 23-4/.506/2-2
    (S) Guilford: .731, 19-7/.532/3-4
    (W) Whitworth: .808, 21-5/.529/1-2

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2019, 07:51:37 AM
    You aren't staying for the CCIW championship game?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2019, 07:52:41 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2019, 07:51:37 AM
    You aren't staying for the CCIW championship game?

    Blizzard conditions warning in Quad Cities tomorrow morning (flight originally scheduled tomorrow for 7:20am)...uh, no.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2019, 08:42:44 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2019, 07:48:00 AM
    Here is what I have as of Saturday morning...filed from Quad City International Airport.


    Wow!  Are you getting revenue for product placement ads from Quad Cities International Airport?
    ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 23, 2019, 09:53:36 AM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2019, 08:42:44 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2019, 07:48:00 AM
    Here is what I have as of Saturday morning...filed from Quad City International Airport.


    Wow!  Are you getting revenue for product placement ads from Quad Cities International Airport?
    ;)

    I've been to that airport.  The "international" part amuses me.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 23, 2019, 09:59:48 AM
    Something to file away for next year...

    With more, smaller regions, we will need to re-learn how VRRO impacts regional rankings and national selections.  Today, for instance, when I see eight or more VRRO results, I know that is a bigger-than-average number.

    If a similar number of teams per region are ranked, we will see more regionally ranked teams, and therefore more VRRO results.

    If we see a smaller number of teams per region ranked, what I think will happen is that there will be, in most cases, fewer conference matchups for which you get credit for VRRO games.  In regions where third- and fourth-place teams in a conference are getting ranked in the lower slots of the rankings, these slots would not exist so these games would not be VRRO games.  The WIAC and CCIW are two conferences I can think of who have benefitted from their depth in the past from the standpoint of getting credit for more VRRO games; I'm sure there are others in regions I pay less attention to.  If the number of regionally ranked slots is reduced, you will need to schedule more of these games out of conference to boost the number of VRRO opponents on your CV.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 23, 2019, 10:56:09 AM
    The references to Drew University are giving me a headache trying to follow the conversation, as I catch up on this thread.  ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BobbyO on February 23, 2019, 11:34:44 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2019, 07:52:41 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2019, 07:51:37 AM
    You aren't staying for the CCIW championship game?

    Blizzard conditions warning in Quad Cities tomorrow morning (flight originally scheduled tomorrow for 7:20am)...uh, no.

    Nice to meet you face to face last night. Looking forward to mock pick show.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2019, 12:37:44 PM
    Quote from: BobbyO on February 23, 2019, 11:34:44 AM
    Nice to meet you face to face last night. Looking forward to mock pick show.
    You too, BobbyO!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 23, 2019, 12:45:42 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 23, 2019, 09:59:48 AM
    Something to file away for next year...

    With more, smaller regions, we will need to re-learn how VRRO impacts regional rankings and national selections.  Today, for instance, when I see eight or more VRRO results, I know that is a bigger-than-average number.

    If a similar number of teams per region are ranked, we will see more regionally ranked teams, and therefore more VRRO results.

    If we see a smaller number of teams per region ranked, what I think will happen is that there will be, in most cases, fewer conference matchups for which you get credit for VRRO games.  In regions where third- and fourth-place teams in a conference are getting ranked in the lower slots of the rankings, these slots would not exist so these games would not be VRRO games.  The WIAC and CCIW are two conferences I can think of who have benefitted from their depth in the past from the standpoint of getting credit for more VRRO games; I'm sure there are others in regions I pay less attention to.  If the number of regionally ranked slots is reduced, you will need to schedule more of these games out of conference to boost the number of VRRO opponents on your CV.

    I'm assuming they'd use the same ratios of teams per region to number of ranked teams, so there probably won't be a huge overall change - maybe just some rounding up in some areas.  I know the goal is to more evenly distribute the teams across regions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2019, 04:50:06 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 23, 2019, 09:53:36 AM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 23, 2019, 08:42:44 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2019, 07:48:00 AM
    Here is what I have as of Saturday morning...filed from Quad City International Airport.


    Wow!  Are you getting revenue for product placement ads from Quad Cities International Airport?
    ;)

    I've been to that airport.  The "international" part amuses me.

    Bob doesn't mind traveling via crop-dusters, I guess.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2019, 05:40:19 PM
    Wittenberg defeats Wooster.  Witt earns the AQ...Wooster to Pool C.

    I don't see this as a big Pool C impact, as I had Witt safely in as a Pool C.  Just a swap.

    Big hosting impact though.  Witt probably now a first weekend host...and Wooster gets to enjoy a bus ride to Rock Island, IL?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wooscotsfan on February 23, 2019, 10:24:32 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2019, 05:40:19 PM
    Wittenberg defeats Wooster.  Witt earns the AQ...Wooster to Pool C.

    I don't see this as a big Pool C impact, as I had Witt safely in as a Pool C.  Just a swap.

    Big hosting impact though.  Witt probably now a first weekend host...and Wooster gets to enjoy a bus ride to Rock Island, IL?

    A bus ride to any NCAA site is better than no bus ride at all (see IWU this year).  BTW, who did Illinois Wesleyan lose to last year in the NCAA tourney? ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2019, 10:40:31 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 23, 2019, 10:24:32 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2019, 05:40:19 PM
    Wittenberg defeats Wooster.  Witt earns the AQ...Wooster to Pool C.

    I don't see this as a big Pool C impact, as I had Witt safely in as a Pool C.  Just a swap.

    Big hosting impact though.  Witt probably now a first weekend host...and Wooster gets to enjoy a bus ride to Rock Island, IL?

    A bus ride to any NCAA site is better than no bus ride at all (see IWU this year).  BTW, who did Illinois Wesleyan lose to last year in the NCAA tourney? ;)
    Are you thinking that I am attacking your team or what is the deal here? Confused.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 23, 2019, 10:47:03 PM
    Quote from: wooscotsfan on February 23, 2019, 10:24:32 PM
    A bus ride to any NCAA site is better than no bus ride at all (see IWU this year).  BTW, who did Illinois Wesleyan lose to last year in the NCAA tourney? ;)

    (https://media.giphy.com/media/8rEjwGPsf9mCvdEBlp/giphy.gif)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 24, 2019, 09:20:53 AM
      As it is now Selection Sunday, a fundamental question to be discussed on the board:

    How does the committee distinguish among the 8 regions at the table using the primary criteria?
    Within a region, how did they distinguish to come up with a #1 for the table rep?

    Some would say they look at the 5 primary criteria on the data sheet, but 2(head-to-head and common opponents) aren't even listed. In the M/A, for example, do they rank all 36 teams in each criteria and come up with a composite ranking, using each criteria equally? If not, which other method?

    I suggest that only 3 primary criteria are used, but are they all equal priority? They have eliminated the .03 = 1 loss, but how will they distinguish among the differences; that is, .04 difference in W/L % vs .022 in SOS vs 3 vrro results?

    It's going to be important for the order of which teams are coming to the table and the table selection themselves. What's the priority? If no priority, how then?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2019, 09:26:45 AM
    Here is what I have as of Sunday morning.

    Data Sources
    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    No-Brainers
    1. (C) Augustana: .889, 24-3/.547/8-3
    2. (NE) Hamilton: .885, 23-3/.553/4-3
    3. (NE) Williams: .769, 20-6/.598/6-5
    4. (C) UW-Oshkosh: .885, 23-3/.542/3-3
    5. (W) Loras: .778, 21-6/.587/2-2
    6. (GL) Marietta: .769, 20-6/.549/6-4
    7. (MA) York (Pa.): .750, 21-7/.561/6-4
    8. (W) St. Thomas: .846, 22-4/.532/4-1
    9. (GL) Wooster: .821, 23-5/.543/3-4
    10. (E) Rochester: .800, 20-5/.539/5-2

    Round 11
    (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) Capital: .741, 20-7/.546/6-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Guilford: .741, 20-7/.535/4-4
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 12
    (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) Wabash: .760, 19-6/.533/2-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Guilford: .741, 20-7/.535/4-4
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 13
    (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) Wabash: .760, 19-6/.533/2-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Guilford: .741, 20-7/.535/4-4
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 14
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Wabash: .760, 19-6/.533/2-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Guilford: .741, 20-7/.535/4-4
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 15
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Wabash: .760, 19-6/.533/2-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) Middlebury: .708, 17-7/.600/4-5
    (S) Guilford: .741, 20-7/.535/4-4
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 16
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Wabash: .760, 19-6/.533/2-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Guilford: .741, 20-7/.535/4-4
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 17
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Wabash: .760, 19-6/.533/2-4
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .667, 18-9/.572/2-5
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Guilford: .741, 20-7/.535/4-4
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 18
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) UW-Stevens Point: .667, 18-9/.590/2-6
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Wabash: .760, 19-6/.533/2-4
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .667, 18-9/.572/2-5
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Guilford: .741, 20-7/.535/4-4
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 19
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) UW-Stevens Point: .667, 18-9/.590/2-6
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Wabash: .760, 19-6/.533/2-4
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .667, 18-9/.572/2-5
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Washington & Lee: .704, 19-8/.544/5-5
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 20
    (AT) Montclair State: .630, 17-10/.547/4-7
    (C) UW-Stevens Point: .667, 18-9/.590/2-6
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Wabash: .760, 19-6/.533/2-4
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .667, 18-9/.572/2-5
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Washington & Lee: .704, 19-8/.544/5-5
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2019, 10:22:03 AM
    Comparing projections between @D3Bubble, Matt Snyder, and me...

    We agree on 15
    - (C) Augustana: .889, 24-3/.547/8-3
    - (NE) Hamilton: .885, 23-3/.553/4-3
    - (NE) Williams: .769, 20-6/.598/6-5
    - (C) UW-Oshkosh: .885, 23-3/.542/3-3
    - (W) Loras: .778, 21-6/.587/2-2
    - (GL) Marietta: .769, 20-6/.549/6-4
    - (MA) York (Pa.): .750, 21-7/.561/6-4
    - (W) St. Thomas: .846, 22-4/.532/4-1
    - (GL) Wooster: .821, 23-5/.543/3-4
    - (E) Rochester: .800, 20-5/.539/5-2
    - (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    - (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    - (NE) Middlebury: .708, 17-7/.600/4-5
    - (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    - (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5

    I have
    http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1923351#msg1923351

    #11 - (GL) Capital: .741, 20-7/.546/6-4
    #12 - (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    #18 - (S) Guilford: .741, 20-7/.535/4-4
    #19 - (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    #20 - (S) Washington & Lee: .704, 19-8/.544/5-5

    @D3Bubble has
    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    #14 - (GL) Capital: .741, 20-7/.546/6-4
    #17 - (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    #16 - (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    #19 - (NE) Gordon: .821, 23-5/.522/2-3
    #20 - (S) Guilford: .741, 20-7/.535/4-4

    Matt Snyder has
    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    #8 - (NE) Wesleyan: .640, 16-9/.614/5-7
    #11 - (C) UW-Stevens Point: .667, 18-9/.590/2-6
    #17 - (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3
    #18 - (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    #20 - (NE) Gordon: .821, 23-5/.522/2-3

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 24, 2019, 11:44:51 AM
    Great work on this; thank you for diving into the details.

    Starting about Round 15, there is an interesting discussion to be had around how to weight record versus other criteria for a team that is on a D3 island.  Whitworth has a superior record to each of the teams you have selected over them in Rounds 15 through 20, but their SOS is a little weaker and their slate of vRRO games is not as robust.  You can make an argument that it is easier for Ramapo (to pick a random team and not trigger the usual NESCAC complaints that typically arise this time of year) to schedule vRROs than it is for a team in a region spanning three time zones and consisting of several islands.

    I don't know if the Pirates belong in the tournament or not, but how "we won our games" for an island team is weighted versus "we played a tougher schedule" for someone who is on the mainland will have a big influence on how those latter rounds play out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 24, 2019, 11:57:18 AM
    Plus, for a team like Ramapo, the Atlantic region is dominated by the NJAC so it becomes extremely easy to get the vRRO results, as they are built into the conference schedule. Where as the West is pretty balanced between 3 solid conferences with ARC, NWC and the MIAC, which makes it harder for other NWC teams crack the regional rankings. This is in addition to the points you noted, kiko.

    Also would like to thank Titan Q for all the great work and compiling the data into one concise post. Excited for the Mock Selection Show tonight!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: With Age Comes Wisdom? on February 24, 2019, 11:59:59 AM
    Guys.. are you assuming that Hamilton wins the tournament ??  Either that or you can say that Amherst or Hamilton are the second highest lock??    ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: With Age Comes Wisdom? on February 24, 2019, 12:01:16 PM
    Opps .. you did?!! ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: mailsy on February 24, 2019, 12:05:42 PM
     Bob,

    Great work!! Though my squad had the worst year that I can remember :'( ::) I always appreciate the work you put in. Keeps me interested in the selections and the tourney that much more. +1k
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2019, 12:47:42 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2019, 10:22:03 AM
    Comparing projections between @D3Bubble, Matt Snyder, and me...

    We agree on 15
    - (C) Augustana: .889, 24-3/.547/8-3
    - (NE) Amherst: .846, 22-4/.568/7-3  or Hamilton: .885, 23-3/.553/4-3
    - (NE) Williams: .769, 20-6/.598/6-5
    - (C) UW-Oshkosh: .885, 23-3/.542/3-3
    - (W) Loras: .778, 21-6/.587/2-2
    - (GL) Marietta: .769, 20-6/.549/6-4
    - (MA) York (Pa.): .750, 21-7/.561/6-4
    - (W) St. Thomas: .846, 22-4/.532/4-1
    - (GL) Wooster: .821, 23-5/.543/3-4
    - (E) Rochester: .800, 20-5/.539/5-2
    - (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    - (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    - (NE) Middlebury: .708, 17-7/.600/4-5
    - (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    - (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5

    I have
    http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1923351#msg1923351

    #11 - (GL) Capital: .741, 20-7/.546/6-4
    #12 - (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    #18 - (S) Guilford: .741, 20-7/.535/4-4
    #19 - (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    #20 - (S) Washington & Lee: .704, 19-8/.544/5-5

    @D3Bubble has
    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    #14 - (GL) Capital: .741, 20-7/.546/6-4
    #17 - (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    #16 - (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    #19 - (NE) Gordon: .821, 23-5/.522/2-3
    #20 - (S) Guilford: .741, 20-7/.535/4-4

    Matt Snyder has
    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    #8 - (NE) Wesleyan: .640, 16-9/.614/5-7
    #11 - (C) UW-Stevens Point: .667, 18-9/.590/2-6
    #17 - (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3
    #18 - (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    #20 - (NE) Gordon: .821, 23-5/.522/2-3

    Seems like Wesleyan will be eliminated on WP. Stevens Point is probably out on vRRO.

    Removing those, I'd probably pick Capital as well and then choose between Plattsburgh St. and Ramapo.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2019, 01:43:17 PM
    Some thoughts on national seeding/hosting - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8886.msg1923405#msg1923405.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 24, 2019, 02:41:04 PM
    Whitworth, Ramapo, Plattsburgh (magicman) and other bubble teams are rooting for a RMC comeback in the ODAC championship right now. Guilford is a bubble team themselves and are currently up 8 with 70 seconds to play.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 24, 2019, 02:44:43 PM
    Looks like Drew is done-- no Pool C bid for the Rangers.

    Drew may have to settle for a #1 seed in the ECAC tourney instead.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2019, 02:48:33 PM
    After the ODAC and SCAC finals...

    Data Sources
    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    No-Brainers
    1. (C) Augustana: .889, 24-3/.547/8-3
    2. (S) Randolph-Macon: .893, 25-3/.534/6-3
    3. (NE) Hamilton: .885, 23-3/.553/4-3
    4. (NE) Williams: .769, 20-6/.598/6-5
    5. (C) UW-Oshkosh: .885, 23-3/.542/3-3
    6. (W) Loras: .778, 21-6/.587/2-2
    7. (GL) Marietta: .769, 20-6/.549/6-4
    8. (MA) York (Pa.): .750, 21-7/.561/6-4
    9. (W) St. Thomas: .846, 22-4/.532/4-1
    10. (GL) Wooster: .821, 23-5/.543/3-4
    11. (E) Rochester: .800, 20-5/.539/5-2

    Round 12
    (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) Capital: .741, 20-7/.546/6-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 13
    (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) Mount Union: .786, 22-6/.513/5-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 14
    (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) Mount Union: .786, 22-6/.513/5-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 15
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Mount Union: .786, 22-6/.513/5-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 16
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Mount Union: .786, 22-6/.513/5-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) Middlebury: .708, 17-7/.600/4-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 17
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Mount Union: .786, 22-6/.513/5-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 18
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Mount Union: .786, 22-6/.513/5-4
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .667, 18-9/.572/2-5
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 19
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) UW-Stevens Point: .667, 18-9/.590/2-6
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Mount Union: .786, 22-6/.513/5-4
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .667, 18-9/.572/2-5
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 20
    (AT) Montclair State: .630, 17-10/.547/4-7
    (C) UW-Stevens Point: .667, 18-9/.590/2-6
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Mount Union: .786, 22-6/.513/5-4
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .667, 18-9/.572/2-5
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2019, 03:01:05 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2019, 07:51:37 AM
    You aren't staying for the CCIW championship game?

    American flight #5938, 7:20am today MLI to DFW -  cancelled.

    Veteran traveler move.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: With Age Comes Wisdom? on February 24, 2019, 03:04:26 PM
    "Pot stirring here".....because I can ....  Pool C ....  Midd or Platt?   (Hopefully both ... but so many upsets..)..
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on February 24, 2019, 03:08:59 PM
    Quote from: With Age Comes Wisdom? on February 24, 2019, 03:04:26 PM
    "Pot stirring here".....because I can ....  Pool C ....  Midd or Platt?   (Hopefully both ... but so many upsets..)..

    Accounting for the upsets, Titan Q still has both in, with Plattsburgh going first. Makes sense because of head-to-head favoring the Cardinals.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: With Age Comes Wisdom? on February 24, 2019, 03:18:31 PM
    That's what I was thinking (if only for Magicman's sake).. ;)  That NESCAC is such a tough league though...let's face it when Middlebury can get bumped by a sub .500 team in the tournament.. it's just a tough league.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2019, 04:07:09 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=4o2h3/5qe4yd77benqfa7a.jpg)

    This is it! The regular season is over. The conference titles have been handed out and 86 teams know they will be playing next week in the NCAA Division III men's and women's Championship Tournaments!

    However, 42 slots need to be filled. Which programs have best positioned themselves to selected to play for a national title?

    It is the biggest show of the year. Bubble teams watch anxiously. Rivals watch wondering if their rivals will make the event. Others watch because ... this is one of the best nights of the entire season.

    Tune in a special episode of Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) where we will make our mock selections of who will be in and who will be left out of the DIII national tournaments. Our teams of experts will make the picks using the same criteria the national committees consider.

    Plus, hear, one last time before the brackets are announced, from the national committee chairs who discuss how this year's rankings and process have worked out. And hear from some teams who have already punched their tickets to the tournaments - many for the first time in program history!

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Sunday's special will hit the air at 6:00 p.m. ET right here: http://bit.ly/2XuWjWa (or via Facebook Live or Periscope simulcasts).

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options below.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - John Alesi, Baruch men's coach
    - Sam Atkinson, Men's National Committee Chair (Gallaudet Associate Director for Communications)
    - Russ Phillips, Alfred men's coach
    - Bill Curley, Emerson men's coach
    - Karin Harvey, Women's National Committee Chair (Montclair State women's coach)
    - Rayne Reber, Rosemont women's coach
    - Lyle Jones, Bethany Lutheran women's coach

    Men's Mock Selections Team:
    - Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com
    - Bob Quillman, IWUHoops.com
    - Michael Blaine, Medaille men's coach

    Women's Mock Selections Team:
    - Gordon Mann, D3hoops.com
    - BJ Spigelmyer, DeSales Sports Information Director
    - James Wagner, CSAC Assistant Commissioner

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 24, 2019, 05:04:11 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2019, 03:01:05 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2019, 07:51:37 AM
    You aren't staying for the CCIW championship game?

    American flight #5938, 7:20am today MLI to DFW -  cancelled.

    Veteran traveler move.
    bery smart move
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2019, 06:17:15 PM
    I like:

    Augustana
    Williams
    Loras
    Hamilton
    Randolph-Macon
    Middlebury
    UW-Oshkosh
    MIT
    Wooster
    St. Thomas
    York (Pa.)
    Wheaton (Ill.)
    Salisbury
    Marietta
    Rochester
    Capital
    Centre
    Plattsburgh State
    New Jersey City

    Then pick one of:
    Eastern Connecticut
    Whitworth
    Gordon
    Ramapo
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2019, 07:14:22 PM
    2019 Hoopsville Selection Special

    (refresh this often - we will add selections here)

    Data Sources
    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    Safely In
    1. (C) Augustana: .889, 24-3/.547/8-3
    2. (S) Randolph-Macon: .893, 25-3/.534/6-3
    3. (NE) Hamilton: .885, 23-3/.553/4-3
    4. (NE) Williams: .769, 20-6/.598/6-5
    5. (C) UW-Oshkosh: .885, 23-3/.542/3-3
    6. (W) Loras: .778, 21-6/.587/2-2
    7. (GL) Marietta: .769, 20-6/.549/6-4
    8. (MA) York (Pa.): .750, 21-7/.561/6-4
    9. (W) St. Thomas: .846, 22-4/.532/4-1
    10. (GL) Wooster: .821, 23-5/.543/3-4
    11. (E) Rochester: .800, 20-5/.539/5-2

    Round 12
    (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) Capital: .741, 20-7/.546/6-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 13
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) Capital: .741, 20-7/.546/6-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 14
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.502/0-1
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 15
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.502/0-1
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) Middlebury: .708, 17-7/.601/4-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 16
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-11/.566/6-5
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.502/0-1
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) Middlebury: .708, 17-7/.601/4-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 17
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-11/.566/6-5
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.502/0-1
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 18
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) UW-Stevens Point, .667, 18-9/.590/2-6
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-11/.566/6-5
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.502/0-1
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 19
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) UW-Stevens Point, .667, 18-9/.590/2-6
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-11/.566/6-5
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.510/0-1
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 20
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.569/8-5
    (C) UW-Stevens Point, .667, 18-9/.590/2-6
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-11/.566/6-5
    (GL) Mount Union: .786, 22-6/.512/5-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: With Age Comes Wisdom? on February 24, 2019, 07:41:47 PM
    No Middlebury?  NESCAC co-champion?  :-\
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bucket on February 24, 2019, 07:45:18 PM
    Quote from: With Age Comes Wisdom? on February 24, 2019, 07:41:47 PM
    No Middlebury?  NESCAC co-champion?  :-\

    They're not finished, my friend. They're on round 13 and there are 20 total rounds.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2019, 07:51:34 PM
    So La Roche stealing a Pool C now?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2019, 07:56:31 PM
    Despite the 24-3 record, I think that La Roche misses out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2019, 08:05:56 PM
    My comparison of bubble teams is here...
    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_bubble.html (http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_bubble.html)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2019, 08:58:21 PM
    If you're looking for a tiebreaker, guys, I'll volunteer.

    Centre. Mike makes the compelling argument that, by picking La Roche, you indicate the committee adopting a lean towards WP, and that favors the Colonels.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 24, 2019, 09:01:03 PM
    Here are my final picks...
    1 Augustana
    2 Randolph-Macon
    3 UW-Oshkosh
    4 Hamilton
    5 St Thomas
    6 Williams
    7 Loras
    8 Marietta
    9 York
    10 Middlebury
    11 MIT
    12 Rochester
    13 Wooster
    14 NJCU
    15 Capital
    16 Plattsburgh 20-6/.769 WP/.529 SOS/6-6 vs RRO
    17 Wheaton 19-8/.704/.574/4-5
    18 Salisbury 19-8/.704/.575/4-7
    19 E Connecticut 20-7/.741/.557/2-5
    20 Centre 21-5/.808/.530/1-1

    Almost picked Gordon 23-5/.821/.522/2-3 as #20, & could see Ramapo 18-9/.667/.569/8-5 despite the low WP
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2019, 09:20:47 PM
    This may come off as bias towards the big power conferences, but I just couldn't take Centre with the low SOS and with only 2 vRRO. I would take Ramapo with the stellar SOS and lots of vRRO. Obviously island teams, southern teams and the like play who they play and sometimes it's harder to schedule, but I'll reward SOS over winning % over a weak schedule every day and twice on Sundays.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 24, 2019, 09:47:38 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2019, 09:22:14 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 24, 2019, 09:01:03 PM
    Here are my final picks...
    1 Augustana
    2 Randolph-Macon
    3 UW-Oshkosh
    4 Hamilton
    5 St Thomas
    6 Williams
    7 Loras
    8 Marietta
    9 York
    10 Middlebury
    11 MIT
    12 Rochester
    13 Wooster
    14 NJCU
    15 Capital
    16 Plattsburgh 20-6/.769 WP/.529 SOS/6-6 vs RRO
    17 Wheaton 19-8/.704/.574/4-5
    18 Salisbury 19-8/.704/.575/4-7
    19 E Connecticut 20-7/.741/.557/2-5
    20 Centre 21-5/.808/.530/1-1

    Almost picked Gordon 23-5/.821/.522/2-3 as #20, & could see Ramapo 18-9/.667/.569/8-5 despite the low WP
    19 of my final picks are the same.  I just have Ramapo instead of Eastern Connecticut.

    I'd take Whitworth over Centre - 3 losses to highest ranked team in West Region and possibly the nation.

    In your hoopsville panel picks, I'd take Ramapo over Laroche, a clear winner in 2 of the 3 criteria.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 24, 2019, 09:49:18 PM
    I just think that the elimination of the WP-to-SOS formula by the NCAA is going to open up the committee to leaning a bit more towards WP than it has in the past -- and that that'll obviously pave the way for teams such as La Roche and Centre.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 24, 2019, 10:11:10 PM
    I learned that I really dislike the RRO criteria. Like MIT Strength of Schedule is .555 yet only one game against a regionally ranked opponent, compare that to Capital who had 10 or so results but still managed the same SOS. It seems to be counting SOS double for them and almost negating the SOS for the engineers. Bob noted it is hard to only play one regionally ranked team in the northeast, which seems to be true so I get that this may not be the best example, but still. Their schedules were measured to be equal. So capital played more top teams than MIT but in order to have the SOS equal out the must have played a lot more lower tier teams, no?

    I know it is the primary criteria and that's the way it is, but I just didn't like how it was factoring in/deciding some of those final descisions when a team like Ramapo gets 13 regionally ranked results cause the NJAC is the only worthwhile confernce in the weak Atlantic. Ryan made a small comment along these lines during the show but you guys didn't delve into it, which is understandable. And just to be clear I'm not saying I dislike the picks, you used the criteria the way it is supposed to be used. Not trying to shoot the messenger here.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2019, 10:38:58 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2019, 06:17:15 PM
    I like:

    Augustana
    Williams
    Loras
    Hamilton
    Randolph-Macon
    Middlebury
    UW-Oshkosh
    MIT
    Wooster
    St. Thomas
    York (Pa.)
    Wheaton (Ill.)
    Salisbury
    Marietta
    Rochester
    Capital
    Centre
    Plattsburgh State
    New Jersey City

    Then pick one of:
    Eastern Connecticut
    Whitworth
    Gordon
    Ramapo
    I think maybe La Roche is my 20th pick.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 24, 2019, 11:04:06 PM
    I think La Roche proved that they are NOT tourney worthy.   They lost to who? @ home in their conference championship.   And for their "gawdy" record--  just who? did they beat.  They will be smoked in the first round.☠

    Their conference does not deserve two bids even if they only lost their final game.  Every team left on the table would defeat them easily IMO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 24, 2019, 11:24:26 PM
    Quote from: TheOsprey on February 24, 2019, 11:04:06 PM
    I think La Roche proved that they are NOT tourney worthy.   They lost to who? @ home in their conference championship.   And for their "gawdy" record--  just who? did they beat.  They will be smoked in the first round.☠

    LaRoche played against Calvin and Hope in Holland this year.  I saw most of their Calvin game and all of the Hope game.  They are good enough to be in the NCAA Tournament.  I doubt anyone would "smoke" them.

    First game of the year probably the best team they played this year.  Marietta 91 LaRoche 87
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 24, 2019, 11:31:31 PM
    Yeah, I watched the entire Hope game and they looked good, but that was about two months ago.  I doubt they even get in the tournament.  Give me the next WIAC or CCIW team ahead of them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 24, 2019, 11:42:44 PM
    And to be honest with the HOOPSVILLE gang, I very much enjoyed the discussion.  I've seen stronger records by teams in stronger conferences get left out over the years.  It would be nice if the cheap NCAA would have a first four at this level.  RIGHT!!!😔 Nighty- night y'all. 🛏
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 24, 2019, 11:55:19 PM
    Quote from: TheOsprey on February 24, 2019, 11:42:44 PM
    And to be honest with the HOOPSVILLE gang, I very much enjoyed the discussion.  I've seen stronger records by teams in stronger conferences get left out over the years.  It would be nice if the cheap NCAA would have a first four at this level.  RIGHT!!!😔 Nighty- night y'all. 🛏

    First 24 would be better.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 25, 2019, 01:18:48 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 24, 2019, 09:47:38 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2019, 09:22:14 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 24, 2019, 09:01:03 PM
    Here are my final picks...
    1 Augustana
    2 Randolph-Macon
    3 UW-Oshkosh
    4 Hamilton
    5 St Thomas
    6 Williams
    7 Loras
    8 Marietta
    9 York
    10 Middlebury
    11 MIT
    12 Rochester
    13 Wooster
    14 NJCU
    15 Capital
    16 Plattsburgh 20-6/.769 WP/.529 SOS/6-6 vs RRO
    17 Wheaton 19-8/.704/.574/4-5
    18 Salisbury 19-8/.704/.575/4-7
    19 E Connecticut 20-7/.741/.557/2-5
    20 Centre 21-5/.808/.530/1-1

    Almost picked Gordon 23-5/.821/.522/2-3 as #20, & could see Ramapo 18-9/.667/.569/8-5 despite the low WP
    19 of my final picks are the same.  I just have Ramapo instead of Eastern Connecticut.

    I'd take Whitworth over Centre - 3 losses to highest ranked team in West Region and possibly the nation.

    Who did they beat?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 25, 2019, 02:14:45 AM
    Agreed, no difference in the win, but more quality vrro results.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 02:41:35 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2019, 02:14:45 AM
    Agreed, no difference in the win, but more quality vrro results.

    Losing three times to one team is hardly a quality vRRO at this point.  You've established you're not as good as the best team in the country.  Doesn't prove a whole lot.

    You can look at Stevens Point - they played one of the best schedules you might imagine this year, but they got that late win over Oshkosh and a whole list of losses to good teams to show for it.  If they'd've won even one or two of those games, I think they'd've been in easy.

    They're still on the bubble, I guess, but there is such a thing as too many good losses.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 25, 2019, 08:34:05 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 02:41:35 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2019, 02:14:45 AM
    Agreed, no difference in the win, but more quality vrro results.

    Losing three times to one team is hardly a quality vRRO at this point.  You've established you're not as good as the best team in the country.  Doesn't prove a whole lot.

    You can look at Stevens Point - they played one of the best schedules you might imagine this year, but they got that late win over Oshkosh and a whole list of losses to good teams to show for it.  If they'd've won even one or two of those games, I think they'd've been in easy.

    They're still on the bubble, I guess, but there is such a thing as too many good losses.

    Not when it comes to the criteria of results when comparing Centre with 2 and Whitman with 4.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on February 25, 2019, 08:48:45 AM
    Same thing could be said for LaRoche, sure they had 20 games in their weak conference - they were 19-1, but they did try to move up in class by scheduling Marietta, Hope, Calvin, John Carroll, Carnegie-Mellon [UAA], in most years those would be 5 quality opponents, this year all but Marietta had down years, but that's not LaRoche's fault for scheduling them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2019, 09:59:22 AM
    With widespread agreement on the first 18 selections, I am predicting that somebody gets all 20 correct today.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 10:10:02 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2019, 09:59:22 AM
    With widespread agreement on the first 18 selections, I am predicting that somebody gets all 20 correct today.

    I'm predicting no one gets them all.  Nineteen maybe, but not 20.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2019, 10:17:19 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 10:10:02 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2019, 09:59:22 AM
    With widespread agreement on the first 18 selections, I am predicting that somebody gets all 20 correct today.

    I'm predicting no one gets them all.  Nineteen maybe, but not 20.

    That's usually a very safe bet. This year, I think there is a good chance (though admittedly probably still under 50/50) that someone pulls it off.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 10:24:02 AM
    My final picks.

    Data Sources
    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    No-Brainers
    1. (C) Augustana: .889, 24-3/.547/8-3
    2. (S) Randolph-Macon: .893, 25-3/.534/6-3
    3. (NE) Hamilton: .885, 23-3/.553/4-3
    4. (NE) Williams: .769, 20-6/.598/6-5
    5. (C) UW-Oshkosh: .885, 23-3/.542/3-3
    6. (W) Loras: .778, 21-6/.587/2-2
    7. (GL) Marietta: .769, 20-6/.549/6-4
    8. (MA) York (Pa.): .750, 21-7/.561/6-4
    9. (W) St. Thomas: .846, 22-4/.532/4-1
    10. (GL) Wooster: .821, 23-5/.543/3-4
    11. (E) Rochester: .800, 20-5/.539/5-2

    Round 12
    (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) Capital: .741, 20-7/.546/6-4
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 13
    (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.510/0-1
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 14
    (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.510/0-1
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 15
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.510/0-1
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 16
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.510/0-1
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) Middlebury: .708, 17-7/.600/4-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 17
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.510/0-1
    (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 18
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.510/0-1
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .667, 18-9/.572/2-5
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 19
    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) UW-Stevens Point: .667, 18-9/.590/2-6
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.510/0-1
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .667, 18-9/.572/2-5
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3

    Round 20
    (AT) Montclair State: .630, 17-10/.547/4-7
    (C) UW-Stevens Point: .667, 18-9/.590/2-6
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) La Roche: .889, 24-3/.510/0-1
    (MA) Johns Hopkins: .667, 18-9/.572/2-5
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3


    I only differ from my Hoopsville panel effort by 1 pick - I have Ramapo, and we had La Roche last night.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2019, 10:38:08 AM
    Centre & Ramapo is a combination that we hadn't seen yet, increasing the chances that somebody gets them all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 11:21:30 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2019, 10:38:08 AM
    Centre & Ramapo is a combination that we hadn't seen yet, increasing the chances that somebody gets them all.

    I would think this is the year someone gets them all...because if you look at this, everyone agrees on the first 18.  This just comes down to the final 2 picks.  In past years it seems like there was more disagreement on the final 3 or 4.

    Now, of course, if the committee sees those first 18 differently...then we're all wrong.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 11:26:36 AM
    Certainly the pick that has me worried is La Roche. That is a really high WP.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 11:56:12 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 10:10:02 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2019, 09:59:22 AM
    With widespread agreement on the first 18 selections, I am predicting that somebody gets all 20 correct today.

    I'm predicting no one gets them all.  Nineteen maybe, but not 20.

    Bob has enough predictions out there that I'm sure he's gotten them right at some point.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2019, 11:59:28 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 24, 2019, 09:47:38 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 24, 2019, 09:22:14 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 24, 2019, 09:01:03 PM
    Here are my final picks...
    1 Augustana
    2 Randolph-Macon
    3 UW-Oshkosh
    4 Hamilton
    5 St Thomas
    6 Williams
    7 Loras
    8 Marietta
    9 York
    10 Middlebury
    11 MIT
    12 Rochester
    13 Wooster
    14 NJCU
    15 Capital
    16 Plattsburgh 20-6/.769 WP/.529 SOS/6-6 vs RRO
    17 Wheaton 19-8/.704/.574/4-5
    18 Salisbury 19-8/.704/.575/4-7
    19 E Connecticut 20-7/.741/.557/2-5
    20 Centre 21-5/.808/.530/1-1

    Almost picked Gordon 23-5/.821/.522/2-3 as #20, & could see Ramapo 18-9/.667/.569/8-5 despite the low WP
    19 of my final picks are the same.  I just have Ramapo instead of Eastern Connecticut.

    I'd take Whitworth over Centre - 3 losses to highest ranked team in West Region and possibly the nation.

    In your hoopsville panel picks, I'd take Ramapo over Laroche, a clear winner in 2 of the 3 criteria.
    Whitworth also lost to UT-Dallas (ASC Pool A) on a neutral floor.

    Did UT-Dallas creep into the final Regional Ranking by winning the ASC Tourney?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 12:03:14 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 11:56:12 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 10:10:02 AM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2019, 09:59:22 AM
    With widespread agreement on the first 18 selections, I am predicting that somebody gets all 20 correct today.

    I'm predicting no one gets them all.  Nineteen maybe, but not 20.

    Bob has enough predictions out there that I'm sure he's gotten them right at some point.

    I just have two!  With my Hoopsville crew and my solo. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 12:07:35 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 11:26:36 AM
    Certainly the pick that has me worried is La Roche. That is a really high WP.

    To me it seems like committees have personalities. The VandeStreek committees of yesteryear seemed to be an 'SOS' committee.  Dave's interviews with the committee chair throughout this season makes me feel like they're a 'WP' committee.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 12:19:29 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 12:07:35 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 11:26:36 AM
    Certainly the pick that has me worried is La Roche. That is a really high WP.

    To me it seems like committees have personalities. The VandeStreek committees of yesteryear seemed to be an 'SOS' committee.  Dave's interviews with the committee chair throughout this season makes me feel like they're a 'WP' committee.

    Exactly. It's all reading of tea leaves at this point, of course, but Dave's interview with national committee chair Sam Atkinson on Hoopsville earlier this month, combined with a point or two that Mike Blaine made last night on the show and the elimination of the WP/SOS adjustment tool, have me thinking the same thing. It's why I'm going with both La Roche and Centre.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 12:25:50 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 12:19:29 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 12:07:35 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 11:26:36 AM
    Certainly the pick that has me worried is La Roche. That is a really high WP.

    To me it seems like committees have personalities. The VandeStreek committees of yesteryear seemed to be an 'SOS' committee.  Dave's interviews with the committee chair throughout this season makes me feel like they're a 'WP' committee.

    Exactly. It's all reading of tea leaves at this point, of course, but Dave's interview with national committee chair Sam Atkinson on Hoopsville earlier this month, combined with a point or two that Mike Blaine made last night on the show and the elimination of the WP/SOS adjustment tool, have me thinking the same thing. It's why I'm going with both La Roche and Centre.

    We will know very soon!

    I listened to all of those interviews too and didn't necessarily hear as strong of a WP push as you guys did.  Just rather that they were going to stop using the WP/SOS adjustment. 

    But again, drama over in a few minutes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 01:05:51 PM
    In...

    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) UW-La Crosse .654, 17-9/.574/4-2

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 01:11:57 PM

    The lesson: the mendoza line is lower if you're from Wisconsin.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2019, 01:16:32 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 01:05:51 PM
    In...

    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) UW-La Crosse .654, 17-9/.574/4-2

    Wow. Point had a higher winning %, higher SOS, more results vRRO (2-6?), but 0-2 v La Crosse.

    I'm not shocked Point didn't get in. I'm shocked La Crosse did!

    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 01:11:57 PM

    The lesson: the mendoza line is lower if you're from Wisconsin.

    Ouch!  :o :( >:( ;D :D ;) :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 01:52:28 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 12:25:50 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 12:19:29 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 12:07:35 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 11:26:36 AM
    Certainly the pick that has me worried is La Roche. That is a really high WP.

    To me it seems like committees have personalities. The VandeStreek committees of yesteryear seemed to be an 'SOS' committee.  Dave's interviews with the committee chair throughout this season makes me feel like they're a 'WP' committee.

    Exactly. It's all reading of tea leaves at this point, of course, but Dave's interview with national committee chair Sam Atkinson on Hoopsville earlier this month, combined with a point or two that Mike Blaine made last night on the show and the elimination of the WP/SOS adjustment tool, have me thinking the same thing. It's why I'm going with both La Roche and Centre.

    We will know very soon!

    I listened to all of those interviews too and didn't necessarily hear as strong of a WP push as you guys did.  Just rather that they were going to stop using the WP/SOS adjustment. 

    But again, drama over in a few minutes.

    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 01:05:51 PM
    In...

    (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    (C) UW-La Crosse .654, 17-9/.574/4-2


    So nothing really changed! The committee moved away from the SOS to WINS conversion formula but are still willing to pick low WP/high SOS teams and leave out high WP/low SOS teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2019, 02:01:31 PM
    An impressive 19/20 correct for Ryan Scott, for TitanQ, and for Greek Tragedy.  Getting 18 right (for the Hoopsville panel, for me, etc.) is a fairly run-of-the-mill result this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 02:17:06 PM
    I'm as big of a SOS slappy as there is but, upon further review, I don't think the UW-La Crosse pick was justified. I would have rather seen La Roche or Gordon or Centre in there. Or if you wanted to go big on SOS, go Wesleyan.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2019, 02:25:52 PM
    The La Crosse pick is bugging me as well, to be honest.

    I get the comment about "entire resume" that we have gotten from Sam Atkinson all season ... but ... I'm just a little confused still on La Crosse.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 25, 2019, 02:33:44 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 02:17:06 PM
    I'm as big of a SOS slappy as there is but, upon further review, I don't think the UW-La Crosse pick was justified. I would have rather seen La Roche or Gordon or Centre in there. Or if you wanted to go big on SOS, go Wesleyan.
    La Crosse would definitely have the best win on the board at that point and perhaps the committee does understand how the SOS comparison between La Crosse and Wesleyan isn't very meaningful. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 25, 2019, 02:36:58 PM
    None of us even had UW-L on our boards as a realistic candidate.  Ramapo I can live with, but UW-L is a stretch.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 02:38:46 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 25, 2019, 02:33:44 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 02:17:06 PM
    I'm as big of a SOS slappy as there is but, upon further review, I don't think the UW-La Crosse pick was justified. I would have rather seen La Roche or Gordon or Centre in there. Or if you wanted to go big on SOS, go Wesleyan.
    La Crosse would definitely have the best win on the board at that point and perhaps the committee does understand how the SOS comparison between La Crosse and Wesleyan isn't very meaningful.

    Why wouldn't the SOS comparison be meaningful with Wesleyan? I know the NESCAC doesn't play a double round robin, but Wesleyan played non-conference games with Amherst and Williams and also scheduled Eastern Connecticut, Nichols, and Plattsbugh State.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 25, 2019, 02:42:13 PM
    LaCrosse ended up ranked ahead of Stevens Point in the final Central Rankings as they were after the week 3 rankings.  The D3hoops pickers had Stevens Point ranked ahead of LaCrosse so thats why they were never discussed on the show.

    Given the lean of their picks to W% I don't think they would have discussed LaCrosse much anyway.  Its a curious pick I think.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 25, 2019, 02:49:08 PM
    All I can figure is Whitewater got the final Central rankings slot and that gave LaCrosse a 6-2 RRO ?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 25, 2019, 02:52:53 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 02:38:46 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 25, 2019, 02:33:44 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 25, 2019, 02:17:06 PM
    I'm as big of a SOS slappy as there is but, upon further review, I don't think the UW-La Crosse pick was justified. I would have rather seen La Roche or Gordon or Centre in there. Or if you wanted to go big on SOS, go Wesleyan.
    La Crosse would definitely have the best win on the board at that point and perhaps the committee does understand how the SOS comparison between La Crosse and Wesleyan isn't very meaningful.

    Why wouldn't the SOS comparison be meaningful with Wesleyan? I know the NESCAC doesn't play a double round robin, but Wesleyan played non-conference games with Amherst and Williams and also scheduled Eastern Connecticut, Nichols, and Plattsbugh State.
    Wesleyan played a tough schedule for sure, but I think La Crosse's was tougher.  Wesleyan not only gets that single round robin boost, but they also get the boost from the broken home/away multiplier.  With their extra non-conference games they can schedule the bad teams for home games that don't negatively impact their SOS as much and can schedule a game at Farmingdale who has an inflated record in a weak region and get an extra boost from playing them on the road.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2019, 03:03:22 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 25, 2019, 02:49:08 PM
    All I can figure is Whitewater got the final Central rankings slot and that gave LaCrosse a 6-2 RRO ?

    Probably Platteville. They went 3-0 for the week. If they did, Point was 0-3 v PL. La Crosse 1-2.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 25, 2019, 03:08:05 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2019, 03:03:22 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 25, 2019, 02:49:08 PM
    All I can figure is Whitewater got the final Central rankings slot and that gave LaCrosse a 6-2 RRO ?

    Probably Platteville. They went 3-0 for the week. If they did, Point was 0-3 v PL. La Crosse 1-2.

    Maybe both 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2019, 03:13:02 PM
    There was no reason for Whitewater to be ranked. They lost in the 1st round of the WIAC tournament to Platteville on Tuesday.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2019, 03:20:46 PM
    Quote from: fantastic50 on February 25, 2019, 02:01:31 PM
    An impressive 19/20 correct for Ryan Scott, for TitanQ, and for Greek Tragedy.  Getting 18 right (for the Hoopsville panel, for me, etc.) is a fairly run-of-the-mill result this year.

    I picked the wrong WIAC team. SMH. LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 05:25:24 PM
    Final regional rankings...

    https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-final

    La Roche was 3 teams away from ever seeing the table -- behind Mount Union, Wilmington, Wabash.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 05:25:52 PM
    Central region was crafty in building that resume for UW-La Crosse.  Perfectly done.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 05:47:41 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 05:25:24 PM
    Final regional rankings...

    https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-final

    La Roche was 3 teams away from ever seeing the table -- behind Mount Union, Wilmington, Wabash.

    This committee seems to be even more zealously committed to SOS being the primariest of the primary criteria than the VandeStreek committee was.

    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 05:25:52 PM
    Central region was crafty in building that resume for UW-La Crosse.  Perfectly done.

    We can't complain, that's for sure. The Central had more Pool C selections than any other region, even the Northeast.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 25, 2019, 06:57:54 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 05:47:41 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 05:25:24 PM
    Final regional rankings...

    https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-final

    La Roche was 3 teams away from ever seeing the table -- behind Mount Union, Wilmington, Wabash.

    This committee seems to be even more zealously committed to SOS being the primariest of the primary criteria than the VandeStreek committee was.

    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 05:25:52 PM
    Central region was crafty in building that resume for UW-La Crosse.  Perfectly done.

    We can't complain, that's for sure. The Central had more Pool C selections than any other region, even the Northeast.

    You could complain if the primary criteria should be equivalent; they should state ahead of time if there's a priority among the criteria.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 07:13:52 PM
    Here is what the final round looked like (assuming UW-La Crosse was pick #20...

    Round 20
    (AT) Montclair State: .630, 17-10/.547/4-7
    (C) UW-La Crosse .654, 17-9/.574/4-4
    (E) Brockport: .607, 17-10/.566/6-5
    (GL) Mount Union: .786, 22-6/.512/5-4
    (MA) Mary Washington: .667, 18-9/.559/4-7
    (NE) Eastern Connecticut: .741, 20-7/.557/2-5
    (S) Centre: .808, 21-5/.530/1-1
    (W) Whitworth: .778, 21-5/.544/1-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 07:20:26 PM
    (I can't confirm the order of these selection...just my best guess at the time.)

    2018-19 Season
    1. (C) Augustana: .889, 24-3/.547/8-3
    2. (S) Randolph-Macon: .893, 25-3/.534/6-3
    3. (NE) Hamilton: .885, 23-3/.553/4-3
    4. (NE) Williams: .769, 20-6/.598/6-5
    5. (C) UW-Oshkosh: .885, 23-3/.542/3-3
    6. (W) Loras: .778, 21-6/.587/2-2
    7. (GL) Marietta: .769, 20-6/.549/6-4
    8. (MA) York (Pa.): .750, 21-7/.561/6-4
    9. (W) St. Thomas: .846, 22-4/.532/4-1
    10. (GL) Wooster: .821, 23-5/.543/3-4
    11. (E) Rochester: .800, 20-5/.539/5-2
    12. (GL) Capital: .741, 20-7/.546/6-4
    13. (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    14. (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    15. (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    16. (NE) Middlebury: .708, 17-7/.600/4-5
    17. (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    18. (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    19. (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    20. (C) UW-La Crosse .654, 17-9/.574/4-4

    2017-18 Season
    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 
    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    20. Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .731/.529/3-3
    21. LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2

    2016-17 Season
    1. Babson (NE/NEWMAC): .926/.574/4-1
    2. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .731/.592/7-4   
    3. Susquehanna (MA/LAND): .800/.556/4-4
    4. UW-Whitewater (C/WIAC): .769/.567/3-5
    5. Rochester (E/UAA): .840/.534/4-2
    6. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .708/.598/5-5
    7. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .769/.566/4-4
    8. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .760/.560/4-3
    9. Whitworth (W/NWC): .852/.544/0-3
    10. Salisbury (MA/CAC): .741/.546/3-4
    11. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .750/.533/5-4
    12. Hope (GL/MIAA): .800/.525/2-1
    13. Cabrini (AT/CSAC): .760/.531/2-3
    14. Emory (S/UAA): .720/.547/2-3
    15. Skidmore (E/LL): .731/.527/6-1
    16. St. Lawrence (E/LL): .769/.526/3-5
    17. Augustana (C/CCIW): .704/.542/2-2
    18. Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/3-4
    19. Endicott (NE/CCC): .786/.532/1-1
    20. St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .731/.530/1-2
    21. UW-Oshkosh: (C/WIAC): .630/.601/5-6
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2019, 07:49:50 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 05:25:52 PM
    Central region was crafty in building that resume for UW-La Crosse.  Perfectly done.

    From what I gathered - the Central may or may not have. Sam Atkinson said on Hoopsville just now that the national committee went through multiple versions of rankings.

    Eventually the Central lets go of this but well before the national committee gets done with the rankings.

    Quote from: ronk on February 25, 2019, 06:57:54 PM
    You could complain if the primary criteria should be equivalent; they should state ahead of time if there's a priority among the criteria.

    They say repeatedly ... there is no priority given to any of the primary criteria.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 07:59:22 PM
    Yes, they say that, but it's patentily obvious that at certain points they have to favor one criterion over another. You guys amply displayed this last night on Hoopsville in what Ryan called the "apples versus oranges" debate between Ramapo and La Roche for your group pick.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2019, 08:06:21 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 07:59:22 PM
    Yes, they say that, but it's patentily obvious that at certain points they have to favor one criterion over another. You guys amply displayed this last night on Hoopsville in what Ryan called the "apples versus oranges" debate between Ramapo and La Roche for your group pick.

    I think there are different opinions... but I don't think they prioritize. In the past, with the SOS metric I think they had gotten into some prioritization ... but I don't think they are there as much any more.

    I will say this ... Ramapo had a strong resume in all but one point compared to La Roche. Ramapo - as I put it - had a meatier resume. That looks better than just winning games according to the committee ... but I am not sure you could put your finger on which part.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2019, 08:07:25 PM
    In contrast, Point had a winning% of .667 (La Crosse .654), SOS of .590 (.574) and 2-9 (4-4) vRRO. La Crosse was also 2-0 vs Point.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 09:56:09 PM

    I think Ramapo belonged and La Roche, we found out, wasn't on the board.  If you're looking at Montclair, ECSU, Brockport, Mt. Union, Whitworth, Centre, Mary Washington, and La Crosse, I'd pick Centre, but I think LaCrosse might be the next highest contender there.  It's close.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 10:02:43 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2019, 08:06:21 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 07:59:22 PM
    Yes, they say that, but it's patentily obvious that at certain points they have to favor one criterion over another. You guys amply displayed this last night on Hoopsville in what Ryan called the "apples versus oranges" debate between Ramapo and La Roche for your group pick.

    I think there are different opinions... but I don't think they prioritize. In the past, with the SOS metric I think they had gotten into some prioritization ... but I don't think they are there as much any more.

    I will say this ... Ramapo had a strong resume in all but one point compared to La Roche. Ramapo - as I put it - had a meatier resume. That looks better than just winning games according to the committee ... but I am not sure you could put your finger on which part.

    Well, whether it's SOS or vRRO that they're leaning towards, or even if it's both, they're prioritizing them over WP ... which is my point. At some point the committee has to pick a lane and stay in it in terms of which criterion trumps another criterion in a given comparison.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 25, 2019, 10:11:40 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 09:56:09 PM

    I think Ramapo belonged and La Roche, we found out, wasn't on the board.  If you're looking at Montclair, ECSU, Brockport, Mt. Union, Whitworth, Centre, Mary Washington, and La Crosse, I'd pick Centre, but I think LaCrosse might be the next highest contender there.  It's close.

    I personally think that Whitworth and Centre have a very similar resume. What do you guys think that seperates Centre from Whitworth by a significant amount?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 25, 2019, 10:38:29 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 25, 2019, 10:11:40 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 09:56:09 PM

    I think Ramapo belonged and La Roche, we found out, wasn't on the board.  If you're looking at Montclair, ECSU, Brockport, Mt. Union, Whitworth, Centre, Mary Washington, and La Crosse, I'd pick Centre, but I think LaCrosse might be the next highest contender there.  It's close.

    I personally think that Whitworth and Centre have a very similar resume. What do you guys think that seperates Centre from Whitworth by a significant amount?

    Secondary criteria - ncSOS under .500 definitely is working against them. Answered on Hoopsville.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2019, 11:22:12 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 10:02:43 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2019, 08:06:21 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 07:59:22 PM
    Yes, they say that, but it's patentily obvious that at certain points they have to favor one criterion over another. You guys amply displayed this last night on Hoopsville in what Ryan called the "apples versus oranges" debate between Ramapo and La Roche for your group pick.

    I think there are different opinions... but I don't think they prioritize. In the past, with the SOS metric I think they had gotten into some prioritization ... but I don't think they are there as much any more.

    I will say this ... Ramapo had a strong resume in all but one point compared to La Roche. Ramapo - as I put it - had a meatier resume. That looks better than just winning games according to the committee ... but I am not sure you could put your finger on which part.

    Well, whether it's SOS or vRRO that they're leaning towards, or even if it's both, they're prioritizing them over WP ... which is my point. At some point the committee has to pick a lane and stay in it in terms of which criterion trumps another criterion in a given comparison.

    The whole point ... is that the committee is open minded enough NOT to pick a lane. The whole point of removing the SOS metric was that they were getting themselves into a lane.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 11:28:07 PM
    Biggest takeaway for me on the Sam Atkinson Hoopsville interview...

    The national committee has access to a Top 100 ranking of some sort from the NCAA, and uses this quite a bit it sounds like.  Sam referred a few times to record vs the top 50 and top 100 (I think when talking about UW-La Crosse and Ramapo).

    Seems like this should be mentioned in the primary criteria.  It's the first time I have heard of this - was kind of a big surprise to me.  (It's very possible I have just missed this somewhere along the way.)

    I like the concept, by the way.  His point was that RRO from region to region is different...so looking at record vs top 50 and top 100 helps a lot.  Makes sense to me...I just think we should know what that ranking is.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 11:34:15 PM
    Why not just scrap RRO in favor of record vs the top 50 or 100 or whatever?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 11:35:17 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 11:28:07 PM
    Biggest takeaway for me on the Sam Atkinson Hoopsville interview...

    The national committee has access to a Top 100 ranking of some sort from the NCAA, and uses this quite a bit it sounds like.  Sam referred a few times to record vs the top 50 and top 100 (I think when talking about UW-La Crosse and Ramapo).

    Seems like this should be mentioned in the primary criteria.  It's the first time I have heard of this - was kind of a big surprise to me.  (It's very possible I have just missed this somewhere along the way.)

    I like the concept, by the way.  His point was that RRO from region to region is different...so looking at record vs top 50 and top 100 helps a lot.  Makes sense to me...I just think we should know what that ranking is.

    I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2019, 11:36:55 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 11:28:07 PM
    Biggest takeaway for me on the Sam Atkinson Hoopsville interview...

    The national committee has access to a Top 100 ranking of some sort from the NCAA, and uses this quite a bit it sounds like.  Sam referred a few times to record vs the top 50 and top 100 (I think when talking about UW-La Crosse and Ramapo).

    Seems like this should be mentioned in the primary criteria.  It's the first time I have heard of this - was kind of a big surprise to me.  (It's very possible I have just missed this somewhere along the way.)

    I like the concept, by the way.  His point was that RRO from region to region is different...so looking at record vs top 50 and top 100 helps a lot.  Makes sense to me...I just think we should know what that ranking is.

    Actually not the first time a committee chair has mentioned this. We've had this mentioned a few times. The toughest part I can't nail down is what the number is based on ... that I need to dig further into.

    BTW - I did go looking where I think Sam was talking ... and didn't find it. Something I will be working on.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 25, 2019, 11:45:57 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 10:02:43 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2019, 08:06:21 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 07:59:22 PM
    Yes, they say that, but it's patentily obvious that at certain points they have to favor one criterion over another. You guys amply displayed this last night on Hoopsville in what Ryan called the "apples versus oranges" debate between Ramapo and La Roche for your group pick.

    I think there are different opinions... but I don't think they prioritize. In the past, with the SOS metric I think they had gotten into some prioritization ... but I don't think they are there as much any more.

    I will say this ... Ramapo had a strong resume in all but one point compared to La Roche. Ramapo - as I put it - had a meatier resume. That looks better than just winning games according to the committee ... but I am not sure you could put your finger on which part.

    Well, whether it's SOS or vRRO that they're leaning towards, or even if it's both, they're prioritizing them over WP ... which is my point. At some point the committee has to pick a lane and stay in it in terms of which criterion trumps another criterion in a given comparison.

    Amen! That's been my point for a few days(years).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Rofrog on February 26, 2019, 12:27:53 AM
    Dave you didnt even want to put Ramapo  in last night!What changed today
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 07:43:32 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 11:35:17 PM
    I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

    Right...I just want to know what metric they are using.  With all of the other data used, we can pretty much play along due to guys like Fantastic50 and KnightSlappy.  If they'd let us know what they are using to come up with their top 100, I'll bet one of our super smart people can recreate that.

    There are many ways to rank teams via formulas.  For example...

    https://www.masseyratings.com/cb2019/ncaa-d3/ratings

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

    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_top.html


    Would be nice for us to be able to see their ranking - it's clear they are using it to make big decisions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2019, 08:33:27 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 05:47:41 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 05:25:24 PM
    Final regional rankings...

    https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-final

    La Roche was 3 teams away from ever seeing the table -- behind Mount Union, Wilmington, Wabash.

    This committee seems to be even more zealously committed to SOS being the primariest of the primary criteria than the VandeStreek committee was.

    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 05:25:52 PM
    Central region was crafty in building that resume for UW-La Crosse.  Perfectly done.

    We can't complain, that's for sure. The Central had more Pool C selections than any other region, even the Northeast.

    Well, as many, at least.

    I think the Central had Augie, Oshkosh, Wheaton and La Crosse.

    The NE had Hamilton, Williams, MIT and Middlebury.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2019, 08:47:22 AM
    Ok, so there's a "Final regional rankings" that's released to the public and then an actual 5th regional ranking they use to determine Pool C bids?

    Just trying to figure out the numbers here and the significance of Platteville jumping in. If Platteville's results count, then Oshkosh's numbers are off as their vRRO is only 3-3 and should have at least 8 with 2 v PL, 2 v LC and 3 v SP, plus the loss v Wheaton, unless it's included in the secret 5th regional ranking?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2019, 09:12:43 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 07:43:32 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 11:35:17 PM
    I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

    Right...I just want to know what metric they are using.  With all of the other data used, we can pretty much play along due to guys like Fantastic50 and KnightSlappy.  If they'd let us know what they are using to come up with their top 100, I'll bet one of our super smart people can recreate that.

    There are many ways to rank teams via formulas.  For example...

    https://www.masseyratings.com/cb2019/ncaa-d3/ratings

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

    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_top.html


    Would be nice for us to be able to see their ranking - it's clear they are using it to make big decisions.

    For what it's worth, here are records vs my top 50 & top 100 (of course, the NCAA would have different lists, but this should get us close).

    Bubble teams
    Ramapo 2-3, 6-5
    UWL 8-4, 12-6
    ---
    La Roche 0-1, 3-2
    Centre 1-1, 3-4
    Mt U 3-4, 8-5
    E Conn 1-4, 2-5
    UMW 3-5, 5-7
    Whitworth 0-4, 5-4
    W&L 2-2, 4-6
    Gordon 1-2, 3-3

    Great Lakes
    1 Witt 5-3, 6-3
    2 Etta 5-3, 9-5
    3 Woo 3-4, 4-4
    4 Cap 5-3, 8-6
    5 BW 3-6, 8-8
    6 Mount 3-4, 8-5
    7 Wilm 5-6, 6-7
    8 Wab 2-3, 2-4
    9 LRC 0-1, 3-2

    Central
    1 Augie 8-3, 11-3
    2 NCC 5-3, 8-3
    3 UWO 7-3, 12-3
    4 Wheaton 5-4, 8-6
    5 UWP 7-7, 11-9
    6 UWL 8-4, 12-6
    7 UWSP 4-9, 9-9
    8 IWU 2-8, 5-9

    I'm fine with vs top 50 & vs top 100 going into the criteria, but it appears that these (directly or indirectly) had a big impact only on the final rankings, and not prior weeks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 26, 2019, 09:17:40 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 07:43:32 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 11:35:17 PM
    I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

    Right...I just want to know what metric they are using.  With all of the other data used, we can pretty much play along due to guys like Fantastic50 and KnightSlappy.  If they'd let us know what they are using to come up with their top 100, I'll bet one of our super smart people can recreate that.

    There are many ways to rank teams via formulas.  For example...

    https://www.masseyratings.com/cb2019/ncaa-d3/ratings

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

    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_top.html


    Would be nice for us to be able to see their ranking - it's clear they are using it to make big decisions.

    Titan Q is arguing this from a fan standpoint, but I'll make the same point from a coach/administrator lens.  (Who knows -- maybe someday I will play one on teevee...) The committee is using something other than the published criteria to make decisions.  That's ... not very transparent!  And it makes it more difficult for a coach to know what they need to do, scheduling-wise, to boost their resume.

    I'll use Illinois Wesleyan as an example, not because I think they should be in the tourney, but because this example is top of mind.  The Titans have significantly altered their out-of-conference schedule over the years so that it fits better with the published criteria used to select at-large teams  They used to play Nebraska Wesleyan regularly, but quit doing so back during an era when "in region" games were important but defined differently.  And they used to have a recurring series with Olivet Nazarene, but discontinued that because playing an NAIA team gave them no reward as it was counter to what the NCAA was encouraging with the at-large selection criteria.

    Should the Ron Rose-era Titans be trying to schedule +.500 teams on the road to boost their SOS?  The published criteria seems to suggest this is smart.  But if there is another listing that is used which tiers teams into top-50 or top-100, it would be challenging to tilt their schedule toward a greater number if these matchups without knowing what the profile of a team on this list looks like.  And we have no visibility toward how much marginal gain there is from playing a top-50 team versus a top-100 team.  You can't always control how good your opponents actually are, but if you schedule out-of-conference games to a certain philosophy, it usually works out more often than not.  But you have to know what the underpinnings for that philosophy should be, and the NCAA owes it to its members to let them know what criteria it is using.

    I know that transparency is not the NCAA's first instinct, but there is absolutely no reason for whatever source the committee is relying upon beyond the published criteria to be opaque.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Veni Vidi Vici on February 26, 2019, 09:31:13 AM
    Quote from: kiko on February 26, 2019, 09:17:40 AM

    Titan Q is arguing this from a fan standpoint, but I'll make the same point from a coach/administrator lens.  (Who knows -- maybe someday I will play one on teevee...) The committee is using something other than the published criteria to make decisions.  That's ... not very transparent!  And it makes it more difficult for a coach to know what they need to do, scheduling-wise, to boost their resume.

    I'll use Illinois Wesleyan as an example, not because I think they should be in the tourney, but because this example is top of mind.  The Titans have significantly altered their out-of-conference schedule over the years so that it fits better with the published criteria used to select at-large teams  They used to play Nebraska Wesleyan regularly, but quit doing so back during an era when "in region" games were important but defined differently.  And they used to have a recurring series with Olivet Nazarene, but discontinued that because playing an NAIA team gave them no reward as it was counter to what the NCAA was encouraging with the at-large selection criteria.

    Should the Ron Rose-era Titans be trying to schedule +.500 teams on the road to boost their SOS?  The published criteria seems to suggest this is smart.  But if there is another listing that is used which tiers teams into top-50 or top-100, it would be challenging to tilt their schedule toward a greater number if these matchups without knowing what the profile of a team on this list looks like.  And we have no visibility toward how much marginal gain there is from playing a top-50 team versus a top-100 team.  You can't always control how good your opponents actually are, but if you schedule out-of-conference games to a certain philosophy, it usually works out more often than not.  But you have to know what the underpinnings for that philosophy should be, and the NCAA owes it to its members to let them know what criteria it is using.

    I know that transparency is not the NCAA's first instinct, but there is absolutely no reason for whatever source the committee is relying upon beyond the published criteria to be opaque.

    I agree with this sentiment from a broad perspective, but...

    Forgive me if I'm not seeing this (I am newly encapsulating myself in the D3 tournament process). 
    vs
    Are these different?  Since you really don't know how the teams are going to shake out at the end of the day, what you are really doing in both instances is scheduling as many quality opponents as you can.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 26, 2019, 09:55:30 AM
    Quote from: kiko on February 26, 2019, 09:17:40 AM
    [q
    Should the Ron Rose-era Titans be trying to schedule +.500 teams on the road to boost their SOS?  The published criteria seems to suggest this is smart.  But if there is another listing that is used which tiers teams into top-50 or top-100, it would be challenging to tilt their schedule toward a greater number if these matchups without knowing what the profile of a team on this list looks like.  And we have no visibility toward how much marginal gain there is from playing a top-50 team versus a top-100 team.  You can't always control how good your opponents actually are, but if you schedule out-of-conference games to a certain philosophy, it usually works out more often than not.  But you have to know what the underpinnings for that philosophy should be, and the NCAA owes it to its members to let them know what criteria it is using.

    I know that transparency is not the NCAA's first instinct, but there is absolutely no reason for whatever source the committee is relying upon beyond the published criteria to be opaque.
    Don't forget about the broken home/away multiplier.  If you can't find enough great teams to schedule, make sure you only schedule the weak teams for home games.  Playing at Alma is a SOS killer.  IWU probably doesn't have to worry getting enough top 50 or 100 wins in the non-conference season since they play in the CCIW so they should schedule easier SoS boosting games against .600+ teams from bad conferences.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 26, 2019, 10:00:56 AM
    Quote from: kiko on February 26, 2019, 09:17:40 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 07:43:32 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 11:35:17 PM
    I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

    Right...I just want to know what metric they are using.  With all of the other data used, we can pretty much play along due to guys like Fantastic50 and KnightSlappy.  If they'd let us know what they are using to come up with their top 100, I'll bet one of our super smart people can recreate that.

    There are many ways to rank teams via formulas.  For example...

    https://www.masseyratings.com/cb2019/ncaa-d3/ratings

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

    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_top.html


    Would be nice for us to be able to see their ranking - it's clear they are using it to make big decisions.

    Titan Q is arguing this from a fan standpoint, but I'll make the same point from a coach/administrator lens.  (Who knows -- maybe someday I will play one on teevee...) The committee is using something other than the published criteria to make decisions.  That's ... not very transparent!  And it makes it more difficult for a coach to know what they need to do, scheduling-wise, to boost their resume.

    I'll use Illinois Wesleyan as an example, not because I think they should be in the tourney, but because this example is top of mind.  The Titans have significantly altered their out-of-conference schedule over the years so that it fits better with the published criteria used to select at-large teams  They used to play Nebraska Wesleyan regularly, but quit doing so back during an era when "in region" games were important but defined differently.  And they used to have a recurring series with Olivet Nazarene, but discontinued that because playing an NAIA team gave them no reward as it was counter to what the NCAA was encouraging with the at-large selection criteria.

    Should the Ron Rose-era Titans be trying to schedule +.500 teams on the road to boost their SOS?  The published criteria seems to suggest this is smart.  But if there is another listing that is used which tiers teams into top-50 or top-100, it would be challenging to tilt their schedule toward a greater number if these matchups without knowing what the profile of a team on this list looks like.  And we have no visibility toward how much marginal gain there is from playing a top-50 team versus a top-100 team.  You can't always control how good your opponents actually are, but if you schedule out-of-conference games to a certain philosophy, it usually works out more often than not.  But you have to know what the underpinnings for that philosophy should be, and the NCAA owes it to its members to let them know what criteria it is using.

    I know that transparency is not the NCAA's first instinct, but there is absolutely no reason for whatever source the committee is relying upon beyond the published criteria to be opaque.

    Yes, the selections are to be made with the published criteria. Using something else(record vs top 50/100) violates their mandate - no gray areas here.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 11:05:41 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2019, 08:47:22 AM
    Ok, so there's a "Final regional rankings" that's released to the public and then an actual 5th regional ranking they use to determine Pool C bids?


    No.  The final regional rankings posted here are the final ones they used for the selection/seeding/bracketing processes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2019, 11:22:56 AM
    Quote from: AO on February 26, 2019, 09:55:30 AM
    Quote from: kiko on February 26, 2019, 09:17:40 AM
    [q
    Should the Ron Rose-era Titans be trying to schedule +.500 teams on the road to boost their SOS?  The published criteria seems to suggest this is smart.  But if there is another listing that is used which tiers teams into top-50 or top-100, it would be challenging to tilt their schedule toward a greater number if these matchups without knowing what the profile of a team on this list looks like.  And we have no visibility toward how much marginal gain there is from playing a top-50 team versus a top-100 team.  You can't always control how good your opponents actually are, but if you schedule out-of-conference games to a certain philosophy, it usually works out more often than not.  But you have to know what the underpinnings for that philosophy should be, and the NCAA owes it to its members to let them know what criteria it is using.

    I know that transparency is not the NCAA's first instinct, but there is absolutely no reason for whatever source the committee is relying upon beyond the published criteria to be opaque.
    Don't forget about the broken home/away multiplier.  If you can't find enough great teams to schedule, make sure you only schedule the weak teams for home games.  Playing at Alma is a SOS killer.  IWU probably doesn't have to worry getting enough top 50 or 100 wins in the non-conference season since they play in the CCIW so they should schedule easier SoS boosting games against .600+ teams from bad conferences.

    Right. I failed to continue to make a big deal about this this season, but THE SOS AS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED DOES NOT DO WHAT THE NCAA THINKS IT DOES. That is to say, the home/away multiplier doesn't so much alter how "difficult" a game looks on the schedule, it alters how much "space" it takes up.

    Think of building a schedule like packing the station wagon for a family trip. Each game is a suitcase, and the final SOS is how much total mass you end up packing in your trunk.

    The way the multiplier is currently constructed, an AWAY game means you're using a large suitcase (1.25 multiplier). It doesn't speak to how much mass you've put in it, but it's going to take up more space than a home game, which is a small suitcase (0.75 multiplier). The mass inside the suitcase is still only determined by the opponent's record (and their opponents' record, i.e. OWP and OOWP).

    This *sort of* makes sense when you're talking about quality opponents. Playing a good opponent on the road is liking packing a large suitcase and filling it with bricks. It takes up a lot of space in your trunk with solid, heavy objects. It should have a larger impact on your overall schedule strength. Playing them at home is like packing bricks in a smaller suitcase -- it's still quality mass, but it's not going to play as big of a role once all of the other suitcases are packed in.

    But this breaks down tremendously when viewing poor opponents. If you play an away game against a poor opponent you're packing a large suitcase and filling it with feathers. It takes up a lot of space in your trunk yet adds little to nothing in terms of how much stuff you're actually packing. You'd rather play that poor team at home -- sticking those feathers in a small suitcase which leaves you plenty of room for heavier suitcases.

    What this means in the end is that teams should do everything they can to avoid scheduling their weaker opponents on the road as it will drag their SOS down more than playing the same team at home. THIS IS BONKERS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 11:44:04 AM
    Quote from: kiko on February 26, 2019, 09:17:40 AM
    Titan Q is arguing this from a fan standpoint,
    Well, more from an amateur D3 bracketologist standpoint.  I just want to get 20/20 Pool Cs right one of these years.  But close enough.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on February 26, 2019, 12:04:21 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2019, 11:22:56 AM
    Quote from: AO on February 26, 2019, 09:55:30 AM
    Quote from: kiko on February 26, 2019, 09:17:40 AM
    [q
    Should the Ron Rose-era Titans be trying to schedule +.500 teams on the road to boost their SOS?  The published criteria seems to suggest this is smart.  But if there is another listing that is used which tiers teams into top-50 or top-100, it would be challenging to tilt their schedule toward a greater number if these matchups without knowing what the profile of a team on this list looks like.  And we have no visibility toward how much marginal gain there is from playing a top-50 team versus a top-100 team.  You can't always control how good your opponents actually are, but if you schedule out-of-conference games to a certain philosophy, it usually works out more often than not.  But you have to know what the underpinnings for that philosophy should be, and the NCAA owes it to its members to let them know what criteria it is using.

    I know that transparency is not the NCAA's first instinct, but there is absolutely no reason for whatever source the committee is relying upon beyond the published criteria to be opaque.
    Don't forget about the broken home/away multiplier.  If you can't find enough great teams to schedule, make sure you only schedule the weak teams for home games.  Playing at Alma is a SOS killer.  IWU probably doesn't have to worry getting enough top 50 or 100 wins in the non-conference season since they play in the CCIW so they should schedule easier SoS boosting games against .600+ teams from bad conferences.

    Right. I failed to continue to make a big deal about this this season, but THE SOS AS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED DOES NOT DO WHAT THE NCAA THINKS IT DOES. That is to say, the home/away multiplier doesn't so much alter how "difficult" a game looks on the schedule, it alters how much "space" it takes up.

    Think of building a schedule like packing the station wagon for a family trip. Each game is a suitcase, and the final SOS is how much total mass you end up packing in your trunk.

    The way the multiplier is currently constructed, an AWAY game means you're using a large suitcase (1.25 multiplier). It doesn't speak to how much mass you've put in it, but it's going to take up more space than a home game, which is a small suitcase (0.75 multiplier). The mass inside the suitcase is still only determined by the opponent's record (and their opponents' record, i.e. OWP and OOWP).

    This *sort of* makes sense when you're talking about quality opponents. Playing a good opponent on the road is liking packing a large suitcase and filling it with bricks. It takes up a lot of space in your trunk with solid, heavy objects. It should have a larger impact on your overall schedule strength. Playing them at home is like packing bricks in a smaller suitcase -- it's still quality mass, but it's not going to play as big of a role once all of the other suitcases are packed in.

    But this breaks down tremendously when viewing poor opponents. If you play an away game against a poor opponent you're packing a large suitcase and filling it with feathers. It takes up a lot of space in your trunk yet adds little to nothing in terms of how much stuff you're actually packing. You'd rather play that poor team at home -- sticking those feathers in a small suitcase which leaves you plenty of room for heavier suitcases.

    What this means in the end is that teams should do everything they can to avoid scheduling their weaker opponents on the road as it will drag their SOS down more than playing the same team at home. THIS IS BONKERS.

    This post is fantastic and should be linked in the playoff FAQs as a reference. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2019, 12:11:50 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 11:05:41 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2019, 08:47:22 AM
    Ok, so there's a "Final regional rankings" that's released to the public and then an actual 5th regional ranking they use to determine Pool C bids?


    No.  The final regional rankings posted here are the final ones they used for the selection/seeding/bracketing processes.

    Ok, thanks. So there's just four, all publicized. So in terms of vRRO, results against Platteville aren't included since they didn't become regionally ranked until the end.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 12:14:59 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 11:35:17 PM
    I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

    I interpret this differently, Ryan.

    On Hoopsville yesterday, Sam, in talking about Ramapo, mentioned them being 8-5 RRO. Then said they were 3-3 vs the top 50, and 7-6 top 100.  So at first I was thinking maybe they are just looking at the RRO relative to whatever this top 50/top 100 is. (He mentioned 13 games vs the top 100...which is the same total as RRO.)

    But in making a case for UW-La Crosse he said, "The big thing with La Crosse is the quality of their wins. They are 7-4 vs Top 50 teams. Their best win was against Oshkosh.  They are at 5 division ranked opponent wins, and overall they are 9-4 vs the top 100.  La Crosse didn't have 13 RRO games.

    They seem to be using this top 50/top 100 metric for the whole resume.  Seems to me they have introduced a new criterion that is not in the handbook? 

    And by the way - I love this concept of looking at results vs the top 50 and 100.  But shouldn't it be public and in the listed criteria?
    ---------
    PRIMARY SELECTION CRITERIA
    The primary criteria emphasize competition leading up to NCAA championships; all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
    ● Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents;
    ● Division III head-to-head competition;
    ● Results versus common Division III opponents;
    ● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceding the final ranking. Conference postseason contests are included.
    ● Division III strength of schedule;
    - Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
    - Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP).

    SECONDARY SELECTION CRITERIA
    If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against all other opponents from other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).
    ● Non-Division III won-lost percentage;
    ● Results versus common non-Division III opponents;
    ● Division III non-conference strength-of-schedule.
    Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the Men's Basketball Committee.

    https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/basketball/d3/men/2018-19DIIIMBB_PreChampManual.pdf
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 12:18:38 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2019, 12:11:50 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 11:05:41 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2019, 08:47:22 AM
    Ok, so there's a "Final regional rankings" that's released to the public and then an actual 5th regional ranking they use to determine Pool C bids?


    No.  The final regional rankings posted here are the final ones they used for the selection/seeding/bracketing processes.

    Ok, thanks. So there's just four, all publicized. So in terms of vRRO, results against Platteville aren't included since they didn't become regionally ranked until the end.

    RRO vs any teams in that final ranking would count.  So yes, La Crosse results vs Platteville would count.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2019, 12:20:11 PM
    Welp, we'll see Sam in Ft. Wayne and we can figure it out.  I wonder if the NCAA data doesn't get broken down in ways that align with the d3 criteria?  I could see them using metrics that work for d1 and just applying it to d3.  It's an interesting idea.

    I'm not sure, though, it's more or less reliable than looking at those games and just deciding some of them are more important than others.  I wrote off ECSU basically on my own judgement on their vRRO; I can't trust my intuition more than a Top50 or Top100 list - both are imperfect and less than ideal.  You gotta use something, though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 12:22:02 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2019, 12:20:11 PM
    Welp, we'll see Sam in Ft. Wayne and we can figure it out.  I wonder if the NCAA data doesn't get broken down in ways that align with the d3 criteria?  I could see them using metrics that work for d1 and just applying it to d3.  It's an interesting idea.

    I'm not sure, though, it's more or less reliable than looking at those games and just deciding some of them are more important than others.  I wrote off ECSU basically on my own judgement on their vRRO; I can't trust my intuition more than a Top50 or Top100 list - both are imperfect and less than ideal.  You gotta use something, though.

    I agree - I love the concept.

    Just seems like they are using something they haven't told anyone about.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 26, 2019, 12:34:12 PM
    Vs top 50 in D1 is different than vs top 50 in D3.

    14%  vs 11%

    Vs top 100 in D1 is different than vs top 50 in D3

    28% vs 23%

    I view that as a problem.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2019, 12:52:24 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2019, 11:22:12 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 10:02:43 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2019, 08:06:21 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 07:59:22 PM
    Yes, they say that, but it's patentily obvious that at certain points they have to favor one criterion over another. You guys amply displayed this last night on Hoopsville in what Ryan called the "apples versus oranges" debate between Ramapo and La Roche for your group pick.

    I think there are different opinions... but I don't think they prioritize. In the past, with the SOS metric I think they had gotten into some prioritization ... but I don't think they are there as much any more.

    I will say this ... Ramapo had a strong resume in all but one point compared to La Roche. Ramapo - as I put it - had a meatier resume. That looks better than just winning games according to the committee ... but I am not sure you could put your finger on which part.

    Well, whether it's SOS or vRRO that they're leaning towards, or even if it's both, they're prioritizing them over WP ... which is my point. At some point the committee has to pick a lane and stay in it in terms of which criterion trumps another criterion in a given comparison.

    The whole point ... is that the committee is open minded enough NOT to pick a lane. The whole point of removing the SOS metric was that they were getting themselves into a lane.

    I think that we're discussing two different things, Dave. You're talking macro, I'm talking micro. In other words, you're focusing upon an overall committee methodology, and I'm focusing upon whatever specific comparisons are made in a particular round when two or more teams with highly contrasting résumés are on the table and being seriously considered for the next pick.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2019, 12:54:58 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2019, 08:33:27 AM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2019, 05:47:41 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 05:25:24 PM
    Final regional rankings...

    https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-final

    La Roche was 3 teams away from ever seeing the table -- behind Mount Union, Wilmington, Wabash.

    This committee seems to be even more zealously committed to SOS being the primariest of the primary criteria than the VandeStreek committee was.

    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 05:25:52 PM
    Central region was crafty in building that resume for UW-La Crosse.  Perfectly done.

    We can't complain, that's for sure. The Central had more Pool C selections than any other region, even the Northeast.

    Well, as many, at least.

    I think the Central had Augie, Oshkosh, Wheaton and La Crosse.

    The NE had Hamilton, Williams, MIT and Middlebury.

    You're right. Forgot that MIT was Pool C. Nice catch, Tom.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2019, 01:16:05 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 12:14:59 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 11:35:17 PM
    I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

    I interpret this differently, Ryan.

    On Hoopsville yesterday, Sam, in talking about Ramapo, mentioned them being 8-5 RRO. Then said they were 3-3 vs the top 50, and 7-6 top 100.

    Well, we know for a fact then that there's variance between their mystery ratings and Drew's. He had Ramapo at 2-3, 6-5.

    BTW, nice detective work, Bob. I'm right there with you and kiko and ronk that this mystery rating that they're using is an indication of a lack of transparency on the part of the committee.

    Quote from: sac on February 26, 2019, 12:34:12 PM
    Vs top 50 in D1 is different than vs top 50 in D3.

    14%  vs 11%

    Vs top 100 in D1 is different than vs top 50 in D3

    28% vs 23%

    I view that as a problem.

    ... not to mention the fact that you've got entirely different scheduling philosophies between the two divisions. The D1 guys get on planes and fly willy-nilly around the country on weekdays as part of a nationally-based approach to scheduling. The D3 guys get on buses and stick as close to home as possible on weekdays in order to make sure that they don't miss class the next morning. The corresponding lack of crossover as compared to D1 makes the construction of a top 50 list or a top 100 list in D3 very different than what works for the big boys.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2019, 01:17:51 PM
    Quote from: Rofrog on February 26, 2019, 12:27:53 AM
    Dave you didnt even want to put Ramapo  in last night!What changed today

    We aren't the official committee. We were doing mock selections. When you get down to the final selections, things can go in different directions. We have only gotten every team right once.

    I'm not losing any sleep over it (I'm losing sleep for a lot of other reasons unrelated to any of this).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: wally_wabash on February 26, 2019, 01:33:31 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 12:14:59 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 11:35:17 PM
    I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

    I interpret this differently, Ryan.

    On Hoopsville yesterday, Sam, in talking about Ramapo, mentioned them being 8-5 RRO. Then said they were 3-3 vs the top 50, and 7-6 top 100.  So at first I was thinking maybe they are just looking at the RRO relative to whatever this top 50/top 100 is. (He mentioned 13 games vs the top 100...which is the same total as RRO.)

    But in making a case for UW-La Crosse he said, "The big thing with La Crosse is the quality of their wins. They are 7-4 vs Top 50 teams. Their best win was against Oshkosh.  They are at 5 division ranked opponent wins, and overall they are 9-4 vs the top 100.  La Crosse didn't have 13 RRO games.

    They seem to be using this top 50/top 100 metric for the whole resume.  Seems to me they have introduced a new criterion that is not in the handbook? 

    And by the way - I love this concept of looking at results vs the top 50 and 100.  But shouldn't it be public and in the listed criteria?

    I'm all for this sort of thing being part of the official criteria (relevant side discussions about how to create that ranking and how it compares across divisions aside), but Titan Q is right- it should be listed.  If it isn't, it shouldn't be part of the discussion. 

    When we talked to the football chair, he was pretty clear that their conversations were pretty rigidly contained within the criteria.  Every single talking point needs to be able to answer "yes" to the question "Is this part of the criteria?"  I'm not saying that football does this right or better, but I think at the very least that one rule has to apply across the board. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2019, 01:43:43 PM
    One thing to keep in mind that we have heard from committee chairs for ... five or more years.

    The term "results versus regionally ranked opponents" has always opened the door to what they can look at to some degree. They dive into what "results" they are looking at with "regionally ranked opponents."

    There are some items that aren't expressly written out to try and give the committees a little more latitude or flexibility or ... pick your adjective. That is why I know this topic of Top 50 and Top 100 has been brought up before. And I have asked almost always where this comes from and the justification.

    One thing to keep in mind, there is an NCAA liaison overseeing all of this. If the committee is straying into an area that they shouldn't, the liaison shuts it down. Well, they should. One could argue the past liaison allowed the SOS metric to be used when maybe it shouldn't have been. That said, I was also told that NCAA stats had approved and backed up the metric - something that may not be true now. (Basically, the former liaison may have been allowing it because she was told it was okay when now the NCAA has backed down from that support.)

    I will continue to dive in best I can.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2019, 02:54:08 PM
    Quote from: wally_wabash on February 26, 2019, 01:33:31 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2019, 12:14:59 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 25, 2019, 11:35:17 PM
    I believe those Top 50 and Top 100 are the ways in which they're evaluating results vs regionally ranked opponents.  We're just not sure what metric they're using to rank those teams.

    I interpret this differently, Ryan.

    On Hoopsville yesterday, Sam, in talking about Ramapo, mentioned them being 8-5 RRO. Then said they were 3-3 vs the top 50, and 7-6 top 100.  So at first I was thinking maybe they are just looking at the RRO relative to whatever this top 50/top 100 is. (He mentioned 13 games vs the top 100...which is the same total as RRO.)

    But in making a case for UW-La Crosse he said, "The big thing with La Crosse is the quality of their wins. They are 7-4 vs Top 50 teams. Their best win was against Oshkosh.  They are at 5 division ranked opponent wins, and overall they are 9-4 vs the top 100.  La Crosse didn't have 13 RRO games.

    They seem to be using this top 50/top 100 metric for the whole resume.  Seems to me they have introduced a new criterion that is not in the handbook? 

    And by the way - I love this concept of looking at results vs the top 50 and 100.  But shouldn't it be public and in the listed criteria?

    I'm all for this sort of thing being part of the official criteria (relevant side discussions about how to create that ranking and how it compares across divisions aside), but Titan Q is right- it should be listed.  If it isn't, it shouldn't be part of the discussion. 

    When we talked to the football chair, he was pretty clear that their conversations were pretty rigidly contained within the criteria.  Every single talking point needs to be able to answer "yes" to the question "Is this part of the criteria?"  I'm not saying that football does this right or better, but I think at the very least that one rule has to apply across the board.

    I think the point people are trying to make is that it is listed, just perhaps lacking specificity.  "Results vs Regionally Ranked Opponents" implies some metric for gauging those results.  I'd agree maybe that means needs to be spelled out better than it is, but as the criteria is currently outlined, the committee has carte blanche to evaluate results vRRO as they see fit.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2019, 03:30:28 PM
    Sure, but the common understanding is that they are going to evaluate results vRRO based upon evidence that is public knowledge -- the games themselves taken singly, the games themselves taken collectively, or a combination of the two. If they're evaluating vRRO in part or in whole based upon a Top 50 or a Top 100 that nobody else sees and whose construction is equally mysterious, then that makes the vRRO criterion opaque.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2019, 03:53:09 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2019, 03:30:28 PM
    Sure, but the common understanding is that they are going to evaluate results vRRO based upon evidence that is public knowledge -- the games themselves taken singly, the games themselves taken collectively, or a combination of the two. If they're evaluating vRRO in part or in whole based upon a Top 50 or a Top 100 that nobody else sees and whose construction is equally mysterious, then that makes the vRRO criterion opaque.
    +1!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2019, 05:30:27 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=nnprh/8dkw0vs268zljo93.jpg)

    It is nearly time to tip off the 2019 Division III Men's and Women's Championship Tournaments, but not without checking with Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) first.

    We talk to a number of programs getting ready for their first round games. From those dancing for the first time to those whose programs are a mainstay, we will cover the gamete on Thursday's show. Tune in starting at 7:00 p.m. ET to also hear who experts and friends of the show think will be in the final fours, even winning it all, in a few weeks time.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Thursday's show in the video player above. If you miss any of the program, you can always watch it On Demand or listen to the audio-only podcast to the right (available shortly after the show goes off air).

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Matt Hunter, York (Pa.) men's coach
    - Bobby Hughes, Rosemont men's coach
    - Women's final four predictions
    - Brian Morehouse, No. 10 Hope women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Brad Fischer, No. 13 UW-Oshkosh women's coach
    - Terry Butterfield, Texas-Dallas men's coach
    - Men's final four predictions

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on December 19, 2019, 04:30:17 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on December 09, 2019, 10:52:33 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2019, 07:20:26 PM
    (I can't confirm the order of these selection...just my best guess at the time.)

    2018-19 Season
    1. (C) Augustana: .889, 24-3/.547/8-3
    2. (S) Randolph-Macon: .893, 25-3/.534/6-3
    3. (NE) Hamilton: .885, 23-3/.553/4-3
    4. (NE) Williams: .769, 20-6/.598/6-5
    5. (C) UW-Oshkosh: .885, 23-3/.542/3-3
    6. (W) Loras: .778, 21-6/.587/2-2
    7. (GL) Marietta: .769, 20-6/.549/6-4
    8. (MA) York (Pa.): .750, 21-7/.561/6-4
    9. (W) St. Thomas: .846, 22-4/.532/4-1
    10. (GL) Wooster: .821, 23-5/.543/3-4
    11. (E) Rochester: .800, 20-5/.539/5-2
    12. (GL) Capital: .741, 20-7/.546/6-4
    13. (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    14. (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    15. (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    16. (NE) Middlebury: .708, 17-7/.600/4-5
    17. (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    18. (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    19. (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    20. (C) UW-La Crosse .654, 17-9/.574/4-4

    2017-18 Season
    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 
    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    20. Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .731/.529/3-3
    21. LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2

    2016-17 Season
    1. Babson (NE/NEWMAC): .926/.574/4-1
    2. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .731/.592/7-4   
    3. Susquehanna (MA/LAND): .800/.556/4-4
    4. UW-Whitewater (C/WIAC): .769/.567/3-5
    5. Rochester (E/UAA): .840/.534/4-2
    6. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .708/.598/5-5
    7. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .769/.566/4-4
    8. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .760/.560/4-3
    9. Whitworth (W/NWC): .852/.544/0-3
    10. Salisbury (MA/CAC): .741/.546/3-4
    11. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .750/.533/5-4
    12. Hope (GL/MIAA): .800/.525/2-1
    13. Cabrini (AT/CSAC): .760/.531/2-3
    14. Emory (S/UAA): .720/.547/2-3
    15. Skidmore (E/LL): .731/.527/6-1
    16. St. Lawrence (E/LL): .769/.526/3-5
    17. Augustana (C/CCIW): .704/.542/2-2
    18. Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/3-4
    19. Endicott (NE/CCC): .786/.532/1-1
    20. St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .731/.530/1-2
    21. UW-Oshkosh: (C/WIAC): .630/.601/5-6

    Pool C Bids: 2019/2018/2017 = Total
    * Northeast: 4/4/7 = 15

    * Central: 4/4/3 = 11

    * Great Lakes: 3/2/2 = 7

    * Mid Atlantic: 2/4/1 = 7

    * West: 2/3/2 = 7

    * East: 2/1/3 = 6

    * Atlantic: 2/1/2 = 5

    * South: 1/2/1 = 4

    We might talk some Pool C (high level stuff) on Hoopsville tonight.  Pasting this here in case we do.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 19, 2019, 08:33:27 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=2rzjc/rwv59zqq04xkhrbv.jpg)

    What a start to the 2019-20 season! As we head into the holidays "break," there is a lot to talk about. We don't have enough time in a show to cover it all, but we will do our best.

    Tune into Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) Thursday night as Dave is joined not only by a couple of coaches who have their programs humming along, but also three of the show's best prognosticators who will open up a few Christmas gifts for Division III fans.

    Marietta men are once again playing very well in the first half of the season, but do you know why the Pioneers are this good? Jon VanderWal gives us some insight of what is going on in Southern Ohio. Plus, the Augsburg women are one of four MIAC teams ranked in the Top 25 this past week. The Auggies are coming off an unprecedented win over St. Thomas (Minn.) as well. Ted Riverso discusses how it is the perfect bow before their three-week break.

    Plus, Bob Quillman and Ryan Scott give us their individual takes on the first part of the season and what they expect in the final two months. And Gordon Mann gives us his exceptional takes on the women's side of the ledger. Who really are the best teams in the country and who should we be watching?

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Sunday's show On Demand in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/2EBOzt2 (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/dec19)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville (only the first 45 minutes aired; may have had a copyright problem haha)
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Bob Quillman, Hoopsville contributor
    - Jon VanderWal, No. 6 Marietta men's head coach
    - Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com Around the Nation columnist
    - Ted Riverso, No. 16 Augsburg women's head coach
    - Gordon Mann, D3hoops.com Senior Editor

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)

    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=127/mh=38/cr=n/d=155od/msg7impgs5p0hnmg.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on December 25, 2019, 10:06:19 AM
    My 20 Pool Cs as of Christmas Day.

    Data courtesy of Matt Snyder - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    (WP/SOS/notable wins)

    1. (C/UAA) Wash U .900/.579 (vs Eau Claire, vs Augustana, at IWU)
    2. (MA/CC) Johns Hopkins .889/613 (vs Christopher Newport, at Muhlenberg)
    3. (NE/NEWMAC) Springfield .889/.644 (n/a)
    4. (C/WIAC) UW-Eau Claire .800/.599 (at Whitworth)
    5. (NE/NESCAC) Hamilton .900/.547 (vs Nichols)
    6. (GL/OAC) Mount Union .750/.601 (vs Carnegie Mellon, at Wooster)
    7. (GL/NCAC) Wooster .875/.591 (vs Wabash, vs Brockport)
    8. (S/ODAC) Virginia Wesleyan .875/.576 (at Guilford, vs Christopher Newport)
    9. (S/ODAC) Guilford .800/.617 (vs Mary Hardin-Baylor)
    10. (C/WIAC) UW-La Crosse 1.000/.523 (vs Augsburg)
    11. (NE/NESCAC) Middlebury 1.000/.526 (n/a)
    12. (C/CCIW) Illinois Wesleyan .700/.615 (vs Carthage, at Augustana)
    13. (C/CCIW) Augustana .700/.647 (vs Loras, at UW-Stevens Point)
    14. (C/WIAC) Stevens Point .778/.597 (at Christopher Newport, vs Hope)
    15. (C/CCIW) Carthage .900/.509 (vs UW-Oshkosh, vs North Central)
    16. (NE/NEWMAC) WPI .800/.573 (vs Tufts)
    17. (W/MIAC) Augsburg .778/.555 (vs UW-River Falls)
    18. (C/CCIW) Elmhurst .900/.467 (vs St. Norbert, at UW-Oshkosh)
    19. (C/WIAC) UW-River Falls .750/.590 (vs Nebraska Wesleyan)
    20. (S/SAA) Centre: .800/.579 (at Wabash)
    --------
    21. (W/ARC) Buena Vista .900/.526 (n/a)
    22. (E/UAA) Rochester .889/.572 (n/a)
    23. (S/ASC) LeTourneau .857/.563 (n/a)
    24. (W/MIAC) St. Johns .900/.474 (n/a)
    25. (W/MIAC) Bethel .667/.549 (at UW-Stevens Point)
    26. (NE/NESCAC) Tufts .778/.652 (n/a)
    27. (GL/NCAC) Allegheny .700/.594 (vs Carnegie Mellon)
    28. (AT/NJAC) Rutgers-Newark .700/.551 (vs Utica)
    29. (C/WIAC) UW-Oshkosh .556/.646 (at Augustana, at North Central)
    30. (C/CCIW) North Central .700/.519 (at Elmhurst)
    31. (E/LL) Union .800/.563 (n/a)
    32. (MA/CC) Muhlenberg .800/.523 (n/a)
    33. (MA/CAC) Christopher Newport .636/.615 (n/a)
    34. (GL/UAA) Carnegie Mellon .778/.576 (n/a)
    35. (GL/MIAA) Albion .750/.571 (n/a)
    36. (E/E8) Nazareth .750/.542 (n/a)
    37. (W/ARC) Loras .800/.508 (n/a)


    Assumed Pool A (not all conferences are listed here)
    SAA - Berry
    CAC - York (Pa)
    NESCAC - Colby
    NCAC - Wittenberg
    Centennial - Swarthmore
    MIAC - St. Thomas
    ODAD - Randolph-Macon
    OAC - Marietta
    ARC - Nebraska Wesleyan
    UAA - Emory
    WIAC - UW-Platteville
    CCIW - Wheaton
    MWC - St. Norbert
    NACC - Benedictine
    NEWMAC - Babson
    Liberty - Hobart
    NJAC - Stockton
    ASC - Mary Hardin-Baylor
    MIAA - Hope
    NWC - Whitworth
    SCIAC - Pomona-Pitzer
    E8 - Utica
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Baldini on December 25, 2019, 10:13:52 AM
    Great stuff Titan Q. Who would of thought at Christmas that both North Central and UW-Oshkosh would be off the Pool C radar.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on December 25, 2019, 10:54:30 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on December 25, 2019, 10:06:19 AM
    My 20 Pool Cs as of Christmas Day.

    Data courtesy of Matt Snyder - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    (WP/SOS/notable wins)

    1. (C/UAA) Wash U .900/.579 (vs Eau Claire, vs Augustana, at IWU)
    2. (MA/CC) Johns Hopkins .889/613 (vs Christopher Newport, at Muhlenberg)
    3. (NE/NESCAC) Springfield .889/.644 (n/a)
    4. (C/WIAC) UW-Eau Claire .800/.599 (at Whitworth)
    5. (NE/NESCAC) Hamilton .900/.547 (vs Nichols)
    6. (GL/OAC) Mount Union .750/.601 (vs Carnegie Mellon, at Wooster)
    7. (GL/NCAC) Wooster .875/.591 (vs Wabash, vs Brockport)
    8. (S/ODAC) Virginia Wesleyan .875/.576 (at Guilford, vs Christopher Newport)
    9. (S/ODAC) Guilford .800/.617 (vs Mary Hardin-Baylor)
    10. (C/WIAC) UW-La Crosse 1.000/.523 (vs Augsburg)
    11. (NE/NESCAC) Middlebury 1.000/.526 (n/a)
    12. (C/CCIW) Illinois Wesleyan .700/.615 (vs Carthage, at Augustana)
    13. (C/CCIW) Augustana .700/.647 (vs Loras, at UW-Stevens Point)
    14. (C/WIAC) Stevens Point .778/.597 (at Christopher Newport, vs Hope)
    15. (C/CCIW) Carthage .900/.509 (vs UW-Oshkosh, vs North Central)
    16. (NE/NEWMAC) WPI .800/.573 (vs Tufts)
    17. (W/MIAC) Augsburg .778/.555 (vs UW-River Falls)
    18. (C/CCIW) Wheaton: .800/.482 (vs UW-River Falls, at Illinois Wesleyan)
    19. (C/WIAC) UW-River Falls .750/.590 (vs Nebraska Wesleyan)
    20. (S/SAA) Centre: .800/.579 (at Wabash)
    --------
    21. (W/ARC) Buena Vista .900/.526 (n/a)
    22. (E/UAA) Rochester .889/.572 (n/a)
    23. (NE/NESCAC) Tufts .778/.652 (n/a)
    24. (S/ASC) LeTourneau .857/.563 (n/a)
    25. (W/MIAC) St. Johns .900/.474 (n/a)
    27. (W/MIAC) Bethel .667/.549 (at UW-Stevens Point)
    28. (MA/CC) Muhlenberg .800/.523 (n/a)
    29. (AT/NJAC) Rutgers-Newark .700/.551 (vs Utica)
    30. (MA/CAC) Christopher Newport .636/.615 (n/a)
    31. (C/WIAC) UW-Oshkosh .556/.646 (at Augustana, at North Central)
    32. (C/CCIW) North Central .700/.519 (at Elmhurst)
    33. (E/LL) Union .800/.563 (n/a)
    34. (GL/NCAC) Allegheny .700/.594 (vs Carnegie Mellon)
    35. (GL/UAA) Carnegie Mellon .778/.576 (n/a)
    36. (GL/MIAA) Albion .750/.571 (n/a)
    37. (E/E8) Nazareth .750/.542 (n/a)
    38. (W/ARC) Loras .800/.508 (n/a)


    Assumed Pool A (all conferences not listed here)
    NESCAC - Colby
    NCAC - Wittenberg
    Centennial - Swarthmore
    MIAC - St. Thomas
    ODAD - Randolph-Macon
    OAC - Marietta
    ARC - Nebraska Wesleyan
    UAA - Emory
    WIAC - UW-Platteville
    CCIW - Elmhurst
    MWC - St. Norbert
    NACC - Benedictine
    NEWMAC - Babson
    Liberty - Hobart
    NJAC - Stockton
    ASC - Mary Hardin-Baylor
    MIAA - Hope
    NWC - Whitworth
    SCIAC - Pomona-Pitzer

    Good stuff, Titan. Suggest that u add a Pool A 4 whichever conferences u have a Pool C; e.g., CAC would be York(PA).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on December 25, 2019, 11:19:04 AM
    Quote from: ronk on December 25, 2019, 10:54:30 AM
    Good stuff, Titan. Suggest that u add a Pool A 4 whichever conferences u have a Pool C; e.g., CAC would be York(PA).
    Yes, good call.  Added CAC and SAA.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on December 25, 2019, 02:33:57 PM
    9 of 20 from the central? Obviously a long way to go...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on December 25, 2019, 02:59:26 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on December 25, 2019, 02:33:57 PM
    9 of 20 from the central? Obviously a long way to go...

    The "long way to go" part is the key.  That is where I see things at this very early point.  Conference play will change the picture pretty dramatically.

    Looks like Matt Snyder has 7 Central now - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    Massey would have 9 Central - https://www.masseyratings.com/cb2020/ncaa-d3/ratings.
    1 Elmhurst
    2 UW-La Crosse
    3 Wash U
    4 Johns Hopkins
    5 Middlebury
    6 UW-Oshkosh
    7 Augustana
    8 Tufts
    9 UW-Stevens Point
    10 St. John's
    11 Springfield
    12 Illinois Wesleyan
    13 Carthage
    14 Mount Union
    15 Virginia Wesleyan
    16 Hamilton
    17 Amherst
    18 North Central
    19 Guilford
    20 Rochester
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on December 26, 2019, 06:59:20 AM
    Unfortunately for the WIAC and CCIW, that's true because they'll beat each other up in conference play while other leagues are top heavy and the big dogs will just continue to win.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on December 26, 2019, 08:50:49 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on December 26, 2019, 06:59:20 AM
    Unfortunately for the WIAC and CCIW, that's true because they'll beat each other up in conference play while other leagues are top heavy and the big dogs will just continue to win.
    For sure.  Conferences that are deep and balanced will be the most impacted as we get full-time into league play.  While that depth is great for SOS, it obviously hurts WP...and generally when WP dips below .700 that is Pool C trouble.

    There are 6 CCIW teams in the Massey top 50, and 5 WIAC teams.  Even the regular season champions of these leagues are going to have a bunch of conference losses...not to mention finishers 2, 3, and 4.

    CCIW
    #8 Elmhurst
    #13 Wheaton
    #18 Augustana
    #26 Illinois Wesleyan
    #27 Carthage
    #32 North Central

    WIAC
    #5 UW-Platteville
    #10 UW-La Crosse
    #17 UW-Oshkosh
    #23 UW-Stevens Point
    #38 UW-Eau Claire
    (#52 UW-River Falls) - beat Nebraska Wesleyan

    Contrast that with, say, the NEWMAC, that has 3 in the Massey top 50 -- #9 Babson, #25 Springfield, #45 WPI.

    Or the OAC, with 2 - #2 Marietta, #28 Mount Union.

    NWC with 2 - #20 Whitworth, #43 Whitman.

    NCAC with 2 - #7 Wittenberg, #40 Wooster.

    Etc.


    Safe to say a lot of those CCIW/WIAC teams in my 12/25/19 Pool C projection will fall out by Selection Sunday because winning percentages will fall so dramatically.

    While the CCIW and WIAC are always deep, I don't think I can recall this much balance from 1 down to 5 or 6.  This is a pretty unique year for the two Central powers.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on December 26, 2019, 02:32:00 PM
    Question with regards to Pool C and amount of teams from one Region (Titan Q having 9 from the Central!).  Do you have to finish ranked in the final regional rankings to be eligible for a Pool C berth? If not, who decides which team is next to be brought to the table?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on December 26, 2019, 02:37:27 PM
    You do not have to be in the final regional rankings in order to get into the playoffs as an at-large bid. It has happened -- rarely, but it has happened, in both women's and men's basketball.

    In addition to the published regional rankings, the regional committee ranks additional teams, in case they are needed in the at-large process.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dunkin3117 on December 27, 2019, 09:14:17 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on December 25, 2019, 10:06:19 AM
    My 20 Pool Cs as of Christmas Day.

    Data courtesy of Matt Snyder - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    (WP/SOS/notable wins)

    1. (C/UAA) Wash U .900/.579 (vs Eau Claire, vs Augustana, at IWU)
    2. (MA/CC) Johns Hopkins .889/613 (vs Christopher Newport, at Muhlenberg)
    3. (NE/NEWMAC) Springfield .889/.644 (n/a)
    4. (C/WIAC) UW-Eau Claire .800/.599 (at Whitworth)
    5. (NE/NESCAC) Hamilton .900/.547 (vs Nichols)
    6. (GL/OAC) Mount Union .750/.601 (vs Carnegie Mellon, at Wooster)
    7. (GL/NCAC) Wooster .875/.591 (vs Wabash, vs Brockport)
    8. (S/ODAC) Virginia Wesleyan .875/.576 (at Guilford, vs Christopher Newport)
    9. (S/ODAC) Guilford .800/.617 (vs Mary Hardin-Baylor)
    10. (C/WIAC) UW-La Crosse 1.000/.523 (vs Augsburg)
    11. (NE/NESCAC) Middlebury 1.000/.526 (n/a)
    12. (C/CCIW) Illinois Wesleyan .700/.615 (vs Carthage, at Augustana)
    13. (C/CCIW) Augustana .700/.647 (vs Loras, at UW-Stevens Point)
    14. (C/WIAC) Stevens Point .778/.597 (at Christopher Newport, vs Hope)
    15. (C/CCIW) Carthage .900/.509 (vs UW-Oshkosh, vs North Central)
    16. (NE/NEWMAC) WPI .800/.573 (vs Tufts)
    17. (W/MIAC) Augsburg .778/.555 (vs UW-River Falls)
    18. (C/CCIW) Elmhurst .900/.467 (vs St. Norbert, at UW-Oshkosh)
    19. (C/WIAC) UW-River Falls .750/.590 (vs Nebraska Wesleyan)
    20. (S/SAA) Centre: .800/.579 (at Wabash)
    --------
    21. (W/ARC) Buena Vista .900/.526 (n/a)
    22. (E/UAA) Rochester .889/.572 (n/a)
    23. (S/ASC) LeTourneau .857/.563 (n/a)
    24. (W/MIAC) St. Johns .900/.474 (n/a)
    25. (W/MIAC) Bethel .667/.549 (at UW-Stevens Point)
    26. (NE/NESCAC) Tufts .778/.652 (n/a)
    27. (GL/NCAC) Allegheny .700/.594 (vs Carnegie Mellon)
    28. (AT/NJAC) Rutgers-Newark .700/.551 (vs Utica)
    29. (C/WIAC) UW-Oshkosh .556/.646 (at Augustana, at North Central)
    30. (C/CCIW) North Central .700/.519 (at Elmhurst)
    31. (E/LL) Union .800/.563 (n/a)
    32. (MA/CC) Muhlenberg .800/.523 (n/a)
    33. (MA/CAC) Christopher Newport .636/.615 (n/a)
    34. (GL/UAA) Carnegie Mellon .778/.576 (n/a)
    35. (GL/MIAA) Albion .750/.571 (n/a)
    36. (E/E8) Nazareth .750/.542 (n/a)
    37. (W/ARC) Loras .800/.508 (n/a)


    Assumed Pool A (not all conferences are listed here)
    SAA - Berry
    CAC - York (Pa)
    NESCAC - Colby
    NCAC - Wittenberg
    Centennial - Swarthmore
    MIAC - St. Thomas
    ODAD - Randolph-Macon
    OAC - Marietta
    ARC - Nebraska Wesleyan
    UAA - Emory
    WIAC - UW-Platteville
    CCIW - Wheaton
    MWC - St. Norbert
    NACC - Benedictine
    NEWMAC - Babson
    Liberty - Hobart
    NJAC - Stockton
    ASC - Mary Hardin-Baylor
    MIAA - Hope
    NWC - Whitworth
    SCIAC - Pomona-Pitzer
    E8 - Utica

    From being surprised voters had Wheaton in the top 25 to picking Wheaton for Pool A bid out of the CCIW.  Interesting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on December 27, 2019, 09:29:26 AM
    Quote from: dunkin3117 on December 27, 2019, 09:14:17 AM

    From being surprised voters had Wheaton in the top 25 to picking Wheaton for Pool A bid out of the CCIW.  Interesting.

    The irony is not lost on me.

    (I'm not necessarily picking that by the way.  But Wheaton sits alone atop the CCIW standings currently at 3-0.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on December 27, 2019, 11:59:29 AM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on December 26, 2019, 02:32:00 PM
    Question with regards to Pool C and amount of teams from one Region (Titan Q having 9 from the Central!).  Do you have to finish ranked in the final regional rankings to be eligible for a Pool C berth? If not, who decides which team is next to be brought to the table?

    Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 26, 2019, 02:37:27 PM
    You do not have to be in the final regional rankings in order to get into the playoffs as an at-large bid. It has happened -- rarely, but it has happened, in both women's and men's basketball.

    In addition to the published regional rankings, the regional committee ranks additional teams, in case they are needed in the at-large process.

    I would bet the Central Region has hit the not publicly ranked spot more than any other region in Pool C selection process, especially since the WIAC moved over.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on December 28, 2019, 09:37:10 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on December 25, 2019, 10:06:19 AM
    My 20 Pool Cs as of Christmas Day.

    Data courtesy of Matt Snyder - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    (WP/SOS/notable wins)

    1. (C/UAA) Wash U .900/.579 (vs Eau Claire, vs Augustana, at IWU)
    2. (MA/CC) Johns Hopkins .889/613 (vs Christopher Newport, at Muhlenberg)
    3. (NE/NEWMAC) Springfield .889/.644 (n/a)
    4. (C/WIAC) UW-Eau Claire .800/.599 (at Whitworth)
    5. (NE/NESCAC) Hamilton .900/.547 (vs Nichols)
    6. (GL/OAC) Mount Union .750/.601 (vs Carnegie Mellon, at Wooster)
    7. (GL/NCAC) Wooster .875/.591 (vs Wabash, vs Brockport)
    8. (S/ODAC) Virginia Wesleyan .875/.576 (at Guilford, vs Christopher Newport)
    9. (S/ODAC) Guilford .800/.617 (vs Mary Hardin-Baylor)
    10. (C/WIAC) UW-La Crosse 1.000/.523 (vs Augsburg)
    11. (NE/NESCAC) Middlebury 1.000/.526 (n/a)
    12. (C/CCIW) Illinois Wesleyan .700/.615 (vs Carthage, at Augustana)
    13. (C/CCIW) Augustana .700/.647 (vs Loras, at UW-Stevens Point)
    14. (C/WIAC) Stevens Point .778/.597 (at Christopher Newport, vs Hope)
    15. (C/CCIW) Carthage .900/.509 (vs UW-Oshkosh, vs North Central)
    16. (NE/NEWMAC) WPI .800/.573 (vs Tufts)
    17. (W/MIAC) Augsburg .778/.555 (vs UW-River Falls)
    18. (C/CCIW) Elmhurst .900/.467 (vs St. Norbert, at UW-Oshkosh)
    19. (C/WIAC) UW-River Falls .750/.590 (vs Nebraska Wesleyan)
    20. (S/SAA) Centre: .800/.579 (at Wabash)
    --------
    21. (W/ARC) Buena Vista .900/.526 (n/a)
    22. (E/UAA) Rochester .889/.572 (n/a)
    23. (S/ASC) LeTourneau .857/.563 (n/a)
    24. (W/MIAC) St. Johns .900/.474 (n/a)
    25. (W/MIAC) Bethel .667/.549 (at UW-Stevens Point)
    26. (NE/NESCAC) Tufts .778/.652 (n/a)
    27. (GL/NCAC) Allegheny .700/.594 (vs Carnegie Mellon)
    28. (AT/NJAC) Rutgers-Newark .700/.551 (vs Utica)
    29. (C/WIAC) UW-Oshkosh .556/.646 (at Augustana, at North Central)
    30. (C/CCIW) North Central .700/.519 (at Elmhurst)
    31. (E/LL) Union .800/.563 (n/a)
    32. (MA/CC) Muhlenberg .800/.523 (n/a)
    33. (MA/CAC) Christopher Newport .636/.615 (n/a)
    34. (GL/UAA) Carnegie Mellon .778/.576 (n/a)
    35. (GL/MIAA) Albion .750/.571 (n/a)
    36. (E/E8) Nazareth .750/.542 (n/a)
    37. (W/ARC) Loras .800/.508 (n/a)


    Assumed Pool A (not all conferences are listed here)
    SAA - Berry
    CAC - York (Pa)
    NESCAC - Colby
    NCAC - Wittenberg
    Centennial - Swarthmore
    MIAC - St. Thomas
    ODAD - Randolph-Macon
    OAC - Marietta
    ARC - Nebraska Wesleyan
    UAA - Emory
    WIAC - UW-Platteville
    CCIW - Wheaton
    MWC - St. Norbert
    NACC - Benedictine
    NEWMAC - Babson
    Liberty - Hobart
    NJAC - Stockton
    ASC - Mary Hardin-Baylor
    MIAA - Hope
    NWC - Whitworth
    SCIAC - Pomona-Pitzer
    E8 - Utica

    Here is an early look at teams that Pool C hopefuls desperately want to be in Pool A and not Pool C...

    * NEWMAC - Babson or Springfield (anyone else steals a bid)

    * MWC - St. Norbert

    * NACC - Benedictine

    * Centennial -- Swarthmore or Johns Hopkins (anyone else steals a bid)

    * UAA -- Emory or Wash U (anyone else steals a bid)

    * ODAC - Randolph-Macon, Guilford, Virginia Wesleyan (anyone else steals a bid)

    * NCAC - Wittenberg and Wooster (anyone else steals a bid)

    * OAC - Marietta and Mount Union (anyone else steals a bid)

    * MIAC - St. Thomas

    * NWC - Whitworth

    * SCIAC - Pomona-Pitzer

    * ARC -  Nebraska Wesleyan

    * Liberty - Hobart

    * WIAC - UW-Platteville or UW-Eau Claire or UW-La Crosse or UW-Stevens Point (still very messy but anyone else might steal a bid)

    * NESCAC - Colby or Hamilton or Middlebury (still very messy but anyone else might steal a bid)

    * CCIW - too messy at this point to put here.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 28, 2019, 02:10:41 PM
    Quote from: sac on December 27, 2019, 11:59:29 AM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on December 26, 2019, 02:32:00 PM
    Question with regards to Pool C and amount of teams from one Region (Titan Q having 9 from the Central!).  Do you have to finish ranked in the final regional rankings to be eligible for a Pool C berth? If not, who decides which team is next to be brought to the table?

    Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 26, 2019, 02:37:27 PM
    You do not have to be in the final regional rankings in order to get into the playoffs as an at-large bid. It has happened -- rarely, but it has happened, in both women's and men's basketball.

    In addition to the published regional rankings, the regional committee ranks additional teams, in case they are needed in the at-large process.

    I would bet the Central Region has hit the not publicly ranked spot more than any other region in Pool C selection process, especially since the WIAC moved over.

    WIAC women, I believe, were one that I remember well from the Central Region.

    I can't remember where it has happened on the men's side, but Central and Great Lakes is where my mind went. Mid-Atlantic has been pretty deep in some years.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 05, 2020, 02:04:50 PM
    My updated look at Pool C...

    All data courtesy of Matt Snyder - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    (WP/SOS/Notable Wins)

    Pool C Projection Through Saturday 1/4
    1. Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .818/.634 (vs Christopher Newport, vs York PA, vs Gettysburg, at Muhlenberg)
    2. Mount Union (GL/OAC): .727/.589 (vs Albion, vs Carnegie Mellon, at Wooster, at John Carroll, vs Union)
    3. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .818/.596 (at Allegheny, vs Brockport, vs Whitworth)
    4. Wash U (C/UAA): .818/.533 (vs UW-Eau Claire, vs Augustana, at IWU)
    5. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .833/.579 (vs St. Joseph, vs Brandeis)
    6. Virginia Wesleyan (S/ODAC): .818/.561 (at Guilford, vs Christopher Newport)
    7. Guilford (S/ODAC): .769/.604 (vs Mary Hardin-Baylor, vs Berry, vs Emory)
    8. Mary Hardin-Baylor (S/ASC): .833/.585 (vs Whitman, vs UW-Platteville)
    9. UW-La Crosse (C/WIAC): .909/.531 (vs Augsburg, vs Augustana)
    10. UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC): .833/.565 (at Whitworth)
    11. Rochester (E/UAA): .800/.623 (vs Utica)
    12. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .818/.521 (at Emerson, vs Springfield)
    13. WPI (NE/NEWMAC): .818/.510 (vs Brandeis, vs Tufts)
    14. Allegheny (GL/NACC): .727/.602 (at Carnegie Mellon, at Penn State-Behrend)
    15. Bethel (W/MIAC): .700/.561 (at UW-Stevens Point)
    16. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .818/.639 (n/a)
    17. Illinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW): .692/.548 (vs Carthage, at Augustana)
    18. Augustana (C/CCIW): .667/.646 (vs Loras, vs UW-Stevens Point, at Carthage)
    19. UW-Stevens Point (C/WIAC): .750/.616 (at Christopher Newport, vs Hope, vs East Texas Baptist)
    20. Elmhurst (C/CCIW): .917/.496 (vs St. Norbert)
    --------------
    21. York PA (MA/CAC): .692/.592 (at Gwynedd Mercy, at Scranton)
    22. Colby (NE/NESCAC): 1.000/0.473 (n/a)
    23. St. John's (W/MIAC): .909/.469 (vs Augsburg)
    24. Carnegie Mellon (GL/UAA): .778/.571 (vs Penn State-Behrend)
    25. Millsaps (S/SAA): .750/.541 (vs East Texas Baptist, vs Texas-Dallas)
    26. LeTourneau (S/ASC): .727/.563 (vs Whitman)
    27. Wheaton (C/CCIW): .692/.515 (at IWU)
    28. Hope (GL/MIAA): .667/.582 (vs Benedictine)
    29. Centre (S/SAA): .833/.524 (n/a)
    30. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .800/.540 (n/a)
    31. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .818/547 (n/a)
    32. Buena Vista (W/ARC): .909/.508 (n/a)
    33. Rutgers-Newark (AT/NJAC): .667/.561 (vs Utica)
    34. Pitt-Greensburg (GL/AMCC): .818/.503 (vs Penn State-Behrend)
    35. Cortland (E/SUNYAC): .778/.516 (at Gwynedd Mercy)
    36. Carthage (C/CCIW): .750/.512 (vs North Central)
    37. John Carroll (GL/OAC): .727/.523 (vs Whitworth)
    38. Hanover (GL/HCAC): .700/.520 (at Wheaton)
    39. Augsburg (W/MIAC): .700/.566 (n/a)
    40. Muhlenberg (MA/CC): .818/.514 (n/a)
    41. Scranton (MA/LAND): .818/.497 (vs Bates)
    42. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (W/SCIAC): .800/.519
    43. Emerson (NE/NEWMAC): .700/.565 (n/a)
    44. Bates (NE/NESCAC): .700/.553 (n/a)
    45. Loras (W/ARC): .769/507 (n/a)
    46. Oswego St (E/SUNYAC): .750/.513


    Notable Pool A Assumptions
    NESCAC = Middlebury
    NEWMAC = Babson
    GNAC = St. Joseph (Conn.)
    LEC = Rhode Island
    UAA = Emory
    LL = Hobart
    MACF = Stevens
    E8 = Utica
    SUNYAC = Brockport
    NJAC = Stockton
    SKY = Yeshiva
    Centennial = Swarthmore
    LAND = Drew
    CAC = Christopher Newport
    MACC = Widener
    ASC = Texas-Dallas
    ODAC = Randolph-Macon
    SAA = Berry
    NCAC = Wittenberg
    MIAA = Albion
    OAC = Marietta
    AMCC = La Roche
    HCAC = Franklin
    MWC = St. Norbert
    WIAC = UW-Platteville
    CCIW = North Central
    NACC = Benedictine
    SCIAC = Pomona-Pitzer
    ARC = Nebraska Wesleyan
    NWC = Whitworth
    MIAC = St. Thomas
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Colby Hoops on January 05, 2020, 02:45:27 PM
    Interesting to see Colby outside of your Pool C cutline . Makes some sense as they haven't beaten anyone of note. Wins against Ramapo and New Jersey City both looked better at the time. Best win is probably New England College. Consensus on the Nescac board seems to be that Colby has been more impressive than Amherst and Tufts to this point (Colby's margin of victory has been mostly quite large) -- but the SOS is certainly very weak.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 05, 2020, 03:59:10 PM
    Quote from: Colby Hoops on January 05, 2020, 02:45:27 PM
    Interesting to see Colby outside of your Pool C cutline . Makes some sense as they haven't beaten anyone of note. Wins against Ramapo and New Jersey City both looked better at the time. Best win is probably New England College. Consensus on the Nescac board seems to be that Colby has been more impressive than Amherst and Tufts to this point (Colby's margin of victory has been mostly quite large) -- but the SOS is certainly very weak.

    Yes, Colby was a tough one for me.  Elmhurst and St. John's too.

    I went back and looked at the resumes of all Pool C teams the last 3 years - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1969307#msg1969307.  The lowest SOS to get a Pool C in that span in .511:
    * 2017-18: LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2

    I believe they were the final team in that year.  To compensate for the low SOS (relative to other Pool C selections), LeTourneau had the great WP (.852) and also 2-2 vs RRO.

    At this point, Colby's SOS is just so low...and they do not seem to have enough impressive wins to offset it.

    So for now, I have them out...even though that seems weird to see an undefeated team on the outside looking in.  That is my take though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on January 05, 2020, 04:27:38 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on January 05, 2020, 02:04:50 PM
    My updated look at Pool C...

    All data courtesy of Matt Snyder - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    (WP/SOS/Notable Wins)

    Pool C Projection Through Saturday 1/4
    1. Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .818/.634 (vs Christopher Newport, vs York PA, vs Gettysburg, at Muhlenberg)
    2. Mount Union (GL/OAC): .727/.589 (vs Albion, vs Carnegie Mellon, at Wooster, at John Carroll, vs Union)
    3. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .818/.596 (at Allegheny, vs Brockport, vs Whitworth)
    4. Wash U (C/UAA): .818/.533 (vs UW-Eau Claire, vs Augustana, at IWU)
    5. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .833/.579 (vs St. Joseph, vs Brandeis)
    6. Virginia Wesleyan (S/ODAC): .818/.561 (at Guilford, vs Christopher Newport)
    7. Guilford (S/ODAC): .769/.604 (vs Mary Hardin-Baylor, vs Berry, vs Emory)
    8. Mary Hardin-Baylor (S/ASC): .833/.585 (vs Whitman, vs UW-Platteville)
    9. UW-La Crosse (C/WIAC): .909/.531 (vs Augsburg, vs Augustana)
    10. UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC): .833/.565 (at Whitworth)
    11. Rochester (E/UAA): .800/.623 (vs Utica)
    12. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .818/.521 (at Emerson, vs Springfield)
    13. WPI (NE/NEWMAC): .818/.510 (vs Brandeis, vs Tufts)
    14. Allegheny (GL/NACC): .727/.602 (at Carnegie Mellon, at Penn State-Behrend)
    15. Bethel (W/MIAC): .700/.561 (at UW-Stevens Point)
    16. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .818/.639 (n/a)
    17. Illinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW): .692/.548 (vs Carthage, at Augustana)
    18. Augustana (C/CCIW): .667/646 (vs Loras, vs UW-Stevens Point, at Carthage)
    19. UW-Stevens Point (C/WIAC): .750/.616 (at Christopher Newport, vs Hope, vs East Texas Baptist)
    20. Elmhurst (C/CCIW): .917/.496 (vs St. Norbert)
    --------------
    21. York PA (MA/CAC): .692/.592 (at Gwynedd Mercy, at Scranton)
    22. Colby (NE/NESCAC): 1.000/0.473 (n/a)
    23. St. John's (W/MIAC): .909/.469 (vs Augsburg)
    24. Carnegie Mellon (GL/UAA): .778/.571 (vs Penn State-Behrend)
    25. Millsaps (S/SAA): .750/.541 (vs East Texas Baptist, vs Texas-Dallas)
    26. LeTourneau (S/ASC): .727/.563 (vs Whitman)
    27. Wheaton (C/CCIW): .692/.515 (at IWU)
    28. Hope (GL/MIAA): .667/.582 (vs Benedictine)
    29. Centre (S/SAA): .833/.524 (n/a)
    30. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .800/.540 (n/a)
    31. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .818/547 (n/a)
    32. Buena Vista (W/ARC): .909/.508 (n/a)
    33. Rutgers-Newark (AT/NJAC): .667/.561 (vs Utica)
    34. Pitt-Greensburg (GL/AMCC): .818/.503 (vs Penn State-Behrend)
    35. Cortland (E/SUNYAC): .778/.516 (at Gwynedd Mercy)
    36. Carthage (C/CCIW): .750/.512 (vs North Central)
    37. John Carroll (GL/OAC): .727/.523 (vs Whitworth)
    38. Hanover (GL/HCAC): .700/.520 (at Wheaton)
    39. Augsburg (W/MIAC): .700/.566 (n/a)
    40. Muhlenberg (MA/CC): .818/.514 (n/a)
    41. Scranton (MA/LAND): .818/.497 (at Bates)               should be vs(neutral site in Fla)
    42. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (W/SCIAC): .800/.519
    43. Emerson (NE/NEWMAC): .700/.565 (n/a)
    44. Bates (NE/NESCAC): .700/.553 (n/a)
    45. Loras (W/ARC): .769/507 (n/a)
    46. Oswego St (E/SUNYAC): .750/.513


    Notable Pool A Assumptions
    NESCAC = Middlebury
    NEWMAC = Babson
    GNAC = St. Joseph (Conn.)
    LEC = Rhode Island
    UAA = Emory
    LL = Hobart
    MACF = Stevens
    E8 = Utica
    SUNYAC = Brockport
    NJAC = Stockton
    SKY = Yeshiva
    Centennial = Swarthmore
    LAND = Drew
    CAC = Christopher Newport
    MACC = Widener
    ASC = Texas-Dallas
    ODAC = Randolph-Macon
    SAA = Berry
    NCAC = Wittenberg
    MIAA = Albion
    OAC = Marietta
    AMCC = La Roche
    HCAC = Franklin
    MWC = St. Norbert
    WIAC = UW-Platteville
    CCIW = North Central
    NACC = Benedictine
    SCIAC = Pomona-Pitzer
    ARC = Nebraska Wesleyan
    NWC = Whitworth
    MIAC = St. Thomas
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 05, 2020, 04:32:50 PM
    Here is the average resume of the Pool C selections the last 3 seasons:

    * 2018-19 (20 Pool Cs): .781 WP/.558 SOS/5-4 vs RRO

    * 2017-18 (21 Pool Cs): .782 WP/.550 SOS/4-3 vs RRO

    * 2016-17 (21 Pool Cs): .755 WP/.552 SOS/3-4 vs RRO

    * Total Last 3 Years (62 Pool Cs): .776 WP/.554 SOS/4-3 vs RRO

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on January 05, 2020, 04:38:17 PM
     Matt Snyder still has Stevens in the East region instead of the Atlantic region after their move to the MAC Freedom.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 05, 2020, 05:46:09 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on January 05, 2020, 04:32:50 PM
    Here is the average resume of the Pool C selections the last 3 seasons:

    * 2018-19 (20 Pool Cs): .781 WP/.558 SOS/5-4 vs RRO

    * 2017-18 (21 Pool Cs): .782 WP/.550 SOS/4-3 vs RRO

    * 2016-17 (21 Pool Cs): .755 WP/.552 SOS/3-4 vs RRO

    * Total Last 3 Years (62 Pool Cs): .776 WP/.554 SOS/4-3 vs RRO

    While I cannot confirm the order of selection, if my suggested order is correct (I generally think it is very close), here is the average for the last 4 in for the last 3 seasons (4 per year x 3 years = 12 total selections):

    .713 WP/.556 SOS/4-3 vs RRO
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 05, 2020, 06:56:25 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=3nnn9/l4zgfkym49g7z7yz.jpg)

    The break for the holidays always has plenty of games to enjoy. It also has it's handful of results that make one scratch their head or an upset to enjoy. This holiday "season" saw plenty of all of that. Top 25 teams were not safe. Nearly all seemed to lose. There were results every day that made Division III coaches, fans, and many others take note.

    Sunday night Hoopsville returns to the air from the holidays with plenty to talk about, but not enough time. We chat with teams that impressed, got a big win, continue to stay unscathed, and may end up in the new Top 25 polls. We also try and read the Top 25 tea leaves to figure out how voters may fill out their ballots on Monday (hint: it might be anyone's guess).

    While we try and cover all Division III basketball news, now that we have entered January we split up the regions to cover as many teams as possible each week. Sundays the regions are Atlantic, Central, Northeast, and South.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Sunday's show LIVE in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/36stzBs (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/jan5)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville (only the first 45 minutes aired; may have had a copyright problem haha)
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel

    All men's basketball coaches are part of the NABC Coach's Corner. All guests appear on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or use any of the social media options.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Tom Palombo, No. 21 Guilford men's coach
    - Bobby Hurley, Stevens men's coach
    - Lynn Hersey, Smith women's coach
    - Bob Quillman & Ryan Scott, Top 25 Double-Take

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)

    (https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)

    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=127/mh=38/cr=n/d=155od/msg7impgs5p0hnmg.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 06, 2020, 01:04:41 PM
    Quote from: ronk on January 05, 2020, 04:38:17 PM
    Matt Snyder still has Stevens in the East region instead of the Atlantic region after their move to the MAC Freedom.

    I have corrected this. I was waiting for the Pre-Championship handbook to come out to confirm the changes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on January 06, 2020, 01:57:02 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 06, 2020, 01:04:41 PM
    Quote from: ronk on January 05, 2020, 04:38:17 PM
    Matt Snyder still has Stevens in the East region instead of the Atlantic region after their move to the MAC Freedom.

    I have corrected this. I was waiting for the Pre-Championship handbook to come out to confirm the changes.

    Thanks for all you do in this regard; it's extremely useful.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 06, 2020, 02:06:11 PM
    Quote from: ronk on January 06, 2020, 01:57:02 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 06, 2020, 01:04:41 PM
    Quote from: ronk on January 05, 2020, 04:38:17 PM
    Matt Snyder still has Stevens in the East region instead of the Atlantic region after their move to the MAC Freedom.

    I have corrected this. I was waiting for the Pre-Championship handbook to come out to confirm the changes.

    Thanks for all you do in this regard; it's extremely useful.

    Yes, Matt's data is the key to all of this Pool C projection work.  It's great stuff.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 13, 2020, 03:11:39 PM
    My updated look at Pool C. 

    I am using Matt Snyder's data, which is through Saturday 1/11 games -  https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    WP/SOS/Notable Wins

    Pool C Projection
    1. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .933/.579 (at Springfield)
    2. UW-La Crosse (C/WIAC): .923/.548 (vs Augsburg, vs Augustana, vs UW-Stevens Point)
    3. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .846/.598 (vs Brandeis, at Nichols, at Wesleyan)
    4. St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .846/.554 (at Whitman, vs Nebraska Wesleyan, at Augsburg)
    5. Babson (NE/NEWMAC): .846/.533 (at Bates, vs Amherst, vs Tufts, at WPI)
    6. Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .846/.581 (vs Christopher Newport, vs Muhlenberg)
    7. Virginia Wesleyan (S/ODAC): .846/.574 (at Guilford, vs Christopher Newport, vs Washington & Lee)
    8. Mount Union (GL/OAC): .769/.592 (vs Albion, at Wooster, at John Carroll)
    9. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .846/.571 (at Allegheny, vs Brockport, vs Whitworth)
    10. Buena Vista (W/ARC): .857/.545 (at Loras)
    11. Wash U (C/UAA): .833/.523 (vs UW-Eau Claire, vs Augustana, at IWU)
    12. WPI (NE/NEWMAC): .769/.544 (vs Brandeis, vs Tufts)
    13. Rochester (E/UAA): .750/.636 (vs Utica, vs Ithaca)
    14. Stevens (AT/MACF): .769/.565 (at Rutgers-Newark, vs Johns Hopkins)
    15. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .750/.584 (at Gwynedd Mercy, vs Amherst)
    16. Guilford (S/ODAC): .733/.572 (vs Mary Hardin-Baylor, vs Berry, at Emory)
    17. Benedictine (C/NACC): .769/.539 (vs St. Norbert, vs LeTourneau, at North Central)
    18. Texas-Dallas (S/ASC): .714/.591 (vs UW-Stevens Point, at Mary Hardin-Baylor, at LeTourneau)
    19. UW-Stevens Point (C/WIAC): .714/.609 (at Christopher Newport, vs East Texas Baptist)
    20. Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .727/.579 (vs Hobart, vs Cortland)
    --------------------------
    21. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .714/.558 (vs Springfield, vs Middlebury)
    22. Mary Hardin-Baylor (S/ASC): .714/.550 (vs Whitman, vs UW-Platteville)
    23. Elmhurst (C/CCIW): .929/.490 (vs St. Norbert, vs Augustana)
    24. UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC): .714/.572 (vs Whitworth)
    25. Albertus Magnus (NE/GNAC): .917/.479 (vs WPI)
    26. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .786/.553 (vs Nichols)
    27. Augsburg (W/MIAC): .769/.559 (at Bethel)
    28. Oswego State (E/SUNYAC): .818/.512 (at Ithaca)
    29. Cortland (E/SUNYAC): .818/.510  (at Gwynedd Mercy)
    30. John Carroll (GL/OAC): .769/.505 (vs Case Western Reserve, vs Whitworth)
    31. Hanover (GL/HCAC): .750/.515 (at Wheaton)
    32. LeTourneau (S/ASC): .692/.585 (at Millsaps, at Millsaps, vs Whitman)
    33. Millsaps (S/SAA): .714/.542 (vs East Texas Baptist, vs Texas-Dallas)
    34. Carthage (C/CCIW): .769/.518 (vs North Central)
    35. Brandeis (NE/UAA): .750/.530 (vs Bates)
    36. Ithaca (E/LL): .700/.539 (at Cortland)
    37. Allegheny (GL/NCAC): .692/.575 (at Penn St-Behrend)
    38. Bethel (W/MIAC): .692/.530 (at UW-Stevens Point)
    39. Muhlenberg (MA/CC): .769/.511 (n/a)


    Assumed Pool A (all conferences are not included here)
    NEWMAC = Springfield
    NESCAC = Colby
    CCC = Nichols
    GNAC = St. Joseph (Conn.)
    LEC = Rhode Island College
    UAA = Emory
    LL = Hobart
    E8 = Utica
    MACF = DeSales
    MACC = Widener
    SUNYAC = SUNY Oneonta
    NJAC = Rutgers-Newark
    SKY = Yeshiva
    CC = Swarthmore
    LAND = Drew
    CAC = Christopher Newport
    ODAC = Randolph-Macon
    SAA = Centre
    ASC = East Texas Baptist
    MIAA = Albion
    NCAC = Wittenberg
    OAC = Marietta
    HCAC = Hanover
    WIAC = UW-Platteville
    CCIW = North Central
    NACC = Wisconsin Lutheran
    MWC = St. Norbert
    ARC = Nebraska Wesleyan
    MIAC = St. John's
    NWC = Whitworth
    SCIAC = Pomona-Pitzer

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Colby Hoops on January 13, 2020, 03:19:07 PM
    Thanks for posting this Titan Q. If you assume Middlebury wins the Nescac where would you have Colby ranked in the Pool C projection now? Curious if anything has changed in your view since you last posted one of these.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: PauldingLightUP on January 13, 2020, 03:27:46 PM
    Thanks for posting Q. It should be noted that the UW-Eau Claire game against Whitworth was a neutral site game at WashU.  I see you have gone back and forth a few times between vs and at in the editions.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 13, 2020, 03:40:09 PM
    Quote from: Colby Hoops on January 13, 2020, 03:19:07 PM
    Thanks for posting this Titan Q. If you assume Middlebury wins the Nescac where would you have Colby ranked in the Pool C projection now? Curious if anything has changed in your view since you last posted one of these.

    0.478 SOS is not competitive -- especially when you combine that with no "notable wins" (my proxy for RRO at this stage).

    I'd have Colby somewhere below Elmhurst.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on January 13, 2020, 03:57:10 PM
    Colby's schedule is ridiculously back-loaded this year.  Six straight road games ahead, including at Williams, Midd and Tufts, followed by the Amherst/Hamilton home weekend.  There will be some notable wins and a quick rise in SOS if Colby plays well down the stretch (or a chance to fall rapidly if they don't).  Colby's schedule is hurt a bit by the worst Bowdoin team in recent memory (two games against a typically solid opponent who is struggling this year) and New Jersey City and Ramapo, which initially looked like very strong wins, playing (I think?) below expectations. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on January 13, 2020, 04:03:01 PM
    Wittenberg...#2 in the country...13-0 is currently running at a .458 SOS. That is obviously going to rise a bit as conference play gets going but how much danger are they in if they take a couple losses here and fail to win the AQ? Remember La Roche missed the tournament last year with this:

    24-3 (.889) 0-1 (RRO) .510 SOS

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 13, 2020, 04:06:28 PM
    Quote from: Fifth and Putnam on January 13, 2020, 04:03:01 PM
    Wittenberg...#2 in the country...13-0 is currently running at a .458 SOS. That is obviously going to rise a bit as conference play gets going but how much danger are they in if they take a couple losses here and fail to win the AQ? Remember La Roche missed the tournament last year with this:

    24-3 (.889) 0-1 (RRO) .510 SOS

    Great point about Witt's SOS.  I didn't even look since I just penciled them in as Pool A.

    Any sub-.500 SOS is trouble.

    That hypothetical final resume you have above for Witt -- very end of the bubble at best.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 13, 2020, 04:15:54 PM
    Witt will get 2 or 3 RRO's just playing Wooster, probably 1 more with Hanover.   One of OWU or Wabash could end up ranked as well.  So max 7 RRO's to as little as 3.

    Their head-to-head win over Hanover could loom large as far as placement within the GL Region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 13, 2020, 04:26:45 PM
    I'm projecting Wittenberg to end up with a .504 SOS, so there's a very real chance that ends up below .500.

    Currently projecting them to be heading into the conference tournament at .915/.504. As sac points out, RROs could be strong. If they make the NCAC finals, I do not see Pool C being a problem as the SOS will probably be a few points higher.

    ...but just win your conference AQ.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 13, 2020, 04:36:21 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 13, 2020, 04:26:45 PM
    I'm projecting Wittenberg to end up with a .504 SOS, so there's a very real chance that ends up below .500.

    Currently projecting them to be heading into the conference tournament at .915/.504. As sac points out, RROs could be strong. If they make the NCAC finals, I do not see Pool C being a problem as the SOS will probably be a few points higher.

    ...but just win your conference AQ.

    Witt is probably pretty safe...but a good catch here that they are not a lock at all due to that SOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 13, 2020, 04:36:55 PM
    The CCIW is in horrendous Pool C shape at this very moment.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 13, 2020, 04:40:55 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on January 13, 2020, 04:36:55 PM
    The CCIW is in horrendous Pool C shape at this very moment.

    Elmhurst looks good if they stay strong. North Central is bubble and will need strong vRRO. Everyone else either needs to go on a monster run or win the AQ.

    This underscores the fact that Pool C candidacy does not always match up well with team strength.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 13, 2020, 04:49:15 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 13, 2020, 04:26:45 PM
    I'm projecting Wittenberg to end up with a .504 SOS, so there's a very real chance that ends up below .500.

    Currently projecting them to be heading into the conference tournament at .915/.504. As sac points out, RROs could be strong. If they make the NCAC finals, I do not see Pool C being a problem as the SOS will probably be a few points higher.

    ...but just win your conference AQ.

    For those of us who've been around awhile, amazing to think 3 wins over Oberlin could help them.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiltedbryan on January 14, 2020, 04:34:46 PM
    Quote from: sac on January 13, 2020, 04:49:15 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 13, 2020, 04:26:45 PM
    I'm projecting Wittenberg to end up with a .504 SOS, so there's a very real chance that ends up below .500.

    Currently projecting them to be heading into the conference tournament at .915/.504. As sac points out, RROs could be strong. If they make the NCAC finals, I do not see Pool C being a problem as the SOS will probably be a few points higher.

    ...but just win your conference AQ.

    For those of us who've been around awhile, amazing to think 3 wins over Oberlin could help them.

    Kinda wild both that Wittenberg has played only three .500+ teams so far, and that two of them are Oberlin (8-5) and Allegheny (9-4), with Hanover (10-3) as the more expected third.

    In addition to playing some genuinely terrible teams, Witt's SOS must be feeling impact of a few traditionally OK-to-good squads on their schedule who have regressed this year, especially: Mt. St. Joseph (3-10 this year, 17+ wins the preceding 5 years); Eastern Mennonite (3-11 this year, usually .500ish or better the past decade); Ohio Northern (5-8 this year (1-5 OAC), also usually .500ish in past decade).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on January 14, 2020, 05:04:19 PM
    Quote from: kiltedbryan on January 14, 2020, 04:34:46 PM
    Quote from: sac on January 13, 2020, 04:49:15 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 13, 2020, 04:26:45 PM
    I'm projecting Wittenberg to end up with a .504 SOS, so there's a very real chance that ends up below .500.

    Currently projecting them to be heading into the conference tournament at .915/.504. As sac points out, RROs could be strong. If they make the NCAC finals, I do not see Pool C being a problem as the SOS will probably be a few points higher.

    ...but just win your conference AQ.


    For those of us who've been around awhile, amazing to think 3 wins over Oberlin could help them.

    Kinda wild both that Wittenberg has played only three .500+ teams so far, and that two of them are Oberlin (8-5) and Allegheny (9-4), with Hanover (10-3) as the more expected third.

    In addition to playing some genuinely terrible teams, Witt's SOS must be feeling impact of a few traditionally OK-to-good squads on their schedule who have regressed this year, especially: Mt. St. Joseph (3-10 this year, 17+ wins the preceding 5 years); Eastern Mennonite (3-11 this year, usually .500ish or better the past decade); Ohio Northern (5-8 this year (1-5 OAC), also usually .500ish in past decade).

    A lot of times, these games are scheduled more than a year in advance. At the time, those games probably looked more competitive than they unfortunately ended up being. Toss in a high end holiday tournament that falls through unexpectedly and you're scrambling just to get 25 games and you're not really worried about who it is at that point. Scheduling isn't easy (I've dabbled in it myself trying to fill 8 teams for the GLI each year) and coaches are filling schedules it seems earlier and earlier to get ahead. It's hard to know what teams are going to be good next week much less trying to guess two years out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 15, 2020, 01:34:40 PM
    I think a lot of people are assuming things don't change. Teams can get on runs in their own conferences and suddenly no longer be a sub-.500 team. Just as teams can fall apart and go from a decent record to a sub-.500 team.

    While I find this Pool C thing odd this time of the year (or really in December when it started), I find it odder that many seem to assume status quo moving forward in terms of team's WL% that impact the SOS numbers. There is a reason SOS numbers swing wildly until about mid-February (or beyond depending on the team and conference). So many things are changing on a daily basis.

    Let's wait it out a bit more before we assume team's opponents are finishing with the records they currently have.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on January 16, 2020, 08:39:06 AM
    You may be right Dave, but then again since we have never had these conversations this early before, it will be extremely interesting to compare the real results with how we are evaluating them throughout the season.  Maybe we find out it was a complete waste of time (aka like lots of what we do on these boards).  Maybe we will find some interesting trends or "predictors".  Either way, it's fun for now.

    After all, prognostication and speculation is what we do around here. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 16, 2020, 09:08:58 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 15, 2020, 01:34:40 PM
    I think a lot of people are assuming things don't change. Teams can get on runs in their own conferences and suddenly no longer be a sub-.500 team. Just as teams can fall apart and go from a decent record to a sub-.500 team.

    While I find this Pool C thing odd this time of the year (or really in December when it started), I find it odder that many seem to assume status quo moving forward in terms of team's WL% that impact the SOS numbers. There is a reason SOS numbers swing wildly until about mid-February (or beyond depending on the team and conference). So many things are changing on a daily basis.

    Let's wait it out a bit more before we assume team's opponents are finishing with the records they currently have.

    I don't think anyone is assuming "things don't change", Dave.  Maybe I am missing something above, but seems to me everyone here understands my projection is simply based on numbers through last Saturday...and as numbers change, the projection changes.

    It seems pretty valuable to have a high level, general sense of where Pool C stands as the season plays out.  It makes it more clear what some of the big conference races and games are.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 16, 2020, 12:47:33 PM
    I've read comments here and on Twitter where there are projections on how numbers will finish and such.

    I just think there are far too many things that can change, and significantly, at the midway point of the season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 16, 2020, 01:54:37 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 16, 2020, 12:47:33 PM
    I've read comments here and on Twitter where there are projections on how numbers will finish and such.

    I just think there are far too many things that can change, and significantly, at the midway point of the season.

    I think the discussion you are referring to is about SOS -- I think it was all about Wittenberg's SOS? 

    Everyone who participated in that discussion knows the Pool C process really well -- especially the part about numbers changing from mid-January to late-February. If that is what your concerned about - making sure people know that - I think we are good. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 16, 2020, 04:20:50 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=47wjf/1eg6msuhd922gxsd.jpg)

    There are six weeks left in the regular season, but the grind of conference schedules can make it feel like the end is a long ways off.

    As teams try and focus on each game in front of them, the ramifications of each outcome grow larger and larger. Conference tournament seeding (or even participating), at-large hopes, and to a larger degree opportunities to be home in March with the hopes of a national championship as the goal.

    Thursday on Hoopsville, we chat with a few programs that are on top of their conference races (or were), but the standing could change in just one game. We chat about how teams deal with being everyone's target or how to survive the grind.

    Plus, relationships with a program's alumni can go a long way to how successful the program becomes and even the institution on a larger scale. In this week's WBCA Center Court, MIT coach Sonia Raman discusses what prompted her to get alums more involved and how it has resulted in a significant increase in contributions as well.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Thursday's show LIVE starting at 7:00 pm ET in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/2TrjT6B (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/jan16)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel

    Thursday's show primarily covers the East, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and West Regions while also featuring a women's coach in the WBCA Center Court segment. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or use any of the social media options.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Sonia Raman, MIT women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Dale Wellman, No. 11 Nebraska Wesleyan men's coach (NABC Coach's Corner)
    - Darryl Keckler, Drew men's coach (NABC Coach's Corner)
    - Juli Fulks, No. 9 Transylvania women's coach

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiltedbryan on January 17, 2020, 12:43:32 AM
    Of course things will change going forward...that's the whole fun of this!  :)

    I do think it's sensible to think about the Pool C SOS challenge Wittenberg could face, though. And it doesn't have to rely on the future, we can just look at the hole that's already been dug. What's happened has happened, and losses already incurred are staying on the books.

    For example, let's compare Great Lakes and NCAC rivals Wooster and Wittenberg. In the regular season, they'll each have the same 18 NCAC games, so the SOS impact there is a draw (NCAC tourney will have an impact, but set that aside for now). The SOS differential will primarily come through their seven non-conference opponents. Those seven opponents' collective records to-date:

    Wooster: 54-42 (.563)
    Wittenberg: 36-63 (.364)

    Ouch, Witt, ouch.

    That 21-game loss column differential is the comparative "hole" Witt has going forward. In standings terms, Witt's opponents' record is 19.5 "games back" of Wooster's right now. Obviously "games back" is irrelevant to the Pool C selection criteria, but it maybe gives a better sense of the type of deficit Witt's SOS is facing compared to other teams with good SOS numbers. And for a sense of how challenging it would be for Witt's SOS to "catch up" to Wooster (or other strong national Pool C contenders...), consider if Wooster's non-conference opponents hold serve at .500 the rest of the way. To "catch" Wooster's opponents, Witt's would have to 40 games over .500 over approximately 75 games (7 teams * 10/11 games each). That's a future record such as 58-17 (.773), which is unlikely enough as it is, and doubly so when these teams have gone .364 across their first 100 games played.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on January 17, 2020, 02:04:22 AM
    Perhaps I'm a minority in this, but given how much will evolve in the weeks ahead -- including regular season conference winners that lose in their conference tournament and find themselves staring at a Pool C path rather than a Pool A path -- it might make sense to include WP/SOS/Notable Wins for the teams currently in Pool A positions, and not just teams currently in Pool C positions.  The thinking being that if Team X falls out, you have a sense of whether they would be safe, bubbly, or in the deepest of trouble.

    Of course, I'm not the one putting in the time on this, so I have no idea how much extra work I'm asking for.  So my apologies in advance if this is a 'quit your day job and cater to my needs' sort of request...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 18, 2020, 09:05:28 AM
    Some top games today in terms of Pool C:

    * Sul Ross State at East TX Baptist, 1:30pm
    * Amherst at Tufts, 3pm
    * Wittenberg at Wooster, 4
    * Cortland at Oswego St, 4
    * Guilford at RMC, 4:30
    * Platteville at La Crosse, 6
    * Elmhurst at Wheaton, 8
    * Eau Claire at Stevens Point, 8
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiltedbryan on January 18, 2020, 06:03:28 PM
    Wittenberg 86
    Wooster 98

    Wooster turned in a masterpiece and blitzed Wittenberg right out of the gym in a game that surprisingly wasn't even as close as the final score indicated. The Scots went into the half up 52-33 then maintained a 20+ advantage until the final two minutes. A bit of sloppiness at the end narrowed the margin, but outcome was never in doubt.

    Excellent win to burnish the future Pool C resume for the Scots.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on January 18, 2020, 11:33:39 PM
    After Point beat Platteville on the road, they fall to Eau Claire at home. Big dent on their Pool C hopes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 19, 2020, 02:38:14 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=4dbb8/j2b42qfyvio73k22.jpg)

    With conference action always comes surprises. There are teams who upset those at the top of the conference and make the races a bit more interesting. That is especially true for programs who look to distance themselves from the rest of the conference, but a surprising loss keeps those plans at bay.

    Sunday night on Hoopsville, we continue to dive into conferences races across the country and look at how the last week's results have either helped clear up races or made them more messy. Plus we talk to several conference leaders to find out how they are faring.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Sunday's show LIVE starting at 7:00 pm ET in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/37lbXrm (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/jan19)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel

    Sunday's show primarily covers the Atlantic, Central, South, and Northeast Regions. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Jenna Cosgrove, Rhode Island College women's coach
    - John Baines, No. 10 Elmhurst men's coach (NABC Coach's Corner)
    - Greg Mason, Centre men's coach (NABC Coach's Corner)
    - Bob Quillman & Ryan Scott, Top 25 Double-Take

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 19, 2020, 04:20:24 PM
    My latest Pool C projection.  First starting with mock regional rankings (games through Sunday 1/19).

    All data is courtest of Matt Snyder -- http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    Winning Percentage/Strength of Schedule/Results vs Regionally Ranked

    A = Assumed conference champion
    C = Assumed Pool C candidate



    Atlantic
    C - Stevens (AT/MACF)  .800/.543/3-2
    A - Stockton (AT/NJAC)  .688/.525/2-1
    A - Yeshiva (AT/SKY)  .923/.480/0-0
    C - Rutgers-Newark (AT/NJAC)  .625/.544/2-4
    A - DeSales (AT/MACF)  .733/.510/0-1
    B - Gwynedd Mercy (AT/AEC)  .750/.465/0-1
    C – SUNY-Purchase (AT/SKY)  .643/.501/2-0
    C - TCNJ (AT/NJAC)  .533/.585/1-5

    Central
    A - UW-Platteville (C/WIAC)  .857/.602/4-1
    C - UW-La Crosse (C/WIAC)  .867/.542/2-1
    A - Benedictine (C/NACC)  .800/.523/3-0
    A - Wash U (C/UAA)  .846/.533/1-1
    A - North Central (C/CCIW)  .813/.513/1-1
    C - Elmhurst  (C/CCIW)  .938/.516/1-1
    A - St. Norbert (C/MWC)  .867/.554/1-2
    C - UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC)  .688/.583/1-3
    ---
    C - UW-Stevens Point (C/WIAC)  .688/.624/2-4
    C - Illinois Wesleyan  (C/CCIW)  .688/.541/0-2
    C - Augustana (C/CCIW)  .688/.576/0-3
    C – UW-Oshkosh (C/WIAC)  .625/.620/3-4

    East
    A - RPI (E/LL)  .846/.505/2-1
    A - Brockport (E/SUNYAC)  .786/.570/3-1
    C - Hobart (E/LL)  .800/.552/2-2
    C - Rochester (E/UAA)  .714/.612/1-4
    C - Union (E/LL)  .692/.574/1-3
    C - Utica (E/E8)  .733/.543/0-2
    C - Oswego State (E/SUNYAC)  .846/.508/0-1
    C - SUNY Oneonta (E/SUNYAC)  .692/.505/0-1

    Great Lakes
    C - Mount Union (GL/OAC)  .800/.570/4-0
    A - Wooster (GL/NCAC)  .867/.589/4-2
    A - Marietta (GL/OAC)  .933/.507/3-0
    A - Albion (GL/MIAA)  .867/.563/1-2
    C - Wittenberg (GL/NCAC)  .933/.486/1-1
    C – Allegheny (GL/NCAC)  .667/.537/1-2
    C – Ohio Wesleyan (GL/NCAC)  .667/.564/1-3
    C - John Carroll (GL/OAC)  .733/.506/1-2

    Middle Atlantic
    A - Swarthmore (MA/CC)  1.000/.584/6-0
    C - John Hopkins (MA/CC)  .867/.568/4-2
    A - Christopher Newport (MA/CAC)  .778/.573/2-3
    C - Drew (MA/LAND)  .800/.534/2-1
    C - York Pa. (MA/CAC)  .706/.554/3-4
    A - Widener (MA/MACC)  .929/.505/0-1
    C - Muhlenberg (A/CC)  .733/.512/0-2
    A - Scranton (MA/LAND)  .800/.486/0-1

    Northeast
    C - Tufts (NE/NESCAC)  .813/.606/4-2
    A - Colby (NE/NESCAC) 1.000/.522/1-0
    C - Middlebury (NE/NESCAC)  .889/.580/3-2
    A - Springfield (NE/NEWMAC)  .800/.616/1-3
    C – Brandeis (NE/UAA)  .786/.547/3-2
    C - Babson (NE/NEWMAC)  .800/.524/3-1
    C - Amherst (NE/NESCAC)  .688/.570/3-2
    C - Albertus Magnus (NE/GNAC)  .857/.509/2-1
    C - WPI (NE/NEWMAC)  .800/.527/2-2
    C – Emerson (NE/NEWMAC) .714/.576/1-3
    A - St. Joseph CT (NE/GNAC)  .846/.506/0-1
    -----
    C - Hamilton (NE/NESCAC)  .688/.570/2-3
    A - Western New England (NE/CCC) .688/.580/0-1

    South 
    C - Virginia Wesleyan (S/ODAC)  .867/.561/2-0
    C - Emory (S/UAA)  .857/.564/2-2
    A - Randolph Macon (S/ODAC)  .938/.507/2-0
    C - Texas-Dallas (S/ASC)  .750/.587/2-1
    C - Guilford  (S/ODAC)  .706/.566/2-3
    C - Mary Hardin-Baylor (S/ASC)  .750/.545/1-2
    A - Centre (S/SAA)  .875/.539, 0-0
    C – LeTourneau (S/ASC)  .733/.526/0-3

    West
    A - Nebraska Wesleyan (W/ARC)  .882/.556/2-1
    A - St. John's (W/MIAC)  .933/.515/3-1
    A - Whitworth (W/NWC)  .800/.544/1-3
    C - St. Thomas (W/MIAC)  .867/.551/2-2
    C - Buena Vista  (W/ARC)  .867/.545/0-1
    C - Augsburg  (W/MIAC)  .769/.542/1-3
    C – Bethel (W/MIAC)  .667/.539/0-4
    A - Pomona-Pitzer (W/SCIAC)  .900/.458/0-0
    ----
    C - Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (W/SCIAC)  .786/.503/0-1
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 19, 2020, 04:24:20 PM
    And then the Pool C process...

    The group at the table when the Pool C process starts
    AT - Stevens (AT/MACF)  .800/.543/3-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (C/WIAC)  .867/.542/2-1
    E - Hobart (E/LL)  .800/.552/2-2
    GL - Mount Union (GL/OAC)  .800/.570/4-0
    MA - John Hopkins (MA/CC)  .867/.568/4-2
    NE - Tufts (NE/NESCAC)  .813/.606/4-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (S/ODAC)  .867/.561/2-0
    W - St. Thomas (W/MIAC)  .867/.551/2-2

    The 20 selections
    1. John Hopkins (MA/CC)  .867/.568/4-2
    2. Tufts (NE/NESCAC)  .813/.606/4-2
    3. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC)  .889/.580/3-2
    4. Mount Union (GL/OAC)  .800/.570/4-0
    5. Virginia Wesleyan (S/ODAC)  .867/.561/2-0
    6. St. Thomas (W/MIAC)  .867/.551/2-2
    7. UW-La Crosse (C/WIAC)  .867/.542/2-1
    8. Brandeis (NE/UAA)  .786/.547/3-2
    9. Emory (S/UAA)  .857/.564/2-2
    10. Stevens (AT/MACF)  .800/.543/3-2
    11. Drew (MA/LAND)  .800/.534/2-1
    12. Hobart (E/LL)  .800/.552/2-2
    13. Babson (NE/NEWMAC)  .800/.524/3-1
    14. Elmhurst  (C/CCIW)  .938/.516/1-1
    15. Texas-Dallas (S/ASC)  .750/.587/2-1
    16. York Pa. (MA/CAC)  .706/.554/3-4
    17. Buena Vista  (W/ARC)  .867/.545/0-1
    18. Wittenberg (GL/NCAC)  .933/.486/1-1
    19. Rochester (E/UAA)  .714/.612/1-4
    20. Amherst (NE/NESCAC)  .688/.570/3-2

    The final group at the table (round 20)
    AT - Rutgers-Newark (AT/NJAC)  .625/.544/2-4
    C - UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC)  .688/.583/1-3
    E - Union (E/LL)  .692/.574/1-3
    GL - Allegheny (GL/NCAC)  .667/.537/1-2
    MA - Muhlenberg (A/CC)  .733/.512/0-2
    NE - Amherst (NE/NESCAC)  .688/.570/3-2
    S - Guilford  (S/ODAC)  .706/.566/2-3
    W - Augsburg  (W/MIAC)  .769/.542/1-3

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 19, 2020, 04:30:17 PM
    Remember, teams sitting at spots 16 through 20 are probably out -- every year there are about 5 major upsets where presumed Pool A teams steal Pool C bids.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 19, 2020, 05:06:14 PM
    The top current Presumed Pool A teams that would be in position to steal Pool C bids...

    1. Swarthmore (MA/CC)  1.000/.584/6-0 (*Johns Hopkins)
    2. UW-Platteville (C/WIAC)  .857/.602/4-1 (*UW-La Crosse)
    3. Wooster (GL/NCAC)  .867/.589/4-2 (*Wittenberg)
    4. Nebraska Wesleyan (W/ARC)  .882/.556/2-1 (*Buena Vista)
    5. St. John's (W/MIAC)  .933/.515/3-1 (*St. Thomas)
    6. Marietta (GL/OAC)  .933/.507/3-0 (*Mount Union)
    7. Randolph Macon (S/ODAC)  .938/.507/2-0 (*Virginia Wesleyan)
    8. Colby (NE/NESCAC) 1.000/.522/1-0 (*Tufts or Middlebury)
    9. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC)  .800/.616/1-3 (*Babson)
    10. Albion (GL/MIAA)  .867/.563/1-2   
    11. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC)  .778/.573/2-3
    12. Whitworth (W/NWC)  .800/.544/2-3
    13. Benedictine (C/NACC)  .800/.523/3-0
    14. North Central (C/CCIW)  .813/.513/1-1 (*Elmhurst)   
    15. St. Norbert (C/MWC)  .867/.554/1-2
    16. Wash U (C/UAA)  .846/.533/1-1 (*Emory or Brandeis)
    17. RPI (E/LL)  .846/.505/2-1 (*Hobart)

    *Potentially not a huge deal if a swap out with a current Pool C projected team.

    I have bolded that ones that seem to be the most likely to cause Pool C drama.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 23, 2020, 06:38:31 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=4l16h/d2ivtmmib15traho.jpg)

    The Division III basketball season has reached the point where many conferences are making the turn into the second half of their double-round robins. The landscape of those conferences has gotten a little more in focus ... and there are some surprises.

    Thursday on Hoopsville, we chat with a few coaches whose teams are on top of their conference races either surprising many with that simple fact or getting there with surprising outcomes.

    Plus, we talk to a coach (whose team happens to be leading their conference as well) who become a head coach in a rather surprising manner. How she adapted and now finds herself in Division III and how the coaching community also came to her aid.

    There is also breaking news out of the NCAA Convention regarding regional realignment and expansion. And much more to get everyone up to speed.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Sunday's show LIVE starting at 7:00 pm ET in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/2RjGcJP (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/jan23)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel

    Thursday's show primarily covers the East, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and West Regions while also featuring a women's coach in the WBCA Center Court segment. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Mike Fuline, Mount Union men's coach (NABC Coach's Corner)
    - Jacey Brooks, Cortland women's coach
    - Kristina Danella, Keyston women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Alecia Parker, Pacific women's coach

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on January 29, 2020, 12:28:07 PM
    Courtesy of Drew Pasteur and his @d3bubble twitter account, here is the data broken into conferences. 

    Looks like NESCAC, WIAC, and UAA could really gobble up a good amount of the Pool C's this year if things stay the course. There will be some interesting decisions made with high win/loss % and low SOS numbers this year. Witt/Yeshiva/St John's/both GNAC teams (St Joes CN/Magnus) all could present interesting problems for the committee!

    NESCAC: (5 Contenders / 3 IN): Middlebury (VERY SAFE) / Colby (VERY SAFE) / Tufts (SAFE) / Amherst (BUBBLE OUT) / Wesleyan (MARG)
    WIAC: (5 Contenders / 3 IN): Platteville (VERY SAFE) / La Crosse (BUBBLE IN) / Oshkosh (BUBBLE IN) / Stevens Point (BUBBLE OUT) / Eau Claire (MARG)
    UAA: (4 Contenders / 3 IN): Emory (VERY SAFE) / Wash U (BUBBLE IN) / Rochester (BUBBLE IN / Brandeis (FARTHER OUT)
    NEWMAC: (4 Contenders / 2 IN): Springfield (VERY SAFE) / WPI (SAFE) / Babson (BUBBLE OUT) / Emerson (MARG)
    ODAC: (4 Contenders / 2 IN): Macon (VERY SAFE) / VA Wesleyan (BUBBLE IN) / Guilford (FARTHER OUT) / Lynchburg (MARG)
    CENT: (2 Contenders / 2 IN): Swat (VERY SAFE) / Hopkins (VERY SAFE)
    OAC: (2 Contenders / 2 IN): Mt Union (VERY SAFE) / Marietta (SAFE)
    ARC: (2 Contenders / 2 IN): Neb Wesleyan (VERY SAFE) / Buena Vista (BUBBLE IN)
    CCIW: (3 Contenders / 1 IN): Elmhurst (SAFE) / Augustana (BUBBLE OUT) / N Central (FARTHER OUT)
    NCAC: (3 Contenders / 1 IN): Wooster (SAFE) / Witt (BUBBLE OUT/Low SOS) / Ohio Wes (MARG)
    LL: (3 Contenders / 1 IN): Hobart (BUBBLE IN) / RPI (BUBBLE OUT) / Union (MARG)
    SUNYAC: (3 Contenders / 1 IN): Brockport (BUBBLE IN) / Oneonta (MARG) / Oswego (MARG)
    MIAC: (2 Contenders / 1 IN): St Thomas (VERY SAFE) / St John's (BUBBLE OUT/Low SOS)
    CAC: (2 Contenders / 1 IN): CNU (SAFE) / York (FARTHER OUT)
    MWC: (1 Contender / 1 IN): St Norbert (VERY SAFE)
    MIAA: (1 Contender / 1 IN): Albion (SAFE)
    SAA: (1 Contender / 1 IN): Centre (SAFE)
    MAC COM: (1 Contender / 1 IN): Widener (BUBBLE IN)
    MAC FRE: (1 Contender / 1 IN): Stevens (BUBBLE IN)
    NACC: (1 Contender / 1 IN): Benedictine (BUBBLE IN)
    ASC: (3 Contenders / 0 IN): Letourneau (BUBBLE OUT) / Texas Dallas (FARTHER OUT) / E Tex Baptist (FARTHER OUT)
    GNAC: (2 Contenders / 0 IN): St Joes CN (FARTHER OUT/Low SOS) / Magnus (MARG/Low SOS)
    LAND: (1 Contender / 0 IN): Drew (BUBBLE OUT)
    NWC: (1 Contender / 0 IN): Whitworth (BUBBLE OUT)
    CCC: (1 Contender / 0 IN): Endicott (FARTHER OUT)
    E8: (1 Contender / 0 IN): Utica (MARG)
    NJAC: (1 Contender / 0 IN): TCNJ (MARG)
    HCAC: (1 Contender / 0 IN): Hanover (MARG)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2020, 12:55:20 PM
    We are just turning into the second half of conference seasons. The SOS numbers are going to change wildly. So will WL numbers.

    I know everyone is fascinated, but we won't get a good sense of where teams sit for two more weeks at the very least ... and even when the Regional Rankings first come out, we see dramatic changes by the end of most seasons.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on January 29, 2020, 12:58:48 PM
    ...or we could just let people discuss Pool C
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2020, 01:05:35 PM
    I'm in the camp that says it's OK to let people talk.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 29, 2020, 01:06:43 PM

    Some of these Pool C projections actually project end of year SOS as well, as part of the algorithm.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on January 29, 2020, 01:06:58 PM
    "Let them all talk" - Elvis Costello.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2020, 01:07:58 PM
    "I talk talk, I talk to you in the night, in your dream, of love so true." - Real McCoy
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on January 29, 2020, 01:17:46 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2020, 12:55:20 PM
    We are just turning into the second half of conference seasons. The SOS numbers are going to change wildly. So will WL numbers.

    I know everyone is fascinated, but we won't get a good sense of where teams sit for two more weeks at the very least ... and even when the Regional Rankings first come out, we see dramatic changes by the end of most seasons.

    Yeah, I mean half of the things that are said here need a disclaimer.

    I think you should do everything you can to encourage more content.

    I do not have data, but it seems to me that there has been a continued slide in posting for the past few years.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2020, 01:21:40 PM
    The nature of community on the Internet definitely shifted toward social media and away from standalone forums such as this one several years back. But we continue. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on January 29, 2020, 01:22:46 PM
    "Everybody's talkin' at me.
    I don't hear a word they're sayin',
    Only the echoes of my mind."

    -- Harry Nilsson
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on January 29, 2020, 01:36:24 PM
    Just wondering why Potsdam is left out of the SUNYAC projections? 

    They have wins over Brockport by 16, and Oswego by 10, and lost by 2 on a shot with :04 left at Oneonta.
    They have added a major new piece in soph Isaiah Brown, who is averaging 24.6 points and 9.6 rebounds since joining the team. 
    The Oneonta loss was first semester, Brown hadn't joined the team and second leading scorer Jayquan Thomas 17.5 ppg did not play in that game.

    I guess the computer isn't able to handle nuances like this?

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on January 29, 2020, 01:38:07 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2020, 01:21:40 PM
    The nature of community on the Internet definitely shifted toward social media and away from standalone forums such as this one several years back. But we continue.

    There is some truth to this, but if you look at Twitter engagement, as an example, I can go through most posts of the 5-10 most prolific handles and see next to no conversation on most Tweets.  There are always a lot of likes and such, but if Twitter is moving people away from d3boards.com, then people are talking far less than they used to.  Maybe they all moved to TikTok?

    I think people want more d3boards.com content because why else would so many people be reading the UAA thread when for most of the year, it is just me rambling on about God knows what...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 29, 2020, 01:39:31 PM
    Quote from: thebear on January 29, 2020, 01:36:24 PM
    Just wondering why Potsdam is left out of the SUNYAC projections? 

    They have wins over Brockport by 16, and Oswego by 10, and lost by 2 on a shot with :04 left at Oneonta.
    They have added a major new piece in soph Isaiah Brown, who is averaging 24.6 points and 9.6 rebounds since joining the team. 
    The Oneonta loss was first semester, Brown hadn't joined the team and second leading scorer Jayquan Thomas 17.5 ppg did not play in that game.

    I guess the computer isn't able to handle nuances like this?

    Their SOS is incredibly low.  Even with the conference schedule it's unlikely to get much higher than .500 - to be in the Pool C conversation would require at least one more loss, which would make their candidacy pretty dicey.  Maybe it's an oversight, but more likely they have to win the SUNYAC tournament to have any real chance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on January 29, 2020, 02:03:39 PM
    Quote from: thebear on January 29, 2020, 01:36:24 PM
    Just wondering why Potsdam is left out of the SUNYAC projections? 

    They have wins over Brockport by 16, and Oswego by 10, and lost by 2 on a shot with :04 left at Oneonta.
    They have added a major new piece in soph Isaiah Brown, who is averaging 24.6 points and 9.6 rebounds since joining the team. 
    The Oneonta loss was first semester, Brown hadn't joined the team and second leading scorer Jayquan Thomas 17.5 ppg did not play in that game.

    I guess the computer isn't able to handle nuances like this?



    I am assuming Pat, Ryan or Dave can answer this but does the committee take into account players added or subtracted due to injuries/transfers when making their Pool C decisions? I know that can have an impact in the Division 1 process.

    Potsdam, Yeshiva, Magnus, UW-River Falls, Whitman, Illinois Wesleyan and Carnegie Melon were all teams that Drew did not have in his 60 teams that I felt could become contenders if they win all of their games and lose in their respective conference championship games (except Carnegie Melon who of course does not have a conference championship game).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 29, 2020, 02:07:55 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on January 29, 2020, 02:03:39 PM
    Quote from: thebear on January 29, 2020, 01:36:24 PM
    Just wondering why Potsdam is left out of the SUNYAC projections? 

    They have wins over Brockport by 16, and Oswego by 10, and lost by 2 on a shot with :04 left at Oneonta.
    They have added a major new piece in soph Isaiah Brown, who is averaging 24.6 points and 9.6 rebounds since joining the team. 
    The Oneonta loss was first semester, Brown hadn't joined the team and second leading scorer Jayquan Thomas 17.5 ppg did not play in that game.

    I guess the computer isn't able to handle nuances like this?



    I am assuming Pat, Ryan or Dave can answer this but does the committee take into account players added or subtracted due to injuries/transfers when making their Pool C decisions? I know that can have an impact in the Division 1 process.

    Potsdam, Yeshiva, Magnus, UW-River Falls, Whitman, Illinois Wesleyan and Carnegie Melon were all teams that Drew did not have in his 60 teams that I felt could become contenders if they win all of their games and lose in their respective conference championship games (except Carnegie Melon who of course does not have a conference championship game).

    They don't take players into account at all.  There are five primary criteria, all numbers - mostly it's winning percentage, SOS, and record vs regionally ranked opponents.  Potsdam will have Brown for the majority of their schedule, which is good for them, but the weak non-conference will hurt the SOS, and that's far more important.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2020, 02:11:01 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 29, 2020, 01:39:31 PM
    Quote from: thebear on January 29, 2020, 01:36:24 PM
    Just wondering why Potsdam is left out of the SUNYAC projections? 

    They have wins over Brockport by 16, and Oswego by 10, and lost by 2 on a shot with :04 left at Oneonta.
    They have added a major new piece in soph Isaiah Brown, who is averaging 24.6 points and 9.6 rebounds since joining the team. 
    The Oneonta loss was first semester, Brown hadn't joined the team and second leading scorer Jayquan Thomas 17.5 ppg did not play in that game.

    I guess the computer isn't able to handle nuances like this?

    Their SOS is incredibly low.  Even with the conference schedule it's unlikely to get much higher than .500 - to be in the Pool C conversation would require at least one more loss, which would make their candidacy pretty dicey.  Maybe it's an oversight, but more likely they have to win the SUNYAC tournament to have any real chance.

    I have them projected to be ~ 0.796 winning percentage and 0.503 SOS going into the conference tournament. The WP is good (not great) and the SOS is low. Their RPI (which is not a thing) would be ~34th among Pool C contenders. I don't believe they'll have outstanding Results versus regionally ranked opponents to fall back on, so they're going to need to out-strip this projection by a fair margin or, more likely, count on winning the AQ as Ryan says.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on January 29, 2020, 02:23:07 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on January 29, 2020, 01:38:07 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2020, 01:21:40 PM
    The nature of community on the Internet definitely shifted toward social media and away from standalone forums such as this one several years back. But we continue.

    There is some truth to this, but if you look at Twitter engagement, as an example, I can go through most posts of the 5-10 most prolific handles and see next to no conversation on most Tweets.  There are always a lot of likes and such, but if Twitter is moving people away from d3boards.com, then people are talking far less than they used to.  Maybe they all moved to TikTok?

    I think people want more d3boards.com content because why else would so many people be reading the UAA thread when for most of the year, it is just me rambling on about God knows what...

    It's because they're all waiting with bated breath for CCIW junior varsity game summaries to start magically appearing on the UAA board. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2020, 02:37:27 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on January 29, 2020, 12:28:07 PM
    There will be some interesting decisions made with high win/loss % and low SOS numbers this year. Witt/Yeshiva/St John's/both GNAC teams (St Joes CN/Magnus) all could present interesting problems for the committee!

    Many of you know I've taken issue with the way the NCAA calculates the SOS and implements the home/away multiplier. This could affect the Pool C race quite a bit.

    Yeshiva currently sits at a .933 WP. I have their NCAA SOS at .472. A correct SOS implementation would give them a .525 SOS. THIS IS BONKERS.
    St. John's is somewhat similar: .944 WP. They have a .483 NCAA SOS but would have a .506 SOS if the number were crunched correctly.

    Whitworth (.765 WP), for example, is just the opposite. The NCAA would give them a .550 SOS while .476 would be more correct.
    Drew is also in this camp. .824 WP, .532 NCAA SOS -> .460 proper SOS.

    Numbers should be current through Sunday.

    As a recap of the issue: this is because the NCAA sums each team's opponents wins and losses and applies the multiplier to both columns (to come up with OWP and OOWP) rather than averaging the percentages of each component. I wrote more detail seven(!) years ago here: https://t.co/2MjI8dyGhK

    (Yeshiva has played 12 road games and 4 home games this season. If they had played the same 16 teams, but all at home, the NCAA calculation would improve their SOS slightly from .472 to .477.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on January 29, 2020, 02:39:19 PM
    Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 29, 2020, 02:23:07 PM
    It's because they're all waiting with bated breath for CCIW junior varsity game summaries to start magically appearing on the UAA board.

    The UAA content has picked up with the start of league play, but I am still open to the idea.  :P
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2020, 02:49:47 PM
    About the midseason additions question -- the NCAA committee is still composed exclusively of humans, and as so, they do somewhat take human factors into account along with the criteria cited.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2020, 05:22:07 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on January 29, 2020, 01:17:46 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2020, 12:55:20 PM
    We are just turning into the second half of conference seasons. The SOS numbers are going to change wildly. So will WL numbers.

    I know everyone is fascinated, but we won't get a good sense of where teams sit for two more weeks at the very least ... and even when the Regional Rankings first come out, we see dramatic changes by the end of most seasons.

    Yeah, I mean half of the things that are said here need a disclaimer.

    I think you should do everything you can to encourage more content.

    I do not have data, but it seems to me that there has been a continued slide in posting for the past few years.

    This is literally what I am trying to say. I am not saying we should discuss it ... I just think there should be a disclaimer. I feel too many people will come through this page (or twitter projections) and think the information is leaning one way when in reality there is a LOT that can change before the first Regional Rankings ... and by the time March 1st comes along.

    I had someone ask me how a team's loss in one game the other day was affecting their Pool C changes if needed. Seriously?! The equation changed in their very next game.

    Again ... I am not discouraging conversation, but sometimes it seems more like "here is what it will be and here is what we are projecting" without the added part ... "if the tournament was today" or "there is a lot that can change."

    I don't even think D1 has gotten into "who is on the bubble" as of yet, but I also try not to focus on that stuff in that division anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on January 29, 2020, 05:33:40 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2020, 05:22:07 PM

    I don't even think D1 has gotten into "who is on the bubble" as of yet, but I also try not to focus on that stuff in that division anyway.

    The Athletic started their Bubble Watch at the first of January (Eamonn Brennan writes it), with teams moving in and out as warranted. They always mention teams that drop out due to...issues, as it were. Like Texas. They also reference the Quadrant wins and losses a lot thanks to a wonderful data site by Warren Nolan (and team sheets for over 100 teams), and reference their Ken Pom ratings.  It's why Cincinnati, with a seemingly decent chance (50 NET, 24 SOS (18 Non Conf SOS), 42nd in Ken Pom) has a lot of issues since they're 5-3 in Q3 (4-1 at home) with losses to Colgate, Bowling Green, and Tulane) and no Q1 wins. They could not make the tourney because they couldn't beat Colgate or Tulane.

    We KNOW things can change, but one game now DOES make a difference, and I don't think a disclaimer is warranted since things DO change. I really love the data work done here by the stalwarts and think they add a lot to discussions, where one slip up CAN upset a team's applecart going forward (and others as well...)

    Losses by the top teams in mediocre conferences, followed by not winning the AQ, can really affect a team's chances. Even if it happens now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on January 29, 2020, 05:39:54 PM
    Example, Wittenberg loses tonight against DePauw. That could cost them a spot if they don't win the AQ thanks to their other factors and other shenanigans happening around. Maybe a two loss Witt gets in despite it all. A three or four loss Witt? That may not be plausible depending on how other things shake out.

    It's important to note these things. A bad loss can kill you in conferences that are down or cannibalizing each other.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on January 29, 2020, 05:44:20 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2020, 02:37:27 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on January 29, 2020, 12:28:07 PM
    There will be some interesting decisions made with high win/loss % and low SOS numbers this year. Witt/Yeshiva/St John's/both GNAC teams (St Joes CN/Magnus) all could present interesting problems for the committee!

    Many of you know I've taken issue with the way the NCAA calculates the SOS and implements the home/away multiplier. This could affect the Pool C race quite a bit.

    Yeshiva currently sits at a .933 WP. I have their NCAA SOS at .472. A correct SOS implementation would give them a .525 SOS. THIS IS BONKERS.
    St. John's is somewhat similar: .944 WP. They have a .483 NCAA SOS but would have a .506 SOS if the number were crunched correctly.

    Whitworth (.765 WP), for example, is just the opposite. The NCAA would give them a .550 SOS while .476 would be more correct.
    Drew is also in this camp. .824 WP, .532 NCAA SOS -> .460 proper SOS.

    Numbers should be current through Sunday.

    As a recap of the issue: this is because the NCAA sums each team's opponents wins and losses and applies the multiplier to both columns (to come up with OWP and OOWP) rather than averaging the percentages of each component. I wrote more detail seven(!) years ago here: https://t.co/2MjI8dyGhK

    (Yeshiva has played 12 road games and 4 home games this season. If they had played the same 16 teams, but all at home, the NCAA calculation would improve their SOS slightly from .472 to .477.)

    What do you think of adding some calculations into it like D1 has with the NET Quadrants that factor in home, road and neutral. (Though their not really quadrants since Q4 has most of the teams that are just cannon fodder). I think that could help clarify the SOS and make it more like a real SOS. So a loss to a meh team and hit you in WL, OWP, OOWP, AND a Quadrant. That could eliminate their multiplier issue as well as the Quadrant takes care of the home / road issue.  And heaven forfend it was at home.

    I haven't though it out fully...so discard as you may.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on January 29, 2020, 05:45:18 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2020, 02:49:47 PM
    About the midseason additions question -- the NCAA committee is still composed exclusively of humans, and as so, they do somewhat take human factors into account along with the criteria cited.

    Thanks Pat, my faith in fair play and humanity hoped this might be the case.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2020, 06:07:54 PM
    Quote from: thebear on January 29, 2020, 05:45:18 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2020, 02:49:47 PM
    About the midseason additions question -- the NCAA committee is still composed exclusively of humans, and as so, they do somewhat take human factors into account along with the criteria cited.

    Thanks Pat, my faith in fair play and humanity hoped this might be the case.

    Sure. But as noted above, all 25 games count in Division III, not just the second semester or the last 10 or whatever subset one might want.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on January 29, 2020, 06:08:37 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2020, 02:37:27 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on January 29, 2020, 12:28:07 PM
    There will be some interesting decisions made with high win/loss % and low SOS numbers this year. Witt/Yeshiva/St John's/both GNAC teams (St Joes CN/Magnus) all could present interesting problems for the committee!

    Many of you know I've taken issue with the way the NCAA calculates the SOS and implements the home/away multiplier. This could affect the Pool C race quite a bit.

    Yeshiva currently sits at a .933 WP. I have their NCAA SOS at .472. A correct SOS implementation would give them a .525 SOS. THIS IS BONKERS.
    St. John's is somewhat similar: .944 WP. They have a .483 NCAA SOS but would have a .506 SOS if the number were crunched correctly.

    Whitworth (.765 WP), for example, is just the opposite. The NCAA would give them a .550 SOS while .476 would be more correct.
    Drew is also in this camp. .824 WP, .532 NCAA SOS -> .460 proper SOS.

    Numbers should be current through Sunday.

    As a recap of the issue: this is because the NCAA sums each team's opponents wins and losses and applies the multiplier to both columns (to come up with OWP and OOWP) rather than averaging the percentages of each component. I wrote more detail seven(!) years ago here: https://t.co/2MjI8dyGhK

    (Yeshiva has played 12 road games and 4 home games this season. If they had played the same 16 teams, but all at home, the NCAA calculation would improve their SOS slightly from .472 to .477.)

    Given that the NCAA hasn't change their calculation to yours in the past 7 years, and, likely that this will continue to be the situation, how should a school schedule in the future to benefit(game) this miscalculation?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2020, 06:48:47 PM
    Scheduling opponents who traditionally in and in recent history tend to be solid programs with winning records would be a start. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on January 29, 2020, 07:51:51 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2020, 06:48:47 PM
    Scheduling opponents who traditionally in and in recent history tend to be solid programs with winning records would be a start. :)

    That wouldn't seem to be affected by the miscalculation.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2020, 08:18:47 PM
    Quote from: ronk on January 29, 2020, 06:08:37 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2020, 02:37:27 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on January 29, 2020, 12:28:07 PM
    There will be some interesting decisions made with high win/loss % and low SOS numbers this year. Witt/Yeshiva/St John's/both GNAC teams (St Joes CN/Magnus) all could present interesting problems for the committee!

    Many of you know I've taken issue with the way the NCAA calculates the SOS and implements the home/away multiplier. This could affect the Pool C race quite a bit.

    Yeshiva currently sits at a .933 WP. I have their NCAA SOS at .472. A correct SOS implementation would give them a .525 SOS. THIS IS BONKERS.
    St. John's is somewhat similar: .944 WP. They have a .483 NCAA SOS but would have a .506 SOS if the number were crunched correctly.

    Whitworth (.765 WP), for example, is just the opposite. The NCAA would give them a .550 SOS while .476 would be more correct.
    Drew is also in this camp. .824 WP, .532 NCAA SOS -> .460 proper SOS.

    Numbers should be current through Sunday.

    As a recap of the issue: this is because the NCAA sums each team's opponents wins and losses and applies the multiplier to both columns (to come up with OWP and OOWP) rather than averaging the percentages of each component. I wrote more detail seven(!) years ago here: https://t.co/2MjI8dyGhK

    (Yeshiva has played 12 road games and 4 home games this season. If they had played the same 16 teams, but all at home, the NCAA calculation would improve their SOS slightly from .472 to .477.)

    Given that the NCAA hasn't change their calculation to yours in the past 7 years, and, likely that this will continue to be the situation, how should a school schedule in the future to benefit(game) this miscalculation?

    Never play a really bad team on the road -- playing them at home doesn't hurt your SOS as much.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2020, 09:50:49 PM
    Quote from: ronk on January 29, 2020, 07:51:51 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2020, 06:48:47 PM
    Scheduling opponents who traditionally in and in recent history tend to be solid programs with winning records would be a start. :)

    That wouldn't seem to be affected by the miscalculation.

    i think you missed my subtle hint ... playing teams with a history of not being competitive tends to hurt teams. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 29, 2020, 09:53:09 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=4w24l/es7kvekeakkuc1v8.jpg)

    Time for a marathon!

    Thursday, Hoopsville will be on the air for at least nine hours in the 7th Annual Hoopsville Marathon Show.

    This year's show will feature coaches, administrators, and many others around Division III to give us a sense of the season to date and what is to come. There is only a month or so left in the regular season, so there is plenty to talk about.

    For more information about the show and its impact, click here.

    The show's guest list is below with a rough idea of when they were scheduled to appear during the live show.

    The marathon is also a chance to fundraise of the show. Many fans of Hoopsville ask often how they can give to the program so we can continue doing our work into the future. In the first few years of the Marathon, the fundraising side was an important aspect. However in the last few years, we have shyed away from fundraising as we tried to find other means to financially run the program. After requests from many, we are do have a few ways fans can contribute.

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the entire Marathon show LIVE in the video player above. We will effort to turn around podcast episodes of the entire show. They will be available to the right (after the show is off the air).

    Guests appear on the Hoopsville Hotline presented by BlueFrame Technology.

    And don't forget to interact with the Dave and guests. You can use the social media option to the right and even email (dave.mchugh@d3sports.com) questions to the show.


    When it comes to the game of basketball, we love celebrating not only the student-athletes in Division III, but also those who help carry the game forward sometimes outside of the spotlight.

    Sunday on Hoopsville, we celebrate those who have made the game of basketball, especially at DIII, so great. Coaches who continue to excel in different parts of the country and programs who play for more than just themselves.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Thursday's Marathon Show in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/2GBqAuZ (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/marathon)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel

    All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options.

    Hoopsville Marathon Schedule
    Timing approximate and subject to change

























    Time (ET)GuestSchool/Institution
    12:20 p.m.Jim CalhounSt. Joseph's (Conn.) men's coach
    12:40 p.m.Pat JuckemNo. 11 WashU men's coach
    1:00 p.m.Brian MorehouseNo. 3 Hope women's coach
    1:20 p.m.Lauren BusalacchiRipon women's coach
    1:40 p.m.Ryan HylandJohn Jay men's coach
    2:00 p.m.Dan DutcherNCAA VP for Division III
    2:40 p.m.Karin HarveyMontclair State women's coach, Women's National Committee chair
    3:00 p.m.Adrienne ShiblesNo. 2 Bowdoin women's coach
    3:20 p.m.Kate PearsonCabrini women's coach
    3:40 p.m.Matt GilbrideRPI men's coach
    4:00 p.m.Sam AtkinsonGallaudet Associate AD for Comm., Men's National Committee Chair
    4:20 p.m.Matt DonohueCatholic women's coach
    4:40 p.m.Charles KatsiaficasPomona-Pitzer men's coach
    5:00 p.m.Jon HerbrechtsmeyerNo. 5 Bethel women's coach
    5:20 p.m.Chris CarideoWidener men's coach
    5:40 p.m.Dave HixonAmherst men's coach (sabbatical)
    6:00 p.m.Tricia CullopWBCA Board President, Toledo women's coach
    6:20 p.m.Alex RicheyNo. 18 Oglethorpe women's coach
    6:40 p.m.Jody MayAlbion men's coach
    7:00 p.m.Dave MacedoNo. 18 Virginia Wesleyan men's coach
    7:20 p.m.Melissa KuberkaSt. John Fisher women's coach
    8:00 p.m.HOOPSVILLE HAPPY HOUR A gaggle of some of the shows friends - to be announced
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on January 31, 2020, 12:20:05 PM
    Pool C Midweek Stock Risers:
    *Augustana (W vs Elmhurst)
    *Stevens Point (W vs River Falls)
    *St Joes CN (W @ Magnus)
    *LeTourneau (W vs E Tex Baptist)
    *Babson (W vs Emerson)
    *Endicott (W vs Nichols)

    Pool C Midweek Stock Downers:
    *La Crosse (L vs Whitewater)
    *Oshkosh (L @ Platteville)
    *Buena Vista (L vs Neb Wesleyan)
    *Wooster (L vs Allegheny)
    *WPI (L @ Springfield)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on January 31, 2020, 03:51:02 PM
    Pool C Weekend Impact Games (2 Pool C Contenders OR "Tricky" games for Pool C Contenders:
    * Friday 700 Middlebury @ Trinity
    * Friday 700 Amherst vs Wesleyan
    * Friday 730 Brockport vs Potsdam
    * Friday 730 Hobart vs Ithaca
    * Friday 900 Rochester @ Washington
    * Saturday 200 Hopkins vs Muhlenberg
    * Saturday 200 Wooster @ Wabash
    * Saturday 200 Marietta @ John Carroll
    * Saturday 200 VA Wesleyan vs Lynchburg
    * Saturday 200 Guilford @ Wash and Lee
    * Saturday 300 Colby @ Tufts
    * Saturday 300 Witt @ Allegheny
    * Saturday 300 St Joes CN @ Johnson and Wales
    * Saturday 400 RPI @ Union
    * Saturday 400 LeTourneau @ E Tex Baptist
    * Sunday 100 Washington vs Emory

    Obviously arbitrary in terms of "tricky" games for Pool C Contenders but fun to have an idea what games could have a big impact on the committee in a few weeks.  Open to suggestions of other Pool C Contender games or forecasting potential upsets for tricky games with Pool C Contenders. This also piggy backs off of what Hopefan does with the big games today board.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 01, 2020, 02:11:50 AM
    The Central Region is a mess with the power conference teams beating each other up.

    In no particular order?

    Elmhurst 17-2 (CCIW), wins over SNC, Oshkosh, Augustana, Wheaton, IWU, Carthage. Losses to NCC and Augustana

    Wash U 15-2 (UAA), wins over Eau Claire, Augustana and IWU. Loss to Platteville

    NCC 15-4 (CCIW), wins over Elmhurst, Wheaton, IWU, Augustana. Losses to Oshkosh, Benedictine, IWU, Carthage

    Platteville 16-3 (WIAC), wins over Wash U, LeTourneau, 2 wins over Oshkosh, La Crosse. Loss to Stevens Point

    La Crosse 15-3 (WIAC), wins over Augustana, Stevens Point, Eau Claire. Losses to Oshkosh and Platteville

    Benedictine 15-3 (NACC), wins over SNC, LeTourneau, NCC. Loss to WLC

    St. Norbert College 15-3 (MWC), wins over Eau Claire, Oshkosh. Losses to Benedictine, Elmhurst

    Oshkosh 12-7 (WIAC), wins over NCC, Augustana, La Crosse, Eau Claire, Stevens Point. Losses to Elmhurst, Carthage, SNC, Emory, Platteville twice

    Augustana 13-6 (CCIW), wins over Stevens Point, Wheaton, Elmhurst, Carthage. Losses to Oshkosh, Wash U, IWU, La Crosse, Elmhurst and NCC.

    Stevens Point 13-6 (WIAC), wins over Christopher Newport, ETBU, Platteville. Losses to Augustana, Texas-Dallas, La Crosse, Oshkosh

    IWU 13-6 (CCIW), wins Augustana, NCC, Carthage. Losses to Wheaton, Wash U, NCC and Elmhurst

    Eau Claire 13-6 (WIAC), win over Whitworth, Stevens Point. Losses to Wash U, SNC, Platteville, Oshkosh and La Crosse

    Wheaton 13-6 (CCIW), wins over IWU, Carthage twice. Losses to NCC, Augustana, Elmhurst

    Carthage 12-7 (CCIW), wins over Oshkosh and NCC. Losses to IWU, Augustana, Elmhurst, Wheaton twice

    Wisconsin Lutheran 14-4 (NACC), win over Benedictine

    Monmouth 13-5 (MWC), loss to SNC

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 03, 2020, 01:19:12 PM
    My latest Pool C projections follow (through Sunday 2/2 games).  All data is courtesy of Matt Snyder -- https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    First my mock regional rankings...

    "A" = projected Pool A
    "C" = projected Pool C

    Atlantic
    C - Stevens (AT/MACF): .789/.533/4-3
    A - Yeshiva (AT/Skyline): .944/.482/1-0
    C - SUNY-Purchase (AT/Skyline): .684/.526/1-1
    C – DeSales (AT/MACF): .684/.521/0-4
    A – Stockton (AT/NJAC): .650/.520/2-2
    C - TCNJ (AT/NJAC): .600/.562/3-4
    C – Rutgers Newark (AT/NJAC): .600/.540/2-5
    A – Eastern (AT/MACF): .588/.556/2-2

    Central
    A – UW-Platteville (C/WIAC): .824/.610/3-0
    C – Wash U (C/UAA): .833/.553/4-2
    C – Elmhurst (C/CCIW): 900/.517/3-2
    C – UW-La Crosse (C/WIAC): .842/.521/2-1
    A – Benedictine (C/NACC): .842/.505/2-0
    A – North Central: .800/.516/3-2
    C – Illinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW): .684/.565/2-3
    C – Augustana (C/CCIW): .700/.577/1-5
    ------
    C – UW-Stevens Point (C/WIAC): .684/.610/3-3
    A – St. Norbert (C/MWC): .842/.550/0-2
    C – UW-Oshkosh (C/WIAC): .632/.608/3-5
    C – UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC): .684/.571/1-4

    East
    A – Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .833/.539/4-2
    C – Hobart (E/Liberty): .842/.522/1-2
    C – Rochester (E/UAA): .722/.603/1-5
    C – SUNY Oneonta (E/SUNYAC): .765/.510/2-1
    C – SUNY Potsdam (E/SUNYAC): .824/.496/2-2
    C – Oswego State (E/SUNYAC): .778/.514/0-3
    A – RPI (E/Liberty): .889/.498/1-1
    C – Utica (E/E8): .789/.503/0-2

    Great Lakes
    A – Mount Union (GL/OAC): .842/.549/5-0
    A – Wittenberg (GL/NCAC): .947/.501/2-1
    C – Marietta (GL/OAC): .842/.532/3-2
    C – Wooster (GL/NCAC): .737/.558/4-2
    A – Albion (GL/MIAA): .895/.546/0-2
    C – John Carroll (GL/OAC): .684/.525/2-3
    C – Wabash (GL/NCAC): .632/.561/1-4
    C – Hanover (GL/HCAC): .722/.498/0-1
    C – Pitt-Greensburg (GL/AMCC): .800/.459/0-1

    Middle Atlantic
    A – Swarthmore (MA/CC): 1.000/.566/7-0
    C – Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .895/.517/5-2
    A – Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .810/.553/2-3
    A – Widener (MA/MACC): .895/.516/0-1
    C – York Pa (MA/CAC): .762/.525/1-4
    A – Scranton (MA/LAND): .737/.507/2-1
    C – Drew (MA/LAND): .789/.518/2-2
    C – Muhlenberg (MA/CC): .737/.510/1-3

    Northeast
    A – Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .800/.605/5-2
    C – Colby (NE/NESCAC): .947/.530/1-1
    C – Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .857/.570/3-2
    A – Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .842/.594/2-3
    C – Babson (NE/NEWMAC): .842/.516/4-1
    C – WPI (NE/NESCAC): .789/.534/3-3
    C – Brandeis (NE/UAA): .778/.548/3-3
    A – St. Joseph CT (NE/GNAC): .882/.514/2-1
    C – Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .700/.557/3-2
    C – Emerson (NE/NEWMAC): .667/.570/1-5
    C – Albertus Magnus (NE/GNAC): .778/.506/2-2

    South
    A – Randolph-Macon (S/ODAC): .950/.515/3-0
    A – Emory (S/UAA): .889/.567/3-2
    C – Virginia Wesleyan (S/ODAC):  .833/.560/2-1
    A – Centre (S/SAA): .900/.517/1-0
    C – Texas-Dallas (S/ASC): .737/.549/1-2
    A – LeTourneau (S/ASC): .789/.550/3-3
    C – Guilford (S/ODAC): .700/.554/1-3
    C – East Texas Baptist (S/ASC): .789/.505/1-2

    West
    A – Nebraska Wesleyan (W/ARC): .900/.563/3-1
    C – St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .895/.545/4-2
    A – St. John's (W/MIAC): .950/.477/2-1
    A – Whitman (W/NWC): .778/.509/1-2
    C – Whitworth (W/NWC): .789/.538/2-3
    C – Buena Vista (W/ARC): .778/.524/0-2
    C – Augsburg (W/MIAC): .737/.520/0-4
    C – Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (W/SCIAC): .833/.476/0-1
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 03, 2020, 01:21:59 PM
    And then the Pool C selection process...

    Pool C – Round 1
    AT - Stevens (AT/MACF): .789/.533/4-3
    C - Wash U (C/UAA): .833/.553/4-2
    E - Hobart (E/Liberty): .842/.522/1-2
    GL - Marietta (GL/OAC): .842/.532/3-2
    MA - Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .895/.517/5-2
    NE - Colby (NE/NESCAC): .947/.530/1-1
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (S/ODAC):  .833/.560/2-1
    W - St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .895/.545/4-2


    Selections (in order)
    1. St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .895/.545/4-2
    2. Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .895/.517/5-2
    3. Wash U (C/UAA): .833/.553/4-2
    4. Marietta (GL/OAC): .842/.532/3-2
    5. Colby (NE/NESCAC): .947/.530/1-1
    6. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .857/.570/3-2
    7. Virginia Wesleyan (S/ODAC):  .833/.560/2-1
    8. Elmhurst (C/CCIW): 900/.517/3-2
    9. Stevens (AT/MACF): .789/.533/4-3
    10. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .737/.558/4-2
    11. Babson (NE/NEWMAC): .842/.516/4-1
    12. WPI (NE/NESCAC): .789/.534/3-3
    13. Brandeis (NE/UAA): .778/.548/3-3
    14. Whitworth (W/NWC): .789/.538/2-3
    15. UW-La Crosse (C/WIAC): .842/.521/2-1
    16. Hobart (E/Liberty): .842/.522/1-2
    17. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .700/.557/3-2
    18. Rochester (E/UAA): .722/.603/1-5
    19. York Pa (MA/CAC): .762/.525/1-4
    20. Drew (MA/LAND): .789/.518/2-2


    Teams left on the board after selection #20
    AT - SUNY-Purchase (AT/Skyline): .684/.526/1-1
    C - Illinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW): .684/.565/2-3
    E - SUNY Oneonta (E/SUNYAC): .765/.510/2-1
    GL - John Carroll (GL/OAC): .684/.525/2-3
    MA -
    NE - Emerson (NE/NEWMAC): .667/.570/1-5
    S - Texas-Dallas (S/ASC): .737/.549/1-2
    W – Buena Vista (W/ARC): .778/.524/0-2

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 03, 2020, 01:44:18 PM
     At the moment, 1st place in the Landmark has Susquehanna, Scranton, and Drew with 6-2 marks, so Matt Snyder should have Susquehanna with the A slot(2-0 itebreaker vs the other 2) and Scranton should be in pool C(1-1) and ahead of Drew(0-2).
      No big deal since there is another round-robin to go and the conference tourney.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 03, 2020, 01:48:41 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 03, 2020, 01:44:18 PM
    At the moment, 1st place in the Landmark has Susquehanna, Scranton, and Drew with 6-2 marks, so Matt Snyder should have Susquehanna with the A slot(2-0 itebreaker vs the other 2) and Scranton should be in pool C(1-1) and ahead of Drew(0-2).
      No big deal since there is another round-robin to go and the conference tourney.

    I did not use Matt's Pool A/C designations for this projection.  I did my own.

    For the Landmark I used Scranton as the A.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 03, 2020, 01:51:37 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 03, 2020, 01:48:41 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 03, 2020, 01:44:18 PM
    At the moment, 1st place in the Landmark has Susquehanna, Scranton, and Drew with 6-2 marks, so Matt Snyder should have Susquehanna with the A slot(2-0 itebreaker vs the other 2) and Scranton should be in pool C(1-1) and ahead of Drew(0-2).
      No big deal since there is another round-robin to go and the conference tourney.

    I did not use Matt's Pool A/C designations for this projection.  I did my own.

    For the Landmark I used Scranton as the A.

    As a Scranton fan, I hope it turns out this way.    :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 03, 2020, 02:50:33 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 03, 2020, 01:19:12 PM
    My latest Pool C projections follow (through Sunday 2/2 games).  All data is courtesy of Matt Snyder -- https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    First my mock regional rankings...

    West
    A – Nebraska Wesleyan (W/ARC): .900/.563/3-1
    C – St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .895/.545/4-2
    A – St. John’s (W/MIAC): .950/.477/2-1
    A – Whitman (W/NWC): .778/.509/1-2
    C – Whitworth (W/NWC): .789/.538/2-3
    C – Buena Vista (W/ARC): .778/.524/0-2
    C – Augsburg (W/MIAC): .737/.520/0-4
    C – Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (W/SCIAC): .833/.476/0-1

    Much like the discussion we had about Witt a week or two ago, this may really come into play in a couple weeks if we see the Johnnies trip up in the conf tourney. SJU is without a doubt a great team, losing only to NWU on a neutral court without their top scorer (best player? Maybe?), but the chances of them missing the tourney are much higher than most think right now, unfortunately.

    KnightSlappy, what do you have them proj for final SOS?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: dunkin3117 on February 03, 2020, 02:58:08 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 03, 2020, 01:19:12 PM
    My latest Pool C projections follow (through Sunday 2/2 games).  All data is courtesy of Matt Snyder -- https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    First my mock regional rankings...

    Atlantic
    C - Stevens (AT/MACF): .789/.533/4-3
    A - Yeshiva (AT/Skyline): .944/.482/1-0
    C - SUNY-Purchase (AT/Skyline): .684/.526/1-1
    C – DeSales (AT/MACF): .684/.521/0-4
    A – Stockton (AT/NJAC): .650/.520/2-2
    C - TCNJ (AT/NJAC): .600/.562/3-4
    C – Rutgers Newark (AT/NJAC): .600/.540/2-5
    A – Eastern (AT/MACF): .588/.556/2-2

    Central
    A – UW-Platteville (C/WIAC): .824/.610/3-0
    C – Wash U (C/UAA): .833/.553/4-2
    C – Elmhurst (C/CCIW): 900/.517/3-2
    C – UW-La Crosse (C/WIAC): .842/.521/2-1
    A – Benedictine (C/NACC): .842/.505/2-0
    A – North Central: .800/.516/3-2
    C – Illinois Wesleyan (C/CCIW): .684/.565/2-3
    C – Augustana (C/CCIW): .700/.577/1-5
    ------
    C – UW-Stevens Point (C/WIAC): .684/.610/3-3
    A – St. Norbert (C/MWC): .842/.550/0-2
    C – UW-Oshkosh (C/WIAC): .632/.608/3-5
    C – UW-Eau Claire (C/WIAC): .684/.571/1-4

    East
    A – Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .833/.539/4-2
    C – Hobart (E/Liberty): .842/.522/1-2
    C – Rochester (E/UAA): .722/.603/1-5
    C – SUNY Oneonta (E/SUNYAC): .765/.510/2-1
    C – SUNY Potsdam (E/SUNYAC): .824/.496/2-2
    C – Oswego State (E/SUNYAC): .778/.514/0-3
    A – RPI (E/Liberty): .889/.498/1-1
    C – Utica (E/E8): .789/.503/0-2

    Great Lakes
    A – Mount Union (GL/OAC): .842/.549/5-0
    A – Wittenberg (GL/NCAC): .947/.501/2-1
    C – Marietta (GL/OAC): .842/.532/3-2
    C – Wooster (GL/NCAC): .737/.558/4-2
    A – Albion (GL/MIAA): .895/.546/0-2
    C – John Carroll (GL/OAC): .684/.525/2-3
    C – Wabash (GL/NCAC): .632/.561/1-4
    C – Hanover (GL/HCAC): .722/.498/0-1
    C – Pitt-Greensburg (GL/AMCC): .800/.459/0-1

    Middle Atlantic
    A – Swarthmore (MA/CC): 1.000/.566/7-0
    C – Johns Hopkins (MA/CC): .895/.517/5-2
    A – Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .810/.553/2-3
    A – Widener (MA/MACC): .895/.516/0-1
    C – York Pa (MA/CAC): .762/.525/1-4
    A – Scranton (MA/LAND): .737/.507/2-1
    C – Drew (MA/LAND): .789/.518/2-2
    C – Muhlenberg (MA/CC): .737/.510/1-3

    Northeast
    A – Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .800/.605/5-2
    C – Colby (NE/NESCAC): .947/.530/1-1
    C – Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .857/.570/3-2
    A – Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .842/.594/2-3
    C – Babson (NE/NEWMAC): .842/.516/4-1
    C – WPI (NE/NESCAC): .789/.534/3-3
    C – Brandeis (NE/UAA): .778/.548/3-3
    A – St. Joseph CT (NE/GNAC): .882/.514/2-1
    C – Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .700/.557/3-2
    C – Emerson (NE/NEWMAC): .667/.570/1-5
    C – Albertus Magnus (NE/GNAC): .778/.506/2-2

    South
    A – Randolph-Macon (S/ODAC): .950/.515/3-0
    A – Emory (S/UAA): .889/.567/3-2
    C – Virginia Wesleyan (S/ODAC):  .833/.560/2-1
    A – Centre (S/SAA): .900/.517/1-0
    C – Texas-Dallas (S/ASC): .737/.549/1-2
    A – LeTourneau (S/ASC): .789/.550/3-3
    C – Guilford (S/ODAC): .700/.554/1-3
    C – East Texas Baptist (S/ASC): .789/.505/1-2

    West
    A – Nebraska Wesleyan (W/ARC): .900/.563/3-1
    C – St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .895/.545/4-2
    A – St. John's (W/MIAC): .950/.477/2-1
    A – Whitman (W/NWC): .778/.509/1-2
    C – Whitworth (W/NWC): .789/.538/2-3
    C – Buena Vista (W/ARC): .778/.524/0-2
    C – Augsburg (W/MIAC): .737/.520/0-4
    C – Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (W/SCIAC): .833/.476/0-1

    Curious for your reasoning to place IWU 2 spots ahead of UW-Stevens Point.  Same record, SP with far greater SoS and more wins vs. regionally ranked teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 03, 2020, 03:17:18 PM
    Quote from: dunkin3117 on February 03, 2020, 02:58:08 PM


    Curious for your reasoning to place IWU 2 spots ahead of UW-Stevens Point.  Same record, SP with far greater SoS and more wins vs. regionally ranked teams.

    The bottom of the Central is very, very messy and confusing.  So many good teams with fairly even resumes.  However someone wants to order all of that, it's hard to say it's wrong.  I may or may not have it right...who knows.

    As I was working through all of that, I decided, 1) IWU should be ranked ahead of Augustana due to IWU's win at Augie, and 2) Augustana should be ranked ahead of UW-Stevens Point (due to Augie's win at UWSP).  So I came up with that order of: IWU, Augustana, UWSP.

    Regarding IWU vs UWSP, said another way, I used the "results vs common opponents" criterion.  Illinois Wesleyan won at Augustana.  And UW-Stevens Point lost at home to Augustana. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: 79jaybird on February 03, 2020, 03:23:34 PM
    Of the EC and NC games left- 

    ELMHURST  CAR  @NC  @IWU  MU  CC   
    I think Elmhurst will win 4 of these 5

    NC      ELM  @AUGIE  @CC  CAR  @WC
    I think NC wins 3/4 of these 5 .

    I bet EC/NC share the title, which makes (from a Jays perspective) Saturday a very important game.

    Question-  If EC/NC tie and they split the regular season, what's the next tiebreaker? 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Baldini on February 03, 2020, 03:30:03 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 03, 2020, 02:50:33 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 03, 2020, 01:19:12 PM
    My latest Pool C projections follow (through Sunday 2/2 games).  All data is courtesy of Matt Snyder -- https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    First my mock regional rankings...

    West
    A – Nebraska Wesleyan (W/ARC): .900/.563/3-1
    C – St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .895/.545/4-2
    A – St. John's (W/MIAC): .950/.477/2-1
    A – Whitman (W/NWC): .778/.509/1-2
    C – Whitworth (W/NWC): .789/.538/2-3
    C – Buena Vista (W/ARC): .778/.524/0-2
    C – Augsburg (W/MIAC): .737/.520/0-4
    C – Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (W/SCIAC): .833/.476/0-1

    Much like the discussion we had about Witt a week or two ago, this may really come into play in a couple weeks if we see the Johnnies trip up in the conf tourney. SJU is without a doubt a great team, losing only to NWU on a neutral court without their top scorer (best player? Maybe?), but the chances of them missing the tourney are much higher than most think right now, unfortunately.

    KnightSlappy, what do you have them proj for final SOS?

    He has them projected at 0.498 for a final SOS.

    tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    Not sure why that address is not linking.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 03, 2020, 03:35:51 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 03, 2020, 02:50:33 PM
    Much like the discussion we had about Witt a week or two ago, this may really come into play in a couple weeks if we see the Johnnies trip up in the conf tourney. SJU is without a doubt a great team, losing only to NWU on a neutral court without their top scorer (best player? Maybe?), but the chances of them missing the tourney are much higher than most think right now, unfortunately.


    St. John's is a very interesting case for sure due to that SOS figure.

    I think if they sweep St. Thomas (the 2/15 game is at St. John's), they could be selected as a Pool C with a sub-.500 SOS.  St. Thomas will be one of the highest seeded teams in the tournament (if they keep rolling), and I just feel like those 2 wins plus the gaudy WP would get them in.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on February 03, 2020, 03:46:12 PM
    Quote from: 79jaybird on February 03, 2020, 03:23:34 PM
    Of the EC and NC games left- 

    ELMHURST  CAR  @NC  @IWU  MU  CC   
    I think Elmhurst will win 4 of these 5

    NC      ELM  @AUGIE  @CC  CAR  @WC
    I think NC wins 3/4 of these 5 .

    I bet EC/NC share the title, which makes (from a Jays perspective) Saturday a very important game.

    Question-  If EC/NC tie and they split the regular season, what's the next tiebreaker?

    From there, it's results against the third place team, on down the list until the tie gets broken. The way things stand right now, besides the upcoming game on Saturday, NCC's second date with Augie and Elmhurst's second date with IWU are critical, since NCC split with IWU and Elmhurst split with Augie, and it depends then too how Augie/IWU finish.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 04, 2020, 11:00:56 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 03, 2020, 03:35:51 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 03, 2020, 02:50:33 PM
    Much like the discussion we had about Witt a week or two ago, this may really come into play in a couple weeks if we see the Johnnies trip up in the conf tourney. SJU is without a doubt a great team, losing only to NWU on a neutral court without their top scorer (best player? Maybe?), but the chances of them missing the tourney are much higher than most think right now, unfortunately.


    St. John's is a very interesting case for sure due to that SOS figure.

    I think if they sweep St. Thomas (the 2/15 game is at St. John's), they could be selected as a Pool C with a sub-.500 SOS.  St. Thomas will be one of the highest seeded teams in the tournament (if they keep rolling), and I just feel like those 2 wins plus the gaudy WP would get them in.
    If they did somehow leave the Johnnies out, that might finally be the wake up call the NCAA needs to fix the home/away multiplier.  If the Johnnies played Willamette and Morris at home instead of on the road, they'd have about 20 less losses in their SoS calculation.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 04, 2020, 11:04:54 AM
    The home/away multiplier is used the way it is across multiple sports, SJU being left out would simply result in a shrug of shoulders.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 04, 2020, 11:10:22 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 04, 2020, 11:04:54 AM
    The home/away multiplier is used the way it is across multiple sports, SJU being left out would simply result in a shrug of shoulders.
    Probably because most people don't realize how broken it is.  Applying the multiplier to a bad opponent has the opposite effect of what is intended (road games lower your SoS), and applying it to a .500 team does nothing. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2020, 02:45:32 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 04, 2020, 11:10:22 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 04, 2020, 11:04:54 AM
    The home/away multiplier is used the way it is across multiple sports, SJU being left out would simply result in a shrug of shoulders.
    Probably because most people don't realize how broken it is.  Applying the multiplier to a bad opponent has the opposite effect of what is intended (road games lower your SoS), and applying it to a .500 team does nothing.

    Wouldn't one agree then that the bad opponent shouldn't be scheduled, outside of conference?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 04, 2020, 03:15:26 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2020, 02:45:32 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 04, 2020, 11:10:22 AM
    Quote from: sac on February 04, 2020, 11:04:54 AM
    The home/away multiplier is used the way it is across multiple sports, SJU being left out would simply result in a shrug of shoulders.
    Probably because most people don't realize how broken it is.  Applying the multiplier to a bad opponent has the opposite effect of what is intended (road games lower your SoS), and applying it to a .500 team does nothing.

    Wouldn't one agree then that the bad opponent shouldn't be scheduled, outside of conference?
    The broken multiplier doesn't just apply to 0-25 teams.  If you play a solid team from a very good conference but they might be just under .500 this year the multiplier will hurt you if you play them on the road compared to playing them at home.   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2020, 04:19:13 PM
    My point being ... it is always better to play better opponents than to play ones that just pad the WL numbers. That's been proven out for awhile.

    Granted, I wish it wasn't as strong in that side of the equation and it might start sliding away from the SOS strength, but it is still better to have a better schedule than cupcakes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: smedindy on February 04, 2020, 04:35:20 PM
    The issue really isn't the multiplier. If they lost the auto bid then it's really Marian, Willamette, Morris, and a MIAC where 7 of the 11 teams could wind up at .500 or below.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2020, 04:37:56 PM
    Quote from: smedindy on February 04, 2020, 04:35:20 PM
    The issue really isn't the multiplier. If they lost the auto bid then it's really Marian, Willamette, Morris, and a MIAC where 7 of the 11 teams could wind up at .500 or below.

    Well to really dive in ... it's the fact the MIAC men won't take on the same strategy the MIAC women have used in having an unbalanced conference schedule. Only allowing five non-conference games is brutal when one is trying to bolster their SOS and other numbers (vRRO for example).

    The ASC and others have the same problem. Head-in-the-sand attitudes from some of their members (majority, unfortunately) is hurting these conferences and will continue to hurt them until those who rather be lazy are the minority.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 04, 2020, 04:39:44 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2020, 04:19:13 PM
    My point being ... it is always better to play better opponents than to play ones that just pad the WL numbers. That's been proven out for awhile.

    Granted, I wish it wasn't as strong in that side of the equation and it might start sliding away from the SOS strength, but it is still better to have a better schedule than cupcakes.

    This is actually not quite true given the SOS calc / HAM implementation. It could be better for your SOS to play a slightly *worse* team at home than to play a slightly better (though still under-.500) team on the road.

    But the general point of "schedule good teams and you don't have to worry about it" is probably fairly accurate. Mostly. Things sometimes happen and scheduling UW-Whitewater turns into a bad game to play for your SOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 04, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2020, 04:19:13 PM
    My point being ... it is always better to play better opponents than to play ones that just pad the WL numbers. That's been proven out for awhile.

    Granted, I wish it wasn't as strong in that side of the equation and it might start sliding away from the SOS strength, but it is still better to have a better schedule than cupcakes.
    St. John's has 5 non-conference games, didn't play any of them at home.  Played Nebraska Wesleyan on a neutral court and at 14-5 Linfield.  The other 3 teams are having one of their worst seasons in the last decade, but it still wouldn't look nearly as bad to the NCAA if they had played those 3 games at home instead of on the road.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2020, 11:03:37 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 04, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2020, 04:19:13 PM
    My point being ... it is always better to play better opponents than to play ones that just pad the WL numbers. That's been proven out for awhile.

    Granted, I wish it wasn't as strong in that side of the equation and it might start sliding away from the SOS strength, but it is still better to have a better schedule than cupcakes.
    St. John's has 5 non-conference games, didn't play any of them at home.  Played Nebraska Wesleyan on a neutral court and at 14-5 Linfield.  The other 3 teams are having one of their worst seasons in the last decade, but it still wouldn't look nearly as bad to the NCAA if they had played those 3 games at home instead of on the road.

    AO - you might be missing my point. My argument is that they ONLY have five games to work with, essentially. That the conference schedule doesn't allow them to have 7 or 8 games to influences their metrics. My argument has nothing to do with where they are playing or the weight.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 05, 2020, 12:55:53 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2020, 11:03:37 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 04, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 04, 2020, 04:19:13 PM
    My point being ... it is always better to play better opponents than to play ones that just pad the WL numbers. That's been proven out for awhile.

    Granted, I wish it wasn't as strong in that side of the equation and it might start sliding away from the SOS strength, but it is still better to have a better schedule than cupcakes.
    St. John's has 5 non-conference games, didn't play any of them at home.  Played Nebraska Wesleyan on a neutral court and at 14-5 Linfield.  The other 3 teams are having one of their worst seasons in the last decade, but it still wouldn't look nearly as bad to the NCAA if they had played those 3 games at home instead of on the road.

    AO - you might be missing my point. My argument is that they ONLY have five games to work with, essentially. That the conference schedule doesn't allow them to have 7 or 8 games to influences their metrics. My argument has nothing to do with where they are playing or the weight.
    Only having 5 non-conference games wouldn't hurt them as much as it does if the NCAA had better metrics. Even if the Johnnies had another couple non-conference games to work with that's just two more opportunities to get negatively affected by the broken multiplier.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 05, 2020, 01:56:45 AM
    To be fair though the MIAC has partially solved the 5-game non-conference problem by eliminating St. Thomas thereby granting each team two more non-conference dates.

    You're welcome.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 05, 2020, 01:16:51 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 05, 2020, 01:56:45 AM
    To be fair though the MIAC has partially solved the 5-game non-conference problem by eliminating St. Thomas thereby granting each team two more non-conference dates.

    You're welcome.

    In 2021. Not this year and not next year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 05, 2020, 03:43:25 PM
    Thanks Cap'in
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 06, 2020, 01:50:32 AM
    The Division III basketball regular season has officially entered it's final month. Where has the time gone?

    Seems like a perfect time to take a break for lunch. Chat about what is ahead and teams which have positioned themselves well to still be playing next month.

    Thursday on Hoopsville (at a special time), we chat with not only a few of Top 25 programs, but also a team that has seemingly come out of nowhere to be contending in one of the more difficult conferences.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Thursday's show LIVE starting at 12:00 pm ET in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/36ZYxAo (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/feb6)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel
    Sunday's show primarily covers the Atlantic, Central, South, and Northeast Regions. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    Thursday's show primarily covers the East, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and West Regions. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3sports.com (notice, we fixed our email system with a slightly different email!) or use any of the social media options to the right.

    Donate with PayPal button

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Pat McKenzie, No. 2 St. John's men's coach
    - Nate Davis, No. 19 Gettysburg women's coach
    - Kris Huffman, No. 4 DePauw women's coach
    - Jim Bechtel, SUNY Potsdam men's coach.

    Please also consider helping us out. We are accepting donations to show - which many of you have asked about. We have an initial goal to hit $5,000 by Feb. 16. We are currently at $2,330.20.

    To donate, click our PayPal link here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=BSRFLPUJQ9MKL&source=url

    And thank you for your contributions.

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 07, 2020, 02:55:40 PM
    Pool C Weekend Impact Games (Home team listed first) (Impact Game is between 2 Pool C Contenders or "Tricky" game for a Contender):
    Friday 730 Oneonta vs Brockport
    Friday 730 Hobart vs St Lawrence
    Friday 730 RPI vs Ithaca
    Friday 800 Rochester vs Wash U
    Friday 800 Case Western vs Brandeis
    Saturday 200 Macon vs Lynchburg
    Saturday 200 Augsburg vs St Johns
    Saturday 300 Colby vs Amherst
    Saturday 300 Springfield vs Emerson
    Saturday 400 Texas Dallas vs E Texas Baptist
    Saturday 400 York vs Christopher Newport
    Saturday 600 La Crosse vs Oshkosh
    Saturday 600 Eau Claire vs Stevens Point
    Saturday 800 North Central vs Elmhurst
    Saturday 800 Illinois Wesleyan vs Augustana
    Sunday 1200 Emory vs Wash U
    Sunday 1200 Carnegie Melon vs Brandeis
    Sunday 100 Wesleyan vs Middlebury

    UAA, CCIW and WIAC with some great weekend match ups between bubble type teams this week! Could go a long way in deciding who the Pool C teams will be in less than a month. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 09, 2020, 04:32:55 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=5gakr/qeiwuaxs33tcp3oh.jpg)

    Things are heating up in Division III as the first set of Regional Rankings are due out next week.

    Sunday night on Hoopsville, we chat with a few teams not only trying to stay atop their conference races, but also hoping they are either in or near the top of the Regional Rankings.

    We also take a look at the women's Top 25 poll. What changes might we see this week with not only one of the bigger in-season upsets in recent history, but also a number of other interesting results from the week before. And yes, we will chat about the men's Top 25 as well.

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Sunday's show LIVE starting at 7:00 pm ET in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/38dt7YD (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/feb9)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel

    Sunday's show primarily covers the Atlantic, Central, South, and Northeast Regions. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Nicole Chaszar, Western New England women's coach
    - Terry Butterfield, UT-Dallas men's coach
    - Gary Grzesk, St. Norbert men's coach
    - Gordon Mann, Top 25 Double-Take

    Please also consider helping us out. We are accepting donations to the show - which many of you have asked about. We have an initial goal to hit $5,000 by Feb. 16. We are currently at $2,330.20.

    To donate, click our PayPal link here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=BSRFLPUJQ9MKL&source=url

    And thank you for your contributions.

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2020, 10:22:37 PM
    I believe regional rankings come out next week. Can we start talking about Pool C without Dave rolling his eyes at us? LOL  ??? ::) :P ;D ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 09, 2020, 10:40:49 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2020, 10:22:37 PM
    I believe regional rankings come out next week. Can we start talking about Pool C without Dave rolling his eyes at us? LOL  ??? ::) :P ;D ;)

    Wow ... I have the power to stop you and concern you?

    Fascinating.

    You roll your eyes at a lot of things ... it stop anyone?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 11, 2020, 08:43:55 AM
    There are some big games during the week this week which will certainly have an impact on the selection committee in a few weeks. On Wednesday Swat @ Hopkins and Mt Union @ Marietta and on Friday Tufts @ Middlebury probably do not have much impact on Pool C but could have an impact on who hosts first weekend and a potential round of 16 game.

    Mid-Week Pool C Impact Games (Courtesy of Drew Pasteur @D3bubble, currently projected "IN" are underlined):
    W 600 Stevens @ DeSales
    W 700 WPI @ Babson
    W 700 Drew @ Susquehanna
    W 700 Guilford @ Lynchburg
    W 800 Elmhurst @ Illinois Wesleyan
    W 800 North Central @ Augustana
    W 800 Oshkosh @ Stevens Point
    F 730 Hobart @ RPI
    F 800 Brandeis @ Rochester
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 11, 2020, 02:22:01 PM
    Oshkosh/Steven Point is almost an elimination game for Pool C purposes. 

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 11, 2020, 03:05:30 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 11, 2020, 02:22:01 PM
    Oshkosh/Steven Point is almost an elimination game for Pool C purposes.

    I kinda think the last games each lost might've eliminated them.  To be in Pool C, they're going to take an additional loss anyway; it's going to be tough for either.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 11, 2020, 03:37:05 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 11, 2020, 03:05:30 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 11, 2020, 02:22:01 PM
    Oshkosh/Steven Point is almost an elimination game for Pool C purposes.

    I kinda think the last games each lost might've eliminated them.  To be in Pool C, they're going to take an additional loss anyway; it's going to be tough for either.

    Yeah, they're kinda both in "outlier" territory.  I haven't seen Bob tackle the Central region ranking this week but I think at least one is still within the top 8 or 9 maybe.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 11, 2020, 07:11:46 PM
    Oshkosh already has 8 losses. Point has 7. Point basically needs to win out (and loss in conference tourney) to have any shot at a Pool C bid. So, yeah. It IS an elimination game IMO, not almost.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 11, 2020, 10:11:05 PM
    Oshkosh got in with 16-10 though so its never over till its over.

    Both Point and Oshkosh have +.600 SOS at the moment, and both looking at a half dozen or more RRO's, if an outlier happens this year its one of these two.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
    First Regional Rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2020/02/men-regional-rankings-first
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 12, 2020, 06:37:49 PM
    Here's the central

    1. Platteville - 0.842 W% - 0.566 SOS
    2. Wash U - 0.800 - 0.565
    3. Benedictine - 0.857 - 0.493
    4. SNC - 0.857 - 0.536
    5. Eau Claire - 0.714 - 0.580
    6. NCC - 0.810 - 0.523
    7. Augustana - 0.727 - 0.578
    8. Elmhurst - 0.818 - 0.526

    ----------------------------------

    La Crosse - 0.762 - 0.530
    Oshkosh - 0.619 - 0.618
    Stevens Point - 0.667 - 0.603
    IWU - 0.667 - 0.557
    Wheaton IL - 0.619 - 0.546
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 13, 2020, 02:48:13 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 12, 2020, 06:37:49 PM
    Here's the central

    1. Platteville - 0.842 W% - 0.566 SOS
    2. Wash U - 0.800 - 0.565
    3. Benedictine - 0.857 - 0.493
    4. SNC - 0.857 - 0.536
    5. Eau Claire - 0.714 - 0.580
    6. NCC - 0.810 - 0.523
    7. Augustana - 0.727 - 0.578
    8. Elmhurst - 0.818 - 0.526

    ----------------------------------

    La Crosse - 0.762 - 0.530
    Oshkosh - 0.619 - 0.618
    Stevens Point - 0.667 - 0.603
    IWU - 0.667 - 0.557
    Wheaton IL - 0.619 - 0.546

    How far will the committee drop Benedictine after their loss yesterday @ MSOE?  The .493 SOS, going into yesterday's games, looks like a sore spot compared to the rest of the Central. They do hold wins vs St Norbert and @ N Central and a 3-0 RvRRO's but the loss compounded with the low SOS could see them dropping the whole way down to 7, 8 or even off the rankings depending how the weekend shakes out.

    Oshkosh still very much alive for Pool C with win last night vs Stevens Point.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2020, 04:56:35 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=5np2b/9r1qtcw5du248pe6.jpg)

    The first Regional Rankings of the season are out and there are plenty of reactions ... and questions.

    On Thursday's Hoopsville, we chat with a few programs who are in those rankings and others who know the best way into the NCAA tournaments is to win their conference. Plus, we find out how a fast break is a solid investment in giving back. And do you really understand the Strength of Schedule math and what is does, and does not, tell the ranking committees?

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Thursday's show LIVE starting at 7:00 pm ET in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/2OQhWxt (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/feb13)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel

    Thursday's show primarily covers the East, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and West Regions while also featuring a women's coach in the WBCA Center Court segment. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Steve Lamie, Grove City men's coach
    - Lucia Robinson-Griggs, Vassar women's coach
    - Tonja Englund, UW-Eau Claire women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Justin Heinzen, No. 10 Loras women's coach
    - Matt Snyder, SOS guru

    Please also consider helping us out. We are accepting donations to the show - which many of you have asked about. We have an initial goal to hit $5,000 by Feb. 16. We are currently at $2,330.20.

    To donate, click our PayPal link here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=BSRFLPUJQ9MKL&source=url

    And thank you for your contributions.

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 15, 2020, 12:28:50 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2020, 08:18:47 PM
    Quote from: ronk on January 29, 2020, 06:08:37 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on January 29, 2020, 02:37:27 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on January 29, 2020, 12:28:07 PM
    There will be some interesting decisions made with high win/loss % and low SOS numbers this year. Witt/Yeshiva/St John's/both GNAC teams (St Joes CN/Magnus) all could present interesting problems for the committee!

    Many of you know I've taken issue with the way the NCAA calculates the SOS and implements the home/away multiplier. This could affect the Pool C race quite a bit.

    Yeshiva currently sits at a .933 WP. I have their NCAA SOS at .472. A correct SOS implementation would give them a .525 SOS. THIS IS BONKERS.
    St. John's is somewhat similar: .944 WP. They have a .483 NCAA SOS but would have a .506 SOS if the number were crunched correctly.

    Whitworth (.765 WP), for example, is just the opposite. The NCAA would give them a .550 SOS while .476 would be more correct.
    Drew is also in this camp. .824 WP, .532 NCAA SOS -> .460 proper SOS.

    Numbers should be current through Sunday.

    As a recap of the issue: this is because the NCAA sums each team's opponents wins and losses and applies the multiplier to both columns (to come up with OWP and OOWP) rather than averaging the percentages of each component. I wrote more detail seven(!) years ago here: https://t.co/2MjI8dyGhK

    (Yeshiva has played 12 road games and 4 home games this season. If they had played the same 16 teams, but all at home, the NCAA calculation would improve their SOS slightly from .472 to .477.)

    Given that the NCAA hasn't change their calculation to yours in the past 7 years, and, likely that this will continue to be the situation, how should a school schedule in the future to benefit(game) this miscalculation?

    Never play a really bad team on the road -- playing them at home doesn't hurt your SOS as much.

    WRT to your interview on Hoopsville last night and this chat from a few days ago, it seems that the problem isn't that the SOS # is incorrect as calculated, but that the algorithm the NCAA now uses with the HAM(sums each team's opponents wins and losses and applies the multiplier to both columns (to come up with OWP and OOWP) rather than averaging the percentages of each component) doesn't achieve the purpose intended for home/away games as well as your recommendation would.
      I think it's important enough that the national RAC chairman should get a response from the NCAA justifying why their algorithm is preferable to yours; if it's not mathematically rigorous(e.g., somebody thought it was a good idea at the time), it should be easy enough to change before the next regional rankings. The NCAA should be responsive to their clients.
      Thanks for your work in this area!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 17, 2020, 10:18:34 AM
    This does not have to do with Pool C but not sure where else to ask this... what system does the NCAA use to figure out the 500 miles rule for traveling purposes?  Google Maps??
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2020, 10:18:57 AM
    They have their own proprietary mileage charts.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 17, 2020, 10:42:49 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 17, 2020, 10:18:57 AM
    They have their own proprietary mileage charts.

    I believe this has the data they use.
    https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on February 17, 2020, 11:00:12 AM
    Yes the NCAA uses an app, originally designed for buses and trucks, I believe.

    They are pretty close, but not exact.

    For Example the NCAA says its 129 miles from SUNY Potsdam to SUNY Oswego,

    Google Maps lets you pick the exact buildings, and they say 130 miles.

    Potsdam to Fredonia they both say 327 miles

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2020, 01:01:07 PM
    Quote from: thebear on February 17, 2020, 11:00:12 AM
    Yes the NCAA uses an app, originally designed for buses and trucks, I believe.

    They are pretty close, but not exact.

    For Example the NCAA says its 129 miles from SUNY Potsdam to SUNY Oswego,

    Google Maps lets you pick the exact buildings, and they say 130 miles.

    Potsdam to Fredonia they both say 327 miles

    And as many of us will chuckle when saying ... if you reverse the direction the teams are going (i.e. flip the top one for the bottom one) you can get different mileages. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on February 17, 2020, 04:07:18 PM
    I used to be a CFO for a consumer products company, different mileages not surprising, the routes may differ because of speed limits, one way roads etc.  Also some of the routes the NCAA pays mileage for may not be routes your bus operator is permitted for or wants to take.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 17, 2020, 04:44:40 PM
    Last week's results

    Here's the central

    1. Platteville - 0.842 W% - 0.566 SOS - WON at Whitewater, WON v River Falls
    2. Wash U - 0.800 - 0.565 - WON v CWR, WON v CMU
    3. Benedictine - 0.857 - 0.493 - LOST at MSOE, WONat Lakeland
    4. SNC - 0.857 - 0.536 - WON v Beloit, WON at Grinnell
    5. Eau Claire - 0.714 - 0.580 - WONv River Falls, WON at Whitewater
    6. NCC - 0.810 - 0.523 - WON at Augustana, WON at Carroll
    7. Augustana - 0.727 - 0.578 - LOST v NCC, WON v Carthage
    8. Elmhurst - 0.818 - 0.526 - LOST at IWU, WON v Millikin

    ----------------------------------

    La Crosse - 0.762 - 0.530 - WON v Stout, WON at Stevens Point
    Oshkosh - 0.619 - 0.618 - WON at Stevens Point, WON v Stout
    Stevens Point - 0.667 - 0.603 - LOST v Oshkosh, LOST v La Crosse
    IWU - 0.667 - 0.557 - WON v Elmhurst, LOST at Wheaton
    Wheaton IL - 0.619 - 0.546 - LOST at Carroll, WON v IWU


    I wonder if La Crosse and Oshkosh will jump Augustana and Elmhurst. Stevens Point had a great chance to jump into the rankings with two home games against other Pool C contenders and they lost both.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2020, 04:55:50 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=5v3wn/rw46qdpbe3zw5xzo.jpg)

    In two weeks, the regular season will be over. If teams want to still be playing in March, the time to get it done is now ... including conference tournaments, some of which start for some this week.

    This week will also bring with it a better understanding of which teams are in position to be playing in the NCAA Tournaments.

    Monday on Hoopsville, we will chat with several programs which have positioned themselves atop their conference races and hope home court will help them punch tickets to the NCAA tournaments. However, they also know the difference between playing at home or in the NCAAs could be a single game still to be played.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Charlie Averkamp, Benedictine women's coach
    - Trent Milby, Berea women's coach
    - Jake Ross, Springfield senior guard
    - Dean Burrows, Wesley men's coach
    - Bob Quillman & Ryan Scott, Top 25 Double-Take

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Monday's show LIVE starting at 7:00 pm ET in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/3bQmnlR (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/feb17)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel
    Monday's show primarily covers the Atlantic, Central, South, and Northeast Regions. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

    Please also consider helping us out. We are accepting donations to the show - which many of you have asked about. We have an initial goal to hit $5,000 by the end of the show TONIGHT. We are currently at $2,659.32.

    We will be raising the goal after tonight!

    To donate, click our PayPal link here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=BSRFLPUJQ9MKL&source=url

    And thank you for your contributions.

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 18, 2020, 04:21:01 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 15, 2020, 12:28:50 AM
    WRT to your interview on Hoopsville last night and this chat from a few days ago, it seems that the problem isn't that the SOS # is incorrect as calculated, but that the algorithm the NCAA now uses with the HAM(sums each team's opponents wins and losses and applies the multiplier to both columns (to come up with OWP and OOWP) rather than averaging the percentages of each component) doesn't achieve the purpose intended for home/away games as well as your recommendation would.
      I think it's important enough that the national RAC chairman should get a response from the NCAA justifying why their algorithm is preferable to yours; if it's not mathematically rigorous(e.g., somebody thought it was a good idea at the time), it should be easy enough to change before the next regional rankings. The NCAA should be responsive to their clients.
      Thanks for your work in this area!
    I don't know what the official stats guys said but at the time I believe we thought they were summing everything to avoid giving equal credit to games against teams with fewer D3 games on the schedule.  They were worried a 10-0 team would look as good as a 24-0 team. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2020, 05:33:57 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 18, 2020, 04:21:01 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 15, 2020, 12:28:50 AM
    WRT to your interview on Hoopsville last night and this chat from a few days ago, it seems that the problem isn't that the SOS # is incorrect as calculated, but that the algorithm the NCAA now uses with the HAM(sums each team's opponents wins and losses and applies the multiplier to both columns (to come up with OWP and OOWP) rather than averaging the percentages of each component) doesn't achieve the purpose intended for home/away games as well as your recommendation would.
      I think it's important enough that the national RAC chairman should get a response from the NCAA justifying why their algorithm is preferable to yours; if it's not mathematically rigorous(e.g., somebody thought it was a good idea at the time), it should be easy enough to change before the next regional rankings. The NCAA should be responsive to their clients.
      Thanks for your work in this area!
    I don't know what the official stats guys said but at the time I believe we thought they were summing everything to avoid giving equal credit to games against teams with fewer D3 games on the schedule.  They were worried a 10-0 team would look as good as a 24-0 team.

    To be clear on something ronk said (in bold) ... there was a time the math was being done as Matt and others expected it to work. That's how Matt was able to hone in on the math to produce his SOS numbers. But a few years ago, it suddenly changed. So the HAM was already in place and being utilized ... and getting what was expected from the SOS. Something has changed, we don't know why, but that has to be solved ... it isn't that the HAM isn't getting what we want from it. We know the HAM works as expected when the math is done how it was originally done.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 07:53:57 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2020, 05:33:57 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 18, 2020, 04:21:01 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 15, 2020, 12:28:50 AM
    WRT to your interview on Hoopsville last night and this chat from a few days ago, it seems that the problem isn't that the SOS # is incorrect as calculated, but that the algorithm the NCAA now uses with the HAM(sums each team's opponents wins and losses and applies the multiplier to both columns (to come up with OWP and OOWP) rather than averaging the percentages of each component) doesn't achieve the purpose intended for home/away games as well as your recommendation would.
      I think it's important enough that the national RAC chairman should get a response from the NCAA justifying why their algorithm is preferable to yours; if it's not mathematically rigorous(e.g., somebody thought it was a good idea at the time), it should be easy enough to change before the next regional rankings. The NCAA should be responsive to their clients.
      Thanks for your work in this area!
    I don't know what the official stats guys said but at the time I believe we thought they were summing everything to avoid giving equal credit to games against teams with fewer D3 games on the schedule.  They were worried a 10-0 team would look as good as a 24-0 team.

    To be clear on something ronk said (in bold) ... there was a time the math was being done as Matt and others expected it to work. That's how Matt was able to hone in on the math to produce his SOS numbers. But a few years ago, it suddenly changed. So the HAM was already in place and being utilized ... and getting what was expected from the SOS. Something has changed, we don't know why, but that has to be solved ... it isn't that the HAM isn't getting what we want from it. We know the HAM works as expected when the math is done how it was originally done.

    I'm not sure that's true.  We need to double check, but I think it was when the Home/Away multiplier went in that the math messed up.  We had H/A for a while with the old system, but when they went to SOS the first few years were without the multiplier and, I believe, the math problems came when they put it in.  I think the NCAA has been applying it the same way the whole time, it just took a little while for Matt to figure out what they were doing.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2020, 08:50:56 AM
    I believe Dave is correct although I could not recall it during our Hoopsville segment. Here's the d3blog about it from 2013. I believe the HAM debuted in 2011 (with 1.4/0.6 weights)

    NCAA changed the SOS calculation
    https://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/11/mens-strength-of-schedule-calculations-changed/
    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

    My original take on the HAM (1.4/0.6)
    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/02/ncaa-doesnt-earn-any-trust-points-with.html

    NCAA changed HAM to 1.25/0.75
    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/12/ncaa-earns-some-points-back-with.html#more

    I used to write a fair bit. Maybe I should do that again?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 09:27:53 AM

    So it was when they changed the multiplier that things got wonky.  I gotcha.

    I was just looking through the Pre-Championship Manual today; it's funny how all the math for every other calculation is spelled out plainly, but the multipliers are just described, with no examples.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 19, 2020, 10:13:30 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 09:27:53 AM

    So it was when they changed the multiplier that things got wonky.  I gotcha.

    I was just looking through the Pre-Championship Manual today; it's funny how all the math for every other calculation is spelled out plainly, but the multipliers are just described, with no examples.
    The funny part was how they changed the calc without changing the manual.

    2013 manual with the calc that they weren't actually using:
    (https://i.imgur.com/TLF15os.png)

    2020 manual:
    (https://i.imgur.com/JbMBPIa.png)
    Even before applying the multiplier to the new calc we can see a difference because the new calc gives a larger weight to the game against the team that played 28 games compared to the games against the teams with only 24 D3 games.  The new calc has the OWP at .561 while doing it the old way would make it .5518.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on February 19, 2020, 10:40:40 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2020, 08:50:56 AM
    I believe Dave is correct although I could not recall it during our Hoopsville segment. Here's the d3blog about it from 2013. I believe the HAM debuted in 2011 (with 1.4/0.6 weights)

    NCAA changed the SOS calculation
    https://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2013/02/11/mens-strength-of-schedule-calculations-changed/
    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2013/02/definitive-proof-that-ncaas-new-sos.html

    My original take on the HAM (1.4/0.6)
    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/02/ncaa-doesnt-earn-any-trust-points-with.html

    To Matt's point, I would be interested in what the real Home/Away W-L is for the entire NCAA D3.  I am tracking just one conference, and with 2 reg season days left, I am seeing a 43-38 Home/Away win split, which would suggest more like the 1.15 : .85 that Matt is suggesting.

    NCAA changed HAM to 1.25/0.75
    http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2011/12/ncaa-earns-some-points-back-with.html#more

    I used to write a fair bit. Maybe I should do that again?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2020, 11:16:37 AM
    I have D3 home teams as 2493-1880 (.570) this season (when playing another D3 team, leaving out neutral site games) which suggests something like 1.15 is more appropriate than 1.25.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 12:40:00 PM
    The multiplier did go into effect in 2011 (I was able to confirm that looking at other manuals) ... and the math went sideways around 2013.

    So at one point, they were doing the math the way KnightSlappy describes because I also know he talked to them about it to narrow down his math. Then it changed and we never got an explanation for that change.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 12:44:45 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 09:27:53 AM

    So it was when they changed the multiplier that things got wonky.  I gotcha.

    I was just looking through the Pre-Championship Manual today; it's funny how all the math for every other calculation is spelled out plainly, but the multipliers are just described, with no examples.

    I went through EVERY manual last night in DIII ... time I will never get back in my life ... they don't spell it out anywhere. Even in M/W Ice Hockey where they use their own RPI system with a weight (1.2/0.8) they don't spell it out.

    It is also sad to see how many manuals are so badly put together. I suggested YEARS ago to several liaisons they should make sure every manual looked the same where parts are identical ... clearly no one has tried to even consider it outside of maybe common sports.

    For those curious: I narrowed down that men's basketball and men's lacrosse are essentially the only two sports using the HAM with the current SOS (ice hockey uses a HAM, but has different "math" as it where since they have it incorporated with an RPI). Men's soccer used it from 2011 to 2016. Women's soccer only used it in 2016 (based on what their manual say for both sports). Other sports I thought had used it like women's volleyball, but there is no mention of whether they did or didn't use it in the past.

    Maybe it's time to get rid of the multiplier. That said, I know it was used to kick coaches out of their gyms (how many examples can we give) and to not allow programs to get an unfair bump because they decided to play everyone at home. There are still programs who host multiple tournaments set up like this ... so I can see an argument for keeping it. I would say the same argument is in place for men's lacrosse where far too many big programs bully teams who want to play them into coming to their place.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 19, 2020, 12:53:48 PM
     So, why is it that the NCAA doesn't respond to their constituency in this regard(how the SOS is computed and why this method as opposed to some other algorithm)?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2020, 12:58:40 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 12:44:45 PM
    For those curious: I narrowed down that men's basketball and men's lacrosse are essentially the only two sports using the HAM with the current SOS (ice hockey uses a HAM, but has different "math" as it where since they have it incorporated with an RPI). Men's soccer used it from 2011 to 2016. Women's soccer only used it in 2016 (based on what their manual say for both sports). Other sports I thought had used it like women's volleyball, but there is no mention of whether they did or didn't use it in the past.

    I think the multiplier is very good. It just needs to be implemented correctly. The problem with the multiplier is arithmetic, not principle.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 12:58:54 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 12:53:48 PM
    So, why is it that the NCAA doesn't respond to their constituency in this regard(how the SOS is computed and why this method as opposed to some other algorithm)?

    You are assuming someone has asked them ... they respond to members, but we don't know if any membership has raised the issue officially.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 12:59:48 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2020, 12:58:40 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 12:44:45 PM
    For those curious: I narrowed down that men's basketball and men's lacrosse are essentially the only two sports using the HAM with the current SOS (ice hockey uses a HAM, but has different "math" as it where since they have it incorporated with an RPI). Men's soccer used it from 2011 to 2016. Women's soccer only used it in 2016 (based on what their manual say for both sports). Other sports I thought had used it like women's volleyball, but there is no mention of whether they did or didn't use it in the past.

    I think the multiplier is very good. It just needs to be implemented correctly. The problem with the multiplier is arithmetic, not principle.

    I was playing devil's advocate to some degree ... but also considering so few committees have it as a tool I was wondering if it was something that was needed now. I don't really have an answer ... just curious.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 01:09:05 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 12:58:54 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 12:53:48 PM
    So, why is it that the NCAA doesn't respond to their constituency in this regard(how the SOS is computed and why this method as opposed to some other algorithm)?

    You are assuming someone has asked them ... they respond to members, but we don't know if any membership has raised the issue officially.

    The committee has to have at least inquired, right?  They seem very concerned with doing their job to the best of their abilities.  If it's an issue of implementation over statue, shouldn't they have some leeway on how the math is done?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 01:11:35 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 01:09:05 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 12:58:54 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 12:53:48 PM
    So, why is it that the NCAA doesn't respond to their constituency in this regard(how the SOS is computed and why this method as opposed to some other algorithm)?

    You are assuming someone has asked them ... they respond to members, but we don't know if any membership has raised the issue officially.

    The committee has to have at least inquired, right?  They seem very concerned with doing their job to the best of their abilities.  If it's an issue of implementation over statue, shouldn't they have some leeway on how the math is done?

    I can't say if they have or not. Not my place and I don't want to assume anything. They may have, but I can't confirm it, so I am not going to assume it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 01:11:47 PM
    Week 2's Regional Rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2020/02/men-regional-rankings-second
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 01:37:08 PM
    I posted this in another chat room, but figured it was worth posting here as well. Just a reminder of how the vRRO data is used moving forward:


     
       
       
       
       
       
       
    vRRO Data
    Week 1- none -
    Week 2Week 1
    Week 3Week 2
    FinalWeek 3
    Finale/SelectionsWeek 3 & Final
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:40:21 PM
     Where's the vrro data for week 2?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on February 19, 2020, 01:42:25 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 01:37:08 PM
    I posted this in another chat room, but figured it was worth posting here as well. Just a reminder of how the vRRO data is used moving forward:


     
       
       
       
       
       
       
    vRRO Data
    Week 1- none -
    Week 2Week 1
    Week 3Week 2
    FinalWeek 3
    Finale/SelectionsWeek 3 &amp; Final

    So how does that last one work? Do they make that fourth set of rankings, then adjust vRRO and reconsider? I know they have to cut it off at some point, but that almost reads like a vicious cycle of compute-rank-recompute-rerank.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 01:42:34 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:40:21 PM
    Where's the vrro data for week 2?

    In the data sheets supplied with the rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 01:43:08 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:40:21 PM
    Where's the vrro data for week 2?

    If you go to the bottom of the rankings page Dave linked to, there are links for each region.  These contain the raw data for every team.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 01:43:43 PM
    Quote from: lmitzel on February 19, 2020, 01:42:25 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 01:37:08 PM
    I posted this in another chat room, but figured it was worth posting here as well. Just a reminder of how the vRRO data is used moving forward:


     
       
       
       
       
       
       
    vRRO Data
    Week 1- none -
    Week 2Week 1
    Week 3Week 2
    FinalWeek 3
    Finale/SelectionsWeek 3 &amp; Final

    So how does that last one work? Do they make that fourth set of rankings, then adjust vRRO and reconsider? I know they have to cut it off at some point, but that almost reads like a vicious cycle of compute-rank-recompute-rerank.

    I don't think they entirely re-rank, they just look at the rankings again with the new vRRO to double check no adjustments are needed.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 01:44:01 PM
    Quote from: lmitzel on February 19, 2020, 01:42:25 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 01:37:08 PM
    I posted this in another chat room, but figured it was worth posting here as well. Just a reminder of how the vRRO data is used moving forward:


     
       
       
       
       
       
       
    vRRO Data
    Week 1- none -
    Week 2Week 1
    Week 3Week 2
    FinalWeek 3
    Finale/SelectionsWeek 3 &amp; Final

    So how does that last one work? Do they make that fourth set of rankings, then add in vRRO and reconsider? I know they have to cut it off at some point, but that almost reads like a vicious cycle of compute-rank-recompute-rerank.

    The RACs give them the third week rankings ... the national committee makes any changes they need to make. Then the vRRO data is re-tabulated ONE more time ... and the national committee makes any changes that adjustment requires them to be made.

    We see the final results as being the "Week 4" rankings.

    They only retabulate once ... or as you describe it could go on forever.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:52:49 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 01:43:08 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:40:21 PM
    Where's the vrro data for week 2?

    If you go to the bottom of the rankings page Dave linked to, there are links for each region.  These contain the raw data for every team.

    Thanks, I know that; I just remember that it was included with the regional rankings listing in past years.

    Incidentally, Scranton is listed as 2-1 when it should be 2(Drew, DeSales) - 2(York, Arcadia).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 01:55:22 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:52:49 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 01:43:08 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:40:21 PM
    Where's the vrro data for week 2?

    If you go to the bottom of the rankings page Dave linked to, there are links for each region.  These contain the raw data for every team.

    Thanks, I know that; I just remember that it was included with the regional rankings listing in past years.

    Incidentally, Scranton is listed as 2-1 when it should be 2(Drew, DeSales) - 2(York, Arcadia).

    I'm not entirely sure if they use current week rankings until the final one.  Arcadia wasn't ranked last week, so that may be the disparity.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 01:56:07 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:52:49 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 01:43:08 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:40:21 PM
    Where's the vrro data for week 2?

    If you go to the bottom of the rankings page Dave linked to, there are links for each region.  These contain the raw data for every team.

    Thanks, I know that; I just remember that it was included with the regional rankings listing in past years.

    Incidentally, Scranton is listed as 2-1 when it should be 2(Drew, DeSales) - 2(York, Arcadia).

    I've never known it to be included with previous regional rankings unless we actually added it ourselves. I think if we do that, it tends to be the Week 3 version as we prepare for selections.

    But looking at least season's, I don't see them.

    And the NCAA has never had them on their page.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 01:57:23 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 01:55:22 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:52:49 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 01:43:08 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:40:21 PM
    Where's the vrro data for week 2?

    If you go to the bottom of the rankings page Dave linked to, there are links for each region.  These contain the raw data for every team.

    Thanks, I know that; I just remember that it was included with the regional rankings listing in past years.

    Incidentally, Scranton is listed as 2-1 when it should be 2(Drew, DeSales) - 2(York, Arcadia).

    I'm not entirely sure if they use current week rankings until the final one.  Arcadia wasn't ranked last week, so that may be the disparity.

    They do NOT use the current rankings for the vRRO data. It is ALWAYS the previous week - per my chart I already shared.

    They ONLY time the data is retabulated is the final rankings and even then the rankings we see aren't updated. The final rankings have data from two weeks, but the final positions could add or remove teams and that fact is not shown in the vRRO data.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:58:15 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 01:55:22 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:52:49 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 01:43:08 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 19, 2020, 01:40:21 PM
    Where's the vrro data for week 2?

    If you go to the bottom of the rankings page Dave linked to, there are links for each region.  These contain the raw data for every team.

    Thanks, I know that; I just remember that it was included with the regional rankings listing in past years.

    Incidentally, Scranton is listed as 2-1 when it should be 2(Drew, DeSales) - 2(York, Arcadia).

    I'm not entirely sure if they use current week rankings until the final one.  Arcadia wasn't ranked last week, so that may be the disparity.

    That's the reason. Thanks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 19, 2020, 05:29:42 PM
    Central region is by far and away the most intriguing region when it comes to Pool C.  According to @D3Bubble's most recent projections, the region has 6 teams in the C11 to C24 range:

    Augustana (Projected C11/Unranked in Region)
    La Crosse (Projected C14/8 in Region)
    Eau Claire (Projected C15/Unranked in Region)
    Elmhurst (Projected C16/5 in Region)
    Oshkosh (Projected C18/7 in Region)
    Ill Wesleyan (Projected C24/Unranked in Region)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2020, 07:26:31 PM
    Here is how I see Pool C based on today's regional rankings.  As always, keep in mind that any team projected lower than spot #15 is most likely out due to assumed Pool A upsets.

    Round 1
    AT - TCNJ (NJAC): .826/.543/2-5
    C - Wash U (UAA): .818/.565/3-3
    E - Hobart (LL): .826/.532/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .826/.534/3-3
    MA - Johns Hopkins (CC): .870/.555/5-3
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .833/.572/5-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - St. John's (MIAC): .917/.494/3-2

    Round 2
    AT - TCNJ (NJAC): .826/.543/2-5
    C - Wash U (UAA): .818/.565/3-3
    E - Hobart (LL): .826/.532/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .826/.534/3-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .833/.572/5-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - St. John's (MIAC): .917/.494/3-2

    Round 3
    AT - TCNJ (NJAC): .826/.543/2-5
    C - Wash U (UAA): .818/.565/3-3
    E - Hobart (LL): .826/.532/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .826/.534/3-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - WPI (NEWMAC): .826/.544/3-4
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - St. John's (MIAC): .917/.494/3-2

    Round 4
    AT - TCNJ (NJAC): .826/.543/2-5
    C - Wash U (UAA): .818/.565/3-3
    E - Hobart (LL): .826/.532/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .826/.534/3-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Tufts (NESCAC): .750/.584/4-4
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - St. John's (MIAC): .917/.494/3-2

    Round 5
    AT - TCNJ (NJAC): .826/.543/2-5
    C - Wash U (UAA): .818/.565/3-3
    E - Hobart (LL): .826/.532/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .826/.534/3-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .826/.509/3-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - St. John's (MIAC): .917/.494/3-2

    Round 6
    AT - TCNJ (NJAC): .826/.543/2-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .792/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .826/.532/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .826/.534/3-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .826/.509/3-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - St. John's (MIAC): .917/.494/3-2

    Round 7
    AT - TCNJ (NJAC): .826/.543/2-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .792/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .826/.532/3-3
    GL - Wooster (NCAC): .739/.560/4-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .826/.509/3-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - St. John's (MIAC): .917/.494/3-2

    Round 8
    AT - TCNJ (NJAC): .826/.543/2-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .792/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .826/.532/3-3
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .826/.509/3-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - St. John's (MIAC): .917/.494/3-2

    Round 9
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .792/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .826/.532/3-3
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .826/.509/3-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - St. John's (MIAC): .917/.494/3-2

    Round 10
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .792/.527/3-2
    E - Rochester (UAA): .682/.596/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .826/.509/3-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - St. John's (MIAC): .917/.494/3-2

    Round 11
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .792/.527/3-2
    E - Rochester (UAA): .682/.596/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .826/.509/3-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 12
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .792/.527/3-2
    E - Rochester (UAA): .682/.596/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .708/.544/3-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 13
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .652/.613/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .682/.596/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .708/.544/3-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 14
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .652/.613/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .682/.596/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .708/.544/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .818/.522/2-1
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 15
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .652/.613/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .682/.596/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .708/.544/3-2
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 16
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .652/.613/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .682/.596/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Brandeis (UAA): .682/.559/2-5
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 17
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .682/.596/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Brandeis (UAA): .682/.559/2-5
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 18
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC): .773/.508/3-3
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Brandeis (UAA): .682/.559/2-5
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 19
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - SUNY Potsdam (SUNYAC): .818/.506/2-4
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Brandeis (UAA): .682/.559/2-5
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 20
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - SUNY Potsdam (SUNYAC): .818/.506/2-4
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Albertus Magnus (GNAC): .818/.488/2-2
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 08:05:53 PM

    You did two Round 17s, Bob.  Even you don't have Augustana in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2020, 08:13:32 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 08:05:53 PM

    You did two Round 17s, Bob.  Even you don't have Augustana in.

    Fixed.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2020, 08:20:31 PM



       W1 RNK      WK2 RNK      TEAM       WK2 W%      WK2 SOS      WK2 vRRO      WK1 W%      WK1 SOS      WK2 w%-WK1 W%      WK2 SOS – WK1 SOS   
       1      1      Platteville      0.857      0.554      (3-0)      0.842      0.566      0.015      -0.012   
       2      2      Wash U      0.818      0.565      (5-3)      0.800      0.565      0.018      0   
       3      3      Benedictine      0.826      0.494      (3-0)      0.857      0.493      -0.031      0.001   
       6      4      NCC      0.826      0.535      (4-1)      0.810      0.523      0.016      0.012   
       8      5      Elmhurst      0.792      0.527      (3-3)      0.818      0.526      -0.026      0.001   
       4      6      SNC      0.870      0.531      (1-2)      0.857      0.536      0.013      -0.005   
       na      7      Oshkosh      0.652      0.612      (3-6)      0.619      0.618      0.033      -0.006   
       na      8      La Crosse      0.783      0.531      (3-2)      0.762      0.530      0.021      0.001   
       5      na      Eau Claire      0.739      0.568      (1-3)      0.714      0.580      0.025      -0.012   
       7      na      Augustana      0.708      0.583      (2-4)      0.727      0.578      -0.019      0.005   
       na      na      Stevens Point      0.609      0.604      (3-4)      0.667      0.603      -0.058      0.001   
       na      na      IWU      0.652      0.565      (3-4)      0.667      0.557      -0.015      0.008   
       na      na      Wheaton IL      0.609      0.549      (0-5)      0.619      0.546      -0.01      0.003   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2020, 08:25:35 PM
    Awesome stuff Bob. I feel like we don't have as many options of teams with quality RROs in the last 5 selections or so? Or is that a false impression of mine?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 19, 2020, 08:43:12 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2020, 08:25:35 PM
    Awesome stuff Bob. I feel like we don't have as many options of teams with quality RROs in the last 5 selections or so? Or is that a false impression of mine?
    I think you are right.  In the last several rounds it seemed like 2 wins vs RRO was a separating factor.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 20, 2020, 12:00:20 AM
    Nice work Bob.  That is good stuff and will be interesting to see how important R vRRO's is to the national committee, as in your mock you made it seem like the most important of the 5 criteria when comparing across regions. I know last year the committee looked at Record vs top 50 RPI and Record vs top 100 RPI when figuring out the Pool C nominations to make it fairer for teams competing in tougher regions. (For example, the 12th best team in the Central is probably higher RPI than the 6th best team in the Atlantic). 

    I don't think that info is accurate with TCNJ. They are 17-8 and currently tied with Stockton for the Pool A in the NJAC.  Also, Oneonta lost yesterday and now has another loss, they are 17-6 with a .739 W%. I don't see how the East gets 3 Pool C's this year but crazier things have happened.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2020, 12:26:09 AM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on February 20, 2020, 12:00:20 AM
    Nice work Bob.  That is good stuff and will be interesting to see how important R vRRO's is to the national committee, as in your mock you made it seem like the most important of the 5 criteria when comparing across regions. I know last year the committee looked at Record vs top 50 RPI and Record vs top 100 RPI when figuring out the Pool C nominations to make it fairer for teams competing in tougher regions. (For example, the 12th best team in the Central is probably higher RPI than the 6th best team in the Atlantic). 

    I don't think that info is accurate with TCNJ. They are 17-8 and currently tied with Stockton for the Pool A in the NJAC.  Also, Oneonta lost yesterday and now has another loss, they are 17-6 with a .739 W%. I don't see how the East gets 3 Pool C's this year but crazier things have happened.

    I don't think the vRRO is more important than anything else ... it just another tool. Each comparison makes it more interesting and all data can tell a different story.

    Per the "Top 50" and "Top 100" ... that may not have been the right thing for the committee to do. That is a slippery slope since that isn't written in the criteria and they seemed to make a stretch to do so. I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't as involved this time around. That is essentially using an RPI like thinking to a number that isn't an RPI.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2020, 01:01:48 AM
    In looking at Oshkosh, La Crosse and Eau Claire, I think vRRO was the difference. Oshkosh was 3-6, La Crosse 3-2 and Eau Claire just 1-3.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2020, 01:07:24 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2020, 01:01:48 AM
    In looking at Oshkosh, La Crosse and Eau Claire, I think vRRO was the difference. Oshkosh was 3-6, La Crosse 3-2 and Eau Claire just 1-3.

    And WHO those wins and losses were to ... not just a total number,
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2020, 03:58:13 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=60mra/pxvrc8g36o76rvkj.jpg)

    The second Regional Rankings are out, conference races are finishing up while some tournaments have begun. The frenetic finish to the regular season has begun.

    On Thursday's Hoopsville, we chat to a few teams who are either leading their conference standings or could shake them up in their final scheduled games. Plus, a true #whyd3 way of approaching the season - giving back to the community while playing the game.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Sacha Santimano, Eastern Nazarene women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Matt Hunter, York (Pa.) men's coach
    - Kevin Broderick, Nazareth men's coach
    - Shanan Rosenberg, Linfield men's coach

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Thursday's show LIVE starting at 7:00 pm ET in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/3bW9d6M (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/feb20)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel
    Monday's show primarily covers the Atlantic, Central, South, and Northeast Regions. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    Thursday's show primarily covers the East, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and West Regions while also featuring a women's coach in the WBCA Center Court segment. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options.

    Please also consider helping us out. We are accepting donations to the show - which many of you have asked about. We have updated the goal to $7,500 by the end of Monday, March 2. We are currently at $3,712.52.

    We will be raising the goal after tonight!

    To donate, click our PayPal link here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=BSRFLPUJQ9MKL&source=url

    And thank you for your contributions.

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 08:38:50 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2020, 07:26:31 PM

    Round 17
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .682/.596/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Brandeis (UAA): .682/.559/2-5
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 18
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC): .773/.508/3-3
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Brandeis (UAA): .682/.559/2-5
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 19
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - SUNY Potsdam (SUNYAC): .818/.506/2-4
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Brandeis (UAA): .682/.559/2-5
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 20
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - SUNY Potsdam (SUNYAC): .818/.506/2-4
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Albertus Magnus (GNAC): .818/.488/2-2
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    After losses last night, I think Brandeis and Rochester are officially on the wrong side of the bubble. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 09:05:50 AM
    Several big Pool C-related games today:

    * (2pm) St. John's at Bethel - with that low SOS, SJU can't afford to let their WP slip.

    * (2pm) Babson at Springfield - a win would lock Babson into a Pool C selection.

    * (4pm) Benedictine at Concordia WI - a loss could put BU in a tie for the NACC title; maybe moving from Pool A towards C?

    * (4pm) Brockport at Oswego State - Oswego could move into the East rankings with a win.

    * (4pm) Eau Claire at La Crosse - maybe the biggest implications of all games today; playing for a regional ranking spot.

    * (4pm) Williams at Amherst - Amherst probably on the right side of the end of the bubble now; with a loss probably out.

    * (4pm) McMurray at Texas-Dallas - makes the list simply because I am going to this game; Comets can't afford to get upset today.

    * (5pm) Loras at Nebraska Wesleyan - Loras could get on the right side of the bubble with a win.

    * (5pm) Buena Vista at Simpson - BV is on the wrong side of the bubble now; a loss would knock them out.

    * (6pm) Oshkosh at River Falls - UWO can't afford a loss before the WIAC conf tourney title game to have a chance.

    * (8pm) Platteville at Stevens Point - the Pointers could stay alive in that messy bottom of the Central picture; a sweep over Central #1 UWP would be huge.

    * (9pm) Whitworth at Linfield - a Linfield win leads to a tie for the NWC title (who wins the tie breaker for seeding?)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 04:07:13 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2020, 07:26:31 PM
    Round 3
    AT - TCNJ (NJAC): .826/.543/2-5
    C - Wash U (UAA): .818/.565/3-3
    E - Hobart (LL): .826/.532/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .826/.534/3-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - WPI (NEWMAC): .826/.544/3-4
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .783/.556/2-4
    W - St. John's (MIAC): .917/.494/3-2


    MIT 59
    WPI 55
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 04:08:03 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 09:05:50 AM

    * (2pm) Babson at Springfield - a win would lock Babson into a Pool C selection.

    Springfield 84
    Babson 78 (OT)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 04:11:21 PM
    Guilford knocks off #2 Randolph-Macon.

    This should get Guilford in the South rankings.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 04:51:02 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 09:05:50 AM
    * (4pm) Benedictine at Concordia WI - a loss could put BU in a tie for the NACC title; maybe moving from Pool A towards C?


    Concordia WI 88
    Benedictine 79
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 05:44:13 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 09:05:50 AM
    * (4pm) Eau Claire at La Crosse - maybe the biggest implications of all games today; playing for a regional ranking spot.


    La Crosse 64
    Eau Claire 54

    Very big result...
    * Eau Claire most likely eliminated from the Pool C picture.
    * La Crosse stays in the Central rankings.
    * La Crosse staying in the Central rankings is very big for Oshkosh (2-0 vs La Crosse).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 06:46:30 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 09:05:50 AM
    * (5pm) Loras at Nebraska Wesleyan - Loras could get on the right side of the bubble with a win.

    * (5pm) Buena Vista at Simpson - BV is on the wrong side of the bubble now; a loss would knock them out.

    Nebraska Wesleyan 88
    Loras 73

    Simpson 85
    Buena Vista 72


    I believe these losses put Loras and Buena Vista (both ranked in the West) on the wrong side of the bubble for good.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 22, 2020, 06:53:40 PM
    Benedictine with their loss today has a resume of 20-5 (.800 W%) with a .502 SOS (according to Snyder's most recent update) and 3-0 v RRO's (Wins over N. Central/St Norbert/Letourneau). 

    If the committee decides to keep Benedictine in the upper half of the rankings it should be a sign the national committee is willing to take teams from regions outside of the central with better SOS #s than Benedictine and similar win% into the tournament than other Central region teams with gaudy SOS's and low win%.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 06:57:55 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on February 22, 2020, 06:53:40 PM
    Benedictine with their loss today has a resume of 20-5 (.800 W%) with a .502 SOS (according to Snyder's most recent update) and 3-0 v RRO's (Wins over N. Central/St Norbert/Letourneau). 

    If the committee decides to keep Benedictine in the upper half of the rankings it should be a sign the national committee is willing to take teams from regions outside of the central with better SOS #s than Benedictine and similar win% into the tournament than other Central region teams with gaudy SOS's and low win%.

    I don't agree.  If the Central regional committee keeps BU regionally ranked (whether in the upper half, or in the top 8 period) it will be because, 1) their 3-0 vs RRO, and 2) the win at North Central.

    If BU just had the .800 WP and .502 SOS and stayed ranked, I would agree with you -- huge sign for sure regarding how this national committee views WP and SOS.  But BU has those two huge factors in its back pocket right now (the RRO and NCC head-to-head).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 22, 2020, 08:40:16 PM
    I agree with you Bob but if Benedictine losses in their conference tournament and they have to go outside of the Central "bubble", their resume will be very average (21-6, .778 WP%, .507 SOS, 3-0 v RRO's.) compared to other region's teams on the board.

    Their resume could potentially block a bunch of teams from the WIAC and CCIW that are at the bottom of the central region who are regionally ranked or on the cusp of being ranked.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 09:11:26 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on February 22, 2020, 08:40:16 PM
    I agree with you Bob but if Benedictine losses in their conference tournament and they have to go outside of the Central "bubble", their resume will be very average (21-6, .778 WP%, .507 SOS, 3-0 v RRO's.) compared to other region's teams on the board.

    Their resume could potentially block a bunch of teams from the WIAC and CCIW that are at the bottom of the central region who are regionally ranked or on the cusp of being ranked.

    I am almost positive that if BU loses in their conference tournament, they will be regionally ranked behind almost all of those CCIW and WIAC Pool C candidates.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 22, 2020, 09:15:14 PM
    So basically you're saying with one more loss Benedictine has zero chance of being regionally ranked in the Central.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 10:29:22 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on February 22, 2020, 09:15:14 PM
    So basically you're saying with one more loss Benedictine has zero chance of being regionally ranked in the Central.
    I think I am saying that, yes.  But it would also depend on what is going on with the other teams competing for those rankings spots.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2020, 08:47:46 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 22, 2020, 09:05:50 AM

    * (8pm) Platteville at Stevens Point - the Pointers could stay alive in that messy bottom of the Central picture; a sweep over Central #1 UWP would be huge.

    * (9pm) Whitworth at Linfield - a Linfield win leads to a tie for the NWC title (who wins the tie breaker for seeding?)

    Platteville 70
    Stevens Point 69

    I think that officially ends UWSP's Pool C chances.


    Linfield 91
    Whitworth 80

    Linfield and Whitworth tie for the NWC title - Whitworth is the #1 seed.  Whitworth hurts its Pool C resume, and Linfield is not a Pool candidate.  Regardless of how the conference tourney plays out, I think the NWC is probably going to be a one bid league.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2020, 10:32:32 AM
    Point had nine losses going in and they don't have the resume that Oshkosh did a few years ago when they shocked everyone and got a Pool C bid with 10 losses. The previous week killed them when they got swept by Oshkosh and La Crosse, both at home.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2020, 11:55:05 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2020, 10:32:32 AM
    Point had nine losses going in and they don't have the resume that Oshkosh did a few years ago when they shocked everyone and got a Pool C bid with 10 losses. The previous week killed them when they got swept by Oshkosh and La Crosse, both at home.

    You are most likely right.  But...

    At .642 (18-10)/.590 ish/and RROs that include 2 wins over the Central #1 (Platteville - probably a top 3 seed nationally), there would have at least been a strong conversation about a spot in that final Central regional ranking.

    And if you get ranked, you never know.  The teams on the bubble seem to have weaker resumes than normal this season (due to parity across the country).  For example, in the round-by-round projection I did last week, here was round #17...

    Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2020, 07:26:31 PM
    Round 17
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .682/.596/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Brandeis (UAA): .682/.559/2-5
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    I think the hypothetical UW-Stevens Point resume I mentioned above (which is no longer possible, to be clear) would be competitive here.  Pretend UWSP is in that La Crosse spot (because La Crosse gets in at spot #16, say).  Those 2 wins vs Platteville would have jumped off the page vs these other teams.  And heck, UWSP beat East TX Baptist head-to-head.

    Just saying, the bubble is different this year.  It's why I think Oshkosh has a great chance to get in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2020, 12:41:27 PM
    True. Good points. To make matters harder to accept is that Point really should've won that game last night. Up 9 at the break, at the line with the game tied near the end. Ball in hand (albeit with only 2 seconds to go at midcourt inbounds) down one. They had their chances. And like many other games this year, they blew it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 23, 2020, 02:40:57 PM
    I think it's pretty crazy how much 4 games can impact SOS numbers. Look at UST and SJU, they played the same conf schedule and even both played NWU on a neutral court. UST ends up having a SOS around .550 and SJU is currently at or below .500. Which may not seem like a lot, but ends up being a huge difference when talking about Pool C selections and deciding between similar resumes.

    Furthermore, SJU even played a 20 win Linfield in one of the remaining 4 different non-conf games. In terms of making the tourney I don't think it will matter for SJU, but a couple of more losses and they would have been in trouble. A future game(loss) against UST would definitely help the resume as well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2020, 04:05:27 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=6681c/pgqpljpvrn02b1tf.jpg)

    There is just one week left in the regular season and with it comes conference chaos.

    Some conference tournaments are already underway and have seen upsets. It will be the theme of the week. With conference tournaments come upsets. Those upsets will cause teams on the NCAA tournament bubble to have their hopes burst. And there will be some Cinderellas who will capture the headlines.

    Could it be any more fun?

    Sunday on Hoopsville (starting at a special earlier time) we chat with a few programs who are either looking to avoid the conference chaos or be a part of it.

    Plus, there is changes coming to the way we look at the current regional structure. How the process started and flowed for the last 18 or more months. And what you can expect it all to look in the future.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Pat Devaney, Sr., NJCU women's coach
    - Brad Bankston, ODAC Commissioner
    - Josh Merkel, No. 2 Randolph-Macon men's coach
    - Ashlee Rogers, Marymount women's coach
    - Jeff Gard, No. 7 UW Platteville men's coach
    - Bob Quillman & Ryan Scott, Top 25 Double-Take 

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Sunday's show LIVE starting at 6:30 pm ET in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/2T6OV1S (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/feb23)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel
    Monday's show primarily covers the Atlantic, Central, South, and Northeast Regions. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    Sunday's show primarily covers the Atlantic, Central, South, and Northeast Regions. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

    Please also consider helping us out. We are accepting donations to the show - which many of you have asked about. We have updated the goal to $7,500 by the end of Monday, March 2. We are currently at $3,712.52.

    We will be raising the goal after tonight!

    To donate, click our PayPal link here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=BSRFLPUJQ9MKL&source=url

    And thank you for your contributions.

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 23, 2020, 04:49:59 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 23, 2020, 02:40:57 PM
    I think it's pretty crazy how much 4 games can impact SOS numbers. Look at UST and SJU, they played the same conf schedule and even both played NWU on a neutral court. UST ends up having a SOS around .550 and SJU is currently at or below .500. Which may not seem like a lot, but ends up being a huge difference when talking about Pool C selections and deciding between similar resumes.

    Furthermore, SJU even played a 20 win Linfield in one of the remaining 4 different non-conf games.     In terms of making the tourney I don't think it will matter for SJU, but a couple of more losses and they would have been in trouble. A future game(loss) against UST would definitely help the resume as well.

    Without doing the math one would not have expected 3 nonconference games could have made such a big difference(.05) in SOS between UST and SJU in a 25 game schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 23, 2020, 05:33:02 PM
    St. John's
    Marian is 4-21
    Willamette 1-24
    Minn-Morris 8-17
    =13-62

    St. Thomas
    Whitman  18-7
    Whitworth  20-5
    St. Scholastica 13-12
    = 51-24

    There is a wide gap is quality here. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 23, 2020, 05:38:52 PM
    3 games is 12% of the 25-game schedule. The quality of teams differs by about .500 in the OWP.
    0.500 x .12 = .060 , so the OWP portion of the math looks reasonable if I'm thinking about it correctly.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 23, 2020, 06:54:51 PM
    Yeah it is pretty polarizing records for the remaining three games, but if we are being fair and not including Linfield for SJU, we should eliminate Whitworth from UST (also 20-5) and include DePauw (14-11) instead. Still, SJU needs to schedule better/ran a little unlucky to have those teams have such a terrible record this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 23, 2020, 10:44:45 PM
    As I see it, here are the top "bubble burster" candidates (Pool A teams that would steal Pool C with a conference tourney loss)...


    Tier 1 Bubble Burster Teams (a conference tourney loss means a Pool C bid disappears)
    * UW-Platteville (C/WIAC) - UW-Oshkosh and UW-La Crosse are bubble teams currently.

    * Nebraska Wesleyan (W/ARC) - Loras and Buena Vista are bubble teams currently.

    * St. Norbert (C/MWC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the MWC.

    * North Central (C/CCIW) - Pool C swap if Elmhurst wins the CCIW; otherwise a bubble burster.

    * Brockport (E/SUNYAC) - other SUNYAC Pool C candidates are on the end of the bubble currently.

    * Randolph Macon (S/ODAC) - Virginia Wesleyan is on the Pool C bubble; Guilford is not regionally ranked currently.

    * Stevens (AT/MACF) - no other competitive Pool candidates in the MACF currently.

    * Wittenberg (GL/NCAC) - Wooster is on the bubble; no other competitive Pool C candidates in the NCAC.


    Tier 2 Bubble Burster (a conference tourney loss sends these teams to the bubble; not Pool C locks)
    * St. Joseph CT (NE/GNAC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the GNAC.

    * Albion (GL/MIAA) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the MIAA.

    * Benedictine (C/NACC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the NACC.

    * Yeshiva (AT/Skyline) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the Skyline currently.

    * Center (S/SAA) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the SAA.

    * Whitworth (W/NWC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the NWC.

    * Drew (MA/LAND) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the LAND.

    * Widener (MA/MACC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the MACC.


    Not Considered Bubble Bursters At This Point (these are potential Pool A/C swaps)
    *St. Thomas (W/MIAC) - Pool C swap if St. John's win the MIAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Mount Union (GL/OAC) - Pool C swap if Marietta wins the OAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Swarthmore (MA/CC) - Pool C swap if Johns Hopkins wins the CC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Tufts (NE/NESCAC) - Middlebury assumed Pool C lock; Pool C swap if Colby wins; potential swap if Amerst wins; bubble burster if Trinity.

    * Christopher Newport (MA/CAC) - Pool C swap if York wins the CAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Springfield (NE/NEWMAC) - Pool C swap if Babson or WPI win the NEWMAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Texas-Dallas (S/ASC) - Pool C swap if LeTourneau wins the ASC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * RPI (E/LL) - Pool C swap if Hobart wins the LL; bubble burster if anyone else.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BaboNation on February 24, 2020, 08:39:47 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2020, 10:44:45 PM
    As I see it, here are the top "bubble burster" candidates (Pool A teams that would steal Pool C with a conference tourney loss)...


    Tier 1 Bubble Burster Teams (a conference tourney loss means a Pool C bid disappears)
    * UW-Platteville (C/WIAC) - UW-Oshkosh and UW-La Crosse are bubble teams currently.

    * Nebraska Wesleyan (W/ARC) - Loras and Buena Vista are bubble teams currently.

    * St. Norbert (C/MWC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the MWC.

    * North Central (C/CCIW) - Pool C swap if Elmhurst wins the CCIW; otherwise a bubble burster.

    * Brockport (E/SUNYAC) - other SUNYAC Pool C candidates are on the end of the bubble currently.

    * Randolph Macon (S/ODAC) - Virginia Wesleyan is on the Pool C bubble; Guilford is not regionally ranked currently.

    * Stevens (AT/MACF) - no other competitive Pool candidates in the MACF currently.

    * Wittenberg (GL/NCAC) - Wooster is on the bubble; no other competitive Pool C candidates in the NCAC.


    Tier 2 Bubble Burster (a conference tourney loss sends these teams to the bubble; not Pool C locks)
    * St. Joseph CT (NE/GNAC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the GNAC.

    * Albion (GL/MIAA) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the MIAA.

    * Benedictine (C/NACC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the NACC.

    * Yeshiva (AT/Skyline) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the Skyline currently.

    * Center (S/SAA) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the SAA.

    * Whitworth (W/NWC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the NWC.

    * Drew (MA/LAND) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the LAND.

    * Widener (MA/MACC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the MACC.


    Not Considered Bubble Bursters At This Point (these are potential Pool A/C swaps)
    *St. Thomas (W/MIAC) - Pool C swap if St. John's win the MIAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Mount Union (GL/OAC) - Pool C swap if Marietta wins the OAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Swarthmore (MA/CC) - Pool C swap if Johns Hopkins wins the CC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Tufts (NE/NESCAC) - Middlebury assumed Pool C lock; Pool C swap if Colby wins; potential swap if Amerst wins; bubble burster if Trinity.

    * Christopher Newport (MA/CAC) - Pool C swap if York wins the CAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Springfield (NE/NEWMAC) - Pool C swap if Babson or WPI win the NEWMAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Texas-Dallas (S/ASC) - Pool C swap if LeTourneau wins the ASC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * RPI (E/LL) - Pool C swap if Hobart wins the LL; bubble burster if anyone else.

    I appreciate all your work.  As a NEWMAC fan, am I correct to infer that you have both WPI and Babson in the tournament regardless of NEWMAC tourney results?  One team is guaranteed another win and the other a loss in the tourney, because they play each other next.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2020, 08:43:45 AM
    Quote from: BaboNation on February 24, 2020, 08:39:47 AM
    I appreciate all your work.  As a NEWMAC fan, am I correct to infer that you have both WPI and Babson in the tournament regardless of NEWMAC tourney results?  One team is guaranteed another win and the other a loss in the tourney, because they play each other next.

    I had both safely in when I did my Pool C projection this past Wednesday - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1978643#msg1978643.

    But I need to take another look at that this week, after the new rankings come out.  Obviously both have lost since then.  I'm not ready to say WPI and Babson are both locks yet.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 24, 2020, 08:51:18 AM
    Something I posted in early-January...

    Quote from: Titan Q on January 05, 2020, 05:46:09 PM
    While I cannot confirm the order of selection, if my suggested order is correct (I generally think it is very close), here is the average for the last 4 in for the last 3 seasons (4 per year x 3 years = 12 total selections):

    .713 WP/.556 SOS/4-3 vs RRO


    And then here is a look at my last 4 rounds last week:

    Quote from: Titan Q on February 19, 2020, 07:26:31 PM
    Round 17
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .682/.596/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Brandeis (UAA): .682/.559/2-5
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 18
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - SUNY Oneonta (SUNYAC): .773/.508/3-3
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Brandeis (UAA): .682/.559/2-5
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 19
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - SUNY Potsdam (SUNYAC): .818/.506/2-4
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Brandeis (UAA): .682/.559/2-5
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    Round 20
    AT - Purchase (Sky): .696/.513/1-2
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .783/.532/1-4
    E - SUNY Potsdam (SUNYAC): .818/.506/2-4
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .696/.539/1-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .792/.531/1-4
    NE - Albertus Magnus (GNAC): .818/.488/2-2
    S - East TX Baptist (ASC): .783/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .739/.530/1-2

    If we add a loss for every 2020 Pool C candidate above (all have to lose to be Pool C), it seems to me the bubble is much softer than usual. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2020, 11:56:49 AM
    I really enjoyed the Hoopsville segment last night with Bob and Ryan talking Pool C. Sounds like you will have a good time picking teams in the mock selections next week.

    One interesting comparison that was made was St. Joseph (Conn.) vs. St. John's.

    Team                 Conf   WP      SOS     NCSOS   D3     vRRO
    St. Joseph (Conn.)   GNAC   0.913   0.502   0.495   21-2   1-1
    St. Johns            MIAC   0.920   0.498   0.513   23-2   3-2

    The comparison is certainly apt given the WP and SOS ranges they're both in (nearly identical!). St. Joseph's problem -- if they're both Pool C -- is that they appear to be decidedly behind St. Johns given the NCSOS and the vRROs. Their win is vs. NE#11 Albertus Magnus. St. John's has a win over WE#1 St. Thomas in addition to wins over regionally ranked Augsburg. So, St. Joseph would probably be sitting waiting for St. John's to get in while hoping there's enough time for themselves to get in afterward.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 24, 2020, 12:40:17 PM

    Although, if they're at the table at the same time, things have gone very wrong for St. John's.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: AO on February 24, 2020, 01:46:37 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2020, 11:56:49 AM
    I really enjoyed the Hoopsville segment last night with Bob and Ryan talking Pool C. Sounds like you will have a good time picking teams in the mock selections next week.

    One interesting comparison that was made was St. Joseph (Conn.) vs. St. John's.

    Team                 Conf   WP      SOS     NCSOS   D3     vRRO
    St. Joseph (Conn.)   GNAC   0.913   0.502   0.495   21-2   1-1
    St. Johns            MIAC   0.920   0.498   0.513   23-2   3-2

    The comparison is certainly apt given the WP and SOS ranges they're both in (nearly identical!). St. Joseph's problem -- if they're both Pool C -- is that they appear to be decidedly behind St. Johns given the NCSOS and the vRROs. Their win is vs. NE#11 Albertus Magnus. St. John's has a win over WE#1 St. Thomas in addition to wins over regionally ranked Augsburg. So, St. Joseph would probably be sitting waiting for St. John's to get in while hoping there's enough time for themselves to get in afterward.
    SoS according to Massey
    St. John's: 95th
    St. Joseph: 248th
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 24, 2020, 01:48:28 PM
    Quote from: AO on February 24, 2020, 01:46:37 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 24, 2020, 11:56:49 AM
    I really enjoyed the Hoopsville segment last night with Bob and Ryan talking Pool C. Sounds like you will have a good time picking teams in the mock selections next week.

    One interesting comparison that was made was St. Joseph (Conn.) vs. St. John's.

    Team                 Conf   WP      SOS     NCSOS   D3     vRRO
    St. Joseph (Conn.)   GNAC   0.913   0.502   0.495   21-2   1-1
    St. Johns            MIAC   0.920   0.498   0.513   23-2   3-2

    The comparison is certainly apt given the WP and SOS ranges they're both in (nearly identical!). St. Joseph's problem -- if they're both Pool C -- is that they appear to be decidedly behind St. Johns given the NCSOS and the vRROs. Their win is vs. NE#11 Albertus Magnus. St. John's has a win over WE#1 St. Thomas in addition to wins over regionally ranked Augsburg. So, St. Joseph would probably be sitting waiting for St. John's to get in while hoping there's enough time for themselves to get in afterward.
    SoS according to Massey
    St. John's: 95th
    St. Joseph: 248th

    Johnnies should have manned up and played Morris and Willamette at home!! ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2020, 02:36:52 PM
    The Week 3 men's regional rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2020/02/men-regional-rankings-third
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: PauldingLightUP on February 25, 2020, 02:48:36 PM
    Data sheets are not updated. :'(
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2020, 02:51:55 PM
    Quote from: PauldingLightUP on February 25, 2020, 02:48:36 PM
    Data sheets are not updated. :'(

    They were for a hot minute (as described to me) and now have reverted. We have alerted the NCAA folk. Unfortunately, they aren't in direct control as those in Atlanta at Turner do all the website work. So we will have to see how long it takes to fix.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 25, 2020, 11:32:51 PM
    Based on the 3rd regional rankings (before games of Tues 2/25)...

    Round 1
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .800/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.508/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .800/.525/3-3
    MA - Johns Hopkins (CC): .880/.563/5-3
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.571/5-2
    S - Emory (UAA): .833/.559/5-1
    W - St. Thomas (MIAC): .920/.541/4-2

    Round 2
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .800/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.508/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .800/.525/3-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.571/5-2
    S - Emory (UAA): .833/.559/5-1
    W - St. Thomas (MIAC): .920/.541/4-2

    Round 3
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .800/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.508/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .800/.525/3-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.571/5-2
    S - Emory (UAA): .833/.559/5-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 4
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .800/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.508/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .800/.525/3-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.571/5-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .800/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 5
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .800/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.508/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .800/.525/3-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Tufts (NESCAC): .760/.583/4-4
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .800/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 6
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .800/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.508/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .800/.525/3-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - WPI (NEWMAC): .760/.544/3-5
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .800/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 7
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .800/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.508/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .800/.525/3-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - WPI (NEWMAC): .760/.544/3-5
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 8
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .800/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.508/3-3
    GL - Wooster (NCAC): .720/.560/4-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - WPI (NEWMAC): .760/.544/3-5
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 9
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .800/.527/3-2
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.508/3-3
    GL - Wooster (NCAC): .720/.560/4-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .800/.526/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 10
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .800/.527/3-2
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wooster (NCAC): .720/.560/4-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .800/.526/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 11
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .680/.598/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wooster (NCAC): .720/.560/4-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .800/.526/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 12
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .680/.598/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wooster (NCAC): .720/.560/4-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 13
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .680/.598/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 14
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .800/.536/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 15
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .800/.536/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 16
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .800/.536/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 17
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .800/.536/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 18
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Augustana (CCIW): .720/.570/2-6
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 19
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .680/.580/2-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 20
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .680/.580/2-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Loras (ARC): .680/.539/1-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2020, 12:41:42 AM
    I feel like LeTu would be my personal choice over WPI/Hobart/etc in the rounds 7-10. Not that it really matters, but curious to why you chose those teams over LeTu? Does vRRO matter that much? Or is it just splitting hairs with similarly good to great resumes?

    Thanks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2020, 06:37:41 AM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 26, 2020, 12:41:42 AM
    I feel like LeTu would be my personal choice over WPI/Hobart/etc in the rounds 7-10. Not that it really matters, but curious to why you chose those teams over LeTu? Does vRRO matter that much? Or is it just splitting hairs with similarly good to great resumes?

    Thanks.

    After looking at it again, I agree, I had LeTourneau several spots too low.  I have moved them up.  Good catch.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2020, 08:46:28 AM

    I feel like, from this list, those first six are the only absolute locks right now.  Obviously we'll have a few upset teams to add into that on Sunday, but we could be debating quite a bit for mock selections.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2020, 08:50:22 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2020, 08:46:28 AM

    I feel like, from this list, those first six are the only absolute locks right now.  Obviously we'll have a few upset teams to add into that on Sunday, but we could be debating quite a bit for mock selections.

    Agree!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2020, 09:00:02 AM

    You also may want to look at your Augie/Eau Claire comparison.  I think, right now, Eau Claire gets on the table first.  The primary criteria is very much a wash and when it comes to secondary, UWEC has a very solid NCSOS.  This Eau Claire - Platteville game may be the decider.  A win there, Eau Claire is clearly ahead for me; a loss and I'd give it to Augie.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2020, 09:11:50 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2020, 09:00:02 AM

    You also may want to look at your Augie/Eau Claire comparison.  I think, right now, Eau Claire gets on the table first.  The primary criteria is very much a wash and when it comes to secondary, UWEC has a very solid NCSOS.  This Eau Claire - Platteville game may be the decider.  A win there, Eau Claire is clearly ahead for me; a loss and I'd give it to Augie.

    It is super close.

    I went with Augie based on the .720 WP vs .680 for EC.  But who knows.

    I am convinced that the Central has to rank 2 more than the 8 official regionally ranked teams (like a side pot of regionally ranked teams).  They will have to order Augustana or Illinois Wesleyan (whoever wins Friday) and UW-Eau Claire.  Both are in play.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2020, 11:13:46 AM
    To go along with what you all are saying, I think the top three Pool C resumes among unranked teams are in the Central.

    UW-Eau Claire
    Augustana
    Illinois Wesleyan

    Next is probably Brandeis
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2020, 11:17:32 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 26, 2020, 11:13:46 AM
    To go along with what you all are saying, I think the top three Pool C resumes among unranked teams are in the Central.

    UW-Eau Claire
    Augustana
    Illinois Wesleyan

    Next is probably Brandeis

    And there's no way the NE gets beyond their rankings anyway.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2020, 01:26:51 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 26, 2020, 09:11:50 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 26, 2020, 09:00:02 AM

    You also may want to look at your Augie/Eau Claire comparison.  I think, right now, Eau Claire gets on the table first.  The primary criteria is very much a wash and when it comes to secondary, UWEC has a very solid NCSOS.  This Eau Claire - Platteville game may be the decider.  A win there, Eau Claire is clearly ahead for me; a loss and I'd give it to Augie.

    It is super close.

    I went with Augie based on the .720 WP vs .680 for EC.  But who knows.

    I am convinced that the Central has to rank 2 more than the 8 official regionally ranked teams (like a side pot of regionally ranked teams).  They will have to order Augustana or Illinois Wesleyan (whoever wins Friday) and UW-Eau Claire.  Both are in play.

    So everyone knows, I am under the impression the RACs (and national committee) rank at least double of what we see public at least at the end ... but they may be doing it all along to be in the practice.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 26, 2020, 11:13:19 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2020, 10:44:45 PM
    As I see it, here are the top "bubble burster" candidates (Pool A teams that would steal Pool C with a conference tourney loss)...


    Tier 1 Bubble Burster Teams (a conference tourney loss means a Pool C bid disappears)
    * UW-Platteville (C/WIAC) - UW-Oshkosh and UW-La Crosse are bubble teams currently.

    * Nebraska Wesleyan (W/ARC) - Loras and Buena Vista are bubble teams currently.

    * St. Norbert (C/MWC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the MWC.

    * North Central (C/CCIW) - Pool C swap if Elmhurst wins the CCIW; otherwise a bubble burster.

    * Brockport (E/SUNYAC) - other SUNYAC Pool C candidates are on the end of the bubble currently.

    * Randolph Macon (S/ODAC) - Virginia Wesleyan is on the Pool C bubble; Guilford is not regionally ranked currently.

    * Stevens (AT/MACF) - no other competitive Pool candidates in the MACF currently.

    * Wittenberg (GL/NCAC) - Wooster is on the bubble; no other competitive Pool C candidates in the NCAC.


    Tier 2 Bubble Burster (a conference tourney loss sends these teams to the bubble; not Pool C locks)
    * St. Joseph CT (NE/GNAC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the GNAC.

    * Albion (GL/MIAA) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the MIAA.

    * Benedictine (C/NACC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the NACC.

    * Yeshiva (AT/Skyline) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the Skyline currently.

    * Center (S/SAA) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the SAA.

    * Whitworth (W/NWC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the NWC.

    * Drew (MA/LAND) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the LAND.

    * Widener (MA/MACC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the MACC.


    Not Considered Bubble Bursters At This Point (these are potential Pool A/C swaps)
    *St. Thomas (W/MIAC) - Pool C swap if St. John's win the MIAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Mount Union (GL/OAC) - Pool C swap if Marietta wins the OAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Swarthmore (MA/CC) - Pool C swap if Johns Hopkins wins the CC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Tufts (NE/NESCAC) - Middlebury assumed Pool C lock; Pool C swap if Colby wins; potential swap if Amerst wins; bubble burster if Trinity.

    * Christopher Newport (MA/CAC) - Pool C swap if York wins the CAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Springfield (NE/NEWMAC) - Pool C swap if Babson or WPI win the NEWMAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Texas-Dallas (S/ASC) - Pool C swap if LeTourneau wins the ASC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * RPI (E/LL) - Pool C swap if Hobart wins the LL; bubble burster if anyone else.

    Scranton 93
    Drew 91

    Lycoming 90
    Widener 77


    Drew and Widener join the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 07:49:11 AM
    Drew and Widener were #5 and #6 in the MA

    Drew going into the week .800 WP/1-1 vRRO/.523 SOS

    Widener .792/2-1/.522

    They will be behind the CNU/York loser and the Swarthmore/ JHU loser.  York has similar, but better numbers and you have them coming to the table at round #2 and not being taken until #15.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 27, 2020, 08:23:50 AM
    York also has a game @ CNU in CAC championship (Currently 3rd in MA and 21-5) which will bolster their SOS and add a Regionally Ranked game. Widener and Drew both played themselves off the bubble last night but doubtful they were realistically on the Pool C radar going into the week. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2020, 06:16:53 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=6dqwi/xzirszmgz31n83ev.jpg)

    The race for conference championships and automatic bids to the NCAA tournaments is nearly at it's peak. In less than 72 hours, we will know who have punched their tickets to the 'dance' and who sits on the edge of their seat hoping to keep playing in March.

    Thursday night on Hoopsville, we not only recap what has already happened in conference tournaments across Division III, but we also look ahead at what should be an exciting final weekend of the regular season. Conference champions crowned, upsets, and those who's hopes to still playing will see their bubbles burst.

    We also talk to both national committee chairs about the work left ahead of them, what they hope people understand about the process, and how they see bracketing coming together. Plus, we look ahead at the second annual Beyond Sports & WBCA Division III Women's All-Star Game and championship weekend.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Dixie Jeffers, Capital women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
    - Karin Harvey, Montclair State women's coach & DIII Women's National Committee Chair
    - Sam Atkinson, Gallaudet Assoc. Dir. of Communications & DIII Men's National Committee Chair

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Sunday's show LIVE starting at 6:30 pm ET in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/2HZkple (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/feb27)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel
    Monday's show primarily covers the Atlantic, Central, South, and Northeast Regions. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    Thursday's show will feature a women's coach in the WBCA Center Court segment. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options.

    Please also consider helping us out. We are accepting donations to the show - which many of you have asked about. We have updated the goal to $7,500 by Monday night. We are approximately at $4,097.52 at the time of this posting.

    We will be raising the goal after tonight!

    To donate, click our PayPal link here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=BSRFLPUJQ9MKL&source=url

    And thank you for your contributions.

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 09:48:32 PM
    Platteville moves to pool c, losing at home to EC.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 09:59:14 PM
    Benedictine lost, upsetting everyone in the Central Region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:10:11 PM

    Eau Claire needed that win for sure.  Not only do they have a chance at the AQ now, but they've also improved their Pool C resume pretty significantly.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:16:46 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 09:59:14 PM
    Benedictine lost, upsetting everyone in the Central Region.
    I am 95% sure Benedictine is done
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:23:11 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:16:46 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 09:59:14 PM
    Benedictine lost, upsetting everyone in the Central Region.
    I am 95% sure Benedictine is done

    They're not going to drop below LaCrosse, so they should still be in the mix on the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:25:56 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:23:11 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:16:46 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 09:59:14 PM
    Benedictine lost, upsetting everyone in the Central Region.
    I am 95% sure Benedictine is done

    They're not going to drop below LaCrosse, so they should still be in the mix on the bubble.

    I believe they will drop out of the Central region rankings.

    They will have a shot at the end of the bubble as one of those non-ranked Central Pool C candidates.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:42:03 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:25:56 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:23:11 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:16:46 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 09:59:14 PM
    Benedictine lost, upsetting everyone in the Central Region.
    I am 95% sure Benedictine is done

    They're not going to drop below LaCrosse, so they should still be in the mix on the bubble.

    I believe they will drop out of the Central region rankings.

    They will have a shot at the end of the bubble as one of those non-ranked Central Pool C candidates.

    You thought they'd be dropping every week so far and they stayed put.  They're definitely dropping, and they might even drop all the way out, but I think they're still going to be in the Pool C conversation as 8 or 9 in the Central.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2020, 10:45:37 PM
    I don't think Benedictine drops out of the rankings. I don't get that sense at all.

    There have been enough clues this season ...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:47:52 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:42:03 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:25:56 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:23:11 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:16:46 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 09:59:14 PM
    Benedictine lost, upsetting everyone in the Central Region.
    I am 95% sure Benedictine is done

    They're not going to drop below LaCrosse, so they should still be in the mix on the bubble.

    I believe they will drop out of the Central region rankings.

    They will have a shot at the end of the bubble as one of those non-ranked Central Pool C candidates.

    You thought they'd be dropping every week so far and they stayed put.  They're definitely dropping, and they might even drop all the way out, but I think they're still going to be in the Pool C conversation as 8 or 9 in the Central.
    I think as 9, yes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:50:25 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:47:52 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:42:03 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:25:56 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:23:11 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:16:46 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 09:59:14 PM
    Benedictine lost, upsetting everyone in the Central Region.
    I am 95% sure Benedictine is done

    They're not going to drop below LaCrosse, so they should still be in the mix on the bubble.

    I believe they will drop out of the Central region rankings.

    They will have a shot at the end of the bubble as one of those non-ranked Central Pool C candidates.

    You thought they'd be dropping every week so far and they stayed put.  They're definitely dropping, and they might even drop all the way out, but I think they're still going to be in the Pool C conversation as 8 or 9 in the Central.
    I think as 9, yes.

    So you think Augie at 8?  That's assuming they win their semifinal?  I'm not sure 18-8 will do it, but 19-8 sure might.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2020, 10:55:14 PM
    Augie being 2-6 vRRO currently ... which won't improve if they win the semi (would be 2-7 or 3-6 after a possible CCIW title game) ... I'm not sure that vaults them over Benedictine.

    It will be interesting ...

    But that is also why all of this changes so much from game to game on every night this week. By Saturday Augustana might be irrelevent.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:55:23 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:50:25 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:47:52 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:42:03 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:25:56 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2020, 10:23:11 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 10:16:46 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 09:59:14 PM
    Benedictine lost, upsetting everyone in the Central Region.
    I am 95% sure Benedictine is done

    They're not going to drop below LaCrosse, so they should still be in the mix on the bubble.

    I believe they will drop out of the Central region rankings.

    They will have a shot at the end of the bubble as one of those non-ranked Central Pool C candidates.

    You thought they'd be dropping every week so far and they stayed put.  They're definitely dropping, and they might even drop all the way out, but I think they're still going to be in the Pool C conversation as 8 or 9 in the Central.
    I think as 9, yes.

    So you think Augie at 8?  That's assuming they win their semifinal?  I'm not sure 18-8 will do it, but 19-8 sure might.

    If Augie wins Friday night...

    1. Platteville
    2. Wash U
    3. North Central
    4. Elmhurst
    5. St. Norbert
    6. UW-Oshkosh
    7. UW-Eau Claire
    8. Augustana
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2020, 11:04:33 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2020, 10:45:37 PM
    I don't think Benedictine drops out of the rankings. I don't get that sense at all.

    There have been enough clues this season ...

    Clues of what? Their resume is no longer very strong.
    Benedictine .769/.507/3-0
    UW-Eau Claire .704/.590/3-7

    I know there are more details -- where the team is ranked -- but 3-7 is better than 3-0, right? Don't give Benedictine credit for losing to softer teams.
    (Eau Claire still has to lose to get into Pool C, I understand that).

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 27, 2020, 11:06:34 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 27, 2020, 11:04:33 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2020, 10:45:37 PM
    I don't think Benedictine drops out of the rankings. I don't get that sense at all.

    There have been enough clues this season ...

    Clues of what? Their resume is no longer very strong.
    Benedictine .769/.507/3-0
    UW-Eau Claire .704/.590/3-7

    I know there are more details -- where the team is ranked -- but 3-7 is better than 3-0, right? Don't give Benedictine credit for losing to softer teams.

    Yes!! Thank you.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 27, 2020, 11:10:58 PM
    La Crosse still has head to head win over Augustana and a sweep over Eau Claire with a 21-6 record but significant lower SOS and terrible NCSOS, if it gets pushed to secondary.  Will be interesting to see if they drop out of the final rankings or if the RAC decides to keep them above those two teams they've beat.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 11:14:10 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2020, 10:45:37 PM
    I don't think Benedictine drops out of the rankings. I don't get that sense at all.

    There have been enough clues this season ...
    What clues?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 11:15:28 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on February 27, 2020, 11:10:58 PM
    La Crosse still has head to head win over Augustana and a sweep over Eau Claire with a 21-6 record but significant lower SOS and terrible NCSOS, if it gets pushed to secondary.  Will be interesting to see if they drop out of the final rankings or if the RAC decides to keep them above those two teams they've beat.

    I agree that spots 7 and 8 in the Central - between Eau Claire, La Crosse, and Augustana (You Pick Two) - is really tight.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 11:15:36 PM
    Well, they've lost twice since the rankings came out and they haven't moved.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 11:16:30 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 11:15:36 PM
    Well, they've lost twice since the rankings came out and they haven't moved.
    The Central RAC used the head-to-head over NCC as long as they could.

    The party is over now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2020, 11:24:39 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 11:16:30 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 11:15:36 PM
    Well, they've lost twice since the rankings came out and they haven't moved.
    The Central RAC used the head-to-head over NCC as long as they could.

    The party is over now.

    But that isn't changing the conversation from removing Benedictine completely from the rankings.

    I just don't think Benedictine disappears from the convo here. I think the clues are undefeated in vRRO (including North Central which helps when looking at other teams other than NCC) and the fact that an SOS near .500 isn't a death nail like it has been in the past. We have seen that in several other places around Division III.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 11:30:42 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2020, 11:24:39 PM
    I just don't think Benedictine disappears from the convo here. I think the clues are undefeated in vRRO (including North Central which helps when looking at other teams other than NCC) and the fact that an SOS near .500 isn't a death nail like it has been in the past. We have seen that in several other places around Division III.

    I think they are absolutely in the convo, but after losing 3 of their final 5 games (MSOE, Concordia WI, MSOE), their resume is no longer as good as the teams they are competing with.  For a while there they had a great WP to help balance the low SOS...that is no longer the case.

    .769/.507/3-0 is just not good enough to be ranked ahead of Eau Claire and Augustana in my opinion.


    * UW-Eau Claire: .704/.590/3-7
    * Augustana: .720/.568/2-6
    * UW-La Crosse: .778/.541/1-5
    * Benedictine: .769/.507/3-0


    I'm pretty sure BU comes in 4th there...or 3rd at best.  If 3rd, they are not ranked in the Central.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 27, 2020, 11:37:35 PM
    Saying you are undefeated against ranked teams is like saying MJ is the best basketball player because he never lost in the finals, but he lost multiple times in the earlier rounds, presumably teams that are worse they should have beat.  Meanwhile LBJ gets dinged for being 3-6 in the finals. Making it to the finals 9 times is incredible and should be rewarded.

    DISCLAIMER: (Not saying MJ isn't the GOAT, just think the finals record is a weak argument)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 11:42:44 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 11:30:42 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2020, 11:24:39 PM
    I just don't think Benedictine disappears from the convo here. I think the clues are undefeated in vRRO (including North Central which helps when looking at other teams other than NCC) and the fact that an SOS near .500 isn't a death nail like it has been in the past. We have seen that in several other places around Division III.

    I think they are absolutely in the convo, but after losing 3 of their final 5 games (MSOE, Concordia WI, MSOE), their resume is no longer as good as the teams they are competing with.  For a while there they had a great WP to help balance the low SOS...that is no longer the case.

    .769/.507/3-0 is just not good enough to be ranked ahead of Eau Claire and Augustana in my opinion.


    * UW-Eau Claire: .704/.590/3-7
    * Augustana: .720/.568/2-6
    * UW-La Crosse: .778/.541/1-5
    * Benedictine: .769/.507/3-0


    I'm pretty sure BU comes in 4th there...or 3rd at best.  If 3rd, they are not ranked in the Central.

    If you just put those numbers up as Team A and Team B, La Crosse would win that argument everytime for me.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 28, 2020, 08:50:56 AM
    With the Wabash loss and John Carroll's second win over Marietta, is there any chance John Carroll would be considered or even get to the line for a pool C bid?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 08:57:54 AM
    Adding assumed losses for Augustana and Eau Claire in the CCIW and WIAC title games, I would order these...

    7. UW-La Crosse: .778 (21-6)/.541/3-5 (rank UW-Eau Claire and add 2 wins vs RRO)

    8. UW-Eau Claire: .679 (19-9)/.589/3-8
    -------

    9. Benedictine: .769 (20-6)/.507/3-0

    10. Augustana: .704 (19-8)/.568/2-7


    I think Augustana is the team that is in the most trouble of the four -- meaning, they might be the lowest ranked team of the group.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 09:15:17 AM
    Quote from: Onward on, John Carroll on February 28, 2020, 08:50:56 AM
    With the Wabash loss and John Carroll's second win over Marietta, is there any chance John Carroll would be considered or even get to the line for a pool C bid?

    John Carroll should now hit the board after Marietta and Wooster get in, and have a chance at the end.  The numbers/projections below are now a few days old, but I post it for context of the types of resumes John Carroll could be on the board win.  Their 3-3 RRO would put them in consideration here.

    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2020, 11:32:51 PM
    Round 19
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .680/.580/2-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 20
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .680/.580/2-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Loras (ARC): .680/.539/1-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2020, 09:24:47 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2020, 11:42:44 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 27, 2020, 11:30:42 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2020, 11:24:39 PM
    I just don't think Benedictine disappears from the convo here. I think the clues are undefeated in vRRO (including North Central which helps when looking at other teams other than NCC) and the fact that an SOS near .500 isn't a death nail like it has been in the past. We have seen that in several other places around Division III.

    I think they are absolutely in the convo, but after losing 3 of their final 5 games (MSOE, Concordia WI, MSOE), their resume is no longer as good as the teams they are competing with.  For a while there they had a great WP to help balance the low SOS...that is no longer the case.

    .769/.507/3-0 is just not good enough to be ranked ahead of Eau Claire and Augustana in my opinion.


    * UW-Eau Claire: .704/.590/3-7
    * Augustana: .720/.568/2-6
    * UW-La Crosse: .778/.541/1-5
    * Benedictine: .769/.507/3-0


    I'm pretty sure BU comes in 4th there...or 3rd at best.  If 3rd, they are not ranked in the Central.

    If you just put those numbers up as Team A and Team B, La Crosse would win that argument everytime for me.

    That 1-5 vs the 3-0 is going to make a big difference.  It always does.  Now, if Eau Claire gets ranked, that drastically improves LAX's vRRO to 3-5, and I think then they're a shoe-in.  Eau Claire is the rising tide that lifts all WIAC boats.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 09:29:45 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2020, 09:24:47 AM
    That 1-5 vs the 3-0 is going to make a big difference.  It always does.  Now, if Eau Claire gets ranked, that drastically improves LAX's vRRO to 3-5, and I think then they're a shoe-in.  Eau Claire is the rising tide that lifts all WIAC boats.
    Yes, I think Eau Claire is a really safe bet to get ranked...and once they do, that boosts the UW-La Crosse resume in a huge way.  Picking up 2 RRO wins is enormous.

    I think this is what, criteria wise, finally bumps Benedictine out (to #9).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2020, 09:34:23 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 09:29:45 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2020, 09:24:47 AM
    That 1-5 vs the 3-0 is going to make a big difference.  It always does.  Now, if Eau Claire gets ranked, that drastically improves LAX's vRRO to 3-5, and I think then they're a shoe-in.  Eau Claire is the rising tide that lifts all WIAC boats.
    Yes, I think Eau Claire is a really safe bet to get ranked...and once they do, that boosts the UW-La Crosse resume in a huge way.  Picking up 2 RRO wins is enormous.

    I think this is what, criteria wise, finally bumps Benedictine out (to #9).

    The funnier thing is that once Eau Claire is ranked, that 3-5 vRRO for LAX might keep LaCrosse ahead of Eau Claire due to the 2-0 head to head record.  It isn't a lock that it would happen (their NCSOS are very different), but if they don't get to the secondary criteria, it would be a tougher comparison.

    Also, it's too bad Augie drew IWU and not Elmhurst.  The win over Elmhurst would help their Pool C resume more.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 09:37:30 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2020, 09:34:23 AM
    The funnier thing is that once Eau Claire is ranked, that 3-5 vRRO for LAX might keep LaCrosse ahead of Eau Claire due to the 2-0 head to head record.  It isn't a lock that it would happen (their NCSOS are very different), but if they don't get to the secondary criteria, it would be a tougher comparison.

    Also, it's too bad Augie drew IWU and not Elmhurst.  The win over Elmhurst would help their Pool C resume more.

    Yes, exactly.  Plus LaCrosse is 2-0 vs UW-Eau Claire.  That is why I went with...

    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 08:57:54 AM
    Adding assumed losses for Augustana and Eau Claire in the CCIW and WIAC title games, I would order these...

    7. UW-La Crosse: .778 (21-6)/.541/3-5 (rank UW-Eau Claire and add 2 wins vs RRO)

    8. UW-Eau Claire: .679 (19-9)/.589/3-8
    -------

    9. Benedictine: .769 (20-6)/.507/3-0

    10. Augustana: .704 (19-8)/.568/2-7


    I think Augustana is the team that is in the most trouble of the four -- meaning, they might be the lowest ranked team of the group.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2020, 09:40:57 AM

    It seems the WIAC is a near lock for three teams with a decent shot at four.  That's nuts.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 09:52:51 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2020, 09:40:57 AM

    It seems the WIAC is a near lock for three teams with a decent shot at four.  That's nuts.

    Yes, Platteville and Oshkosh are locks.

    LaCrosse seems very safe on front end of the bubble.

    Eau Claire has a really good chance at the end of the bubble (at the mercy of upsets, etc).

    At this very moment my money would be on 4 WIAC teams getting in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 28, 2020, 10:10:00 AM
    La Crosse has a 21-6 (.778), .541 SOS (.484 NCSOS) and maybe 2 wins vs RRO's (2-5 R v RRO's overall) resume with both wins, in your rankings, vs the 8th place team in the central region. That resume is on the front end of the bubble?

    Sam said last night they do not use an RPI, which should hurt the central region and help other regions. They evaluate your results vs RRO's and look at where those opponents fall in their respective regions.

    I see La Crosse as a mid to late, possibly bubble-out (depending how the weekend tournaments go),  bubble team which means the central teams with potentially better national resumes may get to the table late.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2020, 11:00:11 AM
    I guess I'm in the minority and I'm a WIAC guy. I just don't see the WIAC getting four teams in. I hope I'm wrong.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2020, 11:03:21 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2020, 11:00:11 AM
    I guess I'm in the minority and I'm a WIAC guy. I just don't see the WIAC getting four teams in. I hope I'm wrong.

    I think LaCrosse is out but I think the other three are looking pretty safe now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 11:09:53 AM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on February 28, 2020, 10:10:00 AM
    La Crosse has a 21-6 (.778), .541 SOS (.484 NCSOS) and maybe 2 wins vs RRO's (2-5 R v RRO's overall) resume with both wins, in your rankings, vs the 8th place team in the central region. That resume is on the front end of the bubble?

    Sam said last night they do not use an RPI, which should hurt the central region and help other regions. They evaluate your results vs RRO's and look at where those opponents fall in their respective regions.

    I see La Crosse as a mid to late, possibly bubble-out (depending how the weekend tournaments go),  bubble team which means the central teams with potentially better national resumes may get to the table late.

    Maybe just semantics here - "front end bubble", "mid to late", etc.

    If La Crosse picks up 2 wins vs RRO (via Eau Claire getting ranked), and now has 3, I would see them higher than I had them here, from Tuesday.  Maybe about #14 or #15.  For me that is "front end of the bubble."


    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2020, 11:32:51 PM
    Round 12
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .680/.598/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wooster (NCAC): .720/.560/4-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 13
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .680/.598/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 14
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .800/.536/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 15
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .800/.536/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 16
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .800/.536/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 17
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .800/.536/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 18
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Augustana (CCIW): .720/.570/2-6
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 19
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .680/.580/2-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 20
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .680/.580/2-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Loras (ARC): .680/.539/1-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 11:11:08 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2020, 11:03:21 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2020, 11:00:11 AM
    I guess I'm in the minority and I'm a WIAC guy. I just don't see the WIAC getting four teams in. I hope I'm wrong.

    I think LaCrosse is out but I think the other three are looking pretty safe now.

    I think La Crosse will be regionally ranked ahead of Eau Claire though.  Do you think Eau Claire will be higher?  La Crosse is 2-0 head-to-head.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 11:13:51 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2020, 11:00:11 AM
    I guess I'm in the minority and I'm a WIAC guy. I just don't see the WIAC getting four teams in. I hope I'm wrong.

    The odds are that that 4th WIAC team in the order (which I believe will be Eau Claire) would be in at like 18/19/20...but we all know there are always at least 3 major upsets.  Usually 4-5.

    So the 4th WIAC team is at the mercy of end of the bubble drama.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 11:21:17 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 23, 2020, 10:44:45 PM
    As I see it, here are the top "bubble burster" candidates (Pool A teams that would steal Pool C with a conference tourney loss)...


    Tier 1 Bubble Burster Teams (a conference tourney loss means a Pool C bid disappears)
    * UW-Platteville (C/WIAC) - UW-Oshkosh and UW-La Crosse are bubble teams currently.

    * Nebraska Wesleyan (W/ARC) - Loras and Buena Vista are bubble teams currently.

    * St. Norbert (C/MWC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the MWC.

    * North Central (C/CCIW) - Pool C swap if Elmhurst wins the CCIW; otherwise a bubble burster.

    * Brockport (E/SUNYAC) - other SUNYAC Pool C candidates are on the end of the bubble currently.

    * Randolph Macon (S/ODAC) - Virginia Wesleyan is on the Pool C bubble; Guilford is not regionally ranked currently.

    * Stevens (AT/MACF) - no other competitive Pool candidates in the MACF currently.

    * Wittenberg (GL/NCAC) - Wooster is on the bubble; no other competitive Pool C candidates in the NCAC.


    Tier 2 Bubble Burster (a conference tourney loss sends these teams to the bubble; not Pool C locks)
    * St. Joseph CT (NE/GNAC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the GNAC.

    * Albion (GL/MIAA) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the MIAA.

    * Benedictine (C/NACC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the NACC.

    * Yeshiva (AT/Skyline) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the Skyline currently.

    * Center (S/SAA) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the SAA.

    * Whitworth (W/NWC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the NWC.

    * Drew (MA/LAND) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the LAND.

    * Widener (MA/MACC) - no other competitive Pool C candidates in the MACC.


    Not Considered Bubble Bursters At This Point (these are potential Pool A/C swaps)
    *St. Thomas (W/MIAC) - Pool C swap if St. John's win the MIAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Mount Union (GL/OAC) - Pool C swap if Marietta wins the OAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Swarthmore (MA/CC) - Pool C swap if Johns Hopkins wins the CC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Tufts (NE/NESCAC) - Middlebury assumed Pool C lock; Pool C swap if Colby wins; potential swap if Amerst wins; bubble burster if Trinity.

    * Christopher Newport (MA/CAC) - Pool C swap if York wins the CAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Springfield (NE/NEWMAC) - Pool C swap if Babson or WPI win the NEWMAC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * Texas-Dallas (S/ASC) - Pool C swap if LeTourneau wins the ASC; bubble burster if anyone else.

    * RPI (E/LL) - Pool C swap if Hobart wins the LL; bubble burster if anyone else.

    Bumping this up.

    I don't think the Platteville loss is a huge deal in the big picture unless Eau Claire wins the WIAC tourney.  I feel like Oshkosh had played themselves into safe Pool C status (with a WIAC title appearance), so UWP and UWO would just be a swap.

    But Eau Claire seems to be very much on the bubble.  If Eau Claire wins Saturday, that is probably the best path to 4 WIAC teams in.  Platteville is a Pool C lock, Oshkosh would be safe, and La Crosse would have a really good chance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2020, 11:37:22 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 11:11:08 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2020, 11:03:21 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2020, 11:00:11 AM
    I guess I'm in the minority and I'm a WIAC guy. I just don't see the WIAC getting four teams in. I hope I'm wrong.

    I think LaCrosse is out but I think the other three are looking pretty safe now.

    I think La Crosse will be regionally ranked ahead of Eau Claire though.  Do you think Eau Claire will be higher?  La Crosse is 2-0 head-to-head.

    The RAC has shown this year that, at least in the central region, you don't think. You just put teams. I put Eau Claire ahead.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 11:43:46 AM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2020, 11:37:22 AM
    The RAC has shown this year that, at least in the central region, you don't think. You just put teams. I put Eau Claire ahead.

    OK, fair.

    If they think though, I believe La Crosse will be ahead of Eau Claire.  I guess we'll see.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 28, 2020, 11:48:23 AM
    If anything the RAC in the central has shown a propensity to overrate, in a sense, head to head in the primary criteria. Using that reasoning, La Crosse has a good shot at finishing above both Augustana and Eau Claire if it's close enough in the committee's eyes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2020, 12:09:41 PM
    So you think NCC and Elmhurst and locks, so the CCIW is hoping for Augie or IWU to win the AQ to get three in. Sounds more realistic than the WIAC getting four!  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 12:19:25 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2020, 12:09:41 PM
    So you think NCC and Elmhurst and locks, so the CCIW is hoping for Augie or IWU to win the AQ to get three in. Sounds more realistic than the WIAC getting four!  ;D

    I do think Augie or IWU winning would lead to 3 CCIW teams in.

    This CCIW fan hopes for more the IWU side of that than the Augie side.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 28, 2020, 01:28:07 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 11:09:53 AM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on February 28, 2020, 10:10:00 AM
    La Crosse has a 21-6 (.778), .541 SOS (.484 NCSOS) and maybe 2 wins vs RRO's (2-5 R v RRO's overall) resume with both wins, in your rankings, vs the 8th place team in the central region. That resume is on the front end of the bubble?

    Sam said last night they do not use an RPI, which should hurt the central region and help other regions. They evaluate your results vs RRO's and look at where those opponents fall in their respective regions.

    I see La Crosse as a mid to late, possibly bubble-out (depending how the weekend tournaments go),  bubble team which means the central teams with potentially better national resumes may get to the table late.

    Maybe just semantics here - "front end bubble", "mid to late", etc.

    If La Crosse picks up 2 wins vs RRO (via Eau Claire getting ranked), and now has 3, I would see them higher than I had them here, from Tuesday.  Maybe about #14 or #15.  For me that is "front end of the bubble."


    Quote from: Titan Q on February 25, 2020, 11:32:51 PM
    Round 12
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .680/.598/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wooster (NCAC): .720/.560/4-3
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 13
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Oshkosh (WIAC): .680/.598/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 14
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .800/.536/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 15
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .800/.536/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .800/.528/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 16
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .800/.536/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 17
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .800/.536/1-4
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 18
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - Augustana (CCIW): .720/.570/2-6
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 19
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .680/.580/2-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .800/.520/1-2

    Round 20
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .609/.561/4-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .680/.580/2-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wabash (NCAC): .680/.545/1-5
    MA - Muhlenberg (CC): .720/.522/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.547/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.550/2-4
    W - Loras (ARC): .680/.539/1-3

    Now that Drew lost in the Landmark semis, I would put them in the MA slot after York is selected - in place of Muhlenberg.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 28, 2020, 01:33:15 PM
    Thing about Benedictine I don't like is all 3 of their RRO's came early and with an important starter who no longer plays for them.

    Not considered but, they're not really the team they were in Nov. when they were doing really well for the most part.  They're being judged and compared as the team they once were, not team they are now.  I doubt they win all 3 of those RRO games with their current lineup.   A small flaw in D3's selection process.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 01:35:55 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 28, 2020, 01:28:07 PM
    Now that Drew lost in the Landmark semis, I would put them in the MA slot after York is selected - in place of Muhlenberg.

    Agree.  And with a similar resume.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on February 28, 2020, 01:46:51 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2020, 01:33:15 PM
    Thing about Benedictine I don't like is all 3 of their RRO's came early and with an important starter who no longer plays for them.

    Not considered but, they're not really the team they were in Nov. when they were doing really well for the most part.  They're being judged and compared as the team they once were, not team they are now.  I doubt they win all 3 of those RRO games with their current lineup.   A small flaw in D3's selection process.

    Selfishly, I don't disagree. Problem is, how do you quantify that into a criteria for the selection committee to consider? If there were an easy way to rate players (think WAR or VORP or something to that effect) and consider those numbers, maybe... but then we're getting really into the weeds.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 28, 2020, 02:07:18 PM
    Quote from: lmitzel on February 28, 2020, 01:46:51 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2020, 01:33:15 PM
    Thing about Benedictine I don't like is all 3 of their RRO's came early and with an important starter who no longer plays for them.

    Not considered but, they're not really the team they were in Nov. when they were doing really well for the most part.  They're being judged and compared as the team they once were, not team they are now.  I doubt they win all 3 of those RRO games with their current lineup.   A small flaw in D3's selection process.

    Selfishly, I don't disagree. Problem is, how do you quantify that into a criteria for the selection committee to consider? If there were an easy way to rate players (think WAR or VORP or something to that effect) and consider those numbers, maybe... but then we're getting really into the weeds.

    Maybe add another multiplier to give greater weight to the 2nd half(conference schedule) of the season to reflect players lost(gained) via injury, xfer, etc. like there's a multiplier for home/away(on the men's side).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 04:21:44 PM
    Through Thursday's games...

    All possible due to Matt Snyder's great data - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    Important note -- some of these teams are done (ex: UW-La Crosse), while most are still alive in conference tournaments.  The teams still alive that end up as Pool C candidates will all lose one more game (meaning winning percentage will go down).

    Round 1
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Platteville (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - Johns Hopkins (CC): .880/.552/5-3
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.572/5-2
    S - Emory (UAA): .833/.559/5-1
    W - St. Thomas (MIAC): .923/.545/4-2

    Round 2
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Platteville (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - Johns Hopkins (CC): .880/.552/5-3
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.572/5-2
    S - Emory (UAA): .833/.559/5-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 3
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Platteville (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .808/.531/1-4
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.572/5-2
    S - Emory (UAA): .833/.559/5-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 4
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .808/.531/3-2
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .808/.531/1-4
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.572/5-2
    S - Emory (UAA): .833/.559/5-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 5
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .808/.531/3-2
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .808/.531/1-4
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.572/5-2
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .808/.552/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 6
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .808/.531/3-2
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .808/.531/1-4
    NE - Tufts (NESCAC): .760/.584/4-4
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .808/.552/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 7
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .808/.531/3-2
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .808/.531/1-4
    NE - WPI (NEWMAC): .760/.545/3-5
    S - LeTourneau (ASC): .808/.552/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 8
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Elmhurst (CCIW): .808/.531/3-2
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .808/.531/1-4
    NE - WPI (NEWMAC): .760/.545/3-5
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 9
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .778/.541/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .808/.531/1-4
    NE - WPI (NEWMAC): .760/.545/3-5
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 10
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .778/.541/3-5
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .808/.531/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .800/.525/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 11
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .704/.589/3-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .808/.531/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .800/.525/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 12
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .704/.589/3-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa. (CAC): .808/.531/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 13
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .704/.589/3-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - Drew (Land): .769/.528/1-1
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 14
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .704/.589/3-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - Wooster (NCAC): .731/.561/4-3
    MA - Drew (Land): .769/.528/1-1
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 15
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .704/.589/3-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - John Carroll (OAC): .704/.526/3-3
    MA - Drew (Land): .769/.528/1-1
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 16
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.507/3-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - John Carroll (OAC): .704/.526/3-3
    MA - Drew (Land): .769/.528/1-1
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.543/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 17
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.507/3-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - John Carroll (OAC): .704/.526/3-3
    MA - Drew (Land): .769/.528/1-1
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.548/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .833/.511/2-1
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 18
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.507/3-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - John Carroll (OAC): .704/.526/3-3
    MA - Drew (Land): .769/.528/1-1
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.548/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.551/2-4
    W - Whitworth (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 19
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.507/3-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - John Carroll (OAC): .704/.526/3-3
    MA - Drew (Land): .769/.528/1-1
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.548/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .720/.551/2-4
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.540/1-3

    Round 20
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.507/3-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.586/2-6
    GL - John Carroll (OAC): .704/.526/3-3
    MA - Drew (Land): .769/.528/1-1
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.548/3-4
    S - East Texas Baptist (ASC): .769/.515/1-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.540/1-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Wooster Booster on February 28, 2020, 07:26:27 PM
    Should Wooster beat Denison tonight, but then lose to Wittenberg in tomorrow's NCAC finale, what are their chances of getting a Pool C bid?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: iwumichigander on February 28, 2020, 09:04:55 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 28, 2020, 12:19:25 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2020, 12:09:41 PM
    So you think NCC and Elmhurst and locks, so the CCIW is hoping for Augie or IWU to win the AQ to get three in. Sounds more realistic than the WIAC getting four!  ;D

    I do think Augie or IWU winning would lead to 3 CCIW teams in.

    This CCIW fan hopes for more the IWU side of that than the Augie side.
    Two things are self-evident at this point in time
    1) you and I are one win away from the IWU side
    2) you are going to be crunching numbers whilst I am sleeping  ;D :o
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2020, 11:27:09 PM
    NEWMAC could get four in if Coast Guard beats WPI in the final...Springfield lost to Coast Guard and Babson lost to WPI.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 29, 2020, 12:55:37 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 28, 2020, 02:07:18 PM
    Quote from: lmitzel on February 28, 2020, 01:46:51 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2020, 01:33:15 PM
    Thing about Benedictine I don't like is all 3 of their RRO's came early and with an important starter who no longer plays for them.

    Not considered but, they're not really the team they were in Nov. when they were doing really well for the most part.  They're being judged and compared as the team they once were, not team they are now.  I doubt they win all 3 of those RRO games with their current lineup.   A small flaw in D3's selection process.

    Selfishly, I don't disagree. Problem is, how do you quantify that into a criteria for the selection committee to consider? If there were an easy way to rate players (think WAR or VORP or something to that effect) and consider those numbers, maybe... but then we're getting really into the weeds.

    Maybe add another multiplier to give greater weight to the 2nd half(conference schedule) of the season to reflect players lost(gained) via injury, xfer, etc. like there's a multiplier for home/away(on the men's side).

    Why should the second half count more than the first?  The tournament is a reward for a team's entire body of work.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2020, 05:36:20 AM
    I agree with kiko here. Doesn't D1 factor in the last 10 games or something like that? So in the last month, a win should equal two points why December games should only equal one?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 29, 2020, 06:31:51 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2020, 05:36:20 AM
    I agree with kiko here. Doesn't D1 factor in the last 10 games or something like that? So in the last month, a win should equal two points why December games should only equal one?

    Not anymore. They got ride of that criteria a year or two back.

    https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/24445390/ncaa-announces-new-ranking-system-rpi
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 29, 2020, 08:29:55 AM
    Quote from: kiko on February 29, 2020, 12:55:37 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 28, 2020, 02:07:18 PM
    Quote from: lmitzel on February 28, 2020, 01:46:51 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2020, 01:33:15 PM
    Thing about Benedictine I don't like is all 3 of their RRO's came early and with an important starter who no longer plays for them.

    Not considered but, they're not really the team they were in Nov. when they were doing really well for the most part.  They're being judged and compared as the team they once were, not team they are now.  I doubt they win all 3 of those RRO games with their current lineup.   A small flaw in D3's selection process.

    Selfishly, I don't disagree. Problem is, how do you quantify that into a criteria for the selection committee to consider? If there were an easy way to rate players (think WAR or VORP or something to that effect) and consider those numbers, maybe... but then we're getting really into the weeds.

    Maybe add another multiplier to give greater weight to the 2nd half(conference schedule) of the season to reflect players lost(gained) via injury, xfer, etc. like there's a multiplier for home/away(on the men's side).

    Why should the second half count more than the first?  The tournament is a reward for a team's entire body of work.

    Because the tournament is played at the end of the year. And inevitably, there will be teams that are playing better towards the end of the season and teams that are not playing their best basketball at the end of the season. And if we want the best 64 teams in the tournament, we would want the teams that are playing very well in the tournament. Not saying the first games should totally be discounted, they should still definitely count, but a small multiplier sounds like a good idea to me, in theory. This way the entire body of work is being counted, just with a little more emphasis on the latter part of the season.

    Now with this said, I would definitely need a working simulation to see if I actually do agree with it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 29, 2020, 09:11:14 AM
    I thought the Div. I  committee used teams record in their last 10 games as a gauge.  At least, I seen that criteria in the past during bracket selections.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 29, 2020, 09:20:23 AM
    Quote from: TheOsprey on February 29, 2020, 09:11:14 AM
    I thought the Div. I  committee used teams record in their last 10 games as a gauge.  At least, I seen that criteria in the past during bracket selections.

    See above. They used to but do not anymore (or, more accurately, are not supposed to.... who knows what some of these members actually do and what influences them).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 29, 2020, 09:23:34 AM
    Sorry, I missed that prior post.  Personally,  I want the hottest teams and the teams not missing any key players due to injury.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2020, 10:01:15 AM
    That's ridiculous. So it's a team's fault if their best player gets hurt?

    Also, the tournament has never been about the best teams. If that was the case, some conferences would never get one bid.

    You want the best rep from each conference? Conference tourneys don't even guarantee that anymore.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 29, 2020, 10:17:19 AM
    That's just a preference. I can see teams still winning without top players, so I change that position.  LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 10:20:59 AM
    Quote from: TheOsprey on February 29, 2020, 10:17:19 AM
    That's just a preference. I can see teams still winning without top players, so I change that position.  LOL
    Illinois Wesleyan is in the CCIW tourney championship game without 3 starters (3 of their best players).

    You never know how things will play out when there are rotation changes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 29, 2020, 10:26:46 AM
    Ya'll are right. I did see a team win a Superbowl with their backups not too long ago. ;)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 11:10:15 AM
    Through Friday's games...

    All possible due to Matt Snyder's great data - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    Important note -- some of these teams are done, while some are still alive in conference tournaments.  The teams still alive that end up as Pool C candidates will all lose one more game (meaning winning percentage will go down).

    Round 1
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Platteville (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - Johns Hopkins (CC): .885/.556/5-3
    NE - Springfield (NEWMAC): .846/.579/4-2
    S - Emory (UAA): .833/.557/5-1
    W - St. Thomas (MIAC): .923/.545/4-2

    Round 2
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Platteville (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - Johns Hopkins (CC): .885/.556/5-3
    NE - Springfield (NEWMAC): .846/.579/4-2
    S - Emory (UAA): .833/.557/5-1
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 3
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Platteville (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Springfield (NEWMAC): .846/.579/4-2
    S - Emory (UAA): .833/.557/5-1
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 4
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Platteville (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.572/5-2
    S - Emory (UAA): .833/.557/5-1
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 5
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - North Central (CCIW): .808/.545/2-3
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.572/5-2
    S - Emory (UAA): .833/.557/5-1
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 6
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - North Central (CCIW): .808/.545/2-3
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Middlebury (NESCAC): .800/.572/5-2
    S - Texas-Dallas (ASC): .778/.550/3-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 7
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - North Central (CCIW): .808/.545/2-3
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Tufts (NESCAC): .760/.584/4-4
    S - Texas-Dallas (ASC): .778/.550/3-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 8
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - North Central (CCIW): .808/.545/2-3
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Texas-Dallas (ASC): .778/.550/3-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 9
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Texas-Dallas (ASC): .778/.550/3-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 10
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-La Crosse (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 11
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .704/.590/3-7
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Babson (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 12
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .704/.590/3-7
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Marietta (OAC): .778/.528/3-4
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.541/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 13
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .704/.590/3-7
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Wooster (NCAC): .741/.558/4-3
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.541/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 14
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .704/.590/3-7
    E - Hobart (LL): .840/.509/3-3
    GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.541/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 15
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .704/.590/3-7
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.587/2-6
    GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.541/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 16
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.587/2-6
    GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.541/3-2
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .840/.514/2-1
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 17
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.587/2-6
    GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Amherst (NESCAC): .720/.541/3-2
    S - East Texas Baptist (ASC): .778/.526/2-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 18
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.587/2-6
    GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - York Pa (CAC): .808/.533/1-4
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.546/3-4
    S - East Texas Baptist (ASC): .778/.526/2-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 19
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.587/2-6
    GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew (Land): .769/.529/1-1
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.546/3-4
    S - East Texas Baptist (ASC): .778/.526/2-3
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 20
    AT - Eastern (MACF): .583/.563/5-5
    C - Benedictine (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
    E - Rochester (UAA): .667/.587/2-6
    GL - Albion (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew (Land): .769/.529/1-1
    NE - Trinity CT (NESCAC): .680/.546/3-4
    S - Guilford (ODAC): .692/.553/2-4
    W - Loras (ARC): .654/.541/1-3


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 11:13:14 AM
    The WIAC is getting 4 teams in (3 Pool C's).  That is a lock as far as I see it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 29, 2020, 12:18:23 PM
    This seems like a Pool C prediction done if the national committee was all from the Central region LOL!

    Also those R v RRO's aren't accurate for some teams (unless you have also went thru and mocked every regional rankings from this week so far). For instance, where are we getting 3 RR wins for La Crosse?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 12:22:59 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on February 29, 2020, 12:18:23 PM
    This seems like a Pool C prediction done if the national committee was all from the Central region LOL!

    Also those R v RRO's aren't accurate for some teams (unless you have also went thru and mocked every regional rankings from this week so far). For instance, where are we getting 3 RR wins for La Crosse?

    Just tell me what picks you disagree with and why.  I have 20 rounds of work there with my picks - I made the selections I thought were appropriate for each given round, using the criteria. 

    I am just using this data - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.  No, I did not go through every team and mock the RRO.  I did for La Crosse as Eau Claire is getting in the Central rankings for sure...and that adds 2 RRO wins to La Crosse.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 12:26:17 PM
    Saturday Bubble Burster Games (a loss means a Pool C bid could/would disappear)

    (listed in order of game time)

    * Stevens (vs Eastern, 3pm in MACF title game)

    * Centre (vs Millsaps, 4pm in SAA semifinals)

    * Brockport (vs SUNY Potsdam, 4pm in SUNYAC title game)

    * St. Norbert (vs Ripon, 4pm in MWC title game)

    * Randolph-Macon (vs Roanoke, 6pm in ODAC semifinals)

    * LeTourneau (vs East TX Baptist, 7pm in ASC title game)

    * Mount Union (vs John Carroll, 7:30pm in OAC title game)

    * Nebraska Wesleyan (vs Coe, 8pm in ARC title game)

    * Elmhurst (vs Illinois Wesleyan, 8pm in CCIW title game)

    * Whitworth (vs Whitman, 10pm in NWC title game)


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 29, 2020, 12:29:21 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 29, 2020, 08:29:55 AM
    Quote from: kiko on February 29, 2020, 12:55:37 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 28, 2020, 02:07:18 PM
    Quote from: lmitzel on February 28, 2020, 01:46:51 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2020, 01:33:15 PM
    Thing about Benedictine I don't like is all 3 of their RRO's came early and with an important starter who no longer plays for them.

    Not considered but, they're not really the team they were in Nov. when they were doing really well for the most part.  They're being judged and compared as the team they once were, not team they are now.  I doubt they win all 3 of those RRO games with their current lineup.   A small flaw in D3's selection process.

    Selfishly, I don't disagree. Problem is, how do you quantify that into a criteria for the selection committee to consider? If there were an easy way to rate players (think WAR or VORP or something to that effect) and consider those numbers, maybe... but then we're getting really into the weeds.

    Maybe add another multiplier to give greater weight to the 2nd half(conference schedule) of the season to reflect players lost(gained) via injury, xfer, etc. like there's a multiplier for home/away(on the men's side).

    Why should the second half count more than the first?  The tournament is a reward for a team's entire body of work.

    Because the tournament is played at the end of the year. And inevitably, there will be teams that are playing better towards the end of the season and teams that are not playing their best basketball at the end of the season. And if we want the best 64 teams in the tournament, we would want the teams that are playing very well in the tournament. Not saying the first games should totally be discounted, they should still definitely count, but a small multiplier sounds like a good idea to me, in theory. This way the entire body of work is being counted, just with a little more emphasis on the latter part of the season.

    Now with this said, I would definitely need a working simulation to see if I actually do agree with it.

    Two thoughts:

    1. If we want the best 64 teams in the tournament, there wouldn't be a Pool A.  That's clearly not what the membership wants.  They want equal access for all conferences.

    2. By de-emphasizing early season games, you are de-emphasizing the part of the schedule that best enables us to compare teams in different conferences and regions.  We are already starved for data points that help us do this -- why would we de-emphasize the most directly applicable dataset that we already have?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 29, 2020, 12:34:05 PM
    I have said a number of times on here that La Crosse is going to have major issues IF Eau Claire doesn't get regionally ranked. That leaves them with a very average resume with zero RR wins and could possibly block Augustana and Eau Claire.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2020, 12:53:56 PM
    In addition, if you de-emphasize earlier games, the willingness to schedule tough non-conference games like CCIW v WIAC, Benedictine v NCC, Eau Claire v Wash U, etc go out the window.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on February 29, 2020, 12:57:45 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 29, 2020, 12:29:21 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 29, 2020, 08:29:55 AM
    Quote from: kiko on February 29, 2020, 12:55:37 AM
    Quote from: ronk on February 28, 2020, 02:07:18 PM
    Quote from: lmitzel on February 28, 2020, 01:46:51 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 28, 2020, 01:33:15 PM
    Thing about Benedictine I don't like is all 3 of their RRO's came early and with an important starter who no longer plays for them.

    Not considered but, they're not really the team they were in Nov. when they were doing really well for the most part.  They're being judged and compared as the team they once were, not team they are now.  I doubt they win all 3 of those RRO games with their current lineup.   A small flaw in D3's selection process.

    Selfishly, I don't disagree. Problem is, how do you quantify that into a criteria for the selection committee to consider? If there were an easy way to rate players (think WAR or VORP or something to that effect) and consider those numbers, maybe... but then we're getting really into the weeds.

    Maybe add another multiplier to give greater weight to the 2nd half(conference schedule) of the season to reflect players lost(gained) via injury, xfer, etc. like there's a multiplier for home/away(on the men's side).

    Why should the second half count more than the first?  The tournament is a reward for a team's entire body of work.

    Because the tournament is played at the end of the year. And inevitably, there will be teams that are playing better towards the end of the season and teams that are not playing their best basketball at the end of the season. And if we want the best 64 teams in the tournament, we would want the teams that are playing very well in the tournament. Not saying the first games should totally be discounted, they should still definitely count, but a small multiplier sounds like a good idea to me, in theory. This way the entire body of work is being counted, just with a little more emphasis on the latter part of the season.

    Now with this said, I would definitely need a working simulation to see if I actually do agree with it.

    Two thoughts:

    1. If we want the best 64 teams in the tournament, there wouldn't be a Pool A.  That's clearly not what the membership wants.  They want equal access for all conferences.

    2. By de-emphasizing early season games, you are de-emphasizing the part of the schedule that best enables us to compare teams in different conferences and regions.  We are already starved for data points that help us do this -- why would we de-emphasize the most directly applicable dataset that we already have?

    Point number one, I get what you are saying and I should have been more clear. I was referring to the 21 at large (20 pool C) selections wanting to have the best teams get the invitation. You are right, and I do not want to get rid of pool A.

    Point number two, you make a very valid point. The tough thing about it is that anyway you objectively slice it (emphasizing a particular part of schedule or not) there will be a flaw, I think we can all agree on that. Ideally, you could use injuries, recent results in combination with the primary criteria to compare teams in situations that call for it. But as stated previously, that injection of subjectivity really is opening up Pandora's box. I think it's an interesting enough idea, the late season multiplier, but it would not necessarily effect things/teams/situations correctly or in the way it was originally intended too, that's for sure. I think we should probably focus on "fixing" the SOS multiplier first!  ;D
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 01:25:25 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on February 29, 2020, 12:34:05 PM
    I have said a number of times on here that La Crosse is going to have major issues IF Eau Claire doesn't get regionally ranked. That leaves them with a very average resume with zero RR wins and could possibly block Augustana and Eau Claire.

    I'm confident Eau Claire is going to get regionally ranked.  The win over Platteville, Central #1, was enormous for their resume.

    I cannot see any way they are not in that final Central ranking.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 29, 2020, 01:27:00 PM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on February 29, 2020, 12:57:45 PM
    I think we should probably focus on "fixing" the SOS multiplier first!  ;D

    1000% agree on this... the current application is inexcusable.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2020, 04:04:08 PM
    York knocks off CNU. CNU just takes York's Pool C spot but gets selected sooner with a better resume than York.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 04:54:38 PM
    Emory beats Rochester.

    That should officially knock Rochester out of any chance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 29, 2020, 05:32:36 PM
    Ripon 3 minutes from knocking SNC to Pool C. Does SNC have enough?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiltedbryan on February 29, 2020, 05:52:18 PM
    In the NCAC, Wooster secures Pool A with a 87-63 dismantling of Wittenberg, sending the Tigers into Pool C at (I think) .929/.507/4-2.

    Not really a bubble burster since Wooster was likely in even with a loss.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 05:55:05 PM
    Wash U loses to Chicago.  The Bears moves to Pool C (Emory is Pool A).

    In the Central, ranked teams 1 (Platteville), 2 (Wash U), 3 (Benedictine), 4 (North Central), 6 (St. Norbert), and 8 (La Crosse) have moved to Pool C this week so far.

    5 Elmhurst plays IWU tonight at NCC.

    7 Oshkosh hosts Eau Claire.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 29, 2020, 06:10:43 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 05:55:05 PM
    Wash U loses to Chicago.  The Bears moves to Pool C (Emory is Pool A).

    In the Central, ranked teams 1 (Platteville), 2 (Wash U), 3 (Benedictine), 4 (North Central), 6 (St. Norbert), and 8 (La Crosse) have moved to Pool C this week so far.

    5 Elmhurst plays IWU tonight at NCC.

    7 Oshkosh hosts Eau Claire.

    St. Norbert and North Central stumbling hurts Benedictine as well. They're hanging their hats on those wins. It's literally their entire resume at this point.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Caz Bombers on February 29, 2020, 06:22:57 PM
    Ithaca beats Hobart in the LL Semifinals. Hobart still good shot at a C, right? RPI probably not if IC beats them though, is that correct?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 06:34:33 PM
    Quote from: Caz Bombers on February 29, 2020, 06:22:57 PM
    Ithaca beats Hobart in the LL Semifinals. Hobart still good shot at a C, right? RPI probably not if IC beats them though, is that correct?

    I have Hobart in (above).  But the loss one round too early (semifinals) will hurt.

    Hobart is probable I'd say, but not a lock.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Onward on, John Carroll on February 29, 2020, 09:33:01 PM
    Mount beats JCU. JCU will need a lot of help - A LOT of help.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Colby Hoops on February 29, 2020, 09:34:51 PM
    Colby beats Amherst, which would seemingly knock Amherst off the bubble. NESCAC pretty clearly a three bid league with Tufts, Middlebury, Colby.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 10:52:17 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 12:26:17 PM
    Saturday Bubble Burster Games (a loss means a Pool C bid could/would disappear)

    (listed in order of game time)

    * Stevens (vs Eastern, 3pm in MACF title game)

    * Centre (vs Millsaps, 4pm in SAA semifinals)

    * Brockport (vs SUNY Potsdam, 4pm in SUNYAC title game)

    * St. Norbert (vs Ripon, 4pm in MWC title game)

    * Randolph-Macon (vs Roanoke, 6pm in ODAC semifinals)

    * LeTourneau (vs East TX Baptist, 7pm in ASC title game)

    * Mount Union (vs John Carroll, 7:30pm in OAC title game)

    * Nebraska Wesleyan (vs Coe, 8pm in ARC title game)

    * Elmhurst (vs Illinois Wesleyan, 8pm in CCIW title game)

    * Whitworth (vs Whitman, 10pm in NWC title game)

    Even though it feels like it was a crazy day - and it was in many regards - in terms of Pool C, the only big upset was St. Norbert.  (Whitworth up at halftime over Whitman.)

    It was a great day for the bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 29, 2020, 11:00:15 PM
    Quote from: Colby Hoops on February 29, 2020, 09:34:51 PM
    Colby beats Amherst, which would seemingly knock Amherst off the bubble. NESCAC pretty clearly a three bid league with Tufts, Middlebury, Colby.

    It is a pretty "soft" bubble this year.  I wouldn't rule out Amherst just yet.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 12:02:43 AM
    Central?

    1. UW-Platteville (C)
    2. Elmhurst (A)
    3. Wash U (C)
    4. UW-Oshkosh (A)
    5. North Central (C)
    6. St. Norbert (C)
    7. UW-La Crosse (C)
    8. UW-Eau Claire (C)
    --------
    9. Benedictine (C)
    10. Illinois Wesleyan (C)
    11. Augustana (C)

    The order is so critical here because, legitimately, every team down to the 8th Pool C is in play.

    I feel really good about my top 8.  9 through 11 is tough.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 12:07:31 AM

    That 8-9 battle will be pretty critical.  EC in or out changes a lot.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2020, 12:11:55 AM
    You think Amherst is out?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 12:14:05 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2020, 12:11:55 AM
    You think Amherst is out?

    They may get to the table, so, who knows?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on March 01, 2020, 01:44:09 AM
    Benedictine falling completely out of the rankings, especially falling behind St. Norbert and La Crosse, seems anti what the committee has been doing in every ranking this season.

    Benedictine has head to head over St Norbert and both lost this week. Why is this the week that the committee changes direction in how they have been evaluating those two?  Benedictine has quality wins on their resume, including LeTourneau who just won the ASC and probably jump to 3rd in the South. La Crosse lacks quality wins which is a massive negative in their resume, along with their NCSOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 07:25:38 AM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on March 01, 2020, 01:44:09 AM
    Benedictine falling completely out of the rankings, especially falling behind St. Norbert and La Crosse, seems anti what the committee has been doing in every ranking this season.

    Benedictine has head to head over St Norbert and both lost this week. Why is this the week that the committee changes direction in how they have been evaluating those two?  Benedictine has quality wins on their resume, including LeTourneau who just won the ASC and probably jump to 3rd in the South. La Crosse lacks quality wins which is a massive negative in their resume, along with their NCSOS.

    The difference comes in if Eau Claire is ranked - that would drastically improve LaCrosse's resume with two additional regionally ranked wins.  We'll have to keep looking at it today, but BenU has not been doing themselves any favors.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 08:34:20 AM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on March 01, 2020, 01:44:09 AM
    Benedictine falling completely out of the rankings, especially falling behind St. Norbert and La Crosse, seems anti what the committee has been doing in every ranking this season.

    Benedictine has head to head over St Norbert and both lost this week. Why is this the week that the committee changes direction in how they have been evaluating those two?  Benedictine has quality wins on their resume, including LeTourneau who just won the ASC and probably jump to 3rd in the South. La Crosse lacks quality wins which is a massive negative in their resume, along with their NCSOS.

    As Dave McHugh reminds us, each week they wipe the slate clean and do new rankings.  I think this week when they evaluate the Central teams they'll land on BU in that #9 spot.

    I have no way to confirm that obviously. As someone who spends a lot of time looking at the Pool C process, and how the teams compete nationally during the 20 round process, that is how I see things.  I think BU has the 7th best Pool C resume of the Central teams (one could easily argue 8th or 9th), and other other order would hurt the Central region's chances for selections.

    We will all know soon enough now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on March 01, 2020, 09:27:55 AM
    Last nights ending in NWC wasn't great for the bubble teams as Whitworth has a solid enough resume and will be at the table for 15+ rounds after UST is selected very early. Whitman had no chance at a Pool C nod, but secured Pool A. Results are reminiscent of years past, but no pod will be held in the Pacific Northwest this March
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 09:58:49 AM
    Through Saturday's games...

    All possible due to Matt Snyder's great data - https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    *team has lost and is officially a Pool C candidate

    Round 1
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-Platteville* (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Swarthmore* (CC): .963/.570/10-1
    NE - Springfield* (NEWMAC): .846/.578/4-2
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

    Round 2
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-Platteville* (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport*(CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Springfield* (NEWMAC): .846/.578/4-2
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

    Round 3
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-Platteville* (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Middlebury* (NESCAC): .800/.571/5-2
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

    Round 4
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Wash U* (UAA): .800/.557/4-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Middlebury* (NESCAC): .800/.571/5-2
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

    Round 5
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Wash U* (UAA): .800/.557/4-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Colby (NESCAC): .923/.532/4-2
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

    Round 6
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Wash U* (UAA): .800/.557/4-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Colby (NESCAC): .923/.532/4-2
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 7
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Wash U* (UAA): .800/.557/4-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 8
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - North Central* (CCIW): .808/.546/2-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 9
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - North Central* (CCIW): .808/.546/2-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 10
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - North Central* (CCIW): .808/.546/2-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 11
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - North Central* (CCIW): .808/.546/2-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 12
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - St. Norbert (MWC): .852/.535/2-2
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 13
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-La Crosse* (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 14
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-La Crosse* (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 15
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-La Crosse* (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 16
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .704/.588/3-7
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 17
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Benedictine* (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 18
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Benedictine* (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
    E - SUNY Potsdam* (SUNYAC): .769/.525/4-5
    GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 19
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Benedictine* (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
    E - Oswego State* (SUNYAC): .704/.543/4-7
    GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2

    Round 20
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Benedictine* (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
    E - SUNY Oneonta* (SUNYAC): .704/.526/3-5
    GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .808/.527/1-2


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on March 01, 2020, 10:03:34 AM
    Did not really think we were going to see 2 SUNYAC teams in your Pool C run. Not that I disagree with the picks. Would be fun to see a storied program like Potsdam return to the tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 10:07:16 AM
    My biggest takeaway when I did the above projection is that when I slid Rochester way down the East ranking (because they now have a .640 WP) - below Hobart, Potsdam, Oswego, Oneonta - it led to a crazy East region run late in the process.  See rounds 17-19. In my projections up to this point, Rochester was blocking all of these teams.

    Do I think it "feels" right to have an East region run? Not really.  Do I think it will actually play out that way? Probably not.  But based on the numbers, those choices seemed like the right ones to me.  Like, I couldn't find a way to not make those picks.  It is possible the East region committee ranks Rochester after Hobart, or after Hobart and Potsdam - that would create a blocker for the East region run.  But if the East RAC is doing the right thing for the region, they will move Rochester below all of these other teams I have on the board.  .640 just is not competitive in the process.

    I picked Amherst #20 due to wins over Springfield, Middlebury, and Colby.  But I went round and round on the pick #20 - there is absolutely no easy choice there.

    Regarding Benedictine, I put them #9 in the Central only because they were so high before (#3).  But I do not see BU's resume as being all that competitive.  And if the Central puts BU any higher than 9, I believe they will block other teams that have a chance.  Illinois Wesleyan and Augustana would compete better than Benedictine in rounds 17 to 20 as I see it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 10:24:45 AM
    Obviously to do the projection accurately, you need the final regional rankings.  So many things hinge on how the teams are lined up. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 10:34:34 AM
    The depth of talent in the Central region - with the WIAC, CCIW, Wash U, BU, and St. Norbert - really hurts.  Some really good, regionally ranked-caliber teams cannot be ranked...and that hurts them and the teams they have played.

    For example, Augustana's resume is better than teams at the bottom of every other region -- yet they are not ranked in the Central.  That takes 2-1 vs RRO away from Illinois Wesleyan.  Add that 2-1 to IWU and the Titans might get selected.  (Augie being ranked would add a win to Oshkosh and La Crosse too.)

    Or do it in reverse.  If Illinois Wesleyan was ranked, add 1-2 to Augie.  That 1-2 would make a huge difference.  (And add wins to Wash U, Elmhurst, NCC.). IWU would be probably be ranked in every other region.

    Really a huge factor.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on March 01, 2020, 10:38:43 AM
    Pool C and the last few bubble teams could ultimately come down to the final Central Regional Rankings.

    It depends if the committee wants to do what is best to get the most teams into the tournament from the central region or continue to use the process they have been using the past 3 rankings. 

    The two major dilemmas are St Norbert to Benedictine and Eau Claire to La Crosse.

    St Norbert and Eau Claire both have much stronger resumes from a national perspective, but they both lose the head to head criteria to opponents with much weaker national resumes.  The committee has been consistent in keeping Benedictine above St Norbert due to H2H plus the other 2 quality wins Benedictine has on their resume. La Crosse has stayed in the regional rankings due to their wins over Eau Claire (2) and Augustana.

    La Crosse swept Eau Claire in the WIAC play but with Eau Claire's win over Platteville, is that enough to move Eau Claire over La Crosse in the final regional rankings.

    Snyder's RPI, which is an inexact science for D3 and not used by the committees, has Eau-Claire 4 and La Crosse 9 in the central region and St Norbert 5 and Benedictine 13!.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on March 01, 2020, 10:43:33 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 10:24:45 AM
    Obviously to do the projection accurately, you need the final regional rankings.  So many things hinge on how the teams are lined up.

    Ithaca has made the finals of the LL, wondering at 22-5 if they will jump into the Pool C mix, although if they lose to RPI, they will only be 2-4 against the likely RRO's. 

    I suspect Oswego and Oneonta will drop out of the top 8 in the region, replaced by Fisher and Ithaca.

    Remember U of R's coach is on the Regional Committee.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 01, 2020, 10:53:00 AM
    Just to get this out there annually.

    RRO's are dumb.

    carry on.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on March 01, 2020, 11:09:54 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 01, 2020, 10:53:00 AM
    Just to get this out there annually.

    RRO's are dumb.

    carry on.

    I have been thinking about Pool C more this year and feel like I know quite a bit more about the process, criteria, etc than when I started in 2017, and I could not agree more with your assessment.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2020, 11:22:55 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 10:34:34 AM
    The depth of talent in the Central region - with the WIAC, CCIW, Wash U, BU, and St. Norbert - really hurts.  Some really good, regionally ranked-caliber teams cannot be ranked...and that hurts them and the teams they have played.

    For example, Augustana's resume is better than teams at the bottom of every other region -- yet they are not ranked in the Central.  That takes 2-1 vs RRO away from Illinois Wesleyan.  Add that 2-1 to IWU and the Titans might get selected.  (Augie being ranked would add a win to Oshkosh and La Crosse too.)

    Or do it in reverse.  If Illinois Wesleyan was ranked, add 1-2 to Augie.  That 1-2 would make a huge difference.  (And add wins to Wash U, Elmhurst, NCC.). IWU would be probably be ranked in every other region.

    Really a huge factor.

    We've been told that the final regional rankings extend beyond the disclosed limit(e.g., in the Central region - 8) so that there will be additional candidates to come to the table after their ranked Pool C candidates have already been selected(as can be the case with the Central region); what hasn't been mentioned is if the vrro data is limited to the 8 spots in such a region(primary criteria) or whether the committee extends that to their expanded regional list. This would affect such a regional ranking.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: lmitzel on March 01, 2020, 11:25:39 AM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2020, 11:22:55 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 10:34:34 AM
    The depth of talent in the Central region - with the WIAC, CCIW, Wash U, BU, and St. Norbert - really hurts.  Some really good, regionally ranked-caliber teams cannot be ranked...and that hurts them and the teams they have played.

    For example, Augustana's resume is better than teams at the bottom of every other region -- yet they are not ranked in the Central.  That takes 2-1 vs RRO away from Illinois Wesleyan.  Add that 2-1 to IWU and the Titans might get selected.  (Augie being ranked would add a win to Oshkosh and La Crosse too.)

    Or do it in reverse.  If Illinois Wesleyan was ranked, add 1-2 to Augie.  That 1-2 would make a huge difference.  (And add wins to Wash U, Elmhurst, NCC.). IWU would be probably be ranked in every other region.

    Really a huge factor.

    We've been told that the final regional rankings extend beyond the disclosed limit(e.g., in the Central region - 8) so that there will be additional candidates to come to the table after their ranked Pool C candidates have already been selected(as can be the case with the Central region); what hasn't been mentioned is if the vrro data is limited to the 8 spots in such a region(primary criteria) or whether the committee extends that to their expanded regional list. This would affect such a regional ranking.

    I assume they'd limit it; otherwise you give the Central an unfair advantage with additional vRRO results compared to everyone else. The counter argument would come in the Northeast region and their 11 spots, but since that's their allotment based on numbers I don't think it holds water.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2020, 11:35:51 AM
     I wondered if they would do it with each region, not just the Central. So there wouldn't be an advantage to a particular region. It would just be more likely invoked in the Central this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 11:41:46 AM

    vRRO are only for teams ranked in Week 3 and in the final ranking today.  If they have to go beyond the ranked teams, vRRO still only applies to games against ranked teams.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 11:44:55 AM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on March 01, 2020, 11:09:54 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 01, 2020, 10:53:00 AM
    Just to get this out there annually.

    RRO's are dumb.

    carry on.

    I have been thinking about Pool C more this year and feel like I know quite a bit more about the process, criteria, etc than when I started in 2017, and I could not agree more with your assessment.

    The committees' use of vRRO is definitely evolving and in a good way.  It used to be they just took the number pretty much straight up: 4-5 beat 3-0.  Then it became more about how many of those games you played - then morphed slightly to dig into which of those were conference games and how the vRRO worked in the non-conference.

    Now, though, they're really just diving into the games themselves and the results themselves.  In the same way they do with common opponents, they'll talk all of a teams vRRO and compare those individual results against those of another team.  So a 4-5 might not beat 3-2, if the three wins are more impressive than the four, etc.

    They've just continued to dig deeper and do more analysis on the vRRO - much more than typically happens on the boards.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2020, 11:53:59 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 11:44:55 AM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on March 01, 2020, 11:09:54 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 01, 2020, 10:53:00 AM
    Just to get this out there annually.

    RRO's are dumb.

    carry on.

    I have been thinking about Pool C more this year and feel like I know quite a bit more about the process, criteria, etc than when I started in 2017, and I could not agree more with your assessment.

    The committees' use of vRRO is definitely evolving and in a good way.  It used to be they just took the number pretty much straight up: 4-5 beat 3-0.  Then it became more about how many of those games you played - then morphed slightly to dig into which of those were conference games and how the vRRO worked in the non-conference.

    Now, though, they're really just diving into the games themselves and the results themselves.  In the same way they do with common opponents, they'll talk all of a teams vRRO and compare those individual results against those of another team.  So a 4-5 might not beat 3-2, if the three wins are more impressive than the four, etc.

    They've just continued to dig deeper and do more analysis on the vRRO - much more than typically happens on the boards.

    Thanks, Ryan. Dave and Pat seemed to have said these items statically in the past w/o mentioning it being an evolutionary process over the years. I know I had just remembered vrro as a # instead of W/L and who they were against(ranking and con/noncon).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on March 01, 2020, 11:56:54 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 11:44:55 AM

    The committees' use of vRRO is definitely evolving and in a good way.  It used to be they just took the number pretty much straight up: 4-5 beat 3-0.  Then it became more about how many of those games you played - then morphed slightly to dig into which of those were conference games and how the vRRO worked in the non-conference.

    Now, though, they're really just diving into the games themselves and the results themselves.  In the same way they do with common opponents, they'll talk all of a teams vRRO and compare those individual results against those of another team.  So a 4-5 might not beat 3-2, if the three wins are more impressive than the four, etc.

    They've just continued to dig deeper and do more analysis on the vRRO - much more than typically happens on the boards.

    That was the most telling portion of Dave's interview with Sam last week.  The interpretation of vRRO's and how the committee is viewing them.  Hobart's 3 wins (2 over Ithaca E-8, and Rochester E-4) compared to Benedictine's 3 wins (N Central C-4, St Norbert C-6, and LeTourneau S-4) will probably not be valued the same in the committee's eyes.

    Win% and SOS are tangible numbers that are good for comparison but cannot change.  vRRO's allows the committee some variation in terms of how to interpret data.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 12:21:49 PM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2020, 11:53:59 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 11:44:55 AM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on March 01, 2020, 11:09:54 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 01, 2020, 10:53:00 AM
    Just to get this out there annually.

    RRO's are dumb.

    carry on.

    I have been thinking about Pool C more this year and feel like I know quite a bit more about the process, criteria, etc than when I started in 2017, and I could not agree more with your assessment.

    The committees' use of vRRO is definitely evolving and in a good way.  It used to be they just took the number pretty much straight up: 4-5 beat 3-0.  Then it became more about how many of those games you played - then morphed slightly to dig into which of those were conference games and how the vRRO worked in the non-conference.

    Now, though, they're really just diving into the games themselves and the results themselves.  In the same way they do with common opponents, they'll talk all of a teams vRRO and compare those individual results against those of another team.  So a 4-5 might not beat 3-2, if the three wins are more impressive than the four, etc.

    They've just continued to dig deeper and do more analysis on the vRRO - much more than typically happens on the boards.

    Thanks, Ryan. Dave and Pat seemed to have said these items statically in the past w/o mentioning it being an evolutionary process over the years. I know I had just remembered vrro as a # instead of W/L and who they were against(ranking and con/noncon).

    We do that because there's really no other way to do it until we're down to two or three teams.  We'll talk a ton about the details of the vRRO tonight when we do the mock selections, because we'll have actual resumes in front of us.  vRRO is really just shorthand until you're in the thick of selection.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 12:27:57 PM
    Updated with Matt Snyder's morning data update (he didn't have the late WIAC and NWC games in there when I did this earlier).  The significant winning percentage drops are Whitworth and Eau Claire.

    But for Whitworth, as I am looking at this, I am projecting Whitman easily gets into the West rankings. This gives Whitworth 1-2 more RRO, which is a big deal. And I am projecting Eau Claire gets into the Central.  So add 0-1.  All the sudden Whitworth moves to 3-6 RRO...and that moves them from not being selected to spot #14.  Those who hate RRO, feel free to jump in here.

    Eau Claire's SOS drop moved them quite a bit down for me...to spot #18.

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html.

    *team has lost and is officially a Pool C candidate

    Round 1
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-Platteville* (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Swarthmore* (CC): .963/.570/10-1
    NE - Springfield* (NEWMAC): .846/.578/4-2
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

    Round 2
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-Platteville* (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport*(CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Springfield* (NEWMAC): .846/.578/4-2
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

    Round 3
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-Platteville* (WIAC): .833/.568/6-0
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Middlebury* (NESCAC): .800/.571/5-2
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

    Round 4
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Wash U* (UAA): .800/.557/4-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Middlebury* (NESCAC): .800/.571/5-2
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

    Round 5
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Wash U* (UAA): .800/.557/4-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Colby (NESCAC): .923/.532/4-2
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - St. Thomas* (MIAC): .889/.557/4-3

    Round 6
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Wash U* (UAA): .800/.557/4-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Colby (NESCAC): .923/.532/4-2
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

    Round 7
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Wash U* (UAA): .800/.557/4-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

    Round 8
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - North Central* (CCIW): .808/.546/2-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Wittenberg* (NCAC): .929/.513/4-2
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

    Round 9
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - North Central* (CCIW): .808/.546/2-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Christopher Newport* (CAC): .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

    Round 10
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - North Central* (CCIW): .808/.546/2-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Texas-Dallas* (ASC): .778/.549/3-3
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

    Round 11
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - North Central* (CCIW): .808/.546/2-3
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

    Round 12
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - St. Norbert (MWC): .852/.535/2-2
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

    Round 13
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-La Crosse* (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Babson* (NEWMAC): .769/.534/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

    Round 14
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-La Crosse* (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Whitworth* (NWC): .778/.531/3-6

    Round 15
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-La Crosse* (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Marietta* (OAC): .778/.529/3-4
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Loras* (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 16
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-La Crosse* (WIAC): .778/.541/2-5
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Loras* (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 17
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .679/.591/3-8
    E - Hobart* (LL): .808/.519/3-4
    GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Loras* (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 18
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .679/.591/3-8
    E - SUNY Potsdam* (SUNYAC): .769/.525/4-5
    GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Loras* (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 19
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - UW-Eau Claire (WIAC): .679/.591/3-8
    E - Oswego State* (SUNYAC): .704/.543/4-7
    GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Loras* (ARC): .654/.541/1-3

    Round 20
    AT - Eastern* (MACF): .560/.573/5-6
    C - Benedictine* (NACC): .769/.508/3-0
    E - Oswego State* (SUNYAC): .704/.543/4-7
    GL - Albion* (MIAA): .808/.530/0-2
    MA - Drew* (Land): .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst* (NESCAC): .692/.553/3-3
    S - Virginia Wesleyan (ODAC): .846/.517/2-1
    W - Loras* (ARC): .654/.541/1-3




    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 12:28:39 PM
    I stayed with Amherst at #20...I think they have better wins than Oswego State.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 12:30:01 PM
    I looked at John Carroll instead of Albion...but I would not have selected either one in the process.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2020, 12:31:26 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 12:21:49 PM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2020, 11:53:59 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 11:44:55 AM
    Quote from: Smitty Oom on March 01, 2020, 11:09:54 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 01, 2020, 10:53:00 AM
    Just to get this out there annually.

    RRO's are dumb.

    carry on.

    I have been thinking about Pool C more this year and feel like I know quite a bit more about the process, criteria, etc than when I started in 2017, and I could not agree more with your assessment.

    The committees' use of vRRO is definitely evolving and in a good way.  It used to be they just took the number pretty much straight up: 4-5 beat 3-0.  Then it became more about how many of those games you played - then morphed slightly to dig into which of those were conference games and how the vRRO worked in the non-conference.

    Now, though, they're really just diving into the games themselves and the results themselves.  In the same way they do with common opponents, they'll talk all of a teams vRRO and compare those individual results against those of another team.  So a 4-5 might not beat 3-2, if the three wins are more impressive than the four, etc.

    They've just continued to dig deeper and do more analysis on the vRRO - much more than typically happens on the boards.

    Thanks, Ryan. Dave and Pat seemed to have said these items statically in the past w/o mentioning it being an evolutionary process over the years. I know I had just remembered vrro as a # instead of W/L and who they were against(ranking and con/noncon).

    We do that because there's really no other way to do it until we're down to two or three teams.  We'll talk a ton about the details of the vRRO tonight when we do the mock selections, because we'll have actual resumes in front of us.  vRRO is really just shorthand until you're in the thick of selection.

    Ryan is right on here -- I would guess it has been a decade or so since someone on the inside talked more about how vRRO worked and we have taken it and run from there, but indeed, there is no way to condense that down and put it in a chart as above.

    Also, the years really run together.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Smitty Oom on March 01, 2020, 12:39:11 PM
    It's good to know they have been digging deeper on vRRO criteria. I missed the past two episodes of hoopsville so haven't listened to the interview with Sam, sounds like it was enlightening. I'm all for using key wins and losses to help choose the pool C bids, as long it is more nuanced like Ryan was suggesting.

    With that said, are you projecting Linfield to stay in the west ranks? Whitman and Linfield being ranked is huge for Whitworth. The rest of the west is really quite weak so they definitely have a chance. LC has 5 nonD3 games though, coupled with a not great SOS it is hard to judge their resume.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 01, 2020, 12:48:37 PM
    Just to clarify, I hate RRO's because so many of them are conference related.  Its an extra, unneeded boost to bigger and sometimes better conferences.


    Just an example
    Albion played Mt. Union and Marietta out of conference, they'll have 2 RRO's
    Wittenberg played no one out out of conference, they'll have 5 RRO's

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2020, 12:55:51 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 01, 2020, 12:48:37 PM
    Just to clarify, I hate RRO's because so many of them are conference related.  Its an extra, unneeded boost to bigger better and sometimes better bigger conferences.


    Just an example
    Albion played Mt. Union and Marietta out of conference, they'll have 2 RRO's
    Wittenberg played Elmira out out of conference, they'll have 6 RRO's

    I fixed it for you.  ::)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 12:56:41 PM
    Regarding my 20 round projection above, Matt had some RRO issues in his data - fixed now.

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    I will update my stuff with the fix later.  Could make a difference as tight as all of this is.  For example, he had Whitworth 1-2...they are actually 2-3 based on last week's ranking. That is enough to make a difference.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 01:05:36 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 12:56:41 PM
    Regarding my 20 round projection above, Matt had some RRO issues in his data - fixed now.

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    I will update my stuff with the fix later.  Could make a difference as tight as all of this is.  For example, he had Whitworth 1-2...they are actually 2-3 based on last week's ranking. That is enough to make a difference.

    Well, I think we'll have some interesting discussion towards the end of this selection.  Tune in everyone! Hoopsville starts at 6pm.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SpringSt7 on March 01, 2020, 01:08:10 PM
    Of the potential bubble bursters today, which teams would have the best chance at getting Pool C bids? I'm guessing WPI and RPI are already in, but what about teams like St. Joe's, Centre, and Yeshiva?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 01, 2020, 01:10:10 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2020, 12:55:51 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 01, 2020, 12:48:37 PM
    Just to clarify, I hate RRO's because so many of them are conference related.  Its an extra, unneeded boost to bigger better and sometimes better bigger conferences.


    Just an example
    Albion played Mt. Union and Marietta out of conference, they'll have 2 RRO's
    Wittenberg played Elmira out out of conference, they'll have 6 RRO's

    I fixed it for you.  ::)

    Massey
    MIAA #7
    NCAC #8
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 01:16:00 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on March 01, 2020, 01:08:10 PM
    Of the potential bubble bursters today, which teams would have the best chance at getting Pool C bids? I'm guessing WPI and RPI are already in, but what about teams like St. Joe's, Centre, and Yeshiva?

    Centre has a pretty good chance, then St Joe's, then Yeshiva - and I would not want to be either of those last two.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SpringSt7 on March 01, 2020, 01:18:37 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 01:16:00 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on March 01, 2020, 01:08:10 PM
    Of the potential bubble bursters today, which teams would have the best chance at getting Pool C bids? I'm guessing WPI and RPI are already in, but what about teams like St. Joe's, Centre, and Yeshiva?

    Centre has a pretty good chance, then St Joe's, then Yeshiva - and I would not want to be either of those last two.

    Has any 2 loss team ever missed out on the tournament? Because that's what Yeshiva would be, and I can't imagine it's many.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 01:21:07 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on March 01, 2020, 01:18:37 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 01:16:00 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on March 01, 2020, 01:08:10 PM
    Of the potential bubble bursters today, which teams would have the best chance at getting Pool C bids? I'm guessing WPI and RPI are already in, but what about teams like St. Joe's, Centre, and Yeshiva?

    Centre has a pretty good chance, then St Joe's, then Yeshiva - and I would not want to be either of those last two.

    Has any 2 loss team ever missed out on the tournament? Because that's what Yeshiva would be, and I can't imagine it's many.

    I'm almost positive it's happened.  A lot of times there are teams with really good records in very weak conferences who lose in conference tournaments and miss out with very few losses.  Southern Vermont comes to mind, although I think they were 24-3 in the year they missed out.  Some of these teams never even make the regional rankings so we sometimes forget about them after the fact.  It seems like Albertus Magnus missed out one year with just 2 losses.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Fifth and Putnam on March 01, 2020, 01:24:54 PM
    La Roche missed last year at 24-3...a few years back in the same conference (AMCC) Penn St.-Behrend missed out at 23-3.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Viking Mike on March 01, 2020, 01:25:21 PM
    So frustrating to see so many tournament worth teams being left home in the Central!

    If they leave the CCIW, WIAC, Wash U, St Norbert, etc all in the Central region going forward, they should consider expanding the # of regionally ranked teams to 10, or something.  There are just too many skilled and talented teams in this part of the country to say "you get a regionally ranked win for this team at #8, but not for this lesser team at #9.  I think the # of regionally ranked teams is based on # of schools in the area, but shouldn't there be other factors involved?  Perhaps taking into account the # of teams from the Central that have made the Final Four over the years, or won the championship?  or collective winning percentage?

    Early season injuries and players leaving team really handcuffed the Vikings this year. (freshman Duwa, junior Fraikes with injuries and freshmen McDonald, junior Tribble -left team)  New rotations and inexperience really cost Augie in the Oshkosh, Wash U, Lacrosse , and IWU games early on.  Only 2 wins instead of 4 losses would have likely made the difference.

    IWU has really come on strong at the end of the year and they certainly are deserving of an NCAA bid, but it doesn't look good for them either.

    Time to look forward to recruiting and building on the success of this year for the 2020-21 Vikings! 


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SpringSt7 on March 01, 2020, 01:25:29 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 01:21:07 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on March 01, 2020, 01:18:37 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 01:16:00 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on March 01, 2020, 01:08:10 PM
    Of the potential bubble bursters today, which teams would have the best chance at getting Pool C bids? I'm guessing WPI and RPI are already in, but what about teams like St. Joe's, Centre, and Yeshiva?

    Centre has a pretty good chance, then St Joe's, then Yeshiva - and I would not want to be either of those last two.

    Has any 2 loss team ever missed out on the tournament? Because that's what Yeshiva would be, and I can't imagine it's many.

    I'm almost positive it's happened.  A lot of times there are teams with really good records in very weak conferences who lose in conference tournaments and miss out with very few losses.  Southern Vermont comes to mind, although I think they were 24-3 in the year they missed out.  Some of these teams never even make the regional rankings so we sometimes forget about them after the fact.  It seems like Albertus Magnus missed out one year with just 2 losses.

    Crazy to think that Yeshiva very well could have come into this game undefeated and still have been squarely on the bubble. Watching them play Williams in early February, there was a playoff like intensity to them, like they knew they needed to have it for resume purposes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 01:27:16 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on March 01, 2020, 01:25:29 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 01:21:07 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on March 01, 2020, 01:18:37 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2020, 01:16:00 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on March 01, 2020, 01:08:10 PM
    Of the potential bubble bursters today, which teams would have the best chance at getting Pool C bids? I'm guessing WPI and RPI are already in, but what about teams like St. Joe's, Centre, and Yeshiva?

    Centre has a pretty good chance, then St Joe's, then Yeshiva - and I would not want to be either of those last two.

    Has any 2 loss team ever missed out on the tournament? Because that's what Yeshiva would be, and I can't imagine it's many.

    I'm almost positive it's happened.  A lot of times there are teams with really good records in very weak conferences who lose in conference tournaments and miss out with very few losses.  Southern Vermont comes to mind, although I think they were 24-3 in the year they missed out.  Some of these teams never even make the regional rankings so we sometimes forget about them after the fact.  It seems like Albertus Magnus missed out one year with just 2 losses.

    Crazy to think that Yeshiva very well could have come into this game undefeated and still have been squarely on the bubble. Watching them play Williams in early February, there was a playoff like intensity to them, like they knew they needed to have it for resume purposes.

    It would be harder to live with because they actually scheduled really well this year and their opponents largely had down seasons.  Their Non-conference SOS is pretty good, though, so maybe the committee would find a way to get them in.  It's not like it would be impossible.

    They are currently on a 20-2 run in their conference championship game, so hopefully they'll be in with the AQ and not worried about it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2020, 02:33:52 PM
    BOLD is AQ
    CROSSED OUT is Pool C
    Atlantic           
    Rank   School   vs. D3   Overall
    1   Stevens   21-4   21-4
    2   Yeshiva   24-1   24-1 FINAL TODAY
    3   Eastern   14-9   16-9
    4   TCNJ   17-8   17-8
    5   DeSales   17-8   17-8
    6   Wesley   16-8   16-9 POOL B
    7   Stockton   17-8   17-8
    8   Gwynedd Mercy   19-6   19-6
               
    Central           
    1   UW-Platteville   20-3   22-3
    2   Washington U.   20-4   20-4
    3   Benedictine    20-5   20-5
    4   North Central (Ill.)   21-4   21-4
    5   Elmhurst   20-5   20-5
    6   St. Norbert   22-3   22-3
    7   UW-Oshkosh   17-8   17-8
    8   UW-La Crosse   20-5   20-5
               
    East           
    1   Brockport   22-3   22-3
    2   RPI   21-3   22-3 IN FINAL TODAY
    3   Hobart   21-4   21-4
    4   Rochester   16-8   16-8
    5   SUNY Potsdam   19-5   19-6
    6   SUNY Oneonta   18-7   18-7
    7   Oswego State   18-7   18-7
    8   Ithaca   20-5   20-5 FINAL TODAY
               
    Great Lakes     
    1   Mount Union   22-3   22-3
    2   Wittenberg   24-1   24-1
    3   Marietta   20-5   20-5
    4   Wooster   18-7   18-7
    5   Albion   21-4   21-4
    6   Wabash   17-8   17-8
    7   John Carroll   17-8   17-8
    8   Transylvania   17-8   17-8 FINAL TODAY
    9   La Roche   19-6   19-6
               
    Middle Atlantic     
    1   Swarthmore   25-0   25-0
    2   Johns Hopkins   22-3   22-3
    3   Christopher Newport   20-5   20-5
    4   York (Pa.)   20-5   20-5
    5   Drew   20-5   20-5
    6   Widener   19-5   19-6
    7   Muhlenberg   18-7   18-7
    8   Arcadia   15-10   15-10
               
    Northeast     
    1   Springfield   22-3   22-3
    2   Middlebury   20-5   20-5
    3   Tufts   19-6   19-6 IN FINAL
    4   Colby   23-2   23-2 IN FINAL
    5   WPI   19-6   19-6 IN FINAL
    6   Babson   20-5   20-5
    7   St. Joseph (Conn.)   21-2   23-2 IN FINAL
    8   Amherst   18-7   18-7
    9   Trinity (Conn.)   17-8   17-8
    10   New England College   19-6   19-6
    11   Albertus Magnus   20-4   20-4 IN FINAL
               
    South           
    1   Emory   20-4   20-4
    2   Randolph-Macon   23-2   23-2 IN FINAL
    3   Texas-Dallas   20-5   20-5
    4   LeTourneau   20-5   20-5
    5   Centre   21-4   22-4 IN FINAL
    6   Virginia Wesleyan   20-4   21-4 IN FINAL
    7   Guilford   18-7   18-7
    8   East Texas Baptist   19-6   19-6
               
    West           
    1   St. Thomas   23-2   23-2
    2   Nebraska Wesleyan   22-3   22-3
    3   St. John's    23-2   23-2
    4   Whitworth   20-5   20-5
    5   Loras   17-8   17-8
    6   Redlands   17-6   18-6
    7   Linfield   15-5   20-5
    8   Pomona-Pitzer   17-3   19-5
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 02:59:48 PM
    Quote from: sac on March 01, 2020, 12:48:37 PM
    Just to clarify, I hate RRO's because so many of them are conference related.  Its an extra, unneeded boost to bigger and sometimes better conferences.
    But if the process is meant to identify the best teams, isn't it good to have a metric where they can discuss some of the specific results?

    For example, UW-Eau Claire:

    * RRO Wins - Whitworth, Oshkosh, Platteville
    * RRO Losses - Wash U, St. Norbert, Platteville, Oshkosh, La Crosse, Platteville, La Crosse, Oshkosh

    Seems being able to highlight these results and discuss them is valuable.  To me it is very helpful to be able to compare these results vs, say, a Hobart.  Who has the "best wins"?  Who has the "best losses"?  Etc.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on March 01, 2020, 03:03:56 PM
    Coast Guard from down 24 at half time bursts a bubble.  WPI definitely in, they were probably in discussion to host a pod.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 01, 2020, 05:19:03 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on March 01, 2020, 03:03:56 PM
    Coast Guard from down 24 at half time bursts a bubble.  WPI definitely in, they were probably in discussion to host a pod.

    Probably an all-time run for an AQ.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2020, 05:25:10 PM
    Updated

    BOLD is AQ
    CROSSED OUT is Pool C
    Atlantic           
    Rank   School   vs. D3   Overall
    1   Stevens   21-4   21-4
    2   Yeshiva   24-1   24-1
    3   Eastern   14-9   16-9
    4   TCNJ   17-8   17-8
    5   DeSales   17-8   17-8
    6   Wesley   16-8   16-9 POOL B
    7   Stockton   17-8   17-8
    8   Gwynedd Mercy   19-6   19-6
               
    Central           
    1   UW-Platteville   20-3   22-3
    2   Washington U.   20-4   20-4
    3   Benedictine    20-5   20-5
    4   North Central (Ill.)   21-4   21-4
    5   Elmhurst   20-5   20-5
    6   St. Norbert   22-3   22-3
    7   UW-Oshkosh   17-8   17-8
    8   UW-La Crosse   20-5   20-5
               
    East           
    1   Brockport   22-3   22-3
    2   RPI   21-3   22-3
    3   Hobart   21-4   21-4
    4   Rochester   16-8   16-8
    5   SUNY Potsdam   19-5   19-6
    6   SUNY Oneonta   18-7   18-7
    7   Oswego State   18-7   18-7
    8   Ithaca   20-5   20-5
               
    Great Lakes     
    1   Mount Union   22-3   22-3
    2   Wittenberg   24-1   24-1
    3   Marietta   20-5   20-5
    4   Wooster   18-7   18-7
    5   Albion   21-4   21-4
    6   Wabash   17-8   17-8
    7   John Carroll   17-8   17-8
    8   Transylvania   17-8   17-8
    9   La Roche   19-6   19-6
               
    Middle Atlantic     
    1   Swarthmore   25-0   25-0
    2   Johns Hopkins   22-3   22-3
    3   Christopher Newport   20-5   20-5
    4   York (Pa.)   20-5   20-5
    5   Drew   20-5   20-5
    6   Widener   19-5   19-6
    7   Muhlenberg   18-7   18-7
    8   Arcadia   15-10   15-10
               
    Northeast     
    1   Springfield   22-3   22-3
    2   Middlebury   20-5   20-5
    3   Tufts   19-6   19-6
    4   Colby   23-2   23-2
    5   WPI   19-6   19-6
    6   Babson   20-5   20-5
    7   St. Joseph (Conn.)   21-2   23-2
    8   Amherst   18-7   18-7
    9   Trinity (Conn.)   17-8   17-8
    10   New England College   19-6   19-6
    11   Albertus Magnus   20-4   20-4
               
    South           
    1   Emory   20-4   20-4
    2   Randolph-Macon   23-2   23-2
    3   Texas-Dallas   20-5   20-5
    4   LeTourneau   20-5   20-5
    5   Centre   21-4   22-4
    6   Virginia Wesleyan   20-4   21-4
    7   Guilford   18-7   18-7
    8   East Texas Baptist   19-6   19-6
               
    West           
    1   St. Thomas   23-2   23-2
    2   Nebraska Wesleyan   22-3   22-3
    3   St. John's    23-2   23-2
    4   Whitworth   20-5   20-5
    5   Loras   17-8   17-8
    6   Redlands   17-6   18-6
    7   Linfield   15-5   20-5
    8   Pomona-Pitzer   17-3   19-5
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2020, 05:26:14 PM
    RPI lost and WPI lost, those are two Pool Cs taken now because Ithaca and Coast Guard took their AQs
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2020, 05:39:26 PM
    Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2020, 05:19:03 PM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on March 01, 2020, 03:03:56 PM
    Coast Guard from down 24 at half time bursts a bubble.  WPI definitely in, they were probably in discussion to host a pod.

    Probably an all-time run for an AQ.

    Here are some other good ones:

    Berry ran the table in the SAA as a No. 8 seed in 2018.
    https://www.d3hoops.com/teams/Berry/men/2017-18/index

    It's actually not even the best Coast Guard run for an AQ. Coast Guard was the 7 seed back when everyone made the NEWMAC tournament and won three games to win the conference final, including a win at WPI for the title.
    https://www.d3hoops.com/teams/Coast_Guard/men/2006-07/index
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2020, 05:47:05 PM
    It doesn't count because they didn't get the AQ, but Lakeland went on the road three times and won the NACC as the 6th seed, but they didn't get the AQ because that's when the IIAC and the LMC merged.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2020, 05:50:42 PM
    Similarly, MSOE went to the dance at 12-16 in 2003, as the No. 6 seed in the Lake Michigan Conference. Hendrix also did it as the No. 8 seed from the SAA in 2015, going to the tourney at 12-16.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on March 01, 2020, 06:21:34 PM
    No St. Thomas - #1 in the West Region?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2020, 06:26:35 PM
    No West here at all. Reboot!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 06:27:42 PM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2020, 06:26:35 PM
    No West here at all. Reboot!

    Sorry, copy/paste errors...rushing to get ready for the show.

    I will post my later after the show.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: magicman on March 01, 2020, 08:16:38 PM
    In the 2008-09 season Brockport State was the 8th seed with a 7-9 conference record. They won 2 road games and a neutral court game as they defeated the #1, #3,  and #5 seeds to win the conference championship. They entered the NCAA tournament with a 14-14 record and lost a first round game to Carnegie Mellon in double overtime 75-70  at John Carroll. 

    Shortly after that the conference powers that be decided the 7th and 8th place teams could no longer be in the conference tournament.

    In 2005-06 season Plattsburgh State was the 6th seed and defeated the #3 seed Brockport in Brockport. They defeated the #2 seed Oswego at the Utica Memorial Auditorium (site of the semis and finals). They won the conference title by defeating the #1 seed Cortland.  They lost a first round game at Hamilton 66-65 in overtime.   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2020, 08:28:45 PM
    So far from the experts on Hoopsville

    Pool C in order

    1. Swarthmore
    2. Platteville
    3. Springfield
    4. Middlebury
    5. St. Thomas
    6. Colby
    7.Wittenberg
    8. NCC
    9. CNU
    10. Texas-Dallas
    11. Marietta
    12. Whitworth
    13. WPI
    14. RPI
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2020, 08:29:27 PM
    Benedictine is blocking Eau Claire, La Crosse, SNC, Augustana...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2020, 08:50:30 PM
    So Wash U dropped behind Benedictine, NCC and SNC?

    WashU 20-4-0 ( 0.833) 4-3-0  0.561

    Benedictine (IL) 20-5-0 ( 0.800) 3-0-0   0.506
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2020, 09:00:41 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2020, 08:50:30 PM
    So Wash U dropped behind Benedictine, NCC and SNC?

    WashU 20-4-0 ( 0.833) 4-3-0  0.561

    Benedictine (IL) 20-5-0 ( 0.800) 3-0-0   0.506

    That's what we have been told, and my understanding is that we heard it from two different people. I still think that the national committee might overrule a regional advisory committee that would send that in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ShineTime on March 01, 2020, 10:21:09 PM
    Just my opinion but I feel the talk of the wiac deserving 3-4 teams this year is absurd. I obviously would like that but the quality of competition this year just isn't outstanding from the games I attended. Oshkosh when really on could make a run but I'm not high on Platteville.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 01, 2020, 10:33:12 PM
    We had fun on Hoopsville doing the Pool C projections. 

    Here is my version.  I am going to rank the Central as I would have.  I will end up being way off if the rankings we heard and used on the show end up being right.

    Round 1
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - Platteville: .833/.567/8-1
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Wittenberg: .929/.513/3-2
    MA - Swarthmore: .963/.570/11-1
    NE - Springfield: .846//.579/5-2
    S - Texas-Dallas: .778/.549/4-3
    W - St. Thomas: .889/.557/3-3

    Round 2
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - Platteville: .833/.567/8-1
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Wittenberg: .929/.513/3-2
    MA - Christopher Newport: .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Springfield: .846//.579/5-2
    S - Texas-Dallas: .778/.549/4-3
    W - St. Thomas: .889/.557/3-3

    Round 3
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - North Central: .808/.547/2-3
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Wittenberg: .929/.513/3-2
    MA - Christopher Newport: .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Springfield: .846//.579/5-2
    S - Texas-Dallas: .778/.549/4-3
    W - St. Thomas: .889/.557/3-3

    Round 4
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - North Central: .808/.547/2-3
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Wittenberg: .929/.513/3-2
    MA - Christopher Newport: .778/.544/4-5
    NE: Middlebury: .800/.571/5-4
    S - Texas-Dallas: .778/.549/4-3
    W - St. Thomas: .889/.557/3-3

    Round 5
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - North Central: .808/.547/2-3
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Wittenberg: .929/.513/3-2
    MA - Christopher Newport: .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Colby: .889/.541/4-3
    S - Texas-Dallas: .778/.549/4-3
    W - St. Thomas: .889/.557/3-3

    Round 6
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - North Central: .808/.547/2-3
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Wittenberg: .929/.513/3-2
    MA - Christopher Newport: .778/.544/4-5
    NE - Colby: .889/.541/4-3
    S - Texas-Dallas: .778/.549/4-3
    W - Whitworth: .778/.531/3-6

    Round 7
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - North Central: .808/.547/2-3
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Wittenberg: .929/.513/3-2
    MA - Christopher Newport: .778/.544/4-5
    NE - WPI: .741/.553/3-5
    S - Texas-Dallas: .778/.549/4-3
    W - Whitworth: .778/.531/3-6

    Round 8
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - North Central: .808/.547/2-3
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Marietta: .778/.529/4-4
    MA - Christopher Newport: .778/.544/4-5
    NE - WPI: .741/.553/3-5
    S - Texas-Dallas: .778/.549/4-3
    W - Whitworth: .778/.531/3-6

    Round 9
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - Wash U: 800/.557/3-3
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Marietta: .778/.529/4-4
    MA - Christopher Newport: .778/.544/4-5
    NE - WPI: .741/.553/3-5
    S - Texas-Dallas: .778/.549/4-3
    W - Whitworth: .778/.531/3-6

    Round 10
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - St. Norbert: .852/.535/2-2
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Marietta: .778/.529/4-4
    MA - Christopher Newport: .778/.544/4-5
    NE - WPI: .741/.553/3-5
    S - Texas-Dallas: .778/.549/4-3
    W - Whitworth: .778/.531/3-6

    Round 11
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - St. Norbert: .852/.535/2-2
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Marietta: .778/.529/4-4
    MA - Drew: .769/.531/1-1
    NE - WPI: .741/.553/3-5
    S - Texas-Dallas: .778/.549/4-3
    W - Whitworth: .778/.531/3-6


    Round 12
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - St. Norbert: .852/.535/2-2
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Marietta: .778/.529/4-4
    MA - Drew: .769/.531/1-1
    NE - WPI: .741/.553/3-5
    S - Virginia Wesleyan: .815/.529/2-2
    W - Whitworth: .778/.531/3-6

    Round 13
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse: .778/.542/2-5
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Marietta: .778/.529/4-4
    MA - Drew: .769/.531/1-1
    NE - WPI: .741/.553/3-5
    S - Virginia Wesleyan: .815/.529/2-2
    W - Whitworth: .778/.531/3-6

    Round 14
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse: .778/.542/2-5
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Albion: .808/.519/0-2
    MA - Drew: .769/.531/1-1
    NE - WPI: .741/.553/3-5
    S - Virginia Wesleyan: .815/.529/2-2
    W - Whitworth: .778/.531/3-6

    Round 15
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse: .778/.542/2-5
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Albion: .808/.519/0-2
    MA - Drew: .769/.531/1-1
    NE - WPI: .741/.553/3-5
    S - Virginia Wesleyan: .815/.529/2-2
    W - Redlands: .731/.511/2-3

    Round 16
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse: .778/.542/2-5
    E - RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    GL - Albion: .808/.519/0-2
    MA - Drew: .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Babson: .769/.534/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan: .815/.529/2-2
    W - Redlands: .731/.511/2-3

    Round 17
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - UW-La Crosse: .778/.542/2-5
    E - Hobart: .808/.521/3-4
    GL - Albion: .808/.519/0-2
    MA - Drew: .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Babson: .769/.534/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan: .815/.529/2-2
    W - Redlands: .731/.511/2-3

    Round 18
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .679/.591/3-8
    E - Hobart: .808/.521/3-4
    GL - Albion: .808/.519/0-2
    MA - Drew: .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Babson: .769/.534/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan: .815/.529/2-2
    W - Redlands: .731/.511/2-3

    Round 19
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .679/.591/3-8
    E - Hobart: .808/.521/3-4
    GL - Albion: .808/.519/0-2
    MA - Drew: .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst: .692/.552/3-4
    S - Virginia Wesleyan: .815/.529/2-2
    W - Redlands: .731/.511/2-3

    Round 20
    AT - Eastern: .560//574/4-5
    C - UW-Eau Claire: .679/.591/3-8
    E - Hobart: .808/.521/3-4
    GL - Albion: .808/.519/0-2
    MA - Drew: .769/.531/1-1
    NE - Amherst: .692/.552/3-4
    S - East TX Baptist: .750/.533/2-4
    W - Redlands: .731/.511/2-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2020, 11:29:41 PM
    Here's our projected bracket:
    https://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2020/projected-mens-bracket
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on March 02, 2020, 01:12:17 AM
    Is Yeshiva able to play on Friday night or do they have to adjust the schedule for religious purposes? I don't see how the NCAA has a pod with Yeshiva hosting due to their resume and then factors of when they can play games and handle hosting responsibilities.  It's a can of worms I doubt the NCAA would be willing to open if there are alternative options. They were most likely not going to get in if they lost in the conference tournament. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2020, 01:26:06 AM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on March 02, 2020, 01:12:17 AM
    Is Yeshiva able to play on Friday night or do they have to adjust the schedule for religious purposes? I don't see how the NCAA has a pod with Yeshiva hosting due to their resume and then factors of when they can play games and handle hosting responsibilities.  It's a can of worms I doubt the NCAA would be willing to open if there are alternative options. They were most likely not going to get in if they lost in the conference tournament.

    I don't think that their time restrictions should impact how they/whether they host. The committee already has those things in mind and I think it is actually less of a problem if they are at home because of less travel.

    Last time Yeshiva qualified for the tournament they played at York (Pa.) in the middle of Friday afternoon and it was great. The committee is hoping to schedule more mid- to late-afternoon Friday games this year and spread that first round out more.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2020, 01:27:24 AM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on March 02, 2020, 01:12:17 AM
    Is Yeshiva able to play on Friday night or do they have to adjust the schedule for religious purposes? I don't see how the NCAA has a pod with Yeshiva hosting due to their resume and then factors of when they can play games and handle hosting responsibilities.  It's a can of worms I doubt the NCAA would be willing to open if there are alternative options. They were most likely not going to get in if they lost in the conference tournament.

    Our mock had Yeshiva hosting largely because geography limited options out west and we didn't think the committee would give the nescac three pods.  There are a lot of options with that spot (including RPI, probably).  When Yeshiva was in the tournament two years ago, they did adjust the schedule so they could play early Friday afternoon.  If they win, the second game will be late Saturday night (after sundown).

    However, the committee is hoping to stagger start times the first weekend if they can anyway - so we may seen games from 1pm on through the rest of the day.  But certainly Yeshiva will be playing early on Friday, no matter where they end up.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Bartman on March 02, 2020, 07:18:00 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2020, 11:29:41 PM
    Here's our projected bracket:
    https://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2020/projected-mens-bracket
    Hobart last team in, hoping it happens :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on March 02, 2020, 08:40:35 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2020, 01:27:24 AM

    Our mock had Yeshiva hosting largely because geography limited options out west and we didn't think the committee would give the nescac three pods.  There are a lot of options with that spot (including RPI, probably).  When Yeshiva was in the tournament two years ago, they did adjust the schedule so they could play early Friday afternoon.  If they win, the second game will be late Saturday night (after sundown).

    However, the committee is hoping to stagger start times the first weekend if they can anyway - so we may seen games from 1pm on through the rest of the day.  But certainly Yeshiva will be playing early on Friday, no matter where they end up.

    My two points were Yeshiva's resume was probably bubble out if they lost in the Skyline tournament so to go from being out to hosting is a bit of a stretch.  Their resume is not better than Wooster's (2-GL), RPI's (2-E), or York's (3-MA) who all are solid viable hosting options and can get to a lot of the other host sites.  In addition to that, on the official box score from the Purchase game, which was standing room only packed, it said official attendance 950.  Is that enough for the NCAA to allow Yeshiva to host?  I am not sure what the capacity requirement is for a host pod.

    Also, it's my understanding Yeshiva practices orthodox Judiasm.  I am no religious expert but from sun down Friday to sun down Saturday you are not allowed to pretty much do anything, correct?  How would that work for practice time for the opposing winning team? I assume everyone that works/attends Yeshiva is Jewish orthodox and would not be available to unlock the gym, clean up from the prior game, do laundry etc... that a host site typically would handle.

    I understand it's a mock bracket but that is what I meant when saying the NCAA probably does not want to open up that can of worms when there are plenty of other viable options.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on March 02, 2020, 08:47:23 AM
    Yeshiva has 1100 seat capacity listed on the d3hoops.com site, I believe similarly sized gyms have been to small to host in the past.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on March 02, 2020, 08:57:33 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 02, 2020, 08:47:23 AM
    Yeshiva has 1100 seat capacity listed on the d3hoops.com site, I believe similarly sized gyms have been to small to host in the past.

    In the past, no minimums have been listed for the 1st weekend, only the 2nd.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Caz Bombers on March 02, 2020, 09:22:39 AM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on March 02, 2020, 08:40:35 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2020, 01:27:24 AM

    Our mock had Yeshiva hosting largely because geography limited options out west and we didn't think the committee would give the nescac three pods.  There are a lot of options with that spot (including RPI, probably).  When Yeshiva was in the tournament two years ago, they did adjust the schedule so they could play early Friday afternoon.  If they win, the second game will be late Saturday night (after sundown).

    However, the committee is hoping to stagger start times the first weekend if they can anyway - so we may seen games from 1pm on through the rest of the day.  But certainly Yeshiva will be playing early on Friday, no matter where they end up.

    My two points were Yeshiva's resume was probably bubble out if they lost in the Skyline tournament so to go from being out to hosting is a bit of a stretch.  Their resume is not better than Wooster's (2-GL), RPI's (2-E), or York's (3-MA) who all are solid viable hosting options and can get to a lot of the other host sites.  In addition to that, on the official box score from the Purchase game, which was standing room only packed, it said official attendance 950.  Is that enough for the NCAA to allow Yeshiva to host?  I am not sure what the capacity requirement is for a host pod.

    Also, it's my understanding Yeshiva practices orthodox Judiasm.  I am no religious expert but from sun down Friday to sun down Saturday you are not allowed to pretty much do anything, correct?  How would that work for practice time for the opposing winning team? I assume everyone that works/attends Yeshiva is Jewish orthodox and would not be available to unlock the gym, clean up from the prior game, do laundry etc... that a host site typically would handle.

    I understand it's a mock bracket but that is what I meant when saying the NCAA probably does not want to open up that can of worms when there are plenty of other viable options.

    a really inaccurate assumption tbh
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2020, 09:38:10 AM
    Quote from: ronk on March 02, 2020, 08:57:33 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 02, 2020, 08:47:23 AM
    Yeshiva has 1100 seat capacity listed on the d3hoops.com site, I believe similarly sized gyms have been to small to host in the past.

    In the past, no minimums have been listed for the 1st weekend, only the 2nd.

    I always thought it was 1,000. That was enough to clear out the gym after the 1st game.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2020, 09:50:07 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2020, 09:38:10 AM
    Quote from: ronk on March 02, 2020, 08:57:33 AM
    Quote from: sac on March 02, 2020, 08:47:23 AM
    Yeshiva has 1100 seat capacity listed on the d3hoops.com site, I believe similarly sized gyms have been to small to host in the past.

    In the past, no minimums have been listed for the 1st weekend, only the 2nd.

    I always thought it was 1,000. That was enough to clear out the gym after the 1st game.

    I've heard 800 for first weekend - and they'd do two sessions.  I really don't think Yeshiva is going to get to host, although their chances did improve in my mind (obviously) while bracketing.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2020, 09:52:58 AM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on March 02, 2020, 08:40:35 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2020, 01:27:24 AM

    Our mock had Yeshiva hosting largely because geography limited options out west and we didn't think the committee would give the nescac three pods.  There are a lot of options with that spot (including RPI, probably).  When Yeshiva was in the tournament two years ago, they did adjust the schedule so they could play early Friday afternoon.  If they win, the second game will be late Saturday night (after sundown).

    However, the committee is hoping to stagger start times the first weekend if they can anyway - so we may seen games from 1pm on through the rest of the day.  But certainly Yeshiva will be playing early on Friday, no matter where they end up.

    My two points were Yeshiva's resume was probably bubble out if they lost in the Skyline tournament so to go from being out to hosting is a bit of a stretch.  Their resume is not better than Wooster's (2-GL), RPI's (2-E), or York's (3-MA) who all are solid viable hosting options and can get to a lot of the other host sites.  In addition to that, on the official box score from the Purchase game, which was standing room only packed, it said official attendance 950.  Is that enough for the NCAA to allow Yeshiva to host?  I am not sure what the capacity requirement is for a host pod.

    Also, it's my understanding Yeshiva practices orthodox Judiasm.  I am no religious expert but from sun down Friday to sun down Saturday you are not allowed to pretty much do anything, correct?  How would that work for practice time for the opposing winning team? I assume everyone that works/attends Yeshiva is Jewish orthodox and would not be available to unlock the gym, clean up from the prior game, do laundry etc... that a host site typically would handle.

    I understand it's a mock bracket but that is what I meant when saying the NCAA probably does not want to open up that can of worms when there are plenty of other viable options.

    Typically, if the committee can't go with the criteria-justified hosts, they will stick to regional rankings.  RPI definitely would fit that bill, as would Wooster (although Wooster created more geographical problems than it solved in the end).  At some point, though, with all the work we're doing on this, we just have to call it.

    Two years ago, the committee had trouble finding a host who could accommodate Yeshiva's needs for the weekend.  If that becomes an issue again, there's plenty of justification to just have them stay home.  I don't think Yeshiva will host, but it would not be an unprecedented or unjustified decision if they do.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2020, 03:03:43 PM
    2019-20 Season
    1. (MA) Swarthmore: .963/.570/11-1
    2. (C) Platteville: .833/.567/8-1
    3. (NE) Springfield: .846//.579/5-2
    4. (NE) Middlebury: .800/.571/5-4
    5. (W) St. Thomas: .889/.557/3-3
    6. (NE) Colby: .889/.541/4-3
    7. (GL) Wittenberg: .929/.513/3-2
    8. (C) North Central: .808/.547/2-3
    9. (C) Wash U: 800/.557/3-3
    10. (MA) Christopher Newport: .778/.544/4-5
    11. (S) Texas-Dallas: .778/.549/4-3
    12. (GL) Marietta: .778/.529/4-4
    13. (W) Whitworth: .778/.531/3-6
    14. (NE) WPI: .741/.553/3-5
    15. (E) RPI: .846/.519/3-2
    16. (NE) Babson: .769/.534/3-4
    17. (C) Benedictine: .769/.508/3-0
    18. (C) St. Norbert: .852/.535/2-2
    19. (E) Hobart: .808/.521/3-4
    20. (C) UW-Eau Claire: .679/.591/3-8

    2018-19 Season
    1. (C) Augustana: .889, 24-3/.547/8-3
    2. (S) Randolph-Macon: .893, 25-3/.534/6-3
    3. (NE) Hamilton: .885, 23-3/.553/4-3
    4. (NE) Williams: .769, 20-6/.598/6-5
    5. (C) UW-Oshkosh: .885, 23-3/.542/3-3
    6. (W) Loras: .778, 21-6/.587/2-2
    7. (GL) Marietta: .769, 20-6/.549/6-4
    8. (MA) York (Pa.): .750, 21-7/.561/6-4
    9. (W) St. Thomas: .846, 22-4/.532/4-1
    10. (GL) Wooster: .821, 23-5/.543/3-4
    11. (E) Rochester: .800, 20-5/.539/5-2
    12. (GL) Capital: .741, 20-7/.546/6-4
    13. (E) Plattsburgh State: .760, 19-6/.531/6-6
    14. (AT) New Jersey City: .741, 20-7/.551/6-6
    15. (NE) MIT: .846, 22-4/.555/1-0
    16. (NE) Middlebury: .708, 17-7/.600/4-5
    17. (MA) Salisbury: .704, 19-8/.575/4-7
    18. (C) Wheaton: .704, 19-8/.574/4-5
    19. (AT) Ramapo: .667, 18-9/.567/8-5
    20. (C) UW-La Crosse .654, 17-9/.574/4-4

    2017-18 Season
    1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
    2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
    3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
    4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
    5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
    6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
    7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
    8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
    9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
    10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
    11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
    12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
    13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
    14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
    15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
    16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 
    17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
    18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
    19. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
    20. Brockport (E/SUNYAC): .731/.529/3-3
    21. LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2

    2016-17 Season
    1. Babson (NE/NEWMAC): .926/.574/4-1
    2. Williams (NE/NESCAC): .731/.592/7-4   
    3. Susquehanna (MA/LAND): .800/.556/4-4
    4. UW-Whitewater (C/WIAC): .769/.567/3-5
    5. Rochester (E/UAA): .840/.534/4-2
    6. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .708/.598/5-5
    7. Tufts (NE/NESCAC): .769/.566/4-4
    8. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .760/.560/4-3
    9. Whitworth (W/NWC): .852/.544/0-3
    10. Salisbury (MA/CAC): .741/.546/3-4
    11. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .750/.533/5-4
    12. Hope (GL/MIAA): .800/.525/2-1
    13. Cabrini (AT/CSAC): .760/.531/2-3
    14. Emory (S/UAA): .720/.547/2-3
    15. Skidmore (E/LL): .731/.527/6-1
    16. St. Lawrence (E/LL): .769/.526/3-5
    17. Augustana (C/CCIW): .704/.542/2-2
    18. Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/3-4
    19. Endicott (NE/CCC): .786/.532/1-1
    20. St. Thomas (W/MIAC): .731/.530/1-2
    21. UW-Oshkosh: (C/WIAC): .630/.601/5-6
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 02, 2020, 03:43:49 PM
    Those two years the WIAC rep was picked last, it lost in the 1st round, I believe.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on March 02, 2020, 04:13:47 PM
    I have minimal problems with these selections.

    I do find the order a little perplexing. I feel like Albion and Hobart have almost identical resumes, with the tie-breaker going to Hobart via RROs. I find it interesting then, that the committee picked Hobart AHEAD of Eau Clare, but left Albion at the table.

    If it were me, I would have picked Virginia Wesleyan over both and left both Hobart and Albion at the table.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on March 02, 2020, 04:21:12 PM
    Quote from: HOPEful on March 02, 2020, 04:13:47 PM
    I have minimal problems with these selections.

    I do find the order a little perplexing. I feel like Albion and Hobart have almost identical resumes, with the tie-breaker going to Hobart via RROs. I find it interesting then, that the committee picked Hobart AHEAD of Eau Clare, but left Albion at the table.

    If it were me, I would have picked Virginia Wesleyan over both and left both Hobart and Albion at the table.

    We don't know the order.  The order above is just my guess.  It is somewhere in the ballpark, but certainly not perfect.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2020, 05:02:35 PM

    I think Hobart was either 19 or 20.  The Potsdam resume (with a 5-3 vRRO) is very impressive.  No one else at the table would likely beat it - outside of maybe Eau Claire - I can't imagine they sat there for any length of time at all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2020, 05:04:40 PM
    To counter that -- this resume is one win against the East No. 1 (negated by two losses to the East No. 1) and wins and losses against the East 7 and 8, all of them conference games. I'm not sure the committee was as impressed by that.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 03, 2020, 12:15:11 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2020, 09:52:58 AM
    Quote from: D3RetiredHooper on March 02, 2020, 08:40:35 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2020, 01:27:24 AM

    Our mock had Yeshiva hosting largely because geography limited options out west and we didn't think the committee would give the nescac three pods.  There are a lot of options with that spot (including RPI, probably).  When Yeshiva was in the tournament two years ago, they did adjust the schedule so they could play early Friday afternoon.  If they win, the second game will be late Saturday night (after sundown).

    However, the committee is hoping to stagger start times the first weekend if they can anyway - so we may seen games from 1pm on through the rest of the day.  But certainly Yeshiva will be playing early on Friday, no matter where they end up.

    My two points were Yeshiva's resume was probably bubble out if they lost in the Skyline tournament so to go from being out to hosting is a bit of a stretch.  Their resume is not better than Wooster's (2-GL), RPI's (2-E), or York's (3-MA) who all are solid viable hosting options and can get to a lot of the other host sites.  In addition to that, on the official box score from the Purchase game, which was standing room only packed, it said official attendance 950.  Is that enough for the NCAA to allow Yeshiva to host?  I am not sure what the capacity requirement is for a host pod.

    Also, it's my understanding Yeshiva practices orthodox Judiasm.  I am no religious expert but from sun down Friday to sun down Saturday you are not allowed to pretty much do anything, correct?  How would that work for practice time for the opposing winning team? I assume everyone that works/attends Yeshiva is Jewish orthodox and would not be available to unlock the gym, clean up from the prior game, do laundry etc... that a host site typically would handle.

    I understand it's a mock bracket but that is what I meant when saying the NCAA probably does not want to open up that can of worms when there are plenty of other viable options.

    Typically, if the committee can't go with the criteria-justified hosts, they will stick to regional rankings.  RPI definitely would fit that bill, as would Wooster (although Wooster created more geographical problems than it solved in the end).  At some point, though, with all the work we're doing on this, we just have to call it.

    Two years ago, the committee had trouble finding a host who could accommodate Yeshiva's needs for the weekend.  If that becomes an issue again, there's plenty of justification to just have them stay home.  I don't think Yeshiva will host, but it would not be an unprecedented or unjustified decision if they do.

    Just to clear this up ... I don't know how much the committee had 'trouble.' They had one school in mind but there was a challenge due to some reason (wasn't given to me; not important), so the committee went to their second choice - YCP - and they were happy to make it happen. I don't want it be thought upon that there was a challenge other than seeing if it work which they do for Hope, Calvin, etc. who have Christian religious scheduling challenges (though most have removed those from NCAA tournament play, but not all).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 08, 2020, 11:17:53 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=6w8mk/1suiql8xe7b8ab8p.jpg)

    What an opening weekend of the NCAA tournaments? Upsets a plenty. Gyms closed to fans. Incredible finishes. And so much more. Sunday night on Hoopsville we tried to cover it all.

    The show started with extensive information on decisions surrounding COVID-19. We discussed decisions by Johns Hopkins and Amherst to close their doors to fans for the first weekend's games. We also had reactions and statements on the choice to return to Amherst this coming weekend for the Sectionals in women's basketball and the college's decision to, once again, ban fans from attending.

    We also talked about the incredible stories coming out of the tournament of how teams are moving on and how seasons came to a sudden and emotional finish. 

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Pat Coleman, Editor-in-Chief, D3hoops.com
    - Todd Raridon, No. 11 North Central (Ill.) men's coach
    - Jackson Meshanic (sophomore) & Stefan Thompson (coach), Hobart men's team (Frank Rossi interviews)
    - Greg Dunne, No. 18 Brockport men's coach
    - Andy Rang, No. 23 Trine women's coach
    - Pat Manning, Williams women's coach
    - Bob Quillman & Ryan Scott

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Sunday's show On Demand in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/2PWk7A7 (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/mar8)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, the show is already available, so choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options.

    Please also consider helping us out. We are accepting donations to the show - which many of you have asked about. The goal is to raise $7,500. We are approximately at $5,200 at the time of this posting.

    To donate, click our PayPal link here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=BSRFLPUJQ9MKL&source=url
    If you are interested in using Venmo, try this link: https://givebutter.com/ACF5w0

    And thank you for your contributions.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2020, 05:27:08 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=73mrs/m6gg5jcihb76rihu.jpg)

    And with that, the 2019-20 seasons have come to a sudden end.

    What a week it has been in college basketball. Exactly a week ago, as we hit the air, the first signs that COVID-19 was going to impact the NCAA Tournaments was seen. Since then, it has been a whirlwind.  

    Tonight on Hoopsville, we try and make sense of one of the stranger finishes in history for NCAA events. What started with isolated closings of gyms for games ends a week later in all games being called off through the rest of the academic year.

    We will chat with those who were preparing for games on Friday and hear their reactions to the seasons coming to a close so quickly.

    Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
    - Michelle Ferenze, No. 10 Whitman women's coach
    - John Krikorian, Christopher Newport men's coach
    - Cheri Harrer, No. 9 Baldwin Wallace women's coach

    Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch Thursday's show LIVE starting at 7:00 p.m. ET in the following ways:
    - Main page: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville
    - Show page: http://bit.ly/3b1XeU3 (or www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2019-20/mar12)
    - Facebook Live Simulcast: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    - YouTube Simulcast: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    - Team1 Sports: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville/
    - Team1 Sports app (https://team1sports.com/) (Android TV, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Roku) - you will either find it under the "live" section or search for the Hoopsville channel
    Monday's show primarily covers the Atlantic, Central, South, and Northeast Regions. All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline

    All men's coaches appear in the NABC Coach's Corner. And all guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

    Please also consider helping us out. We are accepting donations to the show - which many of you have asked about. The goal is to raise $7,500. We are approximately at $4,600 at the time of this posting.

    To donate, click our PayPal link here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=BSRFLPUJQ9MKL&source=url

    And thank you for your contributions.

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on November 08, 2021, 11:45:11 AM
    My conversation with Mike Schauer, MBB National Committee Chair, about the selection process...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMpILST1VyQ

    0:00 Feeling good about 2021-22
    3:40 Regional realignment (8 regions to 10)
    6:15 Primary selection criteria
    10:55 Average historical data for Pool C selections
    13:26 Handling of non-D3 games
    14:07 Balance of the primary criteria; secondary criteria
    16:03 The importance of playing a strong non-conf schedule
    20:00 Allocation of teams in 2021-22 tournament field
    21:27 Regional rankings; alphabetical 1st ranking trial
    35:00 Transparency in the process
    39:08 D3 bracketing
    45:30 COVID impacts on the 2021-22 tournament
    46:45 Improvements in the D3 selection process over the years
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: CNU85 on November 08, 2021, 12:41:13 PM
    Good stuff Titan Q -- I'm in the middle of watching it now. The new C2C was just mentioned and there was some uncertainty about a conference tournament. There will be a conference torunamnet held at CNU in Virginia.

    Feb 24-26.

    here is the CNU schedule - scroll down to see dates of the tournament. Hope this helps.

    https://www.cnusports.com/sports/mens-basketball/schedule (https://www.cnusports.com/sports/mens-basketball/schedule)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on November 08, 2021, 12:59:15 PM
    Quote from: CNU85 on November 08, 2021, 12:41:13 PM
    Good stuff Titan Q -- I'm in the middle of watching it now. The new C2C was just mentioned and there was some uncertainty about a conference tournament. There will be a conference torunamnet held at CNU in Virginia.

    Feb 24-26.

    here is the CNU schedule - scroll down to see dates of the tournament. Hope this helps.

    https://www.cnusports.com/sports/mens-basketball/schedule (https://www.cnusports.com/sports/mens-basketball/schedule)

    Thank you!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on November 08, 2021, 01:12:06 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on November 08, 2021, 11:45:11 AM
    My conversation with Mike Schauer, MBB National Committee Chair, about the selection process...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMpILST1VyQ

    0:00 Feeling good about 2021-22
    3:40 Regional realignment (8 regions to 10)
    6:15 Primary selection criteria
    10:55 Average historical data for Pool C selections
    13:26 Handling of non-D3 games
    14:07 Balance of the primary criteria; secondary criteria
    16:03 The importance of playing a strong non-conf schedule
    20:00 Allocation of teams in 2021-22 tournament field
    21:27 Regional rankings; alphabetical 1st ranking trial
    35:00 Transparency in the process
    39:08 D3 bracketing
    45:30 COVID impacts on the 2021-22 tournament
    46:45 Improvements in the D3 selection process over the years

    Follow up tweet from Mike Schauer...


    Michael Schauer
    @ThunderMBB
    One thing I would add after listening to this podcast with @IWUhoopscom that I explained poorly.  We are not limited to a specific number of flights.  We are charged with minimizing the number of flights. Historically this has been around 5. #d3hoops
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: PauldingLightUP on November 08, 2021, 06:30:46 PM
    Thanks for the podcast TitanQ. One question following listening, I feel like it was assumed, but not 100% sure. With regional rankings now coming on out on Tuesday's will it still count Sunday's results?

    I would think so and hope so.

    Also, soccer and volleyball regional rankings were still released Wednesday's this fall. Is this just for men's basketball for Tuesday's releases, so women's basketball would still be Wednesday's? Thanks.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on November 08, 2021, 06:37:57 PM
    Quote from: PauldingLightUP on November 08, 2021, 06:30:46 PM
    Thanks for the podcast TitanQ. One question following listening, I feel like it was assumed, but not 100% sure. With regional rankings now coming on out on Tuesday's will it still count Sunday's results?

    I would think so and hope so.

    Also, soccer and volleyball regional rankings were still released Wednesday's this fall. Is this just for men's basketball for Tuesday's releases, so women's basketball would still be Wednesday's? Thanks.

    I also assume the regional rankings will still count results through Sundays.  I believe the change is just on the release side of things (Tuesdays instead of Wednesdays).

    I don't know if WBB is following suit on the Tuesday release.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on November 10, 2021, 10:01:56 AM
    Quote from: Titan Q on November 08, 2021, 11:45:11 AM
    My conversation with Mike Schauer, MBB National Committee Chair, about the selection process...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMpILST1VyQ

    0:00 Feeling good about 2021-22
    3:40 Regional realignment (8 regions to 10)
    6:15 Primary selection criteria
    10:55 Average historical data for Pool C selections
    13:26 Handling of non-D3 games
    14:07 Balance of the primary criteria; secondary criteria
    16:03 The importance of playing a strong non-conf schedule
    20:00 Allocation of teams in 2021-22 tournament field
    21:27 Regional rankings; alphabetical 1st ranking trial
    35:00 Transparency in the process
    39:08 D3 bracketing
    45:30 COVID impacts on the 2021-22 tournament
    46:45 Improvements in the D3 selection process over the years

    Is there a way to pin this post here on the Pool C page? It's a fantastic explainer and will be helpful to many folks come February.

    Great work TitanQ (and coach Schauer)!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 28, 2021, 11:01:20 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=3ax47/39tcd26s8nwuldn6.jpg)

    The DIII basketball season is nearly a month old and teams are settling into the first full season in two years. As we settle in, there are plenty of topics to discuss. On Sunday's show, Dave McHugh chats with the DIII men's and women's basketball committee chairs - Mike Schauer of Wheaton (Ill.) and Megan Wilson of Luther. Also joining the show is UMass-Boston men's basketball coach Jason Harris to chat about the first Black Coaches Classic and the significant coaching changes in the Northeast.

    Tune in On Demand as Dave also takes a look back at some of the significant games and results in the past few weeks ahead of the first in-season Top 25 polls.

    Guests appear on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    Tune in to the show On Demand here: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2021-22/nov28

    You can also listen to the podcast wherever you listen to podcasts (and if we aren't on your favorite place, let us know).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on December 01, 2021, 02:28:49 PM
    Does anyone know if there's a Men's Basketball Championship Handbook out? The link I previously downloaded them from does not seem to work anymore.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 01, 2021, 04:16:19 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 01, 2021, 02:28:49 PM
    Does anyone know if there's a Men's Basketball Championship Handbook out? The link I previously downloaded them from does not seem to work anymore.

    You could always email Mike Shauer and see if he's got an advanced copy, but nothing has been publicly released yet.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Inkblot on December 01, 2021, 08:58:22 PM
    When it's released, it'll be linked on this page: https://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on December 07, 2021, 05:04:38 PM
    My early look at Pool C...

    https://twitter.com/IWUhoopscom/status/1468311402456752132?s=20
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on December 07, 2021, 05:18:44 PM
    Too early, obviously.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on December 07, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
     Wouldn't CNU be getting the Pool B instead of Pool C?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: PauldingLightUP on December 07, 2021, 06:11:46 PM
    Quote from: ronk on December 07, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
    Wouldn't CNU be getting the Pool B instead of Pool C?

    There are no pool B bids for the 2022 championship.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on December 07, 2021, 08:28:33 PM
    Quote from: PauldingLightUP on December 07, 2021, 06:11:46 PM
    Quote from: ronk on December 07, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
    Wouldn't CNU be getting the Pool B instead of Pool C?

    There are no pool B bids for the 2022 championship.

    Correct.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: PauldingLightUP on December 16, 2021, 03:48:41 PM
    Quote from: Inkblot on December 01, 2021, 08:58:22 PM
    When it's released, it'll be linked on this page: https://www.ncaa.org/championships/division-iii-mens-basketball

    21-22 Pre-Championship Manual

    https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/basketball/d3/men/2021-22D3MBB_PreChampsManual.pdf
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SpringSt7 on December 16, 2021, 04:04:23 PM
    Who is your Pool A team from the NESCAC---Williams or Amherst?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 16, 2021, 04:06:53 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on December 16, 2021, 04:04:23 PM
    Who is your Pool A team from the NESCAC---Williams or Amherst?

    Dude... they haven't even started playing conference games. Slow down.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Inkblot on December 16, 2021, 05:41:46 PM
    So the C2C is a multi-regional conference after all. Pratt in 4, Salisbury in 5, Christopher Newport and Mary Washington in 6, Finlandia in 9, and UC Santa Cruz in 10.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Baldini on December 16, 2021, 05:55:31 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 16, 2021, 04:06:53 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on December 16, 2021, 04:04:23 PM
    Who is your Pool A team from the NESCAC---Williams or Amherst?

    Dude... they haven't even started playing conference games. Slow down.

    Well Dave, if Bob is projecting a Pool C already, he would first need to determine his Pool A teams. So, it seems like a fair question for him to ask Bob.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SpringSt7 on December 16, 2021, 06:07:58 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 16, 2021, 04:06:53 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on December 16, 2021, 04:04:23 PM
    Who is your Pool A team from the NESCAC---Williams or Amherst?

    Dude... they haven't even started playing conference games. Slow down.

    Ah yes, wouldn't want to be mistaken for someone getting overly excited in a debate about Pool C on December 16th, dude. Also seeing as both teams are ranked and undefeated it's a fair question to ask.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 16, 2021, 07:11:26 PM
    Quote from: Inkblot on December 16, 2021, 05:41:46 PM
    So the C2C is a multi-regional conference after all. Pratt in 4, Salisbury in 5, Christopher Newport and Mary Washington in 6, Finlandia in 9, and UC Santa Cruz in 10.

    I think they almost have to be, especially for Finlandia and UCSC - otherwise they might not get to 70% in-region competition to qualify for the tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on December 16, 2021, 07:32:48 PM
    By this time next month, we will have the results of ...

    Yeshiva v. IWU
    Yeshiva v. Williams
    RMC v. Lynchburg
    Platteville v. Oshkosh
    IWU v. Elmhurst
    IWU v. Wash U
    Williams v. Amherst (x2)
    Amherst v. Wesleyan
    RPI v Oswego
    Heidelberg v. Marietta
    Mount Union v. Marietta
    Marietta v. St. Joseph
    Hopkins vs. Swarthmore
    Roanoke v. Lynchburg

    All those games feature two teams in the top 27, except for RPI v. Oswego, which I think is the top two teams in that region.  We get 1 v. 4, 3. v. 5, and 7 v. 8.  If December 29 through January 19 isn't the most packed three weeks of a regular season we've seen in terms of sheer number of top-tier match-ups, it's gotta be right up there.  So, we will know a heck of a lot more soon! 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 16, 2021, 09:31:58 PM
    I meant to include a  ;D in my previous post, folks. I was trying to joke around.

    That said, when a conference hasn't played a game against one another ... I think it is a real tough challenge to ask who is going to win the conference.

    And Bob is insane to try and predict Pool C bids anytime before mid-January. :)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on December 17, 2021, 08:29:14 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on December 16, 2021, 07:32:48 PM
    By this time next month, we will have the results of ...

    Yeshiva v. IWU
    Yeshiva v. Williams
    [snip]
    RPI v Oswego


    All those games feature two teams in the top 27, except for RPI v. Oswego, which I think is the top two teams in that region. 

    Region 3 Includes the Skyline.  Matt Snyder's chart has Rochester [UAA] as the top team [using RPIndex] in the region, and the other pool A seeds as Nazareth [E8], RPI [Liberty], Yeshiva [Skyline] and Oswego [SUNYAC].  The E8 and the Liberty both have 4 teams in Matt's top 10 in the region, so there will be a good deal of home and away drama in those two leagues which will probably hurt their chances for a pool C.  He actually had Oneonta with a slightly higher RPI than Oswego, and The Dragons have a game at Chapman [.617 RPI] over the weekend.

    RPI has beaten Nazareth at Nazareth; Nazareth has beaten Oswego at Oswego, and defeated Rochester at Nazareth.

    Rochester also lost by 16 at home to St. John Fisher, so the committee will have to factor those two L's into the equation for a Pool C for the Yellowjackets.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on December 17, 2021, 08:51:40 AM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on December 16, 2021, 04:04:23 PM
    Who is your Pool A team from the NESCAC---Williams or Amherst?

    Williams when I did that.

    Amherst not competitive for Pool C at this time due to .437 SOS.

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on December 17, 2021, 08:53:07 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 16, 2021, 09:31:58 PM
    And Bob is insane to try and predict Pool C bids anytime before mid-January. :)

    Actually, there is plenty of data to start to see the Pool C picture develop, and, most importantly, to start to have a sense of where some of the key battles might be, what key metrics to keep an eye on, etc.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on December 17, 2021, 08:55:27 AM
    Matt Snyder compiles Pool C data here...

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    It's extremely helpful.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 17, 2021, 06:58:41 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on December 17, 2021, 08:55:27 AM
    Matt Snyder compiles Pool C data here...

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    It's extremely helpful.

    His numbers project a .391 SOS for Yeshiva. They better get that AQ.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SpringSt7 on January 01, 2022, 11:53:53 AM
    What are the guidelines and criteria for the committee to compare teams that play a different amount of games? Thinking ahead with COVID cancelled games that may not get postponed. How would the committee compare a 17-2 team to a 21-6 team?

    I know it would probably be unlikely that some teams would play 8 less games than others but for the sake of argument.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 01, 2022, 01:14:08 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on January 01, 2022, 11:53:53 AM
    What are the guidelines and criteria for the committee to compare teams that play a different amount of games? Thinking ahead with COVID cancelled games that may not get postponed. How would the committee compare a 17-2 team to a 21-6 team?

    I know it would probably be unlikely that some teams would play 8 less games than others but for the sake of argument.

    The criteria are winning percentage and SOS, neither of which requires the same number of games.  Results vs RRO can benefit teams with more games, but there are lots of other factors at play there, too.  It hurts St. Joe's to lose the Marietta game more than it hurts Marietta to lose it.

    I've never heard any committee member note the overall total of a team's wins, unless the winning percentage is close - something like 18-7 vs 20-8 kind of thing - and even then only after comparing SOS and vRRO first.

    If its a huge disparity like your example, they make take the SOS and vRRO into a higher consideration (or at least higher than they would with a .100 difference in winning percentage otherwise) - but you'll see basically the same process play out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 03, 2022, 06:08:30 PM
    We have differences in the number of games played in normal seasons. UAA plays 25... team in a conference that plays three or four rounds of a conference tournament has 28 to 29 games. Sometimes teams haven't gotten their full allotment of 24 games. And when teams don't play teams that count to primary criteria, there are a few more games lost.

    So this is somewhat common place to work with resumes that don't have the exact number of games played.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 03, 2022, 06:08:56 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=55k2q/nwcvlg377aoq0h9x.jpg)

    With the New Year comes not only a change to #Hoopsville, but increased concern about #COVID.

    Tonight, Hoopsville returns from the holiday break with a move to Monday evenings (from the previous Sunday night position). With the return also comes the return to plenty of cancelations and postponements due to COVID. We chat with Jason Fein, Athletics Director at Bates College Athletics and member of the NCAA Division III Championships Committee and Management Council, about the challenges the Omicron variant is now throwing at college and athletics administrations. What may change in the coming weeks and what we may be talking about still when selections and brackets are released at the end of the season.

    Plus, there are plenty of cancelations and postponements to try and weed through.

    We also talk to two teams making headlines around #d3hoops. They include Drew Rangers women's basketball who are off to a program best 10-0 start. We chat with th Rangers head coach John Olenowski.

    Plus, UW-Platteville Athletics men's basketball is undefeated and getting first place votes in the Top 25. Coach Jeff Guard joins us to talk about his Pioneers.

    All that and we breakdown the new Top 25 polls! Ryan Scott and Bob Quillman join Dave to react to the men's poll and to give their Dubious, Deep Dive, and Debatable teams.

    Tune LIVE starting at 7:00 PM ET!

    You can watch the show LIVE (or on demand) here: https://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2021-22/jan3 or http://www.d3hoops.com/x/fh5lq

    We are also simulcasting on our Facebook Live page (www.facebook.com/Hoopsville (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville)) AND tonight on our YouTube page (http://www.youtube.com/Hoopsville (http://www.youtube.com/Hoopsville))

    Guests include (order subject to change):
    - Jason Fein, Bates Athletics Director and DIII Management Council member
    - John Olenowski, Drew women's coach
    - Jeff Gard, No. 2 UW-Platteville men's coach
    - Top 25 Double-Take with Bob Quillman and Ryan Scott

    Hoopsville is hosted by Dave McHugh from the the NABC Studio. It is presented by D3hoops.com and thanks to our partner WBCA. All guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline.

    If you have questions, ideas, or want to interact with the show, feel free to send them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options available.

    If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
    SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


     
       
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

    We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

    Don't forget you can always interact with us:
    Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
    Video Portal (and archives): www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville
    Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
    Email: hoopsville@d3sports.com
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 20, 2022, 02:19:25 PM
    If the season ended today, I think we'd have brackets built around these four top seeds:

    1) RMC: .929/.649/6-1
    2) Marietta:.867/.628/5-2
    3) IWU: .867/.608/6-2
    4) UWO: .875/.643/6-1
    -----
    In the conversation:

    *CNU: .882/.625/3-2
    *WashU: .923/.556/3-0

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 20, 2022, 02:37:00 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on January 20, 2022, 02:19:25 PM
    If the season ended today, I think we'd have brackets built around these four top seeds:

    1) RMC: .929/.649/6-1
    2) Marietta:.867/.628/5-2
    3) IWU: .867/.608/6-2
    4) UWO: .875/.643/6-1
    -----
    In the conversation:

    *CNU: .882/.625/3-2
    *WashU: .923/.556/3-0

    You don't think CNU would be ranked ahead of RMC, based on head-to-head results?

    And if not, wouldn't UWO be head of IWU for the same reason?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 20, 2022, 03:27:24 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 20, 2022, 02:37:00 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on January 20, 2022, 02:19:25 PM
    If the season ended today, I think we'd have brackets built around these four top seeds:

    1) RMC: .929/.649/6-1
    2) Marietta:.867/.628/5-2
    3) IWU: .867/.608/6-2
    4) UWO: .875/.643/6-1
    -----
    In the conversation:

    *CNU: .882/.625/3-2
    *WashU: .923/.556/3-0

    You don't think CNU would be ranked ahead of RMC, based on head-to-head results?

    And if not, wouldn't UWO be head of IWU for the same reason?

    The head-to-head is one data point, but not all, as you know.

    I view RMCs WP/SOS/RRO metrics to be enough better than CNU's to be safely ahead there.

    I don't think that quite applies for UWO over IWU.  I think UWO/IWU is close enough that the head to head is the tie-breaker.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on January 20, 2022, 06:05:16 PM
    I think it's been said the committee is trying to be less geographically-constrained, but are they really going to have three midwest teams as top seeds?  Right now, that to four seems fair, but there are plenty of contenders from the northeast quadrant of the country ...

    The winner of Yeshiva - St. Joe's, if they go undefeated the rest of the way (especially if that winner is St. Joe's)
    Whoever ends up with the best record among Williams / Wesleyan / Midd, so long as that team has no more than two regular season losses.
    Swarthmore, if they win out. 
    Oswego or Nazareth, if either win out. 

    All of those, I'd think, would be good candidates to be seeded 1st and 2nd in a region (and maybe Swarthmore would actually slide to the RMC region, where it would be 1, 2 or 3 depending on how things go the rest of the way ...). 

    I think this will actually end up being a year with plenty of strong teams in each quadrant of the country.  The top two WIAC teams in one region (with teams from the West Coast, Texas, a few from the midwest), IWU/Marietta/Wash U. leading another midwest-heavy region, RMC / Swarthmore / CNU in a third southern and mid-atlantic region (with some northeast teams tossed in), and some combo of St. Joe's / Yeshiva/ the top NESCAC teams / Oswego / Nazreth heading up a fourth northeast heavy region, depending on which from that group emerge mostly unscathed the rest of the way ....  I just can't imagine that an undefeated St. Joe's team, or a  NESCAC team that wins the league tourney with say 2 total regular season losses, would not end up seeded first in a regional ...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 20, 2022, 07:09:42 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on January 20, 2022, 06:05:16 PM
    I think it's been said the committee is trying to be less geographically-constrained, but are they really going to have three midwest teams as top seeds?  Right now, that to four seems fair, but there are plenty of contenders from the northeast quadrant of the country ...

    The winner of Yeshiva - St. Joe's, if they go undefeated the rest of the way (especially if that winner is St. Joe's)
    Whoever ends up with the best record among Williams / Wesleyan / Midd, so long as that team has no more than two regular season losses.
    Swarthmore, if they win out. 
    Oswego or Nazareth, if either win out. 

    All of those, I'd think, would be good candidates to be seeded 1st and 2nd in a region (and maybe Swarthmore would actually slide to the RMC region, where it would be 1, 2 or 3 depending on how things go the rest of the way ...). 

    I think this will actually end up being a year with plenty of strong teams in each quadrant of the country.  The top two WIAC teams in one region (with teams from the West Coast, Texas, a few from the midwest), IWU/Marietta/Wash U. leading another midwest-heavy region, RMC / Swarthmore / CNU in a third southern and mid-atlantic region (with some northeast teams tossed in), and some combo of St. Joe's / Yeshiva/ the top NESCAC teams / Oswego / Nazreth heading up a fourth northeast heavy region, depending on which from that group emerge mostly unscathed the rest of the way ....  I just can't imagine that an undefeated St. Joe's team, or a  NESCAC team that wins the league tourney with say 2 total regular season losses, would not end up seeded first in a regional ...

    I think St. Joseph (CT) is a candidate...but it depends how much they weigh RRO.  St. Joseph just won't have anywhere near the RRO wins as those schools I have above.

    Yeshiva has a huge SOS problem -- .493 with a bunch of Skyline games still to play.

    From my conversation with Mike Schauer back in November, it sure sounded like RRO and SOS are important to this committee.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMpILST1VyQ&t=735s

    I believe there is a way to build a bracket around the 4 top seeds I proposed and stay within the flight requirements, etc.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 20, 2022, 07:24:39 PM

    Marietta is close enough East to make it work, maybe, if the right mix of teams get in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 20, 2022, 07:32:08 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 20, 2022, 07:24:39 PM

    Marietta is close enough East to make it work, maybe, if the right mix of teams get in.

    The change to 600 miles is big.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 25, 2022, 10:00:34 PM
    My conversation with Drew Pasteur (@d3bubble) and Matt Snyder (@FFTMAG) about the regional ranking and Pool C pictures across all 10 MBB regions.

    Fun stuff...enjoy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5PS0VI_P74&t=81s

    0:00 Matt and Drew's D3 story
    8:04 The criteria
    12:07 Region 1
    18:50 Region 2
    25:51 Region 3
    34:28 Region 4
    37:35 Region 5
    42:55 Region 6
    50:03 Region 7
    58:51 Region 8
    1:07:03 Region 9
    1:15:13 Region 10
    1:23:48 Final thoughts
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on January 25, 2022, 11:51:30 PM
     Titan Q,
        Enjoyed the show; glad to hear at the end that you're going to try to do it again later in the season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on January 26, 2022, 06:28:58 AM
    Quote from: ronk on January 25, 2022, 11:51:30 PM
    Titan Q,
        Enjoyed the show; glad to hear at the end that you're going to try to do it again later in the season.

    I agree with ronk on his statement.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on January 27, 2022, 09:47:20 AM
    If the regular season ended today, I believe the following are the candidates to have brackets built around them:

    2 locks:
    -RMC: .938/.613
    -Marietta: .882/.624

    Pick 2 (geography certainly a huge consideration):
    -UW-Platteville: .947/.602
    -WashU: .933/.581
    -Williams: .933/.579
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 03, 2022, 10:45:07 AM
    The Hoopsville Marathon is here!

    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=6pwgx/r9wqvnwufi9rtj30.jpg)

    The show is hitting the air at 12:00 PM ET and going for at least NINE hours for the 8th Annual Hoopsville Marathon Show.

    Show link: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2021-22/marathon

    This year's show featured coaches, administrators, student-athletes, and many others around Division III who gave us a sense of the season to date and what is to come. There is only a month or so left in the regular season, so there was plenty to talk about.

    The marathon is also a chance to celebrate the final month of the Division III basketball regular season.

    Guests include (in order of appearance, subject to change):
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 04, 2022, 08:33:53 AM
    Can someone post the D3 championship handbook? I was wondering about key dates like the regional rankings, selection date, tournament dates etc. Thanks.

    I also saw Fort Wayne is getting the tournament through 2026.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 04, 2022, 08:42:23 AM
    Indeed, Fort Wayne through 2026: https://d3hoops.com/notables/2020/10/mbb-final-four-re-ups-for-fort-wayne
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 04, 2022, 09:28:22 AM
    Here is the link to the 2021-22 DIII Men's Basketball PreChampionships Manual:

    ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/basketball/d3/men/2021-22D3MBB_PreChampsManual.pdf (http://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/basketball/d3/men/2021-22D3MBB_PreChampsManual.pdf)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 04, 2022, 12:45:29 PM
    Thanks guys.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 08, 2022, 01:55:18 PM
    Reminder, #NCAAD3 Week 1 MBB Regional Rankings come out today ... and they will be posted ALPHABETICALLY.

    This is a trial idea that was already seen in the fall when Pat and Dave initially spoke about it on a special crossover podcast: https://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2020-21/bonus-reg-rankings.

    Also talked about it with both nat'l cmte chairs in the late November conversation (fast forward to the 26:25 mark): https://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2020-21/bonus-reg-rankings #d3hoops
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: PauldingLightUP on February 08, 2022, 02:21:59 PM
    Very confusing for fans that the released regional rankings today have numbers assigned, but the names are listed alphabetical. Fall was not like this. Hopefully NCAA can fix it.

    Update: Numbers are removed and stat sheets are live! Fairly quick fix!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 08, 2022, 03:36:40 PM
    Quote from: PauldingLightUP on February 08, 2022, 02:21:59 PM
    Very confusing for fans that the released regional rankings today have numbers assigned, but the names are listed alphabetical. Fall was not like this. Hopefully NCAA can fix it.

    Update: Numbers are removed and stat sheets are live! Fairly quick fix!

    Not sure how we got the NCAA's regional rankings more correct than the NCAA did, but so be it. We had the stat sheets linked correctly before they did and we knew well enough to remove the ranking numbers before ever publishing.

    https://d3hoops.com/notables/2022/02/men-regional-rankings-alpha
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 08, 2022, 10:37:30 PM
    My conversation today with Mike Schauer, MBB National Committee Chair, after the release of ranking #1.


    Part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLrxTX7UirI&t=26s

    Part 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwDUb2uGVts
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 10, 2022, 10:53:20 AM
    So, anyone smarter than me feel like wasting time and guessing what each region's ranking could actually look like?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 10, 2022, 11:37:03 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 10, 2022, 10:53:20 AM
    So, anyone smarter than me feel like wasting time and guessing what each region's ranking could actually look like?

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: USee on February 10, 2022, 12:51:19 PM
    I would think that Wheaton, with a win @IWU in a huge match up on Saturday, would make themselves a lock for Pool C (if they don't end up with the AQ), going from "bubble-in" to almost lock status no (5 RRO wins and average SOS)? IWU is already a lock for pool C (6 RRO wins and a strong SOS). I don't understand some of the teams with 2-3 RRO wins and middling SOS numbers.

    One of the points Mike Schauer made on the Q-Cast with Bob is that there are so many more teams with RRO results (went from 60ish to like 84 teams that are ranked with the new regions) so some of the RRO results will need to be examined more closely to see the quality of those RRO results. That's different than years past--more nuanced. Schauer said there will be a lot of teams with 2-3 RRO wins and he thought 3.5 would be the line you would have to cross to be in the conversation for spots 18-20 of at large bids.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 10, 2022, 01:45:37 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 08, 2022, 10:37:30 PM
    My conversation today with Mike Schauer, MBB National Committee Chair, after the release of ranking #1.


    Part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLrxTX7UirI&t=26s

    Part 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwDUb2uGVts

    From Part 1 where Mike Schauer says more teams are regionally ranked(83 from 20% of total) than in the past(68), why was the number increased? It shouldn't have anything to do with the increase of regions from 8 to 10.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on February 10, 2022, 02:02:59 PM
    Looks like they decided that they would rank 20% of the teams, [417*.2 = ~83], and then split them among the regions based on # of teams.

    Interesting how stacked some regions are vs. Others, in some cases .500 teams are ranked in others, 6 loss teams are not.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 10, 2022, 03:32:10 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 10, 2022, 11:37:03 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 10, 2022, 10:53:20 AM
    So, anyone smarter than me feel like wasting time and guessing what each region's ranking could actually look like?

    https://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html

    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html

    Thanks again for the links.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2022, 06:13:57 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 10, 2022, 10:53:20 AM
    So, anyone smarter than me feel like wasting time and guessing what each region's ranking could actually look like?

    Matt Snyder and I spent an hour on Twitter Spaces on Tuesday breaking all ten regions down.  Unfortunately, at the time, I was unaware those could be recorded and archived.  Sorry.  I'll do better next time.

    Since we'll actually have rankings this week (plus a Top 16 announcement on Thursday) - I'm contemplating a live mock bracketing to get some reps in before the real thing.  I'll definitely record it if it happens.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: PauldingLightUP on February 10, 2022, 09:08:11 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2022, 06:13:57 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 10, 2022, 10:53:20 AM
    So, anyone smarter than me feel like wasting time and guessing what each region's ranking could actually look like?

    Matt Snyder and I spent an hour on Twitter Spaces on Tuesday breaking all ten regions down.  Unfortunately, at the time, I was unaware those could be recorded and archived.  Sorry.  I'll do better next time.

    Since we'll actually have rankings this week (plus a Top 16 announcement on Thursday) - I'm contemplating a live mock bracketing to get some reps in before the real thing.  I'll definitely record it if it happens.

    I appreciate the Spaces. I tuned in at the very end and it was entertaining and informative. I've never hosted a Spaces didn't even know a record/non record option existed. I'd tune in again next Tuesday and/or Thursday!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 11, 2022, 11:53:13 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 10, 2022, 06:13:57 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 10, 2022, 10:53:20 AM
    So, anyone smarter than me feel like wasting time and guessing what each region's ranking could actually look like?

    Matt Snyder and I spent an hour on Twitter Spaces on Tuesday breaking all ten regions down.  Unfortunately, at the time, I was unaware those could be recorded and archived.  Sorry.  I'll do better next time.

    Since we'll actually have rankings this week (plus a Top 16 announcement on Thursday) - I'm contemplating a live mock bracketing to get some reps in before the real thing.  I'll definitely record it if it happens.

    I would be willing to participate in another spaces with you if I'm free. I had fun doing it!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2022, 05:00:18 PM
    After several weeks of midday shows, we are back to our regularly scheduled time of 7:00 PM ET - and we are super-sizing the show tonight to make up for not being able to be on air Thursday AND the craziness that has happened in the last week!

    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=7bd24/9722xr4mzg4hms67.jpg)

    Today is a day we celebrate those we love and for many of us that includes the student-athletes, coaches, administrators, and programs in Division III.

    On Monday's Hoopsville, we super-size the show to cover everything that has happened in the last week while also trying to look ahead at conference tournaments which start soon. After all, we are just two weeks away from talking about who is in or out of the NCAA Tournaments.

    Plus, we look at the latest Top 25 polls which will be released Monday evening and react to the men's poll which will clearly undergo some shakeup.

    Guests included:

    Watch the show here: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2021-22/feb14
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2022, 05:01:06 PM
    Quote from: thebear on February 10, 2022, 02:02:59 PM
    Looks like they decided that they would rank 20% of the teams, [417*.2 = ~83], and then split them among the regions based on # of teams.

    Interesting how stacked some regions are vs. Others, in some cases .500 teams are ranked in others, 6 loss teams are not.

    yes - the handbook states clearly they are ranking 20%. This is a change from the 15-20% the last few championship seasons ... and from 15% back in 2017 I think.

    This is across the board in all sports.

    Needs to change ...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2022, 01:19:12 PM
    Yes, I think they need to go back to ~15 which would match up generally to the number of teams to make the tournament. So a regionally ranked win would roughly approximate a win over a tournament-quality team.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 15, 2022, 03:14:08 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2022, 05:01:06 PM
    Quote from: thebear on February 10, 2022, 02:02:59 PM
    Looks like they decided that they would rank 20% of the teams, [417*.2 = ~83], and then split them among the regions based on # of teams.

    Interesting how stacked some regions are vs. Others, in some cases .500 teams are ranked in others, 6 loss teams are not.

    yes - the handbook states clearly they are ranking 20%. This is a change from the 15-20% the last few championship seasons ... and from 15% back in 2017 I think.

    This is across the board in all sports.

    Needs to change ...

    So, why did they increase it from 15%? One would need a good reason to change from the status quo, rather than maintaining it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 03:44:31 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 15, 2022, 03:14:08 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2022, 05:01:06 PM
    Quote from: thebear on February 10, 2022, 02:02:59 PM
    Looks like they decided that they would rank 20% of the teams, [417*.2 = ~83], and then split them among the regions based on # of teams.

    Interesting how stacked some regions are vs. Others, in some cases .500 teams are ranked in others, 6 loss teams are not.

    yes - the handbook states clearly they are ranking 20%. This is a change from the 15-20% the last few championship seasons ... and from 15% back in 2017 I think.

    This is across the board in all sports.

    Needs to change ...

    So, why did they increase it from 15%? One would need a good reason to change from the status quo, rather than maintaining it.

    Well they increased a number of years ago because some regions were a bit small and numbers tight ... and others large and needed less ranked.

    Why they increased this time from 15-21% to flat 20%? I suspect they thought it would help balance the regions a bit more in terms of rankings... and the number was larger than they anticipated.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 03:45:07 PM
    Week 2 Regional Rankings - which are ranked now: https://d3hoops.com/notables/2022/02/men-regional-rankings-first
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: PauldingLightUP on February 15, 2022, 03:46:34 PM
    What is Division Head-to-Head and where is the vRRO category?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Inkblot on February 15, 2022, 03:47:50 PM
    So... third-year provisional teams can be ranked?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 15, 2022, 04:01:54 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 03:44:31 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 15, 2022, 03:14:08 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2022, 05:01:06 PM
    Quote from: thebear on February 10, 2022, 02:02:59 PM
    Looks like they decided that they would rank 20% of the teams, [417*.2 = ~83], and then split them among the regions based on # of teams.

    Interesting how stacked some regions are vs. Others, in some cases .500 teams are ranked in others, 6 loss teams are not.

    yes - the handbook states clearly they are ranking 20%. This is a change from the 15-20% the last few championship seasons ... and from 15% back in 2017 I think.

    This is across the board in all sports.

    Needs to change ...

    So, why did they increase it from 15%? One would need a good reason to change from the status quo, rather than maintaining it.

    Well they increased a number of years ago because some regions were a bit small and numbers tight ... and others large and needed less ranked.

    Why they increased this time from 15-21% to flat 20%? I suspect they thought it would help balance the regions a bit more in terms of rankings... and the number was larger than they anticipated.

    They balanced the regions by selecting the conferences and teams for each region; that doesn't have anything to do with increasing the %; it's hard to believe that increasing the % ranked would result in anything other than more teams ranked; that increase would be "exactly" anticipated, rather than "larger than they anticipated".
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 04:11:55 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 15, 2022, 04:01:54 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 03:44:31 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 15, 2022, 03:14:08 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2022, 05:01:06 PM
    Quote from: thebear on February 10, 2022, 02:02:59 PM
    Looks like they decided that they would rank 20% of the teams, [417*.2 = ~83], and then split them among the regions based on # of teams.

    Interesting how stacked some regions are vs. Others, in some cases .500 teams are ranked in others, 6 loss teams are not.

    yes - the handbook states clearly they are ranking 20%. This is a change from the 15-20% the last few championship seasons ... and from 15% back in 2017 I think.

    This is across the board in all sports.

    Needs to change ...

    So, why did they increase it from 15%? One would need a good reason to change from the status quo, rather than maintaining it.

    Well they increased a number of years ago because some regions were a bit small and numbers tight ... and others large and needed less ranked.

    Why they increased this time from 15-21% to flat 20%? I suspect they thought it would help balance the regions a bit more in terms of rankings... and the number was larger than they anticipated.

    They balanced the regions by selecting the conferences and teams for each region; that doesn't have anything to do with increasing the %; it's hard to believe that increasing the % ranked would result in anything other than more teams ranked; that increase would be "exactly" anticipated, rather than "larger than they anticipated".

    But some "regions" shrank as a result ... others got larger. Region 3 is essentially with the East, so is Region 7 the Great Lakes with changes.

    And remember, this is not just a basketball decision - it is across the board for all sports. So impacts in other sports that now have more regions than they had in the past (significantly more regions for some) had an impact on rankings as well.

    And the increase in the percentage moved from about 62 teams ranked in 2020 ... to 83 ranked now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: PauldingLightUP on February 15, 2022, 04:36:52 PM
    Quote from: PauldingLightUP on February 15, 2022, 03:46:34 PM
    What is Division Head-to-Head and where is the vRRO category?

    P.S.

    If TitanQ is accepting questions for Mike Schauer, this is my question.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 15, 2022, 04:55:04 PM
    Quote from: PauldingLightUP on February 15, 2022, 04:36:52 PM
    Quote from: PauldingLightUP on February 15, 2022, 03:46:34 PM
    What is Division Head-to-Head and where is the vRRO category?

    P.S.

    If TitanQ is accepting questions for Mike Schauer, this is my question.

    My guess is the Division Head-to-Head column is record vs. ranked teams in your region, which isn't a criterion and I would have no idea why it's on a data sheet.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 06:31:30 PM
    I think that title may come from the DII sheets ... just a guess. Unsure why it's there, but the data is clearly vRRO.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Inkblot on February 15, 2022, 06:33:32 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 06:31:30 PM
    I think that title may come from the DII sheets ... just a guess. Unsure why it's there, but the data is clearly vRRO.

    D2 sheets don't generally have a column with that title either.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Inkblot on February 15, 2022, 06:34:11 PM
    St. Thomas has been removed, and Pacific Lutheran is in at 8th in Region X.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: PauldingLightUP on February 15, 2022, 06:34:21 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 06:31:30 PM
    I think that title may come from the DII sheets ... just a guess. Unsure why it's there, but the data is clearly vRRO.

    Thanks. Typical blunder by NCAA/Turner. DIII deserves better!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 08:06:17 PM
    Quote from: PauldingLightUP on February 15, 2022, 06:34:21 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 06:31:30 PM
    I think that title may come from the DII sheets ... just a guess. Unsure why it's there, but the data is clearly vRRO.

    Thanks. Typical blunder by NCAA/Turner. DIII deserves better!

    It is too bad there is an issue there ... but we know what it means ... I think we start making mountains out of a lot of molehills and it starts seeming like we complain about anything and everything ... and people start to tune out.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 08:43:08 PM
    A couple of notes:

    The current data sheets for men's basketball are a little wonky for reasons no one is sure. First off, the vRRO data simply isn't there. The Division Head-to-Head is apparently to reference how the CURRENT ranked teams have done against those who are CURRENTLY ranked in their specific regional rankings. It has no meaning at all for anyone especially understanding rankings right now.

    The entire data sheet has other craziness that I discussed with Michael Schauer - he is bringing things up with the liaison and others. I will update when I learn more.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Inkblot on February 15, 2022, 09:12:43 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 08:43:08 PM
    The Division Head-to-Head is apparently to reference how the CURRENT ranked teams have done against those who are CURRENTLY ranked in their specific regional rankings. It has no meaning at all for anyone especially understanding rankings right now.

    And it's not even complete/accurate in that respect... in Region X, it gives that for Linfield and not Cal Lutheran or Pacific Lutheran.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 15, 2022, 09:55:55 PM
    My conversation with Mike Schauer about regional ranking #2.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6e1mPneK7s

    0:00 Process for ranking #2
    4:17 Are we ranking too many teams?
    7:45 Evaluating dramatically different resumes
    9:45 Impact of teams ranked at bottom of regions
    11:28 Buena Vista
    13:35 St. Thomas (TX) error
    15:48 SOS under .500
    17:50 Common opponents & head-to-head
    21:20 Quality of RRO wins
    22:50 Does committee factor in injuries?
    23:25 Results in November vs February
    25:09 Top 16 reveal this week
    28:00 Bracketing
    29:35 Balancing time between nat'l committee and Thunder
    31:51 Watching #d3hoops
    33:14 Final thoughts
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ronk on February 16, 2022, 12:13:35 AM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 04:11:55 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 15, 2022, 04:01:54 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2022, 03:44:31 PM
    Quote from: ronk on February 15, 2022, 03:14:08 PM
    Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2022, 05:01:06 PM
    Quote from: thebear on February 10, 2022, 02:02:59 PM
    Looks like they decided that they would rank 20% of the teams, [417*.2 = ~83], and then split them among the regions based on # of teams.

    Interesting how stacked some regions are vs. Others, in some cases .500 teams are ranked in others, 6 loss teams are not.

    yes - the handbook states clearly they are ranking 20%. This is a change from the 15-20% the last few championship seasons ... and from 15% back in 2017 I think.

    This is across the board in all sports.

    Needs to change ...

    So, why did they increase it from 15%? One would need a good reason to change from the status quo, rather than maintaining it.

    Well they increased a number of years ago because some regions were a bit small and numbers tight ... and others large and needed less ranked.

    Why they increased this time from 15-21% to flat 20%? I suspect they thought it would help balance the regions a bit more in terms of rankings... and the number was larger than they anticipated.

    They balanced the regions by selecting the conferences and teams for each region; that doesn't have anything to do with increasing the %; it's hard to believe that increasing the % ranked would result in anything other than more teams ranked; that increase would be "exactly" anticipated, rather than "larger than they anticipated".

    But some "regions" shrank as a result ... others got larger. Region 3 is essentially with the East, so is Region 7 the Great Lakes with changes.

    And remember, this is not just a basketball decision - it is across the board for all sports. So impacts in other sports that now have more regions than they had in the past (significantly more regions for some) had an impact on rankings as well.

    And the increase in the percentage moved from about 62 teams ranked in 2020 ... to 83 ranked now.

    Mike Schauer said in Q's interview that the increase in # of teams ranked was due to a D3 membership requirement, so it was not a basketball decision at all.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2022, 08:14:51 AM

    It's across all sports this year, but I don't know anyone who likes it, so I suspect there will be a change for next year. Even going back to the 15-20% range provides needed flexibility.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 16, 2022, 09:08:32 AM
    In Region 7 under the old guidelines of 15% ranked, the committee would look at maybe 10-12 teams thoroughly for their 8 ranking slots, under the 20% for 10 ranking slots they probably had to look at 20-22 teams because there are about 8 teams with similar criteria for the final couple of slots to go with 4 high win %, low SOS teams.

    Each region is simply looking at more teams to reach their allotted 20% ranking slots.  That small change has nearly doubled their work.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: PauldingLightUP on February 16, 2022, 12:20:43 PM
    It appears the data sheets have now been updated to now include "Results vs All Division Ranked Opponents" which is the vRRO we are used to.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: USee on February 16, 2022, 02:23:57 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 15, 2022, 09:55:55 PM
    My conversation with Mike Schauer about regional ranking #2.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6e1mPneK7s

    0:00 Process for ranking #2
    4:17 Are we ranking too many teams?
    7:45 Evaluating dramatically different resumes
    9:45 Impact of teams ranked at bottom of regions
    11:28 Buena Vista
    13:35 St. Thomas (TX) error
    15:48 SOS under .500
    17:50 Common opponents & head-to-head
    21:20 Quality of RRO wins
    22:50 Does committee factor in injuries?
    23:25 Results in November vs February
    25:09 Top 16 reveal this week
    28:00 Bracketing
    29:35 Balancing time between nat'l committee and Thunder
    31:51 Watching #d3hoops
    33:14 Final thoughts

    This is fabulous content Q. Thanks for taking the time and to Mike Schauer, who has embraced his leadership role and provided unprecedented transparency into the process. I hope this becomes the standard by which future chairs try to emulate. If you want to really understand what the process for ranking and selection is, these Q-casts with Chair Mike Schauer are must watch!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Titan Q on February 16, 2022, 06:40:14 PM
    Quote from: USee on February 16, 2022, 02:23:57 PM
    Quote from: Titan Q on February 15, 2022, 09:55:55 PM
    My conversation with Mike Schauer about regional ranking #2.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6e1mPneK7s

    0:00 Process for ranking #2
    4:17 Are we ranking too many teams?
    7:45 Evaluating dramatically different resumes
    9:45 Impact of teams ranked at bottom of regions
    11:28 Buena Vista
    13:35 St. Thomas (TX) error
    15:48 SOS under .500
    17:50 Common opponents & head-to-head
    21:20 Quality of RRO wins
    22:50 Does committee factor in injuries?
    23:25 Results in November vs February
    25:09 Top 16 reveal this week
    28:00 Bracketing
    29:35 Balancing time between nat'l committee and Thunder
    31:51 Watching #d3hoops
    33:14 Final thoughts

    This is fabulous content Q. Thanks for taking the time and to Mike Schauer, who has embraced his leadership role and provided unprecedented transparency into the process. I hope this becomes the standard by which future chairs try to emulate. If you want to really understand what the process for ranking and selection is, these Q-casts with Chair Mike Schauer are must watch!

    Thanks, USee!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2022, 12:17:38 PM

    Some interesting things we've learned about NCSOS this week - definitely relevant for this board.

    https://www.d3hoops.com/columns/around-the-nation/2021-22/ncaa-tournament-inside-the-numbers
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2022, 10:55:47 AM
    The countdown is on! Ten more days until the regular season comes to a close and we find out who will be playing for the Walnut and Bronze!

    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=7gryc/3okvdan6frefp2hp.jpg)

    Thursday on Hoopsville, there is plenty to keep track of throughout Division III.

    Hoopsville starts immediately following the NCAA Division III National Committee's announcement of the Top 16 "seeds" in both men's and women's rankings aired. We chatted with both national committee chairs, Michael Schauer of Wheaton (Ill.) and Megan Wilson of Luther, about the release, how they came to the decisions, and what they hope to inspire with the announcements. Plus more.

    Then we talk to coaches around the country about their programs and how they are positioning themselves for conference tournaments.

    Guests include:
    We had scheduled to talk to Christine VanHook from PSU-Behrend women's basketball, but there was a last minute scheduling conflict. We hope to catch up with Coach VanHook in the next week.

    Watch the show here: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2021-22/feb17

    Podcast here: https://soundcloud.com/hoopsville/1922-10-more-days?utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2022, 12:26:43 PM
    Did you miss Monday night's Hoopsville? No worries, you can catch up On Demand or via the podcast!

    The final week of the D-III regular season is here. And most conferences are in full voice to determine who will automatically play in NCAA Tournaments.

    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=7oald/l9f73din3e21tjm9.jpg)

    On Monday's Hoopsville, we get you set for the final week - the final sprint - to the regular season finish line. While most conferences will be crowning champions at the end of the week, some teams have already punched their tickets to March post-season play and others are already on the bubble. We prepare you for the craziest week of every season.

    Plus, we chat with teams in Regions 1 and 2, 4, 6, and 8 to see how they are preparing themselves for their conference finishes.

    Guests include:

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the NABC Studio. All guests appear on the BlueFrame Technology (http://www.blueframetech.com) Hoopsville Hotline.

    Watch the show here: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2021-22/feb21

    Podcast here: https://soundcloud.com/hoopsville/1923-conference-races?utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2022, 04:35:40 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 04, 2022, 09:28:22 AM
    Here is the link to the 2021-22 DIII Men's Basketball PreChampionships Manual:

    ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/basketball/d3/men/2021-22D3MBB_PreChampsManual.pdf (http://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/basketball/d3/men/2021-22D3MBB_PreChampsManual.pdf)

    Just bringing this forward because I keep losing it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2022, 05:21:25 PM
    (https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=7twpu/z39bugp32053poh2.jpg)

    Thursday on Hoopsville, we catch up with a number of teams which realize they have to keep winning this week if they want to keep playing next week. "There is no more next game ..."

    There are plenty of guests to talk to, so we are jamming them into a super-sized show. Some have quietly emerged on top, or near the top, of their conference races and hope to use home court advantage to win an automatic bid. Others knowing they have to win to make sure to keep playing this season. And one coach who shows that there is a lot of things that are important during basketball season.


    Guests include (order subject to change):

    Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the NABC Studio. All guests appear on the BlueFrame Technology (http://www.blueframetech.com) Hoopsville Hotline.

    Watch the show here: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2021-22/feb24
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2022, 05:35:29 PM
    Not an expert by any means...just a quick, general rundown going into this weekend.

    Possible bubble bursters noted. If they lose, they could steal a Pool C spot.

    AMCC - 1 bid league
    ARC -1
    ASC - 1 - UMHB is #4 in Region 10
    AEC - 1
    CC - 2 - Swarthmore #1 in Reg. 5, JHU #3. Both in if both make CC Final?
    CUNYAC - 1
    C2C - 1 - CNU #2 in Reg. 6
    CCIW - 2 or 3 - IWU #1 in Reg. 8, Wheaton # 2, Elmhurst #4. Elmhurst plays Wheaton in CCIW semis.
    CSAC -1
    CCC - 1 - Nichols is #3 in Reg. 2
    E8 - 1 Nazareth #4 in Reg. 3, Utica #5
    GNAC - 1 - St. Joseph (CT) #2 in Reg. 1
    HCAC - 1
    LAND - 1
    Liberty - 1 - RPI #3 in Reg. 3
    LEC - 1 - MA-Dartmouth #2 in Reg. 2
    MACC - 1 - Eastern #2 in Reg. 5
    MACF - 1 - DeSales #2 in Reg. 4
    MIAA - 1
    MASCAC - 1
    MIAC - 1 - St. John's #4 in Reg. 9
    NECC - 1
    NESCAC - 2 or 3 - Wesleyan #1 in Reg. 1, Williams #3, Middlebury #4. Middlebury and Williams play each other in the NESCAC semis.
    NEWMAC - 2 - WPI #1 in Reg. 2, Babson #4, Emerson #5. Babson lost to Emerson in the semis.
    NJAC - 2 - Stockton #1 in Reg. 4, Rowan #3. Both in Final
    NAC - 1
    NCAC - 1 - Wabash #3 in Reg. 7
    NACC - 1
    NWC - 1 Whitworth #1 in Reg. 10
    OAC - 2 - Marietta #1 in Reg. 7, Mount Union #2. Both in Final
    ODAC - 2 - RMC #1 in Reg. 6, Guilford #4. Both in semis
    PAC - 1
    SKY - 1
    SAA - 1
    SCIAC - 1 - Pomona Pitzer #2 in Reg. 10, Chapman #3
    SCAC - 1
    SLIAC - 1
    SUNYAC - 1 - Oswego #1 in Reg. 3
    UEC - 1
    UAA - 3 or 4 - Emory (AQ), Rochester #2 in Reg. 3, CWR #4 in Reg. 7, Wash U #3 in Reg. 8
    UMAC - 1
    USAC - 1
    WIAC - 3 - Oshkosh #1 in Reg. 9, Platteville #2, La Crosse #3. La Crosse lost in semis to Platteville.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2022, 08:35:22 PM
    Elmhurst beat Wheaton in the CCIW semis, increasing their chances at a Pool C bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2022, 09:35:02 PM
    I think IWU, Wheaton, and Elmhurst are all locks for Pool C, but someone's bubble may be threatening to burst - last I checked, NCC was up on IWU by 9 with 12 to go.  Since the Cardinals were only 15-9 entering the game, IF they hold off the Titans and then upset the Blue Jays tomorrow, someone's hopes just went bye-bye.  (Update: NCC now up 13.)

    Now a final: NCC 81, IWU 74.  (NCC and Elmhurst are about a mile apart, but they will now spend the night 100 miles south to play in Bloomington! ;))
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2022, 12:05:36 AM
    Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 25, 2022, 09:35:02 PMNCC and Elmhurst are about a mile apart

    Remind me never to get in a car in which you're the driver, Chuck.

    The Elmhurst and North Central campuses are somewhere between 16 and 20 miles apart, depending upon which route through the western suburbs you take. Under normal driving conditions, it takes approximately a half-hour to get from one campus to the other.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2022, 01:38:37 PM
    This is the current status of all the regionally ranked teams as of this moment plus the matchups for remaining teams.

    Bold is Pool A locked
    Italic is one of multiple RR teams alive in a single conference tournament so at least one will fall to Pool C
    Regular is only RR team left in conference tournament
    Red is in Pool C

    Region 1           
    1   Wesleyan    22-3   22-3
    2   St. Joseph (Conn.)   22-1   23-1
    3   Williams   16-3   16-3
    4   Middlebury   18-5   18-5
    5   Tufts   13-10   13-10
    6   Trinity (Conn.)   16-8   16-8
    7   Amherst   15-9   15-9
    8   Albertus Magnus   15-6   15-6
    9   Westfield State   20-4   20-4
    NR   Husson

    3 Williams vs 4 Middlebury in NESCAC semis 4:30pm
    8 Albertus Magnus vs 2 St Joseph in GNAC final tomorrow
    1 Wesleyan vs TBD in NESCAC final tomorrow

    Region 2           
    1   WPI   22-2   22-2
    2   UMass Dartmouth   22-3   22-3
    3   Nichols   22-3   22-3
    4   Babson   18-6   18-6
    5   Emerson   17-6   17-6
    6   Brandeis   12-9   12-9
    NR   Mitchell
    NR   Keene St

    Salve Regina vs 3 Nichols in CCC final 6pm
               
    Region 3           
    1   Oswego   23-2   23-2
    2   Rochester   16-7   16-7
    3   RPI   21-4   21-4
    4   Nazareth   21-4   21-4
    5   Utica   22-3   22-3
    6   St. John Fisher   19-6   19-6
    7   Ithaca   17-8   17-8
    8   Yeshiva   21-3   22-3

    SUNY Oneonta vs 1 Oswego in SUNYAC final 4pm
    Skidmore vs 3 RPI
    Vassar vs 7 Ithaca in LL semis 4:30pm
    4 Nazareth vs 5 Utica in E8 final
    Manhattanville vs 8 Yeshiva in Sky final tomorrow 1pm
               
    Region 4           
    1   Stockton   21-4   21-4
    2   DeSales   21-4   21-4
    3   Rowan   21-4   21-4
    4   Rutgers-Newark   16-8   16-8
    5   NYU   14-9   14-9
    6   Montclair St.   13-9   13-9
    7   Stevens   13-8   13-8
    NR    Baruch
    NR   UEC Champ

    3 Rowan vs 1 Stockton in NJAC final 6pm
    Lycoming vs 7 Stevens in MAC F final tomorrow 2pm
    PS-Harrisburg vs Lancaster Bible in UEC final
               
    Region 5           
    1   Swarthmore   21-4   21-4
    2   Eastern   19-4   19-5
    3   Johns Hopkins   20-3   20-3
    4   Susquehanna   21-4   21-4
    5   Hood   17-6   17-6
    6   Drew   17-8   17-8
    7   Alvernia   17-6   18-6
    8   Marymount   16-8   16-8
    9   Neumann   16-7   18-7
    NR   Wilson

    3 Johns Hopkins vs 1 Swarthmore in CC final 7:30pm
    5 Hood vs 2 Eastern in MAC C final tomorrow 2pm
    6 Drew vs 4 Susquehanna in Land final 7pm

               
    Region 6           
    1   Randolph-Macon   24-1   24-1
    2   Christopher Newport   22-2   22-2
    3   Emory   18-5   18-5
    4   Guilford   17-6   17-6
    5   Roanoke   17-8   17-8
    6   Maryville (Tenn.)   17-3   20-3
    7   Berry   20-2   21-2
    8   Virginia Wesleyan   16-8   16-9
    NR    USAC Champ

    8 Virginia Wesleyan vs 4 Guilford in ODAC semis
    Mary Washington vs 2 Chris Newport in C2C final 7pm
    Birmingham-Southern vs 7 Berry in SAA semi 4pm
    1 Randolph-Macon vs TBD in ODAC final tomorrow
    Averett vs Covenant in USAC final 6pm
               
    Region 7           
    1   Marietta   22-2   22-2
    2   Mount Union   21-3   21-3
    3   Wabash   21-3   21-3
    4   Case Western Reserve   17-6   17-6
    5   Heidelberg   17-6   17-6
    6   Hope   18-5   19-6
    7   Calvin   17-6   18-7
    8   Otterbein   17-7   17-7
    9   Trine   17-8   17-8
    10   Baldwin Wallace   14-9   14-9
    NR   AMCC Champ
    NR   PAC Champ

    2 Mount Union vs 1 Marietta in OAC final 7:30pm
    Wooster vs 3 Wabash in NCAC final 4pm
    7 Calvin vs 6 Hope in MIAA final 7pm
    Medaille vs La Roche in AMCC final
    Chatham vs Wash & Jeff in PAC final 7:30pm
               
    Region 8           
    1   Ill. Wesleyan   21-4   21-4
    2   Wheaton (IL)   20-5   20-5
    3   WashU   16-7   16-7
    4   Elmhurst   19-6   19-6
    5   Hanover   20-4   20-4
    6   Rose-Hulman   15-9   15-9
    7   North Central (IL)   15-9   15-9
    8   Transylvania   15-8   16-8
    9   Millikin   14-11   14-11
    NR   NACC Champ
    NR   SLIAC Champ

    7 North Central vs 4 Elmhurst in CCIW final 8pm
    Franklin vs 5 Hanover in HCAC final 6pm
    Webster vs Blackburn in SLIAC final 5pm
    Marian vs Concordia (WI) in NACC final tomorrow 3pm
               
    Region 9           
    1   UW-Oshkosh   20-3   20-3
    2   UW-Platteville   20-4   20-4
    3   UW-La Crosse   19-5   19-5
    4   St. John's   20-4   20-4
    5   UW-River Falls   14-9   14-9
    6   UW-Whitewater   14-9   14-10
    7   Dubuque   19-6   19-6
    8   Buena Vista   14-11   14-11
    9   UW-Stout   16-9   16-9
    NR   MWC Champ
    NR   UMAC Champ

    2 Platteville vs 1 Oshkosh in WIAC final 6pm
    Macalester vs 4 St John's in MIAC final tomorrow 3pm
    8 Buena Vista vs 7 Dubuque in ARC final 5pm
    Cornell vs Ripon in MWC final 4pm
    Crown vs Northwestern in UMAC final tomorrow 3pm
               
    Region 10           
    1   Whitworth   20-4   20-4
    2   Pomona-Pitzer   16-3   17-4
    3   Chapman   17-3   19-3
    4   Mary Hardin-Baylor   20-2   22-2
    5   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   15-6   15-6
    6   Cal Lutheran   16-7   16-7
    7   Linfield   15-5   18-6
    8   Pacific Lutheran   15-6   18-7
    NR   SCAC Champ

    Whitman vs 1 Whitworth in NWC final 10pm
    3 Chapman vs 2 Pomona-Pitzer in SCIAC final tomorrow 5pm
    LeTourneau vs 4 Mary Hardin-Baylor in ASC final 7pm
    St Thomas (TX) vs TBD in SCAC final tomorrow 1pm
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2022, 03:53:33 PM
    Keene St takes the Pool A and MA Dartmouth probably takes a Pool C from someone.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2022, 04:01:44 PM
    RPI just lost their semi-final game. Really on the bubble now. Probably on the outside looking in.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2022, 04:35:23 PM
    How's the SCAC going to work if St Thomas wins tomorrow? Are they eligible as a 3rd year provisional or is it only next year when they'll be able to take the bid? If they don't get it, does it go to who they beat in the final meaning the currently going semifinal game between Schriner vs Trinity game is essentially for the berth?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 26, 2022, 04:41:16 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2022, 04:35:23 PM
    How's the SCAC going to work if St Thomas wins tomorrow? Are they eligible as a 3rd year provisional or is it only next year when they'll be able to take the bid? If they don't get it, does it go to who they beat in the final meaning the currently going semifinal game between Schriner vs Trinity game is essentially for the berth?

    If St. Thomas wins the SCAC tournament tomorrow, the AQ goes to Trinity as the regular season 2nd place finisher under SCAC conference rules.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2022, 04:45:26 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 26, 2022, 04:41:16 PM
    Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2022, 04:35:23 PM
    How's the SCAC going to work if St Thomas wins tomorrow? Are they eligible as a 3rd year provisional or is it only next year when they'll be able to take the bid? If they don't get it, does it go to who they beat in the final meaning the currently going semifinal game between Schriner vs Trinity game is essentially for the berth?

    If St. Thomas wins the SCAC tournament tomorrow, the AQ goes to Trinity as the regular season 2nd place finisher under SCAC conference rules.
    Interesting... almost makes it like a double elimination final. Schreiner has to win twice (now vs Trinity and tomorrow vs St Thomas) to get the bid, a loss today or tomorrow gives the bid to Trinity.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2022, 05:08:25 PM
    Updated as of Saturday's games

    Bold is Pool A locked
    Italic is one of multiple RR teams alive in a single conference tournament so at least one will fall to Pool C
    Regular is only RR team left in conference tournament
    Red is in Pool C

    Region 1 (GNAC, MASCAC, NAC, NESCAC)           
    1   Wesleyan    22-3   22-3
    2   St. Joseph (Conn.)   22-1   23-1
    3   Williams   16-3   16-3
    4   Middlebury   18-5   18-5
    5   Tufts   13-10   13-10
    6   Trinity (Conn.)   16-8   16-8
    7   Amherst   15-9   15-9
    8   Albertus Magnus   15-6   15-6
    9   Westfield State   20-4   20-4
    NR   Husson

    3 Williams vs 1 Wesleyan in NESCAC final tomorrow 12pm
    8 Albertus Magnus vs 2 St Joseph in GNAC final tomorrow 3pm


    Region 2 (CCC, LEC, NECC, NEWMAC, Brandeis)           
    1   WPI   22-2   22-2
    2   UMass Dartmouth   22-3   22-3
    3   Nichols   22-3   22-3
    4   Babson   18-6   18-6
    5   Emerson   17-6   17-6
    6   Brandeis   12-9   12-9
    NR   Mitchell
    NR   Keene St

               
    Region 3 (E8, LL, Sky, SUNYAC, Rochester)           
    1   Oswego   23-2   23-2
    2   Rochester   16-7   16-7
    3   RPI   21-4   21-4
    4   Nazareth   21-4   21-4
    5   Utica   22-3   22-3
    6   St. John Fisher   19-6   19-6
    7   Ithaca   17-8   17-8
    8   Yeshiva   21-3   22-3
    NR   LL Champ

    Manhattanville vs 8 Yeshiva in Sky final tomorrow 1pm
    Skidmore vs Vassar in LL final tomorrow

               
    Region 4 (CUNYAC, MACF, NJAC, UEC, NYU)            
    1   Stockton   21-4   21-4
    2   DeSales   21-4   21-4
    3   Rowan   21-4   21-4
    4   Rutgers-Newark   16-8   16-8
    5   NYU   14-9   14-9
    6   Montclair St.   13-9   13-9
    7   Stevens   13-8   13-8
    NR    Baruch
    NR   Penn St-Harrisburg

    Lycoming vs 7 Stevens in MAC F final tomorrow 2pm

               
    Region 5 (AEC, CC, CSAC, Land, MACC)           
    1   Swarthmore   21-4   21-4
    2   Eastern   19-4   19-5
    3   Johns Hopkins   20-3   20-3
    4   Susquehanna   21-4   21-4
    5   Hood   17-6   17-6
    6   Drew   17-8   17-8
    7   Alvernia   17-6   18-6
    8   Marymount   16-8   16-8
    9   Neumann   16-7   18-7
    NR   Wilson

    5 Hood vs 2 Eastern in MAC C final tomorrow 2pm

               
    Region 6 (C2C, ODAC, SAA, USAC, Emory)           
    1   Randolph-Macon   24-1   24-1
    2   Christopher Newport   22-2   22-2
    3   Emory   18-5   18-5
    4   Guilford   17-6   17-6
    5   Roanoke   17-8   17-8
    6   Maryville (Tenn.)   17-3   20-3
    7   Berry   20-2   21-2
    8   Virginia Wesleyan   16-8   16-9
    NR    Averett

    8 Virginia Wesleyan vs 1 Randolph-Macon in ODAC final tomorrow 1pm
    7 Berry vs Oglethorpe in SAA final tomorrow

               
    Region 7 (AMCC, MIAA, NCAC, OAC, PAC, Case Western)           
    1   Marietta   22-2   22-2
    2   Mount Union   21-3   21-3
    3   Wabash   21-3   21-3
    4   Case Western Reserve   17-6   17-6
    5   Heidelberg   17-6   17-6
    6   Hope   18-5   19-6
    7   Calvin   17-6   18-7
    8   Otterbein   17-7   17-7
    9   Trine   17-8   17-8
    10   Baldwin Wallace   14-9   14-9
    NR   Medaille
    NR   Washington & Jefferson

               
    Region 8 (CCIW, HCAC, NACC, SLIAC)           
    1   Ill. Wesleyan   21-4   21-4
    2   Wheaton (IL)   20-5   20-5
    3   WashU   16-7   16-7
    4   Elmhurst   19-6   19-6
    5   Hanover   20-4   20-4
    6   Rose-Hulman   15-9   15-9
    7   North Central (IL)   15-9   15-9
    8   Transylvania   15-8   16-8
    9   Millikin   14-11   14-11
    NR   Blackburn
    NR   Franklin
    NR   NACC Champ

    Marian vs Concordia (WI) in NACC final tomorrow 3pm

               
    Region 9 (ARC, MIAC, MWC, UMAC, WIAC)           
    1   UW-Oshkosh   20-3   20-3
    2   UW-Platteville   20-4   20-4
    3   UW-La Crosse   19-5   19-5
    4   St. John's   20-4   20-4
    5   UW-River Falls   14-9   14-9
    6   UW-Whitewater   14-9   14-10
    7   Dubuque   19-6   19-6
    8   Buena Vista   14-11   14-11
    9   UW-Stout   16-9   16-9
    NR   Cornell
    NR   UMAC Champ

    Macalester vs 4 St John's in MIAC final tomorrow 3pm
    Crown vs Northwestern in UMAC final tomorrow 3pm

               
    Region 10 (ASC, NWC, SCAC, SCIAC)           
    1   Whitworth   20-4   20-4
    2   Pomona-Pitzer   16-3   17-4
    3   Chapman   17-3   19-3
    4   Mary Hardin-Baylor   20-2   22-2
    5   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   15-6   15-6
    6   Cal Lutheran   16-7   16-7
    7   Linfield   15-5   18-6
    8   Pacific Lutheran   15-6   18-7
    NR   Trinity (TX)

    St Thomas (TX) vs Trinity (TX) in SCAC final tomorrow 1pm (St Thomas not eligible for tournament)
    3 Chapman vs 2 Pomona-Pitzer in SCIAC final tomorrow 5pm
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WPI89 on February 26, 2022, 07:47:14 PM
    That's a lot of work grizz.  +1 and thank you!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 26, 2022, 09:00:32 PM
    I think the bracketing is really starting to come into focus now .... here's what I have:

    Oshkosh (top seed), Plattesville, Lacrosse, Pomona hosting in one quarter of the bracket
    Marietta (top seed), IWU, Mount Union, Nazareth
    Wesleyan (top seed if they beat Williams, if not, a four-way toss-up), Williams, WPI, St. Joe's in another quarter
    Randolph Macon (top seed), Emory, Christopher Newport, Stockton

    Those brackets would be almost perfectly competitively balanced, and would likely involve very few flights for the round of 16 barring some really strange results.  The downside is three WIAC teams in one quarter, two NESCAC teams in one quarter, and two OAC teams in one quarter.  But if that's not something the committee cares much about, I think this is the most logical breakdown of the brackets. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 27, 2022, 11:09:00 AM
    If Macon, St Joes, Eastern and St Johns all win today; the committee will be looking at taking 7 of the following 13 teams (Alphabetical Order):

    Babson: 18-7 (WP .720, SOS .576, RvRRO 3-5 (Wins: Emerson 2-1, @ Amherst) NCSOS .563

    Brandeis (Still play vs NYU today, assuming they win): 15-9 (WP .625, SOS .609, RvRRO 7-7 (Wins: vs Dartmouth, vs Babson, vs Tufts, @ Rochester (1-1), vs WashU, NYU 2-0) NCSOS .538

    Calvin: 19-7 (WP .731, SOS .542 RvRRO 5-5 (Wins: vs Elmhurst, Trine 3-0, @ UW Stout) NCSOS .601

    CMS: 16-8 (WP .667, SOS .556 RvRRO 5-5 (Wins: vs P-Pitzer, vs Pac Lutheran, vs Cal Lutheran, vs Linfield, @ Chapman) NCSOS .496

    DeSales: 22-5 (WP . 815, SOS .512 RvRRO 5-2 (Wins: @ Hood, vs Neumann, @ Montclair St, Stevens 2-0) NCSOS .588

    Emerson: 18-7 (WP .720, SOS .579 RvRRO 4-6 (Wins: vs Babson (N) (1-2), vs Brandies, @ Tufts, vs Keene St) NCSOS .563

    Hanover: 21-5 (WP .808, SOS .507, RvRRO 5-1 (Wins: @ Wabash, @ Trans (2-1), Rose Hulman (2-0) NCSOS .511

    Hood: 19-7 (Play Eastern, in if win, bubble if lose) (WP .731, SOS .565 (will go up with game today), RvRRO 2-6 (Wins: Alvernia 2-0) NCSOS .603

    Middlebury: 18-6 (WP .750, SOS .545, RvRRO 3-4 (Wins: @ Magnus, vs Amherst, vs Trinity) NCSOS .501

    Roanoke: 18-9 (WP .667, SOS .561, RvRRO 4-6 (Wins: vs Marietta, vs Eastern, @ VA Wesleyan, vs Buena Vista) NCSOS .524

    Rochester: 17-8 (WP .680, SOS .586, RvRRO 7-7 (Wins: vs Stockton, @ Ithaca, NYU 2-0, @ Brandeis (1-1), @ Wash, vs Case) NCSOS .543

    Rowan: 23-5 (WP .821, SOS .530, RvRRO 4-5 (Wins: @ Rutgers Newark (2-1) vs Montclair, vs Marymount NCSOS .517

    Utica: 23-4 (WP .852, SOS .506, RvRRO 3-3 (Wins: vs Nazarth (1-2), St John Fisher (2-0)) NCSOS .531

    Thanks to Drew Pasteur for the numbers! NCSOS is from the last regional rankings so subject to slight change.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 27, 2022, 11:18:50 AM
    I think Babson, Emerson and Rochester likely get three spots.  The last four, it just feels like it could be any combination of teams, they are very, very close. I'm going to go with Calvin, Midd, Rowan and then one of Utica, Desales or Hanover as last team in.  If the committee reallly values SOS than Brandeis could squeeze in but already at lot of Pool Cs from that region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 27, 2022, 03:26:10 PM
    Bold is Pool A locked
    Italic is one of multiple RR teams alive in a single conference tournament so at least one will fall to Pool C
    Red is in Pool C

    Region 1 (GNAC, MASCAC, NAC, NESCAC)           
    3   Williams   16-3   16-3
    4   Middlebury   18-5   18-5
    5   Tufts   13-10   13-10
    6   Trinity (Conn.)   16-8   16-8
    7   Amherst   15-9   15-9
    8   Albertus Magnus   15-6   15-6

    1   Wesleyan    22-3   22-3
    2   St. Joseph (Conn.)   22-1   23-1
    9   Westfield State   20-4   20-4
    NR   Husson


    Region 2 (CCC, LEC, NECC, NEWMAC, Brandeis)           
    2   UMass Dartmouth   22-3   22-3
    4   Babson   18-6   18-6
    5   Emerson   17-6   17-6
    6   Brandeis   12-9   12-9

    1   WPI   22-2   22-2
    3   Nichols   22-3   22-3
    NR   Mitchell
    NR   Keene St

               
    Region 3 (E8, LL, Sky, SUNYAC, Rochester)           
    2   Rochester   16-7   16-7
    3   RPI   21-4   21-4
    5   Utica   22-3   22-3
    6   St. John Fisher   19-6   19-6
    7   Ithaca   17-8   17-8

    1   Oswego   23-2   23-2
    4   Nazareth   21-4   21-4
    8   Yeshiva   21-3   22-3
    NR   Vassar

               
    Region 4 (CUNYAC, MACF, NJAC, UEC, NYU)            
    2   DeSales   21-4   21-4
    3   Rowan   21-4   21-4
    4   Rutgers-Newark   16-8   16-8
    5   NYU   14-9   14-9
    6   Montclair St.   13-9   13-9

    1   Stockton   21-4   21-4
    7   Stevens   13-8   13-8
    NR    Baruch
    NR   Penn St-Harrisburg

               
    Region 5 (AEC, CC, CSAC, Land, MACC)           
    1   Swarthmore   21-4   21-4
    2   Eastern   19-4   19-5
    6   Drew   17-8   17-8
    7   Alvernia   17-6   18-6
    8   Marymount   16-8   16-8

    3   Johns Hopkins   20-3   20-3
    4   Susquehanna   21-4   21-4
    5   Hood   17-6   17-6
    9   Neumann   16-7   18-7
    NR   Wilson

               
    Region 6 (C2C, ODAC, SAA, USAC, Emory)           
    4   Guilford   17-6   17-6
    5   Roanoke   17-8   17-8
    6   Maryville (Tenn.)   17-3   20-3
    8   Virginia Wesleyan   16-8   16-9

    1   Randolph-Macon   24-1   24-1
    2   Christopher Newport   22-2   22-2
    3   Emory   18-5   18-5
    7   Berry   20-2   21-2
    NR    Averett

               
    Region 7 (AMCC, MIAA, NCAC, OAC, PAC, Case Western)           
    2   Mount Union   21-3   21-3
    4   Case Western Reserve   17-6   17-6
    5   Heidelberg   17-6   17-6
    7   Calvin   17-6   18-7
    8   Otterbein   17-7   17-7
    9   Trine   17-8   17-8
    10   Baldwin Wallace   14-9   14-9

    1   Marietta   22-2   22-2
    3   Wabash   21-3   21-3
    6   Hope   18-5   19-6
    NR   Medaille
    NR   Washington & Jefferson

               
    Region 8 (CCIW, HCAC, NACC, SLIAC)           
    1   Ill. Wesleyan   21-4   21-4
    2   Wheaton (IL)   20-5   20-5
    3   WashU   16-7   16-7
    5   Hanover   20-4   20-4
    6   Rose-Hulman   15-9   15-9
    7   North Central (IL)   15-9   15-9
    8   Transylvania   15-8   16-8
    9   Millikin   14-11   14-11

    4   Elmhurst   19-6   19-6
    NR   Blackburn
    NR   Franklin
    NR   Marian

               
    Region 9 (ARC, MIAC, MWC, UMAC, WIAC)           
    2   UW-Platteville   20-4   20-4
    3   UW-La Crosse   19-5   19-5
    5   UW-River Falls   14-9   14-9
    6   UW-Whitewater   14-9   14-10
    8   Buena Vista   14-11   14-11
    9   UW-Stout   16-9   16-9

    1   UW-Oshkosh   20-3   20-3
    4   St. John's   20-4   20-4
    7   Dubuque   19-6   19-6
    NR   Cornell
    NR   Northwestern

               
    Region 10 (ASC, NWC, SCAC, SCIAC)           
    2   Pomona-Pitzer   16-3   17-4
    3   Chapman   17-3   19-3
    5   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   15-6   15-6
    6   Cal Lutheran   16-7   16-7
    7   Linfield   15-5   18-6
    8   Pacific Lutheran   15-6   18-7

    1   Whitworth   20-4   20-4
    4   Mary Hardin-Baylor   20-2   22-2
    NR   Trinity (TX)

    3 Chapman vs 2 Pomona-Pitzer in SCIAC final 5pm
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2022, 03:43:23 PM
    Berry beat Oglethorpe.

    Hood beats Eastern. Eastern probably stealing a Pool C spot.

    Vassar beat Skidmore. No Pool C involvment.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 27, 2022, 04:13:24 PM
    Of the final games to be played:
    St Joseph's is beating Albertus Magnus by 19 at half which avoids a bubble bursting if it holds.
    Marian is beating Concordia (WI) but neither is a Pool C candidate
    Northwestern is beating Crown but neither is a Pool C candidate
    Chapman vs Pomona-Pitzer is in an hour. Loser likely gets in anyway so probably not a bubble bursting game.

    That leaves Macalester leading St John's by 1 at halftime. Very much a bubble alert.

    Maybe I'm biased but it seems like there been a lot of 6 seeds doing some damage in tournaments this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 27, 2022, 04:46:40 PM
    The bubble can breathe as St John's pulls out a 75-71 win over Macalester.
    Just the SCIAC left and all the Pool A spots will be filled.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WLCALUM83 on February 27, 2022, 05:00:49 PM
    Marian knocked off Concordia-WI, 77-71.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2022, 07:00:14 PM
    So...20 Pool C teams.

    Williams
    UMass Dartmouth
    Babson
    Emerson
    Rochester
    RPI
    Rowan
    Swarthmore
    Eastern
    Guilford
    Mount Union
    CWR
    Ill. Wes.
    Wheaton IL
    Wash U
    Platteville
    La Crosse
    Pomona-Pitzer/Chapman loser

    ------------
    2 of...

    Middlebury
    Brandeis
    Utica
    DeSales
    Calvin
    Heidelberg
    Hanover
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 27, 2022, 08:19:17 PM
    Pool A is complete after Pomona-Pitzer beat Chapman. Now we wait to find out who gets the remaining spots.
    Let the prognostication commence!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 27, 2022, 10:36:40 PM
    Some stats from the conference tournaments...41 had a simple seeding, 2 had division seedings (NAC and USAC) so won't be included in this

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2022, 10:16:45 AM
    https://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2022/projected-mens-bracket

    Here's what the D3hoops guys think.

    I'd like to know what Utica's numbers were. They were the last two taken. They show who was all at the table when Utica was taken, but don't show their numbers for comparison's sake.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2022, 10:41:37 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 28, 2022, 10:16:45 AM
    https://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2022/projected-mens-bracket

    Here's what the D3hoops guys think.

    I'd like to know what Utica's numbers were. They were the last two taken. They show who was all at the table when Utica was taken, but don't show their numbers for comparison's sake.

    Utica is .852, .506, 3-3
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: D3RetiredHooper on February 28, 2022, 11:12:41 AM
    https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional-rankings-0

    At the bottom of this page has updated SOS, RvRRO's and NCSOS numbers.  Utica now a .504.  It is a small change but could factor in with their already low SOS in regards to historical standards.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 28, 2022, 02:05:33 PM
    DeSales is a good pick for the 20th Pool C bid.

    The Bulldogs defeated RROs both in and outside of their league, and all of their RROs all had OWPs ranked in the top 125 of DIII.

    Winning percentage above .800 and non-conference SOS of .591 seals the deal.

    I'm satisfied with DeSales in that slot.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2022, 02:06:13 PM

    We're pretty sure Lycoming was ranked in the final rankings, which also boosted DeSales' resume.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 28, 2022, 05:27:45 PM
    Here's the order of the final rankings with their rank in the previous ranking (For instance Tufts was ranked 5th in the previous ranking in R1 but were passed by Trinity who had been ranked 6th).

    Bold is Pool A
    Regular is Pool C
    Red was not selected
    Changed rankings are bold and underlined

    Region 1 (GNAC, MASCAC, NAC, NESCAC)       
    1   Wesleyan    22-3   22-3
    2   St. Joseph (Conn.)   22-1   23-1    
    3   Williams   16-3   16-3
    4   Middlebury   18-5   18-5
    6   Trinity (Conn.)   16-8   16-8
    5   Tufts   13-10   13-10
    7   Amherst   15-9   15-9
    9   Westfield State   20-4   20-4
    8   Albertus Magnus   15-6   15-6

    NR   Husson


    Region 2 (CCC, LEC, NECC, NEWMAC, Brandeis)           
    1   WPI   22-2   22-2
    2   UMass Dartmouth   22-3   22-3
    3   Nichols   22-3   22-3
    4   Babson   18-6   18-6
    5   Emerson   17-6   17-6
    NR   Keene St

    6   Brandeis   12-9   12-9
    NR   Mitchell

               
    Region 3 (E8, LL, Sky, SUNYAC, Rochester)           
    4   Nazareth   21-4   21-4
    1   Oswego   23-2   23-2
    2   Rochester   16-7   16-7
    3   RPI   21-4   21-4
    5   Utica   22-3   22-3
    6   St. John Fisher   19-6   19-6
    8   Yeshiva   21-3   22-3
    NR   Vassar

    7   Ithaca   17-8   17-8


    Region 4 (CUNYAC, MACF, NJAC, UEC, NYU)            
    1   Stockton   21-4   21-4
    3   Rowan   21-4   21-4
    2   DeSales   21-4   21-4
    4   Rutgers-Newark   16-8   16-8
    7   Stevens   13-8   13-8
    5   NYU   14-9   14-9
    NR    Lycoming

    6   Montclair St.   13-9   13-9
    NR    Baruch
    NR   Penn St-Harrisburg

               
    Region 5 (AEC, CC, CSAC, Land, MACC)           
    1   Swarthmore   21-4   21-4
    3   Johns Hopkins   20-3   20-3
    2   Eastern   19-4   19-5
    4   Susquehanna   21-4   21-4
    5   Hood   17-6   17-6
    9   Neumann   16-7   18-7
    6   Drew   17-8   17-8
    7   Alvernia   17-6   18-6
    8   Marymount   16-8   16-8

    NR   Wilson

               
    Region 6 (C2C, ODAC, SAA, USAC, Emory)           
    1   Randolph-Macon   24-1   24-1
    3   Emory   18-5   18-5
    2   Christopher Newport   22-2   22-2
    4   Guilford   17-6   17-6
    5   Roanoke   17-8   17-8
    7   Berry   20-2   21-2
    6   Maryville (Tenn.)   17-3   20-3
    8   Virginia Wesleyan   16-8   16-9

    NR    Averett

               
    Region 7 (AMCC, MIAA, NCAC, OAC, PAC, Case Western)           
    1   Marietta   22-2   22-2
    2   Mount Union   21-3   21-3
    3   Wabash   21-3   21-3
    6   Hope   18-5   19-6
    4   Case Western Reserve   17-6   17-6
    5   Heidelberg   17-6   17-6
    7   Calvin   17-6   18-7
    8   Otterbein   17-7   17-7
    9   Trine   17-8   17-8
    NR   Washington & Jefferson

    10   Baldwin Wallace   14-9   14-9
    NR   Medaille

               
    Region 8 (CCIW, HCAC, NACC, SLIAC)           
    1   Ill. Wesleyan   21-4   21-4
    3   WashU   16-7   16-7
    4   Elmhurst   19-6   19-6
    2   Wheaton (IL)   20-5   20-5
    5   Hanover   20-4   20-4
    7   North Central (IL)   15-9   15-9
    6   Rose-Hulman   15-9   15-9
    8   Transylvania   15-8   16-8
    NR   Anderson

    9   Millikin   14-11   14-11
    NR   Blackburn
    NR   Franklin
    NR   Marian

               
    Region 9 (ARC, MIAC, MWC, UMAC, WIAC)           
    1   UW-Oshkosh   20-3   20-3
    2   UW-Platteville   20-4   20-4
    3   UW-La Crosse   19-5   19-5
    4   St. John's   20-4   20-4
    6   UW-Whitewater   14-9   14-10
    9   UW-Stout   16-9   16-9
    7   Dubuque   19-6   19-6
    5   UW-River Falls   14-9   14-9
    8   Buena Vista   14-11   14-11

    NR   Cornell
    NR   Northwestern

               
    Region 10 (ASC, NWC, SCAC, SCIAC)           
    2   Pomona-Pitzer   16-3   17-4
    1   Whitworth   20-4   20-4
    3   Chapman   17-3   19-3
    4   Mary Hardin-Baylor   20-2   22-2
    5   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   15-6   15-6
    6   Cal Lutheran   16-7   16-7
    7   Linfield   15-5   18-6
    8   Pacific Lutheran   15-6   18-7

    NR   Trinity (TX)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 28, 2022, 05:36:05 PM
    The only rankings that had a new team join were Regions 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8. Three of those (2, 3, 7) were teams winning their conference replacing a team who didn't. The other two (4 and 8) were teams who didn't win their conference replacing another team who didn't win their conference. Both seem like trying to give an extra nudge for a bubble team (worked for DeSales, not for Hanover)

    All selected Pool C teams were already ahead of the non-selected teams in the previous rankings. (No one selected was previously behind a team that didn't get selected)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 07, 2023, 08:33:54 PM
    https://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2023/men-regional-rankings-alpha

    1sr rankings are out...in alphabetical order.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 07, 2023, 09:36:36 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 07, 2023, 08:33:54 PM
    https://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2023/men-regional-rankings-alpha

    1sr rankings are out...in alphabetical order.

    No surprises in Region II-- I had Babson as the 6th regionally ranked team in the region this week, and it looks like if Keene State and WPI both win their respective conference tournaments, they may be no Pool C's coming out of that region.  West Conn Wolves could sit in the #3 position in Region II and block all other teams in that region from coming to the table.  Of course, this week is all alphabetical, but that is what I see at the moment.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SpringSt7 on February 07, 2023, 09:50:15 PM
    I know we are a couple weeks away from Selection Sunday Region II gives us an interesting glimpse into the committee's thought process.

    Brandeis at 11-9 WP (.550) is way too low but SOS of .594 is sky high and using Matt Snyder's median SOS metric, #1 in the country. Meanwhile, Babson WP (.619) and SOS (.533) is regionally ranked. Plus Brandeis has 2 RROs and Babson has 0.

    None of these teams are in any real Pool C contention but contrast that with WNE (.800/.499) and Western Conn (.909/.473) being regionally ranked and you do at least get the sense that they are at least leaning a little bit towards WP over SOS at this point in the season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 07, 2023, 10:54:56 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on February 07, 2023, 09:50:15 PM
    I know we are a couple weeks away from Selection Sunday Region II gives us an interesting glimpse into the committee's thought process.

    Brandeis at 11-9 WP (.550) is way too low but SOS of .594 is sky high and using Matt Snyder's median SOS metric, #1 in the country. Meanwhile, Babson WP (.619) and SOS (.533) is regionally ranked. Plus Brandeis has 2 RROs and Babson has 0.

    None of these teams are in any real Pool C contention but contrast that with WNE (.800/.499) and Western Conn (.909/.473) being regionally ranked and you do at least get the sense that they are at least leaning a little bit towards WP over SOS at this point in the season.

    The two Brandeis RRO wins in home games vs NYU and Rochester do not figure into the equation until next week's regional rankings.  Also, Babson in this week's RRO list makes sense when you consider that Babson has a head to head win over Brandeis, and a better win/loss pct.  Brandeis has the better primary SOS.  Babson has 4 common opponents vs Brandeis this year (Lasell, Bates, Emerson, UChicago).   i would argue that the common opponents between the two teams is a wash.  (Emerson lost at both Babson and Brandeis.) Even if Brandeis's 1 point road win at UChicago gives the Judges an advantage in that category-- (a short-handed Babson lost at UChicago), Babson has a slightly higher non-conference SOS which would break the tie.

    Also, Brandeis has 9 losses right now with 5 UAA games still left to play.  I don't think any team is getting a Pool C anymore with 9 losses.  The consensus right now is that UW-Oshkosh's off-the-charts Pool C bid at 17-10 a few years back was a huge mistake and a fluke that will never happen again.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 07, 2023, 11:04:12 PM
    Comparing to Snyder's (http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/p/division-iii-mens-regional-rankings.html) rankings. Only 6 teams made the official rankings that weren't in his. The biggest outlier in his rankings is Marian in R8

    Region 1
    6) Hamilton   15-7   15-7
    2) Middlebury   19-3   19-3
    1) St. Joseph (Conn.)   22-0   22-0
    7) Trinity (Conn.)   15-7   15-7
    4) Tufts   16-4   16-5
    5) Wesleyan    14-8   14-8
    3) Williams   19-3   19-3

    Region 2
    9) Babson   13-8   13-8
    1) Keene State   21-0   21-1
    5) Nichols   16-5   16-5
    3) Western Connecticut   19-2   19-2
    4) Western New England   16-4   16-4
    2) WPI   17-3    17-3
    ---
    6) Brandeis, 7) Mitchell, 8) Emerson

    Region 3
    5) Cortland   16-6   16-6
    7) Ithaca   14-6   14-6
    4) Nazareth   17-4   17-4
    2) Oswego State   20-2   20-2
    1) Rochester   14-6   14-6
    9) RPI   15-6   15-6
    3) Utica   18-2   18-2
    ---
    6) Brockport, 8) Alfred

    Region 4
    4) DeSales   18-4   18-4
    6) Kean   16-6   16-6
    7) Lancaster Bible   14-7   14-7
    3) Montclair State   18-4   18-4
    5) NYU   13-7   13-7
    2) Rowan   19-3   19-3
    1) Stockton   19-3   19-3

    Region 5
    4) Alvernia   16-6   16-6
    3) Catholic   20-1   20-1
    6) Eastern   14-7   14-7
    2) Johns Hopkins   18-3   18-3
    8) Scranton   14-7   14-7
    1) Swarthmore   19-2   19-2
    5) Widener   14-7   14-7
    ---
    7) Susquehanna

    Region 6
    2) Christopher Newport   20-3   20-3
    4) Emory   15-5   15-5
    6) Guilford   18-4   18-4
    3) Hampden-Sydney   18-4   18-4
    7) Mary Washington   16-6   16-6
    1) Randolph-Macon   21-1   21-1
    8) Roanoke   17-5   17-5
    ---
    5) Berry

    Region 7
    7) Calvin   17-3   18-3
    4) Carnegie Mellon   14-6   14-6
    3) Case Western Reserve   16-3   16-3
    1) John Carroll   19-2   19-2
    2) Mount Union   19-2   19-2
    6) Wabash   17-4   17-5
    5) Wooster   17-4   17-4

    Region 8
    5) Carthage   15-6   15-6
    4) Elmhurst   15-6   15-6
    16) Marian    11-9   11-9
    3) North Park   15-5   16-5
    2) Washington U.   16-4   16-4
    1) Wheaton (Ill.)   19-3   19-3
    6) Wisconsin Lutheran   15-6   15-6
    ---
    7) Concordia-Chicago, 8) North Central, 9) Illinois Wesleyan

    Region 9
    5) Bethany Lutheran   17-3   18-3
    3) Carleton   18-3   18-3
    7) Central    14-5   14-6
    4) Illinois College   19-2   19-2
    2) UW-La Crosse   17-5   17-5
    1) UW-Oshkosh   17-5   17-5
    6) UW-Whitewater   16-6   16-6

    Region 10
    4) Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   17-3   18-3
    6) East Texas Baptist   16-5   16-5
    3) Mary Hardin-Baylor   17-4   17-4
    2) Pomona-Pitzer   14-3   15-5
    1) St. Thomas (Texas)   19-2   20-2
    5) Texas-Dallas   16-3   17-3
    9) Whitworth   14-7   14-7
    ---
    7) Redlands, 8) Trinity (TX)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SpringSt7 on February 07, 2023, 11:23:29 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 07, 2023, 10:54:56 PM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on February 07, 2023, 09:50:15 PM
    I know we are a couple weeks away from Selection Sunday Region II gives us an interesting glimpse into the committee's thought process.

    Brandeis at 11-9 WP (.550) is way too low but SOS of .594 is sky high and using Matt Snyder's median SOS metric, #1 in the country. Meanwhile, Babson WP (.619) and SOS (.533) is regionally ranked. Plus Brandeis has 2 RROs and Babson has 0.

    None of these teams are in any real Pool C contention but contrast that with WNE (.800/.499) and Western Conn (.909/.473) being regionally ranked and you do at least get the sense that they are at least leaning a little bit towards WP over SOS at this point in the season.

    The two Brandeis RRO wins in home games vs NYU and Rochester do not figure into the equation until next week's regional rankings.  Also, Babson in this week's RRO list makes sense when you consider that Babson has a head to head win over Brandeis, and a better win/loss pct.  Brandeis has the better primary SOS.  Babson has 4 common opponents vs Brandeis this year (Lasell, Bates, Emerson, UChicago).   i would argue that the common opponents between the two teams is a wash.  (Emerson lost at both Babson and Brandeis.) Even if Brandeis's 1 point road win at UChicago gives the Judges an advantage in that category-- (a short-handed Babson lost at UChicago), Babson has a slightly higher non-conference SOS which would break the tie.

    Also, Brandeis has 9 losses right now with 5 UAA games still left to play.  I don't think any team is getting a Pool C anymore with 9 losses.  The consensus right now is that UW-Oshkosh's off-the-charts Pool C bid at 17-10 a few years back was a huge mistake and a fluke that will never happen again.

    I'm not arguing for or against a Brandeis or Babson ranking. I'm just trying to point out that Region II might give us a little glimpse into how the committee is going to weigh their various selection criteria this year.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2023, 07:30:32 AM
    I don't think Oshkosh making the field that year was a huge mistake. They lost in the 1st round to host Hope by just 2 points. I don't know remember everything about that year, but Hope must have been pretty good to host both the regionals and sectionals that year. Yeah, geography has some play in it as well, but still. Yeah, their SOS was off the charts, but I agree, a 10-loss team will probably never see a Pool C bid again.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 08, 2023, 08:48:49 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2023, 07:30:32 AM
    I don't think Oshkosh making the field that year was a huge mistake. They lost in the 1st round to host Hope by just 2 points. I don't know remember everything about that year, but Hope must have been pretty good to host both the regionals and sectionals that year. Yeah, geography has some play in it as well, but still. Yeah, their SOS was off the charts, but I agree, a 10-loss team will probably never see a Pool C bid again.

    Washington University was fantastic that year, but had to go on the road because the Women were hosting.  Hope beat the Bears by 14 in round two.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 08, 2023, 08:52:57 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2023, 07:30:32 AM
    I don't think Oshkosh making the field that year was a huge mistake. They lost in the 1st round to host Hope by just 2 points. I don't know remember everything about that year, but Hope must have been pretty good to host both the regionals and sectionals that year. Yeah, geography has some play in it as well, but still. Yeah, their SOS was off the charts, but I agree, a 10-loss team will probably never see a Pool C bid again.

    If I recall correctly, the formula of comparing SOS vs WP that was used back then to allow a 10 loss team like Oshkosh that year to remain in Pool C contention was seriously flawed.  (2 wins in W/L for every .03 difference in SOS).  The DIII basketball committees no longer use that particular formula to compare SOS and W/l pct. It really did not matter that Oshkosh played a very competitive first round game before bowing out of the NCAAs-- subjectively, people knew that Oshkosh was a very good team.  However, a lot of good teams do get left out of the NCAAs every year because the field of 64 is not big enough to accommodate every team that could make it to at least a Sweet 16 if admitted.  Due to financial and philosophical reasons, most of DIII has accepted the NCAA DIII basketball  tournaments to be more like a "Champions League" or the "proper" rounds of a domestic cup, with non-conference play, conference play (UAA) and the conference tournaments being the qualifying/preliminary rounds for the NCAAs.

    Here is the article that Pat Coleman wrote back in 2017 about the UW-Oshkosh selection and the formula that was used:

    d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2017/uw-oshkosh-off-charts  (http://d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2017/uw-oshkosh-off-charts)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 08, 2023, 10:24:58 AM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 08, 2023, 08:48:49 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2023, 07:30:32 AM
    I don't think Oshkosh making the field that year was a huge mistake. They lost in the 1st round to host Hope by just 2 points. I don't know remember everything about that year, but Hope must have been pretty good to host both the regionals and sectionals that year. Yeah, geography has some play in it as well, but still. Yeah, their SOS was off the charts, but I agree, a 10-loss team will probably never see a Pool C bid again.

    Washington University was fantastic that year, but had to go on the road because the Women were hosting.  Hope beat the Bears by 14 in round two.

    Hope's Cody Stuive went 10-11 from 3 in that game - great memory for us Hope fans!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 08, 2023, 11:30:46 AM
    Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 08, 2023, 10:24:58 AM
    Hope's Cody Stuive went 10-11 from 3 in that game - great memory for us Hope fans!

    One of the craziest individual performances I have ever seen.  And I thought the Bears played well enough to be a lot of teams that night, but Stuive had something else in mind.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SpringSt7 on February 08, 2023, 01:22:39 PM
    That 2016-17 Hope team was the best non conference team I think I've seen Williams play in the regular season in a long time, and I probably think they are better than the Augustana team Williams faced in the Final Four that year as well. The only reason Williams won against Hope in OT in the Mt. Union holiday tournament, quite frankly, was because Harrison Blackledge fouled out. Blackledge and Stuive in the front court, Hawkins and Carlson in the backcourt, sheesh. I was stunned when Hanover hit that buzzer beater.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 08, 2023, 02:06:08 PM
    Quote from: WUPHF on February 08, 2023, 11:30:46 AM
    One of the craziest individual performances I have ever seen.  And I thought the Bears played well enough to be a lot of teams that night, but Stuive had something else in mind.

    I can still clearly picture Cody's shrug and laugh after hitting a "heat check" three as he was falling out of bounds in the corner. It's a shot your coach screams at you for taking. Unless of course you make it on your way to 10 for 11 on the night.

    Wes McKinney's dagger buzzer beater and his smug smile after is also forever burned into my memory.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2023, 03:07:52 PM
    Stop it. You guys are giving WUPHF PTSD. LOL
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on February 08, 2023, 06:33:24 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2023, 07:30:32 AM
    but I agree, a 10-loss team will probably never see a Pool C bid again.

    Rochester has 6 losses, They are at CWRU, at Carnegie, and host Emory last game of the season. 

    They are currently ranked 1st is Region 3 with 6 losses [primarily because of their OWP, OOWP].  I could see them still getting in with 9 losses if those are to the UAA teams above them.  Their coach is on the national committee, but that should have nothing to do with them getting a bid.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 08, 2023, 09:34:02 PM
    Quote from: thebear on February 08, 2023, 06:33:24 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2023, 07:30:32 AM
    but I agree, a 10-loss team will probably never see a Pool C bid again.

    Rochester has 6 losses, They are at CWRU, at Carnegie, and host Emory last game of the season. 

    They are currently ranked 1st is Region 3 with 6 losses [primarily because of their OWP, OOWP].  I could see them still getting in with 9 losses if those are to the UAA teams above them.  Their coach is on the national committee, but that should have nothing to do with them getting a bid.

    Luke Flockerzi, by rule, has to sit out the call when Rochester is up for discussion for potential selection (and bracketing, if selected.)

    Also, BTW, the rankings were alphabetical this week, so it is not official that Rochester is #1 in Region III right now.  That is what we, the fans, believe is their position.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2023, 06:27:24 AM
    Regions 2 and 3 are soooo weak. Rochester has a 100 point lead over anyone in SOS in their region. And a lot more vRRO, so it's probably them #1. They'll be at the table first, but it could be a long wait. In Region 2, Keene St is the only legit Pool C candidate and WPI basically has to win out and lose the conference tournament final to have a Pool C shot.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 09, 2023, 12:10:57 PM
    I'd say that it is close to a 50-50 shot whether a majority of Pool C bids go to three leagues total (NESCAC, UAA, and ODAC).  All seem VERY likely to have at least two Pool C's and UAA seems like close to a lock for at least 3.  Three each for NESCAC and ODAC and 4 for UAA seems well within the realm of possibility, especially if there are very few bid thieves elsewhere.  Currently, NESCAC and UAA each have 6 teams in the regional rankings, and ODAC four, so that alone will account for a ton of vRRO wins for the contenders from those leagues. 

    Seems like WIAC, Centennial, OAC, CCIW and NJAC are the only other contenders for multiple Pool C's, and for most of them it would take some massive upsets in league tourneys for that to happen. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 14, 2023, 06:56:09 PM
    https://d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2023/men-regional-rankings-first
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 15, 2023, 04:49:05 AM
    Update on Rochester after the road trip at CWRU and Carnegie Mellon-- First,a recap of the previous discussion....

    Quote from: deiscanton on February 08, 2023, 09:34:02 PM
    Quote from: thebear on February 08, 2023, 06:33:24 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 08, 2023, 07:30:32 AM
    but I agree, a 10-loss team will probably never see a Pool C bid again.

    Rochester has 6 losses, They are at CWRU, at Carnegie, and host Emory last game of the season. 

    They are currently ranked 1st is Region 3 with 6 losses [primarily because of their OWP, OOWP].  I could see them still getting in with 9 losses if those are to the UAA teams above them.  Their coach is on the national committee, but that should have nothing to do with them getting a bid.

    Luke Flockerzi, by rule, has to sit out the call when Rochester is up for discussion for potential selection (and bracketing, if selected.)

    Also, BTW, the rankings were alphabetical this week, so it is not official that Rochester is #1 in Region III right now.  That is what we, the fans, believe is their position.

    Rochester is currently #2 in Region III, behind Oswego State.

    Rochester currently has 7 losses after their 1-1 road split at CWRU (#3 in Region VII-- lost at CWRU) and Carnegie Mellon (#4 in Region VII-- won at CMU).   As a result, Rochester finished their record in UAA road games at 2-5 this season.  Rochester is currently 3-1 in UAA games held at the Louis Alexander Palestra with all 3 of their remaining UAA games at home. Although they were the preseason pick by the UAA men's basketball coaches to win the UAA, Rochester is now out of the running for the AQ (Pool A bid) and now needs a Pool C bid to make it into the NCAA DIII tournament field.

    Rochester's final 3 opponents of the regular season are Brandeis, NYU (currently ranked #4 in Region IV), and Emory (currently ranked #5 in Region VI).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 16, 2023, 07:28:07 AM
    Lots of carnage last night.

    Here are Drew's new rankings.

    http://www.fantastic50.net/d3h_men.html
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: blue_jays on February 21, 2023, 02:04:46 AM
    After watching Rochester and Emory play this month, neither team is deserving of an NCAA spot. Emory may scrape in but they don't pass the eye test, especially after going 2-5 in their last 7.
    I don't get the infatuation with Rochester at all, they've been flat out bad lately, and how a team finishes should matter. They're 2-4 in their last 6, including a 16-point loss at UChicago. Their 7 losses in the UAA have come by an average of 12.7 points.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 21, 2023, 06:54:57 AM
    I agree that recency should play some role in how teams are evaluated if the goal is to have the best teams possible participating in the tourney - improvement over the course of the season should be rewarded in some way.  But as it is, how a team ends the season is totally irrelevant to the selection criteria, so if a team stumbles massively late, it doesn't matter at all so long as it did well enough in the fall.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 21, 2023, 07:40:46 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 21, 2023, 06:54:57 AM
    I agree that recency should play some role in how teams are evaluated if the goal is to have the best teams possible participating in the tourney - improvement over the course of the season should be rewarded in some way.  But as it is, how a team ends the season is totally irrelevant to the selection criteria, so if a team stumbles massively late, it doesn't matter at all so long as it did well enough in the fall.

    Rochester certainly did well enough in the non-conference season to merit going into the NCAA DIII field if selected--

    We will see how many of these teams remain RROs this week, but so far, Rochester went 5-0 vs non-UAA RROs this season:

    Wins over Nazareth, Ithaca, Wooster, Middlebury, and UT-Dallas.

    In the UAA, Rochester has wins over CWRU (the UAA AQ), 2 wins vs Carnegie Mellon (although UR may not be able to count those as wins vs an RRO when the new regional rankings come out today), and NYU (road win in Brooklyn).

    Rochester has RRO losses in the UAA vs Emory, 2 losses vs Wash U, 1 loss vs CWRU, and 1 loss vs NYU.

    Emory is a little bit harder to justify getting a Pool C bid now, but the Eagles would finish a win/loss pct above .667 with a win on Saturday, due to their sweeping of Rochester.  That, plus an SOS above .600, is at least enough to remain in the Pool C conversation.  The Eagles would also get a 4th win vs a RRO with a win on Saturday.

    If Emory loses on Saturday, I don't think Emory should get a Pool C.  9 losses is too many for Emory to take, and a win/loss pct for Emory at .640 would be too low for that team, even with an SOS above .600, given that Emory went 0-1 so far vs non-UAA RROs this season.

    Emory is 0-1 vs non-UAA RROs so far-- A loss vs Guilford.

    In the UAA, Emory has RRO wins over CWRU (the UAA AQ), Rochester, and NYU. 

    Emory has RRO losses vs Wash U (2 losses), Carnegie Mellon (2 losses), CWRU, and NYU.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2023, 07:47:07 AM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 21, 2023, 06:54:57 AM
    I agree that recency should play some role in how teams are evaluated if the goal is to have the best teams possible participating in the tourney - improvement over the course of the season should be rewarded in some way.  But as it is, how a team ends the season is totally irrelevant to the selection criteria, so if a team stumbles massively late, it doesn't matter at all so long as it did well enough in the fall.

    I'm not sure I completely agree with the "what have you done lately" theory. So a team that starts 0-8 and finishes 17-0 should be considered over a team that starts 17-0 and finishes 0-8? Injuries, sickness, scheduling could all factor into performance. Non-conference and conference scheduling could factor in as well.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: nescac1 on February 21, 2023, 07:58:48 AM
    I think it depends on how you define "merit."  By the NCAA's criteria, which is all that matters on selection Sunday, Rochester has (with one more win) clearly done enough to merit a selection.  But will there be teams who are playing better now, and have been playing much better over the course of the last month, that will be left out in favor of Rochester?  Certainly.  Rochester is 4-6 in its last 10 games, with four losses by 14 points or more.  They lost by 16 to UAA last place team UChicago and barely beat UChicago in overtime.  They only have one win by more than four points since January 15.  in sum, for over a month now, they've lost a majority of games, the games they have lost they have tended to lose by a lot, and the games they have won have been generally very close.  Sure, they are in a great league, but it's not the only great league out there.  They just haven't been playing at a tournament-caliber level since the first half of January. 

    Is any of this relevant to the NCAA criteria?  Not even one iota - so by the standards of the selection committee, Rochester will be a "deserving" team if they are selected.  Heck, like any Pool C selection, they could even win a game or two in the tourney.
    But there is going to be some team that suffered an early hiccup or two way back in in November who has been crushing it for nearly all of the last two months who is going to be left out, and it's a bummer that the criteria doesn't account for improvement over the course of a season in any way at all, in the event that a red-hot team suffers one late stumble in a conference tournament.  (Not saying it's an easy fix!). 

    And Greek Tragedy, reasonable minds can differ.  I do think that a team that starts 17-0 and 0-8 should be considered behind a team with a roughly comparable resume than a team that wins its last 17 games.  That's part of the reason league tourneys matter so disproportionately, right, to account for teams that have emerged late in the year!  If other things are roughly equal, I think a tournament selecting the best teams in the country should try to include the teams that are playing the best brand of basketball at the time of the tournament - who have shown improvement over the course of the season and are playing their best hoops in February as opposed to November.  I'd rather coaches have the flexibility to experiment early in the season and have an early loss or two not completely doom them late in the year when maybe the team has made it all come together. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on February 21, 2023, 10:12:34 AM
    I am curious, if say the C17 spot is at the table [assuming a few bids go to other than conference front runners] and the two leading teams to get that bid have played each other, have similar W/L and SOS, does a single head to head win or season sweep by either team of the other overrride a small difference in SOS?

    Have always wondered how that conversation goes.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 21, 2023, 10:17:50 AM
    Quote from: thebear on February 21, 2023, 10:12:34 AM
    I am curious, if say the C17 spot is at the table [assuming a few bids go to other than conference front runners] and the two leading teams to get that bid have played each other, have similar W/L and SOS, does a single head to head win or season sweep by either team of the other overrride a small difference in SOS?

    Have always wondered how that conversation goes.

    I would go with the head to head winner in this case, assuming both the win/loss pct and the SOS difference is really very small to not be of significance.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 21, 2023, 11:39:38 AM
    Quote from: thebear on February 21, 2023, 10:12:34 AM
    I am curious, if say the C17 spot is at the table [assuming a few bids go to other than conference front runners] and the two leading teams to get that bid have played each other, have similar W/L and SOS, does a single head to head win or season sweep by either team of the other overrride a small difference in SOS?

    Have always wondered how that conversation goes.

    Yes, head to head is in the primary criteria, so they will certainly consider that. 2-0 will carry more weight than 1-0, but they will use H2H to overcome gaps in the other criteria. Exactly how much of a gap is difficult to say.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: blue_jays on February 21, 2023, 12:08:36 PM
    Quote from: nescac1 on February 21, 2023, 07:58:48 AM
    I think it depends on how you define "merit."  By the NCAA's criteria, which is all that matters on selection Sunday, Rochester has (with one more win) clearly done enough to merit a selection.  But will there be teams who are playing better now, and have been playing much better over the course of the last month, that will be left out in favor of Rochester?  Certainly.  Rochester is 4-6 in its last 10 games, with four losses by 14 points or more.  They lost by 16 to UAA last place team UChicago and barely beat UChicago in overtime.  They only have one win by more than four points since January 15.  in sum, for over a month now, they've lost a majority of games, the games they have lost they have tended to lose by a lot, and the games they have won have been generally very close.  Sure, they are in a great league, but it's not the only great league out there.  They just haven't been playing at a tournament-caliber level since the first half of January. 

    Is any of this relevant to the NCAA criteria?  Not even one iota - so by the standards of the selection committee, Rochester will be a "deserving" team if they are selected.  Heck, like any Pool C selection, they could even win a game or two in the tourney.
    But there is going to be some team that suffered an early hiccup or two way back in in November who has been crushing it for nearly all of the last two months who is going to be left out, and it's a bummer that the criteria doesn't account for improvement over the course of a season in any way at all, in the event that a red-hot team suffers one late stumble in a conference tournament.  (Not saying it's an easy fix!). 

    And Greek Tragedy, reasonable minds can differ.  I do think that a team that starts 17-0 and 0-8 should be considered behind a team with a roughly comparable resume than a team that wins its last 17 games.  That's part of the reason league tourneys matter so disproportionately, right, to account for teams that have emerged late in the year!  If other things are roughly equal, I think a tournament selecting the best teams in the country should try to include the teams that are playing the best brand of basketball at the time of the tournament - who have shown improvement over the course of the season and are playing their best hoops in February as opposed to November.  I'd rather coaches have the flexibility to experiment early in the season and have an early loss or two not completely doom them late in the year when maybe the team has made it all come together.

    Agreed on all points. Obviously what you've done lately doesn't play into selection criteria. But if Rochester came to the table and there's an equally deserving team they're up against for the last selection, I'm taking the other team. That doesn't mean Rochester wouldn't win a game or two in the NCAAs, basketball is a game of matchups after all. But they've fallen on their face so hard for the last month, I wouldn't select them. You gotta win games, and that's something they haven't been doing, regardless of their RROs and SOS.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 21, 2023, 06:03:12 PM
    https://d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2023/men-regional-rankings-second
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 21, 2023, 11:20:37 PM
    Quote from: thebear on February 21, 2023, 10:12:34 AM
    I am curious, if say the C17 spot is at the table [assuming a few bids go to other than conference front runners] and the two leading teams to get that bid have played each other, have similar W/L and SOS, does a single head to head win or season sweep by either team of the other overrride a small difference in SOS?

    Have always wondered how that conversation goes.

    Real tangible comparable data >>>>> a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet that were potentially drawn from two barely overlapping datasets.

    (And I like the current system in that it makes the selections as quantitative as possible when there may be limited overlap, versus a process that instead might gravitate toward prominent names that may not have done as much as schools that are less well known.  But when you do have directly comparable data, you should lean hard into it.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: sac on February 22, 2023, 12:58:03 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 21, 2023, 11:20:37 PM
    Quote from: thebear on February 21, 2023, 10:12:34 AM
    I am curious, if say the C17 spot is at the table [assuming a few bids go to other than conference front runners] and the two leading teams to get that bid have played each other, have similar W/L and SOS, does a single head to head win or season sweep by either team of the other overrride a small difference in SOS?

    Have always wondered how that conversation goes.

    Real tangible comparable data >>>>> a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet that were potentially drawn from two barely overlapping datasets.

    (And I like the current system in that it makes the selections as quantitative as possible when there may be limited overlap, versus a process that instead might gravitate toward prominent names that may not have done as much as schools that are less well known.  But when you do have directly comparable data, you should lean hard into it.)

    We're currently saying 14-11 is worth more than 22-3 though.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2023, 02:49:08 PM
    So the 5th best team in the CCIW better than anyone in the HCAC, SLIAC & NACC?

    If so, that is a very weak region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Gregory Sager on February 22, 2023, 03:03:47 PM
    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2023, 02:49:08 PM
    So the 5th best team in the CCIW better than anyone in the HCAC, SLIAC & NACC?

    Arguably, yes. (https://cciw.org/boxscore.aspx?id=7ltyipP022aUJKmSgYVs3wXi7up73ghniwD5ElWyd07J7BNseBaMQePf0fY%2f3yUPShD0hev%2fRD0lN33gaVspZjj0Vmik2xjvYQpOqtUdgfNSCv7x1IXxki8fQM41Jfzfp3BHchNfKFkzp2%2bXZ28l8xIFr7bp04A00W5FR%2fVw8Ag%3d&path=mbball)

    Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2023, 02:49:08 PMIf so, that is a very weak region.

    It's hard to find a happy medium. In the recent past the CCIW was in a region that also included the WIAC. That was a very strong region ... much too strong, in fact.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2023, 04:34:00 PM

    The HCAC has been particularly down this year.  They usually have a team or two that's more competitive.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 22, 2023, 05:05:35 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2023, 04:34:00 PM

    The HCAC has been particularly down this year.  They usually have a team or two that's more competitive.

    I thought at the beginning of the season that Hanover could give NYU a game, but NYU took the Panthers down with relative ease in the Cregger Invitational, and Hanover has been, IMO, somewhat of a disappointment this season.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: kiko on February 22, 2023, 08:59:46 PM
    Quote from: sac on February 22, 2023, 12:58:03 PM
    Quote from: kiko on February 21, 2023, 11:20:37 PM
    Quote from: thebear on February 21, 2023, 10:12:34 AM
    I am curious, if say the C17 spot is at the table [assuming a few bids go to other than conference front runners] and the two leading teams to get that bid have played each other, have similar W/L and SOS, does a single head to head win or season sweep by either team of the other overrride a small difference in SOS?

    Have always wondered how that conversation goes.

    Real tangible comparable data >>>>> a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet that were potentially drawn from two barely overlapping datasets.

    (And I like the current system in that it makes the selections as quantitative as possible when there may be limited overlap, versus a process that instead might gravitate toward prominent names that may not have done as much as schools that are less well known.  But when you do have directly comparable data, you should lean hard into it.)

    We're currently saying 14-11 is worth more than 22-3 though.

    In the example I replied to, the comp was similar W/L and SOS.  If that's the case, then yes, H2H should weigh heavily.  But that's a lot different than an eight game difference in W-L record.

    14-11 versus 22-3 gets us into a grey area.  Is 22-3 significantly worse on SOS?  I assume yes.  Are they being pulled down by their conference where the 14-11 is being boosted by theirs?  (Example - the CCIW's SOS reinforces itself as last I checked seven of the top 20 SOS in the country were in this conference.)  I personally would try to balance the gauntlet 14-11 ran versus 22-3's steady diet of delicious Duncan Hines products.  But at some point, 14-11 needs to win a few more of its games, and 22-3 needs to not be completely locked out of the tournament because they laid an egg that one time in their conference tournament.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2023, 09:28:09 PM
    Catholic lost. No bubble burst there. They were ranked at the bottom of their region.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 22, 2023, 09:58:37 PM
    Everyone's dream of a System Team making the NCAA tournament has died with Greenville's loss to Eureka tonight.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 23, 2023, 12:00:43 AM

        Region 1   vs. D3   Overall
    1   St. Joseph (Conn.)   25-0   25-0    SF 2/24 vs St Joseph's (ME)
    2   Middlebury   19-5   19-5               lost QF to #4 Tufts
    3   Williams   22-3   22-3                   SF 2/25 vs Colby
    4   Tufts   19-5   19-6                        SF 2/25 @ Hamilton
    5   Hamilton   17-8   17-8                  SF 2/25 vs Tufts
    6   Wesleyan    16-9   16-9                lost QF to #7 Colby
    7   Colby   19-6   19-6                       SF 2/25 @ Williams
                 
        Region 2       
    1   Keene State   24-1   24-1                   SF 2/23 vs E Conn
    2   WPI   21-3   21-3                               SF 2/23 vs Clark
    3   Nichols   20-5   20-5                           SF 2/23 vs Wentworth
    4   Emerson   16-9   16-9                        SF 2/23 vs Babson
    5   Western New England   19-6   19-6     SF 2/23 vs Endicott
    6   Babson   17-8   17-8                          SF 2/23 @ Emerson
                 
        Region 3       
    1   Oswego State   23-2   23-2     SF 2/24 vs New Paltz
    2   Rochester    16-8   16-8          2/25 vs Emory
    3   Utica   22-3   22-3                  SF 2/24 vs St John Fisher
    4   Nazareth   20-5   20-5            SF 2/24 vs Alfred
    5   Cortland   18-7   18-7             SF 2/24 @ Brockport
    6   Ithaca   18-7   18-7                SF 2/24 vs RPI
    7   Alfred   19-6   19-6                 SF 2/24 @ Nazareth
                 
        Region 4       
    1   Rowan   20-5   20-5                  F 2/25 vs Stockton
    2   Stockton   21-4   21-4               F 2/25 @ Rowan
    3   Montclair State   22-4   22-4      lost SF to #2 Stockton
    4   NYU   17-7   17-7                      2/24 vs Brandeis
    5   DeSales   20-5   20-5                F 2/25 vs Arcadia
    6   Kean   18-8   18-8                     lost QF to TCNJ
    7   Lancaster Bible   18-7   18-7      SF 2/24 vs Wells
                 
        Region 5       
    1   Swarthmore   22-3   22-3         SF 2/24 vs Gettysburg
    2   Johns Hopkins   22-3   22-3      SF 2/24 vs Muhlenberg
    3   Widener   17-8   17-8               F 2/25 @ Alvernia
    4   Alvernia   18-7   18-7               F 2/25 vs Widener
    5   Muhlenberg   17-8   17-8          SF 2/24 @ Johns Hopkins
    6   Susquehanna   16-9   16-9        lost SF to Juniata
    7   Catholic   22-3   22-3                lost SF to Scranton
                 
        Region 6       
    1   Randolph-Macon   24-1   24-1           QF 2/24 vs Ferrum
    2   Christopher Newport   22-3   22-3     SF 2/24 vs TBD
    3   Mary Washington   18-7   18-7          SF 2/24 vs TBD
    4   Hampden-Sydney   20-5   20-5         QF 2/24 vs Virginia Wesleyan
    5   Emory   16-8   16-8                          2/25 @ Rochester
    6   Maryville   16-8   16-8                      SF 2/24 vs Piedmont
    7   Guilford   20-5   20-5                        QF 2/24 vs Bridgewater
                 
        Region 7       
    1   Case Western Reserve   20-3   20-3    2/25 @ Carnegie Mellon
    2   John Carroll   22-3   22-3                        SF 2/23 vs Marietta
    3   Mount Union   23-2   23-2                       SF 2/23 vs Heidelberg
    4   Wooster   19-5   19-5                              SF 2/24 vs Denison
    5   Heidelberg   18-7   18-7                          SF 2/23 @ Mount Union
    6   Carnegie Mellon   15-9   15-9                  2/25 vs CWRU
    7   Wabash   18-7   18-7                              SF 2/24 vs DePauw
                 
        Region 8       
    1   Wheaton (Ill.)   22-3   22-3                   SF 2/24 vs Elmhurst
    2   Washington U.   18-6   18-6                  2/25 @ Chicago
    3   North Park   19-5   20-5                        SF 2/24 vs Carthage
    4   Elmhurst   16-9   16-9                          SF 2/24 @ Wheaton
    5   Carthage   17-8   17-8                          SF 2/24 vs North Park
    6   North Central (Ill.)   14-11   14-11         lost QF to #4 Elmhurst
    7   St. Norbert   17-7   17-7                       SF 2/24 vs Marian
                 
        Region 9       
    1   UW-Oshkosh   20-5   20-5              SF 2/24 vs UWEC
    2   UW-La Crosse   19-6   19-6            SF 2/24 vs UWW
    3   Carleton   22-3   22-3                    SF 2/24 vs Hamline
    4   St. Mary's (Minn.)   16-9   16-9       lost QF to Hamline
    5   UW-Eau Claire   16-9   16-9            SF 2/24 @ UWO
    6   UW-Whitewater   18-7   18-7          SF 2/24 @ UWL
    7   Bethany Lutheran   20-4   21-4       SF 2/24 vs Minn-Morris
                 
        Region 10       
    1   St. Thomas (Texas)   21-2   22-2             SF 2/25 vs TBD
    2   Mary Hardin-Baylor   21-4   21-4             SF 2/24 vs Hardin-Simmons
    3   Pomona-Pitzer   18-3   19-5                    SF 2/24 vs Cal Lutheran
    4   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   20-3   21-3     SF 2/24 vs Redlands
    5   East Texas Baptist   20-5   20-5               SF 2/24 @ Texas-Dallas
    6   Redlands   17-7   17-7                            SF 2/24 @ C-M-S
    7   Texas-Dallas   19-5   20-5                       SF 2/24 vs ETBU
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2023, 10:33:34 AM
    Good work. I was planning on doing this but never got around to it.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2023, 08:03:18 PM
    Heidelberg down 14 at the break vs Mount Union. Doesn't look good for Pool C.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 23, 2023, 08:54:27 PM
    JCU blows a 18-pt HT lead and loses by 4. Marietta plays Mt. Union in the OAC Final.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 23, 2023, 10:13:19 PM
        Region 1   vs. D3   Overall
    1   St. Joseph (Conn.)   25-0   25-0    SF 2/24 vs St Joseph's (ME)
    2   Middlebury   19-5   19-5               lost QF to #4 Tufts
    3   Williams   22-3   22-3                   SF 2/25 vs Colby
    4   Tufts   19-5   19-6                        SF 2/25 @ Hamilton
    5   Hamilton   17-8   17-8                  SF 2/25 vs Tufts
    6   Wesleyan    16-9   16-9                 lost QF to #7 Colby
    7   Colby   19-6   19-6                       SF 2/25 @ Williams
                 
        Region 2       
    1   Keene State   24-1   24-1                   F 2/25 vs W Conn
    2   WPI   21-3   21-3                               F 2/25 vs Babson
    3   Nichols   20-5   20-5                          F 2/23 vs W New England
    4   Emerson   16-9   16-9                        lost SF to #6 Babson
    5   Western New England   19-6   19-6     F 2/25 @ Nichols
    6   Babson   17-8   17-8                          F 2/25 @ WPI
                 
        Region 3       
    1   Oswego State   23-2   23-2     SF 2/24 vs New Paltz
    2   Rochester    16-8   16-8          2/25 vs Emory
    3   Utica   22-3   22-3                  SF 2/24 vs St John Fisher
    4   Nazareth   20-5   20-5            SF 2/24 vs Alfred
    5   Cortland   18-7   18-7             SF 2/24 @ Brockport
    6   Ithaca   18-7   18-7                SF 2/24 vs RPI
    7   Alfred   19-6   19-6                 SF 2/24 @ Nazareth
                 
        Region 4       
    1   Rowan   20-5   20-5                  F 2/25 vs Stockton
    2   Stockton   21-4   21-4               F 2/25 @ Rowan
    3   Montclair State   22-4   22-4      lost SF to #2 Stockton
    4   NYU   17-7   17-7                      2/24 vs Brandeis
    5   DeSales   20-5   20-5                F 2/25 vs Arcadia
    6   Kean   18-8   18-8                     lost QF to TCNJ
    7   Lancaster Bible   18-7   18-7      SF 2/24 vs Wells
                 
        Region 5       
    1   Swarthmore   22-3   22-3         SF 2/24 vs Gettysburg
    2   Johns Hopkins   22-3   22-3      SF 2/24 vs Muhlenberg
    3   Widener   17-8   17-8               F 2/25 @ Alvernia
    4   Alvernia   18-7   18-7               F 2/25 vs Widener
    5   Muhlenberg   17-8   17-8          SF 2/24 @ Johns Hopkins
    6   Susquehanna   16-9   16-9        lost SF to Juniata
    7   Catholic   22-3   22-3                lost SF to Scranton
                 
        Region 6       
    1   Randolph-Macon   24-1   24-1           QF 2/24 vs Ferrum
    2   Christopher Newport   22-3   22-3     SF 2/24 vs UCSC
    3   Mary Washington   18-7   18-7          SF 2/24 vs Salisbury
    4   Hampden-Sydney   20-5   20-5         QF 2/24 vs Virginia Wesleyan
    5   Emory   16-8   16-8                          2/25 @ Rochester
    6   Maryville   16-8   16-8                      SF 2/24 vs Piedmont
    7   Guilford   20-5   20-5                        QF 2/24 vs Bridgewater
                 
        Region 7       
    1   Case Western Reserve   20-3   20-3    2/25 @ Carnegie Mellon
    2   John Carroll   22-3   22-3                        lost SF to Marietta
    3   Mount Union   23-2   23-2                       F 2/25 vs Marietta
    4   Wooster   19-5   19-5                              SF 2/24 vs Denison
    5   Heidelberg   18-7   18-7                          lost SF to #3 Mount Union
    6   Carnegie Mellon   15-9   15-9                  2/25 vs CWRU
    7   Wabash   18-7   18-7                              SF 2/24 vs DePauw
                 
        Region 8       
    1   Wheaton (Ill.)   22-3   22-3                   SF 2/24 vs Elmhurst
    2   Washington U.   18-6   18-6                  2/25 @ Chicago
    3   North Park   19-5   20-5                        SF 2/24 vs Carthage
    4   Elmhurst   16-9   16-9                          SF 2/24 @ Wheaton
    5   Carthage   17-8   17-8                          SF 2/24 vs North Park
    6   North Central (Ill.)   14-11   14-11         lost QF to #4 Elmhurst
    7   St. Norbert   17-7   17-7                       SF 2/24 vs Marian
                 
        Region 9       
    1   UW-Oshkosh   20-5   20-5              SF 2/24 vs UWEC
    2   UW-La Crosse   19-6   19-6            SF 2/24 vs UWW
    3   Carleton   22-3   22-3                    SF 2/24 vs Hamline
    4   St. Mary's (Minn.)   16-9   16-9       lost QF to Hamline
    5   UW-Eau Claire   16-9   16-9            SF 2/24 @ UWO
    6   UW-Whitewater   18-7   18-7          SF 2/24 @ UWL
    7   Bethany Lutheran   20-4   21-4       SF 2/24 vs Minn-Morris
                 
        Region 10       
    1   St. Thomas (Texas)   21-2   22-2             SF 2/25 vs TBD
    2   Mary Hardin-Baylor   21-4   21-4             SF 2/24 vs Hardin-Simmons
    3   Pomona-Pitzer   18-3   19-5                    SF 2/24 vs Cal Lutheran
    4   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   20-3   21-3     SF 2/24 vs Redlands
    5   East Texas Baptist   20-5   20-5               SF 2/24 @ Texas-Dallas
    6   Redlands   17-7   17-7                            SF 2/24 @ C-M-S
    7   Texas-Dallas   19-5   20-5                       SF 2/24 vs ETBU
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2023, 07:49:49 PM
    Utica goes down to SJFC. That's a bubble bursting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 24, 2023, 09:08:09 PM

        Region 1   vs. D3   Overall
    1   St. Joseph (Conn.)   25-0   25-0    SF 2/24 vs St Joseph's (ME)
    2   Middlebury   19-5   19-5               lost QF to #4 Tufts
    3   Williams   22-3   22-3                   SF 2/25 vs #7 Colby
    4   Tufts   19-5   19-6                        SF 2/25 @ #5 Hamilton
    5   Hamilton   17-8   17-8                  SF 2/25 vs #4 Tufts
    6   Wesleyan    16-9   16-9                 lost QF to #7 Colby
    7   Colby   19-6   19-6                       SF 2/25 @ #3 Williams
    MASCAC Champ
    NAC Champ (SUNY Delhi vs ME-Farmington) 2/25
                 
        Region 2       
    1   Keene State   24-1   24-1                   F 2/25 vs W Conn
    2   WPI   21-3   21-3                               F 2/25 vs #6 Babson
    3   Nichols   20-5   20-5                          F 2/25 vs #5 W New England
    4   Emerson   16-9   16-9                        lost SF to #6 Babson
    5   Western New England   19-6   19-6     F 2/25 @ #3 Nichols
    6   Babson   17-8   17-8                          F 2/25 @ #2 WPI
    NECC Champ
                 
        Region 3       
    1   Oswego State   23-2   23-2     SF 2/24 vs New Paltz
    2   Rochester    16-8   16-8          2/25 vs Emory
    3   Utica   22-3   22-3                  lost SF to St John Fisher
    4   Nazareth   20-5   20-5            SF 2/24 vs #7 Alfred
    5   Cortland   18-7   18-7             lost SF to Brockport
    6   Ithaca   18-7   18-7                SF 2/24 vs RPI
    7   Alfred   19-6   19-6                 SF 2/24 @ #4 Nazareth
    Sky Champ (Manhattanville vs Farmingdale St) 2/25
                 
        Region 4       
    1   Rowan   20-5   20-5               won NJAC
    2   Stockton   21-4   21-4              lost F to #1 Rowan
    3   Montclair State   22-4   22-4      lost SF to #2 Stockton
    4   NYU   17-7   17-7                      won vs Brandeis
    5   DeSales   20-5   20-5                F 2/25 vs Arcadia
    6   Kean   18-8   18-8                     lost QF to TCNJ
    7   Lancaster Bible   18-7   18-7      F 2/25 vs TBD
    CUNYAC Champ (Lehman vs Baruch) 2/24
                 
        Region 5       
    1   Swarthmore   22-3   22-3         SF 2/24 vs Gettysburg
    2   Johns Hopkins   22-3   22-3      SF 2/24 vs Muhlenberg
    3   Widener   17-8   17-8               F 2/25 @ #4 Alvernia
    4   Alvernia   18-7   18-7               F 2/25 vs #3 Widener
    5   Muhlenberg   17-8   17-8          SF 2/24 @ Johns Hopkins
    6   Susquehanna   16-9   16-9        lost SF to Juniata
    7   Catholic   22-3   22-3                lost SF to Scranton
    AEC Champ (Neumann vs Marymount) 2/25
    CSAC Champ (Keystone vs Wilson) 2/25
    Land Champ (Juniata vs Scranton) 2/25
                 
        Region 6       
    1   Randolph-Macon   24-1   24-1           SF 2/25 vs Roanoke
    2   Christopher Newport   22-3   22-3     F 2/25 vs #3 Mary Washington
    3   Mary Washington   18-7   18-7          F 2/25 vs #2 Chris Newport
    4   Hampden-Sydney   20-5   20-5         QF 2/24 vs Virginia Wesleyan
    5   Emory   16-8   16-8                          2/25 @ Rochester
    6   Maryville   16-8   16-8                      SF 2/24 vs Piedmont
    7   Guilford   20-5   20-5                        QF 2/24 vs Bridgewater
    SAA Champ                                          2/26
    USAC Champ (William Peace vs NC Wesleyan) 2/25
                 
        Region 7       
    1   Case Western Reserve   20-3   20-3    won UAA 2/25 @ #6 Carnegie Mellon
    2   John Carroll   22-3   22-3                        lost SF to Marietta
    3   Mount Union   23-2   23-2                       F 2/25 vs Marietta
    4   Wooster   19-5   19-5                              SF 2/24 vs Denison
    5   Heidelberg   18-7   18-7                          lost SF to #3 Mount Union
    6   Carnegie Mellon   15-9   15-9                  2/25 vs #1 CWRU
    7   Wabash   18-7   18-7                              F 2/25 vs TBD
    AMCC Champ (Penn St-Altoona vs La Roche) 2/25
    MIAA Champ                                               2/25
    PAC Champ (Chatham vs Allegheny)             2/25
                 
        Region 8       
    1   Wheaton (Ill.)   22-3   22-3                   SF 2/24 vs #4 Elmhurst
    2   Washington U.   18-6   18-6                  2/25 @ Chicago
    3   North Park   19-5   20-5                        F 2/25 vs TBD
    4   Elmhurst   16-9   16-9                          SF 2/24 @ #1 Wheaton
    5   Carthage   17-8   17-8                          lost SF to #3 North Park
    6   North Central (Ill.)   14-11   14-11         lost QF to #4 Elmhurst
    7   St. Norbert   17-7   17-7                       SF 2/24 vs Marian
    HCAC Champ                                            2/25
    SLIAC Champ                                           2/25
                 
        Region 9       
    1   UW-Oshkosh   20-5   20-5              SF 2/24 vs #5 UWEC
    2   UW-La Crosse   19-6   19-6            SF 2/24 vs #6 UWW
    3   Carleton   22-3   22-3                    SF 2/24 vs Hamline
    4   St. Mary's (Minn.)   16-9   16-9       lost QF to Hamline
    5   UW-Eau Claire   16-9   16-9            SF 2/24 @ #1 UWO
    6   UW-Whitewater   18-7   18-7          SF 2/24 @ #2 UWL
    7   Bethany Lutheran   20-4   21-4       SF 2/24 vs Minn-Morris
    ARC Champ (Coe vs Loras)                  2/25
    MWC Champ                                       2/25
                 
        Region 10       
    1   St. Thomas (Texas)   21-2   22-2             SF 2/25 vs Schreiner
    2   Mary Hardin-Baylor   21-4   21-4             SF 2/24 vs Hardin-Simmons
    3   Pomona-Pitzer   18-3   19-5                    SF 2/24 vs Cal Lutheran
    4   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   20-3   21-3     SF 2/24 vs #6 Redlands
    5   East Texas Baptist   20-5   20-5               F 2/25 vs TBD
    6   Redlands   17-7   17-7                            SF 2/24 @ #4 C-M-S
    7   Texas-Dallas   19-5   20-5                       lost SF to #5 ETBU
    NWC Champ                                                2/25
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2023, 09:38:30 PM
    Oswego St holds off New Paltz, saving a bubble for now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2023, 09:48:10 PM
    Whitewater knocks off La Crosse. No bubble burst yet unless Whitewater beats Oshkosh Sunday.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2023, 09:49:57 PM
    Elmhurst beat Wheaton, so NPU will have to beat Elmhurst to prevent another bubble bursting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2023, 10:17:15 PM
    UMHB goes down to Hardin Simmons.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 24, 2023, 10:36:00 PM
    Still the 1st half, but CMS and PP are both losing their SCIAC semis right now.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 24, 2023, 10:59:23 PM
    Updated through most of Friday. Still missing the west coast games and Guilford.

        Region 1   vs. D3   Overall
    1   St. Joseph (Conn.)   25-0   25-0    F 2/26 vs Albertus Magnus
    2   Middlebury   19-5   19-5               lost QF to #4 Tufts
    3   Williams   22-3   22-3                   SF 2/25 vs #7 Colby
    4   Tufts   19-5   19-6                        SF 2/25 @ #5 Hamilton
    5   Hamilton   17-8   17-8                  SF 2/25 vs #4 Tufts
    6   Wesleyan    16-9   16-9                 lost QF to #7 Colby
    7   Colby   19-6   19-6                       SF 2/25 @ #3 Williams
    MASCAC Champ (Westfield St vs Worcester St) 2/26
    NAC Champ (SUNY Delhi vs ME-Farmington) 2/25
                 
        Region 2       
    1   Keene State   24-1   24-1                   F 2/25 vs W Conn
    2   WPI   21-3   21-3                               F 2/25 vs #6 Babson
    3   Nichols   20-5   20-5                          F 2/25 vs #5 W New England
    4   Emerson   16-9   16-9                        lost SF to #6 Babson
    5   Western New England   19-6   19-6     F 2/25 @ #3 Nichols
    6   Babson   17-8   17-8                          F 2/25 @ #2 WPI
    NECC Champ (New England College vs Mitchell) 2/25
                 
        Region 3       
    1   Oswego State   23-2   23-2     F 2/25 vs Brockport
    2   Rochester    16-8   16-8          2/25 vs Emory
    3   Utica   22-3   22-3                  lost SF to St John Fisher
    4   Nazareth   20-5   20-5            F 2/25 vs St John Fisher
    5   Cortland   18-7   18-7             lost SF to Brockport
    6   Ithaca   18-7   18-7                lost SF to RPI
    7   Alfred   19-6   19-6                 lost SF to #4 Nazareth
    Sky Champ (Manhattanville vs Farmingdale St) 2/25
                 
        Region 4       
    1   Rowan   20-5   20-5               won NJAC
    2   Stockton   21-4   21-4              lost F to #1 Rowan
    3   Montclair State   22-4   22-4      lost SF to #2 Stockton
    4   NYU   17-7   17-7                      won vs Brandeis
    5   DeSales   20-5   20-5                F 2/25 vs Arcadia
    6   Kean   18-8   18-8                     lost QF to TCNJ
    7   Lancaster Bible   18-7   18-7      F 2/25 vs Penn St-Abington
    -   Baruch                                     won CUNYAC
                 
        Region 5       
    1   Swarthmore   22-3   22-3         F 2/25 vs #2 Johns Hopkins
    2   Johns Hopkins   22-3   22-3      F 2/25 vs #1 Swarthmore
    3   Widener   17-8   17-8               F 2/25 @ #4 Alvernia
    4   Alvernia   18-7   18-7               F 2/25 vs #3 Widener
    5   Muhlenberg   17-8   17-8          lost SF to Johns Hopkins
    6   Susquehanna   16-9   16-9        lost SF to Juniata
    7   Catholic   22-3   22-3                lost SF to Scranton
    AEC Champ (Neumann vs Marymount) 2/25
    CSAC Champ (Keystone vs Wilson) 2/25
    Land Champ (Juniata vs Scranton) 2/25
                 
        Region 6       
    1   Randolph-Macon   24-1   24-1           SF 2/25 vs Roanoke
    2   Christopher Newport   22-3   22-3     F 2/25 vs #3 Mary Washington
    3   Mary Washington   18-7   18-7          F 2/25 vs #2 Chris Newport
    4   Hampden-Sydney   20-5   20-5         SF 2/25 vs TBD
    5   Emory   16-8   16-8                          2/25 @ Rochester
    6   Maryville   16-8   16-8                      SF 2/24 vs Piedmont
    7   Guilford   20-5   20-5                        QF 2/24 vs Bridgewater
    SAA Champ (TBD vs TBD)                      2/26
    USAC Champ (William Peace vs NC Wesleyan) 2/25
                 
        Region 7       
    1   Case Western Reserve   20-3   20-3    won UAA 2/25 @ #6 Carnegie Mellon
    2   John Carroll   22-3   22-3                        lost SF to Marietta
    3   Mount Union   23-2   23-2                       F 2/25 vs Marietta
    4   Wooster   19-5   19-5                              F 2/25 vs #7 Wabash
    5   Heidelberg   18-7   18-7                          lost SF to #3 Mount Union
    6   Carnegie Mellon   15-9   15-9                  2/25 vs #1 CWRU
    7   Wabash   18-7   18-7                              F 2/25 vs #4 Wooster
    AMCC Champ (Penn St-Altoona vs La Roche) 2/25
    MIAA Champ (Hope vs Calvin)                      2/25
    PAC Champ (Chatham vs Allegheny)             2/25
                 
        Region 8       
    1   Wheaton (Ill.)   22-3   22-3                  lost SF to #4 Elmhurst
    2   Washington U.   18-6   18-6                  2/25 @ Chicago
    3   North Park   19-5   20-5                        F 2/25 vs #4 Elmhurst
    4   Elmhurst   16-9   16-9                          F 2/25 @ #3 North Park
    5   Carthage   17-8   17-8                          lost SF to #3 North Park
    6   North Central (Ill.)   14-11   14-11         lost QF to #4 Elmhurst
    7   St. Norbert   17-7   17-7                       F 2/25 vs Wisconsin Lutheran
    HCAC Champ (Rose-Hulman vs Anderson)  2/25
    SLIAC Champ (Fontbonne vs Webster)        2/25
                 
        Region 9       
    1   UW-Oshkosh   20-5   20-5              F 2/26 vs #6 UWW
    2   UW-La Crosse   19-6   19-6            lost SF to #6 UWW
    3   Carleton   22-3   22-3                    F 2/26 vs St John's
    4   St. Mary's (Minn.)   16-9   16-9       lost QF to Hamline
    5   UW-Eau Claire   16-9   16-9            lost SF to #1 UWO
    6   UW-Whitewater   18-7   18-7          F 2/26 @ #1 UWO
    7   Bethany Lutheran   20-4   21-4       F 2/26 vs UW-Superior
    ARC Champ (Coe vs Loras)                  2/25
    MWC Champ (Cornell vs Illinois College) 2/25
                 
        Region 10       
    1   St. Thomas (Texas)   21-2   22-2             SF 2/25 vs Schreiner
    2   Mary Hardin-Baylor   21-4   21-4             lost SF to Hardin-Simmons
    3   Pomona-Pitzer   18-3   19-5                    SF 2/24 vs Cal Lutheran
    4   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   20-3   21-3     SF 2/24 vs #6 Redlands
    5   East Texas Baptist   20-5   20-5               F 2/25 vs Hardin-Simmons
    6   Redlands   17-7   17-7                            SF 2/24 @ #4 C-M-S
    7   Texas-Dallas   19-5   20-5                       lost SF to #5 ETBU
    NWC Champ (TBD vs Whitman)                    2/25
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2023, 12:01:39 AM
    Pomona Pitzer lost to Cal Lutheran, so CMS will need to beat Cal Lutheran to avoid another bubble bursting.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 25, 2023, 12:21:05 AM
    CMS lost to Redlands. POP!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2023, 10:18:40 AM
    Quote from: TheOsprey on February 25, 2023, 12:21:05 AM
    CMS lost to Redlands. POP!!

    Dang, they were ahead when I went to bed!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2023, 02:03:02 PM
    Bubble watch: W. Conn. leading Keene St at the break 30-28.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 25, 2023, 03:44:43 PM
    Babson just busted a bubble!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 25, 2023, 04:28:16 PM
        Region 1   vs. D3   Overall
    1   St. Joseph (Conn.)   25-0   25-0    F 2/26 vs Albertus Magnus
    2   Middlebury   19-5   19-5               lost QF to #4 Tufts
    3   Williams   22-3   22-3                   lost SF to #7 Colby
    4   Tufts   19-5   19-6                        lost SF to #5 Hamilton
    5   Hamilton   17-8   17-8                  F 2/26 vs #7 Colby
    6   Wesleyan    16-9   16-9                 lost QF to #7 Colby
    7   Colby   19-6   19-6                       F 2/26 vs #5 Hamilton
    -   MASCAC Champ (Westfield St vs Worcester St) 2/26
    -   SUNY Delhi                                won NAC
                 
        Region 2       
    1   Keene State   24-1   24-1                won LEC
    2   WPI   21-3   21-3                               lost F to #6 Babson
    3   Nichols   20-5   20-5                       won CCC
    4   Emerson   16-9   16-9                        lost SF to #6 Babson
    5   Western New England   19-6   19-6     lost F to #3 Nichols
    6   Babson   17-8   17-8                       won NEWMAC
    -   Mitchell                                           won NECC
                 
        Region 3       
    1   Oswego State   23-2   23-2  won SUNYAC
    2   Rochester    16-8   16-8          lost vs R6 #5 Emory
    3   Utica   22-3   22-3                  lost SF to St John Fisher
    4   Nazareth   20-5   20-5            lost F to St John Fisher
    5   Cortland   18-7   18-7             lost SF to Brockport
    6   Ithaca   18-7   18-7                lost SF to RPI
    7   Alfred   19-6   19-6                 lost SF to #4 Nazareth
    -   St John Fisher                      won E8
    -   Farmingdale St                     won Sky
    -   LL Champ (RPI vs St Lawrence) 2/26
                 
        Region 4       
    1   Rowan   20-5   20-5               won NJAC
    2   Stockton   21-4   21-4               lost F to #1 Rowan
    3   Montclair State   22-4   22-4       lost SF to #2 Stockton
    4   NYU   17-7   17-7                      won vs Brandeis
    5   DeSales   20-5   20-5                lost F to Arcadia
    6   Kean   18-8   18-8                     lost QF to TCNJ
    7   Lancaster Bible   18-7   18-7 won UEC
    -   Arcadia                                    won MACF
    -   Baruch                                     won CUNYAC
                 
        Region 5       
    1   Swarthmore   22-3   22-3         F 2/26 vs #2 Johns Hopkins
    2   Johns Hopkins   22-3   22-3      F 2/26 vs #1 Swarthmore
    3   Widener   17-8   17-8               F 2/25 @ #4 Alvernia
    4   Alvernia   18-7   18-7               F 2/25 vs #3 Widener
    5   Muhlenberg   17-8   17-8          lost SF to Johns Hopkins
    6   Susquehanna   16-9   16-9        lost SF to Juniata
    7   Catholic   22-3   22-3                lost SF to Scranton
    -   Marymount                            won AEC
    -   Wilson                                   won CSAC
    -   Scranton                                won Land
                 
        Region 6       
    1   Randolph-Macon   24-1   24-1           F 2/26 vs TBD
    2   Christopher Newport   22-3   22-3   won C2C
    3   Mary Washington   18-7   18-7          lost F to #2 Chris Newport
    4   Hampden-Sydney   20-5   20-5         SF 2/25 vs #7 Guilford
    5   Emory   16-8   16-8                          won @ R3 #2 Rochester
    6   Maryville   16-8   16-8                      F 2/25 vs Belhaven
    7   Guilford   20-5   20-5                       SF 2/25 vs #4 Hampden-Sydney
    SAA Champ (Sewanee vs Berry)            2/26
    -   NC Wesleyan                                  won USAC
                 
        Region 7       
    1   Case Western Reserve   20-3   20-3    won UAA
    2   John Carroll   22-3   22-3                        lost SF to Marietta
    3   Mount Union   23-2   23-2                   won OAC
    4   Wooster   19-5   19-5                             lost F to #7 Wabash
    5   Heidelberg   18-7   18-7                         lost SF to #3 Mount Union
    6   Carnegie Mellon   15-9   15-9                  lost to #1 CWRU
    7   Wabash   18-7   18-7                          won NCAC
    -   La Roche                                              won AMCC
    MIAA Champ (Hope vs Calvin)                      2/25
    PAC Champ (Chatham vs Allegheny)             2/25
                 
        Region 8       
    1   Wheaton (Ill.)   22-3   22-3                  lost SF to #4 Elmhurst
    2   Washington U.   18-6   18-6                  won vs Chicago
    3   North Park   19-5   20-5                        F 2/25 vs #4 Elmhurst
    4   Elmhurst   16-9   16-9                          F 2/25 @ #3 North Park
    5   Carthage   17-8   17-8                          lost SF to #3 North Park
    6   North Central (Ill.)   14-11   14-11         lost QF to #4 Elmhurst
    7   St. Norbert   17-7   17-7                       F 2/26 vs Wisconsin Lutheran
    -   Anderson                                           won HCAC
    SLIAC Champ (Fontbonne vs Webster)        2/25
                 
        Region 9       
    1   UW-Oshkosh   20-5   20-5              F 2/26 vs #6 UWW
    2   UW-La Crosse   19-6   19-6            lost SF to #6 UWW
    3   Carleton   22-3   22-3                    F 2/26 vs St John's
    4   St. Mary's (Minn.)   16-9   16-9       lost QF to Hamline
    5   UW-Eau Claire   16-9   16-9            lost SF to #1 UWO
    6   UW-Whitewater   18-7   18-7          F 2/26 @ #1 UWO
    7   Bethany Lutheran   20-4   21-4       F 2/26 vs UW-Superior
    ARC Champ (Coe vs Loras)                  2/25
    -   Illinois College                            won MWC
                 
        Region 10       
    1   St. Thomas (Texas)   21-2   22-2             lost SF to Schreiner
    2   Mary Hardin-Baylor   21-4   21-4             lost SF to Hardin-Simmons
    3   Pomona-Pitzer   18-3   19-5                    lost SF to Cal Lutheran
    4   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   20-3   21-3     lost SF to #6 Redlands
    5   East Texas Baptist   20-5   20-5               F 2/25 vs Hardin-Simmons
    6   Redlands   17-7   17-7                            F 2/25 vs Cal Lutheran
    7   Texas-Dallas   19-5   20-5                       lost SF to #5 ETBU
    NWC Champ (Whitworth vs Whitman)           2/25
    SCAC Champ (Schreiner vs TBD)                  2/26
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 25, 2023, 07:57:45 PM
    Looks like four TX teams in this year's NCAA tournament. St. Thomas just lost.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 25, 2023, 09:53:56 PM
    One more day of finals

        Region 1   vs. D3   Overall
    1   St. Joseph (Conn.)   25-0   25-0    F 2/26 vs Albertus Magnus
    2   Middlebury   19-5   19-5               lost QF to #4 Tufts
    3   Williams   22-3   22-3                   lost SF to #7 Colby
    4   Tufts   19-5   19-6                        lost SF to #5 Hamilton
    5   Hamilton   17-8   17-8                  F 2/26 vs #7 Colby
    6   Wesleyan    16-9   16-9                 lost QF to #7 Colby
    7   Colby   19-6   19-6                       F 2/26 vs #5 Hamilton
    -   MASCAC Champ (Westfield St vs Worcester St) 2/26
    -   SUNY Delhi                                won NAC
                 
        Region 2       
    1   Keene State   24-1   24-1                won LEC
    2   WPI   21-3   21-3                               lost F to #6 Babson
    3   Nichols   20-5   20-5                       won CCC
    4   Emerson   16-9   16-9                        lost SF to #6 Babson
    5   Western New England   19-6   19-6     lost F to #3 Nichols
    6   Babson   17-8   17-8                       won NEWMAC
    -   Mitchell                                           won NECC
                 
        Region 3       
    1   Oswego State   23-2   23-2  won SUNYAC
    2   Rochester    16-8   16-8          lost vs R6 #5 Emory
    3   Utica   22-3   22-3                  lost SF to St John Fisher
    4   Nazareth   20-5   20-5            lost F to St John Fisher
    5   Cortland   18-7   18-7             lost SF to Brockport
    6   Ithaca   18-7   18-7                lost SF to RPI
    7   Alfred   19-6   19-6                 lost SF to #4 Nazareth
    -   Farmingdale St                     won Sky
    -   St John Fisher                      won E8
    -   LL Champ (RPI vs St Lawrence) 2/26
                 
        Region 4       
    1   Rowan   20-5   20-5               won NJAC
    2   Stockton   21-4   21-4               lost F to #1 Rowan
    3   Montclair State   22-4   22-4       lost SF to #2 Stockton
    4   NYU   17-7   17-7                      won vs Brandeis
    5   DeSales   20-5   20-5                lost F to Arcadia
    6   Kean   18-8   18-8                     lost QF to TCNJ
    7   Lancaster Bible   18-7   18-7 won UEC
    -   Arcadia                                    won MACF
    -   Baruch                                     won CUNYAC
                 
        Region 5       
    1   Swarthmore   22-3   22-3         F 2/26 vs #2 Johns Hopkins
    2   Johns Hopkins   22-3   22-3      F 2/26 vs #1 Swarthmore
    3   Widener   17-8   17-8            won MACC
    4   Alvernia   18-7   18-7               lost F to #3 Widener
    5   Muhlenberg   17-8   17-8          lost SF to Johns Hopkins
    6   Susquehanna   16-9   16-9        lost SF to Juniata
    7   Catholic   22-3   22-3                lost SF to Scranton
    -   Marymount                            won AEC
    -   Scranton                                won Land
    -   Wilson                                   won CSAC
                 
        Region 6       
    1   Randolph-Macon   24-1   24-1           F 2/26 vs #7 Guilford
    2   Christopher Newport   22-3   22-3   won C2C
    3   Mary Washington   18-7   18-7          lost F to #2 Chris Newport
    4   Hampden-Sydney   20-5   20-5         lost SF to #7 Guilford
    5   Emory   16-8   16-8                         won @ R3 #2 Rochester
    6   Maryville   16-8   16-8                      won CCS (no Pool A)
    7   Guilford   20-5   20-5                       F 2/26 vs #1 Randolph-Macon
    SAA Champ (Sewanee vs Berry)             2/26
    -   NC Wesleyan                                  won USAC
                 
        Region 7       
    1   Case Western Reserve   20-3   20-3    won UAA
    2   John Carroll   22-3   22-3                        lost SF to Marietta
    3   Mount Union   23-2   23-2                   won OAC
    4   Wooster   19-5   19-5                             lost F to #7 Wabash
    5   Heidelberg   18-7   18-7                         lost SF to #3 Mount Union
    6   Carnegie Mellon   15-9   15-9                  lost to #1 CWRU
    7   Wabash   18-7   18-7                          won NCAC
    -   Chatham                                              won PAC
    -   Hope                                                  won MIAA
    -   La Roche                                             won AMCC
                 
        Region 8       
    1   Wheaton (Ill.)   22-3   22-3                  lost SF to #4 Elmhurst
    2   Washington U.   18-6   18-6                  won vs Chicago
    3   North Park   19-5   20-5                    won CCIW
    4   Elmhurst   16-9   16-9                          lost F to #3 North Park
    5   Carthage   17-8   17-8                          lost SF to #3 North Park
    6   North Central (Ill.)   14-11   14-11         lost QF to #4 Elmhurst
    7   St. Norbert   17-7   17-7                       F 2/26 vs Wisconsin Lutheran
    -   Anderson                                           won HCAC
    -   Fontbonne                                         won SLIAC
                 
        Region 9       
    1   UW-Oshkosh   20-5   20-5              F 2/26 vs #6 UWW
    2   UW-La Crosse   19-6   19-6            lost SF to #6 UWW
    3   Carleton   22-3   22-3                    F 2/26 vs St John's
    4   St. Mary's (Minn.)   16-9   16-9       lost QF to Hamline
    5   UW-Eau Claire   16-9   16-9            lost SF to #1 UWO
    6   UW-Whitewater   18-7   18-7          F 2/26 @ #1 UWO
    7   Bethany Lutheran   20-4   21-4       F 2/26 vs UW-Superior
    -   Coe                                              won ARC
    -   Illinois College                            won MWC
                 
        Region 10       
    1   St. Thomas (Texas)   21-2   22-2             lost SF to Schreiner
    2   Mary Hardin-Baylor   21-4   21-4             lost SF to Hardin-Simmons
    3   Pomona-Pitzer   18-3   19-5                    lost SF to Cal Lutheran
    4   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   20-3   21-3     lost SF to #6 Redlands
    5   East Texas Baptist   20-5   20-5          won ASC
    6   Redlands   17-7   17-7                            lost F to Cal Lutheran
    7   Texas-Dallas   19-5   20-5                       lost SF to #5 ETBU
    -   Cal Lutheran                                        won SCIAC

    -   Whitworth                                            won NWC
    SCAC Champ (Schreiner vs Trinity)               2/26
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2023, 01:07:36 AM
    For those who'd like to just see the Pool C teams.
    Games for bubble watchers to keep an eye on Sunday include Albertus Magnus vs St Joseph, Guilford vs Randolph-Macon, UW-Whitewater vs UW-Oshkosh, St John's vs Carleton, Hamilton vs Colby. All other games won't affect the bubble.

        Region 1   vs. D3   Overall
    1   St. Joseph (Conn.)   25-0   25-0    F 2/26 vs Albertus Magnus
    2   Middlebury   19-5   19-5               lost QF to #4 Tufts
    3   Williams   22-3   22-3                   lost SF to #7 Colby
    4   Tufts   19-5   19-6                        lost SF to #5 Hamilton
    5   Hamilton   17-8   17-8                  F 2/26 vs #7 Colby
    6   Wesleyan    16-9   16-9                 lost QF to #7 Colby
    7   Colby   19-6   19-6                       F 2/26 vs #5 Hamilton

                 
        Region 2       
    2   WPI   21-3   21-3                               lost F to #6 Babson
    4   Emerson   16-9   16-9                        lost SF to #6 Babson
    5   Western New England   19-6   19-6     lost F to #3 Nichols

                 
        Region 3       
    2   Rochester    16-8   16-8          lost vs R6 #5 Emory
    3   Utica   22-3   22-3                  lost SF to St John Fisher
    4   Nazareth   20-5   20-5            lost F to St John Fisher
    5   Cortland   18-7   18-7             lost SF to Brockport
    6   Ithaca   18-7   18-7                lost SF to RPI
    7   Alfred   19-6   19-6                 lost SF to #4 Nazareth
                 
        Region 4       
    2   Stockton   21-4   21-4               lost F to #1 Rowan
    3   Montclair State   22-4   22-4       lost SF to #2 Stockton
    4   NYU   17-7   17-7                      won vs Brandeis
    5   DeSales   20-5   20-5                lost F to Arcadia
    6   Kean   18-8   18-8                     lost QF to TCNJ
                 
        Region 5       
    1   Swarthmore   22-3   22-3         F 2/26 vs #2 Johns Hopkins
    2   Johns Hopkins   22-3   22-3      F 2/26 vs #1 Swarthmore
    4   Alvernia   18-7   18-7               lost F to #3 Widener
    5   Muhlenberg   17-8   17-8          lost SF to Johns Hopkins
    6   Susquehanna   16-9   16-9        lost SF to Juniata
    7   Catholic   22-3   22-3                lost SF to Scranton
                 
        Region 6       
    1   Randolph-Macon   24-1   24-1           F 2/26 vs #7 Guilford
    3   Mary Washington   18-7   18-7          lost F to #2 Chris Newport
    4   Hampden-Sydney   20-5   20-5         lost SF to #7 Guilford
    5   Emory   16-8   16-8                         won @ R3 #2 Rochester
    6   Maryville   16-8   16-8                      won CCS (no Pool A)
    7   Guilford   20-5   20-5                       F 2/26 vs #1 Randolph-Macon
                 
        Region 7       
    2   John Carroll   22-3   22-3                        lost SF to Marietta
    4   Wooster   19-5   19-5                             lost F to #7 Wabash
    5   Heidelberg   18-7   18-7                         lost SF to #3 Mount Union
    6   Carnegie Mellon   15-9   15-9                  lost to #1 CWRU
                 
        Region 8       
    1   Wheaton (Ill.)   22-3   22-3                  lost SF to #4 Elmhurst
    2   Washington U.   18-6   18-6                  won vs Chicago
    4   Elmhurst   16-9   16-9                          lost F to #3 North Park
    5   Carthage   17-8   17-8                          lost SF to #3 North Park
    6   North Central (Ill.)   14-11   14-11         lost QF to #4 Elmhurst
    7   St. Norbert   17-7   17-7                       F 2/26 vs Wisconsin Lutheran
                 
        Region 9       
    1   UW-Oshkosh   20-5   20-5              F 2/26 vs #6 UWW
    2   UW-La Crosse   19-6   19-6            lost SF to #6 UWW
    3   Carleton   22-3   22-3                    F 2/26 vs St John's
    4   St. Mary's (Minn.)   16-9   16-9       lost QF to Hamline
    5   UW-Eau Claire   16-9   16-9            lost SF to #1 UWO
    6   UW-Whitewater   18-7   18-7          F 2/26 @ #1 UWO
    7   Bethany Lutheran   20-4   21-4       F 2/26 vs UW-Superior
                 
        Region 10       
    1   St. Thomas (Texas)   21-2   22-2             lost SF to Schreiner
    2   Mary Hardin-Baylor   21-4   21-4             lost SF to Hardin-Simmons
    3   Pomona-Pitzer   18-3   19-5                    lost SF to Cal Lutheran
    4   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   20-3   21-3     lost SF to #6 Redlands
    6   Redlands   17-7   17-7                            lost F to Cal Lutheran
    7   Texas-Dallas   19-5   20-5                       lost SF to #5 ETBU
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: TheOsprey on February 26, 2023, 01:14:44 AM
    Most regions are dumpster fires.  Good luck to the committees.  "It ain't easy."  Regional rankings would be very interesting to see.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 26, 2023, 02:55:37 PM
    Whitewater leads Oshkosh at the break and Albertus Magnus leads St. Joseph CT more than halfway through the 2nd half...more bubbles possibly popping.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2023, 03:29:18 PM
    *POP*
    Albertus Magnus knocks St Joseph from the unbeaten ranks 83-79 and pops a bubble.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on February 26, 2023, 04:22:06 PM
    St. Lawrence wins the Liberty League automatic bid.  Scores 11 points in the second half, then an 8-0 run in overtime to defeat RPI 50-42.

    Both teams not in the regional rankings, so another bid to an unranked squad.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2023, 04:57:04 PM
    The final list

        Region 1   vs. D3   Overall
    1   St. Joseph (Conn.)   25-0   25-0    lost F to Albertus Magnus
    2   Middlebury   19-5   19-5               lost QF to #4 Tufts
    3   Williams   22-3   22-3                   lost SF to #7 Colby
    4   Tufts   19-5   19-6                        lost SF to #5 Hamilton
    5   Hamilton   17-8   17-8              won NESCAC
    6   Wesleyan    16-9   16-9                 lost QF to #7 Colby
    7   Colby   19-6   19-6                       lost F to #5 Hamilton
    -   Albertus Magnus                        won GNAC
    -   SUNY Delhi                                won NAC
    -   Worcester St                             won MASCAC
                 
        Region 2       
    1   Keene State   24-1   24-1                won LEC
    2   WPI   21-3   21-3                               lost F to #6 Babson
    3   Nichols   20-5   20-5                       won CCC
    4   Emerson   16-9   16-9                        lost SF to #6 Babson
    5   Western New England   19-6   19-6     lost F to #3 Nichols
    6   Babson   17-8   17-8                       won NEWMAC
    -   Mitchell                                           won NECC
                 
        Region 3       
    1   Oswego State   23-2   23-2  won SUNYAC
    2   Rochester    16-8   16-8          lost vs R6 #5 Emory
    3   Utica   22-3   22-3                  lost SF to St John Fisher
    4   Nazareth   20-5   20-5            lost F to St John Fisher
    5   Cortland   18-7   18-7             lost SF to Brockport
    6   Ithaca   18-7   18-7                lost SF to RPI
    7   Alfred   19-6   19-6                 lost SF to #4 Nazareth
    -   Farmingdale St                     won Sky
    -   St John Fisher                      won E8
    -   St Lawrence                         won LL
                 
        Region 4       
    1   Rowan   20-5   20-5               won NJAC
    2   Stockton   21-4   21-4               lost F to #1 Rowan
    3   Montclair State   22-4   22-4       lost SF to #2 Stockton
    4   NYU   17-7   17-7                      won vs Brandeis
    5   DeSales   20-5   20-5                lost F to Arcadia
    6   Kean   18-8   18-8                     lost QF to TCNJ
    7   Lancaster Bible   18-7   18-7 won UEC
    -   Arcadia                                    won MACF
    -   Baruch                                     won CUNYAC
                 
        Region 5       
    1   Swarthmore   22-3   22-3      won CC
    2   Johns Hopkins   22-3   22-3      lost F to #1 Swarthmore
    3   Widener   17-8   17-8            won MACC
    4   Alvernia   18-7   18-7               lost F to #3 Widener
    5   Muhlenberg   17-8   17-8          lost SF to #2 Johns Hopkins
    6   Susquehanna   16-9   16-9        lost SF to Juniata
    7   Catholic   22-3   22-3                lost SF to Scranton
    -   Marymount                            won AEC
    -   Scranton                                won Land
    -   Wilson                                   won CSAC
                 
        Region 6       
    1   Randolph-Macon   24-1   24-1        won ODAC
    2   Christopher Newport   22-3   22-3   won C2C
    3   Mary Washington   18-7   18-7          lost F to #2 Chris Newport
    4   Hampden-Sydney   20-5   20-5         lost SF to #7 Guilford
    5   Emory   16-8   16-8                         won @ R3 #2 Rochester
    6   Maryville   16-8   16-8                      won CCS (no Pool A)
    7   Guilford   20-5   20-5                       lost F to #1 Randolph-Macon
    -   NC Wesleyan                                  won USAC
    -   Sewanee                                         won SAA
                 
        Region 7       
    1   Case Western Reserve   20-3   20-3    won UAA
    2   John Carroll   22-3   22-3                        lost SF to Marietta
    3   Mount Union   23-2   23-2                   won OAC
    4   Wooster   19-5   19-5                             lost F to #7 Wabash
    5   Heidelberg   18-7   18-7                         lost SF to #3 Mount Union
    6   Carnegie Mellon   15-9   15-9                  lost to #1 CWRU
    7   Wabash   18-7   18-7                          won NCAC
    -   Chatham                                              won PAC
    -   Hope                                                  won MIAA
    -   La Roche                                             won AMCC
                 
        Region 8       
    1   Wheaton (Ill.)   22-3   22-3                  lost SF to #4 Elmhurst
    2   Washington U.   18-6   18-6                  won vs Chicago
    3   North Park   19-5   20-5                    won CCIW
    4   Elmhurst   16-9   16-9                          lost F to #3 North Park
    5   Carthage   17-8   17-8                          lost SF to #3 North Park
    6   North Central (Ill.)   14-11   14-11         lost QF to #4 Elmhurst
    7   St. Norbert   17-7   17-7                    won NACC
    -   Anderson                                           won HCAC
    -   Fontbonne                                         won SLIAC
                 
        Region 9       
    1   UW-Oshkosh   20-5   20-5              lost F to #6 UWW
    2   UW-La Crosse   19-6   19-6            lost SF to #6 UWW
    3   Carleton   22-3   22-3                  won MIAC
    4   St. Mary's (Minn.)   16-9   16-9       lost QF to Hamline
    5   UW-Eau Claire   16-9   16-9            lost SF to #1 UWO
    6   UW-Whitewater   18-7   18-7     won WIAC
    7   Bethany Lutheran   20-4   21-4   won UMAC
    -   Coe                                              won ARC
    -   Illinois College                            won MWC
                 
        Region 10       
    1   St. Thomas (Texas)   21-2   22-2             lost SF to Schreiner
    2   Mary Hardin-Baylor   21-4   21-4             lost SF to Hardin-Simmons
    3   Pomona-Pitzer   18-3   19-5                    lost SF to Cal Lutheran
    4   Claremont-Mudd-Scripps   20-3   21-3     lost SF to #6 Redlands
    5   East Texas Baptist   20-5   20-5          won ASC
    6   Redlands   17-7   17-7                            lost F to Cal Lutheran
    7   Texas-Dallas   19-5   20-5                       lost SF to #5 ETBU
    -   Cal Lutheran                                        won SCIAC
    -   Schreiner                                             won SCAC
    -   Whitworth                                            won NWC
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 26, 2023, 05:14:10 PM
    Snippets from the conference tracker page on possible 20 Pool C bids

    Mary Hardin-Baylor should be in the field despite its semifinal loss.
    Johns Hopkins (23-3) is in good shape.
    Mary Washington (19-8) has a strong resume and should garner one of the 20 at-large bids.
    Wheaton (22-4) seems like a lock for an at-large.
    St. Joseph (Conn.) (27-1) will take an at-large bid and pop someone else's bubble.
    Williams (22-4) should be in,
    Middlebury (19-5) should be in
    Tufts (19-7) should be in
    Stockton (22-5) looks good by the NCAA's metrics
    John Carroll (22-4) lost to Marietta in the conference semifinals but will be comfortably in the field.
    St. Thomas will be a lock to get in after Saturday's loss.
    Washington U. should be in good shape for an at-large bid
    NYU (18-7) seems like a good candidate on paper
    UW-Oshkosh (21-6) will get one early in the process.
    Both Pomona-Pitzer and Claremont-Mudd-Scripps should be considered at-large candidates.
    Hampden-Sydney (21-6) should be in.

    Guilford (22-6) is somehow right at the cut line.
    Wooster (21-6) should have a shot at an at-large bid.
    And Colby (20-7) will be at the table for consideration and may also get in.
    while Emory (17-8) defeated Rochester to stay in the conversation
    Rochester (16-9) could well be in the at-large conversation as well, despite a .640 winning percentage.

    WPI (22-4) was No. 2 in the region entering the week, but is deep on the bubble for an at-large after the loss.
    Maryville is a deep bubble team who probably won't get in after the losses by higher ranked teams on Saturday.
    Utica (22-4) may be too far down the bubble to survive the upset.
    Montclair State, also 22-5 but with a lower strength of schedule, would be a stretch.

    Case knocked off Carnegie Mellon (15-10) on Saturday to push them off the bubble
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: y_jack_lok on February 26, 2023, 05:34:04 PM
    ^^^ You have 21 teams in those top two groups. Assuming 20 of them are correct, who do you think is least likely to get in?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SpringSt7 on February 26, 2023, 10:52:46 PM
    Tuned in for a little bit of Hoopsville selection show tonight---always a great watch so props to the crew. Unclear if this is the best place to post this but hope it gets picked up by Ryan or Dave or Matt, but does anyone else feel there is a flaw in the way we evaluate RROs, and if so, is there a way to fix that? It feels like every year we are making decisions about seedings and pod hosts by comparing one team from one side of the country's wins in their region versus another's on the other side of the country. Feels like that defeats the purpose, especially if SOS is already in use as a primary metric.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 27, 2023, 06:40:28 AM
    Well, we can agree that a .600 win/loss percentage is way too low to get a Pool C selection, no matter what your SOS is. ...... ;D

    Awaiting the bracket announcement at 1 PM Eastern. 



    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 27, 2023, 09:06:21 AM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on February 26, 2023, 10:52:46 PM
    Tuned in for a little bit of Hoopsville selection show tonight---always a great watch so props to the crew. Unclear if this is the best place to post this but hope it gets picked up by Ryan or Dave or Matt, but does anyone else feel there is a flaw in the way we evaluate RROs, and if so, is there a way to fix that? It feels like every year we are making decisions about seedings and pod hosts by comparing one team from one side of the country's wins in their region versus another's on the other side of the country. Feels like that defeats the purpose, especially if SOS is already in use as a primary metric.

    Don't get me started lol...

    At best, they're a redundant double dipping of SOS. But the other huge problem you're referencing is the inconsistency across the board. I've gone on a tangent a time or two about how RROs are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand to determine which wins are "good wins" vs. those that aren't.  Rochester picks up 2 wins against RROs by beating Carnegie Mellon twice, but Hope doesn't for beating Calvin twice, despite voters placing Calvin as the #16 team in the country and Carnegie Mellon unranked and without any votes. There are better ways, like D1s quadrant system, to evaluate the quality of each win. Sure those lines are still somewhat arbitrary, but at least a non-Q1 win becomes a Q2 win vs. meaningless.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2023, 09:50:48 AM
    Not sure the emphasis on the whole "regional" idea is even something that should be considered. It is a national tournament after all. Obviously there is one particular conference that takes advantage of having ranked teams in as many as 5 different regions. Playing every conference opponent just once helps another conference dominate it's region, thus improving their vRRO. There's another conference that gets an AQ and some of their members don't even play each other.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SpringSt7 on February 27, 2023, 09:55:17 AM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 27, 2023, 06:40:28 AM
    Well, we can agree that a .600 win/loss percentage is way too low to get a Pool C selection, no matter what your SOS is. ...... ;D

    Awaiting the bracket announcement at 1 PM Eastern.

    I'm not as concerned about the back end of the bubble and moreso when it comes to giving out hosting duties and the seedings of the pods themselves. Those decisions have a greater impact on deciding a national champion than the 20th and 21st teams off the board
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2023, 09:59:56 AM
    There's definitely double counting across the board, but, of the three main criteria, they do check each other pretty well.

    You can compile a decently high SOS without actually beating anyone of note.  Until this weekend, Albertus Magnus' best win was at home over Nichols, yet they had a .561 SOS through good scheduling.  You'd have to downgrade the SOS a little bit for lack of actual signature wins (until they beat USJ, that is).  Looking at specific RRO wins does help contextualize a little bit.

    It also helps when the winning percentage is low.  Which games did you actually win - did you beat all the lower ranked teams and lose to all the higher ranked ones?  Rochester, even with the gaudy numbers, doesn't get in without wins over Case AND Middlebury (and, as of writing, we don't even know if they actually got in or not).  I'm not sure the gaudy SOS or RRO wins matter without specific wins, because the winning percentage is so low.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: HOPEful on February 27, 2023, 10:16:41 AM
    Quote from: SpringSt7 on February 27, 2023, 09:55:17 AM
    I'm not as concerned about the back end of the bubble and moreso when it comes to giving out hosting duties and the seedings of the pods themselves. Those decisions have a greater impact on deciding a national champion than the 20th and 21st teams off the board

    I think the conversation on the methodology effects both. It's just absurd to me that we've given so much weight to the top 7 teams in each region with a very flawed process for choosing those seven teams. Calvin, despite being the #16 team in the country on D3hoops.com last week, had not be regionally ranked this season based on their SOS, 5 losses, etc. Sure, this eliminates their chances at an at large bid. But the bigger impact, as you said, could be to the teams fighting over host rights. Calvin being ranked ahead of Carnegie Mellon would give Wheaton, Wooster, and Elmhurst all one more win against an RRO. Removing Carnegie Mellon from the regional rankings would leave CWR and Rochester with 2 less wins against RROs and Washington and Middlebury with 1 less. That's a lot of value in wins against two teams that many people would rank very differently than their value is being award based on the current system.

    The point isn't about who should or should not be ranked higher. It's that the wins against the #7 teams in each region shouldn't be so much more valuable than the win's against the #8 teams while relatively the same as wins against the #6 teams. I understand that the committee can and does have conversations on the quality of those wins, but when looking down a list just at a glance, you see vRRO (2-2) as though all 4 of those games were equal and more important than the rest of that team's schedule.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BaboNation on February 27, 2023, 11:09:16 AM
    While I always enjoy the discussion of the last few Pool C picks it strikes me that there should be an objective metric that does all the work.  I know that takes some of the barstool fun away for some, kinda like a robot calling balls and strikes.
    I look at what Baseball Reference does with career WAR, taking in waaaaaay more data than what the committee needs to evaluate to fill out a 64 team field;  then they are able to objectively compare players from different positions;  and then they are able to compare the evolution of the game over more than 100 years, which has been nothing short of breathtaking;  and they stir it all up and spit out a ranking of the best to ever step between the lines and, to me at least, come up with a list that makes me say "Hard to argue with that".
    Someone should be able to do the same for D3 basketball, probably reverse-engineering years of historical data to refine the model.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BaboNation on February 27, 2023, 11:20:02 AM
    To continue with a baseball analogy.  There's a lot of discussion about Rochester's .640 WPCT.

    But wRRO/games played = 10/25 = .400.  If you bat .400 you'd better be selected for the All-Star game.  No one else in the country is close.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2023, 11:29:35 AM
    Batting .250 can get you an all-star nod.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: SpringSt7 on February 27, 2023, 11:30:10 AM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2023, 09:59:56 AM
    There's definitely double counting across the board, but, of the three main criteria, they do check each other pretty well.

    You can compile a decently high SOS without actually beating anyone of note.  Until this weekend, Albertus Magnus' best win was at home over Nichols, yet they had a .561 SOS through good scheduling.  You'd have to downgrade the SOS a little bit for lack of actual signature wins (until they beat USJ, that is).  Looking at specific RRO wins does help contextualize a little bit.


    I understand this argument, but at the same time I think we probably underrate just beating 12-14 average to above average teams and the impact that should have on a resume. It is easy to look at great wins and anchor your perception of a team to that small sample size. But going out and consistently taking care of a business with a .560-.580 SOS is impressive and probably something that I think we either underrate or just don't know how to place in the proper context.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: BaboNation on February 27, 2023, 12:27:50 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 27, 2023, 11:29:35 AM
    Batting .250 can get you an all-star nod.

    Agreed, but a .400 batting average should always get you selected.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Augie2020 on February 27, 2023, 01:12:44 PM
    Quote from: BaboNation on February 27, 2023, 11:20:02 AM
    To continue with a baseball analogy.  There's a lot of discussion about Rochester's .640 WPCT.

    But wRRO/games played = 10/25 = .400.  If you bat .400 you'd better be selected for the All-Star game.  No one else in the country is close.
    You can also look at it this way.Usually the teams with the best records go to the playoffs!!
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 27, 2023, 03:20:55 PM
    Pool C teams
    Top Left: John Carroll, Montclair St, Johns Hopkins
    Bottom Left: Utica, UW-Oshkosh, WashU, NYU
    Top Right: Tufts, Rochester, Middlebury, Mary Washington, Stockton
    Bottom Right: Hampden-Sydney, Emory, St Thomas, Mary Hardin-Baylor, Wheaton (IL), Pomona-Pitzer, Williams, St Joseph

    UAA with 4, NESCAC with 3. That's 1/3 of the bids to just two conferences.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on February 27, 2023, 04:49:35 PM
    If you look at the National Rankings of those 7 [UAA/NESCAC] schools, and you have a student-athlete who has the grades to get in and you have the cash/aid package to send them, easy decision and in most cases the "network" benefits them for the rest of their lives.  Definitely a recruiting advantage for those schools.

    If you have a sports-minded kid, John Carroll has an outstanding record placing grads with professional sports teams.

    Johns Hopkins & Pomona-Pitzer are both top academic schools [same tier as UAA and NESCAC] and Wheaton and Hampden-Sydney are top 100 schools.


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: d3hoopstories on February 22, 2024, 11:21:21 AM
    Looks like 10 teams for 5-7 Pool C slots. I have those 10 in the following order for now:

    St. Thomas (TX)
    Mt Union
    TCNJ
    Stevens
    Eastern
    Swarthmore
    Loras
    Clark
    Hope
    Albertus Magnus
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Flying Dutch Fan on February 22, 2024, 12:51:53 PM
    Quote from: d3hoopstories on February 22, 2024, 11:21:21 AMLooks like 10 teams for 5-7 Pool C slots. I have those 10 in the following order for now:

    St. Thomas (TX)
    Mt Union
    TCNJ
    Stevens
    Eastern
    Swarthmore
    Loras
    Clark
    Hope
    Albertus Magnus

    Question - how do you have Mt Union (#7 in Region 7) in ahead of Hope (#6 in Region 7)?  You are not alone in that prediction, but if you are right, it means Mt Union jumps Hope in the final RR.  What's the justification for that?. 

    Being in Pool C means both teams lose another game.  Mt Union faces Heidelberg (not a RRO) and with a win potentially JCU (#2 R7). 

    Hope faces Calvin (#4 R7) and with a win, potentially Trine (#3 R7). 

    I supose you are assuiming a Hope loss and a Mt Union win in their next games.  Should they both win, and then lose their conf finals, I see Hope with the advantage, with the 1-1 RRO boost.

    I see Hope as win and you're in versus Calvin on Friday
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Inkblot on February 22, 2024, 01:22:09 PM
    Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on February 22, 2024, 12:51:53 PM
    Quote from: d3hoopstories on February 22, 2024, 11:21:21 AMLooks like 10 teams for 5-7 Pool C slots. I have those 10 in the following order for now:

    St. Thomas (TX)
    Mt Union
    TCNJ
    Stevens
    Eastern
    Swarthmore
    Loras
    Clark
    Hope
    Albertus Magnus

    Question - how do you have Mt Union (#7 in Region 7) in ahead of Hope (#6 in Region 7)?  You are not alone in that prediction, but if you are right, it means Mt Union jumps Hope in the final RR.  What's the justification for that?. 

    Being in Pool C means both teams lose another game.  Mt Union faces Heidelberg (not a RRO) and with a win potentially JCU (#2 R7). 

    Hope faces Calvin (#4 R7) and with a win, potentially Trine (#3 R7). 

    I supose you are assuiming a Hope loss and a Mt Union win in their next games.  Should they both win, and then lose their conf finals, I see Hope with the advantage, with the 1-1 RRO boost.

    I see Hope as win and you're in versus Calvin on Friday

    As it currently stands:

    Hope .769, .534, 1-4 RRO
    Mount Union .760, .553, 1-2 RRO

    That looks to me like advantage Mount Union at the moment. (Mount Union picked up an RRO win by St. John's moving into the rankings.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: w00lax on February 22, 2024, 03:52:06 PM
    Is the NCAC a one bid league?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2024, 03:57:21 PM
    Quote from: w00lax on February 22, 2024, 03:52:06 PMIs the NCAC a one bid league?

    Almost certainly.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 22, 2024, 04:19:13 PM
    Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 22, 2024, 03:57:21 PM
    Quote from: w00lax on February 22, 2024, 03:52:06 PMIs the NCAC a one bid league?

    Almost certainly.

    Certainly.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on February 23, 2024, 09:18:06 AM
    Regarding the Hope/Mount Union order, here is the update following yesterday's results which included Mount Union's OAC semifinal win over Heidelberg

    Mount Union: 0.769 WP/0.555 SOS/1-2
    Hope: 0.769/0.535/1-4

    It is very close between these two but there are a couple mental adjustments that should be made in Hope's favor. One, the Hope win over a regionally ranked opponent (Calvin) is of higher quality than Mount Union's (St. John's). Two, Hope has an advantage in results versus common opponents (also one of the primary criteria) by beating Wilmington compared to Mount Union's 0-2 vs. Wilmington.

    Fortunately, no decisions need to be made based on this snapshot in time. I think the final order between these two mostly comes down to what happens tonight between Hope and Calvin. A Hope win should assure them Pool C consideration before Mount Union (should both need it). A Hope loss and my guess is the order would flip.
    Title: game feed
    Post by: w00lax on February 23, 2024, 05:07:06 PM
    Is anyone else having issues with the Witt vs Woo game feed from the Wabash website?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 24, 2024, 04:21:22 AM
    Just to confirm the previous message--

    I just checked the on-demand replay for the game this morning (4:17 AM ET, Sat. Feb. 24) and Wabash did have technical difficulties on their end getting the stream up and running for the first NCAC semfinal game yesterday.

    The on-demand replay does not start until 12:45 left until halftime and with Wittenberg up 12-11 over Wooster in the first half.   Just in case you missed the game live and want to check the game for some highlights, if not to watch the replay in its entirety.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: thebear on February 24, 2024, 05:58:25 PM
    New Paltz just won at Oswego, so the Lakers are a likely bid thief.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 09, 2025, 06:05:58 PM
    So, we don't have Regional Rankings anymore. We have the simple, yet super boring, NPI. Here is this morning's rankings via d3datacast. Not official, but pretty close.

    https://d3datacast.com/npi/

    Current (A) bids and Pool C position

    AEC - Marymount
    AMCC - Pitt-Bradford
    ARC - Dubuque (A) or Nebraska Wes (23)
    ASC - Hardin-Simmons (A) or UMHB (30)
    C2C - CNU (A) or Salisbury (28)
    CC - 2 or 3 - JHU (A), Gettysburg (11), Franklin & Marshall (20)
    CNE - W New England
    CCIW - 2 or 3 - Carthage (A), IWU (6), NPU (27)
    CCS - Belhaven
    CUNYAC - Lehman
    E8 - Brockport
    GNAC - St. Joseph's (Maine)
    HCAC - Anderson
    LAND - 2 - Drew (A), Catholic (8)
    LEC - Keene St
    LL - RPI
    MACC - York PA
    MACF - Stevens
    MASCAC - Westfield St
    MIAA - 2 - Calvin (A), Trine (12)
    MIAC - 2 - St. John's (A), Gustavus Adolphus (15)
    MWC - Monmouth
    NAC - Husson
    NACC - WLC
    NCAC - Denison
    NESCAC - 4 or 5 - Wesleyan (A), Trinity (3), Tufts (5), Hamilton (9), Williams (24)
    NEWMAC - WPI
    NJAC - 4 - Stockton (A), Ramapo (10), TCNJ (14), Montclair St (16)
    NWC - Whitorth
    OAC - John Carroll
    ODAC - 4 or 5 - RMC (A), Hampden-Sydney (4), Roanoke (18), Virginia Wesleyan (19), Guilford (26)
    PAC - Chatham
    SAA - Berry
    SCAC - 2 - St. Thomas (A), Trinity (21)
    SCIAC - 2 - Redlands (A), Cal Lutheran (13)
    SKY - Farmingdale St
    SUNYAC - Cortland
    UAA - 4 or 5 - NYU (A), Emory (1), Wash U (7), Chicago (17), Brandeis (25)
    UMAC - North Central (MN)
    USAC - Southern Virginia
    WIAC - 2 or 3 - Platteville (A), La Crosse (2), Stevens Point (22), Eau Claire (29)


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 12, 2025, 09:26:43 AM
    I didn't know regional rankings were still a thing. Why have them if they use NPI??

    https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional-rankings-0
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 12, 2025, 09:46:26 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 12, 2025, 09:26:43 AMI didn't know regional rankings were still a thing. Why have them if they use NPI??

    https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3/regional-rankings-0

    It sure is interesting to compare the regions this way.  We always knew there were weaker and stronger regions, but seeing it laid out like this is pretty informative.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 12, 2025, 12:27:55 PM
    As pointed out by the people on D3Datacast and confirmed on the published schedules on the NCAA Statistics database that has been used over the past 2 weeks to create the official NCAA DIII Men's Basketball Summary Reports, the NCAA DIII regional advisory committees have been letting in some errors in the data entry of the games slip through that have skewed the official NCAA DIII NPI numbers for men's basketball.   The unofficial D3DataCast NPI numbers as entered through the Massey system have been the accurate NPI numbers for this season in men's basketball so far. 

    Note-- the discrepancies in the NPI numbers have not been great enough so far so as to make the NPI rankings in the most crucial places of Top 8 seeding and at-large selections incorrect, but these errors have to be corrected or else the risk of getting an at-large selection wrong will increase with more data errors.

    Here are the errors that we have to check to see if they are corrected in next Monday's NCAA DIII NPI Summary Report--

    In Evaluation Region I, we have 2 GNAC (Great Northeast Conf) teams-- New England College and Dean, that played a non-conference game vs each other back in November, and the official conference game vs each other in January.  GNAC only plays a single round robin in men's conference play.

    The NCAA DIII codes have listed under NE College for the games vs Dean for the past 2 summary reports--

    Dean-- HL (C), AL (C)-- The AL code of (C) is not correct-- The away game is a non-conference game that was played back in November, and that should read AL (NC).

    So the correct codes for NE College's opponent of Dean should read--

    HL (C), AL (NC)

    Similarly for Dean-- the codes for the opponent of New England College should read--

    NE College-- AW (C), HW (NC)

    For the games between UC Santa Cruz vs Salisbury and Christopher Newport, the NCAA has incorrectly coded those matchups as C2C conference games.  Officially, the C2C as listed in their men's basketball handbook-- a link to which I have posted in the Coast to Coast message Board-- has no regular season conference games before the C2C Tournament-- All matchups before the official conference tournament are to be considered as non-conference games.

    So the codes of UC Santa Cruz counting Christopher Newport as AL (C) and Salisbury as AL (C) are not correct-- those games should both be coded as AL (NC).

    Similarly, in Christopher Newport's schedule, the game vs UC Santa Cruz should be coded as HW (NC), and also in Salisbury's schedule, the game vs UC Santa Cruz should also be coded as HW (NC).

    The Coast to Coast Conference has teams in what is still considered to be Regions V, VI, and X-- with the C2C RAC member serving in Evaluation Region VI.

    Should those errors be corrected, and barring any other errors, the NPI numbers on the official NCAA DIII Men's Basketball Summary Report through games of Sunday, February 16, should match the D3 Datacast run numbers on the Monday morning, Feb. 17, 2025 run.  If there are still discrepancies next Monday, the data entries on the published schedules in the NCAA stats database will have to be checked again for errors. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Great Day to be a Royal on February 12, 2025, 03:03:08 PM
    Can anyone shed light on why Newport, Salsbury, and MW are not in a traditional conference? 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2025, 05:26:46 PM
    Short version: Schools generally left the CAC/C2C to get away from them. There aren't other D-III schools in the general area to replace Penn State-Harrisburg, St. Mary's (Md.), before them Wesley, Marymount and York (Pa.), before them Catholic and Goucher.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 13, 2025, 07:32:36 PM
    https://d3datacast.com/npi/

    The last Pool C bid has an overall rank of 42.

    I included teams Pool C30 and above.

    So, we don't have Regional Rankings anymore. We have the simple, yet super boring, NPI. Here is this morning's rankings via d3datacast. Not official, but pretty close.


    Current (A) bids and Pool C position

    AEC - 1 - Marymount (A) or Gwynedd-Mercy (31)
    AMCC - 1 - Pitt-Bradford
    ARC - 1 - Dubuque (A) or Nebraska Wes (23)
    ASC - 1 - Hardin-Simmons (A) or UMHB (28)
    C2C - 1 - CNU (A) or Salisbury (27)
    CC - 2 or 3 - JHU (A), Gettysburg (14), Franklin & Marshall (21)
    CNE - 1 - Endicott
    CCIW - 2 - Carthage (A), IWU (6)
    CCS - 1 - Belhaven
    CUNYAC - 1 - John Jay
    E8 - 1 - Brockport
    GNAC - 1 - St. Joseph's (Maine)
    HCAC - 1 - Anderson
    LAND - 2 - Drew (A), Catholic (10)
    LEC - 1 - Keene St
    LL - 1 - RPI
    MACC - 1 -York PA
    MACF - 1 - Stevens
    MASCAC - 1 - Westfield St
    MIAA - 2 - Calvin (A), Trine (13)
    MIAC - 2 - St. John's (A), Gustavus Adolphus (17)
    MWC - 1 - Monmouth
    NAC - 1 - Husson
    NACC - 1 - WLC
    NCAC - 1 - Denison (A) or Wooster (29)
    NESCAC - 4 or 5 - Wesleyan (A), Trinity (4), Tufts (5), Hamilton (9), Williams (24)
    NEWMAC - 1 - WPI
    NJAC - 4 - Montclair St (A) Stockton (7), Ramapo (11), TCNJ (12)
    NWC - 1 - Whitworth
    OAC - 1 - John Carroll
    ODAC - 4 - Hampden-Sydney (A) RMC (3), Virginia Wesleyan (19), Roanoke (20), Guilford (25)
    PAC - 1 - Chatham
    SAA - 1 - Berry
    SCAC - 2 - St. Thomas (A), Trinity (22)
    SCIAC - 2 - Redlands (A), Cal Lutheran (16)
    SKY - 1 - Farmingdale St
    SLIAC - 1 - Spalding
    SUNYAC - 1 - Cortland
    UAA - 4 - NYU (A), Emory (1), Wash U (8), Chicago (15), Brandeis (26), Carnegie Mellon (30)
    UEC - 1 - Bryn Athyn
    UMAC - 1 - North Central (MN)
    USAC - 1 - Southern Virginia
    WIAC - 2 or 3 - Platteville (A), La Crosse (2), Stevens Point (18),
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Great Day to be a Royal on February 14, 2025, 11:57:09 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2025, 05:26:46 PMShort version: Schools generally left the CAC/C2C to get away from them. There aren't other D-III schools in the general area to replace Penn State-Harrisburg, St. Mary's (Md.), before them Wesley, Marymount and York (Pa.), before them Catholic and Goucher.

    Wouldn't the ODAC seem like a geographical fit?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Pat Coleman on February 14, 2025, 12:23:01 PM
    Quote from: Great Day to be a Royal on February 14, 2025, 11:57:09 AM
    Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 12, 2025, 05:26:46 PMShort version: Schools generally left the CAC/C2C to get away from them. There aren't other D-III schools in the general area to replace Penn State-Harrisburg, St. Mary's (Md.), before them Wesley, Marymount and York (Pa.), before them Catholic and Goucher.

    Wouldn't the ODAC seem like a geographical fit?

    Sure.

    But the ODAC has a bylaw limiting full members to private institutions. A geographical fit isn't the only consideration.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on February 16, 2025, 10:30:34 AM
    Our updated Bubble Watch has been posted for games played through Saturday 2/15/25: https://d3datacast.com/npi/mbb-projections/

    Interestingly, this morning's run of simulations produced just one team in our "bubble-out" category (which we've defined as receiving an at-large bid when needed in 25-50% of simulations). That puts Whitworth (39.9%) as the only team sitting between St. Thomas (51.3%) and Calvin (23.6%).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 16, 2025, 02:08:14 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on February 16, 2025, 10:30:34 AMOur updated Bubble Watch has been posted for games played through Saturday 2/15/25: https://d3datacast.com/npi/mbb-projections/

    Interestingly, this morning's run of simulations produced just one team in our "bubble-out" category (which we've defined as receiving an at-large bid when needed in 25-50% of simulations). That puts Whitworth (39.9%) as the only team sitting between St. Thomas (51.3%) and Calvin (23.6%).

    I think in a system like this, things don't move that much by the end and there is actually a bizarre gap with only 2 teams in the 61s, but 15 in the 62s (mostly solid) and 10 in the 60s (mostly probably out).  The main drama this year will be the 'bid thieves'.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on February 16, 2025, 04:46:40 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 16, 2025, 02:08:14 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on February 16, 2025, 10:30:34 AMOur updated Bubble Watch has been posted for games played through Saturday 2/15/25: https://d3datacast.com/npi/mbb-projections/

    Interestingly, this morning's run of simulations produced just one team in our "bubble-out" category (which we've defined as receiving an at-large bid when needed in 25-50% of simulations). That puts Whitworth (39.9%) as the only team sitting between St. Thomas (51.3%) and Calvin (23.6%).

    I think in a system like this, things don't move that much by the end and there is actually a bizarre gap with only 2 teams in the 61s, but 15 in the 62s (mostly solid) and 10 in the 60s (mostly probably out).  The main drama this year will be the 'bid thieves'.

    I think that's right. Just a quick look at the top two groups (locks/near locks and solid), there are 15 bids "spoken for" without conference tournament upsets if you look at how many conferences are represented multiple times and take one away for the automatic qualifier.

    That leaves six up for grabs before accounting for any bid-thieves, which happens to be exactly the number of teams in the "bubble-in" group.

    So the final picture from here on out will be shaped by the number of bid-thieves, teams who are in good standing who might really stumble and hurt themselves and teams who are in less good standing who might still rack up some really good wins to help themselves.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 17, 2025, 09:50:49 AM
    The official NCAA DIII Men's Basketball NPI Summary Report for games through Feb. 16, 2025 has been released.   It is available at http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/42959

    All of the mistakes pointed out over the past few weeks (C2C, GNAC) have been corrected, and the official NPI numbers match the D3Datacast numbers that were run this morning.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on February 17, 2025, 10:42:59 AM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 17, 2025, 09:50:49 AMThe official NCAA DIII Men's Basketball NPI Summary Report for games through Feb. 16, 2025 has been released.   It is available at http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/42959

    All of the mistakes pointed out over the past few weeks (C2C, GNAC) have been corrected, and the official NPI numbers match the D3Datacast numbers that were run this morning.

    Not the full story but a good enough summary.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 17, 2025, 12:24:14 PM
    Quote from: ziggy on February 17, 2025, 10:42:59 AM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 17, 2025, 09:50:49 AMThe official NCAA DIII Men's Basketball NPI Summary Report for games through Feb. 16, 2025 has been released.   It is available at http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/42959

    All of the mistakes pointed out over the past few weeks (C2C, GNAC) have been corrected, and the official NPI numbers match the D3Datacast numbers that were run this morning.

    Not the full story but a good enough summary.

    I just did not want to repost the entire full story, Ziggy, but if I missed a few points in previous posts on the subject in forums such as Pool C and Coast to Coast Conference that should be brought up, feel free to do so.

    The next big thing on the radar is how to code the conference tournaments.   In 41 of the 42 D3 men's basketball conferences that have these tournaments-- I suppose the results of the tournaments will use the home/away multiplier of 1.1 for road win/home loss, 1.0 for neutral court win/loss, and 0.9 for home win/road loss.   For the Coast to Coast Conference tournament, since there are no conference games in the sports that C2C members play in per league policy, that men's basketball tournament is being held at Salisbury.  Do C2C tournament results in games vs Salisbury played February 28 and/or March 1 (pre-determined host this year) use the 1.2 road win/home loss, 1.0 for neutral court win/loss, or 0.8 home win/road loss (non-conference multiplier), or are all of the C2C tournament games graded as neutral court games?

    The DIII men's basketball committee is the only DIII sport committee using the home/away multiplier that decided to have a different home/away multiplier for non-conference vs conference games.   All other DIII sport committees that adopted a home/away multiplier for games decided to go with the 1.1/1.0/0.9 formula.  (DIII ice hockey being the best example.)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on February 17, 2025, 12:40:26 PM
    You were correct with the data inaccuracies we made public but I was just meaning to refer to the fact that it was not an exhaustive list as we continued to comb through the data.

    Conference tournament will enter the system as they are played and will be added to each team's resume consistent with any other conference game. In the case of the C2C, these are the only official conference games they play and will be weighted accordingly.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 17, 2025, 12:42:25 PM
    I did not mean to imply that new mistakes cannot come up.  If these mistakes happen, I will count on you, Ziggy, and D3Datacast to point them out. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 18, 2025, 08:03:21 AM
    The NCAA DIII Men's Basketball Committee has released the official NPI summary report through games played on Monday, Feb. 17.    There were only 2 games played last night in the SCIAC, and those results are included in today's report.

    Today's NPI summary report can be found at:

    http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/42972

    As far as I can tell, there are no notable mistakes this morning. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2025, 11:26:48 AM
    So conference tournament games are considered conference games in terms of being weighted?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2025, 12:17:50 PM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 19, 2025, 11:26:48 AMSo conference tournament games are considered conference games in terms of being weighted?

    Yes, the will be weighted 0.9 / 1.0 / 1.1
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 19, 2025, 02:10:46 PM
    Today's official NCAA DIII NPI Men's Basketball Summary Report which includes games played through Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025 can be found at

    http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/42978 (http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/42978)

    You will notice that there are some discrepancies today between the D3Datacast NPI numbers and the official NPI numbers.

    This is because not all of the D3 men's basketball games from last night made in into the Massey score system for today's runs, so the D3Datacast computer has to catch up to the information that the NCAA statistics computer has.

    Among games of note that were entered yesterday into the NCAA statistics system, but not into Massey's system were 2 ODAC games-- Randolph-Macon's win over Virginia Wesleyan and Roanoke's win over Ferrum from last night are included in the NCAA summary report, but the data from those games has not made it yet into the D3Datacast NPI runs, for example. 

    Update-- Even in the most recent D3Datacast NPI run where games from last night were entered into manually into the D3Datacast computer, there are still discrepancies in the numbers.   For example, the D3Datacast computer in the 10:50 AM ET this morning has the UChicago men with an NPI of 61.256 (#33 in DIII), while the NCAA has the UChicago men's NPI at 61.287 (NPI rank #33) NYU men's NPI is ranked #2, but D3Datacast has the NPI at 73.230, and the NCAA has the NPI at 73.240, for example.

    Not sure if there were some coding or entry errors last night or early today that skewed the NPI numbers, and if so, on what end.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: scottiedawg on February 19, 2025, 02:59:43 PM
    The nice thing about the NPI data that d3datacast and I are calculating is that once you are able to exactly match the official NCAA numbers, you know your code/logic is all correct.

    So any discrepancies HAVE to be data discrepancies, which makes finding the discrepancy a lot easier.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 19, 2025, 03:21:47 PM
    There are still major discrepancies in the 3 PM ET D3Datacast run and the official NPI numbers on the men's end.

    For example, the NPI number for UChicago men in the D3Datacast 3 PM ET run is 61.257, while the NCAA has it at 61.287.

    Today's men's basketball games will start playing within a few hours, so I will have to recheck on Thursday as to the progress.  I'm sure the D3Datacast people will keep working on it in the meantime to see what the errors are.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 19, 2025, 03:49:01 PM
    The D3Datacast people will probably wait until tomorrow morning at this point.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on February 19, 2025, 04:21:28 PM
    Has it ever been them that has an error and not you?  That could happen...
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 19, 2025, 05:33:21 PM
    I am not too worried about it right now.   The NPI rankings of the teams are the same in today's D3Datacast runs and the official NCAA DIII NPI summary report.  In other words, the top 16 teams in terms of NPI ranking for men's basketball are still in the exact same order, and NPI national ranking #44 belongs to UW Stevens-Point in both the unofficial D3Datacast NPI runs conducted today and in today's summary report. 

    In other words, the discrepancies are not large enough to change the outcome of the selections and/or seeds based on inaccurate data yet.  I just want to see the parallel systems reconciled sometime this week.

    BTW, this only affects the DIII men's basketball side of the picture.   I don't see any problems with the women's basketball side.   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 20, 2025, 08:22:46 AM
    The official NCAA DIII Men's Basketball NPI Summary Report through games of Wednesday, Feburary 19, 2025 has been published.  It can be found at:

    http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/42992 (http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/42992)

    It looks like the scores in the Massey scoring system have caught up to the scores reported in the NCAA statistics system, as there are no major discrepancies today.  The differences in NPI numbers, if there are any, are no greater than .001 or .002 of a point.

    Of note-- Officially, UChicago's NPI number today is 61.308 according to the NCAA report (#31 in the NPI rankings) and Franklin and Marshall's NCAA official NPI number today is published at 61.307 (#32 in the NPI rankings).

    D3Datacast's morning run as of Feb. 20, 2025 at 6:39 AM ET unofficially had Franklin and Marshall's NPI and UChicago's NPI numbers tied at 61.309 with Franklin and Marshall getting the #31 NPI ranking and UChicago getting the #32 NPI ranking on the D3Datacast unofficial run.

    However, the official ranking today has UChicago at #31 NPI ranking and Franklin and Marshall at #32 NPI ranking this morning. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2025, 12:14:31 PM
    It looks like the UEC Tournament games from last night are all marked as non-conference in the NCAA NPI numbers. I have reached out to someone regarding this.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: ziggy on February 20, 2025, 12:36:50 PM
    Quote from: bopol on February 19, 2025, 04:21:28 PMHas it ever been them that has an error and not you?  That could happen...

    Yes. There were a few games we caught in the "official" data that were incorrect with their conference/non-conference designations due to teams in the same conference playing a non-conference game. Those have been resolved on the NCAA side, though we are now seeing that happen against with UEC tournament games as Matt noted above. Our understanding is that we are correct to handle these as conference games, though the "official" NPI run through yesterday's results released by the NCAA today shows them as non-conference contests.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2025, 01:07:07 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2025, 12:14:31 PMIt looks like the UEC Tournament games from last night are all marked as non-conference in the NCAA NPI numbers. I have reached out to someone regarding this.

    It sounds like this will be corrected (hopefully tomorrow).
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 20, 2025, 01:52:24 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2025, 01:07:07 PM
    Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2025, 12:14:31 PMIt looks like the UEC Tournament games from last night are all marked as non-conference in the NCAA NPI numbers. I have reached out to someone regarding this.

    It sounds like this will be corrected (hopefully tomorrow).

    That probably explains the difference in NPI rankings with Franklin and Marshall and UChicago on the unofficial D3Datacast run this morning and today's NCAA DIII Men's Basketball NPI summary report.   Franklin and Marshall played United East team Lancaster Bible in non-conference play this season, so the coding of the UEC tournament games as non-conference games would skew the NPI results.  Franklin and Marshall and UChicago are really close in the NPI table this morning--enough that a NPI skew of .001 or.002 this morning would affect the NPI ranking placement for those 2 teams.

    I will take a look at tomorrow's NPI summary report to see if there are any corrections.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 20, 2025, 03:25:59 PM

    Are they conference games?  I'd always been told the NCAA did not consider conference tournament games to be conference games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: KnightSlappy on February 20, 2025, 03:28:43 PM
    The intention with the multiplier is to count conference tournament games as conference games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 20, 2025, 04:56:07 PM
    https://d3datacast.com/npi/

    The last Pool C bid has an overall rank of 44 (Stevens Point).

    Any Pool A team above that may be considered a bid thief if they don't win the Pool A, thus stealing a Pool C bid from someone.

    I included teams Pool C25 and above.


    Current (A) bids (overall rank) and Pool C rank

    AEC - 1 - Neumann (A-141)
    AMCC - 1 - Pitt-Bradford (A-45)
    ARC - 1 - Dubuque (A-49) or Nebraska Wes (22)
    ASC - 1 - Hardin-Simmons (A-100)
    C2C - 1 - CNU (A-11)
    CC - 2 - Gettysburg (A-25), Franklin & Marshall (17)
    CNE - 1 - Endicott (A-70)
    CCIW - 2 - Carthage (A-15), IWU (6)
    CCS - 1 - Belhaven (A-38)
    CUNYAC - 1 - Baruch (A-182)
    E8 - 1 - Brockport (A-156)
    GNAC - 1 - St. Joseph's (Maine) (A-36)
    HCAC - 1 - Anderson (A-39)
    LAND - 2 - Drew (A-13), Catholic (16)
    LEC - 1 - Keene St (A-24)
    LL - 1 - RPI (A-56)
    MACC - 1 -York PA (A-50)
    MACF - 1 - Stevens (A-80)
    MASCAC - 1 - Westfield St (A-116)
    MIAA - 2 - Calvin (A-40), Trine (13)
    MIAC - 2 - Gustavus Adolphus (A-34), St. John's (15)
    MWC - 1 - Monmouth (A-91)
    NAC - 1 - Husson (A-103)
    NACC - 1 - WLC (A-17)
    NCAC - 1 - Denison (A-26) or Wooster (23)
    NESCAC - 4 - Wesleyan (A-1), Trinity (2), Tufts (5), Hamilton (8)
    NEWMAC - 1 - WPI (A-12)
    NJAC - 4 - Montclair St (A-20) Stockton (10), Ramapo (9), TCNJ (14)
    NWC - 1 - Whitworth (A-35)
    OAC - 1 - John Carroll (A-33)
    ODAC - 4 - RMC (A-5), Hampden-Sydney (4) , Roanoke (11), Virginia Wesleyan (20), Guilford (25)
    PAC - 1 - Chatham (A-43)
    SAA - 1 - Berry (A-114)
    SCAC - 2 - St. Thomas (A-37), Trinity (19)
    SCIAC - 2 - Redlands (A-19), Cal Lutheran (12)
    SKY - 1 - Farmingdale St (A-85)
    SLIAC - 1 - Spalding (A-153)
    SUNYAC - 1 - SUNY New Paltz (A-108)
    UAA - 4 - NYU (A-2), Emory (1), Wash U (7), Chicago (18)
    UEC - 1 - Bryn Athyn (A-168)
    UMAC - 1 - North Central (MN) (A-190)
    USAC - 1 - Pfeiffer (A-127)
    WIAC - 3 - Platteville (A-3), La Crosse (3), Stevens Point (21),
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 21, 2025, 08:09:59 AM
    The official NCAA DIII Men's Basketball NPI summary report for games played through Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025 is out.  It is available at:

    http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43012 (http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43012)

    Unfortunately, today's NPI summary report is still miscoding the first round of the United East Conference men's basketball tournament played on Wednesday as non-conference games and assigning the 1.2/0.8 home away multiplier to those games, when these tournament games should be coded with the 1.1/0.9 home/away multiplier.  This should be corrected as soon as possible, as the D3Datacast computer is using the 1.1/0.9 home/away multiplier for conference tournament games. 

    This miscoding has skewed the NPI of Franklin and Marshall-- the NPI report has Franklin and Marshall with an NPI of 61.309 (#32 NPI rank), and UChicago with an NPI of 61.310 (#31 NPI rank)

    By contrast, this morning D3Datacast unofficial NPI run has both Franklin and Marshall and UChicago at an exact tie in NPI at 61.310.   Franklin and Marshall has the NPI rank of #31 according to D3Datacast, and UChicago has the NPI rank of #32.

    With more conference tournament games scheduled to be played this weekend, there is a risk that the miscoding could have a bigger effect this weekend in skewing the men's NPI numbers should the official NCAA DIII men's basketball summary reports still insist on assigning the 1.2/0.8 home/away multiplier to conference tournament games.  This needs to be cleared up as soon as possible.   
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 22, 2025, 08:54:16 AM
    NCAA DIII Men's Basketball Committee published a corrected DIII Men's Basketball NPI summary report yesterday that has the United East tournament games from Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2025 correctly coded as conference games with the 1.1/1.0/0.9 home/neutral/away multiplier

    That corrected report through games of Thursday, Feb. 20 can be found at:

    http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43015 (http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43015)

    In addition, the NCAA DIII Men's Basketball Committee has published the DIII Men's Basketball NPI summary report through games of Friday, Feb. 21.  That can be found at:

    http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43020 (http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43020)

    Upon checking the North Atlantic tournament games from yesterday, I found these games to be properly coded with the 2 host teams of the quarterfinal/semifinal sites winning as home conference wins, and 2 games as neutral court games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 23, 2025, 08:44:12 AM
    The NCAA DIII Men's Basketball Committee has published the DIII NPI summary report for men's basketball through games of Saturday, Feb. 22, 2025.

    This can be found at:

    http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43052
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 24, 2025, 05:08:58 AM
    The D3Datacast computer has done an unofficial updated run of the NPI numbers through games of Sunday, February 23, 2025.  It was conducted at 10:14 PM ET.

    For purposes of these projections-- NYU already has the AQ out of the UAA, and the D3Datacast computer is giving the AQ to the highest NPI ranked team of each of the other 42 conferences.

    As AQ's get awarded through conference tournament results, these projections will change.

    If selections are being done now--

    D3Datacast's Projected Last 7 In based on NPI and NPI ranking through games of Sunday, Feb. 23

    1.)  #31-- Gettysburg-- 61.340
    2.)  #32-- Gustavus Adolphus-- 61.246
    3.)  #37-- Trine-- 60.775
    4.)  #38-- Virginia Wesleyan-- 60.678
    5.)  #39-- U.Chicago-- 60.619
    6.)  #41-- Nebraska Wesleyan-- 60.211
    7.)  #43-- Trinity (TX)-- 60.025

    D3Datacast's Projected First 7 Out based on NPI ranking and NPI numbers through games of Sunday, Feb. 23, 2025

    1.) #46-- UW-Stevens Point-- 59.676
    2.) #48-- Belhaven-- 59.473
    3.) #49-- Guilford-- 59.470
    4.) #52-- Wooster-- 58.895
    5.) #53-- Johns Hopkins-- 58.745
    6.) #54-- UW-Eau Claire-- 58.615
    7.) #55-- Augustana-- 58.475
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 24, 2025, 08:23:14 AM
    The official NCAA DIII Men's Basketball NPI summary report through games of Sunday, February 23, 2025 has been released.   It is available at:

    http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43071

    Note:  The UAA conference office in Rochester, NY has yet to send in the official paperwork declaring the NYU men the automatic qualifier out of the UAA, as the office will reopen today after having been closed for the weekend while the UAA commissioner was in New York on Friday for the official banner ceremonies honoring both the men's and women's basketball teams on their winning the conference and getting the AQ bids.     Last week, the AQ bid symbol next to NYU on the women's side was not posted in the report until last Tuesday.  I expect that the AQ bid symbol next to NYU on the men's side will get posted either in tomorrow's report or over the next few days. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: WUPHF on February 24, 2025, 01:39:21 PM
    Quote from: deiscanton on February 24, 2025, 08:23:14 AMThe official NCAA DIII Men's Basketball NPI summary report through games of Sunday, February 23, 2025 has been released.   It is available at:

    http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43071

    Note:  The UAA conference office in Rochester, NY has yet to send in the official paperwork declaring the NYU men the automatic qualifier out of the UAA, as the office will reopen today after having been closed for the weekend while the UAA commissioner was in New York on Friday for the official banner ceremonies honoring both the men's and women's basketball teams on their winning the conference and getting the AQ bids.     Last week, the AQ bid symbol next to NYU on the women's side was not posted in the report until last Tuesday.  I expect that the AQ bid symbol next to NYU on the men's side will get posted either in tomorrow's report or over the next few days. 

    The only thing interesting about the AQ is that it is the first to be awarded.

    It is going to be a rare season in which a team begins UAA play as a Pool C lost cause and then finds a way to win the league.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 25, 2025, 04:30:06 AM
    The D3Datacast computer has done an unofficial updated run of the NPI numbers through games of Monday, February 24, 2025.  It was conducted at 10:17 PM ET.

    These projections are as if selections were occurring as of this post and not occuring next Sunday evening. 

    D3Datacast's Projected Last 7 In based on NPI and NPI ranking through games of Monday, Feb. 24, 2025

    1.)  #31-- Gettysburg-- 61.346
    2.)  #32-- Gustavus Adolphus-- 61.262
    3.)  #37-- Trine-- 60.770
    4.)  #38-- Virginia Wesleyan-- 60.661
    5.)  #39-- U.Chicago-- 60.616
    6.)  #42-- Nebraska Wesleyan-- 60.205
    7.)  #43-- Trinity (TX)-- 60.022

    D3Datacast's Projected First 7 Out based on NPI ranking and NPI numbers through games of Monday, Feb. 24, 2025

    1.) #46-- UW-Stevens Point-- 59.836
    2.) #48-- Belhaven-- 59.478
    3.) #49-- Guilford-- 59.470
    4.) #52-- UW-Eau Claire-- 58.927
    5.) #53-- Wooster-- 58.893
    6.) #54-- Johns Hopkins-- 58.748
    7.) #55-- Augustana-- 58.452
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 25, 2025, 08:32:26 AM
    The official NCAA DIII Men's Basketball NPI Summary Report for games played through Monday, February 24, 2025 has been released.  It is available at:

    http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43077 (http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43077)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2025, 11:24:32 AM
    Right now 4 leagues taking 12 of the 21 Pool C bids.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2025, 11:36:19 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2025, 11:24:32 AMRight now 4 leagues taking 12 of the 21 Pool C bids.

    Do I find the 4 to be UAA, NESCAC, ODAC, NJAC?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2025, 11:46:17 AM
    No. SLIAC, UMAC, UEC and SKY

    Emory, Wash U and Chicago
    Stockton, Ramapo and TCNJ
    Hampden Sydney, Roanoke and Virginia Wesleyan
    Trinity CT, Tufts and Hamilton

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on February 25, 2025, 02:11:15 PM
    Keep track to see who's been eliminated and becomes Pool C eligible.

    https://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/men/2024-25/conference-tournaments/index
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 26, 2025, 10:23:00 AM
    The D3Datacast computer has done an unofficial updated run of the NPI numbers through games of Tuesday, February 25, 2025.  It was conducted on Wednesday, Feb. 26, at 8:36 AM ET, and has taken into account that the Asbury vs Covenant CCS men's basketball game is not yet final due to the completion of that game being suspended until today due to a power outage.  Massey accidentally treated the suspended game as a final score in this morning's first data run-- the 8:36 AM update is a corrected update from that earlier morning run.

    These projections are as if selections were occurring as of this post and not occuring next Sunday evening. 

    D3Datacast's Projected Last 7 In based on NPI and NPI ranking through games of Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2025

    1.)  #30-- Gettysburg-- 61.293
    2.)  #32-- Gustavus Adolphus-- 61.216
    3.)  #37-- Trine-- 60.747
    4.)  #38-- Virginia Wesleyan-- 60.654
    5.)  #39-- U.Chicago-- 60.597
    6.)  #42-- Nebraska Wesleyan-- 60.143
    7.)  #43-- Trinity (TX)-- 60.017

    D3Datacast's Projected First 7 Out based on NPI ranking and NPI numbers through games of Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2025

    1.) #45-- UW-Stevens Point-- 59.760
    2.) #48-- Belhaven-- 59.480
    3.) #49-- Guilford-- 59.466
    4.) #52-- Wooster-- 59.033
    5.) #53-- UW-Eau Claire-- 58.903
    6.) #54-- Johns Hopkins-- 58.682
    7.) #55-- Augustana-- 58.564
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 26, 2025, 01:07:54 PM
    The D3Datacast computer has now done an unofficial updated run of the NPI numbers through all of the games of Tuesday, February 25, 2025.  It was conducted on Wednesday, Feb. 26, at 12:47 PM ET, when the suspended game of Asbury vs Covenant became final with Asbury winning over Covenant 97-83 in the CCS Men's Basketball Quarterfinals.  Asbury advances to play #1 seed Maryville (TN) in a CCS semifinal on Friday night.  With that game becoming final, all games scheduled to be played last night are now final.

    These projections are as if selections were occurring as of this post and not occuring next Sunday evening. 

    D3Datacast's Projected Last 7 In based on NPI and NPI ranking through games of Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2025

    1.)  #30-- Gettysburg-- 61.296
    2.)  #32-- Gustavus Adolphus-- 61.217
    3.)  #37-- Trine-- 60.750
    4.)  #38-- Virginia Wesleyan-- 60.656
    5.)  #39-- U.Chicago-- 60.597
    6.)  #42-- Nebraska Wesleyan-- 60.145
    7.)  #43-- Trinity (TX)-- 60.020

    D3Datacast's Projected First 7 Out based on NPI ranking and NPI numbers through games of Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2025

    1.) #45-- UW-Stevens Point-- 59.762
    2.) #48-- Belhaven-- 59.534
    3.) #49-- Guilford-- 59.467
    4.) #52-- Wooster-- 59.036
    5.) #53-- UW-Eau Claire-- 58.905
    6.) #54-- Johns Hopkins-- 58.683
    7.) #55-- Augustana-- 58.566

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 26, 2025, 01:20:34 PM
    The NCAA DIII Men's Basketball Committee has released an official NPI DIII Men's Basketball summary report through games of Tuesday, February 25, 2025, but not including the result from the just completed Asbury vs Covenant game, which was suspended from last night and just got completed about a half hour ago.  That result should be either in an updated report today, or in tomorrow's NPI summary report.

    This official NPI summary report can be found at http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43089 (http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43089)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 27, 2025, 06:07:42 AM
    The D3Datacast computer has now done an unofficial updated run of the NPI numbers through games of Wednesday, February 26, 2025.  It was conducted on Wednesday, Feb. 26, at 11:51 PM ET.

    These projections are as if selections were occurring as of this post and not occurring this  Sunday evening. 

    D3Datacast's Projected Last 7 In based on NPI and NPI ranking through games of Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2025

    1.)  #31-- Gustavus Adolphus-- 61.253
    2.)  #36-- Gettysburg-- 61.124
    3.)  #37-- Trine-- 60.800
    4.)  #38-- U.Chicago-- 60.596
    5.)  #41-- Nebraska Wesleyan-- 60.193
    6.)  #42-- Guilford-- 60.098
    7.)  #43-- Trinity (TX)-- 60.045

    D3Datacast's Projected First 7 Out based on NPI ranking and NPI numbers through games of Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2025

    1.) #44-- Virginia Wesleyan-- 59.895
    2.) #48-- Belhaven-- 59.577
    3.) #49-- UW-Stevens Point-- 59.495
    4.) #51-- Wooster-- 59.040
    5.) #53-- Johns Hopkins-- 58.642
    6.) #54-- UW-Eau Claire-- 58.632
    7.) #55-- Augustana-- 58.595

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 27, 2025, 08:05:09 AM
    The NCAA DIII Men's Basketball Committee has released the official NPI ranking summary report through games played Wednesday, February 26, 2025.  It is available at http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43093 (http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43093)

    The official NPI numbers match those of D3Datacast, which means that the Asbury v Covenant game was entered into the NCAA statistics system as a game played Wednesday, February 26, 2025. 
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 28, 2025, 02:27:23 AM
    The D3Datacast computer has now done an unofficial updated run of the NPI numbers through games of Thursday, February 27, 2025.  It was conducted on Thursday, Feb. 27, at 10:39 PM ET.

    These projections are as if selections were occurring as of this post and not occurring this  Sunday evening. 

    D3Datacast's Projected Last 7 In based on NPI and NPI ranking through games of Thursday, Feb. 27, 2025

    1.)  #35-- Gettysburg-- 61.102
    2.)  #36-- Trine-- 60.773
    3.)  #37-- U.Chicago-- 60.584
    4.)  #41-- Guilford-- 60.113
    5.)  #42-- Trinity (TX)-- 60.041
    6.)  #43-- Gustavus Adolphus-- 60.014
    7.)  #44-- Virginia Wesleyan-- 59.883

    D3Datacast's Projected First 7 Out based on NPI ranking and NPI numbers through games of Thursday, Feb. 27, 2025

    1.) #47-- Belhaven-- 59.576
    2.) #48-- UW-Stevens Point-- 59.444
    3.) #50-- Wooster-- 59.068
    4.) #52-- Dubuque-- 58.822
    5.) #54-- Johns Hopkins-- 58.626
    6.) #55-- Suffolk-- 58.622
    7.) #56-- UW-Eau Claire-- 58.591


    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 28, 2025, 08:10:32 AM
    The NCAA DIII Men's Basketball Committee has released the official NPI rankings summary report for games played through Thursday, February 27, 2025.  It is available at http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43112 (http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43112)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on February 28, 2025, 11:49:31 PM
    The D3Datacast computer has now done an unofficial updated run of the NPI numbers through games of Friday, February 28, 2025.  It was conducted on Friday, Feb. 28, at 11:12 PM ET.

    These projections are as if selections were occurring as of this post and not occurring this  Sunday evening. 

    D3Datacast's Projected Last 7 In based on NPI and NPI ranking through games of Friday, Feb. 28, 2025

    1.)  #36-- U.Chicago-- 60.638
    2.)  #37-- Gettysburg-- 60.456
    3.)  #40-- Guilford-- 60.070
    4.)  #41-- Gustavus Adolphus-- 60.013
    5.)  #42-- Trinity (TX)-- 59.985
    6.)  #43-- Virginia Wesleyan-- 59.839
    7.)  #44-- Trine-- 59.780

    D3Datacast's Projected First 7 Out based on NPI ranking and NPI numbers through games of Friday, Feb. 28, 2025

    1.) #48-- Wooster-- 59.484
    2.) #49-- UW-Stevens Point-- 59.431
    3.) #50-- Johns Hopkins-- 59.134
    4.) #53-- Dubuque-- 58.701
    5.) #54-- UW-Eau Claire-- 58.629
    6.) #55-- Suffolk-- 58.626
    7.) #56-- Belhaven-- 58.617

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on March 01, 2025, 03:13:01 AM
    The D3Datacast computer has now done another unofficial updated run of the NPI numbers through games of Friday, February 28, 2025 to account for a Northwest Conference semifinal tournament game that went final after the previous update.  It was conducted on Saturday, March 1 at 12:46 AM ET.

    In that Northwest Conference semifinal, the top seed Whitworth lost to Lewis and Clark.  Whitworth had appeared in the previous 20 Northwest Conference championship games, but that streak came to an end within the past few hours.    The Whitworth Pirates move into the last team into the tournament in this update.

    These projections are as if selections were occurring as of this post and not occurring this  Sunday evening. 

    D3Datacast's Projected Last 7 In based on NPI and NPI ranking through games of Friday, Feb. 28, 2025

    1.)  #35-- U.Chicago-- 60.636
    2.)  #36-- Gettysburg-- 60.466
    3.)  #39-- Guilford-- 60.069
    4.)  #40-- Gustavus Adolphus-- 60.011
    5.)  #41-- Trinity (TX)-- 59.989
    6.)  #42-- Virginia Wesleyan-- 59.841
    7.)  #43-- Whitworth-- 59.779

    D3Datacast's Projected First 7 Out based on NPI ranking and NPI numbers through games of Friday, Feb. 28, 2025

    1.) #44-- Trine-- 59.777
    2.) #48-- Wooster-- 59.480
    3.) #49-- UW-Stevens Point-- 59.430
    4.) #50-- Johns Hopkins-- 59.145
    5.) #53-- Dubuque-- 58.697
    6.) #54-- UW-Eau Claire-- 58.627
    7.) #55-- Suffolk-- 58.625

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2025, 05:00:45 AM
    I wonder if there will ever be a time when conferences start to rethink who gets their Pool A bid. It looks like everyone who has a conference tournament awards the winner the AQ instead of the regular season winner. There's always a few every year and it seems like more this year.

    I still think there would be value in the conference tournament for some conferences even if the winner doesn't get the AQ. Winning 2 or 3 games still would boost the NPI numbers etc. I've always felt a team that grinds through 12-16 games throughout the year is more deserving of a bid than a team that gets hot for 3 games.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on March 01, 2025, 07:44:00 AM
    The NCAA DIII Men's Basketball Committee has released the official NPI rankings summary report for games played through Friday, February 28, 2025.  It is available at http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43132 (http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43132)
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2025, 10:40:51 AM
    Quote from: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2025, 05:00:45 AMI wonder if there will ever be a time when conferences start to rethink who gets their Pool A bid. It looks like everyone who has a conference tournament awards the winner the AQ instead of the regular season winner. There's always a few every year and it seems like more this year.

    I still think there would be value in the conference tournament for some conferences even if the winner doesn't get the AQ. Winning 2 or 3 games still would boost the NPI numbers etc. I've always felt a team that grinds through 12-16 games throughout the year is more deserving of a bid than a team that gets hot for 3 games.

    This has been a discussion among 1-bid conferences in D1 forever.  Nothing has changed.  I doubt it will change in D3, though I agree with your point.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2025, 12:58:04 PM
    I don't believe it's a NCAA thing. The conferences decide.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: hickory_cornhusker on March 01, 2025, 01:18:12 PM
    The big thing a conference tournament gives you is the ability to play more games in a season. The NCAA lets you not have to count the conference tournament games against your total number of games as long as the conference tournament is for an AQ bid. Until that changes, I doubt conferences are going to give up their conference tourney.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2025, 01:26:44 PM
    I'm not saying give up the tournament. I'm saying give the AQ to the regular season winner.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: bopol on March 01, 2025, 03:49:24 PM
    Looks like Guilford just played their way into the tournament.  Could ODAC really get 5 bids?
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: Greek Tragedy on March 01, 2025, 11:15:50 PM
    https://d3datacast.com/npi/

    AEC - 1 - Neumann AQ
    AMCC - 1 - Pitt-Bradford AQ
    ARC - 1 - Central AQ
    ASC - 1 - Hardin-Simmons AQ
    C2C - 2 - Mary Wash AQ, CNU Pool C7
    CC - 2 or 3 -  Gettysburg C19, F&M (already in) vs JHU (AQ or out)
    CNE - 1 - W. NE AQ
    CCIW - 2 - IWU AQ, Carthage Pool C12
    CCS - 1 - Huntingdon AQ
    CUNYAC - 1 - John Jay AQ
    E8 - 1 - Utica AQ
    GNAC - 1 - St. Joseph's (Maine) AQ
    HCAC - 1 - Franklin AQ
    LAND - 2 - Drew AQ, Catholic C17
    LEC - 1 - Keene St AQ
    LL - 1 - RPI vs Ithaca in Final, No Pool C
    MACC - 1 - York PA AQ
    MACF - 1 - Delaware Valley AQ
    MASCAC - 1 - Westfield St AQ
    MIAA - 1 - Calvin AQ
    MIAC - 2 - St. John's AQ, GAC C20
    MWC - 1 - Grinnell AQ
    NAC - 1 - Husson AQ
    NACC - 1 - WLC v SNC (WLC already in, SNC needs AQ)
    NCAC - 1 - Denison AQ
    NESCAC - 4 - Trinity v Wesleyan in Final (both are in), Tufts C5, Hamilton C9
    NEWMAC - 2 - Clark AQ, WPI C8
    NJAC - 4 - Montclair AQ, Ramapo C11, Stockton C13, TCNJ C15
    NWC - 1 - Lewis & Clark AQ
    OAC - 1 - JCU AQ
    ODAC - 4 or 5 - Guilford vs Roanoke (both should be in), RMC C4, HSC C6, Virg Wes C22
    PAC - 1 - Chatham AQ
    SAA - 1 - Berry AQ
    SCAC - 2 - St. Thomas v Trinity TX (Trinity is at C21)
    SCIAC - 2 or 3 - CMS v Cal Luth (Cal Luth already in), Redlands C14
    SKY - 1 - Yeshiva v Farmingdale St in Final for the AQ, no Pool C
    SLIAC - 1 - Greenville AQ
    SUNYAC - 1 - Cortland AQ
    UAA - 4 - NYU AQ, Emory C2, Wash U C10, Chicago C18 
    UEC - 1 - Bryn Athyn AQ
    UMAC - 1 - Bethany Lutheran AQ
    USAC - 1 - Pfeiffer AQ
    WIAC - 2 - Platteville AQ, La Crosse C3

    Bid Thieves

    JHU
    SNC
    Trinity TX
    CMS
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on March 02, 2025, 05:00:32 AM

    The D3Datacast computer has now done an unofficial updated run of the NPI numbers through games of Saturday, March 1, 2025.  It was conducted on Sunday, March 2,  at 12:14 AM ET.


    These projections are as if selections were occurring as of this post and not occurring later today. 

    D3Datacast's Projected Last 7 In based on NPI and NPI ranking through games of Saturday, March 1, 2025

    1.)  #29-- TCNJ-- 61.674
    2.)  #33-- Guilford-- 61.285
    3.)  #34-- U.Chicago-- 61.213
    4.)  #35-- Catholic-- 61.144
    5.)  #37-- Gettysburg-- 60.454
    6.)  #38-- Trinity (Texas)-- 60.199
    7.)  #39-- Gustavus Adolphus-- 60.041

    D3Datacast's Projected First 7 Out based on NPI ranking and NPI numbers through games of Saturday, March 1, 2025

    1.) #40-- Virginia Wesleyan-- 59.855
    2.) #42-- Whitworth-- 59.788
    3.) #43-- Anderson-- 59.758
    4.) #44-- Trine-- 59.696
    5.) #46-- Nebraska Wesleyan-- 59.409
    6.) #48-- UW-Stevens Point-- 59.263
    7.) #50-- Johns Hopkins--59.104
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on March 02, 2025, 05:12:14 AM
    The NCAA DIII Men's Basketball Committee has released the official NPI rankings summary report for games played through Saturday, March 1, 2025.  It is available at http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43137 (http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43137)

    With all of the games of the UAA double round robin now completed, NYU now has the AQ tag next to its name.  I had noticed that the AQ tag next to NYU was missing from the previous NPI summary reports this week and asked Brandeis men's basketball coach Jean Bain, who is the RAC rep for the UAA to the DIII Men's Basketball Committee, to look into this when I was at Brandeis yesterday for the NYU at Brandeis doubleheader to conclude UAA play for the season.

    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 02, 2025, 11:24:27 AM
    The list of teams not locked in pool A yet (* play today for pool A)

    NESCAC runner-up (Wesleyan/Trinity)
    Emory
    UW-La Crosse
    Randolph-Macon
    Tufts

    Hampden-Sydney
    Chris Newport
    WPI
    Hamilton
    WashU

    *Roanoke (ODAC vs Guilford)
    *Wisconsin Lutheran (NACC vs St Norbert)
    *St Thomas (SCAC vs Trinty (TX))
    Ramapo
    *Cal Lutheran (SCIAC vs CMS)

    Carthage
    Stockton
    *Franklin & Marshall (CC vs Johns Hopkins)
    Redlands
    TCNJ

    *Guilford (ODAC vs Roanoke)
    -------
    Chicago
    Catholic
    Gettysburg
    *Trinity (TX) (SCAC vs St Thomas)
    Gustavus Adolphus
    Virginia Wesleyan
    Whitworth
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 02, 2025, 06:28:15 PM
    With St Thomas, F&M, and Guilford winning today that moved Chicago, Catholic, and Gettysburg into the top 21. Trinity's loss moves Gustavus onto the bubble and rooting for Cal Lutheran to beat C-M-S. CMS is winning by 10 midway through the 2nd half.
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on March 02, 2025, 08:46:02 PM
    The D3Datacast computer has now done the final unofficial run of the NPI numbers through games of Sunday, March 2, 2025.  It was conducted on Sunday, March 2, at 8:03 PM ET.

    In addition, the NCAA DIII Men's Basketball Committee has released the official NPI Ranking Selections Report which has confirmed these final numbers.  It is available at http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43154 (http://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43154)

    Congratulations to the at-large teams selected by the NPI rankings into the NCAA Division III Men's Basketball Championship, and commiserations to those teams left out.

    The official Last 7 In based on NPI and NPI ranking through games of Sunday, March 2, 2025

    15.)  #26-- Redlands-- 62.120
    16.)  #28-- Wisconsin Lutheran-- 61.755
    17.)  #29-- Cal Lutheran-- 61.747
    18.)  #30-- TCNJ-- 61.626
    19.)  #34-- U.Chicago-- 61.269
    20.)  #35-- Catholic-- 61.138
    21.)  #37-- Gettysburg-- 60.465

    The official First 7 Out based on NPI ranking and NPI numbers through games of Sunday, March 2, 2025

    1.) #38-- Gustavus Adolphus-- 60.063
    2.) #39-- Virginia Wesleyan-- 59.975
    3.) #41-- Anderson-- 59.758
    4.) #42-- Whitworth-- 59.732
    5.) #43-- Trine-- 59.708
    6.) #44-- Trinity (Texas)-- 59.618
    7.) #45-- Nebraska Wesleyan-- 59.421

    The first 14 at-large teams officially selected by the NPI rankings tonight

    1.) #1-- Wesleyan-- 73.762
    2.) #5-- Emory-- 66.858
    3.) #6-- UW-La Crosse-- 66.270
    4.) #7-- Randolph-Macon-- 65.605
    5.) #8-- Tufts-- 65.215
    6.) #11-- Hampden-Sydney-- 64.394
    7.) #12-- Christopher Newport-- 64.009
    8.) #15-- WPI-- 63.761
    9.) #16-- Hamilton-- 63.511
    10.) #17-- WashU-- 63.325
    11.) #18-- Ramapo-- 62.877
    12.) #22-- Carthage-- 62.283
    13.) #23-- Roanoke-- 62.273
    14.) #25-- Stockton-- 62.233
    Title: Re: Pool C
    Post by: deiscanton on March 03, 2025, 11:55:22 AM
    Men's bracket announcement has been delayed to 12:30 PM ET, as announced on NCAA.com
    Text only | Text with Images